Dual Track Airport Plng Process-final EIS MAY 1998!,i r ; . y ,`x � f - �,r o ; � i, �,_. � ,. • '�' /i: � �, t/ ,, �' � �
.
� P� > �
, �, t s,� ` �,' i .'`�� `� �:/' r/,.
�P�SOL19 J,q/�� e
�� � ;� 1►i�ta��,��litCan
�
�� � �� �.i�,���t�
°rr�:q:� ' ��� �✓��t�t���i��u
"����a���
�� -:� ��� �� �,� �,� �
_ �- ,� �- � �
�`, �:';E;,
����li'i�,�tY�i����`'t
__ .
`:'i 1
DUAL TRACK AIRPORT P�ANNING PROCESS
TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA, MINNESOTA
� . � � . � _ �
• � � � •
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION
COOPERATING AGENCIES
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, U.S. D.O.T.
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
May 1998
This Final EIS addresses the environmental impacts associated with major airport
development to provide the capacity, facilities and highway improvements for Minneapolis-
Saint Paul International Airport in Hennepin County, Minnesota. This statement is submitted
for review pursuant to the following public law requirements: Section 102(2)(c) of the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969; 49 U.S.C. section 401 14, as amended by
P.L. No. 103-305 (August 23, 19941; 49 U.S.C. sections 47101 (a)(6), 47101 (ht, and
47106 (b)�2); Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (recodified at 49
U.S.C., Subtitle I, Section 303, dated January 12, 1983), and Minnesota Rules, Chapter
4410. The Metropolitan Airports Commission is the lead agency for the state and the Federal
Aviation Administration is fihe lead agency for the federal government, in the preparation of
this joint statement.
For additional information, contact:
Mr. Nigel Finney
Metropolitan Airports Commission
6040 - 28th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55450
Telephone: (612) 726-8187
Mr. Glen Orcutt
Federal Aviation Administration
6020 - 28th Avenue South, Suite 102
Minneapolis, MN 55450
Telephone: (612) 713-4354
Send comments on adequacy by June 15, 1998 to:
Ms. Jenn Unruh
Metropolitan Airports Commission
6040 - 28th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55450
�
Table of Contents
Finai EIS Cross-Reference To FAA Order 5050.4A ................................................................ TC-14
EXECUT/VE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. i
I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. I-1
A. O vervie w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
A.1 Document Purpose and Organization ........................................................................................... 1
A.2 Background and Lead Agency Contacts ....................................................................................... 2
B. Cooperating Agencies ..................................................................................................... 3
C. Related Environmental Documents and Actions ................................................................. 3
C.1 Further Studies to Develop the West Terminal ............................................................................... 3
C.2 Other Actions ........................................................................................................................... 3
D. GovernmentalApprovals ................................................................................................ 4
E. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Actions ................................................................... 4
E.1 Air Traffic ................................................................................................................................. 6
E.2 Airway Facilities ........................................................................................................................ 7
E.3 Airports .................................................................................................................................... 7
E.4 Flight Standards ......................................................................................................................... 7
E.5 Security ....................................................................................................................................8
F. Project History ............................................................................................................... 8
G. /mplementation Schedule .............................................................................................. 1 �
II. PURPOSE AND NEED ..........................................................................................................11-1
A. Purpose ........................................................................................................................ 1
- . B. Need ............................................................................................................................ 2
( ) C. Supporting lnformation ................................................................................................... 3
. __ ' C.1 Airport Role .............................................................................................................................. 3
C.1.1 MSP's Role as a Connecting Hub Airport ............................................................................... 3
C.1.2 MSP's Role In The Local Economy ........................................................................................ 4
C.1.3 MSP's Role in the Air Transportation System .......................................................................... 4
C.2 Aviation Activity ........................................................................................................................ 4
C.2.1 Activity Levels .................................................................................................................... 4
C.2.2 Forecasts of Operations and Enplanements ............................................................................ 7
C.3 Airport Limitations ................................................................................................................... 12
C.3.1 Airfield ............................................................................................................................. 12
C.3.2 Passenger Terminals .......................................................................................................... 13
C.3.3 Surface Access ................................................................................................................. 13
C.3.4 Development Limitations .................................................................................................... 13
111. A�TERNATIVES ...............................................................................................................III-1
A. Alternatives .................................................................................................................. �
B. Alternatives Under Consideration ..................................................................................... 1
B.1 MSP Alternative ........................................................................................................................ 1
B.1.1 MSP Alternative Process ...................................................................................................... 1
B.1.2 The MSP Alternative and the Project Goals ............................................................................. 2
6.2 No Action Alternative .................................................................................................................4
6.2.1 The No Action Alternative and the Project Goals ..................................................................... 4
C. Alternatives Eliminated ................................................................................................... 7
C.1 MSP Alternatives Eliminated ....................................................................................................... 7
C.2 New Airport Alternative .............................................................................................................. 9
C.3 Other Alternatives Eliminated ...................................................................................................... 9
D. Preferred Alternative/Proposed Action ............................................................................ 12
� �� IV. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .............................................................................................. IV-1
Dual Track Final EIS
TC1
V. ENVIRONMENTA� CONSEQUENCES ................................................................................... V-1
A. Air Quality .................................................................................................................... 1
A.1 MSP Alternative ........................................................................................................................ 6 J-''
A.1.1 Affected Environment—MSPAIternative ..............................................................................6 `,
A.1.2 Air Quality Impacts — MSP Alternative .................................................................................. 8
A.1.3 Mitigation Measures — MSP Alternative ..................................................................:........... 13
A.2 No Action Alternative ............................................................................................................... 14
A.2.1 Affected Environment — No Action Alternative .................................................................... 14
A.2.2 Air Quality Impacts — No Action Alternative ........................................................................ 14
A.2.3 Mitigation Measures — No Action Alternative ....................................................................... 17
A.3 Summary of Air Quality Impacts ................................................................................................ 17
B. Archaeo%gical Resources ............................................................................................. 21
6.1 MSP Alternative ...................................................................................................................... 21
B.1.1 Affected Environment — M5P Alternative ............................................................................ 21
B.1.2 Archaeological Resource impacts — MSP Alternative (2010 and 2020) ................................... 22
8.1.3 Mitigation Measures — MSP Alternative .............................................................................. 22
B.2 No Action Alternative ............................................................................................................... 22
B.2.1 Affected Environmen� — No Action Alternative ..................................................................... 22
B.2.2 Archaeological Resource Impacts — No Action Alternative ..................................................... 22
B.2.3 Mitigation Measures — No Action Alternative ....................................................................... 22
B.3 Summary of Archaeological Resource Impacts ............................................................................ 22
C. Biotic Communities ...................................................................................................... 22
C.1 MSP Alternative ...................................................................................................................... 23
C.1.1 Affected Environment — MSP Aiternative ............................................................................ 23
C.1.2 Biotic Communities Impacts — MSP Alternative ................................................................... 24
C.1.3 Mitigation Measures — MSP Alternative .............................................................................. 25
C.2 No Action Alternative ............................................................................................................... 25
C.2.1 Affected Environment — No Action Alternative .................................................................... 25
C.2.2 Biotic Communities Impacts — No Action Alternative ............................................................ 25
C.3 Summary of Biotic Communities Impacts ........................................................ 25 �'
...........................
D. Bird-Aircraft Hazards .................................................................................................... 26
D.1 MSP Alternative ...................................................................................................................... 26
D.1.1 Affected Environment—MSPAIternative ............................................................................26
D.1.2 Bird-Aircraft Hazards — MSP Alternative .............................................................................. 31
D.1.3 Mitigation Measures — MSP Alternative .............................................................................. 32
D.2 No Action Alternative ............................................................................................................... 32
D.2.1 Affected Environment — No Action Alternative .................................................................... 32
D.2.2 Bird-Aircraft Hazards Impacts — No Action Alternative .......................................................... 32
D.2.3 Mitigation Measures — No Action Alternative ....................................................................... 33
D.3 Summary of Bird- Aircraft Impacts ............................................................................................. 33
E. Construction lmpacts ................................................................................................... 33
F. Coastal Barriers ............................................................................................................ 35
G. Coastal Zone Management Program ............................................................................... 35
H. Endangered and Threatened Species .............................................................................. 35
H.1 MSP Alternative ...................................................................................................................... 35
H.1.1 Affected Environment — MSP Alternative ............................................................................ 35
H.1.2 Endangered and Threatened Species Impacts — MSP Alternative ........................................... 36
H.1.3 Mitigation Measures — MSP Alternative .............................................................................. 37
H.2 No Action Alternative ............................................................................................................... 37
H.2.1 Affected Environment — No Action Alternative .................................................................... 37
H.2.2 Endangered and Threatened Species Impacts — No Action Alternative .................................... 37
H.2.3 Mitigation Measures — No Action Alternative ....................................................................... 37
H.3 Summary of Endangered and Threatened Species Impacts ........................................................... 37
l. Economic ..................................................................................................................... 38
1.1 MSP Alternative ........................................................................................................................ 51
1.1.1 Economic Impacts — MSP Alternative .................................................................................. 51
1.1.2 Mitigation Measures — MSP Alternative.........,...........,..,......
Dual Track Final EIS
TC2
................................55 j�� 1
1,
1.2 No Action Alternative ............................................................................................................. V-55
1.2.1 Economic Impacts — No Action Alternative ........................................................................... 55
1.3 Summary of Economic Impacts .................................................................................................. 56
, J. Energy Supply and Natural Resources ............................................................................. 58
�
J.1 MSP Alternative ....................................................................................................................... 58
J.1.1 Affected Environment — MSP Alternative ............................................................................ 58
J.1.2 Energy Supply and Natural Resources Impact — MSP Alternatives .......................................... 59
J.1.3 Mitigation Measures — MSP Alternative ............................................................................... 61
J.2 No Action Alternative ............................................................................................................... 61
J.2.1 Affected Environment — No Action Alternative ..................................................................... 61
J.2.2 Energy Supply and Natural Resources Impacts — No Action Alternative ................................... 61
J.2.3 Mitigation Measures — No Action Alternatives ...................................................................... 62
J.3 Summary of Energy 5upply and Natural Resources Impacts .......................................................... 62
K. Farmland .................................................................................................................... 63
L. Floodplains .................................................................................................................. 63
L.1 MSP and No Action Alternatives ................................................................................................ 63
�.1.1 Affected Environrnent — MSP and No Action Alternatives ...................................................... 63
L.1.2 Floodplain Impacts — ......................................................................................................... 63
M. Historic/Architectural Resources .................................................................................... 63
M.1 MSP Alternative ...................................................................................................................... 64
M.1.1 Affected Environment — MSP Alternative ........................................................................... 64
M.1.2 Historic/Architectural Resources Impacts — MSP Alternative ................................................. 64
M.1.3 Mitigation Measures — MSP Alternative .............................................................................. 65
M.2 No Action Alternative .............................................................................................................. 65
M.2.1 Affected Environment — No Action Alternative .................................................................... 65
M.2.2 Historic/Architectural Resources Impacts — No Action Aiternative ......................................... 66
M.2.3 Mitigation Measures — No Action Alternative ...................................................................... 66
M.3 Summary of Historic/Architectural Resources Impacts ................................................................. 66
N. Induced Socioeconomic lmpacts .................................................................................... 67
N.1 MSP and No Action Alternatives ............................................................................................... 67
; N.7.1 Affected Environment ........................................................................................................ 67
� N.1.2 Induced Socioeconomic Impacts ......................................................................................... 67
N.1.3 Mitigation Measures .......................................................................................................... 68
O. Land Use /mpacts ........................................................................................................ 68
0.1 MSP Alternative ...................................................................................................................... 68
0.1.1 Affected Environment — MSP Alternative ............................................................................ 68
• 0.1.2 Land Use Impacts — MSP Alternative ................................................................................ 68
0.1.3 Mitigation Measures - MSP Alternative ................................................................................ 70
0.2 No Action Alternative .............................................................................................................. 70
0.2.1 Affected Environment — No Action Alternative .................................................................... 70
Q.2.2 Land Use Impacts — No Action Alternative .......................................................................... 70
0.2.3 Mitigation Measures — No Action Alternative ...................................................................... 71
0.3 Summary of Land Use impacts ................................................................................................. 71
P. Light Emissions ............................................................................................................ 71
P.1 MSP Alternative ....................................................................................................................... 72
P.1.1 Affected Environment — MSP Alternative ............................................................................ 72
P.1.2 Light Emission Impacts — MSP Alternative ........................................................................... 72
P.1.3 Mitigation Measures — MSP Alternative ............................................................................... 73
P.2 No Action Alternative ............................................................................................................... 73
P.2.1 Affected Environment — No Action Alternative ..................................................................... 73
P.2.2 Light Emission Impacts — No Action Alternative ................................................................... 73
P.2.3 Mitigation Measures — No Action Alternative ....................................................................... 73
P.3 Summary of Light Emission Impacts ........................................................................................... 73
Q. Noise ......................................................................................................................... 74
Q1. Aircraft Noise ......................................................................................................................... 74
Q1.1 MSP Alternative ................................................................................................................. 76
Q1.1.1 Affected Environment — MSP Alternative ...................................................................... 76
Q.1.1.2 Noise Impacts — M5P Alternative ................................................................................ 76
i' ',
Q.1.1.3 Mitigation Measures — MSP Alternative ........................................................................ 80
Dual Track Final EIS
TC3
Q.1.2 No Action Aiternative ..................................................................................................... V-82
Q.1.2.1 Affected Environment— No Action Alternative .............................................................. 82
Q.1.2.2 Noise Impacts - No Action Alternative .............. ..,,, g3 (~
........................................................
Q.1.3 Cumulative Noise Impacts of Runway 4-22 Extension ........................................................... 86 ;
Q.1.4 Summary of Aircraft Noise impacts ..................................................................................... 88 '• ..
Q.2 Surface Transportation Noise Impacts ........................................................................................ 90
Q.2.1 2020 Methodology and Assumptions .................................................................................. 90
Q.2.2 2020 Surface Noise Impacts, Mitigation and Summary .......................................................... 91
Q.2.3 2010 Surface Noise Impacts, Mitigation and Summary ..............:........................................... 91
R. Parks and Recreation .................................................................................................... 93
R.1 MSP Alternative ...................................................................................................................... 93
R.1.1 Affected Environment — MSP Alternative ............................................................................ 93
R.1.2 Parks and Recreation Impacts — MSP Alternative ................................................................. 95
R.1.3 Mitigation Measures — MSP Alternative .............................................................................. 95
R.2 No Action Alternative ............................................................................................................... 95
R.2.1 Affected Environment — No Action Alternative ..................................................................... 95
R.2.2 Parks and Recreation Impacts — No Action Alternative .......................................................... 96
R.2.3 Mitigation Measures — No Action Alternative ....................................................................... 96
R.3 Summary of Parks and Recreation Impacts ................................................................................. 96
S. Environmental Justice .................................................................................................. 97
S.1 MSP Alternative ...................................................................................................................... 98
S.2 No Action Alternative ............................................................................................................. 101
S.3 Summary of Environmental Justice Impacts .............................................................................. 103
T. Social ........................................................................................................................ 104
T.1 MSP Alternative .................................................................................................................... 104
T.1.1 Affected Environment — MSP Alternative .......................................................................... 104
T.1.2 Social Impacts — MSP Alternative ..................................................................................... 105
T.1.3 Mitigation Measures — MSP Alternative ............................................................................. 110
T.2 No Action Alternative ............................................................................................................. 111
T.2.1 Affected Environment — No Action Alternative .................................................................. 111 .
T.2.2 Social Impacts — No Action Alternative ............................................................................. 112
T.2.3 Mitigation Measures — No Action Alternative ..................................................................... 112 ��
T.3 Summary of Social Impacts ..................................................................................................... 112
U. Section 4(f) ...............................................................................................................113
U.1 MSP Alternative .................................................................................................................... 114
U.1.1 Affected Environment — MSP Alternative .......................................................................... 114
U.1.2 Section 41f) Impacts — MSP Alternative ............................................................................ 115
U.1.3 Mitigation Measures — MSP Alternative ............................................................................ 118
U.2 No Action Alternative ............................................................................................................. 120
U.3 Summary of Section 4(f) Impacts ............................................................................................ 120
V. Solid Waste lmpacts ...................................................................................................127
V.1 MSP Alternative .................................................................................................................... 121
V.1.1 Affected Environment — MSP Alternative .......................................................................... 121
V.1.2 Solid Waste Impacts — MSP Alternative ............................................................................ 121
V.2 No Action Alternative ............................................................................................................. 122
V.2.1 Affected Environment ...................................................................................................... 122
, V.2.2 Solid Waste Impacts — No Action Aiternative .................................................................... 122
V.3 Summary of Solid Waste Impacts ............................................................................................ 122
W. Surface Transportation Access ....................................................................................122
W.1 MSP Alternative ................................................................................................................... 122
W.1.1 Affected Environment — MSP and No Build Alternatives ..................................................... 122
W.1.2 MSP Alternative Surface Transpo�tation Impacts ................................................................ 126
W.2 No Action Alternative ............................................................................................................ 134
W.3 Mitigation Measures — MSP and No Build Alternatives ............................................................. 139
W.4 Summary of Surface Transportation Access impacts ................................................................ 140
W.4.1 Impacts on Travel Times to Airport ................................................................................... 140
W.4.2 Summary of Environmental Impacts of Highway Improvements ........................................... 141
Dual Track Final EIS
TC4
X. Major Utilities ......................................................................................................... V-141
X.1 MSP Alternative .................................................................................................................... 141
X.1.1 Affected Environment — MSP Alternative .......................................................................... 141
X.1.2 Major Utilities Impacts — MSP Alternative ......................................................................... 142
� X.1 3 Miti ation Measures MSP Alternative 142
. g — ............................................................................
X.2 No Action Alternative ............................................................................................................. 142
Y. Visual lmpacts ............................................................................................................142
Y.1 MSP Alternative .................................................................................................................... 142
Y.1.1 Affected Environment — MSP Alternative .......................................................................... 142
Y.1.2 Visual Impacts — MSP Alternative .................................................................................... 143
Y.1.3 Mitigation Measures — MSP Alternative ............................................................................ 143
Y.2 No Action Alternative ............................................................................................................. 143
Y.2.1 Affected Environment — No Action Alternative .................................................................. 143
Y.2.2 Visual Impacts — No Action Alternatives ........................................................................... 143
Y.2.3 Mitigation Measures — No Action Alternative .................................................................... 143
Y.3 Summary of Visual Impacts .................................................................................................... 143
Z. Wastewater ...............................................................................................................144
Z.1 MSP and No Action Alternatives .............................................................................................. 144
Z.1.1 Affected Environment ..............................................:....................................................... 144
Z.1.2 Wastewater Impacts — MSP and No Action Alternatives ..................................................... 144
Z.1.3 Mitigation Measures — MSP Alternative ............................................................................. 146
Z.2 Summary of Wastewater Impacts ............................................................................................ 147
AA. Water Supply ........................................................................................................... 147
AA.1 MSP and No Action Alternatives ........................................................................................... 147
�;4A.1.1 Affected Environment — MSP and No Action Alternatives ................................................. 147
AA.1.2 Water Supply Impacts — MSP and No Action Alternatives ................................................ 147
AA.1.3 Mitigation Measures — MSP Alternative .......................................................................... 150
AA.2 Summary of Water Supply Impacts ....................................................................................... 150
BB. Surface Water Quality ...............................................................................................150
BB.1 MSP and No Action Alternatives ............................................................................................ 156
;' } 86.1.1 Affected Environment — MSP and No Action Alternatives ................................................. 156
,
� BB.1.2 Surface Water Quality Impacts — MSP and No Action Alternatives ..................................... 160
BB.1.3 Mitigation Measures — 2010 LTCP and No Action Alternatives .......................................... 167
BB.2 Summary of Surface Water Quality Impacts ............................................................................ 169
CC. Groundwater Quality ................................................................................................. 169
CC.1 Affected Environment — MSP and No Action Alternatives ....................................................... 169
CC.2 Groundwater Quality Im;pacts — MSP Alternative .................................................................... 175
CC.3 Groundwater Quality Impacts — No Action Alternative ............................................................ 177
CC.4 Mitigation Measures — MSP and No Action Alternatives .......................................................... 179
CC.5 Summary of Groundwater Quality impacts ............................................................................. 180
DD. Wetlands .................................................................................................................180
DD.1 MSP Alternative .................................................................................................................. 180
DD.1.1 Affected Environment—MSP Alternative ........................................................................ 180
DD.1.2 Wetland Impacts — MSP Alternative ............................................................................... 181
DD.1.3 Mitigation Measures — MSP Alternative .......................................................................... 1$3
DD.2 No Action Alternative .......................................................................................................... 184
DD.2.1 Affected Environment — No Action Alternative ................................................................ 184
DD.2.2 Wetland Impacts — No Action Alternative ....................................................................... 184
DD.2.3 Mitigation Measures — No Action Alternative .................................................................. 184
DD.3 Summary of Wetland Impacts ............................................................................................... 184
EE. Wi/d and Scenic Rivers ...............................................................................................185
EE.1 MSP and No Action Alternative .............................................................................................. 185
EE.1.1 Affected Environment — MSP Alternative ......................................................................... 185
EE.1.2 Wild and Scenic Rivers Impacts — MSP and No Action Alternatives .................................... 185
EE.1.3 Mitigation Measures — M5P and No Action Alternatives .................................................... 185
Dual Track Final EIS
TC5
FFWildlife Refuges ........................ .............................................. .................... .......... V-185
FF.1 MSP Alternative ................................................................................................................... 186
FF.1.1 Affected Environment—MSP Alternative ......................................................................... 186 ,
FF.1.2 Wildlife Refuge Impacts — MSP Alternative ...................................................................... 187 �
l
FF.1 3 Miti ation Measures MSP Alternative 188
. g — ...........................................................................
FF.2 No Action Alternative ........................................................................................................... 188
FF.2.1 Affected Environment — No Action Alternative ................................................................. 188
FF.2.2 Wildlife Refuges Impacts — No Action Alternative ............................................................. 188
FF.2.3 Mitigation Measures — No Action Alternative ................................................................... 188
FF.3 Summary of Wildlife Refuges Impacts ..................................................................................... 188
GG. Design, Art and Architectural Application .................................................................... �89
GG.1 MSP Alternative .................................................................................................................. 189
GG.1.1 Affected Environment — MSP Alternative ........................................................................ 189
GG.1.2 Design, Art, and Architectural Application — MSP Alternative ............................................ 189
GG.1.3 Mitigation Measures — MSP Alternatives ........................................................................ 189
GG.2 No Action Alternative .......................................................................................................... 189
GG.2.1 Affected Environment — No Action Alternative ................................................................ 189
GG.2.2 Design, Art, and Architectural Impacts — No Action Alternative ......................................... 189
GG.2.3 Mitigation Measures — MSP Alternatives ........................................................................ 190
HH. Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity and lrreversible and lrretrievable
Commitments of Resources .............................................................................................190
VI. LIST OF PREPARERS ....................................................................................................... VI-1
VII. LIST OF AGEfVCIES, JURISDICTIOtVS, PRIVATE PARTIES AND DEPOSITORIES RECEIVIfVG
FINALEIS ........................................................................................................................... VII-1
VIII. PUBLIC AIVD AGENCY INVOLVEMENT ............................................................................VIII-1
IX. LIST OF ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY .............................................................................. IX-1 (�
�,
X. INDEX ............................................................................................................................. X-1
APPEND/X A SUPPORTING /NFORMATION AND L/STS OF SUPPORT/NG DOCUMENTS AND
TECHN/CAL REPORTS ........................................................................................................... A-1
A.1 AIR QUALITY DISCUSSION AND MODELING ASSUMPTIONS .........................................
A.2 STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATIOiV OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE .....................................
A.3 NOISE CHARACTERISTICS, METRICS, COMPATIBLE LAND USE CRITERIA ......................
A.4 CANADA GOOSE POPULATIONS ON MOTHER LAKE ....................................................
A.5 EFFECT OF AIRCRAFT OVERFLIGHTS ON BALD EAGLES ...............................................
A.6 SUMMARY OF MIGRATORY BIRD SURVEYS ................................................................
A.7 BIOTREATMENT OF GLYCOL IN SOILS ........................................................................
A.8 HYDRAULIC AND NUTRIENT LOADING - MOTHER LAKE WATERSHED ...........................
A.9 CBOD LOADING AND ATTENUATION ANA�YSIS - MSP AND NO ACTION
ALTERNATIVES .....................................................................................................
A.10 SURFACE WATER QUALITY MITIGATION MEASURES - MSP AND NO ACTIOtV
ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................... ......
A.11 POTENTIA� RESIDUA� GLYCOL-IMPACTED STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
MEASURES...........................................................................................................
A.12 NOISE ANALYSIS - MINIUESOTA VALLEY NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ......................
A.13 AIR O.UALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY ...............................
A.14 STATE OF MINNESOTA DUAL TRACK PLANNING PROCESS LEGISLATION ..................
A.15 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF IIVTERIOR CORRESPONDENCE ................................................
C�
.
Dual Track Final EIS
TC6
APPEND/X B NO/SE M/T/GAT/ON PLAN ................................................................................... B-1
APPEND/X C H/STOR/C PRESERVAT/ON AGREEMENT .............................................................. C-1
�
.qPPEND/X D WETLAND MIT/GAT/ON PLAN ............................................................................. D-1
APPEND/X E W/LDL/FE REFUGE M/T/GATION ............................................................................E-1
APPEND/X F SURFACE TR.4NSPORTAT/ON CONSENSUS DOCUMENT ........................................F-1
APPEND/X G MSP A/RSPACE NO/SE SCREEN/NG ANALVS/S ..................................................... G-1
APPEND/X H SENS/T/V/TY OF /MPACT CATEGOR/ES TO MAC H/GH FORECAST ......................... H-1
APPEND/X / SUMMARY OF COMMENTS ON DRAFT E/S AND RESPONSES .................................. 1-1
APPEND/X J F/GURES ............................................................................................................J-1
APPEND/X K GOVERNOR S AIR AND WATER QUAL/TY CERT/F/CAT/ON .................................... K-7
�ist of Tabies
Table 1- Historic Passenger Traffic - 1972 to 1996 ...................................................................11-5
Table 2- Historic Aircraft Operations - 1972 to 1996 ................................................................... 6
Table 3- Summary of Minneapolis Saint Paul Baseline Forecasts ................................................... 7
Table 4- Hourly Distribution of Aircraft Arrivals, Departures and Operations ................................... 7
Table 5- Comparison of Forecasts ........................................................................................... 10
,i Table 6- MAC High Forecast .................................................................................................. 10
Table A-1 - Air Quality Attainment Status by Pollutant .............................................................. V-2
Table A-2 - Screening Criteria for CO Microscale Analysis ............................................................. 4
Table A-3 - Simplified Screening Criteria for CO Microscale Analysis .............................................. 4
Table A-4 - Mobile 5a Carbon Monoxide Emissions for 2010 and 2020 ................................:......... 5
Table A-5 - Factors for Adjusting 1996 Background to the Year 2020 ............................................ 8
Table A-6 - Background CO Concentrations within the Study Area ................................................. 8
Table A-7 - On-Airport Carbon Monoxide Emissions - MSP Alternative ............................................ 9
Table A-8 - On-Airport Sulfur Oxide Emissions - MSP Alternative ................................................... 9
Table A-9 - Peak Hour CO Concentrations from On-Airport Sources - MSP Alternative .................... 10
Table A-10 - Off-Airport Roadway CO Emissions - MSP Alternative .............................................. 10
Table A-11 - Intersection Meeting the Microscale Analysis Screening Criteria ................................ 11
Table A-12 - Maximum Predicted CO Concentration at TH 55 and TH 62 - MSP 2020 Concept
Plan............................................................................................................................... 11
Tabie A-13 - Assumed Speeds and Emission Values for Interchange Analysis ................................ 12
Table A-14 - TH 62 and TH 77 Interchange Predicted CO Concentrations - MSP 2020 Concept
Plan............................................................................................................................... 12
Table A-15 - TH 77 and 66th Street Interchange Predicted CO Concentrations - MSP 2020
ConceptPlan ................................................................................................................... 13
Table A-16 - On-Airport Carbon Monoxide Emissions - No Action Aiternative ................................ 14
Table A-17 - On-Airport Sulfur Oxide Emissions - No Action Alternative ........................................ 15
Table A-18 - Peak-Hour CO Concentrations From On-Airport Sources - No Action Alternative.......... 15
Table A-19 - 2020 Off-Airport Roadway CO Emissions - No Action Alternative .............................. 16
Table A-20 - Intersection Meeting the Microscale Analysis Screening Criteria ................................ 16
� � Table A-21 - Maximum Predicted CO Concentrations at TH 55 and TH 62 - No Action
Alternative...................................................................................................................... 16
Dual Track Final EIS
TC7
Table A-22 - Carbon Monoxide Emissions by Airport Alternative ............................................... V-17
Table A-23 - Sulfur Oxide Emissions by Airport Alternative ......................................................... 18
Table A-24 - Off-Airport Roadway CO Emissions by Airport Alternative ........................................ 19 �"�
Table A-25 - Maximum Peak Hour CO Concentrations from On-Airport Sources ............................. 19
Table A-26 - Maximum Predicted CO Concentrations at Critical Intersections ................................ 20
Tabie A-27 - TH 62 and TH 77 Interchange Predicted CO Concentrations - MSP 2020 Concept
Plan............................................................................................................................... 20
Table A-28 - TH 77 and 66th Street Interchange Predicted CO Concentrations - MSP 2020
ConceptPlan ................................................................................................................... 20
Table C-1 - Summary of Impacts to Biotic Communities .............................................................. 25
Table D-1 - Locations, Numbers and Types of Bird Strikes Fieported at MSP, July 1990 to
October1993 ................................................................................................................. 27
Table D-2 - Summary of Waterfowl Surveys Conducted by MVNWR Staff and EIS Study
Team; Spring 1995 .......................................................................................................... 29
Tabie D-3 - Peak Waterfowl Populations within the MVNWR by Season; Source MVNWR
AnnualNarratives ............................................................................................................ 30
Tabie D-4 - Waterfowl and Waterbird Use at MVNWR; Spring and Fall Migration Periods,
1987-1991 for the Long Meadow Lake/Black Dog Area ....................................................... 31
Table D-5 - Summary of Monthly Aircraft Overflights of Bird Concentration Areas ......................... 33
Table H-1 - Summary of Endangered and Threatened Species Impacts ......................................... 37
Table I-1 - MSA Total Employment Trends, by County, 1970 - 1990 ............................................ 38
Table I-2 - Employment by industry Sector, Minneapolis/St. Paul MSA, 1972 & 1992 .................... 40
Table I-3 - Percent Change in County Employment by Industry Sector, Minneapolis/St. Paul
MSA, 1972 - 1992 .......................................................................................................... 41
Table I-4 - MSA Population Trends, 1990 - 2020 ....................................................................... 42
Table 1-5 - Seven County Employment Trends, 1990 - 2020 ....................................................... 43
Table I-6 - Recent & Projected per Capita Income, 13 County MSA, 1989 - 2000 .......................... 43
Table i-7 - Population of the Localized Impact Area .................................................................... 44
Table I-8 - Median Household Income, Localized Impact Area, 1979 - 1989 .................................. 44
Table 1-9 - Average Annual Employment by Industry Sector, Minneapolis & St. Paul, 1987 - �
1993 .............................................................................................................................. 46
Table I-10 - Employment by Industry Sector, Localized Impact Area, 1990-1994 ........................... 47
Table i-11 - Population Forecast for Localized Impact Area .......................................................... 48
Table I-12 - Projected Households of Localized Impact Area ........................................................ 49
Table I-13 - Employment Forecast for Localized Impact Area ....................................................... 49
Table I-14 - Base Year Employment per Enplanement Ratios ........................................................ 61
Table I-15 - Airline Industry Annual Productivity Adjustments, 1989 - 2020 .................................. 51
Table 1-16 - Adjusted Employment per Enplanement Ratios, 2000 to 2020 ................................... 51
Table 1-17 - Forecast Enplanement Activity, Alternative MSP Development Scenarios, 2000 -
2020 .............................................................................................................................. 52
Table 1-18 - Direct and Indirect Employment Under MSP Alternative ............................................. 52
Table 1-19 - Direct and Indirect Wages Under MSP Alternative ..................................................... 52
Table 1-20 - Tax Capacity Impacts of MSP 2020 Concept Plan .................................................... 53
Table I-21 - Tax Capacity Impacts of MSP 2010 LTCP ............................................................... 54
Table I-22 - Direct and Indirect Employment Under No Action Alternative .................................... 55
Table I-23 - Direct and Indirect Wages Under No Action Alternative .............................................. 55
TableI-24 - Summary of Economic Impacts .............................................................................. 56
Table 1-24 - Total Airport Development Costs - MSP 2020 Concept Plan Preliminary (1995 S)......... 57
Table J-1 - Block Fuel Consumption - 2010 L.TCP ...................................................................... 59
Table J-2 - Block Fuel Consumption - 2020 Concept Plan ........................................................... 59
Table J-3 - Ground Delay Fuel Consumption - 2010 LTCP ........................................................... 59
Table J-4 - Ground Delay Fuel Consumption - 2020 Concept Plan ................................................ 60
Table J-5 - Aircraft and Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption - 2010 LTCP ......................................... 60
Table J-6 - Aircraft and Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption - 2020 Concept Plan .............................. 60 /�
Table J-7 - Block Fuel Consumption - No Action Alternative ........................................................ 61 l,
Dual Track Final EIS
TC8
Table J-8 - Ground Delay Fuel Consumption - No Action Alternative .......................................... V-61
Table J-9 - Aircraft and Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption - No Action Alternative .......................... 62
- Table J-10 - Comparison of Total Energy Consumption by Airport Alternative ................................ 62
i Table N-1 - Metropolitan Council Forecasts - MSP and No Action Alternatives ............................... 67
Table Q-1 - Population and Dwellings Within Year 2005 DNL Contours - MSP Alternative ............... 77
Table Q-2 - Noise Sensitive Uses within Year 2005 DN� Contours - MSP Alternative ..................... 77
Table Q-3 - Noise Impacts at Select Noise Sensitive Locations Shown in Figure Q-5 -
MSPAlternative .............................................................................................................. 79
Table Q-4 - Population and Dwellings Within Year 2005 DNL Contours - No Action Alternative ....... 83
Table Q-5 - Noise Sensitive Uses Within Year 2005 DNL Contours - No Action Alternative ............. 84
Table Q-6 - Noise Impacts at Select Noise Sensitive Locations Shown in Figure Q-5 - No
ActionAlternative ............................................................................................................ 85
Table Q-7 - Cumulative Runway 4-22 Extension 2005 Noise Impacts - MSP and No Action
Alternatives.................................................................................................................... 87
Table Q-8 - Summary Comparison of Noise Impacts - MSP and No Action Alternatives ................... 88
Table Q-9 - Noise Impacts at Select Noise Sensitive �ocations Shown in Figure Q-5 -
Comparison Between MSP and No Action Alternatives ......................................................... 89
Table Q-10 - 1990 Residences Adversely Impacted by 2020 Traffic Noise from Selected
Roadways Leading to Existing Airport Site .......................................................................... 91
Table Q-11 - Predicted Noise Levels on 18th Avenue Near 66th Street ......................................... 92
Table R-1 - Summary of Park and Recreation Area Impacts ......................................................... 97
Table S-1 - Residential Displacement -- Distribution of Low-Income Households - MSP 2020
ConceptPlan ................................................................................................................... 99
Table S-2 - Residential Displacement -- Distribution of Minority Households - MSP 2020
ConceptPlan ................................................................................................................... 99
Table S-3 - Residential Displacement -- Distribution of Low-Income Households - MSP 2010
LTCP.............................................................................................................................. 99
Table S-4 - Residential Displacement -- Distribution of Minority Households - MSP 2010 LTCP .......100
Table S-5 - Distribution of Low-Income Households - MSP Alternative .........................................101
' � Table S-6 - Distribution of Minority Households - MSP Alternative ...............................................101
Table S-7 - Residential Displacement -- Distribution of Low-Income Households - No Action
Alternative.....................................................................................................................101
Table S-8 - Residential Displacement -- Distribution of Minority Households - No Action
Alternative.....................................................................................................................102
Table S-9 - Distribution of Low Income Households in 1994 .......................................................102
Table S-10 - Distribution of Minority Households in 1994 ..........................................................102
Table S-11 - Distribution of Low Income Households - No Action Alternative ...............................103
Table S-12 - Distribution of Minority Households - No Action Alternative .....................................103
Table S-13 Summary of Residential Displacement Environmental Justice Impacts .........................103
Table S-14 Summary of Aircraft Noise Environmental Justice Impacts .........................................104
Table T-1 - Households Displaced by the MSP 2020 Concept Plan ..............................................106
Table T-2 - Residents Displaced by the MSP 2020 Concept Plan .................................................106
Table T-3 - Businesses Displaced by the MSP 2020 Concept Plan ...............................................107
Table T-4 - Employees Displaced by the MSP 2020 Concept Plan ...............................................107
Table T-5 - Households Displaced by the MSP 2010 LTCP .........................................................108
Table T-6 - Residents Displaced by the MSP 2010 LTCP ............................................................108
Table T-7 - Businesses Displaced by the MSP 2010 LTCP ..........................................................108
Table T-8 - Employees Displaced by the MSP 2010 LTCP ..........................................................109
Table T-9 - Residential Relocation for the MSP 2020 Concept Plan .............................................109
Table T-10 - Residential Relocation for the MSP 2010 �TCP .......................................................109
Table T-11 - Business Relocation for the MSP 2020 Concept Plan ..............................................110
Table T-12 - Business Relocation for the MSP 2010 LTCP .........................................................110
Table T-13 - Characteristics of Displaced Households - No Action Alternative ...............................112
Table T-14 - Summary of Social Impacts .................................................................................113
I �
Dual Track Final EIS
TC9
Table U-1 - Summarizes the Numbers of Section 4(f) Properties that will be Used by Each
Airport....................................................................................................................... V-120
Table W-1 - 1990 Travel Time to Airport Main Terminal from County Seats .................................124 �`
Tabie W-2 - Regional Population and Employees within Airport Service Areas in 1990 ...................125
Table W-3 - Year 2020 Traffic Volume Changes Under the MSP Alternative .................................127
Table W-4 - Year 2020 Travel Time to Main Terminal from County Seats - MSP Alternative..........128
Table W-5 - Year 2020 Regional Population, Households and Employees within Travelsheds of
MSPAlternative .............................................................................................................129
Table W-6 - Year 2020 Potential Roadway Improvements Needed with No Action Alternative .......135
Table W-7 - Year 2020 Travel Time to Airport Main Terminal from County Seats -�io Action
Alternative.....................................................................................................................135
Table W-8 - Year 2020 Regional Population and Employees within Travelsheds of No Action
Alternative.....................................................................................................................136
Table W-9 - Year 2020 Traffic Volumes - MSP and No Action Alternatives ..................................137
Table W-10 - Comparison of Year 2020 Forecast Levels of Service .............................................138
Table W-11 - Summary of Average Travel Times to Airport Main Terminal ...................................141
Table W-12 - Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts of Needed Highway Improvements ......141
Table Y-1 - Summary of Visual Impacts ...................................................................................144
Table Z-1 - 2020 Projected Municipal Wastewater - MSP Alternative ..........................................145
Table Z-2 - 2020 Projected Municipal Wastewater - No Action Alternative ...................................146
Table AA-1 - 2020 Projected Water Usage - MSP Alternative .....................................................148
Table AA-2 - 2020 Projected Water Usage - No Action Alternative .............................................149
Table BB-1 - Five Highest CBODS Discharge Days (Airport Composite) for 1993/94 through
1996/67 Winters ............................................................................................................151
Table BB-2 - Aircraft and Runway Deicing Chemicals Usage at MSP 1993/94 — 1996/97 ..............152
Table BB-3 - Water Quality Classifications (Minnesota Rules, 1993, 1994) ...................................157
Table BB-4 - Minnesota River Water Quality Data--Fort Snelling Station .......................................159
Table BB-5 - Assumed Antecedent Pond Conditions for CBODS Spike Event - MSP and No
Action Alternatives .........................................................................................................163 ,..
Table BB-6 - Composite Airport CBODS Loading on Extreme Case Day - MSP and No Action �� .
Alternatives(pounds) .......................................................................................................163
Table BB-7 - Aquatic Toxicity Information for Aircraft De/Anti-Icing Products ...............................166
Table CC-1 - �ocation of Aviation Fueling Facilities/Operations Relative to Aquifer Sensitivity -
MSPAlternative .............................................................................................................176
Table CC-2 - Location of Aviation Fueling FacilitiesJOperations Relative to Aquifer Sensitivity -
NoAction Alternative ......................................................................................................178
Table CC-3 - Summary of Potential for Groundwater Impacts .....................................................180
Table DD-1 - Wetland Resources within the APE for the MSP Alternative .....................................181
Table DD-2 - Wetland Impacts Associated with the MSP Alternative ...........................................182
Table DD-3 - Wetland Mitigation Requirements Associated with the MSP 2010 LTCP ...................184
Table DD-4 - Summary of Wetland Impacts ..............................................................................184
Table A.1-1 Intersection Screening Results (20201 ................................................................. A.1-3
Table A.1-2 Intersection Screening Results (20201 ....................................................................... 3
Table A.1-3 Mobile 5A Input File for Off-Airport Motor Vehicle Emissions ....................................... 4
Table A.1-4a MPCA 1990 $-County CO Emission Inventory Summary Table ................................... 5
Table A.1-4b MPCA 1993 8-County CO Emission Inventory Summary Table ................................... 6
Table A.1-5 Assumptions Used For On-Airport Source In The Edms Model ..................................... 7
Table A.1-6 Assumed Average Annual Hourly Departures (2005) ................................................... 9
Table A.1-7a Assumed Annual Departures (2020) ...................................................................... 10
Table A.1-7b Assumed Year 2020 Hourly Departures (Annual/8760) .......................................... 11
Table A.1-8a Assumed Average Annual Hourly Departures (2005) MSP Alternative ....................... 12
Table A.1-8b Assumed Average Annual Ho�rly Departures by Aircraft and Runway (2020) ............ 12
Table A.1-9 Assumed Time in Queue Delay by Alternative .......................................................... 13
--- ',.
Table A.1-10 Assumed EDMS Input Data - Roadways and Parking ............................................... 13 (
Dual Track Final EIS
TC10
Table A.1-11 Parking Input Data - EDMS Model ................................................................... A.1-14
Tabie A.1-12 Airport-Related Employment (1994) and Estimated Heating Requirements ................. 14
Table A.1-13 Assumed 50 MMBTU Boiler Location .................................................................... 15
Table A.1-14 Assumed 50 MMBTU Boiler Coordinates ............................................................... 15
Table A.1-15 Projected Peak Hour Operations MSP Alternative (2020) ......................................... 15
Tabie A.1-16 Assumed Peak Hour Operations for EDMS Model MSP Alternative (2020) ................. 16
Table A.1-17 Assumed on-Airport Roadway Traffic Volumes Peak Hour -(2020) ........................... 16
Table A.1-18 Roadway Input Data - EDMS Model Peak Hour (2020) ............................................ 17
Table A.1-19 Parking Input Data - EDMS Model Peak Hour (2020) ............................................... 17
Table A.1-20 Assumed Average Annual Hourly Departures No Action Alternative - 2005 ............... 18
Table A.1-21 Assumed Average Annual Hourly Departures No Action Alternative - 2020 ............... 18
Table A.1-22 Projected Peak Hour Operations No Action Alternative -2020 ................................... 19
Table A.1-23 Assumed Peak Hour Operations for EDMS Model No Action Alternative - 2020.......... 19
Table A.1-24 Estimation of Motor Vehicle Emissions at the TH 77 and 66th Street interchange ...... 20
Table A.3-1 - Common Sounds on the dBA Scale .................................................................. A.3-4
Tabie A.3-2 - Land Use Compatibility Criteria .............................................................................. 8
Table A.3-3 - 2005 Projected Fleet Mix and Average Daily Arrivals - MSP Alternative ..................... 12
Table A.3-4 - 2005 Projected Fleet Mix and Average Daily Departures - MSP Alternative ................ 13
Table A.3-5 - 2005 Projected Fleet Mix and Average Daily Arrivals - No Action Alternative ............. 15
Table A.3-6 - 2005 Projected Fleet Mix and Average Daily Departures - No Action Alternative ........ 16
Table A.3-7 - Runway Use for MSP Alternative Average Annual Use ............................................ 17
Table A.3-8 - Runway Use for No-Action Alternative Average Annual Use .................................... 18
Table A.6-1 - Summary of 1995 Spring Migration Survey ....................................................... A.6-3
Table A.12-1 - Average Daytime Leq in dBA ....................................................................... A.12-4
Table A.12-2 - Time Above 65 dBA ........................................................................................... 5
Table A.12-3 - Peak Daytime SE� dBA ....................................................................................... 5
Table A.12-4 - DNL Noise Levels ............................................................................................... 5
Table A.13-1 Estimated Annual CO Emissions from Haul Truck Activity in 2003 ..................... A.13-2
Table A.13-2 Estimated Off-Airport CO Emissions from Construction Employee Travel ................... 2
Table A.13-3 Annual Emissions by All Types of Construction Equipment ....................................... 3
Table A.13-4 Construction Emissions based upon Sacramento Methodology ................................... 4
Table A.13-5 On-Airport Construction Activity Carbon Monoxide Emissions in 2003 ....................... 4
Table D.1-1 - Wetland Mitigation Requirements - MSP 2010 LTCP ........................................... D.1-1
Table H-1 Comparison of MAC High Forecast with DEIS Forecast .............................................. H-2
Table H-2 Summary of Impacts of MAC High Forecast ............................................................... 3
Table H.1-1 - Assumed Operations and Delay .............................................................................. 5
Table H.1-2 - On-Airport Carbon Monoxide Emissions (tons per year) ............................................. 5
Table H.1-3 - On-Airport Sulfur Oxide Emissions (tons per year) ..................................................... 6
Table H.1-4 - Assumed CO Background (ppm) ............................................................................. 6
Table H.1-5 - Average Daily Airport Traffic Volumes .................................................................... 7
Table H.1-6 - Approach PM Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes at TH 55 and TH 62 ................................... 7
Table H.1-7 - Predicted CO Concentrations at TH 55 and TH 62 .................................................... 7
Table H.1-8 - Assumptions Used for Sensitivity Analysis of ........................................................... 8
Table H-1.9 - Assumed Aircraft LTO Cycles by APU Class ............................................................ 8
Table H-1.10 - Adjustment Factors from No Action 2005 ............................................................. 9
Table H-1.11 - EDMS Model Roadway Assumptions ..................................................................... 9
Table H.2-1 a- MSP 2005 Fleet Mix And Average Daily Arrivals High Forecast .............................. 11
Table H.2-1 b- MSP 2005 Fleet Mix And Average Daily Departures High Forecast ......................... 12
Table H.2-3 - MSP Grid Point Analysis Using INM Version 4.11 ................................................... 13
Table H.2-4 - MSP Grid Point Analysis Using INM Version 5.01 ................................................... 14
Table H.2-5 - Comparison of 2005 and 2020 DNL Contour Areas - High Forecast Scenario ............. 15
Table H.3-1 - Summary of Aircraft Noise Environmental Justice Impacts ....................................... 16
Table H.4-1 - CBODS Loading on Extreme Case Day - 2010 FEIS Forecast .................................... 17
Table H.4-2 CBODS Loading on Extreme Case Day - 2010 MAC High Forecast ............................. 18
Table H.4-3 CBODS Loading on Extreme Case Day - 2020 MAC High Forecast ............................. 1 S
Dual Track Final EIS
TC11
F.�ure #
Executive
Summary
ES-1
ES-2
ES-3
ES-4
ES-5
Appendix A
A.3-1
A3-2
Appendix G
G-1
G-2
G-3
G-4
G-5
G-6
Appendix H
H-1
H-2
Appendix J
1
2
2A
3
4
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
A-1
A-2
A-3
A-4
D-1
L-1
M-1
M-2
O-1
O-2
O-3
Q-1
Q-2
Q-3
Q-3A
List of Figures
Title
Location Map
MSP 2020 Concept Plan
MSP 2010 LTCP
No Action Alternative
New Airport Alternative
Common Aircraft Noise Levels on the Decibel Scale
Community Reaction to Noise Levels
Terminal Airspace Study - Southeast Flow Existing
Terminal Airspace Study - Southeast Flow Alt. 1
Terminal Airspace Study - Southeast Flow A1t. 2
Terminal Airspace Study - Southeast Flow Alt. 3
MSP Flight Tracks and Operations 2005 Base Case
MSP Flight Tracks and Operations 2005 High Forecast
2005 DNL Contours - Baseline and High Forecast Scenarios
2005 and 2020 DNL Contours - High Forecast Scenarios
Location Map
No Action Alternative
Extension of Runway 4-22 to 12,000 feet
1994 Average IFR Travel Time and Delay per Operation
Year 2020 Average IFR Travel Time and Delay per Operation - No Action Alternative
Average Annual Delays and Costs
MSP 2020 Concept Plan
Year 2020 Average IFR Travel Time and Delay per Operation - MSP Alternative
MSP 2010 LTCP
MSP Option 1 Eliminated
MSP Option 2 Eliminated
MSP Option 3 Eliminated
MSP Option 4 Eliminated
MSP Option 5 Eliminated
New Airport Alternative Eliminated
Carbon Monoxide Non Attainment Area
CO, S02 and PM-10 Non Attainment Areas
CO Monitor and Air Quality Receptor Sites for On-Airport Sources - MSP and No Action
Alternatives
CO Analysis Locations (Intersections) for Off-Airport Sources - MSP 2020 Concept Plan
Potential Bird-Aircraft Hazard Areas - MSP and No Action Alternatives
Floodplains - MSP and No Action Alternatives
Historic/Architectural Resources - MSP Alternative
Historic/Architectural Resources - No Action Alternative
Existing Land Use at MSP
Future Land Use - MSP Alternative
Future Land Use - No Action Alternative
1994 DNL Noise Contours
2005 Flight Tracks - MSP Alternative
2005 DNLNoise Contours - MSP Alternative
2005 DNL Noise Contours - MSP Alternative with Runway 4-22 Extension
Dual Track Final EIS
TC12
� ".
Ft'�ure # Title
Q-4 2005 L1o65 Noise Contours - MSP Alternative
Q-5 Selected Noise Sensitive Receptor Locations - MSP and No Action Alternatives
` Q-6 Mitigation to be Completed through 1997 - MSP Alternative
Q-7 Area of Mitigation in MSP Noise Mitigation Plan
Q-8 2005 Flight Tracks - No Action Alternative
Q-9 2005 DNL Noise Contours - No Action Alternative
(�-9A 2005 DNL Noise Contours - No Action Alternative with Runway 4-22 Extension
Q-10 2005 L�o65 Noise Contours - No Action Alternative
R-1 Park and Recreation Land - MSP and No Action Alternatives
T-1 ResidentiaUCommercial Areas Affected by 2020 Highway Improvements - MSP 2020
Concept Plan
T-2 ResidentiaUCommercial Areas Affected by 2010 Highway Improvements - MSP 2010 LTCP
T-3 Off-Airport Properties Displaced by North-South Runway RPZ - MSP Alternative
T-4 Residential Properties To Be Acquired For Noise Mitigation - MSP Alternative
T-5 Community Facilities - MSP Alternative
T-6 Community Facilities - No Action Alternative
W-1 1992 Daily Vehicular Traffic - MSP and No Action Alternatives
W-2 2020 Daily Vehicular Traffic - MSP Alternative
W-3 2020 Travel Times (PM Peak) - MSP Alternative
W-4 2020 Travel T'rmes (Off Peak) - MSP Alternative
W-5 2020 Daily Vehicular Traffic - No Action Alternative
W-6 2020 Travel Tunes (PM Peak) - No Action Alternative
W-7 2020 Travel Times (Off Peak) - No Action Alternative
W-8 2020 Highway Improvements - MSP and No Action Alternatives
W-9 2010 Highway Improvements - MSP 2010 LTCP
Z-1 Existing MSP Sanitary Sewer Layout
AA-1 Existing MSP Watermain Layout
`�
BB-1 MSP Watershed Boundaries
BB-2 Minnesota River Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations, Ft. Snelling Station
CC-1 Bedrock Topography and Relevant Data Points - MSP and No Action Alternatives
CC-2 Geologic Cross Section A-A'
CC-3 Geologic Cross Section B-B'
CC-4 Geologic Cross Section C-C'
CC-5 Geologic Cross Section Locations
CC-6 Bedrock Geology - MSP and No Action Alternatives
CC-7 Surficial Unconsolidated Deposits
CC-8 Generalized Groundwater Flow Direction - Perched Water Table
CC-9 Generalized Groundwater Flow Direction - St. Peter Water Table Aquifer
DD-1 Wetlands - MSP and No Action Alternatives
FF-1 2005 Overflights of Wildlife Refuge - MSP Alternative
FF-2 2005 Overflights of Wildlife Refuge - No Action Alternative
FF-3 MSP Alternative 2005 DNL Contours - Wildlife Refuge
FF-4 No Action Aiternative 2005 DNL Contours - Wildlife Refuge
FF-5 Wildlife Refuge Ownership and Noise Monitoring Sites
FF-6 Wildlife Recreation Areas Within 2005 MAC High Forecast DNL Contours
Dual Track Final EIS
TC13
The format of this Final EIS does not follow the usual format of a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
EIS in the order of listing the impact categories in the Environmental Consequences section; the categories
are listed alphabetically and additional categories are included. To assist federal reviewers, the following
cross reference with FAA Order 5050.4A is presented.
Cover Sheet
Summary
Table of Contents 79
Introduction
Purpose of and Need for Action
Alternatives including Proposed Action
Affected Environment
Environmental Gonsequences
a. Noise
b. Land Use
c. SocialImpacts
d. Induced Socioeconomic Impacts
e. Air Quality
£ Water Quality
g. DOT Act, Section 4(�
h. Historic, Architectural, Archaeologicai,
and Cultural Resources
i. Biotic Communities
j. Endangered and Threatened
Species of Flora and Fauna
k. Wetlands
1. Floodplains
m. Coastai Zone Management
m. Coastal Barriers
n. Wild and Scenic Rivers 90
o. Farmland
p. Energy Supply & Nat. Resources
q. Light Emissions
r. Soiid Waste Impacts
s. Construction Impacts
t. Design, Art, and
Architectural Application
Adverse Impacts Which Cannot be Avoided
Short Term Uses and Long Term Productivity,
and Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments
of Resources
Environmental Justice
(required by Executive Order)
List of Preparers
List of Agencies, Organizations,
and Persons to Whom Copies of the
Statement are sent
Public and Agency Involvement
Figures
Index
Appendices
5050.4A
Pa�e Reference
79
79
FEIS FEIS
Section Pa�e
I
80 II
80 III
81 IV and V throughout
V
82
83
83
83
84
84
85
85
86
87
88
89
89
89
90
90
97
91
91
91
92
92
92
92
7
92
92
Dual Track Final EIS
TC14
Cover Sheet
i
TC1
I-1
II-1
III-1
V.Q V-74
V.O V-6�
V.T V-104
V.N V-68
V.A V-1
V.BB & V.CC V-169 & V-150
V.0 V-113
V.M,B
V.0
V.H
V.DD
V.L
V.G
V.F
V.EE
V.K
V.J
V.P
V.V
V.E
V-63, V-21
V-22
V-35
V-185
V-63
V-35
V-35
V-185
V-63
V-58
V-71
V-120
V-35
V.GG V-189
Throughout
V.HH V-190
V.S V-97
VI.
VII.
VIII.
Appendix J
X.
Appendix A - K
1 � , � � � � � • � � � � � �
.
EXECUT/VE SUMMARY
The Dual Track Legislative Directive
The 1989 Minnesota Legislature directed the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) and the
Metropolitan Councii (MC) to examine how best to meet the region's aviation needs 30 years into the
future (the year 2020). The agencies were directed to undertake seven years of planning studies
comparing expansion of the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP) with construction of a
new replacement airport. The development of MSP and the replacement airport were divided into two
parts — a 20-year comprehensive plan [the 2010 Long Term Comprehensive Plan (LTCP)] and a
concept plan for an additional 10 years (the 2020 Concept Plan). The legislation is included in
Appendix A.14.
That seven-year process, known as the Dual Track Airport Planning Process, is complete. In March
1996 MAC and MC submitted a report to the legislature containing their recommendations on future
major airport development. In April 1996 the legislature considered these recommendations and the
comprehensive planning documents and their environmental effects mandated by the 1989 legislation,
and selected the development of MSP as the preferred alternative. The legislature mandated
implementation of the MSP 2010 LTCP, a phase of the MSP 2020 Concept Plan (see Appendix A.14).
Proposed Action and Scope of Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS1
The proposed action is implementation of the MSP 2010 �TCP. It includes development of a new
�� '�� 8,000-foot runway and related airfield and roadway modifications. This plan is recommended by the
`__..% Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and MAC for federal environmental approval in this FEIS, and
state determination of adequacy of this FEIS. As required by the 1989 Dual Track legislation, the
2020 Goncept Plan is also evaluated in the FEIS. The 30-year planning horizon used to develop the
2020 Concept Plan is well beyond the normal 10-to-15-year planning horizon required by FAA in
project develo�ment. The 2020 Concept Plan is evaluated to the extent possible in order to disclose
the potential long-term effects of the development of a new passenger terminal and related airfield
and roadway facilities. Implementation of the new terminal and related airfield and roadway facilities
will require approval by the Minnesota legislature and further environmental review and approval by
MAC, FAA and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).
The FEIS contains the evaluation of the impacts on the environment of the MSP 2020 Concept Plan,
the MSP 2010 LTCP and a no-action alternative. These alternatives have been studied by MAC, MC
and FAA. Other development alternatives that have been considered, including a new replacement
airport, are also described. The FEIS also contains comments on the Draft EIS and their responses,
and the committed measures that will be implemented to mitigate adverse effects of the proposed
action.
A Section 4(fJ Evaluation document was prepared by FAA and made available for comment on May 1,
1998. A summary of the document is presented in Section V.0 of this FEIS.
The Purpose of the Document
The purpose of this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and referenced documents is to
disclose the environmental impacts of the proposed action and connected projects, provide measures
to mitigate potential adverse effects, and serve as a decision-making tool in evaluating implementation
of the proposed action. Also, the FEIS is to provide interested agencies and the public with the
! 1 information they need to participate in the state and federal review of the proposed action.
Dual Track Final EIS
i
The FEIS discloses the effects of the MSP 2010 LTCP and the known effects of the MSP 2020 \..
Concept Plan. The proposed new highway access in the MSP 2020 Concept Plan, noted above, is a
feasible concept, but would require additional study and coordination by MAC and FAA with the
Metropolitan Council, the Minnesota Department of Transportation and FHWA.
This FEIS is both a state and federai document; it was prepared in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Minnesota Environmental Review Program, and all portions
apply to each unless stated otherwise in the text.
Purpose and Need for the Project
The broad purpose of the Minnesota Dual Track Airport Planning Process is to provide for the efficient
and economical movement of people and goods between the Twin Cities region and USA and
international markets, and help promote the orderly growth and economic development of the region.
The process and resulting actions must satisfy the air transportation needs of the region to the year
2010, and have a concept plan that could satisfy the air transportation needs of the region to the year
2020. The main purpose of the federal action-2010 LTCP is to improve airfield and airspace capacity
and thereby provide increased levels of service for air transportation users in the Twin Cities region.
During the mid-1980s, an Airport Adequacy Study prepared by the Metropolitan Council indicated
that, because of physical and environmental constraints, MSP may not be capable of expanding to the
degree necessary to meet the region's long-term air transportation needs. MAC subsequently
prepared forecasts of activity, developed the long-term comprehensive plan {LTCP) for MSP and
utilized the FAA SIMMOD Model and manual techniques from the FAA Airport Capacity and Delay
Manual to perform detaited anaiyses o€ capacity and delay. The proposed addition of new Runway
17-35 was analyzed independently by MAC and a FAA Airport Capacity Design Team, consisting of
FAA, the airport operator, and aviation industry groups, and reported in the FAA's Capacity �` '
Enhancement Plan for MSP completed in December 1993.
Based on these studies and analyses, MAC and FAA have independently concluded that without
substantial airfield, terminal, and access improvements, future growth in aviation activity at MSP will
result in a significantly decreased level of service and increased user costs.
Peak-hour demand will outstrip capacity of the runway/taxiway system without major improvements.
Airfield simulations using SIMMOD show that if no improvements are made by 2020, or by 2010 if
recent growth rates continue, peak-hour departure queues for the south parallel runway could reach
more than 25 aircraft. That would result in excessive delays and aircraft blocking access to the
terminal, producing gridlock. Peak-hour (6:00-7:00 p.m.) delays by the year 2020, or 2010 under
recent gro�nrth rates, are estimated to average 15 minutes per aircraft du�ing instrument conditions,
with the highest delays in excess of one hour. At the levels cited by the Airport Capacity Design
Team, ranging from 530,000 to 600,000 annual operations, these savings would range from 21,000
to 44,000 hours per year -- which results in a$30 million to S63 million benefit per year.
This projected increase in delays, decline in service and resulting increase in user costs threatens
MSP's ability to provide good-quality air service and economic benefits to the region as a major
connecting hub. MSP's role as a connecting hub is integral to the air service the airport provides the
region. Further, MSP — the 14th busiest airport in the nation in 1995 for passenger enplanements —
is a major link in the nation's airspace structure.
In addition to airport improvements, the 2010 and 2020 regional highway improvements identified in
Section III would also be needed to provide adequate access to the airport. The impacts of these
potential improvements are also addressed in this FEIS. `�
Dual Track Final EIS
ii
4 �
Alternatives Considered to Meet Project Purpose and Need
When considering how to meet forecast demand for 2010 and 2020, a number of aiternatives were
analyzed. The following is a summary of the alternatives that have been considered:
• No Action
• MSP Expansion
• New Airport
• High-Speed Intercity Rail (between Twin Cities and Chicago)
• Remote Runway
• Supplemental Airport (use of MSP combined with other existing airports)
Below is a brief description of the atternatives analyzed in this FEIS. The location of the MSP
Expansion alternative is shown on Figure ES-1, which is attached to the Executive Summary.
MSP Expansion— MSP Expansion consists of the MSP 2010 �TCP and the MSP 2020 Concept Plan. A
new 8,000-foot north-south runway would be added to the current three-runway airfield as part of the
2010 LTCP. Also included in the 2010 �TCP are dedicated deicing pads at runway ends, enhanced
storm water detention basins, improvements to the Trunk Highway 77/66th Street interchange and
relocation of the airport frontage road on the west and south sides of the airport. See Figure ES-3 for
a schematic rendering and Figure 8 in Appendix J for a more detailed depiction of the 2010 LTCP.
In addition to :the new 8,000-foot north-south runway and related facilities of the 2010 LTCP, the
2020 Concept Plan includes a new replacement terminal building on the west side of the airport with
a connection to gates on the east side via an underground people mover. Other improvements include
new highway access from Trunk Highways 62 and 77 to the new west side entrance to the terminal,
and a parking/drop-off facility on the east side of the airport. See Figure ES-2 and Figure 6(Appendix
J).
� No Action -- This alternative consists of maintaining the existing airport facilities at MSP and the
implementation of those committed projects with funding approved by the MAC in its current 1995-
1998 Capital Improvement Program. See Figure ES-4 and Figure 2(Appendix J). It also includes
increased use of the runway use system (RUS) that would redistribute aircraft operations and the
related noise, by making greater use of Runway 4-22.
Alternatives that were eliminated from further analysis in the FEIS and the reasons for elimination are
listed below.
New Airport -- A new replacement airport was considered on a site of 14,100 acres east of Vermillion
and south of Hastings in Dakota County, as shown on Figure ES-1. The airfield would consist of six
runways: four parallel runways and two crosswind runways (see Figure ES-5). Main highway access
would be from the north by a new eight-lane freeway to a centrally-located terminal. The following
major 2020 impacts of this alternative were presented in the DEIS:
• Average travel time to the terminal would be 20 minutes longer than to MSP
• Over 5511 million in needed off-airport highway improvements, compared to about $200 million
for the MSP Alternative
• Over 17,000 acres of farmland would be acquired due to site development, highway construction,
power line relocation and induced development
• Over 6,800 acres of wildlife habitat would be lost, compared to 360 acres for the MSP Alternative
• The development cost would be over 52.2 billion more than the MSP Alternative
• The new airport would entail greater financial risk than MSP 2020 Concept Plan for adjusting to
changing demand, since most of the construction and land acquisition would have to occur in the
early phases and development of MSP could be accomplished incrementally as needed.
Dual Track Final EIS
iii
Remote Runway -- Under this concept, terminal ticketing, baggage and support facilities would remain
at MSP while new runways and gates would be constructed at a site in Dakota County, about 15-25
miles awayo The two sites would be linked by rail transit. A 1995 MAC study of this concept
showed:
There would be significant operationai inefficiencies. Nowhere in the world does an airport have
split landside/airside operations over 15 miles apart; that is because the staffing requirements
would make air service for this type of configuration prohibitively expensive;
A two-terminal system would inevitably evolve, with the public demanding ticketing, baggage and
parking facilities at both sites, which would ultimately result in a full-service airport at the remote
site. It would be very difficult to force passengers to take an intermediate form of transportation,
such as a train. Local passengers want to be picked up or have a car available for immediate
transport to their final destination, rather than having their trip prolonged by intermediate mode
changes. In addition, certain basic amenities must be provided to passengers as they embark
from airplanes. These amenities, such as food and rest facilities, require a passenger terminal, as
would the required queuing and seating areas for transferring to a train;
Costs would be slightly higher than the new airport alternative; and
There would be adverse environmental impacts, including the need for a one-mile bridge over the
environmentally-sensitive Minnesota River valley.
The following alternatives do not satisfy the purpose and need for the project:
High Speed Intercity Rail �
connecting Minneapolis and
service so that in 2010 and
needed. A 1991 Mn/DOT
showed:
� This alternative would include the construction of high-speed rail
Chicago to divert passengers and operations from air service to rail
2020 an additional runway and terminal facilities at MSP would not be
study of the implications of high-speed rail alternatives on air traffic
• High-speed rail service would not divert enough passengers and operations by 2010 and 2020 to
preclude the need for additional runway and terminal facilities at MSP.
Supplemental Airport Concept -- Under this concept, a component of MSP operations (general
aviation, military, regional, cargo, international, and/or flights to major markets) would be diverted to
another existing state airport. The intention would be to accommodate the remaining 2020 demand
without having to develop new terminal and runway facilities at MSP. A 1993 MAC study evaluated
the transfer of various aviation demand components from MSP to Rochester Municipal Airport (MSP
Third Option Scenarios). A 1995 study by Mn/DOT on the use of supplemental airports aiso
addressed the feasibility of supplemental airports. A summary of findings follows:
Diverting military operations, cargo activity, international operations or general aviation would not
delay the need for new runway and terminal facilities at MSP.
If regional air carrier traffic were transferred even to the nearest airport -- St. Paul Downtown
Airport -- it would force nearly 6,500 regional air carrier passengers a day to travel across town to
make their connecting flights at MSP, making MSP a very unattractive connecting hub for regional
service. It would be extremely difficult legally to force air carriers to relocate regional service to
another airport, and St. Paul Downtown has site constraints that preclude extensive development
of this type.
As with regional carrier service, transferring service to majo� markets such as Chicago to another
state airport would force the passengers making connecting flights to travel long distances to
MSP. In addition, originating and destination passengers would have long driving distances. Once
again, it would be extremely difficult legally to force airlines to relocate service to major markets
to another airport. Neither the MAC nor the FAA have the legal authority to dictate to airlines the
level and location of service that they can provide.
Dual Track Final EIS
iv
e.
Preferred Alternative/Proposed Action
) The expansion of MSP is the preferred alternative, as determined by MAC, MC and the Minnesota
legislature (as discussed above). The preferred alternative consists of the 2010 �TCP and the 2020
Concept Plan . The preferred alternative of the FAA in the FEIS is the implementation of the 2010
LTCP — which is the proposed action. In making this determination, FAA evaluated the
environmental consequences of the 2010 LTCP with its economic and technical aspects, as required
by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The proposed action includes the following
elements:
• new north-south runway (Runway 17/35) 8000 feet in length with associated taxiways
and holding/deicing pad at the north end
• new holding/deicing pads for Runways 12R, 30L and 30R
• enhanced storm water detention basins
• expansion of Red, Gold and Green Concourses
• new Green Concourse people mover
• new skyway connector between Gold and Green Concourses
• realignment and widening of airport frontage road between 66th Street and 34th Avenue
South
o reconstruction of TH 77/66th Street interchange
• relocation/construction of maintenance, aircraft hangar and air cargo facilities
• new apron pavement
• implementation of necessary air traffic control procedures
• installation of necessary navigational and lighting aids
Implementation of the proposed action may require modifications by FAA of the affected airspace; it
also requires the approval by FAA of the Airport Layout Plan (ALP) and the use of federal airport-
% � development funds and Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) revenues.
�
Additional projects in the preferred alternative but outside of the 2010 proposed action include a
replacement terminal on the west side of the airport, supporting highway improvements, and
additional cargo and maintenance hangar development. Development beyond 2010 is subject to
further environmental assessment and separate FAA and FHWA approvals. -
The preferred alternative is also the environmentally-preferred alternative because it satisfies the
project purpose and need with less significant adverse effects to the environment, when considering
the committed mitigation, than the No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative will have less
impact on air quality, surface water quality and energy consumption and a more beneficial impact on
the economy than the No Action Alternative. Also, the No Action Alternative would not satisfy the
purpose and need for the project (accommodate the air transportation needs to the year 2010 and
have a plan for accommodating 2020 needs). See Section III.D for more detailed discussion. ,
Environmental Evaluation
The Alternative Environmental Review Process, approved in March 1992 by the Minnesota
Environmental Quality Board for the Dual Track Airport Planning Process, requires the assessment of
environmental impacts of the alternatives to the year 2020. The alternatives were examined for
impacts in the identified environmental categories. Those categories are:
Air quality, archaeological resources, biotic communities, bird-aircraft hazards, construction impacts,
coastal barriers, coastal zone management program, endangered and threatened species, economic,
energy supply and natural resources, farmland, floodplains, historic/architectural resources, induced
socioeconomic impacts, land use, light emissions, noise, parks and recreation, environmental justice,
social, Section 4ff), solid waste impacts, transportation access, major utilities, visual impacts,
; I
Dual Track Final EIS
v
wastewater, water supply, surface water quality, groundwater quality, wetlands, wild and scenic
rivers, and wildlife refuges.
Below is a summary highlighting some of the major findings. A matrix summarizing impacts of the
alternatives follows on pages xi to xiii. More detail on the impacts of the alternatives is found in
Section V of the FEIS.
• Natural Environment -- Impacts of the MSP 2010 LTCP and 2020 Concept Plan and the No Action
Alternative on the natural environment are not significant (endangered and threatened species,
archaeological resources, biotic communities, floodplains, parks, recreation areas other than
wildlife refuges, and wild and scenic riversl.
• Economic -- The development cost to implement the MSP 2010 LTCP is 5803 million and the MSP
2020 Concept Plan is 53.15 billion in 1995 dollars. The 2010 LTCP would involve land
acquisition and removal of some off-airport commercial buildings, construction of a new north-
south runway, relocation on airport property of airport facilities to accommodate the new runway,
and minor road improvements. In addition to the 2010 improvements, the 2020 Concept Plan
would involve the construction of a new west terminal and major roadway improvements. The
2010 LTCP would contribute approximately 9,600 jobs and $0.90 billion to the regional economy
during construction, and the 2020 Concept Plan would contribute approximately 32,540 jobs and
53.06 billion. The capital cost of the No Action Alternative is $255 million for committed projects
in the MAC 1995-1998 Capital Improvement Programs.
• Land Use — Existing and planned land uses in the state safety zones south of the proposed new
north-south runway in the city of Bloomington are not consistent with current Mn/DOT airport
zoning standards and the Metropolitan Council's Compatibility Guidelines for noise. Appropriate
zoning regulations would be established for the affected areas, subject to Mn/DOT approval. The
city of Bloomington would amend its comprehensive plan and zoning regulations to conform with
the new regulations and Compatibility Guidelines. Minnesota law requires city comprehensive
plans to 6e consistent with the Metropolitan Council's Metropolitan Airports System plan, and
zoning regulations be consistent with the comprehensive plan and Mn/DOT safety rules. (,
• Noise -- In terms of noise levels of DNL 65 or greater: expanding MSP would expose 7,650 -
persons to these levels in the worst-case year (2005), compared to 7,350 for no action., In 1994,
there were approximately 33,750 persons in the DNL 65 contour for MSP. The lower number of
persons impacted by MSP in the future is attributable to the continued introduction of quieter
aircraft. Any adverse effects of aircraft noise cannot be avoided through planning and design.
• Social -- MSP 2010 �TCP would displace 166 households and 73 businesses with over 2,891
employees. The MSP 2020 Concept Plan would displace 25$ households and 82 businesses
with over 2,896 employees. The No Action Alternative would not displace any businesses or
employees; 76 households would be acquired as part of the Runway 4/22 noise mitigation
program. These impacts are unavoidable.
• Historic -- The 2010 LTCP would demolish portions of the Original Wold-Chamberlain Terminal
Historic District which is on the National Register of Historic Places. MSP 2020 Concept Plan
would demolish the entire district. These impacts are unavoidable. The No Action Alternative
would have no impacts.
• Water Quality -- MSP 2010 woutd discharge 7,900 Ibs. of CBOD6 to the Minnesota River from
deicing, compared to 9,200 Ibs. for the No Action Alternative in 2010. The LTCP 2020 Concept
Plan would discharge 8,200 Ibs. compared to 9,200 Ibs. for the No Action Alternative in 2020.
• Wildlife Refuge -- The Bass Ponds environmental education area in the Minnesota Valley National
Wildlife Refuge would be subjected to a DN� 71 dBA noise level by the MSP 2010 �TCP and
2020 Concept Plan in 2005 (the worst-case year), compared to DNL 45 for the No Action
Alternative. The increased noise level would impair the ability of the Bass Ponds area to support
environmental education and related wildlife recreation activities (birding, hiking, biking, hunting,
canoeing, skiing) by the public. About 1,083 publicly-owned acres would be impaired. This
adverse effect due to aircraft noise cannot be avoided through planning and design.
• Wetlands -- 32.96 acres of wetland would be filled by the MSP 2010 LTCP and 35 acres by the �"
2020 Concept Plan. This impact is unavoidable.
Dual Track Final EIS
vi
Mitigation --
The foliowing mitigation measures will be implemented if the proposed action (MSP 2010 LTCP) is
implemented:
Noise – MAC approved the following noise mitigation program on October 28, 1996. The
program contains measures that may or may not be eligible for funding based on FAA policy or
criteria, as stated in Appendix B.
Insulation
• the residential sound insulation program (SIP) for the area encompassed by the 1996 DNL
65 contour be completed on the currently approved schedule (Note: the current program is
scheduled for completion in the year 2002)
• the SIP be expanded after completion of the current program to incorporate the area
encompassed by the 2005 DNL 60-65 contour
• the 2005 DNL 60 contour be based on the most accurate projection of traffic levels and
use of appropriate ANOMS data
• MAC and affected communities seek approval from FAA to develop neighborhood and
"natural boundaries" that reflect current conditions at the outer edge of the expanded
contour to the maximum extent possible
• insulation o� dwellings/buildings in the expanded SIP should be performed in the following
order of priority:
1. single family homes after completion of the 1996 DNL 65 SIP on the approved
current schedule
2. multifamily dwellings, nursing homes, and churches with regular weekday
daycare/nursery school types of operations — in accordance with a schedule
agreed upon by MAC and each affected city
• the program be funded by a combination of Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) revenues,
airline fees, internally generated funds and federal aid; to the extent that MAC cannot
fund this expanded program in a reasonable period of time, support from the state of
Minnesota will be sought; however, in no case should unreimbursed financial impacts fall
on affected residents or their local governments
• MAC commit to funding its community-based noise abaternent program on an accelerated
basis beyond its current level of 525.5 million annually
• MAC should develop noise impact models which reflect the impact of ground level noise
on residential properties; mitigation for low frequency noise should be developed after
consultation with independent noise mitigation experts
• completion of the program is contingent upon MAC maintaining a bond rating of at least A
• Subsequent to adoption of the Noise Mitigation Program, MAC has agreed to acquire 27
homes and 131 multifamily units in Bloomington
Communitv Stabilization
• The Metropolitan Airports Commission should participate with affected communities to
identify and quantify any impacts the airport may have on declining property values
and/or other negative consequences on neighborhoods near the airport. To the extent
that negative consequences can be quantified, a Working Group should prepare
recommendations to MAC for consideration by the Minnesota Legislature. Community
stabilization measures considered should include, but not be limited to, the measures
described in the Metropolitan Council-MAC Community Protection Report. The measures
include purchase and property value guarantees and housing replacement to complement
the tax credit and revitalization area legislation adopted in 1996.
A Working Group should be convened including representatives from MAC, Met Council,
• Northwest Airlines, affected communities and legislative staff. The Working Group
,
should identify a program design, funding options, administrative responsibilities and
Dual Track Final EIS
vii
eligibility area. The final legislative recommendation should be presented to MAC and
other interested parties for endorsement and inclusion in 1997 legislative programs. {�
In addition to the preceding mitigation, MAC is committed to perform the following study:
Airport Operations
The following be incorporated and evaluated in a Part 150 update:
• Take action, as required by the 1996 Legislature, to prohibit use of Stage 2 aircraft after
December 31, 1999.
• Modify the night hours to 10:30 p.m. - 6:00 a.m. and limit activity during these hours to
Stage 3 aircraft.
• Develop a departure procedure for Runway 22 to direct aircraft over areas of commercial
development and the Minnesota River Valley.
• Seek cooperation from FAA to implement departure procedures as appropriate at each
runway end.
m Evaluate departure procedures in the Eagan-Mendota Heights corridor.
• Work within the aviation industry to encourage further reductions in aircraft noise levels.
• Negotiate the Stage 2 prohibition, noise abatement procedures, and expansion of night
hours, incorporating appropriate penalties for non-compliance.
• The MAC noise monitoring system monitors will be increased in number to provide more
coverage of actual impacts in the airport vicinity, in particular, areas affected by the north-
south runway. Areas affected by the parallel runways, may have additional microphone
locations to monitor continued and growing volumes of air traffic as the airport expands.
This system should be used to corroborate the accuracy of the modeled contours for noise
program eligibility. �
Furthermore, on October 28, 1996 MAC also adopted the following mitigation, which is associated
with the proposed action: �,
Runwav Use
• Completion of the environmental process and construction of the North-South Runway
should be expedited and cornpleted as soon as possible. Progress should be measured
against this schedule:
a) commence construction —1998
b) complete const�uction, open runway — 2003
• In the interim, Runway 4/22 should be used for noise mitigation purposes. This requires
the following:
a) Const�uction of associated taxiways;
b) Mitigation program at the southwest end of Runway 4-22 in the cities of
Bloomington and Richfield as required in the Final Record of Decision (March 28,
1995). The acquisition portion of the mitigation will be initiated as soon as
contracts for the associated taxiways are let and should be completed within a
period of two years. Funds for the acquisition program will be in addition to those
designated for the residential insulation program, consistent with the existing
acquisition p�ogram. �The insulation portion of the mitigation will be integrated
with the current MAC program, starting as soon as contracts for construction of
the associated taxiways are let, or the RUS is implemented, whichever occurs
first. The insulation program will be implemented at the rate of at least 20% of
the total homes as defined in the Runway 4-22 mitigation program in each year
until all of the single family and multiple family units within the 1996 DNI. 65
_._
contour are insulated. To the extent practical, MAC will identify funding and
program administration options to minimize delay in completion of the current
insulation program. f'
l
Dual Track Final EIS
viii
c) If the North-South Runway is completed before insulation of all eligible homes is
completed, the insulation program for the area impacted by aircraft using Runway
4-22 may be te�minated.
Completion of this program is contingent on MAC maintaining a bond rating of at least A.
Archaeology and Historical/Architectural
• appropriate documentation and recordation of the Original Wold-Chamberlain Terminal
Historic District; items selected for removal be removed in a manner that minimizes
damage.
• develop and implement a treatment program for the Spruce Shadows Farm Historic
District
• archaeological data be excavated in accordance with the data recovery plan approved by
the State Historic Preservation Officer.
Surface Water Quality
• MAC will consult with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency in the NPDES permitting
process and will implement the required storm water control measures for the MSP 2010
LTCP specified in the NPDES permit.
Wetlands
• Approximately 58.92 acres of replacement wetland will be provided. MAC is committed
to providing the mitigation specified in the permits regulated by the U.S. Corps of
Engineers (Section 404 of the Clean Water Act permit), the Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources (Protected Waters Permit) and the MAC (Wetland Conservation Act
permit).
j `i Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge (MVNWR)
� ' o Mitigation will consist of compensation to the US Department of the Interior by MAC. The
amount and conditions of payment are currently being negotiated. This is an ongoing
process and the agreed upon mitigation will be reported in the FAA Record of Decision.
; 'i
Unresolved Issues
The proposed Runway 17-35, when operational, could create low frequency noise and vibration at
levels that could cause annoyance by residents in the eastern part of the city of Richfield. There are
no standards or criteria for determining potential effects of low frequency noise and vibration on
annoyance, and therefore no basis for determining what type of mitigation would be appropriate.
MAC is committed to study this issue further, and work with Richfield and FAA to develop and
implement a plan to address any adverse impacts that are identified.
Details of the MVNWR mitigation plan are unresolved. These are discussed in the project's Section
4(f) Evaluation, a separate document that includes more information about the FAA's determinations
concerning the refuge.
Aviation Forecast Sensitivity Analysis
A sensitivity analysis was performed to disclose the environmental impacts of the proposed action
(MSP 2010 LTCP� that would occur from a forecast of operations and enplanements greater than the
forecasts used in the DEIS that was prepared in 1995. The need for this analysis was based on the
following:
s the 1997 FAA 2010 forecast for MSP is significantly higher than the (1993) MAC forecast
used in the DEIS (658,900 versus 499,900 operations; 22,879,600 versus 15,030,000
enplanements)
• traffic levels at MSP have been growing at rates greater than the DEIS forecast (e.g.,
1996 actual operations exceed the DEIS forecast for the yea� 2005)
Dual Track Final EIS
ix
The sensitivity analysis used the MAC High Forecast because it is representative of the 1997 FAA
Terminai Area Forecast (TAF) and it has a forecast for 2020 whereas the FAA TAF only goes to 2010, t�
as shown below.
DEIS Forecast MAC Hi h Forecast FAA Forecast
Year : Enplanements : Operations : Enplanements : Operations : Enplanements € Operations
1996 14,386,000 485,400
(Actual) . .. . . .. . . . .... ....
.. ..:... ................................ ..:.. ......................... ..:... ................................ ..:.. ......................... ..:... ...................................;... ......................... ..
2000 : 12,704,000 : 473,000 : 16,714,000 i 550,200 : 16,096,100 € 533,900
2005 : 13,895,000 : 484,800 € 18,810,000 : 575,000 : 19,487,900 : 596,500
2010 : 15,030,000 ; 499,900 ; 20,828,000 ; 603,800 ; 22,879,600 : 658,900
2020 : 16.681,000 € 520,400 � 23,774,000 ; 640,200 ; Not Available ; Not Available
Comparing the MAC High Forecast with the DEIS Forecast for 2010, no threshold of environmentai
significance was exceeded. It is therefore concluded that the analyses of environmentai impacts in the FEIS
are reasonably consistent with the environmentai impacts presented in the DEIS.
Public involvement
On April 2, 1992 the FAA and MAC announced their intent to prepare an environmental impact
statement and initiated scoping by publishing a Notice of Intent in the April 2, 1992 Federal Register
(57 FR 11344). MAC and FAA are jointly preparing this EIS, as MAC must comply with the
Minnesota Environmental Review Program, Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4410 - 4410.7900, and FAA
must comply with applicable federal law and regulations. The following scoping meetings were held �
with the general public and with federal, state, and local agencies:
• Three joint public meetings were held on the First Phase Scoping Report, which described the
EIS/Dual Track Airport Planning Process and issues/impacts to be addressed. On April 21, 1992,
an informal meeting was held at the offices of the Metropolitan Airports Commission; 23 people �''
attended and 14 spoke. On April 21, 1992 a meeting for the general public was held at Ramsey �
Junior High School in the city of Minneapolis; approximately 25 people attended and 4 spoke. On
Aril 22, 1992 a meeting was held at the Rosemount High School in the city of Rosemount;
approximately 150 people attended and 12 spoke.
• Three joint public scoping meetings were held on the Second Phase Scoping Report. On June 26,
1995, a scoping hearing was held at the offices of the Metropolitan Airports Commission;
approximately 20 people attended and 14 spoke. On June 27, 1995, a scoping hearing was held
at Hastings Middle School, in the city of Hastings; approximately 86 people attended and 19
spoke. A scoping meeting for agency representatives was also held on June 27, 1995, at the
offices of the Metropolitan Airports Commission; approximately 23 people attended and 6 spoke.
Implementation Schedule
Construction of the new north-south runway, planned maintenance, hangar, air cargo and roadway
facilities for the proposed action (2010 LTCP) would commence in 1998 after completion of the
environmental review process, and could be completed in 2003. Additional expansion of
maintenance, hangar and air cargo facilities could occur beyond 2003 if conditions so warrant.
_ _ _ _ _ _ �,
Dual Track Final EIS
x
'i
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
ALTERNATIVE
CRITERION MSP NO ACTION
2020 2010 2010 2020
Air Quality
....:.......................................................................................... ........................ ......... .... ........ ........ .... .. . . . .......
.. ._.. .. .. .._.. .. .. . . ..
... ....... ............... .:
1. Number of receptor sites near critical off-airport 0 0 0 0
roadway intersections over air quality
; standards. � � � : .,, ,,.,,,,
................................................................................................................................... :............................. :............................:....................................
....... ...
2. Number of receptor sites on airport perimeter 0 0 0 0
's over air quality standards. : : . .. .
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... .. ........ ......
.3. . Total on-airport CO,emissions (tons). : 5,060 : 4,638 : 5,617 � 5,617
. ........., ............................. ......................................................,..............................,............................,............................;...........................
4. ; Total off-airport access traffic CO emissions 10,200 : 10,500 : 10,500 ; 10,500
... (tons). ........ ........ ...... ..... ............................... ....... ...... ...... ..... ...... .... ..... ....
..5 . ...�.. . .. . ......p ........... ............ ...... ...' . ..: .. .. ....... .. ..... .. .... .. . ......
. ......
. Total air ort SOx emissions (tons :' 170 : 161 168 168
.....:..........................................................................................:...............................................................................................h...........................: ...........................
Archaeolo�ical Resources
. ................ .................................................................................................. .......
.................................................................................. ..
6. Number of known archaeological sites 0 0 0 0
potentially eligible for the National Register that
: could be disturbed. : :
.............:. .................................................................................................................:............................._............................�...........................:...........................I
Biotic Communities
........................................................................................................................................................................................................... .... ........ ....... ... .......
7; : Number of acres of wildlife habitat displaced. € 360 � 318 � 0 '• 0 �
.... .................................................................................................................................................... :............................h........................... ;...........................
Bird-Aircraft Hazards
.............................................................................................................................................................. ......................................................................................
8. Number of monthly aircraft operations less than 4,940 4,745 2,910 2,910
: 500 feet over areas where birds congre�ate. `• _ � �
.............a................................................................................................ .............................................................................................................,...........................
Economic
..............................:................................................................................................................................................................... . .. ... .......... .. ..... .............
. .. . . .. ...... ..
.9. � Total �obs on airport: .....................................: 16,601 ; 16,041 ; 16,041 ; 16,071
. .................................................. ................................................................................ .. .. .......
... .. .. . ..
10. Total annual direct and indirect wages S 1.05 $1.02 $1.02 S 1.02
;�enerated by airport jobs: ...................: billion � billion : billion � billion
............... ............... . � ...........................�..................................... ......�...........................
11. Impact of const�uction
Jobs 36,400 9,600 3,100 3,100
Wages(billions) $1.71 50.45 50.14 $0.14
; Economic Output(billions? : $3.42 '• 50.90 � $0.29 � $0.29
............. F......................................................................................................................,..............................;............................;............................;...........................
12. Estimated cost of alternative. $3,151 $803 $255 5255
: '• million : million : million million
.............c..................................................................................................................... c........................................................................................,...........................
13. Percentage of tax capacity lost by affected 8.14% 6.09% 0 0
� .municipalities/townships. (Totaq
............._. .... .................... .... ......................................................................_............................._............................_............................_...........................
Endan�ered, and Threatened Species
................. ..... ................................................................._.......... .... ........ .......
.. .. .................................................
14. � Number of species on federal list of endangered •' 0 0 0 0
and threatened species that would be
.............�..leopardized: : € : � ........ ...-•--
.......................................................................................;............................. ;..
..........................:............................... ....... ...
15. Number of threatened or special concern 1 1 0 0
species in Minnesota that would be disturbed. (forster's (forster's
; '• : : :
. • : .
.............�.....................................................................................................................i......... tern)........i.........tern.........�...........................:...........................
. Ener�y Supply and Natural Resources
..................................................................................................._.... ....
.....................................................:....
16. Consumption of aircraft and vehicle fuel 160 155 161 161
: (millions of �allons.per year). : : ,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
............... .......................... ..............................................................�......................................................................................... . .. ...
Farmland
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
17. Acres of farmland that would be lost. 0 0 0 0
Dual Track Final EIS
xi
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
ALTERNATIVE
CRITERION MSP NO ACTION
2020 2010 2010 2020
................................................................................................................................t.............................a............................�........................... i...........................
Floodplains �
....................................................................................................... ,.................................................................................................................................................
18. Is there a potential to significantly increase No No No No
existing flood flow elevations in adjacent
rivers?
.............'_.....................................................................................................................�..........................---_............................:............................ :...........................)
Historic/Architectural Resources
.......... ....................................................................................................................._............................._............................_........................................................
19. Number of historic/architectural properties/ : 1 1 0 0
districts on or eligible for National Register that
: would be demolished. : 's : :
................................................................................................................................... :....................................................................................................................
20. Number of individual properties and historic
districts on or eligible for the National Fiegister
or National Historic Landmarks that:
would be incompatible with aircraft noise 3 3 2 2
: could be adversely. effected b� aircraft .noise ; 1 1 0 0
........... ..... .... ..... ...................... ..............�............. .............:............ :
.. . ......................... ............)
Induced Socioeconomic
................................................................ ...................................................................:....................................................................................................................
21. 's Office development induced (1000 sq.ft.). � 420 ; <420 's <420 <420
................................................................................................................................................................................................,............................,.. ..... .. ...........
22. : Industrial development induced (1000 sq.ft.). 's 1,050 � <1,050 � <1,050 '• <1,050
.............4...........................................�.......... �.............................................................F..............................�............................ {............................�...........................
23. ' Number of emplo.ees induced. ; 3,900 ;<3,900 <3,900 ,<3,900
. .......... ................ .... ........ ............................................... ......................... :..... . ...: .... .
...
�and Use
...................................................................................................................... ......... .......... ... ......... ......... .. ......... ........ .... ........ ....... ... .......
.. ...... . .. ......
24. `•. Number of municipalities required to make land : 1 : 1 0 0
: use chan�es in. comprehensive plan. : ;
.............:. ................ ............................................>............................._............................:............................ �...........................
Noise
.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................---.........
25. � Number of persons residing in the year 2005 : 7,650 7,350
: DNL 65+ noise contours ........................................................�...........................................................<........................................................
. ............ � ...............................................................
26. '•• Number of persons residing in the year 2005 ; 22,030 27,690
: DNL 60-66 noise contour. '• �
............. F...................................................................................................................... �........................................................... � ........................................................
27. ; Number of persons residing in the year 2005 ; 121,000 106,000
� L�465.noise contour. € : '
.................................................................................... .......
.................................... _....
28. : Number of noise-sensitive land uses with noise � 2 's 2 2 2
: . . ..;...
:
. greater than FAA Guidelines. . . . ,
.............:.. ................................................................................................................�..............................:............................:............................._...........-•-•---.........
. Section 4(f) �
.......... ....................................................................................................................._..........................................................._........................................................
29. Number of Section 4(f) park and recreation 0 0 0 0
's lands displaced. `: :
.............:. ...................................................................................................................:.............................:............................:............................:...........................
30. Number of Section 4(f) park and recreation 0 0 0 0
: lands adversely. impacted by noise. '• ' '
...F.. ... ....... . .... ....................... ............................%............................i.. .........................,........................
.......... ...... ...... ... ............... ....... ......y..
31. ; Number of Section 4(f) wildlife refuge acres of :
: environmental education and wildlife recreation : 1,083 0
: activity adversely affected by noise and subject ;
: to constructive use. : '
..................................................................................................................................._..........................................................._........................................................
Social
..................................................................................................................................._........................................................................................;....... ........ ...
32. ; Number of residents that could be displaced. ; 609 � 383 � 156 '• 156
.................................................................................................................................................................. :............................:........................................................
.33. ; Number of households that could be displaced. : 258 � 166 � 76 � 76
.......... ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
34. Estimated number of businesses and employees
: that could be displaced :...........................................................:. ; _ __
.............:............................................ .............................:............................:........................... :...........................
; Businesses : 82 : 73 : 0 : 0
.............................................................................................................. ..................................;............................,........................................................
Emplo ees 2,896 2,891 0 0
Dual Track Final EIS
xii
�
�
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
ALTERNATIVE
CRITERION MSP NO ACTION
2020 2010 2010 2020
............................................................................................................................... i............................. :............................;,........................... ;...........................
Environmental Justice
... ...................... ............ ............... ............. ........... ....... ......... ...... ......... ..... ........ ..... ........ ..�
.................... ....... ...... ...:.. p ....... ....... ...... ......... ...... ...... ...... ......
... ..:... ... .. .
35. � Is there an adverse im act from noise or ` No No No No
: relocation to low income households? : � � �
.............F......................................................................................................................�..............................�............................ j............................i...........................
36. :' Is there an adverse impact from noise or ; No No No No
: relocation to minority households? : ;
................................................................ . .... ........................................................................ .........................................................,...........................
Surface Water Quality
.........� .................................................................................................... .
................., ..............................,............................,
37. : Estimated meximum daily CBODS discharge ; 8,200 : 7,900 9,200 9,200
....... from.deicing..�Ibs:� ..............................................................................................................................................................................................I
--...... . ... •
Groundwater
....................................................................................................................................,........................................................................................,...........................
38. : Sensitivity of affected significant aquifer ; �ow to Low to ; Low to : Low to
(Prairie du Chien/Jordan) to potential Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate
: contamination :.................................................................................�.............................:. �
.............:. ............................ • .................................. ................ .... ................
...... .. ...
39. ; Potentiai for impacts to downgradient : Low Low Low Low
� �roundwater receptors :
............ ................................................................................................................... �............................:........................... ;...........................
Transportation Access � �
........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
40. Average travel time to terminal for Metro Area
: residents (minutes): ` � '• �
............. F......................................................................................................................,..............................,............................; ............................;...........................
; off-peak hours : 22 : 24 ; 24 � 24
....................................................................................................................................: ..............................: ............................, ........................................................
° PM eak hour � 26 � 28 �
' 28 : 27
:
.
.............:............................................................................................ .........................,...........................................................:........................................................
41. Percentage of Metro Area population within 30-
: minute travel time to main terminal :................................ti.............................:...... ......z............................i...........................
.............:......................................................................... ................
: off-peak hours ; 80.2 � 73.2 ; 73.2 ` 76.6
.............:...............................................................................................................................................................................................................,...........................
: PM peak. hour �. 67:4 .: 58.7 � �
'• 58.7
.......................................................................................................... . ........................ ...................... ......................
... ...... ... ..
42. Percentage of Metro Area population within 45-
: minute travel time to main terminai:
.............:. ............---.............................................................................................:............................. :...... ............ .... .... ........... ... ... ........... ...
. .. ..:..
. .. ... .
......
' off-peak hours : 97.9 � : 96.6 � 96.9
: 96 6
.............:.............................................................................................................................................................................................................
..............................
: PM peak hour..;.........94:6 ..........:........90 :6........;........90 :6.........;........92:8........
............. � ............................................................................................
43. Percentage of Metro Area population within 60-
; minute travel time to main terminai: :
.............�.................................................................................................................................................... :............................i........................... ;...........................
: off-peak hours : 100 : 99.9 : 99.9 : 99.9
.............�......................................................................................................................�..............................F............................{............................�...........................
: PM peak hour : 99.8 : 99.1 : 99.1 ; 99.G
.............:......................................................................................................................,..............................,............................:........................................................
44 Number of lane-miles of off-site highway
improvements required (e.g., adding 2 lanes for 25 0 0 0
� .3 miles is 6 lane-miles) : :
.............:. ................................................................................................................�.............................�............................:...........................: ...........................
Wetlands
...............................................................................................................................: ........................................................... .........................................................
45. Number o# wetland acres displaced 35.0 32.96 0 0
.............:.....................................................................................................................�.............................�............................:...........................: ...........................
WildlifeRefu.�eS ..........................................................................................._.
. ........................ .............................;....................................... .... ....... ........ ... .......
46. Numbe� of monthly overflights less than 2,000 5,620 5,400 0 0
feet. .............. .......... .............. ............................. ..........................._.......................... ...................................................
.............:.. . ...... ...... ............... ...... ......:.. •
47 Number of publicly-owned acres of
€ environmental education and witdlife recreation ; 1,083 0
activity adversely affected by noise within DNL
60+ contour.
Dual Track Final EIS
xiii
APPROVAL DECLARATION
Submitted by Responsible Federal Official:
�� \
J�) �� �
Gien Orcutt
Program Manager
Minneapofis Airports
District Office
�� �9��
Date
After careful and thorough consideration of the facts contained herein, and following consideration
of the views of those Federal agencies having jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect
to the environmental impacts described, the undersigned finds that the proposed Federal actions
are consistent with existing national environmental policies and objectives as set forth in Section
101 ta) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
0
�... �...� .. .... ............ .
Acting Manager, Airports Division
Great Lakes Region
Dual Track Final EIS
xiv
." . � �
L�1�C: '
Dual Track Airport Planning Process
ram
ItIMPA MINNEAPOLIS I\/'w SAINT PAUL
1111111111111WA
MINIM
miiiil( SHAKOPEE
■ !!!�� J
! : E
MINNEAPOLIS ST. PRL
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
.� DAKOTA SE •CH ARCA
NEW AIRPORT SITE
(*)PRESCOTT
r 1
+ Jj
410PORTS GO
Location Map
��P�oGis s,��ryrA
�� � � 9G
� <
m `<
x� 1 ��
�
A �
S
,O'T'��RPORKS ��,
0 1000 2000
SCA�E IN FEET N
i�i
• �
MSP 2020 Concept Plan
�P���is s,��ryr
�,? �. � ,, 0 1000 2000
�� 9� SCALE IN FEET N
r
"� � � �°� MSP 2010 LTCP
� �11RVORts ..._--
.. ... � ��P,pL15 5,���rQ
2 T � yG
'� r
3 � Z
a��� � � � �°
�IiPpF`5
0
��-
___-�-/^ �`pt`��
-h�'��
2>v �i
�.. '. ; '
0 1000 2000
SCALE IN FEET N
No Action Alternative
��'Pepus sA�N�'A
,� .} � 0 5000
� 9
� � � N SCA�E IN FEET
� � o�
�Nq�RPpRtS` New Airport Alternative
�, 1. Introduction
A. Overview
A.1 Document Purpose and Organization
The purpose of this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) is to analyze and discuss the issues,
impacts and proposed mitigation measures of developing a new 8,000-foot air carrier runway, as well
as a conceptual long-term plan with a new passenger terminal, at the Minneapolis-St. Paul
International Airport (MSP). The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) and the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) of the U.S. Department of Transportation completed this FEIS after the
conclusion of the Dual Track Airport Planning Process, which is discussed further below and in
Section II of this FEIS. This FEIS evaluates a No Action Alternative (as a baseline for comparison of
impacts) and two phases of the preferred MSP Expansion Alternative: (1) the 2010 Long-Term
Comprehensive Pian (LTCP), involving development of the new runway and related actions linked with
the plan's layout to provide greater airfield and airspace capacity; and, to a lesser degree, (2) the
2020 Concept Plan, which proposes development of a new passenger terminai on the northwest side
of the airport and related improvements.
The new runway and related items.included in the 2010 LTCP constitute the proposed action for
federal (FAA) review and approval, and for implementation by the MAC. The 2020 Concept Plan is
also evaluated in this document in order to disclose the potential long-term effects of building the new
passenger terminal included in the 2020 Concept Plan, as well as related facilities (such as roadway
improvements). Development of the new terminal would require that the MAC receive state
legislative approval and that additionai environmental reviews and approvals be completed based on
� � updated information. It is also the intent of this FEIS process to satisfy the environmental review
requirements for the surface transportation improvements included in the 2010 LTCP.
This FEIS has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Minnesota Environmental
Review Program, through the Alternative Environmental Review Process approved by the Minnesota
Environmental Quality Board (MEQB) on March 19, 1992, and in accordance with FAA Order
5050.4A issued October 8, 1985, and Order 1050.1 D issued December 21, 1983, with subsequent
changes. Compliance with these FAA orders ailows the project to meet the procedural and
substantive environmental requirements set forth by the Council on Environmental Quality in its
regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA).
This document is both a state and federal FEIS, which shares the same text unless stated otherwise in
the document. The FAA and MAC jointly prepared this FEIS, in accordance with the provisions of CEQ
1506.2 which directs federal agencies to cooperate with state and local agencies "to the fullest
extent possible" to reduce duplication between NEPA and comparable state and local requirements. In
such cases the federal agency and the state, or local agency, may be joint lead agencies and jointly
share responsibility for preparing an EIS that satisfies both federal and state, or local, requirements.
The FAA and MAC are cooperating under a Memorandum of Understanding in the preparation of this
report. The FAA and MAC jointly prepared the First Phase Scoping Report in order to propose, and
take pubiic comment on, the process to be utilized for the Dual Track E�S.
The detailed Duai Track Airport Planning Process mandated by the Minnesota legisiation was
perfarmed by MAC and its consultants. FAA provided review, guidance, and advice throughout that
process as a member of the Dual Track EIS Technical Advisory Committees and the State Advisory
Council. Throughout this planning effort, FAA reviewed the methods and procedures used by MAC
and its consultants in site selection and evaluation of alternatives through the AED process. The FAA
assisted in the analysis of AED alternatives in various technical committees and through direct
consultation with MAC. FAA and MAC jointly prepared the First Phase Scoping Report; Second Phase
Dual Track Final EIS
I-1
Scoping Report, the DEIS and this FEIS. FAA also retained a consultant to assist in the joint {'
preparation of the DEIS and prepare the federal FEIS (the original process called for completion of the
state FEIS prior to legislative action on the preferred alternative, and preparation of the federal FEIS
following legislative action).
This FEIS uses the same sections as the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), published in
December 1995, for reporting purposes. However, it is revised to focus on development of the 2010
LTCP and to further evaluate the 2020 Goncept Plan--with comparisons to the No Action Alternative --
so as to disclose the impacts of implementing the new runway and to address mitigations. It includes
several new appendices and presents additional impact analyses based on higher aviation activity
forecasts (see Section II.C.2 and Appendix H). Unlike the DEIS, this document does not compare the
expansion of MSP to a"New Airport Alternative." The New Airport Alternative, which was evaluated
in the DEIS, is not considered a prudent option for the Twin Cities area, as explained in Section III and
supported by other analyses and responses to comments in Appendix I. Therefore, the New Airport
Alternative did not warrant any further detailed analyses.
A.2 Background and Lead Agency Contacts
The issues, impacts and alternatives analyzed and discussed in the 1995 DEIS were delineated in the
Second Phase Scoping Report, which was prepared jointly by FAA and MAC in accordance with the
Alternative Review Process. Three joint pubiic scoping meetings were held on the Second Phase
Scoping Fieport. On Monday, June 26, 1995, a scoping hearing was held at the offices of the
Metropolitan Airports Commission; approximately 20 people attended and 14 spoke. On Tuesday,
June 27, 1995, a scoping hearing was held at Hastings Middie School, in the city of Hastings;
approximately 86 peopie attended and 19 spoke. A scoping meeting for agency representatives was
also held on Tuesday, June 27, 1995, at the offices of the Metropolitan Airports Commission; /�`
approximately 23 people attended and 6 spoke. The 30-day comment period ended July 5, 1995, t
and 24 written comments were received. Responses to scoping comments were included in the `
Scoping Decision. The Scoping Decision was adopted by MAG on July 26, 1995, and utilized by
MAC and FAA in preparing the DEIS.
The DEIS was made ava'rlab{e for review and comment on December 15, 1995. Two joint public
hearings were held on the DEIS. On Wednesday, January 17, 1996, a public hearing was heid at the
Hastings High School in the city of Hastings; approximately 40 people attended and 14 spoke. On
Thursday, January 18, 1996, a public hearing was held at Washburn High School in the city of
Minneapolis; approximately 60 people attended and 22 spoke. The 60-day comment period ended
February 13, 1996, and 46 written comments were received.
This FEIS is the most recent environmental document analyzing the potential impacts of the various
airport development alternatives. The FEIS responds to the comments received on the DEIS and builds
further upon the results of analyses included in the DEIS and a series of Alternative Environmental
Documents (AEDs) produced in compliance with guidelines approved by the MEQB on March 19,
1992. The AEDs and the DEIS assessed the differential environmental impacts of options for both
MSP and a repiacement airport in dakota Couc�ty in sufficient detail to compare these options.
Specifically, separate AEDs were prepared for the selection of a site in Dakota County for a
replacement airport, for options in the development of a 2020 comprehensive pfan for the
Minneapolis-St. Paul international Airport (MSP) and options for a 2020 comprehensive plan for the
new airport site. Each AED was preceded by preparation of a scoping report discussing the options
and issues proposed for analysis in the document. Subsequently, a scoping decision was made
delineating the options and impacts to be studied in detail in each AED and, ultimately, in the DEIS.
As noted above, this FEIS differs from the AEDs and the DEIS in that it does not include any further
detailed analysis of a New Airport Alternative (for more information, see also Sections II and III— t
Purpose and Need and Alternatives). _ __ _ `,
Dual Track Final EIS
I-2
� }
By MEQB rules, MAC is the designated Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) for the Scoping Decision
and the state requirements in the FEIS; FAA is responsible for the federal requirements in the FEIS.
The lead agency contact persons are:
Mr. Nigel Finney
Metropolitan Airports Commission
6040 28th Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450
(612) 726-8187
B. Cooperating Agencies
Mr. Glen Orcutt
Federal Aviation Administration
6020 28th Avenue South, Suite 102
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450
(612) 713-4354
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) and the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) are cooperating agencies because the preferred aiternative requires improvements to Mn/DOT
highways that have received FHWA funding. The highway projects must be part of a Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) that conforms with the Minnesota air quality State Implementation Plan
(SIP). The Wisconsin Department of Transportation has also been invoived in the Dual Track Airport
Planning Process.
With the passage of the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, the FHWA is required
to address the full range of possible strategies to provide surface transportation access to the
preferred alternative. This analysis is usualiy done in the form of a Major Investment Study, which
wouid address the efficiency and the environmental impacts of surface transportation alternatives.
The Metropolitan Council (MC) is a cooperating agency because it has been involved in the Dual Track
Process from the beginning, inciuding coordination meetings with Mn/DOT, FHWA, FAA and MAC.
MC designated the search area in Dakota County and established the long-range aviation goals for the
alternatives. The Council also prepared parts of the DEIS and this FEIS (induced socioeconomic
forecasts for the New Airport Alternative, some ground transportation forecasts for the New Airport
Alternative, transportation access impacts, and land use).
C.
C�il
Related Environmental Documents and Actions
Further Studies to Develop the West Terminal
Continued long-term development of MSP to include the new west terminal or other significant
elements beyond those in the 2010 LTCP would necessitate the preparation of subsequent
environmental documents. Environmental reviews for the 2020 highway improvements shown in
Figure W-8 would be prepared by Mn/DOT and the Federal Highway Administration (see also
Appendix F).
C.2 Other Actions
The MAC is currently proceeding with plans to permanently extend Runway 4-22 an additionai 1,000
feet in order to optimize Northwest Airline's nonstop B-747 service to Hong Kong (one daily departure
in the foreseeable futurei. This project also involves the temporary extension of Runway 12R-30L in
order to accommodate the near-term phasing of the Runway 4-22 reconstruction. These actions are
separate from the actions proposed in this FEIS because the runway extensions will have independent
� j utility compared to the FEIS purpose and need, which is related to the airport's long-term capacity in
Duai Track Final EIS
I-3
general. However, because the two runway extensions are reasonably foreseeable, the pian is (
analyzed in this FEIS.--
The MAC's noise analysis with the extensions completed and the Hong Kong service underway
includes 10 long-haul international departures per day. Nine of these departures have been assumed
to occur without the runway extension project completed and are incorporated into the FEIS noise
analyses (assuming the highest future operational levels, as disclosed in Appendix H). The noise
analysis shows that the largest change in noise impacts (year 2005) wouid 0.7 DNL between the DNL
60 and 65 contours, and no increase in the DNL 65 + contours. The FAA criteria state that further
noise analysis only needs to be completed if an increase of 1.5 dBA is experienced at levels above
DNL 65� over noise-sensitive uses, or if a 3 dBA or larger increase is experienced in the DNL 60 to 65
range over noise-sensitive uses. Because the permanent Runway 4/22 extension with the additional
long-haul departures would not result in noise impacts exceeding the FAA thresholds, there are no
significant cumulative noise effects expected from this action. The MAC's Draft Environmental
Assessment (Draft EA) for the extensions, published in November 1997 also includes analyses of
other environmental impact categories and recommends a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).
The Draft EA also addressed the cumulative environmental impacts of the runway extension project
with the 2010 LTCP. It conciuded that there are no cumulative effects that exceed state and federal
ti�reshoids of significance resuiting from this related action when it is added to the impacts of the
proposed new runway evaluated in this FEIS.
The MAC and the FAA will continue to evaluate cumulative effects as airport needs and actions
evolve. However, the known near-term connected actions would not significantiy alter the airfield and
airspace utilization assumptions used in this FEIS for the 2010 LTCP.
D. Governmental Approvals
��,
The list of currently known governmental permits and approvals required to implement the new
runway and other aspects of the 2010 LTCP (the proposed action) is on the following page. If any
other permits and approvals are necessary to imp�ement the proposed action, these wiii be described
in the project's Record of Decision.
E. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Actions
There are a number of FAA actions necessary to the design, development, and establishment of
airport improvements and air traffic control and fiight operating procedures for use in conjunction with
the expansion of MSP. All of the actions discussed below are linked to this FEIS and the subsequent
federal Record of Decision (ROD), as these documents will provide for federal environmental approval.
The specific items requiring FAA technical and environmental approval include the installation of
various ground-based air navigation facilities located both on and off the airport site. In addition,
recognizing that development of the proposed action will be accomplished over a period of years,
within the limits of available appropriations in any particular fiscal year and subject to other demands
for funds, the FAA would have the environmental approvals to make Federal grant-in-aid and
passenger facility charges (PFC) funds available to MAC for eligible airport development projects.
Without attempting to identify every such eligible project, the following kinds of development are
among those wMich may be eligible for Federai grant-in-aid and PFC support:
• land acquisition,
� construction of runways and taxiways,
• construction of aircraft apron areas, and
• on-airport roadways and passenger terminal ground access systems.
I
;
Dual Track Final EIS
I-4
E
The foilowing sections describe the responsibilities and required actions of the various FAA divisions
that would be responsible for the implementation of this project.
Unit of Government Type of Permit/Approval
Generah •
Minnesota Environmental Quality Board Determination of Final EIS Adequacy
MSP Alternative:
Airspace Approval, Airport Layout Plan Approval, Approval of Federal
EIS including findings of fact and record of decision, Air Quality General
Federal Aviation Administration Conformity Findings and Statements, Airport Improvement Plan fAiP)
Grant Approval, Approval to Impose or Use Passenger Facility Charges
(PFCs)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit (Corps Individual Permit)
Federal Highway Administration Location and Design Approval and permits, Federal-Aid Roadways;
Clean Air Act
Certification of receipt of reasonable assurance to comply with state air
Governor, State of.Minnesota quality and water quality regulatory standards as required by FAA Order
5050.4A (See Appendix K of this FEIS)
. Environmental Assessments, Design Review and Approvai, Federal and
Minnesota Department of Transportation State-Aid Roadways, Approval of New Runway State Safety Zones'
Zoning Regulations
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Water Appropriation Permit, Protected Waters Permit
Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources Compliance with the Wetland Conservation Action of 1991;
Compliance with the Metropolitan Watershed Management Act
MAC NPDES Stormwater Permit; General NPDES Stormwater Permits
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Airport Tenants); NPDES General Construction Permits; 401 Water
Quality Certification; Indirect Source Permit; Air Emission Facility
Permits; Fugitive Dust Control Regulation Approval; Compliance with
State Impiementation Pian
State Historic Preservation Officer Advisory Councii on Historic Preservation (Section 106/Section 110
Review); Section 4(f) Review
Long-Term Comprehensive Airport Plan Review; Annual Review of MAC
Metropolitan Council Capital (mprovement Program; Approval to changes in the Metropolitan
Highway System; Industrial Discharge Permits; Air Quality
Transportation Conformity
Pichfieid-Bloomington Watershed Management Drainage Design Review and Approval
Organization
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Drainage Design Review and Approval; Grading/Land Alteration Permits
Lower Minnesota River Watershed District Drainage Design Review and Approval; Grading/Land Alteration Permits
No Action Aiternative:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit
Minnesota Board af Water and Soils Compliance with Wetland Conservation Act of 1991
Resources
NPDES Wastewater/Industrial Process Discharges Permit; NPDES
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Stormwater Permit; NPDES General Construction Permits; 401 Water
Quality Certification; Indirect Source Permit; Air Emission Facility
Permits; Fugitive Dust Control Regulation Approval; Compliance with
State Implementation Plan
Metropolitan Council Airport Comprehensive Plan Review; Approval to changes in the
Metropolitan Highway System; Industrial Discharge Permits
Dual Track Final EIS
I-5
E.1 Air Traffic
Air Traffic is responsible for the safe and expeditious flow of aircraft to and from the airport. This is
accomplished by establishing airspace structure, air traffic control sectors, flight routes and air traffic
controi procedures.
Development of the proposed action may require redesign of the terminal radar approach control
(TRACON) airspace surrounding the MSP airport. It will require establishment of new air traffic control
procedures and, therefore, modification of existing tower orders. The project will also require the
expansion of the Class B Airspace surrounding MSP. Class B Airspace generally extends from the
surface to an altitude of 10,000 feet above mean sea level (MSL) and rnay extend 30 or more miles
from its center. The current MSP Class B Airspace extends from the surface to 8,000 feet and a 20-
mile radius from its center. Independ�n� of this project, MSP Air Traffic Control Tower has requested
that their C1ass B sirspace be expanded to include the airspace up to 10,000 feet MSL and a 30-mile
radius of the airport. This Ciass B airspace expansion was needed independent of this project to
accommodate turns on the runway finals beyond 20 miles from the airport.
FAA conducted a terminal airspace study for MSP in 1996 to identify airspace capacity around MSP
and to evaluate impacts on airspace capacity that might result in accommodating a new north-south
runway at MSP. The study found that changes could be made in the airspace to accommodate the
new runway and identified additiona) airspace routings for arrivals to, and departures from, the
runway.
Because these new a'srspace routings will result in new overflights of residential areas, the FAA
required an analysis of potential noise impacts of operations over 3,000 feet AGL (per FAA Notice
7210.360). That analysis is presented in Appendix G the impacts of operations below 3,000 feet
AGL are addressed within the body and in other parts of this FEIS). The new alternative airspace {
routings are also shown in Appendix G as Figures G-2, G-3, and G-4. The noise screening analysis
was performed on the airspace alternatives using FAA screening criteria for both the 2005 "Baseline"
and "High" forecasts of operations to determine if additional environmental analysis is needed (i:e., to
assure that the proposed air traffic changes would not result in a 5-decibel or more increase in the
overall Day Night Average Sound Levei, DNL, of any residential area). The analysis showed that no
additional environmental documentation would be needed, based on the FAA noise screening
procedure.
Table A.3-? (Runway Use for the MSP Alternative - Average Annual Use) shows the percentage of
annual operations that are expected to occur in achieving operational goals for use of the new north-
south runway, as weli as the other runways at MSP. The new runway, Runway 17-35, would
predominantly operate to and from the south and is expected to be used for about one-third of the
aircraft departures when the airfield is in a south flow configuration and for every sixth arrival when
operating to the north. A very minimal amount of traffic would operate to and from the north, as
indicated in Appendix A. These limited north operations on Runway 17-35 would most likely only
occur when dictated by weather, so as to support minimal airport capacity, when other runways are
closecS for maintenance or emergency situations, or when benefiting air cargo operations during
periods of light daytime activity. FAA Air Traffic will establish the final procedures, consistent with
the conditions set forth in this FEIS, for all runway ends and for airspace at MSP following the Record
of Decision.
In addition to assessing the effects of overfiights in the immediate environs of MSP, Air Traffic is
responsible for examining the integration of aircraft using the new north-south runway into the flight
procedures and maneuvering of aircraft as they enter the terminal airspace and begin the initial phases
of arrival and departure. As previously noted, the FAA has already conducted an analysis of the
airspace structure's ability to support the new runway from as far as 45 miles from MSP and found
Dual Track Final EIS
I-6
that changes could be made to accommodate the new runway and reduce average daily delays. This
preliminary plan involves the addition of a new jet arrival fix in the airspace southeast of the airport,
for a total of five arrival fixes in the MSP terminal airspace area. The results of this analysis are also
referenced in Appendix G as Terminal Airspace Modifications. Therefore, in addition to the air traffic
procedures described above, Air Traffic will be responsible for establishing and coordinating the
addition of the planned fifth arrival fix with other FAA branches and the users before all of the
airspace changes are implemented.
E.2 Airway Facilities
The Airway Facilities Division is responsible for the instaliation, operation and maintenance of aids to
navigation required to support the proposed action.
Development of the proposed action would include the establishment of new and relocated landing
aids serving the airport and the new runway. Such facilities include communications equipment and
radio aids to navigation such as a relocated very high frequency omni-directional range (VOR) facility.
In support of this proposed action, the FAA will design, install and operate a wide range of ground-
based air traffic control and navigation facilities. Airway Facilities will support the installation of a
precision instrument landing system (ILS) on Runway 35, and an approach lighting system that will
consist of a medium-intensity approach lighting system with sequenced fiashing lights (MALSR) and
runway visual range (RVR) equipment. In conjunction with the establishment of IFR equipment, the
location and instaliation of the outer and middle markers (generally marking course guidance and the
decision height for aircraft approaches) wiil be needed on the approach end of the new runway.
Precision approach path indicators (PAPI) systems will also need to be installed on the runway in both
directions and runway end identifier lights (REIL's) will be placed on the north end of the new runway.
E.3 Airports
The Airports Division is responsibie for the technical and environmental approvai of the airport layout
plan (ALP), administration of Airport Improvement Program (AIP) development grants funding the
project, approvals to impose or use Passenger Facility Charges (PFC) funds for similar purposes, and
environmental approvals under NEPA. The ALP showing the new runway and other improvements
described in this FEIS was conditionally approved by the FAA on April 25, 1997. The ALP is
conditioned on environmental approval of development in the 2010 �TCP and does not include
approvai of development in the 2020 Concept Plan. Development of the MSP Alternative will involve
approval of the FEIS for the proposed project, approval of the airport layout plan (ALP}, and
administration of any grants-in-aid funds for approved airport development projects and approvals to
use PFCs.
E.4 Flight Standards
The Flight Standards Division is responsibie for ensuring the adequacy of flight procedures and
operating methods in addition to setting certification criteria for air carriers, commerciai operators, and
airmen. Specific Flight Standards actions implementing the proposed action would involve
establishment of instrument approach and departure procedures for the new runway, and new or
revised instrument approach and departure procedures for existing runways. Flight standards is also
assigned the responsibility and authority to approve airline operations under the provisions of FAR Part
121. Authorization of amended operating procedures may be required to permit airline operations on
the new runway. Fight standards will also authorize the kinds the kinds of operations that can occur
on the new runway and the types of aircraft that can use it.
Dual Track Final EIS
I-7
E.6 Security
The FAA's Aviation Security Division is responsible for ensuring the integrity of the airport perimeter
and secured areas of the terminal and support facilities against intrusions of unauthorized persons and
expiosives or weapons. Security will provide input to the approval of the airport layout plan for the
proposed action. During the master planning and design stages, Security reviewed the terminal,
fencing, and access plans prepared by the airport sponsor. Security will ultimately approve the airport
security plan, procedures and hardware for compliance with FAR Part 107 and particularly FAA Orders
107.13 and 107.14 relating to security of the air operations areas and the access control system.
Use of the infield area for air cargo, and the service roads to these future facilities, will also require
Security approvals.
F. Project History
In 1989, the Minnesota Legislature enacted the Metropolitan Airport Planning Act to determine
whether the long-term air transportation needs of the metropolitan area and the state couid best be
met by enhancing capacity at MSP or by developing a replacement airport within the metropolitan
area. Known as the Dual Track Airport Pianning Process, the 1989 legislation (as amended) specified
the following actions for both the MC and MAC during the 1989-1996 planning period:
t
• AVIATION PLAN. By February 1, 1990, the Metropolitan Council shail amend its aviation plan to
incorporate policies and strategies that will ensure a comprehensive, coordinated, continuing,
thorough and timely investigation and evaluation of alternatives for major airport development in
the metropolitan area for a prospective 30-year period. The alternatives must include both airport
improvements and enhancements of capacity that may be necessary at the existing airport (MSP)
and the location and development of a new airport. {
• AVIATION GOALS. By March 1, 1990, the Metropolitan Council, shall report to the legislature
analyzing and making recommendations on long-range aviation goals for the major airport facility
in the metropolitan area for a prospective 30-year period. The report must address goals for
safety, environmental impact, and services, including ground access and service levels to other
states and countries and to r�onmetropolitan areas of the state. In preparing the report, the
Council shall consic�er regional growth patterns, economic development, economic impact,
regional and statewide investment, and ground transportation.
• NEW AIRPORT� CONCEPTUAL DESIGN STUDY AND PLAN By March 1, 1990, the Commission,
in consultation with the Council, shall complete a study of facilities requirements, airport
functioning, and conceptual design for a major new airport. By January 1, 1991, the
Commission shall complete a conceptual design plan for a major new airport. The conceptual
design study and plan must describe and satisfy air transportation needs for a prospective 30-
year period and be consistent with the development guide of the Council. The conceptual design
plan must include an analysis of estimated costs, potential financing _methods and sources of
public and private funding, and cost allocation issues and options. The Council shall use the
design study and plan in selecting a search area.
• SEARCH AREA. By January 1, 1992, the Metropolitan Council, in consultation with the
Commission, shall designate a search area for a major new airport. _
e MSP PLAN. By January 1, 1992, the Commission shall adopt a long-term comprehensive plan
(�TCP) for MSP International Airport at its existing location to satisfy the air transportation needs t
Dual Track Final EIS
I-8
for a 30-year planning period. The plan must be updated at least every five years, and amended
as necessary to reflect changes in trends and conditions, facilities requirements, development
plans and schedules.
• MSP REUSE STUDY. By January 1, 1993, the Council shail report to the legislature on policies
for the reuse of the existing major airport site should a new major airport be developed.
• NEW AIRPORT SITE SELECTION & COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Within four years after the
designation of the search area, MAC shall: '
select a site for a new major airport within the search area,
prepare a comprehensive plan for the development of a new major airport at the
selected site to satisfy the air transportation needs for a 30-year period, and
prepare and submit for administrative review the environmental documents required
for site acquisition.
• AIRPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT REPORT. Within 180 days following completion of
the comprehensive plans for MSP and a new major airport, the Metropolitan Council and MAC
shall report to the legislature on the long-range planning and development of major airport
facilities in the metropolitan area. The report must include recommendations of the agencies on
major airport development for the 30-year period and on acquiring a site for a new major airport,
including financing. The report must be completed by July, 1996.
The foliowing actions have been taken since the 1989 legislation was enacted:
; 1. The Metropolitan Council amended its aviation plan in January, 1990 to include both airport
improvements and enhancement of capacity at MSP and the location and development of a
new major airport — as alternatives for major airport development in the metropolitan area for
the next 30 years. The plan also included the aviation goals and policies to guide major
airport development for the next 30 years.
2. The MEQB approved on October 18, 1990, an alternative environmental review process for
selecting a search area.
3. The Commission compieted the New Airport Conceptual Design Study and Plan in December,
1990.
4. The Council, in December 1991, after considering three potential search areas, designated the
Dakota Search Area in Dakota County (Figure 1) as the location for the planning and
development of a new major airport.
5. The Commission adopted a long-term comprehensive plan for MSP in November, 1991.
6. The Commission submitted an aiternative environmental review process for the Dual Track
Airport Planning Process to the MEQB, which was approved on March 19, 1992. The
alternative environmental review process called for the preparation of an Alternative
Environmental Document (AED) for each stage of the development of the comprehensive
plans for the two "tracks" (MSP and New Airport). The AEDs would assess the environmental
impacts of the alternatives under consideration in sufficient detail to select the best
aiternative.
� f 7. The Council completed the MSP Fieuse Study in December 1992.
Duai Track Final EIS
I-9
8. A First ..P_hase Scoping Report describing the Dual Track Airport Planning Process and �
issues/impacts to be addressed was prepared and made available for public and agency review
on March 30, 1992. Three public meetings were held in April 1992 for public and agency
comment. Responses to substantive comments were published in March 1993.
9. The Scoping Document and Draft Scoping Decision Document for the selection of a new
airport site were prepared by MAC and made available for public and agency review on March
1, 1993. A public scoping meeting was held March 18 and the Scoping Decision Document,
including responses to comments, was adopted by the Commission on June 21, 1993.
10. The Draft AED for the selection of a new airport site, including the identification of a preferred
site, was reviewed by MAC on September 20, 1993, for public/agency review and comment.
Three sites were evaluated in the Draft AED. A public hearing was heid on November 18 and
the Final AED was made available on February 28, 1994, for pubiic/agency review and
comment. The Commission determined the adequacy of the Final AED and selected Site 3 on
March 21, 1994.
11 . The Scoping Environmentai Assessment Worksheet (EAW) and Draft Scoping Decision
Document for the update of the long-term comprehensive plan for MSP were prepared by
MAC and made available for public and agency review on January 17, 1994. A public
scoping meeting was held February 15 and the Scoping Decision Document was adopted by
the Commission on March 21, 1994.
12. The Scoping EAW and Draft Scoping Decision Document for the development of a
comprehensive plan at the New Airport Site 3 were prepared by MAC and made available for
review and comment on April 25, 1994. A pubiic scoping meeting was held May 12 and the
Scoping Decision Document was adopted by the Commission on June 20, 1994. t'
13. The Draft AED for the selection of the MSP Long-Term Gomprehensive Plan was reviewed by
MAC on September 19, 1994 for pubiic/agency review and comment. Six airport expansion
layouts were evaluated in the Draft AED. A public hearing was held on October 26, 1994 and
the Final AED was made availabie on January 30, 1995 for public/agency review and
comment. The Commission determined the adequacy of the Final AED and selected
Alternative 6(see Section III.B.1) on February 21, 1995.
14. The Draft AED for the selection of the New Airport Comprehensive Plan was reviewed by
MAC on November 21, 1994 for public/agency review and comment. Three new airport
layouts were evaluated in the Draft AED. A public hearing was heid on January 18, 1995 and
the Final AED was made available on March 27, 1995 for public/agency review and comment.
The Commission determined the adequacy of the Final AED and selected the New Airport
Comprehensive Plan on April 18, 1995.
15. FAA and MAC prepared scoping documents for the Draft EIS (the Second Phase Scoping
Report dated May 22, 1995) and held three public hearings on this document in June 1995.
The 30-day comment period ended July 5, 1995, and a final Scoping Decision document was
issued July 26, 1995.
16. FAA and MAC prepared the DRAFT EIS and held two public hearings in January 1996. The
60-day comment period ended February 13, 1996. _ __
17. MAC and MC prepared a joint Report to the Legislature in March 1996 with a
recommendation to expand MSP. The report _ concluded that the aviation needs _ of the �
__. _ _
Duai Track Final EIS
i-10
i j
i metropolitan area can best be met by continued development of MSP, even under the highest
of MACs forecast range of operations.
18. in April 1996 the legislature considered the MAC and MC recommendations and the
comprehensive planning documents and their environmental effects mandated by the 1989
legislation, and selected the development of MSP as the preferred alternative. The legislature
mandated implementation of the MSP 2010 LTCP, a phase of the MSP 2020 Concept Plan.
The April 1996 legislation also prohibits development of the new west terminal without further
legisiative approval.
19. A Section 4(f) Evaluation document was prepared by FAA and made available for comment on
May 1, 1998. A summary of the document is presented in Section V.0 of this FEIS.
G. Implementation Schedule
Subject to completion of the environmental review process, construction of the new north-south
runway, planned maintenance, hangar, air cargo and roadway facilities for the proposed action (2010
LTCP) wouid commence in 1998 and could be completed in 2003. Additional expansion of
maintenance, hangar and air cargo facilities could occur beyond 2003 if conditions so warrant.
Dual Track Final EIS
I-11
I1. Purpose and Need
in 1989, the Minnesota State Legistature recognized the need to examine aiternatives to meet the long-
term air transportation needs of the Twin Cities metropolitan area, and established the Dual Track Airport
Planning Process. The Metropolitan Airport Planning Act of 1989 (see Appendix A.14) stated that the
planning process and resulting actions must satisfy the air transportation needs of the region to the year
2010, and have a concept plan that couid satisfy the air transportation needs of the region to the year 2020.
The FAA has a statutory charter to encourage the development of civil aeronautics and the safety of air
commerce (49 USC 40104). Further, Congress has declared as a policy that airport improvement projects
that increase capacity shouid be undertaken to the maximum extent feasible to increase safety, efficiency and
decrease delays [49 USC 47101(a)(7)].
A. Purpose
The broad purpose of the Minnesota Duai Track Airport Planning Process is to provide for the efficient and
economicai movement of people and goods between the Twin Cities region and USA and international
markets, and help promote the orderiy growth and economic development of the region. The process and
resulting actions must satisfy the air transportation needs of the region to the year 2010, and have a
concept plan that could satisfy the air transportation needs of the region to the year 2020.
As directed by the 1989 legislature, long-range aviation goals for the major airport facility in the
metropolitan area for the 30-year period were to be prepared by the Metropolitan Council and reported to
the legisiature. The goals must address safety, environmental impact, and service (including ground
� access and service leveis to other states and countries and to non-metropolitan areas of the state). The
' following goals were adopted by the Metropolitan Councii to direct the development and evaluation of the
major airport alternatives.
The foliowing subsections show how the proposed action satisfies the FAA's statutory mission and
objectives and the state's long-range aviation goals.
Goal A. To pian, develop and operate an aviation system that wiil help promote the orderly growth
and economic development of the region.
Goal B. To provide an aviation system that is safe, efficient and economicai.
Goai C. To provide aviation facilities and senrices that produce positive effects on the social and
economic environments with minimai adverse effects on the physicai environment.
Goai D. To develop, operate and maintain an aviation system that enhances the quality of life for
peopie in the Twin Cities Area by providing them with good access to state, national and
international activities and opportunities.
Goal E. To attain a regionai aviation pianning and programming process that is responsive to the
needs and interests of residents, industries, counties, cities, and affected agencies and
provides sufficient opportunities for them to participate in formulating and implementing
public policies.
These regional goals were applied throughout the Dual Track Process. As the level of detail increased
during the course of this process, these goals became more specific. Based on these regional goais, The
( '� Lonq Term Com�rehensive Plan (LTCP) for MSP. Volume 1, Goals, Assumptions and Methodologies and
Dual Track Final EIS
11-1
the New Air Carrier ,4irport Conceptual Design Studv and Pian estabiished the following six pianning goals �' �
to guide each of the two "tracks" of the Dual Track Process.
1. Develop airport facilities to meet future aviation needs, to provide enhanced leveis of air
service, and to further the economic development of the State of Minnesota.
2. Minimize costs to users.
3. Develop the airport in a manner which is fiexible and adaptable to changing conditions.
4. Provide an airport which is safe and reliable.
5. Develop an airport that is consistent with state, regional, and local plans and economic
development policies.
6. Develop the airport and the airport vicinity to minimize and reduce adverse aircraft noise and
other environmental effects.
The 1989 Metropolitan Airport Pianning Act also directed the Metropolitan Councit and MAC to undertake a
series of studies�to identify a preferred MSP and new airport development plan. The manner for addressing
the sequenced environmental documentation of alternatives was approved in alternative environmentai
processes between the Metropolitan Council and the Minnesota Environmentai Quality Board (MEQB) in
October 1990, and between MAC and MEQB in March 1992. The MAC process requires a series of "tiered"
environmental documents, calied Alternative Environmenta! Documents (AEDs), including EIS-level detail but
focused oniy on the specific decision to be made. Separate environmental documents were developed at the
following decision points:
• Alternative search areas, with one carried forward to the next phase.
• Aiternative sites within the preferred search area, with only one site carried forward to the next
phase.
• Alternative development plans on the preferred new airport site, with oniy one pian carried '
forward to the EIS. �,'
� Alternative development plans for MSP, with only one pian carried forward to the EIS.
The main purpose of the federai action-2010 LTCP is to improve airtield and airspace capacity and thereby
provide increased leveis of service for air transportation users in the Twin Cities region. The 2010 �TCP also
supports the original broad purpose of the MAC's Dual Track process of providing for the efficient and
economical movement of peopie and goods between the Twin Cities region and USA and international
markets, and heiping promote the orderiy growth and economic development of the region.
c � .
During the mid-1980s, an Airport Adequacy Study prepared by the Metropotitan Councii indicated that,
because of physicai and environmental constraints, Minneapolis-Saint Paul Internationai Airport (MSP) may
not be capable of expanding to the degree necessary to meet the region's long-term air transportation
needs. MAC subsequentiy prepared forecasts of activity, developed the long-term comprehensive plan
(LTCP) for MSP and utilized the FAA SIMMOD Model and manual techniques from the FAA Airport
Capacity and Delay Manual to pertorm detailed analyses of capacity and delay. The proposed addition of
new Runway 1�-35 was anatyzed inde¢endently by MAC and a FAA Airport Capacity Design Team,
consisting of FAA, the airport operator, and aviation industry groups, and repo�ted in the FAA's Capacity
Enhancement Plan for MSP completed in December 1993,
Based on these studies and analyses, MAC and FAA have independentiy concluded that without substantiai
airtield, terminai, and access improvements, future growth in aviation activity at MSP wiil result in a
significantiy decreased level of service and increased user costs.
Peak-hour demand wiil outstrip capacity of the runway/taxiway system without major improvements: Airfieid �,,
simulations using SIMMOD show that if no improvements are made by 2020, or by 2010 if recent growth
Dual Track Finai EIS
I I-2
rates continue, peak-hour departure queues for the south parallel runway couid reach more than 25 aircraft.
That wouid resuit in excessive delays and aircraft biocking access to the terminai, producing gridlock. Peak-
hour (6:00-7:00 p.m.) delays by the year 2020, or 2010 under recent growth rates, are estimated to average
15 minutes per aircraft during instrument conditions, with the highest delays in excess of one hour. At the
levels cited by the Airport Capacity Design Team, ranging frorn 530,000 to 600,000 annual operations, these
savings wouid range from 21,000 to 44,000 hours per year — which resuits in a$30 million to $63 million
benefit per year.
This projected increase in delays, deciine in service and resuiting increase in user costs threatens MSP's
ability to provide good-quality air service and economic benefits to the region as a major connecting hub.
MSP's role as a connecting hub is integral to the air service the airpo�t provides the region. Further, MSP —
the 14th busiest airport in the nation in 1995 for passenger enplanements — is a major link in the nation's
airspace structure.
Aviation activity forecasts for the year 2010 are 603,800 operations according to the MAC High Forecast and
658,000 according to the FAA Terminal Area Forecast (TAF), which are discussed in Subsection II.C.22.
The operations levels and delay savings cailed out in the Capacity Enhancement Plan fail within these MAC
and FAA 2010 forecast levels and further establish the need for, and delay savings from, the new runway.
The FAA has aiso compieted a Terminal Airspace Study (August 1996). This airspace study found that the
existing MSP airspace can be reconfigured to accommodate Runway 17/35 and that changes could reduce
the average airspace-related delays in the range of 900 to 7,000 hours annuaily.
The new runway and other airfieid and airspace improvernents planned to accommodate increased aviation
activity would create further demands on the terminal area and ground access facilities, resulting in further
airport deficiencies. These deficiencies would be corrected by the other improvements listed in Section III.D
(Proposed Action). �
Additional information supporting the need for the proposed action is provided below. This information
includes discussions of the airport's role, aviation activity levels and forecasts, and the existing airport's
limitations.
C. Supporting information
C.1 Airport Role
MSP ranked 12th in the nation and 18th in the world in total passengers for 1996 (Aviation Week & Space
Technology, May 19, 1997). MSP serves both as the region's air carrier airport for locai origin and
destination passengers, and as a connecting hub for Northwest Airlines. It is one of the nation's largest hub
airports, based on aircraft operations and percentage of totai passengers enplaned. In addition to providing
substantiai air service and economic benefits, connecting hub operations place a high demand on airfieid
and terminat facilities. These demands on airport facilities are forecast to intensify in the future.
C.1.1 MSP's Role as a Connecting Hub Airport
Since the deregulation of the airiine industry in 1979, many airlines have deve�oped "hub and spoke" route
structures which bring flights from many cities together at one airport so that passengers can connect with
fiights to a wide range of destinations. By combining passengers f�om many cities, hub and spoke systems
provide more air service to residents of the region than could be supported by the volume of passengers
between any two cities alone. At connecting hub airports, "hubbing" airlines schedule a large number of
arrivals in an arrival "bank", transfer passengers between flights, and then schedule a large number of
( � departures in a departure "banK'. In order to minimize passenger delay, arrivais and departures are
- scheduled as ciose together as possibie. Consequently, a successful connecting hub airport must be abie
Dual Track Final EIS
I I-3
to accommodate a very high level of aircraft operations during the arrival and departure banks, and must j
provide for rapid passenger and baggage transfer between aircraft. Because of the need to accommodate ��,
passengers and baggage transferring from one airplane to another in a minimum amount of time, in
addition to meeting the needs of originating passengers, more terminal frontage is needed to park aircraft
(because of connecting complexes) than would be required if the airport oniy serves origination and
destination traffic. Inability to accommodate peak period activity during the times that passengers desire to
travei will resuit in loss of service to competing hub airports. Since missed connections have a severe effect
on air senrice in a hub and spoke system, connecting hub airports must also be able to accommodate peak
period operations in aii weather conditions or risk losing service. By supplying adequate airport
accommodations in all weather conditions, MSP's role as a connecting hub provides benefits to both local
and connecting passengers.
C.1.2 MSP's Role In The Local Economy
Metropolitan Councii Goals A and D directiy relate to MSP's �ole as a connecting hub. By increasing the
number of nonstop destinations, a connecting hub increases the frequency of service to individual cities,
thus decreasing travel tirne and increasing convenience. Since good air senrice is a major consideration in
corporate locatio� decisions, this fevel of air service helps to make the Minneapolis-Saint Paul region
competitive as a business location. Also, investments in payroii and facilities by Northwest Airiines and
associated industries further benefit the economy of the Twin Cities. The 1995 study, The Local and
Regional Economic Impacts of Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, indicated that MSP generated
24,500 jobs directiy and $880 miliion in household income which resuited in $715 million in additional
consumption in 1994 and empioyment of an additional 13,000 people.
Ce1.3 MSP's Role in the Air Transportation System
MSP is a vitai link in the national and international air transportation systems. As a connecting hub airport, �,.
MSP is part of Northwest Airlines' hub and spoke route structure. Over 12 miliion passengers a year, 51
perce�t of tE�e ai�pQrt's totai, make connections at MSP enroute to other destinations. In terms of
passenger enplanements, M'SP was the 12th busiest airport in the nation in 1996, and 18th in the worid. It
ranked 13th in total aircraft operations in both the US and the world in 1996. The FAA's National Plan of
Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) lists MSP as a large hub airport, meaning that MSP accounts for at
least one percent of the Nation's annual passenger enplanements. In 1995 MSP accounted for 2.25
percent of the nation's scheduled domestic and international passenger enplanements originating from
U.S. airports.
C.2 Aviation Activity
The airport nas served the region's aviation needs for more than 50 years. In the 1970's and 1980's, the
airport experienced a significant growth in operations which has continued to the present. In the past 10
years, analysis of the physical and environmental capacity of MSP has been ongoing with the intent of
covering a period of need to 2010 and beyond.
C.2.1 Activity Levels
MSP has experienced substantial growth in activity since the 1970s. Between 1972 and 1995, annual
airport revenue-passenger traffic grew from 5.5 million to 25.3 mitlion, as shown in Table 1. Similarly,
annual aircraft operations (an operation is either a landing or a takeoff) have increased from 230,793 in
1972 to 465,454 in 1995, as shown in Table 2. This growth is forecast to continue, with commercial
passenger activity dominating the airport. In its 1993 "Baseline Forecast" used in the
�E
Dual Track Final EIS
I I-4
c�
:�
m
�
F-
�U
m
C
N
N
y
� (D
a �
� �
� o
� �,
� h
v �
•� �
0
�
�
N
�
H
cD OD O CO d' d' CO N CO W N N CO N N CD O CO O d' d' N O O CO
N r- CD M N I� N� t� tn d' O h N M O C`') �h d' t� tn � c- I�
� a- M CO N M CO N tn M O O m 00 i� tO '" M � O 6> � 00 tn N
t� i� N Ui N c'*) cD d� O�- O O M M M tD tt1 c0 O t0 O d� M 00 M'
00 CO � 6> i� tn i� M d' C7 CO d' t[1 M.- td O I� � O CD d' t0 N'ct'
d- �- tt d� �- 40 O u) O) � t.L) O f� M O) CO �[Y c'0 .- c7 M O O M N
tn t0 c0 CO (`� I� 00 6i OD � O N N tci CD i� t� 00 �� N N N N N
00 00 t0 c0 00 CO N N N d� O 00 c0 O O O CO O d� d�
1� h 1� 00 M LA !� tt� !� d' O 00 M d' 00 N M M 00 CO
0� 00 tn tc) I� tfY �� �- M� d� CO OD c0 c- r- 00 d' tn O
� � � � � Q e- Cn I� � d' 00 d' d' 1� �- N CD d' t� N�- LY) M M
CO m t[) N I� CO m I� N 1� '- M N h O M O � O CD
N N N N.- �- N M CD �t d' t[7 CD I� i� 0� I� tA O�
cD d� N N c0 c0 00 t� O�O O O cO O O o0 N�00 O
tn d' CD d' �f' 1� N C� O d' M N d' tf) r- 00 N tf') tP') � .p
N' ' ' ' ' I� ' d� I� �- N O O d� O�.0 00 M N�.n O N M.- a> >,
t� i.p ` m CO t� M O O I� tf) CO 0� N M M� '�
tcY .- O O) d� cD c0 I� M tn O d� 0� d- M.- �.n � ?
• �- �- � c- a- e- '- e- N N N M M tt� t.C) N �V
(O @
a
c °'
o °'
c
'+- �
m
c vyi
Y �
�n a
d� d� O O c0 N N d� d� ct N t0 O O O CO O O a0 O N t0 cD d� o� �p
1� O�- �- c0 d� u'Y 1� O) t� d- c0 N tt7 O�t i� N 1� tfY I� O!� 6n � �
N 00 M ttY � O d' �- O N tn tn N CO 'ct' I� CO O� CO �- M N u� fA �i' � �
O 00 N N N CD O N tC) O�- (� M N tt'� �- O d' N 00 C'� d' '... �
M N M d' tt1 � i� lT1 00 CO t!J M CO �- N G'0 � M� N M� m C'7 �h N �
.- N N M�C) f� I� W O) O) �- N N N �t C 'C
U
� � � � ��m N
'o c
0
� �
- a�
�� v
U =
U
� ,c
O N �''
• c
0
c0 d� O 00 Cfl d' d' N d� �t O 00 cO d' 00 N N O cLi d� N O cD d� �O a��i .� y
m u7 N tt) t['� t.0 d' M O� 00 t� C'4 CO d' d' I� CO t� N tA M CO V N
M(+') O.- 00 'd; t!') tn d' CO I� .- tp I� � d' N 0� N d' � CO CO CO tf) 'O
t� OD O!� �(O M c0 O M N d� N c0 O N cD 0') � tO '- (� N CO tti � C 0
t[') M ti� t[) � M 1� t� CO d' O i� N m d' [f' m CO O O N t� CO � p
d' .- cF d' �- t0 I� e- tt') I� .- d` � N CO M O CO N M.- t� t.C) tf') N E U � ?
t[) cD c0 c� I� h f� O� 0� N O�� rt t[i cD c0 c0 t� t� �� O N N�= rn >
�- �- e- e- e- •- e- �- e- r- C .�=+
n.
d � N `0
m
v� p o. �
� +� m
� a� m .�. .c
cD ct O 40 cD d� tt N d� d� O o0 c0 d� 00 N N O cO �t N O N N c � C V
CO N�� C'7 •- C� d' � M M M M O N t� O O��N Od N N d' C y� C�j C
`(� CO 00 � N M CO � t� M'cl" M m e- M t.C) d' M M � d' d' d' �. C=�,O
N t� d' M P� M 00 � CD M �- N h(O c- O t`� 00 m M d' � tl� M �p
i� O� O M tcY N O o0 tc) ct r') t� �t �.[) N c0 I� .- t0 O) m o0 OD �� Q' a� c p
.- N r- N N N N M N M d� tti ct CD h� 00 i� 1� N 00 � m O � o�J N � C`y qj
r
e- �- � tC0 �� C A �
� •
o � °c' � c � ,`m_
.� � N � � ` �
m CA Q7 �p -p �p U V Q� V
C C Q N.�. p) _
N 00 O N c�O � a0 00 d' N t�0 c�D N c�D O d�' cD N 0�0 c�0 N O O O) C�..N� � � N O
t`� O'- N d� M 00 O N N d: 00 N t0 I� t0 �- 00 d� N�- I� d' �- o��.� � a�
tLi � W O d� � O� t0 � W�� 6i 00 � tn tCi M O� 0� N �
M CO O d' O N 00 h d' N I� � tc'� I� M 1� N M CD 00 � CD � d' •,,, y� p y�
P� O tc) d� t� O �t O c0 N I� O.- 1� .-- '- M� O I� .- I� CO i� m C C c a> >�
ri d� d� d� d� u� ui co ui ui �n co r� t� co o� ao ao 4i oo Qi ai oi o � a'o� aNi ���
� O w� 0 �� c
I f0 .O U'O 61 v m
N M d- tD CO 1� W� O N M[t tn cD 1� 00 � O N cq d� tn (D I vl
1� f� I� I� h i� h t� OD 00 00 N N 00 W N dD OD m O) lT ��� W 4;
����� m 07 O) �� 0) CA � O> �� m in lA Cn m 6� � fA � p
�- a- �-- �- �- a- �- �- '- c- c- '- �- �- �- �- �- �- �- �- �- '- a- v- r- Z
N
N
IH
N
�
�
O
�
�
W
m
c
iL
U �
ro
F-
CO
�
�
H
C
O
'++
�
�
d
a
O
� �
m �
� �
'a Y
U N
�� h
O
N �
_
N
d
A
F"
M.- �.C) ct t0 1� O O fD N d� N N I� .- t0 00 d� N CO [t O M[t O
� M 00 O d' d' N N tS') �- 1`� �- t0 � N tf) N rt N 00 1� � N� CO
I� cD t0 t0 t0 N 1� .- O c0 M O tn cD O 1'� .- 1� � 00 �t � I� �t �t
O�t' (O � O M�f' �- M M(O O tC) .- t0 1� 1� d' M �fY 00 fA d' � LL">
M d' N N d' �S') I.C) 00 00 CO f0 O M 00 1� t0 t0 1� 00 00 r- M�C� CCf 00
N N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M t+') M M M d� d� �t [fi d�
N N N
O O O tf) N G7 00 O ct c0 � O.- O� CO a0 h ct �t M tt) a- tn ct
a- 00 00 N N cD 6� 00 O O tn O N N CO I� � tt O M O N tC) �- N
�.- a- � N N t0 O CO c0 M.- I� O 00 cfl cl� M 00 ln O 00 d' �(D
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .
� d' � 1� CO CO t0 CC CD � tp � I� �f' CO 0� t0 d' N N M N CV N N
r � �
N N �
I'� �- M a- d' � CD 00 O 00 M 00 1� u� CO O�t' � d' N�(O 00 � CO
00 � tf7 N CO M O M C� 1� O�F tD .- O tY) M t0 CO O�- .- � CO 00
CO � C7 M I� N e- I� N N M tY) M 1'� d� O CO t0 00 I� � N 00 1� t�
. . . , . . . . . . , . . , . � . . . .
N I� t0 � f0 M�(O ct 1� N M M CO r- O 00 �- 00 � O� O��
m c> ao ao rn o.— •— ,— m m ao m o r r co � u� � a co d� �n et �
.— .— �— �— r-
d� d� o� rt tU CD N CD o0 O d- 00 ct cD O O N O M N
O�- d' .- d' ln � t0 M CO M tf') � N 00 O 6) �- M fD
� � � � � LL7 40 � N d' LC') .- � M M[h O� a- tC) N�.- .- � C+')
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
�- .- N M t.t) tf) N t(') I� (� 00 O 00 tn �t tn O
e- .- a- a- .- N.- .- .- � N
� O d' N CO 00 W N d� CO (D N CO� O 00 CO d' � M N O
e- e- O(� t0 t� tn M ct N O M r- M d' N tL) O M tt)
t(') �t 00 � t!7 ct t� N M d' O 00 M �.C) O 00 00 .- 00 1�
' ' ' ' '.- N.- .- N N M N M N M N' M ct tC) tA d� (O CO o0
O�O (O t0 O N O� CD OJ O d' �f' a0 O 00 N tC) 00 N CO �j aS
N�- t.D t� � 0� O N 00 ch �t �--� CO (� N 0� 1� M td) +' O
� � � � fY1 [h M f'� tn CO (O CD t.[) 1� 00 O N N d� 00 N � �
.— �— ,— '= e= c�i E
� �
c�p >
a. ;_'
C U
N �
�
� �
� �
C �
O '_
� C U
o� N a� N d' d' �t' c0 00 �t o0 el' 00 O O O[O a0 t0 cD t0 1� �t efi tG '= v� m
1� t+') 00 1� t� tD �- O N O M N M CD N e- � M d� tn N M CC � N>_ ��,j C�
d' tn 00 �t' M M O M a- � 00 �� d' ln d' 00 M d' 0� � N a- tD tA V p. 'v- � O
CG t0 CD 00 fA � e- N N� N M tA a- O fG 00 m d' tf') tC) 00 tr) (O tti m rn m c�-'o +�
a- .- .- N M M M tCl tt) Ln tf) I`� f� N O�- O O �-' �- C m
�— �— r e— f0 C�'' � �-
� � � a-�+ Q.
N C � C O
�' � C C U
'O C U t0 O
� N � .� N
�
U �- 'D p) _
00 N o0 CD cD O o0 c0 d� a0 O o0 O O O O N o0 d� O O d' ��<D N��� U
�.- Ln N� t� tD d' N M 4t) O M� CO c}' f0 t0 00 � I� I� a- I� t� 0� C 0 G
t0 (`� N 00 N M(D N LL� M d' �-- 00 .- 1� t0 IS) a- 00 lh f0 M t0 d� 1� +-� t) •- 'O ++
tf) t0 d� M 00 N 00 M C� CO O O 0) O�-- M.- 00 M Ln N 00 d' •- �'�7 '�'' O
t-- N N N N fh �-- [t' d' d' tD I� N N M.- a- e- N N d' � t0 00 �� C G aNi C
e- e- a- e- e- .- .- � e- e- e- a- a- N N N N N N N N N N N N v) p 'O tn
� •� � � N
'O N O C� O
Q Li � G 0
!O .t� U 'U N
N M ct tY) t0 I� OJ � O a- N M d� tt) CO P� OC1 � O r' N M d� ti') ffl
� n n � n � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
� � � � � � � � � � � � ln � � 0> lT � � � � � � � � �j
r e- e- a— r e- '- e— r a-- a-- e�- s— a— a— e— �— e� � � ��-- � � � y�
i-�
O
�
�'U
Q
�
N
U
�
O
�
DEIS, MAC estimated that total airport passenger traffic would grow to 33.4 miliion by the year 2020 (16.7
million enpianements), and annual aircraft operations wouid grow to 520,400.
Table 3 shows the MAC's Baseline Forecast of growth in passenger and aircraft activity through the year
2020. For more information about the Baseline Forecast and other MAC and FAA forecasts, see Section
C.2.2, below.
As a connecting hub airport, MSP's ability to accommodate growth in peak period activity is critical. Table
4 summarizes the forecast of peak hour activity. Peak-hour aircraft arrivals occur from 5:00 to 5:59 p.m.
and are projected to rise from 63 in 1992 to 75 in 2020. Peak-hour aircraft depa�tures occur from 9:00 to
9:59 a.m. and are projected to rise from 60 in 1992 to 72 in 2020. Peak-hour operations (both arrivais and
departures) occur from 6:00 to 6:59 p.m. and are estimated to increase from 119 in 1992 to 143 in 2020.
Table 3- Summary of Minneapolis-Saint Paul Baseline Forecast
Totai Passengers Total Aircraft Operations
miilions thousands
1994 (Actual) 24.5 454.7
1995 (Actual) 26.8 465.5
1996 (Actual) 28.8 485.5
2000 25.4 473.8
2005 27.8 484.8
2010 30.1 499.9
2015 31.7 508.4
2020 33.4 520.4
Source: Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport Long Term Comprehensive Plan, Volume 6, Revised Activity
Forecasts, Technical ndix MAC, March 1994 .
Table 4- Hourly Distribution of Aircraft Arrivals, Departures and Operations
Mode Year
Arrivals 1992
2020
Departures 1992
2020
Operations 1992
2020
Note: Onerations eaual arrivals
Peak Hour
1700-1759
1700-1759
0900-0959
0900-0959
1800-1859
1800-1859
General
Commerciai Aviation Milita
52.6 10.4 0.3
65.4 9.3 0.3
53.5 6.2 0.4
65.8 5.6 0.4
109.3 8.9 0.8
134.0 7.9 0.8
ithin the hour
N-29
C.2.2 Forecasts of Operations and Enplanements
MAC Forecasts
Totai
63.3
75.0
60.1
71.8
119.0
142.7
Forecasting has been an ongoing effort with regard to the Dual Track Planriing Process. MAC originally
deve�oped forecasts in 1990 using 1988 as a base year. As required by the Dual Track legislation, the
Duai Track Final EIS
I I-7
0
forecasts were updated in 1993 to refiect recent changes in the industry. In a legislative audit conducted by r''
the state of Minnesota in 1993, the methodology used by MAC in its 1990 forecasts was found to be �,
adequate. However, the Legislative Auditor's report 400k exception to the hubbing ratio used by MAC as
being too high, as 58 percent of all passengers were forecast to connect in the year 2000 and through the
remainder of the forecast period. The report recommended that MAC develop updated forecasts and
coordinate closely with Northwest Airlines regarding their plans for MSP.
The forecast update process was initiated in October 1992 and resulted in new forecasts the following year.
The 1993 revised MAC forecasts (Long-Term Comprehensive Plan, Volume 6, Revised Activity Forecasts,
December 1993) included a"Baseline ForecasY' and several atternative scenarios which took into
consideration variations in economic activity and airiine industry factors. The forecasts were developed taking
into consideration the finding of the Legislative Auditor's report and input from four expert paneis convened
over an eight-month period, including input from the FAA. Individual panel sessions focused on:
(1) forecasting methodologies, (2) socioecanomic assumptions, (3) aviation industry assumptions, and (4) an
overall review of the initial findings. Representatives of the Legislative Auditor's office were observers at
these panels. Based on input received during the panel sessions, regional carrier operations were increased
almost 10 percent over those used in the 1990 forecast and the hubbing ratio was significantly reduced. A
regression analysis, similar to the methodology commonly used for forecasting aviation activity at other U.S.
airports, was performed. The independent economic and industry variables used in this analysis were
extensive, and reflect local conditions as measured by such agencies as the Bureau of Economic Analysis
(BEA) in the U.S. Department of Commerce, and the Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities. These efforts
produced aircraft operations and enplanement forecasts that are lower than the 1990 forecasts.
The MAC 1993 forecasts reffect extensive input from the primary air senrice provider at Minneapolis-Saint
Paul International Airport, Northwest Airlines (NWA). NWA has developed a long-term strategic plan for
Minneapolis. Although the details of the business plan are confidential, NWA shared major assumptions with ,
the MAC so that the plans for MSP would include input from NWA. (NWA letter dated February 8, 1995). �{,I
At the time of the 1993 forecast, Northwest Airlines projected a fleet growth of less that 1 percent annually for
the next five years (Meeting Summary, MAC and NWA, December 17, 1992). They had eliminated plans to
add new markets as a result of aircraft order cancellations. NWA expected that, after an increase in the
hubbing ratio in 1993 resulting from the new connecting bank, the hubbing ratio would decrease until the ratio
of NWA jet to NWA jet connecting enptanements becomes 45 percent of total NWA jet enplanements at MSP
(hubbing ratio of 1.82). If interline and Northwest Airlink connections are factored in, the connecting
percentage and hubbing ratio would be higher.
NWA anticipated that the reduced connecting percentage would be achieved by limiting the annual increase
in MSP available seat miles to less that 1 percent. Local originating passengers would then gradually
displace connecting passengers (meeting with NWA, Dec. 17, 1992). NWA believes there will be a
fundamental change in the demand for future air travel, based on national economic conditions. These will
serve to lower demand vs. historical relationships (Dual Track Airport Planning Process Memorandum,
meeting with Northwest Airlines June 23, 1993).
However, in the 1993 to 1996 period, growth has exceeded NorthwesYs expec,tations as reflected in the
MAC's 1993 Baseline Forecast. Despite this growth, Northwest Airlines' view has been that growth during
this period was the result of three "one time" events — the Open Skies policy with Canada, which added
9,000 annual operations, and the combining of iwo minor Northwest hubs from other cities into existing major
hubs. These three events have resulted in a"step" in aircraft activity in the airlines' view, a trend which MAC
believes should not be extrapolated. These three factors and other influences on aviation in the Twin Cities,
pushed the activity levels beyond the MAC year 2005 forecast activiry levels in 1996. The airlines' opinion is
that the next incremental growth steps would not begin until the year 2000. This increment could coincide
within the implementation of the new north-south runway proposed in the 2010 LTCP for construction t�
completion and opening in 2003. While the 12-month level of activity snding in 1996 for total passengers �
Dual Track Final EIS
I I-8
exceeds the MAC 2005 Baseline Forecast, it falls within the range of the forecast scenarios developed by the
MAC (Long-Term Comprehensive Plan, Volume 6, Revised Activity Forecasts).
The MAC developed separate forecasts for the No Action Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, the
MAC concluded that a lack of adequate airtieid and gate capacity woutd result in constrained demand.
Passenger enplanements would decrease to 15.8 miliion in 2020 (verses 16.7 million under the MSP
Alternative) and operations wouid decrease to 473,500 (verses 520,400 under the MSP Alternative). These
levels of activity would be accommodated in under-sized facilities and at a much reduced levei of service to
the traveling public.
FAA Forecasts
Each year the FAA issues national forecast of aviation activity as weii as forecasts of aviation activity at aii
commercial service airports. The specific airport forecast is known as the FAA Terminai Area Forecast
(TAF). The TAF is based in large part on trend analysis with some modifications based on local conditions.
The forecast (i.e., operations and enplanements) is based on historicai relationships befinreen the airport's
specific aviation activity measures and national economic variabies influencing aviation activity. The TAF
assumes unconditionai demand but takes into account local and nationai conditions, as weli as conditions
within the airline industry. They do not consider airport-specific plans of the airlines. The FAA air carrier
enpianements forecast used a regression analysis where originating traffic is a function of empioyment in the
Minneapolis CMSA and the real yield at Minneapolis.
The FAA's 1997 TAF predicts that the totai number of enplaned passengers will increase from 14.4 million to
22.9 million between 1996 and 2010, for an average annual rate of increase of 3.4 percent. Connecting
enpianements were projected in the TAF as a function of U.S. domestic air carrier enpianements. Total
aircraft operations are forecast to rise from 485,500 in 1996 to 658,900 by 2010, an annual increase of about
� 2.2 percent. On a nationai basis, the FAA is expecting growth of domestic traffic between 1996 and 2007 of
3.8 percent annually.'
The FAA under the Deregulation Act of 1978 cannot dictate the level of service that an airiine or airport
provides. These industry decisions are affected by cost and senrice issues and are made by the airlines and
airpo�t proprietor. The rate of growth in employment from DRI McGraw Hill (Economic Forecasts) was 1.5
percent annuaily while the reai yield was projected to decrease at 2 percent per year. To develop the air
carrier operations, the forecast assumed a load factor of 60 rising to 65 percent by 2010, and average seats
per aircraft departure of 134 rising a half a seat per year to 142 over the period. These growth rates of
operations, as well as passengers, do not consider the specific business plan of Northwest Airlines for MSP.
Comparison of MAC High and FAA TAF Forecasts
It is the FAA's opinion that forecasts must be as accurate as possible when they drive decisions about the
timing and scale of major investments. In instances where the airport sponsor's forecast is too high, the
resuit can be premature or unneeded development, and where the forecast too low, the result can be an
understatement of environmental impacts. It is therefore the policy of FAA to review sponsor forecasts to
ensure that they are realistic and provide an adequate justification for airpo�t pianning and development.
Airport sponsor forecasts that vary considerably f�om the TAF must be resolved.
Tabie 5 compares the MAC's 1993 "Baseline ForecasY' and the FAA's 1997 TAF. Differences beiween the
MAC and FAA forecasts are to be expected since they were done at different times, using different
assumptions. However, based on a complete examination of both forecasts, FAA believes that future
demand at MSP wiil be greater than the MAC Baseline Forecast and that this greater demand should be the
basis for examining potential environmentai impacts.
� i
',- � i"FAA Paints Upbeat Air Travel Picture", Aviation Week & Space TechnoloQv, March 11, 1996.
Dual Track Final EIS
I i-9
{'�
- Table 5- Comparison of Forecasts
HISTORIC MAC 1993
YEAR ENPLANEMENTS FORECAST 1997 FAA TAF
1996 14,400,000
(Actual)
2000 12,704,000 16,096,100
2005 13,895,000 19,487,900
2010 15,030,000 22,879,600
2020 16,681,000 Not Availabie
HISTORIC MAC 1993
YEAR OPERATIONS FORECAST �997 FAA-TAF
1996 485,500
(Actual)
2000 473,800 533,900,
2005 484,800 596,500
2010 499,900 658,900
2020 520,400 Not Available
During the Duai Track process, the MAC examined twelve economic and airport utilization scenarios and -
their impacts on totai passenger enplanements and aircraft operations. The scenarios looked at high
economic growth, low economic growth, high yield due to oii price/tax shock, low-yield, low-cost entrant, high
yield sensitivity, minimum hub, maximum hub, FAA growth in aircraft size, high regional car�ier activity, low
regionai carrier activity, full potentiat ir�ternationai market, and restructured air travel demand. Combinations �
af these twelve scenarios resulted in the MAC High Forecast shown in Table 6. '
Table 6- MAC High Forecast
Year En lanements O erations
2000 16,714,000 550,200
2005 18,810,000 575,000
2010 20,828,000 603,800
2020 23,774,000 640,200
.................................................:_..........._............_..__..................................:..............................................................
Source: HNTB Anai sis
The MAC High Forecast is based on a combination of optimistic scenarios within the context �f rapid
economic growth. it assumes that high regional and nationai economic growth will increase � air carrier
originations and wili aiso increase national passenger activity, requiring MSP to accommodate more of the
Chicago connecting overfiow, and enabling NWA to profitably maintain its current connecting percentage.
Regional carrier activity will be relatively tower than that in the FEIS Forecast because: 1) like ail markets
under this case, short-haul markets will have greater leveis of passenger activity and would be more likely to
require the larger air carrier aircraft to accommodate the demand; 2) NWA would be better abie to afford new
100-seat aircraft to serve these markets; and 3) high income persons are more sensitive to time savings and
amenities, and are therefore more likely to choose jets over turboprops. It is assumed that part of the reason
for the high economic growth would be an increasingly global economy with reduced trade and bilaterai
restrictions. These factors, combined with congestion at other gateways, would encourage NWA non-stop
international service from MSP.
The MAC High Forecast and the FAA 1997 TAF activity levels are generaliy in line with one another. {
Furthermore, it is recognized that current airport activiiy levels are more consistent with the TAF or with the
Duai Track Final EIS
II-10
MAC High Forecast than they are with the Baseline Forecast. Differences between the MAC High Forecast
and the FAA TAF for the years 2000, 2005, and 2010 are approximately +4, -3, and -9 percent, respectively,
for passenger enpianements, and about +3, -4, and -8 percent, respectively, for aircraft operations in each of
these three time frames. FAA believes these to be reasonabte forecasts based on its professional judgment
and because the differences are within the accuracy of forecasting. The forecast differences are aiso within
the 10% rule of thumb used as a matter of practice by the FAA to determine whether to approve airport
master plan forecasts after comparison with the TAF. Therefore, for the purposes of this FEIS, the FAA and
MAC are in agreement that the MAC High Forecast is more representative of the level of future aviation
activity expected at MSP than the MAC Baseline Forecast.
Forecasts Used in this Final EIS
The MAC 1993 Baseline Forecast was utilized to evaluate the environmental consequences of the 2010
LTCP and the 2020 Concept Plan for MSP. However, since the MAC High Forecast is more representative
of the level of future aviation activity expected at MSP, the environmental analysis in this FEIS should
consider the effects of these higher levels of activity (see the foilowing discussion and Appendix H).
Sensitivity of Environmental impacts to Forecast Levels
Various environmental impact categories are potentialiy sensitive to higher levels of aircraft operations and
passenger enpianements and should be analyzed and disclosed based on a reasonabie forecast range. For
this reason, the FAA and MAC performed a sensitivity analysis for all 32 impact categories addressed in the
FEIS using the MAC High Forecast to determine if environmental thresholds would be exceeded.
The results of the sensitivity analyses are reported in Appendix H. At the compietion of these analyses, the
� FAA and MAC concluded that no impact would either exceed federai/state guidelines or require additional
mitigation beyond what is committed in the FEIS. While the impact categories of air quality, bird-aircraft
hazards, economic, energy and natural resources, noise effects, environmental justice, solid waste,
transportation access, wastewater, water supply, surtace water, groundwater, and wildiife refuges, all had
increases in environmental effects at the higher activity level, none of these categories would require
additional mitigation as a result of using the 2010 MAC High Forecast (the committed mitigation for impacts
on noise and the MVNWR used the 2010 MAC High Forecast). Therefore, the analyses of impacts in Section
V of this FEIS are not substantially changed from the analyses found in the DEIS, even though the impacts
and mitigations through 2010 shouid now be based on a higher levei of forecast demand than used for the
DEIS.
Noise was one of the most important impact categories evaluated in the sensitivity analysis. in completing
additional noise analysis using the MAC High Forecast, it was concluded that the worst-case noise impacts
due to aircraft operations would continue to occur in 2005 (the same worst-case year as with the Baseline
Forecast). Based on comparing the noise analyses for 2005, the MAC and the FAA found that the High
Forecast did not result in exceedances of the FAA's threshold-of-significance of 1.5 DNL increase in noise
over any noise-sensitive area within the DNL 65 contour, when compared to the Baseline Forecast. For more
information on the noise analysis, see Appendix H, including Figure H-1 showing noise contours under the
MAC Baseline and High Forecasts.
Two other environmentai impact categories evaluated in detail in Appendix H are air quality and water
quality. While the MAC High Forecast would result in additionai air pollutant emissions compared to the
Baseline Forecast, the total on-airport carbon monoxide emissions wouid be lower under either forecast with
implementation of 2010 LTCP than with the "No Action Alternative," prirnarily because of reduced aircraft
detays. A simitar relationship hoids for water quality, where extreme-case discharges of water containing
deicing fluid into the Minnesota River would be reduced through implementation of the 2010 LTCP (due to
l �' aircraft deicing pads to be constructed in connection with the new runway). See Appendix H for more
information.
Dual Track Final EIS
I I-11
The sensitivity analysis presented in Appendix H, which is based on higher airport demands than the DEIS, is lI
consistent with the FAA's TAF and resuited in no significant increases in environmentai impacts. In the case
of noise, any increased effect wouid be insignificant based on FAA-accepted standards of noise impact
significance. in the case of other resources, the effects under the MAC's High Forecast with the 2010 LTCP
are stiil less than the effects with the No Action Alternative (i.e., as with air quality and water quality).
Therefore, the analyses of impacts in this FEIS (Section V) was not substantiaily revised from the DEIS, even
though the analyses are based on a lower forecast level of airport activity. Furthermore, as previousiy
mentioned, the 2010 time frame is the emphasis of the sensitivity analysis. Additional environmental impact
studies wouid be required to further address impacts and mitigation for the period beyond 2010.
To conclude, based on the analysis found in Appendix H, the FAA has found that there are not any
significantly greater impacts expected under the MAC High Forecast activity leveis. The MAC and the FAA
also agree that the current trends impiy the possibility of more robust growth in aviation than was e�ected in
the Baseline Forecast, and a growth rate more consistent with the MAC High Forecast and the FAA's TAF:
Co3 Airport Limitations
M,4C and Federal Aviation Administration {FAA) studies have independently concluded that, withaut
substantial airfield, terminal, and access improvements, forecast growth in activity at MSP will result in
significantly decreased levels of service and increased user costs.
C.3o1 Airfield
MSP has three runways, two parallel runways and one crosswind runway (see Figure 2). Peak-hour
demand during instrument meteorological conditions currently exceeds the capacity of the existing !�
runway/taxiway system, as shown in Figure 3. By the end of the planning period, airfield simulation studies t,,
by both MAC and FAA demonstrated that, without major improvements, peak-hour departure queues for
the south parallel runway could reach more than 25 aircraft, resulting in excessive delays, blocking access
to the terminal area, and producing gridlock. Figure 4 shows the effect of peak-hour congestion on delays
at MSP by the year 2020. This effect would occur by 2010 if traffic at MSP continues to increase at rates
consistent with the MAC High Forecast. Based on airfield simulation studies conducted by MAC using the
Baseline Forecast, peak-hour (8:00-8:59 p.m.) delays are expected to average 15 minutes per aircraft
during instrument conditions, with the highest delays exceeding one hour. Although these effects are more
acutely experienced at MSP during adverse weather conditions, they can occur irrespective of weather
during periods of heavy traffic and as operation levels increase in the future. Greater delays may occur
under the assumptions of the MAC High Forecast. Such delays would seriously disrupt connecting
complexes and greatly decrease the airport's attractiveness as a connecting hub. As a practical matter,
delays of these magnitudes would result in flight diversions and cancellations. The results of these service
disruptions include higher operating costs to the airlines, and a lower level of passenger service.
Figure 5, summarizing the results of the FAA's Capacity Enhancement Plan for Minneapolis-St. Paul
International Airport, shows that if the No Action Alternative could accommodate the activity levels of the
MAC High Forecast, the annual cost of delay would increase from approximately $26 million at 1994 levels
of demand to approximately $66 million annually by the end of the planning pe�iod, after making the
improvements contemplated in the No Action Alternative. The airfield improvements included in the No
Action Alternative are committed projects with funding approved in the MAC Capital Improvement Program,
including such items as new holding/deicing pads, new apron pavement, and improvements to the existing
terminal. However, these improvements do not add substantially to the airfield's capacity. _ Therefore,
under No Action, significant airfie�d delays would occur throughout the day in varying weather conditions as
the airport nears the end of the forecast period.
_ _ _ . _ _ {,.
Dual Track Final EIS
II-12
, The opportunity to provide airfield improvements at MSP is extremely limited, as MSP's airfieid
configuration compiicates development of additional airfield capacity. The airport's parallel runways,
Runway 12R-30L and 12L-30R, are separated by 3,385 feet (see Figure 2). A serious capacity constraint
at MSP was relieved by the instaliation of a precision runway monitor allowing simultaneous independent
instrument approaches on these runways. The runway separation at MSP also affects aircraft circulation
between the runways and the terminai complex. The parallel runways at MSP are located approximately
1,000 feet from the face of the terminal buildings. The need to provide for runway and taxiway separation
standards, and aircraft parking and push-back areas within this limited area, limits aircraft circulation
options in and around the terminal area. Since opportunities to by-pass congested segments of taxiway or
to hold aircraft are not aiways available within the confines of the parallel runways, alternatives for reducing
congestion would involve substantiai changes in the existing airfieid and terminal layouts.
C.3.2 Passenger Terminals
Currently, MSP's �indbergh and Regionai Terminals have 68 air carrier and 37 regional aircraft parking
positions. By the year 2020 MSP wili require 83 air carrier and 34 regionai parking positions to meet
forecast demand. The forecast decrease in regionai parking positions is due to the consolidation and
sharing of these positions. Domestic air carrier facilities at MSP occupied approximately 1.4 million square
feet in 1993. These facilities are projected to require nearly 2.2 million square feet in 2020, an increase of
53.5 percent. -Regionai faciliiy requirements are projected to increase from 30,613 to 50,287 square feet,
nearly 70 percent, over the same period. The Humphrey Termina� serving international arrivals and all non-
scheduled (charter) operations currently occupies 90,000 square feet. Requirements for non-scheduled
airlines (damestic and internationai) are expected to exceed 459,Oq0 square feet by the end of the pianning
period.
The Lindbergh Terminai at MSP is located between Runways 12R-30L and 12L-30R (see Figure 2). Since
' these runways are only 3,385 feet apart, the site available for terminal development is limited since all of the
terminal passenger facilities, boarding gates, aircraft parking, and landside access roadways and curb
frontage must aii be contained within this dimension. This results in linear concourses over a portion of the
terminal area, because of the need for minimai terminai area depth, and "single loaded" concourses with
aircraft parking on one side of the concourse rather than "double loaded" concourse where aircraft parking
occurs on both sides of the concourse. Consequentty, significant passenger walking distances are required
on concourses that must paraliel the runways in order to accommodate the necessary aircraft gates. This
terminal configuration also results in a high percentage of circulation space, dupiication of security
checkpoints and airiine support functions, and limited e�ansion capability.
C.3.3 Surface Access
MSP is surrounded by major transportation corridors (see Figure 2). The Lindbergh Terminal area is
accessed from state Trunk Highway (TH) 5 to the east of the airport. TN 5 is projected to be operating
within its capacity at the airport entrance in the year 2020. Many of the corridors connecting TH 5 to the
region inciuding Interstate (i) 494, TH 55, the Crosstown Highway (TH 62) and i-35W are projected to be
near or above capacity in the year 2020. Substantiai improvement to most of these corridors will be
required to maintain adequate senrice levels in the MSP environs.
C.3.4 Development �imitations
Physical and environmental constraints surrounding MSP further compiicate development options.
Expansion of MSP is constrained by the proximity of the Minnesota River, several major highways, a state
park, historic district, cemetery, and adjacent residential and commercial development.
Duai Track Final EIS
II-13
Minnesota River
(,.
The Minnesota River runs along the southeastern boundary of the airport. The river and its associated
steep terrain represent a substantial constraint to airport expansion to the southeast. In addition, a corridor
along the Minnesota River adjacent to MSP has been designated as a National River and Recreation Area,
a component of the National Park System. The Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge is aiso located
along the Minnesota River to the south of MSP.
Transportation Corridors
As noted earlier, MSP is surrounded by major surface transportation corridors. These corridors include
interstate 494 along the southern boundary of the airport, Cedar Avenue (Trunk Highway 77) to the west,
the Crosstown Highway (Trunk Highway 62) along the north, and Trunk Highway 5 to the east of the airport.
Substantial expansion of the airport boundaries wouid affect these major transportation facilities and their
associated industrial and commercial development. Relocation of these facilities would entail substantial
cost and disruption.
Adjacent Land Use
MSP is surrounded by established land use as shown in Figure 0-1. Fort Snelling State Park, the Fort
Snelling National Nistoric Landmark District and the Oid Fort Snelling Historic District adjoin the airport to
the northeast, and Fort Sneiling National Cemetery lies immediately adjacent to the airport to the south.
Residential development borders the airport to the north and west. As a result, approximately 30,720 �
residents of Bloomington, Eagan, Fort Sneliing, Mendota Heights, Minneapolis, and Richfieid were exposed
to greater than DNL 65 noise leveis in the year 1992. The Mali of America, the largest shopping center in
the USA, is part of an extensive commercial compiex located to the south of the airport across Interstate
494. �
Dual Track Finai EIS
II-14
lil. Alternatives
A. Alternatives
The FAA and MAC considered many alternatives in the Dual Track Airport Planning Process. The
following is a summary of the range of alternatives considered to meet the air transportation needs for
the region by the years 2010 and 2020:
• No Action
• MSP Expansion (2010 LTCP and 2020 Concept Plan)
- runways, taxiways
- existing terminal expansion by 2010
- new terminal by 2020
- ground access improvements – 2010 and 2020
• New Airport
- search areas
- general airport configuration
- sites within selected search area
- airport layouts within selected site
• Other Alternatives
remote runway concept
suppiemental airport concept (use of MSP and other existing airport)
high-speed intercity rail concept (between Twin Cities and Chicago)
B. Alternatives Under Consideration
-� The foilowing alternatives are included in the Duai Track FEIS for detailed analysis — MSP Alternative
(2020 Concept Plan and 2010 LTCP) and No Action Alternative.
B.1 MSP Alternative
The MSP Alternative consists of the 2020 Concept Plan and the 2010 LTCP. As shown in Figure 6,
the MSP 2020 Concept Pian includes construction of a new 8,000-foot north-south runway, a new
replacement terminal building, a parking/drop-off facility on the east side of the airport, and additional
air cargo and maintenance facilities. Ground transportation access improvements would be provided
from TH 77 and TH 62 to the new west-side entrance of the terminal. Widening of TH 62 from I-
35W to TH 77, capacity improvements to the TH 62/TH 77 interchange, and widening of TH 77 from
TH 62 to I-494 are also required by the MSP Alternative (see Figure W-8). In addition to these
improvements, the widening of I-35W from 46th Avenue South to TH 62 and reconstruction of the i-
35W/TH 62 common section are needed to serve the MSP 2020 Concept Plan, but are also needed to
serve the region regardless of the MSP Concept Pian.
The MSP 2010 �TCP is the first phase of the 2020 Concept Pian; it consists of the construction of
the new 8,000-foot north-south runway, and replacement of maintenance, cargo and aircraft hangar
facilities. Ground transportation improvements would be modifications to the TH 77 and 66"' Street
interchange and airpo�t frontage road.
8.1.1 MSP Alternative Process
Six airport development concepts were considered for MSP. The evaluation and selection process
included a number of reports and studies. A seven-volume technical report was prepared which
�. � examined capacity, airspace, air service, and other issues. An Altemative Environmental Document
Dual Track Final EIS
III-1
(AED) was prepared which analyzed the differential environmental impacts of each concept at a level �
of detail required by an EIS.
Community participation was actively solicited (see Section VIII). The seven cities surrounding MSP
participated in an Interactive Planning Group to assess the impacts on their communities of MSP
expansion. Public meetings were held at several steps in the process to obtain citizen concerns and
comments.
B.1.2 The MSP Alternative and the Project Goals
This section summarizes the performance of the MSP Alternative relative to the regionai goals
described in Section II.
Goai A. To plan, develop and operate an aviation system that wiil help promote the orderly
growth and economic development of the region.
Measures of performance with respect to this goal include regional highway access
times, the effect of the airport on regional economic development, and the location of
induced development.
• Regional Access. The MSP Alternative would continue operation of the region's
major air carrier airport at its present location. This location is currently served by
major transportation corridors. Proposed changes in airport access would increase
travel options and improve regionai access to the airport. Due to its proximity to
regional population centers, average regional travel times for this alternative are
moderate. In the year 2020, this alternative would result in average regional ,•
passenger driving times of 22 and 26 minutes during off-peak and peak periods, t
respectively.
� Regional Economic Development. Due to improved airfield capacity, the MSP
Alternative would permit increased airport activity and associated economic
development. The year 2020 forecasts indicate that this alternative would
experience 8.9 million originating passengers, 16.7 million enplaned passengers,
and 520,400 total aircraft operations. Economic development associated with
this activity is expected to generate approximately 16,600 direct jobs, and $2.2
billion in visitor sales in 2020.
• Location of Induced Development. The MSP Alternative would continue to induce
development in the area surrounding the existing airport. This area is
characterized by substantial airport-related and other commercial development.
Goal B. To provide an aviation system that is safe, efficient and economical.
All of the alternatives under consideration would be operated in accordance with
applicable safety standards and criteria. Differences in airfield configuration would be
addressed by operational restrictions as necessary to ensure safe operation.
Accordingly, measures of performance with respect to this goal include airfield delay
and the capital cost of proposed facilities.
• Airfieid Delay. The MSP Alternative would reduce the cost of user delay by
providing additional runway capacity. Figure 5 shows that for any level of annual
demand, the MSP Alternative provides a substantial reduction in delay. This �'
- alternative would also result in a significant reduction in peak-hour delays, as �,
Dual Track Final EIS
III-2
shown in Figure 7. In the year 2020, the annual cost of aircraft delay is projected
to be $38 million for the MSP Aiternative, a reduction of about 43 percent over
the No Action Alternative.
Capital Costs. The cost of the MSP 2020 Concept Pian is estimated at 53.15
biliion in 1995 dollars, exclusive of mitigation costs. The estimated cost of the
2010 LTCP is 5803 million, exclusive of mitigation costs.
Gaal C. To provide aviation facilities and services that produce positive effects on the social
and economic environments with minimai adverse effects on the physical
environment.
Measures of performance with respect to this goal focus on the relative environmental
effects of the alternatives under consideration. Detailed comparisons of specific
impact categories are provided in Section V. The following summary highlights key
environmental aspects of the MSP Alternative in terms of aircraft noise, air quality,
endanger�d ar�d �hreatened species, and water quality.
� ��rcraft Noise. For the year 2005, the MSP Altemative would result in
approximately 7,650 persons being exposed to noise levels of DNL 65 or greater,
and 22,030 being exposed to levels of DNL 60 to 65.
• Air Quality. The MSP Alternative wouid not cause significant air quality impacts.
MSP is located in a Carbon Monoxide (CO) nonattainment area. CO emissions
would not exceed CO emission thresholds.
�, o Endangered and Threatened Species. The MSP Alternative would not adversely
impact the bald eagle population of the Minnesota Vailey National Wiidlife Refuge.
The bald eagle is the only federally-listed species having habitat close enough to
MSP to be affected by this alternative. The MSP Alternative could have an
adverse effect in terms of reducing the quality of wetiand habitat for waterbirds
including forsters tern, a state-listed species. This reduction in habitat quality
would be due to the filiing of wetlands for the 2010 LTCP and the shading of
wetlands caused by bridge structures required for the 2020 Concept Plan's new
west terminal roadways.
Water Quality. Winter discharges to the Minnesota River containing deicing fluids
and associated Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) represent the greatest potential
impact to surface water quality. Dedicated deicing pads at runway ends with
segregated underdrainage and enhanced detention basins would be provided to
improve the quality of the discharge to the river . Groundwater impacts due to
releases of fuel or other contaminants are possible, although the probability of
such releases are relatively low. The groundwater aquifer underlying MSP is
considered to be of low to medium sensitivity.
Goal D. To develop, operate and maintain an aviation system that enhances the quality of life
for people in the Twin Cities Area by providing them with good access to state,
national and international activities and opportunities.
Measures of performance with respect to this goal focus on the air service
characteristics of the alternatives under consideration. These measures include the
number of originating passengers (representing regional demand) and the quality of air
� '�
Dual Track Final EIS
III-3
service (the average daily frequency of departures). Another consideration is the f•
flexibility to accommodate demand beyond the planning period. ',
• Number of Originating Passengers. In the year 2020, the MSP Alternative is
forecast to accommodate 8.9 million passenger originations.
• Air Service Quality. The MSP Alternative is forecast to support 408 scheduled air
carrier and 159 regional carrier average daily departures for the year 2020, with
nonstop service to more than 115 cities.
• Flexibility. The MSP Alternative wiil accommodate the forecast demand through
the year 2020. After that time, continued growth in demand will result in the
need for additional airport development not provided under this alternative, or
congestion and delays will increase.
Goal E. To attain a regional aviation planning and programming process that is responsive to
the needs and interests of residents, industries, counties, cities, and affected agencies
and provides sufficient opportunities for them to participate in formulating and
implementing public policies.
The process used to select the MSP Alternative offered multiple opportunities for
residents, industries, counties, cities, townships, and affected agencies to participate.
See Section VIII for a discussion of these opportunities.
B.2 No Action Alternative
The No Action Alternative consists of the existing airport facilities and access at MSP and those �r�
committed projects with funding approved by the Commission in its 1995-1997 Capital Improvement
Program (C.I.P.) and those committed projects in the 1998 C.I.P. that are not associated with the
implementation of the new north-south runway (see Figure 2). A reduced level of airport activity
compared to the MSP Alternative, as described in the Purpose and Need section, is assumed for this
alternative due to inadequate airport capacity. The achievement of even these constrained levels also
assumes that larger aircraft are purchased by the airlines serving MSP to provide more seats per
operation on the constrained airfield. The committed major projects included in this alternative are:
• Pavement rehabilitation of Runways 12/30
• Runway 12L holding/deicing pad
• Auto Rental/Parking Expansion
• New automated underground people mover connecting parking ramps to main terminal
• Reconstruction of HHH Terminal
• New Sun Country hangar
• New Taxiway W
s Increased use of Runway 4-22 runway use system
B.2.1 The No Action Alternative and the Project Goals
This section summarizes the performance of the No Action Alternative relative to the regional goals
described in Section II.
Goal A. To plan, develop and operate an aviation system that will help promote the orderly
growth and economic development of the region.
;'
{
Dual Track Final EIS
III-4
Measures of performance with respect to this goal include regional highway access
times, the effect of the airport on regional economic development, and the location of
induced development.
Regional Access. The No Action Alternative would continue operation of the
region's major air carrier airport at its present location. This location is currently
served by major transportation corridors and substantial airport-related commercial
development'. In the year 2020, this alternative would result in average regional
passenger driving times of 24 and 27 minutes during off-peak and peak periods,
respectively.
• Regional Economic Development. Due to airfield and terminal capacity
constraints, the No Action Alternative would not accommodate all potential
demand in the year 2020. Forecasts indicate that this alternative could only
handle 8.7 million originating passengers, 15.8 million enplaned passengers, and
473,500 total aircraft operations. These levels of activity would be
accommodated at a significantly reduced level of service to airport users than the
level of service associated with the build alternatives. There would be inadequate
� capacity to handle airfield traffic, cargo development, parking and terminal needs
of passengers. Passengers would need to be processed in the existing terminal
� building, which would be significantly undersized to accommodate the 33.4 million
total passengers (16.7 miliion enplaning passengers) expected by 2020. While the
analysis of terminal facility requirements indicated a need for 2.6 million square
feet, only 1.5 million square feet would be availab�e, resulting in significant
crowding, a low level of service and high maintenance costs. Airfield delays
would also be significant. This level of service would clearly have an impact on
� potential economic investment in the region, and wouid serve as a detriment to
future growth. The fact that demand is already constrained in the No Action
forecast, due to inadequate capacity, is evidence of the future constraints that the
No Action Alternative wouid create on regional development.
Location of Induced Development. Development would continue in the area
surrounding the existing airport. This area is characterized by substantial airport-
related and other commercial development.
Goal B. To provide an aviation system that is safe, efficient and economical.
All of the alternatives under consideration would be operated in accordance with
appiicable safety standards and criteria. Differences in airfield configuration would be
addressed by operational restrictions as necessary to ensure safe operation.
Accordingly, measures of performance with respect to this goal include airfield delay
and the capital cost of needed facilities.
• Airfield Delay. Figure 5 shows that with no facility improvements, and assuming
the base case forecasts, the annual cost of delay in 2020 is projected to be S66
million, resulting in near gridlock during some hours. Annual aircraft operations
were constrained under the No Action Alternative to remove some of the gridlock,
which reduces the cost of delays to about $52 million. (See Section II.C.2.2 for a
discussion of No Action forecasts.) Significant aircraft delays would still be
experienced during many hours of the day even at the constrained level. The
terminal building would be significantly undersized, automobile parking facilities
would be inadequate, and the current level of air cargo facilities could not
t, ' accommodate future demand. The resultant airport layout would be extremely
Dual Track Final EIS
III-5
congested, would provide an extremely low level of service for its users, and
wouid therefore not provide an aviation system that is efficient and economicai. �,
• Capital Costs. The estimated cost of the No Action Alternative is $255 million.
Costs for projects in the MAC Capital Improvement Programs through 1998, and
on-going maintenance costs, are included in this alternative. No projects during or
after 1998 that would add capacity to the airfield or main terminal are included.
Goal C. To provide aviation facilities and services that produce positive effects on the social
and economic environments with minimal adverse effects on the physical
environment.
Measures of performance with respect to this goal focus on the relative environmental
effects of the alternatives under consideration. Detailed comparisons of specific
impact categories are provided in Section V. The following summary highlights key
environmental aspects of the No Action Alternative in terms of aircraft noise, air
quality, endangered and threatened species, and water quality.
• Aircraft PVoise. For the year 2005, the No Action Aiternative would result in
approximately 7,350 persons being exposed to noise leveis of DNL 65 or greater,
and 27,690 being exposed to levels of DNL 60 to 65.
• Air Quality. MSP is located in a Carbon Monoxide (CO) nonattainment area.
Aithough increasing levels of airfield and landside congestion would increase
emissions, these emissions would not exceed CO and other air quality emission
standards.
• Endangered and Threatened Species. The No Action Alternative would have no ��,
effect on federal or state listed species.
• Water Quality. Winter discharges to the Minnesota River containing deicing fluids
and associated Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) represent the greatest potential
impact to surface water quality. Groundwater impacts due to releases of fuel or
other contaminants are possible under any alternative, although the probability of
such releases are relatively low. The groundwater aquifer underlying MSP is
considered to be of low to medium sensitivity.
Goal D. To develop, operate and maintain an aviation system that enhances the quality of life
for peopie in the Twin Cities Area by providing them with good access to state,
nationai and international activities and opportunities.
Measures of performance with respect to this goal focus on the air service
characteristics of the alternatives under consideration. These measures include the �
number of originating passengers (representing regionai demand) and air service
quality (average daily frequency of departures). Another consideration is the flexibility
to accommodate demand beyond the planning period.
• Number of Originating Passengers. In the year 2020, the No Action Alternative is
forecast to accommodate 8.7 million passenger originations aithough at a
substantially-reduced level of service as compared with today and the MSP
Alternative. This is a constrained level of demand that, over time, would have a
very negative impact on the level of access to regional, state, national and
international opportunities. The No Action Alternative would have less airfield �
._ _ _ . __
Dual Track Final EIS
III-6
capacity, resulting in greater delays and higher airline operating costs than the
__ other alternative under consideration, even with the constrained number of
originating passengers. These constraints on demand are based on the
expectation that as congestion reaches unacceptable levels, activity would be
diverted to other airports, and the percentage of connecting passengers wouid
decrease as airlines tried to accommodate more local passengers. As hubbing
activity diminished, potential economic benefits and air service opportunities to the
region would also be reduced.
Air Service Quality. The No Action Alternative is forecast to support 384
scheduled passenger air carrier and 140 regional carrier average daily departures
for the year 2020. Since much of this service is made possible by the airport's
role as a connecting hub, increased congestion and operating costs are expected
to reduce service relative to the other alternative under consideration. MSP
currently (September 1995) provides nonstop service to 115 cities. Under the No
Action Alternative, air carriers would have to balance increased service frequency
to existing nonstop markets with providing nonstop service to new markets.
Smaller markets could expect to see a deterioration of service as activity levels
continue to increase.
• Fiexibility. The No Action Alternative would experience increasing congestion and
delay during the planning period. This congestion is expected to constrain growth
in aircraft operations before the end of the planning period. Consequently, the
ability of the airport to accommodate connecting passengers would decrease.
Beyond the planning period, growth in origin/destination passengers will also
become constrained, which wili have negative economic impacts to the region.
) This lack of flexibility is contrary to Goals A, B and D.
Goal E. To attain a regional aviation planning and programming process that is responsive to
the needs and interests of residents, industries, counties, cities, and affected agencies
and provides sufficient opportunities for them to participate in formulating and
implementing public policies.
The process has offered multiple opportunities for residents, industries, counties, and
aftected agencies to participate. See Section VIII for a discussion of the process.
C. Alternatives Eliminated
The following subsections summarize the evaluations of alternatives which have been eliminated from
further consideration.
C.1 MSP Alternatives Eliminated
As noted in the discussion of Purpose and Need, airport planning goals were established based on the
Metropolitan Council's regional goals. The Lona Term Comprehensive Plan (LTCP) for MSP, Volume
1, Goals, Assumptions and Methodoloqies incorporated planning goals to guide the development of
the MSP Alternative. These goals, augmented by objectives, were used to identify the best MSP
alternative. Alternatives eliminated during these evaluations are not considered to be reasonable
alternatives for meeting the year 2020 regional aviation needs of the Twin Cities.
� f Initially, more than twenty concepts were reviewed for possible value in adding capacity to the
existing MSP airport. Detailed computer simulations of the delay reductions which would result from
Dual Track Final EIS
111-7
each of these concepts were completed. An interactive planning group was formed to provide {- "
extensive input for this evaluation. The best six MSP concepts were more fully evaluated in the
LTCP. They were the subject of detailed environmental analysis in the Final AED for the MSP Long-
Term Comprehensive Plan (LTCP) and detailed operational analysis in the MSP LTCP Vo/ume 5 and 7
Technical Reports. As a result of these processes, Concept 6 was selected as the MSP 2020
Concept Pian and Concepts 1-5 (Figures 9-13) were eliminated from further consideration in the Final
Alternative Environmental Document for the MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan, February 1995.
Concepts 1 and 2(Figures 9 and 10) had a new 7,700-foot north-parallel runway (12/30) with and
without a new west terminal. These concepts were eliminated for the following reasons:
• the north-south runway in Concept 6 provides more capacity than a north parallei runway,
• compared to Concept 6, the north parallel runway would -- demolish contributing
components of both the Fort Snelling National Landmark Historic District and the Old Fort
Snelling National Register Historic District — displace a Section 4tf) 9-hole golf course and
directly impact Bossen Fieid, a Section 4(f) park — displace 601 more residents -- subject
3,030 more residents to aircraft noise levels greater than DNL 60 — and place 2,010 more
monthly flights less than 500 feet over areas where birds congregate.
• subsequent to the completion of the Final AED, the 1996 Minnesota legisiature enacted
legislation that specifically prohibits the construction of the north parallei runway without the
approval of each affected city, and MAC must enter into a contract with each affected city
stating this prohibition.
For these reasons, the concepts involving a north-parailei runway are not considered feasible and
prudent alternatives for adding one new runway to the MSP airfield. When compared to the proposed
action (the north-south runway), the north-parallel concepts would result in more extensive
Section4(f) resource and residential impacts. Furthermore, due to state legislative requirements, the
north-paraliel runway is currently not a feasible concept. (
�
Concepts 3 and 4(Figures 11 and 12) had a new 8,000-foot south-parallel runway (12/30) with and
without a new west terminal. These concepts were eliminated for the foliowing reasons:
• significant operational probiems, safety concerns, and less capacity than Concept 6-- caused
by the ciose proximity of the Fort Snelling National Cemetery; the cemetery boundary and
terrain would require a stagger of about 5,000 feet between the proposed runway end and
existing Runway 12R/30L,
• compared to Concept 6, the south parallel runway would subject 10,000 more residents to
aircraft noise levels greater than DNL. 60.
This combination of minimal benefit and greater environmental impacts caused the FAA and the MAC
to conclude that the south-parallel runway concepts are also not feasible and prudent. Compared to
the proposed north-south runway, the addition of a south-parallel runway would involve higher costs,
greater residential impacts, and more operational/capacity constraints.
Concept 5(Figure 13) had the north-south runway and an additional passenger terminal east of the
existing terminal. For the year 2010, Concept 5 would be similar to Concept 6; the major difference
is the new west terminal in Concept 6, which is subject to further environmental evaluation. Concept
5 was eliminated because it would be less convenient than Concept 6 for passenger gate access and
parking, less efficient baggage transfer, less efficient for regional and international connecting
passengers, less flexibility for the use of gates by different types of aircraft, and more confiicts in
aircraft circulation.
�ual Track Final EIS
III-8
C.2 New Airport Alternative
The agencies responsible for implementation of the Dual Track Airport Planning Process, the
Metropolitan Airports Commission and the Metropolitan Council (MC), evaluated the two alternatives
outlined in the 1989 Metropolitan Airport Planning Act (expansion of Minneapolis-St. Paul international
Airport and development of a new airport). The New Airport Alternative developed from this process
is shown in Figure 14. The airfield would consist of six runways: four parailel runways and two
crosswind runways. Main highway access would be from the north by a new eight-lane freeway to a
centrally-located terminal. The foliowing major 2020 impacts of this alternative were presented in the
DEIS:
• Average travel time to the terminal would be 20 minutes longer than to MSP
• Over $511 million in needed off-airport highway improvements, compared to about $200 million
for the MSP Alternative
• Over 17,000 acres of farmland would be acquired due to site development, highway construction,
power line relocation and induced development
o Over 6,800 acres of wildlife habitat would be lost, compared to 360 acres for the MSP Aiternative
• The development cost would be over $2.2 billion more than the MSP Alternative
• The new airport would entail greater financial risk than MSP 2020 Concept Pian for adjusting to
changing demand, since most of the construction and land acquisition would have to occur in the
early phases and development of MSP could be accomplished incrementally as needed.
The evaluation by MAC and MC was based on the DEIS and suppiementary reports prepared during
the Dual Track Planning Process and summarized in a series of findings and concfusions that
represented the joint recommendation of the two agencies to the Minnesota legislature. (See Report
� to the Legisiature, March 1996). These findings inc�ude the principal rationale for the elimination of
the New Airport Alternative and the selection of the MSP Alternative. The findings were based on the
following evaluation criteria: airport operational issues, ground access issues, economic impacts,
financial issues, environmental impacts, and flexibility issues. In March 1996 MAC and MC submitted
the report to the legislature containing their recommendations on future major airport development. In
April 1996 the legislature considered these recommendations and the comprehensive planning
documents and their environmental effects mandated by the 1989 legislation, and selected the
development of MSP as the preferred alternative. The legislature enacted legislation that mandates
implementation of the MSP 2010 LTCP, prohibits the preservation of land or land uses for a new
major airport, and states that the provision of environmental or technical analysis of the New Airport
Alternative in this FEIS is not required.
C.3 Other Alternatives Eliminated
The Minnesota legislature also considered the following alternatives in its decision to implement the
expansion of MSP:
a. High-Speed Intercity Rail
Mn/DOT performed a study in 1991 on the implications of high-speed rail alternatives on air
traffic in the Minneapolis-St. Paul, Madison, Milwaukee and Chicago corridor. Rail
technology with operating speeds of 125, 185 and 300 mph were considered. The
purpose of this alternative was to retain existing MSP and divert sufficient
passengers/operations from air service to rail service, such that new runway and terminal
facilities would not be needed by 2020. Results of the study were that the rail services
would not divert enough passengers and operations by the year 2020 to preclude a new
Dual Track Final EIS
III-9
runway and terminal at MSP. In short, high-speed inner city rail would not meet the year �
2020 capacity needs which underlie Goals A, B, C, and D.
b. Remote Runway Concept
This alternative would retain the ticketing, baggage, and support facilities at MSP,
construct new gates and runways at a remote location in Dakota County (15-25 miles from
MSP), and construct a high-speed transit link between the existing terminal and the new
gates. The purpose of this alternative is to retain the ground accessibility and exisfiing
development related to MSP, and move the airfield activity to a remote location. A study
of this alternative was completed in September 1995. Results of the study are:
The high-speed transit link between MSP and the remote runways would have adverse
environmental impacts: it would require a one-mile long high bridge over the
environmentally-sensitive Minnesota River valley; the subsequent extension across
Dakota County would traverse several wetlands and other environmentally-sensitive
areas, and disrupt service on more than 15 local roadways; it would introduce adverse
aircraft noise into Dakota County without relocating the economic benefits/tax base.
While it has been assumed in this alternative that no local passengers would be allowed
to drive directly to the remote runway site to take a commercial flight, this is neither
politically nor economically realistic. People coming from locations near the remote
runways, or other locations further south, will insist on having direct access. in reality,
the public would ultimately insist that passenger processing, baggage and public
parking facilities be included at the remote runway site, which would duplicate facilities
at MSP. The result would be, in effect, a two-airport system serving the region, with
redundant facilities. Passengers flying from the Twin Cities would need to decide �
whether they are going to MSP or to the Dakota County location and check their
baggage accordingly.
• The cost of this alternative is slightly greater than the New Airport alternative, primarily
due to the transit system on exclusive right-of-way.
The long-distance separation of ticketing/baggage/parking and the gates/runways
results in an inefficient operation. Normal breakdowns of the transit system will result
in unacceptable delays for passengers and airlines.
The remote runway alternative is inconsistent with Goal B, which calis for an efficient and
economical system, and Goal C, which calis for positive effects on the social and economic
environments and minimal adverse effects on the physical environment.
c. Supplemental Airport Concept
The objective of this alternative is to accommodate future demand at MSP without the
need for major airfield and terminal additions. Since all of the demand could not be
accommodated without major new facilities, certain components of demand (general
aviation, military, regional, cargo, international, or flights to major markets) would be
shifted to another existing airport in the state. If this activity could be relocated, it might
be possible to accommodate the remaining 2020 demand without having to develop
significant new facilities (a new runway or replacement terminal). The supplemental airport
alternative could retain the ground accessibility characteristics of MSP for most passengers
without requiring extensive additional development. A 1993 MAC study evaluated the
transfer of various aviation demand components from MSP to Rochester Municipal Airport
Dual Track Final EIS
III-10
(MSP Third Option Scenarios). A study commissioned by Mn/DOT in 1995 on the use of
supplemental airports also addressed the feasibility of supplemental airports. A summary of
the findings follows.
• Military Operations could be relocated to another airport. The resulting decrease in
traffic at MSP (eight daily operations and less than one operation in the peak hour)
would not impact the need for new facilities at MSP, but wouid provide additional
space for other aviation facilities, not including new runways.
• Cargo Activity at MSP includes all cargo-airline activity and cargo carried in the bellies
of passenger aircraft. The former is not tied to passenger traffic, and could potentialiy
be relocated. This activity comprises about 113 daily operations (8.0 percent of total
operations). Since less than two operations in the peak hour are attributable to cargo
activity, relocating air cargo services would not diminish the need for a new runway.
In addition, the closest airport that could be expanded to accommodate air cargo
activity, Rochester, is at least 1'h hours away from the Twin Cities. This would require
overnight operators to pick up their cargo at least 1'/z hours earlier, thus shortening the
business day and putting Twin Cities businesses at a competitive disadvantage. Since
most of this cargo is destined for the Twin Cities, it would also increase delivery times
to local customers particularly in bad weather during the winter months. Lastly,
Northwest beliy cargo (i.e., cargo carried by passenger aircraft) would remain at MSP,
resulting in split cargo operations.
• International operations are a growing segment of traffic at MSP. MAC is considering
several options for integrating these operations into the domestic passenger facility,
including the construction of a new $30 miilion facility. The few numbers of flights in
the peak hour, if removed, would not diminish the need for a new runway or new
terminal building. If the international passengers and operations were shifted away
) from MSP, the travel time between the Twin Cities and the airports that could provide
comparable intemationai service without construction of additional facilities would be 3
hours (Duluth}, resulting in undue inconvenience for international travel to and from the
Twin Cities. Further, the majority of international passengers at MSP (around 70
percent) connect between domestic and international flights. The long highway trip
between MSP and the supplemental airport would clearly discourage connecting
passengers from using Twin Cities, further decreasing the viability of international
service.
• Regional aircraft flights are forecast to comprise 22 percent of year 2020 operations.
Relocating regional activity to Saint Paul Downtown Airport could result in more
modest expansion at MSP, by delaying the need for a new runway to beyond 2020.
However, since approximately 80 percent of regional passengers are transferring to air
carrier flights, nearly 6,500 passengers a day would have to travel between MSP and
Saint Paul Downtown. Competing, more convenient, regional airline service would
likely be created through other hubs. It is likely that many passengers would connect
into the Nationai Airport System via these other airline hubs, if possible, to eliminate
this inconvenience. In response, air carriers may begin serving some of the busier
regional markets out of MSP, diminishing the impact of relocating regional service in
the first piace. Saint Paul Downtown Airport lies on the Mississippi flood-plain, and
significant expansion would be extremely difficult and costly due to limited land
availability, the presence of the floodplain, and extensive wetlands. Moving regional
service to an airport further out would result in long ground travel times between the
supplemental facility and MSP, making the concept infeasible. Also, removal of
regional flights from the hub wouid reduce the overall effectiveness and efficiency of
the hub.
o Service to major markets, such as Chicago, could be transferred to another airport,
� ` reducing operations and passenger volumes by relocating service to only a few cities;
Dual Track Final EIS
III-11
however, since MSP is a public use airport, it would be extremely difficult from a legal l,
perspective to force carriers to relocate service to certain markets. Many of the
passengers on flights to major markets are local Twin Cities passengers, who would
face much longer drive times to the airport in Rochester, Duluth, or elsewhere.
Passengers having a connecting flight at a different airport would find transferring
extremely difficult. These passengers would likely choose another routing, reducing
overali passenger feed for the hub carrier at Minneapolis, ultimately resulting in an
overall degradation of service and a negative impact to the economies of the hub.
General Aviation comprises about six operations in the peak hour -- less than five
percent of total peak hour operations. Although relocating GA activity would slightly
reduce peak hour activity, it would not be to such a level so as to impact the need for
a new runway. in addition, moving GA activity wouid have no effect on reducing the
need for expanded terminal facilities.
The supplementai airport alternative is inconsistent with Goal B, which calls for an efficient
and economical system, and Goal D, which calls for providing the Twin Cities area with
good access to state, national and international activities and opportunities. None of the
supplemental airport concepts listed above defer the need for major expansion at MSP. For
these reasons, the supplemental airport concept is not considered a viable alternative to
development of MSP or a replacement airport.
D. Preferred Alternative/Proposed Action
After seven years of analysis, the Legislature conciuded the Dual Track study process on April 2,
1996, by directing the MAC to implement the MSP 2010 �TCP. The April 1996 legislation prohibits �
development of the new west-side passenger terminal (a major component of the 2020 Concept PIan1 �
without further legisiative action.
The expansion of MSP is therefore the preferred alternative, which consists of the 2010 LTCP and the
2020 Concept Plan. After careful consideration of the analysis of alternatives, and of the ability of
the alternatives to satisfy the identified purpose and need for this proposal, and after review and
consideration of testimony at public hearings and comments submitted in response to the DEIS and of
coordination with federal, state, and local agencies, the FAA selects the runway alternative adopted
and approved by the Minnesota legislature in April 1996 as FAA's preferred alternative. The preferred
alternative of the FAA in the FEIS is, therefore, the implementation of the 2010 LTCP — which is the
proposed action. The proposed action includes the following elements:
• new north-south runway (Runway 17/35) 8000 feet in length with associated taxiways
and holding/deicing pad at the north end
• new holding/deicing pads for Runways 12R, 30L and 30R
• enhanced storm water detention basins
• expansion of Red, Gold and Green Concourses
• new Green Concourse people mover
• new skyway connector between Gold and Green Concourses
• realignment and widening of airport frontage road between 66th Street and 34th Avenue
South
• reconstruction of TH 77/66th Street interchange
• relocation/construction of maintenance, aircraft hangar and air cargo facilities
s new apron pavement
• implementation of necessary air traffic control procedures ,,
s installatio.n of necessary navigational and lighting_aids _ �
Dual Track Final EIS
III-12
Implementation of the proposed action may require modifications by FAA of the affected airspace; it
also requires the approvai by FAA of the Airport Layout Plan (ALP) and the use of federal airport-
development funds and Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) revenues.
Additionai projects in the preferred alternative but outside of the 2010 proposed action include a
replacement terminal on the west side of the airport, supporting highway improvements, and
additional cargo and maintenance hangar development. Development beyond 2010 is subject to
further environmental assessment and separate FAA and FHWA approvais.
The preferred alternative is also the environmentally-preferred alternative of those airport development
alternatives that would satisfy the purpose and need for the project — with less significant adverse
effects on the environment (when considering the committed mitigation) than the No Action
Alternative. The preferred alternative will have less impact on air quality, surface water quality and
energy consumption and a more beneficial impact on the economy than the No Action Alternative.
The No Action Alternative would not satisfy the purpose and need for the project (accommodate the
air transportation needs to the year 2010 and have a plan for accommodating 2020 needs). The
following are comparisons of the projected major impacts of the MSP 2010 LTCP with the No Action
Alternative.
Beneficial Impacts
• no increase in total off-airport carbon monoxide emissions, compared to no action
• 4,638 tons per year of total on-airport carbon monoxide emissions, compared to 5,617 for no
action
• 161 tons of total airport SOx emissions, compared to 168 tons for no action
0 155 million gallons per year of aircraft and vehicle fuel consumption, compared to 161 million for
no action
� • 7,900 pounds per day of CBODS discharge from deicing, compared to 9,200 for no action
` ' • 5900,000,000 of economic output from construction, compared to $290,000,000 for no action
Adverse Impacts
0 82 businesses with 2,896 employees relocated, compared to none for no action
• 7,650 persons residing within the DNL 65+ noise contours, compared to 7,350 for no action
• 158 households with 370 residents relocated due to noise, compared to 76 households with 156
residents for no action
• 32.69 acres of wetland filled (5$.92 acres replaced), compared to none for no action
• 5,620 monthly overflights under 2,000 feet and substantial impairment of environmental
education activities in the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge, compared to no overflights
and no impairment for no action
FAA Role in the Alternative Selection Process
Under the dual track planning process, the Minnesota legislature and the MAC, as the sponsor and
airport proprietor, have the fundamental role of deciding how to satisfy aviation demand in the
Minneapolis area and to determine the approach to the implementation of their selection. The FAA
recognizes that the selection of the MSP 2020 Concept Plan by the Minnesota Legislature as the
preferred alternative was not simply the result of technical evaluations and environmental impacts, but
was strongly �nfluenced by public opinion, political negotiations, economic factors, and airline
involvement.
The FAA analyzed alternatives in this EIS from the perspective that it has the authority to withhold
project approval, including federal funding and other actions. FAA does not have the authority to
control or direct the actions and decisions of the state legislature or the MAC relative to the dual track
� planning process. FAA considered their purposes and needs and the common sense realities of the
Dual Track Final EIS
I11-13
planning process in the development of aiternatives in this EIS. FAA independently reviewed the new �
airport altemative and determined that it was not a feasible or prudent alternative warranting further
deteiled study in the FEIS as a matter of federal law. FAA considered as a factor, but not as
dispositive, the decision of the legislature to reject the new airport alternative.
After careful consideration of the analysis of alternatives, and of the ability of the alternatives to
satisfy the identified purpose and need for this proposal, and after review and consideration of
testimony at public hearings and comments submitted in response to the DEIS, and of coo�dination
with federal, state, and local agencies, the FAA selects the runway alternative adopted and approved
by the Minnesota legislature on April 2, 1996 as FAA's preferred alternative.
�
Dual Track Final EIS
III-14
i j
IV. Affected Environment
The purpose of this section is to present the general setting of the alternatives under consideration. A
description of the affected environment, or area of potentiai effect, of each specific impact category
of each alternative is included in Section V, Environmental Consequences, since the affected
environment is different for individuai categories.
The affected environment for the MSP and No Action Alternatives is the urban area surrounding the
existing Minneapolis-St. Paui International Airport. it is an urban setting that includes the communities
of Minneapolis, Bloomington, Richfield, and, across the Mississippi and Minnesota Rivers from the
existing airport, the communities of Eagan, Mendota, Mendota Heights and St. Paul. Neighborhoods
of Minneapolis and Richfield adjacent to the existing MSP are largely residential with a combination of
single-family and multiple-family housing. There are commercial enterprises, either serving the
adjacent community or located to take advantage of access to highways or major Streets.
Bloomington, south of the ex:sting airport, has a high-intensity commercial area that includes the Mall
of America, hotels, office buildings and businesses. There also are military properties, such as the Air
National Guard and Air Force Reserve, Fort Snelling and the Fort Snelling National Cemetery, as well
as parks and recreation areas. Mendota Heights arid Mendota are residential communities, while
Eagan, within the affected environment of the airport, is largely industrial and commerciai (Figure O-
1).
The land use patterns of these communities have developed over previous decades, with some of this
development occurring because of proximity to the existing airport. The trend of redevelopment of
properties, particulariy along major streets, is expected to continue so that incompatible land uses are
replaced with those more compatible with airport activity, as shown in Figure 0-2.
Dual Track Final EIS
IV-1
V. ENVIRONIVIENTAL CONSEQUENCES
This section defines for each environmental issue or impact category the following:
• The factors, facets or features that are considered in the FEIS
• The affected environment or area of potential effect (APE) for each alternative, and
what is known about the issue or impact category in the APE
• Environmental consequences/effects of each alternative
• Mitigation measures
• A summary comparison of impacts of each alternative
It is important to note that an alternative would have an effect on the environment if, and only if, the future
status or condition of the environment would be a change caused by the aiternative — that is, the future
condition wouid not otherwise occur. Therefore, the projected future condition of the environment due to the
MSP Alternative must be compared to the projected future condition due to the No Action Alternative in order
to determine if there is an effect or impact attributable to the MSP Alternative.
Analysis of the MSP Alternative is performed for two planning horizons — 2010 and 2020. In 2010 the MSP
Aiternative is the 2010 LTCP with a new north-south runway (17/35) (Figure 8); in 2020 it is the 2020 Concept
Plan with a new west terminai in addition to the north-south runway (Figure 6). In almost all cases the effects
of the No Action Alternative are assumed the same for 2010 and 2020; where this is not the case, the
proceeding text wiil indicate the relevant timeframes. In addition, this section inciudes the environmental
effects of the highway improvements for the MSP 2010 LTCP, and a corridor-level analysis of estimated
environmental impacts for potential off-site highway improvements for the MSP 2020 Concept Plan.
Also inciuded in this section are the cumulative impacts of a project initiated in 1997 at the request of
;` , Northwest Airiines – the extension of Runway 4-22 from 11,006 to 12,000 feet to the northeast, as shown in
� Figure 2A. Non-stop service to Hong Kong was initiated in October 1997 on the 11,006-foot Runway 4-22,
but at reduced payloads. The purpose of this project is to provide non-stop service to Hong Kong at full pay
load – which requires a runway length of 12,000 feet. The project will add one additional flight per day by the
year 2005. Service is scheduled to begin in the year 2001. A separate Environmental Assessment (EA) was
prepared in November 1997 and a public hearing held on December 18, 1997. The cumulative impacts of the
Fiunway 4-22 extension and the MSP 2010 �TCP are included in the EA. The impact categories affected by
the project are air quality, noise and surface water quality. The cumulative effects on the MSP and No Action
Aiternatives are presented in those subsections of this FEIS.
The order of listing of the impact categories in this section does not follow the usuai format of a Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) EIS; the categories are listed aiphabeticaily and additional categories are
inciuded (see page TC14 in the Table of Contents for cross reference with FAA Order 5050.4A).
A. Air Quality
Pollutants Considered
Criferia poilufanfs
Criteria poliutants are those for which ambient air quality standards have been established by the U.S.
Environmentat Protection Agency and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and which have been identified
by the FAA as potentialiy critical pollutants associated with airportsl.
� � 1
>�._ Air Qualitv Procedures for Civilian Airports and Air Force Bases, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration,
Report FAA-EE-82-21, December 1982
Dual Track Final EIS
V-1
The two criteria poliutants analyzed in this study are Carbon Monoxide (CO} and Sulfur dioxide (SOZ). These
two pollutants are critical since MSP is located within a designated non-attainment area for CO and a �
maintenance area for S02. The status of these two areas is described below. �
CO is a common pollutant generated primarily from the incomplete combustion of fuels such as gasoline,
coai, and wood. It is a colorless, odoriess and tasteless gas that is slightly lighter than air. Sulfur dioxide
(S02) is a relatively stable, nonflammable, nonexplosive and coloriess gas and is generated during the
combustion of any sulfur-bearing fuel and by many industrial processes that use sulfur-bearing raw materiais.
The other criteria pollutants (Hydrocarbons, Nitrogen dioxide, and Suspended particulate matter (PM-10)) are
not considered critical for the MSP study area and are therefore not included in the air quality analysis.
Other Pollutants
Odors from jet aircraft engines can be attributed to a wide range of hydrocarbons emitted from the engine
exhaust. The concentration of these elements or compounds at which odors can be detected is generally weil
below levels associated with potentiaily adverse health effects. A discussion of odors from jet engines is
included in Appendix A.1 (p.A.i-1).
Designated Non-Attainment and Maintenance Areas
A redesignation of the Metropolitan Area to attainment in CO is currently being sought. Once this is
approved, the area remains a maintenance area for 20 years following redesignation. Any exceedances of
ambient CO standards could then jeopardize the attainment status of the region. No violations of the Carbon
Monoxide standard have been observed for several years untii a recent event sponsored by the Minnesota
Street Rod Association in St. Paul. However, it is unlikely that concentrations as high as those observed at
the Lexington and University permanent CO monitor will occur along roadways providing access to the airport.
The status of the airport site is summarized in Table A-1.
Table A-1 - Air Quality Attainment Status by Pollutant
Pollutant Status
PM-10 Attainment
Ozone Attainment
CO Non-Attainment
S02 Maintenance
Source: David Braslau Assocs.
MSP is located within the currently designated CO Non-Attainment area which covers most of the Seven-
County Metropolitan Area. MSP lies outside of the currently designated PM-10 and SOZ Non-Attainment
areas. The CO Non-Attainment area is shown in Figu�e A-1. The boundaries of these non-attainment areas
in relationship to MSP are shown in Figure A-2. The entire seven-county Metropolitan Area was designated
as non-attainment for S02 until 31 July 1995. The seven-county region was redesignated on that date to an
attainment area in S02 except for the region around the Ashland Refinery which remains a non-attainment
area for S02. The seven-couniy Metropolitan Area will retain its Maintenance Area designation for a period of
20 years foilowing the redesignation (July 2015). Therefore, Carbon Monoxide and Sulfur Dioxide are the two
critical poilutants in this study.
Pollutant Sources
On-airport sources
On-airport sources include aircraft and ground support equipment, motor vehicles, and stationary sources
such as boilers and fuel storage facilities. Aircraft operations potentially contributing to poliutant
concentrations on the ground include taxiing, queuing, takeoff, climbout, approach, landing and taxiing. Other
on-airport emissions are associated with aircraft ground support equipment, Auxiliary Power Units (APUs) that �
Dual Track Final EIS
V-2
provide power and air conditioning to aircraft when the engines are not running, and motor vehicles on
roadways and in parking areas. Motor vehicle emissions from the TH 77/66`h Street interchange have aiso
been included as an on-airport source.
Off-airport sources
Off-airport sources are defined here as motor vehicle traffic on regional roadways which may carry traffic
destined to or from the EIS alternatives. The regional highway network developed by the Twin Cities
Metropolitan Councii is used for this analysis. Screening guidelines for intersection evaluation have been
developed to ensure consistent evaluation of alternatives. These are based upon guidelines adopted by the
Metropolitan Council for determining when a microscale Carbon Monoxide analysis should be performed.
However, the threshold values used here are lower than those in the Metropolitan Council guidelines since
most of the intersections carrying airport traffic are not located in the denser urban portions of the Twin Cities
Metropolitan Area. Those at-grade intersections are analyzed which are projected to experience a totai
approach volume of 2400 vehicles per hour during the PM Peak Hour of which at least 480 vehicles per hour
are airport access traffic. It shouid be noted that because of the updated regional traffic study, some
intersections for which earlier predicted concentrations exceeded the 8-hour standard now fail below the
screening threshold and are therefore unlikely to exceed air quality standards.
Methodology and Assumptions
On-airport sources
Annual Pollutant Emissions
Annual pollutant emissions are estimated for the years 2005 and 2020 for bn-airport sources using the FAA
Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS) airport air poliution model. A description of the model is
included in Appendix A.1 (p.A.1-3). It should be noted that the air quality analysis is dependent upon
forecasts of aircraft operations and motor vehicle traffic on the airport and is therefore sensitive to changes in
these forecasts. Estimates of APU Carbon Monoxide and Sulfur emissions are made assuming 15 minutes of
t APU operation per landincy'takeoff cycle and emission factors from the most recent version of the EQMS
model. The 15 minutes is based on information provided by Northwest Airlines; the EDMS defauit value is 28
minutes. A description of the methodology for estimating APU emissions is contained in Appendix A.1(p.A.i-
7). The evaluation of on-airport emissions of Carbon Monoxide and Sulfur Oxides performed for this EIS is
based upon a methodology reviewed with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and summarized in a
letter to that agency from the Airports District Qifice d�te� September 25, 1995, which is included in Appendix
A.1(p. A.1-8). The proposed methodology cYescrib�c3 in that letter is summarized below.
1. Calculate the incremental emissions for CO and S02 [as listed in 40 CFR 51.853(b)(1)� using the
FAA-approved EDMS model for the years 2005 and 2020. This will include total emissions
directly caused by the MSP Expansion including increased operations, increased on-airport
traffic, increased heating demands, etc.
2. Compare the resulting emissions to the CO and SOZ de minimis thresholds of 100 tons per year.
If no threshoid is exceeded then conformity mitigation is not required. If the emissions exceed
the de minimis threshold, it must be demonstrated that the CO and S02 emissions are either
consistent with the State implementation Plan (SIP) or are otherwise addressed in accordance
with 40 CFR Section 93.158.
3. Compliance must be shown with all Federal and State air quality regulations and standards to
complete the conformity analysis (using dispersion modeling).
Pollutant Concentrations
Emissions are determined for the years 2005, 2010 and 2020 in accordance with the meeting/teleconference
with the US EPA on August 30, 1995 (see letter in Appendix A.1, (p.A.1-8)) from the Ai�ports District Office
dated September 27, 1995 summarizing this meeting). The year 2005 was selected as a 15-year horizon
from the MPCA 1990 emission inventory for the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area.
� CO concentrations were predicted for Peak Hour on-airport activity. The worst case wind direction and
� ;' maximum runway activity was assumed in each case to determine the maximum possibie concentration. All
of the peak hour concentrations are weli below the NAAQS 1-hour standard of 35 ppm and the Minnesota 1-
Dual Track Final EIS
V-3
hour standard of 30 ppm. Since the predicted peak-hour concentrations exceed the 8-hour standard by less
than 2 ppm and since the estimated 8-hour background is 3 ppm below the 8-hour standard, exceedances of `'
the 8-hour standard are unlikely. Therefore, no detailed analysis of 8-hour concentrations from on-airport
sources has been undertaken.
Off-airport sources
Annual CO emissions from off-airport traffic associated with the airport are derived from traffic volumes on
Metropolitan Councii regionai highway network modei and the EMIS modei for the year 2020.
CO is the oniy pollutant for which a microscale air quality analysis is performed for off-airport sources. Vehicle
emissions were developed using the MOBILE 5a emissions model with the same input assumptions used for
the Metropolitan Area emission inventory. This inciuded an average temperature of 31°F and a standard
vehicle mix for the region. Standard assumptions made for the microscale intersection analysis included a
wind speed of 1 meter per second and a neutrai stability class. Free flow emissions were based upon an
average speed of 25 mph while idle emissions were based upon a speed of 2.5 mph as recommended by the
US EPA. A typicai cycie time of 90 seconds was assumed with green time proportionai to the vehicle demand
on each approach. Vehicle volumes were taken from regional network flows provided by the Metropolitan
Council. A saturation fiow rate of 1600 vehicles per hour is assumed in the CAL3QHC dispersion modei that
was used to estimate CO concentrations at receptor sites near each of the intersections analyzed.
Vehicie emissions on metered ramps have been estimated using a speed of 2.5 mph which is recommended
for estimating idling emissions in the MOBILE 5A model. The ramps are assumed to be occupied during the
entire peak hour.
The following selection criteria for at grade-intersections are based upon guidelines developed by the
Regional Air Quality Analysis Work Group. The purpose of these criteria is to identify those at-grade
intersections with the highest like�ihood of generating high Carbon Monoxide concentrations. The criteria
used for selection of at-grade intersections are presented in Table A-2. Both thresholds must be exceeded in
order to generate the likelihood of high Carbon Monoxide concentrations. �
Table A-2 - Screening Criteria for CO Microscale Analysis
The capacity per lane at an intersection is assumed to be 600 vehicles per hour (green time oniy). The
overall intersection capacity, equal to the number of approach lanes times 600 vph, is 4,800 vph. With a V/C
threshold of 0.50, the minimum intersection approach volume is 2,400. With a 20 percent share in airport-
related traffic, the threshold value of airport-related traffic that wouid require a microscale analysis is 480 vph.
Therefore, the search for intersections to be analyzed for air quality have been simplified to the criteria
identified in Table A-3.
Tabte A-3 - Simplified Screening Criteria for CO Microscale Analysis
Minimum intersection total a roach traffic 2,400
Minimum intersection airport-related traffic 480
Source: David Brasiau Assoc.
Both threshoids must be exceeded
A table of approach traffic volumes for the three major intersections along 66th Street and the TH 62 and TH
55 intersection and a comparison of these volumes with the above screening criteria are contained in
Appendix A.1(Table A.1.1 and Table A.1.2).
�.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-4
The MOBILE 5a emissions model was run for the year 2020 at several speeds to develop estimates of idie
and free flow CO vehicle emissions.
Temperature assumptions for the MOBILE 5a model were developed for the Minnesota 1990 Base Year
Carbon Monoxide State Implementation Plan Emission inventory for the Twin Cities Seven Countv
Metropolitan Area , Wright County and the City of Duluth (see in Section 3.1.4.1 and Appendix AA-6 of that
report). Based upon that analysis, a temperature of 31 degrees F was established for use in the model. This
same temperature has been used in the MOBILE 5a emissions model in this study.
For the year 2020, no Inspection and Maintenance program was assumed since it is not expected to be
continued through the 2020 time period. The MOBILE 5a input file, which includes assumptions identical to
those used for the 1993 areawide emission inventory update (except for the 2020 projection year and the
exciusion of the Inspection and Maintenance program and anti-tampering program) is inciuded in Appendix
A.1 (Tabie A.1.3). Results of the MOBILE 5a run are presented in Table A-4.
Table A-4 - Mobile 5a Carbon Monoxide Emissions for 2010 and 2020
(grams/vehicle mile)
S ed m h CO 2010 CO 2020
2.5 98.86 110.85
5.0 56.91 63.83
10.0 34.97 38.34
20.0 22.97 26.00
30.0 14.20 16.00
40.0 9/87 11.07
50.0 7.79 8.69
60.0 11.09 12.29
Source: David Braslau Assoc.
Conformity with the Clean Air Act
Conformity with the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 must address impacts from two general sources —
on airport and off airport. General Conformitv addresses on-airport sources and Transportation Conformitv
addresses off-airport sources. The General Conformity analysis contained in this document follows the
methodology proposed in the letter to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from the Airports District
Office dated September 25, 1995 which is included in Appendix A.1 (p.A.1-8). As stated therein, the
proposed action must not cause increases in CO and SOZ to exceed 100 tons per year when compared to the
No Action Alternative.
The Transportation Conformity determination will be made by the Metropolitan Council when it certifies
consistency of the proposed regional highway projects with the State implementation Plan (SIP} and the
Ciean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Steps needed to address Transportation Conformity include
incorporation of the proposed regional highway projects into the Metropolitan Council Transportation Policy
Plan and the Transportation Improvement Program. The off-airport (intersection} air quality analysis and
regionai highway network emissions analysis contained in this document are preliminary elements in support
of the Transportation Conformiry review.
The SIP contains transportation control strategies to bring designated CO non-attainment areas into
compiiance with state and federal ambient air quality standards and to ensure future maintenance of ambient
air quality standards. MSP is not directly part of the SIP. The Indirect Source Rule has been omitted from the
SIP so that the indirect Source Permit for the MSP terminai roadway and parking facilities is aiso not part of
the SIP. Regional roadways which serve MSP are covered by the SIP insofar as they are inciuded in the
regional Transportation Plan.
r
The airport internal roadways are not included as an element of the SIP, but major regional roadways serving
the airport are included. None of the proposed roadway improvement projects are currently included in the
Duai Track Final EIS
V-5
Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) or included in the year 2000, 2005 or 2015 projects addressed in the �
regional transportation carbon monoxide emission analysis. Once these projects are included, they will be
part of the Transportation Conformity determination process. Additionai information about transportation
project development for the 2010 LTCP and 2020 Concept Pian is in Section V-W and Appendix F.
The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments required that, as part of the SIP, a base year emissions inventory be
prepared. A detailed emissions inventory of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area for 1990 was prepared by the
MPCA2; a summary table is inciuded in Appendix A.1 (Table A.1-4a). The emission inventory has been
updated and approved by the U.S. EPA in October 19973. A summary table of 1993 emissions is included in
Appendix A.1 (Table A.1-4b). That inventory included non-road mobile sources such as aircraft, auxiliary
power units, airport service equipment, locomotives, and marine and consumer equipment. The emissions
inventory was based on landing/takeoff cycles (LTOs) and used the FAA Aircraft Engine Emissions Data
Base as weii as other sources. Airport sources (aircraft, auxiliary power units and airport service equipment)
accounted for 1.25 percent of total regional CO emissions in 1990 and 1.12 percent of totai regional CO
emissions in 1993.
A.1 MSP Alternative
A.1.1 Affected Environment—MSP Alternative
The Area of Potential Effect (APE) for motor vehicie Carbon Monoxide (CO) emissions is the 7-county
Metropolitan Area pius Wright County, since this region is currently designated as non-attainment for Carbon
Monoxide, as shown in Figure A-1. The APE for potentially high CO concentrations includes (1) receptor
sites near at-grade intersections carrying airport traffic that exceeds the screening threshoids described above
and (2) potentiaily sensitive receptor sites around the perimeter of the airport. The APE for Sulfur Dioxide
emissions is potentially sensitive receptor sites on and around the airport.
On-airport receptors affected by on-airport emissions `
The roadway system at the present (east) terminal area entrance has been previously analyzed in detail by
the Metropolitan Airports Commission because of air qualiry violations. A detailed response plan has been
incorporated into the Indirect Source Permit issued to the Metropolitan Airports Commission. The purpose of
this response plan is to ensure that no violations of air quality standards for CO will occur near terminal area
roadways under any operating conditions. No other areas of the airport have been identified as having
poliutant concentrations above appiicable standards. �
Off-airport receptors affected by on-airport emissions
Twelve receptor sites representing potentially sensitive land uses are located around the boundary of the
airport (Figure A-3). Receptor sites have been limited to the periphery of the airport since (a) this refiects
activity not directly associated with the airpo�t, (b) the exact configurations of roadways and parking area have
not been determined and (c) the EDMS model is not as sophisticated as CA�3QHC for predicting
concentrations ciose to roadways. Receptor sites were selected along the airport boundary in areas of
commercial , residential and institutional activity.
The location of affected schoois in the city of Richfield is shown in Figure A-3. The Carbon Monoxide
receptor sites in Richfieid used for the on-airport air quality analysis are aiso shown on the map. The sites
that are most likely to be impacted by access traffic and airport operations are the Assumption Catholic
School located just north of I-494 (potentially impacted by emissions from traffic along I-494), and the Mt.
Calvary Lutheran School and the Centennial School, each located approximately 1/8 miles west of Cedar
Avenue (potentially impacted by traffic along Cedar Avenue and on-airport emission sourcesj. Emissions
from traffic along I-494 will remain about the same or decrease if the new west terminal is constructed. Mt.
2 Minnesota 1990 Base Year Carbon Monoxide State Imolementation Plan Emission Inventory for the Twin Cities Seven CounN �•
Metropolitan Area. Wri4ht Gounty, and the Citv of Duluth. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Final Draft, November 1992 C
3 Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFA Parts 52: Approval and Promu�gation of Implementation Plan: Minnesota; Direct final rule; "
Federal Register, Vol. 62, No. 205, Thursday, October 23, 1997, p. 55170.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-6
Calvary �utheran School is located immediately southwest of Receptor Site 7 while Centennial School is
located approximately 600 feet north of Receptor Site 9 but approximately at the same distance west of the
airport.
Off-airport receptors affected by off-airport emissions
Receptor sites adjacent to criticai intersections were used to estimate the impact of off-airport sources (motor
vehicles accessing the airport). The critical intersections are shown in Figure A-4. For each of these
intersections, receptor sites were chosen to represent the closest expected continuous human activity to
these intersections. While the prevailing wind in the region is from the northwest in the winter and the
southeast in the summer, the CAL3QHC model examined all wind directions and the direction with the highest
potential concentration was used. The topography at ail of the intersections considered is generally fiat.
At the TH 55 and TH 62 at-grade intersection there are no sidewaiks along these roadways, and no structures
or location of human activity are closer than several hundred feet from the inte�section. However, for
purposes of estimating relative differences in concentrations associated with airport alternatives, a receptor
site in each quadrant at a distance of 100 feet (north, south, east and west) of the intersection was assumed.
Receptor sites associated with the additional CO modeling associated with metered ramps and proposed new
interchanges reflect the locations of the nearest expected continuous human activity.
Existing Pollutant Concentrations
Carbon monoxide
Background Carbon Monoxide monitoring was performed in Richfield Memorial Park adjacent to Richfield City
Hali. This site, which is shown in Figure A-3, was selected by a screening process of sites throughout the
City of Richfield. The monitoring was also performed in support of an office project to be constructed at the
intersection of Interstate 35 and Interstate 494. The monitoring period extended over a one month period
} between April 15 and May 15, 1996. The maximum observed 1-hour concentration was 3.6 ppm (parts per
miliion) which occurred in the early morning hour ending at 7 am on April 23. The meteorology at that time
was clear, temperature 35 degrees and calm winds. Therefore, this high reading appears to have been an
isolated event and not associated with transportation sources in the area. The highest reading associated
with an extended "episode" was 2.4 ppm in the hour ending at 12 midnight on April 27. Readings increased
beginning at 7 pm and decreased to normal background at 7 am the following morning. Meteorology during
this time period were generally calm winds beginning at 6 pm and extending untii 6 pm the following day. The
buiidup in CO background can be attributed to transportation emission sources in the area on Saturday
evening and early Sunday morning. The highest 8-hour CO concentration of 2.0 ppm associated with this
episode occurred at 4 am. While the 2.4 ppm level may accurately reflect the obsenred episodal event, the
MPCA has requested that background concentrations for projects using these data be based upon the
maximum 1-hour reading observed, i.e. 3.6 ppm. Therefore, a 1-hour concentration of 3.6 ppm and 8-hour
concentration of 2.0 ppm have been used to establish future background concentrations.
Annuai growth rates in regionai Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) of between 1.76% and 1.56% have been
observed in the early 1990s. For purposes of estimating background concentrations, an overall �egional
growth rate of 1.5% has been assumed to the year 2020.
One additional factor must be considered for estimating the worst case background in the year 2020.
Conversion of the data observed in the Spring to a worst-case winter time period has been accomplished
using a factor of 1.53 developed by Holzworth for this area of Minnesota.
The individuai and totai adjustment factors are presented in the table below.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-7
Table A-5 - Factors for Adjusting 1996 Background to the Year 2020
The obsenred background concentrations from the background monitoring site in Memorial Park and those
projected to the year 2020 by David Brasiau Associates, inc. are shown in Table A-6.
Tabie A-6 - Background CO Concentrations within the Study Area
(PPm)
Other pollutants
Air quality monitoring of hydrocarbons and particulates was performed by the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency at the Wenonah Elementary School in South Minneapolis (5625 23rd Avenue South), one block
north of Mother �ake and the airport) between October and December 19934. The monitoring was initiated
in response to concerns about ambient air quality near the airport and the dumping of jet fuel from in-flight
aircraft. No monitoring of CO was performed. While there is no ambient standard for hydrocarbons,
Minnesota relies indirectiy upon ozone concentrations which are within acceptable limits. The highest 24- �
hour concentration of particulates was 29.8 µg/m� which is well below the National Ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) 24-hour limit of 150 µg/m3. No permanent monitors are located near the airport.
A.1.2 Air Quality Impacts— MSP Alternative
Impacts from On-Airport Sources
Annual emissions
Annual emissions from on-airport sources have been estimated from the EDMS model and the APU emission
methodology described in Appendix A.1(p. A.1-7). Oniy roadways serving the terminal, terminai parking area
and remote parking area were included in the EDMS analysis. Terminal access is from the inbound and
outbound roadways. A generalized rental car parking area was also included. Heating piants associated with
facilities under the controi of the Metropolitan Airports Commission were included along with sufficient
additional heating capaciry to serve employment located on the airport. It is assumed that some of the
Northwest Airiines multi-story office space will be repiaced with maintenance facilities which have lower
heating requirement. A list of assumptions used for inputs into the EDMS model for analyzing on-airport
sources is included in Appendix A.1(Table A.1.5). Assumed aircraft operations, runway usage, and time in
queue are also inciuded in Appendix A.1(Table A.1.6 through Tabie A.1.9). Assumed roadway traffic
volumes and parameters are included in Appendix A.1 (Tabie A.1.10). Parking assumptions are included in
Appendix A.1. (Tabie A.1.11). Assumptions related to heating piants and their locations are aiso contained in
Appendix A.1(Table A.1.12 through Tabie A.1.14). Motor vehicle CO emissions from the TH 77/66"' Street
interchange have also been estimated and have been added to the EDMS and APU emissions. A summary
4"Minneapolis-St. Paui international Airport: Air Quality Analysis Study Report", MPCA Air Quality Division, � ,
August 1994.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-8
of CO emissions for the MSP Alternative is presented in Table A-7. A Summary of SOx emissions for the
MSP Alternative is presented in Table A-8.
Table A-7 - On-Airport Carbon Monoxide Emissions - MSP Aiternative
tons er ear
Source 2005 2010 2020
Roadwa s 923 819 944
Parkin facilities 256 203 2d8
Heatin lants 9 9 9
Ground Service E ui ment 657 691 728
Aircraft o erations 2573 2833 3083
Auxilia Power Units 49 49 52
TH 77/66 St Interchan e 20 19 21
. Runway 4-22 Extension to 15 15 15
12,000 feet
� Total 4502 4638 5060
Source: David Braslau Assoc.
Table A-8 - On-Airport Sulfur Oxide Emissions - MSP Alternative
tons er ear
Source 2005 2U10 2020
Roadwa s 0 0 0
Parkin facilities 0 0 0
Heatin lants 49 51 51
Ground Service E ui ment 3 3 3
Aircraft o erations 92 100 109
Auxilia Power Units 5 6 6
Runway 4-22 E�ension to 1 1 1
12,000 feet
Total 150 161 170
Source: David Brasiau Assoc.
Peak hour concentrations
Peak hour pollutant concentrations at tweive receptor sites representing potentiaily sensitive land uses
located. around the boundary of the airport have been estimated using the EDMS model with peak hour
aircraft and motor vehicle operations. Because of the increase in aircraft operations and motor vehicle traffic
from 2010 to 2020, the year 2020 wouid represent the worst-case concentrations at these receptor sites.
Assumed aircraft operations and runway use for these periods are inciuded in Appendix A.1(Tabie A.�.15
and Table A.1.16). Assumptions as to motor vehicles and parking during the Peak Hour are also included in
Appendix A.1 (Tabie A.1.17 through Tabie A.1.19). A temperature of 20° F, a wind speed of 1 meter per
second, and a neutrai stability class was assumed. Eight wind directions 45° apa�t were used to ensure that
worst case concentrations at these receptor sites would be identified. These peak hour concentrations, which
also include an assumed 1-hour background of 6.8 ppm (see Tabie A-6) are presented in Tabie A-9. Only
those receptors and wind directions for which predicted airport-related concentrations exceed 0.01 ppm are
shown in the table.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-9
Table A-9 - Peak Hour CO Concentrations from On-Airport Sources - MSP Alternative'
(pPm) � ��� .
��_ .
- . . � .
♦r'a'i�'•1�� '�� � ��� � �' � .�'
������� •: ��
0���� ' ' � ���
0_� ' : � . :. : � � ��
0�� . : � . ����
0�� ' : � • : • � . : ��
0�����_��
0�������0�
����������
0 ' . � .. _��__�
������� t' ' " �
� .:: ���� �' � .:
�������� ' • z ' c
.- -... .. . . .,. . :..
-.. :..- . �
• �. • : . � •
The maximum predicted peak hour CO concentration at Site 7(Mt. Calvary Lutheran Schooi) for the MSP
Alternative is 7.55 ppm (Table A-9) which occurred with winds from the northeast (45°) associated with
takeoffs on Runways 12R and 12L. At Site 9(near Centennial School) the maximum predicted concentration
is 6.92 ppm.
All of the peak-hour concentrations are well below the NAAQS 1-hour standard of 35 ppm and the Minnesota t
1-hour standard of 30 ppm. Since these represent peak-hour concentrations, estimated 8-hour
concentrations will always be lower. Peak-hour concentrations for oniy three wind directions at Site 3 are over
the 9 ppm NAAQS and Minnesota 8-hour standards. Since the peak-hour concentrations exceed the 8-hour
standard by less than 2 ppm and since the estimated 8-hour background is 3 ppm below the 8-hour standard,
exceedances of the 8-hour standard are unlikely.
Impacts from Off-airport sources
Annuai CO emissions from all regionai trips and airport-related trips in the year 2020 have been estimated
from estimated travel on the regional highway network by the Metropolitan Councii. The results of that
analysis are presented in Tabie A-y 0.
Table A-10 - Off-Airpnrt Roadway CO Emissions - MSP Alternative
(annual emissions in tons)
Airport-only and totai approach volumes for all intersections on the regional highway network during the PM
Peak Hour in 2020 have been provided by the Metropolitan Council and reviewed using the screening criteria
described above. All intersections with arterials along 66th Street were evaluated using the screening criteria
as was the intersection of TH 62 and TH 55. Only the latter at-grade intersection under the MSP Alternative
meets the screening criteria since almost all travei to MSP takes place on limited access roadways with no at- �
Duai Track Final EIS
V-10
� �f
grade intersections. The location of this intersection relative to MSP is shown in Figure A-4. The screening
parameter volumes for this intersection are presented in Table A-11.
Table A-11 • Intersection Meeting the Microscale Analysis Screening Criteria
This intersection has no receptor sites within several hundred feet of the intersection. However, for purposes
of this analysis, receptor sites were assumed at a distance of 100 feet from the roadway for comparison with
the other airport aiternatives.
Approach and departure volumes for the PM Peak hour at this intersection were used in conjunction with the
CAL3QHC dispersion modei to predict CO concentrations at sensitive receptor sites. Tabie A-12 presents
the maximum CO concentration estimated at this intersection. A 1-hour background concentration of 6.8 ppm
(see Table A-6) has been assumed. The 8-hour concentration has been estimated by appiying a persistence
factor of 0.70 to the peak-hour concentration and adding the estimated 8-hour background of 3.8 ppm.
Table A-12 - Maximum Predicted CO Concentration at TH 55 and TH 62 -
MSP 2020 Concept Plan
f�oadway Background Overall State/
Period Concentration Goncentration Concentration Federal
m m m Standard
1-hour 3.0 6.8 9.8 30.0/35.0
8-hour 2.1 3.8 5.9 9.0/9.0
Source: David Brasiau Assoc.
The maximum 1-hour and 8-hour concer�trat�ons �ar the MSP 2020 Concept Pian fali well below the
Minnesota and Federai A�byent Air Quafiiy Stan�a�c��. i'he concentrations for the MSP 2010 �TCP wouid
aiso be lower than the Minnesota and National Ambien� �1ir Q�a�Oity Standards.
Because of their extent and proximity to residential areas in Richfield and Minneapolis, two proposed
interchanges along TH 77 have also been ana6yzzed for potential air quality impacts. For these interchanges,
it has been assumed that rarnps feeding main line roadways (Crosstown TH 62 or TH 77) are metered and
that a queue occupies the entire length of the ramp. The location of these two future interchanges are shown
in Figure A-4.
The Crosstown TH 62 interchange with TH 77, including roadways connecting the new terminal, has been
analyzed as an integral roadway network. This roadway network is shown in Figure T-1.
The TH 77 interchange with 66th Street which is just south of the interchange described above has also been
analyzed as an integral roadway network. The 2020 Concept Pian roadway network is shown in Figure T-1,
and the 2010 �TCP in Figure T-2.
For ail of these interchanges, speed assumptions and associated emissions are shown in Table A•13.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-11
Table A-13 - Assumed Speeds and Emission Values for Interchange Analysis
Traffic volumes on each link of these interchanges for the year 2020 were provided by the Twin Cities
Metropolitan Council. The number of lanes for each link was estimated using a lane capacity of 1800 vehicles
per hour. As noted above, on-ramps to the mainiine roadways have been assumed to be metered with
queues along the entire length of the ramp. No plans for metering are inciuded in the proposed interchanges
but this assumption is made here to provide conservative5 estimates of potential air quality impacts.
Background concentrations based upon the 1996 CO monitoring in Memorial Park in Richfield (1-hour of 6.8
ppm, 8-hour of 3.8 ppm) have also been added onto the roadway predictions. The selected receptor sites are
shown in Figures T-1 and T-2, and the predicted CO concentrations for these interchanges are presented in
Table A-14 and Table A-15.
Tabie A-14 - TH 62 and TH 77 Interchange
Predicted CO Concentrations - MSP 2020 Concept Plan
(PPm)
Receptor Peak-Hour 8-hour Peak-Hour 8-hour
Site Roadwa Roadwa ' Total2 Total3
1 0.9 0.6 7.7 4.4
2 1.0 0.7 7.8 4.5
3 1.2 0.8 8.0 4.6
4 1.4 1.0 8.2 4.8
5 1.3 0.9 8.1 4.7
6 0.9 0.6 7.7 4.4
7 1.2 0.8 8.0 4.6
8 2.5 1.8 9.3 5.6
9 2.2 1.6 9.0 5.4
Based upon an adjustment factor of 0.70
2 Includes an assumed background concentration of 6.8 ppm
3 includes an 8-hour background of 3.8 ppm
Source: David Braslau Assoc.
The highest projected peak hour concentration near the TH 62 and TH 77 interchange is 9.3 ppm (compared
with the 35 ppm federal and 30 ppm state standard). The highest 8-hour concentration is 5.6 ppm (compared
with the 8-hour standard of 9 ppm). These concentrations occur at Receptor Site 9 which lies immediately
north of the westbound off-ramp from TH 62 to the new terminal. These concentrations are below their
respective ambient air quality standards. Concentrations at the other receptor sites north of the interchange
are generaliy 1 ppm lower.
5 The term "conservative" in Section V means that - where there is a range of possible scenarios, the scenario selected {, �
for analysis wiii result in a greater adverse impact than the other scenarios.
Dual Track Finai EIS
V-12
Table A-15 - TH 77 and 66th Street InterchangePredicted CO Concentrations - MSP 2020 Concept Plan
m
Receptor Peak-Hour 8-hour Peak-Hour 8-hour
Site Roadwa Roadwa ' Total2 Total3
1 0.7 0.5 7.5 4.3
2 1.0 0.7 7.8 4.5
3 1.2 0.8 8.0 4.6
4 1.1 0.8 7.9 4.6
5 1.0 0.7 7.8 4.5
6 0.9 0.6 7.7 4.4
7 0.9 0.6 7.7 4.4
8 1.3 0.9 8.1 4.7
9 1.2 0.8 8.0 4.6
1 0 1.0 0.7 7.8 4.5
Based upon an adjustment factor of 0.70
2 Inciudes an assumed background concentration of 6.8 ppm
3 Inciudes an 8-hour background of 3.8 ppm
Source: David Brasiau Assoc.
The highest projected peak hour concentration near the TH 77 and 66th Street interchange is 8.1 ppm
(compared with the 35 ppm federal and 30 ppm state standard). The highest 8-hour concentration is 4.7 ppm
(compared with the 8-hour standard of 9 ppm). These concentrations occur at both receptor site #3 and
receptor site #8. These concentrations are well below their respective ambient air quality standards.
Concentrations at the other receptor sites are generally only a few tenths of a ppm lower
Based upon the MOBILE 5a emissions modei and an average travel speed of 20 mph, the HC and NOx
concentrations are expected to be about 10 percent of the CO concentration shown in Table A-12 or less
than 1 ppm. There are no specifically established ambient air quality standards for HC or NOx.
Impacts from Construction Activities
The analysis of emissions from construction activities is addressed in Section V.E, Construction Impacts.
A.1.3 Mitigation Measures - MSP Aiternative
Since the de minimis limit of 100 tons per year would not be exceeded by the MSP Aiternative in 2010 and
2020, mitigation of CO and SOx emissions is not required (see Tables A-22 and A-23). However, there are a
number of mitigation measures available that couid lead to a further reduction of CO and S02 emissions at
MSP. MAC is willing to investigate the feasibiliry of these measures and potential air quality benefits -- which
include:
• Expanded use of bus transit and multiple passenger vehicle service to and from the airport
s Efficient terminai design and use of people movers
• Facility design to minimize energy use and emissions
0 400 Hz of electrical power and pre-conditioned air at gates
• Use of alternative fuels for ground support vehicles and on-airport shutties
There are other mitigation measures that couid result in a reduction of emissions due to construction
activities, such as a traffic management pian and specific measures to control particulate emissions such as:
• Monitoring of particulate concentrations during construction
• Measures taken to minimize soil erosion during construction
• Measures taken to control airborne particulate matter during construction
I '� MAC intends to implement appropriate construction mitigation measures to minimize construction activity
'-' emissions see Section V.E, Construction Impacts).
Dual Track Final EIS
V-13
Construction of roadways and interchanges will require detailed traffic management pians to minimize delays �
and congestion associated with construction. This will depend upon how the construction of various •
segments of these interchanges is staged. Traffic management plans will be developed in conjunction with
the design phase of these roadways and interchanges.
A.2 No Action Aiternative
A.2.1 Affected Environment— No Action Alternative
The Area of Potentiai Effect of the No Action Alternative is identical to that of the MSP alternative.
A.2.2 Air Quality impacts— No Action Alternative
Impact from on-airport sources
Annual Emissions
Annual emissions from on-airport sources have been estimated from the EDMS model and the APU emission
methodology described above. Only roadways serving the terminal and terminal parking area were included
in the EDMS analysis. A short additional segment representing the roadway in front of the existing terminal
with a 5 mph speed has been assumed for the No Action Aiternative. A generalized rental car parking area
was also included. Heating piants associated with facilities under the controi of the Metropolitan Airports
Commission were included along with sufficient additional heating capaciry to senre empioyment located on
the airport. A list of assumptions used for inputs into the EDMS model for analyzing on-airport sources is
included in Appendix A.1(Table A.1.5). Assumed aircraft operations and runway usage are included in
Appendix A.1(Table A.1.20 and Table A.1.21) along with time in queue (Table A.1.10). Motor vehicle CO
emissions from the TH 77/66"' Street interchange have a►so been estimated (Appendix A.1 Tabie A.1.24) and
have been added to the EDMS and APU emissions. ��
The 2010 no action emissions would be the same as the 2020 emissions, since no change in aircraft
operations and on-airport motor vehicle activity is assumed between 2010 and 2020. A summary of CO
emissions for the No Action Alternative is presented in Tabie A-16. A summary of SOx emissions for the No
Action Alternative is presented in Table A-17.
Table A-16 - On-Airport Carbon Monoxide Emissions - No Action Alternative
tons er ear
Source 2005 2010 2020
Roadwa s 899 773 773
Parkin facilities 257 186 186
Heatin lants 9 9 9
Ground Senrice E ui ment 622 627 627
Aircraft o erations 3515 3944 3944
Auxilia Power Units 45 43 43
TH 77/66 St. Interchan e 17 20 20
Runwa 4-22 E�ension to 12,000 ft. 15 15 15
Tota) 5379 5617 5617
Source: David Brasiau Assoc.
__ _ _ _ r.
\
Duai Track Final EIS
V-14
Tabie A-17 - On-Airport Sulfur Oxide Emissions - No Action Alternative
(tons per year)
Source 2005 2010 2020
Roadwa s 0 0 0
Parkin facilities 0 0 0
Heatin lants 51 51 51
Ground Service E ui ment 2 2 2
Aircraft o erations 101 109 109
Auxilia Power Units 5 5 5
Runwa 4-22 Extension to 12,000 feet 1 1 1
Total 160 168 168
Source: David Braslau Assoc.
Peak hour concentratians
Peak hour poliutant concentrations at twelve receptor sites representing potentially sensitive land uses
located around the boundary of the airport (Figure A-4) have been estimated using the EDMS model with
peak hour aircraft and motor vehicle operations. Assumed aircraft operations and runway use for these
periods are included in Appendix A.1(Tabie A.1.22 and Table A.1.23). Assumptions as to motor vehicles and
parking during the peak hour are inciuded in Appendix A.1 (Table A.1.10 through Table A.1.11). A
tamperature of 20° F,. a wind speed of 1 meter per second, and a neutral stability class was assumed. Eight
wind directions 45° apart were used to ensure that worst case concentrations at these receptor sites would be
identified. These peak-hour concentrations, which also inciude an assumed 1-hour background of 6.8 ppm
(see Tabie A-6) are presented in Table A-18. Only those receptors and wind directions for which predicted
airport-related concentrations exceed 0.01 ppm are shown in the table.
� Tabie A-18 - Peak-Hour CO Concentrations From On-Airport Sources -
- No Action Alternative'
iPPm)
- � -. . � .
����i�: • � ' � � �� � � ����� • � �
0����� : . � : � ��
������ ' ' ���
0�� . .. ; ; . - ' ' ��
0����� ' • � ' ' ---
0 . : �: ���������1
�0�� �' --���
0� = •� . •�����1����
�1����.�%��� �' �����
0 ' ' ' '' ����1�1��
������_� . : . •
�i�������-i��,���f���
������� ' ' ' � �
. - -. .. . . . . . . : ..
. - �. .:. � .
The maximum peak-hour concentration at Site #7 (Mt. Caivary Lutheran School) under the No Action is 8.90
ppm with winds from the �east (90°) associaCed primarily with taxiing and queuing aircraft. For Site #9 (near
Centennial School) the maximum concentration is 7.44 ppm.
� All of the peak hour concentrations are weli below the NAAQS 1-hour standard of 35 ppm and the Minnesota
1-hour standard of 30 ppm. Since these represent peak hour concentrations, estimated 8-hour
Dual Track Final EIS
V-15
concentrations will always be lower. With peak hour concentrations below the 9 ppm NAAQS 8-hour and �
Minnesota 8-hour standards and with an estimated 8-hour background 3 ppm below the 8-hour standard, �.
exceedances of the 8-hour standard are unlikely.
Impact from off-airport sources
Annuai CO emissions from ali regional trips and airport-related trips in the year 2020 have been estimated
from estimated travel on the regional highway network by the Metropolitan Council. The resuits of that
analysis are presented in Table A-19.
Table A-19 - 2020 Off-Airport Roadway CO Emissions - No Action Alternative
(annual emissions in tons)
Airport-only and total traffic volumes for the PM Peak Hour in 2020 on the regional network have been
provided by the Metropolitan Councii. One intersection under the No Action Alternative meets the screening
criteria described above. This is listed in Table A-20.
Table A-20 - Intersection Meeting the Microscale Analysis Screening Criteria
The intersection was visited to identify lane configurations, signal timing and location of sensitive receptor
sites. The intersection had no receptor site within several hundred feet of the intersection. For this
intersection, receptor sites were assumed at a distance of 100 feet from the roadway for purposes of
comparing alternatives.
Approach and departure volumes for the PM peak hour from the regional highway network were used in
conjunction with the CAL3QHC dispersion model to predict CO concentrations at sensitive receptor sites.
Tabie A-21 presents the maximum CO concentrations estimated at this intersection. The 8-hour
concentration has been estimated by applying a persistence factor of 0.70 to the Peak Hour concentration
and adding the estimated 8-hour background of 3.8 ppm.
Table A-21 - Maximum Predicted CO Concentrations at TH 55 and TH 62 -
No Action Alternative
Roadway Background Overall StateJ
Period Concentration Concentration Concentration Federal
m m m Standard
1-hour 2.8 6.8 9.6 30.0/35.0
8-hour 2.0 3.8 5.8 9.0/9.0
Source: David Braslau Assoc.
The maximum 1-hour and 8-hour concentrations fall below the Minnesota and Federai Ambient Air
Quality Standards.
Based upon the MOBILE 5a emissions model and an average travel speed of 20 mph, the HC and NOx
concentrations are expected to be about 10 percent of the CO concentrations shown in Table A-21 or less �,
than 1 ppm. There are no specifically established ambient air quality standards for HC or NOx.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-16
Impacts from Construction Activities
The analysis of emissions from construction activities is addressed in Section V.E, Construction Impacts.
A.2.3 Mitigation Measures — No Action Alternative
While the No Action Alternative involves no major improvements on the airport, pollutant concentrations
associated with the airport are governed by state and federal regulation. The Indirect Source Permit for the
terminai area and runways aiso requires compliance with the provisions of the permit including monitoring and
traffic control. In addition to the provisions of the indirect Source Permit, other possible mitigation measures
include:
o Expanded use of bus transit and muitipie passenger vehicle service to and from the airport
• 400 Hz of electrical power and pre-conditioned air at gates •
• Use of alternative fuels for ground support vehicles and on-airport shuttles
.MAC is willing to investigate the feasibiliry of these measures and potential air qua�ity benefits. The
construction mitigation measures discussed in Subsection A.1.3 can aiso be appiied to any maintenance and
construction projects carried out under the No Action Alternative.
A.3 Summary of Air Quality Impacts
On-Airport Carbon Monoxide Emissions
Total annual Carbon Monoxide emissions for each of the alternatives in the years 2005, 2010 and 2020 are
compared in Tabie A-22. in the year 2005, it can be seen that the MSP Alternative will yieid a decrease in
� annual CO emissions of 881 tons, compared to the No Action Alternative. in the years 2010 and 2020, the
MSP Alternative will yield a decrease in annual CO emissions of 979 and 557 tons, respectively, compared to
the No Action Alternative. The decreases are due to less aircraft delay on the airport and a more efficient fleet
mix.
Table A-22 - Carbon Monoxide Emissions by Airport Aiternative
(tons per year)
2005 2010 �TCP 2020 Conce t Plan
Source MSP No Action MSP No Action MSP No Action
Roadwa s 923 899 8.9 _... ...._...._....._�—. .-- _
1 73 944 773
Parkin 256 257 203 186 208 786
Heatin 9 9 9 9 9 9
GSE 657 622 691 627 726 627
Aircraft 2,573 3,515 2833 3,944 3,083 3,944
APU 49 45 49 43 52 43
TH 77/66 St. 20 17 19 20 21 20
Runway 4-22
Extension to 15 15 15 15 15 15
12,000 feet
Total 4,502 5,379 4638 5,617 5,060 5,617
Compared to
No Action -877 0 -979 0 -557 0
Source: David Brasiau Assoc.
; Differences between alternatives in the total number of motor vehicles assumed on airport roadways and
leaving airport parking ramps are relatively small. The volumes are based upon haurly traffic volumes
Duai Track Finai EIS
V-17
estimated on access roadways and differences in the number of aircraft operations. The parking ramp ��'�
vehicie assumptions are included in Appendix A.1 (Tabie A.1.11).
Carbon monoxide concentrations associated with aircraft on the airfield, vehicles on roadways and in parking
ramps, and stationary emission sources were projected at receptors sites around MSP using the EDMS
model. The modei takes into account area, line and point sources of poilutant emissions.
Based on the preceding analysis, the proposed action for CO is de minimis; no further analysis or application
of the general conformity regulations is required, and the proposed action is presumed to conform with the
SIP for CO.
On-Airport Sulfur Oxide Emissions
Total annuai Sulfur Oxide emissions for each of the alternatives in the years 2005 and 2020 are compared in
Tabie A-23. In the year 2005, it can be seen that the MSP Alternative will yieid a decrease in annual SOx
emissions of 10 tons, compared to the No Action Alternative. In the year 2010, the MSP �TCP will yieid a
decrease of 7 tons in SOx emissions, compared to the No Action Alternative. In 2020, the MSP Concept Pian
will yield an increase of 2 tons in SOx emissions, compared to the No Action Aiternative.
Table A-23 - Sulfur Oxide Emissions by Airport Alternative
(tons per yearj
2005 2010 LTCP 2020 Conce t Plan
Source MSP No Action MSP No Action MSP No Action
Roadwa s 0 0 0 0 0 0
Parkin 0 0 0 0 0 0
Heatin 49 51 51 51 51 51
GSE 3 2 3 2 3 2
Aircraft 92 101 100 109 109 109
APUs 5 5 6 5 6 5
Runway 4-22
E�ension to 1 1 1 1 1 1
12,000 feet
Totai 150 160 161 168 170 168
Compared to No -10 0 -7 0 +2 0
Action
Source: David Braslau Assoc.
Based on the preceding analysis, the proposed action for SC?x is de minimis; no further analysis or appiication
of the general conformity regulations is required, and the proposed action is presumed to conform with the
SIP for SOx.
Off-Airport CO Emissions
Off-airport CO emissions for the airport alternatives in the years 2Q10 and 2020 are presented in Tabie A-24.
it can be seen that emissions associated with the MSP 2Q20 Concept Plan are the lowest due primarily to the
shorter travel distance permitted by the relocation of the terminal to the northwest corner of the airport.
Duai Track Final EIS
V-18
Table A-24 - Off-Airport Roadway CO Emissions by Airport Alternative
(annual emissions in tons)
Off-Airport Peak Hour Concentrations from On-Airport Sources
Tabie A-25 compares the predicted maximum (for all wind directions) 1-hour CO concentration for receptor
sites surrounding MSP. The maxirnum concentration of 9.85 ppm occurs at Receptor Site 5 for the MSP
2020 Concept Plan which is near the roadways serving the new west terminai. The maximum concentration
for the MSP 2010 LTCP would be less than that for the MSP 2020 Concept Plan. The maximum
concentration under the No Action Alternative (8.90 ppm) occurs at Fieceptor Site 7 which is near Mt. Caivary
Lutheran Schooi. All of the concentrations are well below the f�AAQS 1-hour standard of 35 ppm and the
Minnesota 1-hour standard of 30 ppm. The maximum 1-hour concentration of 9.85 ppm is 0.95 ppm over the
8-hour standard of 9 ppm. However, no exceedance of the 8-hour standard of 9 ppm is likely since (1) the
expected 8-hour background concentration is 3 ppm lower than the expected 1-hour background; (2) the
assumed high level of peak hour activity will not occur over an 8-hour period; and (3} meteorological
conditions will not remain constant over this time period.
Tabie A-25 - Maximum Peak Hour CO Concentrations from On-Airport Sources'
iPPm?
Receptor MSP 2020 No Action
Conce t Plan'
1 7.31 8.64
2 7.18 8.39
3 8.04 8.86
4 7.72 7.07
5 9.85 7.59
6 7.72 7.04
7 7.55 8.90
8 8.01
9 6.99 7.44
10 7.39 7.61
11 728 7.51
12 6.98 8.03
Includes a background concentration of 6.8 ppm
2 Receptor 8 does not exist with the MSP Alternative
Source: David Brasiau Assoc.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-19
Off-Airport Peak Hour Concentrations for Off-Airport Sources �-
The levels of service represented in Table W-21 apply to traffic flows along a roadway and do not represent �
level of senrice at intersections. The purpose of the roadway capacity analysis was to identify those roadways
which would require improvements under each of the alternatives. A low levei of service may not necessarily
correspond to air quality probiems, aithough the potential for high levels of carbon monoxide does exist
adjacent to slow moving traffic or queues. At-grade intersections based upon the screening procedure were
analyzed since concentrations near these intersections are normaily the most criticai. No concentrations at
any receptor site near these intersections were above ambient air qualiry standards.
CO concentrations at the TH 55 and TH 62 intersection are presented in Table A-26 for the MSP 2020
Concept Plan and the No Action Alternative. These are weil below the 1-hour and 8-hour standards.
Table A-26 - Maximum Predicted CO Concentrations at Critical Intersections
(overall concentration in ppm including background)
Intersection MSP 2020 Conce t Plan No Action
1-hour 8-hour 1-hour 8-hour
TH 55 at TH 62 9.8 5.9 9.6 5.8
National Standard 35A 9.0 35.0 9.0
Minnesota Standard 30.0 9.0 30A 9.0
Source: David Braslau Assoc.
Maximum predicted CO concentrations at the TH 62 and TH 77 Interchange are estimated to occur at
Receptor Site 8 as indicated in Table A-27. Both the peak-hour and 8-hour concentrations are below national
and Minnesota Ambient Air Quality Standards.
,,
Table A-27 - TH 62 and TH 77 Interchange �
Predicted CO Concentrations - MSP 2020 Concept Plan
Rece tor Site Peak Hour m 8-hour m
8 9.3 5.6
Standard 30.0 � 9.0
Source: David Braslau Assoc.
Maximum predicted CO concentrations at the TH 77 and 66th Street interchange are estimated to occur both
at Receptor Site 3 and Receptor Site 8 as indicated in Tabie A-28. Both the peak-hour and 8-hour
concentrations are below Minnesota Ambient Air Qualiry Standards.
Table A-28 - TH 77 and 66th Street Interchange
Predicted CO Concentrations - MSP 2020 Concept Plan
Rece tor Site Peak Hour m 8-hour m
3 8.1 4.7
Standard 30.0 9.0
Source: David Braslau Assoc.
Regionai Significance
Airport sources accounted for 1.25% of regional CO emissions in 1990. No significant change in this
percentage is expected in 2005 or 2020.
Dual Track Finai EIS
V-20
Conclusion
The MSP 2020 Concept Plan and 2010 LTCP would not have adverse impacts on air quality. See the
governor's ce�tification letter in Appendix K.
B. Archaeologicai Resources
Archaeological resources affected by federally funded/licensed undertakings come under the protection of the
Nationai Historic Preservation Act of 1966 which, in Section 106, requires federal agencies to consider the
effects of such undertakings on properties listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic
Places. Regulations related to this process are described in 36 CFR Part 800: Protection of Historic
Properties.
Archaeologicai resources are also protected under Section 4(fl of the National Department of Transportation
Act of 1966, which requires projects funded by the Federal Highway Administration to avoid significant historic
sites uniess there is no "feasible and prudent" alternative. As funds are expected to be provided by the
Federal Highway Administration for needed road improvements, it wiil be necessary to meet the provisions of
23 CFR 771.135 which implernents Section 4(f).
B.1. MSP Alternative
B.1.1 Affected Environment—MSP Aiternative
The Area of Potential Effect (APE) consists of land within the expanded MSP airport boundaries as weil as
any land that would be affected by the construction/reconstruction of access/exit roads and signal systems
needed for the redesigned airport (Figure M-1). In addition, the APE includes (a) properry affected by
improvements needed within the regional transportation system due to the changes made at the airport, and
(b) any off-site properiy acquired for wetlands or other mitigation. It is not possible, as yet, to identify all
potential impacts outside the airport boundaries. Nationai Register properties will be identified and evaluated
as further impact zones are added to the APE.
Archaeological investigations have been conducted within undisturbed or minimaily disturbed portions of the
existing airport (with proposed expansions). It has not, as yet, been possibie to conduct such investigations
beneath or immediately adjacent to buiit-up portions a� the MSP airport property -- an area which, as indicated
by historic records, was intensively us�d, c4uring the 19th/early 20th centuries, as part of the Fort Sneiling
military reservation, and which, prior to that, was inhabited by a succession of Native American populations.
Archaeological investigations that have been completed are discussed in a separate technical reportb. A
comprehensive research design wili be prepared that delineates those portions of the APE which still may
contain historic evidence beneath existing built-up/paved areas and which, therefore, would need close
monitoring and possibie intensive survey/c+ata recovery during the implementation of the proposed airport
expansion.
Archaeological investigations conducted within undisturbed or minimally disturbed portions of the existing
airport have not identified any sites that are eligibie for listing in the Nationai Register of Historic Places.
(� ��
6 Harrison, C. 'The Archaeological Resources of Minneapolis-St. Paul Intemational Airport With Vicinity, Part 1 Summary
Report on the 1992-19951nvestigations", Prepared for the Metropolitan Airports Commission, 1996.
Dual Track Finai EIS
V-21
8.1.2 Archaeologicai Resource Impacts — MSP Alternative (2010 and 2020)
There are no known sites within the APE eligible for the Nationai Register. Plans to add, change or remove �.
structures would physically impact portions of the archaeologically sensitive area described above, which thus
far has been inaccessible to reconnaissance survey. As indicated in Section 8.1.1, such investigations may
weli identify archaeological remains at depths that have allowed for the retention of considerable integrity and
research significance. Any such remains would need Section 106 review before impacts can be assessed.
B.1,3 Mitigation Measures — MSP Aiternative
Archaeologicai sites are generaliy deemed significant primarily because of the information they contain (rather
than other characteristics such as their physicai setting). A professionally designed and executed data
recovery plan is therefore typically considered as sufficient mitigation for adverse effects to archaeological
properties. Mitigation at any archaeologicai site adversely impacted by the MSP Alternative wiil be
implemented by MAC in the following manner. Prior to data recovery (formal excavation), the data recovery
pian will be developed by MAC in consultation with the State Historic Presenration Office subject to the
approval of the responsible federal agency, FAA. The data recovery plan wiii consist of a research design
delineating the extent and focus of the required excavation, as well as the methodology needed to ensure
maximum retention of the research significance of excavated data.
Mitigation will be conducted in this manner at any archaeological site adversely affected by this alternative.
B.2 No Action Alternative
B.2.1 Affected Environment—No Action Alternative
The Area of Potential Effect (APE) consists of land located within the existing MSP airport boundary.
Archaeologicai investigations conducted within undisturbed or minimaily disturbed portions of this property {"
have not identified any sites that are eligible for inclusion within the National Register of Historic Places.
Please refer to 8.1.1 for a discussion of the built-up/paved sections of the airport that have not, as yet, been
inventoried for archaeological resources.
B.2.2 Archaeological Resource Impacts — No Action Alternative
There are no known National Register eligible sites within the APE for this alternative. As yet unidentified
archaeological properties that may exist under buiit-up/paved portions of the existing faciliiy airport wouid only
be of concern in case of ground-disturbing modifications to the present layout. -
8.2.3 Mitigation Measures — No Action Alternative
�:o mitigation needs have been identified for this alternative.
B.3 Summary of Archaeologicai Resource Impacts
No Nationai Register eligible archaeologicai sites have been identified within the boundaries of the MSP
Aiternative in 2010 or 2020 and the No Action Alternative. As yet unidentified archaeologicai resources in
built-up/paved portions of the existing airport could be impacted by the MSP Alternative in 2010 and 2020.
C. Biotic Communities
Biotic communities to be considered are fish, vegetation and wiidlife. State and federal standards and
guidelines for biotic communities are set forth in regulations for the protection of wetlands and threatened and
endangered species. These requirements are discussed in Sections V.DD and V.H of this section. t�
Duai Track Finai EIS
� V-22
C.1 MSP Alternative
C.1.1 Affected Environment—MSP Alternative
The APE for biotic communities at MSP is the existing airport property and areas affected by off-site roadway
improvements required for this alternative (2010 LTCP and 2020 Concept Plan). Uplands within MSP are
almost entirely comprised of impervious surfaces and mowed bluegrass (Poa pratensis) turf. The only
exception is a small area of oak forest adjacent to fuel storage facilities at the east end of the airport property;
however, this area is unaffected by the MSP Alternative and has not been analyzed in detail. MSP property
also encompasses about 28.7 acres of floodplain forest which is part of the Minnesota River fioodpiain.
While mowed turf provides somewhat limited wildiife habitat value, a number of species do utilize these
portions of MSP. Such species include Canada geese (Branta canadensis), meadow voles (Microfus
pennsylvanica), pocket gophers (Geomys bursarius), thirteen-lined ground squirreis (Spermophilus
tridecumlineatus), red fox (Vu/pes fulva), horned larks (Eremophila a/pestris), red-tailed hawks (Buteo
jamacensis), American kestrels (Fa/co sparvarius), European starlings (Sfurnus vu/garis) chipping sparrows
(Spizeila passerina) and vesper sparrows (Pooecetes gramineus). Several less common bird species have
been observed at MSP, inciuding the short-eared owl (Asio flammeus), prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus)
and upiand sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda).
Wetland systems comprise the most significant wildlife habitat within the MSP APE. The characteristics of
wetlands within MSP are discussed in Section V.DD. As discussed in Section V.DD., wetlands have been
classified according to Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (FWS/DBS Publication
79/31; Cowardin et al. 1979) and Wetiands of the United States (USFWS Circular 39; Shaw and Fredine
1971). The "Cowardin" systern superseded the "Circular 39" system in 1979; however, Circular 39
ciassifications are still utilized in both the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) and Minnesota's
protected water laws (Minn. Stat. Chapter 103G) as well as the rules promulgated under these statutes
f (Minn. Rules 8420 and 6115). Accordingly, both Cowardin and Circular 39 classifications are provided
--' throughout this EIS. Cowardin types are given first foilowed by Cowardin abbreviations and Circular 39
types in parentheses.
MSP encompasses approximately 192.56 acres of wetland, 74 percent of which lies within Mother Lake.
Mother Lake is a 142.3 acre semi-permanent palustrine unconsolidated bottom/emergent wetland
(PUB/EMF; Circular 39 Type 5 open water and Type 4 deep marsh) with a forested fringe around most of
its perimeter. Mother �ake is the most significant element of wiidlife habitat within MSP and provides
excelient habitat for Canada geese, various dabbling ducks (e.g. mailards, blue-winged teai, and wood
ducks), great blue herons (Ardea herodius), black-crowned night herons (Nycticor� nycficorax), great
egrets (Casmerodius albus), muskrats (Ondatra zibethicus) mink (Mustela vison}, raccoons (Procyon lotor),
and a variety of raptors. A goose control program has been ongoing at Mother Lake since 1984 to
minimize the potential for bird strikes (see Section V.D and Appendix A.4).
Mother Lake has been designated by the Minnesota DNR Heritage and Nongame Research Program as a
colonial waterbird nesting site due to its long-term use by Forster's terns, a state special concern species.
Mother Lake has had as high as 70 tern nests but last received concentrated use in 1986 when 43
breeding pairs were observed. The Mother Lake tern colony was inactive f�om 1987 through 1993 but
became active again in 1994 when one breeding pair returned. The Minnesota DNR found the Mother
Lake tern colony to be inactive during the 1995 breeding season (Joan Galli, MDNR, pers. comm.}. Storm
water-related water levei fiuctuations in Mother Lake have limited Forster's tern nest success.
MSP encompasses 14 other wetlands, 8 of which are excavated ponds or water hazards within the Rich
Acres Golf Course. The habitat value of all of these wetlands has been substantiaily degraded by human
activities. Some basins are used for storm water ponding, some are directly proximate to active runways,
some have been disturbed by past grading or excavation activities and some are consistently mowed as
part of airport maintenance activities. These wetlands are described in more detail in Section V.DD of this
� � EIS.
Duai Track Finai EIS
V-23
MSP does not encompass any fisheries habitat due to; (1) the absence of lakes and streams and (2) the
isolated nature of on-site wetlands making them unsuitable as spawning habitat for fish. None of the on- �
site wetlands are deep enough to support viabie fish populations. �
C.1.2 Biotic Communities Impacts — MSP Aiternative
The MSP 2020 Concept Plan entails the placement of MSP's terminal compiex at the west end of the airport.
This configuration requires the construction of a number of bridge structures to allow vehicular access
between the terminal compiex and Trunk Highways 62 and 77. While these structures would not involve
filling in Mother Lake, they would require piers and the piacement of bridge deck over approximately 12.1
acres. The use of structure is being proposed as a mitigation measure to avoid the use of fill. Much of this
structure would follow the northern fringe of Mother �ake; however, several ramps bisect the lake's northeast
end. It is anticipated that the amount of structure in Mother Lake required for the MSP 2020 Concept Plan
has the potential to reduce the lake's habitat value for waterbirds, inciuding the Forster's Tern. While bridge
piers themselves will not eliminate a substantial acreage of wetland, the shading effect caused by structures
may eliminate some of the wetland vegetation required by waterbirds for feeding and nesting. This is
particulariy likely where structures would be closely spaced and/or would by relatively low in height. The 2020
Concept Plan and 2010 LTCP also require the placement of fill in about 11.4 acres of Mother Lake for a
safety area and access road off the end of the north-south runway; this impact would further reduce waterbird
liabitat values in Mother Lake. Techniques for minimizing impacts during construction have greatly improved
in the last decade and the highest level of controls will be utilized.
ConverseEy, the MSP 2010 LTCP and 2020 Concept Pian would raise and stabilize the average water
levels in Mother Lake due to the additionai runoff on the airport, which could improve the success of
Forster's tern nests that are initiated there. This wouid also improve habitat through a higher degree of
interspersion between vegetation and open water. More stable water levels wouid reduce the number of
nests fiooded out.
Impacts to biotic communities from glycol deicing compounds should be reduced. Duck Lake currentiy �
receives a considerable amount of waste glycol, thus degrading its water quality. Duck Lake would be filled
and replaced off-site. Mother Lake would continue to receive a negiigible amount of glycol. As indicated in
Section BB.1.2, about 92.5 percent of the glycol wiii be recycled or treated with about 7.5 percent running
off into the storm sewer system. See Section BB.1.3 for a discussion of giycoi mitigation measures.
The impact of aircraft noise on wildlife is imperfectly understood and quantitative research is unavailable for
many species. Janssen (1980) categorized noise effects on wildiife as primary, secondary and tertiary.
Primary effects are direct physical auditory changes such as eardrum rupture, temporary and permanent
hearing threshold shifts, and the masking of auditory signals. Secondary effects inciude stress, behaviorai
changes, interference with mating, and detrimental changes in the ability to obtain sufficient food, water and
cover. Tertiary effects are the direct resuit of both primary and secondary effects and include population
declines and disuse of important habitat.
Wildlife using habitats around MSP may be incurring one or more of the noise impact types listed by Janssen
(1980). However, there is no data available on pre-airport wildlifie use around MSP to contrast with present
conditions. Wildiife habitats around MSP that are currently experiencing the highest noise levels are Mother
Lake and Gun Club Lake. Types of wildiife utilizing Mother Lake are summarized above. Waterfowl and
waterbird use in Gun Club �ake is discussed in section D.1.1. Noise impacts to wildlife are aiso discussed
further in Section FF.1.2.
The MSP 2010 LTCP and 2020 Concept Pian would aiter the distribution of aircraft flights over wiidlife
habitats surrounding MSP because of the new north-south runway. The primary effect wouid be to reduce the
rate of increase of fiights over Mother and Gun Club Lakes and introduce fiights over the Long Meadow and
Black Dog Lake area within the MVNWR (see Figure Q-2). This change may introduce some new wiidiife
disturbance into this area but would also ameliorate any such disturbance currently occurring in Mother and
Gun Club Lakes. The net result would be flights over a larger area but at a reduced frequency over Mother ��
and Gun Club Lakes . Given the tendency of wildlife to habituate to regular, repeated disturbances {see .,_
Dual Track Final EIS
V-24
Section FF.1.2) it appears likely that wildiife in the Long Meadow and Black Dog Lake area would habituate in
the same fashion as those species currently using Mother and Gun Ciub Lakes.
Citation: Janssen, R. 1980. Future scientific activities in effects of noise on animals. In J.V. Tobias, G.
Jansen, and W.D. Ward, eds. Proceedings of the Third International Congress on Noise as a Public Health
Problem. Am. Speech-Language-Hearing Assoc., Rockville, MD.
The above described impacts cannot be avoided. Either structures or fill are required within Mother Lake to
provide freeway access to the western terminal location for the 2020 Concept Plan. The western terminal site
is surrounded on ail other sides by active runways and taxiways. The north safety area fill for the north-south
runway is also unavoidabie for the 2020 Concept Plan and 2010 �TCP. Shifting this safety area out of Mother
Lake would require the north-south runway to be shifted to the south, placing the south safety area over I-494.
C.1.3 Mitigation Measures — MSP Aiternative
The use of structure in Mother Lake represents a mitigation measure since it is being undertaken to avoid the
placement.of fiil. Impacts to Mother �Lake have already been minimized as much as possible in the use and
placement-of these structures. Mitigation for impacts to threatened/endangered species and to wetiands at
MSP are discussed further in Sections V.H. and V.DD. �
C.2 No Action Alternative
C.2.1 Affected Environment — No Action Aiternative
The affected environment for the No Action Alternative is the biotic communities within the MSP airport
property. See C.1.1 above.
� C.2.2 Biotic Communities Impacts — No Action Aiternative
� ';
There are no impacts to biotic communities associated with the No Action Alternative.
C.3 Summary of Biotic Communities impacts
Tabie C-1 - Summary of Impacts to Biotic Communities
Acres Affected
HabitaUCover Type MSP Alternative No Action
2020 2010 Alternative
Maintained Bluegrass Turf 331.5 285.2 0
Wetland 35.0 33.0 0
Cropland 0 0
Forest 0 0
Nursery/Pine Plantation/Shelterbeits 0 0
Non-Maintained Grassiand 0 0
TOTAL 366.5 318.2 0
1__1".J__ _"._al___I_ �."!_` __ �iL:_ ___J.___.' __"!r___
IIII,IUUGJ YVGtIQ�IUJ IyI11lJ. VYltlllll IVQIJYYQy 1,V111UVIJ.
Source: Peterson Environmental Consulting, inc.
Also, see summaries for Sections V.H and DD.
The impacts to biotic communities due to the loss of wetlands and biuegrass cannot be avoided.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-25
D. Bird-Aircraft Hazards
Bird-aircraft hazards are not listed as an impact category in FAA guidelines on NEPA compliance.
However, the FAA requires an investigation of potentiai bird-aircraft hazards when expanding airport
facilities or siting new facilities and generaily recommends against the placement of aircraft-movement
facilities in the vicinity of wildlife attractants (per FAA Advisory Circular 150.5200.5). Also, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service requested that an analysis of bird-aircraft hazards be included in the EIS.
D.1 MSP Alternative
D.y.1 Affected Environment—MSPAlternative
The APE for bird strike hazards around MSP has been defined as all major bird concentration areas that lie
within 10,000 feet of runway ends and active landfilis within 5 miles (26,400 feet). No active landfilis lie within
the APE, the nearest being Kraemer �andfill about 6.1 miles from MSP. Based on the analysis contained in
the Finai AED for the MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan, the potential major bird concentration areas
within the APE for MSP were identified as Mother �ake, Lake Nokomis, Wood Lake, and the Gun Club/�ong
Meadow/Biack Dog Lake complex in the Minnesota River bottoms. During preparation of the EIS, additional
surveys were done in these areas and it was ultimately concluded that only Mother Lake and the complex of
Gun Club, Long Meadow and Black Dog �akes represent bird concentration areas of major significance
(Figure D-1). The attractiveness of Mother �ake to Canada geese is augmented by the mowed turf present
at Rich Acres Golf Course and Fort Snelling Nationai Cemetery.
Available data on recent bird strikes do not indicate a clear distribution pattern sufficient to ascribe each
incident to a specific bird concentration area (Table D-1). However, about 28 percent of reported bird strike
incidents between July 1990 and October 1993 appear to be related to Mother Lake. Data from 1994
indicated 10 total bird strikes, similar to 1990-1993. The Canada Goose population using Mother Lake has (
been the subject of an ongoing research project and control effort being conducted by Dr. James A. Cooper of `�
the University of Minnesota. Due to the apparent bird strike hazard presented by an increase in Canada
goose numbers at MSP in the early 1980s, MAC requested assistance from tha U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
in developing methods to reduce the number of geese using areas on or near MSP.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-26
Table D-1 - Locations, Numbers and Types of Bird Strikes Reported at MSP,
July 1990 to October 1993'
LOCATION OF STRIKE
DATE Unk/Misc RW12R RW30L RW12L RW30R RW4 RW22
07-15-90 5 starlin
09-11-90 1 r.t.hawk
03-20-91 3 mailard
05-11-91 1 unknown
05-31-91 2 oose
06-16-91 1 starlin
06-18-91 5 starlin
08-12-91 1 ull
09-15-91 1 mallard 1(?)unknow
n
10-04-91 1(?)
unknown
03-05-92 1 mallard
07-22-92 4 s arrow
07-23-92 1 crow
09-11-92 1 unknown
09-26-92 1(?) 1 unknown
unknown
10-11-92 1 ? unknown
11-14-92 1 ull
03-29-93 1 r.t.hawk
04-25-93 1 s arrow
05-26-93 1 r.t.hawk
07-07-93 1 unknown
07-19-93 1 kestrel
07-23-93 100 starlin
08-14-93 1 m. dove
OS-25-93 1 kestrel
10-10-93 5 blackbird
10-12-93 1 unknown
TOTA�
INCID. 7 8 5 4 4 1 0
Each celi under Location of Strike indicates; (1) the number of birds struck, if known, (2j the type of birds struck,
if known, and (3) a(?) if there remains some question as to whether the incident actually represents a bird strike.
2 Considered a major incident; the #1 engine on a NWA DC-10 was damaged 3 miles off the end of Runway 12R
and shut down. Part of the engine cowiing fell into an Eagan parking lot but no injuries occurred.
3 Considered a major incident; a NWA 747 ingested one or more starlings on departure from Runway 12R. The
pilot shut down the #3 engine and retumed to the fieid without incident. All four engines were damaged.
Approximately 100 dead starlings were subsequently swept from Runway 12R.
Source: Metro olitan Ai orts Commission
Dual Track Final EIS
V-27
in response, Dr. Cooper was retained to undertake what initially was to be a 4-year study (see Appendix A.4) �,
from 1984 to 1987 to determine; (1) whether geese using MSP could be identified and removed (i.e.,
translocated) and (2) whether such reductions would, in turn, reduce the number of geese and goose flights
within the airspace used by departing and approaching aircraft. This initial study has evoived into an ongoing
research and control effort that remains underway in 1995. Continuing selective control efforts have kept
goose numbers at MSP extremely low, �endering the goose-aircraft hazard at Mother Lake almost negiigibie
over the last 7 to 8 years. However, since geese from other brood marshes may eventuaily move into the
vacated habitat existing at MSP, o�going monitoring and controi efforts are being maintained to ensure that
goose flights into MSP continue to be minimal.
The MVNWR encompasses a series of waterfowl concentration areas south and east of MSP. These
areas are Gun Ciub, Long Meadow and Black Dog Lakes. Gun Club Lake aiso extends north of the
MVNWR into Fort Snelling State Park. in addition to being concentration areas, the MVNWR lakes also
generate flights to and from Mother Lake at the northwest corner of MSP. The MVNWR which
encompasses Long Meadow Black Dog and part of Gun Club Lakes lies about 3,400 feet from MSP at its
nearest point. At its nearest point, Gun Club Lake lies about 3,400 feet from the east end of the existing
south parallei runways at MSP; this part of Gun Club Lake is part of Fort Sneiling State Park. Mother Lake
lies within MSP boundaries and is about 1,700 feet from the west end of the south parallel runway. Data
coilected by the MVNWR staff and the EIS study team during the spring of 1995 indicates that �ong
Meadow �ake has the highest waterfowl concentration numbers for the period March through June with
totais exceeding 17,000 birds on a given day, foilowed by Gun Club Lake (>8,000) and Black Dog Lake
(1,052). Peak census totais were reached during the last part of March through mid-April for Long Meadow
and Gun Club Lakes with numbers reaching 17,233 and 9,863 respectively. At Black Dog �ake peak
numbers were tallied in January. During the winter, waterfowl concentrations occur at Black Dog Lake
where warm effluent from the NSP Black Dog Power Plant keeps the lake partially free of ice.
In addition to waterfowl, Long Meadow, Gun Club and Biack Dog Lakes attract concentrations of Double- {�'� ,
crested cormorants (Phalacrocorax auritus), great blue herons, great egret and severai migratory gull species. �,
�ong Meadow Lake had the highest concentrations of great blue herons, great egrets and double-crested �
cormorants during the spring migration. Both Long Meadow and Gun Club Lakes hold the largest
concentrations of great blue herons, great egrets, and double-crested cormorants during spring and fall
migrations. Black Dog Lake had the highest concentrations of gull species during migration.
The MVNWR staff has indicated that the American white pelican (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos) population at
the refuge has been increasing and that these birds may represent a bird strike hazard due to their habit of
soaring at relatively high altitudes in large fiocks. One American white pelican was seen at Biack Dog Lake
during the 1995 spring migration and approximately 300 were seen soaring in three fiocks during the 1995 fall
migration at Long Meadow Lake.
For purposes of bird-aircraft hazard analysis, the entire Gun Club/Long Meadow/Biack Dog Lake wetland
compiex has been considered a major waterfowi and waterbird concentration area. However, Long Meadow
Lake appears to represent the largest bird concentration area, foilowed by Gun Club Lake. Waterfowl
numbers observed by MVNWR staff and the EIS study team (see Appendix A.7) during the spring 1995
rnigration period are summarized in Tabie D-2. Long term waterfowi populations in the MVNWR are
summarized in Tabies D-3 and D-4.
Dual Track Finai EIS
V-28
Table D-2 - Summa�y of Waterfowl Surveys Conducted by MVNWR Staff and EIS Study Team;
Spring 1995''
Jan. Feb Merch A rii Ma June
�ocation 4th 16th 17th 30 31 st 19th 6th 8th 17th 23
L.ong Meadow - 33 317 - 1,650 695 - 174
Lake
Black Dog Lake 3,010 136 173 - 39 120 - - 49
Gun Club �ake - - - 88 - - 941 -
Lake Nokomis - - - 100 - - 53 - -
Lake Harriet - - - 186 - - 84 - -
Lake Calhoun - - - 6 - 1 - -
' Table represents total bird populations (i.e., ducks, geese, herons, gulls etc.)counted at the locations listed on
the left-hand column. The date counts were conducted on are listed across the top. Columns in gray were
counts conducted by EIS study team.
Source: Peterson Environmental Consuitin , Inc. and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Dual Track Final EIS
V-29
Table D-3 - Peak Waterfowl Populations within the MVNWR by Season; �'
Source MVNWR Annual Narratives
Winter Peak Populationy 1988 1,800
1989 4,500
1990 13,000
1991 10,000
1992 7,000
1993 4,000
1994 7,000
Spring Peak Population2 1988 17,000
1989 8,000
1990 32,000
1991 39,000
1992 24,000
1993 38,000
1994 11,000
Summer Peak Poputation3 1988 40,000
1989 11,000
1990 9,000
1991 11,000
1992 22,000
1993 8,000
1994 10,000
Fall Peak Population4 1988 19,000
1989 32,000
1990 80,000
1991 39,000
1992 91,000
1993 22,000
1994 24,000
Winter = December of preceding year, January and February. Note that winter
�population is aimost exclusive to Black Dog Lake.
Spring = March, April and May
3 Summer = June, July and August
4 Fall = September, October and November
Source: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
C�
Dual Track Final EIS
V-30
1
Table 0-4 - Waterfowl and Waterbird Use at MVNWR,• Spring and Fall Migration Periods,
1987-1991 for the Long Meadow Lake/Biack Dog Area
Watertowl & Coots Canada Geese Cormorants White Pelicans
LMUBDG LMUBDG LMUBDG LMVBDG
Year Period Peak2:M ak3 Peak2:M ak3 Peak�:M ak3 PeakZ:M eak3
1987 S rin 28300:9400 539:180 --- ---
Fall 31400:10500 55:20 1700:570 ---
1988 S rin 10000:3300 600:200 1400:470 ---
Fall 18000:6000 --- 2400:800 ---
1989 S rin 11500:3800 300:100 30:10 ---
Fall 32000:10700 400:130 4800:1600 ---
1990 S rin 35400:11800 1700:570 170:60 ---
Fail 65900:22000 4800:1600 2400:800 1400:470 �
1991 S rin 22500:7500 550:180 15:5 15:5
Fall -- 31900:10600 1300:430 3000:1000 2200:730
1992 S rin 24100:4000 3500:580 590:90 ---
Fall 52300:10400 870:170 1800:600 900:300
1993 S rin 29300:4800 2500:400 140:40 ---
Fall 36300:3300 1500:130 2900:480 21:7
1994 S rin 7700:1200 2600:400 37:18 ---
Fall 49500:9900 3900:790 2100:400 1500:370
1995 S rin 26700:6600 3400:860 2800:940 27:13
Mean S rin 21720:5820 1700:385 575:181 5:2
Fall 35250:9260 1603:408 2637:781 726:230
CUMULATIVE
TOTALS OF ALL
MEANS Peak M eak
S rin 24000 6391
Fal) 40216 10679
Period: SPRING = March, Aprii, May \ FALL = September, October, November
2 Peak: The SUM of the peak populations for the three months comprising the migration period.
3 Mpeak: The average monthly peak population.
[Since the numbers presented are estimated and result from expansion of actuai data collected, rounding off of
numbers was done as foliowing: all numbers in the 1,000's were rounded off to the nearest 100; ail numbers in
the 100's were rounded off to the nearest 10.]
Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
D.1.2 Bird-Aircraft Hazards — MSP Alternative
Bird strikes pose the greatest hazard to aircraft at altitudes less than 500 feet above ground level (AGL).
According to FAA data, 90 percent of ail known bird-strike incidents occur below 500 feet AG�, and nearly all
of the remaining 10 percent occur between 500 and 3,000 feet AGL, with most below 2,000 feet AGL (based
on a conversation with Gene LeBoef, FAA Office of Airport Safety and Standards, August 17, 1993).
Integrated Noise Model (INM) data was used to obtain typicai departure fiight profiles for the various fiight
tracks associated with each runway. The standard instrument glide path has been used to develop approach
profiles. The INM output estimates an aircraft's altitude at various distances from the airport both on arrival
and during departure. This output has been used to estimate aititudes over areas that have been identified as
potential attractants for concentrations of birds. The INM modei is the standard FAA aircraft noise model and
has been subjected to substantiai field verification. Based on INM data, the number and altitudes of fiights
over bird concentration areas near MSP are as foliows
Dual Track Final EIS
V-31
Mother �ake: (
The MSP 2020 Concept Plan would place about 6,080 monthly flights over Mother Lake -- 3,770 below 500
feet AGI. and 2,310 between 500 and 2,000 feet AGL. The MSP 2010 LTCP would have about 5,840
monthly overfiights -- 3,620 below 500 feet and 2,220 between 500 and 2,000 feet AGL.
Gun Club Lake:
The MSP 2020 Concept Plan wouid piace about 3,890 monthly flights over Gun Club Lake --1,170 below 500
feet AGL and 2,720 between 500 and 2,000 feet AGL. The MSP 2010 LTCP would have about 3,730
monthly overflights -- 1,120 below 500 feet and 2,610 between 500 and 2,000 feet AGL.
Long Meadow and Black Dog Lakes:
The MSP 2020 Concept Plan would place about 6,820 monthly flights over Long Meadow and Black Dog
�akes -- none below 500 feet AGL and 5,620 befinreen 500 and 2,000 feet AG�. The MSP 2010 LTCP would
have about 6,550 monthiy overflights -- none below 500 feet and 5,400 between 500 and 2,000 feet AGL.
The potential for ongoing bird strikes is an unavoidable impact. Given the distribution of bird concentration
areas around MSP, it is not possibie to redistribute aircraft operations to avoid overflying these areas.
D.1.3 IViitigation Measures — MSP Alternative
The proposed new north-south runway placement and orientation was determined to be the most
reasonable and effective for expanding the capacity of the existing airfield — which has severai severe
physical and environmentai constraints. The bird-concentration areas shown in Figure D-1 are among
these constraints. However, basad on the balancing of these constraints and other considerations
discussed in Section I11, FAA and MAC determined that it wouid be neither feasible nor prudent to
completely avoid any potential hazards of additionai overflights of these areas due to the new runway and
increased activity levels. r'
From an operational standpoint, the only available mitigation measures are to minimize the number of
departures occurring over Mother Lake and low altitude overfiights of the MVNWR. Given the locations of
these bird concentration areas, meaningful reductions in overflights do not appear feasible. Ongoing goose
control measures shouid be pursued within MSP as should any other vegetation management measures
that would reduce the attractiveness of the airport environs for geese. Such measures might include
reductions in turf mowing through the establishment of low-growing groundcover piants that require littie or
no mowing and do not provide food for geese.
In a letter dated November 25, 1994 MDNR recommended planting prairie vegetation around Mother Lake
if trees were not compatible with the airport. Mid-to-tall grass prairie vegetation around the lake would not
be attractive to Canada geese and may be a viable alternative or supplement to a continued goose control
prcgram around the lake.
D.2 No Action Alternative
D.2.1 Affected Environment — No Action Alternative
The APE for the No Action Alternative is identical to that for the MSP Alternative.
D.2.2 Bird-Aircraft Hazards Impacts—No Action Alternative
Bird strikes do not appear to represent a major problem at MSP under existing conditions, provided that
Canada goose controi measures are continued. As desc�i6ed above, overfiights of bird concentration areas
(Figure D-1) under the No Action Alternative in 2010 and 2020 are as foliows:
Dual Track Final EIS
V-32
Mother �ake:
� Monthly overflights of Mother Lake under the No-Action Alternative would totai approximately 3,110. Of
those overflights, approximately 970 would be below 500 feet AGL and 2,140 wouid be between 500 and
2,000 feet AGL.
�.
Gun Club Lake:
Monthly overflights of Gun Ciub Lake under the No-Action Alternative wouid totai approximately 5,940. Of
those overflights, approximately 1,940 wouid be below 500 feet AGL and 4,000 would be between 500 and
2,000 feet AGL.
Long Meadow and Biack Dog Lakes:
Monthiy overflights of Long Meadow and Black Dog Lakes under the No-Action Alternative would be
approximately 2,000, aii above 2,000 feet AGL.
The potentiai for ongoing bird strikes with the No Action Alternative represents an unavoidable impact. Given
the distribution of bird concentration areas around MSP, it is not possibie to redistribute aircraft operations to
avoid overfiying these areas. �
D.2.3 Mitigation Measures — No Action Alternative
Continuation of Canada goose control rrieasures appears to be the only bird strike mitigation measure
currently warranted under the No Action Alternative.
D.3 Summary of Bird-Aircraft impacts
Tabie D-5 shows the number of flights expected over bird concentration areas at criticai altitudes. Such
overflights occur both on approach and departure with the MSP and No Action Alternatives and cannot be
avoided.
Tabie D-5 - Summary of Monthiy Aircraft Overflights of Bird Concentration Areas
Altitude (AG�) MSP 2020 MSP 2010 No Action Altemative
� ��
�� ��� ��
��� ����
� ���
� �� ' ' • �
•
•�� � - •�• �i'
i�ii��i�ii ���
' ML=Mother Lake; GCL=Gun Ciub Lake; �ML=Long Meadow �ake/ Black Dog �ake complex
Source: Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc.
E. Construction Impacts
Construction of the MSP 2010 LTCP and 2020 Concept Plan wouid create some unavoidable temporary
impacts to surrounding communities such as noise, fugitive dust, traffic delays, and water quality. Most of
these impacts would be mitigated using proper construction techniques, many of which are regulated. The
design and construction will be in accordance with applicable state and local ordinances and regulations such
as those recommended by the Soil Consenration Service and FAA Advisory Circular 150/5370-10, Standards
for Specifying Construction of Airports, item P-156, Temporary Air and Water Pollution, Soil Erosion and
Siitation Control.
On-airport Carbon Monoxide emissions associated with the maximum expected level of construction activity in
2003 have been estimated. Emission factors for SOx emissions from construction equipment or haul trucks
are not available. The major sources of on-airport emissions associated with construction activiry are
Dual Track Final EIS
V-33
construction equipment and haul truck and empioyee trips on the airport. A description of the construction ��
emission methodology is contained in Appendix A.13.
Estimates of haui truck emissions have been made using emission factors for Heavy Duty Diesel Trucks from
the US EPA Mobile 5A emissions model for 2003. An average on-airport speed of 10 mph has been
assumed. As described in Section A.1.2 Air Quality Impacts - MSP Alternative, it was estimated that 80,000
truck loads of materiai will be moved during the construction season. Based upon these assumptions, 5.4
tons per year of Carbon Monoxide emissions have been estimated for on-airport haul trucks.
Estimates of on-airport Carbon Monoxide emissions associated with empioyee trips on the airport have been
estirnated to and from the construction site. it is assumed that ali employees drive light dury gasoline trucks
and that the average off-airport daily round trip is 30 miles and an average on-airport round trip of 2 miles over
a six month construction period or 156 days. An average speed of 30 mph has been assumed for off-airport
trips and 20 mph for on-airport trips. For a construction work force of 300, off-airport emissions of 30 tons per
year and on-airport emissions of 3 tons per year have been estimated.
On-airport pollutant emissions from construction equipment have been estimated in two ways. The first is
based upon emission factors provided by the US EPA National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory which
are the most recent data available. The second is based upon a methodology developed by the Sacramento
(California) Metropolitan Air Quality Management District modified to account for Carbon Monoxide emissions.
Assuming ail types of construction equipment on the airport, a total of 12 tons per year has been estimated.
The Sacramento methodology yields an estimate of just under 4 tons per year. To ensure a conservative
estimate of Carbon Monoxide emissions, the 12 ton per year figure has been assumed.
Total Carbon Monoxide emissions from on-airport construction activity was obtained by summing the
emissions from haul trucks, employee trips and construction equipment. This yields a total of 20 tons per
year. Since these construction emissions are estimated to be below the 100 tons per year de minimis level,
construction activiry at MSP is projected to be in conformiiy with the Clean Air Act Amendments. �
Construction would take place over a period of years. Increased traffic on roadways leading to the project site
wili result from both construction workers and delivery of materials to be installed. Since MSP is well served
by freeway access from all directions, there should be minimal additional traffic on local roadways.
Ali concrete batch plants are required to obtain emissions permits and to operate under restrictions imposed
as part of the permit process. Construction contracts for mass excavation, crushing rock, and similar activities
which might cause fugitive dust wiii contain requirements to control dust. These measures will include such
items as frequent watering of haul routes and paving of frequently used routes. Besides fugitive dust, another
point source of air pollution will be from construction equipment fuel combustion emissions.
An adequate labor force is expected to be avai�able to perform the construction throughout the construction
period.
Impacts on water quality could result from solvent or fuei spills on the site and dewatering during subsurface
construction operations. Mitigation measures will invoive speciai handling and care of all potentially diriy
water or hazardous materiais. This wili invoive the construction of special sedimentation ponds or silt barriers,
and linings and berms around all proposed fuei depots in order to contain any accidental spiiis. Designated
maintenance areas for construction equipment wili be in construction contracts. Speciai care will be made to
require protective linings under equipment when oil changes and other maintenance activities are being
performed. No such activities will be aliowed in waterways or other sensitive areas.
Soil erosion from disturbance of the project site must aiso be carefully managed. A wide variety of techniques
will be utilized such as: sedimentation ponds; haybale check dams; hydro-mulching; construction of silt
fences; watering; compaction; and revegetation. The amount of topsoii and vegetation that is stripped from
the site wili be phased to minimize the amount of site disturbance at any one time. Disturbed areas wiil be .
either revegetated or paved as soon as possible. Topsoil stockpiles will be stabilized with seeding. �
Duai Track Final EIS
V-34
,
Adverse impacts during construction will be minimized to the extent feasible, but cannot be avoided.
Temporary Ex#ension of Runway 12R-30�
The temporary noise impacts of closing Runway 4-22 were analyzed by distributing the Runway 4-22
operations on Runways 12R-30L and 12L-30R, with only the long-haui operations presently using Runway
4-22's full 11,000-foot length utilizing the proposed temporary extension on Runway 12R-30L. All other
aircraft wou�d depart from the existing Runway 12R threshold and all landings wouid continue to be at the
existing threshold. A set of DNL contours was generated to depict the anticipated temporary noise impacts as
a result of the Runway 4-22 closure for construction and use of the temporary extension. Although there wiil
be temporary noise level increases in Eagan, Mendota, Mendota Heights, Minneapolis, and Richfield during
construction, na increases wili exceed DNL 1.2 dBA as compared to the DNL noise leveis without the
extension. Additionaliy, because this is a temporary condition, these increases are not considered significant.
A complete detailed analysis is presented in the Environmental Assessment for Extension of Runway 4-22 To
12,000 Feet, Minneapolis-Saint Pau! international Airport, Metropolitan Airports Commission, April 1998.
F. Coastai Barriers
The Coastal Barriers Resources Act of 1982 prohibits federal financing for development within the Coastal
Barrier Resources System, which consists of undeveloped coastal barriers along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts.
The legislation was amended by the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act in 1990 to include undeveloped coastal
barriers along the shores of the Great Lakes including Lake Superior in St. �ouis County. The metropolitan
area is sufficiently distant from these designated lands along the shore of Lake Superior not to be included.
Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport is not a coastal barrier as defined by the federal government.
Consequentiy, analysis of the alternative with respect to the Coastal Barriers Resources Act is not required.
G. Coastal Zone Management Program
Coastal Zone Management Programs, prepared by states according to guide�ines issued by the Nationai
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, are designed to address issues affecting coastal areas. While the
Great �akes are considered coastal areas for the purpose of preparing these programs, there is currentiy no
Coastal Zone Management Program approved by the state of Minnesota for Lake Superior. Work is
underway to produce an approved Coastal Zone Management Program within the next few years; it is unlikely
the metropolitan area would be included in the program. Minneapolis-St. Paui International Airport is not
within a coastai area as defined by the federal government. Consequently, analysis of the alternative with
respect to an approved Coastal Zone Management Program is not required.
H. Er�dangered and Threatened Species
H.1 MSP Alternative
H.1.1 Affected Environment — MSP Aiternative
The APE for threatened and endangered species with the MSP Alternative is the MSP properiy plus any
areas of critical habitat for baid eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus} within the Minnesota Vailey National
Wildlife Refuge in proximity to MSP. The bald eagle is the only federally listed species (listed as threatened
on both state and federal lists of threatened and endangered species) having habitat near enough to MSP to
be potentialiy affected. Forster's terns, a state-listed special concern species, have historically used Mother
�ake at the northwest corner of MSP. Mother Lake has been designated by the Minnesota DNR Heritage and
Nongame Research Program as a colonial waterbird nesting site due to its long-term use by Forster's terns.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-35
Forster's terns: /'
Mother Lake has had as high as 70 tern nests in 1981 but last received concentrated use in 1986 when 43 \•.
breeding pairs were observed. Reproductive success among terns at Mother Lake has been extremely poor
in some years due to storm-related flooding. Due to the developed nature of Mother Lake's tributary drainage
area, the lake experiences substantial water level fluctuations in large storms. The 1986 breeding season is a
good exampie; due to flooding and predation, only 4.4 percent of the tern eggs hatched and no young birds
were fledged. The Mother Lake tern colony was inactive from 1987 through 1993 but has become active
again in 1994. One Forster's tern nest with 3 eggs was found at Mother Lake by DNR staff on June 2, 1994,
re-activating the site as a designated colonial nesting bird site. However, no nesting Forster's Terns were
observed at Mother Lake during the 1995 breeding season.
Within the context of the MSP Alternative, the above described potentiai impacts to Forster's Terns are
unavoidable. The MSP Aiternative cannot be implemented without some reduction in Mother Lake's habitat
value for Forster's terns.
Bald Eaqles:
Based on coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources (MDNR), the only known essential habitat for bald eagles near MSP is one consistently
used eagle breeding territory along Long Meadow and Gun Club Lakes within the Minnesota Valley National
Wiidlife Refuge. Three nest sites lie within this nesting territory and are all located within one mile of each
other. The breeding territory was occupied in 1986 and 1987, but successfui nesting did not occur in those
years. Eagles have actively nested in this territory since 1988 and successfuily nested there in 1993, 1994
and 1995 (Mary Stefanski, USFWS, personal comm.).
H.1.2 Endangered and Threatened Species Impacts — MSP Alternative
Forster's terns:
As stated in Section V.C, the amount of structure and fill in Mother Lake required for the MSP 2020 (r
Concept Pian has the potentiai to substantiaily reduce the lake's habitat value for waterbirds, including the
Forster's tern. While bridge piers themselves would not eliminate a substantial acreage of wetland, the
shading effect caused by structures is likely to eliminate some of the wetiand vegetation required by
waterbirds for feeding and nesting. This is particularly likely where structures wouid be ciosely spaced
and/or would by relatively low in height. The MSP Alternative also involves five acres of fill in Mother Lake
which will further reduce the potentiai habitat available to Forster's terns. On the other hand, the MSP
Alternative would raise and stabilize the average water leveis in Mother Lake due to the additionai runoff on
the airport. This would improve the quality of the remaining habitat by creating more interspersian and
reducing nest drown outs. The significance of potential impacts to Forster's terns is unciear, given the
absence of Forster's tern nests in Mother Lake over the past several years.
Within the context of the MSP 2010 L.TCP and 2020 Concept Plan, the above described potentiai impacts
to Forster's terns are unavoidable. The MSP 2010 LTCP and 2020 Concept Plan cannot be implemented
without some reductio� in Mother Lake's habitat value for Forster's terns.
Bald Eagles:
A Bald Eagie Biological Assessment was done in 1990 relating to the potentiai impacts on nesting baid
eagles that might result from an extension of MSP Runway 4-22 that was proposed at that time. This
proposed runway extension is also an element of the MSP 2010 LTCP and 2020 Concept Plan and is the
only airport improvement under this alternative which invoives potential overflights of bald eagie nests within
the MVNWR. The 1990 Biological Assessment involved the same nesting territory being analyzed in this
EIS and was done to analyze the potential for impacts that might result from approximately 3,330 monthly
departures over the nest at altitudes between 1,500 and 2,000 feet. The MSP Alternative involves
substantially fewer potential overflights in 2020 (i.e., about 360 per month) on a flight track about 1,639 feet
(straight-line distance) from the nearest nest site within the breeding territory. No direct overflights would
occur under the MSP 2010 �TCP and 2020 Concept Plan as would have with the project analyzed in 1990. (
`..
Dual Track Final EIS
V-36
'i
The Biological Assessment prepared for the Runway 4-22 extension concluded that it could not be stated
unequivocally that impacts to eagie reproduction success wouid not occur but that it was unlikely that such
impacts would occur (see Appendix A.5). Accordingly, the USFWS issued a"No Jeopardy" Biological
Opinion in relation to the originai 4-22 extension project. Since the number of overflights projected for this
runway under the MSP 2010 �TCP and 2020 Concept Plan has been substantially reduced and the
distance between the nearest flight track and the breeding territory has been increased, the conclusion
reached in the Runway 4-22 Biological Assessment appears to remain valid for the MSP2010 LTCP and
2020 Concept Plan . The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has formally confirmed that a formal Section 7
consultation under the Endangered Species Act is not required for the MSP 2010 LTCP and 2020 Concept
Plan (see U.S. DOI comment letter in Appendix A.11).
H.1.3 Mitigation Measures — MSP Alternative
As stated in Section V.C, there are no mitigation measures readily available to directly replace Forster's tern
habitat lost to the placement of fiil and bridge structures in Mother Lake. impacts to Mother �ake have already
been minimized as much as possible in the piacement of structures and flll. Also, it appears that the higher
and more stable water levels associated with the MSP 2010 LTCP and 2020 Concept Plan may improve the
quality of the tern habitat that will rernain. No mitigation measures relating to baid eagles appear warranted.
H.2 No Action Alternative
H.2.1 Affected Environment— No Action Alternative
The affected environment for the No Action Alternative is limited to biotic communities within the MSP
property. See Section H.1.1.
H.2.2 Endangered and Threatened Species Impacts — No Action Alternative
The No Action Aiternative would have no significant effect upon threatened or endangered plant or animal
species. This aiternative entails no overflights of known bald eagle nests in the MVNWR. The nearest
fiight track would be about 1.25 miles from the nearest nest site.
H.2.3 Mitigation Measures — No Action Alternative
No mitigation measures relating to threatened or endangered species are warranted under the No Action
Aiternative.
H.3 Summary of Endangered and Threatened Species Impacts
Table H-1 - Summary of Endangered and Threatened Species Impacts
Alternative
MSP – 2010
and 2020
No Action
Forster's terns Baid
Adverse Impact No I
No Impact No I
Rare Plant Spe
No Impact
No
' Reduction in habitat value due to fill in and bridges over Mother Lake
2 There appears to be minimal potential for significant impacts to bald eagles
associated with any of the alternatives; however, it should be noted that distance
thresholds used in the impact analysis are not definitive and the potential for some
adverse impacts cannot be totally ruled out.
Source: Peterson Environmental Consultina. Inc.
The loss of Forster's terns' habitat is unavoidable.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-37
�
I. Economic
Economic impacts include the costs of acquiring land and property and the resuiting loss of municipal
revenues, the cost of developing the airport, and the effect of the airport on local, regional and state jobs,
sales, development and municipai tax base.
Affected Environment-All Aiternatives
The APE is the business sectors of the state of Minnesota and the tax base of Bloomington, Minneapolis and
Richfield. The Minneapolis/St. Paul MSA experienced considerable empioyment growth over the past 20
years. Table i-1 shows county employment patterns over the 1970-1990 time period. Overali, about 531,000
new jobs were created in the 13 county metropolitan area (MSA) over the 20 year period, which is
representative of roughfy 2.5 percent average annuai growth. The MSA also attracted an increasing share of
state employment between 1970 and 1990, increasing from 56 percent to 62 percent of state empioyment.
Table 1-1 - MSA Total Employment Trends, by County,1970 -1990
County % of MSA in: Annual
County 'f970 1980 1990 1970 1990 Change
Anoka 58,603 97,199 133,097 7% 9.7% 4.19%
Carver 11,193 18,217 26,061 1.3% 1.9% 4.32%
Chisago 5,243 10,957 14,004 0.6% 1% 5.03%
Dakota 53,607 98,292 153,905 6.4 11.2% 5.41%
Hennepin 421,109 501,810 572,037 50.3% 41.8% 1.54%
isanti 5,787 9,647 12,005 0.7% 0.9% 3.72%
Ramsey 198,078 230,858 252,684 23.6% 18.5% 1.22%
Scott 12,006 20,623 30,805 1.4% 2.3% 4.82%
Sherburne 6,225 12,451 20,432 0.7% 1.5% 6.12%
Washington 30,188 54,093 76,893 3.6% 5.6% 4.79%
Wright 13,897 24,892 34,073 1.7% 2.5% 4.59%
St. Croix, WI 11,973 19,564 25,727 1.4% 1.9% 3.90%
Pierce, WI 10,011 14,137 17,228 1.2°/a 1.3% 2.75%
Total MSA 837,920 1,112,740 1,368,951 100% 100% 2.48°/
Minnesota 1,494,416 1,888,597 2,196,056 1,g4°/
Source: U.S. Census
The previous table aiso highiights the slow drain of jobs to suburban counties. In 1970, employment in
Hennepin and Ramsey Counties made up 73.9 percent of MSA empioyment. By 1990, the share of total
MSA empioyment in Hennepin and Ramsey Counties had fallen to 60 percent. Three suburban counties,
Anoka, Dakota, and Washington, attracted significant new employment over the same time period. Job
creation was particularly strong in Dakota County, which increased its share of MSA employment from 6.4
percent to 11.2 percent as almost 100,300 new jobs were created. Employment growth in Anoka and
Washington Counties created an additionai 121,200 jobs over the same time period.
The previous tabie is useful in that it shows general employment growth trends in the MSA. The foliowing
tables are more significant in that they highlight employment trends by industry sector in the 13 county MSA
between 1972 and 1992. Table 1-2 is based on data from County Business Patterns and inciude empioyment ,.��
in nine specific industry sectors from 1972 and 1992. Tabie 1-3, which summarizes changes in industriai ��,
Dual Track Finai EIS
V-38
� sector employment between 1972 and 1992, is particulariy useful in detailing how employment patterns
evolved as the MSA economy changed over a 20-year period.
Changes in industriai sector employment at the MSA levei were strongest in Agriculture and Services, which
grew by 315.9 percent and 196.1 percent respectively. While Agricultural employment increased from 1,142
in 1972 to 4,750 in 1992, Service empioyment increased from 142,747 to 422,669 over the same period.
Overail, growth in Service employment mirrored nationai trends. Between 1972 and 1992, Service
empioyment grew from 20 percent to 33 percent of MSA employment. Although Manufacturing empioyment
grew by roughly 30 percent over the 20-year period, the manufacturing share of total MSA employment
declined from 29.09 percent to 20 percent.
Duai Track Final EIS
V-39
d' 1� N M fn i.C) O� O) tC� P) (O 1� �
O) 1� M M� N tf) I� 00 t� N N CO 00
N CO .- 00 � N a- 00 f� t� M('') CO O
� M d' N.- t� N d' � a- .- d' tt] M O
. ��....,a, N N fn � �--� 00
F. M � Cp
N 1� � N t!) m f� 00 cr N t� O�' lD
00 O �t t0 00 00 O�-- �t M M i-
- ';�� �y� r- � tn �- e-
d M
�
..�
O
� N LO CO N 1� N t0 t0 1� N 00 tC) t�
!� O 00 tt) M tc) 00 N 00 I� t0 .- O) f0 c!'
y N 00 N M C� CO O N N ct 00 O 1� 1�
,:. U M M O a0 a- .- a-- �y'
I�i � M !�'
y e-
-; tA
� N N M d� � I� O N O t� I� ��
WtY) tY) .- I� CO a- .- N a- M a- e- � �-
p� d' d' N
. M ,-. �
h , "'' Gt.
�
t--
Q y ; M I� M ct N N M ct M N tA 00 N�
� �; O��t' N tn � t0 O O M t� I� I� Ch
� tt� M 1� tC) t� f0 � CD tQ � Ln � Cf' 1�
�- f0 `- CO N M`- N •- a- tV
� N M C}�
a +° `-
� �
� �n co co �n cY, r- oo ao rn o co r� �n a�
�' m �rcorn oco,-r�nco,-oro�
•O �p � I� .- 00 M � M M N N c- Ch
ta0 N 'O N CO
61 � i � �f' Ln
c � F-
�
o md�r�r.d-mmcococv�rtcflr�
N M CO �.e) d� c0 M i.f� .- 00 00 O CD d'
V N � O��- 00 d' C� t� N N N M
� _ � <- tL) tt') (�
t/i v N a,
� �
�
�
C �(� u� N t� M d� (O fn N tf� ct N tt)
� N M� N N t� I� tC) m(D ct O N t0
� C('� N tL') O� 00 M CD M N O) Ln 6[') CO
,r,, ��= � e- CO t� O N tt1 e- n
� U � n T
� �
T .
O C
W �
C I'� tn � c0 �- (h co rn O o0 d' O c� tD
N O(O 00 M O 00 0� (+� tn tn c0 00 (O M
� '� tC) .- .- N M tc') d' �.L) N e- .- 1�
,p � r- �- N 1'�
F N N C�'y
C
O
_U
tt) M t� I� d' �- � �f' t,[) O N tA d' 00 N
e- .- u7 �- N M 1� N e- M O I�
G � N �- I� 0�
�C �
� C
` �
N
�
tC) 00 h M 00 N N CO tt a- t!') � N N �p
d d' N tt) N a- N M d' •--
.�� t!) M � e� �
� � y
U C
.i ,�
a �
m
�
�
� � _
o �
c ` � X � � U
,� m� m m a y � �..� �o � ai
C ,G � � p C +� y � "� "C = U U �
� o � � �e e e E O m � •°' � :° �
o c m:c m m� co �.c a� � o 0
fJ Q U U � S� OC tn tn �S '�t' !n il. F- cn
I.[� M CO I� m N d� tn N� N 00 tY) �
N M d' M(O N O� tf) (n � CD CO t!'>
O � d' O c+") �- � N c0 � tc) 00 et
��,, M� cD .- O �c) O i� 1� d� tc1 d' c0 M
p t� .- O O) I� .- M�- r- (0
` f- �- c� N N
e=
O t� I� tA c0 O d� N N I� d- O tn M
N N t[) d� t� c- O �0
L !� � pp
d
s
..�
O
��� CO N 00 tn 00 Lf) O Cn O.- d' N t� �
' y N M fA N(� N � 00 N O M t� tG
, y� M Q) tt) N c- 6) O tt) M N(O (� 00 �Q
V 0� cf' N t� tn .- I� �t a- 00 �f' M,- N
'� �- N N � N�
d
;: . �
M.- I� c0 O ct d� rn d� O �� 0�
M fn tn c0 tn cr tc) �t O O rn �t U> M
�y� O t� N N M•- t0 t1'l d� �� 00 ('� M
� N CD CO .- N N
N � cD N O
�. W
�
�
a y CO � M.- t0 d' t0 � c0 tD O�n O�
� O cfl d� rn u> M M O O r co !�
,� t�6 00 ('� CO .- N('� N� O I� tf) f0 N CO
j- . 00 N a- CD �.- O(� N O d' M N a�
� , a- N N � tt')
a +° N
m
,� �
�
n: cD �Y d' cO O rn d' �t c'o O d' tD N N
N I� tS) O� M CO N C7 I� � a- M ct' d'
•O l0 � CO d' N N.- a- O d' N('9 � tC) d' tt)
tp y'O M 00 e- tt') a- �'
d 0 � � � �
c � F.
�
o rn c fl a o d� r.- � c� r t o c D c*� ro r�
M�h N 00 C�') 1� (O M CO �h N d' r}'
t�.t ��� � d' .- N O 1� �- fD N(� M O
� �: N I.[) ('� a-- �- �- (A
� V � � ^
a
Y H
�
�
C M N tn � O M�- tf7 M t� 00 Ch (O O
� fn d' M 00 N d� ti'� N OD 00 O(O tL')
� C 1� �- CO I� O N�t 1� tY) fry O> d' N M
��' e- � .- .- M .-- � � .- 00 N �' �- 1�
C +�,, N N c-- CA t1)
" � , t� N
m
o` �
� �
W
N M d' ('� t� CO M.- � 00 .- O� f`�
� C N d' O r1' � M.- I� t� � d' M 0) Q)
� p CO I� d' 0� e- N� I`� d' t� � t!1 N CO
.G �v d' �t' N 00 � �
H �
h
:C
O
v
07 rn c0 t0 00 .- �� t� O O.- � CO N
tA � N N ('� N �
C M �
•G �
� C
�
i N
a�-+
c0 d' r- � O c- N d� O cD tn t� tn O ip
;: � tA N d' O .- CO 00 N I� M CO LA tt> �
;�. � N a- I� e- CO .- N�- a-- (� W
� N � �
U C
•� �
` Q �
m
a
�
� _
o � �
' C c� X?l, y C�
`�; a 'a �„ � .
� C Y> � O C,� N'��' � m O� C7 C� � U
Oc c`o � m aCi c�a m n.� �0 �'_ ,F; a� ..� �
U¢c�Uo= N�cncn��cn�E°-c°n
v-40
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
� o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Qp �- 0) CU d' N a- � d' t� � tt) N 00
i o c' ��� d' c h� C� � t n d' c n 0 1`� t t1
++ .- O N t0 1� t+') c+') c0 O rn c� f� N 00
� N M N CO �- M�- N�-
� o � o o ��� o 0 0 0 0 � o
cD 00 I� 00 � O d' � I� 00 N O O M
y tn �t tc) d' N O t� CO u� d' rn O tri N
.0 I� f� �' 1� O 00 N 00 Ln 0� O N 1�
: ++ � � i � � � r. � � �
Q i
\ \ \ \ \ \ \° \ \° \ \ \ \ �
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
tn M N 00 .- tc) N r- c0 O tn O� d� e-
�1 . ` v N� 00 t0 O O tn t� O d' 1� � tn CO
� Otn.-.-1��tntnOc0c0c'o�f'0�
�. •� tP') d' fA h e- a- e- N d' 'd' d' N.- �-
�-., y
>.:� �
N
^� o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
.�. �.;`: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
e- c0 ct M N d' O I� 00 tn O O c0 O e-
W 00 O I'� I� O N N 1`� N O'> .- 00 (G
N � 0) tn O tC� rn N tn t0 M O) �t o7 c0 �
�. � N .- t� .- N tt) N M
GL
� t'
t4 i .
� a � o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
..� .�� � ��,. \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
N f� a- 1� N O� M I� e- N 00 '-- tl)
j F- '.' �� i� O O ct t� tn N i.p O M O c0
- 00 c0 .- O u� rn d' d' M c0 rn N tn t�
.0 •� : •- M r- N N �-
a �, : :
m e,
m . �
c
c � o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
� v � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
� �t N tn .- O O cr1 �F t� .- .- rn cD t0
d M O N O N I� f0 � N t� � N N r-
�,�, d�� t� •- � d' h.- t� CO 00 N tn tt) tG
�- M�- �- M �- N M N M�- �-
w .� F'
V,1 ?�
7•
i
N �� \ \° \ \ \° \° \ \ \° \ \ \ \ \
_ . o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
.�y t0 h CO CO N� CO 6) M.- ct' �(0
C � CO M I� N 00 tt) O 1� CO N d' d' 00 O
� V O O r O�t M c� u'> .- c� �n N t�
� M.- d' .-- ' N r- t*) N
+,, H
C
d
y, \°\\°\\\\°\\°\\\\\
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O C e- O 00 I� tY) N d' �- d' t[7 N 0� t!') e-
a '� N� d- d' tC) M t� O� N CD N I� C7
� � M M I� �- .- th O O (0 fn .- M
W V�- CO �- N N •- d' N�- �
� �
� C
U �
c
•� , � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
�� � C o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
� a ONtnMMt�tn�tOe-d'd'�-r-
R tC� N N 00 00 tfl t� M o0 t[) (O d' O M
s � o� O o0 0� oo .- O tn i.c� rn CO �t'
. V � 7 a- C'0 .-- N M 00 N N r- N
r„ �
: C :.. ��. � tYi) �
a v R
' m�� o 0 0 0 � o 0 0 0 0 � o 0 0 ^
— O o0 I.L) � M o� M o0 M� O O O d; �
�, , C O O� I� tfl t0 I� O M t0 O O�n et �-
� �f' C'� �.- tt� O) 00 N 1� 1� O� N lA N
� e- c-
� C
�
�
�
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
�..�d \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ N
_�� I� I� C� O N 1� N N O tfl O 0� �-'
'"' 00 N tt) I� fA O N 1� �- M O tC� .- tL) N
� t0 �f' CO M� t1') .- O d' i� O tI') M ��
�? d' M d' N N d' � CO ' tC) 00 1� M C
.Y •y
Q 0]
i.�+
C
C =
O � 0
c c� X� y U
� `
� p� m a � � �+� �o � m
c.Y > N° c+� v� �.° N rn c� c°'i ��
� o � �c c c E o a� ,� •` � .. �
o c m:c m a� m m n.c �� o 0
c� ¢c,�c�o='�crcncn��cn�F-cn
V-41
The employment by sector tabies also highlighted several trends at the county level. in Agricultural
employment, Dakota County grew by more than 1,200 percent, increasing from 53 jobs in 1972 to 709 jobs in �
1992. Hennepin County has emerged as the center of Agriculturai empioyment, growing from 528 jobs in
1972 to 2,110 jobs in 1992. Only Sherburne county lost Agriculturai jobs over the 20-year period.
Growth in Manufacturing employment occurred in several counties, including Dakota (14,862 new jobs),
Hennepin (15,193 new jobs), Anoka (12,401 new jobs), and Carver (7,905 new jobs). Only Ramsey County
lost manufacturing employment over the 20-year period, declining from 70,674 jobs to 65,451 jobs.
Service sector employment growth was particularly strong over the 20-year period, as stated above. Aithough
each of the 13 MSA counties recorded significant gains in Service empioyment, growth was particularly strong
in Anoka, Dakota, Hennepin, and Ramsey Counties, generating a total of 253,522 new senrice jobs. Service
industry growth in the aforementioned counties equaled 91.97 percent of totai MSA Service employment
growth in 1992.
Population Projections
Population projections for the MSA, developed by the state pianning office, as reported in Table I-4, show that
Dakota Counry will grow by an estimated 183,000 residents by 2020. Hennepin County is expected to grow
by roughiy 166,400 residents over the same time period. Other counties projected to grow include
Washington (62,534 new residents), Ramsey (64,655 new residents), Anoka (90,289 new residents), and St.
Croix (30,634 new residents). Assuming projected growth levels hold true, the MSA is expected to increase
by more than 725,000 residents between 1990 and 2020, as the following table shows. The projections also
forecast that the metropolitan counties of Hennepin and Ramsey will contain a decreasing share of totai
population, failing from 59 percent in 1990 to 54 percent in 2020.
Table I-4 - MSA Population Trends,1990 - 2020
County 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 % Change
Anoka 243,641 264,570 281,870 296,830 310,660 323,440 333,930 37°/a
Carver 47,915 53,080 57,390 61,220 64,960 68,810 72,440 51%
Chisago 30,521 32,460 33,990 35,500 37,120 38,730 40,090 31%
Dakota 275,227 313,450 347,220 377;520 406,150 434,050 459,190 67%
Hennepin 1,032,431 1,076,410 1,110,300 1,136,140 1,157,890 1,178,830 1,198,860 16%
Isanti 25,921 26,840 27,470 28,140 28,930 29,690 30,260 17%
Ramsey 485,765 500,650 512,240 521,850 530,880 540,430 550,420 13%
Scott 57,846 644,400 69,770 74,500 79,190 83,980 88,300 53%
Sherburne 41,945 47,430 52,650 57,890 63,040 67,890 72,100 72%
Washington 145,896 160,510 172,110 182,160 191,730 200,840 208,430 43%
Wright 68,710 73,140 76,820 80,460 84,350 88,210 91,570 33%
St. Croix, WI 50,251 NA 59,474 NA 70,632 NA 80,885 61°/a
Pierce, WI 32,765 34,209 35,862 37,484 39,004 40,516 42,052 28%
otal MSA 2,538,834 3,227,149 2,837,166 2,889,694 3,064,536 3,095,416 3,268,527 29%
Source: Minnesota Planning, October, 1993
Dual Track Final EIS
V-42
Employment Projections
Table I-5 outiines projections of total employment far the seven counry metropolitan area beiween 1990 and
2020. Overall, the metro area is expected to add a total of roughly 353,700 jobs by 2020, with the majority
created in Hennepin (157,500), Dakota (62,100), and Ramsey Counties (54,506). However, the table also
indicates that annuai rates of employment growth wiil be strongest in the suburban counties through 2020.
Canrer, Dakota, and Scott Counties are forecast to experience the highest annuai rates of employment
growth.
Table 1-5 - Seven County Employment Trends,1990 - 2020
Income Projections
The distribution of recent and projected per capita income in the 13-couniy MSA is outlined in Tabie I-6. The
table shows that income growth is expected to occur in all 13 counties of the MSA between 1994 and 2000.
Table I-6 -
Recent & Pro'ected r Ca ita Income, 13 Count MSA,1989 - 2000 Constani 1�
% Change % Change
Coun 1989 1994 2000 1989-1994 1994-2000
Anoka 19,344 19,684 22,080 1.8% 12.2%
Carver 23,052 22,830 26,507 -1 °/a 16.1 %
Chisago 17,674 17,349 20,329 -1.8% 17.2%
Dakota 23,957 24,300 26,974 1.4% 11 %
Hennepin 27,574 29,689 31,489 7.7% 6.1%
Isanti 16,835 17,650 20,646 4.8% 17%
Ramsey 22,865 25,164 26,778 10.1% 6.4°/a
Scott 20,667 21,362 24,235 3.4% 13.4%
Sherburne 17,136 16,841 19,549 -1.7% 16.1°/a
Washington 23,313 22,461 24,976 -3.7% 11.2%
Wright 15,197 18,257 21,383 20.1% 17,1%
St. Croix, WI 20,904 22,095 25,897 5.7% 17.2%
Pierce, WI 17,144 18,292 21,758 6.7% 18.9%
Totai MSA 24,092 25,301 27,353 5% 8.1 %
Minnesota 21,059 22,025 24,176 4.6% 9.8%
Source: Metropolitan Council, 1995.
'94 Dollars)
The highest projected per capita incomes are located in the counties of Hennepin ($31,489), Ramsey
($26,778), Dakota ($26,974), and Carver ($26,507).
Dual Track Final EIS
V-43
�ocalized Impact Area
Popu/afion —
Table I-7 outlines population trends for the localized impact area.
Table I-7 - Population of the Localized impact Area
As the Tabie I-7 shows, populations of Minneapolis and St. Paui decreased significantly in the 1970's at rates
of 14.6 percent and 12.8 percent respectively. However, population loss in the downtown areas has siowed
considerably since 1980, due prrrnarity to the success of urban revitalization plans. Population growth in the
suburbs has been far more rapid, parti�ularly in Eagan, which grew in size from 10,389 in 1970 to 53,004 in
1993. Afthough the impact area lost 101,484 residents between 1970 and 1980, population growth re-started
after 1980 as the area population grew by 37,360 additional residents.
lncome � �
Median househoid income statistics for the seven communiry metro area, taken from the 1980 and 1990
census, are shown in Tabie I-8. The results show that the cities with the fastest growing incomes are Eagan,
at 6.8 percent and Mendota Heights, at 6.0 percent. Median income in Eagan grew from $24,106 in 1979 to
$46,612 in 1989. Across the MSA, median income growth amounted to 5.7 percent, growing from $22,475 in
1979 to $39,026 in 1989.
Table I-8 - Median Household Income, Localized Impact Area,1979 -1989
The table also shows that Bloomington achieved the second highest median househoid income in the six-
community area ($41,736) in 1989. It is interesting to note that, while median income growth in Minneapolis �� '
Duai T�ack Final EIS
V-44
and St. Paul increased by 5.8 percent and 52 percent respectively, their 1989 median incomes still feil to the
; bottom of the seven community median income spectrum.
Employment
Employment data for the localized impact area is shown in the foilowing two tables. Tabie I•9 provides
information on employment by industry sector for the Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, while Tabie I-10
covers the communities of Bloomington, Eagan, Lilydale, and Mendota Heights. The table below, which
outiines empioyment trends for the Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul between 1987 and 1993, breaks down
employment by industry sector and highlights several interesting trends in the Twin Cites.
In Minneapolis, employment increased by 3,720 between 1987 and 1990 before failing by 4,962 between
1990 and 1993 as the national recession siowed economic output. Empioyment growth between 1987 and
1990 was robust, however, with seven out of eleven sectors showing an improvement. Between 1990 and
1993 however, nine out of eleven sectors declined. The strongest job creation sectors in Minneapolis
between 1987 and 1993 inciuded services, which grew by 11 percent and local government employment,
which grew by almost 18 percent. Over the eight-year period, the service sector percentage of totai
employment increased from 30.2 percent to 33.7 percent.
As stated above, growth in services and local government empioyment over the 1987-1993 period mitigated
the overail effect of the national recession on Minneapolis. Although the service sector in St. Paul expanded
by over 10,000 jobs between 1987 and 1993, the city still lost 4,000 overali jobs. The hardest hit sectors
inciuded manufacturing and retail trade, which lost a total of 10,439 and 2,667 jobs respectively, over the
eight-year period. By 1993, service employment had grown to 32 percent of total employment in St. Paul,
increasing from 26 percent in 1987. Aithough manufacturing employment fell considerably over the eight-year
period, the sector stili contained roughly 21 percent of total employment in 1993. Considering that the state
capitol is in St. Paul, it is interesting to note that the majority of state government employment, roughiy 56
percent, is in Minneapolis. Even so, government employment occupies a greater share of total empioyment in
St. Paul (18.7 percent) than in Minneapolis (17.2 percent), as of 1993.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-45
Table I-9 - Average Annual Employment by Industry Sector, Minneapolis & St. Pau1,1987 -1993
Minneapolis St. Paui
Industrial Category 1987 1990 1993 1987 1989 1993
Agriculture & Mining 389 336 360 329 435 36
Construction 6,827 5,826 5,334 6,308 5,516 4,79
Manufacturing 40,174 39,290 35,895 49,896 44,819 39,45
T.C.0 14,934 15,004 13,043 5,700 6,229 5,79
Wholesale Trade 17,339 14,917 12,559 6,868 6,702 6,58
RetailTrade 40,365 40,652 38,031 24,340 23,457 21,673
F.I.R.E. 33,029 33,516 32,819 15,375 13,786 13,50
Services 85,195 90,347 94,652 49,651 54,669 59,74
Federal Government 6,054 6,407 6,349 4,846 4,926 4,833
State Govemment 16,588 17,129 16,766 11,939 12,910 13,028
�ocai Government 21,368 22,558 25,212 15,613 16,493 17,136
Total Employment 282,262 285,982 281,020 190,865 189,942 186,91
Retail % of Totai 14.3% 14.2% 13.5% 12.8% 12.3% 11.6°/
Services % of Total 30.2% 31.6% 33.7% 26.0% 28.8% 32.0°/
Government % of Total 15.6% 16.1 % 17.2% 17.0°/a 18 1% 18 7%
Source: Minnesota Department of Economic Security, Form ES-202
The following table (I-10) outlines empioyment trends for the five smaller communities in the localized impact
area. The five communities, ranging in size from Lilydale (the smallest) to Bloomington (the largest), had a
total employment of roughly 132,800 in 1994. Employment growth in the five communities was particularly
strong, with over 23,500 new jobs created between 1990 and 1994. The strongest performing sectors over
the 1990 - 1994 period included retail trade, services, and finance, insurance, and real estate (F.I.R.E.).
Manufacturing and construction were the only sectors to decline over the four-year period. Bioomington and
Eagan contained roughly 88 percent of 1994 totai employment in the five communities.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-46
�, '
`
/
0 0 0 0 0 0• o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
� � ° \ o \ \ o \ \ \ � \ \ \ \ \ \ \� \ \
� O tf) N .- d' d' �t N �� M c- p Q7 N M t!'� Cri tY)
� r � � M N CO �' d' CD N W � p�j d' CO f7 O �Y� d' N O� e"
= 0 I� N M O N c- M M ct' _� p� N N c'') fD N N
U m V � `�
a � -- o ,
r �
[A o� h I'� N � � O) e'!' � 00 O � M N � d' tA
N N d' N O O �f' d' �° � CO �f' I� N 00 tL'> d' �
d, � I� O tn rn cD m O�., tD � d. :, cD .- 00 I� tn �t rn M OD
Q� OJ M � (h M M N C N Q� ' •- M tn d' i� u7 CD I� N
_ p� M`� 0� , N N M M
� �. �
� i`� O N C+� tD d' N N
., t�0 � c�0 � N O tn .�- � � ° � �. o� '� � d' � � I�
N O cD tt tC> .- N O O� . O� v� N N N O I� O t!� rn c0 tG
.'�� � O� N N .M M e1� �.:t0 � .�., 0) : N M t1') O N ` CO d'
Q� ���y r' p�` N N M ��-
� F � �
�
..�
d' N � �!' O M N . lp \ � N t� u> CO tt� � N tD
� � tp � p� M p) tp cp p p° �� CD N N N cD N u") O h
tA cD N N O �- c0� tt) �� 1� � E � � d' i� N M d� �- N N
0� d� N N Cq M N r- . p M E�' N M rY N O � O c0 �� Q'f
C� N� V 0� N N M O
d' rn `- x � .
�m W ' �
� o o�- o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
� � � \ \ \ \ \ o \ o \ t1' \ \ \ \ \ o \ \ o
o Q, � ro rn rn o m n oo � .- o, � rn c� � c� cD o �r rn d;
p� �.- ui ct '•- ri � cv co oi ui �.- O m d� �.n c�i ri �n
p) L �' �Y M CO d' N N M t� � L O f� t[> N N �
`- U o� U o�
�
� o � o �
` cD O cD c0 d� � tD N e- � rn O � •- � t0 cD rn �
a 00 cD O d' � d' C'1 ° c0 ct 1� c0 c� �P N d' M
v N O M t0 'ct CD � ll� M � N N � 0) t� u� Q3
cp p�j � 1ly � !n M N m
Q p� N �
� � �
�
N � � (y � ^ �- t� M� N �t! N 00 N O N N
l,C) t� t!') CO (D CD O N° N tA h d' CO N 00
V N � CO M N N tD O�' N N N M N 0� t� O� C1 ln
� � fy �p N � .- M N O
� m
�: y � �
O �
t~.1 �
d� o �- in I'� i� Ct Cf' CO �- I�
�= N CO N d' N � t�D � t0 � 00 t� N CO C'� �7' (� f'')
w`.
t0 O N N t� ct O N N N 'O O t['� tn c'') CD tn � O� I�
� 0� nj tn N d Q1 d' N �
�
'O C � L e-
C y U
T � �
� o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
�, �' \ \ \ o \ \ \ o \ � \ \ \ \ p \ o \ \
��� ^ p p� r p) I� tt) p e- �� O O O O M O d' O M
��- M c'o cC N CO o'i ct �O �- C �- O O O O O O d' O O
E m � �y � N u� O N N s �' tn �f' `-
o U � V � ' �Y
Q>
� ° � ° e-
� 0� O N M •- M � �t' OJ � O O O O tt> O t� O N
c0 m N cD oD CO O N° � d' M
� M O M M N d' O) LL� f`7 � �.
`- � .-- N N CO � O OJ f� t0 M �
� Q� r- N 0�
r i"'
.O
N
1� N tt� d� O N O� u� O� O O O O c0 O O O 1"
� ct ch N � tn d� tD rn tD ° O cD u�
N O� N O O �n M N N M ct N t1'l
� � N N t� N c0 ('� M � M 0�
:'.. � N �- ^ M . � �� .
� � �
O
"O
= M N O M I� I� tY� CO o � O O O O � O N O M
,0 � (� � u7 � �' N C�O7 �. N I�
�p� 0 D� O 00 u7 Q��: _
EC� �t N CO � LCi N M' h fN t�0 �. .. 't�
� � � r ?
O � T p
° — v
m . J
C
�
�, ..
a� m ;° � � °c' °a
� rn � E o � rn c� � o
o c >' I-' ° c � "
� t- n� *' o o a� .' o F- m � o m
m � ° a� '� aci a � :: «�. '*. g' m °' °' �
`j � ? v`°i I- w d c w � t� ,� � y t_ w � c w v
� c ° :° � � > :g � � � U .c° +o � � o 0 0
� c.°� r- 's � u: cn c°a E°- cn � c� E- � � LL: cn c� t- �n
V-47
Employment growth in Bioomington was particularly strong over the four-year period, increasing from 71,268 r
in 1990 to 86,328 in 1994. Job creation in the retail trade and F.I.R.E sectors between 1990 and 1994 `
accounted for 82 percent of the roughly 15,000 new jobs created. The Mail of America, which opened in �
August of 1992, was primarily responsibie for the creation of 7,140 new retail trade jobs over the four year
period. Growth in F.I.R.E. employment was primarily attributed to renewed office leasing activity in the I-494
corridor since 1990. Manufacturing was the oniy sector to exhibit significant decline, falling from 14,893 to
11,368 by 1994.
Job creation was also strong in Eagan, which added almost 10,000 jobs by 1994. The majority of job growth
in Eagan was concentrated in wholesale trade and manufacturing, which grew by 2,288 and 3,964
respectively, between 1990 and 1994. The share of total Eagan employment occupied by manufacturing and
wholesale trade increased from 34.8 percent in 1990 to 43.8 percent in 1994. Employment creation in the
communities of Lilydale and Richfieid was minimal over the four year period. Mendota Heights lost
employment between 1990 and 1994, falling from 11,737 to 9,931.
Growth Projections
Projections for the localized impact area through 2020 were generated by the Metropolitan Council. The
forecasts, which cover population, households, and total employment, are contained in the foilowing three
tables. Population forecasts for the six communities, contained in Tabie I-11, indicate that population in the
six communities wili increase from 820,006 in 1990 to 885,750 in 2020, an 8 percent overall increase. On an
annual basis, the localized impact area wiil grow by less than 1 percent per year through 2020. The forecasts
project that Minneapolis will experience slight population increases through 2020, increasing from 368,383 in
1990 to 375,000 in 2020. Population growth in St. Paul is expected to be slightly stronger, increasing from
272,235 in 1990 to 285,500 in 2020. Overall, population in Minneapolis and St. Paui is expected to increase
by roughly 3.1 percent over the ne� 25 years.
Table I-11 - Population Forecast for Localized impact Area
Population growth rates in the suburban communities of Mendota Heights and Eagan are expected to be the
strongest in the impact area, with overail increases of 42 percent and 50 percent respectively. Eagan is
expected to grow from 47,049 in 1990 to 71,000 in 2020, while Mendota Heights is expected to grow from
9,381 to 13,300 over the same time period. As a resuit of significant growth in the 1980's, Bloomington
emerged as Minnesota's third largest municipality. Population growth in Bioomington is forecast to increase
from 86,335 to 102,000 over the 25 year period. Adams and VanDrasek noted that Bioomington had less
than 1 percent of its land base available for new residential development in 1990, implying that population
growth will slow as remaining housing sites are developed.
Table I-12 shows household projections for the localized impact area. The forecasts indicate that household
growth will be strongest in the community of Eagan, which will expand by roughly 14,500 households by 2020. ,�
Mendota Heights is expected to achieve the second_highest amount of household growth, increasing by ��
roughly 2,550 households by 2020. Minneapolis and St. Paul are forecasted to experience the lowest
Dual Track Final
V-48
percentage increases in household growth, improving by 2 percent and 5 percent respectively. Although
' Lilydale is forecasted to achieve 38 percent household growth by 2020, the community wiil grow by only 113
households over the time period.
Table 1-12 - Projected Households of Localized Impact Area
Employment forecasts for the six-community impact area, shown in Tabie i-13, indicate that the area's
employment base will grow from 569,259 in 1990 to 623,100 in 2020, refiecting a 0.3 percent annual growth.
Future employment growth is farecast to be concentrated in three communities, Bloomington, Eagan, and
Minneapolis, accounting for 46,600 new jobs, or roughiy 86 percent of forecasted total employment by 2020.
Forecasted job creation in St. Paul through 2020 is expected to be about 6,500. Richfield is forecasted to
experience minimal job creation over the same period, amounting to roughly 750 new jobs through 2020.
Table I-13 - Empioyment Farecast for Localized Impact Area
A/R SERV/CE AND THE M/NNESOTA ECONOMY
The Minnesota Legisiature, during its 1996 session, mandated that the Metropolitan Airports Commission
contract with the University of Minnesota to prepare an aviation service and facilities analysis to include:
• a description of various types and levels of aviation service and an examination of the relationship
between aviation service leveis and the level of commercial and industrial activity in the state; and
• an examination of the relationship between available levei of aviation service and the relocation of
, commercial and industrial enterprises to the state.
�
Dual Track Final EIS
V-49
The interaction between Minnesota industry sectors and the air transportation sector -- including air
transportation, air courier services, non-scheduled air transportation, airports, flying fields and airport terminal �-
services -- was-analyzed. The research primarily utilized applications of input-output analysis and the
Minnesota IMPLAN model. The most recent year for which Minnesota IMPLAN model database has been
developed is 1993. Additional sources were economic forecasts from the U. S. Bureau of Economic Analysis
and the Bureau of �abor Statistics, data on both domestic and international air cargo shipments, data from
domestic and international traveler surveys, as weii as pubiished literature on industry location and business
air travel trends.
Six major findings from the study are (see Air Senrice and the Minnesota Economv, Center for Transportation
Studies, University of Minnesota, January 1997):
� Top purchasers of air transportation: Four industry sectors in Minnesota -- intra-industry transfers in the
air transportation sector, business associations, management and consulting seniices and the U. S.
Postai Service -- are the largest purchasers of air transportation services. Ali 34 industry sectors in the
state spent $383 million for air transportation in 1993, compared to totai purchases of $86.5 billion for all
goods and services.
• Traveler expenditure impacts: Of the air travel in and out of Minnesota in 1993, 59 percent was business
travel and 41 percent was leisure, or non-business, travel. (This compares to a figure of 41 percent
business travei throughout the country in 1993.) Also, it is estimated that in 1993 non-resident business
travelers to the state spent $1.2 billion on such purchases as lodging, food and car rental, while leisure
travelers spent $724 million. It is aiso estimated that domestic and internationai travelers supported
45,000 employees statewide in 1993.
• Air cargo: Seven industry sectors accounted for most of the outbound domestic air shipments in 1993,
including electronic data processing equipment, miscellaneous printed matter, books, fabricated metal
products, refrigeration equipment, construction machinery and miscellaneous electronic components.
Three of these sectors -- computer products, printed matter and electrical equipment -- were deemed (�
important both for the value of the product shipped and the purchases from the air transportation sector.
• Purchases by the air transportation sector. An analysis of direct purchases by the air transportation
sector from other industries in the state indicate that 39 industry sectors accounted for 98.7 percent of air
transportation sector purchases in 1993, for $870 miliion. The IMPLAN modei impact analysis indicates
that long-term employment associated with air transportation purchases was 56,900 in 1993.
• Economic forecasts. Purchases of air transportation increase at a higher rate than other transportation
modes and at a higher rate than total industry purchases. An analysis of the Bureau of Economic
Analysis (BEA) economic forecasts for the state indicates the Air Transportation GSP, which inciudes
sales to consumers, government, investment and net change in inventory, will increase faster than GSP
for all transportation sectors through the year 2020; it is estimated that the GSP for all transportation
sectors will remain relatively flat during this time. The BEA forecasts for Minnesota also indicate Air
Transportation GSP increasing at a higher rate than forecast passenger originations under the optimistic
forecasts for the MSP Alternative.
Industry need for business air travel. Annuai surveys by the Air Transport Association indicate business
air travel, as a share of total air travel, has steadily decreased since 1977. However, an analysis of
historicai growth of air passenger originations at Minneapolis-St. Paui Internationai Airport, compared to
nationwide shares, indicates that total business travei has continued to increase during most years since
1977. Based upon a 1993 survey, business travel accounted for 59 percent of passengers at MSP,
compared to 48 percent of passengers nationwide.
The research for this study identified five major areas where additional investigation and analysis could
provide useful information on the importance of air transportation to Minnesota. These include (1) a study of
the impact of rapidly rising purchases of air transportation by certain industry sectors; (2) the role of air
transpo�tation on the location and growth of high-growth seNice and high-technology firms; (3) the role of �
Dual Track Final EIS
V-50
business associations as a major user of air transportation; (4) the role of air cargo and smaii package service
in high growth industries; and (5) the impact of telecommunications on air travel in Minnesota.
1.1 MSP Alternative
1.1.1 Economic Impacts — MSP Alternative
Direct and Indirect Employment
Empioyment data from 40 large U.S. airports were combined with enplanement data from the Federal
Aviation Administration to generate ratios of direct employment to origin/destination, connecting, and
international enplanements through regression analysis. The methodology was based on previous studies
conducted by the al-Chalabi Group, Inc., which estabiished the statistical validity of enplanement to direct
empioyment ratios. The 1990 base year ratios for each enplanement category are outlined in Table I-14.
Table I-14 - Base Year Employment per Enplanement Ratios
T e of En lanement Em lo ment er En lanement
Origin/Destination 0.001529
Connecting 0.001348
international 0.005459
Source: al-Chalabi Grou , inc. and ERA
The modei also incorporated an adjustment for airline industry productivity increases over the next 25 years
,� as technological innovations reduce the number of jobs per enplanement. Productivity adjustments,
expressed as annual percentage rates, are based on the assumption that airline industry productivity will
continue, although at a rate slower then experienced during the 1970's and 1980's, when the industry made
dramatic improvements in productivity. Table I-15 outiines specific annuai productivity adjustments used to
forecast direct airport employment over the 1989 to 2020 period.
Table I-15 - Airline industry Annuai P�oductivity Adjustments, 1989 - 2020
The productivity adjustments, shown above, are applied to the base year 1990 Jobs per Enpianement ratios
in Table 1-14 to generate ratios for 2001, 2010, and 2020, which are shown in Table I-16.
Table 1-16 - Adjusted Employment per Enplanement Ratios, 2000 to 2020
The ratios were applied to MSP enpianement forecasts in order to generate direct employment estimates for
each aiternative development scenario. Table 1-17 outlines forecasted enplanements by category for the no-
action and expansion scenarios.
Duai Track Final EIS
V-51
Table 1-17 - Forecast Enplanement Activity, Alternative MSP Development Scenarios, 2000 - 2020 �
In Tabie I-18, using the jobs per enplanement ratios, the following estimates of direct employment for the
MSP expansion scenario are returned:
Table I-18 - Direct and Indirect Employment Under MSP Alternative
Category 2000 2010 2020
Direct Employment 14,973 16,041 16,601
indirect Employment 17,600 18,900 19,600
Source: ERA
Table i-18 excludes roughly 10,000 Northwest Airlines employees invoived in heavy aircraft maintenance and
reservations on MSP property. ERA ascertained that Northwest Airiines maintains roughly 4,000 reservation
jobs and 6,000 aircraft overhauVheavy maintenance jobs on-site. The reservation positions were located on-
site after Northwest absorbed Republic in 1986. Discussions with Northwest Airlines indicated that the �' �
roughly 10,000 positions are not directly tied to fiight operations at MSP and couid go elsewhere if the MSP
expansion or new airport construction scenarios are followed.
Forecasts of indirect employment under the MSP expansion option were generated with BEA RIMS II
multipliers. The multiplier effect provides an indication of empioyment generated by direct empioyment at
MSP.
Direct and Indirect Wages
The following table outiines direct and indirect wages generated by direct empioyment at MSP. Direct
earnings are based on an average wage of $35,000, derived from 1993 employment and totai wage data for
the Twin Cities metro area, as defined by the Minnesota State Employment Office. Indirect wages were
generated from direct wages with BEA RIMS II multipiiers. Table 1-19 highlights direct and indirect wages for
the MSP expansion scenario.
Table I-19 - Direct and Indirect Wages Under MSP Alternative
Construction Period Impacts
Projected construction period impacts generated by expansion of MSP are based on preliminary development
cost estimates. The cost estimate for MSP 202Q Concept Plan, and 201 Q LTCP is currently $3.044 biilion and (�
$803 miliion, respectively. Using that estimate, the 2020 Concept Plan wouid create roughly 36,400 �'�
Duai Track Final EIS
V-52
construction-person-years, which is equal to roughly 1,820 average construction jobs and roughly $68 million
in direct wages per year over a 20-year construction period.
The indirect effects of construction were generated using BEA RIMS II empioyment and wage multipiiers for
new construction in Minnesota. Appiication of the RIMS ii multipliers to estimates of direct employment and
wages indicates that construction for the 2020 Concept Pian would create an average of roughiy 2,600
indirect jobs and $95 million in wages per year in the state economy over the 20-year construction forecast.
Construction wouid also generate fiscai impacts; expenditures for materiais as well as taxes on construction
worker income wouid generate revenue for the state, including roughly $60 million in income ta�ces over the
20-year period and between $78 million and $90 million in sales taxes on airport construction materials.
The 2010 LTCP would create an average of roughly 1,400 indirect jobs and $50 miilion in wages per year in
the state economy over the 10-year construction forecast. Construction would also generate fiscal impacts;
expenditures for materiais as well as taxes on construction worker income would generate revenue for the
state, inciuding roughly $16 miliion in income taxes over the 10-year period and between $20 million and $24
million in sales taxes on airport construction materials.
Tax Capacity.
The development of the MSP Aiternative would result in the acquisition of taxabie property and, therefore, a
reduction in tax capacity and ta�c revenues for the affected jurisdictions. The numbers of residences and
businesses to� be dispiaced are discussed in Section V.T (Social).
Tabie i-20 and Tabie I-21 detail the tax capacity of properties that wouid be acquired in 2020 and 2010 within
each affected jurisdiction. Tax capaciry figures reflect the estimated market value of a property multiplied by
rates for different classes of properties, such as residential homestead, agriculture, commercial and industrial.
There are 25 such ciass rates that have been established by the Minnesota Legisiature. The percentage of
' tax capaciry for properties to be acquired in each jurisdiction, compared to the total tax capacity of the
jurisdiction, is also shown. Tax revenues that would be lost because of property acquisition are calculated by
multiplying the tax capacity by the tax rates, which differ for each county, city within a county, school district
and special taxing districts.
Table i-20 - Tax Capacity impacts of MSP 2020 Concept Plan�'�
Jurisdiction Tax Capacity Lost Percent of Total Tax Annual Tax
Ca aci Revenues Lost
Bioomin ton $3,567,478 3.44 $4,396,472
Minnea olis $4,163,900 1.31 $63,866
Richfield $4,030,300 19.66 $177,339
Total $11,761,678 8.14 $4,637,677
Fi ures calculated usin 1994 assessed valuation and 1995 tax rates.
Source: Henne in Count Assessor
Dual Track Final EIS
V-53
Table I-21 - Tax Capacity Impacts of MSP 2010 LTCP�'�
Rich Acres Golf Course
Rich Acres Golf Course is located on property owned by the Metropolitan Airports Commission, immediately
east of TH 77. The recreation complex, which includes two golf courses and a driving range, 10 baseball and
softball fields, an archery range and community gardens, would be removed to allow development of the MSP
Alternative. (Park and recreation area impacts are discussed in Section R.)
The land is leased to the city of Richfield under terms of a 1978 lease, which inciudes a provision that the
"Commission at any time during the lease term or renewal term shali have the right to retake possession of a�l
or portions of the premises ... for airport purposes based upon a real and present need for use of such land
by Commission for aeronautical or other purposes directly relating to the development and use of the airport.
�
The lease provides for an initial lease rate of $1 (one doilar), plus annual payments to the Commission equal
to 33 1/3 percent of net revenues. Two figures factor into the net revenues, including operating expenses and
the annual portion of the amortized capital investment to design and construct the golf course.
In addition, the lease provides that, if the Commission retakes possession of the land during the 30-year term, {'
then the Commission "shall pay to the Ciry the amount of unamortized capital investment, if any, (that) then
remains outstanding." The unamortized capital investment as of November 30, 1997 was $837,373,
according to Richfield city records.
In figures provided by the city of Richfieid, gross revenues from golf course operation in 1996 were
$1,483,796; and in 1995, $1,353,859. After expenses and amortization of the capitai investment are
deducted, net revenues in 1996 were $247,217 and in 1995, $52,774.
it is noted that the city of Fiichfield constructed the 10 baseball and softbail fields, at a cost of about $58,000.
This expense, in contrast to the unamortized capital investment in the goif course facilities, is not amortized
and, under terms of the lease with MAC, wouid not be repaid to the city if the area were to be used for airport
development.
if Richfield decided to repiicate the golf courses, it could cost an estimated $4-5 million in development costs,
exciusive of land costs. This estimate is based on costs to develop golf courses now underway or
contempiated in the region. Land costs cannot be estimated with any degree of certainty, as they vary widely
throughout the region.
Development Costs
The estimated cost of the MSP 2010 LTCP is $803 million and the MSP 2020 Concept Plan is $3.15 billion in
1995 dollars, except for costs of mitigation. The development costs include acquisition of property,
construction of airfield and related facilities, the terminal costs, construction of roads and anciilary airport
facilities. The estimated costs are based on standardized cost factors used in other capitai projects, inciuding
airport projects, and are detailed in Table I-24.
Dual Track Finai EIS
V-54
1.1.2 Mitigation Measures — MSP Aiternative
The tax capacity lost because of the removai of dwelling units likely could not be replaced, as there is little
undeveloped land available for infill construction of homes and apartments. This situation affects properties in
Minneapolis and Richfield. Ta�c capacity for businesses removed for airport development in the cities of
Bloomington and Richfieid, potentially couid be replaced if land planned for commercial and industriai uses is
available in ciose proximiry to major highways.
Under terms of the lease between MAC and the City of Richfield, the cost of the unamortized capital
investment for design and construction of Rich Acres Golf Course would be paid by MAC.
1.2 No Action Alternative
1.2.1 Economic Impacts — No Action Alternative
Using the ratios of direct employment to enplanements generated in the previous section, the estimates of
direct and indirect empioyment under the No Action Alternative are shown in Table I-22.
Tabie I-22 - Direct and Indirect Employment Under No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, direct employment would increase from 2000 to 2010 and only slightiy by
'�� 2020 as total enplanements fali in response to restricted capacity. The table exdudes roughly 10,000
Northwest Airiines employees involved in heavy aircraft maintenance and reservations on MSP property.
MAC ascertained that Northwest Airlines maintains roughly 4,000 reservation jobs and 6,000 aircraft
overhauVheavy maintenance jobs on-site. Preliminary discussions with Northwest Airlines indicated that the
10,000 related jobs are likely to remain at MSP under the No Action Alternative.
Forecasts of indirect employment under the no-build option were generated with BEA REMS II multipliers.
The multiplier effect provides an indication of indirect employment generated by direct empioyment at MSP.
Direct and Indirect Wages
The following table outlines direct and indirect wages generated by direct employment at MSP. Direct
earnings are based on an average wage of $35,000, derived from 1993 employment and total wage data for
the Twin Cities metro area, as defined by the Minnesota State Employment Office. Indirect wages were
generated from direct wages with BEA RIMS II multipiiers. Table i-23 highiights direct and indirect wages for
the No Action Alternative.
Table I-23 - Direct and indirect Wages Under No Action Alternative
Construction Period impacts
j j The No Action Alternative would create an average of roughiy 440 indirect jobs and $16 miilion in wages per
�'� year in the state economy over the 10-year construction period. Construction would aiso generate fiscai
Dual Track Final EIS
V-55
impacts; expenditures for materiais as well as taxes on construction worker income would generate revenue �:,
for the state, including roughly $5 million in income taxes over the 10-year period and about $8 million in sales
taxes on airport construction materials.
Development Costs
The estimated cost of the committed projects in the MAC 1995-1998 Capital Improvement Programs
unrelated to the implementation of the new north-south runway is $255 million. The projects are listed in
Section IIi.
1.3 Summary of Economic impacts
A summary of the economic impacts of the aiternatives is as foilows:
I apie i-24 - 5umma of Economic (m acts
MSP 2020 MSP 2010 No Action
'• � ; 2010/2020
...........................................................................................................�...........................---•-----...................---.......................................................................
Totaijobs on airport ..............................................................Y............16,601.............:...........---1.6,041...............:......16,041/16,071........
Total annual direct and indirect wages ;$1.05 billion $1.02 billion $1.02 billion
..�.enerated.by, airport jobs ....................................................�- ............;.................---..... .................F........
. ....................... . . .. ...............--�---�-----.........
Impact of construction Jobs 36,400 9,600 , 3,100
Wages $1.71 billion $0.45 billion $0.14 billion
....................................................................Economic Output,;......$3:42 billion : $0.90 billion...... ...... $0:29 billion. ..
......... ...................................................... ..; . . .. . ...
Estimated facilities' cost of alternative (miilions ; $3,043 $803 $255
of 1995 dollars� ........................................................................�. : :
.... .... ......................................:............................................:....................0 --..................
Percentage of tax capacity lost by affected � 8.14% 6.09%
munici alities. Total
The loss of tax revenue by the affected municipalities is unavoidable.
A preliminary estimate of costs necessary to develop the MSP 2010 LTCP and 2020 Concept Plan is given in
Table I-24. The totai cost of facilities inciudes a 25% contingency applied to the subtotal of the facilities'
costs.
Duai Track Finai EIS
V-56
�`;
)
Table I-24 - Total Airport Development Costs - MSP 2020 Concept Plan
� Exc�ustoris: .
t. �ocaustate la�ces
2. Abatement arxi/orTobc Waste inspec6on or Reports
3. Airport tenant reloca6ons
4. Tenant impmvements (aidine, concessbns, administration)
5. Noise mitigatbn does not include potenfiai cosLs for acquisition and community stabilirabon
Dual Track Final EIS
V-57
J. Energy Supply and Natural Resources
Energy and Natural Resources Considered
Fuel constitutes the primary energy and natural resource potentially impacted by the airport alternatives and
no other unusual materiais or those in short supply are expected to be needed. Fuel consumption by aircraft
during ground operations and between the airport and other airport origins and destinations is considered.
Ground operations include taxiing and queuing. Flight operations include takeoff, climb, cruise, approach and
landing. Energy consumption by motor vehicles traveling to and from the airport is also considered.
Methodology and Assumptions
Block hour (gate to gate) fuel consumption by aircraft type was estimated by HNTB to account for ground
(taxi), ciimb, cruise and descent portions of average stage lengths. This can be done by estimating the
average flight distance between the airport alternatives and all origins and destinations. Average stage
lengths for arrivals and departures by aircraft type were estimated and used to derive block fuel consumption.
Fuel consumption was broken into departures and arrivals by jet and propelier aircraft using an aircraft mix
consistent with that used in the noise and air quality analysis.
Airside delays as well as specific routes within the airpo�t terminal area can vary from hour to hour. However,
it is assumed that these wiii on average not be significantly different among the alternatives. While the airside
fuel consumption total may be slightly underestimated, the comparison among airport alternatives should
remain valid. Fuel consumption associated with groundside delays (including taxi and queuing delays) was
estimated using queuing times consistent with those assumed for the air quality analysis and the ground fuel
burn in gallons per minute by aircraft type.
Motor vehicle fuel consumption on the regional highway network was caiculated by the Metropolitan Council
using a fuel consumption versus speed curve developed by David Braslau Associates, Inc. for the year 2020. (,
Total daily regional highway fuel consumption was ca►culated. Since airport-related trips account for
approximately 1.5 percent of total regionai trips, airport-related fuel consumption was estimated by taking this
percentage of total regional fuel consumption. Fuei consumption for the 2010 LTCP was adjusted using
vehicle fuel for the No Action Alternative (existing terminal) and the increase in operations expected over the
No Action Alternative with the 2010 LTCP.
J.1 MSP Alternative
J.1.1 Affected Environment—MSP Alternative
The Area of Potential Effect (APE) for energy consumption is nationai and international in scope depanding
upon the specific energy sources used. Indirectiy, the region and state are affected by revenues generated
by the amount and type of energy consumed. For purposes of the EIS, the APE for energy consumption
includes (1) the average stage length of aircraft between each airport aiternative and origins and destinations
outside of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area and (2) the regional highway network by which motor vehicies
access each airport alternative. The APE for mineral extraction includes sand and gravei resources within
and adjacent to the seven country Metropolitan Area.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-58
J.1.2 Energy Supply and Natural Resources Impact — IVISP Aiternatives
Biock (gate to gate) aircraft fuel consumption for the 2010 LTCP is shown in Table J-1.
Table J-1 - Block Fuel Consumption - 2010 LTCP
Block (gate to gate) aircraft fuel consumption for the 2020 Concept Plan is shown in Table J-2.
Table J-2 - Block Fuel Consumption - 2020 Concept Plan
Ground delay fuel consumption under the 2010 LTCP for aircraft is shown in Table J-3. This is based upon a
time in queue of 1.11 minutes. �
Tabie J-3 - Ground Delay Fuel Consumption - 2010 LTCP
(fuei consumption in million galions pe� year)
Ground delay fuel consumption for aircraft under the 2020 Concept Pian is shown in Table J-4. This is based
upon a time in queue of 1.11 minutes.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-59
Tabie J-4 - Ground Delay Fuei Consumption - 2020 Concept Plan
(fuel consumption in million gallons per year)
Fuel consumption for the 2020 Concept Plan on the regional highway network by motor vehicies accessing
the airport has been estimated by the Metropolitan Council to be 39.18 million gallons per year. Since the new
west terminai will not be completed by 2010, this fuei consumption figure has been adjusted using the No
Action motor vehicle fuei (estimated for the existing terminal) and the increased operations under the 2010
LTCP.
The combined energy consumption of aircraft and motor vehicle traffic for the 2010 LTCP is presented in
Tabie J-5 (no airside delays of aircraft are assumed).
Table J-5 - Aircraft and Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption • 2010 LTCP
(miilion gallons per year)
The combined energy consumption of aircraft and motor vehicle traffic for the 2020 Concept Plan is presented
in Table J-6 (no airside delays of aircraft are assumed).
Tabie J-6 - Aircraft and Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption • 2020 Concept Plan
(million galions per year)
Duai Track Finai EIS
V-60
4
C�
''i
J.1.3 Mitigation Measures — MSP Alternative
Fossil energy consumption can be reduced by empioying measures that are also intended to reduce poilutant
emissions. These include:
o Expanded use of bus transit service to and from the airport
s Efficient terminal design and use of people movers to minimize aircraft emissions
• Facility design to minimize energy use and emissions
• 400 Hz of electric power and pre-conditioned air at gates
• Use of alternative fuels for ground suppo�t vehicles and on-airport shuttles
J.2 fVo Action Alternative
J.2.1 Affected Environment— No Action Alternative
The Area of Potential Effect is the same as that for the MSP alternative.
J.2.2 Energy Supply and Natural Resources Impacts — No Action Alternative
Block (gate to gate) aircraft fuel consumption is shown in Table J-4.
Table J-7 - Block Fuel Consumption - No Action Alternative
Ground delay fuel consumption for aircraft is sfiown in Table J-5. This is based upon a time in queue of 4.88
minutes.
Table J-8 - Ground Delay Fuel Consumption - No Action Alternative
(fuel consumption in million gallons per year)
Fuel consumption in 2020 for this altemative on the regional highway network by motor vehicles accessing
the airport has been estimated by the Metropolitan Council to be 3928 million gallons per year.
The combined energy consumption of aircraft and motor vehicle traffic for the MSP alternative is presented in
Table J-6 (no airside delays of aircraft are assumed).
Dual Track Final EIS
V-61
Table J-9 - Aircraft and Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption - No Action Alternative
—� (million gallons per year - year 2020)
J.2.3 Mitigation Measures — No Action Alternatives
Fossii energy consumption can be reduced by employing measures that are also intended to reduce poilutant
emissions. These are listed under J.1.3. Mitigation Measures - MSP Alternative.
J.3 Summary of Energy Suppiy and Natural Resources Impacts
Energy impacts for the finro alternatives are summarized in 1'able J-7 (no airside delays of aircraft are
assumed). These impacts cannot be avoided.
Table. J-10 � Comparison of Total Energy Consumption by Airport Alternative
(miilion gallons per year - year 2020)
AIRCRAFT ENERGY CONSUMPTION
Alternative Block Dueue Totai Vehicles Totai
2010 LTCP 111.79 133 113.12 41.47 154.59
2020 Conce t Pian 119.53 1.43 120.96 39.18 160.14
No Action 115.33 6.16 121.49 39.28 160.77
Source: Tables J-5, J-6, J-9
Block Energy Cansumption
The 2020 Concept Plan consumes more Biock Energy than the 2010 LTCP or the No Action Aiternative
because of its higher number of fiights and an average stage length longer than under the No Action
Alternative.
Queuing Energy Consumption
The No-Action Alternative is the least efficient because of its longer queuing times on the ground.
Motor Vehicle (regional highway network) Energy Consumption
The 2010 �TCP has the highest vehicle fuel consumpfion since there is an increase in operations and
passengers while the terminal remains at the existing location and the average vehicle trip is longer than with
a new west terminal.
Total Energy Consumption
The No Action Alternative has the greatest energy consumption, dominated by increased queuing fuel
consumption. Block fuel consumptio� is the greatest for the MSP Alternative.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-62
' K. Farmiand
Neither the MSP no� the No Action Alternatives would have any impact on farmland or the agricuitural
economy.
�a Floodplains
Floodplains are defined as that portion of lowland and fiat a�eas adjoining waters, that are subject to a one
percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year, i.e., a 100-year flood event. Floodpiain impacts are
evaluated to determine potential risks to human safety and property damage, as weii as adverse impacts on
natural and beneficial floodplain values.
L.1 MSP and No Action Alternatives
�.1.1 Affected Environment — MSP and No Action Alternatives
The APE is the Minnesota River ftoodplain shown in Figure L-1.
The Minnesota River begins at Big Stone Lake along the western side of Minnesota and generally flows
eastward to its confluence with the Mississippi Rive� just east of the existing MSP airport. The drainage
area for the rive� is approximately 16,900 square miles and is dominated by agricultural land uses. The
100-year regulatory (regional flood) floodplain elevation in the vicinity of the airport is approximately 716 feet
above mean sea level.
L.1.2 Floodplain Impacts — MSP and No Action Alternatives
1�� There is no structural encroachment and therefore no impact on the floodplain.
M. Historic/Architectural Resources
A number of federal laws and regulations address the protection of the country's cultural resources. The
statute specifically devoted to cultural resource issues is the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16
U.S.C. 470), as amended, which contains two provisions that are pertinent to future airport development.
Section 106 of the statute requires federal agencies to conside� the effect of federally funded or licensed
projects on properties and districts listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places.
Regulations related to the Section 106 process are outlined in 36 CFR Part 800: Protection of Historic
Properties. National Historic Landmarks, a designation bestowed on a very limited number of particularly
significant cultural resources, are afforded special protection under Section 110 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and 36 CFR Part 800.10.
A broader range of cultural resources is protected under Section 4(fl of the Department of Transportation
(DOT) Act of 1966, which requires projects funded by the DOT to avoid "any significant historic site" unless
there is no "feasible and prudent" alternative. This provision generally applies to resources listed, or eligible
for listing, i� the National Register of Historic Places. At the discretion of the FAA (and the Federal Highway
Administration, if federal highway aid is involved), Secfion 4(fl protection may be applied to properties that do
not meet the criteria for National Register eligibility if the responsible jurisdiction advocates Section 4(fl status.
The position of the responsible jurisdictions is not known, so the FAA cannot make a determination at this
time on the Section 4(f} status of properties not eligible for the National Register.
The Draft EIS initiated formal consultation with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and with the
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), according to FAA Order 5050.4.A, page 85. The FAA, SHPO,
j j Advisory Council, MAC, and other interested parties have executed a Programmatic Agreement (PA) in
- accordance with 36 CFR Part 800.13; the Agreement is included in Appendix C. Execution and
implementation of this PA evidences that the FAA has taken into account the effect of the MSP �ong-term
Dual Track Final EIS
V-63
Comprehensive Plan on historic properties and afforded the Advisory Council an opportunity to comment on
the effect. r
`
The known Areas of Potential Effect (APE) for MSP were anafyzed in technical reports which have been
reviewed by SHPO. SHPO has concurred with the findings. Correspondence regarding historic properties
that were included in the Technical Repo�ts is attached to the FEIS in Appendix A.2.
Indirect adverse impacts, such as noise, which p�event the use of historic properties for their intended
purpose, are considered as constituting a"constnactive use," or taking of the property, if the normal activities
of the property are incompatible with FAA guidelines on noise and land use. The guideline for evaluating
indirect noise impacts is the FAA Part 150 Land Use Compatibility Criteria, included in Table A.3-2 in
Appendix A.3 (Noise) of the Final EIS. Under certain circumstances, the projected aircraft noise over an
historic property could be considered a"constructive use," depending on the sensitivity of the use to noise, as
spelled out in the Land Use Compatibility Criteria.
iVle1 MSP Alternative
NI.1.1 Affected Environment—MSP Alternative
The Area of Potential Effect (APE) is the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may cause
changes in the cha�acter or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist. The known APE for NiSP is
illustrated in Figure M-1. Specifically, the APE for historic and architectural resources consists of property
within the expanded MSP airport_boundaries, as well as properry affected by construction/reconstruction of
access roadways, interchanges and signal systems directly seniing the expanded airport. In addition, the
APE encompasses any off-site property acquired for wettands, surface water, or other mitigation. The APE
also includes properties affected by 1) improvements to the regional highway and transportation systems, if
the improvements are due to the expansion of MSP, and 2) induced socioeconomic impacts and land use
impacts which are the result of MSP expansion as defined by the FEIS (i.e., properties that are affected by the '
MSP Alternative but not by the No Action Alternative) and/or which are the result of changes in the revised �;
comprehensive plans of the cities of Bloomington or Minneapolis that are related to the expansion of MSP.
The APE also includes property within the projected year 2005 DNL 65 noise contours for runways included in
the Final EIS and supplements. According to the PA, new noise contours may be generated, based on FAA
direction and related airport operation/physical changes; in this case, the APE for historic and architectural
resources will be modified to conform to the most current projected year 2005 DNL 65 noise contours. Also,
the FAA may change the DNL noise contour eligible for noise mitigation under the FAA Regulation "Part 150"
Airpo�t Noise and Land Use Compatibility Planning Program; in that case, the 2010 LTCP APE will conform to
the year 2005 noise contou� for the currently adopted "Part 150" Program.
The known APE for the MSP Alternative includes the following properties and districts listed, or eligible for
listing, in the National Register of Historic Places: the Original Wold-Chamberlain Termi�al Historic District,
the Old Fort Snelling Historic District, Fort Snelling National Cemetery, Nokomis {tnoll Residential Historic
District, Spruce Shadows Farm Historic District, and the Soo Line Corridor. The APE also encompasses part
of the Fort Snelling National Historic Landmark District. The Hale Elementary School would have DN� 64.5
(Table Q-8) and is therefore not in the APE, but noise mitigation has already been implemented.
M.1.2 Historic/Architectural Resources Impacts — IVISP Alternative
The most severe threat to National Register and National Landmark properties is demolition. Less drastic
physical and func6onal alterations can also damage National Register properties. Properties eligible under
Criterion C, which focuses on physical attributes, are the most sensitive to physical alterations. More latitude
is sometimes allowed when assessing the physical integrity of Criterion A properties, which represent broad
patterns of history.
The Old Fort Snelling, Nokomis Knoll, and Spruce Shadows Farm historic districts meet both Criterion A and �
Criterion C standards, as does the Fort Snelling National Historic Landmark District. The National Register �
Dual Track �inal EIS
V-64
eligibility of the Original Wold-Chamberlain Terminal Historic District, Fort Snelling National Cemetery, and the
Soo Line Corridor is based on Criterion A.
The MSP 2020 Concept Plan would destroy the Original Wold-Chamberlain Terminal Historic District, and the
MSP 2010 �TCP would destroy portions of the District, neither of which would occur with the No Action
Alternative. The demolition cannot be avoided 'rf these plans for MSP are to be realized. The Nokomis Knoll
Residential Historic District and Spruce Shadows Farm are within the DNL 65-70 noise contou� of both plans
and are not compatible with DNL 65 noise levels (see Appendix A.3, Table A.3-2). The physical integrity of
these structures might be affected 'rf they were noise-insulated or renovated to seNe another use. Only the
Spruce Shadows Farm would be affected by the MSP Alternative (2010 and 2020) when compa�ed to the No
Action Alternative.
The FAA guidelines do not address cemeteries; however, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) land
use guidelines state that cemeteries are compatible with noise levels of DNL 70 ("Guidelines for Considering
Noise in Land Use Planningn, U.S. DOT, June 1980). As shown in Figure Q-3, a small portion of the
cemetery would have noise levels greater than DNL 70, which would also be the case with the No Action
Alternative (see Figure Q-9}.
The Fort Snelling National Historic Landmark District and the Old Fort Snelling National Register Historic
District do not currently contain land uses incompatible with aircraft noise; future compatible uses include
commercial and �ecreation uses.
The Soo Line Corridor would not be affected by the MSP Alternative.
M.1.3 Mitigation Measures — MSP Alternative
Specific measures to mitigate adverse effects are addressed in the Programmatic Agreement (PA) included in
�i Appendix C and summarized in Section V.0 (Section 4{fl). The PA was developed cooperatively and signed
by the FAA, MAC, SHPO and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation; other agencies were concurring
parties to the PA.
Demolition of the Original Wold-Chamberlain Te�minal Historic District will be mitigated by documenting the
district for the Historic American Buildings Sunrey (HABS), which is maintained at the Library of Congress.
The HABS documentation includes an historical narrative and large-forrnat photographs. In addition, the
Smithsonian Institution and the Minnesota Historical Society will have the opportunity to select architecturat
elements or historical objects for curation and display.
Noise mitigation may also be appropriate for the Spruce Shadows Farm Historic District. MAC will develop a
mitigation plan for the district in consultation with the owner, the FAA and the SHPO. Since it is premature to
prepare detailed architectural and engineering plans for the mitigation at this time, it is not known if mitigation
will result in a finding of No Adverse Effect.
M.2 No Action Alternative
M.2.1 Affected Environment — No Action Alternative
The APE consists of land within the existing MSP airport boundary, as well as land within the projected DNL
65+ noise contours for the year 2005 for existing airport runways (see Figure M-2). The APE contains the
following properties and districts listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places: the
Original Wold-Chamberlain Terminal Historic District, the Old Fort Snelling Historic District, Fort Snelling
National Cemetery, Acacia Park Cemetery, Nokomis Knoll Residential Historic District, and the Soo Line
Corridor. The APE also encompasses part of the Fort Snelling National Historic Landmark District. The Hale
Elementary School would have DNL 64.0 (Table G1-8) and is therefore not in the APE, but noise mitigation
has already been implemented.
( )
Dual Track Final EIS
V-65
Existing (1994) noise leveis are shown in T°abie Q-6.
f1Ae2.2 Historic/Architectural Fiesources Impacts — fVo Action Alternative
No National Register properties in the APE would be demolished under the No Action Alternative, and no
significant alterations or new construction within the Origi�al Wold-Chamberlain Terminal Historic District will
be required.
ihere would be no adverse effect on the fVokomis Knoll Residential Historic District, which is currently within
the DNI. 65-70 noise corttour and would continue to have noise levels greater than DN� 65 in 2005.
The FAA guidelines do not address cemeteries; however, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) land
use guidelines state that cemeteries are compatible with noise levels of ON� 70 ("Guidelines for Considering
Noise in �and Use Planning°, U.S. DOT, June 1980). As shown in Figure Q-9, a small portion of the Fort
Snelling National Cemetery would have noise levels greater than DNL 70, but there would be no adverse
effect since these noise levels are less than existing levels (see Figure Q-1 and Tabl� Q-6). Projected noise
levels at Acacia Park Cemetery are less than DNL 70.
The Fort Snelting National Historic �andmark District and the Old Fort Snelling National Register Historic
District do not currently contain land uses incompatible with aircraft noise; future compatible uses include
commercial and recreation uses.
The Soo Line Cor�idor would not be affected by the No Action Alternative.
iV1.2.3 M�tigation Measures — No Action Alternative
Noise mitigation is committed by MAC for the Nokomis Knoll Residential Historic District and will include noise �'"
reduction measures through the FAA Regulation "Part 150" Airport Noise and Land Use Compatibility
Planning Program. Work under the Part 150 program is covered by a separate Programmatic Agreement that
was in force prior to the execution of the Programmatic Agreement for the MSP Long-term Comprehensive
Plan. The work meets the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for
Rehabilitating Historic Buildings and has been found to have no adverse effect on the Historic District.
M.3 Summary of Historic/Architectural Resources Impacts
By requiring the demolition of all or portions of the Original Wotd-Chamberlain Terminal Historic District, the
MSP 2010 LTCP and 2020 Concept Plan irreversibly harm historic and architectural resources. These
adverse impacts are unavoidable. The No Action Altemative does not require the destruction of significant
resources in the District.
The MSP 2010 LTCP and 2020 Concept Plan would not have an adverse noise impact on the Nokomis Knoll
Residential Historic District when compared with the No Action Alternative. However, sound insulation has
been committed for the historic district under the Part 150 program; the insulation meets the Secretary of the
Interior standards and has been found to have no adverse effect on the Nokomis Knoll Residential Historic
District.
The No Action Alternative would not have an adverse noise impact on historiclarchitectural resources when
compared with existing noise levels.
The MSP 2010 �TCP and 2020 Concept Plan would have a noise effect on the Spruce Shadows Farm. Until
detailed architectural and engineering studies are completed, it is not possible to ascertain whether mitigation
will result in a finding of no adverse effect
C
Dual Track Final EIS
V-66
_
N. Induced Socioeconomic Impacts
Induced socioeconomic impact is the potentiai for induced or secondary effects on surrounding communities
as a result of airport development. It inciudes the shift in patterns of population movement and growth, and
changes in business and economic activity caused by the development of the airport. An exampte would be
the redevelopment of incompatible residential uses near the airport to compatible commercial uses.
N.1 MSP and Plo Action Alternatives
N.1.1 Affected Environment
The primary areas of impact a�e the communities directly surrounding the airport site. These include south
Minneapolis, Richfield, no�th Bloomington, north Eagan, Mendota Heights, Mendota, �ilydale, and the western
portion of St. Paul (see Figure 0-1).
N.1.2 Induced Socioeconomic Impacts
The Metropolitan Council provides forecasts for communities within the seven county metropolitan region.
The forecasts use a"top-down" method which starts with a review of regional growth in the U.S., forecasts
growth for our region, and allocates that growth using historical models. The Metropolitan Council growth
forecast assumes an airport serving the region, but does not take into account any variation based upon the
airport's ability to accommodate the demand for senrice; the forecast is therefore the same with or without the
expansion of MSP. Table N-1 gives the Metropolitan Council forecasts for the affected area in the year 2020.
Table N-1 - Metropolitan Council Forecasts - MSP and No Action Alternatives
The development pattern around the airport would not change, but some changes in land use surrounding the
airport site would occur when MSP is expanded. These changes relate to property acquisition and less
intense development in state safety zones. Map O-3 illustrates land use changes under the No Action
Alternative. These changes relate directly to continued growth of the area, as forecast by the Metropolitan
Council above.
Map O-2 illustrates the changes in land use that would occur by the year 2020 if MSP were expanded. The
city of Minneapolis has suggested that if the terminal building is moved under the 2020 Concept Plan, there
would be an opportunity for the conversion of the singte family area di�ectly abutting the new entrance to be
converted to commercial, office o� hotel uses relating to the new "front door" of the airport. The�e would be
changes in the city of Bloomington under the 2010 �TCP and 2020 Concept Plan, where the runway
protection zone for the new runway removes existing development and the state safety zones call for less
intense development. For a further discussion, see Section V.O., Land Use.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-67 �
Analysis of case studies of development surrounding other airports in the U.S., especialiy the early years of �
development surrounding Washington's Duiles airport and the Kansas City airport, provide the basis for a .
preliminary estimate of induced developrnent activity anticipated to occur with expansion of MSP. Over the
period from the year 2005 to 2020, it is anticipated that approximately 420,000 square feet of office
development and 1,050,000 square feet of industrial development will be induced. This preliminary estimate
of space can be anticipated to employ approximately 3,900 persons. While some of this space can be
expected to be absorbed into existing developments, new space will be required. It is anticipated that this
new space will be constructed in south Minneapolis, Blaomington, Mendota Heights and Eagan. The No
Action Alternative and MSP 2010 LTCP would induce less development than the MSP 2020 concept Plan.
N.1.3 Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures for induced socioeconomic impacts will primarily relate to other areas of impact
discussed in this FEIS, including Land Use (Section V.O.), Noise (Section V.Q.), Transportation Access
(Section V.W.) and HistoriGArchitectural Resources (Section V.M).
Oe L.and Use Impacts
Land use in the communities suRounding MSP may change. This section addresses those potential
changes.
0.1 IVISP Alternative
0,1.1 Affected Environment— tVISP Alternative
The APE includes those communities contiguous with the airport. See Figure O-1. They include south �
Minneapolis, Richfield, northern Bloomington, northern Eagan, Mendota Heights, Mendota, and Lilydale.
The airport site lies to the south and approximately equidistant from the downtowns of Minneapolis and St.
Paul. The site itself abuts the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge, historic Fort Snelling and the
National Cemetery. The site is basically bounded by major transportation arteries -- Highway 62 on the north,
Cedar Avenue (TH 77) on the west, Interstate 494 on the south, and Highway 5 and the Minnesota River on
the east.
The portions of Minneapolis (north of the site) and Richfield (west of the site) adjoining MSP are largely
residential. Commercial concentrations are scattered throughout the neighborhoods, oriented along arterials,
with larger concentrations found at the intersections of major roadways. This pattern has developed over a
period of decades, some of which predates the presence of the airport. However, the majority of the non-
residential development occurred after the site began to be used for an airport. (See Figure 0-1)
To the south lies Bloomington, which is primarily commercial adjacent to the site. Many hotel, business and
office buildings are located in the area, including the Mall of America. Residential uses in Bloomington are
primarily located west of the commercial uses.
0.1.2 Land Use Impacts — MSP Alternativ�
The land use changes which are anticipated with the expansion of MSP are summarized by community
below, and set forth graphically on Figure O-2.
Bloomington
The MSP 2010 LTCP and 2020 Concept Plan require the acquisition of ten businesses thaf are in the runway �"
protection zone (RPZ) of the new north-south runway (see Figure T-3). These businesses include three
hotels -- the 4-story Sheraton Inn, the 2-story Excel Inn, and the 14-story Grand Hotel. In addition, two service
Dual Track Final EIS
V-68
; }
stations, a VFW Post, two office buiidings, a smali warehouse, and an NSP substation would all be acquired
and relocated. Twenty-seven homes and 131 muitifamily units shown in�Figure T-4 wouid be acquired as
part of the noise mitigation program.
In addition to the FAA restrictions on land use in the RPZ, Mn/DOT has airport zoning standards for state
safety zones that would be required south of the new north-south runway in the ciiy of Bloomington. The
zones are shown in Figure T-4. Existing and planned land uses in these state safety zones are not
consistent with cur�ent MNDOT airport zoning standards. The MSP Joint Zoning Board would establish
zoning regulations for the affected areas, subject to Mn/DOT approval. The comprehensive plan of
Bloomington would have to be amended to conform with the established zoning regulations, and to address
the Metropolitan Council's land use compatibility guidetines that would apply to the addition of the north-south
runway. Bloomington compteted a master planning exercise in 1996 for the area south of the airport and east
of TH 77 called the "Airport South II Study", an update of an earlier plan. This study was supported by the
Metropotitan Council and the Metropolitan Airports Commission. One of the scenarios inctuded the proposad
north-south runway and the related impacts of the RPZ and state safety zones on land use in Bloomington.
This study will provide input into the determination of the zoning regulations and land use amendments to the
City's comprehensive plan.
Minneapolis
The 2010 LTCP would not affect land use in the city. Discussion of the anticipated impacts of the
development of the new west terminal under the MSP 2020 Concept Plan with the Minneapolis city planning
staff has identified three possible areas of redevelopment. While the city staff agrees that redevelopment
pressure would be created by the construction of a new west terminal, the Minneapolis City Council has not
agreed that redevelopment would or should occur, and has not identified any locations for such
redevelopment. The comprehensive plan of Minneapolis would not have to be amended for either the MSP
2010 LTCP or the 2020 Concept Plan.
� However, it is believed that some redevelopment activity would likely occur during the five-year period
following the opening of a new west te�minal, and that activity is described below.
The redevelopment activiry would be driven by the fact that Highway 62 would connect directly to the new
terminal at 28th Avenue. This new northern entrance to the airport would generate development pressure on
the Minneapolis side of the airport for uses such as hotels, restaurants, offices, and other commercial uses
which commonly surround airports.
The anticipated pattern of redevelopment would include one of the following three scena�ios. Scenario A is
deemed the most likely, and is illustrated in Figure O-2, Future Land Use with MSP Expansion. In all three
scenarios, an area of approximately eight blocks of existing noise-impacted residential use would be
incrementally replaced with commercial use. The possible redevetopment scenarios are:
A. Assuming no access to Highway 62 is available in the 28th Avenue area, the most likely redevelopment
a�ea would lie at the interchange of Highway 62 and Cedar Avenue (77). This would include the blocks
from Cedar Avenue east to 22nd Avenue, and from Highway 62 north two blocks. The total affected area
is approximately 3.9 acres, and currently contains 196 single family residential units, which would be
eliminated due to the redevelopment.
B. If access were available from the new ramps seNing the west terminal, the most likety area to be
redeveloped would lie between 24th Avenue and 28th Avenue, and from Highway 62 north two blocks.
This area is also approximately 3.9 acres, and currently contains 219 single family residential units.
C. Another possible candidate for redevelopment lies between Bossen Field and 34th Avenue. This area
currentiy has right-in/right-out access to Highway 62, and currently contains 498 multi-family housing
units.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-69
Richfield
MAC acquisition of New Ford Town and Rich Acres (both located east of TH 77) is complete and is not
considered an impact of MSP expansion. See Figure O-2.
The proposed action would eliminate the Rich Acres Golf Course, which has been leased by the city from the
Metropolitan Airports Commission. The area would be converted to aviation uses.
Reconstruction of the TH 77/TH 62 interchange for the MSP 2020 Concept Plan would displace 36 household
units and 22 businesses between Cedar Avenue and TH 77 (see Figure T-1). The land would be converted
to highway uses. Modification of the TH 77/66"' Street interchange for the MSP 2010 LTCP would displace 7
household units and 14 businesses between Cedar Avenue and TH 77 (see Figure T-2).
The comprehensive ptan of Richfield would not have to be amended for either the MSP 2010 LTCP or the
2020 Concept Plan because Richfield's comprehensive plan calls for redevelopment of the area affected by
them. Conceptually, the city would like to redevelop the first block west of Cedar Avenue as office or
office/warehouse and office/showroom space. The next one-half block west of this area would be allowed to
develop as duplex and multifamily housing, buffering the adjacent single-family homes from the new office
uses along Cedar Avenue. The elimination of the existing buffer provided by the golf cou�se could negatively
impact the redevelopment potential of this area, while the movement of the terminal to the west side could
induce additional pressure for commercial development along Cedar Avenue. These two forces may simply
balance out in the future.
Eagan
The continuing growth of the airport will help build out the ciry of Eagan. Substantial vacanf or underutilized
industrial and commercial areas exist in ihe major roadway corridors of the city, and portions of the residential �
areas have yet to be developed. See Figure O-2. There are no specific land use changes anticipated
beyond the continued growth of the communiry in accordance with its comprehensive plan.
Mendota Heights, iVlendota and Lilydale
No changes in their comprehensive plans would be required. Mendota Heights has limited additional area for
commercial and industrial development. This land can be expected to be built-out in the near future. See
Figure O-2. The cities of Lilydale and Mendota are primarily �esidential in nature, and limited additional
development is anticipated to occur.
0.1.3 Mitigation Measures - MSP Alternative
Community stabilization measures will be developed for the proposed action, as stated in the Noise Mitigation
Program presented in Appendix B.
0.2 No Action Alternative
Oe2.1 Affected Environment — No Action Alternative
The affected environment is the same as discussed previously under section 0.1.1
0.2.2 Land Use Impacts — No Action Alternative
The No Action Altemative would result in additional planned development in the surrounding communities
related to the normal growth in operations at the airport. The estimated future land use is shown in Figure O-
3. No changes in affected city comprehensive plans would be required. ��
,
Dual Track Final EIS
V-70
0.2.3 Mitigation IVfeasures — No Action Alternative
The Metropolitan Council and the Metropolitan Airpo�ts Commission wouid continue to work with communities
surrounding MSP to develop a set of noise mitigation measu�es.
0.3 Summary of �and Use Impacts
Land use impacts related to the MSP 2010 LTCP and 2020 Concept Plan would result from highway
construction and runway safety area ciearance and rezoning in state safeiy zones. These impacts are
unavoidable. Several properties in Bloomington and Richfield would be acquired and the Rich Acres Golf
Cou�se would be eliminated. The city of Bloomington would have to amend its comprehensive plan.
Land use impacts of the No Action Alternative would be from a continuation of the airport in an urban setting
with a modest growth in aircraft operations. Areas around the site would still contain incompatible land uses.
P. Light Emissions
Lighting associated with airport development includes that used to guide airc�aft as they land and depart, as
well as lighting associated with landside facilities -- the terminal, parking ramps and parking lots, roadways,
and aircraft and airport maintenance buildings.
The Approach �ighting System (ALS) for the proposed action would be a configuration of signal lights
arranged symmetrically around an extension of the north-south runway centerline, starting at or near each
end of the runway and extending outward into the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) for a distance of 2,400-
3,000 feet. The A�S would consist of two types of lights — steady burning lights and strobe lights. Steady
) burning lights, used for nighttime aircraft operations, would be located on centerline bars, spaced at intervals
of 200 feet for a distance of 1,400 feet from the end of the runway. There are seven centerline bars, each
with five white lights. There woutd also be two bars of five white lights each, one on each side of the fifth
centerline bar. In addition, there would be steady burning lights running along each end of the runway at
ground level.
The second type of ALS light includes sequenced flashing lights, or strobe lights. They begin 1,600 feet from
the end of the runway and extend outward, up to 3,000 feet from the end of the runway. The sequenced
flashing lights also would be spaced at 200-foot intervals. They emit a bluish-white light and flash in
sequence toward the end of the runway at a rate of twice per second.
The ALS is a part of the Instrument �anding System (ILS). The ILS increases the reliability and safety of
aircraft operations, particularly during inclement and marginal weather conditions. The ILS also provides
pilots with infoRnation conceming distance of the aircraft �rom tlie end of the runway, height above the runway
and position in relationship to the center of the runway. The most critical point of an aircraft approach occurs
when the aircraft breaks through the overcast and the pilot must change from instruments to visual conditions.
Only a few seconds are available to make this transition and complete the landing. The ALS, both the steady
burning lights and the sequenced flashing lights, are aids in making this transition.
There are two sizes of steady burning lights. One type emits 3,700 candle power units each; 45 of them on
the AI.S extend outward from each end of the runway. The other steady burning light emits 24,000 candle
power units; there are 18 of them running at ground level along each end of the runway. The 5 sequenced
flashing lights, extending outward from the end of the runway beyond the location of the steady burning lights,
each emit 20,000 candle power units.
In comparison, a typical auto headlight on a high beam emits 8,000 candle power units and, on low beam,
5,000 candle power units.
� �
Dual Track Final EIS
V-71
Pe1 iU1SP Alternative
P.1.1 Affected Environrr�ent—MSPAlternative
The APE includes the residential neighbofioods of south Minneapolis in the vicinity of the Trunk Highway
62/Cedar Avenue interchange and of east Richfield near the interchange of Trunk Highway 77 and 66th
Street, as well as the commercial area of Bloomington southeast of the 24th Avenue South/I-494 interchange.
All three areas are immediately adjacent to MSP, separated only by tfie width of the highways that circle the
existing airport. Existing nighttime lights in both neighborhoods consist of street lights, as well as lights on
major highways such as TH 62 and TH 77. There are also nighttime lights on small commercial buildings and
apartment buildings located on Cedar Avenue South in east Richfield, running parallel to the western edge of
MSP.
In the southwestern area of MSP, immediately north of I-494, are several large hangars, each with bright
nighttime lights. There are also several low level buildings west of the hangars, housing a transit garage and
several freight forwarding businesses. The lights on these buildings, particularly those on the hangars, are
quite visible from the commercial area of Bloomington, south of I-494 on both sides of 24th Avenues South,
immediately adjacent to the airport. The commercial area of Bloomington includes the Mall of America and its
parking ramps, several commercial hotels, gas stations and office buildings; each of these buildings are well-
illuminated at night, often as brightly as nighttime lights on the large aircraft hangars.
P.1.2 Lighi Emission Impacts — PIIISP Alternative
Approach lights for the south end of the new runway for the proposed action would be located south of I-494
in Bloomington in an area now developed with a variety of commercial buildings, all of which would be
removed to meet FAA requirements that no buildings potentially hazardous to air traffic be located in the ��
Runway Protection Zones. While approach lights would be visible to businesses in Bloomington, south of I-
494, they would not be appreciably brighter fihan the lighting on commercial buildings in this area. No �
approach lights are planned for the north end of the runway.
Runwray lights would not be visible in surrounding commercial or residential neighborhoods.
There would be light emissions %orn aircraft using the proposed no�th-south runway, both approaching and
departing MSP during either nighttime or inclement weather.
Buildings on the airport property would have lighting needed to identify and use them during the nighttime
hours. Lighting would be similar to that now found on buildings at the existing airport. The new west terminal
proposed for the MSP 2020 Concept Plan, to be located southeast of the interchange of Trunk Highways 62
and 77, would be flanked on its north and south sides by a parking ramp, which is proposed to be higher than
the terminal building. The west side of the terminal, shorter in length than the north and south sides of the
building, would be situated closer to neighborhoods in south Minneapolis. Consequently, lights would, under
certain weather conditions, have a minimal impact on adjacent residential neighborhoods. Lights would be
shielded and would be directed toward the interior of airport p�operty. Furthermore, these buildings would be
approximatefy 2,500 feet from the edge of �e south Minneapolis neighborhood closest to MSP and
approximatefy 3,750 feet from the edge of the nearest neighborhood in east Richfield. Existing open spaces
on airport property would serve as a buffer between the residential neighborhoods and these buildings.
Lights illuminating new roadways have the potential to be visible from adjacent neighborhoods in both south
Minneapolis and east Richfield. They wrill be designed according to state and federal standards.
lncreased traffic using new roadways on MSP property and expanded roadways adjacent to the airport
(Section T.1.2 and Table T-1) will resutt in greater light emissions. These light emissions have the potential to
be visible from adjacent residential neighbofioods in east Richfield and south Minneapolis.
r; ..
\
Dual Track Final EIS
1/-72
Lastly, induced development in commerciai areas surrounding MSP woutd resuit in increased light emissions.
The greatest concentration of commercial zoning near MSP is atong I-494 and, closest to the airpo�t, in the
city of Bloomington south of the interstate highway. (Discussion of induced developrnent is in Section N.1.2.)
P.1.3 Mitigation Nfeasures — MSP Alternative
Building lights are not yet designed to sufficient detail to determine the extent of light spillover into surrounding
areas. It is noted, however, that the west end of the new terminal, the one facing residential neighbofioods in
south Minneapolis, is the sho�test dimension of the building. The longer dimensions of the new terminal,
along the north and south sides, would be shielded from su�rounding areas by the parking ramp. �ights will
be shielded and will be directed towards the interior of the property.
P.2 No Action Alternative
P.2.1 Affected Environment—No Action Alternative
The APE includes the residential neighborhoads in south Minneapolis north of TH 62 and in east Richfield
west of TH 77: Both areas are immediately adjacent to MSP, separated by the width of the highways that
circle the existing airport. F�cisting nighttime lights in both neighborhoods consist of street lights, as well as
lights on major highways such as TH 62 and 77. There are also nighttime lights on small commercial
buildings and apartment buildings located on Cedar Avenue South in east Richfield, running parallel to the
western edge of MSP.
P.2.2 L.ight Emission Impacts — No Action Alternative
Light emission impacts for the No Action Altemative will not be greater than those for existing conditions at
' MSP.
Approach lights for the two existing east-west runways and the extension of the cross-wind runway, Runway
4-22, would be identical to existing impacts. Open space along the west side of the ai�port property, adjacent
to the Runway 4-22 extension, would provide a buffer zone between the approach lights and adjacent
neighborhoods in east Richfield.
Lighting planned for improvements in the terminal area and the new Sun Country hangar woutd not intrude
into surrounding residential areas. These facilities are some distance frorn surrounding neighborhoods. In
addition, lighting designed for these improvements will be shielded and angled in such a manner so that they
will not be visible from off-airport property.
P.2.3 Mitigation Measures — No Action Alternative
No mifigation is requi�ed.
P.3 Summary of �ight Emission Impacts
Impacts of the MSP Alternative will be minimal. The sequenced flasher, o� strobe, lights associated with an
approach lighting system have the greatest potential to affect surrounding areas because of their intensity and
distinctive visual character. The proposed action would require installation of approach lighting systems at the
south end of the new north-south runway. The approach lights would be located in a largely commerciat
district characterized by extensive nighttime lighting.
To the north, two strobe lights would be located at the end of the runway, with no lights extending into Mother
Lake.
( � No impacts would occur as a result of the No Action Alternative.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-73
Q. �OIS@
7his section describes both aircraft and surface transportation noise associa4ed with the Dual Track
Alternatives. Subsection Qi. discusses aircraft noise impacts; Subsection Q2. discusses surface
transportation noise impacts.
Q.1 Aircraft Noise
Aircraft noise can affect residents, businesses and certain land uses in the vicinity of an airport. The criteria
for determining compatibiliry with aircraft noise are based on FAA criteria shown in 7able A.3-2 in Appendix
A.3. Federal noise impact c�ite�ia are based on the Day-Night Sound �evel (DNL) metric. State noise impact
criteria are based on the L,o metric which measures the point at which a specified sound level is exceeded at
least 10 percent of a specified time periad (e.g., one hour).
IlAethociology and Assumptions
A summary of the methodology and assumptions used for aircraft noise impact evaluation follows. A detailed
discussion is presented in Appendix A.3 of this report.
Population
In order to directly compare noise impacts of the alternatives, a common year of population estimates was
required. -Selecting an appropriate forecast year involved a number of considerations. Two important dates ,
were identified: 1997, the year the decision to expand MSP or build a new airport would likely be made, and {
2005, the year the new airport could open and the year the north-south runway at MSP could be operational.
The noise contours also reflect year 2005 activiry and fleet mix. �ocal jurisdictions have approved year 2000
population and household projections readily available at the appropriate zone level needed for noise impact
analysis. Forecasts reflecting changing population distributions due to the new airport had not been
developed or approved by the appropriate agencies. For these reasons, and because 2000 was, and is, a
good "mid-poinY' forecast between 1997 and 2005, year 2000 demographic data was used for noise impact
analysis.
Aircraft Activity and Fleet Mix
The aircraft operations and fleet mix forecasts are based primarily on the MSP Long-Term Comprehensive
Plan (LTCP), Volume 6: Revised ActiviPy Forecasts (December 1993). The �TCP fleet mix was modified to
reflect the August 1994 announcement by (Vorthwest Airlines that it would refurbish its fleet of DC-9-30 aircraft
including the installation of "hush kits", rather than acquire new aircraffi as previously planned. These hush-
kitted aircraft are typically noisier than "true° stage 3 aircraft of the same size. For example, a hush-kitted DG
9-30 produces the equivalent noise of two 737-300 aircraft.
Year 2005 was the year selected fo� noise impact analysis as a worst-case scenario, because its noise
contour was larger than that for 2010 and 2020. Afthough year 2020 total average daily aircraft operations
are forecast to be 7 percent greater than 2005 (1,426 vs. 1,3289 respectively), the year 2005 fleet mix is
expected to comprise 240 relatively noisy °hush-kitted" aircraft (29 percent of the air car�ier fleetj. By 2020,
the number of hush-kitted aircrafi decreases to 8 daily operations (less than 1 percent of the air carrier fleet).
Tables A,3-3 and A.3-4 in the Appendix A.3 list the average daily arrivals and departures by aircraft type for
2005. The noise impacts of the MSP 2020 Concept Plan and MSP 2010 LTCP are identical since the worst-
case year is 2005, and will be referred to as the MSP Alternative.
Under the No Action Alternative9 it is assumed that year 2005 operations would be about 2.3 percent lower �
than the MSP Alternative due to increasing capacity constraints. Most of the decrease would be among
Dual Track Final EIS
V-i4
general aviation aircraft. The fieet mix wouid also change, with fewer hush-kitted aircraft under the No Action
�! Altemative, compared to the MSP Altemative (See Appendix A.3, Tables A.3-5 and A.3-6).
The yea� 2005 was the eariiest that a new airport would likely be open. In addition, the north-south runway in
the MSP 2010 LTCP would also likely be operational by this year. Using the same year for all alternatives
allowed for a direct comparison of alternatives.
Takeoff and landing profiles (the vertical path aircraft follow when depa�ting from and arriving at an airport)
were based on airline operating procedures, aircraft type and aircraft operating weight. Actual profiles
obtained from the MAC's ANOMS compared well with the computer-generated profiles used in the analysis.
Runway use is based on weather conditions (both wind and visibility), direction of flight, noise impacts and
operational efficiency. Runway use for the two alternatives is shown in Tables A.3-7 through A.3-8 in
Appendix A.3. For the MSP Alternative, forecast runway use incorporated the new north-south runway,
predominantly with depa�tures to the south and arrivals from the south. The optimum operating modes
identified by ATC personnel we�e balanced with environmental considerations. Runway use under the No
Action Alternative reflects the extension of Runway 4-22. Separate runway use procedures were developed
for nighttime operations. For the MSP Alternative, these consisted of head-to-head operations and� use of the
north-south runway when necessary.
Flight Tracks
Flight tracks for the MSP and No Action alternatives were based upon data provided by the MAC's Airport
Noise and Operations Monitoring System (ANOMS), which details existing flight tracks, in conjunction with
wind and weather considerations for the future utilization of the facility. With the utilization of ANOMS data to
model flight tracks for the INM runs, all existing abatement procedures (including the voluntary nighttime limits
on flights) are accounted for within the modeled tracks. The modeled flight tracks were reviewed by FAA
•.� ATCT personnel. For a description of flight tracks and overflights, see the "Overflights" discussion for each
alternative. See Figure �-2 for the flight tracks modeled for the MSP Alternative and Figure Gl-8 for the No
Action Alternative.
The flight tracks were prepared by HNTB in consultation with FAA. While FAA has not approved those flight
tracks/procedures, FAA concurs that they should be treated as reasonable for the purpose of assessing
impacts in the FEIS.
Aircraft headings are expressed in terms of magnetic compass directions assigned to pilots. Since aircraft
are flying through moving air masses, a given heading will result in different aircraft paths over the ground (or
"tracks") under different wind conditions. The flight headings used to represent assigned headings in this
FEIS are average center-of-gravity tracks.
The FAA and MAC have established procedures for directing aircraft to certain headings and/or over specific
geographic points. Specific flight headings are assigned to departing and arriving aircraft by ATC. Although
arriving and departing aircraft are directed to fly atong these prescribed headings, an infinite number of actual
ground tracks are possible due to meteorological conditions, various traffic levels, and pitot technique.
Noise Metrics
The noise analysis conducted for this study comprises several methods to assess impacts.
Analysis of aircraft overflights was undertaken to show the average monthly flights on each takeoff and
landing track aut to a point where single-event noise levels would usually result in speech interference for two
people standing about 3 feet apart, approximately 70 A-weighted decibels (dBA, not 70 DNL) � This point is
typically 7 or 8 miles from the end of the runway.
i i
� Canter, Larry W., Environmental Impact Assessment, McGraw-Hill, 1977, p. 137.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-75
DNL contours were developed to quantify impacts on population, dweliings and other noise sensitive uses (�
within the DNL 65 and greater contours per federal guidelines. The DNL metric is used to describe the \�
cumulative effect of aircraft noise. Recognizing that noise concerns can occur beyond the DNL 65, DNL 60
contours are aiso shown and assessed.
Peak hour L�o 65 contours were developed to show areas exposed to 65 dBA or more for at least 10 percent
of the peak one-hour period. The annuai percentage of time is depicted to show how often these conditions
would be experienced.
Aircraft noise levels were also estimated for selected noise-sensitive uses outside the DNL 65; and their noise
levels estimated in DNL, peak sound exposure levels (SEL), and time above (TA) 85 dBA.
Peak noise levels (�max) are also provided to illustrate the effect of ground operations, such as taxiing and
queuing aircraft on nearby residential areas.
Descriptions of the DNL, L,o, SEL, TA 85, A-weighted decibels (dBA), and Lmax noise metrics, as well as
discussions of community annoyance, are presented in Appendix A.3.
Q.1.1 MSP Alternative
Q.1.1.1 Affected Environment— MSP Alternative
The APE of aircraft noise is the area within the DNL 60+ contours for this alternative, in accordance with the
Metropolitan Council's Land-Use Compatibility Guidelines and the requirement in the April 1996 legislation
(Appendix A.14) that mitigation be examined to the DNL 60 level. The DNL contours for operation of MSP in
1994 are shown in Figure tl-1. These base year contours represent average annual operations for the
calendar year 1994. Approximately 42.3 square miles of land around MSP experienced DNL 60 or greater, ��
with 19J square miles in the DNL 65 and greater contour. Approximately 65,130 people and 28,220
dwellings are within the DNL 60 to 65 contour, while 22,090 people reside in 9,570 dwellings in the DNL 65
and greater contour.
The DNL 65 contour extends approximately 4 miles southwest of the airport over Eagan and Mendota
Heights. The DNL 60 contour extends an additional 2 to 3.5 miles towards Inver Grove Heights. To the
northwest, the DNL 65 contour extends approximately 2 to 2.5 miles from airport properiy over the Ciiy of
Minneapolis and Richfield. The DNL 60 contour extends an additional 1.5 to 2.0 miles beyond the DN� 65
contour. The DNL 65 contour includes part of Minneapolis to the northeast and Richfield and Bloomington to
the southwest. The DNL 60 contour extends into Richfield and Bloomington to the southwest and slightly into
Saint Paul to the northeast.
�.1.1.2 Noise Impacts — IVISP Alternative
Overflights
As shown in Figure Q-2, flight tracks radiate at MSP from the ends of the runways. tvlany overflights occur
northwest and southeast of the site, with an increase in overflights immediately south of the airport attributabte
to the new north-south runway.
Population lmpacts - DNL 70, 65 and 60
Figure �-� shows the year 2005 DN� contours for the MSP Alternative. The DNL 65 contour encompasses
approximateiy 9.7 square miles. The year 2000 population exposed to DNL 65 or greater is approximately
7,650. There would be 3,370 homes within the contour. An additional 22,030 people and 9,460 dwellings
would be within tha DNL 60 to 65 contour. Table Q-1 summarizes population and households contained �
within the contours.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-76
Table Q-1 - Population and Dwellings Within Year 2005 DN� Contours- MSP Alternative
PopuiNion Dw ellinqs
DNL70• DNL 65- DNL 60- DN170• DNl 65• �NL 60-
Juri�dlcHon DNL 75+ DNL75 ONL 70 DNL 65 Totel DNL TSa ONUS OHL 70 DNL 65 Totai
M inneapolis
North Richlieid (i �
South iiicht(eld (2)
Fort Snelflng
8loomington
�nver Grove Heighis
�iendo�a Heights
Eagan
Total
New Ford Tow n
Rich Acres
10
0
0
D
0
0
0
0
10
970
TO
0
0
40
0
0
0
1,080
5,410
500
0
0
600
0
10
40
6,560
17,130
1,740
640
30
1.690
0
170
63U
22,030
23,500
2,300
640
3U
2.32D
0
180
670
29.680
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
390
30
0
0
20
0
0
0
440
2,380
220
0
0
320
0
0
10
2,930
7.220
700
320
30
900
0
�o
220
9.460
9,990
950
320
3D
1,240
0
�o
230
12,830
B60 50 0 0 910 340 20 0 0 360
• 40 90 50 190 0 20 30 20 70
(1 ) Ezciuding New Ford Tow n w hich w ill be acquired by the M AC.
(2) Exciuding Rich Acres w hich w iii be acquired 6y the M AC.
Note: Totals maY no� add due to roundinq.
Source: HNTB anaiysis 6ased on year 2005 tieet mix.
Noise Sensitive Land Uses in DNL 65+ Contour
In addition to residentiai dweliings and people there would be 1 school, 1 place of worship, 3 parWrecreation
areas and 1 environmental education area {Bass Ponds in the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge)
within the DNL 65+ contour. There would be no hospitais, nursing homes, outdoor amphitheaters, or nature
exhibits/zoos within the contour. See Tables Q-2 and G1-3.
Table o-2 - Noise Sensitive Uses within Year 2005 DNL Contours - MSP Alternative
Use Tvpe DNI. 75+ DN170-75 DNl 65•TO DNL 60-65 Total
Schoo�s/Day Care
Churohes/Synagogues
Hospitais/Nursing Homes
Parks/Recreafio�
OutdoorAmphitheaters/Music Sheiis
Nalure Exhibits/Zoos
Wildlile Re(uges/Environmental Education
Total
Source: HNTB analysis based on year 2005 fieet miz.
L,o65 /mpacts
0 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 1
0 2
0 4
0 1
0 0
3 1
0 0
0 0
0 D
3 6
5
t
0
4
0
0
f[l
Figure Q-4 shows the L,o 65 contours for the MSP Aiternative. The wider contours are generated by
departing aircraft; the spike-shaped contours are generated by arriving aircraft. It is anticipated that
approximately 121,000 people would be living within the L,o 65 contours. The large departure and ar�ival
contours generated from operations to and from the southeast on the main parallel runways would occur
� ) approximately 25 percent and 47 percent of the time, respectively. The departure and arrnral contours
generated by operations on the main parallels toffrom the northwest would occur about 38 percent and 36
Dual Track Final EIS
V-77
percent of the time, respectively. The contours centered over Runway 4-22 wouid occur very infrequentiy --
about one percent for departures off Runway 22 and near 0 percent for other modes. The proposed north- �
south runway wouid result in an L�o 65 contou� which would occur approximately 36 percent of the time for
departures to the south and 17 percent of the time for arrivais from the south. Operations io/from the north
wouid occur very inf�equently.
Selected Noise Sensitive Uses Outside DNL 65+ Contours
fVoise associated with aircraft operations can annoy people outside the DNL 65+ contours, as shown in
Figure A.3-2 in Appendix A. For this reason 42 noise-sensitive land use points (most of which are outside the
DNL 65 contour) were identified to estimate the noise impacts that may result under the MSP Alternative
(Figure Q-5). Table Q-3 lists DNL, peak sound exposure levels (SEL) and time above (TA) 85 dBA for the
MSP Alternative.
_ _ _ _ _ _ . __ . . _ _ _ _ _ __ �/.
Dual Track Finat EIS
V-78
Table Q-3 - Noise impacts at Select Noise Sensitive Locations Shown in Figure Q-5 - MSP Alternative
Tima A6ove BS deA
DNL Peak SEL (minutes per daY)
Jurisdictio�/Location 1994 2005 1994 2005 1994 2005
Bloomington
1 Hohag Playlot 59.7 56.7 106.7 95.0 0.3 -
2 Smith Park 64.1 54.4 108.9 97.3 0.6 0.3
3 Cook's Playlot 63.4 53.9 104.4 93.3 0.8 -
4 Wrlght's Lake Park 65.5 58.0 108.8 95.9 0.8 -
The Synod oi Lakes & Prairfes
5 Trinity School 67.4 60.0 109.2 97.8 1.4 0.1
6 Chiidren's Worid Learning Center 54.7 53.8 100.0 98.0 0.1 0.3
7 Long Meadow lake Bass Ponds 55.0 70.6 96.0 104,6 0.2 3.8
Eagan
8 Highview Park 62.6 54.8 97.5 92.2 1.6 -
9 Piiot Knob Elementary 58.4 52.1 95.6 90.8 0.6 �
10 Tesseract School•Day Care 45.2 57.8 82.8 96.2 - 0.1
ii LexingianPark 67.1 62.4 i06.2 96.2 1.8 0.1
12 8urr Oaks Park 63.5 59.4 97.4 93.0 0.5 -
......., _ .... ..... .........__..._._..
13 School 64.8 61.1 101.4 95.2 0.8 �
14 Fort SneUing
Veterans Hospitai 63.2 53.7 107.3 100.2 1.4 •
Mendola/Mendota Heights
15 City Park 62.1 52.0 95.4 89.7 1.9 �
16 Slafe Park 74.4 66.3 109.5 103.7 13.3 i.t
17 Acacia Park Cemelery 75.6 64.5 111.2 106.1 15.6 1 J
18 Mendo�a Workcamp i(Hisloric) 74.2 66.0 109.5 104.2 15.0 0.8
19 Roget Lake Park 67.8 58.5 107.7 100.9 3.0 0.2
� �I 20 Frieadly Hilis Park 65.2 56.1 105.8 96.0 1.4 0.1
21 1-35E and Mendota fioad 62.1 53.4 101.2 93.9 1.5 -
M inneapolis
22 George Todd Park 71.3 66.8 108.3 102.1 T.3 i.6
23 Field Public School 63.3 58.3 107.5 99.2 1.0 0.1
24 Angelus Convalescenl 62.2 57.2 106.5 97.4 0.8 0.1
25 Wenonah Elemenlary School 76.5 71.6 111.9 106.2 22.0 7.0
26 Morris Park Elementary School 66.6 58.8 98.7 93.1 6.0 -
27 Hale Public School 71.1 64.5 108.9 103.0 6.5 0.7
28 St. Joseph's Home 1or Chfidren 64.6 57.8 107.1 99.3 1.7 0.1
29 Concy's Mon�essori School/Daycare 62.5 60.1 1 02.0 93.7 0.3 -
30 Clara Barton Open Schooi 60.5 58.2 98.5 93.9 0.2 -
3t Washburn High School 62.1 58.1 106.6 97.1 0.5 -
32 Window Open School 64.5 59.7 107.9 100.5 1.8 0.3
33 Annunciation Catholic ChurchlSchool 62.2 57.3 106.5 97.4 0.7 0.1
34 Minnehaha Parkway 8 Lyndale Ave. 63.2 59.0 106.0 96.5 0.5 -
Richfieid
35 Richfield Veterans Memorial Park 60.7 53.8 99.7 93.2 1.1 -
36 Tatt Park 75.3 67.9 111.7 106.0 15.8 2.5
37 Mount Calvary Educalional Bidg. 68.2 62.2 103.4 97.4 7.0 0.2
38 City Park 62.5 56.2 96.3 89.3 1.5 -
39 Rooseveit Park 60.4 49.0 907.6 88.3 0.2 -
40 Centennial Elementary School 65.2 57.9 108.3 93.0 1.2 0.2
41 Richtieid Intermediate School 60.1 53.0 99.2 86.1 0.4 -
Saint Paui
42 St. Therese Parish Cenler 59.4 50.0 98.3 90.6 0.1 -
Nofe: hvphen (•) denotes TA value less Ihan 0.1 minutes.
,- Source: HNTB analysis based on year 2005 fleet mix.
�
� ..
Duat Track Final EIS
V-79
The results shouid be interpreted with caution for these noise sensitive land use points for several reasons. �:��
First, a 1992 evaluation of DNL as a noise measurement tool by the Federal Interagency Committee on Noise t,
(FICON) reported that "aircraft noise predictions below DNL 65 can be less accurate...." Second, the farther
aircraft are from an airport, the more variable their location relative to modeled flight tracks. Finally, the
quieter the perceived sound from an aircraft, the harder it is to discern it from other existing ambient noise
levels. Other sources of noise (such as automobiles, voices, wind, etc.) may actually be louder than the
aircraft at the listener's location.
Most selected locations would see a significant decrease in DNL noise levels from the existing conditions.
Some locations (along the flight path of the proposed new runway, for example) woutd however experience a
noticeable increase in DNL noise levels.
Noise from Ground Operations—Lmax
Development of Runway 17-35 would bring aircraft taxiing and run-up operations closer to the residential
areas of eastern Richfield. A comparative analysis of the noise generated by aircraft taxiing to the existing
and proposed runway ends and the associated holding pads for the runways was completed. It should be
noted that aircraft taxiing and run-up operations are not predominate noise generating operations on the
ground. The sta�t of take-off roll and application of reverse thrust on landing are generally considered the
major sources of ground noise during aircraft operations. These phases of aircraft operations are already
included in the calculation of the DNL contours within the INM model.
A separate analysis was undertaken to identify noise levels associated with aircraft taxiing to Runways 11 R
and 17. Although the majoriry of aircraft would access/egress Runway 17-35 from the east taxiway and
holding pad further away from the communities, queuing on the west taxiway was analyzed as a more
conservative condition. The potential change in Lmax values (maximum single-event noise level)
experienced in the nearby communities of Rich�eld and south Minneapolis for taxiing operations on the
western taxiways of 11 R and 17 ranges from +2 dB at the furthest study point (located near �ake Nokomis) to t,.
+12 dBA at the closest pocnt studied (a point located near the Evangelical Free Church of America). The
increase of +12 dBA near the Evangelical Free Church results in an Lmax value of 73 dBA, which on a single-
event basis, is not considered to be a severe noise level. This analysis was based on the 747-200 aircraft
being the toudest aircraft to be utilized on Runways 11 R and 17. Typical noise levels for quieter Stage 3
aircraft, like the B-757, would be 62.7 dBA at this same point.
The results of this anatysis must be interpreted with caution as the INM does not account for ground
attenuation, shielding or other noise sources. An example of other noise sources effecting the communities
analyzed would be highway noise. Noise analysis for the existing roadways and proposed roadway
improvements for the MSP Aiternative indicate that TK 77 itself will generate noise levels exceeding 70 dBA
during many periods. Potential mitigation of the aircraft ground noise levels through construction of airpo�t
facilities and/or noise attenuation barriers a�e identified in Section QI.1.3. These barriers can significantly
reduce ground noise levets experienced in the neighboring communities. Additionally, mitigation will likely be
a part of the proposed highway widening design.
Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
The continued operation of MSP, including the use af the new north-south runway will result in unavoidable
noise impacts for communities immediately surrounding the airport. Approximately 300 more persons would
be within the DNL 65+ contours compared to the No Action Alternative in the year 2d05. It should be noted,
however, that under the MSt� Alternative the number of persons within the DNL 65 noise impact would
decrease from 22,090 in 1994 to 7,650 by 2005. The following section describes mitigation proposed to
address these impacts.
Q.1.1.3 IVIltigation Measures—iNSP Alternative
In Ap�il 1996 the Minnesota legislature selected the MSP Alternative and directed MAC to develop a noise ���
mitigation program with the assistance of its sound abatement advisory committee, the Metropolitan Aircraft ,
Dual Track Final EIS
V-80
Sound Abatement Council (see Appendix A.14). MAC subsequentiy established a MSP Noise Mitigation
' Committee which prepared a MSP Noise Mitigation Program and report in October 1996. The following
mitigation was adopted by the commission on October 28, 1996 (see MSP NOISE MITIGATION PROGRAM,
MAC, November 1996). The program contains measures that may or may not be eligible for funding based
on FAA policy or criteria, as stated in Appendix B.
Insulation
• the residential sound insulation program (SIP) within the 1996 DNL 65+ contour be completed on
the approved cu�rent schedule (Note: the current program is scheduled far completion in the year
2002)
• the SIP be expanded to incorporate the area within the 2005 DNL 60-65 contour (see Appendix
B)
o the 2005 DNL 60 contour be based on the most accurate projection of traffic levels and use of
appropriate ANOMS data
• MAC and affected communities develop neighborhood and "natural boundaries" that reflect
current conditions at the outer edge of the expanded contour to the maximum extent possible
•, insutation of dwellings/buildings in the expanded SIP to be performed in the following order of
, priority:
1. single famity homes afte� comple6on of the 1996 DNL 65 SIP on the approved current
schedule
2. multifamily dwellings, nursing homes, and churches with regular weekday
daycare/nursery school types of operations — in accordance with a schedule ag�eed
upon by MAC and each affected city
• the program be funded by a combination of Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) revenues, airline
fees, internally generated funds and federal aid; to the extent that MAC cannot fund the
expanded program in a reasonable period of time, support from the state of Minnesota will be
sought; however, in no case will unreimbursed financial impacts fall on affected residents or their
� local governments
� MAC will fund the program on an accelerated basis beyond its current annual level of $25.5
million
• MAC will develop models which reflect the impact of ground level noise on residential properties;
mitigation for low frequency noise will be developed after consultation with independent noise
mitigation experts
• completion of the program is contingent on MAC maintaining a bond rating of at least A.
Communiry Stabilization
The Metropolitan Airports Commission will participate with affected communities to identify and
quantify any impacts the airport may have on declining property values and/or other negative
consequences on neighborhoods near the airport. To the e�ent that negative consequences can be
quantified, a Working Group should prepare recommendations to MAC for consideration by the
Minnesota Legislature. Community stabilization measures considered should include, but not be
limited to, the measures described in the Metropotitan Council-MAC Community Protection Report.
The measures include purchase and property value guarantees and housing replacement to
complement the tax credit and revitalization area legislation adopted in 1996.
A Working Group will be convened including representatives from MAC, Met Council, Northwest
Airlines, affected communities and legislative staff. The Working Group should identify a p�ogram
design, funding options, administrative responsibilities and eligibility a�ea. The final legislative
recommendation should be presented to MAC and other interested parties for endorsement and
inclusion in 1997 legislative programs.
In addition to the preceding mitigation, MAC is committed to perform the following study.
� Airport Operations
The following will be incorpo�ated and evaluated in a Part 150 update:
Dual Track Final EIS
V-81
,,.
• Take action, as required by the 1996 Legisiature, to prohibit use of Stage 2 aircraft after ��
December 31, 1999.
• Modify the night hours to 10:30 p.m. - 6:00 a.m. and limit activity during these hours to Stage 3
aircraft.
• Develop a departure procedure for Runway 22 to direct aircraft over areas of commerciai
development and the Minnesota River Valley.
• Seek coaperation from FAA to implement departure procedures as appropriate at each runway
end.
• Evaluate departure procedures in the Eagan-Mendota Heights corridor.
• Work within the aviation industry to encourage further �eductions in aircraft noise levels.
• Negotiate the Stage 2 prohibition, noise abatement procedures, and expansion of night hours,
incorporating appropriate penalties for non-compliance.
o The MAC noise monitoring system monitors will be increased in number to provide more
coverage of actual impacts in the airpart vicinity, in particular, areas affected by the north-south
runway. A�eas affected by the parallel runways, may have additional microphone locations to
monitor continued and growing volumes of air traffic as the airport expands. This system should
be used to corroborate the accuracy of the modeled contours for noise program eligibility.
Furthermore, on October 28, 1996 MAC also adopted the following mitigation, which is associated with the
proposed action.
Runway Use
• Completion of the environmental process and construction of the North-South Runway should be
expedited and completed as soon as possible. Progress should be measured against this
schedule:
a) commence construction —1998
b) complete construction, open runway-2003 �,
o In the interim, Runway 4/22 should be used for noise mitigation purposes. This requires the
following:
a) Construction of associated taxiways;
b) Mitigation program at the southwest end of Runway 4-22 in the cities of Bloomington and
Richfield as required in the Final Record of Decision (March 28, 1995). The acquisition
portion of the mitigation will be initiated as soon as contracts for the associated taxiways
are let and should be completed within a period of two years. Funds for the acquisition
prograrn will be in addition to those designated for the residential insulation program,
consistent with the existing acquisition program. The insutation po�tion of the mitigation
will be integrated with the current IV1AC program, starting as soon as contracts for
construction of the associated taxiways are let, or the RUS is implemented, whichever
occurs flrst. The insulation program will be implemented at the rate of at least 20% of
the total homes as defined in the Runway 4-22 mitigation program in each year until all
of the single family and multiple family units within the 1996 DNL 65 contour are
insulated. To the extent practical, MAC will identify funding and program administration
options to minimize delay in completion of the current insulation program.
c) If the North-South Runway is completed before insulation of all eligible homes is
completed, the insulation program for the area impacted by aircraft using Runway 4-22
may be terminated.
• Comptetion of this prog�am is contingent on the MAC maintaining a bond rating of at least A.
Q.1.2 No Action Alternative
Q.1.2.1 Affected Environment—No Action Alternative
The APE of aircraft noise is the area within the DNI. 60+ contours for this alternative. The DNL contours for �
operation of MSP in 1994 are shown in Figure Q-1. These base year contours represent average annual '
operations for the calendar year 1994. Approximately 42.3 square miles of land around MSP experienced
Dual Track Final E1S
V-82
1 '�
DNL 60 or greater, with 19.7 square miles in the DN� 65. Approximately 65,130 people and 28,220 dwellings
are within the DNL 60 to 65 contour, wfiite 22,090 people reside in 9,570 dwellings in the DN� 60 to 65
contour.
The DNL 65 contour extends approximately 4 miles southwest of the airport over Eagan and Mendota
Heights. The DNL 60 contour extends an additional 2 to 3.5 miles towards Inver Grove Heights. To the
northwest, the DNL 65 contour extends approximately 2 to 2.5 miles from airport property over the City of
Minneapolis and Richfield. The DNL 60 contour extends an additional 1.5 to 2.0 miles beyond the DNL 65
contour. The DNL 65 contour includes part of Minneapolis to the northeast and Richfield and Bloomington to
the southwest. The DNL 60 extends into Richfietd and Bloomington to the southwest and slightly into Saint
Paul to the northeast.
Q.1.2.2 Noise Impacts - No Action Alternative
Overflights
As shown in Figure Q-8, the flight tracks radiate at MSP from the ends of the runways. Many overflights
occur northwest and southeast of the site with some overflights immediately south of the airport.
Population lmpacts--ONL 70, 65 and 60
Figure Q-9 shows the year 2005 DNL contours for the No Action Alternative. The DNL contour encompasses
approximately 9.2 square miles. The population exposed to DN� 65 or greater is approximately 7,350. There
would be 3,200 homes within the DNL 65 and greater contour. An additional 27,690 people and 11,810
dwellings would be within the DN� 60 to 65 contour. Table Q-4 summarizes population and households
contained within the contours.
Table Q-4 - Population and Dwellings Within Year 2005 DNL Contours - No Action Afternative
Population Ow ellinas
DNL 70- DNL 65• ONl 60• �N170- DNl 65- DNL 60-
Jurisdlct(on DNl 75+ DNL 75 DNL 70 DN� 65 Total DNL 75+ DNL 75 DNL 70 DNL 65 Total
M inneapolis
� North Richtield (1)
` Soufh Richtield (2)
foh Snelling
Bloomfagton
Inver Grove Heights
Mendota Heights
Eagan
Total
New Ford Tow n &
Rich Acres
0 720 5,470 18,170 24,360
0 0 240 1,870 2,110
0 0 680 1,560 2,240
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 30 3,970 4,000
0 0 0 10 10
0 0 140 1,050 1,190
0 10 80 1 O60 1 150
0 720 6.630 27,690 35,040
0 17D 650 120 940
0 0 0 80 80
0 290 2,410 7,650 10,350
0 0 90 770 860
0 0 330 740 1,070
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1D 1,820 1,830
0 0 0 t0 t0
0 0 50 460 510
0 30 370 400
0 290 2,910 11,810 15,020
0 70 260 50 380
0 0 0 30 30
(t ) Ezcluding New Ford Tow n.
(2� Excluding Rich Acres.
Note• Tolals mav not add due �o roundinq -
Noise Sensitive Land Uses in DNl 65+ Contour
In addition to residential dwellings and people there would be 1 school, 1 church/synagogue, and 3
parks/recreation areas within the contour. There would be no hospitals, nursing homes, outdoor
amphitheaters, or nature exhibits/zoos within the contour. See Tables Q-5 and Q-6.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-83
Table Q-5 - Noise Sensitive tlses Within Year 2005 DNL Confours - No Action Atternative
Use TYpe ONL 75+ ONUO-75 DNL 65-70 DNL 60-65 Total
SchoolslDay Care
Churches/Synagogues
HospitaislNursing Homes
Parks/Recreation
Outdoor A mphitheaters/M usic Shelis
Nature Exhibits/Zoos
Wildtife RofugoslEnvironmental Education
Total
Source: HNTB analysis based on year 2005 Ileet mix.
L,o65 /mpacts
0 1 0 5 6
0 0 / 0 9
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 3 6 9
0 0 0 0 0
0 o a o a
0 0 0 0 0
0 1 4 11 96
Figure �-10 shows the L'o 65 contours for the iVo P�ction Altemative. The wider contours are generated by
departing aircraft; the spike-shaped contours are generated by arriving aircraft. It is anticipated that
approximately 106,000 people would be living within the L,o 65 contours. The large departure and arrival
contours generated by operations to and from the southeast on the main parallel runways would occur
approximately 50 percent and 53 percent of the time, respectively. The departure and arrival contours
generated by operations to and from the northwest on the main parallel runways would occur approximately
34 percent and 46 percent of the time, respectively. The departure contour centered over Runway 4-22 would
be generated approximately 15 pe�cent of the year. The arrival contours centered over Runway 4-22 would
occur very infrequently -- about one percent for arrivals on Runway 22 and near 0 percent for arrivals on
Runway 4.
Selected Noise Sensitive Uses Outside DNL 65 Contours
It is recognized that noise impacts associated with aircraft operations can affect people beyond the DN� 65
contour. For this reason 42 noise sensitive land use points outside the contour were identified to estimate the
noise impacts that may result under the No Action Alternative (Figure �-5).
Table Q-6 lists the 42 noise-sensitive locations, their estimated ambient DNL level, and DNL, SEL, and TA 85
dBA for the No Action Alternative.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-84
t '
Table �-6 - Noise Impacts at Select Noise Sensitive Locations Shown in Figure Q-5 - No Action
Aiternative
Time Above 85 d8A
ONL Peek SEL (minutet pet day)
Juriedicflon/locatlon 1994 2005 7994 2005 1994 2005
81oom inglon
1 Hohag Playlot 59.7 56.3 706.7 97.9 0.3 0.1
2 Smith P�rk 64.1 61.5 108.9 103.5 0.6 0.8
3 Cook'c Piaylot 63.1 60.5 104.4 707.2 0.8 0.�
4 Wrfqht's Lake Park 65.5 61.5 108.8 iD2.4 0.8 0.6
The Synod oi Lakes 6 Prairtes
5 Trinity School . 67A 65.1 109.2 106.1 1.4 1.5
6 Chi�dren's Worid Learning Center 5/.7 55.1 100.0 98.0 0.1 0.3
7 Long Meadow I.ake 8ass Ponds� 55.0 53.5 96.0 94.8 6.2 -
Eagan
8 Nighview Park 62.6 56.0 97.5 91.7 i.6 -
9 Pilot Knob Elementary 58.4 53.3 95.6 90.3 0.6 -
10 Tesseracf Sohooi•�ay Care �5.2 t2.0 82.8 81.0 - -
11 Lezing�oa Park 6T.1 63.5 f06.2 96.2 1.8 0.1
12 Burr 0aks Park 63.5 60.5 97.1 93.7 0.5 -
Trinily lone Oak Chuwh/luthere�
13 School 6d.8 61.6 101.4 95.2 0.8 •
Fort Sneiliap . _
74 Veterans Hospilal 63.2 54.1 107.3 98.9 1.4 •
M endota/M endota Heights �
15 City Park . 62.1 55.1 95.4 89.7 1.9 -
i6 State Park 71.4 67.2 109.5 103.7 73.3 1.7
17 Acacia Park Cemetery T5.6 68.3 111.2 106.7 15.6 3.0
18 Mendota Workcamp i(Hislaricj 71.2 67.6 109.5 105.2 15.0 1.5
19 Roger Lake Park 67.8 62.4 107.7 100.9 3.0 0.5
2D Friendly Hilis Park 65.2 59.8 105.8 96.0 1.4 0.2
21 I•35E and Mendota Road 62.1 57.0 101.2 93.9 1.5 -
M inneapolis
�I� i 22 GeorgeToddPark 71.3 68.2 1�8.3 102.i 7.3 2.8
�� " 23 Field Pubiic School 63.3 57.5 707.5 99.2 tA 0.1
24 Angelus Convaleseent 62.2 56.4 106.5 97.4 0.8 0.7
25 W eno�ah Elernentary Sehool 76.5 77.1 111.9 106.2 22.0 6.2
26 Morris Park Elemenfary Schooi 66.6 59A � 98.7 93.1 8.0 -
27 Nale Pubiic School 71.1 6�.0 108.9 103.0 6.5 0.5
28 St. Joseph's Home for Children 64,6 55.B 107.1 99.3 1.7 D.i
29 Concy's tA antessorl SchoolfDaycare 62.5 60.2 102.0 93.7 0.3 -
3D Clara 8arton Open Schooi 60.5 58.1 98.5 93.9 0.2 •
31 W ashburn High School 62.1 58.5 106.6 97.7 0.5 •
32 W indow Open School 64.5 59.6 107.9 100.5 1.8 0.3
� 33 Annunciation Catholic Church/Schooi 62.2 57.9 106.5 97.4 OJ OJ
34 Minnehaha Parkway 6 Ly�dale Ave. 63.2 60.4 106.0 96.5 0.5 �
Richfield
35 Richfieid Ve(erans M emorial Park 60.7 51.1 99.7 93.2 t.i •
36 Talt Park 75.3 67.8 111.7 106.0 15.8 2.6
37 Moua� Caivary Educational Bidg. 68.2 60.3 103.4 97.t 7.0 0.1
3B City Park 62.5 55.8 96.3 90.0 1.5 •
39 Roosevelt Park 60.4 55.7 107.6 103,9 0.2 0.1
40 Ce�le�nialElementary5chool 65.2 61.6 100.3 iD4.2 1.2 0.6
41 Riehlieid Inlermediate School 60.1 51.2 99.2 93.6 0.4 •
Saint Paul
/2 St. Therese Parish Center 59.4 51.7 98.3 94.1 0.1 •
Note: hyphen (�) denotes TA vaive less Ihan 0.1 minutes. '
Source: HNTB analysis based on year2005 Ileet mix.
�, The results should be interpreted with caution for these points for several reasons. First, a 1992 evaluation of
DNL as a noise measurement tool by FICON reported that "aircraft noise predictions below DNL 65 can be
Dual Track Final EIS
V-85
less accurate...." Second, the farther aircraft are from an airport, the more variabie their location relative to ��
modeled flight tracks. Finally, the quieter the perceived sound from an aircraft, the harder it is to discern it
from other existing ambient noise levels. Other sources of noise (such as automobiles, voices, wind, etc.)
may actually be louder than the aircraft at the listener's location.
Etfect of No Aciion Alternative on Noise Exposure at Saint Paul Downtown Airport
Under the No Action Alternative, a number of general aviation aircraft operations at MSP could move to Saint
Paul Downtown Airport (STP) as a result of increased congestion at the former facility. The issue then arises
relative to what impact these additional operations would have on noise for communities around STP. The
volume of GA jet aircraft operations transferring to STP under the No Action Alternative is anticipated to be
less than 10 per day. A preliminary noise analysis at 10 study points in the vicinity of STP found that DNL
noise impacts would increase by less than 1.5 dBA for the transfer of over 10 general aviation jet operations.
The FAA guidelines for determination of a significant impact. is an increase of DNL 1.5 dBA or greater.
Because the increase is less than 1.5 dBA, the potential impact on STP due to the No Action Alternative
would not be significant and no further anatysis is required.
Unavoidable Adverse lmpacts
ihe continued operation of MSP under the No Action Alternative would result in continued unavoidable noise
impacts for communities immediately surrounding the airpo�t. It should be noted, however, that under this
alternative the number of persons within the DNL 65+ noise impact area would decrease from 22,090 in 1994
to 7,350 by 2005. These impacts would be addressed through continuation of the MSP noise compatibility
program section described in Section Q.1.1.3.
Qo1.3 Cumulative Noise Impacts of Runway 4-22 Extension
The noise impacts of the Runway 4-22 extension for the MSP and No Action Alternatives are summarized in �
iabte Gl-7; a detailed analysis is presented in the Environmental Assessment For E�ctension Of Runway 4-22 �
To 12,000 Feet, Minneapolis-Saint Paul lntemational Airport, MAC April 1998. Table Q-7 shows that
significant noise impacts (an increase of DNL 1.5 d8A at levels of DN� 65+) would not occur at any location
experiencing an increase in noise due to the proposed extension of Runway 4-22. The largest increase is 0.7
dBA to DNL 54.4 at Receptor 14, the Veterans Hospital, from the MSP Alternative — which is still less than the
DNL 56.0 from the No Action Alternative.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-86
� �I
Table Q-7 - Cumulative
J urisdiction/Location
4-22 Extension 2005 Noise Impacts - MSP and No Action Alternatives
MSP Alternative No Action Alternative
r Without 4-22 With 4-22 Without 4-22 With 4-22
Bloomington
1 Hohag Playlot
2 Smith Park
3 Cook's Piaylot
4 Wright's Lake Park
5 The Synod of Lakes & Prairies Trinity
School
6 Children's Worid �earning Center
i Long Meadow �ake Bass Ponds
Eagan
8 Highview Park
9 Pilot Knob Elementary
10 Tesseract School-Day Care
11 �exington Park
12 Burr Oaks Park
13 Triniry Lone Oak Church/Lutheran
Schooi
Fort Snelling
14 Veterans Hospitai
Mendota/Mendota Heights
15 City Park
16 State Park
17 Acacia Park Cemetery
18 Mendota Workcamp 1 (Historic)
19 Roger Lake Park
20 Friendly Hilis Park
21 I-35E and Mendota Road
Minneapolis
22 George Todd Park
23 Fieid Public Schooi
24 Angelus Convalescent
25 Wenonah Elementary School
26 Morris Park Elementary School
27 Hale Pubiic Schooi
28 St. Joseph's Home for Children
29 Concy's Montessori SchooVDaycare
30 Clara Barton Open School
31 Washburn High School
32 Window Open School
33 Annunciation Catholic Church/School
34 Minnehaha Parkway & Lyndale Ave.
Richfield
35 Richfield Veterans Memoriai Park
36 Taft Park
37 Mount Calvary Educational Bldg.
38 City Park
39 Roosevelt Park
40 Centennial Elementary School
41 Richfield Intermediate School
Saint Paul
42 St. Therese Parish Center
Source: HNTB analysis
56.7 56.7
54.4 54.7
53.9 54.0
58.0 58.0
60.0 60.0
53.8 54.4
69.0 69.0
54.8 54.8
52.1 52.1
57.8 57.8
62.4 62.4
59.4 59.4
61.1 61.1
53.7 54.4
52.0
66.3
64.5
66.0
58.5
56.1
53.4
66.8
58.3
57.2
71.6
58.8
64.5
57.8
60.1
582
58.1
59.7
57.3
59.0
53.8
67.9
62.2
56.2
49.0
57.9
53.0
Dual Track Final EIS
V-87
52.0
66.3
64.5
66.0
58.5
56.1
53.4
66.8
58.3
57.2
71.6
58.8
64.5
57.8
60.1
58.2
58.1
59.7
57.3
59.0
53.8
67.9
622
562
49.4
58.0
53.0
50.0
56.3 56.3
61.5 61.6
60.5 60.6
61.5 61.5
65.1 65.1
55.1 55.5
53.5 53.5
56.0 56.0
53.3 53.3
42.8 42.8
63.5 63.5
60.5 60.5
61.8 61.8
54.1 54.7
55.1
67.2
68.3
67.6
62.4
59.8
57.0
682
57.5
56.4
71.1
59.0
64.0
56.8
60.2
58.1
58.5
59.6
57.9
60.4
54.1
67.8
60.3
55.8
55.7
61.6
54.2
51.7
55.1
67.2
68.3
67.6
62.4
59.8
57.0
68.2
57.5
56.4
71.1
59.0
64.0
56.8
602
58.1
58.5
59.6
57.9
60.4
54.1
67.8
60.3
55.8
55.8
61.6
54.2
51.7
(�.1.4 Summary of Aircraft (Voise Impacts
The noise impacts of the MSP 2020 Concept Plan and MSP 2010 �TCP a�e identical since the worst-case
year is 2005, and are referred to as the MSP Alternative. Tabie Q-8 compares the noise impacts for the two
altematives. Although the MSP Alternative has slightly more population within the DNL 65 contour, it exposes
approximately 5,400 fewer people to noise levels of DNL 60 0� greater than the No Action Alternative.
The MSP Altemative impacts two �oise-sensitive land uses — the Wenonah Elementary School in
Minneapolis and the Bass Ponds environmental education area in the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife
Refuge. The No Action Alternative also impacts two noise-sensitive land uses — the Wenonah Elementary
School and the Trinity School. Both alternatives would result in unavoidable impacts.
Table Q-8 - Summary Comparison of Noise Impacts - MSP and No Action Alternatives
A Iternative
Criteria MSP� No Action� 1994
Persons in Year 2005 DNL 65
Noise Contour or Greater
Persons in Year 2005
DNL 60-65 Noise Contours
Persons in Year 2005 DNL 60
Noise Contour or Greater
Number of Noise-Sensitive �and
Uses w ith Noise Exceeding
FAA Guidelines
� Year 2000 population estimates.
Source: HNTB analysis.
7,650
22,030
29,680
7,350 33,750
27,690 65,150
35,040 98,900
4
Table �-9 compares DNL for the MSP Alternative and No Action Alternative. According to the FAA's AC
5050.4A, Airport Environmental Handbook, a 1.5 dBA increase in DNL (at noise sensitive sites located at or
above 65 DNL) is considered significant. The table shows 29 of the 42 noise sensitive locations would
experience a decrease in noise exposure under the MSP Alternative compared to the No Action Alternative.
An additional 10 noise sensitive locations would experience an increase of less than 1.5 dBA. Only three
points would expe�ience a significant (1.5 dBA or greater) increase. These three points are Long Meadow
�ake Bass Ponds (an increase of 17.1 dBA), Tesseract School-Day Care (an increase of 15.0 dBA), and
Mount Calvary Educational Building (an increase of 1.9 dBA). The increased noise levels at Tesseract and
Mount Calvary are still within FAA compatibility guidelines for the specific land uses. The impact on Bass
Ponds exceeds FAA guidelines and is discussed in Section V.0 (Section 4(t� impacts).
�'
Dual Track Final EIS
V-88
Table Q-9 - Noise Impacts at Select Noise Sensitive Locations Shown in Figure Q-5 -
� Comparison Between MSP and No Action Alternatives
DNL Oill�nne�
FAA (YSP•No
Jurisdietlon/LoeNlon Guidellna (i) M SP No Aetlon Aetion)
Bloomington
1 Hohag Pieylot 75.0 56.7 56.3 0.1
2 Smi(h Patk 75.0 5�./ 61.5 (7•11
3 Cook's Playloi 75.0 53.9 60.5 (6.6)
[ W right's Lake Park 75.0 58.0 61.5 (3.5)
5 Trinity Sehool • 65.0 (2) 60.0 65.1 (5•11
6 Ch(idren's W orld Learninp Center 85.0 (3) 53.8 55.1 (i •71
7 long M eado� lake Bass Ponds 65.0 70.6 53.5 �7��
Eapan
B HighvteM Park 75.0 51.8 56.0 (1•2)
9 PIIotKnobElemeotary 65.0 (3) 52.1 53.3 (1•Z)
10 Tessetact School-Day Caro 65.0 (3) 57.8 �2.8 15.�
t t Leiinglon Park I5.0 62./ 63.5 (� •� )
1 2 Burr Oaks Park 75.0 59.4 60.5 (� •� I
13 Trinity Lone Oak Churchl School 65.0 (3) 61.1 61.6 (0.51
Fori Sneilinq ----�
11 Velerans Hospit+l 75.0 (2) 53.7 54.1 (0./)
Mendota/Mendota Heights
15 City Park 75.0 52.0 55.1 (3•�)
tb S1a�e Park 75.0 b6.3 67.2 (0.9)
17 Acacia Park Cemetery -• 64.5 68.3 (3.8)
18 Mendota Workcamp t(Histatic� •- 66.D 67.6 i�•61
19 Roger Lake Park 75.0 58.5 62.4 (3•9)
20 FNendly Hilis Park 75A 56.1 59.8 (3•7)
27 I•35E and MenEota Road •• 53.1 57.0 (3.6)
Minneapolfs
22 George Todd Park 75.0 66.8 68.2 (� •4)
23 Fieid Pubiic School 65.0 (3) 58.3 57.5 0�a
� 24 Angelus Convalescenl 75A (2) 5T.2 56.a 0.8
25 Wenonah Elementary Schooi fi5.0 (3) 71.6 71.1 0.5
26 Morris Park Elementary School 65.0 (3) SB.B 59.0 (4•2)
27 Hale Public School 65.0 (3) 64.5 6a.0 0.5
28 St. Joseph's Home IorChlidren 65.0 (1) 57.8 56.8 1•0
29 Concy's MantessoriSchooilDaycare 65.9 (3) 60J 60.2 (�•�)
JO Ciara Barion Open Schooi 65.0 (3) 58.2 58.1 �•�
31 W ashburn High Schooi 65.0 (3) 58.1 58.5 (�•�)
32 Window Open School 65A (3) 59.7 59.6 0•7 �
33 Anaunc(a�ion Calhoiic Churchl5chooi 65A (3� 57.3 5I.9 �0.6)
3� M Innehahe Parkw ey d lyndale Ave. . •- 59.0 60.t (1 •t)
Rlchtteld �
35 Richiield Yelerans MemorlaiPark 75.0 53.8 51.1 (U.3)
36 Tall Park 75.0 67.9 67.8 6.1 ,
37 Mount Calvary Etlucatlona181dg. (5) 65A (3) 62.2 6U.3 �•9
38 CNy Park 75.0 56.2 55.8 D./
39 Rooseveit Park 75.0 �9.0 55.7 (6•7)
10 Cen�ennialEiementary School 65.0 (3) 57.9 81•8 13�7)
�t Rlchiield Inlermediate Schoai 65.0 (3) 53.0 S1.2 (1•2)
Saint Paul
12 51 Therese PaHsh Center (6{ 75 0 (2) 50 0 51 7 (1 •71
(1) Maximum Day•Nighl LeveI�DNL) recommendeG by the FAA forthis lend use.
(2) Noise lerei reduction sullicia�� to acAteve inierior noise ievels ol �NL �5 or lets should Ge intorporated in dasign
and cons�ruction.
(3) W hen the noise IereleKceeds ON� 65 end IAe community de�ermines ihai Ihe use must be ailor ed, no(se level
reAuction sul�ictent to achieva InleNor noise lavels ol DNl IS or less shouid 6e Incorporated In design and
consituclion.
(/) W hen ihe noise levelecceeds DNL 65 a�d iha community determines that ihe use must be alior ed, noise level
reduetion sullicient to achiere Interiar noisa laveis oi DNL 10 or iess shoulE be (neorporaleA in design and
eonstruetian.
Source: HNTB aneiysfs besed on rear 2005 tleet m ix.
Dual T�ack Final EIS
V-89
Q.2 Surface Transportation Noise Impacts
The airport project has the potential to cause noise impacts at noise sensitive receiver sites proximate to
the primary access roads senring each of the alternative airport sites. Traffic generated by the airpo�t will
add to existing traffic noise levels along roadways. Where roadways are new or reconstructed to
accommodate airport t�affic, traffic noise levels at nearby sensitive receivers may be affected.
Traffic noise levels vary significantly over time. Traffic noise is dependent on traffic volumes, vehicle
speeds and vehicle types. Noise from vehicles comes from a variety of sources. For most cars, the
primary noise source is�the interaction of tires on the pavement. For trucks, the dominant noise source is
usually exhaust and engine noise. Noise is also generated by brakes, loose body components and faulty
exhaust systems.
�.2.1 2020 Methodology and Assumptions
Traffic noise levels are reported in dBA. Because the decibel is a logarithmic unit, a doubling of sound
energy results in a 3 dBA change in noise levels. For example, the sum of two noise sources each emitting
70 dBA yields a combined noise level of 73 dBA. A 3 dBA change is generally considered to be the
smallest change in traffic noise levels noticeable to most people. Traffic volumes must double to cause a 3
dBA change in adjacent noise levels. Therefore, a perceptible noise impact can occur along roadways
where traffic volumes are forecast to increase by a factor of two or more.
The traffic noise impact analysis was conducted using the L,o noise descriptor. The Minnesota State Noise
Standards (Minnesota Rules Parts 7030.0010 to 7030.1050) and the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria (23
CFR Part 772) are both expressed in terms of the L,o noise descriptor. In residential areas, the state
daytime noise standard is L,o 65 dBA and the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria Level is L,o 70 dBA.
The traffic noise impacts of the project have been assessed by estimating the number of homes that would t,
experience a perceptible noise impact in excess of state daytime standards or FHWA Abatement C�iteria �
because of airport-generated traffic. The impact assessment methodology consisted of the following steps:
• Identify the roadway segments serving each build alternative where forecast traffic volumes are more
than twice as high as no-build forecast traffic volumes.
� For the identified roadway segments, estimate the distance to the L,o 65 dBA and the �,0 70 dBA
contours for both the MSP and No Action alternatives.
• Using 1"=800' 1990 aerial photography obtained from the Metropolitan Council, tabulate the number of
homes within the L,o 65 dBA and the L,o 70 dBA contou�s for both alternatives by roadway segment.
• The total number of homes associated with the MSP Alternative represents the homes that would
experience a perceptible increase in noise level in excess of state noise standards or federal noise
abatement criteria, if the existing airport is expanded. In contrast, the total number of homes
associated with the No Action Alternative represents the homes that would experience noise levels in
excess of state noise standards or federal noise abatement criteria, if the existing airport is not
expanded.
The distance to the L,o 65 dBA and the L�o 70 dBA contours was estimated using procedures given in
Highway Noise (FHWA-RD-77-108, U.S. Department of Transportation, December 1978). Noise estimates
were based on the following assumptions:
• Peak hour noise levels were assumed to coincide with the afternoon peak hour traffic. The afternoon
peak traffic hour was assumed to carry ten percent of the average daily traffic volume forecasts.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-90
• During the peak hour, the vehicle mix was assumed to consist of 94 percent automobiles, three percent
medium trucks (2 axles, 6 wheels) and three percent heavy trucks (3 or more axles). This estimate was
based on the Special Area Analysis Manual (U.S. Department of Transportation, August 1973) and
represents the typical peak hour truck mix on freeway facilities.
• Ground cover between roadway and receiver was assumed to be acoustically soft. Shielding due to
topography, vegetation, or intervening structures was not considered.
• Noise was estimated from mainline facilities only. Frontage roads, ramps and local street traffic noise
was not considered.
Q.2.2 2020 Surface Noise Impacts, Mitigation and Summary
The results of the traffic noise impact assessment are shown in Table 0-10.
Table Q-10 -1990 Residences Adversely Impacted by 2020 Traffic Noise from
Selected Roadways Leading to Existing Airport Site
ROADWAY
NUMBER OF RESIDENCES IMPACTED
No Action Alternative
MSP Alternative
L10 70
LIo 65
Lyo 70
Lio 65
TH 62/CROSSTOWN
135 W - 28th Ave. S.
420
1,005
471
1,230
TH 77/CEDAR AVE
1494 - TH 62
42
267
42
267
GRAND TOTAL:
462
1,272
513
1,497
The analysis of surface transportation noise addresses the Federal Noise Abatement Criteria and
Minnesota Standards. Table 0-10 shows that the MSP Alternative would increase the number of
residences exposed to surface transportation noise levels exceeding the Federal Noise Abatement Criteria
(L,o 70) from 462 to 513, an increase of 11 percent. Residences exposed to surface transportation noise
levels exceeding the State Noise Standards (L,o 65) would increase from 1,272 to 1,497, approximately 18
percent, under the MSP Alternative.
Mitigation could be provided through construction of noise barriers. Installation of noise barriers is
dependent upon the cost-effectiveness of the barriers, the desires of the affected city and residents, and
roadway and terrain conditions.
Q.2.3 2010 Surface Noise Impacts, Mitigation and Summary
Two alternatives are being considered for improvements at the 66th Street Interchange with TH 77.
Alternative A would convert Old Cedar Avenue into a one-way south frontage road between 66th Street and
67th Street. Alternative B would convert Old Cedar Avenue to a cul-de-sac just south of 66th Street as shown
in Figure T-2. Alternative B would result in the greatest increase in traffic because all of the local traffic now
using Old Cedar Avenue would be redirected to 18th Avenue under this alternative. The traffic on 18th
Avenue just south of 66th Street is expected to increase from approximately 600 vehicles per day in 1994 to
approximately 7,000 vehicles per day in 2020. Just north of 66th Street, traffic is expected to increase from
about 600 vehicles per day in 1994 to approximately 5,000 vehicles per day in 2020.
The increase in traffic on 18th Avenue is expected to increase traffic noise levels for the homes on the west
side of 18th Avenue in the area where the traffic volumes are increasing (between 67th Street and 66th
Dual Track Final EIS
V-91
Street). An analysis was conducted to determine how the increase in traffic in front of these homes would
impact the traffic --related noise levels for these homes. The FHWA's Traffic Noise Prediction Model was used
to perform the analysis. The purpose of the analysis was determine the impact of the proposed 66th Street
Interchange improvements on traffic noise levels. The analysis was based on a simplified model of the area.
Existing noise levels were estimated using the Traffic Noise Prediction Model. The analysis was based on
Alternative B which would result in the greatest increase in traffic noise levels for this area. The results of this
analysis are shown in Table 0-11.
Table 0-11 - Predicted Noise Levels on 18th Avenue Near 66th Street
(Noise Receivers on West Side of 18th Avenue at Front of Homes))
Location
Nighttime
Da
!me
Existing
LiodBA
Future
L,odBA)
Existing
Future
(L10dBA
th
South of 66
18 Avenue
51
58
52
59
Freeway
60
60
62
62
Combined
60.5
62.1
62.4
63.8
North of 66
18th Avenue
51
57
52
58
FreewaV
58.5
60
60.5
62
Combined
59.2
61.8
61.1
63.5
Traffic -related noise from several roadways impact the homes in this area. One of the major sources is the
traffic on TH 77, which is only about two blocks from these homes. Other noise sources include the traffic on
Old Cedar Avenue, 18th Avenue, and 66th Street. Traffic noise from Old Cedar Avenue is a relatively small
contributor to the noise at the homes on west side of 18th Avenue. Traffic noise from 66th Street will have the
greatest impact on the homes closest to 66th Street but will decrease for homes that are farther away. In
order to simplify the analysis the traffic noise from these two noise sources were not included. Excluding
these noise sources from the analysis means the existing noise levels are slightly understated and the impact
of traffic increases on 18th Avenue are slightly overstated. In both cases the affect of not including these
noise sources in the analysis is less than 1 dBA and does not affect the conclusions that can be reached from
the analysis.
The following conclusions were reached based on the analysis:
TH 77 is the largest contributor to traffic noise levels for homes on the west side of 18th Avenue near
66th Street.
• Existing traffic noise levels at the homes on the west side of 18th Avenue near 66th Street exceed
the state nighttime noise standards of 55 dBA but are below the daytime standard of 65 dBA.
The increase in traffic on 18th Avenue is not expected to result in a noticeable increase in traffic noise
levels for the homes on the west side of 18th Avenue near 66th Street. The increase in traffic on
18th Avenue is expected to increase the level of traffic noise from 18th Avenue by about 6 dBA
which, if this was the only noise source, would be a noticeable amount. However, when 18th Avenue
traffic noise is combined with the traffic noise from TH 77, the overall increase in traffic noise levels is
only 1.6 dBA nighttime and 1.4 dBA daytime, which would not be a noticeable increase. Research
has shown that it takes an increase in noise levels of about 3 dBA to be noticeable by humans. The
increase in traffic noise would be even less if traffic noise from 66th Street and Old Cedar Avenue is
factored into the analysis.
The increase in traffic noise levels for homes on the north side of 66th Street is slightly greater because the
proposed 66th Street interchange improvements will remove some of the buildings along TH 77 which
Dual Track Final EIS
V-92
currently shield these homes from some of the TH 77 traffic noise. However, the increase in traffic noise
levels is still less than 3 dBA.
R. Parks and Recreation
The use of parks and recreation areas is affected by acquisition, access and noise. Determination of adverse
effects caused by noise is based on the FAA Land Use Compatibility Criteria (Appendix A.3). The following
criteria relate to parks and recreation areas:
outdoor amphitheaters, music shells -- incompatible with DNL 65+.
parks, golf courses, other active recreation – incompatible with DNL 75+.
outdoor sports arena and spectator sports -- incompatible with DNL 75+
R.1 MSP, Alternative
R.1.1 Affected Environment—MSP Alternative
The APE is the area within the airport boundary, the Runway Protection Zones and the DNL 65+ noise
contours. The affected environment for the MSP Alternative (2010 LTCP and 2020 Concept Plan) includes
10 parks and recreation areas within the airport boundary and the DNL 65+ noise contours. The affected
parks and recreation areas are shown in Figure R-1; the DNL 65+ noise contours are shown in Figure Q-3.
Roadway improvements for the MSP Alternative, identified in Figures T-1 and T-2, will not affect parks and
recreation areas within the APE.
Parks and recreation areas under the jurisdiction of the Minneapolis Park Board:
Bossen Field is a park located in the Wenonah neighborhood, north of Trunk Highway 62 at 28th
Avenue South, immediately adjacent to MSP. The 39.1 -acre park includes softball fields, one of
which is illuminated for night games, play equipment, a running track, a children's wading pool and a
basketball court. It is wholly within the APE.
Lake Nokomis is a 407.68 -acre lake and park lying on both sides of Cedar Avenue north of Trunk
Highway 62, approximately 1/2 mile from MSP. The lake is encircled by a greenbelt area, used by
walkers and bicyclists, with recreational facilities located in the northern portion of the greenbelt area.
About one-third of the lake is within the APE.
Diamond Lake and Todd Parks are located north of Trunk Highway 62 and east of 1-35W, adjacent to
each other; they are approximately 3/4 mile from MSP. Todd Park is a 13.24 -acre park that includes
open play areas and four softball fields. Diamond Lake is a 68.83 -acre lake circumvented by a
greenbelt used by walkers and bicyclists. Virtually all of Todd Park and the northeast tip of Diamond
Lake Park are within the APE.
Parks and recreation areas under the jurisdiction of the city of Richfield:
Taft Park is a 42 -acre park southwest of the interchange of Trunk Highways 62 and 77, less than 1/4
mile from MSP. Ten acres of the park are owned by the city of Richfield, and 32 acres are owned by
the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) and leased to the city. The park includes the following
facilities: four lighted softball fields, a lighted football/soccer field, park buildings, two hockey rinks and
a skating area, four basketball nets, as well as playground areas, hiking trails also used by bicyclists
and a fishing pier. All of Taft Park is within the APE.
Rich Acres Golf Course and recreation complex lies immediately east of Trunk Highway 77 on land
owned by the Metropolitan Airports Commission and leased to the city of Richfield under terms of a
1978 lease. The 180 -acre recreation complex includes the following:
Dual Track Final EIS
V-93
• Two golf courses and a driving range. They include an 18 -hole golf course and a 9 -hole golf
course and a golf driving range. During 1994, rounds of golf on both courses were played by
more than 86,000 people. The driving range was used by more than 55,000 people that year.
• Ten baseball and softball fields. There are two Babe Ruth League baseball fields, four Little
League baseball fields and four softball league fields. The fields were constructed by the city
of Richfield in the late 1970s. They are used and maintained by the leagues and are not open
to the public. During the season, games are scheduled at the fields five or six days each week.
• More than 1.5 acres of community gardens divided into 168 plots, each measuring 20 feet
square. The plots are rented each growing season to residents of the community. During the
summer of 1995, all but two of the plots were rented.
• An archery range. It is open to the public on a first-come, first-served basis; the city does not
keep records on its use.
Park under the jurisdiction of the city of Bloomington:
River Ridge Playground is a seven -acre park located at the intersection of River Ridge Road and
88th Street, approximately one mile from MSP. It includes two tennis courts, a soccer field, a shelter
building and passive play equipment. The playground is wholly within the APE.
Park under the jurisdiction of the state of Minnesota:
Fort Snelling State Park is located on both sides of the Mississippi River north and south of 1-494.
Portions of park within the APE lie between 1-494 on the south and Picnic Island on the north and
southwest of the TH5/TH55 interchange, both immediately adjacent to MSP. Recreational facilities
located between 1-494 and Picnic Island include hiking and bike trails, a canoe landing, swimming
and picnic facilities and a visitorfinterpretive center planned for construction below the Mendota
Bridge. The area southwest of the TH5/TH55 interchange includes a nine -hole golf course operated
by the Minneapolis Park Board under a five-year agreement with the Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) scheduled to expire November 30, 1997. Approximately two-thirds of the
golf course, which is immediately adjacent to MSP, is within the DNL 65 noise contours. Fort Snelling
State Park, including the recreational facilities being operated by the Minneapolis Park Board, has
been under the jurisdiction of the DNR since 1971, when the state acquired the land from the U.S.
Department of Interior under a quitclaim deed.
Recreation area under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Interior:
The Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (MNRRA), established by Congress in 1988,
stretches along the Mississippi River in a 72 -mile corridor from a point near Elk River, MN, on the
north to a point between Hastings, MN, and Red Wing, MN, on the south. It also includes an
approximate four -mile stretch of the Minnesota River that is adjacent to the Mississippi River, near
MSP. While the recreation area encompasses about 54,000 acres of public and private lands, very
little of it -- approximately 43 acres — is owned by the federal government. The portion of MNRRA
within the APE is identical with the portion of Fort Snelling State Park within the APE. A management
plan for MNRRA emphasizing coordination of activities by other park agencies, particularly the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and including the construction of two interpretative
facilities near the St. Paul and Minneapolis downtown areas, was approved by the Secretary of the
Interior in May 1995.
The Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge (MVNWR), which primarily provides a habitat for a
variety of animal life, also has wildlife recreation areas and environmental education facilities.
Recreation areas at the refuge which are within the APE are depicted in Figure FF -1. Caretaker's
Walk is a short, self -guided interpretive trail that circles the Bass Ponds. The Hillside trail is a half -
mile paved trail running from the east side of the Visitor Center to an observation deck at Peterson
Pond overlooking Long Meadow Lake; a portion of it is within the APE. (The Visitor Center itself is not
within the APE.) Two additional trails are not within the affected environment but are in close
proximity to flight tracks for the proposed north -south runway. The Old Cedar Avenue trail runs along
Long Meadow Lake and connects Caretaker's Walk and the Old Cedar Avenue trailhead. The
Highway 77 trail passes over the Minnesota River and connects to a bicycle trail which runs to the \,
Old Cedar Avenue trailhead. The Old Cedar Avenue and Highway 77 trailheads were accessed by
Dual Track Final EIS
V-94
20,405 and 14,570 vehicles, in 1993 The rah4]a �oeUkad�ouoaed in
( \ \i approximately
R.1.2 Parks and Recreation Impacts --MSP Alternative
Impacts at specific parks within the affected environment include:
Rich Acres Golf Course and recreation complex would be removed for airport uses. However, the 1978 lease
between MAC and the ofRichfield includes a provision that the "Commission atony time during the lease
term or renewal term shall have the right to retake possession of all or portions of the premises for airport
purposes based upon a real and present need for use of such land by Commission for aeronautical or other
purposes directly na|aUnO to the development and use of the airport ' . . ." Thenshone, under federal
Department of Transportation guidelines /F7V\ <]ndor 5050.4A. par. 47e/7\ka\3\. if land is owned by a
transportation agency and recreation use ofthe land ioonly onaninterim basis, itianot considered oSection
4(f) publicly -owned park and, therefore, not governed by Section 4(f) guidelines. (Section 4(0guidelines are
discussed in Section V.U.) The removal of the complex would result in the loss of all recreational facilities and
the community gardens. They could not be easily replicated elsewhere within the city of Richfield, because
undeveloped land of similar size is not available in the ohu There is no other golf course within the okx.
Public golf courses in close proximity to the city of Richfield include Fort Snelling State Park, Hyland Greens
and Dwmn Golf Courses in Bloomington, Braemar and Nonnanda|o Golf Courses in Edina. Highland Golf
Course in St. Paul, and Hiawatha and Meadowbrook Goff Courses in Minneapolis. There are 18baseball and
softball fields etother city parks, six ofwhich are under the jurisdiction of Little League and Babe Ruth
League. There would be little ornospace available e1existing city parks for the relocation of the 10 league
fields at the Rich Acres complex. (Economic impacts of the nannova| of recreational facilities at Rich Acres
Golf Course are discussed inSection V.|.)
Park and recreational uses within the APE, other than those at Rich Acres Golf Course and recreation
oonnolex, consist of spectator sports (softball and eoonar Oe|de' hockey hnka, basketball courte, active
recreation facilities (running tracks, bike trails, swimming), passive play equipment and picnic facilities. Under
the FAA Land Use Compatibility Criteria, these activities are compatible with DNLG5-7O noise levels. All of
these parks and recreation areas are within the DNLG5-70 noise contour; consequently, there will beno
irnpodo. Recreation impacts to the MVNWR are discussed in Section V.FF; environmental education impacts
are discussed inSection V.U.
R.1'3 Mitigation Measures—MSP Alternative
The lease between the city ofRichfield and the Metropolitan Airports Commission, discussed in detail in
Section 1.1.2' provides that MAC will reimburse the ohv for the unamnrtized capital investment if MAC
exercises its option kouse the land for airport purposes. This will mitigate the removal ofthe golf courses and
noother mitigation is required.
No mitigation is required atother parks and recreation areas within the APE.
R.2 No Action Alternative
R.2.1 Affected Environment— No Action Alternative
The APE includes nine parks and recreation areas within the DNL 65+ noise contours for the No Action
Akernative, depicted in Figure B-1. Many of the parka and recreation anaue within the APE for the No
Action Alternative are also within the APE for the MSP Alternative; o full daaohodon of those parks is
included inSubsection Fl.1.1.
Parks and recreation areas under the jurisdiction ofthe Minneapolis Park Board:
All ofBosse Field, the southern third of Lake Nokomis, all of Todd Park and the northern third of
Dual Track Final EIS
Parks under the jurisdiction of the city of Richfield:
Taft Park, all of which is in the APE, is described in Subsection R.1.1.
Washington Park, immediately adjacent to MSP, recently was expanded to nine acres and includes
the following recreation facilities: a field for softball, soccer and football; two tennis courts, basketball
court, volleyball area, playground area, as well as walking trails, open play areas and skating area.
The park is wholly within the APE.
Veterans Memorial Park is approximately 100 acres. It located on Portland Avenue, south of Trunk
Highway 62, about 1/2 mile from MSP. Facilities include: miniature golf course, ice arena, swimming
pool, a nature center, a picnic shelter, as well as walking and biking trails. The northern portion of the
park is within the APE.
Park under the jurisdiction of the state of Minnesota:
Fort Snelling State Park is described in Subsection R.1.1.
Recreation area under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Interior:
The Mississippi National River and Recreation Area is described in Subsection R.1.1.
R.2.2 Parks and Recreation Impacts — No Action Alternative
No park or recreation area would be acquired by the No Action Alternative.
There are no affected parks or recreation areas with activities that are considered incompatible under the FAA
Land Use Compatibility Criteria; consequently, there would be no adverse impacts.
R.2.3 Mitigation Measures — No Action Alternative
No mitigation is required.
R.3 Summary of Parks and Recreation Impacts
The MSP Alternative (2010 LTCP and 2020 Concept Plan) would not result in noise levels at any park or
recreational area exceeding federal land use compatibility guidelines. This alternative would require the
removal of the Rich Acres Golf Course and recreation complex. Since this facility operates as an interim use
on leased airport property, it is not considered to be a publicly -owned park under the provisions of the
Department of Transportation Act Section 4(f). Section 4(f) guidelines are discussed in Section U. The lease
specifies that MAC may retake possession of the property as needed for airport related development.
According to the provisions of the lease, the city of Richfield would be compensated for the unamortized
portion of its investment in the design and construction of the golf course. City investment in other facilities
does not require compensation under the terms of the lease.
The No Action Alternative would not adversely impact parks or recreation areas.
Impacts to parks are summarized in Table R-1.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-96
/
/ \ Table R-1 -SumnnmarymfPerkaodRacreotiomArea Impacts
Environmental Justice
Executive Order 128S8 Federal
Income Populations (EO), dated February 11. 1884, requires Federal to identify and eddnaon
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmentalimpacts on low-income and minority
populations in the community which would result from a proposed action. Regulations for implementing
Executive Order 12898, entitled Draft Guidance for Addressing Environmental Justice under the National
Environmental Policy Act, were published by the Council on Environmental Quality on May 24, 1996. The
guidance of the EO and the proposed regulations has been followed in assessing the impacts on low-income
and minority populations.
Key definitions in the demographic analysis were derived from. the CBQguidelines where available and
° �w�o�—T�CEO�k�����e����a�a���dw�om����e��t�
---�--•
Census Bureau's statistical poverty thresholds. According toCensus Bureau documentation, the average
� )
poverty threshold for mfamily of four persons was $12,674 in 1989 (the year for which poverty data was
ooUaobad). Average poverty thresholds ranged from $6,310 for one person to $25,480 for nine or more
family members. The environmental justice analysis in this EIS uses two income levels as representative
of low-income. Low-income populations include those households with incomes in 1989 under $10,000
and those under $15,000, to reflect the approximate poverty level for a family of three and the poverty
level plus 5Opercent.
° Minority -- A person who is a citizen or permanent resident of the United States and who is either Black,
Hispanic, Asian American, American Indian orAlaskan Native.
Disproportionately high and adverse effect — An adverse impact is considered to have a
disproportionately high and adverse effect on low-income or minority populations when:
(a) The adverse impact is predominately borne by a low-income population and/or a minority population,
or (b) The impact is more severe or greater in magnitude than that borne by the non -minority and/or non -
low -income population.
*
Community — (a) The area where residents and employees would be displaced by airport development,
(b) The areas within the DNLG5+ noise contours and /o\ Hennepin County.
The purpose of the environmental justice analysis is to determine if the adverse effects of a proposed action
are borne disproportionately bvlow-income orminority populations. The adverse impacts ofthe proposed
action are identified throughout the environmental analysis. Demographic data from the 1990 U.S. Census
are analyzed to determine the income and minority character of the community where these impacts fall. This
is compared with the character of the larger community as a whole to reflect the regional nature of the FEIS.
Two environmental justice impact areas were addressed. The displacement ofresidents and employees due
to airport development and safety requirements, as well as residents within the DNL 65+ noise contour, were
assessed. The APE for displacement impaots is described in Section (Social Impacts) and, for noise
impacts, in Section Q.
�
Dual Track Final EIS
\__,/
No Action
IVISP Alternative
Alternative
Park and Recreation Areas
0
Displaced
Park and Recreation Areas
0
0
adversely impacted by noise
I
Environmental Justice
Executive Order 128S8 Federal
Income Populations (EO), dated February 11. 1884, requires Federal to identify and eddnaon
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmentalimpacts on low-income and minority
populations in the community which would result from a proposed action. Regulations for implementing
Executive Order 12898, entitled Draft Guidance for Addressing Environmental Justice under the National
Environmental Policy Act, were published by the Council on Environmental Quality on May 24, 1996. The
guidance of the EO and the proposed regulations has been followed in assessing the impacts on low-income
and minority populations.
Key definitions in the demographic analysis were derived from. the CBQguidelines where available and
° �w�o�—T�CEO�k�����e����a�a���dw�om����e��t�
---�--•
Census Bureau's statistical poverty thresholds. According toCensus Bureau documentation, the average
� )
poverty threshold for mfamily of four persons was $12,674 in 1989 (the year for which poverty data was
ooUaobad). Average poverty thresholds ranged from $6,310 for one person to $25,480 for nine or more
family members. The environmental justice analysis in this EIS uses two income levels as representative
of low-income. Low-income populations include those households with incomes in 1989 under $10,000
and those under $15,000, to reflect the approximate poverty level for a family of three and the poverty
level plus 5Opercent.
° Minority -- A person who is a citizen or permanent resident of the United States and who is either Black,
Hispanic, Asian American, American Indian orAlaskan Native.
Disproportionately high and adverse effect — An adverse impact is considered to have a
disproportionately high and adverse effect on low-income or minority populations when:
(a) The adverse impact is predominately borne by a low-income population and/or a minority population,
or (b) The impact is more severe or greater in magnitude than that borne by the non -minority and/or non -
low -income population.
*
Community — (a) The area where residents and employees would be displaced by airport development,
(b) The areas within the DNLG5+ noise contours and /o\ Hennepin County.
The purpose of the environmental justice analysis is to determine if the adverse effects of a proposed action
are borne disproportionately bvlow-income orminority populations. The adverse impacts ofthe proposed
action are identified throughout the environmental analysis. Demographic data from the 1990 U.S. Census
are analyzed to determine the income and minority character of the community where these impacts fall. This
is compared with the character of the larger community as a whole to reflect the regional nature of the FEIS.
Two environmental justice impact areas were addressed. The displacement ofresidents and employees due
to airport development and safety requirements, as well as residents within the DNL 65+ noise contour, were
assessed. The APE for displacement impaots is described in Section (Social Impacts) and, for noise
impacts, in Section Q.
�
Dual Track Final EIS
\__,/
Income data was collected from the most detailed level available, the census block group level. For
comparative purposes, minority data was also evaluated at the block group level. Other demographic
analysis in the EIS (such as the noise impacts data) used available census block level information. .
The same methodology cannot be used to evaluate potential employment impacts to low-income and minority
employees working in businesses displaced by airport development because relevant quantitative data on
employee characteristics are not available. Qualitative examination of the possible employment changes due
to the development alternatives and the hardship this may impose on employees is conducted for the two
alternatives. This examination relates to (1) potential loss of jobs due to elimination, consolidation, or
relocation of businesses and (2) potential difficulty reaching jobs relocated to remote locations for public -
transit dependent employees (who may be low-income).
The regional income and minority make-up of the work force is relevant to understanding how these groups
might be affected by the potential employment changes. The Metropolitan Council reported in Keeping the
Twin Cities Vital: Regional Strategies for Change in the Fully Developed Area. (February 1994) that the
diversified economy in the region had more jobs available in the core cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul and
their developed suburbs than residents of working age. The unemployment rate for the metropolitan area in
the last six quarters for which there is data ranged from a high of 3.6 percent in the first quarter of 1994 and
2.7 percent for the last quarter of 1994. During the second quarter of 1995, the unemployment rate for the
metropolitan region was 2.9 percent. Job growth in the region has continued at a steady pace, with
approximately 1.2 million jobs in 1985, approximately 1.3 million in 1988 and approximately 1.4 million in
1992. During the decade prior to 1992, the -greatest proportion of net job growth was in service occupations
(in contrast to manufacturing occupations).
However, it was reported that unemployment rates were markedly higher for minorities, particularly among
those living in the core cities. In 1992, the region's unemployment rate was 4.1 percent for whites and 12
percent for all others.
In addition, it was reported that working people accounted for 44 percent of the low income working age
population. Four percent of whites who were working earned incomes below the poverty level and 12.6
percent of minorities who were working earned incomes below the poverty level.
SA MSP Alternative
Environmental Justice Impacts -- Residential Displacement
MSP 2020 Concept Plan
The APE is those jurisdictions where households will be displaced by the 2020 Concept Plan -- the cities of
Bloomington, Minneapolis and Richfield. The discussion of these households is in Section V.T.2.
The distribution of displaced low-income households in the APE is given in Table S-1.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-98
Table S-1 - Residential Displacement — Distribution of Low -Income Households - MSP 2020 Concept
Plan)
- -
- -Low-Income
% Low Income -
% Low Income
Household annual income
Households in
Households in
Households in
Affected Block
Affected Block
Affected
Groups
Groups
Jurisdictions
Below $10,000
99
1 406
15%
Below $15,000
234
1 9%
24%
Notes: There are 210,626 total households in the affected jurisdictions; 31,547 have annual incomes below
$10,000 and 51,535 have annual incomes below $15,000. There are 2,520 total households in block groups
affected by the displacement.
Source: 1990 U.S. Census; HNTB Analysis
The distribution of displaced minority households in the APE is given in Table S-2.
Table S-2 - Residential Displacement — Distribution of Minority Households - MSP 2020 Concept Plan
The MSP 2020 Concept Plan would not disproportionately displace low-income and minority households. As
indicated in Tables S-1 and S-2 above, the proportion of low-income and minority people in the affected block
groups is lower than in the affected jurisdictions as a whole.
MSP 2010 LTCP
The APE is those jurisdictions where households will be displaced by the MSP LTCP -- the cities of
Bloomington and Richfield. The discussion of these households is in Section V.T.2.
The distribution of displaced low-income households in the APE is given in Table S-3.
Table S-3 - Residential Displacement — Distribution of Low -Income Households - MSP 2010 LTCP
Low -Income
% Minority
% Minority
Household annual income
Minority Households
Households in
Households in
in Affected Block
Affected Block
Affected
Groups
Groups
Jurisdictions
Mino ity Households
100
4%
13%
Notes: There are 210,626 total households in the affected jurisdictions; 26,549 are minority. There are 2,520
total households in block groups affected by the displacement.
Source: 1990 U.S. Census; HNTB Analysis
The MSP 2020 Concept Plan would not disproportionately displace low-income and minority households. As
indicated in Tables S-1 and S-2 above, the proportion of low-income and minority people in the affected block
groups is lower than in the affected jurisdictions as a whole.
MSP 2010 LTCP
The APE is those jurisdictions where households will be displaced by the MSP LTCP -- the cities of
Bloomington and Richfield. The discussion of these households is in Section V.T.2.
The distribution of displaced low-income households in the APE is given in Table S-3.
Table S-3 - Residential Displacement — Distribution of Low -Income Households - MSP 2010 LTCP
The distribution of displaced minority households in the APE is given in Table S-4.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-99
Low -Income
% Low Income
% Low Income
Household annual income
Households in
Households in
Households in
Affected Block
Affected Block
Affected
Groups
Groups
Jurisdictions
Below $10,000
27
2%
4%
Below $15,000
170
14%
12%
Notes: There are 50,582 total households in the affected jurisdictions; 2,115 have annual incomes below $10,000
and 5,965 have annual incomes below $15,000. There are 1,263 total households in block groups affected by
the displacement.
Source: 1990 U.S. Census; HNTB Analysis
The distribution of displaced minority households in the APE is given in Table S-4.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-99
Table S-4 - Residential Displacement -- Distribution of Minority Households - MSP 2010 LTCP .
• The 2010 LTCP would not have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on displaced low
income and minority households.
Environmental Justice Impacts -- Employee Displacement
The APE is those jurisdictions where businesses will be displaced — the cities of Minneapolis, Richfield and
Bloomington.
As previously described, impacts to business relocation include: (1) potential loss of jobs due to elimination,
consolidation, or relocation of businesses and (2) potential difficulty reaching jobs relocated to remote
locations for public -transit dependent employees (who may be low-income).
In reviewing the list of businesses which would be displaced (Section V.T.1.2), it appears that a full range of
pay scales are affected. However, many of the jobs in these businesses, such as hotel, gas station, and
freight forwarding firms are low wage and may be held by individuals who are part of low-income households.
The proportion of low-wage jobs and low-income employees cannot be confirmed by available data. Many of
these businesses and related jobs are expected to relocate. In addition, many of these businesses are
airport -related and can be expected to relocate near the airport. If predominantly low-wage businesses close
entirely or relocate outside the region, low-income employees may be disproportionately impacted. Low-
income employees in low-wage jobs may be forced to seek new employment. Given the low unemployment
in the region, discussed above, it is anticipated that replacement low-wage employment would be available.
In addition, airport development is likely to stimulate growth in the service sector and related low-wage jobs.
There is no reason based on available information to expect minority employees to be disproportionately
impacted.
Public transit -dependent employees (low income or minority) are unlikely to be adversely impacted by the
MSP Alternative. Again, because many of the businesses to be displaced are airport -related, they are likely to
relocate near the airport. As such, they should continue to be served by public transit as they are now.
Environmental Justice Impacts -- DNL 65+ Noise Levels
The APE is the jurisdictions affected by the projected DNL 65+ contours of the MSP Alternative (2020
Concept Plan and 2010 LTCP) -- the cities of Minneapolis, Mendota, Bloomington, Richfield and Eagan.
The distribution of affected low-income households in the APE is given in Table S-5 and is the same for the
2020 Concept Plan and 2010 LTCP since the maximum noise levels would occur in 2005.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-100
% Minority
% Minority
Minority Households
Households in
Households in
in Affected Block
Affected Block
Affected
Groups
Groups
Jurisdictions
Minority Households
60
5%
4%
Notes: There are 50,582 total households in the affected jurisdictions; 2,063 are minority. There are 1,263
total households in block groups affected by the displacement.
Source: 1990 U.S. Census; HNTB Analysis
• The 2010 LTCP would not have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on displaced low
income and minority households.
Environmental Justice Impacts -- Employee Displacement
The APE is those jurisdictions where businesses will be displaced — the cities of Minneapolis, Richfield and
Bloomington.
As previously described, impacts to business relocation include: (1) potential loss of jobs due to elimination,
consolidation, or relocation of businesses and (2) potential difficulty reaching jobs relocated to remote
locations for public -transit dependent employees (who may be low-income).
In reviewing the list of businesses which would be displaced (Section V.T.1.2), it appears that a full range of
pay scales are affected. However, many of the jobs in these businesses, such as hotel, gas station, and
freight forwarding firms are low wage and may be held by individuals who are part of low-income households.
The proportion of low-wage jobs and low-income employees cannot be confirmed by available data. Many of
these businesses and related jobs are expected to relocate. In addition, many of these businesses are
airport -related and can be expected to relocate near the airport. If predominantly low-wage businesses close
entirely or relocate outside the region, low-income employees may be disproportionately impacted. Low-
income employees in low-wage jobs may be forced to seek new employment. Given the low unemployment
in the region, discussed above, it is anticipated that replacement low-wage employment would be available.
In addition, airport development is likely to stimulate growth in the service sector and related low-wage jobs.
There is no reason based on available information to expect minority employees to be disproportionately
impacted.
Public transit -dependent employees (low income or minority) are unlikely to be adversely impacted by the
MSP Alternative. Again, because many of the businesses to be displaced are airport -related, they are likely to
relocate near the airport. As such, they should continue to be served by public transit as they are now.
Environmental Justice Impacts -- DNL 65+ Noise Levels
The APE is the jurisdictions affected by the projected DNL 65+ contours of the MSP Alternative (2020
Concept Plan and 2010 LTCP) -- the cities of Minneapolis, Mendota, Bloomington, Richfield and Eagan.
The distribution of affected low-income households in the APE is given in Table S-5 and is the same for the
2020 Concept Plan and 2010 LTCP since the maximum noise levels would occur in 2005.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-100
Table S-5 - Distribution of Low -Income Households - MSP Alternative
The distribution of affected minority households in the projected DNL 65 and greater contours of the MSP
Alternative is detailed in Table S-6.
Table S-6 - Distribution of Minority Households - MSP Alternative
Low -Income
% Low Income
% Low Income
--Household-Annual -
Households in-Block-----Households-in-Block
in Block Groups
Households in --
Income
Income
Groups Affected by
Groups Affected by
Jurisdictions Affected
Minority Households
DNL 65+
DNL 65+
by DNL 65+
Below $10,000
495
14%
1 15%
Below $15,000
986
28%
1 24%
Notes: There are 231,450 total households in the affected jurisdictions; 33,997 have annual incomes below $10,000 and 54,590 have
annual incomes below $15,000. There are 3,560 total households in block groups affected by DNL 65 and above.
Source: 1990 U.S. Census; HNTB Analysis
The distribution of affected minority households in the projected DNL 65 and greater contours of the MSP
Alternative is detailed in Table S-6.
Table S-6 - Distribution of Minority Households - MSP Alternative
As indicated in Tables S-5 and S-6, the proportions of minority households and households with income less
than $15,000 in the block groups affected by noise levels from the MSP 2020 Concept Plan and MSP 2010
LTCP are higher than in the affected jurisdictions as a whole. However, the effect would not be an adverse
impact, because the percents of affected low income and minority households for the MSP 2020 Concept
Plan and MSP 2010 LTCP are less than or equal to those for the No Action Alternative (see Table S-12). The
MSP Alternative and MSP 2010 LTCP would therefore not have a disproportionate effect on low-income or
minority households, when compared with the No Action Alternative.
S.2 No Action Alternative
Environmental Justice Impacts -- Residential and Employee Displacement
No businesses would be displaced by the No Action Alternative. The APE for displaced residents is the city
of Bloomington.
Table S-7 - Residential Displacement — Distribution of Low -Income Households - No Action
Alternative
Minority Households
% Minority Households
% Minority Households
Household annual income
in Block Groups
in Block Groups
in Jurisdictions Affected
Affected by DNL 65+
Affected by DNL 65+
by DNL 65+
Minority Households
514
14%
12%
Notes: There are 231,450 total households in the affected jurisdictions; 27,520 are minority. There are 3,560 total households in block
groups affected by DNL 65 and above.
Source: 1990 U.S. Census; HNTB Analysis
As indicated in Tables S-5 and S-6, the proportions of minority households and households with income less
than $15,000 in the block groups affected by noise levels from the MSP 2020 Concept Plan and MSP 2010
LTCP are higher than in the affected jurisdictions as a whole. However, the effect would not be an adverse
impact, because the percents of affected low income and minority households for the MSP 2020 Concept
Plan and MSP 2010 LTCP are less than or equal to those for the No Action Alternative (see Table S-12). The
MSP Alternative and MSP 2010 LTCP would therefore not have a disproportionate effect on low-income or
minority households, when compared with the No Action Alternative.
S.2 No Action Alternative
Environmental Justice Impacts -- Residential and Employee Displacement
No businesses would be displaced by the No Action Alternative. The APE for displaced residents is the city
of Bloomington.
Table S-7 - Residential Displacement — Distribution of Low -Income Households - No Action
Alternative
Dual Track Final EIS
V-101
Low -Income
% Low Income
% Low Income
Household annual income
Households in
Households in
Households in
Affected Block
Affected Block
Affected
Groups
Groups
Jurisdictions
Below $10,000
19
306
4%
Below $15,000
73
12%
9%
Notes: There are 34,315 total households in the affected jurisdiction; 1,382 have annual incomes below $10,000
and 3,036 have annual incomes below $15,000. There are 595 total households in block groups affected by the
displacement.
Source: 1990 U.S. Census; HNTB Analysis
Dual Track Final EIS
V-101
Table S-8 - Residential Displacement — Distribution of Minority Households - No Action Alternative
The No Action Alternative would have a disproportionate effect on displaced minority households, as shown
in Table S-8.
Environmental Justice Impacts -- DNL 65+ Noise Levels
The APE is the jurisdictions affected by the projected DNL 65+ contours of the No Action Altemative -- the
cities of Minneapolis, Mendota, Bloomington, Richfield and Eagan.
The existing (1994) APE also includes the city of St. Paul. Environmental Justice conditions in the 1994 APE
is given in Tables S-9 and S-10. As indicated by the tables, there is a disproportionately high and adverse
effect on both low income and minority households with noise levels of DNL 65 or greater due to the existing
airport.
Table S-9 - Distribution of Low Income Households in 1994
Low Income
% Minority
% Minority
Household Annual
Minority Households
Households in
Households in
Income
in Affected Block
Affected Block
Affected
There are 338,681 total households in the affected jurisdictions; 41,210 are minority. There are 5,755
total households in block groups affected by DNL 65 and above.
Groups
Groups
Jurisdictions
Minority Households
39
7
3%
Notes: There are 34,315 total households in the affected jurisdictions; 1,059 are minority. There are 595 total
households in block 2roups affected by the displacement.
Source: 1990 U.S. Census; HNTB Analysis
The No Action Alternative would have a disproportionate effect on displaced minority households, as shown
in Table S-8.
Environmental Justice Impacts -- DNL 65+ Noise Levels
The APE is the jurisdictions affected by the projected DNL 65+ contours of the No Action Altemative -- the
cities of Minneapolis, Mendota, Bloomington, Richfield and Eagan.
The existing (1994) APE also includes the city of St. Paul. Environmental Justice conditions in the 1994 APE
is given in Tables S-9 and S-10. As indicated by the tables, there is a disproportionately high and adverse
effect on both low income and minority households with noise levels of DNL 65 or greater due to the existing
airport.
Table S-9 - Distribution of Low Income Households in 1994
Table S-10 - Distribution of Minority Households in 1994
Low Income
% Low Income
% Low Income
Household Annual
Households in Block
Households in Block
Households in
Income
Groups Affected by
Groups Affected by
Jurisdictions Affected
There are 338,681 total households in the affected jurisdictions; 41,210 are minority. There are 5,755
total households in block groups affected by DNL 65 and above.
DNL 65+
DNL 65+
by DNL 65+
Below $10,000
817
14%
16%
Below $15,000
1669
29%
25%
There are 338,681 total households within the affected jurisdictions; 53,697 have annual incomes
below $10,000 and 84,862 have annual incomes below $15,000. There are 5755 households in
block groups affected by DNL 65 and above.
Source: 1990 Census Data; HNTB Analysis
Table S-10 - Distribution of Minority Households in 1994
The distribution of low-income households in the APE for the No Action Alternative is given in Table S-11.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-102
Minority Households in
Block Groups within
DNL 65+
% Minority Households
in Block Groups
Affected by DNL 65+
% Minority
Households within
Jurisdictions Affected
by DNL 65+
MinoritV Households
1271
22%
12%
There are 338,681 total households in the affected jurisdictions; 41,210 are minority. There are 5,755
total households in block groups affected by DNL 65 and above.
Source: 1990 Census Data; HNTB Analysis
The distribution of low-income households in the APE for the No Action Alternative is given in Table S-11.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-102
Table S-11 - Distribution of Low Income Households - No Action Alternative
The distribution of minority households in the APE for the No Action Alternative is detailed in Table S-12.
Table S-12 - Distribution of Minority Households - No Action Alternative
Low -Income
% Low Income
% Low Income
Household Annual
Households in Block
Households in Block
Households in
Income
Groups Affected by
Groups Affected by
Jurisdictions Affected
3%
DNL 65+
DNL 65+
by DNL 65+
Below $10,000
501
140o
14%
Below $15,000
1,024
28%
24%
Notes: There are 231,450 total households in the affected jurisdictions; 33,997 have annual incomes below $10,000 and 54,590
have annual incomes below $15,000. There are 3,672 households in block groups affected by DNL 65 and above.
Source: 1990 U.S. Census; HNTB Analysis
The distribution of minority households in the APE for the No Action Alternative is detailed in Table S-12.
Table S-12 - Distribution of Minority Households - No Action Alternative
As indicated in Tables S-11 and S-12, noise levels from the No Action Alternative would disproportionately
effect minority households and households with income less than $15,000 -- because the proportions of these
households in the affected block groups are higher than in the affected jurisdictions as a whole. However, the
effect would not be an adverse impact, because the percents of affected low income and minority households
for the No Action Alternative are less than those that currently exist.
S.3 Summary of Environmental Justice Impacts
Environmental Justice Impacts -- Residential Displacement
The impacts of the alternatives are presented in Table S-13.
Table S-13 Summary of Residential Displacement Environmental Justice Impacts
Household
Minority Households
% Minority Households in
% Minority
201OLTC
P
in Block Groups
Block Groups Affected by
Households in
No Action
Affected by DNL 65+
DNL 65+
Jurisdictions
3%
15%
4%
Affected by DNL 65+
MinontyHouseholds
544
15%
12%
(1) There are 231,450 total households in the affected jurisdictions; 27,520 are minority. There are 3,672 households in block groups
affected by DNL 65 and above.
Source: 1990 U.S. Census; HNTB Analysis
As indicated in Tables S-11 and S-12, noise levels from the No Action Alternative would disproportionately
effect minority households and households with income less than $15,000 -- because the proportions of these
households in the affected block groups are higher than in the affected jurisdictions as a whole. However, the
effect would not be an adverse impact, because the percents of affected low income and minority households
for the No Action Alternative are less than those that currently exist.
S.3 Summary of Environmental Justice Impacts
Environmental Justice Impacts -- Residential Displacement
The impacts of the alternatives are presented in Table S-13.
Table S-13 Summary of Residential Displacement Environmental Justice Impacts
Household
% Households in Affected Block
Groups
% Households in Affected
Jurisdictions
2020P1a
n
201OLTC
P
No Action
2020P1a
n
201OLT
CP
No Action
Income below $10,000
4%
2%
3%
15%
4%
4%
Income below $15,000
9%
13%
12%
24%
12%
9%
Minority
4%
5%
7%
14%
4%
3%
The MSP 2020 Concept Plan, 2010 LTCP would not have a significant high and adverse disproportionate
impact on low-income and minority households due to residential displacement when compared with the
No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative would have a disproportionate impact on displaced
minority households, as shown in Table S-13, although the percentages are not considered significant (7%
vs, 3%).
Dual Track Final EIS
V-103
Environmental Justice Impacts -- DNL 65+ Noise Levels
The impacts of the alternatives are presented in Table S-14.
Table S-14 Summary of Aircraft Noise Environmental Justice Impacts
Household
% Households in Affected Block
Groups
% Households in Affected
Jurisdictions
MSP No Action 1994 MSP/No Action 1994
Income below $10,000
14%
14%
14%
15%
16%
Income below $15,000
28%
28%
29%
24%
25%
Mihori
14%
15%
22%
12%
12%71
In 1994 there was a disproportionately high and adverse effect on low income (less than $15,000) and
minority households with noise levels of DNL 65 or greater from the existing airport The No Action
Alternative would not have a disproportionate effect on low income and minority households with noise levels
of DNL 65 or greater, when compared with the existing (1994) conditions. The MSP 2020 Concept Plan and
MSP 2010 LTCP would not have a disproportionate effect on low-income or minority households, when
compared with the No Action Alternative.
T. Social
Social impacts include the disruption of established entities, such as residences and businesses, as well as
patterns in a community.
The following impacts are addressed: displacement and relocation of residents and businesses; displaced
jobs; and changes to the use of established community institutions, such as schools and parks. This includes
an estimate of the numbers of residents and households directly impacted by each airport alternative, as well
as an estimate of those displaying such characteristics as: renter or homeowner, age (estimates of the
number of children and the elderly) and disability status. The provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance
and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (Uniform Act), approved by Congress in 1970 and subsequently
amended, would apply to all alternatives.
Social impacts due to changes in surface transportation patterns resulting from airport development will also
be addressed, in terms of access to local and regional opportunities and services (i.e., community business
and institutional centers) and emergency vehicle response time.
T.1 MSP Alternative
T.1.1 Affected Environment— MSP Alternative
The APE for social impacts for the MSP Alternative includes the following areas:
® The Runway Protection Zone and state Safety Zones A and B for the south end of the new north -south
runway would extend into the city of Bloomington;
• The residential neighborhood on both sides of 28th Avenue South, immediately south of Trunk Highway
62, in the city of Minneapolis; residential neighborhoods on both sides of TH 62 between a point easterly
of Portland Avenue, on the west, to a point easterly of 28th Avenue South, on the east, in the cities of
Minneapolis and Richfield; and the business and residential area along Cedar Avenue South, north and
south of 66th Street East in the city of Richfield, as shown in Figure T-1; and
Dual Track Final EIS
V-104
• Areas on MSP property itself where existing buildings house privately -owned businesses. Most are
located in the southwest corner of airport property and are accessed by the 24th Avenue ramp from 1-494.
There is also one business on 28th Avenue South, south of the Crosstown Highway.
Community Institutions
Two community institutions are in the APE of the MSP Alternative – Rich Acres Golf Course and recreation
complex and the Airport Medical Clinic. Both are located on airport property. Rich Acres Golf Course and
recreation complex is discussed in Sections R.1. and U.I. The clinic provides medical, dental and physical
therapy services to an average of 230 patients each weekday.
Community institutions on airport property and within the DNL 65+ noise contours are shown in Figure T-5.
They include seven parks and sports fields, five churches, two elementary schools, two fraternal
organizations, one doctor's office, and one cemetery.
New Ford Town and Rich Acres, two neighborhoods in the city of Richfield, are located south of Trunk
Highway 62 and east of Trunk Highway 77 and are surrounded by airport property. The Metropolitan Airports
Commission has acquired these properties as part of an approved noise mitigation project. The noise
mitigation project is unrelated to the development of the MSP Alternative. Residents of these neighborhoods
have been relocated.
T.1.2 Social Impacts — MSP Alternative
Displacement Impacts
Residents, businesses and jobs would be displaced by development of the MSP 2020 Concept Plan and
2010 LTCP, as follows:
• Under FAA guidelines, all structures in the RPZs for new runways, to the extent possible, should be
removed. This would require the removal of businesses southeast of the 1-494/Trunk Highway 77
interchange, in the city of Bloomington; these include hotels, service stations, offices and a VFW Post
shown in Figure T-3.
• The MSP 2020 Concept.Plan and 2010 LTCP would displace single family residences and multifamily
units in the city of Bloomington shown in Figure T-4, as part of the noise mitigation program.
• Development of the west terminal, southeast of the Trunk Highway 62/77 interchange, under the 2020
Concept Plan, would require the removal of residences on both sides of 28th Avenue South, in the city of
Minneapolis, and one privately -owned business on 28th Avenue South. This area is shown in Figure T-1.
• Construction of highway improvements for the 2020 Concept Plan, to serve the west terminal would
require removal of the following:
(1) residences on both sides of TH 62, between Portland Avenue and 28th Avenue south, in the
cities of Minneapolis and Richfield; and
(2) businesses and residences on Cedar Avenue South and adjacent streets, in the city of
Richfield.
• Construction of highway improvements for the 2010 LTCP, to serve the new airline cargo facilities east of
TH 77, would require removal of businesses and residences on Cedar Avenue South and adjacent
streets in the city of Richfield shown in Figure T-2.
• Construction of the north -south runway would remove on -airport businesses located in the southwest
corner of airport property, on 24th Avenue South immediately north 1-494.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-105
Displacement by the 2020 MSP Concept Plan:
Residential Displacement
The numbers of households which would be displaced by development of the 2020 MSP Alternative are
detailed in Table T-1.
Table T-1 - Households Displaced by the MSP 2020 Concept Plan
Households
Number
- in the RPZ
1
- because of runway construction
0
- because of terminal construction
32
- because of highway improvements
67
- because of noise mitigation
158
Total
258
Sources: 1990 U.S. Census; HNTB survey.
115
The estimated numbers of residents who would be displaced by development of the 2020 Concept Plan are
detailed in Table T-2.
Table T-2 - Residents Displaced by the MSP 2020 Concept Plan
Population
Number
- in the RPZ
3
- because of runway construction
0
- because of terminal construction
83
- because of highway improvements
153
- because of noise mitigation
370
Total
609
Children 18 and younger
115
Adults 65 and older
81
Disabled
0
Average persons/unit displaced
2.36
Sources: 1990 U.S. Census; HNTB survey.
The households and residents displaced by development of the 2020 Concept Plan include those
displaced by the 2010 LTCP.
Business Displacement
The numbers of businesses which would be displaced by development of the 2020 Concept Plan are detailed
in Table T-3.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-106
Table T-3 - Businesses Displaced by the MSP 2020 Concept Plan
Businesses Number
- in the RPZ 10
because"of runwa construction 49
- because of terminal construction 1
- because of highway improvements 22
Total 82
Businesses on airport property are housed in privately -owned
buildings; the land beneath those buildings is owned by the Metropolitan
Air orts Commission.
Sources: HNTB survey.
Employee Displacement
The estimated numbers of employees who would be displaced by development of the 2020 Concept Plan are
detailed in Table T-4.
Table T-4 - Employees Displaced by the MSP 2020 Concept Plan(')
Work Location
Number
- in the RPZ
1,369
- because of runway construction
1,441
- because of terminal construction
- because of highway improvements
86
Total
2,896
pure include both full time and part time employees.
Numbers of American Telephone and Telegraph employees based at a facility
on 28th Avenue South not released for security reasons.
Source: HNTB Survey
Employees at two government agencies, the Metropolitan Airports Commission and the Federal Aviation
Administration, would be relocated to new facilities on airport property. This includes 244 FAA employees
and 216 MAC employees. Employment at private businesses located in the existing Lindbergh Terminal
would be relocated to replacement businesses in the west terminal. In addition, the Naval Air Reserve facility,
which also houses a unit of the U.S. Marines, would be relocated from its present site near the air traffic
control tower to the northeast part of the airport, where other military installations are presently located. There
are 30 active -duty employees at this facility; this figure does not include weekend personnel.
The businesses and employees displaced by the 2020 Concept Plan include those displaced by the MSP
2010 LTCP.
Displacement by the MSP 2010 LTCP:
Residential Displacement
The numbers of households which would be displaced by development of the MSP 2010 LTCP are detailed in
Table T-5.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-107
Table T-5 - Households Displaced by the MSP 2010 LTCP
Households
Number
- in the RPZ
1
- because of runway construction
0
- because of highway improvements
7
- because of noise mitigation
158
Total
166
Sources: 1990 U.S. Census; HNTB survey.
EE]
The estimated numbers of residents who would be displaced by development of the MSP 2010 LTCP are
detailed in Table T-6.
Table T-6 - Residents Displaced by the MSP 2010 LTCP
Population
Number
- in the RPZ
3
- because of runway construction
0
- because of highway improvements
10
- because of noise mitigation
370
Total
383
Average persons/unit displaced
2.31
Sources: 1990 U.S. Census; HNTB survey.
Business Displacement
The numbers of businesses which would be displaced by development of the MSP Alternative are detailed in
Table T-7 and shown in Figure T-2.
Table T-7 - Businesses Displaced by the MSP 2010 LTCP
Businesses Number
- in the RPZ 10
- because of runway construction(l) 49
- because of highway improvements 14
Total 73
Businesses on airport property are housed in privately -owned buildings;
the land beneath those buildings is owned by the Metropolitan Airports
Commission.
Sources: HNTB survey.
Employee Displacement
The estimated numbers of employees who would be displaced by development of the MSP 2010 LTCP are
detailed in Table T-8.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-108
/^-- Table T -8 - Employees bvthe MSP 2818
Work Location
Number
- in the RPZ
1,369
- because of runway construction
1,441
- because of highway improvements
81
ota
2,89
�') Roes include both full time and part time employees.
$2,100,500
Source: HNTB Survey
67
Relocation Impacts
The Uniform Act provides for relocation assistance for residents and businesses, as well as actual moving
costs. Relocation payments are inaddition topayments for the purchase ofreal property.
Residential Relocation
The assessed valuations of housing units which would have to be relocated as o result of the K4GP 2020
Concept Plan and 2O1OLTC Pare detailed inTable T-9and Table T -1D.
Table T -$- Residential Relocation for the MSP 2020 Concept Plan
IReaidence located inahotel in the RPZ.
Table T-1 0 - Residential Relocation for the MSP 2010L[Cp
Number of
Households
Assessed
Valuation (1994)
-
In the RPZ
1
61
Because of runway construction
0
0
Because of terminal construction
32
$2,100,500
Because of highway improvements
67
$3,484,300
Because of noise mitigation
158
$5,347,100
Total
258
$10,931,900
IReaidence located inahotel in the RPZ.
Table T-1 0 - Residential Relocation for the MSP 2010L[Cp
1Rauidence located inahotel in the RPZ.
Business Relocation
The numbers of businesses that would have toberelocated oenresult of development of the 2020 Concept
Plan, including the total assessed valuations, are detailed inTable T- 1and Table l-12'
Dual Track Final EIS
Number of
Households
Assessed
Valuation (1994)
In the RPZ
1
01
Because of runway construction
0
0
Because of noise mitigation
158
$5,347,100
Total
166
$5,658,100
1Rauidence located inahotel in the RPZ.
Business Relocation
The numbers of businesses that would have toberelocated oenresult of development of the 2020 Concept
Plan, including the total assessed valuations, are detailed inTable T- 1and Table l-12'
Dual Track Final EIS
Table T-11 - Business Relocation for the MSP 2020 Concept Plan
Table T-12 - Business Relocation for the MSP 2010 LTCP
Number of
Businesses
Assessed Valuation
(1994$)
In the RPZ
10
$28,154,100 "
Because of highway improvements
22
$3,310,600
Because of runway and terminal
construction(')
50
NA
Total
82
$31,464;700
Businesses on airport property are housed in privately -owned buildings; assessed valuations for
these buildings are not available. However, these businesses are entitled to relocation assistance.
Source: Hennepin County Assessor
Table T-12 - Business Relocation for the MSP 2010 LTCP
Community Institutions
The Rich Acres Golf Course and recreational complex, the Airport Medical Clinic, and a VFW Post would be
displaced. /
There would be noise and visual impacts for community institutions within the DNL 65+ noise contours shown
in Figure T-5. Sections V.Q and V.Y discuss noise and visual impacts of the MSP Alternative.
Surface Transportation Patterns and Emergency Vehicle Response Time
Highway improvements proposed to serve the new west terminal would not disrupt existing traffic patterns for
residents.
Improvements at the intersection of 66th Street and TH 77 would continue to provide access between the
highway and neighborhoods in east Richfield. Existing frontage streets parallel to TH 62, including 62nd
Street West in Minneapolis and 62nd Street East in Richfield, would be moved approximately 20-30 feet when
TH 62 is widened. Neither street would be eliminated. Access would not be altered from existing conditions.
Access for emergency vehicles would not be hindered nor would emergency vehicle response time be
lengthened by proposed highway improvements.
T.1.3 Mitigation Measures — MSP Alternative
The proposed mitigation for residents and businesses displaced by development of the MSP Alternative is
relocation assistance provided by the Uniform Act. This includes assistance to re-establish a business
operation and to secure comparable replacement housing.
Housing for residents would not be readily available in the census tracts in which these people are now living,
according to data from the 1990 U.S. Census. More recent data is available in a quarterly survey of rental
housing throughout the urbanized areas of the metropolitan region, compiled by an Edina -based rental
placement company and dated October 1995. The survey reports that the metropolitan -wide rental vacancy {
rate in September 1995 was 2.4 percent; 3,230 rental dwelling units, out of 133,000 rental dwelling units
Dual Track Final EIS
V-110
Number of
Businesses
Assessed Valuation
(1994$)
In the RPZ
10
$28,154,100
Because of runway construction
49
0
Because of highway improvements
14
$1,792,000
Total
73
$29,946,100
Community Institutions
The Rich Acres Golf Course and recreational complex, the Airport Medical Clinic, and a VFW Post would be
displaced. /
There would be noise and visual impacts for community institutions within the DNL 65+ noise contours shown
in Figure T-5. Sections V.Q and V.Y discuss noise and visual impacts of the MSP Alternative.
Surface Transportation Patterns and Emergency Vehicle Response Time
Highway improvements proposed to serve the new west terminal would not disrupt existing traffic patterns for
residents.
Improvements at the intersection of 66th Street and TH 77 would continue to provide access between the
highway and neighborhoods in east Richfield. Existing frontage streets parallel to TH 62, including 62nd
Street West in Minneapolis and 62nd Street East in Richfield, would be moved approximately 20-30 feet when
TH 62 is widened. Neither street would be eliminated. Access would not be altered from existing conditions.
Access for emergency vehicles would not be hindered nor would emergency vehicle response time be
lengthened by proposed highway improvements.
T.1.3 Mitigation Measures — MSP Alternative
The proposed mitigation for residents and businesses displaced by development of the MSP Alternative is
relocation assistance provided by the Uniform Act. This includes assistance to re-establish a business
operation and to secure comparable replacement housing.
Housing for residents would not be readily available in the census tracts in which these people are now living,
according to data from the 1990 U.S. Census. More recent data is available in a quarterly survey of rental
housing throughout the urbanized areas of the metropolitan region, compiled by an Edina -based rental
placement company and dated October 1995. The survey reports that the metropolitan -wide rental vacancy {
rate in September 1995 was 2.4 percent; 3,230 rental dwelling units, out of 133,000 rental dwelling units
Dual Track Final EIS
V-110
ounxevad. were vacant. The average monthly rent on all units aunxaved was $639 for a two-bedroom
apartment. |nareas within the affected environment, the survey do there was a2.3percent vacancy nuba
in Richfield; 0.5 percent insouth Minneapolis; 1.Opercent in Bloomington. Elsewhere in Hennepin County,
the survey reports, vacancy rates range from 13 percent in Brooklyn Park and 7.1 percent in Brooklyn Center,
to-3.3'percent in Robbinedo|eand O.8percent in Maple Grove. --- - '- - -- ----
Housing for those living inowner-occupied units displaced bvairport development may be available within,
in close proximity, to the same census tracts, according to figures from the 1990 U.S. Census. Replacement
owner -occupied housing would be more readily available elsewhere in Hennepin County and in adjacent
suburbs in other counties in the metropolitan area. Owner -occupied dwelling units valued similarly to those
removed by the development of the MSP 2020 Concept Plan and 2010 LTCP could be found in
approximately 36 percent of the census tracts in Hennepin County, according to 1990 census figures.
The Uniform Act also for "housing of last neenrr in�the event comparable replacement housing
cannot besecured ndthe tinnethat the pro�otiascheduled boppooeed. Adecision toinitiate the "housing of
last neood. provisions of the Uniform Act would have to be done on u case-by-case bania, taking into
consideration the circumstances ofthe displaced resident and the status ofthe project. Possible measures
could indude, but are not limited to, replacement housing payments in oxoeno of those permitted by the
Uniform Act, rehabilitation uradditions hoexisting replacement housing and adirect loan with udehamsd
payment.
Some businesses within the RPZ for the north -south runway are somewhat dependent on their location near
MSP.. Relocation to other arena near the airpod would depand, kargek/, on the availability of land zoned for
commercial and industrial use on which to construct replacement buildings.
Businesses operating from buildings on MSP property may be relocated to newly -constructed buildings on
airport property, while others may have bzrelocate off the airport. Cargo facilities located along 2GthAvenue
South would be relocated on airport property. The freight forwarders located in industrial buildings along 24th
Avenue South would have to relocate off airpod property; securing new business sites would be related to the
availability of vacant industrial property or buildings near freeways elsewhere in the metropolitan region.
The medical clinic located at the south end of the pno 'ooed runway would be relocated off airport property;
relocation would depend on the availability of land to replicate the existing facility.
Large areas of land zoned for commercial and industrial use are found elsewhere in the region. Whether
specific properties are available to businesses displaced by airport development depends on market
conditions at that time. Hovwaver, airport development would present oiUea, particularly those in close
proximity hothe airport orthose with freeway access, with the rationale horedevelop incompatible land uses.
For low-income and minohty employees displaced from their jobs by airport development,possible mitigation
for impacts caused when buoineoaeo'oloeeorduring any gap of time while businesses are na|000Ung could
include unemployment payments and a program of direct assistance in locating replacement jobs. MAC and
the FAA will work with the appnophaba government agenoiea, such as the state Department of Economic
Security, hodetermine the preferred mitigation.
T.2 No Action Alternative
T.2.1 Affected Environment— No Action Alternative
The affected environment includes the areas within the DNL 65+ noise contour.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-1 11
Community Institutions
A medical clinic and a portion of Rich Acres Golf Course and recreation complex are located on airport
property. Rich Acres Golf Course is discussed in Sections T.1 and U.1. Community institutions within the
DNL 65+ noise contours include six parks and sports fields, six churches, two fraternal organizations, one
cemetery and two doctor's offices.
Community institutions on airport property and within the DNL 65+ noise contours are depicted on Figure T-6.
The APE includes New Ford Town and Rich Acres, two neighborhoods in the city of Richfield. Both are
located south of Trunk Highway 62 and east of Trunk Highway 77 and are surrounded by airport property.
MAC has acquired these properties as part of an approved noise mitigation project. The noise mitigation
project is unrelated to the development of the No Action Alternative. Residents of these neighborhoods have
been relocated. Interim uses of these properties are yet to be determined.
T.2.2 Social Impacts — No Action Alternative
The No Action Alternative would result in no displacement of businesses, but 76 households with about 156
residents are to be acquired as part of the 4-22 noise mitigation program. The social characteristics of the
affected residents are given in Table T-13. The homes are located in or adjacent to the DNL 65+ contour
(Figure 0-9), west of T.H. 77 and south of 1-494, in the city of Bloomington.
Table T-13 - Characteristics of Displaced Households - No Action Alternative
No community institutions would be displaced by the No Action Alternative. There would be continued noise
and visual impacts for residents and community institutions within the DNL 65+ noise contours. It is noted
that the 1994 DNL 65+ noise contours (Figure 0-1) are greater than the projected 2005 DNL 65+ noise
contours for the No Action Alternative (Figure Q-9). Sections V.Q and V.Y discuss noise and visual impacts
of the No Action Alternative. Table Q-11 in Section Q details the number of residents within the DNL 65+
noise contours for the No Action Alternative.
T.2.3 Mitigation Measures — No Action Alternative
For residents and community institutions within the DNL 65+ noise contours, there are a variety of noise
abatement measures that are potential mitigation for these impacts. They are discussed in Section Q.3.3 and
include, for example; changes to aircraft operations at MSP, including restrictions on certain activities during
nighttime hours and use of new, quieter aircraft.
T.3 Summary of Social Impacts
Displacement of businesses and residents.are unavoidable; however, it would be mitigated through relocation
assistance under the Uniform Act. Table T-13 compares the social impacts of the alternative.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-112
Number
Households
76
Residents
156
Children 18 and younger
33
Adults 65 and older
11
Average persons per unit
2.025
Assessed valuation 1994 $
$5,523,000
Source: 1990 Census, HNTB
No community institutions would be displaced by the No Action Alternative. There would be continued noise
and visual impacts for residents and community institutions within the DNL 65+ noise contours. It is noted
that the 1994 DNL 65+ noise contours (Figure 0-1) are greater than the projected 2005 DNL 65+ noise
contours for the No Action Alternative (Figure Q-9). Sections V.Q and V.Y discuss noise and visual impacts
of the No Action Alternative. Table Q-11 in Section Q details the number of residents within the DNL 65+
noise contours for the No Action Alternative.
T.2.3 Mitigation Measures — No Action Alternative
For residents and community institutions within the DNL 65+ noise contours, there are a variety of noise
abatement measures that are potential mitigation for these impacts. They are discussed in Section Q.3.3 and
include, for example; changes to aircraft operations at MSP, including restrictions on certain activities during
nighttime hours and use of new, quieter aircraft.
T.3 Summary of Social Impacts
Displacement of businesses and residents.are unavoidable; however, it would be mitigated through relocation
assistance under the Uniform Act. Table T-13 compares the social impacts of the alternative.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-112
Table T-14 - Summary of Social Impacts
Section 4(f)
This part of the FEIGconsiders the impacts of the airport expansion oncertain resources eligible for review
�
under Section 4,/ 8 of the 1966Department ofTransportation Act. Section 4(f)states that the Secretary of the
U.S. Department cfTransportation may not approve a projectwhioh requires the use ofany publicly owned
land from a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, state, or local significance
unless there are no feasible and prudent alternatives to the use of such land and unless the projectino|udeu
all possible planning tnminimize harm resulting from the use.
Public use lands include owned parka recreation areas, wildlife and waterfowl Refuges of national,
state and local significance, and publicly and privately owned historic sites of national, state and local
significance. Privately owned parks, recreation areas, and wildlife refuges are not subject boSection 4/0. The
determination of significance must consider the entire property and not simply the portion of the property
being used for the proposed project.
This �ooumma�o���Ge�o 40 nqued foheMSP Aemaveadfor heNo
.. `'--_—_-__
-
Action Alternative. The FAA has published aSection 4(t) Evaluation, oseparate document that focuses on
the Section 4A0 issues ounnnmhzad below. The Section 4(0 Evaluation is bong made available for public
review and comment concurrently with this FE|G. |nparticular, bincludes more detailed information about the
FAA's determinations concerning the Minnesota Valley Nsdiuno| Wildlife Refuge (yWVNVVR or Refuge), for
which the FAA reached site-specific conclusions based on noise analyses and federal criteria used to
determine significance.
The Section 4(9Evaluation demonstrates why the proposed expansion ofMSP will resulthn the following uses
of Section 4(f) resources: (1) demolition of the Original Wold -Chamberlain Terminal Historic District, located
within the Airporf s boundary; (2) constructive use9 of the Spruce Shadows Farm Historic District; and (3)
constructive use of some of the environmental education and wildlife recreation activity areas of the MVNWR.
The FAA has carefully analyzed the project's environmental impacts and has consulted with the parties
having jurisdiction over the affected Section 4(f) resources to determine that there are no feasible and prudent
alternatives to the proposed action and to determine the appropriate mitigations. Various analyses,
conclusions, and data which are relevant to Section 4(o resources, are also discussed in Section III of this
FEIS (Alternatives) and in the following environmental impact subsections: Archaeological (Section B);
Historiclarchitectural (Section M); Parks and recreation areas (Section R); and, Wildlife Refuges (Section FF).
Similar information is also found within the Section 4(9 Evaluation document. In addition, the environmental
impact discussions found in Sections C (Biotic Communities), D (Bird Aircraft Hazards); H (Endangered and
Threatened Species); and DD (Wetlands) include detailed information about impacts to wildlife and plant
species at the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge.
8 I codified in 49 U.S.C, Section 303.
However, the regulation is more commonly known as "Section 4�O."
"A"cunotrucUvn / uue~~.~^~^. when effects, h as noise, affect the normal
activity or aesthetic value of an
eligible mough�there may be no direct physical effect involving construction mtransportation facilities. The
–
project's Section vmEvaluation, published separately, includes more information about constructive use.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-113
MSP Alternative
No Action
Alternative
Population Displaced
609 383
156
ouseholds Displaced
258 166
76 1
Businesses Displaced
82 73
0
Employees Displaced
2,896 2,891
0
Section 4(f)
This part of the FEIGconsiders the impacts of the airport expansion oncertain resources eligible for review
�
under Section 4,/ 8 of the 1966Department ofTransportation Act. Section 4(f)states that the Secretary of the
U.S. Department cfTransportation may not approve a projectwhioh requires the use ofany publicly owned
land from a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, state, or local significance
unless there are no feasible and prudent alternatives to the use of such land and unless the projectino|udeu
all possible planning tnminimize harm resulting from the use.
Public use lands include owned parka recreation areas, wildlife and waterfowl Refuges of national,
state and local significance, and publicly and privately owned historic sites of national, state and local
significance. Privately owned parks, recreation areas, and wildlife refuges are not subject boSection 4/0. The
determination of significance must consider the entire property and not simply the portion of the property
being used for the proposed project.
This �ooumma�o���Ge�o 40 nqued foheMSP Aemaveadfor heNo
.. `'--_—_-__
-
Action Alternative. The FAA has published aSection 4(t) Evaluation, oseparate document that focuses on
the Section 4A0 issues ounnnmhzad below. The Section 4(0 Evaluation is bong made available for public
review and comment concurrently with this FE|G. |nparticular, bincludes more detailed information about the
FAA's determinations concerning the Minnesota Valley Nsdiuno| Wildlife Refuge (yWVNVVR or Refuge), for
which the FAA reached site-specific conclusions based on noise analyses and federal criteria used to
determine significance.
The Section 4(9Evaluation demonstrates why the proposed expansion ofMSP will resulthn the following uses
of Section 4(f) resources: (1) demolition of the Original Wold -Chamberlain Terminal Historic District, located
within the Airporf s boundary; (2) constructive use9 of the Spruce Shadows Farm Historic District; and (3)
constructive use of some of the environmental education and wildlife recreation activity areas of the MVNWR.
The FAA has carefully analyzed the project's environmental impacts and has consulted with the parties
having jurisdiction over the affected Section 4(f) resources to determine that there are no feasible and prudent
alternatives to the proposed action and to determine the appropriate mitigations. Various analyses,
conclusions, and data which are relevant to Section 4(o resources, are also discussed in Section III of this
FEIS (Alternatives) and in the following environmental impact subsections: Archaeological (Section B);
Historiclarchitectural (Section M); Parks and recreation areas (Section R); and, Wildlife Refuges (Section FF).
Similar information is also found within the Section 4(9 Evaluation document. In addition, the environmental
impact discussions found in Sections C (Biotic Communities), D (Bird Aircraft Hazards); H (Endangered and
Threatened Species); and DD (Wetlands) include detailed information about impacts to wildlife and plant
species at the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge.
8 I codified in 49 U.S.C, Section 303.
However, the regulation is more commonly known as "Section 4�O."
"A"cunotrucUvn / uue~~.~^~^. when effects, h as noise, affect the normal
activity or aesthetic value of an
eligible mough�there may be no direct physical effect involving construction mtransportation facilities. The
–
project's Section vmEvaluation, published separately, includes more information about constructive use.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-113
Where relevant in considering the uses of the resources protected under Section 4(f), the FAA considers FAR
Part 150, "Land Use Compatibility Criteria," included in Table A.3-2 in Appendix A.3 of this FEIS (Noise
Metrics) to determine whether noise impacts are significant under the NEPA or constitute a constructive use
under Section 4(f).
The FAA also relies upon case law and comparable standards and guidance in Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) 4(f) regulations. According to FHWA regulations, a constructive use occurs when
noise levels "substantially impair" public use. The substantial impairment threshold for constructive use has
been established through a number of court cases, including Adler v. Lewis, 675 F.2d 1085 (9' Circuit, 1982)
and is described as follows within U.S. DOT regulations published by the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA)—Federa/Register, April 1, 1991:
"Substantial impairment would occur only when the protected activities, features or attributes of the
resource are substantially diminished." 10
Regarding noise impacts, these regulations state that there is no constructive use when the increase in noise
due the proposed action is "barely perceptible (3 dBA or less)," even when the post -project noise levels
exceed the agency's noise abatement action levels. Further, the FHWA has held that no substantial
impairment would occur where there will be a perceptible increase in projected noise levels due to the
proposed action, but the post -project levels do not exceed noise abatement criteria.
U.1 MSP Alternative
U.1.1 Affected Environment—MSP Alternative
The APE for Section 4(f) impacts is defined by the APEs for relevant types of Section 4(f) properties as
defined in subsections B, M, R, and FF. Potential Section 4(0 properties within the affected environment for
the MSP Alternative include:
Archaeological: There are no archaeological sites subject to Section 4(f) review within the APE.
Historiclarchitectural: The buildings of the Original Wold -Chamberlain Terminal Historic District are located on
MSP property. The historic district is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and is subject to
Section 4(f) review. The site of the historic district is the location of the new west terminal included in the MSP
Alternative's 2020 Concept Plan.
Off airport property, there are six historic districts or properties that are potentially subject to Section 4(f)
review. The Old Fort Snelling Historic District and the Fort Snelling National Historic Landmark District are
listed in the National Register. The Nokomis Knoll Residential Historic District, Spruce Shadows Farm
Historic District, the Fort Snelling National Cemetery and the Soo Line Corridor are eligible for inclusion in the
National Register.
The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) has responsibility for reviewing projects that impact historic
properties if federal funds or licensing is involved. Correspondence regarding FAA/MAC consultation with
SHPO is found in Appendix A.2 and the SHPO's comments on the DEIS are included in Appendix 1.
Parks and recreation areas: There are seven park and recreation properties within the APE that are subject to
Section 4(f) review: Fort Snelling State Park, under the jurisdiction of the state of Minnesota; Bossen Field,
Lake Nokomis, Diamond Lake Park and Todd Park, all under the jurisdiction of the Minneapolis Park Board;
10 23 CFR 771.135(p)(2), 56 Federal Register 13273.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-114
Taft Park, under the jurisdiction of the city of Richfield;' 1 and River Ridge Playground, under the jurisdiction of
the city of Bloomington.
Rich Acres Golf Course and recreation complex is a recreation area that would be removed for development
of -the --MSP Alternative. --However, Rich Acres- is -not -subject to -Section 4(f) -review -because -the -,property --is
owned by the MAC and has been leased to the City of Richfield until such time as it is needed for airport use.
The lease states that the "Commission at any time during the lease term or renewal term shall have the right
to retake possession of all or portions of the premises ... for airport purposes based upon a real and present
need for use of such land by Commission for aeronautical or other purposes directly relating to the
development and use of the airport... " FAA regulations state that "where property is owned by and currently
designated for use by a transportation agency, and a park or recreation use of the land is being made only on
an interim basis, a Section 4(f) determination would not ordinarily be required. The sponsor should indicate in
any lease or agreement involving such use that this use is temporary" (FAA Order 5050.4A, 47.e.(7)(a)3].
Since the recreation use of Rich Acres falls within the scope of the cited regulation, a Section 4(f)
determination for the property is not required.
Wildlife Refuges: Portions of the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge (MVNWR or Refuge), under the
jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Interior, are subject to Section 4(f) review.
U.1.2 Section 4(f) Impacts — MSP Alternative
Based upon the on- and off -airport actions comprising the 2010 LTCP and the 2020 Concept Plan —
including roadway improvements — the direct and indirect constructive use impacts on properties subject to
Section 4(f) review are as follows:
Archaeological: There are no known impacts because there are no known sites. However, it is recognized
that as -yet unknown artifacts could be unearthed during construction activities. This issue is addressed within
a Programmatic Agreement, discussed in the paragraph below and in the following subsection on Section 4(f)
mitigations.
Historic/Architectural: Under the 2020 Concept Plan, the buildings of the Original Wold -Chamberlain Terminal
Historic District would be demolished for construction of the west terminal. Construction of planned
improvements under the 2010 LTCP would not necessarily require that the entire District be demolished. But
planning for the MSP Alternative anticipates some near-term adverse effects on the District, including the
removal of hangars or other contributing elements to adequately improve airfield operations and aircraft
deicing procedures. During the preparation of this FEIS, the FAA and the MAC developed an interagency
Programmatic Agreement (PA) that establishes the appropriate procedures to be used during implementation
of the 2010 LTCP and beyond. The PA is presented in Appendix C of this FEIS; it is signed by the MAC, the
FAA, the SHPO and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACNP) , with the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, the Federal Highway Administration, the Minneapolis Heritage Preservation Commission, the
National Park Service -Mississippi National River and Recreation Area, Metropolitan Council and Minnesota
Department of Transportation as concurring parties.
Park and recreation areas: No parks and recreation areas subject to Section 4(f) review will be acquired for
development of the MSP Alternative. The potential Section 4(f) park and recreation areas within the APE do
not have activities incompatible with aircraft noise and, therefore, there would be no constructive use of
parklands.
11 A portion of Taft Park (the land north of a line extended east from 62nd Street) is on MAC -owned property and is
leased to Richfield based on the same terms as the Rich Acres Golf Course area, also discussed in this section. There
are currently no anticipated impacts to Taft Park as a result of the proposed action.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-115
One small o����� G������a�do�a������um��65n�u c��u�b���e portion of - '
the DNL 60 noise contour. This area (east of Trunk Highway 77 --or Cedar Avenue—and south of the [
Minnesota Rkuad primarily provides parking, which in turn provides recreational access toadjacent parts of
the park located outside ofthe ONLGOcontour. Aside from the parking, the area includes the Cedar Avenue
bicycle ramp, a trailhead, and the Jens A. Caspersen Boat Landing on the Minnesota River. The recreational
use characteristics in this part ofthe park are consistent with the FAR Part 150 land use category that
includes parks and "other active recreation areas" (see Appendix A.3' Table A.3-2). Such uses are
compatible with noise levels aehigh aaONL78-7G'
Therefore, the FAA concludes that the recreational use of this area is compatible with the MSP Alternative
based on the Part 150 guidelines and the specific nature ofpublic use—which includes boat launching,
picnicking, bkcycUng, and hiking. These activities are clearly compatible with the MSP Alternative because
only a small and highly developed portion of the State Park would be exposed to noise levels above DNL 60,
and noportion ofthe park would beexposed tonoise levels reaching ONLG5. Consequently, there would be
no impacts.
Wildlife Refucies: Implementation of the MSP Alternative does not require land acquisition or otherdirect
taking of facilities within the boundaries of the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge (MVNWR or
Refuge). However, an indirect taking or "constructive use" under Section 4(0 will occur since the proximity
effects from the proposed action will substantially impair public use ore'oymantofSecUon 4(D resources
within the MVNVVR.
The FAA and the MAC have participated in detailed consultations with the U.8.Fish and Wildlife Service
(USRWS) regarding the noise impacts to the MVNWR lands resulting from the MSP Alternative. Based on
those consultations and noise analysis, the F/V\--aa the federal agency naaponaKde for implementing
Section 4(f) regulations — has determined that the MSP Alternative would result in the constructive use of a
portion of the Refuge. This FAA determination is based on oewens| project -specific findings, which are
discussed further within the Section 4AOEvaluation, published separately from this FBS. The major findinga /
and conclusions include these: \`
�
Section 40 applies only within publicly -owned portions of the Refuge (i.e., lands within the MVNWR's
authorized boundary that are currently owned by federal, state, orlocal govemments).Private property
°
The constructive use finding public use impacts within the Refuge, and not on impacts
howildlife resources (see also the discussion inSection FF, Wildlife .
°
The noise impacts resulting from implementation of the MSP Alternative would substantially impair public
use within the publicly owned Refuge lands that experience a3dBAincrease in noise and are located
inside the 2005 DNL 60 contour; and the noise impact to that land area, and to public -use facilities within
that area, comprises aconstructive use under Section 4AD. n
bis the FAA's opiniontha constructive use occurs when noise levels due boafederal action "substantially
impair" public use. To evaluate noise impacts within the Refuge, the FAA has defined substantial impairment
based onsite-specific issues and data todetermine whether potential increases innoise are deminimus orif
the noise may substantially impair avisitor's use and enjoyment ofdleRefuge.
For this specific Refuge determination, the FAR Pad 150 land use A.3.
Table A-3-2)were used toestablish the first tier inthe Section 40impact assessment. Other aspects of the
Refuge determination were reached recognizing that the FAA is currently reexamining its criteria with respect
to aircraft overflights of national parks and wildlife refuges, which may derive their value and use from a
relatively quiet setting.
u
This FAA finding ofconstructive use is based onthe project -specific circumstances and analyses contained within the
Section 4(f)Evaluation, published separately from this FBS
Dual Track Final EIS
The effects of the MSP Alternative on public use within publicly owned areas of the MVNWR (i.e., the areas
that would be substantially impaired) would vary depending on a visitor's location within the Refuge and the
specific public use or activity. As explained further in the Section 4(f) Evaluation, the Bass Ponds area of the
Long Meadow Lake Unit would be adversely affected because of a clear pattern of public use for both guided
- - and -self -guided -public -education -and interpretive programs. The -Bass -Ponds -area -would -experience -the -
greatest noise impact within the Refuge. Other areas of the MVNWR, farther from the Bass Ponds, would be
exposed to less noise. Figure FF -3 (Appendix J) shows the noise contours within the Refuge anticipated as
a result of the MSP Alternative.
The increased noise levels near the Bass Ponds would impair the ability of the Bass Ponds area to support
environmental educational activities. Specifically, it would become more difficult for an instructor to
communicate with students during periods when aircraft are flying over the Bass Ponds. Therefore, the FAA
and the MAC agree with the USFWS that the proposed action constitutes a 'taking" of the Bass Ponds
environmental education area. The same determination also extends to outdoor facilities (i.e., site
improvements) necessary to and directly related to the Bass Ponds interpretive area, such as trails, parking,
and access roadways within the Refuge.
As noted previously, the FAA also applies site-specific analyses based on the circumstances and using other
noise impact criteria. For the MVNWR, the FAA considered:
• the work of the Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON)13 and research on the impact of
noise levels on communication;
• the MVNWR's development history and historical relationships to the urban environment; and
• a technical analysis of noise impacts in the Refuge, including existing ambient noise levels (see Appendix
A.12 of this FEIS).
Each of these items, which were considered in addition to the FHWA-established 3 dBA threshold for
perceptible noise increase, are discussed further within the Section 4(f) Evaluation, published separately.
Based on FAA and FHWA guidance, FICON recommendations, Refuge history, case law, Refuge ambient
noise levels, the types of public uses in the Refuge and consultations with the USFWS, the FAA has
determined that future noise impacts of the MSP Alternative for publicly owned Refuge parcels within the DNL
60+ area would constitute a Section 4(f) constructive use. The FAA found that noise resulting from operations
on the new runway would result in noise increases of 3 dBA or more within that area and would substantially
impair public use in the Refuge for outdoor activities involving environmental education, nature walks, bird
watching, and similar group and individual interests. 14 This impact would be especially pronounced within the
Bass Ponds area, where future noise levels would exceed DNL 70. Other areas, inside of the DNL 65 and
DNL 60 contours, are also included within the area of Section 4(f) constructive use due to: (1) noise levels
that would increase by levels of 3 dBA or more; (2) the public use of the Bass Ponds as an access point to
broader areas of the Refuge; and (3) established patterns of public use within these areas for wildlife
observation and environmental education, which derive some value from an existing level of ambient noise
that approximates normal urban residential conditions.
13 The FICON was composed of representatives from the FAA, U.S. EPA, Department of Defense, Department of
Housing and Urban Development, Department of Veteran Affairs, and the Council on Environmental Quality. In August
1992, the FICON issued a guidance report which concluded that, "the federal noise assessment process can and should
be improved." The FICON's recommended improvements were incorporated into a "normal process of periodically
reassessing present procedures and techniques to ensure that the most practical and realistic approaches are being used"
(see Summary of Recommendations, page 1-4; Federal Agency Review of Selected Airport Noise Analysis Issues; by the
FICON; August 1992).
14 Non -wildlife oriented recreation such as bicycling, cross-country skiing, and snowmobiling would not be significantly
affected by increased noise levels.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-117
BelowONL 60, the FAA concludes that the new runway would not substantially impair public use of theof the MSP
Refuge. In making this determination, the FAA emphasizes that it has considered the unique circumstances
/
airportexpansion and the public uses in the MVNWR' —_ other words, _this determination —
entirely and does not necessarily establish a precedent for other urbanized efmoa anaaa,
recreational parks and playgrounds, or for national parks that were established and derive their value from o
wilderness and relatively quiet setfing.
U�1.3 Mitigation Measures --MSP Alternative
The mitigation measures proposed to address the uses ofSection 4(f)resources are addressed within two
interagency agreements:
° The Programmatic Agreement (PA)for archaeological and historicallarchitectura\resources. By
July 28,1997, the PA had been signed by the FAA, the MAC, the Minnesota State Historic Preservation
Officer, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and other parties (see Appendix C).
° The Memorandum ofAgreement /&YOA)for the Refuge. A current draft of the preliminary yWDA is
attached tothis FE|S. The FAA and the MAC will continue consultations with the USFlNS eothat the
MOA can bofinalized and signed (see Appendix E).
The rest ofthis mitigation section summarizes the nnaaeuraa proposed within the historic resources PA and
the preliminary Refuge MOA. More information about the planned Refuge m0gaUonoana|sobafoundwithin
the Section 4/0Evaluation, published separately from this FBG.
Archaeological and historiclarchitectural: For the MSP Alternative, mitigation for the demolition
'��e��md
Wold -Chamberlain TerminalHistoric Oiothotksaddressed in the P&haethe discussion ofimpaot . obuvo.
and the complete PA, presented inAppendix Cofthis FB8). The majorelements ofthe mitigation program,
anagreed hointhe PA, are aafollows:
°
Document the Terminal Historic District according to the standards of the
Historic American Building Survey and obtain HA8Sconcurrence onthe documentation prior to
alteration of the District (the HABS documentation is to be archived in the Library of Congress)
" Ensure that the Smithsonian Institution and the Minnesota Historical can select elements m
objects from the Original Terminal Historic District for curotonand display
° Conduct supplemental study ofhistoric and architectural resources within the APE in2005.due to the
planned phasing ofconstruction
° Evaluate the cultural resource potential of any property added to the APE, which consists of land area
within the ONLGGcontour, the expanded airport boundaries, properties affected by roadways directly
serving the airport, properties acquired for wetland orother mitigation, and areas impacted due toairport-
induced aooiueoononnioand|anduoeefeots
° Prepare a comprehensive research design for future archaeological evaluation of those portions of the
APE that are not accessible edthis time because archaeological evidence may exist beneath built-up and
paved areas; notify the /CHPifadditional resources are found
° Conduct annual consultations with the parties involved inthe P&
• Determine and agree with the parties on oppvopheba mitigations if future ooUone result in as -yet
unforeseen impacts onhistoric resources
°
Consult with any member of the public if they have questions about this process
Dual Track Final EIS
V-118
The PA stipulations are designed, in part, to address the major phases of development for the MSP
Alternative (both the 2010 LTCP and the long-term 2020 Concept Plan).
Park and recreation areas: There are no impacts. No parks_ and _recreation areas subject to Section 4(f)
review will be acquired for development of the MSP Alternative. Under the FAA guidelines, activities at these
parks are considered compatible with aircraft noise; therefore, there would be no constructive use of these
parks.
Wildlife Refuges: The proposed Refuge mitigation plan is a financial settlement in exchange for aviation
easements over the affected Section 4(f) lands, sufficient to secure the airport's interest. The value of the
"taken" land interests will be determined in accordance with standard appraisal principles and practices,
reflecting the appraised fair market value of the airport's interest in the publicly -owned Refuge lands.
Based on the Section 4(0 impacts to the MVNWR (i.e., substantial impairment), the FAA has concluded that
the value of mitigation measures should be equal to the fair market value of:
• aviation easements of publicly -owned lands within the MSP Alternative's DNL 65 contour and inside the
MVNWR's authorized boundary;
• aviation easements of publicly -owned lands that are expected to experience a 3 dBA noise increase and
are between the DNL 60 and DNL 65 contours resulting of the proposed action; and
• the impact due to diminished value of the Visitor Center given its connectivity with the Bass Ponds area.
The FAA has also determined that certain other mitigation components, such as reasonable costs to plan the
mitigation, can be accepted for federal funding and will work with the MAC and the USFWS to further define
those components.
The FAA, the MAC, and the USFWS have agreed in principle that a financial settlement for the aviation
easements over the Refuge land is proper. The mitigation to be implemented will include compensation to
restore the functions of approximately 1,083 acres of public -use and publicly owned lands within the Refuge
that have substantial impairment. 15
It is anticipated that compensation to the UWFWS will be sufficient to provide the Refuge with replacement
land of equal habitat quality, plus the funding for replacement ponds, the restoration of hiking trails and trail
markers, informational kiosks, parking, water -management structures, and other site improvements impacted
by the proposed action—especially in regard to the Bass Ponds area due to the high level of noise impact.
With the conveyance of aviation easements, it will not be necessary for the MAC to take fee title to Refuge
lands, and the USFWS would still be able to manage the lands for wildlife production, conservation, and the
other uses that it deems appropriate.
Other mitigation elements and issues that are proposed by the MAC and to be negotiated further among the
FAA, the MAC, and the USFWS include:
15 For more information about the basis for this determination, see the Section 4(f) Evaluation, published separately from
this FEIS. This estimated land area is for current ownership only, based on a review of local government records and
parcel information on -file at the USFWS Regional Office. It does not include lands owned by Northern States Power
Company which are leased to the USFWS, nor does it include parcels owned by the Kelley family, for which monies to
acquire are now available through appropriation to the USFWS. For informational purposes, Figure FF -6 in Appendix J
shows a DNL 57 contour for the MSP Alternative. The DNL 57 contour was evaluated by the MAC as a potential noise
impact boundary for the Refuge. However, based upon further analysis of impacts and criteria, the lands between DNL 60
and DNL 57 were excluded from the Section 4(f) constructive use determination because potential noise increases are
expected to be de minimus and therefore would not substantially impair a visitor's use and enjoyment of the Refuge.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-119
® funds to cover the detailed planning/design work associated with a mitigation plan, to be based on an
agreed -to scope and cost estimate for the professional services;
® funds or other measures to provide the Refuge with an interpretive exhibit within the MSP airport terminal;
and
• procedures for administration of the mitigation program.
The negotiations over the above items are ongoing and can be addressed separately from this FEIS. The
currently proposed Refuge mitigation measures are also described further within the Section 4(f) Evaluation
and in a preliminary Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), presented in Appendix E of this FEIS.
U.2 No Action Alternative
The APE for the No Action Alternative differs from the MSP Alternative in that there would be no noise contour
from the new runway extending toward the south (see Figures M-2 and FF -4). This would eliminate any
potential for constructive use of the MVNWR or the Spruce Shadows Farm Historic District. Furthermore, the
No Action Alternative would not result in any on -airport impacts affecting the Original Wold Chamberlain
Terminal Historic District.
Additional review of the No Action Alternative entailed review of the other eligible Section 4(f) resources for
potential impacts as identified in Subsection U.1.1, above. However, this review indicated that none of the
eligible resources would need to be acquired; consequently there are no Section 4(f) impacts and no
mitigation would be required
U.3 Summary of Section 4(f) Impacts
The MSP Alternative requires demolition of the Original Wold -Chamberlain Terminal Historic District and the
constructive use of the Spruce Shadows Farm Historic District. Mitigation for this impact will consist of
documentation under the provisions of HABS and other measures as specified in the Programmatic
Agreement (PA), presented in Appendix C.
The MSP Alternative also involves a Section 4(f) constructive use of a portion of the MVNWR. Mitigation for
this impact includes the measures described in the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), presented in
Appendix E.
The No Action Alternative would not entail Section 4(f) impacts.
Table U-1 summarizes Section 4(f) impacts.
Table U-1 - Number of Section 4(f) Properties that will be
Subject to Use by Each Alternative
Dual Track Final EIS
V-120
MSP Alternative
No Action
Alternative
Archaeological resources
0
0
Historic/Architectural
resources
2
0
Park & Recreation Areas
0
0
Wildlife Refuges
1
0
Dual Track Final EIS
V-120
/-�
) V. Solid Waste Impacts
-�
Solid waste tobeconsidered isthe municipal solid waste (MSW) generated bvthe airport alternatives.
Solid waste impacts were determined during scoping as being not significantand therefore not requiring
detailed analysis in the EIS (see Scoping Decision, M/C, July 1995). The following is a summary ofthe
analysis performed during scoping.
U kVISP Alternative
V.1.11 AffectedEnvimonment—IVISP Alternative
The APE consists of the enUd waste management system which oenxsa Hennepin County and the
metropolitan area.
MSP is located within Hennepin County. According 0oHennepin County records, 750'000
tons of non -recycled mixed municipal solid waste (MSW) requiring processing/disposal were generated
within the County in 1994. The primary processing facilities used by Hennepin County are: a) the
Hennepin Energy Resource Company (HERC) waste -to -energy facility located in downtown Minneapolis,
and b) the Elk River Resource Recovery Facility (ERRRF) located outside of Elk River, MN. Hennepin
County also has waste capacity sharing agreements with neighboring counties, most notably with Ramsey
and Washington Counties (Newport refuse derived fuel facility). There is an extensive network of waste
haulers which currently service Hennepin County. These haulers have ready access to the airport facility
from Trunk Highways 5 and 62.
The (November, 1QQ2) presents estimates for
/ \
Hennepin County generation ofMSW through 2O10. These estimates were extrapolated 0u2O2Ousing the
\ '
rates ofincrease assumed bvHennepin County. The projected 2O2OHennepin County generation o[MSW
requiring processing/disposal (i.a'.non-naoyc|ed)ia805.00Otons.
V.1.2 Solid Waste Impacts --Q0SP Alternative
The MAC and MGP tenants currently programs inplace which target paper .
aluminum and other matahs, p|aotco, and g|uao. In 1994. the MAC commissioned o major study
(EonSouroe. November 1994) to e\ characterize the existing MSP waste stream and MAC waste
management ayatenn, and b\ provide recommendations to help the facility address the state goal for the
metropolitan area of recycling 45 percent ufthe waste stream by the and of 1906' A number of these
recommendations have been implemented to date, and enhancements to recycling efforts based upon the
10Q4study will continue onanon-going basis.
Information provided by the K8/C and by MSP tenants which have separate waste hauling
contracts, indicates that the current total annual generation ofsolid waste requiring processing/disposal at
the MSP facility is approximately 8.350 bmo. This translates to approximately 1.6 lbs. of eo|kj waste per
enp|anament in 1994. This unit generation rate was used to estimate the solid mmeba requiring
processing/disposal in 2020 for the MGP Alternative at 12.700 tons. This represents approximately 1.6
percent ofthe projected non -recycled K8GVV in Hennepin County. This is aoonoen/aUve (high) figure,
because it does not account for anticipated future gains in recycling at MSP. The expansion and continued
use of MSP under both the 2010 LT[|P and 2020 Concept Plan would not adversely impact the waste
management system within Hennepin County.
Dual Track Final EIS
Vc121
V.2 No Action Alternative
V.2.1 Affected Environment
The affected environment is the same nathat for the MSP Alternative.
V.2.2 Solid Waste Impacts --No Action Alternative
There would be less solid waste generated under the No Action Alternative than the MSP Alternative (fewer
enolanommnt ). The No Action Alternative will not have osignificant inlpaotonthevvaote management
system serving Hennepin County.
V.3 Summary of Solid Waste Impacts
There are nosignificant impacts.
W. Surface Transportation Access
This section describes the surface transportation improvements needed to provide access to MSP under the
No -Action and MSP Expansion Alternatives, including the role of transit and travel demand management
strategies. This section also describes the impact of the MSP and No Action Alternatives on travel times to
the airport and traffic volumes on principal roadways near MSP.
Several would be needed under the MSP Alternative. The needed roadway
improvements were identified byMn/D{JT, FHVVA.VWaDCT. K8&C' FAA, EQB' and the Metropolitan Council.
Representatives ofthese agencies formed acommittee onsurface transportation which metbetwee August '
1985 and March 1997. The Surface Transportation Committee evaluated many potential surface /
\
transportation improvements to determine ifthey were necessary to implement the MSP Alternative. The '
Committee's conclusions are presented in a aigned, inter -agency agreement known as the Consensus
Document. The Consensus Document is included in Appendix F of this FB8 and is summarized in this
section. A1S05Mn/DOT report, "Potential Effects ofTwin Cities Major AirpodA(bennativeoonthaKXinneonta
State Highway Svatem'"also describes the impact of yWGP expansion on the anaa`o surface transportation
network. (8trgar.Roscoe, and Fauaoh.August 1QQ5).
Modeling Process
The travel demand model was developed by the Metropolitan Council using data from the 1990
Travel Behavior Inventory and the 1QQOCensus. |tconsists cd1.1G5internal Transportation Analysis Zones
(TAZs) and 35 external stations. Socioeconomic data for current years and future year forecasts of
populadion, households and employment are aggregated hoTAZe for input into the model. The model
network was created by MrVDOT with assistance from the Council, and the transportation departments of the
counties and cities ofthe region. The modeling process iadescribed indetail inthe Draft EIS.
WA IVISP Alternative
W.1.1 Affected Environment— N&SPand No Build Alternatives
MSP's location is well served by several freeways including 1-494, TH5.TH 77, TH 55, and TH 62. The
offoobsd environment for surface transportation impacts are those roadways adjacent to MGP whose traffic
volumes would be affected by selection of the MSP Alternative orNo-Build Ahomcdiva. Figure W-1 shows
1992 traffic volumes for the airport area and its environs and also illustrates some of the roadways in the area.
The principal roads inthe area are:
Dual Track Final EIS
Roadway
Classification
Number of Lanes and Type of Facility
1-494
Principal Arterial
6 to 10, Urban Interstate
1-35W
Principal Arterial
4 to 6, Urban Interstate
TH 5
Principal Arterial
6 to 7, Urban Freeway
TH 77
Principal Arterial
4 to 6, Urban Freeway
TH 62
Principal Arterial
4, Urban Freeway
TH 55
Principal Arterial
4, Urban Arterial to Urban Freeway
Interstate 1-494 runs east -west along the southern boundary of MSP. The number of lanes range from six
lanes across the Minnesota River to ten lanes between 24th Avenue and 34th Avenue. West of TH 77 1-494
is eight lanes. TH 77 (Cedar Avenue) serves as MSP's western boundary. TH 77 is generally four lanes
wide, with an additional southbound lane being added just north of 1-494. South of 1-494, TH 77 consists of
four through lanes with additional auxiliary lanes to serve as access routes to the Mall of America and to the I-
494/TH 77 interchange. Crossing the Minnesota River, the roadway is six lanes wide. TH 62 (the Crosstown
Highway) is a four -lane facility that runs east -west along the northern boundary of the airport. TH 55 borders
MSP on the northeastern side and consists of four lanes. North of TH 62 it is an undivided urban arterial with
stoplights. From TH 62 east it is a divided facility. TH 5 is located on the eastern side of the airport, running
from St. Paul across the Mississippi River and through a tunnel under Fort Snelling and connects with 1-494.
Across the Mississippi River to TH 55 it is four lanes. From TH 55 to Post Road it is six lanes and from Post
Road to 1-494 it is seven lanes. The primary access to the Lindbergh Terminal (Glumack Drive) is from TH 5
between TH 55 and Post Road.
The regional highway system currently accesses the airport at several points. The primary access point is
Glumack Drive from TH 5 which serves the Lindbergh Terminal, several car rental agencies, the U.S. Post
Office, and Northwest Airlines maintenance facilities. A secondary access point to the airport is 34th Avenue
from I-494 which provides access to more Northwest Airline facilities, air cargo companies, the HHH
International Terminal and fixed base operators. This street also provides access to Fort Snelling National
Cemetery. Several other access points serve other airport -related businesses, the GSA Building, airport
facilities and several military bases.
Truck traffic accesses the airport at several locations, but primarily at 34th Avenue from 1-494 and also at 28th
Avenue from TH 62. The percent of truck traffic on these roads is 5 to 6 percent, or almost a thousand truck
trips a day. Over 75 percent of airport -related truck traffic is located on 34th Avenue.
The airport is served by transit and paratransit service (courtesy vehicles, limousines, limo service, buses and
taxis), which use the primary access point, Glumack Drive. The terminal is served by transit routes 4, 7, 15,
42B, 54, and 77. The Northwest Airlines facility located on Glumack Drive is served by transit routes 4, 7, 15,
and 42B. Two routes, the 42B and 77, serve the south side of the airport, running along Post Road, 70th
Street and 34th Avenue. Route 15 runs through the northwestern area of the airport, traveling along 66th
Street, Standish Avenue, 62nd Street, and 28th Avenue. Route 22 has a stop just south of TH 62 at 34th
Avenue. Routes 4, 7, 9, 15, and 77 serve the northeastern area, running along Minnehaha Avenue and
Bloomington Street. In total, all forms of transit accounted for about 5 percent of all trips to and from MSP in
1990. Public bus service, however, carried less than 1 percent of all person trips.
Travel time from the seven -county metropolitan region and two Wisconsin county seats, off-peak and peak is
shown in Table W-1.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-123
Table W-1 - 1990 Travel Time to Airport Main Terminal from County Seats
County Seat*
Minutes of Off -Peak
Travel
Minutes of PM Peak Hour
Travel
Anoka
42
45
Chaska
32
36
Hastings
31
31
Minneapolis
18
20
St. Paul
14
16
Shakopee
31
35
Stillwater
38
42
Hudson
34
36
Ellsworth
53
53
Average For Residents of
24
26
Average For Employees in
Seven -County Region
20
23
Travel time is from the centroid of the Transportation Analysis Zone containing the county
courthouse to airport main terminal.
Table W -D shows the regional population and employees within 15, 30. 45 and GO minutes of the Main
Terminal in 1990.
Dual Track Final EIS
Table W-2 - Regional Population and Employees within Airport Service Areas in 1990
Dual Track Final EIS
V-125
Percentage
Outside Metro Area
Percentage
Population
Travelshed
Metro Area
Increment
Total
Increment
Total
Employment
Increment
Total
Population
Off -Peak Hours
Within 15
492,643
21.5%
21.5%
0
0
353,766
27.4%
27.40/6
Minutes
15 -30
1,220,844
53.4%
74.9%
0
0
760,588
58.8%
86.2%
Minutes
30-45
495,229
21.6%
96.5%
34,800
34,800
166,635
12.9%
99.1%
Minutes
1
1
45-60
78,158
3.4%
99.9%
122,800
157,600
11,780
0.9%
100%
Minutes
Over 60
1,847
0.1%
100%
-
-
352
100%
Minutes
PM Peak Hour
Within 15
388,511
17.0
17.0%
0
0
259,469
20.1%
20.1%
Minutes
15-30
1,140,038
49.8
66.8%
0
0
748,188
57.8%
77.9%
Minutes
30-45
635,988
27.8
94.6%
23,800
23,800
258,086
20.0%
97.9%
Minutes
45-60
115,567
5.0
99.6%
92,100
115,900
26,136
2.0%
99.9%
Minutes
Over 60
8,617
0.4
100%
1,242
0.1%
100%
Minutes
Regional
2,288,721
1,293,1211
Total I
I
I
T
I
* Less than 0.1 %.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-125
W.1.2 MSP Alternative Surface Transportation Impacts
The proposed action, the implementation of the MSP 2010 LTCP, would not significantly affect traffic volumes
on principal arterials in the vicinity of MSP. The surface transportation improvements required to implement
the MSP 2010 LTCP are relatively minor (improvements to the TH 77/66th Street interchange and frontage
road on the west side of MSP) and would not affect the primary access to MSP (Glumack Drive).
Construction of a new terminal on the northwest side of MSP would require the improvement of several
roadways in the vicinity of MSP, including TH 62, TH 77, and 1-35W. On -airport access roads to the west
terminal would also have to be constructed. The surface transportation improvements required to implement
the 2010 LTCP and the west terminal are described in detail later in this section and also in Appendix F.
Traffic patterns in the vicinity of MSP would also be affected by construction of the west terminal. Figure W-2
and Table W- 3 show forecast year 2020 daily traffic, which illustrates the impact of the west terminal on traffic
volumes in the vicinity of MSP (compared with the No Action Alternative shown in Figure W-5). Figure 1 in
Appendix F also shows existing (1992) and forecasted future traffic volumes. Note the increase in traffic on
TH 62 under the MSP Alternative compared to the No Action Alternative and the corresponding decrease in
traffic volumes on TH 5.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-126
Table W-3 - Year 2020 Traffic Volume Changes Under the MSP Alternative
Roadway
Segment
1992 AADT
2020 No Action
Forecast AADT
2020 MSP
Alternative
Forecast AADT
Difference from
No -Action
1-35W
North of TH 62
162,000
208,000
215,000
+7,000
1-35W
TH 62 to 1-494
98,000
124,000
132,000
+8,000
1-35W
South of 1-494
107,000
133,000
134,000
+9000
1-494
West of 1-35W
161,000
204,000
197,000
-7,000
1-494
1-35W to Lyndale
142,000
176,000
164,000
-12,000
1-494
Lyndale to Portland
138,000
182,000
171,000
-11,000
1-494
Portland to TH 77
134,000
190,000
177,000
-13,000
1-494
TH 77 to 24
120,000
140,000
122,000
-18,000
1-494
24th to 34
121,000
149,000
131,000
-18,000
1-494
34th to TH 5
104,000
145,000
130,000
-15,000
1-494
Minnesota River Crossing
60,000
96,000
93,000
-3,000
TH 62
West of 1-35W
88,000
132,000
138,000
+6,000
TH 62
1-35W Commons
152,000
203,000
210,000
+7,000
TH 62
Portland to TH 77
81,000
98,000
116,000
+18,000
TH 62
28th to 34th
43,000
61,000
74,000
+13,000
TH 62
34th to TH 55
36,500
54,000
68,000
+14,000
TH 77
66th to 1-494
54,000
73,000
71,000
-2,000
TH 77
1-494 to Old Shakopee Rd
84,000
115,000
113,000
-2,000
TH 77
Minnesota River Crossing
76,000
115,000
114,000
-1,000
TH 55
North of TH 62
26,000
61,000
52,000
-9,000
TH 55
TH 62 to Bloomington Rd
45,000
81,000
82,000
+1,000
TH 55
Bloomington Rd to TH 5
45,000
99,000
98,000
-1,000
TH 55
Mississippi River Crossing
31,000
52,000
53,000
+1,000
TH 5
Shepard Rd to TH 55
48,000
86,000
84,000
-2,000
TH 5
TH 55 to Glumack Dr
51,000
83,000
48,000
-35,000
TH 5
Post Rd to 1-494
52,000
87,000
67,000
-20,000
AADT = Annual Average Daily Traffic
Travel time from the seven -county metropolitan region and two Wisconsin county seats is shown in Table W-
4. Existing travel times may be found in Section W.1.1.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-127
Table W-4 - Year 2020 Travel Time to Main Terminal from County Seats - MSP Alternative
Generally, the MSP Alternative results in a slight decrease in travel time for the residents and employees of
the seven -county metropolitan region compared to the No Action Alternative. On average, residents would
experience a decrease in their trip time of two minutes off-peak and one minute in the peak hour. On
average, employees would experience a decrease in their average trip time of one minute both in the peak
hour and off-peak, compared to the No Action Alternative (see Table W-7).
Table W-5 shows the regional population and employees within 15, 30, 45 and 60 minutes of the Main
Terminal. Figures W-3 and W-4 show the travel time contours for the year 2020.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-128
MSP Alternative
I
Difference from No
Action
County Seat*
Minutes of Off -Peak
Travel
Minutes of PM Peak
Hour Travel
Off -Peak
PM Peak
Anoka
35
41
-4
-6
Chaska
28
33
-2
0
Hastings
33
39
+2
+4
Minneapolis
13
15
-3
-6
St. Paul
16
20
+2
+4
Shakopee
26
30
0
-1
Stillwater
40
46
+2
+4
Hudson, WI
38
42
+4
+4
Ellsworth, WI
57
60
+3
+4
Average for Residents of
Seven -County Region
22
26
-2
-1
Average for Employees in
Seven -County Region
19
23
-1
-1
Generally, the MSP Alternative results in a slight decrease in travel time for the residents and employees of
the seven -county metropolitan region compared to the No Action Alternative. On average, residents would
experience a decrease in their trip time of two minutes off-peak and one minute in the peak hour. On
average, employees would experience a decrease in their average trip time of one minute both in the peak
hour and off-peak, compared to the No Action Alternative (see Table W-7).
Table W-5 shows the regional population and employees within 15, 30, 45 and 60 minutes of the Main
Terminal. Figures W-3 and W-4 show the travel time contours for the year 2020.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-128
Table W-5 - Year 2020 Regional Population, Households and Employees within Travelsheds
of IVISP Alternative
As illustrated by Table W-5, the west terminal would better serve the region than the existing terminal
location. Compared to the 1990 travel shed service pattern illustrated in Table W-2, the MSP Alternative
serves a greater portion of the region's residents and employees in each fifteen minute increment than it did in
1990, and none of the region's residents are situated more than an hour from the airport terminal in the off-
peak period of the day.
Inter -Region Connectivity
The MSP Alternative will have no impact on travel between the Twin Cities and outstate subregions or other
states.
Travel between the Twin Cities region and the outstate subregions and other states would not be influenced
significantly by the move of the terminal from the east to the west side of the airport. Traffic levels will be
generally similar throughout the region, except in the immediate area of the airport (TH 77, TH 62, TH 5). No
roads are proposed to be closed or realigned along new corridors by this alternative.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-129
Percentage _
_Outside Metro Area_
___
_P_ercentage __w
Population
Travelshed
Metro Area
Increment
Total
Increment
Total
Employmen
Increment
Total
Population
t
Off -Peak Hours
Within 15
691,293
23.4%
23.4%
0
0
614,001
37.3%
37.3%
Minutes
15 -30
1,679,926
56.7%
80.1%
2,750
2,750
890,888
54.0%
91.3%
Minutes
30-45
523,155
17.7%
97.8%
51,100
53,850
132,660
8.1%
99.4%
Minutes
45-60
65,396
2.2%
1000/0
127,000
190,850
9,292
0.6%
100%
Minutes
Over 60
0
0%
0%
0
0
0
Minutes
PM Peak Hour
Within 15
458,321
15.5%
15.5%
0
0
368,444
22.4%
22.41/6
Minutes
15-30 _
1,535,572
51.8%
67.3%
0
0
944,404
57.3%
79.7%
Minutes
30-45
803,909
27.2%
94.5%
0
0
298,704
18.1%
97.8%
Minutes
45-60
153,948
59%
99.7%
45,000
45,000
34,269
2.1%
99.9%
Minutes
Over 60
8,020
0.3%
100%
-
1,020
0.1%
100%
Minutes
Regional
2,959,770
1,646,841
Total
As illustrated by Table W-5, the west terminal would better serve the region than the existing terminal
location. Compared to the 1990 travel shed service pattern illustrated in Table W-2, the MSP Alternative
serves a greater portion of the region's residents and employees in each fifteen minute increment than it did in
1990, and none of the region's residents are situated more than an hour from the airport terminal in the off-
peak period of the day.
Inter -Region Connectivity
The MSP Alternative will have no impact on travel between the Twin Cities and outstate subregions or other
states.
Travel between the Twin Cities region and the outstate subregions and other states would not be influenced
significantly by the move of the terminal from the east to the west side of the airport. Traffic levels will be
generally similar throughout the region, except in the immediate area of the airport (TH 77, TH 62, TH 5). No
roads are proposed to be closed or realigned along new corridors by this alternative.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-129
Highway Capacity Improvements
Several on -airport and off -airport roadway improvement projects would be required to implement the MSP
Alternative. The MAC, FAA, Mn/DOT, FHWA, and Met Council have reached a consensus on which roadway
projects are required under the MSP Alternative and the preferred approach to implementing these projects.
As mentioned earlier in this section, the agreement between these agencies is presented in the Consensus
Document in Appendix F. The Consensus Document describes the necessary roadway projects and
presents the preferred approach for implementing the projects.
Two roadway improvement projects would be required to implement the 2010 LTCP:
Improving the frontage road on the south and west side of the airport between 34th
Avenue and 66th Street. Initial improvements include realignment in some locations, spot
widening, and turn lanes. The ultimate build -out of the frontage road includes eventual
realignment and widening of the frontage road to four lanes over its entire length.
Reconstructing the TH 77/66th Street interchange. A diamond interchange would replace
the existing interchange, increasing capacity and providing a connection to the realigned
frontage road.
If the Minnesota Legislature authorizes implementation of the west terminal, the development program would
require several capacity improvements, both on and off airport property. The Dual Track DEIS identified the
five road improvement projects necessary to accommodate the proposed new west terminal: two on -airport
projects and three off -airport projects. One of the off -airport roadway improvements, widening the 1-35W/TH
62 common section, is required without the proposed airport expansion. The five roadway projects needed to
implement the MSP Alternative are:
• West terminal circulation roadways. Access roadways from TH 62. TH 77, and TH
62/28th Avenue.
• Airport east side access improvements. Modify existing east access roads to serve new
functions.
• TH 62/TH 77 reconstruction. Widen and reconstruct TH 62 and TH 77 to provide terminal
access, including reconstruction of three interchanges at TH 77/TH 62, TH 77/66th Street,
and TH 62/28th Avenue. Also includes widening TH 77 to 6 lanes between 1-494 and 66th
Street.
• TH 62 between 1-35W and TH 77. Widen from 4 to 6 lanes.
• 1-35W/TH 62 common section. Reconstruct I-35W/TH 62 interchange, reconstruct the I -
35W and TH 62 common section for improved lane continuity, and widen 1-35W between TH
62 and 46th Street from six to eight lanes, including 2 HOV lanes. Reconstruct southbound I -
35W to eastbound TH 62 ramp to increase capacity. This project is currently scheduled for
completion in 2003. The impacts of this project are evaluated in a separate EIS prepared by
Mn/DOT.
See the discussion below and Appendix F for more detail on these projects.
Projects Needed to Implement the 2010 LTCP
As mentioned, the major components of the MSP 2010 LTCP are the new north -south runway and the
relocation of most air cargo facilities to the west side of MSP. Access to MSP will not be significantly
modified, therefore, the required improvements to the surface transportation system are relatively minor. As
mentioned above, two roadway improvement projects are required to implement the MSP 2010 LTCP.
This FEIS accounts for the impacts of both roadway improvement projects. Additional Mn/DOT actions and
approvals will be required to implement these projects, particularly the TH 77/66th Street interchange
reconstruction. Mn/DOT will take a lead role with adjacent communities, namely Richfield, in the next steps of
project development which include preparation of a Design Study Report, a Design Hearing to inform the
Dual Track Final EIS
V-130
{ \ public of the details and solicit input, and Design Approval. These activities will begin after
of the FEIS and Record of Decision and after a MAC-Mn/DOT cooperative agreement on
implementation ofthese two projects kafinalized (see balovW'
Frontage Road
The existing frontage road on the west and south sides of MSP includes parts of 24thAvenue South, East
75th Street, and Longfellow Avenue South. The improvement of the frontage road i;required for three
* Aportion ofthe existing frontage road on 24th Avenue north of1-4S must be
realigned to allow construction of the new north -south runway;
* the north end of the frontage road near 86th Street must be realigned to provide an efficient
connection bothe reconstructed TH77/6GthStreet interchange;
v the relocated air cargo and maintenance facilities will increase traffic volumes onthe frontage
road To adequately serve increased traffic volumes, spot improvements such aathe
addition of turn lanes and widening the roadway at certain locations and replacement of
some existing pavement will berequired.
Figure VV-9and Figure 2hn Appendix F0uetrate the proposed initial improvements to the frontage road.
Increased traffic may eventually require the reconstruction ofthe frontage road buofour-lane facility over its
entire length. |fTH77is widened to six lanes (see below) the frontage road would have toberealigned to the
euaL This would be an appropriate time to assess the need for a four -lane frontage road.
�
The to ��wo�n�mquimd� orde�o��n�
) "''p'",=== "`"'"`y= /vy//rv/-�ov
businesses orresidences. The existing frontage road lies nnMn/DOT and MAC hg If the frontage
road iarealigned tothe east, itwould lie completely onMAC-owned property.
Neither the initial nor the potential four -lane ultimate build -out would significantly affect the
natural environment. The cost ofthis project would ba$3.8million MQS5dollars) for the ultimate four -lane
build -nut. The cost ofthe initial improvements will bedetermined during the project deoignphaeeoethe
actual extent ofthe initial improvements are determined. The MAC will fund this project.
TH77/66thStreet Interchange
The reconstruction ofthe TH77/66thStreet would provide aneeded capacity increase to serve
airport -related traffic and provide access hoRichfield.
The interchange would bereconstructed toaconventional diamond interchange bvreconfiguring the existing
southbound entrance ramp and northbound exit ramp and constructing a new southbound exit ramp and
northbound entrance ramp (see Figure W-9 and Figure 2inAppendix H. The existing southbound exit from
TH77toOld Cedar Avenue cdEast G3rdStreet would beclosed, auwould the two existing northbound
entrances to TH 77 from East 63rd Street and the loop ramp south of 66th Street. Traffic onOld Cedar
Avenue, which parallels TH 77 on the west side of the interchange, would be diverted one block west to 18th
Avenue South inthe vicinity ofthe interchange.
Two possible alternatives will boevaluated for the reconstruction of the interchange. The two alternatives
have only minor differences, the most notable of which is the treatment of Old Cedar Avenue south of 66th
Street. The two design options are to cul-de-sac Old Cedar Avenue south of 66th Street or make Old Cedar
Avenue aone-way south frontage road between G8U\Street and G5thStreet. The impacts ofthe interchange
reconstruction would bethe same under both alternatives.
The proposed reconstruction ofthe TH77/66thStreet require the acquisition of4
residences (containing six residential units) and 15businesses. Fourteen ofthe relocated businesses are
Dual Track Final EIS
located on the east side of Old Cedar Avenue north of 66th Street. One business is located one block south
of 66th Street on Old Cedar Avenue. Approximately 3.5 acres of privately -owned property would be acquired
for the project (See Section T, Social, and Section S, Environmental Justice for more information). All
businesses, residences, and churches on the east side of TH 77 are being relocated from the interchange
under MAC's existing noise mitigation program.
Reconstruction of the interchange and diversion of traffic from Old Cedar Avenue to 18th Avenue South is
consistent with the City of Richfield's development plan for the area. The plan calls for the development of
18th Avenue as a main north -south route in the vicinity of the interchange and emphasizes a transition toward
more commercial development.
Neither interchange reconstruction alternative would affect the natural environment. The cost of the
interchange reconstruction is estimated to be $6.7 million (1995 dollars). This cost estimate includes real
estate acquisition costs and a total of 25 percent in contingencies (see Appendix F).
The MAC and Mn/DOT plan to enter into either one or two cooperative agreements to address funding,
design, and construction of the frontage road and the TH 77/66th Street interchange. Hennepin County and
the City of Richfield will also be involved in the cooperative agreement(s). It is expected that initial phases of
both roadway projects will be constructed concurrently with construction of Runway 17/35.
Projects Needed to Implement the 2020 Concept Plan
New West Terminal
Airport users approaching a new terminal in the northwest corner of the site, as proposed in the MSP 2020
Concept Plan, would have several multi -lane, divided facilities available such as 1-94,1-494, TH 62 and 1-35W.
These facilities generally provide high speeds and easy access. Users approaching from the south would
access MSP from 1-35W, 1-494 and TH 77. Airport users approaching from the north would access MSP from �•
1-35W, 1-35E, TH 62 and 1-494. Users approaching from the east or west would have access from 1-94 and 1-
494. The new terminal site would be generally well served by multi -lane divided facilities from all directions,
providing safe, efficient and reliable access. However, some improvements to the existing highway network in
the vicinity of the new west terminal would be required (see below). The existing east terminal access road
will remain in modified form.
Relocating the terminal to the west side of the airport would shift about 75 percent of the airport -oriented traffic
to highways on the north and west sides of MSP. This shift of airport -oriented traffic to the other side of the
airport would reduce future traffic volumes along segments of TH 5 adjacent to the existing east terminal to
levels that approach the 1992 volumes of 51,000 to 55,000 vehicles per day. Approximately 75,000 vehicles
per day in 2020 would access the west terminal via TH 77 and TH 62.
As mentioned above, two of the five possible west terminal roadway projects involve construction of on -airport
circulation roadways. The other three projects involve improvements to TH 77, TH 62, and 1-35W. All three of
these off -airport projects require separate approvals to construct, and will not be approved for implementation
through this FEIS. If the west terminal is approved, these projects will be re-evaluated to confirm their need.
Additional environmental documentation will also need to be completed before these projects can be
implemented. The Consensus Document in Appendix F describes in more detail the preferred approach for
implementation of these projects if the west terminal is constructed. The five west terminal highway
improvements are described below.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-132
West Terminal Circulation Roadways'v
This project would provide the essential on -airport roadways to serve the west terminal. The circulation
-roads themselves would not require -acquisition -of -off-airport property.- - However1continuity issues with-
TH 77 and TH 62 would result in off -airport impacts and therefore must be coordinated among FAA, the
MAC, Mn/DOT, and FHWA.
The west terminal circulation roadways would impact wetland habitat inMother Lake (at the extreme
northwest corner ofthe airport . This impact should befurther defined during preliminary and
final design—including the possible use oframp alignments andatuuotuneowhiohavoid/minimizefiUingof
the wetlands. The construction of the west terminal circulation roadways would require acquisition of an
estimated 33 homes and 1 business in the area south of TH 62 and west of 28th Avenue South (see
Figure T-11). The cost estimate for this project ie$52.5 million /1995 doUoxo\ not including real estate
acquisition costs.
Reconfigured East Terminal Roadways
This project would involve the reconstruction ofthe existing Lindbergh Terminal access roads toserve
their planned new functions under the 2O2OLTCP. The project kelocated entirely onairport property, and
there would befew, ifany, off -airport impacts anticipated hocomplete this project. The cost estimate for
this project is $1.3 million (1995 dollars).
TH 62 and TH 77 Reconstruction (West Terminal Interchanges)
As shown in Figure 2 in Appendix F, this project would involve reconstruction ofocomplex urban
freeway corridor containing interchange (TH77/TH 62)and two service interchanges (TH
77/G8thStreet and THG2/28th/venue). Conceptual designs for this area generally favor exclusive
`
ramps from TH 77 and TH 62, which would improve the traffic operation of the system interchange. TH
� >
77 would have to be widened from 4 to 6 lanes between 1-494 and 66th Street to accommodate design
features tnimprove traffic operations, such ea2-|aneexit ramps. The TH77widening would provide
adequate connections toterminal access roads. Such adesign would result inesignificant off -airport
freeway reconstruction effort. Two apartment buildings with atotal of28units onthe east side ofTH77
south of the 66th Street interchange may be relocated by this project (Figure T-11).
The cost estimates for the TH621TH 77 reconstruction is $50million (1Q95 not including real
estate acquisition costs.
TH 62 Widening (1-35W to TH 77)
This project would involve widening TH 62 from 4toGlanes between |-35Wand TH 77. The project
would accommodate increased traffic volumes and serve connections to the TH 62/TH 77 interchange.
This widening would require acquisition of 31 residences along both sides of TH 62. The cost eoUrnahe
for this project is 11.3 miliion (1995 dollars) not including real estate acquisition costs (Figure T-11).
1-35W Reconstruction (TH 62 Common Section and 1-35W to 46th Street)
This project is currently being evaluated aopart ofoMn/DOT EIS and is programmed for construction in
various phases from 109Bbo2003. |tincludes extensive reconstruction ofthe |-35VV/THG2common
section and widening of 1-35W to provide an HOV lane in each direction between 1-494 and 46th Street
(see description inTable 2inAppendix F).
The need for this project was established independently from the proposed airport expansion, with about
8-12 percent of the forecasted 2020 traffic being airport related (assuming implementation of the west
bannina|>. Nevertheless, completion ofthis project ieoonoiden*deooanUa|toprovdinQereoaonab|e|eve|
ofservice and efficient airport access. |fTF{G2iowidened between TH77and |-3SVV.further
modification ofthe |-35VV/THG2common section will barequired.
If the planned improvements to add h vehicle lanes to 4494 and 1-35VV have not been made
(due to fiscal constraints) additional capacity in the form of an additional lane in each direction would be
Dual Track Final EIS
needed on the TH 62/1-35W common section, and an additional lane in each direction on 1-35W between TH
62 and 46th Avenue South. This cost is estimated by Mn/DOT to be $75 million (including the segment of I- l
35W from TH 62 to 1-494). Additional ramps between TH 62 east of 1-35W and 1-35W north of TH 62 would
also be necessary. If these ramp improvements are not made, trips to the airport terminal could, in a worst
case situation, result in traffic backing up along TH 62 and onto 1-35W during airport peak use periods. It
could also become very difficult for traffic leaving the terminal to get onto TH 62 and I -35W. This would result
in more trips diverting to other access routes such as Hiawatha Avenue and the local streets through south
Minneapolis.
The improvements needed to provide access to the west terminal are shown in Figure W-8 and Figure 2 in
Appendix F.
Other Projects Considered
The Dual Track Surface Transportation Committee concluded that the above-described roadway projects are
essential to fully implement the MSP 2010 LTCP and represent the scale of roadway improvements needed
to implement the west terminal. The committee also discussed other projects that may relate to the MSP
comprehensive planning process, but are not considered essential because they address needs that are
independent from the airports function. However, if implemented they may help to provide improved access
to the airport. These projects are noted below.
• 1-494/TH 77 Interchange Improvements
• 77th Street Underpass at TH 77
• TH 62 Widening (28th Avenue to TH 55)
• TH 55 Interchanges with TH 62 and TH 5
These projects are described further in the Consensus Document in Appendix F.
Transit
Transit is expected to continue to meet a small portion of the overall travel needs of the airport. As previously
discussed, all forms of transit and paratransit serve about 5 percent of the overall travel demand related to the
airport and overall auto occupancy is about 1.5 people per vehicle. Similar values are expected in the future.
Public bus service has been improved in recent years with better linkages not only to Minneapolis and St.
Paul, but also to suburban locations in Bloomington and Dakota County. These routes, most of which are
also connected to the Mall of America, have experienced important ridership increases but still serve much
less than 1 percent of all the travel demand generated to and from MSP International Airport.
Additional transit improvements, such as a light rail transit line or busway, have been considered along the
Hiawatha Avenue Corridor, connecting downtown Minneapolis with MSP and the Mall of America. These
improvements could result in significant airport -related ridership increases (up to 3 times existing public bus
ridership levels) but would not result in a major reduction of vehicle trips to and from MSP. These
improvements, however, would improve the connectivity of the airport to key destinations in the region. A
major obstacle to their implementation, however, has been the lack of readily available funding for major
transit capital investments, which could range from $150 to 340 million.
W.2 No Action Alternative
Certain road improvements would be necessary to handle the traffic under the No Action Alternative as a
result of background growth. These improvements are shown in Table W-6:
Dual Track Final EIS
V-134
Table W-6- Year 2020 Potential Roadway Improvements Needed with No Action Alternative
Highway Segment
Improvement Needed
Ramps, Southbound 1-35W to Eastbound TH 62
and Westbound TH 62 to Northbound 1-35W
Additional Capacity
1-35W, TH 62 to 46th Avenue South
Additional lane in both directions
Also, if the planned improvements to add high -occupancy vehicle lanes to 1-494 and 1-35W are not made (due
to fiscal constraints), additional capacity in the form of an additional lane in each direction would be needed
on the TH 6211-35W common section.
Figure W-5 shows forecast year 2020 daily traffic near MSP for the No -Action Alternative. The roadways
near MSP will continue to experience growth as they have in the past. The common section between TH 62
and 1-35W will require additional capacity, as will 1-35W from TH 62 to 46th Avenue South. Also, the ramps
between southbound 1-35W and eastbound TH 62 and from westbound TH 62 to northbound 1-35W will
exceed capacity.
Travel time from the metropolitan region and two Wisconsin county seats, off-peak and peak is shown in
Table W-7. Existing travel time can be found in Section W.1.1.
Table W-7 - Year 2020 Travel Time to Airport Main Terminal from County Seats -
No Action Alternative
County Seat*
Minutes of Off-
Peak Travel
Minutes of PM Peak
Hour Travel
Anoka
39
47
Chaska
30
33
Hastings
31
35
Minneapolis
16
21
St. Paul
14
16
Shakopee
26
31
Stillwater
38
42
Hudson, WI
34
38
Ellsworth, Wl
54
56
Average for Residents of
Seven -County Region
24
27
Average for Employees in
Seven -County Region
20
24
* Travel time is from the _centroid of the TAZ containing the county
courthouse to airport main terminal.
Table W-8 shows the regional population and employees within 15, 30, 45 and 60 minutes of the Main
Terminal. Figures W-6 and W-7 show the year 2020 travel time contours.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-135
Table W-8 - Year 2020 Regional Population and Employees within
Travelsheds of No Action Alternative
As illustrated in Table W-8, over 76 percent of the region's residents and over 87 percent of the region's
employees would be within thirty minutes of the airport terminal during the off-peak period. A very small
portion (0.1 percent or less) of the region's residents and employees would be more than an hour from the
east -side terminal in the off-peak period. In the peak hour, over 62 percent of the region's residents and 75
percent of the region's employees are within thirty minutes of the terminal. Slightly more people are served by
the MSP Alternative as illustrated in Table W-5.
Inter -Region Connectivity
Travel between the Twin Cities region and the outstate subregions and other states is not expected to be
altered by the No Action Alternative.
Table W-9 compares expected traffic volumes under the No Action Alternative with expected traffic volumes
under the MSP Alternative, with and without planned highway improvements.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-136.
Percentage
Outside Metro Area
Percentage
Population
Travelshed
Metro Area
Increment
Total
Increment
Total
Employment
Increment
Total
Population
Off -Peak Hours
Within 15
622,255
21.0%
21.0%
0
0
426,732
25.9%
25.91/6
Minutes
15 -30
1,646,666
55.6%
76.6%
0
0
1,011,246
61.4%
87.3%
Minutes
30-45
599,883
20.3%
96.9%
43,000
43,000
195,813
11.9%
49.2%
Minutes
45-60
88,046
3.0%
99.9%
151,900
194,900
12,590
0.8%
100%
Minutes
Over 60
2,920
0.1%
100%
460
100%
Minutes
PM Peak Hour
Within 15
404,707
13.7%
13.7%
0
0
246,944
15.0%
15.0%
Minutes
15-30
1,444,861
48.8%
62.5%
0
0
988,477
60.0%
75.0%
Minutes
30-45
895,751
30.2%
92.7%
29,400
29,400
363,168
22.1%
97.1%
Minutes
45-60
200,381
6.8%
99.5%
113,900
143,300
46,492
2.8%
99.9%
Minutes
Over 60
14,070
0.5%
100%
--
1,760
0.1%
100%
Minutes
Regional
2,959,770
1,646,841
Total
° Less than 0.1 %.
As illustrated in Table W-8, over 76 percent of the region's residents and over 87 percent of the region's
employees would be within thirty minutes of the airport terminal during the off-peak period. A very small
portion (0.1 percent or less) of the region's residents and employees would be more than an hour from the
east -side terminal in the off-peak period. In the peak hour, over 62 percent of the region's residents and 75
percent of the region's employees are within thirty minutes of the terminal. Slightly more people are served by
the MSP Alternative as illustrated in Table W-5.
Inter -Region Connectivity
Travel between the Twin Cities region and the outstate subregions and other states is not expected to be
altered by the No Action Alternative.
Table W-9 compares expected traffic volumes under the No Action Alternative with expected traffic volumes
under the MSP Alternative, with and without planned highway improvements.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-136.
Table W-9 - Year 2020 Traffic Volumes - MSP and No Action Alternatives
Highway Segment
No Action
Alternative/No
Roadway
Improvements
(ADI)
MSP AfternativetNo
Roadway
Improvements
(ADT)
MSP Afternative/With
Roadway
Improvements
(ADT)
TH 62: TH 77 to 1-35W
94,000
115,000
116,000
1-35W:1-494 to TH 62
124,000
113,000
132,000
1-35W: North of TH 62
209,000
211,000
215,000
1-494: West of TH 77
168,000
176,000
177,000
1-494: East of TH 77
147,000
124,000
122,000
TH 77: Over MN River
105,000
116,000
114,000
TH 5: South of Glumack Dr.
88,000
64,000
67,000
TH 5: North of Glumack Dr.
84,000
52,000
48,000
[TH 62: East of 1-35W
115,000
129,000
130,000
Table W-10 summarizes the levels -of -service that the roadways affected by the various airport alternatives
will experience:
Dual Track Final EIS
V-137
Table W-10 - Comparison of Year 2020 Forecast Levels of Service
Roadway
Segment
Number
of
Existing
Lanes
No Action
Alternative
MSP Alternative
Minnesota
TH 55
1-494 to TH 149
4
C
C
TH 55
TH 149 to New TH 52
4
A
A
TH 55
New TH 52 to TH 52
4
B
B
TH 55
TH 52 to County Road 85
2
C
C
TH 55
County Road 85 to TH 61
2-4
A
A
TH 10
Prescott to US 61
2
E
E
TH 61
Hastings Bride
2
F
F
TH 61
TH 55 Intersection
4
F
F
TH 316
TH 61 to CSAR 47
4
E
E
New TH 52
1-94 to TH 56
4
F
F
New TH 52
TH 56 to 1-494
4-5
D
D
CSAH 47
TH 3 TO CSAH 85
N/A
B
B
CSAH 47
Airport Road to TH 61
N/A
C
C
TH 20
TH 50 to TH 19
2
B
B
CSAH 42
TH 3 to TH 55
2-4
B
B
1-494
TH 5 to TH 55
6
C
C
TH 61
1-494 to TH 95
4
C
C
CSAH 15/TH 95
1-94 to TH 61
2
C
C
TH 77
Old Shakopee Rd to TH 13
6
D
E
TH 5
1-494 to Airport Road
6
C
A
TH 5
Airport Road to TH 55
6
B
I A
TH 62
Portland to TH 77
4
F
F
TH 62
20th Ave. S. to 34th Ave. S.
4
B
D
TH 62
34th Ave. S. to TH 55
4
A
D
Wisconsin
US 10
St. Croix Bridge to Canton St.
4
A
A
US 10
STH 29 to Prescott City Limits
2-4
A
A
US 10
Prescott City Limits to CTH J
2
C
C
Broad Street
US 10 to Locust St.
2
B
B
CTH F
1-94 to Pierce County Line
2
C
C
CTH F
Pierce County Line to STH 29
2
B
B
STH 29
CTH F to Prescott City Limits
2
D
D
STH 29
River Falls City Limits to CTH FF
2
C
C
CTH 65
1-94 to CTH N
2
C
C
Adjoining Community Impacts
No impacts on adjoining communities are expected under the No Action Alternative. The impacts of the
highway improvement projects that would be implemented under the No Action Alternative have been
documented in a separate Mn/DOT EIS. These projects are needed regardless of MSP development.
Transit
Transit is expected to continue to meet a small portion of the overall travel needs of the airport under the No
Action Alternative. As previously discussed, all forms of transit and paratransit contribute about 5 percent of
the overall travel demand related to the airport and overall auto occupancy is about 1.5 people per vehicle.
Similar values are expected in the future.
t
Dual Track Final EIS
V-138
W.3 Mitigation Measures — MSP and No -Build Alternatives
Travel Demand Management
The MSP and No Action Alternatives would benefit from the implementation of travel demand management
(TDM) procedures to some degree. The benefits of TDM are a reduced number of drive -alone trips, which
reduce the need for highway capacity improvements.
A package of TDM tools could contain any or all of the following:
Financial Incentives Assistance Programs
Transportation Allowance
Bike Subsidy
Carpool Subsidy
Introductory Transit Pass Subsidy
Other Financial Subsidy
Transit Subsidy
Vanpool Subsidy
Walk Subsidy
Rideshare Parking Subsidy
Additional Time Off with Pay
Other Employee Benefits
Flexible Work Schedules
Flexible Work Hours
Telecommuting Program
Compressed Work Week Program
Award Programs
Prize Drawing - Free Meal Certificate
Recognition in News Letter
Commuter Information Center
Commuter Fairs
New Hire Orientation
Other Marketing Elements
Special Interest Groups
Regional Commuter Management Agency Matching
Employer -Based Matching Service
Information Booths
Company Owned/Leased Vanpool
Other Parking Management
Other
Child -Care Service
On -Site Services (i.e., cafeteria, health club, post
office)
Auto Service
The U.S. Department of Transportation report titled `The Effects of Land Use and Travel Demand
Management Strategies on Commuting Behavior" (November 1994) states that TDM packages that include
financial incentives can reduce drive -alone trips by as much as 6.4 percent. If financial incentives are not a
part of the TDM package, the decrease is only 1.7 percent. In the year 2020, these rates would result in a
decrease of a low of approximately 1,500 drive -alone trips to a high of approximately 5,700 drive -alone trips.
While any decrease in the number of drive -alone trips is beneficial, reductions of this magnitude would only
delay requirements for roadway improvements one to two years.
The MAC and the employers on the airport site (particularly Northwest Airlines as the major on-site employer)
will need to pursue an aggressive package of TDM measures. Some strategies that could be particularly
effective are as follows:
Carpool Subsidy Employer -Based Matching Service
Vanpool Subsidy Company Owned -Leased Vanpool
Rideshare Parking Subsidy Flexible Work Hours
Commuter Information Center On-site Services
Mitigation of Surface Transportation Impacts
Mitigation of highway noise impacts is discussed in Section V.Q, Noise. Mitigation of residential and business
relocations is discussed in Section V.T, Social. There are no environmental impacts of the two 2010 LTCP
projects which require mitigation. Environmental impacts of the five west terminal highway projects will be
Dual Track Final EIS
V-139
mitigated if and when the west terminal is approved. Mitigation measures for the west terminal highway
projects will be described in additional environmental documentation. (,
Mitigation of impacts to the city of Richfield will be presented in the planned MAC-Mn/DOT cooperative
agreement for the two 2010 LTCP roadway projects. Discussions on further actions and mitigation are
underway with the city of Richfield.
W.4 Summary of Surface Transportation Access Impacts
The proposed action, implementation of the 2010 LTCP, will require two surface transportation improvements:
Improving the frontage road on the south and west side of the airport between 34th
Avenue and 66th Street. Initial improvements include realignment in some locations, spot
widening, and turn lanes. The ultimate build -out of the frontage road includes eventual
realignment and widening of the frontage road to four lanes over its entire length.
Reconstructing the TH 77/66th Street interchange. A diamond interchange would replace
the existing interchange, increasing capacity and providing a connection to the realigned
frontage road.
If construction of the west terminal is authorized by the Minnesota legislature, five additional surface
transportation improvements would be required:
• West terminal circulation roadways. Access roadways from TH 62. TH 77, and TH
62/28th Avenue.
• Airport east side access improvements. Modify existing east access roads to serve new
functions.
• TH 62/TH 77 reconstruction. Widen and reconstruct TH 62 and TH 77 to provide terminal
access, including reconstruction of three interchanges at TH 77/TH 62, TH 77/66th Street, t
and TH 62/28th Avenue. Also includes widening TH 77 to 6 lanes between 1-494 and 66th
Street.
• TH 62 between 1-35W and TH 77. Widen from 4 to 6 lanes.
• 1-35W/TH 62 common section. Reconstruct I-35W/TH 62 interchange, reconstruct the I -
35W and TH 62 common section for improved lane continuity, and widen 1-35W between TH
62 and 46th Street from six to eight lanes, including 2 HOV lanes. Reconstruct southbound l -
35W to eastbound TH 62 ramp. This project is currently scheduled for completion in 2003.
The impacts of this project are evaluated in a separate EIS prepared by Mn/DOT.
The impacts of the two 2010 LTCP projects are documented in this FEIS. The impacts of the five projects
needed to implement the west terminal will be assessed in future environmental documentation if construction
of the west terminal is approved and the projects are deemed necessary at the time.
W.4.1 Impact on Travel Times to Airport
Table W-11 shows the impacts of the MSP and No Action Alternatives on travel times to the airport terminal:
Dual Track Final EIS
V-140
Table W-11 - Summary of Average Travel Times to Airport Main Terminal
Criterion
MSP
No Action
2010
2020
2010
2020
Average travel time to terminal for Metro Area
residents (minutes)
Number of historic properties
0
0
0
off-peak hours
24
22
24
24
PM peak hour
28
26
28
27
Percentage of Metro Area population within 30 -
minute travel time to main terminal
0
Number of parks and recreation lands
0
0
Off-peak hours
73.2
80.1%
73.2
76.6%
PM peak hour
58.7
67.3%
58.7
62.5%
Percentage of Metro Area population within 45 -
minute travel time to main terminal
Off-peak hours
96.6
97.8%
96.6
96.9%
PM peak hour
90.6
94.5%
90.6
92.7%
Percentage of Metro Area population within 60 -
minute travel time to main terminal
off-peak hours
99.9
100%
99.9
99.9%
PM eak hour
99.1
99 .7%
1 99.1
99.5%
W.4.2 Summary of Environmental Impacts of Highway Improvements
The potential environmental impacts within the study corridors for the highway improvements needed to
implement the MSP Alternative are unavoidable. They are summarized in Table W-12; the impacts are
discussed in the appropriate subsections of Section V.
Table W-12 - Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts of Needed Highway Improvements
Impact within Corridors
MSP
2010
2020
No
Action
Number of archaeological sites
0
0
0
Number of historic properties
0
0
0
Number of sensitive uses
0
0
0
Number of households displaced
99
7
0
Number of businesses displaced
22
14
0
Number of parks and recreation lands
0
0
0
Acres of farmland
0
0
0
Acres of wetlands displaced
2.04
0
0
X. Major Utilities
Major utilities are defined as the major trunk lines that feed the utilities that provide service on a local basis.
Major utility impacts are evaluated to determine the extent to which major utility systems will need to be
expanded or relocated for the alternatives.
X.1 MSP Alternative
X.1.1 Affected Environment— MSP Alternative
The affected environment is those areas on the periphery of the airport that contain major power lines that
would interfere with the operations of the expanded airport. The affected environment also includes those
Dual Track Final EIS
V-141
areas to which the power lines must be relocated in order to not interfere with airport operations. The only (,
affected utility is a NSP 115 KV power line which runs along 79th Street south of the airport in the RPZ, and
its substation also located in the RPZ.
X.1.2 Major Utilities Impacts — MSP Alternative
The 115 KV power line and substation are located within the RPZ and are therefore incompatible with the
approach to the proposed north -south runway. Additionally, they may cause interference with electronic
navigational aids at the airport. They are also inconsistent with FAA policy which specifically precludes
power lines and facilities within the RPZ.
The size of the power line is such that it is feasible to bury it. It is anticipated that one-half to one mile of
power line would be buried along its existing alignment. Putting the power line underground should not
have an adverse environmental impact; no known permits or environmental reviews are required.
It is planned to relocate the NSP substation within the Metro Office Park east of the RPZ; MAC is in the
process of acquiring the Metro Office Park. There are no known environmental reviews required for this
relocation, and no known permit other than a building permit from the city of Bloomington is required.
Consultations with NSP and the city of Bloomington are in process.
There are no other major utilities which are expected to interfere with the operations of the 2010 LTCP and
the 2020 Concept Plan. There are no new major utilities required to serve the 2010 LTCP and the 2020
Concept Plan.
X.1.3 Mitigation Measures — MSP Alternative
Mitigation measures are not required.
X.2 No Action Alternative
There are no impacts.
Y. Visual Impacts
Visual impacts are created when airport improvements, both airside and landside, are a barrier to natural
vistas surrounding the airport site. Aircraft operations in the vicinity of the airport also may cause visual
impacts.
Y.1 MSP Alternative
Y.1.1 Affected Environment—MSP Alternative
The existing airport encompasses about 3,000 acres southwest of the confluence of the Mississippi and
Minnesota Rivers. Elevations within the site range from 810 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL) near the
intersection of Trunk Highway 5 and the airport access road, to 851 feet MSL near the military installations
south of Trunk Highway 62. The terrain to the southwest, north and northeast is relatively flat. Along the
southeast, ground elevationdecreases towards the Minnesota River Valley.
The FAA Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) is the tallest building at MSP. It is located approximately three-
quarters of a mile from the closest residential neighborhood and rises to a height of 166 feet above ground
level, or 996 feet above MSL. Other significant structures include the Northwest Airlines hangar, which is
approximately 100 feet tall and is located in the southeast quadrant of the airport.
Low-flying departing and arriving aircraft are also visible in the airport vicinity. Altitude, direction of flight and
number of overflights depend on meteorological conditions and air traffic levels.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-142
The existing airport property provides broad expanses of open space surrounding buildings and structures.
These open spaces provide a buffer between airport facilities and adjacent neighborhoods, separating them
from the closest Minneapolis neighborhood by approximately a mile and from the closest Richfield
neighborhood -by more than a mile.
Y.1.2 Visual Impacts — MSP Alternative
In general, the visual impacts associated with the MSP 2020 Concept Plan and 2010 LTCP involve the
relocation of airport -related facilities within airport property (see Figures 6 and 8). The MSP 2020 Concept
Plan includes a new west terminal complex, located in the northwest quadrant of the airport. The height of
this structure would be approximately 100 feet above ground level. Proposed parking structures on either
side of the terminal would rise approximately 75 feet above the ground. The new terminal, parking structures
and associated roadways would be visible along the Crosstown Highway and TH 77 corridors.
The 2020 Concept Plan also includes a new FAA tower located in the vicinity of the new west terminal. This
proposed tower would rise to a height of approximately 359 feet AGL (1,204 feet MSL), including the ASDE
dome and lighting arrestors. This is 190 feet taller than the existing tower.
A series of cargo buildings and aircraft aprons would be constructed on the west side of the airport, over the
existing Rich Acres golf course for both the 2010 and 2020 plans. These would be visible along TH 77 and
Cedar Avenue.
While the proposed structures associated with the MSP Alternative would be seen from areas surrounding the
airport, they would not present an intrusion on the vistas found in the vicinity of MSP because the facilities
would be located on the existing site and because of the distance between the structures and adjacent
neighborhoods and open spaces.
Y.1.3 Mitigation Measures — MSP Alternative
There will be no significant adverse impact. No mitigation would be required.
Y.2 No Action Alternative
Y.2.1 Affected Environment— No Action Alternative
There will be no changes to existing visual resources at MSP under the No Action Alternative.
Y.2.2 Visual Impacts — No Action Alternatives
The No Action Alternative will not alter the vistas of the airport site.
Y.2.3 Mitigation Measures — No Action Alternative
No mitigation is required.
Y.3 Summary of Visual Impacts
As shown in Table Y-1, the MSP Alternative would result in visual changes. These changes are associated
with construction of a new ATCT, cargo facilities on the west side of the airport (over the existing golf
course) and the west terminal complex -- and are not considered adverse impacts..
Dual Track Final EIS
V-143
Table Y-1 - Summary of Visual Impacts
Z. Wastewater
Wastewater includes domestic and industrial wastes. Under the MSP and No Action Alternatives, wastewater
would continue to be discharged to the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) interceptor and
treatment system.
ZA MSP and No Action Alternatives
Z.1.1 Affected Environment
The existing on-site MSP sanitary sewer lines are depicted on Figure Z-1. The APE is the MCES interceptor
conveyance network, which receives MSP wastewater, and the MCES Metro Treatment Plant on Childs
Road, near Pig's Eye Lake, in St. Paul, Minnesota.
The Metro Plant currently treats approximately 226 million gallons of wastewater per day (MGD), or
approximately 80 percent of all wastewater generated in the Twin Cities metropolitan area. The design
capacity of the Metro Plant in its current configuration is 250 MGD.
Treatment at the Metro Plant includes screening, settling, and skimming (primary treatment) followed by
secondary biological treatment (nitrifying activated sludge), secondary settling, chlorination and
dechlorination. Treated effluent from the facility is discharged to the Mississippi River under an NPDES
permit administered by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA).
Z.1.2 Wastewater Impacts — MSP and No Action Alternatives
The data collection and analysis for this section were performed in 1995. The baseline year for wastewater
demand is, thus, 1994. There have been no known physical developments at MSP since 1995 which would
change the conclusions of the work performed under this heading in 1995.
Baseline average flow, projected (2020) average flow, and projected (2020) peak flows discharged to the
sanitary sewer during the heating and cooling seasons are summarized in Tables Z-1 and Z-2 for the MSP
2020 Concept Plan and No Action Alternative, respectively. The distinction between discharge to the
Minneapolis system versus the Richfield system is largely a billing distinction. Minneapolis and Richfield
sanitary sewer lines in the area of the airport both run to MCES interceptor sewers and ultimately to the
MCES Metro Plant for treatment.
As presented in Tables Z-1 and Z-2, the baseline discharges through Minneapolis are based on metered
1994 water supply volumes delivered to the MAC, the Air National Guard (ANG), and the Air Force Reserve
(AFR) by the City of Minneapolis, plus water which Northwest Airlines (NWA) obtains from wells and
discharges to the sanitary sewer, less wastewater discharged through the city of Richfield and metered
deducts (e.g., irrigation), which do not discharge to Minneapolis sanitary sewers. Richfield wastewater flow
includes water supplied by the city of Minneapolis to buildings which discharge to Richfield sanitary sewer
lines and metered flow from the glycol operations facility. Heating volumes are based on metered makeup
water delivered to the boilers at MAC and NWA. During 1994, both MAC and NWA cooled their facilities with
once -through systems utilizing well water which was discharged to the storm sewer. In 1995, NWA
converted to a closed loop system which discharges to the sanitary sewer. In 1999, the MAC intends to make
a similar conversion.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-144
MSP
201012020
No Action Alternative
Visual Impacts
Minimal
None
Source: HNTB Analysis
Z. Wastewater
Wastewater includes domestic and industrial wastes. Under the MSP and No Action Alternatives, wastewater
would continue to be discharged to the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) interceptor and
treatment system.
ZA MSP and No Action Alternatives
Z.1.1 Affected Environment
The existing on-site MSP sanitary sewer lines are depicted on Figure Z-1. The APE is the MCES interceptor
conveyance network, which receives MSP wastewater, and the MCES Metro Treatment Plant on Childs
Road, near Pig's Eye Lake, in St. Paul, Minnesota.
The Metro Plant currently treats approximately 226 million gallons of wastewater per day (MGD), or
approximately 80 percent of all wastewater generated in the Twin Cities metropolitan area. The design
capacity of the Metro Plant in its current configuration is 250 MGD.
Treatment at the Metro Plant includes screening, settling, and skimming (primary treatment) followed by
secondary biological treatment (nitrifying activated sludge), secondary settling, chlorination and
dechlorination. Treated effluent from the facility is discharged to the Mississippi River under an NPDES
permit administered by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA).
Z.1.2 Wastewater Impacts — MSP and No Action Alternatives
The data collection and analysis for this section were performed in 1995. The baseline year for wastewater
demand is, thus, 1994. There have been no known physical developments at MSP since 1995 which would
change the conclusions of the work performed under this heading in 1995.
Baseline average flow, projected (2020) average flow, and projected (2020) peak flows discharged to the
sanitary sewer during the heating and cooling seasons are summarized in Tables Z-1 and Z-2 for the MSP
2020 Concept Plan and No Action Alternative, respectively. The distinction between discharge to the
Minneapolis system versus the Richfield system is largely a billing distinction. Minneapolis and Richfield
sanitary sewer lines in the area of the airport both run to MCES interceptor sewers and ultimately to the
MCES Metro Plant for treatment.
As presented in Tables Z-1 and Z-2, the baseline discharges through Minneapolis are based on metered
1994 water supply volumes delivered to the MAC, the Air National Guard (ANG), and the Air Force Reserve
(AFR) by the City of Minneapolis, plus water which Northwest Airlines (NWA) obtains from wells and
discharges to the sanitary sewer, less wastewater discharged through the city of Richfield and metered
deducts (e.g., irrigation), which do not discharge to Minneapolis sanitary sewers. Richfield wastewater flow
includes water supplied by the city of Minneapolis to buildings which discharge to Richfield sanitary sewer
lines and metered flow from the glycol operations facility. Heating volumes are based on metered makeup
water delivered to the boilers at MAC and NWA. During 1994, both MAC and NWA cooled their facilities with
once -through systems utilizing well water which was discharged to the storm sewer. In 1995, NWA
converted to a closed loop system which discharges to the sanitary sewer. In 1999, the MAC intends to make
a similar conversion.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-144
Table Z-1 - 2020 Projected Municipal Wastewater - MSP Alternative
Dual Track Final EIS
V-145
Heating Season
Cooling Season
Wastewater Category
Baseline
Projected
Projected
Baseline
Projected
Projected
Average
Average
Peak
Average
Average
Peak
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Flow (1)
Flow
Flow (2)
Flow (1)
Flow
Flow (2)
(MGD)
(MGD)
(MGD)
(MGD)
(MGD)
(MGD)
A. Wastewater to Minneapolis
1.184
1.765
4.410
1.184
1.765
4.410
3
B. Wastewater to Richfield
0.203
0.274
0.686
0.184
0.274
0.686
(3 )(4)
C. Heating/Cooling (5)
MAC
0.004
0.008
0.020
0.000
0.022
0.054
NWA
0.007
0.007
0.017
0.000
0.009
0.023
TOTAL ESTIMATED DEMAND
1.398
2.054
5.133
1.368
2.070
5.173
(1)Baseline demand based on 1994 reported usage.
(2)Assumes peaking factor of 2.5 for domestic, heating, and cooling.
(3)Projected volume determined by multiplying 1994 annual average discharge by the ratio of projected 2020 and 1994
enplanements.
(4)Baseline average daily volume for the heating season includes 4.2 million gallons of glycol -impacted storm water discharged to
. the sanitary sewer throughout the winter of 1994, assuming a 215 day heating season.
(5)Baseline average daily volume based on measured flows and 150 days of cooling and 215 days of heating. In 1994, cooling
was provided with once -through systems utilizing well water discharged to the Minnesota River. Consequently, there is no
baseline municipal demand presented above for sanitary disposal of cooling water. However, in 1995 NWA converted to a
closed loop system which discharges bleedoff water to sanitary. By 1999, the MAC intends to convert to a similar system.
The projected volumes presented above assume the closed loop cooling systems.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-145
Table Z-2 - 2020 Projected Municipal Wastewater - No Action Alternative
The 1994 MSP wastewater discharges through the MSP sewer system (depicted on Figure Z-1) to the MCES
system totaled to approximately 1.4 million gallons per day (MGD). Approximately 85 percent of this flow is
directed to MCES interceptors through Minneapolis sewers and 15 percent through Richfield sewers.
Both the MSP 2020 Concept Plan and No Action Alternative are projected to discharge an average daily
volume of approximately 2.0 MGD of wastewater to the MCES system in 2020. These projected flows
represent roughly a 40 percent increase in the overall flow originating from the airport, relative to 1994
conditions, but less than a one-half of one percent increase over the flows currently managed at the Metro
Plant. In 1997, the MAC began segregating high strength G15W for on-site glycol recycling. It is anticipated
that this practice will continue into the future.
Metropolitan Council Environmental Services staff was provided with the information and projections
presented in Tables Z-1 and Z-2. After reviewing this material, MCES staff reported that the volumes
projected for the MSP and No Action Alternatives would not pose capacity problems for either the MCES
conveyance or treatment systems.
The number of enplanements is a primary variable affecting wastewater generation for the airport. Thus,
the volumes of wastewater requiring conveyance and treatment under the MSP 2010 LTCP would be less
than those volumes presented in Table Z-1 for 2020, and would not pose capacity problems for either the
MCES conveyance or treatment systems.
Z.1.3 Mitigation Measures — MSP Alternative
No mitigation measures would be required.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-146
Heating Season
Cooling Season
Wastewater Category
Baseline
Projected
Projected
Baseline
Projected
Projected
Average
Average
Peak
Average
Average
Peak
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Flow (1)
Flow
Flow (2)
Flow (1)
Flow
Flow (2)
(MGD)
(MGD)
(MGD)
(MGD)
(MGD)
(MGD)
A. Wastewater to Minneapolis
1.184
1.670
4.175
1.184
1.670
4.175
3
B. Wastewater to Richfield
0.203
0.288
0.719
0.204
0.288
0.719
(3 )(4)
C. Heating/Cooling (5)
MAC
0.004
0.008
0.020
0.000
0.014
0.036
NWA
0.007
0.007
0.017
0.000
0.009
0.023
TOTAL ESTIMATED DEMAND
1.398
1.973
4.931
1.388
1.981
4.953
(1)Baseline demand based on 1994 reported usage.
(2)Assumes peaking factor of 2.5 for domestic, heating, and cooling.
(3)Projected volume determined by multiplying 1994 annual average discharge by the ratio of projected 2020 and 1994
enplanements.
(4)Baseline average and projected daily volumes for the heating season includes 4.2 million gallons of glycol -impacted storm water
discharged to the sanitary sewer throughout the winter of 1994, assuming a 215 day heating season, adjusted to 2020 by
the ratio of projected 2020 and 1994 enplanements.
(5)Baseline average daily volume based on measured flows and 150 days of cooling and 215 days of heating. In 1994, cooling
was provided with once -through systems utilizing well water discharged to the Minnesota River. Consequently, there is no
baseline municipal demand presented above for sanitary disposal of cooling water. However, in 1995, NWA converted to
a closed loop system which discharges bleedoff water to sanitary. By 1999, the MAC intends to convert to a similar system.
The projected volumes presented above assume the closed loop cooling systems.
The 1994 MSP wastewater discharges through the MSP sewer system (depicted on Figure Z-1) to the MCES
system totaled to approximately 1.4 million gallons per day (MGD). Approximately 85 percent of this flow is
directed to MCES interceptors through Minneapolis sewers and 15 percent through Richfield sewers.
Both the MSP 2020 Concept Plan and No Action Alternative are projected to discharge an average daily
volume of approximately 2.0 MGD of wastewater to the MCES system in 2020. These projected flows
represent roughly a 40 percent increase in the overall flow originating from the airport, relative to 1994
conditions, but less than a one-half of one percent increase over the flows currently managed at the Metro
Plant. In 1997, the MAC began segregating high strength G15W for on-site glycol recycling. It is anticipated
that this practice will continue into the future.
Metropolitan Council Environmental Services staff was provided with the information and projections
presented in Tables Z-1 and Z-2. After reviewing this material, MCES staff reported that the volumes
projected for the MSP and No Action Alternatives would not pose capacity problems for either the MCES
conveyance or treatment systems.
The number of enplanements is a primary variable affecting wastewater generation for the airport. Thus,
the volumes of wastewater requiring conveyance and treatment under the MSP 2010 LTCP would be less
than those volumes presented in Table Z-1 for 2020, and would not pose capacity problems for either the
MCES conveyance or treatment systems.
Z.1.3 Mitigation Measures — MSP Alternative
No mitigation measures would be required.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-146
Z.2 Summary of Wastewater Impacts
The MSP 2010 t_TCP and 2020 Concept Plan and No Action Alternative would not have significant negative
impact on the MCES conveyance and treatment systems.
AA. . Water Supply
Water supply includes water requirements for potable/domestic, industrial, heating/cooling, and fire control
purposes. Under the MSP and No Action alternatives, it has been assumed that the existing on-site
production wells would be abandoned and water would be supplied entirely by the Minneapolis Water
Works.
AAA MSP and No Action Alternatives
AA.1.1 Affected Environment— IVISP and No Action Alternatives
The APE consists of the two existing sources of water supply for MSP — the Prairie du Chien/Jordan
Sandstone aquifer and the city of Minneapolis Water Works.
The Prairie du Chien Group and the Jordan Sandstone (PdC/Jordan) generally function as one aquifer
because there is no regional confining bed between them. All of the water supply wells which are in current
use at MSP draw from the PdC/Jordan aquifer, which is the preferred source of groundwater supply in the
metro region due to its favorable water transmission characteristics and relative consistency of high yields,
as well as proven well designs and construction techniques. The production capacity associated with
PdC/Jordan wells typically ranges from 1,000 gallons per minute (gpm) to in excess of 2,000 gpm. Based
on regional information and water levels measured at MSP, the PdC/Jordan Aquifer is believed to
discharge to the Minnesota River. Since there are no water supply wells between the airport and the
Minnesota River, historical use of water from the PdC/Jordan aquifer for airport activities has had no
discernible impact on the water quality or availability for other users of this water supply.
The primary water supply source for the city of Minneapolis water works is the Mississippi River. The city
has approximately 100,000 accounts and supplies approximately 65 million gallons per day (yearly
average). Peak delivery on the Minneapolis system takes place during the summer months and can reach
180 million gallons per day. Minneapolis water is delivered to the MSP through two 18 -inch and one 12 -
inch diameter metered lines which enter the airport from the north; as illustrated on Figure AA -1. These
lines are supplied by a 48 -inch trunk water main buried beneath E. 56th Street. According to Minneapolis
Water Works staff, pressures of 68 pounds per square inch (psi) are common in the trunk lines, with a
minimum pressure of 50 psi.
AA.1.2 Water Supply Impacts — MSP and No Action Alternatives
The data collection and analysis for this section were performed in 1995. The baseline year for water supply
requirements is, thus, 1994. There have been no known physical developments at MSP since 1995 which
would change the conclusions of the work performed under this heading in 1995.
Baseline (1994) average water demand, projected (2020) average water demand, and projected (2020)
peak water demand during the heating and cooling seasons are summarized in Tables AA -1 and AA -2 for
the MSP and No Action alternatives, respectively. The current average demand for domestic purposes are
based on metered usage reported by the MAC and Northwest Airlines (NWA) for 1994. The MAC -
Minneapolis Supply figures also include water delivered directly to the Air National Guard (ANG) and Air
Force Reserve (AFR) by Minneapolis Water Works. The current average demand reported for the MAC -
Minneapolis, MAC -Well Water, and NWA -Well Water supplies for heating/cooling is from 1994 meter
readings for boiler feed and well water provided by the MAC Energy Center and NWA Plant Maintenance.
No average daily demand is assumed for fire fighting purposes. Peak fire demand is based on an assumed
Dual Track Final EIS
V-147
fire flow of 8,000 gpm for a four-hour duration for the terminal area buildings. The water supply {
requirements for fire protection at NWA, the ANG, and AFR are provided in storage.
Table AA -1 - 2020 Projected Water Usage - MSP Alternative
Dual Track Final EIS
V-148
Heating Season
Cooling Season
Type of Water Use
Baseline Projected Projected
Baseline Projected
Projected
Average Average Peak
Average Average
Peak
Demand(1) Demand Demand(2)
Demand Demand
Demand(2)
(1994) (2020) (2020)
(1994) (2020)
(2020)
(MGD) (MGD) (MGD)
(MGD) (MGD)
(MGD)
A. Domestic (3)
MAC - Minneapolis Supply
1.010 1.490 3.730
1.010 1.490
3.730
NWA - Minneapolis Supply
0.780 1.950
0.780
1.950
NWA - Well Water (Bldg C)
0.530
0.530
B. Fire (4)
0.000 0.000 0.640
0.000 0.000
0.640
C. Heating/Cooling(5)
MAC - Minneapolis Supply
0.004 0.008 0.020
0.087
0.217
MAC - Well Water
2.018
NWA -Minneapolis Supply
0.007 0.017
0.038
0.094
NWA - Well Water
0.007
1.710
TOTAL ESTIMATED DEMAND
1.551 2.285 6.357
5.268 2.395
6.631
(MUNICIPAL AND WELL WATER)
TOTAL MUNICIPAL DEMAND 1
1.014 2.285 6.357
1.010 2.395
6.631
(1)Current demand based on 1994 reported usage.
(2)Assumes peaking factor of 2.5 for domestic, heating, and cooling. See (4) regarding fire demand.
(3)Projected MAC - Minneapolis supply volume based on 16,700,000 enplanements projected for 2020 and 32.625 gallons per enplanement.
NWA currently obtains all water for building C from on-site wells. However, it is assumed that NWA will convert to a municipal
supply by the year 2020.
(4)Fire protection water at NWA and Military Facilities is provided in storage. No consumption assumed for average daily use at Terminal.
Peak fire demand based on assumed fire flow of 8,000 gpm for four-hour duration for terminal area buildings.
(5)Assumes 150 days of cooling and 215 days of heating. In 1994, cooling was provided with once -through systems utilizing well water.
However, in 1995, NWA converted to a closed loop cooling system which uses the Minneapolis water system for make-up water. In
1999, the MAC intends to convert to a similar system. The projected volumes presented above assume these conversions.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-148
Table AA -2 - 2020 Projected Water Usage - No Action Alternative
The MAC drew an average 2.018 million gallons per day (MGD) of water from its PdC/Jordan wells during
the 1994 cooling season. During the same period, Northwest Airlines (NWA) drew an average 2.24 million
gallons from its PdC/Jordan wells. In June of 1995, NWA completed construction on a "closed loop"
cooling system which will utilize makeup water from the City of Minneapolis, decreasing NWA's demand on
the PdC/Jordan aquifer by approximately 1.710 MGD during the cooling season. It is anticipated that NWA
will obtain all of its water supply needs from the Minneapolis Water Works by 2020, eliminating NWA's
dependence on the PdC/Jordan aquifer. The MAC will also be converting to a closed loop system by 1998,
eliminating the MAC's demand on well water from the PdC/Jordan aquifer. Consequently, no water
demand is anticipated for the PdC/Jordan aquifer under the MSP and No Action alternatives.
The highest average daily and peak demand for water from the Minneapolis Water Works is projected to
occur during the cooling season, when the daily average Minneapolis water demand reaches 2.395 MGD
and 2.246 MGD for the MSP and No Action alternatives, respectively. These demands are more than twice
the current average airport demand from the Minneapolis Water Works and represent a 2.1 percent
increase in the total average demand for the Minneapolis Water Works service area. According to
Minneapolis Water Works staff, the 48 -inch water main currently servicing MSP has sufficient capacity to
supply the airport's average and peak water demands under both the MSP and No Action alternatives. It is
not anticipated that the increase in MSP demand for city of Minneapolis water projected for 2020 would
have any discernible impact on Mississippi River flow or levels.
It is possible that a new service line or lines from the 48 -inch watermain south to the new terminal under the
MSP 2020 Concept Plan would be required. The construction required for this installation would involve
temporary disruption of local streets.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-149
Heating Season
Cooling Season
Type of Water Use
Baseline -Projected Projected
Baseline Projected
--Projected
Average Average Peak
Average Average
Peak
Demand(1) Demand Demand(2)
Demand Demand
Demand(2)
(1994) (2020) (2020)
(1994) (2020)
(2020) .
(MGD) (MGD) (MGD)
(MGD) (MGD)
(MGD)
A. Domestic (3)
MAC - Minneapolis Supply
1.010 1.410 3.530
1.010 1.410
3.530
NWA - Minneapolis Supply
0.740 1.850
0.740
1.850
NWA - Well Water (Bldg C)
0.530
0.530
B. Fire (4)
0.000 0.000 0.640
0.000 0.000
0.640
C. Heating/Cooling(5)
MAC - Minneapolis Supply
0.004 0.004 0.010
0.058
0.145
MAC - Well Water -
2.018
NWA - Minneapolis Supply
0.007 0.017
0.038
0.094
NWA - Well Water
0.007
1.710
TOTAL ESTIMATED DEMAND
1.551 2.161 6.047
5.268 2.246
6.259
(MUNICIPAL AND WELL WATER)
TOTAL MUNICIPAL DEMAND
1.014 2.161 6.047
1.010 2.246
6.259
(1)Current demand based on 1994 reported usage.
(2)Assumes peaking factor of 2.5 for domestic, heating, and cooling. See (4) regarding fire demand.
(3)Projected MAC - Minneapolis supply volume based on 15,800,000 enplanements projected for 2020 and 32.625 gallons per enplanement.
NWA currently obtains all water for building C from on-site wells. However, it is assumed that NWA will convert to a municipal
supply by the year 2020.
(4)Fire protection water at NWA and Military Facilities is provided in storage. No consumption assumed for average daily use at Terminal.
Peak fire demand based on assumed fire flow of 8,000 gpm for four hour duration for terminal area buildings.
(5)Assumes 150 days of cooling and 215 days of heating. In 1994, cooling was provided with once -through systems utilizing well water.
However, in 1995 NWA converted to a closed loop cooling system which uses the Minneapolis water system for make-up water. In
1999 the MAC intends to convert to a similar system. The projected volumes presented above assume these conversions.
The MAC drew an average 2.018 million gallons per day (MGD) of water from its PdC/Jordan wells during
the 1994 cooling season. During the same period, Northwest Airlines (NWA) drew an average 2.24 million
gallons from its PdC/Jordan wells. In June of 1995, NWA completed construction on a "closed loop"
cooling system which will utilize makeup water from the City of Minneapolis, decreasing NWA's demand on
the PdC/Jordan aquifer by approximately 1.710 MGD during the cooling season. It is anticipated that NWA
will obtain all of its water supply needs from the Minneapolis Water Works by 2020, eliminating NWA's
dependence on the PdC/Jordan aquifer. The MAC will also be converting to a closed loop system by 1998,
eliminating the MAC's demand on well water from the PdC/Jordan aquifer. Consequently, no water
demand is anticipated for the PdC/Jordan aquifer under the MSP and No Action alternatives.
The highest average daily and peak demand for water from the Minneapolis Water Works is projected to
occur during the cooling season, when the daily average Minneapolis water demand reaches 2.395 MGD
and 2.246 MGD for the MSP and No Action alternatives, respectively. These demands are more than twice
the current average airport demand from the Minneapolis Water Works and represent a 2.1 percent
increase in the total average demand for the Minneapolis Water Works service area. According to
Minneapolis Water Works staff, the 48 -inch water main currently servicing MSP has sufficient capacity to
supply the airport's average and peak water demands under both the MSP and No Action alternatives. It is
not anticipated that the increase in MSP demand for city of Minneapolis water projected for 2020 would
have any discernible impact on Mississippi River flow or levels.
It is possible that a new service line or lines from the 48 -inch watermain south to the new terminal under the
MSP 2020 Concept Plan would be required. The construction required for this installation would involve
temporary disruption of local streets.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-149
AAA .3 Mitigation Measures — MSP Alternative
l
Other than standard construction measures associated with installing a new service line(s) into the new
main terminal which potentially would be required under the MSP 2020 Concept Plan, no mitigation
measures would be required.
AA.2 Summary of Water Supply Impacts
All alternatives would have access to adequate supplies of potable and other water. The MSP 2020
Concept Plan would use the city of Minneapolis water supply system.
BB. Surface Water Quality
General Background
For the MSP and No Action Alternatives, the source of potential impact on surface water quality is storm water
discharge. The storm water quality parameters to be considered are carbonaceous biochemical oxygen
demand (CBOD5), nitrogen/ammonia, pH, total suspended solids (TSS), oil and grease (OG), phosphorus (P),
and aquatic toxicity. The primary activities/materials which can have an impact on these parameters are:
• CBOD5 – glycol products used by MSP tenants for aircraft deicing, and ground surface snow/ice control
chemicals;
• nitrogen/ammonia -- urea historically used for ground surface snow/ice control operations;
• pH -- urea historically used for ground surface snow/ice control operations;
• TSS – expanse of hard surfaced areas upon which airport operations take place;
• OG -- aviation fueling activities performed by MSP tenants; and
• aquatic toxicity – aircraft deicing fluids and urea. 1,
While there are no known sources of phosphorous specifically related to airport operations, phosphorous will
be addressed because it is a parameter which is commonly evaluated in a wide range of development
projects.
Regulatory Background
Storm water discharge from MSP is regulated by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) through a
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The MAC has held this permit for the
airport since 1975. Prior to the issuance of this permit, storm water discharge from the airport was not
regulated. While MSP tenants perform all aircraft deicing at MSP and the great majority of the fueling
operations which take place at the overall facility, the MAC is currently the sole permittee under its NPDES
permit.
The original NPDES permit for MSP had monitoring requirements and discharge limits for oil and grease,
TSS, and pH. It was re -issued in the 1980s to include monitoring for CBOD5. A new NPDES permit issued in
September 1993 had the following primary requirements:
• more extensive water quality monitoring at MSP outfalls for a broader list of parameters;
• river water quality monitoring upstream and downstream of the airport;
• an aggressive glycol containment program;
• monitoring and reporting of deicing material usage; and
• a series of investigations to assess existing conditions and evaluate control and management
measures, culminating in the preparation of the MSP Decision Report for Storm Water Control
Measures (Metropolitan Airports Commission, December 1994). /
t,
Dual Track Final EIS
V-150
(a) Discharge Water Quality Monitoring:
As addressed above, the MAC has monitored the water quality of surface water discharge from MSP since
1975. With the promulgation of the September 1993 NPDES permit, the MAC_ substantially_ upgraded -its
surface water quality monitoring and reporting program. Under this program, CBOD5, along with a number of
other parameters including TSS, un -ionized ammonia, and oil and grease, are measured with continuous flow
monitoring. The results of the monitoring are compiled and reported monthly to the MPCA in documents
referred to as Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs).
Of particular interest and attention in recent years has been the CBOD5 parameter. The five highest CBOD5
discharge days (all watersheds combined) for the 1993/94 through 1996/97 seasons, respectively, are
presented in Table 1313-1. These data may be compared against the modeled results for the' MSP and No
Action Alternatives presented in Table BB -6.
Table BB -1 - Five Highest CBOD5 Discharge Days (Airport Composite) for 1993/94 through 1996/67
Winters
1993/94 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97
Date Load Date Load Date Load Date Load
lbs/da Ibs/da lbs/da lbs/da
4/29/94 100,607 3/1?/95 109,908 1/18/96 101,057 11/16/96 113,114
3/4/94 51,282 3/7/95 73,714 3/24/96 97,500 12/24/96 93,895
2/18/94 28,723 3/11/95 46,744 12/15/95 35,665 1/5/97 72,285
3/5/94 25,689 2/16/95 43,048 2/8/96 32,635 1/4/97 1 71,452
2/17/94 25,356 2/18/95 42,191 2/9/96 28,6242/21/97 51,154
(b) Minnesota River Water Quality Monitoring.
On a twice -per -week basis, the MAC takes samples in the Minnesota River at a point approximately one half
mile upstream from the MSP Minnesota River South outfall (MPCA # 040 -the MSP outfall which is furthest
upstream) and also from a point approximately three miles downstream from the "Snelling Lake" outfall
(MPCA # 030 -the MSP discharge point to the Minnesota River which is furthest downstream). The
parameters which are analyzed in this sampling are as follows:
• Dissolved oxygen (DO) --river profile
• Temperature—river profile
• Ammonia nitrogen—one meter in depth
• CBOD.5-one meter in depth
• pH—one meter in depth
The results of this analysis are reported in the monthly Discharge Monitoring Reports referenced above.
The MPCA required the MAC to perform in -river water quality analysis primarily to determine the potential
impact of MSP discharges on DO levels within the river. The material with the greatest potential to impact DO
levels in receiving waters is spent glycol resulting from aircraft deicing activities which MSP tenants perform.
The data which has been generated during the past five winter seasons gives no evidence of impact of MSP
discharges upon DO levels within the Minnesota River. The downstream DO levels have never been
observed to be significantly lower on a consistent basis than the upstream DO levels. This observation is
made with two qualifications:
• The river has not experienced low flow in recent years.
• Typically, for approximately a 10-14 week period if time, the river sampling cannot be performed because
of ice cover and/or ice flows in the river.
During periods of ice cover, the river will have reduced re -oxygenation potential due to reduced contact of the
water with the atmosphere. However, general biodegradation rates are highly temperature -driven. The cold
Dual Track Final EIS
V-151
water temperatures associated with periods of ice cover would be anticipated to significantly limit the potential
for breakdown of glycol, thus reducing the effect of the glycol discharge on river DO levels. In addition, river
will naturally hold higher DO levels at colder temperatures due to water's inherent capacity to hold higher
concentrations of dissolved gasses at the colder temperatures.
(c) Spent Aircraft Deicing Fluid Control:
The development of an extensive glycol containment program at MSP has resulted in substantial overall
reductions in CBOD5 discharge to receiving waters. This program was initiated in November 1993 and has
been enhanced in every subsequent deicing season. This program is based upon the use of plug structures
in existing storm sewer lines at aircraft deicing locations, and the use of tanker trucks to evacuate in-line
storage of glycol -impacted storm water (GISW) and transport it to temporary storage ponds on MSP property.
From the storage ponds, the low glycol concentration GISW is metered to the Metropolitan Council
Environmental Services (MCES) sanitary treatment system, and high glycol concentration GISW is processed
for glycol recycling by a contractor to Northwest Airlines.
The glycol containment program began with 12 plug structures in November 1993 and, by the 1996/97 winter,
had been expanded to include 21 plug structures. During the 1993/94 season, approximately 36 percent of
the glycol reaching the MSP storm sewer system was captured and treated. For the 1996/97 season, this
figure was 63 percent.
Starting in the 1997/98 winter season, Northwest Airlines has performed cleanup of spent aircraft deicing
fluids (ADF) with three vacuum sweeper units. These units generally operate at locations where plug/pump is
not viable. However, they also operate, when possible, at plugged locations to minimize potential losses due
to tracking, snow plow operations and other factors. Preliminary data for the 1997/98 winter season indicates
that these sweeper operations have effectively enhanced the overall glycol control program at MSP.
(d) Monitoring and Reporting of Deicing Material Usage:
All of the aircraft deicing fluid which is used at MSP is applied by tenants of the airport facility. For the most
part, air carriers perform their own aircraft deicing. However, the fixed base operator (FBO) for MSP,
Signature Flight Support, performs significant aircraft deicing operations for charter flights and for smaller
carriers. .
Consistently with requirements established in the 1993 NPDES permit for MSP, the MAC has set up a
program to track all glycol usage on the airport according to date and location of application. The MSP
tenants which perform aircraft deicing operations track their glycol usage using a form provided by the MAC
and supplies this information to the MAC on a regular basis. The MAC then enters this information into a
facility -wide tracking format and submits this information on a monthly basis to the MPCA in the Discharge
Monitoring Reports referenced above.
The total volumes of glycol used from the 1993/94 season through the 1996/97 season are presented in
Table BB -2. It can be seen the glycol usage varies widely from season to season. It is highly dependent
upon weather conditions. This type of experience is typical for most airports which have significant aircraft
deicing requirements.
'Aircraft deicing.
2Runway deicing.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-152
Table BB -2 -
Aircraft and Runway Deicing Chemicals Usage at IVISP 1993/94 —1996/97
Gallons Glycol'
Tons Urea
1993/94
450,900
660
1994/95
392,000
740
1995/96
559,900
620
1996/97
1,405,900
1,050
'Aircraft deicing.
2Runway deicing.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-152
The MAC tracks all of the materials which it uses for the purposes of ground surface snow/ice control in the
aircraft operating area (AOA) according to date and location of application. The volumes of materials used
over the past four seasons are presented in Table 1313-2. It can be seen that substantial amounts of urea
have historically had to be used at MSP for ground surface snow/ice control purposes in the AOA. As will be
further discussed under the un -ionized ammonia heading of Section BBA -2, the MAC has been testing and
using alternative runway deicing/anti-icing chemicals in recent years with the intention of ultimately eliminating
the use of urea at MSP.
(e) Investigations/Reports:
The 1993 NPDES permit for MSP has required the MAC, according to a strict schedule, to perform and
document a series of investigations evaluating and proposing various surface water control and management
measures. These efforts culminated in the generation of MSP Decision Report for Storm Water Control
Measures (Metropolitan Airports Commission, December 1994). The 1994 Decision Report was a major
assessment of surface water issues and investigation of potential surface water control measures for MSP. In
response to a request from the MPCA, the MAC updated the 1994 Decision Report with MSP Storm Water
Control Measures: Decision Report Addendum (Metropolitan Airports Commission, November 1996). The
updated document took into account the decision by the Minnesota Legislature in 1996 to eliminate the New
Airport alternative (which would have been located in Dakota County) from the overall evaluation and planning
process, thus making MSP the on-going airport facility to meet future transportation needs associated with the
Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area.
The 1993 NPDES permit required the Decision Report to evaluate control measures against various target
limits for surface water discharge. These target limits (monthly average) to be used for analytical purposes
are:
• CBOD5: 100 lbs/day;
• TSS: 30 mg/I;
• OG: 15 mg/I; and
• un -ionized ammonia: 1 mg/I.
The target CBOD5 limit of 100 lbs per day was based on a waste load allocation (WLA) study conducted by
the MPCA in 1985/87. This study addressed a 25 -mile reach of the lower Minnesota River, with a focus on
the relative pollutant loads from non -point sources (both prior to and within this stretch), and from two major
point sources to this reach, namely, the MCES treatment plants at Seneca and Blue Lake. Because
dissolved oxygen is typically of most concern in the late summer months, this WLA utilized data for summer
months only, and, thus, did not account for baseline discharge from MSP during winter/spring months.
Because elevated levels of CBOD5 discharge from MSP result primarily from the use of aircraft and other
deicing products, the highest CBOD5 discharges from MSP occur in the winter and spring months. The
1985/87 WLA focussed upon the MCES treatment plants at Seneca and Blue Lake, and did not assign a
wasteload allocation to MSP.
Since the promulgation of the September 1993 NPDES permit, the MPCA has acknowledged that basing a
year-round limit of 100 lbs per day CBOD5 for MSP discharge would be inappropriate, because the 1985/87
was based only upon summer data and therefore did not account for the most significant MSP discharges.
The Decision Report concluded that a 100 lbs CBOD5 per day limit was essentially unattainable for MSP. With
the large volume of drainage from the airport during significant run-off events, any detectable CBOD5
concentration would translate to an exceedance of a 100 Ib per day mass limit. It is the MAC's understanding
the MPCA intends to use a cold -weather low -flow WLA to be conducted in the coming years to be able to
analyze the true impact of MSP discharge on dissolved oxygen levels in the Minnesota River with confidence.
The Decision Report evaluated a broad range of control measures for the CBOD5 parameter, including
dedicated deicing pads, vacuum sweepers, synthetic mats and other measures. The Decision Report
Addendum concludes that available information indicates that dedicated deicing pads represent the best
available source control measure for spent aircraft deicing fluid. Anticipated development costs associated
with pad facilities to serve MSP are in the range of $10 million to $15 million per pad.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-153
The TSS target standard of 30 mg/I for analytical purposes is a secondary treatment standard for wastewater
treatment plants. With regards to TSS control, it appears questionable as to why such a standard would apply {,
to airport run-off, when, by comparison, surface water run-off from municipalities and roadways is generally
unregulated. The 1994 Decision Report provided information supporting the position that meeting a
technology-based standard for TSS control would be more appropriate than the 30 mg/I target limit referenced
above. The 1997 Decision Report Addendum documented the MAC's intention to increase retention capacity
serving the overall airport site such that it would meet National Urban Run-off Program (NURP) or equivalent
design standards. This issue is further discussed under the Total Suspended Solids heading within Section
1313.1.2.
The 1994 Decision Report concluded that to treat end -of -system discharges to reduce un -ionized ammonia
discharges would be prohibitively expensive. The preferred way to control un -ionized ammonia discharge
levels would be to eliminate the only significant source of ammonia loading into MSP storm water, which is
urea. The 1996 Decision Report Addendum discussed issues to be addressed in the transition from urea to
alternative products. This issue is further discussed under the un -ionized ammonia heading of Section
1313.1.2.
As can be seen in a review of the monthly DMRs, discharges from MSP in excess of 15 mg/I oil and grease
have been quite infrequent in recent years. As was stated in the 1994 Decision Report, it is anticipated that
the planned development of additional storm water detention capacity will help limit release of oil and grease
effluents to receiving waters. Further discussion on this Issue is provided under the Oil and Grease Heading
of Section 1313.1.2.
The investigations/reports required under the 1993 NPDES permit are the basis behind the MAC's intended
enhancements to the overall surface water control program for MSP.
(f) Future NPDES Permitting Issues and Implementation of Environmental Control Measures:
The MAC has applied for and is currently in the process of discussing reissuance of its NPDES permit. The
MAC fully intends to comply with the applicable requirements of any new or modified NPDES permit
governing its activities at MSP. The following information is presented for clarification for the purposes of this
FEIS document, but it is not intended to presume a permit result or in any way pre -judge the regulatory
requirements which will be set forth in that reissued permit.
The information and analysis presented in this FEIS covers a longer timeframe than the permit timeframe,
since NPDES permits are issued on a five-year basis. The MAC envisions the following NPDES permit -
related terms and conditions in the five-year reissuance of the permit for the MSP and No Action Alternatives,
respectively:
MSP Alternative:
1. Construction and full utilization of three dedicated deicing pads, each serving a different runway
end and associated operations. It is anticipated that two more deicing pads will be built under
subsequent NPDES reissuance, to bring the total number of pads to 5 (one for each primary
take -off runway end).
2. Continued use of plug/pump program in areas without pads, until all pads are constructed.
3. Glycol -impacted snow containment and management.
4. Supplemental vacuum sweeping operations.
5. Enhance storm water detention ponds to improve collection, settling and flow equalization.
6. Elimination of urea at MSP, pending satisfactory outcomes as regards material supplier and
material storage/handling issues.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-154
7. Support airline's efforts to use the least toxic aircraft deicing products. If such an approach is
deemed necessary and appropriate, the MPCA may have ability under NPDES permitting
authority to require the airlines to use the least toxic product formulations.
8. Continued material use tracking and water quality monitoring to assess the performance of the
above measures.
9. Performance of whole effluent toxicity (WET) testing at actual outfall locations according to
protocols to be negotiated with the MPCA (see further discussion on this issue provided under
the Aquatic Toxicity heading of Section BB.1.2).
No Action:
Same as the above, but with use of one deicing pad (Runway 12L), with a combination of
plug/pump and vacuum sweepers at other locations.
The measures as outlined above are the culmination of and are consistent with the analyses and reporting
required of the MAC by the MPCA in the 1993 NPDES permit. They are based upon the principle of
comprehensive source control. In the case of CBOD5 , it is possible that an approach over and above those
listed above may be deemed necessary to implement in future years and under future reissued versions of
the NPDES permit. The residual (that which escapes containment at the source) GISW management
measures which could potentially be implemented over and above the source control mitigation measures
identified above are as follows:
1. Point-nonpoint effluent source trade credits (upstream mitigation measures).
2. River oxygen augmentation during critical months (slip stream aeration).
3. Diversion of all storm water during critical months from detention basins to MCES for off-site
treatment (this option would also manage residual toxicity levels, if this were a problem after
source control measures).
(For reasons which are discussed under the Biochemical Oxygen Demand heading of Section BB.1.2 and
also in Appendix A.11, on-site treatment of residual GISW is not a viable option at MSP.)
Further discussion on residual GISW management measures is provided in Appendix A.11. One of these
measures could be implemented in a future NPDES permitting process under a combination of the following
conditions, or if otherwise determined by the MAC:
1. Future water quality analysis indicates that a residual GISW management measure may be
necessary.
2. The measure identified is deemed necessary and appropriate through substantive review and the
administrative procedures associated with the NPDES permitting process.
The approach of diverting all MSP storm water run-off to the Metro Disposal System during the
winter/spring timeframe would require approval from Metropolitan Council Environmental Services.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-155
1313.1 MSP and No Action Alternatives
BB.1.1 Affected Environment—MSP and No Action Alternatives
The APE consists of the existing storm water drainage/control system and the waters receiving the
runoff/discharge.
Storm Water Drainage/Treatment System
MSP is, with minor exceptions, a self-contained watershed. There is very little off-site drainage which flows
onto MAC property. The Airport property is divided into four sub -watersheds, each draining to its own outfall
(see Figure 1313-1). These drainage areas are: Mother Lake, Snelling Lake, Minnesota River North, and
Minnesota River South. The four drainage areas discharging from MSP comprise approximately 2,600 acres,
of which approximately 1,135 are hard surfaced.
Most of the run-off from the Mother Lake drainage area flows initially into a skimmer pond and then to Duck
Lake; discharge from Duck Lake to Mother Lake occurs rarely, if ever. Elements of Duck Lake were designed
and constructed in 1975 which allow it to serve as a retention basin for the Mother Lake drainage area. It has
been used in this capacity since 1975.
Run-off from the Snelling Lake drainage area flows to the Minnesota River through two detention ponds
constructed in series. Snelling Lake can also receive run-off from this drainage area. This would occur during
storms larger than a 10 -year recurrence event via an emergency spillway at the first detention pond, or if the
gate at the second detention pond outlet control structure is manually opened to allow discharge into Snelling
Lake. This only occurs when Fort Snelling State Park officials wish to augment lake levels.
The Minnesota River South drainage area flows to the Minnesota River through a detention pond. The '
Minnesota River North drainage area flows to the Minnesota River through a control structure at an earthen
embankment. The embankment is designed to contain storm water in the event of a fuel spill, but a
permanent pool is not currently maintained.
The storm water detention ponds were designed and constructed primarily to provide capability to contain fuel
spills in the event of fuel spills reaching the storm sewer system. The detention basins also provide limited
sediment removal, but essentially no ammonia or BOD removal.
Receiving Waters
Duck/Mother Lake
Duck Lake is approximately eight acres in size and Mother Lake is approximately 100 acres in size. The
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
were contacted to determine if any historical water quality data exists for these bodies of water. These
agencies are not aware of any such data.
Minnesota River
The Minnesota River is classified by reach in Minnesota Rules (part 7050.0470). The descriptions/uses for the
various classes are presented in Table 1313-3. The classification for the Minnesota River from Mile 22 to the
confluence with the Mississippi is 2C, 3B.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-156
Table 1313-3 - Water Quality Classifications (Minnesota Rules, 1993,1994)
Class
Description - Uses
1
DOMESTIC CONSUMPTION
1 B
with approved disinfection such as simple chlorination -> drinking water
1 C
higher level of treatment such as coagulation, sedimentation etc. to use as drinking water
2
FISHERIES AND RECREATION
2A
cool and warm water sport and commercial fisheries, all aquatic recreation, including bathing and
protected as a drinking water source
2B
cool and warm water sport and commercial fisheries, all aquatic recreation, including bathing, not
protected as a drinking water source
2C
rough fishery (species commonly inhabiting the waters under natural conditions), and boating
3
INDUSTRIAL CONSUMPTION
3B
general industrial uses except food processing; only moderate treatment required
4
AGRICULTURE AND WILDLIFE
4A
irrigational uses
46
use by livestock and wildlife
5
AESTHETIC ENJOYMENT AND NAVIGATION
5
navigation and waste disposal, aesthetically suitable for scenic enjoyment, no damaging effects
to property
6
OTHER USES
6
other possible beneficial uses
The Minnesota River is one of the most polluted rivers in the state. This prompted the State Legislature to
fund the Minnesota River Assessment Project (MRAP), a cooperative effort of more than 30 federal, state and
local agencies to assess the water quality of this river and to set water quality improvement goals. The
Minnesota River Assessment Project Report (January 1994), jointly researched and written by the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR), was
generated as part of the MRAP. This document and the Lower Minnesota River Waste Load Allocation Studv
(Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 1985) and its amendments are important sources of the following
information.
The Minnesota River flows 335 miles through the state, including some of the state's richest agricultural land.
Pollutants of greatest concern in the river are nutrients, oxygen demanding materials, sediments and bacteria.
Elevated levels of these pollutants are primarily the result of non -point source loading. The most significant
non -point sources are as follows:
• agricultural fields;
• feedlots;
• roads;
• septic tank discharges;
• parking areas;
• construction sites;
• mining operations; and
• lawns.
The first of three MSP outfalls on the Minnesota River is located approximately four miles upstream of the
i confluence of the Minnesota River and the Mississippi River. The Minnesota River carries a substantial
pollutant load from the sources identified above prior to arriving at these lower reaches. Of note are the
Dual Track Final EIS
V-157
concentrations and mass loadings of CBOD5, TSS, un -ionized ammonia (NH3) and total phosphorus (P), as
well as the resultant turbidity and decreased dissolved oxygen (DO) levels.
Table 1313-4 presents quarterly data for river water quality as measured at the MCES Fort Snelling monitoring
station. The figures presented in Table 1313-4 are averages for the years 1976 through 1995. The paramters
of dissolved oxygen, TSS, and un -ionized ammonia will be addressed individually below.
Dissolved Oxygen --A minimum dissolved oxygen concentration of 5.0 mg/I on a daily average has
been established as the water quality standard for the lower reaches of the Minnesota River. The
dissolved oxygen concentration in the stream at any point in time depends on a number of variables
and the interaction of oxygen consuming and oxygen replenishing processes. These include:
• Water temperature;
• Ice cover;
• Stream hydraulics;
• Algae respiration;
• Headwater oxygen demanding organic matter (carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand--
CBOD);
• Benthic (sediment) uptake;
• Point source CBOD loads; and
• Ammonification and nitrification.
In the late 1970s and 1980s, the water quality standard for DO (5 mg/1) was not consistently met in
the Lower Minnesota River, particularly during summer low flow conditions. This prompted a MPCA
study in the mid 1980s that recommended lower CBOD limits for Blue Lake and Seneca, the major
Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (formerly Metropolitan Waste Control Commission)
treatment plants on the river. However, the study also found that point source controls alone could
not solve the problem. A 40 percent reduction in upstream CBOD5i predominantly from non -point
sources, would also be required.
Figure BB -2 depicts monthly DO levels at the MCES water quality monitoring station at Fort Snelling.
The data presented are averaged over the years 1976 through 1995. It can be seen that the lowest
DO levels are generally in the late summer timeframe due to relatively low flow conditions as
combined with warm water temperatures. While DO is more of an issue during the warm months
than the cold months, significant ice cover can have the effect of limiting re -aeration of a water body,
creating the potential for depressed DO levels.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-158
Table 1313-4 - Minnesota River Water Quality Data --Fort Snelling Station
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Annual
Dissolved .oxygen m
Minimum 5.05
3.6
2.8
4.2
2.8
Maximum 17.6
15.8
14.5
16.7
17.6
Avera a 10.6
10.4
6.8
9.8
9.3
Total 5 -day CBOD (mg/1)
Minimum 0.8
1.8
1
1.5
0.8
Maximum 15
17
15.4
23.4
23.4
Avera e 4.3
5.8
5.0
6.5
5.4
Total ammonia nitrogen (mg/1)
Minimum 0.05
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Maximum 3.9
2.52
2.5
5.6
5.6
Avera e 1.23
0.46
0.42
0.68
0.65
Total Kjeldahl nitro en m
Minimum 0.3
0.4
0.28
0.28
0.28
Maximum 4.8
10.2
8.8
4.09
10.2
Average 2.18
1.98
1.89
2.15
2.05
Total phosphorus (mg/1)
Minimum 0.03
0.03
0.13
0.06
0.03
Maximum 0.8
0.92
4.3
2.5
4.3
Avera a 0.32
0.31
0.41
0.39
0.36
Total suspended solids (mg/1)
Minimum 1
5
39
18
1
Maximum 136
795
1528
1780
1780
Average 14.7
110.5
164.4
108.7
98.7
NOTE: These are averaged data over the years 1976 through 1995.
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) -- The Minnesota River is noted for the heavy TSS load it carries.
While there are no water quality standards for TSS, the river does have a standard for turbidity of 25
NTUs (turbidity is associated with high TSS and phosphorus concentrations). The Minnesota River
Assessment Proiect Report shows this limit to be exceeded for the Minnesota River at Jordan on
approximately 40 percent of the grab samples and at Fort Snelling on approximately 30 percent of the
samples between 1979 and 1991.
Annual TSS loading to the river range from under 100,000 tons in very dry years to more than
1,300,000 tons. Average annual loads are more than 600,000 tons. The tonnage is characterized in
the Minnesota River Assessment Proiect Report as the equivalent of 86 20 -ton truckloads per day.
Seasonal loads also vary with run-off flow rates. Concentrations are lowest in the winter when most of
the volume represents groundwater base flow. They increase with spring snowmelt and rainfalls and
peak in the summer. According to the Minnesota River Assessment Project Report, TSS
concentrations average 123 mg/I on a flow weighted basis, significantly higher than observed MSP
discharge levels and proposed target discharge levels.
Ammonia --High levels of un -ionized ammonia have toxic effects on some forms of aquatic life. The
water quality standard for ammonia is 0.04 mg/I as un -ionized ammonia nitrogen. The percent of
total ammonia nitrogen in the un -ionized form is driven by pH and temperature. The combined
effects of low river flow, high water temperature, and high pH produce critical conditions for ammonia
toxicity. Warm temperatures and higher pH levels make July and August the months that most
1 frequently exhibit stressed conditions. River monitoring at Fort Snelling over the period 1976-1995
shows there were 61 measurements (of 783) in which the water quality standard was exceeded.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-159
Since the start of nitrification at the Blue Lake and Seneca WWTPs in 1991, no exceedances of the
.04 mg/1-water quality standard for un -ionized ammonia have been reported at Fort Snelling.
13121.1.2 Surface Water Quality Impacts— MSP and No Action Alternatives
The discussion and analysis presented in the following sections will focus upon potential for environmental
impact and mitigative measures regarding run-off to the Minnesota River. Under both the MSP and No Action
Alternatives, drainage from Aircraft Operating Area (AOA) surfaces which are or will be within the current
boundaries of the Mother Lake watershed boundaries will be routed to the Minnesota River South control and
discharge system. Thus, the remaining areas within the current boundaries of the Mother Lake watershed
which will drain to Mother Lake should be analagous to standard urban run-off.
Total Suspended Solids
Background
The primary source of elevated levels of total suspended solids (TSS) to the MSP storm water drainage
system is the expanse of hard surfaced areas upon which airport operations take place. A total of 1,160
acres of hard surfaced area are currently served by the MSP storm water drainage system. Including the
Runway 4-22 extension to 12,000 feet, there will be approximately 1,200 acres from the No Action Alternative,
1,570 acres from the MSP 2010 LTCP, and 1,630 from the MSP 2020 Concept Plan. MAC keeps operating
surfaces as free of sand and grit as possible, through extensive sweeping and other measures, because this
type of loose material gets pulled into jet engines and can cause excessive mechanical wear.
As discussed in the Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Decision Report for Storm Water Control
Measures (Metropolitan Airports Commission, December 1994), the MAC intends to enhance its existing
storm water drainage facilities to improve TSS control. For each of the four surface water drainage areas,
detention ponds will be improved or constructed such that National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) or
comparable design standards (Detpond, a.k.a. Pitt Model as developed by Robert Pitt) for wet detention are
met. Based upon discussion with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) staff, it is anticipated that
Detpond design criteria will meet NPDES requirements for TSS control at MSP. The MAC intends to
construct detention facility improvements to meet Detpond standards regardless of the ultimate development
outcome for the airport.
Analysis
In its document entitled Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas - Best Management Practices for Minnesota,
the MPCA identifies wet detention ponds as one of the most effective best management practices (BMPs)
available for treatment of urban run-off. Pond design requires, at a minimum, a pond with wet storage capable
of 90 percent particle removal to five microns throughout a 0.5 inch run-off event. Because it has been
calibrated and field verified, the MPCA requires the use of Detpond in the determination of pond size and
discharge structure configuration.
The following discussion addresses the main development aspects associated with detention pond
enhancement for each watershed under the MSP and No Action Alternatives. Final design requirements will
be established through the NPDES permiting process.
Mother Lake (Outfalls 010 and 010A) For the MSP and No Action Alternatives, all surface drainage
from aircraft operating areas (AOA) within the current boundaries of the Mother Lake watershed would
be routed south to the Minnesota River South control and discharge system. This would include
runway, taxiway, and deicing pad surfaces. Under the MSP Alternative, Duck Lake would be
abandoned as required by construction of Runway 17/35. While a final determination will be made
through the appropriate permitting processes, it is not believed that a detention pond will be required for
airport drainage to Mother Lake under the MSP Alternative (see discussion in
Appendix A.8). Under No Action, the remaining non -AOA drainage would continue to discharge to Duck
Dual Track Final EIS
V-160
Lake after control with the skimmer pond which would be ehnanced as dictated by the NPDES
permitting process.
® Minnesota River North (Outfall 020) --For both the MSP and No Action Sceneries, the existing dam and
skimmer structure in the ravine would be removed and replaced by another earthen dam and concrete
spillway near the Trunk Highway 5 embankment. Permanent pool levels would be maintained in the
existing ravine in accordance with NURP or equaivalent performance requirements. The unregulated
MnDOT drainage associated with this outfall location would be diverted around this detention basin.
Snelling Lake (Outfall 030) --Consistent with the proposed actions documented in the 1994 Decision
Report, enhancements were made in 1997 to the outlet structure of the south detention basin which
provide better utilization of the existing storage capacity serving this watershed. It is anticipated that
any enhancements required for this control system under either the MSP or No Action Alternatives
would be relatively minor.
Minnestota River South (Outfall 040) --The MAC is currently (April 1998) preparing preliminary
engineering plans and documents for the development of a new detention pond to be located on
Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) property. This pond is being sized to treat run-off according to
NURP-equivalent performance standards from existing and anticipated (2010 and 2020 planning
horizons) pavements in the Minnesota River South watershed. As discussed above, these pavements
include AOA surfaces which are currently or will be within the existing boundaries of the Mother Lake
watershed.
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Background
There are two activities and associated chemicals unique to airport operations which can cause elevated
loadings of carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD5): a) aircraft deicing; and b) ground surface
snow/ice control. Historically, the most significant source of CBOD5 loading to the MSP storm water system
by a wide margin was the use of glycol products during aircraft deicing operations. From the 1993/94 winter
season through the 1996/97 winter season, the average usage of glycol product to deice aircraft at MSP has
been approximately 700,000 gallons per winter season. During the 1996/97 winter, approximately 1,556,000
gallons of aircraft deicing product (approximately 1,400,000 gallons glycol) were used to deice aircraft. In the
future, an increasingly significant source of CBOD5 loading will likely be new ground surface snow/ice control
chemicals such as sodium formate and potassium acetate. It is anticipated that these chemicals will be used
to replace urea.
Analysis
To assess the potential impacts of the MSP operations on DO levels in the Minnesota River, an extreme case
"slug" of CBOD5 discharge from the airport was projected. The activity which has the greatest impact on
CBOD5 levels in MSP storm water is aircraft deicing. It is believed that significant but less important loading
factors for CBOD5 in 2010 and beyond will be ground surface deicing operations utilizing sodium formate and
potassium acetate. The CBOD5 load associated with an assumed worst case glycol application day was
projected. In this analysis, the following assumptions were utilized:
Glycol
68,100 gallons propylene glycol applied on a worst case application day for the No Action Alternative,
71,800 gallons for the MSP 2010 LTCP, and 74,800 gallons for the MSP 2020 Concept Plan.
9.5 percent "blow-by" (glycol escaping containment and running into the storm sewer system) for No
Action Alternative, and 7.5 percent blow-by for the MSP Alternative (2010 and 2020)
CBOD5 of 1,000,000 mg/I for propylene glycol product
Dual Track Final EIS
V-161
Sodium Formate
• 600 tons seasonal application of sodium formate for the No Action Alternative, and 860 tons seasonal
application for the MSP Alternative (2010 and 2020)
• CBOD5 of 230,000 mg/kg for sodium formate product
• 1.43 percent of total seasonal CBOD5 applied in the form of sodium formate to be discharged to the storm
sewer system on worst case glycol application day
Potassium Acetate
• 50,000 gallons seasonal application of potassium acetate for the No Action Alternative, and 71,200
gallons seasonal application for the MSP Alternative (2010 and 2020)
• CBOD5 of 300,000 mg/I for potassium acetate product
• 1.43 percent of total seasonal CBOD5 applied in the form of potassium acetate to be discharged to the
storm sewer system on worst case glycol application day
The GISW containment programs assumed for this analysis are as follows:
MSP Alternative (2010 and 2020)
• Aircraft deicing performed on dedicated deicing pads with drainage segregated from other airport
drainage
• Supplimental vacuum sweeper operations; and
• Glycol -impacted snow containment and management.
No Action Alternative
• Deicing of Northwest Airlines departures from Runway 12L performed on a dedicated deicing pad at
that location.
• Containment with plug structures in storm sewers at all other significant aircraft deicing locations;
• Enhancing plugged containment with vacuum sweepers at prominent deicing locations; and /
• Glycol -impacted snow containment and management.
These assumptions were used to estimate the volume of blow-by glycol which would escape containment and
run into the detention ponds for each drainage area. Further discussion of these assumptions and how they
were used can be found in Appendices A.9 and HA.
For the analysis of extreme case CBOD5 loading to the Minnesota River, it was assumed that detention ponds
sized and configured to meet NURP or equivalent standards (as discussed in the TSS section above) would
be developed for the MSP and No Action Alternatives. These ponds would have permanent pool levels and
would provide significant attenuation of a CBOD5 "spike" associated with extreme usage of glycol and/or other
materials.
Because of cold water temperatures, only minimal biological treatment (CBOD5 reduction) during high CBODS
loading months could be realized in detention ponds at the airport. Thus, on-site treatment of residual
(escaping containment at the source) glycol -impacted storm water in ponds would require that these ponds
have sufficient capacity to provide storage for all storm water generated at the airport from the months of
approximately November through May. Only in late spring would the water temperatures be warm enough to
allow significant biological treatment of glycol and other materials. Historical data on run-off volumes in the
winter/spring months at MSP indicates that this approach would necessitate the construction of approximately
1,000 acre-feet of pond storage. Physical limitations at the airport site would not viably allow this type of
development. Biological treatment of residual glycol -impacted storm water is addressed in greater detail in
Appendix A.11.
To model the attenuating effect of the detention ponds, complete mixing in the ponds was assumed, and the
mass balance equation for routing the CBOD5 load was used. It was necessary to make assumptions
regarding a) the antecedent CBOD5 load in the ponds at the time of the extreme case CBOD5 spike, and b)
the hydraulic flow volumes at the time of this spike. Using data from the 1996/97 winter season in concert
Dual Track Final EIS
V-162
with assumptions regarding 2020 glycol application and blow-by for the MSP and No Action Alternatives, the
conditions presented in Table 1313-5 were developed and assumed to coincide with the CBOD5 spike event.
Table 1313-5 - Assumed Antecedent Pond Conditions for CBOD5 Spike Event - MSP and No Action
Alternatives
Watershed
Influent to Ponds
Pond Load
MG/L CBOD5)
MSP - 2010
53,600
Influent Flow
m d
MSP - 2020
MSP -2010 MSP -2020 No Action MSP -2010 MSP
No Action
020
260
260
450
5.09
5.09
4.62
030
750
770
120
0.63
0.63
0.71
040
360
370
390
1.48
1.48
1.22
The mass balance model and the associated inputs and outputs are addressed in Appendix A.9 and in
Appendix HA (MSP Alternative - 2010). The projected facility -wide loading into and discharge from the
detention ponds to the Minnesota River for the MSP and No Action Alternatives are presented in Table 1313-6.
Table BB -6 - Composite Airport C130D5 Loading on Extreme Case Day - MSP and No Action
Alternatives(pounds)
Alternative
Influent to Ponds
Effluent from Ponds
MSP - 2010
53,600
7,900
MSP - 2020
55,400
8,200
No Action
59,800
9,200
The extreme -case effluent loads from ponds as projected in Table BB -6 may be compared against the
oberved high CBOD5 discharge events associated with recent winters as presented in Table BB -1.
As has been discussed with MPCA staff, there is insufficient data at this time to project the potential impacts
of the CBOD5 loading projected in Table BB -6 on DO levels within the Minnesota River under low flow
conditions. As discussed under the Regulatory Background heading of Section BB, the river monitoring data
which the MAC has gathered over the 1993/94 through 1997/98 (through February) winters gives no
indication that MAC discharges during the winter/spring months have discernable impact on DO levels in the
Minnesota River. However, low flow conditions have not taken place over this timeframe. Also,
approximately half of each winter/spring season is not covered with monitoring, because ice conditions make
sampling procedures unsafe.
In order to model, with a sufficient degree of confidence, the potential for MSP discharge to negatively impact
river DO levels it will be necessary to have data regarding actual assimilative capacity of this reach of the
Minnesota River recorded during low flow conditions during the winter/spring timeframe. The MAC and
MPCA staff concur on this point and the fact that such data currently does not exist. The MAC understands
that the MPCA intends to authorize a winter/spring WLA low -flow river study in the coming years. This study
would provide the data required for conclusive DO impact analysis.
Un -Ionized Ammonia/pH
Background
The only significant source of ammonia loading and problematic pH conditions in MSP storm water is the use
of urea as a ground surface snow/ice control agent. Urea breaks down to ammonia, which is a weak base.
Ammonia is soluble in water and is found in two forms, ionized and un -ionized. The un -ionized form can be
toxic to aquatic life. In recent years, the MAC has typically used between 750 and 1,000 tons of urea per
winter for ground surface snow/ice control purposes.
During the 1993/94 winter, MAC began to work with potassium acetate as a liquid ground surface snow/ice
control product. At MSP, potassium acetate would serve as a support product for granular runway de-icer(s).
Dual Track Final EIS
V-163
Potassium acetate has no nitrogen content and thus no potential to cause loading of un -ionized ammonia to
receiving waters. During the 1996/97 winter, use of potassium acetate became fully operational at MSP as an
anti -icing agent.
The MAC performed field testing with sodium formate during the 1995/96 and 1996/97 winter seasons.
Sodium formate is a granular product which is used like urea and which could be a replacement for urea. Like
potassium acetate, it would not cause loading of un -ionized ammonia to receiving waters. This product has
been extensively and successfully field tested in Canada and has received approval for use at airports by
Transport Canada and the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Pending continued successful work
with sodium formate, and the ability to address product storage/handling issues, the MAC will ultimately
eliminate the use of urea at MSP.
For discussion of aquatic toxicity information regarding potassium acetate and sodium formate runway
de/anti-icing materials, refer to the Aquatic Toxicity heading of this section.
During the 1996/97 winter season the MAC Field Maintenance Department began the practice of
incorporating high speed brooms into snow removal procedures at MSP. The effect of these brooms is to
remove residual snowrce left behind by conventional snow plows, thus leaving relatively bare pavements.
This practice significantly limits the overall chemical application requirements associated with snow/ice control
operations for runways and taxiways.
Analysis
With the anticipated elimination of urea use at MSP, un -ionized ammonia and pH will not be an issue
regarding NPDES compliance for the MSP facility. In the very unlikely event that urea was still in use at MSP
in 2010 or beyond, a treatment system utilizing air stripping facilities at each outfall almost certainly would
have been implemented to maintain compliance with NPDES permit requirements.
t
In light of the discussion provided above, and as determined through the scoping and external review process
culminating in the Scoping Decision (July, 1995), outcomes for the un -ionized ammonia and pH parameters
for the MSP and No Action Alternatives will not be modeled or otherwise quantitatively projected for this FEIS.
Oil and Grease
Background
The most significant source category for oil and grease loading at MSP is aircraft fueling and the associated
support facilities and operations. All aviation fuel storage and handling at MSP is the responsibility of tenants
which perform aircraft fueling operations. These tenants have National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) General Permit responsibilities to limit the loading of pollutants to surface water run-off from
their facilities. Under NPDES requirements, they must generate Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans
(SWPPPs) for their respective facilities. All the facilities at MSP associated with both aviation and non -aviation
fueling operations are identified in the Oil Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan—Minneapolis St.
Paul International Airport (Metropolitan Airports Commission, June 1993, revised November 1993).
Surface water quality monitoring since November 1993 indicates that oil and grease is not a major concern at
MSP. (See Decision Report for Storm Water Control Measures [Metropolitan Airports Commission,
December 1994], and Discharge Monitoring Reports as submitted monthly by MAC to the MPCA.) The
existing water quality information does not account for control performance associated with the detention
ponds serving three of the four drainage areas because the samples are taken from the influent to those
ponds. It is anticipated that the enhancement of existing detention control facilities to meet Detpond
performance criteria (as discussed previously) will decrease the discharge of oil and grease effluent to
receiving Waters relative to existing discharge levels.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-164
Analysis
1
In light of the discussion provided above, and as determined through the scoping and external review process
culminating in the Scoping Decision (July, 1995), outcomes for oil and grease loadings for the MSP and No
Action Alternatives will not be modeled or otherwise quantitatively projected for this EIS.
Phosphorous
Background
There are no activities or materials specifically associated with airport facilities or operations which should
cause elevated levels of phosphorous.
Twenty-four hour composite samples are analyzed for phosphorous three times per week at MSP. Between
November 1993 and September 1997, the flow -weighted average concentration for total phosphorous was
0.17 mg/I. This is similar to phosphorous loading associated with general urban run-off.
There are no anticipated new activities or materials which would cause higher phosphorous loadings than
those historically experienced at MSP. Given the existing surface water quality data for this parameter for the
MSP facility, there is no need to model or otherwise quantitatively project phosphorous loadings associated
with the MSP and No Action Alternatives for this EIS.
Aquatic Toxicity
Background
Elevated biochemical oxygen demand levels have historically been seen as the most significant
environmental consequence associated with glycol -based aircraft deicing products and general surface water
discharges from airport facilities. Recently, howerver, there has been increased regulatory attention focused
upon aquatic toxicity issues as regards surface water discharge from airport facilities to receiving waters.
The MAC believes that the only materials with potential to substantially impact the aquatic toxicity of surface
water run-off from MSP are a) urea used for runway deicing purposes, and b) spent aircraft deicing fluid.
Urea --As was discussed under the Un -ionized Ammonia/pH heading of Section BB.1.2, urea breaks
down to ammonia, which, in sufficient concentration in its un -ionized form, can be toxic to aquatic life.
In recent years, the MAC has preformed testing with alternative products (potassium acetate and
sodium formate) and has implemented alternative operating procedures with the intention of
restricting and, ultimately, eliminating the use of urea at MSP. The MAC anticipates that no urea will
be used at MSP once necessary facility development actions have been taken.
According to supplier information, the potassium acetate product used at MSP has an LC50 of greater
than 2,100 mg/I for rainbow trout, and an LC50 of greater than 3,000 mg/I for daphnia magna.
According to product information for the sodium formate material used at MSP, this material has LC50
results of greater than 1,000 mg/I for daphnia magna, rainbow trout, and fathead minnows. A
representative of Hoechst indicated that the actual results for these species could be well in excess
of 1,000 mg/I, but, in Europe, most testing is stopped at the 1,000 mg/1 threshold because anything
greater than this is considered to be relatively benign environmentally.
Aircraft Deicing Fluid—Recent studies have demonstrated that the most important sources of aquatic
toxicity in aircraft deicing products are the non -glycol additives, such as surfactants and corrosion
inhibitors. There currently are three suppliers of ADF products in North America. The MAC contacted
these suppliers and requested that they provide aquatic toxicity information on their products. The
three suppliers provided this information, which is summarized in Table BB -7.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-165
Table BB -7 - Aquatic Toxicity Information for Aircraft De/Anti-Icing Products .
SUPPLIER A
1. Type I Material
a. Fathead minnows: 96 hour LC50 --> 22,000 mg/I
b. Daphnia magna: 48 hour EC50 --> 44,000 mg/I
C. Rainbow trout: 96 hour LC50 ---> 18,900 mg/I
2. Type IV Material (extended hold over)
a. Fathead minnows: 96 hour LC50 --> 410 mg/I
b. Daphnia magna: 48 hour EC50 --� 630 mg/I
C. Rainbow trout: 96 hour LC50 -* 380 mg/I
SUPPLIER B
1. Type I Material
a. Fathead minnows: 24 hour LC50 -> 625 ppm
b. Daphnia magna: 48 hour LC50 --> 475 ppm
2. Type IV Material
a. Fathead minnows: 96 hour LC50 -> 1,975 ppm
b. Daphnia magna: 48 hour LC50 -> 975 ppm
SUPPLIER C'
1. Type I Material
a. Fathead minnows: 96 hour LC50 -> 4,600 mg/I
b. Daphnia magna: 48 hour EC50 -> 9,000 mg/I
C. Rainbow trout: 96 hour LC50 --4 4,000 mg/I
2. Type II Material
a. Leuciscus Idus (fish): LC50 -4 420 mg/I
b. Daphnia magna: 48 hour EC50 -4 750 mg/I
NOTE: The information included in this table is presented as provided by the respective suppliers. Results
may not be directly comparable from product to product.
Other sources of information and data pertaining to ADF products and aquatic toxicity are as follows:
• "Comparative Toxicity of Formulated Glycol Deicers and Pure Ethylene and Propylene Glycol to
Ceriodaphnia Dubia and Pimephales Promelas" (David Pillard, ENSR Consulting and Engineering,
published July 1994);
• "Chemical Substances Testing Final Study Report: Ecotoxicological Evaluation of UCARO Aircraft
Deicing fluid XL 54" (Beak Consultants Limited for Transport Canada, 1995);
Dual Track Final EIS
V-166
• "Chemical Substances Testing Final Study Report: Ecotoxicological Evaluation of ARCOPLUSO Dilute
1 Aircraft Deicer" (Beak Consultants Limited for Transport Canada, 1995); and
• "Ecological Aspects of UCARO Aircraft Deicing Fluid and Ethylene Glycol" (Union Carbide Technical
Center, June 1995).
Analysis
It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to confidently model the aquatic toxicity of MSP discharge
based upon assumptions regarding concentrations of urea and ADF that discharge. It cannot be predicted
how organisms will respond to given effluent/test materials. The MAC, in and effort to further its
understanding MSP run-off and aquatic toxicity, has performed limited "whole effluent toxicity' (WET) analysis
on samples taken from this run-off. The samples were not taken from discharge points to receiving waters;
they were instead taken either upstream of detention ponds, or upstream of the confluence of MSP run-off
with non -MAC run-off which does not contain ADF (MN/DOT roadway surfaces). Through standard analytical
procedures, these samples did demonstrate an acute toxicity impact for certain species. The information from
this testing may by used in the NPDES permit process to help establish appropriate monitoring and testing
procedures.
The MAC intends that appropriate WET analysis will be performed on MSP discharge to receiving waters in
future winter seasons. It is anticipated that this will be a requirement of the anticipated reissued NPDES
permit for the airport.
The MAC's approach to limit the aquatic toxicity of MSP run-off and discharge is based upon the following
elements:
• Limit and ultimately eliminate the use of urea at MSP.
• Comprehensive source containment of spent ADF through the use of dedicated deicing pads and other
measures.
• Ability of enhanced detention ponds to attenuate discharges.
• Share information with carriers regarding the aquatic toxicity of ADF products as it pertains to MSP
discharge.
It is not known at this time what will be established as an NPDES standard for aquatic toxicity for MSP
discharge. If it is determined through though representative and appropriate water quality analysis that the
MSP discharge, after implementation of the controls identified above, presents a sufficient toxicity potential, it
is anticipated that regulatory focus would be directed to ADF products used by airline carriers. It may be
appropriate to regulate ADF procurement by MSP carriers on the basis of aquatic toxicity characteristics.
1313.1.3 Mitigation Measures — 2010 LTCP and No Action Alternatives
There are two general categories of pollutant materials which currently enter the MSP storm water system.
The first category will be termed "general loading" and includes pollutants associated with
fueling/maintenance operations, ground surface snow/ice control, and general airport operations on the
extensive hard surfaced areas of the facility. The second category is associated with the glycol -based
products used during aircraft deicing operations.
The mitigation measures outlined below are consistent with storm water quality control requirements which
are anticipated to be included in the renewed NPDES permit.
General Loading (total suspended solids, oil and grease, aquatic toxicity and ammonia/pH)
For general loading, the mitigation measures assumed for both the 2010 LTCP and No Action Alternatives
are the same. They are listed below. These are measures which the MAC either has already put into service,
Dual Track Final EIS
V-167
or intends to do so to meet anticipated NPDES requirements. The primary environmental parameter(s) to be
controlled by each measure is indicated in parenthesis.
Source Control:
• implementation of best management practices (BMPs) as defined in Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plans and Spill Prevention Control Countermeasure Plans prepared by entities involved
with airport operations (TSS, OG)
• spill protection/containment design at fuel facilities to meet regulatory requirements (OG)
• regular sweeping of pavement surfaces (TSS)
• use of alternate ground surface deicing chemicals (ammonia/pH)
Storm Water Treatment:
• oleophyllic absorbent booms in detention ponds (OG)
• enhanced storm water detention ponds (TSS, OG)
Aircraft Deicing Fluid Loading (CBOD5, aquatic toxicity)
For aircraft deicing fluid loading, the mitigation measures which are assumed for the 2010 LTCP and No
Action Alternatives, respectively, are presented below.
2010 LTCP Alternative:
•
dedicated deicing pad facilities at all primary runway departure ends — five facilities
• glycol -contaminated snow segregation/management
• supplemental vacuum sweeping operations
• CBOD5 attenuation through enhanced detention basins
No Action Alternative:
• use of a dedicated deicing facility located at Runway 12L for departures from that runway end
• in-line containment with plug structures at aircraft deicing locations other than the Runway 12L
deicing pad
® glycol -contaminated snow segregation/management
• vacuum sweeper glycol collection operations at select deicing locations
• CBOD5 attenuation through enhanced detention basins
In addition to the mitigation measures listed above, on-going water quality monitoring will be conducted for
all appropriate effluent parameters. The MAC intends to continue water quality monitoring as anticipated to
be required under the reissued NPDES permit such that the performance associated with the mitigation
measures identified above can be properly assessed.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-168
1 BB.2 Summary of Surface Water Quality Impacts
The projected extreme case discharges of CBOD5 from the airport to the Minnesota River for the MSP and
No Action Alternatives, respectively, are presented in- Table BB -6: The projected discharge for the MSP
Alternative is approximately 14 percent lower than the No Action Alternative in 2010, and about 11 percent
lower in 2020. Thus, based on the assumptions and methods utilized, this analysis indicates that the MSP
Alternative would not adversely impact surface water quality when compared with the No Action Alternative.
The MSP Alternative includes five dedicated deicing pads by 2010, which represent the best available control
technology for capture of spent aircraft deicing fluids.
A certification letter by the governor regarding water quality is in Appendix K.
CC. Groundwater Quality
Hydrogeologic terms which will be used in Section CC are defined as follows:
Water Table - The elevation of the highest groundwater under atmospheric pressure, usually the first
groundwater encountered when drilling a well.
Hydraulic Conductivity - A measurement of the capability to transmit water. Sand usually has a high hydraulic
conductivity. Clay usually has a low hydraulic conductivity.
Hydraulic Gradient - The change in the water table elevation or groundwater pressure head over distance. A
steep water table has a high hydraulic gradient. Values are presented in units of feet/feet, meters/ meter, and
are therefore dimensionless.
Vadose Zone or Unsaturated Zone - The area between the ground surface and the water table. The vadose
zone may contain some water, but it is not continuously saturated.
Aquifer Thickness - The distance from the base of the aquifer to the water table or upper confining layer.
Aguifer Depth - The depth from the ground surface to the top of the aquifer or the water table.
CC.1 Affected Environment— MSP and No Action Alternatives
The APE for the MSP and No Action Alternatives consists of the groundwater aquifers which underlie the
MSP facility. The most important feature of this APE is the Prairie du Chien/Jordan aquifer, which is the
major groundwater supply aquifer locally and regionally.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-169
Geology/Hydrogeology
Background
In 1992, the MAC initiated a major hydrogeologic characterization of the MSP site. For Phase 1/II of this study,
well log data from over 1,400 borings and wells was compiled and put into a computer database which allows
extensive graphic analysis and presentation. This work is summarized in Phase I and II Comprehensive
Hydrogeologic Characterization Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport (Metropolitan Airports Commission,
September 1992). This report includes maps illustrating the location of all boreholes and wells at the site and
presents the site specific geologic and hydrologic conditions at the site. All appropriate data is summarized
and appended to the Phase I and II report. Phase III of this investigation has involved the installation of
monitoring wells in 1994 and the utilization of these wells to obtain water level and water quality data. The
information from the Phase III investigation has been summarized in Water Quality Monitoring Report:
Comprehensive Hydrogeologic Characterization of the Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport (Metropolitan
Airports Commission, August 1997). The information provided under the following headings has been
compiled and summarized from this and preceding reports.
Summary of Regional Geologic Setting
The geologic setting of the Twin Cities is characterized by a thick sequence of sedimentary bedrock units
overlain by unconsolidated glacial deposits and more recent alluvium. The bedrock formations of the Twin
Cities area are composed of early Paleozoic marine sedimentary rocks which form the uppermost bedrock in
a unique local geologic structure referred to as the Twin Cities Basin (Mossier, 1972). As much as 1,000 feet
of sedimentary rocks occur in this basin structure.
The Paleozoic bedrock is blanketed by varying thicknesses of unconsolidated sediments deposited as a
result of the last glaciation, the late Wisconsin. Older pre -late Wisconsin glacial sediments have also been
identified in the Twin Cities, although these deposits are relatively minor and occur at depth. Underlying the
present landscape is a buried bedrock surface exhibiting a well developed dendritic stream pattern that may
pre -date the late Wisconsin glacial period (Balaban, 1989). This system of buried valleys is interpreted from (,J
water well and soil boring records and is found to have buried river valleys of the same magnitude of relief and
even greater than the present-day system. Boring logs at and near the MSP Airport indicate a large buried
bedrock valley exists immediately west of MSP, with several smaller valleys to the north and south. The
underlying bedrock surface at MSP is discussed in the following section.
Geologic Setting of MSP Airport
The MSP Airport is underlain by the complete section of Paleozoic bedrock units found in the Twin Cities
Basin which are overlain by a variety of glacial sediments. A total of 40 different well and boring logs were
used to determine the thickness and contact elevations of the bedrock units at the MSP Airport. The units
encountered in borings at the MSP Airport, from youngest to oldest, are: Decorah Shale, Platteville
Formation, Glenwood Formation, St. Peter Sandstone, Prairie du Chien Group, Jordan Sandstone, and St.
Lawrence Formation. The St. Lawrence formation is considered a lower confining unit for the Prairie du
Chien/Jordan aquifer. Owing to the confining nature of the St. Lawrence formation, the paleozoic sediments
below the St. Lawrence formation should not interact hydrogeologically with the shallower paleozoic and
glacial materials and are not discussed herein.
The Ordovician Decorah Shale (Od) occurs as a small erosional remnant in the northern portion of the study
area and reaches a maximum thickness at MSP of 4.5 feet. The formation consists of fissile to blocky,
greenish -gray or olive -gray shale and has a lower contact elevation of 806 to 808 feet NGVD. It generally
does not yield water (Kanivetsky and Walton, 1979).
The Ordovician Platteville Formation (Opv) has a maximum thickness at the MSP Airport of approximately 30
feet and is composed of thin to medium -bedded, gray and yellowish -brown dolomite and dolomitic limestone.
This unit is generally found as the uppermost bedrock unit, acting as a shallow, flat -lying caprock of the
bedrock "plateau" described in the following section. The contact with the underlying Glenwood Formation in
Dual Track Final EIS
V-170
the study area varies in elevation from 776 to 792 feet NGVD. The Platteville Formation in the study area is
water -bearing.
The -Ordovician Glenwood Formation (Og) ranges in thickness from two to ten feet and is composed of soft
grayish -green or yellow calcareous shale. The contact with the underlying St. Peter Sandstone in the study
area varies in elevation from 771 to 784 feet NGVD. The Glenwood Formation in most of the Twin Cities area
acts as a lower confining bed to the overlying Platteville Formation.
The Ordovician St. Peter Sandstone (Osp) ranges in thickness from 151 to 165 feet and is composed of light
yellow or white, massive, quartzose, fine to medium -grained, well -sorted and friable sandstone. Thin beds of
siltstone and shale near the base of the St. Peter Sandstone serve as an underlying confining layer
(Kanivetsky and Walton, 1979). The varying thickness of the St. Peter Sandstone appears due to its
deposition on an erosional surface developed on the top of the Prairie du Chien Group. Relief on this
erosional unconformity in the Twin Cities area can be up to 100 feet (Kanivetsky and Walton, 1979).
The Ordovician Prairie du Chien Group (Opc) varies in thickness in the study area from 121 to 146 feet and
comprises two principal formations, the Shakopee Formation and the Oneota Dolomite. Both units are
predominantly light brownish gray or buff, thin to thick -bedded dolomite which is vuggy and fractured and
contains some thin layers of grayish green shale.
The Cambrian Jordan Sandstone (Cj) ranges in thickness in the study area from 72 to 107 feet and is
composed of white -to -yellow, fine to coarse-grained quartzose sandstone. The sandstone is massive to thin -
bedded and varies from friable to well cemented (Kanivetsky and Walton, 1979). The Jordan Sandstone and
overlying Prairie du Chien function as one aquifer because there is no confining unit between them.
The Cambrian St. Lawrence Formation (Csl) is approximately 60 feet thick and is composed of dolomitic
shale and siltstone, interfingered with fine-grained quartzose sandstone (Kanivetsky and Walton, 1979). The
top of the St. Lawrence Formation was encountered in several deep borings in the study area. The St.
Lawrence Formation acts as a lower confining unit for the overlying Prairie du Chien -Jordan aquifer.
The bedrock topography at the MSP Airport has been defined by utilizing 315 soil borings and well logs and
by refining the bedrock interpretation presented in Bloomgren's (1985) bedrock topographic map of the Twin
Cities, using the additional information gathered during this project. The location of the data points which
support the bedrock topographic interpretation are shown on Figure 6 of the Phase I and II Report and
Figure CC -1 Bedrock topography is illustrated on Figure CC -6 and in the geologic cross sections (Figures
CC -2, CC -3 and CC -4). Cross section locations are presented on Figure CC -5.
A prominent feature observed on the bedrock topography map (Figure CC -6) is the large relatively -flat
plateau which underlies the eastern half the MSP Airport. The general elevation of the plateau is
approximately 800 feet NGVD and is capped by the erosion -resistant Platteville Limestone (Figure CC -6),
encountered at depths as shallow as 4.5 feet beneath the main terminal. The plateau is bordered on the
south and east by the existing Minnesota River valley and on the west by a large buried bedrock valley. The
topographic relief between the bedrock plateau and the surrounding bedrock valleys varies from a minimum
of approximately 125 feet along the Minnesota River valley to over 200 feet along the buried bedrock valley.
The base of the buried bedrock valley is lower than the level of the Minnesota River, although the actual depth
to bedrock beneath the river is expected to be similar to the buried valley to the west. The bedrock relief
results from the downward erosion through the less -resistant St. Peter Sandstone and into the upper portion
of the Prairie du Chien Group. The plateau is also dissected by a smaller bedrock channel which extends
from the flume area to the main terminal of the MSP Airport.
The bedrock channel which extends from the flume area to the main terminal (Figure CC -6) is much smaller
than the bedrock valley to the west. The maximum relief of the channel is known to be greater than 135 feet,
since the deepest boring along Post Road did not encounter bedrock. This channel has also eroded through
the Platteville Limestone and into the St. Peter Sandstone. Cross section B -B' (Figure CC -3, at well B94B-
MW-10B) shows that the bedrock channel has eroded into the St. Peter Sandstone to a point just beyond the
Dual Track Final EIS
V-171
Gold Concourse. The hydrologic significance of the bedrock channels in controlling groundwater movement
is discussed in following sections.
While shallow limestone formations exist at the airport site, there are no sinkholes or karst conditions at the
site. The first bedrock encountered at various points across the site was used to designate three general
bedrock "zones". The zones, depicted on Figure CC -6 are described below from east to west.
Zone A refers to areas in which Platteville Limestone comprises the first bedrock. Platteville Limestone exists
in the east -northeastern portion of the site as illustrated in Figure CC -6. The Platteville Limestone is directly
underlain by three to 10 feet of Glenwood Shale which is underlain by approximately 150 feet of St. Peter
Sandstone.
Zone B refers to areas in which St. Peter Sandstone comprises the first bedrock. Zone B exists south, west
and east of Zone A as illustrated in Figure CC -6.
The St. Peter Sandstone has been eroded to produce the bedrock valley in the western portion of the site
where limestones and dolomite of the Prairie du Chien Group comprise Zone C.
Unconsolidated Overburden
A sequence of unconsolidated glacially derived sediments, ranging in thickness from a few feet to over 225
feet, covers the eroded Paleozoic bedrock surface in the study area. The thicker sections of unconsolidated
sediments fill bedrock valleys that occur in this area. According to the few well and boring logs in the area of
the bedrock valley, the lower unconsolidated deposits are composed primarily of red -brown clayey Superior
Lobe glacial till, which is also found mantling the shallow bedrock as a cobbly basal till. The deeper clayey till
is overlain with mixed sediments of fairly well sorted sandy, alluvial outwash deposits found as a veneer over
most of the MSP area and in thicker accumulations in the west and northwest portions of the study area. Thin
deposits of peat have also been observed in some of the borings installed at the MSP Airport.
Most of the soil borings at the MSP Airport are geotechnical borings, installed to define shallow subsurface \`
conditions for construction -related projects. Because of this, only the upper 10 to 15 feet of unconsolidated
sediments can be described in any detail. Most of these borings were installed prior to construction and the
subsurface conditions described may not be indicative of present conditions owing to excavation and
construction filling.
Figure CC -7 illustrates the general geologic trends of the upper unconsolidated sediments at the MSP
Airport. These sediments have been divided into two very general units: sand and clay. The sand unit
consists predominantly of fine to coarse-grained sand and gravel with isolated lenses of clay, generally less
than one -foot thick. The clay unit consists of interbedded clay and sand. The clay horizons vary in thickness
from 1 to 14 feet, but in general, are less than four -feet thick and tend to be laterally discontinuous. The sand
horizons are fine to coarse-grained, and in general, are more abundant than the clay lenses.
The composition of unconsolidated sediments at depth is less well defined than the shallower sediments due
to the relatively limited number of deep borings. Based on information obtained from water well logs and
recently installed borings, these deeper sediments are composed primarily of clay -rich till with lesser amounts
of sandy alluvium and outwash deposits.
Hydrogeologic Conditions
A total of 99 groundwater monitoring wells in and around the MSP Airport have been utilized for groundwater
elevation monitoring. Depth to ground water was measured in two comprehensive rounds, one in December,
1994 and another in late January, 1995. Well locations and project numbers are illustrated with the contoured
groundwater potentiometric surfaces for the perched and St. Peter ground water (Figures CC -8 and CC -9,
respectively) for the December, 1994 measurement round.
r
Dual Track Final EIS
V-172
Shallow groundwater (15 to 35 feet below grade) has been identified in both the fractured Platteville
Limestone plateau, where the water table appears to be perched, and in the valley -fill sediments along the
western side of the airport. Shallow groundwater movement occurs as fracture flow in the Platteville
Limestone and as inter -granular flow in the unconsolidated sediments. In the northern one-third of the airport,
shallow groundwater flow historically has shown a northerly component. In the southern one-third, shallow
groundwater flows generally to the southeast towards the Minnesota River. In the central region beneath and
east of the main terminal area, the direction of shallow groundwater flow is uncertain. Directional flow is likely
quite variable because of the near lack of (shallow) groundwater gradient in this area.
While the overall shallow groundwater trend as illustrated on Figure CC -8 is in a southeasterly direction,
localized variability has been reported in investigations related to specific releases at the airport. This
variability was discussed and illustrated on Figure 12 of the Phase I and II Report.
It is believed that groundwater discharges from these areas are a combination of vertical infiltration into
underlying formations and lateral migration. While it is possible that shallow groundwater discharges to the
Minnesota River occur through seepage along the eastern bluff, evidence of such seepage has not been
observed at the MSP site.
The relevant deeper aquifers at the MSP site are a) the St. Peter Sandstone, and b) the Prairie du
Chien/Jordan (Opc/Jordan) aquifer. The St. Peter Sandstone is an unconfined water table aquifer at the MSP
site, since its upper portion is unsaturated due to the overlying Glenwood shale. In this area, the basal portion
of the St. Peter formation is comprised of siltstone and shale, which acts as the lower confining layer for this
aquifer. According to the groundwater gradient measured in this formation, movement of groundwater is
south and east toward and discharging to the Minnesota River as illustrated on Figure CC -9. The St. Peter
Sandstone is rarely used as a water supply source in the metro area because of inferior water quality (high
dissolved solids).
Although no nested wells are constructed within the St. Peter aquifer, groundwater movement is expected to
be primarily horizontal, with little or no vertical flow component. This assertion is supported by the well
documented basal -St. Peter confining zone of finer, shaley layers in the lower St. Peter formation (Woodward,
1986). As such, it is this lower confining zone in the basal St. Peter formation that separates the St. Peter
water table aquifer and the underlying Prairie du Chien aquifer by inhibiting hydraulic communication between
these units. Hence, along with the shallow Glenwood Shale acting as the upper confining layer in areas
where it is present, the basal St. Peter confining zone provides a second layer of protection from potential
impact to the regional Prairie du Chien aquifer underlying this area.
Underlying the St. Peter Sandstone aquifer is the Opc/Jordan aquifer, which is the uppermost confined
aquifer at the MSP site. It is the preferred groundwater source in the metro region due to its favorable water
transmission characteristics and relative consistency of high yields, as well as proven well designs and
construction techniques.
As discussed previously, it is believed that the St. Peter and Opc/Jordan aquifers discharge to the Minnesota
River at the MSP site. Since airport activities have resulted in negligible impacts to these aquifers (see
discussion under "Water Quality"), this discharge is not believed to impact the water quality of the Minnesota
River.
Under certain circumstances, such as sizable fuel spills or glycol -laden snow stockpile melt, it is possible that
surface water infiltration could impact the perched water table. Such impact could readily be detected and
addressed, particularly given the near lack of groundwater gradient in the perched water table under MSP. It
is considered unlikely that surface water infiltration would impact the deeper aquifers because of the natural
hydrogeologic protection of those aquifers as discussed previously.
Aquifer Sensitivity
Two primary factors make the overall airport site an attractive hydrogeologic setting in terms of natural
protection of the Opc/Jordan aquifer. First, the Opc/Jordan aquifer is separated from shallower formations by
Dual Track Final EIS
V-173
shale units or by clayey units in the area. The confining layers limit the potential for vertical downward
migration of contaminants.
Second, due to the fact that the Minnesota River is the ultimate discharge location for ground water from
beneath the MSP airfield, potential impact from activities at MSP would be constrained to the area between it
and the river. According to available information, there are only two wells used as sources of potable water
beneath and between MSP and the Minnesota River. These wells are 425 and 426 feet deep and provide
water for Northwest Airlines operations from the Prairie du Chien/Jordan aquifer. Due to the depth and
above-described natural barriers, the potential for airport activities to impact these groundwater receptors is
limited.
Water level information at the MSP site gives no indication of a significant vertical pressure gradient in the
unconsolidated materials in the bedrock valley (Zone C). Because of the effective lower confining layers
underlying both the perched water in the Plattville Limestone (Glenwood shale) and the St. Peter aquifer (well-
documented basal siltstone/shale layer), it is not anticipated that there is significant vertical pressure gradient
within either of these units.
In terms of relative sensitivity to groundwater impact, Zone A, as described above, is preferred because of the
presence of two confining layers (Glenwood shale, and the lower portion of the St. Peter Sandstone
formation). The next best areas in this regard are in Zone B because of the St. Peter sandstone confining
layer. While Zone C is the least preferred from the perspective of sensitivity to groundwater impact, it is
believed that the substantial presence of clays in the deep unconsolidated deposits in the bedrock valley
would significantly impede the migration of impacts to the Opc/Jordan aquifer.
In 1991, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) published "Criteria and Guidelines for Assessing
Geologic Sensitivity of Groundwater Resources in Minnesota". This document establishes three methods
(Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3) for assessing aquifer sensitivity. The Level 1 and Level 2 methods are used to
assess the sensitivity of water table aquifers. The Level 3 method is used to assess the sensitivity of deeper
aquifers. For all three methods, sensitivity can range from "Very Low" to "Very High", based upon relative time
of travel for potential contaminants through overlying materials.
To assess the sensitivity of the Opc/Jordan aquifer at the MSP site using the DMR (1991) approach, Level 3
analysis is appropriate. Using the Level 3 method, the Opc/Jordan is characterized as having Low to
Moderate sensitivity to environmental impact at the MSP site.
Water Quality
There currently are approximately 120 active water quality monitoring wells at the MSP facility. The great
majority of these wells have been installed to assess localized environmental impacts from specific events or
conditions (e.g. fuel spills or past material management practices) and are screened in the upper water table,
hydrogeologically above the St. Peter Sandstone.
At the MSP site, there currently are six deep St. Peter Sandstone aquifer water quality monitoring wells, and
three deep monitoring wells screened in unconsolidated sediments at roughly the same depth as the St. Peter
wells.
The monitoring network has been sampled on seven occasions through 1997. The results of this monitoring
work has been published in Water Quality Monitoring Report; Comprehensive Hydrooeologic Characterization
of the Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport (Metropolitan Airports Commission, August 1997).
Examination of the monitoring results from these wells indicate that the majority of impacts are confined to the
shallow water table wells completed in the Platteville limestone or shallow overburden. This is expected since
the uppermost waterbearing formation would be the first groundwater affected by surface releases. The
deeper monitoring wells help assess whether shallow impacts from releases can and/or do migrate into
deeper formations. A total of 16 wells have been monitored as part of the Phase I I I investigation (7 water table e
(A -horizon) wells, 6 St. Peter wells, and 3 deeper alluvial wells).
Dual Track Final EIS
V-174
Examination of the monitoring results from these 16 wells indicate that there have been a limited number of
detections of analytical parameters, most of which have been transient in nature. ("transient" means that
detections have not been observed more than once in on-going monitoring). All of the groundwater quality
detections reported for this aquifer have been at levels well below the Health Risk Limits (HRLs) for drinking
water as established by the Minnesota Department of Health. These levels have not trended upward. The
only non -transient water quality detections under Phase III monitoring have been dichlorodifluoromethane and
acetone recorded in select water table wells and DRO at deep St. Peter Sandstone equivalent wells which are
screened in unconsolidated deposits located in the west to southwest area of the airport north of the Navy
Ramp. The DRO results at these wells have intermittently detected DRO at concentrations ranging from non -
detect to 3.3 mg/I. There currently is no HRL for diesel range organics.
CC.2 Groundwater Quality Impacts — MSP Alternative
Fueling Operations
The potential for groundwater contamination at MSP is primarily associated with the storage and handling of
petroleum fuels. The great majority of the fuels handled at MSP are aviation fuels. Currently, fueling of
aircraft at the main terminal is performed by Signature Minneapolis Fuel Consortium, Inc. (Signature MFC)
using a hydrant system. Contract fueling and general aviation fueling are conducted by Signature Flight
Support Corporation (Signature FS) utilizing tanker trucks filled at the underground storage tank facility at the
HHH Terminal or the underground storage tank facility located at the Executive Terminal. Air Force Reserve
and Minnesota Air Guard aircraft are also fueled with tanker trucks loaded at an Air Force Reserve fuel facility
which is located on the Minnesota Air Guard base.
Aviation fuel is pumped to MSP through two pipelines. The Williams Pipeline Company pipeline delivers
product directly to the hydrant system. The Koch pipeline delivers product either to the MAC -constructed fuel
farm or directly to the hydrant system. The fuel farm is located on Post Road just west of Trunk Highway 5,
and includes four aboveground tanks with a combined capacity of approximately 10 million gallons. Fuel is
pumped from the commercial pipelines or the fuel farm through an underground piping system to hydrants in
the gate areas of the main terminal. There are also two hydrants in the ramp area of the Northwest Airlines
Main Maintenance Base (Building B) which are used on an infrequent basis to fuel military charter aircraft.
Due to the magnitude of the fueling operations at MSP, fuel spills occur with some regularity at MSP. There
are over 200,000 aircraft fueling operations at MSP per year in which a total of roughly 450 million gallons of
fuel are dispensed. In 1996 there were 110 reported aircraft -related fuel spills at MSP. The MAC has
instituted quarterly fuel spills meetings attended by Northwest Airlines, Signature Flight Support, and
appropriate MAC departments. At these meetings, the number, magnitude and causes of spills during the
previous quarter are discussed, as are ways to reduce the number and magnitude of spills in the future.
Spills take place on paved surfaces and are cleaned up through standard procedures utilizing prompt
placement of absorbent material on the spills which is then collected with mechanical sweepers and disposed
of. Spills are reported to state and federal authorities consistent with regulatory requirements. When there is
evidence of environmental impact resulting from a spill or spills, appropriate remedial measures are
employed. Typically, this has involved removal and treatment of petroleum -contaminated soils during
pavement rehabilitation or other construction projects. There have also been various groundwater extraction
and treatment projects at MSP.
Relative to existing conditions, development associated with the MSP Alternative should not significantly
affect the potential for ground water impact associated with airport activities. Most of the major fueling
facilities, installations, and associated activities would remain in existing locations. Any new pipelines, tanks
or other fuel handling installations may have improved spill/leak prevention and containment measures
relative to existing installations.
Table CC -1 presents the major aviation fueling facilities and operational areas under the MSP Alternative,
1 along with the respective locations of those facilities/activities relative to aquifer sensitivity as discussed in
Section CC. 1.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-175
Table CC- -Locatiouof Aviation Fueling Facilities/Operations Relative tmAquifer (
�
Sensitivity -0ISPAlternative
Aircraft Deicing Operations
Groundwater quality monitoring at MSP does not indicate environmental impact from aircraft deicing activities
onthe St. Peter aquifer orinunconsolidated sediments atthe same depth aathe St. Peter aquifer. Seasonal
impact on the perched water table in the form of elevated chemical oxygen demand levels has been observed
at specific deicing location (Taxiways H/J intersection). At this deicing |ocoUon, poor glycol recovery was
realized from the plugged storm sewer during the 1993/94 winter season and e large volume (approximately
50,000 gallons) of glycol product was observed to run off into the adjacent grassy swales. Chemical oxygen
demand levels returned to background levels when monitored after the 1994/95 winter season after
improvements had been made in the pavement to more afectk/gk/ route run-off tothe abonn sewer plug
location.
Under the MSP Alternative, the percentage of glycol used at MSP which would infiltrate soils will be
substantially less than has been in recent winter seasons. This would bodue tothe following
* The use of dedicated deicing limited areas to
capture residual glycol product from aircraft deicing operations; and
* snow containment and management will bg practiced inthe future.
Dual Track Final EIS
Hydrogeologic Zone'
Facilities
Hydrant System Fuel Farm
A
Executive Terminal Fuel Facility
A�
Air Force Reserve Fuel Facility4
A
Williams Pipeline
A/B
Koch Pipeline
A/B
Fueling Locations
Cargo Ramps
B and C
Air National Guard Base
A
Air Force Reserve Base
A
'See Section M1.1 discussion.
2Currently existing as main terminal concourses.
3Future location of facility uncertain; presumed to remain unchanged.
4 Located on Air National Guard Base.
Aircraft Deicing Operations
Groundwater quality monitoring at MSP does not indicate environmental impact from aircraft deicing activities
onthe St. Peter aquifer orinunconsolidated sediments atthe same depth aathe St. Peter aquifer. Seasonal
impact on the perched water table in the form of elevated chemical oxygen demand levels has been observed
at specific deicing location (Taxiways H/J intersection). At this deicing |ocoUon, poor glycol recovery was
realized from the plugged storm sewer during the 1993/94 winter season and e large volume (approximately
50,000 gallons) of glycol product was observed to run off into the adjacent grassy swales. Chemical oxygen
demand levels returned to background levels when monitored after the 1994/95 winter season after
improvements had been made in the pavement to more afectk/gk/ route run-off tothe abonn sewer plug
location.
Under the MSP Alternative, the percentage of glycol used at MSP which would infiltrate soils will be
substantially less than has been in recent winter seasons. This would bodue tothe following
* The use of dedicated deicing limited areas to
capture residual glycol product from aircraft deicing operations; and
* snow containment and management will bg practiced inthe future.
Dual Track Final EIS
Existing data and literature indicates that the limited amount of glycol which could infiltrate soils under the
MSP alternative would not be expected to cause significant environmental impact. This information, as
summarized in Appendix A.7, suggests that:
® Glycols are readily biodegraded in soils; and
® Glycols which could conceivably reach groundwater would have only seasonal and local impact, as the
glycols biodegrade in ground water.
Ground Surface Snow/ice Control
In the coming years, it is anticipated that urea as a ground surface snow/ice control agent will be replaced by
a combination of sodium formate and potassium acetate products. Urea has a significant nitrogen content
and corresponding potential for environmental impact.
Sodium formate and potassium acetate have been extensively tested for Transport Canada to determine
potential environmental consequences (Nolan Davis and Associates, Ltd. September 1992, and Nolan Davis
and Associates, Ltd., November 1994). These studies found the materials to be relatively benign products,
environmentally, and clearly superior to urea. The elemental (or breakdown) components of these products
are not problematic to the environment. Both are superior from an environmental perspective to salt, with its
chloride content, which is used on all significant roadways throughout the state for the purposes of ground
surface snow/ice control purposes.
Overall Environmental Consequences
Historical practices and general activities associated with MSP have resulted in localized impacts to near -
surface soils and the perched water table at the site. As such impacts/releases are discovered, they have
been addressed through remediation efforts such as source removal and treatment.
As was discussed in Section CCA, existing groundwater quality data indicate that environmental impacts
associated with MSP operations on the St. Peter aquifer have been negligible. This observation is supported
by current understanding of the geology/hydrogeology of the site, which provides substantial natural
protection of deep aquifers from environmental impact. It is not anticipated that there have been or will be
MSP -related impacts to the Prairie du Chien/Jordan aquifer, which is deeper and has more natural
hydrogeological protection regarding potential environmental impact than the St. Peter Aquifer.
Due to the factors discussed previously, development of the site according to the MSP Alternative is not
expected to increase the potential for airport operations and activities to impact the underlying aquifers.
CC.3 Groundwater Quality Impacts — No Action Alternative
Fueling Operations
Refer to background information provided in Section CC.2.
Table CC -2 presents the major aviation fueling facilities and operational areas under the No Action
Alternative, along with the respective locations of those facilities/activities relative to aquifer sensitivity as
discussed in Section CC. 1.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-177
Table CC -2 - Location of Aviation Fueling Facilities/Operations Relative to Aquifer Sensitivity - No r
— Action Alternative `.
Aircraft Deicing Operations
Refer to background information provided in Section CC.2
Under the No Action Alternative, the assumed glycol containment program would include the following
components:
• development and use of a dedicated aircraft deicing pad at Runway 12L;
• utilization of the existing plug/pump containment and/or vacuum sweeper operations at all other
deicing locations; and
• glycol -contaminated snow management.
Existing data and literature indicates that the limited amount of glycol which could infiltrate soils under the No
Action Alternative would not be expected to cause significant environmental impact. This information, as
summarized in Appendix A.11, suggests that:
• Glycols are readily biodegraded in soils; and
• Glycols which could conceivably reach groundwater would have only seasonal and local impact,
as the glycols biodegrade in ground water.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-178
Hydrogeologic Zone'
Facilities
Main Terminal Hydrant System
A
Hydrant System Fuel Farm
A
HHH Terminal Fuel Facility
B
Executive Terminal Fuel Facility
A
Air Force Reserve Fuel Facility2
A
Williams Brothers Pipeline
A/B
Koch Pipeline
A/B
Fueling Locations
Main Terminal
A
Regional Terminal
A
HHH Terminal
C
Southwest Cargo Ramp
C
Air National Guard Base
A
Air Force Reserve Base
A
See Section CC. 1.1 discussion.
2Located on Air National Guard Base.
Aircraft Deicing Operations
Refer to background information provided in Section CC.2
Under the No Action Alternative, the assumed glycol containment program would include the following
components:
• development and use of a dedicated aircraft deicing pad at Runway 12L;
• utilization of the existing plug/pump containment and/or vacuum sweeper operations at all other
deicing locations; and
• glycol -contaminated snow management.
Existing data and literature indicates that the limited amount of glycol which could infiltrate soils under the No
Action Alternative would not be expected to cause significant environmental impact. This information, as
summarized in Appendix A.11, suggests that:
• Glycols are readily biodegraded in soils; and
• Glycols which could conceivably reach groundwater would have only seasonal and local impact,
as the glycols biodegrade in ground water.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-178
Overall Environmental Consequences
Refer to discussion provided in Section CC.2. Continued operations at the airport under the No Action
Alternative would not be expected to increase the potential for environmental impact to underlying aquifers
relative -to -existing conditions. _ _ _
CC.4 Mitigation Measures — MSP and No Action Alternatives
The need and/or the ability to implement groundwater quality mitigation measures at the airport site will not be
substantially affected by whether the site were operated under the MSP Alternative or the No Action
Alternative.
The entities at MSP responsible for the storage and handling of fuel products must meet state, federal and
local requirements to minimize the potential environmental impact associated with fuel -related facilities and
operations. This includes design and testing standards for installations and facilities, as well as
operational/spill response requirements as documented in Spill Control and Countermeasure Plans
(SPCCPs). The MAC has developed an overall SPCCP for the airport which outlines general notification
requirements, spill response procedures, security and training requirements, and tank facility -specific
information for each of the fuel storage facilities at the airport. This document will be updated to include any
significant development and/or new installations or facilities in the future.
Regarding the Signature above ground storage tank "fuel farm" (10 million gallons total storage) Signature
has prepared a federal SPCC Plan and a Facility Response plan as required by the Federal Oil Pollution Act
(both dated February 1993).
All tenants which perform fueling activities must prepare Storm water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs)
through National Pollutant Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. Storm water Pollution Prevention
Plans document structural and operational measures to minimize the potential for release of general
pollutants which could reach ground surfaces to impact surface water run-off or, potentially, groundwater
resources.
In the event of significant release to ground surfaces of environmentally problematic materials, a number of
remedial techniques may be deployed. Such techniques include the following;
Surficial free product recoverX--In the event of a spill or other known release of an environmentally
problematic material, the first action to be taken is to contain and recover as much product as possible before
it can infiltrate soils or run into surface waters. This is typically accomplished with diking and pumped
evacuation and/or the use of oleophyllic absorbent materials.
Soils/source removal and treatment --impacted soils are excavated and removed from the site to be treated
through biotreatment, thermal processing, or other measures.
Soil vapor extraction --using a vacuum source in conjunction with an extraction well network, air is drawn
through soils to volatilize organic contaminants which may be present. This measure is often used in
combination with air sparging, which injects air directly into ground water to enhance volatilization and
biological breakdown of organic compounds.
Petroleum product/groundwater extraction and treatment --after defining the extent and magnitude of
groundwater impact using a series of water quality monitoring wells, an appropriate network of extraction wells
is then installed to remove free product and/or impacted ground water to be treated through air stripping,
carbon adsorption, or other measures.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-179
CC.5 Summary of Groundwater Quality Impacts
Table CC -3 addresses, in a generalized manner, the potential for significant environmental impact on
groundwater resources associated with airport operations under the MSP and No Action Alternatives,
respectively.
The potential for overall groundwater impact may be somewhat higher under the MSP Alternative than the No
Action Alternative because of the increased activity levels. However, there is substantial natural
hydrogeological protection of the deeper aquifers at this location, and appropriate engineering and operational
safeguards will be utilized under both alternatives.
Significant environmental impacts to deeper aquifers have not been detected to date at the airport site. Such
impacts are not anticipated under the MSP or No Action Alternatives. The MSP Alternative should therefore
not adversely impact groundwater quality. A certification letter from the governor regarding water quality is in
Appendix K.
Table CC -3 - Summary of Potential for Groundwater Impacts
DD. Wetlands
DDA MSP Alternative
DD.1.1 Affected Environment—MSP Alternative
The APE for wetlands associated with the MSP Alternative consists of the existing MSP property and any
contiguous property that would be affected by the MSP Alternative. A total of 15 wetland basins exist within
MSP with a cumulative acreage of approximately 192.56 acres. Among these basins is a floodplain forested
wetland which lies on the airports south and east sides along the Minnesota River that would not be
impacted. An additional 3 basins exist along Trunk Highway 62 in locations that could potentially be affected
by airport -related highway improvements. These consist of two DNR -protected waters, Legion Lake and Taft
Lake, in the southwestern quadrant of the TH 62/77 interchange. The third basin is a remnant of Legion Lake
which lies on the north side of TH 62. Wetlands on and around MSP are shown in Figure DD -1.
Eight of the basins within MSP are within the Rich Acres Golf Course and currently serve as ponds or water
hazards that were either created from upland or constitute excavated remnants of pre-existing wetlands. All
wetlands within MSP have been physically field delineated except for the excavated basins within Rich Acres
Golf Course and the portion of the Minnesota River floodplain lying within MSP property.
Three wetland basins totaling 1.51 acres and located along Runway 4-22 were filled in 1996 as part of the
Runway 4-22 extension project with a Corps of Engineers permit and Wetland Conservation Act (WCA)
approval.
Mother Lake is a 142.3 -acre semipermanently flooded palustrine emergent/intermittently exposed
unconsolidated bottom (PEMF/PUBG; Circular 39 Type 4 deep marsh/Circular 39 Type 5 open water) wetland
Dual Track Final EIS
V-180
Aquifer Sensitivity
Downgradient
Alternative
Prairie DuChien/Jordan
Wells Present?
MSP 2010 LTCP
Low -Moderate
No
MSP 2020 Concept Plan
Low -Moderate
No
No Action
Low -Moderate
No
Aquifer Sensitivity defined according to methods established in "Criteria and Guidelines for
Assessing Geological Sensitivity of Groundwater Resources in Minnesota"
(Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources, 1991)
Source: HDR/Liesch.
DD. Wetlands
DDA MSP Alternative
DD.1.1 Affected Environment—MSP Alternative
The APE for wetlands associated with the MSP Alternative consists of the existing MSP property and any
contiguous property that would be affected by the MSP Alternative. A total of 15 wetland basins exist within
MSP with a cumulative acreage of approximately 192.56 acres. Among these basins is a floodplain forested
wetland which lies on the airports south and east sides along the Minnesota River that would not be
impacted. An additional 3 basins exist along Trunk Highway 62 in locations that could potentially be affected
by airport -related highway improvements. These consist of two DNR -protected waters, Legion Lake and Taft
Lake, in the southwestern quadrant of the TH 62/77 interchange. The third basin is a remnant of Legion Lake
which lies on the north side of TH 62. Wetlands on and around MSP are shown in Figure DD -1.
Eight of the basins within MSP are within the Rich Acres Golf Course and currently serve as ponds or water
hazards that were either created from upland or constitute excavated remnants of pre-existing wetlands. All
wetlands within MSP have been physically field delineated except for the excavated basins within Rich Acres
Golf Course and the portion of the Minnesota River floodplain lying within MSP property.
Three wetland basins totaling 1.51 acres and located along Runway 4-22 were filled in 1996 as part of the
Runway 4-22 extension project with a Corps of Engineers permit and Wetland Conservation Act (WCA)
approval.
Mother Lake is a 142.3 -acre semipermanently flooded palustrine emergent/intermittently exposed
unconsolidated bottom (PEMF/PUBG; Circular 39 Type 4 deep marsh/Circular 39 Type 5 open water) wetland
Dual Track Final EIS
V-180
complex. The Duck Lake wetlands consist of three basins including an 8.63 -acre excavated intermittently
exposed palustrine unconsolidated bottom/temporarily flooded deciduous forested wetland (PUBGx/PFOIA;
Circular 39 Type 5 open water/Circular 39 Type 1 floodplain forest). The other two wetlands in the area of
Duck Lake consist of saturated palustrine emergent (PEMB; Circular 39 Type 2 inland fresh meadow) wetland
and total 1.57 acres (0.07 and 1.5 acres). The open water portion of Duck Lake has littlewildlifevalue
because it lacks emergent vegetation and is hypereutrophic due to its historic use for storm water treatment.
Mother Lake and the 8.63 -acre open water cell of Duck Lake are DNR -protected waters. The two smaller
basins in the Duck Lake area are not DNR -protected waters.
The Ball Field wetlands consist of two basins which are 7.12 acre and 2.35 acre. These wetlands are
saturated to seasonally flooded palustrine emergent (PEMB/PEMC; Circular 39 Type 2 inland fresh
meadow/Type 3 shallow marsh) and lie immediately south of the City of Richfield softball fields at the west
edge of MSP. These basins have limited wildlife habitat value due to their historic use for storm water
treatment and their being regularly mowed. Rich Acres Golf Course encompasses eight small excavated
permanent open water wetlands totaling 1.89 acres. Two of these basins appear to be badly degraded
remnants of a larger wetland that was largely filled during golf course construction. These small ponds
provide negligible wildlife habitat value.
Wetland resources existing within or potentially affected by the MSP Reconstruction are summarized in Table
DD -1.
Table DD -1 - Wetland Resources within the APE for the MSP Alternative
Basin(Acres)
SizeCowardin
Acres
Classif.
Notes
MSP Property
Mother Lake
142.3
PEMF/PUBG
State -protected water 23-P and fringe of non state -
protected wetland
Duck Lake Wetlands
10.2
PEMB/PF01A/
PUBGx
3 basins including State -protected water 25-P
`Ball Field" Wetlands
9.47
PEMB/PEMC
Two basins of 7.12 and 2.35 acres
Golf Course Wetlands
1.89
PUBx
8 small excavated basins
Floodplain Forest
28.7
PF01C
Minnesota River floodplain
Total within MSP 192.56
Wetlands Along Trunk!y hway 62
Taft Lake
14.2
PUBG
State -protected water 683-P
Le ion Lake
78.30
PEMC/PEMF
State -protected water 24-P
Legion Lake Remnant
5.70
PEMC
Total along TH 62
98.20
Source: Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc.
DD.1.2 Wetland Impacts — MSP Alternative
The wetland impacts associated with the MSP Alternative are summarized in Table DD -2.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-181
Table DD -2 - Wetland Impacts Associated with the IVISP Alternative
Basin
Size Acres
Wetland Impacts
2010
Acres
2020
Mother Lake
142.30
11.4a
11.4a
Duck Lake Wetlands
10.2
10.2
10.2
"Ball Field" Wetlands
9.47
9.47
9.47
Golf Course Wetlands
1.89
1.89
1.89
Floodplain Forest
28.70
0
0
Taft Lake
14.20
0
0.70
Le ion Lake
78.30
0
0
Legion Lake Remnant
5.70
0
1.34
TOTAL
290.76
32.96
35.0
a Fill for safety area and access road of north -south runway. Does not include placement of bridge piers or
area under bridge spans in Mother Lake.
b Improvements to TH 62 can be accomplished without additional encroachment into Legion Lake.
Source: Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc.
The Minnesota DNR has stated that the bridge spans and piers proposed in Mother Lake may require
mitigation. The degree to which mitigation would be required for these structures would be determined by the
Minnesota DNR upon review of engineering plans for the TH62/77 interchange. The placement of structures
is generally not regulated under the WCA or Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. However, if fill material is
needed to construct, support or protect the piers, the Wetland Conservation Act of 1991 (WCA) and Section
404 would regulate these activities.
Finding of No Practicable Alternative
There is no feasible or practicable alternative to the destruction or modification of the wetlands affected by the
proposed action, the MSP 2010 LTCP, and the proposed action includes all practicable measures to minimize
harm to the affected wetlands. This finding is made in accordance with Executive Order 11990 issued May
24, 1977, and DOT Order 5660.1A, Preservation of the Nation's Wetlands.
To the extent practicable, wetland impacts have been avoided and minimized. Of the six concept plans
considered for the expansion of MSP, Concept 6 was selected as the best development plan in the AED
prepared in February 1995. Concept 6 is the plan which became the MSP 2020 Concept Plan being
evaluated by this FEIS. Two of the original six expansion alternatives (Concepts 3 and 4) were dropped
prior to the preparation of the final AED because of operational, safety and noise concerns. Of the four
remaining alternatives considered in the AED, all would have required unavoidable wetland impacts. The
preferred alternative (Concept 6) has the greatest amount of wetland impact (see Summary of Differential
Impacts table, MSP LTCP Final AED, February 1995) but was selected as the preferred concept based on
a comprehensive analysis of the other 18 environmental impact factors evaluated in the AED (see
Summary of Differential Impacts table, MSP LTCP Final AED, February 1995, page iv). Concept 5 is the
same as Concept 6 through 2010; it would expand the existing terminal by 2020 instead of developing the
new west terminal in Concept 6. Compared to Concept 6, Concepts 1 and 2 would — demolish contributing
components of both the Fort Snelling National Landmark Historic District and the Old Fort Snelling National
Register Historic District — displace a Section 4(f) 9 -hole golf course and directly impact Bossen Field, a
Section 4(f) park — displace 601 more residents — subject 3,030 more residents to aircraft noise levels
greater than DNL 60 — and place 2,010 more monthly flights less than 500 feet over areas where birds
congregate.
Total avoidance of wetland impacts within the context of the MSP 2010 LTCP is not practicable due to the
wide distribution of wetlands on the airport property and the limited space in which the necessary airport
improvements must be accomplished. Eight of these impact areas are associated with small water hazards
on the Rich Acres Golf Course. If the Golf Course wetlands were avoided, there would be no space into
Dual Track Final EIS
V-182
which commercial freight facilities could be located. The Duck Lake and Ball Field wetland impacts will
result from the construction of the new north/south runway (17/35), associated taxiways and air cargo
facilities. These wetlands are situated adjacent to or among existing airport facilities and cannot be readily
-avoided. -Even if they were avoided, the functions -and -values -of these -basins -would -be -substantially
compromised due to the proximity of active runways and taxiways. Impacts to Mother Lake will result from
construction of the required safety area at the north end of the new north/south runway and an access road
around the perimeter of the safety area. Even if the north/south runway was realigned, impacts to Mother
Lake due to fill for the safety area and access road would still be unavoidable because of the proximity of
the wetland boundary to the end of the runway. A tunneled road under the safety area was considered as
an alternative to constructing the access road around the safety area's perimeter. Although this alternative
would have reduced the wetland impacts to Mother Lake, it is not considered feasible and practicable for
safety and maintenance reasons since it would have to be constructed below the ground water table.
Impacts to Mother Lake cannot be reduced by shifting or shortening the north/south runway. The position
of the runway's south end is fixed by the location of 1-494, making a southerly shift impossible. Shortening
the runway would be inconsistent with the facility requirements set forth in the LTCP for MSP.
DD.1.3 Mitigation Measures — MSP Alternative
As stated in the preceding subsection DD.1,2, there is no feasible or practicable alternative to the
displacement of the wetlands affected by the proposed action. Insufficient space lies within MSP property to
supply even a portion of the wetland replacement acreage that would be needed for the proposed action, the
MSP 2010 LTCP; off-site replacement would be necessary. Also, consistent with FAA policy, consideration of
mitigation on airport property was eliminated because of the potential increase of bird strikes by aircraft.
MAC is committed to providing the mitigatfon specified in the required permits. Assuming the present wetland
regulatory framework remains in place at the time permits are applied for, all non-exempt wetland filled by the
project will be subject to regulation under; (1) Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (administered by the Corps
of Engineers), (2) the WCA (administered by the MAC and overseen by the Board of Water and Soil
Resources) and (3) Minnesota protected water law (administered by the DNR).
The wetland replacement requirements of the applicable regulatory programs vary. Under the Corps
regulatory program, replacement wetlands must fully replace the functions and values of the wetlands
impacted. In the past, the St. Paul District of the Corps consistently accepted 1 to 1 acreage replacement as
being sufficient to accomplish this requirement. All of the wetland proposed to be impacted for the MSP 2010
LTCP will be regulated by the Corps. This includes both the wetland impacted through direct filling and any
other secondary adverse impacts to wetlands. No secondary wetland impacts associated with the MSP 2010
LTCP are foreseen and none have been identified by the Corps of Engineers. The placement of fill in the
open water portion of Duck Lake below the ordinary high water level (OHWL) of 819.1feet would require a
Minnesota DNR protected water permit. This area totals 7.91 acres. The wetland fringe of the open water
area as well as the other two wetlands in the Duck Lake area would be regulated by the WCA. These areas
total 2.29 acres. A total of 5.3 acres of the 11.4 -acre impact for safety area and access road fill on the fringe
of Mother Lake would take place above the Minnesota DNR OHWL of 816.2 feet and therefore would fall
under the jurisdiction of the WCA rather than the Minnesota DNR. The WCA regulates the filling or draining
of non state -protected wetland above the OHWL. Any wetland fill that is subject to WCA regulation must be
replaced at a minimum 2 to 1 acreage ratio. A total of 6.1 acres of safety area and access road fill would
occur below the DNR OHWL. The Minnesota DNR has stated that a 1.5 to 1 replacement ratio is suitable for
mitigation planning purposes; however, this ratio is reviewed on a project -by -project basis.
Based on the foregoing, it is anticipated that 2 to 1 replacement would be required for at least 18.95 acres of
wetland subject to WCA regulation (Ball Field, Mother Lake, non -DNR regulated basins of Duck Lake, and
Golf Course). The DNR regulated wetland (subject to an assumed 1.5 to 1 replacement ratio) includes the
7.91 acres of impact below the OHWL of Duck Lake and the 6.1 acres of Mother Lake – a total of 14.01
acres. Therefore, 37.9 acres of WCA mitigation and 21.02 acres of assumed DNR mitigation would be
required – for a total of 58.92 acres of needed replacement wetland for the MSP 2010 LTCP. Wetland fill for
the MSP 2010 LTCP subject to 1 to 1 replacement by the Corps totals 32.96 acres. Since the WCA and DNR
Dual Track Final EIS
V-183
cumulative wetland mitigation acreage exceeds 32.96, the Corps requirements would be fulfilled. A summary
of the mitigation requirements for the MSP 2010 LTCP is provided in Table DD -3.
Table DD -3 - Wetland Mitigation Requirements
Associated with the MSP 2010 LTCP
Basin
Size
Acres
Wetland Displaced
(Acres)
Wetland Mitigation
Requirement
Mother Lake
142.30
11.4; 6.1 below OHWL
5.3 above OHWL
1.5:1 (9.15 acres'
2:1 (10.6 acres)
Duck Lake Wetlands
10.2
10.2; 7.91 below OHWL
2.29 above OHWL
1.5:1 (11.87 acres
2:1 (4.58 acres)
"Ball Field" Wetlands
9.47
9.47
2:1 (18.94 acres)
Golf Course Wetlands
1.89
1.89
2:1 (3 78 acres)
TOTAL
163.86
32.96 3 acres
58.92 acres
DNR assumed requirement; ' WCA requirement; 'Corps of Engineers requirement (1:1)
Source: Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc.
The Hennepin Conservation District (HCD) and others were contacted to determine potential land owners
who may have land which would be suitable for compensatory mitigation of wetland impacts. Several land
owners were then contacted to determine their interest in selling either acreage or conservation easements
for use as wetland mitigation. Of this group, five potential mitigation sites are being considered for use on the
MSP 2010 LTCP. Three of the sites were field inspected by the Corps of Engineers and the DNR and
determined to be potential mitigation sites for the proposed action. See Appendix D for additional information
on the sites and copies of correspondence from the Corps and DNR. In addition to off-site wetland
replacement, a portion of the WCA-required mitigation may be accomplished through water quality ponding
facilities constructed to pre -treat airport runoff prior to discharge to downstream water bodies.
DD.2 No Action Alternative
DD.2.1 Affected Environment— No Action Alternative
The affected environment for the No Action Alternative is limited to wetlands within the MSP property. See
D.1.1 above.
DD.2.2 Wetland Impacts — No Action Alternative
No wetlands are affected by the No Action Alternative.
DD.2.3 Mitigation Measures — No Action Alternative
No mitigation is required.
DD.3 Summary of Wetland Impacts
Table DD -4 - Summary of Wetland Impacts
Alternative Estimated Total Wetland Impact (Acres)
MSP 2010 LTCP 32.96
MSP 2020 Concept Plan 35.0
No Action 0
LSource: Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-184
EE. Wild and Scenic Rivers
The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act includes river areas eligible for protection under the legislation as those that
are_free flowing_ and.. have outstandingly remarkable. scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife,_.historic,
cultural and other similar values." River segments that appear to qualify for inclusion in the National Wild and
Scenic River System are listed on the National Inventory, compiled by the U.S. Department of Interior.
The FAA has executed a Memorandum of Agreement with the National Park Service and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service establishing an advisory 2,000 -foot AGL altitude threshold over National Parks and National
Wildlife Refuges with the express intent of reducing impacts on parks and wildlife. For purposes of the Dual
Track Airport Planning analysis, it is assumed that overflight above this 2,000 -foot threshold will not generate
unacceptable disturbance impacts to wild and scenic rivers.
The issue of overflights is related to factors which govern the heights of aircraft, including:
• Height of cloud cover (ceiling)
• Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) that require aircraft to stay 500 feet from any person or
structure in rural areas and 1000 feet above ground level (AGL) in urban areas, except for
landings and takeoffs.
• Distance from airport of departure or arrival.
• Altitudes assigned by Air Traffic Control for aircraft on instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plans.
These altitudes ensure a minimum of 1000 feet clearance from terrain or obstructions.
• Pilot preference.
• Altitudes where turbulence is present.
In addition, the height of aircraft is governed by Class B airspace. Class B airspace exists around the busiest
airports. The purpose of Class B airspace is to separate aircraft using a busy airport from other aircraft in the
area operating under visual flight rules (VFR). It also ensures that all aircraft using a busy airport are under
Air Traffic Control and are separated from each other.
EE.1 MSP and No Action Alternatives
EE.1.1 Affected Environment—MSP Alternative
The APE does not include any wild and scenic rivers.
EE.1.2 Wild and Scenic Rivers Impacts — MSP and No Action Alternatives
There are no impacts.
EE.1.3 Mitigation Measures — MSP and No Action Alternatives
No mitigation measures are required.
FF. Wildlife Refuges
Wildlife and waterfowl habitat areas of wildlife refuges, as well as public use areas, will be considered in this
section.
Additional discussion regarding biotic communities, bird -aircraft hazards and endangered or threatened
species as they relate to wildlife refuges are discussed in Sections V.C, D and H.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-185
FF.1 MSP Alternative
FF.1.1 Affected Environment— MSP Alternative
The Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge (MVNWR) is managed by the USFWS and includes the
Minnesota River floodplain from Fort Snelling State Park on the north to Louisville Swamp in Chaska on the
south. Land acquisition and development of the wildlife refuge was begun in 1976 with the enactment of the
Minnesota Valley Wildlife Refuge Act (Public Law 94-466). The eastern end of the refuge lies immediately
south of MSP.
The area of potential effect (APE) consists of the two refuge management areas located closest to MSP, the
Long Meadow Lake Unit (2,600 acres) and the Black Dog Lake Unit (1,400 acres). The APE includes those
portions of the MVNWR where overflights, specifically approaches, occur at less than 2,000 feet (Figure FF -
1).
In 1993, the FAA signed an Interagency Agreement with the National Park Service and the USFWS
establishing a 2,000 foot altitude threshold over National Parks and National Wildlife Refuges with the
express intent of reducing "potential interference with wildlife". For purposes of this analysis, it has been
assumed that overflights above this 2,000 foot threshold will not generate unacceptable disturbance impacts
to waterfowl or other wildlife within the MVNWR. However, because it is not possible to quantify noise
impacts to wildlife in absolute terms, it remains unknown whether overflights below 2,000 feet AGL would
have meaningful adverse impacts to waterfowl within the MVNWR. Coordination among MAC, FAA and
USFWS in 1997 confirms that MVNWR wildlife managers concur that the effects of aircraft noise on wildlife
cannot easily be described herein as the literature is inconclusive. As possible evidence, the MAC and FAA
note the current extensive waterfowl use in Gun Club and Mother Lakes. These features lie outside the
MVNWR but currently incur the majority of MSP overflights, and waterfowl appear to habituate readily to the
noise.
The MVNWR supports a broad range of wildlife species. The Environmental Impact Statement for the
establishment of the refuge cited 35 mammal species, 23 reptiles and amphibians, and 97 species of
breeding birds using the refuge. The refuge is also utilized by a number of bird species that winter in the
refuge or temporarily stop over during migration periods. Early in the Dual Track Airport Planning Process,
coordination was undertaken with the MVNWR staff and the Twin Cities Field Office of the USFWS to
determine what wildlife impact studies were to be done. USFWS staff identified threatened and endangered
species, bird -aircraft hazards and overflights of waterfowl concentration areas as the impact areas they felt
should be addressed. Accordingly, the investigation of potential noise impacts to wildlife within the MVNWR
has been limited to waterfowl concentration areas. The areas within the MVNWR that were identified for
analysis were Long Meadow and Black Dog Lakes (for waterfowl survey figures see Tables D-2 and D-4).
The refuge includes several public use areas lying within the affected environment. Figure FF -2 depicts the
location of these areas in the refuge.
The Bass Ponds are an old series of bass -rearing ponds historically constructed and operated by the Izaak
Walton League; the active use of the ponds ended in the mid-1960s. The Bass Ponds are approximately
9,600 feet from the nearest existing runway at MSP; they would be approximately 7,500 feet from the
proposed north -south runway. The Bass Ponds are now used by USFWS as an interpretive area to
demonstrate wildlife and fisheries management techniques and to provide basic environmental education
programs. Based on the number of cars using the parking lot at the Bass Ponds, approximately 86,000
people visited the area during twelve months beginning in November 1993.
The Long Meadow Lake Unit contains about.five miles of public trails. Of the various trails, only one is located
entirely within the affected environment. This is the "Caretaker's Walk" trail, a half -mile "loop" trail used for
both guided and self -guided interpretive activities within the Bass Ponds area. This trail is located inside of
the DNL 70 noise contour for the MSP Alternative. Along with the Visitor Center, the Bass Ponds area serves
as a focus for the MVNWR's evolving environmental education program. Many educational programs begin {
at the Visitor Center and then move to the Bass Ponds after a drive of just over one mile (there is currently no
Dual Track Final EIS
V-186
public trail access connecting the Bass Ponds area to the Visitor Center). The Caretaker's Walk Trail allows
visitors to observe and compare different habitat features, particularly water and wetland features, within a
relatively compact area.
The public -use land adjacent to the Visitor Center, including the Visitor Center itself, is located outside of the
DNL 60 noise contour for the MSP Alternative, and includes the Hillside Trail. This is a half -mile trail running
from the east side of the Visitor Center to an observation deck at Peterson Pond, overlooking Long Meadow
Lake. The extent of the Hillside Trail is limited because most of the refuge acreage adjacent to the Visitor
Center is privately owned and is not open to the public.
Two additional trails, while not entirely located within the affected environment, are in close proximity to flight
tracks for the proposed north -south runway. The Old Cedar Avenue Trail runs along Long Meadow Lake and
connects Caretaker's Walk and the Old Cedar Avenue trailhead. The eastern half of this trail is within the
affected environment. The Highway 77 trail passes over the Minnesota River and connects to a bicycle trail
which runs to the Old Cedar Avenue trailhead. It is located inside of the DNL 60 noise contour for the MSP
Alternative.
The Old Cedar Avenue and Highway 77 trailheads were accessed by approximately 20,405 and 14,570
vehicles, respectively, in 1993.
FF.1.2 Wildlife Refuge Impacts — MSP Alternative
Wildlife Impacts
Although development of the MSP Alternative would not involve the acquisition of any land in the wildlife
refuge, this alternative would result in 5,620 monthly overflights over the Long Meadow Lake and Black Dog
Lake Units, including the Bass Ponds area, all of which would be between 500 and 2,000 feet AGL (see
Table D-5). Thus, all of these overflights are below the 2,000 -foot threshold set forth in the Interagency
Agreement. A large proportion of these overflights are the result of operations being shifted from the existing
parallel runways to the north -south runway. Thus, additional overflights of waterfowl concentration areas
within the MVNWR brought about by the MSP Alternative also result in reductions in overflights of other
waterfowl concentration areas outside the refuge (i.e., Gun Club and Mother Lakes). A potential increase in
disturbance effects to waterfowl in the MVNWR cannot be ruled out under the MSP Alternative. However,
given the high degree of habituation observed at Gun Club and Mother Lakes, it appears likely that waterfowl
within the MVNWR would also become habituated.
Little quantitative information is available on the impacts to waterfowl from noise created by aircraft overflights.
The majority of studies on the effects of noise on birds have dealt with reproductive effects of poultry or
behavioral response (i.e., the noise is detected and a startle response may occur) of wild birds; little work has
been done on the effects of noise on the physiology of wild birds.
Behavioral measures of absolute auditory sensitivity in a wide variety of bird species show a region of
maximum sensitivity between 1 and 5 kHz, with a rapid decrease in sensitivity at higher frequencies (Manci et
al. 1988). In a study of the effects of air traffic along the shoreline of Izembek Lagoon, Alaska, the USFWS
observed that out of 623 possible disturbance events for flocks of geese, 65 percent of these events were
caused by jets and propeller aircraft, 14 percent by helicopters, 14 percent by gunshots, 2 percent by people,
2 percent by boats, 2 percent by eagles, 1 percent by falcons, and less than 1 percent by land vehicles and
foxes. No altitude data was given for this study.
Additional studies in the Alaska Arctic (Acoustical Society of America 1980) have shown that snow geese are
sensitive to aircraft disturbance, and low-level (150 m above ground level) aircraft overflights elicited a
stronger response from molting, flightless sea ducks than higher level overflights. Studies conducted by Black
et al. (1984) on the effects of low altitude military training flights on wading bird colonies in Florida indicates
that reproductive activity (including nest success, nestling survival, nestling mortality, and nesting chronology)
was independent of F-16 overflights, but was related to ecological factors including location and physical
I characteristics of the colony, and climatology. Based on available literature it appears that disturbance to
waterfowl from aircraft occurs most often when the aircraft is either low flying (< 200 feet), approaches
Dual Track Final EIS
V-187
suddenly, such as a helicopter, or creates a sonic boom. Waterfowl appear to readily habituate to frequent
aircraft overflights.
Based on these studies, it is concluded that aircraft noise within the affected environment would not
significantly diminish the wildlife habitat in the refuge.
Public Use Impacts
The discussion of public use impacts is presented in Section V.0 (Section 4(f)).
FF.1.3 Mitigation Measures — MSP Alternative
The only way to reduce potential noise impacts to waterfowl concentration areas is to redistribute aircraft
operations so that fewer aircraft utilize the north -south runway. However, this would be in conflict with the
purpose and need for the MSP Alternative. Furthermore, it is not feasible to alter arrival and departure flight
tracks to avoid the MVNWR, given the new runway's close proximity to the refuge lands.
Mitigation of public use impacts within the MVNWR is discussed in Section V.0 (Section 4(f)) and Appendix E.
FF.2 No Action Alternative
FF.2.1 Affected Environment—No Action Alternative
The affected environment includes those portions of the MVNWR described in Subsection FF.1.1 where
overflights occur at less than 2,000 feet (Figure FF -2).
FF.2.2 Wildlife Refuges Impacts — No Action Alternative
The No Action Alternative entails substantially fewer and higher overflights of waterfowl concentration areas
within the MVNWR than the MSP Alternative. The No Action Alternative would involve 2,000 monthly
overflights of the Long Meadow/Black Dog Lake complex, all at altitudes over 2,000 feet AGL (see Table D-
5). Thus, the No Action Alternative complies with the FAA -U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Interagency
Agreement and would not disturb waterfowl concentration areas in the refuge.
The discussion of public use impacts is presented in Section V.0 (Section 4(f)).
FF.2.3 Mitigation Measures — No Action Alternative
Mitigation of public use impacts within the MVNWR is discussed in Section V.0 (Section 4(f)).
FF.3 Summary of Wildlife Refuges Impacts
Potential impacts to wildlife at the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge would occur with overflights
under a 2,000 -foot altitude threshold over areas of waterfowl concentrations, specifically Long Meadow and
Black Dog Lakes. The MSP Alternative could result in 5,620 monthly overflights under 2,000 feet over both
lakes, while the No Action Alternative will result in no overflights under 2,000 feet over both lakes. No
significant adverse impacts to wildlife are expected; noise impacts to wildlife, according to available relevant
studies, occur more often when there are sudden bursts of noise, and waterfowl species often habituate to
continuous aircraft noise.
No land in wildlife refuges would be acquired for airport development.
It is estimated that 1,083 acres of publicly -owned Refuge land will be substantially impaired by the proposed
action and subject to mitigation. The No Action Alternative would have no impact.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-188
GG. Design, Art and Architectural Application
Design, art, and architectural considerations apply to actions involving airport location or other disruption of
the natural environment or aesthetic integrity of an area, and to other activities such as terminal and roadway
development which may affect sensitive locations such as parks, historic sites, or other public use areas.
GG.1 MSP Alternative
GG.1.1 Affected Environment — MSP Alternative
The Area of Potential Effect (APE) for the MSP Alternative is the existing airport and its immediate
surroundings. As shown in Figure 0-1, the airport is surrounded by major transportation corridors.
Residential and recreational areas are generally located to the north and west of the airport, while commercial
and institutional areas are generally located to the south. The Mississippi and Minnesota River valleys are
located to the east and south of the site. The Fort Snelling military reservation is located immediately
northeast of the airport. Section V.Y.1.1 describes the visual characteristics of the airport environs.
GG.1.2 Design, Art, and Architectural Application — MSP Alternative
Development of the MSP Alternative would be confined to the existing airport and would essentially consist of
redevelopment of existing airport facilities. As noted in Section Y.1.1, the FAA air traffic control tower, at 166
above ground level, is the tallest on -airport structure. The tower is three-quarters of a mile from the nearest
residential neighborhood. The MSP 2020 Concept Plan recommends a new tower to be located near the
proposed west terminal, more than one mile from the nearest residential area. This proposed tower would
rise to a height of 359 feet AGL. Other airport development would be less than 100 feet in height.
A new air cargo complex would be developed along the west side of the airport from the 2010 LTCP and
2020 Concept Plan. This development would replace an existing golf course. Cargo buildings and aircraft
would be visible from the TH 77 corridor. The area between TH 77 and the air cargo area provides an area
for landscaping and visual buffers.
While these structures will be visible from surrounding areas, they do not represent a substantial change from
the existing visual conditions and will not disrupt the natural environment or aesthetic integrity of the
surrounding area.
GG.1.3 Mitigation Measures — MSP Alternative
Since the MSP 2010 LTCP and 2020 Concept Plan would not significantly impact the surrounding area, no
mitigation would be required. The application of sound interior design, landscaping, and architectural
treatment for new airport terminal development will offer opportunities to enhance the architectural and
cultural environment.
GG.2 No Action Alternative
GG.2.1 Affected Environment — No Action Alternative
As with the MSP Alternative, the APE for the No Action Alternative is the existing airport and its immediate
surroundings. Section Y.3.1 describes the visual characteristics of the airport environs.
GG.2.2 Design, Art, and Architectural Impacts — No Action Alternative
As noted in Section Y.3.2, the FAA air traffic control tower, at 166 above ground level, is the tallest on -airport
structure. The tower is three quarters of a mile from the nearest residential neighborhood. Other airport
structures are substantially lower. While these structures will continue to be visible from surrounding areas,
Dual Track Final EIS
V-189
they do not represent a substantial disruption of the natural environment or aesthetic integrity of surrounding
areas. _ (,
GG.2.3 Mitigation Measures — No Action Alternative
Since the No Action Alternative would not significantly impact the surrounding area, no mitigation would be
required.
HH. Short -Term Uses and Long -Term Productivity and Irreversible and
Irretrievable Commitments of Resources
HH.1 Short -Term Uses and Long -Term Productivity
Short-term uses of the environment include construction impacts which are not expected to be significant.
The long-term productivity of the alternatives includes the economic and social benefits that would result from
an expanded airport. Considerable additional jobs and commercial/retail activity would occur from the MSP
2010 LTCP and 2020 Concept Plan, and less from the No Action Alternative. Social benefits include
improved access to national and international activities and opportunities from the MSP 2010 LTCP and 2020
Concept Plan.
HH.2 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources
No new, unusual or limited sources or types of materials are involved in the alternatives. The MSP 2020
Concept Plan calls, for the removal of every building in the Original Wold -Chamberlain Terminal Historic
District, an area determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. While mitigation
measures can partially compensate for demolition, the built environment suffers an irreversible loss by not i
retaining the actual resource. t
Considerable amounts of fossil fuels, labor and construction materials for runways and buildings would be
used with the development of the MSP 2010 LTCP and 2020 Concept Plan . In addition, large amounts of
labor and natural resources would be used in the fabrication and preparation of construction materials. These
materials are not retrievable; however, they are not in short supply and will not have an adverse effect on the
continued availability of these resources. Any construction project will also require the use of user fees and a
one-time expenditure of MAC and federal funds, which would not be retrievable.
Dual Track Final EIS
V-190
V1 List of Preparers
----- ng-ndividua|e-omsioted in the preparation of this document. Their qualifications are
presented in the following matrix:
Preparer
Title/Firm
Education/Registration
Years
EIS Responsibility
Doug Abere
Environmental Planner,
M.S. Urban and Regional
10
FAA Consultant Project
CH2M Hill
Planning, AICP
Manager, Surface
Transportation Access
Gregory Albjerg
Engineer -in-
B.S. Civil Engineering, P.E.
20
Floodplain Impacts, Cost
Charge/Principal Aviation
Estimates, Flight Tracks,
Engineer, HNTB
Wild & Scenic Rivers, Major
Utilities
Rick Alberts
Principal, Transportation
B.S. Civil Engineering
26
Noise, Air Quality, Energy
Solutions
Ted Baldwin
Vice President, Harris,
B.S. Engineering,
20
Review of Ground Noise
Miller, Miller & Hanson
Impacts
M.S. City and Regional
Planning
Doug Barrett
Senior Acoustical
B.A. Physics
9
Review of Ground Noise
Consultant, Harris, Miller,
Impacts
Miller & Hanson
M.S. Environmental Studies
Cheryl Baxter
Sr. Vice President,
B.S. Economics,
22
Economic Impacts
Economics Research
M.S. Business
Associates
Chuck Blair
Senior Ecologist, CH2M
M.S. Wildlife Ecology
18
Biotic, Threatened and
Hill
Endangered, Wildlife and
Wetland Resources
David Braslau
President, David Braslau
B.S., M.S., Ph.D. Civil
23
Air Quality, Energy and
Associates
Engineering; P.E.
Natural Resources
Carrol Bryant
Director of Environmental
B.A. Geography
15
Noise, Air Quality, Energy
Services, Transportation
Resources
Solutions, Inc.
Jim Cox
Cultural Resources
B.S. Anthropology
17
Historic/Architectural,
Specialist, CH2M Hill
Archaeological Resources,
Section 4(f)
AED/EIS Format, Executive
Lawrence Dallam
Principal'Transportation
B.S., M.S., Ph.D. Civil
28
Summary, Purpose and
Planner, HNTB
Engineering
Need, Alternatives, Wildlife
Refuge, Overall Quality
Control
Annette Davis
Federal Aviation
B.S. Biology
16
Air Traffic Control
Administration
Procedures Review
Mark Filipi
Transportation Forecast
B.A. Geology, MCRP City &
11
Ground Access Impacts,
Analyst, Metropolitan
Regional Planning, AICP
Land Use
Council
Dual Track Final BS
Preparer
Title/Firm
Education/Registration
Years
EIS Responsibility
Exp.
Evan Futterman
Vice President/Director of
Aviation, HNTB
B.S. Air Commerce
15
Project Manager, Noise
Transportation; A.S. Air
Impacts, Quality Control
Commerce and Flight
Technology; AICP
Michael Graham
Peterson Environmental
B.S. Recreation, Parks &
7
Wetlands
Consulting, Inc.
Leisure Services
Cindy Green
Air Traffic Procedures and
15
Air Traffic Control
Environmental Specialist,
Procedures Review
Federal Aviation
Administration
Tom Haislip
Terrestrial Ecologist,
M.S. Ecology
27
Biotic, Wetland, Threatened
CH2M Hill
and Endangered Species,
Wild and Scenic Rivers, and
Wildlife Refuge Resources
Christina Harrison
Director, Archaeological
M. Philosophy, Archaeology
31
Archaeological Resources
Research Services
Anthony Heppelmann
Vice President, BRW, Inc.
B.A. Economics, B.S. Civil
15
Ground Access,
Engineering, P.E.
Transportation Improvements
Adam Josephson
Mn/DOT
Surface Transportation
Scott Krych
Peterson Environmental
B.S. Biology
9
Threatened/Endangered
Consulting, Inc.
Species, Bird Aircraft
Joan Kugler
Environmental Planner,
M.S. City Planning, AICP
23
Surface Transportation,
CH2M Hill
Social, and Induced
Socioeconomic Impacts
Peter Langworthy
Environmental Planner,
B.A. Sociology, M.S.
8
Solid Waste, Water Quality
B.A. Liesch
Energy Management and
Policy
James McCarthy
Urban Mobility Engineer,
M.S. Civil Engineering, P.E.
12
Surface Transportation
Federal Highway
Administration
Joseph Navarrete
Planner, HNTB Alexandria
B.A. Geography
9
Noise Impacts, Graphics
Glen Orcutt
Project Manager, Federal
B.A. Political Science &
22
FAA Project Manager,
Aviation Administration
History, M.A. Public
Overall EIS Composition and
Administration
Review
Frank Pafko
Director, Environmental
B.S. Wildlife Biology
18
Surface Transportation
Process Section, Mn/DOT
Pat Pahl
Metropolitan Council
B.A., M.A. Political Science
21
Land Use Review
Ronald Peterson
President, Peterson
B.S. Wildlife Management,
14
Wetlands, Endangered/
Environmental Consulting,
M.S. Natural Resources,
Threatened Species, Biotic
Inc.
J.D. Law
Communities, Bird Aircraft
I
I
I
Hazards, Refuge
Dual Track Final EIS
VI -2
Preparer
Title/Firm
Education/Registration
Years
EIS Responsibility
Exp.
Tom Peterson
Air Traffic Procedures and
15
Air Traffic Control
Environmental Specialist,
Procedures Review
Federal Aviation
Administration
Ron Rauchle
Mn/DOT
B.S. Civil Engineering
Surface Transportation
Walter Rockenstein
Attorney, Faegre &
Air Quality, Overall
Benson
Document Review
Charlene Roise
Principal,
B.A. History, American
15
Historic/Architectural
Hess Roise
Studies, German; M.A.
Resources
Historic Preservation
Bruce Rehwaldt
Senior Project Manager,
B.A. Chemistry, M.S. Civil
10
Water Quality
B.A. Liesch Associates,
Engineering, P.E.
Inc.
Social, Parks & Recreation
Areas, Visual, Light
Penelope Simison
Senior Planner, HNTB
B.A. English, M.A. History,
9
Emissions, Wild & Scenic
AICP
Rivers, Index, Glossary
Cheng Soong
Senior Transportation
M.S. Civil Engineering, P.E.
16
Surface Transportation
Engineer, CH2M Hill
Dick Stafford
Senior Transportation
B.S. Civil Engineering, P.E.
10
Surface Transportation
Engineer, CH2M Hill
)Richard Starr
Sr. Vice President,
B.A. Economics,
34
Economic Impact
Economics Research
M.S. Urban Studies
Associates
Joe Stuber
Water Resources
B.S. Civil Engineering
18
Water Resources
Engineer, CH2M Hill
James Suehiro
Professional Associate,
B.A. Environmental Design,
18
Terminal Area Plan
TRA
Master in Architecture, AIA
Harry Summitt
Principal, B.A. Liesch
B.S. Civil Engineering, M.A.
20
Water Quality
Associates, Inc.
Business Administration,
P.E.
Ralph Thompson
Federal Aviation
B.S. Civil Engineering
22
Headquarters Review and
Administration
Coordination
Glenn Vande Water
Peterson Environmental
B.S. Environmental Studies
17
Threatened/Endangered
Consulting, Inc.
Species, Bird Aircraft
Robert Varani
Aviation Planner, HNTB
B.A. Airport Administration
2
GIS Analysis
Richard Veazey
Airport Planner, CH2M Hill
M.,Architecture/ Urban
20
Overall Document Review
Design, AICP
Audrey Wald
Aviation Planner, HNTB
B.S. Airway Science
6
GIS Analysis,
Management
Community/Social Impacts,
Wetland Impacts, Floodplains
Charles Webb
Environmental Planner,
M.S. Urban and Regional
5
Land Use, Parks, Light
CH2M Hill
Planning, AICP
Emissions, Visual and
Farmland Resources
Dual Track Final EIS
VI -3
VUU,List of Agen~es, Jurisdictions, Private Parties and Depositories
Receiving Final EIS
Federal Agencies
Dept. of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration, Regional Administrator,
U.S.Corps ofEngineers, Regulatory Function
Branch
U.S. Corps ofEngineers, Permit Evaluation
Section
Dept. of Energy, Division of NEPA Affairs
Environmental Protection Agency, Planning and
Assessment Branch
Dept. of Agriculture, Office of the Secretary
Dept. of Agriculture, Environmental Coordinator
Soil Conservation Service
Dept. ofInterior, Office ofEnvironmental Project
Review
U.S. Forest Service, Regional Forester
Bureau ofLand Management
National Park Service, Regional Director
National Park Service, Division of Planning &
Environment
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Regional Director,
U.S. Fish &VW|d|ifo Service, Endangered Species
Branch
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, St. Paul Field Office
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation,
Executive Director
' US Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Mines,
Intermountain Field Canter
Dept. ofHousing & Urban Development
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Area Director, Minneapolis Area Office,
Director, U. S. Veterans Administration Medical
Center
State, Metro and Local Agencies:
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Minnesota Dept ofTransportation
Minnesota Planning
Metropolitan Council
Metropolitan Council - Transportation Advisory
Bound
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Wisconsin Department of Transportation - Div. of
Highways
State Historic Preservation Officer
Wisconsin Department ofNatural Resources
Department ofAgriculture
Department ofHealth
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Department of Public Service
MN Board ofWater and Sn|| Resources
Office of Environmental Assistance
Countv4dmJniotrotoro
Dakota County
Goodhue County
Hennepin County
Pierce County
Ramsey County
St. Croix County
Washington County
Cities andTmmohioo
City ofBloomington
City of Burnsville
City ofEagan
City ofHastings
City of Inver Grove Heights
City ofMendota
City of Mendota Heights
City ofMinneapolis
City of Richfield
City ofRosemount
City ofSt. Paul
Denmark Township
Depositories
Environmental Conservation Library
Legislative Reference Library
Augsburg Pork Library, Richfield
Highland Perk Library, St. Paul
Oxboro Library, Bloomington
Washburn Library, Minneapolis
Wescott Library, Eagan
Minnesota Environmental Quality Board
Dakota County Soil and Water
Conservation District
K8|nnohaho Creek Watershed District
Vermillion River Watershed Management
Commission
Pierce County, Wisconsin Farm Bureau;
Ferrnore Union and National Farmers
Organization
Minnesota -Wisconsin Boundary Area
Commission
Dual Track Final EIS
Dual Track Task Force
Dick Anfeng, Minnesota State Building & Trades
Council
Gregory Boyle, Business community
A|ivaC|oua|ng, Senator, State ofWisconsin
Tom Crowley, Business community
Bud Erickson, Rochester
Joseph Finley, Transportation Advisory Board
Jennifer Sayre, Northwest A|d|noo
Don Groan, Bloomington Chamber of Commerce
Edward Gutznnonn, MSP Re -use Task Force
Joseph Harris, Dakota County Commissioner
Tim Hoffman, St. Paul Chamber ofCommerce
JuhnKahler Rochester
Andrew Lindberg, Greater Minneapolis Chamber
of Commerce
Myra Peterson, Washington County
Commissioner
G|ohaPinke' Dakota County
Ray Ruught,Mn/DOT Aeronautics
Mary Hill Smith, Metropolitan Council
Michael Werner, Mayor, Hastings
8onnieVWttonbupg, Rochester
Lyle Wray, Citizens League
Southern Dakota County Townships and Cities Airport Planning Group
Sierra Club
South Metropolitan Airport Action Council
State Representative Jean VVeganiva(MN)
State Senator Carol Flynn <K8N>
Marion Hall
Wilbur Maki
John Richter
Jeff Schneider
A|VVoUnitz
Joyce Herbison
CodiuHendhokaon
Jerome Maier
John G. Turner
Amy Salo
Thomas Manion/Genevieve Lubbers
Robert J. Kelly
Gibson Batch
R. W. Russell
Phyllis Goldin
Wanda Brown
Dual Track Final EIS
N|-2
VIII. Public and Agency Involvement
The involvement of the public and government agencies in the Dual Track Airport Planning Process
began with the enactment of the Metropolitan Airport Planning Act by the Minnesota legislature in 1989.
The FAA issued a Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS and to conduct public scoping, which appeared in
the April 1, 1992 Federal Register.
Early Coordination
Early coordination with agencies began in April 1992 with the preparation of the First Phase Scoping
Report. All agencies were contacted and a scoping meeting was held for the staffs of the agencies and
affected jurisdictions. Formal comments from the agencies on issues raised during the scoping
meetings, and the responses, were published in the First Phase Scoping Report, Comments and
Responses.
Alternative Environmental Document Phase of the EIS/Dual Track Airport Planning Process
Following the publication of the First Phase Scoping Report, Comments and Responses, two technical
committees were formed -- the MSP Technical Committee and the New Airport Technical Committee.
Staff representatives of affected cities, townships, county, regional, state and federal agencies, airport
users and local interest groups listed on pages VIII -4 and 5 of this section were invited to sit on the
technical committees.
Members of the technical committees, meeting approximately on a monthly basis from 1993 to 1996,
reviewed the technical approach and products of the airport planning process.
In addition, technical committee members and all others receiving copies of each document in the Dual
Track Airport Planning Process were invited to submit comments on issues discussed and
methodologies used. These letters and the responses are included in the appendices of the following
Dual Track Airport Planning Process documents:
• Dual Track Airport Planning Process, New Airport Site Selection Study, Scoping Decision
Document (Metropolitan Airports Commission, June 1993).
• Dual Track Airport Planning Process, New Airport Site Selection Study, Final AED (Metropolitan
Airports Commission, January 1994).
• Minneapolis -Saint Paul International Airport Long -Term Comprehensive Plan, Scoping Decision
Document (Metropolitan Airports Commission, March 1994).
• Dual Track Airport Planning Process, New Airport Comprehensive Plan, Scoping Decision
Document (Metropolitan Airports Commission, June 1994).
• Minneapolis -Saint Paul International Airport, Long -Term Comprehensive Plan, Final Alternative
Environmental Document (Metropolitan Airports Commission, February 1995).
• Dual Track Airport Planning Process, New Airport Comprehensive Plan, Final Alternative
Environmental Document (Metropolitan Airports Commission, April 1995).
• Dual Track Airport Planning Process, Environmental Impact Statement, Scoping Decision
i
(Metropolitan Airports Commission, July 1995).
Dual Track Final EIS
VIII -1
• Dual Track Airport Planning Process, Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Metropolitan Airports
Commission and Federal Aviation Administration, December 1995).
Additionally, the Dual Track Airport Planning Process Task Force, consisting of elected officials or
representatives from the affected cities, townships, county, regional, state and federal agencies, airport
users and local interest groups listed on page VIII -5 was formed. The Task Force, also meeting
approximately on a monthly basis between 1993 and 1996, reviewed the process and products of the
airport planning process and provided advice to the MAC.
The State Advisory Council (see page VIII -6), established by the legislature, was informed of the
progress of the study.
Public Hearings
There have been opportunities to comment, both formally and informally, throughout the EIS/Dual Track
Airport Planning Process. Formal input was solicited at a series of public hearings conducted on each of
the scoping reports and environmental documents of the airport planning process and held both in the
Twin Cities and Dakota County. Following is a summary of the public hearings; additional detail about
the project history is in Section I (Introduction) and the scoping decision documents and Final AED's.
• April 1992 -- Three public meetings on the First Phase Scoping Report were held for public and
agency comment. Responses to substantive comments were published in March 1993.
• March 18, 1993 -- A public meeting on the Scoping Document and Draft Scoping Decision
Document for the selection of a new airport site was held; the Scoping Decision Document,
including responses to comments, was adopted by the Commission on June 21, 1993.
• November 18, 1993 -- A public hearing on the Draft AED for the selection of a new airport site, t
including the identification of a preferred site, was held. The Commission determined the
adequacy of the Final AED and selected Site 3 on March 21, 1994.
• February 15, 1994 -- A public meeting on the Scoping Environmental Assessment Worksheet
(EAW) and Draft Scoping Decision Document for the update of the long-term comprehensive
plan for MSP was held. The Scoping Decision Document was adopted by the Commission on
March 21, 1994.
• May 12, 1994 -- A public scoping meeting on the Scoping EAW and Draft Scoping Decision
Document for the development of a comprehensive plan at the New Airport Site 3 was held.
The Scoping Decision Document was adopted by the Commission on June 20, 1994
• October 26, 1994 -- A public hearing was held on the Draft AED for the selection of the MSP
Long -Term Comprehensive Plan.
• January 30, 1995 -- The Final AED for the selection of the MSP Long -Term Comprehensive
Plan was made available for public/agency review and comment. The Commission determined
the adequacy of the Final AED and selected Alternative 6 on February 21, 1995.
• January 18, 1995 -- A public hearing on the Draft AED for the selection of the New Airport
Comprehensive Plan was held. reviewed by MAC on November 21, 1994 for public/agency
review and comment.
• March 27, 1995 -- The Final AED for the selection of the New Airport Comprehensive Plan was
made available for public/agency review and comment. The Commission determined the 1
Dual Track Final EIS
VIII -2
adequacy ofthe Final AEO and ea|enbsd the New Airport Comprehensive Plan on Aoh| 18'
1995.
June 1995—Three public hearings on the Second Phase Scoping Report for the Draft EIS, were
held. Afinal Scoping Decision document was issued July 2G.1S9b.
January 1996 -- Two public hearings were held on the Draft EIS.
Documents prepared as part of the EIS/Dual Track Airport Planning Pmoeea were supplemented
throughout byaseries ofpublic information meetings, newsletters, informational brochures, press
conferences and news releases for the general public, as appropriate.
Other Public Involvement
The public also has the opportunity to comment on the adequacy of this FBGand the Section 4(f)
Evaluation document which was distributed May 1.1998for review and comment.
Continuing and Future Agency Coordination
Surface Transportation. The Dual Track Surface Transportation Committee was organized by the
FAA and consisted of representatives of the FAA, MAC, Federal Highway Administration(FHWA).
Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT), Wisconsin Department of Transportation,
Minnesota Environmental {3ua|dv Board, and the Metropolitan Council. The first meeting of the
committee was held on August 17' 1995. The participating agencies met 11 times prior to the
publication of the FEIS, with the purpose of determining which surface transportation improvements are
needed, and to establish an understanding concerning agency responsibility and the procedures to be
followed in the development of airport -related sudbng transportation improvements. Key topica
)
discussed included highway improvement needs, potential environmental impacts, highway construction
coste, status and programming of relevant transportation pnojado, as well as environmental review and
permitting procedures. These consultations concluded with the completion of signed "Consensus
Document," which details the agreement between the agencies regarding surface transportation
development necessary toimplement the MSP Alternative (see Appendix F>.
Water and Air Quality. The MAC has consulted with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
throughout the EIS process to confirm that the MPCA's concerns regarding the air and water quality
impacts of the MSP Alternative have been adequately addressed. Through this coordination, K4PCA
concurred that the K4AC'a proposed surface water control program and air quality emissions for MSP
have been adequately assessed and that the airport's development plan provides reasonable assurance
of consistency with the state's permitting requirements. Consultation activities from between May 1996
and May 1997 between the MAC, Mn/DOT, and MPCA ultimately resulted in certification letters to this
effect from the Governor (see supporting information inAppendix /0.
Historic Preservation. Section 106/8ecUon 11O/GeoUon4(f)consultation regarding historic resource
impacts has occurred throughout the EIS process involving the MAC, FAA, FHWA, National Park
Service -Mississippi National River and Recreation Area, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers kCOE>.
Mn/OOT, Minnesota Department of Nsduny| Resources (MONR). Metropolitan Counoi|, Minneapolis
Heritage Preservation Commission (MHPC), Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), and the
Minnesota Gbaba Historic Preservation Officer /8HP{]\ to eaouro that impacts to historic properties
resulting from the yWGP Alternative and aircraft -generated noise have been properly addressed and
mitigated. The purpose ofthe coordination was toagree upon impacts and mitigation requirements for
historic properties affected bvthe MSP 2O2OComprehensive Plan and year 2OOGDNLO5noise contour.
The agreed-upon approach for mitigating the defined historic impacts is documented in a programmatic
<�
agreement (PA) between the FAA, MAC, ACHP, SHPO, and concurring parties, which was signed on or
before July 28, 1997 (see Appendix C).
Dual Track Final EIS
Section 4(f). Consultation between the United States Department of the Interior — Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS), MAC, and FAA was initiated by the FAA in May 1996 regarding impacts of the MSP
Alternative on the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge (MVNWR). The parties met several times
to discuss noise impacts to the refuge and agree upon measures to mitigate the impacts to the
MVNWR. Key topics of the coordination were determination of existing and future noise levels,
agreement on the extent of the impacts to the MVNWR, and possible mitigation measures.
Wetlands. The MAC and FAA have consulted with the COE and the MDNR throughout the EIS
process regarding the loss of wetland located on and off airport property which is necessary to
implement MSP Alternative. The purpose of these consultations was to gain MDNR and COE
concurrence on the extent of wetland impacts and necessary measures to mitigate the impacts. These
consultations resulted in a conceptual wetland mitigation plan agreed to by the MAC, COE, and MDNR
(see Appendix D).
In addition to these completed activities, the FAA and MAC will coordinate further with relevant agencies
concerning the planned development of the MSP 2010 LTCP. Those agencies may include, but are not
limited to, the following:
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
• State Historic Preservation Officer
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
• Federal Highway Administration
• Minnesota Department of Transportation
• Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
• Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
• Metropolitan Council
• Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources
• Richfield -Bloomington Watershed Management Organization
• Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and
• Minnesota Department of Health.
EIS/Dual Track Committees
MSP TECHNICAL COMMITTEE
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association
Minnesota Air National Guard
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Metropolitan Council
Minnesota Business Aircraft Association
U.S. Air Force Reserves
State Historic Preservation Office
City of Minneapolis
City of Eagan
City of Mendota Heights
City of Bloomington
City of St. Paul
City of Richfield
City of Burnsville
City of Inver Grove Heights
FAA Air Route Traffic Control Center
FAA – Airports District Office
FAA – Air Traffic Control Tower
Environmental Quality Board
Minneapolis Pollution Control Agency
Minnesota Department of Transportation:
Northwest Airlines, Inc.
Mesaba Airlines
Air Transport Association
Federal Express
Airline Pilots Association
Dakota County
Minnesota Department of Agriculture
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Dual Track Final EIS
VIII -4
NEW AIRPORT TECHNICAL COMMITTEE
City of Hastings
Dakota County
Washington_n"
Goodhue County
Southern Dakota County Townships and Cities
City cfRosemount
Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association
UGEPA — Environmental Review Branch
FAA Airports District Office
U.G. Fish &Wildlife Service
Metropolitan Council
City ofCottage Grove
Cannon Falls Township
Welch Township
Grey Cloud Island Township
Wisconsin Department ofTransportation
Pierce County
Wisconsin Dept. ofNatural Resources
City ofPrescott
Patrick O1Nei|LMAC, Chair
OickAnhang' Minnesota State Building &Tnadeo
Council
Gregory Boyle, Business community
Alice [;|oueinD,Senator, State ofWisconsin
Tom Crowley, Business community
Bud Erickson, Rochester
Paul Farmer, Minneapolis Planning Director
Joseph Finley, Transportation Advisory Board
Kathy Gaylord/ Jennifer Sayre, Northwest Airlines
Don Gnnen.Bloomington Chamber ofCommerce
Edward {Sutzmann.MSP Re -use Task Force
Environmental Quality Board
Minnesota Business Aircraft Association
Northwest Airlines, Inc.
State Historic Preservation Office
FAA Air Route Traffic Control Center
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
UGArmy Corps ofEngineers
Minnesota -Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission
MeoabaAidinea
Air Transport Association
Federal Express
Mn/OOT—OfficeofAemnautica
U.8.Air Force Reserves
Aiding Pilots Association
FAA — MSP ATCT
Minnesota Department ofAgriculture
Minnesota Air National Guard
Minnesota Department ofNatural Resources
Joseph Harris, Dakota County Commissioner
Tim Hoffman, St. Paul Chamber ofCommerce
John Kah|gr.Rochester
Andrew Lindberg, Greater Minneapolis Chamber of
Commerce
Myra Peterson, Washington County Commissioner
G)oriaPinke. Dakota County
Ray Rought.Mn/DOT Aeronautics
Mary Hill Smith, Metropolitan Council
Michael Werner, Mayor, Hastings
Bonnie VV|ttanburg,Rochester
Lyle Wray, Citizens League
Dual Track Final EIS
STATE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON METROPOLITAN AIRPORT PLANNING
Senator Keith Langseth
Senator Carol Flynn
Senator William Belanger
Representative Bernie Lieder
Representative Jean VVageniuo
Representative Dennis Ozment
State Agency Heads:
James OennCommissioner, Minnesota Department
of Transportation
Linda Koh, Director, Minnesota State Planning
Charles Williams, Commissioner, Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency
Bob Benner, Special Asst. for State Government
/Nfoina. Northwest Airlines
Rodger Holman, Manager, Airport and Corporate
Affairs, Delta Airlines, Inc.
Non -Voting Members:
Frank Benson, Manager, FAA- Minneapolis Airport
District Office
Elaine Kienitz, Congressional Delegation Appointee
Public Members:
Suzanne Sandahl
John T. Richter
Dave Danielson
Eve Webster
Al Loehr
GiohePinka
Metropolitan Airports Commission:
Sandy Grieve, Chair
Patric O'Neill, Commissioner
Metropolitan Council:
Curt Johnson, Chair
Mary Hill Smith, Council Member
Dual Track Final EIS
UX~ Kist of Acronyms and Glossary
acre -ft -- measurement of water storage, equivalent to amount of water needed to cover 1 auna with
vvotnr 1 foot deep
ACHP—AdviooryCounoi|onHiotodoPnanen/ation .
ADT Average Daily Traffic
AED —Alternative Environmental Document. The AED is o document that included the analysis of
environmental |nnpocta and issues insufficient detail to select the "best" of the alternatives that
were under consideration for both MSP expansion and o new airport in Dakota County. It is
similar to an BS, but differs |nthat the "no action" alternative and ve000neb|u alternatives are not
considered. That is, the AED'o addressed only the alternatives and impacts included in the SOO
for the Long -Term Comprehensive plans atMSP and the Dakota County site.
AGL—AboveGroundLeve|
Agriculture preserve — Farmland designated bycovenant for long term agricultural use, for which the
property owner receives such benefits as lower assessed valuations and, therefore, lower taxes.
ANOMS — Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System, the noise monitoring system in use at
MSP
APE — Area of Potential Effect, or the affected environment of each of the alternatives under
� >
consideration for Dual Track Airport Planning process.
'
'
BiotioCommunitiea—Rah, wildlife and ecologically sensitive resources, including rare, threatened and
endangered species
BOD—B|ochamioa| Oxygen Demand
CAL 3QHC -- Carbon Monoxide dispersion model used to estimate CO concentrations
C8OO—Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand
CECL—Council onEnvironmental Quality
ufo—oubinfeotperoecond
CO Carbon Monoxide
COO—Chemica|OxygenDemand
COE—U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
dB—decibels, used tomeasure sound levels
dBA — "A" -weighted decibel scale used to mnuauno aircraft and other sound levels
DNLOay Night Level metric describes aircraft noise. |tiothe logarithmic average sound level
� } —
nneoaunad in decibels weighted to closely approximate the sensitivity ofthe human ear. DNLhn
Dual Track Final BS
based on the annual average of 24-hour Equivalent Sound Level, (Leq), which is weighted to {'
account for increased noise sensitivity during nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). DNL
65 dBA is the Day Night Level of 65 decibels on the A -weighted scale, for example.
EDMS -- Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System, used to calculate pollutant emissions and
concentrations due to on -airport sources, including aircraft and motor vehicles.
EIS -- Environmental Impact Statement. This is a document required by federal (if federal funds or
properties are involved) and state law for proposed projects that could have potentially significant
adverse impacts on the social, economic and natural environments. The EIS must address the
environmental impacts of all reasonable alternatives, including the "no action" alternative, and
commit to measures that would mitigate those adverse impacts that cannot be avoided.
EPA -- Environmental Protection Agency (of the United States government)
ESA -- Minnesota Endangered Species Act
FAA -- Federal Aviation Administration (of the United States Department of Transportation)
FAR Part 150 — Federal Aviation Regulation, Part 150. The procedures, standards, and methodology
governing the development, submission, and review of the airport noise exposure maps and
airport noise compatibility programs, including the process for evaluating and approving or
disapproving those programs, required by FAA to be eligible for federal funds.
Farmland remnants -- Portions of farms remaining after land is acquired for the airport. There are
three types of farmland remnants, defined as follows:
Isolated farmlands. farmland that is not accessible because the road leading to it is within the
airport boundary.
Triangulated farmlands. farmland with one or more property lines at an angle. This factor could
make farming on the field difficult. While there is no minimum acreage for triangulated farmland,
a smaller triangulated field also would be difficult to farm.
Severed farmlands. farmlands under one ownership that are separated from each other by the
airport project. For example, a large farm may be bisected by a roadway leading to the new
airport or the farmstead could be separated from the fields themselves.
FICON -- Federal Interagency Committee on Noise
Footprint -- Area within the boundary of the proposed airport site
FEMA -- Federal Emergency Management Agency
FWS or USFWS — Fish and Wildlife Service of the United States Department of the Interior
GIS -- Geographic Information System
GISW -- Glycol -Impacted Storm water
HAGS -- Historic American Buildings Survey
HAER -- Historic American Engineering Record
Dual Track Final EIS
IX -2
HC -- Hydrocarbons
HNTB - HNTB Corporation, lead consultant for MAC
INM -- Integrated Noise Model, which calculates DNL noise levels at specified points based on aircraft
flight paths/altitudes, number of operations by time of day, and engine types of the fleet.
IPG -- Interactive Planning Group, a 1991 group formed to study potential long-term comprehensive
planning options .for MSP, including the cities of Bloomington, Burnsville, Eagan, Mendota
Heights, Minneapolis, Richfield and St. Paul.
JDEIS -- Joint Draft Environmental Impact Statement
LESA -- Land Evaluation Site Assessment of affected farmland
LTCP -- Long -Term Comprehensive Plan for MSP and the Dakota County site
MAC -- Metropolitan Airports Commission (of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area)
MASAC — Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council
MC -- Metropolitan Council (of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area)
MCBS -- Minnesota County Biological Survey
I MDNR -- Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
MDS -- Metropolitan Disposal System
MEQB -- Minnesota Environmental Quality Board
mg/m3 -- micrograms per cubic meter
mg/I -- milligrams per liter
mgd -- million gallons per day
mg/m3 -- milligrams per cubic meter
MHPC — Minneapolis Historic Preservation Commissioin
Mn/DOT -- Minnesota Department of Transportation
MOBILE 5.0 -- Carbon monoxide emission model developed by EPA
MPCA -- Metropolitan Pollution Control Agency
MSP -- Minneapolis -Saint Paul International Airport
MSL -- mean sea level
MSW -- Metropolitan Solid Waste
Dual Track Final EIS
IX -3
MRAP—MinnesotaRive Assessment Project
MVNVVR—Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge
MNRRA — Mississippi National River and Recreation Area
K4VVCC—Metropolitan Waste Control Commission
KXVVVVTP— Metropolitan Wastewater Treatment Plant
NAA— New Airport Alternative
NLR—NoiueLava|Reduotinn
NOx—NitrogenOxida
NO, Nitrogen Dioxide
NPDES — National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (permit governing discharge of pollutants
into storm sewer systems and outfalls)
NRHP — National Register of Historic Places
NSBERT—NorthomStateuBokjEag|eRecoveryTaom
'
NWI -- National Wetland Inventory, referring to maps prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
OPDC—OndovoianPraiheduCNenoguifor
Ox—Oxygen
pA—ProgromnnadcAyreement
P&4-10 — Particulate matter |000 than 10 microns in diameter
ppm — parts per million
RPZ — Runway Protection Zone. This is o trapezoidal area at the and of o runway that must be
uoqu|nad to efhznd o safety zone for aircraft landings and take -offs. The FAA requires that RPZ'o
boapart ofairport property.
SO — Scoping Document. A report that describes the purpose of the project, identifies feasible
alternatives, and describes the affected social, economic and natural environment and potential
impacts ofthe alternatives.
SDD -- Scoping Decision Document. The SDD presents the alternatives, issues and impacts that the
Responsible Governmental Unit <RGU> has decided to study in the EIS or AED. The SDD is
adopted by the RGU after receiving comments on the Draft SDD from the public and affected
agencies.
SEL— Sound Exposure Level (level of sound by individual aircraft atspecified |000don) ('
\.
Dual Track Final BS
|X~4
Section 4(f) Land -- This is land afforded protection under Section 4(f) of the 1966 US Department of
Transportation Act of Congress. All publicly -owned park and recreation land, wildlife and
waterfowl refuges and historic lands of national, state or local significance are included in Section
4(f). These lands cannot be adversely impacted unless there is no feasible and prudent
alternative to the use of the lands.
Section 6(f) Land -- Section 6(f) of the 1965 Land and Water Conservation Fund (LAWCON) Act of
Congress stipulates that any land that was planned, developed or improved with LAWCON funds
cannot be converted to other than outdoor recreational use unless replacement land of at least
equal value and usefulness is provided. Section 6(f) land is outdoor recreational land and can
include publicly -owned parks, tennis courts, county trails, golf courses, etc.
SHPO -- State Historic Preservation Officer (of the Minnesota Historical Society)
SIP -- State Implementation Plan (for federal air quality standards); or, Sound Insulation Program
SO,, -- Sulfur Oxide
SO, -- Sulfur Dioxide
SPCCP -- Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plans used to track equipment and methods to
deal with spills
State Safety Zones -- These are trapezoidal areas beyond the ends of the runways, labeled "A" and
"B" that can be regulated to prevent the use of the included land for purposes which can be
hazardous to aircraft operations. Minnesota Statute 360.063 provides authority for the
establishment of a joint airport zoning board consisting of the directly affected municipalities.
The board regulates zoning within the safety zones. The established zoning regulations cannot
be retroactive (i.e., affecting existing land use and structures) unless the existing land use or
structure/object is a safety hazard to the airport.
SWMF -- Storm water Management Facility
SWPPP -- Storm water Pollution Prevention Plans, designed to meet NPDES permit requirements
TBI -- Travel Behavior Inventory
TH -- Trunk Highway, under jurisdiction of Mn/DOT
TKN -- Total kjeldahl nitrogen
TP -- Total Phosphorous
TSP -- Total Suspended Particulates
TSS -- Total Suspended Solids
US FWS — United States Fish and Wildlife Service (see FWS)
VOC -- Volatile Organic Compound
WCA -- Wetlands Conservation Act of 1991
Dual Track Final EIS
IX -5
WMS -- Watershed Management Sector
WWTF -- Wastewater Treatment Facility
Dual Track Final EIS
IX -6
A
Activity Levels 11, 4-8
Adjacent Land Use (as g development limitation onMSP) U. 16
Affected Environment (general description) N\1
Air and Water Quality Certification, Governors Appendix
Air Quality V. 1-21
MSP Alternative V, 6-14
Affected Environment -- MSP Alternative \(6-D
Air Quality Impacts -- MSP Alternative V.8-13
/NitiQationMeonuneo—-yNSPA|bsrnaUve V.13-14
NoAction Alternative V.14-17
Affected Environment --NoAction Alternative V.14
Air Quality Impacts --NoAction Alternative V.14-17
Mitigation Measures --NoAction Alternative V.17
Summary nfAir Quality Impacts V. 17-21
Air Quality Impact Analysis ofConstruction Activities, Appendix A.13
Air Quality Modeling Assumptions, Appendix A.1
Air Traffic (as on FAA Action) |. 5-6
Airfield (Airport Limitations) U. 13
Airport Limitations U. 13-15
Airport Role U. 3
Airports (as an FAA Action) [ 7
Airspace Screening Analysis, Appendix B
4jnwoy Facilities (as an FAA Action) [ 7
/~— \
Alternatives U[ 144
Alternatives (summary) U[1
'
Alternatives Eliminated U|, 7-13
MSP Alternatives Eliminated U|, 7'8
New Airport Alternative |||.Q
Other Alternatives Eliminated |U. 9-12
Alternatives Under Consideration |U. 1-7
MSP Alternative U|, 1
MSP Alternative Process 111. 1-2
MSP Alternative and Project Goals U[ 2-4
NoAction Alternative U[4
NoAction Alternative and Project Goals )|[ 4-7
Preferred Alternative/Proposed Action |||. 12-14
Approval Declaration xiv
Archaeological Resources V.21-22
MSP Alternative V.21-22
Affected Environment -- MSP Alternative V.21
Archaeological Resource Impacts -- MSP Alternative V.21-22
Mitigation Measures -- MSP Alternative V.22
NoAction Alternative V.22
/ffectedEnvimnment--NoAcUonA|temotive V.22
Archaeological Resource Impacts --NoAction Alternative V.22
Mitigation Measures --NoAction Alternative V.22
Summary ofArchaeological Resource Impacts V.22
Aviation Activity ||. 5-13
Dual Track Final EIS
B (
Background and Lead Agency Contacts 1,2 \
Bald Eagles, Effect of Aircraft Overflights Appendix/\G
Biotic Communities \( 22-25
MSP Alternative l(23-2
Affected Environment -- MSP Alternative V.23-24
Biotic Communities |mpacte--MSP Alternative V.24'25
Mitigation Measures— MSP Alternative V.25
NoAction Alternative V.25
Affected Environment —No Action Alternative V.25
Biotic Communities Impacts— NoAction Alternative V.25
Mitigation Measures --NoAction Alternative V.25
Summary ofBiotic Communities Impacts V. 25
Bind`4ircraftHazondo V. 26-33
MSP Alternative V, 26-32
/NfeoLad Environment -- MSP Alternative V.26-31
Bird -Aircraft Hazards -- MSP Alternative V.31-32
Mitigation Measures -- MSP Alternative V.32
NoAction Alternative V.32-33
Affected Environment --NoAction Alternative V.32
Bird -Aircraft Hazards Impacts --NoAction Alternative V. 32-33
Mitigation Measures --NuAction Alternative V.33
Summary ofBird-Aircraft Hazards Impacts \(34
C
Canada Goose Populations onMother Lake Appendix &4
CBDOLoading and Attenuation Assumptions - MSP and NoAction Alternatives .
Appendix A.9 ( '
\
Coastal Barriers V.35 '
Coastal Zone Management Program V.35
Comments onDraft EIS and Responses Appendix
Comparison ofMAC High and FAA TAF Forecasts ||.1O-11
Construction Impacts V.33 -3G
Continuing and Future Agency Coordination V|||.3-4
Cooperating Agencies |, 3
D
Design, Art and Architectural Application V, 189-190
MSP Alternative V.18S
Affected Environment -- MSP Alternative V, 189
Design, Art and Architectural Application -- MSP Alternative V.188
Mitigation Measures -- MSP Alternative V, 189
NoAction Alternative V. 189-190
Affected Environment —No Action Alternative V, 189
Design, Art and Architectural Impacts --NoAction Alternative V, 189-190
Mitigation Measures --NoAction Alternative V, 190
Development Limitations ||, 14-15
Document Purpose and Organization |, 1
Dual Track Planning Legislation, Appendix A.14
Dual Track Airport Planning Process i|, 1-2
E
Economic \(38-57
Affected Environment —All Alternatives \(38-51
MSP Alternative \(51'55
Dual Track Final BS
Economic Impacts -- MSP Alternative \(51-54
Mitigation Measures -- MSP Alternative \(55
NoAction Alternative \(55-56
Economic Impacts --NoAction Alternative \(55-5
Summary ofEconomic Impacts \(5G
Endangered and Threatened Species \(3S-37
MSP Alternative V, 35-37
Affected Environment -- MSP Alternative V, 35-36
Endangered and Threatened Species Impacts -- MSP Alternative V.36'37
Mitigation Measures -- MSP Alternative V.37
NoAction Alternative V. 37
/ffbctedEnvimnment--NoActionA|temative V.37
Endangered and Threatened Species Impacts --NoAction Alternative V.37
Mitigation Measures —No Action Alternative V.37
Summary of Endangered and Threatened Species Impacts V. 37
Energy Supply and Natural Resources V.58 -G2
MSP Alternative V.58 -G1
Affected Environment -- MSP Alternative V, 58
Energy Supply and Natural Resources Impacts -- MSP Alternative V, 59-60
Mitigation Measures -- MSP Alternative V, 61
NoAction Alternative V, 61-62
AfectedEnvimnment--NoAcUnnA|tnrnaUve V, 61
Energy Supply and Natural Resources Impacts --NoAction Alternative V, 61-62
Mitigation Measures --NoAction Alternative V, 62
Summary ofEnergy Supply and Natural Resources Impacts V, 62
Environmental Consequences V, 1-190
Environmental Justice Impacts V, 97-104 '
MSP Alternative V.98 -1O1
/ \ NoAction Alternative V.1O1'103
`
Summary ofEnvironmental Justice Impacts \(1U3 -1O4
Executive Summary i-xiii
F
FAA Forecasts U, 8-10
Farmland \(G3
Federal Aviation Administration (FA\) Actions |.4-8
Figures Appendix
1992 Daily Vehicular Traffic - MSP and No Action Alternatives, VV'1
1994 Average IFR Travel Time and Delay per Operation, 3
1994 DNL Noise Contours, O-1
2005 DNLContoura- Baseline and High Forecast Scenarios, H-1
2005 DNL Noise Cuntoura- MSP Alternative, U'3
2006 DNL Noise Contoum-KUSPA|tarnative with Runway 4-22 Extnnniun, O'3A
2005 DNL Noise Contours ' No Action Alternative, [l-3
2005 DNL Noise Contuura-NoActiunA|turnative with Runway 4-22 Extension, U'3A
2005 FUghtTrocku- MSP Alternative, D-2
2005 FUghtTracko- No Action Alternative, D,8
2005 L`065 Noise Contouro- MSP Alternative, O-4
2005 L,065 Noise Contourn- NoAction Alternative, [-10
2005 Overflights ofWildlife Refuge - MSP Alternative, FF -1
2005 Overflights ofWildlife Rofuge-NnAotionA|ternative. FF -2
201OHighway Improvements - MSP 2O10LTCP,VV'3
2020 Dai|yVehicu|arTraffio- MSP Alternative, VV -2
2020 Doi|yVehicu|orTroffio- No Action A|tornodvo, VV -5
2020 Highway Improvements - MSP and NoAction Alternatives, VV'8
2O2DTrava|Timeu (Off -W1SPA|tarnet|ve W-4� '
2O2OTravel Times (Off Peak) -NoAutionA|temative, N-7
202OTravel Times (PM Peak) - MSP Alternative, W-3
Dual Track Final BS
2020 Travel Times (PM Peak) 'NuAction Alternative, W-6 '
Area nfMitigation inMSP Noise Mitigation Plan, [-7
(
Average Annual Delays and Costa, 5
Bedrock Geology ' MSP and NnAction Alternatives, C[ -G
Bedrock Topography and Relevant Data Pointo' MSP and No Action Alternatives, CC -1
Carbon Monoxide Non Attainment Area, A-1
CO Analysis Locations (|n1umeubono) for Off -Airport Sources -MSP 2O28Concept Plan, Ar4
CO Monitor and Air Quality Receptor Sites for On -Airport Sources - MSP and No Action
Alternatives, A-3
CO' S02andPW1-10 Non Attainment Aroao, A,2
Common Aircraft Noise Levels onthe Decibel Scale, A.3-1
Community Facilities - MSP Alternative, T-5
CommunityFaci|itieo-NnActionAlternativo, T-6
Community Reaction to Noise Levels, A.3-2
Existing Land Use atMSP, 0'1
Existing MSP Sanitary Sewer Layout, Z-1
Existing MSP VVatormain Layout, AA -1
Extension ofRunway 4-22to 12,000 Feet, 2A
Rondp|oino' MSP and NoAction Alternatives, L1
Futuro Land Uxa' MSP Alternative, 0-2
Future Land Uoo- NuAction Alternative, 0-3
Generalized Groundwater F|nvv Direction- Perched Water Table, CC -8
Generalized Groundwater Hovv Diroction' St. Peter Water Table Aquifer, CC -3
Geologic Cross Section A'A', CC -2
Geologic Cross Section 8-B'' CC -3
Geologic Cross Section C'C'' CC -4
Geologic Cross Section Locations, CC -5
Historic/Architectural Reaourcee' MSP Alternative, h1-1
Historic/Architectural Renourcao' NoAction Alternative, M-2
Location Map, 1 '
Location Map, EG -1 (
Minnesota River Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations, Ft. Snelling Station, BB -2 \
Mitigation to be Completed through 1S37' MSP Alternative, [-O
N1BP 2010 [TCP, 8
MSP 2010 LTCP, ES -3
MSP 2O2OConcept Plan, O
MSP 2020 Concept Plan, ES -2
MSP Alternative 2005 DNL Contours - Wildlife Refuge, FF -3
MSP Flight Tracks and Operations 2005 Base Case, G-5
MSP Flight Tracks and Operations 2005 High Forecast, G'O
MSP Option 1 Eliminated, g
MSP Option 2 Eliminated, 10
MSP Option 3Eliminated, 11
MSP Option 4 Eliminated, 12
MSP Option 5 Eliminated, 13
MSP Watershed Boundaries, BB -1
New Airport Alternative Eliminated, 14
New Airport Alternative, ES -5
No Action Alternative, 2
NoAction Alternative, ES -4
No Action Alternative 2005 DNL Contours - Wildlife Refuge, FF -4
Noise Monitoring Sites and MSP Alternative 2005 DNLContoum-VVi|d|ife Refuge, FF -3
Off -Airport Properties Displaced byNorth-South Runway RPZ-MSP Alternative, T-3
Park and Recreation Lend-yWSPund NuAction Alternatives, R-1
Potential Bird -Aircraft Hazard Areas - PWGP and No Action Alternatives, D-1
Residential/Commercial Areas Affected by2O1OHighway Improvements - N1GP 2010 LTCP, T-2
Residential/Commercial Areas Affected by 2020 Highway Improvements - MSP 2020 Concept
Plan, T'1
Residential Properties to be Acquired for Noise Mitigation ' MSP Alternative, 7-4 /*
Selected Noise Sensitive Receptor Locations ' MSP and NoAction Alternatives, D,5 \
Dual Track Rno| 8S
Sur5cia|Unconsolidated Deposits, C[-7
Tonnina|AirapaceGtudy-SouthoastHnwAlt. 1, G'2
Terminal Airspace Study - Southeast Flow Alt. 2, G-3
Terminal Airspace Study- Southeast Flow Alt. 3, G-4
Terminal Airspace Study - Southeast Flow Existing, G-1
VVet|ends- MSP and NoAction Alternatives, DD -1
Wildlife Recreation Area Affected by N18P 2005 High DNL 57, FF -6
Wildlife Refuge Ownership and Noise Monitoring Sites, FF -5
Year 2O2OAverage IFR Travel Time and Delay per Operation - MSP Alternative, 7
Year 2020Average IFR Travel Time and Delay per Operation - No Action Alternative, 4
Final BG Cross -Reference to FAA Order 5O5O.4A TC 14
Flight Standards (as an FAA Action) |, 7
F|oodp|aino V. 63
MSP and NoAction Alternatives V, 63
Affected Environment -- MSP and NoAction Alternatives V, 63
Floodplain Impacts -- MSP and NoAction Alternatives V, 63
Forecasts of Operations and Enp|anomenta ||. 8-12
Forecasts Used in this Final EIS ||. 11
Further Studies to Develop the West Terminal |. 3
CS
Glycol in Soils, Biotreatment of Appendix A.7
Governmental Approvals |.4
Groundwater Quality V, 169-180
MSP and NoAction Alternatives
Affected Environment V, 169-175
MSP Alternative
Groundwater Quality Impacts -- MSP Alternative \(175-177
NnAction Alternative
Groundwater Quality Impacts -NoAction Alternative V.177 -17Q
Mitigation Measures -- MSP and NoAction Alternatives V.178
Summary ofGroundwater Quality Impacts V.1DO
H
Histohn/Arohdeotuna/Reaounceo \(83-G8
MSP Alternative V\S4465
Affected Environment -- MSP Alternative V, 64
Historic/Architectural Resources Impacts -- MSP Alternative V, 64-65
Mitigation Measures -- MSP Alternative V.65
NoAction Alternative V.O5-GG
Affected Environment --NoAction Alternative V.G5-GG
Historic/Architectural Resources Impacts --NoAction Alternative V, 66
Mitigation Measures —No Action Alternative V, 66
Summary ofHistoric/Architectural Resources Impacts V, 66
Historic Preservation Agreement Appendix
Hydraulic and Nutrient Loading - Mother Lake Watershed Appendix A.8
|
Induced Socioeconomic Impacts \(G7 -B8
MSP Alternative and NoActions V, 67-68
Affected Environment --VISPAlternative \(G7
Induced Socioeconomic Impacts -- MSP Alternative V.87 -GB
Mitigation Measures -- MSP Alternative V, 68
Introduction |' 1-11
( >
Dual Track Final BS
L '
Land Use \(G8-71 (
MSP Alternative V,G8-7
Affected Environment --MGP Alternative \( 68
Land Use Impacts -- MSP Alternative V.68 -7U
Mitigation Measures -- MSP Alternative V, 70
NoAction Alternative V, 70-71
Affected Environment —No Action Alternative V,7O
LandUoa|mpacia--NoAdionA|temaUve V, 70
Mitigation Measures --NoAction Alternative V.71
Summary ofLand Use Impacts V.71
Light Emissions V.71-73
MSP Alternative \( 72'73
Affected Environment -- MSP Alternative V.72
Light Emission Impacts -- MSP Alternative V.72'73
Mitigation Measures -- MSP Alternative V.73
NoAction Alternative V. 73
Affected Environment --NoAction Alternative V.73
LightEmiooion|mpacta--NoAcionA|hemoUve V,73
Mitigation Measures --NoAction Alternative V.73
Summary ofLight Emission Impacts V.73
List ofAcronyms and Glossary |}(.1'S
List ofAgencies, Jurisdictions and Depositories Receiving Final EIS V|(.1-2
List ofTechnical Reports Appendix
List ofPreparers V|, 1-3
List ofSupporting Documents and Technical Reports Appendix A, 1-4
yN '
MAC Forecasts U.8-8 (
K88P Airspace Noise Screening Analysis Appendix �-
MSP Alternative U|.1
MSP Alternatives Eliminated U[8
MSP Alternative Process U[ 1-2
MSP Alternative and Project Goals Ui 2-4
MSP Alternative, Environmental Consequences
Air Quality V. 6-14
Archaeological Resources V.21'22
Biotic Communities V.23-25
Bird`AircraftHazardo V. 20-32
Design, Art and Architectural Application V, 189
Economic V,51~55
Endangered and Threatened Species V.35-37
Energy Supply and Natural Resources V, 58-61
Environmental Justice V, 98-101
F|oodp|aino V. 63
Groundwater Quality V, 169-177
Histoho/Architectura|Reeouvuea V, 64-65
Induced Socioeconomic Impacts V, 67-68
Land Use V, 68-70
Light Emissions V.72'73
Major Utilities V.141-142
Aircraft Noise V. 76-82
Surface Transportation Noise V, 90-93
Parks and Recreation V, 93-95
Section 4(f) V, 114-120
Social V, 104-111
Solid Waste V. 121 \
�
Dual Track Final EIS
><-6
` Surface Water Quality \(15O489
� \
Surface Transportation Accaoo V,122'134 V, 139-140
'
Visual V.142 -14O
Wastewater \(144'14G
Water Supply \(147-15O
VVaUando V, 180-184
Wild and Scenic Rivers V, 185
Wildlife Refuges V, 186-188
K8GP'oRole inthe Air Transportation System ||.4
W1GP'e Role ooa Connecting Hub Airport ||. 3-4
PWSP'eRole inthe Local Economy |).4
Major Utilities V. 141-143
MSP Alternative \(141-142
Affected Environment -- MSP Alternative V.141-142
Major Utilities Impacts -- MSP Alternative V.142
Mitigation Measures -- MSP Alternative V.142
NoAction Alternative V.142
Migratory Bird Surveys, Summary of Appendix A.6
Minnesota River (as odevelopment limitation onMSP) ||.15
N
Need U.2-3
New Airport Alternative U[8 -1O
NoAction Alternative U[4
NoAction Alternative and Project Goals U|.4'7
NoAction Alternative, Environmental Consequences
Air Quality V.14-17
Archaeological Resources \(22
Biotic Communities V.2b
Bird -Aircraft Hazards V. 32-33
Design, Art and Architectural Application \( 183-190
Economic V.55 -5G
Endangered and Threatened Species V.37
Energy Supply and Natural Resources V, 61-62
Environmental Justice V, 101-103
Hoodp|oinn V, 63
Groundwater Quality V, 177-179
HiotnhoV\rchitootura|Reoourcno V, 65-66
Induced Socioeconomic Impacts V, 67-68
Land Use V, 70-71
Light Emissions V. 73
Major Utilities V.142
Aircraft Noise V, 82-87
Surface Transportation Noioe V, 90-93
Parks and Recreation V, 95-96
Section 4(f) V, 120
Social V.111'112
Solid Waste V.121-122
Surface Water Quality V. 150-169
Surface Transportation Access V. 122'125, V. 134-138
Vlouo| \/.143
Wastewater V.144447
Water Supply V, 147-150
Wetlands V, 184
Wild and Scenic Rivers V, 185
Wildlife Refuges V. 188
Dual Track Final EIS
Noise \(74-S3
Aircraft Noise \(74-76 <
MSP Alternative \(7G-82 `-
AffectedEnvimnment—MSPAltemative V, 76
Noise Impacts -- MSP Alternative \/76-8O
Mitigation Measures — MSP Alternative V.80-82
NoAction Alternative V.82-87
Affected Environment —No Action Alternative V.82-83
Noise Impacts --NoAction Alternative V.83 -8G
Cumulative Noise Impacts ofRunway 4-22Extension V, 86-87
Summary ofAircraft Noise Impacts V.87 -8Q
Surface Transportation Noise Impacts V, 90-93
2020 Methodology &Aaoumptiono V' 90-91
202OSurface Noise Impacts, Mitigation and Summary V. 91
2010 Surface Noise Impacts, Mitigation and Summary V, 91-93
Noise Analysis - Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge Appendix A.12
Noise ChonyobaheUca, K8othco, Compatible Land Use Criteria Appendix A.3
Noise Mitigation Plan Appendix B
0
Other Alternatives Eliminated U[ 10-13
Other Actions 1, 3-4
p
Passenger Terminals (Airport Limitation), U. 4
Parks and Recreation \(83-S7
MSP Alternative V, 93-95
Affected Environment — MSP Alternative V.S3-S5 '
Parks and Recreation Impacts -- MSP Alternative \(35 /
Mitigation Measures -- MSP Alternative V.Q5 '
NoAction Alternative \(Q5 -9G
Affected Environment --NoAction Alternative V, 95-96
PedkoandReoreaUon|mpadu--NnAcLiunA|tornotiva V, 96
Mitigation Measures --NoAction Alternative V, 96
Summary ofParks and Recreation Impacts V, 96-97
Potential Residual Glycol -Impacted Storm Water Management Measures, Appendix A. 11
Preferred Alternative/Proposed Action |||. 13-15
Project History |. 8-11
Proposed Action ||.3
Public and Agency Involvement V|||. 1'6
Public Hearings (project history) VU[ 2-3
Purpose ||. 1-3
Purpooe&Neod ||.1-15
R
Related Environmental Documents and Actions [3-4
Relationship ofthe Proposed Action tothe 2O2OConcept Plan U.3
Responses boComments Appendix
S
Schedule (Implementation) 1, 11
8ection4/D \(113-13O
MSP Alternative t(114 -12O
Affected Environment— MSP Alternative V.114-115 .
Section 4(�Impacts -- MSP Alternative V.115-118
Mitigation Measures -- MSP Alternative V.11O-120
Dual Track Final EIS
X-8
NoAction Alternative \(12D
/ \
/
Affected Environment —No Action Alternative \(12D
Section 400Impacts --NoAction Alternative \(12O
Mitigation Measures --NoAction Alternative V.12O
Summary ofSection 4(f)Impacts V, 120
Security (as anFAA Action) |.7-O
Sensitivity of Environmental Impacts to Forecast Levels ||. 11-12
Sensitivity ofImpact Categories hzMAC High Forecast Appendix H
Short -Term Uses and Long -Tenn Productivity and Irreversible and |rnathswob|e Commitments of Resources V. 190
8ncio| V, 104-113
MSP Alternative V, 104-111
Affected Environment -- MSP Alternative V, 104-105
Social Impacts -- MSP Alternative V, 105-110
Mitigation Measures -- MSP Alternative V, 110-111
NoAction Alternative V. 111
Affected Environment --NoAction Alternative V`112
Social Impacts —No Action Alternative V.112
Mitigation Measures --NoAction Alternative V.112
Summary ofSocial Impacts V.112-113
Solid Waste Impacts V, 120-122
MSP Alternative V.121
Affected Environment -- MSP Alternative V.121
Solid Waste Impacts -- MSP Alternative V.121
NoAction Alternative V. 121-122
Affected Environment Solid Waste Impacts -NoAction Alternative V.121
Solid Waste Impacts -NoAction Alternative V.122
Summary ofSolid Waste Impacts V.122
.
State Historic Preservation Office Correspondence Appendix A.2
/ )
Gurnnnory of Impacts viii -x
Supporting Information (to Need) U. 3-15
Surface Access (Airport Limitation) U.14
Surface Transportation Aoceee \(123-141
MSP &NoAction Alternatives ' Affected Environment \(122'125
MSP Alternative Surface Transportation Impacts V, 126-134
NoAction Alternative V. 134-138
MSP &NoAction Alternatives - Mitigation Measures V.139 -14O
Summary cfSurface Transportation Access Impacts V, 140
Impacts onTravel Times toAirport V, 140-141
Summary of Environmental Impacts of Highway Improvements V. 141
SurfaceTransportation Consensus Document Appendix F
Surface Water Quality V, 150-169
MSP and NoAction Alternatives V, 156-169
Affected Environment -- MSP and NoAction Alternatives V, 156-160
Surface Water Quality Impacts -- MSP and NoAction Alternatives V, 160-167
Mitigation Measures -- MSP and NoAction Alternatives V, 167-168
Summary ofSurface Water Quality Impacts V, 169
Surface Water Quality Mitigative WYeosunao. MSP and No Action Alternatives
Appendix A.1O
T
Transportation Corridors (as a development limitation on MSP) 11, 16
U
U.G.Department ofInterior Correspondence Appendix 4`15
Dual Track Final BS
'
V (
Visual |nlpeots \(142- 44 `
MSP Alternative \(142-143
Affected Environment -- MSP Alternative V.142-143
Visual Impacts -- MSP Alternative V.143
Mitigation Measures -- MSP Alternative V.143
NoAction Alternative V.143
/#fededEnximnmant--NoAcdonAJtamative V.143
Visual Impacts --NoActionA|bomativen V.143
Mitigation Measures --NoAction Alternative V, 143
Summary ofVisual Impacts V.143444
VV
Wastewater \(144-147
MSP and NoAction Alternatives V, 144-146
AfededEnvimnment––MSPandNnAoionA|ternaUveo V.144
VVuateweter|mpado––NYSPandNoActionA|temaUvaa V.144 -14O
Mitigation Measures - MSP Alternative V, 146
Summary ofWastewater Impacts V.147
Water Supply V.147 -15O
MSP and NoAction Alternatives V, 147-150
Affected Environment ' MSP and NoAction Alternatives V, 147
Water Supply Impanto' MSP and No Action Alternatives V. 147-150
Mitigation K8aaouran ' MGP V, 150
Summary ufWater Supply Impacts V. 150
Wetland Mitigation Plan Appendix
VVat|ondo V. 180-184
MSP Alternative V, 180-184
Affected Environment -- MSP Alternative V.180 -1D1 \
Wetland Impacts -- MSP Alternative V.181-183
Mitigation Measures -- MSP Alternative V.183-184
NoAction Alternative V, 184
/NfectedEnvimnment--NoAuionA|temative V.184
Wetland Impacts —No Action Alternative V.184
Mitigation Measures --NoAction Alternative V, 184
Summary ofWetland Impacts V. 184
Wild and Scenic Rivers V. 185
MSP and NoAction Alternatives V, 185
Affected Environment -- MSP and NnAction Alternatives V.185
Wild and Scenic Rivers Impacts -- MSP and NoAction Alternatives V.185
NldigsdionMeaounan––MSPandNoActionA|humadivaa V.185
VW|d|iha Refuges \( 186-188
MSP Alternative V, 186-188
Affected Environment -- MSP Alternative V.180 -1O7
Wildlife Refuges Impacts -- MSP Alternative V, 187-188
Mitigation Measures -- MSP Alternative V.188
NoAction Alternative V.188
AffectedEnvimnment--NoAcUonAlhemaUva V, 188
Wildlife Refuges Impacts --NoAction Alternative V, 188
Mitigation Measures --NoAction Alternative V.188
Summary ofWildlife Refuges Impacts V, 188
Wildlife Refuge Mitigation Appendix
Dual Track Final BS
APPENDIX A SUPPORTING INFORMATION AND LISTS OF SUPPORTING
DOCUMENTS AND TECHNICAL REPORTS
Supporting Information Included in Appendix A
A.1 Air Quality..............................................................................................................................................A.1-1
A.2 State Historic Preservation Office Correspondence.......................................................................A.2-1
A.3 Noise Characteristics, Metrics, Compatible Land Use Criteria......................................................A.3-1
A.4 Canada Goose Populations on Mother Lake....................................................................................A.4-1
A.5 Effect of Aircraft Overflights on Bald Eagles....................................................................................A.5-1
A.6 Summary of Migratory Bird Surveys.................................................................................................A.6-1
A.7 Biotreatment of Glycol in Soils...........................................................................................................A.7-1
A.8 Hydraulic and Nutrient Loading - Mother Lake Watershed............................................................A.8-1
A.9 CBOD5 Loading and Attenuation Analysis........................................................................................A.9-1
A.10 Surface Water Quality Mitigation Measures - MSP and No Action Alternatives ........................
A.1 0-1
A.11 Potential Residual Glycol -impacted Storm Water Management Measures...............................A.11-1
A.12 Noise Analysis - Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge........................................................
A.1 2-1
A.13 Air Quality Impact Analysis Of Construction Activities.................................................................A.13-1
A.14 Dual Track Airport Planning Legislation..........................................................................................A.14-1
A.15 U.S. Department of Interior Correspondence.................................................................................
A.15-1
The following supporting documents and technical reports are available at the Federal Aviation
Administration, 6020 28th Avenue South in Minneapolis, and at the Metropolitan Airports Commission.
Contact Jenn Unruh, MAC, 6040 28th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55450; (612) 726-8189.
List of Supporting Documents:
Throughout the Dual Track Airport Planning Process, a number of documents have been prepared to assess
the long-term air transportation needs of the metropolitan region and to determine whether those needs could
be met by enhancing capacity at Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport or by developing a replacement
airport within the region. The documents produced since the beginning of the Dual Track Airport Planning
Process are listed below:
Dual Track Planning Documents
1. Is the Airport Adequate? Report of the Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Adequacy Study
Advisory Task Force to the Metropolitan Council (Metropolitan Council, October 1988).
2. Twin Cities Air Travel. A Strategy for Growth, A Report to the Minnesota Legislature (Metropolitan
Council December 1988).
3. The 1990 Dual Track Forecast Process: Long -Term Aviation Activity Forecast for the Twin Cities Region
(Metropolitan Airports Commission and Metropolitan Council, October 1992).
4. Dual Track Planning Process: Report to the Legislature,(Metropolitan Airports Commission and
Metropolitan Council, March 1996).
Dual Track Final EIS
A-1
Search Area Documents
1. Selecting a Search Area for a New Major Airport, Part 1: Three Candidate Areas (Metropolitan Council,
January 1991).
2. Selecting a Search Area for a New Major Airport, Part 2: Draft Data Analysis (Metropolitan Council, June
1991).
3. Selecting a Search Area for a New Major Airport, Part 3: Recommended Search Area (Metropolitan
Council, September 1991).
4. Selecting a Search Area for a New Major Airport, Part 4: Search Area Designation (Metropolitan Council,
December 1991).
MSP Planning Documents
1. Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Long -Term Comprehensive Plan, Volume 1, Goals,
Assumptions and Methodologies, (Metropolitan Airports Commission, April 1990).
2. Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Long -Term Comprehensive Plan, Volume 2, Existing
Conditions, (Metropolitan Airports Commission, June 1990).
3. Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Long -Term Comprehensive Plan, Volume 3, Activity
Forecasts., (Metropolitan Airports Commission, March 1990).
4. Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Long -Term Comprehensive Plan, Volume 4, Facility
Requirements, (Metropolitan Airports Commission, December 1990).
5. Report of the MSP Interactive Planning Group, Off -Site Impacts of the Six Airport Development
Concepts, Minneapolis -Saint Paul International Airport Long -Term Comprehensive Plan (MSP Interactive
Planning Group, July 1991).
6. Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Long -Term Comprehensive Plan, Volume 5, Airport
Development Concepts, (Metropolitan Airports Commission, December 1991).
7. Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Long -Term Comprehensive Plan, Volume 6, Revised Activity
Forecasts, (Metropolitan Airports Commission, December 1993).
8. Minneapolis -St. Paul international Airport Long -Term Comprehensive Plan, Volume 6, Revised Activity
Forecasts, Technical Appendix, (Metropolitan Airports Commission, March 1994).
New Airport Planning Documents
1. New Air Carrier Airport Conceptual Design Study, Phase 1. Conceptual Design Study (Metropolitan
Airports Commission)
2. Summary, New Air Carrier Airport Conceptual Design Study and Plan (Metropolitan Airports
Commission, January 1991).
Dual Track Final EIS
A-2
3. Dual Track Airport Planning Process, New Airport Site Selection Study, Scoping Decision Document
(Metropolitan Airports Commission, June 1993).
4. Minnesota State Airspace Study Phase A, Relocated Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport, Final
Report, (Minnesota Department of Transportation, January 1994).
5. New Airport Comprehensive Plan Final Alternative Environmental Document, (Metropolitan Airports
Commission, April 1995.
6. New Airport Site Selection Study, Technical Report (Metropolitan Airports Commission, June 1995).
MSP Environmental Documents
1. Minneapolis -Saint Paul International Airport Long -Term Comprehensive Plan, Scoping Environmental
Assessment Worksheet and Draft Scoping Decision Document (Metropolitan Airports Commission,
January 1994)
2. Minneapolis -Saint Paul International Airport Long -Term Comprehensive Plan, Scoping Decision
Document (Metropolitan Airports Commission, March 1994).
3. Minneapolis -Saint Paul International Airport, Long -Term Comprehensive Plan, Final Alternative
Environmental Document (Metropolitan Airports Commission, February 1995).
New Airport Environmental Documents
1. Dual Track Airport Planning Process, New Airport Site Selection Study, Scoping Document and Draft
Scoping Decision Document (Metropolitan Airports Commission, March 1993).
2. Dual Track Airport Planning Process, New Airport Site Selection Study, Scoping Decision Document
(Metropolitan Airports Commission, June 1993).
3. Dual Track Airport Planning Process, New Airport Site Selection Study, Final AED (Metropolitan Airports
Commission, January 1994).
4. Dual Track Airport Planning Process, New Airport Comprehensive Plan, Scoping Environmental
Assessment Worksheet and Draft Scoping Decision Document (Metropolitan Airports Commission, April
1994).
5. Dual Track Airport Planning Process, New Airport Comprehensive Plan, Scoping Decision Document
(Metropolitan Airports Commission, June 1994).
6. Dual Track Airport Planning Process, New Airport Comprehensive Plan, Final Alternative Environmental
Document (Metropolitan Airports Commission, April 1995).
Dual Track Final EIS
A-3
Dual Track Environmental Documents
f
ti
1. Dual Track Airport Planning Process, First Phase Scoping Report (Federal Aviation Administration,
Metropolitan Airports Commission, April 1992).
2. Dual Track Airport Planning Process, Environmental Impact Statement, Second Phase Scoping Report
(Metropolitan Airports Commission, May 1995).
3. Dual Track Airport Planning Process, Environmental Impact Statement, Scoping Decision (Metropolitan
Airports Commission, July 1995).
4. MSP Noise Mitigation Program, Metropolitan Airports Commission, November 1996
Other Supporting Documents
Environmental Assessment for Extension of Runway 4-22 to 12,000 feet, Minneapolis -St. Paul International
Airport, Metropolitan Airports Commission, April 1998
List of Technical Reports:
Potential Effects of Twin Cities Major Airport Alternatives on the Minnesota State Highway System, SRF, Inc.,
August 1995
Induced Development Projections, Metropolitan Council, November 1995
Draft Supplemental Report on Above -ground Historic and Architectural Resources for the Dual Track Airport t'
Planning Process: MSP, New Airport and No Action Alternatives, Hess, Roise and Company, November
1995
Minneapolis -St. Paul Airport Reconnaissance Survey, Volume II: The Built Environment, Hess, Roise and
Company, 1992
Minneapolis -Saint Paul Airport Reconnaissance/Intensive-level Survey (for Long -Term Comprehensive Plan
Alternative Environmental Document): The Built Environment, Hess, Roise and Company, August 1995
Economic Impacts of the Alternative Development Scenarios, Economic Research Associates and Dahlgren,
Shardlow & Uban, February 1996
Dual Track Airport Planning Process: Technical Report, Metropolitan Airports Commission, Sept. 1996
MSP Third Option Scenarios, Metropolitan Airports Commission, 1993
Supplemental Airports , Minnesota Department of Transportation, 1995
Dual Track Final EIS
A-4
A.1 AIR QUALITY DISCUSSION AND MODELING ASSUMPTIONS
Odor of Jet Fuel
Odors can be detected by some people in very small concentrations. Odor detection varies from person
to person and may be different by the same person at different times. The periodic detection of odor
from jet fuel is a phenomenon not uncommon near major air carrier airports. A detailed study on the
potential for detection of odors from jet fuel was prepared in 1991 for Logan Airport (Boston)'. The
discussion presented here is based upon that paper.
Jet aircraft emissions contain a wide variety of hydrocarbons, each of which have different odor
potential. The most volatile hydrocarbons have the most potential to cause detectable odor even at
very tow concentrations. "Some hydrocarbons, for example, methane, require concentrations of
hundreds of parts per million to be detectable by most people. Other hydrocarbons, for examples
mercaptans, have an odor recognizable to most people at concentrations in the part per billion range."
"The principal odor -causing hydrocarbon species in jet exhaust are the aromatic (fuel -related) and
oxygenated (partially burned) hydrocarbons."
Hydrocarbon emission rates are largest during low power settings when jet engines are not being
operated efficiently. This occurs on the ground during taxi and idle operations. Engine start-up is also a
major contributor to on -airport hydrocarbon emissions.
The maximum concentration of total hydrocarbons predicted by the EDMS model for any receptor site
near MSP was .00035 grams per cubic meter. Assuming that a typical molecular weight (80) is the
same as aromatic hydrocarbons, this converts to approximately 1 ppm at the airport boundary. A
number of the hydrocarbon species emitted from jet engines have a 50% odor detection level lower than
this value as noted in the table below. This suggests that, under certain wind conditions, there may be
a potential for detecting odors from jet fuel emissions.
Hydrocarbon
50% odor detection level
parts per million m
1 -Butene
0.030
Formaldehyde
0.250
1,3 -Butadiene
0.400
o -Xylene
0.200
n -Octane
0.020
Styrene
0.030
Phenol
0.050
1-Decene
0.020
Undecene
0.220
Napthalene
0.001
Methyl Styrene
0.020
A portion of hydrocarbon emissions is contributed by Auxiliary Power Units although this occurs adjacent
to the terminal. The eventual provision of air at the gate or electrification will reduce or eliminate that
' "Emissions of Odorous Hydrocarbons from Jet Aircraft Engines", prepared in 1991 by Tech Environmental, Inc. for
Frederick R. Harris, Inc. and the Massachusetts Port Authority.
Dual Track Final EIS
A.1-1
source of hydrocarbons. Minimizing taxi and queuing time can also reduce hydrocarbon emissions and
hence reduce the potential for odor impacts. It is unlikely, however, under current engine and fuel
technology, that odor from jet engines can be totally eliminated.
Methodology for Estimating Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) CO and SOx Emissions
Based upon the data base for EDMS 3.0, six major class of aircraft were identified by the type of APU
units used on aircraft contained in the EDMS data base. The categories are shown in the table below.
APU
Class7
Aircraft within APU ClassEquivalent
EDMS
Aircraft Class
CO
(lbs/hour)lbs/hour
sox
1
L-100, L1101, L -188/C, 8727, 8737
727,737
3.754
0.243
2
DC8, DC9, MD80
DCS, DC9, MD80
3.754
0.243
3
A320, F-100
A300
0.947
0.236
4
B757, 8767
757,767
0.734
0.330
5
DC10, MD11
1 DC10
1.040
0.470
6
B747F, B747-100/200/400
I 8747
15.489
0.940
LTO (landing/takeoff) cycles for each aircraft class were developed from annual operation of aircraft
within each APU class.
Based upon information provided by Northwest Airlines, it was assumed that APUs operate for an
average of 15 minutes per LTO. This is considerably lower than the operating times assumed in the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement. APU operating times of 30 minutes are below contribute
relatively little to overall CO emissions on the airport.
The total APU operating time for each APU aircraft class was multiplied by the total number of LTOs
within that class, and summed to yield total CO emissions.
Dual Track Final EIS
A.1-2
Table A.1-1 Intersection Screening Results (2020)
Only those intersections which exceed both the "airport" and "total" volume screening limits will pass the
screening test.
Source: David Braslau Assoc.
Table A.1-2 Intersection Screening Results (2020)
Only those intersections which exceed both the "airport" and "total" volume screening limits will pass the
screening test.
Intersection of TH 62
(Crosstown) with TH 55
Intersections along 66th Street/Richfield
TH 62 at TH 55
Lyndale
at 66th
Nicollet at 66th
Portland at 66th
Screening
MSP ALTERNATIVE
Airport
3170
480
Yes
Total
6389
2400
Yes
Predicted
Screening
Pass?
Predicted
Screening
Pass?
Predicted
Screening
Pass?
Air ort 100
480
No
101
480.
No
277
480
No
Total 1319
2400
No
1964
2400
No
3314
2400
No
NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
Predicted
Screening
Pass?
Predicted
Screening
Pass?
Predicted
Screening
Pass?,
Airport 76
480
No
199
480
No
224
480
No
Total 1870
2400
No
1965
2400
No
2986
2400
No
Source: David Braslau Assoc.
Table A.1-2 Intersection Screening Results (2020)
Only those intersections which exceed both the "airport" and "total" volume screening limits will pass the
screening test.
Intersection of TH 62
(Crosstown) with TH 55
TH 62 at TH 55
MSP ALTERNATIVE
Predicted
Screening
Pass?
Airport
3170
480
Yes
Total
6389
2400
Yes
NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
Airport 1
31971
480
Yes
Total 1
60291
24001
Yesl
Source: David Braslau Assoc.
Dual Track Final EIS
A.1-3
Table A.1-3 Mobile 5A Input File for Off -Airport Motor Vehicle Emissions
(Year 2020 with No UM or Anti -Tampering Programs)
1 PROMPT 1=N0 PROMPT,2=PROMPT VERT,3=N0 PROMPT HORIZ,4=PROMPT HORIZ
MOBILE 5A METRO REGISTRATION FOR 1990(most recent available),oxygenated fuels
1 TAMFLG 1=DEFAULT TAMPERING RATES,2=USER'S RATES
1 SPDFLG 1=1 SPD,2=8 SPDS 3=1+trip length per scenario 4=1+1trip 1.
1 VMFLAG VMT MIX:I=DEFAULT,2=1 CARD PER SCEMARIO.,3=1 CARD FOR ALL
3 MYMRFG % AGE,I=DEFAULT,2=MILE ACCUM,3=REGISTRATION,4=BOTH
1 NEWFLG 1=DEf,2=mod,3=def+evap,4=mod+evap,5=def+no CAAA,6=mod+no CAAA
1 IMFLAG 1=NONE,2=I/M PROG,3=2 I/M programs
1 ALHFLG AIR COND,LOAD,HUM,I=DEFAULT,2=6 INPUTS,3=10 INPUTS
1 ATPFLG 1=NONE,2=ATP,3=press,4=purge,5=ATP+press,6=ATP+rurge,7=press+purge,B=ATP+press+purge
1 RLFLAG 1=UNCONTROLLED REFUEL,2=STAGE II ,3=ONB0ARD,4=BOTH,5=NO EM
2 LOCFLG 1=LOCAL AREA PARAMETER FOR EACH SCENARIO,2=1 LAP FOR ALL
1 TEMFLG 1=USE MIN. '& MAX. TEMP,2=USE 1 VALUE FOR AMBIENT TEMPERATURE
4 OUTFMT 1=221(NUM),2=140(NUM),3=112(DES),4=80(DES),5=mod yr,6=Spread
4 PRTFLG 1=HC ONLY,2=C0 ONLY,3=NOX ONLY,4=ALL THREE POLLUTANTS
1 IDLFLG 1=N0 IDLE,2=IDLE IS OUTPUT
1 NMHFLG 1=TOT HC,2=NMHC 3=VOC 4=TOG 5=NMOG
1 HCFLAG 1=TOT HC only,2=Tot with Rfl & Comp,3=Tot without Rfl & Comp
.052 .075 .083 .085 .092 .088 .084 .058 .052 .052 TULMYR.LDGV..my ages 1-10
.052 .056 .046 .035 .020 .070 .000 .000 .000 .000 LDGV..my ages 11-20
.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 LDGV..my ages 21-25
.063 .084 .084 .084 .084 .069 .059 .044 .036 .031 LDGT1.my ages 1-10
.030 .053 .047 .046 .036 .028 .017 .022 .017 .014 LDGT1.my ages 11-20
.009 .G08 .008 .005 .025 LDGTI.my ages 21-25
.054 .072 .072 :072 .072 .052 .050 .034 .054 .031 LDGT2.my ages 1-10
.028 .080 .084 .049 .039 .030 .018 .023 .018 .015 LDGT2.my ages 11-20
.009 .008 .009 .006 .026 LDGT2.my ages 21-25
.023 .047 .047 .047 .047 .038 .033 .021 .026 .029 HDGV..my ages 1-10
.034 .064 .054 .058 .051 .038 .043 .041 .035 .029 HDGV..my ages 11-20
.021 .022 .022 .014 .117 HDGV..my ages 21-25
.052 .075 .083 .085 .092 .088 .084 .058 .052 .052 JULMYR.LDDV..my ages 1-10
.052 .056 .046 .035 .020 .070 .000 .000 .000 .000 LDDV..my ages 11-20
.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 LDDV..my ages 21-25
.063 .084 .084 .084 .084 .069 .059 .044 .036 .031 LDDT .my ages 1-10
.030 .053 .047 .046 .036 .028 .017 .022 .017 .014 LDDT .my ages 11-20
.009 .008 .008 .005 .025 LDDT .my ages 21-25
.034 .067 .067 .067 .067 .073 .061 .040 .041 .051 HDDV..my ages 1-10
.053 .066 .055 .057 .045 .019 .023 .028 .024 .016 HDDV..my ages 11-20
.011 .009 .007 .005 .016 HDDV..my ages 21-25
.144 .168 .135 .109 .088 .070 .056 .045 .036 .029 MC .... my ages 1-10
.023 .097 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 MC .... my ages 11-20
.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 MC .... my ages 21-25
Mpls StPaul Mn C 16.0 38.0 13.4 9.0 20 2 1 1 <--LAP record
.000 .900 .000 .027 2 <---- OXY card 2=waiver
1 20 2,5 31.0 20.6 27.3 20.6 01 Scenario records
1 20 5.0 31.020.6 27.3 20.6 01
1 20 10.0 31.0 20.6 27.3 20.6 01
1 20 20.0 31.0 20.6 27.3 20.6 01
1 20 30.0 31.0 20.6 27.3 20.6 01
1 20 40.0 31.0 20.6 27.3 20.6 01
1 20 50.0 31.0 20.6 27.3 20.6 01
1 20 60.0 31.0 20.6 27.3 20.6 01
Dual Track Final EIS
A.1-4
Table A.1 -4a MPCA 1990 8 -County CO Emission Inventory
Summary Table
Source: MPCA and David Braslau Associates, Inc.
Dual Track Final EIS
A.1-5
SUBTOTALS
(TONS PER YEAR
SHARE OF TOTAL (%)
MOBILE SOURCES
521,172
72.78
On -Road
398,711
55.68
1
Non -road
122,461
17.1
Aircraft APUs
1,028
0.14,
Aircraft
5,322
0.74
Locomotives
443
0.06
Comm marine vessels
122
0.02
Rec marine vessels
21,714
3.03
Industrial equipment
13,721
1.92,
Construction equipment
6,824
0.951
1
Agricultural equipment
1,772
0.251
1
Recreational equipment
916
0.13
Logging equipment
124
0.02
Lawn & garden equipment
38,430
5.37
Airport service equipment
2,633
0.37
Light commercial equipment
29,412
4.11,
AREA SOURCES
93,849
13.11
Stationary sources
57,208
7.99
Residential
50,348
7.03
Commercial/institutional
857
0.12
Industrial
6,003
0.84,
Waste disposal
335
0.05
Misc area sources
36,213
5.06
Stationary internal combustion
93
0.01
POINT SOURCES
101,032
14.1
External combustion
1,490
0.21
Industrial processes
98,708
13.79
Stationary internal combustion
260
0.04
Incineration
574
0.08
TOTAL CO EMISSIONS
I
716,0531F--7
100.00,
Source: MPCA and David Braslau Associates, Inc.
Dual Track Final EIS
A.1-5
Table A.1 -4b MPCA 1993 8 -County CO Emission Inventory
Summary Table
Source: MPGA and David Braslau Associates, Inc.
Dual Track Final EIS
A.1-6
SUBTOTALS -1r—SHARE
(TONS PER YEAR) 11
OF TOTAL (%)
MOBILE SOURCES
609,650
73.46
On -Road
482,792
58.17
Non -road
126,858
15.28
Aircraft APUs
1,051
0.131
Aircraft
5,483
0.66
Locomotives
459
0.06
Comm marine vessels
124
0.01
Rec marine vessels
22,502
2.71
Industrial equipment
14,219
1.71,
Construction equipment
7,072
0.85
Agricultural equipment
1,836
0.22
Recreational equipment
949
0.11
Logging equipment
129
0.02
Lawn & garden equipment
39,825
4.80
Airport service equipment
2,729
0.331
Light commercial equipment
30,479,
3.67
AREA SOURCES
98,769
11.90
Stationary sources
59,894
7.22
Residential
52,101
6.28
Commercial/institutional
1,103
0.13,
Industrial
6,690
0.81
Waste disposal
347
0.04
Misc area sources
38,410
4.63
Stationary internal combustion
118
0.01
POINT SOURCES
121,539
14.64,
External combustion
1,698
0.20
Industrial processes
119,841
14.44
Stationary internal combustion
0
0
Incineration
0
0
TOTAL CO EMISSIONS
1
829,95811
1
T
-100-001
Source: MPGA and David Braslau Associates, Inc.
Dual Track Final EIS
A.1-6
Table A.1-5 ASSUMPTIONS USED FOR ON -AIRPORT SOURCE IN THE EDMS MODEL
The following is an outline of assumptions made for the EDMS model input and estimates of APU
usage.
On -airport roadways
Geometry
Only main terminal or parking ramp roadways were included
Simplified straight-line geometry were assumed for major roadway segments
Vehicles
Daily vehicle volumes associated with the terminal area were based on from the Metro
Council MSP link connector for the no action alternative (49,000 ADT) (Figure W-1) and
assumed for the no action alternative in 2005.
Vehicle volumes on other roadways were estimated from limited data available from the
regional network model.
Vehicles volumes for other years and scenarios were assumed to be proportional to aircraft
operations (which exhibited growth behavior similar to originating passengers)
Adjustment factors for traffic volumes
Annual average hourly volumes were assumed to be 42% of peak hour volumes
Vehicle speed and cold start percentages based upon similar studies
On -airport parking
Geometry
Simplified geometry assumed four corners for each parking area
Cold starts of 80% were assumed for exiting vehicles
In -ramp speed of 5 mph was assumed with distance -to -park also estimated
Vehicles
Parking demand was assumed to be approximately 25% of roadway traffic
Car Rental
Car rental volume based was upon data provided by Hertz which accounts for 30% of airport
rental volume (1995 data)
Estimates of in/out volume for peak and average periods were based upon information
provided
Year 2005 and 2020 data were based upon ratio of jet aircraft departures
Aircraft operations
Annual operations
Annual• operations of aircraft provided by HNTB for 2005 and 2020
Aircraft mix converted to EDMS data base using typical emission data
Regional turboprops simulated using SF340
F100 simulated using 8737300
Dual Track Final EIS
A.1-7
YEAR NOA BASE
2005 1.000 1.027
2010 1.001 1.062
2020 1.003 1.099
Annual average hourly volumes were assumed to be 42% of peak hour volumes
Vehicle speed and cold start percentages based upon similar studies
On -airport parking
Geometry
Simplified geometry assumed four corners for each parking area
Cold starts of 80% were assumed for exiting vehicles
In -ramp speed of 5 mph was assumed with distance -to -park also estimated
Vehicles
Parking demand was assumed to be approximately 25% of roadway traffic
Car Rental
Car rental volume based was upon data provided by Hertz which accounts for 30% of airport
rental volume (1995 data)
Estimates of in/out volume for peak and average periods were based upon information
provided
Year 2005 and 2020 data were based upon ratio of jet aircraft departures
Aircraft operations
Annual operations
Annual• operations of aircraft provided by HNTB for 2005 and 2020
Aircraft mix converted to EDMS data base using typical emission data
Regional turboprops simulated using SF340
F100 simulated using 8737300
Dual Track Final EIS
A.1-7
GA jets simulated using LEAR 35
17 classes of aircraft used in the EDMS model for annual operations
Average hourly operations = annual divided by 8760 hours/year
Peak hour operations
Peak hour operations provided for 2020 by HNTB
Peak hour operations for 2005 based upon annual -to -peak ratios
Limited to four dominant and representative aircraft types
Operations limited to one direction on each runway
Taxi and queuing times
Data provided by HNTB by runway and alternative
Weighted VFR/IFR taxi time by aircraft type and runway calculated
Heating plants
MAC plants
Detailed data on boiler capacity and fuel consumption provided by Liesch
Associates who is preparing Title V permit for the MAC
Annual fuel consumption used for annual emission estimates
Relative use of natural gas and fuel oil based upon MAC data
Fuel consumption converted to appropriate EDMS input units
Only major boilers (50 Million BTU capacity) used in the model
Boiler location identified by B.A. Liesch Associates
Other plants
Heating requirements estimated from BTU/square foot requirement
Airport employment from updated economic impact study (1995)
Square footage based upon assumed employee space requirements
Total of 4.9 million SF estimated for on -airport heating demand
Three additional 50 Million BTU boilers required in addition to the existing
MAC boilers
Additional boilers assigned to Northwest Airlines Main Base and office
buildings
Terminal area heating requirement assumed same for all years
One boiler removed for MSP 2020 Concept Plan along with office space
Boilers located at identified support facility or adjacent to building
Relative use of natural gas and fuel oil based upon MAC data
Fuel storage (fuel emissions are limited to HC which is not critical for this study)
Fuel amount
Amount for 1995 obtained from Signature Flight Operations support
Amount adjusted to year 2005 and 2020 based upon jet operations
Fuel type
Jet A fuel assumed
APU (Auxiliary power unit) usage
Aircraft mix
Dual Track Final EIS
A.1-8
Aircraft mix was based upon annual operations cfAPUaircraft classes
assumed inthe EOK8Gmodel for each year and scenario
APUuoage
APUusage of15minutes per LTO cycle was assumed
Emissions
APUemissions were taken from the EOK8GO.0data base
Annual emissions based upon annual APUusage
Other sources
Ground service equipment emissions automatically estimated hlmodel
Noincinerators will bolocated sdMSP in the projection years
No training fires were assumed since particulates not critical in this study
Table A-1-6 Assumed Average Annual Hourly Departures (2005
Dual Track Final EIS
A.1 -S
24 HRS
MSP ALT
YEAR 2005 ESTIMATES BY HNTB
24 HRS AVG HR
NO ACTION MSP ALT
AVG HR
NO ACTION
YEAR 2020
AVG HR AVG HR
MSP ALT NO ACTION
TOTAL
1 664.2
646.8
27.7
27.0
29.7
27.2
Dual Track Final EIS
A.1 -S
Table A.1 -7a Assumed Annual Departures (2020)
Dual Track Final EIS
A.1-10
MSP
NO ACTION
#
EDMS AC TYPE
TOTAL
TOTAL
1
1 ENG PIST
3540
3284
2
2ENG PIST
4345
4014
3
727
840
693
4
737
11715
11895
5
747
6567
3941
6
757
40881
20476
7
767
3284
1095
8
A300
45772
72626
9
C130H
1496
1495
10
DC10
3722
1788
11
DC8
728
546
12
DC9
582
438
13
F100
41938
20365
14
LEAR35
13105
12117
15
MD80
7154
17301
16
MU3001
6314
5839
17
SF340
68106
58794
TOTAL
260089
236707
Dual Track Final EIS
A.1-10
TABLE A.1 -7b Assumed Year 2020 Hourly Departures
(Annual/8760)
Dual Track Final EIS
A.1-11
MSP
NO ACT
#
EDMS AC TYPE
TOTAL
TOTAL
1
1 ENG PIST
0.40
0.37
2
2ENG PIST
0.50
0.46
3727
0.10
0.08
4737
1.34
1.36
5747
0.75
0.45
6757
4.67
2.34
7767
0.37
0.13
8
A300
5.23
8.29
9
C130H
0.17
0.17
10
DC 10
0.42
0.20
11
DC8
0.08
0.06
12
DC9
0.07
0.05
13
F100
4.79
2.32
14
LEAR35
1.50
1.38
15
MD80
0.82
1.98
16
MU3001
0.72
0.67
17
SF340
7.77
6.71
TOTAL
29.69
27.02
Dual Track Final EIS
A.1-11
Table A.1 -8a Assumed Average Annual Hourly Departures (2005)
MSP Alternative
Table A.1 -8b Assumed Average Annual Hourly Departures by Aircraft and Runway (2020)
MSP Alternative
EDMS AC TYPE
TOTAL
4
12L
12R
17
22
30L
30R
35
1
1 ENG PIST
0.5
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
2
2ENG PIST
0.6
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
3
727
0.6
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
4
737
1.2
0.0
0.2
0.1
0.5
0.0
0.2
0.3
0.0
5
747
0.4
0.0 1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
6
757
3.7
0.0
0.7
0.3
1.4
0.0
0.6
0.8
0.0
7
767
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8
A300
3.4
0.0
0.7
0.2
1.2
0.0
0.5
0.7
0.0
9
C130H
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
10
DC10
0.7
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
11
DC8
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
12
DC9
4.4
0.0
0.9
0.3
1.6
0.0
0.7
0.9
0.0
13
F1 00
0.4
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
14
LEAR35
1.5
0.0
0.3
0.1
0.6
0.0
0.2
0.3
0.0
15
MD80
1.8
0.0
0.4
0.1
0.7
0.0
0.3
0.4
0.0
16
MU3001
0.7
0.0
01
0.1
0.3
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.0
17
SF340
7.3
0.0
1.5
0.5
2.7
0.0
1.1
1.5
0.0
TOTAL
27.7
0.0
5.5
1.9
10.2
0.0
4.2
5.8
;E;1
0.0
Table A.1 -8b Assumed Average Annual Hourly Departures by Aircraft and Runway (2020)
MSP Alternative
Dual Track Final EIS
A.1-12
EDMS AC TYPE
TOTAL
4
12L
12R
17
22
30L
30R
35
1
1 ENG PIST
0.4
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
2
2ENG PIST
0.5
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
3
727
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4
737
1.3
0.0
0.3
0.1
0.5
0.0
0.2
0.3
0.0
5
747
0.7
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.0
6
757
4.7
0.0
0.9
0.3
1.7
0.0
0.7
1.0
0.0
7
767
0.4
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
8
A300
5.2
0.0
1.0
0.4
1.9
0.0
0.8
1.1
0.0
9
C130H
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
10
DC10
0.4
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
11
DC8
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
12
DC9
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
13
F100/737300
4.8
0.0
0.9
0.4
1.7
0.0
0.7
1.0
0.0
14
LEAR35
1.5
0.0
0.3
0.1
0.5
0.0
0.2
0.3
0.0
15
MD80
0.8
0.0
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.0
16
MU3001
0.7
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.0
17
SF340
7.8
0.0
1.5
0.6
2.8
0.0
1.2
1.6
0.0
TOTAL
29.7
0.1
5.9
2.2
10.8
0.0
4.4
6.3
0.0
Dual Track Final EIS
A.1-12
Table A.1-9 Assumed Time in Queue Delay by Alternative'
ALTERNATIVE AVERAGE DELAY TIME IN QUEUE
MSP 1.11 minutes
No Action 4.88 minutes
' The queue delay for 2005 and 2020 are assumed to be the same
Table A.1-10 Assumed EDMS Input Data - Roadways and Parking
(annual average vehicles/hour)
Dual Track Final EIS
A.1-13
No Action
MSP Base
1. Roadways (E. Terminal)
2005
2020
20051
202
1020
1023
1048
East Terminal Inbound
East Terminal Outbound
1785
1790
1833
Terminal Roadway
1000
1003
1027
Admin Segment 1
157
157
161
Admin Segment 2
157
157
161
Air Cargo
154
154
158
Service Road
967
970
993
1.Roadways (W. Terminal)
Main Roadway Inbound
112
Main Roadway Outbound
1967
West Terminal Inbound
112
West Terminal Outbound
196
Air Cargo
17
Service Road
106
No Action
MSP Base
2. Parking (E. Terminal)
2005 2020
2005
202
250
251
257
East Term Ramp in
East Term Ramp Out
500
502
514
Car Rental Lot In
180
181
185
Car Rental Lot Out
250
251
257
Remote Parking In
85
85
87
Remote Parking Out
210
211
216
2. Parking (W. Terminal)
West Term Ramp in
27
West Term Ramp Out
551
East Remote Ramp In
9
East Remote Ramp Out
231
Rental Car In
198
Rental Car Out
I
27
Dual Track Final EIS
A.1-13
Table A.1-11 Parking Input Data - EDMS Model
Alternative Facility
Average
Distance
Speed
I
Cold Start
Percentage
No Action East Ramp
1000
5
80
Remote
500
5
80
MSP West Ramp
1000
5
8011
Remote
500
5
80
Table A.1-12 Airport -Related Employment (1994)
and Estimated Heating Requirements
Sector
Total Jobs
On -Airport
Jobs
SF Per
Employee
Mill
SF Feet
Passenger airlines
17,361
13,889
200
3.4722
General aviation
88
250
0.0220
MAC employees
366
366
300
0.1098
Catering
500
150
0.0750
Passenger services
455
455
200
0.0910
Aircraft services
244
300
0.0732
Retail concessions
697
697
150
0.1045
Fedl govt agencies
722
200
0.1444
Misc
31
200
0.0062
Freight airlines
1,254
200
0.2508
Freight forwarders
442
200
0.0884
Rental cars
486
100
0.0486
Ground transportation
1,344
1,344
100
0.1344
Construction -related
599
599
300
0.1797
TOTAL CIVILIAN
24,589
17,350
4.8002
Military ESTIMATE
500
200
0.1000
TOTALS
1 25,0891
17,3501
4.9002
• Assume a heating requirement of 40 BTU/SF and efficiency of 65%.
• The heating plant requirement is then 62 BTU/SF
• The on -airport heating capacity needed is 64 x 4.90 = 304 Million BTU
• The existing MAC capacity (major boilers only) is currently 150 Million BTU
• Therefore, the net additional capacity needed is approximately 150 Million BTU.
• This is equivalent to six 50 MMBTU (Million BTU) boilers
• Annual natural gas consumption per installed 50 MMBTU boiler is assumed to be 2.08 million cubic
meters.
• Annual backup fuel oil consumption per installed 50 MMBTU boiler is assumed to be 224 kiloliters per
year.
Dual Track Final EIS
A.1-14
Table A.1-13 Assumed 50 MMBTU Boiler Location
Boiler
No Action & MSP 2010
MSP 2020
1
Main Terminal Complex
Airline Gate Complex
2
Main Terminal Complex
Airline Gate Complex
3
Main Terminal Complex
Airline Gate Complex
4
NWA offices
(Terminal Road)
NWA offices
(Terminal Road)
5
NWA office/maintenance
complex
West Terminal Building
6
NWA office/maintenance
complex
Airline Maintenance Area
Table A.1-14 Assumed 50 MMBTU Boiler Coordinates
Table A.1 -15 Projected Peak Hour Operations
MSP Alternative (2020)
No Action& MSP 2010
MSP 2020
BOILER
x (m) Y )
x (m)
Y(m)
1
3184 2350
3184
2350
2
3184 2350
3184
2350
3
3184 2350
3184
2350
4
3942 1668
3942
1668
5
15901 5701
1364,
3183
6
15901 5701
15701
570
Table A.1 -15 Projected Peak Hour Operations
MSP Alternative (2020)
Dual Track Final EIS
A.1-15
let
Dual Track Final EIS
A.1-15
Table A.1-16 Assumed Peak Hour Operations for EDMS Model {'
MSP Alternative (2020)
EDMS AC TYPE
TOTAL
17
30L
30R
737300
19.5
7.3
4.3
7.9
757
12.6
4.7
2.7
5.2
A300
12.7
4.7
2.6
5.4
SF340
13.4
5.1
2.8
5.5
TOTAL 1
58.21
21.81
12.41
24
Table A.1-17 Assumed on -Airport Roadway Traffic Volumes
Peak Hour - (2020)2
No Action
East Terminal
In
2,842
Out
4,888
Totals
7,730
Service Road
700
1,602
2,302
Administrative
105
269
374
Cargo/Transit
Totai' :
105
3,7521
262
7,021
367
10,773
MSP Alternative
East Remote Parking6
In
620
Out
1,239
Totals
1,859
Service Road
737
1,557
2,294
Cargo/Transit
160
283
443
West Terminal
Tatar; :. ..
2,112
3,629
3,667
6,746
5,779
10,3751
2 Average annual traffic volumes are assumed to be 42% of the Peak Hour traffic volumes.
Year 2005 traffic volumes are assumed to be 100% of year 2020 traffic volumes for the No Action
Alternative and 93% of 2020 traffic volumes for the MSP Alternative.
3 This roadway serves the terminal, Northwest Airlines, and other on -airport services.
4 This roadway serves general aviation, Northwest Airlines, the Humphrey Terminal and remote
parking (remote parking is eliminated under the MSP Alternative).
6 This roadway is eliminated for the MSP Alternative to make space for the West Terminal
6 This access serves the remote east parking area. However, since the parking area is immediately
adjacent to Trunk Highway 5, this roadway is not included in the model.
Dual Track Final EIS
A.1-16
Table A.1-18 Roadway Input Data - EDMS Model
Peak Hour (2020)
Alternative _F Facility
Vehicles
I per hour
Speed
I
Cold Start
Percentag2_
No Action East Term In
2842
30
20
East Term Out
4888
30
50
Terminal Road
3000
5
20
Administrative
374
30
20
Service Road
2302
30
20
Carqo/Transit
367
30
20
MSP Main Road In
2112
30
20
Main Road Out
3667
30
50
West Term In
2112
30
20
West Term Out
3667
30,
50
Service Road
2294
30
20
Carqo/Transit
443
30
20
Table A.1 -19 Parking Input Data - EDMS Model
Peak Hour (2020)
Airport Alternative
Vehicles In
I
Vehicles Out
Average
Cold Start
@ 5 mph
@ 5 mph
Distance
MSP Alternative
West Terminal Ramp
125
300
1000
80
East Remote Ramp
250
500
500
100
Rental Car Parking
199
277
80
574
1077
Total Assumed Parking
No Action Alternative
East Terminal Ramp
250
500
1000
80
Remote Parking Lot
85
210
500
100
Rental Car Parking
180
250
80
515
960
T_
Total Assumed Parking
Dual Track Final EIS
A.1-17
TABLE A.1-20 Assumed Average Annual Hourly Departures
No Action Alternative - 2005
Table A.1-21 Assumed Average Annual Hourly Departures
No Action Alternative - 2020
EDMS AC TYPE
TOTAL
4
12L
12R
22
30L
30R
1
1 ENG PIST
0.4
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
2
2ENG PIST
0.5
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
3
727
0.6
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.1.
0.1
0.1
4
737
1.2
0.0
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
5
747
0.3
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
6
757
1.9
0.0
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.3
7
767
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8
A300
6.1
0.0
1.4
1.7
0.9
1.0
1.0
9
C130H
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
10
DC10
0.8
0.0
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
11
DC8
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
12
DC9
3.1
0.0
0.7
0.9
0.5
0.5
0.5
13
F100
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
14
LEAR35
1.4
0.0
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
15
MD80
2.6
0.0
0.6
0.7
0.4
0.4
0.4
16
MU3001
0.6
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
17
SF340
7.1
0.0
1.6
2.0
1.1
.1.2
1.1
TOTAL
27.0 1
0.0
6.2
7.5
4.0
4.6
4.3
Table A.1-21 Assumed Average Annual Hourly Departures
No Action Alternative - 2020
Dual Track Final EIS
A.1-18
EDMS AC TYPE
TOTAL
4
12L
12R
22
30L
30R
1
1 ENG PIST
0.4
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
2
2ENG PIST
0.5
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
3
727
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4
737
1.4
0.0
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
5
747
0.4
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
6
1 757
2.3
0.0
0.5
0.7
0.3 1
0.4
-0.1
0.4
7
767
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8
A300
8.3
0.0
1.9
2.3
1.2
1.4
1.4
9
C130H
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
10
DC10
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
11
DC8
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
12
DC9
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
13
F100037300
2.3
0.0
0.5
0.7
0.3
0.4
0.4
14
LEAR35
1.4
0.0
0.3 1
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
15
MD80
2.0
0.0
0.5
0.6
0.3
0.3
nq
16
MU3001
0.7
0.0
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
17
-I
SF340
6.7 1
0.0
1.6
1.9
1.0
1.2
1.1
TOTAL
1 27.0 1
0.1
6.3
7.6
4.0
4.7
4.4
Dual Track Final EIS
A.1-18
Table A.1-22 Projected Peak Hour Operations
No Action Alternative -2020
Table A.1 -23 Assumed Peak Hour Operations for EDM S Model
No Action Alternative - 2020
EDMS AC TYPE
TOTAL
22
30L
30R
737300
15.5
2.3
7.1
6.1
757
6.2
0.9
2.8
2.5
A300
22.1
3.1
10.1
8.9
SF340
12.4
1.7
5.6
5.1
ITOTAL
56.21
81
25.61
22.61
Dual Track Final EIS
A.1-19
Table A.1 -24 Estimation of Motor Vehicle Emissions
at the TH 77 and 66th Street Interchanae
Dual Track Final EIS
A.1-20
YEAR 2005
NEWINTERCHANGE
NEWINTERCHANGE
LINK
Length (ft)
Length (mi)
ADT
Daily VMT
Annual VMT
Avg Speed
CO G/Ml
CO (gm)
CO (tons)
NB OFF
700
0.133
3700
490.5
179044
40
10.24
1833406.1
2.02
NB ON
1000
0.189
5600
1060.6
387121
40
10.24
3964121.2
4.37
SB OFF
1000
0.189
4800
909.1
331818
40
10.24
3397818.2
3.74
SB ON
700
0.133
3700
490.5
179044
40
10.24
1833406.1
2.02
66TH ST
600
0.114
11200
1272.7
464545
30
14.6
6782363.6
7.47
TOTALS
4000
0.758
29000
4223.5
1541572
EXISTING INTERCHANGE
17811115
19.62
LINK
Length (ft)
EXISTING INTERCHANGE
ADT
Daily VMT Annual VMT
Avg Speed
CO G/Ml
LINK
Length (ft)
Length (mi)
ADT
Daily VMT
Annual VMT
Avg Speed
CO G/Ml
CO (gm)
CO (tons)
NB OFF
1100
0.208
3636
757.5
276488
25
18.15
5018248.1
5.53
NB ON
1100
0.208
1708
355.8
129879
25
18.15
2357306.9
2.60
SB ON
1300
0.246
3636
895.2
326758
30
14.6
4770666.1
5.25
,66TH ST
500
0.095
7200
681.8
248864
30
14.6
3633409.1
4.00
ITOTALS
4000
0.758
16180
2690.4
981988
15779630
17.38,
Dual Track Final EIS
A.1-20
YEAR 2010
NEWINTERCHANGE
NEWINTERCHANGE
LINK
Length (ft)
Length (mi)
ADT
Daily VMT Annual VMT
Avg Speed
CO G/Ml
CO (gm)
CO (tons)
NB OFF
700
0.133
3700
490.5 179044
40
9.87
1767159.9
1.95
NB ON
1000
0.189
5600
1060.6 387121
40
9.87
3820886.4
4.21
SIB OFF
1000
0.189
4800
909.1 331818
40
9.87
3275045.5
3.61
SB ON
700
0.133
3700
490.5 179044
40
9.87
1767159.9
1.95
66TH ST
600
0.114
11200
1272.7 464545
30
14.2
6596545.5
7.26
TOTALS
4000
0.758
29000
4223.5 1541572
8.19
TOTALS
17226797
18.97
29000
4223.5
1541572
EXISTING INTERCHANGE
19355411
21.32
LINK
Length (ft)
Length (mi)
ADT
Daily VMT Annual VMT
Avg Speed
CO G/Ml
CO (gm)
CO (tons)
NS OFF
1100
0.208
3700
770.8 281354
25
17.7
4979968.8
5.48
NB ON
1100
0.208
1760
366.7 133833
25
17.7
2368850
2.61
SB ON
1300
0.246
3700
911.0 332509
30
14.2
4721634.5
5.20
66TH ST
500
0.095
7200
681.8 248864
30
14.2
3533863.6
3.89
TOTALS
4000
0.758
16360
2730.3 996561
7200
681.8
15604317
17.19,
Dual Track Final EIS
A.1-20
YEAR 2020
NEWINTERCHANGE
LINK
Length (ft)
Length (ml)
ADT
Daily VMT
Annual VMT
Avg Speed
CO G/Ml
CO (gm)
CO (tons)
NB OFF
700
0.133
3700
490.5
179044
40
11.07
1982012.2
2.18
NB ON
1000
0.189
5600
1060.6
387121
40
11.07
4285431.8
4.72
SB OFF
1000
0.189
4800
909.1
331818
40
11.07
3673227.3
4.05
SB ON
700
0.133
3700
490.5
179044
40
11.07
1982012.2
2.18
66TH ST
600
0.114
11200
1272.7
464545
30
16
7432727.3
8.19
TOTALS
4000
0.758
29000
4223.5
1541572
19355411
21.32
EXISTING INTERCHANGE
LINK
Length (ft)
Length (mi)
ADT
Daily VMT
Annual VMT
Avg Speed
CO G/Ml
CO (gm)
CO (tons)
NB OFF
1100
0.208
3831
798.1
291316
25
20
5826312.5
6.42
NB ON
1100
0.208
1868
389.2
142046
25
20
2840916.7
3.13
SB ON
1300
0.246
3831
943.2
344282
30
16
5508513.6
6.07
,66TH ST
500
0.095
7200
681.8
248864
30
16
3981818.2
4.39
ITOTALS
4000
0.758
16730
2812.3
1026507
18157561
2000
Dual Track Final EIS
A.1-20
A.2 STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE
MINNESOTA HISTORICAL SOCIETY
FCUnCE0IN Id -L' ;on sn hAlm"IoryCenrer,kPlawl.mm35111 - 1612172b11;1
April 23. 1992
F..r. Sigel Finaay
:iacopolican Comission
6040 23ch Avanua Sour -h
vlaaaspolis, .L=4SO.ta 53450
Lear Xr. F!.=Ay:
3a: Dual -Track Airport Planning ?rocass, First Scop* Scoping Raper_
Y**dad capaci:r/facilitias at Si.•uzeapolis-Sc. Paul:nca-:.acional Airport
;_d5 3afaz.al Fila Munber: 92-2138
7h&TLk you for the opporttraity to review and comment on --he above report. It has been
reviewed pursuant ca the rasaonsitias given c`ta Staca Hi.scaric ?rasar-racion Of -
!!car by to lational Rlstaric ?reservation Act of 1966 and the Procedures of the Ad-
visory Cauacil on Historic ?rasor-racion (36C:1800), and ca c-sa :asponsLbLlitias hive=
,t'>e Hiszorical Sociary by the X:== asou Historic Sites Act and the V.in-
,casoca ?iald Ar^chAocLogy Act.
Seetian STT.3.
of the report includas a hirci.^.g of issues and cantarns t.'uc have been
idaaciflad for the XS? Long -Tarin Coaprahansive Plan. 7* are pleased ca see that
°Ianact oa Fort Snelling historic district and :&sources• is included on chis list.
Hovevsr, the list fails to nancton the need for a eamprehensiva e•tlt=21 rasourcas
survey and avaivacion of ot'tar pocancial historic propartles. This survey should 'z-
clude all types of histarip properties, including, but noc L3itad co, airport build-
ings and steturns, housing developments, and aze.+uaolo;icsl spas. Out office
-r
should be caesul:ad during the data:=inaction of the 'area of pocancial affaet° to be
surveyed, and during the dacarai: &cion of c1a cs:onolosical Units for the sut"ray.
;he Surrey will need to be caaplecad in accordance with t`>a S*czacary of the
Incarior's Standards and Cuidalines for Idancification and =valuation. and the prim-
eipal
=vast, will nand to aaec the S*crecary of t•':e Intarior's ?rofassiotsal
Qualifications Standards. Some asp*cts of r -his surrey were discussed with :'.ark 3yan
of A1C Arad :van nectar--" of XV -13 ac a aeacim; held ac Ft. Snelling an 5 June 1991.
i 7* usvme that the '%Tmizonmaaul effects, identified as a considaraeion is Section
II.C. (page 8) include historic pzrop*rtiss.
7e look forward to working with you is coarplacing the surveys Of both •.re Dakaca
Country search area and %.he hS? location. Aad in ueilS 3 the rasults of c: one sum
-
veys ca avoid or :educe affaets of air -,ort davelopment on histaric pzapertias. 74
raaiad you that the Federal Aviation Agency will need to eootdiaaca tZis proeasa put-
suane to the requirements of 36 CTR 300.
?laase contact am L` you bava any quascion i on our cpncaz-ss .
� De A. Cinaestsd
Coversent ?=auras and Cearpliaaea __ear
N'n. -NM 0TA HISTORICIL SOCIETY
Mazch 29, 1993
Hr. :iigel D. Finney _
!Metropolitan Airports Co=ission
6040 28th Avenua Sou&.. _
Minneapolis, dlanksota 55450-2799
D®ar lir. Finney:
J
J
RE: Scoping Document and D:nft Scoping Decision Document
New Airport Sice Selection Study, Dakota Courcy
tC45 infarra: File Yumber: 93.0614
Thank you for the opportunity ro review and co=ert on the above documonc. They
have been reviewed pursuant to the responsibilities given the State Historic
Preservation Officer by the National Hisroric*?rose.^ration Acc of 1966 and the
Yz'ocaduras of the Advisory Council on Historic Prazervatlor. (36CFa800), and to
the responsibilit:ea given the Minnesota Historical Society by the HUnrwsota
Historic S!te3 Act aad the Minnesota Field Arch.aAology Act.
Our comments arc as follows:
1- 711-4 chart of "Pezmits and Approvals Required", included under
It= 8 in the Scoping Document, should include the Advisory Coucicil
on Historic Presarvstion and the State H..toric Preservation office
under the Unit of Goverr.aent column for the Saction 106 review. In
addition, *clearance" is not part of the Section 106 process.
I. The section on Historic Usources in the Draft Scoping Decision
Doc%zzen:t idencifias the Area of Potantial Effect WE) as a kay hest
of concern. Ce concur, and appreciarz the initial discussions on
this issue that have basn initiated vith our ofmics. Because of the
%igh public interest is and magnitude* of this project, ve vouid
suggest that A clear discuasion of the A:B be circulated for review,
perhaps to the Technical Advisory Coasmictae. This discussion should
Also ht included in tha Survey Rtlearch Design to be submitted to
our office. .
3. The Ftsstarch Design foi• the archaeological survey needs to
address how archaaologicsl sensitivity vas assosaed dur!ng the
initial --cages of survey as well as the need or lack of need for
geomorphological analysis,
345X=LOGCBOW.EY,\anWEs*r/-'k1i,,TP.11i1.M(vtiES07a53102.}god/'i LEPfrOrf.:012-:90-8t�'6
March 29, 1993
j Nigel Finney
MS 493-0614
Page two
4. All hi9toric properties identified in tho surveys, borth
his and archaeological, need to be evaluated to
determine if they meet National Uziscar criteria, This is
necessary because the determination of effect cannot be comploted
until ehe eligibility of all properties is known.'
5. An indication should be made that survey worts will meet the
SacTetary of the Interior's Standards for ld4ntification and
Evaluation and the SHPO survey manuals.
We look forward to working with the Metropolitan Airports Comsaisaion and the
Federal Aviation Administration in the review of this project. Please contact
our Raview and Coapliance Section at 612-296-5462 if you have any questions
regarding our comments.
Sincerely,
i
�� : �� 3
Britta L. Bloomberg
Deputy State Historic Preservation Ofoicer
SLB. dmb
cc: Glen Orcutt, Federal Aviation Administration
6020 28th Avenue South, Hinnaapolis, Minnesor2 55450
NlDmSOT. HISTORICAL SOCIETY
November 23, 1993
Ms. Jenn Unruh
Metropolitan Airports Commission
6040 28th Avenue Sour-%
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450
Dear Ms. Unruh:
Re: Dakota County New Airport Site, Dual Track Planning Process
SHPO Number: 94-0680 (93-0614) .10
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Alternative
Environmental Document dor the New Airport Site Selection Study. It has been
reviewed pursuant to the responsibilities given the State Historic
Preserr
vation Officer by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the
Procedures of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (36CFR800), and to
the responsibilities given the Minnesota Historical Society by the Minnesota
Historic Sites Act and the Minnesota Field Archaeology Act.
We have the following comments on the report:
1. The Area of Potential Effect for the proposed project is
discussed on pages 111-29 - II1-31. FAA and MAC have formulated
the APE is a way that appears defensible. Giver. the magnitude of
this project, we would strongly encourage that FAA consult with
the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to assure that they
also agree with the APE as currently defined.
2. The archaeological survey and the built environment suz-vev
have identified properties in the project areas. The next step in
the process is for these properties to be evaluated in order to
deterine whether they meet.National Register criteria. In teras
of evaluation:
A. :valuation of proper=its should be completed
before the development of alternative comprehensive
plans for the airport. This is important because
efforts need to be taken during development of the
plans to avoid effects on properties that meet
National Register criteria. If the properties are
unevaluated at this stage, it will not be -clear which
properties need to be taken into account and which do
not. Further, the evaluation process often yields
information about the specific nature of the
significance of properties, and this information is
often useful in deciding which kinds of effects are
adverse and which may be acceptable. Without
345 FELLOCC BOULEVARD WEST/ $A1NT PAA L. i11.NNESOTA ss1o2.1906 / TELEP11ONE: 612-296-612h
}
November 23, 1993
Je:n Unruh
SHPO #94-0680
Page two
information about eligibili--7, the planning becomes
clumsy.
B. The evaluation of the homestaad sites identified
in the archaeological survey and =!:a farmstead sites
identified in the built er.e_=ot_'-e z survey will
require development of additional contextaal •..0
in formation on the history ofa_.ic•_ _� Lural activity in
Dakota County, as per the Secreta^; of the Interior's
Standards for evaluation. tie wculd request that our
office be consulted regard_ng --*-a best •format for this
contextual information. ti; of ---,'-e farnstead s=tes
reco=ended for evaluation _.m, t z br:lt e:rvironmen;,
survey will then need to be eva_::atad within this
framework; we would also suggest =- the other
far -..s Leads inventoried in this rt:f=ey be reviewed in
light of the context to de-erine _many of them also
need to be evaluated. The arch`-ec_ogical homestead
sites should be evaluated :thi+. t_:.s context
framework as well. We are deve_o.in_ specific
questions about some of the prole -les that should be
_. addressed during eval- z -or..
C. we would also ask _ a- you cors•_":= with us
regarding evaluation of properties f",Iling outside zhe
agricultural context. We ^ave some speci:ic
evalua:ior. questiors about some of '..'nese properties as
well.
D, The archaeological sur -ley report indicates that
some potential areas could not be s,:.-aeyed because of
high water levels or because or lack of landowner
Permission. Once the airport site has been selected,
efforrs need to be made to cc=_ewe archaeological
survey and evaluation acti-r+ties fcr those potential
areas that have not been previous -17 surveyed.
E. The discussion of mitigatio= 4-d.:cates special
problems with mitigation of effects or. Chimney Rock.
Recognizing these potential proble.-s, it is
particularly important that tae e-v--l'uation of r -his
property be completed as soon as possible, so that any
decisions on the project are made :tw the knowledge
that this property is or is not eligible to the
National Register. Natio:.alneg=;ter Bulletin #38
November 23, 1993
J e: n Unruh
SHPO ;94-0680 :
Page three i
(*Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting
Traditional Cultural properties") and the Multiple
property Documentation Form on Geographical Places of
Cultural Significance should be used in the
evaluation.
3. The mitigation measures discussed are generally appropriate.
Of course, more detailed consideration of mitigation will be
necessary once the evaluation of properties and assessment of
effect is complete.
4. Site 6 has the greatest potential to adversely effect cultural
resources.
If you have any questions regarding our review o- t is document, please
contact Dennis Gimmestad in. our Review and Compliance Section. at 612-296-5462.
Sincerely,
Br:.tta L. Bloomberg
Deputy State L---*Szcr:c ?reser 7aticn Officer
.BIB: dWb
cc: Glenn. Crcutt, FAA
Larry Dallam, RNTB
Charlene Roise, FR
Christina Harrison, ARS
l
March 2, 1994
Mr. Nigel D. Finney
Metropolitan Airports
2040 28th Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Dear Mr. Finney:
MINNESOTA, HISTORICAL SOCIETY
Commission
55450
Re: Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Long -Term Comprehensive Plan
SHPO Number: 94-0681 •..
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the above project. It
has been reviewed pursuant to the responsibilities given the State Historic
Preservation Officer by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the
Procedures of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (36CFR800),
Our comments on the Scoping Worksheet and the Draft Scoping Decision Document
are as follows:
1. With most projects, the proper coordination between the NEPA process and
the 106 process is that all identification and National Register evaluation of
historic properties should be completed at the draft EIS stage. This
information is then used to evaluate the effects of the project, and, if
adverse effect are identified, appropriate avoidance or mitigation measures
are considered and a memorandum of agreement is developed (if needed) and
included in the final EIS. Because of the complex and lengthy nature of this
project, we would strongly recommend that a detailed schedule for 106
compliance activities be developed, with reference to the overall project
review schedule which has already been circulated.
2. We would strongly recommend that the Area of Potential Effect (APE) for
historical and architectural resources and for archaeological resources be
reviewed and approved by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at an
early stage in the reviev process. This is particularly important because
the APE for this project involves questions of potential impact from noise and
other "secondary" factors, and because the planning process is of a unusually
long duration,
3. In conjunction with these documents, we have reviewed the report of the
initial history/architecture survey prepared by Hess Raise in December 1992.
A. We concur that the Ft. Snelling District retains integrity and
eligibility to the Natio=nal Register.
B. We concur that the Air Force Reserve Base merits further
evaluation in order to determine National Register eligibility.
This study should pay particular attention to the heating plant
and related heating system.
I .
345 KELLOGG BOULFVARD WEST I SAINT PAUL—NUNNEsomt 55102-1906 / TELEPHONE: 612.296-6126
March 2, 1994
Nigel Finney
SHPO #94-0681
Page two
C. We concur that the Original Wold -Chamberlain Terminal District
merits further evaluation in order to determine National Register
eligibility. This study should include a specific consideration
of the historical associations of buildings P-1 and T-46 with the
other buildings in the district.
D. We feel that the information included in the inventory is
sufficient to determine that the St. Kevin's Complex is not
eligible for the National Register, and we do not feel that
further evaluation is necessary.
E. We concur that the other areas covered by this report do not
appear to contain history/architecture resources that qualify for
the National Register or that merit further study, •'
F. We concur with the general approach outlined in the Draft
Decision Document for completing additional survey in areas
outside those covered by the initial survey, and for completing
the above referenced evaluations. We do note that the document
indicates that the survey will include recommendation of
properties that appear to be eligible or that merit additional_
study to determine eligibility. Please note that any survey
report that recommends further study to complete evaluations will
need to be returned by our office with a request to complete the
evaluations. We cannot complete an assessment of project effect
without completed evaluations.
4. We have not yet had the opportunity to review the report of the initial
archaeological survey of the airport area. However, the following factors
need to be kept in mind regarding subsequent archaeological investigations:
A. A comprehensive long-range Research Design for archaeological
.survey for the project still needs to be developed and documented.
The Draft Decision Document discusses a number of factors that
need to be considered in this research design.
B. The Scoping Worksheet delineatas the APE for archaeological
resources as those areas which will be subjected to ground
disturbance. In order to cover the potential alternative of
building a new airport and abandoning the current airport, the APE
will need to be expanded to cover the entire area within the
current airport boundaries, as well as any areas outside the
airport boundaries where ground disturbing activities might occur
as a result of airport abandonment (for example, removing airport
signals). The entire area needs to be included because, but for
the new airport. the old one would not be abandoned, and, since
future development of the site may not fall under 106 review
March 2, 1994
Nigel Finney
SHPO #94-0681
Page three
procedures, the locations of historic properties need to be known
and protected as part if the transition process. The 106 review
schedule (see comment above) and the comprehensive archaeological
Research Design both need to be very specific about how and when
this issue will be addressed.
C. The comprehensive archaeological Research Design needs to
include the development of a map of the area which clearly
indicates: areas which have been disturbed to the point that no
archaeological investigation is necessary, areas which have been
surveyed for archaeological resources (include reference to survey-
dates
urveydates and reports), locations of archaeological properties which
have been identified but not evaluated, locations of
evaluated/listed archaeological properties, and areas with
potential to contain archaeological resources that still need to
be surveyed (with indications of appropriate methods). The
Research Design should also include a method for periodically
updating this map as survey work and evaluation proceeds.
D. The 106 review schedule should indicate the specific point in
the project development process when the 106 Memorandum of
Agreement is to be complete. If, due to current airport
operations constraints or other factors, all of the archaeological
survey and evaluation cannot be completed before the memorandum,
l the memorandum will need to include a specific stipulation for
surveying the areas as the project is implemented. The
comprehensive archaeological Research Design should serve as a
basis for this stipulation.
E. We agree that additional Phase I testing, and possible Phase
II costing, are necessary for the archaeological site by Duck Lake
(Area A).
F. We agree that additional Phase II testing is necessary for the
archaeological site east of Taylor Avenue (Area C), which is
located within the Fort Snelling Historic District. This testing
should include an evaluation of the individual National Register
eligibility of the Native American components of the site (outside
the period of significance for the district), as well as an
evaluation of whether the late 19th/early 20th century components
of the site contribute to the Fort Snelling Historic District.
G. We agree that no further testing is necessary for the find
spot in Area B.
March 2, 1994
Nigel Finney
SHPO ##94-0681
Page four
If you have any questions regarding our comments, please contact our Review
and Compliance Section at 612-296-5462. We look forward to continuing to work
with you on the consideration of historic properties as project planning
proceeds.
Sincerely,
Dennis A. Gimmes ad
Government Programs and Compliance Officer
cc; Glen Orcutt, FAA
Larry Dallam, HNTB
a.arlene Roise, HR
Christina Harrison, ARS
March 7, 1994
Mr. Nigel D. Finney
Metropolitan Airports
6040 28th Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Dear Mr. Finney:
MINNESOTA. HISTORICAL SOCIETY
Commission
55450
Re: Dakota County New Airport Site, Dual Track Planning Process
Final Alternative Environmental Document (AED)
SHPO Number: 94-0680
Thank you for the opportunity, to review and comment on the Final Alternative Environmental
Document (AED) for the New Airport Site.
One additional issue has become apparent since we commented on the Draft AED last
November. We raised this issue in our recent comments on the Scoping PAW for the
expansion of the Minneapolis St. Paul Airport. Should a new airport site be selected for
development, the effects of this project on historic properties at the Minneapolis St.
Paul Airport will need to be considered. Therefore, it is important that the surveys of
the Minneapolis St. Paul Airport, both for archaeological properties and for
historical/architectural properties, include the entire airport area. The entire airport
area could be affected if a new site is selected and the existing airport is transferred
to new owners and/or adapted for new uses.
�While the survey of the Minneapolis St. Paul Airport area is being completed as part of
the review process for the development of a comprehensive plan for Minneapolis St. Paul,
it is important to recognize that the survey data may also be needed to consider effects
under the review process for the new airport site as well. To cite an example of a
potential problem, the early efforts at survey for archaeological resources at Minneapolis
St. Paul focused only on areas which would be disturbed during the expansion of the
airport dequate to address the effects on archaeological sites located outside potential
construction zones but within an area that could be transferred to a new owner or adapted
for new use if the airport was built on a different site.
Please keep these factors in mind as the dual track planning process proceeds.
Contact our Review and Compliance Section at 612-296-5462 if you have any questions on our
comments.
Sincerely,
-fBritta L. Bloomberg
—Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
BLB:dmb
cc: Glen Orcutt, FAA
Larry Dallam, HNTB
Charlene Roise, HR
Christine Harrison, ARS
- 34s KELLOGG BO)U1.EVA RD WEST SAINT R%1:L..X1:v\ESOTA ssio2-i906/TELEPHONE: 612-296-b 126
MINNESOTA HISTORICAL SOCIETY
November 21, 1994
Mr. Nigel Finney
Metropolitan Airports Commission
6040 28th Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota -55450
Dear Mr. Finney:
Re: Dual Track Planning Process; Hennepin -County
Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Comprehensive Plan
SHPO Number: 94-0681
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Alternative
Environmental Document for the Long -Term Comprehensive Plan for the
Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport. Our comments are as follows:
1. The report splits the information on cultural resources into
separate sections on archaeological resources and
history/architecture resources. Since the same review process
applies to both groups, this separation could be confusing for
many readers. If separate sections are maintained, each
discussion should cross-reference the other.
2. The discussion of archaeological resources appropriately
acknowledges the need for additional archaeological survey. This
survey strategy will need to be carefully integrated into the
overall development schedule.
3. The archaeological site in Area C, as discussed on page III -
11, appears to be located within the boundaries of the Fort
Snelling Historic District, which is already listed on the
National Register of Historic Places.
4. We have previously recommended that the Area of Potential
Effect (APE) for the project be submitted to the Advisory Council
for an early review. Because the APE for this project is
unusually complex, we continue to believe that this review by the
Council is Lmnortant.
5. The narrative discussion on project effects should include
specific information on the special protection afforded National
Historic Landmarks during the section 106 process.
6. The discussion of mitigation measures for
historical/architectural resources should include avoidance as a
priority consideration. In addition to HABS/HAER documentation of
resources, the discussion of potential mitigation could also include
such items as design review for work on National Register properties or
for new construction adjacent to National Register properties.
Mitigation could also include special planning considerations for
properties affected by new development related to airport development.
The final AED needs to include a specific assessment of effect on all
National Register eligible properties, as well as appropriate avoidance
and/or mitigation measures for each site.
345 KELLOGG BoULEVARD WEST / SAINT PAUL. MINNESOTA 55102-1906 / TELEPRONE: 612-2196-6126
MIININTEISOTA, HISTORICAL SOCIETY
February 3, 1995
Mr. Nigel D. Finney
Metropolitan Airports Commission
6040 28th Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450
Dear Mr. Finney:
Re: Dual Track Airport Planning Process,
New Airport Comprehensive Plan, Dakota County
SHPO Number: 94-2883
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment an the Draft Alternative
Environmental Document for the New Airport Comprehensive Plan. We have the
following comments:
1. The information on the National Register eligibility of
archaeological sites needs clarification. The individual site
evaluations discussed on page 111-12 indicate that all four
archaeological properties do not meet National Register
eligibility. However, figure 8 indicates that the four sites are
potentially eligible. The discussion under B.2 (impacts) and B.3
(mitigation) includes all four sites, which implies that the sites
are eligible, since the criteria of effect and mitigation are only
applied to eligible sites.
2. The information on the eligibility of Chimney Rock needs
clarification. The evaluation on page 111-12 indicates that the
property is eligible due to its associations with early Euro -
Americans and with Native Americans, while the discussion on page
111-13 indicates that the associations with Native Americans have
not been documented, and that property may not be eligible due to
changes in the larger visual context. Page 111-30 indicates that
Chimney Rock is eligible. We have detailed some concerns about
the evaluation of this property in our comments on the Survey
Report. In short, we believe that the process of evaluation
(taking into account the guidelines for evaluating traditional
cultural properties) and the specific significant qualities of the
property need further documentation. Until this has been
completed, we cannot concur with the determination that the
proposed undertaking has no effect on the Chimney Rock. However,
it does not appear that there is a significant difference in the
level of impact on the rock among the three final alternatives in
the AED.
3. We have previously recommended that the Area of Potential
Effect (APE) for the project be submitted to the Advisory Council
for an early review. Because the APE for this project is
unusually complex, we continue to believe that this review by the
Council is important.
345 KELLOGG BOULEVARD WEST/ SAINT PAUL. MINNESOTA 55102-1906/TELEPHO-NE: 612-296-6116
November 21, 1994
0.Nigel Finney
. . \
SHPO 094-0681
Page two
7. Both the section on archaeological resources and the section
on historical/architectural resources contain information about
the eligibility or non -eligibility of specific properties to the
National Register. Our office has been in close consultation with
the consultants who are completing the survey and evaluation work
for the project, and we have participated in discussions related
to eligibility of inventoried properties. However, for the
record, the survey reports are yet to be completed, and we have
not, at this point, concurred with most specific property
evaluations. (We have commented on a few properties as part of
the review of separate project proposals. For exAmple, we
commented on the eligibility of the original Wold -Chamberlain
Terminal Complex as part of an FAA E -Scan monitor project.)
Except for some archaeological properties, these evaluations need
to be complete and included in the final AED.
S. The discussion of 4(f) in Section L is inadequate in relation
to historic properties. This section does contain a cross
reference to the separate chapters on archaeological resources and
historical/architectural resources, but these two chapters discuss
Section 106, not Section 4(f). The specific applicability 'of 4(f)
to historical properties needs to be discussed in Section L. ,
9. implementation of this plan will not occur for a considerable
length of time. Because evaluation of the historic significance
of properties takes into account changing perceptions of
significance, provisions need to be developed for updating the
cultural resource review as part of the overall project schedule.
10. The report indicates that the level of adverse effects on
cultural resources would be much more significant for alternatives
1 and 2 than for alternatives 5 and 6. We agree with this
assessment. Mitigating the loss of significant portions of the
National Landmark Fort Snelling Historic District would be very
difficult, and we would strongly recommend that alternatives 1 and
2 be avoided.
If you have any question regarding our comments, please contact Dennis
Gimmestad in our Review and Compliance Section at 612-296-5462. We look
forward to working with you to address cultural resource concerns through the
Section 106 review process for this project.
S I
Britta L. Bloomberg
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
BLB: dmb
February 3, 1995
Nigel Finney
SHPO 194-2883
Page two
4. Implementation of this plan will not occur for a considerable
length of time. Because evaluation of the historic significance
of properties takes into account changing perceptions of
significance, provisions need to be developed for updating the
cultural resource review as part of the overall project schedule.
If you have any questions regarding our comments, please contact Dennis
Gimmestad in our Review and Compliance Section at 612-296-5462. We look
forward to working with you to address cultural resource concerns through the
Section 106 review process for this project.
Sincerely,
Britta L. Bloomberg
Deputy State Historic Preservation officer
ff- CM
6 IS 0 tt
r%
6 8 C)A
6 01,
MINNINESomi HISTORICAL SOCIETY
June 29, 1995
Mr. Glen Orcutt
Federal Aviation Administration
6020 28th Avenue South, Suite 102
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450
Dear Mr. Orcutt
Re: Second Phase Scoping Report for Dual Track Airport*' Planning Process
Dakota County
SHPO Number: 95-3034
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the above document. it
has been reviewed pursuant to the responsibilities given the State Historic
Preservation Officer by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the
Procedures of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (36CFR800), and to
the responsibilities given the Minnesota Historical Society by the Minnesota
Historic Sites Act and the Minnesota Field Archaeology Act.
We have the following comments:
1. As we have stated in our comments on several earlier airport
planning documents, we would strongly recommend submitting the
area(s) of potential effect delineation to the Advisory Council for
their concurrence at an early stage in the review process. This
recommendation pertains to the APE for archaeological resources and
the APE for history/architecture resources, for all alternatives.
2. The discussion of the APE suggests that adjustments will need to
be made once the locations of highway and transit improvements are
known. We would also suggest that the results of studies on induced
Socioeconomic Impacts and Land Use be analyzed and incorporated into
the APE as appropriate.
3. Section M.1.1 contains a listing of properties listed on or
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. We note that
we have not yet concurred in the eligibility for all of these
properties.
4. It is important that all inventoried properties in the project
areas are evaluated for National Register eligibility early in the
planning process so that any planning decisions can be made with
clear information about which cultural resources are significant.
We look forward to working with you throughout the planning process for this
project. if you have any questions regarding our review of this project, please
contact our Review and Compliance Section at 612-296-5462.
Sincerely,
71 -*- 1 �--
Dennis A. GLmmestad
Government Programs and Compliance officer
DAG:dmb
345 KELLOGG BOULEVARD WEST I SAINT PAUL. MINNESOTA 55102-1906 i TELEPHONE: 61-1-29t)-til:26
�c.•r• .. ..•'�,pt";',L',tt�`.:s..:.... �:';`�':`�`;i't",b3��rrh���:•�",.;.,�:ix1� " _ �"'.:;•;ir; . .
•1
MMESOTA HISTORICAL SOCIETY
October 3, 1995
n OCT C 5 1995
Ms. Charlene Roise
Hess, Roise and Company
405 Cedar Avenue South, Suite 200 •-
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55454
Dear Ms. Roise:
Re: Minneapolis St. Paul Airport Reconnaissance/Intensive Level Survey
for Long -Term Comprehensive Plan Alternative Environmental Document
Dual Track Planning Process
SHPO Number: 94-0681
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the above survey. It has
been reviewed pursuant to the responsibilities given the State Historic Preservation
Officer by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the Procedures of the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (36CFR800).
We have reviewed the results of the survey of the project area by Hess Roise, and
have the following comments:
1. We concur with the report recommendations that the following
properties meet National Register criteria:
Acacia Park Cemetery
Twelfth Avenue Bridge
Hale Elementary School
Nokomis Knoll Residential Historic District
2. We feel that the eligibility of the Spruce Shadows Farm needs
additional consideration, under both National Register criteria A and C.
It is not clear just what the significant criterion A associations are
(dcvciopment of agriculture in Bloomington [farm not built until this
activity was waning?], transformation of Bloomington to suburb [theme
more directly illustrated by early commercial development?], other?).
Under criterion C, more specific analysis is needed.
34.s KFa.i.oci; It WEST/SAINT YAIA MINN F.Sur.'k 5S1112 1906/TF:I.EF'IioNr:612-296.6126
October 3, 1995 ,
Charlene Roise
SHPO #94-0681
Page two
3. We also feel that the Scenic Overlook on Sibley Memorial Highway
needs additional consideration, under National Register criterion A. The
evaluation should take into account the registration requirements of the
Multiple Property Form for Depression -era construction, and pay
particular attention to the potential significance of the atsociation of the
overlook with a African American relief construction crew.
4. The Nokomis Knoll District should have its own inventory form, as a
means of providing clear documentation of its eligibility. We recognize
that an intensive level survey of the entire district might be beyond the
scope of this project. Nonetheless, we will need a map marked with
"tentative boundaries", "approximate boundaries", or some such
qualified delineation, so that we have a record upon which the eligibility
call was made.
If you have any questions regarding our review of this project, please contact our
Review and Compliance Section at 612-296-5462.
Sincerely,
Dennis A. Gimmestad
Government Programs and Compliance Officer
DAG:dmb
cc: Larry Dallam, HNTB
Glenn Orcutt, FAA
Nigel Finney, MAC
Homer Hruby, SHPO
A.3 NOISE CHARACTERISTICS, METRICS, COMPATIBLE LAND USE CRITERIA
This appendix describes aircraft noise characteristics, the various metrics used to quantify noise
impacts, compatible land use criteria, and the assumptions used to determine the likely impacts of the
Dual Track EIS alternatives.
AIRCRAFT NOISE CHARACTERISTICS
Every noise event has certain characteristics. At any instant, a sound may be loud or quiet (depending
upon the amplitude of the wave), high or low pitched (depending on its frequency), sudden or
continuous, or build to a peak and fade away. A sound may have identifiable pure tones in an otherwise
broad spectrum of undifferentiated sound. This complexity makes it difficult to describe a noise event
with a single number than can fully convey all of the characteristics of that event. A summary of noise
characteristics associated with the operation of aircraft follows.
Aircraft Noise
The major source of noise associated with aircraft operations is aircraft power plants (typically jet
engines). As an engine's fan blades and turbo -machinery rotate, they produce turbulence that
generates high frequency noise (e.g. the familiar compressor whine). Also, as hot jet exhaust is mixed
at high velocity with the cooler ambient air, a loud low frequency roar is produced. These sounds are
more prominent on older -technology engines (such as those used on the McDonnell Douglas DC -9 and
the Boeing 727). Aircraft equipped with these engines are referred to as "Stage 2" aircraft.
Stage 3 aircraft, such as the Boeing 767 and the Airbus A320, use newer -technology engines where the
ratio of the air passing by the combustion chamber to the air flowing through the combustion chamber
(known as an engine's bypass ratio) is significantly increased. Fan noise is minimized by eliminating
inlet guide vanes, modifying geometrical relationships between the fan blades and the outlet guide
vanes, slowing blade tip speed and lining the nacelle ducts with acoustically absorbent material. High -
bypass engines generate lower frequency fan noise and less jet exhaust noise and are typically much
less annoying than low -bypass ratio engines.
A less obvious source of noise is the sound of the airframe traveling through the air. As aircraft engines
become quieter, airframe noise may contribute more to the overall noise generated by aircraft. Figure
A.3-1 shows the relative loudness of the more popular aircraft types.
In 1991, the FAA issued a national noise policy that requires air carriers to phase out all Stage 2 aircraft
from their fleet by December 31, 1999. The carriers must also meet a series of interim compliance
dates. For example, the airlines must have a 75 percent Stage 3 fleet by 1998. Airlines are responding
by a combination of acquiring Stage 3 aircraft and "hush -kitting" or re-engining their Stage 2 aircraft to
meet stage 3 requirements.
The report, "Aircraft Noise Impact -Planning Guidelines for Local Agencies," United States Department of
Housing and Urban Development, 1972, has been drawn upon in the preparation of this section.
1 ) Dual Track Final EIS
A.3-1
Dual Track Airport Planning Process Environmental Impact Statement
Common Aircraft Noise Levels on the Decibel Scale
DESCRIPTION OF NOISE METRICS
The following sections discuss six noise metrics: A -weighted decibel (dBA), Day -Night Average Sound
Level (DNL), L10, Peak Sound Exposure Level (SEL), Time Above (TA), and Maximum A -Weighted
Sound Level (Lmax).
A -Weighted Decibel (dBA)
The characteristic most commonly used to describe noise is its loudness, measured in decibels (dB).
Since the sound pressure that causes physical pain to most humans is approximately one million times
greater than the threshold of hearing, decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale that "compresses"
the resulting values to a range of 0 to about 120 dB. A 10 dB increase in the sound pressure level is
perceived by humans as approximately twice the volume of sound. Also, most people cannot readily
detect changes in sound pressure levels of less than about 3 dB except in a laboratory environment.
Since decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale, normal addition does not apply when determining
the impact of multiple noise sources. For example, the total level produced by two 100 dB noise
sources is 103 dB, not 200 dB. The level of 10 such sources is 110 dB, and the level of 100 sources is
120 dB. The human ear is more sensitive to higher frequency sounds; therefore, the A -weighted decibel
scale (dBA) was developed to take into account this greater sensitivity. The dBA scale is most
frequently used in aircraft and other environmental noise analysis. The dBA levels of some common
sounds are shown in Table A.3-1.
Dual Track Final EIS
A.3-3
Table A.3-1 - Common Sounds on the dBA Scale
Sound Level Relative Loudness Relative Sound
Sound (dBA) Energy
Militcry jet ficiter at 500 feet 130 128 10,000,000
Rock music with amplifier (uncomfortddy loud) 120 64 1,000,000
Loud motorcyde at 20 feet 110 32 100,000
Jet picnetckeoff (B727) at 1000 feet 100 16 10,000
Crdiestrd crescendo at 25 feet; Motorcyde at 90 8 1,000
25 feet; Diesd locomotive (20-30 mph) at 50 feet
Busy street; Diesel truck (moderately loud) 40 80 4 100
mph at 50 feet
Interior of deportment store; Vm ium denier at 70 2 10
10 feet
Ordncry conversation at 3 feet; Air o ndtioner 60 1 1
at 20 feet
Quiet urban daytime; Dishwasher next room 50 1/2 0.1
Average office 40 1/4 .01
City residence (very quiet) 30 1/8 0.001
Source: HNTB Andysis from Multiple S curces
According to FAA Advisory Circular 150/5020-1, Noise Control and Compatibility Planning For Airports,
the "A -Weighted Sound Level has been found to correlate well with people's subjective judgment. Its
simplicity and superiority over unweighted sound pressure level in predicting people's response to noise
have made it the most widely used metric for assessing the impact of aircraft noise and for comparing
that noise with other community noise sources." The FAA has determined that A -weighted levels should
be used when measuring and describing instantaneous noise levels. The maximum A -weighted level
reached during an aircraft noise event is perhaps the most common and simplest way of describing the
noise of the event.
In general, the noise level associated with a certain sound decreases by 6 dB for each doubling of the
distance from the noise source; however, certain factors affect noise attenuation and transmission
including ground cover and the incidence of barriers, vegetation and buildings. These factors become
less important when the noise source is airborne. Meteorological conditions also affect noise
transmission. Temperature gradients, wind speed and direction, humidity, and atmospheric pressure
can combine to cause a 10-15 dB change in the noise heard on the ground for similar overflights of the
same aircraft.
Dual Track Final EIS
A.3-4
Day -Night Sound Level (DNL)
While it is important to measure the noise of a single event, the impact of prolonged
exposure to noise can best be described with cumulative metrics. The Day -Night Sound Level (DNL)
was developed under the auspices of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to measure the
cumulative impact of multiple noise events in an average day. It is the Iogarithmic average of sound
Ievels in cIBA and is based on a 24 hour Equivatent Sound Level(Leq). DNL values incorporate a 10-
dBA penalty to noise events occurring between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM to account for people's
increased noise sensitivity at night. DNL 65 is typicaHy the level used in assessing noise impactsand for
land use planning, although for this report a lower noise level of DNL 60 is also analyzed.
DNL (also known as Ldn) has been equated, through social surveys, with public reactions to different
noise levels. The DNL metric is recognized by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Devetopment, the U.S. Departmentof Transportation and the Department of Defense as a proper basis
for land use planning around airports.
The Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON) evaluated DNL as a noise
measurement tool. Their 1992 report noted that there "are no new descriptors or metrics of sufficient
scientific standing to substitute for the present DNL cumulative noise exposure metric," and that DNL
methodology "is considered the proper one for civil and military aviation scenarios in the general vicinity
of airports." The FICON report noted that "aircraft noise predictions below DNL 65 can be less accurate
and should be interpreted with caution." Figure A.3-2 illustrates typical community annoyance to
various DNL levels in the form of a graph.
The FAA has developed the integrated Noise Model(INM) for DNL calculation. The INM model takes
into account flight paths, number of operaUona, and the flyover noise associated with specific aircraft
types on a given flight path corrected for the duration of the sound. Contours of equal DNL value are
then developed and mapped, reflecting the average noise of takeoffs and landings over a year's time.
DNL may also be used for quantifying other noise sources such as auto traffic, and for comparing them
to airport -generated noise. INM Version 4.11 was utilized for the Dual Track noise analysis. Version
4.11 features the ability to model surrounding terrain, airport altitude, and allows for direct modeling of
displaced runway thresholds.
In the past, the shape and size of the DNL noise contour for an airport was largely determined by
departing aircraft. But as airlines change over to an all -Stage 3 fleet, noise contours have been
increasingly influenced by the noise generated by arriving aircraft. There are several reasons for this.
As described earlier, stage 3 aircraft engines are quieter than older engine designs used on stage 2
aircraft. Also, since Stage 3 engines are more powerful than Stage 2 engines, aircraft are able to climb
more quickly. This means that during departure, Stage 3 aircraft will pass a fixed point on the ground at
a higher altitude than Stage 2 aircraft, reducing noise on the ground.
However, during landing, Stage 2 and Stage 3 aircratend to be at the same low altitude as the follow
the final approach course to their assigned runway. Also, while Stage 3 engines are much quieter than
Stage 2 engines during takeoff, this difference is Iess noticeable during landing because aircraft are at
lower power settings. At these lower power sethngs, the noise generated by the airframe traveling
through the air is more apparent than during takeoff. This airframe noise is similar for botStage 2 and
Stage 3 aircraft. Finally, while departing aircraft tend to spread out toward their destinations, arriving
aircraft are concentrated along the final approach course to their assigned runway.
Dual Track Final EIS
Dual Track Airport Planning Process
Environmental Impact Statement
Sources:
()Percentage of Residents Annoyed. Richard,E.J. and J.B. 011erhead; reproduced in "Aviation
Noise Effects", FAA Office of Environment and Energy, March 1985.
°Schultz T. J. "Synthesis of Social Surveys on Noise Annoyance", Journal of Acoustical Society
of America, 1978.
...1,y0LIS SA,
111 I- MAC
=,*
Oe
1 4,
R P0 ttl
Community Reaction to Noise Levels
As shown in Figure A.3-2, noise exposure of DNL 65 or greater is characterized as significant and leads
to a number of complaints. The FAA has set guidelines for land use within the DNL 65 contour (i.e.,
DNL 65 or greater). It is acknowledged that the noise impact does not end at the DNL 65 contour. For
areas within the DNL 60 contour (i.e., DNL 60 to DNL 65), noise may be characterized as moderate.
L,o
This noise metric measures the point at which a specified sound level is exceeded at least 10 percent of
a specified time period (e.g., one hour). This Minnesota standard states that the sound level should not
exceed �,�65 in the worst daytime hour (between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.); this is the acceptabie noise
level limit for land uses in Noise Area Classification 1, which includes residential land uses. The L,o65
analysis produces a contour which depicts points around the airpo�t that e�erience noise levels of 65
dBA or greater for 10 percent of the hour (6 minutes) with the airport operating in a specific
configuration. it is caiculated for the worst hourly noise condition which couid occur off each runway
end. Although the �,o metric does not consider how often the condition actually occurs, it does indicate
what short-duration "worst case" conditions couid be in these areas.
Peak Sound Exposure Level (SEL)
This noise metric is designed to compare the sound energy dosage of sing►e noise events of varying
duration and intensity, for example an automobile idling for 30 seconds versus a gunshot. To do this,
acousticians compress (as in the case of the idiing automobile) or expand (as in the case of the
gunshot) the duration of the noise event to a common one-second period. The resulting noise levei is
expressed in decibels, SEL. If both noise events have the same SE� value, that wouid mean both
events produced the same amount ofi saund energy. Noise events lasting longer than one second, as
with the idling automobile, typically have SEL values higher than a standard dB reading of the same
event, because ail its sound energy would have b�en compressed into a one-second period.
Conversely, a noise event lasting less than one second, as with the gunshot, would typicaily have an
SEL value lower than a standard dB reading of the same event. For these reasons, SEL values cannot
be compared to standard dB readings or other metrics (e.g., DN�, L,�, etc.). Since an aircraft overfiight
lasts much longer than one second, its SEL value is typically higher than its maximum dB reading
(usualiy on the order of 5 to 10 dB}.
Time Above (TA)
The Time Above (TA) metric quantifies the amount of time in minutes a certain noise level is exceeded
at a particular location during the day. For the purposes of describing noise impacts at selected noise-
sensitive locations in the vicinity of MSP, the number of minutes above 85 dBA was quantified for an
average day.
Maximum A-Weighted Sound Level (Lmax)
Lmax describes the maximum noise level due to individuai aircraft events, measured in dBA.
NOISE-SENSITIVE USES
Aircraft noise, through the various psychologicai and physiological effects it has on people, can be a
source of community annoyance and conflict with various human activities. The FAA has identified
acceptable noise levels for certain categories of use, expiaining rationale for the criteria. Table A.3-2
outlines the recommended land use compatibility criteria (from the MSP FAR Part 150, Table 1) used in
this study.
Dual Track Final EIS
A.3-7
Tabie A.3-2 - Land Use Compatibility Criteria
Land Use
Residential, other than hotels'
. Hoteis
Nursing homes'
Public Use
Schools (pubiic and private)
Chiid care centers
Places of worship
Auditoriums, concert haiis
Parking
Hospitals
Commercial Use
Offices: business, professional, government
Retaii trade
Wholesale Vade and retaii of buiiding
materials, hardware and farm equipment�
Utilities2
Manufacturinq and Production
Manufacturing, generalZ
Research and laboratory uses sensiUve
to vibration
Agriculiure and forestry2
Mining, fishing, resource production
and eMraction
Recreational
Outdoor sports arenas and spectator sports
Outdoor amphitheaters, music sheils
Nature exhibits and zoos
Parks, golf courses, riding stables
and other active recreation areas
DNI. 65-70
N
R(25)
N
R(30)
R(25)
R(25)
R(30)
Y
R(30)
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
_ Dual Track Final EIS
A.3-8
DNL 70-75
N
R(30)
N
N
R(30)
A(30)
R(35)
Y
R(35)
R(25)
R(25)
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
DNL 75+
N
A(30)
N
R(30)
R(30)
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
Table A.3-2 (ConYd.)
KEY
Y-Land use and related structures are compatibie without restrictions.
tJ-Land use and related structures are not compatible and should be prohibited.
R(25),(30) or (35j-land use and re{ated structures are geneGa6y compatibie; measures to achieve Noise Level Reduction of at least 25, 30,
or 35 dBA must be incorporated into design and construction of structures. Normai constructlon can be e�ected to provide an NLR
of 20 dBA; thus, the reduction requirements are often stated as 5, 10, or 15 dBA over standard construction. These requirements
assume mechanical ventilation and ciosed windows year round. The use of NLR criteria wilf not eliminate outdoor noise problems.
' Where the city determines tfiat residentiai uses must be aliowed, measures to achieve sufficient outdoor to indoor N�R should be
incorporated into building and/or zoning codes and be considered in individual approvals. Federai guidelines recommend N�R of at
least 25 dBA in DNL 65-70 and 30 dBA in DNL 70-75. Adjustrnents to these recommendations may be necessary in considering
specific locai conditions. In addition to acoustical treaUnent, potential residen�� in noise zones shouid be notified of the noise
environment.
Z Appropriate NLR (as specified in Footnote 1) must be incorporated into the design and construction of portions of these buildings where
the public is received, office areas or noise sensitive areas.
3 NL.R specified in Footnote 1 required for residential buildings.
Source: MSP FAR Part 150 Study Update, March 1992
A discussion of land uses and their compatibiliry with various DNL noise levels follows.
Residences (other than hotels)
' In areas where noise leveis are DNL 75 or greater, all residential development should be considered
non-compatible. !n the DNL 65-75 zones, new residentia� development shouid be considered non-
compatibie and should be permitted only where the infilling of existing residential neighborhoods is the
only reasonable use. For new development or substantial redevelopment in the DNL 65-75 noise
zones, insulation shou�d be required to achieve interior noise levei reductions (NLR) of 20-30 dBA,
resulting in an interior levei of DNL 45, as recommended by the EPA. In addition to acousticai treatment
of structures, potential new residents shouid be made aware of the �noise environment.
Transierrt Lodgings
Construction of hoteis and moteis is generaliy of a standard that results in interior sound attenuation
higher than that of single family homes. The nature of their use justifies minimal restrictions, provided
that an indoor noise level of no more than DNL 45 is attained. It is recommended that hoteis be
permitted in all noise zones provided that NL.R me�sures sufficient to achieve acceptable interior noise
levels are required.
Schools
It is recommended that schoois be considered compatible in the DNL 65-70 noise zone provided that
they have an interior NLR of at least 30 dBA. They should be considered incompatible in ali higher
noise zones. The special sensitivity of classroom teaching to periodic aircraft noise events justifies the
N�R level more stringent than applied to residences. These criteria would be applied to both public and
private schoois.
Dual Track Final EIS
A.3-9
Hospita/s
Hospitals are usually weli-constructed, air conditioned, and kept closed, resulting in high levels of interior
noise attenuation. It is recommended that hospitals be considered compatibie in the noise zone DNL
65-70 with an NLR of at least 30 dBA, and in DNL 70-75 with an NLR of at least 35 dBA. They shouid
be considered incompatible in noise zones above DNI. 75.
Nursing Homes
Nursing home are basically residential in character and should be addressed in the same way as multi-
family homes. It is recommended that they be considered incompatible in noise zones above DNL 70,
and permitted in DNL 65-70 only with an NLR of at teast 25 dBA.
Child Care Centers
Since classroom instruction is not the primary function of chiid care centers as it is in a school, it is
recommended that criteria for child care centers be less stringent than those for schoois. It is
recommended that these facilities be considered compatible in zone DNL 65-70 with an NLR of at least
25 dBA and in zone DNL 70-75 with an N�R of at least 30 dBA, and incompatible in zone DNL 75+.
Churches
t;
Given the sma41 amount of time per week that a church is used for quiet activities and given that the
proportion of time spent by an individual in a church is aiso smail, the justification for adopting more
stringent compatibility standards is less than for schools. It is recommended that the criteria proposed in
the FAA's tabie of criteria in FAR Part 150 be appiied. For schools, child care centers, or other rypes of
facilities that are part of a church compiex, the criteria for these secondary types of facilities would be %\
applied.
In addition, to structures dedicated to church use, numerous small churches are often estabiished in
portions of commerciai buildings. These "storefront churches" are frequently located in commercial
areas which are othe►wise compatibie with aircraft noise levels. Due to their locational characteristics
and sometimes transient nature, it is recommended that storefront churches be treated as other uses in
commerciai districts.
Commercial, industrial and Recreational Uses
Most uses in these categories are not as noise sensitive as the uses describe previously. It is
recommended that the FAA-suggested criteria in Table A.3•2 be applied.
DUAL TRACK EIS N�ISE IMPACT ASSUMPTIONS
This section documents the major assumptions used to estimate the likely noise impacts associated
with the MSP and No Action aiternatives.
Population
Most areas adjacent to MSP are fully developed, long standing residential neighborhoods. Therefore,
1990 Census data for population and dweliings were assumed for 2005 for all communities with the
exceptions of Mendota Heights and Eagan, which are still experiencing growth. For these two
Dual Track Final EIS t,
A.3-10
communities, local representatives provided year 2000 forecasts of population and dweilings for noise
impact analysis to more fuily reflect possibie future impacts.
Aircraft Activity
Year 2005 aircraft activity was modeled for this study for two reasons. First, the 2005 aircraft fleet mix is
anticipated to include Stage 2 aircraft "hush-kitted" to meet Stage 3 requirements. These aircraft are
typicaliy noisier than "true" stage aircraft of the same size, and it was desirable to measure their impact.
For example, a hush-kitted DC-9-30 produces the equivalent levei of noise of two 737-300 aircraft.
Second, the new north-south runway proposed for MSP would likely be operational by the year 2005.
The aircraft operations and fleet mix forecast are based primarily on the MSP Long-Term
Comprehensive Plan (LTCP), Volt�me 6: Revised Activity Forecasts (December 1993). The �TCP fleet
mix was modified to reflect the August 1994 announcement by Northwest Airlines that it would refurbish
its fleet of DC-9-30 aircraft inciuding the instailation of hush kits, rather than acquire new aircraft as
previousiy planned. Tabies A.3-3 and A.3-4 list the average daily arrivals and departures by aircraft type
for 2005.
Dual Track Finai EIS
A.3-11
Table A.3-3 - 2005 Projected Fieet Mix and Average Daily Arrivais -
M5P Aiternative
Aircraft Type Day Night Total
Air Carrier Jets
DC8 1.1 1.7 2.8
DC9-30 (HUSHKIT) 97.7 7.3 ]05.0
MD80 32.8 2.7 35.5
M D90 6.6 0.4 7.0
DC10 10.0 1.4 11.4
MD11 3.9 0.7 4.6
B727 (HUSHKIT) 11.6 3.2 14.8
B737-300/400/500 27.2 1.8 29.0
8737 (HUSHKIT) 0.2 0.1 0.3
8747-200/300/400 7.5 0.9 8.4
8757 81.0 7.9 88.9
8767-200/300 3.7 0.3 4.0
8777 1.4 0.1 1.5
A300 0.5 0.7 1.2
A320/321 68.3 6.4 74.7
A330 4.7 0.3 5.0
A340 0.4 0.1 0.5
L1011 0.6 0.5 1.1
BAe 146/RJ/F-70 0.9 0.1 1.0
F100 8.0 2.0 10.0
EM 145/CanRJ 7.1 0.9 8.0
SUBTOTAL 375.2 39.5 414.7
Air Carrier Turboprops
CNA/PAG/BEC
SWM/J31/BE1/BE9
SF340/DH8/J41
52000
L 188/C V R/F27/AT P/AT R
SUBTOTAL
General Aviation
GA Jet
GA Turbop�op
GA Piston
SUBTOTA�
Militarv
C130
TOTAL ARRIVALS
3.0
29.2
61.8
27.2
15.7
136.9
32.8
15.4
21.7
69.9
4.0
586.0
3.4
8.6
8.2
3.7
5.6
29.5
4.2
2.0
2.8
9.1
0.1
78.2
Source: HNTB analysis, based on MSP �TCP Voi. 6, Revised AcBvity Forecasts, 1993.
Dual Track Final EIS
A.3-12
6.4
37.8
70.0
30.9
21.3
166.4
37.1
17.4
24.5
79.0
4.1
664.2
;'I e
\
J
Table A.3-4 - 2005 Projected Fieet Mix and Average Daily Departures -
MSP Alternative
Aircraft Type Day Night Total
Air Carrier Jets
DC8
DC9-30 (HUSHKIT)
MD80 ,
MD90
DC 10
MD11
B727 (HUSHKIT)
B737-300/400/500
B737 (HUSHKIT)
8747-200/300/400
8757
B767-200/300
6777
A300
A320/321
A330
A340
�1011
Bae 146/RJ/F-70
F100
EM 145/CanFiJ
SUBTOTAL
Air Carrier Turboprops
CAN/PAG/BEC
SWM/J31/BE1/BE9
SF340/DH8/J41
S2000
L 188/C V R/F27/AT P/AT R
SUBTOTA�
Generai Aviation
GA Jet
GA Turboprop
GA Piston
SUBTOTAL
Militarv
C130
TOTALDEPARTURES
1.0
96.8
32.9
6.6
10.1
4.0
11.8
27.2
0.2
7.5
81.0
3.7
1.4
0.5
68.4
4.7
0.4
0.7
1.0
8.9
7.6
376.4
2.9
30.9
66.6
29.3
16.7
146.4
31.4
14.7
20.7
66.8
3.8
593.4
1.8
8.2
2.6
0.4
1.3
0.6
3.0
1.8
0.1
0.9
7.9
0.3
0.1
0.7
6.3
0.3
0.1
0.4
0.0
�.1
0.4
38.3
3.5
6.9
3.4
1.6
4.6
20.0
5.7
2.7
3.8
12.2
0.3
70.8
Source: HNTB analysis, based on M5P LTCP Vol. 6, Revised Activity Forecasts, 1993.
Dual Track Final EIS
A.3-13
2.8
105.0
35.5
7.0
11.4
4.6
14.8
29.0
0.3
8.4
88.9
4.0
1.5
1.2
74.7
5.0
0.5
1.1
1.0
10.0
8.0
414.7
6.4
37.8
70.0
30.9
21.3
166.4
37.1
17.4
24.5
79.0
4.1
664.2
Under the No Action Alternative, it is assumed that year 2005 operations would be about 2.3 percent
lower than under the expanded MSP option due to increasing capacity constraints. Most of the
decrease wouid be among general aviation aircraft. It is assumed that carriers wouid use larger aircraft
in order to accommodate passenger demand with the constraints on runways and gates. For this
reason, the No Action fleet mix assumes fewer hush-kitted aircraft, because Northwest currently has no
plans to hush-kit larger, 150-seat aircraft (see Tables A.3-5 and A.3-6).
Dual Track Final EIS
A.3-14
� ;
Table A.3-5 - 2005 Projected Fleet Mix and Average Daily Arrivals - No Action
Alternative
Aircraft Type Day Night Total
Air Carrier Jets
DC8 1.1 1.7 2.8
DC9-30 (HUSHKIT) 66.4 8.2 74.6
M D80 32.9 2.6 35.5
MD90 25.2 1.5 26.7
DC10 10.7 1.4 12.1
M D 11 3.7 0.9 4.6
B727 (HUSHKIT) 11.6 3.1 14.7
8737-300/400/500 27.2 1.8 29.0
8737 (HUSHKIT) 0.2 0.1 0.3
8747-200/300/400 5.2 Q.9 6.1
8757 38.4 7.9 46.3
B767-200/300 0.5 0.1 a.�6
8777 1.4 0.1 1.5
A300 0.5 0.7 ' 1.2
A320/321
A330
A340
L1011
BAE 146/RJ/F-70
F100
EM 145/CanRJ
SUBTOTAL
Air Carrier Turboprops
CAN/PAG/BEC
SWM%J31/BE1/BE9
SF34a/DH8/J41
S2000
� 18 8/C V R/ F 27/AT P/AT R
SUBTOTAL
General Aviation
GA Jet
GA Turboprop
GA Piston
SUBTOTAL
Militarv
C130
TOTAL ARRIVALS
133.9
5.2
0.4
0.7
0.9
0.0
2.5
368.6
3.0
29.2
6i.8
27.2
15.6
136.8
28.8
13.4
18.9
61.0
!�i7
570.4
6.4
0.3
0.1
0.4
0.1
0.0
0.3
38.6
3.4
8.6
8.2
3.7
5.6
29.5
3.7
1.8
2.5
8.0
�l
76.2
Source: HNTB analysis, based on MSP �TCP Vol. 6, Revised Activity Forecasts, 1993.
Dual Track Final EIS
A.3-15
140.3
5.5
0.5
1.1
1.0
0.0
2.8
407.2
6.4
37.8
70.0
30.9
21.2
166.3
32.4
15.2
21.4
69.0
4.1
646.6
Table A.3-6 - 2005 Projected Fleet Mix and Average Daily Departures - No
Action Alternative
Aircraft Type Day Night Total
Air Carrier Jets
DC8 1.0 1.8 2.8
DC9-30 (HUSHKIT) 65.3 9.3 74.6
MD80 33A 2.5 35.5
M D90 26.3 0.4 26.7
DC 10 10.8 1.3 12.1
MD11 3.8 0.8 4.6
8727 (HUSHKIT) 11.8 2.9 14.7
8737-300/400/500 27.2 1.8 29.0
8737 (HUSHKIT) 0.2 0.1 0.3
B747-200/300/400 5.2 0.9 6.1
8757 38.4 7.9 46.3
8767-200/300 0.5 0.1 0.6
8777 1.4 0.1 1.5
A300 0.5 0.7 1.2
A320/321 134.0 6.3 140.3
A330 5.2 0.3 5.5
A340 0.4 0.1 0.5
L1011 0.8 0.3 1.1
BAE 146/RJ/F-70 1.0 0.0 1.0
F100 0.0 0.0 0.0
EM 145/CanRJ 2.7 0.1 2.8
S U B T O T A L 369.5 37.7 407.2
Air Carrier Turboprops
CAN/PAG/BEC 2.9 3.5 6.4
SWM/J31/BE1/BE9 30.9 6.9 37.8
SF340/DH8/J41 66.6 3.4 70.0
S2000 29.3 1.6 30.9
L 188/C V W F27/ATP/ATR 16.6 4.6 21.2
S U B T O T AL 146.3 20.0 166.3
General Aviation
GA Jet
GA Turhoprop
GA Piston
SUBTOTAL
MilitaN
C130
TOTAL DEPARTURES
27.3
12.9
18.1
58.4
�
578.0
5.1
2.3
3.3
10.6
0.3
C:�;�
Source: HNTB analysis, based on MSP LTCP Vol. 6, Revised Activity Forecasts, 1993.
Duai Track Final EIS
A.3-16
32.4
15.2
21.4
69.0
4.f
646.6
t'�
,
Takeoff and landing profiles (the vertical path aircraft foilow when departing from and arriving at an
airport) were based on airline operating procedures, aircraft type and aircraft operating weight. Air
carrier aircraft were assumed to fiy standard three-degree descent angle approach profiles. Departure
profiles for those aircraft for which Northwest Airlines has developed unique procedures were created to
more accurately model the Northwest procedures within the INM runs. The INM data base, which
includes typical takeoff and landing profiles, was utilized for ail other aircraft.
Stage lengths for each aircraft type were derived from the Official Airline Guide. Stage lengths were
adjusted to more accurately reflect Northwest nighttime departure profiles for several specific aircraft
types. For the Northwest fleet, specialized departure profiles where developed for the DC9Q7, DC9Q9,
DC950 and 727-200 aircrafts through coordination with the airiine's operations department.
Runway use for the MSP Alternative is shown in Table A.3-7 and for the No Action Alternative in Table
A.3-8. The runway use percentages in Tat�le A.3-7 are operationa/ goa/s based on weather conditions
(both wind and visibiiiiy), direction of flight, noise impacts and operationai efficiency; however, the actual
use of the runways could vary on a daily, weekly or monthly basis, but should closely approximate the
percentage goals over an average year. FAA tower personnel will utilize Runway 17-35 in accordance
with the conditions set forth in this FEIS. Therefore, tower personnel wiil utilize Runway 17-35 so that
the runway is not used to and from the north, except under the following limited circumstances: 1) safety
reasons, 2) weather conditions, or 3) temporary runway closures due to snow removal, due to
construction, or due to other activities at the airport. For nighttime hours (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM), aircraft
operations were assigned based on existing noise abatement procedures which includes MAC's
voluntary nighttime limits on flights. As with the aircraft fleet mix, runway use input to the INM reflects
average daitiy use based on the entire year.
Table A.3-7 - Runway Use for MSP Alternative - Average Annual Use
Runway
4
12�
12R
17
22
30L
30R
35
Total
Percentage of Departures
1.0 percent
7.4 percent
16.3 percent
36.6 percent
less than 0.05 percent
15.4 percent
23.3 percent
less than 0.05 percent
100.00 percent
Source: HNTB Analysis
f Dual Track Final EIS
A.3-17
Percentage of Arrivals
less than 0.05 percent
21.3 percent
15.1 percent
less than 0.05 percent
less than 0.05 percent
21.7 percent
25.0 percent
16.9 percent
100.0 percent
Tabie A.3-8 - Runway Use for NaAction Aiternative - Average Annuai Use �..
Runway Percentage of Departures Percentage of Arrivals
4 0.3 percent 0.4 percent
12L 23.2 percent 21.7 percent .
12R 28.1 percent 23.9 percent
22 14.8 percent 0.5 percent
30L 17.3 percent 30.6 percent
30R 16.3 percent 22.9 percent
TOTAL 100.0 percent 100.0 percent
Source: HNTB Analysis
Flight Tracks
Flight tracks utilized in the INM runs for the MSP and No Action alternatives were based upon data
provided by the Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System (ANOMS) which details existing fiight
tracks in conjunction with wind and weather considerations far the future utilization of the facility.
Figures �-2 and Q-8 of the EIS show flight tracks for the MSP and the No Action Alternatives. The
fiight tracks were prepared by HNTB in consultation with FAA; however, FAA has not approved the fiight
tracks/procedures and they shouid be treated as reasonabie for the purpose of assessing impacts in the
EiS.
Dual Track Final EIS ��
A.3-18 ,
� � � ��� _�� ���. i �l �\ ll� ■ � '��
The Canada Goose population using Mother Lake has been the subject of an ongoing research
project and controi effort being conducted by Dr. James A. Cooper of the University of Minnesota
(Cooper 1991; See Section VII). After once having been essentially eliminated from the Twin Cities
area, a nesting Canada goose was first documented at MSP in 1975. By 1981, approximately 100-
150 geese were utilizing MSP and/or nearby areas. Prior to the initiation of Dr. Cooper's study, 4 bird
strikes attributable to Canada geese wer� documented (Dr. James Cooper, pers. comm.). Due to the
apparent bird strike hazard presented by this increasing goose population, MAC requested assistance
from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in developing methods to reduce the number of geese using
areas on or near MSP. In response, Dr. Cooper was retained ta undertake what initially was to be a
4-year study from 1984 to 1987 to determine; (1) whether geese using MSP could be identified and
removed (i.e., translocated) and (2) whether such reductions would, in turn, reduce the number of
geese and goose fiights within the airspace used by departing and approaching aircraft. This initial
study has evolved into an ongoing research and controi effort that remains u�derway in 1994.
The resuits of this study indicate �at the MSP area (specifically Mother Lake, Rich Acres Golf Course
and Fort Sneiling National �G�me�ery) has bee�n re�eiving annual use by geese in distinct social groups
that were originaliy estabtished in the braod marshes where the geese were hatched. Because of
their common origin and/or familial relationships, these sub-flocks are both highly cohesive and
traditional in their movements. Based o�n goose trapping and neck-banding done as part of the study,
a number of sites were identified as the rr�ost cor�mon origins ar�d destir�ations for goose flights to and
from the MSP area; these include Apple Lake (a�so known as Legion Lake), Lake Hiawatha, Lake
Nokomis, and Sneiling Lake.
Of the above-listed locations, birds neck-banded on Woo�3 Lake in Richfield and Lake Nokomis in
Minneapolis generated most of the goose observations in the MSP study area. During the years
1984, 1985, 1986, and 1987, geese neck-banded at these two focations generated 97, 89, 74 and 56
percent of the goose observations recorded in the MSP study area. Wood Lake generated by the far
the majority of the geese observed at MSP. By selectively trapping and translocating geese on an
annual basis, the total number of goose observations in the MSP study area was red�ced from 1,696
in 1984 to 43 in 1987; this represents a g7.5 percent re�uction in goose observatSons during thrs initial
study period. Migrant geese were found to be a significant element of the MSP gaose flock during the
late summer and fall months; however, these birds did not appear to represent as much of a hazard
as resident birds. Fiesident birds engaged in milling activity and repeated fiights to nearby lakes while
stopovers by migrants were more transitory and involved fewer sidetrips. The last reported goose
strike related to Mother Lake occurred in September 1985. Continuing selective control efforts have
kept goose numbers at MSP extremely low, rendering the goose-aircraft hazard at Mother Lake
almost negligibie over the last 7 to 8 years. However, since geese from other brood marshes may
eventually move into the vacated habitat existing at MSP, ongoing monitoring and control efforts must
be maintained to ensure that goose flights continue to be minimal.
Dual Track Final EIS
A.4-1
A.5 EFFECT OF AIRCRAFT OVERFLIGHTS ON BALD EAGLES
r'�
There is little research on the effect of aircraft overflights on bald eagles and what there is, is not definitive. '.
A Baid Eagie Biological Assessment was done in 1990 relating to the potential impacts on nesting bald
eagles that might result from an extension of MSP Runway 4-22, which was proposed at that time. This
proposed runway extension is an element of all four alternatives under consideration in this AED. Further,
this Biological Assessment invoived the same nesting territory being analyzed in this AED and was done to
analyze the potential for impacts that might result from approximately 3,330 monthly departures over a nest
at altitudes between 1,500 and 2,000 feet. Ali of the alternatives being analyzed here involve substantially
less potential for disturbance than the 4-22 project analyzed in 1990. Alternatives 1 and 2 invoive no
overflights of this nest while Alternatives 5 and 6 invoive far fewer than were analyzed in 1990 (i.e., 630
monthly overflights compared to 3,330).
At the time of the 1990 Biological Assessment, no studies had been undertaken specifically to investigate
the impact of commerciai jet aircraft operations upon bald eagie nesting. The literature available at that
time addressed other types of disturbance, including ordnance and jet fighter disturbance on military
facilities as weli as low-level overflights by helicopters and smali fixed wing aircraft. Due to the lack of
directly applicabie research in 1990, it could not be stated unequivocally that impacts to eagle reproductive
success would not occur. However, it was concluded that it was uniikely that the reproductive success of
the nesting eagles would be adversely affected by commercial aircraft due to: (1) the propensity for bald
eagles to readily habituate to regular, frequent disturbances of a mechanical nature, and (2) the fact that
eagles tolerated louder and more confrontational disturbances than aircraft noise without a notable loss of
reproductive success.
Experts from the USFWS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center and the USFWS National Ecology Research
Center were contacted in 1990 for their opinions on the potential for adverse impacts resulting from the
aircraft operations. Dr. David Ellis of Patuxent indicated that he would not expect commercial jet overflights �,
at altitudes around 2,000 feet to adversely affect nesting eagles. He cited the successfui nesting of bald
eagles on the Aberdeen Proving Grounds as an example of the level of disturbance baid eagles are likely
to tolerate. Dr. Douglas Gladwin of the National Ecology Research Center indicated that it was unknown
whether bald eagles would incur any adverse impacts from commercial overflights at such altitudes but that
such impacts were possible. The U.S. Fish and Wiidlife Service issued a"no jeopardy" Biologicai Opinion
for the Runway 4-22 e�ension at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport.
Since 1990, some additional research has since been conducted on breeding bald eagle responses to
various kinds of disturbance. Grubb and King (1991) studied 4,188 responses of nesting bald eagles to
various types of human activities in riparian areas in Arizona. Of the five disturbance categories studied
(i.e., pedestrian approaches, watercraft, land vehicles, aircraft overfiights and loud noises such as sonic
booms and gunshots), aircraft overfiights were found to be tha least disturbing even though this was the
most common type of disturbance. These researchers concluded that; (1) breeding bald eagles in Arizona
have become tolerant or habituated to air traffic and (2) that exclusion of aircraft within 625 meters
(approximately 1,875 feet) of nests and permitting only short duration flights within 1,100 meters (about
3,300 feet) would minimize disturbance of breeding eagles. The authors stressed, however, that they were
not presenting ..."a disturbance threshold for detrimental impacts on reproductive performance."
Dual Track Final EIS ��'
A.5-1
' )
A.6 SUMMARY OF MIGRATORY BIRD SURVEYS
SUMMARY
Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc. conducted counts of waterfowl, guils, and other water birds at
sefecied sites around the New Airport site and MSP from February 23 to Nlay 4, �995. The presence
and abundar�ce of 6ald eagles were noted in addition to waterfowi and gull numbers and flight paths. Bi-
weekly counts were conducted at three focatio�s along the Mississippi River between Inver Grove
Heights and Gores Po�t near Etter and at selected wetiands within Empire, Hampton, Marshan and
Vermiilion townships in Dakota County. Survey points near MSP included Lake Calhoun, Lake Harriet,
Lake Nokomis, Wood Lake and the Minnesota River Valley north of the I-494 crossing. Intensive
surveys of the MVNWR were not conducted so as not to duplicate the efforts of refuge staff.
Key waterfowl and guli concentration areas around the New Airport site during the spring migration of
1995 were located along the Mississippi River (both the Spring Lake area and Gores Pool WMA) and at
the Pine Bend landfili just west of Highway 52 in Inver Grove Heights. Waterfowl and gull flight patterns
largely followed the Mississippi Fiiver corr�dor; �ovvever, large numbers of guils (>1000) were observed
rnoving daily between the Spring Lake and Pine Bend �andfiil.
Much smalf�r numbers of waterfow( and gu!!s were noted at all of the site around MSP during the spring
migration. Note that this does not take into account major concentration areas within the NiVi�WR
surveyed by refuge staff.
Observations of and inquiries about wintering waterfowl were made to locate any potential winter
� concentration areas. in the past, one area of concern was the Sheily gravel pits located along the
Mississippi River on Grey Cloud Isiand. Based on 1995 winter observations and inquiries of Sheily
employees, the Sheily gravel pits hoid large numbers of Canada geese and other waterfowl species for
a short time during the fal( migratron; however, these birds quickly disappear once the gravel pits freeze
up. Open water areas alnng the Mississippi River are used by species such as bald eagies, common
goldeneyes, mallards, Canada geese and to a lesser extent by ring-billed and herring guiis throughout
the winter; however, no major winter concentration areas were noted. The only significant waterfowi
winter concentration area near MSP is Black Dog Lake, which is kept open by cooling water discharges
from the NSP Black Dog power plant.
Survey Methods
Surveys were conducted by two biologists from February 23, 1995 to May 4, 1995. A point count
method was empioyed to assess numbers of waterfowl, gulls and other birds at selected locations in
Dakota and Nennepin Counties. Counts were conducted twice per week during the heaviest migration
period. Birds located in flooded fields were inc(uded in the count for the nearest selected wetiand or
waterbody. Data sheets were prepared and compiled for all survey locations and dates.
Dual Track Finai EIS
A.6-1
Survey Results
Isolated wetlands scattered throughout the New Airport search area were observed to hold relatively
smail numbers of waterfowl throughout the spring migration period. The isolated wetiands where
observations were made are shown in Figure DD-2. Fiight patterns between the wetlands and other
major water bodies (i.e., Lake Byllesby, Spring Lake, Lake Rebecca, Gores Pool and Mississippi River)
were highiy variable. Although some movements were noted throughout the day, the largest
movements were observed during sunrise and immediately before sunset. The city lakes (i.e., Lake
Nokomis, �ake Harriet, Lake Calhoun and Wood Lake) heid significantiy fewer waterfowl and gulls than
the selected wetlands in Dakota County during the spring migration. However, these lakes may
temporarily harbor limited concentrations of gulis during the fall migration.
Major �4ight paths were noted along the Mississippi River corridor in addition to between the Pine Bend
Landfill and the Mississippi River. Significant numbers of gulis (>1000) were seen flying between Pine
Bend landfiii and the river corridor near Spring �ake during every 'count. Waterfowi were especially
abundant along the flooded backwaters of the Mississippi River befi+veen Spring Lake and Gores Pool
near Etter. Baid eagies were frequentiy seen along the river from February until early Aprii and one pair
was seen nesting near Lake Rebecca Park in Hastings.
�
Dual Track Final EIS
A.6-2
Results of the 1995 spring migration survey are summarized in Tabie A.6-1.
Tabie A.6-1 - Summary of 1995 Spring Migration Survey
Date Observations Near New Air ort Site Observations Near MSP
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 12
3/21 /95 W- W 136 W 448 W 117 W 196 W 4
G16 G- G- G- G- G-
E 2 E- E- E- E- E-
3/26/95 W 179 W 534
G- G-
E- E-
3/29/95 W 411 W 77
G- G-
E- E-
3/30/95 W- W 20 W 2000 W 13i W 88 W 97 W 186 W 6
G 1800 G 100 G 2050 G 180 G- G- G- G-
E- E- E9 E2 E- E- E- E-
4/02/95 W 184 W 162 W 143
G- G- G-
E- E- E-
4/06/95 W 56 W 164 W 71 W 459 W 94 W 40 W 50 W 55 W-
G 250 G 3750 G 4 G 26 G 1 G- G 3 G 29 G 1
E- E E4 E- E- E- E- E- E-
4/08/95 W 61 W 177 W 76 W 229 W 29 W 531
G200 G503 G- G- G- G6
E- E5 E- E- E- E1
4l28/95 W- W 23 W 185 W 38 W 50 W 183
G132 G- G18 G18 G- G-
E- E- E- E- E- E-
5/04/95 W 82 W 61 W 12
G40 G- G-
E- E- E-
Water- 15 99 2608 452 2021 1208 379 619 147 245 6
fowl
Gulls 1932 550 6361 202 28 1 0 6 6 29 1
Ea les 0 2 14 6 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
Source: Peterson Environmenta[ ConsulUn , inc.
Site 1- Pine Bend Landfill, Site 2- Spring Lake, Site 3- Gores Pool, Site 4- Lake Rebecca, Site 5-
State Protected Wetland 340, Site 6- State Protected Wetiand 341, Site 7- Lake Byliesby, Site 8-
Minnesota Vailey National Wildiife Refuge North of I-494, Site 9- Lake Nokomis, Site 11 - Lake Harriet,
Site 12 - �ake Caihoun.
MVNWR Spring Waterfowl Inventories
The U.S. Fish and Wiidlife 5ervice (USFWS} conducts monthly waterfowl counts at several locations
within the Minnesota River National Wildiife Refuge. Data is collected from locations starting at the I-
494 bridge in Bioomington south to the Louisvilie Swamp area near Chaska, Minnesota. Survey records
from the years 1987 through 1995 were obtained and summarized.
Duai Track Finai EIS
A.6-3
SPRING OF 1995 MIGRATION NOTES: MSP AND NEW AIRPORT SITES
February 23, 1995 - Numbers and species of waterfowl are increasing along the Mississippi River and
associated ice-free water bodies. At Black Dog Lake common goldeneyes and mailard are the most
often obseNed species with other species observed including; Canada geese, bald eagles, red-tailed
hawks and American black ducks.
March 2, 1995 - Ali lakes and small ponds are frozen solid. Adult bald eagles seen above the Cedar
Avenue bridge. Waterfowl numbers remain about what was seen the previous week. Additional
species observed include: gadwali and northern pintails.
March 8, 1995 - Lakes and ponds remain frozen with fresh snow and colder temps turning warmer after
the 8th. Observed waterfowl numbers at Grey Cloud island in St. Paul and counted: 28 mallards, 12
Canada geese, 30 common goldeneyes and 2 adult bald eagies. Numbers counted from Hardman
Avenue include; 20 Canada geese, 37 common goldeneyes. Numbers at Biack Dog Lake remain about
the same. i spoke with Mr. Mark Duncan on March 9 about ovennrintering Canada geese at the Sheily
Gravel Pits. Mark is the manager at the pits and said that good numbers of geese do congregate at the
pits until freeze up, after freeze up no geese or ducks use this area and are probabiy associated with
adjacent ice-free areas on the Mississippi River. '
March 16, 1995 - Very warm temps meit snow quickiy and provide abundant feeding areas in farmed
fields for watertowl. Migration of waterfowl and other passerines increased partly due to above average
temperatures during the previous week. Species noted include; red-winged blackbird, eastern bluebird,
great biue herons, common grackies, kilideer, American robins and all species of waterfowl except red-
breasted mergansers. ��"
March 21, 1995 - Reconnaissance count conducted (see data sheet for March 21, 1995). Skies were
clear to partiy cioudy with winds from the northwest, temps approximately 55 °. Noted the smalier ponds
and road ditches are free of ice, larger lakes have between 15 to 50 of open water between the shore
and remaining ice. Specific areas noted as follows; Black Dog Lake/Mississippi River - ice free, Lake
Byllesby - western 1/3 ice free, eastern 2/3 remains frozen, State protected water #340 - ice free, State
Protected water #341 - southern ponds open and northern reaches frozen except at shores, Lake
Rebecca - eastern 1/4 open, western 3/4 frozen over, and Spring Lake - ice free. Northern shrike noted
near State protected water #340.
March 26, 1995 - Reconnaissance count (see data sheet for March 26, 1995). Skies cloudy with winds
gusting from the east, temps approximately 40 °. Ail water bodies in the Dakota County sample areas
are free of ice. City lakes continue to have large amounts of ice with scattered areas of open water.
Large flocks of blackbirds, cowbirds, rusty blackbirds, red-winged blackbirds and Brewer's blackbirds are
moving through the areas. Bird species noted on the city lakes include 5 red-breasted mergansers, 2
American black ducks, 78 Mallards, 26 Canada geese, 6 herring guils, and 20 ring-biiled guils. To this
point the ciry lakes are not harboring large concentrations of waterfowi or guils. i suspect that these
lakes are more important staging areas for gulis in the fall and early winter than concentration areas in
the spring.
March 30, 1995 - count day (see 3/30/95 data sheets). Skies partiy cloudy to mostiy cioudy with winds
from the northwest and temps between 25-30 °. All water bodies are free of ice and the rivers are
running high. Floodplains are covered with water and backwater areas are inaccessible along the
Mississippi south of Hastings. Fiight paths of gulis appear to lie between the river valiey and Pine Bend
landfill. The guil concentrations I noted were along the Vermillion River in flooded fieids near Etter and ,
on sandbars out in the Mississippi River near Hastings. Noted the presence of the nesting pair of bald �
eagles at Lake Rebecca and a movement up river of great blue herons from the mouth of the Vermiilion
Dual Track Final EIS
A.6-4
River at about 8:45 a.m. Aiso noted singles and doubies of swans in various locations prior to today all
the swans were in groups of at least 20.
Aprii 2, 1995 - reconnaissance count at Vermillion River near Etter noted 2400+ ring-billed guils in
flooded fields at the edge of the river. Other species noted in this congregation area were 29 shovelors,
12 widgeon, 4 gadwalls, 5 great blue herons, 2 bald eagles (immature), and 4 herring gulis. Skies were
partly cloudy with temps near 50 ° and light winds. Also noted 38 tundra swans at protected wetiand
341 W, 3 mute swans, 43 mallards, 15 widgeon, 12 wood ducks, and 3 green- winged teai.
Dual Track Final EIS
A.6-5
A.7 BIOTREATtUIENT OF GLYCOL IN SOILS
A limited number of studies have been completed specifically concerning the fate of ethylene and
propylene giycoi once they reach the soil and/or ground water. However, the high carbonaceous
biochemicai oxygen demand (CBOD) of the giycols suggests that biodegradation wouid be an important
fate mechanism in both media. The end-products of glycol biodegradation are expected to be carbon
dioxide, acetate, and ethanol (McGahey and Bouwer, 1992).
The capacity of the soil and its microflora to fiiter and biologically remove CBOD is reportedly very large,
and soils inherently contain large numbers of heterotrophic microorganisms with the ability to utilize and
degrade a broad array of organic compounds over a range of environmental conditions (Spyridakis and
Welch, 1976).
Batch studies conducted on soil by McGahey and Bouwer (1992) found biotransformation to proceed
according to first order kinetics with rate constants ranging from 1.01 to 0.95 days'' at initial glycoi
concentrations of 100 and 1,000 ppm, respectively. The typical period for adaptation of the soii bacteria
to glycol was no more than three days and, for a 1,000 ppm initial concentration, 95 percent removal
was achieved within 7 days. Abdelghani et al. (1989) found common soil microorganisms to biodegrade
ethylene glycol substantiaily within three days of exposure at concentrations as high as 1-3 percent
although concentrations above 5 percent were inhibitory or toxic to the soil microorganisms studied.
G.M. Kiecka et ai. (1993) observed glycol biodegradation to occur at soil concentrations ranging from
392 to 5278 mg/kg at rates of 19.7 to 27.0 mg/kg soil per day at 8° C. Biodegradation rates were 66.3 to
93.3 mg/kg soil per day for soiis at 25° C. Based on these findings, the authors conciuded that ;�'�
"biodegradation is expected to piay a major role in removing residual levels of giycois from soiis adjacent ,
to airport taxiways and runways." Silis and Biakesiee (1992) reported that analyses compieted at
Stapleton Internationai Airport in Denver, Colorado failed to yieid any evidence of glycol contamination,
even in the shailow soils at the edge of the runway where run-off of GISW was known to occur.
The MAC initiated a soil and ground water investigation near the Taxiway H/J remote deicing location in
March 1994 to evaluate potential impacts associated with deicing during the 1993/1994 deicing season.
Poor glycol recovery had been experienced from the plugged storm sewer at this location and a large
volume of deicing fluid (approximately 50,000 gallons) had been observed to run off into the adjacent
grassy swales. Ethylene glycoi was detected in the soil at Taxiway H/J at depths of 3 to 13 feet in
borings driiled in March 1994, but was absent at all depths in October 1994. These findings are
attributed to both soil biodegradation and/or leaching into the underiying perched water tabie.
Ethylene and propylene glycoi are essentially miscible in water and exhibit correspondingly low organic
carboNwater partition coefficients. Therefore, they wouid be expected to partition readily into the
interstitial water and migrate through the soil at rates governed primarily by the soii permeability.
Therefore, the potential exists for glycols to impact ground water, primarily where more permeable
surficial soils (e.g. sands) are present.
According-to the literature, the bacteria necessary for aerobic and anaerobic biodegradation are
generaily present in the ground water, however, the rate of biodegradation in ground water is generally
siower than in soil. This is because anaerobic processes occur more slowly than aerobic processes and
the amount of oxygen available (i.e. dissolved) in ground water is limited. Syracuse Research
Corporation (1989) predicted that degradation rates of ethylene glycol in ground water would be
approximately one-half of those e�ected in surface waters. Similarly, Kaplan et al. (1982) found 100
percent degradation of propylene glycol required nine days under anaerobic conditions compared to four �,,
days under aerobic conditions.
Dual Track Final EIS
A.7-1
�
As described, the MAC initiated an investigation in March 1994 to evaluate potential soil and ground
water impacts associated with the remote deicing location at Taxiway H/J. Elevated concentrations of
COD were measured in the ground water following the spring thaw. However, the concentrations
returned to spring season concentrations by the fail and to background leveis after the 1995 deicing
season when improvements were made in the pavement and other ground controls to more effectively
route runoff to the storm sewer plug location.
During studies conducted in 1985 and 1986, ground water in the perched and permanent water table at
Ottawa (Ontario) International Airport were also found to be impacted by ethylene and propylene glycol.
As at MSP, the contamination was found to be seasonai and localized, peaking after the spring meit and
dissipaiing to nondetectable levels by the fa(l (Transport Canada, 1987). Again, there was no evidence
of the impacts carrying over into sequentiai deicing season in Ottawa.
To summarize, because glycols do not bioaccumulate in organisms and are highiy biodegradable under
normal conditions in soil and water, they are, generaily considered to be nonpersistent in the
environment. Soii and/or ground water investigations conducted at both MSP and the Ottawa (Ontario)
InternationaV Airport have supported these findings.
Dual Track Finai EIS
A.7-2
A.8 HYDRAULIC AND NUTRIENT LOADING - MOTHER LAKE WATERSHED �
Backpround Discussion
Under current conditions, aircraft operating area (AOA) surfaces in the Mother Lake watershed drain to
Duck Lake. Discharge from Duck Lake to Mother Lake has never been observed to take place.
Currentiy, non-AOA impervious surfaces such as roadways and parking lot areas in the Mother Lake
watershed drain overiand to Mother Lake. Currently, approximately 65 acres of residential areas east of
Highway 77 and west of MSP drain to Mother Lake. This area wouid become part of the airport facility
with the LTCP 2010 Aiternative.
Under the LTCP 2010 Aiternative, Duck Lake would be fiiled to meet construction requirements
associated with the new North/South runway. Ali run-off from AOA impervious surfaces within the
current boundaries of the Mother Lake watershed would permanently drain south to the Minnesota River
South control and discharge system. Under the LTCP 2010 Alternative, a substantiai portion of what is
currently in the Mother Lake watershed wiii become part of the Minnesota River South watershed. The
only airport impervious areas which would drain to Mother �ake would be some limited roadway, parking
lot, and building surfaces (approximately 16 acres impervious, total). It is anticipated that none of these
impervious areas will be storm sewered. While a final determination wiil have to be made at a future
point through the appropriate permitting processes, it is not believed that a detention pond wili be
required for run-otf in the Mother Lake watershed under the �TCP 2010 Alternative.
2. Total Run-off Volumes and Totai Phosphorus Loadings
The analysis performed for this section utilized Pondnet, which is a camputer simulation model widely %�.
used to project hydraulic and nutrient loadings for development projects. The assumptions utilized for ��
and the modeled outcomes from the Pondnet analysis are presented below. �
Existing Conditions:
• 193 acres draining to Mother Lake (166 pervious, 27 impervious—includes current airport areas and
areas which wikl become part of the airport under the LTCP 2010 Alternative).
• Phosphorous loading rate of 0.17 mg/I (based upon historical MSP water quality monitoring data).
• Loading of approximately 33 Ibs phosphorous from MSP drainage to Mother Lake.
LTCP 2010 Alternative:
• 200 total airport acres draining to Mother Lake (184 pervious, 16 impenrious).
• Phosphorus loading rate of 0.17 mg/I (based upon historicai MSP water quality monitoring data).
• �oading of approximately 24 ibs phosphorous from MSP drainage to Mother Lake.
It can be seen that the LTCP 2010 Alternative is modeled to resuit in a decrease of phosphorous
loading from 33 –24 = 9 ibs. .
3. Floodplain Analysis
Backflow from the Minnehaha CreeWLake Nokomis flood storage defines worst case conditions in terms
of potential for flooding of the areas adjacent to Mother Lake. Backfiow from Minnehaha Creek/Lake
Nokomis during a 100-year ten-day run-off event wouid increase the elevation of Mother Lake, Taft
Dual Track Final EIS
A.8-1
Lake, and the unnamed wetland off of Highway 62 to an elevation of 819.0 (Flood Insurance Study for
City of Minneapolis).
Using EXTRAN and HEC1, computer simulation models, it is projected that run-off from the Mother
Lake watershed of the airport under the LTCP 2010 Alternative during a 100-year ten-day run-off event
would add a surcharge of 0.3 feet to the fiood elevation of Mother Lake, bringing the projected final
elevation during an extreme case run-off event for Mother �ake to 819.3. This assumes 100 percent
impervious (frozen) surface within the future Mother Lake watershed. At 819.3 feet for Mother Lake,
flooding would oniy effect property owned by the MAC.
Under the LTCP 20i 0 Alternative, the 100-year ten-day run-off event would produce a peak fiow rate for
cfrainage in the Mother Lake watershed of 152 cubic feet per second (CFS), based upon HEC1 analysis.
This assumes all drainage associated with the AOA areas within the current boundaries of the Mother
�ake being sent to the Minnesota River South system on a year-round basis.
Dual Track Finai EIS
A.8-2
A.9 CBOD LOADING AIVD ATTENUATION ANA�YSIS - MSP AND NO ACTION {.
ALTERtVATIVES
NOTE: See Appendix H.4 for information specific to MSP 2010 LTCP.
A. CBODS LOADING
1. Total Givcol Applied
The total amount of glycol applied in recent winters is presented below:
1993/94: 450,900 gallons
1994/95: 392,000 gallons
1995/96: 559,900 gallons
1996/97: 1,400,000 galions (estimated)
Data exists for usage during the 1992/93 winter. However, this data is not considered to be
representative, since this was the first winter after broad new FAA deicing rules went into
effect. In adjusting to the new rules, deicing crews were reportediy quite inefficient and
liberal in their procedures and volumes.
The average seasona! application for the four seasons identified above has been approximately
700,000 gallons. Fos an extreme case season, it was considered appropriate to use the
1996/97 usage (1,400,000 gallons) as a base.
The 1996/97 winter glycol usage was divided by the 1996 (annual) aircraft operations for the (
airport. Thus: •�
(1,400,000 gallons)/(485,400 operations) = 2.8842 qallons/annual operation
This unit value was scaled up to estimated 2020 usage for MSP using projected aircraft
operations for that year for MSP and No Action, respectively. Thus:
MSP Alternative:
(2.8842 gallons/operation)x(520,400 operations) = 1,500,900 qalions
No Action Aiternative:
(2.8842 galions/operation)x(473,500 operations) = 1,365,700 qallons
2. Amount of Glvcol Applied on Extreme Case Application Dav
From the 1993/94 deicing season through the 1996/97 deicing season, the greatest single
day of glycol application for the entire airport has been 69,800 gallons, on March 13, 1997.
The highest application days for the previous seasons are as follows:
1993/94: 39,080 gallons
1994/95: 45,700 gallons
1995/96: 49,200 gallons
Dual Track Final EIS
A.9-1
It is known that th
! mixed with freezing
13, 1997 applicatio
analysis.
e deicing conditions on March 13, 1997 were extremely severe (snow
rain over an extended period of time). It was decided to use the March
n figure as a basis for the extreme case glycol application event for this
The March 13, 1997 glycol application was divided by the annual number of operations for
1996. Thus:
(69,800 gallons)/(485,400 operations) = 0.1438 qallons per annual operations
This unit value was scaled up to estimated 2020 usage for MSP using projected aircraft
operations for that year for MSP and No Action, respectively. Thus:
MSP Alternative - 2020
(0.1438 gallons/operation) x(520,400 operations) = 74,800 qallons
No Action Alternative
(0.1438 gallons/operation) x(473,500 operations) = 68,100 qallons
3. "Blow-Bv" Percentaqe
"Biow-by" is defined as that glycol which escapes containment and isflows to the storm sewer
system.
Beginning in the 1993/94 winter season, the MAC initiated a glycol-impacted storm water (GISV�
containment program utilizing plug structures installed in existing storm sewers at aircraft deicing
locations. This program was cont�nue� and enhanced in the 1994/95 season. For 1993/94,
approximately 50 percent a� �eicing opeP�tions were contained with the piug structures, and in the
1994/95 season approximately 75 percent of deicing operations were contained with plug structures.
The blow-by for the GISW containment program at MSP, averaged over the 1993/94 and 1994/95
winter seasons, was approximately 22 percent.
Based upon data and information from glycol containment operations at MSP and upon analysis
performed in the Decision Report for Stc��tn Water Controi (Metropolitan Airports Commission,
December 1994) it is believed that the biow-by percentage wouid be reduced to 10 percent with a
system based upon the plug/pump approach. This reduction assumes that the performance of the
plug/pump strategy would be maximized as foliows:
• Piugged containment at all significant deicing locations at MSP;
• Optimizing aircraft positioning over the containment zones during aircraft deicing operations;
• Enhancing plugged containment with vacuum sweeper GISW coliection at prominent deicing
locations;
• A giycol-impacted snow containment/management program; and
• Continuous pumpout during severe deicing events.
For the MSP Alternative, a series of five dedicated aircraft deicing pads will be constructed (one for
each primary runway end used for take-offs). Based upon available information, dedicated deicing
pads represent the best available source control technology for containing spent aircraft deicing fluid
(ADF). Using information from airports around the world which use these pad facilities, it is
estimated that approximately 70 percent of the glycol applied on the MSP pad facilities wouid be
captured. For the MSP alternative, it is assumed that supplementai vacuum sweeping operations
Dual Track Final EIS
A.9-2
will be performed as-needed. It is assumed that this overall approach would decrease the blow-by !�
percentage, relative to that associated with the enhanced plug/pump approach discussed above, to
7.5 percent.
The containment approach assumed for the No Action Aiternative is as foilows:
• Plug/pump program maximized as discussed above with 100 percent containment coverage
of deicing areas, support vacuum sweeping operations, and glycol impacted snow
management/containment; and
o A dedicated deicing pad constructed at the 12L runway end.
Based upon deicing practices in recent winters and upon ground movement operational issues for
Northwest and non-Northwest carriers, it is assumed that, with this type of overall deicing control
configuration, approximately 20 percent of all glycol applied at MSP under the No Action Alternative
would be applied on the Runway 12L pad. The estimated blow-by for the extreme-case
glycol/CBOD day for No Action is, thus:
(0.8)x(0.1)+(0.2)x(0.075) = 0.095.
Under the MSP Aiternative, it is assumed that ali deicing locations would have containment. Most
seasonai deicing operations wouid be performed on the deicing pads, and all deicing during a fuli
frozen/freez�rrg precipitatron event would take place on these facilities. The estimated blow-by for the
extreme-case glycol/CBOD day for MSP is, thus, 0.075 (see above discussion of pad containment
performance).
4. CBOD Loadinq from Ground Surface Deicinq Chemicals
There is no known data from MSP or other airports regarding the percentage of CBOD applied as �
potassium acetate or sodium formate which actually enters the storm sewer system to be discharged
to receiving waters. For the purposes of this EIS analysis, information regarding the loading of totai
nitrogen from urea at MSP was used. It is assumed that sodium formate and potassium acetate
would load to the storm sewer system at approximately the same rate that urea historically has at
MSP.
The focus of this analysis is to project what the extreme case CBOD discharge to receiving waters
wouid be. For analytical purposes, it is assumed that the worst case loading of ground surface
deicing chemicais and associated effluents would take piace on the worst case glycoi application day
(aircraft deicing). Averaged over the 1993/94 and 1994/95 winter seasons, the discharge of total
nitrogen on the highest totat nitrogen discharge day was 1.43 percent of the seasonal nitrogen
application in the form of urea.
B. CBODS ATTENUATION FROM DETPONDS
The modeling assumed complete mixing of pollutants that were routed through each detention pond.
With complete mixing, the concentration of the pollutant in the detention pond is assumed to be
equal to the effluent concentration. The mass balance equation for an assumed well-mixed,
variable-volume pond is:
d(VC) = I(t) C'(t) - O(t) C(t) - K C(t) V(t) (1)
dt
where V= reservoir volume, ft3
C' = influent poilutant concentration, mg/I,
Dual Track Final EIS
A.9-3
' C= effluent and reservoir pollutant concentration, mg/I,
I = inflow rate, ft3/sec,
O = outflow rate, ft3/sec,
t = time, sec, and
K = decay coefficient, sec''.
Equation (1) is very difficuit to work with directiy;i it may be approximated by writing the mass
balar�ce equation for the pollutant over the interval, �t:
Change in Mass entering Mass leaving Decay
mass in basin = during ot - during ot - during �t
during Ot
C2VZ - C,V, _(C�, I� + C�, I,) Ot -(C O� + C,O,) �t -(K C V� + C,V,) ot (2)
—=-2 - -2 -2
�-- where subscripts 1 and 2 refer to the beginning and end of the time step, respectively.
The primary inputs and outputs associated with the modeling performed for this analysis are
presented in the tables below:
�i
MSP Alternative - 2020 Concept Plan
MRN SL' MRS
Pond Volume (gal) 7,429,000 3,251,000 6,325,000
Artecedent CBODS Concentration 250 75fl 360
�m9��?
influent Concentration CBODS (mg/I) 510 2,040 1,740
Influent Flow Rate (rngd) 5.09 0.63 1.48
Effluent Concentration CBODS (mg/V} 270 800 480
Effluent Flow Rate (mgd) 1.64 0.22 0.69
'Two ponds in series.
NOTE: MRN = Minnesota River North (Station 020), MRS = Minnesota River South (Station 040), SL = Sneiling Lake (5tation 030).
No Action Alternative
MRN SL' MRS
Pond Volume (gal) 7,066,000 3,276,000 6,166,000
Antecedent CBODS Concentration (mg/I) 450 120 390
Influent Concentration CBODS (mg/I) 980 400 1,940
Influent Flow Rate (mgd) 4.62 0.71 1.22
Effluent Concentration CBODS (mg/I) 500 135 510
Effluent Flow Rate (mgd) 1.53 0.28 0.59
'Two oonds in series.
Dual Track Final EIS
A.9-4
A.10 SURFACE WATER QUALITY MITIGATION MEASURES - MSP AND NO ACTION (
ALTERNATIVES
This appendix addresses control measures for MSP which are either in place, or which the MAC
intends to impiement in the future to meet anticipated Nationai Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit requirements.
Generai Loadinq (total suspended solids, oil and grease, and nitrogeNammonia)
Load Minimization--Structural Measures:
The primary source category of structural measures to be utilized to minimize the loading of oil and
grease effiuents into the storm water system is containment design at fuei storage/handling areas.
Ali such areas are required by state and federai law to have containment and management
procedures to control spilis or leaks which might occur. An inventory of existing fuei facilities and
associated containment systems can be found in the MSP Oil Spill Prevention, Control and
Countermeasure Plan (Metropolitan Airports Commission, June, 1993). The development of
additionai fueling facilities under either the MSP Aiternative or the No Action Alternative would include
containment and spill protection design to meet the appropriate regulatory requirements. Such
development would aiso be incorporated into MAC and carrier management plans as required by the
MPCA which minimize the potential for spills and provide for efficient spill response in the event that
spiils do occur.
Load Minimization--Operational Measures:
All entities which own fuei storage/handling facilities and/or perform fuei handling activities must (
generate Storm water Poilution Prevention Pians (SWPPPs) to meet NPDES permit requirements as �� -
enforced by the MPCA. These documents identify best management practices (BMPs) to be utilized
to minimize the potential for discharges from the regulated facilities to impact surface water quality.
Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plans (SPCCPs) not only document engineered
control measures, but response activities as well. The SPCCPs which have been generated by the
MAC and its tenants identify procedures to be utilized in the event of spiils to minimize the amount of
product escaping containment and potentially impacting surface or groundwater resources.
An operational measure which is currently used to minimize the loading of solids into the storrn water
system is regular sweeping with mechanical sweepers to remove sand and grit from ground surfaces
before they can be washed into storm water intakes. The intensity of sweeping operations is
increased after snow events during which significant amounts of sand are used for ground surface
snow/ice control.
The primary source of ammonia loading to the MSP storm water system is urea, which is currently
the primary ground surface deicing agent used by the MAC. it is anticipated that, pending successful
�eid trials with aiternative products which do not have nitrogen content (sodium formate, potassium
acetate, and potentially sodium acetate), and the ability to address product storage/handiing issues, it
is anticipated that urea will be eliminated from use at MSP long before 2020.
Storm water DiversioNTreatment--Structural:
_. __ __ _ __ �\�..
Duai Track Final EIS
A.10-1
`; The primary type of structural approach to treat storm water once it has entered and passed through
the conveyance portion of the storm system is the use of detention basins to remove suspended
solids and floating oil and grease. The MAC intends to enhance existing storm water control facilities
at MSP to meet Detpond wet detention standards, regardiess of the ultimate development outcome
f�r the facility. Oil and grease removal measures (floating absorbent booms) are currently deployed
at all existing MSP detention ponds. The enhanced detention ponds should improve the
performance of these measures.
Storm water DiversioNTreatment--Operational Measures:
Floating absorbent booms are currently used as an end-of-system measure in each of the four
drainage areas to remove oii and grease contaminants from surface water run-off. These booms
contain and absorb petrochemical residuals which may float on the surface of the detention ponds,
and are inspected and cleaned/replaced regulariy. Booms wiil continue to be used regardiess of the
uitimate development outcome for MSP. This overall approach could potentially be enhanced by
utilizing a mechanical fuei recovery system which is similar in general concept to the existing boom
system, but could result in higher capture because of continuous circulation and cieaning of the
absorbent element.
Aircraft Deicing Fluid Loadinq
Load Minimization--Structural Measures:
Since the 1993/94 winter seasan, the MAC has utilized plug structures at aircraft deicing locations
within existing storm sewers to cantain glycol product. The glycol-impacted storm water (GISW)
, which is diverted with this system is currentiy either processed on-site for glycol recycling, or is
,� conveyed to the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) sanitary system for treatment.
Under the MSP Alternative, the plug/pump approach would be replaced with the use of end-of-
runway dedicated aircraft deicing areas ("pads") with underdrainage which is segregated from other
storm water drainage. Materiai contained on the pad facilities would be conveyed to on-site
processing (high gfycot concentration material), or treatment(low glycol concentration material).
The structural containment approach assumed for No Action is: a) development and use of a
dedicated deicing pad servicing the 12L runway end, and b) the existing piUgl�vmp systerr� at ail
other aircraft deicing locations.
Load Minimization--Operational Measures:
Vacuum sweeper glycol coilection trucks have been successfully utilized at other airports around the
worid. These units could be used as a measure to enhance the containment performance
associated with the plug/pump approach or, less significantly, the dedicated deicing pad approach.
`
Dual Track Final EIS
A.10-2
A.11 POTENTIAL RESIDUAL GLYCOL-IMPACTED STORM WATER MANAGEMENT �
MEASURES
Discussion:
Even with a full at-source control program for spent glycol materials, some GISW wili escape
containment and be discharged at storm water outfalis. The primary issues with such discharge are:
a) the CBOD load which it can exert on receiving waters, and b) potential aquatic toxiciry factors
associated with additives, such as corrosion inhibitors and surfactants, to aircraft deicing products
(ADF)
If storm water discharge from MSP were determined to consume too great a percentage of the
available dissoived oxygen of a receiving body of water, oxygen augmentation could be
implemented. Oxygen augmentation wouid include effluent aerat�on, direct aeration, or a
combination of the two. Effluent aeration could be accomplished by incorporating hydraulic
structures (e.g, steps or cascades) into the discharge structure to promote natural reaeration, or by
introducing pure o>rygen in an enclosed pipe to supersaturate the effluent. Direct aeration could be
accomplished with mechanical aerators or diffused aerators installed within the river or by aeration of
a sidestream.
On-site treatment of residual GISW is not considered to be viabie at MSP. Because of the existing
configuration of the storm sewer drainage system at the airport, treatment of glycol escaping
containment at the source wouid necessitate the treatment of ail storm water generated on the
facility between the months of approximately November through May. Since limited pond treatment
could take place during the winter and spring months due to cold water temperatures, using
detention ponds for treatment purposes wouid require the storage of all of this run-off until water {�
temperatures increased sufficiently to allow significant biological activity. ''�
Storm water run-off data from MSP over the past three deicing seasons, as reported in Discharge
Monitoring Reports (DMRs) submitted monthly to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, indicates
that between 300 and 350 miilion galions of run-off would be expected between November and May
under the No Action Alternative. With the new hard surfaced areas associated with the MSP
Alternative, the surface uvater gene�ated wouid be significantly greater than under the No Action
Alternative. To store these types of volumes, approximately 1,000 acre-feet of pond storage would
have to be developed. Spatial limitations at the airport would not allow this type of development. As
a scale of reference, the facility-wide capacity of the detention ponds assumed to meet NURP design
standards for the MSP Alternative is approximately 60 acre-feet; this approaches the limits of space
useable for storm water detention.
Utilizing an on-site treatment facility or facilities to treat residual GISW would involve two severe
design constraints:
cold water temperatures during glycoi usage and discharge months; and
highly variable hydraulic flow and organic load of the storm water to be treated.
With an on-site treatment facility or facilities, either the storm water would have to be heated prior to
being introduced to the facility (ies), or all of the storm water would have to be stored untii mid to late
spring, when weather conditions would sufficientiy raise the temperature of the stored material.
Thus, if the system were operated without pre-heating the storm water, the storage requirements
would be similar to those associated the in-pond treatment approach addressed above.
i
Dual Track Final EIS
A.11-1
The approach of pre-heating ail storm water prior to being introduced to an on-site treatment facility
! or facilities would involve very high capital and operating costs. However, the true limiting factor
would still be the need for storage. Because of the highly variable flow and organic loads invoived, it
is estimated that 30 days of storage would be required for equalization/buffer purposes. In the spring
months during snowmelt events, this would translate into a storage requirement of between 100 and
125 million gallons, based upon historical data. This, in turn would mean approximately 350 acre-
feet of developed pond storage. There is not enough space at the MSP facility to accommodate this
magnitude of pond development.
''
Diverting all MSP storm water during critical periods of high CBOD leveis to the MCES Metro
treatment plant has been considered. Under certain conditions, this option might be viable for
impiementation. It would require major capital expenditures and development actions. The MCES,
formerly the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC) has indicated in the past that the
approach of diverting GISW from MSP detention basins for treatment at the Metro plant would be
unacceptabie. The primary reasons sited were that this approach would: a) utilize an excessive
portion of the reserve capacity for organics at the Metro Plant, and b) wouid exceed the hydraulic
capacity of the MCES/MWCC interceptor system. In addition, MCES has previously indicated an
opposition to this approach from the policy perspective that the Metro Plant (or any other MCES
treatment piant) is not to treat general (not segregated and/or not pre-treated) storm water run-off. If,
in the future, MCES had cause to reassess its position on these general issues, the approach of
diverting from MSP detention ponds to off-site treatment could potentially be considered.
It is possibfe that the MAC and the MPCA, through the NPDES permitting process, would
negotiate point-nonpaint effluent trade credits. Under this approach, best management
practices would be utilized to reduce nonpoint source poliution upstream of MSP surface
water discharges. This approach is sometimes used when comparable benefits to tl�e water
quality of the receiving water can be achieved more efficiently at a location or locations other
than at the facility itseif.
Summarv:
Three measures discussed in this appendix are, under certain conditions, potentially viabie for
irx�plementation at M�P:
oxygen augmentation;
diversion of ali MSP storm water to the Metro Disposal System during critical months; and
point/non-point effluent trade credits (upstream control measures).
.One of those approaches could be implemented under a future NPDES permitting process under a
combination of the following conditions, or if otherwise determined by the MAC:
1. Future water quality analysis indicates that a resigual glycol-impacted storm water measure
may be necessary.
2. The measure identified is deemed necessary and appropriate through substantive review and
the administrative procedures assaciat�d with the NPDES permitting process.
Dual Track Final EIS
A.1 1-2
A.12 NOISE ANALYSIS - MINNESOTA VALLEY NATIONA� WILDLIFE REFUGE ('
Appendix A.12 presents the results of an analysis by MAC in conjunction with FAA of existing ambient noise
in the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge (MVNWR) and the increase in noise from the Proposed
Action.
in order to determine existing ambient noise levels, continuous monitoring was performed at eight sites
(shown in Figure FF-5); the sites were agreed to by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), FAA and MAC.
However, Site 8(as shown) was monitored further east and closer to TH 77 than agreed on because of
access restrictions due to flooding, and therefore may not be representative of ambient noise levels in the
eastern portion of the Black Dog �ake Unit. The monitoring was performed over a 7-day period from 1:00
p.m., June 3, through 12:00 p.m. June 8, 1997 (Monday through Sunday) -- a total of 155 hours. The
following data was collected:
• hourly Leq
• peak Sound E�osure Leveis (SEL's)
• Time Above 65 dBA (TA 65)
The average ambient DNL was calculated for each site based on the hourly �eq's by applying a 10 dBA
penalty to the hourly Leq's recorded between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. However, the more appropriate noise
metric far determining potential effects on wildlife recreation is the average daytime Leq -- since these
activities occur during daylight hours. It was agreed that 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. wouid be used as the average
daylight for the year, and the Leq's, SE�'s and TA 65's would be determined from these hours. Six fuli days
(144 hours) of monitoring data were therefore availabie for the analysis. ��
t
Summary of Results
The foliowing is a summary of the noise analysis based on a comparison of the noise levels from the
Proposed Action in 2005 with 1997 monitored noise leveis:
1. The Proposed Action wouid not have a perceptibie noise increase� in the Black Dog Lake Unit, as
represented by Monitoring Sites 6, 7 and 8.
2. The Proposed Action would not have a perceptibie noise effect in the extreme southwestern portion of
the Long Meadow Lake Unit, as represented by Site 1.
3. The Proposed Action would have a perceptible noise increase in the central portion of the Long Meadow
Lake Unit, as represented by Sites 2, 3 and 4. However, Site 4 in the future wiii have noise e�osure
almost identical with what currently exists at Site 5(�eq, TA 65, SEL and DN�).
4. The Proposed Action wouid not have a perceptible noise increase in the extreme northeastern portion of
the Long Meadow Lake Unit, as represented by Site 5.
Environmental Setting
in addition to p�oviding convenient access to the residents of the Twin Cities, the location of the MVNWR
significantiy affects background noise levels. The MVNWR is located near the urban core of the Twin Cities
region and is adjacent to the region's major air carrier airport as well as to significant rail and road
transportation corridors. These transportation facilities existed at the establishment of the refuge and have
always affected the noise environment. When the refuge was established in 1977, aircraft noise levels were
' A perceptible chanbe in sound is �enerally considered to be 3 dBA.
Dual Track Final EIS
A.12-1
substantialiy higher than they are at present. A prediction of noise from actual 1977 activity at Minneapolis-St.
Paul international Airport (MSP) was performed in 1978 (Metropolitan Noisemap Project, Technical Report of
' � the Technical Advisory Committee's Aviation Subcommittee, December 1978). Figure FF-7 shows the 1977
and 1994 DNL 65 noise contours in the vicinity of the MVNWR. In 1977 the central portion of the refuge
(Sites 3 and 4) was subject to frequent overflights by aircraft departing on Runway 22. Although DNL 60
contours were not calculated for 1977, Sites 3, 4 and 5 surely had noise leveis greater than DNL 60 -- based
on their locations with respect to the DNL 65 contour.
Noise Analysis
The equivalent sound {evel for the i4-hour period during which activities occur {Leq 14) is the primary noise
analysis metric. Peak singie event noise levels during this 14hour period are expressed using the SEL
metric which accounts for the e�ected annoyance of a noise event. The amount of time that sound levels
exceed 65 decibels (dBA) during this period is also provided. The Leq, SEL and TA metrics are expiained in
Appendix A.3 of the FEIS.
The attached summary tabies (A.12-1, 2, 3 and 4) compare the caiculated noise effects of the Proposed
Action in the year 2005 under the high and base forecast scenarios and the No Action Aiternative with the
actual noise levels monitored in June of 1997 for the 8 sites in the MVNWR. The foilowing narrative
summarizes the findings of each analysis.
1. Equivalent Noise Level (Leq14) Analysis
This analysis provides the average noise exposure from ail events during the 14-hour period. Leq is
appropriate for assessing the likely effect of the Proposed Action on visitor annoyance in comparison with
existing conditions. The monitored Leq,4 shows ambient noise leveis which include aircraft noise. Ambient
average daytime noise levels monitored in the MVNWR range from 48 to 64 dBA, as shown in Table A.12-1
(tables foilow the end of the text of this appendix). This range encompasses noise levels typically
�� encountered in suburban residential to noisy urban residential areas. These comparatively high monitored
levels reflect the MVNWR's close proximity to a major air carrier airport and the urban center of the Twin
Cities region. In fact, when the refuge was established in 1977, aircraft noise levels were subs#antially higher
in the refuge than they are at present (see Figure FF-7).
� j
Comparison of monitored and forecast noise levels provides an indication of the contribution of aircraft to
ambient leveis and the potential effects of the proposed action. Aircraft noise will continue to affect MVNWR
differently at different locations. Analysis of Tabie A.12-1 indicates the foliowing:
Northeast Portion of the MVNWR (Site 5). At Site 5, the Proposed Action would be 9 dBA less than
the ambient noise levei.
Central Portion of the MVNWR (Sites 3, 4 and 8). At Sites 3 and 4, the Proposed Action wouid be 7 to
8 dBA above existing ambient noise levels. and 2 dBA higher at Site 8. A 3 dBA difference is generaily
considered to be perceptible; therefore, there wouid be a perceived increase in noise at Sites 3 and 4, but
not at Site 8.
Southwest Portion of the MVNWR (Sites 1, 2, 6 and 7). At Sites 1, 6& 7, the Proposed Action would
have little effect on ambient noise levels. At Site 1, the high aviation forecast scenario for the year 2005
would increase the aircraft �eq by 2 dBA above the current monitored levels -- which is not perceptible.
At Sites 6 and 7 the forecast aviation noise leveis would be less than the current ambient levels. There
would be a perceived increase in naise at Site 2, which would have an increase of 9 dBA.
2. Time Above (TA) Analysis
The TA analysis is most appropriate for assessing the amount of time that noise may interfere with specific
activities. For most purposes, speech communication is the activity most likely to be disrupted. For guided
tours or lectures at the MVNWR, outdoor speech interference is the most important consideration. Research
Dual Track Finai EIS
A.12-2
(
conducted by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'- indicates that normal speech
communication can occur at talker-to-listener distances of 5 feet at noise leveis of 65 dBA. At this noise level,
communication at distances of up to 30 feet are possible with increased effort. Accordingiy, the TA analysis
compares the amount of time that noise levels would exceed 65 dBA. Analysis of Table A.12-2 indicates the
foilowing :
Northeast End of the MVNWR (Site 5). At Site 5, monitoring data indicates that noise levels exceed 65
dBA (TA 65) for 58.5 minutes per day on average, or about 7% of the 14-hour period. This data
indicates that aircraft noise is not the primary source of noise exposure in this area. Since the TA 65 for
the Proposed Action is about 46 minutes less than ambient and about 1 minute less than No Action, this
area would likely continue to experience noise levels above 65 dBA for roughly 58 minutes during the
day.
Central Portion of the MVNWR (Sites 3, 4& 8). At Sites 3, 4& 8, monitoring data indicates that noise
levels exceed 65 dBA from 0 to 2 minutes per day. The Proposed Action would increase the TA 65 to
between 33 and 55 minutes per day; consequently, this area would e�erience noise levels above 65
dBA for 4% to 7% of the 14-hour period. Site 8 has an existing TA 65 of less than one minute per day;
under the Proposed Action, the TA 65 could increase to approximately 42 minutes per day, or 5% of the
14-hour period.
Southwest End of the MVNWR (Sites 1, 2, 6& 7). At Sites 1& 2, monitoring data indicates that noise
levels exceed 65 dBA for less than 1 minute per day; the Proposed Action wouid increase the TA 65 by
about 12 and 18 minutes per day, respectively. At Site 6 the TA 65 would increase less than 3 minutes
per day from the Proposed Action. Site 7 has an existing TA 65 of roughly 15 minutes per day; under the
Proposed Action the TA 65 is expected to decrease to about 9 minutes per day.
3. Peak Sound Exposure Level (SEL) Analysis
Peak SEL shows the noise "dose" from all events during the daytime period. This metric describes the �, ,
relative annoyance of individual noise events by considering both the intensity and duration of the event. The
monitored SEL values shown in Table A.12-3 represent an average of the daily peak SELs monitored.
Analysis of Tabie A.12-3 indicates the foliowing:
Northeast Portion of the MVNWR (Site 5). At Site 5, the monitored peak SE� was substantialiy higher
than what would be expected from aircraft arriving and departing on Runway 12R-30L, indicating that
non-aircraft noise sources are dominant in this area. Under the Proposed Action, peak aircraft SEL
would be about 18 dBA below monitored peak SELs in this area.
Central Portion of the MVNWR (Sites 3, 4& 8). At Sites 3 and 4 the Proposed Action peak aircraft
SEL would be 11 and 20 dBA higher, respectively, than monitored peak SELs in this area: At Site 8 the
Proposed Action would be 6 dBA higher than ambient. A 10 dBA increase would generally be perceived
as a doubiing of noise.
Southwest Portion of the MVNWR (Sites 1, 2, 6& 7). At Sites 1& 2, the Proposed Action peak
aircraft SEL would be from 14 to 19 dBA higher than monitored peak SEI.s. At Sites 1 and 2, the
monitored peak SELs were approximately 78 dBA. The monitored levels are less than what wouid be
expected from current aircraft operations since they are less than the peak aircraft SEL calculated for the
No Action Alternative. This difference could be due to differences in aircraft activity during the monitoring
period, or to site specific factors such as shielding.
At Site 6, the monitored peak SEL was sufficientiy higher (10 dBA) than the Proposed Action peak aircraft
SEL to indicate that non-aircraft noise sources might be dominant at this location. At Site 7 the monitored
peak SEL is 4 dBA higher than the Proposed Action. As previously noted, a 3 dBA difference is generaily
considered to be perceptible, while a 10 dBA increase would be perceived as a doubling of noise.
2lnformation on Levels of Environmentai Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin
of Safety, Office of Noise Abatement and Control, March 1974. •
Dual Track Final EIS
A.12-3
� 4. Day Night Noise Level (DNL)
DNL shows the average noise exposure from all events during a 24-hour period with a penalty for events
occurring between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. This metric is appropriate for assessing the likely effect of the
Proposed Action on community annoyance. DNL is the primary means of assessing noise impact on most
land uses, especially those involving 24 hours-a-day use. The monitored DN� shows ambient noise levels
which may include aircraft noise. Ambient noise monitored in the MVNWR ranges from DNL 52 to 65. This
range is typical of suburban residential to noisy urban residential areas. Comparison of monitored and
forecast noise levels provides an indication of the contribution of aircraft from the Proposed Action to ambient
levels. A 3 dBA change in DNL is generally considered to be perceptible. Analysis of Table A.12-4 indicates
the foliowing:
• Northeast Portion of the MVNWR (Site 5). At Site 5, the Proposed Action would have little effect on
the ambient noise level -- since the increase is about 2 dBA. At this site, non-aircraft noise wouid
continue to be a major factor affecting the DNL.
e Central Portion of the MVNWR (Sites 3, 4& 8). At Sites 3 and 4, the Proposed Action would increase
the DNL by 5 to 7 dBA above ambient noise levels. At Si#e 8 the DNL would decrease by 2 dBA due to
the Proposed Action
• Southwest Portion of the MVNWR (Sites 1, 2, 6& 7). At Site 1, the Proposed Action would have no
perceptible effect on the ambient DNL noise levei since the increase is about 2 dBA. At Sites 6 and 7,
the Proposed Action DNL would be less than ambient DNL noise leveis -- by 11 and 6 dBA, respectively.
Site 2 would experience an increase of 7 dBA due to the Proposed Action.
5. Conclusion
in attempting to determine the overall area that could have a perceptible increase over ambient, it was
concluded by MAC that the 2005 DNL 57 contour provides a boundary that gives a conservatively high
estimate of the size of the area, as shown in Figure FF-6.
Site
3
4
5
6
7
8
Tabie A.12-1 - Average Daytime Leq in dBA
6:00 a.m. to 8:00 .m.)
1997 2005 Nigh 2005 Base 2005 No Action
Monitored INM INM INM
53
48
54
56
64
59
53
59
55
57
61
64
55
50
52
61
54
57
60
63
54
49
52
61
Duai Track Finai EIS
A.12-4
47
45
39
40
55
44
47
38
Tabie A.12-2 - Time Above 65 dBA'
in minutes between 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 .m.
1997 2005 High 2005 Base 2005 No Action
Site Monitored INM INM INM
1 0.2 12.6 11.4 3.0
2 0.1 18.1 16.5 1.2
3 1.9 35.0 31.9 0.0
4 0.1 55.2 49.8 0.0
5 58.5 11.9 10.7 13.3
6 1.7 4.4 4.0 1.0
7 1 4.8 8.7 7.9 3.2
8 0.5 41.5 36.6 0.0
TA 65 values are averages of fhe 14-hr. monitoring periods over 6 days
Site
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Table A.12-3 - Peak Daytime SEL dBA
6:00 a.m. to 8:00 .m.)
1997 2005 High 2005 Base
Monitored INM INM
80.1 94.3 94.3
79.8 98.4 98.4
90.0 101.1 101.1
82.7 102.6 102.6
106.5 88.6 88.6
97.5 87.3 87.3
92.2 88.3 88.3
93.4 99.5 99.5
Table A.12-4 - DNL Noise Leveis
2005 No Action
INM
92.4
91.4
79.8
76.5
86.0
83.5
90.2
75.9
1997 2005 Nigh 2005 Base 2005 No Action
Site Monitored INM INM INM
1 54 56 56 51
2 52 59 58 49
3 57 62 62 42
4 58 65 65 43
5 65 57 56 57
6 62 51 51 46
7 60 54 53 50
8 65 63 62 40
Note: INM version 5.1 a was used to obtain the values in Tabies A.12-1 through A.12-4.
Dual Track Final EIS
A.12-5
' A.13 AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY
Potential air quality impacts from construction include fugitive dust associated with demolition and
construction, fugitive dust along haul routes, exhaust and machinery-related emissions from
construction equipment and haul vehicles on the site and along haul routes, and potential vehicular
congestion in the vicinity of construction sites and on haul routes.
Large amounts of material transport will be required primarily for construction of airfield facilities and
roadways. While the construction cost of terminal and other facilities are significantly greater than
basic airport infrastructure facilities, they are more labor-, technology- and equipment-intensive and
require less movement of construction vehicles on area roadways.
The primary construction categories evaluated for MSP under the Dual Track analysis (exclusive of
property acquisition) are:
Airfield const�uction (major movement of bulk materials)
• Tunnels -
• Runways and taxiways
Terminal construction
• Terminal buildings and related structures
• People mover system and stations
• Central Piant
• Parking costs
• Aprons and taxiways (some movement of bulk materiais)
Roadway construction
• TH 62 and TH 77 reconstruction and connections
Other Facility construction
• Airline maintenance
• Air cargo
• General aviation
• Airport administration and maintenance
• Fuel facilities
o Air mail facility
• Fiight kitchen
• Rental car service facilities
• Airport rescue and firefighting stations
• FAA facilities
Utility construction
• Discharge pipeline
The information on materiai movement requirements is based upon information provided by Robert
Boyer of Toltz King Duvall Anderson, engineers for the Runway 4-22 extension completed in 1996.
Aggregate and embankment fill material are the major bulk items transported onto MSP from other
areas. A large amount of fill and recycled materials are still available on airport property from previous
construction projects. In 1995 as part of the Runway 4-22 project 200,000 yards of fill were
transported onto the airport. At 75 pounds per cubic foot, this is equivalent to 20,000 tons of fill
material. At 10 cubic yards of material per truck, this is equivalent to 20,000 truckloads over a several
`� ' month period. This amount of traffic does not appear to have affected traffic flow around the airport.
Dual Track Final EIS
A.13-1
Most of the trucks have entered airport property from I-494 at 24th Avenue aithough some have r/�
departed northbound on the slip ramp to TH 77. \�
Annual expenditures for the 4-22 project were $11 million. The proposed maximum annuai
expenditure for airfield projects (tunnel, runways and taxiways) is S47 million. Conservatively
assuming a four-fold increase in truck requirements, it is estimated that as much as 800,000 cubic
yards might be moved in one year. This would be equivalent to 80,000 truck loads during the
construction season. Assuming the season lasted only six months, this would mean about 13,000
trucks per month. Assuming 20 working days per month, this would mean 660 trucks per day in and
660 trucks out. If evenly distributed over a 10 ho�r day, this would mean 66 trucks per hour;
although peaks may be higher. Therefore, trucks carrying aggregate and fiil material are not likely to
have a significant impact on traffic in the airport area
Estimates of both on-airport and off-airport truck emissions have been made using emission factors for
Heavy Duty Diesel Trucks from the US EPA Mobile 5A emissions model. The year 2003 has been
selected to reflect maximum construction activity on the airport. Estimates of CO, NOx, HC and PM
emissions have been made. No emission factor information is available for SOx. Estimated annual
emissions from haul trucks are presented in Table A.13-1.
TABLE A.13-1 Estimated Annual CO Emissions from Haul Truck Activity in 2003
(assuming 800,000 truckloads per year)
Location Distance Avg Speed CO Number of CO CO
(miles) (mph) . (g/mi) trucks (grams) (tons)
On-Airport 3 10 20.4 80,000 4992000 5.4
Off-Airport 30 40 5.7 80,000 13920000 15.0
Source: David Braslau Assoc.
Other Carbon Monoxide emissions will be associated with employee trips to and from the construction
site. It is assumed that all employees drive light duty gasoline trucks and that the average daily off-
airport round trip is 30 miles over a six month construction period or 156 days. An average off-airport
speed of 30 mph is assumed for which the 2003 emission factor is 19.7 grams per mile. For on-
airport emissions an average round trip of 2 miles and an average speed of 20 mph has been assumed
for which the 2003 emission factor is 30.1 grams per mile. Estimated Carbon Monoxide emissions in
tons per year are presented in Table A.13-2 for a range of employees.
Table A.13-2 Estimated Off-Airport CO Emissions from Construction Employee Travel
(tons per yearj
p y __ _-Airport Off-Airport
Em lo ees On
-_. oo_.._._ ..._._....-__._1;_.. _._
1 10
200 2 20
300 3 30
Source: David Braslau Assocs.
On-airport pollutant emissions from construction equipment have been estimated in two ways. The
first is based upon emission factors provided by the US EPA National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions
Laboratory which are the most recent data available. The second is based upon a methodology
developed by the Sacramento (California) Metropolitan Air Quality Management District. Since the t,"
latter methodology does not address Carbon Monoxide emissions, which is the most critical pollutant \
Dual Track Final EIS
A.13-2
i' �'}
for this study, US EPA emission factors were used in conjunction with the Sacramento emission
factors to estimate Carbon Monoxide emissions. Both of these methods have been used to ensure
the most conservative estimates of construction emissions.
Assuming that all types of construction equipment will be used for improvements on MSP, annual
emissions estimated from US EPA emission factors are presented in Table A.13-3. These emissions
are based upon average load factors and estimated annual hours of usage and typical engine
horsepower ranging from 200 to 500 hp.
Table A.13-3 Annual Emissions by All Types of Construction Equipment
(tons per year)
EQUIPMENT TYPE CO NOx ExHC PM
Grane 0�.32 0.79 0.10 0.11
Excaaator 0.84 1.74 0.11 0.23
Scraper 1.09 1.89 0.15 0.27
Grader 0.63 1.59 0.25 0.17
Crawler pozer 1.27 2.72 0.33 0.29
Rubber Tired Loader 0.55 1.17 0.10 0.15
Skid Steer 1.34 1.43 0.31 0.21
Roller 0.28 0.85 0.07 0.07
Off Highway Truck 0.87 �,97 0.26 0.25
Trerccher 0.90 0.98 0.15 0.14
Tractor/Loader/Backt�oe 1.40 2.08 0.29 0.22
Off Highway Tractor 2.70 2.19 0.45 0.37
Total All Equipment 12.19 20.40 2.58 2.49
Source: David Braslau Assoc.
Construction emissions have also be estimated from a methodology included in a publication by the
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Q�sality Management B�strict entitled Air Quality Thresholds of
Significance (1994). Esti�iates are made for grading es��ssions (including equipment and fugitive
dust>, employee tr�ps, asphaft paving, stationary and mobile equipment and architectural coatings.
Employee trip emissions have been estimated above. Only HC emissions are estimated from asphalt
paving. Other emissions are small relative to those associated with grading. Therefore, grading
equipment emissions have been used for the evaluation of on-airport emissions since this is the largest
source of emissions likely to be associated runway construction and other airport improvement
projects.
The Sacramento methodology is based upon the number of acres per day over which grading takes
place. The emissions assume one grader, one wheeled loader and one tracked loader/grader per 10
acres. From Table A.13-3, it can be seen that these have some of the highest CO emissions which
are of greatest interest in this analysis, Equipment is assumed to be diesel-powered and operating _
six hours per day. A six-month constsuction season of 156 working days is assumed. Dust (or
fugitive particulate emissions) are calculated separately. For purposes of comparison, annual emissions
have been estimated for areas ranging from 5 to 50 acres on any given day. The emission factors
developed can be applied to an area of up to 50 acres. The results of this analysis are presented in
Tabie A.13-4.
Dual Track Final EIS
A.13-3
Tabie A.13-4 Construction Emissions based upon Sacramento Methodology r�'"
(tons per year? '
Acres per day CO NOx ExHC PM DUST
5 0.38 0.62 0.10 0.11 23.67
10 0.75 1.25 0.20 0.22 47.35
15 1.13 1.87 0.29 0.33 71.02
20 1.51 2.50 0.39 0.44 94.69
25 1.89 3.12 0.49 0.55 118.37
30 2.26 3.74 0.59 0.66 142.04
35 2.64 4.37 0.68 0.76 165.71
40 3.02 4.99 0.7$ 0.87 189.38
45 3.39 5.62 0.88 0.98 213.06
50 3.77 6.24 0.98 1.09 236.73
Source: David Braslau Assoc.
From Table A.13-4, the highest level of CO emissions permissible under the Sacramento methodology
is 3.77 tons per year for a 50 acre/day construction area. From Table A.13-3, a total of 12.19 tons
per year is estimated, assuming on piece of each type of construction equipment is used throughout
the year with average load factor and utilization. If more than three pieces of equipment are used per
10 acres as assurrzed in the Sacramento methodology, a value somewhere between these two
emission ievels can be expected. For purposes of the general conformity analysis for on-airport
Carbon Monoxide emissions, the maximum emission value from construction equipment of 12 tons
per year will be assumed.
�, .
Total Carbon Monoxide emissions from on-airport construction activity are summarized in Table A.13- �
5.
Table A.13-5 On-Airport Construction Activity Carbon Monoxide Emissions in 2003
Source Tons per Year
Construction Equipment � 12
On-Airport Truck Trips 5
On-Airport Employee Trips 3
TOTAL 20
Construction emissions are estimated to be below the 100 tons per year de minimis level. Therefore,
the construction activity at MSP will be in conformity with the Clean Air Act Amendments.
Dual Track Final EIS
A.13-4
� A.14 STATE OF MINNESOTA DUAL TRACK P�ANNING PROCESS LEGISLATION
�
Dual Track Final EIS
A.14-1
o�
r�
N
.L:
U
M
O�
O
N
O�
0
O�
�
O�
C�
E-
�
W
z
z
�
0
3
Q
a
' c°� o �� �
L
0
° yai� c 'v �,,,
� o� � �I'R
�a n� =I � cI
y�j � C �
.y.
� � o
„�I �,�j O CI �
C O� t„ s�vj
O�.yDI C etl y
oba�E�
� � m1 �I
` 3I � `°'`°�
sl,� ai c� �
v1 a+l � !'+I .�'
N «
� e %� c��y
� .�I U
V R C CI �
� y
�I.>�°�
��
��o�e��
� �I ���
•� w �� �I N
� �I �I G �� �I
� V1 V � I ,^,� i�.
�3 '� NI OI � '•�'
y
aa�� °�E �I�
� y
�1 � �I � ~ �I
v ;G
E C I T� � tOI
C � �
�
o�o F m
m y,
V T �
N � N
.� � U
�,U �
.� � a
w a c.,
c.. o
C � C �;
O s� � a.
C �p
ea O � _.
a �y a c
•� ' � �
no � '� i�
X � � y
.'�.+
� �
v
Ci�.a �
iyoc�°,°
xo>°�'
� ._ o ��
a,o °'�
3 > � c
_ � w.�
=° � n7 co
:a .� � �
c °n. �,o
� �'ti c
y � c� •
e, � E �
t.�„ �y U
v
t� :o 'ir` .i'.
C v y �,�„
°,�Eo
�• r�
s � a �
v
> t=i,� � C
Oi
�
o�
M
N
T
t�1
�
�
O
e��i
b�A
a�
�
0
�
�
�
G
�
L
ti,
�c
a
00
a+
�i
N
�
�
�
0
�
�
o�o
�
w
>,
�
�
U
�
00
�/:
.��-I �) �� o
° 0 3I'ml
0
•� L LLi L
��+' � � I C7
G � y �
� s o � b
�
'� � 4i ��.a�
� �I � �I
p C
� �I C �
m C
y a% dl �
„ > y � o
��� o o�„
�'n y •� T: �r
.3I � � A °U'
�"�' c°-'lo
�.
� � �I � ��
o ��`'
U G � d wI
� � � �I
: �
�o• ��
� U
O � y) � ;ti
Q1
� = «y�.
•C O
�� O' O
� 'C � c� 6�
V � y��,�� � �
�.O �-1 V rJ
� � — �I
�
Q.1�•� y �I�yI
'V .0�...
�
C
V � «+
� � � V
`� U � I 4�
:3' -�^ --
�
�
M
z
Gr.
(
n
N
i
�
Q'
U
'N � � � � �I
° oI'S E 'o �
��
a
� C C U O
l0 � FI •� DI � .�
� � U TJ .CI G
N
� �I Q •� �I � V
.N. L+ y N t� Q
= ,o�� 'b �G a .�
�- o
d vf � t 9l � V V
�I � � o �I'�
� �' v .'�.� O
�I�� � � c�dl O �t�i
o �,� �a�
c° • y a� .� e
� •� � � �I V G 0
� dc �r
� � h �I C �
NI G� G'u O O
� p � C
1 �� 0 �� � y
� O O� O y'G �
O_wI� i�U
�� �� �� � ���i � o
�
� •O « y � �I � �I
� .
a � O 4pI �I� � CN
��'" 0 y_' y I� S�„
V � � ^� CI O) � �
� V E O[� � y.0 V1
� `�
~ � tyq � 1�.� � �
� C I V V RT � [
� .5� �I c�a w a�
� �.�^ ��
� �Iw� �I O � v �
O e�
..1 4.� N
C � � ry
� o �o
fi � � n
,�V fi C ?
C
� k O O ^
a•
'tl o ° o :
� �
�.y �.� �
.a F p � v
� V V � y
� y '.s
r '.- O er' C
� q � e �
.� O O ^ tl
. z .� v y
� tl � fi fi
z. !,
dor
� O y y �G
�
4 � � � •3
.n' s ,� Q tl
b 'O ;r ,ay„ c3+
� ;° ° o 0
h y 4'1
`O � C �' �o
o v p o e
y �
�fi 'ti'� � G
a � z fi
o'
� o g � °
.� i ` fi O
G �
`V' � � 4
` � � � .°
�' ' 4 d C
rW��.o
C ^�C '� �>
�
� fi � �
C "
�
0
W
2
z
�
�
W
Q
F
�
W
F
L�
�
w
OG
�
F
J
�
v
W
a
w
�
F
?•
Co
0
Li.i
U
z
W
F
LI.i
�
t7
Z
z
2
a
Q.i
z
O
4
Q
�
n
Q
�
O
V
U
�
�) �I � ��
.a
y •�
OI �I O �
v �'
�' � C
7 y' �) c'J
� 4"
t/f ~ � �
. c) � E
� A
sl°I ._ 3I
� =J C
��'G� �) �I
�"' � O� I
� o
� Q H
NI C.I ` •~I
�„�I N
�U ro� � O
S
C' L,i N
.7 0
�
U �pl •C �
_�
0 0
�I � � ��
�� ��
��� ��
L1 M ....
� • �
�pI o ��ai
� � �
e:° ��
,��,�E �ol
� � h
�� �I � �
�� � C �� � b
6)
� y C � w� v
�
t.
� � c��'O
=� � a �I � .=
����+I���
N T+ �I N O
� ro vI o p v
C'�j „�"„ .'�.. � U �I
� � c�� o �
��4„I q �I•�I �I
C' Ci y Ci y
�'" �
iC. 'y � � .�.�• •"
O
� � O C ^ >
V1 'J� rJ U y I t�
fJ,7 y 'C 'C7
� � O �'I �I yI
Q=���^=I
v � a
�
`�os
z �.o��N N
H C
z � � � y ,O
���E�v�
tC �
� � � �I �
ro
z��o�,�l
� �.4 a
O—I�>ro�
.� �
r
� y t�l � 1�.. �c
s.r .�. .�-� G
� �V y
��o�.°lo
c ^�
—I��RI.��
V � L. N �
.y �I �I4..I � O
'o v c c�`ol ° 'cel
� h V
������I
���._I°��
OI'OI W ca '�� �I
b
�
�
C
�
.�
C
0
.�
>
'O
A
�
H
v
0
�
r1
�
d'
0
.�
N
�
�
�
�
�
R
�
R
O
�
�
C
�
N
� �
�
0
r..
.�
N
.�
�
.a
�
�
.o � c"�i 'a c `� O o `o � `°''
�
O` W �`� N�' � 7
� A V �
� y 0 �� U r.=j � y
��., 3 N �� O cC y. C � t^�i
� `—° � :c 3 �- e� on j �.
C?. M'C y �O L C�« 1,
o` � c� a o� E. •� � o .
� �
� � ' � .� ` e,��i � o�+ � a`�
�� y F U c0 �, ^���
y a � � y�, �
� �.° a��., yco• �'� E
�c � �� E o y��
�.e � � y a`i n`� a' �' . c u
4 s p C. E��� �.�i '��.�i
B 3 � a� o o�° �>. °�
t« .y+ � ~ � �, � y � � 3
�p •� .� C t° � �`�.. � -� cr -�
,� � o°a a 3.� >, o o° c c
���o��_.�.oa
�°���°��y.=.~�
w�� O cV'^J T � y p, a�•Gi,
,G E ... �.. E a �,
�� � O eJ E�� � O
C O '�p � Cp � � � ��„
�.. « v ti O O � ' �^ _' �`' p
� �.���
o� � ao � w 3 y
tJ G 4. 4. ��
'a 'C v .� "' � � 0 G% U .�.n
�.G` �,o �.c � E >, .
a� o y'� O� y�� �
�v " O e`i ..�+ 4.. C � � �
.N.. y� .a .� .0 c_LC >. U c� C
O
Q� e.�i a��� �� v a
a h E� c° 'y �° `o ecsi n'
, ,�
� ���� ° � � ��
_ �� .�
��._����
� �
yl � v �I � p �cv
d�
U C � > � •^ C
ea cd �pI. �
C
�� c E•� p� x
�I�I O � V � �
6) I ��
� �.. o wi
�� o� � �vl
� y > C �' �
y .o ol �
^) � a°i ro o`� �O y
o��w��
�+ > `�' > ci°i a � o
G� .� � � R1I V �
a�i G �o a •° ��'m
C
u. �� ? ..,
_Ri�a._��3
��o�o°El�cl
Z ° � � ° �° �I`=�
E��,`°a�� ol
G' � = � v � '� a°i
Z ���3I c �� � `° �
O �� «t c I y U O
E' � �I � � �'�`o) >
; � ai . � � �� �' 'pc�
�` t�i� � 'L7 p > � C
NI C � �I � � � CI
O v� v C O
������ � �•�
C/) � t7I O p^I�� O
�I UIs �1�.I �I�I
.a���� ��
� O ^ �I
a
•� C
t�, Q C
` ^ •� �
CT7 y
� N fC �
.. � � �
.> I
� � � �>
•� U yl � U
t0
�
�� �� � � �
N LI �I
�.����I
c c� �o
_ � �I �
O �
�o OI�b
U �. y �
a '� G �I`ol
O �*i � y
°" c � � �
W ,o �o
a �I`ol � o
� N
W �n �n
� _� ^) _ ��
a�7`° 8I�
� �
� c.o �
(9 .� 4y �� �o
W .= (r i�..
a ? ,c'j ol "
b U y i�
c�l?���
� -' OI
V:IO� U � �
� � .- �
VUI I .�.w I � N
r
.�
N
�
�
u
a
�
�
.�
�
'v
0
_
'E
C
'
a�'c
m
a
C
�
3
�
O+
c�
N
�
U
�
�
�
/ {
�
�, ,
v
o�
�
�
�
�
�
C�"
O
z
z
�
0
3
�
O�
c�
N
G
C '
C �I.y�'v
�
� v v V
C �) n �I
o���
�I� C �
�=�I�v
��I�I�^
�
� �
� y O ry
s��;�
�.I�=�c�
'�) �
O .�GI cySl � vy
�
U � �
. .� � �.;
� V ti � �
� 0 @ U G
� � U� � O
� '�I'°� � v
f.. y
,o o) � .� o�
Ci y
� � C v �
�°���
tn t�/9
�I�+ G I
G FI'O C5.
O y
� � ?i Q W
vl U
O � ,�I e�slE"I
UI
H
° 3I� � U
&IU aI
b. rJ U � C � U C 'O
'�I�I OI.C� iy .CI G O C O� C
� � .� � �I•y VI.�� � C.i
"v y� t� O) CJ ..� 'C7I C eJ v�
�.. "O C C r E C�� y C
= '= r .o '� 'u .� � � �.� � o .
o � v�' E ol ���IsI c��I� �
y°I.- c°c � FI °� `° o�,o ai �
�y I �.. � O O � . �. '� -C I w :
t/) y
.0 j� V yVj C^ vi C � ,p�
.y � � RII fJI � V •� � y � O CI =
G ^ 'i' � � ` ` ^ G v� � � ca v
�'�" 3 y G.0 C) O,�I�' G.E y�I C vI
O �� _� � �° �I��1 � �� ° � �Ib �
"s���=o��._=�.����,.�)
e�'... �� o o ��..�� v �
�IaUiIOIC � � �Iv �:=
.+ T7 CJ �O C) C � � O .0 � •� ~ 4ty
y L +" � � � �
•� I � I C.� �� I�) G a C� Ci.�
�
�M�� E �b.o ° �• .� �I�`ol
� O'•� v r J W) NI CI OI ~��, b� �!�
��.� �I�i � �I � � ��� � •� cl �I
� U v7 L. �I .•� ^IFI C tti
'O � v t..� 'J
� y �L' t) ,� � G C C�' � C
N V C p� v��'� C.� �
� 'a� p '� .^I�o � .�I � � � '� E c
c�J � C,,, cCsl G e� � ��.C� p O
� •a E � �o � �I� �° � � " �
��C� � � t� C '� -� . =i �I �I �I= U
� �=�IY =��.I�I
� N �� 'p OI � ai O
C) v� � C 1� EI G I� V
�.�. ��� p� aCj c O C cs ��
:..1 •v O v 7� C �I � .C� a � '�I W �
co u�.. � c� c.� v, v: T� .c 3 c�
w Ci � OI G IV C�'' ''L" �) Gi) 1'J L 1..� iYf
A I �I'D �I QI'a �� O Q �
.+ C�J y�j 3I �� O v C� tn .�.. y y„ � �O
� � � �
�o �� � � � � o� �) �) o) a� �� vl o ca •y
tn i.. .0 y 4.+ L i-� 'V C)
� �� �� � � Li ol�'� � ����-� ;� �I�� �I
�oy� �o ooE
�° =o �I " � c S iv � �`a o� � � aKi � "
c o � � ,�I.� � ° „ �' � .a ,ol � �I•ci
O V y
a � °: �' " y � [-�•I cl «:) `°I'e •° °
ro � yI'�+ 2I � ol�° ° �oi�- �I ° •a �I
.�o �f y.�.�..) �I EI O C pI 0 0) p) y' � ca a�i ~
U W � t,,, I vr 'G
4 ..C.I "' � G CJI � I N'� tC) � C
o � � ..
o .. o .c .c ;cy A�•- � �I � ,
.� tCi �'x � 0��� �.�. cCv�:+ `�'t7J � n�.� � O
1.. � .� Q fC b�) � 4�, A` y �y �� «�
6 a ot " •� � c � '� � oI � H �� °�'�.y �) �I
�0. w �. �I � � Iv � ���
LG � Vf � N y :: +-' C 4. Qj
c,,� °I�.'� o�v 3° �'C 3�c` E�I„•=��
�C bGO������i°����E �I��
�� ��.� � O J'I = RS) y GI � y�I 0' E O
U C 'p ,
.� O O c4 � in Rt � O C �' � � � y�
3 R c p ` ro) � � �� � �I "� wl `° 'D �
0� y.o c� �� F� o� ���y� `' �. •� a�i 1� �I
-� E ."o �I ,,a', � 'c � c ° o �o o� °�' 'o E s c
I cl.� h � �I � I
G o � � o� � � .� ° � �� ol ylw �� c�il 3I.°
.� � OI N � �
a y °I ' 'g .c `y' `I:�� °�.c'j � � �) o) a E .o
� o `� _) v � 'C m� ` C �� j� �I� .0 �IcOI �
�n� C C U �
E. `� C � O� I�I' �..
r c� o. O v ia
�- � �...I ~ O r c_. c.. CJ �
`� � v❑�� 0 3 0. c �
�- Ci CS S'i .L �'��I :i ��9 O' O' CS 'V VJI �U U
N tn
a N) ~ NI J�I OI V� �UI W
s"'-�G����vGwMI
Q•V C O C b � v��
z a U N S G�•� �;� O
G� O'O I � U C . rn
?� G � � �I.° U � � �v >
'U
�'" .CI � c" � O�� `� 'O
�'y � c� �� y � G y
E- ,c o o . �{
C �I O y � 1
Z 3I�O _, .� � r,�i cs �'C C
CF/'�%Mr� p GIC• ~'� C C, O)
v� '� ` ^ 3 `'' �� G �I ���u
,� �
�.
I.� y [.l � 0 y : � � � � t�
I� 3I
4. � .L� '� '�I
Q � C
cJ '..+ � � C
�� N.7 G t�/1 C ^� NI =
C) G c7 eal'G y;n OI •tj �
U � �,ol�sl� EI� aIL
L
�s
Z O � � �.c ° ❑ � U �'I
� •= .� � �,� .n� �.D F-I °
F C � � G� t�'�$) tO�I'1 tC"3I FS�
G y
O �': � � ��vb o p,c
a�I.�cl�=I'�000
� 4, '�=°�"E�o�
3�010������1�°�
Z�� �"� O�IO � C a v
U M� rj f 0 t A
N� ��afl�'� vx c �Ic�l
� `'�' c��4°I � ��� F.I'c_s o ,c
LI
v�l� � ° ^ � � c � � �
E�o'�0000�
L' n� �' C�� c� ' L 7 c� c� t�
z
z
z
�
a
a
�
Q
>
z
W
w
a
a
U
�
�
�
�
�
v
�
Z �I �) GI �I 3 oI z'I u
�," � c� � c) � � .^
y�.�I c��� c�� csl �_
�yl � ri _ a) � �
W e� � C31 � p �
� M " � " � ` � �
> >
(/� O r, U
z` �"�°���
s�
W cs �I �� o) v�
h"' N G Ci Ri) �. RS� � Vf
rii ,, �+ �, Q 'nl CI c
a����o�:y���
�°�E°cc��i:
O o �si �i E �i E �'°a
U• �
z�wl�o�����
� ; � _
O•�, �I�^'3' �
U y �" � � u iy �
L �
a '� ��:�1 �I.D .� .� O
�oN��c�I��@�
F� �: 1 0 � L �, n�'1I
V� J I �"� v°� � 3
a yI�I���E �I�
� � V � � I
G, 3 o.a�� y�� �
O� ?
t�°'=�c° ` ��� �
� � N 'U L N
G.7 .r
3� E C G O�^' 'G O
Z�°�� �OI�•_
� �I�p U t71 ti' .p '_
c �I c � �
b'wl ��I�� ����i�
� C C S 7 .y "' �
v: :'c .° � � ~I o —°° �E 'vl
" v e`� .�c r � v� �
3I yl �I � ��'� � �,I �)
��
U
�
U
7
� �I
C
c "
O
�> �
U �
:.:1 :::I
� U ��
.O L C
•� U
�OI��
•� � u
G
� �.
� o NI
� �y � E u
•U CI .'�..I � '�
R1 Q � � �
� '� ol �I
��•� � � �
7 �""I t_
C O vl �-�-I
U �"
�e�lv O
�s���"�
V C
(%� � QI y C�
V1 (,,.
p4s s�Iol
� � U
� O �I CI I
G v p �
' �I OI CI
�1 0 �
Hc v,
E o_"'�= �
a . I �E �
°
� y ` �
I O G
V
a �wsl�
M V
�) C''G� OI OI
O U
.�o .� � � r
� ? cd .^' �
'O N ?
A '~ .0 �
y � C J:
� � t%f
� �I CI
�
�y cI'�a�
' � UI
V � �
w �
v' U N
� o �
U y
�I �� �I
�.
(..�. y
'0 e0 �
� =Iro .�
.� G NI �
� o � �
�
� �' y ^
V � � �
� _��
•o � o w
L rl�� oI
�
�;., �°
_ �I U �
-) "
N
�
I �
4..�
C =
c � ��
y y
t,Vjl yI U
� � �� �
�I = QI,=
r
� F� o �
�
G
.=
u
'o
Ci
c
�
Ci
L
�
_L'
J
o�
h
N
o�
�
O�
W
¢
0
w
z
�
O
�
a
�
�
0
b
�
0
w
F
O
W
z
Z
`o
�
�
t
V
o' C' c��i c
�vl.o 0
csf C (� �
���
��M71 b
C �0 �
AI F � �
O � ,�
.v .r O �
C U
a y H �
O Q ..�
U y ` p
C�'r^O
':,' � O� cCl
•� N � tn
°oo�
G 4•'^ G
a�'bl� �
H��o�.
a�
o �I�i `
.r �
�1 � b' ",
4 ��s�'d
E.r � w �
,� �a._
� C
z � ����
o... ,C ..�"+
UA�.�
HI 3 •°
'�•�C Cb
O �
�� y « C
��€ �.o
� C , �J
U �U Rf
h
O ^ C ,��
.� � ._ O
.� o .� _
�.I .y G
2 .� � N
� E c� c
'� � ��•�
U � �'
� �
� t� cC
il � �
.� y � '�I
C
a �
C
O � 'C C
V G G
v � £
�I �
u �p
�-' 0 l9� � '�
�3I �p N e'� ai
c °'o c
C � '� �
"-' v O
p i0 � `"��
V �
vl C�j � c�I CI
� � ��r I H �
c � o� � ��
����`�
7��c
'p y ... C
` .� '� R c
� � ` �
� .� �� L
�
'1 `' ° "
� �
� � c� u �
�.� c �I�)
� i1�3I �I
c �I �
b y ro
'n n) c
�
c G �
C C y
C � .+
� � •� �
�- y� O
d .�".�I N
���� OI �
a�i �� p ��
EI �1'; w
�' �'~ O)
y��
i.�oo
�oe��
o a� «) "I
�cec��
s�w� oi
� � .3 �I
d
Gsa c0l � I
Z `''� � �
w 7� �
� 0 3��
o U +�.�^
UN•`oo
� U
�I•°� � °')
�
b� � � ��
.O,D'^ �
� � =i��
4.
� � � �E
�
� t:1 y
.�
cl -� �
o��,y
� �' , �
� v O
� w.
� y .� �
'� � � �
�'�310 °
� U �
�i �� �t �
� � w �
���o�o
GJ
O y ;��
6) � C� R 1�
� � � � N
�' y U
G y .�,�
.e E `
� � � �
�, o�.o
° �� y �o c�a�
•y =) V w�+
�
- � �a
.� U � � �
m �
U;^ O �' '^
U �
rI� y G G
C
0 0 � `° "
�, .�� � �
��•� ca ,� o
—� oJ c c�o I. c
V • ") O C �
�' ic O
�
� O�� �cv
,1��Ey
G C
�:
''y ti: ...
�:�I � C C U
� es a
c
•� :.��c u
b
'�
C
�
.�
�
C
O
.�
.;
b
7
N
N
b
Mi
�
7
e
O
.�
f/f
�
�
�
�
�
�
O
e
G
�
��
�
w
�,o��� `�
t.
y �'w a'� �
a� a
QG •� i"' O
'y"� a a
�C'� � ° 8��.
G .� y., 6> y !�
U p, � Rl ��"^
a�yn>�y
� ep +^ �y � '� �
W C1 � h � �
E �
F:�"`�pO ��
�> M y y �
�� tS! � '
c� °o �a, `�° o
°n �,.
t.!` � � O y
W'� �y�" �
,� c aa.. �
o��o�H
E .7 � �•�
a^o��
M� Vf ' y ..�. N • �
°�"'m'n.�'� W
� � y O ...
Z �� aU�.
U
�"�''��.+ A '3
y
�t e� ory °� o
a��^i�
G � .� � �
^oaio>�.
U y U �'
'C7 � •�-� � p � � �
.D
ab y'^ y
�s�o�����
� L�. t/1 C
.O 00 �Q t9
��N� p�
U1
�I O �)
0 N O
` •� U
� � ��
� y CI
= O
.^ U `
�
�I=��
Q � '�
�� o
� � �I
� o�
yI��N�
c
a'ro � o
•d, 3 � in
� C� yl�
� �a.o
o �
� � •� y
� � •=c �I
w� �� C �
�� e �
0
o `", o .o
�� �
'D � I r.
�
�� y `
t C P�
�I'C� � �7
�� _ � c
7 U
� u � �
c "'
c � �I
V
�
C�� �����cCC��I����p CI O G
� � � y V � R S O
a � `° � c''vl � � � �v `°'•`'� EI �I
yl,� _o` � a 3 ��+I � � � ca� �
yIR'�����_�,;o.�c�.o„
.n'1 o EI ��o �I � c ��•= ol c�vl E
yTJj 'y �"'" G O � I G�I v� O
� � �� rl � ca � '� c«, c c`�i �
�=�e=��e��oi�-,���o>
� p � D � `�'�itl � �O ... v0il�c7 �
o��=l�I�i�����'�N'��O
•—� �> C( �I CI CJ � C n'Jl GI�"'I
O ti• C
l'V4 � .7 N �� ."� '{,� 3 v y 'W"� �
a� ��p �� � cal O� �I � CI � Q ro� �
��a, � E E ,. >.c y >
4 �I �I p C yVil'C7I � ,� � � � �
C� C L� � y•,,,^ 6l cC ��� .C� �I
0
�� .ro � .�CI'O R �I O �I �� � 'C��i �,�'jl OI
^ � c� � ° o� h��cvl'� �°I `° � ° o
E ol �o .N �,c '� ._
� " � �I'� c � ol c °- �I oI
� a � �a ` c�l �'... u•� o� y v: W
�
.S.+I.'� C O'O CJ 'X N C C O C cJl
� O O .� �'� �� � �I` � ` � �I
NI � U� C Cl .��" h U v�
N.G ,"'I O O) t_ �I .O C� O �" .�?
�� N �' W
.o � oI � .v " c y� � � E `cl � �
�I`���� �`����'�I
v t� �-� u: = .e ,� � �
�) '� �I � FI e ° '� ^ �°I .
M� �> EI• V PJ .� C i n �
C C�[[) � c� � � y� O
=� v: C� UI`I U C' O .� � O cSi�-� �, L
3I•>-_ �.^ o l�: �� E._ _ �_�
�� �, p t�. C O�� C j�' GI
= ('u pl =I p C ^ c.�
N°�•= ��F- ` �•� �I."c ` o� c:i
Z
O
�
t%
z
Y�i
<
V
Z
Z
z
.�
�'.
�
b
�
g
v�i
Ci
�
a
U
z
�
0
a
0
�
A
�
E
H
�
C)
�
ey coi �'OI �I O�
oc,��o_.
U .d fd b �U
C > y � � G
C O•^ G v 7 f,,,
� � a � o
ol �� �� � " G) 1'
.� c ca
�I� �I.� 0 O
�
N �. (�j � � N
Q�� �I� � �
� f0 � �'�
W �,'O��O
cA ._I aI � �, U
O � ,�) �� U
ar t�' C '"'' � .�..I
a 'c o o �,..
a � �y .a��� �I
vVi � V .0
Zo'oio=c
�'�.o � �I'io
�❑m�,c�
:: :9 � .�I.o
� :� � ~ yi ,i^"
�o��•-�
< o oI�°� � o
�nw���o`
fC N
C � � C
.�� o� �I � ° =
O'v H y•� �
.� =I � O C �) V
.' U �I�Y �
'G �.a�. � ld
,p t0� � � .�
C� � E I«�+) � tC ^
? ',"'j +'' y
�cs � O) E CI�I
� A'�;� _ �� �I
�
oc�,'y� `ol
C v O O�) �
� � � > c) ��
.O � L � �
�
O��o�^��I
E E ,� � o .v
�._N�
a�l E � � . .°o
F O v�il�y,�O�C�i
N
F� u �'o y c�i
WG °c�IcCaI° c�,
W cCCI ��.� O � cv
W NI � `�
c � �
a o y ; �
v��� y�OI
� � in � .C�'I E O
u
Z��coloc
W � GI� y -I �
Gi �I ..+ 0 tJ '-i U
a o � � c�i'a
W 'y � c .^ ro� �
E— .= � �sl � v u
Z��.
�.>���
m
,_;) O U C �I U >
c y�l�s �
� a .3I �I °�
•� � � n
> : x �
� � — v C v C
_ :J� V V c :J
V: � �`�.v' � r
^ u
� I
� •=' c 3
'J _ V.
q �s �.I C.� tC ...
v �v��
VI
p' vW.�
� `I
t�
�Io � °
3 0l °
� � N
00 p� v .�
°' c� .� ( c
v
� ° �I�
� �) � I
� � 3I°)
v � �'b
� �'' �
p� io e�
�
'c°�
FF y
C � y
ir. o YI
O �y y H
0. .^ �
4�; � 'o
aE�ol��
z °"N
O � ��
H �
3 � ��
G�. . � � c
O. GI � � . . �,.,.
ii. Y G C '�
G» �
O CI �I� �' ,.
.� � �.I'7
�i� al-� .°� aI
�. �t
'� U v; S�i M♦'
� c � � 7
� C! r�� CI
�
G�
�
t�
F
�
w
z
z
�
6.�
0
3
a
a
O�
O
'� OI � '��
c .� .a �
O � � 'D
�
V��o
� V
0 L �
� �' C yi
:ti cv
RI � .y "�
�I=��
o� �+ �I a�i
N
a`ni «o b O
a �O �I V
V � �)
� � .� �
�
wl�' °�
� y �
ol���
@��E a
b �
O �I � V
� � 7
y � M
v '> r,�
� wI � � G
E� .o �, .o
�G''>.^
rolia •-
� y NI� •'
�' V --� 7 .O
0 � GI V y
Q � O 'OI t"`
U
v'i�y �p
I� o��n
� �•; � ~
��.�cot
� y CS O �
� U
.� �� c3 v��.
�
1
, ...,
r-._._.. _ _...
U C
'� V
L '
v;
^ .C�
v: ^p
— �
U =_ ._
�
O �
�
�
• w' L
� Y
� �
r c
v 3
f—I o�
� �
fJ
Gii G�
�
� C)
��/ �
W .�
C U
< c) c�i)
c
-o' � >
v;l u �
�
Q) hl
3
a
W
�
O
F
i�
z
'e�
a
U
�
V
�
6/i
��
�
U) L
GI
C
N
C
.�
U
.D_I
W
V
�
'O
C
��
�.O
V
C U
v .yl
�
c
G �
_ •�i
.>
�
c7
v
� �I
� •�I
L
L
C
��
UI
CI
�
O
�
�I
�
�'
C
.� �
o —s)�
U�p' I
� .�
w
V
w �
�����
w,
�) �
O��
yi v
G,
o ^
•� -
U p
N y
�I C
0
t/�
��
O pI
z y�
�
�
'fl
vi
y
V
V
•C)
�I
3
C�
�
h
C
c.^.
U
.`
�
•�I
�
c
�
U
�
�
�
.�
CI
7
v
0
v:
v
�
z
0
d
v
a
a
4
o�
V
v
�
•�) �
C
L
� y
cC
R
��'ti
°I �I
�I �
N p
G V
O �
.�
V
N �
h� �
CI�
fC �
N���
h �
c �
O C
.:':
� �
N �
.�� o
3c
'� A
�
�� L
O �
� �
aa
hV
x f�
r�j Y
,C C
y� ol
cv
•.+ �
w� o
wl �I
V�
CI
�
U
C
�
.>
�
t9
UI
�
NI
v
FI
�
a
�.:
�
is:
��
.L I
�
v;
a
�
O�
ri
N
c�'`a
�
L
O
v
>
�
�
�
�
0
b
�
c
N
L
a
Q
P�
�
�ti
O�
00
o�
�
N
T
�
0
C
U
0
�
v
�
.c
b
e�
�M
tn
O
C
r�
�I
C
�
C
.�
C
�
UI
�
w
.�
°
c
� �
U
CI C
y V'
� V
V
C �I
'l. �
�
� C�
u �
�+I U
� L
v)
O
�
O�
W
�
0
a
H
a
iii
�
x
U
O
�
U
C
��
�
�
C
O
cs
V
C
C
U
c
�
.�
U
vI
�
u
.L"
�
� :J�
rl
�
r C Q fi� G C> G•�` C C�O ^ N�C
?. c, �„` '� �U' .'^• C fi � '� � � ^i �,y �
` � � � � � G cc 'tl �. Q ` y "' „�' �
°.� o�° o Zi o t` ;'3 o c` c
'`a,- e, U fi C C� fi•.". ... tl G^'� '� -. �"'�"
c c�', ° e e �°•" z E G M'a` ,,; ",
fi � `y� � ."' p p �` O .y'' s�. 'y r „�� �+�j ,.��.
� : T. ��`" O• -C G y� C�` h ti V
� ,C � 'r .� � G 3 0 ,"`• y °° y ^y p `G'
� �i G � � o O � p � O � � `C`� ,j a
fi d -.�. 'C '�% � y ` y y.�, � �p Q � �f
o y 3 0:� �� o 0 0 4 F G�o �¢,.
C O fi' �d.. � C y` O.' y� 'r'
�a F c°, o o � c ,zo ° � ° 3 ° ° o �
`o �`' b F o � > ° � , � °' tl ° '�' +° o
O .tl b• G c Cf �n
�� c=,� �.y C� tl 4� �y= O G N N C
� i .� F. O-s� � tl O tl�'� � N C C
� w ��� �'' y O� C C' ' �c
e c• c, ° c�, r o o�" =
� a o��, e� h o E b�� 3 e c o'a .fi
b� fi G fi G� 4�il �-C �i r> h ,C`,
-c.eti oor� ° o�,.� c�', �`° ��c .�.
Op j� O C tl G � �`? �� �. b b y'*1 vl
C`.�, � 4 � y v �c `.
��=�ay��tl��d���°
-Z w O � � '� � eG � C C �p n "^ '�n e
p� C O� G � d, Q;<7 C�i G-C M b,�:
� � 'y 4 �� � �
tl��£ c� G Z! O O �. a
fi y t�'.r G t�i � `�S y> C �,�, C r Gf " F�i
ZS y�'� y b fi `, � �y �C ', M
� o b ' 'v = o ` •b e,�i c. � ci � > 'o
�` � G C, .G O y C'u i. � tl �-C N C-�C �
u o°�� e b cs � �" a^�
O • p � rv
fi� O fi U� fi OC O Z y� d "C
C Oi �'-� ' t, � 'i: ` �'' "G � �. C ZT � Z
'D y h G �'� • �' e �. cG,, •� o�'^; '4
G ` O C y G � C y G d =�a pJ '� >
"t., ' ... � T! r.. C � t+ '
.C�
'�
�
c
C
n
.y
.�
�
C
u
.�
O
r
C
�
.o
°
G
C)
U C
.L^ �
� ,
c �
C G
3I cc,
�
� C
r
�
�
CJ
�
L�
U
C
C
�
'�
.0
c
�i
.�
.�
r.
�I
�I
U
>
P
C
u
�
3I=
� °�
Cd
Cv'I
�i
V7'
r
C
.`
vv�.
C
.�
.0
C
�
r
C
C
.�
.'
�
rl
�
�
UI
��
u ��
V. L
� c
'J
�' �
� C
C
r'
.�
�
V
N
C
U
U
'b
�
C
.�
U
V
C
O
r
ci
_
�
��
JI �
U �-
'J r
'J. �
� �
�
�� �
��
C
C
C
�:I
�.�1
UI
v:
�
C.
U
V)
U
�
C
�
UIC
VI
��
�
�
C rj
�O �
�
�_
�
u
C C
�
U �
J `
�I �I
Ci' V I
�I yl
•l.l 'J
J JI
v
�� cl
Q
0
w
z
z
�
u.
�
Lti
�
�
(7.�
x
F
(,1..
�
W
�
�
Q
a
�
�
a
w
H
�"
�
�
(,1i
U
Q
z
Ci.t
E""
W
�
C
r
c
r
CI
�
�
v:
'J
r�
UI
L
v
L
�
�
N
C
0
.y
.�
�
.�
�
O
�
M
C
O
U
�
N
�
�
O�
N
�
�
�
(/)
e4
0
�
G
G
C
� �
O �
. ,ti
v� c
�
�
etl
.� �
�
V V
r c
U �
^I o
V.
v;
U �
.-' >
L
C cC
t V
� •� I
�
� CI
C C
'c �
C
� 'J
� �I
> ��
r v
� `
u v
�I �I
� C
C. >
T' � :J
i�:I � �
UIC
N
U
o�
�
�
E4-
0
w
Z
z
�
t,..,
O
3
�
v
1
�
.�
�
.'C..
�
4
C
�
a a�
> �
� �
a�i 'O
a�
o �
a
a`i �
Ex-
e+o
C C
0 O
� m
v
� O
tC �
�
c0 �
y �x
�
O„"'y„
.y
� �
E�
O
O d'
U .�
� �
w �
c
N O
O�
rn �
N
'�
�
c
a
.�
�
0
a
N
�
�
4,
.�
�
C
RS
'�
C
ca
8
v
'9
�
.�
�;• �,_._._...
0
�'
rn
�
�
Fd-
0
w
z
z
�
0
c�
a
O
N
L
C.1
: �
'° c
•� �
� c
C
� s
fO 3
a
N �
Q C
N �
� Q
� �
� U
� �
�W
>
� a
.:+ y
� �„
� �
s �
N
� a
U � y
.� ` �
�w �
� � �
f0
C �,�, �
� T .�
aao
ca -.
G c�a �
..0 O tn
4�'„ "' �.
ei
�� o
�.
���
� A
� � y
ca
'a C3 u
� F
� O
.�
�
._
�
a
'O
Q
eti
.�
�
U
Q.
t0
U
�
O
.�
�
� �
� �
>
� U
� �
�
�L N
�
> ,CS'
C) �
.n �
� v
ca �
� �
a
o a
• � .L�
i. �
�
o �
f� y
T C
p ,o
b U
� cs
a
yd
C i,:
� � �
ca o G
�° .c G
y � 3
O C
.� O y
b �
�p,c=
G �
Q �
C T
� b .G
� �
Q �
.}�w
w
m
b
C
co
.�.
tC
E
.�
R
.�
c
�
C.
�
e
�
.�
�
E
0
>
� ^
�
io �
.v �
r� y
ac
t. �
�° E
cC0 O
a�
R: 6)
b
`'. c�
.~
�
.y
.�
:�
V
�
P]
�
cd
C
0
.�
4
0
�
�'
.�..�
e...
a b a o � �
Q.,> y y � 4+
's 'o � C � °
��� �•� � �
c s � � � �
� E. a .c � .
� � � o_
CS p � � G .�,.
o � �° � c 00
G
4, � � C � 3L
GEo�,`„O
��'v" O .'1 � t-
,� U tn
@ � O C C �
C�1 � � .� •� 'D
C ',� . 'L' � y "�
��'naE�
co O O` � y
� •y �' a.� .L: •a=.�
3 E'ro oE^.3
Q G
G v C � � y
�
�, � ': c
0 � U ,� � � Q
� �, G � �L a �n
o � _'W � o � !.i
�.. O eci � c� � �C.+
CG tA .� y U i.
— T O C1 a
� �y � a
d '�v,, p . V 'S � O
c ° � `° � `° o
d •� � o � p '
�p w' U ;J � y p
O � � Q C �y
�
p it ��.. J .� O
u � ce ^ u
:�
�
0
%�i
.�
O
�
OD
.�
L'
�
s
C
�p O
R �
� �
c;� y
y .�.�
� �
� ,f�.� 4. � N C 'O
� � O �w�+ � •y RI
�'y yN a�
�� cCv y m e c
O � U � �
>�..� ��a
.0 � .� �� � � G
°'t°a� cy�'a�
Qa� y � � E=
>, � a� � ,a �o
n,a°'i^��oo�
ctl p y C � � �, > 'd
v° � ° a � H �O G
r.+ y � 47 'Li �
y a w.c ca a�i G v,
db �F" C' � ��^
c � � a'a 1° G�
O y'� � E" e�,� °� y
.� a a�i a•� � y c
� �., � . �
aya �oc�cc�
� .... • � V � � y
� �:� � «.a � o
4. U � � O � ,^ �
� � � •� � � � �^
C" 4. N
tiC � b a ro �
T G �'� � i�. y RS
4„ . ca .. c
'«+ � � G � � •� �
v`O, E G c° :p �
�a�o�ayGc,
N,J CO 4� � t' O 6:
�C y C. y � � G .0
G 'C 'U v T .� �"'
� � 'G tJ C
C Q V� N> c3 v
aTi•c � �`'� y �
�
�J '� � •� .�-.�. G�i C .vC
F a°n :9 3 e'a ..�`. y
�� ci � � c c o
C y y c,,, yG �i �,.eCl O'C
� V �
G � ❑ �.1� � �I � �
� �,c �`�s .�
fC tC � N d 3 y p
c °'a� �, � �, 2.�
I.`A O Q�^ y � V
G � � �
v O C 6� �
1. ao o - �a� o �I�
�a.� �..+ 6i � a�.�
� � t�. � eC 7
0 0 � o
o �' �' � ,ti O . ,. .�I
c $ � �. •> z o 'o �3
� d
�' O c.. a�'SC � a�I
� 4o-+ C rn 0 � N
� �y C � t0 .0 � ��'{ >
V y'� 3C a� �� 0! �'.O'
�.�� �w ��
4. C . � � �,�j � V �
° o c. H o 1 �, ��
i ;��a�� a�i��,
�L" � N �� � � � GI
°�°�����A��GI
N �
� c54 '.^� C Cy � .F
H �
Q ty0 .� T� y C�� y.SC
�
.+ C �„ U O
e>
O � '� p C C " .O
y
� � � y��j G. vN � � 'p �I �
� � � . � o O � . ewi �� .~DI
�.° � a c o ��� t
��.,, � o o•�°-� � c, .� H y �I
� 3 � � � y �ai•G �
� o y I
a
U C O
� r � '!�s ''� •.�..I lC .�
v V \..� :J �
1 � {n � ^ � 1 �+ 1 ^ `+ 1 1
.> w � � � � p .0 p � � p
� V �•� ta.� ,,`V. V y U."�.� � V a Ci
�v �, � � ca � a.' �v a c ��o
y� C Q C:� „"�„ � C�.7 y q
y �•O � V cd � cC � m
.� �y.. Q j ti t:: G v v� �,�j � �i
::
� V y�� ��- a1 c", y ,t^r, b 0 C
� ?+ in G .0 0 �.. �� C: �� �ty
c'��oo�aaF"y`°o•g��
a�
U y C U� G:: ai C`� �, ., �.0
:c :c y � �" � `" 'i� �c �� � � a �
03��•��ow,��a��a
p. � � � «
•�� � �bs•~� �•� O� C
.�V� Ci 6i y V ca �' :° � c� R{ ,ew f"�..
r�.0000eac,�� -„4,
v� o a �..y„ 'cv � c� ... �p a�i 'b .a
a� � a..� c`� 8� c� a•'o ��
���3•yb�c��9.��s°,'
'� y� E Q,� � � y.� G� aw
a'n o.p c a� o a� �'C a ca
F, � � c� G ttl a� .+ � c0 O �
c...
�D M cV '�" t„' y H��� y� a d
C� O ..� ^ ,N � � a O ^ "C � cTa .
c� ��n �. O O' '.:: • E"' Q' � a�i
�•� �.... t�j �� t�.. C OA C t�. � 4"
�,b c � G o E � � � ° �.° w
a � V �"' .. � d � � � � � ... v
t�0 �+ cT0 � •� � � � "O � � ^C � C
n .o � � •� � „ � �p � � � p
"'� b C� c:�: Q'C7 b... rJ .'�.. >
�� O �. � C� d W C O� C
_�•y .b p� tC 3C p t�
.D d��' `" CC O C "' � C C tC F c9
� E � 3 ,� � .° � •�°-, .(`c � �
�°`�' � e°i u tq y �."c 3 c. -=v
C`"'
O
a c
v
� �
� U
� �
0
m �
t.
� �
�~
U
O
� •N
� �
v O
�
� ~
T
L1. 'D
.�C b
� .�
� �
C
� �
a �v
O b
C b
O C
�
N
O �
�y O
U
o �
V
L � �
� V^ lC
� = V
4�i �i.
ca
d'
�
co
.Q
�
0
�
>
o�n
U
�
T
.O
b
�
0�0
�
o O
O G�j�
° z
h
c �
� c u-
ti O
a
d� ¢
"tl �l E"'
y� �
�o W
fi n �
<r
� � �
O
� �� w
� y �
G O r�%
a
z a ¢
? Cyj (/�
a � v
� tl W
°� a
.. �
c ° x
G � F
£ � pa
e = �
`e
a G
� � �
� ° z
tl � �]
� C �
c �
0
d
U
�
a
a
Q
N
�
�
�
.^
C
:o
=o
�
�
�
�
c*i
�
v
G
O
U
N
�)
�
a
C
a�
C
C
W
s
:d
�
A
��U
A�
x
0
F
Q
01
^
G
�
U
C
�I O
w
.5��
N y
.�.� f3
c0 '�)
UI �
F I ��
tiI
�
�
a
c
,�
T
m
z
a
a
O
�
�
I/1
.�.�
w
F7
�
N
c�
C
� 'C1
ca
� `
C O
O
. ,�
N C
�
ta
z
.ea
a
W
:Yi
�
E
..
�.
U
�
�
3
C
O
.^
.y
�
.a
�
�
.G
d
u
�
v
C
�
u
�
C
�
�
d
u
N
a
�
o°c
�
3
�
C;-iAPTER tio. 464
H.F. iVa. 3012
DIIAL TRACR AIRPORT PI.ANNING PROCESS
CHAPTIIt 464
10 ARTICLE 3 .
11 METROPOLITAN AIRPORT PROVISIONS
12 Section l. Minnesota Statutes 1994, section 473.155, is
13 amended by adding a subdivision to read:
14 Subd. 5. (ZONING OF REAL PROPERTY.j The council shall not
15 re uire a local overnment unit to continue a current use or to
16 adopt a comprehensive plan designation or any change in zonin ,
17 zonin variance, or conditional use in order to ensure or
18 reserve the ava+lability of land Eor a new major air op rt•
19 Sec. 2. Minnesota Statutes 1994, section 473.608,
20 subdivision 2, is amended to read:
21 Subd. 2. It may acquire by lease, purchase, gift, devise,
22 or condemnation proceedings all necessary right, title, and
23 interest in and to lands and personal property required for
24 airports and all other real or personal property reguired for
25 the purposes contemplated by sections 473.601 to 473.679, within
26 the metropolitan area, pay therefor out of funds obtained as
27 hereinafter provided, and hold and dispose of the same, subject
2� to the limitations and conditions herein prescribed except that
29 the corporation may not acquire bY any means lands_or ersonal
30 property for a major new airport_. Title to any such property
31 acquired by condemnation or purchase shall be in fee simple,
32 absolute, unqualified in any way, but any such real or personal
33 propezty or inte=est therein otherwise acquized may be so
34 acquired or accepted subject to any condition which may be
35 imposed thereon by the grantor or donor and agreed to by the
36 corporation, not inconsistent with the proper use of the
Article 3 Section 2 25
�
CHAP'TER No. Y64
H.F. No. 3012
1 property by the corporation for the purposes herein provided.
2 Any properties, real or personal, acquired, owned, leased,
3 controlled, used, and occupied by the corporation for any of the . �I
4 purposes oi sections 473.601 to 473.679, are declared to be
S acquired, owned, leased, contzolled, used, and occupied for
6 public, governmental, and municipal purposes, and shall be
7 exempt from taxation by the state or any of its political •
• 8 subdivisions. Nothing contained in sections 473.6o1 to 473.679,
9 shall be construed as exempting properties, real or personal,
10 leased from the metropolitan airports commission to a tenant or
11 lessee who is a private person, association, or corporation from ;
12 assessments or taxes. "
13 Sec. 3. Minnesota Statutes 1994, section 473.608,
14 subdivision 6, is amended to read:
� 15 Subd. 6. It may construct and equip new airports, with all '
16 powers of acquisition set out in subdivision 2, pay thereEor out
17 of the funds obtained as hereinafter provided, and hold,
� 18 maintain, operate, regulate, police, and dispose of them or any
19 of them as hereinafter provided. It may not construct, equio, !
20 or acquire land for a major new airport to replace the existing t�.
21 Minneapolis-St. Paul International airnort, but it may conduct
22 activities necessary to do long-range planning to make
23 reco�rsr.endations to the leaislature on the need for new airport
24 facilities. �
25 Sec. 4. Minnesota Statutes 1994, section 473.608,
26 subdivision 16, is amended to read: . '
• 27 Subd. 16. It may generally carry on the business of
28 acquiring, establishing, developing, extending, maintaining,
• 29 operating, and managing aizports, with all poc+ers incident
30 thereto exce t it is expressly prohibited from exercisinq these
31 powers for the purpose of future construction of a major new .
32 air ort.
33 Sec. 5. Minnesota Statutes 1994, section 473.608, is
34 amended by adding a subdivision to read:
35 Subd. 23. (PROHIBITION OF USE OF CERTAIN AIRCRAFT.j After �„�
' 36 complyinq with the publication and public comment reauirements � �
Article 3 Section 5 26 .�
f
CH:�PTER No. 464
H.F. No. 3012
1 of Onited States Code, title 49, section 47524(b) and other
2 aoolicable federal requirements, the corporation shall prohibit_
3 operation at Minneapolis-St. Paul International airport of_
4 aircraFt not complyinq with staqe 3 noise levels after December
5 31, 1999.
6 Sec. 6. Minnesota Statutes 1994, section 473.608, is
7 amended by adding a subdivision to read:
8 Subd. 24. (IMPLEMENTATION OF LONG-TERM PLAN.J The
9 corporation shall implement the�Minneapolis-St. Paul
10 International airport Year 2010 lonq-term comprehensive plan.
11 Sec. 7. Minnesota Statutes 1994, section 473.608, is
12 amended by adding a subdivision to read:
13 Subd. 25. (FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.j The
14 corporation shall not be required to provide environmental or
15 technical analysis of the new airport alternative in the dual
16 track planninq orocess final environmental impact statement.
17 Sec. 8. Minnesota Statutes 1994, section 473.608, is
18 amended by adding a subdivision to read:
19 Subd. 26. (USE OF RELIEVER AIRPORTS.j The corporation
20 shall develop and implement a plan to divert the maximum
21 feasible number oi qeneral aviation operations from
22 Minneapolis-St Paul Znternational airport to those airports
23 desiqnated by the federal aviation administration as reliever
24 airports Por Minneapolis-St. Paul International airport.
25 Sec. 9. Minnesota Statutes 1994, section 473.608, is
Z6 amended by adding a subdivision to read:
27 Subd. 27. (PROHIHITZOt3 COhCERNING REPLACEMENT PASSENGER
28 TERMINAL.J The corporation is prohibited from constructing a
29 replacement passenqer terminal on the west side of
30 Minneapolis-St Paul International airport without legislative
31 approval.
32 Sec. 10. Minnesota Statutes 1994, section 473.608, is
33 amended by adding a subdivision to read: '
34 Subd. 28. [CONSTRUCTION OF A TEIRD PAR.ALLEL RUNWAY.) �
35 The corporation must enter into a contract with each aPfected
36 city that provides the corporation may not construct a third
Article 3 Section 10 27
�
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
. 21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
CHAPTER No. 464
H.F. No. 3012
parallel runway at the Minneapolis-St. Paul international
airport without the affected citY's approval. The corooration
must enter into the contracts by January 1, 1997.
(b) If a contract with a city as required by this
subdivision is not executed bY January 1, 1997, as a result oE
the corporation failinq to act in qood Paith, the amount the
corporation must spend for noise mitiqation in the afiected city
is increased by 100 percent of the amount spent in the most
zecent year in which an expenditure was made for noise
mitiqation in the affected city.
�c) A contract entered into by a city and the corporation
under this subdivision creates and the contract must provide
third party beneficiary riqhts on behalf oP the affected
property owners in the affected cities. These third party
beneficiary rights apolv only iP a state law chanqes,
suoersedes, or invalidates the contract or authorizes or enables
the corporation to construct a third parallel runway
notwithstandinq the contract. •
(d) An "affected city" is anv citv that would experience an
increase in the area located within the 60 Ldn noise contour as
a result of operations usinq the third parallel runway.
Sec. 11. Minnesota Statutes 1994, section 473.614, is
amended by adding a subdivision to read:
Subd. 2a. (ENVIRqNMENTAL IMPACT REPORT.j Nokwithstanding
the provisions of subdivision 2, the commission shall prepare a
report documentina the environmental effects of projects
included in the MSP 2010 long-term comprehensive plan.
Environmental effects of and costs associated with, noise
impacts, noise mitigation measures, and land use compatibility
measures must be evaluated accozding to alternative assumptions
of 600,000, 650,00a, 700,000, and 750,000 aircraft operations at
Minnea olis-St. Paul International airport.
Sec. 12. Minnesota Statutes 1994, section 473.621, is •
amended by adding a subdivision to read:
Subd. lb. (ANNUAL REPORT TO LEGZSLATURE.j The corporation
shall report to the leaislature by February 15 of each year
Article 3 Section 12 28
CHAPTER No. 464
' H.F. No. 3012 �
•, 1 concerninq ooerations at MinneaDolis-St. Pau1 International �
2 airport. The re ort must include the number oP aircraft
)
3 operations and passenger ennlanements at the airport in the
4 precedincLyear, current airnort capacitv in terms of ooerations
5 and passenqer enplanements, averac�e lenqth oP delay statistics, •
6 and technoloqical developments affectinq aviation and their
� 7 effect on operations and capacity at the airport. The report
S must include information in all the Foregoinq cateqories as it
9 relates to operations at Wayne county metropolitan airport in
10 Detroit The report must compate the number oE passenger
11 enplanements and the number of aircraPt operations with the 1993
12 metropolitan airport commission baseline forecasts oE total
13 passenqers and total aircraft operations.
.14 Sec. 13. Minnesota Statutes 1994, section 473.661,
� 15 subdivision 4, is amended to read: �
16 Subd. 4. [NOZSE MITIGATION.J (a) According to the schedule
• 17 in paragraph (b), commission funds must be dedicated (1j to
18 supplement the implementation oP corrective land use management
� 19 measures approved by the Federal Aviation Administration as part
20 of the commission's Federal Aviation Regulations, part 150 noise
21 compatibility p=ogram, and (2) Por soundproofing and
� 22 accompanying air conditioning of residences, schools, and other
23 public buildings when there is a demonstrated need because of
24 aircraft noise, zegardless oP the location of the building to be
25 saundpzoofed, or any combination of the three.
26 (b) The noise mitigation program described in pazagraph (a)
27 shall be funded by the commission from whatever source of funds
28 according to the following schedule:
29 In 1993, an amount equal to 20 pezcent oE the passenger
30 facilities charges zevenue a�ount budgeted by the commission for '
31 1993;
32 In 1994, an amount equal to 20 percent of the passenger
33 facilities charges revenue amount budgeted by the commission•for
. 34 1994; � �.'
35 In 1995, an amount equal to 35 percent oP the passenger �'�.
� 36 facilities charges revenue amount budgeted by the commission for
Article 3 Section 13 29
CH�IPTER tio. 464
H.F. No. 3012
1 1995; and
2 In 1996, an amount equal to 40 percent oE the passenger
3 facilities charges revenue amount budgeted by the commission £or
4 1996.
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IB
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
(c) From 1996 to 2002, the commission shall soend no less
than 5185,000,000 from any source of funds for insulation and
accompanyinq air conditioning oP residences, schools, and other
publicly owned buildinqs where there is a demonstrated need
because of aircraft noise; and property acauisition, limited to
zesidences, schools, and other publicly oWned buildings, within
the noise impacted area. In addition, the corporation shall
insulate and air condition four schools in Minneapolis and two
schools in Richfield that are located in the 1996 60 Ldn contour.
(d) Before the commission constzucts a new runway at
Minneapolis-St Paul International airport, the commission shall
determine the probable levels of noise that will result in
various parts of the metropolitan area from the ooeration oF
airc-aft on t�e new runway and shall develoo a proqram to
mitiqate noise in those parts of the metroqolitan area that are
located outside the 1996 65 Ldn contour but will be located
within the 65 Ldn contour as established after the new runway is
in operation Based upon this determination, the commission
shall zeserve in its annual budqet, until noise mitiqation
measures are completed, an amount of monev necessary to
imolement this noise mitiqation program in the newlv impacted
areas.
� The coaunission's capital improvement projects, program,
and plan must reFlect the requirements of this section, As part
of the commission's report to the legislature under section
473.621, subdivision la, the commission must provide a
31 description and the status oi each noise mitigation project
32 implemented under this section.
33 fd� ,� Within 69 180 days of submitting the commission's
34 and the metropolitan council's report and recommendations on
35 major airport planning to the legislature as required by section
36 473.618, the commission, with the assistance of its sound
Azticle 3 Section 13 30
'. �
CHAP'TER No. 464
H.F. No. 3012
1 abatement advisory committee, shall make a recommendation to the
2
3
4
5
6
�
8
.g
10
11
�egia?estnre state advisory council on metropoZitan airport •
planning regarding pr000sed mitigation activities and
appropriate funding levels for noz�e mitigation activities at
Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport and in the
neighboring communities. The recommendation shall examine
mitiqation measures to the 60 Ldn level. The state advisory
council on metropolitan airport planninq shall review the
recommendation and comment to the leqislature within 60 days
after the recommendation is submitted to the council.
Sec. 14. Laws 19B9, chapter 279, section 7, subdivision 6,
12 �is amended to read:
13 Subd. 6. [TERMINATION.j The advisory council ceases to
14 exist when the actions reguired by 9cetson-�;-aabdzdwa=on-3;-and
15 �eetzon-4 this article oP this chaDter of Laws 1996, sections 13
16 and 15, are completed.
17 Sec. 15. (ANALYSIS OF AVIATION SERVICES AND COMMERCIAL
18 DEVELOPM.ENT.) �
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3a
31
32
33
34
35
36
The metr000litan airports commission shall contract with
the University of Minnesota to preoare an aviation service_and
facilities analysis The commission shall utilize funds from
any available source to paY the Universitv of Minnesota an
aqreed amount not to exceed $50,000 for the performance of the
analysis. The analysis shall includes_
(1) a description of various tvpes and levels oE aviation
service and an examination oF the relationship batween aviation
service levels and the level oP commercial and industrial
activitv in the state; and
�Z) an examination of the relationship between available
levels of aviation service and the relocation of commercial and
industrial enterprises to the state.
The commission shall repozt the results of the analvsis to
the state advisory council on metropolitan airpozt planning no
later than Februaz 10, 1997. The council shall review the
re ort and analysis and comment to the leaislature within_60
days after the results of the analysis are reported to.the
Article 3 Section 15 31
�
CHAP'TER �to. 464
H.F. No. 3012
1 council.
2 Sec. 16. (REPEALER.j
3 Minnesota Statutes 1994, sections 473.1551, subdivision 2;
4 473.636; and 473.637, are repealed. �
5 Sec. 17. [EFFECTIVE DATE.J
6 This article is effective the day followinq final enactment
7 and apalies to the counties oP Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin,
8 Ramsey, Scott, and Washington.
g ARTICLE 4
10 AIRPOR2 NOISE IMPACT RELIEF .
11 Section l. Laws 1995, chapter 255, article 3, section 2,
12 subdivision 1, is amended to read:
13 Subdivision 1. [IIRBAN REVITALIZATION AND STABILIZATION
14 ZONES.j � By September 1, 1995, the metropolitan council shall
15 designate one or more urban revitaliaation and stabilization
16 zones in the metropolitan area, as defined in section 473.121,
17 subdivision 2. The designated zones must contain no more than
18 1,000 single family homes in total. In designating urban
19 revitalization and stabilization zones, the council shall choose
20 areas that are in transition toward blight and poverty. The
21 council shall use indicators that evidence increasing
22 neighborhood distzess such as declining residential property
23 values, declining resident incomes, declining rates of
24 owner-occupancy, and other indicators of blight and poverty in
25 determining which areas are to be urban revitalization and
26 stabilization zones.
�� 27 (b� An urban revitalization and stabilization zone__is
28 created in the qeoqraphic area composed entirelv of parcels that
29 are in whole or in part located within khe 1996_65Ldn contour
30 surrounding the Minneapolis-St Paul International Airpott, or
31 within one mile of the boundazies of the 1996 65Ldn contour.
32 For residents of the zone created under this paragraph,
33 eliqibilitv for the proqram as arovided in subdivision 2 is
34 limited to persons buyinq and occupying a residence in the zone
35 after June 1, 1996. ,
36� Sec. 2. Laws 1995, chapter 255, article 3, section 2, •
Article 4 Section 2 32
�
H.F. No. 301?
1 subdivision 4, is amended to read:
2 Subd. 4. [EXPIRATION.J Initial applications for the urban
3 homesteading program in the zones desiqnated under subdivision
1
4 l, paraqraph (a), shall not be accepted aPter July l, 1997.
5 Sec. 3. (AIR.90RT NOISE IMPACT AREAS; HOUSING REPLACE.�l=NT
6 DISTRICTS; DEFINITIONS.)
7
8
9
10
Fl
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Subdivision 1. (AZRPORT NOISE IMPACT AREA.j "Airport noise
imnact area" means a qeoqraphic area composed entirely of
parcels that are in whole or in part located within the 1996
60Ldn contour surroundinq the Minneapolis-St. Paul International
Airport, or within one mile oE the boundaries of the 1996 60Ldn
contour.
Subd. 2. [AUTHORITY.j For �each citv that contains an
airport noise imoact area, "authority" is the a�thority as
defined in Minnesota Statutes, section 469.174, subdivision 2,
that is desiqnated by the qoverninq body of the city to be the
authority for purposes oi sections 3 to 6.
Subd. 3. (CAPTDRED NET TAX CAPACITY.j "Ca�tured net tax
capacity" means the amount by which the current net tax caoacity
in a housinq replacement district exceeds the original net tax
capacitv, includinq the value of property normally taxable as
personal propertv bv reason of its location on or over prooerty
owned by a tax-exempt entity._
Subd. 4. (ORIGZNAL NET TAX CAPACITY.j "Original net tax
capacity" means the net tax capacity of all taxable real
property within a housinq realacement district as certified by
the commissioner of revenue for the previous assessment year
less the net tax capacity attributable to existing improvements,
provided that the request bv the authoritv for certification oi
a new housinq replacement distzict has been made to the county
auditor by June 30 The original net tax capacity of housing
replacement districts for which requests are filed after June 30
has an original net tax capacitv based on the current assessment
year In any case, the oriqinal net tax capacitv must be
determined toqether with subsequent adiustments as set forth in
Minnesota Statutes, section 469.177, subdivision l, paragraph
Article 4 Section 3 33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
, 36
CH�PTER No. 464
H.F. No. 3012
(c)• In determininq the oriainal net tax ca�acity, the net tax
capacity of real property exempt from ta:cation at the time of
the request shall be zero, exceot for real property which is tax
exem�t by reason of public ownership by the requestinq authority
and which has been publicly owned for less than one vear prior
to the date of the request for certification, in which event the
net tax capacity of the roperty shall be the net tax capacitY
as most recently determined by the commissioner oF revenue.
Subd. 5. (PARCEL.J "Parcel" means a tract or plat oP land
established prior to the certiFication oE the housinq
replacement district as a sin4le unit for purposes of assessment.
Sec. 4. [ESTABLISHMENT OF HOUSING REPLACEMENT DISTRSCTS.]
Subdivision l. (CREATION OF PROJECTS.) (a) An authority
may create a housinq renlacement project under sections 3 to 6,
as provided in this section.
(b) Parcels included in a district must be located in an
airport noise imnact area, and must be either (1) vacant sites,
(2) parcels containing vacant houses, or (3) parcels containing
buildings that are structurallv substandard, as defined in
Minnesota Statutes, section 469.174, subdivision 10.
(c) The city in which the authority is located must pay at
least 25 percent of the proiect costs from its general fund, a
property tax levy, or other unrestricted money, not including
tax increments.
�d) The housinq replacement district plan must have as its
sole obiect the acquisition of parcels for the purpose oE
preparinq the site to be sold for market rate housing or for
commercial purposes consistent with the cities' plan for that
area. As used in this section, "market rate housinq" means
housittq that has a market value that does not exceed 150 percent
of the averaqe market value of sinqle-family housing in that
municipality.
�e) An authority mav not create a housing replacement
project under this section, iE the city has approved a special
law providinq the city with housinq replacement district
authority and if the authorit� has reQuested certification of a
Article 4 Section 4 34
4
CHAPTER tio. �64
H.F. No. 3012
1 parcel to be included in the district.
2 Subd. 2. (HOUSING REPLACEMENT DISTRICT PLAN.j To establish
3 a housinq replacement district under sections 3 to 6, an
4 authority shall adopt a housing replacement district plan which
5 contains:
6 S1) a statement of the objectives and a description of the
7 housinq replacement pro�ects proposed by the authority for the.
8 housinq replacement district;
g (2 La statement of the housinq replacement district plan,
10 demonst=atinq the coordination oP that plan with the city's '
11 com rehensive plan;
12 (3) estimates of the followinge_ '
13 (i) cost of the program, includinq administrative expenses;
14 S>i) sources of =evenue to finance or otherwise oay public
15 costs;
16 (iii) the most recent net tax capacitv of taxable real
17 property within the housinq replacement district; and
18 (iv) the estimated caotured net tax capacitY oP the housing•
19 replacement district at completion;
2p (4) statements of the authority's alternate estimates of
21
22
23
24
25
26
2'7
28
29
30
31
32
the im act of the housing replacement district on the net tax
ca acities of all taxinq jurisdictions in which the housing
replacement district is located in whole or in part. For_
�urposes of one statement, the authority shall assume that the
estimated capture8 net tax capacitY would be available to the
taxinq iuzisdictions without creation of the housinq reolacement
district, and for purposes of the second statement, the
authorit shall assume that none of the estimated caotured net
tax ca acity would be available to the taxinq juzisdictions
without creation of the housinq replacement district; and
SS) identification of all parcels to be included in the
district.
33 Subd. 3. [PROCEDURE.] The provisions of Minnesota
34 Statutes, section 469 175, subdivisions 3, 4, 5, and 6, apply to
35 the establishment and oceration of the housing replacement
36 districts created under sections 3 to 6, except as follows:
Article 4 Section 4 35
CHAPTER i�1o. 464
H.F. No. 3012
1 �1) creation oP a district within a municipality is subject
2 to the anoroval af the metropolitan council in addition to other
3 aporovals required by law; and
4 �2) the determination soeciEied in Minnesota Statutes,
5 section 469 175, subdivision 3, clause (1), is not required._
6 Sec. 5. (LIMITATIONS.J
7 Subdivision l. (DURATION LIMITS.) No tax increment may be
8 paid to the authoritY on each parcel in a housinq replacement
9 district after 15 vears from date of receivt by the county of
10� the first tax increment from that parcel.
11 Subd. 2. (LIMITATION ON USE OF TAX INCREMENTS.j All
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
revenues derived from tax increments must be used in accordance
with the housinq replacement district plan. The revenues must
be used solely to pay the costs of site acquisition, relocation;
demolition of existinq structures, site preparation, and
pollution abatement on parcels identified in the housing
replacement district plan, as well as public improvements and
administrative costs directly related to those parcels.
Sec. 6. (APPLICATZON OF OTHER LAWS.J
Subdivision 1. [COMPUTATION OF TAX INCREMENT.] The
„rnvicions of Minnesota Statutes, section 469.177, subdivisions
la, and 5 to 10, applv to the computation of tax increment for
the housinq replacement districts created under sections 3 to 6.
Subd. 2. [OTHER PROVISIONS.] References in Minnesota
Statutes to tax increment financing districts created and tax
increments generated under Minnesota Statutes, sections 469.174
to 469.119, other than references in Minnesota Statutes, section
2�3 1399, include housinq replacement districts and_tax
increments subiect to sections 3 to 6, provide8 thak Minnesota
Statutes, sections 469 174 to 469 179, apply onlv to the__ext_e_nt_
specified in sections 1 to 4. •
Subd. 3. (MINNEAPOLZS SPECIAL LAW.j Laws 1980, chapter
595, section 2, subdivision 2, does not apply to a district
created under sections 3 to 6.
Sec. 7. (EFFECTIVE DATE.) �
� Sections 1 and 2 are effective for taxable years beginning
Article 4 Section 7 36
1 •
CHAPTER No. 464
' H.F. No. 3012
1 aPter December 31, 1997. Sections 3 to 6 are effective July l,
2 1997. • •
� '�
CHAPTER No. 464
H.F. No. 3012
Thie bill was passed in conformity to the ruies of each house and the joint rules
of the two houses as requiresi by the Constitution of the State of Minnesota.
Irvin , Anderso
9praker cjthe Houu ojRepnsentadver.
Passed the House of R.epre�entstivea on April 2, 1996.
passed the Senate on April 2, 1996.
This bill is properly enrolled and was presented to the
Governor on t� A�� J� , 1996.
C�'� A1! H. Spear
Pnridt o( tlu Srnau.
/� C��GL.ii fa.,Q.� : •
' Edward A. Burdick
Chie/Ckrk, Xou.r� o(R�prcsentatunr.
�.� � ��J��=�Gcr�-et-c'f---
Patrick E. Flahaven ""'--
Seercmry o% tlu S�nau.
AJ' � "'--�
3arry M. Walsh
Rwi.tor of Statutsa.
Approved on �—"'�� ��" , 1996, at 2''�� Q, M.
�\ � . C�1�,��
Arno H. Carlson
' Cowrnor.
giled on �i1� �� , 1996.
doan Anderson Growe
sKnmry orsm�.
38
'
't
�•��U.S. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR CORRESPOtVD���'-�
ER 95/869
United States Department of the Interio�;
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
Washin�ton, D.C. 20240
- � MAR 18 i996
Mr. Edward J. Phillipa
Director, Great Lakes Region
Federal Aviation Administration
2300 East Devon Street
Des Plaines, Illinois 60018
Dear Mr. Phillips:
This is in response to the request for the Department of.the Interior's comments
on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)/Section 4(f) Evaluation for
the Dual Track Airport Planning Process, Hennepin and Dakota Counties, Minnesota.
This letter incorporates comments from the staff of the Mississippi National
River and Recreation Area (MNRRA) of the National Park Service (NPS). A portion
of MNRRA is within the area of potential i.mpact for the Minneapolis-St. Paul
International Airport (MSP) Alternative. The NPS review of this project is
required by 16 U.S.C. Section 460zz-3(b), which states, in part, that before any
Department or Agency of the United States Government begins any undertaking
within the MNRRA, the NPS (via delegation from the Secretary of the Interior)
shall review the undertaking to assess its compatibility with MNRR1�1's
Comprehensive Management Plan.
SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION COMMENTS
Archeological and Historic Resources
In its discussion of the MSP' Alternative (Page V-196), the DEIS indicates that
there are na archeological sites subject to Section 4(f) review within the Area
of the Potential Effect (APE). Also, in discussing the summary of Section 4(f)
impacts, Table U-1 (page V-201), indicates that no archeological resources will
be impacted by the MSP Alternative. However, on pages V-25 & 26, the DEIS
appears to indicate that three archeological sites that would be i.mpacted by a
proposed stormwater pipe may meet National Register criteria and require
evaluation pursuant to Section 4(fj. Tnis apparenz discreparicy snouid be
resolned in the Final ETS (FEIS) and recommend that, to the maximum extent
possible, the proposed outfall pipe be located along a route that avoids the
three identified archeological sites.
The MSP Alternative will.also i.mpact historic resources, particularly the
Original Wold=Chamberlain Terminal Historic District." ' �
Therefore, we recommend continued cooperation and coordination with the State
Historic Preservation Officer in order to:complete a.Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA) :'.which should include measures . to avoid or mini.mize harni to any
archeological or historic resources which may be affected by the proposed MSP
Alternative, in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act' �of 1966, as amended..-�. A signed copy of the MOA should be. incluc'ted in the
Final Section.4(f) Evaluation. •. �� ' � ••
2 i'
Minnesota Vallev National Wildlife Refucre
The DEIS.indicates that implementation of the MSP Alternative would result in
5,620 monthly overflights of the Long Meadow and Black Dog Lakes portion of the
Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge. All of the overflights would be
between 500 and 2,000 feet AGL (above ground level). As a result, noise levels
at the Long Meadow Lake Baes Ponds aite would increase to DNL 69 from a 1994
level of DNL 55.. As noted in the DEIS (p. V-196), "Under certain circumstances,
the projectecl aircraft noise over a Section 4(f) property could be considered a
`constructive use,' depending on the sensitivity of the use to noise, as spelled
out in the Land Use Compatibility Criteria. For example, many outdoor activities
are considered compatible but others, where people must communicate with each
other, may be incompatible." '
In the Final EIS for Proposed Extension of Runway 4-22 at the Minneapolia-St.
Paul International Airport, Wold-Chamberlain Field, released in July 1994, (pp.
4-59 to 4-62, and B-10j, it is recognized that the Long Meadow Lake Bass Ponds
area of the Refuge is an "environmental education" area; zs og�ose� t^ j�.;�� b=in7
considered a"nature exhibit" area. The FEIS rather clearly indicates that the
DNL 65 dB threshold is the primary indicator of constructive use on such Section
4(f) lands, whereas the threshold for a nature exhibit land use would be DNL 70.
In contrast, the subject DEIS in addressing potential noise impacts on the Refuge
for the MSP Alternative (pp. V-198, and V-303 to 306j concludes that the
activities typically conducted in the Bass Ponds area are similar to those
associated with "nature exhibits" and "would be considered compatible with noise
levels up to DNL 70. Consequently, there will be no constructive use of the
property.^ ,
The Department of the Interior adamantly disagrees with the above conclusion. (�,
We believe that the DEIS evaluation ignores the Refuge's environmental education
activities that occur at the Bass Ponds, which are described below. We contend
that the Bass Ponds area is crucial for environmental education, that it is an
outdoor classroom, and that the education activity is incompatible with the
increased noise levels associated with the MSP Alternative. Thus, there will be
a"constructive use," or taking of Refuge property.
Land acquisition and development of the Refuge began in 19�6, with enactment of
the.Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge Act (Public Law 94-466j. The Act
states, in part, that the Lower �linnesota River Valley "is of great value as a
source of �environmental education, recreational opportunities, and interpretive
programs for hundreds of thousands of urban dwellers." Furthermore, the Act
directs the Secretary of the Interior to construct, administer, and maintain a
wildlife interpretation and education center "to promote environmental education
3AQ t0 provide an oppc=tunity TOt �a'le 6tiiCi;� niiC: E'aajv'yilciaw Ci Wl�iillic i.11 l�'i.S
natural habitat." -
The Refuge administers an 'active environmental education and interpretive
program. Many of the activities occur' at the Refuge's wildlife interpretation
.and education center (Centerj, which is part.of the Refuge Headquarters complex.
Because little natural habitat is available near the Center, many environmental
education activities are also conducted at the .Bass Ponds area. The
environmental.education activities are part of the�formal education of students
in public.and private.schools. As formal instruction,.the activities at the Bass
Ponds area nece,ssitate freguent communication between the students and
inatructors. ' �
.
In addition to�formal environmental education, the Bass Ponds area is used for
interpretive programs that, while less formal, are educat�ional. The heart of an
interpretive program is the oral communication between a naturalist and a group �r
of visitors. The nature of.the Bass Ponds area makes it ideal for programs about
songbirds,_beavers, and wetland management, among other topics.
3
The following table summarizes the recent educational and interpretive use at the
Bass Ponds and Olci Cedar sites. The table does not fully represent the
educational use at these sites, as it includes only groups that the Refuge staff
scheduled. We know that classes use these sites without notifying the Refuge.
Also, the table does not include 517 Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts who attended
programs between June 1993 and Apri1 1995 at the sites.
Participants in Environmental Education and Interpretive Programa
at Bass Ponds and Old Cedar Sites, 1991 - 1994 .
Year • Environmental Interpretation
• Education
1991
1992
1�9�
1994
1,225
705
i,742
1,223
Not Available
Not Available
423
270
Practical experience, as well as compatibility criteria, indicate that the
projected aircraft noise will disrupt environmental education and interpretation
programs at the Bass Ponds. Currentiy; aircraft noise interrupts outdoor
presentations at the Center, which is outside the existing (1994) DNL 65+ noise
contour. Interruptions at the Basa Ponds wi�.1 be greater. Impacts at the Old
Cedar site on the Refuge will also increase.
' The Bass Ponds area includes an open-sided shelter that is used by classes to get
out of the rain or snow for discussions during their field visit. The shelter,
� completed in August 1994, at a cost of $20,000, will not shield classes from the
increased noise. The value of the shelter and the Bass Ponds area will be
significantly di.minished as an education site due to the projected increase in
noise.
We request that a formal opinion be rendered relative to the MSP Alternative
projected aircraft noise constituting a constructive use of the Refuge, and ask
that you consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) in the
development of your opinion. If constructive use is found, we ask that a
specific Section 4(f) finding be coordinated with �t�e Service so that we may
evaluate whether there are feasible and prudent alternatives to use of the Refuge
and whether all possible planning to minimize harm to the kefuge has been
provided if some use is unavoidable.
ENVIROTr"MENTAL STi�TE�;iEN1' CCa'�it�'3vi5
New Airvort Alterna�ive (NAA1
Most of our concerns are related to the offsite impacts that a ne
entail. The NAA site has minimal wetland wildlife habitat.
Vermillion River, which cuta acrose the northwest portion of the
provide significant riparian. habitat within a small corridor.
MSP Alternative
w airport would
- However, the
NAA eite, does
We have significant concerns regarding the i.mpacts that the MSP.Alternative will
have on wetlands, biotic communities, and floodplains. We recognize that the
extent of these possible impacts ie uncertain. However, we cannot support the
conclusion expressed in the DEIS that "Impacts of the alternatives on the natural
environment are relatively minor" (p. iv). In the face of the acknawledged
uncertainties, all efforts should be made to identify impacts and develop
appropriate mitigation. '
; 4
1
In the discussion of Surface Water Quality {Section V.BB.), extensive mitigation
measures to protect surface water quality are proposed under the NAA. We
strongly support these.measures and believe that the same principals need to be
integrated into the MSP Alternative. Considering the magnitude of the potential
expansion, it would be both appropriate and necessary to provide an on=site
wastewater treatment facility at the existing airport. IInder both alternatives,
we also believe that glycol=contaminated runoff must be treated to reduce
chemical oxygen demand loads to the maximum extent possible. '
In the discussion of Wetlands (Section V:DD.), there is no comprehensive
information on the impacts of the,MSP Alternative to wetlands lying within the
MSP boundary. Figure DD-1 has inconsistencies and errors when compared to
National Wetlands Inventary (NWI) maps of the same areas. For example, the Golf
Course wetlands have a diversity of emergent,and open water classes as shown on
the NWI maps, but are simply encircled as dots on Figure DD-1. If all wetlands
within MSP have been "physically field delineated," as indicated on Page V-291,
the wetland delineation maps should have been included in the DEIS. This
ov�rsigh� should be c�rrected in tr,e FSIS.
The DEIS indicates that Duck Lake, a 13.6-acre wetland with a diversity of
wetland types and vegetation, has little wildlife valuey,,(p. V-291). Other
wetlands are also noted as providing ��negligible wildlife hahitat value." It is
'unclear what wildlife assessment methodology, if any, was used to make these
judgements. We recommend that a"Routine Wetland Assessment," which includes
wildlife function and value assessments, be perfonned on all the wetlands within
the MSP boundary. The Routine Wetland Assessment methodology was developed by
the Minnesota Interagency Wetlands Group, which is made up of representatives in
wetland expertise from Federal and State agencies. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service's (FWS) 'I`win Cities Field Office should be contacted to discuss
application of this methodology and would appreciate being given an opportunity (
to review assessment results prior to their inclusion in the FEIS. `,
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT COM2�NTS
The FWS concurs with the information presented in Section V.H. (Endangered and
Threatened Species) regarding the federally-listed bald eagle (Haliaeetus
leucocenhalus). Because of the location and type of activities proposed, the
project alternatives are not likely to adversely affect any federally-listed or
proposed threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat. This
precludes the need for further action on this project as required under Section
7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. However, if the project is
modified or new information becomes availa.ble which indicates that listed species
may be affected, consultation with the FWS should be reinitiated.
FISEi AND WiLDLIFE COORDINATION •I�CT CObunr�N'fiS
The DEIS acknowledges the.need for individual and/or nationwide permits under
5ection 404 of the Clean Water Act for wetlands potentially affected by the
prbject alternatives. Accordingly, our comments in response to the DFsIS do not
preclude separate evaluation and comments by the FWS when reviewing forthcoming
permit applications. At that time, the FWS will review the Carps' public notice
to ensure that impacts to streams and wetlands have been identified and that
adequate mitigative measures for fish and wildlife habitat losses have been
incorporated into the project's final plans and speciiications.
�'� SIIMMARY COMt�iENTS
The Department of the Interior has no objection to Section 4(f) approval of this
project by the Department of Transportation, providing that the mitigation
measures to archeological and historic resources, and the Minnesota Valley
National Wildlife Refuge, are adequately documented in the Final Section 4(f)
�valuation. • . ' �
As this Department has a continuing interest in this project, we are willing to
cooperate with the Federal Aviation Administration and the Metropolitan Airports
Commission to address project impacts to fish and wildlife resources, and to
educational and recreational uses of the Refuge. Questions and further
cbordination regarding this project should be directed to the Field Supervisor
Mr. Nick Rowse, II.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4101 East 80th Street,
-Bloomington, Minnesota 55425-.1665 (telephone.612-725-3548, fax 612-725-3609) and
to Mr. Michael Mandell or Ms. Nancy Duncan of the Mississippi National River and
Recreation Area, 175 8ast Fifth Street, Suite 418, Box 41, St. Paul, Minnesota
55101-2901 (telephone 612-290-4160).
k'e appr�ciate �he cpp�rti:�.-:ity to p�ovide th�se c�mr�ents.
Sincerely,
�
� •
�`�� `�^
�
Wi lie R. Taylor
Director, Office of Environm tal
Policy and Compliance
I cc: Mr. Glen Orcutt �
Federal Aviation Administration
6020 28th Avenue.South, Suite 102
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450
�s . Jenn� Unruh
Metropolitan Airports Commission
6040 28th Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450
APPENDIX B NOISE MI TIGATION PL�1 N
On October 28, 1996, the Metropolitan Airports Commission approved the following noise mitigation program
for Minneapolis-St. Paui International Airport (see attached meeting minutes). The program contains
measures that may or may not be eligible for funding based on FAA policy or criteria. See "MSP Noise
Mitigation Program", MAC, November 1996, for the complete report.
Insulation
• the residential sound insulation program (SIP) within the 1996 DN� 65+ contour will be
completed on the approved cu�rent schedule (Note: the current program is scheduled for
completion in the year 2002)
• the SIP will be e�anded to incorporate the area within the 2005 DNL 60-65 contour
• the 2�105 DN� 60 contour will be based on the most accurate projection of traffic levels and use
_. . . .. ____ ---
� �^_ . _
of appropriate ANOMS data
• MAC and affected communities will develop neighborhood and "natural boundaries" that reflect
current conditions at the outer edge of tha e�anded contour to the maximum extent possible
• insulation of dwellings/buildings in the expanded SIP to be performed in the following order of
prioriiy:
1. single family homes after completion of the 1996 DNL 65 SIP on the approved current
schedule
2. multifamily dwellings, nursing homes, and churches with regular weekday
daycare/nursery school types of operations — in accordance with a schedule agreed
upon by MAC and each affected city
• the program will be funded by a combination of Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) revenues,
airline fees, internally generated funds and federal aid; to the extent that MAC cannot fund the
�� expanded program in a reasonable period of time, support from the state of Minnesota will be
sought; however, in no case will unreimbursed financial impacts fall on affected residents or their
' local governments
e MAC will fund the program on an accelerated basis beyond its cu"rrent annual level of $25.5
million
• MAC will develop models which reflect the impact of ground level noise on residential properties;
mitigafion for low frequency noise will be developed after consultation with independent noise
mitigation expe�ts
• completion of the program is contingent on MAC maintaining a bond rating of at least A
Communitv Stabilization
The Metropolitan Airports Commission will pa�ticipate with affected communities to identify and quantify
any impacts the airport may have on declining property values and/or other negative consequences on
neighborhoods near the airport. To the extent that negative consequences can be quantified, a Working
Group should prepare recommendations to MAC for consideration by the Minnesota Legislature.
Community stabilization measures considered should include, but not be limited to, the measures
described in the Metropolitan Council-MAC Community Protection Report. The measures include
purchase and property value guarantees and housing replacement to complement the tax credit and
revitalization area legislation adopted in 1996.
A Working Group will be convened including representatives from MAC, Met Council, Northwest
Airlines, affected communities and legislative staff. The Working Group should identify a program
design, funding options, administrative responsibilities and eligibility area. The final legislative
recommendation should be presented to MAC and other interested parties for endorsement and
inclusion in 1997 legislative programs.
Dual Track Final EIS
B-1
in addition to the preceding mitigation, MAC is committed to perform the foilowing study.
Aimort Operations (
The following wili be incorporated and evaluated in a Part 150 update:
+ Take action, as required by the 1996 Legisiature, to prohibit use of Stage 2 aircraft after
December 31, 1999.
� Modify the night hours to 10:30 p.m. - 6:00 a.m. and limit activity during these hours to Stage 3
aircraft.
• Develop a departure procedu�e for Runway 22 to direct aircraft over areas of commercial
development and the Minnesota River Valley.
• Seek cooperation from FAA to implement departure procedures as appropriate at each runway
end.
• Evaluate departure procedures in the Eagan-Mendota Heights corridor.
• Work within the aviation industry to encourage further reductions in aircraft noise levels.
- �:-=:�
-`'�--� "• Negotiate the Sfage 2 prohibition, noise abatement procedures, and expansio�ra�fi nighf`hours;- - �'—� �
incorporating appropriate penalties for non-compliance.
• The MAC noise monitoring system monitors will be increased in number to provide more
coverage of actual impacts in the airport vicinity, in particular, areas affected by the north-south
runway. Areas affected by the parallel runways, may have additional microphone locations to
monitor continued and growing volumes of air traffic as the airport expands. This system should
be used to corroborate the accuracy of the modeled contours for noise prograrn eligibility.
Furthermore, on October 28, 1996 MAC also adopted the following mitigation, which is associated with the
proposed action.
Runwav Use
• Completion of the environmental process and construction of the North-Sou�h Runway should be
e�edited and completed as soon as possible. Progress should be measured against this (
schedule:
a) commence construction —1998
b) complete construction, open runway-2003
• In the interim, Ru�way 4/22 should be used for noise mitigation purposes. This requires the
foltowing:
a) Construction of associated taxiways;
b) Mitigation program at the southwest end of Runway 422 in the cities of Bloomington
and Rich�eld as required in the Final Record of Decision (March 28, 1995). The
acquisition portion of the mitigation will be initiated as soon as contracts for the
associated ta�dways are let and should be completed within a period of two years.
Funds for the acquisition program will be in addition to those designated for the
residential insulation program, consistent with the existing acquisition program. The
insulation portion of the mitigation will be integrated with the current MAC program,
starting as soon as contracts for construction of the associated ta�aways are let, or the
RUS is implemented, whichever occurs first The insulation program will be
implemented at the �ate of at least 20% of the total homes as defined in the Runway 4
22 mitigatio� program in each year until all of the single family and multiple family units
within the 1996 DNI. 65 contour are insulated. To the extent practical, MAC will identify
funding and program administration options to minimize delay in completion of the
current insulation program.
c) If the North-South Runway is completed before insulation of all eligible homes is
campleted, the insu(ation program for the area impacted by aircraft using Runway 422
may be te�minated.
Completion of this program is contingent on the MAC maintaining a bond rating of at least A. {'�
Dual Track Final EIS
B-2
�
Manapement and Operations Committee - Board File 12242
(See minutes of the October 9, 1996 Committee meeting)
B1
Ba
83
B4
65
B6
B7
B8
B9
B10
B11
B12
B13
B14
B15
B16
B1?
B18
B19
Commission Meeti�g
Ocbober 28. 1996
Page 5
/�lnoka ATCT Equip�reent N9ain#enance Agreerreent
Augusg Buc9g�t Va�iance
Naturat Gas RFP �
Bids Received for Gasoline and Diesel Fuel
Request to Purch�se Replacement Telephone System
�'tequest to Renegotiate Fleatiea�--.���.d� C_o.,a�ing G.���e��ts w�th Honeyweli and
Landis Gyr
Request to Bid Large Equipmen't
Consultant Interviews: Airport l.and Appraisal Study
1997 Budget Update
Legisiative Process
Commission Request for MSP Gate Information
Public Hearing: Ordinance No. 80 - Traffic Provisions
Concessions Pian Implementation
MAC Oversight of Airpart Security
Strategic Pianning
MOVED TO DISCUSSION - Request for Proposals - Cieaning Contract
Mitigation Committee Update
Rental Car QTA Updaie
Ground Transportation Issues
The following items were moved from the Consent to the Discussion portion of the
agenda:
A9 Preliminary 1997-2003 Capital improvement Program
B16 Request for Praposals - Cleaning Contract
„ii�..��i�
ti , i,�;�� 2 s iG" s; ^
OL.D BUSINESS
MSP Noise _M_itigation Committee Recommendation - Board File 12243
Commissioner Cramer, Chainnan of the MSP Noise Mitigation Committee, presented a
summary of the recommendations developed by the Committee. He noted that these
recommendations are the result of input received from the participati�g communities as
well as comments received at a public hearing which was held as pa�t of the Mitigation
Committee process.
Cammission Meeting
Ocbober 28, 1996
Page 6 �
Commissioner Crame� referenced the MSP Noise Mitigation Discussion Oufiine in
explaining the background and assumptions upon which the Committee based its
recommendations. In compliance with the 1996 Dual Track Legislation, the Commission
formed a committes to develop a noise mifigation plan based on the MSP 2010
Development Plan. He stressed that the Committee attempted to share both the benefits
and impacts of airpott development and operafions among communities, and worked
towarc! equitable distribution among the affected communities to the maximum extent
feasible. Implementation of mitigation activities is a shared responsibility of the
Commission, the ai�lines, the State of Minnesota, the FAA and the commu�ities.
The Committee organized its recommendations within four categories:
I. Insulation
11. Community Stabilitzation
111. Airport Operations
IV. Runway Use
Following Commissioner Cramers presentation, Chainnan Grieve asked for Commissioner
commenUdiscussion on Items I through III.
I. Insulation
COMMISSIONER REHKAMP MOVED AND COMMISSIOIVERGASPER SECONDED TO �
DELETE ITEM NO. 8 FROM SECTION 1.
-. - _., .. . . _ . ..- . -.,
. � , _ ! ' � - . � � . � � r -
• . , � • • ' � � . ,, • , � • � , . � r . , . .. • • � � , r
. � . • . . _ � • _ � � � _
� - - _ - � - - - - !' ! ` • -
- - _ � _ ! ' � * � � � .
The motion carried by unanimous vote.
11. Community Stabilization
Commissione� Himle questioned fhe airport's role in providing community stabilization. He
stated that he had previously requested fu�ther infoRnation quantifying the affects of airport
development on communifies, particularly real estate values, and that information
presented had been contradictory. Commissioner Hirnle felt that this issue needed to be
addressed by the woticing group. Commissioner Cramer indicated that the limited timetable
to develop a recommendation prevented the Mitigation Committee from addressing this
question and he suggested that it be the initial charge to the proposed working group.
t..
Gommissian Meeting
Octaber 28, 1996
Page 7
COMMISSIONER HINiLE MOVED AND COMIMISSIONER JONiVSON SECONDED TO
MODIFY SECTION 11. COMIIAUIVITY STABILIZATION AS FO�LOWS:
c� �r��nlzsGn Tn ,r����r,t�cnTe e croci nr, i�� THE NIETROPOLITAN AIRPORTS
COMMISSION SHOULD P�RTICIPATEWITH AFFECI'ED COMMUNITIES TO IDEIVTIFY
AND QUANTIFY AIVY � IMPACTS THE AIRPORT M�►Y HAVE ON DECLIfVING
PROPERIY 4�a4LlDES --P�AND/06a�+�THE�2 IVEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES ON
NEIGHBORHOODS �11EAR THE AIRPORT. TO THE EXTENT 1'HAT NEGATIVE
CONSEQUENCES CAN BE QUANTIFIED. A WORKING GROUP SHOULD PREPARE
RECOMMENDATIONS TO MAC FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE MIiViVESOTA
LEGISLATURE. COMMUNITY STABILIZATION MEASURES CONSIDERED SHOULD
INC�UDE, BUT NOT BE LIMITEO Tt�, THE MEASURES DESCRIBED IN THE
METROPOUTAN COUNCIL.-MAC COMMUNITI( PROTECTION REPORT. THE
MEASURES INCLUDE PURCNASE AND PROPERTY VALUE GUARANTEES AND
HOUSING REPLACEIViENT TO COMPLEMENT THE TAX CREDIT AND
REVITAI.IZATION AREA LEGISLATION ADOPTED IN 1996.
The motion carried by unanimous vote.
Concems were also expressed with regard to raising public expectations regarding
community stabilization effo�ts. Commissioner Cramer responded that the issues raised
during this discussion are valid and will be considered by the working group.
111. Airpart Operations
Commissione� Kahler questioned whether the nighttime hour restrictions would prohibit
emergency and unanticipated operations. Mr. Finney responded that this stipulaiion would
include exception for certain factors such as mechanical delays, weather conditions, and
air traffic delays. Several Commissioners did not support Item No. 7 under Airpo�f
Operations which would incorporate noise abatement procedures as part of the airline
lease negotiations. Mr. Finney indicated that several Mitigation Committee membe�s
expressed concem about tying noise abatement procedures to the lease agreements as
it may be difficult to modify noise restrictions in the future. Other Mitigation Committee
members felt that leases were the most effective tool for enforcement. Commission
members agreed that Item No. 8 should be modified to indicate that additional microphone
locations mav be located in a�eas affected by the parallel runways.
Considerable discussion followed with regarc! to the airport's future fina�cial standing and
its impact on mitigation funding. Commissioner Johnson noted that he supports the
recommendations; however, he cautioned the Commission to recognize that if the airport's
revenue stream is diminished, there may be insufficient funding to meet all needs as
� ' defined by the Commission. He stated that MAC has a responsibility to construct an
Commission IWeefing
Od�ober 28, 1996
Page 8 (; .
airport facility which wi11 meet the needs of the region. Mr. Finney indicated that the
Capital Improvement Program is modified on a yea�ly basis subject to the types of projects
and funding available. "
COMMISSIONER REi�IKAMP MOVED AND COMMISSICIiVER GASPER SECONDED TO
MODIFY SECTION 111 AS FOLL.OWS:
7. NEGOTIATE THE STAGE 2 PROHIBITtON, NOISE ABATEMENT
PROCEDURESo AND EXPANSION OF NIGHT HOURS �
_ _ Ri�A-V4S�FA�I�FS�C ,A1:��,"� �E-,A,.�'a€ ��"1e•°•"• c INCORPORATING
APPROPRIATE PENA�TIES FOR NOiV-COMPLIANCE.
8. THE MAC NOISE MONITORIiVG SYSTEM MONITORS SHOULD BE
IIVCREASED IN NUMBER TO PROVIDE MORE COVERAGE OF
ACTUA� IMPACTS IN THE AIRPORT VICINITY, IN PARTICULAR,
� AREAS AFFECTED BY THE NORTH-SOUTN RUNWAY. A�BAREAS
AFFECTED BY THE PARALLEL RUNWAYS ��#A-�� iIAAY HAVE
ADDITIONAL NiICROPHONE LOCATIONS TO MOMITOR CONTINUED
AND GR0INING VOLUMES OF AIR TRAFFIC AS THE AIRPORT
EXPANDS. THIS SYSTENf SHOULD BE USED TO CORROBORATE
THE ACCURACY OF THE MODELLED COIVTOURS FOR NOISE
PROGRAiVI E�IGIBI�ITY. The motion carried by unanimaus vote. �'
IV. Runway Use • �
Mayor Houle, Bloomington and Mayor Kirsch, Richfieid, addressed the Commission in
opposition to impleme�tation of the Runway 4/22 Runway Use System (RUS). Mayor
Houle stated that the RUS provides marginal �elief to Minneapolis residents and results
in a substantial increase in the number of flights and number of residents exposed to noise
in Eagan, Richfield and Blaomingfon. Mayor Houle urged the Commission to reject the
RUS for 4/22 and focus on a� expedited schedule of the North-South Runway. Mayor
Kirsch requested a study which evaluates the impact of ground level noise on �esidential
p�operfies. �
Commissioner Crame� stated the Committee committed a subsfantial amount of time in
an effort to develop a recommendation which would equitably balance the noise impact
and he urged Commission support of the Runway Use Recommendation.
Commissioner Himle urged the Commission to delete Item No. 2 of Runway Use which
suppo�ts the operation of Runway 4/22 for noise mitigation purposes during the interim
before construction of the North-South Runway. He felt that this is a costly proposal which
provides very little incremental benefit and suggested the Commission explore other
altematives to address this issue a�d avoid litigaiion. �
_
. • :� .
•«���� : •••
.:� •
COMMISSIt�NER HIMLE NIOVED AND COMMISSIONER MERICKE� SECONDED TO
DELETE IV. RUtVWAV USE - LTEM NO. 2. The motion failed on the foilowing roll ca11
vote:
Ayes, three: Cammissioners Himle, Johnson and nllerickel
Nays, eleven: Commi�sioners Cramer� D'Aquila, Dowdle, Fiore, Gasper,
Kahler, L.ong, Nliller� Rehkamp, Sienerson and
Chairman Grieve
Absent, one: Commissioner Hitesman
COMMISSIOtVER REHKAMP MOVED AND COMMISSIONER GASPER SECONDED
�tDOPT10N OF THE MSP NOISE MITIGATIOIV COMMITTEE RECOMIVIENOATIONS AS
FOLLOWS AS AMENDED:
INSUL.ATION
THE MITIGATION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS TO THE METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS
COMMISSION:
�I 1. THAT THE RESIDENTIAL SOUND IIVSUL�►TION PROGRAM FOR THE AREA
ENCOMPASSED BY THE 1996 DNL 65 CONTOUR BE COMPLETED OiV THE
CURRENTLY APPROVED SCHEDULE;
2. THAT TiiE PROGRAM BE EXPANDED AFTER COMPLETION OF THE CURRENT
PROGRAM TO INCORPORATE THE AREA ENCOMPASSED BY TNE 2005 60 DNL;
3. THAT THE 2005 60 DNL CONTOUR BE BASED ON THE MOST ACCURATE
PROJECTION OF TRAFFIC LEVELS �4ND USE OF APPROPRIATE ANOMS DATA;
4. THAT MAC AND AFFECTED COMMUNITIES SEEK APPROVAL FROM FA�4 TO
DEVELOP NEIGHBORHOOD AND "iVATURAL BOUNDARIES" THAT REFLECT
CURRENT CONDITIONS AT THE OUTER EDGE OF THE EXPANDED CONTOUR
TO THE IVIAXIMUM EXTENT POSSIBLE;
5. _ THE PRIORITIZATION OF THE EXPANDED PROGRAM SHOULD BE TO INITIATE
SING�E-FAMI�Y HOMES UPON COMPLETION OF THE CURRENTLY APPROVED
SCHEDULE, AND BEGIN WORK ON THE FO�LOWING NEWLY ELIGIBLE
DWELLINGS/BUI�DIfVGS, BEGINNING WITH THE HIGHEST NOISE EXPOSURE
LEVELS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH A SCHEDULE AGREED UPON WITH EACH
AFFECTED CITY -- MULTIFAMILY DWELLINGS, NURSING NOMES, CHURCNES
WITH REGl1LAR WEEKDAY DAYCARE/NURSERY SCHOOL TYPES OF
OPERATIONS;
i
Commission 11�eeting
Odober 28, 1996
Page 10 � "
6. THAT THE PROGRAM BE FUNDED BY A COMBINATION OF PFC REVENUES,
AIRLINE FEES, INTERNALLY GENERATED FUNDS, AND FEDERAL AID, WITH
ESTIMATED TOTAL. AND ANNUAL COSTS AS SUMMARIZED BELOW; TO THE
EXTENT THAT MAC CANNOT FUND THIS EXPANDED PROGRAM IN A
REASONABLE PERIOD OF TIME, SUPP06tT FROM °THE STATE OF MINi11ESOTA
SHOULD BE SOUGHT. IN NO CASE SHOUI.D UNREIMBU�2SED FINANCIAL
IMPACTS FALL ON A��ECTED RESIDEIVTS OR THEI�t LOCAL GOVERtVMENl'S.
7. THAT THE METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION COi41M11T TO FUNDItVG ITS
�,�. COMMUNITY BASED NOISE ABATEMENT PROGRAM _O_N_.�fll. A�CELERATED
BASIS BEY�ND ITS CURRENT LEVEL OF �25.5 Al11LLiOIV ANNUALLY;
- - �• _ �� • _ .•- . -.,
.;., _ •- .- . _ ,;. . .,.• ., . _ .,, . .
... •.,: .. . .. : ...,, . .;.. . . . . , _ . .,
• . _ . .-. . - . - . . - _ ' ' . - - : • . , ,
. ., .. . - � . . . . .- , - .• ..
. .,
9-: 8. THAT MAC DEVELOP NOISE IfVIPACT MODELS WHICH REFLECT THE IMPACT
OF GROUND LEVEL NOISE ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. MITIGATION FOR
LOW FREQUENCY NOISE SHOULD BE DEVEI.OPED AFTER CONSULTATION �"
WlTH INDEPENDENT NOISE MITIGATION EXPERTS.
9. COMP�ETIOIV OF THE SOUND INSULATION PROGRAM IS CONTIIVGENT UPON
THE MAC N9AINTAINING A BOND RATING OF AT LEAST A.
11. CO�MMUNITY STABILIZATION
[`A11Al1/IICC1/1P1 �ru�T-1�' �hhF��'-Id�R�4���IVIT-M �F��GT€B—o�""..,ahl�l��-T'����
�vmm�vvrvTa e�r
t��onr��n��_ n onr�nr� ^F'�–GAMAE{t-INITY ST����.�TI�N- �€Aa�'i�. ��c �-n r�c
r�i�z--r �r cr�� w—r � ri ira Ra :v —ar
�o��N?TT�1'1 Tf1 T4lG I►AIf�11�ICCATA 1 CrICI n-r�_��o�THE METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS
COMMISSION SHOULD PART(CIPATE WITH AFFECTED COMMUNITIES TO IDENTtFY
AND QUANTIFY ANY IMPACTS THE AIRPORT iV1AY HAVE ON DECLINING
PROPERTY VALUES ANDlOR OTHER NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES ON
NEIGHBORHOODS NEAR TNE AIRPORT. TO THE EXTENT THAT NEGATIVE
CONSEQUENCES CAN BE 41UANTIFIED, A WORKING GROUP SHOULD PREPARE
RECOMMENDATIONS TO MAC FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE MINNESOTA
LEGISLATURE. COMMUNITY STABi�IZATION MEASURES CONSIDERED SHOU�D .
INCLUDE, BUT NOT BE LIMITED TO, THE MEASURES DESCRIBED IN THE
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL-MAC COMMUNITY PROTECTION REPORT. THE
MEASURES INCLUDE PURCHASE AND PROPERTY VALUE GUARANTEES AND
HOUSING REPLACEMENT TO COMPLEMENT THE TAX CREDIT AND
REVITALIZATION AREA LEGISLATION ADOPTED IN 1996. �
Commissian Meeting
Ocbober 28, 1996
Page 11
A WORKIIVG GROUP SHOULD BE CONVENED INCLUDING REPRESENTA�'IVES
FROIIA nAAC, IUIET COIJNCIL, IVORTHVNEST AIRLINES, AFFECTED CONIMUNITIES
�4111D LEGISLA'TIVE STAFF. THE VIlORKING GROUP SHOULD IDEIVTIFY A PROGRAM
DESIGIV, �l1NDING OPTIONS, �►DMINISTRATIVE RESPOIVStBILI'f1ES AND
ELIGIBILITY AREA. THE FONAL. LEGISLATIVE RECOMNiEI�lDATION SHOULD BE
PRESENTED TO Md4C I�IVD l�THEE2 IMTERESTED PARTIES FOR ENDORSEMENT
/�ND INCLlJS10N IN 1997 LEGISLATIVE PROGR�►MS.
III. AIRPORT OPERATiONS
TtiE MITIGATION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS TO THE METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS
COMMISSION THAT TNE FOLLOWING BE 1NCORPORATED AND EVAI.UATED IN A
PART 150 UPDATE:
1. TAKE �►CTION, AS REQUIRED BY THE 1996 LEGIS�ATURE, TO PROHIBIT USE
OF STAGE 2 AIRCRAFT AFTER DECEMBER 31, 1999.
2. MODIFY THE NIGHT HOURS TO 10:30 P.M. - 6:00 A.M. AND �IMIT ACTIVITY
DURING THESE HOURS TO STAGE 3 AIRCRAFT.
�, � _ -
3. DEVELOP A DEPARTURE PROCEDUQ2E FOR RUNWAY 22 TO DIRECT AIRCRAFT
OVER AREAS OF COMMERCIAL DEVEL.OPMENT AND THE MIN11lESOTA RIVER
VALLEY.
4. SEEK CC�OPERATION FROM FAA TO IMPLEMENT DEPARTURE PROCEDURES
AS APPROPRIATE AT EACH RUNWAY END.
5. EVALl1ATE DEPARTURE PROCEDURES IN THE EAGAN-MENDOTA HEIGHTS
CORRIDOR. �
6. WORK WITHIN THE AVIA'TION INDUSTRY TO ENCOURAGE FURTHER
REDUCTIONS IN AIRCR�►FT NOISE LEVELS. '
7. NEGOTIATE THE STAGE 2 PROHIBITIt3N, NOISE ABATEMEIVT PROCEDURES,
AND EXPANSION OF IVIGHT HOURS, Ac ovnv�c�nn�c nc n�c�� �n�� ��nc�
Qcni�u►n� c �NCORPORATItVG APPROPRIATE PENALTIES FOR NON-
�
COMPLIANCE.
8. THE MAC NOISE MONITORING SYSTEM MONITORS SHOULD BE INCREASED IN
NUMBER T.O PROVIDE MORE COVERAGE OF ACTUAL IMPACTS IN THE
AIRPORT VICIIVITY, IN PARTICULAR, AREAS AFFECTED BY THE NORTN-SOUTH
RUNWAY. A�N�B AREAS AFFECTED BY THE PARALLEL RUNWAYS �-9-t��-� MAY
,' ` HAVE ADDITIONA� MICROPHONE I.00ATIONS TO MONITOR CONTINUED AND
`..,.,' GROWING VOLUMES OF AIR TRAFFiC AS THE AIRPORT EXPANDS. TNIS
Commission Meeting
Ocbober 28, 1996 �.
Paqe 12 '
SYSTEM SHOULD BE USED TO CORROBORATE THE ACCURACY OF TNE
MODELLED CONTOURS FOR NOISE PROGRAM ELIGIBILITY.
IV. RUNWAY USE
THE MITIGATiON COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS TO THE MAC TNE FOLLOVI/ING:
1. COMPLETION OF THE ENVIRONilAE1VTAL PROCESS AND CONSTRUCTION OF
.�_v,__ THE NORTH-SOUTH RUIVWAY SHOULD BE EXPEDITED_AN.Q_�9.�11PLE't'ED AS,:��-�,.��
SOON AS POSSIBLE. PROGRESS SNOULD BE MEASURED AGAINST THIS
SCHEDULE:
A. . COMMENCE CONSTRUCTION -= 1998;
B. COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION, OPEN RUNWAY — 2003
2. IN THE INTERIM, RUNWAY 4122 SIiOULD BE 11SED �OR NOISE f1A1TIGATION
PURPOSES. THIS REQUIRES THE FOLLOWING:
A. CONSTRUCTION OF ASSOCIATED TAXIWAYS;
B. MITIGATION PROGRAM AT THE SOUTHWEST END OF RUNIMAY 4-22 IN
THE CITIES OF BLOOMINGTON AND F2ICHFIELD AS RcQU1RED IN THE �'
FINA� RECORD OF DECISIOIV (MARCH 28, 1995). THE ACQUISITION
P•ORTION OF THE MITIGATIO(V SI-lOULD BE IfVIT1ATED AS SOOfV AS
CONTRACTS FOR THE ASSOCIATED TAXIWAYS ARE �ET AtVD SHOULD
BE_ COMPLETED WITHIN A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS. FUNDS FOR THE
EICQUBSITIO(d PROGE2AM SHOULD BE IN ADDITION TO THOSE
DESIGNATED FOR THE � RESIDENTIAL INSULATION PROGRAM,
CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING ACQUISITION PROGRAM. THE
INSULATIOfV PORTION OF THE MITIGATION SHOULD BE INTEGRATED
WtTH THE CURRENT MAC PROGRAM, STARTING AS SOON AS
CONTRACTS FOR CONSTRUCTI�N OF THE ASSOCIATED TAXIWAYS
ARE LET, OR THE RUS IS IMPLEMENTED, WHICHEVER OCCURS FIRST.
THE INSULATION PROGRAM SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED AT THE RATE
OF AT LEAST 20°/a OF THE TOTAL HOMES AS DEFINED IN THE RUNWAY
4-22 MITIGATION PROGRAM IN EACH YEAR UlVTIL ALL OF THE SINGLE
FAMILY AND MULTIPLE FAMILY UNITS WITHIN THE 1996 DNL 65
CONTOURARE INSULATED. TO THE EXTENT PRACTICAL, MAC SHOULD
ODENTIFY FUNDING AND PROGRAfVI ADMIfVISTRATION OPTIOIVS TO
MINIMIZE DELAY IN COMPLETION OF THE CURRENT INSULAT(ON
PROGRAN9. -
C. IF TNE NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY IS COMPLETED BEFORE INSULATION
OF ALI. ELlGIBLE HOMES IS COMPLETED, THE INSULATION PROGRAM
FOR THE AREA IMPACTEO BY AIRCRAFT USING RUNWAY 4-22 MAY BE
TERMINATED.
�.
Commission Alieefing
Qctober 28� 1996
Page 13
3. COMPLETION OF THIS P�20GRAM IS CONTINGENT ON THE MAC
fllIA1NTAINIIVG A BOND a2ATING OF AT LEAST A.
The motion c�rriec! on the foliowing roll ca19 vate: :
Ayes, fourteen: CommissionePs Cramer, D°Aquila, Dowdle, �'iore, Gasper,
Himle, Johnson, iCahler, Long, Merickel, Miller, Ftehkamp,
Steners�,�d Cfi�airman ��`�e
Nays, �one
Absent, one: Commissioner Hitesman
COMMISSIOtVER HIM�E MOVED AND COMMISSIONER LONG SECOt�iDED TO
COMMEND COMMISSIONER CRAMER, THE MSP NOISE MITIG�►TION COMMITTEE
AND STAFF FOR ITS UVORK IN DEVELOPING THE MITIGATION
RECOMMENDATIONS; FURTHER, THATTHE COMMIT'i'EE WAS SUCCESSFUL IN ITS
COMMITMENT TO COMPI.Y WITH THE LEGISLATIVE MAIVDATE AS WEL.L AS TO
BALANCE THE COMMUNITIES° NEEDS. The motion carried by u�nanimous vote.
Status Report - Runway 17/35 Land Acquisition and Lease Termination
Board File 12243
Thomas Anderson, General Counsel, repo�ted that as pa�t of the MSP Mitigation
Committee Noise Mitigation Pia�, the foilowing �ecommendaiion was included:
completion of the environmentai process and construction of the No�th-South
Runway shouid be expedited and completed as soon as possible.
He explai�ed that two of the key compo�e�ts in the n�nway project will be the acquisition
of several parcels located within the Federal Runway Protection Zone, State Safety Zones,
and adjacent a�eas and the termination of several on-airport leases.
Based upon the constniction schedule as shown in the 2010 Long Term Comprehensive
Plan, several significant airport facilifiss will be requi�ed to be located to the Rich Acres
Golf Course premises. Access to portions of this site will be required i� 1998 to constnact
utilifies and other infrastn�ctu�e for the runway project. Under fhe lease between MAC and
the City of Richfield regat�ding the Rich Acres Golf Course, if is necessary to p�ovide the
City eighteen months advance notice prio� to actual lease termination C.e., if nofice is
given immediately, the lease would not termi�ate until the spring of 1998).
''' Staff recommended that the Commission commence the formai public hearing process
� � necessary to acquire property in the approaches to the proposed Runway. One of the
�, � y ' , • • � � 1: �r / •
► � , • �
�'
� � � � � /
� , . ,� , � ,, , ' , � , � � � � ,,
�, ' , i , � r � � , , �
�' i � � r �, ' � � ' � , ,,
• . r ,j, � � r , ,,
i �' � �` � � ' � �' �
; � � ' i t . �,,' � ' � , ' � , , '� �,. �
WI�REAS, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposes to oversee
implementation of the Minneapolis-Saint Paul Internatizsn'al Airport (M�-l�-�-i,-ong-term
Comprehensive Plan (LTCP) by the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC); and
W��REAS, the FAA and MAC have prepared a Final Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIS) as part of the Dual-track Airport Planning Process, a major element of the development of
the LTCP; and
WHEREAS, the FAA has determined that the LTCP will have an effect upon properties
included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Piaces (36 CFR § 60.4)
(hereafter, National Register) and has consulted with the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation (Council), the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), and MAC
� pursuant to Section 800.13 of the regulations (36 CFR Part 800) implementing Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470�, and Section 110(� of the same Act (16
U.S.C. 470h-2(�); and
WI�REAS, the FAA will continue to follow the stipulations of an existing Programmatic
Agreement exclusively covering MSP activities related to noise mitigation under the FAA
Regulation "Part 150" Airport Noise and Land Use Compatibility Planning Prograin (Part 150
Program); and
WHEREAS, the National Park Service-Mississippi National River and Recreation Area,
Federal Highway Administration, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Minnesota
Department of Naiural Resources, Metropolitan Council, and Minneapolis Heritage Preservation
Commission participated in this consultation and have been invited to concur in this Programmatic
Agreetnent; and
WIIEREAS, a Section 404 permit sl�all be required from t11e Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps), the Corps has participated in consultation leading to this Programmatic Agreement and
has been invited to concur; and
WI-IEREAS, the Area of Potential Effects (APE) consists of: property within the
expanded MSP airport boundaries; property affected by construction/reconstruction of access
roadways, interchanges and signal systems directly serving the expanded airport; any of� site
� `�
property acquired for wettands, surface water, or other mitigation; properties affected by 1)
improvements to the regional highway and transportation systems, if the improvements are due to �'�
the expansion of MSP, and 2) induced socioeconomic impacts and land use impacts which are the
result of MSP expansion as defined by the FEIS (i.e. properties that are af%cted by the MSP
Alternative but not by the No Action Alternative) and/or which are the result of changes in the
revised comprehensive plans of the cities of Bloomington or Minneapolis that are related to the
expansion of MSP; and
WHEREAS, the APE also includes property within the projected year 2005 DNL 65 noise
contours for runways included in MSP's FEIS and supplements, if these properties are potentially
eligible for the National Register under Criteria A, B and/or C; and
W��REAS, new noise contours may be generated, based on FAA direction and related
airport operation/physical changes; the APE for properties potentially eligible for the National
Register under Criteria A., B and/or C will be modified to conform to the inost current projected
year 2005 DNL 65 noise contours. Also, the FAA may change the DNL noise contour eligible
for noise mitigation under the Part 150 Program; in that case, the LTCP .APE for properties
potentialiy eligibie for the National Register under Criteria A, B and/or C shall conform to the
year 2005 noise contour for the currently adopted Part 150 Program;
NOW, THEREFORE, the FAA, the Council, the SHI'O and the MAC agree that the MSP
LTCP shall be administered in accordance with the following stipulations to satisfy the FAA.'s
Section 106 responsibility for all individual undertakings of the program.
{,
ST�PULATIONS
The FAA will ensure that the foliowing measures are carried out:
l. IDENTIFICATION OF ADDITIONAL HISTORIC PROPERTIES
a) In order to identify potential archaeological resources not previously investigated within
portions of the APE as defined above, MAC will prepare a comprehensive research design
in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for
Identification and Evaluation (48 FR 44720-26) (hereafter, Standards and Guidelines) for
those portions of the APE that are not accessible at this time (e.g. active runways), but
where archaeological evidence may exist beneath built-up and paved areas. The research
design will also describe how National Register eligibility shall be assessed and how
potential impacts to those eligible resources may be addressed.
b) As additional APEs are defined, MAC shall undertake a survey within the expanded
area to identify properties that might meet the criteria for listing in the National Register.
The survey shal� be conducted in consultation with the SKPO and in accordance with the
Standards and Guidelines. Additional survey work will be conducted as necessary if
additional properties are identified within the APE. In consultation with the SHPO, MAC �
� �.
shall apply t��e National Register criteria to each potentially eligible property identified
; within the extended APE. If the FAA and SHPO do not agree about the National Register
eligibility of properties found, or if the Councii or the Secretary of the Interior so request,
the FA.A shall obtain a determination from the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the
applicable National Park Service regulations.
2. ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS
In consultation with the SHPO, the FA.A shall apply the Criteria of Effect and Adverse
Ei�ect (36 CFR §800.9) to those additional historic properties identified under Stipulation
l, giving consideration to the views, if any, of interested persons. If the ef�ect is not
adverse, the FAA and MAC will obtain the SHPO's concurrence for the project file which
shall be available for public inspection. If the SHPO does not concur, the action will 6e
treated as an adverse effect. If an adverse effect on historic properties is found, the FAA
and MAC shall consult with the SHPO to seek ways to avoid or reduce the effects on
historic properties.
MITIGATION OF EFFECTS
a) If MAC cannot avoid adversely af�'ecting other properties eligible for the Nationai
Register under Criteria A, B and/or C, and if the SHPO concurs that there is no reasonable
alternative to that adverse effect, the FAA and MA.0 will consult with the SHPO
regarding appropriate treatment. The FAA and MAC will ensure that the treatment is
� carried out in a timely manner. If the SHPO does not concur with the FAA's finding, the
FAA shall proceed with the dispute resolution process outlined in Stipulation 14.
b) Treatment of properties eligible for the National Register under Criterion D will be
initiated with preparation of a data recovery plan, which will consist of a research design
delineating the extent and focus of the required excavation, as well as the methodology
needed to ensure maximum retention and curation of the research significance of
excavated data. Upon review and approval by the SHPO, the data recovery will be
implemented as outlined in the plan.
4. THE ORIGINAL WOLD-CHAMBERLAIN TERMINAL HISTORIC DISTRICT
a) Prror to any disturbance, the Original Wold-Chamberlain Terininal Historic District
shall be documented to the standards of the Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS).
MAC will contact the National Park Service (NPS) to determine what level of recordation
is required. Unless otherwise agreed to by the NPS, the FAA shall ensure that all
documentation is completed and accepted by HABS prior to any alteration, and that an
original archival copy (including text, photographs, and negatives) is provided to the
SHI'O, and that additional photocopied copies are made available to appropriate focal
archives designated by the SHPO.
b) MAC shall contact the Smithsonian Institution (Air and Space Museum, Aeronautics
' � Division) and the Minnesota Historical Society (Museum Collections Division) to offer the
opportunity to select architectural elements or historical objects from any of the
contributing buiidings in the historic district for curation and display, providing that the {
selection of these elements witl cause no undue delay in the implementation of the LTCP. �'
The FAA and MAC shall ensure that the items selected are removed in a manner that
minimizes damage. Removal of the items will be at the expense of the recipients.
SPRUCE SHADOWS FARM HISTORIC DISTRICT
MAC will develop a treatment plan for the Spruce Shadows Farm Historic District by
December 31, 1997. The plan will include a schedule for completing the treatment. MAC
will develop and implement the plan in consultation with the property owner, the SHPO
and the FAA. The plan will be submitted to the SHPO for their concurrence, prior to
implementation.
Administrative Stipulations
6. At any time during implementation of the measures stipulated in this agreement, should an
objection to any such measure or its manner of implementation be raised by a member of
the public, the FA.A shall take the objection into account and consult as needed with the
objecting party, the SHPO, the MAC, or the Council to resolve the objection.
7. The FAA shall be responsibte on an annual basis for consulting with the parties to this
agreement to review implementation of the terms of this agreement and determine whether .
amendments are needed. �
8. Since the LTCP directs MSP development over an extended period of time, a
suppleinental study of historic and architectural resources in the APE will be prepared by
MAC in the year 2005 to reassess the National Register eligibility of properties that have
becoine fifty years old since the previous survey was completed, and to consider recent
scholarship on property types existing within the APE. The FAA. shall ensure that MAC
will conduct the survey in consultation with the SHPO and will take into account the
Standards and Guidelines. If the SHPO objects with the findings of the survey report, the
FA.A shall proceed with the dispute resolution process outtined in Stipulation 14.
9. The FAA shall ensure that MAC provides reports on all activities carried out pursuant to
this agreement to the SHPO and, upon request, to other interested parties.
10. The Council and the SHI'O may monitor activities carried out pursuant to this agreement,
and tl�e Council will review such activities if so requested. The FAA and MAC will
cooperate with the Council and the SHPO in carrying out their monitoring and review
responsibilities.
1 l. Any party to this agreement may request that it be amended, whereupon the parties will
consult in accordance with 36 CFR § 800.13 to consider such amendment.
12. Any party to this agreement may terminate it by providing thirty (30) days notice to the
� other parties, provided that the parties will consult during the period prior to termination
to seek agreement on amendments or other actions that would avoid termination. In the
event of termination, the FAA and MAC will comply with 36 CFR §§ 800.4 through
800.6 with regard to individual undertakings covered by this agreement.
13. In the event the FAA and MAC do not carry out the terms of this agreement, the FAA will
ensure compliance with 36 CFR §§ 800.4 through 800.6 with regard to individual
undertakings covered by this agreement.
14. If the SHPO objects within thirty (30) days to any reports, findings or other information
provided for review pursuant to this agreement, the FAA shall consult with the SHPO to
resolve the objection. If the FAA determines that objection cannot be resolved, the FAA
shall forward all documentation relevant to the dispute to the Council. Within thirty (30)
days after receipt of all pertinent documentation, the Council will either:
a) provide the FAA with recommendations, which the FA.A will take into account in
reaching a final decision regarding the dispute; or
b) notify the FAA that it will comment pursuant to 36 CFR § 800.G(b) with reference to
the subject of the dispute.
Any recommendations or comment provided by the Council will be understood to pertain
� 1 only to the subject of the dispute; the FAA's responsibility to carry out all actions under
this agreement that are not the subjects of the dispute will remain unchanged.
15. The FAA and MAC shali ensure that all survey, National Register assessment, and
documentation work carried out pursuant to this agreement is carried out by or under the
direct supervision of a person or persons meeting at a minimum the qualifications for
archaeologists, historical archaeologists, historians, and architectural historians, as
appropriate, as defined by the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications
Standards (48 FR 44738-9).
16. If a federal agency concurring with this agreement initiates an undertaking that is included
in the LTCP, assessed in the FEIS and supplements, and located within the APE as
defined above, it is hereby acknowledged that the concurring agency's responsibilities
under Section 106/Section 110 have been fulfilled by the agency's adherence to this
Programmatic Agreement, as long as it is in force.
Execution and iinplementation of this Programmatic Agreement evidences that the FAA has taken
into account the effect of the MSP Long-term Comprehensive Plan on historic properties and
afforded the Council an opportunity to comment on the effect.
ADVISORY COUNCIL ON STORIC PRESERVATION
By: Date: �/ z�/ �7
5
Title: �� � ���
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
By: �,,, - vt T�,-=.a�-,-.
Title: ��r.,. �'YJ SC- /�,d�t.�
Date: 7 - /l - q 7
MINNESOTA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
By. t�, t�/tC:.i�l �-�'� Date: �� � 1 ni �'
Title:
METROPOLITAN A.IRPORTS COMMISSION
BY: � ` `
, ---'�
Title: •�
Concur:
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE-MISS
Title:
Date: 7. � -q7
NATIONAL RIVER AND RECREATION AREA
Date: ,�" 3 � -� /� �
�
FEDERAL HLGHWA'Y ADMINISTR.ATION
(• .
By: ,��� �'(�yt�...T �� /� Date: � Z i /.
_. - ,
�
Title: �'� <b� c'��%, ,%��';," �;='r't�,�i i�,��; ,.
,i
ARMY CORPS F EN I�ERS
By: Date: �;-��..�.t,� � �
, �
Title: � � �•��i � �
My concurrence in this agreement is 7imi d to its application to the Section 106 and Section
requirements. Specifically, my concu ence is not relevant with respect to the Section 40�
permi tt��SOTA DEPSART1MENT OF T nRANSPORTATION endorsement of the L.TCP.
BY������==�.-l�l ' �
/ /
Title: � i�/�'`'� G+��r1/!'I`' �C'�,�-{= Ei��;i`rl����
Date: %�j9 %
METROPOLITAN CO C
By: Date: �� �`�`�' � �
Title: �� �
MINNEAPOLIS HERITAGE PRESERVATI N COMMISSION
l
t By: � �� y� � Date: :.S .,1 � r'
� �/ —
Title: �` �A-��`
APPENDIX A: HISTORIC PROPERTY SURVEYS RELATED TO MSP
Harrison, Christina. "The Archaeological Resources of Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport with
Vicinity." Prepared by Archaeological Research Services for the Metropolitan Airports
Cornmission and HNTB, 1996.
Roise, Charlene. "Determination of National Register Eligibility: Original Wold-Chamberlain
Terminal Complex, Minneapolis." Prepared by Hess, Roise and Company for the
Metropolitan Airports Commission and HNTB, April 1994.
_. "Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport Reconnaissance Survey: New Ford TownlRich Acres."
Prepared by Hess, Roise and Company for the Metropolitan Airports Commission and
HNTB, November 1992.
_. "Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport Reconnaissance Survey: The Built Environment."
Prepared by Hess, Roise and Company for the Metropolitan A.irports Commission and
HNTB, December 1992.
_. "Minneapolis-Saint Paul Airport Reconnaissance/Intensive-level Survey (for Long-
term Comprehensive Plan Alternative Environmental Document): The Built
Environment." Prepared by Hess, Roise and Company for the Metropolitan Airports
Commission and HNTB, August 1995.
j,
_. "Section 106 Compliance Assessment: Sound Insulation Program 1995 Phase, �
Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport." Report prepared by Hess, Roise and
Company for the Center for Energy and Environment, October 1995.
�
APE
Corps
Council
FAA
FEIS
HAB S
LTCP
MAC
MSP
NPS
National Register
Part 150 Program
SHPO
Standards and Guidelines
APPENDIX B: ABBREVIA.TIONS
Area of Potential Effect
Army Corps of Engineers
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Federal Aviation Administration
Final Envirornnental Impact Statement
Historic American Buildings Survey
Long-term Comprehensive Plan
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport
National Park Service
National Register of Histor'rc Places
FAA Regulation "Part 150" Airport No'rse and Land Use
Compatibility Planning Program
Minnesota State H'rstoric Preservation Officer
Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for
Identification and Evaluation
APPENDIX C:
PARTIES AND ADDRESSES �'"
FOR NOTIF'ICATIONS RELATEID TO THIS AGREEMENT
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Attn: Mary Ann Naber)
Old Post Office Building, 1100 Pennsyivania Avenue N.W., Suite 809
Washington, D.C. 20004
(202) 606-8534
Federal Aviation Administration District Office (Attn: Glen Orcutt)
6020 28th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55450
(612) 713-4354
Metropolitan Airports Commission (Attn: Mark Ryan)
6040 28th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55450
(612)726-8100
State Historic Preservation Office (Attn: Dennis Gimmestad)
345 Kellogg Boulevard West
Saint Paul, NIN 55102
(612) 296-5434
National Park Service (Attn: Mike Madel)
Mississippi National River and Recreation Area
175 Fifth Street East, Suite 418, Box 41
St. Paul, MN 55101
(612) 290-41 GO
Federal Highway Administration (Attn: Cheryl Martin)
Metro Square Building, Suite 490
7th Place and Robert Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
(612) 291-6100
Army Corps of Engineers (Attn: John Anfinson)
190 East Fifth Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
(612) 290-5260
Minnesota Department of Transportation (Attn: G. Joseph Hudak)
395 John Ireland Boulevard
St. Paul, MN SS l55
(612)296-6116
Metropolitan Council (Attn: Pat Pahl)
230 East Fifth Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
(612) 291-6359
Minneapolis Heritage Preservation Commission (Attn: Amy Lucas)
Minneapolis City Hall, 350 South Fifth Street, Room 210
Minneapolis, MN 55415
(612)673-2422.
l '
APPEND/X D WETLAND M/T/GAT/ON PLAN
The wetlands impacted by the proposed action and the required mitigation is given in the
following table.
Table D.1-1 - Wetland Mitigation Requirements - MSP 2010 LTCP
Basin Size (Acres) Wetland Displaced Wetland Mitigation
(Acres) Requirement
Mother Lake 142.30 11.4; 6.1 below OHWL 1.5:1 (9.15 acres)'
5.3 above 2:1 (10.6 acres) Z
OHWL
Duck �ake Wetlands 10.2 10.2; 7.91 below 1.5:1 (11.87 acres)'
OHWL 2:1 (4.58 acres) 2
2.29 above OHWL
"Ball Field" Wetlands 9.47 9.47 2:1 (18.94 acres) Z
Golf Course Wetlands 1.89 1.89 2:1 (3.78 acres) 2
TOTAL 163.86 32.963 acres 58.92 acres
' DNR assumed requirement; Z WCA requirement; 3 Corps of Engineers requirement (1:1)
Source: Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc.
Permits from the following wetland �egulatory programs and agencies will be required for impacts
to wetlands associated with the MSP 2010 LTCP. These agencies will also require acceptable
'� compensatory wetland rnitigation before permits can be issued for the MSP 2d10 LTCP.
Section 404 Clean Water Act
This federal wetland regulatory program requires permits and mitigation for fill and other
substantial adverse modification of waters of the Unified States, including wetlands. The
program is administered by the St. Paul District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Protected Waters Proqram
This state law applies to wetlands of Types 3, 4 and 5 that have been inventoried by the DNR
which are at least 2.5 acres in size in incorporated areas and at least 10 acres in unincorporated
areas of the state. Permits and mitigation are required for projects which would change the
course, current or cross-section of protected waters. The program is administered by the DNR -
Metro Waters.
Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA)
This state law applied to all non-DNR protected wetlands and requires permits and mitigation for
filing and draining of those wetlands. The Metropolitan Airports Commission acts as the Local
Government Unit administering the WCA with the oversight of the Minnesota Board of Water and
Soil Resources.
On August 8, 1996, a field meeting was conducted with regulatory agencies to review the
primary wetland impact areas associated with the MSP 2010 �TCP. Agencies present at this
meeting included the U.S. Army Corps of Enginee�s and the Minnesota DNR. Specifically, the
projected impacts at the Duck L.ake and Ball Field wetlands were reviewed. Although grading
plans had not yet been developed, the agencies were shown the general area where the 11.4-
acre impact area for clear zone and an access road is expected to occur at the fringe of Mother
Dual Track Final EIS
D-1
Lake. Three of the mitigation sites described below (Waconia, Minnetrista and New Prague) have
been reviewed in the field with the Corps and DNR. The Corps has agreed that these sites are (�
promising and usable for the wetland impacts of the MSP 2010 LTCP (see attached
correspondence). Although the DNR generally agrees with the sites as potential mitigation, they
are awaiting further plan development before approving any of the sites (see attached
correspondencel.
The sites that are being considered for wetland mitigation for the MSP 2010 LTCP are located in
Belle Plaine, Eden Prairie, Minnetrista, Waconia New Prague. A combination of one or more of
these sites would provide the needed wetland replacement acreage for the MSP 2010
reconstruction. Any additional mitigation acreage created would be placed into the state
mitigation bank for use on future impacts associated with the long range plan at MSP.
The potential mitigation sites are described below and have not been placed in any particular
order in terms of desirability or feasibility.
Belle Plaine Mitiqation Sites
The rural Belle Plaine sites consist of two prior converted wetlands which are now being farmed.
These wetlands are underlain by drain tile which may or may not be effectively draining the
basins. The first basin is approximately 35 acres in size and is not currently being cropped,
although it has been in the past. Before draining it was a saturated palustrine emergent (PEMB;
Circular 39 Type 2 inland fresh meadow) and seasonally flooded palustrine emergent (PEMC;
Circular 39 Type 3 inland shallow marsh) wetland. By eliminating the current tile drainage
system and restoring wetland hydrology, the system would be expected to return to its former
wetland condition.
The second wetland mitigation site is very near the first site and consists of approximately 100 (�
acres which would appear to be effectively drained since the area is cropped virtually every year. `
Restoration would consist of plugging or breaking the existing tile system and restoring the basin
which has a large watershed. The landowner who was contacted with regard to this site is one
of 5 landowners who abut the basin. At such time as wetland permits are being sought for the
MSP 2010 reconstruction, the other landowners would be contacted with regard to selling the
drained wetland. The indications from the landowner contacted are that the other owners would
be willing to consider selling the parcel.
Eden Prairie Mitiaation Sites
These sites consist of tiled and drained wetland within the Minnesota River bottoms, which are
currently used as agricultural cropland. Several parcels are available for use as wetland
mitigation through restoration and/or creation. These areas total approximately 40-100 acres.
The restoration/creation technique on these parcels would be to eliminate the tile systems and
perhaps do some excavation within the created wetland areas.
There are also some existing wetlands within the Minnesota River bottoms property which are
currently partially or effectively drained by ditches and tile lines. These basins total
approximately 80 acres and could be restored through similar techniques as described above.
These areas currently consist of temporarily flooded palustrine emergent (PEMA; Circular 39 Type
1 seasonally flooded basins), saturated palustrine emergent (PEMB; Circular 39 Type 2 inland
fresh meadow) and seasonally flooded palustrine emergent (PEMC; Circular 39 Type 3 inland
shallow marsh) wetlands.
Dual Track Final EIS
D-2
Waconia Site
This site consists of approximately 21 acres of historically drained peatland that is currently being
used as a sod farm. The basin is underlain by a drain tile system and a series of upslope erosion
control terraces which effectively remove the natural hydrology of the area. This basin was
restored in the summer of 1997 by disabling the drain-tile system and breaking the shoulder of
the terraces in certain locations. An earthen overflow berm/road was constructed at the basin's
outlet to retain water and to serve as an overflow should water levels ever become high enough.
With the drainage facilities disabled, the restored wetland now has a seasonally to semi-
permanently flooded water regime (PEMC; Circular 39 Type 3 shallow marsh and PEMF; Circular
39 Type 4 deep marsh) and totals approximately 21 acres. Of this acreage, 2.86 acres are being
used as mitigation for another project and 10 acres have been transferred to another bank
account holder; the remaining acreage would be usable for the MSP 2010 reconstruction.
Restoration of this site has been approved for mitigation banking by the Corps of Engineers and
the Local Governmental Unit (LGU) under the WCA. The �GU has processed an application for
the mitigation credits which were deposited into the state wetland bank on December 31, 1997.
Minnetrista (Nesvold) Site
This site consists of a totally d�ained former wetland that was historically drained through the
placement of tile. Approximately 5 acres of wetland could be restored in two areas adjoined by a
sloping drainageway. A similar basin was �estored a few hundred feet upstream in the
watershed of this proposed mitigation site. Based on the results at that restored basin, the
expected wetland types at the mitigation site would be seasonally to semi-permanently flooded
palustrine emergent (PEMC/PEMF; Circular 39 Type 3 shallow marsh/Circular 39 Type 4 deep
marsh), wetland. The wetland would be established through the disabling of the existing drain tile
to restore the basin's historic hydrology. Approximately 5 additional acres of mitigation credit
may be possible at this site fo� WCA-regulated impacts. This acreage would be in the form of an
upland buffer for which the WCA allows public value credit. Conceptual plans and cost
estimates have been completed for this site.
New Practue Site
This site had been considered as a candidate site for the St. Paul Airport reconstruction project
and local regulatory agencies have indicated that it would be a suitable mitigation site. The site
is owned by two parties and has been artificially drained. The basin is approximately 40 acres in
size and is characterized as drained fa�mland. The restoration methodology would include
disabling the drainage system and possibly constructing a water control structure at the basin's
outlet.
Schedule for Wetland Permits - 2010 LTCP
The MAC has authorized staff to pursue the acquisition of wetland mitigation credits necessary
to obtain the permits required to implement the proposed action (see attached commission
action). The remaining activities and schedule for obtaining the required wetland permits is given
on the following page for the mitigation sites under consideration. The following sites are not
under consideration at this time.
Belle Plaine Mitiqation Sites
These sites have been reviewed in the field and the one holding the most promise (100-acre drain
tiled basin) has 5 landowners abutting it. This could complicate the acquisition process;
therefore, this site will not be pursued unless other more easily acquired sites become
unavailable.
Dual Track Final EIS
D-3
Eden Prairie Mitiqation Sites
Since these sites were flooded at the time when mitigation sites were being selected, concept (
mitigation plans are not being developed at this time. If needed, these sites would be revisited in
the future.
Schedule of Activities to Obtain Wetland Mitigation Permits
January MAC to initiate letter Meet with MAC to present Prepare wetland
1998 of intent agreement regulatory agencies Letter of Intent to permit applications
for Minnetrista site. to present owner of Waconia for the Corps of
conceptual plan for site. Engineers, DNR and
Minnetrista site and WCA.
get approval for its
use.
February If owners of New Consider alternative Meet with Assuming agency
1998 Prague site interested, sites if one or more regulatory agencies concurrence,
have MAC present potential sites fall to present acquire/produce 2'
them with Letter of through. conceptual plans contour maps of all
Intent. for New Prague; sites still under
get feedback and consideration
approval for use of (except Waconia
this site as well as site since
Waconia site. restoration already
completed).
March Make final site Produce concept Engineer review Finalize agreements
1998 selection(s). grading plans for'all and final drawing of with landowners;
sites still under grading plans. pu�chase
consideration acres/easements.
(except Waconia).
April 1998 Finalize mitigation Submit permit
plans for all sites. applications with
mitigation plans to
regulatory agencies.
May 1998 Regulatory agency Respond to agency
review of permit comments on
applications. permit applications.
June 1998 Pu61ic Notices sent out
by agencies.
July 1998 Respond to comments Agencies begin
received during public processing permits.
notice.
August/ Permits issued by
September regulatory agencies.
1998
�
Dual Track Final EIS
D-4
DEPARTMENT QF iHE AAMY
� BY. PAUi, dSTRiCT, COHPS OF ENGINEERS
\ � AqMY CONP3 OF �►+C+C�iNEERS CEN1fiE
100 FIFfN STREET EA6T
ST, P�UL, MN 36t01-t6:10
,7une 18, 1997
ilEYlv TO
ATTENTION dF
Construction-Operations
Regulatory (96w01256-SF-JJY)
Mr. Michael Graham
Petersan Envisonmental Consulting
1355 Mendota F�eiqhts Road
Suite 10p
Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55120-1112
Dear Mr. Graham:
,_,.� ,.__ __ _ . . ._.. .._.. . _ .- - .
�i,;�� , . . .
t. � : ; .. ,:. _
_ . _. : �. ,�
This letter oonfirms tha� the threa siteB we viewed on May
27, 1997, all appear to ba promising compensatory mitigation
sites that could be us�d For the Twin Cities International
A�.rpor�. expansian or fQx other projects that might a�fect
wetlands. Th� three sites include the Nesvo].d-Minnetrista site,
the C�rpenter-Waconia site, �ind the Hakim/Krueser-New Prague
si.te. Each site invQlves a drained wetland that could be
restored by ditch plugs, tile breaks, berm construction, or svme
coznbination o� these measures.
} The Carpenter-Waconi.a site has already b�en approved as
mitigatiion aarea, and the restaratfon work there was underway
the ti.me af our visit. The ather two sites are potential
re�taxation areas th�t are privately awned. I hope that you
ab].e �o r�ach agreement with the landownexs and restore theae
sites. �
Please keep our office adva.sed of any new developm�nts,
especially any agreements or proposed mitiga�fon planse
a
at
are
If you have any quastions, please contact me in our St. Paul
b.�f3.CE at (612) 290-5362. xt� any correspondence or inquiriea,
pl.ease refer to �h� file number shawn ab4v�.
Sinaerely,
o eph a ta
Project Man r
. western Permit Evaluation Section
r,��ted o� (�] R.cvdw Pap�r
W
- . � T� i._ n� A•9RD��
TO: Larry Da11am, HNTB Corporation
Bob Vorpahl, Metropolitan Airports Commission
Ceil Strauss, Mn-DNR Metro Waters
Peter Leete, Mn-DNR Metro Waters
Michele Stradtmann, Mn-DNR Wildlife
Aimie Yam, Mn-DNR Metro Waters
FROM: Mike Graharr�.�9•
DATE: August 20, 1997
SUBJECT: Meeting with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Regarding Wetland Mitigation Plans for the Minneapolis/St. Paul Airport
2010 LTCP
On July 17, 1997 a meeting was held at Minnesota DNR Regional Headquarters between
the Mn-DNR, the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC), HNTB Corporation and
Peterson Environmentai Consulting, Inc. (PEC). Those present included Ceil Strauss,
Peter Leete, Michele Stradtmann and Aimie Yam from the Mn-DNR, Bob Vorpahl from
the MAC, Larry Daliam from HNTB and Mike Graham from PEC. Joan Galli from the
Mn-DNR joined the meeting at its conclusion and was briefed afterward by Mn-DNR
staff. The issues discussed included the following:
l.
�
3.
The portion of Duck Lake that would be regulated by the Mn-DNR
Preliminary information on the mitigation sites currently being considered.
The mitigation ratio that would be sought by the Mn-DNR for impacts to Duck
Lake.
Portion of Duck Lake Regulated by Mn-DNR
The Mn-DNR has established an Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL) for Duck Lake at
819.1' (NGVD, 1929). PEC delineated three separate and distinct basins in the Duck
Lake area in May 1997 including the main water body (8.63 acres), a small finger
separated from the main body by a road (0.07 acres) and another wetland separated from
the small finger by an upland berm (1.50 acres). A 1-foot contour topographic map of the
Duck Lake area with the wetland delineation boundaries overlayed was presented. This
map shows that portions of all three basins are below 819', however, the topography on
135:i Alendo(a Hei,Ghls Road, Suile IOp ■ Mendola HciqlNs, MrnnesoL� iSl '(�-� 11? ■ GI:�-GSG-0151 . i=.�.�� GI'-Gt;6-0.3G9
;
f
MSP Wetland Mitigation Plan Meeting
Page 2
the map is photo based and not ground truthed. Ceil Strauss stated that for purposes of
this project she would not consider the two smaller basins to be a part of the Protected
Water if the road separating the 8.63 acre open water from the other two wetlands was
constructed prior to the Mn-DNR receiving authority to conduct the Protected Waters
Inventory. Bob Vorpahl and Mike Graham will coordinate to review aerial photographs
in order to determine when the road was built. Peter Leete will determine the year that
the PWI program was initiated. If it is shown that the road was built prior to the PWI
program, the two smaller basins of 1.50 and 0.07 acres would not be regulated by the Mn-
DNR but would fall under the jurisdiction of the Wetland Conservation Act and Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (administered by the U.S. A.rmy Corps of Engineers).
IVlitigation Sites
Three potential mitigation sites located in Waconia, Minnetrista. and New Prague were
discussed. The information presented generally included the geographic location,
estimated size, estimated wetland iype and general construction techniques that would be
used to restore each basin. It was the sentiment of the Mn-DNR staff that the Nesvold
site in Minnetrista was the most desirable restoration candidate of the three sites
presented, followed by the Hakim/Kreuser site near New Prague and the Carpenter site in
Waconia. Mike Graham stated that all three mitigation sites would constitute restoration
of drained wetlands and that the restoration work at the Carpenter site had been
completed in May 1997.
�� The Mn-DNR staff stated that the wetland type (Circular 39 Type 4 deep marsh to Type 5
open water) to be created at the Nesvold site would probably be usable to offset the loss
of habitat at Duck Lake, although it may not provide enough acreage. Any excess
acreage that is necessary would be gained from other mitigation sites. The Mn-DNR staff
also made the point that they would prefer to use one discrete mitigation basin as the
primary wetland used to offset the loss of Duck Lake. Although the Nesvold site may not
provide the full acreage required by the Mn-DNR (see discussion under Mitigation Ratio
below), staff indicated that it would provide a significant amount of this acreage and
would probably be of a wetland type acceptable to the Mn-DNR. The "upstream"
restored wetland at the Nesvold site was discussed as a reference wetland to get some
idea of the expected wetland type at the mitigation area in question.
Mitigation IZatio
Ceil Strauss stated that a mitigation ratio of 1.5:1 was a general rule of thumb that had
been commonly applied on past projects. The Mn-DNR staff agreed that PEC could use
this ratio for mitigation planning purposes. Staff also expressed that the mitigation ratio
ultimately decided upon by Mn-DNR would take into consideration the upland habitat
benefits of any given site. A discussion followed regarding the possibility of
implementing an upland planting plan at the Nesvold site. PEC will proceed with
mitigation plans which may include an upland planting component.
MSP Wetland Mitigation Plan Meeting
Page 3
General Information
The functions and values of Duck Lake were briefly discussed. Bob Vorpahl noted that
he had seen the water drawn completely down at the lake duzing his 10-year tenure. The
water quality of the lake was also generally discussed. It was agreed that Michele wouid
conduct a field assessment of Duck Lake to evaluate the functions and values that the
Mn-DNR would like to see repiaced at the mitigation sites. This field assessment will not
be done using a formalized method but will be more of a general analysis. Michele will
coordinate with Bob to arrange this site visit.
Mn-DNR. staff were generally optimistic about the wetland mitigation sites, however,
further plan development will be necessary for the Mn-DNR. to more formally approve
any of the sites for use. At this time, none of the potential mitigation sites will be
dropped from consideration. Mitigation plans have already been completed for the
Carpenter site in Waconia and that site is pending enrollment into the state wetland
mitigation bank. Mn-DNR staff stated that any mitigation wetland used to offset the loss
of Duck Lake would need to be of a type acceptable to the Mn-DNR, particularly the
wildlife staff. It was expressed that Type 3 or Type 4 wetland would likely be acceptable
to offset the loss of Duck Lake which is a Type 5, especially since fisheries issues were
virtually non-existent at Duck Lake.
The next step for the project will be to begin negotiation with the owners of the
Hakim/Kreuser site and the Nesvold site. When possible, more detailed site information
will be collected and preliminary mitigation plans wili be done. I anticipate distributing
these draft plans for review by the Mn-DNR as well as other wetland regulatory agencies.
Signature of Attendees
The undersigned have read and agree to the information contained in this memorandum.
By signing, Mn-DNR staff are not committing to or approving for use any of the
mitigation sites discussed.
Bob Vorpahl, Metropq�tan Airports Commission
,
.-
. �, ► � � .
/� //��...�...��
. :�:,� �'�► � . r . , .
.
`—�'1�,cG�-�������
Michdle S�-�a�-��n, Mn-DNR Wildlife
1�...9�'r�
O
Da e
–� L-i' —
Date
S/� � �-
Date
�u ��
D e
� �/ 9 7 _
Date
4
1'�
MSP Wetland Mitigation Plan Meeting
Page 4
�e Yam, M�fDNR Metro Waters
Mike Graham, Peterson Environmental
� L ! �T
Date
�� �
Date
Comm(ssbn �lleeting
Septembec 15, 189T
Page 5
COMMtSS10NER LONG PAOVED AND COM1VtISS00NER MILLER SECOIV�ED
ACCEPTAIVCE OF THE LOWEST RESPOiVSIBl.6 6tp FOR THE PART 150 SOUND
IiVSt1LAT10N PROGRAM -AUGUST� t997 BID CYCLE, SUMMARtZEO AS �OLI.OWS:
AMERICAN SPECIAI. CONTRACTING (DBE)
�LOM CUS'1'OM HOMES
J. BROLSlIflA CONSTRUCTION
KATHY'S CONSTRUCTIAN (DBE)
KEVIN THOiNPSON NORAES
RED ROCK CONSTRUCTION
SOCON CONSTRUCTIOtVo INC.
THOR CONSTRUCTION (DBE)
10
9
12
3
7
26
3
$i 83.671
189�865
17,6T7
243,746
43,919
248,9T2
549,920
69�065
I�UTHORI2ATION �OR THE EXEGUTIVE DIRECTOR OR HIS DESIGtVEE TO EXECUTE
THE NECESSARY DOCU(NENTS; FURTHER, ESTA9LISH A PRO.IECT BUDGET OF
$1,580,000. The �notion carried on the foliowing roll call vote:
AyOS, t@tl:
Nays, none
Absent, fivee
Commissioners Cramero D°Aquila, Dowdle, �iore, iiitesman, Kahler,
Long� Mitler, Stenerson, and Chairman Grteve
Commissloners Gasper, Himle, Johnson, Reedy and Ftehkamp
A6 Autho�ization to Negotiate for Wetland Credlts - North/Souih Runway
At 4he Committee meeting, Staff had reported 4hat as part of the NorthlSouth Runway
developrnent� approximately 2? acres of wetland impacts witi require mitigation. The
development will require a DNR Protected Waters Permit, a Wetland Conservation Act
Permit and a Corp of Engineers 404 Permit. Applica4ions for these permits cannot
commence until a grading plan has been complet�d, which is scheduled for mid-
December, 1997. The initiai projects for the North/South Runway will commence in the
New Ford Town subdivision which will have impacts on both iUlother's Lake and Duck
i.ake. Permits must be secured no later than Aprii 1. 1998 in order for this wortc to
progress without delay.
• •' • • • - • r . � • �, , � � • �
� "-• � • • • , a �' . , i r
THAT STAFF BE AUTNORIZED TO NEGOTIATE, iNHERE APPROPRIATE� WtTii
PROPERTY OWtUERS FOit W�7�AND MITIGAT(ON CREDITS AND EIVTER INTO
AGREEMENTS TO PURCHASE THESE CREDITS; FURTHER, THAT STAFF BE
DIRECTED TO RETi1RN THEAGREEMENTS TO iHE COMMITTEE/COMI►AISSION FOR
APPROVAL. The rnotton carried by unanlmous vote. -
T�
,
t
Appendix E
MVNWR—Preliminary Memorandurrs of Agreement (MOA)
This appendix presents a preliminary draft of the �IOA between the USFWS, the FAA, and the MAC in regard to
impacts and mitigations within the Minnesota Valley National Wildiife Refuge (MVNWR).
This draft MOA, dated May 1, 1998, is provided only for review and comment because the signatory agencies
have not agreed to the impacts to the Refuge and the pian for compensation. However, it is the FAA's intent to
receive input on the MOA during the 60-day Section 4(fl Evaluation �eview/comment period.
� ` � 1 � � �
.
.
� •� � �'� ,� ■� �,
���� , .r•�• � �
� ,
, � � .
� ' �•
PHELIMINAFiY DRAFf-5/1/98
The purpose of this dacument is ta formalize a Memorandwn of Agreement (MOA)
between the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the Metropolitan Airports
Commission (MAC), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regarding a shared
understanding of effects and the mitigation of impacts to the Minnesota Valley National
Wildlife Refuge caused by the proposed expansion of the Minneapalis-St. Paul
International Airpart (MSP).
This agreement between the FAA, the MAC, and the USFWS is necessary because of
unavoidable adverse effects on a portion of the MVNWR and the FAA's finding af
"constructive use" for that area pursuant to Section 4( fl of the 1966 U.S. Department of
Transportation Act [49 U.S.C. 303(c)]. Section 4(fl states that the Secretary of the U.S.
Department of Transportation rnay not approve any transportation praject that requires the
use of any publicly-owned land from a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and ,-
waterfowl refuge of national, state, or local signi.ficance unless there are no feasible and ��,
prudent altematives to the use of such lands. Section 4(� also states that when there must
be a use of such lands, the project should include all possible plarm.ing to minimize harm
resulting fram the use. The findings and determinations contained in this MOA aze unique
and specific to this particular Refuge condition, and are nat meant to establish precedent or
to be applied to other seemingly similar siivations.
No land is to be acquired from the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge (MVNWR or
Refuge). The FAA and USFWS agree that increased aircraft noise levels associated with the
addition of new Runway 17/35 at MSP would result in adverse impacts to a portian of the
MVNWR, ixicluding an impartant educational/interpretive area known as the Bass Pands.
The increased noise levels in the Bass Ponds area resulting from use of the new runway at
MSP and resulting overflights will impair the ability af the area to serve its existing
function af providing for enviranmental education activiHes. Consequently, this adverse
impact constitutes a"constructive use", or taking of Section 4(� eligibie property, since the
noise impacts conflict with publics use and enjoyment of this area.
For purpases of this specific agreement, the FAA has also extended its finding of Section
4(� constructive use to areas autside the immediate Bass Ponds enviranmental education
area—specifically ta include all publicly-owned lands located within the 2005 average day-
night noise level (DNL) 65 noise contour , and DNL 60 noise contour where noise increases
by 3 dBA or more as a result of the proposed runway project. These noise results are based
on a"High Forecast" af aviation activity used by the MAC in preparing these contours. In
t
1 oF 7
PRELIMINARY DRAFT-5/1/98
addition, the constructive use determination recognizes the possibility of diminished value
;" , of the Visitor Center because of its connectivity with the Bass Ponds area.
�
For the purposes of this MOA, the FAA, the MAC, and the USFWS have agreed that a
reasonable determination of the Refuge ]and areas potentially affected by noise and the
resulting mitigation aspects of the project have been calculated based on: (1) the MAC High
Forecast of future aviation activity for the year 2005; and (2) the resulting DNL 65 noise
contour, and far areas experiencing a 3 dBA increase in noise within the DNL 60 noise
contour.
. :. � � � . � � •
WHEREAS, the MAC and the Minnesota Legislature have selected the further development
of MSP as the preferred alternative to serve the future air transportation needs of the
metropolitan area and the State of Minnesota inta the future, as concurred in by the FAA;
and -
WHEREAS, the airport improvements proposed by the MAC include: (1) a new 8,000-foot
north-south runway—Runway 17/35—to be located on the west side of the existing
airfield, (2) improved taxiways, (3) fourteen additional terminal gates, (4) redeveloped air
cargo facilities, (5) a new remote parking facility, (6) a potential new aircraft maintenance
facility on the south side of the airport, and (� improvements to the existing roadway
system on the west side of the airport; and
WHEREAS, the FAA and the MAC have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to
jointly prepare an environrnental impact statement to assess these airport i.mprovements,
�I with FAA serving as lead agency for the final federal EIS and MAC as lead agency for the
state EIS, and leading to the issuance of a Record of Decision far the proposed ai.rport
improvements; and
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Valley National Wildiife Refuge was established in 1976 in the
Minnesota River Valley, a portion of which is located to the south of MSP; and
WHEREAS,16 U.S.C. 668k and Public Law 94-466 Section 4A(3) direct the Secretary of the �
Interior to construct, administer, and maintain, a wildlife interpretation and education
center at an apprapriate site within the Refuge to promote environmental education and to
provide an opportunity for the study and enjoyment of wildlife in its natural habitat; and
WHEREAS, the Bass Ponds area, located within the Refuge appraximately 1.4 miles south
of MSP, offers a unique location and facilities that serve environmental education needs
within natural and managed characteristics—including several different types of wetlands
and waoded areas—and is a part of the Refuge that is popular for use by groups for nature
appreciatian and education; and
WHEREAS, the Bass Ponds area is located underneath the approach to the propased new
Runway 17/35, which will result in aircraft arrivals and departures flying aver the Bass
Pands between 500 feet and 2,000 feet above ground level; and
WHEREAS, with Runway 17/35 operatianal, a portion of the Bass Ponds environmental
education area will experience a 2005 DNL naise level in excess of 70 decibels, which
exceeds the threshold level set forth by the FAA's land use compatibility criteria for nature
1
20F7
PRELIMINARY DRAF7'-5/1/98
exhibits (FAA Advisory Circular 150/5020-1: Noise Control and Compatibility Planning for
Airports) and would often interfere with normal conversation, thereby impairing the ability ��
of the Bass Ponds to support enviranmental education activities; and
WHEREAS, the FAA is reexamin,ng its land use campatibility criteria with respect to
aircraft overflights of national parks and wildlife refuges, and is applying site-specific
ana]yses based on the circumstances and using other noise impact criteria. For the
MVNWR, the FAA considered: (1) the work of the Federal Interagency Committee on
Noise (FICC3N) and research on the unpact of noise levels on communication; (2) the
MVNWR's development history and historical relationships to the urban environment; and
(3) a technical analysis of noise impacts in the Refuge, including existing ambient noise
levels.
WHEREAS, the FAA has concluded that the referenced noise impacts will result in a
constructive use of: (1) the Bass Ponds area, (2) other publicly-owned Refuge Lands within
the future DNL 60 noise contour,l as well as to the facilities/improvements witlun those
lands; and (3) the full potential of the Visitor Center (Refixge headquarters building), based
on its diminished functional connectians to the Bass Pands area; and
WHEREAS, all of these constructive use impacts are based on proxixnity effects in
accordance with Section 4(� of the 1966 U.S. Department of Transportation Act [49 U.S.C.
303(c)], and not on a direct taking of land ownership interest by the MAC or the FAA for
airport purposes, but rather is to be compensated for based on the diminished fair market
value af the Refuge properties affected by noise; and
WHEREAS, a consultation and disclosure process was implemented beginning in March
;'.
1996, to conform with the requirements of Section 4(� and the NaHonal Environmental �,
Policy Act (40 CFR Part 1500-1508) and has included meetings, formal correspondence and
consultation since that time, and invalved interested parties, including Minnesota Valley
National Wildlife Refuge staff (representing the USFWS), Minnesota River and Recreation
Area staff (representing the National Park Service), the Minnesota River Valley Audubon
Club, the Friends of the Minnesota River Valley, and the Minnesota Association of
Environmental Education; and
NOW, THEREFORE, the FAA, the MAC, and the USFWS agree that the addition af
Runway 17/35 shall be implenlented in accordance with the following sripulations
regarding the MVNWR.
C. Stipulations
T'he parties to this MOA have agreed, and stipulate, that: (1) the basis for this mitigation
shall fundarnentally be a financial settlement for compensaHon of the value of land and
facilities impacted by aircraft naise as a result of the new runway; (2) the USFWS will retain
fee title to the existing land and facilities impacted by aircraft noise, as further elabarated
upon here; (3) the mitigation agreements and detaiLs of the financial settlement—
docu.ments either referenced within or attached to this MOA—formally establish a"taking"
area of land and affected facilities, and an avigation easernent far canveyance of
unrestricted right of overflight will be used to secure the airport's interest; and (4) the value
� Areas within the DNL 60 noise contour and wflhin the MVNWR were detarmined to be impacted by a noise levei increase of 3 dBA as a resutt of the /"
proposed action. �,
3oF7
PRELIMINARY DRAFT-5/1/98
of the taki.ng will be determined in accordance with standard appraisal principles and
practices for various parcels shown in E�ibit A, reflecting the fair market value of the
airport's less-than- ownership interest in the publicly owned Refuge lands.
T'he FAA, the MAC, and the USFWS will ensure that the following measures are carried out
with respect to mitigation of land areas affected by aircraft noise.
1. As provided for in SecHons C.2 through C.7 (below), the MAC shall fund mitigation
measures to be implemented by the USFWS. The mitigation measures will be sufficient
to enhance or expand outdoor environmental education opportunities within the
existing or modified baundaries of the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refizge,
thereby mitigating the aforementioned constructive use of the Bass Ponds area. Use of
federal funds by the MAC for the purposes af pl�uln.ing and implementing this
mitigation shall be subject to federal concurrence and based on the value of:
a) avigation easements of publicly-owned lands within the MSP Alternative's DNL 65
contour and inside the MVNWR's authorized boundary; and
b) avigation easements of publicly-owned lands that are expected to experience a 3
dBA naise increase and are between the DNL 60 and DNL 65 contours resulting of
the proposed action; and
c) the impact due to d'uninished value of the Visitor Center given its connectivity with
the Bass Ponds area.
2. Within ninety (90) days from the date of signing the Federal Record of Decision (ROD)
for the new runway, the MAC shall commence discussians with the USFWS, leading to
a timely agreement to provide funds to be used by the USFWS to commence a specific
mitigation plan as described in Section C.4, below. When the agreement is finalized, the
MAC shall issue a written Notice to Proceed with the mitigation planning effart, and for
the land appraisal process to determine the value of lands in the Refuge affected by
noise in the DNL 60 and 65 cantours.
If the final engineering design or construction of Runway 17/35 is delayed due to
litigation ar injunction, ar for any ather sigzvfi.cant reason beyond the MAC's direct
control, the MAC may withhold the Notice ta Proceed or may issue a notice to the
USFWS stating that payments up ta the amount referenced in Section C.2 will be
withheld due ko the delay. In such a case, the MAC shall consult with the USFWS to
finalize or amend the agreement and issue a NoKce to Proceed no later than sixty (60)
days after the litigation, injunction, or other significanfi impediment is removed from
the process.
4. Withi.n sixty (60) days fram the date of the MAC signing a Notice to Proceed, the MAC
shall ensure that the applicable appraisal processes regarding Refuge lands and
facilities are completed.
5. Within six (6) months from the date of the MAC signing a Notice to Proceed, as
referenced in Sections C.2 and C.3, and after consultation with the FAA, the MAC, and
other interested parties, the USFWS shall provide the FAA and the MAC with a specific
`�� mitigation plan. The plan's purpose shall be to mitigate far the adverse impacts of the
4oF7
PRELIMINARY DRAFI'-5/1/98
new runway on the Bass Ponds area. The plan shall include, but shall not be limited to:
(a) one or rnore specific mitigation measures to address the adverse impacts on the Bass
Ponds environrnental education area; (b) written concurrence and commitments to �� �
perform, if required, from other property owners involved in implementing the
mitigation; (c) an esti.mate of the costs and the planned responsibilities to fund and
implement the mitigation, including consideration of long-term operatian and
maintenance; and (d) an implementation plan and schedule, including a plan for the
MAC's payment of the rernaining total mitigation funding package.
6. The FAA and MAC shall have thirty (30) days to review the plan and to pravide the
USFWS with written comments. The USFWS shall, no later than ninety (90) days after
receipt of any agency comments, submit a fulal mitigation plan for funding and
implementation. T'he final mitigation plan shall include: any comments received from
the FAA, the MAC, and any other consulted agencies; consideration of the value of the
canstructive use taking determined in the appraisal process compared with the USFWS
mitigation funding plan; and a description of how the agency comments are
accommodated by the final plan.
7. The FAA, the MAC, and the USFWS agree that the payment plan required by Section
C.5.d, above, shall be based on the most current i.nformation available about the
Runway 17/35 construction schedule and the land appraisal results and that it shall not
call for any release of funds for plan implementation prior to the letting of the runway
construction contracts.
�. If construction of Runway 17/35 is stopped or delayed after approval of the final �� "�
mitigation plan due to litigatian or injunction, ar for any other sign�ficant reason `...
beyond the MAC's direct cantrol, the MAC may issue a notice to the USFWS stating
that payments up to the amount referenced in Section C.S.d will be withheld due to the
delay. In such a case, the MAC shall consult with the USFWS to finalize or amend the
agreement and shall resume funding for the mitigation no later than thirty (30) days
after construction of Runway 17/35 is resumed.
It is anticipated that the level of mitigatian will provide compensation sufficient to provide
the Refuge with replacement land of equal habitat quality, and provide for replacement
ponds, the restoration of hiking rails and trail markers, informational kiosks, parking, and
other site improvements, which aze impacted as a result af high leveLs of aircraft noise.
Nothing shall prohibit the MAC from undertaking additional mitigation separate from this
MC?A which it deems appropriate so long as federal fixnding sources are not used to
accomplish these measures.
D. Modification or Termination
This Memorandum of Agreement will continue in full force until Decernber 31, 2003. At
any time in the six-month period prior to that date, the FAA, the MAC, or the USFWS, may
request consultations to review the terms or to consider an extension or modification of this
Memorandum of Agreement. No extension or modification will be effective unless all
parties to t11e Memorandum of Agreement agree to it in writing.
{'�
5oF7
PRELIMINARY DRAFT-5/1/98
Any party to this Memorandum of Agreement may request that it be amended, whereupon
the parties shall consult to consider the details of such an amendment in accordance with 49
U.S.C. 303(c) and 40 CFR Part 1500-1508.
In the event of termination, this Agreement may be terminated by any party upon tivrt�'
(30) days written natice to the other parties sent by certified mail, or by #acsinvle
transmission and addressed to the respective parties as follows:
Federal Aviation Administration - Airports District Office
Mr. Glen Orcutt
Program Manager
6020 28th Avenue South, Room 102
Minneapolis, MN 55450-2799
Metropolitan Airports Comrnission
Mr. Nigel Finney
Deputy Executive Director—Planning and Environment
6040 28th Avenue South
Mi.nneapolis, MN 55450-2799
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Mr. Rick Schultz
Refuge Manager
3815 East 80th Street
Bloomington, MN 55425-1600
} Provided, however, that all parties agree that if one party should provide such written
notice of termination, all parties will consult during the thirty (30) days prior to termination
in order to attempt to reach agreement on amendments or ather actions which would avoid
termination.
In the event of termination, the FAA and the MAC will also continue to comply, as
applicable given project circumstances, with the National Environmental Policy Act (42
U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and Section 4(� of the U.S. Departmenfi of Transportation Act of 1966 (49
U.S.C. 303) and with regard to the undertakings covered by this Memorandum of
Agreement.
60F7
PRELIMINARY DRAF1'-5/1/98
E. Ex�cution
Executian of this Agreement and implementation of its terms is evidence: (1) that the FAA �} ...
and MAC have afforded the USFWS opportunity to comrnent on the proposed expansion
of MSP; and (2) that the FAA and MAC have taken into account the effects of the proposed
expansion on the Bass Ponds Envixonmental Education Area and other affected portions af
the MVNWR.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Memorandum of Agreement
to be executed as of the date therein written.
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
:
Mr. Franklin D. Benson
Manager—Airports District Office
METROPOLITAI�T AIRPORTS COMMISSION
�
Mr. Jeffrey W. Hamiel
Executive Directox
UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
�
Mr. William F. Hartwig
Regional Director
7oF7
DATE:
DATE:
DATE:
APPENDIX F SURFACE TRAMSPORT.4TlON CONSENSUS DOCUMENT
MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAU�
DUAL TRACK AIRPORT PLANNING PROCESS
• ' � i � •. • . '
. '� • . ' • • ,' . ' ,' • • '
Minneapolis-St. �'aul
International Airpo�r-t
Prepared by:
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
Airports District Office
Minneapolis, Minnesota
METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION
Minneapolis, Minnesota
MAY 13, 1997
���PQpL15 Sq�NrA
� •� 9f
3
m Z
� .�O
-o �
O�T�-1_
� `o�
q1RpORTS
• '
Introduction........................................................................................................................................1 {,
Background ................ .........................................................................................................................1
Dual Track Airport Planning Process ........................................:............................................1
Travel Forecasts for Roadways Surrounding MSP ............................................................... 2
Surface Transportation Project Development (Consensus Approach) .............................. 2
Surface Transportation Projects Considered ................................................................................ 3
Projects to Complete the 2010 Long Term Comprehensive Plan (LTCP) ......................... 3
Project No.1—Airport Frontage Road .................................................................... 4
Project No. 2—TH 77/66th Street Interchange ...................................................... 4
Projects to Complete the 2020 L,TCP ....................................................................................... 5
Project No. 3—West Terminal Circulation Roadways .......................................... 6
Project No. 4—Reconfigured East Terminal Roadways ........................................ 7
Project No. 5—TH 62 and TH 77 Reconstruction (West Terminal
Interchanges) ....................................................................................... 7
Project No. 6—TH 62 Widening (I-35W to TH 77) ................................................ 7
Project No. 7—I-35W Reconstruction (TH 62 Common Section and I-35W to
46thStreet) ............................................................................................ 8
OtherProjecfis Considered ...................................................................................................... 8
I-494/TH 77 Interchange Improvements ................................................................ 8 ;.
77th Street Underpass at TH 77 ................................................................................ 8 �
TH 62 Widening (28th Avenue to TH 55) ............................................................... 9 \�
TH 55 Interchanges with TH 62 and TH 5 .............................................................. 9
Recommended Surface Transportation Development Strategy ............................................... 9
2010 LTCP Development Strategy ......................................................................................... 9
2020 LTCP Development Strategy ....................................................................................... 10
GeneralApproach .................................................................................................... 10
Proposed Planning Framework ..............................................................................10
MIS and Environmental DocumenE Strategy ....................................................... 10
Relationship to Regional Transportation Policy Plan and Trans. Improvement Plan 11
2010 LTCP .................................................................................................................. 11
2020 LTCP .................................................................................................................. 11
AgencyEndorsement .......................................................................................................................12
Figures
No. Follows Pa�e
1—Historic and Future Traffic Volumes ......................................................................................... 2
2—Potential Surface Transportation Improvements Related to the MSP LTCPs ...................... 3
Tables
No. pa�e
1—Surface Transportation Projects to Complete the 2010 LTCP ................................................. 3 ',
2—Surface Transportation Projects to Complete the 2020 LTCP ................................................. 5 `'�
CONSENSUS APPROACH TO SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROJECT DEVEI.OPMENT
Introduction
The planned expansion of the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP) would
require improvements to roadways currently serving the airport. This document presents
the findings and recomrnendations of the Surface Transportation Committee, which has
spent more than one year evaluating airport-related surface transportation issues.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) assembled the committee in August 1995 to
consider surface transportation issues arising from the Twin Cities' Dual Track Airport
Planning Process. The committee included representatives of the following public agencies:
, ..
• Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
• Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT)
� Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT)
• Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB)
o Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC)
• Metropolitan Council (Met Council)
These agencies, with the exception of the EQB and WisDOT, have signed this document
indicating their concurrence with the surface transportation project development strategy
and other information described in this document (the endorsements appear on the last
page).
� The following sections provide a record of the issues considered by the coinmittee and the
consensus reached among the participating agencies.
.
. . • • �
Duai Track Airport Pianning Process
The Minnesota Legislature established the Dual Track Airport Planning Process in 1989 to
examine alternatives to meet the long-term air transportation needs of the Minneapolis-St.
Paul area and the State of Minnesota. After initial evaluation of several alternatives, three
alternatives were evaluated in detail in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS):
• The MSP Expansion Alternative—A $2.8 billion expansion of the existing MSP
site, including a new north-south runway, relocation of most air cargo facilities,
and a shift to a new passenger terminal on the west side of the airport.
• The New AirporE Alternative—Development of a$4.7 billion replacement
airport at a site in Dakota County southeast of the Twin Cities urbanized area.
• The No-Action Alternative—Continued operation of MSP, with no
improvements planned to provide significant additional airport capacity.
Following the DEIS comment period, the MAC and Met Council fulfilled their obligations
under the original legislation and recommended selection of the MSP Expansion
� Alternative in the Report to the Legislature (March 1996). On April 2,1996, the Legislature
directed the MAC to implement the MSP 2010 Long Term Comprehensive Plan (LTCP).
MAY 13,1997
CONSENSUS APPROACHTO SURFACETRANSPORTAPON PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
The April 19961egislation prohibits development of the new west-side passenger terminal �'
(a major component of the 2020 LTCP) without further legislative action. The specific on-
airport actions included in the MSP 2010 and 2020 LTCPs are as follows:
2010 LTCP
Construct a new 8,000-foot north-south runway on the west side of the existing
airport
� Add up to 15 gates to the existing Lindbergh Terminal
• Relocate and redevelop air cargo facilities and expand aircraft maintenance
facilities
2020 LTCP
Construct a new passenger terminal on the west side of the airport (requires
further legislative approval) and reconfigure the parking and gate areas at the
e�cisting east terminal area. Primary access to the new terminal would be from
the Trunk Highway (TH) 62/TH 77 interchange. The existing east access to the
airport would remain, although on-airport roadways would be modified to
provide access to support facilities.
o Expand air cargo, maintenance, and other airport support facilities
The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) is scheduled for completion in 1997. It �-
will evaluate issues related to implementing the MSP Expansion Alternative in further '
detail, including surface transportation. Based on specific language in the Apri11996
legislation, the FEIS will not evaluate the New Airport Alternative.
Travel Forecasts for Roadways Surrounding MSP
The information considered during preparation of the DEIS included the traffic volume
forecasts presented in Figure 1. The DEIS looked at how this forecasted traffic could be
accommodated by the existing roadways surrounding MSP, with emphasis on how a
reasonable level of service could be maintained. The DEIS also identified recommended
projects based on the need for additional interchange capacity, improved traffic operations,
or improvements to freeway geometrics.
Surface Transportation Project Development (Consensus Approach)
Members of the Surface Transportation Committee have reached consensus on a strategy to
implement the surface transportation improvements needed to support the 2010 and 2020
LTCPs. This strategy includes:
• Project Definition—A description of the proposed roadway projects, including
logical termini and estimated cost.
• Project Purpose and Need—The projects' relationship to the MSP 2010 or 2020
LTCPs. The statement of purpose and need includes whether the project is ;'
strongly related to airport-oriented trips or whether it would be needed even �.
under the airport's No Action Alternative. �
M,av 13, 1997
a • •
� • •
• • •
•
• : •
• • •
• • •
�J
�J
u�
�y� 000
\ 1��� ���
vo�om
• •
. �
� •
:
. • •
• • •
a • •
• • •
• . .
• •
•
.. .
��Q OOO �
000 QQ J pN � O�O
000 000 p �� I �t0�0 O
'�V"'�� �NO I�I �� Z
VPN ��'�
� ��� �Ys
.�. C�'� t'"�t;� Q �
- ,�,:* 'C�v o ✓ �
�`t, �. � E �� �i
N `'c.n,�:i w°•�- �.! QO O O O
�O �, � s,7
� f rF O; o
00o r%,�.,� t f.% ov^
�00 4 � �i � 60�� ci
�O o] [O � i` *^ a a L
/�b' UlG£ �o y E � � °c � /�H 4tV£
000 � �� �� ?�'o�
i i o�
00o Q � frm�,
�00 ^ {.., � t cm "'���; 000
Q� n ��' �'..� � S r� :�. O O O
;t � �
},� N�^
/�H yaBZ `,i' ",:°'
t e c a k 6rt � �F.',':. \� K��,'�
� `'� ��� u nd u�va
V
0 0 �' `-.:�yh
0 0 4 #,��, oe.`Y �
�v � � c�?` ������i�����'�`���'��' o ��' � �v o �
T x z,� �,,,�-�'� co ,-
^ ;++auxt �-
n
O O� O O O
th U 'V' c�) �-
000 �`O tnt�l� 000
O O O O O O
O O O O O O
�-Q'�O V �i�
00 U �- c�7 �O I�
i .- _---- �- �- �-
�l
f
O O O
000
000
CV O� Lf)
�O O �-
'-NN
/�t/ dN`dl1MOd
..---�'
�-- oo� o00
N oog o00
.G CV r�J O � c0 �-
�0�� ���
.�p �- N
O�
d'
/�b' 3lb'aN�ll
O O Op /
O O O
UN�
O O O
O O O
� ��
o� r- c*�
'- /�d NN3d
0
0
o, i
o i i
�••
• • •
• • �
•
Q � i
Q m I
� c i
;� �. 2
U o. i
� � � I
Q � o �
O � c �
U � � '
f- Q u-�-i c �
¢z°� E �
� �
P O O � �
f I � F
� I / / � f
z � C
W 000 � .
UI 000 m i
W 000 O 2
J 000 Z u
• • •
• • •
• • •
•
• • •
• • �
---
.�
� �
� m P
� _ �
C U
. p C
' � L
i >_ „
'o
� °�
i m m
' ¢ �
0
i o. C
` a �
� `o �,
� o :-
� m m
�
� U
i c O
; �r
! � S
i m
� ,m�� o
w` N
i � p
� C m
m c
`o�
a �
�
CONSENSUS APPROACH TO SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
• ProjecE Implementation Issues—Factors such as potential property acquisition,
relocations or other environmental constraints. T'he implernentation aspect also �
examines administrative issues for implementing selected projects or conducting
further studies, such as a Major Investment Study (MIS) or further
environmental documents.
• Project Programming Issues—Certain highway projects need to be included in a
conforming regional Transportation Policy Plan (TPP) and/or a Transportation
Improvement Plan (TII') prior to funding and construction.
This document records the committee's agreement on the project development approach.
. ' '. �• . � ' • � • �. .�
The principal function of the Surface Transportation Cornmittee has been to evaluate a wide
variety of potential roadway improvement projects associated with the Dual Track Process.
Since the Apri11996 legislative action, the committee's focus has been on the MSP
Expansion Alternative.
This section describes the roadway projects considered essential to complete the MSP 2010
and 2020 LTCPs (Figure 2). T'his section also describes other projects evaluated by the
committee, but not identified as essential to implement the LTCPs.
Projects to Complete the 2010 LTCP
Table 1 lists the essential roadway improvement projects to implement the 2010 LTCP. The `_
two projects described in Table 1 will accommodate the new north-south runway and serve
the relocated air cargo area, which would be sited along the western edge of the airport.
Table 1. Surface Transportation Projects to Complete the 2010 LTCP (East Terminai)
Project (see Description 1995 Cost Project Purpose & Need
Figure 2) Est. (source)
1. Airport initialiy reconstruct $3.8 million Accommodates relocated air cargo facilities and
frontage road and realign for uitimate aircraft maintenance facility employee access and
between 66th segments to aliow build-out parking. The realignment is necessary to allow for
St. and 24th construction of N-S {MAC)1 the north-south runway construction. The
Ave. and runway, using forecasted percentage of airport-related traffic
extending east existing pavement using this roadway in 2020 is estimated to be 90
to 34th Ave. wherever possibie. percent.
Uitimate build-out is
four lanes on new
alignment.
2. TH 77/66th Interchange $6.7 million An improved TH 77/66th Street interchange would
Street reconstruction to (MAC) be needed to serve the air cargo area and connect
interchange. provide connection directiy to the 4-lane frontage road (Project No. 1).
to relocated frontage The forecasted percentage of airport-related traffic
road and for using the interchange in 2020 is over 50 percent.
additional capacity.
1 Inciudes a 7 percent design contingency, an 8 percent program managemenUnspection contingency, and a 10 percent cost contingency.
MAY 13, 1997
�a�
=i
.i
ia )
rvortn
0 1/2 1
� I �
Approximate
Scale in Miles
T130465A0.06 Po! Surf Trans Imps 3-21 •97mms
Y� % i .
' ,'t f �, �
......-�? S� ,i i
;t !
< f
C i{i —... � '' {
Figure 2
IVlinneapoles-St. Paul
International Airport
Potential �urface Tiransporfiation
Irnprovements Related to the
MSP Comprehensive Plans
f�li2tiiiHlLL
APPENDIX G MSP Airspace Noise Screening Analysis
This technical appendix documents the screening analysis conducted to identify potential noise
impacts associated with anticipated changes in air traffic control procedures at Minneapolis-Saint Paul
International Airport (MSP). The changes are a �esult of the proposed construction and operation of a
new north-south runway and proposed airspace capacity enhancement options. These changes will
result in new arrival and departure tracks over residential areas currently not exposed to a significant
number of overflights. The screening analysis supplements the noise analysis included in the body of
the EIS, and covers only operations above 3,000 feet AGL, per FAA requirements. Impacts
associated with operations below this altitude are discussed in the Noise Impacts section of the FEIS.
FAA Noise Screening Procedure for Certain Air Traffic Actions Abave 3,000 AGL (N 7210.360) was
used to identify potential noise impacts related to large jet aircraft operations between 3,000 feet and
18,000 feet AGL. The screening analysis consists of a four-step process to determine if proposed air
traffic changes will result in a 5-decibel idBj or more increase in the overall day/night average sound
level (DNL) over any residential area. If the criteria are exceeded in any step, the subsequent step is
required. If the screening criteria are exceeded in the fourth and final step, additional NEPA
documentation may be required. A copy of the screening criteria Tables 1-4 is attached. The
screening analysis was perfarmed using both the 2005 base case and MAC High forecasts described
in Section II.B.2.2 of the FEIS.
FAA recently completed the Airport Capacity Enhancement Terminal Airspace Study for MSP (August
1996). This plan identified and evaluated alternatives for restructuring the airspace around MSP to
accommodate future levels of traffic with a new north-south runway added to the system. The study
identified three alternatives, two of which involve modifications to the existing structure and one
which is essentially a No Build, to meet future needs. No single alternative was recommended in the
? study. The greatest potential impact would occur during southeast flow conditions, when the new
runway was used for departures (see discussion in Step 1). Figures G-1 though G-4 show both
existing and alternative routes for southeast flow conditions.
Meetings were held with MSP ATC staff to identify and review specific assumptions regarding flight
track locations and usage under the three alternatives. A review of all three alternatives found that
they share similar flight track geometry close in to the airport, and that only mino� differences are
evident at the points where aircraft altitudes pass 3,000 feet AGL. It was determined that in
proximity to the airport, most of the flight tracks for the three alternatives essentially fall within the
"envelope" of tracks utilized in the original DEIS noise analysis; therefore, it was considered
appropriate to use the DEIS tracks to analyze areas in proximity to the airport. If no impact was
identified close-in to the airport, no analysis of the alternative tracks would be �equired farther out,
since there would be fewer aircraft on these tracks as aircraft disperse, and the FAA criteria is less
demanding farther out. If an impact was identified close-in to the airport, additional analysis of the
alternative tracks would be performed in areas farther from the airport. The following analysis
documents the four-step screening process.
Step 1. Does the proposed action introduce noise exposure from large jet airplanes (greater than
75,000 Ibs.) which may require further review of the noise impacts as defined in Table 1?
For screening purposes, Screening Procedure Table 1 defines the introduction of noise exposure from
large jet airplanes as at least two departing aircraft between 3,000 feet and 4,000 feet above ground
level (AGL1 or 65 large jet arrivals between 3,000 feet and 4,000 AGL on a typical day. More
Dual Track Final EIS
' G-1
departures and arrivals would be required to exceed the screening criteria at higher altitudes. The year
2005 base case and high forecasts were used to determine the number of departures and arrivals �
associated with the operation of the new runway at MSP. As shown in Figure G-5, on an average
day the�e are approximately 407 arrivals and 407 departures of jet aircraft over 75,000 pounds in
2005 under the base case forecast. Under the high forecast, there are 460 arrivals and 460
departures a day (Figure G-6).
On an average annual basis, which was the basis for the DNL analysis in the DEIS, about 17.0
percent of arrivals are forecast to use Runway 35 and 36.5 percent of departures are forecast to use
Runway 17. This means that under the base case forecast there would be approximately 69.1 daily
arrivals and 148.4 daily departures to and from the south on the new runway. Under the high
forecast, there would be 78.2 arrivals and 167.8 departures on the new runway.
According to the screening methodology, Stage 3 aircraft operations are equivalent to 5 percent of
Stage 2 operations. Since by the year 2005 all aircraft will be Stage 3, the total number of equivalent
daily landings would be 3.5 and 3.9 under the base case and high forecasts, respectively. There
would be 7.4 equivalent departures under the base case forecast and 8.4 equivalent departures under
the high forecast.
As shown in Table 1, the minimum number of arrivals that would trigger the screening analysis is 65.
Since there are less than four daily equivalent landings on Runway 35, no additional analysis of
arriving traffic is required. The primary difference among the three airspace alternatives is that
Alternatives 2 and 3 each have an additional arrival flight track into MSP airspace, versus the base
case (Alternative 1). The number of arrivals on the new track has not been determined; however,
even if all the arrivals (20.3 stage 3 equivalent arrivals) were placed on the new track, the trigger
number for arrivals is not exceeded. This is because all of the arriving jets on those tracks would be
above 7,000 feet. Therefore, no further analysis of the arrival impacts of the three airspace
alternatives is required. (
�
The minimum number of departures that would trigger the screening analysis is two. Since there are
approximately 7.4 daily equivalent departures from Runway 17 in the base case and 8.4 departures in
the high scenario case, additional screening analysis was required.
Aircraft altitudes along each track were estimated using INM departure profiles. Climb rates for six
representative aircraft types and three different stage lengths were incorporated. Under the base case,
approximately 2.8 aircraft (38 percent) would reach 3,000 AGL about 30,500 feet (5.8 statute miles)
from the start of takeoff roll. Nearly two-thirds (4.9 aircraft) cross 3,000 feet at 32,000 feet (6.1
statute miles) from start of takeoff roll. Almost all the aircraft (7.4 departures) would be at 3,000 feet
or higher by 39,000 feet (7.4 miles) from start of takeoff roll.
Figures G-5 and G-6 show the number of average daily departures using each of the ,Runway 17
departure tracks for the base year and high forecast, respectively. None of the tracks has two daily
equivalent flights. However, since some of the tracks can be considered to be closely spaced, it was
considered prudent to combine operations on some tracks to make this a conservative analysis. For
this reason, Tracks 2-5 were combined to create a"worst case" alternative for screening purposes.
This alternative would result in 4.5 daily departures in the base case and 5.1 daily departures in the
high scenario on closely-spaced tracks over some portions of Burnsville, exceeding the threshold of
two. For this reason, the screening analysis continued to Step 2.
Dual Track Final EIS
G-2 � � �
Step 2. Does this action introduce large jet airplanes over residential areas which are not routinely
exposed to jet aircraft noise?
For aircraft operations between 3,000 and 6,000 feet AGL, Screening Procedure Table 2 states that
new tracks within one mile of existing tracks do not constitute new overflights of residential areas.
Several proposed tracks are beyond this one-mile no change lateral minima, thereby constituting new
overflights, while other proposed tracks cross or are crossed by existing tracks. For new tracks not
proximate to existing tracks, the analysis proceeded to Step 4; however, for tracks within one mile of
existing tracks, the analysis proceeded to Step 3.
Step 3. In the case of a proposed action which only changes the aircraft altitudes and/or number of
daily operations of large jet airplanes on an existing route, will these changes result in a 5-
decibel increase in aircraft noise exposure?
Screening Procedure Table 3 under Step 3 considers changes in the number of daily operations and
changes in altitude to determine if a 5-dB increase could result from the implementation of the new
tracks. Aircraft altitudes and the number of daily departures we�e estimated within the one-mile no-
change lateral minima. Track 1 crosses departure tracks from Runways 11 L-29R and 11 R-29L; the
remaining tracks are crossed by departures off of Runway 29L. In the former case, aircraft on the
existing and proposed tracks would be at similar altitudes. Also, there would be essentially little
change in the number of overflights where the tracks cross. This is because although there would be
departures from the new runway, there would be fewer departures off the parallel runways.
The result of Step 3 is that the new tracks could possibly create a 5-dB change in noise levels. To
confirm this requires continuing the screening analysis to Step 4.
� Step 4. Taking into account the type of residential community, will the noise from large jet airplanes
result in a 5-decibel increase in the overall noise exposure?
Screening Procedure Table 4 is a matrix relating the number of overflights at various altitudes to
existing noise levels for various residential areas. Using U.S. Census data and field surveys,
communities underlying the proposed flight tracks were classified as quiet suburban, normal suburban,
urban and noisy urban. When aircraft are at 3,000 feet or higher on Tracks 2-5, the worst case
scenario, they are overflying areas classified as normal suburban. According to FAA criteria, a
minimum of seven equivalent flights on a track would be required to trigger further analysis, based on
this land use classification. Since under the base case forecast and the high forecast there are 4.5
and 5.1 flights on the four combined "worst case" track, respectively, the trigger is not exceeded.
To insure that the three alternatives included in the FAA Airspace Capacity Enhancement Plan did not
result in any greater impact than the original flight tracks included in the FEIS, additional screening
analysis was undertaken.
Figures G-2 through G-4 show the average number of daily departures from the new runway for the
three alternative airspace structures (base case forecast values are shown above the track; high
forecast values are shown below the track). Volumes along existing tracks are not shown because
the earlier work indicated that there is essentially no increase in flights along those tracks. Also,
volumes along tracks are not shown for northwest flow because under these conditions, the new
runway would be used as an arrival runway, and Step 1 in the screening analysis showed no impact
from arrivals to Runway 35.
Dual Track Final EIS
� G-3
As shown in Figures G-2 through G-4, none of the aiternative departure tracks have volumes of traffic {'�
higher than those used for the screening analysis based on the DEIS tracks. Since departure tracks
disperse as they move away from the airport, and greater numbers of flights are required at greater
distances from the airport to create a significant impact according to the FAA criteria, no impact is
anticipated along the alternative flight tracks identified by the FAA's Airspace Capacity Enhancement
Plan. As such, no additional NEPA documentation is required for airspace changes associated with
the new runway.
Dual Track Final EIS
G-4
- - ---- -- _ .... .. �. ��� 9/14�9p '�
N /L1V.�OV ___ �..___... �...�,...��.<.._ -. _�..
. Appendix 1 0 ',
8b�e 1
'Ihe sc:�xning proccdurc agpHcs to ncw or modi5cd arrival/dcpartua�c ptvcodures and ncw a modii3cd
� airways which mat the fo�lawing conditions:
° favalves airports v.iih morz ihan 1,5001acgc jet airplane (gtratrs thaa 75,000 Ibs.) ope:ations pcc
yeur. either currr.fle ar proj�csed whichcver is most aPP�P��: �
• repc�esents a perm�cat c�ge or piarinecf tesr and
• cnnarr�s changes b depaciuro tautes or tracics, �sed by Iacge ja airplanes, between 3,OQ0 and 18,000
fees AGL; and/or dxanges to arrtval routcs ar tracks, uscG bp large jct airplanes, betwcen 3,000 and
�,000 feet AC'iL
ST'EP 1. Does the prnpaa�action intruduce noise exposure il�nm ]a.rEe je! airpta.nes
(' 75,000 Ibs) ai�ch aiay req�zire further review a� the noise impacts?
Q If t6e estimatai uumfxr ot daily operations oa thc aP�acd rovcc or cracic arc grz,ater tban the
minimum, thc �mva is YFS and pcoceed to S'IEP 2 to snswer wbethcc thc pmposcd actio❑
intcnduccs j� aarraft noisc for the firsc time.
Q If thc csdrnatcd ffimbcr of daily orxrations on the affoaed route or trac�c are less than the
minimum, the�eswa is NO and further noise rcview 's 1VOT n�ary. Refer to FA.A. Ocda
i05o.1D ior�na on tt�e extraocdinary tactocs co cousida.
�1� If you know the pote�tiaL IIeec mix wh.icb wili tise the pr000sed mute, caunt anly the Stage 2 air�;aft
operations for use in tbe �acz tabie, Stage 2 aircraft inelude the fn�lOwing:
8707 �!'v Quiat Nacaltes
AII 872Ta
BT37-1fl0„ 200
8AC 1-11
OCS wlth Qutet Naceiles
DC9-10 it� 50
F28
If there arc no Stage 2 apcacions, munc Sg5 of the Stage 3 operacioos. Stage 3 aircraii includc B747, DC10,
DC3-7Q, Airb�s, $767, H?5?. MD84 and B737-300.
1 Page 8
9/I4/90
__� �____ _������� r.__
Tabte Z
STEP 2. Does tiiis actioa introduce Iarge je! airplaness over resideniial areas
which are not routinely exposed to jet aircra�`t nokse?
N 7220.360
Appendix 1
❑ If tt�e location of any cxisting roatc oc tracic is at losst 3 is.mf. ftom the ocw
rouu or tracSc� thc answet is YFS end procaui to STEP �i to determine the
nccd %r funhcr aaion.
Othen+ise....
❑ If tl�e ncw or movcd route or track lics within the No Chmnge lateral minimum
of the existing rovice or tracSc clastse to [he community, the answcr is NO and
ptncced to 5IEP 3 to determine whether lhc ac�ion will cause a 5 dccibel
inczease in exisdng airaaft nolsc exposure.
❑ If thc new ar moved route oc tradc lics outside the No Change latcral
minimum of the existing rouce or track ciasest to the cammunity, thc answer is
Y�5 and pcocud to STEP 4 to dctc.�rnine whethcr the sction wili causc a 5
clt�bei inacase in the averall noise exposurc.
Nc Chnnge
Al�craft Aliltude l.aterai Minima
(ft„ AGL) {n. ml.)
30C�- 6000 1
6000 • 1 ZOQO 2
ebove12000 3
Page 9
....... ......... ........ c;..,� rJ_� ..��o �o� io .ecncnc:w r'�-+(vr+rrtii l:r—ot�J�1 :Kwc:ec:n �J.J:��-lo`�J�..� C;�J�.1�J�J�1�:� t�. „2
C�4! (l GL1LLyA d
�
.1;
V �
.0
�+ 3
� � O
� '� �
`~ ti o
o .o
� o ,�
. ,g t, .,p, u
�� � �
�� �
'' v �v �
� '� � s
�` � z
_ �, � .�
— � � 3
� v
� � ��
L � �
.�w ,� �
� �
b. .
C V 0
y � v c
` y �
C�� � tC .�
� � �
.� � � � �
r� � � :a � "
� �� �� z
� � " '^ y .�
� a� � `� ��i 3
� �" a •� � �
v y � � � o
=' � p � � �
a °� � � � �
v,
.Y = ,� � � �
m
y, "'�' N
i � �� � O
.Q rq��
V � V G. � X
c4 � y x � v
+r L' y ei tttQQQ �
�.� •G".Q �C
� C' C 4i O
�, � .� � � �
� R
� C :9 .� �7
Q
,A C �c �k
=� � Q CA N �
4 � � �
y CS V tG'.
e � ��^. U � �
h
w�. � � � ..`"'. �
� ❑ ❑
�:.1
�
s
�' Paga IU
:
C
a
C
j
�
C
�
C
0
�
�
�
Z
�
�
�
v
4
C
�
a
c
�
U
r�:
� �f
rJ.:.. Gly� ....�0 ��7� G�1 .K'+c'K'n rt,r,i-,rr,n �..r—ce:� .�.n.�.� u.r:.—o�.��`i ue:ki�.:�;r:�ik!
9/14/90
Qb18
r" . 1.J
N �zio.sba
Appendix 1
STEP 4. Taltiiig inlo account t3ae type af residential commwait', wi8 tbe noise 1rom large jet
ai�cpianes resuit in a S decibel increasE iu the ovez�lI �c �x�osure.
❑ If the esumaced ov�bcr of daiiy operations oa che affeaed �vnrte or �rack ace greater than che
minimum: ��� �'�' ����'�uit with appropriste po� oiIIccs and the ftc�ional
pssistsut Chief Ca�sscl, and rofer to ocdct 1050.1D for gridaace an additinnal pc�occduccs to
usc in considering s�e �vironmental wcisequenas. �
❑ If the estimat+od r�cr�ber of daily operations on t,he affcded eoace or track R fe�r ta FAA Ordcr
minimum, the ans�c+ez is NO and furthcr noise ceview is NQI'ne�sa�i'-
1050.1D for guic�ue on thc eztraocdinary faaors to a�
Mlnim�m Numbe� of Datty ape�afbns hy Lar9e Jet Atrpt
Aircratt
Aitituda
(tt., AGL�
30 DO
d000
6000
6000
7000
-...
•�••
••.
...
•..
.•..
...
. ..
...
:•••
thp�tturea
Realdentlal Ccmmunity (See tabie hefow)R)
Guiet I Normak � No(sy
Subu�b Subu�a Urba� �r�ert
� 2 7 22 � �
� 4 12 � 38� 119
6 . ,.�_ gg 198
10 3Q 95 � 304
14 44 � 139 438
20 � 195
26 83 ( 262
34 f 7a3 �?
,� �q2 450
� 20�
� � >50�
89 �
109 �
� ay z
159
191
Reslde�tlai Ccmmunity I
�uiat Subur� (Singf� fat
Nonnal Subucb Sirtgtsfa�
U�ba� Mu�t-�am
N�csv U�ban Muflii-fam
0
detached dwelli
detached dwelli
risa
anss p73,c'XJO Iba) on tho Affeo:ed Routen� �
Arrtvala
R�rs�dae�f� Cammunity (Sae table batow)�� '
Nole
�ubu� � Suburb I Urban Urbcn _
�J 6$ 20S _.
.
/1S� 368
� >500
4a'�
on large laQs
on tl4 to �t9 acse �ots
buildings, �a► t�ousing, etc.)
oartme�tsl nerr bwry raads cr Indusi�tai areas
��� If yvu know the poceneial ikec mix which wiil ��rio pcnpas�d co�, count onty the Stage 2 airaar�
opc:a�ioas foc tase in the abas�c �able, Slage 2 aircraft ine:ude tt�e fatia�ing:
8707 with �ie! Nacslles 8737-100, 200 t�CB with Quiet Nacalle' F28
Ali 6727's 6AC 1-11 13C9-10 thru 5C}
If there ac� no Stage 2 operatio�• ��� 5;� of the Slar,e 3 opesatioas. Stage 3 aircraft include 8747, nClo,
DC8-7d, Airbus. 8767, 8757, 2.ff�80 and H737-300. '
�2� If tbe compositioa of an arca is not known, ciassify the aros as a(}�ei SubucS. If che Quict Suburb is
as.Surncd without ]ocal info�on anci Table 4 dictates that you m�sst ptr�Ld to furthcr �evicw'• r�Fat th�s
seep assuming the Narmal Suburb, Ur'�an and �hen Noisy Uct�an classiaicitions. If assuming one o[ chcse
ochc: c:assifieations do�c not uigger the need for Further revi��w; then yau wili lcno"" �at more sp�fic '
infocmacion nbouc tho compasuion of thc afA:cted c:ommuniry is aitical to the dccisian on whcther co procced. {
P�ge ll (and IZ)
1
i
�
�
'� l
i j
�4PPENDIX H SEfl►SlTIVITY OF IIVIPACT ClaTEGORIES
TO MAC HIGH FORECAST
C��7�� �;� C+`?
Purpose.................................................................................................................................... H-2
Conclusion.......................................................................................•......-•-•-............................ H-2
SensitivityAnalysis ...............................................................................................................•• H-2
H.1 Air Quality Sensitivity Analysis ...................................................................................... H-5
H.2 Noise Sensitivity Analysis ...................................................................•--........................H-10
H.3 Environmental Justice Analysis .......................................................................•--..........H-16
H.4 Surface Water Quality Sensitivity Analysis ...................................................................H-17
LIST OF TABLES
Table H-1 Comparison of MAC High Forecast with DEIS Forecast ................................................... 2
Table H-2 Summary of Impacts of MAC High Forecast ............................................................... 3
Table H.1-1 - Assumed Operations and Delay .............................................................................: 5
Table H.1-2 - On-Airport Carbon Monoxide Emissions (tons per year) ............................................. 5
Table H.1-3 - On-Airport Sulfur Oxide Emissions (tons per year) ..................................................... 6
Table H.1-4 - Assumed CO Background (PPm) ............................................................................. 6
; , Table H.1-5 - Average Daily Airport Traffic Volumes .................................................................... 7
,
� Table H.1-6 - Approach PM Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes at TH 55 and TH 62 ................................... 7
Table H.1-7 - Predicted CO Concentrations at TH 55 and TH 62 .................................................... 7
Table H.1-8 - Assumptions Used for Sensitivity Analysis of ........................................................... 8
Table H-1.9 - Assumed Aircraft LTO Cycles by APU Class ............................................................ 8
Table H-1.10 - Adjustment Factors from No Action 2005 ............................................................. 9
Table H-1.11 - EDMS Model Roadway Assumptions ..................................................................... 9
Table H.2-1 a- MSP 2005 Fleet Mix And Average Daily Arrivals High Forecast ............................... 1 1
Table H.2-1 b- MSP 2005 Fleet Mix And Average Daily Departures High Forecast .......................... 12
Table H.2-3 - MSP Grid Point Analysis Using INM Version 4.11 ................................................... 13
Table H.2-4 - MSP Grid Point Analysis Using INM Version 5.01 ................................................... 14
Table H.2-5 - Comparison of 2005 and 2020 DNL Contour Areas - High Forecast Scenario ............. 15
Table H.3-1 - Summary of Aircraft Noise Environmental Justice Impacts ........................................ 16
Table H.4-1 - CBODS �oading on Extreme Case Day - 2010 FEIS Forecast ....................................... 17
Table H.4-2 CBODS Loading on Extreme Case Day - 2010 MAC High Forecast ................................. 18
Table H.4-3 CBODS �oading on Extreme Case Day - 2020 MAC High Forecast ................................. 18
Dual Track Final EIS
H-1
APPENDIX H SENSlTIVITY OF IMPACT CATEGORlES TO MAC HIGH FOREC�4ST
Purpose
The purpose of this sensitivity analysis is to disclose the impacts of the p�oposed action (MSP 2010 �TCP) t,,
and the potential impacts of the MSP 2020 Concept Plan that would occur from a forecast of operations and
enpianements greater than the forecasts used in the DEIS that was prepared in 1995. The need for this
analysis is based on the foilowing:
• the (1997) FAA 2010 forecast for MSP is significantly higher than the (1993) MAC baseline
forecast used in the DEIS (658,900 versus 499,900 operations; 22,879,600 versus 15,030,000
enplanements)
• traffic levels at MSP have been growing at rates greater than the 1993 MAC baseline forecast
(e.g., 1996 actual operations exceed the MAC baseline forecast fo� the year 2005)
The sensitivity analysis will use the MAC High Forecast discussed in Section II of the FEIS because it is
representative of the FAA forecast and it has a forecast for 2020 whereas the FAA forecast only goes to
2010.
Conclusio�
Based on the MAC High Forecast, no significant increases in environmental impacts were found for the
proposed action in 2010. Therefore, the analyses of environmental impacts in Section V of the FEIS are
based on the same forecast of airport demand as the DEIS. However, it is estimated that the increase of
on-airport carbon monoxide emissions by 2020 would require mitigation of 886 tons pe� year. This is the
only impact category for which additional mitigation was determined to be required beyond 2010 due to the
MAC High Forecast.
Sensitivity Analysis
,,..
The MAC Nigh Forecast used in the sensitiviiy analysis is given in Table H-1 and is compared with the DEIS {'� _
forecast.
Table H-1 Comparison of MAC High Forecast with DEIS Forecast
DEIS Forecast MAC High Forecast
Year ; Enplanements ; Operations : Enplanements ; Operations
1996 14,386,000 4$5,400
Actual
---------------------------- �---------...----------------................. :........................................_....:----•--•---�---------------...............---=-�---...._............................----
2000 12,704,000 473,000 16,714,000 550,200
2005 13,895,000 484,800 18,810,000 575,000
2010 15,030,000 499,900 20,82$,000 603,800
2020 16.681,000 520,400 23,774,000 640,200
To test the sensitivity of environmental impacts to higher traffic levels, each of the impact categories in the
FEIS were analyzed to determine if the MAC High Forecast would result in a significant increase — that is,
have an effect that would require more mitigation for the proposed action than what was needed based on the
DEIS Forecast. Where appropriate, the analyses used the 1996 actual operations shown in Table H-1 for the
No Action Alternative. A summary of the analyses is presented in Table H-2.
t
Dual Track Final EIS
H-2
,'i
:�
• :� :c
:o '�
'� _ :� '•N
:� � ' :L �C%
: o m c:
: 3 : c� -.._.�— ; : o 's o
: �n �- :� cvo: �.��— : a�
�
�� io �: EU 'O
iN� iN =� ?� �:C ic'7
�:
. O CV ; � �: ;'U Ci � ._
3:s=. >+ ; O >,: ; O O�� 3 X
� Rf -� : � �i • `-' C.> i C6 ; "�
i.`�'p StiS �: 3(n �9N :C
:� C i� O: °'C <0:�,�j iQ
:() � itA COi 'N Ji� :�
i t6 � E
`- iU O ;Ni� O? ;'p��iu�1 �Q
� = g-a N ���C'a• :� tf)c'v ' 2ul
X : � C ; �. �i 3a. 03 O ;N:
� -� e.Q :C;� �.i �= N?� ?_; 3�'
� C 3N .�C i��� �; :� "-�idj • :(6
� � i O � ;�: 3 O; iZ �i � i'a? 3(�6
Q- : C C�: l: : �;
V `� '� a�i : �: o �; :iu �:� : Q; :.�'
�, i_tq U S O e�>
'n �O O :N3� �E i� �:p EQ? :;�
>, i� p :tIIi� C`�i :� O:C : etn
y C ; fc0 O i tn ?�� E e(� �;'� `; i tA i i N
;'Q �' e C • �: S(A : S tA
d �, :�.�'..� S C; U O: ��� �� 0 U: ��'� i N
`o �>_ ��� '�'°'>,: :a�€oi�; :c�o:' :-n
�- .� � � j ; : o;� rn; : c -a: � �: ;�.: : �.
� s rn o: : a� �;
'c :o �o, �c6:c� `. 3� �:� �� :;F: ':c�,a
= itQ it17 ;C
� i� � NE :0;� �i i� Q:�- U3 :�: :(ll
: _.
a �� � �. �, �� ; a��i:-�a L: �� ��: a��i �; : ai: : c
� : o ..� :
� �- ?>, a� �E :�;� �-: ;u�i �;Q Rs€ ;u�i' _o
� tB '� N�E °�:� Cc :Z �;� NS 3cS iN
O
.�
v, � '� � �; '•�s:o �'s o:> �; :a�: :a�
� v�i s� � o� :o;is ar :� �€� c; �ais ;�
cc — —
a. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
� h o o;
�. d��c�c�:
� o �:
O+�+ =� L��=+ N N' O i O� O : O : O i i O
�
a. � � i a- �� C C' z eZ:Z ;z jzi :z
� � _��� � �:
� p a:� z>-:
��
�
c� as � v� *�
= s v� w �
� a � � � X X �X:X :X :X's :X
�
ca ; C > �
�� _��
O
.....
t� ...
ta c�
�. ca
� Q, : :
— � 'XEXE ??C'X3XsX 'X:X??C :X:X; ;Xs :X :?G:
0
z
��:
'•:ai: ;a�i; 'c�
:�:rn� `� 's :�: v�; ;� ;'� :c:v :c�i -�'-'•:
�, � • a�; � : i o:
SO;�i (Lf �`i�'� U� 3� 's :V SG iCi 3�i�n �2� �e
Cl �+ ?Ni�3 � 'p:�:Ci� Q,:Vi-� �i'OiC2� iC�J :�;0: ;N;-'�� V;-�i W:
y � ?�:�: _ ::a.;�-2(�i"a�e'"':tB tUiC�'-:� :� :U)3tn: :i. Ni—+�:_i
� � �� � ?�iC�i���-pi0'Z �i�iQEL c0 '�°�E�eN�� W'� �e'<�:
V � : c�; 03 � :.=? ;�; � a�: c€ots o: �E-a:Q `� E-as �; o;�: c : c • �:
+-� ` ;'pr ' � ��:�:c:� c9o3>,�n:�..�:� .� :ciW;Z.��� �'•� N9(!)-
� Q :o:v: ` so;�:N�� �'w'•o'a�=ti;o:v :�:�s :E. '•� �s
� ; �::�.• Q :C.); o€—:c �: : c �� 'u";�o � � : a�: ; L: o Z' o �'s
_ :�;m' a '•U; �?w �; 2w ; � ; � �-�' e cc1;•j ;•> cn;
S(Lf ; S LL : c : c
E �E m : p; F-i ;_ :� SW iW �:
iQS iC�i
�� :
� �n � � ; : � ..._. c
ca : a� •L o � ..; : � � � � o
� ; N 'C7 U i "� � � � Q7 � ; i O 3 � ; � 'C7
� : co 'o � : o � � -a a� � � a E 's : 3 € >, � �- �
o ;� u'�:`n.=� °� �'� c�u �� �� :�' `� � saon
� �. : r� c.> — io cv � c � �n : € � : cu � � � : cfl
� ; O � � : N .,., -� (� (O ��.. � +-� y�2 e tA i Rf e � � � � p
"'' i tA V � i � O = N = 'C � �'j � ' .'• t� 3 'S C i � :-.
� ' a O�. Rf � I� 'C C Q' O('� �: :� 3 y : CO � ? o CT
O' y=' ° �- ::� � i s-
'tS i N � O�� C 1— _ � Rl � C'� i i� e N � N Q. "`"' �
N ; d= � V 3� O C O j C'a tQ � i °�- S.0 i Q. (ll : p¢
� : � � N 3 c� V N N � O � � � ? : � ? � 3 � '+D :.p �
Q : O U � : C � ` � � � . a1 i :.�.. i C� i (6 ,� 3 Ri �
� ,F, � (�6 Q U 3 � .` � .V: -C � (U �-- � � � V i _C 9 d' � CO o E v�j �c-
a��n w '��-��o��= ; .� :3 ;_;_ :m�
,.., � �'•� ��: 3� cNo E°� .= o a°�i �' : 3 ;� ::�:-�v � 3 c�`.� �
_ � ���Z >,'.��='c= > c� a� �, 3� ;rn .�;tc! � 9c N
� ��?N� ��t��0 Q~ Q..�N N'fl �: i� �N 3Qe�� i� �
� iC0 � :Q; =
� U.... �' � � C�N RS; 'C"� :}"�.�
O � �iC"' �• C . o
�.i C = i'� � � i �(6 � � �+ C � s-+ _ � i ' o ; o ° (n : � � Z7
U: � o U..� � �,'_ o � � F �. ,� ,� ' �. � Q '� �
� Q : o c� w : •X � c� ;_, . a� : : m s >,� u� . : o
�. ?� �n .��� as Rs Q'a � � o �" :ci ;u�i 'c�� � io 3
��'c-cci;N � o c�i � �-a c �; iai ;� •'�:V � :cv �
V O :.��- U s- . N •p� — C � � tU � ? i (6 : � e,..-_A� i � ''-' ' C (U
� �i� �•g Ni� ��-' � � � � U � �E i(�j '•� i'�.�-..�� � 3-� �
O . � i C ' C i C � � :� � �' N � �: '•� i"� i tA : O � ' � C
�-�;rnc'�:� � �� � � c�i� a�: :� ;o a�:a�i:�.0 '•a��i �.._.
��'v � o;� o� � c� o m-a; :o :3�:`:�' � ;.� o m
��:u, � n.:�.� m .���.� � �; ;3 ;�o:�:� � .�c �
�-j:� � u':ai.c� �= o.���; ;o °�€v�i �'•3:� �' :�Z `a
c cci i'a N� i 3 �,�- ��? ��-�-� u) i :� � i� � i N S� c i N p LL.
��:�oo-Qs�2oo 3=0�: :�,o:a�;�:o�c: :o�.c
� �.� � o;C N � C (n ._� tn p? ;� �;� tu:�i.�c � �; 3>, � _
o ��� �:cuN ��uW..rr'-N o-�; :� o:.Y�:�n`'� � aUi: '� �c�
�� c`�: � c�:� a� a�i o°� _� a`� o: � a�i c�i: a�°i o: a�i� a� a� o; : o cxo Q
a��':ca�3:3�u�3�F—� �: :nca:��:�n:���: :���
M
d � � C
C
U1 z- O
''"' _��� �+=� O O O : O i O ; O i O O
� 5„ ���� z z Z ;z :z ;Z; z z
avi ���`-
p a S�
LL
�
� � fn a�
= tn W �
V �� V X X X iX 'X iX' X X
� U � L
c i W
.,.. — O
0
�
� .r
(O U
Q. t6 � 2 i i
� L�. : i i i
— � :i<2i<3 ;i<;i<;
0
z
� � : ��:
� a a� : �,
� � � Q ;�; :� :Q ;�: � '�; o�
d �. v� � ; =. ; . �. : Q : c� : � : u� � . �
C� o � � :�'•�'� :c�n ��� -a :a'�: �
:�.,
� � � � ':,o'j'• n ;� ;�: � :a�:c.�: �
s� `�'
RS � O Q i"RS i '� 3� i`t S � • -a
� �' cn �, :�: �� ;� ;�; c� ;�; �
_ � .�;
H.1 Air Quality Sensitivify Analysis
A comparison is made between on-airport Carbon Monoxide (CO) and Sulfur Oxide (SOx) emissions for the
years 2010 and 2020. Table H.1-1 shows the annual operations and average delay per operation that were
used in the analysis:
Table H.1-1 - Assumed Operations and Delay
The 6-minute average delay was obtained from an ai�eld simulation analysis of the 1996 actual operations
and facilities.
An average APU operating time per landing/takeoff cycle is 15 minutes, based upon information provided by
Northwest Airlines. Ground motor vehicle traffic has been assumed proportional to operations. Assumptions
used in the sensitivity analysis is attached at the end of H.1.2.
H.'Y.1 On-Airport CO Emissions
The results of the analysis for CO is presented in Table H.1-2. The change in emissions for the MSP
Alternative from the No Action alternative is also shown in accordance with the agreed upon methodology for
meeting air quality conformiiy requirements.
`f
Table H.1-2 - On-Airpo�t Carbon Monoxide Emissions (tons per year)
No Action MSP High Forecast
Source 2010/2020 2010 2020
Roadways 791 985 1167
Parking facilities 190 244 259
Heating plants 9 9 9
Ground Service Equip 659 888 975
Aircraft operations 4202 3655 4290
Auxiliary Power Units 44 72 79
TH 77/66 St Interchange 17 19 19
TOTAL 5912 5873 6798
Change from No-Action -39 +886
From Tabte H.1-2, it can be seen that the 2010 High Fo�ecast does not exceed the 100 tons per year de
minimis threshold for which CO mitigation measures must be adopted. The 2010 LTCP would have fewer
emissions in 2010 (with more operations) than the No Action Alternative because of the substantially lower
average airFeld delay per operation (1.11 versus 6.0 minutes). By 2020, howeve�, mitigation of 886 tons per
year would be required. One measure that would provide the required mitigation is the conversion of the
ground service equipment to either natural gas fuel or electricity, which would result in a decrease of 975 tons
of CO emissions per year.
Dual Track Final EIS
H-5
H.1.2 On-Airport SOx Emissions
The change in SOx emissions for the MSP Alternative due to the MAC High Forecast compared to the
No Action Alternative is shown in Table H.1.3. The analysis was performed in accordance with the
agreed-upon methodology for meeting air quality conformity requirements. See Attachment H.1 for
the assumptions used in the analysis.
Table H.1-3 - On-Airport Sulfur Oxide Emissions (tons per year)
No Action 2010 High 2020 High
Source 2010/2020 Forecast Forecast
Roadways 0 0 O
Parking facilities 0 0 O'
Heating plants 51 51 51
Ground Service Equip 3 4 4
Aircraft operations 114 136 156
Auxiliary Power Units 6 8 9
Total 174 199 220
Change from No-Action +25 +46
From Table H.1-3, it can be seen that the MSP Alternative for both the 2010 and 2020 High Forecasts
would not exceed the 100 tons per year de minimis threshold for which SOx mitigation measures must
be adopted.
H.1.3 Off-Airport CO Emissions
CO background concentrations for 2010 were estimated using a linear extrapolation between the
obse�ved 1996 values and the projected 2020 values presented in Section V.A.1.1. The CO
background concentrations for these three years are shown in Table H.1-4.
Table H.1-4 - Assumed CO Background (ppm)
Year 1-Hour 8-Hour
1996 3.6 2A
2010 5.5 3.1
2020 6.8 3.8
Regional network traffic volumes at the most critical intersection (TH 55 and TH 62} were adjusted on
the basis of estimated average daily airport traffic volumes for each of the scenarios as shown in Table
N.1-5. This adjustment was made to airport volumes only, with the assumption that background
traffic in 2010 would be the same as that in 2020. This ensures a conservative estimate of CO
emissions due to the MSP 2010 LTCP, since the actual 2010 background traffic would be less tha�
the 2020 background traffic.
Dual Track Final EIS
H-6
Table H.1-5 - Average Daily Airport Traffic Volumes
Airport traffic volumes for the No Action Alternative in 2010 were adjusted using 2010 no action
traffic estirnates on the regional network (provided by Metropolitan Council staff). The 2010 and
2020 PM peak-hour approach volumes at TH 55 and TN 62 are shown in Table H.1-6.
Table H.1-6 - Approach PM Peak-Hour Traffic Vofumes at TH 55 and TH 62
A screening analysis (described in Section V.A, Tabies A-2 and A-3) using the 2020 high forecast
traffic volumes was performed for the intersections of 66"' Street at Portland, Nicollet and Lyndale
Avenues. Based on that analysis, only the TN 55 and TH 62 intersection would have the potential for
adverse air quality impacts.
Revised vehicle emissions were generated for the years 2010 and 2020 using the MOBILE 5A
emissions model and incorporated into the CAL3QHC highway dispersion model for CO. Assumed CO
background concentrations were added to the predicted roadway concentrations to yield overall levels.
The results of this analysis are presented in Table H.1-7.
1
Table H.1-7 - Predicted CO Concentrations at TH 55 and TH 62
(PPm)
No Action MSP MSP
Year 2010/2020 2010 2020
1-Hour
Roadway 3.4 3.7 4.4
Back round 5.5 5.5 6.8
Total 8.9 9.2 11.2
Standard 30.0 30.0 30.0
8-Hour
Roadway 2.4 2.6 3.1
Background 3.1 3.1 3.8
Total 5.5 � 5.7 6.9
CO Standard 9.0 9.0 9.0
As shown in Table H.1-7, the CO concentrations at nearby intersection receptors due to the 2010 and
2020 high fo�ecasts are below the 1-hour and 8-hour ambient air quality CO standards.
Dual Track Final EIS
H-7
Attachment H.1
Table H.1-8 - Assumptions Used for Sensitivity Analysis of �'
On-Airport Carbon Monoxide Emissions
Assumed Annuai Aircraft Departures for EDMS Model
No Action MSP High Forecast
EDMS Ciass 2010/2020 2010 2020
1-eng Pis 3500 3139 6059
2-eng Pis 4249 3869 7446
727 3107 9198 3723
737 11586 15476 33617
747 - ��.._ 3257 7117 22265
757 19170 51538 114099
767 955 3321 9417
A300 64771 44968 128663
C130H 1534 1496 2993
DC10 4287 6315 11388
DC8 804 1278 1460
DC9 14191 36573 1241
737300/F100 10445 20842 120450
Lear35 12281 11680 22338
MD80 20519 17338 20367
MU3001 5841 5621 11826
SF340 62001 62123 127312
Total Deps 242,500 301,891 320,105
TotalOps 485,000 603,782 640,210
Table H-1.9 - Assumed Aircraft LTO Cycies by APU Class
No Action MSP High Forecast
APU Class 2010/2020 2010 2020
DC10 4287 6315 5694
727/737 25139 45516 79789
A300 64771 44968 64897
757/767 20125 54859 61758
747 ' 3257 7117 11133
DC8/DC9/MD80 35514 5518$ 11571
Total 153,093 213,963 234841
�,.
Duai Track Final EIS
H-8
Table H-1.70 - Adjustment Factors from No Action 2005
`
Ground Motor Vehicle Traffic Volumes to 2010/2020 Volumes
Table H-1.11 - EDMS Model Roadway Assumptions
Average Annual Hourly Traffic Volumes
Dual Track Finai EIS
H-9
H.2 Noise Sensitivity Analysis
i,
Appendix H.2 summarizes the assumptions used to model noise levels that would result from a higher level of '
aircraft operations at MSP in 2005 that was included in the baseline forecasts and FEIS analysis. Under the
baseline FEIS forecast, aircraft activity at MSP is forecast to increase to 484,800 annual operations by 2005
and 520,400 annual operations by 2020. The contours developed for the FEIS reflect these operational
levels.
As with the noise analysis p�esented in Section V.Q of the FEIS, 2005 was used in the High Forecast
sensifivity analysis, since it represents the worst case year, with the most number of noisier, hushkitted
Stage 3 aircraft. Although the high forecast scenario projects 603,800 total operations by 2010, the
proportion of hushkitted Stage 3 aircraft operations will decline from approximately 18% in 2005 to
0.5% in 2010. This reduction in hushkitted Stage 3 operations offsets the increase in overall
operations projected for 2010, making 2005 the wotstcas.e for�noise analy�is._ The�nly change made .
due to the high forecast is the fleet mix; the fleet mix used for the high farecast is described in this
appendix. The major inputs used for modeling the high scenario are discussed as follows.
Fleet Mix
A fleet mix representing operations in 2005 under the high scenario was developed and is presented in
Tables H.2-1A and H.2-1B. It differs from the baseline mix (shown in Tables A.3-3 and A.3-4) in numbers
as well as in percentages of aircraft types. NWA announced a change in future equipment purchases in
February 1996. The 2005 high forecast scenario fleet mix was adjusted to incorporate NWA's decision to
acquire 20 more 8727-200 hushkits and an additional 12 DC9-30s hushkits. In addition to the hushkit
purchases, NWA will add 20 more A320s to its fleet over the next several years and defer delivery of 16
A330s for 5 years. The fleet mix adjustment was completed to reflect a more up-to-date prediction of the
NWA future fleet mix. The updated fleet mix contains slightly more hushkitied ai�craft than originally projected
and thereby portrays a larger contour than would be determined by inc�easing the operations with the
baseline fleet mix in the DEIS. The high scenario forecast maintains approximately the same fleet mix {
percentages as the DEIS baseline forecast with NWA's fleet mix adjustment. As in the base case noise
rrtodeling effort, aircraft types not contained in the INM database were substituted with FAA-approved
substitution aircraft.
Flight Track and Runway Use
The high scenario forecast noise analysis was based on the identical utilization of flight tracks and runway
use as was used for development of the baseline contours in the FEIS.
Integrated Noise Model Version
The high forecast scenario contour was computed using INM Version 5.01, since this is the most recent
version available and offe�s the most accurate way to calculate noise levels. In order to provide for a
consistent comparison with the High Forecast noise levels, the Baseline Forecast noise levels in the FEIS
were re-run with INM Version 5.01.
To determine whether or not a significant change in noise levels would result with the high forecast as
compared to the baseline levels, DNL levels for the 42 grid points of noise-sensitive land uses included in the
FEIS (Figure Q-5) were calculated for both scenarios. The gridpoint analysis did not reveal any points where
DNL levels increased by 1.5 dB or more, the FAA threshold for significant change. The maximum change was
1.2 DNL, with an average change of approximately 1.0 dB. Table H.2-4 presents all of the values. A
comparison of the base and high forecast DNL contours is shown in Figure H-1.
As a further check to determine that �o significant change in noise levels would occur in the high forecast
scenario, the high forecast case was also run with the old INM Version 4:11, which was used for the DEIS
and FEIS analysis. A comparison of the noise levels at the 42 grid points for the high scenario vs. FEIS
Dual Track Final EIS
H-10
r'
values with this version of fhe INM also does not result in any increase of 1.5 DNL or more. The maximum
change with Version 4.11 was 1.3 dB (see Tabie H.2-3), with an average change of approximately 1.0 dB.
Table H.2-1 a- MSP 2005 Fleet Mix And Average Daily Arrivals High Forecast
Aircraft Type Day Night Total
Air Carrier Jets
DC8
DC9-30 (HUSHKIT)
MD80
MD90
DC10
MD11
B727 (HUSHKIT)
B737-300/400/500
B737 (HUSHKIT)
B747-200/300/400
8757
B767-200/300
B777
A300
A320/321
A330
A340
�1011
Bae 146/RJ/F-70
F 100
EM 145/CanRJ
SUBTOTAI.
Air Carrier Turbopro�s
CNA/PAGBEC
SWM/J31 /BE1 /BE9
SF340/DH8/J41
S2000
L188/CVR/F27/ATP/A
SUBTOTAL
General Aviation
GA Jet
GA Turboprop
GA Piston
SUBTOTAL
Militarv
C130
TOTAL ARRIVALS
1.1
110.1
34.6
6.3
11.4
3.8
13.0
37.0
0.2
7.9
89.1
3.6
1.4
0.5
66.3
5.3
0.4
0.6
1.3
10.4
10.7
415.0
3.4
42.2
93.5
40.9
22.5
202.5
28.7
13.4
19.0
61.1
4.0
.: .
1.7
13.5
4.0
0.7
1.8
0.$
3.6
3.8
0.1
1.1
11.7
0.4
0.1
0.7
8.7
0.6
0.1
0.5
0.2
1.1
1.5
56.7
3.5
11.0
13.5
6.1
6.7
40.8
:
�
0.1
105.7
Dual Track Final EIS
H-11
2.8
123.6
38.6
7.0
13.2
4.6
16.6
40.8
0.3
9.0
100.8
4.0
1.5
1.2
75.0
5.9
0.5
1.1
1.5
11.5
12.2
471.7
6.9
53.2
107.0
47.0
29.2
243.3
32.5
15.2
21.5
69.2
4.1
::
Table H.2-1 b- MSP 2005 Fleet Mix And Average Daily Departures High Forecast
Aircraft Type Day Night Total
Air Carrier Jets
DC8
DC9-30 (HUSHKIT)
MD80
MD90
DC10
MD11
B727 (HUSHKIT)
B737-300/400/500
8737 (HUSHKIT)
8747-200/300/400
B757
B767-200/300
B777
A300
A320/321
A330
A340
L1011
Bae 146/RJ/F-70
F 100
EM145/CanRJ
SUBTOTAL
Air Carrier Turboprops
CNA/PAG/BEC
SWM/J31 /BE1 /BE9
SF340/DH8/J41
S2000
L188/CVR/F27/ATP/AT
SUBTOTAL
General Aviation
GA Jet
GA Turboprop
GA Piston
SUBTOTAL
Militarv
C130
TOTAL DEPARTURES
1.0
108.2
34.1
6.2
11.2
3.8
13.0
36.3
0.2
7.9
87.5
3.6
1.3
0.5
65.4
5.2
0.4
0.7
1.4
10.3
11.2
409.4
3.4
43.7
97.6
42.8
23.2
210.7
27.5
12.8
18.2
58.5
�
682.4
1.8
15.4
4.5
0.8
2.0
0.8
3.6
4.5
0.1
1.1
13.3
0.4
0.2
0.7
9.6
0.7
0.1
0.4
0.1
1.2
1.0
62.3
3.5
9.5
9.4
4.2
6.0
32.6
5.0
2.4
3.3
10.7
r�
� •;
Dual Track Final EIS
H-12
2.8
123.6
38.6
7.0
13.2
4.6
16.6
40.8
0.3
9.0
100.8
4.0
1.5
1.2
75.0
5.9
0.5
1.1
1.5
11.5
12.2
471.7
6.9
53.2
107.0
47.0
29.2
243.3
32.5
15.2
21.5
69.2
4.1
::
�'
,r �
Pt. No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
70
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Table H.2-3 - MSP Grid Point Analysis Using INM Version 4.11
x
-5300
-8000
-6400
-4500
-4400
-12000
-1000
12900
15700
3900--
23000
30100
27200
6500
18200
15000
16000
15000
23100
28900
23800
-8700
-10100
-10400
-1900
3600
-6800
-7200
-15100
-15800
-13500
-12700
-14300
-14900
-9900
-5100
-5200
-5900
-10200
-5300
-7200
12700
Y
-14200
-8200
-9000
-10000
-7100
-7700
-11000
-11100
-21400
-9500
-13700
-10100
9100
3300
-4000
0
-2800
-1200
-2200
900
8400
15000
15600
8500
9000
10300
15100
15700
17400
12900
7200
9700
11100
1100
5200
2400
200
-4800
-2700
-1000
7200
2005 High
DNI.
57.7
54.4
54.7
59.0
61.0
53.2
69.9
56.0
53.2
�._._ 58.9
63.6
60.5
62.3
54.8
53.3
67.5
65.7
67.2
59.8
57.4
54.7
67.8
59.3
58.2
�2.s
59.9
65.5
58.9
61.1
59.2
59.1
60.7
58.3
60.0
55.0
69.0
63.3
57.3
49.6
58.9
54.1
51.1
DEIS
DNL
56.7
54.4
53.9
58.0
60.0
53.8
69.0
54.8
52.1
57.8
62.4
59.4
61.1
53.7
52.0
66.3
64.5
66.0
58.5
56.1
53.4
66.8
58.3
57.2
71.6
58.8
64.5
57.8
60.1
58.2
58.1
59.7
57.3
59.0
53.8
67.9
62.2
56.2
49.0
57.9
53.0
50.0
0,0 point occurs at the end of Runway 4 prior to the extension
Change
1.0
O.0
0.8
1.0
1.0
-0.6
0.9
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.1
0.6
1.0
1.1
1.1
*��'�XY Coordinates translated to NAD83 Caordinates in AutoCAD d�awing based
on runway e�d state plane coords. and then translated to Geographic Coordinates
using CORPSCON v.3.01
Dual Track Final EIS
H-13
Table H.2-4 - MSP Grid Point Analysis Using INiIA Version 5.01
2005 High DEIS /�
Pt. No. x y DNL bNl Change �
1 -5300 -14200 58.2 57.1 1.1
2 -8000 -8200 54.1 54.0 0.1
3 -6400 -9000 55.2 54.3 0.9
4 -4500 -10000 59.8 58.7 1.1
5 -4400 -7100 61.3 60.3 1.0
6 -12000 -7700 51.7 51.9 -0.2
7 -1000 -11000 71.4 70.3 1.1
8 12900 -8900 55.0 53.9 1.1
9 15700 -11100 52.9 51.8 1.1
10 3900 -21400 59.3 58.2 1.1
11 23000 -9500 62.7 61.6 1.1
12 30100 -13700 59.$ 58.8 1.0
13 27200 -10100 61.4 60.4 1.0
14 6500 9100 54.4 53.3 1.1
15 18200 3300 53.1 51.9 1.2
16 15000 -4000 66.5 65.3 1.2
17 16000 0 65.6 64.5 1.1
18 15000 -2800 66.8 65.7 1.1
19 23100 -1200 60.1 58.9 1.2
20 28900 -2200 57.3 56.1 1.2
21 23800 900 54.5 53.3 1.2
22 -8700 8400 67.1 66.1 1.0
23 -10100 15000 59.4 58.4 1.0
24 -10400 15600 58.4 57.3 1.1
25 -1900 8500 72.2 71.2 1.0 �
26 3600 9000 59.8 58.6 1.2
27 -6800 10300 65.2 64.2 1.0
28 -7200 15100 59.0 57.9 1.1
29 -15100 15700 60.6 59.7 0.9
30 -15800 17400 59.0 58.0 1.0
31 -13500 12900 59.3 58.2 1.1
32 -12700 7200 60.9 59.9 1.0
33 -14300 9700 58.5 57.5 1.0
, 34 -14900 11100 59.8 58.8 1.0
35 -9900 1100 55.5 54.3 1.2
36 -5100 5200 69.1 68.0 1.1
37 -5200 2400 64.1 63.0 1.1
38 -5900 200 57.6 56.5 1.1
39 -10200 -4800 49.9 49.4 0.5
40 -5300 -2700 58.3 57.3 1.0
41 -7200 -1000 55.1 54.0 1.1
42 12700 7200 51.1 49.9 1.2
0,0 point occurs at the end of Runway 4 prior to the extension
***�XY Coordinates translated to NAD83 Coordinates in AutoCAD drawing based
on runway end state plane coords. and then translated to Geographic Coordinates
using CORPSCON v.3.01
Dual Track Final EIS
H-14
Additionally, a sensitivity analysis was completed to compare the 2005 high forecast scenario with the 2020
high forecast scenario. The high forecast scenario projects 640,200 annual operations by the year 2020.
Table H.2-5 provides a comparison of areas within the contours for the two forecast scena�ios. A
comparison of the 2005 high forecast and 2020 high forecast scenarios is shown in Figure H-2.
Table H.2-5 - Comparison of 2005 and 2020 DNL. Contour Areas - High Forecast Scenario
DNL. Contour Area
DNL. Contour 2005 2020
75+ 2.40 square miles 1.64 square miles
70-75 4.84 square miles 3.74 square miles
65-70 9.95 square miles 8.76 square miles
60-65 21:05 square miles 19.16 square miles
The conclusion of this analysis is that, even at the highest of the forecast scenarios, which approximates the
trend of recent traffic increases, there would not be a significant change in noise levels around MSP, based
on the FAA threshold of significance, compared to the baseline analysis in the FEIS. As such, the analysis in
the FEIS adequately discloses noise impacts.
Dual T�ack Final EIS
H-15
H.4 Surface Water Quality Sensitivity Analysis
�' The only measurable way in which the increased flight activity associated with the MAC High Forecasts
wo�ld impact surface water quality is the additional aircraft deicing material required for winter
operations. There may be an additional potential for surface water impact resulting from additional
fueling operations. However, any attempt to specifically quantify the added potential for environmental
impact from the added fueling operations in a meaningful way would be difficult, if not impossible.
Discharges from oil and grease have historically not been a problem at MSP, and the planned enhanced
detention ponds should provide further control for this type of potential discharge, as well as for total
suspended solids.
For the surface water quality tCBODS) sensitivity analysis, the same basic assumptions and
methodologies were used as for the FEIS (Section V.BB) analysis. The only differences to the model
inputs relative to the FEIS analysis concern volumes of glycol applied a) seasonally, and b) on the given
spike day. These volumes were scaled according to: a) base and high forecast flight operations,
respectively, for 2010, and b) high forecast flight operatior�s for 2020.
Thus, the primary assumptions used for the sensitivity analysis model runs a�e as follows:
• 100 percent of aircraft deicing done on pads on extreme-case application day
• 7.5 percent blow-by (glycol escaping containment at the source and reaching detention ponds)
• routing the residual glycol-impacted storm water (GISW) through detention basins enhanced to
meet National Urban Run-off Program (NURP) or equivalent performance standards, having the
effect of attenuating CBODS surges
• seasonal glycol application of 2.88 gallons/annual operation (see Appendix A.9)
• spike day glycol application of 0.14 gallons/annual operation (see Appendix A.9)
o FEIS forecast for MSP annual operations: 499,900
� '� • 2010 MAC Nigh Forecast for MSP annual flight operations: 603,800
_ 0 2020 MAC High Forecast for MSP annual flight operations: 640,200
The inputs and outputs associated with the modeling which was done for this analysis are presented in
the following tables:
Table H.4-1 - CBODS Loading on Extreme Case Day - 2010 FEIS Forecast
MRN ML MRS Total
-----•-•---�-�----------------------�----�--......................---�--.....................i.......................-------�---��----��----�•---...............................i.....................................i---�-�-----.....................
Pond Volume (gal) ....................:.......7,429,000 ; 3,251,000 : 6,325,000 ; N/A
..................................•---� - •-•-----�......_........................................................................................................
Antecedent CBODS 260 750 360 N/A
_ Concentration (mg/I) : ' : '•
""'"""""""'""' ............................."'..................""""".....y...........""................ _.......... �........................"""""""...;....."""""'"'..........."'..... i""......................."'..
Influent Concentration 510 2,040 1,740 N/A
CBOD�..�mg/I) ...........................................................' : : :
. .---�•----� :................•-•-�------�--...........,...........--••--•--��--��---�--................-----�-•-•-•--................�-----.......................----
Influent Flow Rate (�!9d► .................................i..............5:09 :....------�-�0:63---��--�------+......-�---..�.:.`}:8.............;...........N/A...........
• ----• ............................................ --•--...........�.
Influent Load (Ibs) : 21,440 ........... :...........10,719...........:.........21,438.---------:--.....53,600.......
.................................................................................................�---....... . . . .
Effluent Concentration (mg/I) .................�---.:...............270----........... ;.............._800---�-�---�-----:.............480..............i....-•--�--N/A........---�
---------��---�-�-�-�---•--�� ....................................
Effluent Flow Rate(mgdi.....-�-�------------- �..............1 :64--------�-�---;..............�:2z..............i............�:69.----�------.:...........N/A---........
--.......---• ..........................�---�---._..... . ........---��-
Effluent Load (Ibs) 3,710 1,480 2,730 7,920
Note: MRN = Minnesota River North Watershed; MRS = Minnesota River South Watershed; SL =
Snelling Lake Watershed
Dual Track Final EIS
H-17
Table H.4-2 CBODS Loading on Extreme Case Day - 2010 MAC High Forecast
; MRN ; ML ; MRS : Total
..........--•• .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
--Pond Volume {�al).-----•---•-•• .................................:.......7,429,000 : 3,251,000 ' 6,325,000 : N/A
.................•--•---..........................._.................................--•----................----........
Antecedent CBODS 300 880 420 N/A
. Concentration (m�/I) ................................ : _ : :
..... ..........�....----•---. .............�......_... ......--- ....... ...._.. ....... .---...
• -------------- . , . .................. --:--- .........
......... ..:.. . .. .. .- •--
infiuent Goncentration 590 2,390 2,030 N/A
--CBOD�..�n:?�/I) ....................... '•. : : '
.... ...............................................................................�-----.....................-----••--�•---i--.............................---...:...........----.................
Influent Flow Rate (m�d) ; 5.09 ; 0.63 ; 1.48 : N/A
.... ............................ ..........-----•--........................,..........--�------.............................. ..
..........--•-• ...............-•--................---•--. ...
Influent Load (Ibs) ;..........25,080 ............:...........12,540-•----.---.:.........25,080-----.....4.......62,700....
............................................................................................... ---
.Effluent Concentration (m�/q .: 320 � 950 ; 560 '• N/A
. ............. . ....... . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ................,....................................... .......
.� ................................. . ...
.Effluent Flow Rate(m�d) ': 1.64 : 0.22 � 0.69 �N/A
.... ......................... �"""".........................."'.....1-.......................................i......."'"'.........................4•....... ....
. .. . .. ...... '"'
Effluent Load (Ibs) 4,350 1,740 3,250 9,340
Table H.4-3 CBODS Loading on Extreme Case Day - 2020 MAC High Forecast
: MRN : ML : MRS : Total
..........--�� ...............................��-------..............--•------------��---.....�---.....................--•----..........,.............-•--------.................3..............................---....,......... .......... .......
Pond Volume (�al) .......................................•-----..;-.-----7,429,000 : 3,251,000 : 6,325,000 ; ..N/A. ...
.. . .. .. .. . ....................•--...............-------------..................---�-----.................................................
Antecedent CBODS 320 930 450 N/A
. Concentration (mg/I) � '• ' :
.....................•----•�----.....................................................ti.................-----...................�.......--•-----.......................-•+---..................................:.............------....---------
Influent Concentration 620 2,520 2,140 N/A
CBOD�..�m�/I) ..................................................... '• € : :
..-- .......:............................•---...------:........................................:.....................................:................................
influent Flow Rate (m�d) 's 5.09 : 0.63 : 1.48 { N/A
.... ......... .... ,..................................-------�---..................-•-�-�----..........................................----- ................................
Influent Load (Ibs) : .26,450 ; 13,230 : 26,450 : _66,130
............................•-�--.............................................................. • ...
.Effiuent Concentration (mg/q .: 340 ° 1 000 � 600 ' N/A
. .. ............................•-•-•------�--................ ...................---��-�-�-�----......................-'----..................:-------.....................---......:.......-----------....-------�-�
..Effluent Flow_Rate(m�d� ....................�----........;...............�.:64....-----......:..............0:22..............i-------.....�:69............::...........N/A........---
Effluent Load (Ibsi 4,590 1,840 3,420 9,850
Based on the modeling results presented in Tables H.4-1 and H.4-2, the airport-wide, extreme-day
discharge of CBODS for the MSP Alternative associated with the 2010 MAC High Forecast (9,340 Ibs.)
would be about 18 percent greater than with the 2010 MAC FEIS forecast {7,920 Ibs.). Similarly, the
airport-wide, extreme-day discharge of CBODS associated with the 2020 MAC High Forecast would be
approximately 20 percent higher than with the 2020 MAC FEIS forecast (9,8501bs. versus 8,230 Ibs.,
as shown in Table H.4-3 and Table BB-6).
The modeled CBODS outcomes for the MSP Alternative assuming the MAC FEIS forecasts for 2010
and 2020, respectively, are both lower than the modeled outcome for the No Action Alternative tsee
Table BB-6j. The modeled outcome for the MSP Alternative assuming the MAC High forecast for
2010 is approximately one percent higher than the modeled outcome for No Action (9,340 Ibs. CBODS
versus 9,220 Ibs. CBODS). The modeled outcome for the MSP Alternative assuming the MAC High
forecast for 2020 is approximately seven percent higher than the modeled outcome for No Action
(9,850 Ibs. CBODS versus 9,220 Ibs. CBODS).
Dual Track Final EIS
H-18
�"
�ummary of Comments on Draft EIS and Responses
Appendix I contains responses to substantive oral and written comments on the Draft EIS.
Comments were received at the public hearings and by mail and fax during the comment period.
All written comments and transcripts of the hearings are available at the Metropolitan Airports
Commission offices.
Dual Track Final EIS
I-1
TABLE OF COIVTENTS
General Comments and Responses .......................................................................1-1
Written Comments and Responses .......................................................................1-8
United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) .............................................. I-10
Minnesota Department of Agriculture ............................................................................ i-17
MinnesotaDepartment of Natural Resources .................................................................. I-21
MinnesotaDepartment of Transportation ....................................................................... I-25
State Historic Preservation Officer (Minnesota Historical Society) ...................................... I-33
MinnesotaPollution Controi Agency ......................................................:....................... I-35
WisconsinDepartment of Natural Resources .................................................................. 1-45
WisconsinDepartment of Transportation ....................................................................... i-51
Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission ........................................................... I-55
MetropolitanCouncil ................................................................................................... I-59
Metropolitan Council - Transportation Advisory Board ..................................................... I-64
DakotaCounty ........................................................................................................... 1-72
WashingtonCounty .................................................................................................... 1-7$
Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District ....................................................... I-81
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District ............................................................................. I-83
Vermillion River Watershed Management Commission ..................................................... I-85
Cityof Bloomington .................................................................................................... 1-87 �
Cityof Eagan ............................................................................................................. I-90
Cityof Hastings ......................................................................................................... I-100
Cityof Mendota Heights ............................................................................................. I-104
Cityof Minneapolis ..................................................................................................... I-108
Cityof Richfield ......................................................................................................... I-121 �',
Cityof Rosemount ..................................................................................................... I-146
Cityof Saint Paul ....................................................................................................... I-148
SouthernDakota County Townships ............................................................................. 1-156
DenmarkTownship ..................................................................................................... I-161
NorthwestAirlines, Inc ................................................................................................ I-162
NokomisEast Steering Committee ................................................................................ I-187
SierraClub ................................................................................................................ I-189
South Metropolitan Airport Action Council (SMAAC) ....................................................... I-191
Pierce County, Wisconsin Farm Bureau; Farmers Union and National Farmers Organization ... I-195
Representative Jean Wagenius and Senator Carol Flynn, Minnesota Legislature .................. I-196
Senator Alice Clausing, Wisconsin Senate ..................................................................... I-198
MarionHall .............................................................:.................................................. I-199
WilburMaki ............................................................................................................... I-200
JohnRichter .............................................................................................................. I-210
JeffSchneider ........................................................................................................... I-214
AIWellnitz ................................................................................................................ I-215
JohnTurner, Reliastar Financial Corp . ........................................................................... I-216
AmySalo .................................................................................................................. I-217
Thomas Manion and Genevieve Lubbers ........................................................................ I-218
RobertJ. Kelly ........................................................................................................... I-219
GibsonBatch ............................................................................................................. I-220
R.W. Russell .............................................................................................................. I-221
WandaBrown and Phyllis Goldin .................................................................................. I-222
� ,
Dual Track Final EIS
I-2
General Comments and Responses
The following are comments received from several persons or agencies and the responses.
General Comment
1. New Airport Aiternative -
comments on issues, impacts, data
and methodologies relating to the
New Airport Alternative.
2. Noise Mitigation - operating
procedures, nighttime operations and
restrictions, use of runway 4-22,
sound insulation for homes in the DNL
60 contour and beyond, the use of
incentives to stabilize/enhance areas
in the DNL 65 contour, and mitigation
of ground level noise impacts due to
aircraft and surface vehicles, should
be included in the noise mitigation
program.
3. Northwest Airlines Proposal - this
proposal should be addressed in the
EIS as an alternative.
4. MSP Forecasts - the forecasts for
operations and passengers are too
low, considering recent data.
General Response
1. As discussed in Section III.C.2 of the FEIS, the New Airport
Alternative has been eliminated from further consideration as a
feasible and prudent alternative. Therefore, all text, tables and
figures �elated to the impacts of this alternative in Section V are
deleted, no further analysis or discussion of this alternative is
warranted, and no revisions to the DEIS regarding this alternative
are included in the FEIS. Furthermore, the Minnesota legislature
has prohibited the preservation of land by planning, zoning or
acquisition for a new major airport in the Twin Cities Metropolitan
Area.
2. After selection of the preferred alternative by the legislature in
April 1996, and as provided for in the Airport Planning Act, MAC
established a Noise Mitigation Committee to prepare a Noise
Mitigation Program for the MSP Alternative. The committee �
included representatives of MAC, Metropolitan Council, MASAC,
Northwest Airlines and mayors of the affected cities. The
resulting Program includes mitigation activities and funding levels
and is presented in Appendix B of the FEIS. The Noise Mitigation
Program has been approved by MAC and recommended to the
State Advisory Council on Metropolitan Airport Planning for
review and comment. The State Advisory Council forwarded the
program to the legislature without comment.
3. The phasing of the MSP Alternative is presented in Section
III.D of the FEIS. The improvements through the year 2010 are
essentially the same as the Northwest Airlines (NWA) proposal
(Concept 6A). The primary difference between the NWA
proposal and the MSP Alternative is the construction of a new
west terminal and associated access roadways after 2010, which
is in the MSP 2020 Concept Plan but not in the NWA proposal,
and which requires affirmative action by the Minnesota legislature
prior to implementation. After extensive discussion and review of
expansion alternatives for MSP, MAC and NWA determined that
the needs through 2010, and potentially longer, could be
accommodated by continued phased development of the
�indbergh Terminal. However, for planning and environmental
review purposes for the year 2020, both parties agreed that the
MSP 2020 Concept Plan in the FEIS would be considered the
preferred concept. MAC and NWA will continue to discuss and
review current and futu�e development needs at MSP.
4. Historically, while aircraft operations have grown at MSP over
the long term, the growth has not been constant. For example,
between 1985 and 1988 traffic decreased for three straight
Dual Track Final EIS
I-3
years. Growth rates will fiuctuate over the forecast period, with :
faster growth for several years followed by siow or even negati��
growth in other years. Two recent events, a 1993 consolidation �'
of operations by Northwest to its three major hubs, including
MSP, and a new more liberalized airspace policy between the
U.S. and Canada in 1995, have resulted in "spikes" in airport
traffic growth. Total passengers increased 9.5 percent and
aircraft operations increased 2.9 percent from 1994 to 1995.
These one-time events will not likely be repeated, and traffic
growth rates should flatten compared to the growth rates in this
year.
Aviation activity forecasting, by its very nature, is an inexact
science, requiring numerous assumptions resulting in some level
of uncertainty. In order to minimize this uncertainty, four
"expert panel" workshops were convened in 1992 and 1993 by
the MAC and Metropolitan Council to ensure that the forecasts
incorporated the latest trends and considered all viewpoints. The
panets consisted of airline representatives (particularly Northwest
Airlines), economists, and others experienced in aviation
forecasting, both at the local and national levels. Topics
addressed by the panels included forecast methodologies,
aviation assumptions, socioeconomic trends, and alternative •..
sceriarios. The advice and counsel of these groups are reflected
in the methodologies and assumptions used to forecast future
activity. A public hearing was also held to receive public input.
Aircraft operations forecasts are not only based on assumptions�,,,
for average aircraft size (the number of seats per aircraft), but
also for projections of average load factors (the percentage of
seats occupied). The baseline forecasts for MSP assume that
average aircraft size for Northwest Airlines will remain constant
through 1998. After 1998, Northwest's average aircraft size is
forecast to grow at the FAA projected national rate of growth
through 2015 and then remain constant through 2020. For other
airlines, aircraft size is forecast to increase at the FAA projected
growth rate through 2020.
Although average aircraft size has decreased in recent years,
average load factors have reached record levels. The net result is
that the number of passengers per aircraft has, in fact, increased
between 1990 and 1995 at the national level. This phenomenon
is even more pronounced in the fast-growing regional (commuter)
market, where the average number of passengers per flight has
increased nearly 18 percent between 1990 and 1995 for the
nation as a whole.
To ensure that MSP development could accommodate traffic
levels higher than the 2020 forecast, alternative forecast
scenarios were developed. The MSP Alternative was tested
against the highest scenario (640,000 annual operations and 48
million annual passengers), and was found to work adequately, ,
thereby providing confidence that accelerated future growth ca�'
be accommodated.
Dual Track Final EIS
1-4
5. New North Parallel Runway
Alternative - this alternative should
not have been eliminated, and should
be evaluated in the EIS.
Also, this runway may be needed in
the future (beyond 2020) and its
environmental impacts should
therefore be included with the MSP
Alternative.
6. Economic Analysis - inadequate
discussion of regional and state
economic impacts of each airport
alternative
5. The 1989 Minnesota legislature directed the MAC and the
Metropolitan Council to determine how best to meet the future
aviation demands of the region. in March of 1994 MAC
determined through a public scoping process that four
alternatives would be considered for the expansion of the existing
Airport. An Alternative Environmental Document (AED) for the
Long Term Comprehensive Plan was completed for the four
alternatives considered as potential development strategies for
the existing airport. Two of the four alternatives included
development of a new third parallel runway. Detailed
environmental and operational analyses for the required impact
categories were completed for construction of a north third
parallel as well as for a new north-south runway. The levels of
analysis for differential impacts were the same as those in the
DEIS. Operationally, both the north parallel and north-south
runways would provide good benefits, with slightly more capacity
from a north-south runway. This benefit was calculated both by
MAC and an independent FAA study.
The environmental analysis found that, cumulatively, the
construction of a third parallel runway would have a more
significant adverse environmental impact than the construction of
a north-south runway — primarily in the areas of noise, Section
4(f), and historical impacts. The results of this analysis are
detailed in the Final AED for the Long Term Comprehensive Plan.
On February 21, 1995, MAC determined the adequacy of the
Final AED and selected the construction of a new 8,000-foot
north-south runway on the west side of the Airport and a
replacement terminal to be developed on the west side of the
Airport as the MSP Alternative to be carried forward in the EIS.
As further evidence of adequate analysis for elimination of the
third parallel as a feasible and prudent alternative, the U.S.E.P.A.
concurred with the range of alternatives proposed for assessment
within the DEIS in its letter of July 5, 1996. Prior to the February
21, 1995, decision, a new north parallel runway was considered
a feasible alternative, and was analyzed in the same level of
detail as the selected alternative.
After consideration of the DEIS, the Minnesota Legislature
determined in April 1996 that construction of Concept 6 with the
north-south runway was the preferred alternative. The legislature
went further than just making this selection; Minnesota law now
prohibits the construction of a third (northl parallel runway unless
all communities potentially affected by the construction of said
runway agree to its construction.
6. NEPA regulations do not require a cost-benefit analysis. The
regional and state economic analysis included in the DEIS was
performed by MAC in response to local concerns. The proposed
scope and level of analysis for economic issues and impacts to be
Dual Track Final EIS
I-5
addressed in the EIS were presented for public and agency review.
and comment in the Second Phase Scoping Report in May of �
1995. MAC reviewed the comments received on this report and �
made its scoping decision in July 1995. The decision on the level
of economic analysis is presented on page 12 of the Scoping
Decision document. The decision did not include an analysis of
the regional/state impacts on economic activity, which would
require a detailed base analysis of the state economy. Also, such
analysis was not requested by comments received during
scoping. However, the final report, "Economic Impacts of the
Alternative Airport Development Scenarios", MAC, February
1996, pp. 23-27, included a discussion of the regional economic
base economy. The regional discussion highlights historic and
projected changes in area industries, such as services and
manufacturing. The purpose of the analysis was to highlight
areas of projected growth and decline in the area economy over
the forecast period. The results of several University of
Minnesota economic base studies were reviewed as part of this
analysis. The regional discussion also notes several area-wide
development issues which may be significant to the airport
development process. This information was used to create a
context for evaluating the economic impacts created by each
airport development scenario. The Minnesota legislature, in •�
conjunction with its selection of the MSP Alternative, mandated a
separate analysis by the University of Minnesota of the
relationship between aviation service levels and the level of
commercial and industrial activity in the state, including the '
relocation of commercial and industrial enterprises. A summary �.,
of the findings of this analysis is included in Section V.1 of the
Final EIS.
Summary of Oral Comments at Public Hearings And Responses
The following summary does not include oral comments on the New Airport Alternative which has
been eliminated from further consideration as a feasible and prudent alternative.
Summary of Oral Comments at Public Hearings
7. The DEIS is fundamentally flawed because the
forecast of operations is low.
8. The economic study is inadequate and doesn't
consider the effects of monopoly pricing and the
ability of MSP to accommodate growth in
operations beyond the (low) forecast.
Response
7. See General Response 4.
8. See General Response 6 for the adequacy of the
economic study. Analysis of airline industry trends
indicated that monopoly pricing is an undefined issue.
Since NWA competes with other airlines on a route-
by-route basis, there will be considerable variability in
the cost of air fares from MSP for any given route
over time. The fares that NWA charges are a function
of its competitive position with other airlines along
specific routes. For example, if NWA reduces fares ��
_ _ __ .
compete with another airline on a given route, fares ..
Dual Track Final EIS
I-6
9. The FAA DNL 65 guideline for residential noise
impacts is too narrow; people are adversely
impacted by aircraft noise well below DNL 65
levels.
10. It is unrealistic to assume that the airlines will
have all stage 3 jets by 2005 because the airline
industry regularly disregards its promises.
11. There should be an EIS on the proposed
rezoning by the city of Minneapolis of the 24-
block area on the south end of �ake Nokomis
from residential to commercial. This would
remove 580 homes which are not included in the
Executive Summary.
12. In 1991 MAC said in a report called
Preliminary Selection of an Airport Concept that
,i the noise cost of MSP is three billion dollars, but
that is not mentioned in the EIS.
13. The planning horizon of 2020 is too short for
a majo� airport.
14. What about a third parallel runway in the
future when the proposed expansion of MSP is
inadequate?
15. The Northwest Airlines proposal should be
addressed.
16. Is the proposed north-south runway safe with
the Mall of America, hotels and offices at the
south end?
17. Why was the remote-runway concept
dismissed?
} 18. The airspace at MSP is currently saturated;
- you cannot safely add any more flights because
for other NWA routes may need to be increased to
recover lost revenue. Aiso, potential differences in
fares from Minneapolis are partially offset by
improved convenience, as hub airports provide direct
service to many national and world destinations with
far fewer connections.
9. See MSP Noise Mitigation Plan in Appendix B.
10. Federal law requires airlines to have all stage 3
jets by 2000, and Minnesota law prohibits Stage 2
aircraft at MSP after December 31, 1999.
11. The proposed redevelopment of this area has
been scaled down; see revised Section V.0.1.2 and
revised Figure O-2. Redevelopment would occur
following opening of a new west terminal, when and
if the Minnesota legislature approves it.
12. This was not a MAC estimate; it was an estimate
by the cities' participating in the study as part of the
MSP Interactive Planning Group (IPG).. MAC did not
concur with this estimate. The 1991 report was by
the IPG, not MAC.
13. The planning horizon of 2020 was specified in the
1989 Dual Track legislation which was 30 years from
the initiation of the process. 30 years is well beyond
the normal 10 to 15-year planning horizon used for
FAA project development.
14. By law, a third parallel runway cannot be built at
MSP unless agreed to by all cities affected by noise
from the new runway.
15. See General Response 3.
16. Yes, it will be safe; the hotels and offices will be
removed from the runway protection zone (RPZ), as
required by FAA.
17. See Section III.C.3.
18. The comments are incorrect and generalized
statements of FAA rules. Departure-interval
Dual Track Final EIS
I-7
under FAA rules there must be a 3-minute
interval between departures and a 5-mile distance
between arrivals on that runway.
Written Comments and Responses
standards vary according to aircraft category; arrival
separation also varies with aircraft category and �
control conditions. Most departures occur within 1 to''
1%z minutes of a previous departure. The results of
the current airspace structure is adequate to meet
2020 needs with an additional runway, Some
adjustments to arrival fixes would further improve the
system.
The following written comments on the DEIS were submitted during the comment period, and are
listed in the order that they are presented in this appendix;
• United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA)
• United States Department of the Interior (U.S. DOI)
s Minnesota Department of Agriculture
• Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
• Minnesota Department of Transportation
• State Historic Preservation Officer (Minnesota Historical Society)
• Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
• Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
• Wisconsin Department of Transportation
• Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission
• Metropolitan Council
• Metropolitan Council - Transportation Advisory Board
s Dakota County
• Washington County
• Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District
• Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
• Vermillion River Watershed Management Commission
• City of Bloomington
s City of Eagan
• City of Hastings
• City of Mendota Heights
• City of Minneapolis
• City of Richfield
• City of Saint Paul
• City of Rosemount
s Southern Dakota County Townships
s Denmark Township
• Northwest Airlines, Inc.
• Nokomis East Steering Committee
• Sierra Club
• South Metropolitan Airport Action Council (SMAAC)
• Pierce County, Wisconsin Farm Bureau; Farmers Union and National Farmers
Organization
s Representative Jean Wagenius and Senator Carol Flynn, Minnesota Legislature
• Senator Alice Clausing, Wisconsin Senate
• Marion Hall
• Wilbur Maki
• John Richter
Dual Track Final EIS
I-8
�;
• Jeff Schneider
• AI Weilnitz
• John Turner, Reliastar Financiai Corp.
• Amy Salo
• Thomas Manion and Genevieve Lubbers
p Robert J. Kelly
• Gibson Batch
• R.W. Russell
• Wanda Brown and Phyllis Goldin
While preparing this FEIS, MAC and FAA also reviewed letters and statements received from the
following organizations and individuals, through February 1996:
• Wisconsin Senator Alice Clausing (letter, 2/15/96)
• Minnesota Chamber of Commerce (letter, 2/16/96)
• Minnesota Public Library (letter, 2/7/96)
• Minnesota League of Women Voters qetfier, 2/15/96)
• St. Croix County, Wisconsin
o Pierce County, Wisconsin (letter, 2/22/96)
• Bloomington Chamber of Commerce (letter, 2/15/96)
• City of Inver Grove Heights (letter, 2/16/96)
• Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce (letter, 1/24/96)
• City of Prescott, Wisconsin (resolution, 2/12/96)
• St. Paul Chamber of Commerce (policy statements, completed 2/13/96)
• Association for Sensible Airport Planning (letter, 2/15/96)
• Sun Country Airlines (letter, 2/15/96)
j �'� • Cy DeCosse, Inc. (letter, 2/19/96)
_ o Ray and Mary Glumack (letter, 1/23/96)
• Don Hauge fletter, 2/22/96)
• Eddie Maddox (letter, 2/15/96)
• Mike Schlax Oetter, 1 /8/96i
• Janice and Ellsworth Stein (letter, not dated)
• Steven Suppan (letter, 2/15/96)
• Kerry B. Wollin (letter, 2/19/96)
None of these letters addressed specific items presented in the DEIS or recommended any studies
not already incorporated into the FEIS. All of their comments were related to the Dual Track
Airport Planning Process in general, and all but a few were directed solely toward the legislative
actions that followed soon after the DEIS public comment period. Therefore, it is not necessary
to present and respond to the above letters in this appendix. Even so, MAC and FAA reviewed
these and other comments while developing the FEIS recommendations and completing additional
studies, such as the Noise Mitigation Program presented in Appendix B.
Dual Track Final EIS
I-9
�ED Si�
��' �F�• UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
��' A w REGION 5
q �� � 77 WEST JACKSON BOU�EVARD
��, pr CHICAGO, IL 606043590
tir�� ��c�
t� 2 1 19�6
REPLY TO THE ATfENT10N OF:
Ms. Jenn Unruh B-19J
Metropolitan Airports Commission
6040 28th Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450
Dear Ms. Unruh:
In accordance with our responsibilities under the National
Environmental Policy Act and Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, we
have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on
the Dual Track Airport Planning Process for the Minneapolis-St.
Paul International Airport in Hennepin and Dakota Counties,
Minnesota.
Two project alternatives were discussed in the Draft EIS in
addition to the no action alternative; expansion of the
Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP) alternative, and
construction of a new airport in Dakota County. our concerns
with the proposed alternatives include impacts to agricultural
land, ground water, wetlands, air quality, water quality,
threatened and endangered species, and woodlands. Also, each of
the build alternatives include major road improvements as a part
of the proposed alternative. Our concerns will be satisfied once
these issues are addressed and a commitment is provided by your
Aqency that compensatory measures will be implemented for
environmental impacts that are unavoidable.
Based upon our review, we have assigned the Draft EIS a rating of
"EC-2." The "EC" indicates that we have environmental concerns
with the project alternatives, and the "2" signifies that
additional information is required and should be incorporated
into the Final EIS.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on the Draft
EIS. If you have any questions on our comments, please contact
Holly Wirick of my staff at (312) 353-6'704.
Sincerely,
`� �,/,' ���� �.. � � :/
/'���'•Y ,��iL r�L�/���L
C_. : ...
Michael W. MacMullen, NEPA Process Manager
Office of Strategic Environmental Analysis
Attachment
cc: Glen Orcutt, FAA, Minneapolis, MN
RocycledlRecyc{eGe • Printe0 wM VegetaCN 09 8aaatl In�o a1 100X Recycbtl Pa{wr (40%Paalmnaurror)
�
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region V Comments
.Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Dual Track Airport Planning Process
Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport
Hennepin and Dakota Counties, Minnesota
SUb44ARY
Based on purpose and need criteria provided in the Draft EIS, we
concur that a"build" alternative is justified in order to better
serve present and projected future air traffic needs in the
Minneapolis-St. Paul area. fiowever, we hava environmental
concerns with the proposed project alternatives discussed in tha
Draft E25. We are also dissatisfied with the alternatives
analysis conducted in the Draft EIS.
ALTERNATIVES
The Alternatives Analysis section of the Draft EIS is incomplete.
The Final EIS should include a summary of the project
alternatives that were considered for implementation, along with
the rationale for determining why these alternatives were
eliminated from consideration. Also, the issue of the most
effective project planning period should be further considered.
In this regard, our Agency believes that it may be useful to
extend the time frame out another 10 to 15 years. If the MSP
expansion alternative is selected, and it is later determined
that the existing site can no longer provide adequate service, it
will be much harder to find a location near Minneapolis to build
a major new airport, should that prove necessary in the future.
The alternatives that were discussed in the Draft EIS include no
action, expansion of the Minneapolis-St. Paul International
Airpott (MSP), and construction of a new airport in Dakota
County. The MSP expansion alternative includes the addition of a
� new 8,o0o-Poot north-south runway, a new replacement terminal
'•building, highway access roadways, and a pa=king/drop-off
�facility. The new airport alternative is proposed to be built on
��"a site of 14,100 acres east of Vermillion and south of Hastings
in Dakota County. The airfield would consist of four parallel
runways and two crosswind runways. Main highway access would be
from the north by a new eight-lane freeway to a centrally-located
terminal. Neither build alternative has been identified as
preferred in the Draft EIS.
Our concerns with the build alternatives proposed in the Draft
EIS include impacts to agricultural land, ground water, wetlands,
air quality, water quality, threatened and endangered species,
and woodlands. Also, each of the build alternatives include
major road improvements as a part of the proposed alternative;
however, the DraPt EIS does not adequately assess potentially
significant environmental impacts that may occur as a result of
the necessary access roadway construction projects. Also,
info=mation concerning proposed development associated with the
new airport alternative was not provided in the Draft EIS. This
includes commercial and residential development induced by the
new airport alternative, impacts to land that would be acquired
Por the new airport, land affected by airport relocation related
improvements to the regional transit system, land affected by the
rerouting or designation of utility corridors, and land later
acquired Eor the mitigation of wetlands. Environmental impacts
resulting from roadway construction projects and development
activities associated with the selected project alternative
should be thoroughly assessed in the Final EIS. Mitigation
measures that will be taken to compensate for any adverse
environmental impacts must also be provided in the Final EIS.
I—LZ
A. The Dual Track Airport Planning Process utilized a
tiered approach (approved by the Minnesota
Environmental Quality Board) to analyze environmentai
impacts of a series of new site, new airport, and MSP
altematives, and from this process selected the best new
airport and MSP expansion altemative. In its July 5, 1995,
letteron the EIS Scoping, U.S.E.P.A. stated that
preliminarily there had been concern that the alternative
selection for the New Airport site was made at a State
Ievei outside of the NEPA process. After receiving the
state documentation, the U.S.E.P.A. was satisfied that the
state process ciosely paraile�ed the NEPA process and
stated iPs support of the renge of alternatives proposed for
assessment in the Draft EIS. Detailed discussion of M5P
aitematives and new airport aiternatives are provided in
the respective aitemative environmental documents
(AEDs), incorporated by reference in the EIS. Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) Section § 1500.4 details
severai methods for reducing excessive paper work,
inciuding incorporation by reference. Section III of the
EIS provides a summary of findings from these AEDs and
describes why specific alternatives were either eliminated
or carried forward to the final EIS.
B. The Year 2020 planning horizon (30 years from the
initiation of the process in 1989) was stipuiated in the Dual
Track Legis►ation passed by the state legislature;
therefore, the alternatives considered in the EIS were
designed to meet baseline 202o requirements. ,A 2020
pianning horizon is beyond the 30-year planning period
typical�y used for airports. The MAC has subsequently'
evaluated the MSP Aiternative using a 2020 high forecast
of 640,000 annual operations (approximately 23 percent
higher than the 2020 base forecast of 520,000) and found
that the MSP Alternative can accommodate ihese activity
leveis with 2020 faciiities. This analysis accomplishes the
same purpose as extending the planning period. There is
also some flexibiiity for further developing the site beyond
the recommended 2020 plan.
C. C. Environmental impacts due to the roadway
improvement projects as a direct result of the alternatives
are presented in the relevant sections of the FEIS and
summarized In Table W-12 in Section V.W.4. Mitigation
measures are presented in the relevant sections of the
FEIS and summarized in the Facecutive Summary. As a
condition of project approvai, FAA will require MAC to take
all reasonable steps to minimize significant adverse
impacts on naturai resources pursuant to 49 USC
47106(c)(1)(c). See also General Response 1.
!� �
The new airport alternative would result in the development of
several thousand acres of farmland. According to the Draft EIS,
a minimum of 17,000 acres of agricultural land in Dakota County
would be lost to development of the new airport alternative.
This alternative would impact agricultural operations through the
acquisition of land and buildings, severances of land, and
changes in access to farm properties.
Farming is the predominant business within the affected
anvironment. The removal of farming operations within the
airport boundary and of businesses in the community would result
in a reduction of opportunities for farming-related jobs for
individuals living in adjacent rural areas of the county. Many
businesses within the new airport boundary are dependent upon
farming for their clientele. Most of the businesses anticipate
loss of at least 50� of their business volume as a result of the
new airport alternative. Currently, there are approximately 200
agriculturally related businesses in Dakota County, employinq
approximately 4,00o to 5,000 individuals, and grossing $170
million annually.
If the new airport alternative is chosen, the Final EIS should
indicate the number of acres that are considered to be ��prime or
unique�� farmland. A description should then be provided on the p. D. See GeneralResponsel.
types of ineasures that would be taken to minimize and compensate
for impacts to prime or unique agricultural land as a result of
project implementation activities. Measures that would be taken
to compensate for impacts to the farming community should also be
provided in the Final EIS.
GROUND WATER
Based on the information provided in the Draft EIS, we concur
with the conclusion on page V-290 (Section CC.4) which states
that ground water is more wlnerable to contamination under the
new airport alternative.than under the MSP expansion and no
action alternatives. This conclusion is supported by the highly
permeable soils and presence of sinkholes at the proposed site.
Also, downgradient drinking water wells would be wlnerable to
contamination from the new site. Mitigation measures are
proposed that could greatly reduce the chances of ground water E
cantamination. If the new airport alternative is chosen, the
Final EIS must provide a thorough description of specific
measures that would be taken to protect ground water from
contamination.
WETLANDS
Tha MSP expansion alternative involves the placement of the
terminal complex at the west end of the airport, which requires
the construction of several bridge structures to allow vehicular
access between the terminal complex and Trunk Fiighways 62 and 77.
These structures will involve the placement of bridge deck over
approximately 12.1 acres of wetlands. Implementation of the MSP
expansion alternative would also impact wetlands through the
construction of a new storm sewer outfall pipe. The MSP
expansion alternative also requires the placement of fill in
approximately 5 acres of Mother Lake to create a safety area off
the end of the North-South runway.
IP the MSP expansion alternative is chosen, information should be
provided in the Final EIS on the types of ineasures that will be
taken durinq construction and placement of the bridge structures
and tha storm sewer outfall pipe to ensure that wetland soils are
left undisturbed. With regard to wetland impact mitigation for
the impacts to Mother Lake, the Draft EIS states that the ratio
of wetland acreaqe mitigated to wetland acreage taken would be at
least 1:1. our Agency almost always finds that a minimum of 1.5
acres of compensatory wetlands must be provided to adequately
offset the loss of each acre of naturally-occurring wetlands.
The specific details regarding wetland mitigation are to be
determined during the 404 permitting process. We also recommend
in-kind replacement for all destroyed wetlands, and concur with
the plans for restoration of previously drained wetland rather
than creation of new wetland out of upland. Once the preferred
project alternative is selected, a wetlands mitigation plan
should be developed and provided in the Final EIS.
I-12
F.
E. See Generai Response 1.
F. The new west terminai is a part of the 2020 Concept
Pian, not the 2010 LTCP. Through ongoing coordination
with the MPCA, it has been detertnined that the storm
sewer outfall from MSP will no longer be routed to the
Mississippi River, rather the existing outfail locations on
the Minnesota River wili be uGlized. No new weUand
impacts will occur at these locations.
If and when the Minnesota legislature approves the
construction of a new west terminai and the preiiminary
design of ground access has been agreed to by MAC and
Mn/DOT, MAC wiii coordinate with permitting agencies to
identify specific measures to minimize wetiand disturbance
at Mother Lake due to any bridge construction. Potential
measures may inciude the use of watertight caissons or
forms during pier construction and siit curtains to control
turbidity. Specific consWction-related mitigation
measures will be developed joinUy with the appropriate
regulatory agencies and are expected to be permit
conditions.
The weUand repiacement plan that is presented in
Appendix D of this Final EIS reflects the amount of
mitigation that these agencies have currentiy directed
MAC to pursue. This mitigation plan wiil be further re
during the various wetiand permit processes.
�tt:z•iii:iiiitisi
With regard to receptor siting, the Final EIS should provide
additional information on the methodology used to develop the
receptor network. The points that should be addressed are the
places where the maximum concentrations ara expected, places of
high population density or general public access, any topography
issues, prevailinq wind directions, and the general reasonable-
ness of the r�ceptor sitinq. We also request a discussion of the
relationship between the 1-hour and the 8-hour CO concentrations
(i•e•, how the 8-hour concentration is derived from the 1-hour
concentration). ,
A brief discussion of the temperature used in the EDMS, MOBILESa,
and CAL3QHC models should also be included in the Final EIS.
This is necessary to assure consistency with the Minnesota State
Implementation Plan (SIP).
l�t.V� :� ��
G. An expanded discussion of receptor site location
is contained in Saction V.A., Methodology and
Assumptions.
Estimates of 8-hour concentrations for roadway
sources have been made using a persistence factor of
0.70 applied to the Peak Hour roadway concentration.
G. The relationship between 1-hour and 8-hour CO
concentrations for on-airport sources is discussed in
Section V.A., Methodology and Assumptions: On-
Airport Sources: Poilutant Concentrations.
Temperature assumptions are also discussed in Section
V.A.
Water resources should be protected from nonpoint pollution
sources. Water quality impacts resulting from either of the
build alternatives include the effects of erosion, sedimentation H.
and contaminants contained in airport runoff. An effective water
quality protection plan is essential to prevent the degradation
oP spawning and feeding areas. The Final EIS should identify the
types of ineasures that will be implemented, both during and aPter
construction, to minimize the introduction of soil and
contaminants into nearby water bodies.
According to the Draft EIS, the only significant source of
ammonia loading and problematic pH conditions in MSP storm water
is the use of urea•as a ground surface snow/ice control agent.
Urea will eventually be replaced by a combination of sodium
formate and potassium acetate products which have been found to
be environmentally benign. Urea has a significant nitrogen
content; thus, has the potential for adverse environmental
impacts. The Draft EIS states that the trial testing of the
aforementioned urea replacement products has been ongoing since
1993. If these trials have been successful, we recommend that
the Eacility begin to use these products as soon as possible to
reduce water quality degradation. The Final EIS should provide
inEormation on the status of the field test trials of the urea
substitutes, and should provide an indication on when these
products will permanently replace urea.
With regard to erosion control, the Draft EIS states that
disturbed areas will be either revegetated or paved as soon as
possible. We recommend that disturbed areas be revegetated,
preferably with native flora. Natural vegetation would conserve
water� increase the water storage capacity of the area, would work
more e£ficiently as filters for contaminated runoff than mowed
grass, and maintenance costs could be siqnificantly reduced.
Limiting mowing would also help to reduce•emissions and conserve
energy. We also recommend that native flora be planted along the
access roadways. The Iowa Department of Transportation has been
planting native flora along highways for several years, and may
provide your Agency with information on how to establish a
similar program. For information on Iowa's "Living Roadway Trust
E'und," call (515) 239-1768.
I-13
H. Measures to be impiemented during and after con-
struction to minimize ihe loading of soiis and other con-
taminants to receiving waters are provided in Section V.E.
I, it cannot be stated with confidence precisely when•-the
use of urea at MSP will be eliminated. Because this is a
critical safety issue, the MAC Operations and Field
Maintenance Departments must approach product testing
and repiacement with care and deliberation.
The MAC began testing with potassium acetate, a iiquid
product, in 1993. Potassium acetate is now used on a full-
scale basis as an anti-icing agent.
Sodium formate has only been used on a Hmited number of
airports woridwide, to date. The MAC has performed testing
with sodium formate for two winter seasons (1995/96 and
1996/97). The resuits have genereily been positive. it is
envisioned that sodium formate will be used on a full-scaie
basis once the necessary development actions to ailow
proper material storage and handling can be taken.
J, J. Wherever possible, revegetation wiil be used to
prevent post-construction erosion. Native seed mixes will
be used in appropriate areas where mowing is not
necessary.
Woodlands also help to control erosion and increase the drainage
capacity of an area. Information was not provided in the Draft
EIS concerning the impact the proposed project activities would
have on woodlands. Activities that are associated with the
proposed airport improvement project may impact woodland areas
within the project area, including construction of the access
roadways and development associated with the proposed project.
Woodlands provide habitat for a large variety of wildlife
species. The quality of habitats adjacent to these woodland
azeas may also become degraded due to a reduction in size,
fragmentation, and increased levels of noise, traffic, lights,
and other human activities. These areas serve as corridors for
wildlife movement. Fragmentation of these areas would impact
migration routes, potentially resultinq in increased road kills.
Every effort should be taken by your Agency to minimize impacts
to woodland areas. For impacts that are unavoidable,
compensation should be provided. The Final EIS should provide
inPormation on measures that would be taken to compensate for the
removed trees and for the impacts to wildlife habitat. We
recommend that removed trees be replaced with native saplings, if
practicable, at a minimum ratio of 1:1. Setting aside a large
tract of woodland for protection from future development is one
measure that may be considered as compensation for lost wildlife
habitat. With regard to the disposal of removed trees, we
recommend that they either be placed in a forested area to
provide wildlife habitat, or provided to the community as
firewood or mulch, rather than disposing the trees in a landfill.
TFIREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECZES
The Draft EIS states that the project site for the new airport
alternative encompasses three traditional loggerhead shrike nest
sites; this species is listed on the state list of threatened,
endangered and special concern species. The project would
reguire the removal of a 17-acre breeding territory, which
supported a pair of breeding shrikes in 1991, 1992, and 1993. If
the new airport alternative is selected, the Final EIS should
provide information on your Agency�s coordination efforts
(correspondence, etc.) with the Minnesota DNR on potential
impacts regarding loggerhead shrike habitat. The Final EIS
should also include what measures will be taken to mitigate
unavoidable impacts to loggerhead shrike habitat.
Zt is stated in the Draft EIS that no threatened or endangered
species are known to occur along any highway, power line or fuel
pipeline corridors needed for the new airport alternative.
Documentation to support this determination should be provided in
the Final EIS. If the new airport alternative is selected, a
survey for threatened and endangered species along these
corridors may ba necessary, and the results should be provided in
the Final EIS. Mitigation measures fo= any unavoidable impacts
to threatened or endangered species shauld be developed in
coordination with tha MDNR and included in tha Final EIS.
Tha proposed runway extension at MSP will result in overflights
of bald eagle nests. Bald eagles are Federally-listed as
threatened. According to the Draft EIS, although the USFWS has
indicated that a formal consultation probably would not be
required for this alternative, the ultimate determination will be
made after the selection of a preferred alternative. The Final
EIS should provide a description on the status of USFWS
consultation, along with supporting documentation with regard to
tha determination of impacts as a result of this project.
NOISE
[Comments will be sent under separate cover in the next few days
and will not cause EPA to change'its rating of this EIS.]
I-14
K. K. The MSP Aiternative wili not affect any wood-
lands.
L. See General ftesponse 1.
HSSTORIC PRESERVATION
The Draft EIS states that in order to acaommodate the MSP
expansion alternative, it would be necessary to demolish the
Original Wold-Chamberlain Terminal Kistoric District, which may
be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The
document also states that plans to add, change or remove
structures to accommodate the MSP expansion alternative would
physically impact portions of the archaeologically sensitive
area.
It is stated in the Draft EIS that specific measures to mitigate
adverse eEfects will be negotiated after an airport alternative
is selected and plans are made to implement the project. The
document also states that a professionally designed and executed
data recovery plan is proposed to mitigate adverse effects to
archeological properties. An archeological survey of the project
area must be conducted before impacts can be assessed. The Final
EIS should provide information on the selected mitigation
measures for impacts to cultural and archaeological resources
that may be impacted by the proposed project. Correspondence
included in the Draft EIS indicates that your Agency is working
closely with the Minnesota Historical Society reqardinq these
issues. We concur with their recommendation that a specific
assessment of effect on all National Register eligible
properties, as well as appropriate avoidance and/or mitigation
measures for each site be provided.
SOLID WASTE
According to the Draft EIS, approximately 750,000 tons of non-
recycled mixed municipal solid waste requi=ing processing/
disposal were generated within Hennepin County in 1994. The
projected 2020 Hennepin Co. generation of municipal solid waste
requiring processing/disposal is 805,000 tons. The Draft EIS
states that the current airport tenants have municipal solid
.waste recycling programs in place which target paper products,
laluminum and other metals and glass, and that the goal for the
,'�matro area is to recycle 4S percent of the waste stream by the
end of 1996. Although this recycling goal is commendable, the
ideal solution is to prevent the generation of the waste in the
Eirst place. Thus, we recommend that your Agency develop a waste
reduction plan to reduce the volume of waste being generated at
the facility. Please feel free to contact our Agency for
suggestions on developing such a plan.
With regard to the construction-related solid waste that would be
generated by the proposed project activities, we recommend that
it be stated in the project contract that every effort be made to
reusa construction dehris to reduce the volume of material
disposed of in a landfill. Construction waste can be used in a
number of projects, including road construction, erosion control,
and streambank protection. Tha Final EIS should include
information on the proposed disposal plans for the construction
waste including an indication of whether any of the debris will
be recycled or reused.
I-1S
M. M. A programmatic agreement for identifying historic
properties, assessing effects, and mitigating adverse
effects has been signed by the Federal Aviation
Administration, the Minnesota State Historic Preservation
Office, the Metropolitan Airports Commission, the Advisory
Councii on Historic Preservation, and other interested
parties. (See Appendix C.)
N. N. The MAC has commissioned and undertaken a major
effort to characterize baseline waste management and
recycling conditions and impiement measures to minimize
the amount of solid waste requiring disposaV processing.
This work is summarized in Solid Waste Management and
Recvciinq at MSP: Summary of Work to Date and Further
Administrative/lmplementation Issues (B.A. Liesch
Associates and EcoSource, Inc.; June 1996). While the
MAC and MSP tenants evaluate and implement waste
reduction measures on an on-going basis, there is no formai
waste reduction pian for the overall facility. The MAC
appreciates the opportuniry to use the US Environmentai
Protection Agency as a resource to enhance existing waste
reduction efforts.
�• ;.. � • • y • . • ,
Tha Draft EIS states that possible measures tor reducing
emissions include efficient terminal and Pacility design to
minimize energy use and emissions. In this regard, we recommend
that your Agency consider the installation of sky lights, energy-
aificient electrical fixtures, energy efficient insulation, and
energy efficient lighting Chroughout the Pacility, in the parkinq
areas, and along the access roadways. We also recommend that
watar conservation devices be installed, such as toilet dams,
low-volume or waterless toilets, and faucet aerators.
With regard to the proposed terminal area expansion, we recommend
that items be purchased that promote recycling and/or source
reduction during procurement procedures, and that
environmentally-sound products be used during construction. Such
products may include items made from recycled materials, such as
subflooring, carpet board, underlayment, carpeting, insulation,
wallboard, ceramic tile, and furniture. Environmentally-sound
construction products include items that are water-based or made
with natural ingredients (i.e•, beeswax, carnauBa wax, natural
oils, chalk, plant extracts, and plant gums). There are a number
oE non-toxic products available, includinq paints, thinners,
varnishes, waxes, cleansers, polishes, spackles, and adhesives.
Pleasa feel Prae to contact our Agency for suggestions.
With regard to the source of wood propased for use in
construction, we recommend that your Agency contract with a
forest products supplier that practices sustainabla silviculture,
in which trees are selectively harvested to minimize impacts to
the forest ecosystem.
Finally, it is stated in the Draft E25 that the use of
alternative fuels for ground support vehicles and on-airport
shuttles will ba considerad as measures to reduce emissions. We
agree and strongly encourage your Agency to restrict all of your
airport vahicle purchases to those that use alternativa Euels.
��
�. O. The MAC acknowledges these recommendations and
comments, and wiil take them into considera6on in ihe
impiementation of the project
,,
a��~�k�....r 9
1� ,� X'J)
,, M���':�"„%
�����yJ�
Minnesota Department of A�riculture
January 17, 1996
Metropoli[an Airports Commission
c/o Ms. Jenn Unruh
6040 - 28th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55450
RE: Comments on the Dual Track Planning Process Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Dear Commission Members:
The purpose of this le[ter is two-fold; to comment on the adequacy of the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement for the Dual Track Airport Planning Process and to
express this agency's concems regardin� the environmental consequences of losing lar�e
atnounts of valuabte farmland in Dakota Counry.
Our review comments on the DEIS are detailed in an attachment to ttus letter, and are
summarized below.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
We commend the Metropotitan Airpotts Commission and the authors of the DEIS For the
thorough treatment of farmland loss in the Farmland sec[ion of the Environmental
Consequences Chapter. Despite what we believe to be an underesdmate of the potential
farniland loss, the Farmland section does a very �ood job of describing the extent of
potendal impacts.
However, we have a major disagreement with the conclusion that the impact of the
farmland loss to Minnesota would be minimal. We reco�nize that the loss of 17,000 acres
of agricultural land due to the New Airpoa (a figure which we believe to be conservative)
represents a smail fraction of the total farmland acreage in �finnesota. However, farniland
loss to development is a cumuladve impact, occucring over an extended period of time.
When measured against the average yearly amount of farmland losc to developmenG this
one-time loss of 17,000 acres is extremely lazge. ?40,000 acres of farniland were lost to
developmant in Minnesota between 1982 and 1992 (Source: 1992 National Resources
Inventory, USDA Natural Resource Conservacion Service). The loss of 17,000 acres
represents seven percent of the total ten year loss figure of 240,000 acres, or over 70% of
the average yearly loss.
Because of the cumulative namre of farniland loss, my department roudnely comments
upon private and pubtic development proposals wich potential farmland impacts that are
much more modest than the impacts described in this DEIS.
We believe that extent of potential loss of farniland in Dakota County due to induced
development has been seriously underestimated. According to t6e Land Use section of the
DEIS, rural cownships would have no induced ernployment and would gain only 380
additional households due to the airport. The esumated induced development in the County
appears to be based on assumpdons that the.Mecropolitan Council and tocal governments
(Dakota County, townships, and cities) will be able to (and will choose to) tighdy control
land use surroundin� the airport. This represents a"best case" scenario in terms of
farrtiland impacts, :u�d likely drasucaily understates the �ctual farml:u�d loss due ro induced
development.
• Commissioner s O(fce • 90 Wat Plato Boulevatd • St. Paul. Minnesota 55707-2094 •(672) 2�Yl-3279 • Fax (672) 297-5522
M puY o{�peruMy �n{fb/v
I-17
MetropoliGui Airports Commission
lanuary t7, t996
Page ?
We do not reject out-of-hand the possibility that the responsible jurisdictions will be
successful in controlling ;rowth over the long term in the rural townships. Nonetheless,
the EIS shou(d acknowledge the possibility that the Metropolitan Council and locai
governments may allow development to occur (or may be unnble to prevent development
from occurrin�) around the airport. In order to adequatety describe potenti�il impacu, the
Land Use Section should outline and estimate possible development scenarios, including
urban levei residential, commercial, and industrial development in close proximiry to the
airpott.
Addidonaily, the Induced Socioeconomic Impacu and Land Use sections do not adequately
describe the eFfects of accelerating development of counties within the "growth corridor"
extending from the Twin Cides to Rochester, panicularly those to the south of the airport
and outside the metropolitan area. In its Farmland section, the DEIS correctly points out
that Goodhue County has never had to deal with strong growth pressures. The implication
is that the County may be suscepable to those pressures, and thac a considarabte amount of
development could result. These growth pressures would be accentuated by a new airport.
This would be particularly the case if Dakota County were successful in displacing that
growth from farmland near the airpon.
Concerns Regarding Loss of Farmland
Given what we believe wiil be heavy impacts to farniland and the agricuitural economy of
Dakota County, my a�ency is extremely concerned.
First, the farniland in the vicinity of the airpoa is valuable. The Land Evaluadon and Site
Assessment (LESA) in Appendix A of the DEIS shows that the agricultural land that would
be impacted by the airpon is of a very high qualiry, both in terms of the quality of the land
icsetf, and in terms of the long-term stabiliry of the agricultural uses.
This is supporced by a 1993 article published by the American Fazmland TrusG which
states that agriculture on the edge of urban areas accounts for more than one half of gross
agricultural sales in the U.S., since cicies hiscorically developed on some of the best soils.
A map wntained in the article shows Dalcoca County as what the anicie terms "condirion
red" farailand— an urban-influenced, high growth county with higher than narional
average values of products sold.
In addition to its high a�ricultural value, land in close proximity to urban areas, such as in
Dakota County, has special value for "niche" farnung, such as vegetabie farming, pick-
your-own farms, nurseries, and [he tike.
And, there are ocher reasons for our concem about farniland loss:
• If development induced by the airport is of a scattered nature, the cost of providin�
services to that land will be high. A study sponsored by MDA in 1989 demonstrated
that the ne[ cost of providinp services to residencial development in rural areas is four
times the cost of providing services within cities.
• Additionally, introduction of development into agricuitural areas tends to increase
conflicts between urban and rural land uses; a factor which, along with inereasing land
prices and other "dynamics of development", drives agricultural uses from an area.
MDA's concerns are basically unchanged from the eariier Major New Airport Search Area
Designation phase of the Duai Track Alternaave Environmental Review Ptncess. In a letter
to Mr. John Kari, Ntetropolitan Council, dated March 25, 1991, this agency expressed
concern that "areas around the Twin Cities which did a good job of protecting agricultural
lands were particularly suscepdble to designation as a candidate search area". We remain
concerned today about consideration of the Dakota County site for the new airport—that it
conveys the message that, if local jovemment does a good job protecang farn�iland, it will
eventually be penalized. We feel this is the wrong message, and one which is inconsistent
with state policies, includin� the State Agricultural Land Preservation Policy, the
Mecropolitan Agricu(turai Preserves Act, and the �Ietropolitan Council Regional Blueprinc.
I understand and appreciate the di�cult and criticat decisions that the Conunission must
make regarding future airport development for rejion and state. However, even given the
incomplete informadon presented in the Draft EIS, we must conclude the potendal new
airport in Dakoca County woutd adversety affect the vital Dakota County agricultural
economy.
I very much appreciate the oppormnity to provide input for your decision-making, and
wish you the best of luck in this process.
Si y,
/' --"'_–�.
C –
Gene goson
Co ssioner of Agdculture
GH:AgD:rp
I-18
` Attachment
Detailed Comments of Minnesota Department of Agricuiture on
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Dual Track Planning Process
A. Chapter V, Section K, Fermland
l. We commend the Metropolitan Airports Commission and the authors of the DEIS
for the thorough treatment of fazmiand loss in the Farmland section of the
Environmental Consequences Chapter. We concur with the conclusions in the
section regarding the "impermanence syndrome" and dynamics of development,
and the inferences from five airport case studies (significant urban development in
the 13 rural townships).
2. We believe the familand loss projections in the section are based upon flawed land
use and growth assumptions (please see comments on Section N, Induced
Socioeconomic Impacts, and Section O, Land Use).
3. Fantiland loss totals should include acreage that would be lost due to new rbad and
interchange construction necessary for the New Airport altemative.
4.
5.
2.
4.
Maps should be included in Appendix B, and referred to in this section, of prime
farmland and Metropolitan Agnculmral Preserve covenanted land.
We disagree with the conclusion in the summary that the impact on farniland in
Minnesota would be minimal. We recognize that the loss of 17,000 acres of
agricultural land due to the New Airport (a figure which we believe to be
conservadve) represena a small fracdon of the total farmland acreage in Minnesota.
However, farniland loss to development is a cumuladve impact, occurring over an
extended period of time. When measured against the average yearly amount of
farniland lost to development, this one-time loss of 17,000 acres is extremely lazge.
240,000 acres of fatmland were lost to development in Minnesota between 1982
and 1992 (Source: 1992 National Resources Inventory, USDA Natural Resource
Conservation Service). The loss of 17,000 acres represents seven percent of the
totai ten year loss figure of 240,000 acres, or over 70%a of the average yearly loss.
Because of the cumulative nature of fa�iland loss, MDA roudnely comments upon
private and public development proposals with potendal farmland impaccs that are
much more modest than the impacu described in this DEIS.
Chapter V, Section N, induced Development
This section should describe the methodology used for determining induced
development figures.
Tabte N-4, on geographical distribudon of employment, shows that rural
townships wonld have no induced employment. We disagree with that assessment.
(please see our comments under Section O, Land Use).
The Induced Socioeconomic Impacts and Land Use sections do not adequately
describe the effecu of accelerating development of counties within the "b owth
corridor" extending from the Twin Cities to Rochester, particularly those to the
south of the airport and oucside the metropolitan area. In its Farniland secdon, the
DEIS correcdy points out that Goodhue County has never had to deai with strong
growth pressures. The impiicadon is that the County may be susceptible to those
pressures, and that a considerable amount of development could resnit. These
growth pressures would be accentuated by a new airpon. This would be
particulazly the case if Dakota County were successful in dispiacing that b owth
from farniland near the airporc (please see our comments under Section O, Land
Use).
It is unclear how inducr� de�•elopment figures for Goodhue County (Table N-6)
were detertnined. The [uwnship projecdons appear to be low.
Rice Counry is noc discussed, although Section K, Farailand, on page V-93,
acknowledged thac �eacer development pressure will be felt.
I-19
101. A. See General Response 1.
' B. B. See General Response 1.
C.
II�
E.
�
C. See Generai Response 1.
D. See Generai Response 1.
E. See Generai Response 1.
F. See General Response 1.
Chapter V, Section O, Land Use
The land use secdon doc�, not adequately describe the potential land use impacts of
the New Airpon proposal. ?s ac4:nowledged in the DEIS, employment tends to be G. G. See General Response 1.
a driver for developmenc in aa area, inducing residential development, and inducing
additionat employmen� The addidonal employees require land on which to live and
work, which can be esdmated for the purposes of an EIS.
The main problem wirh the analysis in the DEIS is that the estimated induced
development has been allocated according to a single set of assumptions, the
assumptions bein� that the �fetropolitan Council and local oovemments (Dakota H. H. See General Response 1.
County, townships, cida) will be able to (and will choose to) tighdy control land
use surroundin� airport This represents a"best case" scenario in terms of farmland
impacts, and likely drasdcallv understates the actual farniland loss due to induced
development. As mendoned above, Table N-4 shows that rural townships would
have no induced emplo}menc Table also shows only 380 addidonal households.
We do not reject ou[-of-hand [he possibility that the responsible jurisdicaons will be
successful in conorollins �owth over the long term in the rural townships. At the
same time, the ETS should acknowledge the possibfliry that the Metropolitan
Councii and local �overnments will allow development to occur (oc may be unable
to prevent developmenc avm occuiring) around the airport. As mendoned in the
Farniland secdon of the DEIS. analysis of case s[udies wouid suggest that
development is likely to occur in close proximiry to the aupon. Additionally, the
DEIS does not adequately consider the impact of developing new major
interchanges or creaaon oi ne�v major intersections, particulariy the interchange
between TH 55 and \eR• Airporc access road, and intersecdon of access road wich
Counry Road 43. The arcess provided to the metropolitan transportation system,
combined with proximin• to the airpon, will lead to considerable development
pressure at these locadons.
In order to adequa�ely describe potendal impacts, the Land Use Section should
oudine and estimate possible development scenarios, the conditions that would be
necessary for those scenarios to occur, and their implications. It appears that there
aze three scenarios for �o�vth in ciose proximity to the airport thac could be
described:
b)
Agricuitural nses are maintained (the scenario described in the DEIS).
E�cisane develoFable lou might be developed, but projected �rowth above
the number of eusrins lots �vould be diverted ro other areas. This would
require maintenance of stron; zonin' controls, continued agricultural
preserve parciciFarion by tandowners, and probably new measures, such as
purchase of de�-elopment ri�hrs.
Low density, predominantly residentiat development. This
scenario �vould encvl e�piradon of agricultural preserve covenants and
amendmencs to comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances. It could be
accomplished without sewers, reducing a degree of leverage uvailable to the
titetropolitan Council.
Urban leve! development. This could be residenaal, commercial,
industriai. A tikely pattern would be airport-related commercial and
industrial atong major roads and interchanges sucrounded by urban density
residenaal development. The scenario would require sewer, increasing
influence of the Metropolitan Council.
D. Chapter V, Section T, Social
There are discrepancies between references to fijures in the test and the numbering
of figures. It appears that a reference to Fi�ure T-2 is missing in the text in the
second bullet under subsection T.1.2
E. Chapter V, Section W, Transportation
This secdon fails to adequately describe the interchanges that would be required for
the new airport. lnterchanges are actually shown in figures related to 3ecdon T,
Social.
�
I. See General Response 1.
.�. � J. See General Response 1.
K. Figure references have been corrected.
L.. See General Response 1.
1Vlinnesota Department of Natural Resources
S01) Lul'uycitc Roud
St. Paul. Minneso�� SSISS�JUJU
February 12, 1996
Jenn Unruh
Metropotitan Airports Commission
6040 28th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55450
RE: Dual-Track Airport Planning Process
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
Dear Ms. Unruh:
The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement for the Dual-Track Airport Planning Process. Generally, the document provides
an exce(lent comparison of the natural resources-related effecu of each altemative.
We ofFer the following comments for your consideration as you prepaze the Finat EIS.
Endangered and Threatened Species
We greatly appreciate the thoughtful and comprehensive assessment of the endangered and
threatened species in the vicinity of the MSP and Dakota County sites. We estend our
compliments to the MAC and iu consultants on the time spent, both in the field and in
extensive literature review, preparing an outstanding analysis of potential impacts to these
resources.
H�� Endan�ered and Threatened Species -- New Airoort A(ternative
Page V-51, second pazagraph from the bo[tom. The EIS mentions additional field surveying A. A. A copy of this field survey has been sent. See
conducted by the consultanu to detineate potential loggerhead shrike habitat within the aiso General Response 1.
Dakota County site. I would appreciate receiving a copy of this assessment for our file on
shrikes in Dakota County.
Page V-�2, first line. It may not be correct to assume that loggerhead shrikes will habituate; ' B, B. See Generai Response 1.
our monitoring shows that these birds seem to lack site fidetity and are shoR-lived.
H� 3 MitiQation Measures - New Aimort Alternative
Page V-54. V✓hile we would encourage implementanon of al! options for mitigating impacu
to loggerhead shrikes, Option 2(nesting habitat acquisition) would be the most valuable
since airport operations might dsscourage shrike use and preclude Option 1(on-site habiiat C• C. See General Response 1.
preservation). Option 3(landowner education) would be more effecnve if the information
were broadened to include education on biodiversity, landscape heaith, and the inherent
impoRance of a rare species' conLinued esistence.
As mentioned on pages V-54 and 55, DNR Non-�ame or Heritage personnel would be glad � D. D. See General Response 1.
to work with the i�fAC on mitigation measures relative to raze ptants, management of the
Chimney Rock site, and shrike habitat mitigation at the new airport site, should this
atternative move forwazd.
Impacts to Mother Lake (MSP Aitecnative)
Part V- C.1.2. and Part V- H.1.2. The EIS correcdy describes the affected environment,
and impacts, conciuding that (TJhe MSP al�ernative cannot be rmplemented without some
reduction in dlother Lake's habitat value to Forster's Terns. In order to minimize these
impacts, the MAC has incorporated our suggestions for bridging rather than filling for road
access over Mother Lake and for prairie plantings azound the lake shore. We believe this is
an appropriate mitigation strategy. However the statemenu on page V-30 regarding higher, E. E. See response foilowing letter.
stable water levels benefitting the Forster's terns are premature, retlect a perfunctory
assessment of the consequences of water level management, and are somewhat self-serving
as they justify the proposed water management regime without consideration of other water
level management strategies that might better mingate impacts to Mother Lake, enhancing its
future use by the terns and other waterbirds.
We agree that eliminating the "bounce" to the lake level caused by surges of storm water
run-off would benefit the Forster's terns, a state specia! concem species. However, higher
but more stable water levels (mentioned on page V-30 and in H.1.3. page V-50) may not be
the best management regime.
DNR Infortnation: 61?-'9fifiI5Z 1-8(Nl•766-6(H� � TTY:612-?96-SJ84, 1-NIXI•h57-3929
An Equai t)pp•�unnr Empluynr I1� ihimeJ �m HecyeleJ PaperConmininp a
Whu Vuluc. Ui.-enny « 1limmum ol III�%. P�uo-Cnn*umer Wmte
z-ai
Jenn Unruh
Februurv (2, /996
Page ?
If the Legislature approves either the MSP or the No-build alternative, we recommend the
MAC pursue further midgation for the impacts to wildiife habitat at Mother Lake. After
discussions with Dr.lames Cooper at the University of Minnesota (who has worked with the
MAC on goose management-related issues) we believe a re(advely simple study could assess
the value of Mother Lake as tern nesting habitat, and determine whether mitigation efforts
there are effective or worthwhile.
We suggest you evaluate tem use of Mother, Grass, and Wood lakes in relation to the their
history of water level fluctuation. We also recommend a titerature review and analysis of
Forster's Tern breeding habitat�prefecences. Grass and Wood lakes are about one mile west
of Mother Lake and both have supported tern nesting. In combination, the three (akes may
function as a tem nesting habitat "complex". If so, it may be more effective to focus
management efforts on the two lakes not directly affected by airport improvements. The
study would help develop recommendadons for water level management strategies for all
three lakes, assuring that adequate nesting habitat is retained within the airport vicinity.
We would be happy to develop a study proposal or provide technical recommendations if the
MAC wishes to perform the study using its own, or contracted, staff. '
Sutface Water/Wastewater/Floodplains
A storm sewer is proposed between the Dakota County site and the Mississippi River.
Seepag@ coliars and trenchdams should be constructed within the utility trench to prevent it
from acting as a ditch and permanendy lowering the water tab(e of the area
The existence of the Vermillion River shoreland district was not in the discussion of the
Dakota County site. It appeazs that the sewage treatment plant for the airport will be within
the shoreland disuict of the river.
Floodplains occur on 6oth sites. T'here aze floodplains (although non-FEMA designated)
azound Duck Lake and Mother Lake in the MSP site; you should avoid construction within
the'se areas. The Vermillion River has a FEMA-designated floodplain within the Dakota
County site. The sewage ueatment plant mtut be built according to the county floodplain
regulations.
Both alternatives would generate huge amounu of nmoff. We encourage any efforts you can
make to reduce its quantity. Estab(ishing and maintaining prsirie within the Dakota County
site, as described in the draft EIS, would greatty benefit wildliFe and surface water quality.
We recommend you make greater use of native vegetation within the existing MSP site, as
wo(I.
Fort Sneliing State Park and Historic Site
We appreciate that the proposed improvements at MSP will not destroy or damase the upper
azea of Fort Snelling State Park or the Fort Snelling Historic Site. We betieve the
recreational and historical interpretation opportunities these areas provide will only increase
in importance in the future.
E. e.
(ConPd) See response following letter.
F. � F. See General Response 1.
G.� G. See Generai Response 1
H. Construction within the floodplains around Duck
Lake and Mother �ake is unavoidable under the MSP
Fi. Aiternative. Any loss in flood storage by the fiiling of Duck
Lake would be compensated by creation of new flood
storage elsewhere within the drainage area. The MAC will
work through the permitting process of the Minnehaha
Creek Watershed District to ensure that regulatory
requirements are met.
�.
I. Native vegetation wili be used at MSP to the extent
practicai. See also General Response 1.
Impact to Snowmobite Traiis
The EIS correctly identiFes impacts to the Dakota County Trail Association snowmobile
trail. If the new airport option is selected, the MAC should work with the trail administrator, .1. J. See Generai Response 1.
Ms. Roseann Schaack, (50�)263-4482, to reroute the affected trail sections.
Northwest Airlines Proposat
We understand that the recent Northwest Airlines proposal is not part of the Dual-Track
Study. However, if the MAC completes a written evaluation of the proposal, we would like K. K. See General Response 3.
to receive a copy. Although the proposal may not meet the MACs long-term transportation
needs, it interesu us because it would invoive little impact to state-protected waters.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this document. Again we commend you on the
quality of the analysis it contains. Please don't hesitate to contact me with any questions
regarding these comments.
Sincerely,
S���r��
ebecca A. Wooden
Environmental Planner
Office of Planning
(612)297-3355
Copy List
Rod Sando Brian McCann 7on Larson, EQB
Kathleen Wallace, Region VI Bili Weir Thomas Love�oy, WUNR
Bilt lohnson, Region V Pete Otterson Eric Macbeth, MWBAC
Steve Coivin Gregg Downing, EQB
�
Response E. Minnesota Department of Naturai Resources:
The commenter indicates that eliminating the "bounce" in the level of Mother lake would benefit Forster's
Terns but questions whether higher but more stable water levels are the best management regime for this
species. Several r.esearchers have expiored the nesting requirements of Forster's terns. The research
perhaps most "on point" was conducted from 1964 to 1971 on Rush Lake in Palo Alto County, lowa
(Weiler, M.W. and L.H. Frederickson. 1973). Rush Lake is an experimentally managed 400-acre semi-
permanent marsh, which was drawn down in 1964 to regenerate emergent vegetation that had been
eliminated by high water and muskrat activity. In this study, the researchers tracked the revegetation of
the marsh over time and documented the corresponding nesting frequency of various bird species that
utilized the marsh as breeding habitat. Immediately after the draw down, Rush Lake became ��
approximately 90 percent vegetated by emergent plants and then experienced a steady increase in the
percentage of open water each year through 1970. The number of nesting Forster's terns peaked in
1968, at a point when the marsh was approximately 72 percent open water; they then declined
precipitously as open water coverage approached 100 percent. In comparing the responses of various
bird species to the transition from a heavily vegetated small pool complex to open marsh, the authors
indicated that "Forster's terns (Sterna forster�) responded more slowly, as might be expected because
they favor open water areas (Bergman, Swain and Welle� 1970)".
Bergman, Swain and Weller (1970) found that Forster's terns prefer active muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus)
houses as a nesting substrate though they observed no obvious pattern of nest success according to
nest-site or area. The overall nest success observed in 107 Forster's tern nests beiween 1966 and 1968
was 12 percent (13 successful nests). Nest failures were attributed to wind/wave action, muskrat activity
(i.e. covering of nests during house building activities), predation (primarily mink; Mustela vison) and intra-
specific strife.
McNicholl (1982) observed similarly low nest success during 1968 and 1969 in Manitoba's Delta Marsh;
16.5 and 5.0 percent nest success, respectively. He indicated wave action to be the primary cause of
! `' nest failure and noted that "...the data do suggest that nests on muskrat houses have a better chance of
`_.. ' survival than do floating nests". The author indicated that low reproductive success does not seem
unusual for this species and noted a number of other studies where similar low success rates were
observed but also noted that relatively high success rates could also occur under favorable conditions.
For example, Houston (1973) reported 90 of 137 eggs (65.7 percent) hatching from 47 nests at La Creek
Refuge in South Dakota. McNicholl (1982) suggested that Forster's terns were adapted to the unreliable
water levels in marshes by reduced site tenacity and that, due to the generally long lifespan of tern
species, it appeared that a pair could afford not to replace itself in a particula� year provided that it is
successful in at least one year of its reproductive life.
The research discussed above is consistent with statements made in the Dual Track DEIS that higher,
more stable water levels in Mother �ake would be beneficial to Forster's terns. Water levels in Mother
�ake vary according to annual precipitation and may fluctuate substantially with major storm events. Due
to the amount of impervious surface around Mother �ake, these variations appear to be more exaggerated
than for marshes in more rural environments. Under existing 1996 conditions, Mother Lake has a
relatively small percentage of open water (roughly 20 percent), despite normal or above normal annual
precipitation for the preceding 4 years. A higher, stable water level would break up some of the existing
emergent vegetation in the lake and move it closer to the optimum ratio of open water to vegetation (about
70 to 75 percent).
It should be noted, however, that variations in muskrat populations in Mother Lake may also be having an
important effect upon Forster's tern nesting. Muskrats are not trapped in Mother Lake and their population
appears to fluctuate dramatically due to disease, changes in food availability and/or the presence or
absence of water deep enough for the animals to overwinter. If water levels are consistently maintained at
a higher level and high muskrat populations are allowed to remove too much emergent vegetation (i.e.
>70-75 percent), nesting conditions for Forster's terns would again decline. Any increase in water levels
I j in Mother Lake would best be combined with a controlled harvest of muskrats to retain the optimum
balance of vegetation and open water. An additional mitigation measure that will be explored is
�experimentation with floating nest platforms that would reduce nest losses due to wave action or water
level fluctuations. Ongoing coordination will be maintained with the Minnesota DNR regarding the overall
management of Mother Lake and potential mitigation measu�es specifically oriented toward increasing the
potential for tern nest success. However, regardless of the management scheme of Mother Lake, tern
I-23
nest success is destined to be good in some years and poor in others because there is a lack of cont�ol
structures and water levels are controlled primarily by precipitation.
With regard to Wood and Grass Lakes, neither water body is within the control of the MAC and any t
management measures applied to these lakes would need to be undertaken by the Minnesota DNR and
the applicable local governmental units.
Literature Cited:
Bergman, R.D., P. Swain and M.W. Weller. 1970. The Wilson Bulletin 82 (1): 435-444.
IVIcNicholl, M.K. 1982. Factors affecting reproductive success of Forster's terns at Delta Marsh, Manitoba.
Colonial Waterbirds 5: 32-38.
Weller, M.W. and L.H. Frederickson. 1973. Avian ecology of a managed glacial marsh. Journal paper No.
7403 of the lowa Agri. and Home Econ. Expt. Stn., lowa. Project No. 1504.
I-24
����''�' Minnesota Oepartment of Transporlallon
Transportation Buiiding
°' 395 John irelantl Boulevard
Sa�nt Paul, Minnesota 55155•1899
February 13, 1996
Mr. Nigel Finney Mr. Gien Orcutt
Metropolitan Airports Comm. Federal Aviation Administration
6040 28th Avenue South 6020 28th Ave. S., Suite 102
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450
SUBJECT: COMMENTS ON DUAL TRACK AIRPORT DEIS
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) appreciates the
opportunity to comment on the Dual Track Airport Draft Environmental Impact
Statement IDEISi and to have been invoived in the Dual Track Airport Pianning
Process. Mn/DOT staff have reviewed the DElS and is satisfied with the analysis of
aviation and airport impacts. However, we continue to have significant concerns
about ground access issues. it is imperative that the issue of ground access to
either the Existing or New Airport site be adequately addressed in the
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process so that decision makers are
., informed of the full impacts and costs of the airport decision.
')
-�� The existing airport terminal with access from TH 5 is well served by major
transportation corridors. As indicated in the DEIS (p. II-91, TH 5 is expected to
operate within capacity and continue to provide adequate access in the year 2020.
Both airport options described in the DEIS wili require extensive modifications to
the existing surface transportation system.
The MSP site is surrounded by established residential, commerciai and industrial
land uses. Major reconstruction of the existing transportation corridors which
serve the airport will entaii substantial cost, impacts, and disruption. The new
airport site near Hastings is Iocated in a mostly rural setting, and wili cause several
trunk highways to experience significant traffic increases and require extensive
capacity improvements.
Although the majority ot the vehicle trips generated by the airport wili be handied
by the improvements to the state highway system as listed in the DEIS, there will
aiso be impacts to county and locai roads which are not discussed. A new airport
decision will aiso affect roadways in Wisconsin for which only two improvements
are identified.
Transit considerations also need to be integrated into ail stages of the airport
and the surface transportation development, such that, it becomes a more viable
option for passengers to access the airport.
An equa! opportunity empioyer
�
Page 2
February 13, 1996
The DEIS refers to roadway projects which are "needed" and "required" for each
alternative. The "required" projects are lmprovements that are justified solely
because airpart alternative and the costs and some of the impacts of these projects
are discussed in the DEIS. The OEIS also refe�s to "needed" roadway
improvements. These p�ojects have a defined need for improvements regardless of
the airport alternative, but the need for the improvements wiii certainly be greater
with a decision to implement one of the airport alternatives. These "needed"
improvements currently do not rank high enough in the state's overail prio�ities and
due to fiscal constraints these "needed" projects are not in the region's
Transportation Policy Plan 1TPP) and are not expected to be impiemented within A.
the next 20 years. The costs and impacts associated with these "needed"
improvements are not identified in the DEIS. However, providing these "needed"
and "required" improvements wiii become a critical issue if the selected airport
aiternative is to have surface transportation access that is both safe and rneets
anticipated traffic demands.
As stated in the DEIS under the heading "Consequences of failure to make needed
transportation improvements" on p. V-230:
"Each of the two buitd alternatives inciude major road improvements
as part of the proposed alternative. These imp�ovements are designed
to provide the access necessary to serve the large volumes of traffic
that travel to and from a major airport on a daily basis. The failure to
make these improvements would have significant ramifications to the
region's highway system and the locai roads serving either of the
sites."
A. The needed improvement projects have since been
inGuded in the Metropolitan Council Transporta8on Policy
Pian adopted in 1997, but without a source of funding.l'he
TPP has an estimated $190,D00,000 of unprogrammed
revenues to the year 2020. The costs of these projects
are included in Appendix F; the impacts wiii he determined
in separate environmental reviews.
Mn/DOT wiii need to conduct subsequent environmental documents for the trunk j
highway improvements. Most of the projects wiii require EIS levei studies. To �
insure that these studies can 6e conducted in a reasonabie time frame, the Federal B' B� �n completing this FEIS, the FAA, MAC, Mn/DOT, _
Final Environmentai Impact Statement for the Dual Track Process should provide Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and the
Metropolitan Councii coordinated further about airport-
sufficient detail on the purpose, need, and impacts for ali of the roadway related roadway projects. See consensus document in
improvements to fulfiil the requirements of a TIER I EIS for those subsequent Appendix F. ,
studies.
Attached are more detailed comments on the Duai Track Airport Pianning Process
DEIS as developed by MnlDOT staff. Thank you for the opportunity to comment
and be involved in the Dual Track Process.
Sincerely,
J me N. Oenn
om issioner
I-26
Minnesota Department of Transportation
SpeciEic Comments on Dual Track Airport DEIS
Februazy 13, 1996
Throughout the Dual Track Airport Planninq Process the Minnesota
Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has raised the issue of
ground access to eithe= the existing or new airport site. We
have wanted to insura that the EIS address fou= points;
1) the roadway and transit needs necessary to serve either
alternative, ,
2) costs of those needs,
3) impacts and mitigation associated with those needs, and
4) the consequences if those road and transit improvements
are not undertaken.
These issues have been at least partially addressed. Following
are the specific comments of Mn/DOT staff on the Dual Track
Airport Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). They are
organized as to comments on the ground access issue oP the MSP
alternative, the New Airpart alternative, ar�d the Impacts and
Mitigation of providing ground access to either alternative.
V �. . '
The current site is well served by the existing transportation
system with access from Tti 5 on the east side of the airport. As
indicated on p. I-2 a full range of possible strategies to
provide surface transportation access to an expanded MSP airport
needs to be further explored, includinq retaining the east
acCess. Retaining the existinq east access would reduce the
requirements for roadway i.mprovements.
Although Tii 5 is expected to continue to operate and provide good
access to the airport, Interstate 494, Interstate 35W, and Trunk
�`iighway 62 will be over capacity in the year 2020. Both the I-
494 and I-35W corridors have undergone extensive studies and have
'found that major improvements aze needed to address the existinq
needs in both corridors. The total estimated cost to address
thosa needs is $2.2 billion. Neithes p=oject is currently in the
metropolitan regions 20 year Transportation Policy Plan (TPP) due
to funding constraints. Major improvements to Trunk Highway 62
are also not identified in the TPP. IInmet needs in these threa
corridors will be an issue no matter what airport alternative is
salected.
Transportation impravements for the MSP alternative are shown in
the following areas of the DEIS; page III-1, cost table I-26,
table W-9, table W-19, page V-231, and Pigure W-16. The project
lists ara inconsistent in some areas or describe different
projects or termini and are difficult to follow. However, they
do describe the Eollowing composite list oP surface
t=ansportation improvements that are essential to provide good
access to the new MSP airport (west access):
��
C. This issue was studied and discussed with
Mn/DOT in the course of the preparation of the DEIS.
At this stage of the planning process, FAA and MAC
believe the new west access, in combination with the
existing east access, is needed to implement the 2020
C. long-term comprehensive plan. When a new west
terminal is �eeded, additionai study will be undertaiien
with Mn/DOT and FHWA to explore other alternatives
and strategies for providing the access.
1) On-site terminal circulation roads
2) Airport frontage road betwean 66th and 24th
3) East sida access modiPications
4) TS 62/7� interchanqe reconstruction, to
accommodata wast terminal
(inCludes 66th St. interchange reconstruction)
5) Tx 77 from TH 62 to 66th, reconstruction and
widening
6) TH 62 from TH 77 to Portland Ava., reconstruction
and widening
7) TH 62 from Tii 77 to 28th reconstruction
a. includes modiEications to 28th St. ramps
8) I-35W/TH 62 common section, reconstruction and
added lanes *
a. includes additional capacity for southbound
to eastbound ramp
b. includes additional capacity Por westbound
to northbound ramp
c. includes additional lane on I-35W, TH 62 to
46th St. Se
9) TS 55/62 interchanqe, possible modification *
10) TH 5/55 interchange, possible additional capacity*
11) TH 62 from 28th to TH 55 reconstruction and
widening (not in DEIS) *
* indicates costs not shown in DEIS
42,000,000
3�000�000
1,000,000
27�000�000
12�000�000
9,000,000
6,000,000
1,000,000
50,000,000
1�000,000
10,000,000 �'
6,000,000
Projact 8, as listed above, entails improvements to I-35W and tha
I-35W/TEi 62 common section, as indicated in Mn/DOT's report
"Potential effects of Twin Citias Major airport alternatives on
tha Minnesota State Highway System, August 1995" table 4-3, even
if tha I-35W was developed to its ultimate design the SB to ES E�
and the WB to NB ramps will be over capacity. Due to coxridor
limitations it is unlikely that thase ramps could ba designad to
accommodata the toracasted traPfic volumea..and congastion will
xcur durinq peak periods. The fifty million indicated Por
improvements would take care ot some oE tha opezational, saEety,
and capacity problems which exist in the common section and will
provide batter access then curtently exists to the MSP airport.
Project 9, as indicated above, modifias the planned TH 55/62
interchange. Highway 55 (Hiawatha Ave.) is aurrently being
ungraded between I-94 and TH 62. The TH 55/62 intersection will
be upgraded to a partial cloverleaE interchanqe and includes same
imp=ovements alonq TH 62. .It is expected that these improvements
will ba completed in 2001. The planned interchange is designed F.
to accommodate forecasted traffic patterns, which includes access
on the east side oP the airport. IE the access is moved to the
west aida additional modiEications may need to occur. �
Project 10 calls for additional capacity to be added to the TS
5/55 interchanqe. This interchange has severa right-of-way
restrictions due to its proximity to Fort Snelling. It is
expected that any modifications to the interchanga would be at
substantial cost and cause impacts to Fort Snelling. The Ca.
e�cisting intarchanqe provides a low capacity ramp with poor
geometrics Eor the SB TH 5 to WB TH 55 move. Some travelers who
currently usa TH 5 in St. Paul to get to tha airport via the
current east accesa may choose to take I-35E to TH 110 to Tfi 55
to TH 62 to accese the new west access or Eind other alternate
=outes to avoid tha problems oP the Tii 5/55 interchange. If
these trips divert to other =outes, the impact oP addad traEfic
on these routes has not been investigated.
I-28
D. These projects are not needed to impiement the
MSP AltematiVe. See Surface Transportation Consensus
Document in Appendix F.
E. The FEIS indicates the need for improvements to i-
35W and the I-35W/TH 62 common section for both the
No-AcGon and MSP Altematives. See Appendix F.
F. Table W-9 in the DEIS identified possibie modifi-
cations to the TH 55/TH 62 interchange. The possibility for
modificaGons was identified because of changes in traffic
operations that would occur as a result of shifting from an
east terminal to a west terminai. The movements most
affected by this condiUon wouid be the southbound TH 55
to west- bound TH 62 and the eastbound TH 62 to
northbound 55. These represent the movements that
would provide the connection between TH 55 (Hiawatha
Avenue) and a west terminal.
Table 4-2 of the MNDOT report "Potential Effects of Twin
Cities Major Airport Altematives on the Minnesota State
Highway System", August 1995 indicates that the MSP
aiternative wouid increase the eastbound TH 62 to
northbound TH 55 ramp movement hy 100 vehicles per
hour in the PM peak hour. The report did not show any
change in volume for the ramp movement from south-
bound TH 55 to westbound TH 62 as a resuit of the MSP
Aitemative. Based on this informa8on it appears that oniy
minor modifications to the proposed TH 55ffH 62
interchange will be required to accommodate Vaffic
operations related to a west terminai.
G. improvements to this interchange are not required to
provide reasonabie access to the airport. Table 4-2 from
the August 1995 Mn/DOT report indicates that the
eastbound TH 55 to northbound TH 5 movement wouid
increase by 250-30D vehicies in the PM peak hour under
the MSP Altema6ve compared to the No-Action
AltemaGve, which may place the facility over capacity.
The southbound TH 5 to westbound TH 55 movement
wouid also increase by 200-250 vehicies in the PM peak
hour with the MSP Altemative, but the ramp movement is
expected to accommodate this traffic.
Traffic impacts from diversions associated with any of
these movements will likely be minimal given that there
are severai altemate routes for trlps that may choose to
avoid using this ramp. Few diversions of the southbound
TH 5 to westbound TH 55 movement are anticipated
because this movement is forecast to be abie to
accommodate the addiGonai tra�c associated with the
west terminai option. Therefore, littie adverse impact on
altemate routes is expected.
Project 11 is not shown in the DEIS. However, alter reviewing
,,the layouts for the airports TS 62/77 interchange and the planned
TH 62/55 interchange which both include providing threa lanes in
` each diraction on portions TH 62. There is about a 1.5 mile qap H,
on TH 62 between 28th Avenue'and TH 55 with only two lanes in
each direction. Based on projected traffic volumes and to
p=ovide lana continuity, this gap should also be reconstructed
and widened to three lanes.
Cost estimates provided to Mn/DOT by MAC�s consultant have been
raviewed and appear to be low but reasonable. The right-of-way
costs shown in Cost Table I-26 Eor acquisition, demolition and
relocation (due to =oadway imp=ovements) oi $7,000,000 appears {.
unrealistically low. Section T.1.2 on paga V-180 shows that 62
households and 17 businesses would be ralocated due to roadway
improvements. Not enougb information is provided in the EIS to
datermine how the estimated cost was derived.
In addition, only thosa coats asaociated with the 'requi=ed'
roadway improvemants hava been considared and not those oP the
'naeded° projects. Sinca tha Minnesota Legislature will need to
provide funds Po= both categories of projacts, it 1s important
that thoee costs also be identified. The "needad' coets would
add about $67,000,000 to the construction cost oE the 'raquired'
projects cost o! $101,000,00o Eor a total roadway construction
cost oE $168,000,000. Continqency costs, which are normally
added to roadway cost estimates, were applied to the overall
airport cost (table I-36) and was assumed to be 25�. This
adjustment should be applied directly to the roadway cost to
better reflect tha construction cost of the roadway improvements.
Tharefore, tha total roadway construction cost Eor the MSP
alternative should be $210,000,000 and does not rePlect right-of-
way coats.
� " V � � 4 ' ql� .
The selected sita in Dakota County for tha new airport is not
currently served by any major highway corridors and requires
,,extansive roadway construction to provide reasonable accese to
'�itha site. Roadway improvements are listed in the DEIS to the
;Minnasota trunk hiqhway system and roadways in Wisconsin but doae
'�not identify any improvements to county or local roadways, with
the exception of the realignment o£.CSAH 47.
Transportation improvements Eor the New Airport alternative are
shown in the following areas of the DEIS; page III-5, cost table
I-26, table W-14, page V-231, figura W-17 and Piqure W-18. The
project lists are inconsistent in some areas or describe
difterent projects or termini, have mislabeled roads, and are
diEticult to follow. However, they do describe the Pollowing
composite list of surfaca transportation improvements that should
be built to provida good access to the new airport:
1) On-sita terminal circulation roadways
2) on-site internal roadway system
16�000,000
23,000,000
3) T� 55 improvements, I-494 to TH 52 (south Jct.) 14�,000,000
a) TS 55/I-494 inteschange improvements
(provides access to/from west)
b) I-494 to TH 52 (north jct.), reconstruct and widen
c) TIi 55 (north jct. to south jct.), imp=ove to
8-lana Preeway [a.k.a. 2'H 52]
4) New 8-lane freeway, TH 52 to airport sita 40,000,000
5) TH 52 improvements
a) I-94 to TS 56, widen from 4•to 6 lanes * 55,000,000
(includes TH 52/I-94 Interchange improvements)
(includes replacinq the Lafayette bridge)
b) TIi 56 to I-494, widen Erom 4 to 6 lanes 60,000,000
e) TH 55 to TH 50, intersection modiPicationa * 5,000,000
I-29
H. Widening TH 62 between 28th Avenue and TH 55
from four to six lanes may have some benefit from
providing lane continuity along TH 62, but it is not needed
to provide reasonable airport access.
I. All affected properties are located in the cities oF
Minneapolis and Richfield. Acquisition costs were based
on Hennepin County assessed valuations. Relocation
and demolition costs were based on the guideiines in the
Uniform RelocaGon Assistance and Reai Property
Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended.
Recaiculation of the costs, based on Hennepin County
assessed valuations and Uniform Act guidelines, has
resulted in a revised cost of approximately $11,900,000 for
acquisition, demolition and relocation for MSP Altemative
highway improvements, and includes a 25% contingency.
�. (J. The costs for the other needed projects have been
included, with the exception of project 11. See Response
G.
6) CSAH 47 improvements
a) zealignment CR 85 to new freeway, 2-lane
highway 12,000,000
b) realignment new freeway to TH 61, 4-lane highway
c) intersection improvements at TFi 61 in Hastinqs
7) TH 61 modifications
a) TH 61, replace bridqe over Mississippi River * 12,000,000
b) TH 61/55 3ntersection improvement * 1,000,000
c) realignment around RPZ (DEIS p.V-217) * 2,500,000
8) I-494 bridge over Mississippi River * 40,000,000
(includes capacity improvements at I-494/TFi 61
interchange and improvements on TH 61 to CSAH 22)
9) TH 95, TH 61 to I-94, capacity improvements * 10,000,000
(signals and intersection modifications at misc. .
intersections)
10) TH 10, TH 61 to the St.Croix River crossing,
widen from 2 to 4 lanes * 20,000,000
11) TH 316, TH 61 to Dakota/Goodhue County Line,
widen roadway * 15,000,000
* indicates costs not shown in DEIS
P=oject 5a includes addinq an additional lane to TH 52 south of
I-94 and modifying the I-94 interchange. Addinq a lane in this �(. K. See Generai Response 1.
segment would require replacing 3400' long LaEayette bridge over
the Mississippi River.
Project 6 includes the realignment of CSAii 47. MAC's consultant
indicated that the cost may have been under estimated and was L, �, See Generai Response 1.
going to check the figures. We were unable to find out if the
cost was revised prior to the close of the comment period.
Project 7a in the EIS describes the need to p=ovide two
additional lanes en the TH 61 bridge over the Mississippi River. M M. SeeGeneralResponse1.
Tha existing Hridqe is a overhead truss bridge and cannot be
widened, therefore the entire 1825 ft. bridge would have to be
replaced.
Project 7b which calls for an additional riqht-turn lane at the
TH 61/55 intersection. It appears that any modifications to this
intersection, includinq adding a riqht-turn lane, will be � i�. N. See General Response 1.
ditficult at this intersection due to severe R/W rastrictions.
The football field in the NW quadrant abuts the highway right-of-
way and is significantly below the roadway elavation.
Project 7c is identified as realignment of TIi 61 around the RPZ
(page V-217) and has not been studied to datarmine an estimated
coat or impacts. The section oP TH 61 which is in the RPZ will �. O. See General Response 1.
need to be shifted about 1/4 mile to the east and will impact
agricultural properties not currently identified in the DEIS.
Project 8 as described above widens the I-494 bridge over tbe
Mississippi River. Mn/DOT is conducting a Major Investment Study
(MIS) on this project to determine the scopa of the needed P• P. See General Response 1.
improvements in this area. OE the $90,000,000 estimated cost
$50,000,000 is currently in the TPP. Therefore, $40,000,000 is
not currently funded. .
Project 9 calls for intersection improvements along TH 95 from Tfi
61 to I-94. Washington County has approached Mn/DOT to consider
turning back TH 95 through Afton in exchange Eor County Road 15
Prom I-94 to Baily Road. This would provida a straight road
between I-94 and TH 61. Howeve=, the road does have vertical a• n• See Generai Response 1.
problems that would require e�ctensive reconstruc�ion and the
major intersections should be modified. Tha cost shown would
provida for some minor modifications and upgrade a couple of the
intersections.
I-30
Project 10 calls to widen TFi 10 between the St.Croix River and TFI
61. Improvements are currently proqrammed Eor the year 2000 to
�, realign portions of Tii lo and some maintenance work. Burial R, R. See General Response 1.
�mounds, historic sites, a nature center, wetlands, and extensive
rock cuts have made this project difficult to implement.
Expandinq this road to four lanes in this sensitive area will be
diEEicult.
Project 11 as described above improves TH 316. Mn/DOT is just
beginning a corridor study of TIi 316 and TH 61 in this area to
determine which should be considered the principal arterial and
which should be turned back as a county road. The study will
also address which types of improvements will ba needed for the
principal arterial.
Cost esti.mates provided to Mn/DOT by MAC's consultant have been
reviewed and appear to be low but reasonable. The riqht-of-way
costs shown in Cost Table I-26 for acquisition, demolition and
relocation (due to roadway improvements) of $34,000,000 appears
low and only takes into account R/W needs for TH 55 and the
realignment of CSAH 47. Some of the other projects listed in the S•
EIS will also have R/W needs. Table T-15 on page V-190 shows
that 80 households and 37 businesses would be relocated due to
the TH 55 and CSAFi 47 improvements. Not enough information is
provided in the EIS to determine how the estimated cost was
derived.
In addition, only the costs associated with the 'required"
roadway improvements hava, been considered. Cots of the "needed'
p=ojects ara have not been considered. Since the Minnesota
legislature will need to provide funds for both categories of
projacts it is important that those costs also be identified.
The "needed' costs add about $160,000,000 to the construction
cost of the "required" projects cost of $298,000,000 for a total 'r,
roadway construction cost oE $458,000,000. Contingency costs
which are normally added to roadway cost estimates were applied
to the overall airport cost (table I-36) and was assumed to be
25$. This adjustment should be applied directly to the roadway
cost to better rePlect the construction cost of the roadway
improvements. ThereEore, the total roadway conatruction cost Por
the New Airport alternativa should ba $572,500,000 and does not
i' '�reflact right-of-way costs.
�`� Construction Cost Summary (Surface Transportation):
MSP Alternat�-ve New Airnort
EIS Cost Est. 101,000,000 298,000,000
Revised Est. 67,000,000 160,000,000
Contingencies (25�) 4.2•000,00o y14 �oo,000
Total $210,000,000 $572,500,000
NOTE: Right-of-way costs are not included in this summary.
il• . �� V ��
In the Air quality section on page V-ii, the DEIS states that
"While the New Ai=port site is located outside of the 7-county
desiqnated Non-Attainment Area for CO, emissions from travel on
the entire regional network are included in the emission
inventory for the Seven-County Metropolitan Area." After
discussions with staff of both the Mn Pollution Control Agency U•
and the Metropolitan Council, we believe that traffic generated
by a new ai=po=t site is not included in the current emissions
inventory, nor is it included in assumptions used to develop any
future emissions budget.
S. Sea General Response 1.
T. See General Response 1.
U. See General Response 1.
Under the Air Quality "Methods and Assumptions", the MOBILE 5a
model assumes non-tampering for the year 2020, but also assumes
no Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program. We do not V. V. The air quality analysis has been revised without
understand how non-tamperinq can be assumed if there is no the anti-tampering program assumption.
inspection program in place to check for non-tampering.
I-31
IInder saction A.1.1., AfPected Environment, MSP alternative, the
assumption is mada that moet of the traffic accessing tha airport
will be on controlled access highways with no at-qrade ,
intersections, and therefore analysis of at-qrade intersections
is limited. However, quauing at croes streets and at ramps
should also ba analyzed in order to assess air quality impacts.
Reqardinq Surface Transportation Noise Impacts:
On page V-159, tha State night-time noise standard of 55 dBA
L10 also needs to be add=essed.
On page V-160, tabulation of the number of homes within tha
night-tima noise contour needs to be included in the
procedure. The night-time assumptions for calaulations of
noise levels must include the 6-7AM traffic estimates. Also
why aren't frontaga road and ramp noisa levels not .
considered7
On page V-161, Tables Q-19 and Q-20 should ba e�cpanded to
include number of residences impacted in the 6-7AM night-
tima hour. Tha percent increases for night-time impacts
should ba included in the analysis.
On Page V-234 in Tabla W-23, it is stated that no parks,
recreation lands, or historic sites are potentially impacted by
roadway improvements. Proximity of several parks and one
historic sita to needed and required highway improvements on
TS62, TS79, and TH5/55 raise at least the potential of Section
4(E) impacts due to surface transportation projects for the MSP
alternative. Bossen Field in Minneapolis and Veterans Memorial
Park in Richfield are adjacent to TFi62. Taft Park in RichPield
is adjacent to Both TH62 and TEt77. Fost Snellinq National
Historic Landmark is adjacent to TH5 and TH55. In addition,
saveral historic structures are in close proximity to TH10
batween TH61 and the St. Croix River. These are also potentially
aifected by a surface transportation project of tha New Airport
Alternative. While exact impacts are not known at this time, the
potential exists that one or mora oE these properties cannot be
avoided by needed and required projects on these highways, should
aither the MSP or New Airport alternative be selected. Tabla W-
23 should be modiEied accordinqly.
Thank you Eor the opportunity to commant on the DEZS Eor the Dual
Track Airport Planninq Procesa.
I-32
W
V. (ConYd) Queuing at cross streets may occur 6ut
only those intersections meeting the air quality analysis
screening criteria have been addressed. Queuing at
metered ramps is discussed in Section V. A.
Methodology and Assumptions.
W. The FEIS has been revised to inciude nighttime
noise impacts.
The surface transportation noise impact analysis
documented in the DEIS used a number of simplifying
assumpUons to develop a comparative estimate of the
number of homes along roadways serving the airport
sites that would be impacted by noise from traffic
accessing the airpo�t. One simpiifying assumption was to
not consider tra�c noise from ramps and frontage roads.
This simp�irying assumption was made for the foliowing
reasons:
The DEIS identified the need for additionai roadway
capacity in a number of areas to accommodate the
forecast traffic volumes. The additionai roadway
capacity was defined in terms of additional through
lanes required and did not specify more detailed
design features such as ramp and/or frontage road
locations.
Traffic volumes on ramps and frontage roads are
generally substantially less than mainline Uaffic
volumes and the mainiine is the dominant traffic
noise source. Therefore, traffic on ramps and
frontage roads would generally contribute very iittle
to total noise levels adjacent to the road.
Travei forecasting for the airport altematives were
completed using the regionai Vavei modei. The levei
of detail in the regionai travei modei allows for daiiy
traffic forecasting on mainiine facilities but does not
produce accurate forecasts on minor road segments
such as ramps and frontage roads.
X. While these highway improvements for the MSP
Altemative are yet to be designed, preliminary analysis of
the proposed improvements and the existing rights-of-way
indicate that highway constnaction wouid not impact
adjacent parks, recreation lands or historic sites. Any
subsequent environmental review prepared by MN/DOT
for these proposed highway improvements wouid analyze
these impacts in more detail.
February 13, 1996
MINNESOTa IIISTORIC.IL SUCIETY
Ms. Jenn Unruh
Metropolitan Airports Commission
6040 28th Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450
Dear Ms. Unruh:
RE: Major Airport Development; Dual Track Planning Process
Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Dakota and Hennepin Coundes
SHPO Number: 95-3034
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the above report. It has been
reviewed pursuant to the responsibilities given the State FIistoric Preservadon Officer by the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the Procedures of the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservadon (36CFR800), and to the responsibilities given the Minnesota Historical
Society by the Minnesota Historic Sites Act and the Minnesota Field Archaeology Act.
We have the following comments on the DEIS:
1. The Summary of Impacts Chart, the �iscussion of Archaeological
Resources (Chapter V.B.) and the discussion of Iiistoric/Architectural
Resources (Chapter V.M.) all report properties in the project azea that aze
listed on the Nadonal Register of E3istoric Places or that have been evaluated
as eligible. This information provides a cultural resource base line. In
reviewing this informadon, the following should be kept in mind:
A. Some areas stili need to be surveyed, and if additional
properties are identifiec! they will need to be evaluated. As the
DEIS indicates, these azeas include those related to regional
transportadon development, off-site midgaflon, induced
socioeconomic impacts, and land use impacts, as well as those
azeas which were inaccessible for archaeological survey due to
physical bazriers or landowner consent.
B. Some properties which have been identified in surveys still
need to be evaluateci for National Register eligibility.
C. The DEIS aclrnowiedges the need to develop a
comprehensive survey research design to address the remaining
survey and evaluation needs. Given the length of time for
project implementation, this research design will need to
incorporate any appropriate measums for upda6ng cultural
resource information. The items detailed in our comment letter
of 2 Mazch 1994 should also be included.
3dS KF.LLOf.0 BOULF.V,IRD WEST / SAINT PAUL. \ZINNESOT.� 55102•t91M / TELEPIIONF.: 612•29fi-6126
I-33
A.IA. Evaluation of the National Register potentiai of aIl
above-ground properties in the Area of Potential Effect
has been completed.
B, B. See Programmatic Agreement in Appendix C.
Febrnary 13, 1996
Jenn Unruh
SHPO #95-3034
Page two
2. 'The DEIS includes a discussion of project impacts on National Register
properties, and aclrnowledges that more detailed assessment will be necessary
to evalu2te cert2ilt typeS of effeCts. Appropriate mitigation measures aze C. C. See Programmatic Agreement in Appendix C.
proposed, although it shouid be noted•that these measures will need to be
further discussed through the 106 process and incorporated into a
Memorandum of Agreement. Additional midgadon measures may emerge in
that discussion.
3. The discussion of mitiga6on measures in section V.B.1.3. indicates that.
data recovery is typically consideced as sufficient micigation for adverse effects
to azChae0logiCal propeitieS. While we aCknowledge that this appLOaCh is �. D. See Programmatic Agreement in Appendix C.
appropriate for many sites, we would also note that other sites many include
values or associadons that place a higher priority on site preservation. This
issue may need to be addressed as the identification and evaluafion of
azchaeological sites is completed.
4. The discussion of Section 4(� shouid include an indicacion that the
identification and evaluation of azchaeologicai properties and
historic/azchitectural properties is not yet complete and that the 5ection 4(fl
discussion may need to be updated.
We look forwazd to worldng with you in continuing the Section 106 review process for this
project. If you have any questions regazding our review of the DEiS, please contact our
Review and Compliance Section at 612-296-5462.
inc.eiely.
,L'�h �' ���'���,
Britta L. Bloomberg `�
Depury State Historic Preservadon Officer
BLB:dmb
cc: Gien Orcutt, FAA
Larry Dallam, FINTB
Chariene Roise, Hess Roise
Christina Harrison, Archaeological Research Services
I-34
E. E. As with the Section 106 process, the Section
4(f) process wiil be ongoing as additionai impacts are
identified. Also, cultural resource assessments wiil be
updated during the duration of the project as
necessary.
�,,•` ;,•'� r;'
� r
:�'
�
February 13, 1996
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Mr. Nigei Finney, Deputy Executive Director
P(anning and Environment
�ietropotitan Airpons Commission
6040 28th Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota »450
Deaz Mr. Finney:
RE: Draft Environmental Impact 3tatement for the Dual Track ,�lirport Planning Process
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
for the airpor[ ptanning process. Minnesota Po(tution Control Agency staff from the Water
Quality, Air Quality, Tanks and Emergency Response, Noise, and Gcound Water programs have
reviewed the DEIS. We can appreciate the magnitude and complexity of this task, along with the
controversy, and we offer the attached comments for your consideration as you prepaze responses
for the final EIS. We hope you will find our comments both candid and constructive, and
reflective of the level of detail we will need for the Minnesota Po(lution Control Agency's
regulatory process, should either altemative proceed.
Thus faz, the planning process has been viewed as a way to choose benveen no action, the
Minneapolis-St. Paul Intemational Airpott (IvISP) site or the Dakota county site. The DEIS is the
final environmental review document for any one of the tluee alternatives. If this docutnent is to
stand as the EIS for expansion of MSP or the EIS for a new airport, it falls short. An EIS for
projecu wich much less poten[ial for broad environmentat impact contain far more detailed
analyses.
People seem to view the DEIS as the culmination of six years of work, which it is, but ic is not a
comprehensive summary of the srudy that has been made during the (ast six years. Some things
were `scoped out' of the EIS because they were reviewed eazliet in the environmental review
process ( in an earlier document). This makes for an uneven discussion of po�ential impacu for
the three alternatives in the DEIS. The DEIS should have referenced past documenu where � A,
informadon coutd be found if it had been scoped out of the DEIS.
It is unfominate that a recommeadatioa will be made to the legislature before the response to
commenu has been prepazed. If the legislators make a decision based on this document, they
will be doing so without the benefit of the numerous comments that the Metropolitan Airports
Commission will receive and without the additional analysis that responding to [hose comments
wilt require.
As a means to enabie a choice between sites, the process may succeed. As a thorough
environmental review of a selected altemative, the process has not served us as well. Additional
analysis must be completed before environmental review can be considered complete for either
build altemative.
We appreciate the oppomuuty to participate in the dual track airport planning process and look
forwazd to receiving responses to our comments. If you have any questions regazding our
cocnmenu, please contacc Kathryn Kramer of my staff at (612) 297-8604.
Sincerely,
`�„'" �-°-�-
Paul Hoff, Director
Environmentat Planning and Review Office
Administradve Services Division
PH:smm
Enclosure
520 Lafayetle fid. N.: St. Paui, MN 55155-4/94; (612) 298•6300 (valce); (812) 282•5332 (TTY)
Regional OKfces: Duluth • 8rainerd • Detroit Lakes • Marshail • Rochester
Equel Opportuniy Employer • Pdnted on recycled paper conlsining at least 104L Itbera Imm paper recycietl Cy consumars.
I-35
A. Past documents were referenced in the DEIS
Section I, introduction, inciuding the scoping documents,
in Section IX by impact category, and in Appendix A
(supporting documents).
i' U� t tni�'�
• Please note that the page numbers of the Draft Environmen�al Impact Statement (DEIS) vary
somewhat between the copies that we received in December 1995 and the copies that we
received in January 1996. The page numbers refened to in our comments may not match the
page numbers on your copy of the DEIS.
A. (:enar�l Comments
The DEIS scope states that development issues associated with conveyance of storm water to the
Mississippi River would be evaluated. The DEIS does not include that evaluation.
The DEIS lacks the detail required for an EIS-levei of analysis of the stormsewer line proposed
to run to the Mississippi River. What would the potenuai impacts be to surface water (wetlands
and lakes) and ground watec? What endty would regulate the line? Does the Metropolitan
Airports Commission (MAC) have eminent domain? The right-of-way issues should be
discussed in the EIS. The construction, restoration and maintenance of the line should be
discussed in the EIS.
Once a stormsewer route is chosen going from the airport site to the Mississippi River, a review
of the potential environmental impacts would have to be conducted before that alternative was
imptemented. A discussion of the general potential environmental impacts should be included in
this EIS with fiuther detailed analysis completed later when the route is identified.
B. Wastewater and Surface water Qualitv
B.
We understand the logic of creatin� a surroeate discharge from the existing airport to the
Mississippi River, although the rationale for doing so is not clearly stated in the DEIS and it
shouid be. It allowed a somewhat equal comparison to the proposed Dakota County
(downstream) site and its discharge to the Mississippi Rivec. However that comparison does not
relieve the document from aiso reviewing, in depth, the water quality impacu from continuing to Ci.
discharge to the Minnesota River. The EIS should fupy discuss the racionale for using an
"analytical" upper Mississippi River discharge location. It should a(so discuss the relative
likelihood of keeping the existing discharge site on the Minnesoca River.
2. The E1S (page V-253) relies almost entirely on a July 14, (995, Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (MPCA) memorandurn, which discusses river s[andards a�d po[ential assimilative
capacities (AC). There are numerous ciarifications and qualifiers that must be suppiied
whenever the AC values are used in the EIS.
The measure of a river's ability to assimilate an organic (mass) Ioading without
depressing disso(ved oxygen concenuations beyond acceptable standazds is not a single,
easily defined quantity. Any estimate of assimilative capacity for a specific location in a
river must be stated in context with the prevailing flow, physical and chemical conditions
of the river, a specific time frame (ofren seasonal), and an accountinfi of all extemal
loading to the river.�Waste load ailocations aze derived from an analysis of a river's
ability to assimilate projected point and nonpoint pollutant loads under prescribed design
conditions in the river, conditions that aze normally critical to water quality. For
biodegradabte organic loads, these critical conditions usually occur during late summer,
under low sueam flow conditions. However, in some rivers, the critical design
conditions can occur during other seasons as well. Wincer is often critical under complete
ice cover simations.
The July 1995 MPCA internal memo that was cited in the MAC DEIS included rough
escimates of excess AC for the Mississippi River, calculated for a dischazge poinc neaz the
airpon and the altemate point downstream from the St. Croix River. To generate these
esumates, we applied the WASP mode( to data representing average conditions that
occurred during the relatively low flow, 1988 summer season. The numericai estimates
were usefiil to illustra[e the relative difference between the AC in the river at the two
distanc locations under conditions prevailing in 1988. The estimates also show that
excess AC e�cists at river flows exceeding the low flow, 7Q�o design condition. They
were not intended to be used out of context, as the EIS did, nor to be a definitive measure
of the Mississippi River's ability to accommodate the contaminated runoff from the
airport under all low flow condidons.
I-36
_a
B. The pipeline to the Mississippi River for the MSP
Alternative has been eliminated. See also Generai
Response 1.
C. l'he concept of utilizing a"surrogate" discharge from
MSP to the Mississippi River for anaiyticai purposes was
suggested to MAC by MPCA staff. MAC considered this to
be a good approach, and utilized it in the DEIS. The
rationale behind this methodological approach was clarified
in the scoping documents for the DEIS and in the December
1995 DEIS itseif (see pages V-251,252). It is now assumed
that storrn water drainage from MSP will be discharged to
the Minnesota River through the Design Year (2010) and
beyond. �
As was agreed at a May 30,1996 meeting between
representatives of the MAC and MPCA Staff to discuss
surtace water issues raised in the February 13,1996 MPCA
letter, there is insufficient winter low flow data/anaiysis on
this stretch of the Minnesota Rive� to project the impacts of
the modeled discharge (see Table BB-6) on the DO levels of
the Minnesota River with an adequate degree of confidence.
Actual iow flow data and additionai corresponding study is
necessary to determine the impact of airport discharge on
the Minnesota River.
D. The methodology of comparing an extreme case "siug"
of CBODS load discharged from MSP with an analyticai low
flow (e.g.,1988 summer low flow) assimilative capaciry for
the Mississippi River as estimated by the MPCA was
discussed on various occasions between MAC consuitants
and MPCA staff. MPCA staff agreed that this was an
appropriate methodology to use. This approach was cieariy
detailed in the scoping documents for the DEIS. Thus, when
the Juiy 14,1995 MPCA memo providing estimates
regarding the assimila8ve capacity of the Mississippi River at
the assumed discharge points for MSP/No Action and New
Airport AltemaUves was received by MAC consultants from
the MPCA, there was no reason to believe that these
estimates were not to be used as had been discussed and
documented. As noted above, discharge to the Mississippi
is no longer under consideration.
The EIS needs to acknowledge that current waste load ailocauons aze based on fiill
udliaation of the AC of both the Mississippi and Minnesota Rivers in the metro area
under summer and winter design conditions at the 7Qio flow. There is no excess AC for
a lurge, organic loading as projected from the existing airpoR under these estab(ished low
flow design conditions. T'herefore, to accommodate a designed airport dischazge of
organic deicing compounds, the �,�fPCA wouid need to initiate a process to reallocate (and
re-permit) [he e�cisting waste loads assigned to current dischazgers. This process would
necessitate additional analyses, re-examining design condition assumptions, and
additional modeling of both rivers to incorporate the updated infocmation collected on the
rivers. Aiternatively, the airport would need to design a containment and/or treaunent
system that would control or restrict its dischazge to comply with existing waste load
allocations, especiaily under criucal low flow conditions. Control systems must be sized
and designed to protect water quality during low flow, 7Q�o conditions. During other,
less criucal conditions at higher river flows, excess AC may be available to allow
consideration for some degree of variable discharge standards.
E.
c. The current waste load allocations imply that some excess AC exisu for the design spring F,
and faU seasons because of generally highec river flows and lower temperanues. A
renllocation process would also need to study the impacts of any pToposed airpoct
dischazge during these seasons and to allocate an appropriate load.
, 3. The EIS does a good job projecdng storm water discharge rates and toading ro the river for
� each alternative; however, the EIS does not adequately describe storm water treatment
technologies, treatability of the ice and snow control chemicals, and economics of treatment.
For the "blow-by" glycol which escapes containment and finds its way to the storm drainage
system, the EIS only talks of CBOD attenuadon (no treaunent) through a proposed,
reconfigurod detention pond system. The EIS should address the feasibitity and associated
costs to provide a range of CBOD reduction in the storm water using availabte treaunent
technologies.
G.
4. The dissolved oxygen standard for the Minnesota River in the vicinity of the airporc is 5.0
miiligrams per liter (mg/L) as a�i�,y averaee, yeaz-round. For the Mississippi River near the
existing airport, the standazd is 5.0 mg/L instantaneous, yeaz-round. For the Mississippi from
the oudet of the metro treatment piant (River Mile (RM) 835) to Lock and Dam 2 at Hastings H•
(RM 815), the standazd is 5.0 mg/L as a�iiv averaee from April 1 through November 30
and not less than 4.0 mg/L instanta�^�-�` ihe rest of the year. These specific standards must
be kept in mind in ail analyses and discussions.
I-37
E. For some time, it has been MAC's position that
estabiishing a year-round 100 ib. per day Iimit for CBODS
discharge from MSP on the basis of the 1985/87 waste load
allocaBon (WLA) study is not appropriate. This is because
the 1985/87 WLA did not address baseiine discharge from
MSP during the winter/spring months, which is when the
highest CBODg discharges from the airport occur. Also,
such a Iimit would simply be unattainabie for MSP. With the
large volume of drainage from the airport during significant
run-off events, any detectable CBOD5 concentration wouid
transiate to an exceedance of a 100 ib. per day mass limit.
This issue was discussed at some length in the MAC 1994
MSP Decision Report for Storm Water Control Measures.
F. Because of the above factors, it is the MAC's
understanding that it will be necessary for a new low-flow
WLA monitoring and analysis to be conducted for
wintedspring months before any finai concentration or mass
limits for CBODS discharge from MSP to the Minnesota
River couid be estabiished. Text to address this issue has
been inserted in the FEIS in the inVoduction to 5ection V.BB.
G. The viability of treaUng residual GISW (that which
escapes designed source containment) was addressed in
the 1994 MSP Decision Report. This approach wouid
necessitate trea6ng ail storm water generated on the airport
during the winter/spring months. The 1994 Decision Report
conciuded that treatment of residuai GISW is not viable at
MSP.
Any system to Veat residuai GISW would face four severe
design constraints:
• cold water temperatures, which gready restrict biological
(treatment) activiiy;
• large and highly variabie volume of flow;
• highly variable organic lands; and
. limited space for pond development at the MSP site.
These factors are addressed in more detaii in new text
provided in Section BB.1.2, and Appendix A.11.
H. See Response C. Section V.BB of the FEIS was
modiFied to discuss the dissolved oxygen standarcl of the
Minnesota River.
�
The luly 1995, memorandum expressed a concom that the potential discharge resuits in a
dissolved oxygen sag that overlaps the existing Metro Wastewater Treatment Plant dischazge and �� �, See Response C.
sag. This was not discussed in the E[S. This is a very important point and could futthec reduce
the availabie AC significandy, especially during peciods that stress the dissolved oxygen
concentrations.
Toxic diseharges ace an acea oFconcern tha[ was not fulty addressed in the EIS, especially if the
discharge remains to the Minnesota River. Dischazges from the esisting or proposed new sites
must not be acutely toxic at the end-of-pipe. To�ticity will need to be eliminated in the �eaz
term, rather chan waiting for the development of new technology.
Based on the limited information from the most recent i�tAC permic and from the EIS, the M.AC
faci(ity will not be able to meet the water quatity cri�eria for either echy(ene or propylene glycol.
One of the references used in the EIS, (Beak Consultants Limited), has toxicity expressed in
microliters per li[er (µi/L) for the deicer compounds UCAR and AR.COPLUS. Wi[hout knowing
the density of these compounds, �tPCA staff cannot converc the toxicity to micrograms per (i[er
(µg/[.) which is the norma( expression used in aquatic roxiciry. As such, the toxicity of these
two compounds cannot be compazed to other gtycot standazds.
The EIS states that by the year 3420, the toxicity problem should be addressed by advances in
deicing technology. The EIS is coaect in that the cucrenc additives used in the deicers contribu[e
to making the deicers much more toxic. However, �he EIS puts a great deai of fai[h in fucure
technology [o make deicers less toxic. The ��tPCA staff cannot agree or disagree wi[h this
promise. The EIS is assuming fu�ure technology will address much of their toxicity probiems.
The current deicers used cceate a three-fotd problem in thac they cause roxiciry from the
additives, they are toxic to aquacic life based on the elemental form of the deicer (the gtycois and
urea), and they creace a high oxygen demand in the water column during their decay process.
Instead of retying on future deicing producu which may or may not be as toxic as the current
deicers, a;reater emphasis should be puc on collecting and ueating more of the free tlow product
which is now entering the Minnesota River.
��
I-38
J. The MAC has taken steps to meet the MPCA's- target
1 mgq limit for un-ionized ammonia by piiot tes8ng
altematives to urea for runway deicing purposes wiih the
uitimate goai of eiiminating the use of urea at MSP.
However, overali aquatic toxiciiy of MSP storm water
discharge has been a relativeiy recent area of discussion
between the MPCA and MAC. As discussed at the May 30,
1996 meeting at the MPCA, the MPCA currently does not
have enough informa8on to give the MAC a c�ear idea of�
what future NPDES requirements wiil be for MSP regarding
totai effluent toxiciiy.
The te� of this section has been revised. AquaUc toxicity
information specific to the current suppliers of aircraft deicing �-
fluid (ADF� is provided. Aiso presented is ciarification
regarding the program envisioned by the MAC to limit the �
aquatic toxiciiy associated with MSP discharge to receiving
waters (see "Aquatic Toxicity" Leading under Section
V.68.1.2).
Section V.BB.1.2 was modified to discuss the toxicity of
potassium acetate and sodfum formate.
7. Bsued on the 1985/7 MPCA Minnesota River Waste Load Allocation, there is essentially no
excess AC in the Iower Minnesota River where the airport discharges, during the summer (page K,
V-251). The scorm wacer mi[iga[ion measures noted in Appendix A(page A.9-3) should be
strongly considered iF summer discharges continue to occur.
3. Severai ciarifications or correc�ions are necessary regarding comments on page V-251:
a. Although it is recognized that Winter WLAs are needed for the (ower Minnesota River and
the Metro strecch of the ivtississippi River, the MPCA has not committed to conducting them. L,
The MAC EIS should be revised accordingly.
b. The AC is a rough estimate only because non-summer coefficients and parame[ers required M�
for the WASP Water Quality model are not available. This caveat should be no[ed
whenever the AC value is used in the EIS.
�. The EIS should have fully discussed the current MAC National Poliutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit and pcovided some detailed information as to how the dischacger
intends to ceach Full comptiance with water quality standards. It was very insufficient in this
topic. Also, the EtS consis[entty uses the year 2020 as the design year and compiiance year �oal.
Justification for this end-point must be established since the ivIPCA believes compliance must be
achieved much sooner than thac. As noced earlier, toxieity will need to be eliminated in the
neaz term, rathet than waiting for the developmenC of new technology. Water quality
standazds in the ySississippi and i�iinnesota Rivers, and any ocher wacers of the state, must be
met in the neaz term, and VIAC is going to need to determine how this is going to be
accomptished.
10. V-249, second paragraph, refers to "a decendon pond which is referred to as Duck Lake."
Duck Lake is a water of the state, and it needs to meet state water quality standards. The
vtPCA has made this comment to the MAC on previous documenu prepared by MAC during
the airpon sicing process. Dischazges to Duck Lake are subject to dischazge limitations, and
prohibicions on end-of-pipe toxicity.
�
K. See Response C.
L. See revised text on this issue in the introduction to
Section V.BB.
M. See Responses C and D.
N. See revised text on this issue under the Regulatory
Background heading on Section V.BB.
The EIS process has required the definition of the various
airport development altematives in terms of their potentiai
for environmental impacL ?hese definitions must be
established so as to ailow for meaningful comparison
between the aitematives. This, in tum, has necessitated the
u6lization of a"design year", for which projec6ons of air
traffic, ground vehicie traffic, and other related factors are
used to define the anaiyticai scenarios and assess absolute
and relative potential for environmental impact. The year
2020 was used in the DEIS because this was the target year
defined by the Minnesota State legislature for which air
transportation requirements wou�d have to be met through
the Dual Track AirpoR Planning Process. The FEIS inciudes
2010 as the design year.
The MAC cannot project with confidence ihe detailed timing
of uture impiementation/development efforts regarding storm
water controi measures. This scheduling wili be estabiished
through NPDES permit and compliance actions.
The MAC has worked with the MPCA Point Source
Compliance Section of the Water Quality Division to
implement on-going enhancements to the storm water
control program at MSP. 1'he MAC has, to date, made major
effo�ts to comply with NPDES requirements as established
by the MPCA. 1'he MAC wiil continue to woric with the
MPCA to maintain NPDES compiiance and improve storm-
water controi through measures and schedules which are
feasibie and which provide appropriate protection for waters
of the state.
Refer to FEIS te� on this overall issue in the introduction to
Section V.BB.
0. (O. This passage has been revised to address the
perspective raised in this comment.
Duck Lake has received untreated runoff from the airport for
many years. This use was acknowiedged by the Minnesota
DNR in a July 1,19931etter to the MPCA and permitted to
1 I. 'Che ueatmen[ of surface cunoti is curtailed at the present Iocation because the airport is P. continue so long as the lake basin remains natural and
landtocked. It is unclear how trea[ment will be upgraded if the airport is expands, leaving even runoff entering the lake is of no worse water qualiiy than has
less room for waste treatment facilities. been historicaily discharged.
12. The impact to lakes and wetlands from airport discharges was not discussed in che necessary Under the MSP Altemative, Duck Lake would be fiiled
derail. The final EIS needs co inctude a discuss of the pocencisi impacts. , Q. because of consWction requirements and replaced with a
detention pond meeting NURP design criteria.
P. it is Vue that significant physical and spatial limita-
tions exist at the overall airport site regarding the develop-
ment of surface water treatment (detention) facilities.
These limitations wili become more pronounced with the
development associated with the MSP Altemative. How-
ever, preliminary engineering anaiysis indicates that there
is sufficient space availabie to develop detention ponds
meeting National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) design
criteria or appropriate equivalents. MPCA staff has
indicated that meeting NURP design criteria will be an
appropriate sizing/design approach for enhancing existing
surface water detention facilities.
Q. TeM has been added in Section V.BB.1.2 to address
this comment
�
C. .round Water
1. Page V-273, paragraph 4. The deep 6edrock valley discussed and shown in figure CC-1 may
not be as extensive as depicted. The iaterpretadon for this bedrock valley is based on only R,
one data point. A ctearer picture of the geology in this aroa and the rest of the Minneapolis-
St Paul (MSP) airport should be in the regott that is due this spring on the area-wide
investigation that is ongoing at MSP. This informadon should be reviewed for inciusion in
the final EIS.
2. V-274, paragraph 2. Ground water sampting has been completed of the newiy instailed
perimeter monitoring wells at MSP. Based on two rounds of sampling, it is true that there are S•
negiigible impacu to the St. Peter aquifer. However, preliminary data from a third round
may indicate a greater impact than thought. Several more rounds of ground water sampling
would have to completed to establish if this is the case. There is currently very tittle data on
ground water quatity of the Prairie du Chien and Jordan aquifecs to make the same claim.
3. V-275, Fueling Operations. Currendy, regulation of the hydrant pipeline system used to fuel -�-,
planes is unknown. We do not know of any maintenance or leak detection procedures used
on this pipeline. This presenu a great risk to unknown and undetected releases at the current
MSP airport. The final EIS should provide information on leak detection and prevention for
the hydrant system pipeline.
4. V-277, Overall Environmentai Consequences. There aze numerous spill and leak sites at
MSP with ongoing cleanup. The tevel of cleanup that wouid be required at the MSP site
would depend on the in[ended use of the land after the airport relocated. There would
certainty be extensive soii and ground water cleanup.
5. V-277, CC.1.3 In addition to the spill control and countermeasure ptan (SPCCP) mentioned
in the DEIS, the Federal Oil Poltution Act requires a Facility Response Plan for the
aboveground storage tank fazm and the hydrant pipeline system. A federal SPCCP is
required for all aboveground storage tanks over 660 gallon capacity. A state "spill bill"
(Minn. Stat ch. 155E) Prevenuon and Response Plan is required for all aboveground storage
tanks greater than 10,000 gallons capacity and for the hydrant pipeline system. The MPCA
has not requested submittai of these various ptans for formal review, and does not know if
they have been completed as required. The final EIS should document the existence of the
additional required spili prevendon plans. Although technically the responsibility of the Fuel
Consortium and individual tenants, it is the MAC responsibility that these issues are
addressed in the EIS.
V-2$8, paragraph 1. Although remedial technology has gready progressed in recent years,
cleanup of fractured bedrock present at the new airport altemative site is still e�mremety ��
difficutt. In addition, ground water contamination ac the location of the new airport
altemarive is a grcater risk to pub(ic health and tho environment thac the current airport. This
is due to drinking water wells located downgradient.
I-40
R. The hedrock surt'ace and Vends for the MSP site were
initially obtained from the bedrock topographic map
developed by Bruce Bloomgren of the Minnesota Geological
Survey. This map was refined based on the comprehensive
compilation of boring logs for the MSP site. While the MPCA
observation that there is only one boring within the bedrock
valley on the MSP property is correct, there are additional
borings on the flanks of the valley that heip define its
location. in addition, Bloomgren (1985) utilized numerous
borings or weiis south of the MSP site to define the bedrock
trends.
The discussion of the bedrock surface and the associated
valleys has been enhanced in the modified EIS texi The
discussion inGudes a brief review of the nature of the various
bedrock units along with a description of the bedrocks
surface and the uppermost bedrock units encountered
across the site. To il�ustrate site geologic conditions and
Vends, geologic cross-sections have been inc�uded along
with the previousiy provided bedrock contour map to better
illustrate site conditions.
S. The sampiing resuits collected tadate have not
idenUfied significant impacts to the St. Peter or deeper
overburden aquifers beneath the MSP site. The third round
of sampiing referred to by MPCA is the November 1995
sampiing in MW-4B which idenGfied a numher of volatile
organic compounds which had not been previously detected
in MW-46 or in sampies from a shailow weil (MW-4A) in this
area. Owing to ihese unexpected resuits, another sampie
was col�ected to assess whether the reported compounds
were present or were apparen8y associated with e�emal
(laboratory or other source) contaminaGon. The December
1995 sample did not detect any compounds, which was
simiiar to the historic sampiing resuits ftom MW-4B. It is
conciuded that the November 1995 sampling was not
representative of aquifer conditions in the area.
In the modified EIS text, the fact that five rounds of sampling (
(through 1996) have not observed significant impacts to
deeper (St. Peter and deep overburden) aquifers at the site
has been referenced. it is also noted that, while there is littie
information regarding the Prairie du Chien/Jordan aquifer
water quality, with limited impacts to shallower aquifers,
impacts to these deeper aquifers are not anticipated.
T. As reported by Signature Flight Support, there are no
design requirements for pipeline consttuction which are
specificaily related to state or federai environmental
regulations. The need for leak protection has been
addressed by meeUng all applicabie general design and
consVuction standards with measures such as shrink wrap
sealing of piping and cathodic protection against rusL
There are no designed ieak detection elements of the
pipeline per se. However, the pipeline system is typically not
operational between the hours of midnight and 5 AM. The
pressure within the system is monitored during these hours;
a marked drop in pressure wouid be indica8on of a leak in
the system.
U. Text has been added to Section V.CC.3 to reference
Signature spiil prevention and response documentation.
V. See Generai Response 1.
As a preface ro the comments provided below, the MPCA staff reviewer could noc draw a
conclusion as to the potential for ground water impacu. The DEIS lacks decailed information
needed. Some of the statemenu made cannot be substantiated because data and foomoces or
rcferences aze not provided. Much of the anatyses that has been conducted as part of this six yeaz
environmental review odyssey has not been included or referenced.
7. The ground water discussion is extremely uneven with faz more focus placed on the Dakoca
Cbunty site than the ivfSP site. Although this was the way the scope said the DEIS wouid be
prepazed, it does not aliow decision makers an oppoctunity to reai(y compaze the two sites
because the DEIS does not present much information on the MSP site.
This DEIS is the culmination of the envirotunental review process for a new airport.
Although further analyses of MSP site hydrogeo(ogy was 'scoped out' of the EIS, there has
been information gathered and presented eazlier in this process that should be included in the
DEIS to present a more balanced review.
8. The interconnectedness of suriace and ground water require a thorough understanding of
surface features, soils, runoFf and infiltration pattems, and the locadon of certain airport
activities to piece together an impression of the potencial for ground water contamina[ion.
The DEIS should provide this type of comprehensive discussion for each site.
'. 9. To provide a more complete picture of the potential for ground water contamination the DEIS
; � should inciude the Fotlowing:
f• A location map of the neazby off-site private and public wells surrounding each site. The
I DEIS discussed the po[en�ial for contamination of public wells; ic shoutd also discuss the
potentiai for contamination of neazby off-site private wells.
• A location map of the findings from the search of the MPCA dump site Tiles that was
conducced eazly in the alternative environmental review process.
• A location map of the findings &om the search that was conducted earty in the atterna[ive
environmentai review process of mining opemtions (sand piu, ;ravel pits, quarries) on or
near the site, inctuding an indication as to whecher the sice is active.
10. The EIS should discuss the po[ential for ground water contamination resutting from the
proposed surface water management scheme.
W.
W. See Response A regarding referenced documents.
The following responses address specific references to
needed information.
As noted in Comment 7, Section V.CC was prepared
consistent with the Scopinq Decision. However, to address
the MPCA's more recent comments, the characterization of
existing geologicai and hydrogeological conditions at the site
in Section V.CC.1 has been enhanced with addiUonai text
and graphics.
X. The discussion of site geologic condi6ons has been
expanded to inciude a presentation of surface geologic
Vends, differentiating surface materiais as clayey or sandy.
The trends are iilustrated on a figure ove�iaying the MAC
facility map. This wiil illustrate areas with a higher vs. lower
potential for releases to the shaliow ground water. it has
aiso been noted that once any impacts hit the water table,
the subsurface geologic materiais and the associated
hydrauiic interacGons wili dictate where contaminants wili
Iikeiy migrate. This informaGon, along with the more detaiied
discussion of geologic trends will help identify areas with a
higher risk of impact to shaliow and deeper ground water. It
is conduded that the geoiogic materia�s beneath the MSP
site provide natural bartiers that shouid minimize the vertical
migration of contamination to deeper aquifers.
Y. As discussed at the June 1 B, 1996 meeting, this
comment generaily pertains to the New Airpo�t Altema6ve.
The revised geologic characterization has further addressed
the limited risk to potabie aquifers underiying MSP. See also
General Response 1.
Z. Surtace water run-off from all operationaf areas is
directed to the storm sewer system. Most grassed ereas
adjacent to paved areas are also served by storm sewer
intakes. The potential for ground water impact from the
storm sewer system is represented by exfiltration from the
Y. storm sewer piping, and infiltralion into soils underiying the
detention basins.
�
11. r1n EIS typically reviews operacion and maintenance plans to help assess the potential for
environmental impact. As the landiord, the MAC may not be responsible for operaaon and AA.
maintenance but somehow the EIS process needs to evaluate standard openting pmcedures
in order to fuily assess the potendal For ground water impacts.
I-41
Refer to Response X for discussion of the relationship
beiween surface water drainage and the potentiai for
environmentai impact to subsurface waters.
AA. The levei of detail identified in this comment was not
called For in the MPCA's June 30,1995 comment letter on
the Second Phase Scopinq Repo�t or proposed in the
Scopina Decision. As discussed at the June 16, 1996
meeting at the MPCA, to idenUty and assess ail significant
operaUon and maintenance plans at the airport in terms of
adequacy of addressing safeguards against ground water
quality impact would be beyond the scope of the EIS
process. individuai tenants with facilities and operations
which have the potential to impact ground water resources
must meet state and federai regulatory requirements for
engineering/design and for operations. Releases to the
environment must be reported and addressed through
cleanup actions according to regulatory requirements.
As addressed in the Response X, once any impacts ftnm
operationai or storagemandling practices reach the water
table, subsurface geologic materiais and the hydraulic
interactions will dictate where contaminants would migrate.
Relevant inFormation characterizing the geologic and
hydrogeologic setting of the site is presented in Section
V.CC.1, which has been enhanced. Geologic materiais
beneath the MSP site provide natural barriers that should
minimize verticai migration of contamination to deeper
aquifers.
12. Tenancs at MSP are licensed hazardous waste generators. The EIS should list those thac are
licensed, list the waste that they generate and briefly detail the storage, handling, and B•
contingency acdon planning. _
13. There have been aumerous spills and leaks reported at MSP ovec the yeazs, many resuiting in
soil and ground water contaminetion. Spilis and leaks aze an inevitable consequence of
operating an airport. The ETS necds to provide the reader with a feel for how common spills C.
and leaks aze at the cutrent airport and what, if anything, would be different about ihe new
airport (expanded MSP or Dakota county site) that would reduce the (ikelihood of spiils and
leaks and resulting envimnmental contamination. The discussion of the potential for ground
water contamination is incomplete without this information.
t4. The storage and distribudon method and the quandty of deicing chemicals (including
decaking agents) at the airport should be included in the EIS. Describe the chemical
constituents of the decaking agenu. A(ist of any other liazardous substances and their
storage and distribution methods should a(so be inctuded.
I5. Health Risk Level (HRL) values have replace Recommended Allowable Limiu (RAL)
values. Ptease update all appropriate informauon to reflect the change.
16. Figure CC-1 needs to be revised. The key does not match the map (Og in the key is Osp on
the map). The feanues mentioned in the text need to be labeled on the map (Post Road and FF.
Goid Concourse, etc.). Flow direction arrows would be helpful.
17. The EIS should reference ali materials that support the following statement, made on page V- �G.
2�4 under the heading: Aquifer Sensitiviry. "The confining layer provide a barrier to
potential downwazd migradon of contaminants:'
18. The DEIS did not evaluate the potendal environmental impacu during construction of the
airport and discuss mitigation measures.
The potential impacu to surface and ground water and air during consttuction should 6e inc(uded
- in the DEIS.
The EIS should indicate how MAC will assure that construcrion is cazried out in an
environmentally sound manner.
The EIS should list the hazazdous substances, including explosives, that wouid be on-site
during construcrion periods and discuss the potential for environmental contaminadon.
The EIS shouid discuss staging azeas during construction and the potential for environmental
contaminadon.
HH.
19. The changes that have to be made to the ground water secdon of the DEIS to address the
MPCA staffcomments aze substantial. The MPCA staff requ�sts an opportunity to review (�'
the rovised section or other cespoase to our comments before the final EIS is printed. We can
be available for discussion and will provide nearly immediate turnazound on review.
I-42
BB. The ievel of detail identified in this comment was not
cailed for in the MPCA's June 30,1995 comment letter on
the Second Phase Scoping Report or proposed in the
Scopinq Decision. As discussed at the June 18,1996
meeting at the MPCA, it is beyond the scope of this EIS
process to document all of the information calied for in this
comment. See also Response AA.
CC. This comment has been addressed with additionai
te� irrSec6on V.CC.2. This teM states that, in light of the
large number of fueling operaUons at the airport, spilis do
occurwith some regularity. Reporting and response
requirements to individual spilis are estabiished and
administered by state and federai reguiatory bodies.
DD. The primary ground surFace deicing chemicals used at
MSP are urea and salt. Quantities of potassium acetate and
sodium formate are aiso stored at MSP. Urea and sait are
stored inside buildings. Potassium acetate, a liquid product,
is stored in tanks. Sodium fortnate is currentiy stored in one
ton bags on pallets adjacent to the sait storage facilily. It is
anticipated that sodium formate will eventuaily become the
primary runway deicing chemical (replacing urea). Under
these circumstances, the sodium forrnate will be stored in an
enclosed facility.
EE. Text has been revised to reference HRL vaiues only
as suggested.
FF. The previous Figure CC-1 is now Figure CC-6. The
key for this figure has been revised as suggested, and
Post Road has been depicted on the new Figure CC-1.
Groundwater flow directions are depicted on Figures CGS
and CC-9.
GG. The wording has been revised from'The confining
layers provide a barrier to poten8al downward migration of
contaminants." to'The confining layers limit the poten6al for
downward vertical migration of contaminants." This provides
a more generalized statement.
HH. SecGon V.E, Construction Impacts, has been revised
to address the impacts of the staging of the 2020 p�an.
II. The revised section and comment responses were
submitted to the MPCA in July 1996.
[Z, Noise
MPCA noise program staff have no commenu on the DEIS. The anatysis seems to quantify
noise impacu appropriately.
F.. Wetlands
i. The DEIS should indicate that Clean Water Act requirements woutd aiso be applicab(e to
impacts to wedand caused by draining or excavating, not just filling.
2. It shouid be noted that an individuai Ctean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality
Certification from the MPCA will be required as part of any individua! 404 permit obtained
from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
The Tabtes DD-i and DD-2 for the MSP alternative and Tables DD-3 for the New Airport
Altemative indicate the wet(ands on site and the proposed impacts to those wetlands. The
DEIS indicates the proposed impacu to wetlands aze unavoidable and that it was not possibie
to provide compensatory wetland mitigation on-site. There was no information in the DEIS
to justify these statemenu.
(_ The DEIS shouid provide justification information in order thac the MPCA can concur that
, the proposed impacts to wetlands and potential mitigation are accuracely and comple�ely
� ` described in the DEIS.
The applicant for any Clean Water Act Permit and Water Quality Certification will be
required to satisfy the requirements of Minn. R. pt. 7050.0186. This water quality rute
requires the appticant to establish there aze no prodent and feasible alternadves for any
proposed physical alteradon of any wetlands and that the sequence mirigadon of avoid,
rr��n;,,,;ze and compensatory mitigation is provided foc in accordance with the rules.
JJ. Item 1. It is not anticipated that the MSP
Alternative will involve any wetland drainage or
excavation; thus, only filling impacts have been
discussed.
JJ.
item 2. Section I.D. on page 1-4 of DEIS lists
a Section 401 water quality certification as one ot the
governmental approvals required for the MSP
Alternative.
KK.
Item DD.13. indicaces that a stormwater outfall will be constructed in wetlands for the MSP
alternative. There is not enough detail in the DEIS to decermine if the proposed dischazge of
stormwater to wetlands will alter and impact the wetland either by excavation, inundauon or (,L,
pollutant impact by the dischazge. This evaluation should be provided in order to evaluate
the potential impact to wetlands that will have a stormwater dischazge. These wettands may
also be considered as significantly adversely impacted and need to be evaluated.
f�Rtil?�iR:7
KK. The airport improvements called for under the
MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan will occupy
essentialiy alI of the undeveloped land remaining wifhin
MSP boundaries. Given the distribution of wetlands on
MSP property, there is no way that any of these areas
can reasonably 6e avoided given the spatial density of
structural improvements to occur at MSP(see Figures 6
and DD-1 of the DEIS). Further, if preservation of such
areas could be accomplished, their functions and
values would be substantially reduced by the level of
development to occur on surrounding up�ands. A more
detailed sequencing analysis will be included in wetland
permit appiications for the MSP Alternative.
LL. See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Response F.
1. Indirect Source Permit (ISP) Requiremenu: Regazdless of the alternative chosen, an ISP
would be required for this project A detailed air quality analysis will be needed for the M M. MM. Comment noted.
terminal and associated roadways as part of the ISP review process.
I-43
2. Transportadon Access: The DEIS states that sevecal roadway improvemenu woutd be
needed to pmvide adequate access and capacity to either the MSP or the Dakota County
airport altemadve. The DEIS does not fully address the tcansit options that must be
considered to meet the demands. 'Ihe 1991 Intermodal Surtace Transportation Efficiency Act
(ISTEA) makes cleaz that alternadve modes of transit must not be considered secondary to
highway construction for meeting travel demand. By its explicit designation of equal federal
participation in funding roadway and transits projects, and its even greater funding of high
occupancy vehicle (HOI� lanes, Congress has given guidance that should be applied to ei[her
airport alternadve. Though the source of funding for the necessary improvements has not yet
been clarified, MPCA staffbelieves that transit options (busways, (ight rail transit, and HOV
lanes ) should be considered for both altemadves.
NN. Further environmental evaluation of the road
projects will be required and wili consider Vansit options
as appropriate and required under the requirements of the
ISTEA. The use of transit as a mode serving each of the
three aitematives was considered in the modeling
assumptions. However, given funding considerations,
only a transit levei-of-service similar to current service
levels was assumed, so as to provide a worst case
evaluation for the DEIS.
Impacts from the proposed project on the non-trunk highways especiat(y county roads
expected to be affected by the project and major deficiencies on other e:cisting systems
should be fully addressed. Projected devetopment expected to be induced by the New
Airport alternadve in Dakota County appears to be in the !ow end. This projection seems to 0�. 00. See General Response 1.
affect the reliabiliry of the uafiic forecast provided for the county road system in Dakota
County, specifically County Road 42. The forecast volumes for this coadway shouid be
rechecked in the final EIS.
Although the Dakota County airport site is located ouuide of the nonattainment area and is
not directly governed by the rules affecting such azeas, a conformity analysis is required.
While the Dakota County airport is not itsetf subject to a regional emission analysis and
tmtuportadon conformiry determiaation, the regionally significant roadways needed to serve
the new site or the eacisring MSP site would be subject to both regional and project tevel
conformity requirements. Additionatly, the vehicle miles traveled estimates used in our
emission inventory included all roadways in the seven-county metro azea and Wright County
regazdtess of the attainment boundary.
PP. � PP. See Generai Response 1.
Tfie DEIS listed several roadways that needed improvemenu for both the MSP and the
Dakota Counry altematives, but the DEI3 fails to cleazly iden6fy the sources of funding for
these improvemenu. If federal funding is proposed, it must come from a Yiscally constrained
hansportation ptan and TIP consistent with 23 CFR part 450 and 40 Chapter 1, part 51.408. ��•
'Ihe extent to which each alternative can meeu these requiremenu should be discussed in the
final EIS.
5. In the DEIS sectiou: Methodology and Assumptions, the MOBILESa model assumes an anri-
tampering program, but does not assume the Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) program for
the 2020 emission estimates. Curreatly, the two programs are being administered together
and cannot be conducted separatety. Therefore, if the UM progrdm is not assumed as one of
the input parameters, the anu-tampering program should also be dropped.
Also, the microscale analysis should be extended to include more intersecdons and on- and
off-ramps in the MSP altemative.
QQ. AII highway projects proposed for the MSP
Altemative wiil have to be included in a conforming
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) before they
can be funded. The Metropoiitan Council Transportation
Policy Plan adopted in 1997 inciudes the projects
needed for the MSP Aitemative, without a source of
funding. Funding for these projects will be idenGfied if and
when the legislature authorizes implementa6on of the
2020 comprehensive pian. See aiso Appendix F and
General Response 1.
RR. The air quality analysis has been revised without
the anti-tampering program assumption. For additionai
microscale analysis and metered ramp analysis, see
revised Section V.A.1.2 and City of Richfieid
Responses BB and CC.
Thc design of the chosen altemadve shoutd include detailed construcrion staging plans that SS. Detaiied staging plans for the 2010 LTCP have not
oudine the soquence of construction activities, including strategies for managing trnffic been completed. An expanded discussion of potential
during construction of these proposed improvements. The chactges in traffie patterns which impacts due to roadway improvements and con-
wiil occur during the improvemenu of the proposed roadways will impact air quality in some struction activity are contained in Section V.A.1.2
str�et intersecrions adjacent to the project areas. Detailed assessmenu of these impacts S$. Air Quality Impacts - MSP Aiternative. The naed for a
should be presented in the ISP when detailed designs are developed. The ISP application traffic management plan is mentioned under A.1.3
should include a descripuon of the construction phasing and the tmffic control plan for each Mitigation Measures - MSP Aiternative and A.2.3.
phase, and also assess how kaffic on local streets would be affected by the divecsions caused Mitigation Measures - No Aetion Aiternative.
by the proposed project.
���
State of Wisconsin \ DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
S WIECONSIN
:G9�. 0� NtiNMI RElOUI1Cp
Oaapa E. Meyw
Soeraury
January 10, 1996
Ms. Jenn Unruh
Matropolitan Airports Commission
6040 28th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55450
1300 Weat Cloiremont Avanu�
P.O. Bo� 4001
Eeu Cidro, Wlneonain 54702�3001
TELEPNONE 77 S•838•3700
TEI.EFAX 716•839�8078
TOD 715•839•2788
IN REPLY REFER T0: 1600
SUBJECT: MSP Dual Track Airport Planning Process, Draft Environmental
Impact StaCement (DEIS)
Dear Ms. Unruh:
The Department appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above documenC.
We racognize the substantial efforts of the Metropolitan Airports Commission
(MAC), cooperating agencies and consultants to develop a comprehensive DEZS
that is responsive to the long list of issues identified by the public and
interasted parties.
Th�, recent announcement by Northwest Airlines of a modified MSP alternative
warrants consideration as part of the EIS process. The final EIS should A. A. See Genera) Response 3.
include an evaluation of such degree necessary as to fully determine the
vlability of this option.
There are many points in the DEZS which the Dapartment agrees with or has no
comment. Commenes provided 6elow list poincs with which we have questions or
disagree and believe should be modified in the final EIS. These are listed in
tha sama order as presented in tha draft.
1. Execucive Summary (Supporting discussion may follow an comments
} regarding subsequent sections of the document).
a. Page ii. Description of tha No Action alternative does noc cieariy B g, RUnway 4-22 extension is clearly identified as
point out Runway 4-22 extension is the base condition. Any part of this alternative in Section III. The text has been
additional projects beyond che 95-97 Capital Improvemant Program revised re ardin pro ects be ond 1997.
could be permitted, but only by MAC and/or legislative approval. 9 9 � y
b. Page iv, third full paragraph. Add language to first sentence: '
Although there aze substantial imnacts for each of the alternatives C
the environmental evaluation...
c. Page iv, third pazagraph. We strongly disagree, as noted in
subsequent co�ents,•to the third sentance, and suggest it be
changed to: Substantive diffarences occur in both the
social/economic and natural er�vironmene categories,
....-:—.—s-- ._. .
d. We do not agree with the highllghcad £indings on page iv.
Specifically, a bullat should be added describing significanc
induced development that would occur azound Che Nev Airport
alternacive resulting in land use changes fram =ural to co�ercial,
industrial, and residential covering thousands of acres; and the
inconsistency of such davelopment with Mecropolitan Council attempts
to contain u=ban spzawl within existing Meero Area boundaries and an
associated increased demand for public services to impacted
co�unities. Secondly, ic is incredulous to conclude that impacts
on the natural environmant�for all alternatives are relatively
minor. Cansidering the New Airport footprint covers over 14,000
acres and considering the thousands of additional acreage resulting
from induced development, easily 20,000 acres of undeveloped land
would be lost or greatly diminished in value as viable wildlife
habitat. Th+s does not consider tha indir>ct habitat 3agradation co
land-based and watez based biological communities resulting from
human use, pollution generated, toad kills, acc. From our
perspective, to not acknowledge the signiEicant environmental
disturbance from a Naw Airport alteznative and its associatad
induccd development in the singlemost major deficiency of the DEIS.
I-45
�
C. The text has been revised.
D. The text has been revised.
E. � E. See General Response 1.
2
e. Summary of Impacts Table
#7. Wildlife habitat will be lost or severely degraded, not
displaced. To limit tha New Airporc impacted area to oniy che F'. F. See Gene1'el Response 'I.
6865 acres that will be graded fails to acknowledge the full
acreaga impacted due to human use disturbanca, induced
devalopment, etc. We believa chis number would easily exceed
20,000 acres through tha 2020 planning period.
-#23-25, Induced Socioeconomic (Devalopmant) Impacts. Acreage (�. G. See GeneraiResponse1.
impacted by induced davalopment should he providad.
Raview is neaded of tha No Action alternative listed impacts.
For instance; how is 120 acres of biotic communities impacced �"�. H. This wouid be the no action effect of estimated
by Nu accion? Why should 2800 acres of farmland be iosc <#17)? residentiai development related to the new airport affected
environment. See General Response 1.
We agree with page 111-� chac "impiicie with .Iaw Airpo:t
alCernative is that the existing MSP site would ba
redaveloped." Wa disagrea that the.impact/cost of this should
he deferred to a possible later environmencal review. If
impact/costs cannot yat be calculaced, tha FEIS, including tha
Executiva Su�ary, shauld clearly describe the potential for
significant effects resulting from redevelopment, including (.
ultimate disposition of the proparty, demolition costs,
redevalopmenc costs, and pocential for significanc
anvironmental clean-up coscs. These costs impacts could
substantially alter eoeal project costs for the New Airport
altarnative. At earlier Task Forca meatings we have heard
staeements that any demolition/clean-up costs would be a"wash"
if che exiscing MSP property wara sold for private'developmant.
If tha FEIS concains such a conclusion, the basis/justification
should be provided.
2. Sact3on III, Alternacives
This section should not include "project goals" or "measures of
performance" for any of the alternatives. Coal discussion is suitable J,
foz ehe Puzposa and Need section; "measures o£ performance" in the
Etrvironmencal Consequences section. Accordingly, sections B.1.2, B.2.2,
and B.3.1 should be delated or moved as indicated above.
i. See General Response 1.
J. The goals and objectives described in Section II;
Purpose and Need, estab�ish the general requirements to
be addressed by the aiternatives. The more detailed
measures of performance included in Section Iii,
Altematives, are provided in accordance with CEQ
Regulations to "present the envirorimental impacts of the
proposai and the aiternatives in comparative form, thus
sharpiy defining the issues and providing a ciear basis for
choice among options by the decision-maker and the
pubiic."
a, Page 111-5, last paragraph in Section B.2. The last two sentences
should be daleted and a naw section added in Environmancal
Consequences discussing MSP redevalopmenc undar a New Airport {�(. K. See GeneralResponsel.
alternacive. To simply dafer this i�sue to a possible later
environmental review fails to evaluate a reasonably foreseeabla
outcome of the New Aizport alternative, and warzants full
consideration under NEPA zegulations.
b. If saction B.2.2 is not deletad o= relocated, wa suggast
- goal A, bullet #1, includa energy losses from increased travel
discance to tha New Aizport.
- goal A, bullet #3, include acreaga lossed from induced
devalopment,
- goal B, bullet #1, note that improved aviacion system
efficiency with the New Airport altemative is offset by
decreased access efficiency for ai=port users.
L.
c. Section B.3, last setttence. Note that subsequant separate MAC or ��
legislativa action to expand capacity (i.e., such as hy recent
approval of zunway 4-22 extension) is possible.
d. If seceion B.3.1 is not delecad or zelocated, wa suggast bullec #2,
regional economic devalopment, is strongly hiased in favor of either
build altarnative. This saction discussas, in tnree locacions, the
sia_nificant adverse impact to level of servica by the No Action
alternative. It is the only raference found in the entira DEIS to a
significant impact for any alternative. Tha comparat3ve casual
disregard, as shown when describing impacts to the natural
emironmanc as relacivaly minor (page iv), is inexcusable
considering chat 20,000 acres or more of vildliEa habitat will be
eliminated or severely dngradad under thn Nav Airport altsrnativa
(fron dirace loss or lnduced secondary denelopment).
I-46
L. � See General Response 1.
M. The purpose of a no action aiternative is to compare
the impacts associated with implementing a proposed
action with the impacts of not implementing the action.
For the Dual Track process, the proposed action is the
expandedfimproved airport-related facilities required to
meet 2010 demand ievels, as shown in the MSP 2010
Long Term Comprehensive Plan. The no acUon
aitemative, therefore, reflects the airport without these
capacity enhancements.
N. The Executive Summary has heen revised. See
also General Response 1.
3. Section IV, Affac[ad Environment.
Th3s section is extremely undardescribed, particularly compared to the �. O. This section has been revised, but still remains a
Alternativas section. We recognize that addicional discussion on che briefdescriptionoFthegeneraisettingforthealternatives
environmental setting is provided in the subsequent "consequences"
seccion. 2f chis seccion is left as is, ic would be even more under consideration,a detailed description for each impact
appropriate to delete/relocate "measures of performanne" discussion from category is inciuded in Section V.
the Alcernacives section.
Section V, Environmental Consequences
a. Part B, Siotic Communities
1. LimiCing the Area of Potential Effect (APE) to the airport
property (MSP or New) and limitad of£-site areas f,i.e., roads,
storm sewer, bird-aircraft hazard, wetlands, etc.) fails to
fully describe biotic communities impacted, particularly for
the Naw Airport alternative . P. P. The APE for MSP is not iimited to airport property. It
inciudes off-airport roadway improvements.
For example, page V-91 describes induced development impacts
resulting in the loss of 6,000-10,000 acres of off-site
farmlan,,�� around the New Airport site due to new residence lot
size �b'f1e"�' There is no consideration of the associated loss of
wildlife habitat and impact to the biocic community.
2. Seccion C.2.2 and table C-2 characterizes the wildlife habitac
affected by che New Airport as ehose areas to be graded. This
acreage is further reduced in tahle C-3 considering already
developed land provides no wildlife habitac, and table C-3 (,�, Q, See GeneralResponse1.
tocals are carried forward to the Execucive Summary table. Not
only does chis fail to reflect habitat losses associated wich
induced development on farmland (previous commenc), it also
fails to acknowledge the degradation to wildlife habitat caused
by airport operation and associaced human use disturbances on
the +6,400 acres oi non-graded airport property.
� 3. Page V- 33, bottom, notes all overflights will be at altitudes
above 2,000 feee from selecc identified wacerfowl use areas. f2. R. See GeneralResponsel.
This confliccs with scacemencs at the top of pages V-44 and 45
thac say New Airport approach flighc cracks will result in a
substantial proportion of aircraft arrival over these same
areas ac altitudes of 2,000 feec or less.
b. Part H.2.1, Endangered and Threatened Species. APE Eails to � S.I S. See GeneralResponse1.
acknowledge potential impants resulting from thousands of acres of
induced davalopment around tha New Airport site.
c. Parc I, Economics. This section is inadequate in that it does not
describa tha pocencially significanc adverse economic impacts (i.e., 'T'. T. See GeneralResponsel.
losc revenue, possible relocacion) [o existing businesses around :fSP
resulcing from its closure and relocation to the New Airport site.
This discussion is particularly important given points raised abouc
the adverse economic impacts resulting from the No Action
alternative on pages III-9 and 10.
d. Page V-56, Part I. It is essential thac financing plans for each u, I U. Financial plans forthe aitematives are discussed in
alternacive are provided in the FEIS in order to decermine if the Duai Track Technical Report. This document is
implementation is feasible/viable and funding sources. incorporated by reference in Section IX of the FEIS.
e. Parc J, Energy Supply and Natural Resources. Given its more zemote
distance from the Twin Cities, it is hard to imagine that mocor v, V. See GeneralResponse 1.
vehicla fuel consumption co access the New Airport site is only
slightly higher than that.expected for the MSP/No Action
alternativas.
I-47
f. Park K, Farmland
S•
Section K.2.2 seems to present conflicting stataments in itself and
other sections of the DEIS regarding farmland losses from induced
development for tha Naw Airport alternative. Page V-89 says 17,000-
19,000 acres of agricultural land, including 3,000-5,000 around the
site, would be lost to development. Pages V-89 and 90 noce
Metropolitan Council forecasts chat expected commercial/industrial
development would not be located in rural townships or near highway
interchanges. Fiva case studies suggest otherwise. Page V-91
forecasts 1075 new residences in tha four townships closest Co the
New Airport, wich an expacted loss of 6,000-10,000 acres of farmland
due to lot siza alona. Thase inconsistencies should be corrected
here, in Section K.4 and in the Executive Su�ary,
W.
W. See General Response 1.
Page V-91 gives mention to the possible prospect of higher density
planned residantial communities and an outward shift for the MUSA X. X. See GeneralResponse 1.
line to provide sewer service. Zt should be clearly noted thac such
a shi£t and the New Airport alternative overall is directly contrary
to fasmland preservation efforts noted on page V-85, noC to mention
other Minnesota planning efforts to control urban sprawl £rom the
Twin Cities (Minnesota EQB, Redefining Progress, Working Toward a
Sustainable Future, 1994).
We agree with the statement near the top of page V-94 that the New
Airport alternative would convert Dakota County to a non-
agricultural community. We disagree with statements in Section K.4 Y. Y. See GeneralResponse 1.
noting the impact of the New Airport alternative would be minimal in
terms of lost Minnesota farmland and agricultural economy. Whila
racognizing Dakota County impacts would ba major (significant is a
becter word here), it is exactly these kinds of incremencal
conversions of rural lands to urban lands that hava prampced efforts
to preserva farmland and control sprawl.
Induced Socioeconomic Impacts
This section is a disappointment. Tha scope of this analysis,
limited to population, number of household, employmenc, lodging
rooms, office and manufacturing space needs etc. is too narrow to
provide a£ull reflection of induced development, particularly that
associated with tha New Airport alternative, How much land would be
needed to acco�odate population and husiness expansion? Wttera
would this expansion ba located? What added public servica demands
would be placad on nearby communities? Whae are the abilities of
those communities to accommodace such demands?
Answers to these questions are needed for Wisconsin communities to
proparly plan for future davelopment, especially considering the
roughly projected additional 108 population and household growth
anticipated with a New Airport alternative. It is particularly
relavant in Prescott where ptojected population/household growth
without a New Airport is project=d to increasa about 50$, but double
that with a New Airport.
We also wondar i£ estimates are understated given such intangibles
as: lower Wisconsin proparty acquisition casts; lower property
ta�ces; lower Wisconsin worker compensation rates; and highway access
improvements to the New Airport site also improving business access
to Twin Cities markets. We axpect Prescott and other Wisconsin
communitias could experience the sama explosion of Twin Cities
outmigration that has emerged recently in Hudson.
I
Furthermore, regarding the projected 1125 new households in outlying
Pierce County areas projected in Table N-11, expecting this
development to occur in rural areas with rasidential zoning
requiring large lot sizes �i.e., five acres or more), it can ba
expected that 5000 acres or more of rural farmland, woodland, etc.
may he losc or degradad as a result of New Airport induced
developmenc. Such an impact is contrary to the statement on paga V-
93 thae indicates induced development impacts on agricultural land
will be negligible. Tha DEIS further fails to consider che
associaced impacts of such development on lost or degraded wildlifa
habitat in Wisconsin.
Finally, there is no proposed mitigation to halp Wisconsin
communitias deal with dramacic new growth pressures resulting from a
New Airport. This could be perceived to demonstrate an unneighborly
attitude fxom Minnesota that thare will be induced davelopment in
Wisconsin from the Minnasota's Naw Airport, but this is solely
Wisconsin's issue to deal with.
T�48
Z, � Z. See Generai Response 1.
AA. See General Response 1.
BB. Sea Generai Response 1.
h. Part 0- Land Use
Given earlier comments 4.a., 4.b., and 4.i., it appears chat the
total acreage of land use changes could easily be higher than the
24,510 acres described in Tab1e 0-1. These numbers should be
modified accordingly. We noce thae Table 0-1 agricultural land CiCi. CC. See Gen2�21ReSponSe1.
Cotals are nearly 22,000 acres (not counting a possible 5,000 acre
or more impact in Wisconsin - see above comment). This is
considerably differene than numbers shown in che Executive Summazy
or Farmland sections.
i. Section Q - Noise
The summary noise sections (Q.1.4 and Q.2.2s) should clearly explain
that FAA regalations re�uire areas impactad by aircraft noise
greacer than DNL 65 require mitigaCion. It should emphasize that
the number of persons within DNL 65 concour at existing MSP will
dacrease from 22,090 in 1994 to 7350 by 2005. It should point out
that most, if not all, of che people who reside near the existing
airport are already exposed to other background noise levels due to
the surrounding urban seCting. It should point out that, though
fewer people (175) would be exposed to DNL 65 noise levels at and
around the New Airport, many other people who reside in the
comparatively rural and background noise quieter setting surrounding
the new site w311 be exposed to a much more dramacic increase in
noise (even if lower than DNL 65) than compared to existing MSP.
Finally, this section should conclude thac the noise impact from the
New Airport would be significantly greater than the noise impact
relief provided by relocation away from existing MSP.
Part R, Parks and Recreation
DD. Mitigation is based not only on the levei of sound
exposure (i.e., DN�) but aiso on the type of land use.
Certain land uses are considered compatible within the
DNL 65, while others wou�d require mitigation. Appendix
DD. A.3 presents noise compatibility criteria based on FAA
guidelines and lists the level of mitigation that would be
required. The mitigation pian developed by the MSP
Noise Mitigation Committee is presented in Appendix B of
the FEIS. See aiso Generai Response 1.
This section should note that, while park and recreation near6y the
New Airport may not be exposed to noise levels within the DNL 65
contour, increased and persistent noisa levels ;�ill occur above EE. EE. See GeneralResponse 1.
existing levels and thereby adversely impacc the quality of the
recreation experience, including those for users on the Lower St.
Croix National Scenic Riverway.
k. Part W, Transportation Access
This section needs to be expanded to evaluate the economic and
'� operation impacts on surrounding public and privace airports as a
result of a New elirport alternative.
1. Part U, Section 4(£) Impacts
� FF. I FF. See General Response 1.
Section V.2.2 should note chat while there are boch direct and
indisect impacts co parks/recreation and wildlifa lands from the Naw
Airport alternacive, and though thasa may be considered minoz, chere
is still an impact. For instance, there mill ba alavated noise GG. GG. See GeneralResponse 1.
lavals from airport overflighcs, though perhaps not within che DNL
65 contour. There will also be increased area population from
induced development thac can be expectad to increase recreation use
demand on park/recreacion lands.
m. Part V, Solid Waste Impacts
This section ignores tha prospect of potential hazardous waste
issues such as spills, hazard materials storage, and hazardous aasta
transport. These issues should be addressed for each alternative . HH. HH. The potential for fuel spiils at MSP was discussed in
In particularly, the DEIS noeas on page 111-5 that if a New Airport Section V.CC.1.2 of the DEIS. See Generai Response 1.
is developed, the existing MSP site would be redeveloped. As part
of the redevelopment, it can be expected that hazardous material
wasce and spill sites would be encouncered and possibly require
clean-up at considerable cost. This issue should not be deferred
for possible lacer consideration.
n. Part BB, Surfaca Water Quality
Onsite treatment (detention) of stormwater before discharge to tha
Mississippi Rivez is acceptable. The detention basins should be
designed to maximize cha removal o£ BOD, solids, and nucrients
befora theis discharge to surface water.
The proposed discharge location to the Mississippi River is noc
water quality limited with respect to dissolved o�cygen at the
present time. However, it is not clear how che assimilative
capacity of the Mississippi River was calculated with respect to tha
zona of impact. Furtha=, it is not clear if other potential impacts
of other new (i.e., SE Regional Plant) or other wastewater
discharges wera considered in this evaluation.
I-49
ii. See General Response 1.
The site of the proposed dischazge is a section of the Mississippi
Rivez that hae very high recreational boating use. The discharge of
pollutants typical af stormwacer runoff (oils, solids, and other
debris) can be expected. �Efforts to concain this material using JJ. JJ. See Generalflesponse 1.
properly dasigned and oparated stormwater detention basins or
waetewater treatment systems will be highly desirabla.
If the New Airport alternative is forwarded for implementation, cha
Departmenc will be interasted in evaluating proposed NPDES permits
for wastewater or large stormwater dischargas to Pool 2 or 3 of the
Mississippi River.
o. Part EE, Wild and Scenic Rivezs
This section should explain that, though neither DNL 65 noisa levels
or overflights under 2000 feat from New Airport operations would
occur over the Lower St. Croix, there will still be elavatad and
persistent noise levels fram overflights. Tttese will adversaly
impact recreation usars. This is particularly avident givan tha
describad likaly genaral aviation diversion caused by designatad New
Airport'airspaca. This section should also mention the probable
increasad recreation demands on the St. Croix Naeional Scenic
Riverway resulting from tha New Airport. This is natabla
considering Rivezway managing agency ongoing efforts to limit
boating pressure due to ovarcrowding, user conflicts, and safety
problems.
5. Summary Comment
The DEIS is a lengthy docwnent and coneains a tremendous amount of
information. As noced above, we believe some discussion of several
issuas needs revision. We also believe the FEZS should attempc to
bettar synthasize Chis information in the Execucive Summary to clearly
explain and compare the costs and benefits of the various options.
It appears clear tn us that L•he Nec� Airport alteraatice �hould not ba
selected. Tha cost difference of building a New Airport compared to the
MSP alternative is dramatic. The reduced revenues or cost of relocation
te businesses near MSP, though not even mentioned in the DEIS, can ba
axpected to be in the millions of dollars, and would cartainly adversely
impact tha local and regional economy.
The rural character of Dakota County and portions of othar Wisconsin and
Minnesoea counties would be severaly changad by a New Airport to a more
urban setCing, adversaly impacting agricultural sustainability not to
mention tha quality of lifa for thousands of residants. Such
davelopment is contrary co ongoing Minnesota and Wisconsin efforts to
prasarve agricultural lands and control urban sprawl.
The direct and indiract loss or degration to biotic communities from a
New Airport covers more than 20,000 acres and represents a significant
loss to biological diversity and sustainahiliry to the region. Littla
impacts such as these would occur for either tha No Action or MSP
alternativa.
Though noise levels around MSP are undoubtedly a nuisance, tha extent of
the problem will ba dramatically reduced within the next decade.
Background uzban noiee levels nearing those.just outsida MSE's DNL 65
noisa concour will persist so that overflight genarated noise is
indistinguishable. Quieter hackground noise levels in rural areas
surrounding the New Airport site will be severely altered, aven if not
at or above DNL 65 levels. Thus, it can be expected chat a greatar
adverse noise impact would occur by airport ralocation to tha naw sita,
than any anticipaced relief benefits provided by MSP closure.
Thase factors should be clearly e�cplainad in the FEIS so that dacision-
makers can plainly see relocation to the Naw Airport sita is noc
justified.
Thank you for the opportunity to co�ent. If you have questions, pleasa
contact ma at (715) 839-3747.
Sincerely,
T� Love j o , '
Environmental Impact Coordinator
Don Winter - WD
Marty Seel�an - DOT 6, Eau Claira
Senator Alice Clausing
Representative Sl:eila Harsdorf
I-50
KK.
KK. See General Response 1.
.�.�°'+�.
� �`�
�o�,��� Wisco�sin Depar4nent Of Transportation
' Olvtslon a/Htghways
Ol/lce o/ Envl�nmental Anaiyafa
1802 Sh�boyQ�n AvmuNRoom IS1
M�dbort, N7 1370R791L
r.�.pnonc /eaal �aaa�a�
FN4• (60a/ 1Q6781!
February 13, 1996
Ms. Jenn Unruh
MeVopolitan Airports Commission
6040 - 28th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55450
Ms. Unruh:
We have reviewed the Draft Environmental impact Statement (DEIS) for the "Dual Track
Airport Planning Process", Hennepin and Dakota Counties, MN. Our comments are directed
to the effects the different aitematives would have on the transportation infrastructure and
traffic in the State of Wisconsin. The foliowing people should be contacted as needed
regardi�g the subjects indicated:
Marty Beekman, P.E. of the Wisconsin Department of Transportation's
�sDOTs) Eau Claire O�ce should be contacted if you need ciarification of
the comments. Mr. Beekman's telephone number is (715) 836-4628.
If you have questions regarding the environmental or commenting processes of
WisDOT, you should contact Jon Novick of my staff at (608) 266-8287.
Questions conceming travei forecasting and tra�c modeling should be directed
to Don Ueimen at (608) 266-1857.
Dan Finkeimeyer should be contacted regarding issues related to Wisconsin airspace
and airports. Mr. Finkeimeyers telephone number is (608) 266-7655.
It is felt that the discussion of induced deveiopment impacts in Wisconsin for the Dakota
County site have, in general, been addressed. We assume that the local planners in Pierce
County will comment on the details of induced development from their perspective.
Based o� the tra�c projections and capacity criteria ouUined in the DEIS, it is noted that rivo
segments of Wisconsin highway entering Prescott wili need capacity expansion to four lanes.
We are concemed, however, that the traffic in Wisconsin traveling to the Dakota Counry site
was too widely distributed over various Wisconsin and Minnesota routes. It is our opinion A. A. See Generai Response 1.
that this results in the misleading assumption that no serious problems would ensue in the
State of Wisconsin or on the TH 95/CH 15 cortidor in Minnesota. Furthermore, the various
routes are not compatibie wfth user expectations of interstate access to an intemational
Airport.
Shown below are more detailed comments:
Executive Summarv
• Page III Supplemental Airport Concept •
The first paragraph concludes by impiying that the study of this issue is not
completed, e.g:, "... findings to date ... ". The request by the o�cials that the B
Chippewa Valiey Regional Airport (CVRA) be inciuded in the analysis has not
materialized. The study findings to date seem to imply that this entire matter is
moot.
I-51
B. The "Supplementai Airport Study" has been
compieted and the findings cited in the Draft EIS
remain unchanged. As stated, a suppiemental airport
concept wouid not meet the Twin Cities' aviation
requirements for 2020. See also Generai Response 1.
Page V Transportation Access
It does not appear that the lane miles of improvements include those required
by the No Action aitemative. This is an important and critical issue since the
premise of the DEIS is that MnDOT will fund these capacity projects - on the
other hand, MnDOT says these projects, for the most part, are not
programmed and exceed present level funding capabilities. Ali of the projects
listed below are vital to Wisconsin users if the decision is made to use the
Dakota Counry site. It is our opinion that if the below listed highway capacity
projects are not funded in anticipation of the Oakota County site airport, the
airport project at that location is not viable.
For the Dakota County site altemative, these No Action projects include:
1) Widening of TH 61 Mississippi River Bridge at Hastings
2) Widening of USH 10 from the St. Croix River at Prescott to USH 61
(MN)
3) intersection improvements on TH 61 through Hastings.
in addition, we feel that the Minnesota TH 95/ CH 15 corridor between I-94
and Hastings wili become a desirous route requiring improvements (4 lanes).
Page VIII items 39 through 45
It appears that the travel times reflect the assumption that the "No Action"
highway improvements are (have been) funded and built by MnDOT
Introduction
�
• Pages i-2 Lead and Cooperating Agencies
No mention of WisDOT in the third paragraph, even though WisDOT has been
invoived in the Dual Track Process. WisDOT, as with MnDOT, has not E
formally entered into a Gooperating Agency Agreement. WisDOT has "piggy
backed" MnDOT concems reiative to the existing MSP site altemative, e.g., we
wouid endorse the concem expressed in the third sentence of the second
paragraph which addresses airport access at TH 77/TH 62 interchange.
Page I-2 Related Environmentai Documents
It is our understanding that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) stili has
work to do regarding airspace for whichever altemative is recommended. We F•
suggest that additional work being done by FAA shouid be included in this
section of the document.
11. Pumose and Need
Page II-1 Purpose
It is our opinion that the discussion on this page should include Wisconsi�
concems within its purview. That is, we feel that portions of Wisconsin will be G
affected by this proposal and shouid be included within the perspective of such
terms as the'Twin Cities region" or'Twin Cities Metropolitan area". We aiso
request that the goals listed on this page and repeatedly referenced throughout
the DEIS cleariy state the broader geographic perspective.
Iil. Aitematives
� Page III-5
The first listing of projects properly includes Wisconsin highways STH 29 and H
USH 10. The second listing of projects refers to the No Action highway
improvements and shouid indicate those improvements which affect or are
affected by the State of Wisconsin. (See the comment above addressing a
similar issue on page v of the Executive Summary.)
V. Environmentai Consequences
• Table i-26
1'he New Airports column of this tabie should be revised to include the two �
Wisconsin projects listed on page Iii-5, i.e., "Widening of Wisconsin Highway
29 to County Highway F" and "Widening of U.S. Highway 10 for two or three
miles east of Wisconsin Highway 29"
-2-
I-52
C. See General Response 1.
D. Travel times are 6ased on travel demand forecast
modeling that assumed those improvements that were
included in the adopted regional Transportation Policy
Plan in force at that time, with the roadway improve-
ment necessary to provide access to the airport (such
as the redesig'ned TH 62/TH77 interchange and ramps
for the MSP A�ternative). See also General Response 1.
E. The Introduction has been changed to include the
involvement of WisDOT (p. I-2).
F. The FEIS (Section I.E.1.1) discusses the process
for making changes to the MSP airspace to accom- �
modate the north-south runway. These changes were
aiso subject to environmental review (especiaily with
regard to aircraft noise impacts). Under the MSP Long
Term Comprehensive Plan, the new north-south
runway would be constructed in the 2002-2005 time
period, which would provide ample tima for final
approval of the necessary airspace configuration
changes.
The FAA and MAC studies relating to airspace issues
are not specifically considered "related environmental
document(s)." However, we agree that the results
indirectiy affect the outcome of the various
environmental analyses. Therefore, portions of the
documents were cited in the DEIS and each is included
in the "List Of Technical Reports" in Section IX of the
FEIS.
G. See General Response 1.
H. See General Response 1.
See General Response 1.
• Table N-10 and N-11
We believe that the percentage ailocation to the remainder of Pierce Counry of
population and households seems quite high at 55% when distributed to the
n�ral townships within Pierce County. Our analysis of induced development
indicated growtfi concentrated in the principal communities of Elisworth,
Prescott, and River Fails.
�
J. � J. See Generai Response 1.
• Tabies W-6 and W 11
We believe ft is important to idenYrfy the increased Vavel time in Wisconsin i�. K. See Generai Response 1.
when the MSP and Dakota site are compared.
• Table W-10
We suggest that the Dakota site altemative shouid identify and address the L. L. See General Response 1.
fact that two segments of roads in Wisconsin wili require four-lane roadways,
i.e., STH 29/35 between USH 10 and CTH "F' and USH 10 east of the
intersection with STN 29/35 .
� Page V-217 1'H 10lTH 61 i� M. See General Response 1.
The thirci paragraph shouid be revised to identify the bridge across the St
Croix River at l'H 10 is a lift bridge.
• Page V-221 inter-Region Connectivity
We believe that Wisconsin travel will be signifiqntly influenced by the
development of the Dakota County site. We request the statement which says N. N. See General Response 1.
that travel to "...other states is not expected to be influenced sig�ificantly by
the move of the airpo�t to Dakota County" should be revised to reflect that
Wisconsin would be significantly influenced.
• Tabie W-14 ' �. O. See General Response 1.
The improvement description for TN 10 from St. Croix River crossing to TH 61
should spec�cally state that it wiil need to be four lanes.
• Page V-222
The discussion below Table W-14 states that "An estimate of the cost of these
improvements is not available at this time." The last sentence on page V-221 i�. P. See General Response 1.
and another near the bottom of page V-231 indicate that the estimated cost to
be $366,200,000. It is our understanding that MnDOT has recently stated that
even these estimates are significa�tly low.
• Page V-230 Consequences of Failure to Make Needed Transportation
Improvements. Q. Q. See Generai Response 1.
We suggest that this poRion of the document shouid include a statement which
says that without adding the highway improvements of the No Action
aitemative the airport at the Dakota site is not viable.
Appendix B Fqures
� Fgure W-8
This figure includes an inse�t of Prescott, Wisconsin which has an ADT of 5300 R. R. DEIS Figure W-8 has been deleted. See Generai
for USH 10 east of STH 29/35. This is a different number from that reported Response 1.
on Table W-10 on page V-216. An ADT of 5300 would not require capacity
improvement as stated in the text of the DEIS. We suggest that this be
coRected. This figure also needs to be revised because it shows a mix of the
No Adion aitemative and Dakata County site AADT for the year 2020.
-3-
I-53
• Figure W-17
We note that only one intersection is proposed for improvement along TH 61
through Hastings. We suggest that this route may weli be the main route S. S. See Generai Response 1.
Wisconsinites wouid use to access the Dakota County site. �—
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS (These comments are for your infortnation and are not
necessarily related to effects in Wisconsin.)
III Altematives
• Page Iil-2 8.1.2 The MSP Altemative and the Projed Goals
NOTE: The capital cost of the MSP altemative is estimated at $2.8 biliion,
compared to $4.7 billion for the Dakota Counry site as shown on page ili-7.
The No Action attemative is estimated to cost $20 million.
V. Environmental Consequences
• Tables W-6, W 11, W-16 T. Tabies W-6, W-11 and W-16 have been correct-
For the MSP altemative, it is not clear to us why the peak hour travel time is ed. Peak and off-peak t�avel times were transposed.
less than the off-peak travel time. We also feel that these travei times may not Travei times were based on modeled and estimated
have considered the change in terminal location and its effects on peopie . travel times to the terminai location proposed under
traveling from Hudson and Elisworth, Wisconsin. each of the aiternatives.
Aopendix 8 Figures
• Tabie W-18 (�. U. See Generai Response 1.
USH 1 should be changed to USH 10.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this document. We
look forward to working with you and MnDOT on this and future projects.
Sincerely,
` LGGC`� � ���
Carol D. Cutshall
Director
JBN
cc: Senator Clausing, R.W. Kunkel
M.L. Beekman, D.R. Uelmen, D.J. Finkelmeyer
C�
I-54
�'""� MINNESOTA-WISCONSIN BOUNDARY AREA COMMISSION � �'
fw SECOND J"CREET. HUD5QN. WISCUNSIN 1401l�IS7f 4
SeroirtO Our Sponsor Sfalca ac tAe SL Crois
u:...w r.uor�.
ma awui
February 8, 199G
md Mimiaeippi Ri«m rincc l965 w� •�^•-
�nv awu
ORa Ibuc � AY..6 P Y. YSOr�iAy
i#[pll1�%�h
Mr. Nigel Finney
Metropolitan Airports Commission
6040 - 28th Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450
Dear M=. Finney:
On behalf of the Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission
(MWBAC), thank you fc�r che op�ortunity to comment on the Dual Track
Airport �%lanning Process Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS). As you a:e no doubt aware, the commis�ioners on the MWBAC,
appointed by the governors of their respective states, share a
fairly large concern regarding the impacts an airport relocation
would have on the boundary area we are cha=ged with overseeing.
As such, it is not simply.the Hastings area our commission is
interested ir. but the boundary area between Wabasha, Minnesota and
St. Croix 'Fa21s, Wisconsin which would be impacted by such an
endeavor. on hehalf of the commissioners, the MWHAC staff, and the
residents of this.extensive r•iver valley s.ystem, I hope you wil2
pass �he folloaing comments on to our fellow commission members of
the Metrop�litan,I�irports+•Commission.
The troubles we see in the DEIS start on the second page of
Executive Summary under the No Action Alternative (page ii):
The DEIS :;tates, "Prejects ttat increase capacity (terminal,
airfield, other) wouid not be vermitted bevond 1997." (Our
emphasis added). Should the No Action alternative be the
chosen direction, it se�ms inconceivable that there would be
.. __i}�� iac= �e� ;.11•,•.•ed �ollecri.^.q 2ca7, La ' e=^t�
3=� r
to �the^ continual upgrade process within the physical
boundaries of the exist�nq facility Co maximize the amount of
traffic serviced. .ls pointed out by ttorthwest Airlines, there
is a considerable amcunt of eonstruction and updating that can
be done to the current facility to increase its capacity. We
would suggest this No Action Alternative not be defined within
such tiqht constraints,.rather that it be looked at as the
least expensive alternative between tc�o massively expensive
complete.rebuil@ing.pro�ec'ss. •
We believe additional oro�lems exist�in the Executive Summary:.
A.
On page (iv) there is the following stateAent in the Natural
Environment section, "Impacts of the alternatives on the
natural environment are relatinelv minor (air quality, water
quality, wetlands,...biotic communities, flood plains,....).
(Our emphasis added). Iiowever, the table on paqe (vi) lists,
under biotic community impacts, 6,865 acres of wildlife g.
habitat "displaced." First, it is difficult for us to
conceive of "displacinq" habitat, when in fact it would be
removed. Second, these two pieces of information seem, from
our perspective, to be contradictory. Further along in the
DEIS te3tt, on page (V-33), Table C-2 indicates that there will
be "affected" a total of 7,684 acres of different cover types
utilized by wildlife. Why is there such discrepancy in these
ac=eage fiqures? It is our perspective that such numbe=s do
not qualify as being "relatively minor" impacts.
I-55
�
A. The purpose of a no action altemaGve is to compare
the impacts associated with implementing a proposed
actiori with the impacts of not impiementing the action.
For the Dual Track process, the proposed action is the
expande�mproved airport-related facilities required to
meet 2010 demand levels, as shown in the MSP 2010
Long Term Comprehensive Plan. The no action
aitemative, therefore, reflects the airport without these
ppacity improvements.
B, This has been revised. See Generei Re'sponse 1.
Mr. Nigel Finney, Februaly 8, 1996
MWBAC Comments on Dual Track DEIS, page 2
• In the summary discussion on environmantal impacts of tha
Dakota County site, potential pollution oE the ground water
is not even mentioned. Yet the aquifers found within this C.
area are enormously important in the boundary region, and
considering the table on page (viii) indicated "hiqh to very
high" groundwater contamination potential, these potential
impacts must be at least identified in the summary.
• In the table on paqe (vii), under the Farmland section, it is D,
indicated there would be 2,800 acres lost under the No Action
Alternative. We question the validity of this statement. .•
Within the body of the DEIS we find a number of omissions and
contradictions in the discussion of both induced development and
infrastructure requirements reqarding the Dakota County site:
• The page (III-5) discussion of transportation needs for the
new airport site does not mention the changes that would be
required for 2�i Hwy 95 from Stillwater to Hastings and E�
Washington County Roads 15, 19 and 21 providing north-south
movement from populated eastern suburbs of the metropolitan
area and within•the St. Croix River watershed.
� There�is no discussion of changes required in transportation
corridors from Red Wing, Rochester, or other cities, nor F,
discussion of the need for new river crossinqs caused by the
influx of new airport employees movinq to western Wisconsin.
Page (III-6) discusses the Goal of a new airport in Dakota
County as "...help(inq) promote the o=derly growth and
economic development of the region." And on the followinq
page a subsection discusses the induced development brouqht
by a new airport. Minnesota's passage of the 1968 Green Acres
Program, The Metropolitan Councils' passage of the 1980
Agriculture Preserves Act, and The Regional Blueprint recently
published by the Metropolitan Council (which identifies
protecting Dakota County farmland as a number one prio=ity
within this region) are all clearly at odds with the
statements made regarding development on these DEIS pagesa
G.
On page (V-29) the reference to "hestrals^ in tha second
paragraph should read, "Ame=ican kestrel (Falco sparvarius)," H,
bold print indicating where corrections are needed.
On page (V-89) the first sentence of section K.2.2 states, °A
mini.mum of 17,000 to 19,000 acres of agriculture land in
Dakota County ...would be lost to development..." under the
New Airport alternative. Yet all of the•tabular information
refers to the total loss at 14,100 acres. Calculations in the
DEIS should be based on total lost including that from induced
development, noise contours, and safety zones (see Table O-1
on page (V-123) showinq over 24,000 acres of affected land).
Further, in this section on page (V-124), the last paragraph
states, ^The airport development area may consist of all or
a portion of the property extending out three miles from the
•proposed boundaries oE the _new airport site. The airport
development area may extend five miles in any direction from
the airport site if the Metropolitan Council determines the
extension is necessary...) Just how much acreage does this
project propose to encompass?
I-56
�
�
C. See Generai Response 1.
D. This represeuts the esGmated effect of no action on
farmland acreage that wouid be lost due to residential
development in the affected environment of the new
airport aitemative. See aiso Generat Response 1.
E. See Generai Response 1.
F. See Generai Response 7.
G. See General Response 1.
H. This correction has been made in the FEIS. See
aiso Generai Response 1.
i. See Generai Response 1.
J. See Generai Response 1.
Mr. Nigel Finney, February 8, 1996
MWBAC Comments on Dual Track DEIS, paqe 3
Zn last paraqraph on page (V-89), the discussion of residences
and development in the 13 townships is extremely confusing.
In one paragraph the DEIS reports the Met Council as saying
everything will happen outside the 13 townships or within the
airport. Later in the same section, the first paragraph on
page (V-90) states, "There would be almost no induced
develovment around the airaort in rural townships, nor alona
the eiuht lane hiahwav and interchanaes." Two paragraphs
later, the DEIS states, if patterns from othe= airports
follow, " sianificant commercial industrial. o�fice and
hotel development accomoanied by olanned ress.dential
communities in the 13 rural townships�' will result._ In
short, we believe the entire discussion of induced development
to He poorly handled.
On page (V-93) the DEIS states that the area affected in
Pierce County, Wisconsin is not agricultural and therefore
needs no discussion under this topic. With the exception of
the residential areas along the river bluffs, most of Pierce
County is agricultural. Changes in residential densities and
smaller but eacpanding urban areas within the county cannot
help but have a radical impact not only upon the agricultural
communities in Wisconsin but on the transportation needs of
these e�cpanding populations to get to the new airport.
�i. � K. See GeneraLResponse 1.
L. � L. See General Response 1.
No where in Section Q. on noise could we find any detailed
discussion regarding the FAA requirements for quieter aircraft
and the timetable for its implementation and what effects this �.
implementation will have on much of the tabular data involvinq
affected residents oP the current MSP site.
Section R. on Parks and Recreation talks about the APE
includinq the highway improvements and power lines yet makes
no reference to the Eact that some of thesa improvements must
happen within the St. Croix and Mississippi River valleys. (�j,
It also fails to discuss potential fliqhts over the Lower St.
Croix National Wild and Scenic river that would be at a
significantly reduced elevatian than currently exists and will
have an impact. '
Section W. on Transportation Access has some amazing numbers
requiring us to question both the models and the process.
Table W-10 on page (V-216) indicates that US 61/Mississippi
River crossing would increase by 11,270 vehicles, if the
airport moves. This table•also shows that US 10/St. Croix
River crossing at Prescott would increase by 6,700 vehicles.
This means the difference of only 4,570 vehicles represents
the increase coming from qrowing communities of Cottaqe Grove,
Woodbury, Oakdale, Fludson, and Stillwater (with a potential
new bridge built there.) Yet later in the first paragraph on
page (V-218), it is stated, "It is projected approximately
3,800 daily airport t=ips will use TH 95 if the airport 3s
moved to Dakota County." This then must mean an increase of
anly 800 cars are expected on 61, but the numbers coming off
the I-494 Wacouta Bridge indicate there will be an increase
of over 10,000. These numbers don't support each other.
Summary
The DEIS is an enormous document. This is as it should be for such
an e�ctremely large and potentially devastating project. What is
amazing is lay people will be reading and trying to make sense of
this huqe document, but many of them will have time only to read
the Executive Summary. From the perspective of those on the
Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission, the Executive Summary
gave little sense and even less information upon which to try to
make a decision of this magnitude.
I-57
M. Appendix A.3 discusses the federally mandated
phase-out of Stage 2 aircraft on page A.3-1. As noted in
the text conceming noise impacis (DEIS Section V.Q.1,
pg. V-132), using the 2005 fleet mix is a"worst case"
scenario because it contains Stage 2 air-
craft "hush-kitted" to meet Stage 3 requirements. These
hush-kitted aircraft are noisier than "new technoiogy"
Stage 3 ai�craft. Noise contours for late years, inciuding
2020, resuited in smailer contours due to the elimina6on of
operations by hush-kitted aircraft.
N. See General Response 1.
0. � O. See General Response 1.
Mr. Nigel Finney, February 8, 1996
MWSAC Comments on Dual Track DEIS, page 4
Having read the document and its appendixes and addenda, we can
find no reason for choosing the Dakota County site for a new
airport. The wide spread turmoil and economic chaos this move
would create is extremely difficult to support. The movement of
business away from Richfield, Bloomington, and Burnsville and the
subsequent urbanization and loss of farmland in rural Dakota County
is a predictable progression. Noise mitiqation needs and _;
residential construction would soon follow and the same arguments
would again play themselves out in relation to a new larqer
airport. This move would carry with it not only an incredible loss
of convenience for the business communities of St. Paul and
Minneapolis but an almost debilitating and certainly overwhelming
expense to constructinq the facility and its associated
infrastructure and community development needs.
The Soundary Commission has had a chanca to review some other
comment letters regarding this DEIS. It is our recommendation that
you look seriously at a letter from Mr. Tom Lovejoy of the
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. His position further
outlines other areas of concern that we share regarding this DEIS
document.
As a Commission charged with overseeing public and private projects
which would impact the many communities and river valleys of our
constituency, we appreciate the long road you have taken in
producing the DEIS document and the enormous amount of work it
represents. The people of Minnesota and Wisconsin are fortunate
that such detailed scrutiny has been undertaken on their 3ehalf and
are much richer for the process. Such a detailed study has proven
to our satisfaction that the new Dakota County Site should be
forever dropped from consideration.
It is our recommendation that you make the above mentioned.
adjustments to the FEZS and look to enhancing the existing airport
in a way that is most feasible and affordable.
Again thank you for the opportunity to comment. We look forward
to this process�s logical completion.
Sincerely,
� r . <9�t/
Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission
Robin Grawe, Chair
I-58
Metropolitan Council
Working jor the Region. Plnnning jor the Fittwr
Fe6ruary 9,1996
Ms. !wn Unnrh
Metropolitan Airports Commission
6040 - 28th Avenuo South
Minncapolis, MN 55450
RE: Dratt Environmental Impact 5tntemcnt
Dua! Ttack Aicport Planning Process
Council Districts 5, l6
Refccrat File No. 16041-8
Dwc Ms. Un�vh:
Mclropotilnn Councit stafFhas roviewcd the DrnR Environmentat Impact Statemrnt (DEIS) for the Dual
Truci: Airport Planning Process W determino its adequacy and accuracy in addressing regional concerns.
St�tihns idcutified lwo areas of concern with the DEIS:
Surface Water Quality
The construction of a new surface �vata runoCf outfall to the Mississippi Rivcr which is proposed fa
both the MSP and No Action altematives could have a substantial eftect on the mctropolitan sanitary
se�rer system and on ���atcr quality pcotecdon cfforts in the mctropolitan area. The DEIS annlysis
assumes that the dver has assimilative capncity acailabic �hat has uiready been aUocated to the
Motropolitan Council for assimilauon oEn�etropolitan azca wastctivater treaanent Caciliry efl7uent
Thc final EIS necds to inciudc ali restrictions on assimilative capncity of the river to more accuratety
presont the constr�ints under �vhich any future nav dischargcs to the Mississippi River �vould be
nllowcd.
Design poltutant removai eflicicncies for water quulity basins for the new auport site are inadequaee
to mcet minimum accepmble Council Inrerim Srrategy design guidetina. The final EIS will nad to
ra�isc thc basic desi�i to providc at Icast Natiomvide Urban RunofFProgram wet detention basic
design pollutant rcmova( etlicirncies.
Moro Fctensive comments are provided in Attachmeat 1(Council st�Ei'coaroct: 7im I.arsea at 291-
6404). '
210Ga[FWtSttcst StPaul.Ml�u�eotaSS101-167{ (8l1l191•G159 Pas291•8330 7'OD(1'1YR91-0�Mt MelxolnfoWxZ7&�780
M fqid O{yvtuuy fiipk�R/
I-59
�. �«�,t u�„n
P�� a
Fobruery 9,1996
1995 Ameudmrnt to thc Transportation Development Guide/PoUcy Plan
The DEIS transpottation anatysis was preparnd before the Council amcnded its transportation po6cy
pian in response to the Fedaa! lntermodal Surface Transpoctadon Efiiciency Act (IST'EP.). Somo of
the majoc pe,ojxts assumed in the DEIS to be constructed within the'2020 timeframe of the DQS do
not have fimncial comcnitmwts within the 20.year horizon of the Council plan as amandcd. 'I'he
finat EIS should aclmowledge that the fuading for these projxts is imcertain. A description of tho
amendment and its telationship to transportadon projects rolated to uir{wrt altanatives is providcd in
Attachment 2(Council staficontact: Carl Ohm at 229-2719).
In addition to the above concans pczpazad by Council staf� the TransportaHon Advisory Board (TAB) of the
Metropolitan Council has reviewed the DEIS and provided commrnts a6out concaas that nxd to be
addressed in the finul EIS. The conccrns inciudo inadequate analysis of the effects of a new uicporc on the
Dakota County road system, undaestimadon of vchicle fuot consumed for travel W tho new airport, ability of
the �y system to handte peak hour haftic in 2020 aad an overty optimisdc projection of travel shed
times in some a�eus of the rogion Comptexe coaunents are includcd in Attachment 3(TAB ContacK: Emil
Brandt at 229-2721).
Thank you for the opportunity to commeat on the DEIS.
Sinc�cely yours,
�...�-`^"
Charles Batt ' ' cetor
O[fico of I.ocal Assistance
Euctosure
cc: Neil Petuson, Metropolitun Councii Disuict 5
Tecry Fiower, Metropolitan Council Disuict 16
Emil Brandt, Tc�nsportation Advisory Board
Connie Kozlak, Mctropo6tan Council
A
�
A. The text in Section V.W.3.2 regarding the No-
Action Alternative has been amended as follows:
" The planned permanent improvements to add
high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes to 1-494
and I-35W were deleted from the regional ,,
Transportation Policy Plan when it was
adopted by the Metropolitan Council in May of
1995. That plan �ow inciudes only interim
HOV lanes for 1-35W from the Minneapolis
centrai business district to i-494 and for 1-494
from TH 169 to 34th Avenue. If further fisc ' �
constraints eliminate these interim lanes from�
construction, additionai capacity in the form of�'�
an additional lane in each direction wouid be
needed on the TH62Ji-35W common section."
C,
ATTACI3MENT 1
ENVIRONMENTAL DMSION COMMEMI'S ON DUAL TRACK DEIS
Surface Wacer Quality
Both the MSP and No Action (NA) alternatives propose construcdon of a new surface
water runoff outfall to the Mississippi River which could have a substanriai impact on the
Metropolitan Sanitary Sewer System and upon water qualiry protection effores in the
metropolitan azea. Tables BB-2 and BB-3 project future surface water runoff CBODS
loads to the Mississippi River which are far greater than allowed under MSP's current
Minnesota River NPDES permit. Projected peak-day airport runoff loads, under either
the MSP or NA alternative, aze approximately equivalent to the current total daily
CBODS load dischazged from the Blue I.ake, Seneca, and Metro wastewater treatment
plants, combined. The cnrrent NPDES permit targeu 100 pounds per day of CBODS as
a discharge limit for MSP, as contained in MPCA's 1985/87 Minnesota River waste load
allocarion study.
New low flow and waste load allocarion studies will need to be performed on both the
Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers to determine the water quality implications of any
increase in loading above current NPDFS permit limitations from MSP ro either river.
Cunently, all availabte CBODS load assimilative capacity in the lower 21 miles of
Minnesoca River and pool 2 of the Mississippi River within the Twin Cities Metropolitan
Area has been allocated (during both summer and.winter) to the Metropolitan Council
for assimilacion of inetro area wastewater treatment facility effluent. ,
Draft EIS assumprions of Mississippi Rivez pollutant load assimilative capacity referenced
to an interna! �CA memo overlook numerous factors that would negadvely affect
assimilative capaciry which might be ava�lable for all EIS alternatives. 'I'hose factors
include unlrnown levels of toxicity of projected MSP runoff, effects of ice cover, and the
generai lack of underscanding of the effects of winter assimilation of glycol contaminated
runoff. The final EIS needs to include all resirictions and caveats placed upon the stated
assimilative capacity by MI'CA staff to more accurately present the constraints under
which any future new discharges to the Mississippi River would be allowed.
This EIS process does not replace or eliminate any part of the NPDES permit process
that will be necessary to effectuate any of the hypotheacal revisions in either MSP's
current permit, or a new permit for a new point discharge as proposed in the draft EIS.
�
B. The new surface water runoff outfai� to the
Mississippi River (s no longer being considered. The
current (September 1993) NPDES �7ermit identifies 100 Ibs
CBODS per day as a target standarci onty, to be used for
analyticai proposes for the prepara8on of a compiiance
document (the MSP Decision Report for Sur(ace Water
Controi Measures). This target was based upon the 1985/87
g. WtA study which focused oniy upon summer (June through
September) discharge. Since the promuiga6on of the
September 1993 NPDES permit, the MPCA has
acknowiedged that basing a standard for CBOD5 discharge
ftom the airport on fhe 1985/87 WLA study wouid be
inappropriate, since that study did not acxount for the most
significant MSP discharges. ,
' C. The CBOD5 discharges from MSP to the Minnesota
River under the MSP Aitemative are antiapated to be
significandy lower than current and historical conditions. The
C. current waste load allocation for the lower reach of the
Minnesota River is based upon flawed u6lization oF the
1985/87 WLA Study.
D. The new surface water runoff outfall to the
Mississippi River is no longer being considered; runoff will
be to the Minnesota River.
The 5na1 EIS should discuss the lmown potential toxicity of sodium £ormate and
potassium acetate (proposed for use in the near future to replace urea as ground surface E. E. This comment has been addressed with revisions to
snow�ce control agents) as was done with the glycol-based aircraft deicing producu in the
d�fr �. Section V.BB.
Design pollutant removal efficiencies for water quality basins for the new airport site are
inadequato to meet minimum acceptable Council Interim Strategy design guidelines. The
final EIS will need to revise the basin design to provide at least Nationwide Urban F. F. See General Response 1.
Runoff Program (MJRP) wet detendon basin design pollutant removal eff'iciencies.
These design criteria would be met if the New Airport alternative used the same
Detpond criteria utilized to design the proposed basins for the MSP and NA alternatives.
I-61
W�7dlifc Rcfuge
Thc DEIS documenu that the MSP alternative cauid have a potendaliy significant
negative impact upon the Minnesota Valley Nauonal Wildiife Refuge. Cunently, the
FAA has an interagency agreement with the National Park Service and U.S. Fish and
W�ldlife Service establishing a 200Q-foot overIlight altitude threshold over the Refuge to
reduce potendal interference with wiidlife. The draft EIS states that construction of a
new north-south runway wouid result in 5620 monttily overIlighu between S00 and 2()00
feet over I.ong Meadow and Black Dog Lakes and Bass Ponds within the Refuge. Tho
6nal EIS should indicate that this planned action is inconsistent with the Refuge's
comprehensive plan as well as the Counc�7's Recreadon Open Space Development
Cuidc/Policy Plan.
Findings and Conciusions
e Both the MSP and No Action alternadves propose construction of a new surface
water runoff outfall to the Mississippi River which couid have a substantial impact
on the Metropolitan Sanitary Sewer System and upon water quality protecrion
efforts in the metropolitan area.
e New low flow and waste load allocation studies will need to be performed on hoth
the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers to determine the water quality implicarions
of any increase in loading above cunent NPDES permit limitations from MSP to
� either river.
o Drah EIS assumptions of Mississippi River poilutant load assimilative capacity
referenced to an internal MPCA memo overlook numerous factors that would
negatively affect assimilative capacity which might be available for all EIS
alternatives.
e This EIS process does not replace or eliminate any part of the NPDES permit
process that w�71 be necessary to effectuate any of the hypothetical revisions in
either MSP's cnrrent permit, or a new permit for a new point discharge as
proposed in the draft EIS.
. Design pollutant removai ef6ciencies for water qualiry basins for the new airport
site aze inadequate to meet minimum acceptable Councii Interrm Strategy design
guidelines. �
e OverIlighu below 2000 feet resulting from construction of a new north-south
cvnway couid have a potentially signi5cant negative impact upon the Minnesota
Valley Narionai W�1dlife Refuge and would be inconsistent with the Counc�7's
Regional Recreadon Open Space Deve[opment Guide/Policy Plan.
Recommendadans
The fina! EIS should discuss the known potendai toxicity of sodium formate and
potassium acetate (proposed for use in the neaz future to replace urea as ground
surface snow�ce control agents) as was done with the glycoi-based aircraft deicing
producu in the draft EIS.
The final EIS will need to revise the design of stormwater runoff basins for the
New Airport alternative to provide at least Nadonwide Urban Runoff Program
(NLJRP) wet detention basin design poltutant removal efficiencies.
Staff Contact: Jim Larsen, 291-6404
I-62
G.
H.
G. The FEIS discloses the impact on the refuge. See
Section V.U, SecGon 4(� and Section V.FF,.Wildlite
Refuge for a discussion of the impacts and their miUgation.
N. This has been addressed with revisions to Section
V.BB.
See Generai Response 1.
ATTACHIVIENT Z
1995 AMENDMENT TO THE TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT
GUIDE CHt1PTER/POLICY PLAN
On May 25, 1995, the Metropotitan Counc�7 amended its regional uanspoctation plan. This
amcndment was prepared in response to Federa! Intermodal Surfacc Transportadon Efficieacy
Act (ISTEA) requirements that plaas for regions t6at are not in conformance with t6e Clean Air
Act amendments of 1990 be financiaily constrained. The planned transportation Facilities and
• improvements.must be in balance with the cesources availabte over the 20-year planning period.
In response to these requirements, a number of major expansion projects included in the 1993
pian and still undec study do not have financial commitments within the ZO-year plan horizon.
Some of these corridors provide access to the sou[h and southeast quadrancs of the region and
therefore could affect access to and &om either MSP or the Dakota County site.
Speci6caity these Regionai Needs Not Yet Fully Studied include:
I-35W From Mpis CBD to I-35E; add HOV lane, LRT, and a segment of Mixed-Use Iand
according to EIS
I-494 From I-394 to 34th Av.; meter, by-pass ramps, add HOV lane, a Mixed-Use lane
and preserve ROW
The 1995 Plan does provide funding of some recoastruction work in both I-35 and I-494. Interim
� HOV lanes are recommended and Eunds provided in the I-35W corridor from the Minneapotis
CBD to I-494 and in the I-494 corridor from TH 164 to 34th Av.
A number of points need to be made concerning these needs and their future Funding.
• All the needs identified in the Ptan, be t6ey highway or transit, were geaerated bazed on a
constrained travet demand scenario. The region is foltowing a strategy to modify travet
behavior to make the highway and transit system more eEficien�
• All the e�cpansion projecu without a finaacial commiunent remain in the Plan as •studics•
and therefore a unprejudiced analysis of priorities can be made as the Plan is revised to
reflect and implement the Regiona! BlueprinL
.. Additionat funding is currently being pucsued through t6e legislature, federai govemment
and locat initiadves in recognition of the shortfall in current funding. These initiatives
inctude a legislatively mandated study of road pricing/congestion pricing by the Minnesota
Department of Transportation and the Metropolitan Council.
. The implementation of these e�cpansion projeeu shou(d not be prejudiced shoutd they
secure funding during the transportation p(an update.
Staff Contact: Carl Ohrn, 229-2719
I-63
��MetrOpOlita.Il COLIIZCII A7TACHMENT 3
Working for the RegiDn. Planning Jor the Ftiture
TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD
7anuary 19, 1996
Jaaus Solem. Regioaai Administra�or
Mecropolican Councii
230 Easc Fihh Screet
St. Paul. Minneso�a 55101
Re: TAB Commencs on tho Drah Environtrkncal Impacc 5tatemenc (DEIS)
for che Dual Track Airport Planning Process
Deaz Mr. Solem:
�
At the lanuary 18, 1996 meeting of the Transponarion Advisory Boazd, the Boazd approved the
aztached report and comments concerning the DEIS for the Dual Tcack Ai�porc Ptannina Process.
The Avia[ion Committee of the TAB aad the Technicat Advisory Committee jointly reviewed the
DEIS under a very consu�ained tirne &ame and were primarily responsible for developing the reporc.
The TAB action is forwazded co the Mecropolitan Council for considecadon with i[s review of the
Dual Track DEIS.
Sin rely, �
������
Emil Brandc
Transporcacion Coordinacor
cc: lohn Johnson.Chair
TAB Aviacion Commictee
Nacho Diaz, Manager, Transpottazion Dcpt
Linda Voge, Referrais Coordinator
210C�tflRhSueet SI.Pau1.MYmwu05t01-�0.7f (a13I291�&'f39 !u[ZDI-8060 '1�0/T}Y29i-090� Mevolnfa�JneS19•5780
M (qd Oqvvey LwyUpr
I-64
TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY SOARD
Mears Park Centre, 230 East Fifth Street, St» Paul, M'snnesota 55101
Date: January 17, 1996
To: Metropolican Council
From: Transporcation Advisory Boazd
Subject: Review of Dcaft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
for Dual Track Airpon Planning Process
A DEIS on the Dual Track Airport Pfaiwing Process has been prepared under the direcdon of the
Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC). The Metropolican Council, [he Minnesoca Departmont
of Transporcadon (Mn/DO'1�, and the Federal Highway Adminisuation aze cooperating agencies in
the prepazadon of the DEIS.
The DEIS serves as the basis for both a state and federal EIS. The MAC is the lead agency for the
stato ElS and will receive aad coordiaate comments on the DEIS for stace and federal agencies. The
Federai Aviation Administradon (FAA) is the lead agency for the 5nal federal EIS, which will be
prcpazed after the state makes its decision on which airpon developmenc alternative to pursue.
The purpose of an ETS is to provide infom�ation for govercunental units, the pcoposer of the projnct,
� and other persocu to evaivate proposed projects which have the pocential for significant
- environmental effects, to consider altemacives to the proposed project, and to cxplore me[hods for
reducing adverso onvironmental impacts. The DEIS is circulaced for the purpose of obtaining public
comment on the adequacy and accuracy of the information contained in the documenc.
The Mecropoli�an Council, as an agency issuing a permic oc making a decision oa the project, receivos
a eopy of che DEIS for review and comment to the Responsible Government Unic (RGLn on the
adequacy and accuracy of the documenG The TAB's role is ro advise the Council oa the issues with
che document so that the Council may incorporate those issues into its commen�s. Members of the
TAB and TAC may also comment as individuals or as representatives of the jurisdictions sepazate
from any formal TAB comments.
Following the review and coaunent period, the MetropoGtan Airporu Commission, as the RGU for
the EIS, will review comments made during the public review period, respond to those comments,
and act on a final EIS in Marct�. The EIS will be submitted to tho Minnesoca Environmental Quality
Board, which is expecced to make its 6nal decermination on adequacy of the documenc in May.
Information contained in the DEI3 will be used in the docision-making process by the Council and
the MAC. In addition to the information in the DEIS, additional technical informatioa will be
provided in the Duat Track Technica! Repore, which will analyze issues relacing to airport operacions,
financing, ecoaomic impaccs and site preservacion.
The Council and the MAC aze required ro propare by Juty i, 1996 a recommendacion foc the
L,egislamre on which airport deve(opment alternacivo to pursue.
��
1�Ietropolitan Council
January 17, 1996
Page 2
The TAB approved the following coaunenu and attactunents concerning the DEIS Dual Trac,k
Ai�porc Planning Process for consideradon by the Metropolican CouneiL The commenes are tho resuit
of a join[ effor't of the TAB and TAC Aviation Commictees:
?,
3.
4.
F�
The review is broad and general because of the limited availabiliry' of the DEIS document and
Metropolitan Council roview sequence requirements.
Only certain secuoas of the documenc were reviewed. The major emphasis was on the
Transpottadon Access secuon. Other azeas discussed inciuded economics, sociai, sice
preservacion, iaduced socio-economics, air quality, land use, and noise.
Concems raised about specific issues and items in the DEIS that need to be addressed in the
final documenc
a. T'he councy road system in Dakota County was not given adequace analysis in terms of
relia6le forecasu and cost, especially Average Daily Traffic levels on Counry Road 42 in A
Dakoca County aze understated.
b. 'Phe amount of energy consumpcon, in torms of vehicle fuel, to travel to the new airport, B
is substantially underes[imated.
�
A. See Generai Response 1.
B. See Gene�al Response 1.
C. The modeling process used inciuded capacities
consistent with the regionai travel demand model for
aii roadways in the model network. Travel demand
assignments used an equilibrium loading model that
varies link speed based on a relationship between
assigned volume and modei capacity. Trips are
assigned to different paths for travel until no trip can
save time 6y taking an aitemative route. The modei
indicates that the freeways will not have sufficient
capacity in ail areas to handie the travei demand in the
year 2020. However, this is a region-wide problem,
c. Tmvel during peak dmes of the day, as opposed to off-peak, assumes the freeway system C� not one due to the airport.
has the capacity to handle traffic in 2020.
d. Travel shed times aze opcimistic in some azeas of the region.
e. Comments of Mn/DOT and Metropolitan Council azo incorporated herein.
The DEIS identifies the need for an improved major airpott facilicy to be imporcant to the
metropoGcan area. The Dual Track Planning Process should move forwazd to mee� the areas'
aviation goals as proposed in the acceleraced tirne process.
Based on the informa[ion available in the DEIS, as available December 1995, the TAB
recommends the focus be p(aced on the M.S.P. Alternative.
H:�poctn95Vmn93Y�bdcis.doc
I-66
� � D. The travel times are provided as indicators of
relative changes of accessibility between the
alternatives. The travei times for travei to the three
alternatives are based on the modeled speeds on the
roadway system. Depending on the route taken by any
given trip, the estimated time to travei to the airport
may be high or Iow. However, the same freeflow
highway speed assumptions were used for the three
alternatives, so the relative ranking of the three
aiternatives, in terms of travel times, shouid remain the
same, whether or not one a�gues that the travel times
are too high or too low.
C
METROPOLdI'AN COUNCII.
Mcars Park Ceauc, 230 East F[tth Stxeet, S� Paul, Minaaoca 55101-1634
Phone (6I2) 291-6359 TDD (612) 291-0904 FAX (61Z) 291-6550 Mesro Info (612) 2:9-3780
DATE: Uecember 21, 1995
TO: Aviaaon Subcommiuees of tho Transportation Advisory Boacd and the
Technical Advisory Commictee
FROM: Pac Pahl
y"Ug7ECT'; Blueprinc Direccion on Devclopmont Issucs in the Event oE a Retocarion
of thc Airpoa to Dakota County
Tne Btueprint's suategy for orderly and economic developmoat in the rcgion is to acirieve
compact cantiguous developmenc adjaceac to existing urhan development through decisioas
arrived at joindy by t6e Councii and local communitia using che comprehensive land use planning
proc�ss. The Blueprint inctuda Eorecasu oE overall growth for the region as wetl az forecasu oE
erawch for individual communiaa within the region. The Couna7 is commicted to provide
regional services necrssary' for growth at the IeveLs forecasced in the B1ueQrint
Relocadon of the airport to Dakoca Counry vn71 rault ia somc addidona! dcvciopm�nt ia Dakoca
Couary beyond the developmcat forecasud ia the Ragional Bluepcint Only a small portion of
the induced dcveloQmcnt is t�ely to be new co the regioa;, most of it is developmenc already
anticipatui in the tegion whose locarioa will shiEt because of the relocarioa oE che airport The
Gouacil nocds to provide a policy concczt for addressing the following issucs related [o induccd
developmen[:
. che amounc of inducr_d developmeac
• the locauon oE t6c dcvelopmenc
o in&asuuccurdscrvic�s for cae devctopmcnc
e proeection oF wmmercial agriculcure land
s fucai issua acising Ecom induc-d development
AMOUNI' OF DEVrZ. .OPMF..Ni
The Council in the Blueprinc projececd dcvelopmant in Dakoca Councy in tho year 2020 at
1SZ350 households and 169.370 jobs. For purposes of anal}�ng in the EIS the impacu oE a new
airpocc, Council staff togecher wieh Dakoea Couary sr.aff and repcaencaciva oC at%eced Dakoea
Couucy communieia projected year 2Q20 devetopment acuibutab(e eo a new airport in Dakota
Counry as 3.790 households and S1S00 jobs (41.000 on the aitpoct siee and 1OS00 eLsewhere in
Dakoca County). These orojccdons assume that a new airpott in Dakota Counry will be in
Counry cammunitia projccsed yeaz ZtiZO developmeae atsnbuwble to a ncw airpocc in Daknca
Counry as 3,794 houscholds and 51.500 jobs (41,000 on the airpoct sice and 30.500 elscwhcre ia
Daknta Counry}. Tbose projections assume thae a aew airpoR in Dako�a Counry w�l bc in
operadon ia 2005.
'ihe induced developmeat projec[ionc used in the EIS anatysis. wfu7e wichin a reazonable range of
h7cely developmen4 are pro6abty at thc low end of the range. Projxtions of induc:A
developmeac resulting from location ot t6e airport ia Dakoca Couary couid be two to thrce times
trigher than the numbors used for thc EIS analysis and stil! be reasonabta
For the Caunc�i, the critical issue is aoe wh�ther the projccrions used for the EIS analysis aze at
the low end of che rangc of rcasonable eacimaees but how the Counal can cnsure thac whatever
devGtopment is induced by the airport relocarion oaucs ia a ocderty aad economic manner in
azeas that aze conciguous w cz�stiag urban azeas and caa bc provided wich cost-efi'ective urban
s�rvic�s.
'Ihe Counal's d'ucction in the Rogionat Btuepriat supports expansion of the MLTSA in response
to market forca consissent with che ab8iry of boch the region and loca! governmcat to provide
[he css�atial sesviccs to accommodau addiuonal dcvelopment
I-67
LOCATiON OF D�'VELOPMENf
The Council cxgectt thac most of this devetopment w�1I be located ia atia in the counry thac
have urban scrvica. The Blu�pcint stata �thac frxstanding growth cen�ezs, such as the ciry of
Hasrings, should be the facus foc gmwch t6at occurs ia che rural azea. The Couau7 will support
Iocal ptans that ensure suffideat laad with urban serviar is ava�lable to meet the proj�cted
iaduced devatopmcnc Zhe Coun�al will worl with affcctcd tocal governmencs through the
comprehensive ptanaing procus m decesmine the locadon aad staeing of developmenc, using ics
MetropoHtan Urban.S�rvice Arca (MUSA) expansion policies to guide the gmwth. It may bo
apprnpriate to use a claster planning appcaach to address issua that cut across juzisdictionai
boundarics.
Annexaaon
Where MCTSA eznansion requcsa inciude land cua�ndy in unincornocaced townships, the Councd
prefus chac the land be annesed throu;h ocdcrly anaexarion to the ary praviding urbaa sarvica.
Joinc powu agr�moncs, aithough noc the Council's prefesed opdon, may 6e acccpcabie pcovided
thac the MtJSA czpansian ochorwise meets Blueprint reqvircmeau for MUSA ocpansion.
Commerciai-Induscrial D-vetoament on tha Airport Site
The EIS, assumes thac the airpart and airport-retated busin�ss on the airport si�c witt raulc in
41,000 jobs on che sitc In additioa eo ehe anricipacnd dcvelopmenc on site, ocher commercial-
industriat developmcac may scek to locacc on sita Sice consuainec su�at very limieed
developmeat would occur on site bcyond that assumed in the EIS. Oth�r devetopmcnt on the
siu would be acceptabte if ic is wichin ehe capacity of the scwagc trcaunrnt systcm and the
tcansportadon �Eaciliaes.
INFRA.SrFiUCIVRFJSERVICES FOR DEVELOPMENT
Wastewaeer CoUeceion and Treaement
'Ibe inducui deveiopmant «Qected to locaie in the cicy oC Hascings w�11 make an ezpansion of �he
Hastin¢ plant necasary by about the year ?QOS aud require fucure capaciry of 3.6 to 4 mgd. 2he
Haztings treatmenc plaat has a design capaci�y of 2i4 mgd. and could possi'biy be cxpanded at ehe
evsting site by no more than 20 percen� Tl�e fvture capaciry of 3.6 to 4 mgd. cannot be ackricvcd
ae the ericting sice, paniculazly when higher degrees of treatment and phosphonu removal are
coasidered. Coasequentiy, the Council must coatider creatmeat of patt or all af the wascewaur
from Haztings elsewhere.
Plans cunently undenvay to inaease eapaciry in the Empire treaunent planc to 12 mgd. will meet
needs to the timeframe of 200.5-201Q. The Empire plant is projecced to e�pand to 20 mgd in thc
year 2040. Fxpansion of the Empiro piaac co 20 mgd may noe be_dairable bazcd on che limited
Qow of the Varmi7lion rivcr.
'Ibe EtS aaalysis azsum�s that waztewacer ucacment fac�ities would be deveioped on the airport
sice to scrve airport oparadoas and airport-related aaiviry oa the sicc Regional Blueprint .
polides do aoc support the orconsioo of wastewaus sernica from an ensice fac�lity ac the airpoR
co adjaceat land. 'Ihe land surroundiag the airport siu is cansidered eo be in long cerm
agricuicural ux and protected by cho Councsl &om urban-scale developmen�
If a dedsion is made to relocace ehe airporc to che Dakoca counry sice, the Councit ia ptaaniag
fucure waztewater ueatmcac facilirios w�7I rcview other alternativcs for serviao the airport sice and
indueed dcvelopmenc in the counry that may be more cast-effe.ctiva One oE those alcernadv�s is
tn caaveq wastewat�r ia the Vermillion river basia through aa incemeptor along the Vecmilliaa
river to a regional plant south oE Fiastiags and to eztend aa inteaxptor up the Vermftlioa ziver to
the area of the airport co collecc wascewacer Erom the airporc All or parc oE the wastewacer from
Hastings would aiso go co the new ptanc
Ttanspottation FaciIiria
Airport devdopm�nc pians azsume chac regional uansgottation facilicies raquiring expansion or
upgcading eo meet cuaenc craEfic demands wi11 be in piace or proerammed for Eunding in suce
and regional transporcadon improvement plans. Adequate capacity to meet aay rcasonabte level
oi induecd devclopm�nc should bc availabie wichin the 2020 timefrdme provided thac additionaI
eransporcarion funds become available to the Councii to compiece ehe nxded improvem�na or
thac tho Coua�a7 shifu funds from projeets eisewhere in ehe region to Dakou Counn.
�
PROTcCIION OF COMMERCIAL AGRICULNRAL LAND
Tne Cauncii suppocrs aericulcure as [he orimary long-term land use in the nual service az�� The i
Btueprinc provides procccr3on Eor primc agriculcurat lands most capable of suppocting loog-cerm
agricuitural pcoducuon by (1) prohibi[ing urbaa facilitiu in agricultunl pres�cva unless there is
s[roag documencauon that no oeher ►ocadons in dse Metropolican Area can adequacdy meet the
sieing and selection criceria; (2) not tocating urban faciliti�s in land certiGed for agricuitura!
preservcs unlcss there is strong cridence ehae the use cannot bc locaced in the general rural use
acca: and (3) discouraging urban facilitiu on laad wich Ctass I.II.III and irrigatcd Class N soils.
T6e Blucprint recogaizu thac soma urban [acilities that xrve the urban or encire metropolitan
arna public mav need to be sited in the rural area. The choice oE a si�e Eor a naw aicpoct in an
area of commercial agcia+ltural land in Dakoea Couary raulted fmm ssudia that documeaied ehac
00 ochcr locations in the Metropoticaa Acea could adequaccly meet sicing and xlection criccria
[or che faaliry.
T6e Council reo�gaizcs that adequaee public scrvica nced to be provided if an urbaa facility must
be iocaecd in t6e rural area but ezpecu ehat, to the euent pcusiblG �e fac�7iry aot inurfere with
agriculrural aceivitics. T'he Council. warldng in pazcncrship with local eawnships, vn71 concinue so
suppoR agriculture as the primary Lznd use in azeas snzmunding the airpore siec No urban
services will be excended from the airporc rice to surrounding rural areas. Curteac Couacl
poticia for azoas of commercial agriculeure suppott housing densides of one unit per Corry acres.
The magaitude of the impacc oE a ncw airport on commerdal agricultural land maka ic L7ccly thac
curren[ Coancrl policia are not adequate to provide si�cant prote.ction fot agriculturai land in
the eveat of a new airport ihe Counal s6ould review the tooLs used ia ocher azeas that have
dealt with the issue of locating a majot urbaa facility ia an arca of primc agricuitural land.
Measura such u requiring very low densid� oF oric unic per 160 aaes, purchase of development
righu, assistance with lcgai challengcs and technica! assistaace to towoships may be neccssary co
maincaia agriailture in the arca stuzounding tha airpott
FISCAL ISSUES ARISING FROM IIIDUCF_D DEVII.OPMENT
Rcveaues finm Businrsses on the AirpaR Site
To help dcfiay cosu of a new airpor4 etze airporc commission may allow che locadon of
compauble businesses on t6e airport siu. As noted above, only a limited amouat of such
devdopmcat could be accommodaccd oa che airpocc sice, Most of thcs� busiaessos w�l noc be
aew to the region but represent a change in locatioa oE basinas acciviry because oE the miocadon
of the airpoct The businases shouid be requited to contnbute to the 6sca1 d'uparicia pool in aa
amount comparabte ro what thcy woutd pay iE they wcre located off t6e airpore sita
Cosu oE Locai Infrascruccurc/5ervicrs
The analysis oF induced developmcnc assumes t6ac the cost of loca! inCrastruaure or xrvices ta
suppon development induced by the airpocc can be fundeci by the new dcvelopmoat in the same
way any addicional deve(ooment in a community is currencty CundccL The ecanomic anatysis
acmmpanying the IIS documeas shoutd pmvidc some iaformadon on what the Eucai impacu of
an aixport rclocadon witi be oa Dalro[a Connry and ics communitics. If �hac infocmation indicata
some midgadng aaions aze appropriace, the Coundi should address oprioas Eor snidgauon ia che
dual tracl: da:ision-malang procesc.
I-69
�
•`a` Metropolitan Council
" Worl3ng for the Region, Planning jor rhe Future
Memorandum
Date: Decemtxr 30. 1995
To: TAB and TAC Aviation Commictecs
Fmm: Mazk Filipi
Subject: Tcanspoaa�ion PoGcy Concorns wich Drafr EIS
Policies of the Transportation Policy Plan (TPP)
Po6cy 11 of tho TPP sca[cs thac "Metropoliran hi�hway syscom invcstmenu shall cnsure
pzesecvarion of euiscin� fac�Iities. ..". The consuuction of eicher build alumacive will
raquiro roadway improvcmencs which may canso che redircction of re; onal hi�hway
funds. Depending on chang�s m proj«� prioricization in response to the n�ed to provide
access [o che airpon (w6crovor ic may be), praervation projecu may be delayed, affectin,
�he well bem� of �he remainder of che regional tvghway syscem
PoGcies oE the Avia4on Guide Chaptec
Policy 1 encoura�es che provision of s[ace-of-che-arc facilities ac che major airport and chaz
public invatmenct s6ould resnond to forocast needs. The bu�7d alcerna[ives aze consistenc
with t6ese statements, however, ehe no-but7d alternacive would beoin [o restrict opara�ions
in tho year 2020.
Policy 3 states the plazu for �tt� major a"spott must include provisions for achiovins hi�-
auality �round accessioairy, as measurd in cravel timc. The build alurnatives provide
tsi�h levek of accossbIli[y ut teems of tzavel sper.d. Howeva. due to iu location, the New
hirporc Alcemacive provides poorer accessibilit�• [o [he re�ion az a whole.
Z—%�
I-71
DAKOTA COUNTY
w�'�'tA CpG'y
O' 'rc
�"��.YNESu�P
Febcuary 6, 1996
Mr. Ngel �nney, Deputy Facecuuve Directac
Metropolitan Airpons Commission
6040 28th Avenue South
Minneapotis, �IN 55450
Mr. Gtenn Orcutt, Program Manager
Federal Aviation Administration
6020 28th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55450
Gentlemen:
15'1q
OFFICE OF THE
COUNTY80ARD
�si21+:�e•+a�s
In reviewing the Dual Track Airport Ptanning Process Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS), Dakota County finds the document to be a thorough investigation of the physica!
chazaaeristics and environmenta! consequences of either expanding Minneapolis-St. Pau(
Internadona! Airport (MSP) or constructing a new major intemadonal airport in Dakota County.
However, Dakota County finds significant weaknesses in the Economic Section of the DEIS that
specificalty relate to (ocal impacts at either MSP or a New Airport, as welt as to induced
development issues associated with a New Airport in Dakota County.
At its October 3, 1995, meeting, the Dakota County Boazd of Commissioners adopted a resolution
outlining the Co�nty Boazd's positicn on the Dual Track Airport Pianning Process. Tha resolutinn
states that Dakota County (1) is opposed to the telocation of a new major incemational airport to
Dakota County; (2) supports the northern Dakota County cities in obtaining additional noise
micigarion and corsidor management measures associated wich the expansion of MSP; and (3) is
opposed to any form of initiative which would have the effect of "landbanking" a site for a future
new internationat airport in Dakota County.
Since that time, Washington, Ramsey, Scott, Anoka, Carver, and Goodhue Counties have passed
similar resolutions opposing both the New Airport Alternacive and landbanking for a future airport in
Dakota County. Further, the Associauon of Minnesota Coundes has withdrawn its legislative
support for the Dual Track Airport Pianning Process, and the Metropolitan Inter-County Association
has passed a �esolution opposing the relocation of the airport to Dakota County and cal6ng for the
Legisiature to discon[inue the Dual-Track Airport Planni�g Process.
iwnM on P�cvaM P�ow _......_.._.... N/ C-0UAl OPFOPTUNITY
I-72
' Mr. Ngel Fnney, Metropolitan Airports Corrunission
Mr. Glenn Orcutt, Federal Aviation Administration
Page 2
These actions speak to what is apparent after review'tng the DEIS —Minnesota does not need a new
interaaaonal airport in Dakota County. All future potendal aviation activity can be accommodated ai
an expanded MSP. The DEIS shows the same number of aircraft operadons at either an expanded
MSP or a New Airport in the year 2020. According to Figures 7 and I 1 in the DEIS Appendix, the =-
Instiument Flight Ratirig (IFR) average combined delay per operation was greater under the New
Airport Altemative than at an improved MSP.
M�nnesota cannot afford a New Airport at a combined consuuction and financing cost of over 59
Billion. The Economic Section of the DEIS asserts that the economic rehun to Minnesota's and the
Twin Cides Metropofitan Area's (TCMA) investment wouid be the same foc both alternatives, even
with an additional $2 Billion to S4 Billion invesUnent for a New Airport. The MAC should not
recommend that M'innesota spend an extra $2 Billion without any demonstrated return on that
imestment.
In recent meetings of the Metropolitan Airports Commission, it has become apparent that there is at
least one additiort5l MSP terminal scenazio within the MSP Alternative that is not included in the
DEIS. This alternative calls for an incremental e�cpansion of the existing terminal and could A. A. See General Response 3.
poteatially cost one-tenth of the proposed New Airport Alternadve. Dakota County urges the MAC
to seriousty explore this scenario, and, if feasible, inctude the Incremental Expansion Alternadve-6A
in the Final EIS.
In generai, the Economic Section is weak There is an over-reliance on BEA (Bureau of Economic
Analysis) multipliers and factored enplanements. This type of analysis stylistically runs a close B• B. See General Response 6 and the final report
parallel to the type of analysis done by MetropoGtan Council consultants that was severely criticized "Economic impacts of the Aiternative Airpon
by the Legislative Auditor in 1993. The F'inal EIS should make every attempt to demonstrate a more Development Scenarios", MAC, February 7 996.
rigorous anatysis and exptanation of the economic consequences of both altematives.
'In the Economic Section, the tax capacity analysis does not eva(uate the additional public services
required, and the implicadons to Dakota Counry, its cities and townships, for any devetopment that C• C. See Generai Response 1.
wouid occur as a resuit of a New Airport.
Dakota County continues to disagree with the induced development numbers prepazed by
Metropofitan Councfl consultants and used by the MAC consuitants in the prepazation of the DEIS. p. D. See General Response 1.
Dakota County specifically asserts that the induced development househotd number is very low. The
oumber of induced households in the rural townships of Dakota County, while extremely low, still
plays a significant rok in the analysis of agricultural impacts in the Farniland Section of the DEiS.
I-73
Mr. Niget �nney, Metropolitan Airports Coaunission
Mr. Glenn Orcutt, Federal Aviation Administration
Pagc 3
Tho Fazuiland Section inctudes perhaps the most thorough and professionai analysis of the DEIS. It
wnciudes that the loss of 17,000 acres in the fouc townships of Vern�illion, Marshan, Douglas, and
Hampton - the heart of agricultwce in the County - would set the dynaznics of devetopment in motian.
The Farmland Section states, in part,
"...the direction it would take towards development is m�rfest and we!! Imawn.
Once st�ted �it would change the agrrcultural ciumacter of Dakota Counry, only the extent , i
of chmrge is in doubG The various elements ojdevelopment dynamics interact...creating a
srrawba!! effect. ?Tre end result of these dynamics of induced development is that ihe
agricultural community would reach a trmuiNon point trmuforming it into a nan-
agricultura! communrty. "
This is unacceptable to Dakota County.
Dakota County would like to take this opportunity to remind the MAC that the FAA is required to
consider other sites or make significant attempts to reduce the land removed from agricuttural usc if
the LESA (Land Evaluation Site Assessment) rating is above 160 points. The Dakota County New E. E. See General Response 7.
Airport Site has a non-irrigated LESA of 209 points and an irrigated LESA of 237 poinu out of a
possible 260 poinu.
Dakota County would assert to the FAA., that, given the New AirpoR site contains 14,000 acres and
the existing MSP site contains 3200 acres, and given that both sites handte the same number of
aircraft operations in year 2020, the MAC has not made sufficient e�'ort to reduce, or cannot reducc
the size of the New Airport in Dakota County. Therefore, Dakota County believes the FAA has the
responsibility and obligation to select the MSP Altemative as the preferred alternative.
Becausc northern Dakota County cities are seriousty impacted by aircrafi operadons at MSP, Dakota
County supports their efforts to reduce those impacts with the help of the MAC and the FAA
through noise mitigation and coRidor management. Dakota County encourages the MAC to F. F. See General Response 2.
facilitate those cities' requests for an enhanced and accelerated Part 150 Program as well as other
MAC-FAA collaboradons that would improve the cunent noise impacts in the northern Dakota
Counry cides.
There nceds to be additional Environmental Justice Analysis that goes beyond the impact of noise, to
exptore in more detail the negaave social impacts of site preservation, ie. landbanking, in Dakota
County. At a cost approaching $I50 million and the identiSed "impemkwence syndrome" it woutd G. G. See General Response t.
create for people in nual townships, Dakota County remains steadfasdy opposed to any form of
landbanking.
Dakota County believes the Transportation Accegs Section of the DEIS is incomplete. There neeiis
to be addidoaal analysis of the impacts on Dakota County roads. As it is, the DEIS identifies $366
ttiillion in roadway projects for the New Airport Alternative, taking for granted other significant
roadway projects will occur in the MetropoGtan Area even though they are not currendy inclucled in H• H. See General Response 1.
the Mn/DOT Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (ST1P). Furthec, the DEIS does not
evaluate the impaet of the airpoR roadway projects on other roadway projects in Greater Ivfinnesota.
Dakota County would like to express iu appreciation to both the Metropolitaa AirpoRs Commission
aad Fal«al Aviation Administration for this opportunity to comment on the Dual Track Airport
PLuming Process, Dcaft Ertvironmenta! Lnpact Statemeat.
Sincerety,
��� �,Q ��Q�,
chael E. Turner, Chair�'
Dakota County Boazd of Commissioners
N:DEIS-L7R
cc: Dakota County Board of Coaunissioners
Brandt Richardsoa, County Adminisuator
Louis J. Bre'�m6urst, Physicai Developmem Dicector
I-74
Page t of Z
BQARD OF COUNTY COMMISSfONERS
�AKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
February 6, 1996 Resalution No. 96-91
MoUon hy Commissioner Hartis Second by Commissioner Krause
Approvai of Comments on the Orak Enviro�mental impact Statement (DEIS)
for the Dual Track Alrport Planning Process
WHEREAS, Dakota County has actively participated in lhe Dual Track Airport Pianning Process on various policy
and technfcal committees dudag lhe previous six years o( the process: and
WHEREAS, the Metropoiitan Airports Commissian (MAC), in coordlnatlan v,riih the Federal Avlation AdminisUallon
(FAA), has completed a state and federal Draft Environmentai lmpact Slatement (DEIS) fo� public camment; and
WHEREAS, the DEIS 60-day public comment pe�iod began on December 15, 1995 and will close on Fetxuary 13,
1998.
NOW, THEREFORE. 8E IT RESOLVED, That the Dakota County 8oard of Commissioners hereby directs staH to
prepare a lette� of Comme�t addressing the foilowing issues and concems:
1. Dakota County's oKdal posiUoa with regaal to the Dual Track Airport Planning Process passed by the
Counry 8oard at its October 3, 1995, meeting.
Z. The AssociaUon of Minnesota Counties has removed their suppon for the Dual Track Airport Planni�g
Process.
3. Afler reviewing the OEIS it is apparent Minnesota does �ot need a new intematlonal airport. The DElS
shows 1he same year 2020 operetions at either an expanded Mianeapolis-St Paul Intemational Airpart
(MSP) or at a new airport.
4. Minnesota cannot atforti a new airport at a combined construCion and financing cost of over S9 billion.
5. Dakota Counry urges lhe MAC to explore the recently proposed incremental expansian of MSP
altemative.
6. Dakota Counry remains concemed about the weak and incompiete Economic Section o( the OEIS.
Dakota County does not agree wilh lhe induced development forecasts.
7. Dakota County wauld Iose 17,000 acres of fartnland, approximately 335 homes, and have over 1000
citizens displaced if a new airport were conslructed. This wouid set the dynamics of development in
motion, wilh the resull being the agricuiturai wmmunity wouid �each a transition point transfortning R
into a non-agdcultural communily.
8. The OEIS needs to explore the negative social impacts of any potential landbanking, specitically the
'(mpermanence syndmme' it wauld create in rurei townships.
9. Dakota County believes the TransportaBon Sealon is incomplete and there needs ta be addittonal
analysis of the impads on Oakota Counry roads; and
I—%5
Page 2 0! 2
8E IT FURTHER RESOIVED, That the Letter o( Commerrt inGuda the position af ihe Oakota Cauntyr Board o(
Commissioners lhat it is imperative noise mitlgation measures to meet the needs of northem Dakata Caunty citles
he impiemented (ar the existing and future impacis o( aircraft naise from lhe MinneapolisSt. Paul Intemapanal
Airpart;and
8E IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Letter of Comment is hereby approved as presented February 6, 1998.
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Counry of Oakota
YES
M,vr1a �_ Hartis
MaMr _X_ Mahef
gyny�y �_ Bauglta
M�al�r �_ Mueikr
Tunrr �_ Tuma
1Cia�tca �� fCfittfa
LoW4�9 �_ �oed(n9
I, Mary S. Su�eide. Ckrk ro the 8oara o! tns Camry ot Dakah, Shta W
Mtnnesota. tla nercoy cavh ihat 1 hav+mmpared 1M faegaing copy M a
NO resalutbn wM tha ongvW rtivuuea af Vx F+a�� a! tM BoaN of
Cauity Canmisa�mcra. Oaimu CaexY. Mknesda. at thcir seseian twla m
tha 61h Wy af Feotw�y t998. �aw an fiN in tna CounryAdminisUatlon
OeWe{�um�ant and hava roiuia tha sama w te a Uus anC oortea caPY tliasof.
Witness �m/ hand and of11da1 seal ot DafcUa CainH Ihla 7th daY d Fchnmry
199G.
�`��� �.XR�.
Ckrfl ro Ca Bortl
I-76
�
' BO?,RD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
DAiiOTA COUNTY. �1IV;IESOTA
DATE October 3, 1995 RESOLLTIOti v0. °5-652
1locioa by Comminaioner Harri 5 Seconded by Commiasioner Laedi na
WHEREAS, in 1989 the Mfnnesota Legislature created a'Dual-TracR Airport Planning Process' ta detertnine haw to
hesi meet tha regfads aviatlan needs through the year 2020; and
WHEFtEAS, in December 1991 Dakota County was seleded as the site for a potenUal new intemadonal airporc if a
decistan is matle to construct a new replacement airport; and
WHEREAS. Dakota County has actively participated in the OuabTrack Airpart Planning Proceu since 1990; and
WHEREAS, Dakota Counry Cammissioners, sta(i, and citizens have participaled ac:ively on committees and lask
groups of the Metropolitan Cou�cil and the Metropolitan Airports Commission studying apUons for meeting the
region's aviaUon needs: and
WHEREAS, while the Dakota County Board of Commissfoners recognizes that not ail stutlies in the Oual-Track
Airport Planning Process have been compieted, the 8oart1 of Commissianers has detertnined there is suKdent
evidence and reason for the 8oard ot Commissioners to conGude Ihe economic and social costs o( locating a major
new internaUonai airpaR in Dakota County outweigh any potential benefils ot such a decision and to adopt a position
in opposiUon to the relowtian o( a major new intemational airport in Dakota Caunty; and
WHEREAS, the 8oarc1 of Commissioners recognizes flights from and ta the existing Minneapolis-St. Paul
Intematlonal Airport (MSP) create excessive aircraft noise a((ecting residents of cilies in northern Dakota County and
the expansion of MSP will resuit in aadittonal aircratt noise torwhich it is imperative that noise mitigatian measures be
provided.
NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED, That the �akota County 6oard of Commissioners he2by opposas the
relocation o( a major new intema[ional airport to Dakota Counry; and
' YES
Huris X
� Msh�� X
Ba�aglia
Mwi��r x
Tumo X
Knu�� X
Ludinq X
State of Mianesota
ca�ocy ac n�o�
Harris
Mah�r
eaw9iia
Mudlu
Turno
Knu��
to�ding
NO
x
!. d1ary S. Seh<ide.Clerk m ahe Boud of Ne Counn• of Dakou. Snu ot Ainnewu. Eo hereoy cea:ip ai+ac t have comparca c:+c
loregoing eopy ot a rcwluuon �n'h che ong�nsi miauuei ot ah< pcxeedings o( �he Board ot Counc; Comm�ss�oaen. Dakon Cuvr.ty. �
Stinnewcs. ac �Eeic x�s�on heid on Ne 3rd dsy ai October �g 95 noW un 61e m�h< C�unq'
Adm�nuvsuon Dcputment and have (ound fhe sa+ne m be a we and eorretc wpy �ermi. m
Witne�� mr hand and oEficia! xil ot Dakau Councy Nia �� diy ai "' �� t9.9 —i�
� �r-,� =.�.�.4-- .
-- Cierk th� Board
�E IT FURTHER RESOWE'J. That the Oakota Counry Eoam of Commissioners fintls it to Ce imperaUve that noise
mdigatian measures ro meet the needs of northem Dakata Caunty cities Ce impiemented to� the ewstinq and tuwre
impacts of airc.afl naise as the result af the continuation antl/ar expansion of Minneapolis-St. Paul Intemational
Airport at its carrent lacatfon, and is cammitted to wortcing with northem Oakota Counry cilies to assure
implementation o( such measures: and
8E IT FURTHER RESOIVED, That the Dakota Counry Baarc1 af Cammissianers apposes any fartn af iniUative whicn
witl have the effed a('tandbankiag' land tar a new airyort in Oakota Counry in the future.
N WAII GA�� ��Vl\ SY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
liOVQWMENT CENTEN
14900 61ST STAEET NORTH a g7uy,yyATEfl, hpNNE50TA 550H2-OOOC
612•430•E000 � Fee�irtile ManNm 812-�30�C017
Febtuary 1, 1996
Ms. Jenn Unruh
Metropolitan Aiiporu Commission
6040 28th Avenue South
Minaeapolis, b�i 55450
� Dear Ms. Unruh:
Oarcw C. Hpuarp
dWld i
��
a.u�n s
W W AMYwmon
Wwk� 0
Myra Pwrwn
�Yeki �
O�w f�qwa�
ow�a srt�
Tliank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Dual Track Planning Process Draft
Environmental Impact StatemenG I would like to remind the Metropolitan Airports Commission
that the Washington County Boazd of Commissioners passed the attacheci resotution opposing
the relocaflon of a major new internationat airport to Dakota County. Despite'this posidon, we
realize that the planning process is at this time still continuing. We offer the following
comments in an attempt to make the Final EIS more accurate and complete.
� In past correspondence on this matter Washington County ezpressed concern regarding the
; following:
1. Increased growth pressures and related land use impacu,
2. Transportadon impacu along the principal arterial routes in the southern part of the
County, and
3. Negative impacu from noise and plane sightings on visitocs to Grey Cloud Island
Regional Park.
4. Impacu on migratory waterfowl.
Land tTse Impacts
Relocation of the airporY will bring significant growth pressures on the communities in southern
Washington County. We aze pleased to see that the EIS addresses the induced development
issues. However, we disagree with how the EIS portrays the current land use in the part of
Washington County that will experience airport-related impacts.
Section 0.2.1 Affected Environment - New Airport Aiternafive, page V-93
This section of the report srates 'The transforniarion from an agricuiturat to a non-agricultural
community has already occucred in Washington County." The report than goes on to state
County-wide figures and discuss wning in the noRhern part of the County. In the northern part
of the County this transformation is curren y occurrine for oonveationa! agricuiture. Howcva,
in the southern part of the County, pazticularly eastecn Cottage Gmve and Denmark Township,
the ixansformation has not occutred, is not occurring and is not pianned for.
The dtaft of the 2015 Washington County Comprehensive Plan, eacpected W be approved by the
County Board this winter, states °The County will take actions to ensure the fazmer's ability to
maintain his fatm and to provide for a variety of fazming opportunifles to occur. Prime
agricuitural land, such as is tocated in the southern townships and eastem Cottage Grove, will
be preserved for that use through housing density restrictions." Much of the land in the southern
communities is still pianned and zoned for 1/40.
We ask that the EIS accurately reflect the commitment that the Counry and the local
communides have to maintaining agriculture in the southern part of the County so that the
impacts of the New Airport Alternative can be more accuntely and fully undecstood. To be
complete, a discussion of land use impacts in Washington County must be included in Section
0.2.2 Induced Socioeconomic Impacu - New Airport Alternative.
t."
�.....� �r,.r w.. EQUAI EMPLOYMENT OPPOpTUNITY / AFFlRMATi VE ACT10N
I-78
�
�
A. See General Response 1.
Page 2
1ean Unruh
�February 1, 1996
T�soortation impacts
The EIS does recognize that the New Airport Alternative will have impacts that require capacity
improvements to TFi 10 from the St. Croix River to TFI 61 and TIi 95/CSAH 15 from TH 61 B• B• 5ee General Response 1.
to I-94. The County would expect the Final EIS to include the actual capacity improvement
n�eds for these routes in Table W-14. ''
Capacity improvements to TH 61 through Newport and St. Paul Park are not discussed in either
the New Airport Alternative or No Acdon Alternaave. This segment of 1Ti 61 has beEn C. C. See General Response 1.
identified as needing capacity and safety improvemenu by MNDOT and the Metropolitan MPO.
Past modeling of ttaffic flows through this area shows artificially low numbers because of the
current capacity problems. My addidonai new airport haffic will e�cacerbate the current
situation. The County would like this impact addressed in the Final EIS.
�?atks and Recreation Impact$
Grey Cioud Island Regional Pazk is expected to experience an ambient DNL lower than the
threshold set in the EIS. We would like to restate our concern about the potential for negaGve
impacts on park visitors from noise and from the sight of planes and/or vapor trails. Recreatioa
resea�h on airpiane overflights supports the fact that noise from airplanes detracts from visitor D. D. See Generai Response 1.
ezperiences. It aiso shows that even the sight of airplanes or vapor trails can contribute to
negative recreadon experiences. Even though the projected level of DNL is deemed an
acxeptabie levet by the FAA, the fact that most activides in this regional pazk take place
outdoors makes the projected noise from overhead aircraft a real concern. We would like to see
some discussion of this impact in the Final EIS.
Wildlife Impacts
ISince there is not a lot of research on the impacu of airplane overflights on resident and/or E. E. See Generai Response 1.
migrating birds in the Mississippi Flyway planning must move ahead cautiously to avoid creating
problems. The Metropolitan Airporu Commission should pursue more research in this area.
Thank you for considering these comments in your adopdon of the Finai EIS.
Sincezely,
���µ{ G�s:��
Davc Engstrom, hair
Washington County Board of Commissioners
c. Washington County Board of Commissioners
Jim Schug, County Administrator
Don Wisniewsld, Public Works Director
Jane Fiarper, Principal Planner
I-79
eaaAn oF cowm c�.ssaxazs
was�+racrow caurrr. �ewresoT'a RRES�OltlteOP1 NO. 95-191
oATE October 17 1995 oEPARiMBYT Admimstration
tdOTpN BY COMMtSSlONER Engstrom �pHO� BY COMM6SSIONHi Pecerson
DUA� TRACK AIRP�RT PLANNING PROCESS
WHEREAS, in 1989, the Minnesota Legislature created a dual
track airport planning process to determine how to best meet the
region's aviation needs through the yea� 2020; and,
WHEREAS, in December, 1991, �akota County was selected as the
site for a pote�tial new international airport, if a decision is made
to construct a �ew replacement ai�port; a�d,
WHEREAS, while the Washington County Board of Commissioners
recognizes that not ali studies in the dual track airport pianning
pracess have been compieted, the Board of Commissioners has
determined there is sufficient evidence a�d reason to conciude the
economic and sociai costs of locating a major new international
airport in Dakota County outweigh any pote�tiai benefits of such a
decision; and,
WHEREAS, a new airport, located in Dakota County, wouid have an
impact on infrastructure needs in southem Washington County;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE tT RESOLVED that the Washington County
8oard of Commissianers hereby opposes the relocation of a major
new intemational airport to Dakota County; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Washington Caunty Board of
Commissioners opposes any form of initiative which will have the
effect of "land banking' fo� a new airport in Dakota County, in the
future.
AYi .E''li ': /� ��/�� YES
UNi'Y ADMBiGSiRATOii �� x
BJGSfRpy X
��y Gl��r-�° � . X
cwv�a�fw, courrr eoe►no eere►sna —�
:/
NO
�
February 13, 1996
DAKOTA COUNTY SOIL AND WATER
CONSERVATlON D/STR/CT
faRnington Professional Buildf�g
821 Third SUeet . —
Suite 700
Farmington, MN 55024
Phone: (612) 4648004
FAX: (612) 460-8407
Ms. Jenn Unxuh
Metropolitan Airports Commission
6040 28th Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450
R8� DSIS PRBPARSD FOR TSX DIIAL Tl2ACK AIRPORT
Dear Ms. Unruh:
The Dakota Soil and Water Conservation District (District) is
submitting the following comments on the DraEt Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS) prepared for the Dual Track Airport Planning Psocess.
Theae conunents pertain to the new airport alternative site in Dakota
Couaty.
Aft�ed Faxml�nds
Prime, statewide or locally important farmlands, as defined by the
' NRCS, comprise approximately eighty two percent (82�) of the site. on
_. ' a county wide basis, Chis is nearly four percent (4�) of Dakota
couaty's best farming resources. This would constitute a significant /.�, A. See GeneralResponse1.
and irretrievable loss of farm produce, as well as, agricultural
support businesses located within the surrounding area. �
Affected cPetlaads/Floodalaias
The two ruaways and associated airline maintenance buildings that are
set in the northwest corne= of the site a=e placed within
approximately two thousand feet (2000') of the main branch of the
Vermillion River. This orientation may have potential detrimental B. B. See GeneralResponse1.
eftects oa the natural flood zone and wetland complex adjacent to the
river.
Additionally, the FEMA flood insurance rate map (community-panel
number 270101 0175 B, dated April 1, 1981) depicts 100 year flood
zoaes (Zone A) for two tributaries that drain to the northwest through
the site. The la=ger of these tribuCaries is orientated in a C. C. See GeneraiResponse 1.
northeast/southwest manner and passes through sections 8 and 9 in the
northeast, coatinues south and west through sections 17, 19, 20, 24,
25 aad then westerly through the south half of section 26.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNffY EMPIOYER
I-81
MAC Dual TraCk Aixport DEIS
Page 2
Based on the general runway layout and the locatioa of the terminal
area, there would be significant impacts to these 100 year flood zones
ahowa on Che FEMA mapa. The DEIS does not appear to address any C.
impacts to theee 100 year flood zones nor does it suggest any
neceasaxy mi.tigation measurea.
a„rf�ra wate*' Qla� � tv
Sased on the limited information p=ovided on this stormwater
management aystem, we are unable to adequately asses the probable p.
iaq�acts as a result of the increased icapervious area and altered
drainage patterne. Further discuasioa and figures would be needed to
detail the intricaciee of the atormwater managemeat system.
Land IIae xmnacta
It ia foreseeable that expansion to both commercial and residential
facilities will occur within the aurrounding area due to the
development of a regional airport within Dakota County. The demand
Eor better transportation, the loss of additional farmlands, the E.
iacrease in i�apervioua surfacea creating water quality concerns, and
the segmeatation and loss aE wildlife habitat will all lead to extreme
land use changes within the eastexn oae-half of Dakota County. The
DS=S aad planning procesa does not appear to have adequately addreesed
all foreseeable impacts which would sesult from this development.
If you should have any questions regarding these comments you can
contact either Mitch Johnson or myself at (612� 460-8004.
Sincerely,
,����1%(Ltif [�V G�!-� �'i
Srian Watson
Dakota Soil and Water Conservation District
+ ,
+96VSR003
I-82
See General Response 1. (ConYd1
See Generai Response 7.
E. See Generai ftesponse 1.
I ��
_ � :... . �,
� ��� ��, ��,�t �.
'�'HEp v"
M1NPIEHAHA CRE�K
WATERSiiED DISTFi1CT
Gray Freshwater Center, Navarre
25U0 Shadywood Road, Suke 3T
Excelsior, Minnesota 55331
�
Phone:81Z/471-0590 Fax:61T/471-0882
tWPO 6F MANABfRfi Jan E itanrt. PnsW'nC PunW G. 81ha. Vlu P�WJomtC M�rtlq
S. I WIMI, SeaKuy; iiwmet W. ta8anry. Tnuurer, AIaRe� 6ra� C. VJoodrar lowG
Tl�amtt Wpk„k.
Fcbrw�cy 13, 1996
Ms. Jean Unruh
Metropolitan Aitports Commission
6040 - 28th Avenue South
Minaeapolis, MN 55450
Re: Dual Tnck Airport Planning Process
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (December 1995)
Dear Ms. Unruh:
The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD), an organization charged with the
responsibility of protecting the water resources of the Minnehaha Creek watershed, has reviewed
the above document The MCWD is a special purpose, local unit of government chazged by state
law to manage and protect waters within a hydrologically defined area. The MCWD was formed
in 1967 and is governed by a boazd of seven managers. The watershed of the MCWD includes
all of the areas draining into Lake Minnetonka, along the Minnehaha Creek, through the
Minneapolis Chain of Lakes, to the Mississippi River. The MCWD spans approximately 181
square miles and includes 1291akes as well as numerous wedands and streams. Local
government units within the MCWD include two counties, twenty-seven cities, and three
rownships. The MCWD's geographic locadon and size make it one of the lazger urban
watefshed districts in Minnesota. The MCWD is a highly urbanized watershed district with less
than 50 percent of its presettlement wedands stili in existence.
Pursuant to Minnesota Staeutes Chapter 103D, and (WCA cite), the MAC will need to appiy for
and receive &om the Mianehaha Cceek Watershed District (the "District'� a pernrit before
starting any excavation if the "MSP Altemative" is chosen. Accordingiy, the District is very
interested in the Draft EIS and has reviewed it thoroughly. We have two primary concerns:
stormwater management and wedaad filling. The former is primarily focused on the "MSP
Alternadve" and the latter on both alternadves.
gtormwatcc Managcmant
A portion of th� airport property present�y drains noethwat to Motha Lake, east under State
Highway No. 77 to Tatt Lake, and then north under State Highway No. 62 to Lake Nokomis and
ultimately Minnehaha Creek. Much of the planned improvements are within both the hydrotogic
and legal boundaries of the MCWD. The District has a pazticulaz interest in impcoving the water
quatity of Lake Nokomis and has scheduled an investigation and diagnostic study of the lake.
Lake Nokomis is a regional msource which has very hi�h public and private use. The water
quality of the lake is presently poor with frequent algae blooms. The District has identified the
L,ake Nokomis Wauer Quality Improvement Project as a Irigh priority in its proposed capirai
impmvemeuts ptan
The "MSP Altecaative," as describcd in the I?caft IIS, would significandy inerease hardsurface,
fill e�dsting detention basins and wedand areas in aa a1�+eady wmPromised sub`rmtershai, and
introduce harmful deicing (nmway and aircrsft) chemirals to doWms�eam lakes, streams and
rivers. The District necds to Imow tho potentia! impact to Mother Lake and the other
downstream receiving bodies from these chemicals and also needs substantiaily more detail
rogarding the resulting stormwater tlow in the Motha Lake Subwauishai.
DlstNtt 6Msct+x EW�M R SVomfrR Assltlml dstrkt O4+ctor Suxann� M. Wwdnan
W
I-83
Ms. Jean Unruh
Metropolitan Airports Commission
February 13,1996
Page 2
Accordingly, ptease include, at a minimum, the follovving items in both the finat EIS and in your
permit applicadon to the District:
• A detecmination and analysis of exiscing and planned drainage areas and runoff volumes to A.
(i) Mother Lake and (ii) the Mississippi River via the described potential diversion finm
Mother Lake.
• A compcehensive evaluation of existing and pianned autrient loadings (particulazly
phosphorus) to Mother Lake and downstreani using Pondnet or an equivalent model.
• A comprehensive evaluation of planned and wet desenaon basin design using Pondnet, which
also documents conformity with MPCA design recommendadons published in "Protecting
Water Qualiry in Urban Areas 1991".
+ Evatuation of existing and planned peak runoffcatrs asing a stocm routing anatysis
documenting conformance to District peak runoff cate control standards.
• Operational criteria for the planned wet detention hasin(s) demons�ating that deicing
chemicals will not adversely impact downstream ��ater bodies.
• An evaluation of the capacity of existing stocrose�rEx(s) in the event that ail or part of Mother
Lake outflow is diverted directly to the Mississippi.
2. Wedand Impacts
A. This information has been provided in Appendix A.8
of the FEIS. Please note that the information presented in
Appendix A.e is based upon a p�eliminary engineering
analysis. More detailed analysis and data wili be
generated when the MAC applies for Minnehaha Creek
Watershed DisUict peRnits as required for future
development wortc. Also note that runoff wiil conGnue to go
to the Minnesota River rather than the Mississippi (see
MPCA ResponsaC).
B.I B. This information has been provided in Appendix A.B.
C. This infortnation has been provided in Appendix A.B.
D. F�ctreme case flooding conditions regarding the
Mother lake drainage area are addressed in Appendix A.B.
E. E. it is anticipated that ail storm water associated with
Aircraft OperaUng Area (AOA) surfaces within the cuRent
boundaries of the Mother Lake watershed wiil, under the
F. MSP AltemaGve, be peRnanenUy routed to the Minnesota
River South watershed controi and discharge system. This
wouid inciude runways, taxiways, and aircraft deicing
areas. See Appendix A.8 for further discussion.
The MSP Alternative involves filling 14 on-site wetlands and small poRions of four other F. it is no longer being considered for analyticai
wedands located off-site. The tota( wetland filling is appro�cicnately 34 acres. Approximately 19 purposes that drainage from the Mother Lake watershed
of the 34 acres are DNR protected wedands. A majority of the remaining 15 acres aze wettands wouid be diveRed to the Mississippi River. Instead, it is -
located within the Disuict's legal boundaries and a�e regulated by the District pursuant to the G envisioned that this diversion for AOA surfaces wi(I be �
Wedand Conservation Act. Accordingly, a comprehensive sequencing analysis must be contained permanenUy routed to the Minnesota River through MSP's
in the &nai EIS. Minnesota River South control end discharge system.
While the District recognizes the difficutty of replacing wetlands exclusively on-site, mitigation H. The MAC wili ensure that su�cient capacity is in piace to
ouuide of the particulaz subwatershed is discouraged and mitigation outside the District is c(euly address requirements associated with rerouting Mother
not appropriaze and against Disuict guidelines. The intention oF the Wedands Conservation Act is Lake drainage to the Minnesota River South watershed.
to locate reptacement wetlands as close to the impacted wetiand as possib(e. The District Measures availabie to enhance conveyance capaciiy as
requests that fucther evaluation of potentia( wetland mitigarion sites be compteted in the azea. may be required inGude:
The District has other wncems which I am confident can be adequately addressed during the
design phase and Disuict permit application process.
Thank you for this oppoctunity to comment on the Dual Track Airpoa Planning Process draft
EIS. We look forward to working with the Metropotitan Auports Commission on this project to
protect and improve the surface waters of the MCWD and the needs of the Meuopo(itan area.
Sincerely,
MINNF_HAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT
���`. ��o-rn.�e----
Thomas, President
IT:tjv
cc: Gene Strommen
Louis Smith
I-84
a continue existing program of increasing the use of
grassy swales adjacent to runways and taxiways;
. desigNuGiize temporary storage in grassed medians
and isiands; and
. increase pipe capaci8es.
G. See MPCA Response KK. A detailed sequencing
analysis will be done at the time when weUand permits are
appiied for.
H. The proposed configuration of new airpo�t facili6es
leaves very littie unused land and none that wouid be
suitable for the construction of weUand mitigation. There
Gea�iy is insufficient land availabie to provide sufficient on-
site wedand replacement to compty with the WeUand
Conserva8on Act (WCA). Further, on-site weUand
replacement couid generate bird-aircraft conflids. See
Appendix D for the proposed weUand mitigation pian.
�
MONTGOMERY WATSON
January 25, 1996
Ms. Jenn CTnru6
' Metropolitan Airports Commission
6040 28th Avenue Sou[h
Minneapolis, MN 55450
! Deaz Ms. Unruh:
�We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Dual Track
; Airport Planning Process for the Vermiilion River Watershed Management Commission
'(VRWMC) and are submitting the following comments and concerns regazding the
; proposed new site located in Dakota County.
; Floodplain / Hydrologic Impact Analysis
;
. i. The assumptions for the hydrologic analysis were difficult to assess as they were
� scattered throughout the secuon. It wouid be helpful to state the assumptions in a A, q,
� pazagraph early in this secaon, especially in regazds to the following comments.
� 2. Peak runoff rate and runoff volume aze not the only concerns regazding hydrology
and floodpiains. Floodplain fill is also a concem. Overlaying the floodpiain map and
the proposed site pian shows that the new airport would be built over a lazge part of a B. e•
� floodplain. It seems likely that grading acdviues will reduce some of the exisdng
� flood storage. This is a potentially significant impact. T'his floodpiain encroachment
requires mitigadon.
3. It is unclear what changes in runoff patterns would be made as a result of t6is project
There is some vague discussion of this in the second paragraph on page V-103. A
figure shouid be included in the hydrologic impact analysis that shows the existing C. C.
and proposed runoff routing to azd m understanding the chaages in drainage patterns
that would be made as a part of this projecG
4. The EI3 states that site devolopment would result in reroudng the existing drainage
patterns. The rosulting boundaries would no longer correspond to the VRWMC
Runoff Managoment Sectocs, and therefore, a d'uect comparison with VRWMC
' requirements is difficulG We agree with this: however, we also 6elieve that a more D. D.
comprehensive effort to address this issue should have been conducted as part of ttris
; analysis.
�
See General Response 1.
See Generai ftesponse 1.
See General Response 1.
See Generai Response 1.
5. The predicted peak 100-yeaz runoff rate from the proposed site under curcent
conditions appears excepdoaally high. T6e predicted peak runoff rate for the projoct E. E. See General Response 1.
area (4,428 cfs) is greater than the peak runoff rates for all of the affected Runoff
Management Sectors combiaed (3,510 cfs). It is unclear how ttus estimate of runoff
rate was derived.
Water Quality Impact Analysis
• 6) It is our understanding that runoff from the 41 percent of the site t6at is potendally
"contamiaated" will be collected in troatment basins and pumped to the Mississippi
' River. For this reason, water qua(ity impacts to the Vermillion River will probabty be
minor and best dealt with on a specific proposal basis.
Watedord Pah Tei:6125939000
505 U.S. Nwy. 169 Fax: 612 593 9975
Swte 555
MinneeDolis. Minnewa 55141
S�rvinp th� World'r Fnritonmenf�l Nuds
I-85
�
Ms. Jonn Unruh -2- January 25, 1996
7. De-icing chemicals will be mostly dissotved and therefore, when these chemicals
occur in areas not serviced by the recycling system the runoff will not be effectively
treated by the sedimentation basins. This may be a potendal impact to the Mississippi
River.
8. The DEIS dces not address water quality for the remaining 599'0 of the site. Wator
quality treatment for azeas coasidered "non-contaminated" is not provided. Water
quality treatment will be required for the entire project site.
9. This secdon does not mendon consuuction related water quality impacts (e.g.,
erosion) and how these impaets will be addcessed. In pazticular, a lacge scale grading
operation in several floodplain aceas and flowages presents a significant threat to
water qualiry.
Land Use Impact Analysis
10. The development of a major airpoa in Dakota County will significandy increase other
development in the area inciuding commercial, industrial, and transportadon suppoa
facilities resulting in furcher increases in imperviousness. Because this development
is a direct result of the airpoR development, the impact of this development should be
included in the analysis (hydrologic, water qnality, etc.).
If you have any quesdons regazding these comments, please contact either Steve Kloiber at
(612) 595-5239 or me at (612) 595-52'75.
Sincerely,
MONTGOMERY WATSON
� � _; %� � .��.��---.
Steven C. Woods, P.E.
Engineer for the Commission
:crs
I-86
See General Response 1.
See General Response 1.
See General Response 1.
�, . I: See Generel Response 1.
C
�)city ot
) btoomington, minnesota .
2215VJeztOkl9+d�oP�RoW • Bbort�lrgim MN 554Ji-3096 •(612Nd8A780 . iAX:948•8754 • TDO:9a8$740
Cotd 5. Noule
'�Y�
January 30, 1996
Ngel D. F3naey
Deputy Executive D'uector
Metropolitan Airports Commissioa
6040 28th Avenue South
Mrmeapolis, MN 55450
r.E: Draft Euv,ronmental Impact StateuienC Buai T• �c� :lirport Ytanning Process
(�AWk 89(T1fiQC150f1
Gry Ma+aper
Dear Mr. F'uu�ey:
The Bloomington City Councii has reviewed the Dual Track DEIS distributed in December 1995,
and has the foilowing comments:
. North-South Runway Figures Q-2 and FF-1 show 660 mont6ly departures using a 280°
(east to west) heading over the residential midsection ofBtoomington. As a noise mitigation
measure, these depaztures shoutd use turning points and headings for a flight uack over the
Mumesota River. The 240° heading illustrated in Hgure Q-2 would not, minimize noise
impacts on residenual uses because it is not centered over the industrial and open space
corridor along the M'innesota River.
In Mazch 1995, the Btoomington Ciry Council adopted a policy supporting a new north-south
iunway because it offers the opportunity to increase airpoct capacity and mitigate noise in
residentia! areas if careful attendon is given to designing noise-mitigating flight tracks and
procedures. The City of Bloomington expects ihat departure flight tracks and procedures for
runway 17-35 will be developed in consuitation with the a�'ected cities. I�Iew technology,
ssc,ti d glctal positi�.-.'v:g sy�ta�rs, �ay aL'ac: c::nway 35 approaches on L-acics �r� :idd:Gon to
the one illustrated in figure Q-2. The City of Btoomington expects that arrival flight tracks for
ivnway 17-35 will be developed in consultation with the affected cities.
�
A. Flight tracks for Runway 17 departures were
developed in consultation with FAA air tra�c controi tower
petsonnel. The flight tracks were established to get the full
capacity benefit of the new runway, given the likely alrspace
sWcture. A singie track for aii depa�tures wouid not provid�
for Culi capacity, wouid resuit in additional flight time, and
wouid have a major impact on communities along the
Minnesota River. A similar track investigated as part of the
Runway 4-22 EIS was determined to be unacceptable by
FAA. However, departure procedures and tracks wili be
evaivated in the Part 150 update.
B. Arrival flight tracks to runways are typically sVaight-in
for a minimum amount of miles to ensure a stabilized
approach. New technology may change the course further
out, but a 3-mile straight-in segment is stiil likely.
. Noise Mitigation Appropriate noise mitigation is perhaps the preeminent issue of the MSP -
Development and No Action alternatives. The land use compah'bility measures on pages V-
141 to V-143 need fiuttier refinement to narrow the measures to those that mitigate noise C. C. The expansion of mitigation beyond DNL 65 will be
impacts. The area elig�'ble for noise mitigation needs to be expanded beyond the forecast 2005 addressed in a Part 150 update. See the noise mitigation
LDN 65 contour. In several p(aces the DEIS recosnizes that the "area of potendal effect" for program in Appendix B..
noise is within the 2005 LDN 60 contour and this should be the minimum area £or noise
mitigation measures requ'ved in a reco�d of decision.
M Atfim�otNe ActioNEquai Oppo�hx�i�les Ert�loYe�
I�07
Ngd Finney
January 30, 1996
Page 2
Additional Terminal Attemative(s) In DEIS information meetings, it appears that MAC
intends to consider additional terminat alterna6ve(s) based on concepts proposed by
Narchwest Airlines. These alternatives will be substantially different &om Alternative 5
evaluated as part of the MSP Alternative Environmental Documenk The City of Bloomington
requests an opportuniry to review a supplemental impact analysis of any new termic�al
aiternatives MAC decides to dcwelop. The City of Btoomington has no preference for
location of the ternunal, but does desire to see a long-tern► ternunal plan which can
accommodate projected passengec growth and makes economic sense. The City also wants to
review the impacc of ternrina! alternatives on suaounding highway traSic volumes.
Figure W-16 shows highway improvements required due to the airport alternative. Based on
yeat 2020 uaffic volumes contained in the MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plarr, the gold
azea labeled as segment 4 in Figure W-16 shou(d be extended to ctearly inctude the TH77
Q-494 interc6ange. If an expanded southeast temunal concept is prefened, this figure will
need to be revised to consider the shift in traffc vo(umes to TfiS aad I-494. In figure W-2,
the 2020 daily traffc volumes on I-494 aze up to 1'7°/a lower and traffic volumes for TH77 aze
up to 50% lower than tcaffic volumes for the same segments iUusuated in figure 29 of the
Long-Term Comprehensive Pl�r: Alternative Farvironnrental Docsrment (replacement figures
mailed on 10/3/94). What accounts for these sharp changes in projected trip volumes?
Economic Impacts Overall, the Economic Impact study seems superficial for one of the
most important impacts of t}us study. For examp(e:
. The economic impact study does not identify the amount of indirect emp(oyment relocated
from the area around MSP to Dakota County for the New Airport alternative. There is a
category of induced development for the New Airport alternative, but no indication
whether all or part of this induced devetopment is expected to be relocated from the area
around MSP, the central cities or elsewhere. �
. Jnder th� Naw Airpo..•:�temative, .ha �,cIS she�ld rz cr ta potenua;�ecar.onvc im�arts
associated with reuse of the MSP site.
. The comparative costs in table I-26 (page V-77) do no� recognize the costs associated with
the timing of expenditures. Fo� example, expenditures for the MSP F.acpansion alternative
can be spread over the 20-year planning period, while expenditure on a new airport would
be front loaded at the beginning of the imp(ementation period. Taking this into account
would widen the difference between cosu of the MSP expansion and new airport
alteittatives.
. The DIIS states that proc.�ss P�anni"8 Saal #1 is to "Develop airport facilides to meet
fudue aviation needs, to pmvide enhanced levels of sir service, and to fiuther the economic
developmc� of the State of M"innesota." A rigorous economic analysis of aa airport's
ability to further M'innesota's economic development would evaluate whether imesting
similaz amounts of money oa other public goods (educadoq highways, telecommunication
in&astruchue, etc.) would be more effecdve in achieving the goal.
. M"inor Errors Our reviewers found a few errors and omissions which are listed on the
attached page.
By its nature, a comment (etter is a list of the reviewing agency's perceptions of an environmental
documene's shoctcomings. Overall the Dual Track DEIS is well organized and does an admirable
job of camparing the impacts of a very comp(ex, costly and contenrious set of airpoct alternatives.
The City of Bloomington feels that the work to date coniains conclusive data which the
Metropolican .Aicports Commission, Metropolitan Council and FAA can use to make a
recommendation that the IvLnnesota Legislature select the MSP Development altemative as the
preferred alternative.
Aay questions about this comment letter shoutd be directed to Larry Lee, Director of Communiry
Development, 948-8947.
Sincerely,
��PCi�
Coral Houle
Mayor
I-88
�. � D. See Generai Response 3.
E. The differerio'es are due to different forecasts. The
MSP LTCP used fo�ecasts from the old regionai travei
modei, and the DEIS used forecasts prepared from the
new modei.
The roadway improvements along TH 77 illustrated
on Figure W-16 in the DEIS refer to adding an additianal
lane in each direction between I-494 and the proposed
west terminai access ramps. The additionai �orthhound
E. TH 77 traffic lane would extend from the eastbound/
westbound i-494 access ramp onto northbound TH 77 to
the exit ramp to the west terminai. The additionai
southbound TH 77 traffic lane would extend from the
west terminal access ramps to the exit ramp/CD-road at
the 1-494 interchange. Traffic forecasts do not warrant
eMending the additianal lanes through the i-494/TH 77
interchange.
�
A southeast terminai expansion aiternative is �the
Northwest Airlines proposai. See General Response 3.
The modeling conducted for the long-term '
comprehensive plan was prepared using the previous
modei with modei parameters set by the 1970 and 19R'
Travei Behavior I�ventories, using 1992 socio-econom�
demographic forecasts. The travel demand forecasts '��.
used in the preparation of the Draft Environmental impact
Statement were prepared using the updated version of
the regionai travei demand modei. This version
incorporated data produced by the 1990 Travei 8ehavior
Inventory. The use of these more current model
parameters resuited in differences from eariier forecasts.
G.� F. See Generai Response 1.
G. The goal focuses on the development of ai�port
facilities to further economic development; investing in
other pubic endeavors is not a feasible alternative for
accommodati�g the futura aviation needs of the region.
Emts
p. V-60 Table I-6. fi. H. This has beer�wrrected.
2005 Anoka County poputation and 1995 Scott County poputadoa figures appear w
be incomct. As a result, totals for these years aze also incorcect.
p. V-66 Last paragraph
Bloomington was definod as a ccatral city after the 1980 census, but was not a ceatrat (. 1. This has been coRected.
city after the 1990 census. '
p. V 126 . Missing ia our revicw draft
Noise Scction and Figure T-3
Does not idenriiy the noise scasitive use of Trinity Schoo! at River Ridge located '
within the LDN65 contour at 2300 East 88th Street. This school woutd probabty J• J• This has been coRected. •
e�crimce a 15+dBA increase firom the MSP alternarive, similaz to the neazby Long
Meadow LakeBass Ponds receptor.
p. A.3-18 Ruaway hcadings seem to be omitted from Table A.3-9 i�. K. This has been coRected.
I-89
.� � ........... . ... . . iHOMAS EGAN
Mavar
PATRICW AWADA
SNAWN Ht1NiER
.TdI111dYy 17 � 1996 SANDRA A. MAS�N
. THEOOORE WACHTER
CouncY Momow�
NIGEL FI2tNEY iNOMAS HEDGES
DEPUTY EXECO'PIVE DIREGTOR ' ciN��m�«
METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION E.J. VANOVEIIBENE
6040 28TF2 AVENLTE SOOTfi c�Hcw��
MINNEAPOISS� MN 55450
RE: Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Dual Track Airport
Planning Process
Dear Mr. Finney:
In action taken at its meeting oP January 16, the Eagan City
Council Pormally adopted the attached comments with respect to tha
Dual Track DEIS. In general, the document does a good job of
attempting to analyze and diPferentiate hetween the alternatives.
The issue is admittedly extremely complex and inspires significant
responses and, as such, the DEIS is likely to be criticized by
many. The comments of the City of Eagan are intended to clarify or
amplify certain points raised in the document.
Among the areas which raise the most concern are the relationship
of actual growth to that projected in the Dual Track study, tha
need to ensure that all costs directly related to each alternative
are part of the deliheration and decision and that siqnificant and
meaninq£ul noise mitigation funds and tools are integral to the
cost estimates and the final decision. we believe that such
mitigation must extend well beyond the 60 DNL contour, especially
in the areas south of tha north-south runway which will be subject
to dramatic new noise impacts.
You will note that our comments exclude any reference to the
Northwest Airlines proposal Eor incremental changes to the current
airport. We would request that the relatianship oP the NWA
proposal to the DEIS process ba cla=iEied and that all agencies be
given an opportunity to review supplemental impact analysis so that
all alternatives to be considered reaeive the same scrutiny.
MUHICINJ. CEHTER THE tONE OAK TREE MAINTENANCE PACMY
�b�o PaOi �cN08 aOAD TF{E SYM00l Of STRENGTH AND GHOHRFI W OUfi COMMUNITV '��� COACHhUN POwf
EAGAN. MNNESOTA 35122•lEo7 EAGAN. MrtINESOIA 55112
PNON@ (012) Edl-�E00 PNONE (012) 6�1•6100
FA7C (OIT) 601-�614 EQud OPP���h'lAfMnattve Actbn Effipbym cA7C t01216Ei.a7e0
100: (EIT) LS123J5 I�D: (OI�.Wd115
• ,
�
A. See General Response 3.
Given the intormation in the DEIS, current tralPic growth estimates
and our own public procass, the City oP Eaqan balieves that tha
airport should only be expanded at tha cu=rent location it:
The Dakota County sita is preserved through land use
regulation or purchasa to ensure that the region need not
repeat an airport sitinq process if traffic growth B,
exceeds the study projections. This will also eneure
that there is an alternative to acquisition of developed
urbanized property Por future expansion oE the airport iP
it becomes necessary.
B. The Minnesota legisiature enacted legisiation
prohibiting the preservation of land 6y planning,
regulation or purchase for a new major airport.
2. Noise abatement funds and tools suEticient to meet the
needs of the true noise impact area are provided as a
part of the Dual Track decision. These include sound
insulation, property value guarantees, expanded tasc C. C. See General Response 2.
increment authority and other means of encouraginq noisa
compatible land uses and to make the noise environment
tolerable in those areas�where redevelopment is not '
possible.
3. No expansion is permitted to occur until the airline �. D. State legislation prohibits operations at MSP of
industry achieves an all Stage III fleet. aircraft not complying with stage 3 noise leve�s after
December 31, 1999; the north south runway is
Without these conditions, the City oP Eagan cannot support scheduled for completion in 2003. �
expansion at the airport at its current site. The City of Eagan
also supports the completion oP the Dual T=ack Planninq Proaess and
all of its environmental reviews to ensure that the Punds spent to
date have not been wasted.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment. If you have any
questions about the City's comments or position, please contact Jon
Sohenstein of our staff.
Sincerely,
: `�.Onti�1 �•�C�
Thomas L. Hedges
City Administrator
�
If, PURPbSE & NEEU
'!he dual track sirport planning procass is predicated on sevocal assumptioos. Among the most
aiticai aze the operations forecasts which determine tha capacity needs upon which alt of the
costs end environmenta! consequences for each nitemativa aze based
The for�casts anticipate an increase in Wtal passengers of 36% frnm a 1994 actual totat of 24.5
million passeagers W a 2024 projectioa of 33.4 million passengers. At the same time, aircraft
operations are expected W inccease.by 14% finm 454,100 to 520,400, the differeace being basod
on more wido-bodied aireraft, a trend which hss not emerged in tha seven years sinca the
projections began to be devetoped noc in tha fifteen years since hubbing began to domiaate tfie
dereguisud airline economy. If it fails to emecge in the next tweaty-five years, and operatioas
are increased to cocrespond with passmgcr growth, totat 2020 oporarions wiil be ia the
�eighborhood of 620,000 operations per year.
Tha growth ia aircraft operatioas undec the prujectioas is onahalf of 1% per year. Ihis
compares with over 8% annual gcowth in operations at MSP since deregu(atioa While it is
nnlikely that a growth factor oa the scalo of decegulation wouid occur in the near future, tho
magaitudo of the reduction is exc�ssive.
'iho IIS itself aclmowiedges a revised csdmate for mid-year 1995 that represents a 1% growth
rsta. The actual traffic level for all of 1995 is likely to dramaticaily pcexd that. Year-ead mtals
will be available to the MAC in lato January or eariy February and atimata can be derived from
the MACs ANOMS moniWring system based on monthly totais whict► they compite.
Based on unofficial cstimates from ANOMS data, it appears that the actual growth rate in 1995
may be as high as 4%. Such m estimate would correspond more favorably with the FAA's
terminal azea forecasts which andcipate aa annua! growth rate of 2.4%. If the FAA focecasts are
more accurate, MSP could reach the dua( track study's forecast of 520,400 operations twenty
y�s �ay.
While growth at this raie wilt be coasirained during the reconstruction of the south paraliet
nmway in 1997, it is not unteasonabte to expect thaL the availability of capacity form tha
pacallels and an extended Runway 4/22 beginning in 1998 wilt permit additional growth in peak
hour schuiutiag.
�
E. � E. See General Response 4.
Tha ELS suggests thai tho 1995 growth level is aa snoma(y, at least in part, because'the addition
of a teath connecting bank during late afternoon hour ... fills out the operating day." This F.
observation teads to coatradict the suggestion that demand wiil be the same regazdless of capacity
available. If the pcesmce of additiona( capacity eithe� at MSP or at the new sirport could have
a potential of atG�acting more aircraR and economic activity, a large portioa of the assumpdoas
abovi tho altemative, the'u casts and beaefits would be inaccurate. '
With respect W si:poct capaciry, the regioa has mgaged ia the dual uack study on the basis of
lovels of demand wfiich result ia a cost of ddsy of 526 million. Evea with the improvemeats G
aaticipated by the eacpansion alternative, it is foreeast thai operations in tho year 2020 will
expeiieace S38 million in aanusl dday eosts, as illusC"atcd in Figuro 5. At d►e traffic levels
andapated by the FM pmjations, the detay �ts aro tvm more significant
F. The forecasts used for MSP are in fact
"unconstrained." The reference to "the addition of a
tenth connecting bank...fiiis out the operating day" in �"
DEIS does not suggest that MSP is at capacity. Rathe�
most large airiine hubs have between eight and 11 ',
connecting banks in a day. This range does not reflect a
shortage in airport capacity, but rather limitations on
when people want to fly, aircraft economics, and
network scheduling. Northwest has stated it would �ot
likely add an 11th bank at MSP during the forecast
period, but would slowly increase the �umber of flights
as overali growth warra�ts.
G. The MSP Aiternative �eflects a balance of the cost:
of delay with the costs of facility improvements.
Capacity improvements are usually made only when the�
6ecome cost effective.
Qa page II-10, the consusints on the curreat urport ue delineated in signifieant detail. It is
�ssentiel that tho Stata be satisfied that futura demaads through the year 2020 and beyond caa H. H. MAC and FAA are satisfied that MSP can
be aeeommodated at the adsting site or it is likely t!►at the dual track pmcess will be replicated accommodate future demand to 2020 and beyond. See
witi�in the forasceable futuc'e at addidonal cost to'the public and with the alternatives being far General Response 4.
mora costly thaa thosa defin�d by the IIS.
I-92
III. ALTERNATiVES
The altomative secrion makes a numbot of observations which wili be addressed elsewhere ia
these comments. A significant issue is aot addressed elsewhoce ia the IIS and is appropriate for
commmt in this section.
page IQ-4 indicates that the ftcxibility of t6e MSP alteenarive W accommodate demsnd greater
thaa duL forecast for the year 2020 is limited It is indicated that additionai airport devetopmeat
aot pmvided under this aitcraative will be aecessary w prevent significaat lavels of congestion
and delay. In particular, it will be necessary to pcovide at least one additional parallel nmway
to accommodate ttus demaad The estimates do not incorporau any costs for laad acquisition,
demolition or construction of such additional runwsys. It should be assumed that these costs will
excecd the 5100 million idcatified in ti�e IIS for costs associated with the north-south nmway.
Further czpansion at the curreat site will roquire the acquisitiou of doveloped pmpeny
���g �o u� at an evea gnater cosc, pn esrimate of average casts of acquisi6on of
davelop�d Property in the vicinity of the airpoct is approximately S250,000 per acre.
V ENVTRONMENTAL CONSEOUENCES
A. Air Quslity
In the course of the dual track study, it has bcen ass�rted @:at the urminal and pazking facilitics
for earh alternative would have similar costs due to theirsimilaz configuration. In t6at regard,
ti�e tables on pages V-8 aad V-13 raise several qucstions. .First, if the terminal facilities ue
configured siautarly, what is the difference in carbon monoxide emissioas for the parking
facilities uader this aaalysis? In addition, it is assumed that the highu carbon monoxide
emissions for toadways at the new sicport as comparcd W the MSP altemative aro a result of their
Imgch aad the siu of the site. Does this reflect en route emissions as weUT Does the
eavimnmental review wasider concentrations ovex ares as opposed to gross emissioas? In
addition, how does this correlate with the fact that aircraR and vehicle fuel coasumption in the
year 202U is 4 miilion gallons lass ai the new airport thaa at tfie expandad MSP?
I-93
J.
I. A third parattatrunway is not part of the MSP
Alternative. See General Responses 4 and 5.
See General Response 1. En route emissions are in
Table A-10. The environme�tal review includes
concentrations at sensitive receptors around the airport
and at high volume intersections, in addition to gross
emissions.
L Eeonomie
While tho Purpose nnd Need soction discusses the cost of delsy u the various altematives, this
iaformation does not appear W be reflected in the economic aoalysis.
Ia addi6oq the aaalysis reviews aet ta�c capacity 'loss" by the various mimicipelities, but does
not reflect tsx capaciry iaaeas�s asso�tiaced with induxd developmmt Whilo some of this
devdopmwt may occur in communities ofhar than thou wiuch lost tmc capadry, thcy would
cmtainty occur within the affecud impnct ares aad would reflect u► offset of the impacu for both
alio:aativa.
It wouid also appoar that the ta�c ea}�acity affected by eacfi altemative shonld be expressed both
in tho form of perceatago and actuai dotlar figuro W provido an accurate picture of the effecls on
the locai units of govuament, region and Stata Zl�is could be ximitar to the analysis of farmland
impaem which consider the context of the Couary and State in addition to the land uoa itself.
As will be. disciu.ud more fully uada the section oa noise, the mitigation proposed under the
MSP atteraative cost estimates is grossly undctstatad aad could excced 5500 miBioa
K.
K The FEIS includes the analysis confained in the report
'Economic impacts of the AltemaGve Airport Development
Scenarios", Fehruary 1996, avaitable at MAC. In fhis report,',
the 15-yea� induced development for the MSP AftemaGve is I
caicuiated at 420,Q00 square feet of office space, 1,D50,000
square feet of industrial space and 2,500 hotei rooms.
These figures were based on an analysis of case studies of
induced development at other major airports in recent years,
as well as on an anatysis of historical Iand use deveiopment
trends in the metropolifan region. Based on these figures, it
was caiculated thaideveiopment induced by the MSP
Altemative wouid generate an addiGonal 55,400,000 in
property taues fw each five-year period during the 20-year
Duai Track pianni�g period. Most of these property tax
revenues wouid be generated by new hotei rooms. These
figures were piculated on an assumed effective tax rate of
6 percent over the forecast period, foliowing an anafysis of
current effective property ta�c rates for the muniapalities of
Bioomington, Minneapolis, Mendota Heights and Eagan.
It also appeazs that the gross ta�c capacity losses ue pralicated oa the squared-off airpoR sita '
As aotod in thc discussion of farmland below, it is not vnreasonabie to assume thas up to ona L. l. See General Response 1.
qumter of the naw airport szte could be rcturncd to private ownership, production aad L�c paying
stat�u.
It vwould also bo conmvctive m know whother any of the ecoaomic output bme5ts associated
witfi the consavction of uther altuaative caa be recaptur�d in a way that modifies the capital �, M. See "Economic Impacts of the Altemative Airporf
construction cosis. Evm if only in the form of income and sala taxes, the significaat ecanomic Development Scenarios", MAG, February 1996, page 153.
acriviry represeuted by both coastruction projocu woutd geaerau hundreds of millions of doUars
of Stato revmue. '
K Farmisnd
Tho c�cecutive summary indicates d�at 2,800 acres of farmland would be lost vndar the no acrion Pj,
dieraariva This is despiu an assertioa on pnge V-94 that the no acsion aitunative would have
ao impacts on e�tissring farmland
Mwch of the aaalysis is based on the assumptioa thas all of the property takm for tfie aicpoR
aonld be necessary for itt developmmt It should be noted that the initial estimata indicated
thu only 9,7Q0 aaa ware nacssacy for devetopmmt of the ucport itsel£ Througfi the dual hacic
proe�ss, it wa4 suggested thax it would aetually be necessary to acquire mtire propexties rather
tfian severing them. leaving small or irregulac remnaats As a coasequeace, at least oae-quartar
of the site under analysis would not be necessary for ai�wrt nse aad eould be retumed to
agciailturat uses duougfi either sale or lease. Bxaase agriculdua! usa ua euremdy compauble
with airpoct uses, this wou(d be a pncticai iue far the laad w6ile reduciag the impact on tfie
County's agricultural economy. In addition, the sgriculuual productiviry Iov�l of onathird of tfie
aicport siu depeads upon irrigation which has impacts on the aquifer which will be discussed in
the ground wata s�csioa
N. The 2,800 acres is the estimated farmland that would
be lost by 2020 in Dakota County due to residentiai
development under the No Action Altemative. The
assertion on page V-94 of the OEIS was incoRect
O. See General Response 1.
A minor point is that pages V-89 aad V-95 indicate ua error thai 45°/. of Dakota County's
icrigated fazmlaad is includ«i within the new airport site. On page V-85, it indicates that it is
sctualty 11.23% of the Co�unry'� imgaud fa=mland P. P. See General Response 1.
I-94
_ I Q. Noiae
1 Regardless of wiiether the sirport eupands or relocates, significaat atteation must be given to the
noise consequences of operating a major intemational aitport. Absent effective mitigation,
affected residentiat azeas witi absorb the actua! ludden cosu of airport operations. As such,
adcquate aad effective mitigarion tools aad appropriate levels of fundiag need to be applied to Q. Q. See General Response 2.
a sufficiendy broad area In addition, tha MAC, FAA and airiines must imptement operating
procedures which maintain tbe impacts in a manner coasistent with the impact study within the
EIS and, W reduce those impacts utili7ing appropriate mcans. .
It is assential that t6e assumptions used in the study reflect as accurately as possible the situation
wiuch wilt actualiy be e�cperienced by residents on tha ground 'Ihe flight uacks refecenced on iZ. R. The flight tracks used in the EIS reflect data provided
page V•132 and reflected in figure Q2 show that a significant majority of traffic maintains initisi by the Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System
headings to the southeast from the parallel runways. Under current operating procedures, aireraft (ANOMS) which detaiis actuai flight tracks. The tracks
traveting to the south and west begin turns to destinaaons as early as three miles from the nmway shown in Figure Q-2 are center-wefghted. This means that
md tracking over eastern and southern Eagan. It does not appear that this is accuratety depicted the tracks reflect a weighted average path to and from the
ia tracking data shovm. This deficiency may affect the conwurs which were based on these �nways. if all individual tracks were shown, the figure
tracks aad have im lications for the auti ation nece would be very confusing.
p g ssary, particulazly in the City of Eagan.
Attached to these comments is a copy of the City's statement conceming M5P airport noise
mitigation needs. It notes a seaes of requirements for operations changes which will be S. S. See General Response 2.
necessary as long as MSP functions at its current site. 13ese aze in addition to the operating
procedures outlined on page V-141.
In the discussion of the ruaway use system on page V-141, it refers to Table A.3-7 which
outlines the nmway use system's assumptions anticipated with the expansion of MSP. It should '�'. T. A revised runway use system (RUS), consistent with
be noted that a significant portion of the procedures for noise mitigation southeast of the airport the conditions set forth in this FEIS, will be developed to
are predicated on equal volumes of departure traffic from Runways 11 left aad 11 right If the reflect the use of the north-south runway. As with the
disparity noted in the table is to be the actua! operating configuration of the expanded airport, expanded use RUS eva�uated in the runway 4/22 FEIS, the
it will ptace an even greater requirement on the sirport, FAA and airlines to ensure that revised RUS wili balance noise impacts with the need to
operations stay within the preferred operating corridors and north of residential azeas of Eagea. operate MSP safely and e�ciently. See Generai Response 2
and page A.3-7.
With respect to the land use planning measures on pages V-142 through 143, the IIS makes
significaat use of the recoaunendations developed by the Metropotitan Council, MAC and tha
Cities of Bloomington, Eagan, Mendota Heights, Minneapolis and Richfield The IIS refers to
focusing mitigation in azeas of DNL 65 or gresier. The group which developed the community
protection concept package suticipated it to apply to a much broader area. Specifically, the group
recommended that ali tools be available W all azeas within one mile of the 60 DNL contour.
This recommendation was based on the perception that noise nuisance and the need for mitigation
goes substantially beyond the federally reco�ized DNL 65 levet. In addidon, the City of Eagen
is recommending that all land use pianning measures be avaiiabie on a graduated basis ai two
to three miles from the 60 DNL conWur such thai thece would be a progression from no land use
measures to some lend use measures to all land use measures, thereby diminishing the effects of
boundaries bctween eligible azeas aad ineligibte azeas. In particular, it would appear ihai sonnd
ins�ilation impmvemeat� should be made available W all tesida►ts within one mile of the 60 DNL
contour, that two-thirds of the cost for such impmvemwts be made available W residents within
two miles of the Ldn 60 contnur and thai one-third of the cost of sound insulatioa improvements
be made available to r�sideats witlria three miles of the 60 DNL contour. This is especially
important in tho area south of the 17/35 runway in Burnsville and Eagaa because of the
snbstantial amounts of new noise generated by more than a third of al! departures being routed
over t}us new impact azea. Usiag population counts in tho L30 65 contour as a surrogate for the
population within a mile of the DNL 60, this mitigation wouid cost in excess of 5500 million if
t6e current airport were expanded.
U. � U. See General Response 2.
The City of Eagan further recommends that aoise compatibla commercial development be
mcouraged in communi6es most affected by aircraft noise through the reduction and etimination
of fiscal disparities, contributions in noise impact areas and payments w lieu of taxes for private V. V. See General Response 2.
commercial development occurring oa aither sirpoR site wiuch could otherwise bo located in the
aoise affected communities.
I-95
S. Site Praerva8on
1ho City of Eagm supports the prosarvation of the new airport site u an essential eloment of
expansion of MSP. This position is predicated on the belief thai prudent options shouid be
maintained in the event that the operations forecast are significandy excaded aad because a
svbstmdal invesoment has been made by the public in t6e study of alternative meaas of ineeting
the airport's capacity needs. To abandon the work done to date and reitorate such a study in tw
to fiftcen years would result in a duplication of public costs fot the analysis of aiternativcs which
w+ould be more distant and more acpensive than those oudinul under the duat track study.
It is clear that site praervation coutd be accomplishod through regulation. In the eveat that
acquisition were necessary, it is apparent that the cost of acquisition and managemeat could be
offset by lease reveaue and the sale of land i£ telocation were not nccessacy during the dua! tracic
study horima.
Wlule land banking through acquisition would repre�at an impact on the social struchue of
famity farmiag in thai portion of Dakota County, tau capacity woutd actually increase as a
consequeace of the elimination of the homestead credit In additioq since State school fimding
is based on a per pupii formula, it would appear thaL funding should continue at a level
commensurate with the number oF students continuing to zesido in the area
T. Social
As noted under the Noise sectioq because of the significani fraction of MSP traffic which would X.
be directed to the south over new flight tracks from tho 17l35 runway, areas of western, ceata(
and southem Eagan, as well as north and east Bumsville, should be analyud for the social
imp6cations of addition of thai nmway.
CC. Ground Watee Qualit7
The e7cecutive summary is misleading with respect to ground water .zndings because of tha
crittria should and that summary natuce of the matriic. While the aquifer at the new sirpoR site
is very seasitive w contamination, the E1S states on page V-284 that the ground water in the
aquifer at the new airport site is probably contaminated at tho preseat timo oc will be in the near
future. As indicated on page V-287, shifting from agricuiturat laad use w an sirport usa mey
actuslly reduce contaminate input to the aquifers in the azea. Ia addition, because the application
of agricuitural chemicals to the ground is integral W their effectivwcss, potmtial coatamination
from airport uses, which could be bettcr mitigated, represeau less of a threat to the ground wnter
aad downstream wells thsn the curreat use of the property.
By focusing only on the sensitivity of the area in the executive summary, it gives the imprarion
that the proposed use would be detrimentai, wtule the body of the EIS suggests that demands on
the aquifec and its potential contamiaation would actualty be reduced by the change to an sirport
laad use.
Exeept for nual residentia! welts, which are li3cely to require treaimont because of current
chemical contamination aayway, the only water system wirich is downrange from the new sicport
site is the Hastings Municipal System which utilizes s much deeper and moro pratected aquifer.
APPEND[X B
Figuro Q-5 atiempts to reflect differeatial noise coatours without dif%rentiating bctwem the
appeacsace of the tiaa shemse(v�s. It would appear thai a dashed line for one contour or the
other would permit casier interpretation.
I-96
�;
. W. The Minnesota legisiature determined that land for a
new major airport cannot be preserved by any means.
X. As noted in the introductio� to Section V.T, sociat
impacts analyzed are those directly related to airport
development, including, for example, displaceme�t and
relocation of residents and businesses, as well as job
dispiacement. The impacts of airport development in
addition to the direct impacts included in Section V.T are
discussed in Section V.Q (Noise). Tables Q-1 and Q-2
describe the estimated 2000 population and dwellings,
and the noise sensitive uses within the 2005 DNL 60 +
noise contours for the MSP Alternative. The noise
contours are depicted in Figure Q-3.
Y. � Y. See General Response 1.
Z. � Z. Figure Q-5 has been revised.
�;,
CITY OF EAGAN
MSp AIRPORT NOISE HITIGATIOl7 NEEDS
Tha City of Eagan experiences savera aircratt noise impacts due to
its location southeast oP the airport and the priorities of tha
Runway Use System. These impacts are made worae by the failure oP
the FAA and airlinea to comply with procedures to maintain traEPic
aver noise-compatible land uses vhiah tha Cities of Eagan and
Mendota Heiqhts have set aside for this purpose• As a consequenca
o! current impacts, the C3ty oE Eaqan is very concarned about the
ePfects oE current operations and the possible expansion oP the
airport:at its preaent location.
As a part o! tha Dual Track Airport Planninq Process, the City of
Eagan has worked cloaely vith the Hetropolitan Council and other
cities around the airport to develop the Minneapolis-St. Paul A=ea
Commmnity Proteation Concept Package. The tools will be necessary
Por affected communities regardless o£ the alternativa chosen. If
tha airport expands at its current location, the toola outlined in
the Package will be essential. The City of Eagan supports the
adoption of the Community Protection Concept Package as a necassary
part oP the Dual Track decision with the qualiEications outlined
below. Even iP the decision is made to relocata the airport, some
o! tools will be important to mitigate aircraft noise impacts in
Eagan until a new airport would be operational.
, E�en though the City of Eagan has been ahle to plan its land use in
�consideration oP the airport, the dramatic increases in operations
,�since airline deregulation have resulted in unacceptable levals of
' noise in residential areas outside the commercial and industrial
land uses planned Por aircraft noise. ZP the airport is expanded
at its current location, it would increase the e�cposure of even
more areas of tha City, the aggressive application oP Co�unity
Protection tools such as expanded sound insulation, property value
guarantees, preferential tax treatments and the other tools
outlined in the packaqe are essential. Absent the availability and
application of these tools, the expansion of the airport will
result in significant levels oE hidden costs borne by our tax
payers and reflected in our tax base.
As the City has matured, the potential for additional land use
restrictions outside oE the Metropolitan Council noise zones has
become limited. While the City will continue to discourage
incompatible land uses within the industrisl areas and traditional
noise impact areas, the extensive development throughout the
co�unity prevents any substantial benefit fram extending such
controls to other areas.
The City ot Eagan has responsibly planned:and.devaloped its land
us,es to take into account the aircraEt noiae iasuas vhich could ba
anticipatad. Tha City would not support the creation o! additional
levels oP qovernment vhich would limit Cities' authorities to
determine appsropriata land usa solutions. The City does recognize
however the traditional and continuinq role o! the Hetropolitan
Council in maintaining policies and standards to assist and support
City decisions in this regard.
I-97
To make the application oE the Community Protection Concept Packaqe
eltactive, the tollowing additions are eaeantial:
1. Certain oE the community protection tools should be
implemented in a graduated faBhion at 2 and 3 miles Erom 60
DNL contour so that there is a progression from no tools to
some tools to all tcols. Thase include eound insulation,
property value guarantees, ta�c increment financing and
preEerential tax proqrams. Such programs should benePit the
noise affected residents without penalizinq the local
jurisdictionso
2. 2tew commarciaY devalopment Bhould be encouraged in the ( _
communities most affected by aircraft noise rather than on
airport property.
3. New commercial development within airport property at eithar
the existing o= Dakota County location should be required to
make payments in lieu oE ta�ces and fiscal disparitiea
contributions. Fiscal disparities distributions equal to
these contributions shculd be made to the communities most
affected by aircraft noise.
4. Eliminate Fiscal Disparities contribution for communities most
affected by aircraft noise or at least within the 60 DNL
contoure
In addition, long term compatibility of MSP with its neighborinq
co�unities is dependent upon certain operational assumptions and
chanqes which must be vigorously enforced on and by the MAC.
1. The Corridor operations should be narrowed usinq to the
fullest extent possible newly available technology such as
Global Positioninq Satellite navigation and other air traEfic
control enhancements. These improvements should be used to
bette= utilize the airspaca around HSP and to minimize
aircraft noise impacts in areas which urere not planned for
them.
It is becoming increasingly apparent that the noise abatement
capacity of the corridor is finite. It is essential that
mechanisms be put in place to inaura compliance with the
corridor. IP this is not possible, then it is unEair to
concentrate impacts on the residents of the communities
adjacent to the corridor. Absent effective and acceptable
corridor compliance, the Runway Use System should be
dismantled, parallel crosswind� runways should be added to
provide equal capacity in every direction and avery effort
should be made to equitably distributa air trattic on all
sides of the airport.
2. The airport ahould place equitabla impacts on all communities
it si�uts and reduca its inequitabla reliance on the
coffinvnities southeast oP the airport. IP sir trafPic is
redis�ributed in other directions, it should be done in auch
a way that it does not further impact cities which already
receive the majority of aircraft noise, such as Eaqan and
Mendota Haights. In particular, operations utilizinq an
estended Runway 4/22 or a north-south runway should usa
:.Standnrd Instrument Departures and other means of preventinq
additional overPlighta oE the City oE Eaqan.
I-98
3. AircraPt departing and azriving at ?LSP should be directed to
use, to tha greatest extent poesibla, those areas which were
planned by the region and the communities to absorb the worst
of the aircraEt noise. In large part, these areas are made up
of less noise aensitive land uses such as agricultural and
industrial park properties. Optimum flight tracks should be
established and implemented which beat utiliza these areas and
recognize the planning ePPorts of the communities to provlde
them.
4. Once modified in the ways outlined above, the boundaries oE
the arrival and depa=ture corridors ehould be speciPically
defined and aircraEt noise exposure standards should ba
established for residential areas alonq the corridor. The BfAC
should be responsible Por monetary fines and documentation for
sircraft operations violatinq these standards. The fine
proceeds should be paid as compensation to the city or cities
affected by the violation for the beneEit of the residents
most afEected by aircraEt noise.
5. Nighttime aircraft restrictions should be put into placa
immediately to ensure that only quieter Stage III aircraft are
flown between the hours oE 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Such
restrictions should be mandatory and violation of tha
standards should result in monetaxy fines to the ofEending
carrier with the proceeds to the affected city or cities for
the benePit of the residents most affected by aircraft noise.
6. Departure and arrival p=ocedures should be reviewed and
adjusted to ensure that the full performance capabilities oE
all aircraPt are being utilized to optimize the rata of climb
or descent relative to the noise compatible and noise
sensitive areas in the surrounding communities. This should
include consideration of Noise Abatement Departure Profiles,
full-thrust departure p=ocedures, steeper arrival glide slopes
and other means of ensuring that the worst of the noise impact
is concentrated in the noise compatible areas.
This is especially important in the areas affected by tha
possible addition oE the north-south runway due to its
potential to siqnificantly degrade residential usea in Dakota
County communities, if no operational changes are implemanted.
7. The airpart should be responsible for ensurinq that any
e�cpansion ot the currant ai=port be "noise neutral" to the
urbanized areas, whethar it be the extenaion of Runvay 4/22,
the addition of the north-south runway or the addition of a
third parallel runway. This means that no new noise impacts
would be generatad in off-airport properties as a result oP
thesa activities.
8. The lSAC should establiah measurable criteria by which the
perEormance of MSP is to be judged in deciding whether or not
airport expansion is warranted. These performance criteria
should be frequently and regularly reported to allow
interested parties to monitor the need to undertake the
improvements described in the MAC Comprehensive Plan.
9. When subsequent aircraPt stages are defined which can further
reduce off-airport noise impacts, nighttime restrictions of
older aircraft and other efPorts outlined ai�ove should be
implemented to require the use of such aircraEt technoloqies
to ensure Purther noise reductions for neighboring
co�unities.
I-99
City of as�ings
�yi,�.i�,' L'tl.,��1! '
i�ww��:�wr ! �
lx�;: ^-•�� •
s-, -.-_'�`- .,�-�C
� .',�;:
��' �
101 4ch Screec E. • Hastings, Minn�oca 55033•1955
612. 437 • 4127 • Fau: 612 e 437 •1082
February 7, 1996
Ms. Jenn Utuuh
Metropolitan Airports Commission
6040 28th Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450
Dear Jenn:
Enciosed please find a copy of a resoludon adopted by the Hastings City Council at its meeting
on February 5, 1996 regazding the draft enviroamental impact statement for the dual-track airport
planning process. Please make certain that this resolution is included as the officicial document
submitted on behalf of this City Council as it relates to the draft envuonmental impact statement
Should you have any questions or require any additional information, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Sincerel-- �
CIT'Y O
�
David b
City Ad
An Equal Opportunit� Empbyer
I-100
�
RESOLUTION # 2-2a-9s
RESOLUTiON OF THE CITY OF HASTING
PROVTDING COMMENTS ON THE
DUAL TRACK AIRPORT PLANNING PROCESS
DR.AFT ENVTRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
WHERF.AS, The DraFt Environmental Impact Scatemcnt (EIS) addresses the
anvironmental impacts associated with major airport development options for the
Twin Cities; and
WF-iERFAS, One option would provide the needed capaaty and facilities at
Minneapolis-S[. Paul Int�mational Airport in Hennepin County, and
WT-iEREAS, The other option would provide the nceded capadty and
fadlities at a potcntial replacement airport in the designated search azea in Dakota
County, directly adjacent to the City of Hastings; and
WT-iERF.AS, The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA.) and the
Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) have joindy prcpared the Draft EIS on
che potential effects of the altemadves to aecommodate the long term air
transportation ne�ds of the Minneapolis-Sc. Paui metropolitan region; and
WHERE.AS, The FAA is responsible for the federal environmental proccss and
the MAC is responsibk Eor the state environmcntal process, with the Minnesota
Environmental Quality Board responsible for making the Determinadon of Adequary
on the Final Statc EIS; and
WHEF.EAS, public commrnt period on s.he Draft Environmental Impact
Statement �xtends until February 13, 1996; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CIT'Y OF HASTINGS HEREBY ADOPTS THE FOLLOWING AS ITS
OFFICIAL COMMENTS ON THE DUAL TRACI� ATRPORT PLA.NNTNG
PROCESS DRAFI' ENVIRONMENTAL TMPACT STATEMENT:
FLOODPLAINS
Page V-107 of the EIS states that, "If the site is actually s�iccted for
devdopment of a ne�v airporc, it may be neccssary to rcmodel the encire watershcd
based on a common set of characteristics and assumptions agreed to by the
VRWMO, COE, Dakota County and ochcr ag�ndes involved in surface water
managcment for the Vernullion basin." This discussion on the common sec of
chazacteristics and assumptions should include the City of Hastings, since the
Vermillion Rivcr bisects the southern portion of the City.
HISTORICA7JARCHITECTt.IRAL RESOURCES
Th� City of Hastings is concemed that che EIS does not address the potential
impact of che many buildings in the downtown Hastings azea, most notably the
Hastings City Hall, that aze on the National Register, in the cvent infrastructure
improvemenu art nceded as a result of the location of the airport neaz Hastings.
INDUCED SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS
The EIS idcntifies on Page V-115 that the City of Hastings will e�cpericnce
induccd devalopment resulting in 4,615 additional residents and 1,705 additiona!
households as a result of che airport locauon in Dakota County. While the City of
Hastings does noc dispute these projections at this time, the City oE Hastings
recommends that tho EIS include documentation acknowledging that expansions of
the Munidpal Urban Servicc Arca (MUSA) and wastcwatcr treatm�nt plant capaaty
will bt necessary if these gro�vth projections are to bc accommodated.
I-101
�
/�1. � A. See General Response 1.
�. B. See Generai Response 1.
C. � C. See General Response 1.
LIGHT EMISSIONS
Furthcr discussion oE the impacts on the City of Hastings regarding the light
rnvssions from airaah using che proposed north-south runway, both approaching
and departing the ncw airport during cithcr nighttime or indement wcather should be
included in the EIS. In addicion, the spillover lighting from buildings such as the
terminal and pazking ramps, and other landslide fadlitias, must be designed in such a
way to minimize tha impact on the City of Hastings. �nally, the EIS should bn
amended accordingly so as to propaly deseribe the light �missions from lights
illuminating new roadways, and the impact on the �ty of Hastings.
NOISE
Page V-147 notcs that, "The noise assodaeed with taxing and run-up
op�rations �vas found to be insignificant in comparison to the noise assodated with
airaaft arrivals and deparcuru." This does not provide residencs of• Hastings an
undcrstanding of thc increasc noise that will be evidcnt due to the location of the
airport in Dakota Councy. To suggest that the noise levels would be "insignificant"
without any mcasurement or analysis of ehe inaeased noise Ievds is not satisfactory.
'The noise assodaced with taxing and run-up operations" will certainly be
"significant" if iu measurad against the peace and quite ehat now �xisu at the airport
sitc The incremental intrease in the noise levels should be identified.
E.
D. See General Response 1.
�
E. See General Response 1.
Page V-149 of the EIS suggesu that, "Limits on aircrah types and nightdme
operations r�scriaions on use of reverse thrust, flighe training, and nighttime
powerbacks may not be necessary but would be tvaluattd in the FAR 1 SO process." F. F. See Generai Response 1.
The �ty of Hastings suggesu chat the impact of eliminating those noise abatemcnt
measures in the event a new airport is constructed in Dakota Councy, be fvtther
analyzed and discussed in chis EIS process.
STI'E PRESERVATION
The City of Hastings is opposed to any spndfic action by the State Legislature,
Mecropolitan Airpores Commission or Meuopolitan Council to protect the airporc
site in Dakota County, beyond thac currendy available under nxisting laws.
Should site preservation be considtred for airpore devdopment in the EIS, then
therc must be a thorough analysis oE the impact on site prescrvation for properties
which would be needed for consuvction of highway accrss to the new airport, or for
powerlincs and pipelines to serve airpon activities. The EIS suggests that corridocs G,
for these infrasuvcture improvements would be the subject oE an in-depth analysis in
a subsequent Environmental Impact Statunent following selection of the New Airport
Alt�rnative as tho pref'erred altcrnativa The City of Hasdngs position is such that if
the process is going to discuss site preservation, it must addrtss all site preservation,
not simply airport site presuvation. Either study the impacts of all sit� preservation,
or do not study any site preservation.
The City of Hastings is opposcd to any attempt by the Metropolitan Airports
Commission to smue a property.tax cxcmpdon from the State Legistaturc that would
furthcr enhance the opportunity for site pc�cs�tvation, as conusnptated on page V-17I
of the EIS.
While page V-1 � 1 idencifies che lost revenucs available co Independent School
District #200 due to site preservation activitics, there is no analysis of the potentiai H
impacts on the School Disuict and ch� dties in the School District, such as the City
of Hastings.
The City oE Hastings disagrccs with chc statemcnc on page V-177 that
usentially states, "L.ocal jurisdictions �vould not be affact�d finandaliy" by the land 1,
regulation approach of site proservation. This statemenC is shorrsighted, as it does
not identify the tax base expansions tha[ would be lost if devdopment and growth
opportunities wnnt to other communities not impacted by the land regu(ations
associat�d with site presuvation.
I-102
G. See General Response 1.
H. See General Response 7.
See Generai Respo�se 1.
ri'
l
SECTION 4-F
The City of Hasungs is opposed to any EIS that refvses to idcntify thc
impacts to the downtown azeas on the National Register, particularly che City Hall,
as a result of che Highway #61 improvement that will be necnssary. Page V-222 oF
th� EIS statcs that, "In addition to chc abovc highway improvemcnts rcquired by the
New Airport Altemative, the following No action projects on the regional highway
systcm to serve tho region by 2020 without the ncw airport, ar� also n�eded to serve
the New Airport"; with "widening of TH 61 Mississippi River bridge in Hasdngs"
listed as the first project. The EIS racognizes that widening of the bridge is necessary
to serve the ncw airport. The EIS does not idantify the impacts this widening will
have on the many historic buildings in the downtown Hastings arca.
.�. � J. See General Response 1.
TRANSPORTATION
Pag�•V-217 of the EIS sratu that, "'I'H 61 south of Hastings aosses the RPZ
of a aosswind iunway on the airport. FAA just rcc�ndy completed its review oE the
airport layout plan and notified MAC that the highway cannot remain in this safety K•
zone. TH 61 would therefore be rclocated azound the RPZ. The impacts on this
relocation have not been det�rmined." These impacts should be determined,
particulazly any change in traffic pattems on Highway #61 in the dty limits of the
�ty of Hastings and Highway #316. Furthermore, the mst estimates identified on
page V-222 should be changad to rcflect the costs associated with relocadng Highway
#61 around the RPZ.
SURFACE WATER QUALITY
This section addrases the proposed wastervater treatment rystem for the new
airport on page V-265. In order to complcte the analysis of the impact of the
wastewater trcacmcnt plant, chere should be soma discussion of cho potential location
of the new wast�water treaunent plant. In addition the EIS should include a
descripcion of the sludge managcment plan, identi[ying the amounc of studge that �vil!
require disposal, the contcnts of che sludge and disposal sites and haul routas for the
sludge disposal.
GROUNDWATER QUALITY IMPACTS
The EIS very cleazly identifies a major concem of the City oE Hastings, yet
rnmes up short in its conclusion: (Page V-286) "An important issue is whether
groundwater concaminants originating beneath the site can impact the Hastings
Praire du Chien-Jordan munidpal wells to the northeast of the bedrock valley."
Iater, the EIS states that, "Insuffident information is available to conclude tivhether
water from the site will bc transported to the Hastings wells or wheth�r it will divcrge
around the munidpal wells due, at least in part, to the bedrock valley." It concludes
later that, ". .. groundwater travel time from the northem site boundary to the
nearest Hastings muniapal wcll (Number 6) is therefore estimatcd to b� on the order
of 5-25 years." Whethcr the EIS stat�s that there is "insuffiaent information" or that
rnntaminacion will take place, "on the order oE 5-25 years", is completely
unacceptable to the �ty of Hastings.
ADOPT'ED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HASTINGS
THIS 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1996
ayes: Co�er Plan. Jahn_srn. Simaoelc. Hicks. Maratl3ca arrl Mayor W�s�s
nays: Noc�
Absent: Co�mc.i].maober Riv�ss
r�...-,� �--'-� �.,._,..._,--..
MICHAEL D. WERNER
MAYOR
attest: �i�+'-*�Gt��-c-. � �`1s-,-��s.r-Lk--/
BARBARA C. THOMPSON �
CITY CLERK TREASURER
I-103
.IT.L
�
K. See General Response 1.
L. See General Response 1.
M. See Generai Response 1.
Fobruary 12, 1996
•
• s t . • •
�
Mdmpolitan Aiiports Commission
cto Ms. Jean Uncuh
6040 - 28th Aveuue South
Minneapolis, MN 55450
RE: Comments on the Dual Track Aixport PL�nning
Pmcess Draft Env'vronmental Impact Statement
Dear Commissioa Members:
'11iis letier is to serve as the City of Mendota Heights comments on the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement for the Dual Tiack Airport Planning Pmcess and is also to serve to express
our concerns about the Dual Track Airport Study.
DRAFI' IIVVIRONMENPAL IIvfPACT STATIIvfENT
The City of Mendota Heights offers the following comments to the published Dcaft
Favimamental Impact Statement
The DIIS d0es not identify, or exa�mine, all the tiue Cos[S and benefiLS foi either �• A. The EIS does not attempt to qua�tify aii the co
airport track that has been studied. In addition, the DIIS lacks a tive cost cotnparison of all possibie options that could be undertaken; it
or impac:t analysis for all possible options that could be undertaken, or that are examines oniy the direct costs of reasonable options
curxently being Consideted, including Northwest Airlines Concept 6A and the could meet the region's commercial aviation needs.
Sectio� III of the EIS describes the reaso�s for eiimin
:2c�zmount Cpdon 5uppor[ed by the I41'wnesota Public Iabby. other aiternatives. See also General Response 3.
2. The DEIS does not quantify the benefits from the potential redevelopment of the
existing MSP site if the airport were to be relocated to Dakota County. An analysis has
not been compieted that examines the economic benefits and the tax base impacts thai B, e. See General Response 1.
would acctue due to the redevelopment of the MSP site.
The DIIS analysis of the external costs on the communities that currenfly surround
MSP, due to the impac;t of increa.�ed noise pollution raused by expanding the curreat
aicport, are inadequate. The amount of money es6mated far noise mitigation is based
upon the e�osting Fazt 150 pmgram and is gmssly inadequate under a scenario of an
axpanded MSP. The DIIS assumes tbat the e�dsting home insulation progtam is C-
adequate W alleviate tho noise pollutioa pmWam and the �s6mat�s for noise mitigation
costs are basai upoa thc cnueat home insulation pmgcam and the amount of money
cwnmtly available for this Part 150 gmgram. The DEtS states this is adequate to
allcviaoe thc noise pollution pmblcm. Theco is no substaatiatian for t6is cLvm, nor
docs the DEIS adcquatety address this issue. No othor noiso mitigation efforts aze
included in the DEIS analysis, outside the noise insulation program. For the DIIS W
be a cred�'ble document, fiuther review is necessary to adequately analyze t6e external
costs of noise pollution on communities surrounding an expanded MSP, to identify
noise mifigation efforts other thaa sound iastilation and to analyu the cosis and benefits
of these other nuise mifigation �fforts.
1101 Victosia Curve �Mendota Heights. MN • 55118 452•1850
z-1o�
C. The costs have been revised. See General
Response 2.
�
Mctmpolitan Auports Commissioa
Fcbniary 12, 1996
Page two
'Ihe DIIS does not addcess the impact from noise pollution on housing values for
communities surmunding MSP undcr a scenario of an wcpanded ai:pon. For the DIIS
to remain a crcdible document, the costs of housing value depreciation must be
inciuded in the review of impacts for an expanded MSP. T1ie costs of community
stabiliTation and economic nwitalizarion shouid be included in the DELS, for both
t�acks of the study. The oosts of pmperty value guaiantee pmgrams, tax credits for
housing revitalization progca�ms and other community stabilizatioa programs should be
included in the DEIS.
The DEIS does not adequately address, or idendfy, the area to be included for sound
iasulation purposes, or for other noise mi6gation efforts, as mentioned above.
Therefore, the costs for tfiis program are again grossiy underestimated• Further review
is necessary.
The DIIS assumpdons for the growth in apecadons aze inadequate and do not equate
with current, real growth iates in operations. Further review is necessary to adequately
determine if an expanded MSP will reach capacity before the end of the current study
time line in the year 2020.
'r
�
D. See City of Richfieid Response JJ for discussion oF
noise impact on housing values and Generai Response 2 for
noise mitigation.
E. See General Response 2.
1 Should an expanded MSP ieach capacity before the year ZOZO, additionai tunways may F. F. See General Response 4.
- be necessary. The DIIS has not addressed future addidonal runways ai an expanded
MSP and their potential impacts in cerms of noise exposure and enviroumental impacxs,
, community disn�ption, economic development and/or deciine and tax base impacts.
This is a serious flaw in the DIIS, based on an assumpaon that this impact will occur
after the time line assumed for the study. Fuzther review is neecied.
7. The DIIS underesdmates the induced dcwelopment benefits for a relocated aixport and' I
the economic bonefits that would accrue to Da3nota County. G. G. See General Response 1.
The DIIS does aot adeguatety addcsss the costs and benefits of rcgulating air noise
gencration and ex;wsune. If MSP is w continue W exist its pnsent location, it is
esseutial t6at "teah• aLso be pat into the �egulations affecrion the operation of the
ai�wrt. The DIIS assumes t6ai curnnt operarionai pmcedures will remain in place
with an wcpaaded MSP. Thece is no analysis to substantiate the costs and benefits of
this assumption. Long term community compahbility with MSP has not been fully
analyzed in the conte�ct of operationai crianges that could moce equitably distn'bute air
noise generatioa The following operarional considerations shoutd be inciuded in the
cost and benefit analysis of the DIIS:
The aircrait departuro corridor shouid be nazmwed over Mendota Heig6ts and
Fagan to take full advantage of the latest air naff'ic contml teclvnology. The
inmoduction of a Global Positioning Satellite navigarion system at MSP should
greafly improve the safety of airspace management, and will aLso lessen the
distance aincraR need to be separatai from one another to ensure P�B�'
safety. Other piecision air tiaffic eontrol advancements oa the horizon will only
help the MAC and FAA beuer utiliu the aitspace surtaunding MSP to
minimiu air noise impacts ovar rGsideaiiat aieas.
I-105
H.
H. The DEIS did not assume that current operating
procedures wiil continue under the MSP Aitemative. With
the addition of the north south runway, new operating
procedures will result See General Response 2.
I. In the future, the use of a Giobai Positioning 5ateilite
(GPS) navigation system has the poten6al to naRow the -
Eagan-Mendota Heights Corridor. The potential narrowing
wouid be accompiished by more precise Vacking of aircraft
after departure and by reducing the current 15 degree
convergence requirement for paraliei departures on
Runways 12L and 12R. The existing divergence
requirement for parallei depa�tures on Runways 12L and
12R provides the necessary airoraft separation on departure
for ciosely-spaced parallel runways. At this time, technology
has not developed to the point that ali aircraft are GPS-
equipped. All airctaft should be GPS-equipped to effectively
narrow the cortidor. Narcowing the corridor could be a
consideration in a FAR Part 150 update at MSP. See aiso
General Response 2.
Meuvpolitan Airports Commission
February 12, 1996
� �
The inequirable relianco on the Mendota Heights/Fagan corridor shoutd be
eliminated. The capacity of the corridor is furite, and communities overftown
by aircraft using the corridor ought not be expected to endure air noise exposuce
beyond a fair limit. All communities surmunding MSP receive significant J•
economic benefit from its close proximity. Similady, all should be expected to
bear a reasonabie and equitabie share of the associated noise bucden as well.
Over tf►e Mendota Heights/Eagan area, departing airciaft should be directed to
utilize, to the fuliest extent possibie, less noise sensitive areas, such as industrial
paric propercy and highway rights of way. These areas have been planned in
conformance with e�asting and approved airport iunway configurations, are in
conformance with Meu+opolitan Council guidelines, and have been approved by
the Mehvpolitan Council. To fully accomplish this goal, aircraft during non-
busy hours should be directed to fly a crossing pattern in the corridor, rather
chan being gi�en departure headings wfvch overfly close-in msidential areas.
'fhis crossing pmcedure during non-busy times has been approved by the
Me[ropolitan Aiznorts Commission and is curcently awaiting imptementadon by
the Federai Aviation Adminisuadon.
J. Airport operating procedures are designed to safeiy
and efficienUy accommodate aircraft operation and reduce
environmental impacts when possible. F�cisting runway use
and flight track utilization are based on wind and weather
conditions and the originationf destination of the flight
The noise abatement procedures incorporated in the FEIS
do consider restricting operaGons during nighttime and other
non-busy hours to the least-sensitive runways and 8ight
tracks. See Gene � Response 2.
K. K. An Environmental Assessment for Revised Air Tra�c
Controi Procedures in the Eagan-Mendota Heights Cortidor
at MSP anaiyzed the crossing procedures described. The
FAA issued a FONSI stating that the further concentration of
aircraft in the Eagan-Mendota Heights Corridor wouid not
adversely impact noise-sensitive locations in the affected
area. The crossing procedure shouid be impiemented in the
near future. See also General Response 2.
d) Once modified to take advantage of the latest air uafFic control technology and
adjusted to corre�x for air noise distribution inequities, the boundaries of the
airciaft departure and arrival corridors should be specifically defined, and air L.
noise exposure standards sHould be established along this corridor. Ai�aft
opezators violating Wese standards should be subjeci to substantial monetary
fines.
e) Nighttime aincsaft restrictions should be put into place immediately to ensure
that oniy Stage III, quieter auccaft are flown between the hours of 10:30 p.m.
and 6:00 a.m. Such rest�ictions should be mandatory and violation of the
standards should result in a monetary fine W the offending air carrier.
� Noise Abatement Deparcure Procedures (related to how quickly ai�raft gain
aldtude upon departure) should be reviewed and adjusted W ensure Wat the full
performance capabilides of all aincraft are being utiliz.ed. The ability of aircraft nJ,
to rapidiy gain altitude, thereby m;n;mi�;ng ai�raft noise levels experienced on
the ground, should be quantified and made part of air tiaffic departure
procedures at MSP. This is esPecially txue for Stage III aircraft.
g) In its MSP Comprehensive Plan, the MAC has identified a futune mnway
constcuaron pmject located on the west side of the airport praperty. This new
North/South Iunway, if built, is ex�ected to accommodate air haffic needs well
beyond 2020. The face of aviation will be considecably different by thaz time
and will hopefully include ]ater gener�flon aincraft which will be substantially
quieter than the current Stage III quiet ai�caft, and high precision air t�affic
conorol technology which will ensure safe airspace management with a
minimum of aircraft separation. With this in mind, the MAC shouid commit
thai any aicport expansion identified in subsequent MSP Comprehensive Plans
will be "noise-neutcai", meaning that no new noise impacts over residential
areas will be generated off of the airport prvperty as a result of the futune
addiflon of new iunways.
o.
ALso related to the MSP Comprehensive Plan, the MAC should estabiish
measurable criteria by which the performance of MSP is to be judged in
deciding whether or not aitport expaasion is wariaiuted. These performance P.
criteria shouid be frequently and xeSnlarlY re�wrted to allow intere.sted pazties to
moaitor the ne�d to undertake the impmvements describai in the
Comprehensive Plan.
I-106
L. The MAC wili continue to encourage ATC and aircraft
to foilow established corridors; however, 100 percent
consistency with such corridors is not possible due to
capacity, weather and pilot judgment considerations. See
Generai Response 2.
M. Additionai nightUme restrictions were assessed as part
of the work of the MSP Noise MitigaBon Committee (see
Generai Response 2). By 2000, the FAA- mandated
phase-out of Stage 2 aircraft shouid result in ciose-to an al�r
Stage 3 fleet in the daytime as weli as at night While the '•
FAA has the power to grant waivers up to the year 2003,
they have indicated an unwillingness to do so. In addiUon,
Northwest Ai�lines has pubiiciy stated that they have no
intenGon of reques6ng a waiver, and Minnesota legisiatio�
prohibits Stage 2 aircraft operations at MSP after December
31,1999.
N. The MAC is curcenUy investigating the noise impact
benefits of changing departure profiles at MSP as part of a
separate study. For the EIS, consistent departure
procedures were used for ali aitemaGves.
O. it is unrealistic to require that future capacity
improvements such as a new runway wouid not change the
pattem of noise impacts. The location and orientaUon of a
new runway is determined by capacity needs, wind and
weather tactors, safety considerations and availabie iand.
P. In practice, sVingent performance criteria are appiied
to airport ppaciiy expansion p�ojects. Airports and ai�lines
examine the cost-benefit of any capacity improvement The
most common method of determining when a project may
provide benefits is by tracking the annuai cost of aircraft
delay. When these costs approach those of impiementing a
capacity enhancement project, addiGonal study is warranted
In generai, facilities shouid not be buiit based on forecast
demand, but rather on actuai demand.
Meuvpolitan Aitports Commission
^ebmaxy 12, 1996
:'age four
• ► �:1� � . :/YMQ M':/' • 1� 1► yr�_' � �
The City of Mendnta Heights is concerned with We ncent appe�arsnce of the Northwest `
Aulines Concept Plaa 6A and t6e likelihood t6at it will ieceive considetation from the decisian Q. Q. See Generai Response 3.
makets on tlx Mett+opolitaII Airports Commie.ion and at the I.Cgis4�tutC. Thi9 plan has not
txca includad in the review for the Draft Fuvimnmental Impact StatemeaG If NwA Concept
6A plan is to be cons�denxi, it will be necessazy for We Metx�olihan Airports Commissian to
n open the Fnvimnmeatal Impact Statement study W include Wis plan in a11 pl�ases of impact
analysis.
As stated above, the DIIS fails to address any impacts for additional runways beyond
tha year 2020, or before the year 2020 if the growth pmjections are discovered W be
undecestimated. The Northwest .Airlines Coneept 6A includes a pmjected north�parallel •� R. R. See Generai Responses 4 and 5.
tunway. The DELS faiLs w addmss any potential impacts tbat a north pazallei iunway would
have ineiuding community dismption, declines in propezty ta�c base values, noise pollution and
oiher envinonmental impacts that would occur under the Northwest Airlines Concept 6A.
The City Council of Mendota Aeights disagrees with the Metropolitan Aimorts
Commission's decision to speed up the Duai Track Study Process co report to t6e Legislacuce
in March of 1996. The public comment period for the DE[S concludes on February 13, 1996.
The Metc+opolitan Airports Commission will need more than one moath to adequately address
each communities comments and to address all the areas where the DE[5 may be inadequate or
in nced of further review. Mendota Fieig6ts supports the original schedule, as prescribed in
curreat state law, for the compleBon of the Dual Track Air�wrts Study.
,' We aQpreciate the opportunity to comment on the Dtaft Environmental Impact
Statement. We eagerly await your repty and response to our comments and concems.
Sincecely,
Q�...� �. �1•..�-�
Charies E. ivterten�orio
Mayor
cc: Kevin Howe, Metropolitan Council
Kurt Johnson, Metropolitan Councii
I-107
CRY PLANNING OEPAHiMENT
210 Cily Haii
950 Sautn Fitln Slraet
Muwu�poi�s MN 55475•�]85
(81216TJ•2597
�e�zt e»-zne Fax
W.PAULFAflMER.AiCP
Pt.M1NING OIRECTOH
9 Fobniazy, 1996
Nge! D. F'uuuy
Deputy Executive Director
MeaopoGtan Aicports CoRvnission
6040 28th Av. S.
M'inneapolis, Mn 55450
�
minneapolis
---��� ciEy o/'la.kes
RE: Draft Environmantal Impact Statoment on tho Dual Track AirpoR Planning Process
Dear Mr. Finnry,
Encfosed herewieh is a copy of tho City of hfinneapoGs comments conceming the
Environmontal Tcnpact Statement on the Dual Track Airport P(anning Process.
Sinceroly yours,
����
Paul Fazmer, AICP
Planning Director
.w�.
� j��T �� �� L
� �'_
. - ,� � - � �
E��. i� � - �
,_ �.,,�f i:i,i� _ �I �� �i. �
— mnu = ���- mu� �+ �� � — - �_i�� � �riY�,(I�S — —
�'�
I-108
f� r
COMMENTS OF THE CTTY OF MINNEAPOLIS REGARDING THE
DUAL TRACK AIRPORT PLANNIlVG PROCESS DRAFT
ENVIItONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Appcoved by We MinatapoliW City Council
9 February 1996
Bxause of its physical pro�dmity to t6e Ivfinneapolis-Sk Paail International Airport (MSP),
the City of 2vfinneapoGs is affected by MSP in two major ways. White there aze severe
eavitonmental impacts &om the airpoR on neacby resideniial azeas, residents and
businesses both benefit &om the coavenience afforded by the proximiry. This dual-edged
sword means that the City has bee�► and continues to be a very interested party in the
airport planning process. While MSP's effect is largely positive for the state and the rest
of the metropolitaa area, it has a negative impact on a handfu( of communides. There is a
regiona! imbalance in costs and beae6ts.
Throughout the s"vc yeazs of planning mandated by the State I.egislature's 1989 Duat
Track Airport Planning Proceegss law, ra�merous infomiational meetings and required public
heazings have been hetd in the City. The City has responded focmally to vazious
documents that have beeu circulated as part of the process. This stateenent is the City's
focmai response to the Draft Environmental Lnpacc Statement on the Dual Track Airport
Plsnning Process (DIIS). The City also expects to comment on the Fina! IIS when it is
available.
A. COMMENTS ON 1� DUAL TRACK AIRPORT PLANNING PROCESS
DRAFT ENVIItONMENTAL IlVIYACT STATEMENT
The City of Mumeapofis agrees with the Metropolitan Council that the paramount need
driving this long planning process is to accommodate the future demand for air
transportatioa The Metropolitan Council's Airport Adequacy Study in the mid 1980s
concluded thai the preser►t sirport would not be abte to accomplish that task. However,
_ the City questions whethes the DELS adequatety addresses the true scale of that air
transpoRarion demand and the best methods to address it.
1. Grnwth Forecasts
Pages II-1 through II-10 of the DEIS provide a caQsule history of the project and
clearly state the Metropolitan Council's Regionai Goals for the project as well as the
six Planning Goats adopted to guide the two macks of the planning p�oc,ess.
The City i� concernod that the foltowing two Planning Goals are not fully ma by the
plans for the etidev�lopmeat of MSP as evaluated in the DEIS:
Goat #1: "Devdop aicport facilitid to meet futuce aviation nceds, to pmvide
eahanced levels of air savice and to fiuther t6e economic devetopmert of the
State ofMuuiesota."
Goal #6: "Develop the airpoR and airpoR vicinity to nununize and reduce adverse
air«aft noise and othu environmental effects."
The n�l probtcu► in the development of adequate facilides to meet future aviation
needs concerns the long term. The pLvming horizon adopted was 2020. While the
P��B detaled in the DIIS seems to indicaie that MSP could just meet the needs
of 2020 using vay modcst growth forecasu, the City is concerned about the years
aRu that horizoa
The DIIS is based too heav�7y on the belief that aitrent operatiag procedures of
Northwest Airlines (NWA) will conrinue unti12020. Yet, operating procedures of
NWA and the airline industry wae radicalty differeat twenty frn years ago. The
Fina! EIS stwuld evatuate the effect,i of sevecal di$'amt sceaarios.
I-109
�
14. A. The Year 2020 planning horizon (30 years from the
iniGaBon of the process in 1989) was stipulated in the Dual
Track legisiation passed by the state Iegisiature; therefore,
the altemaGves considered in the EIS were designed to
meet baseiine 2020 requirements. A 2020 planning horizon
is well beyond the pianning period typicaliy used for
airports. The MAC has subsequenUy evaluated the MSP
Clty d Mlnaeipdu C�� Dnft ICIS tor the Dual'l7rsrk Airpurt Planuiug Prateu
Thae is the real poss►bility that the MetropoGtan Airports Commission (MAG� has
underescimated actual growth in operations. The MAC aad Nocthwest agr�,ed to
use a set of Sgures that are faz below the predicted levels of the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) (refer to page II 8 of thaDEIS). W6ile it may be too soon to
tell if receat phenomenal growth is an aberradon or a uend, the numbes of
pas,4engers and operations have ban greater than predicted in the past years. For
e�nple, in 1996 the teve! of operations wilt reach that p►�edicted for the year 2000.
Nucthwest asserts that the recent type of growth will not continue. But what if it
does? �
The limits of growth at MSP are best stated on page II-10: "Physical and
e�wanmenta( coastraints siurounding MSP complicate deve(opment options.
Expansion of MSP is constrained by the proximity of the Mmnesota River (with its
Wildtife R,efuge), scve:al major highways, a state park, historic district, cemetery,
and adjoining residential and commerciat development"
The DIIS states that a third parallel runway could be built after 2020 to
�aa:ommodaie the growth. Howevu, no environmencal review was completed for
t6is poss9bility. If the MAC or the FAA have forecasted the need for tlris third
parallei nmway, then, regardless of the somewhat arbiaary 2020 planning horizoq
the Final EIS should disclose these forecasts and al! the bacicground infocznarion
nxded for the public to make an informed review of this informatioa If the
forecasts predict a need for the cumvay retatively ciose to the year 2020, the Fu�al
EIS ptanning period shoutd be amended to encompass this additional period of time.
Furthersnoce, the Final EIS should account for potenriat impacts on the residmtia!
cocnmunities off both ends of the proposed nmway in Mianeapolis and Mendota
�Ieights; the impact and cost of depcnssing a major highwaY, I�ighway 62, the
Croastown; the additiona! impacts oa Fort Snd(ing National Paci� and otha
�P�
Without appropriate analysis of We environmental impact of the third parallei
tuaway, all mrntion of it should be rtmoved from the Final EIS. Otherwise, the
Final EIS could be misappfied to argue that this document addressed the impacts of
the third pacallel nu►way when, in truth, it has not
Z Noise
The increase in the num6er of aanual opaations over South Mimeapotis since 1978
is equal to the Wtal annuat opaations at Kan.gas City AirpoR (MAC nport of otha
aicport operations). But these (ocal increases and noise have not been shated equally
among the various communities impacted by MSP. Operations over the affecte�
subarban communides has acu�ally gone down while Mumea�wGs has had to eadure
the noise equivalent of aa additional mediwn-sized aicport.
Missiag from the DEIS are analyses of neighborhood and community concerns aad
resident perceptions of local sirport impacts. What levels of risk and uncertainty
� we associato with the implicadons of these concans and perceptions for each
airport alte:native? The report aQpazeady assumes a risk &ee wodd as if the
projections, based on certain arguabte assumpdons, are aroo-free predictions.
Obviously thry are not Therefore, what costs, if az►y, are included in the various
governmental and priwate sector efforts to wpe with t6ese concesns and perceptions
in the case of each sirport altc�aative? The nct result of not responding to these
sorts of quesdons may be a report tLat technically meets its stated purpose but, yet,
fails to provide a souad factual basis for a c�eatistic perspective on each airport
dtanative. The Final EIS shoutd appcnpciatdy evalusu those impads whict► may
be difficult tn measure but are vay reaL
Pag,e - 2
I-110
/4. A. (continued from previous page) Aitemative using a
2020 high forecast of 640,000 annuai operations
(approximately 23 percent higher than the 2020 base
forecast of 520,000) and found that the MSP 2020
Concept Plan can accommodate these activity leveis.
This analysis accompiishes the same purpose as
e�ending the pianning period. See aiso Generai
Response 4.
B. B. As stated by the City of Minneapolis, the pianning
horizon is the year 2020. The concept adopted by the MAC
for expansion of MSP meets the facility requirements
identified using the baseline forecasts. in addition, MAC
has tested the MSP Altemative at higher levels of activity
and determined that this altemaGve would be able to
support a 23 percent increase over the year 2020 forecasts
(See Response A). Based on the forecasts, a fifth runway
is not required to accommodate the increased activity and
was therefore not incorporated into the MSP Aitemative.
Should another runway be necessary in the future, a
separate EIS would have to be compieted. See Generai
Responses 4 and 5.
Ce C. See Response A and Generai Response 5. The MSP
Altemative does not include a third parallei runway.
�. D. It is not Gear what these "neighbofiood and
community concems and resident perceptions" are. The
purpose of the EIS is to identify, assess and describe
reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts and to
identify possible miGgation measures for potentially
significant environmental impacts associated with a
particular action. Section I.F tists the process used to
prepare the environmentat analysis. Numerous public
scoping sessions, public information meetings and public
hearings were held to gather community input. The EIS
Scoping Decision inGudes the list of issues that were to be
addressed in the EIS.
City o( MinaeapolL Commcom; Dnft ELS for the Dus! Truk Airport Ptanning Procao
On page V-132 the DEIS states that for the MSP alternative,."forecast runway use
iacorpocaies the ncw Nocth-South Runway.... The operating modes idenrified by E. E. Table A.3-7 in Appendix A.3 shows the percentage
ATC personnei was belaz►ctd wich enviro�sn�atal c°°s►derat►oc�s." These modes of of runway use for the MSP Aiternative.
opention were not spelled out. This should be done to permit review and comment.
Given that aircraft noise and its effects on the community have been the subject of
newspaper stories, pubGe meetings, demonstratioq etc. for more than 25 years, it F_ p, Appendix A.3 references six additional sources of
seems very odd that oniy one reference for noise impacts is given in the List of information on noise analysis.
References on page IX-4. This is in contrast to 24 listed regarding farm land impact
and 24 concerning groundwater/hydrology.
Fgure A3-2 is a graph depicting Community Reacrion to Noise LeveL It indicates
that at DNL 65 ahout 13% of peopie say they aze "F�gh(y annoyed." In the past,
FAA documents s6ow that at DNL 65 app[o�titnaLLely 30% of people say they ate G. G. Figure A.3-2 represents two studies relating percent
"highly annoyed." If the standard for DNL 65 has changed, it should be explained of peopie annoyed to DNL noise level. The Schultz Curve
somcwhere. Othervvise, the newly de6ned DNL mcasurement is a much mo[e is the federal guideline for noise compatibiiity pianning.
saingent measure which might be used to "move" peopie out of a noise area without
actually improving their situation while minuniang the noise problem.
3. Noise Mitigation Measurea
a. O(f-Airport Mitigation Costs
The draft DIIS is inadequate in its anatysis of off-airport midgation cosu for
chcpanding MSP. There is some money set aside in the progrun for sound proofing
within the DNL 65 noise contour, but communities azound MSP have been worldng
on a broader package of ineasures that would need to be implemented if the airport
were to eacpand. 'This package includes sound insulation beyond the DNL 65
contour as well as assistance in converting land uses to more compatible ones. The
work of the Communides CoUaborative Cnoup should be inciuded in the cost
estimates for MSP expansion in ocdec to make a fairer comparison between a new
airport and expansion of the present one.
fi. � H. See General Response 2.
While there is acknowledgment that noise impacts occur beyond the generalty
accepted DNL 65 contour line, there is no mitigation plan proposed foc the areas �. �. See General Response 2.
within the DNL 60 and tower contour lines. Further, there was not adequate
disclosure of the noise levets measured at monitoring stations, such as stations one,
two, and seven The FEIS should adequately disciose this inforn�atioa
Although the DIIS includes substan6al information regarding the economic and
transportarion service benefits generated by the airpoR and the noise impacts, it is
much less thorough in describing the imbatance in airpoR benefits and disbenefits.
The flying public, the regional economy and NWA are the greatest benefactors but
the people under the flightpaths pay the highest cost in cerms of noise. The DEIS
inadequately analyses the extematity costs borne by the impacted residenu and it
inadequately disctoses methods that would help to equalize benefits and disbenefits.
It is noted that in prior documents the Concept 6 plan predicted the need for $3
billion in improvements at MSP and the DEIS Gsts only $13 million. Mmneapolis
wants to lmow what has changed that has resulted in such a substantially lower
number.
b. Reduciug Noise by Reducing Aircraft Operations — Demand Side
Management
Whea NWA (and other airlines) o�'er fares that cut hundreds of dollars off the
regular price of a ticket, demand is created that would not otherwise e�dst. This
obviousty makes oconomic sense fo� NWA Demand is created which increases load
factors, but the increased demand created for price discamination in favor of those
with a high elasticity of demand adds to the burden borne by the noise impacted
residents. The DIIS does not apply a similar pricing analysis to potential demand
reduction strategies.
Page - 3
� �
See General Response 2.
K. The 53 biilion cost was developed thraugh the
MAC's Interactive Planning Group t�PG). It reflects
projects identified by participating jurisdictions to
ameliorate possibie impacts. These projects were not
�(, necessarily based on federai or state criteria. The 513
miilion estimate represe�ts the cost of soundproofing
and/or purchasing homes within the DNI. 65. The
legislation enacting the Duai Treck directs MAC to spend
at least S180 million for noise mitigation between 1996-
2002. See Generai Response 2.
(.. L. Airiine ticket prices are determined by carriers
serving the airport, not the MAC. The forecast demand
is not based specificaily on ticket pricing; it is based on
growth rates and hubbing percentages. See Section
11.8.1.3.
City a( Mtnoeapotii Cummcntr, Draft EL5 for t6e Duat Truk Alrport Ptanniag Proce�s
The DIIS employs an cxtremo inear approach to asscssing environmental impacts.
The analysis accepts a specific foraxst of aicera& operadons at one end and predicts
impacts at the other. These initial forecasts are never questioned. Unlike
transportation and electcical power planning, the DEIS ignores demand side
management appcoaches, that is, mitigation measures desigaed to reduee the
desnand for air uansportatioa and thereby reduce its negadve impacts (section V-A
of t6e DEIS). The F'mal IIS shou(d disctose the potendal to reduce the number of
aircraft operations and, thereby, mitigaie noise impacts by addressing the following:
Modify We Hutrand-Spoke System: According to page II-6 of the DEIS,
58% of the passengers in years 2000 through 2020 will be connecting
passengers. Most of these passengers do not have MSP as an origin or
destination because of NWA's hub-and-spoke system. This system which
maximizes load factors on hub routes leads to low (oad faciors per plane on
"feeder routes" and contributes to peak-hour congestion and delays.
What would be the impact on the number of operations if NWA were to revise
their fleet mix and inaease the average size of aircraft utilizing MSPT What
would be the impact on the number of operations if NWA revised their hub-
and-spoke system such that the number of connecting flights was minimized
and the number of passengers per plane was maximized?
Limited Impiementation of Supptemental Airport Concept and High-
Speed Itaii Concept: Two alternaiives, the supplemental airpoct concept and
the high-speed rail concept, were eliminated from detailed study in the DEIS
because previous analyses concluded that neither couid completely displace
the need for the majoc expansion at MSP or a new airport (DEIS page III-14
& 1�. However, the DIIS ignores the fact that these alternadves could heip
to some degree to reduce aircraft opera6ons and noise. They might aiso
postpone the projected levels of on-auport congesaon and delay and thereby
mitigate economic impacts as wett.
What would be the impact on the numbee of operations if there were regional
investments to create high-speed inter-city raii service as a viabte alternative to
air service? Whai wouid be the impaci on the number of operations and the
projected levels of on-airport congestion and delay if the supplementai airpoR
concept were imptemented to some degtee?
Impact of Eztemality Taza on Ticket Prica and Demand: W6at would
be the impact on the number of operations if the price of a airiine ticket
included a fair share of the full cost of environmeatal externalides7 A
reasonable axternatities tax wouid account for the tcue costs of greenhouse gas
emissions and otha polluting emissions as desaribed below. It should also
account for the full costs of quicting siccraft, noisaproofing structures located
within the DNL 60 contour line, and other noise mitigation measures.
page - 4
I-112
Q
�
�
M. See Response L above. As with ticket prices,
airlines determine flight routi�gs; airports have a very
limited opportunity to constrain operations in a
deregulated environment. The reference to a 58 percenl
co�nection factor on page II-6 of the DEIS actually refer:
to a previous forecast effort completed in 1990. The
forecasts used for EIS analysis were compieted in 1993
and do �ot assume a connection factor of 58 percent.
The revised forecasts assume a connection factor of 53
percent. The primary purpose of a hub is to increase loa�
factors on ali flights. If average aircraft size were to
increase faster than anticipated, airc�aft operations wou'
decrease. Based on discussions with Northwest and a
review of aircraft purchases and orders, the average
aircraft size assumptions are reasonable.
N. As summarized in Section C.3.a of the EIS, the
Minnesota DOT cosponsored a study of high-speed rail
service to Chicago. The report, entitled "Tri-State Study
of High Speed Rail Service" (May 1991) suggests that
high speed rail would decrease aircraft operations by 3
percent or less at MSP. There are no plans for high
speed rail. it is aiso extremely unlikely that there would
6e sufficient funding for both high speed rail and airport
expansion. Any reduction in operations would simply
postpone expansion by several years.
Six different aiternatives were examined under the \
supplementai airport concept. The three aitematives
providing the greatest reduction in aircraft operations
(i.e., diverting regional, major market, or GA operations)
would postpone expansion by oniy a few years and
wouid result i� significant disruption to airport users.
O. See Response V.
�
Cfty of Minneapoll� Commeats; Draft ELS for thc Dual TrneSc tirport Plaaniug Proce�e
4. Ecouomic Impacts
a. Statc and Rtgioaai Ec000my
Missing &om the DIIS is adequate discussion of the regional economic impacts of
each sirport altemative. The economic impacts presented in the DEIS are
essentially those associated with airport constmction and operation, plus some local
business-related considerations. M�ssing entirely is the rationale for having an
adequate airport, namely, to provide an economic environment for sustaining the
cssrntial domestic and globai market linkages of eadsting and new exports-producing
commercial enterprises. Existing and new businesses, as well as NWA, can adjust to
the lack of air access by expanding at another place that provides the superior sir
access. The State of Mu�nesota and the City of IvfinneapoGs lack this flexibility, of
coursc. The Final IIS shouid inciude a detailed regional economic analysis which is
e�irely absent &om the DEIS.
b. Impact on Ezisting Businessa
The DEIS is inadequate because it does not fully describe the potential impacts of
tha various alternatives on Downtown Mumeapolis' business. It atso does not
descdbe the impacts on the Mall of America or the rest of the 494 wrridor. The
answers to these questions aze vital to decision makers if they aze to make an
enlightened decision about the future of the region.
Minneapolis and its downtown business district, ike most other major air node
cities, is the nerve center of its extended economic region. Most high-order
producer services, like bazildng, finance, rea! estate, and business, legal,
management, coc�ilting, and other professionat services, are concentrated in the air
node region's core area, particulaziy its principal downtown business district. In
1940, the Minneapolis downtowa district had more than 3,000 busines5es, of which
roughiy 80 percent were engaged in two or more strategic management functions.
Without easy and quick access, the many technology-intensive businesses that now
characterize much of the economic base of the MSP economic region could not adst
in an inaeasingly compeddve economic environment The Final EIS should include
an analysis of the likely effects, over time, of each alternative on Downtown
businesses and Downtown as a business locatioa
c Saviags Resultiog Frnm Delayed Lnprovements
T6e DEiS indicaics that the forxastad levei of on-airgort congestion and delays is
driving the neai for expansion and other unprovements at MSP (refer to "Future
Necds" on page i). The DEIS igaores the potcntial savings chat could reailt &nm
delaying these impmvemeaty at MSP by Feducing the number of aircra8 operations
by means of the above-descn'bed noisc-mitigating measuccs (refu to 3. b.)
d. Impact of Redevelopment of MSP Site
The DEIS neither attempts to descdbe the amount of development, jobs, and taac
base geaaaied on the cxisting MSP site if the airport wae moved nor the impact on
job centers such as Downtown MmneaQoGs, Downtown St Paul, or Bloomingtoa
Paee - S
I-113
�
Q.
R.
P. See Generaf�tesponse 6.
Q. See General Responses 1 and 6, and the report,
"Economic Impacts of the Alternative Airport
Development Scenarios", MAC, February 1996.
R. See General Responses 1 and 6, and the report,
"Economic Impacts of the Alternative Airport
Deveiopment Scenarios", MAC, February 1996.
S. See Responses L, M, N and V.
T. 5ee General Response 1.
City d Minaeapotia Commcnte; Draft EtS for thc Dual Truk AirpoR Ptanning Prueesa
5o Air Quality and Greeu6ouse Gas Concerns
The DIIS Gmits the air quality discussion to two pol(utants of wncern, carbon
monoxide and sulfur dimdde. The analysis ignores greenhouse gases and externality
costs and the potential effects of carbon or energy taxes.
For decades scientists have Irnown of the direct relationship between greenhouse
gases and global climate change. The internadonal scientific body most
Imowiedgeable on this maiter, the United Nadons' Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC), has conciuded that, unless greenhouse gas emissions aze
sigtuficandy reduced, the delicate balanee of world climadc conditions will be
destabilized over the next few decades. The IPCC predicts coastal flooding, more
frequent and violent storms, heat waves and cotd snaps, nocthwazd migration of
tropical diseases, disruption of agricuiture and foresuy, and severe economic and
human consequences.
This level of certainty no tonger makes it allowable for responsble governmenial
agencies to deny the impoctance of accounting for greenhouse gasses and global
climate change.
The accompanying Attachment i shows that 1.6 million tons of cazbon dioadde
(CO�, the primary greenhouse gas, are associated with annuai opentions at MSP
(year 2020; refer to Attachment i). Since this calculation was based on the data in
the DEIS, it also includes the fuel consumed by airaaft flying to and from the
aicport. The Final EIS shouid disetose the fact that airport operations result in
sig�uficant contributions of greenhouse gases.
6. Air Quality Mitigafing Measures
a. Environmental Eztemalities
The second accompanying tabie (Attachment 2), taken from the book Steering a
New Course by Deborah Gordon (1991), shows the emissions associated with a
variety of modes of transpoctadoa Based on the assumptioas in the book, a diesel
bus will emit about 45% less CO2 on a passengec-mile basis than the average jet.
An Amuak uain emiu 62°/a fewa cmissions.
Few peopie malce travd ptans on the 6asis of which mode of trazisportation causes
the least hacm to the aivironment. However, within the not-to-distant future, this
may no longer be so. The price of a ticket does not include externalides such as the
environmental costs of burning fossil fuels. Over the past decade, numerous
governments all over the wodd have considered taws aad taxes to addcess ttus issue.
Norway, Sweden and Deamark have already added carbon dioxide taxes to the price
of fuel and have dedicated the revenues to the development of alternatives that aze
more wvironmentally susttinabte.
Mnnesota state law requires the Public Utilities Commission to consider the
eavironmentai cosLs of power production whea evaluating new power plants. This
EIS should do no less. The Final EIS should accouut for the effects on passenger
demand given the possibility of an eadecnaGty tax during the planning period.
Page - 6
I-114
U. U. The calculation of COZ emissions submitted 6y the
City inciudes aircraft block fuel, which is the totai fuel
consumed betwaen airports (gate to gate). Most of this
fuel is expended,athigher aititudes outside the
metropolitan area�Assuming 5% of the block fuel is
consumed within the metropolitan area (a very
conservative assumption) and the conversion factors
cited by the City, the totai COZ emissions wouid be abo�
470 thousand tons per year for the MSP Alternative —
compared to about 510 thousand tons for the No Actior
Aiternative, and 11.2 miilion tons for the metropolitan
area.
The MSP Aitemative wouid therefore contribute less tha
5°k of the �egion's CO2emissions in 2020. Targets for
limiting these emissions is an unresolved issue currentiy
being addressed by international organizations.
�. V. The imposition of a carbon or energy externality ta:
could eventuaily lead to purchases of• more efficient
aircraft. However, initiaily a tax would be transiated int<
increased ticket prices. Such a tax wouid, however, als�
apply to gasoline and other energy sources and wouid
therefore raise transportation costs generaily across the
board. The effect of such cost increases i�
tra�sportation with available communication options is
difficult to determine and beyond the scope of this
environmental impact study. This issue must be
addressed internationaliy, as weli as by the United State
and individuai states. Metropolitan areas and individual
airports will have to respond to these changes as they
occur.
A decrease in passenger demand because of an
externality tax wouid �ot aiter the MSP LTCP, 6ut couid
change the timing for the addition of gates and related
facilities. See Generai Response 4.
a�rracmarErrr i
I-115
c
ATTACHIVLENT 2
Table 10
Gomparison of Emissions Between Various
Passenger-Transport Modes*
CO= NMHC' GO NOx TSP 50=' i
Transport Mode (kg/pass•m) {--= (�n grams/passenger-mile}--�
TRUGK (gasaline):
-Singie accupancy 0.70 310 27.46 2.05 0.01 0;23
-Average o<cupancy 037 1.68 14.45 1.08 0.01 0.12
GAR:
-Singie occupancy 0.57 2S7 20.36 7.61 0.04 0.07
�-Averageoccupancy 0•31 1S7 71•98 0.95 0.03 0.04
VEHICLE RIOESNARE
-3 person carpool 0.33 0.86 6.79 0.54 0.01 0.05
-4 person carpool 0.22 0.64 5.09 0.40 0.01 0.03
-9 penon vanpool 0.07 0.36 3.05 0.23 <0.01 0.03
BUS (diesel):
Transit 0.29 0.75 1.21 7.$2 0.7 7 n/a
RAIL•
-Amtrakrntercity '
diesel 0.20 0.12 0.6 0.9 0.08 0.51
electric 0.1Z ne� 0.05 1.1 0.08 2.07
-Gommuter (diese!) 0.24 1.04 1.44 4.10 0.28 0.63
Transit (electric) 0.7 7 neg 0.06 7.a8 0.11 2.89
AIRCRAFP 0.53 0.05 OS2 1.08 n/a 0.08
g��yC� 0 0 0 � 0 0
yyq� 0 0 0 0 0 0
Notn:
• F�mis.rion factors (mncert fmm e..^tis:..:s in vehic!e-mites to emissiocu in passenger-miles
usinc accupancy facrois from Tabte 2`.:
i�seL• L68 x 10-� tb GO,/Htu
line: i.71 x 1V'+ tb COZ/Hha
J�c �,�: �.v� x io � m caiae�
IIectridty:1.04 x 10-ti Q� C07,/H»-suivale�r. neg M�1HC; 0.041b CO/MBtu: 0.9"+ ib NOX/
MBtu; LS Ib SOZ/htBtu: 0.067Ib'CS?; \t"ntu (,�verage 1987 power plant emisnan in USJ.
Heavyduty di�e! mgines: 25ig \l. lHCi ceh-mi: lZ3g GO/vefr¢ti:18Sg NOX/veh-mi:
L?g TSP/veh-mi
Single puseager auro: �g N�tl:G've;1-mi:?A36g GO/veh-mi;1.61g NOx/veh-mi; O.Q4g
TSP/veh-mi
Single passenger li�tt tivck 31g `lQiC/vcrau: �J' Sg GO/veh-mi; Zlg NOX/ven-mi;
O.Oig 25P/veh-mi.
L N.��43G�-�'�tonmethanehydmmcca:sar�u�aearganicmmpounds,9RVP.
2. SO;, emi55iotu mlcula0ed baud on S� wdgiu Festmt 5ulfvt in gasatitte Fuel. •
3. Assumc a PW4050-poweced?�-:.003,v'uig?98 saaue mile� (250 nauticst milv) seating 63R'e
of itl 240�pasunget npadty. (Not� e^�mons per pusenger-mile change pmportianately with
Pz'�B� °�P�Y--�g� if tfiis aisc��was unty 25 : Eull. emission hcmcs would inaease by
a facmr of Zb.)
Saur� Daais (ORNU L°89: FtA. May L`a'7: aitlmr's mlattfatrarrs: EPA Mabde4 rrmdel and persanal
m/rvrturrtauiores mith Lnis Platet (EPA Ars ArGrr [abvmtmyl; Ferscrra! mmmuni�tians wiUs Watt
Sesva�wn (EPA Ram+rh Trrmcgle Pmic:�: per.ratoel mrmmaumtioea miN+ Frm�k Pmrc. Il+situl
Tc�dvrorobgierPmtt mrd Whitney. East Ht��i. Q.
I-116
City o[ Mioaeapolis Cammenq; DraR ELS for t6t Du�tt Tnck Airport Plaaaiug Proceaa
b. Reduciag Emissiona by Roducing Operatioas
Like the above point regazding demand side management as a noise mitigation
meas+ue, the DIIS ignoces the potenda! to reduce air emissions by reducing the
numbor of flight operadons. The Fina! EIS should disclose the potentiai impact on
emissions by reducing the number of aircraft operatioas by means of the above-
described noise-mitigating measures (refer to 3. b.) or measures such as the
movement ot a fleet with targer average sized aircraft.
c. Transportation To and From the Airpact
The DEIS assumes no change in ground uansportation mode share (refer to DIIS,
section V-�. On page V-213, the DEIS states that public bus service is expected
to continue to represent less than 1% of all the uavel demand generated to and from
MSP. The DEIS ignoces the potendal for mass tcansit to midgate air quality
impacts. As Attachments 1 and 2 point out, vehicles contribute about 400,000 tons
of COZ per year and, compazed to a single-occupant car, a city bus contributes 43°/a
less COZ.
Given the above facts regazding the likelihood of carbon or energy taxes during the
Zp_year ptanning period and future highway congestion, the mode share shoutd shift
in favor of transit alternatives which aze more environmentally benign. The
Metropolitan Council's current Travel Behavior Inventory indicates that
approximatety i out of every 3 non-resident trips to or frorn the airport has
Downtown Mumeapolis as its origin or destination. This represenu a substanrial
opportunity for improved transit service, especiallY if d►e ternunal were moved 5
miles closer to Downtovm. The Final EIS should disclose the potential to mitigate
air quality impacts through increased transit use.
V1/. W. See Response L. Aiso, MAC cannot legally limit
commercial opera8ons at MSP or force carriers to use larger
aircraft to address air quality concems. The proposed action
will have less CO emissions than no action.
�
It wouid seem thai section V-J dealing with energy consumption relied upon the
extensive transportation access inforn�ation contained in section V-W of the DEiS.
What is not clear in section V-J is why fuel consumption for vehicles is only 4°/a iess Y,
for the MSP Altemative versus the New AirpoR Alternative (refer to Attachment 1)
cven though the New Airport would be located 15 miles further away &om the
region's population center which is located near powntown ivfinneapolis.
7. Archaeo(ogical Reaourca
The limitation of the time frame to 2020 for needed improvements to the air
transportation capacity facitities has a detrimental impact on the evaluation pcocess.
For examp(e, the MSP alternative evaluated in the DEIS notes little impact on
Archeotogicai Resources (refer to page V-25). Howevec, a third paralle! runway
that would not be needed untit after 2020 to accommodate forecasted growth,
would like[y have significant impace on archeologica! resources in the Fort Snetiing
National Park area. Also, the recreational aspects of Fort Snelling would also be
severely compromised.
7. Biotic Commuoitia
The DIIS states that potentia! impacts on the Forster's Tern — a bird that has been
designated as one of "state special species concem" — are unavoidable with
expansion of MSP (page V- 48). In the past these birds have nested in Mother's
Lake, an azea which wou(d be subject. to significant consuuctian nearby using the
Concept 6 expansion scheme. •
page - 7
X. The 1990 Travel Behavior inventory (TBI) reported
that thirty-two percent (32%) of the non-resident Uips from
the main terminal were bound for the Minneapolis Central
Business District (CBD). In 1990, of the 91,208 daily vehicle
trips to and from the airport, 7,151 were reported by the TBI
as being non-resident oriented vehicie trips. These
reiationships, applied to the forecast year, resuits in an
estimated 3,380 vehicles bound for the Minneapolis CBD,
carrying approximately 5,250 persons. The conversion of
these person Uips from automobiies to transit couid result
in a reduction in carbon monoxide (CO) levels of 510,300
grams per day for the No Action Altemative and 279,300
grams per day for the MSP Altemative.
Y. The calculation of energy consumption is not so�ely a
function of distance. Road congestion and its impact on
speed affects the rate of fuel consumption. Aiso, trips to
the airport come from ail around the region, not ail wouid
experience an increase in distance.
The mechanics of a travei demand model, with its use of a
gravity modei function to distribute trips among trans-
portation analysis zones, reduces the difference beiween th
aitematives. Whether the site is at the cuRent location or a
new location, the model distributes some trips based on the
magnitude and proximity of other land uses. For exampie,
woiicers at a �ew airport site may be more inciined to find
homes in Dakota County cioser to that site than if the airpor
remains at its curcent location. Oniy those Vip demands tha
cannot be met at some other location ( i.e., some trips to thf
centrat business districts) can be expected to have the sam
desUnation under the different aitematives.
Z. IZ. See Generai Response 5 for discussion of third
parallei ninway. Comment noted on Forster's tems.
City o[ Minoeapolia Comments; Dcaft ELS for the Dual Track Airporc Planning Procas
8. Increased Risk of Accidents Due to Bird-Aircraft Hazard�
Given the terrain around MSP, as stated on page V-41, there is always the potential
for a aircraft bird suike. The DEIS notes that those strikes aze a safety concern,
especially when the aircraft is below 500 feet. The MSP Alternative involves
thousands of overflights over Mother's Lake with almost half below 500 feet Just
beyond Mother's I.ake aze densely populated residentiai neighborhoods, comp(ete
with schools, churches and pazks. Even though the possibility of aircraft accidents is
extremely low, the potentiai for an increased risk of an accident over this densely
populated area because of a bird suike shoutd be noted in the Final EIS.
9. Endaagered and Ti►reatened Species
The DEIS deals with the issue of baid eagles differendy between the MSP
Alternative and the New Airport Altemative. On page V-48 there is no discnssion
about any agreement between the FAA and the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service, the Mmnesota Depaztment ofNatural R.esources and the Minnesota Valley
National Wildlife Refuge rcgarding the bald eagte nesting azeas near MSP.
Howevcr, on page V-52, under the New AirpoR Alternative analysis, there is
refercnce to a D�iemocanda of Agreea►cnt between the FAA and the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service that limits flights over
national wildiife refuges to 2,000 feet above ground levei. If this agreement is to be
operative at the MSP site, it shoutd be so stated in the Final EIS.
10. HistoridArchitectural Resources
A.
BB.
The DEIS, on page V-109, states that the.MSP airpoR poses an ongoing threat to
the preservation of nearby historic districts. The Final EIS should also note that
funecal services and grave visitations at the Fort Snelling Nationai Cemetery are
disrupted by aircraft operations. This will only grow worse with additiona! flights at CC.
MSP.
11. Land Use
On page V 122, the DIIS states thai there will be no acquisition of land in
2vfinneapolis. Eiowever, in other ptaces there aze references to number of peopte
displaced. For eacampte, on page V-180, there is acknowiedgment that residences
would nced to be acquired for highway consuuction It seems to make Gttle sense
to differentiate homes taken for actual airport expansion versus those taken in order
to consuuct a highway to get to the airpoct. Also MAC representatives have
commented about the MAC acquiring tand within the "narival boundaries" of the
airport. Some of this land, the Navy Annex and St Kevin's area, is in ivfinneapotis.
Clarificadon of this point is required.
AA. The DEIS acknowledged this risk in the Summary on
p. V-46, as does the FEIS in Section V.D. The new �orth
south runway wili'normaliy have no operations over Mother
Lake.
BB. The Interagency Agreement between FAA, U.S. Fish '
and Wildlife Service and Nationai Park Service regarding
overfiight altitudes over national wildiife refuges applies
nationwide. The Agreement does not "IimiP' flights below
2,000 feet AGL; it estabiishes 2,000 feet AG� as a requested
minimum aititude which FAA is to communicate to airlines
and pilots.
CC. This is stated on p. V-109 (next to last paragraph) in
the DEIS.
DD. This has been corrected.
On page V-123, the DEIS notes that the Metropolitan Council and the MAC have
been worldng with the communities around the airpoR to develop a set of land use
mitigation measures. These measiues should be included in t6e doaunent and the EE. EE. See Appendix B of the FEIS for a complete
cost of them included in the cost of the MSP expansion aiternative. of proposed noise mitigation measures.
Page - 8
z-iis
City of Minn�apaw Commenta; Dn(t EIS for tLe Dual Track tirport Planniag Procrss
12. Jnduccd Sociocconomic Impactr
The City of Ivfinneapolis believes that the statement in the first paragraph under the
table on V-114 needs to be ctarified. That statement reads ". .. if the ternunal
building is moved, there will be an opportw►ity for the conversion of the singte
family area directly abutting the new entrance to be converted to commercial, offce,
or hotel uses relating to the new "front d000r" of the airport." The City's
professionai planning staff would agree with tlus professional judgement of MAC
and the consultanu. However, the City Council did not make this finding and did
not generate any of the figures in the accompanying table, N 2.
13. Delay� on the Grouad
Although the DIIS descn'bes the delay eacpecced for sircrafi operadons, it does not
provide a comparison of the total landside delay for the 3 alternadves. The Final
IIS should inciude a tabte that shows average trip time to or from the airport plus
the potendal delay caused by on-airport aircraft operadons.
14. Dday Co�ts and Savings
The delay saving in building a new airpoct is $58 million as opposed to $28 for
expansion of MSP �gure 5). Computa6ons should be continued as to what would
happen beyond 2020 if a third parallet cunway couid not be built at MSP. wth no
improvements to the e�dscing fieid there would be S66 million in delay costs. A
North-South Runway built between now and 2020, but with no new third parallel
runway, might resuit in the same soct of delay cost numbers.
B. COMNIENTS REGARDING NORTHWEST AIltT.iNF"S PLAN FOR
EXPANSION OF Z'HE PRESENT AIltPORT
FF
GG
HH
Although Northwest Airline's pian was not studied throughout the EIS process, it has
been introduced into the process, albeit very late, and therefore, the City feels compelled (�,
to ai least comment on some aspects of the ptan. Nonetheless, Northwest's plan shouid
either be fully analyzed as a new alternative in the Finai ELS or the Final EIS should state
clearty that this ptan has not bcen analyzed on a par with the other aiternatives.
Northwest is ihe dominant carrier in the Ivfinc►eaPolis-SG Paut market and wants to
continue in that near monopoty role because it is financia!!y bene6cial for the compan}rs
stockholders. This hub that NWA has assembted aL MSP may not, however, be in the best ��.
interest of the region's flying public since competition could drive down prices and
possibty improve service. Ivfinaeapolis believes that anY nev�' auPart or expansion of MSP
should be ai a scale that allows the entry into t6is market of another airline that may want
to compete with NWA Fxpansion should not proceed so incrementally that only a few
gates aze opened at any one time.
Northwest Airiines claims tkiat by maldng relatively minor changes to the present airport,
the facility couid meet the forecasted 2020 demand. While appealing on the surface
because of its unverified low price tag, Northwest's plan could uttimately leave the region KK
with an inadequate facility and no room for expansion if tra�'ic growth should exceed the
fo�ecascs on which it is p�edicated. It is also unclear how NWA would meet the demand
after 2020.
Since no written documentation had been provided to the public by Northwest Aidines as
of 9 January 1996, these commenu aze based on vecbat presentations made by NWA to
the MetropoGtan Airpocts Comrnission (MAC), the MAC Dual Trsck Task Force and the
State Legislarive Advisory Committx.
page - 9
I-119
FF. See revised Section V.0.1.2, Land Use impacts --
MSP Aiternative.
GG. The DEIS analyzed airfield delay (see 5ection
V.8.1.4., Airport Capacity) and driving time delay (see
Section V.W. Tra�sportation Access). The time variabies
related to typical landside delay for such functions as
parking, rentai car raturn and walki�g were not
accounted for within the DEIS for any of the alternatives.
These variables involve many subjective assumptions anc
also require a detailed terminal design for each alternativE
to properly assess the total delay time. The key factors
identified in the Scoping Decision were driving time and
airport capacity.
HH. The pianning horizon for the EIS is the year 2020.
The concept adopted 6y the MAC for expansion of MSP
meets the facility requirements identified using the
baseline forecasts. Based on the forecasts, a fifth
runway is not required to accommodate the increased
activity and was therefore not incorporated into the MSP
Alternative. Should another runway be necessary in the
future, a separate EIS would have to be completed and
potential delay costs determined for a no-build action.
See aiso U.S. EPA Response B and General Responses 4
and 5.
See General Response 3.
JJ. See Generai Response 3.
KK. See General Response 3.
�ty of MtnncapoW Cammwer, DnJt EIS tar 1he Dual Track Airport Plannin� Procas�
It would aQpear that the NWA piaz► for expanding the present teiminat facility to meet
futuce nceds is qtute flawed. Fitst and foeanost, the FAA (at the Duat Track Task Focce LL. LL. See General Response 3.
meering) has expressed reserva6ons regazding the ability to move aircraEt from the gates
to operational runway posiuons using this plan. Delays would be common and
exacer6ated by instcument flight rule conditions.
The pian adopted by the MAC for expansioa pucposes — Concept 6— calls for a
crossover taxiway ai the east end of the parallel runways. This could be accommodatal
b�cause of the new West Tecminal envisioned in that plan. MAC's Concepr6 plan has
strong support &om the FAA because it would facilitate sircraft ground movements and
lessw delays. The NWA pian does not call far this crossover taxiway until far into the
fuuuq and at a diffuent location thaa thai identified by the MAC since the NWA pian
does not call for a new West Ternrinal. Construction of the crossover taxiway with the
pr�sent temrinal configura6on wou(d cause considerabte prob(ems, such as consaudion
over the inbound roadway to the temtinal. At this time no Simutation Modeling has been
run on the NWA pian (SIIvINiOD is an FAA. computer program designed to analyze
aircraft movements leading to delay identification points and to caiculate delay costs).
This shou(d be a number one priority in order to adequately assess the plans capabili6es.
MM
�
MM. See Generai Response 3.
The NWA ptan provides minimal ternunai expansion space during a time when the nucnber
of passengers is projected to increase by 50%. The NWA plan is also 8,000 parldng
spaces short of the number proposed by the MAC in Concept 6. Given the fact titat N N NN. See General Response 3.
parldng is already a probtem at MSP on many occasions, this shortfall wouid be highty
signi6cant.
The NWA plan is based on very small operational increases — 1.0% and 0.5% a year as
compazed to the FAA forecast of 2.4°/a annual increases through 2010. These larger
increases compounded over time would have MSP needing a ttdrd parailel runway, in
addition to the proposed North South runway much sooner than the currendy projected
2020. Environmental impacts of that ihird parallei runway have never beea fully assessecl.
A cursory analysis, however, shows that the third parallel has uemendous environmental
implicadons for neighborhoods in south Minneapolis and Mendota Heighu and would
impact a national landmark, FoR Snetling.
00. See Generai Response 5 related to the potential
a third parailel runway and General Response 4 rela�
to forecasts.
Northwest's plan does not take into account any off-airport mitigation costs. Cleazly, the
levd of expansion envisioned in the plan would cause draznatic upheavals in the azea Pi'• PP• See Generai Response 3.
directty adjacent to the airport.
NWA talks about orchestrating incremental capacity increases at MSP. Others would .
argue that those increments wouid txanslate into constant constiuction and turmoil at the
airport into the foreseeable future. The roadway construckion in front of the terminal for QQ� Qn• See General Response 3.
the past three years has been a logistical nightmace for the MAC sta� and certainty not a
picasant experience for the flying public. This }�nd of npheavat would be the constant
norm of the future at MSP unda 4he Northwast pian.
NWA's aiternative should not be inctuded in t6e Final IIS unless the analysis of the NWA
plan is brought up to the standard of the other altanatives sad a public cammeac paiod of
reasonabte lengttt is estabGshed.
$age - lo
I-12�
RR. See Generai Response 3.
MCDERMOTT, WILL & EMERY
� �I �Ia�• � ?U �l' : .1' ' .
February 5, 1996
A Po�v ���5
pniniwd Cmym°°e'v
'JT Wee�Mocuve5t�et
Cilago, b 60lAG-5096
712•3T!•Z000
Fasaule312•983-�99
5teven F. Pflaum
Attorney rt Law
3L'•964-ibil
Mr. Niqel £inney
Metsopolitan Airports Commission
West Tex�minal Area
Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport
6040 28th Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450
Mr. Glen orcutt
Airport Planner
U.S. Depar`�ent of Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration
Airport Districts Office
6020 28th Avenue South
suite 102
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450
.�Pl'L•:tUI:C .i
Bosmn 1 of 2
Ghkago
Lot .U�geles
�Qiam�
Newport &u4
Vew York
Taliinn (Esmw)
Vi1mm (Lithuuw)
Waehingcon. D.G
Artaeuted !lrtdrxndme! O!km
london
Paru
Re: Draft Environmental Impact Statement Reaardina Dual Track
�j,+-�ort Plannina Process. Henneoin and Oakota Counties,.
Minnesota
Dear Hr. Finney and Mr. Orcutt:
I am writing oa behalf of the City of Richfield, Minnesota
("Richfield"), to request an extension of time in which to submit
Richlield's comments on the Draft EIS for the Dual Track Airport
Planning Process. Despite Richfield's best efforts to complete
its review of the Draft EIS by the current February 13, 1996
deadline, the complexity of the issues raised by the Draft EZS
and the need to obtain assistance from various consultants in
addressing technical issues have made it iunpossible to meet the
current deadline. ,
Richfield vill conti.nue to give this matter the highest priority
and will devota all resaurces necessary to complete its comments
as soon as possible. In light of the substantial amount of work
remaininq to be completed, Richfield respectEully requests a
45-day extension of time, until Mazch 29, 1996, in which to
sul�mit its comments. Richfield believes that this additional
ti.me is necessary for it to have a meaninqful opportunity to
comment on this exceptionally important document. The requested
extension will leave abundant ti.me to complete the final EIS, as
well as the related reports from the Metropolitan Airports
Commission and Metropolitan Council, in accordance with the Dual
Track Airport Planning Process prescribed by the Minnesota
Leqislature.
Thank you very much for your consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
�^
teven laum
SFP:q
cc: Ms. Jenn IInruh
Mr. James D. Prosser
I-121
�
US. Departrnerd
of T�nspartatbn
Faderal Aviatlon
Admfntdtallon
Februazy 9, 1996
Mr. Steven F. PElaum
McDezmott, Will & Emery
227 West Monroe Street
Chicago, IL 60606-5096
DraEt Environmental Impact Statement
Dual Track Aixport Planning Process
Dcas Mr. Eflaum:
,\PYENDLY 0
L of
Airport OisViG! OKGe - Minneapoh�
6020.28th Avenue S, ftm 102
Minaeapolis, MN 55450�2746
This is in response to your letter of Febzuary 5, 1996, sent to both me
and Nigel Finney, of the Metropolitan Airports Cortani.ssion requesting a
45 day extensioa of time, until March 29, 1996, Eor the City o£
Richficld to submit its co�mnents on the subject documeat.
The involvement of the public and government agencies was an integral
part in the IIual Track Airport Plaaniag Process stasting with the
enactment oE the Metzopolitan Airport Plaaniag Act by the Minaesota
legislature in 1989. Early coordination with the public, agenciee, and
affected jurisdictions began with khe preparation oE the First Phasc
Scoping Report and public scoping meetiags.
Following the First Phase Scoping, two technical committees were formed,
the MSP Technical Committee and the New Airport Technical Committee.
Members oE these cortaaittees included af£ected cities, regional state aad
Eederal agencies, aixport users aad interest groups. Monthly meeting
were hcld to review the technical approach and the products oi the
airport plar.aing process. Cocmnittee memhers aad ochers received copies
oE each document ia the Dual Track Psocess and were iavited to submit
comments on issues discussed and methodologies used.
Also, the Dual Track Airport Planaing Procese Task Force, consisting oE
repreeeatatives from the affected jurisdictions, ageacies, airport users
aad interest groups was formed. �� �
There have beea opportunitiee to comment, both formally aad iafarmally,
throughout the Pl�n++�ng Procesa. Formal input was soliciced at a series
et public hearinqs conducted on each of the seopiag seports and
eavironmental documents aad hcld both ia the Twia Cities and Dakota
County.
We believe sufficient informacion has been available, aad ample
opportunicy existed for the public and decision makers to make informed
decisions. Other opportunities Eor public involvement will be available
at key dates during the Dual Track Process. As you aze aware, the MAC
and Metropolitan Council will take action on their recommendations to
the Legislature in mid-March. We feel that it is important to have
comments oa the DEIS by the previously anaouaced February 13, date, for
Chis information to be available as part oE the decision making process.
For these reasons your requesc for an extension oE time is denied.
If you have any questions on this macter, please Eeel free to contact
me.
Sincerely,
� � �
����
Glen Orcutt
Program Manager
cc: Mr. James D. Prosser
City Maaager
6700 Portland Avenue
RichEield, Minnesota 55423-2599
Nigel Finney, MAC
I-122
�
�
������ 6700 Portland Avenue � Richfieid, Minnesota 55423-2599
City Manager Mayor Council
James D. Prosser Martin Kirsch Don Priebe Michaei Sandahi
Susan Rosenberg Russ Susag
Fcbruary 13, 1996
Mr. Nigel Finney, Deputy Executive Director
Metropolitan Airports Commission
6040 28th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55450
INTRODiTCTION
The City of Richfieid, Minnesota ("Richfield'� submiu these comments on the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement ("DEIS'� for the Dual Track Airport Planning Process at
Minneapolis/St. Paul Airpoct ("MSP'�. As explained below, these comments aze preliminary in
nature because Richfield has been denied the time necessary to provide it a meaningfut
oppomuiity to comments.
The pubtic has been afforded only 50 days, including the Christmas and New Year's holidays, in
which to comment oa the DEIS. In a February 5, 1996 letter to the FAA and the Metropolitan
Airports Commission (MAC) by Steven F. Pflaum, Ric�eld's special airport counsel, Richfield
requested a 45-day extension of time in which to submit iu comments on the DEIS. Mr. Pflaum
eacplained the basis for the requested extension as follows:
"Despite Richfieid's best efforts to complete its review of the Draft EIS by the
current February 13, 1996 deadiiae, the comple�city of the issues raised by the
Draft EIS and the need to obtain assistance form various consultants in addressing
technical issues have made it impossibte to meet the current deadline." (A copy
of Mr. Pflaum's letter is included in Appendix A hereto.)
The c�equested extension was denied in a letter sent on behalf of the FAA and MAC by Glen
Orcutt, FAA Program manager, on Febniary 9, 1996. (A copy of Mr. Orcutt's letter is included
in Appendix B hereto.) Mr. Oroutt justified denying Richfieid � addiaonai time to submit
commen[s on the basis of purported past and future oppo[tunities to comment on the merits of the
proposals and to arrive at informed decisions:
`"I'here have been opporwnities to comment, both formaliy and informally,
throughout the planning Process. Foemal input was solicited at a series of public
The Urba� Nometown
Telephane (612) 861•9700 • Fau (612) 861-9749
An Equai Opportuniry Employer
I-123
City of Richfield Comments - Dual Track DEIS
February 13, 1996
Page 2
hearings conducted on each of the scoping reports and environmental documents
and held both in the Twin Cities and Dakota County.
"We believe sufficienc informaaon has been available, and ample oppor[unity
existed for the public and decisioo makers to make informed decisions. Other
oppomuiiries for public invotvement will be available at key dates during the
Dual Tnck Process:' Appendix B at 1-2.
The denial of the requested extension violates federat law. Paragraph 76 of FAA Order 1050.1D
� the FAA to gzant an extension of time in circumstances such as these:
"A time period for comment may not be fewer than 45 days. ... Requests for
reasonable e�ctension of time, when warranted by the magnitude and complexity
of the statement or the extent of citizen interest, �I1�1l.be granted." (Emphasis
added.)
'Ihe deniai of the requested extension on the asserced ground that the there have been
opportunides to comment on the planning process belies a fundamental misunderstanding of the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Minnesota Environmental Policy Act (MPEA)
procosses. Richfield desires to comment on the adequacy of the DEIS, not just on the merits of
the projecG See GEQ Regs., 40 C.F.R. State Statute 15033(a). Richfield obviously had no
opportunity to comment on the adequacy of die DEIS before it was released for pubtic comment
in December 1995. Moreover, without additional time, Richfield cannot discharge its
responsi6ility to apprise iu citizenry of the impacts that they can reasonably expect to experience
from approval of the proposed project
Because Richfield has been denied a meaningfiil oppominity to comment.on the DEIS, it is
unable at the rime to provide the kind of thorough, specific commenu that are contemplated by
Section 15033 of the CEQ Regulations. The fotlowing preliminazy commenu consist of
conceptual-level criticisms of the DEIS. Richfield reserves the right (1) to rely on the deniai of
iu meaningful opportunity to comment as a basis for challenging any decision by the responsible
government agencies to approve the adequacy of the DEIS or to undertake the north-south
runway project, and (2) to contend that the adminisuative record is incomplete and/or that
Richfield is endded to supplement it
The City of Richfield has activety participated in all phases of the Dua! Track process, including
attendance at MSP Tectuuca! Committee meetings and submissioa of comments to public
documenu. We 6ave requested informadon regazding how the INM catculates the ground level
noise impact into the noise contours. Without this information, we cannot detercnine if the DEIS
adequately addresses the need for mitigation of single-fanuly residentiat properties. It is the
responsibility of the City's elected officials and staff to pursue answers to information which is
vague and/or incomplete. Lacldng the detailed information that is an inherent requiremeut of aa
environmental impact statement, the City cannot effectively plaa for the future.
A. MAC and FAA provided a 68-day comment period,
which is longer than the required minimum 45-day comment
period as stated in FAA Order 5050.4A, Chapter 91 e. It was
aiso necessary to close the officiai comment period on
February 13,1996 to ailow the concems expressed during
the comment period3o be reviewed by the MAC and
Metropolitan Council prior to making a recommendaGon to
the Minnesota legisiature by mid-March (as requested by the
Govemor and several state iegisiators). An extension of the
comment period to March 26 wouid have unnecessarily
delayed MAC's recammendation.
Ample opportunity was provided to 6oth agencies and
citizens, inciuding the City of Richfield, to provide input and
become familiar with the issues, impacts, concepts and
altemati'ves developed earfy in the process and presented in
the Draft EIS. In addiUon, the Febnaary 13 deadline for
comment on the Draft EIS did not and wiii not preciude any
party ftom offering further input to the decision-making
process. Under these circumstances, a deniai for extension
of the officiai comment period is consistent with Paragraph
76 of FAA Order 1050.1 D.
B. B. Aithough the Draft EIS was not available for comment
prior to its release to the pubiic in December 1995, the merit:
of the project aitematives and substantial content have been
addressed throughout the Dual Track Process in the
environmentai, scoping, and long-term comprehensive pian
documents. This, and a nea�ly 10-week comment period for,
the Draft EIS, allowed ample opportunity for both agencies �'
and the genetai pubiic to provide specific comments on bo�
the merits of the altematives discussed and the adequacy ot
the Draft EI5 consistent with 40 C.F.R. 1503.3 (a).
1'he FAA and MAC weicome agency a�d public input
at any time; however, it was necessary to close the Draft EI
pubiic comment period on February 13 for the reasons
described above.
C. C. The requested INM informaGon has been provided to
Richfieid. A more detailed discussion of typical aircraft noi:
inGuded within the INM that are experienced at the ground
levei is included in Section V.Q of the FEIS.
The City is fiuther concemed that our requesu will never be adequately answered. The timeline
for tho environmental documentation which will provide the backdrop for a MAC aad•Met �. D. The FEIS affords affected communities the oppottur
Council recommendation, and subsequent legislative decision, has been driven by external to receive, review and comment on additionai information.
forces. This truncated timeline has effectively limited any fiuther opporwnity for impacted The DEIS comments by affected communities were availa
communides to receive the informadon which is so crucial. to the MAC, Metropolitan Council and Legisiature, as was
the opportunity to tesGfy.
It is withia this concext that the City provides commenu whic6 question the suffieiency of the
Dua! Track DEIS. �
I-124
City of Richfieid Comments - Duai Track DEIS
February 13, 1996
\ Page 3
II, Overatl Comments
In reviewing the document, we have found that the DEIS is incomplete and lacks substantial
informadon. This information is essential not only for the impacted cornmunides to conduct an
adequate review and make informed decisions, buc also for the potidcal bodies which must make
decisions, regazding the long-term issues. The DEIS, overall, is more of a summary report of
past work related to the Dual Track Airport Planning Process wich few detailed analyses and
completety ocniu the backup.
The largest weakness of the DEIS is that it fails the test of reasonableness and fairness. The
DEIS compares a partially developed, four runway MSP to a fiilly developed, six runway
`�ttimate" airport. This is an inequitable comparison. The DEIS segments the MSP
improvements and compazes the segmented componenu to a fiilly developed site. Further, such
a comparison will result in a decision by state and regional poliucal bodies that, not oniy is based
on aa incomptete analysis, but may also be "predeternuned." A fairer comparison would be a
five runway MSP to a five runway new airport. This would pernut a more reasonable
comparison of capacity, cosu, and impacts, and therefore, a fairer planning and decision-making
process.
By taking thc more regional, macm level approach, the DEIS miaimizes the impacu at the locai,
or micro level. This is a significant do&ciency, as the micro level issues are tnily macro level to
the impacted communities. The largec issue for the region may be whether the airport should
remain at its current location or should move to a new location, but whichever altemative is
selected, many communities will be dramadcally and drasticatly impacted. These communides
must thoroughly review and assess the micro level impacts to ensure their long-term livability
and s�stainability. Without addressing these specific impacts, each affected community cannot
determine the costs and impacu, and therefore, make decision.
E. The DEIS contained sufficient infortnation to
adequately disciose potenQal environmentai consequences
and to aliow opportunity for meaningfui comment by the
pubiic. However, there is an opportunity to comment on the
information contained in this FEIS. The "backup" materiai is
included in the EIS by reference and in Appendix A, which
is consistent with the Council on Environmental Quality
E. (CEQ) Regulatioris%r Implementing NEPA.
F. The recommended MSP development concept
(Concept 6) and the recommended New Airport develop-
ment concept reflected the cutmination of detailed and
thorough technical and environmentai analyses. A five-
runway MSP concept was not proposed because the
extraordinary cost of land acquisition, consUuction and
F. mitigaGon wouid not offset the financial benefit resuiGng
f�om fewer air deiays with a fifth runway. The New Airport
pian inGuded six runways because it wouid be built on a
new site, which would inherently make the cost of six
runways less expensive. Differences in airtieid capacity
were addressed in the comparison of aitematives to pertnit
� an informed decision. Both altemaGves wouid only add
capacity that is cost effective. See 1996 Minnesota
legislation, Ch. 464, Art. 3, Sec. 6 and 7 in Appendix A.14.
,� In addition to the lack of detailed analyses, the DEIS mitigation secrions aze also incomptete and
lacking substance. In many sectioas, there aze oniy a few sentences discussing mitigation and in �..�.
some secdons mitigadon is not mentioned at all. A key purpose of an EIS is to describe, in
detail, how impacu wili be midgated and the costs of the mitigadon program. With little or no
discussion of mitigation, Richfieid cannot ascertain ihe soundness of the planning process.
Tho DEIS does not account for atl of the costs attributed to the MSP alternative. Costs such as
mitigation costs, economic assessmenu, and local uaasportation improvements have been
amitted, pgain, this information is key for review aad decision-making. These are critical �.
elements &om Richfield's perspective. An independent audit is warranted to detecinine if all of
the costs have been appropriately accounted for and to ensure that a selection of one atternative
i�as not beea predetermined.
Ia many sections, the impacts to communities are combined rogether for a cumulative impact
While this may be necessary to assess the overall impact of the altemadve, it is impossible for
each community to determine the impact to their individual community. Without breaking out
this information by community, Richfield cannot accuratety assess the community impacts.
The document is not developed fully enough to address the sequencing or phasing of the
improvements. The phasing of improvement may significandy impact ihe economic benefits to
Richfield as well as the mitigation plans. This issue musc be addressed for Richfield to
adequately respond to the documen�
I-125
G. . The locai and regional impacts in the DEIS are '
consistent with the tevei of analysis presented in the
Scoping Oecision for the EIS, a draft of which was sent to
Richfieid in June 1995 fo� review and comment. Three
pubiic scoping meetings were heid on the Draft Scoping
Decision, and several affected communities submitted
written comments on the aitemaGves and impacts to be
addressed in the EIS. The city of Richfield did not respond
in writing, but comments by a staff member at the June 27,
1995 public meeting focused on the analysis of the impacts
of ground noise and the toss of Rich Acres goif course.
H. The DEIS contained measures to mitigate adverse
impacts of each aitemative. More detailed information on
mitigation measures is inciuded in the FEIS. Some
miGgaGon sections have been revised and fhe Executive
Summary includes those mitigation measures that will be
impiemented. See aiso Response E.
i. The FEIS inGudes mitigation costs and the costs for
roadway improvements caused by the proposed action. To
J. fhe extent teasonabiy foreseeable, the FEIS aonfains this
information for the MSP 2020 Concept Pian.
J. The FEIS has inciuded impacts by city. See Sections
� V.M, O, Q, R, and T.
K. See revised Section I.D.
City of Richfieid Comments - Dual Track DEIS
February l3, 1996
Page 4
III. SEGiYtENfiED ENYIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF THE DUAL TRACK
PLAIYNING PROC�SS VIOL�,TES NEPA ?.ND MEPA
One of the most telling disclosures in the DEIS does not even appeaz in the body of that
document The DEIS is accompanied by a table of cross-reference to the FAA's Airpoct
Environmental Handbook, FAA Ocder 5050.4A, which is prefaced by the acknow(edgment that �-�
"[t]he format of this Drafi EIS does not fo(!ow the usual format of a Federal Aviauon
Administration (FAA) EIS:'
In truth, neither the format nor the �D,t of the DIES follows the usual format or content of an
EIS. The DEIS represents one step of a segmented environmental review process that was
apparendy accepted by the Minnesota Environmental Quality Boazd. Pursuant to that process,
separate environmentat documents, denominated "Alternative Environmental Documenu"
(AEDs), were prepazed with respect to the MSP and New Airport altematives, respectively.
Foliowing the preparation of the AEDs—a process which was conducted entirety pursuant to
MEPA and not NEPA--the "best" MSP and New Airport alternatives were setected. rinalysis of
o[her MSP and New Airport altemadves was comptetely omitted from the subsequent DEIS.
M
Regazdless of the peraussibility of the foregoing process under MEPA, it plainiy violated NEPA.
That Process has resuited in a grossly inadequate analysis of altematives in the DIES - a
document which, after aii, is the Qp1X NEPA document analyzing the dual track aitematives. The (�.
consideradon of additional �SSP and New Airport alternatives in the AEDs is irrelevant for
i�IEPA purposes because ihose documenu were expressly prepazed entirely for MAC and were
not prepared, reviewed, or approve by the FAA.
��tEPA does not permit the federal environmental review process to begin once important
altematives have a(ready been rejected &om considemtion. The DEIS must be recirculated for 0•
puhtic comment after it has been revised to address the environmental impacu of a reasonable
range of MSP and New rlirport a(tematives. In addidon to viotating NEPA, FAA action oa the
basis of the current DEIS would violate the following fedezal statues:
1. Because each of the alternatives discussed in the DEIS has significant adverse environmental
impacu, the FAA would violate 49 U.S.C. State Statute 47106(c) (1) (C) by approving any of
those alternatives without a sufficient basis for concluding that (t) there aze not possible and P.
prudent alternadves and (2) there are no reasonabte mirigarion areasures to reduce the
project's unmitigated sigaificant advecse impacts;
I-126
I.. The only change in FAA format is in Section V,
Environmentai Consequences, where the impact categories
are 1lsted alphabeticaily rather than as listed in the FAA
order, as a convenience to the public in finding the impact
categories. �
M. Section III (Aitematives) describes each aitemative
and summarizes the reasons for eliminating previous
altematives from further consideration. For manage-ability
purposes, al► studies pertaining to previous environmental
and technical analysis on other altematives are incorporated
by �eference and Iegaily considered supporting materiai for
the DEIS. (See Appendix A of DEIS.) See also U.S. EPA
Response A.
N. The Draft EIS was not the only NEPA document
produced during the Dual Track process. The first and
second phase scoping reports, altemative environmental
documents and Draft EIS were ail vitai etements of the
NEPA process. The U.S. EPA concurred with the Dual
Track environmental process by letter on September 7,
1990, and reaffirmed their support of the Dual Track
environmental review process by letter on July 5, 1995.
The consideration of additional MSP and New Airport
altematives in the alternative environmentai documents was
an essential eiement of the NEPA process. As mentioned
a6ove, the U.S. EPA approved the Dual Track environ-
mental review process, including the role of the aiternative
environmentai documents in aiternative evaivation, in
September 1990 and July 1995. NEPA does not require
that every aitemative receive detailed analysis in a Draft
EIS. 40 CFR 1502.14(a) requires "for ali aitematives which
were eiiminated from detailed study, briefly discuss the.,
reasons for their having been eliminated". The Final EIS
also discusses altematives which were removed from
detailed consideration and the main reasons for doing so.
The FAA was involved in the development and review of the
afore-mentioned documents produced prior to the Draft EIS�
The FAA is invoived in the Duai Track Process as a joint
lead agency with the MAC. The FAA was also involved in �
ail public hearings and meetings regarding the previously-
mentioned environmental documents. See aiso CEQ
Regulation #40 CFR 1500.20.
O. The NEPA process did not begin after altematives
had been eliminated from consideration. All reasonabie
aitematives to serve the Twin Cities' air transpo�t needs
were evaluated during the Duai Track airport planning
process. As noted in Response N above, the U.S. EPA
supports the Dual Track environmental review process and
has stated that it adequately fuifilis NEPA requirements.
The Dual Track process included the first and second
phase scoping documents, aitemative environmental
documents, and Draft and Final EIS. See Section VIII,
Pubiic involvement.
P. The FAA has su�cient basis for concluding that there
are no feasibie and prudent aitematives to the proposed
action. Reasonable mitigation measures wiil be undertaken
to mitigate the projecYs impact. The Final EIS describes
these mitigaUon measures.
City of Richfieid Comments - Duat Tcack DEIS
February 13,1996
Page 5
2. Becauu cettain of the alternatives discussed ia the DEIS would involve the coasavction use
of land used for public parks and r�crcation areas or the actual taldng of farmland, the FAA
would violate 49 U.S.C. State Statute 303 (� by approving any suc6 altemative without a Q•
sufficient basis for concluding that (1) there are not feasible and prudent alternatives to the
use of such land and (2) there are no possibte mitigation measures to m;n;t,,;�e harm; and
3. Because certaia of thc alternatives dismissed in the DEIS are iaconsistent with piaas of
public ageacics, including Richfield, that are authoriud by the State of Minnesota to plan For
the development of the area affected by those alternadvcs, ihe FAA's approval of those
altemadves would violate 49 U.S.C. State Statuu 47106 (a) (t).
'lhe DEIS also violates MEPA by deviating from the standard NEPA procedures. Altemative
forms of eaviroumental review under Minnesota Rules part 4410.3600, such as that which was
utilized through the use of AEDs, cannot be employed with respect to projects for which an EIS
is prepared pursuant to NEPA. Minnesota Rues part 4410.3900, subp. 3, states:
"If a federal EIS will be or has been prepazed for a project, the RGUsha11 utrlue
the draft of,firral jederal EIS ar the draft state EIS if the federal EIS addresses the
scoped issues and satisfies the standards set forth in parc 4410.2300." (Emphasis
added)
I In short, a txaditional DEIS that analyzes a fiill range of alternatives, including MSP and New
Aitport altematives, must be prepazed and that DEIS must be used as the basis for both the
NEPA and MEPA review of the project
�
IV. Alternatives
For the MSP alternadve, six opdons weco originally considered. No informadon is provided in
tfu DEIS (other than figuces provided in Appendix B) regazding the comparison of alternatives.
It is stated t6at tlus analysis is provided in the Long-Term Comprehensive Plan Alternalive
Environmenta! Dacument (AED). In fact, the afore-mentioned document does not provide an
aciequate comparison of t6e opemdonal components and related impacu of each altemative. Ta
review the opeiadonal anatysu, one must go back to the Long-Term Camprehensive Plarr,
Airpart Development Concepts. However, this document does not provide backup information
on tho assumpdons and inputs of the SIIvIIv10D and other modeling and aoalyses. A review of
these assumptions and inputs is important to determine if the ptanniag process was couducted
thoroughly and objectively.
I-127
Q. The FAA has sufficient basis for conciuding that there
are no feasible and prudent aitematives to the use. Possible
mitiga6on measures will be undertaken to minimize the harm
from the use. The Finai EIS describes these miligation
measures. The MSP Altemative will not require the
acquisition of fartnland.
The U.S. Fish and Wiidlife Service, which operates the
Minnesota Valiey Na6onat Wiidlife Refuge, agrees that there
are no feasibie and prudent aitematives to expansion of the
existing MSP Airport The refuge is the only park or
recreation area subject to Section 4(Q of the 1996
DepaRment of Transpo�ta6on Act that wouid be affected by
the MSP Altemative. See Appendix E.
R. Comment noted.
iZ. S. The requirement that the draft federai EIS be used as
the draft state EIS is not absolute.. Under Minn. Rules Pa�t
4410.3900, subp. 3, if the federal EIS does not address the
state EIS scoped issues or does not satisfy the state
standards for EIS content, then the MAC couid produce its
own state draft EIS without violating MEPA.
The Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (MEQB)
specifiqily approved ihe process being used by the MAC
including a State Dual Track EIS which relies on and refers �
back to the Altemative Environmentai Documents and is '
$. coordinated with the federai process. Ea�ly in the Duai Track
Pianning Process, the MAC proposed to the MEQB the
altemative environmentai review process as permitted under
Minn. Rules Part 4410.3600. The use of Aitemative
Environmental Documents to address selection of search
area, site selection within the chosen search area, preferred
new airport layout, and preferred MSP altemative, foilowed
by an EIS to compare the new airport and MSP expansion
aitematives, was approved by the MEQB. indeed, this
approach was pattemed on the process of Uering one EIS on
another which is specificaily permitted in federal
environmentai reviews under NEPA. The MEQB's approvai
also contempiated a state draft EIS process coordinated with
the federai draft EIS process with the MEQB making the
adequacy detennination on the state finai EIS.
T. T. The MSP AED does, in fact, present the environment�
impacts associated with four of the six initial aitematives
identified for MSP expansion. (Two of the aitematives were
eliminated during the scoping process.) Technical analysis
is described in a draft copy of Volume 7 of the MSP I.TGP
availabie for review at MAC and FAA offices. Both MAC an�
FAA used SIMMOD to evaluate the aitematives; this
information is availabie from both agencies.
City of Richfieid Comments - Dual Track DEIS
February 13,1996
Pagc 6
The north-south preferred alternative is recommended as a needed improvement to increase
airport capacity and reduce detay. In our review, the case is not made that the north-south
runway is the preferred altcmative &nm a capacity sGwdpoint The SIMMOD analysis reports
only a small advaataga for t6e Runway 17/351ayout. There may have becn certain assumptions U.
inciuded which essentially pcedctermined the result Only a detailed teview of that ptanning
exercise could reveai whetEter this is the casa Since the advantage of Runway 17/35 is marginat
when viewed stricdy on the basis of capacity, the decision to reject the north parallel concept is
actually a toss up.
The fact that the north-south and north paiallel runway altemaaves are so close, both alternatives
should have beea brought forward to the DEIS, a significant omission rendering the DEIS
incomplete. In fact, the LTCP Airport Development Concepts report includes both the north-
south and north parallel runways as part of the ultimate long-term plan. Both runway alternarives
should be included as part of the MSP alternative to adequately compare impacts and cosu to a
new airport aitemative. It is especially important that an analysis of runway alternative
environmental impacts be part of this statemenG This supports the overall fmding that tho DEIS
ptovidcs an inequitable comparison between the MSP alternadve and the new airport altemative.
The location of the north-south runway is attractive for development of the depicted cargo
operarions and airline maintenance facilides. Peak use of these areas will occur during the night
period. The proposed ruuway is also the preferred deparnue runway and the most heavily used
departure runway, both day and night, among all the available runways at MSP. The DEIS does �•
not adequately address night period operauons or related noise impacts in isolation, especialiy as
they may relate to cities located in close proximity to night period opemtions azeas, or specify the
offects on residential areas.
The aorth-south runway has faz greater environmental implications for the future well-being of
eastern Richfield than has been aclmowledged in the DEIS. Additionally, no funding has been
set aside to mitigate for these impacts. This is a significant omissioa Richfield has undertaken X.
significant efforrs to assure the stability of residential neighborhoods. The report provides no
data rogazding how the environmenta! impacu will affect these single- and mulu-fanuly
properties.
A major weakness of the north-south nuiway may be revealed by a review of the tota! cosu,
wlach is not included in the DEIS for our review. Iaciuding such costs as the removat of hotels
to tho south, the erection of a noise bazrier, the loss of revenue-pmducing on-airport space if a Y.
bam is used, and other costs which will be imposed on the City of Richfieid such as loss in tax
rcveaues, additional ptaaniug studies, etc. might tip the 6nancial equadon in favor of the north
patallet.
The use of the north-south nmway is described as being "almost exclusively to and from the
south for both takeoffs and landings." This effectively reduces this concept to a"south-south"
nmway. Although this may occur in&equeady, the DEIS does not address this issue or possible Z�
impacts should the runway be used to or frnm the north.
I-128
U. Separate studies conducted 6y MAC and the FAA `�
confirm that the north-south nmway provides superior
ppacity improvements versus a north parallel, although the
north parallel runway benefits are also good. l'he MAC '
anaiysis has been presented in the MSP ITCP and in
presenfations to the Technical Committees and the
Commission indicating an advantage for the north-souih
runway. The FAA's MSP Capacity Enhancement Pian,
which was pubiished in December of 1993, was developed
by a team of industry experts and representa6ves from the
state. The FAA study aiso concluded that while both
aitematives perfortned weil, the north-south runway was
superior. The north-south runway is aiso the environmentally
preferred altema6ve. Compared to the north-south
altemaGve (as presen#ed in the Finai Aitemative
Environmental Oocument for the MSP Long Term
Comprehensive Plan, February 1995), the north parailei
aitemative wouid — demolish contributing components of
both the Fort Sneiling Nationai landmark Historic District
and the Old Fort Sneiling National Register Historic District —
dispiace a Section 4(� 9-hole golf course and direcUy impact
Bossen Fieid, a Section 4(� paric — displace 601 more
residents — and subject 3,030 more residents to aircraft
noise leveis greater than DNL 60. See also General
Response 5.
See Generai Response 5.
W. DNL contours are a measure of daily average day-
night sound levei. The DNL contours developed for 2005
incorporate the larger percentage of nighttime operaUons
departing on Runway 17. The INM penalizes nighttime
operations by 10dB (each nighttime operation equals 10
daytime operations). Although nighttime operations on '
Runway 17-35 are not isolated for evaluation, they do pla�
a significant role in resultant DNL contours.
X. The greatest environmentai impact on eastem
Richfield is identified as noise. The noise mitigation pian in
Appendix 8 describes the mitigation measures and funding
to address these impacts. it also includes the fortnulation of
a Working Group to Identify impacts and recommend
Communiry Stabilization measures.
Y. Totai development costs for the new runway are
inciuded in Table i-26 of the DEIS. These costs inciude land
acquisition and demolition as necessary on the properties to
be acquired. The Duai Track Airport Planning Process
Technicat Report provides a more detailed financial analysis
of the MSP Attemative, as referenced in Appendix A of the
FEIS.
Z. The only time the ninway would be used to the north oi
from the north is during periods of strong southe�ly or
northeriy winds (less than one percent of the Gme) Tower
personnei wiil uBiize Runway 17/35 so that the runway is not
used to and from the north, except under the foilowing limitec
circumstances that are described in the FEIS: (1) safety
reasons, (2) weather condiGons; (3) temporary runway
Gosures due to snow removal, due to consWction or due to
other activities at the airport when the parallei runways could
not be used, or periods when the parallel ninways are closec
due to bad weather or snow removal. This level of activity
would not afiect the �oise analyses conducted in the EIS.
(City of Richfield Commcnu - Dual Tnck DEIS
,. Februacy 13, 1996
'� Page 7
As a converging runway, the north-south runway is inconsistont with airfield improvemcnu
across the country. The FAA Airport Design Standards Handbook strongiy recommends
runways added to increase capacity at e�cisting airports be consuvcted parallel to existing A�
runways. Without exception, airports in the U.S. proposing one or more new runways are
planning paraliel runways. VJhile these facts do not prove the nocth-south runway is unwise,
there appear to be factors other than capacity that have been considered, but not addressed, in the
DEIS.
V. Environmental Consequences
Air Qua6ty Impacts
An air quality analysis (microscale cazbon monoxide analysis) for off-airport sources (motor
vehicles) was conducted for those intersections which meet Metropolitan Council screening
critcria of 2,400 velricles per hour during the P.M. peak hour, of which at least 480 (20 percent)
arc airport-related �c. The DEIS only analyzed the one intersection thac meets the
Metzopolitan Council screening criteria: TH SS at TH 62. The DEIS states that only this
intersection meeu the criteria since almost all travel to MSP takes place on (imited access
roadways with no at-grade intersections. Although there are no at-grade intersectioas on those
facilities with proposed improvemenu, all of the interchanges aze or will be metered, not free-
flow. Additionally, the metered interchanges will experience significant queuing. These should
be included in the microscale anatysis.
AA. MAC agrees that parailel runways can provide
significant capacity improvements, and for this reason, both
north paraliel and south parallei runway options were
considered as ways of providing greater capacity. Because
of site constraints, these new parailels wouid be separated
by 1,000 teet or lessfrom an existing parallel runway,
diminishing overall capacity. Parailel runways separated by
less than 2,500 feet are treated as a singie runway by ATC
when wake turbulence caused by heavy aircraft is a factor.
During instrument conditions, a third parailei couid not be
used independenUy. For these reasons, the proposed north
south runway would provide siighUy more capacity than a
third parailei runway. As noted iri Response U, this runway
wouid have fewer environmental impacts than a third parallei
runway. In combination, these two benefits resulted in the
selection of the north-south runway.
BB. BB. Queuing at metered ramps is discussed in Appendix
A.1.
Since a number of roadway improvements are proposed as part of the MSP altemative (as
discussed under Transportation Access), it would be prudent to conduct an air quality analysis
for each new and proposed intersection and interchange in the affected azea, such as 66th Street
at 1Ti 77, TH 62 at Tfi 77, 62nd Street frontage road access points, and the airport's western CC•
access entrance. The roadway improvemenu were deternrined based on an analysis of state
roads. Howevez, local roads such as 66th Street will be impacted and should be included in the
analysis.
No mention was made in the DEIS regarding the air quality impact on sensitive receptors such as
nearby hospitaUmedical facilides or schools. Aa air quality aaalysis shoutd also be considered ' DD.
for those sensitive receptors in Richficld located near TH 77.
I-129
CC. Two proposed new interchanges associated
with the new terminal location at the northwest corner of
MSP have been analyzed for air quality impacts in the
year 2020 in Section V.A.1.2, Impacts from Off-Airport
Sources. "
information on local roadways is presented in Ta61es
A.1.1 and A.1.2 in Appendix A.1.
DD. The location of inedical facilities and schools in
Richfield is shown in Figure A-3 and discussed in Section
V.A.1.1. Affected Enviro�ment - MSP Aiternative. Air
quality impacts at the two sites closest to MSP are
addressed in A.1.2 Air Cluality impacts - MSP Alternative
and A.3.2. Air Quality Impacts - No Action Aiternative.
City of Richfield Commenu - Dual Tnck DEIS
February t3,1996
Page 8
No informaaon was provided regarding input parazneters or receptor locations. The .
t�ansportution analysis (discussed in Transportadon Access) was not specific enough to conduct
an intersection level of service analysis, wfuch is required as an input to the aic quality analysis.
The input pazaztteters and receptor locations aze needed to ensure that the analysis was conducted EE.
thoroughly and appropriately. Additionaily, air quality analyses aze generally conducted for the
design yeaz, time of completion yeaz, and time of comp(euon plus 10 years. Emission rates,
vehicle fleet mix, and traffic volumes aze impacted by which yeaz has been anatyzed.
Since the aaalysis included in the DEIS did not show any locations exceeding state and federal
standards, no mitigation was proposed. Should additional analysis result in exceedences,
mitigation measures will be required. Mitigation measures for construction impacu, however, do FF.
not include adequate detailed informadon on design or cosL Although construction mitigation
details aze not generally required, an expansion of MSP will take ptace over a number of years.
Therefore, this informarion is wazranted.
The DEIS should also address the cumulauve impacu on the proposed improvements and other
current, planned, or reasonably foreseeabie projecu at or near MSP. GG•
The DEIS should address the extent to which the altemative is consistent with the State's
Implementation Plan for air quality. The DEIS only lisu steps needed to address confomuty and
states the analyses aze oaly preliminary elemenu. A confornuty deternunation should be HH.
included in the DEIS.
Background concentrations were taken at only one location, a temporary receptor tocated 2.3
miles west of the Cedar boundary of MSP. Even lower concentradons were used as the
background concentradons for 2020. Given the dispersion of carbon monoxide, this receptor "�
was located too faz from che airport. Addidonally, there is no mdonale given for reducing the
coacentradoas by approximately 20 percent &om observed conditions to future condiaons.
Economic Impacts
The DEIS oniy addressed the Financial issue of losing revenue produced by he Rich Acres Golf
Course, currendy leased to Richfield by the ivfAC. The DEIS does not address the lazger issue of �,J,
the adverse financiai consequences on land values due to the elimination of the buffer zone
created by the golf course. "fhis will negativety impact the redevelopment potendal and timiag
of redevelopment opportunities of the west side of TH 77.
I-130
EE. A detailed traffic flow analysis will be conducted
during the preliminary engineering phase of the roadway
improvements associated with MSP. At that time, a
more detailed analysis of the local roadway network wiii
be possible that wili permit an evaluation of level of
service, air quality analyses and other environmental
impacts as appropriate. This is needed because the
proposed interchanges shown in the FEIS are schematic
oniy and may not represent the finai design.
The Memorandum of Understanding between the
Metropolitan Airports Commission and the Twin Cities
Metropolitan Council which was the basis for the Dual
Track environmental process estabiished the projection
year of 2020 as a realistic year for comparing airport
alternatives. Emissions were also estimated for the year
2005 in accordance with the meeting/teleconference
with the U5 EPA on August 30, 1995 tsee letter in the
DEIS Appendix A from the Airports District Office dated
September 27, 7 995 summarizing this meeting). The
year 2005 was selected as a 15 year horizon from the
MPCA 1990 emission inventory for the Twin Cities
Metropolitan Area. The year 2020 was selectad as the
project pianning horizon. No projections of aircraft
operations or ground access traffic were made Beyond
this horizon.
FF. Although this project is de minimus, the air quality
effects from construction of the proposed action are
presented in Appendix A.13. '
GG.The no action consists of the existing airport facilities
and access at MSP, and those committed projects with
funding approved by MAC in its 1995-1997 C.I.P. and thos�
committed projects in the 1998 C.I.P. tha4 are not
associated with the implementation of the new north-south
runway. The FEIS addresses the cumulative impacts of
pianned activities reasonably foreseeable, inciuding
implementation such as the extension of Runway 4-22 to the
northeast and roadway improvements, as discussed on page
V-1, and in Sections V.A., V.Q, V.Q.1, V.BB and V.W.
HH. Consistency with the State tmpiementation Pian
(SIP) and Conformity with tfie SIP are discussed in
Section V.A.
il. A discussion of new background monitoring is
included under Section V.A.7.1: Affected Environment -
MSP Alternative: Existing Pollutant Concentrations. The
adjustment of background to the year 2020 is aiso
described in that section. The air quality analysis has
been revised to account for the new background.
JJ. The potential for adve�se financiai consequences on
land values due to aircraft noise has a iong history at MSP.
in 1970 residents brought a lawsuit against MAC aileging
that MAC has essentiaily performed a"taking" due to the
reduced land values. The residents felt that they were
entiUed to compensation. MAC argued that there was no
evidence that the value of the piaintiffs property had been
reduced by a substantial or measurabie amount attribuked to
aircraft noise. This case went through the Minnesota
Supreme Court twice, and the Court found in favor of the
defendants in both instances.
City of Richfield Comments - Dual Track DEIS
Fobcuary 13, 1996
Page 9
The DEIS does aot address the difficulty in ccdeveloping the area wesc of Cedar, including
eaosting aad futuro market conditioas and business climate, tcngth of time nccessary for
redevelopment to take ptace, 5nancisl impacts, empioyment impacts, and cumulative unpacts. A
supp(ementat study is currendy und�rway by ERA which may or may not address these issucs.
The body of this study, or az least substantive taghiights of tha fiadings, must be included in the
DEIS to allow for thorough analysis of pmjected impacis• Like`Mse, the significant findings of
the Financial Analysis.currealty bcing conducud must be included in the DEIS. All
commuaities must be able to analyze the potcntial exposure to iheir constituencies of Snancing
aicFwrt improvements, since MAC bonds az�e backed by the good faith and credit of the eutire
sevoa-county metropolitan arca, It would be premacure to comment on the impacts without Srst
�•.reviowing these supplemeatal studies. It is unacceptabte that the DEIS comment period will be
allowed to ciose without final versions of the aforementioned documenu being made availablo to
the geaeral public.
Consuuction of the north-soutli cuaway will require acquisition and destruction of three houis
and other commercial properties. The DEIS does not iaclude these costs.
No mitigadon is proposeci for these impacts. Addidonally, no cost informadon was provided
regnrding the impacts of redevelopment opportunities as a mitigation measure.
Induced Socioeconomic Impact
KK. The projected future tand use for properties
immediately west of TH 77 is commerciai which is
compaGbie with the proposed industriai use by the Airport.
While the goif c:ourse provides a barrier between the airport
and the remaining residential uses along TH77, these
residential uses will uitimately be replaced with commercial
uses and theretore land values wouid not be adversely
affected when compared to commercial land use values.
LL. The financiai analysis of the Dual Track Airport
Planning Process aitema6ves, dated February 13, 7996,
contains a discussion (pp.19-20) regarding the bonding
capacity of ttie MeUopolitan Airports Commission and
KK the financing mech�tiisms fhat wouid be required for
development of the MSP Aitemative. The �eport indicates
ihat additionat authority from the legisiature to issue generai
airport revenue bonds and general obiigation revenue bonds
couid be used to finance airpoR development This
LL. information was contained in the Report to the Legisiature,
dated March 1996, on pp. 6-36 and 6-37; the Repo�t to the
Legisiature was available to iawmakers and, presumabiy,
their constituencies, prior to the legislative actions regarding
the Duai Track Airport Planning Process.
MM. MM. Table I-26 in the DEIS inGudes acquisiUon of
properties required as runway protection zones associated
with the new north-south runway. See the three lines
dedicated to property acquisiGon on Table I-26 for the MSP
Aitemative. These costs include the associated demolition
required to clear ihe runway safety area.
'I'ho MSp alternative can be andcipazed to induce aQproximately 60,000 s.f. industrial and 40,000 NN
s.f. office development annua(ly from 2005 to 2020. Fiowever, the DEIS states this developmcnt
will most likely occur in south Minneapotis, Bloomington, Mendota Heighu, and Eagan. There
is no mantion of redevelopment potearial in Ricl�field west of Cedar. �thout the west uxminal.
this redevelopment potentiat in Richfield may not exist. The DEIS also fails to address the time
delay between when airport improvements are made and when redevelopment may actvally take
placo.
Richfioid will lose S302,040 annual taac revenues, of which no mitigation, such as payment in ' OC
lieu of taxes, is proposed. Additionally, there is no discussion of the impact to property values,
both commercial and resideatiat.
The DEIS should include a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the growth-inducing impacts PP
thai would be experieaced. This is particulazly important with the proposed (but debatal by
Northwest Airlines) west sido tecminal. ,
I-131
NN. The definition of "induced" development requires an
analysis of impacts in Richfieid which are soleiy or primarily
due to the expansion of MSP. As such, the area west of
CedarAvenue in Richfield has not been considered
"induced" development in this analysis. The timing of
redevelopment along Cedar Avenue has not been analyzed.
Redevelopment of this cortidor wiil respond directly to the
character of the adjacent roadway and the traffic on it The
airport in its existing configuraGon wouid continue to serve a:
an environment for redevelopment of this corcidor. It is
expiiciUy recognized that the new west tertninai and
associated additional tra�c on Cedar Avenue wouid improvf
the market for redevelopment west of Cedar in Richfield.
00. Proposed mitigaUon is included in the Noise Mitigation
Plan, Appendix B. See Section V.O Land Use and Section
V.T Sociai.
PP. See Section V.N., induced Socioeconomic Impacts.
Ciry of Richfield Comments - Dua! Tcack DEIS
February 13, 1996
Page 10
Land Use Impacts
The DEIS states that the acquisition of New Ford Town aad Rich Acres Golf Course (both
located east of TH 7� has beguu and is not considered an impact of MSP expansioa Rich Acres
Golf Course is identified as an economic impacL related to the MSP. altema6ve.
It is stated that compatibie land uses will be achieved when communifies amend tfieir
comprehensive ptans, implying that developing off-airport compatible land uses is not a
responsibility of the MAC. The impetus for the comprehensive pian amendments is the airfield
improvements being proposed by the MAC. These proposed improvements adversely affect the
surroimding communities and are, therefore, a collateral responsibility of the MAC. It is the
MAC's responsibility that the surrounding communities remain commercialiy and residentiaqy
viable, as well as cquivalendy valuable tmtil the fot+ces of secondary redevelopment impacts aze
realized.
�
QQ. QQ. Comment noted. See Response RR.
The Richfield Comprehensive Plan would have to be amended to addcess the compatibility issues RR.
generated by the development of the nocth-south runvray and the western terminal access,
bringing airport operations cioser to Richfietd than ever before. However, no mitigarion
measures or costs have been identified in the DEIS.
Given that no mifigation ptan was included in the DEIS, the City of Richfield has taken the
initiative and prepued a mitigadon proposal for land use changes along the west side of TH 77 to
mitigate the airports impacts. Tfiis mitigation plan is being developed and fiilly funded by the
City. Additionaily, a compre0ensive ptaa amendment would also have to initiated and funded by
the City. Since this is the responsibility of the MAC to include or commit to in the DEIS, it is
incumbeni upon the MAC to assist and fund these e�'orts. There is no commitment eacpressed in
the DEIS to conduct the follow up work. The mitigation section should include a discussioa of
the costs to the City and identify possible funding sources to offset the cost to the City.
Richfield's mitigation proposal catls for the following changes:
Richfield will need additional time to fully prepare the redevelopmeat plan and associated costs.
Moce analysis is needed in the DEIS regarcling the costs to the City to accommodate MSP
expansion ptans before the City can make decision in support or opposition to the pmposed
action.
I-132
SS.
RR. The incompa6bility is the resuit of airport noise. The
forum for determining measu�es to mitigate noise impacts
was the MSP Noise Mitigation Cornmittee, of which Richfi�
was a member. See Appendix B. See also General
Response 3 and Section III.D regarding the west termina�.
SS. See Response RR. The noise mitigation plan in �
Appendix B contains the totai mitigation of noise by MAC.
See aiso the ExecuGve Summary, Unresolved Issues.
. ,
\
City of Richfield Commeats - Dual Track QEIS
February 13, 1996
� Page I 1
The DEIS should also address the cumulative impacts on the proposed improvements and other
current, planned, or reasonably foreseeable projects at or neaz MSP.
Light Emissions
Residential azeas in east Richfietd near TH 7� and 66th Street will be impacted by new roadway
lights, increased haffic lights, airport building lights, and induced development lights. The DEIS . V U•
does not specifically address the impact from the new cacgo azea on the west side of the airport.
The cargo azeas will be require lighting plus will generate increased truck tr�affic during the
evening hours. No mitigation measures or related costs are included in the DEIS.
Noise Impacts
1. Aircraft Noise
The most serious criricism involves the progression of the ptanning process. The assumption
behind the DEIS is t6at the key question which must be resolved is the path toward future airport
development. The position of the City of Richfieid is ihat if the MSP alternative is carried out,
complete analysis and discios�se of the impacts are necessary. Commitrnents towazd appropriate
mitigation must be secured and all viabie mitigadon strategies must move fonvazd together with
airport development. 13ese mitigarion measures aze integra! to the development plans, not items
to be studied later on, or analyzed in the sense of fut�ue optioas. The City of Richfieid must
insist t6at addressing the full range of community concems have an equal or higher priority in
decision making.
'17�is points to anothes example of the lack of appropriate comparisons between expansion of
MSP and constructing a new airport. The new airport has been designed to provide a high level
of noise midgation. Yet, a comparison of cost to provide noise mitigation to even the properties
newly impacted by aitiwrt eacpansion is not available within the document
The DEIS aaalysis of Time Above 85 dBA (TA 85) threshold and peak sound exposure tevels
(SEL) anatysis was oniy conducted for seven selected noise sensitive locations in Richfietd.
Both of these indicators aze important to consider. AIthough 85 dBA is normaliy used as the
acoustic critezion for off-airport land planning, it is an extremely high threshold in evaluating
night period noise. If 65 or 70 dBA were also examined, exceedences woWd reach out fiuther
'from the airport, particulazly with nigfit period noise. Even at 65 or 70 dBA, this is 25 to 30 dBA
higher than the night period standard of 45 dBA. Compazed to normal night period noise of 20
dBA, this is 45 to 50 dBA higher. Therefore, a lower threshold wouid be appropriate.
TT. The impacts of all known projects were included.
UU. Lights used to illuminate such landside bui�dings as
cargo facilities, pianned for the west side of the airport
property, typica�ly are directed lighting, or lighting that is
cut off so that there is Iittie spillover effect. Most lights of thi:
variety are designed as security lights, of approximately 1-2
foot-candies. it is noted that lights illuminating airpo�t
buildings cannot be excessively bright or they wouid interferf
with the safe operation of aircraft approaching and departing
an airport, or taxiing between the gates and the runways.
Trucks loading cargo from, and into, facilities on the west
side of airport property wouid use an airport roadway that
would Iie east, and parallei to, TH 77, south of 66th Street
East. Trucks traveling north and south along the airpo�t
roadway wouid move in the same directions as those
traveling on TH77. There is a potential that truck headlights,
while tuming onto the airport roadway to exit the property,
could shine onto improved properties on the west side of
TH77, a distance of more than 500 feet from the airport
roadway.
�/. (W. The FEIS discioses the known effects of the proposed
action and the commitment of MAC to mitigate significant
adverse effects. See General Responses 1 and 2.
The aorth-south runway appears to facilitate major increases in cazgo acrivity which normally ��
occurs during the night period. Cazgo operations also tend to be more heavily loaded which
effecLs performance. Additiona! analyses should be included to directly address potendal night
period noise. The DEIS fails to disclose what is anflcipated during the night period. This is a
significant omission
I-133
WW. The INM penalizes nighttime operations; for every
nighttime operation the INM assigns the equivaient of 10
daytime operations.
XX. Since the forecast of cargo (and other aviation) activih
is an unconstrained forecast, the north south runway does
not, per se, increase tra�c. Tables A.3-3 and A.3-4, in
Appendix A.31ist the number of daytime and nighttime
operations used for noise impact analysis. Appendix A.3
also discusses the DNL metric, used in assessing noise
impacts, which penalizes nighttime operations by 10 dBA.
(See page A.3-5.) Aircraft weight is incorporated into the
development of INM contours.
If additional capacity were not provided, nighttime activity
could, in fact, be higher as flights delayed in the late evenin�
leave later in the night and camers shift flights to less busy
hours (i.e., after 10 p.m. and before 6 a.m.). In any event,
there is adequate capacity for significant increases in cargo
activity under the No Action Aitemative.
City of Richfield Commenu - Dual Track DEIS
February 13, t996
Page 12
The runway 17/35 pmposal is shown to expose new areas in Btoomington to aircraft noise.
Should adverso reactions occur thero, the runway use assumpdons may be inaccurate, i.e., some
noise might be shifted back to southeast Richfietd. This possibility would not occur under the
north parallel runvray option.
YY. The runway use percentages and flight tracks used
in the DEIS represent a ba�ance of operational e�ciency
�. and sensitivity to environmentai impacts. if future noise
compiaints iniGated changes in nmway use, appropriate
environmental analysis and documentation wouid be
required.
No backup materials, such as INM input files, aze included in the document or in its appendices.
These must be provided, as there is otherwise no way to detect omissions, mistakes, or to verify �. �NM input files have been made available to the City
that the analyses can be duplicated.
�. of Richfield. ANOMS data was used in the deveiopment of
No fieid data appears to have been inctuded in the noise analysis in the DEIS. This omission departure profiles and flight tracks for future noise analysis.
should be coaected, particulazly day and night ambient noise date within the City of Richfield. The INM does not use actual field tlata on noise leve�s.
The scenarios depicted in the DEIS have as an implicit assumption, the improvemenu which
inevitably occur as a result of federa( requirements for the phase out of noisier (Stage II) aircraft
and the continuing improvement of technology in terms of noise reducdon. It is this factor which /1�A
directly accounu for the decline in cumulative noise depicted in the noise contours. This effect
in turn depends on the assumpdon that cumuladve noise reductions, in fact, directly reduce
annoyance. The wealmess of cumulative noise impact is that it fails to examiae the effecu in
human terms.
There will bc a need to perform additiona! sound insulation in residendal homes. The DEIS
indicated that considention of tfris will occur in for[hcoming Part 150 updates. This is not
accepta6le. The costs of this program are uiggered by the MSP expansion alternative and, thus,
should be included in ihe tally of costs for the MSP alternative. If the north-south runway is
funded, the MAC is obligated to fvnd the mitigation program as the need for the program is
specifically triggered by the project This is a major omission rendering the DEIS incomplete.
The north-south tunway will bring on the ground aircrafi activity much closer ro the resideatiai
areas of eastern Richfield. The discussion of mitigadon includes only one sentence on noise
barrieis/berms. This is wholly inadequate for a series of reasons. Specific mirigation
information included in the LTCP Airport Development Concepts was not brought forward to the
DEIS. The commitment to instali a noise buxier seems to have vanished benveen the eazlier
documeat and the DEIS, and is repiaced by an evaluation. The noise bazrier should logically be
aa esseatial part of the development plan, fiilly costed out as part of the MSP alternative, shown
on the developmeat plans, and its effectiveness documented. Single event noise contours, Lmax
calculations, and descriptive information including duration, number of repetiuons, and time of
day, as well as other detail is essentiai in the DEIS.
The analysis of ground noise seems to imply that such impacu aze minimai and poinu out that
other noise sources occur such as grouad traffic. This seems to overlook the fact that a true
wmparison needs to be made 6enveea the No-Build altemadve, the new airport altemadve, and
the MSP altemaave. Gmund noise that would occur under the MSP alternative would simply
not be there with the north parallel concept or if tiie airport is moved.
The section on ground opemtions should be expanded'to include peak (evels from atl types of
operations on and azound Runway 17/35. The current discussion does not fiilly address single
event noise from the be,glilning of takeoff rotl nor finm the use of tluust reversers. It included
only estimates of taxiing noise. No actual measuremenu were made. This could easily be done
az any time since comparabie eonditions eacist at other locations at MSP. The current text
indicazes that the INM-generated contours include these operauons. Since many operations are
likely during the night period when sleep interference is an issue, more detailin$ is needed to
fiilly undccstand the potentiat impacts on citizens of eastem Richfield. 'Ihe DEIS discussion of
this issue is being explained away and m;n;,,,��� �ead of ineasured and quantified
I-134
' � �
AAA. The DNL metric was specifically designed to model
human response to cumuiative noise impacts. Appendix A.3
discusses this in more detaii. The DNL was developed by
the U.S. EPA and has been approved by ail federal
agencies for assessment of aircraft noise impacts on
humans. Appendix A.3 a�so notes that there are no other
descriptors of cumulative noise impacts which correlate
better to human response. The DN� was recentiy confirmed
as the most appropriate metric by the Federal Interagency
Committee on Noise. The DEIS recognizes that supple-
mental metrics are useful in assessing noise impacts. '
Accordingly, the DEIS provides single event data (Peak
SEL), and duration of noise above specified levels—time
above (TA).
BBB. See General Response 2.
CCC. Noise barriers wiil be considered if they are needed
and are feasible. See Generai Response 2. See aiso
Response GGG and Generai Response 1.
DDD. Response to Comment DDD is presented as an
addendum at the end of this letter.
�City of Richfield Commonts - Duel Track DEIS
February 13, 1996
'` Pagc 13
The DEIS does not clearly address or disclase the impact of grouad leve! noise on residcatial
property pazaliel W the north-south nmway. This is esp�cialiy important since it caa be
n:asonably expected that noise &nm aircmtt t3xiing and taking off may not be effectively
buffered, but will also be losing an existing buffer (Rich Acres Golf Course).
The City nceds more information w accivauly assess the imPact of ground Ievel noise on the
densciy populated arcas to the west of the pmposed aorth-south runway to respond to these
issues. The north end of the runway will be less than one-half mile &om the adjaceac horder of
Richfield. Ground noise may have significant impacts on those areas immediately west of Cedar
Avenue and must be addressed in the DEIS.
2. Surface Transportation Noise
The MSP altemative would increase the number of residences exposed to surface nansportation
noise level Lio70 from 462 to 513 — an increase of I 1 percent — and L�o65 from 1,272 to 1,497 —
an increase of 18 percent (along both TI-I 71 and'fFi 62). Ttas secdon does not address the
cumulative impact of roadway noise and noise from airport ground operations. Roadway and
ground operation noise should aiso be analyud during an off-peak, nighttime hour, such as 10
P.M. or 6 A.M., as the noise standards are more sensitive for nighttime hours.
The mitigation proposed is noise bacriers. The DIIS does not address any specifics, such as
length, height, material, performance capabilities, etc., regazding noise barriers. The DEIS
additionally does not address ot6er mitigation measures such as berms. The noise barriers
proposed are also not located either close to the receiver or source of the noise, but in betwcen.
'Ihis moans that the noise barrier, if a wall, must be extremely high, or if a berm, must be very
larga Should an eactremely high noise wall be erected, tlus will have significant adverse
aesthetic effects on the community.
i SocinlImpacb
This section of the DEIS is very weak, only focusing on relocations. Construction of highway
improvemenu to serve the west tecmin�al would require remova! of residences and businesscs.
Although not specified in the teact, Figure T-i shows that displacements along TH 62, betwcen
Pordand Avenue aad TH 77, includes 31 homes (both north and south of TFi 62), and
displaccments along TFi 7'7 in Richfield include 17 businesses, 3 homes, and 2 apartment
buildings (28 uniu). This relates back w the economic impacts of lost tax revenue if the
resideats are not relocated in Richfield. The loss of businesses eliminates a buffer between
residential areas, TH 77, aad the arsport
Rhere is no discnssioa of other short- and loug-term social impacts, such as impacts to
community characteristics, cohesioa, a¢d value; impacts to special groups such as various
popularion groups, incomes, or seasitive populations; or cumuladve impacts. T7�is should
addceys changes to the population, neighborhoods, separation, quality of life, aad possible effects
to income disa�ibution
No mitigation measures or related cost impacts are included in the DEIS.
I-135
EE.
EEE. See Response DDD for ground noise
considerations and Response JJ for land use values.
FFF. See Response DDD for aircraft ground operations.
See FEIS Section V.Q2.2, Surtace Noise Impacts, for
discussion of nighttime noise impact.
GGG. Detailed noise mitigation plans wiil be developed
during the environmentai review process of the roadway
improvement projects that are proposed for the MSP (West
Terminal) expansion. The noise mitigaUon pians wili identify
locations where noise bamers are warranted based on state
and federai guidelines, feasibie and cost effective. A finai
decision on the location of noise barriers, as well as the�r
height, materiai and appearance wiii be made after the
affected cities and residents have been given the
opportunity to provide input.
The "DEIS" does not specify the type of "barrieP' that would
be used to mitigate noise impacts because at this stage in
the project development process a preferred highway noise
mitigation technique has not been determined. The two
most common noise barrier designs are walis and berms.
Noise wails are used most frequen8y for highway projects
because they require less right-of-way than berms.
It is anticipated that noise bamers consWcted to mitigate
the adverse effects of highway traffic wili be located as cli
to the noise source (tra�c lanes) as possibie to enhance
effectiveness of the barrier. Typically, noise barriers are
located along the edge of highway rights-of-way.
HHH. FAA Order 5050.4A requires an analysis of
specified sociai impacts, as outiined in the Second Phase
Scoping Report of the Duai Track Airport Planning Process
and the Scoping Decision for the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement. It is noted that Section V.T, Sociai
Impacts, inciudes a description of impacts to specified
demographic groups, including chiidren 1 S and younger,
aduits 65 and oider, as well as those who are disabled., in
addiBon, those in minority and low income households, as
required under an ExecuUve Order for the Environmental
Justice analysis, are delineated in Section V.S,
Ernironmental JusUce. Mitigation measures are included
in the FEIS.
City of Richfieid Comments - Duat Trnck llEIS
February t3,1996
Page 14
Tnnsportadon Access
Proposed roadway impmvemen�s to handle changes induced by a westem access and other
related changes included in the DETS aze:
• Ramps, SB I-35W to EB TH 62 and WB TH 62 to NB I-35W: Add lane in each direction.
e TH 62, from TH 77 to I-35W: Add lane in each directioa
� TH ��, &om TH 62 to I-494: Add !ane in each direction.
The DEIS states that acquisidon of additional land for right-of-way to improve TH 77 would be
required. No specifics, such as how much land, difficuiry in acquiting additional ROW, or cost
impacts aze discussed
The following roadway volwme changes aze forecast:
Currendy, TH 62 is a 4-lane utban freeway, which, according to the DEIS, can carty 72,700 at
LOS D. The proposal is to add one lane per direction to a six-tane urban freeway, which can
cazry i09,100. TH 62 will be at capacity when opened as a six-lane facility, since the forecast
volume is 116,000 AADT.
The TH 77 segment from TH 62 to 66th Street was not included ia the DEIS regional analysis,
but yet is recommended for aa add lane improvement. This segment should be included in the
analysis to document the need for the improvement
Truck trafiic volumes are c�asendy 5 to 6 percent of the total e�affic. With additional runway and
airporf capacity, and the proposal for new cazgo birildings on the west side, truck traffic could �-�-•
increase. The DEIS does not address fimire tmck volumes.
I-136
Figure T-1 depicts those residential and commercial
:as affected by highway improvements for the MSP
emative. As noted in Section T.1.2 and depicted on
�ure T-1, the businesses are on Gedar Avenue South and
jacent streets. The cost impacts are inciuded under the
� item for acquisiUons and relocations for the MSP
emaGve in Tabie I-23. Additionaily, the social impacts of
; dispiacement of these businesses and residences are
;cussed in Section T.1. Impacts will be further evaluated
another EI5 if the west terminal is impiemented.
JJJ. TH 62 between Portiand Avenue and TH 77 is
currently a 4-lane freeway with a 1992 AADT of 81,000. As
noted in Table W-1 of the DEIS this represents LOS F
conditions. The Year 2020 MSP Alternative condition wouid
resuit in 116,000 AADT on this segment of TH 62; however,
this option includes a proposal to expand this portion of TH
62 to 6 lanes. Given these roadway improvements, TN 62
wouid operate under LOS E conditions which represents an
improvement over existing conditions. See Generai
Response 3 and Section III.D.
KKK. No additionai lanes are proposed on TH 77 between
the west terminal ramps and TH 62. Tabie W-5 in the DEIS
refers to a segment of TH 77 between 66th Street and I-49�
66th Street was identified as the northem limit of this
segment because it approximates the location of the
west terminai access ramp from northbound TH 77 and the
west terminal exit ramp to southbound TH 77.
An additionai lane is proposed for both northbound and
southbound TH 77 between the west terminai ramps
(approximately 66th Street) and the 1-494/TH77 inter-change
north ramps to accommodate tra�c between 1-494 and the
west terminai.
LLL. The regionai travei demand modei uses 5 to 6 percent
of totai traffic as trucks.
' City of Richfield Commeats - Dual T:ack DIIS
February 13, 1996
iPage 15
A regionel modeling process was conductai W geaerate year 2020 volumes, as�presented in
MnDOT's report on impacts on th� Staae H'ighway System. However, this analysis did not
include non-stau roadways, which wili also be impacted. This is a significant omission. To
determine the specific impacts to Richfieid, more detailed informarion from a subarea na�c
analysis is needed, which should include:
o pnatysis of other major streets, such as 6bth Street
• Geometrics
• Capacity analysis
• Delay
o Intersection LOS
• Need for new or improved traffc signats
This information is needed, as it should also be used in the cazbon monoxide air quality
for each roadway improvement
The DEIS should also address the cumtilative impacts on the proposed improvemenu and other
eurr�nt, planned, or reasonabiy foreseeable projects at or near MSP.
Conclusion
The DEIS fails the test of reasonabteness and fairaess by comparing a partially developed
altemative.with a full developed new airport aiternative. Further, it summarizes and m;n;m;�M
specific community impacts which azz of significant concem to Richfield. It has not fuily
detailed and, therefore, has not disclosed all t6at will happen with the MSP alternative.
Substantia! information and backup has beea omitted. The fiill costs, both social and dollars,
have not been tallied. It excludes information on major decisions required for the MSP
altemadve. Mitigation sections are missing or significandy incomplete. Neither the soundness
of the ptanning process, nor the fiill ramificadons of the plan can be determined The lack of
compliance with NEPA isquirements for format and concent precludes an analysis of the fiill
range of MSP and new sirport alumatives.
Therefore, the DIIS fails in its esscatial fimction of permitting decision-makers and the public to
make aa infoimcd decision rogarding the absolute and relative envimnmenral impacts of ail
ceasonahie altemarives. The DIIS shotild be revisal W address the deficiencies identified ia
these comments and recircuiatod for public mview.
Sincerely,
�GC.t�WV
es D.Prosser
City Manager
JDV:ttf
Attachments
Copy: Richfield Mayor and Council Members
Steven F. Pflaum, Speciai Counset
I-137
MMM. In comparing the effects of the MSP and No Action
Altemative, littie difference was found on the north-south
arteriais in Richfield. 66th Street exhibits a greater
variation with increases of 3,000 to 5,000 vehiGes per day
for the MSP Altemative. However, given the standards
used in the calibration of the regional modei and the
relatively low ground counts on 66th Street, differences of
this magnitude are not statisticaily significant in terms of
levei of service conditions.
See Response CC for air quality assessment of Richfieid
streets. •
RESPONSE DDD.
The following noise analyses were performed in response to comments regarding the impact of ground {
noise on nearby portions of Richfield resulting from the development of the proposed North-South Runway -
(Runway 17-35) at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP). The Draft EIS identified projected
noise levels in Richfield using the FAA's Integrated Noise Model (INM). The noise analysis presented in
the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) accounted for the major components of ground noise
associated with aircraft operations. Both start of takeoff roll and use of reverse thrust on landing are
included in the INM analysis of aircraft operations and are reflected in the Day Night Noise Level (DNL)
contours used to assess noise impacts in the DEIS.
DNL is the basis for assessing the significance of noise impacts. Accordingly, the following discussion of
maximum (LmeX) or "peak" noise levels from individual ground operations supplements the analysis
presented in the EIS by explaining the nature of individual events contributing to the projected DNL
values. This analysis does not replace or alter the findings and conclusions of the noise analysis presented
in the DEIS. The analysis is based on actual data collected at MSP in the Fall of 1996. Appendix A.3 of
the EIS describes the noise metrics used in this analysis.
Section A is a summary of this analysis. Section B describes aircraft ground noise levels which would be
expected in the eastern portions of Richfield resulting from operations associated with the proposed
Runway 17-35. Section C describes the procedures used to monitor noise and calculate ground noise
propagation.
�,
Ao Summary
Aircraft noise from ground operations associated with use of the proposed Runway 17-35 would be
audible in the eastern portions of Richfield (see Figure 1 for representative sites). The noise levels (
calculated for these locations are based on actual monitored data at MSP. Three types of aircraft `.,
operations were analyzed; start of takeoff roll, reverse thrust, and taxiing. The following discussion
summarizes the results of the ground noise analysis for each type of operation. The effects of wind
conditions are also described.
Aircraft Used in Analysis. The monitored data collected in advance of the analysis included both older,
noisier Stage 2 as well as newer, quieter Stage 3 aircraft. Since Stage 2 aircraft will not be operating by
the time that Runway 17-35 opens, ground noise levels in Richfield will not be affected by the loudest
aircraffi currently operating at MSP. The loudest Stage 2 events, produced by the 8-727-200, were
therefore not included in the projections of future ground noise. However, since it was not possible
during the actual monitoring to distinguish between hush-kitted Stage 3 DC-9-30 aircraft and non-hush-
kitted Stage 2 aircraft, all DC-9-30 events were included in the future analysis. This results in a slight
overstatement of ground noise levels, since the louder Stage 2 DC-9-30 aircraft will not be operating.
Start of Takeoff Roll. The loudest ground noise events will be associated with start of takeoff roll for
areas in the northern portion of Richfield. At Location A, peak (Lmex1 aircraft noise levels associated with
start of takeoff roll on the proposed Runway 17 could reach 90 dBA, approximately 7 dBA louder than
similar operations on Runway 11 R. Peak takeoff noise levels would be on the order of 80 dBA at location
B and 71 dBA at location C(see Table 1). In comparison, typical automobile and light truck traffic on
neighborhood streets would generate peak levels of approximately 60 to 70 dBA at residences. Light and
heavy truck traffic on Cedar Avenue would generate peak noise levels of approximately 54 to 74 dBA at
residences. Start of takeoff noise is reflected in the INM analyses of DNL presented in the DEIS. These
aircraft ground noise levels are consistent with the DEIS finding that significant noise impacts would
occur in portions of Richfield. The INM analysis provided in the DEIS does not account for�any excess
attenuation associated with barriers or shielding, and may therefore overstate the impact on ground noise. � Y
Reverse Thrust. Reverse thrust operations on the proposed Runway 17 would generate peak noise levels
of 54 to 75 dBA on the eastern perimeter of Richfield (See Table 11. These noise levels would be similar
to traffic noise events on Cedar Avenue or on local streets. These noise events are also similar to the �
noise from reverse thrust operations on Runway 11 R, and are reflected in the DNL analyses presented in
the DEIS. As noted above, the INM analysis provided in the DEIS may be somewhat conservative, and
overstate the noise generation.
Table 1
Projected Noise Levels at Selected Locations in the City of Richfield
MSP Alternative and No Action Alternative
Maximum Sound Pressure Levels dBA (Lmex) by Type of Operation
Taxiing
East' West2 Start of Takeoff Reverse Thrust
Receptor IVISP MSP No Act. MSP3 No Act. MSP No Act.
A 4 57-76 66-81 55-73 69-90 57-83 54-65 56-68
B 5 60-77 66-81 46-65 54-80 49-75 63-75 54-66
C 6 57-75 59-75 36-54 54-71 39-65 62-74 50-62
Notes: �. Taxiing operations calculated for the proposed taxiways to the east of proposed Runway
17-35 iFigure 1).
2. Taxiing operations calcutated for the parallel taxiway to the west of proposed Runway 17-
36.
3. Start of takeoff roll noise levels estimated for the loudest segment of takeoff roll with
respect to each receptor. For location A, this point occurs at the northern end of the
runway. For locations B and C the loudest portion of the event occurs as the aircraft
travels to the south.
4. Site A approximates the northern limits of residential development in Richfield.
5. Site B approximates a central location for residential development in Richfield.
6. Site C approximates the southern limits of residential development in Richfield. �
Source: HNTB
Taxiing. Unlike both start of takeoff roll and reverse thrust operations, taxiing operations are not reflected in
the DNL analyses presented in the DEIS. Taxiing operations associated with the proposed Runway 17-35
would generate peak noise levels of 57 to 80 dBA on the eastern perimeter of Richfield. Most taxiing would
occur on the east side of the proposed runway and would generate from 57 to 77 dBA. Aircraft taxiing on the
west side of Runway 17-35 would generate from 59 to S1 dBA. For brief periods, aircraft taxiing in and out of
the proposed air cargo buildings could generate peak noise levels of 67 to 90 dBA on the eastern perimeter of
Richfield. (See Table 1.) In the year 2010, approximately 25 aircraft per day might use the west taxiway. As
noted above, vehicular traffic on Cedar Avenue and on neighborhood streets would generate peak levels of
approximately 54 to 74 dBA at residences.
Crosswind and Upwind Conditions. The noise levels for taxiing aircraft were monitored under down wind
conditions, when sound waves from the aircraft source are bent downward, thus reinforcing ar increasing noise
levels at the receptor. In Richfield, such conditions would occur with winds from the east. The predominant
winds at MSP are actually from the south and west, which would lessen the noise levels experienced in
Richfield. When winds are out of the south (crosswind conditionsl, noise levels will be approximately 5 dBA
lower than those indicated. When winds are out of the west (upwind conditions), noise levels would be
approximately 10 dBA lower. Noise levels from start of takeoff roll and reverse thrust operations were
monitored under crosswind conditions, consistent with the prevailing wind conditions at MSP. When winds are
from the east, start of takeoff and reverse thrust noise levels might be 5 dBA highe� than estimated, while they
could be 5 dBA lower when winds are from the west.
�r'
I-140
B. Projected Aircraft Ground Noise Levels
Calculations were made separately for each of the locations and aircraft/operation types based on maximum
measured noise levels (Lmax1• The projected ranges of Lmex are presented in Table 1. These ranges were based
on the range of noise levels measured for two and three engine jet aircraft ranging in size from a Fokker 100
(F100) to a Douglas DC-10.
The noise monitoring results includes monitoring of older, noisier aircraft such as the Boeing 727-200. Prior to
completion of the proposed Runway 17-35, these aircraft and other "Stage 2" aircraft will be replaced by new
or modified aircraft meeting lower "Stage 3" noise limits as required by federal regulations. Accordingly, noise
►evels associated with the 8727-200 are not reflected in Table 1. Another Stage 2 aircraft, the DC-9, was also
monitored. Since some DC-9s have been modified to meet Stage 3 requirements, it was not possible to
differentiate between Stage 2 and Stage 3 versions of this aircraft. Accordingly, it is likely that the higher
noise levels associated with the DC-9 aircraft are due to unmodified Stage 2 aircraft. As shown in Table 2, the
DC-9 is the loudest aircraft type monitored for taxiing and reverse thrust operations, and is the second loudest
aircraft after the 8727 for start of takeoff roll.
Table 3 indicates that the modified Stage 3 DC-9 is approximately 7 dBA quieter than the unmodified Stage 2
aircraft at a distance of 2,000 feet (the approximate distance to the closest receptor). Consequently, the
upper end of the ranges presented in Table 1 may be overstated by as much as 7 dBA.
Short duration maximum noise levels could also be higher for all three locations from cargo jet aircraft taxiing
away from the proposed new cargo buildings. These maximum levels could be 10 dBA g�eater than the taxiing
noise levels presented in Table 1 and would only occur when the aircraft jet engines are almost perpendicular
to Receptors B and C and at Receptor A when cargo aircratt turns from the north end of the proposed west
parallel taxiway to the proposed Runway 17-35 prior to start of takeoff.
I-141
TABLE 2
MSP Noise Monitorin Statistics
Taxi Takeoff Reverse Thrust @
Aircraft @ 1460 ft. @ 2200 ft. 2200 ft. Statistics
DC-9-30"� 6 9 11 Number of Samples
83.20 88.80 74.60 MAX. dBA
72.55 80.70 70.00 MEDIAN dBA
65.60 67.90 64.20 MIN dBA
B-727-200��1 11 5 3 Number of Samples
76.80 94.10 71.40 MAX. dBA
70.10 86.20 66.20 MEDIAN dBA
64.60 82.60 59.80 MIN dBA
B-757131 71 10 6 Number of Samples
75.70 72.50 74.40 MAX. dBA
68.80 67.90 62.60 MEDIAN dBA
60.20 62.00 57.50 MIN dBA
DC-10141 0 8 6 Number of Samples
0 77.40 75.40 . � MAX. dBA
0 70.70 68.85 MEDIAN dBA
0 67.20 62.10 MIN dBA
A320t31 2 5 5 Number of Samples
70.90 73.40 72.70 MAX. dBA
67.55 69.70 62.10 MEDIAN dBA
64.20 65.40 61.40 MIN dBA
F10013� 1 3 0 Number of Samples
66.20 80.60 0 MAX. dBA
66.20 72.70 0 MEDIAN dBA
66.20 68.50 0 MIN dBA
MD80131 0 2 0 Number of Samples
0 74.30 0 MAX. dBA
0 73.10 0 MEDIAN dBA
0 71.90 0 MIN dBA
DC8�3� 0 1 1 Number of Samples
0 71.40 73.10 MAX. dBA
0 71.40 73.10 MEDIAN dBA
0 71.40 73.10 MIN dBA
Notes: MAX = Maximum peak noise level monitored (Lmax).
MIN = Minimum peak noise level monitored (Lmax).
Median = Median peak noise level monitored (Lmax1.
1. Most aircraft of this model are Stage 2.
2. All aircraft of this model are Stage 2e
3. All aircraft of this model are Stage 3.
4. Most aircraft of this model are Stage 3.
Source: MAC AVSAT Office
I-142
1
TABLE 3
DC-9-30 Noise Curve Comparison at Takeoff (14,000 Ib.) Thrust
Sta e 2 DC-9-30 Hush-kitted Sta e 3 DC-9-30
Distance SE� Lmax SEL Est. Lmax
200 119.1 120.1 114.6 115.6
400 115.4 113.4 110.2 108.2
630 112.8 108.8 107 103
1000 110 104 103.6 97.6
2000 105.1 96.1 98 89
4000 99.4 87.9 91.7 80.2
6300 95 82.1 86.8 73.9
10000 90.1 75.6 81.4 66.9
16000 84.4 68.4 75.2 59.2
25000 78.4 60.9 67.9 50.4
Source: HNTB anai sis of INM database.
Since the projected noise levels for taxiing operations are based upon downwind measured values, the ranges
represent downwind conditions. Under calm wind conditions or crosswind conditions, ground noise levels
would be approximately 5 dBA lower than the values shown in Table 1. Should Receptors A, B, or C be
upwind of the proposed new runway ground operations, noise levels could be 10 dBA lower than the values
shown in Table 1. For example, in the taxiing aircraft analysis, noise experienced in Richfield would be
approximately 5 dBA lower in a crosswind than the downwind taxiing levels indicated. Noise levels from
aircraft taxiing on the east side of the proposed runway would range from 52 to 72 dBA (compared to 57-77
dBA for downwindi. Similarly, peak noise levels associated with aircraft taxiing in and out of the proposed air
cargo facilities would range from 62 to 85 dBA.
In upwind conditions for taxiing aircraft (winds from the westl, noise experienced in Richfield would be
approximately 10 dBA lower than the downwind analysis. Noise levels from aircraft taxiing on the east side of
`� the proposed runway would range from 47 to 67 dBA (compared to 57-77 dBA for downwindl. Similarly, peak
noise levels associated with aircraft taxiing in and out of the proposed air cargo facilities would range from 57
to 80 dBA.
Ca Low Frequency Noise and Vibration
Subsequent to submitting comments on the DEIS, Richfield asked MAC to address potential impacts of low
frequency noise and vibration associated with Runway 17-35. The maximum noise levels associated with
aircraft operations, whether low or high frequency, are addressed in Sections A and B of this response.
Potential impacts of low frequency noise and vib�ation are health effects, structural damage and annoyance.
There are standards or thresholds for determining potential effects on health and structural damage, but not for
annoyance. Annoyance from low frequency noise and vibration is therefo�e recognized by MAC and FAA as an
unresolved issue, and is identified as such in the Executive Summary, Unresolved Issues. The remainder of this
section addresses the potential impacts on health and structural damage.
The most extensive study of low frequency aircraft noise and vibration was conducted by the FAA to assess
the potential impact of the Concorde supersonic transport (SST) at Dulles International Airport (IAD)'. This
monitoring effort also assessed the potential effects of subsonic commercial jet ai�craft. The study determined
that the frequency distribution of subsonic aircraft were similar to the SST. Accordingly, the study concluded
that vibration due to the SST and subsonic transport aircraft would be similar for a given overall sound pressure
level.
Monitoring occurred at Sully Plantation, an historic site located approximately 3 miles from the start of takeoff
roll (brake release) and 1600 feet to the side of the extended runway centerline. Takeoff noise levels in the
vicinity nf Sully Plantation ranged from 50.5 dBA to 112.3 dBA. In contrast, ground noise levels associated
with airc�aft operations on Runway 17-35 would range from 54 dBA to 90 dBA. At the maximum SST noise
levels monitored at Sully Plantation, window, wall, and floor vibration levels were 20 to 30 times less than the
damage criteria limit.
' Concorde Monitoring Summary Report, Dulles International Airport, May 1976 - May 1977, U.S. Department
of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, September 1977.
I-143
A summary of relevant study findings foilows. �
1. 7he vibration response of building elements (windows, walis and floors) are directiy proportionai to the `� ..
sound pressure level of aircraft noise and are virtually independent of aircraft type.
2. Concorde operations resulted in higher noise levels and, consequently, higher vi6ration levels than subsonic
jets.
3. Certain household events involving direct impulsive loading such as closing doors and windows produced
vibration levels equal to or greater than those associated with the Concorde.
4o Vibration levels associated with the Concorde (and subsonic aircraft) were less than those expected to
cause damage such as cracked plaster or broken windows.
5. All measurements (or vibration) were below the International Standards Organization (ISO)
Extremely high levels of infrasound (low frequency sound) can cause mild stress reactions and non-auditory
effects such as pulsating or fluttering. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has estimated the threshold
for these symptoms at about 120 dB for sounds in the 1- 16 Hertz (Hz) range. The EPA identified no serious
health hazard for sound pressure levels less than 130 dB. The Concorde monitoring study demonstrated that
low frequency (below 30 Hz) sound associated with the Concorde would be well below EPA sensation and
damage risk levels. Since all other commercial transport aircraft would fall below the levels generated by the
Concorde, there are no apparent health risks from low frequency sound associated with commercial aircraft
operations2. Since ground noise levels associated with operations on the proposed Runway 17-35 at MSP
would be lower than the monitored Concorde noise levels, no health risks are indicated.
D. Ground Noise Analysis Procedures
The analyses were based on noise monitoring conducted by the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) on
September 25 and October 1, 1996. Ground noise levels monitored for operations on the existing runway and f
taxiway system were used to calculate noise levels in nearby areas of Richfield due to operations on the `,,
proposed Runway 17-35 and its associated taxiways. A total of 72 ground noise events were monitored for
taxiing, start of takeoff, and reverse thrust operations. A summary of these results is attached. As noted
earlier, start of takeoff roll and reverse thrust are reflected in the DNL contours used to assess noise impacts.
While taxiing noise is not included in the INM analysis of noise levels, taxiing aircraft generate lower peak noise
levels than the same types of aircraft during takeoff or reverse thrust.
Noise Propagation �actors. Noise levels at three locations in Richfield, A, B, and C, (see Figure 1) were
estimated based on the noise monitoring data provided by the MAC. Aircraft orientation as well as attenuation
from geometric spreading and environmental conditions were considered.
Aircraft Orientation. Aircraft orientation during measurements was analyzed and appropriate adjustments were
made to the monitored events to calculate the noise impact on the selected locations in Richfield. These
adjustments were based on the contours of overall sound pressure level (OASPL) around a turbofan aircraft
operating on the ground, as published in Handbook of Noise Control, Second Edition, Edited by Cyril M. Harris,
1979 (Fig. 34.3, page 34-3).
Attenuation. The sound pressure levels (SPLs) generated by the aircraft at the three selected locations were
calculated based on the point source sound propagation formulae adapted from Noise and Vibration Control,
Edited by Leo L. Beranek, 1988, Equation 7.2, page 166�.
Excess Attenuation. Excess attenuation accounts for absorption of sound energy by the air and ground in
addition to the decrease in sound pressure caused by the spreading of sound waves over distance. The most
significant terms of the excess attenuation considered for this project were: (1) attenuation by absorption in
the air, (2) attenuation by barriers, (3) attenuation and fluctuation owing to wind and temperature gradients
and characteristics of the ground.
2 Aviation Noise Effects, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, March, 1985
(Report No. FAA-EE-85-2�.
I-144
-- o qir absorption. Excess attenuation due to air absorption was calculated for all suggested source-receiver
'� configurations. These calculations were made for 70% relative humidity and 20°C (68°F) air temperature
- conditions.
Barriers. Excess attenuation by barriers would not be a significant factor for the vast majority of the
source-receiver configurations. At �ocation B, a row of . proposed cargo buildings west of the runway
would theoretically provide 5-6 dBA of attenuation for reverse thrust noise. However, these values would
be gradually reduced for all the residences north of Location B, including Location A. Furthermore, this
attenuation could be even less for certain meteorological conditions. When sound propagates downwind
from the source or during temperature inversions, the downward-curving sound ray paths can penetrate
significantly into the shadow zone behind the barrier and significantly reduce the attenuation. For
Location B, some shielding could also be provided for certain aircraft during taxiing on the taxiway parallel
to the proposed runway or from reverse thrust landing. At the same time, there would be some taxiing
aircraft positions (by the cargo building immediately adjacent to Location B, for example) when no
shielding could be applied. Likewise, reverse thrust noise could be heard between the cargo buildings,
virtually eliminating any appreciable noise reduction otherwise provided by the cargo buildings. A similar
situation exists for "start ot takeoff roll" with respect to �ocation C. Based on the above considerations,
no excess attenuation due to barriers was projected to ensure a conservative estimate of the future noise
levels.
e Wind and temperature. The field measurements at the MSP were performed at three locations within
2,200 feet of the north end of Runway 11 R and its parallel taxiway. Measurements of taxiing aircraft
were performed under favorable sound propagation conditions, downwind from the source. Under these
conditions, sound waves refract downward producing minimal excess attenuation. On the other hand,
when the propagation is upwind or during conditions of a temperature (apse, sound refraction upwards
produces a shadow zone near the ground resulting in an excess attenuation that can exceed 10 dBA.
Measurements of start of takeoff roll and reverse thrust were conducted under crosswind conditions which
would have less effect on sound propagation. These effects of wind and temperature gradients are highly
variable from moment to moment because of atmospheric turbulence. Because of this variability, reliance
`� upon long term sound reduction from upward refraction is risky, and some official prediction methods
require the assumption of downwind propagation under all circumstances, as a conservative approximation
[ Noise and Vibration Control Engineering, Principals and Applications, Edited by Leo L. Beranek and Istvan
l.. Ver, 1992, page 138]. Based on the above considerations, no additional wind/temperature related
excess attenuation was taken into account to ensure a conservative estimate of the future noise levels.
• Ground attenuation. The same variability is associated with ground conditions between a noise source and
receiver. A combination of acoustically hard and soft sites, and intervening natural barriers between
source and receiver make it impractical to predict any additional excess attenuation due to ground
absorption for the distances beyond those equivalent to measurement distances. Accordingly, no
additional ground related excess attenuation was taken into account to ensure a conservative estimate of
the future noise levels.
Highway Noise
The FHWA highway traffic noise prediction computer program, STAMINA 2.OIOPTIMA was used to model the
noise level of the Cedar Avenue traffic. The following key input parameters were used in this model to
calculate an hourly equivalent sound pressure level, Leq, at a specific receiver location:
• Distance between roadway centerline and receiver: 324 ft
• Hourly traffic volume in light-duty (two axles, four tires) - 4860 cars, medium-duty (two axles, six tires) -
270 trucks, and heavy-duty (three or more axles) vehicles - 270 trucks;
• Vehicle speed - 50 mph;
The projected Leq noise level would range from 65 to 70 dBA depending on the ground conditions between the
roadway and receiver. This prediction does not account for any meteorological conditions which could
- significantly affect these levels. They may be at least 5 dBA higher, for downwind, or 5 dBA lower, for
�, ' upwind sound propagation considering the distances involved and winds up to 12 mph. �max noise levels from
�._ � ,
automobiles and trucks would range from 70 to 75 dBA.
I-145
, r•�`�"•'•'�,.
�` :;t�
.:.:; �
i: : :[. •
.;,��Y� 1 .\�
ti.���;,''
January 18, 1996
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
Everyching's Coming Up Rosemountlf
Ms. Jenn Unruh
Metropolitan rlirports Cortunission
6040 28th Avenue South
Minneapo6s, :viinnesota 55450
RE: Airport Dual Track Pianning Process
Deac Chair Unruh:
c�n Ha«
�e�s - �as�n s�rce� �u«�
�.0. Bo� 510
Rasemwnt, MN
55068-0510
Phone: 612•�+2)•+411
Paz: 612•a2J•520)
On behalf of the residents of the Ciry of Rosemount, piease accept this letter and the attached
resolution as the community's position statemertt concerning the Airport Dual Track Process.
This position is one of support for bcinging about an end to the airport planning process during
the 1996 Legislative Session. The City recognizes the state-wide importance of providing high
quality air transporta[ion services For the region. We believe, however, that these future needs
can continue to be met at the present Ivfnneapotis/St. Paul Internadonal Airport tocation without
the tremendous costs and variety of impacts that would resutt from a new airport aiternadve.
Accordingiy, the attached resolution by the Rosemount City Council calls for the 1996 I�nnesota
Legislature to bring about an end to the Dual Track Process along with the remova! of land use
controls and other site preservation methods being considered for the new airport alternadve.
Thank you for your review and consideradon of this information.
Sincecety,
� �`�
Cath Bu�
Y
:tifayor, City of Rosemount
I-146
CTTY OF ROSEI�IOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, YIINNESOT�1
RESOLiJ'TION 1996- 6
A RESOLUTION REQUESTING A LEG7SLATIVE DECISION
IN 1996 TO END 'TSE DU�1L TRACK �+�IIiPORT PI.ANN7NG PROCESS
WSERE�iS, the necessary research and analysis required for and by the Dual Track AirpoR
Planning Process was essentially comp(eted by the rccrnt publication of the Metropotitan
Airport Commission's Environmental Impact Statement, which cleariy indicated that our ��mnt
wodd ciass internationai airport can continue to adequately serve the State of Muinesota until aL
least the year 2020; and
WHEREAS, the estimated SS billion cost of a new airport facility, ptus the estimated S10 billion
cost of addidonal required infrastructure, would therefore represent unnecessary expenses for
the people of the Stace of Mmnesota and for the resident airlines that serve our State; and
WHERE�S, the cosu of unnecessary airport expenditures would adversely affect thousands of
permanent jobs in the airline industry, and thousands of ocher jobs in the many setvice industries
that aze dependent upon a viable, healthy air transportation hub and related aircraft maintenance
operations; �
NOW, 2�REFORE, BE TT RESOLVED, thaz the City of Rosemount hereby calls upon the
1996 Ivfinnesota Legislanue to act decisivety to:
1. immediately end the costly Dual Track AirpoR Planning Process,
2, release any current and/or future airport-related site protection controls affecting the
people and local governmental units ofDakota County,
3. endorse comprehensive noise mitigation efforts to alleviate airport-related noise
problems in affected neighborhoods, and
4. support the ongoing efforts of the Metropolitan Airports Commission and our resident
airlines to effectively cooperate with one another in opemting and improving our current
airpoR ficility. • .
ADOPTED this 16ch day of January, 1996.
AT'TEST: Cath usho, Mayor
���c.X�fx---'
S M. sh, City Clerk
Motion by: Carroli Seconded by: �ppermann
Voted in favor. Carroll. ,+�nderson �g�rmann_ Busho
Voted against: None. ' one council seat is vacant at this time
I-147
PI.�NNiNG COMMISSION
Dwid blcDandC Cham
C1TY OF SAII�T PAUL f 100 Clry Hall Arvxs
Narm Cof�man, ,Nayar 23 War Fourth Srna TeGpham: 61I-I66•6I6J
SaintPau( hINJ1701 FaulmiL: 612•173-131�
Nir. Nigel Finney
�fetropolitan Airports Commission
6040 28th Avenue South
Minneapotis, MN 55450
Mr. Glen Orcutt
Federal Aviauon Adminisaation
6020 28th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55450
RE: DRAFT ENViRONMENTAL IivtPACT STATEMENT - DUAL TRACK AIRPORT
PLANNING PROCESS
Attachod aze the commencs of the City of Saint Paul Pianning Commission on the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement - Dual Track Airport Planning Process. The Commission is
concemed not only about insufficiency of the Draft EIS, but of the prospecu that the EIS
process may be accelerated or uuncated. The City has been consistent for the last six yeazs in
support of the Dual Track Planning Process. The Planning Cocnmission sees no legitimate
reason for curtailing the public process at this point, and sees advantages of completion of the
process regazdless of the prefeaed attemarive.
In addition, the Planning Commission is very concerned about the aznount of analysis done
but not reflected in the Draft EIS. The lack of informarion, as well as informauon released
sinee the issuance of the Draft EIS, raises serious questions concerning the validity of legatly-
mandated public review and hearing processes.
The Planning Commission continues to support the full completion of the Dual Track Airport
Piazuang Process; including provision of complete information as weli as allotting sufficient
time for public review/Final EIS prepazation.
Sincerely,
�������
David G. McDonet , Chair
Saint Paul Planning Commission
I-148
�
City of Saint Paul Review of
'I'he Draft Environmental Impact Statement for
THE DUAL TRACK AIRPORT PLANNING
January, 1996
I. INTRODUCTION
Since the beginning of ihe Dual Track Planning Process, the City of Saint Paul has
been invotved and supportive of the planning process. However; the City is very
concerned about the Draft EIS and what appears to be missing analysis necessary for
making an alternative recommendation. In addition, the City is concemed about an
appazent lack of commitment to the final stages of the Dual Track Planning Process;
nameIy an extremely short public review process of the Draft EIS and limited
prepazation time for the Final EIS. This last point is particularly critical for
development, of what the City believes to be, necessary remedial actions under all
alternatives.
II. RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendations noted.
A. Hold to t6e original timetable for the Dual Track Airport EIS process,
allowing sufGcient time for public revie�v and development of
comprehensive remediation measures.
B. Include and/or ezpand analysis necessary for adequ�te understanding of
impacts and for evatuating the differentiation of alternatives inciuding:
1. Clarification of air travel forecasts, and resolution among conflicting
fbrecasts. .
2. Detailed potential economic impacts on Saint Paul, Minneapolis,
Bloomington and Richfield under alt alternatives.
3. Detailed potential economic impacts on the region under all
alternatives.
4. A risk analysis evaIuating the impacts of deferring a new airport
without some sort of land reservation/site preservation program.
5. Detailed potential economic impacts on Holman Fieid under all
alternatives.
I-149
6. Detailed potential economic impacts of the rense of the MSP site
under the New Airport altecnative.
7. Potential economic impacts on likely sprawl associated with a new
airport. •
8. Aocumenting the tikely impacts on the region's "non-attainment" air
quality status. J
9. Analysis of the need for site preservation in light of further analysis
provided in points 1- 4 and 8 above.
10. Complete the Dual Track Planning Process including fu11 public
review of the Draft EIS and sufficient time for preparing adequate Recommendations noted.
mitigation measures for the Final EIS.
C. Complete the Dual Track Planning/EIS Process as originally envisioned.
III. ANALYSIS
A. Differentiating Issues Highlighted in the EIS
The matrix found in the "Executive Summary" highlights the differences among the
three altematives (see Attachment pp 6-8). Based on the matrix and the ensuing text,
the following emerge as significant differentiating issues:
1. CO Emissions Primarily pollution &om vehicles, all three alternatives A. A. This combination of predicted on-airport and off-
generate approximately the same tonnage, but for the No Build and MSP airport concentrations with background is addressed in
alternatives, the background poilution combined with ihe added poliution Section V. A.1.1. Existing Pollutant Concentrations. No
cieate violations of ai[ quality Standards. violations of air quality standards are projected. ('
2. Costs The MSP alternative costs approximately $2.8 billion for a new
north-south runway, a new and retocated termina( comple� and improved
highway access to the terminal. The New Airport costs approximately
$4.? billion for a new facility, property acquisition/relocation, and a new
highway to access the site.
3. Ene� Sunolv and Natural Resources Surprisingly, the fuel consumption
among the three alternatives is comparable. The New Airport saves on
. airpiane fuel but requires greater vehic(e fuel use. MSP and No Build
use more airplane fuel and less vehicte fuel use.
4. Number of Residents Impacted by Airport Noise Impacts on households
for No Build and MSP are substantial, with over 100,000 people affected.
The New Airport impacts slightly over 2,000 people. (Remember that
these numbers represent those affected based on FA.A guidelines, and do
not fuily represent all those affected - e.g. No Build and MSP include no
persons in Saint Paul.)
5. Accessibilitv T'he average vehicle travel time for access to MSP in 2020
is 22 to 26 minutes. The average travel time to the New Airport would
be 41 to 46 minutes.
I-150
B. ' Potentialty Differentiating Issues Not Hig6lighted in t6e EIS
�IThere are at least six issues which one might expect to be within the focus of the Drah
EIS but are not highlighted:
Air Travel Forecasts Forecasting has been the lazgest ongoing
controversy with regazd to the 17ua1 Track Planning Process. The critical
issue revotves around whether air travei can be projected 30 yeazs into
the future with any validity. Higher projections came out of studies done
in 1990 under the auspices of the Meuopolitan Council and are supported
by long-term trends of air travel and the relative health of the Minnesota
economy. The lower, 1993 projections done under the direction of the
Metropolitan Airports Commission aze supported by mid-term economic
and air travel trends, and the continuing shakeout of the airline indushy.
In addition to the series of complex forecasts done for the Draft EIS, the
FAA does national forecasts based in large part on trend analyses. The
FAA forecasted air traffic for MSP out to 2010. The differences between
the FAA and MAC forecasts are substantial: the FAA forecasts are 15%
higher for 2000 and 30% higher for 2010 (see Attachment p 19, Table 5).
The Draft EIS dedicates nearly three pages on forecast methodology (see
Attachment pp 17-19). The Draft EIS supports the 1993 forecasts as the
most reasonable. It downplays the FAA forecasts as being overly
aggressive and using crude indicators of economic growth. And it
explains the last three-year upturn in flights as the result of three "one
time" events (according to Northwest Airlines).
However, since there has been so much disagreement among experts and
decision-makers on forecasts, it is difficult to draw anv reasonable
conclusion. This presents tremendous problems in analyzing the
advisability of the New Airport.
2. Economic ImQacts Nowhere has more creative energy gone into airport
analyses than trying to determine the economic impact differences among
altematives. Yet, the indicators chosen to differentiate the alternatives in
the Draft EIS are only marginally hefpfut (see Attachment p 6). There is
scant discussion of the critical impacts of the New Airport alternative on
the economies of Bloomington, Richfield, Minneapolis and Saint Paul.
The conclusions are limited to direct impacts within the airport properiy.
They do not i�clude any discussion of potentiat disinvestment of the
"Bloomingcon Strip" or downtown Minneapolis or Saint Paul. Granted
such analyses are difficult, complex and not necessazily conclusive.
However, it is still difficuit to understand why more analysis was not
included. Without better economic impact guidance, selecting a preferred
alternative is extremely problematic.
B. �B. See General Response 4.
C
C. See General tiesponse 1.
Aside from the impacts on municipalities, the Draft EIS is sketchy at best D. The legisiature's decision to impiement the MSP
Alternative in stages diminishes the economic risk. The
with regard to potentia( impacts on the regional and state economies. For north south runway is economically justified now, and
example, what is the magnitude of economic risk if no new airport is D the construction of a new west terminal requires
built, and the region fmds in I S years that MSP lacks capacity? In
legislative action. The legisiature also mandated a more
addition, what are the cost-competitiveness impacts of Northwest comprehensive economic impact study by the university
Airlines' continued dominance at MSP? These aze both significant of Minnesota.
impacts which could differentiate among alternatives.
Finaliy, and perhaps most significantly for Saint Paul, there is no
discussion of the alternatives' impacts on the economic E. E. The MSP Aiternative is expected to have a minimai
viability/enhancement of Hotman Field. Use of Holman from both impact on Holman Fieid, since very few business jets are
economic and environmental perspectives has historically been important forecast to move from MSP to Hoiman in the next
to the City. None of the studies of the Dual Track Planning Process twenty years.
addresses the economic issues in any meaningful detail.
I-151
Land Reuse of MSP Should the New Airport Aitemative be Selected
Although there has been substantial discussion and study concerning the
reuse of the current airport site should a new one be built, there is no
analysis included in the Draii EIS. There are at least two different azeas
that would be affected by reuse of the current site. �First and foremost,
use of such a lazge site within the urbanized area could have profound
impacts on the economy of the surrounding azea. Although it may not be
appropriate to specify reuse of the site at this time, a discussion of
potential scenarios and their economic impacts is extremely important in
comparing the economic impact of anport alternatives. (See #4 below
for the land impacts of the New Airport alternative.)
Second, under differing development scenarios what would be the likely
impacts on air quality and traffic? The current airport is a major current
generator of local and regional traffic. In addition, the highways
surrounding MSP have current congestion problems, some of them
severe. Would air quatity requirements and congestion be limiting
factors in the reuse of the site? Conversely, to what extent wouid
differing development scenarios affect area air quality and congestion?
These questions can be, and likely are, important differentiating •itnpacts
among airpoR alternatives.
4. Land Develo�ment Patterns of a New Airport on Dakoia Countv and the
Reeion Other airports in the world have experienced major development
in surrounding areas. The size and economic force of a new airport
wouid clearly attract substantial pressure for development in central
Dakota County. Yet neither the Economic anatysis nor the Land Use
analysis adequately deal with this issue. The Land Use section totally
bases the development of land in Dakota Counry on comprehensive plans
of local jurisdictions and growth projections. The resulting conciusions
of the Draft EIS ace dangerous in their simplicity and naivety (illustrated
on Figure 0-5 in the Draft EIS appendix). The track record of the region
and local jurisdictions to restrict growth in the face of strong and
persistent development pressures is not good. 'Ihere is nothing proposed
in the Drafr EIS that shows the likelv development that would occur
around the new airpoR, even �vith land restrictions in place.
Why is this important to the region and not jusc a matter for Dakota
County? First, ib oring the likely localized impacts could lead to a poor
location decision on the airport. Second, the size of the impacts as
suggested by the draft Economic Impact Study (not included in the Draft
EIS) are sufficiently sizeable to effect the patterns of regionat economic
growth. Third, likely development associated with a new airport may
well be fiscatly, socially and environmentaliy harmful to the immediate
area and to the region.
Much of new suburban cosu are borne by the region at-large. This type
of expected sprawl development is neither fiscally beneficial for the fully
developed azea nor the area in which the development will occur.' Such
development pattems also cause social stress by extending commuting
distances for workers (particularly true for lower income workers). And
degradation on the eco-systems of such devetopment is usually
substantial.
I-152
See General Response 1.
�'a. � G. See General Response 1.
Ei. � H. See Generai Response 1.
1. See General Response 1.
C.
5. Coneestion of Hiehwavs and Air Oualitv Although discussed as two
separate items in the Draft EIS, there is little analysis of the synergy
between automobile congestion and air pollution (see Attachment pp 30-
35). (Air quality modeling assumptions have not been inciuded in the
Draft EIS.)� Table W-21 on page 30 of the Attachment lists roadway
segmenu and their levels of projected congestion. Levets oF Service E
and F are generally seen as unacceptable levels within this region.. The
MSP alternative results in three "E" segmenu and four "F" segments in
the region. Similarly, the New Airport, without roadway improvements,
resuits in two "E" segments and 10 "F" segments. (Note that a New
Airport with potentia! road�vay improvements results in one "E" and five
F" segments.)
In and of itself, this data is not fulIy revealing. Important questions are
left unanswered such as: How will air qaality non-attainment CO levels
created by the MSP and No Build alternatives affect the region's current
"non-compliance" status from EPA? Can the poor levels of traffic
service created by MSP and the No Build be alleviated, thereby
eliminating a"non-attainment" problem? if so, at what cost?
6. Site Preservation There is a lengthy and informative discussion
concerning the preservation of the Dakota County site should the decision
be to select the No Build or MSP alternative at this time. In the analysis
two alternative techniques are suggested for preserving the site (see
Attachment p 24):
a. Purchase now, lease back until construction begins
b. Limit development now through land use regulations, acquire when
construction begins
The Draft EIS pursues the first alternative as the only reasonable one,
calculating costs under various scenarios. Total cost (for acquisition plus
relocation plus ownership minus lease-back proceeds) wouid be
approximately �126 million; or 2.5% of the development costs of a new
airport. The $126 million represents an increase of only 4.3% to the
MSP alternative,
Issues with Truncation of the Dua! Track Process
Granting that the process for the Dual Track analysis has been long and
expensive, there aze so:ne downside risks in abandoning the process at this
juncture.
Fi_rst• the Northwest Airlines proposal, although considered in the Dual Track
Process earlier, should be revisited for its practicality. IY's practicality is not
fully known at this time and needs further analysis, particularly if decision-
makecs are drawn to supporting the proposal.
Second, to abandon the process now wouid seriously jeopardize the validity of
the analysis done to-date on expanding MSP. The $600 million proposat for
MSP notwithstanding, the region must have a modern airport into the 21st
Century, regardiess of its location.
Third, the current MSP expansion alternative has gone through an azduous
public process with the communities most affected by a new airport altemative.
A decision which selects one of the MSP alternadves should not be merely a
rejection of the New Airport alternative, but be the foundation for more
detailing of MSP pians. '
I-153
�
J. Air quality modeling assumptions for on-airport and
off-airport sources are discussed in Appendix A.1.
The effect of leveis of service is discussed in Section
V.A.3 Summary of Air Quality Impacts - Off-Airport
Peak Hour Concentrations from Off-Airport Sources.
The potential impact of non-attainment leveis is
discussed in Section V.A. Oesignated Non-Attainment
and Maintenance Areas.
Preliminary cost estimates of roadway improvements
were included in Tabie i-26 of the DEIS.
K. The integrity of the Dual Track process was not
compromised by the compression of the schedule.
Nearly all of the technical and environmental analyses
were completed. See Generai Response 3 on the NWA
K. proposal. The approved comprehensive plan for MSP
refiects the culmination of many years of technical and
environmental analysis and is the most feasible and
prudent plan for expanding the airport in the future.
IV. CONCLUSIONS
• There is substantia( uncertainty about the validity of the air travel forecasts
included in the Draft EIS. Therefore, the New Airport alternative should not be
eliminated based in whole or in part on those forecasu.
� There is insufficient economic analysis in the Draft EIS to evaluate the affects
on vazious municipal economies nor the region and state economies.
• There is insufficient economic analysis in the DraR EIS to evaluate the risk
factor of deferring a new airport without some sort of land reservation/site
preservation.
• There is insufficient economic analysis in the Draft EIS to evaluate the impacts
of the three alternatives on Holman Field.
^ There is virtually no analysis in the Draft EIS which shows the impacts of reuse
of the MSP site under the New Airport altemative. This is particularly uve
regarding the economic, air quality and traffic impacts of reuse of MSP.
= T'here is virtualiy no analysis in the Draft EIS which describes the likely
impacts of sprawl associated with a new airport. 'Ihe analysis that is included is
naive at best, and potentially extremely detrimental to the fiscal, social and
naturat environments of the region.
� There is insufficient air quality/roadway analysis in the Draft EIS to deIermine
impacts on the region's status of non-compliance with Federal EP�1 CO tevel
requiremenu.
� The site preservation analysis indicates an extremely low cost for protecting
future needs under the No Build and MSP altematives,
� There is suffcient rationale for completing the Dual Track EIS Process as
originally envisioned.
I-154
I-155
I-156
WRITTEN COMMENTS OF THE SOUTHERN DAKOTA
COUNTY TOWNSHIPS AND CITIES
AIItPORT PLANNING GROUP
DRAFT Ei�1VIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Dual Track Airport Ptanning Process
February 9,1996 �
The Southern Dakota Couaty Townships and Cities Airport Planning Group consists of
representarives appointed to serve by each of the thirteen townships and six nual cities
tocated in southem Dakota County. The group was formed in April, 1994 to estab6sh a
formal and credible means to monitor and provide input to the many studies being
conducted, and decisioas being made, related to the regiona! dual uack airpoR pianning
process. The comments provided here aze on behalf of the Airport Planning Group, and
eacpand upon those presented at the Public Hearing on 7anuary 17. Each of the townships
and cities may also be prepared to make addirional comments.
After reviewing the draft EIS, it becomes appazent that there is no jusrification to relocate
the airport to Dakota Courty. T'here aze no economic, environmental or social advantages
of the Dakota County site over expansion at the current site. In fact, there are significant
disadvantages of ihe Dakota County site, including cost, accessibility and premature
expansion of urban growth which would resu(t in unnecessary costs for pub6c services and
facilities, as well as loss of agricuitw�al pcoductivity. We want to highlight several points
and conclusions in the EIS that support expansion at the current site over relocating the
auport to Dakota County.
The most compelling support for expanding at t6e e�sting site is that of economics.
Relocating the airport to Dakota County is ovecwhelmingly more expensive than
expaading ai the existing location, as shown by Table I-26. With a cost difference of more
than $2 billion, there is clearly no justification to relocate.
\
� In addition to the costs shown in the EIS, thece are other cost issues thai need to be
'� addressed. It does not a�pear that the costs for road improvements needed in Wisconsin
ue shown in Table I-26. The list of required road projects on page V-232 identifies two
projects ia �sconsin that would be needed, but these aze noc identified on Table I-26.
Tlso, the costs in Tabte I-26 are about �70 million less than the 6gure documented in the
text on page V-231.
A list of road projects needed even if the airport is not relocated is identified on page V-
222. A cost estimate for these projects is not available. This is very important information
as part of the decision process. Are there assurances that Wese projects will be completed
as part of an existing capital funding program, and what will be the cost burden to the
stace? Relocating the airport to Dakota County will require completion of these projects.
How will they be funded? What will be the increased traffic volumes on these roads if a
new airport is built, compared to no airport in Dakota County? Also, what road projects
in Greater Mmnesota will be delayed in order to accommodate funding for these needed
projecu, including the airport? We feel that a detailed analysis of these costs that have not
yet been identified will confirm our conclusions that relocating the airport to Dakota
County is not an economically viable option
We have expressed our position in the past regarding the needed capacity for the
wastewater meaunent ptant. It is our position, from a reasonable long range planning
perspective, that the plant should accommodate future induced devetopment growth, as
well as serving a proposed airpoR. The EIS addresses the airport capacity only.
Identifying the capacity needed for future growth resuiting from the airpoR relocation will
significaIItly increase the estimated $20 million cost identified in the EIS. The additionai
cost for a larger plant to serve development resulting from the new airport needs to be
identified for the same reason the road project incremental costs need to be idertified -
they aze the trug costs oF the airport.
I-157
A.
B.
A. See General Response 1.
B. See General Response 1.
C. ( C. See General Response 1.
In regazds to induced developmem, the EIS aclmowledges on page V-91 that the aiiport
"would set the dynamics of devetopment in modon in Dakota County". It also states that
the agricultural chazacter of the Couc►ty wouid be "severely challenged" due to land
speculation and sell off of land by fazmers. We have expressed this coacern on many
occasions, and agree with the conclusions on page V-90 of the EIS that "significant
commercial, industrial, offce aad hotel development, accompanied by p(anned residential D
communities in the 13 townships" will occur. This conclusion was appazendy reached
after reviewing case studies of five other U.S. airports and their development pattems. We
aze pleased to see it acimowiedged t6at grawth will be a much more significant matter to
address than has previously been stated by Metropolitan Council projecdons. We also
agree with the conc(usioas on page V-92, which states thai "The ML1SA line will be
moved and new Free Standing Growth Centers will be creaYed." This, again, had not been
previously aclrnowledged as a conscquence of relocating the airport to Dakota County.
D. Comment noted.
There is also an inconsistency between the conclusions in the EIS as relates to induced
development and Figure O-5, which shows future land uses in the County with a new
airport. The map imp6es that no growth will occur in the rural area as a result of the new E. E. See Generai Response 1.
airport, which is inconsistent with statements made in the EIS. We feei this is mis(eading
and needs to accurately reflect the conclusions found in the EIS.
Other inconsistencies aze found throughout the EIS regarding induced development
assumprions. On page V-74, it is stated that induced development will "resu(t in the
development of new businesses and residences, generating tax revenues for the
townships". This statement is apparendy made to offer justification for the loss of a
sigirificant part of the ta�c base in Marshan and Vermillion Townships resulting &om the
retocation of the airport, and is reinforced on the following page under "11�f'itigation
�Seasures-New Airport Alternative". First of all, no eaosting regiona! policies support such
stateme�rts; to the contrary, the Meuopolitan Council induced development projections
suggest the opposite - that their will be only limited induced devetopment in the
townships, not to memion no significant commercial development. This appears to be an
unsubsta�iated statemeM, unsupported by current regiona( policy, and assumes a
significant change in poicy in the future.
On page V-93, it is stated that, "the New AirpoR Alternative wouid place Dakota County
beyond the transition point to a non-agricultural community." Agail�, we strongly agree
with this conctusion. Dakota Coumy has some of the most producdve agricuitural lands
in Mutnesota, and one of the most productive agriculturai economies in the State. By EIS
estimates, 14,100 acres will be lost to the aicport and at least 6,000-10,000 additional
acres lost to induced development. This is a dnmaric and disturbing fact that severely
impacKs Dakota County's future, and also the State's agricultural economy and familand
production efforts.
T7ris is fiuther emphasized again in the EIS, which acknowledges in the discussion on
pages V 84 and V-85 t6at the I,and Evaluation Site Assessmem (LESA) score for the
New Airport Site is 209 for non-irrigated land and 237 for irrigated out of a maadmum
possible score of 260. The IIS states tbai these scores reflect "very high quality" land.
We completely agree with the conctusion on page V-85 that "Any totai over 160 requires
the federal agency to consider other sites or attempt to reduce the land removed from
agricultural usc." Tfus is reinforced by stating that "This recommendation increases in
strength the irigher t6e totaL" We befieve MAC has very convincingty provided evidence
that relocating the airport would have a dramatic negative impact on Dakota County's
economy, the livelihood of many residerns of the Courny, and the State's agricuttural
economy.
I-158
F. The Regional Blueprint does provide opportunities
for considering the placement of regional infrastructure
promote the best overail infrastructure strategy for the
F. region. Weighing the alternatives in Iight of the provisio
of an adequate aviation system versus the preservation
of agricultural land is the purview of policy makers. Se
General Response 1.
Ci. � G. Comment noted.
We must at this point reiterate one of the most significant ironies, and inconsistencies,
with regional land use poticies that exists reasted to relocating the airport to Dakota
Couaty. Wtule the townships and cities in southera Dakota Coucrty 6ave collectivety
implemecrted t6e most successful agricutrival preservatioa policy in the state, those efforts
have been i�ored. The only long term result has been to allow the opportunity foT�
r'eg�ona! aszency to consider locating a major urban-orierted reQional facilitv outside the
MUSA boundary, with no planned urban services to support development that will occur
as a result of the facility relocation. The decision to even consider the site ignores over 20
years of loca! and regional planaing efforts, as well as established, adopted regional
policies related to preservation of agricultural land in the metropolitan region. The
Metropolitan Council Development Framework and, more recendy, the Regiona!
Blueprint, specifically acknowiedge that agriculturat land is a legitimate land use and
should not be considered "hoiding land" for future developmem. We feel the
Metropolitan Councii cannot recommend the site in Dakota Coumy to the State
Legislature, without being inconsistent with its own regionai developmem policies.
H.
H. See General Response 1.
On page V-89, it is stated t6ai "3,000 to 5,000 acres (of farniland) removed due to
induced developmem azound site." On page V-90 it is stated that "... between 6,000 and
10,000 acres of agicultural land would occur in the Inner Four Townships due to tot size �� �• See Generai Response 1.
alone." Which figure is accurste? Are both to be used? What is the total amount of
agricultural land to be lost? It appears it will be much greater thaa the EIS seems to
P��Y•
The EIS states that "There w�71 be no significant light emissioas impacts for the New
Airport Alternative." (p. V-t30). We feel t6at "significant" is a reladve term and that no J, �, See General Response 1.
measurable means have been identified to support the statemem. The lights emitted &om
t6e facility may not be significant in an urban area, but we feel are extremely significant to
a rural area when compared to no lights from urban uses at the present time.
in the past, we have mentioned on numerous occasions the need to include the azeas
desigiated in the DNL 65 noise zone and Safery Zone A ia the plan for acquisition This
request cominues to be ignored. We a��in request that theses azeas consistina of
aovroximatelv 4 000 acres be inctuded in t6e acauisition plan and the cost estimates for
the New Airport Aiternative.
The townships and cities remain opposed to any land banking efforts related to relocating
the si�port, since it results in social and economic uncertaiuty and would severely hamper
future i�'rastructure and developmern planning for both Dakota County and the cuireat
sirport. It is an extremely costly effort, and we feel is no longer viable to consider, given
the overwheUaing findings of the drafi IIS that relocation of the airport to Dakota Courny
would not be a respons�'bie actioa. At the January 10 Airport Planning Crcoup meering, a
formal resolution was pas.ged which supports t}ris positioa A copy of the resolution is
attachcd to a copy of ouc commeuts.
I-159
K. � K. See Generai Response 1.
L. (L, i.andbanking was eliminated as an altemative by the
Minnesota legislature in April 1996.
RESOLUTION
Southern Dakota County Townships and Cities
Airport Planning Group
Whereas, the Southem Dakota County Townships and Cities rlirport Planning Crroup was
formed in April, 1994 to monitor and provide input to the Dual Track Airport Ptanning
Process on behalf of the 13 townships and 6 rural cities in southern Dakota County; and
Whereas, the Airport Planning Group has active(y participated in the dual track plazu�ing
process through review and comment of numerous studies and background reports, and
Whereas, the Airport Planning Group has reviewed the draft Environmental Impact
Statement for the Dual Track Ptanning Process and, based upon environmental, social and
economic information presented in that document, has detectnined that relocarion of the
regional airport to Dakota County is not needed and would be economically imprudern for
the State of Mmnesota, and
Whereas, tandbanldng as an option for site preservation has been discussed and studied by
the Metropolitan Airports Commission, and
Whereas, the issue of landbanldng for site preservation results in social and economic
uncertainty for Dakota County, and would severe(y hamper future infrastructure and
development planning for both Dakota County and the current airport.
Now Therefore Be It Resolved, the Southern Dakota County Townships and CiUes
Airport Pianning Group opposes relocating the airport to Dakota Counry.
Be It Further Resoived, the Southern Dakota County Townships and Ciries AirpoR
Planning Group strongly opposes landbanldng for a future retocated airport site.
' Unanimousty approved on January 10, 1996.
Mr. Nigei Finney
Me�'opolitan Airports Cammission
i040 - 28th Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450
Dear Mr. Finney:
February 12, 1996
On behalf of the Board of Supervisors of Denmark Township in south Washington County
and on behalf of all of our constituents I would like ro thank you for the opportunity to
comment of the Dual Track Aiiport Planning Process Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS). Denmark Township would most certainly be impacted by the Dakota
County Site choicc. It is because of this impact that we have chosen to review the DEIS
and make comments to you.
As a layman, I found the Executive Summary a poor summary of the items included in the
body of the text of the DEIS. This is paRicu(arty disturbing because it is this paet of the
document that many of the legislators will focus on during theic scrutiny.
I can not he(p but question the statement on page III-6 about the goal of a new Dakota
County Airport•helping "promote the orderly growth and economic development of the
region." Farming regulations passed in the last thirty years and the Metropolitan Council's
own Regional Blueprint maintain fanning as the regions number one priority seem to be at
odds with this statement If growth and economic development of this region is the goal, is
it at the cost of the economic security of Northwest Airlines and the business community
of Bloomington and Richfield? It appears to me after reading the DEIS the choice of
Dakota woald be like cutting off one's nose to spite one's face, it just does not make sense.
1�1. � A. See General Response
Somewhece in the discussion of the toss of farmland there is a dysfunction in the number
crunching: From fewer than 6Q00 acres to as many as 24,OQ0 acres of land losG chere B_ g. See Generai Response
naeds to be a concise definition. I would su�gest the number used include that amount to
ba lost by the entire proposal along with induced developments and protection zones.
�. The section of induced deve(opment is extremely confusing and there is a direct � C, C. See Generai Response 1.
`�,contradiction on pages V-89 and V-9Q.
Lasdy the traffic nambers and their potential impact on southern Washington County are
also confusing. I have trouble correlating all the numbers and coming up with your �gui�es. p, D. See General Response 1.
You also fail to mendon required improvements on many of the County Roads in
Washington County to help divert traffic from Highway 61 or 494.
From our perspective, besides some e�ors, the DEIS does the job it was intended to do. It
compares two major choices. It is rather obvious to those of us who read it that the choice
is clear. Drop the Dakota County Sitt as a bad cfioice. Spend the effort and money
developing further the facility that currendy exists.
Rcgarding the issne of land banking I think that is also clear. It was a bad idea to suggest
an airport in Dakota County 40 years ago. It was a bad idea twenty years ago. It is a bad
idea today. One must to believe it will still be a bad idea twenty years hence. The concepts
will not change. Put the money inro airport renovations on the current site and leave
Dakota county alone. Land Banking is a bad idea. It is throwing good money aftec bad
and should be ruled unconstitudonal.
Protect the business community of Btoomington. Protect NoRhwest Airlines empioyees
(we could loose up to 20,000 of them). Protect Dakota County Farmland. Protect the
landowners in Dakota County from the nonsense of Land Banking. Protect the Gvcpayers
of this region from the enormous burden of unneeded cost Protect the Airline passengers
from massive tazes and enormous delays in getdng to and from the airporG
The Denmark Township Boani requests all MAC and Met Council Commissioners to teti
the State Legislature to drop consideradon of Dakota County forever. Spend our money
on making what we have better, not pie in the sky.
Iincerely,
, ,�,.-. S' Q
,�� im Fitzpatrick
� � Denmazk Township Board of Supervisors
I-161
Thomaa W. Newcame
Un�n f. tsunaN+
Eldan 1. Spercer.lr.+
Nichaei R. O'Brien
I�w(erce A. WilloN•
EJw.N w. Gala
Gmrer C. Saym, Q2+
Thortw W. ;lewtamc Itl•
Brian F. Kidwcil
lamo A. Gake
M&heile MaQuame Ca�tan
LEONARD, O'BRIEN
WILFORD, SPENCER & GALE
Attocncys At Law
A Prot�ssiunat Associatian
800 Norwa� Cnnter I00 Suuih Fifth Streee
55 East Fifih Street Suim t?00
Saint Paul. Minneso[a SS10t Minneapulis. Minnesou 55402
Telephone (6t2) 2?7•9505 Telcphone (fit2) 332-1030
Fax (612) 291•6641 Fax (6t2) 332-2740
Reply to: Minneapofis
February 12, 1996
ViA HAND DELiVERY
Ms. lenn Unruh
Mecropolitan Airpores Commission
6040 28th Avenue South
Minneapotis, Minnesota 55450
Timmhy M. Woieh
lnseph 1. Deuha. Ir.
Kartn.1. ChameNh
7Lumu C. Atma(e
lohn T. Keliy
Enc D. Cuok
Krismn A, Ziemer
.ni�o wm�um m wixown
'CenifiM ftel Pmpsny Spenaliu
�Mtnnesaa.4ae 8uensrumnon�
Re: Commencs of Nonhwest Airlines, Inc. on the Duai Track Airpott Ptanning Process
Drah Environmental Impacc Stacemenc
Deaz :vls. Unruh:
INTRODUCTION
This letter con[ains the written commen[s of Notthwesc Airlines, Inc. (";VWA") on the Dual Track
Auport Planning Process Draft Environmental Impacc Sta[emene (the "DELS"). As you Imow,
NWA is [he major cenanc and user of the bfinneapolis-St. Paul In[ernacionat Airpott ("MSP").
YWA has reviewed the DEIS, has s�udied che various airport developmenc atternatives addressed
in the DEIS, and is knowledgeable on issues of feasibiliry, cosa, air emissions, noise and other
matcers relaced co [he al[erna[ives addressed in the DEIS. NWA oEfers chese commencs pursuan[
to Minnesota Environmen[al Policy Acc, Minn. Stac. § 116D and MPCA's policy of providing
decision makers wirh fult and accurate informa[ion concerning che envirorunencal and economic
effects of a project and of feasible and pruden� aleernatives. The DEIS is a good draft and
affectively addresses many complex aspeccs of [he various airpott devetopmen[ alcernacives
considered in the DEIS. However, to properly inform the decision makers who will use [he
dceument and to o[herwise comply wi�h applicabte fedecal and state law, we believe the final EIS
should be revised in accordance wich ehe issues concained in chis letter. NWA may submic
addidonal commencs on che EIS's adequacy under federal law and regula[ions to the responsibte
federal agency a[ [he appropria[e time for doing so.
II. S_UMMARS' OF COMMEIVTS
i1WA's commencs are summarized as foltows:
The Fnal EIS shoutd consider and address Y�VA Proposal 6A which, in comparison to
the alternatives addressed in the DEIS, will save millions of dol(azs in cost, will have
fewer adverse environmental impacts, inciuding lower air and noise emissions, and
fewer adverse land use impacts.
The tinal EL5 shouid be revised to compty with all state and federal environmental
review requirements including those identified in our comments.
Because of certain procedural problems pointed out in our comments, it is recommend-
ed t6at t6e Federal Aviation Administration (the "FAA") and the i�fAC make it clear
that the DEIS is being processed in accordance wit6 40 C.F.R. 1508.28(b) for the
purposes of the Dual Track Airport Planning Process (Program), and that project level
approvaLs be given after the DEIS has been revised and recircutated as required by 40
C.F.R. 1502.9(a).
I-162
Ms. 7enn Unruh
February 12, 1996
Page 2
U : � a�
Reference is made to Ex6ibit 1 which contains a detailed summary of NWA Proposal 6A. NWA
Proposat 6A is a preferable alttraadve to the MSP Alteraative, the New Aitport Alternadve, and
the No Action Aitemadve considered in the DEIS. The No Acdon Alternative will aot meet the
region's aviation needs for the reasonably foteseeable tuture. As discussed in Exhibit 1, the NWA
Proposai 6A will raeet those needs and would have significandy less environmental impac[ than
would the construction of either a new aupoa or an entirely now terminal complex at MSP. The
new airport woutd have a severe impact on [he environment at and neaz any proposed site, and the
expansion of MSP as proposed in the MSP Attemarive will disturb [he existing environment in the
northwesc corner of [he auport.
Failure to consider NWA Proposal 6A, if not corrected in [he final EIS, would pnt the prospects
of a determinadon of adequacy in grave jeopardy due to state and fedeeal requirements tha[ the EIS
consider prudent and feasibie altecnatives with lesser adverse environmental effeccs. Examptes of
state requiremenu include Secdon G of Mian. Rules 4410.2300 which requires consideradon of all
reasonable alternatives, and Seccion I of that same adminisnadve rule which requires the EIS to
idendfy with particularity "those measums thac could reasonably etiminate or m��;�„i�e any adverse
environmental, economic, empioyment or sociotogical effec�s of the proposed project." At the
federal levet, 40 C.F.R. 1506.1(a)(2) prohibits agencies from timi[ing the choice of reasonabte
altematives during the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEYA") process.
The DEIS also fails adequately to address the impact of cerrain aspeccs of the MSP Alternadve that
will not occur undcr the NWA Proposal 6A. For instance, the DEIS proposes no sigaificant
mirigation measures for the loss of more than 34 acres directly affecud by the MSP Alternative
despite the requiccment in Minn. Rules 4410.2300 I. that the EIS "idrntify those measures thac
couid reasonabty [do so)." Again, NWA Proposal 6A migh[ afFord some opportunity for such
midga[ion by noc using the space'proposed for new access roads to a new terminat, and for the
terminal iuelf. We aiso note that the DEIS does not appear to show the impact of the propos�d
new aitport entrance road on Mother Lake. Finally, the DEIS avoids the analysis of cumuladve
impacu associated with off-aicport highways, pipeline and powerline projects cequired to implemeat
either the MSP Altcmative or the New Airpott Aiternadve, despi[e [he fact that these improvements
aze integral ro the implementation of either developmen[ alternadve and yec would clearly 6e subject
to mitigadon through the NWA Proposai 6A which would lazgely preserve existing infrasaucture
suaounding the airport.
An additionat advantage of including a thorough evaluadon of NWA Proposal 6A is that che
underlying purpose of the EIS "to provide informaaon for govemmental units, the proposet of the
project, and other persons to evaluate proposed prajecu" (Minn. Rules 4410.2000. Subp. 1) will
be best served if an evaluadon of NWA Proposai 6A is i�luded. The absence of any spec�c
timing for implementing the proposed alternaaves discussed in the DESS srands in contrast with the
NWA Proposal6A, which spec�cally ideaufies whac improvements would occur during each five
(5) year span between 1995 and 2020. In fact, the DEIS is silent as to what will happen betwcen
1995 and ZO20 when the alternatives are evaluated, with the ezcepdon of the statement on page ii
that "projecu t6at increau capacity (tecminai, airfield, o[her) woutd not be permitted heyond
1997." This might create a pazticulaz problem down [he line in terms of paragraphs 47@) and 82
of FAA Order 5050.4A, which ac least the FAA Sou[hwest Region interprets to require a
description of the time fnme for the project. (FAA, Tips of Airport Sponsors and Their
Consultan[s in Documen[ing the Need for and Preparing Environmentai Assessments, October
1992).
Finally, 40 C.F.R. 1502.14(a) requires agencies to rigorousty explore and objecuvely evaluate all
reasonable alternadves, and 40 C.F.R. 1502.14(e) requims falerat agencies co identify the agency's
preferred altemadve or alternatives, if one or more exisc, but the DEIS does noc address the federa!
agency's posidon with respect to altecnadves. The failure to wnsider [he NWA Proposal 6A, and
the environmenrally mitigadng effecu it might have, is tikefy to cmate significaac prob(ems retated
to EIS adequacy at the federa! levet, even if the EIS were to siuvive state sccutiny. As previously
discussed, however, the prospects for the DEIS ro meec Minnesota's stringent adequacy standaids
are also significandy reduced by failure ro consider the environmentai effecu of the NWA Proposai
6A. Minn. Rules 4410.2800, Subp. 4.C. aliows decermination of the final IIS to be adequa[e onty
if it was propared in compliance with all procedures of the Act and regulauoos, inctuding sections
4410.2300 G. and I., previously discussed. Furthermore, Minn. Rules 4410.2700, Subp. 2,
suongly suggesu thac che major c6anges involved wi[h incorporacing a thorough review of [he
effects of the NWA Proposal6A requires thac the drafr text "be rewriuen so that necessary changes
ia the text are inweporated in the appropriate ptaces." Minn. Rules 4410.2300 G. illustretes some
of the informadon wtuch should be inctuded in preparing revisions to the DIIS. Paragraph G
requurs the alternadves secuon of the EIS to "compaze the environmental impacts of the proposal
with o[her reasonable altecnatives to t6e proposod project." It cites u examples of reasonable
alternariva "locadonai considcrations, design modificadons including site layout, magnitude of the
I-163
A. � A. See Generai Response 3.
B. B. See Appendix D of the FEIS for the Wetland
Mitigation Pian. The DEIS and FEIS identity the off-airpprt
impacts from highways, pipelines, etc. required to
impiement the aitematives.
C. (C. See Section III.D of the FEIS for the staging of the
MSP Altemative.
�. ID. See General Response 3. The Draft EIS has been
deemed adequate at the state and federal level.
Ms. Jenn Uncuh
Febntaiy 12, 1996
Page 3
projxt, anci consideradon of alt�rnadve means by which the pucpose of the proj�ct coutd be met."
It futther dirocca che cesponsible government unit (the MAC) to discuss briefly alternadves that were
coasidemi bnc elimiaat�d, and state the rcasons for their eliminacion, as wett as to address the
altemative of no action. D. (ConYd)
in conclusion,the finai EIS should consider and address the NWA Proposal 6A in order to
satisty applicabte state and federal requirements, assure adequacy of the EIS, and inform the
project decision makers of the environmentally mitigating effects of this alternative.
. � Ul' � �L � .L ' 1 / ' ' � �1._ ul ♦Y y
The foilowing comcnents am noc iatended to comprise a comprehensive critique of the DEIS for
compliance with state and federal environmental review requiremencs, but should be addressed in
the fioal EIS for sta[e anci federal compliance purposes:
V✓e noce initiaily that the timing for the proposed project or projects is not entirely
clear. The Purpose and Need sec[ion of the DEIS states that the proposed airport
facilities are "to meec future aviadon needs" and "the inability of the existing MSP
to accommodate the 2020 forecast demand ...." This is fiuther complicated by
the fncc that different horizon years are used in the Environmen[al Consequences
section for the analysis of environmental impacu (e.g., Noise Air Quality).
Moreover, we believe that an analysis for the yeaz 2020 is beyond the reasonably
foreseeable furure and may only be useful on a compararive basis co make long-cerm
program decisions (such that being decided by the Minnesota Legislature). Under
state taw, tttis approach to defer issues no[ ripe for consideration is consistent with
pt�asing defined in Minn. Rules 4410.2000, Subp. 4, as well as with tiering defu�ed
in 40 C.F.R. 1508.28(b) under NEPA, but requires additional fmdings in the form
of a supplementat EIS to address the impacts associated with parciculaz project
components or stages that were not addressed in the initia! EIS.
We believe that both the state and federai enviroc�menrai processing requirements are
compromised by not disclosing to the decision-makers the extent of the proposed
acdons or their environmen[at consequences. The DEIS avoids the analysis of
cumuladve impacts associated with off-airpott tughways, pipeline and powerline
projects required to implemenc either development altetna[ive. Based on a limited
applicarion of a corridor analysis contained in the DEIS, impacts associated with off-
airport highway improvemenes are ehoughc.to 6e significant, but are noc disclosed as
such. Hecause these impmvemeau azs integral W[he imptementadon of either
developmcnc almrnaave, the omission of projxt ievel aualysis may amounc to
imptoper ugmeatacion un�ier Minn. Rules 4410.2000, Subp. 4.
We believe that the appazenc lack of fakral involvemens in the pcepazadon of the
DEIS will � to be cectificd in the preparation of the final IIS, at least for federai
purposes. Review of the DII5 indicates that it appears w 6ave been written for the
MAC with littie or ao supecvision by the responsible federal agcncy. The Table of
Contenrs doa �t cross-rofercnce m FAA Ocder 5050.4A, nor are the coatencs
cnnsisteat with that specifi�d in the (h�der. Thero is no evidence of fedetal
involvemem iu the prepazadon of the DIIS. 'Chis is connacy to the federat
responsibility to pcepare NEPA documencs, as required by 40 C.F.R. §§ 1500-1508.
It is also concracy to che terms and condidons specified in the 1995 Memorandum
of Underscanding becween the FAA and the MAC.
As discussed more fiilly ia the previous secaon of this letier, che DIIS dces not
rigorousiy or objecdvety expiore altemaaves as requirecl by boch state law and
NEPA. Rarher, both idendfied alternatives aro dismissed on selecdon criteria that
was directed by state mandate to focus on oniy two alternadves — the "MSP
Alternadve" and the "New Aapott Alternadve." Other alternarives etiminated from
furtber analysis received little more attendoa t6an that contained in the Execudve
Summazy. Aithough page (i) of the Exxudve Summary promises a discussion of
'ot6cr developmonc alternaaves that wcre considered," oniy @te MSP Aiternadve
ceceivcd serious consideiadon for the devetopment of MSP.
I-164
E.
F.
G.
E. The FEIS uses a design year of 2020, with few
exceptions. Different horizon years are used for some
impact categories only where it is appropriate. For exampie,
the noise impacts are analyzed in 2005 because the greatesl
noise impacts are expected to occur in that year. After 2005,
the use of more new technology and fewer hush-kitted stage
3 aircraft is expected to reduce noise impacts. Air quality
impacts are assessed for 2020, and also for 2005, the
estimated first year of operation on the north-south ninway.
Analysis of impacts in 2020 is appropriate because most of
the improvements being evaluated are part of the MSP 2020
Long Term Comprehensive Plan. Moreover, a 20-year
planning horizon is typicai in NEPA documents. The
selection of the MSP Altemative over the New Airport
Aitemative was a long-term program decision.
The proposed action is the MSP 2010 Long Term ..
Comprehensive Pian. The new north-south runway will likE
be compieted by 2005. The proposed west terminal wou�d
be constructed only after legisiative approvai of the MSP
2020 long term Comprehensive Pian. Suppiemental studi
will be required to impiement the 2020 Long Term
Comprehensive Pian.
F. The Final EIS contains additional analysis of off-airpor
impacts of the 2010 Long Term Comprehensive Plan. As
noted above (Response E), impiementation of the MSP 201i
Long Term Comprehensive Plan wili not require supplement
al or project-levei EISs because off-airport improvements
under the 2010 Long Term Comprehensive Pian are not
extensive. However, implementaGon of the MSP 2020 Long
Term Comprehensive Plan may require additional studies,
possibiy to inciude project-levei EISs. See aiso General
Response 1.
G. The FAA Airports District O�ce was heavily involved
in the preparation and review of the DEIS and FEIS. FAA's
Regional Office and Washington, D.C. Headquarte�s staff
aiso reviewed the DEIS and FEIS and approved their
pubiicaGon.
The Tabie of Contents for the Draft EIS does, in fact, cross-
reference FAA Order 5050.4A. FAA also monitored
i�i. development of the Draft EIS to ensure that it's contents are
consistent with Order 5050.4A. The FAA's invoivement in
the Draft EIS is consistent with 40 CFR §§ 1500-1508, and
MAC and FAA (the parties to the 1995 MOA) concur that
the spirit and content of the MOA was adhered to.
H. See U.S.E.PA. Response A.
Ms. Jenn Unruh
Febcuary 12. 1996
�Page 4
NWA Proposal 6A, which invoives idenrical runway expansion and reasonabty
comparable taxiway connections wichout the necessity of construction of a new
terminal, is not considered and evalua[ed for environmen[al impact at all. Failure
co address this op[ion in connection with che MAC's response to comments under
Minn. Rules 4410.2700 could prove fatal to an adequacy determination, since NWA
Proposal 6A cons[itutes a site-layout design modification and diminudon in project
magnitude cons[itu[ing an aftemative means of satisfying the projecYs purpose within
the meaning of Minn. Rules 4410.2300 G. It thus combines environmen[al
advantages wich econocnic e�ciency in a way necessitadng review and analysis
under srate and federal law.
A related federal requirement also is ignored by failure to fully analyze the NWA
Proposai 6A. 40 C.F.R. 1502.23 states "If a cos[-benefit anatysis relevant to the
c6oice among environmen[ally diffecent aiternatives is being considered for the
proposed action, it.s6at1 be incorporated by reference or appended to the sratement
as an aid in evaluating the environmental consequences." A coso-benefit analysis
relevant to the choice among aitematives is missing from the DEIS. Failure ro
include such a cosc-benefic analysis might have other adverse consequences for [he
feasibility of the overaU project. The Federal Aviacion Adminisuadon Authociaa[ion
Act of 1994 (HR 2739) provides that to approve a Passenger Facility Charge, the
Secretary of Transportation must hnd ehac [he appiication includes adequate
justifica[ion for each of �he projects proposed. This juscificadon shoutd be inciuded
in [he DEIS.
CONCLUSiON
J.
The final EIS should be revised to include and evaluate in deeaii che NWA Proposal 6A con[ained
in Exhibic 1[o this tetter, to address ehe deficiencies of ehe DEI3 under stace and federal Iaw
iden[ified in these comments, and to make it ctear thac �he EIS is for program purposes wich projecc
level approvai eo be given only after the EIS has been revised to be projec[ specific.
Very truly yours,
LEONARD, O'BRIEN
WILFORD,SPENCER & GALE
By
. Sayre, IR
GCS/Ijd
Attachment
�149I 1
I-165
See Generai Aesponse 3.
J. See General Response 3.
. � l .�. � � � � r -
� ` �Mal `` r `y , i�.�4 � R �'`'4✓� � � �f �:
L . � �'V �' � N ; :t '� �`t`4r
� �, .. 4 I .. J i i
.�,"�+.�„v� � �• r . 4 ^ . �" T�b�e�?M'�'f.
� �f ,,'..:, � S�. • _ '<..�. �!!ri;'• ` " .
� � ' �� ► �`�..�'��. „��: � �'�..: � ,e�• '""• 'k.y�:th T a� ..��
.
�I 'Jt'.! � • � "+� . '�1K� M . � 5i
�.
: Qti, � ?. '� �"��� ,• ''� "'� t ... � , , n` ��n.� � t' r �
"'1�. /y', "`! ! f . . W.�•
d ,{ � t � ~'� ���•� �'s r
i � *! � ��.:/j � ! � 't�'`+�.v.. �.�' �/� .Fv. �.
`•yi � �. ^� " ' „ .. • , 'E1rT•ti . •�, Z, �,}�r
r'� �������� h�"'cq'.p �(,- . .N� i�
r'1 �.t'�� ' � '4x�,,,♦ �T' .; ' 4 ��ri � � �:��.
. .
�fot i ..yw �}u +� • Q �'.
.' t J � J.� '�`� � � `�'`.` ` � �.� ,�' .
d . ��e` Ky'x' ti' � �r� "n � }� t '.vl:,':
h7M7�C � �. E :..�r.;� • 1. Tt� �' r..,. ` ��. .
it .'ta�yrM'f��" ��j::(� ���t?j��` ��� .
< �� • �Z � , �T l' � �•. � �,,. �
.S �"1 t�,.�'�1 � � , F ��,F�+� �w :�
. � . .
f? r�(i� ��� 1.. 1,. �\` i•. � ) i4�'L.+ �• � i�•
>'�'�' �,��., 4; � +t � ,[' '�. ^,ti ' . < � .
� •' ¢ k`i;,n � � �` i!��,�G'', ' Fi'� � 'rl`Y���.� � ,,,c ...
n •'. {
^ y�tt �„� t�if�1�, _` $,� � � fi . `,!: (+�.".'�, ~ � �• \. � \
� � F .�"'� �'�'` r" .
4 s fr:M,�,� f r*,� � k, ,t� #� �
.p��i�`!� '�� r`� `• ;��' �,�'v � � .
�,: Ft�-� = � � ` ��.` I �'�'''
, � .,� � �;tt,,,* '�� • � . f ��� � 1,
r., r� �.y" 1 "i:
,� �
� �� .'.� � � •,'�F tl f `� � � ': �y , f.' ��':
��'°y ;�'.t.�,�% a�" '�, `,. ��i ,�,��; �� � �it'
�` � ..� ,r� � .� , �--,. � .
., �"� �, •I . r;•�' `• �'� • � 2'`•-�.. .. . . . . `
� >,..�` �` :' � f S'r �� r} �t i . t :
��. f.'� r r 1�• a ,� ' �,��._..t.' :�� ,+ �
, ,
� '.E`/.jvh . , ' , ! �.. �:. � �1j;.p�^'y""�c r �
� .•
k-1.. .'` `' . } " � • �j�t .:,� �a1 ~ti�,
� . . i
. - r: �, . , . . r� r ' � J r � 1
� ' ; , , x , "� , ; .
• , » r ,,, � . �
�� —_ • r' r �. /2 n� `� �� �{,,.. '
��..� � � fi i '.. � , � 1 :'t � r ��. •r .,,,,: �. r 1
.rr � �, i; '�d , , ,�� + .; .,
�:� � �� �.: t l�~ v� �� ,a:i � .
�;�� {` ,l � '�*``� '� �''1 " �
: ,� �` � : rt'
r � r > ' , tj+'. '�'1 "`'� �
� .!� � t ��� t �' i: f ".. t ti' 4�`ry �\ �,�� ,./� /� i
.
�•• � � �
�,� { X .C.�� � r•4 � .��
•.-. . t
Y ',1 f�� i � t ... "`,.I J� . ,.� r ; F y` :
��t� : i j �f � � ', . O. •. i . 1
� � ,• � � ��. rt e� � .... + + + .,y I .. ,' 4� �: ,..
i l� � ��
; : .
?....;b ' _ '� 5 � � L ( �,,, �ti �
� � a �r e, `' +
� l` 1 i�l '•! , 1 �: . � � •
~1� � 6 ! i�� t t . � _� � � -. . / " � �" ~� �. :y} �
� .
L `T � I �i. i� 7 ! � � ,1C.h
t �, riL� af. �: i s�l: � t f r ,Vti `
.•;' '' '�''�' • !
'j' � �
'S.�
,
.� �. �`'• k,i='�'t'��r�� ; � �' , ,: . .�, .. ...., -
r ; �,.� t x F.. � •,` � ' �';
ti '�- J � .�, � ..
, � • � �`.,��'��� � f � � ,:--r'� (�i � f s r
.
.
.
.
� � i�� �a � ' �, �— � , + as ��
` �''L r, '� . � `'� ' (�� �c�a��� i � ,. �+ t �,
�• �'�.b \\Li.� _, .. 'y����`i. r �- i' �;��c, Ket� �:'"
^ � y� a. r.� +�?:j� �t i��b �t y + F � r 1 �1 �,1� :#�.
t
,.i y. i � S � � 1+�� �
F r �' .'t� :a�,.�+ C� '• �ir '� �1 `z.�.�" r �
+�;. ��� � \ + t�..'' t�� .�. •`� �' � � .3 � � li
. .
�.. �
� � � ''� � ., � . � �.` ,: �; � �, r.. '� r �.1� � �,� i � ;
! � `� ' � ' : � y 't"� + • ti � � � �tRyl�. � �
�` �� �\' , .,, k� �i'y l `.
t. -1II� y � ':�i�F� f�' ,� � R �:�E ' r�,$
: [ � .
� '� t'.� � 1 S �.. n� 1
• � r .. ` ' :'� . ....., �, �._. -_-�,'^.' -
� ! • .
1
.
.,
: L y
��..Wr-i,��•, � `S •-`---�- ` � �i. �: � '�L" £fi��
,:
..
�i :.... �� C� .
� , i� �!�� ti ��
.�� w
�� '�'� �� ' �'l \��sr� y} ,,,�� 1 '�.� �� h
l ' � � �_ �' a .a�`'�� . ` c ��
�� �'I� n'.. ': �I� l4 H' i�� ?{
� . f� A ' � �� � �� • ' " 1 ��� � �`
+ '�.. W i • � ... 'r. �. � � /� • . ' ' ' MN� , i ' � � � �
• ' w � .. -. � �...
' • �... ...�.... i ..
. � ..• t y
. �.� i � .. ♦�. � �� . .r Yti; .ilNh v
• � � •
•� �� i� • . :� � � � .y�t �:�..
� r ' t
� r, �� t T f �JI . t J i,,,� •: i^ � � -i : • `, � � � L�.. � � n.ttK
'. � J• ry� ;�T i . � . � air
� 1.. .1 : r^' 1 •'�
7 4! l� �f '1� �!r �: �;,, • ,:
xj �i �..: 7 � �t ` ' ' � • ;� �t �+i t�� a. .�: y :
Z' ,1 . r� `�w 1� , �+` '
i u �.�`�'' +,,,,� i � �y , i,,,,.�,,,�r'���� . �
� y�� f f � , � '�'`Z �{I . , t k � J `r,� 4��T� � ��.y �� \
� �c
� d.+� � t <��� �
` �a� * i • � 1ti++ �' � -'
1 , ;. �, rt�� r' '. �' •�;iA�` - r' 1 � � /
4�'��t.Syl ' ,. � ii:t1 ' 4 1F�: i�'1 �.:
' � Y .
.� � r-- * �. �..... , • � '� �.. �
.. .
.. �
�,��.�, ... :
. . .�._4. t .i.:�. �4 •�� „�� ' .� � ^ �
. _�_ •. _ - 3:./'' �
....- _..,,_ _....... . ,
. .,� . .
......--- ..,,, -_—.,.e_ „�, ��:_s.. .
,,.__
� �Y �
� � � � �
� � o � � o
� e� � oA � .... �
r c�'i� ,--�,�, U w .� �=' ''� '—' � in � A �"J �
;%) � � � "'� = � >' ' � :A c� . O -f"' -�.
�U � � u .S". � :� '� ,.. .0 ^� > � r +�—' �"
� � � � .� N O c/� U � ,� --' � ' � � � ..�
p� '�' 'U +-+ '� �U U '�U w � '� G v'�i ti ''-� :..i .'.�� � ..~�.�
' �„ O � � :c c� � ,� �, � ,.._, � � �'' O ^a O O c� � O
.,�n,� �' �. ^ w � "� +.+ �j � CJ ;3 ,.y� • y .�, � � � � v
� .~r"., � � � � L".� '�U bA "" �-+-+ � � � ' X ,.~r+., C`' '� ' � �--i � cS
� � � E-+ U � .... � � c� o on � u � � � � � � � "" � y
~ �" N N.���-1�,-+
~ v � o H .o � � � '� � .� � '� '� � �� o
v c� +-�
�
���a���°�.��°���, -���������
� o-�^ � �� � � � �>•� �.� � �.o.� ov? � ,�
-�' �" � c�'n G � v� �n � "� � c� v� r � �n � '� �
—i " U �-+ G �u c'�n .-. � � > � • X O � Q v � `�v O O � v
>, �� a�.+ ' v� V ,��. O�`' �� w � U v O � O:.-N�, '�i n C�'�'' � O
:.' ��, '" � e� r� w ;a a� c� �:.' c� o w�-+ O c� �--� �� U
� .� y� �� � ,� � � � � � �� 'p N O b,A �� � � � �ca
..� a, .-. '"' '-�-� cs � 00 �' � �C ',.'�"., �'U "� a'' Cr�J ,"'-3 � � ,��.,, �' Crj" '`--�,�^ O '�
� G (� `V �3. � (y j r., G � :.� +� >., r� � � "� �+ CUj
`--4 � "� � •�-� a.�+ �,"�', b�} Q�i t�.� "~" � .SS: � 'U � t�n .-'-�-�i :=t C'�i � `J�'i . � "�C.)
� � � ^ o � � o � � ° � 3 3 � � �C �, � � .� . � � �
�O�.�r-,U �
r-, �n r oo H, � � � � o 0
: : � : � ; : : : : •
� � • ' : ��-' � . • ' ' :
: : ; : ; '� : : � : ;
� • • ; : � � • o ; :
• ' N
� ' ' � . � • ' N � .
• ' ' ; . �, • ' � ; .
• • ' , . �., • ' � , .
• • ' , . � • ' p . .
. � ; , � • � ,
� � N � G
: : : � � ..� c�i : p � •
� . iJ �y N . .
� � • • O I.y � . .
. • n�.y � � . '
� • • • • V .N ��u1 • •
� • • • � N � � ' " • �
• • . • � � � • �
. ; • • ' � � w �" • '
: : : ; . w � � R�„� ; .
u �
w
. � • � y b�A 0 , � O : r'�.,
y y Ci � H '"' 5�.�
; � �,`�j • � • � ''� � � �p . u
V --� .� Eu
: v � ;� V � 'y �„a.�� •
O � cs � u � "' '� � p
:� w w � � � �,
� w � � Q �,
�• w � � � � � � � �
r.A � � ~ ^'O � ' O ^� u � O
' � .-�
p -��^ � H � � W CA '`C cr' �
I-167
0
i
� ' �
C'� �n . : i �
t'" , i�'.' '� J
r
O N � G � � ~ �
� Q a,H � "'� f"� .�H � O � �
� �'3, � +-' `aA � � �,,_, � u :.. � '�
.�' p �, `�." . � u +� � ; ~ �' � >
'� c'' O O+-+ =, `� �� y�' O
�.y ,�^ � .+C�y ..-yi =� � � � � • . � ��.y :/-�1
:.i V `�i �J r�'t�. N � • O ' ' � %'1 � �J :�4
VJ �.d � y � � U "�y '..i ��
. � � O n ,� � O � �? � '� (,� � O
� u � e� � � Z v :� v,., � :'�
� O � '' O � � � � O � � L", �
� U y .� � a"'� � � � � r�' .�". �
'� +� O vi 'V ;� > ''i :� .^.
~t3 � ^.3 n ' � CJ Q � � :. � v� M ^' r
"'� � G� � �
".� > `-�-' O �= � v� .^�3 �
--� •, � O � O � ,nti ::,, � ��,, .�-'�-+ � ;.,
� ��:� � o o�� x r
'� ^� � � � Q • "' � n c'Jn � H � �
.� .��j � � O O � ,� � eJ Q
� � � `" � u �,, � u � � N � y
.�-i :..� � r r"
� '`.�iy � � � � . Q � ^"� � v-1 .�i � �
� }� � � o u e� � o
pa � �V � '�i ~f.. ..��. a.'V.� '.�.� �'. . r-ti' L~�. � �'i
�
�
'ZA . 'V .-`�'-� O i-+
.� > , � O � a. �, u
ri rl �1J y r+l.�� O � Y�
�' W ,�,'�r �C �, �" �' O ,..�
+'' � "�
�'++ ', C) ..-� � �
� a..i � r.�Uy :� � r.�s CI� J�
� �i :"� i-� � � z w��
�^ 'n '� 0� u V� O v�i
� � � � � � � � N
�" cV ^" . p v� � u. � �
� >, � � e� O � � A
�' O =� � O
, � '-��+ � � '�A .,��• y iC w
3 � O :-+ . .-~^'. � ','s �' >.
� � � � � � � � �
`t�j .�"'- '� '"'.�' �--�C� :'_" .� .� �
� U ' � O . � � s�.+ �„ +-�'
(n y„� /� P+ •'-� J..+
� � A .�. e� � �
V��� �'•° �' `� G
� s..� �+ :-� C! .r".
N
C
I-169
� � :-�
�
w iV '.�u ' bp � Q'
:o � �n �. �
.. . • y � '�]'� • C^J, O '� � O �4.� :.+�i
� � � v � ..N-1 � �I � +-1
v� n'U r,.d >C �+ � C'Vj O
,-4"� � •.� � � W c�,� � � . v�
w
`''-' ^� p :., � �..� O �
O � � � �� 0 � U �
t; .O >, u :..� � C..)� � �
c,� .� b cc • �.� o E--� cs �
�•'� ,,,�„� � 'V a, .4.� . � .0
� � N O � � � ~ y �
G '-N� � w p . � ..."', � �" '
�.�(—'�� ° °U `� � �'�s
^ti � N cs � . � � e� � �
r,�' -' "' . �
.� ,� .��-'~., � 0 � � � •� �
O � cV�s � � � �" � r � v�i
� � C� cn � +-' ^ � r � c�-s
...�i � O Li � C�J � � • � � 'VU
C1 Z r a
',�.,, OU ' a�.+ v�i U � E-1 �,i a""..� ..y-�
M
�
0
O O
N � �
� � N
cD �
t!�
T
O
o � Q�f
o �
,� O C!
�[i �
�
� p p
0 0 0�
O ef'
N ti �
N
T
N � �'
Ci O ��''y.
� T �
T' � T
�'
O
r
m
0 o a
� o �
O P� eD Q! ct tD M N It! f� tt� et a�0 6�0 T •••
CD C� � ct T� ("• �� GL i`•
T
t0 M �"" °a'
O
p O
�ii �
09 cD N r t`+ N t1'� d' �--� Cn i� '�' oT0 1`� r
CO a0 Lt'i ��� t�0 M� T~
O T
ta C+a tO C�J
o �
C'r� °?
Qf tl] r� h- N r � � M t�O 0�0 � t"~� �,�p aCi'
N t�D � � O� � M r
tt� N tta M
O
O �
0 �
I.f,1 'eY W O i+ 00 M Ql d' N eY d' � �°�
tf� tY� 'C' � e,N,�„ � L~fi M N M�1
11� T T
� N � �
N
C
O
Cpy�„� •[��C
y � 61
E �''
�, ,�, o
� � � �
c. �L. ;,, c �
a�
w r-_' c� `° `� E
�.. N y� Cn .«y-� C 61 c�6 6t ?�
� � a� c c c a� » G -o �'> = a
c � E a> � � E � c �' � -o °'• ¢ �c. � �
y � G � � 'c-� � c E 'co � � � � ca � o �
� c '� ca � 'C � ' a`� � � � °� = t -a
tL O � o� O a� I- a> >- -o E c_- :: ccs
iv io = w O o L� F-' c cL�v z''.� c.�� c.�'3 � � ��
c � t�a � a
c�t Q C- �C �
»� ... :,
�,+ '
...�. Gy y s.y. 'f/� �p � C � � ,�,�,� i N .Q
� C� � '0� G1 � � •� � '�.+ � 0� N •Q' ' •x ,O
111 y� � .� t0 � � I3�
o .�� .� � a��E M ca�a�� �a��+ "'o
� -o � a� � ��n .� c ..r y ...d ;.:, � o e.�., '- � � •�.
� � � � O � � � 0 y� N C� � � V y y ,4; � C.
� 0 �:+ Q. C� � � � 6F} „p '°r � O 6i �
,lC li� �'� N t" N 'Q �C � y � Q. � r f,ap O p� -`�— C y
� 27 � Cl � .� C� CC '� � 6� Q L.0 � C � a� �. Q'f
� p� C a� � N ,�,. L1 23 � � �� 0 R3 Q Ct .t� y� C D1
+ +-� G� �- �p G C
� 'r � •C' t/! � d � � � � lC O. R3 •�S �'• •� v ;d '� r�-. R� _
.0 � l4 C� r y •� Q" C�p y.0 17� y C p�3 C+ C�.. tI� Ct. v
y 67 y�� N O� O..�+ Q. O �� ��.Q � V� tC 'p L°"'
n�� ��c� ��° c�w�»r c,»- � a°�a' ....E_- a�.��
� .ir l4 L•E � �� i��.. O!" C� C' ��, L`O G1 0 C C! •O `+� s�
•0 �p C/1 y,,,� •R � v 0 � y�'�O 0 v � Qf •S 0 G p y p, � R
� v� c^ � m � a� = c ca ..-- � ci. ;�. ,.. c'�, � N E
„�-LQ »�' Q.•._�"• � Q� ,Q o � � � � y C.a� � o� R a� � ��..�
cs� •� � cci � E � � � � o -� ca o .� � � ,� � y � � � o c � �
a� a�
c' � i � to � � ..' � � �� � � c„ m " � � a y � �y � � e� �. �„
�w � e� �n co � � �+ c_ a o y
y'_ v V w• C� G, R3 C i.. CL1 y � i� t� t!S � O• � 0 p�
0 � 6! � � a � � � � X � � 'CS F�' � �% �R7 C _ `��. i C� � E C� .�.�"+ a-�
C.� GD i. C� tC � C.� ..� G� r W� '� • s •
o � a • • °
m
C
� o
N �
d �
� � w
° — c
G �
� � 9
� � �
� t) � C
� tn � o
t � � �
� o 0
V1 Z tn �
� ❑ � �
�
O
0
N Q�u
N iiie
�A
Yiu
t!'/ �
O
N �
�,�,�p
O "'i
O �
N �
�
�s
lC) .�/'
p •ra
O
N
O
O
N
N
�
�
r
O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O P O O O
c0 tD �f N O CO tA c!' N
T T T T T
a..� �
��H �
. �v-I i~..+ � �.1 �
O �'��.� � O �
� .� �" H v�i O O '�
._^, � .� c3 ,^��
e� cus � � -� � N c'Js
a.� �
r'�, . o �'"' � CS �'Ti C.,"
� '� .'� `.�'' y ,-� � . o
� �> � � O p � �
� � � �� .� N � �
�
U � �
U ° � a� ° c� c� �,
�,�„ ^O cn >C �+ p � � O
C� W ,—i � l�l
p u'� � `�-� `� � .� N
L�•� U � �U c� cs �,
'`� •--a .--, cc
� a'' � � V � � � >,
-����o����
� �.�.�(�-� � �-�
�
c
o �
R �
C
O 'C `y d
•�p � C V
'� .a ,o N
Q O � C) � U
, ?� f4 � U � C •N
Y�, m cn � o d
— c U � .c 'm �
= a� — o � m o
� ■ � � 0 � �
O
O O O 0 0 �
tD �!'1 d' c+� N *�
�I.,� � r�
. v.�j ��1 :�1 +y �
Vi .�-1 �.% � '�
v) V ✓ 'a� � �',"S
..� ,,, p � �.,,., c�
.� �" � � � �J.�
vi � .� •� � �
�
y O � � •L�r O
� �r' �J 'O O V�'
A'' , .1�'�, � �," �. V1 Cj
� p O � cs O �
bA � f�! � y � 7,
.� � � � �, ��
�"' '�U �„�r� <�^S p � �" '.. �
CCS tn 1� � L y�� �
.� ,�, ?, �n
�� p � � u �'+ c�i �
O rn N � �
V�� y ?C �. Q e�i s..�
,.+� � • �, � c, a3 y �
W � " � � � a...�°
� -� .
I-171
�
�a 4�1
7�1 '.�1
� �
��
� �
O�
•; O
°'' OCJ ,
� +�
o �'
O
w �+
� G
u �
. "' U
cC ;,�
i'' � C'.
O • bA '�
� � �
✓ � ��
�
>
z� � F
�
.
�
=
a
:�
ae
W
0
N
O
N
�
r
O
N
O
r
O
N
u'1 '
O
N
O
O
N {t1
N
�
m
O �
^zOZ � �
� a
� kd'°I W
y Z
R1 O
.� C�1
ci.
tOZ
�r
a�
y
�
�.
�Goz
sa�e� �.o aaqwn�
M
d
y �
= L.
0.. �
�
�
500Z
N
�
y
�
�
Gl. ,
000a
�
�
s `� �
a ...
5ss G
£66l
�
�
.� u � � � � � v� � � � �
� .-� N .-� s.� A �-+ r�. �.,�
� v � �'U � � H „�.�., O v w . � 'r. �+ � � p w :1
� �� �-� �`c',�''.� � � �w � 'b �� � e��i � ° o
� � � � Q., � o � � � °u � -o � � � p..� ° ^° � r o
� �-x��e�iv N ? ��•� �.�..� �x � °'��-� o� a.
.� � � E-+ �,-, o
• n p„ • V � U � c� � u eJ � • ��,, �' '� �+ •.� "� O �
'�' 'i ,� cC ,.C, UA �., �---� V G+-' �"'� N O.� Vr cn a.� cn „—^. �J
��" , � y ..�-i .y, �--i O C� �" . � 'N"� C't` .� '�' � u C", � � C� +., �,
V �" U cC :.-i 'V ^J ar .�-+ � ' .'7 O+ O .--� ' i �+-+ r.3�
.� —� ...�•i k' ;� � .f. v .�- "� .Fi �`' � t1� � '� �U W 'i+ ✓ +' ...N.� � �U
� i � � e� � -/� �� "� w � e� F ..� �," � �,.� � o � �> � .� � i;
� v� �' � „� o � y �' ' � e�i .� � ° v o � U N � �., � � U
w��-+ .-: c-�s '`'� �y �� w 3.� O� U c� v-� O GA `a >' u cs''-s O O
+�-+ 9, • � . � � � O .-�i '�"cn c�s O 0" �`-1 � '�U .��.. ^r "O ' p, � v� � V � CJ
� � � �`r' o e o(��-� �U � � � � � o o �U� o•�
� •� [a; � � '�" r�''"-� •� �-�, vi � r-H-1 s�-� o � �! `' r ,�.' U `'`"' +-' � c3
"C' ..-+ �--� , .�.� ' a .�u N ., %4 O tn � t""
� � � ..n � o _ � � : � ' � °n., � �, � � � � � -o ei G � � . � �
� o'� � � � >,� �� °.�N �� �'�, �H o 3•° �� �
�. a.�� � .� � W �W� s�3�NQ
I-172
!
Q
ri�
':3
�
�
j'o'°
W
�'i
O
�
C7
_
,,.+
A
•G �
� �K
.... �p
LC� C
1"`^ ,
N �
�
N �
d' R
� �
� •�
_ 'a+
� �
G �
c W N
0
0�
t0
fC
C
�
a
G
ecs
�
V
t�0 N
3 �
F� �
C �
0� �
W .�
C
O
N �
'C1
� T
Q, r
a, '�,
C �
CO
•c J
n� r
� �
c �
d �
N N
i N
� �
� �
G OC
y
.^r+
tC
C
�
Cf1
..:
N
.�
O
H
W
iv
C
'CI
�
Q
•
�
� � � ° �° `-'-'
� T c� o �' e� � �, � � � o
� N �� � � �-��-=`.��+ �� N en
� c�i��..� ��^U +-� N G`^ �H� v^�� �•N
., � o ., �
..� •.„ e� ...
� � � � O N � � r" � � "1'y � C! O � � :� '17
� � T ;� '"� . � �+ y Gi '. r �U � � � �'�'' r'� C� S".r
� C3 Q G' CE f� ��-' U..^"�.. �..--..-r Pj Cl�
i6� � � ..�".� � � �U . � 0 ^t7 ,•,�. �-�+ '-��+ � � ' � ,i� `" b,p
� • = -� � F"� ' � 9 a..+ O c'`''i� e� a'' �+ � r�,, p ""' • .V-i �i
� ' -� > N V cCy "-' � � H � � c� v� v ,., � � �
.., �
� � t�4 � � �C � cn � � O vi O � � � c� � �+
iu'�'� `'+-� .vJ �" ^—� , a • � .� cC L1� � tC � O � � • �±� �U L:
� � c3 Ll, ~'L," �I � '-�-� ��+ � � bA �i � u �O � a 'U ..-�
U ..�
{� ^� U y i �-"' � �'" � �C Li . � k �" i+ �' 0 � � � >-.
v�i '�'' � � O >, � ,.cs, U � .� ,.� �+.+ O U � . � � «�jt,
� O � U V �i.a Y 'U � �'�', � � � � � L�i y •� �.�-i
O .� � p � � � y� '`" � O O� 'V F ,,� � � � �
�'' 0 c� U `r� � V y �+U � O � � � O . � � � �
u 'U • � � O � C' �" �
9 O
� � � �
"� p � ^-' �'�." .^ " U u �. ' cN`_'n v ' � �+-+ tfl� � v�i E-+ � �
E-1 w .--� H
I-173
W
w.r
�
�
x
W
t�
'd'
�
1
�a
m
�
.'
0
�
N
a�
v
t.�
0
�
.�
�
�..
R
�
�
:�+
�?C
W
O
�
0
�
y
0
�
a�
�
�
C
�O
C
o �
�G C
tC �
W F�
CA
C
O
�
�
a
a�
�
c
tC
C
�
�!
C
�
�
N
s�..
.�
o'
a�
a
.
d
�.y.
�
0
�
C
O
v
�
0
C3
0
�
O
.y
G
�
�
W
C�
R
�
M
•
�
L
O
O
e�
�
O
c�
C
a�
a�
C3
0
c
0
.y
C
�
W
O�
�
C3
N
�
•
� �
wO � � � �eJ U � O
r.+ .S".� � � � � ,�^3 w � 'U
�
� � � � u '� -+ v� O
�•'� � • � >C � ^� � �
v�i c�i� �� sC ..� O C)
o � � � � � x� �
..� � ,� ..n W ...� -�
bA
> ..'�'y ...� 5A � � . L"�' � c�s
� � �
'.� � U • � N � '� N a
����C �.� n,�.�'�
��-+ � �
� O :-� eCi 'V ;'� � "� � �i
�..r".� � ^,� '.y y� G • � � �r
v� ;n � v.., � . v� ....
� � � � � � � � r
�., N +�' � � A �'' t�
u 3�>, ° v �..� '> v o
O 2 � � � �'� e.�
p �
U;s cs v U..� :� U w
ia
�
0
.�
d
�
�
a�
�
E
0
v
w
a�
t/�
O C!
O i
LL'� O
�y C
0� o
� v
•
a�
�
�
�
G�
C
O
v
G
m
C7
C3
C
0
t�i_
�t
{J
R
6�
C
O
t!�
t0
N
0
G
a�
a�
G'3
'O
c
ev
°�
O
�
�
J
.`: �
0�
C1 i
'O �
L �
� �
O
N C.�
�
N
C" �O O
`t c' o
"a y O
� o 0
� o
� � c�n
�
� � M
� � T
'O C� y �
C y G e�.� �
= y t0 G� �
W C> n' � 0
c0 cC � C C.]
N Q1 G L "C3
C � 0� lSl +�-�
--� .J C:1 G. �
� a'i ai � 'o
a� � Z Z n`_
. . . . .
�
a�
L
�_
C�'
Oa
�
0
Z
C
ca
O.
io
�
a�
C.�
O
C
O
.y
�
tC{
Q.
W
�
a�
� o
.�. �°
� T
�- o
� _
C �
ti ,�
....
W �
L
��
� �
c�a �
y y
O 0
O '� �
N O �
�a r as
� .... c.
e= o ti
•
� � ,
� � o ° ° �, � �,
:.� .-r N � +� �
°�A � � � ,.� � � "�
�' � � ��.�'' +�U"�
� � v�i � O � � e�j
'?✓ \ � � "' �" � �
�q
Q � � .�.� `vi � � �
e� "� :�
� � y � � v � �
� y y q � r„�,, �J >
.o � � o o N � o
� �j, '� � O O .^ CJ
L.� T •,-S '7 U U `^'S` ...•ri
c+�n � r,�.� -� bA � � �
�-,� �-�.�^�c.� � �
V � y N .�-� :3 � �j ��
� � O >C �„pw
� . ^1�� z..� r'.�.+ � '� � O
O � � � .� '�t/] ' � � '�
v^"�' ,.r a. .e� .., u 3 �
I-174
O
0
0
0
O
0
�
ey°
r
�
.�
N
O
v
'�
d
w
d
�O
Oe
�
, . �
> °� ° �'�3
G 'V � � � � �
,,,� '� �` � � ^' � O
�L �,, , � . � a .--� v-a
'��" . � �i+) ~ 'v"�i � -�-�-+
�r � � � � � �
�,H � � °��
� �
G�C 3 � � � �
� �-�'�� �a
�' a, s °" �' � . �
ou� `"'-� •= `n
... -�'i ,� '-' N ..'V.� ;n
� .^i. i.+ ..-� i.d
('� U 5p u O� � v
+-+ "'� ,.�„ ti O � ty,:� �:=�
a w � � .�.�Q a.� +.+ r, :.�
� � q � �., � � .O
.� �H �ti � � � � ....P
�=1 �'-r :�. O i-� > v .�
1 �M
/
:._'
/ ��
%% �
,r�,
:' k � :: �
�'
ca
a
X
W
�o ,
,.��' s..i '� �+ � '�',t
'� O � O �'-'' O ..� v � � � bA w � � , � �,
^p �„ ',.'�,, �'+ � y ""' � V .� ' � � ev'i '.�.� bA :.. ".7 � '3 �+
v� N � ' rn � ^,s � � O va ;a pp � O "'� U �
� [ � � � -�- '�:.� � � ,� � a ^ H 0 ';.� O � r,
�
,� -x � vi s, p � e� � ' � � r --� O bA -p a, � � v
� � ,x " +�-' 'C� O � � � 0 '�.. �' �� •Y U �' p � �
�> v V a" � ��'' v�i .-Ni s.'`'',, bA ,;� �O c.� �n z,, v
� 'a:+ C.l p'd � cJ tn tC .�..�'' u bA 'U • k �� U� N•'�"'
bA i". �` � V � a ^��' ''� C! � 'U ..s"i r` � � 'V 'u .!".� ..� I
O ' � � 'O � ,_+ :� � � � cj w 'v �r • � c3 � �
� '"i,, c.'U� .� ' 's'' 'S � � y � .y � • �'' �C� � ,.'�'� a.+" � • '�'�' i �+� '`�' v)
..c: -+ �:� V O O Q F u a. � r. vi .r, w,��''i r, c3 � s.�
a.�+ � �` '� ^'r,' +-� � . O � ' w s. O � • � O i�., c� A V . '��' � � i
U � C� u � s.�a �v~i S U ` O > �' � � CS � t�C � w � ;,C, ��+
� � G
� O '��. � •� • � � ,�~,, � � y � �"�' ' u y c�~i 7, O � � '�' H �
� � � � �', � �1�. Q ��,�, .�u� � � b�A C�j v7'i ^ -,,,r^ p w � ' � O G��A �,
� "°� � >' �� �.o o � �,� c�i � L Ga � � �s\ anen
� � � • c� �
� y�y ? a.c �� o� ��� s o o � o-� �-�°°�°�°��
pa. v U•� v�-"'-, i�3. .r'-, u H r�. u v `,. u a" ,.. r�
•
„ m �
I-175
0
.._.. ._ ..
.... _.._�.� .. . .
_....:; .-:—.._..... �. , . .: ..
� .. � . �t i � . - ;� � , '
�
-`?�iii .. � :.. G ':;. C .
� �' O
G.� v
: � ;'� C=�l :�y t�� i ..
� . Oi
W �.: c l Y� � s .
: .� F. p � y; R,O
� 'd
+> � �� �! z 'R�O.' �pyd N �,.� °��- '
�.' . � � . � : p.., � C s" a. s
' � � � �� � . ��"�� � O
� �
�� `_ � y �'�" C '�' '� -
. C � 'L', O CC t�
f 4 � F � +r
� ;"a , jd I �. � � � �' �', C .t� 71� �
G:r , � � � �a- . o � ao
;`; � C' • w i ,.
, .: � ' d ..�+ y C9
F. � C:. '� C �
, iie �
�.' � ' I v N "�t � ie : 3" C� � .
F. .� .'- � '' C '. 61; �� Ll.l. G ,0 ' . : ,
� ' .� . i C3 , y O
o � .t�.
�� i : t� _ ,c� o � :�, o y . .
i�' �r;::°�e .� t . 'O : � . ��"�J. r�y. :. •6�l,.'�" � �� .:.� t�iJ �.��. ... .
0i H
!� � '.'•�� .1 �� �. y,:',- E�::. ��r' i-Cs, � .-. t,� .` p D,:��. .. .
� j . p � '� � �7 �. � �' : 0 '„r .; v , w , ,
� � i`� ��: �R o E.� o a : m. ca. o
r�; o o: v.o o�a'ia.-� .... - a�, y u., E'
L: t� �. G±: O�. C' C N �' L - H � O' � C� � L.�.
t � '�° �' � a: :oi�oC.v o�e `� � . vu' w y �6 m '
.� v . ca •; •. y� o� ev. .`' a� �� o v �, ,,
,, {i'° ` c� �e � � a� ,; � E m- � o ,,�y,. �' o ..
S: ;. y ,3 ,; : o� ca: � � p� `��'" �„ �' , : � '. a: o e,, � »., Q,
.-� G
f• :•�v i_ ao•,'<•J�:�`'o?S �c= �.:o c� o�o �� E:: -
t:_ �_..,OC3,�. ,ov J,�..,�.' � C ;.. �...�t� opC. �
,s . m o �' �o ,.., o p c' ' o � �
j� K� � __, .�:�.o �;=�u.� E ' c-�, cv... c, .
i � }.� �o, �_�oE,orac� �n 4 .fl�_�o a.,
E' �o
� W �c �,�a��o-o'.- :o �;�w�;ao: a .
�; � R OC -
� � � c.�� ::: E— _ � °=.v;. a+ �- *- c . uaei E =' ti� °? o'A
} �c: : a�.• �' 'e= a� o� m a' _v � o
� �" � . ' 6D �yd : ... .. 61. W ...+ r. • O.. cC� �p
t .� a �; co,°a.�o: �; � ;a-.co ,Q , � : n; v > u.�.�, cv
� y �:C. . 'a v , c � e�a u '� � sa � 0 3 . �; r"i� �: � 3 a � � � :
� I.� �> o. �? , aai oo+. ��. o��� , a� cu a. aa o
' W i c� r� aC � w u� c� v� OC � � � h- � aC st � �
t _ ce� G�; � ' .
o fi, . . a, .. �+, : �N :
� �..: ? � N� 'Mp '.. �Cf'O �N'
r Qf. N ;. N,� N;:', W N' ' W�.
� � �.. ��,. fWJ�{n ;.NO 1.,d� Q� � �S�'�' �
; aa�.. ao �o xc xo .
;: ". �' j. G=. r a N :. _,: G. N, . ii. N. O. N
j, . _ {. ...'----"--•-•-" __...........`. ._........ . .......��_.._,✓._.«...._..-.._....__�....._._�...�._.......u.__ ...._ ..
� .� �
� bA . ^ '—' � � O .�
..-� '� a'' C�J UA ��.+ e� �
o 'N �' ° � '� •� M a�.�'-� �
� "" �+ c� e� ° • � '-+ � �
� � � • r'�-.+ � � C�i "`''7 O � O
�o � ;-° r ; � � a� �cu � � �
O � >C ~ •� .� � � O � 'U
e� �W 3 �'�0,� 3 ''''�,.�
�
� a.� .� � � � G � °� � �
� ai 'b .� cs `—, w .� � � o �
e� aA
� � .� � °b � � � ?, O °��.+ u
y .� � .� � '� �" O � � 0 O
o � U U
. 0 u�, o ��,, o� w u�"� 'b c
�� .� � 'V_^� � .� � � .,�.'"'• p
tn ai � i�., d- �' � a�..� �' pp
� � L�r aC . �i � � ^ C��J � �i" � -�-1
H a o e� �s � ,-+ � � �
I-176
�
�
W
:�1
[n '^ (1� � L,A �„y �
� �.-�s �+ ^� r O � '�j v-�
O, � a,' Q �'_' a�U.+ � V��O O
� e� �
;- o v�'- � � ° N ,� '� � e� �
� +� � � � � ..� ,,,� � �1, b�A ,V
����� ��>,°e��
U �• r-�i �"i �i aa O � N � V'
v � . � � c�s ^ �+ � '� � � •�
+� ,.
e� p,�'j 3�-+ ��'"H..�^ �,�.�'„� o
� a� ^cy e� y.� H a� �, r
��
�n G s�-� �u �.�. � V v� +�-~+ � � �
0 c�s O�+"'"-+ r..� •� p �� O
u e� u �
y .� � � ^� '� � i y r � �
.--� 0� cn +� p at � cs
�� U� 3 bA e� D�� r'b
;� � � � � •? � � ,.� ,� � p
.1;
sr u O v) O v� •� ,-'�� +..+ C'i
(.L� w U� w cn � c3 ✓ vi v� O �
O
r
z
3
.
W
� � �t y
� � :�� � !e
�� I ' R
�� � � 1 �
c
0
4go;�•.,
4 ; q� a �
I � �a ' a �
N
Q
I �! �I�
IU
s
�,
.�
9�
m
' � w � � � � ��
O Q � • -� +�
• ^ 'U � U '� "'� r � � O C��J
�
O
.t".. � � � f', � '�U N � �-+a � '�' �+ �'
.� � � � �J 9 � � � � � O .� r �
q .� �; o ..� (sl ^� � -.� va? � V ,.y� .� U
e� .� � o �n +� � e� � e�
� o L�i, � � a�i � > p '" � 7, � �' r -�
� �L; � •= � � � w vi �^ � � p .� �
:-� O � �+ :� a.� y :-i V1 cC (� .—i >, �
4�r .i� Gu �� r � N O••-�i •y�".r �J � L'�", �
:-� +-+ � � � � � ,i",�, f.u,"� v�i ' � '��'' ,� O "�
:�
. � � O e"' � � ,��, � 9
� t�/� � l��J � O �p � CNS ;-+ C�J ��y O �'U � �+
. ti � :-� y (J �i �1 ,—�i L�i ^ .� .-Q '--� C� i
c�'3 �� y..�^S 0'U bA � 0^t) "�"c3 c� ��
n., �� � :� � .� ,� � U � � �, �.:.� o
� � � � o � G � r
>.� '_' � u ' � -� c� ° � V � � � =
� c,� � •.. � � � � � .�
"� 0 � c3 U � � O � ,� � O � cs
G >
� U N a, > � � u �.. +� .� a. � �
I-177
'
:a
W
�
T
0
N
c�C O N
� w N N
z � i— r
Q
Z
W = `- r �
� � r
�
¢ r r-
�
�
ea
t�
01.
W
v
S
O
t�
N
�
�
��
r
� y
�°°e
^••. �.v.
O d
� �
� �
C •
O
v
G
G�
�
Ga
W
� N � �
� � ll.� OO
r � ¢ r
O � � o
M , � �
M N X� N
N
�
w
� �? Q� O�
� yN_. Q N
V• � =c O
G W
T � ¢ N
�
N
LL�
�
�
�' L
O C�
N �
� Q
O r.
O r..
O •
N
^�..
N
W
C/�
Q
_
�
C/�
C�
..r
ca
C3
�
'd' s��.
N �
� Q
O
O �
N •
�...
c}'
W
�
_
Om
�
O� N � ..., �
'� '� a'' W � 'C7 � � �, � . � :.� �GV�' . � � x
c�s r�s ��� c�s s-d o N� a.. ^� �
� c�'S V �'�-' � ,�,� � � 'b � y u � GbA'
� "'C� ,� � � t�' ,, . � c� � C1.� � � ....
•� � �'"' � �-� �� sa�.� p �� e�
x e� U � �., � ,.,.., •. � (.� U -�
�•� ��i.�,V O•s,�,�, �� v�,��, � �
�,� �� ��.�� �� �� � v a
�� � � � � y �' � �
� �n ..-� cn ..f� s-' c� � u � � �-+ e�
� � y � :r � � .-Q iU c� O � .�
� � ,� � � -� [� � p � � C.) +�U '•�', r
� �
�
'U N � V�....0 � G !� y- .�y t�� �� +-� ��
•� � '��-+ � � •�^-� � � � � � +�U y � � �
�,.� � � ,.�' ;� 4, cn u a.+ ..fl � � U ' c��
. � � � � v' � �. ,.�, �+ bA � � �U � +�
� �+ `;'' „�S • .�-�'' Ou V V u . 'fa' �, ',., ..� O r+
. .
'�,.�•y � � � �,'"., � o � O v � �,, O U �
•-+ N r
(� C�'3 . � H O `a�A � ..�"•, U i.", ~e3 +�.+ ~t'�S � C"i
I�1/O
�
t0
F�
O.
W
v
2
O
v
O
N
O
N
�
t17
W
t/�
4:
_
G.
m
a
co
.�
�
c
a�
�
�
�
�
�
c „_
o `�--°
� �
c c°
o �
� o
io '�
� O
L �
� �
� �
�
ui c
� �
a �
0
��
•a c
a �
,-� �
cn c
�
E �
� o
� �
� �
N �
�tN �
>, �
� �
c �
ccs .
� �
Q. a.
t= F-
r- CV
N
W
O
Z
�
.ca
x
W
� � �
.� � +� ..� � �� � N
ti ...N.i � c��S . N � �., pj ,.d 'a
�s '� o � � ' �
> � . � >, o � �, c� x •;
O .-. t�n � V �'' ~eC � � cv�
c3 ;c! N � � u � >,
�'� � e�i v a� ;� p r
� � •� � � � � '� v �
�. 'J '� .-� N v G � � '�O
�C � � � GA y � � � Q
:.� � ,a�i � � U y � '�7 ��
� e� O O "� �. � � � �
A �U i1' sy.� a+ `� O �U ��
•� � r � �o�o N'-� �'�
i,J � iJ �i .� � � � ,0 �
' � � � � N . � � '~' "`'� :.C� �
�•'S"�" � � � p � � � ^�
..C:� tSS CCS C3 ^~'� � �+ CS � ...r
E—+ s� ..n �rs H•�,� a� u�
_. �, � __
i ° ;'i
:;,°: ::.3
:;.
�
f , � r7
.e, .y ,j ;N.�''.`�''' .:.3
:s;:„ �'ict'.�i GD:..•�
"�.`.i �.. .::� s ^ ' i
� N �3 ..�
:3 � � +� �.+
� � � w � +—�+ � r � ° � �
�
� r�'3 ~ � ,'�'f"',, � '� p � p H � � � 'U
� � e� � � � � u rn L'�", N ' � � .-�
� � 0 � O '�.p � � � � � O O
r-�'T'ay �'' ;y � � > Q '�' cS w 'T3 "�.�.+ >
� .~^� •� �-~ � � 3^��-� � '''.�
� O � y H . � '""'cs ,;� �A . � .�,� �+-� ""' "L7
�`" c� �' u � :� � c� �
� � � cVs � '�'�'' � vi c�-s � > 5n � o
•� p �� � � � � � U o cs ;� o .�
e� ' -� � ' � r,,, � u � . '�"' -"J � � � �
:�
�„�r J ' �= O r' � ..w.. , � C, V � � O ^
a.� � h =+ �+ �, L�i +-� r�., r'-�i "b � '"� �
''..L U �., ;� ^.3 ,'�yA v� •--� a. � � �' >
u c� '� a' �-� � O e� r.'�, �,yj +-' � p
� ,� -=� 'O ;� > ".� r . � y � v �. '�
�1
� � � � ~ � .� :3 �� .-Ci U � . �? V4:
V c, 3 :� �
I-179
M
r
�i .
i� .-
N : "c
' � i v t .� � �.
. ' Qy,' v ..'+' 3 f �,
..;.. �. . ti': e...:F"...� O _
J
.a
_
W
�
� s�. v� bA'+'�-�
s � � 'v� � O
.� +-� � • ; �.,
e�i� a��i`� � � •�"U
� � � � � � � �
� � �, e�i H '� .� c�
o,-, ,..�
.� "d � .� o o H •� �
�"� � b�A ..� �, L: Q N cn
� e� :.� en "� � :� „� .:i
• � u � c�c � � � +-�
�., �o�� �a�
� �± � � � a,, `", � � u
cJ . � :-� ''"' � �i .0 � L:
,� � c�s �,F; Q, 0 0�..� O
d; �-- an u�� c s�., .� U
� �c � � � O � � _.� �
.a e� �+
�� �i i: [/� ,,,y y r� VJ ...:�
� C� � � � �' ��,, c�s i�r
� � e� e� �'' • � � � �
[—� ",,'7 '�C' � '.�.a H � . '��' �
� �
�O �•G � O
cn � �'i • � r�.,
o u '� c�
a.' � O cc . �
�+ � 'U � u
at ..-� � ..�
� "'� aN., . � 'S:�
o �, .� 3
o� 3 � �,.�
".`�.i s�.� � �
� � u
� � � � � �
o a� � °.� o
,��', � `t3 .� � �
>, � O 'U � "'C7
� � � � � �
O ='' vyi � � �
� u� � v
C� °'tj � c�
H� cuc 'v� u . �
:1
e!'
T
�
�
J._ ��� � . � T� ..
' ,:� 6^ � •t ; � � f''�
�,'U:=�ir_�t' CSt '-f���'' ., ��:...
� ; • � • f ,,, � • �I
. n // \ .
' ,F � ��., ��'� , � r �} ri: ��,"�'`,�
� �. � t � y,
7,4+Y r��"�
S '.%% ' .��� �'.•� h`j,�:. `y��� .t.
�;^hi-r +a::�4 k��::. /�ia' .. ��`'e�:'Sl�j �.,i.,_..
�
�
,.. .
r
""' :'::;
^t7 �, ta
�' �' ..� � � w
� O � � "O a� � � v�
�'..1. +-+ 'U • �' +.�+ S� � � c�G
cs ""O �" u � +-� � rn �
. � ^p r � �CJ O e) � G
> a., � � � � � � ' �
..� .�
c`�G .� N O .� � "�-' v �
� � 0 � � .� � ,o �
'�i � •�� � ,� � � �
� ��� � o � o � U
w �
�'' c� t�I O +-' �' � �,�j -�
v �^�""�'-+w..� � �
�Op � cNv' 'U � ~ °� '�
� � cui � � ° •� �
�•
E-+ ~o � w° � on � o �
� Cj
U
r �,
a
� � � �
� � a.� _O
:.�
� � � b�A
� H o e�
�
o � �
O � .� �
N -� '� '�
� O � '"d
'U �'' . N �U
�, �p � �
,-,.
�
. � ' � -� as
.� CJ
c+-+'3 � � r�?,
•� �' '� O
0
� o � a
� � � � � .�
,� � c� —�" � � �=1 e � N � �
'� o � o ° �� �� ��.�
��' � y G c3 �t-� c3 ^--� +-' N
� u � ^�' � �,� •'�" � � � u-r .� � O
C' J c3 � y,.� a'' Q.� � a.+ �....�
r p cs ,,, O �
v�i C) � c� � �' �.S"„ +� '� ''' H , u .�
� � � p �; � � � .� � � ei � �
a� �,, � v � ;� ' � ''' �p � r o �
� � °U �� ��� � � �a
� --� :.i 'U
W
� N � `C . ; � . � o � e� � s`�-� C.)
�+ O��"s � �U" � � � p'.'��+•��.:
w �� �,.�.� V�.+ �..�.i V �'Z$ t� 2
�r
�pp . � � .� � .� ..'�� H �,+-', � � �
� -" � � � U � " f-1 .� �.° � �
Q
��i:i e� �._� ���' �j �
"J � N
.-� Vi .—� tn O �^� r��' �J �' N t/� � N
r � >+ ...,
a� cr� c� e� N��' o�c, �� o 0
�i � > � � o
•�, •.�, , ^ �. � � W ..� '.4 v v
.� � �
u "U� �
c��s � 'C7 ,� 'b �C,' ;.� w
' v cc v at � �p ...•
. � �,, 'd � c%� u . � �" ,,.�'., ^ �
�, ' 7 c��s �O c�s U � .s". � � �
a�'' ''' •i� � � °� v' ..—t� H •� �
,� , � � e� � ° � �' i W c� . °
� :� ,� �..� � � �
� 'b � � '"O � O � O �ca O �
:� �
-v , � � � -r� � � � ¢.' Q a.� a., H
� �'� 3 ��� >;� � � �W
� � 0 +� 3 •-fl � s"., 'v s`�.� `� �cC
� '� 3 � � � � � � a� . y .�
+� t� p� O w Cn x,,, cJ
c� � `� � �,., e� �. (s+
w � w O � � � � � Q; `� ^O
�
� �' � � o �l s �i+ � � '� �
... a� �a
� ° � � w � �G `a W � e)
•y
� � �
�
o �'��csH(�a� �a �cn
I-182
C� �
� O
� u
�
r�
� ^�
�' y
� o
-o aa
� O
o ;
� ^}
o �
o ;o
N �
� �
�
�
�;,
..... . ..........._... _ ..._.�_......____:......_.._......_. _
r.._..__...... . ,... _._........ . ;
� i • _
, y ; • �
! . .
� :
` i �
• � O O. O.O . C O� O' O O' �.o ";'.
fa o 0 0 0.. o o `O o� o
; .'co �.o o�:�o;o o=:o.. �o o :�.�
' »-� : o , o .; o" o :: o : o . ''� o o �: . �. o :- .: .
( ` .i� ! o. o o: o:.:o:� o,:. o o•: � o�
{ fv i Q O. O O Ca O.. O:,,0 0
� ,i C- ; LA .• CC,` iti N'.�t'� , ta; O� t1� .' € O:
0 �i'.. :�i' �.. .. C:' � 4'� ;. 7"' T �� r' �li �.' t O''
I t� I�, r N � c0 .
� _i ��':
F E ` �
� �
� , �,, : �. .
i o 0 p O:,'O O' O. �O O;� � �:.
i � O. O.O .O O;..O "O O: 4 �'
I , '�. ; Q O:.,O: �' o o "� �• � ' '
. � .� ��` O. O" O. O. O,.O ..0.� �: I �::
` I"�, '�� O O O O,: O.. O O O, F
i W I v. i p'• O: O O, O: O ' 0. �' �. O.'
� C� '� G '• tta : d' ' GO . r� ~ N, ci� . N, M: 0
� i�� f:`.ct'�. t t a•.: CO,�.O. O �- '..d' , tLw:• � C� ;:
( ::� = r 'v t:. ��.. � r. 1� M N :. i ,� •
, f r f, N;
% m � � E, �y,.:'
i � � F
� {
' ��.
{ F y'•y , �' 1
r . C� C :
f f � �N p .. W . � � � ,�.. .
{ � : , N� . v ' r C . . j-:, p,^ ,
� (, O r •O ' G.0 :;. i C�'
f i '� < , �i p . � � p'..
y - tA .,', Nf +. : < "1�'
i ,. y.. ( � '• �N r.� . G� y � ,: G� � , � r,�„ _ �
i C'. 0,. �N ^. y' N� ='.' �11 C� ._ O1 �: . i ny�
� :. � c ':� e�. a : v `�� —� _ � - c c'` 1 E,
n�,. .r.
t '> _ , �. t . Q � . . . �,,.: � ' ;�,;,� � , . cv e� :.':. � ' �
� � � . . � � : � . � � = G � �• , W
E � �. � d - �� .�..: � � Ri;.:.�. � J. rtp ..
� � 0 v .. Le � �... ..� - � . . � . {,� �
s ' .' � : i.. � O r G! .. � ' : O',...
._ �.; a.. a'. t- oc , O �. r- c'2':, v l t- ..
i .: � _
+ ` `
� ._�_._._._. 4:.', ` . ._.._ . __ _.. ._._-•- - _ . _.._� _..__..._. __._.._ � _..._._.._. ...
G �
"� . � +� ^� c.�j o
�����H��
� v� "� U V'1 � O
� Q � � � u� � v
� y y � � � �
O �„ ,� c� � '-, C.� . �
� �.��' �.�� �
� v � c�s � � ,� .�
+-� � '-�{
� U �'� � ci� .-� 0
� � A ..� � � ''''
U � .-fl 0 cn �U '�A ..y-�
;-� �O �.�.""„ . �. .N ..� cn
w v� � ,��^� ��
'� '�A � �' �", Vr n �
`� � � � V j .0 .� .0
� '� "�'' �u p � � c's �
� � � � C.� '�cs � ^O �
� O k� �� O y O
E-i � �-1 � �° .� V a U
:�
�
�
. p �ry '�, "�
a � � a., o �
.� � M V � � �
O "+'�-+ �" �
���V �,� �
o � c� :� � a., o
� A., a � O � �
� "T7
^� r � � � � �
� � � o O � �
�
'U r ^j� O . � V ..r
.S� �U � L1� '�U .i � `��" �1
w, �..n ,., on v U�--�
O � ��.� �
.0 �3 � .� � O O U
� j � � � � � �
� p U :� •.� �c'J ��., �
bA
� c� � y• e� � e� O
E-� ° V .� � � -.� P-+
F�:�3
�
:�
C �p . ,x•
. tn
a � Q.
> �
� � �
� _
� �U
� �
U Ry
� a -�
� ii �
�O „-y,
�y
a � �
o �
�-' c �
otj
c_`a � O
0 o n,
'a "� �
o � �
c °' a=
o � c
co
'� c�u �
L V C
o •Q �
,� a, �
�-- c
— � :�.
� o �
tC3 N
-� � o
N c n
a� �
�j ,� o
o c� �
a. �
¢ � .c
cK> > --
Q O �
0.
� E�
�. �
o y cc
c.a � �
o c�
�•
W c �
H C N
zc.�.i o
0
�w � � ,�
� o � -� :..�
,-" e� e� :-� .�
N � cNc � � .�
� � .� �+ y.,
. ^„ � a. o p �
� ;�' —G � u cs
O � � y � �
e� u � � .� �
.� L: O �' "� �
. � O �., s.,�', "..G�. *'
� D �� � � O
L' .�+
' ,'�V .� :� � �� '�'U
�
C,� � � O �
� � 'v� o Z u
"� ; � � � �
..��"'� Ci'�'�J � � t�.� •-Ni
E-� .� . � � � 'v
�
�
bA � �
� N .� �
s�
� � � O v '� � � Q
� ' � a, � � �" -� N ,� c�s
v � � � x � �
� ��x��.� � � �
.� � t/� � .�-i �.N+ s"� N ;'�'a �
� � ,-� .ti
�•p �p ,3 �� v� '�,•UC�
^C7 � a'' bA � � � '� Z
� � � � � � � � �
C'i SZ, � � � � � �"i p cyC '�U
,.� O cn � Q'' O'V N� �".
� �3� �U � � U �
O '�U �" .v'4,, � C� • � O Q'' •.�
� °' ""'�• `� �., � � '� �., N � p
� � Z u v � � � � �
� � ..fl � '� �J � 'V � � Q tf1
� :� X p p . ^ . � � �r" � t"�..
�, a.� W w a�. u,-n 3�•-+
I-184
1
�+-+ �+ M `—'cC
O � . �', 9 c3
� � "� V�' �n M � . r,
p ^+ N .�, cs .,,�i"., "CJ �U cs
�'� W � � � ��u t�C ,.�� �cs
� � � � � � � �
,� y+U �G� H� n 0�
� .� � '.v-� .,� v a.�'.i N 0
w cn v,
".d' � p `O Vr �U � . �' �
'O .-fl �'" y � � b e� t'�
•9 V� .O '�U U � � .� �
� � � � � i�. w �. �
�.' �, �' � cj `C 3 � .�
c`as � O � � O ,�..� � .� � 'T7
^''-'' U v�" +-' r�y,� s�_� c�s
U � � � � � � � �
Q' `p .'�w+ t�A s�.� C; �' � r c1
�' �n , � � O ",V � n'"j "�
� N r� 'T) � U � ,� � �
O �
j-i �u � w U w �'' � ..r'^-a '.�
z
�
W
�
T
,'
.
e� � --' �
''a"�„ � � J-CS� i
W
� t�' .�' ,�O Ov � ' �
• .-� � �
•—� � tn .-�-� ` i �'i 1-i
yJ y �.� %
� � � V � y� .r"'-, ..fl
' � ' y `^% ..-�i �U � %C
� � � � � � �
C! O O a.,
� V � N � � �
� � O � � � O
� Z � � � � O
r,"?+ W :3 �' �.t.'ti+ �'�' �
O � U � � � '�
cn � c� .�., � ��„ bA
�' � � c� a,, �..' •�
+-� �.' � '� +U t�A ..tn-
a � � � "J�A ..-�"+. X "'�
Y� e� • � � � ,.� v c�
"-�� � � C� : � r �
�'-1 �i � n r �, ��.+ a��"
I-185
�
O~.
W
�i�.
w
�
z
v
0 0 0 0 0
O O O O
O O O O
O O O O
� � N ^
r N T
ifL
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0" o 0
0 0 0 o q
N � � ��Cl �
N� �v. T Q
(A� �
0
o�i o 0 0 0
r� N N N N
o�i o o r�" +"
r N N N N
r� N M eY �
0
O
O
0
O
O
�
fA�
fA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cf
�
N
1A
4
O
r
o�
;a
x
W
C.
.Q
X
W
Qi
T
a
c �
0 .._. N
�i—� � C Cn
� � Q
� � � C
� � .`++ r—� p
O y' _ � � � '"'' �
�N O � CCS C7 � .� � ,��, a. �
Cn � � � � � � � � 0 � �
•� � O O� i w.- CCf t0 >
� c�i� �" C� O� a� O .�' C1 +. C/� O.. �N O
� C i n- O G N � � v +.�-� � d
c.� •
�i
� `o c � a' � � � `c � � c
o-ca c�a a�i cn � � y E c c c� Q. � Q a.�
Q, ¢ � 0 � � � o. � � a� �- � � E w
� ..r -a — > .'.' ao.� o' > � c ca Q o >
�C o N � � = cu c � ,,� • o
c'� � �a d �.c o n- o w o w c � v �.
� Q '� � � � � c�'a Q�, `�° .j '� 0 � �'-� � �
Q � � O
•� cC1 CCf �'y � � � � � W �C� Q C � CCS
p � fU C � �.�. � O � C � �.—� C s— O � �"
� � C .� O cCf � � O � � � O G � p �
'� �i � O Z U � �t �'�L � caC � c.a w Z J c>
� ct ne o d a. cn a. � t— o v� c� v� Q a. ct
� � � a'S � v � ¢ a' 00 ¢ ua v w � � v
c� Z � J
O �
� �
a..� O � A '� '� >,
� �+ � ti � p � ...a„�.
L�% O �i
� . � L"S � i..� ! N .�
� 0 U vNi G O C! � � 'r��,,
C� � C J "� -r-� � ,/� �
U � � � �
� �w c� �.�'x °
:� � v� ,� � � �
� � � . � e� .� � p , O
�. 7, � ,�, > � :� � �
� u1 ' � � ( y O � cs
o� � 3 � x� K, k
N X� �n "� c� u N�J
� � � � "'� � � � bq C�
� � � � �
� � � � X O c� � �-'
� +� J � 'U U > � v�-a
:..+ r.. � .�.. '.0 ...� „�
.��,.. �J ��'' :� '� "' J � •-�
`.:-+ � :n .^. w U '� v�
O � � ,� H ' ^ � ;,�„�,� •� �
V '' � � .~�.. � +-� y � n
'� p ,� � � �, N � �
� 5�� � � i � u � �
_ I�186
� '.
0
N �. .
Comments on Environmental tmpact Statement
These comments were generated from my attendance at the January 18, 1996
meeting heid at Washbum I-Tigh School. After reviewing the EIS and attending the Public
Hearing on the same topic several questions have not been sufficiently answe�ed by the
EIS.
1. The EIS does not specify the cost of recovery and build down of the current
site. Without this information assessing the environmental impact and the cost
benefit re(ationships of the proposed new site are impossible. The EIS vaguely
references this subject by stating, any added land va(ue for current properry owners
at MetropoGtan Airport will be offset by the cost of environmental ctean-up.
Queries: Clean up of what? At what sites at MSP does the pollution exist? Fiow
long will the toadns persist? Does the alleged pollution negate any or all forms of
redevelopment?
The informarion provided in the EIS does not adequately explain these
re(ationships and therefore does not meet State and Federa! law for the
development ofEIS.
2. The EIS has inadequately outlined an issue idenrified at the January I8, 1996
Public Hearing of the third pazallel runway at MSP. Commissioner i3inile
� demurred a third parailel runway wotild be needed around the year 2020. It does
� not appear in the EIS under the assumption it might be built in 2021 or 2025.
Because of the long time lines for completing any airport related construction
project it is necessary to place this probabte construction project within the current
EIS because it directly impacts currem decision-making about retocating or re-
building MSP. Additionally, because this would be a time critica! project for MSP
planning would necessarily begin before the end of the time horizon of 2020. Just
as the EIS has looked at future re(ocation at the current site of terminal building,
from the east side to the west side of the airport, so too is it necessary to address a
third pazallel runway.
A.
B.
A. See General Response 1.
B. See Generai Response 5.
Queries: What are the enviranmental resources disturbed by the building of a thicd
pazallet runway? Where would it be tocatedl How many, institudons, homes and
families would be relocated by the consuuction? What would be the cost of a C. C. See Generai Response 5 and Finai AED, MSP Long-
third runway? Would the current MSP planning allow for expaasion withiu the Term Comprehensive Pian.
currem footprint? What safery zones would 6ave to be established to compty with
FAA cegulations?
I-187
3. The additional report generated concerning a remote tunway site, teaves the
[anta(izing idea that the idea is feasible, but more costly. The EIS does not specify
the location of the remote runway site and hence does not indicate the cost of the
impacts on the site. The failure to address this issue leaves a gap in the ETS
planning. Comparison of sites and attendant costs is a primary concem to making
an informed decision. The EIS does not inform the public or decision makers of
the comparative values and impacts of the various sites.
Queries: What is the cost of social, environmental and construction at a specific
remote runway site? How does the remote cunway site differ from the Eiastings
site or MSP? Why aze there significant differences in the cost estimates, in the
supplemental report from April, 1995, between the hypothedcal remote site and
the Hasrings site and the re-build at MSP? [The estimates differ by more tt�an
$500,000,000. The supplementai report contains lower numbers than the EIS.]
4. In light of recent expansion of flight activity at MSP aze EIS estimates accurate
enough for predictive va(ue when the document assumes onty 100,000 more take-
offs and landings between 2000 and 2020 when 100,000 more take-offs and
landings occurred between 1989 and 1945.
Queries: How would overcrowding at MSP affect passenger and surrounding
community safery? Do FAA regulatioas impact surrounding communities and
clients of MSP in the event of overcrowding? Would this necessitate the
consavction of a third pazallel runway within the 2020 time horizon?
Atl these questions have either not been answered or inadequately addressed in the
draft EIS. Adoption of this EIS woutd foolishly waste an opportunity to reasonably and
prudendy plan for expansion of MSP, relocation of the airpoct to Hastings or the
development of remote runways. The legislature in 1989 wanted thorough planning
process to be established without pre-decermining an outcome. By failing to reasonabty
and prudemly study the costs and impacts of the proposals on the table, oniy the status
quo offers a legally viable aitemative. Challenges from othec stakeholders will a�x the
imprimatur of righmess onto the current site without serious consideration of alternatives.
The flaws within the dcaft EIS make necessary further study and revisions to reasonahiy
compaze and conuast the opdons available to us. These same opdons will not be thece in
five or ten yeais, certainly not in twenty-five yeacs. In those future ticne &ames only
desauction of existing communities will provide space for a new or expanded airpoR.
Submitted 6y. Greg Bastien, 2709 East Minne6aha Pazkway, 722-7582, Chair of the
Nokomis East Steering Committec.
I-188
�. D. A specific site and related impacts were not
addressed because the concept was determined
infeasible. See Section III.C.3.
E. ( E. See Generai Responses 4 and 5.
/, . �
' �:�� : � �SIERRA CLU�
��: � ' '„� North Star Chapcer
►SIERRA ,�/,L�-;
y};'LUH � W �
'�a«�x�,
Ms. Jenn Unruh
Metropolitaa Airports Commission
6040 28th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55450
Dear Ms. Untvh,
7anuary 15, 1996
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) for the Dual Track Airport Planning Process. The Metropolitan Aicports Commission
(MAC) has certainly produced an impressive document to conclude this multi-yeaz, $10
million dollar study oE two alternatives: expansion of Minneapolis-Saint Paul (MSP) airport
and construcdon of a new airport.
'ihe Mianesota L.egislature recognized the need to examine altematives to meet the long-
term aic transportadon needs of the Twm Cities metropolitan azea, and estabtished the Dual
Ttack Airporc Planning Process in the Metropolitan Airport Planning Act of 1989. The
alternatives to be examined included both the auport, improvements and enhancements of�
capacity necessary at the e�stent airport (MSP), and the location and development of a new
replacement aitpo�t, in addition to the No Acdon attemative and other reasonable
alternatives.
Reasonabte Alternatives
I do not see that "other reasonable altematives" were seriousty considered. Perhaps this is a
result of a fiawed process. Certainly the goals adopted by the Meaopolitan Council (Page
- II-1) to direct the development and evaluation of aitematives focused strictly on aviauon
systems and so(utions.
'ii�e problem is that transportation problems can only be solved by integrating modes of
transportation. Cars, buses, trains, and airplanes cairy peop(e and cargo across America.
The successful and efficient sotution to future aansportation needs exploiu the strengths
while minimizing the wealmesses of each mode.
For example, the High-Speed Intercity Rail alternative was eliminated after Mn1DOT
performed a study in 1991 on the implications of high.speed rail on air traffic in the
Minneapolis-Saint Paul, Madison, Milwaukee and Chicago corridor. Results of the study
were that the rail services would not divert enough passengers and operations by the yeaz
2020 to preclude a new runway and terminal at MSP. The conctusioa flies in the face of
reality when Europe and Japan aze pouring billions of doliars into high-speed rail. Certainly
one high-speed rail line from Minneapolis-Saint Paul to Chicago would not impact
passengers and operations at MSP but a s ste of high:speed rail across the upper
Midwest (especially when integrated with a system of h�gh-speed rail covering the entire
United States) would seriousty diveR passengec tra�c Erom MSP. Both Europe and Japan
aze rushing to develop such a nationwide system of high-speed cail which always begins
with one main line and additiona( cities being added one at a time. These high-speed rail ,
systems are not oaly populaz but use energy more efficientiy than air travel. In the future� ',
we can expect our two main economic competitors to have sigaificantiy tower intemal
transportation costs than the United States. Obviously, high-speed rail is a"reasonable
altemative" in Japan and Europe.
(over)
�` C'! 1313 Fifth Stmt SE, Suite �3Z3 • MinneapoGe, MN 55414 •(612) 3�9�3853
I-189
/� A. Evaluation of a system of high speed rail across the
upper midwest or throughout the United States is
beyond the scope of this project. The initiative to study
and impiement such a system must occur at a multi-
state or nationai level, and there is no indication that
this will occur in the foreseeable future. A high speed
raii system is therefore not a feasible alternative to the
expansion of MSP.
t could also comment on the elimiaation oE the Supplementai Airport altemadve, but such
an exercise would be fxuitless. The Dual Tcack Airport Planning Process is much too faz
aloag and too much money has been spent to modify the process. However, if you check
your files, you will see that a request to consider an intermodal solution (integrating the
supptemental airport concept with a high-speed rail system to minimize passenger and
cargo traffic at MSP) to solve the transportation needs of the Twin Cities throu�;h 2020 was
raised by the Sierra Ciub through oral and written testimony on a numher of occasions. The
refusal to consider an intermodal sotudon puts into question the vaiue of this Draft EIS.
Comments
But, this Draft EIS is what we have and the Governor has requested a recommendation
&om MAC by Match 1Sth. So let me commeat on data inctuded in this Draft EIS.
• The EIS underestimates the urban sprawl that will be generated by the construction of a
new airport in Dakota County. Construction of highways has generated urban sprawl in
every ciry in the United States making any claim of restricted development not credib(e.
Land use plans and wning practices change over time, usually as a result of powerfut
lobbying by development interests. Note that 13 municipalides will have ro change their
existing or planned land use should a new airport be constructed in Dakota County. Plans
put forth by the Metropolitan Council ctaimiag to control development azound a new airport
wilt also change over time, resuiting in more and more urban sprawl. A study of the
consavction of Housron Intercontinentai Airport in Texas and the resultant exp(osion of
urban spraw( nocthward &om downtown Houston all the way to the new airport and then
beyond to Humble illusuates what will happen here in Dakota County. Trave! times to a
new airport in Dakota County listed in the Draft EIS aze very optimistic. The commudng
time to Houston Inteccontinentai Airpott (where I used to live) was about 25 minutes &om
downtown jusc after construcsion of the airporc, but with the expansion of existing suburbs,
consavction of businesscs, aad new housing developments along the highway feading ro
Houston Intercontinental, the travel time, during rush hour, from downtown Houston rose
to 60 minutes. That eight-lane &eeway connecting a Dakota County airport to the Twin
cities will be a parking lot for cazs, during rush houc, within ten years.
• The total bill for a new airport presented in this EIS needs to modi6ed to iac(ude:
- cost of auxiliary infrasuucture devetopments associated with this urban spcawl
- long term loss oE income to the State whenever farmland is removed from production
(income produced not oaly by the 17,000 acres in Dakota County that will be tost but also
the fazmland lost to associated urban sprawl)
- long tetm loss associated with the destruction of 6,865 acres of wiidlife habitat (loss oF
hunting opportunities, decline of wildlife populations, quality of life issues associated with
the loss of open spac�, etc.)
- tong term costs associated with the extta 4,021 tnns of CO emissions produced by a new
airport (human health problems caused by environmental pollution, earth heating effects
caused by CO emissions, etc.) . . . • . .. ' . '
. .. . . . .
... . . . . • _ .
Conciusion • ... ' ... . ... . ' .
The Siena Ctub prefecs transportation facilities which encourage desirable tand-use :
patterns: We want to encourage those modes oEtransportationwhich aze most economical •
of energy, land, and resources, and least polluting; under these criteria, urban mass-transit
aad milroads aze desirabte modes.
This Dtafr EIS for the Dual Track Airport Planning Process studies a very narrow segment
of transportation issues - build a new airpoct oc expand the current airport. The amount of
time and money spent on this Draft EIS necessitates dealing with the results.
The Sierra Club cannot support the construction of a new airport in Dakota County. The
Sierrs Club caa suppo►t the iastitution of transportation plarining process which takes a.
unified, comprehensive view of all transpoctation modes, allowing selection of the mode
most suitabte for a given task. The Sierra Club sees the revitalization of the nation's "
railroads as a possible altemative to expansion of the current Minneapolis-Saint Pau!
�� '
Sincerely,
��� i ,/�G�i%f/�...�'!'r .��'G� ' ' . .. . . -
Mazk.Warhoi; Conscrvation Chair c.:::••. : •-•.. . ...
Saint.Pant Group • . . .. •
• .. . . ' .�• . . , .
�-190
C.
B. See General Response 1.
C. See Generai Response 1.
To: Metropolitaa Airporta Commiseion (MAC)
Federal Aviation Adminiatratioa (FAA)
Fsom: South Metropolitaa Airport Action Council (SMAAC)
Subject: Draft Environmeatal Impact Statameat (DEIS)
The South Metropolitan Airport Action Council is submitting
the following comments in response to the "Draft
En*�ironmental Impact Statement" prepared by the MAC and the
FAA.
Ecoaomica
1. SMAAC challenges the assumptions regarding increases in
future takeoffs and landings at MSP. While takeoffs and
landings (operations? have grown by approximately 100,000 in
the past six years and have more than doubled over the past
23 years, the DEIS assumes that operations will grow by only
45,000 over the next 25 years. This means that, while
operations have-been increasing 10% every three years over
the past 10 years, the MAC predicts only 9.6% growth ove=
the next 25 years.
a. Instead of basing all the economic studies on these
growth projections, which may be dangerously low, we would
like to see a range of projections. At the very least, we
urge a comparison of the "low growth" figures in the DEIS
with projections based on the historical growth figures from
the past 20-25 years.
b. If historical growth projections are used, MSP will
need much more capacity than is required by the DEIS
predictions. How do you intend to solve this dilemma of
either slow growth or lack of capacity in the future if you
decide against a new airport?
2. SMAAC is concerned that the DEIS does not adequately
address the problems of congestion and time delays at the
expanded MSP site.
a. If all proposed MSP improvements are made, when
would gridlock occur? (Under the assumption that historical
20 year 5% yearly average growth continues at MSP and
national demand for airport capacity continues at is
histo=ic pace.) (ref. future needs, p. i)
b. The present highway network already experiences
overcrowded conditions at peak periods. Distances may be
short to MSP, but how much time will it take to drive in and
out of an expanded MSP versus a new airport?
c. Airplanes are presently delayed in their takeoffs
and landings. What are the differences between an expanded
MSP and a new airporC regarding these delays? What are the
economic effects of delay?
d. Are the costs of delay factored into the total cost
calculations of airport options (existing airfield cost $66
million/year, MSP alternative saving $29 million/year, new
airport saving $58 million/year)?
e. Compare the parking access at each of the
alternative sites.
B.
' Cr.
' D.
E.
F.
3. An airport limited in size and dominated by one carrier
denies consumers a competitive market in which Co purchase
transportation services. In your study there is no mention
o£ the premium price paid by travelers at MSP. There have
been GAO and DOT comparisons of pricing at monopoly and G,
duopoly hubs. we believe such figures should be included in
the economic data comparing an expanded MSP (still a
monopoly hub) with a new airport, which would allow
competitive pricing.
I-191
A. See General Response 4.
B. See U.S. EPA Response B and General Response 4.
C. The travel time analysis presented in 5ection V.W.1 of
the DEIS took into account congestion on the roads leading
to and from the airport terminai areas for the No Action, MSP
and New Airport Altematives. This information can be found
in Tables W-4, W-8 and W-13 in the DEIS. Travei times on
airport property are essentialiy the same for each project
alternative.
D. Figure 4 of the DEiS compared delays and costs
savings.
E. Costs of delay are inc�uded in Section II, Purpose and
Need, but not in the cost of construction.
F. Internai site circulation is simi�ar under both the MSP
and New Airport aitematives.
G. Analysis of airline industry trends indicated that
monopoly pricing is an undefined issue. Since NWA
competes with other airlines on a route-by-route basis, there
wili be considerabie variability in the cost of air fares from
MSP for any given route over time. The fares that NWA
charges are a function of its competitive position with other
airiines along specific routes. For exampie, if NWA reduces
fares to compete with another airline on a given route, fares
for other NWA routes may need to be increased to recover
lost revenue. Also, potentiai differences in fares from
Minneapolis are partiaily offset by improved convenience, as
hub airports provide direct service to many national and
worid destin- ations with far fewer connections. For
comparison with the New Airport Altemative, see General
Response 1.
4. The MSP site includes approximately 3,100 acres for
operations. The buffer zone includes rivers, a VA Hoapital,
a national cemetary, the 494 commercial strip, many
Minneapolis parks and lakes, schools, churches, thousands of
homes and a quarter of a million residents.
The DEIS does not acknowledge or take into
consideration the additional land in Minneapolis that would
have to be acquired to accomodate the expansion of the
airport. To increase the operational site at MSP
necessitates a buyout. Most of this property belongs to the
City of Minneapolis.
a. Please calculate the real cost (tax loss, social
costs, relocation cost, soundproofing, a new noise print,
etc.) of such a buyout. What is the real price tag
difference between a new airport and an expanded MSP?
b. Will the City of Minneapolis and the MAC implement
a buyout guarantee for homes, churches, and apartment
buildings if they endorse the expanded MSP option?
5. The 1991 MAC study "Preliminary Selection of an Airport
Development Concept for the Long Term Comprehensive Plan��
included a$3 billion noise mitigation figure. We do not
see this figure in the DEIS. Why not? Please let us know
the updated figures for noise mitigaCion.
6. The new airport alternative includes 17,000 acres of
farmland. The operational site consumes approximately 5,000
acres of this total. Why are the remaining 12,000 acres
iserving as a buffer� lost to farm production?
7. Re. cost calculations, why wasn'C the income from
selling off the oresent airport land taken into account, as
was done in Denver? Why wasn't the airport trust fund
offset cost included in the calculation of the cost of the
Rosemount option?
8. The general public is told that a new airport is too
expensive. Please explain the funding of a new airport
compared to an expanded MSP. Who pays the cost for either
of these alternatives? What are the financial commitments
required by the general public?
�"�. H. All land to be acquired for the expansion of MSP is
identified in the FEIS. An estimate of land that the city
of Minneapolis may decide to redevelop for commercial
uses is also identified in Section V.0.1.2.
�. I. Capital costs were developed to identify the
approximate level of costs associated with
implementation of the 2020 plan. As design of individu<
facilities move forward, more refined costs wili be
J. developed. Estimates of acquisition and relocation cosi
are inciuded in the cost estimates.
K. J. See Generai Response 2.
K. The S3 billion cost was developed through the
MAC's Interactive Planning Group (IPG). It reflects
projects identified by participating jurisdictions to
ameliorate possibie noise impacts. These projects were
L. not necessarily based on federai or state criteria, and
were not endorsed by MAC. See General Response 2 fc
the committed noise mitigation measures.
M. L. For conservative analysis purposes, the DEIS
assumed aII land within the airport 6oundary would be
removed from production.
9. wisconsin will receive economic benefits having a major
airport near their border if an airport is built near
Hastings. Will they share the costs of building the O
airport? Has discussion of a joint Wisconsin/Minnesota new
airport alternative been considered? If not, why not?
10. What is the long-term cost of the no-action
alternative? If the number of operations grows much more
quickly than MAC predicts and it is found after 10 or 15
years that a new airport is needed, what would the cost of
land and facilities be then?
Social
l. If MSP is expanded (chart 0-2, page v 114 and v 122),
the city of Minneapolis suggests 24 blocks south of Lake
Nokomis be re-zoned commercial. Why isn't the resulting.
displacement of those 580 homes included in the executive
summary under the expand MSP displaced homes tally?
M. See General Response 1.
N. See the report, "Financial Analysis of Dual Track
Alternatives", John F. Brown Company, Inc., February
73, 1996, which is available at MAC and FAA offices.
O. See Generai Response 1.
P. P. See Section 11.8.1.4 and General Response 4.
Q. They are inciuded under Induced Socioeconomic
tmpacts.
Q. R. The totai disptacement of homes based on
commerciai redevelopment near the new west terminal i
anticipated to be 796 units. These units are ali currentl�
heavily impacted by noise, lying inside the DNL 65 noise
contour. The estimated size of this area is 3.9 acres.
2. What is the total acreage and number of homes currently There is expected to be a demand for commercial uses
zoned residential to be re-zoned commercial or industrial when a new west terminai is buiit. The area northwest
under the expand MSP plan? Is there a demand for that
commercial property? Why is the area southeast of MSP so R. of MSP has historicaily been residential and consistent
heavily commercial and the area northwesC so heavily with the city's comprehensive plan, whereas the area
residential? south of MSP relates to the i-494 commerciai strip, in
accordance with the Bloomington comprehensive plan.
I-192
Safety
Safety is a concern for residents living close to an
airport, as this is where most accidents occur.
1. The proposed North/South runway could be a disaster
waiting to happen. The commercial area to the south is
densely populated. Per FAA testimony, taxiing problems $.
exist at the north end of such a runway; there is not enough
room for large planes to taxi without creating a safety
hazard to the parallel runways. Please provide ua with the
FAA's position on the building and use of such a runway.
2. An expanded MSP with increased operations will add to
the daily threat for many citizens surrounding the airport.
A Eatal crash occurred a few weeks ago (1/29/96) in
Nashville, two miles £rom the end of a runway. There have
already been airplane crashes in Minneapolis. The most
dangerous points of a trip are take-offs and landings. MSP
has very dense residential neighborhoods at the end of
runways, making the risk of killing people on the ground
greater in any plane crash.
MnDOT requires safety zones off ends of runways, but
that requirement has been "waived�� in already-built-up urban
areas. As a result, there is no buffer zone at the ends of
runways at MSP. Schools, hotels -- the Mall of America --
are all situated dangerously close to the present airport.
a. Have you calculated the possibility of an air crash
near the present site?
b. Have you calculated the damage and loss of life
which would occur if various types of planes crashed on
Cake-off or landing at MSP as compared to a new airport?
Finai FAA approval of the MSP Airport Layout Pian
�) and Airspace have progressed along with the
ronmentai process. To date, FAA's evaluations have
d that the recommended north-south Runway is a safe
feasible concept.
The proposed runway wili be designed and constructed in a
manner consistent with ali FAA specifications and
regulations. This inciudes adequate taxiing aliowance to
avoid any possible interterence with the funcGoning of other
runways and taxiways.
The north-south runway wili also be designed with runway
protection zones (RPZs) in accordance with state and FAA
standards and regulations. The RPZs prohibit construction
of buiidings, structures or other appurtenances within their
boundaries and are time proven to provide protection for
applicabie areas. In this case, severai of the existing
commercial buildings located south of the new runway must
be removed in order to provide for the RPZ.
T. T. The MAC has not specifically calculated the probability
of an aircraft accident at MSP nor estimated damage that
could occur from an accident off-airport. The probability of
an air crash at MSP is extremeiy low and di�cult to quantify.
The Current national commercial carrier rate for serious
accidents is approximately 0.08 per 100,000 departures.
Most of these accidents occur on airport property. Although
there is no way to eliminate the risk of air accidents around
airports, both the MAG and the FAA are con- tinuaily working
to ensure that the airport is designed and operated to be as
safe as possible.
3. The DEIS notes (p.v 41) the potential for aircraft To enhance the protection of people and property on ttie
striking birds and that this is a safety concern, especially ground, the FAA requires Runway Protection Zones (RPZs)
when the aircraft is below 500 feet . An expanded MSP would V. at the end of each runway. For air carrier runways with
route thousands of flights over Mother' s Lake, with almost instrument approaches, these RPZs extend approximateiy
half below 500 feet . Just beyond Mother' s Lake are densely one-half mile from the end of the runway. There are no
populated residenCial neighborhoods . How do you intend to residential ro erties within any RPZ at MSP.
mitigate Chis safety hazard? P P
Noise Pollutioa
An expanded MSP guarantees that serious noise problems will
conCinue to exist. Although Stage II planes are scheduled
for a phase out, more operations will produce extended
periods of constant noise. This scenario will never be
compatible with quality living. And it subjects each person
in the noise zone to a health hazard.
1. What guarantee does MAC give that we will actually have
an all stage III airport by the year 2,000? We believe such
a guarantee is necessary, since the MAC is currently
lobbying the Minnesota Legislature to be released from the
provisions of Sen. Mondale's bill (i.e. prohibiting �/,
construction of the north/south runway until all aircraft
are stage III) (ref. noise, p.iv)
2. The DEIS citea studies re. the impact of noiae on birds
(page v-31) but does not include any reports of noise
effects on humana. The=e are well-known studies on sleep
disturbance, blood pressure increases, physiological and W
psycological effects on humans caused by noise pollution.
we requeat medical data on the health damage sustained by
persons e�cpoaed to loud and frequent noise over many years.
I-193
State safety zones extend past the RPZs to further controt
development on the ground. The aiignment of the north-
south runway was shifted slightiy during the pianning phase
in order to ensure that the Mall of America site would be
located outside the state safety zones. Existing
development in state safety zones is grandfathered by state
law.
U. ANOMS deta for 1994 indicated that approximately
25% of arrival tra�c utiiized Runway 11 R and 25% of
departure traffic using Runway 29R (these flights are directiy
over Mother Lake). The proposed north-south runway will
maximize departures to the souih and arrivais from the
south. Therefore, overail runway use for 2005 is projected to
decrease the tra�c directiy over Mother Lake as a result of
the proposed north-south runway. In 2005 the modeled
runway use aliowed for 16% arrivals and departures over
Mother �ake. The DEIS indicates that monitoring and
controi efforts are being maintained to ensure that goose
flights into MSP conUnue to be minimal.
V. No airport has a guarantee that carriers will have an
ail-Stage 3 fleet by 2000. The north-south runway wili not be
wmpleted until 2002-2003. The FAA has expressed an
unwillingness to grant waivers to carriers beyond 2000. The
FAA has denied ail waiver requests for meeting interim
Stage 3 requirements to date. The airiines are ahead of
schedule to date and NWA has publicly stated it does not
plan to seek a waiver.
W. See Jeff Schneider Response F b).
X. The �umber of nighttime operations will increase
3. Would the expanded MSP or no action options necessitate over time (as will #he number of daytime operations).
increased operations Chroughout the 24 hour period? What X. MAC wiil continue to encourage airiines to keep flights
guarantees do we have that the current quiet hou?s during late-night hours to a minimum. See Generai
(midnight to 5 a.m. ) will continue to be observed. Response 2.
4. Will the city of Minneapolis implement a program of
notifying potential buyers of the noise environment and
consequences of moving into the Ldn 65 zone? (Re. Table
A.3-9 footnote #1)
5. When church services are interrupted by overflying
aircraft hundreds of people are affected. The interruption
of a worship service, wedding, funeral, etc. is a far more
serious disruption than the annoyance of an individual
watching T.V. or talking on the phone at home. We suggest
that the MAC needs to reexamine its policy on church noise
insulation and urge that churches be insulated at the same
time as adjacent homes.
5ite Selectioa
Sandy Greive commented that the issues deciding the airport
decision will be economics and convenience. The site
selected for a new airport is the most inconvenient .
allowable in the Dakota Search Area (Figure W-12).
1. The distance to the Aastings site was never seriously
mentioned when the site was studied but is now being brought
into question. Why was this crucial matter never discussed
when the site was chosen?
2. Why was the more convenient western section of the
search area not selected?
Coaclusion
A new airport would:
1. Assure that we have operational capacity to meet the
transportation and economic challenges well into the next
century.
2. Assure we have sufficient acreage to minimize traffic
congestion and delays both in the air and on the ground.
3. Assure that additional gates, runways and maintenance
bases can be constructed for competing airlines.
4. Assure that we can resolve the serious noise, safety and
health threats created by an airport.
It is impossible for an expanded MSP to ever provide these
assurances. Expansion: •
1. Threatens us with economic disaster if a$3 billion
investment proves inadequate.
2. Threatens the safety of people living and working at the
south end of a new North/South runway.
3. Threatens south Minneapolis with catasCrophic social and
environmental damage if a third parallel runway is built.
4. Does not meet two stated Planning Goals:
* Number 1"Develop airport facilities to meet future
aviation needs, to provide enhanced levels of air service
and to further the economic development of the State of
Minnesota.
* Number 6"Develop the airport and airport vicinity
to minimuize and reduce adverse aircraft noise and other
environmental effects.
Y. ( Y. See General Response 2.
Z. The guidelines estabiished through the Part 150
process are primarily based on FAA guidelines. These
guidelines recommend that churches located within the
Z. 65 to 70 DNl should be insulated to achieve noise level
reductions (outdoor to indoor) (NLR) of 25 d6 and thosi
churches located within the 70 to 75 DNL should
achieve NLR of 30 dB. See General Response 2.
Al�
BB
AA. it was one of the factors/criteria considered. See
Final AED, New Airport Site Selection Study.
BB. See Final AED, New Airport Site Selection Study.
I-195
Jean Wagenius � ;�-�°'a Minnesota
State fiepreaentative � ' ._,�.
��� ,��~ House of
Distriet 63A tQ,.�
Hennepin Counry �.k.�' Repl'ES(,'Iltc`it1V@S
COMMf1TEES; ENVIRONMENT AND NATURA� RESOURCES, VICE-CHAIR;TAXES. SAIES AND INCOME TAX DIVISION;
TRANSPORTATION ANO TRANSIT; INTERNATIONAI TFAOE AND EFANOMIC OEVELOPMENT;
LEGISLP.TIVE COMMISSION ON WASTE MANACaEMENT. COCHAIR
January 29, 1996
Jeffrey W. Hamiel
608 Spring Street
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Dear Mr. Hamiel:
The principal reason that the legislature enacted the
ai=port planning process was to ensure that Minnesota had
su£ficient air infrastructure to allow us to participate in the
national and international economy. The former management of
Northwest Airlines had told legislative leaders and others that
the state needed to set aside land for a replacement airport.
The unanswered question at the time was when it would be
necessary and wise to invest in a new site.
Specifically, MAC's "economic" study and the environmental
impact statement both assume 520,000 operations for the year
2020. Even though this projeation is only a little more than two
years old, it is woefully ofP base. The actual number of
operations for 1995 is more than the operations MAC projected for
the year 2000>
In 1989 when the planning process started our airpor� had
374,744 operations. In 1995 it is estimated that there were
475,000 operations, a 100,000 operations increase in six yearse
Since MAC projects 520,000 operations for the year 2020, its
projections only nrovide for 45 000 additional onerations for the
next 25 vears!
The addition of a short north-south runway buys another
80,000 operations thus allowing 600,000 operations a year. With
the north-south runway we will have the ability to add 125,000
operations over the next 25 years. Thus over the next 25 years
we will be able to grow only a bit more than we did in just the
last six years. Since there is no room at the current site for a
second new runway MAC is in effect placinq a cap on Minnesota's
economic growth.
We have heard the arqument that wa can't make straight line
projections based on tha last six years. Of course we can't.
The point is that we won't even have the infrastructure available
that will allow us to grow significantly more over the next 25
years than we have in the past six.
We have also heard the argument that these last six years
have been "special" and the same circumstances won't occur again.
Just two years ago when MAC redid it's projections it was not
abla to sea tha ��special" circumstances. How MAC can now
catego=ically state that nothing "special" will happen in the
next 25 years is a mgstery.
%�. � A. See Generai Response 4.
aBW t ttl� Avenue Sau1h. MMneepdie. MMneaote 55417 18121822 �347
Su�• Offiee Bixidn9. f00 Conetlqrtbn Ava. SI. Peul. Minna�ptg 5$155-1298 (6121298-4200
FAX (612) �H-1583 i OD (8721298�•9888
.,�.
I-196
Page 2
January 29, 1996
Some have speculated that while we can only add a north-
south runway to the current airport site, the MAC could acquire
additional lands. In fact NWA proposes that, in the future, the
MAC acquire an additional 2000 acres and another runway. If
there is the unspoken assumption that we can add an additional
runway, then you must be up front with Minnesotans. Could it be
done? would it be safe? What is the additional cost? Does the
City of Minneapolis know what Mr. Glumack�s buyout of South
Minneapolis will cost? our constituents will be well
compensated, but what about those left behind? Only when we hava
these facts in hand can we honestly compare alternatives.
Another extremely troubling aspect of MAC�s planning process
is the "economic" study. It has two fundamental problems. one,
it was supposed to be the most important document in the planninq ' C�
process. Yet it didn't even attempt to address such questions
as:
1) which Minnesota businesses are expanding? Which are
not? What impact does this expansion and receding have
on our need for infrastructure?
2) What is the cost to the Minnesota business community of
the monopoly prices that NWA can charge because there
is no room here for real competition? What is the
impact on our business climate? What is the potential
--, economic loss from holding capacity below demand?
�
,( �) Will businesses choose to locate or expand here if they
I must pay monopoly prices? Will business choose to
locate here if there is no room to grow?
4) Can this airport act as a"growth pole?"
5) A constrained airport produces substantial delays.
What is tha cost of delay to Minnesota businesses?
What is the cost for passengers and airlines?
Secondly, the researchers that produced "economic impact"
study never, in the course of their work, discovered that real
airplane trafPic was running substantially ahead of projections.
How can that be? They didn't make the discovery because they
used the projections given to them by the MAC and never did any
real economic analysis, they just projected where growth would be
given the MAC's projections.
B. The DEIS compared the environmental impacts of
the recommended MSP option with the recommended
new airport option. The pians were designed to meet
2020 requirements as stipulated in the legislation. A
fifth runway at MSP is not required to meat 2020
demand and was therefore not incorporated into the
recommended development concept. Should a fifth
runway be desired beyond 2020, a separate technical
and environmental study would have to be undertaken to
determine its feasibility. See General Response 5.
C. See Generai Response 6.
D. Analysis of airline industry trends indicated that
monopoly pricing is an undefined issue. Since NWA
competes with other airlines on a route-by-route basis,
there will 6e considerable variability in tha cost of air
fares from MSP for any given route over time. The fares
that NWA charges are a function of its competitive
position with other airlines along specific routes. For
example, if NWA reduces fares to compete with another
airline on a given route, fares for other NWA routes may
need to be increased to recover lost revenue. Aiso,
potentiai differences in fares from Minneapolis are
partially offset by improved convenience, as hub airports
provide direct service to many national and worid
E. � destinations with far fewe� connections.
F. � E. See General Response 1.
F. The MSP Alternative is considered adequate to the
year 2020. See Section II.B.1.4 for a discussion of
delays and costs. These costs are based on average
actual airline operating costs. The costs of airline delays
�'a. (and delays due to highway congestion) to businesses
and passengers were not quantified because they are
very subjective.
G. See General Response 4.
The questions about the role that expanded or constrained
airport infrastructure plays in our ove al economy have yet to
be asY.ed, much less ar.swered. t,Te suggest that you begin your
discussion by looking at the 1987 Minnesota Laws (Chapter 223,
sectian 4) direction to the Metropolitan Council to assess the
lonq-term adequacy of MSP to meet the aviation needs of the Twin
Cities area through the year 2020 and the 35 member MSP Adequacy
Study Advisory Task Force major recommendations that led to the
1989 dual-track legislation.
Sincekely, �- �
� � � ,.
UCGi/!/! Ct,s//�l l�CLp ���..,�ot,•.�---��
JEAN WAGENIUS U CAROL FLYNN
State Representative State Senator
I-197
State Senator �
.�.C�ce CLaLrs�n9
�
January 16, 1996
Nigel Finney
Deputy Executive Director
Metropolitan Airports Commission
6040 28th Ave. South
Minneapolis MN 55450-2799
Re: Minneapolis/St. Paul Airport Draft Environmental Impact
Statement
I appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on the
Metropolitan Airport Commission's Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS).
I believe the DEIS does not accurately reflect impacts to the
environment, to socioeconomic conditions and to long-range
conaiderations to redevelopment of the present airport site.
In the Executive Impact Summary, the conclusion that environmental
impacts of all alternatives are relatively minor is not believable.
To place a major airport of 14,000 to 20,000 acres on existing
farmland certainly will have a significant impact on both the land
and wildlife in the area. If the airport is relocated, cleanup at
the present site will also have a significant environmental impact.
In this regard, the DEIS fails in its purpose to give serious
consideration to envirorunental impacCs.
The impacts of induced development in Wisconsin are not adequately
addressed in the DEIS. There is no doubt that relocation of a hub
airport will brinq significant development surrounding the area of
the new airport. This will include businesses locating around the
airport and employees relocating to be near their place of A, A. SeeGeneralResponse1.
employment. Yopulation and business expansion and their impact to
public service needs of adjacent communities is inadequate. I
believe the impacts to the area near Hastings, Minnesota and
Prescott, Wisconsin are grossly understated in the DEIS.
The environmental and financial impacts of upgrading existing
hiqhways and buildinq new roads to provide access from the Twin
City area and from Wisconsin are not realistically addressed in the
DEIS. IdentiEied capacity improvements to existing highways and to
the Hastings' bridge were included in the ^no aation" option.
Funding for these projecte is not included in the projected cost of
airport relocation; therefore, funding will have to be provided by
the Minnesota Department of Transportation.
To assume that people livinq in western Wisconsin will travel I-94 B, g, See GeneralResponsel.
to Highway 95 to. reach the airport does not realistically or
adequately present the future transportation needs of the area.
The DEIS should provide more information about the redevelopment of
the present site if the airport is relocated. The cost of the
environmental cleanup may not be covered by the resale of the
property for development purposes. The DEIS should contain some C• C. See GeneralResponsel.
explanation of the assumption that the cost of cleanup will be
covered by the money received f=om the sale or lease of the
property.
Zn view of �he recent MSP alternative plan by Northwest Airlines,
evaluation of the viability of their proposal should be considered D. D. See GeneralRespo�se3.
in the final EIS.
Thank you for consideration of these comments. If you have any
questions, please contact me at 1-608-266-7745.
Sincerely, �
�✓
Alice Clausing
State Senator
lOth District
AC/s'f
Stam Capital, P.O. Boz 7882, Madison, Wt 53707-7882
1-800.862-�092 Toli-Fixe s 608-266-7�45 Madison ■ 715-232-1390 Menomonie t�
•�
Marion Hall
5025 Harriet Ave. So.
February 6, 1996
Nigel Finney
MetropoGtan Airports Commission
60.40 28th Ave. so.
RichSeld, MN 55450
Mr. Finney and members of the Airports Commission,
As a long-time supporter of the city of Minneapolis, I wish to comment on the draft
environmental impact statement presented at Washburn High School on January 24.
The study is faulty in a number of important ways.11�e distance to the site measures driving
time for the metro area population; it neglects any considerarion of mass transit, which '
should be available, and it takes no measure of the non-metro residents for whom the
distance would be shortened -- Red Wing, Hastings, for examples. '
A. See Generai Response 1. The travei times are
provided as indicators of relative changes of accessibility
beiween the aiternatives. The travel times for the three
altematives are based on average speeds on the roadway
system. As such, transit would aiso be affected in a Iike
manner. Hastings was inciuded in the DEIS, as were two
county seats in Wisconsin. As it wouid be ir�feasible to list
travei time estimates for every possibie origin to each of the
three altematives, the seven county seats of the region, piu:
the two in Wisconsin, were selected to provide points from
which people couid evaluate the accessibility of the
a�tematives.
ALso, t6e study measures inaccurately the number of peopie affected by noise -- using its
own footprint de5nition. The footprint described is only a small portion of the number of B• g• See John Richter Response C.
people severely affected by noise.
The most important flaw in the study, though, is its failure to look at the long-range picture.
When we talk of significant expenditures, we need to look further than the year 2020. Yes,
by squeezing in an expansion of the present airport, we just might be able to get by for
another 25 years, but then w6at? We lmow (from the study) that a world-class airport
should have at least 14,000 acres at its disposal -- and that's only a 25-year projection. How
�,then will we be abie to handle the airport needs of the area on the present 3,000 acres?
,Will we need a third parallel runway?' Did the study del�berately terminate the projecrions
'�at the year 2020 knowing full well that a third runway would scare too many people and
jeopardize Northwest Airlines' desires. .
I repeat, we need to look further than 2020 -- to a time when airport use will be
substandalty increased, to a time when airlines other than Northwest have a fair propoztion
of access to the airport, to a time when residential safety around the airport is not
threatened by over crowding.
I urge you to look to the future. Begin by buying the land in Dakota County now! Even
if you decide not to build a new airport now, one will surely be needed later. Then plan
carefully to build an airport
that is world class �.
that is safe
that has adequate space to grow and an adequate number of runways
that will fill the area's needs past the year 2020
that will impact substantially fewer people with its noise. '
Sincerely,
�,���.,, %�
Marion Hall
I-199
C. See U.S. EPA Response B and General Response 4.
D. See General Response 1.
Economic Impacts of Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport Atternatives�
[ wish first to thank the Metropolitan Airport Commission and its staff fot their
tremendous effort in letting us all know about the MSP airport altematives and to solicit
our concerns about the airport's future. I appreciate very much the importance oF your
work, having served on the Metropolitan Council Airport Adequacy and Airport
Recycling committees, and more recendy, the City of Minneapotis MSP Airport Task
Force (reports cited in Appendix i). I welcome the opportunity to comment on your most
recent efforts. My commenis pertain mosdy to the economic impacts.
I fmd the issues relating to the air transport dependency of a technology-intensive
economy that the Twin Cities are becoming, especially important. In keeping with these
concerns, I start with a summary of these issues still confronting the Minnesota
Legislature in its dual �ack decision-making process.
Summary
The air transporc dependency of the Minneapolis-St. Paui metropolitan azea is
misrepresented when based on past trends. We no tonger aze simply a regional services
center catering to a lazgely agricultvral hinterland. It is widely recognized that we aze now
a manufacturSng region and state in terms of export-producing activity. Our mazkets aze
both domesdc and international and they aze highly differenuated by product. They also
are high valued and truly global in their linkages. Our successes in these mazkeu
depends upon world-class access to them. This issue casu the discussion of MSP airport
altematives into a futurisuc mold in terms of 1) the air transportation requirements of the
emerging MSP regional economy and 2) the relauve meriu of the MSP airport
alternatives in fuifilling these requiremenu.
The MSP aisport impact smdies aze grossly deficient for the tasks ahead. They aze stadc,
at best showing only "snapshots," based on lughly aggregated past uends, of an emerging
Twin Cides ewnomy. They faii to adequately idenufy and measure the air
transportation linkages of the most promising sectors of the Twin Cities economy.
The underlying studies start with highly aggregate data, The numbers faii to differenriate
the composiaon of the manufacturing and serrices sectors. This resulu immediately in
viewing the Twin Cities, not as an average of U.S. statisucs; but in its diverse industry
specializadons that each account for a heaithy shaze of the U.S. acdvity in that industry.
The underlying studies fail to show important linkages between the metro azea businesses
and those in Greater Minnesota and beyond. These linkages make the assessment of
MSP airport alternatives of great importauce to the entire MSP economic region.
Finally, the underlying smdies faii to represent future airport alternadves in a dynamic
setting. The use of the Delphi pane! (cited in Appendix 2), for example, simply gives the
illusion of rigor in esvmating the future demand for air trnnsportation. The references to
various scenarios aze, again, exercises in economic statics. On the other hand, the
engineering and environmental aspects of the studies depend on highly detailed analysis.
Yec, a correspondingly comprehensive set of regional economic ana(yses is lacking.
� Prepered by Wilbur Meki, 4320 Oxford Avrnua Edina, MN 55436, Febnwry 12, I996.
Z-2�1
/�. � A. See General Response 6.
.LISP .iirpart .Ilternames -
Economic Impact on �Yfeiropolitan �lrea and State of iYlinnesota
There is an initial problem with the idea that we can ask people what they think about the
�iSP Airport as it is now, compazed with what they think relocating to a new airport
would mean to them, without mentioning time and its associated risks and uncertainties
for each altemative. Each airline tenant of the IvISP Airport must have a good sense of
the company's futures, if it is to improve the long-term profitability of its operations.
NWA cer[ainly does. On the other hand, users of each airline's facilities have a shorter
decision horizon as each user considers primarily access time and its influence on traveler
productivity. Finally, the decisions of both the provider airlines and the airline users
cectainly must concem che local govemments affected by these decisions. Noc entirely
cleaz, however, is the significance of these decisions for the future vitality and viability of
the affected local govemments. In this sort of decision environment, the accounting of
risks and the building of scenarios of alternate futures become important means of
unraveling the complexity of the various decision-making concerns, issues, and
processes.
Measures of Future Alternatives
Future scenarios of MSP airport altematives represent different sets of funue economic
conditions affecting airport activity. For example, another airporc alternative could
emerge from the projected facility investment schedules of the dominant airline. NWA
has atready presented its expansion own plan. It has a$600 million, racher than a$2.8
billion or a�4.7 billion, price tag associated with it. More important, however, is what it
proposes and does not propose. It would add I S gates to the current termina! over the
next 25 years and a new N-S runway. This proposat, ascending to NWA officials, would
allow che airport to make "affordable improvements as demand rises: ' What is demand
and how ic rises depends, in pazt, on what the aicport facilities provide in totai number of
gates, pazking, and ease of access--variables that would be lazgely in the control of NWA
under this altemative.
The hiSP espansion proposal caiis for an entirely new ternunai, with e:cpanded facilides
for handling ticketing and baggage for all airlines, intemauonal flighu, and concessions,
neaz the west end of the parallel runways. New pazking would be directly a6ove the new
terminal. The proposal calls for a N-S runway, also, and an underground people-mover
system connecting the new terminal to a new remote pazking azea. It wouid continue
using e:cisting concourses and gateways, but adding 23 new gates. This alternative would
meet the FAA expectations for continuing service as one of the eadsting 29 U.S. air
transportation system nodes.
The new airporc alternadve, with six runways, 14,100 acres, and 26 miles from the
downtown business district, would have the same number of runways as the existing
Dallas-Ft. Wonh airport, somewhat fewer total acres, and half again as many miles from
its downtown businesses district. This is the Dakota County site near Hastings and the
St Croix River. An eazlier alternate site in Rosemount Township, eliminated prior to
completion of any regional economic impact assessments, compazes closely with the
Dallas-Ft. Worth airport in distance from downtown Minneapolis. The recycling of the
e;cisring airport is an incegral part of the new airport altemative. Future expansion
possibilities at the new site would be comparable to those of Dallas- Ft. Worth and, to a
lesser extent, Denvec.
MSP Airport Alternatrves •
When the three airport altematives aze viewed as two decision approaches--one short-
term, the other long-term, and the short-term is viewed as coming &om two different
decision perspectives—one being NWA, the other Minneapolis downtown businesses, the
positions taken on the altematives by the several parties invotved in the decision making
arc readily predictab(e. NWA, opern6ng in behalPof iu own corporate goals and
responsibilides, would seek the most favornble conditions for achieving an acceptable
levet of corporate profiu. A lazger airport with more gates and runways than the one
proposed would reduce profit prospecu by increasing competition &om the additional
gates and also increase the fixed payments imposed by the airport construction.
Downtown businesses would bear these added costs oniy incrementally, with the
possibility that the total costs of access to their business destinations could decline
relative to their competition. Hence, either short-term alternative could be acceptable,
with perhaps a slight edge for the MSP expansion. Both NWA and the downfown
businesses have the alternative of expanding at other sites rather than MSP, if profit-
making opportuuities were to become more favorable elsewhere.
Local and state govemments, with territorially-fixed economic bases, invariably become
associated with long-term approaches to public infrastructure decisions. This occurs for
two obvious reasons, namely, the longevity of infrasiructure investments, coupled with
the precariousness of the compeutive advantages attained by locally prominent
technology-intensive export-producing businesses. In today's business environment, the
commonly-shazed regional infrastructure, like an internationally-linked airport, is an
important asset to most businesses, not only those concentrated in the metropolitan azea,
but, also, their input supp(iers outside the metropolitan azea
Local and state govemments thus become the most critically dependent of all
organizations and institutions on objective and thorough studies of the long-term regional
economic impacts of each airport altemative. When such studies aze lacking, the
decision process becomes flawed by the dominance of only the short-term approaches.
Regional Economic Linkages
I Measures of future altematives, whether public or private sector, should include thorough
and competently performed assessments of regional economic linkages, direct and
• indirect. Among these linkages aze the supply-side arrangements of inetropolitan azea
i businesses, especially those that have become increasingly dependent on critical input
suppiy sources in nual azeas of their extended economic region. The Minneapolis-St.
Paul Economic Region that is served by MSP includes a lazge part of the Minneapolis
Federal Reserve Dishict as well as rouglily the northern to cenh�al one-half or so of Iowa
and of Wisconsin. The economic life and viability of many rural communities in the
extended economic region depends on their critical economic linkages with the core
metropolitan area institutions, particulazly the export-producing businesses and various
producer services, like banking, fmance, business and consulting services, and
transportation.
Key economic linkages aze those that form clusters of interdependent businesses and
indusizies. These regional clusters emerge over several product cycles amoag the export-
producing industry segments. In the Minneapolis-St. Paul Economic Region, for •
example, the eazly industry ciusters were based on the extraction, exploitation, and
management of its natural resources. The primary industries soon spawned related
processing and services industries that created new job opportunities for a growing �
populauon. A host of residentiary industries, those catering to the resident human
population, soon emerged, thus adding to the diversity of jobs in local labor mazkets
Grndually the natural resources-based indushies that formed the region's economic base
were overshadowed by new human resources-based industries. These now concentrate in
the region's core mehopolitan azea. Also concentraring here is an active and diverse
labor pool with many skilled and talented new en�ants into the local labor force. The
most talented and higiily mobile aze attracted to, or remain in, the azea because of its
educational resources, opportunities for personal advancement, and quality of life. High
among quality oF life considendons is access to choice residential azeas—stable, crime
free, and with outstanding school, medical secvices, recreational facilities, and culcural
attractions neazby. For many residents, having the place of work neazby is an added
location advantage. Distance to the metropolitan azea aicport is a lesser consideration
than residing in a choice residential azea
I-203
B. See General Response 6.
.NSP .irrport Alternarivea a
Appendi.Y l: Draft Environmental and Economic
Tmpact Statement Reviews
Part A. Draft Environmental Impact Statement, by iVWC and FAA, December
1995
The draft statement's executive summary begins with an overview of the duai track
tegisladve direcdve, the purpose of the document, a summary of recent MAC and FAA
studies of funue needs, and altematives considered to meet future needs. This is fotlowed
by an environmental evaluation, namely, the estimated environmental, economic, social,
and re(ated impacts of each airport altemative. This report concludes with a quantitadve
summary of impacu.
Overview
1. Dual track legislative d'uective: How to best meet region's aviation needs 30 years
into future. Seven-year decision process.
2. Purpose of document: Use finai draft in recommendations to legislature, 7uly 1996.
Submit fmal report to EQB, Mazch 1996.
3. Future needs: Peak hour demand will strip capacity of runway/taxi system withouc
major improvements. rinnual cost of delays will increase from S26 miliion at current
levels of demand to about �66 million annuaily by 2020. This threatens MSP's role as a
major connecdng hub.
4. Altematives considered to meet future needs: (a) MSP development, with 8,000 foot
N-S runway added to existing three runways. (b) New airport of 14,100 acres in Dakota
County would have six runways. (c) No acaon includes only committed projecu in
cunent 1995-97 CIP. (d) High speed intercity rail alternative, connecting Minneapotis to
Chicago, omitted from DEIS. (e) Remoter runway in Dakota County, with rail transit
linkage, omitted from DEIS. (� Supptemental airport concept, transferring military, GA,
etc., using SP Downcown Airport or Chicago, omitted from DEIS.
Environmental Evaluation
The environmencal evaluarion, according to the draft statement, has no "critical finding
that would preclude development of any of the alternatives: ' It did not revel differences
between the principal development altematives, although the differences aze more
subscantive in the sociaUeconomic categories than in the natural environment categories.
The study findings aze highlighted as follows:
• The study used a tiered EIS process approved by EQB. This consists of the following
steps: (a) selecdon of a new airport search area; (b) selection of a new airpore site
within the search azea; (c) selection of a new airport development plan on the selected
site; (d) selection of a development concept for expansion of Minneapolis-5t. Paul
Intemationat Airport.
• The study found only minor natural environment impacts.
• �fajor economic impacts are: (a) new airport cost at $4.7 billion; (b) expanding
exiscing airport at �2.8 billion. Jobs: 154,000 versus 92,000.
• Farmland loss is zstimated at 17,000 acros for new airport.
e Noise: DNL 65 or greater: 1'75 persons new airpoR alternative versus 7,620 persons
For expansion altemative.
• Social: Disptacement of househotds and persons: 229 and 787 versus 96 and 227.
Businesses and emgloyees: 147 and 712 versus 76 and 2920.
• Transportation access: Avenge travel time during non-peak hours: 41 minutes
versus 22 minutes.
• Historic: Negligible.
I-204
.NSP :l irport ,I (tonamet
�tissing from this summary is adequate discussion of the regional economic impacts of
each airport alternative. The economic impacts presented in this report are essentially
those associated with airport construction and operation, plus some local business-related
considerations. Missing entirely is the rationale for having a world-class airport, namely,
[o provide an economic environment for sustaining the essenrial domestic and global
mazket linkages of existing and new esports-producing commercial enterprises. E:cisting
and new businesses, as well as NWA, can adjust to the tack of air excess by expanding at
another piace that provides the superior air access. The City of Minneapolis lacks this
flexibility, of course.
Missing also from the summary are discussions of neighborhood and community
concerns and resident perceptions of loca! airport impacts. What levels of risk and
uncertainty must we associate with the implications of these concerns and perceptions for
each airport alternative? The report appazently assumes a risk free world as if their
projecrions, based on certain azguable assumpdons, aze error-free predictions. Obviously
they aze not. Therefore, what cosu, if any, are included in the various govemmental and
private sector efForts to cope with these concerns and perceptions in the case of each
airport alternative? The net result of not responding to these sorts of questions may be a
report that technicaily meets iu stated purpose but, yet, fails to provide a sound factual
basis for a realistic City of Minneapolis perspective on each airport altemative.
Summary ojlmpacts (listing ojcriteria)
The summary of impacts provides a tabutaz, quantitative representation of the various
kinds of impacu enumerated eaziier. These aze listed by their criterion for assessing the
impact. The criteria, along with the review commenu, are as follows:
• r+.ir quality. S(ighdy higher airport and access traffic CO emissions in year 2020 for
new airpon based on exisdng and/or projecced technologies and adoption rates.
• Archeological resources. Negligible impact of each, but only in terms of site count,
noc the relative value or importance to peopte.
• Biotic communities. Much higher wildlife displacement with new airpoR, but only
on an acreage basis; no measures of relative value and importance .
o Bird-aircraft hazards. Much higher bird congregadons affected by MSP, but only on
a bird count basis; no measures of relative value and importance .
• Gconomic. Exactty the same number of total jobs on airport, and dicect and indirect
wages generated by airport jobs, in MSP and new airport alternatives, while
construction jobs and wages, tota! cost, and percentage of tax capaciry lost would be
much higher with new airport, according to this study. Not only are the estimated
numerical values suspecG however, but the most critical regionat economic impacts
are totally ignored.
• Endangered and ttueatened species. None.
• Energy supply and natural resources. Consumption of aircraR and vehicle fuel is
about the same in the alternatives tisted.
. Fazmiand. Impact of new airport given in total acres, with no indication of its
relative importance and value in a regional economic context.
• Floodptains. None.
• Historic/azchitectural resources. Lazgest with MSP, by number of sites affected.
• Induced socioeconomic. Largest for MSP, presumably with reference to the direct
economic effecu cited eazlier, but, again, totally lacking a regional economic impact
assessment.
• Land use. Lazger number of municipalities would require changes in existing or
planned land use in new airport alternauve, but no indication of its relative
importance and value.
• Noise. Much greater noise impact with MSP and no action altematives than new
airport alternative.
• Pazk and recreation lands (section 4(�). None for new airport and no action.
• Social. Lazgest for new airport in number of residents and households that could be
displaced, buc, lazgest for MSP in number of businesses and jobs affected; again, with
no indication of relative importanee and value.
I-205
C. Although discussion of "the rationale for a worid-
ciass airport" is rather subjective, a survey of new
business creation activity in the Denver area was
conducted in order to assess the significance of new
C. airport construction to firms who chose to expand or
start up new businesses in that area. The analysis
determinad that airport access is one of several factors,
including quality of life and cost of living, that businesse
evaluate when considering to expand or start new
operations.
�. D. The EIS and referenced documents address those
issues and concerns raised by agencies and the pubiic
during the scoping and preparation of the related
environmentai documents.
E. The impact model used to project direct airport
employment is based on a sound methodology, first
developed 6y the Federai Aviation Administration. The
modei is based on the assumption that direct
employment is tied to a given Ievel of passenger
enplanement activity. Since both scenarios are designe
to accommodate the same level of forecast enpianemer
activity, the resulting calculations of direct employment
wouid be identical. Indirect impacts of direct airport
employment were aggregated at the state levei. The
majority of indirect impacts would occur within the
seven-county area, since the majority of MSP empioyee
live in this area. induced real estate impacts were also
generated. Estimates of construction impacts were
derived from construction cost estimates, as well as
detailed construction employment data from Denvar's
new airport.
,NSP .�1 irpvrt .1lternarives
• Surface water qualiry. Greatest for MSP alternative, but with no indication of
relative importance and value.
. Groundwater. Largest impact for new airport, , but with no indication of relative
imponance and value.
. Transportation access. :vfSP scores highest in travet time measures, but wirh no
indica[ion of retative impor[ance and vatue, in this case, with respect to likety future
access from MSP to domesric and intemational destinations.
. Wetlands. Small, buc a eatest for MSP, measured in acres of wetiand affected.
. Wildlife refuges. Measurable impact (number of monthiy overflights tess than'_',000
feet) only for MSP altemative.
Obvious(y, much effon was invotved in measuring environmentat impacu. These appeaz
!east important. Appazently no efforc was involved in measuring regional economic
impac[s. Yec these ei�'ecu may prove most impor[ant and relevant in a fair and full
�ssessment of airport alternative impacu.
P�rt [i. Economic Impact Study, Status Report, by EI2A, December 7, 1995
The Status Repon lisu five discussion elements: regional tand use context of the airpor[;
case s�udy summary; induced land use impacts; economic and Fiscal analysis; and tlnal
work tasks. While three of the four elements are cited in the body of the repott, most of
the report pertains to a"case srudy overview."
Regiooai Land Use Context of the Airport
Approach to the land use phase of study was to (i) define the development context of the
region with•a historical perspecrive, (2) prepaze case srudies to understand contest of
airpore growth in other regions, and (3) work closely with Metropolitan Cuuncil and local
governments in re�azd to tocalized impacts.
Case Study Summary
Approach to the case study phase of study was to (1) contact data sources, (2) identify
key chazac[eristics of each airport, (3) establish high-medium-low end of findings for
selected case study, (4) compaze qualitative and quantitative similarities and differences,
and (5) detine other factors affecting case study economies and real estate.
Case srudy implications refeaed to five airports:
•?.tlanca-Hartsfieid. �Sore than twice the operations and passengers of MSP, neazly
five times the cargo, and four runways (one more than MSP, two less than new
airport).
e Dailas-For[ Worth. Second only to Atland-Hartsfield in opemdons and passengers,
same in cargo, but with two more runaway and more room for expansion.
. Washingcon-Dulies. Fewer operations and passengers than MSP, but nvice the cazgo,
same runways.
• Kansas City Intemadonal. One-half of the operations and passengers of MSP, but the
same cazgo and runways.
e Denver International. The lazgest land azea and twice the operations, one-half again
as many passengers, and two more runways than MSP.
The comparisons presented in this repon focus on the current situation, rathec than
historical or anricipated future situations. This is in keeping with the overall approach to
the �C impact studies, narnely, focusing on the current situation and emphasizing
d'uect measures of airport activity.
Induced Land Use Inrpacu
This sec[ion of the report lists the anticipated new industrial development in Dakota,
Washington, and Goodhue counties and Wisconsin, measured in squaze feet and
emptoyees, associated with the new airport alternative. It also lists the population and
employment in each PM peak hour 15-minute travet time segment of the airport
craveished for the ��ISP and new airport altematives.
I-206
,tl5P •airport .Ilternarrves
Part C. [mpact of �ISP Airport Altcrnatives on City uf �linnea�otis, by Hammer,
Siler, Geo oe Associates, September 5, 1995
These comments focus on r.he two concems that are likely to accompany che release ot
any report of great comple:city about a huge invesunent decision. These are (i) the risks
associated with each alternative and (2) the scenarios showing the assumptions, activicies,
and conditions associated �vich each altemative over a�iven decision horizon, say to
3020. Finaily, the scenarios of future airpon impact outcomes call for some son of
shared vision of the tuture city and region.
AccounringjorRisksAssociated ivitli iY1SPAirportAlternatives
Firsdy, there is considerabie difficulty in knowing what conTidence to place on the impact
outcomes posrulated for the several airport alternatives. We can appreciate the fact thac
some outcomes aze more or less certain than others, but which ones aze they, and over
what time periods?
In Secuon I, Graphic Summary of Consultant Findings, �ve tearn that under the "no
buiid" alternative the ternunal would be where it is, exacdy as it is, except for projecu
already approved. Of course, this sudden lack of activity is unlikely to occur. Are we to
assume, therefore, that the purpose of this alternative is to establish some son of baseline?
But it would serve this purpose only in a staac world.
The Deborah Dyson communication and the accompanying materials on NWA are
helpfiil in visualizing an alternative scenario. Except for the memorandum, there is little,
if anything, about NWA and how others, who watch NWA activities closely, see iu role
as a dominant hub airline, now and in [he coming yeazs. NWA certainly looks at
alternative futures (including changes at its Detroit site) in its invesunent, acquisitions,
and defensive strategy planning.
We learn iiirther in Section I that the primary elemencs of the �ISP expansion altemative
is a new N-S runway, among other changes. If we queried several knowledgeabte
individuats about the certainty of all this happening, we probably would find tha[ it is for
some a"no problem," for others an "[ don't kno�rr' or "it depends." And even if it were
to happen, the question remains: When? Of what value aze all the calcu(ations of
outcomes when the likelihood of the event is up for grabs? Yet, tlus uncertainty may be
of a much lesser order than the uncertainty about some other alternative.
In Secdon II, Discussion of Consultant Findings, we find each of the 11 issues, starting
with the downtown Minneapolis impact, placed entirely into a static decision
environment. In such an environment, one could certainly opt for the closer airpor[, all
other things being equal. But all other things are not equal, neither now or some time in
the future. �nong the many downtown businesses, for example, some are more airpor[
dependent than others, although ali may opt for the shortest possib(e airport access time.
We learn also in 3ection II that aircraft noise reduces housing values by one-half of one
percent for each additional DNL above the 65 DNL level. Some reseazch findings
suggest that the percentage losses are less with low-income housing than with medium-
income and high-income housing. The aggregate impacts thus appear small relative to
the aggregate base values. However, this may be much less important in affecting airport
e:cpansion outcomes than the perceived values of airport impact, which can be much
greater. At this point in the findings, the esistence of lazge differences between
calculated and perceived impacts is ignoced.
I-207
.blS/' : i rrpurr a lternatives
Burlding Future Scenarios of �YISPAirportAlternatives
By opting £or a stadc decision tiaznework, the consultanu tindings in effect offer only
one scenario for each airport alternative. With onty s(ight modifications, we could s�ac2
with the one scenario already presented, building a couple of additional scenarios to
account for the different sets of future assumptions, activities, and condicions associated
with each of the several airport altematives.
Future scenarios of MSP airport alternatives repcesent different seu of future economic
conditions affecting airport activity. An attemate scenario, as suggested eazlier, coutd
emerge from the projected activity schedules of the dominant airline. One new
aitemadve might encompass an aggressivety promoted ciuster of air transportauon-
related activities, consistent with coaespondingly aggressive development of local and
regional export-producing enterprise--the best we can do--and with a correspondingly
mther favorabte set of nacional and global economic scenarios. An addiuonat one or two
or three altematives might fall somewhere between the baseline and the first alternative.
A unique, but explicit, set of economic and political assumptions, activities and
conditions would be associated with each of the scenarios.
�Iinneapolis in a Regional Context
�tinneapolis and its downtown business distriet, like most other major air node cities, is
the nerve center of iu eactended econumic region. Mosc high-order producer services, like
banking, fiaance, reat estate, and business, legal, management, consulting, and other
professional services, are concentrated in the air node region's core area, particulaz(y its
principal downtown business district. In 1990, the Minneapolis downtown district had
more than 3,000 businesses, of which roughly SO percent were engaged in two or more
strategic management functions. Without easy and quick access to these functions of
tested reliabiliry, the many technology-intensive businesses tha[ now characterize much
of the economic base of the M3P economic region could not exist in an increasingly
competidve economic environment.
While Minneapolis has weii-established high-order business infrastructure, it is gradually
losing iu choice residentiat azeas. This presents a(ong-term threat to the City's
sotvency, firstly, &om the (oss of its eariy advantage as a"�ood place to (ive" and,
secondly, fiom the erosion of iu taac base. It may no longer have the fiscal and
community resources to contain the overspill of crime in[o its most (ivable neighborhoods
and residential areas.
VISP AirpoR Aitemadves: :� �tinneapolis Perspective
From a City of Minneapolis perspective, we count among imponant participanu and
interested parcies in the Airport alternatives decision making neighborhood organizations
and groups, downtown businesses, ciry-wide businesses, including some that also are
region-wide, the City Council, and the Mayor. Neither the neighborhoods nor the
businesses—downtown or city-wide—speak with one voice. ?.11, howevec, express
concerns that aze short-term or limited to a particular neighborhood or business. The Ciry
Council and the Mayor may find increasingly cleaz that none address the tong-term
interests of the endre Ciry. In fact, on(y the Mayor can most futly exercise the privilege of
taking the long-view for the entire City.
Each airport altemative, as noced in the Consultant Report, elicits one or more of several
differenc responses from individuals and groups representing particular neighborhood and
business interests affected by auport changes. For some neighborhood residents, aircraft
noise and safety are dominant concerns. For othecs, airport access is crucial. Many
businesses also express a primary concem over airport access and its impact on individual
employee productivity. Given the variety of concerns, there is great difficulty in
reconciling them over the time horizons relevant to each of the neighborhood and
business constimencies. Questions arise, therefore, as to the trade-offs among the
altematives and their impacu (taking into account the fiill range of City fiscal
alternadves), and the opportunities foregone.
Eventually, the net result of one or more of the airport alternarives may be a relocauon
and redistriburion of economic activity in the City. The chazacter of the City's downtown
district, for examp(e, may change gradually as businesses with a higher priority on airport
access for distant sales than locai sales move closer to the point of aircraft departures and
arrivals. Aftet all said and done, we still face many quesrions. What is our vision of the
future City, the chazacter of its downtown district and neighborhoods, under each of the
airport alternatives? What aze the assumptions about the altemadve futures facing the
City, given the different levels of impact-ameliorating economic incentives? How is this
vision documented and shazed with decision makers generally?
1:
.NSP Airporf .a(ternarivet
Appendiz 2: Risk �lna[ysis in .ipplication to �YISP
The report, Regional Airline Activiry Forecasr. The Hickling:Llodel Discussion Paper,
presenu the Risk Analysis Process (RAP) in an application to MSP's regional airline
ncdvity as a"quantitative statement of the probability associated with various £orecast
levels of passenger traffic, capacity, delay, beneflts in relation to costs (net present vaiue)
and other factors that are criacal in airpor[ ptanning.s2 It describes the process in four
steps, namely, development of structure-and-togic models as a basis for forecasting,
assignment of estimates and ranges (pcobability distributions) to each variable in the
forecasting process, expert review of all estimates and ranges developed previously, and
forecasdng the regional air carrier demand.
The variables cited as affecting regiona! airiine operarions include MSP metropolitan
populadon, MSP metropotitan azea capita income, US destined segment enplanemenu
(from the regionat air activity), MSP destined segment enplanements, average aircraft
size, load factor, peak month factor, peak day factor, business tr�c base, business traYTic
US desdned segment, and business traffic MSP destined segment. These aze annual time
series variabies with errors of forecast estimated for each variable. They help forecast the
two dependent variables—hourly azrivals and hourly depaznues. An expert review panel
provides estimates of likely future outcomes in the Hickling applicauon of risk analysis.
There is no indication of panel member qualifications, the criteria for selecting such
qualified panelists, and the specific information and knowledge bases for the regional
economic prognosucadons.'
The Hickley modei cleazly is not a structival economic model, including among the time
series variables the determinanis of yeaz-to-yeaz changes in these variables. In short, the
Hickley model is severely flawed for assessing airport and air transponation requiremenu
of regional industry. Such assessmenu require an industry-specific and azea-specific
differentiation of a region's economy, the input supply sources and mazkers for these
products, and the demand for air transportation originating from the related resident
population and economic activity. Using only populadon as an explanatory variab(e ,
meaas that the procedure is essentially a staustical exercise. It presenu an illusion of
rigorous analysis. We still lack an understanding of the role of air transportation and a
world-class air transportation node in a technology-intensive meaopolitan azea economy.
MSP population change, for example, depends on job opportwuties, and the eamings they
geaerate, as well as the quality of tife within the meuopolitan azea These, in tum,
depend upon product-specific mazkets and industry-specific suppiy sources. The model
ignores these sorts of linkages. Nonetheless, the model has a certain educadonal value in
illusuating the current use of risk analysis in airport planning, thus indicating both iu
limitadons and future opportunities for improving the risk analysis process.
2 Op. cic. PaBo to.
3 In rcCarnce W the oracle Apolio at Deiphia of Greok mythology, this is somceina calted a"Delphi" penel, given its
'obsauely prophetic" apprvech to pendieting futurc evrnts.
I-209
F. The Hickley modei was used in a previous regional
airline forecast but not in the development of the most
�ecent Duai Track activity forecast. The regional foreca
relied heavily on the observations of representatives fror
NWA, Northwest Airlink and other members of an expe�
panei. See Volume Revised Activity Forecasts,
Minneapolis-St. Paul Internationai Airport, Long Term
Comprehensive Plan and General Response 4 for the
method used in developing the Duai Track forecast.
MA.0 Public Hearing
7PM January 18 Washburn High School
�ol+n I�i�ha-e✓
$efore I make a couple of statements I'd like to give you the opportunity to hear &om
two peopie. .
e In Atsuga Japan, the judge awarded damages to surrounding residents and he was
quoted as saying `St is not fair for to force a limited number of people, suc6 as
residents azound the airbase to sacrifice themsetves for the national cause of
1[IIportance."
♦ Tad Piper, a leading businessman and head ofPiper Jaffray said airport noise is a vaGd
concern ia the anport debate not just for those subjected to the plane'landings and
take-offs but for all Minnesotans who impose this burden ofnoise on a few—be they in
south M�nneapolis or Dakota County—for ihe sake of a modern airport.
We can assume &om page 1 of your Dual Track Airport Piannmg Process without future
�rowth in aviation activities we can expect a decreased level of service aad user cost. A. A• It is not clear what report and graph is referenced, but
Look at this graph that is based on the report that actual planes and projection to the year fhe average annual growth rate for passengers and
2020 by one of the reports. This means we will have little growth. If our desire is to not operations is forecast at one percent— regardless of the
have jobs for our children and grandchildren aad have them go to communities that have buiid aitemative. See General Response 4.
adequate facilities, you will accomplish this.
You mention chat peak hour demand will outstrip capacity. AY the present time between �
4:30 and 7:30 PM there is not room for any more pianes to land if your desire is to keep B, g. The addition of the north-south runway wiil permit
it so thac one comQany has all the busmess and proHts you have accomplished this. On the additionai operations during peak periods, consistent with
other hand if you was to serve the State of Minnesota and its people we should move the forecasts.
ahead with runways in an azea where there is enough capacity and with few people
affected by the aoise.
On page 14 of the summary you say there aze 22,000 in the 65 contour. What you fail to
realius is there is an awful iot of people that aze not ia the 65 that are annoyed by the
pollutioa As an example, our former home was a long way &om the 65 area and yet the
noise was so bad we decided to move. Unfortunately, my wife wanted to stay in the ciry
of Minneapolis so I built a home on Cedaz Lake. At that time there was no noise. Now
the noise is increasing to the point we can often not use our deck in front of our home.
'lhere isn't any major city in the United States where they have land nearby that they
aren't willing to move the cuaways too. Aa example is Austin Texas. TLey were going to
expand and found aot only could they aot mflict the polludon on the population but it was
cheaper to start over. The plan &om Northwest appazendy includes another runway thac
will attack the few parts of Minaeapolis that are not affected by the noise.
I-210
C. The EIS acknowiedges that noise can annoy some
peopie outside the DNL 65. For this reason, the MAC
addresses mitigation for peopie within the ONL 60 (see
Generai Response 2). The city of Austin is converting a
former Air Force Base for civil use. The base is oniy slightiy
farther from the city center than the existing airport. They
acquired the facility at no cost.
'I'he three commrttecs tl�at dxided on the Hastings sde do aot live ia l�finaeapotis. The
numbers aze: �
Dua! Track 0 M'wneapolis
AIew Auport Tech Committee 1 Minneapolis
MSP Tech Committee 0 Mmneapolis
How caa we expect them to relate to the problems the cenual city has if they don't live
thera In checlang with ten of the major auports in the United States the noise abatement
scaff must live somewhat near the airport. "li�is gives them first hand experience with the
noise. It is tragic that ihe city that provided the land for the airport aze receiving all but a
very sm�tll perceatage of the potlution In talldng with the officials of Lambert F'ieid, in St.
L.ouis, where they bought a number of homes they were asked the question if the proporty
taxes wece twice of what they are, would you have taken them offthe tax role. He said
absolutely not. Those of us that own or have owned property in the state of iVfissouri
imow that taxes aze 1/2 of what they are here. Incidentally, that so called expansion has
beca stalled by a number of lawsuits.
D. D. The city of Minneapolis selected their
representatives forthese advisory committees.
I am attaching from your own records the amount of mitigation that would be needed to
exQand the aixport to be competitive. 'Ihe cost would be some $3Billion. It doesn't seem E. E. Mitigation commitments were addressed by the
logicat when faced with those ldnd of costs when other land is available not that far away Noise Mitigation Committee formed after the preferred
that we contiaue to say we must keep the tunways where they are because in 1930 t6e altemative was chosen. See General Response 2 and
City ofMinneapolis allowed airiines to use some fotmer park properiy. City of Minneapolis Response K
If you are looldng to stabilize the tax base in Hennepin County you should move those
tunways. This study over 7 yeacs which shows the closer you are to the airport the less
the values. This forces the other part of the cities where there is good housing to
subsidiu the City of Minneapolis and the auport. Ts your plan to destroy the residentiai
areas of the major city in our state? One of the major donors to create the Cedar Lake
B�7ce Trail stated he wouid never move back to Minneapotis as long as the noise is there.
The FAA report states ctearty that noise has an effect on values. We are attaching a
current aaalysis of values of homes in the area of Minaepaolis presently affected by aireraR
noise.
Your Draft Environmental Impact Statement goes into detaii about farm land. You can
also mention Amsterdam and Tolryo. I am sure most airport lease out the land they are
not using. One of the big e�camptes is the Mid Continet Airport in Wichita Kansas. 'Ibey
were buildiag a new auport and they to(d the farmers we will buy the land so you get your
money but you caa lease it back and we will split the profits. Now because of the size of
the auport a very high percentage oFthe land acquired could remain in farm use.
There is some informaaoa that every member of Mac should read. It is the "Handbook of
Hea�g and the Effects of Noise." If you read that book you will understand how
detrimental the ever increasmg pollution is for a good shaze of our populatioa
We need to move the runways!
F. Although lawsuits have been brought against the
MAC alleging that noise has had an adverse effect on
' F. property values, no court ruling has validated this
perception. See City of Richfieid Response JJ.
G. We agree that a high percentage of the farmland
couid have remainad in use. See General Response 1.
90 � • Airport Noise Report '
Housing, frorn p. $9
to minimize the effects of local conditions by using local '
expertise and a combination of quantitative and qualitative
techniques that complement each other, and seeks to
overcome ehe shortcomings of previous studies that exclu-
sively used one technique o� the other."
A series of studies was done azound four major airports:
Baltimore-Washington International, L.os Angeles Interna-
tional, and New York LaGuardia and Kennedy International
Airports — to determine whethec the procedure was repeat-
able and verifiab(e, to see if any distinct uends could be
observed, and to detecmine if any inferences could be made
at the nationa( level regarding the impact of airport noise on
housing value. �
Boo2 Allen researchecs concluded that the results of ehe
studies indicated that the neighborhood pair model is viabte
and helps establish the boundaries of the effect that airport
noise has on housing values at a given airpoct. "The
obsecved trends are consistent, showing that the noise
impact is more pronounced in higher-priced areas and is
hard to detect in retatively low-priced neighborhoods," the
repoct concluded.
For instance, in the study around Los Angeles Interna-
tional Aicpoct, theq found that, i� the moderately-priced
areas, the adjusted appraised values of homes suggested an
avecage $60,873 (18.6 peccent) higher property value in the
quiet neighborhoods. oc $4,348 (t.33 percent) per dB of
"additional quiet " On the other hand, the results in the low-
priced areas were rnuch more modest — a$1,268� (0.8
percent) higher property value in the quiet neighborhood.
A later study in the New York area confirmed this findina.
�AAs was observed in the LAX study, the results in the low-
priced areas indicate virtually no (�733, or 0.5 percent)
difference in property values betweer� the quiet and noisy
neighbochoods. In the moderatety-priced.areas, the adjusted
appraised values suggested an average $10,700 (4.9 percent)
higher property value in the quiet neighborhood, oc $1,070
(0.5 percent) per dB of additional quiet. In high-priced
azeas, the adjusted appraised values suggested an avecage
$22.367 (S.7 percent) higher pcoperty value in the quiet
neighborhood, or $5,474 (1.4 percent) per dB of additionat
quiet.
However, the eepoct conctuded that the magnitude of the
impact of noise on property va(ues cannot be estimated at
the national (evel at this time, since the results varied across
a wide range for the airports studied, and only a small
sample of airports was considered.
The primary goal of the study was to assess the feasibility
of the neighborhood pair modet to examine the effects of
aicport noise on property values, and the findings indicated
that the methodology is viabte and "reasonably economi-
cal," the report conc(uded.
The study estabtishes a framework on which a broadec
examination of this subject at the national level can be
based, the researchers said. Such a study would determine
the magnitude of the impact of aicport noise on housing
vatues on a nationwide basis rather than focusing on specific
airports.. But, prior to performing that study, two closely ('
(inked issues cnust be resotved: which airport-impacted �,
communities must be considered, and how many such
communities must be analyzed.
The results of a nationa( study could help decision makers
in formulating national policy and would enable local
airpoR authorities to better deal with airport noise impact,
the report noted. The FAA must perform extensive cost-
benefit analyses before implementing proposed changes in
national noise-related policies. One aspect of noise impact
that needs to be better understood is its economic impact.
the report said.
Copies of the report, "'tfie Effect of Airport Noise on
Housing Values: A Summary Report," NTIS No. PB
95212627, can be obtained from the Nationai Technicai
Information Service at tel: (703) 487-4650.0
,� � •3 ... •� �— ( ��- c' �1 �
Helicopters
FAA DENIES PE'I'I"�"ION TO SET
1,000 F�'. MYl�tIIVIUIVVI[ AL'TITLJDE
On June 8, the Federal Aviation Administration denied a
petition for culemaking filed by Homeowners of Encino that
would establish a 1,000 ft. minimum altitude for helicopters
flying ovec congested urban areas.
Section 91.119 of the Federai Aviation Regula:ions
establishes the minimum safe operating altitudes for aircraFt
c,�erating in the National Airspace System. It set a minimum
altitude of 1,000 ft. for fixed win� aircraft flying in con-
gested areas, but permits helicopters to be operated at lower
than 1,000 feet if the pilot can �c� so without hazard t�
persons or property on the ground.
"The existing rule has historically providecl ehe pub(ic
with the level of safety required of helicopter operations,"
Thomas C. Accazdi, director of the FAA Flioht Standards
Service, explained in denyina the rulemaking petition.
The FAA could not amend its rules to set a minimum
altitude foc helicopters, he said, without first providin� "a
safety justification or a showinD of compeiling need on
behalf of the American pubiic as a whole." Accardi said that
"it appears that the petitioner's justifcations�for the pro-
posed arriendment are not safety-based, but rather are based
on the desire to reduce noise caused by low-flyin� helicop-
ters: ' '
"While the FAA acknowledges that a specitic community
may have some valid complaints about particular helicopte�
operatioos and resultant noise, noise issues within a limited
aeographic region do not warrant the promul�ation of a
nationwide standard affecting a(1 helicopter operacions," the
FAA official said. •
Gerald Silver, president of Homeowners of Encino, CA,
condemned the "slow and inadequate " response of the FAA
to his petition, which was fited a year a�o. "This is typical
FAA double speak;' said Silver. "The a�ency fails to
Aicport Noise Roport
I-212
�;
Q� N� � 0�0 .: N t'��'1� � c��'1�
a N a � Q� � N
�O 'V' �O
c+1 O v1
N h N Q�
N �O v1
� vh1 O v O o�0 O o�0 v�'t
O� N'cP �O � N N Q� f�
O� N O� �O r'�f �'1 v1
�O e�'1 r1" —� 00
�D O N t"�
ri oo c�
N Q O �f'
N �O v1
� v�'f O V�' O oO O o0 v�'1
O� N v �O rf N r� O� t�
Y1 N N V� � v'f O�
v1 C� O ^ 00
t� Q' t't Q�
�+1 N eT �D
N N vl N
O� vd'1 O �v O o�0 O n�
Q� N sf' �D �n N Q� O� 00
�O N 00 �O �O vl t"1
I'� N N -� 1'�
00 v'f Q� O
M O r"� O�
N C' DO O�
N y'1 �1'
V O O O N O O� O
� N Q �� N h a O
� O N � � � N N
CT Q Q� ~ �/'1
t'�i O� 00 v'i
N t'1 W �O
N �! V
O� �n O v O � O -� v'�
O� N sT' �O O� N v1 O� v'1
N � —� N P7 �O 00 v1 N
W 00 C' 00 7
F v'/ —� ^ �O
¢ N ( e'1 �O '�T
r
Q N �n v
� ( �
O
ca o� �-, o x � .o o c� o
00 �n o �-+ o .�o 0 0� v,
z �. N .� .� .� N �, � �
ca a N .� .� �; �; �
o � ; o � �
� N r � �
N V'1 1 ^1
U
(.L�
..a
LI]
� 00 �+f O o0 O �O O O� O
�, cO v'f O r� 00 �O O h O
m Q� N �Lf O� N t"1 00 �O
F � Q N O+ �D l� v� C�
M — —� �!1
� O O
N 'cf t+1 O�
QN N vN'1 (+1
�
F
a
W
o.
O
a
o»
�
Q
w •� � •C � C � •r �
'ct �, � q � � �o �, m
o > o > o > o >
> cL u c. v a u 4 �
�.. se �. �e x �... x
E-^ o � o � �'o � o �
�o � � � .n � a �
E � E � E � E �
z H z� z H z N
Q � o �, o
a �° �°
\
(O�_
\ —
N
I-213
Fe6niuy 13, 1996
Ms. Jcnn Unmh
Meaopotitan Airports Commission
6040 28th Avenue South
Minnoapotis, MN 55450
Re: Comments on Dual Track DEIS
Dear Ivi� Uncuh:
I would l�lce to submit tho following comments on the DEIS:
Sec. II H. Need
t. 'ibo forecast horizon of 2020 is tao s6ort and shoutd 6e axtended anothor t0•20 yeazs. This is of
par[icular concem regerdiag the statement on the top of p. III-4 uada "F1e�cibility":
"ARer [2020], contiaued growth in demend will rcsult in the need for additionat
aicport development aot provided for under this alumadve ..."
This statement appears to imp►y that fuduo demend will nquite additional runway capacity beyond the
notth/south nmway that is part of the cumndy eavisioned "MSP altemadve." It is ncithoc reasonuble nor
fair for t6is DffiS to amit a full discussion of the environmeatal and economic impacts of such addidonal
runway capacity, especially givea the much moro sigoificant impact of the probable solurion, a third
pazaliot ntnway. ,
See U.S. EPA Response B.
2. TLe DEIS indicates in Scc. H. 1. 3. that "the MAC forecasts atso roflect ex[ensive input from the '
primary ait scrvice provider at MSP, Northwest Airtines" and t6at "NWA has developed a long-trnn
suaeegic plaa for Minarapo6s:' Public sracemenu from NWA have made ic cicaz shat their business plan B. B. iNAC used an expert panel and aitemative scenarios to
does noc include a new MSP. 'the Facs that NWA commands such a large markcc shere in this lacarion, a ensure that the MSP Altemative cAuld aCCommodate higher
posidon thaz pnsuma6ly they intcnd on maintaining, calls into question the integrity of basing the demand fofeCasts. See SeCtiOn II.B.1.3.
forecazt on the business plan of a monopoly user of the facitity. iiow can the public 6e azsured thaz the
MACs forecasts npresent the pu6lic's interesb tather than the privau inurosts ofNWA1
3. The baseline forccast iadicates 520,400 operations per year in the yeaz 2020. This woutd represent a
sigai6canc reduction in the cate of growth experienced in recenc yrars. 1Lero is inadequate justificadon
:c: this ;i�iEc�t mduccioa ic demand gn�vth. ,
4. 'I7ure seems to be an assumprion ia the DEIS that air naffic demand wautd be the same at either an
expanded MSP or at a new airpart, i.e. that demand dces not vary at all with capacity. Givrn the
ac{mowledged currcnt prcsence of coostiainod gate capncity and monopoly pricing az MSP, it woutd seem
that this azsumprion may be faulty. Incesasad gau cupacity and decreased consumer pricea may indeed
stimulate both consumer and carrier demaad a[ a new facitity. Has this possibility been fuqy explored7
5. 'ihe discussion of "othcr pollumts" on p. i�-6 says that a three manth test of air quatity in I993 az a
sight near the airpoa iadicated po(ludon fovels "betow Nadonal Ambient Air Quaiity Standards." It atso
nays ehnt "no permanent monitors aro located near the airport." Afong with many of our neiglibars, I
regutarly (2-3 times mon[lily) smeQ the odor of jet fuet in our neighborhood. Has there been sufficient
manitoring of off-airport tocadons as patt of the DEIS to fully documeat thaz this u not a pmblem?
6e. [t u na ctcar thaz the eost euimam of tho MSP aitemative included t6e foltowing:
a) redueed vatue of property under noise footpriny including such factors as usability of ounide spsca
b) health co�ts of sustained e� ro aircraft naise _'...
o) iaaeaud easts of air uave! W comumm due to N WA's dominatioa of MSP
� potential legat cost of inverse candemnadon ciaim by Mall of America
e) full costs of noise mitigazion to affected rasideats; e.g. my propact}+ currentty lies within the eucrent Ldn
65 contour, but wi[hin the projccted Ldn 60 conWur. I wdorstand the convaction of the noise contours is
due m the projected inuease in use of smge III aircraft. 1 fur�her undersmnd that the methodology of thu
mcasurement doa aoc fu11y rcflect the effecb of increased frequency ve. quieter aircraft. "Moro but
quietet' is nat a soludon aad tho DEIS s6outd account for noise mitigadon costs beyond the Ldn 65 IeveL
6b. It is not ctcar that tho cost estimau of tho new airport altemative fuliy explored tho developmrnt
pomatis! of the vacated MSP siu.
7. The MSP and New Airport atternativa have been presenud and displayed ia the DEIS as if thry of£er
the same tevel of urvico to the same projected demand, i.e. as if this were an"apples to apples"
wmparisan.• In reatiry, the two alterna[ives aze mare i�lce comparing a Chevrokt w a Cadipac. The EE1S
should include a scaled-down "New Airport" altemative thnt moro closely approximates an"apples ro
appla" comparison, and it s6ould more comptetely dacribe the diftoring capacitia of the two akematiea
tlmtwere inctuded.
17iaak you far your cansidetation of thne concetw.
Sineere►
��
7eff Sctwaidu
4936 Park Avanue
Minneapolis, MN 55417
I-214
C. IC. See Generai Response 4.
D. The forecasts developed and used for the duai track
study were not constrained by gate capacity and fares
�. and the number of runways/taxiways at MSP. Facility
requirements (number of gates, runways, taxiways, etc.)
were then determined from these forecasts. �
E. E. Aithough there are no peRnanent off-airport air quality '
monitors near MSP, availabie data indicate that air pollution
concenUations are below the national standards.
F. a) See City of Richfield Response JJ.
b) Hearing loss is the predominate heaith danger
related to noise. In Aviation Noise Effects (Newman and
Beattie, 1985) it was determined that under normai
circumstances peopie living near an airport are at no risk of
suffering hearing damage due to aircraft noise. There have
been numerous studies on non-auditory health effects and
sieep disturbance effects of aviation noise. To date there
have been no conciusive findings that link a quantifiabie
heaith hazard to aviation noise and theretore no heaith costs
attributed to aviation noise were assessed.
c) Increased cost of air travel due to a carrier's dominance is
not an envlronmental concem and therefore not addressed in
the DEIS. See aiso RepresentaUve Wagenius Response D.
d) The new runway and iYs accompanying safety
zones do not affect the Mall of the America. The MAC is
working with the developers of the Mall of America on
potentiai impacts to other properties owned by the
aforementioned developers due to potential development at
the Airport.
G. See General Response 2.
H. See Generai Response 1.
I. See General Response 1.
� January 22, 1996
Dua! Track Study
Metropolitan Airports Commission
6040 28th Ave S
Minneapolis, MN 55450
Sirs:
I am submitting this tetter to be includerl in the public record of the Dual Track Study being
conducted by the Meuopolitan Airports Commission. I am expecting a reply to my letter but if
you do not answer my questions I wouid like to have co�rmation that you did receive my letter,
and that it wili go into the record
Qucsrion 1:
I have seen a flyer distributed by Citizens for Minnesota's Economic Future that indicated the
projected airport usage growth figures being used in your study. The figures in that flyer
indicazed a growth of 239,270 departures and arrivals over the last 23 years, which was a growth
of 104%. The projected growth being used by MAC for the next 25 years (1995 to 2020) is
50,000 deparhues and arrivals for a growth rate of 11%.
An those fieures correct?
If'the de�rture and arrivai estimates are too low what 'Q the fa 1 back 9itioo'►
Some will argue t6at the current site is inadequate today, others say it wiil be good for anot6er
25 ycazs.
How many yeArs dces t6e MetropolitAn Ai�porb Commi�Qaion believe the c�rrent aite cAn
serve the needs of t6e area?
If there is a finite time in which the current 4ite wiii be adeauate= wiii any provisions be
made to bank land for the eventaa! inevitabie move?
Are we pl�oninE for a cold Oma6a?
Question 2:
I understand that it may be possible that a fifth runway will be required sometime in the future.
also understand that the cost and environmentai impact of this fifth runway was not inciuded in
the study because it was assumed that it wouid not be needed befoce 2020.
�'ltat leve( of departnres aod arrivals would reauire t6at the fifth runway would
be needed?
Although the cost and environmental impact was not studied, does the commission 6eve az►}+
idea if it is feasible to add that ruaway and where that runway would be tocated
If sa where u that?
A A. See General Response 4. The MSP Aiternative will
meet the regional aviation needs for the foreseeable
future. Land banking for a major new airport is prohibite�
by state law.
B. See U.S. EPA Respanse B, City of Minneapolis
Response B and General Response 4.
Question 3
From the draft of the Dual Track Airpoct P►anning Process printed in Decembcr 1995, it appears
t6at there has bcen no discussion or swdy of the possible impact of increased business activity
due to the buiiding of a tnily modern airport tnily capable of expanding to meet the demands of C. C. See General Response 1.
such growth.
Has the study coosidered the impact of the new airnort becomin�a multi airline hab'►
Question 4
The building of a new airport should have a posirive effect on groperty values south of the river
and also on areas in south Minneapo[is, Richfield and $loomington cunendy impacted by noise. D. D. See Generai Response 1.
It may have a negative effect on some businesses located along HW494 and should have a
positive effect on business south of the river..
HAa the stady rnesidered the ima�y�prone values and on buaioesae+?
��,�. '�''
Appreciate a reply. Send to the following address.
480t WI14th St
Bloomington, MN 5543?
I-215
Jnhn C:.Tucnc*, vs�
t]»uman �mi Chicl t.r.u�rc Olficre
PMma f6121 i7?.S30.S
Pa: {6�21 N2•Sv�
Mr. Pierson Grie , Chair
Metropolitan ' rts Commission
c/o Ecoi enter
370 ha Avenue � �
St. aul, MN 55102 �-• �
i
Dear Sandy:
December �14, 1995
. -�L
� � ,�
��
:
i �:a
Q.�: )
RELI�STAR
ReliaStar Financial Corp,
20 V'hihmgrau AvrnueS�mcb
Miw�<n{Mdn, Mimum�a SCN>l
1 know that you and other members of the MeVopolitan Airports Commission are
skvggling with the issue ot the long term location of the Twi� Cities airpoA and i
wanted to share my perspective with you.
As you know, ReliaStar is a Minnesota based financiai services ,company
competing in the nationat marketplace. With our cnrporate headquarters in
downtown Minneapolis, our emptoyees from araund the country and our
customers make frequent use of the Twin' Cities airport. The current location
makes for rapid and easy movement af our employaes and customers from the
airport to our corporate facilities and 4hat is important to us in terms of employse
p�oductivity and a:stomer satisEaction.
I know there are many considerations regarding airport location. 1 expect trom a
noise standpoint that the new generation ot airplanes will be much quieter and
that, coupled with current MAC programs, should ease the noise problem. In
addition, as you knaw, the costs of new airport construction would be enormous
and in today's economic environment should speak in favor of mainta�ning and
improving the current location. '
While I am by no means an expeR an all of the issues that you face as you make
your decision, 1 do want you to know how important a convanient locations is to
us and to the greater business community.
Thanking you for you� consideration of this matter, 1 am
Sincerely,
z`• `� �
/
�
Comments noted.
401 Sibley #842
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
December 15, 1995
Metropolitan Airports Commission
6040 28th Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450
Attn: Jenn Unruh
Dear Ms. Unruh:
I'm writing concerning tne airport move versus expansion. I
have had experience with two major airports located vast
distances from the primary cities of sez-vice - Dallas/Ft. Worth
and Denver.
I lived in the Dallas/Ft. Worth.area�over ten years and used
that airport frequently. Transportation to and from' the
airport was constantlp a ma?or problem because oE the distance;
shuttle buses and taxi cabs collected exorbitant fares with the
mileage. The "noise problem" is laughable. Ninety-five
percent of the homes built around the airport were planned
after the airport had been built. If those homeowners didn't
want to deal with airport noise, as they knew of the problem Comments noted.
they ceu�d havP locatPd elsewhere.
� The new Denver airport should be a real lesson to the MAC_.
`` While it is a visual feast, the construction problems, distance
� from the city and even the rental car centers, and the fact
that many Denverites now travel out of Colorado Springs to save
parking and tax dollars (after driving noC much further than to
the new airport) shouid be a real red flag. Also, Stapleton
Airport is sitting near the middle of the city absolutely
empty, deteriorating, with ao planned use for Che future.
The Twin Cities airport should stay where it is. Homeowners
and businesses have known Eor over forty years Chat the
airport, and any noise, is where it is. A move would be a
complete waste of taxpayers' money and would make the airport
totally inconvenient for passengers and businesses, not to
mention the desecration of valuable farmland. The MAC has been
spending money upgrading the terminal, runways and parking ramp
at the airport - keep it where it is.
Sincerely,
(.�iL�G'G�.��' "''
Amy Salo
I-217
February 12, 1996
Ms. Senn Unruh
Metropolitan Airports Commission
6040 28th Avenue South
Minneapolis, 24t 55450
RE: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
We attended the January 18 public hearing on the draft
environmental impact study. We wish our comments to be included in
the record. '
First, we are opposed to the premature ending of the dual-track
study.
Second, we conclude that a decision to expand the existinq airport
Pavors Northwest, and not the region. Since the existing location
would not allow for expanded service from additional carriers,
Northwest would maintain its dominant position (80� of Twin Cities
traffic); pricing would reflect this dominance. We agree with the
Pioneer Press: Northwest is a"tailor-made local bully".
Third, we conclude that a decision to expand the existing airport
will limit the region's economic growth; traffic projections which
show the airport can accommodate growth do not match the
projections in the reqion�s economy.
Forth, we conclude that the existing airport is, at present,
already inadequate; at �,000 acres, the existing area is one-fifth
the area deemed adequate for comparable facilities. A new airport
site assumes a necessary area of 15,000 ac=ese
Fifth, the economy of spending $2.8 billion on the existinq airport
to permit its use until 2020, vs. spending $4 billion on a new
facility with an indefinite life, is absurd.
Sixth, regarding concerns that a new Pacility will require
something like twice the travel time, we sugqest a look to history.
If the original airport planners had been as short-sighted as
advocates of airport expansion, today�s airport would be on
Nicollet Island.
Finally, we comment on the Commissioners° deportmento Most
Commissioners appeared to be disengaqed and arrogant. Accordingly,
we have no confidence in their judgment with respect to
thoroughness and impartialityo We were stunned and insulted.
. � � � ,,,�/"
tPhomas Manion �`
5215 Irving Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55419
�,.
� � nevievel L � ers
r ;
i .
�,:
I-218
Comments noted.
1616 Wexford Way
Woodbucy. MN 55125
December 14. 1995
Jean Unruh
Metropoiitan Rirports Commission
6040 28th Ave. S.
Mlnneapolls, MN 55450
Dear Ms. Unrah,
Cownents as soilclted ln Ploneec Press. !2/13/95.
I believe it is wrong to plan any further expansion of this
existing airpoct. It ls a waste of money! Thls airport is
a postage stamp, sorrounded by river valleys on two sides,
a national cemetary, a VA hospial, a necessary hIghway
system on othec sldes that effectively prevent any
expanslon. Avlation activlty !s constantty exceeding all
predlctions, unllmlted expanslon capabllity should be a
prlority for thls booming lndustry. Alrcraft delaYs because
of nolse abatement routing and runway avai"lability rlaht now Commentsnoted.
are a costly factor. This will not go away, what wiii !t be
in the future?
The locatlon for a new airpoct, somewhere. is certatnly
avallable. It shoutd be level land foc mlles around to
altow foc expanslon. Rs foc convenience look at London,
Engiand using high speed trains to right downtown. With
pcoper pianning an up to date highway system may be all we
would need, Community lnvolvement and sacclflce is a real
thing but sometlmes for the sake of progress it has to
happen. There ls aiso a deflnite community economlc benefit
to be had.
Sincerely.
�',�.����G�/
Robert J. eilY
I-219
1851 Quirnia Avenue
St. Paul, MN 55116
February 6, 1996
Steve Cramer
Metropolitan Airport Commission
6040 28th Ave. S.
Minneapolis, MN 55450
Deaz Mr. Cramer.
I am writing to support building a new runway at a remote location in Dakota County.
Noise pollu[ion is cleazly the deterniining faccor in my opinion.
It is true that a great many of the people who live in homes under the flight paths do use the
airport from time to time, and the airport was at ics current locadon long before these people
moved in. Undoubtedly, having a new landing strip (with train access to [he eacisting
ternunal) will be both inconvenient and expensive.
But the aoise is worse now more than ever, and I cannot think of a time or place in history
where so many people's lives have been upset for the sake of corporate profits and
municipal policy. People of Minneapolis and St. Paul aze cleaziy against expandin$ the
existing airport facilities due to excessive noise polludon. I have spoken to many of my
friends and neighbors, and we are all asconished of MACs claims ro the contrary. Comments noted.
Hence, t consider the acdons of the MAC, the governor, and Nor[hwest in fighting the
move solely on the basis of cost to be unconscionable.
I suggest you put the issue up for vote to the cidzens of Hennepin and Raznsay Counties,
wirh a realistic bond issue to fund the new locadon. I for one would grudgingly be willing
to pay for a pottion of the new runway, and I think it can be done for much less than $2
billion.
Please stay by Lake Huriet or Lake Nokomis for an evening and count the planes wtuch
you find offensive. T'hen think how many people hear that every 30 seconds, and how
much money is really worth.
Regazd� � �/�� " _
Gibson Bazch
I-220
�
l
R.4V. Russell
PO Box 24584, � Minneapolis, MN 55424
The skies over South Minneapolis have become not unlike a war zone.
Hundreds of jet airplanes coming over every second — so loud, so intense that
a person cannot carry on a phone conversation, watch TV or listen to music.
Extremely noisy, loud, hideous vibrations that totaliy disrupt one's serenity.
For fifty four yeazs I have lived in South Minneapolis. As a child I
lived across the street from the Washburn water tower. I grew up listening to
planes. T'hese planes had propellers and at times were loud. Then came the
jets with their sonic booms cracking the windows of our home. With the jets
came a new sound, a frightening sound. All this was simply tolerable
because of the novetty and infrequency oE these jet pianes.
Comments noted.
In the 50's, 60's and 70's it seems the skies were not as infested with
huge jets roaring through the sky at all hours of the day and night. Now the
planes come over on a constant basis - every three or five seconds apart.
Yesterday my young son asked me, "YVhy do they let those noisy planes
fly over us. Why don't they do something about them?" I wondered the
same thing. Why doesn't somebody do something? Ivlake an immediate,
mandatory noise emission resolution on ali aircraft, stazt building a new
airport and quit using loud, unsafe, ont of date planes.
No one wants to live life in a war zone. Should a person have to
move out of their life-long neighborhood because some huge corporate giants
want to attain higher profit mazgins? What ever happened to respecting the
rights of the individual?
I'm rired of living in a war zone.
I-221
.�— .A, t.r'j
/ 0 7`�� 4.C.n.�,.I, iS2��'s..-.�� �.....r�-- /-! 7��6
iGut.. lia....�./� 6�� �" �a—�-�+. `..I" ��
/�'�-•-�[...:�,... i ct.� �-.-.e..+-� o--'- o-•--t• � �
RESOLUTION FOR 1996 MINNESOTA LEG S/�DECISIOc� 7'���
DUAL TRACK AIRPORT PLANNING PROCESS
Whereas, the Oual Track Airport Process is concluded with the puh�ication of the Metropolitan
Airparts Commission's Environmentai Impact Statement which determines that the current
MSP airpott wiil serve our area untii the year 2020; and
Whereas, the estimated S5 hillion cost of a new airport terminai, plus infrastructure for a totai
of over S 10 biliion, is an unnecessary expense: and,
Whereas, the costs of unnecessary airport expenditures adversely affect thousands of
permanent jobs in the airline industry, and in related service industries; and
Whereas, the peace and quality of life for residents in the l.ower S[. Croix River area of
Western Wisconsin wouid be severely damaged by a new airport;
Therefore, be it resolved that the undersigned cali upon the 1996 Minnesota State Legisiature Resolution nOted.
to ac2 swiftly to end the costiy Dual Treck Airport Pianning process, to act to release any
further site protection controls related to the Dakota County site, and endorse noise mitigation
efforts near MSP.
NAME ADDRESS
I�►t.i.'�-7��,1t!SG�:t���3:'�'��rii[�'1/ �
� � :G _r d � , , _ . _. . : _,:.�
' , � -- r i .
.,..� ._� -
d
I-222
�.e. � 4�5,3 �.3 a-�-�. � p,u..-�=�-z�j
� --- lV G o �3�3 �'
..�'�. ,uF ����s�n�E �G� 39� /3 Z 3=� ST. f�fS'ca�LT_'.
�. �' �vG 3� �. I 3, 3-� .
- IJ� �t-S�.- i i3 f�.
'� ( <� C�7 /3L3�a�
(0 3 3 ��
�� %/�3GZ �323 '`�'
. . .ec:� :.`.���,,... :✓�.y6a � �3 s �
D, N 3 � fq'
UY12�L �vm vn d �/.Z e��cTC n eun ��
��--r'� ��--� -�?/�' 3 d,� 5�"
��.,i � o�.fvr� , / '75 �,/d•l./�-GL r�" •
cc�' ��os�
, ,�.3c.���s�Z-I
�!�,�,.c��7' C�Ji �ydz�
���Ce�C�J% v�r�y
T". .�Fs�dT �'f� z�
Y�' a..,�Wis-yoz/
�,/lCS�°�� S�Z/
-{-�c.c-�scm, �i. 3"'�O /C�
w,�-a9.P��-,�:�, 5�2-Z
�� �S�Fo .� i
�� � ���
cd,- ��.�,� G✓ ,�� �� �ou
I-223
'}
APPEND/X J
8
.9.
10
11
12
14
A-1
A-2
A-3
A-4
D-�1
L-1
M-1
M-2
O-1
Q-1
Q-2
Q-3
Q-9A
. .........
Q-10
. .........
R-1
_ ........
T-1
. ........
T-2
. ........
T.3..
T-4
• ••••-•••
T-5
_ T-6..
. ........
W-1
W-Z
F/GURES
Location. MaP .................•--.................................._..
No Action Alternative
....................................................................................
Extension of Runway 4-22 to 12,OC
....................................................................................
1994 Average.IFR.Travel.Tme and Dela�
.......................... . . .. .....................
Year,2020 Avera�e.IFR.Travel Time and
.. . . . . ............................
Avera�e Annual_ Delays, and. Costs
.. . _ .. ..............
MSP.2020.Concept.Plan ....._...,
Year 2020 Avera�e IFFi.Travel.Tme and
, ....................... .. .. . ..........
MSP 2010 �TCP
.. . .. .....................••••••.....•-•...........................
MSP Ootion 1 Eliminated
eration - No Action Alternative
MSP_ Option. 2.Eliminated
•-•• .......................•--••..........................................................................................••--•-•-
MSP.Option 3_Eliminated
............•••• .....................................•••••........................••••••••-•-•••••-•••••••••••••••................
MSP Option_ 4 Eliminated
.. .. ..... .....••••••• ...........................••••••••-........•••...........-••••••-....................................................
MSP. Option..5.Eliminated
.......................•••••••........._......................................................................•••-•...•••••-•.....
New Airport Alternative Eliminated
................ . .. . . . .........................-••••••-...................................................................................•-••.............
Carbon Monoxide Non Attainment Area
.......•••••• ........................••••••••••.........................................................................................................•••••--......................
CO, S02 and PM-10 Non Attainment Areas
......••••••• ....................•••........................................................................................................•••......................................
CO Monitor and Air Quality Receptor Sites for On-Airport Sources - MSP and No
Aiternatives
••-•••-• .............................••--•--..................................................................•••--......••••••••••••••--••-•--•••-••-••----.........................
CO Analysis.Locations (intersections)_for.Off:Airport.Sources.:.MSP 2020 Concept,Pian.
.......••••-..... . . •• •• . . . . .
Potential Bird-Aircraft Hazard Areas - MSP and No Action Alternatives
•••• .........................•-•••••••••-.............................................................•••••••••••••••••-••••-•••••••••-•....••••••••••...............................
Floodplains,.:. MSP and No Action Aiternatives
........... .....................••••••........................••-•••.......................................................................................•••.....
Historic/Architectural Resources - MSP Alternative
......................................................................•••.................................................................................••-••-•....................
Historic/Architecturai Resources - No Action Alternative
Existin�..Land Use_at MSP
. .............................••-••................................•--.............................................................................
Future Land Use - MSP Aiternative
....................••••••••.....................................•••.............................•••••-•.....•••............•••••.................................................•••........
Future Land Use - No Action Alternative
.................••••..........................................................•-•......•-•...........•••.....................................................................................
1994 DNL Noise Contours
..••••• ...........................•••••................................................................................................................••••••••...............................
2005 Fli�ht. Tracks.:. M5P Aiternative
.................. . . ............••-••••-•••••••••••--••••••-•••••....................................................••-•-..........
2005 DN� Noise Contours - MSP Alternative
.............•••--..............•••...................................•-•••••••-..............................................................................................................
2005_DNL.Noise.Contours.:.MSP_Alternative.with.Runway 4.22_Extension ... ..................
2005 LyQ6b Noise Contours MSP Alternative
... ........ ......... ......... .... ............... ... •-•-•••.. ......... .............. .............
Selected_ Noise Sensitive.Fieceptor Locations :_MSP and No_Action Aiternatives ..............
Mitigat�on to be Completed through 1997 MSP Alternative
........ ......... .. . . ......... ......... •••-••••• ...........•••....
Area of Miti�ation in_MSP.Noise_Miti�ation Plan
.....•••• ............... . .........................................--••-•..................................•••-•.........
2005 Fli�ht. Tracks - No Action Alternative
..•••-••-........ . .......................••••-••......................................................................................................---•................
2005 DN� Noise Contours - No Action Alternative
....................•••........................--••.......................................•••••••-••.................•-•.....................................................................
2005 DNL Noise Contours - No Action Alternative with Runway 4-22 Extension
..............................................•.....................•--••................................................................................................•••.................
2005 L�R65 Noise Contours - No Action Aiternative
............... . ........................-•••••..............--•...........................................................................................................
Park and Recreation Land - MSP and No Action Alternatives
...•••••-• .....................................................••••••••-...........................................••••••................................................••••................
Residential/Commercial Areas Affected by 2020 Highway Improvements - MSP 2020 Con
Pian
••--• .................................................................................•--....................•••••...........-••••••....................••-•••-..............................
Residential/Commercial Areas Affected by.2010_Hi�hway, improvements - MSP 2010 LTCP
.........•••••••••••-•• ..................................................•••••...... ....•••••....................................
Off-Airport.Properties Displaced by.North _South Runway RPZ =_ MSP Aiternative
•••-........... .. . •• • ...•--•-•••...........••••• ................•-••..........
Residential Properties To Be Acquired. For Noise Mitigation ;.MSP Alternative
........•••• .................. ..••••••....... ..... .. . ....................•••.....................•••••......•••......
Community. Facilities - MSP Alternative
.....•• .............. ...•••...............................................................••••••-•-•--•••-••-.......••-•••-.................................••--.........
Community,. Facilities - No Action Alternative
...........•••••..... ...............................................................•••..........•-••••..............••••-...............................................
1992 Daily. Vehicular Traffic - MSP and No Action Alternatives
.................... ..........•••••.......... . . .. . ............ ...................••••••............•••-••...........................•••......................
2020 Daiiv Vehicular Traffic - MSP Alternative
Dual Track Final EIS
J-1
W.5
W-6
W-7
Z-1
AA-1
�BB-1
•• ••••-•••.
BB-2
CG2
. .........
CG3
. .........
CG4
CC-6
. .........
CC-7
. .........
CG8
. .........
CC-9
FF_ 1
FF-2
FF-3
FF-4
FF-5
FF-6
2020 Travel Times (PM Peak) - MSP Alternative
......................................................................................•-•...............•••••-•-•••••-•••••..........
2020_Travel,Times (Off Peak) : MSP Alternative
. . . .. . .........• - -• • . .. ....... .............••••-••••.......•••••••••-••••••••••••-••-•••
2020 Daily Vehicular Traffic - No Action Alternative
2020 .. . . . . .. . . .. .....................................•--............................
Travel Times tPM Peak) - No Action Alternative
. . - •• •••••---•-• ...... . .. . .. . . .. ....................................................................
2020 Travel Times (Off Peakj - No Action Alternative
...•-• ..............................................................................................................................
2020 Hi�hway.lmprovements : MSP and No Action Alternatives
................. . .. ....................................................................
2010 Highway Improvements : MSP 2010 LTCP
................. . .. ....................-••••......................•••••••••.......-•-..
Existin�..MSP Sanitary.Sewer �ayout .........................................................
Existina MSP V1%atermain Lavout
MSP Watershed Boundaries
..............................••••••.........................................,............•-•--•-••••••••.._...................................•••••-•.................
Minnesota River Dissolved Oxygen.Concentrations, Ft. Snellin� Station.......
. . ............ . . .........................................-- ---.....
Bedrock Topo�raphy.and_Relevant.Data Points :.MSP and No Action Alternatives
. . . . .. ....... . .. . . .. . . .. . . . .. .. .................---•-•..................................
Geologic Cross. Section A:A'
. . .. .... ......................................•••••••••.........•••••........_...........•••-•••..........................
Geolopic Cross Section B-B'
Geologic. Cross Section_ Locations
•••• . ...................................................................
Bedrock Geology_=_MSP and No Action Alternatives
..............••-••••• •-...--•-.....................................................................
Surficial Unconsolidated Deposits ...............................................................
... ................................................. .
Generalized Groundwater Flow Direction - Perched Water Table
........••••• .........................................................................................•--..............••••••-••-••-
Generalized Groundwater Flow Direction - St. Peter Water Table
...............................••••-•...............................................................................................
Wetlands - MSP and No Action Alternatives
..................•••-•••....-••••••................................................................................................
2005 Overfli�hts,of. Wildlife Refu�e - MSP Alternative
••• ....................... .............••••••••... ....••••-••.........••••••...............
2005.Overfli�hts.of_ Wildlife Refu�e.:. No.Action Aiternative
•- • - .... . . . . ..........................................
MSP Alternative 2005 DNL Contours - Wildlife Refuge .............. ...
..........••• -. .. . . •••• ••-• • .................................
No Action Alternative 2005 DNL Contours - Wildiife Refuae
Within 2005 MAC Hiqh Forecast DNL Contours
Dual Track Final EIS
J-2
'C.
,G
'�
a
.�.,'
L
�
Q
L
Q
��x::� ��i�V�i�� "'
;fi-a�'' N
::':;<:�k;�:� N
;r;��=��,:� N
� 3x �� O
�� N
..�vw .,•;t`,� �;�u::�:,,_�.vG a� . �,:fx...�y:>a:..c:3;�._v..r
� .a t t �� a ..is
;rm a�,' , 1' �' � r 4 �?,�� �
.'.c.___4C�.. ��y 3-��'''r�.c!;_;�.,;_' 't—
� iT{' -' f IJ.. 1 .'.:. M
S_ r �h./
11 y'Syl-Y f'Yl 1 ':�k `'�y^J. T'
� � n y �? t� i rr a� ae, c i�.
r^�� s-y,9r ..,Y-.Jrsw;::.ti't: �(aY,=;.__.'„s?u�n.t-�ri �—
+�' ..'�-'�T � d r f � ��� " �
y r..�-.rj'�.�w. yu�?'. r .L:!�c��..-:.� ��' 'T-
::;� {�`�i)� %�' �
�,*}j.��s��%jri::5'' T
���^Gy`'i�1�"!�''�'�j� '.iLLs �
:rt:.kaT,:�,=�....,��,^..,•r,,.�q T
b y' 3 +r �' c�M s�,�. ��i`-,�t,'n• (�
, ue�'Yzlf�'`f> �fi`z.R v$''�ul-r��:::ti,. r—
���;��� �4.. $� �� '`� �,^.x�..�.'m���"��`4,'"�i��� �'i-' T
s:i �� i S� �'���'f �fa+,r4.A'�!" �1��'.. �,d �x.:;; T�
.;�;? 1 f �i'2,�5+;�s°`ktSl#�iy^+�'r�z.y��x{�tr.; T—
a�-.''.-z,���h:�i����+; O
?�x:c_..z! fi �i��."��",`-���',-��,i-���+�'-,' 'i�
'-'" �;�: """'�{s
:��:..����.� �
c ,, :'=�1 �tr!%jx�' CO
, � � � ,�.�. . � �� .r��n�. �
Yd`�'�?f 'F.$ �.`'�"`a�t`�'`�t,��"i�i�7 ryj�p �'^ j�.
.-�,a�:fi'�''rFnY.i?'t�...•�r.�_.�.i_.2..A:-f._t� �:
���:r: �
s 1.�:
:�� �
=a;"r
�;�,� �t
:43�r� �
;;�t:
a N
r
a
O � Ci7 d' N
N T T T� T
O
T
sa�.nu�W
Op cQ d' N O
�-� �
; q> .
I 't
i
O aU CO d' N O o0 CO 'd' N O
N T T � � T
sa�.nuew
�
.�
a
�
c
Q
m
t--
Z
_
di
U
�
�
O
�
J� N�S�
QP
h
2 1,
c '�'
N
G �
� �"'i
H��
v METRp
�
>
:�
cv
c
`
a�
=
a�
c
0
�
U
Q
O
Z
O
C6
L
Qi
Ct
O
�
a�
0
�
_
�
a�
E
i=
a�
>
�
LL
r
1.1�
�
d
�
>
a
O
N
O
N
i
f�
�
�
:�
K
� �
2
,r
:1
70
N
L
O 6O
_
0
0
0
...
A
� 50
�
�
�
3
� 40
30
�
10
�7
( , �
0
'
B
B
,
e
v ,
c�S �
U �
� A
L�L j
c'
=e
a� r
mi
r
N B
d B
N
L � Q
RS , �V ,
a� ; ��
�- , `Q�
cr
i �`�s'
r `� I
i �}
A
e
'
� J�t'
e �Pi
i �Q�
' P�'
e 5
a `y.
w
,
r
e
� ,
0
�
�
e
�
i
d
1
6
r
0
B
0
B
1
1
I
1 ,
EXISTING AIRFIE�D
YEAR 2020
Annual Delay: 45 Thousand hours
Annual Delay Cost: $66 million
MSP ALTERNATIVE
YEAR 2020
4nnuai Delay: 26 Thousand hours
4nnual Delay Saving: $28 million
420 440 460 4$0 500 520 540 560 580 600
Annual Demand (000 Operations)
��Pvo�is sq�Nr
� � � 9
m z Source: FAA Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport, Capaciiy Enhancement Plan, Figure 16 and HNTB Analysis
A�� , ��
h
� 7 � � �
�r� ���°~ Average Annuai Delays and Costs
N'ilHvoK�S
r - i ., r�`} r r .; � .
: � b�' ' � � \ t ,. : � _ i � � �,,, y a.:
� �� � � � i'4� � i '� F �^' � �.
� � , ,,
.,l � r
c�4 st,�.� v li��.� ' ``�
fA' �' t � ` �� ' � '�`` , � .
+l. b%.Y� y, � `` �+'
, �ji1 �� $ ; °'i� �t. � a�,.�q,��
� �=.�i-[!�}�'�, ������ � ��` '"�.�
�. Q. � �R � 1�� � ' � p 1 .
� �'S �
� '� 4 -ry
��� ,�^�� �� � � ��� � � f � V
t f
, �� } ` � D ? ' � ��.. ; `
�•�,�� 4 �t�f .� y �. �.'�� ��� �/�\
� � 'ae��.t� t 'q�&'h
ro
C ��y,t�t�, " Y`d. r,_ � , »fX �
N �S,i���i� ' '� � :;' �( t,� ��" ,�\`lii
. � � �� �;� � ) � f� !� `i �: � ��
y� '� c � �se ��"� -�pi � � ,rs �a
��
� � } .�� s� �� � - p a���' ,;.
--:
. 4 � `^� # ` � .
Q � Y
�� s� i. t`�{.i'�-- �c �t�'�'� �� -,,.i
? � � � I • °� �� .'��� �'��
r�' u�j_ !^ r. I ri �'�._" ��..
�' ,�,.
G ' ,. sr''' rr
W ,:`::r�' �;1 '' ;.,�
. � �,.. ' �-��
�. �
r I(
� �
����� ��
� --�� }-�
t , ��. � �
£ ;a
!�. ,i#;.� 4 � �
s
�� �� �# � �
i �
a
� { 5��,,�
�� � �
x ' �' 1 �`+:
r
�. �'i i t I'':
�i 's�`�,i�' ��i
v: ...�.3'�, ,, � � �c�
�'> F ..., �r x
:,.. �t �, g�a �i�•.
. '-2 �`G:
i � �l ��
:'c � ���� ��.^S
} t �L"n_t
�y »
�=� .,-� �
- �
T"",�."_'L 7i
-.,F��%^- � _ � P
- v�l�d d� .�: �.
. �� a tt"'t e.�
�v.t4`��lR'�".: l �.
, i � � r S � 2 ��y `.
i
�°�a ' '
�
(���a r-1'�' :r...
'� =
t�,'ta�'�'G':O '�-,
�o...�; ea x .r �,
. I'�'.'` �; ��J�
1` g
f y�� t.' �ti :.
3 �_'3�T�» '��¢ �;
� ��M�ry� r.����•... �
_Si_. �4' :_4 .
� g,�ur-.�'�`
� �` �' -
r k��
G ( iz�'� 1 �
� a. �i �
t n` :4ry?�
;w�.
. A . . � ;4��.:y:��..�= L
`'�� G�,..:.:r�.�k::`.�.
L 4
: O ,k��� � ���
Q. � L
. y� �L1�-.'i'3' �.i
�..�Q: ':iet'u�i`iyfi'
r I�S t,� r'i
.; V ',�"�'�� x"�'
� �3,.tRn;t#_
i � k +� �F
t- al;:� a=,��,.y�
� �`f'�°...ys#Ift��
� .;e
�
�
\ �
ME�OCO
n
�
C7 W Ci7 rt' N O 00 C.� d' N O
N T� T T T T
sa�nuiw
A
a�
0
�
c
c�
a�
�
i=
� �,
� >
i= c�
L
N �--
>
�
� ~ 11.
O �
= 07
�
.�
�
�
c
Q
m
H
Z
Z
N
U
L
�
O
�
J` NOISS��
�
QP v0.
ti •�
2 � �,n
T �
y 6
� ��, """ �
� y.� �_
6 � �
P
titih" Me�oc��
t 1 .��A1 '
�+-• �. � .;
: G � L�cSco � � r �v
t'� `` � �i �
� �/� � �4 l �� A � � �f� .A � � "..
�� 7� � �'�� t * *�' .,x
.. /�, b�1� .� ��. ,,. � � :
� ����� \,, il1�Y �y !' �'�,Y �'� n
N _� � ; ' ' . �
� ; t
+r �; � � ti.:
� V �� �� �" � � .�
'%..
- Q �'�i'��� � � ij��`'��� . t -:�� :
k
�, � ��( (} ��`������ t �..� � { ��_l p�-;�.:'„.
. � �4. i t 5. � t 1� � / I� �!
Y � .. , t' jt 6
{�i j4 i�"",�„�,..y„ �' a�� �P '../� � � �
�4��'�� f . :�c, r.— 1 � " `�"
� �, .t�� , � , � )� �� R„ ..
�� : � �
,
E�� � ' �'�
�`.,�,;' � - ��`"u, �. w;� .� W' �
� =� _ � ��. : �
_.� �, f �. r,��
0 �- � � t, f, �� � � ; t -�.
.. y� ci r^� y'� �.�� j; ��.'`�` '{ >.�
�� 7 1 � �: �r ; ���.,� � `� ��� �4✓�� rr 4,:.
� rc �3-,,,7�� , . �,. ��� �y,�-;,a mM
W � ����� �� ��� �x �
?� ;., l�+ �F �.
„�" � �` i : �'i � `"'`�
�' ; � ��� 4 �, �fr � � �'�'�
� � �
µ / ��f+ � efi�� ��
4
' ' �/'����'r v �� � ` ""' :� ,� �
�.y� .,,,f %�� .� , �,,,� �� �, p Y:. t�
�����-""'"r 1 �. ,� d .(�� �,.� ! -` ,�
ayr-�" �,�. ,,', �_�: ��: i ` "ECS:e
s �� � ��
.. .5'�{���. �� ���� •.
� <�� % �:
w--'" ��r€ ��� �`�' �`� �� e�;.�ii�,��`. �t; �s
. '�,� 3 ��. ��
P F•
� ��t � (t��"���F1 �„«`� ``s°°a � '�
?\ r;
1 � � ° > �
� ���; �
� .s.t�� s t i �`�Cr� � �r �`f.
�F � �' ���{ `�, � 7 �
� yw��.��"���' � !{1� �k t,n: `,�._'.,� .
1. � �W
r � S ,..�'.z � !1 � .,t�,1s.� �q� F� j�"'7
4 GL•� ( f �\ :' ' h }' -T 1 � �`ShL
{ .�-a
� .�ll ��� y. n . � Al �4`� �f
�� ` ,"'�,:� �T3, � s�} O ��
� � �,: ����r � ��
� =»� ���--,
---� >� � �`� ,
.....:t. f : q.. ..
�w f S�} � 1 � �r cw' `+�
! ��
t� �
�. ' ,� {: '�,,'"_`.,�� �t tY��i""' �.wl�t ,r'
� � 1 x�`�'..�,�a�a3'� a`c 6'
��y �,�,� ;' �'''�' � � ' � t � � .�� '�
� �S: 't'^! 'F � � f 4 �. �}�` �� s��. C
v�y, T
S 9 t'76 � r :� '- ,. � �5��,. ., F
.,�� �k� ./ �a. ,� „..� � � �
c
F ,y
(Afz^�.O r'�� �\ � �"t '� c • ��C.�"`J ;` �a� � ty�
i o a�oT€�` Q€ � '� �./ 6-tl^� a � = � � � .
!rT'.� �� � i,''� �C � 4,y a' �' � � s
� �� i � ����� �x � ; � � � J��
��_ � �.�i. 7�. y c°� K�,..fa ^�" A ��, � .,
,y,,�,; � ••�,.}tr /�
��� M .:o!`� L'ay.:t�• ,�� 5�~. °Y��`���`,�a�"��°r�,�_��.
tn "��. :�], � ;• .
� � _... rv..L'� % � _ r-��°,
� (� t3r< � 2 ` `' tr �. � �:
. .� i3!�,�,,,y�, �\
' ry(�4 �r��' � �'' ' t
q �1 ^��" }
Cff E �r-'��.-�"� �� �'�� -�„
�ti �
, �•-
i ��, � , � .��,.. 4:° ;
� �����'"'� T�.,:--F�
� f �; k"�
C � �'r''+�`���i�' -�.� 4 i t
i� i 4 ;-.� �` �" ���� *o
n s:: _-�.-..ra� �. � k � 5'
�._ �� � � a v.�r ��,,
.1�..Tm7`Su"�z"a,4.."iw'�h.� ���i�'3"rt � g 11�j ; �'.
M
� � f T"!z, 1 �al, 4 !:r � �. � �,
L �J �� � �!�_.�Y � � � � ��� ,
`�' �(a�,�t � p�k�i"� _.','{,£ t�y � }�� i� �
4 a, f ,i � �
:; � �f �c.�... r t� {Y Y r � �r� � '4-.�. ��',-����
� � �Llfe .e.Pt��`i:C. �+t � � �+ �� IB`i3n�..urr
Q "�'` ,�;�=�7` '�'�"""si�f���r�cr
- ;� �..,'��"T.,���"'� � ��.�� .
Lt.� '' - 5..� �. � 1.i�'?; .�
��
¢:W.
q �
�
w
1 �
���` — � :,_��� -.— ,�L_��. _ _���,..� � �
�1 ��1=-. `�, �
; !.;`.. s:;�_-_, , � '�
t� ( ' �_ _-,� y--: � � ' W
y—r ,.. �,.,, - N m ' �
�; , , . . . m � ,;,�
i� p V- Q
, ��� . _ - -- / � C di
_-.1/,�' �.��----..�, N :�
`_'- .—..,,, C. '- � C
���<< �//'��� �\�� ` � J �r' � �
� \�= i / ; `::; ..�
�� i - \� � O
- � � � ��.�_.....�,,,. l "� � , � c�" �. � i�i
� � �� ' � . � :`� �, ,� • �
� � ' �',� - . �,`,, r ��,1 `�,�j
� �' >;d� � . , ., , ; �
. '' ; `� ' i�� . ,,�, � '`,-- o
'�,'% �� ; ���..,,.`.J� '� co
;,--� 1 :' - � �y,+ �, '�.: % �.
r , "' �,. J i � � t�
_ �'(, ,` � ��� � q�
j' �i �\� ' � p�� � \'�ti •� .0
jf� i m �,-._ `, L �� $ �►+
j ' `. ��� �r 4��� f .. ; ,. �l Q o
� � �r",.: li % � � �
;• : y . � i � .�. .�`�,���•�:; ;� / `� � � � r��
�, �'� � ;;� , � .:., f .:r r � �, � L
i . �i / r�:i
� � � ,4 � 1 '�. r2,,;� t. � ::i�
c ' �� . /1(/"�, ti, \ �
/��.. ¢�J ;._,�� � r,�(��a., � �e ..r V j 1� y`Wct6'�� '�' .� --'�--�""-/s . . �i�
c� o° y j , ; ,,,,n � � r� (,� a �t � � `. � �\`�`� `"�, .
ti k �
I � . . P`,, ^ t � . • r � ; f / � .� - �,�,�o { �i. / � `` ��
// i ��, tj? � `j �. `�..
�� �ms� r � '� ��` /� S 'a 3m'�/ /
'2 / • : r �y � �: -:� G t9
� C �� � � , � � - � ; ¢ . ; ,, � �� ---, ��� � �:�: _ o L
1, II.-;��\ rCY/ !yl / J'�� t ���_il�' � �
�li� _ �' �... � , 4` .� �.�`�.'� � �'� � � � �J l-; • .. .. � � C
, I`_—. � � ���,. � ` y �� ' �,•� ' /� � ' � � ?i 1\ ' c
'�—.,.I— �.� �', r�' I,� �.� :^r�T ,�' � ../ �`AVi j �' •i
�. �'c. � f '.��' _/,, �
I(__. I �� . ��r \ �''� ` J'.r �.; l.. _ � tt ��1 C`5 !-
, ;� T.iI � ; � � �u ;, ;,�,, ; �� , � ��r .� f � t�, , - : r , � i l , —�
�tJy�' � �r �? � YV `_��JC � �'�� l� „�,. ,�, r,�! � i
ir � t �.�i . �d ��J.-, �:,�� � '',�y� a �.,J-: ' � ufE �� �
I l ' + ~ �1 t';• ' �,
� r•- _� �,: i ��.<`�• \� "�l� /,�� v ( 4 6�� ��
���; �1 r� r e' //._J�� :� \��O l.,%"� F:� �I L" t��� � \ ij ��I! � a)
��,� ���0 � f J (� � �� �o_. �: � � � i _ ��\�\\\`\ i'II if L
` ��,. � , �
� ..,]L�� � ���i r-,,--- ;: ��-�- �� �� � � � .-- � �� � _ — -- —� �i IIi� .� �
� > 1 t� - °r �� ii � < � \ ,.,IC by \ �ti - �' �
+ � �[
i • v — - • �I'�n � G
� � �b r- � �
� �� �t� � p � � \ i� U �r� � : '�,. \� '� �y � i� r � 1 � 1 iL_ �� � i� f ;� •
� , '1'� �I� � ` ,7_,� � � ) � .�<. �o r ��� � 'I 1� i � , o� I IE= � T�
I� ���� � � �, o, � t� _ ��/�7 < , , �: � ��.._. ��¢ :i �; i�� I �� ��'.�,�z� ` ; ��� �s �
�� � um.�� � .•', �!� r;� � \�� � yJ,``~� `�.J m � !� , pl r ' L' i
.II Y) ,• , ,�� �6a ,.>._ � _C ,. � � �
,� . � � �� i
� � �`. �_ •• j �� �,,�s��s� � i � ' �'� �.__.
�I '����II I`���. I� ' Yi' P.fd --�r-. ��_��r i i
. �
�'. _ ��! r : Y I �� �� � L i� m
_ .; , i : i—
, I�i� ���':.� ,�-�.ia r .' „ �� .. .' .. ... . .., :,��:: � � u .c; c.�l Y_"1�;'�3 � . - � ;� Z
� ,i.. i� - ' � � � � ' � . . . - ;�� � �.� �
� . :,�< "yq�.' � � � ..,�, � � U
� .�i: � . ...- . . _� ,
� � A � 1 � � �;� �o6ie� a�y.-s�stlueH �, �
,� ., �" Jil`��. :::r - � -_� �� � � - o
.,<,.,,� :�� . ,.m_ J ,�,b , P `` o �,\i ,� � � cn
� ,
� ;
N j : �\ . , ' '�i�l �� �l� �r -�i� . ., n `-__ -�.., .,._..� J� , ;� �. � - �':': r-= o
\ �I'1 o�sr
- I . � � - , �b ,. `� I
_ � � . � � .. �-_- �� -- _._ : J>�, � � �,,�aa�� �� ` QPo� N-(-, �w'�'oo
') � ��� ° ..7. : � �` - - (—� - a !i: 6`P .:i;. FFi�. I t ��.� f` I��'.; ; _ � Y
I� - I.('�:' � _� � _
, � r F. �� . __. � � i .. Jr__ }r. . I � 2 .E�f � �f�� �.f #i� � .e i � � � �. �O
. �
� ,- � It,: ! � ,..� „ a
, i¢ � ''�._._.� -� �� � � � ` , , � �
; _ '. n _ �
R\ - � - .,.._..z�: .,..,__.ta_._....�.,,_..,....�...k_.�,.,.�,. : ��� �.o„ _ J_ : 1�T o �� �' 2
r
[ � /� ,... �` `<
\\ �
,..... _ �'i.i�:��'i ��III NH "`'� Qdy
� �4�� 1�" � j! �K' MEt0.�
� . F`-��.�
'"_� , � F �c'1'',\y4 °.� u II
,. i F —Ji.�Lv� pi
a
� �
� ��
. . nil . �-_ , _ ��-L� Jl___��.f-,....�'�•�
li, ...,� .._u. 7
j I ��.\
'I�r, ��� /..'
��;,':• _ �� j _•
..
..• .
', i. � . :
. � .. _...
: � ..1'L � ..;.�°;;::
�1 _' —. �r�.= i,.�� . .. .. . .
� e �
� �
o �
O
� '�
N W
m �
m
� � t.Z.
O C �
�.N.^ m �i
� o
�
� . �,r : `-� •r �""`- �\ \ � tdi
/ ' �. \ �,;; �\ �.j. ,� � �
. - T � -...�,____ � � , \ �r
,/ •-';% `%! `� \'� \\ � `�`--;.
�''��% � �s� _,. J . � `�� o
'' � = - � `�'„ �`� `� :;: (�C ..
_ � � ``�! �,�1,, v
�. ;1 � \ , o�,� ;' `, � \ ��`� c �
,;i� /' � ii � ,; aKSm . � �---. �, /,�4,� � s
�� ! , '�' � eT� . '` '�
�,P � r��`�ey�` �� �-,1 � 0'
�/ F ` • � , �r :.= \'�. i �tE
Q � �
.�• =.:. � :, , �' � � ( ,� �, � 9 > r ,, ;,`, : `� �.-�,•"�i I(� `
� � ' � �� �'� �c..�� "� (f���Ii(���
11 ' Q`+�< . � :'; i.� `' , M�is -� r�-� ;:`� 4 \�\ � _ _ _ a��i� .
I cm �. c( f % ` � ��/ ' F . �i.. .�
. i j ?� ' r . � �". �� Y �, :' � ���pW�- � � i
f �q " o �t ,,• "� i Pi �t ' . = �:
t �_ •' \\t� �in° /f .�", i% �r9'" p�` 'f� /� ,�m......, ��� ,�'�; \ � C
J ... r,, , � 4 �.,- Q,
. ` � \ 2°'i � �T i Y � �� 4 Q ;r,,,
'�,,= `-� i `,- �'_ '�`, �--� i� �' y� �-.j� ::� ,_... ; �
\,' � . f � � � , �'' : i _ c � .
� �.— �_ ,� iY� j� ; .� ; �r s. ; r � �
_��, i �-�r y�ti�`�3(' �1� �� ���� % ��r �w j� � �...`'' 'C C.
� �r.�.��� �' ���4:� !�\/ •��t ',f . (') , - "`I V t� 41 C!
r � 1 ¢a�[� �� . n ..; �� p �,. � �'
L�`'�'-' �-� ��I j . ��l �f, J .J• �.�a�`� ;� \. � �..� a�� ,! t r—�
, o .i'. �.�'� �G'•-�' t. �t`� C �`,S; r�-� ��
I �: . � �� ,�.-,.�� -,� �,;' i ` �� '_�
�. `� i r=� 4 �= � �`,( � f ,� ', ! , : i� y; 4 ,;; �
� '- ; r�� i� ��. ��'c: C, - F),)i o o � �� � � �� o
C , ,—'''E,�,�co �� :� �`` �' �, �
*�:��L'� ��'�� '` O C> � i r� � _ � � � '�� ii rn
'� �,,,,,,:--; �,�i ; ` , :�� C, ,_E� �e - � J � � I � ca
� � J � � ���'1i 4 ! , ���:�\ � I'` ,,. Q�_ � (�
�,���, � J ll -- '� t ��' ' < - - r-� _,,� , y�. r €' � ,B -�
i� _�; F" � � \ ' � yo' ' ' �:.,ati , ��� � � 4f-�—u-1 � � �: 6f C
�� _ ��' f '{:t.' � ,���\G�� Y I � I� �� � .c�:a j t L'�
, ,.
. I >: ( �
, ' � � ; �, . , . ^' ��j _� l .. � .� l J�,�.g�� p� . . . y � � 1 t �
i /, i � _ � � / (:,\ � � � ��� I -' F rJi �, .�� �g 4
!� !�' ,, . \.J ':.� �. ;
_
(� � �f�l,� !�/° � , � (�.. :n�s � � ..t
� r�. .'�'f% �� � �'• 5 r, A -� i ' r
,� � �e :. _ ,— = --�- ', j - ' : -
U
i � 1 � , _ �� j (�° —� �` _"� �— � � ' ,-
��3� l\�' ��P �S. I � ���� r'
'I"'�� I �� ua- �>'( J� _a� ,:.ra �� � ' Z
� ��, . :; ;?i f � !b � ti s�n6uoH-� - _. _ _ 'sae6ueH I S
( ' � � '�t . , l
��; � �^ "� `r- lo � \ �_ � �
�-� ,� j,l� ���. �� -���.._.— - � 7:; =' � os�a�,�,,,._.�, � � ' - �
,11 "�'� Z'w� � ��� � ',� '�� n � i � v°�
..H ,.� i ' � � '� I b r �� � �t c� �" � � ,
" �' �1 r=o � Q I;
�� � � � � � � � � � �� �� ���
�� 1 �-- I) '�. I po� ss�
=1 � � -;� c a 1 � ; I �\�ai3;-�- , (II. �°` -{` '�w°�
'� I ' J� ; � ; ci �u4� ' � . w ;: �' `,. ,r .� " � � �e s
\. � m � � � �::�:�'.'':•ti,4.���; • 2 '�''
�� � _s �.••,:.:;: • .�ti.�,. j'\ i � , g
�'i'b
� .,\ —� ,r r ,-_•,� .�.�,� •k� , ~d
.�.�•i i ... . i _.- , ' .i . - . . . - . _..� �r 0. �� � e�
, � �, � - - � � . - . _ _ -
- ,
__. 1�,���.- .�__ -_�. i :...... . � . _. .. :.; - : -'�_ _ � �
- .� � � .-..3�,,.. . .�w� ... , . r�� � -.�„..-... ...-.,- „a-a.a -, ... �. ✓ / ij i o�{`� 'E"�z
i
, / �I ` � �
� ' ...,,,ttt...,,, �� �'H '-�'� o
nc::� ��: �� H�W MetaoP
. ,.E �e\'�r��_-- �,
E '�L� \ � �)
��� '
���i .�- �.�,� .a. �a. ��=�: .
�, —� � �
��I. :, >:.���
1(:•:.8:��v -=�� _� /ti:
,..s_.,�—�'�..i�._r�` --
� .�
�
' �
0 �
N ' W
m (Y�
m
LL �
N C �
T � �
� �
y/ o
� �
�`�
V'
�
�
0
�
�
L
q.+.
i/�
'c �
.E .°�c
'� +�
�. O
I i�f;t!�i
. :�:.:�3:f:
`ic"±: EI�€t�l��
'"o �,
� �
� c
� ��
`.� � �
� �
��I� �
.r.�,;
��ia i
�1 �, o
�I;� �
��, � .� �
T_:� a� G
= =
;��; � a a
�;
� � :,� -
;'i �__� ..
1 m
, �
.'I Z
z
'II• i
�� �
`��;;; a
i N
i !i:
I!�� J Noisr��
ap ` -�" o�
ti s
i�i �:. $ -�` /A `"a
1' �; Q �o
a
< �
Ii°� �
'` � � � <
T � .� �
� �
' � 4,�H � o��
N�K' MET0.�Q
��� �
� �
� � /
�� � �.�- �.= ..T.o.,. ��"��:�,.
�;_ _. . . ._,!_._ ...
�
m
�
z
S
ai
U
L
�
O
N
Q'' 4 H�S6� "`)
J
Y 'E< "'
�Yd
� 6
C
,�. 1, � <
O ` 'Z
y4 �1, �i'
�'1' T' O�'
H�w MET0.��
�'i
�
�
c
�
0
U
�
�
►
.
C
�
.O
Q.
O
�
�
N
�
0
c0
a�
�
Q
�
c
�
E
c
.�
�
�
Q
c
0
z
a�
�v
.�
0
c
0
�
e
O
.o
�
ca
U
�S pPU�NO/�
S
yP � yJ
N �N
r
J K
D O
6 � -Et �
�'L � <
yih � t'a
MeTHnPOL�
�
tn
n�
i
C1. r
�
C
,,�
�
tQ
a
�i-�
�
Q'
L
�
V
�
.��,.��:;.
�.
�
�
N
U
,
•
•
.
.
�
� �
� �
METROPO
1
N 7
L
��
_
�
a
�
�
O
^i2.
Q
�
U
t'�
i
' .':
t�
cn
I'. '
�
C'
'�
�;
c�
' a'
�
�
0
Q..
L
'a'
:'
'N
•
.
•
s
�
�.�
e
�
i.:
Dual Track Airport Planning Process
Environmental Impact Statement
Single Family
Multi -Family
Commercial
Industrial
5
� rA
■ Public/Semi-Public
1 Airport
Park
Vacant
9G
Z Source: Metropolitan Council, 1990
RPO
Road
Water `\f.:<
Farmstead
Vacant Industrial
DAI II GREN
SI 1AZI )10W
FWD' URAN
Vacant Public/Semi-Public
1992 MUSA
Scale i rl et
3500 1750 0
3500
A
N
10500
Figure 0-1
Existing Land Use at MSP
Dual Track Airport Planning Process
Environmental Impact Statement
Single Family
Multi -Family
Commercial
Industrial
r` 0Lls sqryT
c
Source: DSU, Based on Metropolitan Council, 1990
roctis
Public/Semi-Public Road Vacant Public/Semi-Public
Airport l Water 1992 MUSA
11111 Farmstead
Vacant Vacant Industrial
Park
DAI ILGREN
SHARDLOW
i\NI)•UBAN
Sca18 In I t
3500 1750 0
3500
A
N
10500
Figure 0-2
Future Land Use - MSP Alternative
Dual Track Airport Planning Process
Environmental Impact Statement
Single Family Public/Semi-Public Road Vacant Public/Semi-Public
__ _ i Airport 1 Water 1992 MUSA
NM Multi -Family p
Commercial NPark Farmstead
Industrial Vacant = Vacant Industrial
?4P 1 k n
a yG
01.IS Sq/4,
r
s,
Source : DSU, Based on Metropolitan Council, 1990
0
DAI II GREN
SHARI )LOW
AND •I'BAN
A
Scala In Fiat
3500 1750 0 3500 10500
Future Land Use - No Action Alternative
;.�
C
'_ .
C.
;tp'
a;
�
i
0
a
�
Q
�
\'
: V1
�
�
,�
:C
t6
d
:-�
i
O
Q
�
Q
,Y .
U
' R5
i
H
�
ti
i
Iv'
.;; d
�
� `'
G���v%�%�t�'�'�='�'!i � U'wi.�� QC� ��.-, �� � ���i��� �� ��!
1%i/ ��:�W. �
€rd /� ��:�=---
�� :., -�===��I:�1 __::�.�iq:� ��j-�t,l;�r.:1''����� .
W
�
_
0
n
LN��S
-�� Si
�
i �
� ,<�
ROPa`
a
+�
L
0
a
�
'�'C
U
tCf
�
�-' --- ------ ����� - �I ���■-����
��� �� �� ■ �� �� � ���� ��� � �
� ���� C��C��C. ��C ��r��.�C� �
L ��• ����� ��.►
� ���� ���� � ��� �r�� ���,� M
•:•�� I�������ii�� !����'- ���� ��i r-r�.....��.�L��.�i�' W ,
1 �
� �
�
u�
�
L'.<
C
t�
a
�
�
0
a
�
'a
.'_: _.��.� =�=�a��`f��!//l�/��►� � �1�����e�G�
::: .
, cn
; '�
�
c�
a
�
i
0
Q
i
Q
LiI
a
•
C
,� .
_
N
'a ;
.►r
�
0
fl.
�
a.
U
N
L
H
�
�
;�
�'
�'
:v'
;o
it=
�'
.�•
' �.
�
a
�
�
0
Q
�
<t
m
`F-''
Z'
�
0
N
;N
iN
:U
O'
': i.1
a
,�
:'_
�
c�
a
�
�
0
a
�
'a
�
U_
fa
i
t"'
M
'�
�n
C
" tCf
a`
�
L
�
a
�
a
v
�
L
�,
�i
N'
„�
�
0
�
u�NoiSs,
�
{
�
-F� ��c�
►Rovo�
1
�53,000 pPO�
�
� �
600�° � �
0
0
��� 9h
o uo�6uixa�
0
� � ���`
,p�,o �9 ��DO.S'
,OP � 13�00
a
y�,
'P8 Qa�N 1�I!d
o° d �0
��� J ��b
Y
aQO�� 000`^ � ❑ i
O OO .]
� � �,`'>� o00 ���SS
N ��� �
�
Qa' o
R,6��O o oy o�c'
�, ¢ s
°
0
0
m tr
005�61 � ^
41VE o 41VC
0
� o0
0
y�sa ooe,y � �6000
0
� � � 0 414i
�� o 0
N 000'48
opOg� OOO�ES 000'Y5 o anuany iepa� pbaao, �D�.
0 ofP 9�
000! � '_ - yspi
. `p `� 41Zt �
� 009'Ot
o p o
� Oo, o0 009�E1 0o PUe���od
a� � �
� 005�Z4
000'Z9l Q o OOO�l4 0 �a��oalN
0 0 �
� �n o c o
'- dp W N' �
� �
��0�� OOO�EI � a�epud�
o� � �OpO 9$��O 91000 �
� o g5� ��a�86 � OOO�OIt OOO�L04 ,�
8
w
� � � � °J o
rn rn
� uuad
�
Z �
>
:F+
� �
�.
• �
�
�
C
0
Qi=+
t�
�
O
�
�
�
�
�
�
1
V
a�
y/�y�(
•V
�
�/�
\V
f�`
T M
� 3 �m
3 m ,�
v o
o �
� II A
�
v v :�
� > :ti
> � �
c
o �
N
�
�
r
�U
c
�
0
C� '
c '
v
�
0
d
0
m
�
�
�
�
0
N
� No�rr�
Qr� � ��J
? �'� �
�rd
< °
N d
=
� � � �
� ;
d`�{ ;e
e
i,1,H,w M� 0.0�
9,000
600
34th Ave. S �
9,000 d
600 �
28th Ave. S
1
�S`
�O�
� 8� �
0
gg
o N
N �
o�
0
0
� co
MN
T
71,000
12,400
Cedar Ave.
12th Ave.
Portland Ave.
>
Q
� Nicolet Ave.
�
Lyndale Ave.
O
O
O
O �
o �d.
�r
t N
34th Ave.
Qo
00
o.d.
iM
r
o s� 24th
Qo
0
�, o
�'N
T
00 >
�? rn Q
n � =�
•- c
N
�
132,000 Q � °�o' 134,000
,-
0
0
i �m
n rn a'
r �
Penn Ave.
�I
.
a�
O
J�- 1 �
Q P ' `'�
�
a�
N
N
� �
�� \�,
ryH�w ME RO�
s
ca
0
Y
c
�rQo�is sq��r
�� � � A
..... I' �� 'f
�' Z Saurce: Metropolitan council
�� � � � �°
�" ��`°� 2020 Travel Times (PM Peak) - MSP Alternative
� A�RPORYS
� ?�'re�us sA��TA
,. . ���' �, '� �G
! f
_ ., 3 Z
�� � �°
� ,�
_ �
� S
!� ��� �Or
'�/RPORZS
Source: Metropolitan Council
2020 Travel Times (Off Peak) - MSP Alternative
���°
29 �
9,000
500
34th Ave. S
9,000
400
28th Ave. S
Z
U
U �
RS �`
� !--
t- >,
� �cci
� �
N
N �
tU� �
� j
> Q
Q �
�0
Q
I� 4
� O
� O
O �
N N
r
�
O
0
c
�
ai
c>
�
�
0
�
J� N„�'
`P
ti
2�
c
y
O.,E{ '
L� �ti�
/
� METR
d
>
�
cc
c
�
d
d�
�
C
O
�
�
�
C�
�
LL
r
L
�
�
V
.�
a�
a
.�
�
O
N
a
N
\ �
roe
a
�=a
'i
��rpous sA�NTA
F�2 T � y f
� 3� lZ Source: Metropolitan Council
.. . A� I I ! "Jl �
�" ��`°c 2020 Travel Times (PM Peak) - No Action Alternative
N�IRPORZS ...____
2��PQOL15 Sq��,Tn
�C � � 'G
f
3i y
�T � ��
� y
,J � �I
lr���RPORjS Oc
Source: Metropolitan Council
2020 Travel Times (Off Peak) - No Action Alternative
' y, ���� � � i "'., V �o, a ___..�xyl- � v� � _'1^^1Gr tl � v /.
�.r. a o .. R � � ��4ayy ..l dJ
� ° QI � � ` i Z ,`-� F�' C 4lll �" � �d, ,�, /�, . .
y t ..�"i i ~ ¢ 'S ')AV iwlv�YN - �[tG . � � . . ').s. �Q��JY � � �
Q �
Y 4 ` ^
R � /'� . � b� d. ./' a� , � 4•
X j � � � w � tl 1 W � � p � _ �^�:J
`(�� �S �l�r 7+ali�3u5� W s 'tl'tl'! 'OH
) U (%I ? I �. � 2 2 (_� � � '7' d1 � � . O
[ • ¢ A �J .t R `l P � y. J• p
W y j oJ � ..__� � �� � O
'M .' . � O ¢ e :
. � � W aG ;, fV
�+ 4 '3nr_ ,� •31ntl1�1 = �. � •_ ,
w;_•�.;• uL�` i � i Y � S oJ � .
(��.,f� q m'. L^i.
•= K•I• . C � LL 4 Q� V,•� � 4 C�,'�,. p NI O
. . � +�� •y ']nr Oari7n3�� � .V'��'a ._ �o �' j$
lJ � Q � � r, aNr � c c
Vf �'` _ � � � �.. � LL .. � 4 tl 4 U I � i
(.e'L. }55 fS5 . J• � �,, � �
\:J� .p^�p '.tl3Alb;. .'ldd fA � .� ,� � Q. v)i
� . _�+tlnA�N 'i nrNi3d•' - � f o
pP. J �k .
"�_ ' o 0
�r��r _ ..Q�• . • . .Idd�SSSTSn '.p •/ U a e� � �.•.
: tl'!.• . � � � • �
- _� 0� . _'._ ' � q c?' ��� i,'.'
' ' 'S �iAY N19� �� Q, J Oy x,Q W�
1•
...:•: � � �r� '� � e �7n,�� odcv ti 2 ° � J�W >
_ -ir
�o �' +°� ( ^ j v' o ti 2 4i t� � : : �c�s
a Pa q J. ' �-� h f:. � O 2'i lu C
J��\ �' J g LL N � b Pfi N .;i O`� OR ��n2U � �
a 4P� •5 '3n� 151{ �� 'S � 3 '3Ar HiK a .'.i p� (C �'S'3Ar H1YG Q
s .�.i �i W D �
� ��1 !�� 4 ✓�y� I �11 {�.�
i>�.e' :� p�° =� S'3nr� xteZ nv � J /z x � .o
� � a •n�r• � _ •n•v•d � gp(a , .�b Q,. : .• Z � L:J ._._ "
. :
� rv �✓ J' s N\ ~ -•2 {�1�.. )¢ S�A Yv u � Q
p• O� . G p?' „o`` ~ N� Vy� g o�~ t� �o' t .�� � Z
�' a x -+Y tl 3 � �, �'S' � n �
� •�•p•, .�, .�Z � �2S
J e, -� � c �-) �3nr tlrn3JF •n'v' j M ���" ' �:` n r i •••— C>
r „ , •
� � _; } 'x, :s j � � � < � � a W CI d � N 4��: v �
_ �� o
r4' Y � �°i. :''li : � ��l f � a ')nr HtLi � f .o.l � � 5 Q Q N
4' � W �j � 0 �� J ('� W 4 � � Zy i [ r' �(�] � F K � �
e LL•fi'w3 "L�r 4. � Md•d '�'v'j �"+ 'S •�'i � I ;"� LL"� o � �.�' p, d
� " m 'n '° ^ "' .��- �
a� �� •�n Q W aN,i Leod a . � x� � �
P� M � � ..�yp /� �
4� O �� � �I���� : t}W r~.' W ul N�CS
. J a ;•�;• � C
�J '; ` 'D �
� J. � v, ` 'S 'Jn� � j Q 9 g t7� O •.� � '� 'O
p. `^ S .
� rv � .� � _ _ ...
� N N LL _ w ,o� ' .�.a . �, y m `i
'S '3+� 3'f�ONA � �' � n�v�J > >
� L�'�'� � q :'�'a• i .�� �-a" s a�i a�i
� � ~ ° < (. ) ^ (� � �r I : : � : � CL CL
� y ` � �
�'` r' `�J NId7HN)Np � � •'•tl j d•b! � � � N N
� � E E
4 O -C y v L��YtOMT') O P � >> I-
q C
"' �-: r.py°' y n,r,j Nv3d ' .. O .�.�.i � a Q Op
. �((����^''\� ° . .. " ' _ �� E E �
. .� OJ . .. .. ..p. •,•N •,
' � . . . � . .'.'.'. �
. .�"'. - �-n .Je.. .�.tl.�...._,... '• - __� ~ ,,. �/,��,41 O O o
• �'..� ' , /\ . ,•, J O• •' ,, ' �♦+' u�YtlOA' .s. �VT� N N tll
.v Y ,., a. �
�J CD � � � '
.� � , � ;3nr ; . . `Y� 37u�a/ ' O ' ,
;-1 i+a � a`` a ( o °
� ? �,S-n i�,h° ` � y o d"1 c s�
/ � � �t N R P� t.,
LL V � � ro �
� p '3AT � .t. .lqC. � ,� w �'.�. .'
. `•': a
�y � u. O8� ONO�NOJ .�°o U �t' .'r.'.
r � O .�.b.j o �.
,�,
� r�4 • '
��'� -'� � : � 0 1 0 � � A �. _ � : r
,, ��:.: ��p�' 40°�� ��..
� tl , . � ' 2 � f�tl 'tf2! e •on ,vr+r� LL
6 �. .r . . ei _ o a Q �j � � � , y':
v CrI �_: 4�.. ���" � v LL� 4 0. r
� , , 'Okl H�tlIN'I
z� . '�.` ' z ^J O y°x � b
�,p� ` ; . .r. ay ? �
�l �
'OH ]vrte �'
vi�r�,ia,,q.�. : ' r''`' � �.'7. ' G '
� s� :
'(1'r'� \:•' .� .t P Q • •'r �� � 0 6� 7t 5+,��9 d : .
•�� g v �Nyo 3� b s',��
C,� � v�'ia �.�: �' i�:�;:� °@ �°tl ov �'� �
` •'' . �� <�yf 4"""✓ '•� u ' ��' � > 'o/ ., � .'�/;�'CJ . �-:J -�n
1 ' �'�jnr '�'NrOnOr 6:.ti✓ ,.CI , . 4 • � �� + � _.1..
�
T._ l �_.�... � � � • e, L�L N�,SS/�
� . v n � . � +v� . . . . . @ � . � _ . . .�•'•'•' •1'OAR � J � �4P --�` tio�
2 � v�
� � C Y
:ci �. y, � � Z' ,j. , � i � L m� y -�( i
�. � �
J � z
C'O tn (VO �'V � 'OC'�") (Np � C p p� L C � c
E��� �� � �= = a«r rm �� �
U � <n N Q'o � cD - t� vl .G � � ,a � 2
a� u� � � . c cu c ti � �r
>S E- c Ec� �� = c-- S , a>_ ti, �.
o�n o� m � o o_= in o � t-- � h o c � i�. �,
�p-� � O m E "`'"O F- N,p � p 0 E� �'O G '�1 E T R Ol•
Eoma =o o.��cE" o p�� �occ =EE
" �•- "_�oo Co°� �i
C'�D p� N?j �.�C,p � p 'C t`� 'D N N UI-
G�=� �� Ql�tn'O"" t7 ~m U ���N �cUU�
caE�•� =m tomccv c+� Sd�«t 2mro� =o°'
d-- a� o� t- = �- u� w ro cn _ i- _ cu 1-- _...,.� t-- •- �
'_ C�� r N C7 d' tC') CO
+
;s
�
;a
��
M
TL;
i_
' cu
E
°- a�
�
.rn
c
��
c
c�
`a
�
�
0
' Q.
a
,_
�
U
�
i
f'',
: �.
;,3
t;n d C+� N r O � 00 I� CO tn d' C� N ,- O
T T T T T f
(a�in ��d swdd�rniw) rv���xo a�n�ossio
U
w
0
�
�
z
�
U
O
�
�
Q
�
�
�
Q
�►
m
Ll.l
LL
z
a
�
U
C
N
N
R5
�U
O
�
N
¢
�
U
�
Q>
J
Q
m
N
V
�
O
�
J� N
QP '
h
`c' �
�
J �
�
�� ��ti
���Y .. _
C
O
;�=+
�
�-+
N
�
C
�
c
N
�
L
0
�
�
C
0
�
�
L
�
C
�
U
C
O
V
�
W
>
O
N
�
�
L
�
�
1�.
�
++
�
N
�
G
C
�
-�2
.P
�
A ;
�
�
•�
�
�
a
L '
0
Q.
Q
jt'L�
r;
�
�`
T `
t`
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
o p
0
���b� � �
H � � � �'� � � � � �
��� �� ��0
� � a .
� � �$ � �
s � &
z �' _ �
� � .� � .��' � � � �
�
� � � � � � Q $ � ��
� .���� � � ��
.--, � � � a
�'� � g E � � � � � � � �
� �q
,.i'' i'i, � .�
� w .n
ii�� � � � � � � � � s'� � �
!d � � � g x. � � � � � e
h�ti p � '� � � � � @ . • m �
,,I�, � � � �� � � . � � :
i; � �� u = P � � $� �o ��
,,��� Q �� � � � � �c� �� �� a.s
i�� +�,.�io � a o � v' .9
G9 5 a c
1'�i � � Q '� 'S d ^ '� R '� E �� � 2 $
�li � �� � � � �� � � g'� �� � �
�i�� �
�ir
'��� � a c�r h' 8' S° 0 8' 'u^ t3
,�i4
qy�
����
i;� i
�i� i
� �'� i
�� g � �
w�w>tH—oz
�
�
LL
C
N
U
�
�+:
U
C
�
�
ld
.�
Q
�
�
Q
L
U
� N
N �
J
O "t
� m
� �
� i
CLS �
X �
N �
(if
U � N�
'� Q p,V •
� ?
N �
J�
0
�� �titi
i
W Mr
�
�
C
0
�
�
a�
�
�
N
O
�
.�,
O
O
�
c�
\ �
�
�
a
�c e'
W
�
m
�
0
C!
w
m
N
U
d
� — 6
I i I 1 �
O
� � � �
s �
� � � d � � H � �'� :� � � � �
:�
�����m�� ������
w.aw> <H—oz
�
�
�
�
�
.�
0
�
�
a
�
�
�
a�
J
Q
m
N
U
�
�
n O
�1 �
C
p � N�:
CSi Q PJ
� 2
N
� h
� H �I
� O..t.{
� �� � �
` H�W ME�
� . '
>
...
�
U
U
tn
�
m
c
0
�
�
a�
�
�
�
0
�
v
��
s
�ra
� � ° a � �
ti � A �� � � y � V N y a � h y
a���a��r��o���000 � Q � e � � �g �� ��
� p E
r � � ��
� � � � �� � �� ��� "$
N
� e � � �� �g, s� '��
q � ,� � s� � �o �� ��
� .�� � C ' � � �� g� �� $�
� �_ � o .g° a8 �� �� a� ��
. T�gQ q y � �� �� �� �a '"�
� 'L' 0 3 i..
W � , � � � � 'b �i �' `r� . ti .B .� `�, ti e � �
9.� O
// ��' �� � � � �� �g � �� ^
( � g �o "$ �, "
� �yg CC y �i .qq �
p, � ' �i I�� < g G � q C� §� N g- � k. ''o N��
� Q ���� � ? � $ •Y p :b .8 � Y � .� .� '� � � a, n
�'
O ,�'1 � �.� ao �� E o � '> 6 0 0 � �y � �g o +r
/ �i I�i � � � � Q O � 6 x � m O $ � .ii � m L'm N
� ' Ir�d u-
�'�ry s _ C
„ � � �i�t�� � � $ �' o c� �' � ci �
a � ,
� +� n �a
,yo i '� �i � t�
a � ���� N �
� 1 {I
� '++' O
�� �I �
m ' �t� I �
o. _ � � �
� � I �
� � D � �' � �
o`t, � , h I X
� � e � tl�� � CU
I �
ll��' � ' V
/"�� , i�lf� � �
I II i'u� I }
�YI
�
R �
mam>�N.-oz
�
�
U
C
�
�
(ii
.v
O
�
Q
�
U
�
N
J
Q
m
a�
U
�
0
�
J� N
QP '
1
2 �
�
� �
°�L �d�
���v .. _
d
�
c%
�
Qi
a�
�
C�
�
C
O
V
`dh
V,
Y/
�
�
L
c.i
\ , C
..Ec e
2
.c
►�
�:
0
0
� �
m
a�
11_.
c
.�
�
U
Cn O
O
N
C_�1
V
C
N
�
tSf
�U
O
�
�
Q
.0
V
W
N
_J
Q
m
N
U
�
O
�
J� N�
QP
ti
?�
H
J �
O
�� \ �
ti
~��V .._
N
C
O
'+.�
cB
U
O
J
C
:a+
U
d
(A
�
�
O
�
V
v
.�
O
O
�dR
V
��
K
O
a
a
�.t e
2
aC
�,: , i.:;
U
;,U
, �:
y.=
1
�'
u
r
�. U:;�
O
O
O
N `�
N
�L
C
.�
CLJ
�
� o
0
N
d
V
C
�
N
tiY
.�
O
�
�
Q
L
V
N
N
J
Q
m
N
U
�
O
�
�
.�
�
L
�
�
�
L
�
�
�
Q.
�
�
i
.�.
O
V
�
L
�
�
�
�
L
�
�
�►y
r7A
�
�
�
0
�LR
V
�
�
N
�
L
�
_
'�rt
V
s
�
•
a
�
L
�
Q
L
Q
;�
U
fCS
i
f'-
f0
�
-�_
"ll_'
:�;
,_
i
'j'
�;
�..
•�+
i
0
a
�
<L
Y
'U
_fp.
•
'N
�
,. >
C'
W,
•in
U
�
w
0
N
W
N
a
m
t-
z
x
ai
U
�
O
N
NOISS
� �wa
� �
�
, � �;
ETROPO
1
.�,'
V'
cv
�
�
a
�
i
O
Q
i
Q
�
•
cn
�
�
•_U '
,O
•: a..;
a
L
Q
�
�
Z
_
v
U
�
O
N
�4 NOISS�
Q r � �/1
� � �
.� � �
��� METR�p��`
fn.
�;
';"N
'U
'' O
�
�'
N
U'
n
�
,C
•C
C
t0
a
.►-,
�
0
a
�
wt
�
_U_:
N
i
�.
�
�
�.
i
�
�
,
4ETROPO�
i
I_�►»�►�l�]i.'1.'1
,,���; "i�1i;'c'`��.
�"�"? �"�'�;� "i ��..
::` ����. h�^�C''�:�
� �M
�`���� �-�:���
�� � . ��:
,::��.�,,.�
�'�t����„���"'"
AItNt{ I1. CARt SON
G�►vi�.itNc�tt
April24, 1997
• - �- % - .% .r . - � : - : ,
�'Tfl7"��A C)I' �IP�i�1+:S4)'TA
orrJ�:r-, c:�i� �rxr covr�zcvoit
i:3�� sTn�r[; CAi'tTOL
SAIN7' 1'At7l. 551 S,S
The �-lonorable Rodney Slater
Sec;retary ofTr€►nspc�rtacion
U. S. Depflrtment �f'1'ransporCation
400 - ?lti St�rcct S. �W.
W�shingt�n, D.C. 20590
�e�tr Seeretary Slflter:
This is l� certify thal the projects nssoci�tt�cl wili� the l.�u�,l Tr<tck Plannin� prc�cess i�ar ttie
Minneapolis�St, Paul Internationa) flirpt►rt (inctuding the constru�ti�n �i'a new ninway : Ttunway
17I:�S) have been reviewecl f�r cc�mplilncc with Section 1 U2('l)(c) of the N�tional Environmcntnl
!'alicy Act and 'with Scction 50�(b) of lhe Airport �nci Airwly TmProvement Act of � 982.
I h�lve been givcn reflsonable assurances by the reviewin�; agencies thftt these projc;ct.;; witt bc.
'` _ loc�tiled, desi�;ned, constiUcted and c►pei•ated to comply with atl applicable air nnd water• q«ality
standlyds.
W�zrcnest re�ards.
�.,��s
�.
�RNc x. c��u.sorr
Gavcrnor
�((12) 29G-33�)1 - Voicc
(Kl.X)) 657-:17I7 • Vc�iCx
AN GQUAL c.zf'!'41tTUNITY 1:MPt.c)Y�R
PRINTED UN Ht�;Y�%�•f.f� PAPER GONTAININ� i5 % POST CON'+UM('Y� MA7CtiI�L
�
(��z� z��r�-cw�s . •ri.�i�
(R(K)) C>5?-3S�1K -'!'I)►�