Final Record of Decision Sept 1998, /` , ' , • , ♦ •' ' � •
�` , � � 1 �; 1 . L •.
� �, .'
�
; � ', /' , �"
IVII�.n.eapoi�s-St. l'aul Inte�national Ai�po�t
Dual �'rack A�r�ort I'�.annin� P�oces�
NEW RUNWAY 17 / 35 AND
AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN APPROVAL
MINNEAPOLISr MIN��S��.t�.
September 1998
'� � � ' � , � � �
, � � � ', � �' � .
� � �,
�
� , , ;�; .� �:� x �> �
� ..I: � . ��: r ., ' .. � � �'�. • ', :� �: • ��. �•" • ��...
'�` •, o� �, ,�' �.�? _ �� ��' ;�[< •
�
NEW RUl\TWAY 17/35 AND
AIRPORT LA.YOUT PLAN APPROVAL
I ' � � '
September 199�
FAA RECORD OF DECISION MSP DUAL TRACK AIRPORT PLANNING PROCESS
CORtCritS............................................................................................................................................................... 2
I. SummaryofDecision ......................................................................................................................................3
II. Introduction and Background .........................................................................................................................3
A. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 4
B. Proposed Project .........................................................................................................................................5
C. Project Background ....................................................................................................................................6
III. Purpose and Need for Action ......................................................................................................................16
A. Aviation Activiry Forecasts ......................................................................................................................17
B. Airport Demand/Capacity ........................................................................................................................19
C. Economic Considerations .........................................................................................................................20
IV. Agency Actions ..........................................................................................................................................20
V. Altematives Analysis ...................................................................................................................................21
A. Alternatives Considered and Eliminated ..................................................................................................21
B. Alternatives Considered in Detail .............................................................................................................27
C. Sponsor Preferred Altemative .................................................................................................................. 30
D. Environmentally Preferred Altemative .................................................................................................... 31
E. Selected Alternative ..................................................................................................................................31
VI. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation .......................................................................................................32
A. Summary of Findings by Each Impact Category ...................................................................................... 32
B. MAC High Forecast Sensitivity Analysis ................................................................................................. 50
VII. Public and Agency Involvement ................................................................................................................51
A. Environmental Document Preparation and Process ................................................................................. 51
B. Agency Consultation and Coordivation ................................................................................................... 52
C. Responses to Environmental Concerns .................................................................................................... 53
VIII. Related Matters ........................................................................................................................................ 54
A. Federal Involvement in the Dual Track Process ....................................................................................... 54
B. Additional FAA Participation in the Planning and Environmental Process ............................................. 54
C. Govemor's Air and Water Quality Certifications .................................................................................. 55
IX. Agency Findings .........................................................................................................................................55
X. Conditions of Approval ................................................................................................................................ 60
XI. Agency Decision and Order ........................................................................................................................ 61
Figures
Figure 1-2010 Long Term Comprehensive Plan (LTCP) ................................................................................... 7
Attachments
Attachment A—Comments and Responses on the FEIS and Section 4(� Evaluation
A.1—Comments and Responses on the FEIS
A.2—Appendix to City of Richfield Comments
A.3—Comments and Responses on the Section 4( fl Evaluation
Attachment B—Federal Agency Correspondence and Wildlife Refuge Memorandum of Agreement
Attachment C—Late-Filed Comments on the FEIS and Responses
2
(5EP7EMBER1998)
FAA RECORD OF DECISION MSP DUAL TRACK AIFiPORT PLANNING PROCESS
, L Su mary of ecision
�
Based on a review of the Administrative Record, including the Final Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS) approved by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on May 6,1998,
and the Section 4(� Evaluation, dated May 1998, it is the final determination of tlie FAA to
approve, for construction and use, the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP) 2010
Long Term Comprehensive Plan (LTCP), identified as the "Sponsor and FAA Preferred
Alternative," and as shown in the revised Airport Layout Plan (ALP). The 2010 LTCP
includes a new north-south 8,000-ft. air carrier length runway (Runway 17/35) on the west
side of the airport, new taxiways, and associated facilities described in Section II.B. of this
Record of Decision (ROD) and in the FEIS. Implernentation of the 2010 LTCP will require
FAA approvals and actions as described in Section II.A. of this ROD and in the FEIS. In
addition, the 2010 LTCP is approved as eligible for federal funding as described further in
this ROD, and as subject to further eligibility determinations. It is also determined that the
2010 LTCP is the envixonmentally preferable alternative because it prornotes national
environmental policy, as expressed in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and
does this more successfully than the No Action Alternative or other alternatives considered
during the Dual Track Airport Planning Process (see also Sections II and V of this ROD). The
Metropolitan Airports Commission, as owner and operator of MSP and the project sponsor,
has agreed to terms of approval, including mitigation measures, discussed below.
Projects described in Section II.B of this ROD include development of the MSP 2010 LTCP
and the 2020 Concept Plan. Z'hese plans represent two phases for the proposed developrnent
of MSP, and received conditional ALP approval frorn the FAA on April 25,1997. The April
? 1997 approval was made for planning purposes based on current safety, utility, and
;
efficiency standards, and was conditioned on the satisfactary completion of the
environmental review process. This ROD unconditionally approves the ALP for the 2010
LTCP. The conditional approval of the MSP 2020 Concept Plan remains unchanged.
In reaching this decision, the FAA has given careful consideration to: (a) the rale of MSP in
the national air transportation system, and the airport capacity/delay reduction needs,
(b) the aviation safety and operational objectives of the project in light of the vazious
aeronautical factors and judgments presented, (c) the preferences of the airport owner as the
party with liability and primary responsibility to abate aircraft noise in the area surrounding
the airport, and (d) the anticipated environmental impacts of the project. T'he decisions of the
Minnesota State Legislature concerning the New Airport Alternative and the development
alternatives at MSP, while not dispositive, were taken into account in defining reasonable
alternatives.
A discussion of the leading factors considered by the agency in reaching this decision
follows.
� �' ����� �� ° � :: �� � : ;; � � � ��� � ,; �;
The subsections below will introduce the reader to this ROD, the MSP airport, and the
proposed action. In addition, Section II.0 describes the project background, which has
involved a complex rnulti-year study process. This "Dual Track Airport Planning Process"
j � was mandated by the Minnesota State Legislature in 1989, and required the completion of
3
(SEPTEMBER1998)
FAA RECOFiD OF DECISION MSP DUAL TRACK AIRPORT PLANNING PROCESS
planning studies comparing tne expansion of MSP with construction of a new replacement
airport (see Section II.0 for a more detailed project history).
�
A. Introduction
The FAA is issuing this ftecord of Decision (ROD) in accordance with the requirements of the
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), 40 CFR 1505.2 to provide:
(a) a statement of the agency's decision;
(b) identification of all alternatives considered by the agency in reaching its decision,
specifying the alternative considered to be environmentally preferable; and
(c} identification of all practicable means to avoid or minimize harm from the alternative
selected and adoption and sumrnary of monitoring and enforcement program,'if
applicable, for any mitigation. .
FA�1 Approvals
This ROD provides final approval for the federal actions necessary to support the
construction and operation of a new air carrier length runway, designated Runway 17/35, as
well as related facilities at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP). The federal
actions and associated airport development are described in the Dual Track Airport'Plannzng
Process Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Section 4(fl Evaluation, dated May
1998.
Federal approval and irnplementation of the proposed action, as explained in detail in
Section I.E of the FEIS, also involve the following FAA I}ivision approvals and actions. �
s Air Traffic. The proposed action will require that th.e FA.A's Air Traffic Division expand
the Class B airspace surrounding MSP and establish new air traffic conixol procedures,
consistent with the information contained in the FEIS. Related Air Traffic actions may
also involve redesign of the terminal radar approach control ('TRACON) airspace -
surrounding MSP.
• Airway Facilities. The Airway Facilities Division will be responsible for the installation,
operation, and maintenance of the aids to navigation reguired to support the proposed
action.
• Airports. The Airports Division will be responsible for the technical and environmental
approval of the ALP, administration of Airport Improvement Program (AIP)
development grants funding the project, approvals to impose Passenger Facility Charges
(PFCs) for similar purposes, and environmental approvals under NEPA.
• Flight Standards. The Flight Standards Division will be responsible for establishing
instrument approach and departure procedures for the new runway and new or revised
instrument approach and departure procedures for the existing runways, as well as
specific aircraft and airline authorizations.
• Civil Aviation Security. T'he Civil Aviation Security Division wi11 be responsible for
ensuring the integrity of the airport perimeter and secured areas of the terminal and
support facilities against intrusions; therefore, Security provides input to the approval of �
the ALP: _ _ _
4
(SEPTEMBER1998)
FAA RECORD OF DECISION
MSP DUAL TFACK AIRPOFiT PLANNING PROCESS
Airpori Description
;^f �> MSP is located an 3,100 acres in the central portion of the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan
area. The Metropolitan Airports Cornmission (MAC) owns and operates MSP and six reliever
airports. The MAC was created by the Minnesota Legislature in 1943, and reports directly to
the legislature and the Governor. MSP serves the Twin Cities with domestic and
international commercial air service. In 1990, the Minneapolis-St. Paul area population was
approximately 2.5 millior► people, the 16th largest metropolitan area in the country. In 1997,
MSP was the 13"' busiest airport in the United States and 19"' in the world in terms of
passengers, and the 10"' in both fihe nation and the world in terrns of aircraft operations.
There were 491,300 aircraft operations (takeoffs and landings) and a total of 29.0 million
passengers using MSP in 1997.
MSP has three operational runways: two parallel runways oriented in a northwest-southeast
direction and one crosswind runway lying in a northeast-southwest direction (Figure 1).
Runway 12R/30L is 200 feet wide and 10,000 feet long. Parallel and north of this runway is
Runway 12L/30R, which is 150 feet wide and 8,200 feet long. Crosswind Runway 4/22 is
150 feet wide and it has been proposed by the MAC to be extended from 11,006 feet to 12,000
feet in length in the very near future. All runways are lighted and equipped wifih
navigational aids which allow aircraft arriva]s and departures under bofih visual and
instrument landing conditions.
MSP is served by eight major airlines, two international carriers, two national carriers, four
regional airlines and nine charter carriers. It is one of 26 airports nationwide and one of 4
airports �n the North Central region designated as a large air traffic hub by the FAA.
Northw�st Airlines (NWA) is headquartered in Minneapolis-St. Paul and uses MSP as both a
� major connecting hub and a destination airport. The airline was the nation's sixth largest U.S.
air carrier in terms of scheduled passenger service and fourth in revenue passengers miles in
1996. It camprised 76.8 percent of MSP's annual enplaned passengers in 1997.
MSP currently has two passenger terminals in use, the Lindbergh Terminal and Hubert H.
Humphrey Terminal. The Lindbergh Terrninal is used by passengers traveling on domestic,
regional, and international airlines while the Humphrey Terminal is predominantly used by
domestic and international charter passengers. There are 72 loading gates,11,000 parking
spaces and a foreign trade zone on the airport, as well as a NWA maintenance base and a
variety of airport and airline support facilities and public uses.
: '''••• -� ' • i
T'he MAC, the airport owner and project sponsor, proposes to implement its 2010 Long Term
Comprehensive Plan (2010 LTCP) for MSP, which includes the major features of the
proposed federal action (FAA Order 5050.4A, para. 21). The principal feature of the 2010
LTCP is the construction of a new 8,000-faot north-south runway (Figure 1). Additional
development to be undertaken in carrying out the 2010 LTCP includes the following airfield
and roadway modifications:
• taxiway improvements and a holding/deicing pad on the north end of the new runway
• new holding/deicing pads for Runways 12R, 30L and 30R
• enhanced storm water detention basins
� �
5
(SEPIEMBER1998)
FAA RECOAD OF DECISION MSP DUAI TRACK AIRPORT PLANNING PFOCESS
� expansion of the Red, Gold and Green Concourses
• new Green Concourse people mover
� realignment and widening of the airport frantage road between 66"' Street and 34�'
Avenue South
� reconstruction of the TH 77/66�' street interchange
e reconstruction/construction of maintenance, aircraft hanger and air cargo facilities
• new apron pavement
Federal approval and implementation of the 2010 LTCP wi]] also require the FAA Division
approvals and actions noted above, in Section II.A of this ROD. Any development beyond
the 2010 LTCP is subject to further environmental review and separate FAA and other
agency approvals, and is not provided for by this ROD.1 �
''`s - :. •; • c
Dual Track Airport Planning Process
Dual Track Legislation and Scoping Process. Findings contained in the 1988 Airport.
Adequacy Study prepared by the Metropolitan Council (MC), the region's Metropolitan
Planning Organization (MI'O) and a cooperating agency in the preparation of the FEIS,
indicated that because of environmental and physical constraints, MSP might not be capable
of expanding to the degree necessary to meet the region's long-term air transporEation needs.
In 1989, these findings led the Minnesota Legislature to enact the Metropolitan Airport
Planning Act (1989 Minnesota Laws, Chapter 279). This AcE provided the basis of
determining whether the long-term air transportation needs of the Twin Cities metropolitan
area and the state could best be met by enhancing capacity at MSP, or by developing a
replacement air carrier airport (New Airport) elsewhere wiihin the metropolitan area. In
what came to be known as the "Dual Track Airport Planning Process," the legislation
directed the MC and the MAC, in conjunction with the public and with cooperating federal,
state, and local agencies, to complete a series of studies and documents which would
evaluate long-range aviation alternatives to fulfill the aviation needs in the Twin Cities area
for a 30-year period. The following six planning goals were established to guide each of the
two "tracks" of the Uual Track Process and were applied throughout this process:
• Develop airport facilities to meet future aviation needs, to provide enhanced levels of air
service, and to further the ecanomic development of the State of Minnesota.
• Minimi�e costs to users.
m Develop the airport in a manner which is flexible and adaptable to changing conditians.
1 The MAC's 2020 Concept Plan represents a second major phase of the MSP expansion plan, and includes development of a new passenger terminal near
the west side of the airfield. In accordance with state legislation dated April 2,1996, development of the new west terminal would require the approval of the
Minnesota State Legislature. Further, the FAA would have to provide unconditional approvai of an AlP depicting the 2020 Concept Plan. Specific airport
activity leveis and the associated environmental impacts are not reasonabiy foreseeable beyond 2010. For these reasons, the FAA has detennined that
implementation of the 2020 Concept Pian would first require the compietion and approval of additional environmental studies, and has conditioned the 2020
-- -- --ALP approvai on the outcome of the studies. See Section XI—Agency Decision and Ordec - - -
6
(SEPTEMBER1998)
��
�
FAA RECORD Of DECISION MSP DUAL TRACK AIRPORT PLANNING PROCESS
• Provide an airport that is safe and reliable.
) • Develop an airport that is consistent with state, regional, and local plans and economic
development policies.
• Develop the airport and the airport vicinity to minirnize and reduce adverse aircraft noise
and other environmental effects.
The I?ual Track Process included a series of environmental documents called Alternative
Environmental Documents (AEDs). These documents included analyses to an EIS level-of-
detail and were developed at the following decision points:
• Alternative search areas for a new airport, with only one carried forward to the next
phase.
• Alternative new airport 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 only one plan
carried forward to the Draft EIS.
• Alternative development plans for MSP, with only one plan carried forward to the Draft
EIS.
The AED study process was a state-led environmental procedure devised in response to the
1989 Dual Track legislation. As approved by the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board
(EQB) on March 19,1992, the procedure was integrated into the NEPA process and included
) numerous opportunities for public comment and public hearings.
The FAA as the lead federal agency, in cooperation with the MAC, jointly initiated the
scoping process for the federal environmental impact statement in Apri11992 by announcing
its intent to prepare an EIS, and by requesting scoping comments? The FA.A published the
original Notice of Intent to advise federal, sfiate, and local agencies of the availability of the
First Phase Scoping Report and scheduled scoping meetings. The FAA also invited affected
Federal, State and local agencies to participate as cooperating agencies. The First Phase
Scoping Report clarified that the AEDs would be conducted with the FAA's involvement and
in accordance with NEPA requirements. T'he Apri11992 First Phase Scoping Report also
explained that the AEDs would identify one MSP expansion alternative and one new airport
site and layout (the New Airport Alternative) for further analysis as part of the Dual Track
EIS process.
The FAA mailed the First Phase Scoping Report to numerous agencies, including the U.S.
Environmental Protecfion Agency (U.S. EPA), the U.S. Departrnent of Interior, the Federal
Highway Administration, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation, and several other federal, state, and local agencies. In many cases,
as throughout the Dual Track Process, this involved mailing letters to various management
branches of federal agencies, including the local, regional, and national managers of the U.S.
EPA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The first phase of scoping and the
- --
� � 2 The Notice ol Intent to prepare a joint federai-state Environmentai Impact Statement was published in the Federal Registeron April 2,1992 (57 FR 11344).
8
(SEPTEMBER1998)
FAA RECORD OF DECISION MSP DUAL TRACK AIRPORT PLANNING PROCESS
intent to prepare an EIS was aLso announced through advertisements published in local
newspapers. These announcements and correspondence referenced the availability of the
scoping document for review and invited participation in two public scoping meetings, held
Apri121 and 22,1992, and one agency scoping meeting, held Apri121,1992 (see also Section
VII—Public and Agency Involvement). In March 1993, the FA.A and MAC published
responses to all substantive oral and written comments received on the First Phase Scoping
Report.
As planned during the first phase, the 3-year scoping/AED process evaluated several airport
developrnent alternatives using a level-of-detail equivalent to a federal EIS and then selected
preferred configurations for both a New Airport Alternative and a MSP Expansion
Alternative for evaluation in the Draft EIS (for more information concerning alternatives, see
Section V of this ROD). While the U.S. EPA's initial comments on the AED process expressed
some concerns—especially with regard to selection of the New Airport Alternative3—the
EPA also noted that it would treat the AED process as if it was being solicited for comments
on an EIS. During the first phase of scoping, and throughout the entire AED process,
additional comments were received from the U.S. EPA, fihe U.S. Departrnent of Interior, and
frorn several other federal and state agencies, as well as from county and loeal governmental
units and elected officials. The written comrnents were published, along with F.AA-1VIAC
responses in connection with the Final AEDs and Scoping Decision Documents. This 3-year
scoping and analysis process concluded without any significant agency comrnents in
opposition to the process used to develop the final New Airport .Alternative or the MSP
Alternative, which where were carried forward for more detailed evaluation in the Draft EIS,
as summarized below.
In May 1995, after completion of the first phase of scoping (i.e., the AED process), the FAA
reiterated its intent to prepare an EIS, established the preferred New A.irport and MSP
Alternatives to be evaluated in the Draft EIS, announced the availability of the Second Phase
Scoping Report, announced second phase scoping meetings, and again invited various
agencies to contribute to the EIS as participating agencies 4 The consultation and notification
process used to conclude the first phase of scoping reguired many steps and detailed
technical analyses, summarized in the AEDs. This part of the scoping process compared
various airport development alternatives frorn the standpoint of environmental impacts,
feasibility, and aviation capacity benefits (see Section V, below). In addition to the AEDs, the
second phase of the scoping process included four "Scoping Decision documents," which
focused on the screening of airport development alternatives at each of the following
decision points:
• New Airport Site Selection Scoping Decision (June 1993);
• MSP LTCP Scoping Decision (March 1994);
• New Airport Comprehensive Plan Scoping Decision Qune 1994); and
e EIS Scoping Decision (july 1995).
3 Letter from ihe U.S. EPA to FAA, dated June 16,1992.
4 The referenced second FAA Notice of Intent was published in the Federal Registeron May 25,1995 (60 FR 27804).
9
(SEPTEMBER1998)
C_
C.
FAA flECORD OF DECISION MSP DUAL TRACK AIRPORT PIANNING PROCESS
The joint federal-state scoping process was coordinated with the AEDs and included
�- numerous public and agency scoping meetings and comment periods, concluding in july
! 1995 with publication of the EIS Scoping Decision document (July 26,1995). The MAC was a
cooperating agency and was directly responsible for assuring compliance with the Minnesota
Environmental Protection Act (Minn. Stat. Chap.116D) and Minnesota Environmental
Quality Board Regulations (Minn. Rules Chap. 4410), as well as other state laws and
regulations.
As described above and in Section V of this ROD, the AED evaluation and selection process
included a number of reports and studies to arrive at preferred development alternatives for
both a new airport site and for the e�cisting MSP site. For the MSP Alternative, this included
a seven-volume technical report that examined capacity, airspace, air service, and other
issues. As such, the reports related to the AEDs were too voluminous to incorporate into the
subsequent Draft EIS and Final EIS in their entirety. However, both the Draft and Final EISs
dxew extensively from these efforts (see also FEIS Section III.C.1, and selected figures in
Append'vc J); the AEDs and other reports were incorporated by reference within the EIS and
were made reasonably available to the public throughout the environmental review process.
The july 1995 EIS Scoping Decision established the single preferred location and configuration
for theNew Airport Alternative and the preferred configuration of the MSP Alternative,
which were both evaluated further in the Draft EIS. In doing so, the EIS Scoping Decision
summarized the joint FAA-MAC scoping and AED study process, which took more than
three years to complete. The Scoping Decision also noted the applicability of various
environmental categories for further detailed EIS analyses.
,"" � Correspondence from the U.S. EPA, dated July 5,1995, and included with the EIS Scoping
� Decision,5 observed that the state's AED process closely paralleled the NEPA process, and
noted that part of the intent af NEPA is to avoid duplication and reduce paperwork. The
EPA also stated that the State process had "done a very adequate job of avoiding and
mir�mi�ing environmental impacts for both tracks of the I?ual Track Airport Planning
Process." Finally, the EPA stated that it supported the range of alternatives proposed for
assessment in the Draft EIS.
Environmental Impact Statement. As a result of the AED process, the FAA and MAC had
established which alternatives were still considered viable for further detailed analysis. A
Draft EIS (DEIS), jointly prepared by the FAA and the MAC as both a state and federal
document, focused on one alternative for the New Airport, one for MSP, and included a No
Action Alternative. On December 22,1995, the FAA and the MAC published the Notice of
Availability of the Draft EIS in the Federal Register.6 Public comments were accepted on the
Draft EIS until February 13,1996. During the comment period, two public hearings were
held on January 17 and 18,1996.
In March 1996 MAC and MC submitted their report to the legislature in accordance with the
1989 Minnesota Laws, Chapter 279. This report contained the recomrnendations of MAC and
MC on the preferred alternative for meeting the long-term commercial aviation needs for the
region and futuxe major airport development. On Apri12,1996, the Minnesota Legislature
5 A copy of the referenced letter from the U.S EPA is presented, along with responses to comments, in Appendix B of the EIS Scoping Decision Document,
, - (July 26, 1995).
(� � 6 61 FR 2507
.._-
10
(SEPTEM8ER1998)
FAA RECORD OF DECISION MSP DUAL TflACK AIRPORT PLANNING PROCESS
authorized the MAC to implement the MSP 2010 Comprehensive Plan which includes the
new Runway 17/35, new taxiways, and associated facilities. The legislation (attached to the �-
FEIS in Appendix A) also requires further legislative approval prior to implementation of the
M5P 2020 Concept Plan, which includes new terminal construction and further facility
development.
The joint FEIS for development of MSP was prepared by the FAA and MAC, published in
May 1998, and serves as both a state and federal document prepared under NEPA and
Mi.n7nesota environmental regulations. The Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB)
will review the project and render a determination of adequacy on the FEIS and proposed
project at its next scheduled meeting, planned for October 29,1998. An EQB adequacy
determination on the FEIS, including responses to comments, will conclude the state's
environmental cornpliance requirements for the proposed action. To allow sufficient time for
consideration of MAC"s pending application for a Letter of Intent (LOI) in fiscal year 1998,
and to complete congressional notification, the FAA must complete this ROD before the EQB
meets in October. The FAA may issue a lefter to a project sponsor to announce its intent to
obligate federal funds for an airport development project under the Airport Improvement
Program. Letters of Intent allow project sponsors to receive reimbursement for certain
expenditures made in advance of a receiving an actual federal grant. FAA regulations
require completion of the NEPA environmental review process before an LOI can be issued.�
According to Ehese regulations, federal environmental work must be complete and the
project work must be �mm;,,ent before an LOI can be approved.
FAA's �tole in the Dual T'rack I'rocess. Throughout this extensive process, the FAA has
monitored the methods and procedures used by the MAC in arriving at a preferred
alternative. T'he FAA assisted in the analysis by providing guidance and advice in various
technical committees. This included FAA participation in more than 75 committee meetings,
including meetings of the following groups: the Capacity Design Team, the New Airport
Technical Committee, the MSP Technical Cammittee, the Technical Advisory Committee for
the LTCP, the State Advisory Council on Metropolitan Airport Planning, and the Surface
Transportafion Committee.
In addition to jointly preparing the Draft and Final EISs, the FAA has independently
reviewed and evaluated all of the material presented in the scoping and environmental
documents, and critical portions of the material have been independently verified. At each
major milestone, the FAA reviewed the scoping and AED process to ensure coverage of a
reasonable range of alternatives. This has included the FAA's independent evaluation of
airspace modifications, which have concluded that the e�ci.sting MSP terminal airspace can be
reconfigured to accornmodate the new north-south runway.8 The FAA and the MAC also
provided for and participated in several opportunities for public participation. These
included more than 20 public meetings held during the EIS scoping period, organized to
obtain input on specific issues related to new airport site selection and the layout of the
preferred build alternatives for both the New Airport and the MSP Alternative. The public
and agency involvement aspects of the process are described further in the FEIS, Section VIII
(Public and Agency Involvernent) and in Section VII of this ROD.
� 59 FR 54482-54483 (October 31,1994)
8 Airport Capacity Enhancement—Tem�inal Airspace Study, Minneapolis-St Paul lntemational Airport; FAA, August 1996.
11
(SEP7EMBER1998)
C�
FAA RECORD OF DECISION MSP DUAL THACK AIRPORT PLANNING PROCESS
Additional background information, especially in regard to project alternatives, is contained
- - . below in Section V.
�
Noise Mitigation
Overall 1Voise Mitigation 1'rogram. The legislation that completed the Dual Track Airport
Planning Process and selected development of MSP to serve the long-term aviation needs of
the Twin Cities metropolitan area required that the MAC complete a noise mitigation plan
for MSP. This plan encompasses the 60 DNL noise contour for the airport and took into
consideration proposed runway development at the airporE. It is a critical element in the
implementation of the 2010 LTCP, with the April 1996 legislation ordering no less than $185
million to be spent on noise mitigation measures. The noise mitigation plan was developed
by a Noise Mitigation Committee consisting of mayors of cities surrounding MSP, Northwest
Airlines, Metropolitan Council, and the MAC. The plan was adopted in October 1996 by the
MAC and contains measures for a sound insulation program, community stabilization and
properiy value assurances, aircraft operations measures, and expediting the construction of
the new runway. The elements, activities, and membership associated with the plan are
reported in Appendix B of the FEIS.9
The MAC has an ongoing residential sound insulation program. Over $90 million has been
committed to sound proof 4,200 homes. The FAA has awarded $35.6 million in grants
during the course of this program to fund sound i.nsulation measures related to the existing
airport's operations. The MAC intends to continue this effort in relation to the new runway.
Additional mitigation is planned, as described in the noise mitigation plan, since the 2005
DNL 60-65 contour does not currently reach all of the properties projected to e�cperience
, significant noise irnpacts. MAC further intends to expand this effort to the DNL 60 contour
� as long as it maintains a bond rating of at least an"A." Historically, general obligation bonds
and revenue bonds issued by the MAC have been rated "AAA" by Moodys, Standard &
Poor's Ratings Group (S&P), and Fitch IBCA, Inc. (based on approximately the last 10 years).
Recently, S&P and Fitch rated MAC Series 1998 airport revenue bonds "AAA," considering a
Municipal Bond Insurance Policy issued with respect to those bonds. Further, even without
taking the insurance policy into account, S&P and Fitch rated the Series 1998 bonds "AA-"
and "A+;' respectively.10 While future bond issues will be subject to new ratings, it is clear
that the MAC has historically maintained bond ratings above "A."
The FAA has concluded that federal funds eligibility for future residential sound insulation
measures due to the proposed action is generally limited to the DNL 65+ contour. However,
federal funds eligibility for the residential insulation program may be extended to include
the area out to the DNL 60 contour if there are applicable local standards accepted by the
FAA. For MSP, this is planned to be evaluated by the FAA through a future MAC-initiated
FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Plan.
The FEIS estimates that the proposed action would result in an increase in the number of
dwellings within the DNL 65+ contour, changing from 3,200 dwellings under No Action to
3,370 dwellings under the MSP Alternative (based on FEIS Tables Q-1 and Q-4). However,
9 The Noise Mitigation Committee was composed of representatives of ihe following entities and communities: MAC, Ciry of Minneapolis, City of Mendota
Heights, City of Eagan, City of Bloomington, City of Richiieid, City of Inver Grove Heights, City of Bumsville, City of St. Paul, Metropol'�tan Council, Northwest
Airlines, and the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council. The committee met eight times between May 1996 and October 1996, and a pubiic
meeting was held in August 1996 to solicit input on the proposed noise mitigation pian.
( � 10 MAC airport revenue bond issues; June 10,1998; page 67.
12
(SEPTEMBER1998)
FAA flECORD OF DECISION MSP DUAL TRACK AIRPORT PIANNING PROCESS
th.is analysis also estimates that the proposed action would result in a decrease in the nurnber
of dwellings within DNL 60+ contour, changing from 15,020 dwellings under No Action to �
12,830 dwellings under the MSP Alternative.11 In addition to how the residential noise
insulation program must be adjusted, the FEIS estimates that 158 households would be
relocated as part of future noise mitigation measures within the City of Bloomi.ngton (see FEIS
Figure T-4, in Appendix J).
Special 1Voise 1Viitigation Issues. Noise mitigation proposed to address the impacts of the
proposed new runway on portions of the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge
or M17NtN.1Z) and to address the impacts of low frequency noise are addressed separately,
within Section VI.A of this ROD, under the subheadings, "Noise;' "Section 4( fl" and
"Wildlife Refuges." These two noise issues, while part of the project background, have also
involved ongoing coordination and FAA policy consideration since publication of the FEIS.
Therefore, the referenced sections with.in the body of this ROD contain updated information
on these noise mitigation issues, which are also addressed in detail within the attached
comments and responses on the FEIS and Section 4( fl Evaluation (Attachment A).
Attachment A.1 includes general comments and responses, including General Responses 1
and 2, which focus on the low frequency noise issue, and General Response 7, which focuses
on the 1VIVNWIZ Mitigation issues. Attachment A.1 also includes responses to individual
comment letters on the FEIS, including letters from the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI), the
City of Richfield, fihe Friends of the Minnesota River Valley, and others who expressed
concerns about these current noise nutigation issues.
Attachrnent A.2 is a copy of additional information subrnitted by the City of Richfield, as an
appendix to its comment letter presented in Attachment A.1. Parts of Attachment A.2
address low frequency noise issues; and this, as well as other information was considered by (
the F.AA and MAC in preparing responses to Richfield's FEIS comment letter.
Attachment A.3 contains comments and responses on the Section 4(� Evaluation, which are
all generally or specifically related to the issue of noise mitigation for the MVNWR. Other
pertinent information on these special noise mitigation issues is also included in Attachments
B and C. Attachment B includes federal agency correspondence in relation to the U.S. EPA's
review of the FEIS, correspondence with the DOI/USFWS stating concurrence on mitigation
for the Refixge, and the signed Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) which contains the
agreed-to plan for mitigating Refuge noise impacts (specifically, Attachment B includes two
concurrence letters from the DOI/USFWS, both dated September 21,1998, and the MOA,
which was signed by the DOI/USFWS on September 17,1998, and signed by the MAC and
the FA.A on September 21,1998) . Attachrnent C contains additional FEIS comment letters
filed after the June 15,1998, deadline for comments; these letters pertain primarily to low
frequency noise issues witivn the City of Richfield; and Attach.ment C also provides
responses to those comments.
R�lated Enviroeiment�l 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 environrnental documents.
�� The DNL 60 contour has been considered by the MAC for impact comparisons thraughout the Dual Track Process based on local input and in �
accordance with state legislation (April 2, 1996), which required that the noise mitigatfon program conside� noise levels down to DNL 60. (
\.
13
(SEPTEMBER1998)
FAA RECORD OF DECISION MSP DUAI TRACK AIRPORT PIANNIN� PROCESS
Environmental reviews of the 2020 off-airport highway improvements would be prepared by
� Mn/DOT and the Federal Highway Administration.
Other Actions. Major airports such as MSP are subject to numerous proposals for
improvement and maintenance. Some auport improvement projects do not require any
significant environmental documentation when they are found by an agency to have no
potential for significant impacts—individually or cumulatively—on the environment and,
therefore, do not need any detailed environrnental analysis 12 Other projects have
independent utility because they do not depend on other actions or are based upon satisfying
a specific need that is not connected to a more comprehensive airport expansion proposal.
Therefore, a project can go forward if it is justified independently of another project, such
that it would not be unwise or irrational to proceed on one project without the other .13
The MAC has undertaken annual development projects to maintain its facilities at MSP and
to implement committed proposals contained in its ongoing Capital Improvement Program
(CIl'). MAC projects, such as the Part 150 airport noise compatibility program, the
temporary extension of Runway 12R/30L, the extension of Runway 4/22 toward the
northeast, and the implementation of a Runway 4/22 runway use system are part of this
prograrn. As appropriate, these past acti.ons have been the subject of separate environmental
actions and documentation. Known cumulative impacts that might affect the 2010 LTCP
from this planned and contemplated action were included in the Dual Track FEIS based on
the information available at the time the FEIS was published.
The MAC's CIl' includes a commitrnent to temporarily extend Runway 12R/30L, and to
permanently extend Runway 4/22 toward the northeast. The plan to extend Runway 4/22
� would in�rease the runway's current length from 11,006 feet to 12,000 feet for use by aircraft
- an a permanent basis, to optimize nonstop B-747 service to Hong Kong with direct service,
increasing to five flights per week from the recent average of 2.8 per week.
The proposed runway 4/22 extension to 12,000 feet is considered an action having
independent utility from that of the praposed action in this ROD and the Dual Track FEIS. It
is a phased project that first requires the temporary extension of Runway 12R/30L from
10,000 to 10,900 feet, to provide for certain operations requiring a runway length of 10,900
feet while the permanent Runway 4/22 extension is under construction. As such, full
implementation of the planned runway extension will occur in phases and does not depend
at all on the final disposition and progress on the new Runway 17/35 project authorized by
this ROD. Further, the Runway 4/22 extension project is still in the plannutg phase of
developrnent, and an ALP depicting the proposed runway extensions in a location consistent
with safety, efficiency, and utility at MSP has not yet been finalized and submitted to the
FAA for approval.
The FAA and the MAC recognize that Northwest Airlines (NWA) has recently announced
suspension of its current non-stop MSP to Hong Kong sexvice effective November 1,199814
After this announcement, recent discussions between the MAC and NWA have not
determined if this change in service should substantially influence progress on the proposed
12 40 CFR 1500.4(p) and 1500.5(k).
t340CFR 1508.25
14 Source: NWA news release; August 31,1998; Northwest Mnounces Pacific System Changes. (The subject news release announces the suspension of
� the Hong Kong service, as well as several other service changes, "as part of [NWA's] on-going response to economic developments in the Pacific.'�
14
(SEPTEMBER1998)
FAA RECORD OF DECISION MSP DUAI TRACK AIRPORT PLANNING PROCESS
extension of Runway 4/22 to 12,000 feet. Therefore, the MAC is currently continuing to
proceed with the Runway 4/22 extension project. As stated above and within the FEIS, the �
runway extension project is an action that is wholly independent of the Runway 17/35 �
project; even so, the two projects were carefully evaluated from the standpoint of cumulative
impacts. In conclusion, a MAC decision to proceed, delay, or not proceed with the Runway
4/22 extension project will have no bearing on the new runway project authorized by this
ROD.
As noted above, the Runway 4/22 extension project (which includes the temporary extension
of Runway 12R/30L) does not affect the planned operation of the new north-south runway.
The potential changes in runway use resulting from extending Runway 4/22 and the
addition of the new-north south runway would not result in cumulative impacts for air
quality, noise or wetlands. As reported in the FEIS, the known noise impacts due to the
Runway 4/22 extension would not create a significant irnpact (defined as a 1.5 DNL increase
in noise over any noise sensitive area located within the DNL 65 contour) at locations
surrounding the airport which will experience noise increases as a result of the extension.
Potential environmental consequences associated with these runway extensions are
incorporated into the Runway 17/35 FEIS by reference in accordance with 40 CFR 1502.21.
They are also included as cumulative impacts in the "Environmental Conseguences" Section
of the FEIS.
If fully implemented, the precise location of the Runway 4/22 extension and Runway
Protection Zone may require minor adjustment for safety, efficiency, and utility reasons.
However, the potential shifts in location involve negligible environmental and cwnulative
impacts, as noted in the above-referenced Environmental Assessment. As necessary, ,
appropriate additional environmental review will be completed (independently from this �
ROD) before the FAA takes final action concerning the runway extension project. -
Project Notifications
As previously noted, the FAA published a Federal Register notice dated Apri12,1992 (57 FR
11344), announcing its intent to prepare an EIS and to conduct the first phase of the public
scoping process. A second notice was published on May 25,1995 (60 FR 27804) announcing
the intent to prepare an EIS and to conduct second phase scoping on the airport alternatives
to meet long-term air transportation needs in the region. The scoping process concluded in
July 1995 with publication of the EIS Scoping Decision docurnent Quly 26,1995). A public
notice of availability of the DEIS was published in local newspapers on various dates from
December 15 to 22,1995, and in the Federal Register on December 22,1995 (61 FR 2507). The
FAA and MAC held joint public hearings on the DEIS on January 17 and 18,1996, during
which oral comments were taken. All substantive oral and written public comments on the
DEIS are responded to in Appendix I of the FEIS.
The FEIS was signed by the FAA. on May 6,1998 and released to the public on May 15,1998.
A public notice of availability of the FEI5 was published in local newspapers on May 18,
1998, and in the Federal Register on May 15,199$ (63 FR 270$3). Comments on the FEIS were
received and are included with responses in Attachment A of this ROD.
�
15
(SEPTEMBER1998)
FAA RECORD OF DECISION MSP DUAL TRACK AIRPORT PLANNING PROCESS
III. Purpose an eed for ct�on
� The broad purpose of the Minnesota Dual Track Airport Planning Process is to provide
efficient and economical movement of people and goods between the Minneapolis-St. Paul
area and national and international markets, and help promote the orderly growth and
economic development of the region. The state's Metropolitan Airport Planning Act of 1989
also stated that the airport's actions must satisfy the air transportation needs of the region to
the year 2010, and there must be a concept plan that could assure that the air transportation
needs of the region are met to the year 2020. This was accomplished by the development of
the 2010 LTCP, proposing the construction of new Runway 17/35, and the 2020 Concept Plan
for additional improvements, including a new terminal building.
Throughout the Dual Track study process, the FAA has performed environmental and
airspace analyses which supported and assisted the MAC to address these objectives. From
the FAA's perspective, the primary focus has been to support the state's goal of satisfying the
region's air transportation needs to the year 2010. Consistent with the mandated Dual Track
process, the FAA has also participated in the analysis of a 2020 Concept Plan 15
The FAA considered the purpose and need for this project in light of its statutory charter to
encourage the development of civil aeronautics and fihe safety of air commerce. Further,
FAA took into account the congressional declaration of policy that airpart improvement
projects that increase capacity should be undertaken to the maximum extent feasible to
increase safety and efficiency, and to decrease delays.
More specifically, the need for the proposed MSP project stems from the findings and
� independent conclusions by the FA.A and the MAC that without substantial airfield,
- terrninal, and access improvements, future demand in aviation activity at MSP may not be
accomrnodated in an efficient and economical manner. This would result in a significantly
decreased level of service and increased user costs. These demand and efficiency issues, arid
the proposed addition of a new runway, were analyzed independently by the MAC and also
by a FAA Airport Capacity Design Team, consisting of the FAA, the MAC, and aviation
industry groups. The results were reported in the FAA's Capacity Enhancement Plan for M5P
completed in 1993. The plan recommends a new runway because of its annual airfield delay-
savings benefits in meeting forecast aviation activity levels.
At the 1995 actual operations level of 465,300 total takeoffs and landings, operations already
exceeded the Baseline activity level in the Capacity Enhancement Plan where delay savings and
operational benefits of the proposed action would be realized by making airfield
improvements. At the future activity levels cited by the Airport Capacity Design Team,
ranging from 530,000 to 600,000 annual operations, delay savings would range from 21,000 to
44,000 hours per year—resulting in a$30 million to $63 million benefit per year. The FAA
has also completed a Terminal Airspace Study (August 1996) for MSP. This analysis found that
the existing MSP airspace could be reconfigured to accommodate Runway 17/35 and that air
traffic changes could further reduce the average airspace-related delays in the range of 900 to
7,000 hours annually.
15 The FAA has concluded that the new terminal and other elements of the MAC's 2020 Concept Plan are reasonabie features to include in a later phase af
the airport's development. However, the FAA has conditioned ihe 2020 ALP approval on the outcome of additionai environmental studies. See also Section
) XI—Agency Decision and Orcler.
16
(SEPTEMBER1998)
FAA RECORD OF DECISION MSP DUAL TFACK AIAPORT PLANNING PROCESS
A. Aviation Activity Forecasts
This subsection of the ROD discusses why the FAA and MAC decided to supplement the �
analysis of environmental consequences contained in the Draft EIS, with sensitivity analyses -
using the higher aviati.on activity levels in the MAC's "High Forecast." The Draft EIS used
the MAC 1993 Baseline Forecast. Since 1993, the MACs Baseline Forecast has been used
extensively to develop and evaluate the environmental and financial consequences of the
2010 LTCP and fihe 2020 Concept Plan. The Baseline Forecast reaches 520,400 operati.ons and
16.7 million enplanements by 2020. As explained in detail below, the MAC High Forecast is
representative of the FAA's 1997 Terminal Area Forecast (TAF).
The 1993 Baseline Forecast was produced through a forecast update process initiated in
October 1992 and completed in the publication: Long-Term Comprehensive Plan, Volume 6,
Revised Activity Forecasts, December 1993. The results included the Baseline Forecast and
several alternative scenarios which took into consideration variations in economic activity
and airline industry factors. The 1993 forecasts were also developed taking into
consideration the finding of a 1993 Legislative Auditor's report16`and input from four expert
panels convened over an eight-month period, including input from the FAA. Based on input
received during the panel sessions, regional carrier operations were increased alrnost 10
percent over those used in fihe 1990 forecast and the hubbing ratio was sigruficantly 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 reflecE local conditions as measured by
such agencies as the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) in the U.S. Departrnent of
Commerce, and the Metropolitan Council. of the Twin Cities. These efforts produced aircrafE
operations and enplanement forecasts that were lower than the previously completed 1990 ���
farecasts. °�
The MAC 1993 forecasts reflect extensive input from the primary air service provider ai
Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport, 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 fram NWA (NWA letter dated February 8,1995).
At the time of the 1993 forecast, NWA projected a fleet growth of less that one 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 enplanements becomes 45 percent of total NWA jet enplanements at MSP. NWA
had 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. These factors served to
lower demand vs. historical relationships (Dual Track Airport Planning Process
Memorandum, meeting with Northwest .Airlines june 23,1993).
16 �n a Legislative Audit conducted by the State of Minnesota in 1993, the methodology used by the MAC in forerasts completed in 1990 was found to be
adequate. However, the Legislative Auditor's report took exception to the hubbing ratio used by the MAC in previous forecasts, completed in 1990, which
assumed that 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 ciosely with Northwest Aitlines (NWA) regarding the airline's plans for MSP. �
17
(SEPTEMBER1998)
FAA RECORD OF DECISION MSP DUAI TRACK AIRPORT PLANNING PROCESS
The 1993 forecast range also included the MAC's "High Forecast," used within the FEIS to
� test the sensitivity of environmental impacts to possible higher airport activity levels—up to
� 640,200 operations and 23.8 million enplanements by 2020. The MAC Baseline and High
Forecasts utilize more detailed local data than the FAA's TAF, and the FAA has
acknowledged that the state's Dual Track legislation required that the MAC prepare forecasts
of activity levels through 2020. The FAA's TAF forecasts are only available through 2010, the
normal planning horizon beyond which airport activity levels are not reasonably foreseeable.
The TAF figures also do not take into account airport-specific capacity constraints, while the
MAC has factored this into its forecasts.
The MAC's High Forecast is based on a combination of optimistic scenarios witivst the
context of rapid economic growth and assumed improvements to the airport. It assumes that
high regional and national economic growth will increase air carrier originations and will
also increase nati.onal passenger activity.
As illustrated by Table 1, current airport activity levels are more consistent with the MAC
High Forecast, or with the FAA's TAF, 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 3.8, 3.6, and 9.8 percent respectively for passenger enplanements, and less
than 3.1, 3.7, and 9.1 percent respectively for aircraft operations in each of these three time
frames. The FAA believes these to be reasonable forecasts based on its professional
judgement and because the differences are within the accuracy of forecasting. The forecast
d.ifferences are also within the 10 percent "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 the FEIS, the FAA and MAC agreed that the MAC
High Forecast is more representative of the level of future aviation activity expected at MSP
than the Baseline Forecast, and the FEIS evaluates the environmental consequences of both
the Baseline Forecast and the MAC High Forecast.
Table 1. Comparison of MAC and FAA Aviation Activity Forecasts
DEIS Forecast
{MAC Baseline Forecast) NIAC High Forecast FAA Forecast (1997 TAF)
Year Enplanements Operations Enplanements Operations Enplanements Operations
1996 14,386,000 485,400
(actual)
1997
(actual)
2000
2005
2010
14,335,600
12,704,000
13,895,000
15,030,000
491,300
473,000
484,800
499,900
16,714,000 550,200 16,096,100 533,900
18,810,000 575,000 19,487,900 596,500
20,628,000 603,800 22,879,600 658,900
2020 16.681,000 520,400 23,774,000 640,200 Not Availabie Not Available
The FAA and the MAC agree that current aviation activity trends imply the possibility of
more robust growth than was expected in the Baseline Forecast, and a growth rate more
consistent with the MAC High Forecast. However, just as events may be leading to higher
activity levels, certain events and factors could also lead to lower activity levels or much
slower growth rate at MSP—for example:
• labor difficulties at Northwest Airlines (NWA);
18
(SEPTEMBER1998)
FAA RECORD OF DECISION MSP DUAL TRACK AIRPORT PLANNING PROCESS
• increased maintenance costs (and FAA-imposed maintenance requirernents) for the aging
NWA DC-9 fleet; and �
• significant expansion of airfield and terminal facilities at Detroit on behalf of NWA,
which could divert connecting traffic from MSP.
Since future aviation activity levels at MSP can be influenced by these and other factors
related to regional and national economic growth and airline profitability, it is premature to
conclude that recent trends of increased activity represent material changes. Nevertheless,
while preparing the FEIS, the FAA determined that it was necessary to test the higher
forecast range to determine if it triggered any significant changes for certain environmental
irnpacts or for mitigation strategies. Based on sensitivity analyses using the MAC High
Forecast, the FAA found that there are not any significantly greater impacts using these
higher activity levels. This is especially true for noise impacts, for which the worst-case year
has been determined to be 2005 due to projected changes in the MSP jet aircraft fleet.l�
The MAC High Forecast was used to perform additional environmental analyses to
determine if any environmental thresholds would be exceeded. These sensitivity analyses
are reported in Appendix H of the FEIS and are swnmarized in Sectian VI.B of this ROD. The
operations levels set forth in the FAA's 1993 Capacity Enhancement Plan fall within these
higher MAC and FA.A. TAF 2010 forecast levels, and the delay savings realized from a new
runway at these activity levels further establish the need for the proposed action. Overall,
the FAA concludes that the new runway will pernli.t the airport to effectively and safely
accommodate existing and projected forecast demand at an acceptable level of delay.
. Airport Demand/Capacity �,
Total annual airport passenger traffic is e�ected to grow to about 30.1 million by 2010 and
annual aircraft operations are expected to increase to about 500,000 using the MAC Baseline
Forecast and to about 41.7 million passengers with 604,000 operations using the MAC High
Forecast. Under the No Action Alternative, it was found that the airport could only handle
about 473,500 annual operations without excessive delays, and aviation activity demands
would outstrip available capacity. Using a baseline activity level of 420,390 aircraft
operations, based on annual traffic levels for 1992, the Airport Capacity Design Team in its
Capacity Enhancement Plan estirnated annual delays at MSP to be 3.1 minutes per operation at
that time. With future activity levels ranging from 530,000 to 600,000 annual aircraft
operations, the Team determined that if no improvements were made in airfield capacity the
average delay per operation would increase to 7.1 minutes per operation at the lower activity
level and 13.8 minutes per operation at fihe higher operations level. With a new north-south
runway, these average delays were estimated to decrease to levels just over 3.0 minutes per
operation at the 530,000 aircraft operations level and to 4.8 minutes at the 600,000 level. The
MAC Baseline 2020 Forecast of 520,000 operations and High Forecast of 640,000 fall within
17 The noise analyses conducted for the Dual Track Process have consistentiy determined that 2005 shou�d be e�ected to produce the wo�st-case noise
impacts after Runway 17/35 is constructed due to a higher percentage of noisier, "hushkitted" Stage 3 ai�craft in 2005. Under the MACs High Forecast, the
' proportion of hushkitted Stage 3 aircraft operations will decline from about i8 percent in 2005 to 0.5 percent in 2010. This reduction in hushkitted Stage 3
operations offsets the increase in overall operations projected for 2010, making 2005 the worst-case year far the noise analyses. Further analysis of this
issue in regard to forecast sensitiviry, and in response to comments on the FEIS (attached to this ROD), has confiRned that the MAC High Forecast of
operations at 575,000 by 2005 wouid resuit in an overali greater noise impact than wouid result from 750,000 operations, 'rf attainable, in some future year (/
(with the relative impacts measured in terms of the land area and population exposed to various sound levels). �
19
(SEPTEMBER1998)
FAA RECORD OF DECISION MSP DUAL TRACK AIFPORT PLANNING PROCESS
similar ranges of activity and delay reduction as those of the Capacity Enhancement Plan,
,_� with and without the new runway.
C. Economic Considerations
MSP is a key economic force within the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area and a major
component of both the regional economy and the nati.onal air transportation system. The
airport has 175 flights per day to domestic cities,ll Canadian cities, and 13 European and
Asian destinations. By increasing the number of nonstop destinations, a conneciing hub
increases the frequency of service to individual cities, which decreases travel time and
increases convenience. Good air service is a major consideration in corparate location
decisions and its past and present level of air service has helped to make the Twin Cities and
other Minnesota destinations competitive as business locations. Investments in payroll and
facilities by Northwest Airlines and associated industries further benefit the economy of the
Twin Cities. Reduced travel delays due to the proposed action and the enhanced level of air
service will further the economic development af the State of l�!ii.nnesota (see the discussion
of delay reduction at the opening of Section III, above).
;, �; - �� �
The federal actions and approvals required to implement the airport sponsor's proposed
project include: (1) the unconditional approval of the revised Airport Layout Plan (ALP) for
the MAC 2010 LTCP; (2) environmental approval for federal funding under the Airport and
Airway Improvement Act of 1982, now referred to as Title 49 U.S. Code 47101 et seq., as
� amended, and determinations under 49 USC 47106 and 47107 and under various executive
_ orders, (3) determination of potential eligibility for Federal grant-in-aid funds and Passenger
Facility Charge funds for airfield and landside developrnent and environmental mitigation;
(4) replacement, relocation, and operation of navigational aids; and (5) approval to develop
and implement new air traffic control and air space management procedures consistent with
the FEIS.
For the MAC to implement the 2010 LTCP, revisions were required to the ALP, and new uses
of airspace will result. The associated safety elements of the FAA approval actions include:
• Determination of effects upon safe and efficient utilization of airspace (FAR Part 157)
+ Determination of conformance with FAA design criteria and approval of construction
plans and specifications (AIP grant assurances)
� Determination that the project is in conformance with the provisions of other applicable
Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR Parts 77 and 169}
• Review and approval of amended Airport Certification Manual (FAR Part 139)
� Establishment of a new Instrument Landing System (ILS), Runway Visual Range (RVR)
equipment, approach lighting system (ALS) and relocation of the VHF omni-directional
range station (VOR).
• Establishment of new flight procedures, including visual and instrument procedures,
missed approach procedures, and standard i.nstrument departure (SID) and standard
`_� terminal arrival (STAR) procedures of new runway 17/35 (FAR Part 95).
20
(SEPTEMBER1998)
FAA RECORD OF DECISION MSP DUAL TFACK AIRPORT PLANNING PROCESS
• Designation of controlled airspace and revised routings (FAR Part 71).
� Approval of amendments to the operations specifications of air carriers intending to (
operate at MSP, which authorize specific routes, types of operations and types of aircraft
for use of the new runway (FAR. Parts 121,125, and 135).
In addition, conditional ALP approval of the MAC 2020 Concept Plan is addressed in this
ROD. This conditianal approval is restricted to the completion, processing, and concurrence
with further environrnental studies and other conditions the FAA determines in its findings
(see also Section XI—Agency Decision and Order).
��� ���,
. .
While the FAA does not have the authority to control or direct actions and decisions of the
MAC and the Minnesota Legislature in planning and implementing the 2010 LTCP, it does
have the authority to withhold approval of the proposed project, use of federal funcling, and
other actions described in fihis ROD. Alternatives to the proposed project have been
considered from this standpoint, in terms of their respective performance and resulting
environmental and other unpacts. The FAA rnust be assured that a full array of reasonable
alternatives, including a"No Action" Alternative, has been considered and that there is no
possible, feasible, and prudent alternative to approve federal actions to support the sponsor's
and the FAA's preferred alternative.
Numerous alternatives to the proposed project were examined in the FEIS. Various
alternatives were elirninated for a variety of reasons and others were selected for detailed
analysis of environmental impact on the basis of the achievement of the goals set out in the �
Dual Track Process. `-
� , _,. _ . ,• -r ,
. .
Scoping Decisions
The Dual Track Ai.rport Planning Process initiated by the 1989 passage of the Metropolitan
Airport Planning Act provided that the long range assessment of air transportation was to
include both airport improvements at the existing airport and the location and development
of a new airport. The MAC and MC were directed by the Minnesota legislature to compare
these and all other feasible alternatives to meet 2020 aviation demand. As detailed in Section
II.0 of this ROD, the scoping process for the EIS was performed in two phases. In April 1992,
a First Phase Scoping Report was prepared which described the Dual Track Process for
identifying the alternatives and the issues and impacts to be addressed in the EIS, including
the Alternative Environmental Document process (AED). This document outlined the plan
for the 3-year scoping/AED process, which evaluated several airport development
alternatives using a level-of-detail equivalent to a federal EIS and then selected preferred
configurations for both a New Airport Alternative and a MSP Expansion Alternative for
evaluation in the Draft EIS. The EIS Scoping Decision document, cornpleted in July 1995,
documents the results of that process and is the precursor to the EIS with respect to
identifying feasible alternatives and identifying issues, concerns, and impacts of alternatives
requiring detailed analysis in the EIS.
21
(SEPTEMBER1998)
FAA RECORD OF DECISIDN MSP DUAL TRACK AIRPORT PIANNING PROCESS
T'he FAA, as the lead federal agency, was directly responsible for federal aspects of the EIS
scoping process, including early coordination with the U.S. EPA and other agencies
� concerning the proposed environmental process. Lluring the rnulti-year scoping and AED
period, the MAC and the Metropolitan Council devoted substantial resources to the
treatrnent of alternatives for airport development at the existing airport site and at a new
airport location (see also Section II.C).
As a result of the scoping process, concepts brought forward included: the MSP expansion
alternative, the New Airport alternative, the IVo Action Alternative, and two additional
concepts. These additional concepts were the Remote Runway Concept and the
Supplemental Airport Concept. These five concepts and their variations, along with other
concepts that arose during the Dual Track Process, are discussed below.
During the period when the New Airport Concepts and the MSP Expansion Concepts were
being considered, comrnunity and agency participation was actively�solicited. As described
in Section II.0 of this ROD, the FAA participated actively throughout this process by
monitoring the methods and procedures used by the MAC in arriving at a preferred
alternaiive and through its participation on various committees. At each major milestone,
the FAA reviewed the scoping and AED process to ensure coverage of a reasonable range of
alternatives.
New Airport Concepts
In 1991, the MC designated the search areas for consideration for a new airport as required
by the Metropolitan Airport Development Act. The three search areas were evaluated for the
development of a new airport using 2020 goals established by the MC. Secause of excessive
) travel time and distance, adverse impacts on various environmental categories, or other
reasons, two of the sites were eliminated as not meeting the MC 2020 goals. Based on siti.ng
criteria which included airspace considerations, land requirements, and environmental
impacts, and other needs, the MC designated the Search Area to be located in Dakota Couniy
for planning and development of a new airport. The process used by the MC in designating
the search area was approved by the Minnesota EQB and was reviewed by the FAA.
Seven potential airport sites were considered in the 115 square mile Search Area designated
by the MC. As a result of the scoping process, four of seven MC sites were eliminated from
further consideration (Sites 1, 4, 5, and 7) and three sites were selected for further study (Sites
2, 3, and 6). The sites that were eliminated had severe impacts on communities in the Search
Area, impacts on wetlands and floodways, and other environmental effects. T'he MAC
ultimately selected Site 3 as its preferred choice on the basis of 65 evaluation criteria. Site 3
was located east of the Vermillion River and roughly bounded by 170`h Street and the City of
Hastings on the north, U.S. 61 to the east, 220"' Street on the south, and Goodwin Avenue to
the west.
The MAC completed a conceptual design for the new airport, which included variations of
three layouts basically consisting of four parallel runways and two crosswind runways, with
supporting aviation and airport facilities for corrimercial and military use. A fourth
alternative was developed which drew from the best elements of the three layouts and
modified other aspects to address environmental and operational problems. The fourth
alternative, and its site location, was selected as the New Airport Alternative in 1994. The
� other alternatives were elinunated in the AED evaluation (Final Alternative Environmental
�`� __�� Document, New Airport Site Selection Study,1994).
22
(SEPTEMBER1998)
FAA RECORD OF DECISION MSP DUALTRACK AIRPORT PLANNING PROCESS
MSP Expansion Concepts
The Long Term Comprehensive Plan (LTCP) for MSP, Volume 1, Goals, Assumptions and �
Methodologies incorporated metropolitan planning goals to guide the development of the
MSP Alternative. As noted in Section III of this ROD (I'urpose and Need) and in the FEIS
Section III.C.1(page III-7), these goals, augrnented by objectives, were used to identify the
best configvration for the MSP Alternative.
Initially, more than tweniy concepts were reviewed for possible value in adding capacity to
the e�dsting MSP airport. Detailed computer sunulations of the delay reductions were
completed for each concept, and each was evaluated based on a range of environmental
factors. An interactive planning group was formed to provide extensive input for this
evaluation. ITltimately, six MSP concepts were selected for more detailed evaluation based
on their performance characteristics, feasibility, and environrriental irnpacts. The six
concepts were then more fully evaluated while preparing the MSP LTCP. They were also the
subject of more detailed environmental analysis. As a result of these processes, "Concept 6"
(the addition of new Runway 17/35 and, ultimately, a new west terminal) was selected as the
preferred MSP 2020 Concept Plan and the five remaining concepts were eliminated from
further consideration.l$
Concepts 1 and 2 had a new 7,700-foot north-parallel runway (12/30), either with or without a
new west terminal. These concepts were not retained for detailed study after the final MSP
scoping evaluation (1995) for the following reasons:
• The north-south runway in Concept 6 provides more capacity than a north parallel
runway. The 800-foot separation between fihe proposed north parallel runway and
Runway 12L/30R would result in heavy aircraft wake/turbulence dependence, and (
would limit usability in poor weather. The proposed north-south runway would provide �
a delay savings of $4.6 million annually compared to the third parallel runway, when
operations reach 530,000, according to the FAA Capacity Enhancement Plan. If operations
reach 600,000, there would be a delay savings of $7.1 million annually with the north-
south runway as compared to the third parallel runway.
• 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 District19 and would reguire the use (i.e., acquisition for airport purposes) of a
Section 4( fl 9-hole golf course and Bossen Field, a Section 4(f) park.
s The north parallel runway would displace 601 more residents compared to Concept 6?�
and place 440 more monthly flights at altitudes less than 500 feet over lakes near MSP
where birds congregate (considering the MAC Baseline Forecast of 2020 operations).
� 8 The Draft and Final AEDs for the MSP I.TCP evaluated Concepts 1, 2, 5, and 6 in detail. Concepts 1 and 2 involved a north parallel runway and
concepts 5 and 6 involved the preferred 8,000 foot Runway 17/35. Concepts 3 and 4, which involved a south parallel runway, were also developed and
evaluated during the eariy scoping process, but were eliminated from further study in the MSP LTCP Scoping Decision Document (March 1994) due to
sign'rficant operational, safety, and capacity deficiencies, as weli as greater adverse noise impacts and numerous physical constraints.
19 The Fort Snelling National Historic Landmark District is part of the Oid Fort Snelling Historic District. In orcler to construct a north parallel runway, at least
nine 19" century officers' quarters and three enlisted men's barracks would have to be demolished. Fort 5nelling is one of the most sign'rficant historic sites
in the state of Minnesota. While damage to Nationai Register properties is discouraged under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, National
Historic Landmarks are afforded substantially greater protection under Section 110 of the same act. Avoidance of demolition is always the preferred
preservation attemative under 5ections 106,110, and 4(fl. Relocation of the affected structures in this instance is not a viable aption for mitigation 6ecause
it would destroy the integrity of the location of the structures and thereby compromise the historic significance of the landmark district. /
20 The AED noise analysis showed that ihere would be an increase of 720 individuals affected by afrcraft noise in the DN� 65+ noise contour as a result of `
(continued on next page)
23
(SEPTEMBER1998)
FAA RECQRD OF DECISION MSP �UAL TRACK AIRPORT PIANNING PROCESS
Based on these comparisons, the concepts involving a north-parallel runway were 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 environmental impacts, as documented in the AEDs
and the FEIS.21
In addition, the north-parallel runway is not a reasonable concept because it requires a
change in state legislation enacted on Apri12,1996 (see FEIS Appendix A.14). Specifically,
Subdivision 28 of that legislation requires that the MAC enter into a contract with each
affected city agreeing to not construct a third parallel runway at MSP without approva] from
the affected cities (Minneapolis, Eagan, and Mendota Heights). The contract that the MAC
has entered into with the City of Mendota Heights pursuant to the legislation provides that
the MAC shall not affirmatively advocate construction of a thixd parallel runway prior to
December 31, 2020 (Contract Pertaining to Limits on Construction of a Third Parallel Runway;
signed by MAC and the City of Mendota Heights on Decernber 23,1996). T'he same contract
states that the MAC shall not, without the approval of the City, construct a third parallel
runway during the period for which the contract is effective (this period is at least through
December 31, 2020, but there are automatic renewal clauses through December 31, 2050).
The terms of the Mendota Heights contract also state that the City shall take no action to
oppose the planning and construction of the new north-south runway.
The details of similar contracts with the Cities of Minneapolis and Eagan are still being
finalized, and will address the same issues as the contract entered into by MAC and the City
of Mendota Heights.
, Concepts 3 and 4 had a new 8,000-foot south-parallel runway (12/30), either with or without a
_- new west terminal. These concepts are also not considered feasible and prudent and were
elinvnated during the early AED/scoping process for the following reasons:
• Significant operational problems, safety concerns, and minimal capacity expansion
compared to Concept 6 are caused by the close 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 eacisting 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.
T'his 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. Campared 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.
the proposed north-south runway, as compared to a north parallel runway. However, the proposed norflr-south runway would affect 2,310 fewer people in
the DNL 60+contour in Eagan, Bloomington, Inver Grove Heights, Mendota Heights and Richfield. Pursuant to early scoping input and the April 2,1996,
legisiation, MAC considered the DNL 60 contour for impact comparisons throughout the Dual Ttack Process, and incorporated that contour into the MAC's
noise mitigation program for this project.
21 The full e�ent of noise impacts on the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge was not fuliy addressed in the AEDs although USFWS staff were
represented on the Technical Advisory Committee. While the north paraliel runway altemative wouid avoid the adverse impacts on the Refuge, there is no
piausible altemative to the proposed north•south runway, for the reasons summar¢ed in this section. For more information, see the responses to comments
on the FEIS and the Section 4(f) Evaluation (Attachment A).
24
(SEPTEMBER1998�
FAA RECORD OF DECISION M5P DUAL TRACK AIRPORT PLANNIN� PROCESS
Concept 5 had the north-south runway and an additional passenger terminal east of the
existing terminal. This concept was elirninated during the final MSP scoping evaluation
(1995) because it would be less convenient for passenger gate access and parking, less (
efficient for baggage transfer, less efficient for regional and international connecting
passengers, offers less flexibility for the use of gates by different fypes of aircraft, and would
create more conflicts in aircraft circulation. In terms of environmental impacts, this
alternative involves the same runway configuration as the proposed action—the 2010 LTCP.
Therefore, it involves similar environmental impacts as Concept 6(the preferred 2010 LTCP).
However, the eastern terminal included in Concept 5 would not provide sufficient benefits to
warrant its inclusion in a longer-term airport development plan.
Given future airfield/terminal demands and consiraints, it was concluded that only two
locations for a terrninal at MSP are feasible; they are the location of the e�cisting Lindbergh
Terminal and the proposed location of the new west terminal, southeast of the TH 62/77
interchange—at the site af the Original Wold Chamberlain Terminal Historic District.
Continued use of the Lindbergh Terrninal under the projecEed airport capacity requirernents
for the year 2020 will require the construction of additional aircraft gates22 It was found that
the only feasible location for those gates would be the site now occupied by the historic
terminal complex. In fact, either phase of the airport's development—involving additional
aircraft gates for the existing terminal or a new terminal—will result in unavoidable
demolition impacts within the Original Wold Chamberlain Terminal Historic District.
Other Concepts
High-Speed Intercity itail. In 1991, the Minnesota Department of Transportation
(Mn/DOT) performed a study of the implications of high-speed rail alternatives on air traffic j
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 the existing MSP and divert sufficient passengers and aircraft
operations from air to rail service so that a new runway and terminal facilities would not be
needed at the airport. The results of the study show that rail service would not redirect
enough passengers and operations from air travel to preclude a new runway and terminal at
MSP.
Itemote Runway. In concept, this alternative would retain the terminal area ticketing,
baggage, and support facilities at MSP and new gates and runways would be constructed at
a remote airfield location in Dakota County. A high-speed transit link would connect the
MSP terminal with the new gates. The purpose of this alternative was to retain the ground
accessibility and existing development related to MSP, while moving the airfield activity and
effects to a remote location.
A siudy of this alternative was completed in 199523 Results of the study showed that the
high-speed transit link between MSP and the remote runways would have adverse
environmental impacts (especially due to potential relocations and other social impacts) and
would disrupt service on more than 15 local raadways. This proposal would also introduce
� �imited mod'rfications of the existing Lindbergh terminal, inciuding the addition of some gates, are reasonable actions#or the short•term. However, the
FAA recognizes that a sign'rficant long-term modificatioNe�ansion of the l.indbergh terminai is not consistent with the 2020 Concept Pian, which
recommends a new terminal. Therefore, a sign'rficant expansion of the Lindbergh Tenninal to serve needs beyond 2010 will undergo any required additional
state and federal environmental reviews and approvals.
23 Tumer Collie & Braden, July 1995, Remote Runway Concept Feasibil'dy Study (
25
(SEPTEMBER1998)
FAA RECARD OF DECISION M5P DUAL THACK AIRPbRT PLANNING PROCESS
adverse aircraft noise into Dakota County without relocating the economic benefits and tax
base. There were additional concerns that this split concept could eventually lead ta
� passenger support facilities also developing at the new airfield site, resulting in a dual airport
system. This alternative was dismissed on the basis of these and other inefficiencies, and
because the cost of this alternati.ve was determined to be slightly greater than the New
Airport alternative.
Supplemental Airport. The objective of this alternative was to accommodate future demand
at MSP without the need for major airfield and terminal additions by retaining the ground
accessibility chazacteristics of MSP for most passengers without requiring extensive
additional development. Certain components that constitute aviation demand (military
operations, cargo activity, international operations, and general aviatian) would be shifted to
another existing airport in the state, primarily at Rochester International Airport; Rochester,
Minnesota.
In analyzing this alternative, it was determaned that shifting operations of military, cargo,
general aviation, and international operations, would have little impact on traffic levels and
airport delays at MSP because of either the small amount of activity generated by these
operators or fihe off-peak scheduling of some of these operations. Increased travel tirne and
inconvenience in connecting large numbers of transferring international or commuter
passengers between airports reduced the overall effectiveness and efficiency of the MSP hub,
also making this an infeasible cancept. None of the supplemental airport concepts would
defer the need for major expansion at MSP.
Northwest Airlines Concept 6A. In January of 1996, Northwest Airlines (NWA) proposed a
,- � concept for MSP expansion referred to as. Concept 6A. This was a phased development
'' program intended to address the existing to 20 year needs forecast for MSP in a cost-effective
manner. Concept 6A focused on expanding the existing Lindbergh Terminal to supply the
forecast demand for terminal activities, while an earlier proposed Concept 6 provided for a
replacement West Terminal.
T'he NWA's Concept 6A is very similar to MAC's 2010 LTCP, with similar environmental
impacts. The MSP 2020 Concept Plan differs considerably from the NWA Concept 6A plan
because of the new terminal; but both plans are based upon development phasing dependent
on demand and the MAC and NWA agree that the 2010 terminal development needs can be
met by an incremental expansion program for the Lindbergh Terminal. Needs through 2020
can possibly be met by this development as well, although development beyond 2010 is less
certain due to the inherent difficulties in forecasting activity so far into the future.24 MAC
and NWA agree that a 2020 Concept Plan, showing the possibility of a new West Terminal
with the existing Lindbergh Terrninal complex reconfigured into linear gate concourses (2020
Concept Plan), should be used as a basis for environmental analysis and planning. This is
because it shows the maximum impact of terminal development at MSP and provides for the
development of the north-south runway and 2010 terminal expansion. If a new terminal is
justified at some point in the future, favorable completion of the planning, airspace, and
environmental reviews will allow development to proceed based on the concurrence by all
parties, including the Minnesota Legislature.
24 As footnoted previously, a significant e�ansion of the Lindbergh TeRninal to serve needs beyond 2010 may require additional federal environmental
reviews and approvals.
' �
26
(SEPTEM8ER1996)
FAA RECOflD OF DECISION MSP DUAL TRACK AIRPORT PLANNIN� PROCESS
,
: ' • •- -�I �-
New Airport Aiternative
The MAC and MC, as the agencies designated by the Minnesota state legislature as
responsible for implementation of the Dual Track Airport Planning Process, identified a
search area in Dakota County and then identified alternative locations within. the search area
for a new airport. T'hree of the alternatives were fully evaluated and a specific site was
selected for a potential new airport. The airfield for the New .Airport Alternative, which was
developed from this process, was a hybrid of three earlier airfield alternatives. It included
four parallel runways and fiwo crosswind runways surrounding a centrally located terminal
on approximately 14,100 acres of land. A full array of airport and airline support facilities,
and ground access needs were provided in the airport layout. The process for developing a
New Airport Comprehensive Plan spanned nearly six years and included four major tasks;
developing a conceptual airport layout, designating a search area, selecting a site in the
search area, and developing a comprehensive plan for the site. Throughout this period, the
FA.A participated actively, through representation on the New Airport Technical Committee
and by evaluating airspace and safety issues to ensure that the New Airport Alternative was
a feasible concept. The results of the site and environmental investigations were reported in
the New Airport AED (New Airport Comprehensive Plan: Final Alternative Environmental
Document, April 1995).
�.
Ultimately, a preferred site/layout for a New Airport Alternative was evaluated in detail
with the Draft EIS (December 1995), and it was cornpared with the MSP and No Action
Alternatives. The FAA prepared the DEIS jointly with the MAC, and carefully considered
the merits of both the New Airport Alternative and the MSP Alternative, as well as
comments received on the DEIS. In March 1996, Ehe MAC and MC made their �
recomrnendations to the State Legislature, as required by the process, in consultation with
the FAA. In comparing the MSP Alternative to the New Airport Alternative, the MAC and
the MC highlighted several differences of environmental significance, including these:
• The New Airport Alternative would result in the physical destruction of more than 6,800
acres of wildlife habitat due to the placement of airport facilities, as compared to the loss
of about 360 acres under the MSP Alternative.
• The New Airport would involve the acquisition of 17,000 acres of farmland while no :
farmland would be affected by the MSP Alternative.
• The New Airport would displace 1,132 residents whereas the MSP Alternative would
displace 383 residents.
• The New Airport Alternative would result in major induced development impact within
an area that is mostly rural and not served by urban infrastructure. The MSP Alternative
can be served by existing infrastructure area and is more consistent with the region's
developrnent plans.
• The average travel times for Twin. Cities residents to the New Airport would be about 20
minutes longer than to the existing MSP Airport site. -
The MAC and the MC also concluded that the MAC's High Forecast of aircraft operations
(640,000 annual operations) can be accommodated at MSP with the addition of the single (
\
27
(SEPTEMBER1998)
FAA RECOFD OF DECISION MSP DUAI TRACK AIRPORT PLANNING PROCESS
new runway. Following the DEIS comment period, the MAC and MC fulfilled their
--., statutory obligations under the original Dual Track legislation and made their
' � recornmendation to select the MSP Expansion Alternative in the Report to the Legislature
(March 1996). The findings that resulted in the elimination of the New .Airport Alternative
and the selection of the MSP Alternative were based on the following evaluation criteria: (1)
airport operational issues, (2) ground access issues, (3) ecanomic impacts, (4) financial issues,
(5) environmental impacts, and (6) flexibility issues. In Apri11996, the Minnesota Legislature
considered these recommendations and the comprehensive planning documents and their
environmental effects and eliminated the New Airport Alternative from further
consideration, which arguably eliminated the need for detailed evaluation in the FEIS.
Therefore, the New Airport Alternative is not a reasonable alternative to the extent that it
requires a change in Minnesota law.
The FAA has also concluded that the New Airport Alternative is not a reasonable or possible,
prudent and feasible alternative warranting detailed study in the FEIS. Even though aspects
of the New Airport Alternative could have been technically feasible, the FA.A finds that it did
not appear to be financially feasible. Furthermore, the FAA does not consider the New
Airport Alternative to be prudent because of a widespread record of opposition to this
alternative. This is based upon review and consideration of testimony at public hearings,
comments submitted in response to the DEIS, and coordination throughout the I1ua1 Track
Process with federal, state, and local agencies. T'he FA.A also considered MAC's desire for
flexibility to respond to changing demand through expansion at MSP rather than a new
airport.
Under the Dual Track Airport 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 Twin Cities area and to determine the approach to the
implementation of their selection. The FAA recognizes that the selection of the MSP
Alternative by the Minnesota Legislature as the preferred alternative was not simply the
result of technical evaluations and environmental impacts, but was strongly influenced by
public opinion, political negotiations, econamic factors, and airline involvement. Based on
this, the FAA independently reviewed the New Airport Alternative and determined that it
was not a feasible or prudent alternative warranting further detailed study in the FEIS as a
matter of federal law. The FAA considered as a factor bearing on reasonableness, but not as
dispositive, the decision of the State Legislature to reject the New Airport Alternative.
MSP Expansion Alternaiive (2010 LTCP and 2020 Concept Plan)
The MSP Expansion Alternative consists of the Long Term Comprehensive Plan for the year
2010 and the year 2020 Concept Plan. The 2010 LTCP is the first phase of the 2020 Concept
Plan and includes the construction of a new 8,000 foot north-south runway, and the
replacement of maintenance, cargo, and aircraft hanger facilities. Ground transportation
irnprovements would be modified to the TH 77 and 66�' Street interchange and airport
frontage road. The major feature of the 2020 Concept Plan, in addition to the developments
resulting from the completion of the 2010 LTCP, is a new replacement terrninal building,
parking and drop-off facility on the east side of the airport, and additional air cargo and
maintenance facilities. There are substantial ground transportation access improvements,
including interchange developrnent and roadway widening to serve the new west side
terminal in the 2020 Concept Plan. The proposed action for federal approval is the 2010
� � LTCP.
28
(SEPTEMBER1998)
FAA RECORD OF DECISION MSP DUAL TRACK AIRPORT PLANNING PROCESS
The cornplete MSP 2010 LTCP expansion alternative consists of the following elements:
• A new 8,000-foat north-south Runway 17/35 located on the west side of the airport. (
Associated taxiways and a holding/deicing pad at the north end would be developed to
serve the new runway.
+ Acquisition of residential property, as well as the Doubletree Grand, Sheraton and Excel
Inn hotels and other commercial properties.
• New holding and deicing pads for Runways 12R, 30L and 30R
• Enhanced storm water detention basins
• Expansion of the Red, Gold, and Green concourses in the Lindbergh Terminal
� A new people mover in the Green concourse
e The realignment and widening of the airport frontage road befween 66�' Street and 34t''
Avenue South
� Reconstruction of TH 77 and the 66�' Street interchange
• Relocation and constructi.on of maintenance, aircraft hanger and air cargo facilities to
facilitate new runway development
• Construction of new apron paving in locations around the terminal area and on the
airfield
The proposed federal action also includes the FAA Division actions noted in Section II.A of �'
this ROD.
The 2010 LTCP selected for MSP development and detailed environmental evaluation
offered the least significant operational, noise and environmental concerns while meeting the
purpose and need of the project. As the first phase of the 2020 Concept Plan, the 2010 LTCP
can also accommodate longer-term needs in a manner consistent with the analyses contained
in the FEIS.
The MSP Alternative was evaluated in detail in the DEIS and FEIS, and was recommended to
the Minnesota Legislature by the MAC and the MC for development of MSP to meet the
region's needs, for both 2010 and 2020. In responding to the joint recommendation of the
MAC and the MC, the Minnesota legislature passed legislation, approved by the governor,
which found that development of a new airport is not a prudent alternative to the expansion
of MSP. On Apri12,1996, the Legislature directed the MAC to implement the MSP 2010
LTCP.
The FAA concluded that the MAC's analysis of the MSP Alternative (both the 2010 LTCP and
the 2020 Concept Plan) was reasonable and sound, and considers the new terminal and other
elements of that plan reasonable features to include in a later phase of the airport's
development. However, the FAA has conditioned the 2020 ALP approval on the outcome of
additional environmental sfixdies (see also Section XI—Agency Decision and Order). As
noted above under the "New Airport Alternative," the FAA has also advised the MAC that
the April 19961egislative directive did not prejudge the analysis of alternatives in the EIS
pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.L -- -( -
�
29
(SEPTEMBER1998)
FAA RECOFiD OF DECISION MSP DUAL THACK AIRPORT PLANNIN� PROCESS
No Action Alternative
������� The No Action Alternative consists of the existing airport facilities and access at MSP, an
committed projects with funding approved far construction by the MAC in its current
Capital Improvement Program which are not associated with the implementation of a new
north-south runway. T'he No Action Alternative is the baseline environmental condition
against which the environmental impacts of other alternatives were evaluated. 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
• A new skyway connector between the Green and Gold concourses
� Reconstruction of the HHH Terminal
• New Sun Country hanger
• New Taxiway W
� Increased use of Runway 4/22 runway use system
The No Action Alternative would result in operational flexibility at MSP remaining largely as
it is today. Aircraft operations would be distributed among the runways in a similar manner
as currently occurs although the number of operations would increase. Landside needs for
surface transportation and terminal area to alleviate passenger congestion and incon�enience
would not be remedied. Under some circumstances, surface water quality affected by
aircraft deicing and the lack of storm water detention bas'vns would worsen environmental
: � conditions on the airport. Air quality impacts would also worsen due to operational delays.
" A complete surnrnary of the environrnental impacts described within the FEIS is provided
within Section VI.A of this ROD, below. The FEIS also includes impact sumrnaries within the
Executive Summary and within Appendix H—Sensitivity of Impact Categories to MAC High
Forecast.
Although the No Action Alternative is the least disruptive alternative in terms of
developrnent impacts, it would fail to solve the capacity needs and delays existing at MSP.
Therefore, it disregards the purpose and need set out in the Dual Track Airport Planning
Process to provide for the efticient and economical movement of people and goods into and
out of the Twin Cities region. It fails to address the critical elernents of the long-range goals
mandated by the Minnesota Legislature and described and analyzed in the FEIS. Both the
MAC and the FAA have independently concluded that without substantial airfield, terminal
and access improvements, future growth in aviation activity at MSP will significantly
decrease the level of service and increase user costs. For these reasons, the No Action
Alternative is not supported by the FAA.
C. Sponsor Preferred �It�rnative
The MAC's preferred long-term airport development alternative is the 2020 Concept Plan,
which primarily consists of a new 8000-foot north-south runway, replacement west terminal,
and associated airport facilities and roadways. This proposed alternative incorporates input
from the comrnunity, other state and federal agencies, and the FAA. This recommendation
was given to the Minnesota Legislature in the spring of 1996 for their selection of an
't, ) alternative, as ordained by the Metropolitan Airport Planning Act of 1989. As previously
30
(SEPTEMBER1998)
FAA RECORD OF DECISION MSP DUAL TRACK AIRPORT PIANNING PFiOCESS
noted, the Minnesota Legislature passed legislation (Apri12,1996) authorizing the MAC to
implement only the MSP 2010 LTCP, the first phase of the 2020 Concept Plan. The legislation �-
mandated that no further consideration of the New Airport Alternative be given, and that
development of the west terminal only be allowed with further legislative approval at such
time as capaciiy deemed it necessary.
� • ' � �
The environmentally preferable alternative is the alternative that promotes the national
environmental policy expressed in Section 101 of the NEPA. It is the alternative that causes
the least damage to the biological and physical environment and best protects, preserves, and
enhances historic cultural and natural resources. The FAA and MAC preferred alternative
(hereinafter `"MAC Preferred Alternative") would slightly increase the number of individuals
significantly affected by aircraft noise,� displace approxunately 227 more people, and use
approximately 1,083 more acres of the Minnesota Valley Wildlife Refuge and 33 more acres
of wetlands over the No Action Alternative. But it also would result in improvements in air
quality, water quality, energy consumption, and some benefit in econornic activity. Water
and air quality impacts in particular would decrease as aircraft delays decrease, preventing
damage to resources that would otherwise occur without the proposed project, with
increased aviation activity. The MAC Preferred Alternative would reduce aircraft delays and
harmful increases in carbon monoxi.de (CO) emissions in an area designated nonattainment
for CO. It would also reduce fuel usage in 2010 by 6 million gallons per year. It would
further decrease deicing associated with aircraft delays and deicing facilities would reduce
daily CBODsdischarge from deicing by 1,300 pounds per day and significantly improve
surface water qualify.
There are differences in environmental effects between the build and no-build alternatives. \�- '
The MAC Preferred Alternative has beneficial transportation unprovernents and fueL energy
savings, and positive air and water quality effects, which outweigh its adverse noise,
wetland, and Section 4(� impacts. Although the MAC Preferred Alternative would result in
impacts to the environment, all potentially significant adverse impacts would be ameliorated
by appropriate mitigation. The No Action Alternative might appear to be environmentally
preferable because it results in fewer developmental impacts. Yet, it results in significant
damage to the biological environment. Although admittedly a difficult judgement, after
balancing the value of air and water quality improvements against developmental impacts,
the FAA determined that the MAC Preferred Alternative is the environmentally preferred
alternative.
E. Selecied Alternative
The FAA has completed appropriate aviation technical review and has concluded that the
proposed project in the MSP 2010 LTCP can be implernented and is consistent with
considerati.ons of safety, efficiency and utility. The FAA has also considered the fact that the
sponsor's preferred alternative evaluated in the FEIS has undergone extensive public
scrutiny; through an involvement process that has included numerous public hearings and
25 The FAA uses DNL 65dBA as the standard of significance for noise impacts on residentiai land uses in accorclance with FAA Order 5050.4A and 14 CFR
Part 150. The MAC preferred altemative wouid increase by 300 the num6er of individuals aifected by noise in the DNL 65+ noise contour in 2005.
However, aircraft noise affects far fewer people in the DNL 60-65 contour at that time. fie number of individuals experiencing DNL 60•65 in 2005 would �- �
deciine by approximaiely 5,600.
31
(SEPTEM8ER1998)
FAA RECOAD OF DECISION MSP DUAL TFACK AIRPORT PLANNIN� PROCESS
extensive public participation, participation with multiple and diverse task force and
� technical committees, involvement in government agency participation at the local, state and
federal levels, and direct invalvement with the Minnesota Legislature, all occurring over a
period of nearly 10 years. Additionally, the FAA has considered thaf MSP officials, along
with the FAA, have conducted ongoing negotiations with airport neighbors including
communities, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (LTSFWS), and others, to resolve issues
regarding impacts identified in the FEIS. Finally, the FAA has participated in and directed
the addition of environmental analyses to assure that the MSP propased action has been
accurately and thoroughly reported.
After careful consideration of the analysis of the impacts of alternatives, and of the ability of
these alternatives to satisfy the identified purpose and need for this proposal; and after
review and considerati.on of the testimony at public hearings, of comrnents submitted in
response to the circulation of the DEIS and FEIS, and of coorclination with federal, state, and
local agencies; the FAA finds the MSP 2010 LTCP identified in the Final EIS to be an
acceptable and reasonable alternative to meet the purpose and need for satisfying current
and future aviation in the Twin Cities area.
VI. nviron ental I acts an it� ation
The Alternative Environmental Review Pracess approved by the Minnesota Environmental
Quality Board (EQB) for the Dual Track Airport Planning Process in March 1992 required the
assessment of environmental impacts of the alternatives to the year 2020. The issues and
impact categories analyzed in the Alternative Environmental Documents (AEDs) were
� determined frorn the EQB-required scoping pracess as those warranting detailed analysis in
' order to compare alternatives. The EQB scoping procedures allow for the elimination of
issues and irnpact categories if they are not relevant or so minor that they did not need to be
addressed. Overall, the environmental process addressed an increasing number of
environmental impact categories, to ultimately include several more impact categories than
required by FAA Order 5050.4A. As a result, this pracess satisfied FAA requirements for
determining if environmental consequences wi11 result from the proposed acrion. The
published FEIS satisfies the reporting requirements for both state and federal purposes and
meets applicable state and national policy acts for evaluating environmental impacts. This
joint preparation approach has been taken to reduce duplication between state and federal
reporting requirements (40 CFR 1506.2, Minnesota EQB, 4410.3900, Subpart 1).
A. Summary of Findings by Each Impaci Category
This section contains a brief summary of the principal findings relative to environmental
consequences of the impact categories that have been examined. More detailed descriptions
of the evaluations for these environrnental categories can be found in the FEIS, Section V.,
"Environmental Consequences."z6
Air Quality. Criteria pollutants are those for which ambient air quality standards have been
established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Minnesota Polluti.on
26 The subsections below are presented in the same orcler used in the FEIS, which was based primariiy on alphabetical order. Aithough this is a different
sequence than typically used for an FAA environmental study, and within various FAA orders, all environmental impact categories in FAA Orders 1050.1 D
and 5050.4A have been addressed, along with some additionai state-required categories. This use of a different order is not material and provides a
( � reasonabie index system for the reader's convenience.
32
(SEPTEMBER1998)
FAA RECORD OF DECISION MSP DUALTRACK AIRPORT PtANNING PROCESS
Control Agency, and which have been identified by the FA.A as potential critical pollutants
associated with airports. The iwo criteria pollutants that are considered critical at MSP are
Carbon Monoxide (CO) and.Sulfur Dioxide (SOZ). MSP is located within the designated CO �
Non-Attainment area and is in a Maintenance Area for SO2. The on-airport sources for these
pollutants include aircraft and ground support equiprnent, motor vehicles, and stationary
sources such as boilers and fuel storage facilities.
Annual pollutant ernissions are estimated in the FEIS for the years 2005 and 2020 for on-
airport sources using the FAA's Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS) model.
The year 2005 was accepted by the FAA and U.S. EPA since it would be the first year of
operation for the New Airport Alternative under consideration at the time. The 2005 and
2020 times were also consistent with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency emissions
inventory. The EDMS model compared the enlissions levels of the total annual emissions
clirectly caused by the MSP proposed project .to the de minimis thresholds of 100 tons per
year for CO and SOZ, and also predicted pollutant concentrations for peak hour on-airport
activity for 1-hour and 8-hour increments. In addition, analysis was conducted for off-site
residential areas and highway locations.
The de rr►in;mis lirnit of 100 tons per year is not exceeded at MSP for the 2010 LTCP, based on
either the Baseline or High Forecast; Eherefare, mitigation of CO and SOZ emissions is not
required. All peak-hour concentrations are well below applicable standards. The MAC and
FAA have determined that the proposed project conforms to the Clean Air Act Amendments
of 1990 and the MSP 2010 LTCP would nat have adverse impacts on air qualiiy. The MAC
High Forecast Sensitivity Analysis (FEIS Appendix H), however, indicated that mitigation
measures would be required based on the High Forecast 20201evel of operations; and
Appendix H noted that it is feasible to accomplish any required nv.tigation through the C
conversion of ground service equipment ta either natural gas fuel or electricity. The need for
such mitigation to address the 2020 High Forecast future can be determined later, as part of
possible environmental studies for further consideration of the 202Q Concept Plan. The
Governor of Minnesota has certified that the proposed project will comply with all applicable
air quality standards in a certification letter contained in Appendix K of the FEIS.
Archaeological Resources. Investigations have been conducted within undisturbed or
minimally disturbed portions of MSP and have not identified any sites th,at are eligible for
listing in the National Register of Historic Places. As yet unidentified archaeological resources
in constructed portions of the airport or in the area whinc �ould be impacted by the proposed
project will be mitigated according to a data recovery plan developed by the MAC in
consultation with the 5tate Historic Preservation Office and subject to the approval of the
FAA.
Biotic Communities. Biotic communities, considered to be fish, vegetation and wildlife, are
subject to federal standards and guidelines set forth in regulations for the protection of
wetlands and threatened and endangered speries. A number of bird species use MSP and
wetland systems comprise fihe most significant wildlife habitat on the airport and are
addressed as a separate topic in the FEIS. Mother Lake had been designated by the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resource's (MDNR) Heritage arid Nongame Research Program as a
colonial waterbird nesting site due to its long-term use by Forster's terns, a state special
concern species.
33
(SEPTEM8Efl1998)
FAA RECORD OF DECISION MSP DUAL TflACK AIRPORT PLANNING PflOCESS
The 2020 Concept Plan entaiLs the placement of the MSP west terminal in a location where
construction of a number of bridge structures would be required to allow vehicular access to
� the terminal. These structures would require piers into Mother Lake and the placement of
bridge deck and resulting shadow over approxunately 12 acres of wetland vegetation.
Preceding the terminal development, the 2010 LTCP requires placement of fill in about 11.4
acres of Mother Lake for a runway safety area and access road off the end of the new north-
south runway. Both the MSP 2010 LTCP and 2020 Concept plan would raise and stabilize
the average water levels due to additional runoff on the airport, serving to possibly improve
habitat through interspersion of vegetation and open water. This could improve the success
of Forster's tern nests that are initiated there. Wildlife using habitats around MSP could incur
noise impacts due to the redistribution of flights resulting from use of the new runway.
Due to various spatial constraints, the filling of wetlands to construct the north safety area for
the north-south runway is an unavoidable impact of the proposed project. Shifting the safety
area out of Mother Lake would require the runway to be moved south or shortened. The
position of the 8,000-foot runway's south end is fixed by the location of I-494. Shortening fihe
runway would cause operational limitations and would be inconsistent with the facility
requirements set forth in the MSP 2010 LTCP.
�ird-Aircraft I-�azard. While not listed as an impact category in FAA guidelines, in response
to comments by the USFWS, the FAA and MAC included an analysis of bird hazards in the
I?raft EIS. An investigation of potential bird-aircraft hazards is prudent when siting new
aviation facilities in the vicinity of bird aitractants. Based on the analysis of bird
concentrations and attractions in the vicinity of MSP, available data does not indicate a clear
distribution pattern sufficient to ascribe incidents of specific bird concentratian areas and no
clear hazard distributian could be determined.
In response to USFWS questions and concerns about the FEIS, the FAA and MAC carefully
checked the bird-aircraft hazard analysis contained in the FEIS—especially in Table D-5, on
page V-33. This process included re-analyzing predicted flight profiles over bird
concentrations, resulting in the corrected table, shown below as Table 2.
Table 2(corrected FEIS Table D-5) — Summary of Monthly Jet Aircraft Overflights of Bird Concentration
Areas
Aititude
AGL
<500 Ft.
MSP 2020'
NIL GCL �iViL Ni�
2,080 3,150 0 1,940
500-2000 Ft. � 2,150 2,360 4,600 � 1,990
>2000 Ft. � 0 0 1,040
MSP 2010'
GCL
No Action Alternative'
2010/ 2020
LM� nJiL GCL �ML
2,920 0 Z,990
2,210 4,280 2,160
0 970 0
1 ML=Mother Lake; GCL=Gun Club Lake; �ML=Long Meadow/Black Dog Lake complex
Source: HNTB Analysis
3,750
3,510
0
���
The analysis presented in the FEIS has been revised in the ROD, and correctly reflects the
new runway's emphasis on operations to the south. The revised analysis shows that the
proposed action is not expected to increase operations below 500 feet over bird concentration
areas. As stated in the FEIS, the FAA has found that 90 percent of all bird strikes occur below
34
(SEPTEMBER1996}
FAA RECOflD OF DECISION MSP DUAL TRACK AIRPOAT PLANNING PAOCESS
500 feet above ground level (AGL). While the proposed action would lessen the numbers of
very low-altitude overflights at bird concentration areas, the potential for ongoing bird
strikes e�cists in the vicinity of the airport, most notably at altitudes of less than 2,OOO.feet C
AGL, and is an unavoidable impact. T'his is due to the distribution of bird concentrations
around MSP and the impracticability of redistributing flight operations to avoid overflying
these areas when aircraft are close to the ground in the critical arrival or departure regime of
their flight.
Canstruction Impacts. Construction of the MSP 2010 LTCP would create some unavoidable
temporary impacts to surrounding communities such as noise, fugitive dust, traffic delays,
and water quality effects. Carbon monoxide ernissions from on-airport construction is
estimated to yield a total of 20 tons per year from the combination of haul trucks, employee
trips and construction equipment. These emissions are below the 100 tons per year de
m;n;m;s level. Other impacts are less discernible and would be mitigated through the use of
proper construction techniques, many of which are regulated. The design and construction
will be in accordance wiEh applicable state and local ordinances and regulations, such as
those recommended by the Soil Conservation Service and FAA (FAA AC 150/5370-10A:
Standards for Specifying Construction of Airports, Item P-156, Temporary Air and Water Pollution,
Soil Erosion and Siltation Control). Adverse impacts during constructian will be m;,,;r,,;�ed to
the extent feasible but cannot be avoided, as is sirnilar to the effects of similar heavy
construction projects.
Coastal Barriers. MSP is not a coastal barrier. Analysis of this environmental category with
respect to the Coastal Barriers Resources Act is not required.
CoasEal Zone Management Plan. MSP is not within. a coastal area as defined by the federal j'
government. There is no Coastal Zone Management Program approved by the state for Lake ��
Superior. Analysis of this environmental category with respect to an approved Coastal Zone
Management Prograrn is not reguired.
Endangered and "�'hreatened Species. The bald eagle is the only federally listed species
having habitat near enough to MSP to be potentially affected by the proposed project. The
bald eagle is recorded as threatened on both state and federal lists. An assessment (Bald Eagle
Biological Assessment, November 1990) relating to the nesting of bald eagles from potential
impacts of Runway 4/22 expansion concluded that it was unlikely that eagle reproduction
success would be impacted from runway development. USFWS issued a"No Jeopardy"
Biological opinion in relation to that project and has confirmed that formal consultation is not
required for the MSP 2010 LTCP and 2020 Concept Plan (USDOI letter of March 18,1996).
Forster's tern, a state listed special concern species, has historically used Mother Lake at the
northwest corner of the airport on an intermittent basis. No mitigation measures are readily
available to directly replace any lost habitat from the lake although the water levels could
rise and stabilize as a result of the proposed project. This would result in more interspersion
of water and vegetation so as to improve the guality of the remai.ning habitat and reduce
near drown outs.
Economic. Economic impacts include the cost of acquiring land and property and the
resulting loss of municipal revenues, as well as the costs of airport development and the
effects on jobs, sales, and tax bases. A nurnber of analyses of these conditions were
conducted by the University of Minnesota and private groups during the environmental (
process and aspects of the economy were modeled to determine direct and indirect effects of \.
35
(SEPTEM8ER1998)
FAA RECORD OF DECISION MSP DUAL TRACK AIRPORT PLANNING PROCESS
the MSP proposed project. The principal findings of all of this work, as reported in the FEIS,
� determined direct and indirect employment in the 2010 timeframe to be 35,000 workers and
wage5 to be over $1 billion. Tax capacity would be reduced by $4.6 million because of
acquisition of residences and businesses needed to complete the proposed project.
Development costs of the MSP 2010 LTCP are estimated at $803 nvllion in 1995 dollars. Tax
capacity for businesses removed for airport development potentially could be replaced in
other areas in proximity to major highways. Removed residential tax base is unlikely to be
replaced because of the lack af developable land for infill construction in adjacent
communities.
Energy Supply and 1Vatural Resources. The primary energy and natural resource affected
by the proposed project is fuel consumption used by aircraft during flight operations, and
vehicle consumption on the regional highway network for airport related trips which
account for approximately 1.5% of regional trips. Aircraft fuel use for the 2010 LTCP is less
than the No Action Alternative because of airfield operating efficiencies while the vehicle
fuel consumption is higher because of the increase in air passengers accessing the Lindbergh
Terminal, with a longer average vehicle trip than would occur with the new west terminal
proposed in the 2020 Concept Plan.
Farmland. There are no impacts to farmland or the agricultural economy from the MSP or
No Action alternatives.
Floodplains. The Minnesota River floodplain lies to the east of MSP. There is no structural
encroachment from the e�dsting airport or the proposed alternatives in tlus floodplain, and
no resulting unpacts.
� I�istoric/Architectural IZesources. The 2010 LTCP includes potential effects on 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, Nokomis Knoll Residential Historic
District, Spruce Shadows Farm Historic District, and the Soo Line Corridor. The 2010 LTCP
would destroy portions of the Original Wold-Chamberlain Terminal Historic I3istrict. The
Nokomis Knoll Residential Historic District is also in the DNL 65-70 noise contour and
� would continue to be incompatible with noise criteria?� Only the Spruce Shadows Farm is
affected by the 2010 LTCP DNL 65-70 contour when compared to the No Action Alternative,
and it will receive treatment in accordance with the joint Programmatic Agreement described
below. A small portion of the cemetery would have noise levels greater than DNL 70 for
either alternative. The Old Fort Snelling National Register Historic District does not
currently contain land uses which are incompatible with aircraft noise. The Soo Line
Corridor would not be affected by the MSP alternative.
Numerous laws and regulations address the protection of cultural resources. The federal
statute most applicable is the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470) as amended,
which contains provisions applicable to federally funded projects on listed and eligible
historic properties. The DEIS initiated farmal consultation with the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation and with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and included
the National Park Service, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Federal Highway
" 27 The noise impacts on the Nokomis Knoll District are existing impacts, and are therefore being addressed as part of the MACs current residential noise
� � insulation program.
36
(SEPTEMBER1998)
FAA RECORD OF DECISION MSP DUAL TRACK AIRPORT PLANNING PROCESS
Administration, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Minneapolis Heritage
Preservation Commission, the MC and the FA.A. These parties have executed a joint
Programmatic Agreement (FEIS, Appendix C) which takes into account the MAC Long-Term �
Comprehensive Plan and makes FA.A responsible for assuring that stipulated measures in
the agreement are carried out. These measures include surveying the historic resources to
determine adverse effects, and developing the means to ensure maximum retention and
curation of significant resources, as well as providing noise mitigation where appropriate.
Demolition will be rnitigated by documentation for the Historic American Buildings Survey,
which is maintained at the Library of Congress.
The MSP 2010 LTCP irreversibly affects portions of the Original Wold-Chamberlain Terminal
historic District. The 2020 Concept Plan would demolish the entire district. These adverse
impacts are unavoidable. Sound insulation will be used to rnitigate adverse noise impacts on
other historic buildings, pending the outcorne of detailed architectural and engineering
studies to determ.ine their integrity.
Induced Socioeconomic Impacts. T'he 2010 LTCP provides the potential for induced or
secondary effects on surrounding communities as a result of airport developrnent. Changes
would occur in the City of Bloomington where the Runway Protection Zone for the new
north-south runway removes existing development and where the state safety zone will call
for less dense development. Other effects and mitigation is described under the Land Use,
Noise, Surface Transportation Access, and Historical/Architectural Resources parts of this
section since induced impacts also affect these categories. Approxirnately 420,000 square feet
of office development and over one million square feet of industrial development are
expected to be induced between 2005-2020 as a result of airport expansion.
(,
Land Use Impacts. Land use adjoining M5P to the north in Minneapolis and to the west in \
Richfield is predominantly residential while areas south and east are in public use for the
Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge, historic Fort Snelling and the National Cemetery.
Commercial land use within the City of Bloomington, including the Mall of America, is also
found at the southwest corner of the airport. T'he airport site is bounded by major
transportation arteries on all sides. Land use effects from the 2010 LTCP do not involve
actual airfield construction on lands in the airport environs, but instead require takings to
accommodate safety areas in connection with the new north-south runway. In particular,
three hotels, a power substation, fwo service stations, a VFW post, a warehouse, and two
office buildings (all withul the City of Bloomington) would be acquired to provide for the
Runway Protection Zone at the south end of the proposed new runway.
Minnesota law requires city comprehensive plans to be consistent with the MC's land use
compatibility guidelines, and zoni.ng regulations to be consistent with the City's
comprehensive plan and Mn/DOT safety rules. Eacisting and planned land use in the state
safety zones south of the proposed new north-south runway are not consistent with these
requirements. The City of Sloomington would have to amend its develapment regulations to
assure conformity with Mn/DOT airport zoning standards for safety zones. Land use to the
north would not be affected by the 2010 LTCP although redevelopment might occur in this
direction in the long-term fixture. The Rich Acres Golf Course, leased to the City of Richfield
by the MAC, would be converted to aviation use. In addition, the displacement of 7
households and 14 businesses between the TH 77 arterial and Cedar Avenue would be
reguired to permit modifications to the 66"` Street interchange. These relocations, as well as __ � _
37
(SEPTEMBER1998)
FAA RECORD OF DECISION MSP DUAL TRACK AIRPOAT PLANNING PFIOCESS
proposed changes to connecting roadways, would result in some land use and land access
changes in the area west of the TH 77/66`t' Street interchange.
l
In swnrnary, direct land use impacts will occur as a result of providing for the runway and
Runway Protecti�n Zones, other airport facilities, and reconstructed highway facilities. In
addition, rezoning in state safety zones will be required. The MAC will acquire fihe above-
noted properties in Bloomington and Richfield for these needs and the Rich Acres Golf
Course would be eliminated. These impacts are unavoidable for the airport to implement the
2010 LTCP and provide the operational safety required by the FAA. The MAC and MC will
also continue to work with communities around MSP to develop noise mitigation measures,
as described in the section dealing with community stabilization in the airport's Noise
Mitigation Plan (FEIS, Appendix B).
Light Emissions Impacts. Approach lights for the south end of the new runway in the 2010
LTCP would be located off-site to the south af the I-494 interstate highway in Bloomington.
FAA criteria require that no buildings be located in the Runway Protection Zone where these
lights are located. As a result, they will be visible to businesses on surrounding properties.
No approach lights are planned for fihe north end of the new runway and runway lights
would not be visible to surrounding properties. Lighting on the exteriors of buildings being
developed in the 2010 LTCP has not been determined, but would most likely be similar to
what e�dsts on present buildings on the airport. Lights illuminating new roadways, and
traffic using these roads, will result in increased light emissions, as will lights used in
connection with aircraft operations. In the overall, impacts from lighting will be minimal
from the 2010 LTCP. The sequenced flashing strobe lights associated with the approach light
__ system to the south of the new runway has the potential for impacts on surrounding
`� comrnercial property; however, no impact on residential properties is expected.
Noise. Airport noise is one of the principal concerns associated with the 2010 LTCP. The
FAA has required a comprehensive evaluation of the potential noise impacts of the proposed
project to be conducted, and the MAC has also prepared a Noise Mitigation Plan to deal with
this matter. The analysis of noise in the FEIS was conducted using the FAA's accepted Day-
Night Average Sound Level (DNL) metric and the Integrated Noise Model to predict present
and future noise levels. FAR Part 150 land use compatibility guidelines were used to
determine incompatible land uses, except in the case of the impacted Wildlife Refuge, where
additional criteria were also considered (see the Section 4(� discussion, below). State noise
impact criteria based on the L,o metric, which measures the point at which specific sound
levels are exceeded at least 10% of a specific time duration, are also used in the analysis. This
information is extensively reported in the noise section of the FEIS. Additionally, where a
particular impact category surh as Section 4(fl or Historic/Architectural Resources may
experience noise effects, the information is reported in that specific environmental category.
Additional noise metrics used in the noise analysis include peak Sound Exposure Level
(SEL), Tinne Above (TA) measurements of various decibel levels, and Maximum A-Weighted
Sound Level (Lm�). These three metrics are used to identify noise impacts for specific land
use points rather than for determining overall geographic areas of effect.
EIS Noise Analysis Methods and Results. As discussed in Section V.Q of the FEIS, the year 2005
was selected for use in the noise impact analysis. This is considered to be a worst-case scenario
because resulting 2005 DNL naise contours are larger than 2010 and 2020 contours due to the
aircraft fleet mix containing relatively noisy "hush-kitted" aircraft (29% of the year 2005 air
� carrier fleet). It is reasonable to anticipate that the proportion of hush-kitted aircraft would
38
(SEPTEMBER1998)
FAA RECORD OF DECISIDN MSP DUAL TRACK AIFPORT PIANNIN� PROCESS
decline after 2005, resulting in less noise impact—even though 2020 total average daily
operations are forecast to be 7 percent greater than 2005. Because of this, the 2010 LTCP and �
the 2020 Concept Plan are sirnilar from a noise impact standpoint because both the aircraft fleet
and resulting noise contours are quieter than those that would result frorn the 2005 fleet at
lower activity levels.
In the base year of 1994, approximately 42.3 square miles of land around MSP was in the DNL
60 or greater noise contour, with 19.7 square miles in the DNL 65 and greater contour. Over
65,000 people and 28,220 dwellings were affected by the DNL 60 contaur, of which 22,000
people resided in the DNL 65 contour in 9,570 dwellings. For year 2005, the DNL 65 contour
encompasses approximately 9.7 square miles, including a population of 7,650 people in 3,370
dwellings. The DNL 60 contour had a population of 22,030 and 9,460 dwe]]in.g units. In -
addition to the population and housing affected in 2005,11 noise-sensitive uses (rhurches,
schools, parks and a wildlife refuge) are located in the DNL 65 contour (see FEIS Table Q-5,
page V-84).
Supplementing the DNL area contours, the noise analysis includes impacfs on 42 noise-
sensitive land use points in communities surrounding the airport, using the other noise metrics
mentioned above. This resulted in most selecEed locations seeing significant decreases in DNL
noise levels from existing conditions, with some locations experiencing noticeable increases in
DNL levels. A separate analysis was undertaken to identify noise level effects on Richfield and
south Minneapolis associated with taxiing aircraft, usin.g the Lm� metric. This study revealed
noise increases of differing values with one off-site inrrease of 12 dBA.
Low Frequency Noise Impacts. In 1997, the City of Richfield independently commissioned two
studies regarding: (1) the anticipated low frequency aircraft noise in Richfield due to the %
operation of a proposed north-south runway at MSP; and (2) a field analysis of annoyance ��
due to low frequency runway sideline noise. While the former study was based on analysis
at MSP, the latter study was based on a sample survey of residents in El Segundo, CA
exposed to sideline noise from the Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). Copies of both
studies were eventually provided to the FAA in response to the FEIS, and are attached to this
ROD (see Attachment A.2). By letter dated August 27,1998, Richfield also transmitted the
following reports:
• Final Report—BWI Low Frequency Noise Analysis for Allwood Neighborhood; Acoustical
Design Collaborative, Ltd.; July 24,1997.
• Study of Low Frequency Takeoff Noise at Baltimore-Washington Internationnl Airport; Harris
Miller Miller & Hanson, Inc.; April 1998.
• Residential Sound Insulation at Baltimore/Washington International Airport; AIP 3-24-005-39,
Engineers Report; Undated.
• Similarities in Current Low-Frequency Aircraft Noise Exposure at Baltimore-Washington
International Airport and Expected Exposure in Richfield; BBN Technologies (for the City of
Richfield); August 1998.
Copies of these reports are included in Attachment C.
The FAA and MAC have carefully reviewed all of the informafion submitted by the City of
Richfield in regard to low freguency noise issues. As noted above, this information is - (� --
� ;
39
(SEPTEMBER1998)
FAA flECORD OF DECISION MSP DUAL TRACK AIRPORT PLANNING PROCESS
included in this ROD's attachments. The attachments also include several detailed responses
to Richfield's comments on this issue—specifically:
)
• Attachment A.1—This attachment includes responses to two general comments: (1) the
impacts of low frequency noise were not adequately addressed in the FEIS; and (2) the
FEIS did not provide mitigation for significant adverse impacts due to low frequency
noise (see the responses to General Comments 1 and 2). Attachment A.1 also includes
responses to all of the written comments on the FEIS submitted by the City of Richfield,
of which several address concerns about low frequency noise.
� Attachment A.2—This attachment is a copy of an appendix submitted by the City of
Richfield along with its FEIS comment letter. Parts of Attachment A.2 address low
frequency noise issues; and this information, as well as other information, was
considered by the FAA and MAC in preparing this ROD and the attached responses to
comments.
• Attachment C—Attachment C contains additional comments on the FEIS filed after the
deadline for comments. This information was received from the City of Richfield or
interested Richfield parties and perfiains primarily to low frequency noise issues.
Although nat legally required, the FAA is including this attachment, including FAA
responses to their comments, in order to update readers on the status of the low
frequency noise considerations.
As noted above, the cornplete responses to the City of Richfield's concerns about low
frequency noise are found in Attachment A.1, and are particularly addressed in General
-, Responses 1 and 2, as well as witlun specific responses to correspondence received from
� Richfield in Attachments A.1 and C. While the FAA and the MAC are not legally required to
,
further investigate the matter of low frequency noise impacts, nor to provide for mitigation,
the MAC has proposed and commits to immediately address the issue.28 Specifically, the
MAC is willing to conduct noise studies and vibrati.on measurements to identify the
existence, if any, of perceptible vibration from low frequency noise. Such studies must be
done in a comprehensive manner and with the involvement of all potentially affected
com.munities, including the City of Richfield. If supported by the studies, MAC will prepare
and irnplement a low frequency noise mitigation program for the affected communities as
part of an update to the MSP FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Plan. The end result of such
a mitigation program would be to offset any impacts of low freguency noise that would not
be mitigated by canventional sound insulation treatment provided for under the existing
MSP Noise Mitigation Plan.
With the technical guidance and assistance of the FAA and others, the subsequent studies
will, among other things, undertake necessary vibration measurements in Richfield and other
potential areas to assist in documenting the existence of perceptible vibration impacts due to
existing ar planned operations at MSP. Although there is no established state or federal
standard of significance for low frequency noise and vibration, guidelines for judging human
perception of vibration levels have been published in several different forums, and may be
28 Low frequency noise has aiready been identified for analysis and potential mitigation in the adopted M8P Noise Mitigation
"" Plan (see Appendix B of the FEIS).
1 �
40
(SEPTEMBER1998)
FAA RECORD OF DECISION MSP DUAL TRACK AIRPORT PLANNING PROCE5S
considered.29 If supported by the studies, the MAC will prepare and implement a low
frequency noise mitigation program for those affected communities as part of an update to /
the MSP FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Plan. The end result of such a mitigation `\
program would be to offset any impacts of low frequency noise that would not be mitigated
by conventional sound insulation treatrnent provided for under the existing MSP Noise
Mitigation Plan.
High Forecast Sensitivity Analysis and Noise Impacts. As previously noted (Section III.A of this
ROD) the FEIS also includes a sensitivity analysis to disclose the potential noise impacts of the
MSP 2010 LTCP and the 2020 Concept Plan based on a higher range of aviation activity
forecasts, conducted at the request of the FAA. This analysis considered the noise effects that
could occur from a forecast of higher aircraft operations in these two iime frames, as described
in Section III.A of this ROD. Based upon the MAC High Forecast, no significant noise impacts
were found for the proposed action. The contours resuliing from the 2005 base and 2005 high
forecast scenarios are reasonably equivalent for the DNL 65 contour, with differences mostly
occurring in areas to the south of the airport. The 2020 DNL 65 contour is slightly smaller than
for the 2005 65 DNL cantour at these higher forecast levels. For more information, see
Appendix H in the FEIS, inclucling Figure H-1(various other noise contour maps are also
presented within FIIS Appendix J).
Noise Mitigation Plan. In Apri.l 1996, the Minnesota Legislature directed the MAC to develop a
noise mitigation plan for the proposed action of a new north-south runway. In OcEober of that
year, the MAC adopted the plan (FEIS Appendix B), which included elements regarding sound
insulation, community stabilization, aircraft operational requirernents, and other matters
related to airport noise effects and improvement funding. Elements of this noise mitigation
program are underway with the noise insulation program being the most evident measure in (�
effect. The noise mitigation plan is the means that will be used to mitigate noise from the -
proposed project (for more information about the MAC's ongoing and planned noise
mitigation measures, see the ciiscussion under "Noise Mitigation" in Section II.C. of this
ROD—Project Background).
Parks and �Zecreation. Within the airport boundary, the Runway Protection Zones, and the
DNL 65+ noise contour, there are 10 parks and recreation areas. Bossen Field, Lake Nokomis,
Diamond Lake and Todd Parks are located under the jurisdiction of the Minneapolis Park
Board and used for active and passive recreation. Taft Park and the Rich Acres Golf Course are
administered by the City of Richfield for active rerreational activities, while the River Ridge
Playground is a small recreation area approximately one mile from MSP in the City of
Bloomington. Fort Snelling State Park is located on both sides of the Mississippi IZiver and
portions of the area are adjacent to MSP on the north and to fihe southwest. A nine-hole golf
course, which is a part of this park, lies within the existing DNL 65 noise contour. The
Mississippi National River and Recreation Area, stretching along the River and including a
portion of the Minnesota River, is mostly owned by other park agencies and the MDNR in
particular. The Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge (�vlVl�fWR) provides habitat for a
variety of wildlife and also provides wildlife recreation areas and environmental education
29 MAC couid elect to use the criteria recommended by the Acoustical Society of America in Guide to the Evaluation of Human E�osure to Vibration in
Buildings (ANSI 53.29-1983j as well as research undertaken and published by Harvey Hubbard (Noise Induced House Vibrations and Human Perception, '
Noise Control Engineering Joumal, Sep-Oct 1982). For more information, see General Response 2 in Attachment A.1. (
�
41
(SEPTEMBER1998)
FAA RECORD OF DECISION M5P DUAL TRACK AIRPORT PLANNING PROCESS
facilities south and east of MSP along much of its boundary. The Refixge is addressed in other
sections of this ROD, under "Wildlife Refuges" and "Section 4( fl."
Under FA.A land use compatibility criteria (FAR Part 150), the MSP 2010 LTCP would not
result in noise levels for these park and recxeational uses which are incompatible with federal
guidelines. Removal of the Rich Acres Golf Course and recreation complex for the proposed
project is not considered to be a taki.ng of publicly owned park area since the use is located on
property leased from the MAC. This lease permits MAC to retake possession of the property
if it is needed for airport purposes so long as unamortized investments are compensated for as
set out in the lease. No ofiher mitigation is required at other parks and recreation areas.
Environmental Justice. Federal agencies are required to identify and address
disproportionately high and adverse impacts on low-income and minority populations as a
result of the proposed action (Executive Order 12898, Feb.11,1994). Low income in this
instance consists of households having a median income below the Census Bureau's statistical
poverty thresholds. The MAC conducted analysis to determine residents and employees who
might be displaced due to the proposed project because of development or safety reasons, or
would be located in the DNL 65 contour as a result of the new runway operations. Both
�minoriiy and income data were analyzed and the census block group level. Employment
analysis was less fine-grained due to lack of data sources and job elimination was tied to
business elimination or relocation.
From this analysis, it was determined that employment losses resulting from the 2010 LTCP
occurred across a full range of pay scales and low-income employees would not be
disproportionately impacted, using cornparisons of minorities in affected block groups
compared to minority populations in affected jurisdictions. These loses occur as a result of
business removals located in the Runway Protection Zone for the new runway, and the
construction of highway improvements in Richfield and the southwest corner of the airport.
Residential clisplacement would primarily occur in Bloomington and along Cedar Avenue
(Trunk Highway 77) in Richfield. Residential displacements of minority households were also
comparable between minority composition in affected block groups and minority compositions
in entire affected jurisdictions (appro�dmately 4-5% for each). No disproportionate effects on
law-income or minority households were determined to exist when compared to the No
Action Alternative. Displacements and relocations would meet the requirements of the
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970.
Social. Social impacts include the disruption of established residences and businesses, and to
other pattems in the community. Impacts could include displacement or relocation of housing,
ernployment, or established institutions such as schools or parks. The FEIS (pages V-108 and
109) identifies 8 households to be displaced due to the direct impacts of the 2010 LTCP—from
the clearance of Runway Protection Zones (1 household) and highway reconstructi.on
(7 hauseholds). A total of 73 businesses would also be displaced by the proposed action,
involving an esti.mated 2,891 employees. The FEIS also estimates that 158 households would
be relocated as part of future noise mitigation measures. Community institutians that would
be displaced include the Rich Acres Golf Course and recreational complex, the Airport Medical
Clinic, and a VFW Post.
The proposed mitigation for residents and businesses displaced by the development associated
with the 2010 LTCP is the use of relocation assistance provided in accordance with the Uniform
42
(SEPTEMBER1998�
FAA RECORD OF DECISION MSP DUAL TRACK AIRPORT PLANNIN� PPOCESS
Act, cited above. The Uniform Act provides for relocation assistance for persons in affected
residences and businesses, moving costs, and payment for the achxal property being affected.
Displacement of residents and businesses is an unavoidable adverse im act resultin from the �'
P g
proposed project. Financial loss and displacement effects will be mitigated by the Uniform Act
and the airport sponsor as a condition of approval of this ROD.
Section 4(fl. Section 4(� of the Depariment of Transportation Act of 1966 provides that the
Secretary shall not approve any program or project that reguires the use of any publidy owned
land frorn a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refizge of national, state or
local significance, or any land. from a historic site of national, state, or local significance as
determined by officials having jurisdiction thereof unless there is no feasible and prudent
alternative to the use of the land and the program or project includes all possible planning to
mirtimi�e haz'm.
Under section 4(�, use of land may be either physical or constructive. A constructive use
occurs where use of or adverse impacts to Section 4( fl land conflicts with the normal activiiy
assoaated with the land so as to constitute a substantial impairment of its value. In the case of
the 2010 LTCP, both the actual use and constructive use of property are involved. The FAA
has published a Section 4(f} Evaluation (May 1998) which describes in detail why the proposed
expansion of MSP will result in the use of Secfion 4( fl resources which include: (1) the
demolition of the Original Wold-Chamberlain Terminal Historic Di.strict, located witiv.n the
airport boundary, (2) constructive use of the Spruce Shadows Farm Historic District, and (3)
the constructive use of some of the environrnental education and wildli.fe recreation acti.vity
areas of the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge (MVNWIZ). Under Section 4( fl, all
possible planning must be implemented to m;n;m;�e the harm from each use. ,�°'
Hzstoric Resources. Mitigation for the demolition of the Original Wold-Chamberlain Terminal
Historic District is addressed in an interagency Programmatic Agreement (PA). This
agreement is signed by the FAA, the MAC and MC, the State Historic Preservation Officer
and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), with the U.S. Corps of
Engineers, the Federal Highway Administration, the Minneapolis Heritage Preservation
Commission, the National Park Service, and the Minnesota Department of Transportation all
included as concurring parties. The major elements of the mitigation program, as agreed to
in the PA, include:
• Document the Original Wold-Chamberlain Terminal Historic L7istrict according to the
standards of the Historic American Building Survey (HABS) and obtain HABS
concurrence on the documentation prior to alteration of the I3istrict (the HABS
documentation is to be archived in the Library of Congress).
� Ensure that the Smithsonian Institution and the Minnesota Historical Society can select
elements or objects from the Original Wold-Chamberlain Terminal Historic District for
curation and display.
• Conduct a supplemental study of historic and architectural resources within the Area of
Potential Effect (APE) in 2005, due to the planned phasing of construction.
• Evaluate the cultural resource potential of any property added to the APE, which consists
of land area withi.n the DNL 65 contour, the e�anded airport boundaries, properties
affected by roadways directly serving the airport, properties acquired for wetland or
_ \! _
43
(SEPTEMBER1998)
FAA RECORD OF DECISION MSP DUAL TRACK AIRPORT PLANNING PROCESS
other mitigation, and areas impacted due to airport-induced socioeconomic and land use
�� � effects.
• Prepare a comprehensive research design for future archaeological evaluation of those
portions of the APE that are not accessible at this time because archaeological evidence
may exist beneath built-up and paved areas; notify the ACHP if additional resources are
found.
� Conduct annual consultations with the parties involved in the PA.
• Determine and agree with the parties on appropriate mitigations if future actions result
in as-yet-unforeseen impacts on historic resources.
• The PA stipulations are designed, in part, to address the major phases of development for
the MSP 2010 LTCP and the 2020 Concept Plan.
Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge. Implementation of the MSP Alternative does not
require land acquisition or other direct taking of facilities within the boundaries of the
I�TVNWiZ. However, a"constructive use" under Section 4(f) will occur since the noise from
the proposed action will substantially impair bixd-watching, educati.onal activities, and
public use or enjoyment af approximately 1,083 acres of publicly owned land within the
approximately 10,000-acre MVIWVR.
As reflected in the FEIS and Section 4( fl Evaluation, the FAA and the MAC have participated
in detailed consultations with the USFWS regarding the noise impacts to the MVTIWR lands
resulting from the MSP Alternative. As part of the MVNWR consultation process, the FAA
acknowledged that it is currently reexamining its land use compatibility criteria with respect
to aircraft overflights of national parks and wildlife refuges, and is applying site-specific
,) analyses based on the circumstances and using other noise impact criteria. This approach
was prompted by legal rulings, which have determined that the recreational land use
categories in 14 CFR Part 150 may be appropriate guides to acceptable noise levels over areas
of a refuge devoted to traditional recreational uses, but bear little or no relevance to the other
role of wildlife refixge and to those who visit it to study and enjoy its wildlife. These ruli.ngs
also held that actions having only an insignificant effect on the e�dsting use of lands
protected under Section 4(f) do not constitute a use.
For the MVNWR, the FAA considered the following to reach a determination on substantial
impairment:
• Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) regulations, 30 which state that there is no
constructive use when the increase in noise due to 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.
• the work of the Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON)31 and research on the
impact of noise levels on communication;
� 23 CFR 771.135(p)(5)(iii), 56 Federal Register 13273. These regulations were used by the FAA as guidance in making the Refuge determination. The
FHWA has aiso held that no substantial impairment would occur where there will be a pe�ceptible increase in projected noise leve�s due to the proposed
action, but the post-project levels do not exceed any noise abatement criteria.
31 The FICON vuas composed of representatives from the FAA, U.S. EPA, Department of Interior (National Par1c Service), Departrnent of Defense, Department of
� ) Housing and Urban Development, Department of Veteran Affairs, and the Council on Environmentai Quality. In August 1992, the FICON issued a guidance
-- (continued on ne� page)
44
(SEPTEMBER1998)
FAA RECOPD OF OECISION MSP DUAL TRACK AIRPORT PLANNING PROCESS
• the 1��VNVVR'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.
Further, the FAA relied solely on the site-specific circumstances and techrucal noise impact
analysis to evaluate irnpacts on bird watching and similar site-specific Refixge activities and
circumstances. Arnong the findings were these:
• historical aircraft and other urban ambient noise exposure dates back to the Refuge's
establishment and, therefore, have always been part of the user's environment within
these areas (this is discussed further within the Section 4(� Evaluation);
• current ambient noise levels monitored in the 1�TVTIWR range from 52 to 65 DNL, with
six of fihe eight sites experiencing noise levels of DNL 57 or above (see furEher discussion
below and in Appendices 3 and 4); and
• the expected increase in noise would generally be less than 3 dBA.
These findings led the FAA to conclude that land within the DNL 60 contour, where a 3 dBA
increase in noise is expected, reasonably represents the area af substantial impairment for
publicly owned parcels within the ARVNWR. FAA also determined that noise within the
DNL 60 dBA contour was the appropriate basis for determining significance and Section 4(�
substantial impairment. In making this deterrnination, the FAA recognized that: (1) the DNL
60 noise contour may not always conform to the specific M[�1NWIZ's public use areas and
patterns; and (2) the deterrnination relies on the DNL noise metric. Furthermore, the FA.A
concluded that the value of rnitigation measures should be equal to the fair market value of: �'"
�
� avigation easements of publicly owned lands within fihe MSP Alternative's DNL 65
contour and inside the MVr1WR's authorized boundary; and
• avigation easements of publicly owned lands inside the MVl'VWR's authorized boundary
that are expected to experience a 3 dBA noise increase and are between the DNL 60 and
DNL 65 contours resulting from the proposed action; and
• the impact due to ctiminished value of the Visitor Center, given its connectivity with the
Bass Ponds area.
In the FEIS and Section 4(� Evaluation, the FA.A also determined that certain other
mitigation components, such as reasonable costs to plan rnitigation, are acceptable and
cornmitted to work with the MAC and the USFWS to further define those components.
Mitigation alternatives were identified to assure that environmental consequences were
fairly evaluated in the decisionmaking process and that the project would include all possible
planning to minim; �e harm from the use of the MVNWR resulting frorn the proposed action.
Since publication of the FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluati.on, fihe FAA, the MAC, and the U5FWS
have continued to consult about the exact arnount of compensation required to replace and
realign facilities, and considered retail and exhibit space at MSP, to develop a detailed
report that concluded, "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 approachas are being used." �
The FICON recommendations provide ho basis for fur�her impact tleterminations below the DNL 60 contour. i
\
45
(SEPTEMBER1998)
FAA RECORD OF DECISION MSP DUAL TRACK AIRPORT PLANNING PROCESS
implementation and enforcement of a mitigation program. For more information, see
�
Attachment A.1, especially General Response 7.
In order to formalize an agreed-to mitigation approach, a Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA) that specifies compensation sufficient to minimize adverse impacts to the MVNWR
has been signed by the USFWS and MAC, with the FAA as a concurring party (a copy of the
signed MOA is included in Attachment B). Completion of the MOA formalizes the plan to
provide the necessary mitigation, as proposed within the FEIS and Section 4( fl Evaluation, to
replace the portion of the Refuge that would be substantially impaired by the proposed
project. Recent activities which led to the execution of the attached MOA have involved
several discussions and carrespondence concerning appraisals, which are being conducted to
determine the appropriate level of mitigation to minimize harm. (Currently, the parties
expect the appraisal process to be carnpleted by the end of September 1998.)
The appraisals have been conducted, and the agreement reflected in the MOA has been
reached, using methodologies and following requirements which consider the iypes of
concerns raised by the USFWS that have a bearing on the final compensation amount. In
correspondence from USFWS to the FAA dated September 21,1998 (from Daniel M. Ashe to
Lynne Pickard--see Attachment B), the USFWS has noted that because of the adequacy of
the compensation plan provided in the MOA, and the cooperative work between the
agencies, all of its previous concerns have been resolved. While noting that there are
addifional details to discuss, this letter also states that the USFWS can foresee no barriers to
swift and positive resolution of all remaining compensation matters.
An additional letter from the U.S. Department of Interiar (DOI), dated September 21,1998
(from Willie R. Taylor to Jane F. Garvey—see Attachment B) states that, based on the signing
� of the MOA, its inclusion as part of this RUD, and pending successful negotiation of
additional compensation for the realigrunent of and increased costs to operate the Refuge, the
U.S. DOI concurs that the project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the
MV.tVWI2. This letter also states that, based on discussions since the USFWS filed its
comments on the FEIS, the U.S. DOI has now come to recognize the tradeoffs between the
alternatives examined during the Dual Track process and concurs with the FAA that there
are no feasible and prudent alternatives to the constructive use of Refixge lands resulting
from the proposed new runway.
The accepted resolution to these concerns, as documented in the attached MOA (signed by
the USFWS on September 17,1998, and by the MAC and the FAA on September 21,1998)
includes these two basic paints:
The mitigation to offset unavoidable adverse project impacts to the Refuge will be a cash
settlement paid by the MAC to USFWS, based on appraised values in conformance with
applicable standazds and regulations.
• In no case shall the amount of the cash settlement for real property damages to the
existing Refuge property be less than $20 million, based on an estimate of valuation by
the appraiser.
In addition to compensation for the appraised real praperty value, the MOA provides for
additional funding, in an amount to be determined, to be provided to the USFWS to realign
the Refuge (e.g., new facilities, design, engineering work, and overhead tied directly to the
� � alignment). It also states that additional funds, in an amount to be determined, will be
46
(SEPTEMBER1998)
FAA RECORD OF DECISION MSP DUAL TRACK AIFPORT PLANNING PFOCESS
provided to the USFWS to cover increased costs to operate the Refuge. For more
information, refer to the signed MOA, presented in AtEachment B. �
The parties agree that the MOA (pending further negotiations required by the agreement)
will be sufficient to provide the Refuge with replacement land of habitat quality equal to that
which will be impacted by the project, and to provide for the construction of ponds, hiking
trails and trail markers, and other site improvements which will be necessary to replace
comparable Refuge components adversely impacted as a result of the construction and
operation of proposed Runway 17/35. The parties to the MOA have also agreed to terms
that limit the heights of structures and objects within the affected parts of the Refuge and that
aircraft shall have the right of flight and to make noise over those areas.
Execution by MAC of the MOA and related special grant conditions provide a commitment
on the part of the MAC to provide cornpensation in accordance witli the final appraisal
standards to accornplish "all possible planning to minimize harm;' �onsistent with the plan
and procedures recommended and set forth in the Section 4(� Evaluation.
Solid Waste Impacts. There are no significant impacts resulting from solid waste generation.
The airport and tenants have various recycling programs in place and waste hauling
contracts are used for off-site removal of non-recyclable wastes.
Surface Transportation Access. Access to the MSP terminal and airport facilities is provided
by 4-d lane interstate highways, freeway and arterials, which surround the airport on all
sides. The prunary access point is Glumack Drive, which is a dedicated airport entrance road
from the TH 5 freeway. A secondary access point from 34"' Avenue and I-494 provides access
to airline and air cargo facilities, the Humphrey International Terminal and fixed based a•
operators. Several other access points service airport and military support facilities. �
Improvements to the TH 77/66"' Street interchange and the realignment and widening of the
airport frontage road on the south and west side of the airport between 66"' Street and 34"'
Avenue South are included as part of the proposed action. The FAA, MAC , Mn/DOT,
FHWA and MC have reached consensus and jointly endorsed an approach for implementing
the roadway projects required by the 2010 LTCP and the phasing approach to carrying out
theses measures (FEIS Appendix F). Implementation of the frontage road, primarily to serve
relocated air cargo and maintenance facilities, is expected to be located entirely on airport
property. Reconstruction of the interchange will reguire the acquisition of four residences
containing seven residential units and 14 businesses, and the reconstruction of interchange
approaches, as part of the project. The displacements would follow the provisions of the
Uniform Act described in the Social Impacts section above, since their effects constitute
unavoidable adverse impacts as a consequence of the proposed project. MAC and Mn/DOT
are pursuing cooperative agreements with the affected jurisdictions to address funding,
design and construction of fihe frontage road and interchange. Implementation of the 2010
LTCP will not significantly affect traffic volumes on roadways in the vicinity of MSP.
Major LTtilities. The only effect on major utilities in the airport environs is to a 115 kV power
line and substati.on located in the Runway Protection Zone, which is incompatible with the
approach to the new north-south runway. The MAC has committed to putting the line
underground and relocating the substation to the office park located to the east of the RPZ,
which will effectively mitigate this impact. No new major utilities are required to serve the
2010 LTCP. �-
47
(SEPTEM8ER1998)
FAA RECORD OF DECISION MSP DUAL TRACK AIRPORT PLANNING PROCESS
Visual Impacts. Visual impacts associated with the 2010 LTCP involve the relocation and
� addition of airport facilities on airport property. These facilities would include maintenance
and aircraft hangers and air cargo facilities, and associated aircraft parking aprons, which are
displaced by fihe new north-south runway. These structures would be visible from highways
and areas surrounding the airport but do nat intrude on vistas in the vicinity of MSP. The
MSP development would be located on the existing airport site except for the approach
lighting system for Runway 35 which would be located south of I-494 in Blaomington. This
system would have no effect on residences because the off-site location where it will be
placed is surrounded by commercial development.
The proposed action would also involve development of a cargo area along the west side of
the airport (immediately east of Trunk Highway 77)—the area currently used as the Rich
Acres Golf course. This land is owned by the MAC and leased to the City of Richfield, with
the intent that it would ultimately be used for airport development. As a result, the visual
changes associated with the cargo area's development are reasonably foreseeable and
consistent with the area's plan. Furthermore, these visual changes will not appreciably alter
the already urbanized character of lands along the west side of the Highway 77 corridor,
which include commercial and residential parcels.
Wastewater. Wastewater from the projects in the 2010 LTCP will continue to discharge into
the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) interceptor and treatment system.
Volumes projected by the MSP proposed project would not pose capacity problems for either
the MCES conveyance or treatment systems.
Water Supply. Existing water supply at MSP is provided by two sources, which include on-
� site production wells and supply from the Minneapolis Water Works. It is likely that the
wells will be abandoned, with future demands more than doubling the current airport usage
from the Minneapoli.s Water Works. T'he present 48-inch main servicing the airport has
sufficient capacity to service the 2010 LTCP and would not impact supply sources or
distribution systems.
Surface Water Quality. Sources of potential impact on surface water quality are primarily
storm water discharge and aircraft deicing products. MSP discharge is regulated by the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) through a National Pollutant Tlischarge
Elirnination Systern (NPDES) permit. The MAC currently performs in-river water quality
analysis as reguired in its 1993 NPDES permit, primarily to determine discharge impacts into
the Minnesota River which is the principal outfall for discharge from the airport. The
airport's containment program is based on the use of plug structixres in storm sewer lines
and tanker trucks to evacuate glycol impacted storm water to storage ponds on the airport
property. Diluted product can be metered into the sanitary treatment system and higher
concentrations can be captured far recycling by an outside contractor.
The MAC is currently in the process of applying for reissuance of its five-year NPDES
permit. The 2010 LTCP includes the construction of three dedicated deicing pads an
different runways and two more pads will be built under the NPDES reissuance. Currently,
stormwater drainage is mostly captured in detention ponds on the MSP site and some of the
drainage winds up in the Minnesota River. Duck Lake, the primary retention basis for storm
drainage on site, will be abandoned for construction of the new north-south runway.
Because of this and other changes in drainage patterns and detention needs, additional storm
( j water detention facilities are needed to replace and enhance containment and management
48
(SEP7EMBEfl1998)
FAA RECORD OF DECISION MSP DUAL TRACK AIRPORT PLANNING PRQCESS
of surface water impacts and to control to�cicity. The rnitigation approach to accomplish
these improvements is uncertain. 'The Governor has provided a certification letter for
compliance with water quality standards (FEIS, Appendix K) and mitigation measures will �/
be completed as specified in the renewed NPDES permit.
Groundwater Quality. Historical practices and general activities at MSP have resulted in
localized impacts to near-surface soils and the perched water table on the site. When impacts
have been discovered, primarily the result of errant fluid releases and spills, they have been
addressed through remediation efforts such as source removal and treatrnent. Existing
groundwater quality data indicate that environmental impacts on aquifers associated with
MSP operation have been negligible. It is not anticipated that there has been or will be
increased potential for impact on the underlying aquifers as the result of potential increases
in airport operations and activities.
Wetlands. A total of 15 wetland basins are located on the MSP site with a cumulated area of
193 acres, and ranging in size from 142 acres at Mother Lake to less than 2 acres of combined
water hazard areas on the Rich Acres Golf Course. An add.itional 98 acres of wetlands are
located within or immediately outside the airport ownership along the TH 62 arterial. An
extensive floodplain forested wetland is adjacent off-site in the Minnesota River valley south
and east of the airport, and would not be impacted by the proposed project.
Because of the wide distribution of the wetlands in the northwest portion of the MSP
property, the 2010 LTCP requires taking sorne of these areas to permit the constru.ction of the
new north-south runway and air cargo facilities. Eight of these impact wetland areas are
small water hazards located on the Rich Acres Golf Course. The Duck Lake and Ball Field
wetlands, totaling 20 acres, will be filled for the airfield needs, as will approximately 11 acres �" -
of the 142 acres in Mother Lake. In all, 33 acres of wetlands are required for the proposed ._
project. No feasible or prudent alternaiives eacist to the taking of these wetlands ta carry out
the proposed project. For this reason, mitigation has been provided for. It is anticipated that
59 acres of replacement wetlands will be required to meet applicable regulatory replacement
programs administered by the U.S. Corp of Engineers (Clean Water Act, Section 404), MAC
(Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act,1991), and the Minnesota DNR (Minnesota DNR Protected
Waters Program). This replacement wetland acreage will be located off-site and will reguire a
DNR Protec#ed Waters Permit, a Wetland Conservation Act Permit and a Corp of Engineers
404 Permit. Mitigation will be performed by the MAC as specified in the 404-Permit and the
requirernents of state permitting agencies.
Wild and Scenic Rivers. There are no wild or scenic river designations on or in the vicinity of
MSP. Analysis of this environmental category with respect to the Wild and Scenic IZivers Act is
not required.
Wildlife Refuges. The MVNtNR is managed by the USFWS and includes the Minnesota River
floodplain from Fort Snelling State Park to areas approximately 34 miles southeast in the river
valley. In total, the refuge includes about 9,300 acres of land, which is both. publicly and
privately owned. An additiona16,900 acres of state and locally owned and managed
recreational lands are interspersed with the MVNWIZ management units along the river. The
two refuge management areas closest to MSP are the Long Meadow Lake Unit (2,600 acres)
and the Black Dog Lake Unit (1,400 acres). There are a variety of public use areas lying within
the affected area of the airport including: the Bass Ponds, a series of old bass-rearing ponds that
are 9,600 feet from the nearest run.way at MSP and will be approximately 7,500 feet from the
49
(SEPTEMBER1998)
FAA RECQRD OF DECISION MSP DUAL TFACK AIRPOfIT PLANNING PROCESS
new north-south runway; a Visitors Center, which includes trails and observation areas as well
as environmental education facilities and programs; and other trails and features for active and
passive reereation. The MVNW]Z supports a broad range of wildlife and 97 species of breeding
birds. The refuge is also used by birds on a temporary basis during migration periods.
Although the 2010 LTCP does not invalve the acquisition of any land in the MVNWR, more
than 4,600 additional monthly aircraft overflights at altitudes between'500-2,000 feet are
expected to occur over the Refuge 32 These flights would resuit in disturbance to Refuge users
and possible impacts to wildlife and waterfowl, although studies of the effects of aircraft
overflights on birds and animals are inconclusive. Redistributing aircraft operations using the
north-south runway is impractical as is the rerouting of aircraft arrivals and departures, due to
the close proximity of the runway to the refuge lands. Because the adverse impacts to portions
of the M[�TNWIZ cannot be avoided in carrying out the proposed project, the environmental
process required a Section 4( fl evaluation to assure that there are no prudent and feasible
alternatives to the constructive use of a portion of the Refuge. It also required a determination
that the project includes all possible planning to rn�n�rr►��e the harm resulting from the use.
More information about this deterrnination, and the planned nutigation measures, is provided
above under "Section 4(�." According to the results of this determination, the MAC and the
USFWS have entered into a Mernorandum of Agreement (MOA), with the FAA as a concurring
party. The MOA is presented within Attachment B, and its terms and other background
information are discussed within the "Section 4( fl" resource discussion, above. The recent
execution of the attached MOA further reinforces the determination of the FAA that the
project includes "all possible planning to minimize harm; ' and demonstrates that a detailed
mitigation program, including compensation, has been developed in accordance with the
mitigation plan described in the FEIS and Section 4(� Evaluation.
Design, Art and �irchiEecturall�pplication. The 2010 LTCP consists of developing horizontal
airfield operating surfaces and redeveloping existing airport facilities. A new air cargo
complex would be located adjacent to the TH 77 highway corridor and visible from fihe
arterial, while the air cargo center north of I-494 in the vicinity of 24�' Avenue South would be
razed. Additional aircraft maintenance faalities would be provided in the vicinity of I-494 and
34"` Avenue South. It is premature to assess the aesthetic qualities of these new facilities but
there are no outstanding qualities to the builcli.ngs and structuxes being demolished, and no
adverse impact as a result of the new developments.
�. MAC High For�cast Sensitivity Analysis
While cornpleting the FEIS, the FAA found that aviation activity at MSP had been tracking
more closely with the FAA's 1997 Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) and the MAC High Forecast
versus the MAC Baseline Forecast used throughout the Draft EIS. T'herefore, the FAA
reguested that the airport sponsor conduct sensitivity analyses of environmental categories
for the 2010 LTCP using the MAC High Forecast as the basis for possible irnpact
determination (FEIS, Section II, C.2.) for year 2010. The MAC's High Forecast is based on a
combination of optimistic scenarios within. the context of rapid econornic growth and
assumed improvements to the airport. It assurnes that high regional and naiional economic
32 A total of 4,600 monthiy overflights between 500 and 2,000 feet was estimated based on an analysis of the MAC's Baseline Forecast of operations for
) 2020 and operational profiles for various aircraft (see Table 2 of this ROD, a6ove, which is a correction to FEIS Table D-5 conceming bird-aircraft hazards).
50
{SEPTEMBER1998)
FAA RECORD OF DECISION MSP DUAL TRACK AIRPORT PLANNING PROCESS
growth will increase air carrier originations and will also increase national passenger acti.vity,
requiring MSP to accommodate more of the Chicago connecting overflaw. �
Differences between the MAC High Forecast and the FAA TAF far the years 2000, 2005, and -
2010 are approximately 3.8, 3.6, and 9.8 percent respectively for passenger enplanements, and
less than 3.1, 3.7, and 9.1 percent respectively for aircraft operations in each of these three
time frames. The FAA believes these to be reasonable forecasts based on its professional
judgement and because the differences are within the accuracy of forecasting. The forecast
differences are also within the 10 percent "rule-of-thumb" used as a matter of practice by the
FAA to determine whether to approve airport rnaster plan forecasts after comparison with
the TAF. Therefore, for the purposes of the FEIS, the FAA and MAC agreed that the MAC
High Forecast is more representative of the level of future aviation activity expected at MSP
than the Baseline Forecast, and the FEIS evaluates the environmental consequences of both
the Baseline Forecast and the MAC High Forecast.
Each of the specific environmental categories in the FEIS was analyzed to determine any
significant increases in impacts as a result of the higher activify levels. Based on the MAC
High Forecast, no significant increases in environmental unpacts were found to result from
the 2010 LTCP. On-airport CO emissions increased by 27% in 2010 as a result of the higher
forecast level but remained less than the No Aciion Alternative at the higher activity level.
SOX increased 24% over the lower activity, and remains higher than the No Action
Alternative when both are at the high forecast level. With respect to surface water quality,
effluent loads increase approximately 17-19%, depending on the location of the particular
watershed, as a result of going from the baseline to the high forecast for discharge of CBODS
on an extreme case day. Other environmental categories affected by the use of the higher
forecast include additional potential for aircraft-bird hazards, increased economic and (
induced socioeconomic activity, increases in aircraft and vehicle fuel consumption of about -
21%, additional solid waste generation, and increases in water consumption and wastewater
discharges.
Use of the MAC High Forecast for impact determination does not result in any significant
increases in effects requiring substantial and unforeseen nutigation beyond what has already
been anticipated in the MAC Baseline Forecast.
' � . �, � �- • ;�
,, � , , � . 1 • - • - � . . � i , � i• � . ,,
The process used in the preparation of environmental documents was approved by the
Minnesota EQB in 1992, and is in accordance with FAA's Airport Environmental Handbook
(FAA Order 5050.4A). The Alternative Environmental Review Process, which Minnesota EQB
approved, required the assessrnent of environmental impacts of alternatives to the year 2020
and the examination of impacts for specific environrnental categories, based on an increasing
level of detail. Compliance with the FAA's Order 5050.4A establishes that the documents meet
the procedural and substantive environmental requirements set fourth by the Council on
Environmental Quality in regulations implementing the Nati.onal Envirorunental Policy Act of
1968, as amended. Many of these state and federal requirements are similar. These analyses
are docurnented in search area reports for a new airport, and separate environmental
documents were prepared for new airport site selection, the new airport comprehensive plan, � '
51
(SEPTEMBER1998)
FAA RECORD OF DECISION MSP DUAL TRACK AIRPORT PIANNING PROCESS
and the MSP LTCP update. A joint federal-state Draft Environmental Impact Statement was
' published in December 1995. The FAA and MAC completed the FEIS following findings
issued by the MAC and the MC, and in relation to state legislation, dated Apri12,1996 (see
Secti.on II.C). The final statement was published in May 1998. This process avoided
duplication in preparing an FEIS (40 CFR 1506.2) and satisfies both federal, state and local
reporting requirements. The FAA and the MAC are cooperating under a Memorandwn of
Understanding in the preparation of the FEIS.
�. Agency Consultation and Coordinaiion
Throughout the environmental preparation process and before, the FAA has been involved
with agency consultation and coordination at the federal, state and local levels. Federal
agencies have been consulted in addition to internal coordination with FAA operating
divisions. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.
Army Corp of Engineers, Federal Highway Administration, and the National Park Service
have all been involved in the consultatian and coordination process. The FAA's state agency
consultations have included the MAC, Minnesota Departments of Transportation, Historic
Preservation, Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Environmental Quality Board. Local
consultation and coordination has occurred with elected and appointed representatives of
numerous cities and counties in the region, as well special interest groups and the public at
large.
As detailed in Section II.0 of this ROD, the FAA's consultation and coorclination process
began with joint federal-state scoping meetings in early 1992 and continued up to the
preparation of this ROD, which is a federal document in its entirety. The resulting joint
� federal-state preparation of the DEIS and FEIS built upon the earlier AED evaluation and
selection process, which closely paralleled the NEPA process, as acknowledged by the U.S.
EPA in correspondence dated July 5,1995. T'his approach sought to avoid duplication of
effort and reduce paperwork, as mandated in CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1500.4(n)). The U.S.
EPA also stated support for the range of build alternatives proposed to be evaluated in the
DEIS, which included the sponsor's preferred airfield layout (Concept 6) evaluated in the
FEIS.
The FEIS includes signatory approval of the interagency Programmatic Agreement on Historic
Preservation (FEIS Appendix C), signatory approval of the Consensus Approach to Surface
Transportation (Appendix F), and a preliminary draft of a Memorandum of Agreement
concerning noise impacts and mitigations within the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife
Refuge.
Interagency coordination activities have continued throu�h the FAA's preparation of this
ROD. In particular, recent and ongoing consultations have addressed concerns expressed by
the U.S. Department of Interior concerning Section 4( fl impacts on the Minnesota Valley
National Wildlife Refuge and the U.S. EPA concerning NEPA process issues. As noted
previously in Section V.B. of this ROD, the MAC and the USFWS have entered into a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), with the FAA as a concurring party. The USFWS has
stated its concurrence with the general scope of unpacts requiring mitigation, and the
mitigation compensation cominitted to by the MAC, as described in correspondence between
the two federal agencies. The signed MOA, as well as a letter from the FAA to USFWS (dated
September 18,1998) and two letters addressed to FAA from the U.S. Departrnent of Interior
! ) and from USFWS (both dated September 21,1998) are included within Attachment B. This
52
(SEPTEMBER1998)
FAA RECORD aF DECISION MSP DUAI TRACK AIRPORT PLANNING PROCESS
correspondence, along with the signed MOA, demonstrates that the USFWS is in concurrence
with the FAA in terms of its findings that: (1) there are no feasible and prudent alternatives to
the proposed action, and (2) the proposed action, with the mitigation provided for in the �
MOA, incorporates all possible planning to m;n;m;�e harm to the Refuge.
A letter from the U.S. EPA, dated August 11,1998, and included in Attachment B, is evidence
of the progress made in consultations between the U.S EPA and the FAA. This recent
consultation has included discussions of the U.S. EPA's written comments on the FEIS—
included in Attachment A.1 along with responses. The EPA's comments have focused on the
rationale for selecting alternatives (summarized in Section C.II of this ROD) and the
relationship of other airport improvement actions to the MSP 2010 LTCP, in particular the
proposed extension of Runway 4/22 to 12,000 feet. Based upon the EPA's letter of August
11,1998, the FAA concludes fihat it has satisfactorily resolved the U.S. EPA's concerns in
these areas. For more information, see fihe responses to U.S. EPA's comments on the FEIS in
Attachment A.1, inclucling General Response 6; and see the U.S. EPA letter of August 11,
1998, in Attachment B.
' - � � . � , � . , � .
Alternative Environmental Documents (AEDs) were prepared for the new airport and MSP
alternatives which evaluated the impact of these proposals on the environment. The AEDs
focused on the detailed comparison of alternatives for the�purposes of EIS scoping and
identified potential mitigation measures. Public hearings were conducted to present the
findings in the Draft AEDs, and both oral and written com.ments were received during
comrnent periods on fihe AED analyses. The comments and responses are contained in the
Final AED reports, which recommended the MSP and New Airport Alternatives for further �
study within the EIS. _
Responses to scoping cornments are included in the July 1995 EIS Scoping Decision document,
and were used in preparing the DEIS, published in December 1995, as previously detailed
(Section II.C). Responses to the oral and written comments on the DEIS are contained in the
FEIS (FEIS, Appendix I). A Notice of Availabilify of the FEIS was issued in the Federal
Register on May 15,1998. The FEIS was sent to federal, state, and local agencies, libraries
and interested groups and individuals. This distribution was followed by a 30-day comment
period on the document that ended on june 15,1998. The MAC also published local notices
of the FEIS's availability in newspapers on May 18,1998 with a comment period also ending
on June 15"'. Copies of the comment letters and responses are included as Attachment A of
this ROD.
Environmental concerns and cornments have been dealt with in the DEIS and FEIS. In some
instances, the concerns have resulted in additional analyses, supplernenting previous
analyses or methodologies, or making factual corrections. In other instances, the comments
have simply been noted, usually where an opinion rather than a substantive concern has
been expressed.
53
(SEPTEMBER1998)
FAA RECORD OF DECISION M5P DUAL TtaACK AIRPbRT PLANNING PROCESS
,� .; •` . .
.i _ � t � � .��.
The initiation of the Dual Track Airport Planning Process began with fihe enactrnent of the
Metropolitan Airport Planning Act approved by the Minnesota Legislature in 1989. The law
specified a series of activities as the planning program proceeded, and the MAC and MC
were charged with the responsibilities for completion of the program and reporting their
recommendations to the legislature.
The process that was used to complete the Dual Track Process placed major emphasis on
public and agency involvernent. Affected federal, state, and local agencies were all involved
in the program to varying extents. Di.rect coordination with the FAA was maintained
throughout the process. The FAA reviewed the alternate environmental review process to be
used in the Dual Track Process in 1990 and deterrnined it to be consistent with FAA policies
and regulations. The FAA formed an Airport Capacity Design Team for M5P in 1992 that
issued�a report the following year concerni.ng delay causes and possible capaa.ty
enhancements for MSP. The F.AA and the MAC executed a Memorandum of Understanding
in 1995 to work cooperatively and jaintly in complying with state and federal environmental
requirements arising in the Dual Track Process. It was agreed that the two parties would
jointly produce a Draft EIS to meet both federal and state DEIS requirements, and that the
FAA would be the lead agency for the Federal EIS and the MAC would be responsible for the
AEDs and the Final State EIS.
Throughout the Dual Track Planning Process, the FAA has monitored the methods and
' ) pracedures used by the MAC in arriving at a preferred alternative. The FAA assisted in the
- analysis by providing guidance and advice in various technical cornmittees. In addition, the
FAA has independently reviewed and evaluated all of the material presented in the DEIS
and FEIS, and critical portions of the material have been independently verified. FAA
reviewed the scoping and AED process at key points to assure that a reasonable range of
alternatives was examined.
The FAA recognizes that the selection of the MSP 2010 LTCP as the proposed action was not
simply the result of technical evaluations and environmental impacts, but was strongly
influenced by public opinion, political negotiations, econornic factors, and airline
involvement. As such, the FAA considered its purposes and needs and the common sense
realities of the planning process in the development of alternatives. This resulted in the
preparation of a joint FEIS, which reflects considerable effort by both the FAA and the MAC
to evaluate impacts in detail and make reasonable commitments to mitigation. This ROD
represents the findings of the FAA that the Dual Track Process was thorough and reasonable.
�. Additional FA►A Participation in the Planning and Environmental Process
As stated above, the entire Dual Track .Airport Planning Process is now culrninating through
the issuance of tY�is ROD. It constitutes a federal order and therefore allows for the
commencement of several follow-up actions. As previously established, however, the FAA's
involvement in the planning and environmental process dates back to some of the earliest
activities, well in advance of publication of the DEIS and FEIS.
54
(SEPTEMBER1998)
FAA RECORD OF DECISION MSP DUAL TRACK AIRPORT PLANNING PROCESS
The FAA served on numerous committees throughout the Dual Track Process (see Section
II.C) and assisted in the analysis of AED alternatives, which has been previously established --
as an integral part of this long and detailed NEPA process. The FAA has participated �
during this process through direct consultation with the MAC, and it jointly prepared the
First Phase Scoping Report, Second Phase Scoping Report, the DEIS and the FEIS.
Throughout the planning effort, the FAA reviewed the methods and procedures used by the
MAC and its consultants in site selection and evaluation of new airport and MSP expansion
alternatives considered in the AED process, and assisted in their analysis. The F.AA also
conducted independent airspace and airfield capacity studies for MSP.
• r � r �! � �
The air and water quality ceriifications from the Governor of the State of Minnesota are
included as an attachment to the FEIS, as required for compliance with Section 102(2)(c) of
the NEPA and with regulations codified at 49 U.S.C. 47106(c)(1)(B), implementing Section
509(b) of the Airport and .Airway Improvement Act of 1982. See the FEIS Appendix K.
�''�� •��i���
The FAA makes the following determinations for fihis project, based upon appropriate
evidence set forth in the FEIS and other portions of the administrative record:
?s. There has been consultation with the Secretary of Interior and Administrator of
the US EPA. (49 USC 47101(h)). No possible and prudent alternative to ihe project
exists and that every reasonable step has been taken to minimize the adverse effect �
on the environment [49 U.S.C. 47106 (c)(1)(C)].
This Record of Decision highlights the consultation with the Secretary of Interior and
Adrninistrator of the U.S. EPA in accordance with 49 USC 47101(h). It also highlights the
alternatives and other factors considered by the FAA in making its decisions, as well as the
mitigation measures that have been considered for the alternative selected and made a
condition of project approvals. The north parallel runway, and other development
alternatives were determined not to be possible or prudent alternatives for the reasons
surnmarized above in Section V of this ROD. Therefore, approval of the proposed
improvernents is in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 447106 (c)(1)(C). A wide range of alternatives
has been thoroughly analyzed and the project includes every reasonable measure to
minimize adverse effects on the environment of the airport and its environs. Mitigation
requirements are discussed in detail below, in Section X of this ROD.
B. The Governor of the State of 1Vlinnesota has certified in writing that there is
reasonable assurance that the project will be located, designed, constructed and
operated in compliance with applicable air and water quality standards [49 U.S.C.
47106 (c)(1)(�)].
By letter dated Apri124,1997 the Governor of the State of Minnesota certi.fied that the airport
proposed project evaluated in the FEIS will comply with applicable air and water guality
standards, as discussed in Section VIII.0 of this Record of Decision. The FA.A must have this
certification to approve grants of federal funds for projects involving location of a runway.
55
(SEPTEMBER1998)
FAA RECORD OF DECISION MSP DUAL TRACK AIRPORT PLANNING PROCESS
C. The project is consistent with existing plans of public agencies authorized by
the state in which the airport is located ta plan for the development of the area
� surrounding the airport [49 U.S.C. 47106 (a)(1) and F.�cecutive Order 12372,
Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs, respectively�.
The Metropolitan Council (MC) is the public agency authorized by the State of Minnesota to
plan for development of the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area. Given the MC's review
of the FEIS and its continued involvement throughout the environmental process, the FAA is
satisfied that the project is reasonably consistent with the plans of this public agency. The
MC is a cooperating agency in the preparation of the FEIS and has been involved in the Dual
Track Airport Planning Process since its inceptian. The MC comments on the FEIS are
included in Attachment A of this Record of Decision, and incorporate the finding that the
MSP 2010 and 2020 development plans are consistent with the aviation chapter of the
Metropolitan Development Guide.
I�. The interests of the community in or near which the project may be located
have been given fair consideration [49 LTSC 47106 (b) (2)].
This determination is supported by a long history of communicati.on between the MAC and
the surrounding political jurisdictions, dacumented in the FEIS and beginrung at the earliest
project planning stages when the Dual Track Airport Planning Process was mandated by the
Minnesota Legislature. T'hrough the course of preparing numerous planning and
environmental studies, providing for comrnittee structures and public hearings, and as a
result of the state's legislative mandates, the participati on process has remained open and
available to interested parties. The MAC has executed agreements with surrouncling
communities and special interests (historic, noise, refuge, surface transportation, etc.) in
� consideration of concerns and cornmitments of interested parties regarcling the proposed
project. Further, the MAC is currently in the process of adopting contracts with affected
communities regarding the planning and develapment of a north parallel runway. The
language in force or proposed in these contracts33 generally provides that the cornmunities
will not oppose construction of the new north-south runway while the MAC agrees to not
advocate the construction of a north parallel runway, nor construct such a runway, for an
extended time period (the actual or proposed contract terms extend as far into the future as
2050).
Consistent with FAA commitments made to the City of Minneapolis,� MSP control tower
personnel will utilize Runway 17/35 in accordance with the conditions set forth in the Dual
Track Airport Planning Process FEIS, Appendix A, page A.3-17. Therefore, tower personnel
will utilize Runway 17/35 so that the runway is not used for departures to the north and
arrivals to the south, except under the following limited circumstances, described on page
A.3-17 of the FEIS: (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.
� As stated in Section V.A of this ROD, the City of Mendota Heights finalized its contract with the MAC on December 23,1996. Contracts with the Cities of
Minneapolis and Eagan are stiii being finalized.
(- � � Letter irom Jane F. Garvey, FAA Administrator, to Minneapolis Mayor Sharon Sayles Belton, dated July 15,1996.
56
(SEPTEMBER1998)
FAA RECORD OF DECISION MSP DUAL TRACK AIRPORT PIANNING PROCESS
Section VIII of the FEIS, "Public and Agency Involvement," identifies the times throughout
the project where adjacent communities have had the opportunity to express views on the /
proposed airport development program. l.
E. Appropriate action, including the adoption of zoning laws, has or will be taken
to the extent reasonable to resEricE the use of land next to or' near the airport to uses
that are compatible with normal airport operations [49 USC 47107 (a)(10)].
The airport sponsor is required in every grant application to furnish a statement af
compatible land use. Each grant the sponsor receives contains an assurance of compatible
land use. The MAC does not have legal authority to control land use outside the airport
boundaries. It has worked extensively with local jurisdictions in the past to develop and
implement plans and policies to ensure compatible land use in the airport environs. The
MAC has coordinated with local jurisdictions and advised them of i�s current and future
planned development. It has completed a FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Planning Study,
and a Part 150 Update which involved input from the local jurisdictions. Part of the siudy's
recommendations include adoption of additional land use controls by the surrounding
communities to control future non-compatible development.
The Minnesota Department of Transportation prornulgates airport zoning standards for state
safety zones around airports. Comrnunities around the airport have adopted zoning
standards that are consistent with these standards for the currently developed airport. A
MSP joint Zoning Board will establish zoning regulations far areas affected by the new
runway, subject to Mn/DOT approval.
F. Far this project, which will involve the displacement and relocation of a limited �-
number of persons, fair and reasonable relocation payments and assistance have
been or will be provided pursuant to the provisions in Title II of the Uniform '
Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisitions Policies Act of 1970, as
amended. Comparable decent, safe, and sanitary dwellings are available far
occupancy on the open market or will be built if necessary prior to actual
displacement [42 USC App 4601, there and after].
Implementation of the proposed action requires the relocation of 8 households and 73
businesses. Of the residential use, three people in one dwelling unit would be displaced
because of being located in a Runway Protection Zone and approximately 16 persons would
be displaced due to highway reconstruction. The business relocation process will displace
about 2,891 workers. Of the 73 businesses to be displaced, 56 would be displaced because of
runway construction or location in the RI'Z, which involves all but 81 of the 2,891 affected
employees. In addition, the FEIS estimates that future noise mitigation measures—to be
implemented over an extended time period—will result in the relocation of 158 households,
or approximately 365 persons.
All land acquisition and relocation assistance will be carried out in accordance with the
provisions of Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of
1970 and Part 24 of the Regulations of the office of the Secretary of Transportation. A local
relocation contact will be established to aid residents and businesses in their relocation
efforts. The FAA will continue to coordinate with the MAC concerning compatible land use
and will require the MAC to provide fair and reasonable relacation payments and assistance
payments pursuant to the provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance Act. �
57
(SEPiEMBER1998)
FAA flECORD OF DECISION MSP DUAL TflACK AIRPORT PIANNiNG PROCESS
G. F'or this project, involving new construction which will affect wetlands, there is
- no practicable alternative to such construction. The proposed action includes all
� practicable measures to minimize harm to wetlands which may result from such
use [Executive Order 11990, as amended]
The FAA finds that there is no practicable alternative to the proposed project's use of 33 acres
of the 291 acres of wetlands located on or near MSP. This is due to the proposed north-south
runway being determin.ed as the only feasible and prudent location for siting one new
runway at MSP. The norfihwest quadrant of the airport, where the affected wetlands are
located, is the only remaining mostly undeveloped portion of the site, and there is also very
limited space available-overall—in which to accomplish airport improvements.
The project is in compliance with Executi.ve Order 11990, as amended. 'The project's
wetlands commitrnents include meeting nlitigation specified in required pernvts from the
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and the
Board of Water and Soil Resources. The FAA will ensure that the airport sponsor provides
wetland nlitigaiion as specified in these required permits. Mitigation of wetland loss will be
through replacement wetlands of 59 acres. These replacement wetlands would be located
outside the vicinity of the airport.
I�. '�`he Federal Aviation Administration has given this praposal the independent
and objective evaluation required by the Council on Environmental Quality [40
CFR 1506.5].
As outlined in the FEIS, there was a lengthy process that led to the ultimate identification of
the preferred alternative and appropriate mitigation rneasures. This process began as a
) result of Minnesota legislative action and the FAA provided input, advice, and expertise
- throughout the planning and environmental analyses, along with administrative and legal
review of fihe proposed project. Such assistance neither compromised the objectivity of the
FEIS or hampered the FAA's abiliiy to insure that environmental consequences were
accorded full consideration. From its inception, FAA has taken a strong leadership role in
the environmental evaluation of this proposed project and has maintained objectivity
throughout.
The decision to prepare an EIS for the proposed project was made by the FAA. From the
outset, the FAA took the lead in the scoping process, including issuance of the notice of
intent, inviting the participation of other agencies, deterrninirtg the issues to be analyzed in
depth, and assigning responsibilities for inputs to the EIS. The FAA established a clear
definition of the federal actions, the alternatives, and the impacts needing detailed study, as
well as those that did not.
Although the FAA is dependent upon the sponsor, and others for certain infarmation and
data concerning the details of the proposed project, that data is independently evaluated by
the FAA. The FA.A evaluated all substantive analyses throughout the process, including the
AEDs that preceded preparation of the EIS, and is ultirnately responsible for all of the
judgements, analyses and decisions contained in the EIS. FAA contributed to all aspects of
the EIS documents, including writing, review and completion of the FEIS.
Similarly, the FAA is satisfied that it conducted an independent review of the factual
i, )
assumptions and all EIS documentation relied upon by Mn/DOT, MAC and their
�e
(SEPTEMBER1998)
FAA RECORD OF DECISION MSP DUAL THACK AIRPORT PtANNINCa PROCESS
consultants, and added FAA expertise through review and revisions, as needed. Individuals
at all levels of the FAA have devoted hundreds of hours to ensuring compliance with the �
National Environmental Policy Act, and other envirorunental measures. Accordingly, it is
found that the independent and objective evaluation called for by the Council on
Environmental Quality has been provided.
I. The Secretary of T'ransportation may approve a transportation program or
project requiring the use of publicly owned land of a public park, recreation area,
or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, state, or local significance, or land of
an historical site of national, state, or local significance, only if:
1. There is no prudent and feasible alternative to using the land; and
2. Z'he program or project includes all possible planning to minimize harm
to the park, recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic
site resulting fram the use [49 USC 303].
The proposed project would result in the constructive use of a portion of the Minnesota
Valley National Wildlife Refuge. Other runway alternatives that were considered at MSP
also involve the use of Section 4( fl properties and other adverse impacts, and do not provide
as much airfield capacity; therefore, they are not considered feasible and prudent
alternatives. As detailed in Section V.A of this ROD, the north-parallel runway alternatives
require use of historic, park and recreational property; south-parallel runway alternatives are
not operationally prudent because of significant safety issues35 and would encroach into
historic cemetery land of national significance. The Final AED for the New AirporE identified
six properties with historic National Register eligibility. Each alternative considered under
the Dual Track .Airport Planning Process involved considerations of potential Section 4(� �
affected lands. The proposed project results in a Section 4( fl determination as a constructive
use of property rather than actual taking of lands. The Section 4( fl Evaluation prepared by
the FAA provides detailed discussion of the Refuge and the impacts that result to it from the
proposed project. In this Evaluation, the FAA noted the plans for mitigation included
monetazy cornpensation to restore the functions of publicly owned lands in the MVNWR that
have substantial impairment (Section 4(� Evaluation, pages 33-34). The USFWS has stated
that it is not opposed to the expansion of MSP; but has also consistently made clear that it
cannot concur and no decision should be made until the amount of compensation has been
agreed to.
The MAC and the USFWS, with concurrence, have agreed that MAC will pay at least $20
million to USFWS based on valuation by a professional appraiser, as well as additional
compensation to realign and operate the MVr1WR. The USFWS agrees that this provides full
compensation for ixnpacts upon the Refuge, pending successful negotiation of the rernaining
details. The agreement has been formalized in a MOA. A copy of the signed MOA, which is
� As discussed on page II-2 of the MSP LTCP Finai Altemative Enviranmental Document, or "AED" (February 1995), the use of a south parallel runway for
landings when the airport is operating towarci the northwest would place landing aircraft close to the area �f greatest wake tut6ulence from departures on
existing Runway 30L (formeriy designated Runway 29L). There would also be the potential for wake tur6ulence interaction between a new south parailel
the e e encedlAED o be a s gn'rfica t safety ssue�mak ni grttfie�so th parallelr'unway ne ther feasibie noap�udent lose proximity to the ground was Judged in � ,,
59
(SEPTEMBER1998)
FAA RECORD OF DECISION MSP DUAI TRACK AIRPOAT PLANNING PROCESS
discussed further in Section VI.A of this ROD, is included withir� Attachrnent B. The FAA
� requires, as a condition of this ROD, and as a special condition in future federal grant and
PFC funding for this project, that MAC carry out all possible planning to m�,,;m;�e harm to
the MV.�TWR in accordance with the FEIS and Section 4(� Evaluation. Further, FAA requires
that the USFWS and MAC rearh a final agreement before the FAA approves any Federal
grant or use of passenger facility charges relative to the construction,of Runway 17/35.
Construction of the proposed project also requires the demolition of portions of the Original
Wold-Chamberlain Terminal Historic District, which is eligible for listing as a National
Historic Landmark District, and involves the constructive use of the Spruce Shadows Farm
Historic District (due to noise impacts). The FAA and the MAC have developed a
Programmatic Agreement that establishes appropriate procedures to be used during
construction and beyond, and which has been executed with national, state and local historic
interests concerned with this matter, including the federal Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation, the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Officer, and the Minneapolis
Heritage Preservation Cornmission.
The FAA finds that there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of land from these
properties to accomplish the proposed project. The FAA also concludes that the Sponsor has
provided an enforceable comrnitment to carry out, in the form of compensation based upon
additional Refuge appraisal information and negotiations, all possible planning to minimize
the harm to the use of historic properfies and the n2VNWR that may result from construction
and operation of the new runway.
� . on �t�ons �f p roval
The approvaLs contained in this Record of Decision are specifically conditioned upon full
implementation for the following measures. These terms of approval will be included as
special grant conditi ons in future Federal airport grants to the MAC:
• The mitigatian measures that will be implemented are those listed in the FEIS and in this
ROD (Section V of the FEIS and Section VI of this ROD). These are hereby adopted in
this ROD. The key measures are:
— Compliance with applicable air qualiiy standards in accordance with the Governor of
Minnesota's certification letter, and investigation of ineasures to reduce automobile
use and to encourage the use of alternative fuels and aircraft ground support services
at the airport.
— Compliance with the provisions of the Programrnatic Agreement regarding the
identification and mitigation of the effects of the 2010 LTCP on archaeological,
historic and architectural resources, and conformity with permits issued by agencies
having jurisdiction to insure the protection of these resources.
— Adherence to best management practices to avoid and min�mi�e impacts during
construction of the proposed project.
— Establishment of airport zoning standards for stafe safety zones to restrict land use
and development in the airport environs.
' )
so
(SEPTEMBER1998)
FAA RECORD OF DECISION MSP DUAL TRACK AIRPORT PlANNING PROCESS
- Implementation of ineasures regarding insulation, communiiy stabilization, airport
operations, and runway use, set out in the MSP Noise Mitigation Program.
- Establishment of the organization and fundin mechanisms to rovide relocation �
g P
assistance to displaced owners of businesses and residences in accordance with the
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970.
- Implementation of the Memorandum of Agreement between the MAC and the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see Attachment B) to provide all possible plannulg to
m'uLmize harm to the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge.
- Compliance with applicable water quality standards in accordance with the Governor
of Minnesota's certification letter.
- Compliance with environmental control measures in a currently issued National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.
These mitigation measures, which constitute all the practicable rneans to avoid or
minimi�e environmental harm for the project, are hereby adopted. The FA.A. will rn.onitor
their implementation as necessary to assure that they are carried out as project
comnv.tments.
• Project contractors will apply for and obtain appropriate permits prior to construction.
FAA grant agreements with the airport sponsor will ensure that these standard permits
are obtained prior to the commencement of construction.
s Provisions set out in a renewed NPDES permit will be adhered to and incorporated into
development plans for the proposed project. All conditions of the NPDES pernut are �
made conditions of the approval of this ROD. `
• Provisions of the Section 404 permit to be obtained from the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers
will be followed to ensure compliance. All conditions of approval of the permit are made
conditions of approval of this ROD.
• Development of an erosion control plan during the design phase will be required by FAA
(FAA Advisory Circular 150/5370-10A) prior to commencement of construction.
� •- 1:- � , � � •-,
The Dual Track Airport Planning Process is discussed in the Executive Summary and
Appendix A of the FEIS as well as earlier in this Record of Decision. The FEIS acknowledges
the extensive efforts conducted to determine the most appropriate means of ineeting future
aviation needs in the Minneapolis-St. Paul region, and the series of scoping meetings, public
hearings, and other rneetings through which residents and communities surrounding the
airport were involved in bringing this process to a conclusion. The FAA's objectives have
been carefully considered in relation to the 2010 LTCP and the proposed project discussed in
the FEIS, including the purposes and needs to be served by the project, the alternative means
of achieving them, and the costs and benefits in terms of effective and responsible use of
Federal funds.
61
(SEPTEMBER1998)
FAA RECORD OF DECISION MSP DUAL TRACK AIRPORT PLANNING PROCESS
Although the No Action Alternative has fewer developrnental impacts than the selected
� alternative, it lacks any surface transportation improvements and consumes more fuel
� energy, has greater air and water quality impacts, and fails to meet the purposes and needs
for the project. For the reasons contained in this ROD, and supported by the detailed
evaluations in the FEIS and the state's legislative process, the FAA has determined that there
is no possible, feasible, and prudent alternative to the airport sponsor's and the FAA's
preferred alternative.
As previously noted, the FAA recognizes that the selection of the MSP Alternative by the
Minnesota Legislature as the preferred alternative was not simply the result of technical
evaluations and environmental impacts, but was strongly influenced by public opinion,
political negotiations, econom.ic factors, and airline involvement. Based on this, the FAA
considered as a factor, but not as dispositive, the various decisions and mandates of the
Minnesota State Legislature.
Having made this determination, the FAA has the choice of either approving the agency
actions that are necessary to implement the project or not approving them. Approval would
signify that applicable federal requirements relating to airport development planning have
been met, and would permit the MAC to go forward with the proposed project and receive
federal funds for eligible development items. Not approving these agency actions would
prevent the MAC from proceeding with federally supported development in a timely
manner.
I have carefully considered the FAA's goals and objectives in relation to various aeronautical
aspects of the proposed master plan update development actions discussed in the FEIS,
i
� including the purposes and needs to be served by this project, the alternative means of
achieving them, the environmental impacts of these alternatives, the mitigation necessary to
preserve and enhance the environment, and the costs and benefits of achieving these
purposes and needs in terms of efficiency and fiscally responsible eacpenditure of Federal
funds.
'` )
Therefore, under authority delegated to me by the Administrator of the FAA, I find that the
projects summarized in this ROD in Section II.B are reasonably supported, and for those
projects I therefore direct that action be taken to carry out the agency actions discussed more
fully in Section N of this Record, including:
A. Approval under existing or future FAA criteria of project eligibility for Federal grant-in-
aid funds and/or Passenger Facility Charges, including the following elements:
1. Land Acquisition
2. Site Preparation
3. Runway, Taxiway and Runway Safety Area Construction
4. Terminal and Other Landside Development
5. Certain MAC-installed Navigational Aids
6. Environmental Mitigation
B. Unconditional approval of the revised airport layout plan (ALP) for the projects
summarized in Section II.B, which constitute the airport's 2010 Long Term
Comprehensive Plan (2010 LTCP).
s2
(SEPTEMBER1998)
FAA RECOAD OF DECISION MSP DUAL TRACK AIAPORT PLANNING PpOCESS
C. Confirmation of the conditional approval of projects in the MAC 2020 Concept Plan, as
shown on the ALP last conditionally approved by fihe FAA on April 25,1997, and as
evaluated in the FEIS and described in Section II.B of this ROD—this approval being
conditioned on a requirement for further environmental processing, such that the new
terminal and other elements of the 2020 Concept Plan shall not be undertaken without
prior written environmental approvals from the FAA.36
D. Approval for the installation, relocation, operation and upgrade of navigational aids.
E. Development of air traffic contral and aixspace management procedlxres that are
consistent with operati.ng considerations in .the FEIS and designed to affect the safe and
efficient movement of air traffic to and from the proposed new runway, including the
development of a system for the routing of arriving and departing traffic and the design,
establishment, and publication of standardized flight operating procedures, such as
standard instrument approach/departure procedures and runway utilization practices.
F. Appropriate amendments to air carrier operations specifications.
G. Certification that implementation of the proposed project approved in this ROD is
reasonably necessary for use in air commerce pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 44502(b). .
� �• � :
� Larry H. Ladendorf ,
Acting Manager, Airports Division
Great Lakes Region FAA
( u
APPROVED BY: ��,2_ �C�..� - � � (�Z ��--�
Cecelia Hunziker
Reg-ional Administrator
Great Lakes Region FAA
RIGHT OF APPEAL
�
� 2 ��
Date
These decisions are taken pursuant to 49 U.S.C. Subtitle VII, Parts A and B, and constitute a
Final Order of the Admirustrator which are subject to review by the courts of appeals of the
United States in accordance with the Provisions of Section 1006 of the Federal Aviation Act of
1958, as amended, 49 U.S.C. 46110.
C� ��
C
36 -me FAA does not object to the 2020 Concept Plan from an airspace utilization standpoint, except tor the duai crossover taxiway east of the future east
terminai, which has not been approved because of shadowing. However, fhe FAA has concluded Ihat spec'rfic airport activity leveis and the associated � �
environmentai impacts are not reasonably foreseeabie 6eyond 2010. ;
63
(SEPTEMBER1998)
Attachment �►.1 - Comenents and Responses on the FEiS
l"able of Contents
General Comments and Responses
Written Comments and Responses
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
United States Department of the Interior (USDOI)
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR)
Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT)
Minnesota Poilution Control Agency (MPCA) _
Jon �arsen, Principal Planner, Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB)
Metropolitan Council
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
Minnesota Environmental Partnership
City of Bloomington
City of Eagan
City of Minneapolis
City of Richfield
Friends of the Minnesota Valley
Richfield Public Schools, Board of Education
The Richfield CARE TEAM
South Metropolitan Airport Action Council (SMAAC)
--. Representative Jean Wagenius and Senator Jane Ranum, Minnesota Legislature
� Dore Mead, Minneapolis City Council
--' Greg Bastien
Rebecca Carlson
Edward Crozier
Ms. Dora, Richfield student
Ms. Marcell, Richfield student
Megan Duffy
Molly Hapgood
Robert Kelley
Dean Lindberg
Donna Murry
Lori Russell
James Spensley
Patricia and John Telfer
Dora Urzus
Kenneth and Louise Williams
Kate Winsor
Responses to FEIS Comments
} General Comrr�ents and Responses
The follawing are comments on the FEIS received from several persons or agencies and the
responses.
Genera/ Comment 9. The impacts of low fr�quencynoise have not been adequately
addressed in the FEIS.
General Response 1. The FAA and MAC properiy evaluated reasonably foreseeable noise
impacts of the proposed new runway in the FEIS using the A-weighted noise metric. In the
EPA's "Levels Document" that addressed noise and public health, the EPA chose the A-
weighted description of noise because it best reflects the range of frequencies important to
human hearing. FAA for similar reasons selected the A-weighted metric as the single system
for measuring noise around airports in its noise compatibility regulations, 14 CFR Part 150.
See 49 USC 47502(a). In the August 1993 report entitled "Federal Agency Review of
Selected Airport IVoise Issues", the Federal Interagency Committee on Noise concludes "There
are no new descriptors or metrics of sufficient scientific standing to substitute for the present
DNL cumulative noise exposure metric." Also, "The dose-effect relationship, as represented
by the DNL and 'Percent Highly Annoyed' remains the best available approach for analyzing
overall health and welfare impacts for the vast majority of firansportation noise analysis
situations." The Committee also recommended "Continue use of the DNL metric as the
principle means for describing long-term noise exposure of civil and military aircraft
operations."
_� The issue of low frequency aircraft noise and its impact on structures and people was
explored in detail as part of the environmental assessment of the introduction of Concorde
supersonic transport operations into the United States. Potential impacts were found to be
negligible. Field studies found that the noise induced vibrations as a result of Concorde
operations cause no structural damage. In addition, the Concorde sound pressure levels at
low frequencies were found to be well below the EPA threshold for potential health impact.
As a result of these findings, the FAA concluded that low frequency noise of subsonic aircraft
in a typical airport environment had no significant impact on structures or health. The effect
of aircraft noise induced structural vibration upon human response is a recently raised
concern. However, unlike the widely accepted relationship between aircraft noise exposure in
DNL and community annoyance, there does not currently exist a scientific consensus or
Federal guidelines on the human impact of noise induced structural vibration. For example,
the FICON report referenced above is silent on the issue. In the absence of established
guidelines, the FAA is not abligated to assess such impacts in its EIS, nor does NEPA require
FAA to issue a revised or supplemental EIS to assess such impacts.
Overall evidence recently evaluated by the FAA suggests low frequency noise may generally
be of concern only in areas already within the 65 DNL contour due to higher frequency noise.
Low frequency noise and perceptible vibration may be experienced when aircraft noise levels
are high (near the start of takeoff roll) and there are many aircraft events. This same
combination of factors also tends to lead to high DNL levels (generally within the 65 DNL
contour or higher). Based upon study and evidence to date, it is possible but highly
�
) improbable that homes outside the DNL 65 contour may experience levels of low frequency
Responses to FEIS Comments
A.1-1
noise that could produce perceptible vibration. Thus, low frequency noise is not a separate
impact phenomenon, but rather is connected to high cumulative aircraft noise exposure levels. j
Rather, perceptible vibrations due to low frequency noise are a secondary effect under certain �.
conditions (e.g., home location relative to takeoff roll and aircraft fleet composition) in homes
that are exposed to high levels of aircraft noise as calculated with the DNL metric.
As was found by FAA in a recent study conducted by the acoustical consulting firm of Harris
Miller Miller & Hanson Inc. for the Baltimore-Washington International Airport (BW1�, homes
that were affected by low frequency noise were already participating in a Federally funded
sound insulation program due to their exposure to high DNL levels of aircraft noise. In the
BWI example, homes within one subdivision located in the DNL 70 contour that exhibited low
frequency noise received extra insulation treatment. FAA approved the additional mitigation
as being specific to this area (i.e., subdivision) and not to be considered as a blanket
endorsement of this type of sound insulation for all areas. Each potential situation must be
considered on a case-by-case basis.
In 1997, the City of Richfield independently commissioned two studies regarding (1) the
anticipated low frequency aircraft noise in Richfield due to the operation of a proposed north-
south runway at MSP, and (2) a field study of the annoyance of low frequency runway
sideline noise. While the former study was based on analysis at MSP, the latter study was
based on a sample survey of residents in EI Segundo, California, exposed to sideline noise
from the Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). Copies of both studies were eventually
provided to the FAA in response to the FEIS.
After reviewing the Richfield studies, the FAA and MAC are not able to conclude that a low ,.
frequency noise and perceptible vibration problem will occur in portions of the City of Richfield �,
as a result of the proposed action at MSP. Richfield's consultant did not perform vibration
measurements within those areas of Richfield exposed to airport-related noise. As stated
previously, those factors that contribute to low frequency noise and perceptible vibration also
tend to lead to high DNL levels (DIV� 65 and greater). In contrast to the BWl example
mentioned above, noise levels in Richfield are lower than DNL 70, and, in many instances, are
lower than DN� 65.
It is doubtful that the findings in the Richfield field study about annoyance apply to low
frequency noise at MSP. As previously noted, this field study was conducted in EI Segundo,
California, near �AX. To apply these findings, it is necessary to assume that the residential
structures in EI Segundo have similar responses to aircraft noise excitations as those homes in
Richfield, Minnesota. As the climates of these two communities are drastically different,
structural qualities, such as stiffness and tightness, should be substantially different. These
structural qualities contribute to how the structure responds to external excitation.
Other aspects of the field study are also questionable, particularly the appropriateness of the
measurement period, the survey questionnaire, and the lack of technical justification for the
transference of EI Segundo, California data to Richfield, Minnesota. In the judgment of FAA
and MAC, there is significant doubt whether the EI Segundo findings and the BWI experience
in any way reflect the situation in Richfield.
Responses to FEIS Comments
A.1-2
General Comment 2. The FEIS does not provide mitigation for significant adverse impacts
�� �
due to low frequency noise.
)
General Response 2. See General Response 1, above. Low frequency noise is not per se a
potentially significant adverse impact. The FAA and MAC are not abie to conclude that the
proposed action at MSP would cause a low frequency noise and perceptible vibration problem
in portions of the City of Richfield.
It should be noted that in October 1996, MAC adopted a comprehensive noise mitigation
program (see Appendix B, Noise Mitigation Plan, of the FEIS) for the Minneapolis-St. Paul
International Airport. Among the many measures, the program provides for a residential �
sound insulation program for all residential areas within the 1996 DNL 65 + contour (this
portion of the program is scheduled for completion by the year 2002). The sound insulation
program will be expanded to incorporate those additional residential areas that are located
within the projected 2005 DfVL 60-65 contour, taking into account the effects of the proposed
new runway. MAC intends to fund this sound insulation program on an accelerated basis
beyond its current annual funding level of $25.5 million.
Although not legally required, MAC is willing to conduct noise studies and vibration
measurements to identify:(1► the level of low frequency noise from aircraft operations, and (2)
the level of aiccraft noise induced vibrations; and if found, to evaluate alternatives to minimize
low frequency noise and perceptible vibration. However, these studies must be done in a
comprehensive manner, with the involvement of a// potentially affected communities,
including the City of Richfield. MAC proposes and commits to immediately address the issue.
, �ow frequency noise has already been identified for analysis and potential mitigation in the
! adopted MSP Noise Mitigation Plan (see Appendix B of the FEIS1.
With the technical guidance and assistance of the FAA and others, the subsequent studies
will, among other things, undertake necessary vibration measurements in Richfield and other
potential areas to assist in documenting the existence of perceptible vibration impacts due to
existing or planned operations at MSP. Although there is no established state or federal
standard of significance for low frequency noise and vibration, guidelines fior judging human
perception of vibration levels have been published in several different forums. MAC could
take into consideration the information in the Acoustical Society of America "Guide to the
Evaluation of Human Exposure to Vibration in Buildings" (ANSI S3.29-1983) as well as
research undertaken and published by Harvey Hubbard (Noise Induced House Vibrations and
Human Perception, Noise Gontrol Engineering Journal, Sep-Oct 1982).
ANSI S3.29-1983 provides recommendations on the magnitude of vibration, in the frequency
range 1-80Hz, that are perceptible and regarded as tolerable by occupants. It includes
multiplying factors for building type, time of day, and source characteristics. It further
recommends the root-mean-square (rms) acceleration as the quantity for measuring
continuous vibration as it impacts humans. Hubbard examined the role of house vibrations in
reactions to environmental noise and review of some human perception criteria and suggested
criteria in sound pressure level for whole body perception of vibration in floors, walls, and
windows.
If supported by the studies, MAC will prepare and implement a low frequency noise mitigation
� ) program for those affected communities as part of an update to the MSP FAR Part 150 Plan.
Responses to FEIS Comments
A.1-3
The end result of such a mitigation program would be to offset any impacts of low frequency
noise that would not be mitigated by conventional sound insulation treatment provided for
under the existing MSP Noise Mitigation Plan.
Geneia/ Comment 3. The forecasts used in the FEIS are too low in relation to recent activity
levels and the FAA's Terminal Area Forecasts and therefore the disc%sed impacts are
understated and the committed mitigation measures are inadequate.
General Response 3. As noted in the FEIS, when the forecasts were developed in 1992 and
1993 they included input from a public scoping session, four expert panels, the State
Legislative Auditor and the principal carriers at the airport, to make them as accurate as
possible. It was understood at the time that uncertainty is inherent in any forecast, especially
one encompassing a twenty-eight year horizon. To address this uncertainty, several forecast
scenarios were developed, including the MAC High Forecast scenario which was used in the
forecast sensitivity analysis in the FEIS. The FAA Terminal Area Forecasts (TAF) for MSP
prepared in 1997 were used in the FEIS to review the MAC forecasts to ensure that they are
realistic and provide an adequate justification for airport planning and development. The
review concluded that the 1997 TAF is much higher than the MAC base forecast used in the
FEIS, but is generally in line with the MAC High Forecasts. FAA believes the MAC High
Forecasts to be reasonable forecasts based on its professional judgement and because the
differences with the TAF are within the accuracy of forecasting.
Since 1992, actual activity at MSP has exceeded that in the MAC base case forecast used in
the FEIS, although it is still less than the MAC high forecast. Actual activity has exceeded the
base case forecast because of a stronger than projected economy and because of several one-
time events. These one-time events include the consolidation of Northwest's hub and spoke
system, the development of sophisticated yield management systems, the liberalization of
Canadian markets, and the lapse in the ticket tax. All these one-time events have served to
stimulate the growth rate at MSP during the 1992-1997 period above long-term levels.
Despite these one-time events, 1997 actual passenger enplanements and aircraft operations
at MSP were tracking below the MAC High Forecast based on it's growth rates, as shown in
the following comparison.
Passenger Enplanements
..................................................................
Total Operations
1997 Actual
14,335,640
.................................
491,273
1997 MAC High Forecast
14,451,000
....................................................................
500,803
Although one-time events of various types will inevitably continue into the future, it is not
anticipated that they will all continue to increase traffic at NISP. One-time events that could
reduce traffic include:
• �abor difficulties at Northwest. If there is disagreement on union contracts which
results in a work-stoppage, Northwest would lose traffic during the period of the
stoppage as it did in the September 1998 pilot union strike. A lengthy work
stoppage could result in Northwest permanently losing some of its connecting
market share to other carriers.
s Increased maintenance costs. Northwest has one of the oldest fleets in the
industry and the average age of their DC-9 fleet is almost thirty years. The DC-9
Responses to FEIS Comments
A.1-4
aircraft require more maintenance because of their age and, because of their
inefficient fuel consumption relative to newer aircraft, Northwest would be at a
competitive disadvantage if fuel prices or taxes were to rise.
• Significant expansion of airfield and terminal facilities at Detroit on behalf of
Northwest. Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport has begun a$1.1 billion
expansion which will include a fourth parallel runway and a new 76-gate midfield
termirial. Northwest could maximize its investment by routing as many connections
as possible through Detroit and thereby postpone the need to incur additional
investment costs at MSP. About two-thirds of IVorthwest's traffic at MSP consists
of connecting passengers. Many of these are East Coast-West Coast passengers
which, with modern reservations and yield management systems, could be diverted
from MSP to Detroit.
Forecast growth rates slow down in 2000-2010, as compared to 1992-2000, because the
Metropolitan Council projected that the growth rate in population and employment, upon
which the passenger forecasts are dependent, would decline significantly after 2000. The
Bureau of Economic Analysis in the U.S. Department of Commerce projects a similar slow-
down. This decline is anticipated because of the large number of "baby-boomers" that will
begin entering retirement age after 2000.
Genera/ Comment 4. The FE/S does not report the environmental effects of 600,000,
650,000, 700,000 and 750,000 aircraft operations at MSP, as required by the Apri1 9996
legislation. MAC should have used these higher foiecasts as the basis for noise mitigation
, instead of the year 2005 forecasts.
)
,
General Response 4. Part of this comment concerns requirements under Minnesota law, not
the National Environmental Policy Act. In April 1996, following issuance of the DEIS, the
Minnesota Legislature required MAC to analyze the environmental effects of, and costs
associated with, noise impacts, noise mitigation measures, and land use compatibility
measures according to alternative assumptions of 600,000, 650,000, 700,000 and 750,000
aircraft operations at MSP (Minnesota Statutes, section 473.614, Subd. 2a). The legislation
was prompted by public concerns and perceptions that the 1993 MAC Baseline forecasts
used in the DEIS were low and noise mitigation would be based on "unrealistic" forecasts.
To test the sensitivity of environmental impacts to possible higher airport activity levels than
used in the DEIS, the FAA and MAC also evaluated environmental consequences in the FEIS
using the high end1993 forecasts, known as the MAC High Forecast. FAA and MAC
compared the MAC High Forecast with current activity levels and the FAA's 1996 and 1997
Terminal Area Forecasts, and determined that the MAC High Forecast is more representative
of the levels of future aviation activity expected at MSP than the MAC Baseline Forecast. See
FEIS Section II.C.2.2 and Appendix H.
The FEIS noise sensitivity analysis used year 2005 acfiivity levels, when the proposed new
runway would be operational and airlines would be using the largest number of noisy, hush-
kitted, Stage 3 aircrafit. FAA and IVIAC conducted additional sensitivity analyses to verify that
potentially significant effects do not result when the 1996 and 1997 FAA TAF forecasts,
respectively, are compared with the MAC High Forecast. See FEIS Appendix H.
� )
Responses to FEIS Comments
A.1-5
In May 1996 MAC established a Noise Mitigation Committee, which included representatives
of all communities affected by the DNL 60 contour in the DEIS. The purpose of the (
Committee was to develop a noise mitigation plan for the 2010 LTCP, including the �,
examination of mitigation measures to the DNL 60 level as required by the legislation. The
Committee reviewed recent activity levels and the MAC Baseline and High Forecasts. The
Committee considered the noise effects of the MAC Baseline and High Forecasts for years
2005, 2010 and 2020 and recommended in October 1996 that noise insulation be based on
the most accurate 2005 DNL 60 contour. For these reasons, the Metropolitan Airports
Commission adopted, and the FEIS includes, a mitigation program for noise and wildlife refuge
impacts to DNL 60 that is based on the 2005 MAC High Forecast instead of the MAC
Baseline Forecast.
MAC then prepared and evaluated the potential noise impacts related to alternative
assumptions of 600,000, 650,000, 700,000 and 750,000 operational. levels at MSP. Table
CR 1 provides the DNL values for the alternative operational levels compared to the 2005
MAC High Forecast at the representative noise sensitive locations identified in the FEIS.
Analysis of the FEIS noise sensitive locations determined that even at 750,000 annual
operations, noise levels would not differ significantly from the 2005 high forecast used for
noise mitigation. The majo�ity of noise sensitive locations will experience lower noise levels at
the higher annual operational levels because these levels will be reached far into the future
with a quieter fleet mix. The fleet mix used in the analyses was based on the 2020 fleet mix
for the high forecast discussed in Appendix H of the FEIS. A comparison of the fleet mixes
for the 2005, 2010 and 2020 MAC High Forecasts is given in Table CR-2, in addition to the
1992 actual fleet mix which was the basis for the MAC forecasts prepared in 1993. Figure
CR 2 provides a comparison of DN� noise contours for the 2005 high forecast operations with �'
750,000 annual operations. Contour area analysis indicates that the 2005 High scenario �
contour covers a larger geographic area than the highest alternative assumption of 750,000
annual operations. The contour area for each scenario is provided in Table CR-3. As shown
in the tables and figure, there would be no significant change in noise impacts, noise
mitigation measures, and land use compatibility at these higher operational levels.
In summary, the MAC 2005 High Forecast is the worst case noise condition for the 2010
LTCP and 2020 Concept Plan even for operations as high as 750,000 per year, and the Noise
Mitigation Program recommended by the MSP Noise Mitigation Committee and adopted by the
commission is based on this forecast.
The Dual Track Legislation only required MAC to prepare forecasts of activity levels through
2020. Although 750,000 aircraft operations activity level has been evaluated, even under the
most aggressive of MAC forecast scenarios, the 750,000 operatian level would not be
achieved until well after 2020. Also, the FAA Terminal Area Forecast would not achieve
750,000 operations until after 2020, if projected to grow at the FAA forecast rate for total
U.S. operations. Additionally, it is extremely unlikely that 750,000 annual operafiions could be
achieved with just the addition of one new runway.
Responses to FEIS Comments
A.l-6
GI p;
CE=
.t0c �c v'
U o
N
* N
C
O
�
� � 0
� O
E
�
� N
O �
O .�
o �
o" �
�
' �° o
O
w o
0
N
C
O J
� Z
�O
a
0
O
� p
O
N
y
C
O J
� Z
N �
n
0
t
� J
= Z
� �
O
N
T
X
fD �- M Ol t9 � �D u'1 .- tD V f� M OD M h f0 !D (D � h t0 00 1n N �t9 M fh tn �- �17 c0 �t1 OD N� N�- ch �tf O
O�i N N r ffj fV r r N O CI O � r fV fV r N N � O a- � � � tV Ci O e� N e� C r N � � CV .� � �
�f'1 r �t1 V' V' 1A N V; N e- V, t� �- M N 0/ N �t1 t� f0 V' OD t0 t� /0 1� h M N N•t � M t+ Ql tO �- OD O i�; �
11� lM t! �l V�(D 4 tn �! f0 l�C) (�D N tp (p (NO fD �f v�) �fJ f0 �~'l ��'1 h� fD �(O l� �� LL�7 �J tp tp t0 � �Y M U u�7
ar p1 �- h�- 1•. tp f+') � V N�!! O� N tD �t 'V' �Y CD �7'1 'd; �O N Q� N r O N N l+> �t N�O O N N CO O N aD
lh .� N.� tD fV .� � � � O O r � GV N � fV fV r C � � r O r N C O O N.� 1O r CV .� � � � r GI
n r� � m m n v ro v, r� m rn v cn r� o v t� rn r. cn o ao o rn o rn w m�n m.- �o rn.- rn' v, .- cn rn ch
� tp t^ � V' fC tp lf1 �f f0 �! (O t� � l�0 f0 tO � N iN tD N 1� h� f�O t�� tp tn u'J 1�f In � ��CJ t�D fND t� `V' �f i� �
�- (D OD 'd; m V t7 O t0 e- .- N a� c+1 O� lh r.- e- tf1 N O N 07 I� O� a� c+> �- u7 O r.- V f� � m tt� t� O� �A
t+7 e� � � �t) fV � �+� O Ci O O r r N r fV N r O � � Ci O O � C O O tV r C7 � � O O � O O O
O t0 O� T O h fn h(O Q� N fD tD tD M I� O N O� V' N C� �- b1 N 07 � N Ol <l m � V; N h'V �D N tD
(M OD Oi �11 Qi C� t� fV Oi C7 V' Cl � f0 � Ci tD (D f� Oi st hh O� tD a� f� Oi st t� M!D OD h�f O
11') �f7 � 1n �t t0 1f1 tl� lf) (D lp f0 � IA (� W f0 N N N(D ln If') h u9 fD �'7 fD tp It') 1� 171 tp uY (O (O u� V�f tn tp
IfD Q� �t ^ N t0 N � OD � r f7 O t0 .- h�- O> O� M O OD O h�C1 r. f0 �fJ P7 M a0 T c7 N K1 CD 0� M�q 1� M
.= tV � .- �f1 N r- Ci .� C C O O r � N O N.� +� C O�- O C1 O�- G O O e- O O e- r O O�- O O O
I(O N OD .- .- e- N 01 �- � aD �- V; OD O a0 4) m�- V; N�- t0 V; 117 M� �T a- f0 O e- tD r- fq fD M a0 tD CO <!' aD
1) N M UY (�O 7 f�O � tl� �(�p t�0 f0 � N f�0 f�D �O uWY N��'f (n0 �� h� t�0 t 1 (O ��lY u�) ��t1 �f f�0 t� f~O !MD � a' �n'f LL�Y �
IN � N CD fh I� •t 4� M t� a0 �Y V' ��:1 fD 00 r t'1 tf7 �- V' V' N cD N O t0 O t0 � N OD 1A �.- tD 07 t7 .- e-
aD V' �[i Qi In fV Oi fV Oi V' C7 (U �ti tG O h V' h Oi aD fV Oi i!'i Oi O Oi Qi O� Oi 1f� Oi sf' f� Oi c0 �ti
�t1 uY ��lY f0 � t� tO t[1 � f0 4� t0 �f! 1A (O (D !O fD � 11) f0 �'1 u1 h tf) (D � t0 h� t0 tf1 �l'1 u� f0 �O N�t ��1') �
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c o 0 0 0 0
N N O O f� O W �•!' �c'� h OY O UD N N W v' O!D �n O ch h eY a1 N h � r N'V� N OD I� O N
V' 0� O) O(� t� � aD T N Ol ch O 01 lh �' N � N CD u7 �c1 OD O) O� 1n � N 1� ��.- t[1 N �' N � 1�
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
f0 O s� 4Y O O W n� O N�fJ N O O O Ul OD i� �Y m t0 aD N �D 4� 1� C�J Q� Ql N O� N P'7 N i�
t1Y aD tD q' � N e- � tn l'� N t�7 N t0 W� t0 Il) N N N OD O O r f0 fO f� Y� tCf C7 N V'V' 01 1n N� O 1n 1�- N
- I) a (I�- N c0 �t YY (D t� OD 01 O r- N C7 � �f1 f0 t� CD � O N (O V' tA W f� OD � O N(O sY � fG t� OD T O N
��� �';I r�- e- r- e- e- ��- r N N N N N N N N N N t7 M t7 lh c7 f�'! M lh M M st �Y 'V'
/
c
0
�N
C
N
�
tl1
�
O
O
.�
a
v
�,
m
c
�
O
'O
N
N
�
N
�
�
O
C
.Q
O
O
X
�E
a�
a�
c
w
c�
lL
O1
Z
O
N
N
�
C
O
47
N
a
♦
'Table CR-2
1VIINNEAPOLIS-SAINT PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Total Average Daily Aircraft Departures or Arrivals by Aircraft Type - 1992 and MAC High Forecasts
1992 2005 2010 2020 -
CNA/PAGBEC 9.7 6.3 5.1 2.5 �'
BE9 5.3 2.8 1.9 0.0
SWM/J31BE1 76.1 32.9 23.0 11.3
SF3/DH8/J41 22.1 64.8 67.7 53.8
F2� 18A 6.0 0.6 0.0
C� 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.2
S2000 0.0 28.7 37.5 38.2
L88 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
ATP/ATR72 0.0 13.8 22.2 48.9
EM145/CanRJ 0.0 7.4 9.3 9.1
F28 0.9 0.0 OA 0.0
BAeRJ/F70 0.0 0.9 2.8 8,2
DC9 22.7 OA OA 0.0
D9S 1089' OA 0.0 OA
D9H OA 142.7 3.6 1.6
M80 33.5 48.2 36.3 13.5
M90 0.0 9.6 11.2 y 4�}
F100 1.0 13.3 153.7 165A `
73� 0.7 0.0 0.0 OA
73S 9.5 0.0 OA 0.0
733 11.5 17.7 18.2 18.7
734 0.9 13.� 15.4 l 8.7
735 2.6 8.2 8.4 8.6
73H 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.1
72� 5.2 0.0 0.0 OA (
72S 72.2 0.0 0.0 O.0 \.
72H 1.9 32.6 5.2 2.6
A300 0.0 1.2 1.5 5.0
A320 24.8 73.4 95.6 l 02.2
A321 0.0 13.7 32.1 359
DCS 1.6 2.8 3.1 1.8 '
75� 31.6 120.0 141.2 156.3
767 0.0 4.1 49 �.2
763 0.0 1.4 1.4 1.4
A330 0.0 6.8 14.0 3l .6
D10 18.1 15.3 7.8 0.0
L11 1.2 1.3 13 0.7
M11 0.0 6.7 8.2 14.9
A340 0.0 0.8 2. l 6.2
777 0.0 2.0 2.8 4.3
747-C 0.0 2.3 2.5 2.4
747 4.0 3.9 1.9 3.2
744 0.9 83 13.0 18.7
UHCA 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.9
GA Jet 36.5 32.5 32.0 30.6
GA Turboprop 16.4 l 5.2 15.4 14.7
GA ME Piston 15.0 11.8 10.6 l 0.2
GA SE Piston 15.7 9.7 8.6 8.3
C130 4_1 4_1 4.1 4.1
Total 573.3 787.7 827.1 877.0
_ _ lSources: MSP Long-Term Comprehensive Plan, Volume 6 Technical Appendix and HNTB analysis.
a_1-i���\o�L.��.��� �v��k���:CC�� �����:�i�� i���������������.�-�fi'.;',.. , `�(
a_ `C� ���o�C.Y��o�.,'4��:.�c�t(3ra�es��11iEJ�:.I:I�fL.1`���l�l�1\\��`���-"<
Table CR-3 - Comparison of Contour Areas
Annual Operations DNL Contour Area (square miles)
Scenario
2005 High 60 + 21.05
(575,000) 65 + g.g5
70 + 4.84
75 + 2.40
750,000 * 60 + 20.80
65 + 9.54
70+ 4.14
75 + 1.79
700,000 * 60 + 20.15
65 + g,27
70 + 3.97
75 + 1.75
650,000 * 60 + 19.26
65 + 8.82
70 + 3.79
75 + 1.69
600, 000 * 60 + 18. 5 5
65 + 3.64
70 + 1.64
75 + 0.78
* Based on MAC 2020 High Forecast fleet mix
Responses to FEIS Comments
A.1-10
�,_
Genera/ Comment 5. The FEIS does not discuss implementation of LRT at MSP, in te�ms of
� 1 access to the site and existing and future terminals.
General Response 5. An LRT layout plan for MSP was not included in the FEIS because LRT
was not a proposed action since there was no firm plan or commitment to implement I.RT at
that time. There was still discussion on LRT versus busway in the Hiawatha Avenue corridor
connecting downtown Minneapolis to MSP and the Mall of America (see page V-134 of the
FEIS). Subsequent to distribution of the FEIS, congress enacted the Transportation Equity Act
for fihe 21 St Century (TEA21) which included federal funds for LRT in the Hiawatha Avenue
corridor. There is now a selected plan and commitments for the local share of its
implementation are being pursued. Planning and discussion of �RT has waxed and waned in
the Twin Cities since the early 70's without agreement to fund its implementation. LRT was
not raised as an issue in scoping for detailed analysis in the Draft EIS, and there were no
comments on the Draft EIS about LRT. However, MAC will prepare a plan and
implementation program for �RT access to the airport and the location/design of stations. A
consultant has been selected to study the �RT alignment and tunnel feasibility. Stations will
be located and designed to serve the existing terminal and a potential new west terminal.
MAC will coordinate with Mn/DOT and appropriate agencies/jurisdictions in the preparation of
the LRT plan and implementation program.
A joint state/federal Final EIS for the Hiawatha Avenue project was completed in February
1985 [TH55 (Hiawatha Avenue) Final Environmental lmpact Statement/(4f) Evaluation and
Alternatives ARalysis, City of Minneapolis and Minnesota Department of Transportation]. A
reevaluation of the adequacy of the approved FEIS will be completed. The proposed project
�' � included an 8.5-mile LRT line and a 4-lane divided at-grade roadway between the Minneapolis
CBD and MSP, and the LRT would thence proceed underground through the airport with three
� stations (the main terminal, the charter terminal, and Northwest Airlines maintenance facility)
and thence 2.95 miles to the old Met Stadium site, of which 0.36 miles would be in tunnel.
No permanent adverse environmental impacts on the airport were identified.
Genera/ Comment 6. The range of alternatives under conside�ation in the Final ElS is too na��ow and
may violate NEPA and MEPA because only one build alternative in addition to the no action alternative
is discussed in detail. /t would have been desirable to evaluate other MSP airport improvement
alternatives, possibly in a Supplemental EIS. ln eliminating the New Airport Alternative, the FAA and
MAC p/aced too much emphasis on the April �996 state legislation.
General Response 6.
There is no specific federal or state requirement to analyze in detail a particular number of
build alternatives in the Final EIS. CEQ Regulations on alternatives require the EIS -- in Section
1502.1 to "... inform decision-makers and the public of the reasonable alternatives which
would avoid or minimize adverse impacts ..."; in Section 1502.14(a) to "rigorously explore
and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives, and for alternatives which were eliminated
from detailed study, briefly discuss the reasons for their having been eliminated." CEQ
Guidance indicates that "what constitutes a reasonable range of alternatives depends on the
nature of the proposal and the facts in each case." (CEQ Memorandum 40, Questions and
Answers About the NEPA Regulations, Question 1 b, 46 Fed. Reg. 18026, March 23, 1981.)
Responses to FEIS Comments
A.1-I1
Similar principles apply under Minnesota Rules, Rule 4410.2300,G, Alternatives: "the EIS
shall compare the potentially significant impacts of the proposal with those of other
reasonable alternatives to the proposed project. The EIS must address one or more ... of the �,
following types of alternatives or provide a concise explanation of why no alternative of a
particular type is included in the EIS: alternative sites, alternative technologies, modified
designs or layouts, modified scale or magnitude, and alternatives incorporating reasonable
mitigation measures identified through comments received during the commenfi periods for EIS
scoping or for the Draft EIS. ... Alternatives included in the scope of the EIS ... that were
considered but eliminated based on information developed through the EIS analysis shall be
discussed briefly and the reasons for their elimination shall be stated."
In summary, the major purpose of requiring the evaluation of reasonable alternatives to the
proposed action/project is to determine if alternatives exist to avoid or minimize adverse
impacts of the proposed action.
The scoping process and the Draft EIS adequately addressed the required range of
alternatives, including alternative sites, alternative technologies, modified designs or layouts,
and alternatives not within the jurisdiction of the lead agency. Scoping for the EIS consisted
of a First Phase and a Second Phase. The April 1992 First Phase Scoping Report stated that
one MSP Expansion alternative and one New Airport alternative would be evaluated in the EIS
and described the Alternative Environmental Review Process, approved by the Minnesota
Environmental Quality Board on March 19, 1992, for selecting the preferred New Airport and
MSP Expansion alternatives. The USEPA, in their June 16, 1992 comment letter, expressed
concern about the process — especially with regard to the selection of the New Airport
alternative. However, as noted below, USEPA later expressed support for the process. No
comment by other agencies or the public questioned the process, as presented in the First �'
Phase Scoping Report, Comments and Responses, March 1993. �
The Second Phase of EIS scoping described the issues, impacts and alternatives proposed for
analysis in the Draft EIS, as presented in the May 1995 Second Phase Scoping Report. The
report identified the preferred MSP alternative and New Airport alternative proposed for
evaluation. Following public hearings and receipt of comments, MAC, as the Responsible
Governmental Unit (RGU►, adopted the Dual Track Airport Planning Process, Environmental
lmpact Statement Scoping Decision on July 26, 1995 (see attached MAC minutes). There
were no public or agency comments that questioned the range of airport development
alternatives proposed for evaluation in the Draft EIS. In its July 5, 1995 comment letter on
the Second Phase Scoping Report, the USEPA stated "Because the state process closely
paralleled the NEPA process, and part of the intent of NEPA is to avoid duplication and reduce
paperwork (1500.4�n)), we support the range of alternatives as proposed for assessment in
the Draft EIS.", which included the same single preferred airfield layout �Concept 6) for the
MSP Alternative as evaluated in the FEIS, as well as a single site/layout for the New Airport
Alternative. See also Section VIII of the FEIS for a listing of the scoping public hearings and
meetings.
The Alternative Environmental Document (AED) evaluation and selection process included a
number of reports and studies to arrive at a preferred development alternative for the existing
MSP site, including a seven-volume technical report which examined capacity, airspace, air
service, and other issues. These documents are too voluminous to incorporate into the DEIS �
and FEIS in their entirety, but they were reasonably available for public review and both EISs
Responses to FEIS Comments
A.1-12
drew extensively from these efforts (see also FEIS Section III.C.1, and selected figures in
,'" Appendix J1. Scoping for the MSP AED evaluated three airfield layouts – a new north parallel
' � runway (Concepts 1 and 2), a new south parallel runway (Concepts 3 and 4), and a new
north-south runway (Concepts 5 and 6�, As stated in the FEIS, page III-8, Concepts 3 and 4
were eliminated by MAC in its scoping decision on March 21, 1994. Concepts 1, 2 and 5
were eliminated by MAC in the MSP Final AED when MAC selected Concept 6 as the
preferred alternative for the MSP I.TCP.
Following the Draft EIS comment period, the MAC and Metropolitan Council fulfilled their
statutory obligations under the original Dual Track legislation by submitting a Report To The
Legislature on major airport development in the metropolitan area to the year 2020. In the
report they concluded that the MSP Alternative offers more flexibility than the IVew Airport
Alternative—allowing for an incremental airport development process that can better adjust to
changing market conditions. The MAC and the MC also noted that the MACs ultimate High
Forecast of operations (640,000 annual operations) can be accommodated at MSP with the
addition of the single new runway. In responding to the joint recommendation of the MAC
and the MC, the Minnesota legislature passed legislation, approved by the Governor, which
found that development of a new airport is not a prudent alternative to the expansion of MSP.
Comments on the FEIS evaluation of alternatives raise the following two issues:
1. The New Airport Alternative is a reasonable alternative and should receive detailed
evaluation in the FEIS, regardless of legislative action to the contrary, and
2. The third (north) parallel runway MSP expansion alternative is a reasonable
alternative that would avoid significant adverse noise impacts of the proposed
� action on the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge (MVNWR) and the city of
� Richfield, and should receive detailed evaluation in the FEIS, regardless of
legislative action to the contrary.
CEQ regulations and guidance also indicate that "potential conflict with local or federal law
does not necessarily render an alternative unreasonable" and require Federal agencies to
"include reasonable alternatives not within the jurisdiction of the lead agency" for analysis in
an EIS. CEQ Memorandum, Question 2b, 46 Fed. Reg. At 18027, 40 CFR 1502.141c). On
the other hand, Federal courts have generally concluded that alternatives that require changes
in the law or agency policy are not reasonable.
The New Airport Alternative arguably became an unreasonable alternative once its
implementation required a significant change in Minnesota �aw. Yet, FAA did not dismiss the
New Airport Alternative based upon the legislation. Rather, FAA took the legislative direction
into account as a factor, along with the Draft EIS and comments on the Draft EIS, in
evaluating the overall reasonableness of the alternative. FAA also advised the MAC that the
1996 legislative directive would not prejudge the analysis of alternatives in the EIS pursuant
to 40 CFR 1506.1. FAA's decision was based in part upon its role and that of MAC as airport
proprietor, as described in detail in Section V.B of this ROD, New Airport Alternative.
Based on the detailed analyses in the Draft EIS, comments received on the Draft EIS, and the
1996 legislation, MAC and FAA determined that the New Airport Alternative is not a
reasonable alternative to the proposed action. Although it would avoid the significant adverse
- impacts of the proposed action (which can be mitigated), the New Airport Alternative would
� ) cause more significant adverse impacts, some of which could not be minimized, than it would
Responses to FEIS Comments
A.1-13
avoid (e.g., farmland, social, economic, induced socioeconomic, biotic communities) and at a
substantially greater financial cost of implementation. FAA properly considered MAC's goals �
and objectives, including its desire for flexibility to respond to changing market conditions, in
determining not to retain the New Airport Alternative for further detailed study in the FEIS.
The different impacts of the third parallel runway MSP expansion alternative and the proposed
action were analyzed in detail in the Final AED for the MSP Long-Term Comprehensive Plan.
The Final AED summary table is attached to this response. The values for some of the criteria
have changed as a result of more detailed planning for Concept 6; values for Criteria 5 and 6
were found to be in error (see subsequent discussion following Table CR-4 in this response).
Also, the values shown for Noise Criterion 15 are the population in the DNL 65-70 contour,
instead of the DNL 65+. The total population in the 2005 DNL 65+contour is 5,050 for
Concept 1 and 2, and 5,770 for Concept 5 and 6. The full extent of noise impacts on the
IVIVNWR was not known at that time although USFWS staff were represented on the
Technical Advisory Committee. But even though the third parallel runway alternative would
avoid the significant adverse impacts on the refuge, the selection of the proposed north-south
runway would not have changed -- because the proposed north-south runway:
1. avoids the significant adverse impacts of demolition and loss of integrity of the Fort
Snelling National Historic Landmark District, which is part of the Old Fort Snelling
Historic District, due to the third parallel runway. At least nine 19t'' century
officers' quarters and three enlisted men's barracks would be demolished. Fort
Snelling is one of the most significant historic sites in the state of Minnesota.
While damage to National Register properties is discouraged under Section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act, IVational Historic �andmarks are afforded
substantially greater protection under Section 110 of the same act. Avoidance of �
demolition is always the preferred preservation alternative under Sections 106, 110
and 4(f). Relocation of the affected structures in this instance is not a viable option
for mitigation because it would destroy the integrity of the location of the
structures and thereby compromise ihe historic significance of the landmark
district. Both runway alternatives would require demolition of the Original Wold-
Chamberlain Terminal Historic District.
2. avoids the displacement of the 9-hole golf course in Fort Snelling State Park, a
Section 4(f) property, due to the third parallel runway.'
3. avoids displacing and relocating 601 fewer residents, residing in Minneapolis, than
the third parallel runway. 2
4. has 440 fewer monthly operations less than 500 feet over lakes adjacent to MSP
where birds congregate than the third parallel runway3. (See Table CR-4)
5. has 1,600 fewer monthly overfights less than 2,000 feet over Gun Club �ake in the
Minnesota National River and Recreation Area (MNRRA) 4. (See Table CR-4 and FEIS
Figure R-1)
' The 18-hole Rich Acres Golf Course and recreation complex, a non-Section 4( fl property, will be displaced. The
course and recreation complex has been operating under a 1978 lease between Richfield and MAC which provides for
MAC to retake possession of the property at any time if it is needed for airport development and use.
Z Although a total of 720 more residents in Bloomington and Minneapolis would be exposed to aircraft noise levels of
DNL 65 and greater, the north-south runway avoids exposure to aircraft noise levels of DNL 60 and greater to a total of
2,310 fewer residents in Eagan, Bloomington, Inver Grove Heights, Mendota Heights and R.ichfield, than the third
parallel runway.
' There would be 590 fewer operations less than 500 feet based on the 2020 MAC High Forecast.
4 There would be 1,970 fewer operations less than 2,000 feet based on the 2020 MAC High Forecast. C
Responses to FEIS Comments
A.1-14
6. provides more airport operating capacity and greater capacity benefits than the
-� third parallel runway. The $00-foot separation between the third parallel runway
and Runway 12L-30R would result in heavy aircraft wake/turbulence dependence,
and would limit usability in poor weather. The proposed north-south runway would
provide a savings of $1.6 million annually compared to the third parallel runway,
when operations reach 530,000, according to the FAA Capacity Enhancement Plan.
The major benefits of the third parallel runway alternative over the proposed action are the
avoidance of significant adverse impacts to the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge and
five fiewer acres of wetland fill, both of which can be mitigated.
Preparation of a supplemental environmental document would only serve to readdress aspects
of these previous analyses, the results of which have been found to be adequate to select a
preferred MSP build alternative from among several others initially considered. The choice of
the build alternative in the FEIS has been carried through earlier documents into the FEIS in a
highly-public process of legislative consideration, citizen parfiicipation and FAA involvement
and oversight. As a result, the FAA is satisfied that alternatives to the proposed action have
been given adequate consideration. Furthermore, the alternatives evaluation and selection
process has allowed the MAC and the FAA to focus FEIS preparation efforts on specific
aspects of the preferred alternative's impacts and the corresponding mitigations.
�'abie Clt-4 - Su�xnary of 20201VIonthly Jet r�,ircraft Ovea�flights of �ird
Concentratiox► Areas'
MSP Concept 6 MSP Concept 2 No Action
i� `� Altitude (north-south runway) (north parallel runwayj
� (AGL) ML GCL LML ML GCL LML ML GCL LML
<500 Ft. 2,080 3,150 0 2,230 3,440 0 2,990 3,750 0
............................... .................... .................. .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... ................... ...............
500-2000 Ft. 2,150 2,360 4,600 1,750 3,670 0 2,160 3,510 0
>z000 Ft: -----...1...------o --------� o I_ l,04o I o I o � �90 � o
' MAC 2020 Base Forecast
ML=Mother Lake; GCL=Gun Club Lake; LML=Long MeadowLakeBlack Dog Lake complex
Source: HNTB Analysis
Note: Table CR-4 shows the results of a revised analysis of overflights of bird concentration
areas. An error in the operations assigned to the flight tracks in the MSP AED analysis was
only recently discovered in a review of that analysis. FEIS Figures Q-2 and Q-$, and Table D-
5 in Section V.D were therefore revised and are attached to this response.
Responses to FEIS Comments
A.1-15
Revised Table D-5
Summary of Monthly Jet Aircraft Overflights of Bird Concentration Areas
Aititude MSP 2020 MSP 2010 No Action Alternative
AGL < 2010/2020
ML GCL LML ML GCL LML MG GCL LML.
<500 Ft. 2,080 3,150 0 1,940 2,920 0 2,990 3,750 0
500-2000 2,150 2, 360 4, 600 1, 990 2, 210 4, 280 2,160 3, 510 0
Ft.
> 2000 0 0 1,040 0 0 970 0 0 2,000
Ft.
L= Mother Lake; GCL = Gun Club Cake; LML = Long Meadow Lake/Black bog Lake complex
Source: HNTB Analysis -
\��
Responses to FEIS Comments
A.1-16
( �
H�I�„i-1.�-177Ci.... 1.�� �: � I'It-i�,,, Gi` i .:G �:.�JO i . � �`. ���,=�
i►AETROPOLITAN AIRPORTS C011�M18SIOM
MINUTES OF SPECIAL SCHEDULED MEETING
July 26, 1995 '
A special scheduled me�ting of 4he flAetropolitan Airports Commission, having been duly cailed,
was heid on 1lVednesd�y, July 26, 1995, in Room 303, Charies Lindbergh Te�minal Building,
Minneapolis-St. Pau{ Intemational Airport� VVold-Chamberiain Fieid. Chaicman Grieve called
the meeting 40 ordar at 3:00 p,m. The foilowing were in attendance: -
Commissioners Brataas, Cramer, Fiore, Gasper, Himle, Johnso�, 11Aancini, Miller, O'Neill,
Stenerson and Chairnnan Grieve
(Commissioner Erickson was on o�cial MAC business touring the Duluth/Chisholm sifes.)
L Sorensen, Commission Secretary
R. Johnson, MASAC
R. Theisen, NiN/DOT
J. W. Hamiel, Executive Director
L. D. Richardson, Deputy Executive Director - Airports
N.�. Finney, Deputy Executive Director - Planning and Environmen4
J. R. Stassen� Ass't Executive Director - Public F2elations
T. 11V. Anderson, Generai Counsel
T. Brown, G. Warren, D. Foster, F. Douma, J. l.opez, J. Welna, S. Pappas, R. Tadsen,
G. Condon, L. Nordeen, iVi. Flaherty, R. Jensen, M. Growre, J. Unruh, MAC Staff
R. Anderson, J_ Sayre, f�. Saimen, P. Houghton, NWA
J. Schult2, JMS Communications
�. Dallam
E. Rudis, Host
D. Groen� Bloomington Chamber of Commerce
F. Forsberg, HDR
J. Kahier, Rochestec
J. Badow'�ch, Smarte Carte
J. Tocho, Dakota County
J. Del Calzo, Minneapolis
M. Westholder, Sun Current
D. Grant� Air Cargv Center
DUAL TRACBt AIRPORT PLANNING PROCESS • SCOPING DECiS10N DOCUMEIVT -
ENVIROtVMENTAL IMPACT SiATE1VIENT
Nigel Finney, Deputy Executive Director - Planning and Environment, repvrted three public
meetings had been hEld on the Second Phase Scoping Report for the Dua) Track
', � Environmental lmpact Statement: 1) a hearing on June 26 in which 14 verbal commen4s w�re
entered into the record; 2) a hearing on June 27 in which 19 comments were entered into the
Received Time Aug,13� 1�43PM
hULI-IJ-17�IJ L.J • J�� I'�I�L.
i-J�.G I�G.b J..IUG r�. F_}..J��1:I.J
Speaal Commissbn Meetir4g
July 26, 1995
Page 2
record; and 3) an agency meeting on June 27. A summary qf the verbal and wri4ten
commenis had been distributed io Yhe Commission. Responses to the comments are included
in the Final Scoping Repon. Mr. Finney indicated that there are certain areas where the level
of anelysis wiii be increased as a resuit of 4he comments on the Scoping Report.
Foltowing adoption of the Scoping Decision, the prepar'ation of the EIS will begin, it is
anticipated 4hat a draft of the EIS wi11 be available for review and comment dunng November
w�iih pubiic information meetings held during January of 1996. The comment period %r the
documen4 wouid end in February, 1996. S4aff anticipates presentation of the document for
Commission consideration in March 1996 with subsequent submittal to the EQB. fl�r. Finney
r�por�ed that the Environrrmentai Protection Agency has endorsed the Dual Track Ettdronmental
Review Process.
CONIfVi1SS10N�R O'iVE1L.t. �IIOVED AND COMnl11SS10NER �OORE SEGONDED �4DOPTION
A� TH� SCOPING DEC9SION pCiCUi1�EIVT �OR THE mIJAL TR�lCK ENNIRORIMEIVTAL
1MpACi' S�"qT'EIVIEM�. '�h� �otion carried by unaa�omous vote,
CAMNAISSIOiVER MILLER IViOVED AND COtI�MISSiOfVER ST�IV�RSON SECONDED
APPROVAL TO COI�SIDER °THE FOLLOVVItVG NONAGEiVDA IT�M, the ►notion carried
by ueaanimous vote.
- - - -_'-'-� • ���tl - ��e+� a rcACK ENVI�20tVN1ENT61L IMP
i?REPARATiOIV
Mr. Finney reported that the Comrnission received notice from the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) that they have selected CH2M Hili to assisf in preparing the Dual Track
EIS. The question was raised as to why this consultant selection process did not go through
the Committee process, Mr. Finney explained that as part of 4he Duai Track Ptanning Process,
MAC deiega4ed to thE FAA the responsibility to seleCt and recommend a consultant to be
ratifed by the MAG. The estimat�d contr�ct amount is between $100,000 and �200,000 for
the first phase oi the project.
COMMISSIONER O'NEILL fUf01/ED AtVD COMMtS510NER GASPER SECAIVDED THE
S�L�CTIOIV OF CH2M FIILL ItV PREPARING TF1E DUAL TRqCfC EiV�/'�p��ENTA�
INtPACT SiATEMENT. ?'he rt�otion carried on ihe following roll call vote:
�1���, e��ven:
IVays, none
Absent, four:
Cor�trnlssio�eo�s �rataas, C�arner� Fiore, G�speP� Hitesrnan, �l}ar��er�io
1Hi16er� O°Nei11. Rehkantp� Stenerson and Chairman �rieve
Commissioners Erickson, Himle� Johnson aetd tVlericke!
PIS PROJECT UPDATE
Received Time Aug�13� 1;43PM
C�
SUNI11��►FiY OF [21FFERENiIAL iIVIP/�CTS
,, � )
CRITERION IMPACT OF ALTERNATIVE
1 2 5 6
Air Quality
1. Number of violations of air quality standards in year 2020. 0 0 0 0
2. Difference in total CO emissions in year 2020 (tons). 1,540 0 1,540 0
Archaeological Resources
3. Number of archaeological sites eligible for the National Register 2 2 1 1
that would be disturbed.
Biotic Communities
4. Number of acres of wildlife habitat displaced. 29 42 34 47
Differentiallmpact"� 0 13 5 18
5. Difference in monthly aircraft overflights of waterbird habitat at 0 0 1,530 1,530
low altitudes.
Bird-Aircraft Hazards Mother Lake 0 0 1,530 1,530
6. Difference in monthly aircraft operations
less than 500 feet over lakes in
close proximity to MSP where birds
congregate.
j � Wood Lake 0 0 0 0
�._ ,r
Gun Club �ake 2,010 2,010 0 0
Long Meadow & Black Dog Lakes 0 0 0 0
Construction
7. Degree of adverse impact on airport users during construction. major minor major minor
Endangered and Threatened Species
8. Number of endangered and threatened species displaced. 0 0 0 0
9. Potential adverse impact on nesting bald eagles. 0 0 minimal minimal
Energy Supply and Natural Resources
10. Difference in fuel consumption in year 2020 (millions of gallons) 3.7 2.0 1.7 0
Floodplains
11. Adverse effects of floodplain encroachment. negligible negligible negligible negligible
Historic/Architectural Resources
12. Number of historic/architectural properties/districts on or eligible 3* 3* 1 1
for National Register that would be demolished.
13. Number of remaining individual properties and historic districts 5 5 7* 7*
within the DNL 65+ noise contour on or eligible for the National
Register.
*'Includes a National Historic Landmark District
"� Values shown are the difference of acres displaced between the alternative with the least impact (Alternative 1) and
�' � the other three alternatives.
Final AED - MSP Long-Term Comprehensive Plan
iv
CRITERION
I.and Use
14. Number of municipalities requiring changes in existing or
planned land use.
Noise
15. Number of persons residing in the year 2005
IMPACT OF A�TERIUATIVE
1 2 5
4 1 4 I 2 I
DNL 65 + noise contour. Mpls. 3,610
Richfield 600
. Bloomington 30
Inver Gr Hts. 0
Mendota Hts 150
Eagan 10
TOTAL' 4,400
Differentiallmpact 0
16. Number of persons residing in the year 2005 Mpls. 16,270
DNL 60-65 noise contour.
Richfield 2,310
Bloomington 3,320
Inver Gr Hts. 20
Mendota Hts 810
Eagan 960
TOTAL 23,690
' Differentiallmpact 3,030
17. Difference in number of noise sensitive land uses in Year 2005 0
DNL 65-75 noise contour.
Section 4(f) Park and Receeation Lands
18. Number of Section 4(f) park and recreation lands displaced. 2
19. Number of Section 4�f) park and recreation lands within DNL 65 7
noise contour.
Socioeconomic
C
�
�
3,610 4,410 4,410
600 290 290
30 370 370
0 0 0
150 0 0
10 0 0
4,400 5,070 5,070
0 670 670
16,270 16,870 16,870
2,310 1,750 1,750
3,320 1,520 1,520 �
20 0 0 �� �
810 140 140
960 350 350
23,690 20,660 20,660
3,030 ' 0 0
0 3 3
2 0 0
7 7 7
20. Number of residents displaced. 1,003 1,144 402 543
Differentiallmpact 601 702 0 141
21. Number of households displaced. 468 530 146 208
22. Number of off-airport businesses and Businesses 3 20 10
27
employees displaced.
Employees 32 157 1,372 1,452
l �
Final AED - MSP Long-Term Comprehensive Plan
v
� \ CRITERION IMPACT OF ALTERfVATIVE
� 1
. 1 2 5 6
23. Number of businesses and employees on Businesses 2 2 50 50
MSP property displaced.
Empioyees 28 28 1,467 1,467
24. Difference in total businesses and Businesses 0 17 55 72
employees displaced.
Employees 0 125 2,779 2,859
25. `Difference in estimated airport development costs (construction, $0.8 5167.6 0 S166.8
demolition, acquisition- and relocation). (Millions?
Transportation Access
26. Difference in average peak-hour travel time to �terminal 0 0.3 0 0.3
(minutes►.
Surface Water Quality
27. Difference in impacts on surface water quality. 0 0 0 0
Groundwater
28. Ranking of alternatives for potential to adversely impact aquifers 4 2 3 1
used for drinking water. (worst) (best)
Wetlands
29. Number of acres of wetlands affected. 29.1 41.9 34.1 46.9
', i
Differential Impact 0 7 2.8 5.0 17.8
Wildlife Refuge
30. Approximate number of monthly aircraft operations less than 300 300 5,600 5,600
2,000 feet over the Minnesota National Wildlife Refuge.
l )
` Final AED - MSP Long-Term Comprehensive Plan
vi
General Comment 7. The mitigation of impacts to the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife
Refiuge (MVNWR) proposed in the FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation is too general and
unresponsive to that proposed by the USFWS. �
General Response 7. The FAA and the MAC maintain that the Dual Track Process, including
the FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation, adequately considered the potential impacts to the
MVNWR, adequately identified mitigation alternatives, and included all possible planning to
minimize the harm to the Refuge. Furthermore, the project record shows that the original
alternatives development process recognized and declared the potential for noise impacts on '
the MVNWR, specifically at the DNL 65 + level in the Bass Ponds area, for any of the future
runway location alternatives oriented in a north-south direction at MSP. This was noted in the
Final Alternative Environmental Document (AED) for the MSP 2010 LTCP, which discusses '
the environmental effects of four airfield alternatives on the wildlife refuge (Minneapolis-Saint
Paul lntemational Airport Long-Term Comp�ehensive Plan, Final Alternative Environmental
Document, HNTB, February 1995, Section III.S.2, page III-84), prepared in advance of the
Draft EIS.
The FAA has provided substantial background information to review the development and
evaluation of alternatives during the Dual Track Process. This information is included within
the FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation, within the ROD, and within General Response 6, above.
Collectively, all of this information, as well as other referenced documentation, supports the
FAA's determination fihat there is no feasibte and prudent alternative to the proposed action of
building and operating new Runway 17/35.
In December 1995, the FAA and MAC issued a DEIS which contained a preliminary analysis of �~
impacts on the MVNWR. The USFWS comments on the DEIS dated March 1996 emphasized �,
the impacts of the proposed action on the environmental education activities within the Bass:
Ponds area of the Refuge. As a result of Department of Interior national initiatives relating to`
national parks, USFWS broadened its concerns to encompass impacts on activities other than
educational activities, such as birdwatching and other forms of wildlife oriented recreational'
activity.
In about the spring of 1997, based on about one year of consulfiations with the Departmenfi of
Interior and evolving case law in this area, the FAA determined that supplemental noise
analysis was necessary to consider whether these passive recreational activities are
substantially impaired by increases in noise resulting from the proposed project given historical
noise levels at the Refuge. As stated on page 31 of the Section 4�f) Evaluation, the FAA has
considered and addressed the referenced change in perspective, which evolved over time and
involved detailed discussions among the FAA, MAC, and the USFWS. This part of the
Section 4(f) Evaluation had also carefully considered input on mitigation elements received
from the USFWS. As a result, the FAA and the MAC worked cooperatively with the USFWS
to develop an approach to study ambient and future noise within the MVNWR.
The resulting 1997 noise study not only used the DNL metric, but also used Leq, peak
daytime SEL, and time above (TA) methodologies. The 14-hour daytime Leq metric was
selected in consultation with representatives of USFWS to relate noise exposure to hours of
visitor activities in the Refuge. The FAA found that existing monitored noise levels ranged
from values of 48 to 64 dBA, calculated using the 14-hour �eq metric. These Leq values
correspond to a range of from 52 to 65 dBA, when calculated in DNL. (DNL values are higher
C
Responses to FEIS Comments
A.1-24
than Leq values because of the nighttime penalty added to the DN� metric.) As stated on
page 29 of the Section 4(f) Evaluation, this range of noise encompasses noise levels typically
� encountered in suburban and urban residential areas.
The USFWS proposal of May 22, 1997, did not qualify how this then-ongoing noise study
should be considered in making final determinations. The FAA, however, required the results
of the noise study to complete its determinations and used them to make site-specific and
unique determinations, given the circumstances of this project and the characteristics of the
MVNWR. Using the noise analysis, the FAA concluded that the proposed runway will bring
additianal aircraft noise to a portion of the Refuge at increased levels substantial enough to
constitute a"use" under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation (DOT) Act of 1966.
This area essentially conforms to the publicly-owned land within the DNL 60 dBA contour
based on 2005 forecasts of operations, when considering Refuge activities, past and present
noise levels, and expected increases in noise with the proposed runway using the above
variety of inethodologies and noise metrics. The year 2005 was used in the noise analysis
rather than 2010 because noise exposure will be greater in the earlier year. By 2010, quieter
aircraft technology will more than compensate for increased numbers of aircraft operations,
and noise will be reduced on both a single event and cumulative basis. For the evaluation of
overall noise impacts and aircraft operations over the Refuge, the FAA was also careful to use
reasonable operational levels consistent with the FAA's Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) and the
MAC's High Forecast (see also General Response 4).
Reaching the above determination was a very labor-intensive process, and the resulting
Section 4(f) Evaluation (May 1998) responded to each element of the USFWS compensation
plan, transmitted by letter dated May 22, 1997 (see Appendix 11 of the Section 41f)
� Evaluation). The FAA also responded to a USFWS letter of April 23, 1998, clarifying that a
� USFWS-proposal for a state-imposed airport user fee is not a legal airport project funding
mechanism (for additional information, see the specific responses to comments on the FEIS
and the Section 4(f) determination, included in the next part of Attachment A.1 and in
Attachment A.3). These determinations by no means minimized the FAA's estimation of the
effect of increases in aircraft noise in the central portion of the Long Meadow Lake and Black
Dog units. Further, the FAA's distinguishing between public and private land ownership
within these units was due to the statutory scope of Section 4(f), which specifically includes
for consideration only publicly-owned lands of a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and
waterfowl refuge. For more information and additional background, including current status,
please also refer to the letter from the FAA to the USFWS, dated September 18, 1998 (from
�ynne Sparks Pickard to Dan Ashe), presented in Attachment B.
Since publication of the Section 41f) Evaluation and subsequent FEIS, the FAA, MAC, and
USFWS have worked on a detailed mitigation program to implement the plans described in
these documents, including enforceable commitments by MAC. Based on additional land
appraisal information and FAA- MAC- USFWS discussions at both local and national levels, all
three agencies have signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), a copy of which is included
in Attachment B. The Section 41f) Evaluation and, in any event, the signed MOA, satisfy
Section 4(f) requirements for mitigation—i.e., all possible planning to minimize harm from the
use of Section 4(f) lands. The MOA establishes the compensation sufficient to replace the
portion of the MVNWR that would be substantially impaired by the proposed project, pending
-- completion of successful negotiations to compensate for realignment of the Refuge. Recent
� ) activities which led to the execution of the attached MOA have included several discussions
Responses to FEIS Comments
A.1-25
and correspondence concerning appraisals, which are being conducted to determine the
appropriate level of mitigation to minimize harm. The USFWS, MAC, and FAA have long �
agreed that the mitigation can be implemented by means of appropriate financial
compensation to the USFWS, which can then be used by the USFWS to establish Refuge
facilities in other areas removed from the airport vicinity. (Currently, the parties expect the
appraisal process to be completed by the end of September 1998.)
The appraisals have been conducted, and the agreement reflected in the MOA has been
reached, using methodologies and following requirements which consider the types of
concerns raised by the USFWS that have a bearing on the final compensation amount. In
correspondence from USFWS to the FAA dated September 21, 1998 (from Daniel M. Ashe to
Lynne Pickard—see Attachment B), the USFWS has noted that because of the adequacy of
the compensation plan provided in the MOA, and the cooperative work between the agencies,
all of its previous concerns have been resolved. While noting that there are additional details
to discuss, this letter also states that the USFWS can foresee no barriers to swift and positive
resolution of all remaining compensation matters (again, see Attachment B).
An additional letter from the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI), dated September 21, 1998
(from Willie R. Taylor to Jane F. Garvey—see Attachment B) states that, based on the signing
of the MOA, its inclusion as part of the ROD for the project, and pending successful
negotiation of additional compensation for the realignment of and increased costs to operate
the Refuge, the U.S. DOI concurs that the project includes all possible planning to minimize
harm to the MVNWR. This letter also states that, based on discussions since the USFWS
filed its comments on the FEIS, the U.S. DOI has now come to recognize the tradeoffs
between the alternatives examined during the Dual Track process and concurs with the FAA (-
that there are no feasible and prudent alternatives to the constructive use of Refuge lands �.
resulting from the proposed new runway.
The above-referenced correspondence, included in Attachment B along with the signed MOA,
shows that there has been a process of ongoing communication and negotiation, completed
after publication of the FEIS. This process also included a public forum, organized by an
interest group and held at the Refuge Visitor Center on May 28, 1998. The forum, which
included presentations by the MAC, FAA, and USFWS, allowed for the exchange of important
stakeholder information, including several public comments expressing concern about the loss
of public use value at major Refuge access sites—in particular, the Bass Ponds and the Old
Cedar Avenue sites. These specific public use impacts were recognized within the FAA's
Section 4(f) Evaluation, and the mitigation proposal advanced by the signed MOA is
considered fully adequate to mitigate for these and other unavoidable adverse impacts.
The accepted resolution to these concerns, as documented in the attached MOA lsigned by
the USFWS on September 17, 1998, and by the MAC and the FAA on September 21, 1998)
includes these two basic points:
The mitigation to offset unavoidable adverse project impacts to the Refuge will be a cash
settlement paid by the MAC to USFWS, based on appraised values in conformance with
applicable standards and regulations.
Responses to FEIS Comments
A.1-26
� In no case shall the amount of the cash settlement for real property damages to the
� existing Refuge property be less than $20 million, based on an estimate of valuation by
� the appraiser.
In addition to compensation for the appraised real property value, the MOA provides for
additional funding, in an amount to be determined, to be provided to the USFWS to realign the
Refuge (e.g., new facilities, design, engineering work, and overheaci tied directly to the
alignment). It also states that additional funds, in an amount to be determined, will be
provided to the USFWS to cover increased costs to operate the Refuge. Fo� more
informatian, refer to the signed MOA, presented in Attachment B.
The parties agree that the MOA (pending further negotiations required by the agreement) will
be sufficient to provide the Refuge with replacement land of habitat quality equal to that
which will be impacted by the project, and to provide for the construction of ponds, hiking
trails and trail markers, and other site improvements which will be necessary to replace
comparable Refuge components adversely impacted as a result of the construction and
operation of proposed Runway 17/35.
The parties to the MOA have also agreed to terms that limit the heights of structures and
objects within the affected parts of the Refuge and that aircraft shall have the right of flight
and to make noise over those areas. Execution by MAC of the MOA and related special grant
conditions provide a commitment on the part of the MAC to provide compensation in
accordance with the final appraisal standards to accomplish "all possible planning to minimize
harm," consistent with the plan and procedures recommended and set forth in the Section
-- . 4(f� Evaluation.
� \)
Responses to FEIS Comments
A.1-27
��
Vl/ritten Comments and Responses
The following written comments on the adequacy of the FEIS were received, and are listed in
the order that they are presented.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
s
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
�
�
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
United States Department of the Interior (USD01)
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR)
Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT)
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
Jon Larsen, Principal Planner, Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB)
Metropolitan Council
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
Minnesota Environmental Partnership
City of Bloomington
City of Eagan
City of Minneapolis
City of Richfield
Friends of the Minnesota Valley
Richfield Public Schools, Board of Education
The Richfield CARE TEAM
South Metropolitan Airport Action Council (SMAAC)
Representative Jean Wagenius and Senator Jane Ranum, Minnesota Legislature
Dore Mead, Minneapolis City Council
Greg Bastien
Rebecca Carlson
Edward Crozier
Ms. Dora, Richfield student
Ms. Marcell, Richfield student
Megan Duffy
Molly Hapgood
Robert Kelley
Dean Lindberg
Donna Murry
Lori Russell
James Spensley
Patricia and John Telfer
Dora Urzus
Kenneth and Louise Williams
Kate Winsor
Responses to FEIS Comments
A.1-28
�D � UN(TED STATES ENVIRON89ENTAL PROTECTION AGEWCY
REGlON 5 ,
77WESTJACKSONFIOULEVARD �
`tiq� �6� . . � CHtCAGO, il 6p6043590
i,�U(�j �.�J �998 rtr'�.vron�e�rreHrtonoF
� ' ' � ' � A-19J
Mr. Glen Orcutt
foderal Aviation Administration
Aiiports District Office .
6020 28th Avenue South, Room # 102
Minncapolis, MinncsoW 55450-2706
llear Mr. Otcutt: .
ln.uccordaacc with the National Environmcrital Policy Act (NIsPA) nnd Section 3�9 oFthe Clcan
. Air Act (CAA), t6e U.S. Gnvirunmcntal Y�otecfion Agency (EPA) has rcvierved the Federa! '
Aviation Adminis�ration's (I�AA) "Fiaal rnvirunmental Impnct Statcmcnt for the Dual'1'rack �
Airpon Planning Process.^ .
In 1989; the Minnesotu State Icgislntiire dirccted the MetropoGtan Airports Commissian (MAC)
und the Metropolitan Council (ML'� to evnluate the long-term air transportation necds vf the
MinnrapoGs-St Paul metropolitan area. A duai track pcacess was developcd to simuitaneously
cvaluate two build altematives thnt would be cairiod further for morc detailed analysis. The 1995
Draft invironmrntnl Impact Statement (DE[S) evuluateti 4he environmcntal im�racts of three
aptions: (lZ Expanding thc cxisting Minncapotis-St. Paut [ntemational Airpnrt (MSP);
(2) Duilding a ncw airport southoast of thc cxisting airport east oE'Vcrmi(lion nnd south oF
Hastings in Dakota County; and (3) No Action. Thc anatysis donc at the lime oFtho DFIS
(Dccember 1995) was conductcd su as to pmvide the I'AA nnd the MAC with enough
information from which to choose n preferred altemative. F.PA's comments on thc L7F,iS
[eflectcc! this purpose:
With thc Minnesota state legislature's decision to scicct tt�e MSP expansion altcmntive as tiu '
prcfcrted altcrative in April 1996, tho MSP 2010 Long-term Comprehcnsive Pian (LTCP)
becnme the only altcrnative carricd furwazd as a viable alternadve in the FAA May 1998 Fina(
Environmental Impact Statement (PGIS). At this point in the project plannjng, thc scope of thc
FE1S changed fr�m a dual trnck to a singte Irack impuct statcment. EPA believes that it would
have bce� dcsicsble and in keeping of the spirit of NEPA for 1�AA to have iuued a Supplemental
DraR F.nvirontnenta! Itnpnct Statement at this point. This Supptemcntal document would havc
evaluatcd aod analyzed in defail ffie vnrious build alterative for MSP and thc No Ac6an
alternutive. As it is, thc FETS as the primary dcoision-making document for tfic PAA, does not
provide Ihc lcve! of information that we beGeve is necessary to fully assess all cnv'uonmentat
impacts of the preferred aitemative.
ax�aodrnocYam�o-vrMe.a.�a, v.ip�ew ai aawn ut, � ieoz w�+.e ve�e.t+yx w,M,a,,,.,,,�
A. See General Response 6. As stated in the
generai response, the MAC and the FAA decided not to
prepare a supplemental environmental document, since
it would only serve to readdress aspects of previous
analyses that were subject to AED's and scoping. The
AED study process was a state-Ied environmental
procedure devised in response to the 1989 Duai Track
lagislation. However, the FAA and the MAC jointly
began the public phase of the environmentai process in
April 1992 by announcing their intent to prepare an
EIS, and by requesting scoping comments. The FAA
pu6lished the original Nofice of lnYent in the April 2,
1992 Federal Register to advise federal, state, and
local agencies of the availability of the First Phase
Scoping Report and scheduled scoping meetings. As
the lead federal agency, ihe FAA also used the April
1992 notice to extend an invitation to affected federal,
state and local agencies to participate as cooperating
agencies and to estabiish that the AEDs would be
canducted with the FAA's involvement and in
accordance with NEPA requireme�ts. in May 1995,
after completion of the first phase of scoping (i.e., the
AED process), the FAA reiterated its intent to prepare
an EIS, announced the availability of the Second Phase
Scoping Report and a second phase scoping meeting.in
the May 25, 1995 Federal Register, and again invited
other agencies to contribute to the EIS as participating
agencies. ' '
8oth phases of 2he joint federal-state scoping process
included public and agency scoping meetings and
comment periods, concluding in July 1995 with
publication of the E/S Scoping Decision (July 26,
1995). The MAC was a cooperating agency in the
federal aspects of the studies completed both before
and after the EIS scoping decision, and was directly
responsibie for assuring compiiance with the Minnesota
Environmental Protection Act (Minn. Stat. Chap.. 116D)
and Minnesota Environmental Quality Board
Regulations (Minn. Rules Chap. 4410), as well as other
state laws and regulations.
As described above, the AED evaluation and selection
process included a number of reports and studies to
arrive at preferred development alternatives for both a
new airport site and fo� the existing MSP site. For the
MSP• Alternative, this included a seven-voiume
technical report that examined capacity, airspace, air
service, and other issues. As such, the reports related
to the AEDs were too voluminous to incorporate into
the subsequent Draft EIS and Final EIS in their entirety.
However, both EISs drew extensively from these
efforts (see also FEIS Section III.C.1, and selected
figures in Appendix J); the AEDs and other reports
were referenced within the EIS and were made
reasonably available to the public throughout the
environmental study process.
The July 1995 EIS Scoping Decision esta6lished the
single preferred location and configuration for the New
Airport Alternative and the preferred configuration of
the MSP Alternative, which were both evaluated
further in the Draft EIS. In doing so, the Scoping
Decision summarized the joint FAA-MAC scoping and
AED study process, which took more than three years
to complete. At each major milestone, the FAA
reviewed the scoping and AED'processes to ensure
coverage of a�easonable range of alternatives.
The EPA had previously provided a statement of
support for the overall Dual Track alternatives
development process (letter to the FAA, dated July 5,
1995), which narrowed the choices for tha MSP
Alternative to the one preferred airfield layout
evaivated in the FEIS. The EPA was also provided a
preliminary version of the FEIS for review and
discussion with the FAA at a meeting held at the EPA's
office on July 22, 1997, and attended by Michael
MacMullen. This step, and all aspects of the
communication process have strived to keep the EPA
informed and up-to-date regarding the process used to
select and evaluate alternatives. The FAA's
correspondence with the EPA has explicitly advised
that the FEIS would emphasize the locally-preferred
alternative of expanding MSP rather than building a
new airport Iletter dated Juiy 2, 1997).
The FAA has continued to coordinate with the EPA in
order to address questions on the FEIS after it was
published and comments were received. This
continuing coordination included an EPA-FAA meeting
held in Minneapolis on July 7, 1998, and foilow-up
correspondence mailad and transmitted via facsimile
from the FAA to the EPA on July 13 and July 27,
1998, respectively. Both of these transmittals
provided the EPA with information, for discussion
purposes, that was responsive to this comment and
other EPA comments and questions, including the
"Summary of Differential Impacts" tabie from the MSP
Finai AED (also reproduced as part of General Response
6 in this attachmenti.
As a result of these discussions and the FAA's
submittal of information, the EPA sent a foilow-up
letter dated August 11, 199$ (see Attachment B).
Within this letter the EPA expressed its appreciation for
the additional coordination and found the information
supplied 6y the FAA to be helpful.
The EPA acknowledged that some of the information
had been previously reported in the MSP LTCP AED,
but noted that it would have been beneficial to have
been included in summary form in the FEIS. Although
this summary has previously generally been availabie
for pu6lic review, it has been included as an
attachment to General Response 6.
Through the clarifying information provided by the
FAA, the EPA understood that the new North/South
Runway (Runway 17/35) would not be used for long
haul international flights, uniike Runway 4/22. The
EPA stated that the impacts associated with the 4/22 •
extension was discussed in the FEIS from a cumulative
impacts basis. Although they would have preferred
that the environmental decision on Runway 4/22 be
incorporated into the Dual Track EIS process, the EPA
acknowledged that the final course of the action was a
policy decision that was the responsibility of the Iead
federal agency.
Based on receipt of a follow-up letter from the EPA,
dated August 11, 1998 (see Attachment B), the FAA
concludes that the EPA's questions regarding the
alternatives development process have been
satisfactorily resolved. It is not considered necessary
to issue supplemental environmental documents
regarding the various build alternatives for MSP.
B. The FAA considers the Runway 422 extension
to be an independent action, with separate utility to
r � satisfy a specific need , and different from the
• purposes and action being considered in the Duai Track
FEIS. The 422 extension projectis proposed to
optimize nonstop 8-747 service to Hong Kong, and is
considered a related action with independent utility
from that of the proposed action. Extending the
runway ensures that Northwest will maintain its
current five nonstop flights per week through 2001,
and may increase its flights to seven per week by
2005. Within the context of the Dual Track Airport
Planning PCocess, the Runway 4-22 extension,
inciuding a temporary runway extension during the
construction period, is a reasonahly foreseeable and
In addition, EPA has objecfions regarding the FAA scgmentation of the Runway 422 exteasion- separate airport improvement action that arose
separately, quite recently, and for a different reason.
project from the FEIS. (See EPA letters dated Decembec 30,1997; Febniary 9, 1998; and
March 13, 1998). As we have said in'our February 9, 19981etter to the FAA, we a� concemed B• Therefore, it was evaluated as a reiated action in terms
primarily with the FEIS providing a completc and acctuate asse'ssment and disclostue of of its cumulative impacts within the FEIS. Further, it is
envirantnental imFracts. Segmentation of 422 tias prevented the reader&om understanding what noted that the runway extension concerns only long-
the a�asting "Affecte9 EnvironmenP' is and what the fuWre situation will be at MSP. $ased on � haul international departures assigned either to Runway
our present understanding of MSP and all of the currendy pmposed acdons, we cannot agree with 4-22 or Runway 12R-30L Therefore, it is concluded
the "independenY utiIity" Runway 422.determioation arade by FAA (Letter dated Apri17, 1998). the operat ons of he new 8 000 f otV orth sfouth on
EPA believes that the determin,�tion of"independent utility" should not be used when projects runway.
are so closely lidced both in space and in time. -
� NEPA prohibits agencies from constricting or avoiding
Beginning with the II'A's aomments to t6e DEIS for the Dual Track Airport Pianning Ptceess, � environmental review by "segmenting" independent
the EPA has e�cpressed concezas and dissatisfaction with the altematives analysis (Letter dated phases of a larger project. NEPA and MEPA regulations
Febntary 21,1996) and the incomplete assessment of cumulative effects &om projects handted , suggest agencies should evaluate "connected,"
outside of the Dnal Track Airport Process such as those impacts associated with t6e. "cumulative," or sufficiently "similar" actions in a
Runway 422 extensionproject Wfule we have geneially supported the Dual Trackpiocess, we singie environmental impact statement. The test under
object to an FEIS that does not provide for a detailed analysis of an azray of alternaiives and ihe C+• NEPA and MEPA for determining whether an agency `
environmeatal impacts assooiated with thosc alteraatives. In particulaz, ihe FEIS is lacking the should conduct environmental review for two or more
following inforatatioa ' projects in a single EIS is the extent to which the
.. _ - projects are interdependent. If the projects have
independent utility and an agencjr would pursue one
� project even if it determined not to undertake the
others, NEPA and MEPA do not require that a single
EIS address all proposals.
The extension of Runway 422 to 12,000 feet is
proposed to be implemented with or without the new .
� runway and therefore has independent utility and is not
needed to be evaluated in the FEIS under both NEPA
and MEPA. However, cumulative impacts are included
. in the FEIS as a related action and its minimal impacts
along with the proposed action's impacts are disclosed
in the air quality (Ta61es A-7 and A-8, p.V-9), water
quality (p. V-160) and noise (p. V-86) sections of the
FEIS. FAA and MAC recognize that Northwest Airiines
(NWA) has recently announced suspension of its
current non-stop MSP to Hong Kong service effective
November 1, 1998. After this announcement,
discussions between MAC and NWA have not
determined if this change in service should
substantially influence progress on the proposed
eMension of Runway 4/22 to 12,000 feet. Therefore,
MAC is continuing to proceed with the project.
C. This comment has been addressed in Response
A, above.
1) The FEIS fails to provide any detail on #he.existing 1994 aircraft operations (totai, day, night,
azrival and depaztw�e), fleet mix, nenway use and flight tracks. Only the 1994 noise contoms are
�, provided in the FEIS. The zadonale used to determine that the worst case sce,naxio wouid exist in.
the year 2005 is not substan6ated in ihe FEIS. No aircraft operations data for 2010 were
provided�that would support the FAA positioa In addition, EPA questions the FAA statement
that only the worst case noise situation (year 2Q05).need be analyzed in a NEPA documenG This
is the first time that we are aware of that FAA has used this posirion and rationale. In order to
have consistency ip aviadon noise analyses, we beiieve that the issue should be explored at the
national level and with the Federal Intecagency Committee on Aviation Noise. Until this issue is �,
resoived, EPA belibves that the FEIS shouid provide aircraft operational data and noise contoius
for the yeazs 2010 and 2020. Additionaliy, detaiis on newly exposed populations were not
provided. While comparing tota! population and total ]and azea is uscful, it is aLso important to
provide information on the newly exposed populatioa The FAA should clearly state that its
�`' approval of the aizport tayout plan is conditioned to inciude all miGgation measures that have
� been committed to by the MAC.
D. The 1994 contours were provided as a baseline
to allow the reader to understand the noise
environment at the onset of the study. Baseline1994
operations and passengers is provided in Tables 2 and
3 on pages II-6 and 7 of the FEIS. The noise analysis
aiso included in Section V.Q the 1994 noise levels et
the selected 42 sensitive noise receptors for
comparison wiih the MSP and no action alternatives.
The impacts of the proposed action are based on
comparisons with the no action future conditions — not
on the 1994 conditions, and therefore no backup
information was detailed.
The rationale for 2005 as the worst-case year is
discussed on page V-74 and verified in Table H.2-5 on
page H-15. Table CR-3, Figure CR-3 and other
information not contained in the FEIS are provided in
responses to comments, which verify the conclusions
stated in the FEIS. See also General Re'sponse 4. As
shown in Table H.2-5 and Table CR-3, the areas within
the 2005 DNL contours are equal to or greater than
those in the 2010 and 2020 contours. As shown in
the Table CR-3 and attached Figure CR-3, the 2005
FEIS contour is in fact larger than the higher FAA TAF
2010 forecast. Aithough the higher forecast DNL
noise contours eMend slightly further out from the
runway ends, the closer-in noise Ievel areas ara
reduced.
In reply to your comment on newly exposed •
population, the following analysis is provided. By
comparing the 1994 noise contours (Figure Q-1) and
the 2005, 2070 and 202a high forecast noise
contours (Figure H-2 and attached Figure CR-3), no
new population would be exposed to aircraft noise
from higher forecasts; some population at the paraliel
runway ends would experience slightly.higher Ievels in
2010 and 2020 than the 2005 levels = but less than
1994 levels — but more population would experience
lower levels. As presented in General flesponse 4, the
year 2005 MAC High Forecast of 575,000 operations
usad in the sensitivity analysis has a greater noise �.
impact than would 750,000 operations� if attainable,
in some future year.
It i5 the Record of Decision (ROD) rather than the ALP
that conditionally approves the use of federai funds to
implementation of the mitigation measures which are
stipulated in the flOD. The ROD stipulates in Section
X that the approvais contained therein are conditioned
on full implementation of the mitigation measures
committed to by MAC.
Tabie CR-3 - Com arison ot Contour Areas
Operation Scenario DNL Area (square
2005 FEIS 60+ 20.37
(484,800 operations) 65+ 9.73
70+ 4.29
75+ 1.87
2010 FEIS 60+ 17.06
(499,900 operations) 65+ 7.94
70+ 3.40
75+ 1.49
2020 FEIS 60+ 19.34
(520,400 operations► 65+ 9.05
70+ 4.16
75+ 1.74
1997 TAF 2010 60+ 19.69
(658,900 operations) 65+ 9.19
70+ 4.00
ui
'v��i,;�:'
�
�:,.a�' �..
y -
� —
��y���'�^ �.
� I.� _ �_ _ �_
�I
__ 'i i--� �--� �
- �f[6� �
i� tDl. i � 4�. � i
�'. —J �
114�� —'-�" �_
E � '=
-��- � �
,_ L . � , � _�- ',.
i: .� ff ��� ; . ----
r �(�
� �,� �Y' ;
'i( t , '� - �-'--�
i�;%;,` `='�t— �_ _
� ��`" � � I
�'^; �' :� �,.,f � ' �� �..
� � �
, ` "'-: I
i ` ,- j
��'� � � �
. (i;' ° ��' -
��, N, p ; '� � ^'i i
� ��` �,� � �--'t "'i
i '� F.�ti-'-Gr:';' � ^;i
1 � <:.-��
�'L- � 4 I 16 �
.��1`vj� �:��� _�
; � -' i "' .:. \ . '; � _,_ ....._..
- � � � � � \`C .
, 1�
j�----``'; �'T-� ��W"3'�`�� z - � i
� `~—�--.—�-.r ���i ^'�-` � �
� ��'Z � \ '--_-- � ' �
�. .\� � � i�...
I���� � O �,...
� �i � 1
, j;�..�..:s�-.
--�; i.;y � , ' � O r..
�' T �
I �
�� �, ��1
r 1� 1: � �.._ � Al' � Qi
�I � , �� o � �
j, , , 'r^ o i o
.,�, .� �
�� -'._`,-"`,._� '�... i tn i � °' �
�.i. : � 1 � � i cfOi
� 1 � '<` : ; cn J
� r`� '-, ' 0 _� Z
;.+` = �
�� . � � 1— `: �� a..
--� ` =, �r �-�. � -i p
�.�� � � L ' O
=" . `� tn
- �I i �r-' "" •�i
i,^a.
� .�— L�.
�--- �---�� �
�, ' y' (� . � . ~ �� o
�� ,.,� f, � L ��' M
_1 .���v , :1 1 � ' 1 � � � w �� � ,.�.,, ���,.
� ; s. I i•. ,,� � � ��
G c� ��•' � I' J'" � �I `- � I� i - K�„1 I
�� (�� `�`u I I i Q 1"—_ i.�,.: �-�� �� �
n � E�� � �' =� � Ij � � � � � �- � �'��-�-`�
} � � �� � N
�� ,i � i_ ,� �.� i. �
�) � � �. � t�`' � ., o
'�r '�. � � � r�r..t' -� �1 �� C� r ( � � r (p +�
r �,a"„ �: ' I .^ �.-�`r� . � � _ �* O �N
�J � �� ' : �- � '. F� � i � ! �..,.�Lt° L � � p.
t•�';. /T . \ 4i - �"�- j." �. Q
y � � �i., %L-+ l, `�- 4 � � � v '` Y'� N
�.. � ; � � i�� I '� ^�i` � ��at��l.�'� � � clf
. � �. � "'�..` `,T'_'_+- � �—}�4.-7 r` ` , 1`^j �',� • � Q ��•
"�; . }� �' `C j � ��`-�� � �,�, '��; ,'K '� • � c O �
�. ,;� � �l ;°i' `��'�' Q O
���,\ � -� �' � ,�-.., > .- �,i•. _ rn
: - _�
-�
-„
,
�,..� -, � .� � . ,"� � ;. o �
��;,'. \ , `, � �" `-�-' � ~�. � "`' �m u�
��. ' ` , , _ ��nt ��; � � , �
�" ° � �
� _ .�.� � �;�
/� ^ " ''r L ,,,, O
_ ` I .,� .-
� ;. _ `v�;��' �I I �'�= �. N
;� ; , _ ,��i
�,, ` .. ,:: ` � �
I�,i�: _ .:;;:,,�, ��` r I �� � a
' � -, :�%Y . � - , � t-
i / 1 , _ �„ .r �' V _ •, .. ..: _. :�,,.:;.� i. o �
rn
, ' �J. ,,,,;r r '^.�; 'n`+.�.�, � '::, �,f' r y _ �{ �"'; N �
' r ` _ ` / r - F� � �
1 ^ ' _ � '� . i
_ - �.. .i � - � � � ; ` "� �
_ - . -� �,� ,�;,_ _ � .�,, J � �.�, ; I
� — ' �..� � -;`.,
- - �_ — � � f i �''
' "'� -� '- ,, � i , ,�ti m
�-� -�--�' —�,.. � —� - ! F
_`_��.�I__�� _'.'—�-^ `� � \i� Z
i �--�--_ F'_'� r
` � J � � � � '� 1� . c°'i
_. \ �--•—_�-=— i ' �' '- � ��. _
'�'�T�'� '. .��y-- i � :I �' O
,�—'-- • rti�:r — � � , ��1 � tn
� �-: r- — �.. -�� i�.
_� � _= _ — _ t �
- i i ^�-- , _ ,
. � , �.� J� NOIgS�
��� �'�-- � - � Q P �" n'y
_f � ._�"�`-� ' ^ ` � , t ? "�'� ��s
i
ti���11 �-�---r _ ��� -~" I �( ^ H � a
' o
_..�.�_. -__l _ _y �,. h � N � 4
-� r.�._.� �-.Yi �� � ^N � � ��"���, � � � .
� _�. �-�' . Y �F � v� r
� __ � .-�_� � -�- — _--'�� �NiW Me-�oPQ�,� � .-
� m-� � \
4 � —�� I
•'^� I I � 1,_ i~_ -~ (""' , � �
1
��'A� � _ � ^;1,—�\ ri1 J_ ' _
.�1� � �— �,�.i—�- ,, - ilr^ � .'_-rz �y _ �S
B � -
2) The "Finding of No Practicable Altemative^ justification for wetlands loses is not adequately
documented in the FETS. In order w determine that no pc�cticable aitecnative exists, the FEIS
should provide details regazding the array of MSP altematives that were evaluated, the wetlands
tosses t6at were associated with each alternaGve and a reason why each alternative was not
feasibie. The detailed discussion regazding the feasibility of other MSP alternarives that were
evaluated is not included in the FIIS. The EPA would like to see the Summacy of Differential
Impacts Table &om the Febmary 1995 MSP LTCP Altemative Environmental Doc�ents
(AED) inctuded in the weUands discussion of ihe FEIS.
3) The FEIS is not consistent in what it is including as the preferred alternarive subject for
Federal actioa In some instances the MSP alternative is stated as the implementation of the F�
M3P I,ong-Term Comprefiensive Plan for the year 2010 (referred to as the 2010 LTCP) and at
other titnes the preferred alternative is discussed as including the 2020 concept plan for MSP.
The FEIS should have made this distincfion more clear. The projects in the 2020 concept plan
and the associate environmenta! impacts should be ciiscussed �s "teasonable and foreseeable
environmentel consequences" that mny occur if the preferred alternalive is implemented.
4) SubalternaLives evaluated in the respective AEDs should have been described in more detail in
the FEIS. This summary should inetude erivirbnmental impacts associated with each alternafive G.
and the reasons why ihey were eliminated. Tables, fi�s, and exhibiis as well as the executive
summaries of previously published documents sucli as the two AEDS are useful ways to
accomplish this. ' . .
Due to the levei of our objecdons, we would be willing to meet with FAA to discuss these issues H.
in more detail. If you would like to set up such a meeting or if yon should have any questioas, �
please contact me ai 312-886-7342 or Sheay Kamke at 312-353-5794.
Sincecely, .
�%� � �v�'""�""'�`�"'" %/��"'_ . ._ . .
Michael W. MacMullen
Manager, Environmental Review Group
Office of Strategic Environmental Analysis
cc: .�Ms. Jenn Unruh
Metropolitan Airports Comcnission
6040 28th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55450
E. The FEIS acknowiedges that the preferred
alternative selected from the concept pians for the
expansion of MSP has the greatest amount of wetland
impact. Reference to the Summary of Differential
Impacts table in the MSP LTCP Final AED (attached to
General Response 6), which compared the acres of
wetlands affected by the alternatives, was provided in
this tiered approach to wetlands reporting. This
material was covered in the AED and evaluated by FAA
and MAC in that context, and was reasonably available
for public review, and therefore was incorporated by
reference. The acreage impacted by the MSP 2020
Concept Plan (Concept 6) has been reduced from the '
46.9 acres reported in the AED to 35.0 acres in the
FEIS. See aiso Response A, above, and Genaral
Response 6.
F. The proposed action for federal approval is the
2010 LTCP. The FEIS Executive Summary makes this
clear under the heading "Proposed Action and
Scope..." (page i) by the statement that, "The pre-
ferred alternative for federal action is implementation
of the MSP 2010 LTCP. .... The 2020 Concept Plan is
evaluated to the extent possibie in order to disciose the
potential long-term effects of the development of a
new passengev ter•minal and related airfield and
roadway facilities. Impiementation of the new terminal
and Yeiated airfield and roadway facilities wili require ...,
further environrnental review and approval by MAC,':
FAA and .,. FHWA." FAA and MAC agree with EPA
that evaluation of the 2020 impacts was appropriate'
because the description of those impacts helps to
explore and disclose the reasonable and foreseeable
environmental consequences that may Iater occur.
Any inconsistencies in explaining this within the FEIS
was unintentional, and further clarification will be
provided within the ROD. ' �
G. This comment has been addressed in Response
A, above and General Response 6.
H. As discussed in Response A, the FAA met with ihe
EPA on July 7, 1998, and provided suppiementary
information to address the objections stated in this letter.
That meeGng and other FAA-EPA discussions led to
receipt of a follow-up letter from the U.S. EPA, dated
August 11, 1998 (see Attachment Bl. As a result, the
FAA concludes that the EPA's questions regarding the
aiternatives development process have been
adequately addressed. FAA also appreciates the
cooperation of EPA in addressing the issues and
concerns of the agency on ihis complex environmental
review process, and will continue to work with the
EPA to resolve any remaining issues and concerns.
United States Department of the Interior p�-.—.,,��
OFFlCEOFTHESECRECVtY � JUN O 9
� . Washington. D.G 20240 . � .
DEPUTy IXEC. D!R
� 5 1996
ER 95l869 & 98/316 . . .
�
Honorable 7aae F. Garvry ' � ,
n.�m;�- �[or . .
Fedaat Aviation Adnvnistrapon ' �
800lndepmdrnce Avenue, SW � � � �
Wasidngtoq D.C. 29591 . . � .
Dear Ms. Garvey. . . . . . '
1'6is is:m regard to the request for the Department oFthe Intuio�'s comm�ts on the Section 4(n
� Evalua6on and Fina! EovimnmmW Impact Shtemeut for l6e bTinnnpolis-St Paui
ineeroational Airport_ T6is is to inform you that tfx Departmeat will �have commen[s, but wlt �
� be w�able to roply witliln the allotted tffie, Plcise wosider tfiis kttc as a requesc for an e�amsion
of tan� in wltich to commrnt on Wae documenta � � .
� Oa May l t, 1998. (see enctosed letter) our U.S. Fish �nd Wildiife Servcce (FtVS) mfdrm«i the
� Federa► Aviation �Administrauan (FAA) t6at the FWS had retainod the savic�c of BBN �
Tedwologies of Canoga Parlc, CaGiomia, to hdp t6em reviav apd intaprM the noise analyses
't6at have been put togdLer by ttm FAA For the rxently prepared Sedion 4(� Evaluadon on the �
M'imkapolis-SL Paul Irtternational tirport At tfat time, theFWS requatecl Gom the FAA the � ..
Tntegxated Noise Modd 'mput spedGca6ons in digital form for tLe mise anallysis ihal wys ' .
� wrrpk:e� far tSe 4(� Evalvatioa aiut. iFpoml�le, for tha�:e�,ty.• rcea;ed�;'mal Envim�ca:a1 �
impact Swimwrt (FE(S) for the project This into�madon is critical for the compietion oFtl�
, review of bot6 tht FETS and Seciion 4(� Evaluation. . .
As the requested'mfocmation u�11 mt reach BBN until Iune 5, 1998, at 16e eartiest, BBN wi0 be
unabk to eomplae a thorougL roview afthe informatioq arid provide mpw to the ilYS m:�
suffidrnt tmrc for the Departmmt of ehe Imerior (DepartmeM) to mai tha June 15, 1998, � �
dndline fa mmmeats on the FE7S. 1lercfwe. r6e Departmcat reqacb an extension ot t9e .
�omm�a� �iaa: p,ou� tw� t�s �a s«e:� Kq E.m�wm� r.r as a.n t�inaiug upom
retdpt b� BBN of We requetted iutormatiue. .
Tl�anlc you far your cooperaaoa 73e Ueputmeot uro�Id appreciate yovr response to this requat
' 6y June t0, 1998. ffyou have aa5' 4�.� P�ease contact Ms: Shdla hLnor Huff of my staff u
202/208-7564orbfr.RickScfiulaof�heFWS'h5nnaotaVallryNuional�Wild�YeRefugeat .
61?l858-070L � . � � . . � - ..
. . Sincerety, • _
. . . `� . ..�:
� . . � Wdlie A Taylor � . . .
�� Director, Otfice oFEnviromnental '
� . Poticy and Compliance � ' -
Enclosvre . . . � � .
cc w/Eocl: , � . . � � .
Mr. Franklin D. Benson, htaoagv, MwicaPolis ,yrp�rts Disuict Office, FAA
Ngd FiaxY. Meuopolitau Airports Commicvon �
Iohn FLink, Metropolitan Airports Commission � �
bfike Sullivao, Mnnesota F..mimnmrnW �Qualiry Board . , .
lohn Laison, M'imaota Enviro�mrntat Quality Board
Sazuly Fdd1- BBN Teehno,logia
1�an As1w. Assistant Direaor, U.S. Fish & Wadlife Smice .
b
Subsequent to the ciose of the comment period,
discussions and correspondence ensued which resulted in
a Memorandum ofAgreement being signed on September
21, 1998 between USFWS and MAC with FAA as a
concurring party.
0
��rrov . i � .
^ United States Department of the Interior
�
OFF[CE OFTHE SECRE'CARY
~'^`" `'�� . . Washington. D.C. 20240 . .
Fx.9sis69 JGN i 2 1998
Jane F. Garvey
Admi�istrator •
Federal Aviation Administraqon . '
800lndependence Avenue, SW
Washingtoq D.C. 20591
Deaz Ms. Garyey:
This letter responds to your request for the Department of the Interior s(Department) comments
on the Fi�ra7F.�rvironmentallmpacr Stalemeat (FE/S) for the bfmneapolis-St: Paul Intemational
Airport, dated May 1998. These comments aze being fonvazded to you at this time, since the .
Departrnent requested, but was not granted, a 45-day extension in correspondence to FAA dated
June 5, 1998. .
blost of our coinments are speci6c to Section 4(� issues as��at� �� �e h�esota Valley
National �Idlife Refuge (MNVNWR) and will be more thorou
on the Section 4(� evaluation, which will be provided by 7une 30, 19gg �� our comments
Geoeral Commenu on the FEIS -
Selection of prejerredAlrernative. The preferred altemapve is the implementation of the
Mnneapolis-St. PauT International Airport (IviSPj 2010 Long Term Comprehensive Plan (2010 '
LTCP). The 2010 LTCp includes deyelopmeat of a new 8,000-foot runway ( I7/35) wich related
air&eld and roadway modiScations. Whi�e we are not opposed to the e�cpansion oFMSP, the ''
FE[S has not analyzed yp the alternatives in light of Section 4(� �pa�$ �y�ch have developed �
since publication of the draft environmental impact statement. The range of alrernatives should •
be analyzed in the context of constracdve Section 4(� use of the refuge and presented in a
revised FEIS. �
�
A. A revised FEIS is not required to complete the
decision-making process for this project. For a
discussion of the overall alternatives development
process, see General Response' 6. The original
alternatives development process recognized`and '
declared the potential for noise impacts on the
MVNWR, specifically at the DNL 65+ level in the Bass
Ponds area for any of the future runway location
alternatives oriented in a north-south direction at MSP.
This was noted in the Final Alternative Environmental
Document (AED) for the MSP 2010 LTCP, which
discusses the environmental effects of four airfield
alternatives on the wildlife refuge (Minneapolis-Saint
Paul lnternational Airport Lang-Te�m Comprehensive
Plan, FinalAlternative EnvironmenialDocument, HNTB,
February 1995, Section III.S.2, p. III-84), and was
prepared well in advance of the Draft EIS.
Through further coordination with the USFWS, the
FAA accepted that this long-recognized impact of the
MSP alternative on the Refuge could not be evaluated
solely through the use of FAR Part 150 noise
compatibility criteria, based on progression of the
alternatives development and selection process and
discussions of noise impact policy and interagency
consultations. As a result, the MVNWR impact was
acknowledged as a Section 4(f) constructive use (see
also Response G). In general, the constructive use
occurs as a result of the new north-south runway being
identified 6y the Dual Track Planning Process as the
most viable option for adding one new runway to MSP.
While the impacts of the new north-south runway may
shift slightly, depending on its exact final orientation,
such shifts could not avoid the constructive use and
resulting impacts to the Refuge.
itMiligadon Mearures. In general, the compensation offered by the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) for unavoidable impacts is only conceptua! in nature and faJls far short of
the speci6c measures recommended by the U.S. Fish and wldlife Service (Service). Under no
circumstances will the Service accept the mitigation as described in che FEIS and Section 4(�
Evaluation For the impacts that will occur on lands within the authorized boundary of
b�[VVI�IWIt.
In our Mazch 18, 1996, letter on the Draft Environmental Lnpact Statement (DEIS), we took
issue with FAA's Section 4(� analysis. We stated that IviNVNWR tands would be impacted by
noise from the expansion of M3P. In particulaz, the educational values of the refuge woutd be
adversely impacted by increases in noise levels. In the spring of 1997, FAA recognized the need
to enlazge the scope of their Section 4(� determination and include lands of the refuge.
Foliowing a series of ineetings and discussions designed to resolve the Section 4(� issue, the
5ervice, in a May 22, 1997, leaer to the FAA and the Metropolitan AirpoRs Commission
(I�tAC), provided its analysis of noise impacts and appropriate compensation that would be
needed to mitigate the proposed action
This compensation was devetoped by the Service and is based on its best professional judgement
of what increased �oise levels and presence of aircraft at (ow altitudes will be to the refuge and
what can be done to mitigate for these impacts. The proposed compensation plan includes:
replacement For 4,090 acres of refuge lands to be impacted by noise from the airpoR;
construction and development of a visitor center/contact station in the Rapids Lake Unit, Carver
Counry to replace the tost use of the curzent visitor center in Bloomington; replacement of nature
trails, boazdwalks, and other structures that witl lose their vatue because of increased noise
levels; a trust fund to manage the new lands and ope�ate the new facility; an interactive exhibit ai
MSP; and planning costs. Total estimated cost of this compensation was about $27 million. In a
foilow-up tetter of April 23, 1998, the Service proposed a conservation user fee program that
wouid add a small surcharge to each ticket ("pay as you fly"). Revenues from Uus program
would be used For natural resource programs on public lands impacted by the airport.
FAA responded to the Service's recommendation for compensation in the May 1998 FEIS and
Section 4(� Evaluation.. The FAA agreed to partialty compensate for 1,083 acres; rejected the
)coposed visitor centedcontact station; generally accepted replacement of reCuge structures;
�e�ected an operations trust fund; agreed to accommodate an exhibit at M3P; and accepted
pianning costs. No cost estimates were provided (See Encloswe 1 for a comparison of the
Service's and FAA's proposals).
Memormrdrrm ojAgreement. FAA requested that the Service enter into a Memorandum of
Agreement to identify appropriate compensation for unavoidable impacts following compledon
of the Section 4(� Evaluation. While the Service agrees in principle that an MOA will be
appropriate, it cannot concur with the genera! language of the draft MOA found in the FEIS and
wil! not agree to be a signaCory unul the specific details of comgensauon have been agreed to.
As indicated in ihe previous section, the Service and FAA are quite Faz apart in their negotiations
regarding appropriate compensation for noise impacts to MNVNWR and it would be
inappropriate to commit to an MOA with so many issues still unresolved.
B.
B. See General Response 7.
C. See General Response 7.
3
Bird-Aircrnft S�rikes Unresolved concerns remain involving the potentiai for bird-aircraft
strikes with the construction and use of runway 1'7/35. A new runway may be in direct conflict
with the mission of MNVNWR. While FAA must assy�re that bir'd-aircraft strikes aze avoided, D�
oae of the primary functions of a refuge is to attract large numbers of birds in its wetiand and
grassland ha6itats. This apparent dilemma deserves more discussion in light of this significant
pubiic safety hazard.
Specific Comments
Underestimated Operatiwu Over �he Refuge. The Section 4(� Evatuation states that 5;620
flights a month from the construction and use of Runway 19/35 wiil overfly the Bass Ponds
between 500 feet and 2,000 feet above ground level. FAA's Terminal Area Forecast predici5
658,900 operations for MSP in the year 2010. FAA assumes that Runway 17/35 will account for
36.6% of departures and Runway 35 will account for 16.9% of arcivais in an average year. 1'his E•
would result�in 14,688 operations per month for the new runway. It is likely that most of these
operations.will overfly the refuge; therefore, any noise analysis completed for the refuge shouid
utilize this larger figure.
�
D. FAA has determined that the analysis approach in
the FEIS is reasonable. As explained in the FEIS,
Section V.D.1.2, about 90 percent of all known bird
strike incidents occur below 500 feet a6ove ground
level (AGLi. Table D-5 (page V-33) shows that none of
the predicted Long Meadow Lake overflights will be
below 500 feet. It is operations on the existing paraliel
runways rather than the proposed runway that have
the greatest potential for bird strikes. Note that Table
D-5 has been revised and is presented in General
Response 6. However, the revisions do not change the
fact that there will be no overtlights of the refuge less
than 500 feet AGL. The FEIS and the Finai AED for
the MSP Alternative provide additional data concerning
reported bird strikes at MSP and analyses of FAA data
on this topic. The AED analysis included tracking of
departure flight profiles using the FAA's Integrated
Noise Model to determine typical departure flight
profiles for various runway alternatives. The AED also
noted the increased distance 6etween the south end
of the north-south runway and the principal bird
concentration areas, as compared with the present
parallel runway system. The FAA concludes that
adequate efforts have been made to investigate this
matter, with respect to alternatives, and concurs with
the conclusions that have been drawn.
Regardless of the technique used to estimate the
number of birds in an area; attention centers on the
number that could cause a potentially hazardous
condition to occur. The numbers of birds have not
caused any significant problems at the presently
developed airport. No airport can totally eliminate birds
from the surrounding airspace. Nevertheless, the MAC
is concerned about the issue of bird strikes and wiil
coordinate with the USFWS concerning any proposed
controi measures.
E. The 5,620 monthly overflights are the number of
jets that would be Iess than 2,000 feet over the refuge
out of a total of 11,600 monthly operations using
Runway 17-35, according to the 2020 FEIS forecast.
The remainder are the departures of aircraft which
would either be above 2,000 feet over the refuge or
not over the refuge at ail. The noise impact analysis
for the refuge is based on the MAC High Forecast,
which has 13,460 operations on Runway 17-35 in
2005. The year 2005 is the noisiest year even for
operations at MSP as high as 750,000 in the year
2020, as discussed in General Response 4. See also
USEPA Response D.
Uncertaiuty i�r Opera�iwra! Assumptions. Estimates of future operational levels for MSP as a
whole, and for the proportion of total operations that will be conducted on proposed Runway F.
17/35 aze sufficiendy uncertain that little credence can be placed in the predicted noise levels
created by such operavons at a given date. This impGes that correspondingty little confidence
can be placed in measures intended to mitigate noise impacts at a particular future date.
Use of I�rappropriate Noise Metric. The Day-Nght Sound Level (DNL) noise metric, as used
throughout the Section 4(� statement to document noise "impacts" to MNVNVVR, is
inappropriaie for severa! reasons. FAA's "Land Use Compatibility Criteria" and accompanying
DNL levels were designed with the objective of assuring that uses of land azound an airport are
compatibte with airport operatipns. These criteria were not designed to either assure
compatibility 6etween the airport and other land uses or to estabGsh impacts and to seek
avoidance and mitigation for those impacts that occur from the expansion of airport operations.
In addition, recent court cases [Allision v Department of Trmuportation, 908 F.Zd 1024 (D.C.
Cir 1990); NationalPcmks and ConservationAsrrr. v.,.RA.A. 948 F.2d. 1523 (lOth Cir. 1993);
City of Grapevine, Tez v. Deparhnent ojTrcuuportation 17 F.3d 1502 (D.C. Cir. 1994)] have
found that FAA does not have a noise metric that is appropriate for use in areas such as national
wildlife refuges: To date, such a noise metric has not 6een developed and we do not believe that
continued use of theDNL metric is appropriate. Absent an accepted noise metric for natural
azeas, we believe that the responsibility for deternuning the impact of aircraft overflighu on a
national wildlife refuge rests with the Service. ConsequenUy, the Service assessed the impact to
'�he refuge and identified appropriate compensatioa in its May 22, 1997, letter.
F. Operational assumptions for Runway 35 have
been developed in coordination with FAA's Air Traffic
personnel. The resuliing runway use percentages have
avolved with as high a level of confidence as can be
forecast, given the inherent uncertainties of future
aviation demands at MSP. Departures on new Runway
17 account for 36.6 % of the total aircraft operations
in the noise analysis, while the combined totai of
Runways 30L and 30R accounts for 38.6%. To this
extent, the departures on Runway 35 could be
overstated for noise analytical purposes and the
resulting needs for mitigation measures in the
MVNWR. This use of this possible worse-case
condition resuiting from the higher percentage of
runway use provides more disclosure about the
possible noise consequences affecting this area.
�'s. G. The use of DNL for calculating anticipated noise
levels produced by aircraft is the federal standard and
agraed on by the Department of Transportation,
Department of Defense, Department of.Housing.and
Urban Development, Veterans Administration, and the
Environmentai Protection Agency, as first documented
in the Guidelines for Considering Noise in Land Use
Planning and Contro% Federal lnte�agency CommiYtee
on Urban Noise, June 1980. All federai agencies have
adopied DNL as the metric for airport noise analysis in
NEPA (EIS/EA) documents (Federal agency Review of
Se%cied Airport Noise Ana/ysis /ssues, Federal
lnieragency Committee on Noise, August 1992, page
3-1►. The methodologies employed in the FEIS are
established FAA procedures published in FAA's Airport
Envi�onmenYal Handbook, Oider 5050.4A and are relied
upon and have been found adequate in numerous court
cases.
As stated in the FEIS and the Section 4(f) Evaluation,
the FAA has applied several criteria to complete its
assessmant of this refuge impact, based on site-
specific circumstances. Guidance issued by the
Federal Interagency Committee on Noise tFICON►, in
August 1992, was principai among these criteria, but
was not the only factor considered to complete the
determination. The other criteria included: (1) the
MVNWR's development history and historical
relationships to the urban environment; and (2) a
technical analysis of noise impacts within the Refuge,
including existing ambient noise. Use of the FICON
criterion incorporated the views of numerous federal
agencies, including the Department of Interior. The
August 1992 FICON report also supports continued
use of the DNL metric as the principai means for
describing long-term noise impact.
lntegrated Noise allodel. Several questions �emain about the use of the Integrated Noise Model
and data used to complete the noise analysis for rrIN�V1VWR. In 6ght of this, the Service is
committed to reviewing this information. By letter, dated May 11, 1998, the Service requested
the input data used 6y FAA in this model be provided to BBN Technologies, whose services
have been retained by the $ervice for assistance in analysis of the noise impacts. BBN did not
receive the requested data in time to complete a thorough review of the information and provide
input to the Service to be included in the Department's comments. ThereFore, the Service and
Department may have additional commenu based on a review and analysis of these data.
Imprrcrs Upon.4esthetics. The use of the new iunway will impact refuge programs and activities
beyond those associated only with noise. Of equal importance, especially to the visitor thaC
seeks solitude and the opportuniry fo view nature in a relatively undisturbed setting is how
aircrafi intrusions wilCcompromise the aesthetics ofthe refuge. �thouGquestion, a114,090
aaes of refuge lands in the Long Meadow Lake and Biack Dog Ilnits will be subject to these
frequent aircraft events, thus compromising the aesthetics of the area and the visitor's '
acperience; .
Summary Co�ments . .
The Department of the InteRor recommends Ehat a revised FEIS be completed that evaluates
project altematives in light ofthe expanded Section 4(� determination; includes measutes Lo .
minimize tiarm to h�1VNW1L that have beea agreed to by the Service and FAA; and corrects
outstanding technical probiems, such as underestimated operations over the refuge and use of an
inappropriate noise metric.
The FAA has requested the Service to enter into an MOA and grant an avigaAon easement for -
overAights to MNVNWR The Service will not sign the MOA or grant an easement until .
outstanding issues are resoived. We are aiso prepared to request that the Council on
Environmental Quality enter into discussions on ttus project with the Service and FAA. .
Mr. Dan Ashe, the Service's Assistant Director for Refuges and �Idlife, is avaiiable to meet
with you to resoive these outstanding issues. He can be reached at (. 8-5333.
S. C �' .
i����� t
Willie R Tayto
Director, Office ofEnviro ntal
� Policy and Compliance
Enclosure
cc w/Enct:
Franklin D. Benson, Manager, Minneapolis Airports District Office, FAA
"7enn Unruh, Metropotitan Airports Commission .
Ngel Finney, Nievopolitan Airports Commission
John'fTimle, Metropolitan Airports Commission
hiike SulGvan, Minnesota Environmental Qualiiy Boazd
John Larson, Minnesota Envirorunental Quality Boazd
Sandy Fidetl - BBN Technologies
Dan Ashe, Assistant Director, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
5
�"�. � H. Comment noted.
1. With the new runway operational, aircraft noise
due to overflights will be the dominant impact within
the Refuge. Aesthetic impacts from future operation
Ievels and the location of flight tracks cannot be
separated from the noise impact, and are therefore not
recognized separately to describe impacts or determine
the appropriate mitigation. According to MACs
analysis, there are a total of 3,583 acres in the two
units, instead of 4,090 acres.
J. The FAA does not agree'with the assertion of
outstanding technical probiems necessitating a revised
FEIS, as explained in General Response 6 and in other
responses to the U.S.DOI comment letter. Preparation
of the FEIS followed the regulations of the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) as well as numerous other
applicable regulations. As previously indicated, the
FAA has acknowiedged that the proposed action would
substantially impair public use in the refuge (Section
4(f) Evaluation, p. 29) and is incompatible with the
normal activity for portions of the MVNWR, and that
mitigation measures are necessary. The Section 4ifl
determination, summarized in the FEIS, is 6ased on
constructive use rather than actual taking, and
proposes mitigation measures based on the expected
diminished value of the refuge. This level of impact
assessment and the commitment to mitigate was
adequate for NEPA and Section 4(f) purposes. As
such, project alternatives do not need to be re-
evaluated within an "expanded Section 4(f)
determination". The existing determination has
provided an adequate basis for appraisals and other
elements required to furfher assess the value of the
affected lands.
The CEQ regulations require that if a statement is so
inadequate as to preclude meaningful anaiysis, the
agency must prepare and circulate a revised draft of
the appropriate action [40 CFR 1502.9(ap. The FAA
maintains that this FEIS is adequate, and notes'that
while comments may express disagreement with this
conciusion, that does not by itself indicate inadequacy.
K. See General Response 7.
Comparison of Fuh and wildlife Service
and Federrl Aviaaon :�dministratiou/Metropolitan Airports Cowmissiou
Compensation for Airporx Impacts to Mina�sota Valley Piatiooal Wildlife Retuge"
Fisk and l�'ildlife Service Estimate
j� Estimated Cost
Full compensadon 515, 746,=00
for 4,090 acres
V isi�or Contact
Stadon near Cazver 53,548,000
Replace nanue aails, 51,805,800
sLucturos, baazd
wallcs, etc.
Opetations Tcust 54,000,000
lracuvc E.rhibit SI50,000
ai �tSP Terminal
Plannino Costs 52.000.000
Tota! Estimated 326,950,300
Cost
FriA/�YfAC Response
j(gm Estimated Cost
Partial repiaccment Nonc givm
of1,083 acres
Rejccud —
"grncrally ucept" Nonc givea
Rcjected —
"will accommodau" None given
y� • � I 4 -1�
Tota1 Estimated None given
Cost
•Fish and Wildlife Service best esamates ware provided to the Federal Aviation Administration
and che Metropolitaa Airporrs Commissioa in May 22. 19971ettez. FAA/MAC raponsas were
provided to Fish and Wildlifc Service in Secrian 4(� EvaluQrion published on May 1, 1998.
a
United Stetoa NaNtal 375 Jacksan Strea4 SWto 600
OepartmeM ot Heaources SL PeW, MN 55101-1854
AgneWture ConaervaUon
Service
IN REPLY
REFER T0: Final Environmental Impact SCatement (FEIS)
Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport
Hennepin County, MinnesoCa
Ms. Jenn Onruh
Metsopolitan Airports Coa�ission
6040 28th Avenue South
Minneapolis, t�St 55450
June 2, 1998
R�L�1+1 ��°1
JUN � � 1998
DEPUTY EXEC. DIR.
Dear Ms. Unruh: �
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has reviewed the appropriate
sections (wetlands and threatened and endangered species) £or the above
mentioned proposed project. The project sponsors are not USDA program benefit
recipients, thus, the wetland conservation pzovisions of che 1985 Food
Security Act, as amended are not applicable. It should he noted, however,
than actions vy a non-USDA participant third party laroject sponsor> which �• A. No impacts on USDA participants anticipated.
impact wetlands owned or operated by USDA participanCs, may jeopardize the .. .� �. .
owner/operators USDA eligibility. If such impacts are aneicipated, the
�owner/operator should contact the county Farm Service Agency (FSA) office to
consider an applicant for a third party exemption.
�Neither NRCS technical nor financial assistance is i�eing provided in support
of tkis project, thus, specific NRCS environmental policies are not
applicable.
B. B. Comment noted.
The following agencies may have federal or state wetlands, cultural resources,
umter quality or thzeatened and andangered species jurisdiction in the � �
proposed project, and should be consulted.
nrn,y corps of Engineers C. C. These agencies have heen notified.
tTS Fish and WildliPe Service �
Hoazd o£ Water and Soil Resources
Minnesota Depart�ment of Natural Resources
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
�State Hiscoric Preservation Officer/StaCe Archaeoloqist
If thzough these impacts you are purchasing new or acquirinq additional lands
and i'f any Eederal monies are involved, it is a requirement that a Farmland �
Policy Protection Act (FPPA) si[e assessment 6e appropriately filed. Theee
site assessments are, conducted by NRCS personnel to review the project for �. D. Nofarmlandis affected.
possible effects on unique, prime or statewide i�aportant Earmland. Contact
your local NRCS office for more information.
Dakota Search Area: �
If the new airport senario in Hastings area becomes a reality, prime
agricultural land would be taken out of production and a AD-1006 form
•Farmland Conversion Impact Rating• , would need to be filled out (see E. E. Form AD-10o6 will be completed if the New Airport
aetactnoenc) if Federal moaies are invoi�ea. Aitemative is ever reconsidered in the future.
See Paqe 111-9
C:2 New Airport Alternative: •
Eavironmental analysis of new site not required. �
Thank you for the apportunity to review.
. /�E���
��� �
State Conservationist
Tho Hulutal Huowcn Canamvatlon Servkq .. ..)
�onnerry n,. sou cansorvadon sanka
h sn apr�cY d tlw
UNbO Smroe DeA+�rn10l Aqricunm+.. . . . . . .. . .. .. AN EOUAL OPPORTUNt1Y EMPLOYEfl .. .. .... .... ..... .. . . .. . ..... .. ..
8
y�'1EOF wncv�f'
� •W
� �a
yo
P�'
�NANA�
June 15, 1998
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
StNI !al'oycnc Roud
$(. �JU�. �'i11111CtiOta 55�$$-�3�110
Ms. Jenn Unruh
Metropolitan Airports Commission
6040 28th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55450
Mr. Jon Larson
Minnesota Environmental Quality Board
658 Cedar Avenue
5t. Paul, MN 55155
Re: Dua! Track Aitport Planning Process
: Finnl Environmental Impact Smtement (EIS)
' Determination of Adequacy
Dcaz Ms. Unruh and Mr. Larson:
The Department of Natural Resources has reviewed the Final EIS for the Dual Track
Planning Process.
From a State natural resources management perspective, [he Metropolitan Airports
Commission (MAC) adequately responded to our comments on the Draft EIS. The
Departrnen[ appreciates the MAC's ef'forts to address our naturai resourees-related concems
and looks forward to continuing our working relationship.
We offer the foilowing comments related to EIS adequacy.
The Rules of the Minnesota Environmental Review Program sdpulate the Final EIS shall be
detecmined adequate if it: 1) adequately addresses potentially significant issues and
altemarives in conformance with part 4410.2300, items G and H; 2) responds to substandve
comments on the draft EIS, and 3) was prepazed in compliance with the Rutes.
/�. A. Comment noted.
Anaivsis of Potentiativ Significant Issues nnd .4ltematives
Minnesota Rules part 4410.2300, Item H, require [he EIS to identify and discuss any major B, g, A discussion of these issues is included in the
differences of opinion concerning significant impacu of the proposed project on the FAA Record of Decision and will be included in MAC's
environment. Through comment letters, correspondence included in the Federal Aviation
Adminisuadon's Secrion 4(� Evaluadon, and public presentations, the U.S. Department of Report to the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board.
Interior and the City of Richfield assert the proposed project's sienificant impacts will gready See also General Responses 1, 2 and 7.
exceed MACs estimate. The EIS shoutd discuss the extent of, and basis for. [he
disagreement, and describe associated mitigation.
Resoonses to Commencs ,
Minnesota Rules part 4410.2600, subpart 10, require the MAC to respond to all timely and C•
substantive comments received on the Drafr EIS. It is unclear how the tv[AC defined '
"timely" for purposes oY the DraB EIS, and whether it has met this requirement.
ONR Intorma�ion: 61.-?96fi157. I•NIN)•766-6tNJ0 • TTy:612Z96-S4HJ. 1-NlN)•657-39?9
An Eywl l7pp�wwnnr Empbyer I`w i4imeJ m ReeyckJ PaperCun�umna+
Whq Valum �irmnr �W Minimum M i(ISF Pmt.Cunaumet W��e
C. it is FAA policy to normally grant 15-day time
extensions to agencies requesting additional time to
comment on a Draft EIS (FAA Order 5050.4A, Chapter
9, Paragraph 91.e). USEPA requested such and
commented within 15 days; USDOI did not request
additional time and commented well beyond the15-day
period. There is an error on page V-37; the USDOI
letter is in Appendix A.15 of the FEIS. The response
to their latter was (1? that the letter would be
acknowledged and included in the FEIS but not
formally responded to, (21 agreement that there would
be a Section 4(f) constructive use of portions of the
refuge, and (3) the initiation of a consultation process
with the USFWS to address their issues.
Jenn Unrul✓Jon Larson
June lS, l998
Page ?
Although the Draft EIS comment period closed February 13, 1996, the MAC accepted late
comments from the U.S. Environmentul Protection Agency. The MAC rejected late
comments from the U.S. Depaztment of the Interior., but the list on page I.8 of the Final EI5
indicates the MAC preliminatily intended to accept them. Futthering the conCusion, on Page C,
V-37 of the Final EIS, the MAC uses the Department of the Interior's commenu to support
its conclusion that the project will not adversely affect federally-listed species. (Note: The
EIS rej'ers the reader to Interior's comment letter "in Appendi.r d, / l"; however, this
appendix is part of the Section �1 � Evaluation, not the EIS us indicateef.)
Comnliance with Rules
On Merch L9, (99?, the Minnesota Environmenta! Quality Boazd approved an atternative
review process for the Dunt-Track Ptanning effott; [he MAC has exercised considerable
fle�cibility in its completion. For e:campte: project altematives have ehanged significandy
since scoping; two and a hnif years elapsed be[ween Draft and Final EIS publicarion; [he D.
Final EiS con[ains substantial new informadon not included in the Draft EIS; the Final EIS
has bec6me a dual-putpose (State and Federal) documen[, and the p�ocess has been
complicated by the Section 4(� Evatuadon, whose relationship to the SmtelFederal EIS
remains unclear to many reviewets. 1'hese circumstances make it somewhat difficult to
evntuate the extent to which MAC adhered to the approved process.
To ensure the process futfills the intent of the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act, the
Department recommends the Record of Decision on EIS adequacy: 1) treat the Section 4( fl
Evalutstion as part of the Finat EIS for state review purposes and respond to atl comtttenu
received on the Evaluation; 2) discuss the major differences in opinion on area of significa�t E,
impact, and describe associated miugadon, and 3) respond fully to ail comments recerved on
the pmposed project, inciuding comments received during the interva( be[ween Draft and
Final EI5 issuance, as well as commenu on the Final EIS.
T6ank you for the oppommity ro review this documen[. Again, the Depaztrnent appreciates
the MAC's cooperation throughout the review process. Please do not hesitate to contact me
with any questions regazding this letter.
Sincerely,
ebecca A. Wooden, Environmental Planner
Environmenta! Review & Assistance Unit
Office of Management and Budget Services
(612)29�3355
c: Rod Sando
Tom Balcom
Kathleen Watlace
Lynn M. Lewis '
MAC.dod#9202 ( 91
C. Response on previous page.
D. MAC has coordinated closely with EQ8 staff
throughoutthe process to ensure adherence with the
approved alternative environmental review process
(AERP). We disagree that the aitematives have
significantly changed since scoping; all have baen
addressed (see also General Response 6). In regard to
the FEIS being a dual-purpose state/federal document,
the Draft EIS was a dual-purpose state/federal
document and the unanticipated action of the
legislature in April 1996 preempted the expected EIS
process outlined in the AERP, which cailed for
completion of the state FEIS prior to legisiature action
and federal FEIS and Record of Decision afterwards.
E. (1) This will be done. {2) See General Responses
1, 2 and 7. (3) Responses to FEIS are included; see
aiso Response C.
e
�^.,
e Minnasota DepeKment of Transportation
5 9
�+,�� Metropolitan Division
Waters Edge
1540 West Counry Road 82
Roseville, MN 55113
June I5, 1998
Ms. Jenn Unruh FA:C,".: 726-5306
Meaopotitan Airpor[s Commission (originai to follow in maIl)
6040 28'" Avcnuc South
Minnmpolis, MN 55450
Re: Final Environmentat Impact State commenu on MSP Intemarional Auport
Dear Ms. Umuh:
The Minnesota Departmene of Transporration (Mn/DOT) appreciaus being pact of the Duai Track
Aicport Plamting process. The coopecadve discussions of the Surface Transportation Committee which
f�nsisted of represrntadves from tha FAA, MAC, FHWA, WisDOT, :vietropotitan Council, EQB, and
n/DOT wero cridcal to idendfying �t,e surface esaanspocsadon needs ofshe various airpors altema[ives.
MtilDOT's commmt lotter on the DEIS ]isted four main surface u�ans4oRadon issu�s that the departrnrnt
wanted addcessod in the Dual Treck Aicport Planning process and the Environmental Impact Smumeat:
1) tha roadway and Gansit needs necessary to serve either airport alternadve,
2) costs of those needs (consmiction aad right-of-way),
3) impacts and autigarion associaud with those needs, and
4) the consequences if those road and uansit improvcmrnts are not undertakou.
The Surfuce Trsnsportadon Commitue addressed these issues. Tho conctusions reaehed by the
commitue are zeflecud in the FEIS aad specifically in the Consensus .lpproach to Surface
Transportatian Project Developmenr documenG
Tha majority of the hansportadon improvomrnt projects ouciined in the consrnsus documrnt are no
longtt boing consideced because the new airport site has bern eliminated and the MSP 1010 Long Term
Comprehensive Plan hes been effectively shelved for trn or more years. Therefore, from a siuface
transportation standpoint thc only two remaining airport requircd projecu aze the reconstrucdon of the
auport &ontage road and ffie reconstxuction of the Highway 77/6E" Sacet interchange. The I-
35W/Highway 62 project, the 7T" Street underpass of Highway 7�, and the LRT project on Hiawatha
also need to iie highlightad. �
Notd: The eonsensus documrnt in Appendix F is not reproduced in ics mtirety and shouid have been. Q, I A. FAA and MAC apologize for this printing error
which affected only a Iimited number of copies.
Airport FEIS comment
7une I5; 1998
i) The currentty identified roadway and 4ansit needs are as follows:
page 2 of 4
Fro �,g Rond
The proposed airport frontage road alignment lies on MAC and Mn/UOT property. It is
understood that MAC will take the lead on development of the Frontage Road and wiil fund the B�
project The consensus document stated that "the committee recommends that the MAC initiate
this project and enter into a cooperative agreement with Mn/DOT covering such items as design,
design reviews, and construction inspection", (paga 4). If IvLJDOT paeticipation in tho design
or constmetion inspection is still desired by the MAC, a cooperative agreement shouid be
initiated. The FEIS discussion on page V-131 also highlights that the Frontage Road rriay he
built in stages as needed, each development stage needs to be coordinated with Mn/DOT to
address potential permitting needs, design review, and staging issues.
73ie� T7/66th'�treet interch�nge
The interchange project directly affact's the operaHon of Highway 79 and how access is provided
to Richfield and the airport. Extensive coordination is needed in the development of this projecL C''
In the Consensus Dacument it was agreed that MAC would initiate a cooperative agreement with
Mn/DOT that would address funding, design, and construction of the interchan$o and indicated
that the Ciry of Richfield and Hennepin County mny also need to be parties in the agreement.
The FEIS incoaectty implies that only two possible alternates would be evaluated For the
interchange (V-131) of which one of the alternates is depicted in FEIS Figure W-9. Mn/DOT .
only views these two concepts as preliminary drawings that were developed to identify potential �•
impacts for the interchange project. These identified impacts were then to 6e addressed in the
Airport ffiS to cover the environmencal review requirements for the interchange project A
Desiga Study Report was then proposed to complete the design review requiiements aRer a-
prefeRed interchango layout was developed in cooperation with the City of Richfield, Hennepin
County, the public, commercial interests, MAC and Mn/DOT.
MAC, Mn/DOT and other interested parties need to confer to determine how to develop a
suitable corridor pian which addresses short and long range plans for Highway 77, The corridor E.
plan nceds to consider tho 77'� Street underpass, the eliminaHon of the exit tamp to Diagonal
Boulevard, the 66m Street interchange, and other potential changes on Highway 77, Detailed
concems covecing layout development, cnvironmental review, construction staging, and other
issues also need to be resolved. MAC should initiate the cooperative agreemrnt process at the
appropriate time.
I-�_�..�F�E�Y�
In the 2020 Lang Tenn Camprehensive plan impravements to I-35W and the FIighway 62
common section are identified and discussad on FEIS page V-t33. As stated improvements to T- F,
35W and Aighway 62 are being pursued by Mn/DOT to address existing transportation
problems. The project is scheduled ro be conSWcted in stages between 1999 aad 2003.
B. The MAC will initiate a cooperative agreement
with Mn/DOT to develop the frontage road, to be
finalized foilowing issuance of the federal Record of
Decision (ROD).
C. The MAC will initiate a cooperative agreement
with Mn/DOT, Hennepin County, and the`city of
Richfieid to develop the TH 77/66`" Street inte�change,
to be finalized following issuance of the federal ROD.
D. The comment is noted. The interchange project's
impacts are accounted for in the FEIS, as part of the
2010 LTCP. Mn/DOT is correct to note that the two
layouts were developed primarily to determine the
potential impacts and that a preferred interchange
design has yet to 6e determined and formalized
through a Design Study Report.
E. `As mentioned above (Response C), the MAC wiil
initiate a cooperative agreement with MnlDOT,
Hennepin County, and the city of Richfield to develop
the TH 77/66"' Street interchange. Consistent with
this comment, this agreement may also address the
MAC 's possible participation in a more general study
of the TH 77 corridor from I-494 to TH 62.
F. The comment is noted.
Aitport FEtS comment
June 15, 1998
�� �
page 3 of 4
The 7'N' Street undecpass of Highway 77, which is referenced in the Coruensus Docunre�:t page
8, has been identified for funding in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21" Century (TEA21).
Coordination with the City of Richfield, MAC, Mn/DOT and others is needed for this project.
i hw ,y 55 fAiuwathn Avem�el
The Highway 55 (Hiawatha Avenue) project, which is briefly refereuced in the transit discussion
on page V-134, also is expected to receive funding in the 1'EA2t bill. The fimding allows for
Light Rail Transit to be conshvcted along Hiawatha behveen Do�mtown Minneapolis and the
Aiiport with an extension to the Ma11 of America. A potentiai future extension to Dakota Co�mty
is also being considered., The LRT component is an addition to the planned highway
improvements that are currently ander conshuction to upgrade Hiawatha between I-94 and
Highwny 62. Coordination with the City of Minneapolis, MAC, Mn/llOT and others �vilt
continue to be needed for this project. , .
2) Costs of those needs (consWction and right-of-way),
Surface Transportation Projecks listed in the FEIS to provide short and long term access to the
airport are not included in the Metropolitan Council's 2020 Trmuportation Policy Plan because
the plan is Fscally constrained and funds have not been identified for these projects. The
response to Mi�/DOT's funding concem in the FEIS (page I-26) states that the needed
improvement projects "have since been included in the Metropolitan Council Transportation
Policy Plan adopted in 1997, but without a souree of funding". This statement maybe misleading
and needs clarification.
The current Transportalion Policy Plan, adopted in December, 1996, does inctude a narrative
discussing "Facilities Needed Beyond the Financial Capacity of the Region", but the projects
identifted in Ihis section are not considered to be projects "ineluded" in the 20-year plan. Since
the plan must be financially conskained, all projects included must be counted toward the total
anticipated revenues over the time periad of the plan, and be included in the regional air quality
analysis, as appropriatc. � , '
With regazd to funding for specific projects identified to comptate the MSP 1010 Long Term
Comprehensive P/mi, it should be noted that Highway 77/66`� Street interchange is not included
in the Metropolitan Council Transpartation Improvement Program (TII') cuaently under
development for 1999-2002. As indicated in the Conse��sus Document, this project would need
to be inc]uded in the Metropo►itan Councii's TIP if Mn/DOT funding is used. The draft 1999-.
2002 TIP is currently under pu6lic review, and is expected to be adopted by the Transportation
Advisory Boazd/Metropolitan Council in August, 1998. It wil) then be incozporated into the
State TIP. Projects can be added to the TIP tivough an amendment process or within next year's
T1P adoption cycle.
G.
H.
G. See comment E, above. The MAC agrees that
coordination between Mn/DOT, the City of Richfield,
the MAC, and others is needed for the referenced
project. However, as mentioned in the Final EIS and
Consensus Approach Yo Sudace Transportation Pioject
Deve%pmeni (FEIS Appendix F), the 77'h Street
undarpass project is not considered necessary to
support implementation of the MSP 2010 or 2020
LTCP.
H. See General Response 5 regarding LRT planning.
The MAC agrees that coordination between Mn/DOT,
the city of Minneapolis, the MAC, and others is needed
regarding the Hiawatha Avenue LRT project. �
1. The referanced response also states that the TPP
had an estimated 5190 million of unprogrammed
revenues to the year 2020. The estimated total
project costs shown in the Consensus Documeni
(Appendix F) are 510.5 million for the airport's 2010
projects (nos. 1 and 2) and approximately 5115 million
for the as-yet unprogrammed 2020 projects (nos. 3, 4,
5, and 6►. Therefore, the concern expressed in the
Met Council's TPP about airport-related projects being
"beyond the financial capacity of the region" was
directed mostly at the 2020 projects, which may
logicaliy be deferred in any case. In addition, the two
projects required to implement the 2010 LTCP
(frontage road realignment and the TH 77/66'h Street
interchange reconstruction) did not need to be
anumerated in the TPP because they were not
considered regionally-significant projects. As outiined
in the Conse»sus Documeni, the major off-airport
projects required to implement the 2020 Concept Plan
must be enumerated in a TPP if and when a decision is
made to canstruct a new west terminal.
J. See Response 1, above. Since there is no
immediate need for the 2020 projects, the MAC was
not concerned about their forma� placement within the
referenced TPP cycle, but believes it was useful to
make note of them. The Consensus Document
recognizes the need to formaliy enumerate the major
projects related to a new west terminal, if and when it
is determined that they are needed. Specifically, it
states that two regionally-significant projects (nos. 5
and 6) must be incorporated into a conforming TPP
before they could 6e implemented IFEIS Appendix F,
pages 9-10).
K. Working with Mn/DOT, the MAC will commence
cooriJination activities involving a cooperative
agreement, including further details on funding sources
for the airport frontage road and the reconstruction of
the TH 77/66'h Street interchange. Therefore, as
originally planned by the Committee, the MAC wili
initiate the process to have these projects included in a
conforming TIP, if required due to Mn/DOT funding
participation lan item yet to be discussed in detaill.
Airport FEIS comment page 4 of 4
Juna 15, 1995 . L. The figures presented in FEIS Table W-12 are
. transposed, and this will be corrected by information
presented in the ROD. The correct total number of
3) Impacts and mitigatiori associated with those naeds, households a�d businesses displaced due to highway
' improvements are:
The impacts associated with the 66ih Street interchange are discussed in various sections of the L�
FEIS Table W-12 on page V 141 has incorrect numbers for the displaced households and ' 2010 2020
businesses in 2010 and 2020, . Households 7 99
Businesses ' 14 22
Impacts and potenNa,l mitigation associated �vith the 1020 Concept plan aze not covered in FEIS. •
It was agreed that furiher environmental review would be done if/when the new terminal �� �• Commeni noted. The FAA and the MAC believe
decision is made for the identified roadways projects. that the FEIS provides a reasonabie assessment of the
impacts to be expected due to roadway improvements
4) The eonsequences if those road and transit improvements are not undertaken. assoeiated with the 2020 Concept Pian, but agree that
� further environmental review will be required.
The Surface TransportaGon committee had extensive discussions concerning what projects were
'Yoquired" for airport access specif cally because of the airport and what projects were "needed"
to address exisdng transporta6on needs near the airpork� The Consensus Dacument adequately �. N. Comment noted.
documents those discussions and conclusions.
lf/when a decision is made to relocate the terminal, the Surface Transportatlon Committee wiil need to
reconvene to determine if the identified projects and the scope of each of the projects in the Conse�uus �• 0. Comment noted. If a detailed plan proceeds to _
Document are sti►1 adequate to meet the transpoctafion needs of the airport. develop the new west terminal, the MAC or FAA will
reconvene a committee to address surface
transportation issues.
Sincerely
� ��kl ` "r.�.'
,�, Richard Stehr
Metropolitan Division Engineer
� . •'
i
��'�
�:,�� � �, �
t'z� ���." :��-�' � ". ; • ' • • • • i � _
ll 9 W:
June 15, 1998
Ms. Jenn Unruh
Metrogolitan Airports Commission
6040 28th Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450
Re: Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Dual Track Airport Planning Pmcess
Dear Ms. Univh:
'Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Final Eavironmental Impact Statement (FEIS)
for the Minneapolis-SL Paul (MSP) airport planning pmcess. We can appreciate the effort that
went into the preparation of the FEIS. Ti�is FEIS focuses on the addition of a north-south runway
at the current airport and the "no-build" aiternative. The oprion of building a new airport in
Dakota County has been removed from consideration.
The Minnesota Pollution Controi Agency (MPCA) sKaff has reviewed the FEIS. Reviewers
included staff in the Water Quality, Air Quality, Noise, Crround Water, and Tanks and Emergency
Response programs. As a result of this review process, the MPCA has a number of comments for
your consideration. These comments will be fonvarcled to the Environmental Quality Boazd for its
use in determining the adeqvacy of the FEIS. General comments are below, and aze foIlowed by
thosa which pertain to specific progrdm areas.
d�cope. We continue to have concerns regazding the scope of the project defined by the FEIS. As
aoted previously by the MPCA, the cumulative impacts of a variety of activities occurring at the
aiiport have not been discussed On page v of the Executive Suauaary of the FEIS, there is a list
of the components of this project. The list includes at least one project for which a sepazate
Envimnmentai Assessment Worksheet (EAV� was done in 1997 (Green and Gold Concourse
Connector). Minn. R 4410.2000, subpart 4, requires that connected or phased actions must be
considered in total in preparing the EIS. Since a traditionat scoping document is lacldng for the
proposed runway project, a discussion of minor environmental effects was not previously
undertaken. Thus, it seems appropriate to include such a discussion in the FEIS.
In late 1997, four other environmental reviews were submitted. The MPCA anticipates that there
will be upcoming capital projects which appeaz to be headed for separate reviews. The MPCA's
staff believes these projects should logically be analyzed with the proposed runway because of the
potential cumulative impacts. A mechanism for a cumulative review may be a"related
actions EIS" (Minn. R 4410.2000, subpart 5). It seems unlikely that including the 1997 or
upcoming projects in a joint review with the proposed runway would have caused an unreasonable
delay of the FEIS. The MPCA's staff believe that much of the necessary informarion is readily
availabie. '
520 tafayette Rd. N.; Sl. Paul, MN 55155-4194; (612) 296-6300 (Voice); (612j 282-5332 (TTY)
Regionai OKces: Duluth • BrainercJ • Detroit Lakes • Marshail • Rochester
E9� DOPo„�M EmWWer - Printed on �xycled PUPer confaining at hast 7A': fibers Irom PaPer recyrled bY consumers.
A. The Green and Gold Concourse Connector should
not have been listed under the proposed action; it is
actually a part of the no actian alternative which
includes committed projects in the MAC 1998 CIP.
The project has independent utility as discussed in the
following Response B; however, its minor effects are
included in the FEIS, Section V, for both no action and
MSP 2010 LTCP.
B. NEPA prohibits agencies from constricting or
avoiding environmental review by "segmenting"
independent phases of a larger project. NEPA and
MEPA regulations suggest agencies should evaluate
"connected," "cumulative," or sufficiantly "similar"
actions in a single environmental impact statement.
The test under NEPA and MEPA for determining
whether an agency should conduct environmental
review for two or more projects in a single EIS is the
extent to which the projects are interdependent. If the
projects have independent utility and an agency would
pursue one projact even if it determined not to
undertake the others, NEPA and MEPA do not require
that a single EIS address all proposals.
The impacts of the four 1997 projects are included in
the FEIS, although one is treated differently. The
�. extension of Runway 422 to 12,000 feet project is
treated as a related action with independent utility, but
its cumulative impacts with the proposed action are
nevertheless disclosed in the air quality (Tables A-7
and A-8, p.V-9), water quality (p. V-160? and noise (p.
V-86) sactions of the FEIS. The limited purpose of the
runway extension is to ensure that Northwest Airlines
continues to offer nonstop service to Hong Kong.
Extending the runway ensures that Northwest will
maintain its current five nonstop flights per week
through 2001, and may increase its flights to seven
B. per week by 2005. in contrast, the much broader
purpose of the MSP Alternative is to improve overall
airfield and airspace capacity, provide increased Ievels
of service for air transportation in the region, and avoid
delays that wili occur as a result of future growth in
aviation activity without substantial airport
improvements. The Runway 422 extension project is
not part of the MSP Alternative, and does not depend
upon the MSP Alternative for its justification. In
addition, the two actions do not share common timing
or geography. FAA and MAC recognize that Northwest
Aitiines (NWA) has recentiy announced suspension of
its current non-stop MSP to Hong Kong service
effective November 1, 1998. After this
announcement, discussions between MAC and NWA
have not determined if this change in service should
substantially influence progress on the proposed
extension of Runway 4-22 to 12,000 feet. Therefore,
MAC is continuing to proceed with the project.
The other three projects are part of the no action
alternative and their impacts are included in the FEIS,
Section V, for both the no action and MSP alternatives.
�
Supporting Docnments. The projecYs Section 4(fl Evaluation is cited to provide more
info=mation about impacts on the Minnesota. Valley Nationat Wildiife Refuge (MVNWR). The
Section 4(� document is currenfly on public notice, with the comment period concluding Jtme 30, . �'i.
1998. Similazly, the FEIS references the federal Environmental Assessment for the R�mway 422
extension. A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSn for the Runway 422 eadeasion has not
been made. It seems inappropriate to rely on documents tUat Lave not been finalized to support tbe
FEIS and meet the requirements of Minn. R 4410.2400. �
Sarface Water Quality. The FEIS did eacpand upon tfte surface water informa6on in the draft
EIS (DEIS). One puipose of an EIS is to provide information m guide approval decisions,
realizing tbat permits or other follow-up acfivities may occur. The commenis, below, aze'some of
the same issues that the MPCA has commented on in the DETS and other recent airport projects.
Tiie MPCA's staff believe tha environmentat rCview phase of the project is the appropriaie fotum
to present Uie surface waterconcems, the potential environmental impacts, and a range ofpossible
mitiga6on to adequately address those impacts. .
The FEIS indicates tLat the MSP altemative would not adversely impact the surface water quality
when compared with the No Action Alternative. , While this may be true, the mitigation proposed
for. the MSP alternative is inadequate to meet water quality standards. Appendix K contains the
Governor's cerlification for this project The certification states that this project will be D�
constructed in compliance with all pectiinent vrater quality standards: To achieve compliance as
certified, additional controls for airport runoffduring the deicing season aze required beyond wl�at
is proposed in the FIIS.
►
C. Section 4(f► of the Department of Transportation
Act, 16 U.S.C. § 303(c), requires the Secretary of
Transportation to consider the environmental impact of
transportation projacts, including airports, on parks,
historic sites, recreation, and wiidlife areas. Section
4(f) determinations often accompany environmental
impact statements, because the alternatives and
mitigation analysis in a Section 41f) determination is
relevant to the discussion of environmentai impacts in
an EIS. The Seciion 4(f) Evalnation for the MSP
alternative specifically references the FEIS, and
contains information relevant to the FEIS discussion of
the MSP Alternative's effects on the Minnesota Valley
National Wildlife Refuge. The comment period for the
Section 4(fJ Evaluaiion document expired fifteen days .
after the comment period for the FEIS. Federal and
state regulations require agencies preparing
environmentai impact statements to rely upon other
environmental studies if such studies inciude relevant
information. Nothing in Minn. R. 4410.2400, which
allows an agency to incorporate documents by
reference in an environmental impact statement,
suggests that FAA and MAC should �ot incorporate
the Section 4(f) fvaluation in the FEIS, or that the '
document improperly referenced the environmentai
assessment for the Runway 422 eMension.
D. The MPCA does not state the 6asis for its (
assertion that the coMrol measures listed in tha FEIS t
will be inadequate to meet water quality standards.
Control requirements to meat surface water quality
standards are established by the MPCA through the
NPDES permit process. As discussed in the
"Regulatory Background" portion of the FEIS in Section
V.BB, the mitigation measures and overall storm water
control approach proposed for the MSP and No Action
Alternatives (pages V-154 and V-155) are consistent
with NPDES procedures and documentation for MSP to
date. (Refer to the NPDES-required MSP Decision
Report for Storm Water Control Measures
(Matropolitan Airports Commission, December 1994},
and MSP Storm Water.Control Measures: Decision
Report Addendum, (Metropolitan Airports Commission,
November 1996)].
Within the context of the NPDES permit for MSP, the
MAC has worked closely with the MPCA to develop
and implement an overall surface water control
approach. The MAC will continue these efforts and
will comply with future MPCA surface water control
requirements as they are esta6lished through the
permitting process.
For nearly five years MAC has mo�itored the water
quality of the Minnesota River, 6oth upstream and
downstream of the airport, consistent with NPDES
requirements. This monitoring has not shown any
correlation between MSP discharges and river water
quality for the parameters monitored.
To the extent that the MPCA's assertion that the
proposed control system will be inadequate is based
upon issues pertaining to aquatic toxicity and total
suspended solids, please refer to further discussion
provided in Response E(aquatic toxicity) and Response
I (total susoended solidsl.
ToXicity and Toti S��n�ird 4olidc
The MPCA standards unit evaluated the Denver Intemationai Airport stady (Pillazd 1995). The
study was used in determir,;ng appropriate to�cicity infom�alion for gIycol, urea and sodium
formate. Based on the estimated acute toxicity, end ofpipe, five-day Ca;bonaceous Biological
Oxygen Demand (CBODS) effiuent limitations were estimated at approximately 35.5 milligrams
per liter (mg/L) and 71 mg/L. These estirnated limits are the monthly average and daily maximum
values, respectively. These estimated limits aze based on propylene glycol only. Actual pernvt
limits would also consider other compounds that are,present in tfie effiuen� 'Ihe FEIS indicates
ihat the dischazges from the outfalls would e�cceed these estimated limits on a consistent basis.
This indicates tbat,the glycol capture aitemalives discussed in the FEIS aze insuf�icient to
adeguazely ensure compliance with water quality standarcis. •
A number of compounds in ihe efflaent at the MSP faciliry contribute to toxicity. Some pollutants
also have a high biochemicat oxygen demand. Those pollutants constune dissolved oxygen in the
water and may cause a�ute or chronic toxicity problems to aquatic life. The FEIS should have F•
included the resulLs of the whole e8luent toxicity (WE1� tests. We are concemed
that the Metropolitan tlirports Commission (MAC) performed a preliminary� W�' ���ed
it. T'his unresolved issue must be addressed as soon as possible. .
E. The thresholds in this comment appear to assume
use of the aircraft deicing fluid (ADF) product with the
highest toxicity levels in the Pillard study (96-hour LC6o
= 710 mg/I). As discussed in the FEIS, utilization of
ADF products at MSP on the basis of aquatic toxicity
characteristics is a possible mitigation option. If
necessary, this mitigation measure could be
implemented in addition to source containment of ADF
(deicing pads and other measures), elimination of urea,
and effluent attenuation through enhanced detention
ponds. As illustrated in FEIS Table BB-7, there is a
wide variation in the aquatic toxicity characteristics of
available ADF products. Based on information provided
to the MAC, the least toxic of these products has a
96-hour LCso of 22,000 mg/I for fathead minnows and
44,000 mg/I for daphnia magna. These are obviously
much higher (less toxic) figures than what was
apparently assumed in the estimation of the 71 mg/I
and 35 mg/I levels.
Any standard set for aquatic toxicity will be set through the
NPDES permitting process. It is not known at this time
how factors such as laboratory vs. in situ (stream)
temperatures wili be addressed in the establishment of a
future aquatic toxicity thteshold. Under future versions of
M5P's NPDES permit, any actual toxic result would have
to be determined or confirmed through empirical data
generated through whole effiuent testing (WE'�
procedures. The empiricai outcomes of these procedures
cannot be projected with full confidence.
F. The purpose of the aquatic toxicity testing of
MSP storm water was to attempt, through an empirical
process, to determine a correlation between aquatic
toxicity and CBODfi levels, such that CBOD6 might
possibly be used as an indicator for aquatic toxicity.
The purpose of the FEIS is to evaluate the impacts of
the No Action Alternative as compared with the MSP
Alternative. The aquatic toxicity tests previously
performed on MSP storm water are not representative
of discharges that would occur under either aiternative.
There are three reasons why the test results do not
reflect actual discharges under the MSP and No Action
Alternatives. First, the aquatic toxicity tests used
samples of storm water taken upstream of MSP's
outfalls prior to detention ponds or prior to confluence
with non-airport run-off which does not contain
residual ADF products or urea (MnDOT roadway run-
off). The samples, thus, were not representative of
actual effluent discharge under existing or 2010
conditions. Second, the enhanced storm water controi
system (including deicing pads, elimination of the use
of urea at MSP, and enhanced detention ponds) that
MAC would impiement undar the MSP Alternative did
not exist when the samples were taken. Third, given
that there currently is a broad range of aquatic toxicity
Ievels amongst available ADF products, and that thase
levels are anticipated to decrease with future product
developments, it is not known what the aquatic
toxicity of the overall mix of ADF products at MSP wiii
be in 2010.
The FEIS refers to the aquatic toxicity testing as
"whole effluent toxicity" testing. This reference is in
error because, as discussed above, the samples taken
for the testing were not effluent samples.
The MAC acknowledges MPCA's desire to address this
issue promptly. The MAC wiil submit resuits of the
aquatic toxicity tests to the MPCA as part of the
NPDES permitting process. MAC understands that
there likely wili be a requirement for WET testing under
the next NPDES permit for MSP.
We aze pleasad that MAC is reviewing alternative materials to replace urea as the deicing
compound for the runways. A repiacement compound could help reduce the facility's auunonia
concentrations or toxicity. The FEIS indicated that research is currenUy being done on reducing G•
the toxicity of the formutated giycol products. The outcome of that fuhue work is iwY.nown.
ConsequenUy, as we recommended in our comments on the DEIS, the MAC should not rely on
unknown firtuce research to develop a control strategy for glycol products.
The EIS discusses the possibility of going through a pollutant trading process �vith upstream non-
point sources. This would allow the MSP facitity's discharge to exceed the ctuonic standards or
criteria This may be an optioa Two things must be done, however, before this type ofprocess
could pmceed. One, tfie MAC must show that they have made every teasonable effort to limit tbe
amount of runoff leaving the anport faciliry. Second, a more up-to-daYe Total Ma�timum Daily {-j.
Load (TMDL) needs to be done. That is necessary to accurately evaluate what point soiuces and
non-point soarces discharge above MSP. '• .
It does not appear that the storm water ponds provide treatment for Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
equivalent to the best available technology. '!'his is because the proposal does not follow the
preliminary standard design requirements as outlined in the criteria referenced in the FEIS. In
addi6oa, the FEIS dces nof show where the fuhue detention ponds or deicing pads wouid be
placed. The MPCA's staffestimated the pond atea that would be required to adequately treai the �•
MSP drainage azea as a whole. Approximatejy 55 acres would be needed for the wet
sedimentalion pond area required. The FEIS indicates tbat this amount of pond development is
not possible within the curzent planning efforts for the MSP 2020 Concept Plan. .Hence,
tec6nology based control shaTegy for TSS is not possible.
G. The materiaiin Section V.88.1.2 of the FEIS
regarding aquatic toxicity has been revised relative to
the DEIS. There is no reference in the FEIS to future
research and anticipated decreases in aquatic toxicity
of ADF products.
H. Comment noted.
I. The MAC and MPCA staff for five years have
discussed a technology-based standard for TSS control
for regulated discharge from MSP. In the NPDES -
required Decision Report for Storm Water Controi
Measures (Metropolitan Airports Commission,
December 1994), and in the Decision Report
Addendum (Metropolitan Airports Commission,
November 1996), the MAC stated its intention to meet
anticipated standards for TSS control at MSP with
enhanced detention ponds to meat a specific
performance standard. The performance standard
estabiished by MPCA is to match the pond ove�flow
rate to the settling velocity of a five micron particle
under a 1.0 inch rainfall event.
Over approximately the past year, MAC representatives
and MPCA staff have had several discussions in an
effort to come to agreement as to how to translate the
above-referenced performance criteria into design
c�iteria. Because it has 6een calibrated and field
verified, MPCA requires the use of "Detpond" or "Pitt"
model to size retention ponds. Representatives of the
MAC specializing in hydrology have worked through
this model on a detailed basis, using inputs.as directed
by MPCA staff, to size ponds thaf will meet the needs
of MSP run-off under the MSP Alternative. The MAC
summarized and su6mitted the assumptions,
calculations, and outcomes associated with this work
to MPCA in a memorandum dated June 3, 1998. On
the basis of this work, MAC estimates that
approximately 15 acres (combined) of detention ponds
would 6e required to meet the agreed-upon
performance standard under the proposed action (2010
LTCP1.
The assertion that approximately 55 acres will 6e •
needed in 2020 for adequate detention ponds is
apparently determined through use of an approximation
table presented on pages 5 and 79 of "Stormwater
Wet Detention Design for Water Quality Benefits"
(Robert Pitt, 19931. This table should be used as a
quick, simplified and conservative approximation of the
actual Pitt model when there is little available data on
the study site. The MAC disagrees with any effort to
establish pond sizing requirements based on estimates
using a simplified and relatively crude approximation of
a modeling technique, rather than using the actual
modeling technique itself.
Regardless of the size of detention ponds ultimately
employed at, MSP, point/non-point source trading could
more than offset the entire T5S load to the Minnesota
River from MSP. The FEIS identifies point/non-point
source trading as a possible mitigation measure. If
necessary, MAC could acquire rights to land upstream
and reduce soil erosion from that land. Based on daily
flow-weighted composite samples taken since
November 1993, MSP storm water has an average
annual TSS load of approximately 0.04 tons par acre.
Soil loss on tilled Minnesota cropland can exceed 10
tons per acre. in fact, the United States Geological
Survey estimates that agricultural erosion is responsible
for discharging nearly 1,500,000 tons per year of TSS
to the Minnesota River. Addressing erosion on
cropland upstream, therefore, could more than offset
the low levels of TSS that MSP discharges to the
Minnesota River.
Sevecal aptions may 6e available to resolve toxicity, TSS, and CBODS during the deicing season.
Onc uption would be to capture the surface run offwhich is not otherwise captured by deicing
pads, sweepers, or the plug and pump system, When equatized for flow and load, tius efIIuent
might then be discharged to ti�e Meiropolitan Council Environmentat Services (MCES) sanitary
sewer system for adequate treatment Diverting discharge to MCES would need to occur duriag
the deicing season, &om approximately November to May. Please note that appmval from MCES
wouid be required prior to impiementing this option. MCES interceptor capacity would also need
to be considered, however ao informadon was contained in the FEIS on ttus issue.
J.
River Cl�csification
The Minnesota River at MSP is classified as a class 2B, 3B, and aiso a 3C, 4A, 4B, 5, and 6 water,
not 2C and 3B as noted on page V-156. Table BB-3 on page V-157 is incomplete and needs a
description of class 3C and 2$d watcns added to the list Note that Class 2A waters aze to K'
maintain SAl� �t�t sport and wmmercial fish (trout waters). The 2A waters are not intended to
support and maintain w�arm and cool water Ssh.
9
J. The MAC is currently considering the option of
diverting storm water run-off from MSP to the MCES
sanitary treatment system during criticai winter and
early spring months. The FEIS identifies diversion to
MCES as a possible mitigation measure under the
NPDES permitting process. .
MAC cannot identify the diversion option as an
intended rather than potential mitigation measure in the
FEIS for the following reasons:
• MCES has in the past opposed accepting all
glycol-containing storm water discharges
generated at MSP, and repeated this opposition in
a June 17, 1998 comment letter on the FEIS
(comment 8).
. The MPCA has yet to demonstrate through the
NPDES permitting process that diversion is an
appropriate and necessary measure.
Diversion would alter the MAC's overall approach for
storm water controi developed over the last five years.
The MAC has never formally assessed the viability of
diversion of winter/spring discharge to the MCES
system for treatment. For the MAC to ultimately
implement such a significant change, further
investigation of development/constructability issues,
cost requirements and other factors wouid be
necessary.
K. According to Minn. R. 7050.0470, the
Minnesota River reach from Fliver Mile 22 to the
confluence with the Mississippi River is classified as
2C, 38, but not as 28. it is true that ciassifications
3C, 4A, 48, 5 and 6 also apply to this reach. In
addition, MAC has added descriptions of Class 3C and
28d waters to a revised Table BB-3, which is attached
to this response.
�
Table BB-3 (Revised) ���-�
Water Quality Classifications (Minnesota Rules, 7050.0220)
. --
Class Descri tion - Uses
1 DOMESTIC CONSUMPTION
1 B With a roved disinfection such as simple chlorination -> drinkin 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,
includin bathin and protected as a drinkin water source
2B Cool and warm water sport and commercial fisheries, all aquatic recreation,
includin b.athin , not protected as a drinking water source
2Bd Permit the propagation and maintenance of a healthy community of cool or warm
water sport or commercial fish and associated aquatic life and their habitats '
2C Rough fishery (species commonly inhibiting the waters under natural conditions),
and boatin
3 INDUSTRIAL CONSUMPTION
3B General industrial uses except food rocessin ; only moderate treatment required
3C Industrial cooling and materials transportation without a high degree of treatment
necessary to avoid severe fouling, corrosion, scale, or other unsatisfactory
conditions
4 AGRICULTURAL AND WILDLIFE
4A Irrigation uses (
4B Use b livestock and wildlife l,/
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
Ground Water. The ground water section has been e�anded with more background information
compared to the DEIS. It is incomplete, however, in describing present site contamination factors
that contribute to the complexity of the expansion process. The MI'CA previously requested that
�he Water Qucrlity Monitoring Report Comprehensive Hydrogeologic Characterizairon of thc
��meapolis-St. Paul lnternational Airport, (Wold Chamberlain Fiel�, August 1997 (Report), be
included in the ground water chapter of the FEIS. While the Report is referenced in the FEIS,
some information was omitted. For example, elevated IeveLs of acetone aze found in two
monitoring welis at the site. Acetone is likely the result of biological break-down of ethylene
oxide oi propylene glycol, both of which are used for aircraft deicing. The Health Risk L'unit
(HRL) for drinking water for acetone is 700 micrograms pec liter (µg/L). In one well, levels of
acetone during three consecutive ground water sampling events (November l 1, 1995-August 22,
1996) ranged from S l 00' µp�L to 290,000 µg/L. Elevated levels of acetone were found in a second
well though c�nrently not at,the HRL. To mitigate these impacts, it should be a priority for the
MAC to have all glycol collection systems redesigned and upgraded, noi just those associated with
the proposed runv✓ay.
L.
A"Release Site Map" was omitted from ihe FEIS. This map shows the areas of impacted soil
and/or ground water, as well as the locations ofleak sites.. This type of technical information and �.
detail is critical to how MAC should properly evaluate and proceed with the aixport expansion.
Mobile Sourcc Program. The MPCA's staff submitted a number of comments during the DEIS
ieview process regazding transportation and air qvality issues. 'Ihe FEIS has provided substantive
responses to the comments on the new runway alternative. The FEIS also addressed Conformity
with the Clean Air Act It addresses impacts from both on-airport (general confornuty) and off- N�
airPort (Transportation Confotmity) sources. Since the de minimis air emisston limit of 100 tons
per year is not exceeded'oy this altemative in 2010 and 2020, mitigation of carbon monoxide and
sulfiu oxides emissions are not required.
�The airport currently has an eacisting Ind'uect Source Permit The proposed long-range
improvements addressed in the FEIS will require future modifications to the existing permiG The ��
MAC staff must contact the MI'CA staffwfien these modifications occur.
L. MAC representatives have no recollection or
record of MPCA staff requesting that the referenced
August 1997 report be included in its entirety in the
FEIS. To include this entire report in the FEIS would
have been inappropriate because of the report's Iength.
Both federal and state environmental review
regulations express a preference for reducing
paperwork, and provide that agencies must incorporate
material into an EIS by reference to reduce bulk. (40
C.F.R. § 1502.21; Minn. R. 4410.2400.I Consistent
with these regulations, the FEIS incorporates the report
by reference, and provides summary information from
the report. The report is readily available to the public
for inspection.
MAC shares with the MPCA the desire to limit any
impacts of aircraft deicing fluids on groundwater. As
discussed in the FEIS, MAC will redesign and upgrade
all deicing Iocations under the. MSP Alternative, not just
those associated with the proposed new runway.
M. MAC representatives have no recollection or
record of MPCA staff specifically requesting that a
"Release Site Map" be included in the FEIS. The map
is attached to this response.
N. Comment noted.
O. MAC will contact MPCA staff to discuss an ISP
application for the 2010 LTCP.
Noise. Tt is tmclear iftwonoisa mitigation measures identified in the REIS are groposed to be
studiecl or to be employed. The noise mitigalion pian identifies the prohibition of Stage 2 aircraft
after December 31, 1999.' The pian aLso discusses limiiing activity in the nighttime hoius, 10:30
p.m. to 6:00 a.m., to Stage 3 aircrnR The FEIS states that the MAC is committed to perform the P, P. T'hese measures will be addressed in the Part 150
siudy. It also states that the 1999 Stage 2 res4iction and the nighttime noise restric6on will be update.
incorpomted and evaluated in the Part 150 shuly. The MAC is encouraged to employ these
mitigation measures upon completion of the study. •
Low frequency noise is an emergng issue. As identified in the approved noise mitigation program
for MSP, the MAC will develop models which will reflect the impact of ground level noise on
residential properties and mitigation for low frequency noise will be developed. The proposed low
frequency noise mitigation shall use measuring metrics that accurately identify the effects of low Q• Q• See Generai Responses 1 and 2.
frequency noise on neighboring teceivers and the sound insulation procedures employed on
stzuctures sball be designed to mitigate low frequency noise. Please send the low frequency noise
analysis and mitigation proposal to the Mf'CA's Noise Program Coordinator when it is completed.
The orientation and runway use departure and anrival procedures for the MSP airport altemative R. I R. Comment noted.
minimizes noise impacts to residen6al azeas susounding MSP.
._;�.
.,•:
' . �:;
; �•
. �, .
�r`, ;
, �y,:
?
. ' ,��;�'
� "'
r.
.. ? i:.
a.,:
. ,�; •
ahy:.
,
� .�,�
�.,�<.�
iu���'
�,.,,�:
�!� ,
�:
�,
;:
,
.
,
,
;,
;+" i
',tl i
. , . ��F .,
'. `'�.I
'�:;:
' `�?:,
,.,,.
,, .,
.1
:, .;
,_ �.
� .:;"
.,:.
i ,'�1
� �,� .
. ' � h
, ;.
. ,..
;,,
. . °' � �
. :.,,' ;
. ..�:
�,;`'i:
. ;
,,, ,'+;
� .,;,.;
;�, r
�'a
ri;�'�
. . :.@';t
u�?(
. .���Y����' �
. ..�; �
G' ,�!
.�q
...'!��:
� ;
►��b- � �, � ._.._.i �
— ___�...���.1 �
/ .... _ .._... �� _._... ,�__..
�
_ .__... � . . __� . _' _' ' _' " _
/ � . �.,. . __, � � _ .. �— - '1...
������_ . .' .. , ��.��•�
�
� ,, ; .� r
�. �
, � �t...
� �
� , � Q `
■ �� � ' t.
1���� l . � � '
,
i .� � �,� �
�
�
._ _ —
iil�l�..�`'�� r� .��
� �I�III I �. a - ""' �� �
� � � --;i ■
, ,.
—�...�. � ` � ;;,;�. • �
t�� _..:� __.. ,
�� _ :� -
�� �►
. ♦
� . ♦
_
. ..
r� .,,�''� _ �' ;,�, S„' ♦ ,, '�
�:, ,� - �� , �,.�� �-�` � • ���� ,,�, ! I
��
�.. . �
�_. � r�;: r., ,,Iii � �►.l ""�
� i�.►�;��'�'=v'" � � r i f�!1 _ f
_ -- - — ,, ��.�.►.. ;rl� ■ 1
"': �., • �t. 'y �'1,
_. ! � � *"�-"�. -��ir � �1
� � ..�r �. � � � � �
., '� �
,' �� `..�,' , ��t; �
.I �i f � Y � ,4�t:y � , �
.. P�� i �
, �� ����'.
� ' 1 � }� •i:� • \ •
.� _{� ;;! ��� � i•
,.
`� � � d '�t�=;.
( . . , .. �... � . �� �
\ ,� � ':. �,�
�,� �► . �
���i� � - .
� . . ,,�; -
`. : �i:,�
_ 1 � j F ./
� � �hp�.l.�'�/ ,.
`� 1 �rM`f(n�\ij� � �
\ �' k�� �h ? � '��(��� .
. •�7I��� .� • •
, -,,,� �' �i� : '
;;';,�\..(� t. •
. .. _ �'`�� �
N tu
�y 'L
UESCN ENqNEERiNG C�tpORpT10�! �,A�
�mw��a � acwu,arm o�an, NIAC PHASE 111
� � ,�.. � �� �«, .n.�..��,
HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION �
MSP AIRPORT ' AUG
RELEASE SITE II�AP F�G;.
, .�. :
0
���
The FEIS includes the 2010 surface noise mitigation proposal and improvements at the 66th Street
intecchange with Trunk Highway 7'7. Altemative A is the preferred alternative. It would result in $•' S. Alternatives in the FEIS are concepts oniy;
ihe smallesf increase in the trafHc generated noise levels for this area. Mn/DOT will study these and other reasonable
alternatives in their Design Study fleport.
The reliance on a DNL noise contour has been identified as ineffective in the assessment of noise
impacts on wildlife. An equitable agreement should be attained between the Federal Aviation
Administration, MAC and MVNWR regarding the noise mifigation meas�ues to be employed in
the MVNWR.
Wetlands., The FEIS appears to adequately'describe the predicted fill impact to wetlands and
othet waters from tt�e'cons W crion of the proposed projecC The actual acceptance and .
authori?ation by the regulatory agencies (including the MPCA) of the fiiling of the wetlands and
other waters will occur during the permitting process. Please refer Minn. R 7050.0185, sub. 9,
and 7050.0186 for the MPCA's requirements. These apply if there is a proposed physical
alteraiion that has the potential for a significant advetse impact to a designated use. of a wedand
and thaL is associaied with a project ihat requires.a National Pollutant Dischazge Elimination
System (NPDES) pe�it,'a 401 certification under pazts 7001.1400 to 7001..1400. or a state
disposal system petmit
The FEIS indicates that MAC fias discussed wetlands issues with numerous entities. These
included the U.S. Army �ozps o£Eugineers and the Deparhnentof Naturat Resources. Topics
included the alternalives to wetiand filling and the alternatives for wetland compensatory
mitigation. The dooument must also indicate the pmposal must be in compliance with MF'CA
water quality standards for wetland impacts. As noted on page I-5, the proposal must obtain a 40.1
water quality certifica6on from the MPCA in order to obtain the federal 404 permit. We strongly
recommend that the MAC inciude MI'CA in the fuhuc disciissions and site visits regazding the
aspects of the pmject that will be addmssed in the MPCA 401 certification
To conclude, ihe FEIS did address a number of the MPCA's comments on the DEIS, pazticularly
regarding transportalion, air. quality issues, and tanks and/or pipelines. We.appreciate the
:additional information on those topics. We aze disappointed, however, thai other issues raised in
ihe MPCA's comments on the DIIS were not compietely resolved in the FEIS. V✓e anficipafed
t6at the FE[S would resolve our previously stated wncerns about water quality, not that ihe �.
MPCA would have to make substantially similaz comments on the FEIS as on the DEIS. It has
been a fivstration for staff to make comments to the MAC or ask for information and not receive
an adequate response. We hope to work with the MAC in the future to resolve tfiese issues.
Thank you for the opporiuniiy to review this projecL If you have any questions, please contact
Bazbara Conti, of my staff, at 6121296-6703.
Sincerely,
.���� � � �
p _ , Peder A. Lazson �
��`� Commissioner
PAL:sIf
cc. Gregg Downing, Jon Larsen - Environmental Quality Board
Glenn Orcutt - Federal Aviation Administra6on
Scott Knowles, Mazkell Lanpher , Innocent Eyoh, Brian Timeison, Dann White, I-Ioward
Markus - MPCA
Enclosure
T. See Generai Response 7.
U. MAC wiii comply with properly promulgated MPCA
permit requirements.
V. The MPCA's water quality standards duplicate
the sequencing process that must be used to address
alternatives for both the Corps' Section 404 permit
procedures and the WCA replacement plan procedures.
in brief, the sequencing process requires an applicant
for a wetiand parmit to avoid and minimize wetland
impacts where practicable and feasible and then to
provide compensatory mitigation for impacts which are
unavoidable. When the Section 404 permit appiication
is submitted, a copy will be provided to the MPCA for
purposes of its Section 401 water quality certification
review.of the project. �
Pre-application meetings for wetland issues which have
taken place thus far have included only those agencies
with permitting authority since there have been several
iarge issues to resolve in order to ensure that MAC is
proceeding in a manner acceptabie to those agencies.
It has not been MAC's intention to purposefully
exclude MPCA from any meetings which have taken
place. The MAC weicomes the input of the MPCA and
fuliy intends to extend an invitation to the MPCA for
any future meetings.
W. All MPCA written comments on the DEIS are
addressed in the FEIS. The MAC, through meetings,
submittai of draft responses, and telephone
correspondence, has coordinated closely with the
MPCA to address water quality comments which were
raised in the February 13, 1996 comment letter on the
DEIS. The MAC believes that these comments have
been comprehensively and appropriately addressed in
the FEIS. The MAC is not aware of specific comments
from the February 13, 1996 letter which reappear in
the June 15, 1998 MPCA comment letter on the FEIS.
MAC is committed to work with MPCA to resolve
these issues.
MINNESOTA PLANNING ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY �BOAAD
June.15, 1998
JCRII Ultillll '
Metropolitan Airports Commission
6040 28th Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450
Re: Dual Track Aiiport Planning Process '.
Final Environmental Impact Statemeni
Detemiination ofAdequacy
Dear Ms Unruh, �
656 Cedar St.
SL Paul, MN 55155
Telephane:
612-196d985
Facsimik:
612-296�3698
T1Y:
800•fi27•3539
www.mnplan
statemaus
I have reviewed the Final Environmental lmpact Statement for the Dual Track Airport Plannirig
Process.
We would like to offer these comments for your oonsideration. .
There aze two major perspectives from which the adequacy of this docucnent must be viewed:
(a) individual compliance with the specific requirements of the EQB rules relative the prerequisite
etements necessary for technical compliance regazding the form and format of the document, such
as evidence of compBance with distri6u6on requiremenis, notices, franscripts, etc. the document
itself contains all of the requisite sections; and
(b) that it addresses the potentially significant issues and altematives relevant to the overall' `
developenentproject.
The Dual Track Final EIS represents an aicnost unprecedented opportunity ro appropriately review
the range of projects meant to support the maintenance and expansion of Minneapolis - Saint Paul '
lntemaGonal Airport (MSP) to serve regional transportation needs through the 2010 planning
horizon. As such it should deal comprehensively with all planned and reasonably foreseeable
ncGons which may be implemented. As a consequence ttris letter of comment will touch upon a
range of subjects as they relate to these spec�c perspecGves.
With regazd to the informdtion needs as specified at 4410.2800 subp.l, these matters will be
disposed of at the time of the adeguacy decision by the completion of submittals by MAC to the
EQB. ,
Chapter 4410.22800 subp2. outtines the conditions whereby persons may offer comments. lt is
necessary that the Responsible Govecnmental Unit (RGU), in this case the MAC, respond
meaningfully to all substantive comments. . �
Specific items of concem to member agencies of the Environmental Quality Boazd may be •
commented upon by those agencies themsetves relative to the particulaz technica! iterns and general
concerns they may 6nd important. The EQB itself will try to avoid duplicadon in this regazd.
However, there aze some issues and concems which merit mention on the basis that they may not
be otherwise noted.
Governmental Appiovals. The list of govemmenta] approvals required should correcUy reflect the
inc]usion of any pertinent Programmatic Agreement(s) in force 6etween the MAC (or FAA) and the
State Historic Preservation Office. This should also reflect any necessary updatimg to include any
lands acquired for the Runway 4-22 extension project (e.g. Bureau of Mines land or other). �•
The list of govemmental approvals also mentions a Metropolitan Council Air Quality
Transportation Conformity requirement. This should be revietived for accuracy, insofar as there is
an MPCA Conformity requirement in this regazd. Atthough tlie modeling for this conformity
principaily uddresses surface traffic impacts (e.g, intersecdon air quality analysis), thete is a geueral
requicement to conduct analysis for those designs that have a regional impact, without regazd to
source (i.e. whether surface, airbome, waterborne traffic, etc.). Certainly the Dual Track EIS has
regional transportation planning impacts, and therefore should be compliant with the Comformity
rule. Piease confirm that MPCA find that Conformity requirements aze met, or add any additional
necessary data to the documenG
0
0
A. The body of the federel Record of Decision
(ROD) refiects the inclusion of the Pragrammatic
Ag�eement on Histo�ic P�eservafion as a condition
implementing the new runway project (see aiso FEIS
Appendix C and the ROD Sections VII.B and X). Any
similar requirements for the referenced Runway 4/22
extension project, if needed, would be finalized in
connection with that projecYs final environmental
documentation. FAA and MAC recognize that
Northwest Airlines (NWA1 has recently announced
suspension of its current non-stop MSP to Hong Kong
service effective November 1, 1998. After this
announcement, discussions 6etween MAC and NWA
have not determined if this change in service should
substantially influence progress on the proposed
extension of Runway 4/22 to 12,000 feet. Therefore,
MAC is continuing to proceed with the project.
The two surface transportation projects required.to
implement the 2010 LTCP (frontage road reaiignment
and the TH 77/66'h Street interchange reconstruction)
are not considered regionaily significant roadway
design improvements and, therefore, the referenced
generai conformity requirement does not apply and the
intersection air quality analyses included in the FEIS
Section V.A.1.2 is sufficient from an air quality impact
study standpoint. However, as outlined in the
Consensus Dacument (FEIS Appendix F, pages 10 and
11), the 2010 LTCP roadway projects must be
included in a conforming Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) in order to qualify for Mn/DOT funding
participation, and the MAC will initiate further
coordination on the matter.
Section V.A.1.2 of the FEIS contains a project-levei air
quality analysis for the TH 77/66'" Street interchange,
which indicates peak hour carbon monoxide emissions
would not approach nor exceed national or state
ambient air quality standards. The Consensus
Document (Appendix F) also recognizes the need to
formally enumerate the major projects related to a new
west terminal, if and when it is determined that they
are needed. Specifically, it states that two regionally-
significant 2020 projects (nos. 5 and 6) must be
incorporated into a conforming TPP before they could
be implemented (FEIS Appendix F, pages 9-10).
However, there is no immediate need to enumerate the
2020 projects, nor to pursue conformity
determinations, until such time that further pianning is
undertaken to develop the west terminaC
Alterna6ves. The discussion of alternatives is compromised to the extent that the Minnesota
Legislature has mandated that no new airport alternative will be considered. The scope of the,
origina( state environmenta! review document has changed in this regard, and a strategy bom of
practicality is seen in limiting fiuther analysis and discussion of the New Aiiport Altemative. This
does, 6owever; make it imperative that the analysis of MSP Expansion be comprehensive and
complete; with disclosure of potential environmental, economic, employment and social impacts of
the Preferred Alternative, the No-build Altemative, and any olher su�h alternatives of airport layout
and design as may appropriately be considered. Analysis and discussion should reflect the
cumutative impacts of each of these scenarios, on each of the relevant environmental impacfs
described and enumerated in this docwnent. While EQB niles state that alternatives which were
originally scoped , but later eliminated based on information developed tluough the EIS process
should be briefly discussed, the presentation, in detail, of no other alternative except the No-build
Altemative is somewhat problematic. While more compiete analysis of other alternatives may be
found in previous documents, and incorporated here by reference, at least one other feasible
alternative (apart from the No-build) with analysis as nearly as complete as is prac6cal should be
offered for comparison witli the Pteferred Alternative.
Midgation measures. The niles require this section to identify ihose measures that could reasonabty
eliminate or ininimize any adverse environmental, economic, employment, or sociological effects
of the proposed projeck We nre awaze that the subject of midgation for noise impacts neaz MSP
due to low frequency noise is currently under discussion between MAC and its neighbors: While
the Duat Track Final EIS may be found adequate without a detailed mitigadon agreement per se,
there.is an expectation that the range of potential impacts is adequately analyzed in the EIS, and
appropriate mitigations �liscussed. A reviewer of the document should have enough information in
the document itself to make aKeasonable appiaisat, based on the data, metrics, and methodology
of%red therein. Similarly, mitigation or compensation for impacts to tlie Minnesoia Valley Nationai
Witdlife Refuge continuas to be a topic of negotiation which has to this point been unresoived. The
EQB rules at A410.2300 subp. H requires that major differences of opinion concerning significant
impacts of the proposed proiect on the environment should be discussed. In this case where there
appears to still be significant disagreement between federal agencies (FAA and Departmenl of
Interior) a thorough analysis, including a description of aliemate methodologies, even if in dispute,
would be necessary. .T6e tevel of analysis currenUy in the Final EIS does not give the revie�ver
sufficient information to arrive at a fair appraisai..
Incorooration bv reference in the EIS. Chapter Q410.2440 provides that the RGU shall incorporate
material by reference where the effect will be to reduce bulk without impeding govemmentat or
public review of the projecG However, the nile goes on to say ihat no material may be incorporated
by reference unless it is reasonably available for inspection by interested persons within the time
allowed for comment. There aze muttiple instai�ces within the Final EIS which to do not meet this
condition. -
1. 5ection 4(� Evaluation. This document is developed as a separate extensive document, and
summarized in the Final EIS. However; the Section 4(� Evaluation document itself is not in
final form insofaz as it is cursently available fer public revie�v end comraent until June 30,
1998. Cuaent coaespondence indicates that there is stil( no ciosure on either the extent of
impact, neither precise nature of impact, nor method of midgatidn or compensation for
oyerflights of the Wildlife Refuge. Further, if this document is meant to addxess ali lands
potentially affected by the DOT 4(� Evaluation requirement, there is no discussion of
additional tand included in the runway protection zone(s) for the extension of Runway 4-22.
Pazceis of land to be accjuired by MAC such as the Bureau.of Mines land, contain feahues
which may be of azcheological or historic importance and potentially subject to Section 4(�
review. Such status should be discussed in the Final EIS and dealt with by affirmation or
negative declaration.
r
��
�
B. See General Response 6.
C. See Generai Responses 1, 2 and 7.
D. The FEIS is consistent with FAA requirements
regarding the referenced documents. The extension of
Runway 4/22 is not part of the MSP 2010 LTCP. This
project has independent utility regardless of whether
the 2010 LTCP is implemented. Therefore, the
extension of Runway 4/22 is not evaluated in this Final
EIS or the recently-pubiished Section 4(f) Evaivation,
and its impacts—such as the effects on the Bureau of
Mines property—are addressed in a separate
environmental document. The Section 4(f) Evaluation
addresses the impacts on, and mitigation for, the
refuge. Comments and responses are included in the
Record of Decision. Further, where there was overlap
of environmentai effects between'the Runway 4/22
environmental document and the FEIS, the cumulative
impacts of the runway extension were aiso examined
in the FEIS (see Responses E and F). See aiso General
Rasponse 7.
In regard to the state process, the issue wiil be
addressed in the MAC's Report to the Minnesota
Environmental Quality Board which will also include the
information requested in your comment labeled "G".
• � . ..........
2. �,xtension of Runway 422. 5imilarly, a commitment was made to appropriately incorporate
arwlysis of environmental review into the Duai Track Final EIS for this project It is
problematic that the federal Environmental Assessment previously conducted has not been E.
finalized and publicly released by the FAA. The inforntation in flus EA is therefore not
reasonably availabie for inspection in a timely manner. A possible solution is to supplement che
Final EIS by inserting the inforn�ation directly, ruther than by referencing it
�umulative effects. There is continuiog concem that the cumulative effects of the total of aq
ptanned and reasonably Foreseeable development projects included in the 2010 Long Term
Comprehensive Plan (LTCP) aze not ndequately described in the analysis of the Dual Track Final
EIS, Specifically, the second paragraph of a letter from MAC on Mazch 17, 1998 on this subject
states,
"Environmental evaluation of the permanent extension of Runway 4-22 will be
integrated with the Dual Track Environmental Impact StatemenG We aze currently
preparing the Draft Final EIS for public and agency review, und will incorporate any
potential impacts associated with this extension into the final documenG It is my
understanding that evaluaUon of the cumulative effects of Runway 4-22 extension in the
Final EI3 will not require recirculadon of this document"
A re'view of the information in the Final EIS conceming the Runway 4-22 extension shows Iittle
additional discussion of cumulative effects. One chart of figures regazding noise impacts is
assumed to be the only possibie effect of the addition of this project. Other references to the
Rumvay 4-22 extension refer back to the above mendoned flawed EA. Environmental impacts of
all typos are not accounted for reladve to lands to be acquired for the runway protection zone(s).
A thorough-going discussion of cumulative effects would, in fact, not Focus on the addition of the
Runway 422 extension project; but rather would discuss the total burden in each of the impact
categories of all of the projects included in the 2010 LTCP, as well as those projecu currently
planned or recendy initiated which might othenvise have received environmenta( revie�v.
Individual cases in point would be the De-icing Pad Project, which is also mentioned in the Final
EIS, as wetl as other projects listed in the cumulative environmental review document of project in
the current Capita! Improvement P(an. (CIP). Some of those projects have received individual
environntentsil review in the form of Environmentnl Assessment worksheets (EAWs) or tiave been
individually categoricatly exempted from review, Such exemption is not a basis for omitting from
analysis the project's potential impact under cumuladve effects.
In summary, we would hope to see a signifcant chapter of discussion relative to the "unresolved
issues" mentioned in the Executive Summury, of the Low Frequency Noise impact to the City of
Richfield, and impact bf flights over the Minnesota Valley Nationa! WildliFe Refuge. Substantia(
zesponses to comments and supplementation of information to the Finai EIS in the form of
addenda, appendices, or supplement will help insure ti�e adequacy of this document.
Thank you for this opportunity to provide comment. We aze grateful for your cooperadon in this
matter. We look fonvazd to the presentation of llus document for a decsion on adequacy in the neaz
future.
Sincerely,
�,�-�,. �,,.-,.:. �.._�
7on Lazsen, Principa! Planner
Envitonmental Review
F.
�
... .. .... .... ..... .............�.. .. ..
E. The potential cumulative impacts with the
exception of the Bureau of Mines property acquisition
were included'in the FEIS as discussed in Response F.
The environmental review process for the proposed
project has provided ample opportunity for review and
comment. A scoping memo describing the project was
sent on October 2, 1997 to affected municipalities and
agencies for comment on alternatives, issues and
concerns to be addressed in the EA. The Draft EA was
distributed for review and comment on Novem6er 18,
1997 and a public hearing was held on December 18,
1997. FAA has determined that the project has
independent utility and wouid be undertaken
irrespective of the 2010 I.TCP, which is the NEPA and
MEPA test for'connected or cumulative actions, and
therefore NEPA and MEPA regulations do not require
environmental �review in a single document.
Consequently, there is no need to supplement the FEIS.
F. The FEIS includes all the potential cumulative
impacts with the Runway 422 extension project
except for the Bureau of Mines (BOM► property
acquisition in the expanded RPZ. The cumulative
impacts are not significant; in addition to noise
impacts, air quality is addressed on page V-9 in Tables
A-7 and 8, and water quality on page V-160 under
Total Suspended Solids. The impact on the affected
BOM property will be to restrict future uses to open
space, wildlife habitat and light recreational uses open .
to the public.
The FEIS includes, in each impact category for the
2010 LTCP, all projects in the no action aiternative
except for the runway 422 use system which will be
supplanted by the new runway.
G. MAC will su6mit a report to the EQB which will
contain the written comme�ts on the adequacy of the
FEIS with the responses, as contained in the ROD, and
a discussion of the unresolved issues. The EQB wiii
review the FEIS and the MAC report at one of its
scheduled open board meetings, hear any requested
testimony from interested parties, and determine if the
FEIS is adequate in �egard to the state process.
P
.�i
i� �091�C11
t'lanning Jor the tuture
r �
7uno 17,1998
Ngel D. Fmney :
Motropolitan Auports Commission '
6040 28t6 Avenue South
MinueapoL's; MN 55450
� RE: Minneapolis / St Paul Finul Environmental7mpact Statement
Metropolitw Council Referrai File No.16041=9
Dcar Mt Finney:
At its meeting on Sune ] I, 1998, the Metropolitan Council adopted the attached staff report with thc following �
Findingk and Recommendation:
Finding Number S was modified ar the Co�mel meeting on J�me I 1, 1998.
FINDINGS:
I. . "[1e auport improvemenis considered in the dcaft Final Eodvonmental Impact Statement for the MSP 2010
& 2020 development ptan are consistrnt with the Aviation Chaptcr of the Metropolitan Development , ,g �
Guide; a
2. The Rwway 4/22 exunsion is consistent with ihe 2010 LTCP and the Aviaoion Guide; it'u '1 �
supponed by the Council: A fmding of no significant impact (FONSn is recommended in the FEIS; '
3. The aviation forecast sensitivity analysis wns appropriate for FEIS evatuation. 'the forccasts will .�.
wrntually need updating and the FE7S shouid iden6fy a timetable and sequencing for such activity in
relarion to m�plementation of fhe 2070 LTCP aud associated mitigation programs; ,'
4. In p�evious action We Council concuned with the ovecall MSP Noise Mitigation Progam; � 4'•
5. 1Le Council recognizes tLat the newNortL/South runwaywill 6ave noise impacu on thc City of 5�
RicLfiold, acknowledges receipt of the city's plan for mitigation and, thereFore, tuges wntinucd
, discussion of a muNally acceptable noise mitigation prosram; •
S.
6. T6e FIIS cotrectly identifies fhe ueed w update the MSP airport zoning ordinance and tho Council
supports its implementntion by the joint zoning boaril;
7. 7Le drah FEIS does not include funding iuformatioq and project costs shouid be updazrA to include 7•
recently npproved and proposed capital projec�; .•
8. Council staff reaffim�s its previous position (as discussed on document page A.I 1-2) that the approaeh of 8�
diverting all GIS W from MSP detentian basins for tceatment at metropolitan wastewatcr facilities is not an
accepbble tong-range solution;
ZWEitFtllhSlttet .Sl.Pavi,piWKsutyS$lOt-1636 16121'391�G56559 Fa291�FvSD 7DDR1Y291�05)06 NetroinhlJne2b-3'/8D
MFo�YQmpoYaiOmLa�v
1. Comment noted.
2. Comment noted. FAA and MAC recognize that
Northwest Airlines (NWA) has recently announced
suspension of its current non-stop MSP to Hong Kong
service effective November 1, 1998. After this
announcement, discussions between MAC and NWA
have not determined if this change in service should
substantially influence progress on the proposed
extension of Runway 4/22 to 12,000 feet. Therefore,
MAC is continuing to proceed with the project.
3. The forecasts wiil be evaluated in the Part 150
update which shouid commence in 1999.
4. Comment noted.
5. See General Responses 1 and 2.
6. MAC is currentiy in the process of preparing pro-
posed zoning regulations for the north-south runway.
7. Project funding sources are uncertain; project
costs will be updated in subsequent CIPs.
8. The MAC acknowledges the Met Council's
concems regarding the scanario of Metropolitan
Council Environmental Services (MCES) accepting and
treating residuai (that escaping at-source containment)
GISW from the airport.
The MAC is giving consideration to the option of
seasonally diverting residual GISW from MSP detention
ponds to the MCES system for treatment in
conjunction with a comprahensive at-source giycol
containment program. The MAC understands that any
serious consideration of this option can not proceed
without formai discussions with the Met Council
regarding the terms and conditions under which it may
be viable.
�VIfLE� L. f �p11Cy
Page 2
9. 1'6e Councit can ouly continue W provide for treahuent of designated amounts of GIS W flow in the short-
tecm, ns capacity is availabte in the metropolitan system. Other on/off-site methods of tream�eat and
d;sposal necd so be pursued by cLe MAC az MSP, as dicCued by fuuue NpDEs permic pazameurs which 9. 9. Comment noted.
will be determined by new !ow flow and wasm load altocation studies to be perfoimed on the Minnesata
River by the MPCA. The MAC hss mdicatu! in the FEIS thet they will meet the new NPDFS
requiremeucs; 70. If, through the appropriate permitting procedures
with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and the
l0. Council stnffrecommends inctusion ofpermanent deeention pond;ng priorm discharge of '� 0. Minnesota PoUution Control Agency, it is determined
w�w� runoffinwMo[haLalcetoceducesedimentnndnuairntloadingsonthesrareprotecrod that sueh a pond is required with future MSP
� development, the MAC will construct and use such a
t 1. 'tt�e proposed MSP development will impact the Mimesota Valley National Wildlife Rotuga The FAA pond.
has therefore, p�eparcd a Memoraddum of Ageement to negotiate a midgazion proglam. The Council
supports the FAA, MAC md USFWS in negotiating this matter and encourages swift resolution oFany 11.
',- remaining di$'erences rolating to midgation of praposed impacts ro the Re(uge;
12. The Council was a signatory ta the "Conseazvs" re�wrt on highway improvemrnts nadal to serve MSP
expansion devetopment That docwnrnt recommcnded that the MAC and MnUOT enter inm an 1 Z.
. inmagency agroement concoming planning and implementndon of the TH77/661h Street interchenge and
nuport Crontage road.
13. Approva► of We MAC 1998 CIP for the Public Parking/Aum Rental expension project (and proposed t,� 3.
trnnsit hub), is 6eing implemented and should be discussed in the FEIS.
t4. The FEIS s6ould include infortnadon on ehe process for addr�sssing the proposed LRT ]ine between
dr s
downtown Minneapolis, the Aicport, and Mall ofAmerica. It should outline the aviation issues rolevant to .) 4.
implementation of the proposed LRT lina
RECONIIv1IIJDATION:
Tfiai the Cauncil's commenu and concems on the attached refemal ieview be forwarded m the.MAC nnd FAA for
ffie'v consideration in completing the MSP FEIS process.
Si crn ,
CurtJo6nson
CLair
Cl:lv
Attacfunents �
cc: Gleo Otcutt, Federal Aviadon Administradon �
• Jrnn Un*uh. MAC •
Chaunccy Case, Traati�wrtation Planning
]ohn Knti, Sector Reprcseutative
11. See General Response 7.
12. MAC will work with Mn/DOT to prepare
interagency agreements, as appropriate.
13. The auto rental/parking expansion project is listed
under the no action alternative, page III-4, and its
impacts included. Implementation of the t�ansit hub is
proceeding in general accordance with the proposed
project in the CIP. MAC has an agreement-in•principle
with NWA on acquisition of the affected NWA parcei.
14. See General Response 5.
�
Mettopoli�an Council Meeting oClune I 1, t998 p�E� 3
Motion carried.
BeRort of the Transportation Committee
1999 Performance-Based Funding for Rural/Small irban Tr�n�it
Providers (EXHIBIT C) ,
It was moved by Newcome, seconded by M. Smith:
"That the Metropo/itan Cauncil adopt the second year ojt/ie perjormance-based funding
aeion to reimburse Rura!/Smul/ Urban trnnsit programs up to the 1997
urba oca! peer group average of 54.65 per passenger trip jor ! 999 Metropolitan
uncil ndittg. "
Motion carried.
(EXHIBTT D) '
It was moved by Newco , s nded by M. Smith: '
"Tha1 the Metropolitan Caunci!'s commenu and cancerns on the attached rejerra!
review be jonvarded to the Me�ropolttan Airporrs Commission (MACJ and the Federa/
Aviation Administratton (FAA) for U'r considerariorc in canpleting the MSP Final
Environmental Impact Statemenl(F
Peterson noted that there were two opp v n this matter at the committee meeting and
stated thet in September, 1997, MAC was requested to provide information to the City of
Ric�eld that has not yet been forthcoming. He stated his belief that the Council needs to bring
this matter to some kind of resolution, and suggested th ' ohnson moet with Jeff Hamiet,
F�cecutive Dir�ctor of MAC, and direct him ro send an om we d representative to meet with
the city of Richfi�ld in arder to resolve this issue. He not t Richfield's only other
alternative would 6e to resort to legal action.
Cheir Johnson responded that if thcra is anything the Council has not tried y�t that might work,
he would be willing to pursue that course oF action. He poin[ed out that one thing that hasn't
bern tried is putting a small group of policy board members and elccted dtitCrdSS4ogether
without staff attendance to see if they coutd work out some solutions.
7im Prosser, City Manager for the ciry of Richfield, addressed the Council aniistated that a
mitigation plan has been developed by the city and submitted to MAC; however, MAC has not
included it in their Final Environmental Impact Statement. He stated his belief that it is MAC's
legal responsibility to prepare an environmentat impact statement that idenrifies impacts and ,
miHgation plans. In the absence of this, he urged the Council to include in its commenu a
statement that the city of Richfield has deveioped a mitigation plan which has been implemrnted � '
as part of this project. He stated that the basis tor this request is that thair mitigation plan
addresses the city's concems, was prepared 6y an indepondent consultant and�was prcpared in
conformance with guidelines establishod by thc Metropolitan Council. He further noeed that the
e
Metropolitan Council Mecting oCJune 11, t998
Aviation Chaptar of thc Council's Mevopolitan Development Guido contains a provision
allowing the Councii to put a hoid on any pians by MAC thac have a negativo impact on
metropolitnn development until changes aze made or �he legisla�ure deals with thc issue.
Page 4
Chair Johnson asked Prosser if it would bo possiblc for tho mayor and city council members to
sit down with MAC members, himself and Peterson to try to reach a meeting of the minds or
some accommodation. Prosser respondod that h�'wasn't sure about the schedules of these
individuals vhether or not they would be available or have the time; however, he stated his
belief that city uncil members might try to make time to work out theso issucs.
Discussion ued to whetha or not MAC would havo to accept the Council's eomments,
regardless c �r or not those commenu inctude a refercnce to Richfi�ld's mitigation plan.
It was pointed out that the Council's comments azo advisory only and do not need to be included
by MAC in the Final Environmental Impact Stetament (FEIS). Packer asked what recourse the
Council has ro contest the ''t should be necessary after it has been completed and at what
point the Council can mally ak difference in this process.
Jeff Ha,miel of the Metropo ' rts Commission addressed the Council and stated that the
commission would not ignore the Council's comments. He noted that MAC has worked with the
Council sincc 1989 on the dual track process and that miugadon mensures were developed as
pert of the Part 150 Noise Mitigatian ptan some ears ago that called for MAC to insulau
housing around the airport to raduce the noise i act on residenu. He stated that MAC would
conHnue to work together with all parties to re 'able solutions and that, although there are
�ifficutHes and policy difforences betwoen a the city, they aze maldng progress. He
�commented that MAC is reviewing Richfietdts pla , esponse is being prepazed and a meoting
will be scheduled soon to reviaw that response with the city. He furthez noted that the
Commission is committed to meet undi this issue is resolved and that, if the Councit wants to
take this out of staff s hands, he could commit cammissionasaa�+�rk on this issue.
Peterson suggested adding languago to finding #5 that would owledgc rcceipt of the city's
mitigatlon plen.
It was moved by Peterson, seconded by M. Smith, that finding #5 be amended to rcad:
"S. The Council recognizes that the new Narrh/South runway w e i ue
impacu on the City ojRiclfeld, aclmowledges receipt ojdte ci 's plan for
mitigatian and, d�erefore, urges continued d'ucussion and nego�tibn of a
mutually-acceptable noise mitrgation program. "
Motion carried.
Wolfson asked if policymakors would be participacing in these meetings. Chair Johnson
responded that, if at any time staff as reached a point where they feel they have gone as far as
they can without reaching a solution, policymakers will bc ready to work on this.
Wepingron suggested that s[atf r�port back to the Councii at its first mee�ing in August regarding
the progress being made on this matter. It was agreed that th�s maeter will be placed on tho
agonda oCtho first meeting in Augusc •
Mevopolitan Council Meating of lune i t, 1998 Page 5
M. Smith asked about the status of nvo othor environmentai issues that MAC noeds to address.
Hamiel responded that MAC is currently addressing the issue of runoff into the river in
cooperation with the MPCA. 'hiey are also addressing the issue of capturing the glycol that is
used as part of tha de-icing process and recycling it. Curtentty there are temporary fixas that ara
satisfactory at this time 6ut they are moving ahead with two facilities that should be compleced
within nvo years, with all facilities completed within four yenrs. He further raportcd that the fish
and wildlif ' hes been difficult to address and that presandy thoy are at an impasse because
of the $2� ion ' igation pragtam. However, thay are communicating with tederal agencies
and have be meet in Washington with congtossional staff to dea) with this iss�e. They wi11
'
conhnue to rk o is with tha Secmtary of the Interior and Transportation.
A vote was then taken on the motion as amanded and cazried.
Beport of the Fi �g
There wtr� no action items ad from the Finance Committe� for consideration at this
mee6ng. .
Renort oCthe ExecLtive Committee
There were no action items fonvarded fram the ecudve Committee for cansidera[ion at this
moetin�.
OTii .R B t IN .4S
Ratification of Deciaratioa of .metggn�v for int�rsgntor 4 HT 100
(EXIiIBIT E)
It was moved by M. Smith, second�d by Kummer: \.
"7ha1 the Metropalitan Counctl ratify !!te attached Justifrcatian For And Declaration Oj
Emergency jor lurercepror 4-HT-100. "
Motion carried. �'
RF.PORTy
�i1SilL
The chair had nothing to add to the reports atready presented at this meoting.
o �ncii M mb rs
Wychor reported on the staas of the Town Center projoct in Lino Lakes.
Head invited Council members to attond the Core Cities Group meeting to be hetd at che Monte
Carlo on Wednesday, Iune 16.
(
a
Metropolitan Council Meeting of June 11, 1998 Business Item:.�. w: F'-2
METROPOLITAN COiJNCIL
Mears Park Cenue, 230 East Fifth Street, St. Pau(, Ivfinnesota 55101
612 602-1000 TDD 612 291-0904
C ' � C • ��1
�; : ► ' � ; • ► • ulU) 11�
Amended
06/11/98
DATE: June 1 t, 1998
TO: Metropolitan Council
SUBJTyCT: MSP Final Environmental Impact 5tatement, Refemdl No. 16041-9
SUMMARY OF COMMITTEE DISCUSSION:
This item was on the agenda at the June 8, 1998 Committee meeting. Membecs from the
),ichfield "Caze Team" John Enger, Tony Femendez, Tom Hanson and Debbie Gustafson spoke
about low frequency noise &om aircraft operations on the proposed North/South Runway, and
the possibte effect on residents. They asked thut the Committee deny approval of the M5P Final
EIS. Nacho Diaz explained that the Metropolitan Council only submits comments, and that we
do not accept or reject the EIS. He also said that the Council, City of Richfield and MAC should
contiaue negotiations to wotk towards a resoludon of the noise issue.
RECOMMEIVDATIOPt:
That the Council's comments and concerns on the attached refezral review be forwarded to the
MAC and FAA for their consideration in completing the MSP FEIS process.
Submitted by:
Esther Newcome Natalio Diaz
Acpng Chair Dircctor
r
_ . e ' eld �
..- �
_= = ��;��
_-- -_ = -= =�� �
Caring Gztizens Concerned A6out Bichfield's �Environment
Mr. Curt Johnson
Metropolitan Council
Mears Park Centre
230 E. 5�` Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
Dear Mr. Johnson:
hme 8,1998
�
CARE is an arganization of citizens concerned about Richfield's future. We
aze very worried about the adverse noise impacts the proposed airport
expansion w�11 have on our community of Richfield. We aze disappointed
that ttie Metropolitan Auports Cammission (MAC) is ireating actverse noise '
impacts as insignificaut and choosing not to resolve the noise issue in the
Final Enviroffmental Impact Statement (FEIS). We feel these noise nnpacts
are major and mnst be addressed prior to maldng an FF,IS implementation
decisiion along with appropriate mitigation measiaes provided to offset the
impacts. We urge you not to accept the FIIS u�i MAC fully addresses the �
noise issue and develops apprapriate mitigation measures.
As residents living in a community next to the airport, we imow firsthand how
airpcsrt noise can adversely affect oia lives. A troublesome experience was
New Ford Town, w3iere the residents there felt compelled to Ieave their
homes due to intolerable airport noise. Fram these types of experiences; we
also l�ow that locating an airport nmway closer to Richfield wi71 effectively
make a large portion of Richfield uninhabitabie as a residential area.
We e�ect to lose almost 2900 residents from eastern Richfield due to
intolerable noise from the proposed airport expansion The loss of these
residents with their accompanying investment in our community, and along
with the adverse noise impacts over the rest of Richfield, wi71 greatly d'noninish
the high quality of life that makes Richfield a desirable city to live in.
Richfield is ciurentiy an established, ecanomically strong and safe commimity
for famr.lies and businesses. It w�71 be an unforiimate social and economic
loss for the Twin Cities to allow Richfield's cucrent high living standards to
deteriorate from immitigated noise mmpacts due to the proposed airport
e�ansion. � '
Sincerely,
C'��-����.---
c�es sc��
cax� co-c�
Jo� �
caxE cacn�
The Richfield CARE Team • 6515 -18`� Avenue • Richfield, MN 55423
a
Transportation Committee Meeting of June 8, 1998 Business item: .�. W: F-2
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
Mears Park Centte, 230 East FiQI� Strcet, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
DATE: June 3, 1998
T0: Chnir and Transportation Comminee Mem6ers
FROM: N.Diaz(1954) C.CaseQ724)-TranaportetlonPlanning
L.0'Connor(t098) H.Davis(1319) S.Pinei (15t3)-CommunityDevelopmen[
J. Larsen (1 I59) - EPE Water Management Unit
SllBIECT: F(nel Eavlronmental Impact Stntement - MSP Internetionnl Airport
Refertnl No. 160�5l-9
F.XR _ t7'iV . C iry{ry ARY
iSSUE: The state and federnl Dreft Final Env'vonmental lmpect Statement (FE1S) on futurc developmrnt of MSP
internptione! Airport hes been relea�ed for review and comment'fhe FEIS was Jointly prcpured by the Meuopolimn
Afrporte Commission (MAC) and the Federal Aviation AdminisRution (FAA). The Councit hea a 30•day rcview
period ending on June i5th. It u anticipated that the MAC will adopt the FEtS nt itn Iuly or August meeting. A
determination of adequaay is nlso expec[ed in August or September by the Environmentnl Qualiry Boerd (EQB), on
�he scate ponion of the FEIS. The FAA itndings on the fedenl actions will bo made in its Record of Decision
(ROD), currently scheduled for 7uly 30th, 1998.
POLICY 1MPLICATIONS: Preperntion oF the fEiS is the Fnal step in Ate meJor eirpott dua!•aack plenning
process. Fuii implementation of �ho MSP 2010 Long-Term Comprchensive Plan (LTCP) can proceed wi�h
compietion of the EIS procenn. Any significant deley in compieting the EIS pmress could affect devetopment of
improvements ro the airpon.
FUND[NG lMPL�CATIONS: SuccaePol compietlon of the FEIS process will allow the MSP 2010 LTCP to be
financielly implemented through FAA approvals, and the MAC bonding and capital improvement programs.
PREV[OUS ACfiONS: in December, I995 the Draft Environmentat Impact Statement (DEIS) was roleeud for
review end comment. On Fe6ruary 9, 1996 Council commencs conceming surface water quality and IS'[EA
funding IimitaHane on roadwny proJec� were tran�mltted ro the MAC.
In Merch, 1996 the Council end the MAC submined their rccommendations on the mnjor airpon dual-track
p�mning pmcees ro the Minnemta Legisiature. The main recommendation was to expand the major airport at the
exis[ing site. Su6sequent Ieglslative direction wa� thnt a final E1S be propered only for the MSP site.
Theae most recent aetions were preceded by a number of Council actions invotving the dual-trnck proaess. Listed
below is a svmmary of tho9e relnting to the MSP - Draft FEtS.
• Under legislative diration, the Councii conducted an Adequacy Study of MSP to deeermine its capabiliry to
aarve as the areds mnin air serviee airport for at least the next 30 year period. The need for�dditionel caoacitv
was established and recommendaiions were repotted ro che legislaturc.
• The Council's Adequacy Study rccommendotions werc codified in ihe 1989 MeirapalNan Alrpor� Planning Act
which ptablished the multi-year �jor aimort d�a4tmck I+�tinnine rR OCae<_, �
2
i_ .
Transportation Committee Meeting of lune 8, 1998 Business Item; .Sw: F'-2
NIETROPOLITAN COUIVCIL
Mears Park Centre, 230 Eazt Fifth Street, St. Paul, Minnesota SS 10l
DATE: June 3, 1998
?O: Chair and Transportetion Committee Mcm6ers
FROM: N. D(ez (1754) C. Cnse Q 724) - Transportation Planning
L.O'Connor(1098) B.Davis(13t7) S.Pinei (ISt3)-CommunityDevelopment
J. Lacsen (1159) • EPE Water Management Unit
SUHJECT: Final Environmental Impact Statement • MSP InternaHonel Aicport
Refecrai No. 16041-9
. F.!IEC11T . S iMMARY
ISSUE: The state and federal Draft Finat Envuonmrntal Impac[ Stetement (FEiS) on futurc davetopment of MSP
Intemntionel Airport hm been relensed for review nnd camment.'Ihe FEIS was joinHy propared by the Metropaliron
Airpotts Commiasion (MAC) nnd the Federal Aviation Adminietration (FAA). The Council has a 30•dey roview
period mding on lune 15th, It is anticipated that the MAC will adopc the FEIS et its 7uly or August meeting. p
detartnination of adequacy is also expected in August or September 6y the Environntentul Quality Board (EQg), on
the stete ponion of the FEIS. The FAA findings on the federai ections will ba mede in its Record of Decuion
(ROD), currently acheduled fot Juty 30th, 1998.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Pceperatton of the FEIS is the finel step in the mejor airport dual-track planning
process. Full implementatian of the MSP 2010 Long-Term Comprehensive Plan (LTCP) can proceed with
completion of the EIS process. Any significnnt deley in compieting the EIS process could affect development of
improvements W the eirport.
FUNDING 1MPGICATIONS: Sucaestul completion of the FEtS process wiil allow the MSP 2010 LTCP to be
Mancially implemented through FAA epprovals, and the MAC bonding and capital improvement programs.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS: In pecem6eq 1995 the DraR Environmrntal Impact Stntemmt (DEIS) was relemed Cor
roview and comment On Fe6ruery 9, 1996 Council comments conceming surface water quality and ISTEA
funding limiWtions on roadway projecu were tranemitted to the MAC.
In Merch, 1996 the Council and the MAC submined thelr recommendations on Ihe major airport dua!•track
planning process to the Minnesote Legislature. The mein rccommendation was to expend the mnjor airport at the
existing eita Subsequent legislative direction was thnt n finul EIS 6e prepered only Cor the MSP site.
These most rccent actions were preceded 6y a number of Council actions involving the dual-track procas. Listed
below is a summery of ihose rciating to the MSP - Draft FEIS.
• Under legislative direction, the Council conducted an Adequacy Study of MSP to determine its capabitiry to
serve az the aren's mein eir service airport for at least ehe nexc 30 year period. Thc need foraddi�ional canacin•
w�c esta6li<_hea and recommendations werc rcponed ro the legisluture.
• The Council's Adequacy Study rccommendations were codified in the 1989 Metrapo!ltan Alrpat Planning Act
which established the multi•yeaz mqjor aimort duo6traek ol�_�nnin.g,,,oroees.. � � .
2 '
o The Council purticipated in, and supported �he dual-track planning process. This process included the
establishment of a tiered environmental review to meet both stnte and federal requirements. Revieed forecmu
reafiirmed the need Cor additionel airpon capnciry; an expended MSP was the �elected development atternativt.
Joint rccommendations with the Mehapolitan Airpores Commission werc submined �o the Minnesota
Legisleture.
• The Council speciEically epproved the 1010 Long Term ComprehensPoe Plan, and 20T0 Concept Plan for
Cuture development of MSP intemational Airport. The 20t0 plan includes a new Ztorth/South runwav. The
2020 plen includes a new West Terminal (legislative approvai is required for this project).
• The Council amended the Aviarlun Gulde in 1990, 1995 and 1996 to rct7ect the ngency and legislntive nctians
rcgarding the dual•trackplanning process. New metropolitnn �vatem statemen� were tmnsmined to aIi aRected
communities. AlI locei plen rcviews, end alt environmentai reviews, ere eo reflece the Aviation Guide goats,
policfes, guidelinu and implementntion meusures.
• The Council perticipa[ed in pceparation of [parts ot] the MSP - DrnR FEIS. It reviewed and commented on the
MSP expansion pten DraJtEnvlronnrenlaUmpaetSmtement Federal Avietion Administration end
Metropolitan Airports Commission responses to the CounciPs commenu nre included In the Dreft FEIS.
• The Council perticipated in development of, end concuaed with, the h1SP Nolse AfltlgaUnn Program as
submitted [o the Minnaota Legislaturc. The mitigetion progrem responds to the 2010 development impacts
rolated to airciaft noise, and is included in the Draft FEIS.
In summary, the Council has consistently supparted the developmrnt of the MSP 2010 LTCP, and the proposed
mi�ige[ion programs included in the Draft FEIS. Implementation of the MSP- LTCP, and aaaocieted mitigudon
measuree, will require commitment by the Council for on•going planning ac[ivities, coordinntion, and systems
developmentsupport .
�ISCUSSION: The FEIS disclosw the effeca of the MSP 2010 LTCP and the known effecq of the 2020 aoncept
velopment plan. 7'he major project is establishing a new Nonh/South (17/35) runway starting in 1998, and
expected to be opemtfonni by 2003.
A copy of the FEIS Execurtve Summaty u attached; it includes the purpose of the FE1S document end,purpose and
need for the projecc 7'he Council is commenting on items that have occurred recently and may not be fiilly
mcogniud in the draft FE[S, that may have mitigation measures identified but need further policy direction, or thet
mey neod additionnl coordinacion or support.
F1NDllVGS:
1. The aitport improvements considered in the draft Finet Env'vonmenWl lmpect SWtement for the MSP 2010
& 2D20 devetopment pian are consistant with the Aviution Chapter of the Metropoliten Development
Guide;
2. The Runway 4/Z2 extension is consistent with the 2010 LTCP end the Aviation Guide; it is
supported by the Council. A �nding of no significant impact (FONSI) is recommended in the FEIS;
3. The avietion forecast sensitiviry analysis was appropriate for FEfS eveluation. The Corecasu wiil
eventually need updeting and the FE1S should identffy a timetuble and sequencing for such activity in
relation to implementadon of the Z010 LTCP and associamd mitigntion programs;
4. in previous action the Councit concurred with the overnll MSP Noise Mitigation Program;
5. The Council recognizes that the new lVorth/South runwuy wili huve noise Impacb on the City of
R(eh6eld, ncknowledgu receipt of the city'n pinn for mitlgaUon and, therefore, urges continued �
discuasion of e mutunlly necep�a6le nobe mitigation program.
e
6. The FE(S coaatly identifle� tht need to update the MSP airport mning ordinance and the CounciC
suppores its imptementation by the joint wning bonrd;
7, The draft FEIS does not include Cunding informe[ion, and projecc cosu shoutd be updatsd ro include
recendy approved and proposed capital projecv: �
8. Council s�aff rea�rtns its previous position (�s discussed on dacument page A.1 I-2) that the approach of
divening ell GtSW Eram MSP detention basins for treatment a[ metropolitan woscewater facilitics is not an
acceptable long•range solution;
9. The Council can only continue to provide for treatment of designeted amounts oFGISW flow in the short-
term, as capaciry u available in tMe metropolitan system. Other on/off-site methods of treaanent and' -
disposal need to be pursued by the MAC et MSP, aa dictated by futute NPDES petmit peramete� which
wiil be demrtnined by new low flow and weste lond altocatian studie� to he perfocmed on the Minnesora
River by the MPCA. 'the MAC has indicated in the FEIS thet they wili meet the new NPDES
requircmenu;
10. • Council stuff rccommends inclueion of pemianent detendon ponding prior to discharge of
stormwater cunoff into Mother Lake ro reduce sediment and nutrient loadings on the staro
protected water body:
1 t. The proposed MSP develapment will impact the Minnesota Valley Nationai Wildlift Refuge. The FAA
haa therofore, prepered a Memoraddum ojAgreemmt ro negotiete a midgetian program. The Council
supporv ths FAA, MAC xnd USFWS in neeodating this mntter and encourages swift taolution of any
remuining differences rolating to mitigadon of propased impacts to the Refuge,
(2. The Councit was a signatory to the "Consensus" report on highway improvements needed to serve MSP
expansion developmenc Thst ducument rccommended that the MAC and MnDOT enter into an
interagency egrcement conceming ptenning and implementatian of the TH97/66th Street interchange and
airport frontege roed.
13. Approval of the MAC t998 C1P for the Pubtic Parking/Auto Rental expansion project (and
propoaed transit hu6), is being imptemented and ehould he discussed in the FEIS.
14. 7'he FEtS should include infocmeHan on the process for addressing the proposed LRT line 6enveen
downtown Minneapolis, the Airport, and Mell of America. [t should oudine the aviation issues rclevant to
implementation of the proposed LRT lina
RECOMMENDATION: Thei the Council's commenu end concems on the attnched roferrel review be forwarded
to the MAC and FAA for their coruideration fn completing the MSP FEtS procees.
4
i
e
REVIEW COMMENTS
DRAFT FINAL ENVIFtONMENTAL IIviPACT STATEMENT
MSP IN'1'ERNATIONAL AIl2PORT EXPANSION PLAN
Refcrral 16047-9
1:7:T1;{i��iil�l�
In 1989 the Metropolitan Airport Pianning Act became law; it directed that the Metropolitan Council
(MG� and Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) conduct a major airport dual-track planning
straugy. The ptanning activities for the dual-track process were essenrially completed in 1995, and a
Dcaft EIS was prepared/nviewed. In eazly 1996, a joint-agency recommendation was made to expand
the Minneapolis-SG Paul IntemaHonai airport (MSP) at the existing site. The Minnesota Legislature
directcd that an environmeotal impact statement be preperod for expansion of MSP, and the 20101ong-
term compcehensive plan bc implemented by the MAC. In late 1996, a Noise Mitigation Progiam wes
adopted for MSP, The draft FEIS is now recoramended by the FAA end the MAC for federai
rnvironmmml approval end state detrnainadoa of adequacy.
I IL M5P Drait FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL Ill�IPACT STATEMENT
Under ihe Minnesota EQB rules, the MAC is the responsible govemmeatal unit (RGin for the Scoping
Ihcision end the stace requirements in the FEIS. The MAC has requested that the EQB pedorm the
detennination of adequacy on thc srate portion of the FEIS. The FAA is responsible for the federal
requiremmts in the FEIS.
�'he Council is considered a cooperating agency unda this process because it has been invotved in the
duai-hack planning process from the begiiming, including coordinarion meetings with MnDOT, FFiWA,
FAA and the MAC, among othecs. The Council designated the scazch area ia Dakota County and
esmblished the long-range aviation goais for the alternarives. The Council also prepered parts of the
DEIS and this draft FF.IS (induced socioeconomic forccasu for the new airport altemative, some ground
trensportation forecasts for the new airport aiternative, uansporhation access impacu, and land use).
Described below is a brief oudine and overview of the DcaR FEIS; please refer to thc FEIS Executive
Summary for more detai] (Attachment A).
• Pronosed Action & Seop - oc f FEtS - The propased acrion is to implemrnt the MSP 2010 LTCP. The
FETS contains the evaluation of a No-Action altemadve, a 2010 LTCP, and a 2020 Concept Plan. It
also contains commrnts/responses on We DEIS.
The 2020 Concept Plan is evaluated to the extcnt possible in ordcr to disclose the pottnrial long-tecm
effecu of the developmcnt of a new [WestJ passrngor terminal and related airfield and roadway
facilities. Implementation of the 2020 plen will require logislative appzoval end furtha
rnviconmental reviow and agency approvals.
. ymnse of the Doc�ment - The FEIS is both a state and federal document prepared in accordance
with NEPA and Minnesota Environmrntat Review process. The purposc of the FEIS and zeferenced
documena is to: �
- disclose the rnvironmrntal impacts of the proposed action and connected projocts, •
- provide mcasures to mitigau potrntial adverse effects,
- serve as a decision-meldng tool iw evaluating implemmtation of the proposed acrion,
- provide inur�ted agencies and the puhlic with in{ormatian needed for ceview.
e P,�pose Bc Need for the Proimc - Based upon the major auport dual-uack swdies, the MAC and FAA
have indcpendrndy concluded that without svbstantial 'aafi�ld, terminal and ground aceess
improvemcats, &ture aviation activity will resu(t in sigaificauUy decreasod level of air service and '
incraued user costs. This threatens the abi]ity to provide good air-service and economic benefits to
thc mgion.
o Altemative� Gonridered to mect Pmiect�osc & Necd -'�� following airport developmeat
altanatives wem considced in uymg to meet future damand:
- No Action - MSp Fxpan,,rion
- New [replacement] Aaport - High-Speed Interciry Rai1(to Chicago)
- Remou Rimway - Supplemmtal Aiiport
e Preferred Alternativa/Pmno�i Acti�m _ Expansion of MSP at its c�ureat location is the preferred
optioa to mect demand and is also the cnviconmeataUy pcefured aption, whrn consdecmg the
co�mnitted mitigadon, than the No-Action altcmative. Dcvelopment beyond 2010 w�71 require fiather
rnvuonmrntal assessmeat �d separau fedetal approvats.
• Enviromnrntal Evaivation - The Attetnative Envita�tcatai Review procas was approved by the
M�esota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) in Mazch 1992, for the dual-hack airpoit planning
pcacexs. It required the assessmcnt of rnvunnmrntal impaats of the alternatives m the yeaz 2020.
Twenty-one environmmtal impact categories ate evaluated 'm tha draft FEIS. Fach m�monmmtal
issue or impact category mcluded :
- th� factors, facets or feahues considered in the FEIS,
- Thc affected rnvironment or area of potcntial effect (APEj for each alternativo, and what is
Imow about the issue or impact caxgory in the APE,
- EnvssanmeaEa! consequrncesJeffects of each alternative,
- Mitigation mws�u�, and
. - a summary comparisoa of impacts of each alternative.
1te FE7S cnv'soammtal impact categories are ]isted in Table 1. Thc itcros that are shaded 'm this
table are caugories whec� the Counc�7 has no commrnts. Those mipact categories wi�ece speciat
cvaluations or mitigarion achian occ�med ass also listed. A numha of items aze oa-going and are
discussed later m this review.
•�jpp�b- The primary area of th� MSP expansion impact that needs to be miCgated is ausra8
noise. A Noiso Midgation Pmgram was approved by the MAC on Octabcr 28, 1996 and submitud to
the legislature. The Foltowmg noise pmgtam areas (insuladan, commimity srabilizaCon, airpart
apaadons, and nmway use), mclude mitigation m� that will be put inm effect if the MSP 2010
LTCP is implementaL Not all program mau�ass may be etigible for fimd'mg deprnding oa FAA
policy or cciteria. .
• Tmesolved Tern'e _ Two itcros aze still to be raolved. Ont� is tho concera that whrn new runway
17r35 is operatimml, low frequmcy noise impacts could he creaud; another, is that negoriations on
mitigating impacts to the Micmesora Valiey National Wildlife Refuge are not completa '
2
r
III. DISCITSSION
The following items were idenGfied ia Tabie 1 as ateas w,hece pia�ing a�d negotiadons e$orts aze stitl
on-going. '('he Council is primazily commrnting on iums that
- have occurred recently and may not be Cully recognized 'm tfie draf[ FEIS,
- that have mirigation meas�s idcntified, but may nced fucther policy directioq
- that may need additional coordination or support.
• Avi�tion System
2Qt_ �-bT� - Tfie Aviatian Policy Plan is the kry documrnt for use m dctrrmming consistency of
mdiviclual airport plans with tha Metropolitan D�valopment Guide (1�IDG), The 2010 LTCP addresses
concerns with airfield capacity and delay with nmway and taxiway improvemrnts, and concerns with
taminal capacity �d scrvice by providinS nea' ta�inal improvements including pazidng and "mtemal
passmger c'sculation, imgrovad ground access, and funue siu development to meet air-cargo and aalinc A. ' A. Comment noted.
mamte�tce nads, also provision for adequate support facilitieslactivitics. The airport dovelopmeat
pian allows the region to mat fuhae domand and psnvide for mitigation of mvironmental �xpact� of the
airpvrt expansian. The MSP dovelopmeut plan was fouad consisteat with the 1�IDG aad approvai by the
Coimc�l.
Runaeav 4l22 Ezrene;�� _ The Council izcrndy reviewed the rnviromnrntal assessnent (EA) for
excmding nmway 4l22 to a totai leagth of 12,000 feec This graposed project is consistcnt with the B. ' 8, Comment noted.
2010 LTQ' and has been included m the FEIS along with the tempocary excension of nmway 12R. The
CoumciI supports both projects. The Enviro�entai A:s�nent (EA) recommanded a"Fmd'mg of No
SigniScant Impact" (FONSn by the FAA.
Aviation Forecasts - A farecast sensidvity analysis was ay� conducted 'm ptrparing tttc FEIS to see if the
highe thw projected txaffic lcvels at MSP had aay significant envaonmental effects. This assessmmt
wss approlrriate, and 'mdicated that mvimnmental t2uesholds for ffie mmpact caugoria did not c6aage
sigmficaady; themfore, changes to th� FEIS wer� consideced unnec��axy�. It is thc Council s�ciff C'• Ct See Response 3.
oxp�ctarion that tt�e 1993 dual-uack fozocasts will need additional monitormg and updating in the fuhaz.
One of tfie ieasons for nxdmg ttpdated forecasts is Byea u�e m upayting the MSP Part 150 noise
conmia. Tbis m uan, is a primo mgedient m�piemoating the MSP nois� mirigaaan Progcam, 'The
FELS shouid ideatify the timetablc and sequrncing far such activity in niation to implemeahtian of the
Z010 LTCP.
A;rr.raR Noi�_ Tfu Metropolitan Coimcil participaUed in tbe de�•elopmeIIt of the MSP Noise Mitigation
Program that vras required by the dual-uack legislation. 1'hat mitigation program is hased upo� �
approved federsl DNL noise descriptoc The DNL descriptor and the FAA Inugrated Noise Model ate
uud by the MAC in implememing "Comctivo" naise measures, and by the Counci7 m implemcnGng
"Prevmdvc " noisc measu:es, m communities aroung MSp. . D. ' D. See General Responses 1 and 2.
'Ihe draR FEIS idendfia the aviation farecasts and airport operarional assumptions, identifies the airexaR
noise unpacts, and the ptogosad mitigarion me2svres to the 60 DNL., for the 2005 forecast year. 'That
noise level d�Snes ttte azp ofpotendal offect (ApE) for m�sy land uses m the MSP communities.
The City of Richfield local comprehensiv� pian was ameaded Sc�,�rai yeaxs ago to allow redcvolopmertt
for ahaut a block-and-a -half deep along tha west side of T.fI.77 (Cedar Ave.). This land use ch�mge
was m respoase to potrntial noise �pacts of the proposa► now North/South nmway (17l35). Howeva, �
t6e City of Richfield has axpresud cancaas that "Low-Frequrncy" noiso will affect a much larger atea
of the city, aad that ciureat mitigation efforts tnay not be adequat� po corrc�t this problem. The Coumcil
4
e
facilibted a workshop, where technicat assessmrnts of low frequrncy noise, and expericnces of other
airports on this issue were discussed. 'The desirability of insdtuting a test facility by the MAC w better
define potential integiaHon of miHgation measures, reflecting both types of noise descriptors, was a
suggestion.
The City has recrntly prepared their miHgation program for the North/South runway assuming low-
frequency noise impacts. That program is esdmatcd to cost about $3S0 million ovcr a twrnry-year
period, ($214 million ) if Tax Increment Finencing is used This program was recrntly presented W
the MAC as part of the Richfield commenis on the draft FEIS. Thc FAA has indicated that the low-
frequeacy noise descriptor is not federally approved, and that no standards have bern developed or
adopud. The MAC, however, hes indicated its willingness to work with the City, by modifying or
otherwise worldng witfiin the existing noise midgation pro�aam. The Council is willing to support
efforts with the City and the Commission to work in this direction.
The magnitude of cost for the proposed Richfield low frequency midgarion prognm , together with the
spproved Psrt 150 noise insulation progiam could be over 5700 million, just for noise midgadon. Some
of the mitigation items suggested in the low-frequrncy noise mitigation program appeaz to apply in the
s6ort-term (2010 LTCP) and others (eg. locat medway improvemenu) seem to 6e more applicable when
the 202D Concept plan is implemenud. The Council naeds to ba prepared to address land use changes,
houswg policy and madway issues brought up by this mitigadon praposat. The Council supports �
continued discussion of the City mirigation prognm for the NorthlSouth runway and is committed to '
worldng with the vazious perties to resoive this issue.
�. � D. Response on previous page.
4ityort S�fstv '1'}le safety of nmway approach corridors and control of.structures azouad the airport is a
Cy focus of the AviaHon Policy Plan. The Policy Plan references both federal and state law, niles and
:egulations for control of poteatial airspace hazazds and for land use safety. Implementation of the
fede:a! airspace occurs tluough approval of ffie airport LTCP and FAA approval of the airport layout E. E. MAC is currently in the procass of preparing
plen (ALP). The, state safety requiremrnu aze met thzough implementadon of individuai auport safety proposed zoning regulations for the north-south
zoning by a 7oint Airport Zoning Hoazd A wning ordinance foc MSP was adopted by the joint board in
1984. Due to the approval of the 2010 LTGP it is necessary to review/update the airport zoning runway.
ordinaace. The drafi FEIS correcUy identifies this need, and the Council suppores its implementation
,C� i Ai Projs; r,� To implement the 2010 LTCP will requirc a close coordination of plenning and project
phasing/fimding. Thc FEIS identifies the 2010 and 2020 developmeat wsts (in 1995 dollers) by project
categozies. The FEIS presumes tho prefetted developmrnt to be uchnically and financially feasibie;
however, no fimding/financing data or summary information is included nnywhere in the dociunent
Since a prefexred alternative has been selected/adopted for implemenraHon there should be en updat�g
of tho costs to current dollars. Such informadon will be critical to timety developmrnt and review of the
annual capiml improvement prog:am of the MAC. The Council made specific recommendations to this
effect in its review of the MAC 1998-2004 CIP. Table I-24 on page V-57 should 6c reviewed to see if it
needs W be updaud to include the nmway 4/22 eztension costs, and possible e6nnges in midgation
program costs.
a Sewer 3ystem & Surtace Water Qaallty
F.
F. Project funding sources are uncertain; project
costs will be updated in subsequent CIPs.
'17�e documrnt staua (on page V-155) that one of three possible (long-term) nsiduat glycol-impacted
stormwater (GISV� management measures which could be implcmented over and abovc source controi '
mitigarion meav�ues is diversion of all stormwatcr during criacal months from on•site detention besins to G. G. See Response 8.
MCES for off•site treatrnenG This option continues to be considered, bAsed upon the assumption in the
document thet on-site treatmrnt of nsidual GISW is not a viable option at MSP. The only type of on-eite
treaunrnt considered in the documrnt was the use of detention ponding of GLSW undi watcz
temperat�ses mctc�sed sufficientiy to allow mcreas�d levols of biological activiry_ Couucil slaff G..
zeaffirms its pr2:vious postion (as discu.zscd on document page Al l-2) that ffi� appmach of divectmg a11
GISW from MSP detrndon basms foru�catmmt at metropolihan wastewater facIlitics is not an acceptable
long-r�gc solatian. .
The docimierit statrs (on page V-161) that the MAC �ricipates substimtiori of chemicals such as sodium
farmate and porassiimm acetate for isea ut the nc� fuaue, for gnund stsfacc snow and ice control. 'ihe
doc�mt also assmnes (on page A.9-3) tbat thosc chemicaLs wouid load the starm scwer system at
agproadmately the same. historical rate az �uea. Treatability of the expected futur� combination of
deicmg chemicais pmposed for use at MSY has not been adequately detammed, wfietfia tbat heatment
w�71 occiu on-sitc in detcntion ba.��ins, ar off-site' at a gcivate or metropolihan vrastewater htahne¢t
facility. Stotmwata detmtion basins of the type proposed for canshuction at MSP are not designed to
attrnuate the extremely high CBODS concenhations chaxactaistic of winter nmoff mto the 6asms.
7he Camcil caze only continue W provide for heamlent of designateci amounts of GISW flow in the
short-term, as capacity is available in tl�e metropotiEan systera Othec on-/off-site methods of trratmcnt
and disposal may need to tx pissued by the MAC at MSP, as dictatcd by'futuro NPDES permit
pazamcuts whic� w1] be dete�mmed by new low Elow �d waste load aIlocatiion studies to be performed
on tho Mifficsota River by the MPCA. C�srently, all available CBODS load assim7ative capacity m 2i�e
lower 21 m7es of the Micmesotz River 6as beeu aliocaud (diuing both S�cr and Wmter) to the
Metmpolitan Coimc�7 for ass�u7a4on of inetro area wastewater htatmmt facility �87uent The MAC
has indicated 'm tho FEIS that they intrnd to me�t the new NPDES pcmit reqtmemrn[s.
'Ihe document srates (on page V-160) tLat it is not bclieved tbat a detention pand w�71 be :equ'ned for
airport dramage to Motl:er Lako vndc the LTCP 2010 Altcmative.' Even though the number of acies of
�pervious s�¢�face and estimated phosphotnus load'mg will be tzduced un8a fuwre conditim�s, the
watershcd azea draining w the wetland wiD be mcrcised, and w�1t inchuie roadway and par7ang areas.
Mother Lake is a stau-ptotected ora[er which fias ahrady lxen su6jected'to contammated aitport
stormwater nmoff foi� decada, resuItmg m dcgradation of tBe basm's ecological divecsity. TLe
opQornmity will now rxut to pie-settlo pollutcd stormwater nmoff prior to its uitroductioIl mto MotLer
Lake wetL�nd, and potcutial uupmvcment of the heolth and plant divcrsiry in the basm. Coune�7 staff'
recommends mclusion of pccmanent deun6on ponding grior to discharge of stormwater nmoff mW
Mothcr I,ake to reduce sed�rnt and nutricnt loading an tfie state p[utected watcr body..
• Transportation System
�- The provision of adequatc goimd access for auport expansioa altcmativcs is identified far
the 2010 and 2020 plaz�s. In 1997 a' "Cnnsuuus^ report was agrad upon betwecn the agyncies (MAC,
MC, FHWA, FAA MnDO'n, that addresses the madway necds for 2010 and 2020 devclopmmt projecu.
For the 2010 plan, some updatu�g may be needed to clarify xecrnt chwges (Public Parkiug/Auto Renhl
Exp�sion project), approved as part of the 1998-2004 CIP review, that may impact the MSP entrana
ro�a�y.
J.
The FE[S correcfly idmtifies tt�at additional planning/environmentat work and approvals w�ll be needed .
to complete t6e ground accas evalaation for miplemtnting the roadways needed to save 2020 auport
development Most of that work invoiv�s road coffiections to a new Wcst Terminai. L�
G. Response on previous page
H. On-site treatment of storm water impacted with
residuai materials from runway or aircraft deicing
operations is not feasible at MSP 6ecause of the
limited space available for ponds and because of the
cold temperatures of the storm water to be treated
during the deicing season (see discussion in Section
86.1.2 and Appendix A.11 of the FEIS).
While some runway deicing chemicals may be present
in GISW contained at the airport, fhe concentrations
wouid be very low. Runway deicing chemicals are
seldom used at aircraft deicing locations. While a
treatability test of MSP GISW containing sodium
formate and potassium acetate has not been
performed, MAC representatives know of no aspects
of these chemicals and products which wouid make
them probiematical for the operations of the Metro
treatment plant. In recent years, substantial amounts
of potassium acetate (68,000 gallans during the
1997/98 winter season) have been used at MSP and,
presumably, the 1997/98 GISW which was treated by
MCES contained some concentration of this product.
It apparently did not cause difficulties for the Metro
treatment operations. Sodium formate reportedly has
been e�ensively used at Toronto's Lester 8. Pearson
International Airport (Pearson). Pearson also has a
GISW containment and POIW treatment program.
Liesch representatives a�e not aware of any difficulties
oaused by sodium formate residuals in the GISW on
the local POTW treatment plant in Toronto.
MAC representatives believe that a literature review
would adequately demonstrate that sodium formate
and potassium acetate, 6oth relatively common
chemicals, are readily biodegradable in activated sludge
treatment plants, and that these chemicals would not
be a problem for the treatment organisms. Hawever,
if so desired by MCES, the MAC would work
cooperatively with MCES to conduct treatability testing
of GISW with sodium formate and potassium acetate
prior to utilization of sodium formate on a full scale
basis at MSP.
The attenuation modeling methods and assumptions
used in the FEIS analysis are summarized in Appendix
A.9. This analysis assumes compiete mixing of
poliutants routed through each detention pond.
Related modeling information is also presented in
Appendix H.4.
i. Comment noted.
J. Mother Lake currently does not receive run-off
from aircraft operating area surfaces (runways,
taxiways, etc.). The airport run-off from other
impervious surfaces which currently goes to Mother
Lake drains overland and is believed to be analogous to
typical urban run-off. This would also be true under
the MSP and the No Action Alternatives. •
If it is determined through the appropriate permitting
procedures with the Minnesota Pollution Control
6 Agency and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
that a detention pond is required upstream of Mother
Lake with future development, the MAC will construct
such a pond.
K. An implementation plan/program is being
prepared, which wiil address the effects of recent
changes.
� L. Comment noted.
T�ancit & P�r.a-Tran�t- Tha dual-track process �ticipaud para-hansit and traasit scrvices to occur on
uistiag and propoxd roadways for the MSP up�sion alurnativc. Most trips are still cxpccted to
arrivrJdcpart the aaport by automobile. Tl�crefore, roadvray �d pazl�g capacity in the pIan is providcd
accordingly. Thc FELS daa not include mfoimation on transit facilitics; howevcr , m ibe MAC 1998-
'2004 CII', construction of a eransit hub was proposed as part of the new Public Pazldng/Auto Rental
Ramp expansion.. The transit hub requires that the cuit roadway will be built on the prefesed alignmrnt
across NWA properry, and assumes successful acquisition of the affected parcet. If the NWA pazcel is
not acquired, a revised hansit element will be necessary. The Council made eztensive comments in its
CIP approval conceming the pazldng expansion proposal. This pazking/transit project is being
implemented now, and should therefore be discussed in the FEIS. '
The dual-track process did not evaluate pzovision of any fixed guideway (such as LRT) on exclusive
right-of-way for the prefecred MSP altomative. This issue should be discussed in the FEIS since federa]
and state funding have recrntiy been secured for conshvction of a ffiawatha LRT line. The Council
includod specific toact in the 1996 Ayiarion Guide stating: "Provision of a�transitway(s) for MSP 2010
and 2020 developmcnt plans should 6e assessed as an intogral part of the airpart's evotving opcn6onal
and development phasiag. 'Locational feasbitity and fmancial eligihility for Federat Aviation funding
shou]d be examined and iden6fied in tho annual capital improvoment program of the MAC". This
infom�aCon would form ihe basis for potrntial amrndment of the MSP - LTCP, or updating/amending of
the MAC annual capitat improyemont program.
e p�� & Open Sp�ce System
�. � M. See Response 13.
The runway.4/22 eztension will roquire acquisition and control oF additional lands in the safety zones
northcast of the airport: Some of these proporties will fall within We boundary of the Mississippi
Natioaal River and itecreation tlrea (MNRRA). The draR FEIS mentions the narional wildlifo refuge, O.
but not the federai pazk or state protected staws. The MSP expansion ac6vi6es may aff�ct resourccs
within those areas ind'uecdy. When the Cotmnission has control of thes� pamols they should coordinau
with the DNR Division of Waters and Nationat Pazk service, in addirion to worl�g with Fort Snelling
State Pazk staff to miHgate any impacts rdated to state Critical Area management standazds, MNRRA
plan policies, and the Co�mciPs Recrearion Oprn Space policies and system plan.
The documant statos (on page V-186) that the FAA signed an tnteragoncy Agreement with the National
Pazk Scrvice and the USFWS in 1993 establishing a 2,000-foot altitude thrashold over National Pazks
and National Wildlife Refuges with the express intent of rcducing "potential interference with witdlife".
Development at MSP as proposed in this document would result in 5,620 monthly overflights of the
Long Meadow Lake and Black Dog lako Refuge Units betwecn 500 and 2,000 fcet AGL. State and
fede�al recreation azeas within the metropolitan region, including the Rofuge, provide services similaz to
those provided by regional parks, pazk presmes, and regional trail corridors. Consequrntly, the
Motrnpotitan Council recognizts the master plans of state and federal recreational pazks, park presrnes,
and regional trail corridors; to tho cactent that they fiilfill regional recrea6on opon space objecrives and
are consistent with the CounciPs Recreafion Open Space Development Gurde/Policy PIaR (Policy Plan).
The Policy Plan recognizcs that pazk and recrea6on facilides may be nogativety affectcd by adjacrnt
uses, as citod in issue 14 oF the policy plan, and makes a strong case for intarvrntion in situations whae
potenNalty adverse land uses aze proposed. FIoweva, tho proposed airport expansion does not requ'ue
the acquisition of tho wildlife property, so it can tamain as a constructive use. The USFWS has stated
that they do not want to stop the MSP North/South runway ezpansion, but do want to nceive appropriate
miHgaHon. Tha FAA has prepazed a 4f report that includes a Memorandum OjAgreement conccrning
mitigadon. Mirigation wouid be in the form of a monetary payment to be used by USFWS. The
memorandinn of agrcomrnt is essrntialty an offa by thc FAA and is baing used in negotiations that aze
still in progras. The Council supports the continued negotiations by FAA, MAC, and USFWS in this
matter and encourages swiR resolution of any remaining difforences relating to mitigation of proposed
impacts to ihe Refuge.
N. See Generai Response 5.
O. MAC does not intend to use land in the safety
zones for airport development purposes. The affected
Bureau of Mines property will be restricted to future
uses of open space, wildlife habitat and light
recreational uses open to the public. MAC will
coordinate with the affected agencies when it has
control of these properties.
P. � P. See General Response 7.
Gray Freshwater Cenler
thvys 15 d 19, Navarte
Maa:
2500 Shadywoad poad
Excelsiot MN 55331 •9578
Phone:(612)dlt-0590
Fa�c(612i171-0682
Ema��:
a�hn(n9minnel W wcreekotg
Weh S�1e:
www.mimehahaaeakag
8oerd ol Managers
Pamela G. Bixt
James CaMins
tance Fa�er
Monka G�ass
Thomas W. LaBounry
Thomas Maple. J�.
Makoim Reid
oi�mn om�:
oizne P. �yncn
Qistnd AdminisUalof
��w�wa�waae.me.`uv I
tat�ottwym�amw.u�.
Minnehalia Creek Watershed District
Improuing Qua[ity ofWater. Quality ofLife
June 29,t998
Ms. 7ean Unruh
Metropolitan Airports Commission
6040 28'� Avenue South '
biinneapolis, MN 55450 ' �
Re: Dual track airport plazming process
Final Environntental Impact Statement - May 1998
Wenck File #0185-04-162, biCWD 1.31
Dear Ms. Urwh:
The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (IviCWD) has revicwed the final EIS
and has the following comments:
' ' A. A. Although the issue has been addressed in the
1. Stormwater man�ment - From the infom�ation you provided, if appears that FEIS, more detailed information on existing and
the water quality impact of the airport 6xpansion may be reduced due to the proposed drainage areas, rates of runoff, and water
diversion of a large drainagc area south to the Minnesota River. However, the quality treatment will be provided 6y the MAC to the
EIS did not provide sufficient detail to evaluate the expansion as mquimd by MCWD in the necessary permit application
MCWD stormwater management niles. Detniled information on exisNng and documentation. Work will not commence until permit
pmposed drainage areas, rates of nmoff, and water quality treatment wiit need approval is secured.
to be provided in a pem�it application to the MCWD prior to project work
staciing.
The MCWD completed a diagnostio-feasibility study for Lake Nokomis
earlier in 1993 and is ' considering pursuing project acHvity to reduce
phosphorus loading to the lake. The hfCWD is committed to improving the B• B. If a detetmination is made through MCWD's
water quatity in Lake Nokomis and is ti�erefore concemed that any future permitting process for the rtew runway development
airport expansion meet the zequuements of the MCWD water qunliry neles. that a pond is needed for drainage to Mother Lake, the
The MCWD rules require water quality tceatment for ali lazge development MAC will construct and utilize such a pond.
and redevelopment projects to. NURP standazds. The EIS indicates 200 total
airport acres witi drain to Mother Lake which is tributary to Lake Nokomis.
The EIS atso states that it is not believed that a detention pond will be required
for run-off in the Mother Lake watershed. As indicated above, the MCWD
anticipates that ponding will be requircd by MCWD rules.
�Vetland imnacts - Tl�e MCWD acknowledges that MAC is the Local
Government Unit (LGU) for implementine the Wetland Conservatio�- .�r..t,
and as such MCWD �vill not require a persnit for the proposed wedand
impacts. Howaver, the MCWD would strongty encourage that aA weAand
mitiga4on be implemented as close to the site as possible, within We same
subwatershed, or at Ieast within the MCWD. The potential mitigation sites
identified aze in the final EIS largely outside the bICWD. The MCWD
encourages you to utilize the miligarion site in Minnetrista as well as look for
other sites in the vicinity of the ai�port.
Your cooperation in providing the final EIS document to the MCWD is
appreciated.
Sincercly,
11IINNEiIAEiA CREEK tiVATERSHED DISTRICT
�N'�""vl� '
Pamela Blixt
President
cc: Peter Cangialosi, MCWD
Andrew Syverson, Wenck
Steve Cramar, Minneapolis
�
C. MAC has made a good-faith effort to identify
mitigation sites as close to the airport as possi6le.
Aithough repiacing wetlands within the subwatershed
and within the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District's
boundaries is desirable, a site or sites large enough to
satisfy the required replacement is extremely difficult
to locate in this urbanized watershed. The following
factors make this task difficult:
1) The considerable area of wetiand fill required.
Because 32.96 acres of wetland would be
impacted by the MSP 2010 LTCP (most at a
replacement ratio above 1:1), finding potential
mitigation sites within a highly urbanized setting
is probiematic at best. Such sites are also
commonly relatively small which would require
working with numerous landowners to sacure the
required replacement acreage. The logistics of
assembling such a mitigation package in a timeiy
manner for permit appiications makes such a
scenario prohibitive.
2) The general lack of lands available for wetland
creation/restoration in the metropolitan area.
Most of the land that is not yet developed in the
metropolitan area is designated for uses which
are incompatible with wetland creation or
restoration. The number of potential mitigation
sites is further reduced since it is not possible to
develop wetland on all undeveioped parcels from
a scientific and engineering standpoint and not all
undeveloped parcels are currently upland.
Evidence of the shortage of wetland mitigation in
the seven county metropolitan area is born out by
the fact that there are currently only 10 metro-
area weiland bank accounts in the state wetland
bank. Of these 10, one account has only 0.02
acres, another account has a balance of oniy
0.48 acres and a third has a balance of 0.26
acres. Creating wetland mitigation in the Twin
Cities metropolitan area is further complicated by
greatly inflated land prices and compromised
quality of the habitat surrounding the wetland,
which is common in deveioping areas.
3) Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular
No. 150/5200-33. This guidance recommends
that wildlife attractants (including wetland
mitigation projects) be sited at least 10,000 feet
from airports which serve turbine-powered
aircraft and that a distance of 5 statute miles be
maintained between wiidlife attractants and
approach or departure airspace. This limits
MAC's ability to look for sites in close proximity
to the airport.
Unlike public highways, mitigation for the airport is not
restricted to the seven-county metropolitan area and,
under the Wetiand Conservation Act (WCA), wetlands
can ba replaced in any county that is a less than 50
percent area (i.e., less than 50°k of its wetland area is
pre-settlement wetland). The WCA rules state that:
"Wetlands impacted by public transportation
projects may be repiaced statewide, except that
wetlands impacted in a less than 50 percent area
must be replaced in a less than 50 percent area,
and wetlands impaoted in the seven-county
metropolitan area by public highways must be
replaced in the affected county, or, if no
restoration opportunities exist in the county, in
another seven-county metropolitan area county"
(Minn. Rules 8420.0540, Subp.5).
The rules and regulations of the Corps of Engineers and
the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources do not
contain geographic restrictions such as those found in
the WCA. These agencies have reviewed and given
preliminary planning-level approval to at least one
potential mitigation site which lies outside of the
geographic area required by the WCA.
�(�������� ���,��������� ���������'�
. � 26 Eau Evhzree Srzsc, Sune 206 Sainc paui. MN 55101 <a p1�nm (612) 223-5969 fa (61212Z33967
� •
k�M Cnmmi¢ee Hm�bas
A�e blkvwobs SopR�
NrcebS�ohie0y
Q1ablMmrFuYamnc
OcrWQVIII�vFa.Wvio[ �
6o+MaAWAme�e' .
��°d4AfYA6ro
u..o�.,.s�a bvn we.Q
Cm
�.:a.eaimw.b.aw
We ra.vis
raawsae�awe�smce
t�..mde..o�m�.vea.
5�vem
•:. . alo.r�a.,n,ovn*.
�dasarwenm�qm�v '
��
Yebvbwpla�luesTde
Mry
����
n,rw,r,.ww,a�m�
ts�.se..au+us�vka
'..�cm.rb,w�..d
��n
F� +4awm� tecw.r�
naa . .
�•.em rma nmLb� �
�..em awmea� w�
n..�.em n� . .
�..em.��.a.m
�.
�+.�..», �„�,�, -
�,.
'..eo�. ars�+:�m
r�� ,
�a�aa �.a+o.leem
r.d�,unoo,�a
roua.,�rau u c�,.m
�m
TMreu�t��
w�m.�.�e.�a.omx
����
S+:�rayr +�,+o�no..d
�
s.��..s��am � .
s.R, or.e.�„o�w.
�.,o.w�,mso.a.g
sw�urwmmmnmo.wa.oa
.Lbn TayvvbPf4r�irt[
Tnq Vmin(
T4Tmab�pc�ad
ua,f�o�nm, ,,,.,..
w�� m
wmn.n�e�.
w.�,.rm.ec�., �
�� �
.�r,o.o,s�.�
4 M�Y�9.�998
Jeffrey W. Hamiel •
Executive Director
Metropolitan Airpor[s Commission
6040 - i8"' Avenue 5outh
Minneapolis, MN 55450
', DearMc Hamieh
We are writing to you to express the position of the undersigned
organizations regarding the requertfirom the U.5. Fish and Wildlife
• 5ervice to receive mitigation from the Federal Aviation AdministraUon
(FAA) and Metropolitan Airports Commission �MA�_ Weare in
support of the request forapproximatefy $Z7 mitiion in funding to
mitigate forthe known impacts of the new north-south runway on the
reveational and educa[ional values of the Minnesota River National
• Wildlife Refuge (MNVNWR). We are aiso supportive ofefforts to
consider a perpetual mitiga[ion proposal chat would provide an
ongoing source of funds for conservacion in the LowerMinnesota
River Watersfied.
Many members af our organizations currently enjoy bird watching,
nature hikes and environmental edutation programs either on their
own or sponsored by the MNVNWR, Minnesota River ValleyAudubon
Chapter, and others. The routing of inmming and outgoing airtraffic
oversome of the mort heavily used birding and nature education spotr
in the Twin Gities will certainly eliminate the experience in major
poRions of the MN V N W 2
Our organizations are in generai agreement with the mitigation
package proposed to the FAA and MAC by the U.S_ Fish & Wildlife
Service on May xz, �g97_ This request forvisitor <enter facitity
replacement, outdoor rea�eation and interpretive facility replacement,
operations support, exhibit/retail bookshop space at the MSP
international Airport, and planning support, totafing $Z6,q5o,3o0, isa
fair and reasona6te request given the know impacts that will ocar
from air tra�con the new narth/south (3S/i�) rynway.
As referenced above, our organizations are very witling to expiore new,
and somewhat aeative, alternatives to ciassic mitigation padcages.
Publi<opinion research indicates that nearly go% of atl Minnesocans
support effbr[s to acquire, enhance and protect our precious natural
resources, incfuding residenks ofihe Lower Minnesota River
Watershed and the flying public. The impacts from the new runway
will 6e perpetuai and recurring, and they wiI( Iimit public enjoymentas
bng as airpianes artive and depart from this new runway. Therefare, •
we would be very interested in exploring a mitigation padcage that
would recognize the ongoing nature of the adverse impact through an .
HEP rtasxna a cu'�nni ma�erldP hue otorv 390.000 !&ucromrt
Comments noted. See General Response 7 for
MAC proposed mitigation.
Jeffizy W. Hamiel page y
�Y �9. �998
angoing annual compensatlon padcage The establishment of a i.ower Minnesota River
Watershed Gonservatton Fu�d is something we recommend foryour cansideration.
We beiicve that by workfng together in a<ooperadve fashion with ali tnterested
parUes, a proposal that would provtde for �) the new runway expansion so desperately
needed to serve the Twin Citfes and a) replacement of areas lost to the reveatlonai
public and enhancement efforts to protect additlonal natural amenities in the Lnwer
Minnesota River Watershed.
our organizations stand ready to workwith you, the FAAand the U.S. Fish & Wiidlife
Servicc to seek resolution to this mitigation. Thank you.
Sincerely, •
Friends of the ' nesofa Vail
0y �
Nel n T. French
�Gs Ex tive �irector
Alliance for Metropolitan SWbility
eY f`�� �,t,un...�r��,
Rusz ndams
iGs Director
Uean Up Our River Environment
ey ���'I�/Af,.il�c� T✓N
ly Lokken
Its Organizer
Glean WaterActionAlllance
ey '-�d(�e,�.�/�...,/ 7`JFf
MarieZellar 7� `
its Sta[e DlrecCor
Fish and Wfidiife LegislativeAiilance
BY ��a��` 4�T Lh'
Gary 8o k
Its ExecuUve Dlrector
Friends ofthe Mlssissippf River
ey ��ctc G�T� jy
Whitnty Oark
1[s ExecuCive Director
insiftute forAgriculture and Trade
Policy
ey N,oc.� /�ich�e /T.7�1
Ntei RICMe !
Its PolicyMalyst
Instltute for Lo<al Setf-Reliance
sy dd��s.��*a rTM
hnBailey ��
Ics Reuarch Assodate
izaak Walton League—Midwest
Office
ey (�(/�C.a.�.a�' - ��J�
Willfam Granc
�[s Direccor,MidwctOfflce
y C� O'
bioomington, minnesofa
3215 Nlest OW Shakapee Road • BiooMngton MN 35131�3096 •(612) 918-8920 � FAX: 9�8�8949 • TDD: 948-8740
Iune15,1998
Nigel D. Finn�.y ' .
Depvty Executive Direcior .
Metropoliian AirporLs Commissian .
6040 28th Avenue South ' _
Mioonpolis, MN 55450 . �
RE: Comments on Final Em�ironmeutal Impact Statement Dual Track Airpoct Planning Process
Dear Mr. Finney: .
"ILe Bloomington City Couacil has reviewed the F'mal Environrnrnt�l Lnpad Statemeut (FE[S) for t6e
Dual Traek Airport PLwning Process and b.is ihe following commenu:
� In March 1995, the Bioomington City Council adopted a poGcy supporting a new nortL-south nmway
because, when combined with appropriate operational mitigalion, it offers tl�e opportunity to incmase
aicpvrt capacity and mipgate noise in Bloomington's residential areas. I3owever, careful attenlian must
6e givea to'clesigniug noise riritigating ilight tiacks'arid aucraft operation�proceduies. �The.City Qf
BloomingWu ezpecCs thaLthe aeAial depaztuie flight'tiacks and'proceddies'for nim4ay i�735 w$t
camply'witti'th'e'assumptioas'originally presented 40 �hhe'City ofBloomington by hIAC; speciScally:
> all depactures wi11 st�y e�st of TH7T until tliey reac6 tlie Minnesota River ' .
>. ihe best ava�7able teclmology (for example GPS) will tie used to keep aircr�ft witLin designated
comdors whic6 mitigau �ise impacGs on residential areas.
> a nevr cunway use system which mcorporates tbe lowest impact way to route eariy morning
and late nigt�t opeeations will be de,wised to route these flig6ts in comdors wldch mtail the least
residential impact .
In the Ciry's January 30, 1996 comment letter on the Draft ELS, tl�e City commenfed clearly and
forcefully on tLe flight departure uacks and noise mitigarion far the north-south nu�way. The City
expcessed the importance of deciding appropriate iatulatian and operational miti�tion procedums ia
cooperation with aff� cities. North-South Runway Figur�s Q 2 and FF-! still s6ow 660 moathty,
departures using a'280° (east to west) heading overthe residential midsection ofBloomingtoa. As an �
operational mitigatian me�svre, these departures must iue tuming points aod he:ulings for a flig6t track
over the Minnesota River. The 240° 6culing illustrated in figuce Q-2 would not minimize noise
nnpads on residential uses because it is not cenieied over the industriai and open space corridor along
the Minnesota'River. This etement of tLe ELS is deScient in not respoading to'the City's comn�ents on
the Drati EIS and does not propcjse altemativcs to mitigate noise impacts on msidentia! azu�s. The
City Council expecEs the recdrd of decision ta addiess' operatioual mitigation fdr the�north-south '
runway that lives up.to'MAC's cbmmitrnents to the City of Bloomington to effedively mitigate eoise
over"residential'areas by establishin� flight tracks over non-residential areas uvng state-of-the-art
mstrucncntadon. �. ' •
M Affirmative Action/Equa1 Opportunities Emptoyer
�
A. Departure tracks for Runway 17 were developed
with FAA air traffic controllers so that the full capacity
of the runway could be abhieved without compromis-
ing safety, and to not unduly burden, where possibie,
any one community wiih noise. The resultant tracks
include headings to the east, south, and west. Flight
headings are assigned after takeoff and are expressed
in terms of magnetic compass directions to the pilots.
Since aircraft have different operating conditions and
are subject to varying wind and weather conditions, a
given heading wiii result in different aircraft paths over
the ground (or tracksl. The fiight tracks used to
represent assigned headings in this EIS are average
center of gravity tracks. Past efforts to channel all
Runway 22 departures on one heading over the
Minnesota River valley were objected to by FAA for
capacity and safety reasons and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service for overfights of the Minnesota Valley
Nationai Wildlife Refuge. In order to gain the full
capacity of the new runway, at least two runway
headings are required in each general direction, so that
successive departures bound for the same generai
direction (e.g., west) can �be launched with FAA
minimum separations. For maximum efficiency and full
capacity utilization, Runway 17 is the primary runway
for departures to the west. With oniy one heading to
the west over the Minnesota River, controllers would
have to hold a successive departure on the same track
2-3 minutes before clearing if for takeoff, whereby
departures can occur one minute apart if divergent
headings are used. As a result, Runway 17 westbound
departures included two headings.
However, MAC did strive to minimize the departures
over Bloomington; about 73°�G of all Runway 17 jet
departures would turn west on the 280° heading over
Bloomington, many of which would turn near the river.
(Note that Figure Q-2 has been revised and is attached
to General Response 6.) The lowest estimated altitude
of jet aircraft using this departure heading over
Bloomington residences will vary between 1,430 feet
AGL for the B727 hushkit and 2,460 feet AGL for the
B757. These residences are located on the bluff at
Cedar Circle and Old Cedar Avenue and are within the
DNL 55-60 contour.
The future update to the MSP Part 150 study could
assess alternatives to the EIS departure tracks,
balancing noise impacts with runway capacity and
safety requirements. Within the Part 150 Update,
Iimiting departures over residential areas could be
studied during soma hours as well as methods for
limiting noise impacts on residential properties due to
early morning and late night operations. Any track
changes proposed by the Part 150 Update would
require environmental documentation and FAA approval
prior to implementation.
Operational mitigation measures for Runway 17-35 were
recommended by ihe MSP Noise Mitigation Committee
and incorporated in the MSP Noise Mitigation Program
adopted by MAC. The Committee did not recommend
restrictions on flights over Bloomington. The MSP Noise
Mitigation Program adopted by MAC is referenced in the
Record of Decision as the means that will be used to
mitigate noise from the proposed project. There are no
plans by FAA and MAC to deviate ftom the flight tracks
presented in the FEIS unless so determined by the Part
150 update.
Nge[ Finney
June 15, 1998
Page 2
M
r
• AppropriaLe noise mitigation is perLaps the prceminent issue of ffie MSP Development and No Actian B. B. The FAA will await the completion of the Part
altematives. Wh;le a MSP Noise Mitigation Program wss acIopced by MAC in Nwem6er of 1996, the 150 study update before determining the area eligible
prcigcam needs to be adequately fuuded and now ieferences that the Soimd Insula6on F�ogam will be for federal participation. Eligihility is ganeraliy limited
«panded w incorpotatc tLe arci witlun the 2005 LDN60-65 conmur: TLe arra eligibk for noise to the DNL 65 + noise contour, but can be eMended to
mitigation needs tn be expanded beyond tk�e facecast 2005 LDN65 contour. In several places the FIIS include the DNL 60 contour thraugh a Part 150 study if
recognizes tLaitlie "area ofpoteatial effect" noise is witiiin the 2005 LDN60 contour and this should determined. to be appropriate 6y local authorities in
be the area designated for noise mitiga6on measures in the record of decision. ` response to (ocally determined needs and values and
_ aPProved by FAA.
:. Figura O-2 Fuuue Land Usa - MSP Altainntive incorrecdy shows the Loag Meadow Cucle single-
fariu7y resideatial developmesst and the aparmimt comple�c in the souti�east quadr�nt of East Old
Shakapee Ruad and 242h Aveu:e as !amre icsidential uses.• Ilie lan3 use should be eLanged to
commercial. The Rouland cownhouse'developmrnt on Skyline Drive u shown as commcrciat and it (�. C. MAC agrees with this comment.
slwuld be single-faenily. . . ' .. . : , •
� Figure Q-6 identiSed azeas in Bloomington as part of tfie Pazt 150 midgafion comp[eted through 1997.
'lhis geap6io is not wrrect since thesa horimes aze in the deEersed ares A map of tbe ituvlated ,
Bloomingcon 6omes is aaac6ed: .. - D. D. MAC agrees with this comment.
• The city recarily ceceived a reyuest for inclusioo from two 6ome ownets unmediately adjacent to the
area drscribed for xquisition subsequwt to adoption of the Noise �tigation Prograu� (page vL�. The
Ciry Council requests that MAC hoid a public heariog where residents can preseat their concems '
befote a final Noise Mitigation PLw is adopted. A wpy of the request for incl�sion is auached. E. E. MAC will CAnt2Ct the City and disCuss thi51'eque5t.
The City of Btoomington extends its appreciation for the oppoitwrity W comment on this very inywrt�t
documen['It is a pmfcssional and thorough document
Any questioas abwtt this commrnt letter should be directed w l,arry I.ee, Director of Community .
Dcvelopmau at 945-8947.
S�y, . '
��r��'/� ' . � .
coial xoute -
Mayor .
Enclosures �
cc: MAC Commissioner John Fi'imle `
;
. �
ar ;
W
.'!
i � � 57EIN
$ � q� 0 TtON
� 3�, � ��.�
i
a�
-0 � d
iATE �� '
� i
� . �eMn ❑
. M ,Af�1M'M'
nu v
Sound Uuvlution Program
Declined Part 150 Sound
insulation Program
��E d�
; Noisepoint Defertzd Ana
E PY'
� n� � �"on � �I t
,�qF'G � �'� u
cSS �raa �s � �
� . E. Blsr �57: � �-•
' MaaRIE�40,
W � 8EL6.�NOE
< � 11N0 YAFfEo
E ADOITION
n
��"� . _ �
— ' � -S�EREET.
.,I: m a
�: �
I � I � �:"�.
�,�;;: _ _ .
��
�
o �� a
asr s,< ,:�,.,� �
i /p .NI' I 1��A1 lbal
c��� � u m Y�q•�
8
2255 East Old Shakopee Road
8loomington, Minnesota, 55425
May 18, 1998
Lawrence �ee
Director of Community Deveiopment
City of Bioornmgton .
2215 West Old Shakopee Aoad -
Bloomington, Mn 55431
Dear Director Lee,
We are writing in response to viewing a tape of the recent
Bloomington City Council meeting in which you reported on the plans for
East Bioomington in regards to the building of the new south runway, to
be completed in the year 2003. We also have looked over a copy of
�loomingto� Briefin4, volume 6, number 2, which discusses the
comprehensive pian, focusing on airport noise impact
Our house is located next to the Carison home, which is next to the
line drawn on your map. You have proposed taking ali the homes on our
block up to the Carlson's home and our home. We are devastated to 6e
left at such a disadvantage, and we beg you to reconsidec We would like
to have our homes included in the buy-out proposai as we are just as '
close to the airport noise, and the quality and value of our property will
be negatively impacted as well! We would like to sae more homes
removed, probabiy to the end of our biock (86th-87th street), or at leasi" �-
to the end of the line of homeowners who agree to be bought out. We
know that in neighborhood discussions, our next door neighbors agree
with us. We believe you have received a letter from Elaine Carison on
this same issue.
We wouid have written or coniacted you earlier, but we were
unaware untii the council meeting that decisions in our neighborhood
were being made. Please call us (854-7186) or write to us about this
situation. Thank you very much.
Sin¢erely
�� � �
Tom Kiiper and Susan Tracy
e
J�� �
June 17, 1998
Jenn Unruh
Metropolitan Airports Commission
6040 28�' Ave. South
Minneapolis, MN 55450
Dear Jenn:
1HOMAS EGAN
t.wy«
PATRICIA AWADA
BEP. BLOM9UISt
SANDRA A, MASIN
THEOD(?RE WACHfER
Caimci� Mambeq
hiOMAS HEDGES
Gry n�tmvisrmta
E. J. VAN OVERBEI(E
CltyClerk
In officiai nction taken aY its meeting of hme 16, 1998, the Eagan City Council acted to
formally endorse the final EIS commenu presented with respect to the duat track airport
planning process. These comments were previousiy submitted to conform with the
comment deadline.
° If you have any questions concerning the commeats or this council action, please let me
Imow. -
Sincerely,
���
I ohenstein
Assistant to the City Administrator
JH/cns
MUNICIPAI CEMER 7HE LONE OAK 1REE ���NANCE FACRII'/ �
J8J0 FlLOT �U�OB 120A0 7�¢ gyMBOI OF SiRENGTH AND ("�ROWiH W OUR COMMUNITY �`' � COACHMAN POiNi
EAGAN. MMNESOTA 55172.1897 EA6AN, MINNESpTA 55172
Pt10NE: (CiZj OBi-A600 Ph10NE: (61� 601�d300
FA%: (b7� OBl-d012 EcM1lai OppaMlly/AH6filalive ACffOn EfnpkJYe� FA%: (61� 6B1-4i60
iD�: (61T d54-8515 ID6 (A1T d54-85�5
�
; � � � 7
��`_
REL'E1�lEp
JUN 15 �,qg
DEPUTY EXEC. DIR,
� Ttroraasc�nN
. , . . �
June 11, I�3 PATIeC1AAWADA
een e�onnaursr
svman a nwsw
. � . � � iHEODIX2E WACHIER
. . JCtIIlU[I[il}I . . . . � . . CandiMertwars
Metropo6tan Aiiports Conwission . n+or.us r�es
6040 28° Avrnue South ' eN^���ra
Muweapolis, MN .55450 �. �. van over�'
GN Cb�t
Dear 7enn:.
• Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the adequacy of the Dua! Track tirport Plawiing •
Process Fnel Environmental Impact StatemenL The foitowing comments have been adopted by
the City's Airpore R.elations Commissioa They are submitted for consideratioa ia advance of the
commeot deadiine of June 15. The wmments wHi be coasidered for rati6cation by the City
Council at its mceting of June 16. Notice of the Counwl's action Wn11 be forwarded to you the .'
ne�¢ day. . .
The City of Eagan has p�rtioPated'in tl�e Dua] Trsck Airport Planning Proc�s ficm iu beginnin&
. . . ..
The state, regioq various agwaes and municipalides have piovideii input intcnded to shape
decisiau,conceming the future;of the aicport that w'ill balance�an importuit iu8ustiy's need for
grawth with the emnronmental consequenca oft3iat growt6...ln particulai; the C'�ty df F�,n -
submitted commenis re�ardiag}heDraft EIS thai have been inciuded in the Finat F1S. The City
recbgnizes that certain aspects ofthe airport decision have been defined by staNte. Wittun those
parameters, it is essential that eyecy reysonable effort 6e made co limit t6e environmental
consequences of the aicport's acpansion ou'the sucrounding communities. •
The City ofEagan finds that the Final EIS addruses many concerns adequately. Hawever, the
City finds that operations �rowth projections, one of the primary assumptioas of tLe analysis,
remain substantially undecstated and that the identified noise mitigation uctivi[ies are inadequate in
general and signif candy inadequate wiW respect to noise �pacts associated with the proposed
north-south runvrly. •
• Air Trattic Projections — The FEIS continues to project operations l�vels that are well below '
trends and FAA projections. Even the FL�h Forecast, which anticipates dramatic grovnh
tfuough the year 2000, shows a significant reduction in growth rates between 2000 and 2010,
� tLe petiod in wf�ich the expanded capacity ofRunway 17-35 is expected to be avaitdbla
tiy�le.many factors affect, operations giowth, it, is �not,reasonable to condude i6aithe
availabiGty of capacity wHl be:fo!lowed ti}i less.growth, t}�an would occqr duiin'g'the ": �
•constrained conditions preceding the op'ening oEthe nuiway: T6e us'e of.a low forecut`w�ll .
have tcvo consequenca. It wHl force coasideration'of additional capaaty' enhancemeuts
MUHN',lPAL CENIER . . : iHE IONE OAK IREE � . ' MAIMENANCE FAGtlIV
�aao A.or �wo9 aonn ntE SYNt6a. oF stRENGiti allo eaovnli w aia cOrnMuwrv . sso� cweHnuweorrz
EAGAN. A!PltTq7A 5511T•7847 . EA(9Af1 MINNE�OiA 55171
RiCfE: (61� 6811600 {RIOIdE (61T6D1-aJCO
FA%:(61�681..N12 . 'EqutlOppaltYfiry/At(mq1{ygACfiOn6t�(JIOyBr . . FAY:(61".J6EI-4760
TDO:i61n65n-0S.L' . . . . . TDD:I612/a5a�e U
0
A. MAC is attempting to limit adverse impacts on
surrounding communities due to operation of the
airport. �
B. The forecasts used in the FEIS are unconstrained
forecasts, and therefore independent of any changes in
capacity. Consequently, the expanded capacity of
Runway 17-35 does not affect the Base or High
forecasts used in the FEIS. Decisions on additional
capacity, such as Runway 17-35, will determine how
much of the forecast activity can be accommodated.
See General Response 3 for discussion of forecasts,
and General Response 4 for noise impacts due to
higher operations. Noise insulation will be based on
the most accurate DNL 60 contour, as stated in the
MSP Noise Mitigation Plan.
sooner than is anticipated by the MAC Long Term Comprehensive Plan and it wiil result in
geuter noise impacts in the communities surrounding the airport. To the e�ctent that much of
the impact anaJysis is based on these assumptions, the document is i�adequate in those
respects.
Noise 2vTitigation Activities — The FEIS outlines the MAC's mitigation plans with respect to
the airport's expansioa While the ptans go beyond the requirements of the FAA, they are
inadequate with regazd to the scope and nature of the activities proposed. Specifically:
• The City of Eagan has advocated for and continues to support an expansion of the area
eligibte for noise mitigation beyond the DNL 60 outfined in the mitigation program. This
is especially important in the azeas to be impacted by the "new" noise from Runway 1?-35.
In Eagan, the 2005 DNL 60 contour cactends only to the M'innesota River valley, but
recent experience with the redistribution oFsome operations from the parallel runways to
the crosswind runway suggests that the magnitude of the change in noise exposure should
be considered in addition to the projected levels.
For examp(e, the lazgest inciease in noise anticipated in the FETS is noted at Tesseract
School near I-I'ighway 13 and Cedar Avenue. White the 15 DNL increase does not raise
the azea to 60 DNL, it would be perceived as an approximate tripling of noise frOm the
pre-construction leveis. Tesseract is the only receiver location analyzed south of the
M'innesofa River and it is likely to be indicative of the magnitude of increase at residentia!
locations in southern and western Eagan and northem Burnsville.
The FEIS is inadequate in failing to provide for the implementation of noise mitigation
activities out to the 50 DNL contour for Runway 17-35. lvttigation could be phased out
in a graduated manner between 60 and 50 DNL to recognize the reduction of actual
impacG Programs should include community stabilizarion programs in addition to sound
insulation.
The Stabilization Report, which was required by the MAC 1vHti�ation Program and noted
in the FEIS noise mitigation section, has not been submitted, adopted o� implemented.
Air Traffic Patterns — The FEIS assumes in its noise impact calculations that specific
procedures aze foliowed that minimize noise impacu outside of noise compatible areas such as
the Eagan-Mendota Heights Corridor. Compliance with such procedures has been
problematic in the past and no indications are provided within the FEIS to indicate that
comp6ance will improve. It is also the City's position that it not receive an unfair proportion
of the operations at the airpoR. Since more than half of all arrivals and departures currently
occur in and near the corridor area of the Ciry, it is inappropriate to concentrate operations
&om Runway 17-35 over the City as well. The MAC•and FAA should implement procedures
for aircraft from thai Runway that would limit the need for further overflights ofEagan.
Thank you very much for considering these comments. If you have any questions, please contact
me.
Sincerety,
7 ohenstein
istant to the City Administrator
��
B. Response on previous page.
C. The MAC has committed to exp5nd the
residential sound insulation program to incorporate the
area encompassed by the 2005 DNI. 60 noise contour
as recommended by the MSP Noise Mitigation
Committee. The FAA will await the completion of the
Part 150 study update before determining the area
eligible for federal participation. Eligibility is generaily
limited to the DNL 65+ noise contour, but can 6a
e�ended to include the DN� 60 contour through a Part
150 study if determined to ba apprapriate by local
authorities in response to locally determined needs and
values. The MSP Noise Mitigation Committea
considered mitigation to DNL 50 but determined that
mitigation to the DNL 60 was the preferred solution
for the communities impacted by noise generated at
MSP.
The Federal interagency Committee on Noise indicates
that consideration of aircraft generated noise levels
below DNL 60 in an urban setting may provide false
findings. ,Additionaliy, the INM output does not
consider background noise leveis (e.g., highway noise)
which will likely mask much of the impact of aviation
noise at these lower levals. The magnitude of change
is considared when determining significance of the
proposed action, but at lower DNL values tha urban
setting plays a larger role in determining significance.
D. D. The Working Group met five times between
August and November of 1997. A draft report on
community sta6ilization is being prepared for the
Working Group and submittal to the State Advisory
Councii on Metropolitan Airport Planning.
E. E. Daparture tracks for Runway 17 were developed
with FAA air traffic controllers so that the full capacity
of the runway could be achieved, and so as not to
unduly burdan, where possible, any one area. The
future update to the MSP Part 150 study could assess
runway use and refinement of noise abatement
alternatives.
SUBSTITUIE REPORT
T&PW — Your Committee, having under consideradon draft comments of the City of
Minneapolis on the Final Environmentai impact Statement for the Minneapolis-St Paul
Dual Track Aitport Pianning Process and, having held a public hearing thereon, now
recommends approvai of the comments (Petn No �/ 3,p� on file in the Office of the
City Clerk) and that the proper City officers be authorized to submit said comments to the
Metrapolitan Airports Commission by the deadline of June 15, 1998.
' ADOPTEd
��.a�m�:
� � AYE' N1T I �( AQ4Tlf � OVENOOfi � SUSfAW' � I AYfi I NAY I W14A I�rt I WFfUbp6 I SVSTMI
���___--��___--
11
7t • • � � I
\ .� �- � iI
VC.��V /I�I
��
a
�
Coomenu as proposed to Cauncit
June 12. 1996 .
Comments of t4e City of Minneapous on tne rma�
Enviroomental Impact Statement for the Minneapolis-St Paul Dual Tmck
Airport Ylanning Process
Approved by the City Council and D�Iayor of t6e City otNlianeapolis
12 June 1998
1Le City of Minneapolis' comments on the adequucy of the Final Envimnmental Impact Statement
(FEIS) ere based on the assumption that there will be u completed contract lxtween the City and the
Metropolitan Airports Commission pcohibiting the coashvction of a third parallel runway without
City of Mimeapolis approval. We anricipate esecutian of this contract will occur prior to Uu issunnce
of the Recoid of Decisioa
1. Airport Opentions Forerrnts: Operauons focecasts used in the FEIS nre too modest and
inudequsitely mpresent a most intense devolopmrnt scenario at Mimeapolis-Sc Paul lntemadonal
Airport (MSP). T6e Meanpo6tan Aieports Commission (MAC) High Forccast esamute of
603,800 annual operations for the yenr 2010 is some 21% higfi�r than estimetes uud in the Draft
EIS but far short of the Federal Avintion Administraaon's (FAA) forecast 658,900 opersdons for
that same yeac Further, legislaave action oading the Dual Trnck process stated t6nt
rnvicunmantal effects and ussociafed costs must be evatuuted according to sissswnptions of
600,d00, 650,000, 700,000 and 750,000 airciaft opetations. While the MAC High Forecast was
dcemcd not to ccceed any llueshold of environmental significance, the same cannot be snid for
the FAA Forec.�st nor the 700,000 and 750,OOD aircraft operations scenarios. Untii annlyses are
conducted indicating [hat no capaciry or environmontal thresholds will be exceoded with these
incceased opemdons scanarios, it should not be coacluded that the Dtaft EIS or the Finat EIS
have adequamly addressed the extent of potential impacts on noise, air, water, and other
environmental conccros. The City ofMinneapolis vrould like to emphasize that future airpart
opomrions at MSP wtrich r.cceed the MAC High Fomcast scenario wilt offer no pmteut for
deviaaons hom the 2010 Long Term Comprehensive Plan (LTCP) and no jusuficauon for tlu
development of a third pnrallel runway at MSP.
2. Grnund Noise: Ic is clear that restricung the measure of noise impacu ro those occurring in-
flight doa a poor job at estimating tht uue impact oFairpoct noise on neighborhoods in
proximity to the airport for pczsent or projected £untce levels of. operatioa Low ftequency noise
and certain ground noise geneeated thmugh idling, taxiing and particulazty tako-off thnLt wash
ovc affected ncigh6arhoods, yet are not ftilly accounted for in the models. While
implementaton of the MSP Altema6ve lessens funse impacu by minimiang airfield detays, and
increasing use of stage 3 aircraR decreases noise per operntioq the shaiply increasing number of
operstions at MSP will have a countmailing aegative impact on the qonlity of life in
surcounding neighborhoods.lLe City of Minneapolis is awaze that, at present, the FAA has no
stnndscds =egazding impacu or mitigaaon stxategia for low frequency noise. A long range
solution to this problem is for the FAA to adnpt standsrds in this amn. To the extent MAC
negotiates miagation of this noise, MAC needs to negotiate wieh all communities ufi'ccted by
ground noise from existing ivaways as well as expaasions or new cunweys.
A. See General Responses 3 and 4.
�
See General Responses 1 and 2.
�
Cm�ofdrc�ryofMm.apolcm�beFualEmimonvaalG�qactsumnort � ,
fttlhtMi iwlisSCPaulOual7rac#Airyort%anninsPmcas . .
3. 2020 Concept Pl�n: Th� pmposed actiou studied in the FEIS is the implcmentation of the MSP
2010 LTCP. Ti�e 2020 Concept Plan for MSP is also dealt with in some dctail, inctuding the
pioposed addition of a ncw replacement tetmina! bu�ding on'the wat side.of the airport and
substantial associated roadway impiovaments. lt should be clearly stated in the Record of
Decision that only the implementation of the MSP 2010 LTCP is considaed as part of the
proposed action and that the 2020 Concept Plan cannot be implemented without fiill
rnvironmental rcview and specific action by the koislatu;e.
4. Pianoing Iiorizon: The Long Term Comprehensive Plan and subscqurnt anviconmcnta!
documeuts use a planning horizon of 2020, as stipulated in the Dua] Track Iegislation of 1989.
Tbis 30 year planning period was chosen in order ta ens�uz [hat the long range development
needs of the airport were adequately considered. It should be noted t6at ihe oiiginal Dual Tcack
legislation is approaching I O years old and the original 30 yeaz horizon is fast approaching a 2D
year }wrizoa In order tn ensure that Iong tecm development ne�ds continue to be adequatety
considered, the MAC should cxtrnd projectioas out by ten years to'maintain the original intent of
the 30 yoar planning horizon. •
5. Ec000mic Impacts: The Ciry ofbfinneapolis requests that the FAA study the economic impact
of an airpon which servcs as n hub for a major airline.'This study should ioclude an analysis of
the benefits and the cost to tnveles, to affected parts of the community, and to the community az
a whote. T6e City of Minneapolis recognizes thnt there is an economic benefit ro the community
by having a major airline hu6 at the MSP Airport, however it has been documented that
passengers departing MSP pay a premiwn in contrut to non-hub airports. If such a premium can
be determined and shown to exceed the economic bene6ts associated with a hub oparation,
including direct and indirect employment, the Ciry will booin aclive negotiations with the Lub
air[ine to provide additional benefits lo halance this deficiency. .
6_ Runway Use: lt is important that runway use at MSP follow ihe goals ontlined in the FEIS, and
that the new north/south runway be used to r*+nr�*+��� noise xcdistn'tiuGon to the greatest octent
possible. Restricting operalions to and &om tho nonh oFthe new runway 17/35 to limited
circuu�stances related to safety masons, weat6er conditions or tempocary runway closuccs, us
ouilined in the FEIS, is coasistent with this goal. In the in[erim, however, the MAC must tulfill
its obGoations to use runway 4l22 for noise mitigation pwposcs, as agrmd to in the 1996 Noise
Miuga6on Plan.
7. No Third Y�rrllel Runway: No third parallel runway will be coasuucted without !he upproval
of the City of Minneapolis. 'R�e anticipated completion of a conhact between MAC and the City
of Minneapo6s means that, regardiess of increasGs in opetations, consuvction of a third paral]el
xunway will romain outside the purview of imptementation activities for MAC well beyond the
planning horizoa of t6e FEIS.
8. Acquisition of Bur�au of hlines Property/T,ease of the Vetenns Administrrtion Yroperty:
Should We MAC pcoeeed with its acquisidon of appro�mately 27 acies ofBureau of Mines
(BOtv� property within tho Mississippi National Rivez and Recmation Ara (hWRAA) and also
FE7SdFDOC:Smb:NllAb pasc - 2
F;
�::
r�.
C. C. The ROD includes these conditions.
�. D. The year 2020 complies with the law; the
legislation specifies a 30-year horizon for airport
comprehensive pians required to be prepared in 1990.
�
E. Tha analysis mandated by the legisiature
� addresses your requasted study; see discussion of
analysis and findings on FEIS page V-49 and 50. For
any additional study, it is suggested that you contact
the Metropolitan Council. As noted, average fares are
higher at MSP than at non-hub airports of similar size.
As a result of the Northwest hub, however, MSP has
more flights to more non-stop markets available with
greater frequency. The additional service provides a
benefit of reduced travel time and more convenient
schedules.
F. F. FAA and MAC are committed to follow the
provisions of the FEIS, as stated on page A.3-17 in
Appendix A. Until Runway 17/35 is constructed and
operational, MAC is committed to follow the provisions
of the Noise Mitigation Plan in Appendix B of the FEIS.
MAC and Minneapolis haye adopted the provisions of
an agreement, and formal contract language is in
preparation.
G. G. MAC has adopted this position.
F"�. H. MAC is committed to implement this request.
c«�� ar� cry orMi��wi� � uK F�,w F.�,,� imw� s��w
r eK �r�w�u-u. rm am T.�c n:� e�m; n�
being a part of the Runway Protection Zone and related zoncs of an e�ctended Rumvay 422, the
City of h[inneapolis requesfs that MAC giant a conservation easement to the National Park
Service to restrict funue use of tLis land to open space, wiidtife l�abitat and light recreational uses H. Re5pon5B 0� previous page.
open to the public, to preserve and enhance on-site historic resources, and to work with other H.
agencies in shrengthening the link between Minnehaha Repoval park and Fort Snelling State
Park. This conservadon easement should aLso be enforceable by the City of Minneapofis. Shoutd
MAC lease or purchase all or part of the Vererans Administration property within MNRr1A and
adjacent to the BOIvt propecty, similar protections should be discussed with the MAC.
Lipht 12aiURoadway Improvements and ModiTcations: The FEIS goes to considerable length
detailing roadway improvement iequirements for MSP ovt to year 2020, but deaLs onty briefly
with mass hansit al.ezna6ves. It is important for the long-term development oFt6e reo onal
vansportauon necwod: that recent progress toward the implementadon oFthe reo on's fust Gght
rait transportation link be integiated inro MSP development pians. In order to ma.eimize the
a
potential for signiLcantly increasing aitport-retated ridership, access for light tail mact be
provided direcdy into the main terminal area, and not be relegated ro a fringe locadon. "Ihis
requires inoving forward with planning for connecting tunnets and other associated infrasuvctesse
neces.sary to make this tink a success. Lessening airport related vehicle traffic on-site aod on the
surrounding roadway system through the promotion of light rail will serve to lessen the impacts
oFsurface trafric noise on surzounding neighborhoods and is co�sisrent witli the bfAC's '
willingness to c�cauiine mitigation measures to further reduce CO emissions associated wit6
aix�ort acdvity. The Record of Decisioo should clearly indicate that madway improvements ,'
required for the imptemrntation of the 2020 Concept Ptan require further environmenta! review
by the Minnesota Depaxtment ofTtansportation and the Federal Highways Administeation. The
bfAC must take responsibiGty for any nogative impacts on sunoundin� city streets caused by.
street closures or other airport development acdviry and cnter into negotiations with the City of
MinneapoGs to determine apptaptiate solutions.
10. Noise Im'pacts: The City ofMinneapolis encourages the FAA and the MAC to reconniu that
airport noise effects the entire city of biinneapolis. "Ihe Ciry requests that the MAC expand their
noise mitigarion pcogram citywide. The City is pleased to see that the 1996 Noise Mitigation
Plan as adoptal by the bIAC has been included in the FEIS. The Pan y50 souod insulation
pro�am musc be completed for aieas civrendy in the DNL 65 contour by year 2002, and
extended out to DNL 60 immediate(y afrer, as described in the 1998 MSP Capital Impmvemrnt
Plan and the Noise Ivfitigavon Plan. Funding of doise midgation for areas to be affcceed by the
runway 17/35 should in no way aff'ect the completion schedutes of the o:dsting proro�rams.
Airlines shoald be encouraged to�out hush-kittcd stage 2 aircfafr as soon as possible.
ph<s�
I i. WeUand Mitigation/Sarf'ace Water 1�Ianagement: T'fie FEIS has deteimined t6at
approximately sixty acres of compeasatory mitigatiou of wedand impacts is required associatcd
with the MSP 2010 LTCP, with slighdy more projected for the 2020 Concept Plaa It goes on to
d¢scribe five potentiat mitigaaon sites that have been identified, none of which are Iocated in the
vicinity of the wedands to be atPected by airpon expansion. Whece consistent with appficable
standards the NlAC should undatak� compensatory miagatian for wetlands lost ro airpori
expansion within tho samc wau.rshed dimict boundaries where it occurs and as close to the
affected areas as possible. The FEIS faiLs eo address the impacts oFairport expaasion plaas on
stormwater storagc volumes, overflow elevations and discharge iates and volumes of affected
basins in the event of severe storm occurrences. The FEIS also faits to project potenCai impacts
that planned changes wi116ave on adjacent communitics in the event of sevae storm
occurrenca.
(. I. See General Response 5 for LRT comment
response. The Record of Decision so states the need
for further environmental review. MAC will cooperate
with Mn/DOT and the City in the resolution of any
significant negative impacts on City streets �esulting
from the 2020 plan, if implemented.
J.
1
J. MAC is committed to implement the Noise
Mitigation Program as stated in the FEIS, including
schedules. MAC is encouraging the airlines to phase
out the Stage 2 hush-kitted aircraft.
K. Although desirable, it is very difficult to
accompiish wetiand mitigation in the same watershed.
See Minnehaha Creek Watershed District flesponse C.
K. L. Under current conditions, approximately 95
percent of all impervious surfaces associated with the
MSP facility drain to the Minnesota River through three
watersheds (Minnesota River North, Minnesota River
South, and Snelling Lake) without flowing through any
L. adjacent communities. Under the 2010 ITCP
Altemative this percentage will increase. Drainage
which currently is directed to Duck Lake (which has
never been observed to discharge into Mother Lake1
will be permanently rerouted into the Minnesota Rivar
South drainage/control system.
It is possible that the runway 4/22 extension
pavements would drain to the Minneapolis Storm
Sewer system. it is more likely that this drainage
would be routed into the MSP Minnesota River North
drainage/control system. if this drainage were directed
to the Minneapoiis storm sewer system, the MAC
would secure the necessary permit from the City and
would design a�y control measures dictated by this
permitting process.
For areas which are or will be part of the airport,
approximately 27 acres of impervious surfaces
currently drain overland to Mother Lake. Under the
MSP Alternative, this figure will decrease to 16 acres.
This drainage will be from impervious surfaces other
than airport operating surfaces (runways, taxiways,
etc.), and it is anticipeted that it will be analogous to
typical urban run-off. It is not envisioned that a
detention pond upstream of Mother Lake will be
needed to treat this run-off. However, if it is
established through the appropriate permitting
processes with the Minnesota Poilution Controi Agency
and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District that such
a pond is required, the MAC will develop and utilize
one. It is not anticipated that there will be flooding
concerns associated with dreinage from the airport to
Mother Lake from the airport under the 2010 LTCP
Alternative or the No Action Alternative.
Canw,oesof We Cq ofM�dis m mc Fvd Earevmmy t� Sare�ve
fvUrcMm�d'u-SCAdRd7rzk.�.pasR�m:GP�o�m '
72. Land Use Impacts: The FEiS includcs statemrnts regarding anticipated ►aod redevolopmrnt
activity in the 2010 LTCP and the 2020 Concept Plan. The Ciry of Minneapo(is would like to
clarify that land use cLanges outlined in the FEIS invotving the wholesale change oFresidential
pmperties to commercial uses in Yhe affected neighbozhoods would require amendrurnts to the
City's current comprehensive p1an. Fiirthecmore, the City of Ivlinnnpolis coatemplates no .
cLanges that will ai:er the residential cliarante: of these neighborhoods. .
73. Long-Term Healt6 Impncts:'Ihe FEIS fails to addcess the issue of the long term 6ealth impacts
tfuit airport activity has on'surrounding residents, whe�hoc by r�ference to the incce�ingly Iaige
body of research available on the subject or througli the commissioning of a speci6c study of
MSP and surrounding communi6es, i�cluding the City of Minneapolis. The FEiS faik to
adequately address tlie eBects of air pollution, in particufaz jei ftiel, on the community.11�e City
�of Mimeapolis requats that the FAA identify and meaaure the airborne pollutants nttributable to
aix�ort activity nnd study the health and safery impacts on residents in the neigl�borhoods
surrounding the sixpoR
�
�.\':
M. MAC agrees with the comment; there is no need
to change the City's comprahensive plan as a result of
the proposed action unless the City chooses to do so.
N. The air quality study followed the procedures
contained in the Federai Aviation Administration
Handbook, Air QualityProcedures for Civilian Airports
and Air Force Bases, (FAA-AEE-97-3, April 1997).
Of the airborne pollutants attributable to airport
activity, the two criteria poliutants studied were
Car6on Monoxide and Sulfur Dioxide because MSP is
located within a designated non-attainment area for CO
and a maintenance area for SO=.
The MPCA monitored air quality concentrations at the
Wenonah Elementary School during the months of
October, November and December 1993 (Minneapolis-
St. Paul International Airport Air quality Analysis Study
Report, 22 August 1994). As noted in the report, jet
fuei produces emissions composed of hydrocarbons,
particulates, nitrogen oxide, and carbon monoxide.
The study focused on the collection of hydrocarbons.
and particulates. The series of hydrocarbqn
compounds commonly known as BTEX (benzene,
toluene, ethylbenzene, o-xylene and m-xylene/p-xylene)
were selected for analysis in that study.
Nitrogen oxides were not sampled because there are no
short-term health effects criteria for this pollutant, and
because long-term concentrations are Iargely affected
by motor vehicles. Similarly, carbon monoxide was
also not sampled because motor vehicles are known to
be the predominant source ot these emissions.
A comparison of levels monitored at Wenonah School
with concentrations across the metro area during the
study period revealed that the Wenonah levels were
below or comparable to other sites. The report
concluded that the localized air quality conditions near
the airport are not measurably impacted by aircraft
concentrations. Even though the airport can have
some influence on air pollutant concentration, it does
not appear to be more significant than motor vehicle
traffic or normal background from power plants or
other industrial sources in the Twin Cities Metropolitan
Area.
INTRODUCfION
The City of Richfield, bfinnesota ("Richfieid") submits these comments on the Final
Environmental Impact Statement ("FEIS") for the Dual Track Airport Planning Process at
Minneapolis SL Pau! International Airport (the "Froject"). .As explained below, the FEIS fails to
accomplis6 its principa( purpose: to provide those who wiil decide the fate of the project with an
accurste uoderstanding of the �nvironmenta! impacts, potential altematives, and feasible .
mitigation measures relating to the projecc The information that is disciosed in the FEIS aiso
faits to provide an adequate basis, uader either federal or state law, for a decision to approve the
Project. Moreover; the inadequacies in the FEIS'prevent neiehboring cities and tfieir residents
from being able to assess the condidons that wou[d be experienced if the Project were
constructed orto determine the nahare and extent of req�rired mirigatioa
The following comments do not attempt to state atl of Richjield's concerns regarding the
FEIS. No responses have ever been provided to rnany of Rich&eld's prior comments, while B�
mariy of the responses that have been provided raise more questions than they answer.
Consequendy, Richfield continues ro rely on all of the coaunents tliat it has previously submined
in conneclion with the Project . •
�, .
II. COMiVLENTS REGARDING TFIE EXECLJTIVE SUi�IMARY SECTION
The forecast tiaffic growth and tezminai facility �eqiuremenu inctuded in the FEIS are
fundamentally flawed and undermine the enrire document. 'I'he FEIS should be revised to
include realistic forecasis, and to address the nature and timing of faciIity improvements needed
to accommodate the forecast flight levels (or the implications of not providing the passenger C
terminal and oiher facility improvements needed to accommodate those flight levels). • These
issues aze further explicaEed in die Affidavit of Dr. Geo6rey D. Gosling, a prominent airport
planning expert, which is included in the appendix to these commenks at Tab 1.
The stated pwrpose of the project ignores t6e consideration of potential alternatives.
Especially under NEPA; the fact t}iat the Minnesota legislahse has approved the wnstruction of
Runway L7-35 should not pre-ordain state or federal decisioas regazding the e.Yistence of feasible
alternatives. The failure of the FE1S to recognize that a fimdamenia! ptupose of the FEIS is to
evaluate potential altematives indicates that the FEIS is simply a post hoc rationalization of a
prior decision to approve the runway:
The third pazagraph of this�section limits the proposed actioa to "implementation of the
MSP 2010 LTCP," even thoagh MAC is clearly aware that the state legislature required a
concept plan for 2020 to describe the near-complete build out of the airport. For example,
MAC's reply C to the Minnesota Deparunent of Transportarion comments, at page I-Z? of the
FEIS. confidently discusses "When a new west terminal [excluded &om the definition of the
currentiy proposed action] is needed ...," not whether such a terminal may some day be
required. This reply is inconsistent wi[h the claim in the Executive Summary that "The 2020
Concept Plan is evaluated to the extent possible in order to disetose the potential long-term
A. The FAA and tha MAC maintain that the May
1998 FEIS was adequate for the purposes of disclosure
of impacts and for soliciting public input on the
proposed action. MAC 's commitment to provide for
reasonable mitigation is also clearly stated and
addressed within various sections. The FEIS
represents the culmination of a state-mandated study
process that has been very long and detailed
throughout — with considerahle public and agency
involvement (see Section VIII of the FEIS). The
process has considered a vast range of alternatives and
has increasingly focused on the development of
reasonable and feasible environmental mitigations. The
acknowledged "unresolved issues," noted on page ix of
the Executive Summary (1ow frequency noise
mitigation and wildlife refuge mitigation), were both
analyzed in response to important issues raised within
Draft EIS comments and have since resulted in further
coordination, additional studies, and specific mitigation
proposals. The FEIS was published for public and
agency review/comment before the FAA and the State
of Minnesota could render any final projeot decisions.
in publishing the FEIS, tha FAA and the MAC made '
clear that they are committed to continue to work with
stakeholders to address furfher detaiis. See General
Responses 1,2 and 7 for the Pesults of further analysis
of the unresolved issues.
B. FAA and MAC have responded to all written
comments submitted by Richf'ield.
C. See General Resportse 3 for response to the
comment and the Gosling Affidavit.
D. D. See General Response 6. The FAA decisions
regarding the proposed expansion of MSP were the
result of FAA's own decision-making process, and the
state legislature's decision to select MSP expansion as
the recommended alternative was considered as a
factor, but not as dispositive, in the FAA decisions.
E. E. As noted in your comment, implementation of the
new terminal and related airfieid and roadway facilities
will require approval by the Minnesota Iegislature and
further environmental review and approval 6y the
MAC, FAA and the Federal Highway Administration.
This is correctly stated on page i of the Executive
Summary and in other sections of the FEIS. Any
inconsistancies in conveying this message were
unintended.
See General Response 4 for analysis showing
operations in 2005 as the worst-case year for noise
impacts. 8ased on SIMMOD analyses, the new north
south runway can provide capacity to accommodate
the 2020 MAC High Forecast operations, but with
greater delays.
eftects of the development of a new passenger terminal and related �eld and roadway
facilities." '
In addition, the FEIS admits'at page iii of the Executive Summary, in the secrion tided
"MSP Expansion," that "MSP e.cpansion consisu of [both] the IvtSP 2010 LTCP and the NiSP
?020 Concept Plan." The absence of any new nmway other than 27/35 as late as 2020 implies
that this runway alone will provide all of the additionat capacity needed to support operauons in
2020. This, in turn, implies considerably greater numbers of operations on the runway than are
disctosed for tl�e year 2005. The FEIS should disclose the impacts associated wiih that �
reasonably foreseeabie consequence of the Project �
The iationale stated for the purpose and need for the Project is "to provide for the:
efficient and economical movement of peopie and goods ...""tliis radonale is unsupported by
any detailed cosUbenefit.ac�lysis that could justify commitment of public fimds to the current
project The assumption that the proposed airport expansion will produce a net economic benefit
for the region demands clbse scrutiny in light of the findings ofDempsey et al.� (1996, pp. 163 et
seq.)�conceming similar ctaims eisewhere. Dempsey et al. evaluate the similar claim that
improved passenger and cargo service resulting &om construction of Denver Intemational ' �
Airport (DTA)c . . .
' would allow other communities in Colorado and the region to be �
• better commecced into the national and intemationa! air
� transportation system. Businesses woutd then be more inclined to
tocate in this region because of the superior accessibility made
- possible by DIA '
What seems to be occurring so faz is that D[A has actually '
inhibited econocnic activiry in the state and region .... Since .
United Airlines has become the dominant cazrier at Denver, it has
systematically raised its fazes to Denver from all points in which
no other airline competition e�dsts .... In short, instead of acting
like an economic fountain spraying benefits over the communities
in the state and the regioq DIA has acted more tike a vacuum
cleaner, sticking money avray from these communities and from
Denver itself, to United's headquarters in Chicago. .
The net annuai loss to the local and regional economy associafed with opeiation of DIA
appeacs to be on the order of half a billion dottars a year.' Dempsey et al. aLso dceument the
manner in which ogeration of a fortress hub az D[A has resulted in poorer air transportation
services to smaller cities, has impeded the growth of tocai sld tourism business, and has
accelerated the growth of such business outside the region. .
3 Dompsey, P.S„ Goe[z, A.R, and Sryliowicz, 7.5., "Denver Inmmarional Airpoct: Lessons Learned,^ McGcaw-
Hip, New York 1996.
'Z-
E.
E. Response on previous page.
F. F. The need to provide for the efficient and
economical movement of people and goods is based on
Goal B(FEIS, p. II-1) which is "to provide an aviation
system that is safe, efficient and economical", which
means reducing travel delays. As stated in the FEIS,
the FAA's Airport Capacity Design Team found that
with annual operations ranging from 530,000 to
600,000, the savings due solely to reduced delays
from the construction of Runway 17-35 would range
fcom 21,000 to 44,000 hours per year — which results
in a S30 miliion to S63 million benefit per yeac
It is true, as noted in the comment, that average fares
tend to be higher at hub airports than at nornhub
airports of similar size. What is nof noted is that airline
hubs also provide mote non-stop flights to more
markets with greater frequency. The additional service
provides an economic benefit from reduced travei time
and more convenient schedules.
Given that the FEIS lacks a deGvied cost/benefic analysis to support the stated purpose of
the Project, the FEIS should be revised to evatuate this issue. The FEIS should include
quantitative documentation of these ciaims, or the issue should be submitted to independent audit
and analysis, perhaps by the U.S. General Accounting Office.
A detailed cosdbenefit analysis of the Ptoject would disclose that the Pcoject will not
merely accommodatE true market demand for air uansportadon services, but will activety
stimulate growth in aviation activity at MSP, at the risk of inefficient and uneconomical excess
capacity if built prematurely.
Thus, when FAA and MAC claim that "without su6stantial airfield, terminal, and access
improvements, future growth in aviation activity at MSP will resuit in a si�ificandy decreased
level of service and incrcased user costs," the degee to which these supposed consequences axe
linked to construction of the Project is not addressed. Leaving aside t6e paracloxical claim tUat
"futurc growth in aviation acrivity at M5P" will learl to a decline in the level of service for the
region, the FEIS simpty does not describe a specific need for the Project against wfuc6 the reader
may balance its unavoidable impacts.
F. I F. Response on previous page.
The no action altemative should not consider increased use of the RUS associated with
redistribution of aitcraR operations thcough the use, of mid-tunway departvres from the extended
Runway 4-22 (the "RUS pmject'�. Conshuction of a queuing taxiway andthe use of G. G. At the onset of the MSP Alternative noise impact
Runway 422 in that fashion has aot been approved by the Metropolitan Council, and it is analysis, the increased use of the RUS was appropriate
doubtful whether the 544 million RUS project would proceed if the Runway 17-35 project goes for the No Action Alternative due the Runway 422
forward. Extension EIS Record of Decision, and the RUS was
\ and is MAC policy.
' On the other hand, if the RUS project is properly addressed with the no acdon altetnative,
.i n that alternative should aiso include coastruction of ihe proposed northeriy extension of
_Runway 4-22.
The failure of the FEIS to evaluate any alternatives other than the no action alternarive
deprives the FEIS of any basis to determine that the Runway 17-35 project is the �"�. H. See Generel Response 6.
environmentally proferabte alteraative.
I. The airspace screening analysis presented in
If, as the FEIS suggests, "[i]mplementation of the proposed action may require Appendix G was completed to determine potential
modifications by FAA of the affected airspace ..."(FEIS at v), then selection of the runway noise impacts associated with anticipated changes in
heading should await publication of resulis of an airspace utilization study. Such a study must be �, air traffic control proeedures. A complete airspace
done in a more comprehensive manner than the pceliminary effort si�*�+*t+a*+�ed in Appendix G. analysis was completed by the FAA after submission
of the Airport Layout Plan in 1996. The airspace
The statement that "jd]evelopment beyond 2010 is subject to further environmentai analyses, including the flight tracks and procedures
assessmen[ ..:' (FEIS at v) implies that all of the items listed itnmediately above as part of the assumed in the FEIS, have been reviewed by FAA and
prefeaed altemative are to be completed prior to 2010. Where is the schedule that shows J, are reasonable and adequate for the purposes of a
construction phasing and completion of each ofthe listed items? The vague statement at NEPA analysis. FAA will develop air traffic control and
Section E, page I-4 (FAA Actioas�that "development of the pmposed action will be airspace management procedures that are consistent
accomplished over a period ofyeats, within the limits of availab(e appropriatioas in any with operating considerations in the FEIS and designed
particulaz fiscal year and subject to other demands for funds"—is insufficient to provide the, to effect the safe and efficient movement of air traffic
. to and from the new tunway. This will include the
development of a system for the routing of arriving and
. departing traftic and the design, establishment and
�-3- publication of standardized flight operating procedures,
such as standard instrument approach/departing
procedures and runway utilization practices that are
consistent with those described in the FEIS on page
A.3-17.
J. Page 1-11 of the Finai EIS provides a general
schedule for implementation of the 2010 I.TCP. There
'' is no requirement that an FEIS provide a more detailed
construction phasing plan, or that it address the
phasing of appropriations to fund the construction
process. Furthermore, efforts to make certain such
details are inappropriate prior to the approval of a
federal Record of Decision (ROD).
reader with any indicarion of the anticipated construction schedule or the consequences ofany J�
absence of or delay in fiwding.
The statement that "[t]he preferred alternative wi116ave less impact on air quality ..." ��
(FEIS at v) is a less-ihan-straightfonvard way to admit ihat the preferred atternative wii! genemte
greater noise impacts.
The stated cost of the Runway 17-35 project (FEIS at vi) exctudes the cost of adequateiy
mitigating tow &equency noise impacGs in Richfieid and impacts on the 2vlinnesota Valley �-•
National V✓iidlife Refuge ("hiVNV✓R'7. • .
The stated conclusions regazding unavoidable significant impacts (regarding lustoric
impacts, wildiife iefuge impacts, etc. (FEIS at'vi)) are erroneous because they aze predicated on
the assumption that there are no feasible alternatives to the Runway 17-35 project. By refiuing '
to address any. alternatives other than the no action alternative, the.FEIS does not provide any �•
support for that assumptioa � .
' The proposed noise mitigation measures improperly defer development and
• implementation of mitigation for tow frequency noise. There is no reason why the FEIS does not
contain what it proposes to defer, i.e., "noise impact modelswhich reflect the impact of ground
tevel noise on residentiai properties." Nor is tfiere any reason wby miugation for those impacts
has not already been developed and com�nitted to. Because MAC and FAA Failed to analyze,the �.
extent to which low &equency noise produced by the Project would produce community
annoyance, Rich6eld has analyzed that issue and developed a mitigation plan to address those
impacts. (A copy of Richfield's mitigation pian is su6mitted under separate cover.) The FEIS
should be revised to adopt Richfieid's plan or another reasonable proposal for mirigating the
impacts oflow frequency noise on RicUfield.
The statement in one of the 6ullets (FEIS at vi) that "support &orn the state of Minnesota 0.
wil! be soughY' falls short of a guanmtee that MA.0 will provide funding if it cannot obtain -
fiuiding from another source for M?cC's.noise impacts. �
The FEIS improperly fails to disclose the extent to which funding for the Runway 17-35
project cttitigation progiam, including the residential sound insulation program, is uncertain, and P�
should condition approval of the project on obtaining sufficient funding (much like the FAA
conditioned appmva] of the RUS project on MAC's demonsuauon that it has the wherewithal to'
complete that p=oject, including the telated mitigation program, with or without federal fimds).
At a minimum, the FEIS should disclose the extent of the potentially unmitigated significant
environmental impacts due to unavailable funding for the mitigation progrun.
The mitigation program is an integ�al and essentiai part of the Runway I7-35 project
Accordingty, it is erroneous to condition the mitigation program, but not the consiruction of the
cunway and related facilities, upon MAC maintaining a bond rating of at least A. Q•
-4-
J. Response on previous page
K. The FEIS statement is accurate. It is true that
the proposed action would expose 300 more peopie to
noise Ievels of DNL 65+, but would expose 5,360
less people to DN� 60+, compared to no action.
L. Conceptual mitigation costs were presented in
the FEIS'for the refuger See also General Response 7.
No significant adverse impacts of low frequency noise
were identified in the FEIS; therefore, no mitigation
was required. See aiso General Responses 1 and 2.
M. See General Response 6.
N. See Generai Responses 1 and 2.
O. MAC has committed to implement tha program.
As stated in the FEIS, funds will only be sought from
the state if MAC is unable to fund the expanded
program in a reasonable period of time.
R While all details of a project funding program are
not fully assessed in this FEIS, this was �either
necessary nor appropriate prior to the FAA's approval
of the project (see also Response J, above). The
FAA's approval of the project in the Record of Decision
is specifically conditioned on the implementation of the
mitigation measures contained in the FEIS.
Q. MAC wiil consider appiying this condition to the
runway construction.
The proposed Working Crroup to address adverse impacu of the airport on neazby
neighborhoods does not constitute a[egaily adequate substitute for analysis of those impacts, and R.
development of feasible mitigaUon measures, in the FEIS.
Why_has MAC waited so long to implement the 1996 legislative'mandate to prohibit usc
of Stage 2 aircraft after December 31, 1999? If the FAA grants any exemptions that permit .,
operation of any Stage 2 aircraft after that date, MAC would have to prepaze a study putsuant to
Part 16! of the Federal Avialion Regulations to be able to exclude those operations•&om MSP.
Although such a study mquires a 6-month cotnment period before it can be impiemented, there is
no indication that MAC has taken any steps to begin stich a study. 'Thece is no reason to
"evaluate" that measure in a Part 150 SNdy since it has been mandated by the Legislature:and
the FAA cannot approve that measure without compiction of a Part 161 Study.
.S.
The generality and lack of compulsory action described by most of the bullet iterns on '�'�
page viii of the FEIS deprives them of p�acticai import See �davit of I?r. Sanford Fidell, '
included in the appendix to these comments at Tab 2.
The fourth line from the bottom of page viii refers to "the 199fr DNL 65 contour_" ,'Ihis u�
conto� is not described itt detail in the FEIS. The FEIS should he revised to include a fiill
descrip6on of this contour with full supporting detail.. ,:
The FEI3 contemplates that FAA and the U.S. Department of the Interior (Fish &
Wildlife Service) wiil teach an agreement concerning mirigauon of the Runway 17-35 project's
impacts on the M�/NWR, and ihat "the agreed upon mitigation will be reported in the FAA ��
Record of Decision" (FEIS at ix.) 'Chis correcdy notes the requirement that such an agreement
be reached before ffie Record of Decision can be issued. '
In a related vein, the FEIS discloses that "[d)etails of the MVNWR mitigation plan are ��
unresolved:' (Id.) Pursuant to both state and fedeca! law (including NEPA, Section 4(� of ihe'
Departmeni of Tcansportadon Act; MEPA, aod the Minnesota Environmenta► Rights Act �,.
("MERA'�), mitigation of the Runway 17-35 projecYs significant advecse impacts on the
MVNVJR must be.resotved before any decision can be made whether to approve the project
The FEIS should disclose that Runway 17-35 would.(not "wuld," as stated in the FEIS)
create low frequency noise and vibration that would (not "could"j cause azmoyance to residents �•
of Ricitfield. •
An FEIS shouId not contain `�nresotved issues." Impacts should be identified and
determined to be either stigrificant or insigni6cant Mitigation must be developed for all
s;gn;scanc;mpacts. � � Y•
Although the FEIS states that MAC is committed to study the tow frequency noise issue Z.
further, it does not commit MAC to eiWer reach an agi�eement with Richfieid conceming
mitigalion or otherwise mitigate ali impacts to a level of insignificance. (See FEIS at ix.)
-5-
R. The proposed Working Group is not a substitute for
analysis of impacts and deveiopment of feasible
mitigation measures. The Working Group is listed only
as one measure within a list of approximately 12
community noise mitigation measures approved by the
MAC. The MAC is committed to providing for alI of
these measures.
S. The elimination of Stage 2 aircraft by December
31, 1999 is required by federal law; implementing
regulations are contained in CFR Titie 14, Part 91. In
the 1996 FAA Progress Report on the Transition to
Quiater Aircraft (Report to Congress) 75.5 percent of
the active fleet, which includes 277 operators, were
composed of Stage 3 aircraft. Part 91 requires that by
December 31, 1998, 75 percent of the active fleet be
Stage 3. Considering the 1996 FAA report, the
majority of operators are well ahead of the Stage 2
phase-out requirements. NWA reported that 63.4
percent of their fleet was Stage 3 by December 31,
1996. The development of a Part 161 Study at this
time to limit Stage 2 aircraft after December 31, 1999
prejudges NWA's ability to meet the mandatory
deadline.
T. The items listed on page viii in buliet format are
6est considered within a F.A.R. Part 150 study and
any commitment to implement any of the items will
depend on the results of the study. The comment by
Fidell (Affidavit #13) on the proposed noise monitoring
relates to low frequency noisa. The eMent and details
of the proposed monitoring have not been determined;
they wiii be determined as part of a separate study
(see Generai Response 1) and Richfieid will be afforded
the opportunity to participate in this study. MAC
cannot take compulsory action at this time regarding
matters to 6e considered in a Part 150 update without
predisposing the resulis of that study on all of the
communities surrounding the airport.
U. The 1996 DNL 65 contour is descri6ed in detail
within the last MSP Part 150 study; use of the contour
is in reference to requirements for a future insulation
program determined by the MSP Noise Mitigation
Committee. The extent and development af the 1996
DNL 65 was public knowledge through the Part 150
process. The 1996 DNL 65 contour is not used to
determine potential impacts and therefore does not
require full disclosure wifihin the FEIS.
V. See Generai Response 7.
W. See General Response 7.
X. See General Responses 1 and 2.
Y. The MAC is committed to providing for
reasonable mitigation measures. Sae General
Responses 1, 2 and 7.
Z. As the FEIS was being prepared, Richfield
developed an assessment of low frequency noise
issues and proposed a mitigation pian. This work was
completed independently, and not as part of a project
consuitation process with the MAC. Therefore, when
the FEIS was published, it was reasonabie for the MAC
to commit oniy to providing for additional study and to
the development and impiementation of a pian to
address any significant adverse impacts that are
identified.
The Summary of Impacts discloses that the Runway 17-35 project would ciramaricalty
increase the number of aircraft operations conducted in close proacimity to azeas where birds
congregate. (FEIS at aci.) While the FEIS purports to analyze the resulting bird-aircraft hazards,
it does not contain any othet analysis of safety issues. .
Particulazly in light of the fact that Runway 17-35 is not parallel to exisang runways at
MSP, ffie FEIS shouid analyze the implicatioas, in terms of safety, of the missed approach
procedares that would be used in connecdon with azrivals on Runway 35.
The Summary of Impacts improperiy states ffiat the project would not displace.any '
Section 4(� park and recreation lands. (FEIS at xii.) In tcutli, the project involves the acquisition
and use for airport purposes of two pazks located in New Ford Town and Rich Acres, both within
Richfield.. , • _ , '
III. COMMENfS REGARDING INTRODUCTION �
The FEIS analyzes the 2020 Concept Plan even though developmeni of the new west
terminal is prohibited withotlt future legislative approval. This reveais that the need for future
legislative approval of a parallei runway north oFexisting runway 12L=30R is not a basis for
refusing to analyze that alternative in ihe FEIS.
Elimination of the New Airport Altemative from analysis in the FEIS (one such scenario
was mentioned in the DEIS) further reduees the already improperly narrow range of alternatives.
The FEIS disctoses that the analysis of surface transportation altematives required by the
1941 Intermodal Surface Traasportation Efficiency Act is normaily performed in a Major
Investment Study (FEIS at 3), but does not state whethec such a Smdy is being pezformed for this
project. In any event, the FE1S should include an analysis of surface uanspoctation altematives.
It is improper to delete the 1,000-foot exteasion of Runway 422 from the project •
description for the Runway t7-35 FEIS. Even if the runway extension had "independent utility"
from other components.ofthe Ruaway 17-35 project, the runway extension shouid be considered
part of the Long Term Comprehensive Plan for MSP_ 1he same u true for the light rail transit
Pr°Ject . .
AA. Section V.D, Bird-Aircraft Hazards, evaluates the-
potential for bird-aircraft strikes. The body of the FEIS
also summarizes the reviews/actions of FAA's Air
Traffic Division (FEIS page 1-6 and Appendix G), which
discuss issues related to safety review. The FEIS also
[eferences the runway protection zones of Runway 17-
35 and state safety zones A and B(e.g., pages V-68 ,
and 69). �
AB. Development of a new runway includes missed
approach procedures analysis. Prior to the Runway 17-
35 alignment decision, FAA completed an airspace
analysis which included missed approach procedures;
in 1994 the FAA examined the airspace capacity
around MSP in an effort to determine the safety
effects of the proposed airfieid improvements in the
MSP LTCP. In its conditional approval of the
Airport Layout Plan on April 25, 1997, FAA concurred
with the proposed airfield development for planning
purposes tiased on current safety, utility, and
efficiency standards.
AC. The two parks are not related to the proposed
action. The need to acquire the parks was based on
existing conditions, and the acquisition decision was
made in 1992 when the future of the airport was still
in doubt.
AD. The third parallel runway is addressed in the FEIS
in accordance with the EQB-approved Alternative
Environmental Review Process. See also General
Response 6.
AD. ( AE. See General Response 6.
AF. A Major investment Study is not needed in
�E. reiation to the 2070 surface transportation
improvements identified in the FEIS Section V.W and
within Appendix F. For more information, see pages 9-
11 in Appendix F.
rs��
��
The conclusion ihat them aze no significant cumulative'noise impacts associaied with the �H•
Runway 4-22 eactension, as measured by the DNL metric (DEIS ai I�t), does not justify refusing
to analyze the full range of cumulative noise impacts and other cumulative environznental
impacts.
-6-
AG. The 1,000-foot extension of Runway 4-22 was
not "deleted" from the project description for the
Runway 17-35 project because it has always 6een
evaluated as a separate, although related, action.
Within the context of the Dual Track Airport Planning
Process, the Runway 4-22 extension, including a
temporary runway extension during the construction
period, is a reasonably foreseeabie and separate airport
improvement action that arose separately, quite
recently, and for a different reason. Therefore, it was
evaluated as a related action in terms of its cumulative
impacts within the FEIS. Further, it is noted that the
runway extension project concerns only long-haui
international departures assigned either to Runway 422
or to Runway 12R-30�. As a result, the runway
extension does not have any effect on the operations
of the new 8,000-foot north-south runway. FAA and
MAC recognize that Northwest Airlines (NWA) has
recently announced suspension of its current non-stop
MSP to Hong Kong service effective November 1,
1998. After this announcement, discussions between
MAC and NWA have not determined if this change in
service should substantiaily influence progress on the
proposed extension of Runway 4/22 to 12,000 feet.
Therefore, MAC is continuing to proceed with the
project. See also USEPA Response B. Regarding the
LRT-airport project issues, see General Response 5.
AH. Together, the Dual Track FEIS and the
environmental assessment for the Runway 422
extension analyze the full range of cumulative noise
impacts and other cumulative environmental impacts.
Noise impacts of the No Action and MSP Alternatives
were evaluated in the FEIS, i�ciuding anaiysis with end
Although the FEIS assetts that "the two runway extensions i.e. ihe extension of Runway
12R-30L and the 1,000-foot extension of Runway 422] aze reasonably foreseeable ...[and aze] ��,
analyzed in tfiis FEIS" (FEIS at I-4), there is no indication that, other than with respect [o
construction impacts, the FEIS addresses the eutension of Runway 12R-30L. .
In connection with the promised analysis of the extension of Runway 12R-30L, the FEIS
shouid disciose the extent of mid-runway depariures (beginning south of the intecsection with
Runway 12L-30R) on Runway 22 and the impacts associated with those operations. The �J•
consistency (or inconsistency) between that analysis and that contained in the Draft November
1997 Environmental Assessment for the runway exteasioas sho:�i�3 also be disclosecL ,
IV. CON[MENTS REGAFtDING PURPOSE AND NEEti�
The FEIS includes as a goa! of the Project "the development of airport faciiities to meet
fumre aviation needs" (FEIS at II-2.) The FEIS fails to disclose, as a tesult of ihe unreasonably
to�t� r;;recast of.operations on which the FEIS is based, thaz the Runway.l7-35 Projeci will not '
mr�s� Stture aviation needs unless terminal facililies are provided sooner and to a greater extent
than aze currendy p[anned. 'the FEIS should be revised to analyze ttie facilities needed to; A�•
accommodate a realistic forecast levei of operations and to disclose the environmental,
economic, and practical consequences of not providing those faciliues in a timely fashion.
without the runway extension in place (see the FEIS
Section Q.1.31. In this regard, none of the measured
points within community jurisdictions receive noise
impacts of DNL 1.5 d6A increase, considered the lavei
of significance, in comparing the MSP Alternative and
the No Action Alternative to future scenarios either
with or without the Runway 422 extension.
AI. The extension of Runway 12R-30L is a
temporary requirement to build the proposed eMension
of Runway 4-22 and is therefore excluded from
detailed impact analysis. The Minnesota Environmental
Quality Board, in its review of the EA prepared for the
eutension of Runway 4-22 to 12,000 feet, found that
the temporary extension is exempt from review due to
its temporary nature, no off-airport impacts, and the
infrequency of use. It wili only be used during
construction of the Runway 422 eMension.
AJ. See Response AI. A displaced departure on
Runway 22 was considered within the RUS sensitivity
analysis within the EA for the Extension of Runway 4
22 to 12,000 feet. The potential impacts of extending
Runway 422 were evaluated within the EA without
consideration of #he RUS due to litigation between
Richfield and Md.:..
AK. See General Response 4.
The FEIS disctoses that a plazming goal is to "[djevelop an airport that is consistent with
state, regionat, and local plaiu and economic developmenr palrcies." (FEIS at II-2 (emphasis
added).) The FEIS should disclas:• that the Ruqway 17-35 project is inconsisteni with A�.. AL. See General Response 2.
Richfield's plans and ecoaomic development policies to the extent that the project fails to
incorporate Rich6eld's mitigation proposal for the Runway 17-35 project or otherwise fails to ,
mitigate the project's impacts.(inctuding, in particulaz, low frequeacy noise impacts) on
Richfield.
AM. The analysis in Appendix H, and Table H-2,
The discussion of the results of the "sensitivity analysis" asserts that none of various discloses no additional significant adverse impacts by
impact categories would require addidonal miti�ation. (FEIS at tI-1 l.) That is not hve with 2010, and therefore no additional mitigation is required
respect to air quality impacts, where the sensitivity analysis reveals that the Project would far A�. for the 2010 pian. Additional mitigation is expected to
exceed the de minimus level needed for a detezmination that the Project complies with the Clean be required by 2020. Although not required, MAC has
A.ir Act. In any event, the sensitivity analysis does not disclose whether the higher activity levels committed to mitigate significant adverse impacts
would create any additional significant adve:se impacts or whether the existing mitigation would based on the MAC High Forecast instead of the 8ase
faii to reduce any such impacts to a level of insignificance. Forecast in the FEIS.
'the seasitivity analysis should anaIyze the effect of the revised projections on year 2010
and 2020 impacts. The FEIS improperly atteu�pu to defer that anafysis by stating that '
"[a]dditional environmental impact studies wouid be required to furth:.a address impacts and
mitigation for the period beyond 2010." Moreover, the FEIS dces not provide any sensitivity
analysis for noise irnpacts in the year 2010. Even if the greatest overQl! noise impacu would be
experienced in the year 2005, because the difference due to using the high-growth forecast
inereases over time, limiring the sensitivity anaiysis to ttiat year obscums and reduces the relative
difference between the projecrions on which the FEIS are ba�ed and those that are more realistic
(higher) in light of recent growth in the level of operatio»s consistent with the high-growth
projection.
-7-
AN. The sensitivity analysis was made for both 2010
and 2020 for those impact categories sensitive to
higher activity Ievels. The year 2005 is the worst-case
year for DNL noise impacts even for activity levels
exceeding the MAC High Foracast (see General
Response 4).
.
V. COMMENTS REGARDING INA.DEQUATE E'VALUATION OF
ALTERNATIVES �
The discussion of altemataves contained in the FEIS is grossly inadequate and plainly
violates NEPP:. The FEIS discusses in detail only two alternatives: tl�e Runway 17-35 project
and a no action altecnative. With respect to detailed disctusion of other alternatives, the FEIS
refers the reader to ihe Alternative Environmentat Documents ("AEDs'� prepared in connec6on
with the segmented MEPA environmenta! review process. Specifically, the FEI3 states:
The besi six MSP coacepu were more fiilly evaluated in the LTCP. �
They were the subject of detailed environmental analysis in ihe �
Final AED for the MSP.Long Term Cocnprehensive Plan (I,TCP) � �
and detailed operational analysis in the IvLSP LTC$ Volume S and
' 7 Technical Reports.
FEIS at III-8. . � ��
The references in the FEIS to the AEDs and the Long Term Comprehensive Plan—
documents that were not prepared or circulated for public review by a federal agency-aze no
subsritute for the detailed discussion of aitematives which NEPA reqnires. In responding to
Richfreld's comments on the DEIS raising this issue, the FEIS states ihat the United States
Environmental Protection Agency ("U.S. EPA"� "concurred with the Dual Track environmentaI•
process" and "approved the Dual Track environmental review process" (FEIS at I-12�. There is
no �eason to believe that the.U.S. EPA's general concivrence with the Dual Track process'was
intended to give FAA Gcense to prepare 5ri EIS that analyzed no ahernaaves other th,w the
Runway 17-35 Project and the no actiort alternative. Of course, even if U.S. EPA 6ad "signed
ofF' oa the approach taken with resgect to the Project, U.S. EPA's approval of a procedure •
caanoL supersede or negate NEPA's requirements concerning the evatuation of a reasonable
range of altematives whic6 must tie present in the FEIS. �
• The FEIS fails to disclose that the goals of the MSP altemative are not consistent with the
planning goals of the Duai Track PPocess stated on page II-2. In particulaz, the goals of the MSP
altemative do not iaclude development of an airport that is consistent with local plans and
economic development policies. It is therefoic not surprising that the Runway 17-35 project is A(�,
iaconsistent with Richfield's plans and economic development policies-a fact which the FEIS .
impropedy fails to disclose. . .
The FEIS should disclose that the Runway 17-35 project is aot responsive to the needs
and interests of Richfield and its residents to the extent tLat it fails to inciude mitigation needed
to reduce low frequencyaoise impacu to a level of insignificance. (See FEIS at III-4_)
The conclusion that the north parallel aiternative wou(d have less capacity th.w the norih-
south rvnway does not consider anticipated technical improvements expected to fiuthet reduce
the minimum centeriine to centecline distance between runways needed to conduct independent A(a,
operations diuing IFR conditions. A north parallel atiernative thatprovides such independence
-8-
0
AO. See General Response 6.
AP. The proposed action is considered consistent
with Richfield's 1997-2007 adopted comprehensive
plan. The Plan was approved by the Metropolitan
Council (MC) as being consistent with the current
Metropolitan Airports System Plan which inciudes the
MSP LTCP. Minnesota Statutes, sections 473.175
and 473.851-473.872, require local governmental
units to modify their comprehensive plan if the MC
determines that the plan has a substantial impact on
metropolitan system plans. In terms of mitigation, see
Generai Response 2
AQ. Airspace environmental analysis is typicaily
completed using existing navigational technology.
Although new technology may serve to reduce runway
minimums, wake turbulence requirements for heavy
aircraft still recommend 2,500 feet between runways
for independent operations (IFR and VFR). The largest
separation considered for a north parallel within LTCP
Volume 5 Airport Development Concepts was 800 feet
due to property limitations and the potential for
considera6le environmentai impacts. At this spacing
for non-heavy aircraft, there wouid be independent VFR
operations, but it is uniikely to provide for a third
independent IFR approach in the foreseeable future.
The MAC and FAA analysis showed that the north
parallel runway provided good capacity 6enefits hut not
as good as the north-south runway. The north-south
runway was selected for a variety of reasons, not just .
capacity (see discussion in General Response 6). The
advantages of the north-south runway alignment are
presented in the MSP LTCP Volume 5, Airport
Development Concepts (pubiished December 1991),
and the Final Alternative Environmental Document
(published February 1995) which is incorporated as
supporting documentation in Appendix A of the FEIS.
AQ. Response on previous page.
AR. The impacts on historic resources of a north
parallel runway are greater than the proposed action
because tha north parallel runway would demolish
contributing portions of the Fort Snelling National
Historic Landmark District which is one of the most
significant historic sites in the state of Minnesota -
should be developed and analyzed. In any eveni, the FEIS fails to quantify the asserted capacity A(�. and because reasonable mitigation measures
advan►ages of the no�th-south �unway oc even charactecize the significance of those advantages.' (relocation documentation) are not considered viable
The purported reason, relating to impacts on historic properties, for rejecting the north
paralle! a(temaave fails to disclose the reladve impacu of the north parallel and north-south
runway altematives on such properties. (FEIS at III-8.) Etsewhece, the FEIS aclmowledges that �R�
the Runway 17-35 project would have significant adverse impacts on fustoric resources. The
FEIS dces not and cannot state that the impacts of a north parellel alternative on historic
resources aze greater than ihose of the Runway 17-35 project.
The puzported reason, relating to displacement of a 9=hole golf course and impacts on
Bossen Field, for rejecting a north parallel alternative fails to disclose that ftunway 17-35 would
e&minate the most heavily used 18-hole gotf course in the entire Twin Cities region, remove two
parks in New Ford Town and Rich Acres, and significandy unpact the'MVNWR With good
reason, the FEIS does not state that the impacts of a north parallel attemadve on pazks, wildlife'
refuges, or other recreatioual assets are greater than those of the Runway 17-35 project
The purported reason, relating to ptacing 2,010 more monthly flights less than 500 feet .
over azeas where birds congregate, for eliminating the north paral7el ivnway altemative, fails to
disclose that the Runway 17-35 project would place an additiona12,030 montfily IIights less than
500 feet over azeas where birds congregate, compared with the no action alternative. (See FEIS
at �ci.)'Ihe FEIS does not, because it cannot, staze that the north paral(el'alternative would have
greater adverse impacts conceming low-altitude fligfits over azeas where buds congregate.
The purporced reason, relating to lvfinnesota legislation prolribiring the conshvcdon of a
north parailel runway without We approval of each affected city and requiring MAC to enter into
a contract with each city stating tt�at prohibition, fails to disclose that the Minnesota legislatwe
could repeat c6at legislarion and abrogate any such contracts. In any event, the existence of
legislation piohibiting construcrion of a new west terminal did not stop the FEIS from analyzing
impacts associated with that alternative. 5ince the west tcrminal is considered feasibie
notwithstanding the current legistative grohibition, it is incoasistent for the FEIS to conclude that
"due to s{ate legislative requirements, the north-parallel runway is currendy not a feasible
concept" (FEIS at III-8.)
The cursory, less than one-page discussion of a new airport alternative in the FEIS
provides no basis for detennining that that atterma$ve is not feasible, pncdent, or reasonable. ]n
particulaz, the Minnesota•legislahue's directive that aaalysis of that attemative in the FEIS is not A�%.
required does not affect the requiremenis of NEPA that that analysis be included
It is improper for the FEIS to state tbat "implementation of the proposed acrion may
require modiScations by FAA of affected aicspace. ..." (FEIS at III-13 (emphasis added).) The
FEIS should disclose whether or not such modifications are necessary, and if they aze, it should
ana]Yze the impacts of the modiScadons and propose needed mirigation measures. A�
-9-
options. See Response I to Richfield comments on the
MSP LTCP Final AED and General Response 6.
R;i. The impacts on parks and recreation areas, other
tha�� refuges, of a north parallel runway are greater
than the proposed action because the Richfield goif
course was aiways an interim use and the two parks
are not connected to the proposed action (see
Response AC).
AT. Runway 17-35 would have fewei flights less
than 500 feet compared to no action (as discussed in
subsequent Response C1). The north paraliel
alternative would have about 440 more operations less
than 500 feet over areas, where birds congregate than
Runway 17-35 (see General Response 6!.
AU. The north parallel runway alternative was
eiiminated as a feasi6le alternative in the Scoping
Decisian for the EIS, in accordance with the EQB-
approved Aiternative Environmental Review Process -
prior to legislative action. The proposed action is a
phase of the MSP 2020 Concept Plan (which includas
the new west terminal construction) as mandated by
the legisiature, and therefore the 2020 plan is a
connected or phased action and its known impacts
must be disclosed in accordance with EQB rules. The
legislative prohibition of constructing a new west
terminal without Iegislature approval did not require
MAC to enter into contracts with each affected city
regarding the prohibition, as in the case of the north
parallel runway prohibition. It wouid appear that the
west terminal prohibition is an acknowledgment that
there are differing views on the ability ot the existing
terminal to accommodate the future demand and the
legislature is deferring judgment on the issue.
AV. See Response AY.
AW. See Response I, above
The fact that post-2010 projects, including the new west terminal, would require X.
additionai environmental review and approvals does not justify failing to rigoiously analyze
those projects in the FEIS.
The�e is no basis rn the FEIS supporting the determination of the FAA that the new Y.
airport alternative was not a feasibte or prudent alternative. It is noteworthy, however, that the
FAA recognized that the decision of the Minnesota legislature to rejeccthe new airport
altemativ.e is not dispositive of the issue, under federal law, whether that altemative is feasible or
prudent.' . ; .
VL COMMENTS REGARDING ENVIRONiYfENTAL CONSEOUENCES
The en6re analysis in the FEIS is flawed, and violates Minn. Stat. 473.6.14, subd. 2a, by
failing to base its analysis of the M5P 2010 LTCP on "alternative assumption's of 600,000, "
650,000, 706,000, and 750,000 aircraft operations:' �
The FEIS must be revised to contain the information required by the Legislature. In
addition to addressing the environmentat impacts associated with the specified leve(s of
operation, the revised document (which must be circulated for public review as a revised draft AZ.
EIS) should address the.question of whether the airfield configuration could even handle each of
those levels of traffic. This consideration is important for two reasons: first, because it would
appeaz that the Legislatute wouid not have directed an analysis of those flight leve(s unless it
wanted to ensure that the airfietd could accommodate such operations; and second, because the
higher projections aze consistent with the. FAA's Ternunal Area Forecast and with the actual
growth in operations experienced at MSP. (See Gos(ing Affidavit.)
The importance of complying with the Legislature's mandate underscores the deficiencies
in the "Sensitiviry Analysis" contained in the FEIS. Even at the lower leveis contained in
MAC's so-called High Foreoast, there wouid be 655 daily arrivals that would be handled on
runways other than 17-35. This exceeds the capacity of those runways stated in the FEIS's
analysis of the no action altemative. That shorcfall woutd be even higher with respect to analyses
based on the Legislature's mandate or the FAA's Terminal Area Forecast. In short, the entire
Sensitivity Analysis is undermined—and hence the validity of the entire FEIS--by the failare to
anatyze (1) whether oc not tfie ai�eld could handle levels of operation higher than those upon
which the FEIS.is based, and (2) the environmental and economic consequences if it cannot do
so, either at all or without incurring significant delays.
-10-
AX. There is a suhstantial voiume of analysis within
the FEIS related to the "post-2010 projects," including
the impacts of the new west terminal. Further, as
stated in the FEIS, the impacts of the west terminal
wili also be evaluated in more detail if and when the
decision is made to implement that element of the
2020 Concept Plan.
AY. The Section 4(f) Evaluation, which is incorporated
by reference into the FEIS, summarizes the FAA's
determination that the New Airport Alternative is not a
feasible and prudent alternative. This discussion states
that while aspects of the New Airport Alternative could
have been technically feasible, the FAA found that it
did not appear to be financially feasible. Furthermore,
the FAA does not consider the New Airport Alternative
to be prudent because of a strong record of public and
agency opposition, and concurred with the MAC that it
did not warrant any further evaluation within the FEIS.
See aiso General Response 6. The basis in the FEIS is
on p. iii and p. III-9.
AZ. See General Response 4 and General Response 3
for response to this comment and the Gosling
Affidavit.
AAA. The level of traffic assumed for MSP undet the
No Action alternative (473,500 annual operations) did
not represent the maximum capacity of the existing
airport: Rather, it represented an estimated level of
traffic for the airport in the long term with the
understanding that no additional gate and airfield
capacity was forthcoming and higher traffic levels
would result in reduced levels of service. Also, in the
long term future, as passenger growth continued with
no additional capacity, two things would occur. First,
the fleet mix at the airport would change slightly to
include more wide hodied aircraft, which would serve
more passengers with fewer operations. As the
number of these aircraft increase, airport capacity is
reduced due to their greater separation requirements
from other aircraft. Second, with no prospects to
increase the hub size, Northwest would look to other
locations to add hubbing capacity. As the local traffic
continued to increase and needed to be
accommodated, hubbing operations would be shifted
away. These two factors would work towards a
reduced level of traffic for the airport in the long term
that was less than the absolute capacity.
If the forecasts for no action are understated, the
environmental impacts of the preferred alternative are
overstated, since those impacts are based on the
comparison of future conditions of the environment
with the preferred alternative compared to the future
conditions with no action.
With a new runway in place, and littie constraints on
growth, the hub at MSP would continue to grow, and
the level of traffic on the parailei runways, as they are
today, would likely exceed the No Action traffic levels
forecast for the long term.
The capacity anaiysis that was done both by MAC and
FAA with the new north-south runway demonstrated
thai MSP would be able to accommodate traffic levels
in both the baseline and high forecast level through
2020 (and 640,000 operations) with acceptable levels
of delay. As such, there wouid be no economic or
environmental consequences resulting from a lower
level of operations. The Report to the Legislature
summarizes this finding.
A. A!R OUALITY IMPACTS
Off-Airport 5ources
An air quality analysis (microscale cazbon monoxide analysis) for off-airpon sources
(motos vehicles) was conducted foc those intersecuons which meet Meuopolitan Councit
screening criteria of 2,400 vehicles per hour during the P.M. peak hour of which at least 480
(20 percent) aze aitport-related tra�c. Only one interchange meets the Metropolitan Council
screening criteria: TH 55 at i"H 62. Two additional interchanges wece included in the FEIS.
However, additional at-grade intersections and on/off ramps should be analyzed. Atthough
improvements may not have been recommended, roads such as 66ih Street will be impacted and
should be inciuded in the analysis.
As noted in our comments on the DEIS, the transportation analysis was not specific
enuugh to conduct an intersection tevel of service analysis, which is required as an input to the
air quality analysis.
On-Airport Sources
On-airpoR sources include aircraR and ground support equipment, motor vetucles, and �2.
stationary sources. The emissions for the MSP alternative aze presented in Table A-7 on page V-
9 of the FE1S. The on-airport �azbon monoxide emissions ftom roadways for the yeaz 2020 is
almost 25 percent higher in the FEI3 than reported in the DEIS (764 tons in the DEIS vs. 944
�ns in the FEIS). No explanation is presented for this increase. However, the cazbon monoxide
emissions for the amciliary power uniu drop from 1522 tons in the DEIS to 52 tons in the FEIS
for the year 2020, aithough the perameters included in Appendix A appear to be the same.
A1. Three intersections along 66th Street were
screened as shown in Te+,;;� A.1-1 of Appendix A.1 of
the FEIS lfor the year 20r�) and found not to exceed
either the threshold for total intersection volume or the
percent of airport-related traffic. Intersections to be
analyzed;for level of service and air quality will be
identified'based upon coordination with MPCA staff
during preparation of the Indirect Source Permit
Application. New interchanges, which are expected to
carry a major share of traffic to and from the airport,
were analyzed for traffic and air quality impacts. The
air quality impacts of vehicie queues at freeway on-
ramps at these interchanges were inciuded in the air
quality analysis.
A2. On-airport traffic volumes used in the DEIS were
extrapolated from a variety of traffic studies for
selected scenarios. This led to traffic volumes that
were not necessarily consistent with the number of
operations on the airport or the number of originating
passengers. In order to develop consistent traffic
assumptions for the PEIS, on-airport motor vahicle
access traffic to and from parking areas and the
terminai area were related to originating passengers
and the size of parking areas. Passenger originations
and associated on-airport traffic for the No Action
2005 scenario were used as a baseline for other
scenarios, where traffic was estimated using the ratio
of passenger originations. This approach provided a
consistent set of traffic assumptions but led to
increases in on-airport traffic for future scenarios. The
effect of this increase in traffic was an associated
increase in roadway and parking emissions. Because
of the short travel distances on the airport, however,
roadway emissions remain smali relative to aircraft
emissions.
The auxiliary power unit (APU) emission methodology
used for the DEIS was based on the methodology
developed by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
for preparation of the 1990 Carbon Monoxide
Emissions Inventory required by the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990. That methodology was in turn
based on information provided by representatives of
Northwest Airiines, whose planes make up a large part
of operations on the airport. That information
indicated APU operational times lasting up to several
hours. During the review of the air quality analysis in
the DEIS, the high value of APU emissions relative to
aircraft emissions was questioned. The previous
methodology was reviewed with Northwest Airlines
and compared with new APU emission factors
contained in the most recent update of the EDMS
(Emissions and Disparsion Modeling System►. 8ecause
of the availability of electrical power at most gate
positions on P�'�?, a more accurate average APU
operation time c:s 15 minutes was used. This APU
operation tim� 1s considerably lower than the APU
operation times assumed in the DEIS; thus, estimated
APU emissions in the FEIS are well below those
�:,ontained in the DEIS.
B. LOW FREOLJENCY NOISE ISSUES
i. TI3E FINAL EIS MUST ADDRESS TiIE IMPACT OF LOW
FREQUENCY NOISE ON THE CTTY OF RICHFIELD EVEN
THOUGH TiiERE ARE NO SPECIFIC REGULATIONS WHICH
DIRECTLY ADDRESS LOW FREQTJENCY NOISE.
The Minnesota Environmentat Policy Act, Minn. StaG § 116D.04 (MEPA) requires the
Environmental Impact Statement to analyze "significant environmental impacts" and to explore
"methods by which adverse environmental impacts of an action could be mitigated." The impact
of low frequency noise on the azea immediately to the west of Cedar Avenue in Richfield will be
significant as demonstrated by the comments and materials submitted by Richfield. (See Fidell
Affidavit & article attached thereto (Appx. Tab 2); BBN Systems & Technologies report
conceming low frequency noise impacts in Richfield (Appx. Tab 3).) Such low frequency noise
will cause vibrations inside businesses and houses, and rattling of windows, doors, floors and
objects within houses. The tevel of annoyance which witl result from those impacts is at least as
great as the tevel of annoyance,which witl occur in azeas exposed to levels of higher frequency
noise that the FEIS recogni2es to be significant. , • '
MAC and FAA appeaz to take the posidon that since there aze no state or federal
standazds that direcdy address the impacts of, or mitigation of, low frequency noise, it need not
be addressed in the FEIS. However, whether a particulaz environmental impact is the subject of
a specific regulation is immaterial. The issue is whether the impact is "significant," and if so, it
must be addressed. Minn. Stat § i 16D.04, subd. 2(a). .
Notabfy, the definition of "naturai resources" in MEPA which is incorporated by
reference from the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act, § 116B.02, subd. 4(MERA), inctudes
the term "quieWde" as well as "land" and "recreational" resources. .
[n addition, MERA defines "pollution, impairment or destcuction" of the environment as
either: 1) by proof that the conduct in question violates, nr may violate, any envirorunental
quality, standard, rule, or regulation of the state or any potitical subdivision thereof; or 2) by
proof thaCthe conduct complained of"materially, adversely affects.or is likely to ... affect"
the environment. Minn. 5tat. § 116B:02, subd. 5(emphasis added). T[ms, an environmental
impact which could be the basis for enjoining a project (and therefore "significanP') need not be
the subject of a regutadon, if it is "material" and "adverse."
The proposition that a particulaz type of noise need not be 4he subject of a specific
environmental standazd in order to be considered significant is conclusively demonstrated by
Minnesota Public Interest Research Group, v. White Bear Rod and Gun Club; 257 N.W.2d 762
(Minn. 1977). Plaintiffs al(eged that noise pollution by the gun club caused and would continue
to cause loss of quietude, and that the loss of quietude wouid harm both wildlife and persons
within the surrounding area. In addition, the Chief of the Noise Pollution Conirot Section of the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency testified on behalf of the ptaintiffs that the sounds of
gunfire coufd cause general irritability, loss of sleep, and hearing damage. While Minnesota had
no noise standards for impulsive noise, tesu indicated decibel leve(s in excess of that considered
permissibte to avoid heatth threats and degradadon of the environment.
The Court in White Bear found that oncb a prima facie case of pollution, impairment, ot
destruction had been shown, the burden was on the gun club to rebut plaintiffs' case by the
submission of evidence contrary or by way of affittnative defenses. Id. at �80, 781. Thus, the
court held that where the plaintiffs did not attempt to show violations of rules or standards but
retied upon their right, undez the statute to show that the conduct of the Gun Glub materially
adversety affected the environment, then under Minn. Stat. § t 16B.04, the burden was on the gun
club to rebut p(aintiffs' case or show tluough an affirmative defense that no feasible and prudent
altemative existed. See Minnesota Publrc Interest Research Group v. White Bear Rod and Gun
Club, 257 N. W.2d 762, 781 (Minn. 19�7). The court concluded that the fact that PCA had not
developed standazds for impulsive sounds did not prevent a cause of action under the
Environmental Rights Act for the gun club's alleged impairment of quietude, a protected �
resource under the Act. The Enviroiunental Rights Act created a right in each person to bring
action fot protection of the environment whether or not there"existed standazds or regu2ations
issued by a govemmental body conceming the atleged violations.
tn the case of low frequency noise impacts upon Richfield, because the "A" scale of noise
measurement (used in the state and federal regulations) is weighted in a way which minimiZes
the effect of low frequency noise, impacts of low frequency sounds do not appeaz significant on
the "A" scale. But such noise, nevertheless, has a,very real impact on the daily lives of citizens
inside their homes and businesses. It resulu in "significant" impacts and cannot be ignored.
_12_
'� .
�
B3.
81. See General Response 1. The Fidell Affidavit
asserts that "Although low-frequency noise in generai
is not as directiy annoying to people as higher-
frequency noise of similar sound pressure levels, low-
frequency noise from aircraft operations is readily
audible and distinctive in character. At high enough
noise Ievels, low-frequency aircraft noise may also be �-
directly annoying." (Emphasis added.)
in the B8N Technical Report 8196 conducted for
Richfield by Mr. Pidell's company and inciuded in his
af.fidavit, ackpowledgment is made fhat no formal
standard or recommendation by an agency with
reguiatory acoustic interests identifies a particular low
frequency sound Ievel likely to produce secondary
emissions inside residences. it only suggests a sound
level range capable of producing indoor rattling noises
in residences (page 23). The report further states that
"conventional architectural treatments considered for
mitigating aircraft noise impacts are unlikely to provide
meaningful increases in transmission Ioss of homes in
the low frequency range", and that attenuation
measures "are not likely to be practicelly affordable or
esthetically acceptable" (page 25). (Emphasis' added.)
These statements are inconclusive conceming the
amount and extent of iow-frequency noise effects, and
the means and regulatory measures needed to insure
that any effects can be adequately dealt with. The
resulting symmetrical patterns of results from the
analysis, that appear in affected areas and parallel
runway heading without regard for runway operational
direction, percentage of use, flight profiles, or distance
from the runway, raises questions regarding study
methodology. Given the complexity of this issue and
the uncertainties of effects acknowledged hy agencies
involved with this matter as weil as in the BBN report,
and the discussion i� General Response 1, the
approach contained in General Response 2 is a
reasoned means of dealing objectively and conclusively
with this matter.
82. See General Responses 1 and 2
83. See General Response 1.
LOW FREQUENCY NOISE MITIGATION IS A NECESSARY
COMI'ONENT.OF THE FEIS.
Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 116D.U4, subd 6, Minnesota law requires that an "EIS must
address one or more alternatives of each of the following types of aitematives or provide a
concise explana6on of why no altemauve of a particular type is included in the EIS: altcrnadve
sites, altemaiive technologies, modified designs or Iayouu, modified scale or magnitude, and
alternatives incorporating reasonabie mitigation measures identitied through t6e
comments received during t6e comment periods of EIS scoping or for t6e draft EIS." Rule
4410.2300(G) (emphasis added). Rule 4410.2300 also requires that the conteat of the EIS
include an exar,,;�ar;on of alternadves which incotporate reasonable mitigation meanues.
NEPA also requires that possible midgadon measures he fuliy discussed in a Finai
Environmental Impact Statement In Robertson v. Methow Yal[ey Citizens Council, 490 U.S.
332, 109 S. Ct 1835 (1989), the court recognized the importance of the discussioa of mitigation
in a Cuiai federal Environmental Impact Statement:
To be sure, one important ingredient of an EIS is the discussion of
steps tUat can be taken to mitigaze adverse environmental
consequences. The requirement that an EIS contain a detailed
discussioa of possible uiitigation measums flows both from the
language of the Act and, more expressly, from CEQ's
implemendng regulations. Implicit in NEPA's demand that an
agency prepaze a detailed statement on "any adverse environtnental
effects wirich cannot be avoided should the proposal be
implemented," 42 U.S.C. § 4332(C)(u), is an unde:standing t6at
the EIS will discuss the extont W which adverse effects can be
avoided. See D. Mandellcer, NEPA Law and Lirigation § 10:38
(1994). More generally; omission of a reasonably complete
discussion of possible mitigation measures woutd undermine the
"acdon-forcing" funcdon of NEPA. Without such a discussion,
neithec the agency nor other interested groups and individuais can
properly evaluate the severity of the advezse effecis. An adverse
effecr !hat can be fui(y remedied by, for example, an
ina;.,�;=:yuential public expenditure is certainly not as serious as a
simii �x effect that can oaly be modestly azne(iorated through the
commitrneut of vast public and private resources. Reco�ng the
importance of such a discussion in guaranteeing that the agency
has takea a"hard look" at the environmenta! coasequences of
ptnposed Fedeial action, CEQ regulations reqtiire that the agency
discuss possibie midgation measures in defining the scope of the
EIS, 40 CFR § 1508.25(b), (198�, in discussing alternatives to the
pmposed action, § 1502.14(�, and consequeaces of that action,
§ 1502,16(h), and in explaining its ultimate decision, § 1505.2(c).
Id., 490 U.S. at 351-352 (footnote omitted).
-13-
�
84. See Responses A, Z, and A� above. it is
observed that the court's opinion, cited in the
comment, states that an EIS should contain a detailed
discussion of op ssible mitigation measures (emphasis
added). It also states that this approach should be
appiied to unavoidable adverse impacis. In the case of
low frequency noise, no adverse impacts have been
determined. See General Response 1.
The discussion of mitigation meanues in an EIS is even more signi&cant tmder MEPA
than it is under NEPA, since the state law goes beyond ihe federal law in imposing a substantive B5. B5. See Minnesota Rule 4410.2500, Incomplete or
standard of conduct for state agencies. Under Minn. Stat. § 116D.04, state actions such as the Unavailable Information. Rule 4410.2500 provides a
kind w6ic6 will be required ofstate agencies including MAC and the Metropolitan Council to means for a determination of adequacy when essential
approve the nwway, cannot be al(owed, where the acrion "is ►ike(y to cause pollution; information on potentially significant impacts and
impairment or destrncdon of the air, water, land or other natural resources located widun the mitigation is incomplete or unavailable. Response 81
stace, so long as there is a feasible and prudent altemative coasistent with the reasonable and General Responses 1 and 2'discuss the
requirements of the public health, safety, welfaze and the siate's paramount concem for the deficiencies ofi Richfield's analysis of low frequency
protection of its air, water, (and and other nahuat resovrces &om pollution, unpairment or noise im acts, the a
p pproach to determine the
destruc$oa .Economic considerations alone shall not jusfify sach wnduc£" Thus, given significance o�# the impacts, and MACs commitment to
MEPA's express provision that altematives include mitigation and the requirement that mitigate any identified significant adverse impacts to a
mitigauon be discussed, and given the sutistanrive standarii ofMEPA in Minn. Stat § 116D.04, level of insignificance prior to operation of the new
subd. 6, quoted above, a fiill discussion of mitigation is necessary for decision maken to runway.
detetmine whether "feasible and pnuient aitematives" to the proposed action aze availabie. If so;
they must either be incorpocated in the action, or the action must not be takea
3. TT IS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR THE FEIS TO TREAT LOW
FREQUENCY NOISE AND MEASURES lYECESSARY TO
MTI'7GATE THAT II1�II'ACT AS AN "UNItESOLVED ISSUE:'
An Environmental Impact Statement shall desctibe the pmposed action in detaii, analyze
its siEnifiqnt environmeatal impacts, discuss appropriate altematives to the proposed action
and their acts, and e:plore met6ods by w6icfi adverse environmental impacb of an action
could 6e mi6gated. •IvTinn. Stat § 116D.04, subd. 2(a).
Minnesota Rule 44102800 Determinauon of Adequacy, subpart 4 Conditions, requires
the final E1S to be prepared in compliance with procedures of the Act in Parts 4410.0200 -
4410.6500. Under Rule 4410.280�, Tha Determination of Adequacy, the final EIS must, in part,
address "the potenGally significant issues and alternatives raised in scoping so that ail significant .
issues for whicfi information can reasonably be obtained h�ve been analyzed in confocmance
with Part 4410.2300, Items G and H." Rule 4410.2300(G) refers to the requirament that the EIS ' Bs. B6. See Response 85.
shall address alteraatives, and (Fi) cequires analysis of environmental, economic, employment,
and sociological impacts. •
"Data and analysis shall be commensurate with the importance of ffie impact and the
relevance of the information to a reasoned choice among altemarives and to the consideration of
the need for mitigation meas�ucs .:." Rule 4410.2300(Fn. The EiS is required to address
mitigadon measuces by identifying those measiues "that could reasonabiy eliminate or minimize
any adverse environmentai, economic, employment, or sociological affects of the proposed
projec�". Rule 4410.230a(I).. .
MAC is required in its EIS to pmvide detailed information on all aitematives in order for
the EIS to be evaluated and play its proper role in the decision-making pcocess under Minn. StaL
§ 116D.04, suhd. 6. See Cedra-Rivenside Emironmental Defense Fund v. Hi1ls, 422 F. Supp.
294, (D.C. M'inn. 1976). in Cedar-Riverside the court found that in pazt because the EIS failed to
-14
evaluate alternatives in the greater detail required by state law, the ETS violated the requiremenis
of the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act (MEPt1), Minn. Stat. § I 16D.04. It is not sufficient
for an FEIS to describe a significant environmentai impact as an "unresolved issue," and leave it
at t6at It may be a politically unresotved issue, but the effecu and mitigation of low &equency
noise must be addressed in the FEIS.
C. SIRD-AIRCI2AFI' IMPACTS ..
Why would the Rnnway 17-35 project increase the number of overflights over Mother
Lake? (See FEIS at•V33.) $ince there would be relatively few azrivais on Runway 17 or
departures on Runway 35, wouldn't such overElights consis2 aimost entirely of arrivals on
Runway 12R or departures on Runway 30L? Wouldri't the'number of such operations on
Runway 12R�30L be expected to decrease with the coc�struction of Runway 17/35, given that the
latter cuuway is portrayed by its proponents as a meaas to sUift to the sovth of MSP.operations �
that ot6erwise wotild take place northwest of MSP? �
�'the FEIS indicates a dramatic increase in what the FEIS descn'bes as "the nutnber of
flights expected over bird cbncenriation azeas at critical altiludes." However, the F'EIS does not
state whether this.constitutes a significant safety hazard. Tlris omission,is alarming, given the
fact that the FEIS proposes no mitigation wl�atsoever for overflights over Gan Club Iake or ihe
Long Meadow Lake/Black Dog Lake complex. (See FEIS at V-32.) ,
' The increase in flights below 2,000 feet over the MVNYJR appears to be inconsistent
�with the FAA's comraitment to the Department of the Interior in the parties' Interagency
,�,greemenL A copy of the Agreement is included in the Appendix to these comments at Tab 5.
D. � CONSTftUGTIOP7Il�II'ACTS
The discussion of the temporary eactensiori of Runway 12R-30L appears to jumble and
confuse issues pertaining to (1) the ctosure of Runway 4-2Z during the con.�truction of the
additional I,Q00-foot extension of that tunway, and (2) the extension of Runway 12R-30L and
the closure ofportioas of that runway in connection with the reconsuuction of that runway.
More fundamentaliy, the FEIS unproperiy limits its coasidention of the impacts
associated with ti�e reconstruction of Runway 12R-30L to conshvction impacts. In particulaz,
the FEIS fails to disclose any noise unpacCs associated with t6at reconstruction. There is no
logical basis for analyzing some; but not all, of the environmental impacts associazed with the
recoas�trucuon project�
E. IMPACTS ON THREATENED AND ENDANGEItED SPECIES �
C1.
C2.
The FEIS discioses thai the Runway 17-35 project would 6ave an "adverse impacP' on E,� �
Forster's terns, but improperly fails to disclose whether that adve=se impact is significant. (FEIS
-IS-
86. Response on previous page.
C1. Due to concerns expressed regarding low altitude
overflights of bird sensitive areas, the overflights
analysis was reviewed and the values in the FEIS are
not correcY due to input errors in the operations
�ssigned to the flight tracks, and changes to Figures Q-
2 and Q-8 and Table D-5 in Section V.D were required.
The revised figures and table are attached to General
Response 6. The revisions result in 1,050 fewer
operations from the preferred alternative over Mother
Lake in 2010 than No Action, and 910 fewer
operations in 2020.
C2. Regardless of the technique used to estimate the
number of birds in an area, attention centers on the
number that could cause a potentially hazardous
condition to occur. To date, the numbers of birds have
not caused any significant probiems at the presently
developed airport. No airport can totaliy eliminate birds
from the surrounding airspace. Nevertheless, the FAA
and MAC are concerned about the issue of bird strikes
and there will be coordination with the USFWS
concerning any proposed controi measures, whether
they are proposed for safety purposes or to Iimit
6iological impacts.
The proposal to permit arriving and departing flights to
occur below 2,000 feet is not inconsistent with any
FAA commitments based on the 1993 interagency
Agreement. The referenced agreement is advisory in
nature and is primarily intended to increase pilot
awareness or modify procedures, if possible, to avoid
low-altitude overflights of natural resource lands.
Furthermore, the FAA has acknowledged the
interagency agreement with reference to this refuge,
has determined that there are no feasibie and prudent
alternatives, and has committed to provide for
reasonable mitigation.
D1. The FEIS discloses the noise impacts of the
temporary extension of Runway 12R in Section V.E
and refers the reader to the Environmental
Assessment for Extension of Runway 4-22 to 12,000
Feet for the detailed analysis of impacts.
E1. As stated in the FEIS, the potential for impacts to
Forster's tern, a state species of special concern, is
unclear since only one nest has been observed in
Mother Lake since 1987. Given the extremely limited
use Mother Lake has received by this species over the
last 10 years, any potential adverse impacts to the
Forster's tern population would not rise to the level.of
being significant under NEPA. In fact, the additional
runoff from the proposed developmenYs impervious
surface wili raise and stabilize watar levels in Mother
Lake, which would improve the habitat and the
success of the tern nests (more stable water levels
reduce the flooding of nests). Species of special
concern are not protected by state law or rule. See
Minn. Stat. section 84.0895 and Minn. Rules Parts
6212.1800 - 6212.2300 and Part 6134.0150.
Accordingly, there are no substantive legai
requirements applicable to potential impacts of the
MSP alternative upon the Forster's tern.
� I .
at V-36 to V-37.) In addition to addressing the significance issue, the FEIS should disclose thz E1. E1. Response on previous page.
substantive lega! requiremenCs applicable to projects that have tbat kind of impact on a state
species of specia! concem like the Forster's tem.
F. ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The ta.e capacity impacts shown in the FEIS for the City of Richfe[d (FE1S at V-54)
improperly omit impacts associated with removal of residences in connection with efforts to
mitigate low frequency noise impacts. : F'� . F1. See General Responses 1 and 2.
The development costs for the LTCP "and the 2020 Concept Plan (FEIS at V-54) fail to
include costs associated with midgation of low frequency noise in RichSseid. (See Richfield's •
mitigaaon proposal submitted under separate cover.) `
Daes the $803 million cost for MSP 2010 shown ia the FEIS include the 5255 miltion in F2. F2. The no action costs are not included in the 2010
improvements inciuded ia the no action altemative, i.e., is MSP 2010 expected to cost an LTCP; only those costs directly attributable to the
additionaI $548 miltion. If the costbf those improvernents is not included in MSP 2010, then LTCP are included, whieh were estimated to be about
the FEIS is underestima6ng the absolute and relaflve expense of.that project ggp3 million.
G. IMPACTS ON HISTORIC/ARGHITECi'URAL RESOURCES
7'he FEIS reveais that the Runcvay 17-35 project wouid result in significant adverse
impacts on historic and architectucal resources and thereby triggers the substantive requirements
ofthe National Historic Preservation Act,'Section 4(� of the Departrnent ofTiansportation Act, G1. G1. A Programmatic Agrbement regarding the effects
MEPA, and MERA. (FEIS az V-66.) Due to the inadequate altemadves anatysis in the FEIS, upon potentially historic resources has been signed by
there is no basis for making the'requuite determination regarding the e�cistence of feasible or the appropriate agencies and is included in Appendix C.
prudent alternatives. ' , See also General Response 6.
H. INDUCED SOG70ECONOMiC IMPACTS -
The FEIS fails to analyze the induced commercial, office, and retail development in eact
Richfield associated with either the redevelopment needed to mitigate againsE the low frequency H'� . H1. See General Responses 1 and 2. A new west
noise impacts ofthe 2010 LTCP or the westem entrance to the airport contained in the 2020 terminai would not induee development inconsistent
Concept Plan. with Richfield's currently adopted plan; rather it should
, help Richfield realize the planned redevelopment.
L LAND USE LMPACI'S
The FEIS understates important impacts of the Runway 17-35 project by'asserting tLat
acquisition ofNew Ford Town and Rich Acres :`is not.considered an impact of MSP expansion"
because that acquisifion is complete. (FEtS az VJO.) That acquisition occ�ared ptecisely 11,
because of the proposed tunway. W3s there another EA or EIS in which the environmental
impacts of tbat acquisidon weie analyzed?
-16-
11. This acquisition was requested by Richfield based
on existing noise impacts, which was documented in
the Enviranmental AssessmenY, New Ford Town and
Rich Acres Noise Abatement, MAC, December 1992.
J. NOISE YMPACTS
The FEIS imp;operly fails to disclose the pcojected �rwnber (not just the percentages) of J 1.
arrivals and departures on each runway end. .
The FEIS improperly fails to analyze noise impacts for the year 2020. Even if the yeaz
2005 is an appropriaze year to evaluate noise impacts for the 2010 LTCP, that does not justify
ignoring the year 2020 to analyze impacts associated with the 2020 Concept Plan. By confining
the entire noise anatysis to 2005, the FEIS provides no means to evaivaie the additional noise .�2.
impacts associated with constntction of the 2020 Concept Plan as compared with either the 2010
LTCP or the no action alternative. ; All of the noise analyses presented for.2005 should also be
provided for 2020. , _
Even'if 2005 represents t}ie `4vorst case' yeaz in terms of firture noise impacts—a dubious
proposidon since t6at conclusion is based entirely on coasidefation of DNL impacts-it is not
true that "[tjhe noise impacts of the MSP 2020 Concept Ptan and MSP 2010 LTCP are �. �J$,
� idenucal. ..:' (FEIS at V-87.) The F�IS provides no basis whatsoever for comparing the
• • impacis of those projects because it coritains no analysis of irnpacts relating to the 2020 Concept
, Pian.. . •
K. Ii�iPAGTS ON PARKS AND RECREATION
, The FEIS improperty ignores consideration of the two pazks in Rich Acres and New Ford
Town that would be eliminated by constivc6on of the Runway 17-35 project. The proposed
runway woutd appazently literally �un ttuougii one of those parks. (Documents regarding MAC's
plans to acquire t6e parks aze included in the Appendix to these commenu at Tab 4.)
By ignoring the parks located in Rich Acres and New Ford Town, the FEIS eaoneously
concludes that no mirigation is required with respect to impacts on parks. (FEIS at V-95 J The
FEIS also fails to disclose thai the elimination of those parks for the new runway wouid
constitute a use of patks that triggers the substanrive provisions of Section 4(� of the Department
of Tzaasportation Act, MEPA, and MERA.
L. SOCIAL IMPAGTS
The FEIS fails to disclose relocation impacts associated wich the mitigation needed to
adciress Iow frequency noise impacts in Richfield. ,
�
J1. The numbers of arrivals and departures are given in
FEIS Appendix A by type of aircraft. The use of the
runways will be the same on a percentage basis
regardless of the forecast of operations, which allows
the reader to easily calculate the numbers for different
forecasts and years.
J2. The FEI5 provides a tabular and graphical analysis
of the noise impacts associated with the MSP
Alternative high forecast scenarios for the years 2005
and 2020. Attached Figure CR-1 provides a graphical
comparison of the MSP Alternative baseline forecasts
for 2005 and 2020. Neither the 2020 high nor
6aseline forecasts produce any further significant noise
impacts, increase noise mitigation measures, or
significantly change land use compatibility when
compared to the 2005 high and baseline forecasts
noise contours. See also General Response 4.,.
J3. The comment when considered out of context'
implies that the 2010 and 2020 pians are the same.
The referenced seratence is meant to convey that the
year 2005 forecast was used to determine noise�
impacts so there is no difference between the noise
impacts of the 201 � and 2020 plan's because the
combination of 2005 opera'tions and fleet mix results
in the meximum noise impact.
�i'�. K1. The acquisition of these two parks was the resuit
of an earlier project: They were not considered a
Section 4(f) impact by Richfield because they were
determined to be insignificant, as stated in the
November 19, 1992 letter to Nigel Finney of MAC.
from James D. Prosser, City Manager. See EA
referenced in Response 11.
L1. ( L1. 5ee General Response 2.
�;
�;
N,
'++I! U,
O
�..
a.
�
.e :
'c .
e
:�_'
d
.�.,
.::��. r.....�.
�
Q,
i':
a
�'.
„U, ,
tB
i:
H'
M. IIYII'AC7'S ON SECTION d(fl RESOURCES
7he FEIS undetstates Secuon 4(� impacts by eaoneously stating t6at "[nJo parks and
recreation azeas subject to Secdon 4(fl review will be acquired for development of the MSP
Attema6ve."' (FEIS at V-.115.) 'In truth, MAC seeks to acquire two pazks in Rich Acres and
New Ford Town for that purpose: The acquisiuon of those pazks would constihrte a"use" of
Section 4{fl Properties.
'Ihe FEIS cor�ecdy concludes that the Runway I7�35 project "will substantialiy impair
pubtic vse or enjoyment of Section 4(� resourceswithin the MVNWR" and themfore ."would
result in the consttuctive use of a portion of the Refuge:" T6e Appendix to these commenu, at
Tab 6, contains copies of various brochures turther documenting ouuloor educationa! and other
activitia at the MVNWR that would be substantially impaired by the project '
� Because the FEIS ecmneously conctudes t6at the Runway 17-35 pmject does not involve
any acquisition ofpazks, it improperly fails to analyze or propose any mitigation measures. .
(FE1S at V-1 l9.) Under these circumsiances, approval of the project would violate Section 4( fl
of the Department of Tiansportation Act, MEPA, and MERA.
Absent finali�tion of a mitigation agreement betvveen the FAA and the Fish & Wildlife
Service, there is no basis for the FEIS to conciude tl�at mitigation of impacis on the MVNWR
will be miNgated to a tevel of significance or to the fiillest extent feasibte. This provides an
additiona! basis for concluding that approval of the project would violate Section 4(�, MEPA,
�nd MERA. , .
N. STIRFACE TRANSPORTATION Il�IPACTS
1. PROCE5S USED TO ANALYZE IMPAGTS AND DETERM7NE
MITIGATIONS
The process used W analyze the impacts to the surface transportafion system was
geneially not inclasive of the City of Richfie(d, did not consider the proper scope of anatysis and
did not secure commitrnents to perform the needed mitigatiaa Each of these is addressed below.
a. . Pmceu Not Inclusive •
Although the City of Richfieid incurs the majority of the impacts associated with MSP
expansion, the Ciry was generaJly left o.ut of the Mettopolitan Airport Commission (MAG�
analysis of environmental impacts and development of mitigation strategies. This is particularly
true in the surface transportation azea. Appendix F.of the FEIS contains the document
"Conseasus Approach to Suzface Tianspoctation Project Development, Minneapolis-Sk Pau!
International Airport," May 13, 1997, prepared by the Federal Aviation Administxation (FAA)
and MA.C: Page 1 of the Consensus document lists the public agencies that participated in the
development of the documeni (FAA, Fedecat Highway Administration, Minnesota Department of
Transportation, Wisconsin Department of Transporqtion, Minnesota Environmental Quality
_�g_
�
M1. See Response K1.
M2. Comment noted.
M3. See Response K1
�i4. M4. See General Response 7.
N1.
N7. Richfield was represented on the Duai Track MSP
Technical Committee which reviewed the approach and
anatysis of environmental impacts, and was represented on
the MSP Noise Mi6gation Committee.
The FEIS does not propose the final solution and
needed mitgation for the surface transportation
projects. it presents the impacts of one feasibie
alternative. Additional surface transportation
alternatives and design details are stiil to be worked
out during the next phase of work, which will indude
pubiic and Iocal government participation. The purpose
of the Consensus Document was to determine the
projects that were needed to implement the MSP
alternative and define the project development process
— establish the purpose and need for the projects and
the impiementation and programming issues.
Members of the Surface Transportation Committee met
with Richfield on March 17, 1997, and informed '
Richfield of the approach being taken with the FEIS
and Consensus Documant. In responding to comments
on the FEIS received from the Minnesota DOT, it is
stated that the MAC will initiate a cooperative
agreement with MnlDOT, Hennepin County, and
Richfield to develop the TH 77/66'" Street interchange.
This agreement may also address a more general study
of the TH 77 corridor from i-494 to TH 62.
Boazd, MAC and Metropo(itan Counci!). The individual ciries impacted by the airport are
noticeably not included in this group, and accordingly, their technica! input is not reflected in the jV 7
document .
The Ciry ofRichfield prepared a detailed set of comments to the Metropolitan Airports
Comrr�i«;on regarding the DEIS (letter dated Febrtiary 19, 199�. The comments relalive to (VZ�
surface t�ansportation issues appear on pages I-136 and I-137 of the FEIS: Tfie responses in the
FEIS to the February 19, 1996, comments aze incomplete and fail to address all issues caised by
the conceras. Comments raised on truck traffic volumes (comment marked LLL in FEIS
document) and detailed subarea uafiic anaiyses (comment Mlvflv� are given cursory, non-
responsive answe�. .
� 'Che Ciry of Richfield has been actively developing a mi6gation plan for the eastem
portion of the City to res�ond to the impacts oFairport expacu�on. This plan contains major land '
use changes. Because the so-calted "consensus approach" to traasportation issues was conducted �3�
without Ciry input, the proposed �roadway layouts prepared by MAC For the FEiS do not properly
regazd the circulation pattems•and access needs of the easEem portion of Richfield near•T.H. 77.
' The Ciry's role as a partner orparticipant off cooperative roadway projects is not fully . .
described Page 5 of the "Consensus Documeat" notes thaf other cities "and the City of •
Richfieid'may`atso;be included as parties to the cooperative agreements(s)." 'Richfieid believes �.4''
tl�at it must be part of such cooperative agreements, but no fiut6er discussion of the details of this
parlicipadon aze'provided in the FEIS or supporting documents.
b. Limited Scope of Analysis
The FEIS impmperly fails to analyz� surface transportation impacts for the year 2010.
Gonsequendy, there is no data or analysis to support the bald conclusion in the FETS that
"imptementation of the MSP 2010 LTCP, would not significandy affect uaffic volumes oa
principa! arteriats in the vicinity of MSP." (FEIS at V-126:) Nor is there any basis in the FEIS
for deteimining wi�ether or not (1) tFie Runway 17-35 project would have any significant surface
transportation impacts in 2010, or (2) there are any feasible mitigation measures that wuid
reduce any 2010 haffic impacLs.
The geographic scope and levei of detail of the surface roadway anaiyses is too t'united.
7he az�alyses need to include intecsection level of service computaiions, as'these results aze
needed for the a�cr_��++cnt of air quality impacts: . '
N5.
' IV6.
� A regional modeling process was conducted to generate year 2020 volumes, as presented
in MnDOT's report on impacts on the State Highway System.' However, this aaaiysis did not
include non-state madways, which also will be impacted. This is a significant omission. To
determine the specific impacts to Richfield, more detaiied infom�a6on from a sub-area iraffc i�%.
analysis is needed, which should inci¢de (1) analysis of other major streets, such as 66°i Street,
(2) geometrics, (3) capacity anaiysis, (4) delay, (5) intersection LOS, and (� need for neW or
_�g_
N1. Response on previous page.
N2. As stated in DEIS Response LLL, future truck
volumes are estimated to 6e 5-6°� of the daily traffic
volumes. As stated in DEIS Response MMM, a
detailed subarea traffic study was determined
unnecessary because the differences in forecast traffic
between the MSP and no action alternatives on the
affected arterials would not significantly change the
levels of service in the area. The FEIS added a site-
specific air quality anaiysis for the TH 77/66'h Street
interchange (FEIS pages V-10 through V-13), as well
as a preliminary, feasi6le, layout for the interchange.
locai traffic circulation issues.were'considered in the
development and evalua#ion of potential interchange
layouts.
As noted in Response N1, above, MAC will initiate a
cooperative agreement with Mn/DOT, Hennepin
County, and Richfield. The subsequent design study
will address further details of locai traffic circulation.
N3. Detailed local circulation patterns and access
needs were not addressed in the Consensus Document
tiecause they are to 6e addressed in the neM pfiase of
project development (see Response N7►. The Iayout
shown in the FEIS, Figure W-9, represents one feasible
configuration that could be evaluated to determine
representative impacts. More analysis of layout
options will he performed as part of the planned future
design study efforts.
N4. The MAC will initiate a cooperative agreement .
with Mn/DOT, Hennepin County, and Richfield to
develop the TH 77/66"' Street interchange. it is not
necessary to address more details without first issuing
a final project decision for the airport expansion.
N5. FEIS 2070 surface transportation impacts are based
on analysis of available traffic forecasts and the
expected impact of the MSP 2010 LTCP on traffic
patterns. No potentially significant impacts requiring
mitigation were determined. The new cargo area o�
the west side of the airport is expected to increase
traffic volumes on TH 77, TH 62 and the TH 77/66th
Street interchange. However, Iocal street traffic
characteristics are not expected to change significantly
due to the airport project; in some cases, local street
volumes can be reduced due to access control
measures. As stated in Response N3, more details will
be addressed as part of the future design study.
� N6. See Response N2, above.
N7. See Response N5, a6ove. Local street traffic
characteristics are not expected to change significantly
due to the airport project. More details will be
addressed as part of the future design study.
improved uaffic signals. Ttris information is needed as it should also be used ia the cazbon �7, I N7. Response on previous page.
monoxide air quality analysis for each roadway improvement
Regazding specific roadway improvements, some roadways will stiil be over capacity, �$
even if there is an improvement over existing conditions. I-494, I•35 W, and T.A. 62 will be over
capacity in 2020. Addidonal roadway altecnatives should be considered as weil as aansit
improvements. The FEI3 only gives cursory mention of uansit access. More emphasis should
be placed on nansit access, with spec'�fic aiternatives presented.
c. Lack of Mitigation Commitmenb
Within the discussion of surface t=ansportation enhancements there ace no fiim
commitments supplied by MAC to the midgation measures identified in the FEIS. The
"Consensus Appmach" document that supports the FEIS delineates needed roadway projecLs and
the document indicates which agency should tead the development of each project However,
neitl�er the "Consensus" document nor the FEIS provide the actual commirinent by MAC to
complete the referenced roadway projects.
For example, even though the FEIS states that "MAC and the employers on the airport
site (pacticularIy Northwest Airlines as the major on-site employer) will need to pursue an
aggressive package of TDM [uavel demand management) meas�ues," the FEIS fails to contain .
any commitment to those measures. (FEIS at V-139.) As a result, the FEIS provides no basis for
detc�mining whether those measures would reduce any impacts to a level of insigiificance.
2. ACCESS NEEDS RELATTYE TO TI� 2010 LTCP
a. T.H. 7�/66t6 Street Interchange
The T.H. 77/66th Street Interchange will undergo a major reconstruction to serve the
expanded needs of the 2010 LTCP. The City favors a single point diamond interchange design.
With this there is the need for appropriate upgrades to T.H. 77 and improved access
management, lane configutations and exidenhance ramp layout design along T.H. 77. The City
strongly desires to be involved with the design team that develops this interchange layout
As the design for the T.H. 7�/66th Street Interchange is developed, it must correspond to
the City's planning for 66th Street and other loca! roads west of T.H. 77. This area is slated to
change and redeveiop uader the City's overall autigation ptanning For the airport and ihe
circulation pattcras and needs of the 66th Street area must mazch with the overali intetchange
area design.
-za
N8. it is correct that poor peak-hour levels of service
would continue to exist along some segments of the
referenced roadways—even if expanded. This
highlights the need for transit improvements and the
potential benefits they may offer. The project
development approach for the proposed 2020 roadway
projects acknowledges this by incorporating a Major
investment Study methodology. In the near-term,
Mn/DOT, MAC, and other agencies are proceeding with
finai design plans for a Light Rail Transit (LRT)
connection, approved as part of a previously-completed
environmental study. For more discussion, see General
flesponse 5.
�9. N9. The two roadway projects needed to implement
the 2010 LTCP (the west frontage road relocation and
the TH 77/66"' Street interchange reconstruction} are
to he implemented in connection with ihe airport
expansion, and this is made clear within the FEIS and
the Consensus Document. The need for the roadway
projects associated with the 2020 Concept Plan will be
reevaluated if plans to implement the west terminal
proceed. The MAC and FAA cannot rely upon TDM
measures to produce tha specific capacity
improvements needed to support the 2010 LTCP and
the 2020 Concept Plan. TDM approaches can help
reduce some traffic impacts, and the MAC will
continue to work with airport tenants to implement the
measures listed on page V-139 of the FEIS; but the
MAC cannot force Northwest Airlines or other private
on-airport employers to implement TDM measures.
N7q. P110. The design of the TH77/66"' Street interchange
will be determined during the projecYs design phase,
and will be determined based on system and lane
requirements, and engineering design details, such as
structural engineering factors (the current cost
estimate for the interchange has assumed that the
existing bridge will be retained). Richfield will be
involved in the design process.
b. Ea�t Frontage Road Fuoction
�th airport expansion Standish Avenue on the East side of T.H. 77 will be lost
Currendy this road serves an east frontage road function to T.H. 77 with a connection between N11. N11. There is no room for a replacement frontage road
66th Street and 28th Avenue. This road serves Metro Transit Bus R.oute 15 and also is part of without impacting the Mother Lake weiland. Metro•
the City's bicycie route netwock. Tius frontage road fiutction needs to be replaced concurrcnY Transit is aware of this and has planned for the '
with t6e interchange reconstrucrion. _ closure. Bicycie route continuity could be provided at a
num6er of overpasses of TH 62 west of TH 77.
c. 77t6 Street Underpass
�th tlse increased development and traffic voltunes in the airport vicinity, ihe need for
expanded local circuladon is heightened. The City of Richfield favors an underpass in the 77th
Street area to achieve circulafion between the west and east sides ofT.H. 77. This underpass �N12. N12. As stated in the Consensus Document; the 77"'
would fit in with the north frontage road of I-494 on the east side of T.H. 77 and would aLso fit Street underpass is not necessary to implement the
with the 97th Street arteriai alignment developed by the City of the west side. This underpass airport expansion. However, the need for this project
would benefit the aitport property by giving it augmenud circulaIIon to the wesL and its impacts have previously been evaluated, federal
funds have been earmarked, and Mn/DOT will lead its
' , further development. As needed, the MAC will also
d. Enhanced Airport Access continue to caordinate with Mn/DOT and Richfield.
'Witfi the 2010 LTCP the only significant increasc in aitport access capacity is via the '
T.H. 79/66th Street Interehange, and this point is only meant to serve cargo and service haffic.
The City favors consideration ofan enl�wced airporraccess System using multiple access poinu �� 3. N13. Airport access will be enhanced with the 77'h 5t.
and a ring road system to reduce congestion at any single locatioa. underpass and an improved airport frontage road
inte�connecting access points at 66'" and 77"' Streets,
and 34"' Ave. South.
e. Bicycle Accps
The surface transportation analyses do not consider alternadve transportadon modes such
as bicycling for airport employess. The raadway network plans must consider bicycle access ���• N14. See Response N9, above, regarding TDM
oPpartunities and facilities. These should be related to the City's overall bicycle route planning, measures. The details of hicycle access, including
route continuity will be addressed durin the finai
3. ACCESS NEEDS RELATIVE TO TFIE 2020 LTCP
a. Traffic Forecasts
The tiaffic foreca�cts that support the roadway design conctusions of the "Consonsus
Document" appear questionable. Not enough background information is pmvided in the
documont to thomughty check eacfi volume pmjection; comments can only be made on the
projectioas as presented. One specific ama of concern is the 2020 volume on T.H. 77 between
66th Street and I-494. Figure 1 of the "Consensus DocumenY' shows a"2020 NaAction" ADT
of 73,000. Ihe same figure shows a"2020 West Termin�t Location" ADT of 71,000. Given tLat
th� acces.s to the west terminal will be from T.H. 62 and T.H. 7'7 it is very dif�cult to uaderstand
-21-
� 9
design phase.
i��5. N15. This minor change in volume between No Action
and the 2020 Concept Plan is understandable when
one considers how the 2020 Plan would divert most of
the airport terminal access t�ips to the norkhwest
corner of the airfield. This would divert much of the
terminal-based traffic tied to origins and destinations to
the north (e.g., downtown Minneapolis) awaV from the
TH 77 corridor. At the same time, the new terminal
would attract more terminal-based trips onto TH 77
• linked to nodes to the south and west. It is reasonable
to expect that these trip diversions would offset.
�
.
how the volume projection could dectease under the west terminal scenazio. The questionabie
volume pmjection raises concerns over the roadway analyses presented.
b. Bicycle Access
As with the 2010 time frame, there is a similar concern over the need for bicycle access in
the 2020 time frame. The 2020 roadway network plans must aLso consider bicycle access
opportunities and facilities. These shouid'be related to the City's overall bicycle route planning.
c,-Improper Deferral of Environmental Review �
The FEIS icnproperly defers impacts of the five surface Uansportation improvements that
would be required in conuection with tha 2020 Concept Plan ifthe west terminal is constructed.
(FEIS at V=140.) A stable, furite, and defuute project is t6e sine qua non of environmental
review under NEPA and MEPA. The FEIS cannot analyze some irnpacu of the 2020 Concept
Plan and refuse to analyze otheis, especiaUy since the FEIS puxports to analyze all impacts
associated with the 2020 Concept Plan. Moreover, the FEtS puiports to base its analysis of year
2020 air qualiiy impacts on cousideration of yeac 2020 haffic volumes, (See FEIS at V-8 co
RI3, H-9.)
4. PUBLIC TRAIVSPORTATION iMPAGTS
The FEIS and supporting docimments contain very little discussion of impacts to public
,}ansportation. At a minimum, there will be a need to maintain the route I S Metro Transit
service which currenUy uses the Standish Avenue east &ontage road function to access 28th
Avenue. ldeally, the east ftontage road will be reconSgured and the bus route will not be
impacted if We frontage road is lost, then suitabie measures must be taken to maintain the bus
route func6on
The FEIS and supporting documents make no reference to the proposed Hiawaiha, Light
Rail Tcansit ("LR2'� system that would serve the airport There is no discussion of how the
LRT would serve the current airport tetmina! in the 2010 LTCP, how the LRT would serve the
west teiminal under the 2020 LTCP and how the LRT connecuons thiaugh the airport properiy
would make the I.RT accessible for rrsidents of the eastern portion of Richfieid. These LRT
issues need to be addressed in the FEIS.
r
N15. I N15. Response on previous page.
N17.
N16. Sae Responses N14 and N9, above.
N17. The FEIS does not defer anaiysis of the 2020
projects. it disclosas the impacts of feasibie concepts
in the same manner as the 2010 projects (see
Response N3) for the same impact categories. These
concepts are subject to additional study and
environmental review if and when a new west terminal
is authorized.
N18. See Response N11.
N19. See General Response 5.
5. TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT
The FEIS contains a discussion of travel demand m:�n�aement (TDiv� sh�ategies on page V-139,
describing the ability of TDM to reduce the number of drive alone trips. However, the �2�. N2U. See Response N9.
discussion is very genera! and vague and is not focused on the exact parameters of an airport
setting. Finthermore,'and most importantly, the FEIS contains no commibments by MAC or any
�
of the major airport employers to actually carry out a TDM program. For the TDM discussion to �20�
ba a meaningfiil part of the �tigation s4ategy it must come with firm empioyer commitments.
O. VISUAL IMPAGTS
There is no basis for the conclusion in the FEIS that the repiacement of the aesthetically
pleasing Rich Acres Golf Course with cargo buiidings and aircraft aprons "are not consideted
adverse impacts." ,(FEIS at V-143.) The significance of this visual impact should be O1.
acknowledged and appropriate mitigation proposed. • �• •
P. SCJRFACE VVATER OUALiTY TMPACTS
� The FEIS improperly fails to analyze cumularive surface water quality impacts associated
wiffi the 1,000-foot extension oFRunway 4-22 and tfie reconshuction of Runway 12R 30L.
The FEIS, improperty fails to anatyze or pmpose mitigadon measures for 2020 Concept P�� ,
Plan surface water quality unpacts. � � .
. Q. . GROUNDR'ATER OUALITY IMPAGTS , ' - � •
The FEIS improperty fails to analyze cumuiative groundwate� quality, impacts associateii
with aircrafr deicing operations in connection with the 1,000 foot exteasion of Runway 4-22. In Q,� �
particulaz, the FEIS should disctose the number and significance, in terms of groundwater qualiry
of impacts, of departures that are d'eiced:at the north end of Runway 22... The FEIS shouid also
analyze and propose mitigation measures needed to addmss any su�h.impacts.
9
-23-
N20. Response on previous page.
01. Views of the rePerenced golf course are not
integralta the existing aesthetics on the eastern side
of Richfield. The aesthetics of this area are strongiy
affected by the intervening TH 77 freeway and
frontage road corridor, which is almost 1,000 feet
wide. Furthermore, the visual change from the golf
course to airport use has long been anticipated, as
stated by the MAC's 1978 Iease with the City of
Richfield: "...[Thej Commission at any time during the
lease term shail have the right to take possession ...
for airport purposes...'
Based on these facts, the visual changes associated
with the proposed action wiii not appreciably alter the
already ur6anized character of lands west of the TH 77
corridor. Ur6an and commercial land uses, and the
associated views, are consistent with Richfield's
currently adopted comprehensive plan, and the
referenced lease agreement makes clear that
conversion of the golf course to airport use is a
reasonably foreseeable change. As part of the
proposed action, MAC wiil aiso review final
landscaping and architectural plans to ensure that the
cargo area aesthetics are consistent with the planned
land use and the overall community setting.
P1. The 1000-foot extension of Runway 4/22 is not ,'
anticipated to have a significant impact on'the quality
of surface water run-off from the airport facility, for
the following reasons: ,. �
The increase in flights and aircraft deicing activity
associated with this extension (Dne additional flight per
day) is negligible relative to the;total (evel of aviation .
activity at MSP. Aircraft deicing operations wiil not
take place on the Runway 4/22 extension area.
Drainage from the extension area will probably be •
directed to the MSP Minnesota'River North drainage% �� �"
control system. This control system will be enhanced �
to meet anticipated NPDES requireinents (see _
discussion in Sections V.88.1.1 and V.BB.7.2 of MSP
watersheds and anticipated enhancements of detention
capacities for the airportl. If the drainage from the
extension area is directed to the Minneapolis storm
sewer system rather than the Minnesota River North
drainage/control system, Minneapolis requirements for
controlling this run-off prior to discharge into the
Minneapolis system would be met by the MAC. The
additional amounts of runway deicing chemicals
required as a result of the 1000-foot 4/22 eMension
will be minor relative to the total amounts of such
chemicals required for the entire airport. The MAC
intends to limit and uitimately eliminate the use of urea
at MSP, and replace it with materials with less
potential for environmental impact.
The reconstruction of Runway 12R/30L is not
anticipated to have a significant impact on surface
water discharges from the airport. All drainage from
the reconstructed portions of this runway which
currently lie in the Duck Lake/Mother Lake watershed
will be directed south to the Minnesota River South
drainage/control system (see discussion in Sections
V.86.1.1 and V.B8.1.2►. There are no anticipated
increases in fiight and associated aircraft deicing
activities directly attributa6le to the reconstruction
project.
The mitigation measures for the 2020 Concept Plan are the
same as for the 2010 LTCP. See Appendix H.4.
Q1. Under the 2010 LTCP Altemative, no aircraft
deicing would take place anywhere on the 422
runway. Under the 2010 LTCP Alternative, there will
be less potential for groundwater impacts from aircraft ---
deicing operations than under current conditions �
because of the intended development and use of five
dedicated deicing pad facilities. Each of these pad
spent aircraft deicing fluids, and will have giycol-
contaminated snow management components.
R WETLANDS Il4iPACTS
Infocmation in the FEIS does not svpport its conciusion that theze �e no feasible or
practical alternatives to the desttuction or modifrcation of wetlands affected by the
Runway t7-35 groject
The potential significance as a safety issue of bird s�ikes is indicated by the
ackndwledgement in the FE1S t6at FAA policy opposes consideration of miti�atin� weUands
unpacts on airport property "because of the potential increase of bird strikes by aucraft_" (FEIS
at V-183.)
The FEIS impcnperiy fails to disclose wiiether the proposed wetlands mitigation would
reduce the project's wedand impacts to a levei of insignificance.
S. IMPACI'S ON WILDLIFE REFUGE
R1.
The FEIS fails to adequately analyze mitigation of the significant adveise impacis of the
Project on tha MVNWR, a uniquely.valuable resource enjoyed by residents of the Twin �ities S7.
metropolitan azea, including thoasands of Richfield residenis. Richfieid joias in and adopts the
comments submitted by the Ucuted States Fish and Wildtife Service (tlnited States Department
of the Interior) conceming the nature, and needed mirigation, of the impacts of the Project on the
MVN�VR.
T- TRADEOFFS BETWEEN. SAORT- AND LONGTERM
ENVIRONMENTAL GAINS AND LOSSES
The FEIS.fails to contain the mqtiisite analysis of tradeoffs belweeu short- and long-term T1.
environmental gains aud losses, as, expmssty rec�rired by Paragraph 86 of the Airport
Eavironmental Handbook, FAA Order 5050.4A. Instead, the FEIS pwports to simply balance
the short-term environmental losses against the long-term economic and social benefits. ,(FEIS at
V-190.) '
VII. COMMENTS ON RESPONSES TO RICFIFIELD'S DEIS COMNIENTS
The FEIS states in Reply W to Richfield's comments on the DEIS (FIIS at I-133) that
the FEIS discloses (I) the lmown effects bf the proposed action, and (2) tbe commitment of
� MAC to mitigate significant adyerse effects. The FEIS does not, however, fiilly disclose the U1.
lrnown annoyance of low frequency noise and vibration that was brougl�t to MAC's attention by
the City of Richfield many months prior to publication of the FEIS, other than as an "unresolved
issue." Neither NEPA nor its implementing regutarioas can be interp:eted as peruritting an .
"unresolved issue" to serve as a disclosurc of a noise impact The principal `�nresolved" aspects
of t6ese noise impacts ate not their existence and nariue, but rather the scope of a federat .
regulatory agency's policy prefere�es and an airport proprietor's reluctance to disciose a
documentcd adverse effect of nmway sidetine noise.
liie commitment refernd to in the second part of Reply W is appazendy MA.C's
�d�a�ng "to studY the issue fu�ihec', and work with Richfietd and FAA to develop and .
implement a plaa to address any advexse impacts that are identified." (FEIS at ix.) Ttvs
undeitaking is so nebulovs as to lack practieal meaning. The pledge, wlrich commits MAC to no (J2,
definition of "significanP' advecse impact, no substantive action, no specific study plan, no
schedule, and no mitigation, deprives the FEIS of the very disclosures that NEPA mandates to
inform environmental decision making:
T6e FEIS also indicates in Appendix B that "MAC should develop noise impact models
wluch reflect the impact of gcound level noise on residenaal properkies; mitigation far low
frequency noise should be, developed after consultation with independent a�ise mitigation
axpeits•" This statement does little to clarify MAC's vague pledge. Like the pledge itself, the � U3.
R1. The FEIS devotes aimost an entire page
explaining why there are no alternatives to the impacts
as proposed and gives full support to the FEIS
conciusion regarding alternatives. As stated on page
V-182 of the FEIS, a finding has been made in
accordance with Executive Order 11990 and DOT
Order 5660 that there are no feasible or practicabie
alternatives to the wetiand impacts proposed. No
specific shortcomings in the analysis are identified in
this comment. A discussion of elternatives will aiso be
included in the permiLapplication.
The bird strike potential is one of the primary reasons
why wetland mitigation is not proposed on or in close
proximity to the airport. Since no mitigation wetlands
wouid 6e constructed within or in close proximity to
the airport, no increased hazard of bird strikes is
expected in association with the wetiand mitigation for
MSP.
The wetland mitigation plan has not been finalized;
however, sufficient mitigation will be provided to
adequately compensate for the impaired wetlands in
the permitting process. The quality of the existing .
wetlands has been described in sufficient detail in the
FEIS. Although the quality of these basins varies,
there appear to be no proposed impacts which cannot
be reasonably mitigated with replacament basins that
have functions and values that are at least equal to the
impacted wetlands. Complete' wetland mitigation
plans will be included in permit appiications under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the WCA and the
DNR Protected Waters programs. flichfield will hava
another opportunity to comment on the adequacy of
the mitigation plans at that time. These permits
cannot 6e issued unless the various agencies are
satisfied that the mitigation plan fuily compensates for
the lost wetland functions and values. Any permits
issued will also contain monitoring conditions that will
ensure that the mitigation wetlands fully replace the
functions and values lost and corrective measures will
6e required if necessary.
S1. See General Response 7 and the responses to
USDOI comments.
T1. FAA finds the FEIS analysis consistent with FAA
Order 5050.4A, Paragraph 86, which is to examine tha
tradeoffs of short and long term environmental gains at
the expense of long and short term environmental
losses, respectively, as applicable, for each �
environmentai impact category. There is no known
short term environmental gain due to the proposed
action in any impact category that would tradeoff at
the expense of a long term loss in the same category.
Likewise, there is no known long term gains that would
tradeoff at the expense of a short term loss in the
same impact category.
I U1. See General Response 1. The FEIS analyzed ali
noise impacts and did not determine a significant .
-2`�- adverse impact due to low frequency noise.
U2. See General Responses 1 and 2.
U3. See General Response 2. The sound insulation
program is contingent on MAC maintaining a bond rating
of at least A; it is not contingent on FAA policy..
statement lacks specificity, a schedule, and a commitment to actua( mitigaaon. Further, MAC's
self-approval of this approach (as expressed in its aoise mitigation progcam of Octobec 28, 1996) u3. U3. Response on previous page.
is contingent upon botfi MAC's bond rating and FAA policy.
Unforiunately, the pmposed runway will create low frequency sideline noise in Richfield
regazdIess of MAC's bond iating or FAA's policies concerning qualifications for access to
aviation trust funds. biitigating.the effects of aircrafi noise has been the airport proprietar's
unique responsibility ever since the 1962 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Griggs v3. Alfegherry
County. , NEPA unconditionally requires that environmental impacts be fiiliy disclosed,
regardless of a proprietor's or any other agency's ability, eligibiliry or interests in paying foc
mitigaiion, or of the degree of resolution of eny agency's policies concecning them.
Reply W W confuses two distincY noise metrics while failing to address Richfield's
comment Richfieid's comment concerns the Tme Above 85 dB (TA 85) analysis of the DEIS,
not Day-Night Average Sound Levei figuces. Fwthermore, INIvI does not, as implied by �
' Reply W W, assign "tfie equivalent of 10 daytime operntions" to every nighttime opecation for
purposes of calculating values of t6e �me Above noise mehic. Fidell Affidavit (Tab 2 to
APPX•),'� 14- . .
The argument made in Reply XX thar"the north south runway does not, per se, increase
haffid' because "the forecast of cazgo (and other aviation) activity is an uncoastxained forecasP'
is not only irrelevant; it is also either internally incoasistent, or strong evidence ofthe
dubiousness of the asserted need for eonstruction of the proposed infiastructure. The argument
that a new nmway would not attract additiona! nighttime cargo activity to MSP is based, on the
one hand, on an admission bf excessive cucreni nighttime capacity, and on the other hand, on the
putafive expectation that new ai�port in&asiructure intendeti to support increased levels of
(nighttime) cargo operations on a new nmway will not actually athact additional Raf6c. If the
present cargo facilides aze currently �mder-utilized, and if the proposeci nmway and cargo ,
facilides will not attcact additional opecatioas in the future, it is simpiy irrational to propose
constructing yet lazger facilities in the e�cpectation of even greater under-utilization in the furure.
No matter what other acg�ents MAC and FAA utay offer to support a groposal to
coachuct a new runway and infrastxuctiue to support cazgo operati'ons, it is simply not credible
to impiy that such projects 6ave been sized for intentional �mder-utilization.
The claim in Repiy AAA that "[t]he DNL metric was specifically designed to model
human response to cumulative noise impacts" (FEIS at I-134) is both historically incorrect and
inadequate as applied to RichSeld's comment The initiat descciption of DNL (EPA, 1974)
makes no explicit mention of the design of DNL to model human response to cumuiative noise
impacts. DNL was in facc specifically designed as an evolutionary extension of the "equivalent
leveP' noise rnetric_ t6at is, as a convenieut measure of community noise exposure rnther th.w as
a predictor of "human response to 'ct�ulative noise impacts ^ It wa5 not until four years afier
EPA introduced the noise metric tl�at the fust analysis leading to dosage-icsponse relationships
between DNL and the prevalence of noise-induced annoyance was pubtished (Schultz,1978).
Another fourteen yeazs passed before the curtent officially recoguized dosage-response
relationship {FTCON, }992) was adopted. Fideli Affidavit, q 15.
�
u4.
<<r
u%.
U4. See Response U1 and General Responses 1 and
2.
U5. In response to Fidell Affidavit #14, it is true that
the Time Above (TA) metric does not penalize
nighttime operations. The Response WW in#ended to
convey that tha DNL metric was selected as the
primary metric for addressing noise impacts, since it is
the accepted criterion and addresses nighttime impacts
by weighting nighttime operations by a factor of 10
over daytime operations. The Ievel of 85 dBA was
selected to represent the level at which single event
levels become disruptive. The metrics a�d TA
threshoid proposed for noise analysis were stated in
the AED and EIS Scoping Decisions and accepted by
the Dual Track committees as the basis for the analysis
in the EIS.
U6. Activity levels at nighttime are much less than -
during the day, and therefore current airfield capacity is �..
adequate to accommodate present and future
nighttime demand. Consequently, the new north-south
runway will not attract additional nighttime cargo
activity.
U7. Comment and Fidell Affidavit #15 noted.
The remainder of Repiy AAA does not respond to the substantive basis of Richfield's
comment The tacit claim tl�at the "specially designed" DNL noise metric is adequate to modet
human iesponse to cumularive noise impacts in the specific circumstances of the current FEIS is U8.
at best a controversial aad policy-drivea one that tacks persuasive evidentiary support. FideU,
Silvati and Pearsons (1998) have demons�ated that certain cumulative ct�anges in noise exposiue
in an airport neighborhood, as quanti5ed in units of DNL, are ueither noticed by residential
populations nor predicted by DNL values. Fidell Affidavit, 916 & attached articte.
VIIL COMMENTS ON APPENDICES
A. APPENDIX B: NOISE NIITIGATION PLAN
This appendix describes a"plan" fiiled with good intentions, recommendations, and U9.
geuernlides, and fails to address virniaily all of ihe concerns the Ciry of Richfield has expmssed
The "plan" commits the airport to very little substandve actioa
B. APPENDIX Ii: FORECAST SENSITIVTTY ANALYSIS
The analyses described in this Appendix H, "Forecast Sensitivity Anatysis" of the FEIS
-;ompare the noise consequences of two underestimates of the eventuat air haffic capacity of an
�didonal independcnt runway at MSP. Such a limited comparison does not coastitute a
meaningfiil sensirivity analysis for purposes of projecting eventual aircraft noise exposure levels
associated with construction of the pmposed nmway, nor a fiill disclosure, nor even a considered
�eview of the aviation demand forecasts on which the eotire F'EIS relies. (See Gosling Affidavit.)
Tho fundamental problem with aviation forecasts tl�at must be fully disclosed is not that
they are soraetimes wrong in detail, but tl�at they are neariy always wrong, and often grossly so.
Dempsey et al. (1996) demonsuate not oaly that "Projections of future demand aze notorious for
the large margin of errors that aze commonly involved," but also the risk and folly of relying
solely oa forecasted demand as a basis for commihnent of pubtic rosources. FAA's fiduciary
responsibilities require a far more comprehensive and fort6right examination of the uncertainties
of aviation demand ia this volatile industry. Given that the actval air tcaffic (evels have already
exceeded farecasted tevels at MSP, FAA must prepare a revised D�aft EIS based oa a revised
forecast, similar W what ooctased in Seanle when ecro�s in earlier aviation forecasts 6ecame
evident aRer publicarion of an FIIS.
U8. In response to the comment and Fidell Affidavit
#16, it is true that "gradual, Iong-term reductions in
cumulative noise exposure may not directly reduce
annoyance with aircraft noise exposure" has not been
scientifically proven, but annoyance is based in great
part on community attitudes. Community attitudes are
in turn 6ased on many factors, one of which is
reduction of absolute aircraft noise. Anotherfactoris
how the community has been treated in response to
aircraft noisa exposure — the airport's sound insulation
program, for exampie. Although DN� values are not a
predictor of a community's response in the future, DNL
is the federally-accepted metric for determining impact
and mitigation. As representatives of the affected
Twin Cities community, the MSP Noise Mitigation
Committee recommended a series of noise mitigation
operating procedures for the airport, and, based on
DNL values, recommended sound insulation to the DNL
60 contour. It is also nated that the popu�ation
exposed to DNL 65+ is estimated to decrease from
33,750 in 1994 to 7,650 in 2005, and for DNL 60+,
from 98,900 in 1994 to 29,680, with the proposed
action. This is a dramatic change in noise exposure
and, coupled with the committed sound insulation
program, is expected to substantialiy reduce annoyance
in the Twin Cities community.
U9. The essence of the adopted program was
developed and recommended to MAC by the MSP
Noise Mitigation Committee, which consisted primarily
of the mayors of the affected municipalities, including
Richfield. Each city presented its concerns and the
committee reacted accordingiy, and, after holding a
public meeting, submitted the recommended program
to MAC.
U7�. U10. in response to the comment and the Gosling
Affidavit, actual passenger and aircraft operation
activity levels, through 1997, are tracking below the
MAC High Forecast, which confirms that the forecast
sensitivity analysis is realistic and valid for use in the
FEIS. See General Response 3.
U11.IU11. The uncertainty inherent in any forecast is the
reason that the forecast sensitivity analysis was
conducted. See Response U10.
In any eveat, the comparison of year 2005 and 2020 noise impacts by reference to DNL
contour areas provides a superficial and misleading comparison of the relative noise impacts in U 1
those two yeazs. Even more fundameatally, the comparison of 2005 and 2020 impacts for the
Runway t7-35 Project provides no information conceming the relative noise impacu for the year
2020 under the Runway i'7-35 project and no action alternatives. T'he Sensitivity Analysis
should addr�ss all aiternatives and analyze each of the noise metrics addressed in the body of the
FEIS.
-26-
U12. A comparison of the year 2020 with and without
Runway 17-35 would not result in a significantly
different outcome than reached in the year 2005
analysis, as both forecast years are based on the same
growth rates. That is not to say that the same noise
levels would be achieved in the year 2020, but that
the absolute differences between the No Action and
MSP Action would be similar to those determined for
the year 2005.
4 t
The FEIS discloses that use of the MSP Iugh forecast yields an increase in on-airport
carbon monoxide emissions of 886 toas. (FEIS at H-5.) 'This is neazly nine times above;he
level (100 tons per year} that constitutes the tiveshold.for makiug a conformity determination. .
(See FEIS at V-5, A-1.8.) While the FEIS states that conversion of ground service equipment to
either natuial gas fuel or electricity would result in a decrease of 9�5 tons pe= year, ihe FEIS does U 13.
not impose that mitigation meastue, nor does it analyze the environmental impacts associated
with those altemative fuel supplies (e.g., the use of electricity entaiLs air quality impacts :
associated with the generation of the electriciry)_ Under these cucumstances, there is no basis in
the FEIS to support the determivation that the Rimway i 7-35 project complies with the Clean Air
AcG � . . .
IX. : CONCL'C7SION .' >
The FETS for the Dual Track Airport Planning Process fails to compiy with the letter and
spirit of tfie fu(1 disciosuce _requirements of NEPA and IvIEPA. Tt likewise fails to provide a
sufficient basis for the approval of the Prqject under Section 4{ fl di the TransQortation Act, the U� 4,,
Ciean Air Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, Executive Order 11990, the Minnesota
Environmental Righu Act, and the obligations of MAC, p�usuant to Mina Stai § 473.655, "to
assure the residents of the metropolitan area of the minimtun environmenta! impact &om air
navigatioa and tiansportation.^
The proponents of tfie Project must revise the FEIS to cortect its many failings and
circulate a revised Drafi EIS for public review. The revisions and recirculation of a DETS are
necessary to discharge the lega! duties of the proponents of $ie Project, and to ensure that the u 15.
Runway 17-35 project has sufficient capacity to accommodate tfie 2righer than previously
anticipated growth in operations at MSP, that environmental considerations are not ignored as a
result of the Minnesota Legislaiute's selection of that project, and that the impacts of.ihat project
are mitigated to the fullest eutent possible. '
Dated: Jtme 15,1998 ,' Respecifiilly submitted; ' .
• ' CTfY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
. 7ames D. Pmsser
� RichSeld City Manager
. ' . 67Q0 Portland Avenue _ .
Richfield, MN 55423
(612) 861-97Q0
Charles K. Dayton �
Leonard, Street & Deinard
I50 South Fifth Sa�eet
Suite 2300
Minneagolis, MN 55402 . . .
(6l2)335-1500
-27-
�
U13. The forecast and impact is estimated for the year
2020. As stated several times in the FEIS, the 2020
Concept Plan wiil have to undergo additional
environmental review 6efore it can be implemented.
One purpose of the sensitivity analysis is to show that
any additionai 2020 significant potential adverse
impacts could 6e mitigated to a level of insignificance.
In the case of on-airport CO emissions, the conversion
of ground service equipment is one exampie that is
provided to show that a feasible measure is available
that could provide the required mitigation.
U14. The FAA and the MAC maintain that the FEIS,
along with the responses to comments on its adequacy
and the Section 4(f) Evaluation document, complies
withNEPA and MEPA requirements and provides a
sufficient basis for approvai under Section 4(f) of the
Transportation Act.
U15. See Respnnse A, above, and General Response 6.
The FEIS shows that the 2010 LTCP will provide
enough capacity at MSP to accommodate the MAC's
highest range of forecast operations at MSP (see �-
Section II-C and Appendix H). The environmental
impacts of alternatives were not ignored because of ,
the Minnesota Iegislature's selection of the MSP
expansion altemative, and the FEIS and these
responses contain detailed information to show how
the impacts of the project wiil be mitigated tL the '
fuilest e�Rent possible (see also General Responses 2
and 7 regarding pianned mitigation for low frequency
noise and for the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife
Refuge).
u iwm ixoauacoaa�o.ocz
-28-
Steven F. Pflaum
Chazles M. Gering
McDermott, Will &c Emery
227 West Monroe Street
Chicago, Illinois 60606
(312) 372-2000
BY.
Steven F. P um
� _ / June 15, 1998 .
� e.dmam. . .
YaileY � .. . . ,
. i"�'�r��" Ms..7ennUiiruh . . •
xomowver awna Me�opolitan Airpoits Comcnissiori ' ' . ,
oF omEcrons 6040 28'^ Avenue S. '. � • •.
me
. s�w�u� ,Minneapolis; MN 55450 � • � •
Fe;b, x�m • . . . .
' �:Lnm� Dear�Vts.Unruh: . • �
, 'ANn N:I4 Mtmnna � . . . ' . . . . . • . � � ..
'��' 87i� The Friends of the �vlinnesota Valtey are plensed 4o submft the encloseci comments
• Maod Ninrxm � . •
to the.ivietropolitau Airports Cocnmission on the Finul EnvironQienuil Impact
F"° Bi'd`i°`k Statement and Section 4(fl Evaluation.document dated May 1998. ," '
Moeafa4Miiunau . , .
dc Wailu B�idee '
' y:�r�.M:.� Our comments espressconcem about certain deficiencies we believe e.�cist in the
. .�,,,�;,ti �,�, current FEIS and Section 4(� Evaluation and our belief that until these •
P''°'�"'"°�'° deficiencies are remedied, tlie FEI.S and $ectionA(� Evaluation must be foimd to
�•��o���• be inadequate: Tluough these comments we.are also suggesting various . �. A. Comment noted. See General Response 7.
� &"'�''""`""""' altematives for'adequately.mitigating for the impacts to educational anii ',
� RaOert `-HeOq ' recreational uses of the tviinnesota Valte National Wildlife Refu e Ttiese aze
,w�a,`. u,.�.«„ Y P •
�� � �. �� serious impacts and they must be addressed if we ace to respect values associatec[
n,�i�.�..v;.�.�,a.> with suscrinable develogment. � ' : �
. LaM.� � , � . . . . . . . . .
��°w%M=��^'^ . Our single goal in submitting these comments is to'insure that•MAC, FAA
.' wm�F nada� and U.S. Fish and Wildiife Service'ilevelop a speci&c mitigation package for
'�""'°D°`" u"°'�°`° ' educationa! and recrcational values that will be taken as. � result of the proposed
°i''�"'-M°°� action. V✓e are ptease that the agencies will be meeting ne�ct week and'will be
'Dieeyharrcrt, MLmnam
' trying'to reach �greement within the next several weeks. •
� s.�ixn+dw� .
Sc Poul Hi+w.wd . . . . . . , ' . .
�o� 'Thank you for the opportunity to comment We look fonvard to your resgonse to,
wr.s.�.w�. �� these cbinments and completion of a successfiil mitigation of She impacu on the
. x�,i«„waa�, . Minnesota ValleyNationai Wildtife Refuge. � .. •
� St A+W. M'wwaa , . � .
,_ - .. Sincerely �
• ' ' .. . . � � ..•.
. . : . , , _ Nel n . French '
• ' • � • Eae utive Director
"`'�"F"`� Enclosures „ ' ,
FsavewDimnor ' . . ' ..
��xos oF.r� ' cc: �'. Franklin D. Benson, Federal Aviation Adminishatibn '
��T�y�' � Rodaey W. Sando, Chair,•Minnesota Environmental Qua(i'ty Buard
]t�sE,amnsa ,� . . � . . . .
e�mrs�oa nv+ �sau . . . � _ .
. Poom6lLflSi5900 . � � ' ' . � , � '
. Fss 61N2S�ITM . . • . .
� Nied�Bemmil.t{ov . .. . , . . . . �
I. .. .. _ ........ ...... . .. .. .. .. . .... . . .. . . ..... .. .... . . . . . . . . ... .... ..I. .. ..... . . . . - . . . . .... ....... ..... . . . ��..... ...
GENERAL CpMMENTS ON FEIS AND SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION
Feasibie and Prudent Alternatives
The Friends of the Minnesota Valley (Friends) do not concur that there aze no feasible and
prudent altematives to the proposed action, wfuch is the implementation of the Minneapolis-SC
Paui Intemational Airport (MSP) 2010 Long Terin Comprehensive Plan (2010 LTCP). 'Ihe 2010
LTCP includes development of a new 8,000-foot runway (17/35) with related airfield and
roadway modifications. While we are not opposed to the expansion of MSP, the FEIS and
Section 4( fl Evaluation have not analyzed ail the altematives in light of impacts to specific uses
at the Long Meadow Lalce and Black Dog Lake uniu of the Minnesota Valley Na6onal Wildlife
Refuge. Before we can concur that there are no feasible and prudent altematives, the range of
aiternatives mustbe analyzed ifi the context of the acmal constructive use of the refuge aud
presented in the FEIS and Section 4(� Evaluation.
Minimizing Harm and iTnavoidable Impacts
The Friends do not betieve thatall potential measures to minimize harm to the Minnesota Vailey
National'Wildlife Refuge haVe been considerecl by MAC and FAA if the decision is to construct
and operate Runway 17/35. In generat, compensation offered by MAC and FAA for unavoidabte
impacts is oniy conceptual in nature and falls faz short of the specific measures recommended by
the USF'WS and no alternative runway management plans have been analyted to m+nim��P
'ppacts on educational and recrea6onal users. The Friends have encouraged MAC and FAA
! get together to wodc out their differences.; We cannot accept the mitigarion proposal and dtaft
MOA as described in the FEIS and Section 4(� Evaivazion as it does not adequately mitigate the
impacts that wiil occur on lands within the authorized boundary of the Minnesota Valley •
Nadonal Wildlife Refuge. Furt6ermore, the impacts to the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife
Refuge and its visiling public have.not been adequately identified and analyzed in ihe FEIS and
SeCtion 4(� Evaluadon. -
• DEPARTMTYT OF INTERIOR COMMENTS ON DEIS NO'I' IIVCLUDED 1N FEIS
The March I8, 1996, Department of Interior (DOn comments on the DraR Environmental Impact
Staiement (DETS), and response'to it aze not included in the FEIS. The Friends aze concerned that
the FEIS does not adequately respond to issues iden�ed in that Departrnent of Interior
corsespondence. We understand that this.correspondence from DOI was received after the
Febmary 13, 1996, deadtine for comments on the DEIS, but note that the USEPA and Minnesota
Dcpartment of Agriculture comments, which aze included in the FEIS with responses, wece also
received after the Febn�ary 13, 1996 deadline. T}vs is an unfair inconsistency and must be
remedied. We formally request that the DOI letter refemnced above be included in the FEtS.
In that correspondence, the DOI took issue with FAA`s statement that "there will be no
construcdve use of the" Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge. DOI. stated that the
�
��
B. The MAC and FAA have considered a wide range
of alternatives and their impact on the MVNWR and
determined that there are no feasible and prudent
alternatives to the recommended alternative. See
General Response 6.
C. See Generai Response 7. The FAA-MAC
commitment to evaluating and mitigating the impacts
to the Refuge is clear. While it would have been
desirable to have reached more firm agreements, the
commitment to mitigate is the principal requirement for
processing an EIS in accordance with NEPA. .
Furthermore, in publishing the FEIS and Section 4(f)
Evaluation, the FAA acknowledged that additional
detaii was necessary and that the agencies had not yet
agreed regarding the impacts to the Refuge and the
plan for compensation. This is stated on pages 32 and
34 of the Section 4(f) Evaluation, on the cover sheets
used for Appendix 9 in the Section 4(f) Evaluation and
for Appendix E in the FEIS (where the preliminary
Refuge Memorandum of Agreement is presented).
Page V-120 of the FEIS also states that negotiations
concerning the mitigation are ongoing.
D. The referenced letter of March 18, 1996,
actually is within the FEIS as Appendix A.15. The
process of responding to this letter has unfolded over a
period of more than two years, culminating with the
Section 4(f) Evaluation. In its response dated May 23,
1996, the FAA explained that this late-filed letter
' would not be included within the comment-response
section of the FEIS, but that it would be attached and
D. responses providad. The Minnesota Department of
Agriculture letter was dated January 17, 1996 and
received early in the comment period. Fo� discussion
of why the USEPA letter is included, see MDNR
Response C.
E. � E. Comment noted.
Minnesota V.alley Nationa( Wildlife Refuge lands would be impacted by noise &om e;cpanding
MSP. In particular, they azgued that the educational values oFthe refuge would be adversely
impacted by increases in noise levels. In the spring of 1997, FAA recognized the need to enlazge
the scope of their Secuoa 4(� determination and include lands of the refuge. Foilowing a series
of ineetings and discussions designed to resolve the Section 4( fl issue, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife E•
Service submitied ics analysis of noise impacu and proposed a specific mitigation plan to
compensate For the loss of pubiic resources at Long Meadow Lake and Black Dog Lake units of
the Minnesota Valley Na6onai Wildlife Refuge.
The pmposed compeasarion plan included: replacement for 4,090 acres of refuge lands to be
impacted by noise from the auport; construction and develppment of a. visitor center/contact
stalion in the Rapids Lake Unit, Carver County to repiace the lost use of the current visitor centec
in Bloomington; replacement of nature trails, boazdwalks, and other structures that wiil tose their F'
value because of increased aoise levels; a trust fund to manage the new lands and opeiate.the new
facility; an interacdve exhibit at MSP International Airport; and planning cosu. Total estimated
cost oFthis compensation was approximately$27 million. It is our undecstanding ihat RAA and
MAC did not respond to this proposal until March 5, 1998, some 9 months after USFWS
submitted its specific midgarion request. At that time N+MpC and FAA suggested that the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service respond within a relaavely short period of time. We t�ave encouraged
the agencies to develop a specific agreement'prior to finaliaalion of the environmental review •
process. • , • �
FAA responded fo the U.S. Fish and P/ildlife Service's recommendation for compensation in the
May 1998 Section 4(� Evaluation. The FAA agreed to partially compensate for 1,083�acres,
rejected the proposed visitor center/contact station; generally accepted replacement of refuge G�
structures; rejected an operations trust fund; agreed to accommodate an exhibit at MSP; and
accepted planning costs: Nb cost estimates were provided as shown in the chart below:
Camparisoo uf F7sh and Wiidlik Serriee
� andFedenlAW�tloaAdmin6traNac/hi<vopoliunAtrport�Comminion •
.... . Compcawtlon far Airport tmpacu to M1linnaob Valler Natlmd Wildii(e 8efug<�
. FuhundN7ldfiJeSmlteE.vima�e � ... . . . �FA,1/AfACRrsponte .
Item � � Estima�edCost . � hcm EstimatedCost ' � .
FW� compc�swion 515, 746.500 Paniol �eplacpnrnt Nonc given � �..
� far J.090 arns � of I.081 xics � .. � .
�- YaitwCootxl S 2.548.000 Rejectcd _
,SlatianneuCarvcr � ��
RcpixenaWrctraiis. S 1,305.800 "�enuallyxccpt' Nancgivrn
5aucttua. tronrd .
walics, em.
Opemtions Trutt S 4,000,000 Rryettcd _
Fund • '
intcrxtive Erzhi6it S I50,000 ^wiii nccommodate" Yonc givrn
m MSP Tumiiul
� Plannin¢Cos�s 52.000.000 - AcccoU Nmeqivcn
E. Response on previous page.
F. The USFWS May 1997 proposal did not quaiiiy how
then-ongoing efforts to studyambient and future noise
within the MVNWR should be considered. The FAA
required the resuits of that study and had to make a site-
specific and unique determination, given the
circumstances of this project and the characteristics of the
MVNWR. This was a very involved process, and it did
take some Ume to complete it.
G. Comment noted.
Toral Ertimotcd 526,950,300 Tatd Fstimmcd None;irtn
Catt � • Cosr .
•Fuh and Wildiife Scrvice btst esdmate5 were providcd m tltc FrAcrW Aviuion Adminisvation and thc Mctropolilan Aitpons Commission in
Mny 22, 1997 icna. fAA/MACraponses wcre p1ovided to Fish and W ildli(c Srnicc in Sccr�an 4(n Evoluamn published on May I.1998.
USFWS CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING SECI"IOIV 4(F� EVALUATION NOT INCLUDED.IN FEIS
OR SEG?IOtV A(F) EVALUATION
Correspondence from USFWS to FAA and MAC dated Apri] 16, 1998 and April 23, 1998, have
been omitted &om the FEIS and Section 4(� Evaluation. These documents should be included
for public review and comment These letters describe aspects of USFWS concems about the
MSP Intemationat Airport expansion pmject and desire to obtain,specific commitments from
FAA and MAC for appropriate compensation. They also recommend a creative altemative for
mirigation - the concept of a partnership between private and public partners to work together on
mitigation within the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge and the Lower Minnesota Rivec
Wazershed. Without inclusion and public review of these comments the FEIS and Section 4(�
Evaluation should be found inadequate.
DRAFT MEMORANDUM OF ACREEMENT BE'f WEEN MAC AND USFWS
H. It is correct that the USFV✓S's Aprii 16th and
April 23rd letters were omittad from the Section 4(f)
document and the Final EIS. There is no requirement
that all project correspondence be attached to NEPA
H. documents, but it is reasonable to note the nature of
the referenced letters, which primarily reiterated
concerns about mitigation and day-to-day process
issues.
MAC and FAA requested that the USFWS enter into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to
�dentify appropriate compensadon for unavoidable impacu following compleuon of tlie Secdon
;�� Evafuadon. The Friends agree that an MOA will eventually be appropriate, with the language '�
of the draft MOA found in the FEIS and Section 4(� Evaluation is inadequate as•drafted and
should be modified and agreed to by FAA, MAC and USFWS prior to determinauon of adequacy
and/oi record of decision actions aze taken The Friends have encouraged FAA and MAC W
negotiate in good faith with the USFWS on this matter and we are hopefut that the parcies will
reach an agreement. '
We believe that Minnesota Environmental Policy Act rules require a clear discussion of the
disagreement between agencies in the FEIS. The FEIS does not cleazly articulate the difference in
opinion beriveen FAA, MAC and USFWS regazding the impacu on [he Minnesota Valley
National Wildlife Refuge and mitigation proposals offered. There is no substantive assessment
of noise impacts on outdoor classroom activities or birdwatching acrivities, merely a reliance
upon specific FAA standazds which have been determined to be iaappropriate in assessing such
impacts (s�e relevant court decision references in later comments). The Friends believe that the
FEIS�is required to analyze such differences of opinion, identify and address significant
differences of opinion prior to being detemuned adequate by ttie Minnesota Environmental
Quality Boazd.. • .
LACK OF PUBLIC IIYVOLVEMEIVT
The Friends are concemed that the actual impacts on educational and cecrealional activities on
The April 16"' letter was a comment on a preliminary
draft of the Section 4(f) Evaluation. It states concern
that the mitigation proposed in the draft Section 4(f)
Evaluation was conceptual and falis far short of the
impacts on the refuge. The letter also expressed
concern about the lack of public input and the intent to
initiate pubiic outreach to articulate the USFUVS
concerns. The April 23rd letter describes a proposed
user fee on aIl passengers who use MSP. The revenue
generated would be used to mitigate the impacts of
the new runway on the refuge. The FAA responded to
this proposal in a Ietter dated April 29th, stating that a
state-imposed airport user fee is not a legal airport
project funding mechanism. Both USFWS letters were .
considered during preparation of the Section 4(f)
evaluation and the Final EIS and are attached to these
responses.
L Comment noted. See also Response C, above.
J. The FEIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation documents
explore the potential impacts to the Refuge, and the
.�. Section 4(f) Evaluation specificaily highlights some key
areas where the agencies differ (see pages 34-37).
These documents were made available for public
review and comment. In addition, the FAA circulated
the Documentation for Consuitation to interest groups
in November 1996, as recommended by USFWS, to
solicit public input on the wild�ife Refuge impacts and
the initial mitigation proposals. See aiso Response K,
bBIOW.
public users of the Minnesota Va11ey tYationat Wildlife Refuge have not been reviewed by the
interested generat pubtic. Taking the initia[ive to make things better, the Friends hosted a Pubtic
Open House on May 21, 1998, and with less than two weeks limited notice, more than l00
individuals attended and participated in these discussions. We hereby request that the enclosed
copy of a video recording of this Open House be included in che recorci as par[ of our formal
commenu. Similaz informaaonat meeangs on the specific issues and agency opinions should be
conducced throughou[ the Lower Minnesota Watershed to seek further public reacdon to an acdon
that will impact the public. Pub(ic inpuc on the late recognized impacu on the Minnesota Valley
Nadonal Wildlife Refuge has not been generally sought ouc by any of the pubtic agencies invoived
in �he Airport EIS process, nor have the full impacts been assessed and addressed and thereby
used in the devetopment of alternatives or appropriate compensation. The Section 4(�
Evatuacion itself has oniy been circulated to a timited audience and its availability has not
generally been made known ro the pub(ic. Because Secuon 4(� issues related to the retuge are
rntativety new and were neither inctuded in, nor part of the public participation process for the
DEIS, more substantial pub(ic invoivement is needed at this ume. In essence, issues hot
addressed in [he DEIS have been added ro the FEIS without appropriace public review and
commrnt This repmsenrs a severe deficiency in process which must be recd6ed.
As evidenced by the Friends vecy existence, [he Minnesota Valley'Nationa! Wildlife Refuge hes a
rich history of pubiic support and invo(vement and minimizing pubiic involvement for a project
such as t6is wi(! likely have severe consequences to the refuge and will be in direct conflict to past
practices.
s�en-n�acxn� SrR►xEs
T'he Friends are concemed about various issues pertaining to the potentia( for bird-sircratt strikes
since all flights &om the new runway t �/35 wili travei through an area of significaitdy greater bird
concennation than currendy experienced at MSP Intemadonal Airport. We are very concemed
that the new.nmway wilt be in direct compedrion with the mission of the Minnesota Valley
Naciona( Wiidlife Refuge. While.FAA must assurethat bird-aircraft s�ikes are avoided, one of
the primary funcdons of a refuge is to attract lazge numbers of birds in its wettand and grassiand
habitats, inciuding the Long Meadow Lake and Biack Dog Lake units. The FEIS generally
glosses over this concem, does not adequately address and assess these conflicung missions,
which is a significant concem. '
L.�NDS CONSIDERED ELIGIBLE FOR REPLACEMENT •
The Minnesota Vatley National Wildlife Refuge's boundaries were established by Congress in
1976. It is the position of the Friends that all lands avai(able for public use within that authorized
boundary should be considered eligible for replacement under Secdon 4(�. In addirion; a mestec
plan was completcd in �1983 and ideatifies and ptans activities and'facilities for al! of the Iands
proposed for acquisidon within the proposed rofuge boundary. As identified by the Metropolitan
Council in its comments on the DEIS, "(t)he final EIS should indicau that this planned acuon is
Q
�
K. The DEIS, published in December 1995, primarily
compared the issues and impacts surrounding either
the MSP expansion of development of a new airport.
Based on the available information, the DEIS did not
understate the level of pu6lic use found within the
Refuge. However, when more information 6ecame
available, it was readily acknowledged by the FAA
when it responded to the USFWS's concerns in the
spring of 1996 and initiated a long and detailed
consultation process. NEPA has specific requiremants
for public notification and involvement, and the
participation of the MAC and FAA in the May 21 public
forum, as well as other efforts to inform interest
groups (such as the November 1996 Documentation
for Consultation), have more than satisfied those
requirements.
Additional information concerning public and agency
involvement aspects of the Dual Track Process is
provided in Section VIII of the FEIS. The key
milestones concerning the MSP Alternative were:
• three public meetings concerning the First
Phase Scoping Report (April, 1992);
e public meeting on the Scoping Environmental
Assessment Worksheet and Draft Scoping
Decision Document for the MSP LTCP
(February 15, 1994);
e pu6lic hearing on the Draft AED for the
selection of the MSP LTCP (October 26,
1994b
� three public hearings concerning the Second
Phase Scoping Report (June 1995); and
• two public hearings conceming the Draft EIS.
During this part of the process, the FAA and the MAC
received few, if any, public comments that focused on
noise impacts within the Refuge due to the north-south
runway. A pu6lic information meeting sponsored by
the Friends of the Minnesota Valley was held at the
Visitors Center on May 21, 1998 and attended by
more than 100 people. A pa�el of USFWS, MAC and
FAA spokesmen made presentations and responded to r
questions. Comments from the audience emphasized �,
Refuge users' specific concems a6out noise impacts
within the 8ass Ponds Environmental Education Area
and the OId Cedar Avenue access site. These
concerns were by then not new to the consultation
process, as discussed in the Section 4(f) Evaluation.
Therefore, the FAA and the MAC conciude that the
public input process has been given adequate time and
opportunity to work, and found the May 21 meeting
helpful in understanding the public's concerns about
impacts to the Refuge.
The videotape of the May 21, 1998 meeting was
received and will be included in the public record.
L. Comment noted.
�. M. It is not possihle nor reasonahle to complete a
definitive, predictive analysis of how bird strikes will
affect the Refuge. However, as explained in the FEIS,
Section V.D.1.2, about 90 percent of ali known bird
strike incidents occur below 500 feet above ground
Ievel (AGL►. Table D-5 shows that none of the
predicted Long Meadow Lake overFlights will be below
500 feet (see revised Tabie D-5 in General Response
6). The data in Table D-1 also shows that major
incidents have not occurred frequently and generaily
shows that Mother Lake is the bird concentration area
of greatest concern. Nevertheless, the MAC is
concerned about the issue of bird strikes and will
coordinate with the USFWS concerning any proposed
controi measures, such as the Mother �ake goose
control measures described within the FEIS.
N. See General Response 7. The MAC and FAA �'
-- -- acknowledge that the new �orth-south runway is not �
consistent with the referenced comprehensive plans, �_
necessitating the mitigatinn process. As stated in
when the FEIS was published that there remained areas
of disagreement over the Ievei of impacts and the
necessary mitigation.
inconsistent with the Refuge's comprehensive plan as well as the Council's Recreaiion Open ,
Space Development Guide/Policy Plan". The MAC and FAA comment on this is that "the FEIS
discloses the impact on the refuge". The Friends azgue that the FEIS and Section 4(� Evaluation
do not fully disclose the impact on the.Refuge since no adequate assessment of noise impacts on
outdoor educauon classrooms and birdwatching activities has been conducted and/oc analyzed
(see our comments later regazding noise metrics). In fact, FAA has been told that its metric is
flawed for such meagurements and they have taken no steps to remedy this situation. (It should be
noted that in a drdft Section 4(� Evaluation document dated Mazch 5, 1998, FAA indicated they
had "no formal position with regazd to mitigation.within the DNL 57-60 range...(and) that MAC is
considering its position with regazd to impacts and mitigation options within the DNL 57-6U
range: � ,
N. Response on previous page.
The new runway is inconsistent with U.S. Fish and Wildlife refuge master plan and the FEIS is
deficient in not recogniting this and its scope. The comprehensive pian calLs for significant �. O. As noted above, the FAA and MAC concur that
outdoor environmentai education acrivities, outdoor interpretive activities and public the noise impacts wiil be inconsistent with certain
birdwatching activities to take place in both the Long Meadow Lake and Black Dog Lake units of Refuge activities and functions and within certain
the Minnesota Valley Na6onal Wildlife Refuge. � areas.
Two tracts within the approved boundary, which have been specifically excluded from Section '
4(� considemdon, are the Kelley traCt and the Black Dog Unic 'fhe Friends believe that these
,lands should be included for purposes of determining impacts since they too will be cons�avcdvely
}� d by the new iunway. The use of these properties by the public are integral to the mission of .'
-fhe Service at the Minnesota ValleyNational WiIdlife Refuge.
The Service made its fitst offer to purchase the Kelley uact in 1979. Negotiations have continued
in the intervening yeazs, Congress appropriated funds specifically for this acquisition in 1997, and
a signed agreement for tlie 5ervice to purchase the pmperty is expected within the next month or
so. The 1983 master plan identified speciHc interest and plans for this iract
The Black Dog Unit is currendy managed by the USFWS under a cooperative agreement with '
Northem 5tates Power Company: The USFWS has an interest in this property, manages this
property, and there is great public interest (including outdoor environmental education and
birdwatching) in this.unit of the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge. The FEtS Secrion
4(�. Evaluation is/are deficient to the extent that these properties will be unavailable for certain
recreational uses.
Underestimated Operations Over the Refuge
P. P. The information contained in this comment is
noted. The Section 4lf) constructive use determination
excludes lands that are not publiciy owned. See
General Response 7.
The Sectiou 4(fl Evaluation states that 5,620 flights a month &om the conswction and use of
Runway 17/35 will overfly tfie Bass Ponds between 500 feet and 2,000 feet above ground level. (�. Q, See USDOI Response E.
FAA's Terminal Area Forecast predicts 658,900 opezadons for MSP in the year 2010. FAA
assumes that Runway 17/35 will account for 36.6% of depanures and Runway 35 wip account for
16.9% of azrivals in an average year. TI»s would result in 14,688 operatious per month for the
new runway, significandy more than 5,620. It is likeiy that most of these operations will overfly
.
the refuge; therefore, eny noise analysis compteted for the refuge should utilize this lazger figure.
The FEIS does not adequately represent the projected impacts over the Minnesota Valley National
Wildlife Refuge since ail flights over this area are not included in the analysis of impacts. .
Uncertainry in OperaHonal Assumptions
Estimates of future operational tevels for MSP as a whole, and for the proportion of total
operazions thatwill be conducted on proposed Runway 17/35 aze sufficiendy uncertain that tittle
credence can be placed in the predicted noise levels created by such operations at a given date.
Current flight activity exceeds projecuons given for 20Q5 in t 995. The Friends have little
confidence that fuWre flight projections are accuraie and therefore fittte confidence can be placed
on assessment of impacu and in measures intedded to mitigate noise impacts at a particular future
date. .
Inadequate Noise Metric Anafysis for Impacts on Recreational Activities on a Nation9l
Wildlife Reiuge
The Friends of the Minnesota Valley believes that the sole use of Day-Night Sound Level (DNL)
For measuring aircraft noise is inadequate. DNL as a mechanism for determining funds for noise
midgation measures for impacts on recreational and" educational uses within the Lower Minnesota
River Watetshed proximate to the airport, especially the Black Dog Lake and Long Meadow I.ake
Units of the. Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge, is' inadequate: 'Ihe DNL noise metric, as
used throughout the Section 4( fl statement to document noise "impsicts" to the Minnesota Va(!ey
National Witdlife [tefuge, is inappropriate for several reasons. FAA's "Land Use Compatibility
Criteria" tmd accompanying DNL levels were designed with the objec6ve of assuring that uses of
land around an aiiport aze compatible with airporFopemtions. These criteria were not designed to
either assure compatibility between the aicport and other land uses or to establish impacts and to
seck avoidance and mitigation for those impacts that occur from the expansion of airport
operations. � :
Fuithermore, use of this metric for mitigation•has been deternrined to be inappropriate for usc
measuring impacts to wildlife, see iecent court cases [Allison v. Department ofTransportatrar,
�908 F.2d 1024 (D.C. Cir 1990); National Parks and Conservation Assn, v F.A.A. 998 F.2d. 1523
(lOth Cir. 1993); City.ofGrapevine, Ter. e Department ofTransportation 17 F.3d 1502 (D.C.
Cir. 1994)] which have found that FAA dces not have a aoise metrie that is appropriate for use in
areas such as national wildlife refuges. To date, a noise metric which accurately assesses the
impact on recreational users of the Minnesota Valley National Wildtife Refuge has not been
developed by FA,A or the Federal Interagency Committee On Noise (FICO[�. Atthough this
committee is referenced in the document, there is no substantive recommendadon from this
cornmittee regazding the issue the courts have asked them to address. The Friends believe this
should be a high priority issue for FAA to resolve from a naGonal perspeclive. Since no such
work has been done to clarify this matter, the continued use of the DNL metric in this FEIS and �
Section 4( fl Evaluation for purposes of determining iinpacts on such uses is inappropriate.
Absent an accepted noise metric for na4ona! wildlife refuges, we lietieve that the msponsibility
,
(i. R. Noise impacts on the refuge are based on the 2005
MAC High Forecast See General Responses 3 and 4.
.S.
S. For discussion of the appropriate noise metric,
see USDOI Response G.
The FAA has hot formulated comments concerning the
referenced report, Flying Off Course: Environmental
/mpacts of Amerrca's Airports, nor did the FAA
participate in any substantive way in the report's
preparation. As stated in the FEIS and the Section 4(f)
Evaluation, the FAA has applied several criteria to
complete its assessment of this refuge impact, based
on site-specific circumstances. Guidance issued by the
Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON), in
August 1992, was principal among these criteria, 6ut
was not the only factor considered to complete the
determination. The other criteria included: (1) the
MVNWR's development history and historical
relationships to the urban environment; and (2) a
technical analysis of noise impacts within the Refuge,
including existing ambient noise levels. Use of the
FICON criterion incorporated the views of numerous
federal agencies, including the Department of Interior.
The August 1992 report also supports continued use
of the DNL metric as the principal means for describing
long-term noise impacts.
�
for decermining ihe impact of aircraft overfligh[s on a national wiltliife refuge rests with the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and any consultants they contract with to assess this situation and .
identify the we impacu. The FEIS and Section 4(� Evaluation do not clearly describe the
impacts on certain public uses of the refuge. '
Review of Flvina Off Course. Environmenta] Impacts of America's Air�orts. Natural Resources
Defense Council, October 1996, indicates that the so(e use of DNL for measuring aircraft noise
and determining funds for mitigation progrnms, is inadequate. Rather than DNL, they suggest
CNEL (Community Noise.Equivalent Level) shouid be used to adequately account for the
importance of communication and relaxation during evening hours. The CNEL, used in
Califomia and many European countries, includes a 5 decibet penalty during the hours of 7:00
p.m. to 1.0:00 p.m. in addivon to the DNL's 10'dB nighttime penalty. NRDC further recommends
that 55 dB CNEL, rather than 65 dB DNL, should be used as the threshold for planning and
Funding decisions; single event noise must be taken into account when assessing the impacts since
they interrupt school lectures (outdoor environmental educadon classes and birdwatching for
exaznpte), wake people up, and interfere with speech intelligibility. They suggest the "single
exposure level" (SEL), which measures the intensity of sound during a single noise event, should
be used in conjunction with CNEL. The Friends hereby request that you incorporate Flvine of
Course. Environmental Impacts bf America's Airports. Natural Resources Defense Council,
October 1996, into our comments. The publicarion is available from NRDC by calling (212) 727-
�00 and/or via the Wo�id Wide Web aC http: Ux�v,i�, nrdc. oro. 'Il�e NRDC work suggests to us
. t the metric relied upon by MAC and FAA is not relevant to the acrivities in the Minnesota
Valley National Wildlife Refuge which aze being adversely a$'ected by the proposed MSP
In[ernational rluport e�cpansion. .
The Friends believes that the EIS does not address, assess, or czeatively understand the issues
described 'above, nor does it adequately identify or assess issues pertaining to adverse impacts of
the expanded MSP lnternational Airport on: � �
1) outdaor environmental classroom activiries (either sponsored by the USFWS or conducted
through the public and private school sysiems, community education, or other similaz
activities conducted by the public) conducted in the Long Meadow Lake and $lack Dog
. Lake uniu of the Minnesota Valley Na6onal Wildlife Refuge, or
2) birdwatchin� activities which commonly occur in the Long bfeadow Lake and Black Dog
• Lake uniu of the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge. Hearing bird vocalizations
is an extremely irnportant component of the birdwatching experience and there is no
consideration given to this concern in the FEIS and Section 4(fl Evaluation.
It is our contention that these two issues have not been adequately addressed in the FEIS and must
be before a determination of adequacy can be considered by the Minnesota Environmental Quatity
Boazd and a Record oFDecision rendered by the FAA.
The CNEL mevic described above suggests to us that FAA and MAC must look at developing a
new metric to accurately identify the impacts to the pubtics involved in the two above-mentioned
��
�
S. Response on previous page.
T. The Section 4(f) Evaluation (pages 22-23) and
the Final FEiS (Section V.U) both state the new runway
will result in a constructive use of outdoor
environmental education activities. The Section 41f)
Evaluation (pages 2425) and the Final EIS (Section
V.U) both acknowledge that birdwatching is a noise-
sensitive recreational activity found within the Refuge.
In fact, the FAA's constructive use determination was
extended out to the 2005 DNL 60 noise contour to
account for the new runway's impact on these types
of noise-sensitive outdoor activities. Therefore, the
FAA and MAC disagree with this commenYs general
premise that these issues are not adequately identified
and assessed.
As stated in 6oth the FEIS (pg. V-117) and the Section
4(f) Evaluation (pg. 23), the FAA is reexamining its
land use compatibility criteria with respect to aircraft
overflights of national parks and wiidlife refuges, and is
appiying site-specific anaiyses based on the
circumstances, and using other noise impact criteria.
This does represent a new approach to noise analysis
and it was applied to the MVNWR. As a result, the
FAA and MAC conclude that the MVNWR has been
sufficiently studied to delineate the Refuge Iand areas
that may be considered "impacted," both including and
in addition to the area described by the FAA as the
area of Section 41f) constructive use. See also USDOI
flesponse G and General Response 7.
activities. �e suggest a modets similar to the CNEL which might be called Bird Watching Noise
Equivalent Level (BWNEL) and Outdoor Classroom Noise Equivalent Level (OCNEL) and
should be devetoped with the best science available today. We believe that this is what FtCON
should have done, and what aow needs to be done in Minnesota to accurately determine t6e
impacts of the new North-South runway on public recreational uses of the Minnesota Vailey
National Wildlife Refuge and determine a midgation p(an to replace azeas lost to these acrivities.
The current FEIS is deficient in that these issues aze neither adequately assessed or addressed.
Interestingly, the draft Secuon 4(� Evaluation document dated Mazch i, 1998, stated that FAA
indicated that they had "no focmal position with regazd to mitigation within the DNL 57-60
cange...(and) that MAC is considedng its position with regard to unpacts and mitigation options
within the DNL 57-60 range."
The May 1998, FE1S stares thac "(i)n attempting to determine the ovecall azea that cuuid have a
perceptible increase over ambient, it was conctuded 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
Figiue FF-6." The May 1998 Section 4(� Evatuarion contiadicts the statement in the Secrion 4(�
draft and the FETs, where in note 25 on page 34, it concludes "Figure 6-I 1 and other figures in
appendix 6 may show a DNL 57 contour for the MSP Alternative. The DNL 57 contour was
evaloated by the MAC as a potential noise impact boundary for the Refuge. However, based upon
fiatheLanalysis of impacts and criteria,-the lands between DNL 60 and DNL 57 were excluded
from the Section 4(� conswctive use determination because potential noise increases aze
expected to 6e de minimus and therefore would not substandally impair a visitor's use of the
Refuge." ' '
The Friends submit that no technical analysis of outdoor classroom situations and/or birdwatcfiing�
impact analysit.was used to reach this determination and it is therefore not adequately addressed
in the FEIS and Section 4( fl Evaluauon. The FEIS�and Sections 4( fl Evaluarion must be deemed
to be inadequate until such studies are �onducted, the impacts understood and an acceptable
mitigation plan agreed to. '
Alternative Flight Sgheduling to Minimize Noise Impacts on Outdoor Classroom and ,'
Birdwatching Use of the Long Meadow Lake and Black Dog Lake Units . �
u. IU. See General Response 7 and Response T.
No conside�auon has been given to altemative flight schedules tha[ may reduce the impact.of the '
new nu�way on spec�c activities chat aze likely to take place during specific seasons and times of
day. For example, FAA and MAC could consider no flights on runway 17/35 flights April - June
and August-Octo6er during the hours of.5:00 am. - 930 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. - 9:00 p.m. to .
minimize impacts on peak user activity for bird watching. Similazly, FAA and MAC cou(d v�
consider no flights on runway 17/�5 during normal outdoor environmental education hours (times
and days of week could be negotiated with USFWS) Mazch - November. We encourage MAC �
and FAA to give some consideration to this approach recogaizing that is could be used in
conjunction with a mitigation package, but would require iron-clad enforcement forever of such
resaictions in flight ucnes and patterns.
RERPETIJAL MR'tCAT10N .VS A CONCEPT FOR CONSIDERATION
The Friends fuliy subscribe to the Principles of Sustainable Development for Minnesota adopted
by the Minnesota Environmentat Quality Board (See enciosed copy of tnvestine in Minnesota's
Future. An Aeenda for SustaininQ Our Oualitv of Life A Reoort to the Govemor Mav 19981,
The Friends support the concept of developing a"perpetual" mirigation plan since the impacts
fram the proposed acdon wil! be "perpetual". An attached draft bcochure describes the proposal. ��
We will work with all the stakeholders to implement the proposed model should there be interest
on the part of MAC, FAA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in developing an innovative
response to a unique situation.
Final Summary
V. The use of Runway 17-35 was established during
the EIS process and will be implemented as described
in the FEIS. The airport couid not accommodate the
forecast ope�ations if Runway 17-35 were closed •
during the morning and evening hours stated - which
inciude the peak hours of operation at the airport.
During the Dual Track Airport Planning Process when
the use of the runway, including flight tracks and
schedules, was discussed, the USFWS was
represented on the Dual Track MSP Technical
Committee and did not express concerns about
possible impacts to the refuge at that time.
W. See Generai Response 7.
,
Major Components of Sharing Oz�r Skies Alternative
> Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge
� � April23, 1998
Underlying Concept
�
Perpetual compensation for perpetual impacts upon State and Federal natural resources
and programs near the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airpart.
Generation of Funds
A conservation user fee amounting to $0.25 would be assessed on each passenger using
the Minneapolis-St. Paul Intemational Airport. Based on 1997 figures, a total of $7.5
million (30 million passengers) would have been made available for canservation purposes
that year. .
Administration of Funds
Either an existing or a newly created non-profit organization would be responsible for
administerino funds. Its Board of Directors wouId oversee the investment, use, and
distribution of these funds. .
Partnership in Canservation
This aiternative would �enerate a great deal of positive public relations for the
11�fetropolitan Airport Commission, the Federal Aviation Administration, and all of their
partners.
C;
C
C"
� . �
0
J �
'� J �
— = r. �
'L.,� � �
•f .�i.^ y f`
a, � ... '„
- � i. '.�.i' „�,� c'
:: • f ;,� �� � .L v
1 � e� �.:+ l:
J� J 4: U� 6�j •V
=,C � r �" 'p � �
w :.i J � .., � " J
f J � �^: 4.�i � r"
� r-+ fr 0 � �
;;� � C
� A �,r,�, 4i L: V :J
"� � � J 'a`� � ,��. •r,
�����co.�
r0 ..... �,, .�.�
v � � • � y ; • "'•�'1 �
�
— ' c'Z. � r iVi "� -.�� w
G r C3
-� :.' =
U
�... .� � ';�
� .�,C
� � `°) J t+-+ ~
�.r `�" � 'J � :J „'r� ; � C.~1 .0
^ O ;� .�+ .0 �^,_ •' `� ..
'� y� � yr � c, ,� 1 J'�'�' .0 r.
.� Gt '� '�+ � ,a"' � � .�" � � .
�� o � � j ~ ~ � � •� •y
^U �,�".r, G � ^ • � J �.J. i+ ,� :J N �
-`� tJ ....� ^ � ...»
t/� .� .-. , ..., '� ;J `� �+
�r � v - — O � �-+
v ' � � � v f � f '� :� :A G+
.:+ .� U � 4"a � '`r � 'f' i� `�i � J
�c� Cq a� � " �= � :� • -� "O ..
� tZS .� � O �'..�i�,; � (,� .� ^3 � .i..i
. � .'� .i � � t� • � :.l
w U � •�
� � y � � .� r : �;� �o �
..,
c3 "'J`' °.� C � > •r, � � ' � s�.� � -...
� � � � ���.r�: 3 c,� �°E
�
o � O �
'.��.' ti n C '' ' � � x
O � � O G '� �
� C,, � � .L a �' �.,G
I T � . Lr �. �' G' .... �" ^ ,'ti, i-C'`-
r�� G��, t` s�+ �� G� U
�� �
� � �=' 4'' � L'" � _ �' �
� 'i' o F'�" � � .i �i
-� ,,,,, ��., � ° 3 cV �
c c c� r 3 c:,
.�.
'� � ��» �. C •� c
p^ J e=i �:, ca.� cs �+ G
V J ^ t�l3 t�/� �.!J: L O U
� J "" C' � � � C :J ,%`
�'.� G' � v � � v
C� ,v C v '.� C. L
C :r, ., G � ..
� u � r .
v��;� C G U ,C G
� ^ � �� 'r i..
� �.. � , � � � ^ � �.`�.
'-, � ' N U
~ •ar,' •~v '� 8� •r �„�•i.
i �'
� •� � � � �
'1' �,^„ J �.i .e L"'
CC G� � ^ ^ �
t v.l „' t!,� ^ ' ^ �
J .� ;.i , =L �'
�^ L 1% :� ;J ' I- i.
' :i :i 'l. - � +. �
I,y. 'l. ,� � f w
,. :.7 � "'�
`°' :i J 'l. .i�'
� ~ ^ J i � • �
C' � ... `J l.�:.
� �i •^ J U � '�
... ^ .�./
� ^ :� .� I ..
.�. � � — �' 'l. '!.
L r, ,.• � j ;. ;� �
� .� v v � � ^�
J ~ � � J � I
� �
:J ,!; J ;: � �^ J f
:: i:� � .
� -._...
:.� •
_ .. _�� ....
��:�• O.�`.
.i�~�;� ;,,`"'''`Z' a
: 's
.. . ..... ..
. . . ....�:..
:�:::%
� •:. ..:.. .. ....
. ^
°Et:>x;.. ;,. '::.`a
. . '•�� •6
. "3 • 3
c '� -
9 �
� �
.��.9. Q
.....
� :.
': ...w•.�i� �. . p
,. _ ..E�
:'��..:..... : ... � ....�-='i�'_:.i.....'....... . 'O
r:� y. P P .
r- ;d r. G..
a^. � �
� � � J ..�
r. ,., � .. � f,
. � � G, . v C G ._.+- � `' `' .•= c. "rJ„ � rJ
L+ L:. " � v � J • �• "r •J' .e.. � �•ir
y ^ � f% r � J � `" � tJ "" � J !1j G� • C
:: +r . J: J 's� +'s n J � � � ` � �' ` J � C
' ... L J; L• ' i. :� "� a.. J r L. �,^r � J • � � � �'
"� V l •l.
�+ J �=+ � � ; ;J f n J �. �,�r,�, �^„ �C i � �
rr '�' �' �'' ,� L .r„ • J '�l. � � �` � � r `� • � v �
�. ...� '� Cr L7
,d C.� 1; �„�^ � y,, 'i, C: � X r"J� � :J
�
,a.: J •-• J , ,,, +• � � .�.
. .�...
f ' r' � `d �, v J l.i ^ � � J "� i' y,�,i
� V � � „r' G.. y C
c' �> f .. J�.� r� v� i
^ 'v r�.,, �� „� • �.. U P' ^ ^'' � C �'
• --
_. •— - E v
L+ J r�. ',�, . ��,�i r�+=. �=-+ r �j C
� �r �r
C- , �.r.' �,,, i' �i„ r • . � -r :� J � .i, '� +�. � �
.L�
J� C� f �" f � J � %r i" •� y :l%
.� .�+ :J J a.., y � J ..0 v a C �
^ v = ^ L !/� ` .I � 7..r �r +r
r � � . ^ ^ y � � ��� �. �; .J r L' �,% v^„ :J ±r
. A ,L, ^ • L G ,. v: ^ = ',— � e= av
r;.;'— ., v:. v GC:J
�= �:J ! t_ � u c� T.. :J G G �„ C c�r'. r' ,� O
a
�•
�
0
. :.l
��..� s
c: ti. • ..�
.� �� J �
.�"r+Ci � � :% r. �
nv "J � � .- •• i.,
J �' c �+-' � :+ 7: C
a.. �°" C ,�, � � ^ G
} �„i ` " 1; _C
w =
r� � C W r X.'� � C
.�, c, C�. i= J 3'�j •�
:� .�
A ^ � r �y �
� V
r C J � � -��j �- CJ
f �i+ 7w .r '�l: � r :d
'Z � r-� G;r; ^.c�..'
:�c —
i�� /\ p M ��
Y' C+ �r/ I� V .1�
_� •.. `; •� L ?' �--
.� C:, — G c+.. r
• L+ r.i me ,,, /� r
J G Z � � ..
,1�, � � • r ^ C G �r-, •�
� J %^+ . � . � A C� C'
Lr �tA Lr J ,i �'
ti. v� v : _ > L
C �.:. q^J� � �• x � G'" c.)
"� ' —l.. ^ �''` = r4 — • — �.�.
C
C�
�
��� � U.S. Department
� of Transportation
Federal Aviation
Administration
AIRPORTS DISTR.ICT OFFICE - MINNEAPOLIS
6020 - 28th Avenue South, #102
Nlinneapolis,lVlinnesota ��4�0-2706
Apri129, 1998
Mr. Wiiliam F. Hartwig
Regional Director
Fish and Wildlife Service
Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge
3815 East 80ih Street
Bloomington, Minnesota 55425-1600
Dear Mr. Hartwig:
%`l �/-' 1�. i . ,c � �
y /'�)
co�,�d
�� sri�,.
�'� o
���n� .
�y z� 9�
�+rura sreesa.
�,00
INf fUtLSl9fCiNATU14E
��
OaTE
T � Z / � �
r�utuw srMeo�
' INRW391GNATyqg
Thank you for your letter of Apri123, 1998, proposing a conservation user fee as a
means of mitigating for future aircraft noise impacts to the Minnesota Valley National °"�
Wildlife Refuge. We certainly appreciate your creative thinking and desire to reach a�T��9YM60�,
win-win solution. �
INRIAL'S3IGNATURE
However, the collection of a per passenger fee or tax for commercial air travel such
' as you propose, commonly called a"head tax", is prohibited by 49 USC 40116(b). °�TE
We too want a fair and reasonable solution to the issue of mitigation far impacts to
� the Refuge and are continuing to work to that end. � "°"""G'Y"°°�
Sincerely,
Origina� Signed By
Franklin D. Benscn
Franklin D. Benson
Manager
cc: Nige! Finney, MAC
MSP-ADO-680:RAHuber:rah:4/27/98
F:\USERS\MSP680BH\MSP\HARTWIG.DOC
=AA form 1360-14.1 (6-89) OFFICIAL FIIE COPY �u.s.oao:iflsao-�ea�oi2i2o�o�
''.fNR1ALL$1GNATUqE
W7E
ROUTING SY1V180L
IN(iUL5151GNATURE
OATE
aouruec srMeo�
IN111ALS�9lGNATUflE
D�TE
ROUT�NG S�M801
INRUL9�91GNATURE
OATE
Sec. 40116 SUB. dil, PART A—AIR COMMERCE AND SAFETY 104
closure when the appropriate Secretary or the Postal Service de-
cides that disclosure of the information would—
(A) prejudice the United States Government in preparing (
and presenting its position in international negotiations; or
(B) have an adverse effect on the competitive position of an
air carrier in foreign air transportation.
. (b) WITHHOLDING INFORMATION FROM CONGRESS.—This section
� does not authorize information to be withheld from a commit�ee of
, Congress authorized to have the information. �
§ 40�16< ��ate taxatio�.
(a) DEFINITION.—In this section, "State" includes the District of
� . Coliunbia, a territory or possession of the United States, and a po-
litical authority of at least 2 States.
� (b) PROHIBITIONS.—Except as provided in subsection (.c) of this
section and section 40117 of this title, a State, a political subdivi-
sion of a State, and any person that has purchased or leased an
airport under section 47134 of this title may not levy or collect a
� tax, fee, head chasge, or other charge on—
(1) an individual traveling in a.ir commerce; .
(2) the transportation of an individual traveling in air com-
merce;
(3) the sale of air transportation; or
(4) the gross receipts from that air commerce or transpor-
tat� on.
� (c) .A.IRCRA.FT TAKING OFF OR LANDING IN STATE. A State or �
;
political subdivision of a State may levy or collect a tax on or relat- ��
ed to a flight of a commercial aircraft or an activity or service on
. the aircrzft only if the aircra.f� takes o-f"t or lands in the State or
political subdivision as part of the flight.
(d) UNR.EASONABLE BURDENS AND DISCRIMINATION AGAINST
INfiERSTATE COMMERCE.—{1) In this subsec�ion— �
(A) "air carrier transpartation property" means property
(as defined by the Secretary of Transportation) that an air car-
ri.er providing air transportation owns or uses.
(B) "assessment" means valuation for a property t� levied
by a taxing district.
(C) "assessment jurisdiction" means a geographical area in
a State used in determining the assessed value of property for
ad valorem taxation. •
(D) "commercial and industrial property" means property
(except tran.sportation property and land used primarily for ag-
riculture or timber growing) devoted to a commercial or indus-
trial use and subject to a property tax levy.
(2)(A) A State, political subdivision of a State, or authority act-
ing for a State or�political subdivision may not do any. of the follow-
ing acts because those acts unreasonably burden and discriminate
aga.inst interstate commerce:
(i) assess air carrier transportation property at a value
that has a higher ratio to the true market value of the prop=
�
er'ty than the ratio that the assessed value of other commercial
and industrial property of the sam.e type in the same assess-
ment jurisdiction has to the true market value of the other
commercial and industrial property.
0
IN REPLY REFER TO:
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Bishop Henry tNhippte Federal Building
1 Federal Drive
Fort Snelling, MN 55111-4056
Fw''J�AR.w � � �.7�.d., f��'�':
a1998 :����=: �; - . . . �F:
: . . ~ , "99�
Mr. Franklin D. Benson
Manager
Minneapolis Airports District O�ce
Federal Aviation Administration
6020 28th Avenue South #102
Minneapolis,l�Iinnesota 5�450-2706
Dear Mr. Benson:
C�
We have received and reviewed the draft-predecisional Section =�(f) Evalz�ation for Minnesota
Va11ey National Wildlife RefuQe. W11ile we appreciate the opportunity to revie�v this document
before it becomes public, we still have some very deep concerns about several issues associated
�' � with the construction of the new runway and its impacts upon the Refuge. Please note that these
' � are the same concerns we shared with you in our March 20, 1993, letter and durin� our last
meeting �vhich occurred on ivlarch 2�, 1998. .
The following comments reiterate our previously e:cpressed concerns:
• The proposed compensation for Refuge impacts is still conceptual in nature and only
' vaauely describes �vhat the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Yletropolitan
Airports Commission (�IAC) offer as mitijation. Just as �ve provided you our best auess
estimates for RefuQe compensation in our May 22, 1997, letter, �ve request the same frorn
FAA and VIAC on the components you are willinQ to fund.
• As stated in our IVlarch 20, 1998, correspondence, ��-e believe that the mitiQation as
presented in the Sectiot� -�(� Evalcrariofz falis far short of what �ve�believe the impacts to
be upon Refu�e programs, activities� and visitor usaQe. As an example, the 1,083 acres
offered for miti�ation is significantly less that the =�,090 impacted acres that �ve believe
will be impacted. Of particular concern is the e:cclusion of the Kelley tract and lands
administered by the Refuae through an agreement with Northern States Po�ver company.
We also note that FAA has. recently chanaed their position on lands �vithin the �7 DNL
contour for �vhich �IAC had previously committed to provide compensation for in the
Section -�(f) Sinnmar�v dated �Iarch �, 1998.
. _
Mr. Franklin D. Benson 2
o We also remain concerned about the lack of public knowledge and input into this process
specific to the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge, a federal.facility of national
• significance. Due to the above-mentioned concerns, we are preparing to develop and
initiate an outreach effort that will clearly articulate the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
position on this issue. �
In light of a11 of this, I decided to postpone our meeting scheduled for today, April 16, 1998, until
FAA and MAC had time to once again, consider and jointly address our concerns. From my
perspective, additional meetings would not be productive until these concerris are specifically
addressed. .... .. _. .. . . . • � � -
' .�� _ _._. -
. . • � rely, �
.,
� : .: ,..•. � ,' .
William Hartwig '�
Regional Director
_.
� ���
l )
. �. ,
United States I�epartment of the Interior �=����� ���J��
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge
3815 East 80th Street
Bioomington, Minnesota 55425-1600
Apri123, 1998
Mr. Franklin D. Benson,
Manager
Minneapolis Airports District Office
Federal Aviation Administration
6020 28th Avenue South #102
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450-2706
Dear Mr. Benson:
� --
We understand that the Federal Aviation Administration and the Metropolitan Ai�ports
Commission are strugaling with our request for mitigation as described in my l�Iay 22, 199�
letter. In light of this, we offer another alternative as outlined below for your consideration.
Ra.ther than a large, one-time payment for mitigation, this alternative will provide perpetual
compensation for perpetual impacts to Minnesota Va11ey National Wildlife Refuge and to other
natural resource areas sunoundin; the Twin Cities International Airport. A.s indicated in the
attached mock brochure, "For as long as eagles soar and aircraft fly o��er the tLlissrssippi and
tLlirrnesotcr River.s, fru7ding will be macfe available fvr lanct acquisition, restoration of wildlife
habrtats, aruf development of recreational anct environmental edircation facilities. "
Fram our perspective, this alternative would be very popular among individuals and or;anizations
within the conservation community. We could also promote it as a win-win partnership in
conservation between the l�Ietropolitan Airports Commission (MAC), the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), and conservation agencies in this area.
If VLA.0 and FAA were willing, perhaps we can develop an alternative that might combine both a
one-time, up front payment with perpetual compensation. At any rate, we are open to discussing
a variety of options that will fully address our collective needs.
Mr. Franklin D. Benson
�
Please feel free to contact Mr. Rick Schultz if you have any questions concerning this alternative.
As we have expressed before, we are not opposed to the new runway nor do we want to delay its
construction one single day. We do believe, however, that the new runway will significantly
impact Refuge programs and interests in this area and we are committed to receiving appropriatte
compensation for these damages. .
. ' cer ly,
William F. Hartwig
Regional Director
CG:
Mr. Nigel Finney (11�IAC)
NItDC Pra: �'lyfng Off Course - Executive Summary 4/27/98 12s55 PM
; " ��2eports
-F�y�n� ff Cot�rs�
Environmental Impacts of America's
Airports
1 Tl "'i ';�,'t'i!; � �..7�+.7�''.u..}4.
� ;�� t�fi ,.�� -
- . ..-;.�.
, . , ,,.s . ti s..
„<:
.. . . _ . � ��
1. 44 y` � a+ , n
.. .. .. ... • �.� �'� r l � �-r � � y*
:� F � Y f�,�:
:��. .. _ . .. _...
In January 1995, the Naturai Resources Defense Councit (NRDC) undertoak a study to determine: (1)
the most importa.nt environmental issues connected with airports, and (2) the best management
techniques airports were using to mitigate them.
The bulk of our data came from a nationwide survey that we conducted in the spring and summer of
1995. We mailed a seven-page ��E�titi�it �;a����� �-.° to 125 of the nation's busiest airports, as de�ned by the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in terms of numbers of passengers, or enpianements. The
questionnaire dealt with noise and land use, deicing and water quality, air pollution, expansion plans,
and basic geogra.phical information.
-- - Forty-si� of the I?5 airports responded to our survey. In addition, we conducted in-depth research at
_}overnment agencies on the country's 50 busiest airports..
We found that, while airports vary in terms of size and geographicai characteristics, significant
environmental impacts were common to most of the airports in our survey. We also found that the
regulatory framework currendy in pIace to address these impacts is inadequate. Because aviation is the
fastest growing mode of transportation in the United States, increasing nearly twice as fast as
motor-vehicle travel, these faiiings must be addressed. This report focuses on the issues we found ta
be most significant: noise and land use, ground-level air emissions, water pollution, and, on a more
global scale, cIimate change and energy efficiency.
NRDC recognizes and supports the critical safety concerns and requirements of the FAA, the airports,
and the fiying public. These concems and requirernents have been taken into account in the
recommendations of this report. Nathing recommended herein would compromise the safety of fl��ing.
Aircraft noise -- like many environmentat probiems -- affects mitIions of people every day in myriad
ways both short-term and long-term, both obvious and difficult to gauge. Studies indicate that noise
affects one's abiIity to concentrate and can cause sieep deprivation, resulting in potentialiy deIeterions
effects on health and well-being. Some studies have also shown that continuous exposure to high
levels of aircraft noise is associated with hypertension, cardiovascuiar and gastrointestinai problems,
and other disorders.
, ,
(` -=ilespite the phasin� in of newer, quieter aircraft, noise nea.r airports wiII, in a1i Iikelihood, increase in
the next century. U.S. passenger air travel is expected to continue its current strong growth trends: the
FAA predicts intemational enplanements to increase at a rate of 5.3% annually for the neYt 12 years,
http://www.nrdc.org/nrdc/nrdc/nrdcpro/foc/sairexsu.html F°age
of 10
NRI3C Pao: g'lying Off Course - Executive Summary 4/27/98 12:55 �'R�I
and domestic enplanements to increase at a rate of 3.�%. Aircraft operations, of course, will likewise
increase: according to the FAA, there will be 36% more fIights in ?Ofl7 than there are today.
Airport communities often find themselves with littie recourse in addressing noise impacts under the
FAA's current noise policies. In particular, the noise threshold that the FAA has set as compatibie with
residential use ("65 dB DNL") is problematic beca.us�: (1) it is based on an averagiaeg of noise,
raxher than the loud "sin�Ie event" noise that specifically characterizes aircraft noise, and (2) the
threshold of 65 dB significantly underestimates the level at which many people are annoyed or.
impacted by aircraft noise:
o NRDC's Airport Survey demonstrates that the aircraft noise problem in the
United States will probably worsen: at least 32 of the 50 busiest airports in
the country have plans for eYpansion. The FAA reports that 60 of the 100
largest airports in this country are currently proposing to build new runways
or runwav eYtensions. �
o The FAA's threshold of 65 dB DNL does not accurateiv assess how manv
people are disturbed by aircraft noise. NRDC's AirportrSurvey found that,
despite the relatively few people living within its 65 dB DNL noise contour,
Denver International Airport received the highest number of noise complaints
per month.
o The most recent studies on noise and health have been conducted mostiv in
Europe rather than the United States. This is due, at least in part, to ther
current limited role of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in
the field of aircraft noise.
o While most airports have some type �f program in place to lessen noise for
their neighbors (such as using flight paths farther away from residential areas
at night), NRDC believes that a Fundamental key to gooci aircraft noise poiicy
lies in setting appropriate land uses adjacent to airports.
ltecommenclaiions
1. The soie use of D1VL for measuring aircr�ft noise is inaciequate.
DNL as-a mechanism for determining funds for noise mitigation measures
and land use planning shoutd be reevaluated with fuil public review.
Specifically, NRDC recommends that:
o Rather than DNL, CNEL (community noise equivaient IeveI) should
be used to adequately account for the importance of communication
and relaYation during evening hours. The CIVEL, used in California
and many European countries, includes a 5 decibel penalty during the
hours of �:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. in addition to the DNL's 10 c�B�
nighttime penalty.
❑ The FAA should use 55 dB CNEL, rather than 65 dB DNL, as the
threshold for planning and funding decisions.
❑ SingIe event noise must be taken into account when assessing the
�"
http://www.ncdc.org/nrdc/nrdc/nrdcpro/foc/aairexsu.html P'age 2 of 10
NRDC p'ro: F'lying Off Couase - Executive Summury 4/27/9� 12:55 �'M
impacts of aircraft noise. Single events interrupt school lectures,
wake peop(e up, and interfere with speech intelligibility. The "single
esposure leve]" (SEL), which measures the intensity of sound during
a single noise event, should be used in conjunction with CNEL.
' l ❑ Noise mitigation plans should be site-specific. Many factors need to
be considered, including seven key issues identified by EPA over 2t}
years ago, which rernain relevant:
1. Dura.tion of intruding noises and frequency of oc;currence
2. Time of year (windows open or closed)
3. Time of da.v of exposure
4. Outdoor noise level in community when intruding noises
are nat present
5. Histor� of prior exposure to noise source
6. Attitude toward the noise source
7. Presence of pure tones or impulses.
?. �lirpo�--ts and municipalities should be requered to provede iull-
clisclosure to potential aarport neighbors regarding levels of
noise ihey can expect. Disclosure sta.tements should include an airport's
current noise levels, flight paths, and future etpansion plans. A sta.te or local
"Communiry Right to Kno«� Noise" Act (similar to the act that requires
industries to divulge information on toxic releases to a community) should be
developed and implemented. This act would require municipalities and
realtors to disclose information about current and eYpected noise levels to
potentiat residents �vithin the 55+ dB CNEL.
__
3. The Office of Noise Abatement and Contral should be reinstated
'r ` withan EPA, and funds allotted For research on noise and
�_._-� health. The EPA, more than any other federal agency, should lead study of
the impact of aircraft noise on health and well-being. EPA is the agency most
directly responsible for the protection and regulation of public health and
welfare, �vhile the FA� has other unrelated, and sometimes conflicting
responsibilities.
G ���� �� :�. ��
i'
Noise tends to dominate debates over airport pollution, often to the eYcIusion of another important
topic: ground-level ozone pollution, the primary component of smog. Smog is normally associated
with motor vehicIes and industrial sources such as factories, power plants, and incinerators.
However, air pollution totals from automobiles and many major industries have stabilized or decreased
with time while aircraft continue to emit more and more ground-level ozone precursors--voIatiIe organic
compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NO�)--with ea.ch passing year. For example, in 1993,
airplanes at U,S. airports produced 35Q milIion pounds of these polIutants during their Ianding and
takeoff cycles (LTOs), more than twice their 19'70 total. This total is likely to climb even higher as the
aviation industry grows.
In order to better understand the relationship beriveen aircraft emissions and local air polIution
roblems, NRDC calculated the amount of aircraft-generated VOCs and NOx at nine U.S. airports. �
�,., __�he airports selected for study were Chicago O'Hare, John F. Kennedy International, LaGuard"ia
Internat�onal, and Westchester Count�• in Ne�v York, Newark International (N.n, Bradley Intemational
(CT), Jacksonville International (FL), El Paso International (TX), and Fairbanks International (?,K).
http://www.nrdc.org/nrdc/nrdc/nrdcpro/foc/aairexsu.html Page 3 of 10
AtItDC I'ro: Flyfng Off Couese -'Execntiae Summ�ry
4/27/98 12:55 1'A�d
Tliese airports were selected because they span a wide range in terms of the rypes and numbers of
planes they handle. The list includes not only the nation's largest intemationai airports but aIso smatier,
yet busy, regional airports.
0
���a���s
The results of NRDC's air carrier emissions inventories are as follows:
'�'A�I..E 1: Ground-Level �ir �arrier Emissions at Nine Airpm�ts ira 1993
(a)
AIRPOItT �& ����G & T.s.KEOFF VOC NOx
S'TATE CYCLES (LTOs) per year (tons/yr) tons/ r
(b) i � )
Chicago O'Hare 383,362 1,4?S 4,6�0 �
(IL}
Newark (N� 140,109 914 1,916
LaGuardia (NY) 135,800 6?7 l,�'76
John F. Kennedy 80,33'7 1,0?7 1,879
(N�' )
Bradley (CT) 36,506 128 34?
El Paso (TX} ?9,752 48 �8
Jacksonville (FL) 19,838 42 ?01
Westchester (NY) 9,145 18 �?
Fairbanks (A.I� 7,075 15 64-
Ea� Kaw data generated using F4t1 software and data as welI as airport-specific idle/taxi times. Actual
VOC totals may be 10-15% less tham reported due to fuel conservatian measures voluntarily pradiced by
the airlines which also resutt in emissions reduction.
ro� Landing and tal:eoff cycles (LTOs) are the basis for a ound-level aircraft emissions calculations. The
componeats of an LTO aze approach and landing, taxi/idle-in, taxilidle-out, takeoff, and climbout. LTO
� cycle calculations include only the emissions planes create within 3,0f1D feet of the earth's surface, all of
which affect ground-level air quality.
6ttp://www.nrdc.org/nrdc/nrdc/nrdcpro/foc/aairexsu.html Page 4 of 1�
C�
�_ _
Rt1tDC B'ro: Flying Uff Course - Ex�utive Summury 4/2i/98 12:55 i'�I
i
i
I
�
o Airports are significant sources of ground-level VOC and NOx emissions. i
--- , Locally, an airport's arriving and departing planes can create as much, if not �
� ) more, gound-level VOCs and NOx as many of its lazgest industrial i
neighbors (see table beIow). i
� )
� �..�
5 TA�I.E 2: 1993 VO� and 1�Og Emissio�s an � States: Aarpoa-ts�a� and
� Cotnparable Sources
; STATE P'OI,LUTANT SOURCENS ���� �) TONS/YR
STATE�
IL v� Deere & Co. 17 1,471
(Harvester Plant)
IL V� Chicago O'Hare __ 1,4?8
Airport
IL V� All Steel, Inc. 18 1,367
IL NO Granite Steel � 1 4,819
e COmpanV '
IL NO Chicago O'Hare __ 4 650
x Airport '
IL NO CPC InNI (corn �� 4 439
X products) '
UT V� Geneva Steel 6 590
. U.j, V� Salt L,alce City Int'1 __ �5
Airport
U.I, V� Magnesium Corp. of � 438
America
�: UT NO Questar Pipeline g 1,15?
x Company
,�, N� Salt Lake City Int'1 __ 955
�` Airport
http://www.nrdc.org/nrdc/nrdc/nadcpao/foc/saarexsu.html Page 5 of 10
NItDC �'ro: F'lying Off Course - Executive Snmmary
:
' Chevron USA Salt
� UT NOx
Lake Refinery
Quality Rolling
: CT VOC (metal painting
company) ���
CT VOC
CT V�
'�
0
N04
NO,�
NOe
Bradley Int'1 Airport
Northeast Petroleum
(storage facilities) ��>
AES Thames (gower
plant) (�)
Bradlev Int'I A�irport
DeYter (paper mill}
(c)
9
T
11
17
:
4/27/98 12:55 PRQ
'743
�
L9
1?8
I12
370
342
?9p
(a) :�irport totals reflect �ound-level emissions from air cariier fli�hts. ivRUC calcutated the emissions
for O'Hare and Br�dley airports. The state of Utah provided the emissions data for Sait L,abe City
International .��irport. Ground-level `�OC totals from aircraft may be 10-1�% less than reported dne to fnel
conservation measures voiuntarily practiced by airlines which also result in emissions reduction.
ro� Ranldn� is based on stationary source emissions inventories provided by the states of Illinois, Ctah,
and Connecdcut_
��� Refers to 1994 rather tllan 1993 data.
C
o Airports are not regulated in the same manner as other significant air pollution
sources. Neither airports nor airlines are held accountable for the aggregate
impacts of their ground-level aircraft emissions. Sta.te and local regulators
remain nea.rly powerless to address the problem in meaningful ways, while
other major industrial sources are accordingly forced to compensa.te on
airports' behalf as states scramble to meet mandatory emissions reductions
deadlines. The number of commercial flights (which burn the most fuel and
cause the most pollution ger operation) meanwhile grows higher and higher
each year.
o A 1993 EPA-sponsored study of toxic emissions at Chicago's Midway
Airport (a much smaller airport than Chica.go's O'Hare, with about 3 million
enplanements per year, compared with O`Hare's 30 million) suggests that
toxic air pollut�on from aircraft deserves more attention. The study, conducted (
� in response to community concerns, evaluated cancer risks attributable to atl �...
air pollution sources in southwestern Chicago. It indicated that Midway's
arriving and departing planes constitute a considerable source of paraculate
http://www.nrdc.org/nrdc/nrdc/nrdcpro/foc/aairexsu.html Fage 6 of 10
NRDC �'eo: Flying Off Course - Executive Summary
' )
matter as well as toYic compounds such as benzene, 1,3-butadiene, and
formaldehyde, releasing far more of these polluta.nts than other induskrial
pollution sources within the 16-square mile study azea. In fact, few of all of
Chicago's industrial sources release as much benzene or formaldehyde as
Midway Airport. Nevertheless, airports are exempt from the federallaw that
requires other toxic sources to report�their toxic emissions totals (the Toxic
Release Inventory, or TRI).
• ..
�� t � � ; �r . �� >� -
4127/98 12:55 p'R�ff
1. 'Treat �irpori-generated emissions in the saane manner as
emissions frona other large sources ancl include them in state air
pollutio� ptar�s. Although a.irpIane emissions at airports are comparabie ta
those from industrial sources, thev escape inclusion in State Implementa.tion
Plans (or SIPs), the EPA's principal means oF achieving cleaner air in
nonattainment areas. As sta.tes scramble to meet mandatorv emissions
reductions deacilines, other major industrial sources are forced to compensate
for this omission. Allo�ving sta.tes to include control strategies for
ground-level aircraft emissions in their SIPs would help them meet air
qualiry goals.
?. IVlinimize aircrait engine use white idiing and taxiing. VOC
emissions (both toxic and non-toxic) at airports would be significantly
reduced if all airlines instructed their pilots to shut do�vn as many engines as
possible during the idle and ta..Yi period. This simple procedure �vould
decrease emissions, as �vell as fuel costs. The FAA should issue an
Advisory Circular on reduced-engine idling and ta�iing, encouraging airlines
to employ the practice as often as possible.
3. Adopt more stringent i�iOX standards. Ground-level NO� emissions
from aircraft can be curbed bv tightening engine emissions standards. The
tTN-affiliated International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) tightened NO
q standards by ?0�/0 on January 1, 1996 and is currently considering
tightening the standard an addition 16�Io. The Europea.n Union is supporting
the tighter NO� standard. Hocvever, the new st.andard is uniikeiy to be
approved without U.S. support, which has, to date, been withheld. The
United States needs to join its European counterparts in activel� supporting
the additional tightening of this standard. Regardless of ICAO's ultimate
decision, the United States shouId adopt the proposed standard as its own.
4. Addres� toxic aircraft emissians. EPA should carrv out a nationwide
investigation and risk assessment oF aircraf't emissions. If t'indings similar ta
its southwest Chicago study are rea.ched elsewhere, then airports should be
placed on EPA's list of major hazardous poliution sources. Whatever the
outcome, airports -- just as similarly-sized toxic air pollution sources --
shouid be required to report their toxic emissions to the Toxic ReIease
Inventory (TRI).
S. Investigate differential I�nding �ees. Until Iocal authorities ca.n
implement SIP control strategies for aircraft, they can address the problem of
aircraft pollution indirectly. Airports ca.n esta.blish a revenue-neutral set of
;' '� differential landing fees to encourage airlines to use their least-polluting
` _� pianes.
6. Discourage auxiIiary power unit use. Jets parked at airport gates
http://www.nrdc.org/nrdc/nrdc/nrdcpro/foc/sairexsu.html Page 7 of 10
NItDC Pro: Flying Off Course - Executiae Summary
4/27/98 12:55 P�i
often use genera.tors (auxiliary pawer units or APUs) to power their electrical
and climate control systems. Both emissions and fuel consumption could be
reduced if pla.nes shut off their APUs and relied on airport-provided pawer
and air to the fullest e:ctent possible. Southern California's airports are already
electrifying their gates; airparts in other nonattainment areas should follow (
their lead. , \
7. �onvee-t airport vehicle fteets and groured service equapment to
alternative faaels. Alternative-fuels programs already exist at many
airports. Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), for example, operates 14
liquid national gas (LNG) buses, and is ordering more. Boston's Logan
Airport is converting its vehicles irom dieseI to natural gas and electric power.
Centrally fueled and maintained airport-based fleets are excellent niches for
alternative fuel vehicles; states and airports should create incentives for or
require their conversion.
8. �recmurage mass transit. Private vehicles at airports can produce as
much VOC and NOC as planes. Our survey shows that the overwhelming
majority of airline passengers reach the airport in their own cars. Airport
emissions totals could be considera.biv reduced if these people left their cars at
home; mass transit use to and from airports should be promoteci and
developed at every opportunity.
'.,'s ♦ ;'3 �S i /
The presence of snow, ice, or sIush on runways or aircraft frequently causes hazardous conditions �
that can contribute to aircraft accidents, dela�s, diversions, and flight cancellations. Consequently, .�
deicing or anti-icing (preventing the formation of ice) of aircraft and runways is a necessary- part of
operations at most airports in winter months. The most common method of controlling ice is through
the use of chemicais, particularly ethylene- or propylene-based glycol mi:ctures with additives.
Most airports were built long before environmental regulations governing polluted water "runoff
were in place, and many airports Iack the infrastruclure to control large quantities of deicing fluids.
Deicing generally tak.es place directly on the taimac; deicing chemicals then enter the runoff from this
procedure and flo�v into nearby waterways. In 19$7, under Clean Water Act revisions, storm�vater
runoff was finally recognized under federal law as a serious water pollution problem, and the national
stormwater permit system was adopted to attempt to control polluted runoff from urban areas,
including industrial sites.
o Given that many, if not most, of the country's largest airports are sited along
waterways, the control and disposal of deicing chemicals constitutes a
significant water poIIution issue. Our survev found that 45 of the 50 busiest
airports in the country were within three miles of an ocean, bay, lake,
wetland, reservoir, river, or stream.
o The runoff management systems that airports are required to implement under �
the national stormwater system is probiematic, with gaps in the areas of
effiuent standards, enforcement, and monitoring.
http://evww.nrdc.org/nrdc/nrdc/nrdcpro/foc/aairexsu.html I'age $ of IO
N1tDC Pro: Fiying Off Course - Executive Summary
o'1'he use ot deicing chemlcals (particularly ethylene glycol) and other toxic
substances at airports mat% present threats to human health, particularly to
airport workers.
� o In addition to ethylene gl�•col, numerous hazardous substances such as
solvents and metals are used at airc,�aft maintenance facilities. However,
airports are exempt from reporting under the To�cic Release Inventory.
� � r +'�'
4/2i/9� 12i55 PAZ
l. A6rca-aft deicing should be subject to a traciitimnal effluent
guidelane permitting process. EPA could accomplish this by reinstating
aircraft deicing in its Transportation Cleaning effluent guideline. Currentty,
aircraft deicing is covered inadequa.tely under the more open-ended national
storm��vater program.
2. Ethylene glycot and the issue of vvorker health and safety needs
to lbe further addressed. Given the tosic properties of ethylene glycoi,
the Occupational Safet�% and Health Administration (OSHA) should set
appropriate exposwe limits for ethylene glycol in deicing applications.
3. Storrnwater pollution prevention plans should be publac
documents and should be available for public review d'arectly
from every airpoe~t. Incomplete, inadequate, or unimplemented plans
should be subject to enforcement action on the same basis as other NPDES
violations.
4. LJnder the national stormwater program, the threshold thai.
reyuires airports to monitor and sarnple outflows should be
lova+ered to include smaller airports. While larger airports that use over
1�,000 gallons of deicing fluids are required to monitor their outfiows,
sensitive receiving c�•aters near smalier airports are left at risk.
S. Ii�are research should be conducted ae�d information macie.
availab[e on alternatives to chemec�is for deicing. FAA should
revise its Advisory Circulaz on Airport Winter Safety and Operations (AC
150/5?QO-30A) to include information on the latest, least
environmentally-damagina deicing procedures that also meet safety
requirements.
6. Airpae�ts shou[d be required ta report releases mf hazardous
substances under the Toxic �tele�se Inv�ntory (T'�ZI). (See also
�,�-� ��.���;?=�..c�,�:•' �.:r �;;��ti�: �,�). Ethylene glycol, widely used by airports, is a
TRI-reportable substance, �•et airports are exempt from TRI reporting.
1' �
,--Though the primary environmenta.i issues assoc;iated with a.irports are lacai, the aircraft themselves aze
,�sponsible for global impacts. Tra.nsporting one person one mile by air requires more energy than by
car, petsonal truck, bus, or train (at similar load factors). Though larger aircraft traveIing longer
distances can improve those efficiencies, it has been estimated that, currently, half of all airline flights
http://www.nrdc.oeg/nrdc/nrdc/nrdcpro/foc/aairexsu.html I'age 9 of 10
P1ItDC Pro: Flying Off Course - Executive Summary
4/27/98 12:55 P1VI
are less than 500 miles. The emissions from aircraft engines, particularly carbon dioxide, nitrogen
oxides, and water vapor, also play an increasingly significant role in global climate change and iri
ozone deplelion. In addition, air travel is espected to grow at a faster rate over the coming decades
. than all other modes, further intensifying its environmental impacts.
A transportation system using airpianes with more efficient engines, supplemented by improved rail
service, would likely result in less fuel use and fewer pollutants released into the environment Ne�ver,
more efficient engines are generally quieter as weil, since continuing public pressure to reduce air�rt
noise helps prompt the redesign of engines.
� ,_
o Studies show that, currentl�-, aircraft are responsible for between 2-3% of
total anthropogenic carbon dio�cide (CO2) emissions globally. This represents
a maiest, but increa�ing contribution to anthropogenic �lobal warming
effects. �
o Aircraft also emit signific;ant quantities of nitrogen oxides (NO`). Although
there are some scientific uncertainties, studies show that about 4°Io of
anthropogenic, atmospheric NOY may be attributed to aircraft
o Forecasts reveal that aircraft CO, and NO� emissions could be responsible
for 10% of alI anthropogenic global warmin� effects by 2050.
C
o In addition to requiring more energy per passenger-mile than most other
forms of transportation, airplanes also emit more CO� per passenger-mile /
than most other modes of transportation, because of their high energy `\�
intensit�-.
o Air travel is especially inef�cient over short distances. Aircraft are most
efficient for truly long distance travel, because they "amortize° the
tremendous energy consumption associated with high speed takeoff over a
greater number of miles and passengers (larger aircraft tend to cany more
passengers and offer greater range).
o Much could be done to reduce energy consumption per passenger mile in
aircraft, including improving the energy efficiency of the engines, improving
aerodynamics, increasing average a.ircraft occupancy rates, increasing average
trip length, and reducing idle time.
� ., � r,•� �.; �,
1. The IJ�ited States shouId adopt rnore sta-ing�nt NOX standa�rds.
(See ! �rr��_in�-L.��°el :-'�ir Fj�„`�IC?il� RCC?:)i1;li3Cll�jll:l(<<z5).
2. Airlines should invest -in newer; rraae�e efficient aircr�ft. The -
federal government should provide financial incentives to airlines to accelerate
acquisition of newer, safer, quieter, more efficient aircraft and provide greater
- - disincentives for airlines-to reta.in older, less efficient aircraft. Currently, there -�
is an opportunity to incorporate incentives for conserving fuel in the
reinstatement of funding of the Aviation Trust Fund. Revenue that was
http:Uwww.nrdc.org/nrdc/nrdc/nrdcpro/foc/aairexsu.html Page 10 of 10
NRDC Pro: g'lying Off Course - Executiae Suannasay 4/2i/98 �2:55 I'M
' collected throu,gh a 10°Io domestic ticket tax could instead be collected through
an aviation fuei tax, thus providing an incentive to increase airline operational
efficiency and to modemize the aging commercial fleet with more efficient
airframes/engines. Uniess a clear message is sent to aircraft manufacturers
" l and airlines, efficiency improvements may fall by the wayside. Financial
mechanisms that would Funnel a tax� on fuei back into the aviation industry are
necessary to ensure that aircraft efficiency improvements are accomplished.
3. Supplernent air travei with teigh-speecl raai. Nationai .transportation
planners and the Department of Transporta.tion should furtherexamine
proposed plans for high-speed raiI "pockets" throughout the country, such as
the Boston-New York-Washington; Houston-Austin-Dallas; San Diego-Los
Angeles-Sacramento; Portland-Seattle-Vancouver routes. Supplementing the
aviation system with high-speed rail would greatly reduce the "short hops,"
for which air travel makes the least environmental sense.
4. Ianpa-�ve iraternBodal links, so th�t i�i�rcity cail connects to
aarports. For exarnple, someone tra.veling from Paris to Phi�adelphia,
landing in New York, should not have to get on another plane from New
York to Philadelphia.
Copyright 1996, Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. Contact us at
� ���ri�ift°`r)r���izC��r.;.�r;e
� �
http://www.nrdc.org/nrdc/nrdc/nrdcpro/foc/aairexsu.html Y'age 11 of 10
PTItDC I'ro: �lying Off Course -�Iinnespolis- S� Puul international Airport Surve... 4/27/98 12:49 �'R�
. . . . I I C � j3.$..: r F .'ii T�^ .:+"�'
\ . , ✓ � ii'.e.>�' �`'
' : + ., , �x t i � � ' S f,.�i �'
�.� '
Reports .. r ' '�;� � _�. �� � .� �
' � �, f '--, `
�l�l�� �� �011�°�� ,� � kh 4 � =t _
f y �
\ t �4' f .+�
�t'r ,C' y te�t\l.i� is� L+ :
. ' ..%j 1 . .
Environmental Impacts of America's ���.} ��� '"���`�
�, .....
Airports
Tc�p t.sl� �'c�.���,t I Li�;�;.;l�:�.ir-Lc>rf Ta�l�, ( G1c>�;ttr�
i ea olis- Sto a 1 ter at�o al 'r ort
St. P�ul, 1Vlineaesota
The following da.ta was collec;ted in the 1995 National Airport Survey conducted by the Natural
Resources Defense Council. Sources are listed at the bottom of this page.
Airpoat Name Minneapolis- St. Pa.ul International, Minnesota
Airport 13
Number
Date of �a
Response
Itespondent NON-RESPONDENT
Respondent's �a
'Title
�iddress Lindbergh Terminai MSP
City St. Paul
state 1VIN
zip Code 55111
' Phone Number (612) 726-5555
Fax Number (612) 7?6-5527
http://www.nrdc.org/nrdc/nrdc/nrdcpro/foc/mimnms.html Page 1 of 3
C
C
C
1VRDC �'ro: Flying Off Course -&iiaaneapolis- St. 1'sul Internntfonal �eia-�ost. Susee... 4/27/98 12:49 I'�I
Public or
Privute public
RRanagement
Commercial 374,239
Operations
General
Aviation 65,195
Operutions
Number of 3
Itunwuys
I.ength of
Runways 8,?S6; 8,200; 1?,000
(Feet)
Square Mileage 4
of Airport
Mass Tmnsit
A vailable
During A�II �R
Hours of
Airport
Operation
Transportation
Useage To
and Fmm private caz 74%; commercial car ?5%; mass transit 1%
�►irport, by
Percentage
Noise Office yes
Noise Office's (612) 726-9411
Phone Number
Noise Officer's Roy Fuhrmann
Name
Average
Noise 7�_2��p
Complaints
Per Month
�Airport (
f:..ri,o..� N..:�o VPc
http://www.n rdc.org/nrdc/nrdc/nrdcpro/foclmimnms.html
Page 2 of 3
NRDC P'ro: Flying CDff Course -�ifaneapolis- S� 1'aul International Aarport Surve... �/27/98 12:49 P1VI
v.�.....,.� �..,,�.. �...,
;:
Data
Airport Takes
Noise yes
Complaints ,
Noise
Complaints yes: cornplaints recorded on an automated hot(ine
; iiecorded
Itesponse
Received
Curfews/Noise
Guidelines
Percentage of
Stage 3
Flights
Community
Surrounding
Airport
65 d� DI�TL
Population
Expansion
Plans
Part 150 Plan
B uyou ts/Other
Noise
Mitigsation
Strategies
�
engine run-ups prohibited between 1 l:�pm and 6:OO�am; preferential runwa}•
use 24 hours/day
urban, inc�ustrial, commercial, agricultural, milita.ry, open space
30,7?0
?>7� foot runway estension currently under construction, extended runwa��
shouid be open in the fall of 1996
approved
a$60 million program to acquire 400 homes adjacent to the airport is one-half
complete; between 1,800-?,000 homes have been soundproofed since 199?
1Vlost Itecent
Noise ri0
Exposure 1VIap
Bodies of
Water within many lakes, 2 rivers
Three 1Vliles
.;
; Deice �t VeS
Airport
http://www.nrdc.org/nrdc/nrdc/nrdcpro/foc/mimnms. html
C
Page 3 of 3
NRDC Pro: f'lying Uff Coucse -:�linneapolis- SG Paul International ,�irport Surve.... �/27/98 12:�39 PM
� Deiciag �C:U and YCi, salt, urea, liquid potasstum acetate, sand; used deicing agents
� Treatment ��Ptured and stored in lined poncis, slo�vly rcleased to publicly-owned
treatment facilitv
� Deicing Fluids
Recycled n0 �
Stormwater 4 main drainage areas �vith storm sewers, oi1 containment basins, retention
iVianagement basins, settling basins, and treatment basins
Water Quality comparative stud� of aquatic effects of alternative deicin� agents; also, the
scudies ae Minnesota Pollution Control A�ency has done a water qu:ility study of the
Airport Minnesota River
Sources:
Deicin,� Commrsnication, Coordination and Cooperatio�r, presented by Tim Callister,
Assistant Director of Airports/Operations, Minneapolis-S� Paul International Airport
at a June 1995 �-lmerican Association of Ai�rt E.eecutives (AAA� conference.
FAA �010 Database.
Fi�uil EIS for Proposed Rumvcrv Erte�rsio►i 4-22 �et A�linnectpolis-St. Paul Inter�rational
�irport, prepared by U.S. Dept. of Transportacion, FAA and Minnesota Dept. of
Transportation.
Phone intervie�v with Roy Fuhrmann, Supervisor, Aviation Noise Programs, 8/7/95.
Phone interview with vtarlc R�an, :�irport Planner, Minneapalis-St Paul Metropolitan
Airparts Commissian, 5/i/96.
Ra�rd McNally Road Atlas: 66tit Edition, 1990.
Record of Approual of Part ISO, i�finneapolis-S� PauI International.Airport, �i?/90.
Record of Approval of Part I50, i�tinneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, �/?S/94.
State Report 1993, Nlinneapalis- St. Pnul Internationat Airport. Nletropolitan Airports
Commission, Aviation Noise Pro.,ram, prepared by Metropolitan Airports
Commission, Minneapolis, 1993.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, FAA Air Traffcc
Activitv, Washingtan DC, Fisc:al Year 1993.
�� )
http://www.nrdc.org/nrdc/nrdc/nrdcpro/foc/mimnms.hitnt Fage �i of 3
1�tDC Pro: �'lying Off Course - Iteport Crc�iits and �ecknovvledgments
Reports
yin� �f Co�.r�e �
Environmental Impacts of America's
�irports
, ,
; i.1 :1 ;�f !',l�C:�.>i'_
• ,�;
Project Coordinator and Editor
Riclaard I�assel
Principal Author mtd Researcher
Jeranifer Stenzel
Contributing Autlror and Researcher
jonathan B'ruti
Contributor and legal research
Carolyn �unningham
Production Supervision
Catherine Aman
Text Editor
Elizabeth I-�anson
��.ckn�vvled� e �is
4/27/98 9:53 Pnlili
.... , _ .
F ,:
;:: , ,
i . � k� {� - ��,,,,,� ��.,-,�'��-..;
„ ; .. _ ;, ca�. ,•;y3 'i� .a ' .f u�.}:. �
... � _. ,.. �%'; SK tY .x^� .h�2''�:�
' � £ 1 r.C.c:.�� e�•��
... .-� ��4 -,n�`� ti ��� � '�
Y �� : .'v ; 'r, � 5 �'7� *�'"},
, .. ... _ � vr Sr�.y a �' �;t
� ., .., x� r� �" '�, -� ,��.�-�',x'�
L.+.,.,_.. ���T::.}+'-v... ' w.. �.r•�'•a�.F�'•,'
i;�:'`.�
NRDC wishes to thank John ft. Robinson for initiating, encouraging, and supporting this study, and
The Beinecke Foundation, Inc. for providing the funds which made this project and research passible.
As with ail of our work, the support of 1VRDCrs over 300,Q00 members was invaIuabre to the
completion of this project.
Many coilea.gues at NRI7C made substanrive contriiiutions to this report, inciuding DanieI T_ashof,
Ph.D., Peter Lehner, and Diane Cameron. Thanks also to Basil Seggos, intern, for his help during the
http://www.nrdc.org/nrdc/nrdc/nrdcpro/foclsairac�Cn.6tml Page 1 of z
1V12DC Pro: Flying Off Course • Executive Summary
Ingestion can cause kidne�• failure, and can also be fatal.
�AA: Federal Aviation Administration.
�'`��'� F're�clom of Infortnation Act (F'C.D��.): a request filed under the Freedom of
� Information Act, 5 U.S.C. §52?, or any relevant state law.
geaeeral avaation: all aviation that is not commercial or military.
4/27/9� 10:02 PIVI
lancling and takeofi cycle (L'TO): the basis of ground-level aircraft emissions
calculations. The components .of an LTO are approach, ta.�ci/idle-in, taxi/idle-out,
takeoff, and climbout. LTO cycle calculations include only the emissions planes create
within 3,000 feet of the earth's surface, a11 of which affect ground-level air quality.
mixing-zone: the vertical column of air within which pollution is thoroughly mixed
with ground-level air. T'he mi�cing-zone extends from ground-level up to
appro�:irnately 3,000 feet above the earth's surface: its ceiling varies from location to
location depending on local topography and weather conditions. Air pollurion
intraduced anywhere within the mi�cing zone will affect ground-level air quality.
Nationat Elanbient Air QuaIety St�ndarsis (l�tr�AQS): air quality standards
established by EPA that apply to outside air throughout the country.
nonatiairaixaent area: geographic area that does not meet one or more of the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone, carbon mono�cide, particulates, sulfur
diotide, lead, and nitrogen diotide.
nitrogen oxide (NOx): a product of combustion from transportation and stationary
(� ) sources, a major contributor to acid deposition and the formation of both ground Ievel
� --% and upper Cropospheric ozone.
National I'ollutant Discharge Elimination System (I�ti'DES): a provision of
the Clean Water Act that prohibits discharge of pollutants into waters of the United
States unless a pennit is issued, usually by EPA or a state (SPDES).
oil/water sepae-ator: large tanks that hold fluids and allow oil to separate from
�vater as the tluids settle.
ozone (03): a from of o�ygen found in nvo layers of the atmosphere, the
stratosphere and the troposphere. In the stratosphere (the atmospheric layer beginning
seven to 10 miles above the earth's surtace), ozone provides a protective layer
shielding the earth from ultraviolet radiation's hannful health effects to humans and
the environment. In the troposphere (the layer extending up seven to 10 miles from the
earth's surface), ozone is a chemical o�idant and major component of photochemical
smog. Ozone can seriousIy affect the human respira.tory system and is one of the most
prevalent and widespread of all the criteria pollutants for which the Clean Air Act
required EPA to set standards. Ozone in the troposphere is produced through complex
chemical reactions of nitrogen o�ides, hydrocarbons, and sunlight.
Pari 150: A voIuntary program estabIished under the Aviation Safety and Noise
Abatement Act of 1979. Part 150 allows airports to apply for federal funding to
implement noise mitigation measures inciuding residentiai soundproofing and
'� acquisition of noise-sensiti��e land around airports. A Part 150 plan can also include
� recommendations for development near airports.
pH: a measure of the acidity or a11:a1inity of a liquid or solid material.
bttp://www,nrdc.org/nrdc/nrdc/nrdcpro/foc/aairglos.html I'a�e 3 of 5
� ': e
�
� o
�
� •
�
�
00
�
O+
ry y'
�n
r.
� ;�__;
�5
i� ,
� U � � U � � f��U' � ^ � � �„�, ...CCLD "L7
� � � � � �
J
.� a' C � � on v 3 '�' � '-� � � .� �
C".. � a`3 .t'. �"' O � t'� � n � � .� �
Q •� �„�",� �' �u tS! `C "`JL 4J ':J" � �O, �
�•.a�c � � � a � �.� � g� u v � �
a� � � 5 � °' a, -C _n a� 3 �s � ..o m.�' �
� e°�� -° o v ; � °� o ��.�[o-� ° �
� y C � an -� °0 a� 4.. v�-� �. v � �n
D
� I r� � .0 o o y" C� v .� � � a� '�''� � iG'3 u �'�� .�
' N '=s � •� � � G �� +-' � .5 �i � o � ^y � CJ O- h
� at � CO �� � O�� a� � U u U`.'� w
e �� �� v� ..t] O� G� � C� O cs � O
c ca.i o v� �( an -- � a � c� � E> '��` �
( eC Lt7 � � v�i "' ' G � �"' CD ^7 �" h u �"'
' ' � ^ m �-f'p o � � ^C � ,G "'� G v v _
.-_+,,.. � C � i., b0 ,� � � '� p � � �C�1
C .,.+ L � O
~ � M ..t] � � GJ ?� '� � � � � � u % ~ C
� = 61 '�L "sG � � 'u t0 O � � ._. Q � u
=' = g u � '� ' a
' �^�� � �" �•�v v c'.o U 5��
• u � °�,' a "� �1 '„n � � � '=' �; " °'
aa .,°..c aA °. o��° ..°C a 3 g�'�..� �
��
�
�� _
0
�
�� .�
�
__, �
F
•
O .�y � v�
� � '� � .�u 't� � O
O c�, � ,�? _ .o � ;;� 4? ` � � : a
�?
.� o p �� � -� �n � -c� a � c �, a
� a � -v E � � � � ',� � p a� c
C� =
a., � •� � °- � � •� � � 'c, 'v € p ao
!A '� .L O Vj � VJ () .Li G'i �i
� p . �: � y v � i.. � � � ` ' C D
'''' �y 3.. � � .:� "a tC � � .0
� � .., ?� � +=� m y � C � > t�
CJ � � U � .0 N � .rn � � � - � V "t7
� 'p +-� � �+' 0 �C C�6 � � '� � � G
� a. � � o �s .� -� c�
� � L � � � G�D 'G .Q3 �" ` �? � .0 +.,
�> ct1 cC � Q- `b O�,U O:� ;,C p„ p�
y � � � a $ G y� � � � � i , c GJ �
�� U
� � � � .� � .� � r-�+. � i .7 . � � �
•� 3 � � .�± .p, � "d ,� ,'� � .y p �
C � � � � � � �
� s- ^� +-� � O cC cei «t L..� O U.0 �
• �r r�' � ',� L�i � _ V •. � U �•t,n„ y��, � V � �
'L7 � � � > � .D � � � C C .�u �'-' •L'
c ,� � �o 0 0 � •� � � a� o �c � �
c� � .c �... �a� .� a t�. ��.; E -rw -r� c �.. -a-
� i C
O
� � � � �
.3 0'� � .v
O U
�•'"-� �, �
.v� � � � U
� � � �3 �
:O aa —. � O �
, � � Ct3 G
_; � � ,",� �
.� � :� -� w
� �
� � 3 O �
� � .� ?, O
� O � � _O
� U ��+ � U
r .� S,'" .SSA. 'L'�'
O > . U �.�, .0
n
� � .� � �
'� -�'o. `� -> ..�
c �s
�
. c�I� g T� � dQA
�
�
L
U
c
D
v
�
a
a�
c
O
0
W
t3.
y
�
�
�
�
.� :
w
O
�
� �
a, � .LL
,G U U
� Cn Y..
� O V�
�
� L y
� C �
4i O 'C�
� O �
L c c�n
O � LL
� � 't!]
.o � �
4?
� � O
� t/1 . � ' �n
� �
> �.� �� � =
'�"`j � �.. :.� O . �
o � Q�s �, a
� a� �
� � � �. `y�^� �
� � � C3 G. tC
� [i � a � "O
� � C � �
a��i °��'�`='o
cb^ O 'i � �
> "�j � L''� ��a�o 0
+'' C O U '� 'b
N a `n � O �'
c -p `� c� O c
� ¢ � � � �
� � a O � �
;,C y � � GA E
� � � `� � �
o�ua�U a�
�
C�.. C'"
O `�
� � at O
� �.
'`'` U O —
an�.Lc�
� .d U (V
� � �' o
V� C �
�a.��
w �
N �O'� C
�
� � 'y �
� � � ..O
� 0 ^' C,
O „'�� � O
C c�C � C
[ �.. O
� "� �^ '�
a� � � �
E�— ° '3 .�
c�? � a 4- C'
� Q,� p!y- �p � �
.4.. � � -� C � O
p .r.c � .c .� ���y�1 •�
� `"'� �' G" F�r �7 ��"
� �•� a ���-a
++ • r!� y, � O C
� ~
� � c' � = � p-
GD �s..' � � ••r �, ,� -� -t/]
0
� ����- �d �ai a�'i�
a�i a Q " �
� � U � 0. � � ? �
o� �s o o �
c�c �" °�' c o c � � �
� c» -� o � � � � � � a.
.`.1 �
� � � 'L.' � G.' .� C =� ,-�+
�N�.a.aa�.��$,
�� ���� aa� � �.
.. 4 .a :� s -� -� .� � Q
.L
a�
�
a�
C-0
r�1
�
e�
�
�
Q
�
�
C
C
.�
.0
c
0
�
'C7
.0
�
E.L
a�
�
F
�
, O
� �
�
� .�
Q �
�
c.. �
v
� �
� a
O 'C°
U ,�
4- '�
.O �
� �
� O
� �
UU
'�p
v� �
a c�
� �
c
� _O
:na :�.
0
U
O
�
s
wo
C
�
>
u
.�
"�J
C
«s
�
O
bA
C
�
.�
a�
�
.�
C
n�
�
L
«i
�
U
a.
�
�.
<C
�
C
O
.�
�
�
�
�v
�
.0 �'- � � �
eG C�y �, �'" U
� •� � �
.c � � � 3
�
.� �, c
CSS � � •C
� . � °' v
� � O �
a� �,
� •�
. � � � �t ��
� �., .�' 3
>, ��a�
3����
� °� '� cn �
� ;� � �. �s .,
� � � � `" � ;
� oA "� � O m
t!� �= = .-p � •�
� 3 3 � � o
+- � � o c
� -° -� �23 � 'r
� �
yj � � „� Q � �
�°� � �i c � ca
� � U cts �� Qy a? -a� o�..»
+-� U v�i cn `' ' u� ra .ci .� � O .v� .�
� .�, � � � � > � v .� � a�i t^ � ' =
� Ri G � C� ' C � v''''i T3 � � •61 .� .. � � ,�•a
� � tn .� � y � O C �' O .p v � ,� � 3
�s o �s �s
Q�.� .y p � ,� a�.+ V .,� D .O o �a.�+ c � �° �' '(�
• �-�°' � ��'' .� c � ,,�, -� .� `: s. .= -m a� � � •� �
_� �- u � E , .� > � s .c�u � -o � �, � -> .°� °t�.
��" �• O � � U C � t" � �''�'C � V � � y,.�">,
� A„ oo �.o � c�a ,� L� o� Gi aa � as �r.e 0
� � r° � •F. .� �a
� � � m � .�, � � � ..$ �"' E O A � .,�G C � � ..� -�
�U � � � � � � � '> � � y � �� :� o �L � '> �o � �
. s.. . .� tCi s. m '++ +''
Cll �p C �7i ,U �� t�a C�j ��� bA ,[ � w p U�i i�., y CC
� � ;� � � L3» � .`.� � ti" ,� � � .�f1. � � 'y �.+" "v .CC ^C
I��. e v"i . e c�° a�i ��-o ai � p.� :� � a�i � 3 c p
FT +•�+ L+•�+ a � CC y:. � �'�''�.. V .LC3 .� O.LSS �r„ . y� L L: i�.
i+� e Q» o C� . • O. �•. ctt • Q. _» a cC CL e�:. a
�
O
'�
CLS
�
a�
�
cts
❑
.�
�
�
�
c
�
N
L
�
�
�
L
.�u
c�s
c
�
N
.�
oA
O
�
.cCS
C
O
�
c
�
r
�
'C O
� �
au y
Q y G�
C y
Q O ,n
� � � �
: ca
� � � '_
� �� o
w ���
O � �.. :°
C!� !�`. � � ��,r„
� ^r � o
y� � -" O
�
� r -d �
U
� '� � �
Q �� Coa
.� c. �: ' oo .� �
c -�
� � E'�L>,
L ��-• � ,"� � �
� � y � � w
� > C
o � F�°c� �
\. �-- ,
p :�i
�
�' � � %. � �
�X� t�`'� -1 \
.�. t, . �.�r .
�. _� .� �
� � .�-':
_ -'r�,�� ±�: �
i;`'�
`
r`
.,� ,�„ . ., ,
---
�`'' "^- .� _ � --- '~ J
s
+ �' � , �:�+ i �. • ,. i � �.. � '�,. � � .
A REPORT TO THE GOVERNOR
e
The Minnesota Round Table on Sustainable Development
is a diverse group of 30 business, environmental and community
leaders appointed by GovernorArne H. Carlson to consider how
Minnesotans can safeguard their long-term environmental,
economic and social well-being. Their mission is to serve as a
catalyst for sustainable development, to foster public and private
pa�tnerships and reach out to Minnesotans across the state, and to
stimulate interest in and communicate the importance of achieving
sustainable development. The Round Table is part of the
IVlinnesota Sustainable Development Initiative, launched
in 1993 by Governor Carlson, the Environmental Quality Board and
the commissioner ofTrade and Economic Development, and
coordinated by the Environmental Quality Board staff at Minnesota
Planning.
Investing in Minnesota's Future: An Agenda for Sustaining Our
Quality of �ife was prepared by the Minnesota Round Table on
Sustainable Development with assistance from John Wells, Round
Table director, and Rolf Nordstrom, assistant director. Other
contributors included Round Table staff Susan Hass and Satu Zoller
of Minnesota Planning, facilitator Roger Williams of the Office of
Dispute Resolution and Tim Nolan of the Office of Environmental
Assistance.
' The Round Table dedicates this report to the memory of Patty
Baker, a charter member and consistent advocate for raising the
public's awareness of population and resource consumption issues.
On request, Investing in Minnesota's Future: An Agenda for
Sustaining Our Quality of Life will be made available in alternate
format, such as Braille, large print or audio tape. ForTTY, contact
Minnesota Relay Service at 800-627-3529 and ask for Minnesota
Planning.
For more information or for paper or electronic copies of Investing
in Minnesota's Future: An Agenda for Sustaining Our Quality of
Life, contact:
MINNESOTA PLAiVN1iVG ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD
658 Cedar St.
St. Paul, MN 55155
612-296-3985
www.mnplan.state.mn.us
May 1998
This report is printed with soy-based ink on paper with 100 percent
post-consumer recycled content.
C"
"Over dte long run, a
successful soctety is
supported by botlr a
healthy eca:omy and a
healthy environment,
which, i�: turn, are
supported by tke lrealth
of tl:e efimmunity. Eacl:
elemertt is one critical
--�eg !lrat supports a d:ree-
( �egged sfaol. All t/tree
legs of tice stool must be
stratg>. Re�nove any nf
the three legs a�rd tke
stool will soon collapse."
Source: A Citizen's Guide to
Achieving a Healthy Communit};
Economy and Environment,
Center for Compatible
Emnomic Development,
The Nature Conservancy,
Leesburg, Virginia, 1996.
(Used with permission.)
. .. .
,,, �
. � _ ,:
. . , _..,. ._ _ - _ .
. 7. �.�� 1 � � . ..
. � ._ _ �'. : . .: . ,.:: ,
, : .
. .1 . 4 � . . . . .
•' . � '":i ' f ^' , , . .,
.. .i ;: � .� , � � y �� . . . ..
. _ _.. . ..:' 'y... , ._. ± .. .
_.�F S Si 1 A LE EV L_ E T� 1 ES 'T�
The Minnesota Round Table on Sustainable Development offers five principles as
,;guideposts'along the path .of sustainable development. They are:
:: .. ,.. _... _�_ . . _ .:_. .. :� . . _: _�,.. _
� Global in�terdependenc�. Economic prosperity, ecosystem health, liberry and
;-justice are linked, and our long-term well-being depends on maintaining all four.
,:' Local decisions must be informed by their regionaf and global context.
..,,,;` - _,_s_ �: , , :.. _. .,,
- :::
__.:Ste�ardshep Stewardship requires�the recognition_thatwe are all caretakers of
�: 'the environment and economy for the benefit of present and future generations.
=.-:We must balance the impacts of today's decisions with the needs of future
._, �--. , _ ;
. generations.
Cons�rvatsan. Minnesotans must maintain essential ecological processes,
`� biological diversity and life-support systems of the environment; harvest renewable
resources on a sustainable basis; and make wise and efficient use of our renewable
and non-renewable resources.
�' Inelicaiors. Minnesotans need to have and use clear goals and measurable
indicators based on reliable information to guide public policies and private
; actions toward long-term economic prosperity, community vitality, cultural diversity
` and healthy ecosystems.
.-- Shared responsibalaty All Minnesotans accept responsibility for sustaining the
-' environment and economy, with each being accountable for his or her decisions
-- = and actions, in a spirit of partnership and open cooperation. No entity has the right
to shift the costs of its behavior to other individuals, communities, states, nations
= or future generations. Full-cost accounting is essential for assuring shared
�: ;.responsibility. - _
Investin�� in in�esota',s �'utu�°e
Summary............................................................................................................................. 3
Introduction........................................................................................................................ 5
ANew Path ......................................................................................................................... 8
Six Challenges to Sustainable Development in Minnesota ................................................. 11
Appendices.......................................................................................................................... 20
Milestones of Sustainable Development Progress in Minnesota ........................................ 24
Members of the Minnesota Round Table on Sustainable Development ...... inside back cover
C
� L �•�
This report is about the long-term future of Minnesota and what it will take to keep it
prosperous over time. It offers a new path toward progress, where the well-being of citizens
and communities, the health and diversity of the environment and the economy, and the
future of our children and grandchildren are all of paramount importance. The Minnesota
Round Table on Sustainable Development invites Minnesotans to consider this new path.
Governor Arne H. Carlson appointed 30 business, environmental and community leaders to
the Round Table on January 17,1996 and asked them ta identify practicaf ways of achieving
economic and community vitality while sustaining the quality of Minnesota's environment.
The Round Table's recommendations are based on the recognition that Minnesotans do not
need or want to choose between good jobs, vital communities and a healthy environment.
They want all three.
To ensure that future Minnesotans might indeed have all three, the Round Table identified five
principles of sustainable development. The principles underscore that the economy, the
environment and society are profoundly interconnected, and that in today's world, we need to
recognize the implications of these interconnections if we are to prosper over the long run.
The Round Table also identified a series of strategies consistent with these principles. The
� strategies, including the priorities which follow, are intended to ensure safe, abundant
� � supplies of food and fiber, clean air, land and water; and healthy families, communities and
economies long into Minnesota's future. The Round Table's priorities are:
1. Raise awareness and understanding
Elevate and expand discussions about sustainable development in both the public and
private sectors by convening issue and listening forums that draw together diverse
interests around specific concerns. Encourage the use of community round tables to
provide a focal point for local and regional discussions on environmental, economic and
social issues.
Integrate sustainable development concepts into the curricula of K-12, universities and
technical schools so that students will be prepared to make better choices as citizens and
consumers. Develop easy-to-use teaching packages so that teachers can use sustainable
development concepts to meet current graduation standards.
Inform consumers about the life-cycle environmental impacts of the products they
purchase. Information should include product content, proper handling and correct
disposal. Encourage businesses to become active participants in labeling efforts to
accomplish this goal.
An Agenda for Sustaining Our Quality of Life 3
GRAVEL PIT
RETURPdED TO PRAIRIE
at Buffalo River State
Park in Clay County. A
38-acre gravel pit last
mined in the I950s will
be returned to prairie by
a partnership among the
Department of Natural
Resources, CCay County
Board, CAMAS, Inc.
and The Nature
Conservancy.
.�
2. fVleasure progressto�nrard sustainable development
Continually improve and update Minnesota Milestones, the state's progress measures,
to help people understand the fundamental interconnections between Minnesota's long-
term environmental, economic and community well-being.
Develop an integrated report card that provides Minnesotans with clear,
understandable information on the state's progress toward;sustainable development. The
report card should provide information on companies, communities and other institutions.
Engage communities in understanding and monitoring their economic, environmental
and social health, and that of their neighborhoods, by developing model indicators and
sharing information for their use.
3. Encourage sustaonable communities
Develop a team approach to community assistance by "supporting a Sustainable
Community Partnership modeled after the successful Minnesota Design Team. The
partnership would be made up of private and public professionals who can help interested
communities to design and measure sustainable development practices.
Provide the incentives needed to get people, communities and state agencies to join in
the Community-Based Planning process, making the new framework attractive, helpful
and meaningful. This effort should include 5ufficient financial and technicaf assistance to
meet community needs.
4. Engage and empower business
■ Develop state-of-the-art methods for assessing full life-cycle costs and environmental
effects of activities and products.
■ Establish regulatory standards based on environmental and public health outcomes
and good science — not on end-of-pipe technical solutions. Introduce harm- and risk-
based approaches that are responsive to differences in ecoregions and the latest advances
in scientific knowledge.
Establish a special commission to examine tax policy, including the merits and
liabilities of a controlled and focused revenue-neutral shift in taxes - from income,
properry, capital investment and payroll taxes, for example, to taxes on pollution and
waste. The commission also would be asked to assess how the tax system could provide
incentives, such as the selective use of tax tredits, that encourage socially responsible
sustainable practices in business, agriculture and forestry.
5. Create new institutions and approaches
Establish a Minnesota Center for Sustainable Development outside of government and
charge the center with providing leadership across sectors and institutions in pursuit of
sustainable development in Minnesota. �
■ Develop the concept of a sustainable development note analogous to the fiscal note
(which assesses fiscal implications of a legislative proposal) to aid (egislators in assessing
legislative initiatives.
6. Understand connections between long-term economic and environmental
health, and the issues of liberty and justice
Convene a forum of people representing a wide range of ages and backgrounds to
discuss the connection between liberty and justice and long-term economic and
environmental sustainability.
4 Investing in Minnesota's Future
C�
�.
The Minnesota Round Table on Sustainable Development invites you to join in the
conversation about a Minnesota future that is sustainable. Most Minnesotans want a future
full of opportunity, prosperity, security, diversity, beauty and respect. These are, we believe,
essential elements of a sustainable future.
We are convinced that a new way of thinking called sustainable development is needed if we
are to find this future.
Most Minnesotans understand that there can be no choosing between good jobs, vital
communities and a healthy environment. They want all three. According to a 1996 survey
sponsored by the Office of Environmental Assistance, 61 percent of respondents disagreed
with the idea that Minnesota must ease environmental protection policies to attract and keep
good jobs and compete with other states.
When asked to describe what makes a high quality of life, more respondents mentioned a
healthy environment than safety, financial security and health. And when offered a brief
definition of sustainable development, 76 percent of respondents felt it "very closely" or
"somewhat closely" reflected their own views. Citizens are demanding more sustainable
approaches to resource use and economic and community development.
` ?Although definitions of sustainable development vary, the definition adopted by the U.N.
Commission on Environment and Development in 1987 is the most widely used. According to
the U.N., sustainable development "meets the needs of the present without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their own needs."
Adopting this definition in Minnesota law in 1996, the Legislature added that sustainable
development "maintains or enhances economic opportunity and community well-being while
protecting and restoring the natural environment upon which people and economies depend"
(Minnesota Statutes, Section 4A.07).
Three points lie at the foundation of a sustainable approach to the future:
■ It is long-term. It is not so much for today as for tomorrow, and not so much for us as for
our children and our grandchildren. .
It asks for changes in thought, outlook, policy, priorities and behavioc While the principles
of sustainable development are long-term, they call for actions today and in the near future if
we are to reach the goal of a sustainable Minnesota.
■ It offers great opportunity for those who find and adopt sensible win-win steps to efficient
use of resources, whether fiscal, economic, natural or community.
These are, we believe, essential elements of.a sustainable future. The search for a future
achieved through sustainable development is not an academic exercise. It's an outlook that
_ affects the choices we make daily as a part of living — including our political choices. The
( iearch for a sustainable future is not by nature a partisan topic. It is, however, a vision that
���`--'should inform our choices as voters.
An Agenda for Sustaining Our Quality of Life 5
3M CHIEP EXECUTIVE
ARTICULATES BUSINESSES'
ROLEIN SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT
Acl:ieving sustainability
is not or:ly part of 3N1's
missioii staten:ent, it is
rejlected in a new book
cv-autleored by CEO
L.D. DeSimo►:e: Eco-
efficiency: The Business
Link to Sustainable
Development The book
advocates busi�:ess
activities that create
economic value while
reducing ecologica!
impact and resource use.
LAKE PHALEN GORRIDOR
IPIITIATIVE
While many
communities replace
open space and wetlands
witl: shopping centers,
St. Paul's East Side is
turning that common
occurrence around by
demolisJzing a defunct
strip mall to make way
for the Ames Lake
Wetland. The
redevelopment also
includes remediating
polluted lands, returning
them to productive use,
improving adjacent
residential and
commercial areas and
improving local work
force skills to increase
� ,- a , r� �. � �, .� ,., �
Minnesota Milestones: 1996 Progress Report outlined progress toward a broad range of
social, economic and environmental goals that Minnesotans defined in 1992. Of the 20 goals,
progress was positive for nine, negative or mixed for seven; information was lacking for four.
Despite these findings, a more hopeful picture emerges when we look at the number and
breadth of new efforts to achieve sustainable development.
On the state level, for example, we see a new sustainable development focus in agriculture
and forestry as well as a more flexible, outcome-based approach to environmental regulation.
We also see more outreach to citizens and communities through both electronic and
traditional media. A new effort is underway to rethink our measures of success and to refocus
on making communities livable. Government has increased its commitment to collaboration
and partnership in addition to its traditional role as enforcer. And governmental focus is `
shifting from single purpose to comprehensive programs, from unilateral to collaborative
planning, and from top-down to bottom-up initiatives.
At the local level, we see people deciding to take control of their community's future in an
increasingly global world. Communities such as the urban neighborhoods of Hamline-Midway
in St. Paul or Bridal Veil in Minneapolis; the small towns of Cass Lake, Embarrass and Two
Harbors; and the counties of Crow Wing, Steele and Olmsted have all committed to plans and
projects for sustainable development.
Nonprofit organizations have initiated discussions leading to new approaches, plans and
policies. For example, The 1000 Friends of Minnesota played a leading role in developing and
generating support for the Community-Based Planning Act. The citizen-driven Big Woods
Project has proposed an ordinance designed to protect the three main natural areas near
Northfield and,to promote compatible and sustainable ecosystem uses. The Northern Citizens
League and the Urban Ecology Coalition have raised questions about what sustainable
development can and should mean for their communities.
eraProymenr. The business community, too, has taken strides to make more with less, to waste less and to
fruitfully use what once went to waste. It has saved millions of dollars in the process. Today,
for example, Andersen Windows makes window frames out of what once was waste sawdust.
Network Systems Corporation is another of many corporations that has found waste reduction
profitable, reducing packaging waste and initiating a comprehensive source reduction
program to reduce waste at points throughout the life of each NSC product.
These examples of progress may be the first indications of an era of governance, commerce and
civic involvement in which every act is inherently sustainable and restorative.
_ \.
6 Investing in Minnesota's Future
� �
i� 1 , :�; r� � � f
How can �llinnesotans shape a future that is desirable and sustainable? Governor Arne H.
Carlson asked 105 citizens this question in 1993. These citizen (eaders participated in seven
teams studying topics central to Minnesota's future — from agriculture to residential
development, from energy to manufacturing. They held the first citizen discussions of the
Minnesota Sustainable Development Initiative, discussions that led to a vision for a
sustainable Minnesota (see page 10). •
In 1996, Govemor Carlson appointed 30 business, environmental and community (eaders to
the Minnesota Round Table on Sustainable Development. He asked them to build on the
Initiative's earlier work by identifying practical approaches that the people of Minnesota
might embrace to achieve this vision of sustainable development.
The Round Table's objectives are to increase public awareness of what sustainable
development means, why it is necessary and what its benefits are; and to develop and
communicate practical ways to make and measure progress toward sustainable development.
The group adopted a three-fold mission:
To serve as a catalyst for sustainable development.
To foster public and private partnerships.
�'To reach out to Minnesotans across the state to stimulate interest in and communicate the
importance of achieving sustainable development.
�_.._,,
( ) The Round Table also identified three key areas of study:
To learn what makes a given community an enduring place to live and work. The Round
Table formed the Sustainable Communities Committee to consider this question.
To come to terms with haw land use decisions are made, and how they might be made in
a more sustainable manner. The Round Table established the land Use Committee to tackle
these issues.
To understand the barriers that discourage businesses from adopting sustainable
development practices and technologies. The Round Table created the Economics and
Incentives Committee to find these answers.
This report combines the findings of each committee to explain how individuals, communities,
businesses and government can contribute to a lasting and prosperous future.
An Agenda for Sustaining Our Quality of Life %
COLONIAL CRAF1', INC.
Tltu $20 million
company is perhaps the
frst manufacturer of
hardwood products
drawn from temperate
forests certif ed as
sustainably managed.
Certification means
foresters are managing
for a sustainab[e yield,
maintaining the diversity
and integrity of the
ecosystem, ar:d producii:g
socioeconomic benefts
for tke community. The
company sees
certiftcatiort as perhaps
the best way to
guarantee the
perpetuation of healthy
forests, the company's
prosperity arsd that of its
eMployees.
RENVILLE TURNS WASTE
ENERGY IfilTO EGOfiIOMIC
DEVELOPMEiNT
The City of Renville
purchases excess hot
water heat from the
Southern Minnesota
Beet Sugar Cooperative's
sugar beet processirsg
plant at Tess than
ha[f tlee cnst of other
Safe, abundant supplies of food and fiber; clean air, land and water; and healthy families,
communities and economies - these are Minnesota trademarks, and the keys to a
sustainable future. Yet today's concerns about labor and housing, increasing properry taxes,
and land-use patterns that threaten farm land and natural areas suggest challenges that the
state must overcome if we are to retain the quality of life most of us now enjoy and to create
similar opportunities for others.
Sustainable development requires citizens to consider fundamental changes in the way they
define social progress, do business and protect the environment. But what is the right path to
sustainable development and how can Minnesotans be certain they are on it?
The Round Table devoted much energy to addressing this question. Three kinds of tools
provide the answer. principles, policies and indicators.
�:eac sou��es. �n rum, principles are general guideposts along the path. A set of rules for long-term economic,
it sells wl�t was once environmental and social well-being, the principles reflect values most Minnesotans share. The
"waste heaP'to an Round Table's principles are presented in the opening pages of the report because we believe
aquaculture company, they are the keys to a sustainable future.
`N`nAq"a F`Sne"eS, The principle of global interdependence stems from the belief that the economy, the
tltereby reusing precious environment, and society are profoundly interconnected. This principle is often forgotten �+
water and energy when, in the pursuit of simplicity and focus, we segment the whole to understand its parts. In
resources and spurring today`s world, we need to recognize the implications of our decisions in the context of
regional and global realities.
local economic
de"et°pme"t. We bear responsibilities to act as caretakers for future generations (stewardship), to conserve
_ ecosystem functions that maintain clean air and water, wild places, animals and plants. We
also must conserve resources (conservation). Only by setting goals, and identifying and
measuring indicators can we chart our progress (indicators). Finally, we must accept the costs
of our own behavior and not expect others to bear them (shared respon5ibility).
Policies will help us stay on a path to sustainable development. If Minnesota is to adopt
more sustainable approaches to environmental protection and economic and community
development, policymakers will need new criteria to guide their decisions. Policies must be
based upon a long-term perspective and flexible approaches that address root causes in a
systematic, equitable and accountable manner. They should be self-regulating and should
provide incentives to do the right thing.
Indicators provide a tangible basis for tracking and understanding our progress. First, what
gets measured tends to get done. We see progress in terms of its measures: if we track the
wrong things, we may get the wrong impression of how we are doing. Secondly, it can be
difficult to tell succe5s from failure. Unrecognized success may not be rewarded or repeated.
Without indicators, even the lessons of failure can be lost.
a
8 Investing in Minnesota's Future
���
�' �ney_encourage eooperatecen among diverse mterests, �: �
. .._;. _.. __ ,. .; . ;
.' rather than_ relying on regulatory mandates, in :situations where
'.,� _::cooperation can achieve the;same or better outcomes than : ��
__: _; .. .. . :, .
_.. � .
, mandates. . _. _ �: - ; .
.,_: _. .,
.
-,�, �. They ailow regtetaiory flexibiliiy based on public-private
` ) consensus and commitment to long-term goals that emphasize -
. __:.
. sustainable outcomes rather than prescribing "do's" and °don'ts." :
. . . . .. ,.. .. . -
,.. , - . .. .; .
�. .
�."They reward res�urce efficiency as well as financial .
>: efficiency. = � � �` ,:,-� � �;
. _;, .
' �. _ , . _ . - . , . . . . ,.
- ; -. , . .,,_ . . , , ..:: . _
" They provide a transition away from unsustainable -�
� >behaviors. �
��` ' _
. . _` ._ ;, �- _. . .
; , . .. > .. •.
= _They promote.an eco(og�ca9_,economy that is based on :� T
, � . ;
' �.high�efficiency, low waste production and consumption, and �; `
� . .. , .
`feedback signals (usually i"n the form of prices) that produce
, ,
;_�;outcomes that.are best fo'r the environment, businesses antl the: :: ..`
` �'broader communiry . _
,_:a.... „_ ._ ..�. . . ,. � .� ,� �.., . , .� . _ � . �.._ ., , ... .
An Agenda for Sustaining Our Quality of Life 9
MINNESOTA PORE5T5
MEET INTERNATIONAL
STANDARDSFOR
SUSTAINABILITY
M��re tltan 5�0,000 acres
of forest i�i Aitkiir
Cnunty> jvintiv nranaged
by the Aitkin County
Land Departn:ent and
the Depart�ne�rt nf'
Natural Resources, have
been certified as
sustainably �nanaged Gy
Smartt�'ond, a Neiv 3'a•k-
hased, i�:depe�:derrt
certification conrpa�ry.
Certificatioi: is Gased on
long-lerrn forest
�nuuugement,
mainte►rance of
ecosystem integrity arrd
provision of'
socioeconontic Ge�rejr"ts
to the comnuuzitv.
MAHTOMEDI LAUNCHES
CITY-WIDE EFPORT TO
ACHIEVE SUSTAINABILITY
In workshops organized
and planned by citizens,
Mahtomedi's mayor,
other city representatives
and citizens have begun
a visioning process and
charted out steps to
ensure the city's long-
term sustairtability.
Next steps include
plm:ning beyond
traditional city budget
cycles, integrating
school board and city
plans and hiring
professionals witlt
backgrounds in
sustainability principles
and practices.
Minnesota Milestones, th�,state's long range progress measures, focuses on the need to track
results and outcomes so government can be efficient and effective in spending taxpayer �
dollars and meeting citizen needs. The concepts apply equally well to businesses and other
non-governmental activities.
An effective indicator tends to measure progress fundamental to the resilience and viability of
a company or community. It demonstrates links between the environmental, economic and
social elements of an issue; it does not measure only one side of this three-part equation. It is
based on reliable and timely information, is understandable and accepted by the people in the
community, and is long-term.
1 � Investing in Minnesota's Future
C.
r�
�
�:
F
� :� ,;/ = / �/'.
,
s.� � � . � �
, _ �
: -- . ; -�i` ` 4 :
�� � _/ `/ .', � � ,, �er ,/
� � �
�` � � �� �'LL
The Round Table believes Minnesotans face a series of profound challenges if they are to pass
on a high quality life to their children and grandchildren. These challenges are laid out in the
next several pages, each followed by one or more critical steps and strategies. We must begin
to implement these strategies today because waiting will only make the needed changes
more costly and difficult, and some may take years, if not decades, to put in place.
} � / ��; / u', J'
i
Understand the itnportance and benefits of sustainable development.
The Round Table found that, although.pockets of understanding and experience exist in the
state, the term sustainable development is sometimes unknown, misunderstood or viewed
with suspicion by organizations, communities and Minnesotans. Sustainable development will
not happen until its eoncepts and practices are better understood and more widely accepted.
't; �
—'To achieve sustainable development, individuals and organizations need to make choices that
are not only good economically, but are also good for the environment and the broader
community as well. As a practical matter, this challenge is about people deciding to improve
the resource efficiency of what they make and buy, reducing unnecessary consumption and
waste, and acting to eliminate pollution and poverry.
CRIT'IC�4L STEP
Provide a broad range of oppartunities for learning about
sustainable development concepts and practices.
To achieve sustainable development, we will need to rethink our activities — from the ways
we make, move and use products to the way we produce and consume energy and food, use
land, and move about. A successful shift toward such lasting development will require that
educational, community, governmental and professional institutions incorporate sustainable
development principles. All sectors of society will need to grapple with the interconnections
between business success, environmental health and social concerns.
S1'RATEGIES
Elevate and expand discussions about sustainable development in both the public and
private sectors by convening issue and listening forums that draw together diverse interests
� '" �round specific concerns. �
�. _,� Encourage the use of community round tables to provide a focal point for local and
regional discussions on environmental, economic and social issues.
An Agenda for Sustaining Our Quality af Life 11
In 1995,
ANDERSEM CORPORATIOM,
in Bayport, Minnesota,
received certification
from Green Seal, t/te
natio�eal enviraunental
labeling organization,
for 2l models of eitergy-
efftcient windows and
patio doors. Anderser:
l:as made other strides
toward becomiitg a
sustainable ei:terprise by
implementir:g a wide
rang>e of poflutio�:
prevention projects tltat
save the company more
than .�1.4 mil[ion
an�:ua�ty.
CITIES MANAGEMENT, INC.
creates eiivironmental
and econamic efficiencies
for its clients througlc
pollution prevention,
environmentally benign,
reusable and recyclab[e
products, energy and
water efficiency, non-
toxic pest control and
lawn care, and the
recycling of glass,
aluminum and building
materials.
:.
Tlre Legislative
Commissioi: on
Minnesota Resources
Initiate a public conversation on population growth and demographic changes and their
effects on Minnesota's economy, natural resources and social dynamics.
■ Ask Minnesota educational institutions to join with businesses, trade associations and
government in providing information to the public about how to achieve sustainable
development.
Engage children in conversations about their future and about sustainable development,
using vehicles such as periodic youth summits to understand and address their concerns and
to build their understanding, involvement and support for sustainable development.
Integrate sustainable development concepts into curricula of K-12, university and
technical schools so that students will be prepared to make better choices as citizens and
consumers. Develop easy-to-use teaching packages so that teachers can use sustainable
development concepts to meet current graduation standards.
■ Inform consumers about the life-cycle environmental impacts of the products they
purchase. Information should include product content, proper handling and correct disposaL
Encourage businesses to become active participants in labeling efforts to accomplish this
goal.
Engage the media in communicating the importance of sustainable development and the
practical steps individuals and organizations can take toward achieving it.
■ Identify and publicly celebrate individuals and households, organizations and businesses,
communities and governments that have made outstanding contributions to Minnesota's
long-term environmental, economic and community health.
./ i i i �r
.
Nieasure progress toward sustainable development.
Minnesota is a pioneer in the development of ineasures for determining socioeconomic well-
being. But the Round Table found that existing measures neither adequately intorporate the
dimension of long-term sustainability nor accurately depict the interdependence of economic,
social and environmental trends.
has funded development �Ne cannot overstate the value of ineasuring progress toward sustainable development.
o fQ Indicators provide a concrete way for people to envision sustainable development and to
work toward it. To make the transition toward sustainable development, individuals and
MINNESOTA 6ENUINE organizations will need to improve the ways they measure success.
PR06RE55 INOICATOR,
a neiv measure of
economic progress, to
better reflect social and
environmental
contributio�zs to the
state's quality of life.
CRITICAL SYEP
Take new steps to rneasure success in IViinnesota.
r �
C"
Continually improve and update Minnesota Milestones, the state's progress measures, to
help people understand the fundamental interconnections between Minnesota's long-term
environmental, economic and community well-being. -
■ Establish a baseline that details where Minnesota is today in its progress toward
sustainable development. This baseline should include indicators such as waste generated and j�-
energy used per capita and per unit of output. Businesses should also consider the economic l,`
advantage of doing this for their own operations. _
YZ Investing in Minnesota's Future
Require state agencies to measure their performance and submit repo►t cards to the
'�islature every two years. As part of this effort, agencies might be asked to develop and use
-�pecific, measurable indicators, tailored to individual programs, as a way of tracking their
contributions to sustainable development.
■ Develop an integrated report card that provides the public with clear, understandable
information on the progress of the state toward sustainable development. The report card
should provide information on companies, communities and other institutions.
� Expand and integrate a statewide system of ineasures designed to help people understand
the value of renewable and non-renewable natural resources as natural capital. Such a system
would also help ensure that these resources are conserved for the benefit of future generations.
■ Engage communities in understanding and monitoring their economic, environmental and
social health, and that of their neighborhoods, by developing model indicators and sharing
information for their use.
�." / /" ,+�' � �/� ��/'
�
Shape a sustainable future in and through Minnesota cornmunities.
The Round Table noted that recent legislation encourages the development of sustainable
communities. A few successful case studies also exist. But this isn't enough: if communities
are to become sustainable, they must have access to financial and technical assistance. They
also need a framework to help them incorporate the goal of sustainability into the entire
range of public and private activities.
1
_� munity leaders make choices affecting the use of land, the provision of infrastructure and
the location of homes and businesses. They need help to make these decisions in ways that
create communities which are more livable, economically prosperous and environmentally
sustainable places to live and work.
CR9i1C�4L S'iEP
Help communities meet their long-ierm needs by delivering state seovices
in an integrated fashion.
S7'R�4TEGIES
■ Develop a team approach to community assistance by supporting a Sustainable
Community Partnership modeled after the successful Minnesota Design Team. The partnership
would be made up of private and public professionals who could help interested communities
design and me�sure sustainable development practices.
Allow communities to use a single application process to access and integrate the various
types of social, economic and environmental assistance provided by the state.
■ Permit state agencies to collaborate and fund integrated community projects that addres5
environmental, economic and social issues. Projects should be rewarded by outcomes rather
than adherence to rigid programmatic rules. Tie community funding to the ability to meet the
specific baseline criteria of sustainability.
,� ,, Identify the types of environmental, economic and community funding currently available
(�ughout the state, and redirect a percentage of those funds toward collaborative
An Agenda for Sustainir:g Our Quality of Life 13
sTee�e coun�rv
busi�:esses, farmers,
communitv leaders a�:d
citizens work toward
sustainability with /eelp
from tlie Off:ce of
Environmental
Assistance. A diverse
coalition of interests is
finding iru:ovative ways
to prevent pollution,
reduce energy use,
improve local busi�:ess
performa�:ce aird
educate themselves and
others aborrt
opportu�:ities for
improving the county',s
eitvironmer:t, eco�romy
and qualiry of life over
the long-terur.
NORTNERN COUNTIES
LAND USE
COORDIMATING BOARD
is devefoping 10 model
county plans based upon
the pri►tciples of
sustainable development
and scientific
assessment.
community initiatives. These initiatives should have environmental, economic and social
A benefits. They should also implement plans created under the Community-Based Planning Act (
of 1997. \
5T. CLOUD CITI2EN5
ADVISORY COfNMITTEE
is helpiitg that
cornmunity design a city
ordinance to ensure that
remaining open space is
used in a way rhar ts
sensitive to the needs of
property owners, the
economy, the
environment and the
community.
,r
The
RIVER-FRIENDLY
FARMER PR06RAM,
sponsored by tlie
Minnesota A[tiance for
Crop Residue
Manage►nent and others,
has recognized 170
farmers who have
adopted farming
practices ti:at beneft
Minnesota's rivers while
►naintaining farm
CRITICAi.' STEP
Make the Community-Based Planning Act easy to use, attractive to follow,
antl responsive to community and state interests.
The 1997 law gives pioneering communities the opportunity to plan for their futures, with
help from the state. It provides voluntary, community-oriented means for engaging citizens
and local officials in charting the future of their neighborhoods, towns, region and state.
Active, meaningful community planning balances individual, business and public interests. This
voluntary approach to community-based planning is extremely important and must be given a
fair chance to succeed.
STR�ITEGlES
Provide the incentives needed to get people, communities and state agencies to join in the
Community-Based Planning process, making the new framework attractive, helpful and
meaningful. These incentives should include sufficient financial and technical assistance to
meet community needs.
Marshall existing state technical support for community planning. Coordinate and
integrate the various ways this support is made available to communities.
Think long-term and adopt a flexible approach to evaluating community plans. (
Communicate the importance of neighborhoods in community planning, and the \,._
importance of community planning to regions and the state.
■ Change course if community-based planning efforts are unable to prevent parts of the
state from growing at the expense of their neighbors, taxpayers, agriculture or the
environment.
; , 1 . • / ,
�
�Ilork with Minnesota businesses to shape a sustainable future.
p''od"��''`ry. The Round Table recognizes that Minnesota is home to many businesses that promote
sustainable development through their products or practices. But tax policies, regulatory
approaches and gaps in knowledge about product life cycles currently impede the shift to a
more sustainable economy for the state.
Our goal is to help businesses adopt sustainable practices and to challenge them, as they do
so, to help society as a whole work toward sustainable development. The present combination
of economic incentives and disincentives needs to be changed so that what is good for the
environment and the community at large is also profitable for business. All branches and
levels of government, as well as the private and nonprofifi sectors, must contribute to this
transition. Here, as elsewhere in these challenges, we see agriculture and forestry, as well as
manufacturing, services and nonprofits, as important sources of innovation.
j�{ Investing in Mii:nesota's Future
CG
.�
CRITIC�4L 5T'EP
Require government to use sustainable management practices.
Minnesota government should become a catalyst for sustainable business activiiy by creating
opportunities for sustainable business assistance and adopting its own sustainable practices.
STRATEGIES
■ Adopt best practices, giving preference to suppliers and approaches that suppo�t
sustainable development.
Adopt investment and procurement practices and policies that provide for continuous
improvement in pollution prevention and other sustainable development practices.
■ Establish guidelines for the sustainable design, construction, operation and maintenance
of publicly financed buildings.
Integrate state economic development and environmental protection programs, focusing and
coordinating loan and grant programs to encourage sustainable investments.
Provide technical and financial assistance.
Minriesota business, trade associations, educational institutions and government should
provide technical assistance on sustainable practices and processes. This assistance should
also be coordinated and combined with financial incentives. As appropriate, these efforts
i
'-hould be directed at businesses with limited internal resources to promote sustainable
"��� _,.�ctivities on �their own.
ST6t�4'TEGIES
■ Create a sustainable business capital fund that uses sustainable development criteria.
■ Build partnerships between communities and businesses. Each needs the information,
tools and technical expertise that can only be provided by the other.
Involve citizens and neighborhoods in developing better relationships with businesses and
communities. Support cooperative undertakings with financial and technical assistance.
Provide financial and technical assistance to help corporations integrate sustainable
practices and processes that enhance energy efficiency and resource productivity.
Provide access to the information and tools necessary to investigate and employ pollution
prevention, design for the environment, environmental cost accounting, product stewardship
and eco-efficiency concepts. Partner with schools and nonprofits to make this happen.
Make information available on the profitability of healthy workplace practices and work
with citizens and community leaders to meet community and environmental needs.
Compile and communicate information on successful sustainable business activities,
including case studies, best practices, lessons learned and implementation strategies.
■ Further develop coordinated assistance through collaborative programs between
government and business-association service providers. Provide outreach and referral services
to help businesses access these programs. �'
Urge business suppliers to adopt sustainable business practices themselves and to
�ncourage the adoption of these practices by the companies they serve.
�, � Develop state-of-the-art methods for assessing full life-cyde costs and environmental
effects of activities and products.
An Agenda for Sustaining Our Quality of Life IJr
GUIDESTAR PROJECT
at the Deparbnent of
Transpartation and the
City of Cambridge has
turrsed tlte vacant Isanti
County Courtltouse into
a "telework center." The
center will house 2�
department staff
members, along with
public and private
tenants.
connnnuN�nr
ENVIRONMENTAL
TEGHNICAL ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM
Launched by Citize�ts for
a Better Enviro�tment,
this progra�n ltelps
citizens conduct effective
environmental initiatives
and become we1[-iisformed
partrters with local
brisinesses by providing
the technical expertise
many residents lack.
� '
,;
Continue to reform the regulatory framework as a means of encouraging
susfiainable business activity in il�innesota.
ENVIRONMENTAL Minnesota has been among the national leaders in pursuing regulatory reform that maintains
REGULATORY basic protections for human health and the environment, while encouraging continuous
ININOVATIONS ACT OF 1996 improvement and performance beyond the minimum. We urge the state to continue its efforts
offers individual to create a model regulatory system.
facilities, sectors of
i;zdttstry, govern:nental
units and whole
communities freedom
from rigid regulatory
requirements in
exchange for izigl:er
enviroronental
performance.
RAHR MALTIPNG COWiPANY
In Jmruary 1997,
Rahr Malting Company
of Slrakopee, �vorki�rg
with the Po[lution
Contro! Agency a�rd the
Ceriter for E��viro�:me�tta[
Advocacy, received one
of tlte �tatio�:'s first
pul[utant "tradirtg"
STRATEGIES
■ Establish regulatory standards based on environmental and public health outcomes and
good science — not on end-of-pipe technical solutions. Introduce harm- and risk-based
approaches that are responsive to differences in ecoregions and the latest advances in
scientific knowledge.
■ Encourage pollution prevention, life-cycle analysis, design for the environment, total
product responsibility and take back, and other system-wide approaches.
Break down the separate focus of regulatory laws, rules and enforcement on air, land and
water so that environmental impacts can be understood holistically.
� Move toward permit fees that are based on the detrimental effects caused by pollution.
■ Employ total cost-6enefit analysis as a tool in decision making.
■ Allow community-wide or area-wide emission standards based on environmental quality
and health goals, provided local impacts can be addressed or avoided.
■ Allow stakeholders a greater opportunity to provide input into the decision-making
process, and provide clear, understandable information about the state of the environment
and the effect, or potential effect, of business activity on both the environment and human
health.
■ Seek agreements among affected parties to encourage and allow innovation and
experimentation in developing and addressing regulations.
CRITICA� STEP
Rethink the framework of incentives used to encourage business in IVlinnesota.
permits. Thi.r allows the Minnesota should determine how the tax code can be employed to encourage sustainable
contpany tn reduce business activity. The current system tends to tax things society wants to promote, such as
soil erosior: and income, investment and properry, rather than things it wants to reduce, such as pollution and
agricultural runoff over-consumption of resources.
on sensitive laitds to
offset its new discharges
to tlte Minnesota River.
STRIA'iEG1E5
C
Establish a special commission to examine the merits and liabilities of a controlled and
focused revenue-neutral shift in taxes — from income, properry, capital investment and
payroll taxes, for example, to taxes on pollution and waste.
Direct the commission to determine how the tax system could be modified to provide
incentives to encourage socially responsible sustainable practices in business, agriculture and
forestry. These might include changes in land development, investment in new technology or
equipment, changes in practice or operations, changes in materials input and changes in _�
research and development.
i6 Investing in Minnesota's Future
Direct the commission to examine the potential for seJ�ctive use of tax credits to
( ')encourage use of sustainable development technology and practice. Similar credits could also
- be given for research into sustainable product development or management.
■ Direct the commission to consider which subsidies and tax expenditures could be reduced
or eliminated to pay for new tax credits, or whether taxes or fees on pollution or waste should
be increased to fund new credits.
� r / � � �/ l/�� /'
�,
Insiitutionaliae sustainable development concepts and prac�ices in Nlinnesota.
The Round Table recognizes that numerous small initiatives within the state focus on one or
more aspects of sustainable development. There is, however, a strong need to concentrate our
resources and attention to boost both public and private action in support of sustainable
development in Minnesota.
While the state has made major strides in understanding the principles of sustainable
development, many institutions have not begun to see its practical application or the
opportunities it offers to improve long-term perFormance.
CltITICAL STEP
Change the way public policies are made and implemented.
�� ��Ile need to ensure that government understands that it has a responsibility to facilitate
sustainable development.
STRA'PE6�6E5
Ask the Environmental Quality Board to coordinate implementation of Round Table
recommendations that affect the policies and operations of state government.
Evaluate the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act of 1973 to determine whether it fully
reflects sustainable development principles and how it might be more actively�implemented
through the state's environmental, economic and social policies.
■ Direct state agencies to suggest legislation that would modify their statutory missions and
create the necessary program changes so that principles of sustainable development can be
explicitty incorporated and addressed.
Develop the concept of a sustainable development note analogous to the fisEal note
(which assesses fiscal implications of a legislative proposal). The note would help legislators
to assess legislative initiatives.
■ Expand or change the environmental impact assessment process so that it fully integrates
the principles of sustainable development.
Once it is formally established, ask the Sustainable Community Partnership (an emerging
group of public and private interests devoted to helping communities achieve sustainability)
to develop a common understanding of sustainable development within state government.
Ask the Partnership to study how state agencies might contribute their respective strengths to
- Minnesota's overall sustainable development goals.
( > Provide sustainable development training for elected officials through local govemment
associations and other organizations, which would conduct workshops for newly elected officials.
An Agenda for Sustaining Our Quality of Life 1%
TAl[ING RQOT: STATE
AGEAICY EFFORTS TOWARD
SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPIWENT lN
Ii9/flIfUESOTA
is the E►evironmental
Quality Board's report
on state efforts to .
address sustainable
development principles.
The 19961aw also
codiftes a definition of
sustainable development
and asks �Ylinnesota
Planning to prepare a
local government
planning guide based
upon the principles of
sustainable development.
The Depardnent of
Natural Resources i:as
adopted an
ECOSYSTEM APPROACH
to sustainable
development, integrating
community a�td
ecoi:omic factors within
natural resources
management activities.
PHENIX
81000MPOSITES, INC.
in Mankato had gross
sa[es of over $1.5 million
in 1996. The innovative
manufacturer combines
low grades of waste paper
with soy beans to make
composite materials used
in furniture, flooring,
millwork, custom fcrtures,
displays and wall
systems.
UR6AN PARTNERSHIP
Honeywell, the
Honeywel! Foundation,
the Allina Foundation
and tke Minneapolis
Foundation are taking
action to battle crime
and better the Phillips
neigiiborhood by
leveling two square
b[ocks of run-down
6uildings and replacing
them with affordable,
owner-occupied homes
and townhouses. The
$Z2.7 million project
illustrates that being a
good corporate ciHzen
and neighbor is
considered an important
part of doing good
business.
Establish a Governor's Sustainable Community Award program in cooperation with couniy,
city and township associations. Award categories could honor outstanding neighborhood and �
community initiatives, as well as exemplary nonprofit, local business and state agency efforts.
This special recognition would go to those making continuous and simultaneous improvement
in economic, environmental and social conditions.
Incorporate sustainable development concepts into legislative forums under the auspices
of appropriate legislative committees.
Require the head of each major state agency to incorporate sustainable development
principles and practices into the agency's programs and activities, and to dedicate appropriate
staff resources to this end.
Reward state agencies and public employees for taking successful, flexible, integrated
approaches to meeting environmental, economic and social policy goals.
����'�A�. �g��
Challenge the business cotnmuniiy io engage in discussions about
its broader role in driving sustainable development.
The business community's commitment is key. Business must take the initiative to make its
activities sustainable and to help others do so as well. Businesses should be encouraged to
accept this challenge. Other community members should also be urged to challenge and work
with businesses so that society as a whole can move quickly toward sustainable development.
STR�4i°EGIES
Ask the business community to establish a round table and to support other forums that
encourage businesses to take responsibility for helping create a sustainable society.
Encourage the World Business Council to establish a North American office in Minnesota.
Link the activities of that office to the Minnesota Business Round Table, the Minnesota
Business Partnership and the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce.
CRI1'IC�1L STEP
Establish a new institution outside of government to aid in facilitating
sustainable development.
Sometimes, new concepts need new institutions to suppo�t them. While we are committed to
change within existing institutions — and consider such change essential — we also believe
that a new institution may be needed to help people and organizations understand and
pursue opportunities for sustainable development.
� :���,��
Establish a Minnesota Center for Sustainable Development as a public-private partnership
and charge it with providing leadership across sectors and institufiions in pursuit of
sustainable development in Minnesota.
o Assign the center responsibility for: a) monitoring public and private sector progress
toward sustainable development, including progress in implementing these challenges; .-
b) communicating the need for sustainable development; and c) collaborating with and -�
supporting others engaged in sustainable development activities.
l8 Investing in Minnesota's Future
,. �
; r
�' � / e/'� .a/' �
° .,''
Understand the connections between liberty and justice, and long-term
econornic and environmental health.
The Round Table believes that it has not adequately addressed the issues of liberty and justice.
The concept of liberty requires resped for individual freedoms, rights and responsibilities.
Justice means that all Minnesotans have an equal opportunity to enjoy clean water, air and
uncontaminated food, and, over time, to responsibly meet their needs for healthy family and
community systems, healthy natural systems and a prosperous economy.
These issues are at the heart of sustainable development. Yet discussions about sustainable
development tend to focus on the more obvious relationship between the environment and
the economy, often to the exclusion of the equally real connections between liberty and
justice, and economic and environmental health. Minnesota Milestones suggests that healthy
social conditions are just as important to Minnesota's long-term prosperity as maintaining a
healthy environment and economy. Indeed, we should be particularly concerned about young
people, as Minnesota's future depends on the well-being of our children today.
Expand public conversations that focus on social issues and their relationship
to economic and environtnental conditions.
�� �����E�'�S
■ Convene a forum of people representing a wide range of ages and backgrounds to di5cuss
the connection between liberry and justice and long-term economic and environmental
sustainability.
■ Discuss how the social goals in Minnesota Milestones affect, and are affected by,
economic and environmental conditions. Ask Minnesota Planning to consider the results of
this discussion when updating or reporting Milestones, so that readers may better understand
the connections between social issues and environmental and economic conditions.
Investigate whether a bias exists toward locating developments with potentially large
negative impacts, such as hazardous waste facilities, landfills and highways, in areas of
relative poverty. If such a bias exists, take steps to rectify it.
Encourage the business community to explore and communicate how businesses might
benefit from community partnerships and programs that enhance the workplace environment.
Hold public institutions accountable for ensuring that their decisions are scientifically
informed and open to public scrutiny. Decisions should lead to an equitable sharing of the
burdens they may impose.
Produce a list of critical questions about liberly and justice that people could ask
themselves about any given action or decision.
An Agenda for Sustairsing Our Quality of Life 19
THE GREEN INSTITUTE,
a nonprofit that
encourages new
eca:vmic opportunitv in
the Phillips
neighborhood of
Minneapolis, launched
tlre ReUse Cei:ter and
Demolition Services,
dedicated to salvaging
construction and solid
waste materials for
resale and reuse. Future
plans include the
Phillips Eco-Enterprise
Center, an eco-industrial
park devoted to f:oersing
and environmentally
sustainable businesses.
YELLOW BIKE COALITION
works with at-risk youth
and other volunteers to
transform unwanted
bikes into a free,
economical and
environmer:tally friersdly
transportation
alternative that provides
easy access to St. Paul
businesses, shopping
areas, restaura�tts
and trails.
�9
�"
. ��� ��� �, �� • �� ,; : ,E '� . ��. �. �. � �, � . .
, � ;
�:
,. , . _ ° �
Sustainable Forest Resources Act of 1995
calls for public-private pa�tnerships in protecting
and managing Minnesota's forest ecosystem
resources.
Metropolitan �ivable Communities Act of
1995 estabiishes a multi-million dollar program
aimed at brownfield redevelopment for the purpose
of urban revitalization, while in turn setting
metropolitan-wide goals for affordable housing.
Environmental Regulatory Innovations Act
of 1996 offers individual facilities, sectors of
industry, governmental units and whole
communities freedom from rigid regulatory
requirements in exchange for higher environmental
performance.
A 1996 law also codifies a definition of sustainable
development and calls for a state government
self-assessment based upon the principles of
sustainable development. Taking RooL� State
Agency Efforts Toward Sustainable Development in
Minnesota is the Environmental Quality Board's
report on these assessments.
The 1996 law asks Minnesota Planning to prepare
a local government planning guide based
upon the principles of sustainable development.
Community-Based Planning Act of 'i997
establishes state goals and grants for community
planning designed to encourage sustaina6le
development.
Energy and Sustainable Agriculture
Program helps farmers, researchers and educators
develop farm systems that are environmentally
sound, profitable and enhance the well-being of
farmers and communities.
2� Investing in Minnesota's Future
Guidestar Project at the Department of
Transportation and the City of Cambridge has
turned the vacant Isanti County Courthouse into a
„telework center.° The center will house 25
department staff members, along with public and
private tenants.
Office of Environmental Assistance publishes a
sustainable communities network biweekly
electronic newsletter, serving 1,400 people.
The Department of Natural Resources has adopted
an ecosystem approach to sustaina6le
development, integrating community and economic
factors within natural resources management (
activities. �` -
Public Utilities Commission and Department of
Public Service have asked electric utilities to include
the hidden costs of air pollution in integrated
resource planning for meeting future energy
demands.
Minnesota Milestones targets are being revised
to better reflect the principles of sustainable
development.
The Legislative Commission on Minnesota
Resources has funded development of a
IUlinnesota genuine progress indicator, a new
measure of economic progress, to better reflect
social and environmental contributions to the
state's quality of life.
C
I ��Z�I:��t�<�;Pl-��
� `�
' Lake Phalen Corridor Initiative. While many
communities replace open space and wetlands with
shopping centers, St. Paul's East Side is turning that
around by demolishing a defunct strip mall to make
way for the Ames Lake Wetland. The redevelopment
also includes remediating polluted lands, retuming
them to productive use, improving adjacent
residential and commercial areas and improving
local work force skills.
Big IAloods Project in Rice County has developed
a model ordinance designed to pFotect the three
main Big Woods natural areas and to promote
compatible and sustainable ecosystem uses.
City of Hutchinson has partnered with the
Minnesota Department of Transportation and the
Federal Highway Administration to create a"light
trafFic action plan" for the city placing priority
on walking, bicycling and transit.
Community Design Center's Women Food and
Fiber Project assists women in developing
_ business skills and promotes local economic
� � �development in food and fiber.
A St. Cloud citizens advisory committee is
helping that community design a city ordinance to
ensure that remaining open space is used in a way
that is sensitive to the needs of property owners,
the economy, the environment and the community.
Land Stewardship Projed's 1000 Friends of
Minnesota discusses options for improving
Minnesota's state land use framework and was
instrumental in passage of the Community-Based
Planning Act of 1997.
Northern Citizens League is a grassroots
organization exploring how Itasca County and
surrounding areas may utilize sustainable
development concepts.
Northern Counties Land Use Coordinating
Board is developing 10 model county plans based
upon the principles of sustainable development and
scientific assessment.
Olmsted County recently revised its general land
�,' �� e plan to focus on sustainable development
�. ��oncepts. The plan map was created with a
geographic information system that rates the
suitability of land for different uses.
Winona Couniy/LaCrescent and Houston/Fillmore
Counties areas Common Visions Projects are
building a common information base and a vision
for each area's economy and environment.
'Urban Ecology Coalition is a network of people
and organizations promoting neighborhood
collaboration, environmental education and
sustainable urban development in the Twin Cities.
Yellow Bike Coalition works with at-risk youth
and other volunteers to transform unwanted bikes
into a free, environmentally friendly transportation
alternative for easy access to St. Paul businesses,
shopping areas, restaurants and trails.
Community Environmental Technical
Assistance Program. Launched by Citizens for a
Better Environment in 1995, this program provides
technical expertise for citizens to conduct effedive
environmental initiatives and work with local
businesses. The program has empowered citizen
initiatives on watershed restoration, pollution
prevention, b�ownfield cleanup and neighborhood
beautification.
Mahtomedi Launches City-wide Effort to
Achieve Sustainability. In workshops organized
and planned by citizens, Mahtomedi's mayor and
other city and school officials have begun a
visioning process to ensure the city's long-term
sustainabiliiy. Next steps include planning beyond
traditional city budget cycles, integrating school
board and city plans and hiring professionals with
backgrounds in sustainability principles and
pradices.
Steele County Businesses, Faemers,
Community Leaders and Citizens Work
Toward Sustainability. With help from the Office
of Environmental Assistance, Steele County
Environmental Services is helping a diverse
coalition of interests find innovative ways to
prevent pollution, reduce energy use, improve local
business performance and educate themselves and
others about opportunities for improving the
county's environment, economy and quality of life
over the long-term.
An Agenda for Sr�staining Our Qriality of Life 21
A samp[ing
of activities in
sustainable
development
A sampling
of activities i,:
sustainable
develop�nent
51 55 AC�IVITIES
Honeywell, the Honeywell Foundation, the
Allina Foundation and the Minneapolis
Foundation are taking action to battle crime and
6etter the Phillips neighborhood by leveling two
square blocks of run down buildings and replacing
them with affordable, owner-occupied homes and
townhouses. The $12.7 million project illustrates
that being a good corporate citizen and neighbor
is considered an important part of doing good
business.
Automated Building Components, a supplier
of millwork products and services located in
Chanhassen, began in 1994 its successful shift
from solvent-based wood coatings to non-
hazardous water-based finishes. The company
reduced hazardous waste by 100 percent, volatile
organic compound emissions by 90 percent and
use of toxic chemicals by 90 percent, with an
annual savings of $60,000.
The River-Friendly Farmer Program
recognizes farmers who meet 10 farm
management criteria. The program has two main
goals: first, to pu6licize and promote farming
practices that benefit Minnesota's rivers while
maintaining farm productivity; and second, to
increase public awareness of farmers' efforts to
clean up the state's rivers. Sponsored by the
Minnesota Alliance for Crop Residue Management
and other public and private organizations, the
program has recognized 170 farmers so far.
Nlinnesota forests meet international
standards for sustainability. More than
550,000 acres of forest in Aitkin County, jointly
managed by the Aitkin County Land Department
and the Department of Natural Resources, have
been certified as sustainably managed by
SmartWood, a New York-based, independent
certification company. �ertification is based on
long-term forest management, maintenance of
ecosystem integrity and provision of
socioeconomic benefits to the community.
In 1995, Andersen Corporation, in Bayport,
Minnesota, received certification from Green Seal,
the national environmental labeling organization,
for 21 models of energy-efficient windows and
patio doors. Andersen has made other strides
toward becoming a sustainable enterprise by
22 Investing in Minnesota's Future
implementing a wide range of pollution prevention
projects that save the company more than $1.4
million annually.
Dufour's Cleaners in Northfield, Minnesota has
remained competitive and kept insurance costs in
check, in part, by improving its environmental
performance. Mr. Dufour has switched to using
plain water and mild soaps whenever possible and
using an efficient, computer-operated machine that
filters and redistills hazardous solvents used in the
operation. These steps protect his family, the
communiry and the environment.
Employee-owned Erickson's Diversified
Corporation operates 17 grocery stores and
pharmacies throughout Minnesota and Wisconsin.
In addition to reducing energy use, pollution and
waste at its stores, Erickson's built its new
headquarters on the banks of the St. Croix in
Hudson, WI, using the latest in sustainable building
design and materials.
Phenix Biocomposites, Inc. in Mankato had
gross sales of over $1.5 million in 1996. The
innovative manufacturer combines low grades of
waste paper with soy beans to make composite
materials used in furniture, flooring, millwork,
custom fixtures, displays and wall systems. The
company's manufacturing minimizes toxins and
waste, keeps waste paper and plastic out of
landfills, provides an alternative to virgin
hardwoods and c�eates another market for
Minnesota's renewable agricultural products.
Recyclights, Inc., receives, processes and recycles
fluorescent lamps and other mercury-containing
products, reclaiming phosphor powder, glass and
aluminum in addition to mercury. In 1996, its
Minnesota facility had revenue of $2.4 million. The
company has recycled over 17 million fluorescent
lamps to date, recovering 42,000 pounds of inercury
annually. The company also recycles its own pallets,
cardboard and other transport packaging.
�
Cities Nlanagement, Inc. is one of the first
property management firms in the country to
integrate sustainable, cost effective pradices into
the services it provides. The'company creates
environmental and economic efficiencies for its �
clients through pollution prevention,
� -, �
' environmentally benign, reusable and recyciable
products, energy and water efficiency, non-toxic
pest control and lawn care, and the recycling of
glass, aluminum and building materials.
Colonial Craft, Inc. This $20 million company is
perhaps the first manufacturer of hardwood
products drawn from temperate forests certified as
sustainably managed. Certification means foresters
are managing for a sustainable yield, maintaining
the diversity and integrity of the ecosystem, and
producing socioeconomic benefits for the
community. The company sees certification as
perhaps the best way to guarantee the
perpetuation of healthy forests, the company's
prosperity and that of its employees.
Hogs Your Way: Alternative Production
Systems for Minnesota Farmers. This
publication is available through the Minnesota
Instiiute for Sustainable Agriculture. It helps
individuals explore alternatives for hog production,
including how practicing hog farmers have profited
by using Swedish deep straw farrowing systems,
� '� pasture farrowing systems and hoop house
� , _ _, finishing systems.
The Green Institute. Founded in 1993 in one of
the state`s most ethnically diverse communities,
the nonprofit institute encourages new economic
opportunity in the Phillips neighborhood of
Minneapolis, while reducing the region's
environmental impact. The institute has launched
two new businesses, The ReUse Center and
Demolition Services, dedicated to salvaging
construction and solid waste materials for resale
and reuse. The Institute's latest and most ambitious
project is the Phillips Eco-Enterprise Center, a
three-acre, 64,000-square-foot eco-industrial park
devoted to housing and environmentally
sustainable businesses.
Rahr flnalting Company. In January 1997, Rahr
Malting Company of Shakopee received one of the
nation's first pollutant "trading" permits. This
allows the company to expand while creating
equal or better protection for the Minnesota River.
To ensure that the river's natural capacity for
handling wastes is not exceeded, the Pollution
;' Control Agency and the Center for Environmental
�,iAdvocacy worked with Rahr on an innovative
permit that combines the most restrictive emission
limits on the river with flexibility for Rahr in how it
meets those limits. In short, Rahr is reducing soil
erosion and agricultura) runoff on sensitive lands to
offset its new discharges to the Minnesota River.
Gravel Pit Returned to Prairie at Buffalo River
State Park in Clay County. A 38-acre gravel pit last
mined in the 1950s wiil be returned to prairie by a
partnership among the Department of Natural
Resources, Clay County Board, CAMAS, Inc. and The
Nature Conservancy. Additional goals of the project
are to develop cost effective methods for large
scale reclamation of abandoned gravel pits,
document the reclamation process for future use by
others and provide interpretation of gravel mining,
reclamation, and prairie restoration for park
visitors.
Renville Turns UVaste Energy into Economic
Development. The Southern Minnesota Beet
Sugar Cooperative built a sugar beet processing
plant just east of Renville in the mid 1970s.
Processing sugar beets produces an average of
10,000 gallons per minute of 120 degree water. The
valuable heat in that water used to be wasted,
dissipating from large cooling ponds. Today, the
City of Renville purchases that excess hot water
heat from the beet cooperative at less than half the
cost of other heat sources, and an aquaculture
company, MinAqua Fisheries, in turn purchases hot
water heat from the ciry, thereby reusing precious
water resources and spurring local economic
development.
3M Chief Executive Articulates Businesses'
Role in Sustainable Development. Achieving
sustainability is not only part of 3M`s mission
statement, it is reflected in a new book co-authored
by CEO L.D. DeSimone: Eco-efficiency: The Business
Link to 5ustainable Development. The book
advocates business activities that create economic
value while reducing ecological impad and
resource use, and asserts that companies who do
not find ways to become eco-efficient will be
handicapped financially and in other ways
eventually, and may disappear from the
marketplace as a result.
An Ageirda fi�� S«stuining Orer Quality of' Li%e 23
A sn�npling
of uctivrties i�r
srr.etainnGle
dei�clopme,ir
MILESTONES
This timelir:e covers
major milestones in
Minnesota's sustainable
development initiative
J
�' i�� i �,.
/ �:
�.
� r: �
.:
�
/ /� ,/. /" i
_�
/ . ./
JANUARY: Governor Arne H.
Carlson, the Environmental
Quality Boa�d and the
Commissioner of Trade and
Economic Development kick
off the Minnesota
Sustainable Development
Initiative.
MARCH: �overnor-
appointed citizens begin
defining sustainable
development in the areas of
agriculture, energy, forestry,
manufacturing, minerals,
recreation and settlement.
JAIVUARY: Governor
appoints Minnesota Round
Table on Sustainable
Development to follow
through on ideas in
Challenges document.
APRIL: Minnesota Laws,
Chapter 454 requires state
agency self-assessments
based on the principles of
sustainable development and
a guide in local sustaineble
development planning.
iV1AY: The Environmental
Regulatory Innovations Act
offers individual facilities,
sectors of industry,
governmental units, and
even whole communities,
freedom from rigid
regulatory requirements in
exchange for higher
environmental performance.
�;� � /:�; �
FEBRUARY: Citizen teams
publish the Initiative's first
findings in Redefining
Progress: Working Toward a
Sustainable Future
APRIL: Legislature
establishes the Sustainable
Economic Development and
Environmental Protection
Task Force to examine land
use policy.
JUNE: The Community-Based
Planning Act establishes 11
goals as a new framework
for local comprehensive
planning. The 11 goals
include public participation,
sustainable development,
full-cost accounting of public
investment (including long-
term community and
environmental costs),
alternatives for
transportation, and livable
community design.
Investing in Minnesota's Future
�
iV1AY: The Minnesota
Sustainable Forest Resources
Act passes. The act calls for
public-private partnerships
to protect and manage
Minnesota's forest ecosystem
resources and to establish
the multi-stakeholder Forest
Resources CounciL
AUGUST: Governor issues
Challenges for a 5ustainable
Minnesota: A Minnesota
Strategic Plan for
Sustainable Development for
public review and comment.
SEPTEMBER: 5ustainable
development task force
suggests new approach to
community-based planning in
Common Ground: Achieving
Sustainable Communities in �
Minnesota.
APRIL: EQB publishes Taking
Root: State agency efforts
toward sustainable
development in Minnesota.
MAY: Round Table's final
report published and
submitted to the Governor.
�� ��
_i �s ,i ;.� xi' ' _/' ;I �� / / / % °'
E"/ ` �' / / �; ` i ,�� i i �; �. .,�
Melanie Benjamin,
Representative of the Mille Lacs
Band of Ojibwa
Eric Bloomquist, Chief
Executive Officer, Colonial Craft;
ForestryTeam, Minnesota
Sustainable Development
Initiative
John Bowers, Retired
Administrator, Federal Highway
Administration
Kim Carlson, President and
Owner, Cities Management, Inc.;
Charter Officer, Business for
Social Responsibility
To�n Gochrane, Director,
AgriGrowth Council; Agriculture
Team, Minnesota Sustainable
Development Initiative
Kathryn Draeger, President,
Environmental Ground, Inc.
Steve Erdall (Advisor),
President, Western State Bank
Nelson French, Round Table
Co-chair; Executive Director,
Friends of the Minnesota Valley;
Former Director, the Nature
Conservancy; Co-chair, Minerals
Team, Minnesota Sustainable
Development Initiative
Cindy Hayden, Associate
Publisher, Lake Superior
Magazine; Co-chair, Recreation
Team, Minnesota Sustainable
Development Initiative
Doug Nildre, Environmental
Director, United Defense, L.P.;
Environmental Committee Chair,
Minnesota Chamber of
Commerce
George Honadle, Consultant
on Sustainable Development to
the United Nations, Worid Bank,
Agency for Internationa)
Development, World Wildlife
Fund and Minnesota Sustainable
Development Initiative; Adjunct
Professor, College of Natural
Resources, University of
Min�esota
Randy Jorgenson, Executive
Director, Southwest Regional
Development Council; Co-chair,
Advisory Council on Community-
Based Planning
James Kubiak, Chief Executive
Officer, Membran Corporation
James IUelson, Financial
Administrator, HoneywelE, Inc.
Ralph Lentz, Past Chairman,
Minnesota Sustainable Farming
Association; Agriculture Team,
Minnesota Sustainable
Development Initiative
Barbara �ukermann,
President, Citizens League;
Professor of Land Planning,
Hubert N. Humphrey Institute of
Pubic Affairs and Center for
Urban and Regional Affairs,
University of Minnesota;
Co-chair, SettlementTeam,
Minnesota Sustainable
Development Initiative
Diane �ynch, District
Administrator, Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District
Alfred Nlarcus, Professor,
Carlson School of Management,
University of Minnesota;
Co-founder, Collaborative for a
Better Environment and
Economy; Manufacturing Team,
Minnesota Sustainable
Development Initiative
Jean Michaels, Olmsted
County Commissioner; Member,
National Association of
Counties, and Association of
Minnesota Counties' Sustainable
Development Task Forces
Chris Radatz, Legislative Policy
Analyst, Minnesota Farm Bureau
Allison Rajala, President, True
North Public Relations
Anita Ryan, Round Table
Co-chair; Principal, C. McFarlane
Associates; Co-owner, St. Pau)
Brass and Aluminum; Member,
Manufacturing Team, Minnesota
Sustainable Development
Initiative
Patricia Schmid, Member,
Izaak Walton League of America;
National Audubon Society
Scott Schuler, Environmental
Director, Printing Industries of
Minnesota
Brett Smith, Member, Sierra
Club; Pollution Prevention
Consultant
James Stanton, Chief
Executive Officer, Shamrock
Development, Inc.; Past
President, Builders` Association
of Minnesota; Past President,
Minnesota Association of
Realtors
Jonathan Wilmshurst,
Regiona) President, CAMAS
Minnesota Inc. (sand and gravel
business); MineralsTeam,
Minnesota Sustainable
Developrnent Initiative
iUlolly Woehrlin, Former
Rice County �ommissioner;
Co-chair,1996 Sustainable
Economic Development and
Environmental Protection
Task Force; Co-chair,
SettlementTeam, Minnesota
Sustainable Development
Initiative
Annie Young, Associate
Director, The Green Institute;
Community Activist and
Resident of Phillips
Neighborhood, Minneapolis;
Commissioner, Minneapolis
Park Board
Bob Bringer (Special
Advisor), 3M Emeritus
Executive; World Business
Council on Sustainable
Development (liaison for 3M
chairman); Member, Natural
Resources Task Force,
President's Council on
Sustainable Development;
Former Chairman, Corporate
Conservation Council,
National Wildlife Federation;
Co-chair, Manufacturing
Team, Minnesota
Sustainable Development
Initiative
Independent Schooi UsVict 280
Richfield, Minnesota
POSITION STATEMENT ON PROPOSED MITIGATION STRATEGY
The Board of Education appreciates the consideration given to the impacts of the
proposed North/5outh runway on the Richfieid Public Schoois. The purpose of
this statement is to outline the Board's position regarding the mitigation strategy
being developed by the City of Richfield. A separate statement outlines the
Board's position regarding construction of the North South runway (appended).
The Board of Education generaily agrees with the plan as outlined, particularly
as it relates to the school district, children, and families, including the foilowing:
■ Replacement of lost housing coupled with incentive programs that `
encourage residents outside the redevelopment area to buy townhouses
and make their homes available first to those dispiaced by the
redevelopment area.
■ Replacement of the golf course and creation of parks, traiis, and other
green spaces that mitigate against noise and other intrusions such as
landing lights while at the same time enhancing recreational opportunfties.
■ Proposed annexation of Taft Park into Richfield, and a commitment from
MAC not to acquire any more property in Richfield.
■ Full funding of the redevelopmerit project, including repiacemerit of taxes,
fees, and other revenues lost to the City of Richfield and the Richfield
Public Schools, over the fuil term of the redevelopment project.
The Board of Education recommends that the City Council consider the foliowing
as the mitigation plan is finalized:
Review estimated financial impacts on the school district with school
district officiais and make adjustments as appropriate.
Specify the minimum number of years for replacement of taxes, fees, and
other revenues lost to ihe city and school district. Possible substitute
wording is as follows: "Full funding of the redevelopment project,
inciuding replacement of taxes, fees, and other revenues lost to the City of
Richfield and the Richfield School District, over the full teRn of the .
redevelopment project or tenyears, whichever is areater. "
3. inform school district officials of any material changes in the document,
prior to final approvai by the City Council.
Should the North%South runway be constructed, the Board of Education
recommends the foilowing approach to implementation of the mitigation strategy:
implement the strategy in stages to ensure that, if any homes or
apartment units are removed, there is an identified supply of existing
replacement housing or newiy co�structed housing within Richfield that
can accommodate famiiies with children.
2. Continuously reevaluate the need for implementing each stage of the
mitigation strategy. Is the annoyance serious enough to warrant further
mitigation? Have alternative mitigation strategies becorne available that
elimi�ate or redu�e the need to remove homes and apartments? The
goal should be ta implement a mitigation strategy that minimizes as much
as possible the extent of intrusion and displacement.
3. Continue to communicate and coordinate with schooi offieials with respect
to implementation issues and ongoing pianning.
�. A. For comments that relate to low ftequency noise
impacts, including the redeveioped area and loss of
associated revenues, see General Responses 1 and 2.
The Rich Acres Golf Course was operated by the City
through a lease arrangement with MAC; replacement
of the course was not a part of the lease agreement.
� Independent School District 280 '
. Richfieid, Minnesota
POSITION STATEMENT ON PROPOSED NORTH/SOUTH RUNWAY
The Richfield Pubiic Schools and the City of Richfietd are working together to maintain•and
enhance Richfield as a good piace in which to live, work, learn, and do business. The
proposed North/South runway poses a threat to the Richfield community; and would have
serious negative impacts on the Richfieid Public Schoois, as detailed below:
1. Approximately 175 students and their families were displaced as the resuit of an earlier
buy-out of New Fordtown and Rich Anres due to airport expansion. Because of limfted
availability of housing within Richfieid, approzimately seventy pe� cent (70%) of the affected
students moved out of Richfield and began attending schools outside of the Richfield
School District. If 400 homes and 40D apartrrient units are lost due to additional airport
expansion, it is anticipated that at least 320 additional students and their families would be
displaced. Given our prior experience with New Fordtown and Rich Acres, we anticipate
that at least two thirds of these families would relocate to other communities, resulGng in a
projected loss of approximately 214 students, including 16 kindergarten, 123 elementary,
and 75 secondary students.
2. Much of the schooi district's revenue is received on a per pupil basis. The estimated
annual loss in revenue, based on current per pupii unit revenue amounts, would be g
approximateiy $1.23 miliion.
3. While the nurnber of staff may be adjusted downward somewhat to accommodate a
reduction in enroliment, it will be di�cult to achieve a$1.23 miliion annuai reduction in
expenditures without eliminating or reducing programs and services that benefit all
students. Possible reductions include course offerings, instructional materials, technology;
guidance counseling, gifted education, media services, heafth services, psychological and
social work services, building supervision, and transportation services. Other areas such
as building and district administration, clerical and custodial support, staff development,
equipment and supplies may also have to be reduced. Having just completed a$1 million
budget-cutting process in the spring of 1997, the Board of Education is keenly aware of the
negative impact such a process can have on the morale of students, parents, and
employees.
4. Since operating a school requires certain fixed costs, regardless of the number of students,
a reduction in the number of students wiU result in four of our sohools being more
expensive to operate on a per pupil basis: 'Centennial Elementary, Richfieid Intermediate,
Richfield Junior High Schooi, and Richfieid High 5chool. .
5. On a human levei, it is difficult for�children and families to be uprooted, and to break up
relationships developed at school, in their neighborhoods, and in the broader community.
Both those leaving and those left behind are impacted. .
Given the negative impacts outlined above, the Board of Education requests that the
Metropolitan Airport Commission reconsider its decision to construct the proposed North/5outh
runway. In the event the Commission proceeds with construction, the Board of Education
would like assurance that the Commission wiil fully compensate the Richfield Public Schoois C,
for lost revenue over a ten year period due to enroliment decline resulting from construction of
the runway and the resulting mitigation pian.
B. FAA and MAC do not agree with this assessment of
impacts. No significant adverse impacts of low frequency
noise were identified in the FEIS; therefore, no mifigation
was required. See General Responses 1 and 2. The
residentiai displacement'due to the New Fordtown and
Rich Acres acquisitions was a separate project initiated
at the request of the City, and is unrelated to the
proposed airport expansion.
C. See flesponse B.
s
�^
7'he liachfae�.d REc��vEG
z'` v� � � JUN 18 � .
�"' ,� � �- ...��.�-
��'� = -=, � �,a�'� �E1'UiY IXEC. DIR.
: �- � -' z a5-v �. "�`1
Caring GYtizens Concerned About $ich3�eld's Environment
June 12, 1998
Ms. Jenn Uniuh
Metropolitan Airports Commission
6040 28`� Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55450
Dear Ms. Uniuh:
The members of The Richfield CARE Team would li7ce to present the
following comments on We Final Enva�onmental Impact Statement (FEIS):
CARE is an organization of citizens concemed about Richfield's future. We
aze disappointed that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the
Metropolitan ASrports Commission (MAC) aze treating adverse, low
frequency noise m�pacts on Richfield from the proposed airport expansion as
insig�cant. We aze equally disappointed that the FAA. and MAC chose not
�to resolve this noise issue in the FEIS. We lmow these noise impacts aze
major and must be addressed prior to maidng an FIIS implementation
decision along with appropriate midgation measures provided to offset the
impacts. By essentially ignoring and leaving this major noise issue
imresolved, citizen pazticipation in the environmental documentation process
will be effectively shut out wlrich violates the disclosure intent of We National
Environmental Policy Act. Consequenfly, we urge you not to make an
implementation decision imtii the low frequency noise issue is futiy addressed
in the FEIS and appropriate mitigation measures developed.
As residents living in a community next to the auport, we know firsthand how
airport noise caa adversely affect our lives. A troublesome experience was
New Ford Town, where the residents there felt compelled to leave theu�
, �
The Richfield CARE Team e 6515 - 18'� Avenue • I2ichfietd, MN 55423
1
See General Responses 1 and 2 for MAC's proposed
approach for determining low frequency noise impacts
and mitigation.
.,..
, �e �i.ch�fiield
��",.-.,;�;
�t.� = . F ��r`S'�
��r � �� ""'
�„�.
� � � ��
�"�� gi: ��
Caring Citizens Concerned About EicLfieid's Euvironment
homes due to intolerable airport noise. From Wese types of eatperiences, we
aLso Imow that locating an airport runway cioser to Richfield will effectively
make a lazge portion of Richfield uninitabitable as a residentiai azea. We need
neither arbiUary standards nor ineicact noise modeling to tell us this.
We expect to lose almost 2900 residents (appro.omately 500 are school age
children) from eastem Richfield due to intolerable noise from the proposed
airport expansion. The loss of these residents with theff accompanying
investment in our commnnity, and atong with the adveese, high frequency
noise impacts over the rest of Richfield, w11 g�ready d�inish the high quality
of life that makes RichfieId a desirable city to live in. Rich&eld is currently an
established, economically strong and safe commun'rty for fam�lies and
busmesses. It wi71 be an unfornmate social and economic loss for the Twin
Cities to allow RichSeld's current high living standards fo deteriorate from
�mmitigated noise impacts due to the proposed airport expansion.
Agair�, we urge you not to make an impiementation decision unh7 the low
frequency noise issue is fiiliy addressed in the FEIS and appropriate
mitigation meas�ues developed.
Sincerely,
Lll� �CJ�CQ.i,yc�.�--
Charles Starner
CARE Co-Chair
The Ric6field CARE Team • 6515 -18`� Avenue • Richfield, MN 55423
2
See General Responses 1 and 2 for MACs proposed
approach for determining low frequency noise impacts
and mitigation.
5outh AAeiro Airport Aciion Counc9l
5610 Clioton Ave. S. R��.��UcQ
Minneapolis, bIN 55419
'' Richard T. Saunders, President � Z 5�
617J869-]501 orFAX 612/861-1061
DEPUTY EXEC. OIR.
Ms Jenn Unruh � ��� June 15, 1998
� Metropolitan Airports Commission
60q0 28th Avenue South � .
Minneapolis, Mf7 55450 � , � � � �
Dear Ms IInruh, � . � �
The South�Metro Airpozt�Action Council, in response to the
•Final Environmental.Impact StateCent for•Expansion of MSP,
recommends thate � � �
The Metropolitan Airports Commission (AtAC) comply With
the Minnesota Leyislature's directive to analyze the
environmentai impacts o£ 700,OOO.and 750,000 annval
operations at MSP_ .
The MAC accelerzte gate expansion.projects that vill
encourage airline competition and coc�petitive priciny
at HSP_ � � � �
The MAC study low frequency noise iuipacts from the
north/south runcay and develop appropriate mitigation
proposals if necessary, Por ail affected��communities.
The MAC study long-term public health impacts causec' by
aircraft air and noise�pollution on,resideqtia�l
communities.
The MAC agrees not £o adopt any expansion steps�that
vill re4uire the re-zoniny�of any city residential
neighborhoods north o£ the Crosstoxn Highxay to
commercial.. � .'
T:�e M�1C incorporzte the�effects o£ light-rail transit on
the traffic projections for Righiaays 62, 55, 5 and 77
and on on-site par;cing needs throuyh 2020. '
Sincerely � �
�""'r""����
Richard T. Saunders
President, SMA71C
cca Dore' Mead
Sandra Colvin Roy
Steve Minn
SMAAC Hoard Members
!rr
A. See General Response 4.
B. MAC is curzently invoived in studies to add
additional gates at MSP. By 2005, up to 12 additionai
gates are being contempiated for Northwest and other
carriers.
C. See General Response 1.
D. The Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation
Noise (FICAN) is best suited to request a multi Federal
agency analysis of long time health impacts on
residential communities potentiaily caused by aircraft
noise pollution. FICAN provides a forum for debate
over needs for future aviation noise research. Federal
research underway includes: U.S. Army research on
community. annoyance is focused on annoyance from
intrusive and intermittent sounds such as blasts and
sonic booms; the Air Force is studying annoyance from
aircraft overflights and Military Training Routes, as well
as impulsive noise from helicopters; the Air Force and
NASA, with assistance from the Army and FAA, are
conducting a study of noise-induced sleep disturbance;
and the Department of Defense continues to
investigate the effects of aircraft noise exposure on
people and structures.
F. The EPA has determined that since 1970, air quality
has continued to improve for the six major air
pollutants: carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide,
ground level ozone, particulate matter, and sulfur
dioxide. Potential long-term air pollution impacts due
to aviation in residential communities may he hest
studied by tha EPA so that the results can be applied
on a national level.
E. MAC cannot and wiil not require re-zoning in
Minneapolis. See also city of Minneapolis Response M.
F. See General Response 5.
i
� Concordia
UNIVERSlTY•SA1NT PAUL � '
• . '. . � - Biobgy pcpvrm�ertt
May 29, 1998
Mr. Jeffrey V✓. Iiamiel .
Executive I?irector
Metropolitan Airports Comruission
6040 28th Avenue South
Tvfnmeapolis, Minnesota 55450 � .
DearMr. HamieL• '
I am•writing as Ihe chaix: of the Conservation Committee of the Ivimnesota
OrnithologisPs Union Ourmission statement indicates'that we are to be a voice of the
bfrds of Minnesota_ That reflects our.persona! interest ui the welfare of birds and our.
aesthefic enjoyment of bads.
As a repmsentative of our.ncarly 1,500 members, many of whom 6ave birded t6e
area Imown as Tfie Bass Ponds, I am.vvriting to suppon �e raquest of the U.S. Fish and
Wldlife Service to receive mifigation &am.the Fedexal AviafiouAdministration and
Metmpolitan airports Commission for.near(y $27 million fot the impacts of the new
nmih-south nmway on the iecceational, educational, and aesthetic vaiues of the
Mi�esota River.National Wildlife Refuge.
It appears ihat the educational pro�-� of tfie interpretive staff will be severely
ifnot fotally eliminate8, reduced by the many new, Iow u¢.Qights over.Bass ponds and
be�d4�� ��s. The factor.will aiso greatly reducepublic enjoyment ofthe area;
therefore, it seems fair. and appropriate that fundine be nrovided to mitieate these
conditions by est�li]fshmg a newinterpretive facility.
71�.vik you for youc consideration.
Smcezely yours,
� � ��
R E. Holtz
MOU Conscrxation Committee Chair.
?75 Synditate Strter Norrh � St Pnul, Minnmom SSIOq-549� - 612 641-8178
' See General Response 7.
.. . ...... ... .. . . . . . ...... . .... . ...... .. .. . . ... .. . . .. . .. . .... .. . . . .. .. . ........ ( ........ . . ... . . .. ..... ... . ....... . I�e _. ... .. . ....
Jean Wagenius �11111eSOta
State Ropresentative
Dlstrict 63A ' �� g� ouse 0�
Hennepin County � �epresenl.i�tives
� ' CHAIR, TRANSPORTATION AND TRANSR
COMMITTEES: ENVIRONMENT AN� NATURAL RESOURCES, TRANSPOR7ATION AND TRANSIT FINANCE
' � . � DIVISION;REGULATED INDUSTRIES ANO ENERGY �
June 15, 1998 �E��'���
JUN 151998
Ms. Jenn Unruh
Metropolitan Airports Commission , DEPUTY EXEG� DIR�
6040 28t6 Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55450
Dear Ms. Unruh:
The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the p�tentiai effects of the addition of a
new 8,000 foot runway and other improvements.at the Minneapolis-St. Paui IntemaGonai Airport
is inadequate for a number of reasons. , We are writing about three of the inadequacies.
ONE '
The FEIS does not fulfill the goals listed in its Purpose and Needs section. Goal A
appropriately states: `To plan, develop and dperate an aviation system that will heip promote
the orderly growth and economic deveiopment of the region." Goal B is'to provide an aviaiion
system that is...economical." The remainder of the goais enhance the first iwo.
There is no discussion in the FEIS about the monopoly pricing at our airport and whether
needed competition couid be increased under the proposed action or altemative actions. 8y
failing to consider the effects of•monopoly pricing, (he FEIS inadequately examines whether the
proposed action resuits in the promotion of growth and economic development or if the
proposed action could actualiy dampen the very goal of growth that the FEIS sets torth.
Further, the FEIS fails to examine whether airfares are economicai for businesses and tourists
coming fnto the state and residents Ieaving.
in the 1980's a series of inergers in the airiine industry created the opportuniry for monopoly
pricing. Consistent with this increase in marketing power, airfares increased at many airports.
These increases do not appear coRelated with increased costs. From 1985 to 1988, NWA
average airfares from MSP increased to approximately 3 cents a mile above comparison
afrports. (Kenneth Mead, GAO, 1989). In 1995 lhe average fare for MSP was 45% higher ihan
33 comparison airports (GAO, 1996). All consumars flying from hubs like ours are more likely
lo pay higher fares. For business travelers, however, airfare tends to 6e parliculariy high at
airports where airlines have a dominant position, making it particulariy important that monopoly
prices at our airport be considered in the FEIS. (Higher cost is not a reason for higher fares.
Consistent with economies of scale, marginal costs for routes under 500 miles begin to
decrease as the number of passengers exceed 150,000 per quarier. Marginal costs for flights
480E 71M Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesola 55417 �672) 022�3�a7
51a10 016ce BuiMing, 100 GonellNibn Aw., SC Paui, Minnesota 55155-1298 . (672) 296-0Z00
FAX (612) 296-1563 TDD (612) 296�9B96
�.
A. As stated, average fares are higher at MSP than
at non-hub airports of similar size. it should be
recognized that neither FAA nor MAC can set fares;
they are determined by the airline. As a result of the
Northwest hub, MSP has more non-stop flights to
more markets availa6le with greater frequency. The
additional service provides a benefit of reduced travel
time and more convenient scheduies.
Constrained facilities serve to maintain the status
quo, whereas the expansion of facilities offers greater
opportunities for other airlines to introduce service to
compete with the dominant carrier. Congress
recognized this when it passed the PFC Iegislation,
which had fostering competition through the
expansion of airport facilities as a specific goal. The
proposed action would serve to increase capacity and
therefore increase the chances of attracting additional
competition and reducing fares.
Page 2
between 500 and 1500 miles decrease as the number of flights per quarter increases. (Berry,
Casmail and Spilier 1996)).
Not only did the FEIS fail to discuss whether this action or aiternative actions couid increase �•
needed competition in order to lessen the monopoly pricing at the airport, the FEIS failed to
consider whether its actions wouid actualiy decrease competiUon and thus further increase the
pricing premium paid at this hub. .
The attached charts show that the proposed runway and other improvemenis are designed to
meet a growth rate far fess then that enjoyed over the last 25 years and far less than that
projected by the FAA for the rest of the United States.
The effect of downsizing our capacity for g�owth at the airport on the goal of economic B•
development for the region was not discussed. in fact, the proposed action appears to be
designed so that the current monopoly status and accompanying monopoly prices enjoyed by •
Northwest Airlines will be maintained. It seems apparent that withoui strong and deliberate
plans to the contrary the proposed action will further lock in NWA's ability to charge monopoly
prices. This could 6e devastating. •.
Our business community long complained that workers' compensatfon rates and CI taxes cost
too much in Minnesota thus making businesses here uricompetitive. The legislature tias
reduced workers' compensation rates to the satisfaction of the business community and has C•
substantially reducecl CI taxes. These savings pale in comparison to the annuai cost to
Minnesota businesses for ticket overpricing at MSP. An accompanying chart compares the
cost of monopoly pricing with the savings created by legislative changes to workers'
compensation and commercial industrial real estate taxes.
TWO
It has been often stated that a new north/south runway would reduce noise to neighborhoods •
currentiy over burdened with noise. The FEIS does not document at what capacity level any D.
noise abatement will not work. �
THREE
The d�ai track process was designed for projections to'2020. The LDN numbers need to be E.
included for the years up to 2020.
Sincer ly, .
�./ �cc�li (/V C(' Url / G�a
Representative Jean �Vagenius
C,v� �N�v�/�'• •
Senator Jane Ranum
References
Berry, Steven, Michael Camail and Pabio T. Spil(er„ "Airline Hubs: Costs, Markups and the
Implications of Customer Heterogeneity," NBER Working Paper Series, Working Paper No.
5561, 1996.
GAO, "Airline Deregulation: Barriers to Entry. Continue to Limit Competition in 5everal Key
Domestic Markets, " GAO/RCED-97-4, October 1996. .
GAO, "Statement of Kenneth Mead, Director, Transportation Issues Resources, Communiiy
and Economic Development Division," GAO/T-RCED-89-37, June 1989.
A. Response on previous page.
B. See Generai Response 3. The proposed action is
intended to meet projected demand, and thereby avoid
constrained conditions that would make airiine
competition more difficult.
C. Comment noted.
D. The new runway will be used as a primary
runway at the airport, and will continue to provide
noisa abatement at any capacity Ievei because it will
redirect aircraft from overflying more populated areas.
The MAC analysis indicated that the new runway wili
continue to compliment the parallel runways while
providing noise abatement even at the high forecast
level of 640,000 operations. In addition, at night,
when winds do not allow operations to occur over the
Eagan-Mendota Corridor, the new runway provides a
second noise abatement option, where today the
second option is over South Minneapolis, Bloomington,
and Richfield.
E. See USEPA Response D.
sN
' soo
�1
500
400
300
200
700 ......,.
0''
Sa�
Figi
Savings from Worker's Compensation and
;,,;o� Property Tax Reforms Compared to
I Losses Resuiting irom Ticket Overpricing at MSP
A�nual Cost !o Mn Businesses
(or Ticket Overpridng ai MSP
' "" 5519 million "' '—
� This eslimalo was davWopud by
� � Sonalo Ma�odry Rosoarch
� �� . . � based an a 1995 sWdy
� � . by Ihe U.S. Oopf. '
. ' � , Annual Savings to ol Transponallon, whicb
Minnesota 8usinesses �epotlod a 41!6 prnmlum
Annual Savings to � charqa m Msa assoaa�oa wim
Irom Recent Relorms ot (JWA'a wncenirated hubbing.
Minnesola Businesses p�operty Tax Syslem
Irom Recent Relorms ol - - �----•- --- •-- — (A �9se us/oDT smdy
52M10 Ml�lion Tolal raisatl Ihal agon�y'a osllmnto
Workers' Compensation ol ihn pmmWm chargo �o
. .. .. . —. __.. .. .... � 1990 ROIo�m:5123 millian q5�: ol lickot ptlrn5.
' 5�82 mlllion (no� Induding 1ho 514 mllllon T�us, Vds SSt9 mlliion
(most oplimisl(c eslimaie) savings tor apoAment praparry) asllmaio ol Iho aMuai cost
. ,_ ._ , __ _ _ _, _._ __. paidbytdinnoso�abusNassos
� 5140 miilion �9g7 Roform:577T milllon lor pmmlum pdcing al
�conservalivo estimaio) � passongor lickol5 k probably
(no� inciutling Iho 52o mlliion n conservalive nsllmele.)
savings lot apanmani p�oporty) .
cn:,.v�o.polwu.nawunry:usppdrr.n.pononwi; . .
S�m.Mya�ry�DfL�Wu+rch:nMkb�s�Nna�+chWpL . . Fbu��N��u�c�G��phlc�H/10/98
ire 1: Actual Number of Operetions at MSP -1972 to 1992
Ope�aUc
7oo.oao
600,000
SW.OUO
4q0.000
:100,000
�ns
/992 '418,974
19T2
2�0,79�
Plom 19721a 1992, optltetione grcw ei en Average pnnunl telc ol 3.02!:.
1�0.000 I ' .
0 I I 1 1 I 1 I I 1 I i I 1 � I 1 1. i I ... I I
1972 /980 I990 2000 2010 2020
pa�ewwu�MNropdianAvpal�CarvN�awn . WuaePos�erchG�a4NcaG/�/98
Figure 2: Capacity Limits at MSP
Current Capacity vs. With Additional Infrastructure
Operalions � �
��'� 6qo,0oo oparaflone ilmtl, wHh
, new N15 runwny, �orminN, �eahvtye, eia _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, _ _
6W,000 860,000Iiml�, wM1h new N/5 runwey _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ �
Curroni cepeclty Ilmil: 620,000 opernllona _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
!i00,000
1992�, 418.474
900,000
^�����M
/
Y
gpp.ppp 1972 y
230.7�'l�/
aw�
200,OW
i(10.000 . . .
p I 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 I I 1. I I I I 1 � 1 I 1 I� 1 1 1
1972 i980 1990� 2000 2010 202D
dM��wnn:MNwpoi'.nA4�wniCanmisuun trous�P+wucnGr�ph¢f 5/Iry8
,
Figure 3: Forecasting Operations at MSP
MAC's Projection for Year2020
Opera�ions ' '
�oo.00a
bi0,000 operolions luuli, wI1U .
, now WS runway, lomunal, laxiways, otc, _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _
600,�00 600.00OIImI1.wilnnuwNlSrunway ""'""""""_'._..' ."""'
� GuroMcapacilyWii1:52a,000upore�lons ____ __,.._._.._ .__ �
5W.000 . " � "' ' - �
MAC pro�onlon �
' _. � (510,4001n 2020i
7992y� ���
4pp.ppp ^„ � / 418�9]4` . .
:IUI1.1100 1972 .
230,797 y�' �lr . ' . .
'�'+'{� f F�am 197210 1992, opern�lom prow at an averepa annuel mlo ol �.02•!..
2(10.000 . .
� � � MAC'a pro�actlon o1 b4o,qao oporations In yanr 2020 �mplias
' an everepa annuni proYAt1 role o1 U.B7: atte( 1992.
100.000 . , , .. ,
-�Ail MAC alutlloa aro basetl on 520,400 6eaWine pro�ecllon lot 2020.
p i I I 1 1 1. I 1 1 I I I 1 1 1' � I � 1 '1 . i 1 I
1972 1900 1990 . 2000 ' 2UIU 2020
Ou��aru:M+liupd^�nAal�on�[:wmuucn . Iau.�N..wu�i�G��luucs6l�/YG
Figure 4: Operations at MSP
Actuat Growth from 1992 to 1997 .
OperaBc
700.U00
600,000
soo.000
400.OW
300,000
zoo.000
100,000
ns
�',, HO.00o oporellons limli, wilh . . .
'�.. now N7S rwtway, lunnlnal,laziways, etc. � . .
6o0,a0o iimit, wlib now N/S mnway ,
Curmnlcapadtylim11:520,000uporetbns .,, . ��
� tssi � aei.z�a '
. � '1992 478,474 . � � .
�4� „
1'!)2
250.793 y�.,� .
��i�.� �
, From t972 to 1992, operallona grew ol an nvarage snnual rnlo ol aA2:::
51fiCe 1992� 0(MfGtIOR0IILYG gtOWll G! qf1 pVOfC�O Qt1f111p1TEtE O} J.26Y..
I I I 1 I i 1 I 1 1 I 1 I I I 1 1 t 1 1 I 1. I 1 1
1972 19�0 1990 2000 2010 2020
O�I�aauee�'.IWiUP��nAYpwuCwrvNaWn lWn�M��.�ehd��tuev fi/1/99
Figure 5: Forecasting Operations at MSP
Projection based on the Historicai Rate of Growth
�(�f2110lIS � . 1980.10 1997 provAhlela '
(].»:: annunilY)
��'� ti40,o00 Umtt hll In T006
690,000 OpOldiiO�511m11, Wlill
now N/S mnway, loimind, toziways, otc.
6pp.ppp fi00.0001im1�,wilnnowN/Smnwey . . .
Curroni capncity Itrnii' S20,�00 opa�alions . ��
500,000 � 7997 ��,
� %+'�491,273
t�
'1992 418.474 '
400.000
%�`....1'•...�
yW.ppp I97? /
290.793 y,•�ni• '
' �,.�' f...(
2���� - A pro�eCllon 6Yeod on ttlo �9eo Io 1997 prvwlh reto auggeala �hnl
, evon No meximum oporetlona ilmll ot 640,00� would Ea anelnea
100,000 w��nln Iast lhnn a Gocntlu. •
p I I 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 I. i. I I I 1 I � 1 1 I I. i �,
1972 /90U � 1980 20W 2010 ypp
OY� �wu. MN�opoY�n AvP�� CdruiY>awn
. �pua.n+.wicrytiwyYvo N4sa
CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS
CERTIFICATION
STATE OF NIINNESOTA )
COUNIY OF HENNEpI1� SS
CIT1' OF MINNEAPOLIS )
I, Merry Keefe, City Clerk of the City of Minneapolis, in the County of Hennepin and State of
Minnesota, certify that I have examined the attached copy of a report of the Transportation &
Public Works Committee relating to the Minneapo&s-St. Paul Dua! Track Airport Ptanning
Process, and have carefuliy compazed the same with the originai on file in this office, and that
the attached copy is a true, correct and comp(ete copy of the originai.
IN WITNESS WHEREpF, I have signed and affixed the
city seal on Monday, Tune 15, 1998.
vl�i `_ �•= •
SlIBSTITUIE REPORT +
' 1�
TBPW.-Your Committee, having under consideration draft comments of the City of
Minneapofis on the Fnal Environmental impad Statement for the MnneapoGs-SL Paul
Duai Track Airport Planning Proce�s and; having held a pubGc hearing thereon, now
recommends approva! of fhe cnmments (Petn No „f/ 9A�Z on file in the Otfice of the
City Clerk) and that the proper City officers be authorized to submit said comments to the
Metropolitan AirpoAs Commission by the deadline of June 15, '1998.
ADOPiEp
np�w u ro n�.m.y.
PASSED JUN �. Z �� �
ar
.. c.rw u.. v.
��iiiiii►
�. / �- • �i
tll�iti: ri/i
�. �.
�
Fax Transmission
To: Nigel Finney .
From: Greg Bastien
Re: EIS Comments Date: June 15, 1998
This transmission is intended for the person designaud abovc. lt should aot be d¢plicatcd
or given [o othcr persons.
Thank-you for your assistance in getring this material to the designated
person. Number of pages sent� 2 including cover sheeG
Faz �umber. 726-5296
My auiriber is 722-7582 Fax number 612-297-6814
Thanks g.b. •
Memorandum
�� ►s, iv9a
To: Metropolitan Airports Commission
Fmm: Greg Bastien, 2709 E. Minnehaba Pazkway Minneapolis, Ma 5541'J
Re: EIS Comments
1. Thc finai Environmental Impact Sta[ement does not cover adequately the issue of Iow
frcquency noise in the surrouading neighborhoods. The construction of the new N/S
runway would diccct takeoff noise towards the northwest T6is ground levcl noise wiU be
intense during peak periods of runway use. Further the EIS statement dces not covcr the
adequately the monitoring of noise in ihe dispersal pattern oudined in otLer noise mi6gatioo
documents prcparcd by the MAC, i.e. the noiso north of Iake Nokomis and Aiawa[ha and
towards ih� northeast will be unmonitored Remou ooise monirors shouid be pixed in
equa! numbets wiWin a radius exunding from the airport ro lhose planned for placement
ou[ by Lake HarrioL Thc NENA and SENA oeig66orhoods atthough not carrying the same
mazlcet value u those homes to the west are nonetheless shble and viable communities that
could bc destabilized by an c.cpononoal inciease in noise. It smacks of economic
discriminaaon to leave less affluent areas of the city unmonitored while others will finally
be more adequately covered.
2. ihc EIS fa7ed to addross adequately accurate numbets for operaooas at the airport and
the resulrant emissions of grecn hous� gases and other air bome pollutanis cequired tu be
cov�rcd by the EIS and Resident Glinton's wmmitment to reduce th� oueput of said ga,tes
within the U.S.by Executive Qrdcr. Delibetately misleading numbers'for flight operations
consGtutes fraud wi�hin [he generaI meaning of the term as uscd in criminal law. wthout
accurate numbers impacis cannot be realisucally assesscd in ihe fioai IIS.
3. 'Ihe E►S fails to adequately define iu timeline for conswclion of new faciliries, is it
projccts slated for 2010, 2020, or some other date. Deli6crate vagueness invalidates the
conclusions reached because it does not specify the year and project for whic6 the
conclusion is mada
For the above rcuons thc 5na! EIS should be not be acceptcd by fho MAC and six�uld be
revised to comport with the intcnt of the environmenCf! legislation for which tho E7S was
draftcd.
y
A. See General Response 1. The MAC has
_ committed to monitor aircraft noise in all areas around
MSP. The ANOMS will be expanded to the extent
required in the future to assure that this commitment is
kept.
�
B.
Ci.
�
B. The reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from
aircraft operations is a woridwide issue that cannot he
addressed by any individual airport, state or nation.
Recent greenhouse gas reduction targets established
under the Kyoto Protocol appiy to energy consumption
including transport, industrial processes, and
agriculture. For aviation, the greenhouse gases of
specific concern are those emitted at high altitude.
Improvements in aireraft efficiency and reduction of
engine emissions can reduce the volume of potentially
harmful gases emitted. Aircraft emissions as well as
emissions from other transportation sources are being
addressed through international cooperation.
For the impact of o#her airborne pollutants, see
Minneapolis Response N. For discussion of forecasts,
see General Response 3.
C. The executive summary succinctly places a
timeline on improvements considered within the FEIS.
Figures 6 and 8 provide a layout of the proposed
improvements.
D. MAC has considered these comments and
determined that the FEIS, in combination with comments
on the FEIS and the responses, complies with applicable
environmental IegislaUon.
Rebecca H. Carison
5045 Russell Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 5�410
Telephone (612) 929-0680 FaY (612) 929-0270
Fi�CF11/�p
June 1, �ssa � JUN � 2 �ggg
DEPUTY EXEC. DIR.
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Nigei Finney
6040 Z81b Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55450
Dear Mr. Fnney:
i have noGced that the focus on the airport has atways been on noise and not air
poliution. i was very glad today when I saw the articie in the Southwest Joumai about
the 'haza�d to our health and wealth" of the airport and am very thankful for Dick
Saunders and for Mark Engebretson for reporting on it i am giad they will "tum the
heat on that issue in the coming year.'
I have chemical sensitivities and bought an air exchanger ten years ago to bring in
fresh air. I have found in the last five years, that i can no longer use that exchanger all
day and night - the air outside is worse than the air inside. The num6er peopie who are
having health probiems due to poifution is increasing. Many people are sick who have
not yet made the link on how chemipis coutd be influencing their health.
I oppose the addi6on to the airport and hope that the Metropolitan Airports Commission
wiii take peopie's health into considera6on. I love this South Minneapolis
neighborhood, and will have to move if the air pollution gets worse. 1 don't think we
shouid have to pay the price of our health for the convenience and profits of the
airlines. This is just another reason for the weaithy tax base to move to the suburbs.
Sincerely, .
Rebecca Garlson
m
Comment noted.
Edwazd CroZiex
60 Oak Shon llrlve
Burneulllc, MN 55306•5506
May 19, 7998
Mr. Rod Sando, Chair
MN Environmental Quality Board
300 Cencennial Office Building,
658 CederSt
St Paui, MN 55155
Dear Mr. Sando:
As you know, for over 30 years many Minnesota cltizens, along with state, Ioce! and federal
agencies have worked to protect and preserve the natwai values of the lawer Mirmesota River
Valley . Together, they pioneered the establishment of a state par{c, a state treil, ciry open
spaces end an urba� rtationai wildliFe refuge as a means of protecting a rlver valiey in major
metropolitan area. This efFort is frequendy used es a national modei for how to protect natural
resources and the outdoor recreation and education values of a tiver corridor in an urben
setting.
To a�comptish this, a wonderful coalition of interesu blended the needs of urbanization with the
preservation of naturai values and partioulariy, they tried to accommodate the future needs of
those resporui6le for transportation.
See General Response 7.
Hawever, the people thak accomplished tltis affort never anticipated or were even wamed that
I the Federel Aviation Administration and the Metropolitan Airport Commission would take action
years later through the constructi�n of e"north-south runway" that would destroy much of
their accompfishmenu, particularty, when thac destruction is done without adeqirate
caripensatlon.
�
�le MAC a�d the FAA eg�ee thet a financia( settlement for miUgaUon of damages to the
Minnesota Vailey Ns[ional Wildiife Refuge, is proper, their EIS Is inadequate in tarms of being
specific on the amount of tliat financiei settlement They seam to be operating on a philosophy of
"trust us" whlch Is not acceptabie. FuRhemwre, the EIS dces not property address the damages
to the Minnesota Valley State Traif that Is authorized, pienned and pertiaify funded.
The MN Ernironmentai Quality Board naeds to ceil atteMion to the inadequacies of the MAC-FAA
EIS �nd urge MAC & the FAA to match the US Fish and Wildlife Servlce S27 miliion estimate of
mitigation costs prior to approval of the EIS. Furthermore, you shou(d urge MAC-FAA to pay
perpetual mitigation for the loss of future opportunities. A one time payrrx�nt based on the
mari�et value of the land dces na compensate for that perpetual los. As long as planes fly over
the area the damages are occurring.
Piease look at this matter closely and do not aliow MAC and the FAA to proceed in their usual
single-minded manner.
Sincerely, �
�e.�%���,�
Edward Crozler
To: tifAC Representative
From: A concerned swdrnt . . . .. . . . . . .. .
Re: North-South tunway and acpansion of MSP Airport
Dear MAC Representazive ,
The cirv of Richfieid will be gravely injured by the expansion of the airport, and the Metropolitan ,�irport
Cortunission (MAC) has ccpressed little intetest in helping Rich6eid deal with the probiems that the airport
growth will wuse.
in the early 1990's it was deaded thaz the eriseing airpott was not lazge enough to facilitate the ecpected
increase in air travel in the 31st cenNry. MAC decided that constructing a new north-south run�vay was t6e
"b�P' solutioa When MAC released a draft of its EIS (Environmemal impact Sta[emeny for the new
runuay in 1996, a major conf3ict benveen blAC and Rich6dd ova the denils of the report arose. ARr.
read•.r3 t6c EIS draft Richfield ha�J three requesu: that all other �pansion options would be objec[ively
reviewed, that all the environmental impacts including low Gequenq• noise would be identified, and that a
mi[igarion pian would be prepared. Since early 1996 MAC has been unresponsive to the community of
Richfield and has released no plarts for low frequenc.y noise mitigation. The proposed notth-south runway
will have grievous affects on the residents of Rich6eld; consequently, ;vU1C, who will benefit greatly from
Rich6eld's destn�ctioq should be reqwred to compensate Rich6eld for iLs losses with reasonable noise, loss
of populazion and loss of tax base mitiea[ion.
If the proposed runway is constiucted, Rich6eld will lose 9% of its single family homes and dupiexes. II is
estimated that the city's population wili decrease the by almost three thousand residents; i� is predic�od cha�
the school dimia wiil lou over 480 students. The departure of this many citizens will dec�ease the cin•'s
tax base by over five rtrillion dollars. When the impact of the Rich AcresMew Ford To�vn huyout added to
these sta[istics, Rich6eld wilt have tost I 19'0 of its residrnrial popu4ation and 16°'0 of iu srudent populatian.
Such dremaric decreases in rcsidrnts and tax doilars ���II make ie hard for Rich6eld to be a�tiable communiry
�in the 21st century•.
One area tha[ the airport expansion will hit thc hardcst u the Richfield schools. 1Vith an enrollmrnt of .
between 1100 and 1200 scudents, Richfieid High Schoot is alteady among the smallest hig}� schools in the .
metro azea. CumenUy advanced classes like Calculus. Anatomy, and Advanced Chemistry are o8'ered, but ��
with the budget cuts that will come with a major drop in enroliment these classes may 6e a thing of the past. ���� �
Atliletic teams and other co-curricular acti�ities uitl have to be cut. Ric6field sports wiU become even less ��� �� ���� �
comperitive with other metro area uhools. IFatliletics, co-curriailar ac[ivrties and advanced classes—some ���� �� �
of the most important aspects of a high school educaeion—are cut, the school disuict will be headed in a
downward spir�J. W..thcut .:�_h cEerin�rs, Fz::!ia u�it look to sead t�eir ^hi!dren elsewhere fa: schocl.
RichHeld wdll be faced with many other effects of the ne�v nmway. The �cpansion will mean the loss ofRich ���
Acres Goif Caurse and the East Rich6eld Littie �eacue Base6alt Fields. RichGeld is a commurtiN
surrounded by free�vay5; consequmtly, there is no space u�here new hasebalt fieids oi a new golf course can
be 6ui�t. The demolition of these recreational facilities wilt decrease the quality af Gfe for the citizens of .
Aich6eld. One of the most dramauc decreases in ehe qualiry of life in Richfield may resulrin noise.
especially low frequenry noise, from the new runuay. Low fir.quency noise is the low pitch rumbGng frnm
jet aitcraR enqnes. Low frequen�y noise, �vhich is similar [o thunder, can cause ranling shaking, and .
vibrazing in windows, watfs, and objeces. The Ciry of Richfield t�ad srudi� conducted on low frequenry
noise, and discovered thac up to 30% of the populneion could 6e affected by the new low frequency noise.
Although stvdies in Richfield and in other areas in the nation wherc low frequenty noise is a problem show
thae it can be highly annoying to residen[s near airport runways, the FAA (Federal Aviation Associa[ioN has
no standards for meawring thus type of naise. 1s of February 1998, they were unwil6ng ta "breal: ground" ��
and develop seandards because it would take many years, and the other communicies near airports would
wane atitigation. This means that !v1AC does not legally have to mitigate with Richfield for the impaa of
low Gequency noiu.
Right now, under eminrnt domain, the airport is allowed to reclaim the land that they own and have been
lening the city ofRichfield use, We propose [haz a law be passed that addresses the pro6lems that !ow
Bequency noise can create. We suggest that a sum of money should be paid to residents and businesses
located in the aifected arw ro compensare for their losses. The quality of Iife nceds to be maintained.
Because MqC is not required to mirieaa, what is done would have ro be out ofthe goodnas of their heart.
Whrn Boston-Logan Ineernaziona� Airpon found themu(ves {aced wit}� the same prablem, a lawwic was
filod and mi�igation waz paid. lf a law is not passed, this could be an opdon for the city of Rich6dd.
2'here is a ciause in the [Jnaed States Constitution which forbids a State (and its locai govemme�u) to
diur'vivnate aad draw unrpwnay�e disrinctions benveen peopie. it is called the Equal Promaion Act. As
citizens of RichSald, we do not feel tttat we are being treated fairly when compared to neighboring
communitia regazding [he ai�pott expansion.
Right now Rich6eld is at the merry of the MAC, the Met Council, the FAA, and the state legislature. The
MSP Imecnationa! Airport must be held accountable for the damage it will cause Rich&eld iFit conscruccs a
ne�' ronwdy Legislation must be passed, and the FAA must set stancfards. Without niles to govern it, the
airport witl wntinuo to seriously daznage Richfield in its quest for a prosperous community.
Sincerdy,
���. ��--v�`....._
Rich6eld Senior i�%gh Surdrnt
See General Responses 1 and 2.
To: MAC Representntive
F�m: A concm�ed studrnt
Rc: North-Sou[h runway and expansion of MSP Airpon
Dear MAC Representative
; ofRichfield wiil be gavely injured by the expw�sion of the airport, and the Meeropolitan Airport
uion (MAC) has acpretud 6tUe interest in heJping RichSeld dpl with the problems tiiat the aiiport
will cause.
In the early I990's it was decided thaz the eads[ing airport �sas not large enough to facilitate the aepeaed
increase in air uavet in the 21st century. MAC decided thac coaswcting a new nonh-sou[h runway was the
"best" solution. When MP.0 released a draft of iu EtS (Environmenta! Impaa Sta[ement) for the new
runway in 1996, a major confliU between MAC und Rich6eld over the details of the report arose. After
reading the EIS dr�ft Richn"eld had three requests: tha[ ai other ca�ansion options u•ould 6e objettivetp
reviewod, that alt the environmemal impacts including low frequency noise would be idrnti6ed, and that a
miugation plan would be prepared. Smce early 1996 MAC has been unresponsive to thc communiry o£
Rich6eid and has released no plans for low frequency noise mitigavon. The pmposed nonh-south runway
will have grievous affects on the residents of Richfield; consequenUy, MAC, who u911 benefit gready &om
RichSeld's destruction, s6ould be icquired to compeasaze Rich6eld for its losses wi[h reasonable noise, loss
of popu(aiion and loss of ca�c base mitigavon.
If the proposed runway is constn�aed, RichSeid will lose 9% of its singie family homes and duptoces. It is
estimared thaY the city's population wSll decrease the by almost three thousand raidents; it is predicted that
the school disvict wll lose over 480 students. The departvre of Uris many citizcns will decrease the city's
tax base by over five million doltars. When the impact of the Rich Acres/New Ford Town buyout added to
these statisiics, Rich6etd will liave losi 11°.'0 of i1s residrntial population and 16°'0 of its srudent population.
Such dtamaric decreases in readents and tax dollars will make it hard for Richfield to be a viable community
in the 21st century.
One area that the airport expansion will hit the hardest 'u the�Rici�eld schools. Mith an enrollment of
between I l00 and 1200 students, Rich&eld 1-Iigh School is already among the smallest high schools in the
metro area Cu[rmtly advanced ctasses like Calculus, Anatomy, and Advanced Chemistry are offered, bu[
with the budget cu[s that witl wrtu with a major drop in cnroflmmt these classes may be a tlung of the past.
Athletic teams and other co-curricular acrivities will have to be at. Rich6eld sporu will become wrn less
competitive with other metro area schools. If athletics, co-curriailaz activiries and advanced dasses—some
of the most important aspects of a high schooi educarion—are at, the sc600t district aill be headed in a
downward spiral. wthout mch offerings, families will look to send their children elsewhere for school.
Richfidd will be faced with many oeha effects of [he new runway. The expansion wi(I mean the ioss of Rich
Aues Golf Coune and the East RichSeld Lictle League Baseball Ficlds. Richfield is a cortunuroty
s�urounded by freeways; consequently, there is no space �vhere new baseball fields or a new golf course can
be built. The demoGrion of these recreationaf facilities uilt decrease the quatiry of life for the ritizens of
Richfield. One of che most dramadc decreases in [he quality of fife in Richfield may resvit in noise,
espaaalty Iow frequency noise, from the new runway. Low frequency noise is the low pitch rumbling 5nm
jet aircraA rngines. Low frequency noise, which is similar to thunder, can cause nnling, shaking, and
vibrating in windows, walls, and objects. The City of Richfield had studia conducted on low frequency
otse, and discovered that up to ZO% of the population could be affected by the new low frequency noise.
� thoug6 studies in Rich5eld and in otltia- areaz in the rcation where low frequency noise is a problem show
'that it can be higtily annoying to residents n¢ar airport mnways, ehe FAA (Federal Aviarion�Association) has
no swndards for meawring thus typc of noise. As of Fe6mary I998, thry were unwilting to "breal: ground^
and devdop standards 6ecaux it vrould take many ynrs, and the other communities near airpons wouid
want mirigqtion. This means thtt MAC does not legally have to mitigate u�th R�chheltl tor the �mpact ot
bK frequency noisc.
Right now, under eminent domain, the airport is allowod to recla'un the land that they own and have bern
letting the cip• of Richfield use. We propose that a Law be passetl tha[ addresses the problems that low
frequency noise can crpte. We suggesc that a sum of monry shou�d be paid to residenu and businesses
Iocated in the aftected area to compensa[e for their losses. The qualiry of tife nexds to be maintained.
Because MAC is not required to mitigate, what is dono would have to be ouc of the goodness of thcir hean.
Whrn Bos[on-Logan lntemationa! /iuport tound themselves faced with the same pro6lem, a lawsuit was
61ed and miti�aation was paid. lf a Iaw is not passet� this covld be an option For the city oFRichSdd.
There is a clauso in the United States Constim[ion whicb forbids a Stata (and iu loca! govemments) to
disaiminate and draw unreasonabte distinctions betwern people. It is called the Equal Protection Act. As
citiuns ofRich6eld, we do not feel that we are being treatal fairly when compared to neighboring '
communi[ies regarding the airport expansion.
Right now Richfield is at the mercy of the MAC, the Met Council, the FAA, and Ihe siate legitlature. The
MSP International �1'rport must be held accoun[able for the damage it wip cause Richfield if it constnicts a
new rvnway. Legistation muri be passed, and the FAA must set standards. Without rules to govern it, the
airport will continue to seriously dartiage Richfield in its quest for a prosperous covununity.
Sincerdy,
/ ��I/!fi` �� ��i�' ! LiW�i�(
Richfidd Senior High Student
See General Responses 1 and 2.
To: MAC Representative
From: A Concemed Citizen
Re: Increased AircraR Noise from MSP Airport Expansion
Dear MAC Representative: .
Do you.know that it has been estimated that over 28,000,000 t�tnericans suffer from hearing
loss and noise exposure is one oF the leading causes? Noise-induced hearing loss is
preventable, but, unfortunately, not repairable. Without proper guidelines, education and
enforcement, t6is Sgure will continue to gow as our society becoines more industriaiized
and our lives become more motor-driven.
Ofmajor coacern to tfiousands, ifnot millions, oFAmericans, is aircraft noue. The Natura!
Resources Defense Council, in a�recenUy released study: Flying Off Course:
Environmental Impacts ofAmerira's Airporis states that intemational traffic will double
by 2010, and domestic passenger traffic wip double within the next 20 years. According to
tbe FAA, there will be 36% more �ights in 200T than t6ere aze today. .
The issue has 6een growing m importance for fifly years. In 1946 the Supreme Court
concurred wiih a farmer in co�tending that aircraR noise was so dan�aging to his properry
that the Farm had been "taken" withoutjust compensation, in violation ofthe Fifth
Amendment.
We must do atI that we can to protect the health of airpoR worlcers and those that live near
exisiing, new and expanding airports. The pdysical, mental and emotional lives of many
Americans, yoang and otd, are at risk
I encourage you to examine the ramiSdations of increased air uavel by supporting legitimate
research in this azea. We owe it to our fellow citizens that their well-being is considered
while this expansion takes place,
T7�ank you,
����� " EL����5�
Ric6field SeniorHigh School Student
A. A. Comments noted.
B. B. MAC is supportive of legitimate research in this
area.
5029 Xerxes Avenue S.
Minneapolis, MN 55410
June 6, 1996
Rod Sando, Chair
MN Environmental Quality Board
300 Centenniai Office Building
658 Cedar St.
St. Paui, MN 5b155
RE: PROPOSED RUNWAY IMPACT ON NATIOMAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
Dear Mr. Sando:.
i am writing regarding the impact of the proposed north/south airport runway on
the Minnesota Valley National Wiid�ife Refuge ("MVNWR"). To start, I must teil
you that I am totally opposed to this project, and I do not think a new runway
should be buiR if it will affect the MVNWR. If I had the time, I could certainly write
you a hundred-page letter on the issues presented here. However, I don't have
the time, and you probably don't either, so i'li a8empt to keep it brief and just
address a few of my major concems regarding the defects in the Environmental
Impact Statement and the necessary mitiga6on if the runway is indeed buiit.
EtdVIRONMENTAL IRAPACT STATEMENT
-(rst, i have obtained a copy of the Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS°) and I
�b not believe that it adequately addresses the impact of the proposed runway
on the human environment Among other things, ft appears that the noise
studies summarized in the EIS (including studies of the ambient noise level,
some of which were apparenUy were conducted during a time when the MNWR
was experiencing ftooding) do not adequately and accurately asses the
increased noise leve! that will be created by overfiights, or fully anticipate the
effect on migratory and resident wiidlife. The MVNWR is a unique resource due
to its pro�dmity to the Twin Cities. This makes it easy for people to experience a
natural environment, with its attendant wildlife viewing, recreational and
educationa( opportunities, even for those residents who don't have access to
private transportation. If the "wild" nature of the MVNWR is lost due to intolerable
and/or unanticipated noise levels o� loss of wildlife, it will be necessary to travel
in order to experience a wild, natural area. While many of us can afford to hop in
the car and take off for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area for the weekend, many
people can't afford the luxury of a Boundary Waters-type of wildemess
experience, or even a ten mile drive to a rtrore remote area of.the MVNWR. If
the AAVMNR is rendered unusable due to overflights, it will mean that
"wildemess" experiences will be comptetely lost for those Twin Cities residents
who do not have their own private transportation. This loss of accessibiiity and its
/�. A. Comment noted.
g. B. The comment that the noise analysis is
inadequate and inaccurate is too generai for a spocific
response. See also USDOI Response G.
impact on residents of the Twin Cities, especiaily Iow income residents, has not
been fully addressed.
', Second, the EIS doesn't adequately address or fuliy explore the reasonable
alternabves to the proposed north/south runway, or balance these altematives C. C. See Generai Response 6.
against the impact to the human environment that wouid be caused by
construction of the proposed runway. More creativity is necessary regarding
' reasonable altematives.
Finally, the comment period before final acceptance of the EIS is
unbelievably short! i am certain that many people wiii find it impossible to
obtain and review the EIS during #his one-month period. If the policies of the
National Environmental Protection Act are to be given effect, then there simpiy D. D. The comment period is prescribed by state and federal
must be more 6me for public comment. Furthermore, the EIS should not, under rules and policy.
any circumstances, be accepted until mitigafion measures have been resolved to
the satisfaction of the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service ("USFWS").
fl�tTIGA?ION
As i stated above, I do not think that the north/south runway should be
construcfed if it will have any significant impact on the MVNWR. Assuming,
however, that the project will go forward, then it is essential that mitigation efforts �-
be adequate. The funding necessary to realize the USFWS Mi6gation Value �
Assessment and Request, and a perpetual mitigation program must be approved E. E. See General Response 7.
`.__
and put in place. There should be no net loss to the MVNWR. Any settlement
agree�M should specifically state that the agreed-upon use of the over-flight
space will not be increased over time (e.g., increased num6er of aircraft, noisier
aircrafi, lower-flying ai�craft). The above rnitigation measures should be finalized
prior to acceptance of the final EIS.
Sincerely, "
�`'A .
v"�
MoIIY A9a
Rick Schultr
Jan Wagenius
Jane Ranum
Jim Ramstad
Martin Olav Sabo
James Oberstar _
R���'see�r
� JUN 1 Q �ggg
June 9. l 998 - DEPUTY EXEC. DIR.
Ms. Jenn Unruh
Metropolitan Airoorts Commission
6040 28th Rvenue South �
Minneaoolis. MN 55450
Dear Ms. Unruh.
I cecently was.sentncopy of the FEIS cepoct.
I retired as an Assistant Chief .of AIc Traffic Control at
MSP after 30 years oi secvice at that location. I have
attended some meetings,in this regard� sponsored by both the
MAC and the Metropolitan Councii.
The FEIS renort indicates some comcrehensive research i�to'a
matter with some very criticai decisions to be made.
My feelings are. for what they may be worth. that the
,�oresent airoort shouid not be exoanded any more than is
� bsolutly necessary to orovide a repiacement transition.
,�his pcesent airport is srorrounded by a Nationai Cemetary, A
'VA Hosoitai, rivec valieys on two siGes and necessary
highways that would be imoractical to ceplace. It is also a
danoerous terrain. for these reasons. for an airport.
The FEIS repo�t indicates that a new location will
eventually be necessary. I feel that a new terminal antl of
ali things. the pr000sed new runway, as planned. ace
rediculous. i think a better transition could be done by
utllIzing the St Paui Airport and possibly even a single
runway and transition terminal at the new location.
�,ny new aicport should be pianned with an emphasis on the
efficient movement of air traffic such as a tanoential
cunway system.
Sj.ac e r e i y,
R q�'dt J. Ke I 1
ROBEZT J. KELiY
1615 4t�EXFORD WqY
WOODBURY, MN S5t25
A. A. The airport can be expanded in a safe and efficient
manner to satisfy the air transportation needs of the region
to 2010.
B. B. The FEIS does not indicate that a new location
will eventualiybe necessary; quite the contrary. AII
the stated alternatives were considered.
�
�',
_ __ -__.___-.z.
��,,,...._. �EAN �l1�DBE.kG ..... .,,,., �..
. _ . . .. .......... ... «.:=w �.>><�y
..... , . ..>:.:o:�:. ....... Y..
,.:��::_ � .::_.�::.�.�:,:, .. .._.......
.. _::�x:h:�::w.,�...�....:.... _........., .:..:....�..,:..�.;: : ::: _. ..:..
�:.,...,�; .
: 4023 14Y—'' AVE. So. �'7A MPLS. . MN SSAo7 (6�2) 823-/977
Ms'Jenn Unruh ' June 15, 1998
Metropolitan Airports Cownis�ion � . , � �
� 6050 28th Ave_ S. � �
Minneapolis, HIS 55450 . ' �
Dear Ms Unruh, . ' � � �
In response�to discussion items in the Fina2 Environmental
Impact Statement (FEIS} £or e:pansion o� MSP, I'd liece to
submit the folloiring co�amentS. .
Numerous research studies hace documentec� that noise
pollution generated by aircrzft operations�over resi@ential
� communities contributes to:�!{ypertension, cardiac end
. endocrine systen�abnormalities, slee� cycle interruption and
. stress. Any costs associated rith�these conditions have
not been addressed. . . .
i�he FEIS does not�deecribe the capacit}•/demand repercu�sions
the north/south runxay ti+ill hzve on the paraliel rumrays.,
Specifically, the number oi aircraPt-arriving on,� or�
departiny froro the parallels on a per hour hasis will be
changed because�of north/south�rumray�operations. These
chanyes should be eaplained.��� . � �
Although the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MaC).� states
that it doesn't establish tict:et prices at HSP, :t should be
ac!:noWledged that MAC gate leasing poSicies, competitive
business practices, znd direct or indirect assistance in
�I, �establishiny MSP as a Fortress hvb ior our primary airline
�',. tenant do have an impact on air fares. �
Sincerely, � �
.. yxc`r" �c.,,� 4
Dean Lindbery
i
A. While there may be studies that potentially link
aircraft operations to health problems such as sleep
cycle interruption, there is no unambiguous scientific
evidence which links quantitatively any noise
environment with the origin of or contribution to any �-
clinicai non-auditory disease. The FEIS is not required
to estimate the potential costs for mitigating impacts -_ �
that have not 6een conclusively linked to the proposed
action.
B. The new runway will ailow up to 40 departures
per hour or 35 landings per hour simultaneously with
the 110-120 operations occurring on the paraliel
runways.
C. NorthwesYs position as the dominant carrier at
MSP came about as a resuit of its routing decisions,
and those of competing airiines, and its acquisition of
Repubiic Airiines. It should he notad that any .
measures that constrain airport capacity wili reduce the
ability for other airlines to introduce or add service and
thereby strengthen NorthwesYs position as the
dominant carrier.
R��1�91l��
May 14, 1998 �Y � 8 �
DEPUTY EXEC. DIR.
Minneapolis-Saint Paul Intemational
Airports Commission
6040 28th Avenue South
Minneapoiis MN SS450-2799
Ladies and Gendeman:
I azn a victim, as well as many others in my neighborhood. Last evening I attended a
meeting at Richfield High School. I listened to many good citizens speak regazding .
our mutual problem, but felt their remazks were fallittg on deaf ears. I live on 7038
�I8th Avenue, have been excluded from the sound proofing plan because my home is
�t within the sound proofing area. This, itseif, is a joke. I've gotten broken windows
-imm the noise problems, enjoying our beautiful yazd is lessening as we can't carry on
a decent conversation. I'm encouraged to keep up my properiy, which I've done. I've
put over �30,000 of improvements into my home in the last 5 years....I'll never see any
of that back, because nobody in their right mind would pay me what my house is worth
to live in this azea in view of what is taking piace. Oh, yes, my taxes have gone up a
lot because of the improvements....you might say I'm paying more, but enjoying it less.
Where is all this leading? I'm 60 years old, I-have a beautifut home which I've kept up
and wi11 most likely not be abie to sell. I'm told I'm not in an azea that is covered by
sound abatement program, I'll just have to try to live with it. I called a number in a
brochure that works with sound insulation programs...they work for you, and she said
she'd send me information on how I could get a loan to do some things myself. This
6as to be a joke. I'm, personally, going to have to fork out more money to maybe be
able to live where I'm living and exist....I don'i think so. I have a new appreciation for
people who are pus6ed into a comer and then aze forced into drastic actions. How, in a
free country, can these things happen? What about people's rights?
Sincerely,
Donna L.��� �
Comments noted.
To: MAC Representauve
From: A Concemed Citiaen
Re: Increased Aircraft Noise from MSP Airport Expansion
Dear MAC RepresentaGve:
Ao you know that it has been estimated thaz over 28,000,000 Americans suffer from hearin�
loss and noise exposure is one oF' the Ipding causes? Noise-induced hearing loss is
preventable, but, unfommately, not'repairable. �thout proper guidelines, education and
enforcement, this figure will continue to grow as our society becomes more industriatized
and our lives become more motor-drivea .
Of major concern to thousands, if not mi[lions, of Americans, is aircraft noise. The Nazural
Reso�ces Defense Council, in a mz�;y releasad suidy: Flying Oft Coucse: �. A. Comment5 noted.
' Environmental Impacts otAmerica's Airports states that international uaffic wi]! double
' by 2010, and domestic passenger maffic will double within the neM 20 years. According to
the FAA, there wi11 be 36% more fligkus in 2007 than there aze today.
The issue has been growing in importance for fiRy yeazs. In 1946 the Supreme Comt '
concurred with a Parmer in contending that aircraft noise was so damaging to his property '
that tbe farm had been "taken" without just compensation, in violation ofthe Fifth (
Amendment. . �.
W e must do all that we can to pratect the health of airport workers and those that live near
existing, new and e�anding airports. ihe p6ysical, montal and emotional lives of many
Amerinns, young and old, are at risk. '
I encourage you to eacamine �he ramificazioiu of increased air travei by supporting le�itimate _
research in this area. We owe it to our fellow citizens that their wett-being is considered B• B• MAC is supportive of legitimate research in this
while this oxpansion takes place. area.
11�ank you,
t�; F. �� �.`�-P .
Richfietd Senioriiigh Schoof Student
f a c s i m i l e
To: Jenn Unruh
Company.•
Fax Number. +1 (612) 7265296
8usiness Phone:
From: James R. Spensley
Fax Number. +1 (612) 8249988
Business Phone:
Home Phone:
Pages: 3
Datell'ime: 6/15/98 722:54 PM
Subject Comments on FEiS
Dear Ms. Unruh:
Please accept the enciosed comments and forxard same to the EPA and FAA' as
appropriate.
Thank you. .
It appears from a review of Part V il�at SubPart BB is inadequate and erroneous. A
runoff volume analysis, tl�at is loss of on-site storage in land-locked basins like Duck laka
and MoA�er I.alce, is not referenced. Fundamental stormwater management data, u�cluding
U�e relaUve elevations oFUie Duck LakeNtother I,alce "rims" compared to tlie N-5 rumvay
elevation, are not given. Because of the meager increase specified For the treatment pond and
disoharge volumes, b�Ir1C is asseriing Il�at onty a s�nall part of d�e increased tvn-off volumz
will be treated and discharged.
Not only are additiona! impervious sudaces of sizeable area planned, but U�ey are to be
conswcted by filling large parts of the Duck Lake1 Mother L.alce basin. Possiblv other
�naller storage basins wiIt be filled or have their effective storage Gmited by increased
1olumes or changes in overflow elevations,
Based on data in the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District files and previous MSP
storsnwater management plans, it appears that construclion of the N-S rumvay/tasiway
and extension oP the north parallel rumvay will result in the loss of substantiat
storage. Tlvs consWction very probably will increase tvn-oH'volume, divett a•portion of
the run•off (presetttly contaiaed in U�e basin under even severe sto�m events) to esisting
treatment facilities and outlets, and inaease Uie a�mual run-off votume.- Lesser storms will
cause overflow of ihe Mother Lake Basin or parts of ii, and flows are probable ffiat will
overwhelm or c'ucumvent treaUnent faciliGes. The MCWD notified MAC and commented
on this EIS in February 1996. No further information, no permit applicaliuon, no plans,
and, particularly, no engineering analysis has been reported.
)
The NPDES pernut �pplication referenced in the F�IS is incompiete and invalid.
The data in table BB-6 are unsubstantiated, lacking a drainage plan, volume analysis and
storm modeling as are ordinarily required. �tother Lake and Duck I.alce are also subject to
conditions ofthe Wetland Act and supporting Administcative Rules. Table DD-3 shows an
azeal loss of 59 acres; mitigation oCwetlands is bY type and area, however. stormwater
storage (flood-prevention ) mitigadon is a volume/elevation issue. After constructia� in
2010, perhaps 16� to 500 acre-feet oFstorage is lost This loss has not been effectively
nvtigated on-site and ihe impact in 100-year or oUier required analyses is not refetenced in
Part V. Pemnils for modifying the stornztvater managemen[ plan for areas in 11ie hfinnel�aha
Creek Watershed District have not been applied for. The Rules requ've cafcutations of the
basin storage volwnes under advecse conditions, U�e overflow elevation and discUarge rate
and volume under spec�ed storm condilions.
The concenUations of conGvninants and pollutants in the waters of and in the floodplain of
ivlother Lake are unkno�m (See page V-156). Wl�at might be transported to the blumesota
River or other receiving watecbodi�.s has not been addressed or included in the loadings
projected in this ParL The increased probability of properiy damage or accident as a result oC
floods haz not been addressed, nicluding the presence of abandoned wells or other links to
�round wazers tl�at could receive contaminated waters during floods. .
The EIS should not be approved lacking proofs of the capacity of the stormwater
management plan and the accuracy of the discharge volumes or rates reporled in the NPDES
A. As stated in Section 66.1.2 (page V-160) of the
FEIS, the MAC intends to enhance or develop storm
water detention ponds consistent with National Urban
Run-off Program (NURP) or equivalent standards to
meet anticipated National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System 1NPDES) permit requirements for
MSP. Flood control storage to be incorporated into
these enhanced ponds wiil be determined through the
permitting process with the Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District for drainage regulated by that
organization. The MAC does not anticipate significent
difficuities in providing appropriate flood control
storage for all of the MSP watersheds.
B. Refer to Response A. it is true ihat the MCWD
commented on the DEIS, and the MAC responded
appropriately to these camments.
The MAC will generate and submit a permit application
to the MCWD in preparation for the construction of the
North/South runway.
C. The mode�ing methods, assumptions, and results
for the C80D5 analysis in the FEIS are presented in
Appendix A.9 and Appendix H.4. The MAC and its
representatives have had communications with
�. representatives of the MCWD regarding potential future
development in the Mother Lake drainage area under
the LTCP 2010 Aiternative. AII necessary permitting
procedures and documentation as required by the
MCWD for such development wili occur at the
appropriate time as dictated by MCWD policias.
D. As is stated on Page V-156 of the FEIS, the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR)
and the Minnesota Poliution Control Agency (MPCA)
are not aware of any water quality data regarding
Mothar Lake. Potential loadings of pollutants from
MSP run-off into the Minnesota River are addressed in
Section 86.1.2 of the FEIS. Under existing conditions,
the great majority of surface water run-off from MSP
B. (approximately 95 percent) drains directly to the
Minnesota River. Under the 2010 �TCP, this
percentage would increase. The review and anaiysis
performed in response to MCWD's February 13, 1996
comment letter on the DEIS as summarized in
Appendix A.8 of the FEIS clarifies that backflow from
the Minnehaha Creek/lake Nokomis flood storag�
defines worst case conditions in terms of potential for
flooding in the areas adjacent to Mother Lake. As is
presented in Appendix A.B, analysis using EXTRAN and
C. HEC1, computer simuiation modals, indicate that
projected 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 flood elevation of Mother Lake. This
compares with the surcharge under these conditions
from backflow from Lake Nokomis which was
estimated to be approximately three feet.
�
E. The purpose of the environmental review process
is to raise environmental concerns and issues to
determine if the proposed project will have significant
potential for environmental impact relative to no build
conditions. For surface water quality and controi,
available information indicates that the 2010 LTCP
Alternative will be advantageous over no build
conditions. The MAC has worked closeiy with the
MPCA through the NPDES process to define a storm
water control program for the airport and wili continue
to work with the MPCA to further define and
implement that program.
I I I
Pennrt app(ications, bfAC l�as assumed tl�at pe[tn�t requiretnents will be met, app�enUy,
�vithout discharge trom the Duck Lalte/NIoU�er Lake basin under any conditions, If'
tJie assertion were based on enguieeriag analysis w6ic1� could Ue reviewed b E• ConYd from previous page.
cities and tvaterslied auil�orities, t]�en tl�e pertnit applications are effectively re dy to beed
submitted to il�e perrnit authorities.
It also appears d�at majorstormwatermanagement facilities forthe airport as modi6ed for F. Improvement projects necessary for later stages
this EIS and Pennit cross, or Ge within, ihe I-�}94 and TH-77 improvement projects of the MSP expansion will undergo future additional
contemplated as Iaier stages ofthe MSP esparu(on, and wi11 necessarily 6e modi6ed at U�at F• environmental review and wiil compiy with appropriate
time. � permitting requirements.
The last thing EpA ought to do is accept the FEIS and the NPDES peimit applicntion G. The MPCA and other appropriate regulatory and
lvithout proof of the stormwater management pian assumptions and compatibility
with other plans. There is a considerabie ouUay of public tunds planned for fLture G• review agencies have had full opportunity to review
projects. No public agency ought to accept an E15 or perniit regulated activities and comment upon this EIS process. The adequacy of
piecemea).
the FEIS is determined through established Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) and Environmentai
.lames R..Spensiey Quaiity Board (EQB) procedures. �*
�117 Chicago Avenue South
i�tinneapolis, MN 5�117
�
i
To: Represeatalive . -
From: A Concerned Citizen
Re: Increased Aircraft Noise from MSP Airport Expansion
Dear Representative: .
Do you know thaz it has been estunated that over 28,Q00,000 Americans suffer from hearing
loss and noise exposure is one cP the leading puses? Noise-induced hearing loss is
preventable but, unfortunate(y, not repaicable. Without proper guidelines, educadon and
enforcement, this figure will continue to grow as our society becom� more industriaiized
and our lives become more motor-driven.
Of major concern to thousands, ifnot miltions, ofAmericans, IS airc�} noise. The Natural
Resoucce, Deiense �.cu�ac::, in a;e,-rr.tly releassd swdy: F.y�icg fl:iCnurse:
Environmental Impacis of America's Airports states ihat internacional tratf-c wil! double
by 2010, and domestic passenger traffic wil! double within the next 20 years. According to
the FA.A, there witl be 36°/, more ftights in 2007 than there aze today.
The issue has 6een gowing in importance far figy yea� � 1946 the Supreme Court
concurral with a farmer �n contending thaz aircraft noisc was so darnaging to his property
tbat the farm had been "taken" wic6out )�� �m��t�og �n violation of the FiRh
Araendment
We must do al! that we can to protect the health of airport workers and those that live near
e�dsting, new and expanding airports. T6e physical, mental and emotionallives oF inany
Americans, yonng and oid, are at risk.
I encourage you to examine the ramifications of inereased air ua�e1 by supporting legitimate
re,,earch in this area. We owe it to our fellow citizens that the'v wetl-being is considered
while this e7cpansion takes place.
Tl�ank you,
, /
dl °� �1 R�z.��a
Richfield SeniorHigh School Student
i
A. � A. Comments noted.
B. IB. MAC is supportive of legitimate research in this
area.
�
R��C+�,�1
JUN 0 81998
OEPUTY EXEC. DIR.
JOHN F�E C[�AII2
PLANNING & ENVIIZONMENTAL COMMITTEE
I�TftOPOL[TAN AIRi'ORTS COMMISSION
6040 23TH AVE SO
MINtv'EAPOLIS MN 55450.2?99
Dear Iohn,
We would like you to support the SZ� million USFWS mirigation proposal and to also
consider a perperual miti.n�ation proposal. ivfitigation is necessary for the replacement of
the loss oF public resources. Cleariy articulate t6at the negotiated miti�adon must be
completed prior to Snal approvat of the airpori EIS.
Sincerely yours,
Kenneth E. Williams
Louise A Williams
5713 Hawkes Dr
Fliina� MN 55436-2218
Comments noted. See General Response 7.
A�tachment A.2 - Appendix to Ciiy of Richfield Comrv�ents
Table of Contents
Richfield Appendix
Affidavit of Geoffrey D. Gosling ............................................................................Tab 1
Affidavit of Sanford Fidell .....................................................................................Tab 2
BBN Report No. 8196, An Analysis of Anticipated Low Frequency
Aircraft iVoise in Richfield Due to Operation of a Proposed
North-South Runway at MSP (May 14, 1997) ...................................................Tab 3
IVletropolitan Airports Commission Notice of Regular fVleeting of the-
Planning and Environment Committee, Tuesday, April 7, 1998 ...:.........................Tab 4
Interagency Agreement between National Park Service, Fish and
Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, and Federal
AviationAdministration ..................................................................................Tab 5
I1�innesota Valley IVational Wildlife Refuge materials (visitor guides,
ennual narratives, educational flyers, notice of events and calendar) ....................Tab 6
Richfield 11�itigation Proposal
,.� � �' �: r � •
r � ,� ,
�, ,, . . ,. �, . . . . . �
� ��
, � � ,�� � � � �
�
�
�
i ) June 15, 199�
James D. Prosser
Richfield City Manager
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, MN 55423
(612)861-9700
Chazles K. Dayton
� Leonarti, Street & Deinazd
150 South Fifth Street
Suite 2300
Minneapolis, MN 55402
(612) 335-1500
Steven F. Pflaum
Chazles M. Gering
McDermott, Will & Emery
22� West Monroe Street
Chicago, Illinois 60606
(312) 372-2000
C"
C�
;
c,
, )
: �. _._ �_ � _ � �
Geoffrey D. Gosling, being first duly sworn, deposes
and says:
l. I�am a member of the air transportation research
staff at the Institute of Transportation Studies at the
University of California at Berkeley and an avia�ion system
planning consultant. I have been retained by the City of
Richfield, Minnesota in connection with the Final Environmental
Impact Statement (FEIS) for proposed improvements to the
Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport resulting from the
Dual Track Airport Planning Process initiated by the Minnesota
Legislature in 1989. This affidavit is submitted in connection
with comments by the City of Richfield on the FEIS. I have
firstlzand knowledge of the matters stated below, and would
testify competently thereto if called as a witness.
_ __ ��, : �
2. I received my bachelor's degree in 1968 from the
University of Birmingham in England, where I majored in civil
engineering. I was awarded the Master of Science, Master of
Engineering and Ph.D. degrees in transportation engineering from
the University of California at Berkeley in 1975, 1976 and 1979
respectively.
3. Since 1979, I have undertaken research into air
trar.sportation and airport planning at the Institute of
Transportation Studies (ITS) at the University of Calitornia at
( Berkeley, and taught in the undergraduate and graduate programs
�
in transportation'engineering as well as the University of
California Extension program. For several years prior to 1996, I
served as the Program Manager for Air Transportation Research at
ITS, responsible for the development of the Institute`s air
transportation research program, as well as the conduct of
research into a broad range of airport planning topics, including
demand forecasting, airport capacity and air traffic control, and
airport landside operations. For the past two years, I have
served as the Program Manager for the National Center of
Excellence for Aviation Operations Research, a consortium of four
universities led by the University of California, in partnership
with some twenty industry organizations and several affiliated
universities.`
4. In addition to my academic experience, I r.ave
performed numerous consulting�and expert witness assignments in
many aspects of airport planning for a variety of clients;
including the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the
California Department of Transportation,,the Metropolitan
Washington Ai'rports Authority, and the government of Canada. I
am a member of several committees of the Air Transport Division
of the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Transportation
Research Hoard (TRB), and currently serve as the chairman of the
TRB Committee on Aviation System Planning. Highlights of that
experience are detailed in my curriculum vitae, a copy of which
is attached to this affidavit as E�ibit A.
C
_ _ _ 2. . _ � \
j
5. I have reviewed the Final Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS) dated May 1998 prepared for the Dual Track
Airport Planning Process for the.Twin Cities Metropolitan Area,
Minnesota; addressing the environmental impacts associated with
major airport development to provide the capacity, facilities and
highway improvements for Minneapolis-Saint Paul International
Airport, together with various supporting documents referred to
in the FEIS, including the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) dated December 1995.� On the basis of that review and my
ensuing analysis, I have reached the conclusions set fo=th below.
I S. C0111TEXT O� TI3E PRO�CT
6. The proposed airport development projects
addressed in the FEIS, principally the construction of a new
north-south runway and associated facilities that form the 2010
Long-Term Comprehensive Plan, as well as the subsequent
construction of new terminal and access facilities under the 2020
Concept Plan, represent the culmination of the Dual Track Airport
Planning Process that was initiated by the Minnesota legislature
in 1989 to address the future airport capacity needs of the
Minneapolis-Saint Paul region. In April 1996 the Minnesota
legislature passed legislation directing the Metropolitan
Airports Commission (MA.C) to proceed with implementing the 2010
Long-Term Comprehensive Plan, but prohibited it from developing
the new West Terminal p=oposed in the 2020 Concept Plan without
legislative approval.
7. Notwithstanding this requirement, it is clear that
once the new runway 17/35 is constructed, Minneapolis-Saint Paul �
International Airport (MSP) will continue to accommodate air
traffic growth in the region, until constrained by the runway
capacity of the airport: If the new West Terminal is not
constructed, other terminal development projects will be
undertaken to provide the necessary terminal capacity to handle
the traffic using the airport.
I.6� a C �i+^•\rr:� i Si1�dS� �i\r VR��Si ' '
8. As part of the Long-Term Comprehensive Plan for
MSP, revised forecasts of the expected,growth in,air traffic
through-the year 2020 were prepared in December 1993. These
consisted of a detailed Base Case forecast and a number of
sensitivity analyses that examined various scenarios in which ,r
�
forecast'assumptions were varied from the Base Case. The Base
Case forecasts were subsequently used in performing the analysis
presented in the DEIS distributed in December 1995. _
9. However,•by the time the FEIS was prepared in May
1998, it had become clear that traffic growth at the airport
since 1993 had significantly exceeded the rate projected in the
Base Case forecast. Total passenger enplanements in 1996
exceeded 14 million, a level that was not projected to occur
until some time between 2005 and 2010. In 1997 the FAA published
a Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) for MSP that projected-total
enplanements increasing to over 22 million by 2010. Therefore
the FEIS included a Forecast Sensitivity Analysis, which examined
;
_4_ C
i
l
i
; i
the effect'on the projected environmental impacts from the
proposed airpor� development that would result from assuming the
highest of the forecast scenarios analyzed in the 1993 Revised
Activity Forecasts (termed the MAC High Forecast in the FEIS).
10. However, the 1997 FAA TAF projected over 2 million
more enplaned passengers in 2010 than the MAC High Forecast.
Furthermore, although the TAF forecasts did not extend to 2020,
the MAC High Forecast enplanements projected for 2020 exceeded
the 1997 FAA TAF forecast enplanements for 2010 by less than a
million passengers. While future traffic levels are of course
inevitably speculative, particularly more than 20 years in the
fu�ure, the discrepancies between the MAC High Forecast and the
1997 FAA TAF, toge�her with the recent growth rates, suggest that
even the MAC High Forecast may have considerably underestimated
the potential long term growth in air traffic at MSP. This of
course has important implications for the need for expanded
terminal facilities, and their consequent environmental impacts.
I'iT. FOREC�S°i S�%1TSI°.i�i'I'%'Y ��'9t3ii�
11. The Forecast Sensitivity Analysis included in the
FEIS reviewed each of the environmental impact categories in the
FEIS to determine whether an increase in traffic levels at the
airport from those projected by the Base Case forecast (tei-med
the Baseline forecast in the FEIS) to those projected by the MAC
High Forecast would significantly change the extent of the
impacts or the;mitigation required. Additional analyses were
performed for Air Quality, Noise, Environmental Justice (due to
-5-
changes in the aircraft noise impacts), and Surface Water
Quality.' It was coneluded that with the exception of Air Quality �:
at the 2020 traffic levels, no additional mitigation would be
required. The MAC High Forecast traffic levels for 2020
represent a 43 percent increase in enplaned passengers and a
23 percent increase in aircraft operations over the Baseline
Forecast.' In contrast, the Baseline Forecast for 2020 represents
only a l6 percent increase in enplaned passengers and a 7,percent
increase in aircraft operations over actual traffic levels in
1996. It appears entirely implausible that the fairly modest,
increases under the Baseline Forecast would require all the
mitigation measures discussed in the FEIS, but the much greater
-'additional increases under the MAC High Forecast would require no
further mitigation, other than for Air Quality issues.
12. The FEIS states that with a new West Terminal in ��
2020, daily highway traffic would increase about 27.5,percent due
to the MAC High Forecast. It also states that the maximum
peak-hour traffic on the most critical segment of the affected
regional system would not require additional capacity
improvements beyond what is called for in the FEIS. There is no
information on how the figure of 27.5 percent was obtained. As
noted above, the MAC High Forecast predicted an increase in
enplaned passengers in 2020 of 43 percent above the Baseline
Forecast.
13. Even if the increase in daily highway traffic of
• 27.5 percent is correct, an increase in airport-gene=ated traffic
_ _6_ �
� l
(_ ,
1
of this magnitude must have a significant effect on highway
congestion on critical segments of the highway system adjacent to
the airport. Whether this requires additional capacity is beside
the point. If no additional capacity is provided, the increase
in airport traffic will adversely impact other highway users,
impacts'that the FEIS should disclose.
14. According to the 2020 Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
projections presented in the FEIS (Figure 1 of Appendix F), the
West Terminal is expected to generate 74,600 daily trips under
the Baseline Forecast. A 27.5 percent increase would be an
additional 20,500 daily trips. A 43 percent increase would
represent an additional 32,000 daily trips. V�hile these volumes
may be relatively small compared to overall ADT on the freeway
segments adjacent to the airport, their e£fect on intersection
ramp flows, merging and weaving could significantly reduce
highway level of service. The magnitude of such effects cannot
be known without� a more thorough analysis than that presented in
�he FEIS.
r r-:_ . , : _, -�•• -� � : ..
15. The 2010 Long-Term Comprehensive �Plan includes
expansion of the Red, Gold and Green concourses in the existing
terminal buildings, provision of a people mover in the Green
Concourse, and construction of a skyway connector between the
Gold and Green concourses. According to the FEIS, the existing
Lindbergh and Regional terminals have 68 air carrier and 37
regional aircraft parking positions, with domestic, air carrier
-7-
facilities occupying 1.4 million square feet ir. 1993. By the
year 2020 the aiz-port will require 83 air carrier and 34 regional
�
aircraft parking positions, and nearly 2.2 million square feet '
for domestic air carrier facilities, to meet the projected needs
under the Baseline Forecast. Over the same period, regional
airline facility requirements are projected to increase from
about 31,000 to about 50,000 square feet, while facility
requirements at the Humphrey Terminal, which currently serves
international arrivals and nonscheduled operations, are projected
to increase from 90,000 to 459,000 square feet.
16. The higher traffic growth rates envisaged under
the MAC High Forecast have two implications for these proposed
requirements.` The first is that the level of facilities planned
for the year 2020 will now be required much sooner. Under the
MAC High Forecast, the traffic level originally envisaged for
2020 is projected to occur by the year 2000. The second
implication is that'much more extensive terminal facilities will
be required by the year 2020 than originally planned.
17. It is clear that a terminal development of the
scale of the proposed West Terminal cannot possibly be
constructed by the year 2000, quite apart from the need to obtain
legislative approval for such a development. In the near term,
the only option open to the Metropolitan P,irports Commission is
to expand the existing terminal facilities as much as possible.
18. However, it is highly unlikely that the existing
facilities can be expanded sufficiently to adequately handle the
. -8-
Cu
level of traffic envisaged for 2010 under the MAC High Forecast,
much less that projected for 2020. This suggests that the
)
proposed West Terminal, or some alternative concept, will need to
be constructed by 2010, and that the design of these new terminal
facilities will need to provide more gates and terminal space
than originally envisaged under the 2020 Concept Plan.
19. However, development of the new West Terminal
requires explicit approval by the Minnesota legislature. Such
approval cannot"be taken for granted, particularly given the
opposition to the West Terminal concept by Northwest Airlines
expressed in their comments on the DEIS. This would appear to.
suggest that a full and appropriate disclosure of environmental
impacts through the year 2020 would have to address �he
alternative terminal'expansion measures that would be taken on
'� the existing site (or elsewhere) if approval of the West Terminal
is not forthcoming. Indeed, since the whole purpose of the
environmental review process is to disclose the impacts of
alternative courses of action to decision makers, presumably the
legislature would want to know the impacts of a decision not to
approve the West Terminal before deciding whether to do so.
20. The requirement to assess the environmental
impacts of the alternatives to the year 2020 implies that the
alternatives being analyzed are those designed to handle the
expected traffic in that year, not those that happen to be
designated the "2020 Concept Plan" but which in fact do not
provide enough capacity to handle the expected 2020 traffic.
Since the proposed West Terminal in the 2020 Concept Plan was
configured to accommodate-the expected 2020 traffic from the
Baseline forecast, it is unclear what changes would be required
to accommodate the MAC High forecast, and how those changes, might
affect the environmental impacts.
21. The FEIS makes brief reference;to a proposed Light
Rail Transit "(LRT) line'that is under consideration to link
Minneapolis with MSP and the Mall of America, although no details
are provided. �This would appear to have important implications
for both the expansion of the existing terminal and the design of
the new West Terminal. If the line is constructed to serve the
existing terminal, and then the West Terminal is subsequently;
constructed on the-other side of the airport,,this would reduce
the effectiveness of the LRT access. At the very_least, this
issue should be addressed in the FEIS.
V� e COI�TCLUS�OI�3
22. The analysis of the environmental impacts that
would result from the implementation of the proposed project
described in the FEIS is complicated by the fact that two aspec�s
must be considered: the future growth in traffic and the dates
for which the i3npacts are being estimated. The division of the
proposed airport development into a 2010 Long-Term Comprehensive
Plan and a 2020 Concept Plan combined with the introduction of a
revised forecast (the MAC High Forecast) that predicts a
considerably higher traffic growth than the Baseline Forecast
_
used to define the project requirements and estimate the
C
�
I
environmental impacts creates considerable confusion over the
timing of proposed development and the associated impacts. If in
fact the traffic in 2010 reaches.the levels originally projected
for 2D20, does that mean that the 2010 Long-Term Comprehensive
Plan will be modified to provide the additional capacity
currently proposed under the 2020 Concept Plan, or will the time
frame of the two plans be advanced so that the 2020 Concept Plan
will in fact be implemented by 2010?
23. Although construction of the new West Terminal
requires approval from the Minnesota legislature, the evidence
presented in the FEIS suggests that substantial additional
terminal facilities will be required well before 2010. Indeed,
the design parameters for the new terminal presented in the FEIS
are predicated on the Baseline Forecast. Thus it appears that
the proposed facilities would be inadequate for the projected
�raffic in 2020, under the MAC High Forecast. It also seems
unlikely that the =edevelopment of the existing terminal, as
proposed by Northwest Airlines in comments submitted on the DEIS
(Concept 6A), would provide enough capacity to adequately handle
the traffic projected under the MAC High Forecast for 2020, or
even 2010. The analysis presented in the FEIS therefore appears
to fail to adequately assess the full environmental impacts of
the proposed airport development alternative to the year 2020, as
required by the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board in their
approval of the Alternative Environmental Review process for the
dual-t=ack airport planning process in March 1992.
;
( j
� _ �� -11-
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and
correct. Executed on June 12, 1998. �
_ (,_
o `
Geoffrey D. sling
" \D\AZCHFLD\AFFID.W51
\r
.
.
-1.2- \
�3.bit �
CUR.R.ICULUM VITAE
Q
i!
..... .. . ......... ......... ....... . . ....... ...... ........ . .. . .. .... ...... . ..... ....._ ._... . ..... .... ....... . ....... ........ ....... . . \ _. . ........
o, � .
_ � . , .., � _ �� _
, � . ., ,; _ • . _ � � ,
.
• — . _ -.
Sunre��}+ Or. Gosling is � memt�r of ih� res��nch st�ff of the In�i�ut� og Tr�ns�r4�te�n
St�ie� at the Universiiy of Ce►lifomi�, Beelceley, rospons�l� for 4he m��gefreerrt
and conduct of on•going ros�aroh in4o air 4raf�'� contr�l, aiep�4 planning, av�s4�n
techroology, and ai�at4 op�rations. He is cuRently senring as Program Ma�nager
' for 4h� National Center of Excellee�� for �vi�t� Op��to�n� ,R�s���ch, �nd
underta�ang res�a�+ch on �v�a4�n s�fety �nd security, �� simut�tion er�deling.
Previou� research �t 4h� Ins4�ute inci��s proje� ��r��ing air tesf#'�c d�marxi
an�tysis, th� role of off-airpat4 4er�n�ls in �iepr�rt grourxi acce�, ��r�� 40
r�duc�-runwmy xcupancy 4imes� pr�edureg for �naging �irport gs4e positions,
. and th� �tenti+�i use of �rtif�i�i irrt�llig�r�� in �ir t�ffic control eutomatron.
' Froen 1979 to ' 1987 h� w�s �n �ssist�nt Prof�ss� in 4h� Civil Engineering
DeRartment at 4he Univ�rsity of C�lifomi�, 8e�icel�, re��i� for te�ching
undergraduate courses in tr�nsg�Kation pl�nning � gr�adt�te cour� in air
transportation, a�ir�rt planning, projec4 fe�sibiliiy evaluation, ae� con�uter
applicat�. Sir�� 9979 he h�s assi��d in the org�niz�ti� of Uni�ersity
Extension short course� on �ir�rt planning ar� d�sign� �nd has lectured on
airfiel� planning a� d�sign, �i�ce anal�si�, ai cap�aty� �iepoet grour�d
access, civil �viation securify and air�4 ecot�m�.
i ;
He has s�rved as a consultani ar�i exper4 witn�ss in the �re�s of aie�et pl�nning
and airp�rt ground access to � v�riety of clients, ir�l�ing th� Poe4 Authority of
New York �� New Je�y� th� La$ Angel� Depar4ment of �►irports, 4h� RAND
Corporation, and the Sta4e of Califoen�. H� h�s also performed 4echnical
assistar�e missions to Brazil and Sing�ore for th� In4em�tion�l Civil Aviation
Organia�tion, a� hss instruct�d in a cours� on aiepot4 pl�nning for ihe Civil
Aviation �4uthority of Chin�.
Ed 49on B.Sc. (9st class honaurs) in civil engineering, University of 8irmingham,
Englar�d. Juty 19G�.
PA.S. in 4rans�rtat�t� engineeeing, Uni��rsity of Cali�omia� �t Berkel�y, June
1975:
�A.Eng. in rt�tion engin��ring, University of Californi� at ���Ic�l�y, 1976.
Ph.D. in 4ra�rt�tion �nginer�ring� Uni��rsi� of Cali�omia �4 �er�eley,
Dece P 9 979.
�
9 S79-d�i� Assist�nt Resee�rch Engine�r, ITS, Universi4y of Califomia �4
Berk�ley.
1979-1987 �ssistaM Professor of T �tion Engineering. University of
Calffomia at Ber�celey.
1977-1979 Junior Sp�ialist, Institute of T�nspc�rt�t�n Studi�s, Unnrersity of
Cali�omia �t Be�eley.
19i5-19T7 Reseeroh �ssist�rrt� Institut� of T�n tian Studie� (forer�rriy
Institute of Tran�rt�t�an and T� Engin�ring), Uni�ersity of
Califomi� at Be�lcel�y.
�F'FR Y D. G�SCI G� PhoD. . Aviati� Syst�m Pianning Consuitant
2
�
9 972-1974 Charter�d Engineer, Scott �ison K'i�atri�k & P�r4ners, Lor�dan:
Desig� of airport pav�ment .geom�ry ae�d dr�in�g� stnxtures,
prepar�tion o9 aiepoet developmer�t cos4 estirr�ies 9or the
• Bangladesh Transport Survey, pnapsration of cor�tract documents
and specifecations for swamp reclamation, temnina,l building
consteuction and runway ov�rlay contracts, ' arod cantr�ct
adminis4ration.
1972 Assisiartt Engineer, Scott Witson IGr�atr�k & Pae4nee�s, Hong
Kong: Contract planning and p��ration of contract documents
for tunnei et PCai Talc Airpori� d�sign of taxi�y diver�6oe�s,
ntodifications of �irfi�ld IigMing, investigation of ILS iM�gefty, �nd
I�aison rarith govemment aget�cie�.
9 970=1972 Rssist�nt Engineer, Scoit Wilson KirOcpatrock � Partn�rs, Loe4don.
1968-�0 Assistant under AgreemeM, Scott Wilson Kieb�ateeck E� P�e4ners,
Lo�don.
P'ro�acfi �p�ri�r�c� R��rch Pe�,� inciude: .
Demand Analysis for North Atlant�c �►ir Tr�vel
A' S4udy of Off-Aiepor4 Terminals ,
Applic�4ion o# Ecoe�om�c Pead�c4ion Th�oty to Aiepoe� Pass�nger Te�rninal D�sign
A Feasibilii� Anafysis of an Off-Aiepoet Temninai D�monstra4aan Proj�ct
: • -
. . � ..- . . . . ,,: : . _. . : .. - . -._ , _
� .. . .. : : _ -. .::, , . : .. _: • .. : : -. : . :: . � . _ _ ,
� ; . , , _ . .,
� : : . . _ ' . : • , •. : . : . : . •> :, .. , � , . � : �, � ; : • , - . � -
�: : •'• : •• ••:;; •. _ .�: , ♦ , ��r � , � ;r _,.
'• : •' : c.. �,��, : �_.: •• __' •: . : • _ • : . _ _
. _ , .
-• -' •- «:_ `' : :-• ':.._.: :' : :- '_. _ : .. : , �� _
_ : ' .r, •' : :, • : • , , �-.' _ : � _ �• -, : .• ' • • a
:..._..... _ •, : :.c .. .,- • . ...,,� ..:.�_ ": ' • .::' •.;..
_ •:.� �' �:� r•,- _ . , •.• • • : -�. • :, • • •. >• _ : .
� : _ • • : • : ' _ r• : • -_-• • .. : •� _• •, � � - � • � • :: • , . :
. •
�'
�.
C/._ '
�
,.m. :
� ._ , � � `-s ;!` . • . _ =
� . _� , :
Ev�luation of e Califomi� Demonstrati�n of an Automat�d Air�K Ground
Trans�r4�tion Sysiem
Consufting Proj a include:
T�chnical �ssisiar�e to the intematior�al Air T�ns�ort Associa4ion� G�neva,
S�ritaeriand on th� implem�n4atoon of computer softwar� for dem�t� rr�deling
Consufting services for Air F�rBd� on air traffic m�rk�t s�n�iysis
Consu�snt to ih� Port Aut�rity of td�w Yoe� mnd N�vu J���y on aie��4 ground
access pl�nning at Kennedy Ir��mation�l Air�rt. Merr�er, Executive Directors
Ground Access Advi�ry P�nel
Consuftani to th� ��nd Ec�r�mics Group, S�n Fr�e�cisco on dema� estimation
for ir�temati�nal s�ev�e at On4a� Aiepoet
;' Consuh�nt to th� R�+ND Corp. an sir t�vel deenarx! analysis for tift-rotor airoraft
op�rations in the New York region
Consutiarrt to Dorsch Consuft� Mun6ch, on �irpart planning and design for a new
airpart for Osb, Non�ay
Consuft�M to 'TRA, Seattl�� lN�shingion on th� updet� of the Regional Airpo�i
System Plan for th� Bay Area Pd�etropolit�n Tr�nsportation Commission
Consu�arn to KPNAG P�i �A�n�k, San Nlat�o, on a reg�onal airport planning
study for Not� Cer�4n�ll Texes
Consu�an4 4o CH2M Hill. T+�mpa, o� air 4raffic #orecasting for Kyegystan
�, _ . . . ,.: : :: : . � r : .:: _ . � � «_ .. ._ . .. -. . _
. . . . _ . . _ _ _ : �_�
_ . � . : _. <. : . : _, - _ . . _ _ . . _ _, . _
�cm� � Affii�ons {�I�rr�er, Inatit�n of Ci�il Engineees; Ch�e4er�d Engine�r (U.K.)
M , Am ' Soci�fy of Civil Engin�es
�ir T ri�t�n Divis�an �
Cortrt�nitt�� on Economic� � Fn�nc�. �Ae�r 9979-1983,
Ch�imnan 1982-'9 983.
Airy�K La�e Corrxni�e��a. �A�er�er 1981-det�. Chaierrean,
T�sk Committee on Air�K Le�e Pl�nning Technaqua�,19�4-
19�6.
Coorunitt�e on Pl�nning (r�w Pl�nning, Econom�s and Fna��).
AAert�e� 1983-dat�. Ch�im�n, Subcommittee on �ife-cycle
Co�ing. 1984-1988.
1'�hni�al Courtcil on Computer Praci�
�_ j Committ�e on E�ert Systems. AAerr��r 1988-d�4e.
G OFFR D. GOSLING, Ph.Da Aviation System Planning Consui4ant
_ 4
Transportation Research Board
Task Force on Airport Systems Pianning. Chaim�an 1993-date.
Commiti�e on Intergovemmentai Retations in Avia4eon. �Aember 1993-date.
� Steering Committee for Oversight of FA�-Sponsored Wor�.shops. nAember
1993-date.
Committee on Airport Landsid� Operations. AAemb�►r 1978-1992,
Secretary 9982-1984. Chairman, Airport I.a�side Planning Techniques
Conf�rence Committee, 1983-1988. -
Public�tions _ Dr. Gosling has published over 80 technical repor4s, joumal papers, conference
pre�ntatio�s, and other articles in various are� of tr�nsportation, incl�ding mir
traffic demand analysis, 'airport ground access, aieport pla�nning� and air traffic
� control. R�cent publica4ions includ�:
"Off-Aieport Terminals: A Trend Tovuard Better Seniice, Less Congestion?' in
`Airport Services Nlanaaemen4. �Aay 1987. '
°Res�arch Needs for Airpo�i ar� Terminal-Area Operations of th� Futur�°, in
Aimort and Terminal Area Oaerations of fhe Futur�. Tr�nsportatbn
Research� Circular Plo. 325, Transpoetation Research Board, �/ashington,
D.C., Decembe� 1987.
"Future` AieEwrt Technology" in New Technobqv and the Aviatbn Svsiem.
Conference Proce�dings UC8-1TS-P-89-1, Insti4ute of Transportation
Studies, University of Califomia, 8erac�l�y, July 1989. �
"il�anaging Haaardous Weath�r in the Airpoet o# the 21 st Centuey" (with J.
iVlcCarthy), in Loo6ona to 2020, Proceedings of the Airshowr Canada
Symposium on the Future of Air Transpartation, Vancouver, Canada,
August 1989.
°D�sign of an Experi System for Aircrafi Gat� Assignm�n4' Trans�ortation
R�search. Vol. 24A, Na `1. 1990.
Potential Roles of New Technobav in the Caliioenia Aviation Svs4em (with A.
< Kanafani and J. West), Final RepoK of the Cali�omia Air Transportation
Techr�logy Study, Res�arch Report UC�-ITS-RR-90-7, Institute of
Transponaiion Studies, University af Califomia, 8e�lcel�y, 149ay 199A.
Prac46cabilfi► of Screeninq IMemational Checked BaaQaqe for U.S. Airlines (with
Pul. Hansen). Research �eport UCB-ITS-RR-90-14, Insti4utue of
T�mnsportation Studies, University of Califomi�►, 8erkel�y, July 1990.
'Off-Airpoe4 Terminals: A Strategy to Reduc� Conges4�on°, in �VI. Hudson (ed.),
Airr�oet Technolo�v Int�mational 199Q/99. St�rling Publ�tions, l.oro�lon.
1990.
Plannina in Califomia,' Research F�eport UCB-ITS-RR•94-7, Instiiute of
- Transpo�tation Studies, University of Califomsa, Berkeley, July 1994.
Ground Acceas to Aimo�ts (ed.), P�oceadings UCB-ITS-P-94-1, Institute of
Transportation Studies, University of Califomia, B�rlc�ley, D�cemk►er 1994. �-
. _ _
l
)
. �.FFIIDAVI'I' OF' SAIY�'Ol� FIDEI.L
Sanford Fidell, being first duly sworn, deposes and says:
l. I am the Manager of the Environmental Technologies::depariment of GTE's BBN
Technologies business unit (BBI� in Los Angeles. BBN has been retained by the City of
Richfield, Minnesota, to assist the City in evaluating noise impacts from proposed airport
improvements ("the Project"), including a Proposed Runway 1 Z/35, at Minneapolis-St. Paul
International Airport ("MSP"). This affidavit is submitted in connection with Richfield's
comments on the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Project. I have
firsthand knowledge of the matters stated below, and would testify competently thereto if
called as a witness.
2. My academic and technical training includes a doctorate in Experimental Psychology
from the University of Michigan and 30 years of design, conduct, and analysis of laboratory
and field studies of the effects of aircraft and other environmental noise on individuals and
communities. I am familiar with aircraft noise measurernent and aircraft noise exposure
prediction methods, and with means of estimating the prevalence of aircraft noise-induced
annoyance in communities. My resume is attached to this Affidavit.
3. I have reviewed the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Proj ect and visited
azeas of Richfield that would be adversely affected by low-frequency runway sideline noise
from aircraft operations on Proposed Runway 17/35. On the basis of my review of the FEIS,
familiarity with residential neighborhoods in eastern R.ichfield, acoustic measurements of
low-frequency aircraft ground noise, study of the annoyance of indoor noise and vibration
1
�
induced by runway sideline noise in residences, and my general knowledge and experience
with aiiport noise issues, I have formed the opinio.ns and reached the conclusions set forth �
below.
II. DESCRIP�'IOiv OF LC.�W-�'�OiJE1�TCY �ti1NWAI.' SII)EI.INE 1�10ISE
4. Runway sideline noise differs from aircraft overflight noise in duration, frequency
and regularity of occurrence, and relative low-frequency noise content. In communities
situated along runway sidelines, aircraft`noise events produced by relatively low-speed
aircraft ground operations may be'audible for longer periods of times than flyovers; may
occur more often and more regulazly than flyovers; and may contain more low-frequency
energy than flyovers. These differences are due in part to proxunity, and in part to excess
attenuation of the high-frequency components of aircraft noise caused by over-ground rather
;.
than air-to-ground propagation. (Atmospheric absorption alonereduces sound levels by only �,
tenths of decibels per thousand feet in the frequency range'below l00 Hz.)
5. - Although low-frequency' noise in general is not as directly annoying to people as
higher-frequency noise of similar sound pressure levels, low-frequency noise from aircraft
operations is readily audible and distinctive in character. At high enough noise levels, low-
frequency aircraft noise may also be directly annoying.
6. One important way in which the impacts of low-frequency noise from aircraft
operations differs from those of higher-frequency aircraft noise is that low-frequency noise
can indirectly annoy people through "secondary emissions" =- perceptible rattling and
vibration of household pazaphemalia — that it induces inside residences. A jet engine
operating at a high thrust setting can create enough low-frequency energy to vibrate or rattle
;
- _ �_ � ��
lightweight objects inside residences located on the sides of runways, even though they aze l�,
2
not directly overflown. Taxiing, departure queues, takeoff roll, deployment of thrust
� reversers on landing, and engine run-ups can all create low-frequency noise levels sufficient
to induce secondary emissions in nearby homes.
7. For reasons described in greater detail in BBN Technical Report 8196 (Lind,
Pearsons, and Fidell,1997), low-frequency noise impacts are most appropriately represented
by a maximum single event rather than a time-averaged noise metric. Long-term average
sound levels aze not useful predictors of secondary emissions because window panes, picture
frames, objects on shelves, hanging closet doors, and other light objects in homes rattle and
vibrate at the time that they are excited by low-frequency energy.
;�; �; ;� ;. �; ,. . �.
.� � , ,�, �a ;�: �� � , .. �, ;� �1� :; ' � �� . �. � �, � ��, �. �- �'�� �� 1�
j Iti1I�VVr�i� 17/35
8. As described by Lind et al. (1997), low-frequency aircraft noise levels produced in
eastern Richfield by Proposed Runway 17/35 may be estimated by adjusting maximum
- A-level noise contours produced by FAA's Integrated I�Toise 1VIode1 soflwaze by means of
relationships between A-weighted and low-&equency noise levels that were developed from
field measurements at MSP. Figure l, adapted from Lind et al. (1997), summarizes these
relationships. Maximum A-level contours, so adjusted, indicate that levels of low-frequency
aircraft noise greater than 70 dB would extend several blocks to the west of Cedar Avenue
into residential neighborhoods of eastern Richfield.
3
95•
a �ceanon t �
� ..�� � LOC2tiDn4 � .. _.. � . . � � � . � . . � . .. � � . � .. �. . . � . . . /�...
� — — F�gresSion 1 �► a 1
Regressm 4 a _,, �. "� •
♦ ��.�- '
�,.. -- • •
e e
m 85 A � ` .
� ., -"l •, _ e
.. '.
�, J,., .,.- . ..
� ' ' !' �,,,, -
� 80 �-- e ■
�--- ' �
� . �.,. -- � e , •
o,_,..-.� ' ■
v! 75 -"' � ■
A
t� �
C
m
� , 70 � � � � - .:
�
Y. -
o� ° 5ummary of Li�ar Regressions
J 65
Slope intercept �
■ � I.ocation 1 0.45 44.6] 0.81
Location 4 0.59 21.57 0.77 I
� � �' Predictor Variable: Mauimwn A-waighted Level Durirg Flyover
Predicted Variabie: Ma�cimum �e�i in any 1/3 Octa�e Band
between 25 a�ui 80 Hz Ir�lusi�e During Flyover
55 �
65 70 �5 80 85 90 95 1Q0 ; 105
� ��,►e��a�ted sou�d �eVer�d�� �
Figur� 'i Regressions of maximum A-weighted aircraft noise levels on low-frequency
noise levels at MSP.
1
`
I�. COIl�1VIi.Trti�'l� �3Pi�l�SE T'O Li�S�-�d)LTEI�T� AIRC��'I' NOISE LEVEi,S
�'It01l� OPE�T'IO1�tS t�I�t PROPOSED It AY 1"1/35
9. Although Lind ; et al. (1997) established that low-frequency noise levels of the
magnitude anticipated in portions of eastern Richfield would be capable of inducing
secondary emissions audible inside residences, the annoyance of suchvibration and rattling
noises cannot be predicted on the basis of acoustic measurements or analyses alone. The
social survey described by Fidell, Silvati, Pearsons, Lind and Howe (1998), also attached to
this Affidavit, was therefore conducted. (This manuscript has been submitted forpublication '
in the Journal of the Acousrical Society of America.) Residents of El Segundo, Califomia
exposed to similar low-frequency runway sideline noise were interviewed to determine the
,
- prevalence of a consequential degree of annoyance among them due to such rattling sounds �
4
and vibration. Although the study was conducted in a community that has long been
� exposed to runway sideline noise, it is possible to infer from these findings the likely
reactions of Richfield residents who would be exposed to similaz low-frequency runway
sideline noise from future aircraft operations on the Proposed Runway l7/35.
10. Figure 2 shows (in red) the locations of homes of survey respondents who were
highly annoyed by aircraft-induced low-frequency noise and vibration, in relation to the
runways on which aircraft operations occurred during the course of interviewing. The figure
� also shows empirically-derived low-frequency noise contours through the residential
neighborhoods, developed as described by Fidell et al. (1998). Note that the bulk of the
highly annoyed residents live in areas subjected to low-frequency noise levels in excess of
`about 75-$0 dB, and that relatively few respondents highly annoyed by rattling and vibration
live in areas with lower levels of low-frequency runway sideline noise.
; ) 11. Figure 3 shows contours of low-frequency runway sideline noise expected in
Richfield. A consequential degree of annoyance due to low-frequency runway sideline noise
from operations on Proposed Runway 17/35 can be expected to extend several blocks to the
west of Cedaz Avenue. This pattern of findings of annoyance due to rattling and vibration
caused by low-frequency runway sideline noise constitutes an adverse impact on some
Richfield residents, cornparable (if not greater) in magnitude to th�at caused by A-weighted
aircraft noise exposure at levels recognized by FAA as adversely affecting land use
compatibility.
5
-- .- __ -_. .-- -- - -� _ -- � :
Rt�w�Y-�- "_. -__-�-. ='� - -- -- -
+�,,.,ur�v'15C- � - _... . ._ __
39/,// ��y. NWiYNd. YxN� •.K � �qryQy/H
*;� ,, �
y��'� ��"fa�'�/�.ei�:'��.�,�Y�,, � � „w>y}y,�-ri�j,w�fj,d i� •.:.i . �i�s���l.�.�"
4�����' �' y.r i �r�• � E2� C.6 � >r � n �ii;%i" �
r _'�i�t�' iy Y� d''���' �.//�g �Y•�"'x �z"�yy r �'.k'/�:s�fb h'n`.t :�
����%/�/��/�{�p��' r�%//'�^2" W//� �mp ,�e � �" Y� �� � ��'��`��,� � .
'�6'.�w///� !ss '�i �� s'��/"�.t'�/'�����,�/,qy i�" ��ir�r�� � � . . �:
i ��/" ���,' `� �` /./.�..�5���`���x.� '"�"4 k�r`$- 6 . .
��°'�%E`���z �.�`c<�'�'.�^���i""c9'.�'�/�� �f�� ,., j"
�. :��_ . ..;:
,r � . F,.,
.
� ..�..� .. :.. .a .., ..
� �.,.
\� /:
j,'\...
•
-�, , . ... ,._ ,....,., ,N .,, . ,��.: -
��, . _:. "� - -
:.I�+:'.:"�. _ • • • � • • • • - •• •� •� • :• .� • • • � -�
• - • . � _ • • - • • .' ' • - • ' - • -
�
r. :
� .
'-..,....-....- ' y '�� �r
� II 1 �� ``\\ . . .. . ... . . .. .
. . '�.
`� �
. . . . '`•� ; . . ... � � .:\1, . , . .
. \ � , 1 � 2:•`
' ' � :� �
. . .. . . � � �� �� � . � � . ....
. . . � ` �'�� .
�... � . ., , . .. , ..
�� '
'�. '�� .. ..
���� . � ,. ..
� �
�
• N
E
0.6 0 0.9 19
3
Transposition of sideline measurement points and low-f�equency noise contours generated
. from noise measurements taken in EI Segundo to corresponding positions in eastern
Richfield. �
0
���� (i'�� . � ;.�� �; ,. „ „
,�. . . � . � . � , ;�, , � , ► ; `, ► ,•
12. Standazd architectural treatments of the sort usually undertaken to mitigate aircraft
noise impacts in homes are designed to an A-weighted criterion. Thus, conventional
measures taken in federally-funded acoustic insulationprojects (e.g., installation ofmultiple
glazing and solid-core exterior doors, and sealing of wall and/or roof penetrations) may not
yield a sufficient improvement in low-frequency transmission loss to prevent residents from
directly noticing low-frequency aircraft noise in their homes. Furthermore, conventional
acoustic insulation treatments do not necessarily prevent secondary emissions from rattling
and vibrating objects on shelves, pictures hung on walls, and other household bric-a-brac in
homes exposed to low-frequency: noise of sufficient level.
��� ' � ��� �� '� '� " ��v • t .�� �� _�
13. The FEIS states that "The MAC noise monitoring system monitors will be increased
in number to provide more coverage of actual impacts in the airport vicinity, in particular,
in areas affected by the north-south runway." These additional monitoring stations will
contribute little to understanding and quantifying low-frequency noise impacts in Richfield
unless they have a capability for measuring, analyzing, and reporting aircraft noise levels in
the one-third octave bands from 25 to 100 Hz. Without such capability, they will not be able
to fulfill their intended purpose of making empirical measurements useful for assessing
"actual impacts in the airport vicinity." The information that they produce must also be
made available in useful and convenient form and in real time to the City of Richfield so that
the City can monitor and verify low-frequency noise levels produced by runway sideline
noise.
7
14. Although Richfield's comment labeled VWV in the FEIS concerns the value of the
Time Above noise metric selected to assess nighttime noise impacts, the reply is limited to �
a brief statement of the nighttime weighting a�plied to Day-Night Average Sound Levels.
The reply in the FEIS is thus non-responsive to Richfield's comment, which doesnot concern
Day-Night Average Sound Levels. (INM does not assign "the equivalent of 10 daytime
operations" to every nighttime operation for purposes of calculating values of the Time Above
noise metric.)
, 15. The claim in Reply AAA (Page I-134) that "The DNL metric was specifically
designed to model human response to cumulative noise impacts" is historically incorrect. The
initial description of the DNL noise metric (EPA, 1974) makes no explicit mention of an
intent to model human response to cumulative noise impacts. DNL was designed as an
evolutionary extension of the "equivalent level" noise metric: that is, as a convenient measure
,.
of community noise exposure rather than as a predictor of "human response to cumulative ��
noise impacts." It was not until four years after EPA introduced the noise metric that the first
analysis leading to dosage-response relationships between DNL and the prevalence of noise-
_ induced annoyance was published (Schultz, 1978). Another fourteen years passed before the
current officially recognized dosage-response relationship (FICON, 1992) was adopted.
16. The remainder of the reply does not respond to the substantive basis of Richfield's
comment. The tacit claim that the "specially designed" DNL noise metric is adequate to
model human response to cumulative noise impacts in the specific circumstances of the
current FEIS is a policy-driven one that lacks persuasive evidentiary support. No evidence
of a truly causal link between DNL and noise-induced annoyance has been published, and
FICON's preferred dosage-response relationship does not account for considerable variance
in the observed prevalence of annoyance in communities. The FEIS does not disclose, as `�
0
noted in Richfield's Comment A.AA and documented by Fidell, Silvati and Peazsons (1998),
� . that gradual, long-term reductions in cumulati�e noise exposure may not directly reduce
annoyance with aircraft noise exposure.
17. Reply DDD of the FEIS, offered in response to several of �ichfield's comments on
the DEIS, fails to address Richfield's concerns with noise impacts produced by low-&equency
runway sideline noise produced by aircraft ground operations. Section C of Reply DDD
(FEIS at I-143), entitled "Low Frequency Noise and Vibration," misleads readers by asserting
that "The ma�cimum noise levels associated with aircraft operations, whether low or high
frequency, are addressed in Sectians A and B of [Reply DDD]." Since all quantities cited in
Sections A and B of the reply describe A-weighted noise measurements, and since the
A-weighting network discriminates heavily against sound pressures at frequencies below
100 Hz, this statement is cleazly incorrect.
( i l�• Information presented in Section C of Reply DDD about structural damage risk
�
criteria and health risks are likewise irrelevant and non-responsive to Richfield's expressed
concerns with annoyance due to rattling or sensible vibration inside residences located to the
side of the proposed Runway 17/35.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on 10 June
199�.
`� fy,
�1 (���:�.� f
Sanford Fidell
E
C
�'
�
C �i '� : ;I \ � '.
,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1974). "Information on Noise Levels Requisite to
Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of:Safety," EPA 550/9-74-004,
Washington, D.C.
Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICOl� (1992). "-Federal Agency Review of
Selected Airport Noise Analysis Issues," Report for the Department of Defense, Washington,
�
Fidell, S., Silvati, L., Peazsons, K., Lind, S., and Howe, R. (1998). "Field study of the
annoyance of low-frequency runway sideline noise," submitted to the J. Acoust. Soc. Am, for
( j publication.
Fidell, S., Silvati, L., and Pearsons, K. (1998). "Noticeability of a decrease in aircraft noise,"
Noise Control Eng. J., Vol. 46, No. 2, pp. 49-56.
Lind, S., Peazsons, K. and Fidell, S. (199i). "An Analysis of Anticipated Low Frequency
Aircraft Noise in Richfield Due to Operation of a Proposed North-South Runway at MSP,"
:: • -.. : •.
Schultz, T. J. (1978). "Synthesis of social surveys on noise annoyance," J. Acoust. Soc. Am.,
Vol. 64, pp. 377-405.
10
l
� �_
� )
CiTE�
i N T E R N E T W O R K i N G
. POWERED 8v 88N
SA�FO FII)ELL, - I)epai•finent iVlaria�er
Ph.D., Experimental Psychology, The University of Michigan, 1969
M.S., Experimental Psychology, The University of Michigan, 1966
B.A., Psychology, Trinity College, Hartford, Connecticut, 1964
PRO�ESSIONAL POSIT'It�NS:
BBP! Technologies
2 t i 29 Vancwen Street
Cancga Park. CA 9� 303
a,a-sa�-��so
Fax:818-7t6-83i7
http:; �www.bbn.Com
Manager, Environmental Technologies Departments ofBBN Acoustic Technologies, BBN Systems
and Technologies, and BBN Technotogies of GTE Internetworking, 1995-Present; Manager,
Environmental Research and Data Systems Department, BBN Systems and Technologies Division,
1992-1995; SeniorManager, 1991-1992; Lead Scientist, 1989-1991; Senior Scientist, 1968-1988;
Manager, Los Angeles Computer Laboratory, 1970-1982; Lecturer, California State University,
Northridge, 1969-1971; Member of the Technical Staff, Bell Telephone Laboratories, 1966;
Research Assistant and Teaching Fellow, The University of Michigan, 1964-1968; Broadcast
Announcing, Engineering, and Production, 1960-1968.
•' ,� � �� � � ��� �� � ' ��..
Acaustical Society of America (Fetlow); American Psychological Society; BBN Outstanding
Publications Awards (1989, 1991, 1996).
., � �. . ,� ,� ; ,�,
U.S. Representative to International Standards Organization Technical Advisory Group on
Community Response Questionnaire Standardization (ISO/TC43/SC 1/WG49); Acoustical Society
of America, Technical Committee on Noise (1993-1996); National Research Council Committee
on Hearing, Bioacoustics and Biomechanics (CHA.BA); Current or past member of the American
National Standards Institute, Committee on Bioacoustics, Working Groups S 12-15 (Environmental
Noise Measurement and Assessment), S3-51(Auditory Magnitudes), 53-70 (Community Response
to Noise Levels); American Helicopter Society, Committee on Acoustics; IEEE Power Engneering
Society, Audible Sound and Vibration Subcommittee.
A part of GTE Corporation
�� '.� '� �' . � , ��'� .. �, ,. '., l '� •�.
GTE
I N T E R N E T W O R K i N G
POWERED 8Y BBN
Dr. Fidell's technical work has been concentrated in three fields: psychoacoustic research, software
development, and aircraft noise consultin�. He has directed theoretical, laboratory and field
research in many areas of psychoacoustics and environmental acoustics. This research includes
laboratory studies of the noisiness of impulsive sounds; the detectability, intrusiveness and
annoyance of impulsive and other hijh and low level noises; low frequency critical bandwidths;
speech quality, intelli�ibility, and vocal stress; the aversiveness and hearing damage risk ofextremely
high level acoustic signals; and epidemio(ogic analyses of aircraft noise ef�ects on heatth. His field
studies include social surveys of community and classroom response to environmental noise;
eYperimentation on intermittent and continuous noise and vibration exposure; etectrophysiological
and behavioral studies of sleep quality, real-time studies of in-home annoyance; study of effects of
aircraft noise on property va(ues; and on-site and telephone interviews of outdoor recreationists'
response to aircraft overElights.
Dr.` Fidell's human factors research has been 'in areas such as variability of reaction time,
effectiveness of computer generated auditory, visual, and tactile displays, attentional demands of
warning signals, sensory scaling, si�nal loca(ization and detectability, and construction of human
performance test batteries. He has also assessed stress effects on performance, anthropometric and
biomechanical modets, and effects of vibration and g-forces on aircraft flight control.
Dr. Fidell has provided consu(ting services to a variety of community, airport and �overnment
organizations involved in aircraft noise controversies and assessments of aircraft noise impacts.
His other consulting and deve(opment efforts have included design and execution of acoustic field
measurement programs, analysis of environmental assessment documents and aircraft noise
monitoring systems, production oftraining materia(s (fitm, video, manuals, lectures, demonstration
recordin�s) and desi�n of miniaturized signal processing instrumentation. He has built computer-
based laboratories for psychophysical experimentation and acoustic data reduction at BBN,
developed novel psychophysical data collection methods, and consuited on the design of automated
laboratories and data reduction systerns elsewhere.
He has also provided commentary to public agencies, expert testimony in legal proceedings, and
litigation support on a range of acousticat issues. These include enhancement, transcription, and
speaker identification 'of poor quality recorded materia(s, analysis of technical evidence and
environmental regulatory actions, and e�'ects of noise exposure on communities.
Dr. Fidell's software experience includes real-time programming in assembly language and creation
of computer-based models of acoustic detection phenomena. Other computing experience includes
technical oversight of weapons system and other software development, management of embedded
microsystem projects, and design, management, marketing and appiication of acoustic detection,
�
A part of GTE Corporation
��
�
CTE
1 N T E R N E T W O R K I N G
'
� . POWEFED 9v BBN
environmental assessment (geoinformation system), decision support and time series analysis
pro�rams. ,
Dr. Fidell's other responsibilities include management of BBN's Los Angeles o�ce, committee
work for professional or�anizations, contributions to standards and 'criteria, and review of grant
proposals, journal manuscripts, and other technical documents. He has taught statistics at Califorrria
State University at Northridge, lectured on human factors engineering topics, and (while associated
with Bell Telephone Laboratories and the University of Michigan) performed research in sensory
and physiological psychology.
PAPEI2S AND PUBL,[C,�►TIONS: '
"Noticeability of a Decrease in Aircrait Noise," Fidell, S., Silvati, L., and Pearsons, K., Noise
Control EneineerinQ Journal, April 1998.
"Community Noise," Fidell, S., and Pearsons, K.S.,' Vol. II, Ch. l 1, Encyclopedia of Acoustics,
J. Wiley and Sons, New York, 1997.
; j "Effects of Aircraft Overfli�hts on Wilderness Recreationists," Fidell, S., Silvati, L., Tabachnick,
B., Howe, R., Pearsons, K.S., Knopf, R.C., Gramann, J. and Buchanan, T., Journat of the
Acoustical Society of America, pp. 2909-2918, Vol. 100, No. 5, November 1996.
"Some Policy and Regulatory Implications of Recent Findings of Field Studies on Noise-Induced
Sleep Disturbance," Fidell, S., Proceedin�s of Inter•noise 96, pp. 2261-2265.
"On the Noticeability of Small and Gradual Declines in Aircraft Noise Exposure Leve(s," Fidell, S.,
Silvati, L. and Pearsons, K., Proceedin�s of Inter�noise 96, pp. 2247-2252.
,; '
"Audibility-Related Means for Assessing Community Response to Noise From Outdoor Events,"
Fidell, S., Proceedin�s ofInter•noise 96, pp. 2001-2005. -
"Assessment of Community Response to High Energy Impulsive Sounds," Fidell, S., ed., National
Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1996.
"Questing After the Holy Grail of Psychoacoustics...Againi" Sound � Vibration, May 1996.
"New CHABA Study of Assessment of High Energy Impulsive Noise," Fidell, S., Proceedine� Of
INTER-NOISE 95, Newport Beach; California, July 1995.
A part of GTE Corporation
3
� N 7 E R N E T W O F K I N G
' POWERE� 8Y 88N ����
"Field Study of Noise-Induced Sleep Disturbance," Fidetl, S., Pearsons, K. S., Tabachnick, B.G.,
Howe, R., Silvati, L., and Barber, D.S., Journal ofthe Acoustical Societv ofAmerica. August 1995.
"Predicting Noise-Induced Sleep Disturbance," Pearsons, K.S., Barber, D.S., Tabachnick, B.G. and
Fidell, S., Journal of the Acoustical Societv of America, January;1995.
"Deriving a Dosage-Response Relationship for Community Response to High-Energy Impulsive
Noise," Fidell, S., and Pearsons, K. S., Proceedin�s of Sonic Boom Conference, NASA Langley
Research Center, June 1994.
"Comparison of Methods of Predicting Community Response to Impulsive and Nonimpulsive
Noise," Fidell, S. and Pearsons, K.S., Proceedin�s of Sonic Boom Conference, NASA Ames
Research Center, May 1993.
"Interpreting Findings About Community Response to Environmental Noise Exposure: What Do
the Data Say?," Proceedin�s of the Pan-European Noise Conference. EURO-NOISE 92, Imperial
Col(ege, London, September 1992.
"Noise-Induced Annoyance of individuals and Communities," Fidell, S., and Green, D.M., Chapter �
23 ot Hancibook of Noise Gontrol, C. Harris, Ed., 3rd Edition, 1991. `-
"Variability in tlie Criterion for Reporting Annoyance in Community Noise Surveys," Green, D.M.
and Fidell, S., Journal of the Acousticat Society of America, January 1991.
"Updating a Dosa�e-Eflect Relationship for the Prevalence of Noise-Retated Annoyance," Fidell,
S., Barber, D., and Schuitz, T.J., Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, January 1991.
"An Assessment of the Effect of Residential Acoustic Insutation on Prevalence of Annoyance in an
Airport Community," Fideil, S. and Silvati, L., Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,
January 1991. �
"Relating the Annoyance of AircraR Overfli�hts to Their Audibility by Outdoor Recreationists,"
Fidetl, S. and Silvati, L., Proceedin$s of NOISE-CON 90, Austin, Texas, October 1990.
"An Historical Perspective on Predicting the Annoyance of Noise Exposure," Proceedin�s of
NOISE-CON 90, Austin, Texas, October 1990, pp. 13-22.
"Audibility and Annoyance of En Route Noise of Unducted Fan Engines," Fidell, S., Hutchings, L.,
Helweg-Larsen, M., and Silvati, L.., Federal Aviation Administration Report FAA-90-03, April
1990.
�
�
A part of GTE Corporation
�,
GTE
� : . ��
I N T E R N E T W O R K I N G
. POWERED BY BBN
"Laboratory Tests of Hypotheses Derived from a: Decision-Theoretical Model of Noise-Induced
Annoyance," Fidell, S. and Silvati, L. Proceedin�s of 1NTERNOISE 89, December 1989, pp. 887-
890.
"An Acoustic Range Prediction Model for Personal Computers," Fidell, S., Secrist, L., and Harris,
M., Proceedings of the. lOth Annua( Symposium on Ground Vehicle Signatures, Michigan
Technotogical University, Houghton, Michigan, August, 19�9.
"Feasibility of Studying Human Health Effects of Aircraft Noise in Residential Populations,"
Thompson, S.J. and Fidell, S., In: Berglund, B., and Lindvall, T., Eds., Noise as a Public Health
Problem, Vol. 4, Swedish Council for Building Research, Stockholm, Sweden, August, 1�988.
"A Theoretical Interpretation of the Prevalence Rate of Noise-Induced Annoyance in Residential
Populations," Fidell, S., Schultz, T.J., and Green, D.M., Journa! of the Acoustical Society of
America, 84(6), December, 1988, pp. 2109-2113.
"Feasibility of Studying Human Health Effects of A.ircraft Noise In Residential Populations,"
Thompson, S., and Fidelt, S., Proceedings of the Fifth Internationai Congress on Noise as a Public
Health Problem, Stockholm, Sweden, August, 1988.
)
- "Why Is Annoyance So Hard to Understand?," Fidell, S., in Environmental Annovance: Charac-
terization Measurement and Control, H. Koelega, Ed., Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam,
19$7, pP. 51-56.
"Access Through DataProbe," Fidell, S., Moss, P., and Fortmann, T., DEC Professional, VoL 5,
No. 10, October 1986, pp. 30-36.
"Torpedo Programs Pioneer Interactive Data Ana(ysis" Fidell, S., Fortmann, T., Moss, P., and
Means, J., Defense Electronics, Vol. 18, No. 9, September 1986.
"Closing the Gap Between Data and Analysts," Fidell, S. and Fortmann, T., Hardconv, Vol. 14, No.
12, Decernber 1985, pp. 139-141.
"Aircraft Noise Annoyance at Thcee Joint Air Carrier and General Aviation Airports," Fidell, S.,
Horonjeff, R., Mills, J., Baldwin, E., Teffeteller, S., and Pearsons, K., Journal of the Acoustical
Societv of America, 77(3), March 1985, pp. 1054-1068. See also Fidell, S. and Pearsons, K.,
"Comments on `The Effect of Changes in Aircraft Noise Exposure,' " Journal of Sound and
Vibration, Vol. 103, No. 1, November 1985, pp. 139-140.
�
A part of GTE Corporation
I N T E R N E T W O R K I N G
� � . , POWEREO BV 88N ���
"Comments on Attention Demand and Recognition in the Perception o� Warning Sounds and the
Ef%cts of Wearing Hearing Protection by Wilkins and Martin," Fidell,:. S., Journal of Sound and
Vibration, 98(1), 147-148, 1985.
"Community Response to Blasting," Fidell, S., I-�oronjet�', R., Schultz, T;, and Teffeteller, S.,
Journal ofthe Acousticat Society of America, 74(3) September 1983, pp:'888-893,. See also Fidell,
S., and Horonjeff, R., "Reply to' Buliem and Job," Journal of the Acoustical Society of Arrierica,
78(2), pp. 800-801, 1985; and Kessler, F.M., Journal of the Acoustical �ocietv of America, 78(5),
p. 1904, 1985. _
"Community Response to Noise,"'Chapter 10'ofNoise and Societv, Jones, D. and`Chapman, A.
Eds., John Wiley and Sons, Ltd. Chichester, 1984.
"Effective Masking Bandwidths at Low Frequencies," Fidell, S., Horonjeff, R., Teffeteller, S.,'and
Green, D.M., Journal of the Acoustical Societv `of America, Vol. 73, No. 2; 628-638, February
19�3.
"Behavioral Awakening as Functions of Duration and Detectability of Noise Intrusions in the
Home," Horonjeff, R., Fide(1, S., Teffeteller, S., and Green, D.M., Journal of Sound and Vibration,
Vol. 84, No. 3, September 1982. (
�
"Dosage-Response Relationships for Community Annoyance -with Biasting," Fidell, S. and
Horonjeff, R., Proceedin�s of Internoise 82, San Francisco, 585-588, May 1982.
"Multimodal Signal Detection: Independent Decisions 4�s. Integration," Fidell, S., Perception and
Ps,Ychoph, s�, 31(1), 90, March t 982.
"Comments on `The Devetopment of an Annoyance Scale for Community Noise Assessments;' "
Fidell, S., Journal of Sound and Vibration, Vol. 78, No. l, 299=301, September 1981. ,
"Scaling the Annoyance of Intrusive Sounds," Fidell, S. and Teffeteller; S., Journal of Sound and
Vibration, VoL 78, No. 2, 291-?98, September 1981.
"Detectability and Annoyance of Repetitive Impulsive Sounds," Fidell, S. and Horonjeff, R.,
Proceedines of the 3'7th Annual Forum of the America Helicoptec Societ�, Na 81-55, May 1981.
"Statistical Analyses of Urban Noise," Fidell, S.; Horonjeff, R., and Green, D:M, Noise Control
En�ineering, Vol. 16, No. 2, 75-80, March-April 1981.
"A Modern Psychophysical Procedure for Assessing Noise-Induced Annoyance," Fidell, S., Noise
Control Engineering, Vol. 14, No. 3, 127-131, May 1980. �'
0
A.part of GTE Corporation
�" )
)
G►TE�
�� _ � ��n�
I N T E R N E T W O A K i N G
. POWERED BY 88N
"Adaptation to Changes in Aircraft Noise Exposure," Fidell, S., Horonjeff, R., Teffeteller, S., and
Pearsons, K., Presented at 99th meeting of ASA, Atlanta, Georgia, April 1980. Invited Paper—
Session O.
"Speech Interference and Community Annoyance," Fidell, S., Chapter in Communit Noise, ASTM
STP692, Peppin, R. and Rodman, C., Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, November
1979.
"Predicting Annoyance from Detectability of Low Level Sounds," Fidell, S., Teffeteller, S.,
Horonjeff, R.; and Green, D., Journal of the Acoustical SocietY of America, Vol. 66, No. 5, 1427-
1434, November 1979.
"Community Response to Noise," Fidell, S., Chapter 36 of Handbook of Noise Control, Second
Edition, C. Harris, Ed., `McGraw-Hilt, Inc., 1979.
"Protective Noise Levels," Fidell, S., (Ed.), EPA 550/9-79-100, November 1978.
"Detectability and Effectiveness of Audible Warnings," Fide(l, S., "Hazard Prevention" (Journal of
the Svstem Safet � Sti ociety), pp. 6-7, November/December 1978.
"Nationwide Urban ;�loise Survey," Fidell, S., Journal of the Acoustical Societv of America, Vo(.
64( l), July 1978, pp. 198-206.
"Effectiveness of Audible Warning Signals for Emergency Vehicles," Fidell, S., Human Factors,
VoL 20 (1), 19-26, February, 1978.
"Effects of Cessation of Late-Night Fiights on an Airport Community," Fidell, S., and Jones G.,
Journal of Sound and Vibration, Vol. 42(4), pp. 411-427, October 1975. See also "Reply to
Patterson's Comments," Journal of Sound and Vibration, Vol. 47(3), pp. 449-450, August 1976.
"Industrial Noise-Effects and Control," Bruce, R., Fideli, S., and Shadley, J., Chapter III of
Handbook of Dangerous Pro,perties, N. Sax, Ed., Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1975.
"Prediction of Aural Detectability of Noise Signals," Fidell, S., Pearsons, K., and Bennett, R.,
Human Factors, Vol. l6(4), pp, ;73-383, August 1974.
"The Noisiness of Impulsive Sounds,'' Fidell, S., Pearsons, K., Grignetti, M., and Green, D.M.,
Journat of the Acoustical Society of America, Vol. 48(6):1, pp. 1304-1310, December 1970.
"Sensory Function in Multimodal Signal Detection," Fidell, S., .fournal of the Acoustica( Societv
of America, Vol. 47(4):2, pp. 1009-10 t 5, April 1970. See also Comments on Mulli�an and Shaw's
7
A part of GTE Corporation
;,
GTE
1 N T E R N E T W O R K i N G
' POWERED BY BBN
"Multimodal signal detection: Independent decisions ��s. inte�ration," Fidell, S., Perception &
Psvchophvsics 1982, VoL 31(1), p 90.
"The Effects of Overtraining on Reversal Learning Under Conditions of No Non-Reinforcement,"
Fidell, S. and Birch, J.D., Psvchon. Sci., Vol. 8(1), pp. 27-28, 1967.
�, • . . �, . , .
"Effect of Low Frequency Content on the Rate of Growth of Annoyance of Impulsive Sounds,"
Fidell, S., presented 'at the Joinf Meetin� of the International Congress on Acoustics and the
Acoustical Society of America, Seattle, Washington, June 1998.
"Airport Noise Management", Fidetl, S., (ecture presented for "Airport Systems Planning and
Design" short course, Continuing Education in Engineering, U.C. Berkeley, Berketey, CA, May,
1998. �
C
"Comparison of noise metrics for predicting the annoyance of aircraft overflight noise,"
Pearsons, K., Howe, R., Sneddon, M., Silvati, L., and Fidel(, S., J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vo(. 102, No. (
5, Pt. 2 (November 1997). \..
"Measurements of personal aircraft noise exposure of outdoor recreationists," Sneddon, M., Fideli,
S., and Pearsons, K., J. Acoust. Soc. r1m., Vol. 102, No. 5, Pt. 2(November 1997).
"Noise Metrics: Purpose/Criteria," Fidell, S., presented at 12`h Annual Airport Noise and Land Use
Compatibility Symposium, University of California lnstitute of Transportation Studies, San Diego,
CA, February 1997.
"The Role of Social Surveys in Airport Noise Analyses," Fidell, S., presented at Annual Conference
of Airports Council International, Pacific Region, Narita Airport, Japan, May 1996.
"Retationship Between Judgments of Neighborhood Noisiness and Prevalence of Noise-Induced
Annoyance," Fidell, S.,` presented at 131st Meetin� of the Acoustical Society of America,
Indianapolis, Indiana, May 1996.
"Applications of the Noise Budget Concept,"' Fidetl, S., presented at the 9th Airport Noise
Management Seminar of the U.C. Berkeley Institute for Transportation Studies, San Diego, CA,
February 1996.
A part of GTE Corporation
�a
��
,
GTE�
I N T E R N E T W O R K I N G
, POWERED Bv 88N
"The Meaningfulness of Reductions in Aircraft Noise Exposure in Airport Neighborhoods," Fidell,
S., presented at the 130th Meeting of the Acoustical Society of America, St. Louis, MO, November
1995.
"Comparison of New Methods for �ssessing Community Response to High Energy Impulsive
Sounds," Fidell, S., presented at the 1995 Sonic Boom Workshop, NASA Langley Research Center,
Hampton, VA., September 1995.
"Review of Effects of Aircraft Noise on Health, Sleep and Residential Property Sate Prices," Fidell,
S., presented at the American Association of Airpo�t Erecutives 9th Annual Aircraft Noise and
Land Use Workshop, Orlando, FL, Au�ust 199i.
"On the Smallest Meaningiul Reduction in Aircraft Noise Exposure," Fidetl, 'S., presented at the
25th Annuat NOiSE Meeting and Aviation Noise Symposium, Washington, D.C., 7uly 1995.
"Update on Effects of Noise on People," Fidell, S., invited address presented at the 24th Annual
Meeting, National Or�anization to Insure a Sound-Contro(led Environment,'College Park, GA, July
1994.
�
- "Initial Results of Study of Aircraft Noise Effects on Residential Sleep Disturbance," Fidell, S.,
Pearsons, K., Howe, R., Tabachnick, B., Silvati, L., and Barber, D., presented at the 127th Meeting
ofthe Acoustical Society ofAmerica, Massachusetts Institute ofTechno(ogy, Cambridge, MA, June
1994.
"Saftware System for Quantitative, Observer-Based Analyses offlircraft Noise," Reddingius, N.H.,
Sneddon, M.D., Smyth, J.S., and Fideli, S., presented at the 127th Meeting of the Acoustical
Society of America, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, June 1994.
"Assessing Effects ofMilitary Aircraft Noise on Residential Property Values Near Airbases," Fide(1,
S., Silvati, L., Tabachnick, B., and Cook, B., presented at the 1994 NATO CCMS Symposium on
Aircraft Noise Abatement Receiver Technology, Battimore, MD, May 1994.
"Re-evaluation of Information about Community Response to Impulsive Noise Exposure," Fidell,
S., presented at the 1994 NATO CCMS Symposium on Aircraft Noise Abatement Receiver
Technology, Baltimore, MD, May 1994.
"Implementing Observer-Based Detectability Contours for Aircraft Noise," Reddingius, N.,
Sneddon, M., and Fidell, S., presented at the 1994 NATO CCMS Symposium on Aircraft Noise
Abatement Receiver Technology, Baltimore, MD, May 1994. `
9
A part of GTE Corporation
CTE
I N T E R N E T W O R K I N G
POWERED BY BBN
"Assessing Effects ofMilitary A.ircraft Naise on Residential Property Values Near Airbases," Fidell,
S., Tabachnick,B., Silvati, L., and Cook, B., presented at NOISE=CON 94, Fort Lauderdale, FL,
May 1994.
"Predicting Effects ofNoise Exposure on Awakening," Tabachnick, Barbara G, Pearsons, Karl S.,
Barber, David S., and Fidell, S:, presented at the Western Psychological Association, Kona, HI,
April 1994.
"Design of a Large-Scale; In-Home Study of Noise-Induced Sleep Disturbance," Fidell; S.,
Pearsons, K. S., and Howe, R., presented at the 126th Meeting of the Acoustical Society of
America, Denver, CO, October 1993.
"Geographic Re}�resentation of Noticeability of kircraft Noise in Grand Canyon National Park,"
Fidetl, S., Sneddon, M., Smyth, J.; and Pearsons, K., presented'at the 123rd Acoustical Society of
America Confe�ence, Salt Lake City, UT, May 1992.
"Cardiovascular Response to Noise with Emphasis on the Effect of Hearing Protection Devices:
` A Review of Epidemio(ogic Studies," Thornpson, S.J., and Fidell, S., Hearing Conservation
Conference, Cincinnati, OH, April 1992.
"A GIS-based Aircraft Noise Decision Support System," Fidell, S., and Reddingius; N., 7th Annual
Grass User's C.onference, Denver, GO, March 1992.
"Prediction of Community Response to Sporadic Sonic Booms," Fidell, S. and Pearsons, K. S.,
Sonic Boom Workshop, NASA LangleyResearch Center, Langley; VA, February, 1992:
"A Novel Approach to Computation of Aircraft Noise Contours," Fidell, S., Reddingius, N., Smyth,
J. and Sneddon, M., Presented at the 122nd meeting of the Acoustical Society of America, Houston,
Texas, October 1991.
"Portable Device for Real-Time Administration of a Branching Questionnaire," Fidell, S., Brockett,
D. and McCraw, M., Presented at the 122tid meeting of the Acoustical Society of America,
Houstan, Texas, October, 1991.
"Audibility-Based Annoyance Prediction Modeling," Fidell, S. and Fine�old,' L. S., 78th Symposium
of NATO AGARD the Proputsion and Energetics Panel, Bonn, Germany, October 1991.
"Observer-based Audibility Contours for Helicopter Noise," Fidel(, S. presented af`NATO' CCMS"
Rotary Wing Noise Symposium, Monterey, CA, July 1991.
('
�
10
A part of GTE Corporation
�CTE�
� N T E R N E T W O R K i N G
. PowEREo Br 8BN
"Detection of Wind Noise Artifacts in Outdoor Noise Measurements,";Sneddon, M., Silvati, L.,
Fidell, S., and Harrison, R., presented at the 120th meetin� of the Acoustical Society of America,
November 1990.
"A Novel Method for Assessing the �nnoyance of Aircraft Overflights in Outdoor Recreational
Settings," Fidell, S., Silvati, L., and Harrison, R., presented at the 120th meeting of the Acoustical
Society of America, November 1990. _
"Predicting Sound Levels from Wind Speed in a Coniferous Forest," Sneddon, M., Silvati, L., and
Fide11,- S., presented at the 120th meetin� of the Acoustical Society of America, November 1990.
"NSBIT Program: Development of Assessment System for Aircraft Noise and Research on Human
Impacts Due to Aircraft Noise," Fine�old, L. S., Fidell, S., Reddin�ius, N. H. and Kugler, B. A.,
presented at NOISE-CON 90, Austin, Texas, October 1990.
"Heterogeneity of Ambient Noise Distributions of Natural Origin," Silvati, L., Fidell, S., and
Harrison, R., presented at the 119th meeting of the Acoustica! Society of America, May 1990.
,' j "Relative Masking Effectiveness of Self-Noise and Ambient Noise Distributions in Outdoor
`- Recreational Settings," Fidell, S., Silvati, L., Pearsons, K., and Harrison, R., presented at the 119th
meeting of the Acoustica( Society of America, May 1990.
"The Concept of Audibility-Based Aircraft Noise Contours," Fidell, S:, Reddingius, N., and
Hodapp, S., presented at the 119th meeting of the Acoustical Society of America, May 1990.
"Contributions of Theodore Schultz to Understanding Community Response to Environmental
Noise Exposure," Fidell, S., presented at the 119th meeting of the Acoustical Society of America,
May 1990.
"Tl�e Influence af Non-Acoustic Factors on Judgments of the Annoyance of Noise Exposure,"
Fide(l, S., and Green, D., presented at the 119th meeting of the Acoustical Society, May 1990.
"Adaptation of a Residential Dosage-Response Relationship for Aircraft Noise Annoyance to the
Outdoor Recrea.tional Setting," Hartmann, L., and Fidell, S., presented at the 119th meeting of the
Acoustical Society of America, May 1990.
"Predicting the Audibility and Annoyance of Unducted Fan Engines," Fidetl, S., Secrist, L., and
Helweg-Larsen, M., presented at the FAA/NASA En Route Noise Symposium, Hampton, Virginia,
September, 1989. '
� ) � � � � � � �
ll
A •part of GTE Corporation
t�TE
I N 7 E R N E T W O R K I N G
�� � � � � � ' POWEFlEO Bv BBN ���
"Revision of a Dosage-Effect Relationship for the Prevalence of Noise-Related 'Annoyance,"
presented at 117th meetin� of Acoustical Society of America, May 1989.
"The Marriage of GRASS and ORACLE," Fidell, S., Harris, M., and Reddingius, N., paper
presented at Sth flnnual GRA.SS User's Group Meetin�, Champaign, IL, October, 1988.
"Auditory Displays and Acoustic Warning Signals," Lectures given at University of Michigan
Human Factors Short Course, Ann Arbor, MI, Au�ust, 1988, 1989, 1990.
"United States Air Force Assessment System for Aircra�t Noise,"' Lon�, G., and Fidell, S., paper
presented at NATO-CCMS Pilot Study on Aircraft Noise, Williamsbur�, Virginia, Apri1 1988.
"A Theoretical Model of the Annoyance of Individual Noise' Intrusions," Fidell, S., Green, D.M.,
and Pearsons, K., paper presented at the 114th meeting of the Acoustical Society of America,
Novernber 1987.
"A Theoretical Interpretation of a Dosage-Effect Relationship' for the Prevalence of Annoyance in
a Community," Fidell, S., Green, D.M., and Schultz, T. J., paper presented at 114th meeting of the
Acoustical Society of America, November 1987.
``Distributed Processin� for Real-Time Data Collection; Display, and Analysis," Fidell,' S., Moss,
P., Fortmann, T., Sneddon, M., and Milligan, S., paper presented at Internationa! Telemetering
Conference, San Diego, California, October 1987.
"An Interactive Graphic System for Acquiring and Analyzing Proportional Bandwidth Acoustic
Data," Sneddon, M., and Fidell, S:; paper- presented at I 12th Meeting of the Acoustical Society of
America, December 1986. .
"Community Adaptation to Changes in Noise Exposure," Horonjeff, R., and Fidell, S., paper
presented at Summer Meeting of Transportation Research Board Committee on Transportation-
Related Noise and Vibration, Los Angeles, California, June 1984.
"Some Simiiarities in Community Response to Aircraft and Road Traffic Noise," Fidell, S., paper
presented at 106th Meeting of the Acoustical Society of America, November 1983.
"The State of the Art of Assessment of Noise Induced Annoyance," Fidell, S., invited paper
presented at 102nd meeting of the Acoustical Society of America, December 1981.
� "Approximating Low Frequency Masking Bandwidths with One-Third Octave Bands," Horonjeff,
R., Fidell, S., and Green, D., presented at the l 00th meeting ot the Acoustical Society of America, - �;
November 1980.
12
A part of GTE Corporation
�GT53E
i N T E R N E T W 0 R K I N G
. . . . POWEREO BY BBN
"Validation of Annoyance Scales for Social Surveys of Community Reaction to Noise Exposure,"
` Fidell, S., invited paper presented at the 99th meeting of the Acoustical Society of America, April
1980.
"Room Acoustics and Mobility of the Visually Impaired," Fidetl, S., presented at the 98th meeting
of the Acoustical Society of America, 1Vovember 1979.
"Effects of Temporal Variability of Urban Noise of Signal Detectability," Fidell, S., invited paper
presented at the 98th meeting of the Acoustical Society of America, November 1979.
"Effective Masking Bandwidths at Low Frequencies," Fidell, S., Horonjeff, R., Teffeteller, S., and
Green, D., presented at the 97th meeting of the Acoustical Society of America, June 1979.
"Evaluation ofEffectiveness ofResidential Fire Protection System Audible Warning Signals," Fidell,
S., presented at the 83rd annual meeting of the National Fire Protection Association, May 1979.
"A New Procedure for Simultaneous Comparison of the Annoyance of Multiple Noise Sources,"
Fidell, S., Horonjeff, R., and Pearsons, K., presented at the 96th meeting of the Acoustical Society
� of America, November 197�.
"Signal to Noise Ra.tios for Emergency Vehicle Alarms," Fidell, S., presented at Workshop on
Optimization of Emergency Audible Warning Devices, U. S. Department of Transportation,
Transportation Systems Center, Cambridge, Massachusetts, June 1978.
"Acoustic Detectability of Helicopters from Within Armored Vehicles," Fidell, S., presented at
Human Factors Society Symposium "Human Factors in Southern Catifornia," Northridge,
California, January 1979.
"The Relationship Between Community Annoyance and Speech Interference," Fide(l, S., presented
at the 94th meetin� of the Acoustical Society of America, December 1977:
"The Relationship Between Detectabi(ity and Annoyance of Low Level Signals," Fidell, S.,
presented at the 94th meeting of the Acoustical Society of America, December 1977.
"Assessment ofNoise Impact in Transportation Planning," Fidell, S., presented at the 92nd meeting
of the Acoustical Society of America, November 1976.
"Signal Detection in Time Varying Noise Backgrounds," Fidelt, S., presented at the 92nd meeting
of the Acoustical Society af America, November 1976.
( )
t3
A part of GTE Corporation
I N T E R N E T W O R K i N G
� � , POWERED Bv 98N ����
"The Prirnate Experience," Fidell; S,, presented at the 56th meeting of the Western Psychological
Association, April 1976.
"Detectability and Ei�'ectiveness of Automotive Warning Signals," Fidell, S., presented at the 90th
meeting of the Acoustical Society of america, November 1975.
"On the Meaningfulness ofNoise Measurements in Audio Systems," Fidell, S., presented at the S lst
Convention of the Audio Engineering Society, May 1975.
"A Review of Recent Community Noise Research in the U.S.A.," Fidell, S., Keynote Address
presented at Noise, Shock and Vibration Conference, Melbourne, Australia, May' 1974.
"Effects ofDiscontinuation ofNocturnal Aircraft Noise," Fidell, S., and Jones, G., presented at the
86th meeting of the Acoustical Society of America, •November 1973.
"Speech Intelligibility in the Presence of Time Varying Tra�c Noise," Pearsons, K. and Fidell, S,
presented at the Human Factors Society Meeting, Washington; D.C.,' October 1983.
.
"A Novel Method for Assessing Noise-Induced Annoyance in the Home," Fidell,'S., presented at
the 1973 meeting of the NAS-NRC Committee of Hearing, Bioacoustics, and Biomechanics
(CHABA), Washington, D.C., April 1973.
"Noise and Noise Levels Affecting the Human Sensory System," Bruce; R., and Fidell, S., presented
at the International Pollution Engineering Exposition and Congress, Cleveland, Ohio, December
1972.
Panelist, Hearings on Psychological and Physio(ogical Ef�'ects of Noise on` Man, Environmental
Protection Agency, Boston, Massachusetts, October 1971.
_
"Prediction of Aural Detectability in Varying Noise Backgrounds," Fidell, S., and Pearsons, K.S.,
presented at the 82nd meeting of the Acoustical Society of America, October, 1971.
"Sensory Interaction in Signal Detection," Fidell, S., presented at the 78th meeting ofthe Acoustical
Society of America, November, 1969.
�.
SPONSC�RED 'I'ECHNICAL �POEd'I'S (F�EPRESENTAT'IVE LIST):
"Field Studies of Habituation to Change in Nighttime Aircraft Noise and of Sleep Motility
Measurement Methods," Fidell, S., Howe, R., Tabachnick, B., Pearsons, K.,_ Silvati, L., Sneddon, (
M., and Fletcher, E., BBN Report 8195, March 1998. `
14
A part of GTE Corporation
6TE�
I N T E R N E T W O R K I N G
POWEREO BY 88N
"Use of Airport Noise Gomplaint Files to Improve Understanding of Community Response to
Aircraft Noise," Fidell, S., and Howe, R., BBN Report 8215, NASA Contractor Report, NASA
Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia, February 199�.
"Noise Reduction Measurements at the Goldenrod Showboat," Lind, S., Fletcher, E., and Fidell,
S., BBN Report 8224, January 1998.
"Sound Transmission Lass Measurements at Five Sites in Richfield, Minnesota," Lind, S., Fidell,
S., and Fletcher, E., BBN Report 8220, January 1998.
"Relative Rates of Growth of Annoyance of Impulsive and I�ton-Impulsive Noises," Fide(l, S.,
Silvati, L. Pearsons, K., Howe, R., and Lind, S., BBN Report 8213, December 199�.
"Classification ofAircraft Noise Events Using One-Third Octave Band Information," Sneddon, M.,
and Fidell, S., BBN Report 8210, December 1997.
"Comparison of Predictors of the Annoyance of Commuter, Stage II, and Stage III Aircraft
Overflights as Heard Outdoors," Pearsons, K., Howe, R., Sneddon, M., Silvati, L., and Fidell, S.,
� NASA Contractor Report CR-97•205812, December, 1997, NASA Langley Research Center,
Hampton, VA.
"Field Study of the Annoyance of Low Frequency Runway Sideline Noise," Fidell, S., Silvati, L.,
Pearsons, K., Lind, S., and Howe, R., BBN Report �21 l, October, 1997.
"Report of an Acoustic Analysis," Fidell, S., BBN Report8203, June 1997.
"An Analysis of Anticipated Low Frequency Aircraft Noise in Richfield Due to Operation of a
Proposed North-South Runway at MSP," C.ind, S., Pearsons, �C., and Fidell, S., BBN Report 8196,
May 1997.
"Comparison of Place and Personal Aircraft Noise Measurements in an Outdoor Recreational
Setting," Sneddon, M., Howe, R., Lind, S., and Fidell, S., BBN Eteport 8189, April 1997.
"Comparison of Public Law 100-9I Reports to Congress," Tabachnick, B., Fidell, S., and
Pearsons, K., BBN Report 8133, December 1996.
"Laboratory Study of the Noticeabitity and Annoyance of Sounds of Low Signal-to-Noise Ratio,"
Sneddon, M., Howe, R., Pearsons, K., and Fidell, S., NASA Contractor Report 201613, NASA
Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, November 1996.
15
A part of GTE Corporation
. I N T E R N E T W O R K I N G
-� � � POWEf;E� BY 88N �
"Social Sucvey of Community Preferences for Aircraft Noise Mitigation Measures," Fidell, S.,
Silvati, L, and Howe, R., BBN Report 8l 72, August 1996. '
"Analysis of First Year's Performance of Denver International Airport's Aircraft Noise and
Operations Monitoring System," Fidell, S., and Pearsons, K:, BBN Report' 8168, July, 1996.
"Comparison of the Performance of Noise Metrics as Predictors of the Annoyance of Stage II and
Stage III Aircraft �OverElights," Pearsons, K., Howe, R., Sneddon, M.`, and Fidell, S:, NASA
Contractor Report 198348, NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, July 1996.
"An Assessment of Commuter Aircraft Noise Impact," Fidell, S., Pearsons, K.,` Silvati, L., and
` Sneddon, M., NASA Contractor Reporr 19831'6, N�SA Langley Research Center; Hampton, VA,
June 1996.
"Noise-Induced Sleep Disturbance in Residences Near Two Civil Airports," Fidell, S., Howe, R.,
Tabachnick, B., Pearsons, K., and Sneddon, M., NASA Contractor Report 198252, NASA Langley
Research Center, Hampton, VA, December 1995.
;
"Social Survey of Community Response to Noise Exposure Near Vancouver International Airport," ��
Fidell, S., Silvati, L., and Fletcher, E., BBN Report 8105, Canoga Park, CA 91303-2853; October
1995.
"Analysis of Compliance of Denver Internationa! Airport's- Aircraft Noise `and Operations
Monitoring System with Inter-Governmental Agreement of 21 April 1988," Fidell, S., BBN Report
8015, October 1994,
"Noise-Induced Sleep Disturbance in Residentiat Settings," Fidetl, S., Pearsons, K.,'Howe,`R.,
Tabachnick, B., Silvati, L. and Barber, D., BBN Report 7932, November 1993:
"Software Requirements Specificatian for the I�tational Park Service OverEli�ht Decision Support
System," Reddingius, N. H., and Fidell, S., BBN Report 7681, February 1992. -
"Evaluation of the Effectiveness of SFA.R 50-2 in Restoring Natural Quiet to Grand Canyon
National Park," Fide(l, S., Pearsons, K. S., and Sneddon, M. D., BBN Report 7197, February 1992.
"Study Designs for Quantification of Response Bias and Ambient Noise Effects on Noise-Induced
Annoyance," Fidell, S., Tabachnick, B., and Barber, D., NSBIT Technical Operating Report No.
21, June 1990.
"Relationship Between Short and Long Term Annoyance ofNoise Exposure," Fidel(, S., Green, D. (
and Sneddon, M., NSBIT Technical Operating Report No. 22, )uly 1990. `
16
A part of GTE Corporation
0
� _- �
�CTE:
�� �
I N T E R N E T W O R K I N G
_ POWERED Bv 88N
"Requirements and Conceptual Design For a Miniaturized, Computer-Based SystemForReal-Time
Monitoring of Environmental Noise Exposure and Human Response;" Wagoner, J.; and Fidell, S.,
BBN Report 721 l, March 1990.
"AResearch Program Ptan For Public Law 100-91 Aircraft Overflight Management Studies," Fidell,
S., National Park Service Report NPOA-90- l, March 1990.
"Acoustic Measurements of Sonic Booms and Ambient Sound Levels in the Selway-Bitterroot
Wilderness Area," Fidell, S., Silvati, L., and Pearsons, K., BBN Report 7196, 7anuary 1990.
"Suitability of Aircraft Noise Contouring Methods For Public Law 100-91 Analyses," Fidell, S., and
Reddingius, N., BBN Report 7233, January 1990.
"Updating a Dosage-Effect Retationship for the Prevalence of Annoyance Due to General
Transportation Noise," Fidell, S., Barber, D., and Schultz, T.J., U.S. Air Force Technical Report
HSD-TR-89-009, December 1989.
"Feasibility ofEpidemiologic Research on Nonauditory Health Effects ofAircraft Noise Exposure,"
, `� Thompsan, S., Fideil, S., and Tabachnick, B., U.S. Air Force Technical Report HSD-TR-89-007,
December 1989.
"Effect of Additional Flight Operations at LGB on the Prevalence of Aircraft Noise Annoyance,"
Fidell, S., and Silvati, L. BBN Report 7141, September 1989.
"A Strategy for Studying Health Effects of Residential Aircraft Noise Exposure," Fidell, S., and
Thompson, S. BBN Report 7044, September, 1989.
"Initial Development of an Assessment System for Aircraft Noise (ASAN)," Fidell, S., Reddingius,
N., Harris, M., and Kugler, B. A., U. S. Air Force Technical Report HSD-TR-89-010, August 1989.
"Empirical Tests of Hypotheses Derived from a Decision-Theoretical Model of Noise-Induced
Annoyance," Fidell, S., Silvati, L., and Secrist, L., BBN Report 6739, August 1989.
"Development of Version 7 ofan Acoustic Detection Range Prediction Model (ADRPM-7)," Fidell,
S., Secrist, L., Harris, M., and Sneddon, M., U.S. Army Tank-Automotive Command Technical
Report 13397, March 1989.
"A Systematic Interpretation of a Dosage-Effect Retationship for the Prevalence ofNoise-Induced
' Annoyance," Fidell, S., and Green, D.M., U.S. Air Force Technical Report HSD-TR-89-0007,
January 1989.
( j . �
17
A part of GTE Corporation
i N T E R N E T W O R K I N G
POWERED 8Y 8BN
"Deve(opment of Version 7 of an Acoustic Detection Ran�e Prediction Model (ADRPM-7)," Fidell,
S., Secrist, L., Harris, M., and Sneddon, M., BBN Report 6737, September, 1988.
"A Strategy for Understanding Noise-Indiiced Annoyance," Fide(l, S., Green, D., Schultz, T.J., and
Pearsons, K., U.S. Air Force Technicai Report HSD-TR-87-013; August 1988:
"A Rationale and Plan for Developing Improved Means of Predicting Aircraft Noise Annoyance,"
Fidell, S., and Green, D., BBN Report 6751; June 1988.
"Preliminary Analysis ofthe Audibility and Annoyance ofNoise Produced by Unducted Fan Aircraft
Engines," Fide(1, S., and Secrist, L., BBN Report 6504, September 1987.
"Detailed Design Specifications for a Prototype Assessment System for Aircraft Noise (ASAN),"
Fidetl, S., Harcis, M., and Reddingius, N., BBN;Report 6499, October 1987.
"Research Plan on the Effects of Aircraft Noise and Sonic Booms' on Humans," Fidell, S., and
Kugler, B.A., BBN Report 6495, September 1987.
"Feasibility of Countermeasures to Reduce the Vulnerability'of Heticopters to Acoustic Sensing ���
Systems (U)," Fide(l, S.., Mucci, R., and Briscoe, H., BBN SECRET Report 6053, February 1987.
"Cockpit Automation Technology," Pew, R., Olstad, M., Sherman, H., and BBN Staff, BBN Report
6133; June 1986.
"Attitudinal Survey Conducted in Conjunction with Test of Scatter Plan at Washington National
Airport," Fidell, S., Horonjeff, R., Teffeteller, S., and Tomooka, S:, BBNReport 554�; May 19�4.
"A Computer Program For Predicting Audibility of Noise Sources," Horonjeff, R., and Fidell, S.,
U.S. Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory, AFWAL Technical Report 83'-3115, October 1983.
"Preliminary Investigation of the A��ersiveness of High Level Sounds," Pearsons, K., and Fidell, S.,
BBN Report 5312, July 1983.
"The Detectability of Repetitive Periodic Impulses," Horonjeff, R., Fidell, S., and Green, D., BBN
Report 5314, May 19R3.
"Survey of Opinions About Living Conditions in Two Neighborhoods Near Greater Pittsburgh
International Airport," Fidell, S., BBN Report 5075, May 1983.
"Preliminary Selection of Signals for Acoustic Egress System," Pearsons, K., and Fidell, S:, BBN
Report 5060, November 1982. _
�
A part of GTE Corporation
CTE�
4_�Y�.�
I N T E F N_ T W O F K i N G
POW :=EO BY 88N
"Evaluation ofNoise Exposure and Community Response Due to Temporary Reinstitution ofNight
Landings at Westchester County Airport," Baldwin, E., and Fidell, S., BBN Report 5083, July
1982.
"Community Response to Three Noise Abatement Departure Procedures at John Wayne Airport,"
Fidell, S., Mills, J., Tet%teller, S., and Pearsons, K., BBN Report 4743, June 1982.
"A Graphic Methbd for Predicting Audibility of Noise Sources," Fidell, S., and Horonjeff, R., U. S
Air Force Wright Aeronautical Laboratories, Flight Dynamics Laboratory, AFWAL-TR-82-3086,
October 1982. � .
"Technical Review of Decision Makin� Process and Supporting Documents of 16 December, 1980
Ruling on Alton Coal Field Petition," Dietrich, C. W., Fidell, S., Rubin, M., and Pearsons, K., BBN
Report 4346, April 1982.
"Community Sensitivity to Changes in Aircraft Noise Exposure," Fidell, S., Horonjeff, R.,
Teffeteller, S., and Pearsons, K., National Aeronautics and Space Administration CR-3490,
December 1981.
� ,
"Measurements ofthe Impulsiveness and Annoyance ofCompression-Release Engine Brake Noise,"
Fidell, S., and Horonjeff, R., BBN Report 4550, September 19$ l.
"Temporal Integration in Low Frequency Auditory Detection," Fidell, S., Horonjeff, R., Teffeteller,
S., and Green, D.M., U.S. Army Applied Technology Laboratory Technical Report
USAA.VR.ADCOM TR 81-D-�, March 1981.
"Revision of Acoustic Detection Range Prediction Model Based on Psychoacoustic Study of Low
Frequency Masking," Fidell, S., Horonjeff, R., Teffeteller, S., and Green, D.M., U.S. Army Tank-
Automotive Command, Research and Development Center, Technical Report 12543, December
1980.
"A Critical Review af Time-of-Day Weighting Factors for Cumulative Measures of Community
Noise Expasure," Fidell, S., and Schu(tz, T., BBN Report 4216, March 1��0.
"Scaling Annoyance for Social Surveys of Community Reaction to Noise Exposure," Fidell, S., and
Teffeteller, S., BBN Report 421 l, February l 980.
"Feasibility Analysis for a New Computer System," Nickerson, R., Fidell, S., Kaiikow, D.,
Nuthmann, C., Feehrer, C., Selfridge, O., and Vittal, J., BBN Report 4030, January 1980.
19
A part of GTE Corporation
I N T E R N E T W O R K I N G
POWEHEO BV BBN ��
"Initial Study of the Effects of Transformer and Transmission Line T�loise on People, Volume III;
..
. ..
Community Reaction," Fidell, S., Teffeteller, R., and Pearsons, K., Electric Power` Research
Institute Report EA-1240, December 1979.
"Low Frequency Acoustic Detection Research in Support of Human Detection Range Prediction,"
Fidell, S., Horonjeff, R., and Green, D., U.S. Army' Applied Technology Laboratory Technical
Report USAR.TL-TR-79-25, AD #A080579, October 1979.
"Noticeability and Annoyance of Electrical Power Transformers in Urban Noise Backgrounds,"
Pearsons, K., Fidell, S., Horonjeff, R., and Teffeteller, S., BBN Report 4004, August t979:
"Evaluation of the Detectability of Residential Fire Alarms," Myles, M., and Fidell, S., BBN Report
3833, June 1978.
"Effectiveness of Audible Warning Devices on Emergency Vehicles," Fidell, S., Potter, R., Niiles,
M., and Keast, D., U:S. Department ofTransportation, Report DOT-TSC=0ST-770-39, August
197Z
"Speech Levels in Various Noise Environments," Pearsons, K., Bennett, R., and Fidell, S., U. S. (�
Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Health Effects Research Series, EPQ-60011-77- ��
025, May 19'77. _
"The C3 System User," Nickerson, R.S., Adams, M.J., Pew, R. W., Swets, J'.A., Fidell,' S., Feehrer,
C.E:, Yntema, D.B., and Green, D.M:; BBN Report 3459, May 1977.
"Prediction of Acoustic Detection Ranges for Multiple Sources and Spatially Distributed
Detectors," Haronjeff, R., and Fidell, S., U.S. Army Tank-Automotive Research and Deve(opment
Command Technical Report 12240, AD #BO-2308'7L, January 1977.
"Feasibility ofAcoustic Detection Within Armored Vehic(es," Fidell, S., Starr E., and Green, D.M.,
U.S. Army Tank Automotive Research and Development Command Technical Report 12239, AD
#B023313L, January 1977.
"Transportation Facility Proximity Impact Assessment," Stutsman, J., Holder, S., and Fide(l, S.,
California Department of Transportation, Report BAH-GA-BBN-76-01, March 1976.
"Test Plan for Aircraft Runup Noise Penalty Evaluation," Fide(t, S., U. S. Air Force Aerospace
Medical Research Laboratory,: TR-75-110, March 1976: - .
. _ �_ .
20
A part of GTE Corporation
CTE
i N T E R N E T W O R K I N G
POWERED BY BBN
"Behavioral Analysis of Workers and Job Hazards in the Roofing Industry," Prather, K., Crisera,
R., and Fidell, S., Department of Health, Education and We(fare, Publication No. (NIOSH) 75-176,
June 1975.
"Prediction of Acoustic Detectability," Fidell, S., and Bishop, D., U. S. Army Tank Automotiv�
Command Technica) Report 11949, AD #B000324L, Au�ust 1974.
"Quiet Highway �esign," 20 minute, color and sound 16mm film, February 1974.
"Effect of Cessation of Late-Night Landing Noise on Sleep Electrophysiology in the Home,"
Pearsons, K., Fidell, S., and Bennett, R., Nationai Aeronautics and Space Administration, CR-
132543, December 1974.
"Time Varying Hi?hway Noise Criteria," Pearsons, K. S., Bennett, R.L., and Fidell, S., BBN Report
2739, November 1974.
"Feasibility of a Novel Technique for Assessing Noise-Induced Annoyance," Fidell, S., and Jones,
G., Department of Transportation Report DOT-TST-74-3, NTIS PB-225334, September 1973.
I, i
� "The Effects of Aircraft Noise on Sleep Electrophysiology as Recorded in the Home," Pearsons,
K., Fidell, S., and Bennett, R., National Aeronautics and Space Administration, I�tA51-9559-19,
August 1973.
"Predicting Aural Detectability of Aircraft in Noise Backgrounds," Fidell, S., Pearsons, K., and
Bennett, R., U. S. Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory Technical Report A.FFDL-TR-72-16, July
1972.
"Aircraft Noise Analyses for the Existing Air Carrier System," Galloway, W., Simpson,. M.,
Reddingius, N., Bishap, D., and Fidell, S., BBN Report 2218, September 19�2.
"Highway Noise—A Field Evaluation of Traffic Noise Reduction Measures," Vol. 3, Pearsons, K.,
Bennett, R., and Fidell, S., BBN Report 2209, June 19�2.
"Noise from Construction, Home Appliances, and Building Equipment," Franken, P., Bender, E.,
and Fidell, S., BBN Report 2192, September 1971.
"Study of the Effects of the Doppler Shift on Perceived Noisiness," Pearsons, K., Bennett, R., and
Fidell, S., Nationa! Aeronautics and Space Administration, CR-1779, July 1971.
21
A part of GTE Corporation
Field stuely of the annoyance of low-frequency runway sidel�ne
�
e
�����
Sanford Fidell, Laura Silvati, Karl Pearsons, Stephen Lind, and Richard Howe
BBN Technologies, A Unit of GTE Internetworking, 11128 Panowen Street, Canoga Park,
California 91303
Fidell et al.: Annoyance of low-frequency runway sideline noise
� �
�� _� 1
; A�STRA�CT
Since aircraft overflight noise generally reaches residential neighborhoods via air-to-
ground paths, atmospheric absorption is usually responsible for most frequency-
specific propagation losses. Runway sideline noise often reaches residences in the
vicinity of airports via paths that further attenuate high-frequency noise through
ground impedance effects, thus increasing the relative low-frequency content of noise
produced by aircraft ground operations. Outdoor A-weighted noise measurements
may not adequately chazacterize high levels of low-frequency noise that may induce
potentially annoying secondary emissions inside residences near runways.
Furthermore, interpretive criteria for low-frequency noise effects aze not well
developed. Residents of a neighborhood adj acent to a busy runway were interviewed
in the present study to determine the annoyance of runway sideline noise at
frequencies below 100 Hz, and of its audible manifestations inside homes.
PACS number: 43.50
Fidell et a1.: Annoyance oF low-frequency runway sideline noise
2
C.
IiVTRODUCI'IOid
.
Studies of community response to aircraft noise have commonly focused on effects of
overflights of neighborhoods near runway ends, both because of the high A-weighted sound levels
produced by direct flyovers, and because of the sizable residential populations exposed to aircraft
approach and departure noise. Most quantitative understanding of the prevalence of aircraft noise-
induced annoyance in communities is expressed in terms of A-weighted measurements (cf. FICON,
1992) which are little affected by noise energy at frequencies below about 100 Hz. As the proportion
of newer and quieter transport aircraft in the commercial fleet has increased in recent years, concern
about noises created by aircraft ground operations at large civil airports has grown. These include
noise produced behind departing aircraft (sometimes termed "backblast"), engine nm-ups for
maintenance purposes, and runway sideline noise (taxiing, queuing, acceleration during takeoff, and
, , thrust reverser application on landing).
;
Since this sort of aircraft noise often reaches communities by over-ground rather than air-to-
ground paths, it can contain proportionately less high-frequency energy than overflight noise because
of greater attenuation from ground impedanc�. effects. Aircraft ground operation noise is
characteristically described in complaints as a dull rumbling sound with a slow onset time. Aircraft
ground noise may be distinctively audible at considerable distances from airports, particularly at
night, when less masked by other urban noise sources (cf. Fidell, Horonjeff and Green, 1981).
Concerns about the appropriateness of representing low-frequency aircraft ground noise in
A-weighted units, and about the adequacy of standazd interpretive criteria for assessing community
response to low-frequency noises, aze becoming more common at large civil airports. However,
much of what is known about the annoyance of low-frequency noise has been derived from studies
( � Fidell et al.: Annoyance of low-frequency runway sideline noise
3
of indoor noise sources, or in non-residential settings (Broner, 19'78; Berglund, Hassmen, and Job,
1996). Although Berglund et al. cite several studies as demonstrating greater annoyance for sounds �
with greater low-frequency noise than for sounds of equivalent loudness but less low-frequency
energy, the circumstances of noise exposure in these studies tend to differ from those in residential
areas neaz runway sidelines.
One aspect of particular concern with respect of low-frequency noise effects is the annoyance
of secondary emissions (rattling sounds of household paraphemalia) that may be induced inside
residences. Measurements of the low-frequency noise produced by aircraft ground operations (Lind,
Pearsons and Fidell,199i) confirm that sufficient low-frequency energy may sometimes be produced
to induce secondary emissions in neazby residences, as described by Hubbazd (19�2).
This field study of the annoyance of low-frequency runway sideline noise sought to
determine the prevalence of annoyance associated with aircraft-induced rattle and vibration by means
�.
of direct questioning of residents of a community that has long experienced runway sideline noise.
I. t�ETHOD
• -. .. . ...
Outdoor ambient noise levels due to aircraft activity were measured at several simultaneous
combinations of seven positions in El Segundo, California south of Runway 25L at Los Angeles
International Airport (LA�, as shown in Fig. 1. Runway 25R was in use for departures and 25L
for arrivals during the measurement period. Time-synchronized, wideband recordings of aircraft
noise were made with digital tape recorders at six of the seven locations. At the seventh
Fidell et. al.: Annoyance of low-frequency runway sideline noise �
4
location (C), only the overall A-weighted level and low-frequency composite levels were measured,
�� •
with a real-time spectrum analyzer and sound level meter.
�
i
; �
INSERT FIGURE 1 HERE
�. Inierviewing proceciures �
A structured questionnaire was composed with thirteen closed response category items and
8 to 18 information requests, contingent on responses to branching items. Appendix A contains the
questionnaire items. Many of these items had been posed to residents of airport neighborhoods
elsewhere.
The interview was introduced as a study of neighborhood living conditions. The first three
questionnaire items were preliminary questions about duration of residence and about the most and
least favored aspects of neighborhood living conditions. These were intended to confum the
eligibility of respondents for interview, and to provide an opporturuty for spontaneous mention of
aircraft noise as the least favored aspect of neighborhood living conditions. The first explicit
mention of noise occurred in Item 4("Would you say that your neighborhood is quiet or noisy?").
The intent of this item was to solicit an overall assessment of neighborhood noisiness prior to any
mention of aircraft noise in particular.
Item 5 inquired about annoyance due to street traffic noise. This item provided a context for
subsequent questions regarding annoyance due to aircraft noise in the next six items:
. Fidell et al.: Annoyance of low-frequency runway sideline noise
5
• Item 6 inquired about annoyance due to aircraft noise in general;
�
0
�
Item � asked whether airplanes produced vibration and rattling sounds in
respondents' homes;
Item 8 asked for a category scale rating of annoyance due to such vibration
and rattle;
Item 9 sought information about frequency of notice of vibration and rattle;
• Item 10 asked for the identity of vibrating and rattling objects; and
• Item 11 sought information about actions taken to lessen vibration or rattling
noises.
Respondents were constrained to reply to questions about intensity of annoyance by selecting
one of the following response categories: "not at all annoyed," "slightly annoyed," "moderately
annoyed," "very annoyed," and "extremely annoyed." No time frame (e.g., last week, last year, etc.)
was specified for these items, since maximum low-frequency aircraft ground noise levels in the
interviewing, area were unlikely to have varied within the last several years; because it was
considered counterproductive for the purposes of the present study to draw respondents' attention
to particular historical periods; and because a response based on respondents' general long-term
experiences was prefened to a response based on any particular recent instances of vibration or
rattle. Items 12 and 13 asked about complaints concerning vibration, ra,ttling, and aircraft noise in
ger�eraL
C. Population of interest
The target population was adult English-speaking residents of an azea of El Segundo between
- Fidell et al.: Annoyance of low-&equency runway sideline noise
C.
�
1,000'� to 5,000' south of the southern runway complex at LAX. '"Sampling" was exhaustive:
) �
attempts were made to conduct an interview with one adult member of each of the 1,262 eligible
households with listed telephone numbers found in this area.
D. Calling procedures
' Telephone interviewing was conducted under central supervision by computer-assisted
means. ' Softwaze automatically selected telephone numbers for dialing, stored responses to
questionnaire items, time-stamped interviews, and scheduled callbacks. A dozen interviewers were
trained to conduct the interview in accordance with written instructions reviewed during briefing
sessions prior to the start of interviewing. Nine contact attempts (an initial attempt followed by as
many as eight callbacks as needed) were budgeted for each eligible household in an effort to
' exhaustively sample opinions throughout the interviewing azea.
)
'I�����T1�i
: . , . -. : - - . . - - - -
A single-event, low-frequency sound level (LFSL) noise metric was preferred to a cumulative
or average metric to represent low-frequency aircraft noise, on the grounds that secondary emissions
audible within structures are caused by instantaneous excitation, not by long-term average levels.
Maximum sound levels were identified in each of the one-third octave bands centered at 25 through
80 Hz in the 30 seconds prior to and following the (unweighted) maximum noise level of each
aircraft noise event recorded in the field. These maximum sound levels were (energy) summed to
�" 1 Fidell et al.: Annoyance of low•&equency runway sideline noise
_ ... 7
construct a total maximum low-frequency sound level for each aircraft noise event at each
measurement site. Arithmetic averages of LFSL values for each aircraft overflight event at each of
the seven measurement sites were calculated. These averages of LFSL and maximum A-weighted
aircraft noise event values are summarized in Table I.
A spatial interpolation (spline) algorithm was applied to the LFSL values measured at each
measurement point to generate a set of contours from which LFSL could be estimated at each street
_
address in the interviewing area. The algorithm treated the LFSL values as elevation information
-
to fit a surface through the measurement points. The algorithm in effect draped a rubber sheet over
the interviewing area in a manner that both preserved the LFSL values observed at the measurement
sites and minimized the total curvature of the resulting surface.
Fig. 2 shows contours of aircraft-produced LFSL throughout the interviewing area. LFSL
values diminished by about 7 dB per thousand feet orthogonally to the runway sideline within the
interviewing area.'
INSERT TABLE I AND FIGURE 2 HERE
C
Table II documents the results of the interviewing process. In all, 644 interviews were
conducted for a completion rate of 87%. Failure to obtain an interview was due in most cases to
refusals or non-contacts (13% of the totat sample). Only 24% of the telephone numbers in the
sampling frame were considered'non-sample. Fifty-six percent of the completed interviews were
with female respondents, while 44% were with male respondents.
Fidell et al.: Annoyance of low-frequency runway sideline noise-
_ _ _
� �
8
0
)
� Fig. 2 also locates street addresses &om which completed interviews were obtained with
respect to the low-frequency noise contours constructed from field measurements. The density of
completed interviews was fairly uniform throughout the interviewing azea. Fig.,3 shows the
cumulative distribution of the numbers of respondents who lived at street addresses with given
low-frequency noise levels. About half of the respondents lived at addresses with low-frequency
aircraft noise levels greater than 75 dB.
INSERT TABLE II AND FIGURE 3 HERE
C. Responses to quesiionnair� items
. . , ,- . . - . . . . . .- . . .
dtee go vibratiorr or rat�le
Of the 644 respondents who completed interviews, 29% (185) described themselves as highly
("very" or "extremely") annoyed by aircraftnoise in general, while 21 %(136) described themselves
as highly annoyed by aircraft-induced vibration or rattling sounds in their homes. Of the 136
respondents who described themselves as highly annoyed by vibration or rattling sounds, 23% (25)
were not highly annoyed by aircraft noise in general. A xZ contingency test indicates that this
difference is unlikely to have arisen by chance alone (x2�de= �> = 236, p<.Ol). Thus, annoyance
associated with secondary emissions is not completely subsumed by annoyance due to aircraft noise
in general.
Fidell et al.: Annoyance of low-frequency runway sideline noise
2. Relationship of the prevalence of notice and annoyance of vibration or ratile io
lowr frequency noise levels ,
Fig. 4 compares the cumulative percentages of respondents who noticed, were annoyed in
any degree, and were highly annoyed by aircraft-induced vibration or rattle in their homes. The
denominator for all of the percentages shown in this figure is 644, the total number of respondents
who completed interviews.
INSERT FIGURE 4 HERE
3. Prevalence of aircrafi noise annoyance associated w6th A-u�eighted curnulaiiere
noise exposure
Version 5.1 of F.AA's Integrated Noise Model was used to construct annual Day-Night
Average Sound Level (DNL) contours due to aircraft activity on the southern pair of runways at
LAX. These contours were overlaid on the interviewing area so that individual residences could be
associated with A-weighted aircraft noise exposure levels. The resulting relationship between the
prevalence of a consequential degree of annoyance with aircraft noise and annual DNL (in 4 dB=wide
intervals) is shown in Fig. 5 with respect to the dosage-response relationship preferred by FICON
(1992). The proximity �f the data points from the current study to the FICON curve indicates'that
the prevalence of annoyance with aircraft noise in general among respondents near LAX is well
predicted by this relationship.
A
, __
Fidell et al.: Annoyance of low-frequency runway sideline noise (
10
, INSERT FIGURE'S HERE
j '
4. Relationship bet�reen cornplainis due to aircrai`� noese in general vs. rait�le or
vebeaiion
About 29% of the respondents who were annoyed by aircraft noise had complained to the -
airport about aircraft noise in general. A somewhat smaller percentage (25%) of the respondents
who noticed vibrations orrattling sounds in their homes had complained to the airport about aircraft
.
noise. About 30% of the respondents who noticed vibrations or rattling sounds had complained to
the airport about them.
lil. DiSCUSSION �4ND CONCLUSIONS
� Fig. 6 shows the locations of households r ortin hi y
� ep g gh anno ance due to rattle or vibration
as well as the locations of households not reporting high annoyance due to rattle or vibration.
Simple visual inspection suggests that residents highly annoyed by low-frequency sideline noise are
concentrated in areas with LFSL values in excess of 75 to 80 dB. These levels are consistent with
Hubbard's (1980) estimates of low-frequency airborne sound levels capable of inducing secondary
emissions from light azchitectural features of residences.
INSERT FIGURE 6 HERE
Care is required in converting a low-frequency aircraf� noise level as characterized for present
purposes into a C-weighted sound level due to lacks of uniqueness and linearity. The uniqueness
i j Fidell et al.: Annoyance of low-frequency runway sideline noise
_ 11
issue is that low-frequency content of noise produced by aircraft equipped with turbofan and other
engines of different power ratings may vary considerably even though they share similar C-weighted
sound levels. The linearity issue is that increases in C'-weighted sound levels may not yield
proportionate increases in secondary emissions and hence, annoyance due to rattle or vibration.
Notwithstanding these cautions, linear regressions displayed in Fig. 7 were performed to
relate LFSL values to C-weighted levels for two sets of field observations: those described above
at LAX, and those of Lind et al. (199�) at MSP. The slopes and intercepts of these relationship aze
likely to vary for other sets of operations by different aircraft fleets at other airports.
INSERT FIGURE 7 HERE
Fig. 8 compares percentages of respondents who noticed rattle or vibration, were annoyed
in any degree by rattle or vibration, and were highly annoyed by rattle or vibration, as aggregated
within 5-dB intervals of LFSL. Fig. 9 displays a lineaz regression to the findings about the
prevalence of a consequential degree of annoyance within 5-dB LSFL intervals. These data should
not be over-interpreted as a fully generalizable dosage-response relationship, since they are based
on relatively small numbers of respondents in a single study.
INSERT FIGURES S AND 9 HERE
C
C
Fidell et al.: Annoyance of low-frequency runway sideline-noise -- (�
, \
12
�4CFCNOWLEDGMEP!'TS
� •
The authors are grateful to the respondents for their participation in this study; to the City
of Richfield, MN, for sponsoring this study; to Mr. Harvey Halden for assistance in estimating A-
weighted aircraft noise exposure levels in El Segundo; to Dr. Norman Broner for an (ill-timed)
discussion of the low-frequency noise effects literature; and to Mr. Richard Horonjeff for suggesting
the analysis summarized in Figs. 8 and 9.
�� �
Fidell et al.: Annoyance of low-frequency runway sideline noise
� -` 13
' ���� � ' !! �•' % � -,
C�
ITEM l. About how long have you lived at [street address]?
ITEM 2. What do you like best about living conditions in your neighborhood?
ITEM 3. What do you like least about living conditions in your neighborhood?
ITEM 4. Would you say that your neighborhood is quiet or noisy?
SKIP TO ITEM S if response to Item 4 was "quiet. "
Follow up question if response to Item 4 was "noisy" or "quiet, except for
airplanes ":
ITEM 5.
ITEM 6.
ITEM 4A. Would you say that your neighborhood is slightly noisy, moderately
noisy, very noisy, or extremely noisy?
While you're at home are you bothered or annoyed by street traffic noise in your
neighborhood?
SKIP TO ITEM 6 if response to Item S was "no. "
Follow up question if response to Item S was "yes ":
ITEM SA. Would you say that you are 'slightly annoyed, moderately annoyed,
very annoyed, or extremely annoyed by street traffic noise in your
neighborhood?
While you're at home aze you bothered or annoyed by aircraft noise?
SKIP TO ITEM � if response to Item 6 was "no. "
Follow up question if response to ITEM 6 was "yes ":
ITEM 6A. Would you say that you aze slightly annoyed, moderately annoyed,
Fidell et'al.: Annoyance of low-frequency tvnway sideline noise ('
_ _ \
14 .
. very annoyed, or extremely annoyed by aircraft noise while at home?
� •
ITEM 7. Do airplanes make vibrations or rattling sounds in your home? -
SKIP TO ITEM 13 if response to Item 7 was "no. "
1
�
ITEM 9.
Ask Items 8 through 13 if response to ITEM 7 was "yes ":
Are you bothered or annoyed by these vibrations or rattling sounds in your home?
SKIP TO ITEM 9 if response to Item 8 was "no. "
Follow up question if response to ITEM 8 was "yes ":
ITEM 8A. Would you say that you are slightly annoyed, moderately annoyed,
very annoyed, or extremely annoyed by vibrations or rattling sounds
in your home?
About how often do you notice vibrations or rattling sounds in your home made by
airplanes?
ITEM 10. What sorts of things vibrate or rattle in your home?
ITEM 1 l. Have you tried to do anything in your home to reduce vibrations or rattling sounds
made by airplanes?
SKIP TO ITEM 12 if response to Item 11 was "no. "
Follow up question if response to ITEM 11 wcas "yes ":
ITEM 1 IA. Have the vibrations or rattling sounds made by airplanes been
lessened by the things you have done?
ITEM 12. Have you ever complained to the airport about vibrations or rattling sounds in your
home made by airplanes?
ITEM 13. Have you ever complained to the airport about aircraft noise in general?
� )
Fidell et al.: Annoyance of low-frequency runway sideline noise
``� 15 �
ENDIVOTES
. . . ,� . �-
' This is a srte-specific empirical value that is not necessarily applicable near runways elsewhere.
� ��
_.
Fidell e� aL: Annoyance of low-frequency runway sideline noise
. ��
16
0
REFERENCES
� .
Berglund, B., Hassmen, P., and Job, R.F.S. (1996). "Sources and effects of low-frequency
noise," J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 99(5), 2985-3002. _
Broner, N. (197�). "The effects of low-frequency noise on people — a review," J. Sound and Vib.,
5�(4), 483-500.
Federal Interagency Committee in Noise (FICOI� (1992). "Federal A�ency Review of Selected
Airport Noise Anal.ysis Issues," Report for the Department of Defense, Washington, D.C.
Fidell, S., Horonjeff, R., and Green, D. M. (19�1). "Statistical analyses of urban noise," Noise
Control Engineering, 16(2), �5-80.
Hubbazd, H. (19�2). "Noise-induced house vibrations and human perception," Noise Control
Engineering, 12(2), 49-55.
; , Lind, S., Peazsons, K., and Fidell. S. (199`�. "An analysis of anticipated low-frequency aircraft
� �
,
noise in Richfield due to operation of a proposed north-south runway at MSP," BBN Report 8196.
Fidell et al.: Annoyance of low•&equency runway sideline noise
17
❑
TABLE I. Average A-weighted and low-frequency aircraft noise at measurement locarions.
_ __ .
j -
Measurement Average of maximum Average "low-frequency" content of
A-weighted aircraft � aircraft noise events
locations a
noise events
A 86.0 dB 88.2 dB
B 76.2 72.3
C(is` time period) 83.4 gp,g
C(2nd time period) 84.1 91.7
C(3'd time period) 84.5 93,2
� 75.4 g2.2
- E. 73.8 71.1
F 79.6 86.9
G 69.4 67.9
a Adjusted by proportion of operations conducted on Runways 25R and 25L.
( ) ��
Fidell et al.: Annoyance of low•frequency runway sideline noise
18
TABLE II. Accounting for the results of contact attempts from the sampling frame.
Disposition of telephone'numbers
Total Number in Sampling Frame �
Non-Sample Numbers
Disconnect
Business
Fax/modem
Wrong
Non-English speaking
Number changed
Totai Non-Sampie
Non-Contact Numbers �
A h' .
-
1,665
156
64
54
55
10
64
403
nswenng mac ine 64
Retired numbers (8 cailbacks) 336
No answer - 1t5
Not available 5
Total Non-Contact 520
Total Numbers Available for Interview 742
[rotal - (Non-Samp/e + Non-Contactjj
Number of Completed Interviews 64,q,
Number of Refusals . 98
Completion Rate g�
(644 / 742%
Refusal Rate .13
/98 / 7421
Fidell et aL: Anaoyance of low-frequency runway sideline noise (
19
,
�
,
Figure captions:
FIG. 1. Locations of monitoring positions in relati'onship to LAX Runways 25R and 25L.
FIG. 2. Contours of low-frequency aircraft noise levels throughout the interviewing azea. Shading
changes occur in 5 dB intervals.
FIG. 3. Cumulative distribution of respondents by outdoor low-frequency noise levels.
FIG. 4. Cumulative percentages of respondents noticing, annoyed by, and highly annoyed by
aircraft-induced vibration or rattle, with respect to outdoor low-frequency noise level.
FIG. 5. Prevalence among respondents of a consequential degree of annoyance with aircraft noise.
FIG. 6. Locations of households containing respondents highly annoyed and not highly annoyed by
rattle or vibration due to low-frequency runway sideline noise. '
FIG. 7. Linear regressions relating low-frequency sound levels of aircraft ground noise to
C-weighted levels at two airports.
FIG. 8. Percentages of respondents who noticed rattle or vibration, were annoyed in any degree by
rattle or vibration, and were highly annoyed by rattle or vibration.
FIG. 9. Relationship between outdoor low- frequency sound levels of aircraft ground noise and the
prevalence of a consequential degree of annoyance with rattle or vibra.tion.
Fidell et al.: Annoyance of low-frequency runway sideline noise
� �
� __., 20
-
�_
._--
_. _:_�_ __._
. . � �...� ����:.
. . . . � J.� � �. �. !_�.,�.r-� � ��-��-� �� •�' .�.� _ �.
.� . '_� �.� . ..
, � . . .. . nGl ••�..���...���:.�-� . . . .. . . .. .. . . . . . . .
fNd
. --�'-` _._Jmt�riaL_. �� �. � .__ _+,��.,
� '. ... �. . �_.a � . :—�r-- . —
- � , �- 0-4--. � ; � , �
��� _ . , �^;� : .
, ,
� ;
, , . ,
, . , , � ,
- � �
:—i ' �_ � . � �
� � � '
. ; �+�� , ,
- i ' ; � � ; +_—�—�-
. . . . . , . ���,. ��.�, : :.. � .:� � �, .T . � .. .... ... .
I �
. . ... . . ... . '� . , . : ' �
�
�� . � .
� ' ' ' , I � i ' .� i ' . . �
. � � � •—�—�
� � I ' ��� �I � � "' �
-� f-�"""�. t ,--�—, ; i ,�T._.�
���-' '�/ '—�.; � �� Et S�pimdle i i i i � 1
� � ��. . . . . . . . .. � . -
�';` N
• E
0.8 0 0.8 ' 1.6 MII� S
[Fig. 1 ]
{, .
�
Fidell et al.: Annoyance of low-&equency runway sideline noise �
_:_.. _ _ _ _ _ _
�
21
.
EI Sagundo
1 0 1 2 Miles
[Fig. 2]
Fidell et a1.: Annoyance of low-&equency runway sideline noise
22
,
0
[Fig. 3]
70('
60(
�
� 50(
�
0
N
N
� 40C
0
a�
�
E
z 300
�
.�
� 200
�
U
100
1.0
o.a
n
c
0.6 �
v
...
<
m
v
m
0.4 a,
�2`
�.2
� ���������������������- � �
.� � :� •� ��
� ... . -. . . - .:
0
C
Fidell et a1.: Annoyance of low-frequency runway sideline noise - �
23 .
a
60 -
N Percentages based on all completed interviews (n = 644)
c �
� 50
a �.
N ��
�N 40 Notice of vibradon or rettle �
Annoyanee dua ro vibradon or rattle v
Q t.. �- �"
v-. High annoyance due to vibration or rattb •'"�
� 30 � . v. T
V �....�' � .,.
� �.
0. 20 .._ ��' ,� *..T '
a�
� v-•
«, �,. a
R 4 .�
�
� 10 - � ¢ ..,. ,�
U �' � -�
� F--T�-...�
�
63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92
Outdoor Lowr-Frequency Sound Level (dB)
[Fig. 4J
' i
(� � � �
Fidell et al: Annoyance of low-&equency runway sideline noise
� 24 �
100
�
°,
a�
�
� 80
�
ca
�
U
�
Q
-� 60
�
a�
a
0
c
c
�, 40
L
O)
_
�
,� 2�
c
0
a
N
�
� O
[Fig. 5]
� �
• �
� , . . . A . .. . ...
�
30 40 50 60 70 80
Day-Night Average Sound Level (dB)
C�
Fidell et al.: Annoyance of low-frequency runway sideline noise - C
25 .
❑
a . � ♦ .M�i� o
i�
� � .� . � .�� • •' .. ':/1. el!I� d�..��
---� � � I� .: . . ;... �.��
.. • ... ._. ... .,. -
�C�� ��� J ///// ! 1 ' � :'%// I/y//// ///L///I� ;�µ��iSC �::'////i// -'%///// %///,////%(//// ' •�
%///%////�°�//iii%%.�%i//i.e- /ii� � j �a ad�/ r/% f%�i.,:%/.�/idi�rr.�..i '�
����°%'// a.r ,.,�„�' ��i� �� � �jj � � � � �� ��jjj i.� �:
/ ��� � .n�ifir//t /n�i'.iafy� i �R •/i///% ������/�///////��iid///// ..:..ii//... � �� � '
r;:��//�i ����///d, ���y����//�/��n%//�/i uii//�� //��/// �✓' '.,� �%���� �
��� ./ �� , i .iii%//. � i//%/// ///, ,
�•"- ✓� �.ac ,., / � a //'.✓ �i i�. ���✓ � �,, ..
%//jj�~/�%���/�/ �i�/�i%/��//� i/ %f ,?// �%//�%�/% /I%ri/� j � �/. ,�%//.+ �����%//�//�� �' .. �� a,
//e � '//%//%%// �� 7% � �� // /% ` % //// / "�� � /� �
/ ii f.,,,. ���� ��o,' l � lii � i �%/�/r�ii _%%✓/��^%r �%//��///�i/// iiii�r . ., _.. ,_ ..
�� , � � �. n
����///.%///fiiv.✓�%////i� iiii..ii...... ....i.iilii/ /.r7%//. .//.� /. ...:'-.7i///il1Y/.:"...ii.✓if '.,. �: % _...
� ' . � ._. _...._. .. � � � ' � • m .. : � � � ' ' � . .
� a, �
6S • ; o
�
� •i . _ — � ,
�'" `EL�9UL1ClQ �' �
� ___. ' N
W g
S
� � 1 2 IVliles
[Fig. 6]
Fidell et aL: Annoyance of low-frequency runway sideline noise
� ,)
�" 26
�
110
• LqX —
105,_ -•-•-•---....---------_:_:�_...� LFSL=1.21(C-wtdSl)-25.08 _..'.. . ._.._.. . ..._
r�;gp
� 100 .. :: ....... ._.....----•�'-------•- � � •
.�...._�--------------._------•----
----.-._.._. .
m
� 95 _ ..... _ --- --_�_. ._.`: ` �. o o � o
.,_..__ --••--
y -- -= --.._��.. -�..-----•-•• _
� < � o� m ' o � o
... _.._ a ' o
� 90 . __ :. . �_._..:_._.,._: o. �__
.�- o '° o . . . . . _ . .. _ .
� : � 0 0�0 �@ ' m0
0 85 -...-•------------------- o � ..----
� -- �---00-��� . -'- -- ----------• .------
.� o ' - -
. , :8
.___..�_ � o�r .,�o - ; o, '
� 80 -- �-----..... _;. �..--�. .__.� , ,
. °�-- ------ �-�- •
� . � . c-----a ..................._.
ao - 0 a e m� $ . _
m 75 - - ------:..__�o_____.�._... ._._ ., �?.o------- - �-- � AASP
� o • e �' "m,� , ; I.FSL � .99 (C-wM SL) -10.03 _
U �� . • r� co � $,
-•------�;---- - - - -��--0-- r 85
----------=-----------;-
. .� � -
. . . � . � ,
. m � �. o o , . :
,
, ,
65 -�-�-'- � ' . ;
- ------ • ---------------------------------�----------------------.
.. .w o; ----------
, ,
-: m o • . � :
60 - . ' .
70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110
Lo�r-Froquency Sound Lev�i (d8)
� .�
[Fig. 7]
Fidell et al.: Annoyance of low-frequency runway sideline noise (
27
�
%�
sQ
N
�
C
� 50
c
�.
� 40
�
w
m 30
�
eo
��
� 20
�
�
n" 10
[Fig. 8]
0
_- -- ��-•� ru-i� �a-ov ou-o� tl5-90 90-95
Low-Frequency Sound Level (d8)
�
�
) Fidell et al.: Annoyance of low-frequency runway sideline noise
28
[Fig. 9]
80
- : : . .....
� 70 , % HA = LFSL �' 1.43 - 89.46 } �
,� so -�- . .. .
� 50 ..:.'...... ._... ........
c �
� 40 . .. . : . ... ...
...
'�
� 30 . .... . . .... ,
_ � ............... ...
�20 :. ....:.......: . . ... �....,......
�. '
a' �,� ... .. `. ..:: . ... .... ..... .. _ . . . :
0
60 65 70 75 $0 '85 ' 90 95
low Fnequency Sound Level (d�)
�
Fidell et al.: Annoyance of low-frequency runway sideline noise G
_ �
. 29 .
1
�'�
� �
�., : ' �..-� :...�...
� �`\, \\\
� � �: �, \��� �����\\�\ � .
.� � ,.. ��`��
��
_,.. . . - � �.,� �
�. � �� �
. ;� � �� ,
:; � `
� r ; :;
_ `��.;- ��`\\ ; ��
=u�_ � _ - �g� .
_ � �'��1�: • �-����� ,�
-,
�_
�
� , _� , �
. � � �.;�'�R����:, _,: .
y .
�. . ,
'�-` �.. :��.��
�
�
� ':��,
s g _ ,. � ��� �e _
�'- - � R' �� g � s� �� � S
�� a � � �� ° ' -
�a g +� � �� �.�P �_ e� �n •E �
i?- Fm 5 �� 3R� �(�=- '� o� d �
8'4 - f z ., E H � p �! s ��� .�$ � C
F3 �� $' � a �2 8� � � oi u
�g � � � s$ $e s o .Np,c� �
° 3� �'i� t- gE gg 4$ ?� �'c �f Y Y: A N :� ���
a b� E G� g� Y �j.i� v�.;i�.��. � �c � �� � �Y�L.�um. .' �.
N � a �a �� ��. O� b� �C ?� �,+� ��} . q � m�� �i 9 . I � . .. .
o {B ����o as g� ��� d�.�E���� �� . 4; . �°n�W mrf .. ... .. .
" c a a
se �� �$ �� �- a�x �n �Y � �; �'wu�-°�eN,rN .:;''����
3� 3� ..�yy- ^�"j ��� � �� .� �4��n� �:�� �:
75 �= Sy �� sp '��u �� y� �y' . `d .. Z gNN '�, ,•
. `T J
�a �g �� �s� a� T�� a° ��R � m:°�
s
_:��3������€����� �� �
_ � <� �o 0
, _
�_ .. � � j�� I ; � u a
g� ^ � o . p u m � . .
=o ^---'I oi I . u . .
0 1 ca �
� i
Y E � ' !
� Y �yE ? a` � a � � i � i I i ,
a � �
6 * Q W Ny� �� �y$� Y � S � �_ �� , ¢ � N � � I •�'� , - (
�' �'SO �� �� J� �� '�'- �� �� �� ! O ��• ' � ( I
�a . . .. . I ( . I
S �' ^ i� I � I I
�� � � A � I ` I
�� � � � ' � � � � 3�. ' : � �
�S � , . g � a � •
� � �� , ,
: ai� g E �� � � a• e' i ' ( �
� e- � � '
, �j � F� � �
o; ���1 � ; �� � .� � {� ��'� I I �
6; =€�' � � � � �� s$ ��. ��' I ( I
. V AI , �4 � $ grg
c� b�al �'�$ g_i a�S ,�E� i�
�g�! 9 �p �^I ,�� 6 ��; �� ( � � � I I
' =� s- G -' $ z• ' I i
�c�. �� ��� $�'� a� �� �3, �� i � �
, n � �, � , I
, x_;� �� '��: sE' ��. �� ��: �; , i I
�5�� �� �� ��� �H �� �� �� i � i
� i �
�a ^ w V �
� � N '
F' " �' � u dl �� i
g I
^ u O� �O � �' I
• z� a� I (
_� � $^ p �S p i � : � i
� � Vi � � '� LL' � "l � Z Z I 41 � I .. � ��
�Y� O_ � te �E �� ~ � ` � � � � � i �' U) N) .�i I
��� $� �� : �� �� ��, ° � s� �� ��� � $� :�I � �
s � �- � �. � � � �
i
W
G� �
W
����� �
�nuu�
�au �.. �
a
� 4�
�'
y o�
W
a
�� � i
,
�
� - � .
�a`�m„ �
xy � � :
� � g �.
a~
°Q � � .fi � ��� @ � � ,�p (� �.�5
�iO.�.' � ' 9.� � � 6 . E ���� � � Sa� � � �e
�� � �_'s : � w ��� , � �� �� I �' �� ��
�i d
. �� � �i 9 . � � f A �` b ,6
a t
�� �m � g ��° � � �� !� A�Q' �g! ��) �� i
�� , ., rt �' ��� �a �� ��'� �� ��
�� ��' � . �� ��� ��� �� �'� f�� �� �� ;�
�� � �� � �' � � � �� �r
�� �� � .€� s� ��� �� �� ��a �� � ���
�� �� �� �� �� ��� e� �� ��� �� �� ���
� �
a s F � �
�� s � a= $fi �� �� � ��, ��m �� �y� �� ��
,��' �� `�� �� �s� ���- �� ��_ d��; �9; t� _��
u � o � u u u u �
. a � 4 � ,
s��
i ; � _I ,
j �— ' , —
; _ - � � '� �
—, N �� �— � �� '; �' � i — � � �
���_ � ���� �� �� �� �� �� ;������ � �� s � � ��
�� � o � � ��' � � � � �� � � ��' �8 ° a i �� � � �
- � � � � � �� � � �- � , � � � : � , �- !_ �_ #�
b .
A � � � a �' _' i a '� 8 �
a �� � �t � ` �i �� �= � � �' - �' _ � � a' Q
� �� � �8� � � � � H• ��, $ a s � �, � � � � �p
�� � s. � � � � � � _ �
_� � � � �€ . �.� �� � � � �8 � � a � � ��
� a n u 5 �a , �= r� � � i �� �� � 4 � Q � �� s�
m u � � 1
j� j �� � ! � � � a � �. � � � �� 3'
_ �; �� , ��� �� � � � �� �� � � 4 � � $ � �Q ��
y u g� � �g��6 �� � �: �$ �6 �� B � S `; E � �� s�
W jA i � fi �� n� '�� P� � '�' t +�i ; �� �' .
�� �;�R; ��� €� �� � �§_ �aE• �! � �r � �� Y �; .�; gk
�i . � ���� ��� ��, � ��� $ze �^ �� �� �� � �� ° ��. �E �y
� g� � � g 8 °�q ' �� �!� gsS S� �� �� �� 8 3� � ai .:� ';
�8 �; a =�8: 'J��� 6� A 3i� :/8S <b; ,< <: �� s ����'a': E€ �t
_r ��
� a , : � . � - � .
c I i � � I u'; o r
� � �
�
^� �
�� ' �2
N
� 9" � o ��
� � . .. �. u � o � ,� � m .. . � .,. . u .. . u.,. u . . . ��. ,e. . .. .. . .. .
O � O
y
i
g I s �S � 5 Z. �
��a ' � ���� Wf� �"� �� � �� �+� �� � �;''�� ���
I�I ��� ��'������� o � � ��� �� �� � �� �� ��, m �� �'
� g �— �—� � � �— �- �— � �— � ; � W .
.__ "� � � � � ~ _ � � � A L �' m i. .�. .. � O = � � , .
���� m°g� rg°�n� �Z$�m
� n� C Q p� u m N m� ��. L� n N .
g m�� o,�'° � o' ; g n'- �' a c�^� �
o- >�>�c � L n .s
� O� = � O in O?" m N tp � u �� iy .. ..
O
' _ -� '°�R�`� 3z=°'�
� R'-- S --
. O'� �..� . ^ .C. = t g � � �..T � ; ..... . C U..�..m y .. .. ..... ..... .
i��o� �a;E �00$�5 E���B �-E�
a o c o °� m: b m�� c s� 9 ��:� E
.. a 3 E c 'R ai � ° E •
-
_ _ '
a
� � _'cmE� �.�Ei� cm�cc;� L¢Zo�
` o — —
m o
c�t => '° ;�- a m'c= m� 9.„_ d
�ei�gn •m � otmo,� o �q�mt
9�m�y pc a�m%La. '"���°�—'y� Euimm�
LY��C �m�md� ZG� �y'� C,C�tEO� � ..
��oi.?�o ���u m�Lo�'=$ �-°,m��a. . . . ::
1t�- ¢ O J� O ..m O ��� �'. �����8 � i� �i" t�,> � �� N� � ` � `�. .. . .. ..
�^_ �z n �
c
C
0
�.s., � „�;}(,•�. ,2`G : y,� . � , . .
- f - ,f . . K� � ,����7.�'iM1.1f��Y.Y � :. ,� • .. " � .
�k Av...•i . :';'... " . ..
,.:.;�-'_. . ' .. � yi, r,r �.. ... ..:��"r . .
�� p� : : '�- ►� : ' ...
• • i y� '� w-' • � . : ,� " " ' -.':1r..w
y.
.i• kfi: �. ;� -f.n,
.. � „w . N ,�'S�� ..,�, -"�: �.�- Y`t '
. . � o '• j� • ����i ;. .y`�c+_n„� t
� � • � �'^ r�;+:.` . ;�� - � eQ qy � ,�..� � . . h'..;�,� .
. ' �b+wr •�� ,
' '!y�.;'lc-r ....
� >�. '�n �� �; c� 5 :»y , ..�` . ,n ;.K' '�r � . � .15, Z+. .
,�'� ;,�-'"-"L.+'S'"'�,• . r` � • �'.. .
� �,�'1 �x : �,r+ • » Y. � ai� _ 'i� _
. . .e rd:-�`tr � � :y sto. w; �%17'• ;[� .
' t�'t• � '� . �a �� 1.a . ✓, -
. .' �. `+•.•- , �l F . C "'�'s' �`.,+'� y "" .
. rR.'i:�. ....��" 714, i.3 . ''M' �`
... �Zr,7;.�� . �� 1 . ,.
_ � ;
,'Vi. . .. ' �'��''v• y�K'��x .� j-; • �i fi; � ey`- +�ti�
• .. ,
. .
• �' � • � � . . �� �� +�«M a� .
� r �' r T �
�: . "WI�' • ' • .. � �� ��:�� �)+��I '�,w/..� .� {.
��. . . ; ' ,.I �f � � �MYI�!l61� �t ... .
a � ' � • '�� ...y.2•'t„�r .. . y... �=T+,� .�� _
.li• 'f i�...:u.K. � �.�•'1'.�/�+f:� � : ^. Y�i�, :1�� k - ; .
t�J.''e�.���..�� � .. ,5 ..
:1�te1 � f4�"': ' • • • . .
� :� . ,��;�;:�:.:'�:-.; • � a;;- • _ ..
^ N • N 1 _�� t= •r •ya:�'.'• - • & _ -a.
� � � t �; � 4`. . �r. , �
. � . . .� � ,
� F w � � . �l•. y..�.. R.}�.qy _ . 'f( � . . �. . .
"-�• , •� 7�' t' �
_ '.�' ,''-� ..►-.,��r-. �
,; .� :,� =: . .:.:';�t�F,,.� i c• : ,
.. -`� s�.,��`�"'�=r } � � --- � �----••- ---� —• - - •-
d a ,c • :�,.:• ,
:�ic�u;. �?�4;!�'.x. ^ r�.`tvkc�;' ;.%•.�:,' . ` . �
- -, . �t�
.• •""�`�g`
r
{S•t �
���'
'�� �� D �� t�.t Ip `: ' a�+•v,C .
i�•�� Q �� m•�'� .. � � ���
� m
��,,�j QEo _��ry m .
�n
:�� �.� � R1. ��,� � �' . .f:� � �
�'�'�m E � ��� a � �' � � � -�:. ..
� n O � y�� � 6� �y � • . • C �� � � `• . .
,as ' •^ �i L w � � V � ... .� RI � O � �
� � .� .._ � �. � �
����� �� �,� �' � ��'�',��
�����' '0�w, �"- - s,m� v_�f'
� � � . -�,o � - -'� � '>� . ._.
e.. , oy
:���,��,:�.�= ° �� �...� .
� � m m m-� �=� , :,�� . _ .� � � �:.� n� .
�'� > :S �,�'� •o �, o �� m ��o � ��ri . �
�„��-�`o�v'�.�°�v� �oN��Wm� �rn
� V � �
=aaa EE� � �.c baa .:;
� �.L'� � y� � E � O.N� ��,�V: C �'�
�'�O � Q1 � 69 p 61 m• • _ `':U
. �Li � ; Li � � QI li 'O � a.�r 'L �'Q> O .� t,�j p� •y ..
•_�'� o�'�'� ==•C � ..�+p'G mH�'�'
�• +o .m o m '� � � m � e � '- �'
� � `� d +.�� m � • ,. ... . ,"�� +a���1
. �-��t�.�� ��' a �.:7-"•'�a� ., ,:t'�sar.��
. ' " ' ��
•�� ' �
�� "
,- , �(� �.
� �J.'
._. � ,
r
�
�
-`
�
`
, ���
�`
�
_ `_
' '
. � ,
`�V ; . .
� � � o� ,
� � .�
U -�
LJ
0
S
...< �.. . -C .a
,ti •v � a, $ �
v
`-ro -� n�a��a.3�, o � O ;�' co O y� � �-^ d.o
p L y � ..�� C V � 0 0 y y � � ' `y d = ,C C 7 � � .'=a � ..�a �
o :� � ; �' E °c,' � j 3 ._ �, � .�.� '0 07 > .� ..� � � � �' m 3, y ;, y > � � C y, =,
L'-='" oyc.)�Ec c�a" E, 1.c�,'o� 6��-d,�� �'C �.d
o�� _y,�Cy o b�.0 .�� -ao �..� o ye.,"'
�..' �W..� 0...�': :a �j�+ (�s ... C 61�'�CZ" �•E C'6„ tn0 y. � � ��
r .r G ^V ,. � C C v ..S' o, "51 y'O V; t0 p
v:d .� C X 1, Op � y,�,� O v� OG rr y � C�E � CO ���;;, > C y d 0.�.y+ i O
a c:J d u rti C ? O c' d 4� Cl '. C1 � G s. ... C O N > y �•f.
c�y a .,; � �'yt�v'C'v7 ;�E=•L b'c � cc� ��• � E,� �-v �E�� � b ni c
b 1 c -� � a� � _ 'C .v. � .c � � G .� ; '� �' � ° � c' e'' eo.° > � �v G] Q ni = � �c
�5''b = b � c > �cv, _.r��y,a -�e?c:�'..,:a >c> f
' StE� �"c ;,J`'Z d �:x �"' ,.`a-� � =p^ � i� ''v3e E l +- � gd.n•^ y
:..� i.� S �svL pa. �._> :-oc�-o3 a �, v_' s��-cMv._c�
_ :J t: .0 �` ' = C O CC'y E C G .G = :.Q� � V .0 .. [ b p C Ql ^ �>' ;Q L Ls. t�'0 CC C t' '� .-_.� .0 �.
� =.^n..=`E��..,�..��...��L.� ��.�pJ�`jG f�'C��'C� ����C�J` ^:J�L ���� ��.
g .-. p
1� `. C.".Y'r.�.� t�. C ,Cn.^''„"'a uL��...y . J ryd'�, cd..� ,,,`-.'.`� 1��. '=J 'ti��.^6�7 .. E�y..�....v'y C�J:J�'� i�
� , _
�1 .'..... c0 61 6! r/• W �' '; ��� O�y. Q� .� L CG-p � V ��.. i� m`'C ....= X C'� v; t. _� G O: f.=.i y.
� zC:' 3 3,� oV `� �a� �� �o•>� � a C a� •"°� L d'�> ,,, L �.>�� =y _.�''d �`sy
; • .. � -
�+ = Z� �^: c C c b� p'� a� 4- v•� ,c �-�' �' �;`� °' ?� a� x�.c � d"'- x.c •- �,� :a o
ta •:�t:+er:�.o t� oU oer�:E�:� '� �JG��� �U:��:�'� :i :`a:/1G0.' r�r. �• G�]U: E d>,3..�
]
.= , N : e-; 'N:
-' -' a. a'
/'
�, '
NoticeabBBity of a decre�se in a�rcraft noose
Sanford Fidell,a� �aura Siivati,a� and Karl Pearsonsa�
``(Received 1996 January 10; revised 1998 January 26; accepted 199� February 06)
j A social survey was unde�en to assess community response to changes in aircraft noise
exposure levels near Seattle–Tacoma Interaational Airport, where a gradua! decrease in
aircraft noise exposure on the order of 3S d� occurred dueing the period 19�9 through 1995.
,Telephone interviews were coaducted wit6 1,236 residents in five aeighborhoods near the
airpoc�. A structured questionnaire solicited information about coma�unity perception of both
absolute noise levels and changes in noise level in the recent pas� Outdoor noise exposure
measurements were m�de in intecwiewing areas during the conduct of t6e study. T'he findings
suggest that gradual decreases of 1.5 to 3 dB in aircraft noise exposure levels occurrin� over
�n extended period of ti�e are not re�dily noticeable in afrport neighbochoods. Implications
of the findiags are discussed in terms of the time course of changes in sircraft noise, the re�ect
of variability in d�yto-day a6rccc�fft noise exposure levels, and ihe im§ensitivity of integrated
nois� metrics to increasing numbers of lowee level noise events. ' C� 1998 Instrtute of hloise
Control Engineeri�ag. [50736-2501(9�)Q0302-6J �
Primary subject classificauon: 63.2; Secondary subject classification: 66.1
�
� )
Although the magnitude, time course, and context of a
change in noise exposure that may be considered meaning-
ful or significant for environmeatal assessment purposes is
not well established, some U.S. federal agencies offer
policy guidance from their perspectives on the issue. For
exaznple, Chapter 5, Paragraph 47e (1)(d)2 of FAA Order
5050.4A order states that "FAA's thresbold of significance
has been deternuned to be a 1.5 L�, increase in noise over
any noisc-sensitive azea located within the 65 Ld„ con-
tour." This policy guidance is not direcdy supported by
data or theory-based analysis concerning the minunal
change in aircraft noise exposure—particularly a
decrease—that is likely to be noticed or remembered in an
airport neighborhood.
Although studies in which respondents have been ex-
plicidy asked to compare their noise-induced annoyance for
different time periods are rare, several publicaaons have
described social surveys in which respondents have been
repeatedly queried at various intervals about their current
noise-induced annoyance. These include studies at one air-
port at which late night aircraft operations suddenly ceased
in the interviewing area,� and at three other civil airports at
which various operational changes affected community
noise levels to lesser or greater degrees over periods as long
as a yeaz.2 Studies of changes in the prevalence of annoy-
ance associated with short-terai changes in aircraft noise
exposure have also been described by Francois,3 Gjesdand,
Liasjo, Granoien, and Fields,4 and Gjesdand, Granoien, Li-
asjo, and Bugger.s
The findings of these studies are inconclusive with re-
spect 'to the� issue of present concern. Fidell et al. demon-
strated that respondents can clearly disdnguish between
their recent ("last week") and long-term ("last yeaz") an-
noyance, and that both prevalence rates track changes in
°1BBN Technologies, A Unit of GTE Internetworking, 11128 Vanowen
Street,;Canoga ParlG CA 91303-2853, U.S.A.
Noise Control Eng. J. 48 (2), 1998 Mar—Apr
noise exposure.Z They also suggested that the time con-
stants of azousal and decay of noise-induced annoyance are
probably on the order of several monchs. Other findings
suggest that long-term increasses or decreases in the preva-
lence of annoyance are generally consistent with steady
state predicdons from standard dosage—response relation-
ships between noise exposnre and annoyance. As all such
field studies havc been advenatious in nature, no systemadc
information is available about the influences that contextual
factors (such as day-to-day variability in noise levels in
interviewing areas and the time 'lristory of exposure
changes) may play in the noticeability and memorability of
changes in neighborhood noise exposure.
The underlying concern is not documentation of changes
in community noise levels that are unlikely to have oc-
curred by chance alone, but rather the meaningfulness of
attendant change in the prevalence of noise-induced annoy-
ance in communities. "Meaningful" changes in commu-
aity response are difficult to define for a number of reasons,
of which a prominent one is the intimate relationship be-
tween the "equal energy hygothesis" and standacd envi-
ronmental noise measurement methads. The "equal energy
hypothesis" is the notion that the level, number, and dura-
don of noise events are freely interchangeable determinants
of annoyance, that are accorded equal weight in the sense
of time-mean-square average sound-pressure level. Tlus
hypothesis is the fundamental justificaaon for construcdon
of time-weighted averages from sound exposure levels of
individual events for use as noise exposure metrics, and for
the use of such metrics as predictors of community re-
sponse to noise. Although some ovidence about the limits
of fungibility of level, number, and duration of community
noise events as predictors of annoyance is available, little
evidence can ba fotu�d of a tculy causal relationship be-
tween long term cumulative noise exposure and the preva-
lence of annoyance. The correladonal evid�nce supporting
use of Day—Night Average Sound Level (DNL) as a pre-
dictor of the prevalence of anaoyance in communides
leaves lazge amounts of variance unaccounted for.b
� 1998 Institute of Noise Control Enginee�ng 49
Since the common metric of aircraft noise exposure for '
environmental assessment purposes in the United States,
Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL), is a time-
weighted average, a 3-dB reduction in DNL due to aircraft
noise can be achieved by a halving in numbers of over-
flights, by a reduction of 3 dB in the level of each of a
constant number of overflights, or by any intermediate (but
compensatory) balance of level, number and duration of
overflights. Because of the 10-dB nighttime weighting in
the definition of DNL, it is even possible for a 3-dB redua
tion to occur as a consequence of small reductions in num-
bers of flights at times of day when few people are likely to
nodce their absence. �
This paper describes an adventitious study of the notice-
ability of reductions in aircraft noise exposure in the vicin-
ity of Seattle-Tacoma Intemational Airport. Figure 1,
based on information made .�ublic by the Port of Seattle,
shows the average reductions in aircraft noise exposure
rneasured at a set of monitoring points in the vicinity of
Sea-Tac resuldng from replacement of older and noisier jet
transports by greater numbers of newer and quieter aircraft.
In the 2 years prior to the current study, the reduction in
aircraft noise exposure due to fleet changes at Seattle-
' Tacoma Interaational Airport was on the order of
L�=1.5 dB.
� ..
A brief, structured quesrionnaire (see the Appendix)
composed of closed-response category questions about
neighborhood conditions was constructed to provide a con-
text for questions about the salience and consequences of
changes in aircraft noise exposnre. The first explicit men-
tion of noise occurred in It�m 5("Would you say that your
neighborhood was quiet or noisy?"), following preliminary
questions about duration of residence, about the most and
least favored aspects of neighborhood living conditions,
and about annoyance with traffic congestion. The next item
("Have you nodced any more or any less aircraft noise in
your neighborfiood over the past year, just since last Feb-
ruary?") solicited opinions about the issue of central con-
cem. The remaining quesdons focused on specifics of
is
m
�o
m �a
>
m
c n
�
�
�n
m
�
m
� t�
t
�
c ro
_ }.
`�
�
_ year _
Fig. 1- Average annual reductions in aircraft noise ea�osure
�neosured at monitoring sites in rhe viciniry of Seattle-
Tacoma lnternational Airport.
50 Noise Control Eng. J. 46 (2), 1998 Mar-Apr
short- and long-term annoyance with neighborhood street
traffic and aircraft noise.
A sampling frame was constructed of households with
listed telephone numbers within interviewing azeas. Several
dozen centrally supervised telephone interviewers adminis-
tered the questionnaire by telephone, making seven contact
attempts (an initial attempt followed by six callbacks at
different times of day over a 4-day period) to each ran-
domly selected household. The opinions of one English-
speaking, adult, verified household member were sought
from each household during a four day period in mid-
February of 1995.
Interviews were conducted in five neighborhoods to the
north and south of Seattle-Tacoma International Airport
that differed in aircraft noise exposure by roughly 12 dB, as
shown by the airport's published noise contours. The pri-
mary criteria for defining interviewing areas were range
and spatial distribudon of aircraft noise exposure with re-
spect to pub��shed aircraft noise contours for Seattle-
Tacoma Internadonal Airport, and homogeneity of aircraft
noise exposure within interviewing azeas. Secondary crite-
ria for selecting interviewing areas included exposure to
specific types of aircraft noise and avoidance of major non-
aircraft noise sources.
Unattended, A-weighted measurements of aircraft and
other outdoor community noise were made at locations
within each interviewing area (other than those of the air-
port's noise monitoring system) during the week prior to
interviewing. The noise monitoring instruments were con-
figured to record hourly A-weighted equivalent sound lev-
els, Day-Night Average Sound Levels (DNL), and a num-
ber of event-based descriptors of noise levels ia excess'of
site-specific threshold levels, primarily for qualiry control
and estimauon purposes.
3. RESUI.'TT _
The five interviewing areas yielded a total of 1,236 com-
pleted interviews. Sample sizes in each area were adequate
to support standard errors of estimates of propoRions of
respondents on the order of -* 496. The overall percentage
of completed interviews was 5396, with only minor varia-
don from site to site. Failure to complete an interview was
due in most cases to refusals and non-contacts after seven
TABLE 1— Sununary of wce�ly avcrages of ineasured Day—Nighc Aver-
age Souud Levels during wak prior to interviewing.
DaY—Night DeY—Night ' Day-Night
average souad average sound average sound
level from atl level due to level due w
sources aicccaft stieet traffic
Interviewin6 ares (dB) (dB) (d8)
1: Burien/Tukwila 68.4 67A 61.�
2: North Des Moines 74.0 �3.5 60.1 ''
3: North Hill 65.7 65.2 56.0
4: South Des Moines 68.2 68.0 56. t
5: Federal Way (Mean) 62.9 6iJ 56A
Sitt A 63.2 62.4 SSA
Site B 62.6 611 57.4
C�
C.
\ �'
�
( �
Tft;�:.:' ;.' — Responses to item 6: Have you noticed any more or any Iess
aircraft noise in your neighborhood over the past yeaz?
Yes, more Yes, tess
airccaft aircrah Doa't
Interviewing area n No noise noise know
1: Burien/Tukwita S00 4496' 4396 996 496
2: North Des Moines 166 47 40 ' 10 3
3: North Hill 15� 41 48 5 6
4: South Des Moines 111 55 35 6 4
5: Federai Way 244 60 26 9 5
°Percenrages based on duration of residence of 1 year or mo�e.
attempts. Approximately 46% of the respondents were
male, while 54% were femate. 1fie bulk of respondents in
all interviewing areas had lived at their current addresses at
least, 2 years. ,Overall, 60% of all respondents had lived at
their current addresses for 5 or more years; 27% for 2 to 5
years; , 8% for 1 to 2 years; and 5% for less than l year.
Table 1 summarizes the results of noise measurements
made during the week prior to interviewing. Noise expo-
sure,attributable to aircraft overflights in interviewing areas
was distinguished from that attributable to street traffic
noise by the level and duration of individual noise events in
excess of site-specific thresholds.
As shown in Table 2 and Fig. 2, no more than 109b of
the respondents in any interviewing area reported noticing
less aircraft noise in their neighborhoods during the year
prior to interviewing. Large majorides of resgondents at all
sites either reported noticing no changos in aircraft noise, or
noticing increases in aircraft noise in their neighborhoods
in the yeaz prior to interviewing.' As shown in Table 3, of
those respondents who had noticed increases in aircraft
noise in their neighborhoods in the yeaz prior to interview-
ing, roughly a third believed that aircraft noise had in-
1�
�
�
oun� rv. ama Moinos North Hdl S. Doo Moir�a Fadual Wty
interviewing ar�
Fig. 2- Percentage of respondents noticing changes in aircraft
noise over the past year.
Noise Control Eng. J. 46 (2), 1998 Mar—Apr
TABL.E 3— Responses to Item 6A: Have you noticed stighdy, moder-
ately, or considerab►y more aireraft noise just since �his time
last year?
Don' [
Interviewing area n Slighdy Moderately Considerably know
1: BurietJTukwila 217 19%' 3696 3996 53'0
2: North Des Moines 66 23 36 38 3
3: North Hill 76 29 30 34 7
4: South Des Moines 39 26 44 31 0
5: Fedetal Way 64 25 41 30 4
°Percentages based on "Yes, more aircrafr noise" response to Item 6.
TABLE 4— Responses to Icem �: Have you noticed any more or less
aircrah noise in your neighborhood over the past 2 years?
Yes, more Yes. less
aircraft aircraft Don't
Interviewing atea n No noise noise know
l: Burien/Tukwita 264 129b° 7096 13% 5%
2: North Des Moines 82 7 79 12 1
3: North FIill 90 12 70 12 6
4: South Des Moines 4� 4 72 19 4
5: Federal Way 86 13 53 20 14
° Percentages based on duration of residence of Z years or more and "Yes,
more" or "Yes, less" resportres to Item 6. `'
TABLE S— Responses W ltem 7A: Have you nodced slighdy, moder-
auety, or considerably more aircraft poise over the past 2
Y�'s?
~'' Don't
Interviewing aiea n Slig6tly Modeistely Considerably IQww
1: B�uicn/T�kwila 186 1296° 32� 54'� 2'�
2: Nonh Des Moines 65 20 31 49 0
3: North Hill 63 24 30 44 2
4: South Des Moines 34 21 32 47 0
5: Federal Way 46 24 37 39 0
°Percenroges based on '7es, more" response to /tem 7.
creased "considerably" in their neighborhoods during this
time period.
Respondents who (1) had noticed any change (either an
increase or a decrease) in aircraft noise during the prior
year, and (Z) had resided at their current addresses for 2 or
morc years, also wer�e asked whether they had nodced an
inctease or a decrease in aircraft noise during the 2 years
prior to interviewing. As shown in Table 4, lazge majorides
of these respoadeats in all intcrviewing azeas reported na
ticing incroases in aircraft noise during the 2 years prior to
interviewing. A comparison of thc opinions of respondents
who had noticed increases in aircraft noise in the prior yeaz
and the prior 2 years indicates that greater percentages of
the latter than of the former respondents reported "consid-
erably'' more aircraft noise annoyance (t�,�sa> _�•8,
p< 0.01), as shown in column 5 of Tables 3 and 5.
No more than 14% of the respondents in any interview-
ing azea were annoyed in any degrce by street traffic noise
in the week prior to interviewing. Table 6 shows that rela-
tively small minorities of respondenu (7R'o or less) in each
interviewing• area had been bothered or annoyed to a con-
sequential degree by street traffic noise in the week preced-
51
�
TAHLE 6— Summary of percentage of rrsponden[s highly annoyed by street uaffic and aircrafc noise (nor-
malized by che number of completed interviews in each area).
Pereentage ' Percentage Percontage
� � of respondents of rcspondents of cespondents
highly annoycd highly annoyed highly annoyed j
by strect naffic by aircraft noise by aircraft noisc �_
Interviewing azea noise (prior wak) (prior week) (prior year)
1: Buricn/Cukwila 596 2196 31 R6 .
2: Nonh Des Moines 2 26 27 ,
_ 3: North Hiil 3 17 ZS
4: South Des Moines 7 9 16
5: Federa! Way 3 9 t6
ing interviewing. A consequential degree of annoyance (or were approximated from the spatia! distribution of respon- I
high annoyance) is defined as the sum of "very" and "ex- dents' households with respect to the-1991 Noise Exposure
tremely" annoyed responses. Map (NEM) aircraft noise contours, adjusted by 1;5 dB to
A greater percentage of respondents (3896-60%) at all correspond with reductions forecasted by the Port of Se-
sites had been annoyed in any degree during the prior week atde. Weekly DNL values were taken from Table 1:'
by aircraft noise than by street traffic noise (9�'0-1496). As shown in Fig. S, a majority of respondents reported
Further, as'shown in Table 6, the percentage of respondents that their annoyance attributable to aircraft' noise had not
reporting a consequendal degree of annoyance to aircraft changed over the prior 2-years: About a third reported that
noise during the past week ranged from 9Rfo to 2696 in the their annoyance had' incre�sed, and small'numi�rs of re-
various interviewing areas. Figure 3 compares the percent- spondents reported thaz th�ir annoyance attributable to air-
ages of respondents highly annoyed by street traffic noise craft' noise had decreased.
' and aircraft noise during' the prior wee�c. �
Even greater percentages of respondents (5696-7796)
had been annoyed in some degree during the prior year by �, DISCUSSION
aircraft noise than by either aircraft or street �c noise `
during the prior week. Table 6 shows that the percentage of As shown in Table 2, the pattern of findings with respect (,. -
respondents reporting a consequendal degree of annoyance ��� nodce of changes in aircraft noise among respon- �
from aircraft noise during the prior year ranged from 169b dents who had lived at their present addresses for at least a '
to 3196 across all sites. A greater percentage of respondents Y�' is sunilaz in each interviewing area: no more than IORb
reported a consequential degree of annoyance from aircraft of the respondents in any int�rviewing area noticed a de-
aoise during the past year than frora aircraft aoise durin� crease in aircraft noise during the prior yeaz, while as many
the past week'(t��.4� = 4.4, p e 0.01). Figure 4 shows ��`� of respondents in one area reported no c6ange in
the percentage of raspondents highly annoyed by street traf- �� noise in the same time period. This pattern of find-
fic noise and by aircraft noise during the prior week and ings is illustrated in Fig. 2, which shows the distribution of
prior yeaz as a funcdon of DNL values. Yearly DNi. values �sponses to Quesdonnaire Item 6 across interyiewing ar-
eas.
ae
m
3 � 1�
C100 ' '- �
a _
� Trar�c NoW � Ploi�� � �
A eo �
m i
� � �
'' 80 � ��
� � �lYe�� 1
d0
C 40 , .. , . . ... � . � . . 41 . A6ma9 N�lao ' ❑ .
�� . . . � .. . . . . . � ' � h�iC Noho � . POa! IM00Bt .. ❑ � �.
C � t � ,� �� �, s a
�!1 � Cm . �s � .�...
..�. .. '� .�.. ..... �� ��:� ,. .... � . � . !,g �' � ,.. . .
C � Bvbn N. Dos liolrt�D iSerBf Ma 8. Doe YOYq� F�a! Way a� SO SS 80 88 70 78
� � p day-night average sound level (d8)
_ m interviewing erea ,,� ,
a �
Fig. 4- Percentage of respondents highly annoyed by street rrnf-
Fig. 3- Percentage of respondents highly annoyed by street traf- fic noise and aircrafr noise during the week prior to
jtc noise cuid airerafr noise during the week prior to interviewing as a function of Day-Night Average Sound
interviewing. Level.
52 Noise Control Eng. J. 48 (2), 1998 Mar-Apr
1
n�
1
1Q0
�
N
C
�
O.�
N
m
O
C
m��
C
�
No change
� More annoyed
❑ less annoyed
0.�.. ��„��� ��� ��i ��
8urion N. Dea Moinee North HiN S. Doa Man� Fedet�l Way
• interviewing area
Fig. S— Distribution of percentages of respondents reporting
changes in aircraft noise annoyance in the prior 2 years.
Figure 6 shows that a lazge majority of respondents at all
sites who reported noticing increases in aircraft noise be-
lieved these increases to be of notable ("moderate" or
"considerable") magnitude. Araong longer term (mini-
mum of two years) residents who noticed any `change in
aircraft noise eaposure in the year prior to interviewing, an
evcn greater percentage of respondents reported noticin�
increases in aircraft noise in their neighborhoods within the
two,years prior ro interviewing.
The pattern of responses to Questionnaire Items 6 and 7
indicates that little benefit was pecceived by r�spondents
from reductions in integrated aircraft noise eaposure during
the years prior to interviewing.
As shown in Table 6, greater percentages of respondents
at all sites described themselves as highly annoyed-by air-
craft noise in the year prior ro interviewing than during the
week prior to interviewing, At the interviewing site to the
m
� ,�
�
�
•� �
..
o �
�
m .
�
� �
c
p �0
g
m
v �
� _..... R�� �e� sow a�s�oq
m
� `z intervlevWng erea
� � ��
�' Fig. 6— Percentage of respondents nodcing mvderately or con-
siderably more arrcrafr noise during the prior year.
Noise Control.Eng. J. 46 (2), 1998 Mar—Apr
m too
g
m
a�
�
L
�
L �
�
m
� �
m
r
O m
C
m
�
ma o
90
s� � � io
day-night average sound levet (d8) .
0
` Fig. 7- Relarionship benveen the observed prevalence of high
annoyance and a dosage-response relationship recom-
mertded by the Federa! lnteragency Committee on Noise
(FICON, 1992).
north of Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (Burien/
Tukwila), this difference may be related to the predomi-
nance of southerly air traffic 8ow in the week prior to in-
terviewing� since these sites were exposed
disproportionately (with respect to th� year as a whole) to
the lower noise exposure levels of approach operadons..
Virtually identical percentages of respondents reported high
annoyaace during the wcek and yeaz prior to interviewing
in the int.�rviewing site to the south of Seattle-Tacoma
Intcmadonal Airport (Idorth Des Moines), whic6 was ex-
posed lazgely to noise from departure operadons durin� the
week prior to interviewiag. Absolute differences between
the prevalence•of annoyance during the week and yeaz prior
to interviewing at the southerly sit�s (South Des Moines,
Federal Way) were generally smaller in magnitude.
Figure 7 shows the relationslup between the observed
_ prevalence of high annoyance in the interviewing areas and
a dosage-response relationship id�ntified by the Federal In-
teragency Committee on Noise.� Figure 7 contains informa-
tion from threc questionnaire items. The filled ovals in the
lower left-hand corner of t6e figure show the prevaience of
annoyance with street traffic noise in the week prior to
interviewin� (Item 8A), plotted against averag� DNL val-
ues derived from the measurements made in the same time
frame. The aiangular data points show the prevalence of
annoyance with aircraft noise in thc week prior to inter-
viewing (Item 9A), also plotted against average DNL val-
ues derived from the measurements made in the same time
frame. Thc open squares represent the prevatence of annoy-
ance with aircraft noise in tho year prior to interviewing
(Item l0A), plotted against estimated annual DNL values
taken from the airport's 1991 ' Noise Exposure Map con-
tours. The prevalence of tugh annoyance with soreet traffic
and sircrafi noise amoag respondonts is generally consis-
tent with that predictod by FICON.
A theoredcally d�rived model developed by Greon and
Fidell characterius the aggregate effect of all nonacousac
determinants of annoyance in terms of a single parameter,
D*.6 In the'model of Green and Fidell, the slope of the
53
�o
; ��
c
c
A �
A
�
�
N �
C
�
O• 4O
N
O �
m
� o
a 30 g6 _ gfl 8g 7p 7g � g;f gp
day-night average sound level (dB)
Fig. 8— Prevalence of high annoyance in current study in rela-
rion to theorerical dosage—response relationship for
residential noise exposure. _
dosage—response relationship between noise exposure and
prevalence of annoyance is fixed by the effecrive loudness
of the noise exposure, while the position of the dosage—
response relationship along the abscissa is determined' by
the value of D*. (A'D* value may be interpreted as a value
of DNL above which respondents describe themselves as
highly annoyed by community noise exposure.)
; Figure 8 shows a dosage—response relationship con-
structed by the method of Green and Fidell' for the' annoy-
ance of aircraft noise during the year prior to interviewing
. in the present study. The value ofD* in the present data set
was 75.2 dH, while the average value observed by` Green
and Fdell for sircraft noise annoyance in many other com-
munities was 70.2 dB.6 Thus, respondents in this survey
tolesated nearly 6 dB-- more aircraft noise 'eRposu�e thar�
residents of other communiaes before describing ` them-
selves as highly annoyed. In fact, the tolerance for aircraft
noise observed in the present study is indistinguishable
from that accorded ro street 'traffic noise in other commu-
nities (D* _, 75.5 dB, per Green and Fidell6).
; The time course of changes in aircr�aft noise exposure
may also affecr the' noticeability of a chan�e. It is' dif6cult
...
m
�° -�- �s��. -8- s��a -�
.. y . . : . . 9iM S1 .. .
m�
�
>
.'.,J : . �' � . .: � �. , , . , .
. QZ 19 . -• ...... _.... . '..... .�� .��.. .
. . �
o --�
m �x ... . ....._ ..;... ....
�. -• • ��....
�
� a _..... ..._. ... ..
o s�+dmb
� � '
. .. ..... ......... ......... ..._.......
,
m • •
�v . •
� � : : , : • '
,oa� ,eeo ,ao� ,� ,ao� �eea
y calendar year
Fig. 9- Range and standard deviations of daily aircraft noise
exposure levels at three nwnitoring sites from 1989'to
1994 near Seattle—Tacoma lnternarional Airport.
54 Noise Control Eng. J. 4� (2), 1998 Mar-Apr
m ,
�
� : : ; : .
�aaa.8 ............ ?. ..._..... •••...... '
• ..... .... ...
m � :
o� ............: ........:............
�2.5 ......... ......... ........ . . ........
_ �.Z ......... ........ ......... � ........ . ....
.. ; : , •
, :
m 1.3 ........................... ;
. , _. .... .. ...
� � :
c, t .. .:............: ....... ` ..... . ......
� .. ...
�,o.s .. ....... ......... .. .........
c
� � i ' ' , ;
'so ss eo ea �o �s . eo
day-night average sound level (d8)
Fig. 10 - Rate of change in predalence of high annoyance pre-
dicted by FICON (1�92) per 1 dB change in Day—
Night Average SounaCLevel.
to azgue from current knowledge that a certain change in
community noise exposure over a particular time period is
more meaningful than another, both because 'the time con-
stants of arousal<and decay of annoyance are not known
with any, precision,2 and because the time geriod ovcr
which a chan�e is ro be considered meaningful may not be
well specified. Intuitively, however, it seems reasonable
that abrupt changes in circumstances of aircraft noise'expo-
sure (say, a halving from one day to the next in numbers' of
flights) are more likely to be nodced than gradual `ones
(such as a reduction of 3 dB in average sound exposure
levels occurring over a period of years).
'The effect of variabiliry in aircraft flight patteras on the
meaningfulness of changes in airpc�rt noise can b� a fuither
complicating factor. In some airport' neighborhoods, the
distribution of daily cumulative noise exgosures is a narrow
one relative to the annual average level. In other airport
neighborhoods,,the variance of daily noise exposure l�vels
is much greater. Figure 9 displays the range'and standard
deviations of daily aircraft noise exposure levels in the last
sevcral years in thc vicinity of three noise monitoring sta-
tions in neighborhoods neaz the ends of the main runway at
Seattle—Tacoma Intemadonal AirporG Aircraft noise expa
sure on the noisier days of the yeaz can differ in these
neighborhoods from aircraft noise exposure on the quieter
days of the year by more than 15 dB. The standard devia-
tions of the distribudons of noise exposures in the• thnee
neighborhoods are on the order of 3 dB. It would not be
surprising if the smallest systematic change in aircraft noise
ezposure` that is liicely to be noaced and remembered in
communities with highly variable noise exposure were
greater than in communities with much less day-to-day
variability in leveL
Furthermore, the magnitude of a meaningful change in
the ` prevalence of annoyaince is cleazly level dependent.
Figure 10 shows the rate of change in the prevalence of
annoyance predicted by FICON's dosagarespoase relation-
� ship per 1 dB change in Day-Night Average Sound 1eve1.�
The rate varies by a factor of at least 3:1 '(from less than l�o
per dB to more than' 3�'o per dB) over the range of noise
exposure values of general interest. Because the FICON
�
�
0
m to�
'�
`.' ».o
m
. m ».s
_ �
_ > >a.o
�� � � 1t.8
R
� n.o
�
� ��.s
�
� n.o
cs
� 70.8
��` ���
l )
;, °n
lC
�
'�
m
a
� �
m
�
E
m OB
'O
�n
n
. �..:..�.. .
O 10
�
mF
3
9f
�,
'�
�.
.\
�
`t
''•�
��
�
�
ChanQ� e� 19@8 0 3.S dB ��
. . .. . . . � . A`�.,1.�
r
98
ti
�
�o
m +o
a
N
m e
�
c
m e
�
u�
� �
m
�0
E
�
8
A ��
�
G
N 1�
m
�
c
E
m 116
�
N
t0
m
� tAq
m
�
ip
»o
....... .....�a.: ......................1
.:.....................�. ...-•............
............................. :...............
................................... .8.....9.1-
-
�
.............�'•"'•••"••'......'•-""•"
--•.........•-.'- •\s�r• ................ .m. .
....... -... .�....., 1�........
1 1 1N1 100t /8�8 t � � 1 1Nt 1 1 � �
ye� year
Fig. 11— Comparison of decreases in integrated noise levels with changes in tota! ame produced by aircraft operations in excess of
A-weighted noise levels of 8S, 75, and 6S dB.
relationship is not a lineaz one, a reduction in DNL of a
given magnitude is gonerally "worth" more (ia tern� of a
reducdon in the prevalence of annoyance) at higher noise
levels than at lower aoise levels.
Yet another possible explanaaon for the lack of notice-
ability of reductions in integrated noise ezposur� may be
that the predicave value of the FTCON dosage-response
relationship dces not have an actual causal basis. Niost al-
gebraically describable environmental noise metrics that
are sensitive Eo the levels, numbors, and duradons of noise
events are highly cornelated with one another. Total time
above a threshold value, however, is defined by a counting
operation, and does not necessarily correlate well with in-
tegrated exposure metrics such as DNL.
The four panels of Fig. 11 compare the decrease in in-
tegrated noise levels with changes in total dme produced by
aircraft operations in eacess of A-weighted noise levels of
85, 75, and 65 dB. These data are empirical measurements
made at the noise monitoring sites closest to the runway
ends at Sea-Tac. Note thaz the pattern of changes in time
above 65 dB clearly differs in later years from the trend in
DM, values. Total time that air�craft noise has eaceeded 65
dB at monitoring locadons near the airport has iacreased in
recent years (1) because subsatution of quieter for noisier
aircraft has not reduced time in excess of this lower thresh-
otd value, and (2) because total numbers of operadons at
this airport have increased over the time period of interest.
The amount of time aircraft noise levels exceeded a
threshold of 85 dB decreased from 10.8 min to 5.7 min
Noise Control Eng. J. 4B (2). 1998 Mar-Apr
from 19�9 to 1995. The amount of time aircraft noise levels
exceeded a threshold of 75 dB decreased from 54 min to 39
min, and from 182 min to 170 min for a threshold of 65 d8.
In decibel-like (i0 log ratio) terms, these differences in
tirae above threshold `levels translate to 'a decrease of 2.8
dB at the 85-dB threshold from 1989 to 1995, a decrease of
1.4 dB at the 75-dB ttu�eshold, and a decreases of only 0.3
dB at the 65-d.B threshold. lfiese decreases in time above
threshold levels are all smaller than the 3.5-dB decrease in
the DNL metric over th� samo time period. Thus, if annoy-
ance is noe caused directly by integrated noise exposure,
substitution of quieter for noisier aircraft may not in some
cases yield as great a benefit as tnight be expected from
changes in an equal energy metric such as DNL.
5. COPdCLUSION3
1fie following infcrences may be drawn from the results
of the current study:
(1) Large majorities of respondents in five airport neigh-
borhoods reported noticing either no change at all or in-
creases in aircraft noise in their neighborhoods despite a
decrease on the order of 1.5 dB in DIdL due to aircraft
noise within t6e last 2 years prior to interviewing.
(2) The overall pattern of findings provides little reason
to believ� that decreases of 1.5 to 3 dB in aircraft noise
exposure levels occurring over an extended period of dme
are readily noticeable oc meaningful in airport neighbor-
hoods.
55
s. �►c��owLEDG��r��rs
The present study was sponsored by the Seattle Airport
Communities Coalidon. The authors are grateful to the re-
spondents, whose opinions are the basis of:this study and to
two anonymous reviewers for comments on eazlier drafts.
Additional detail about this study may be found in Fidell,
Silvati, and Pearsons.g
T. APPEAlDIX: SURVEY IFdSTRUMEFlT
1) About how long have you lived at [street address]?
2) What do you like best about living conditions in
your neighborhood?
3) What do you like least about living condidons in
your neighborhood?
4) How annoyed are you by traffic congestion in your
daily life? Would you say that you're not at all an-
noyed, slightly annoyed, moderately annoyed. very
annoyed, or extremely annoyed by traffic conges-
tion?
5) Would you say that your neighborhood is quiet or
noisy? SKIP TO ITEM 6 if neighborhood was de-
scribed as "quie�" Follow np quesaon if neighbor-
' hood was described as "noisy":
Sa) Would you say that your neighborhood is slightly
noisy, moderately noisy, very noisy, or extremely
noisy?
I'I'EM 6 asked only if duration of residence (per Item 1) is
1 or more years:
6) Have you noticed any more or any less aircraft
noise in your neighborhood over the past yeaz, just
since last February?
SKIP TO TTEM 7 if no change was nodced.
Follow up question if more aircraft noise was noticed:
6a) Have you noticed slighdy, moderately, or consid-
erably more aircraft noise just since this time last
Yeaz'�
SKIP TO ITEM 7. ;
Follow up quesuon if less aircraft noise was noticed:
6b) Have you noticed slighdy, moderately, or consid-
erably less aircraft noise just since this time last
yeaz?
ITEM 7 asked only if duration of residence (per Item 1). is
2 or more years:
7) How about the past two years? Have you nodced
any more or any less aircraft noise in your neigh-
borhood over the past two years?
SKIP TO ITEM 8 if no change was noticed.
Follow up question if mare aircraft noise was nodced:
7a) Have you noaced slighdy, moderately, or consid-
erably more aircrafr noise over the past two years?
SKIP TO ITEM 8.
Follow up quesaon if tess aircraft noise was nodced:
7b) Have you noticed slighdy, moderately, or consid-
. erably less aircrafi noise over the past two years?
8) While you've been at home during the past week,
since last [day of week], have you been bothered or
annoyed by streer rraffic noise in your neighbor-
hood?
SKIP TO ITEM 9 if response was na
Follow up question if response was yes:
56 Noise Controi Eng. J. 48 (2), 1998 Mar–Apr
8a) Would you say that you were slightly annoyed,
moderately annoyed, very annoyed, or extremely
annoyed by street traffic noise in your neighbor-
hood last week?
9) While you've been at home over the past week, just
sin�e last [day of week), have you been`bothered or
annoyed by aircrafr noise in your neighborhood?
SKIP TO ITEM 10 if response was na
Follow up quesuon if response was yes:
(9a) Have you been slighdy annoyed, moderately an-
noyed, very annoyed, or extremely annoyed over
the past week by aircraft noise in your neighbor-
hood?
10) While you've been at home this past year, since
last February, have you been bothered or annoyed
by aircrafr noise in your neighborhood?
SKIP TO TTEM ll if response was na
Follow up question if response was yes:
l0a) Would you say that you were slighdy annoyed,
moderately annoyed, very annoyed, or extremely
annoyed by aircraft noise while you've been at
home this past year?
I1'EM 11 asked only if duration of residence (per Item 1) is
2 or more years:
11) Has your annoyance with aircraft noise changed
during the last two years?
SKIP TO ITEM 12 if response was na
Follow up question if response was yes
l la) Have you been more annoyed with aircraft noise
over the last two years or less annoyed with air-
craft noise over the last two years?
12) GenerallY speakin8, are you more annoyed by
noise from bi� jets,by noise from propeller planes,
or by noise from other types of aircraft? `
S. RE�ERENCES
�S. Fidell and G. Jones, '`Effccts of cessadon of late-night 8ights on an
sirpoR commucuty," BBN Report 2437, Enviconmental Pciotection
Agency (1973).
2S. Fidell. R Horonjeff; J. Mills, E. Baldwia, S. Teffeteller, and K. Pear-
sons. "Ai�raft noise annoyancc at three joinc sir cazria and genera!
aviation airports," J. Acoust Soc. Am. 77(3), lOS4–t068 (1985).
31. Francois, "Les mpercussions du bmit des avions sur !'equilibre des
' riverains des aecoports: etude tongitudinai autour de Roissy, troisieme
phase." IFOP/EI'MAR. Paris, France (1979). '
`T. Gjesdand K. H. Liasjo, i. Granoien, and Js M: Fields. ''Response to
noise around Oslo Airport Fomebu," DELAB Repoit No.
STF40A90189, Trondheim, Norway (1990).
ST. Gjesdand, I. Granoien, K H. Liasjo, and J: J. Bugger, ''Cocnmunity
response to noise from a short term miliary aircraft ezercise.'' in Noise
"and Man '93: Noise as a Public Hesith Problem (Roc. Sucth Ind. Cong.,
1994) 2. pp. 589-592.
bi7. G�cen and S. Fideil. "Variability in the criterion for reporting annoy-
ance in communiry aoise surveys," J. Acoust Sac. Am. �9(1), 234-243
(1991).
� Firw! Reporr: Airport Noise Assessment Methodologies and Metrica
(Federal [nteragency Committcc on Noise—FICON, Washington, DC
1992).
°S. Fideli, L. Silvati, and K. Pearsons, "Social Survey of Community
Response to Noise Exposure Near Seattic–Tacoma Internadonal Aio-
port," BBN Report 8070 (1995).
� ;
�,
C
.,.... J� J��:.r�J .+.�.. . .-.,.,.,_.: riOir KEPORT iVO. g196
1: ,i; �; � � ;
• � � ; ,�, �, ;�> .- -.
:•
'• �
1' ; • • 1' � 1 _
•' • � , �•�
, . , ,
I 1, � a� ��� �1:�� � �I� 'i�; •' ��
� . � � .� . ) � . „ � �, � ; . � .
i " `'1 ', •
.
� • l • �
.
� ., ;
.
� �•i•' . • • I . � � � . � .
1: i • . 1' ' • .
• � • � � � ; _ : �• . , �, . , � .
� ; • ,1 �, . �- ,
. • . � 11' : , � . � : � , . �
� � : �. . ; �, . .� . , 1 ` • . � �
• 1� ; � � ,� �, , .� � • ; � .
� =�) ; • � • ` �" .;
� " � �', �
; , ��,., ,,: ; : ) �,:. , � . , •'
• . • �
• i I •.• � ' � • 1
1 ��
' • � : •' • ,, . ,� � , �
•� �� � .�: . , <� � � ��. . (;�,
� � . � : • • � , . : � � � � . � �,
1 . .
� : . � . , . . : 1 � 1' : _
• , • � • � • �;�
6 GL03S Y ..................................................... .27
6.1 ACOUS'I'IC QU.AN'I'I'TIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6.2 O'TF�It T'ER11�iS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
�, , �� �� �
�
i
EEN Svsrs�ss axn Tgc��aat,occ�s EBPi �ro�r Pto. t196
. � ��
\�
.. _ \
BBN SYSTEMS AND TECHNOLOGiES BB1Y iiElORT N0. �196
� ,i
�ig�re 1
F'i�re 2
F'igare 3
Figure 4
F'ignre 5
F�gttre 6
Fi�re i
F'i�are �
F�g�re 9
� Fi�re 10
( )
Figt�re 11
F'i�re 12
Figure 13
Figttre 14
Fi�arc 15
Fi�ure 16
��gnre 17
�13� 0� F'1�'��°�3
Noise measurement locations with respect to 11�SP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Short-tenn equivalent levels in one-third octave bands of ambicnt aoise at two
measur�nent locations during perriods without aircra�i operaiions on nearby
runways.........................................................10
One-third octave band composite maximum spectra oi ana�yzed DC-9 op�rrarions
recorded at Locations 1 and 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
One-third octave band composite maximum spectra og analyzed DC-10 operations
recorded at Locations 1 and 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
One-third octave band composit� maximum spectra of analyzed Boeing 727.
operations recorded at Locations 1 and 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
C?ne-third octave band compositc maximum spectra of analyzad Boeing 75i
operations recorded at Locations 1 and 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
One-third octave band composite maximum spectra of analyzai �irbus 320
operations recorded at Location 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
One-third octav� band composite maximum spectra of aa�lyx�d. �_�0
operatioas recorded at Locations 1 and 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
One-third octave band composite maximum spec�ra of aaalyzed �oein� 737-200
operations recorded at Locations 1 and 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
One-third octave band composit� maximuni specira of analyzed business jet
operations recorded at Locations 1 and 4. . . . . . . . . . . 15
One-third octave band composite maximum sp�ctra of analyzed twin turboprop
(commuter) operations recorded at Location 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 S
Regressions of maximum A-w�ighted aircraft noise levels (as me�asured at
Locarions 1 and 4) on low frequcncy nois� levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Av�rra�e diff�rence bctween simultaneous indoor and outdoor noise levels of five
aircraft flyovers measured at Locadon 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
DNL contours for li�iSP in the viciaity of Richfield produc�d by Version 5.1
for thc year 2005, based on 11R�C's operational assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Estimation of low fr�qu�ncy noisc levels froYn proposed n�way 17/35. Estimated
low frequ�ncy limits ar� parall�l to propos�d runw�ay 17/3S and tan��t to L,,,�
contours froffi I1�T�i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Conto�u�s of numbers of miautcs of �-weighted aiPcraft noise in exccss of 65 d�,
ia� half hour in��nts. Positions of schools arr� . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Relationship betweeea dir�ct audibility of low &equency sounds and audibility of
secondary cmissions in a residcnce �xcited by jei cngine nois� . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
iii
��N S�rs�n�s �rra►'H'�ca�oe.occ�� �BN �ro�r No. E196
�d
C� -
tfltlV JYST6NS AND 1 ECHNOLOGIES BBN R�PORT NO. $196
1' 1
'Table 1 Summary of equivalent sound levels observed during measur�nent periods. ... 9
Tabl� 2 Numbers of recordings of op�raations by aircrafi type analyzed at measurement
locations 1 and 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 i
T'�bl� 3 Definitions of quantities tabulated in Appendix �, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 31
a
0
��JA.t�! •L�.p.•Va.bJutGJ
_ rititv KaPORT do. �19�
1 . I � �
� l This repori describes, analyzes, and discusses the implications of a s�t of low &�qucncy
aircraft noise measur�nents made in the vicinity of Minneapolis-Saiat Paul Int eion�l �iirpor�
(MSP) at the r�qu�st of the City of Richficld. The locations at which thes� ffi�asur�ents w ffiazg�
support estimation of future low fi�qu�ncy aircra�i nois� levels in of Richficld iau�n�dia#ciy
wesi of an anticipat�d Nortli-South nanr�vay (17/35) at hitSP. �
l.l ACKG O '
Futur� aircraft op�tions on a progosed Ruaway 17/35 on the wesi side of IViSP, as well as
operadons on runway 4/22, wrill expose eastern portions of th� City of R,ichfield to additional noise
from aircrafi in flight and from aircraft ground operations. Soffie of this noise will be audibl� in
resid�tial of Richfield beyond the immediat� ' rt vicinity, and will diffe�° in c ier froffi
flyov�r noise. The City is concerned that standard methods deycloped for fed re
administiraiive ses for uaati �ulatory and
P�po Q fYing aircraft noise and assessing its e4�ecis may not be fully
ad�quate for characteriziag potcatial noise unpacis crr�aated by operaiion of the a� rtaaway,
Such conc�ns are aot unique io the City of I�icl�eld. Co�unitaes n San �rancisco
Int 'onal �irport (SFO) and Lo Int 'onal A,u�port (�OS), for le, have also tly
sought to develop ia% 'oa aboui the of ai noise assessm t gneth to
accouait for th� effects of low fi�qu�ncy noise g��rated by air�rr�ft op�ion�. '�� b� for thi�
concezn is th� the staadard a�ircr� noise ffi'c,s, contouria� methods int reiave crit�ria used
� for re�alatory Pur�ses are all A-w�ighted.' Ptoise mea �nis se�i in A-w�ighted uaits ar�
��, , most heavily influcacal by acoustic ��r in� the �� �
gY frequ�cy re�ion in the vicinity oi 1�(about
two octaves above middl� oa the pi�o), and ar� bi�hly ir�,sensitive to acoustic ea�rgy at low
fr�qu�cies.
: .� _� ,, -. , .. ,„ , . , . �r a�
= � -- . :,, . .�,,_ , :,���� � �. �� ��:. �� ..���.�. - �.. ���.�.
,�. � , .,.. ,�: ..- �.�� �- ��: �. , � � - _
- • - •' •� • _-� ` • -�� :: �.�� �� �
. :: � .� �. � ..: �.. . .► rr .;.�_•i .. � -, � •
�� "'� • '� . =�. ' � i� : � • � .
� � i'
"' � 'a � ° tr . � � . '� ` )� i• _ . , � �� � . � ' r � �i .ii . �.,�. r � , . �,
�"�- : •,��.<
• �-� .; • � - _
. �� � i � .� �� �.:' i 1 : .N " ti � .: � • :, � '� ; � :..:1:� • . , ��, .,, _ .
-' � �1..:�� � r.. � .��;1�. � � ..,.
� . , � � � . _...,;.
� 1 " � �� � . 1 � . �; • � 1: , � .: � � � •. � ��• • . - . .
. , d1 ,�.._ ' .•. 1 ��� � � ' ; :� • W � .. � ',' �y, �. �, :=i� \ .:;
. ��'. . ,� '1. " � � :t, 11 � '.' 1 '=� J. �':i� � �����. � ..
• • . ._ 11. �. .� ! , ..,. , r� ..,.. 1 � '_ .. / � 1 � :-� � "� . � = .
- .�:..1 �.__.�.�I . � r.�1�=f:1:i:. ;.�:r
�� � . 1 ' 1 �� � � ;1.; . .. . , �. � . .
' '.
1� '-� •. .M x^ � � �.. . � - ... • �
. 1 • . �.. ' �1 • � 1 1 . .: �. � � � . .. 1:1J 1 5
. . .
� 1 � • :11 11 J:t �: � -.. .1... ,. • r: �. .]a / � � 7;� : � � .. ,. . ' ..
_. _.. 1. � • ti � ��� • � ��::� � ....�' � \ �" . .
� � 11 :. .. .1� � � �'�:• � . '.
1 �� �1. .� � � � . • ', ��. 1 � : 1 � � ,
1. • • '1��5, 11 ' �� ` � � :..� � � �i� � " , .
- -. :. 1 / � .•�.� .. � . .� .. � 1 �'
• ". , � � 1 . � � ,. _ � . �. = ,.
�. � � °=V) � ,:.. t� =3. • . ��.• ' � I 1 .11. . " �,� ' ' ' . :i� � • �, �1 � � . ...
,... � -�� � � : .
1 � ,.. ., � ,� .. �. �. � '1 • 1 � °` i �, 1 � �. � �� • 1 . :1 ... ,,. � .
�� . 1 � 1� 1 � . >. � � .:.5 �, x.
� Readen interested in definidons of acou�ic te� may Smd th� ia � t'#1� � r�q� 6 of t9�i� eepor�.
(\ ) .
S"��PT SYSTElNS AND TBCHNO�OCI�3 BBPJ (Zg�ORT :d0. �196
l02 � M�i Y CiF FINI)ING�
i '
The rnajor findings of the field measurem�nts and analyses described in this report include
the following:
• Aircraf� operations on a proposed N'orth-South n�avday at NiSP �rill
substantially elevate. ambient noise levels in one.third octave bands b�lo�r
100 I�Z iai as of Richfi�ld up to about a�ile froffi the runvvay, by 20 d�
or more und�r some coaditions.
• This incr�ase ia� lovv frequ�ncy noise lewcls is not appar�nt fn the
(A-w�ight�d) aircraft aoise �xposu� contours praduc�d by iNl�i'.
� Levels of low frequcacy-noise exposure similar io those that will be ed
in east� Richfield by operations on proposed Runway 1 il35 have giv�nn rise
to noise complaints in communiiies n oth�. airpor�, -
� An acoustic bazri�r parallel io the p�sed nanway of dim�a,sioas adequate
to pro�ride appr�ciable l,ow uency noise raiuctaoa for ffiuch of east
RichSeld i.� ' ely to be cost•effeciive.
H . � <<. � �. b , ,, :.,. � . ,,.. ..�.,� .� ,:.. , ,., _,
, � . � �, :: , , , :. �� � , „
. . � . . ,,
� • -�: � � ;. . -� � � . - � . . , . , , , . _
� ,.,. , , � ,• ,,,�
, � , .� � .�.-�..,: ; . . , .�.� . .��� .� :
� :, .
�.:-. ���. �. � , . .. ,.. ,_. .., ..
�. . _, , , , , �� ., .
..: ,,,. ,, ,„ , ,:,, .., , � . , „ _ .
- , , .. . . ,, .�� . ,.
- ,,
. ,� �. � , ,, ,.,�� .. ,
_ :,�. . _ � . � , : , �,„ �. � �.�.
,�,: r ,, ,,.
,•� � .. , _< �.
� ,' ,.� ` , ` i�i� , �.
L
� . ����. / � �- � a� ..... �..� ��:, ..� �1 � .� �\ ,..'' �� : �.:� Y �: � .
� .�. �� •� ,..�.� .a',:. �:�.... _ �� ��i/� � n..�� �' � �� .
'�, n . ,a „ � � ` .. , � � � �'�". . : ., � . . .
�. n .�_�: .� . �1. � � . ��� �� .� . . ._\ . �,. _ t ... ,. ' ��., .� ' i., ., .., , , � �i� �•�� <..., • ... _ .�� � �
�1 � � � . .-,� ��. - � .�.: �. c,. m „ i .� � �
' � . _. -� � "1. 1 � ' � 11 . � '" � ' , 1 . <_„ • "1 �� � �..� . .. . � .. ,�.. ��, �-., � . .,.
" ' " ... . ' .. .' _ � i1 � 1 �� � '. �. . �1 ;'" �/ • . � � 1 t� � � .., � ^ � . _.
.., �.: . 11 �—: • .,,.. `=r 1 t =i i. �. ' .11. ��. �I � ' �
='• �'. � i `,
.. �.":� ��. .., �"��.• . �.:�' :.1 :..i��t i� �.\ �`X�' . �.•��. � :
� •. � �f� 11 q. .`, � �� „. ..� � ". '• • ` t ( ' � � ..
. . .: . . ' ,. ., 1 ,'...
� : '�- . /l ��1 : . _, .
• �=�-. • � � ,... � �� �, • � ; a,. � .. l ( _. � � . . : _. � � • � .
. 1 • 1 " • ' .� �� _.::. . „,..� .:
t
��N �Y�1'�R9� AAID'�'BC�PaOLOGH�3 ��P1 �PORT PVO. ��9�
\
d
10,Q00 H�) one-third actave bands' ai all locations, aad in a"lo�+ fr�qucncy" (1.6 I-ia to 1,250 Hz)
onc-third octave bands at Locations 3 and 4.
� .
�
0
� P�rt 36 of tbe Fed Aviatioa Ftegutotion4 whicb eat�bl' meaaue�nt pracedure� for ' noi�
certific�aoa in the Unica! S id�tiSss the 24 one-third octavo band� b�nraa SO �iz �ad 10,000 I�tza �t tb� frequeacy
• re�ion within whieh ' noi� muat ba 't�►e tower limit ot t�e eurrene "high �rcqueacy" annaly�s encom
. and eztrnds below thst �pe�ified by Pest 36, wbile t�e ataettut "lo�r frequea�.g►" s�tteads co eve� lowr� 5rquensia.
t ) -
�
i
E�P1 Sv�Tt�s.awD'Tsc�woLm��.s ��N ro�Y No. �y9f
0
. . . . . . . .. ... .. . . . .. . . . . . ._..
. .... .._.. ....... ......... ...... .._... ... .... ....... ....... .. ....... ._.. ........ ....... ..... ... _...... ......... ........ ........ . �.. .�.
C�
0
YY�IJ7Jl6MJA1U lLL�1�•vrvu��,J
OOI� !lblVRL .�V� O�'J�
3 S 3 �
Tabulations of A-weighted, ov�rall (unweighted), and one-third octave band sound levels of
> aii�r�craft operations, along with centile values in each one-third octave baad obs�ved during the field
measur�nm�n�s, �ay be fo�d in App�adix A. Su�unari�.s of these d,ata and aireraft-sp�cific dat� ar�
pr�s�nt�d in this sectioa
3.1 OTJ 00 NOIS LE LS AT' ASLT NT' LC�CATION'S
'Time-av�rragai noise levels produced by aim� s�f�e c, and oih� co�nmuaity
sourc�s aPe summarizz�si in Table 1 by measure�ne�nt location�. The sound leveLs rted in this
table ar� short-t�m equivalent l�vels for the indicat�d meas cnt durations.
T�bl� 1 Suenmary of equivalen4 sound I�v�la ob� �ai durin�
. m��ur�m�nt p� ' . '
, . .
_ � . x
r . . n, � . _ .� . ,
� <,
;
. ; _ � ... � �.., � ,. . a :. ; , �. „ ,. �_ � � s�=
.
. , . . . .; : . , . � �
. , d � �s
' � � :; ��;—. .�.��: :.� : � ; • i :���I� �' �• .v � •��� ,r . .'.
�1 r �.?.' 1� :'�l �•- ..:.� � 1,:�, .�1..f :i U I S.' � =i....•:,� : `. ',1_� 1` :��. � ; ... � • =t .:�� � 1 ' i',�. � �:� �i' Ct �".. . .. � � .:.��.
,. . .. 1, � .L � l. � � � �', "` � :1.:1� � � 7 �. � � 1 ... � ,.�,, • ' � � � ', 1' . � �� • ,� �" � . ,. , ..
� �'. .., ' . .�, ., . :... 1 • . •�� , .�,. ,.
• < � � '1 �.,'�,.' ,. ,- , . . ..�. � `i, .,, _ . .: .
�- � • '1�1'.. 1�� ,. . .. 1 ::����.1 .w ` �- . .� ��.� t : : . . _. � ...:. �: � � ' i � : .,.
� ' � � �r� � •-r • . �,�' � � �,�.) �,._: � � . , ^ � , ,:. •
u. �� ► i �� � ����• � r�r, . N - , . ��
_ �� . , :�. • . =�_,. � • � �,
. -
� r;••� `�.:a •� , y� •.;;,, � � � i, iw r• � ��,:: • , � � � ��-,� � iir, ��•'`� � : . � . ,,;
' ' �� .r :� - .. , �.-.. _ :_, _
i . � . :� � r, , � �. =� . : . . � . � � , r . r � � � s, rr • r : �.
_. . r� :.�� : ,,, : : � ' °; = � : �.�, ` . �', y �. :;� � � . _. .:, ., . .;. . • � � .. :::� . r � • i .: , n • ,
� , r r � =.rui;`i� : `�x �, , � =.r �:i� �.� .:. � : � u • • .� " , ,
=-: :, � � � � • . � :. � � y � .
_ � � r . : . : � li., � ` � � � � :.; , . �:. • � r • . . : • . . i ti, ` � . 5 � i t . : „ :.; � _;rr
, �.: . '� � ,� i'
f�
�EAi SY�T�A95 A�dD T�C�P�OLOGY�E ��AI �O�Y 1V0. �1�
�
90
� 3
�3
�a
. ; . . .
� , :
- - �''�1�- ��u
, , _, : , . :, . , ,. . : . . .... . . . : . � . : , _.
• : =' _ • :' �. . : ._.. • r_''-�u �: i. • �--� �� �.:, .�, I�� �.•�
.^ ���:": ����=�`: 1�• � �:. • : _-' � , . . . :.,
,�" �. ` ,� • ,
�
� " - � � ��. ��' ��� � ' N�F .�_ : , . , , ,
. , , ' � ''. � � . ,� ': _ -� ,� : �, , .. �.� 'na . ....
,. _ . , � . . . ,, .
� ��. :� ' : S .�. ,. -.
' � � ��� • 11 :� � : � : � .� � . .1' • 1 �7'. �f � �. ;� -I �;y � 1 �. '1 • 1, �:`� .� ��� �'� 11 :. . . , l l � /. �.
..� .., � �. ��' � 1 -+.. �" � 1� f..• , '�1 : 1:��,�, 11 , f'y l � � � 1 �` � • ` �:, � • 1'. �.• • 11 11 � Y. .L :��. �� 1 ��."_ 1 ,l
. � ,.. � . �-�� . . . �� J� � 1 � 7 • �� � : ' �:= 1 � �...� .
�:%1.1 :11.� �. � �'�`�' ., "1 �. " � � �..: � • 1 ��.
� �I. „ �� � . . � :. � � . � C. .,� � � ,. �� 11 �%1 Y �. 1 �i .� • ' . ,: 1 • f •, � .. ,,. � � ... � ...�.�� � :/1 " �'(. ,; � ` • �. 1 ''
��.� . : . � � �! • � . ��. • , • 1 . ��� ":.� 1� ��� :t� � r. � : � `� .1 � .� . 1,. � :.... ' . 1 ; �.: � � 1: '��• •� �. �! � -.��.
' � 1' � ,.: : �� � � ` ,: � � 1', � . �,.._.. : ` �1.�� ' ...•��. ''w.
� ��� �/. / . �� . .
/ ". 1/ ' It 11.1. � ., � -� �.: '.1 ��.� �/ '�1. �. ��.. �' : ��� :il � � �:1� 1 • :: � � �,,.� . .��.1 �, . !, .1 � 11�.
1 •� •�� �' • � 1 _.. �i�• : � 'i :. � ..: r : r' ��,_;�•r :i �'^ � ,.� ,�
• •' � � , � =. �i � •�� � 'i; . ' � ; �� : 1�� iu � • .,. �� =� .* � • .; � —� �� � :�� r:
� • : ? �.' :�•�< i �.� .,. : ' :- �-. � .. �_� �' i. ;S' :�f,. � r. `
� � , : �� ', � � �� t , r • ,: � � • i • 1 � '
. • � � • . .:.
C �
'B A"composioe m�ximum" spectrum contmins the highest level in e�ch one-third oc4ave band �ccwring u any dme -
durin� a noise even� Such a_apectrum is morc �ppropriste than one based on av�es�e or inst�nuneaus levele for purposes �
of predicting aecond�ry emissiona in�ide atruetures. . � `-
10
��
a
; ;'
BEN SY3T�03 AND T�C6fPdOLOGi�S ��H ��o�T r�o. az� I
,�o
.o
eo
� � ro
� o0
� � 60
�
- ao
�o
YO
p w ` � s � � �.� � � w = � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Oood�k0 Osmrm �s0e Comoor Pro��omoy �BOa)
Flpur� 4 One-thind �ve b�nd composite maxi�,trn of �nefyzed DC-10
o�t�a r�rd� at Lo�tiona 1 artd 4.
,00
•a
eo
� � �o
0
� � �a
� � �o
�
�o
�o
=o
� p : s � : : � : � � p � � � � � � � � � s � � � �
Owm.aW� Oeqom �amA CBwlorPes,ommo� �qa)
�tgun 5 One-third oct�ve b�nd composite maximum sp� of anatyaed Boeing
T27 operatirons rec�rded at Locations 1�nd 4.
12
OOivJ7J�t.MJn��u IG�.nnVLUtl�bi
tStlM MEPORT VO. 9196
Tabl� 2 Numbers of r�cordings of op�rations by aircraft.type analyz�d at measurement location�
9 and R. _
: _, . I'�"'!n!1/ ,M „�,
_,, _; •,/'�'O�► v�-� �=- ;`..---�a
�
-
r�irr�,� --� �, �,,f�`� '�M�.,.. "'�►��
��.—►>�
. �� � :
�
�. ._....�_.., ,�. ,. � �
, ..,_, . �. � �� �
; �, .�/�� �� �;��. � ����
� �� � . �� � ,.
. , /
,� ,
� , .�
_ � �,
� `• � ' � m_ � . ��: .�.�_� :s . _ ..� ...� ..:�� ��=
�. �:; ��,. � : . __ «r . .• —.: c� . .�:� �. .,
• • � 1��• :,r�..�:� :.' � � r' i i -
C_
,.y:, ... .� .. . ..... .... ._... �..�.�. .... ....� . ,.. . .. � � ... .._ ... .. ...... . . .. .... .. 1 �.... _...
, : ... . . _. , ... . .. . .._ .. . �
1�
�au��JCOILI�►�A�1Y a��:::,,., ..,�..�.o
oan xarvai ..u.81Y0
�
t00
�
DO
00
� � 10
•
o �
9
� � 00
�� w■.
8
p � 40
�
e0
�0
` • i:� ��� �'�� � -i •r • ..i r• i• .�_r .._.
- eg, - _ o
r� ' - � - ._ � . • +:a�+l .� •�" :_ - ' -2`:,:.� � �._�;.. ... �.,
� h
• r �_ ".. �, � � : �• • �: � : �=r: � �.-- :� 3.. _, .'
�
10•
00
80
� � 10
� ••
6e
40
i0
EO
N � i e� i i i � � $ A w � �O � � � � � . � � W � � � �
Ooo.ar� Oaaoe seoa 6eoar vrov000a� �psi
�QUI'� T Cif1�-�1it+d OL'�BYQ b8dfd CCdflpO�i� �1UfT9 O$ �P18i�
320 op�ti� �d� �t I.�tion 9.
�
��� $Y�iBA�lS e►PdD 7'�CI�AIOLOGDS� �$� I�SPOR4 �O. �i�
9�
�o . . '�'�v�.
eo � .
.
. , .
• .
"�"'�°'`�
�� 10 ' . ' ' �
!B � . � . � T ..i .
O � � . � ' . � . . . . . . . ; , .
�i0 � _` ' ' , 3
�
ep•- - _. �_, _ �. _. _ ._ . . _. . _ . . _ __ � _.._.__-- - -- • - • -• • -
.
.
� •� .:
.m..� � .m�ta� � .a.t�o � �
30
�:g=�=������������� ������:
����������,��
u� Ono-�ird e b�nd ite um s of �n�lyged M
oper�t6ons e�rx�rded a4 l.�tl�� 1 and 4.
,00
�o • • _. ! ___ .. .. .
�o . : , .
,
� � 90 , , : :
� � • .
� 00 �
�g � �
a g 60 :
�l
•• •
ao_ . . . .. . _.
��., � ���-o�.lroroe � �ceaars � ��wewe a .rs�ssnra a ' : � . .. .. � .
80 .
� � � � a s : � � � s � � � � � � a� � � � � � � �_�
� . _
" " - .
Oeo�lr/ Ootmve SeA. Gsaaor Pm�eosay (Ntl
Fipun � Or�-third �ve b�nd compasite rnaximum spec�r� of an�lyzed �ing
737•200 operations r�ded at L�tions 1�nnd 4. _
, � 14
C
BBM SYSTgi4S AND i'�"CHNOLOCI�3 B$N �PORT .°YO. �19�
�oa -
ea
` eo
g � �o
3�
� � •o
� so
�
�o
�o
. � , : � : . .
. � ,e � . _ ..
� v ,. ; ,; � , , . .. x . ,
�, , . , ., a � . ,.
k 4, - a �. , r . ; ,
w , ,
�
_� . � , � ". �li • -q- 1� i • •�.� Ir �. � :C � r�'� � � : � - "1:'., ` � i : w1 �:. Y ' '..... :_,•' i .,,. ,r.
_ • �=" _ I�r-- _�r• � �},• - •�r'�. �V• � • A4
( ... ,.,_� . . .. . . . � � ..
106
' ' . � • .� ' i . � .
.. ..: ..:. . ._... . . .. . .; . � . .
,..0 ' ' . . � i .. . �� . �7 . . I
� + ;
.. . . . . .'�.. ,:: �. , .. : . � : . .:� . . � . ..
eo •
� .
; , ,
, ,
, , .
— , r f �
�. . 1 !_._�. _ ----_._._
�: !0 � � :�_ _.._... -t--
� ' ' _� i
� � , . . ` . . 1 .
0� � � �n '
� :, ; �
� : i : , . . '
� '
0� � �
j . l
I ` � :
. . . � i
! +� �
� ' ' - . . � . . � '
� �. 40 �. .. � , ` � : . .
�. ��..�� ''�.�. c � � .
. . � � �.., . � ���.��..... _���� . �. ....�.���'
� i � � .1_
�• --I' -•'- _.t. •�.' _ _ i _ +-. .i. . i ' , , -i-- _, � .�._ .
� ; .�.. .. _:�.._.'_..�_ - —
. ... ..... �L8Q6�Y90 ��{,BOmtl9B4 ��008PoBm4 �.�60i81l11A ' � � ..�.,� � . .
�0
� p � � � 8 � � � � � p � � � � � � � � � � � � �
O�e.1m1r� Oe�vo ���� Emo�rPre�Oomm�► tNa) •
�Ql�� `f' �`�i�: Oi�Br V� bffi1d �'rOtT1�l� 1T1�,1iT1 � �1 �
� � - - - - - ` �� � � �.
1�
::. ,, , .,�,, .:,.. . .,
. . .. _._; .
, � ,� , , .
�;. � � ; = � � � �r ., �. • � ��� �, , � . �� .�_ �� ; !_ :'� .
, ,,
.� ,_� _ �z �
.y _._ . , ,
. . � r;; ° � : . . �, , ;,
_
.
.., �
y rt . �,
,
�;
. �_� b..��.� �, � :...; . -
_. . :, _, , , . . , , „ � : ,
— — _ . . ...;
:�, • : , �,�� . � .,: „ ,� .� � .� ��. �,� ., ,, , , . .. ,. .,.;
, , . , , ��� , a� � „. � ..,� , � . , , :�. . . , �� . ,�� � , . . �� ...
,
— — — �. . �
�. � ,. �.: :..; � . , �� . . _ , � , . ; �� . :�„ . �� ��. _ �, , � .� �.. ... _ � ��� „ : -� „ ,-, . : ,�- ,,, ��.� . � ��� „ �
- . , . . � _. . ,.. _ , - .
.�, .. � _ .�. ,. . :,��.. : � ,:�;. :�� : : �. . . :� .,
� , . . � ,, � o . : . . � , �,� _. :, � � , � : � � � :, ,•. :.. . � . �
. . ., a ;.. � �. � � � � . . _ � . : ��,: • ,_ � . . , - :� : � � � .
, w . ir ,..--.....�
. ru � a . ; �
„i,a 5.; ,.
— _.. _ . . r . : . — .. : .
- :..: � : . c. ` . .-c ��.- _ ;='� . • .;;� ..,. `- _ . _,-� � ,. ,. .
::: . �� � :�. � 1 �l �� •, �� � i :., : .. �1 11 .. � 1�:1 —� ��.� � . . l " ` .•1' �.. • �:� - :. �1 •�� �. " . �. 1 • ,:. �..�
�. � .1 � -n `I . . �,' � ..:�•�. . 1 �; .� ► '=f . �II � ' •� !1 � � • J��,'�..
_ .,�. _�_� y . _ _ �
/ ... . � :�;� :.� � ',' �'.� ;:�,
� „ ,. ��. .� � �; . II � / ".. i l l i�- : .,.. � : 1 ( �'. !1 ...�.1 . '� � . � F.. : 1 �� / • . � � " . .�. � 1 �' ,.. .�.
� ���� " � • �� 1. �" i � .�! ' -. ' � • 1 -1-. • : J. � " � � � .: 1 � 1 1 ':� � • 11. ..y _ S . .... .. �- � °: . � .. .
- r
. �
.� � � . .1. 1 �-�. '. �� 1 ' :1' J ' 1 ....�. '� ? . �'> 1 '. 1. � .1 .• 1 � J.'•. �•. • � � .. . � , �. .. '...1 �1.. '. . . ' .:
� _.. � . 6._ 1 ..: •
� �� i ' 1 � � .. . �! .� � '_, ., � ,.., :E � ;...� ' . ,� �, � " � I _,i � 1 � 1. .": . .- . � . ��( • 1. , •�� �� . 1 � �
. _ t _,.
�-1 � � � ' ...• • 1.1; �, � <: .�. � � . ..�. � 1 1 :+: �. • `. 1 . .. f • ,.: �. ' � . � �. �:� � .:,> � � ..... .1 =� � ' • _ � , ...... � •
. �... .�.. . . , .. .. �_. .; ��� . :. , • . .
�_ � �� . ,, � . . .� • � - . . , . r'� � ...:. �r� � . � .. �
.. � i � - .� � � . .�._ �� , . . ,. _ _
. � 5i +1 -. _.. . ��� .. �
_ r.. . . � �;. .
�_
i
( t
of 30 s�coads before and aft�r the unweightect peak nois� level for each of five air�raf� ilyovtrs. "�h�
averaged on�-third octave baad data are present� in Figure 13.
Figure 13 shovvs that the noise reduction of th� house improves rapidly with increasing
fr�qu�ncy iai th� r�gion of current int�st, from only about 5 d� iai the one-third octave band at 16
Hz to an average of about 20 dB in the frequency region fronn about 25 to $0 F€z.
m.o
3s.o
�.o
�
� as.a
�
� �.o
�s.o
�o.o
s.o
o.o
'���ss��������������
� � �� �
�r
Fi�un 13 Av e d c� b�4w simuitan a indoor and a�td
� noi�e iw�la of fiv� aircx�R A�rov� measur� ai Loc�tl� 3.
�
�J
- ���I SY�T'��45 APdD T�C�AtOLOCI� ��1V t0�'P �O. �1��
- .
�.
� a �
�, -
.� ,� ��, � r � �,� � �y� r
...
_. e � F t .� .
z = ? . , +�r � ' .m
� �. � � z �,
Th� a�t3lyses ��*+'+ma�*+��d i�1 this s�tiat�, �ondu�ted with Version 5.1 of the Fed�ral Aviadon
Adnunistration's Intcgrated Noise l�iodel, arc bascd or� the operational assumptions (fleet mix,
� n�nway utili�ation, flight tracks and profiles, numbcrs af opezations, etc.) adopted by �rC's noise
consultaat for the y�ar 2005. Aay diff�renc�s betw the shap�s of the nois� contouis publis6�
in the DEIS aad in this rt thus refl�ct diff cos b� �T�sions 5.1 and 4.11. Evcn tbe
IN�f 5.1 contours should aot be r�garded as definitive �sti�na�s of futurc aircrai� noise levels in
�tichfield, how��, since th�+ do not refl�ct noise creatt�d by aircra,fi taxiing to dep positio�,
and . ha�hlY scnsitave to con,ectured levels and of operations.
Preediciion of airport acti`rity a d�cade in the futur� is � inh tly uncertain praposition,
with considerable potential for �rror. For cxaanple, the total numb� of daily azrivals at �iSP
assuffi�d ia l�C's INI�i contours for 2�5 vvas 6�4. Th� Official Airlin� Guide id��fi�d �30 daily
aarivals at �iSP durin� � rec�at (wir�ter) �onth9 or 25% ffior� tha� assiaaned on an annual aeerage
day in the DEIS contours. A11 oth�r things being equ�l, if �i�rcrafi o 'ans at AZSP continuc to
grow a� a mod�st rate of 4% p�r annu�, n ly t�vice as y daily a�ivals could mat�alia� in
2005 as were predict�d ia the DEIS. The only levels of ' a�d�rity th� ' ely to b�
S��SS� SOOiI� Or 1 �$ � SilCCCSS� Cli!'! 1 �1iP01$ �OSC �SSi?Cl�� �1L�1 ffiaX1II111ffi � rt
capa�ity -� itself an unc ' fi .
-: �k. � - -.
_ ... w � � r •, � ,, . ��
. , m
. � , . ... . � _�. �k. s � t � �„ � . . `` 2 ' ` �"
.� ... •' .. 1 � ` � - � � � � '1 ' �,'� : � , ...
n ` ` � ., �y�, '.., � • _ `=;�'. • '1, ' = .
- .. _ , � � `=1 -: .�. � 1 . ._ 111.� � � y. ,.
, , �. ,. � � w,: • . . ... ,.� . ��� ,. � ��1. -, 11 • .: -�: ��1. : . � ; � � ' � .
. � .� _ . � :�1 .. ��� � 1 11 -: �. � " ? . � � '��� . . .� � • "'
�1 ' - • • �,, // `. ._„ 1� ��"=r � '�1,1 =�i ...: � � ' � � _, ....; � � ' ..1-..`. ., • � • 'y .. . ' • �. � . �� ,.:.
• • � ..z �1. • �� . I: . � �� • / �✓.�. . � " 1 ...��. � _F . . � ✓ � ,�. � � � _ ,1 � � �i .� � ,., � �. . .� � . .: �,. y � 1 1 1 '" _
_ •• i .. � � -�
� `- � �. • f " . Y � 1 . . ' 11 � '�, • / ' �. ". •„ .,..,
` < ,
., . , , 5 . a .. .- . ,
.: . � < *.
..., . _ � , >. - :ti �
<
-.. � r. ,: , d g � `i E _ '. . � :. � �'
4 �
.. ; . � :•� � . ,!,,
c . ti
,. . . , � , ... , . , :,
. .. . v : , . � • ?• @ r , ' i x % 'r
w a .
,
,' � , , '� � � Y � $: ' .
� . �; " �t y �.
-' �° I s �,s c x 5. �,��:
, ... - �;.}� � S � 1 =:• '. 1� :i �.1 ��� ��. � 1 Ij :,.;. � .�T.. '1 f 1.• �11 ' �: � Y �. �� ;C. '. �._, , ,,, �I. . ,1.. w
„ . ., . � .�1 ^ _ �. .. . - . -
�� � . ' -
. . • _� : . �. �° .� . ,.• ,�_- .;� . �- i�_', �. • �: �.:. -.
.� ' .,, .
�, , • •
.: '. . � •- :.', �, � .' `. r, ,� : � .,
. . r �� `°` .�•r � .,
� . .. •��.� � y'-..• ��: •.'�.;,,.�„ � .
v . � � .
— _ 'i` � � � � r�i • ri. � =:;:' �� . �� �i. . . .T. , � ,.r
• � r � • ° � . �; �� ° � �� �. '::. "�,i � � :. "•: � � �; r , t :. � , .� . . � � : ^ .M ,,., ,. � . � � • " . � • `r, • � �
'i � i-�� '_,� . ��, A ;��,�
1 =:,"- `-.:'��111.� " -
�-:. :1'..a .,..' ,^ ..„� °=:� . .. ,
�' / 1
• 1�,", 1 .. n'. � � : '. 1 �•. �1 ':.: •) ��.. ,,
' , � „�.,, , . ' .
.. _ ... _ . ....1 , �. .4
� ' ' " � • .1. ' � :�1'�'� � :}.._�..1 �� . :11 ' It :�; 11 1�11 •, .'.:. � . 1 ��='� • 1� \ 1 :` : , .i',n. • ` � �...� -'�1 ...11 � .. -.
: , . . � 1:
i . . .,.. � � -� !1 ",i: =: i`,� _► � � '..�. �� � �. '-.� 11 � �.. . . ;1. :11 , � j .,. � .: :
'- �� i ���_ �- i::'�.. ' � :11��.�_ �_" -. ��..i .. .11.� ..;�
� . , . . ' . 1 �, �.„.� 1 .���. . • • ` .
� . :�1 . � :�..'. � `�� �:�. e. � � •:-�: ,�� ' 1 • �� �� /�� : ��. ' ..�
11 ^ : : �
_ ..,� . � �. ..
� Nooe th�t � l�vel� �a hi�h � 9S d� �� ffi of �ld.
19
��N S�srss�s ArrD'Tsearaotoca�.s D�N ro�r No. �ili
,.
�
C�
; i
— DD�� liLtVK [ .�U.81`JO
�,:`' ? � ,s � "�
�C TE ON' FOR Li)W �' QLTENCY N�ISE i.Ei�ELS
�IJFF'I�iEN''T T'Cl PRODt7CE �ECONI) Y E ISSIt)N'S .��5 E
S ENCES
No fonnal s�aandard or recommendation by � a��cy �rith regulatory a�oustic int
idcn�ifies a particular low frequcncy sound l�el li�ely to pr�oduce s�con
dary 'ssior�s inside
resid�nc�s. Inf'ormation from a var�ieigr of sourc�, ha�vev�, t�ads to su$�� ti�t sound lcvels on
the ordcr of 75 to �S d� ia thc fi�;qucncy raa��� of about 10 to lt}� I� ar� capabl� of producing
indoor rattling noises in r�sid�nc�.
: .:,,._. � s .���... �. . . ��. � . ��.�.� ..
.• � • �. _. ��. ._�., _, , � �. ..,..
,� . � _ .- . . .. � . : .: � �., � . . .:�.- ,A . .,.� . _�. . p -
. . �.. � .
.._. •. -...�.. .. :�. :. ..�.�` ����,, ;
_ _ -� � ,... ... � . . . � - � . . . -
..�. . � �� �;. � ,.�_. . , :� .- �
. ... � ._:,,._.:.�� � � .. ..,,�. . �. .-� ,,
r , .� , . .- � � .:: ;�� :� �- .: x
. . . ��. � . ,, . �. �� .. � �, � , � �. . ....: . �� . � � � .� . ��.
. � .;
, ,.. � � �:.. u� _. .� :�� . . � � •�-x . .
. � . . , . :� � . �:� � . _
- . � � -� . :.� . . � :, , � , �. .� . : i �i: .:, . �; . � , . .,. , . � __ _ �-.. � ,
- ��.�
. _ . � . , r� _ _, � . . � . . � . � . ,�-. � : �. . ; � .� : � � � ��: �. � ��� .,,: � . � � - . Mo
- . . �•
r ,,, . . . , .. . � � - .• . .-. � ...-. � , T�: : • : .. ,. , . , . �� ►: � . � . � . , ��, � . �� � .��,�,_
- � ., ,
., .
• n .� � � r =.. � � � � .,. , � � � 1 . � � � '• : 1 �. =` =� v '� • � r � _ --: . .: r � _ . �,. r , . 'r , •=
� � . � .., „ � n � '=:
, n .. • •��r �� �'�u :'`
_ _ , . �. �. - • � �,. ,.. 1 >` 1 1: „' • � 'J 1 : 1 ��' • � . �,. .
_ � � -�� ,.� � • . _-
• . .. ,-, . 1 . .' . ': _ . . . . � . ..
. ..1 � J � ' '.w " =i 1 ��� � �. 1 �. �'. '�. '/ 1 �:1' � ' '�;:� " �. ,� • ,- .11 • . ' 1� � U. ..,., � ,� , .�,.
1�. . �� . ., � , ... � � `"_.. � • 1 '�. .. '�./, `� • `, . � "" � -'� 1 "' y.� �• `• J.: : �� �.
` _ � 1 =' -i U � ' .':�. "' � �� -11 1 • ��.. �.: � .,: � 1 ` �J.
. �... ..� .: A. � � � � f ��. . , r ,. � ., l k ,' � . . .. .. • / '" 1�. ; '� • • Y.: " � :/'1, � . .;. . � . . � ._ .�
_ . . .. , ,1. 1 " � . �. .... � , , r�.
� -, � c� � w _� � � � " � , �.� � ' . • � . ;; � •'. � �r a� ti • - • • � - �r. .ir � -
� - ` � � ' • � • r -. � ' � ° "� `� • = �. y . .,
�. .;. . ,�'. . ,. . Ty ,.: ,
_ _ rv . � r.
. � � r � ,. -
i � • ; • � = �' � �' � „, � :y�� �. ,. � � _: � • i ��:� .
: . . � .., � , . Irl
.. :;_ . _� , .. � � .,. . - . �.�
. • " .� :.w� „. : .. ,> � - ^^�.. i.. . .�1� . � .�.i. • :�, � ��� . :�: �`� � . � ..; �.�� ` �t;�: . : . � .� e.� `=i: • .'1� ��. _�i:'.
_ - . , ' , _. , =., -� • � � ', : '
r: , .� � �, � �.� ..,,. -
. � � - 1 � 1 • . ..�- . ' :'. � � �. ' ,� 1. =�U . =i.ls.... M�_ ; 1..� . " ._l "' �
- � -- � ,. _, '_ ` ' ' 1 �. . 1 � ��'
��I�, N.,'°Woi� Co�tr+al Criee�ia foe Hestia�� Ventit�tin�, � Air.Co�idcniD� Sy:t�," Figure 43.! 1 of
Ch�peer 43 oiElarr6�,, C. (od.�,'iberd Edi�i�, H�book of Asou�tical M t� Woi� Coatr�6, A+�ct3raw•Hill, lnc.,
Alew York, t 991.
' cf. Fi�ure 9 of I�u H., "No' Induc�d Haus� Vi �.H P 'an.'° Nots� Co»�/ Ea '�
Jomr,rd, Volume 19, No. 2, pp, 43-lS. S ber/Octobe�, 19�2.
�o cf. Sectioe� 3. 8.2 ot � ."Devela of Sia�le E Atois� M�taica %r tJs� i� IdendPyin�
Aircra� Operatioa� for POesibl� Aqid�aeiono" Jaaivaaay, 1996. .
�
�tEN Sv�rs�� wn� Ttc�roc,oct�3 ��N �aromY No. �196
lines in F'i 15 show th�t low fr�quency energy creait�d by ' op 'ons oa �opos�
Itunway 17l35 will hav� ihe potential for iaducing secont�y �issions in re.sidcnces in areas of
Richfield a do or naor� blocks west of Ceciar Avenue. �ch air nois� �v�t th�t produc�s low
fr�qu�cy noise in �xcess of 75 d� is pat�atially cap�ble of citing n 'ssions iraside
` residences. Ft�sid�nts of ho�nes near a runway rti�g hun of o 'ons day tbat
produce such low fr�qu�ncy levels could �ri�nce c.s�ffip�able nt�ab�s of aircr�ft-induc� a°�ttling
aoises.
.
t �
c: � F-98. on� �ng��
' � A/� 80/N9
. � 920 Thnaho6d o4 h�artnp
w � •
� 110
�a � ��
� 100 ' /j/ a��+to ma� Ra�
� �' �� � 1'hnsh9� Af tetllittg
: � � �0 j/�
� � �o �
� � 70 �� �, \ � �t �
ip. �.. �:. ... �..,.... . . �.. O. ��. .. ��. >�� : . �\ . � . . .. . . . . ... ....,.. . .
\
..:. .. . . . . . . . .
. . . $...� �� . ,.. ., . . .� . . ..
� 1 90 900 9000
o Fn�qu�nry. Mz
Fl�u 17 Rel�iiAnship be di �t�dibil6ty of {� nd� and �udibNtty �
sec�redary �rniss�s in � r�idence excit� by j�t eng�e hoise.
,
� 5.2 LT'I'II.IT'Y OF' A�A liElt AS A I,OW QLTEl�CY NC)ISE
�I)iJC'I'IC)N �IEAS
� :,, , „„� _. . • � .
. . :, . : : , �_ , . . .. _. �� � .: , . �, .
, , �. � .v,,,.:.:. .-,. ��.: ,,. .� . , .� . :: .,,� . ,
� , � . ._� : . . ... . . �.. , �.: ,., : ,.,,• . , _ �.� .�,. . , .
. ..� . . . _... . . �a . �� . w . �� :� . �a �:� i= �.� . �. �„
� `�. .. . � . ,:.., .� ��� _. : :. : , , � . . �: �: . ... : ,
� . � � ,. � . . _ : � � . . . . . . a . :,. . . . . � ,
� � � �,
,� . : :, � ;� � � :, �.� � � . • , ; _ _�_� . .� �� , .. : � �.
�. _ - . � .. . ,:.., .� : : . , .. . �.�. .,,.
� _�, ,• .� :.. _ ,, � , . � ,� � .. �,- , � .�.� . ,,.
�-. . •� �� . ,� � . . . - . � : a�• ,
- � . :� �.- .��:.:� ,.,..� .� . �. ��...:�. _,, �
... �, , �.� � �, � . � � :� , . , . .. _ ,
esnn arsreMs aap c�cynoi,octes B�N REro�T �io. �14i
• The distance that the shadow zone extends from the far sidc oi a barricr is
, frequ�ncy-d�pend�t. .A bazrier that produces a d�p shadow zone at high
�, �
fr�qu�ncies may be acousdcally transpa�nt at v�rry low frequcncies.
• Th� wavelengths of int� for prescnt purposes — thos� in the lo�+ frequ�cy rang� froffi
aboui 25 to 100 Ha — vary from ab�ut 11 to 44 feet. This implics a height of at lea,st one hun
� f�t for a nois� barricr capable of yieldin� a' tive shadow+ �one for low �ncy ai�raft nois�
that exteads rnore than a few blocks behind the barrier."
Constivction of a barrier a h�andr�si f�t or inore in height aad n�ly t�wo mil� long is clearly
�.an exp�asive proposition. Ii impl�mented as an earthcn b�r�, it could r�quire th� �xcavation,
"`transport, aad plac�ncnt of mor� than 10 millioa yards of fill ovcr a p�ri� o#' y�. Such a barri�
° could probably be . desi�ed to reduce low fi�qu�ncy noise le�+els creeatcd by aircraft grouad
op�rations by l0 dB or l�.ss in of Richfield up to h�lf a milc from the r�way. it wrould provid�
no reliefy dlOW�V�Ty from the noise cr�t�d by aiaborne aircraft approachin� or d�partin$ the n�vvay,
and thus would b� of only li�ited utility for nois� ffiiti�adon purpos�s.
. ,r � �
. -, _
. � � v : ; , , �. . . r.,
r
e . ,
� :
.
r . . . ;x ,,: .; , t, .
v e
_h .
� , , �. ,
,
_ , � ,r ._. .. � . ���
� = � �_ � � '= , ��
��
. � _�
. �k , . � � , r ,� �_� : � �_ ,
T ��,
. . �
5j .
t � s � . . , �
' ,+'i
� / � . ...� � � . . � i.� � . �� ' . �/��.-� � � � � " i, .'.. ." .• . . � „� �� � .'�: • ,:......,
. . � . � .� ir. . •' � �' ��� . �.
� . '.. ". . . , , —. . .., . , . �.� � . � �. � . �.... " i: �1: � , .., � , � �i./ / � .� �� • ' .' � � � ��.� � .� ':, , ..,, ' �a , �,-.' ,, , . .. .
. � • - � _ � • � _ � � � � . .� � _ � � . . � ' - i .: r :. : � i � i = � : . ' _ � : � , � ;
t � re �" ., • � � .�•t'�l �`r �-• � .� rr��: �� � ��'� .� �• - �.' . � � _` ��. •
� r'�� =•. � .a � ��:- ��:.: , :� . „ ��. :., . .'r �`. � . . i • �.. • � � ,
"r.� � �.� ..�
� _ �� � ` . � � � � �'� ... 'i � � ...� � • ' � i ` :- • .: i�� � �: . ,. ._ _._ �
— • _ .. � �x .
,>.� � / � '" � -•:•�• la'l � " ' � f :� • � :..� . �:•,. .."' � � II � . y � I ��1.��=� 1 ..�� � 1 • ;�'. 1 -.,,; -•-� 1 1 =!� ..1���"�:
. . .. i' i �,� -, � . � , � .��.� + � :,- � . , ,. .-.:- :� �,�� �� �: � r, i � . . . � _:. t . �� . � .
. �� . • � . � c .-• r :.: .0 "'� � . . ,;� .w _ „. , :��� � �' • � . i a • � ir� �: • r . � ' � � . .,..,'
� - ti. �=• � • r:r = ., • .. � � .:.r , x. ��. .i-�.: �� .�..� � : l� � � • .'Y. �� .J�,'� . :.�; . � �i �� � C ` � • . ,.. .. � .,.: � � r
� �.,.� . ,� • � - �. �!.", � �. • . �f�. , �1. :'/,1 :tl l �,, . . � �. ' \ ' :. ��•' : 1 '. • �� � 1 �;'�� 1 -, 1.1 '"�-;11 1. �..;1 �IY... �111 =f.,.. . ", . "'. . . , ,.
' ... .. '��.. � 1 :..1 -�, •i.� 1'f, ,1= � 1� �'y,", `""'„" "j'`�; •�.
' . . . 1 I , : � �i � ( „` -� ��. xi
�� Mode�e incre�ses ia banier e�f'eetivene� have been report�d r�tly uader a limited range of sondidoa� by
me�n� of �ctiv� measures (pmrtia! caac�Qmda� of ti� di8iacr�d wavs). It is doubtitel tha8 �tive conerol could provide �
pracdc�ll or coet-ef%ctive in w the e��stiv�aesa of � ive b�riea at ths lowr 8r�oqu�cia �d bi�h souad
l�ela of cun�reAt sonc.�r�.
�
�EAi Svs�rsm�s �ara�'3'sc�arooe.occ�s E�� �ro�r Fda al�
�
f _
BBtV K��ORT �O. �146
6 SS
1 D�fiaitions of most tenns in this Glossary correspond to those of Amerzcan Mation�!
• Standard Sl. l-1994 Acorrs.sstical Ten'aanology. �
; �, �
A��ei�hi�d s�nd teveio A sin�le numb�r index of a broadbaad souad �i h�s becn subj�cted to
the �•weighting netevor� (q. v ).
� A•�ei�6iin� ne�orlt: A fi�qu�n . < .
_ �Y-cQuali�in� function iniend�d io approximate the sensitivity of
the huanan heari.n� to sounds of modcrate souncl pressure level.
C-�a►ei�bied soanad �zposnre level. Sound e�osure level, as defined b�lo�r, vvh C-vv�ight�d
sound pressure is used instead of A-w�i�ht�d sound pressur�. LTnit, decibel; abbr�iaiio� CSEI.;
symbol, L�.
d�y �e�er��� �oand 1�et: Time-av e souad lcvel betw 07� a�d 22� ho . Unii, d�cibel
id�), abbreviation, DL; sy�mbol, L�. Noie: Day average souad I�el in decibels fs r�l to the
,co nding day souaid level, L�� accoading to:
�� = L�� — 10 lo� (340A0/1)
� where 54,000 i� the number of second� ia a 1 S-6oue day.
��Y-���� �����e �onnd levets 'Tw�ty�four hou� ae�g� sound l�el %r a given d�y, aft�r
addition of i O decibels to l�vels fraffi � to 0'700 ho�ars and froffi 22� ( i O p.m.) i� 2400 hou8s.
Unit, decibel (d�); abbr�riation,,`DNL; syru�l, L,�. ATote: D�y: aight avta°age sound l�el in d�i�l�
iis r�lat�d to the corr�spoadin� d�y-night sound �xposure 1�e1, L�, accog�d,ing i�:
�a� ' Ls�� ' 10 to� (�6 400 / 1)
� -_, :., •;�-� - �^ � x,'�'.�- .t - �
' •�•• � :, ,_�. ,. .; , ..
•. r �, =�� - �=+� � �•� . • ' �. �. � • , ,, � .' :�`- � . • .!.
� "�: _ . � � " �`i -i. � � ��� - � �. ,, �� `� � r '' • • '_, � _.�, w , � _ -
r 4 s ;� • � ":� i
� .. � ��i� i �: 'r �n ... ;c u �r �« � �
s: . �° . � .�i'::• �,^�� � ` • , :� ,
� • �,_ � :� n '�• iiii �Y. i , • �;.°_
. � � � : _ . ..� :, •-r i,� � � : � • ' •
.,. �� r_� i
���saffi so�nd ��►el; �� freq�e��► we��6�1 ao�nd p�e�r� 1�►el: �at�st fast
(125 �cas) �►-w�igh� � I�rel �+ithin � time in �1 'vely, slow (1 ms) tiffi�
w�ighting a�d C- u wti
�1 �Y �� �y be sp�ified. Unat, de�cib�l (dB); abbrevistion, ��►;
��� L�� (og C and S).
E�� SYSY�Ai� APiD �T�CgtNOLOGY�S E�N ��o�Y No. �1�
n' t ave �e sonnd ievel: Tiffie-avcrage sou�d level bctw � aad Oi00 hours �nd 2200 and ,
�400 bours. LTai�, d�cfbel (d�); abbr�eviation, I�TL; syffibol, L,. �Tote: l�tigbt av e soua�d l�vel �
in decibels is relat�i to the ca�°respondiag ni�ht sound exposur� l�vel, L�a, according to:
Z� _�8, - 10 lo� ( 32 400 / 1)
, � _ ., :: 1 1 � � . 'u � =i � v • t � � ' � � ' � , '�
�,`r, -.r •� :it , . , . .. . : i i r, r� •. ', r� .. : �_: � . _ � , i� � .. � � � • :, � n ' . `=i •,� � • � .,. � � r
�:. ,° �• � 1 i�.• • •,�, �,� �
., . . . _ : r • • -i. • . � � � � . _ , ,,.
. ::.� • �.i:" ' ,.., � � �.1. � � r � '1 ' i �• • I7 � �� j...� , , '° ," :.� , � � /'� ' ". �.•
j , 1 ;1
�,.� � ��;� ti., y ���..,. • : ��r � ��.. �� r �' -
_ � .. � � � � � � • _ : � � , , , �
: � � � � r ,;. , � _ . ' � . : : • . �,r _ � � �:
,
� , '. :, r !. ;� =u � :.:: _ ,i� :" :-:�� ` .,. . r � � i, _ . i :,• . . � �, t �� � . .:., _
, i . � ���. � :i . r °� _ . �, �' :�': � �:[ ...
� . r • : . . ' :: `. �, ' ' �; ,. • • _ri � � ":. � � �;� : �: �� =.: � =� ,, �� : .i� � .� � � �r �
•i���
r ' � `±. � �, �,�.v � ' :;. x� � -, �
.1 �-_�� ,� , :� -., , .� ,� �� , .. � „
� " � � '1 'i. �i t� , , ii • ' '� . � i. 1
� �. �.. J " !, . 1 . `��:� 1 �� ,. �I� � '` " • .
. 1 �.�. 1 • .... 11 1 .: . L ����. � It ,.. :,, -1 ' 1... • � „� "' •�.'� ... ;flll• <.
, •
. � � ""' : � \ l • .LI �.r � ..
" 1 1 I. /„. . , .., ' ;, .� .�: � 11 " ; � ` .. •J ,. � � .1 � ( .1 f ��. . ,, . ..
' ' 1 ' ,� � • ' 1' � �. � ...1 • 1���. , �,� • �.... 1 � �. .. .�. ,...:. � . w..,.
_ �� � �
�: . :, � :. � 1 t/ 1 , , �. ... 1, �, y ' � • .. . . -�' . �:C � • -J. � 11. � � � .: �. � � ,� � .. ...�:
• '� � � •� � � ''. . �� � , .�. -�1 ` - � �� .... -i-11 ....: . f :� � • �'� 11 � '_. � � �. �� � ` �,.7 . i ' � 1 :.• �...," �� .
�, � . . � � '. � � � ' � � • .�, . � � " ,• 1 � 1 '. • 1 .:1? � � � ... . S i ' � � �,. � � _ : �� � :..� � ) � :'
._.�1 • ..� .
�� • ��� � • �. 1�.� ,'A . �.� • 1. . 11 � ' , 1. . � � �. � 1 1 " � 11 - i'.:1 J . i .1� � jl .i.. � �1�, • � :�,:. � � ,�,� . , � ...
�, • 1..:.. � . ... � -► '�,.� 1 ' 1.� 1 1 �'�� � '-f � ._ • ��. 1 �,� 11 1 � . .1 �1 .: ' 1 :; • j ,°. 1 • ' :1. i ( � .. � �...
� ./.• `�t ' � � ' .
• _. �..A� .���� � :�"' 1• �.. �� S� 1' }•� ��..��1. � 11�� �.•
, � ., . .l i � ::.
;� 1 � .. F 1 • ..II� � .� � i � 1 ..: � , � '.. � : f,. � :� �,f � 1 • : • :1:1 � =/ •.::� � �, : . �. � . .
• 1 • 11
1 1 1 . 1 1 i . � :�� � � • �1 ,. �� • . .. � . � • �� 1 1 1 1 . 1 1,1 � • � � . �� 1,1
. �: i.i �.,
�. t" � �� :. ..' . t'; , � .
- .,,' • �• �; � � • � �: � _�. - ..
;�� r ' '! � �� _. � � � � � :�� � �� � r- i '`.•, � � . _� �� ' r � �i . ' u • � : i • r.�
, �. . . . ::• � ,�.
<�.i,,,,;,, � , _ ,;�� . ,,�.��� %t,°:, r���, :- �• � ��� �-�••. � ����� . �
- _ � . . - Y � � _ ..1 •
• ' , �r � .
� r � i r . :». . � � • . .. • - � .. • ' � � � �. .., � , � � .
• �
�
BBP� SYSTEMS AWD TECHNOLOGIE9 B�Fd RLTORT ;d0. �19�
squarad , sound pressurc bein� obtained with fasi (F') (125 ms) exponentially weighted time-
averagiag. �41t�rn�atively, slow (S) (1000 ms) expon�ntially weight�d time-av�rragin� may be
! sp�cified; also C-fr�quency weighting. Unit, decibel (d�); symbol LA, L�. Note: In symbols, �-
weighted sound level LAt(t) at nuuiing rime t is:
�ns�t) = lA lo� (fl /t) f � PA ��) ���°"t)it d ����� ,
.
wh� �r is the expon�niial tim� constane in second�, � is a du�y wariable of inte�ation, p,�=(� i�
the squared, instantaa�us, tiane-varyin�, ��w�ighted sound pr�ssu� in pascals, and po is th� ref�r�
eace sound p of 20 µPa. Di`rision by ti�e consiaat �c yields the ninning tim� average of the
expon�ntial-tiYne•wei�hted, squa�sed souad-pressure siga�l. Initiation of the nannin� tim� avera�e
froffi sorne tiffie in the p�st is indicat� by -� for the be�innin� of ti�e iat�grai. .A�dSI S 1.4-19�3,
�merica� Nation�l Standard Specification for Soi�nd Lev�l ti�et��, $ives standa�rd fr�qu�cy
weightin�s A and C and standard. cxpon�ndal tim� w�ightiags fast (F� �d slow (S).
sou�d pr�ss�re; e��iid� �ound pr �ree Root•m -sq tan�ous sound prr�ss at �
point, duriaig a giv� tigne iat al. Unii, p (Pa). Not�: Ia th� of 'alic sound ��,
the int��l is � int� nugnb� of .'ods or an iat��l that is long coIInp with a periad.
the case of no 'odic sound pr� , the int �1 should be long �ou� to � the me
sound pressure esscntially independ�t of sm�ll chan�es ia th� dur�tion of the int�wal.
x��.��� ��:.�.�_�;�,, ;�E. :,� ���� ��� .�.�-� ��� �,
,,.,: ... �;� . ,. .�. . �s .�� .�».� . . �.
. � �. : . ��� � : � - =� ��:. �-� � .:���... • ��r _. .�.a.� „,. _.a .. �� ,... ��.. . � , � � , ��
� � . . , _
: , ,,� ,,, ,.: ... - .�.� � �,..
1,�, et " �� !Ii I, �. 1, I.I: � [I� ` 1` ,I` ` I. :� I t,Ii i Y�, /' I'� ;` '
1 °I ;Ik � �I -1�1° "i
• � . •1 i - 1 1� '� `It I' i 'It t; ! - .
i, :. �,6 . � � ,�: �f� � � " � ' �� �, � `i. � �� � ,�_ �i, in i i° � r �� i� ��� �(
, � t �� '... � ` � r .r � �r r • � < � : ' =;i � i ` : r � � � i� - �� .,. � � : , r ; � . '� c • • . . .. r � :. F
� . � �� r ,> � ,, � � . • .�' ��_�� � �i �° � � ._ � i � :; E, � � � �.. : � � : 1' ,. ,.� �
_'. . . �. � .4 � � � �i
,, �.
� �•. ' �� r' a�. °,�:r::t � ,. .�T`` sr•�- ' .�r� � ^:-:i`� r ^° • �� �� • . �i;
� .. : � :. � ,_,� �;. » � � � `�; ' � � �' � : i i � ., : � � ,�
� . • ! � � p t �� .,' � ;` ��.� � r , .s�:
� ,. � � � ,� _ , , �
— �_ = • " ,. �� 1 :. t �. � � / 1: I 1 :1;. � . =�� '• =1 L � :t..: • :1 ►: � 1 �� . .,_ ,.,, .1 1 �: '. �: � =� 1 �,�'�,
� . tl. :. 1 � - 1 :%i�� : : � , ,� i ;.:
' � ._ ./ � � °; �� / � = � ,<e `* ': . „• ,- � 11 `=— � : _... :. � � ):. . � J. '. � 1 ) 1 • f, ', , .,. ,.. !/ 1. � ��. � � . 1 ��. � �. = i :,
L� = 10 l�� (1 /i°) � �pA (t) dt1�p�
.
= ZA�'�°
m
�EP1 SYSYt�fS AND T�C�WOLOGi� ��1V lO�T NO. �llf
+ � ti � i� . ..� .� � .�� ;�y _. . . ��
• :, � :. • u .' . :. r •ai, ;_ : � � � r � . :;�. _ r x .? .,
:. ' : ::� ` � _ '' • � r�, • � � ' .
� ' �� ��.. � � � � i � ��� 1 . _ � . . � . _� � i�� � : ��: � � i! � v � - '_� .�� �
( . ' � � � , . r . � - _ � � :. r � � , . : . � � r � „ • � - • . : ` . �
,.,,..� � -. i' ��.� °�n . _�_ �. � • �..,:,�, •
§ �* .� �� ,�'. ' � c�: ila : . ' . =� � � . .J. �. '"' � � ��� . � . .
. .
= u1 't
• � .' �� � .�. � . 1 . .:.�1 �� � . , ,�, �, .' 1 "�.� • 11 � "P =� ��. " � �-�' . ��. � : "�.� .� ��1 " �;� , .. .. • _ ..,, � . . � .� .�
i' • � � ' • 1. .� � . '. � • .. ._. . �. , 1 '. � �1 � � '=�. `� ., � '� � 1�1. � � • � :_ `, : : .,1 • , ,< , �, ,:: � : � \ J, � � • 1. :...
,..r�w• 1� II. 1 �.1"—� �1.1���.. � .,. , t � � F :y � ... , .-f1.�.. � it. � ` '��<�. � i`I : � „ .� 1 -� .� ... ,- , .
` —�.�. ._ �.. ��� .
1 � � � .,. � �.., � :, • • � .,. ,: � � 'J Ill �� � '.. • - :�:, 1 :. . .. i � �� � �: ., .��. ` . � "�� � i .. 1, �
G�
1
1
, ,�.., . ..,..
,.... �, .,.. 7 '�. ., � , r ,. � � ("1 :.. � :11 . Y1 = � :: . .. r � �J :.: • t 1 � '�, . � , .. ,.. . . ..
�+ _I: ,. 111 � ��� .1 • � 1 �; " •' .' • : ti ♦
, . _ ��. . , �� . .11 � '` J • -�.� ' _:_ � _� —' .� . . . _ . .
�� �':1t '' �-�� il � "' i • 'Y. "
��' � :� '.� �
'1' '�,' �,�
°` Is �. '�� , , _. ." " .�� � • . �. S � .'11��. • �I 11 1'1 '-':11 � . �. :1 � :, .. '-1 ? . �:. .� �, .` ' � . 1 � ��, i " �... ���, � �;F� -
.. . � ,.. , � ��. ti.
��� ' � 1, � '1�.:� .
., ,4 ' !,�: :-`.: ,1. 1 1: 1 1. ;�: �� 1 `I; , � . ��..� : �'� :=� � t ���.��.�• ' ', � • '� � i l i � �� . " : � � II � � ���� 1 � 1. � • 1 '�f -1:1 � ..
_. , • 11.1.� �/,: I
�� � ' -� . 1 �.1. � � 1 ` � ' . �.,. ,.� 1 �. .' � �,.J � � :.�:.'��. 1 =.: ,�, � .>, .�. 11�1 �� � 1 „ ,: � � �. '" �..� ...., t .,
/ t �:� - r • � �.y.' ,�..'I� �11 � • ����.
� ,, . 1 ... '` 1 :.2�. �. I .` � . ' 1� 1� i� � � �_ � =.. ��� 1 ��.. • � `�.� � .'1`I 11 f � .:: . � 1 � � � "1 ��' ,. �
� "�.. � „ 1 ' 11.:' y� .: /' � ..: ..• 1 ���. � • •-� 1�� i ���• �.��.il � � -�1 � .1 �" �:.�.�� ��.' � 1 �. .�' Y • � ��,.� . ...F.� .
�� : � � ' �• � • :� � . �" : � � I�J �":... � , ,.�. „ ,.. .." ... • ` �,:_.
�
...._. ...... .... .. . ........ • ... ... ..... .... . . . ........ ........ ....... ......... ....... ........�
�
B�PI SYSTEIWS AtvD i�ECHNOLOGiES `B�ltl RtfORT N0. �19�
j
PE A ATA 'I' AT'I NS
This App�dix contains tabulations of various one-third octave band levels in the total noise
environffi�ai (containing noise both &om aircraft o tions aad surface noise sour+ces) ai eacb -
measur�mment sit�, in the format shown in Table 3.
%bl� 3 Definition� of quantiti�s tabulated in App�ndi� �4,
m
�EN SYS'��893 Aw�'T�CSwO�.oCt� ��1�i ��o�T Pao. �1�
. .�:•
. . - . .� ,.,::
\„`/,`k - 1 • : `/:: � Y'
�
25
31
�0
50
S3
�0
100
125
1S0
200
250
315
�i 00
500
630
800
lk
1.25Dc
1.6k
%k
2.5k
3.15k
�6k
5k
S.3k
8k
lOk
12.Sk
16k
2Ak
Ceatile�, Ln
Min A�x I,eq 99.0 90`.0 ' S0.0 10.0 1.0
43.6 93.6 �2.9 54.7 59.3 6�.6 74.5 85.5
43.5 9�.5 75.0 5�.0 , 51.6 �6:5 75.3 88.�
�3.6 98.2 7'f.3 52.a 63.5 6Q.1 �7,9 gp,�6
�3.6 100.1 '7.9 50.3 6�.i 69.% 7i.� 91.0
43.6 100.5 97.7 48.7 53.0 67.� 9`7.7 ` 90.5
43.6 97.9 95.4 �9.6 59.6 65.6 �9.9 96.3
�3.6 ' 9�.4 73.9 �5.4 56.0 63:5 96.i .86.3
�83 . 6 _ 9�! . 0 71. 8 43 . 6 52 : 6 60. 5 -'4 .3 , 83 . 9
43.6 , 9a.5 ° 69:3 43.6 ' 49.0 58:0 il.a 81.5
43.5 88.7 67.0 �3.6¢ 51.7 5°7.3 70.1 '78.6
43.6 91.2 69.6 �3.6� `54:5 59.3 i2.� ��.1
43.6 9�.0 92.6 �4.0 56:'7 �1.� '9�l.0 65.A
�3.6 96.5 73.3 �3.6* 55.0 60.6 73.3 �5.6
�i3.6 9Z.6 72.1 43.6* 5�.5 60.0 92.4 85.7
�S6.S ; 96.1 93.1 �iS.6 , 5�:9 60.� 91.� Q6.6
�fli.6 91.i i1.4 50.3 53,5 59.8 91.3 85.1
�7.6 93."7 i�e3 � �9.3 .Pi2.3 ,; 59.� i0.0 `93.'7
��.6 ' @9".8 58.4 48.� 50:6 a6.`S 66.9 '��.3
44.6 ��.5 66.3 46.0 ��.� 54.1 , 64.4 79.9
43.6 @�.5 ''6a.�' �d3.6 �4.6 50:1 61.0 76.3
43.5 �0.8 59.9 �i3.6� �3.6 .46.0 57.5 73.5
�3.6 7�.3 55;,2 �3.�� 43.6* 43.6� 5�.7 68.5
�3.6 75.� 50.3 �3.6� �3.5�' �3.6�' �8.0 62.0
�&3.6 76.0 47.A �3.6$ . �3.6� '�3.6 4�.6 56.0
�3.5 75.5 �5.5 �3.6� �43.6* 43.6* 93.5$ 49.3
�3.5 73.� _45.0 �3.6$ �63.6� 43.6* 93.6�' 44.�
43.6 �3.a 45.3 �3.6�' 43.5ffi 4�.� 44.2 �65.2
�i3.6 69.5 4�.1 �l3.6� 43.6* 43.6� �13.5$ �i3.6*
43.6 67.1 43.8 43.6* 93.6� �3.6� 43.6� 43.6*
43.6 64.3 �3.? �3.6* �3.6m 43.6 �63.5 43.6
0'ver�ll 70.0 105.2 86.9 i1.4 73.2 78.1 �9.8 9�.7
� level 58..9 99.6 �0.� 50.� 62.i 67.7 80.0 93.6
� Valu� 1 t�d �r e s �r� o! l.ysia, o�t :�d �or ��«��*•� 1•l�
32
C �_
f� ��
,
uar�• J�J�G.nJA:rU aa�.......�-vva�o OOI� ti61'VKI.\U.O170 ...
LOC�TIO� 1 .
D�°1'g0� a 3 0 � �
ST�RT�T : 7.�:55 OB� .16 C� 1997
Fr�q Mia
25 48.8
31 48.3
40 50.3
50 _49.6
63 50.2
80 48.1
ioo ��.a
125 39.7
160 39.7
200 4A.7
250 4�.7
315 ��.7
�600 �3 . �
soo �a.a
63A �Z.7
800 42.7
lk �i 0 . '9
1.%5k �1.5
1.6k 39.7
2k 39.'7
2.Sk 39.7
3.15k 39.7 '
!k 39.7
Sk 39.7
6.3Dc 39.7
ek 39.7
lODc 39.7
12.Sk 3�.7
16k 39.'9
20k 39.'7
Over�ll 62.3
A level 53.1
M�c Leq
'78.3 61.'f
81.0 63.9
84.5 65.7
83.8 6�.8
80.6 63.8
84.6 63.8
78.3 60.5
7�.3 58.9
76:2 57.9
ii.� 57.i
80.6 56.1
81.3 59.4
83.3 60.5
eo.� s�.s
78.2 59.5
77.2 S'7.6
'72.6 55.5
65.� 53.2
64.0 50.9
62.0 �5.7
58.3 �3.�
56.3 �1.6
57.2 �0.9
56.5 �0.3
65.� �O.i
59.9 40.0
52.� �0.4
�9.3 39.i
44.5 39.9
4A.'7 39.'7
0
Centilee, �.a
99.0 90.0 50.0 10.0
51.0 54.1 58.4 65.5
5�.0 54.8 59.6 66.6
53.2 56.0 60.5 `69.2
52.�8 55.� 60.6 68.3
Sa.l` 5�.'7 59.0 67.2
50.3 " 52.7 5�.4 66.8
�6.9 �9.� 5�.7 - 63.6
�3.7 �6.4 " 52.1 _ 6a.6
�2 .'7 �5 . 7 52 . � 61. 3
�a.l 44.� ` 50.7 60.8
43.'7 45.4 90.1 50.3
4�.5 �6.a 51.3 66.�
4�.8 45.7 5�.8 61.9
43.'i 45.0 5�.4 51.9
�3.7 �5.9 5�.0 61.�
4�.1 �6.0 52.5. 50.5
42.1 43.7 50.! 59.5
41.5 �3.7 �9.3 5i.a
39.7 �1.5 46.9 54.�
39.��' 39.9 4�.7 50.�
3�.7 39.9 4i.5 �6.9
39.'7+ 39.7� 39.i* 43.'9
39.7* '39.7* 39>9* �0.9
39.'7'� 39.7 39.7 �0.7
39.'7* 39.9� 39.'9� 39.'7�
39.7�' 39.7* 39.7$ 39>'7*
39.'7� 39.'7� �40.3 40.3
39.'7+� 39.�� 3�.'� 39.7*
39.'7� 39.7� 39.i� 39.i�
39.'7� 39.7* 39.'7 39.9
1.0
69.7
74.6
79. 1
'73.9
'i3.9
�4.6
il.l
70.1
6@.5
69.0
i0.0
i1.7
7Z.7
72.3
71.7
68.7
65.�
62.2
59. 9
56.1
Sa.6
49.�
�9.a
��6.8
43.2
�A.9
41.3
39.i$
39.7*
39.i
�9.1 9�.9. 6�.0 65.6 69.� i'7.� �3.5
83.9 65.3. 53.5 55.0 60.0 6'7.� 76.�
w ,A ,_.� r � � - �.
� � � _� � .: .��.�. - _�.• : �.. ,� � ._� � �
� � : �w : � � .�. � m u ,�
_ . _ _ _. �v _ .� = � _
�
��Fi �Y3'i'��99 e�ND ��Ci�1VOLOGH�S ��Fd �O�t9' A10. ���
� 1
��°i�s I.�O /
���' '�' a 1:30 ��.i Q 1.99i . l
Ceatile�, I.a
Freq t9in Leq 99.0 94.0 50.0 10.0 1.0
Z5 4�.� �6.3 _ 68.i 52.3 55.6' 61.0 ��.6 'f9.9 '
31 49.3 ,91.a 71.1 53.1< SS.�i 63.� 7�.5' 81.8
40 50.1 91.0 71.9 53.5: SS.S 62.1 75.6 '�3.6
50 �9.0 91.9> 71.1 52.1' S5.0` 60.4 73.7 83.'7
63 45.i 89.2 '69.0 48.8 51.�1 56.9 70:6 82.3
80 �3.7 89.9 68.7 �6.a 48.8 < 54.5 69.5 �2.0
100 41.5 92.1 69.9 44.1` 46.� ` 52.3 70.� 83.3
la5 39.7 9�.3 i1.4 42.1. 44.B 50.6 �1.3 '6�.8
160 39.7, 95.�0 7'�.3 �2.1 �3.7 49.8 i1.9 BS.1
�00 39.i 94l.9 �3.5 �1.5 �i3.7 '49.8 73.0 87.5
%50 39.7 96.Z `93.9 �Z.l ��.1 50.3 �2.7 87.7
315 39.°9 94.3 73.2 42.7'' 4�.5 50.7 9�.3 `87.3
400 �60.7 95.1 72.8 �2.1 4�.8 5a.1 73..6 �6.6 .
500 � �40.9 95.6 '73.0 4Z.1 , 44.8 , 52.�i 69.5 86.0
630 . �i1.5 93.6 il.% ��i3.7 �S.i 5�.� 58.2 65.3
�00 41.5 93.1 '70.2 �3.a �5.9 5a.� `65.1 64.�i
lk 39.7 90.� 68.6 �1.5 ' 4�.5 59..8 63.6 82.9
1.25k 39.7 90.5 6�.2 41.5' 43.7 49.9 61.1 81.4
1.6k 39.� 88.2 64.9 39.� '�1.5 `�i.S 98.9 i9.0 �,,
ak 39.7 , 65.8 61.1 39.7* 39.7* �3.7 5�.2 75.1 `,,
a.5k 33.7 81.3 57.1 39.7* 39.9 41.5 49.� 71.1
3.1SDt 39.7 76.6 91.7 39.9$' 39.7* 39.i'* �5.7 '65.5�
4h 39.7 70.3, �5.5 -39.7* 39.�* 39.'f� �2.1 57.8
Sk 39. � 65. 3. !1. � 39. 9* 39. 7* 39. � 40. `7 '49 . 8
6.3k 39. i 6�6.0 40.6 39.7* , 39.9* 39. "f�' 39.'7+� , 4� .5
8k 39.7 67.0 40.9 39.7* 39.7* ` 39.7* 39.7* �2.9
lOk 39.7 53.3 40.8 39.7+► 39.9+�. �0.3 41.3 `'42.1
la . Sk 39. 7 5� . 8 39. 6 39. 7* 39. 7+► 39. 7* 39. 9+� 39.'7�
1SDt 39. 7 5Z .4 39. � 39.9+� 39. 7* 39. �* 33. 7¢ 39 . 7+�
20k 39.7 49.3 •39.7 39.7* 39.7* 39.7* 39.7 39.7
Overall 61.1 10�.3 �4.0 63.3 65.4 7a.3 .85.3 97.�
A level Sa.6 9�.5 ii.9 53.a 54.6 50.7 i5.4� 91.9
* va3,u� 1 ��d c r �� o� ly�i�, t s�d ��r
1• 1•
�
34
J
atst`� JYSTEWS AND � C(:nvvLUGlSS BBM R�PORT VO. �196
.
LOGTIO� �
I1IIR�TYOP+ie 11.i
ST�T T a 2: O 1 0�8 16 C'� 19 9�
Fr�q
25
31
40
50
63
ao
100
ias
160
200
250
315
400
500
630
800
lk
1.25k
1.6k
2k
2.Sk
3.25k
4Is
5k
6.3k
�k
lOk
12.Sk
16k
20h
�
15.1
15.1
15.1
15.1
` 15.1
15.1
15.1
15.1
15.1
15.1
1'5.1
15.1
16.1
2�.A
34.2
41.5
4A.?
38.1
3�:2
27.'6
21.1
16.9
15.1
15.1
15.1
15.1
25.1
15:1
15:1
15.7.
Overmll 5i.0
� l�vel �7.6
�
' '71.6
66.0
70.7
66.0
67.0
6`7.1
64.4
71.9
68.5
66.5
66.5
62.3
65.0
52.2
63:1
63.4
75 .`6
60.'�
62.A
65.1
62.0
72.�
59.3
67.1
62.0
59:5
63.4
66.7
SQ.�
5� .�
�
�
35.9
35.2
39.2
39.9
41.�4
43.8
`�5.4
47.3
��.a
47.5
47:4
4'f : 1
49.5
4'I.5
4�.6
4�.8
52.�
44.`6
40:Z
'35.'2
36.5
�i.'4
30.�
�53.0
39 . ;2
3a.4
30.�
27.3
2�.i
23.6
59.6
5i.0
99.0
22.3
25.0
27.1
30.6
33.�
36.0
37.3
37.5
�37.7
` 36.2
38.Z
38:3
38.6
40.0
`41.6
�3:7
43.3
40:5
36:1
29.5
22.5
18.6
1S .'9
16.9
15.1
15.1�
15.1�
15.1$
15.1*
15.1
5�.`7
49.i
Centile�, Ln
9Q.0 50.0 10.0
25.4 29.0 35.6
27.7 31.2 36.5
29.8 33.1 38.5
32_.8 35.9 41.�
35.5 38.3 43.1
37.9 40.6 45.7
39.a 42.9 47.9
39.� �Z.O 48.7
39.5 �12.� 49.4
40.0 �3.0 50.2
40.2 43.4 50.6
40.� 43.� 50.7
40.8 43.� 51.0
42.0 ��4.8 50.5
43.7 �5.3 50.5
�5 : 5 �4'7 . � 50 . 5
�5 : 0 �'7 . 0 49. 2
4�.A 44.0 45.�
39.'7 39.5 41. �
31.0 33.1 36.�
2�.1 2'7.� 3�.6
21.1 Z5.3 31.6
19.`3 23 . � 29, �
18.1 22.1 Z�.1
16.9 29.8 27.0
15'.3 18.� �5.2
15.i 1�.1 23.5
15.1� 16.1 20.�
15.1* 1�.1* ].6.9
15:1 16.1 1.6.1
1.0
45.2
46.3
48.3
�9.3
50.6
53 .2
55.8
58.0
5 8 . �i
58.1
57. 5
55.8
57.0
56.0
54.�
53.7
51.5
48.2
�5.0
�2.5
�1.3
�!Z . 3
39.3
37.6
36.I
3l.3
3�.9
29.6
2�.4
19.9
5�.]. 56.� �1.4 67.9
51.� 53.� 56.6 61.3
�valu� l�it � a r�� o! lyoia. �t a� !or l�elo
m
��Ri SYST�m95 AN� T'ECi�A10LOGHlS ��W YdETOR'f NO. ais�
i°YO� 3 O ��
D��'IA�Ta 3� �
�'�`P T� a 7 e 39 EP1t O�t li C� 199i
Freq
25
31
�{ 0
50
63
8A
100
125
160
200
250
315
�00
500
S30
800
lk
1.ZSic
1.Sk
2k
a.s�
3.15k
�k
5k
6.3k
8k
lOk
12.5k
16k
20k
Mia
24.5
2�.5
26.9
28.5
33.4
3�.2
33.5
33.a
3�.5
3i.6
' 36'.3
38.6
`, 3�.6
39.Z
39.4
' 40.9
39.5
38.0
34': S
`�8.5
%�:5
'24.5
'24.5
24:5
a�.5
Z�.S
a� .`5
2�:5
24.5
24.5
Overffill '51.7
A level �'7 , g
�
48.8
47.1
51.3
55.4
59.2
SB.1
55.3
6�.1
69.8
70.9
67.9
69.9
71.�
69:3
66:7
5�:6
59.8
S4 . �
62:9
59;2
57.5
S�i : 9
52:2
51.5
52.4
50:1
45:1
4�^.4
36:3
28.9
77.6
7�.7
m
3�.5
33.9
36.3
38.3
41.�4
�2.6
44.8
�5.6
�8.8
50.0
49.8•
50.5
51.2
` 50.1
49.�
�8.6
�s.e
44.8
4a.�
36.1
3a.a
,30.4
2�:7
2T.'�
a�.�
25.5
25.�
�� .`6
2�:5
��d . 5
60:0
55.�
99.0
2�.5
25.5
29.3
31.7
35.1
36.6
36.3
35.2
36.5
38.7
39.4
40.4
�0.2
40.4
,�0.9
�a.o
�a:�
39.6
36.�
29.9
Z�.`s
2�.5�
2�.5*
2�.5*
Z�'"s$
2�1.5�
2�.5*
24.5*
a�.5*
Z�.S�'
52.5
48.6
Ctntile�, Ln
90.0 5A.0 10.0 1.0
a6.9 30.5 3@.6 44.3
28.0 31.5 37.� �2.3
31.0 34.0 38.0 47,7
33.5 -36.4 40.6 46.9
36.9 39.4 �3.0 49.5
38 .4 40. � �5 .2 59..2
38. 0 �0.5 4� .2 5'S .2
36.8 39.6 �l9.0 56,' .
3�.1 ;�1.0 52.a 60.3
40.]. �2.9 53.3 S1:4
40.6 42,.9 53:4 60.6
�1.� �L3.9 5�:3 61.2
�1.4 �3.9 55;1 Sa:2
41.6 43.9 54.� 60.2
�2.2 ��.3 53:9 59:9
43.5 45.3 52:1 5?.5
�3.1 �5.2 49.6 53.9
41.� 43.6 �6.7 50:7
38.0 >�0.0 4Z.5 ��:6
31.2 33.a 35.� �1�.3
�6.3 �i.5 29.3 �3.'1
2�0.5� a�.5* a�4.5 �1.4
2�.5* 24,5* ��.:5* 38:9
24 • 5'm Z� • 5� 2�8'. 5 36 .2
%�.5�' 2�.5* Z4.5* 33.4
24.5• 2�8.5$ 24:5* 30.:1
2�.5�' 25.1 25.1 27:5
24.5* Z4.5* 24.5* Z�.S
24.5� 24.5�' 24.5* 24.5*
�4.5� 24.5�► 24.5 24.5
53.4 55.1 63.9 70:i
SA.3 52.A 59.4 65 2
* Valu� 1 C�d by e s �� of ly�is. �t ��d �ar �•�a�„� 1� 1•
�
C�
C
0
,�" ��
uv�� �r��a.rna��ru .aa.nnvLuv�r.� tll3tv KBPORY V0.�196
• �� k - . Y;" . . . • ' - :- • • �,„fi` , � � _. . i .: �!�
� l... • =,- , e�i:V'
_ •' ' ' .tity � ' �a � • :i� . m �4. ' y � :. '- -.
Freq Min Max
25 15.0 53.7
31 15.0 4'f.l
�f0 15.0 ��.6
50 15.0 51.5
63 15.0 �5.9
80' 15.0 53.7
100 15.A 53.9
la6 li.� � 52.�
1S0 Ii.� 61:1
200 18.0 61.0
250 16.� 59.7
315 16.8 60.5
400 15.0 64.7
500 15.0 61.3
639 15.0 59.7
�00 15.0 56.�
lk 15.0 55.9
1.a5k 15.0 53.7
1.6k 15.0 55.3
2k - 15.0 57.3
2.Sk 15.0 56.0
3.15Dc 15.0 58.9
4Dc 15.0 56.1
s� is.o s�.�
6. 3]c 15 . 0 52 . S
8k 15.0 53.0
lOk 15.6 58.6
12.Sk 15.0 54.1
'16k 15.0 �6.�
ao� is.o �7.�
�
20.8
18.5
20.�
2�.2
Z2.9
2 �i . 9
Z6.5
29.5
30.6
31.4
32.0
31.8
31.5
30.5
29.�
30.9
3A.�
3A.a
30.7
30.0
a7.9
23.6
Z9.Z
z�.�
25.1
a3.�
2�.3
%1.0
1'f . �
�'.s
Centile�, La
99.0 90.0 50.0 10.A 1.0
15.0* 15.0* 16.� '
15.0$ 15.0� 16.0
15.,0* 15.0 18.0
17.� 19.0 22.0
15.0 16.0 19.0
16.8 18.0 20.4
1'9.� 1@.5 21.3
19.� 21.7 25.9
19.8 21.5 i5.6
20.1 21.3 2�.3
18.0 19.� 22.9
1�.� 1�.0 22.d
15.0 15.0 20.�
15.0 16.0 20.�
15.0 16.8 18.0
15.A 15.0 18.5
15.0* 15.0 16.�
26.� 16.9 1�.0
15.0 16.0 16.�
1.5.0� 15.0� 15.A
15.0 16.0 16.�
15.0+� ; 15.0� 15.0*
9.5.0+ 15.0� 1S.A�
15.0 15.0 16.0
15.0� 15.0* 15.0*
15.0* 15.0* 15.0�
15.6 1�5.6 16.6
1.5.0� 15.0� 15.0�'
15.0�' 15.0* 15.0�
�.s.o i�.o is.�
21.5
19.8
21.5
30.5
25.6
26.9
" a�.3
- 32.4
32.9
34.5
35.9
3 6 . �4
` 33.�
3�.9
3�.�
35.3
35.5
35.3
34.i
32.�
29.2
27.3
as.�
25.�
a�.�
a2.6
Z1.3
1�.5
16.0
i�.e
26.�
25.5
30.6
35.�
31.9
32.�
35.9
39.1
39.i
40.7
40.7 `
41.�
39.5
39.�
40.�
42.1
�1.�
�1.�
4�.�
41.�
39.1
40.6
39.1
38.5
36.6
35.1
33.5
31.0
%7.3
aa.�
Over�ll 31.5 7� �3.� 3�.� 33.0 35.6 46.9 53.0
� level Z7.5 69.1 �0.9 27.9 ��.0 29.� ��.3 52.�
h � � �� � x � � �_,,._ .�
�� 4. ,.,�:
__ % r - �•,-� - �.� �,,� .=- ; ��,. a,
. . � _a> _ � �: .� .� .�. . .:�a js k ,
.
_ . .. .. � __ .._, _ 6 .:, �?
C�
��N �YST�P4S APdD B'�C�RiOLOGI�� ��rT ��ORT �O. �196
'i%O� 3 ��� �'Oa�� � .
D�TI�a Si �
�T T T s 9i39 O� li 1999 ' `
Centile�, La"
Freq ; Min f9ax Leq 99.0 90:0 50.0 1A.0 1.0
1.6 5.0 21.3 5.S 5.0* 5.0* 5.0* 6.A _ 9,4
� 5.0 a2.9 5.4- 5.0�' S.O* 5:0* 5.0� 8.5
2.5 5.0 Z6.� 6.5 5:0* 5.0� 5.0� 8.0 I1.0
3.15 5.-0 a7.7 , 5.9 5.0* 5.0� 6.0�' 6.D 9.8
� 5.0 Z8.9, S.6< 5.0* 5.0$ 5.0� _ 5.A 12.2
5 5.0; 33.9 8.7 5.0+* 5.0* 9.0 - 9.0 15.7
6.3 5.0 . 3�6: 9 9.4 5.`0* 5. 0� 5. 0* 10.1 19.4 _
� 5.0 3Z.5 , 10.3 5.0�'.;. 5,pm 9.0* 12.1 21.0
10 5.0 3�.8 10.9 5.0* 5.0* 6.� 1Z.� 21.3;
1%.5 5.0 �Z.1 13.7 5.0¢ 5.0 9.6 15.7 a�.4
16 `7.4 4�.4 �5.1 11.3 15.0 �0.1 ` 28.9 35.1`
20 8.0 57.� ZS.1 12.4 15.5 19.9 a7.0 33.1
25 5.0 51.0 ; 19.2 - 6.5 11.0 14.6 21.0 25.7
31. 6.0 49.5 : 1`�.� 8.5 11.0' 14.3 19.1 Z6.0
40 8�.0 44.9 19.5 10.� la.� 15.0 a1.2 30.5
50 14.4 51.4 26.8 16.2 ' 18.� 21.3 30.2 36.9
S3 10.9 44.6 2a.4 13.1 14.9 '' 19.6 25.4 3Z.3
� �� lZ.� �86.8 23.5 15.0 16.6 19.� 26.9 3Z.1
100 14.6 48.5 a5.9 16.1 19.7 20.6 2�.2 36.3 1
1�5 16.� �9.8 29.3 l�.i �1.0 25.5 32.3 ' 39.1 ,;:
160 16.9 50.1. 29.� 18.8 20.9 25.Z 33.0 39.6
Z00 16.6 53.0 30.4 19.1 %0.5 Z3.9 34.5 �0.5
250 15.6 53.� 31.� 1�.0 1Q.7 2a.6 35.6 90.7
31� 13.4 52.6 31.2 15.3 17.6 a2.1 36.4 41.3 ,
400 11.0 55.1 29.� 12.6 15.2 19.i 33.5, 39.�
.500 10.1 50.9 29.4 11.5 13.9 19.� 34.9 39.9
630 9.8 53.5 ' a9.1 11.0 '12.4' 16.7 3�.4 40.4
600 10.1 54.i ,30.3 ll.i ' 12.9 li.l 35.3 41.9
lk 10.4 56.1 30.2 11.7 1a.9 15.6 35.5 41.1
1.25k 11.0 56.3 30.2 1a.2 13.4 15.2 35.4 41,.4.
Oversll 29.0 62.3 41.3 30.1 31.3 3�.8 46.3 50.�
A level 28.7 61.3- 40.5 �9.`7 31.0 34.2 45.4 �9.9
� ilalu� l�,t�d b"Y c r��� o� a�lgrsis, aptimmi:�d �or l�r�ls
\
3�
�
tlBIY SY�TLM� AND T�CH�tOGOGfES B�P'd �PORT ;YO. �1�
� .
���=ax � o�°nco��
a �aox� ��
s� �� s'�3� ox i� � za�9
�
1.6
2
2.5
3.15
4
5
6.3
8
10
12.5
16
ZO
25
31
�0
50
63
80
100
la5
�� � 160
� �--� = aoo
250
315
�00
500
630
aoo
i�
l.a5k
` j
Over�ll
� l�vel
Mia M�
24.5 31.0
a�.5 28.9
2�.5 32.6
-%4.5 28.0
2�.5 27.5
�a�.s �i.s
a4.5 � 26.5
24.5 2�.9
2�.5 31.0
2�.5 36.4
2�.5 41.�
Z4.5 50.3
24.5 4A.9
24.5 45.9
26.3 51.0
2�.5 55.�
33.1 59.3
34.9 58.0
33.6 65.0
33.2 53.6
34.5 "' 59.5
3'f.6 70.6
3�.� 67.�
3@.2 69.�
38.4 '71:4
a9.o s9.a
39.5 6�.5
�o.s g�.s
39.4 59.9
38.0 6�4.2
51.6 '7'9.'9
50.3 i7.7
Lecg
24.9
a�.5
25.1
2�.6
24.5
as.a
2�.6
Z �L . 5
�5.3
�5.8
�a8.5
32.3
34.6
33.9
35.3
3�.�..
�1.�
4a.�
44.9
45.7
�ae . a
50.0
�9.�
50.5
51.3
50.�
�9:�
��:s
�6.9
4�.�
�� ;
Centilee, La
99.0 90.0 50.0 10.0 1'.0
2�.5� 24.5$ 2�.5� 25.5 28.S
24.5� 2�.5* 2�.5�' 2�.5� 7�.5
2�.5ffi Z4.5� 2�.5� 27.5 29.3
a�.5* 2�.5* 2�.5$ 24.5 a6.3
2�.5* Z�.S� 2�.5� 2�.5* 25.5
a4.5* ��L.S� 24.5� 26.9 26.9
24.5+ 2�.5* 2�.5* 2�.5 26.3
Z�.S� 2�.5* 2�.5� 24.5* 25.5
� 2�.5* a�.S* 2�.5� 26.9 28.5
2�.5* a�.5* Z�.S� 27.5 3%.1
24.5� a�.5$ 2�.5 32.1 '35.�
2�.5�' 24.5 a8.5 35.6 �2.1
2�.5 26.� 30.5 38.5 �4.3
25.5 2�.0 31.5 37.2 �a.3
2�.5 31.0 3�.0 3�.0 �7,6
33..5 33.5 36.� 40.5 �5.6
35.0 36.9 39.� �53.0 �9.5
36.6 3�.4 �10.� �5.2 51.3
36.� 3�.0 40.6 �48.2 55.1
35.3 36.� 39.6 �9.1 S6.'9
36.5 39.0 40.9 52.� 50.�
38.8 40.1 4�,.9 53.4 61.4
39.4 �0.6 4�.� 53.� 60.8
�0.4 41.4 �3.9 5�i.3 61.�
40.2 �1.� 43.9 55.1 62.1
�0.� 41.6 43.9 5�.5 SO.3
�0.� ��.2 44.a 5�.0 60.0
4�.0 43.4,. 45.3 5�.2 57.5
�1.4 �3.1 45.� �9.6 53.9
39.6 41.4 �3.6 �6.7 50.8
5�.3 53.� 54.9 6�.0 70.0
57..Z 5�.0 93.� �3.i 70.1
� � � � :�, �,:, ;_ - ; �.v� ;w � .�� � � . � : � � �r _
- �� � . . . , .. � � � � ,.,� � _ m -
- - �.�a •� �� ���
�
�EFd SYsr��s awD T�c��owcr�s ��N It�ro�T �o. �l�
TaO� �
=l�TY08Q� 66 _
�1�T T a� i 65 �I O� 17 � 3.99� -
�i
25
31
�A
50
63
80
100
125
1S0
200
250
315
4A0
500
630
600
lk
1.25k
1.6k
2k
2.5k
3.15k
4k
5k
�.3k
8k
lOk
12.5k
16k
20k
Ove=all
A level
' CeIItll��, Ln
Min M�x Leq 99.0 90.0 50.0 10.0 1.0
�5.0' 66.8 '49.2 �5.0�' �5.0* �65.0* 50.1 59.5
�5.0 ' 76.1 52.i 45.0* 45.0* 45.0 53.9 >64.6
�5.0 77.0 56.1 415.0* �5.0 �8.0 57.� S@.1
45.A`` i9.6 59.0 45.A*. �5.0* 48.0 59.9 71.�
45.0 79.0 60.1 45.0* 45.Aa 49.4 62.2 73.2
�5.0 ' 85.1 6a.a �5.0 �6.8 S9...s�i '63.9 i�.6
45.0 89.5 65.6 45.0* 45.0 53.3 66.5 ` 79.A
45.0 91.9 69.� �5.0'� �5.0 53'.3 57.9 03.1
45.0 95.2 72.A 45.0 4S.B 53.'7 ;i0.8 85.9
''45.0 9�.@ 92.4 �5.0* �5.0 S�L.9 '71.9 �6.2
�5.0 93.5 iZ.2 45.0*, 45.0 5�.� 72.3 '�6.3
45.A. 94.0 `92.4 45.0 �6.� 5�6.2 72.1 �6.0
�l5.0 91.9 i�.� 4a.0* 46.0 54.1 '72.9 �6.%
45.A 91.1 i1.7 45.0* �6.0 53.6 < 72.3 65.9
45.A 91.2 `91.5 �6.� �7.4 53.1 71.7 85.2
.,45.0 90.6 i0.@ �6:6 �8.0 52.� i0.7 ' ��.�
45.0 90.7 59.� �6.8 4�.0 51.5 6�.5 83.�
45.0 69.6 67.� 46.� 48.0 �3.6 66.A �1.5
�65.0 89.1 65.4 �5.0+� 45.0 47.4 62.9 99.0
�5.0 89.5 52.2 45.0* 45.0* �5.0* 58.3 75.6
45.0 84.1 56.3 45.0* �5.0 �5.0 53.1 91.6
45.A 99.@ 53.9 �5.0* �5.0� �5,0� �L6.6 �6.0
�5.0 75.0 �9.5 �5.0* �5.0* 45.0+� �5.0* 59.`1
` �55.0 '72.0 �7.0 �i5.0* 45.0�' 45.0 45.0 55.8
45.0 68.7 '�5.9 45.0* 45.0* 45.0'� 95.Otr 50`:8
45.0 65.2 '�5.3 95.0$ �l5.Otr �i5.0+► �5'.0* 47:6
�5.0 63.2 _�5:� l5.0* 45.0+� '�i5.0* 45:6 46:5
45`.0 60`.� ` 45'.1 45.0* 45.0* �S.A* 45.0$ �i5.0*
�5.0 55.7 ``�5:0 �5.0� �45.0* �55.0• 45.0�' �5.0�'
45.0 50.7 45.A �S.A* 45.0* �5.0�' <45.0� '�S:A*
59.6 101':2 8�.1 60.3 60.9 67.3 BZ.3 96.1
56.9 98.4 98.0 57.5 SB.1 61.4 7?.8 92.0
* Valu� l t�d � � r • o! lyaiaa t s�d tor l�v�la
t'
�
)
j � �!
BBFd SYSTYMS wND TECHNOLOGI�S ��M R�PORT WO. �19�
f
LO °C�`i0�' 4
DQitAiY08T: 9 6
ST T T s�a35 0� 1i C� 1997
CeA�lle�, LII
Freq Min Max Leq 99.0 90.0 50.0 10.0
1.6 45.1 61.1 45.6 45.1* �5.1� 45.1$
2 �5.1 58.6 �5.2 45.1� 45.1¢ 45.1'�
2.5 45.1 56.2 45.@ 45.1* �5.1* 45.1*
3.15 45.1 65.9 �5.5 �45.1* �5.1* 45.1�'
4 45.1 6a.0 45.� �5.1� 45.1* 45.1*
5 45.1 ' 62.0 45.9 �5.1� 45.1� 45.1�
6.3 45.1 63.2 45.6 45.1* 45.1* 45.1�'
8 �5.1 "62.2 �5.5 . 45.1� 45.1* 45.1�
10 45.1 66.7 45.2 �5.1'� �5.1* 45.1*
12.5 '45.1 70.3 46.1 45.1* 45.1� 45.1*
16 45.1 64.9 46.1 �5.1* 45.1e 45.1�'
a0 45.1 69.0 47.6 45.1� 45.1� �5.1
25 45.1 69.7` �89.3 9�5.1� �5.1� 45.1�
31 45.1 �5.7 52.8 45.1* �5.1�' l5.3.
40 '45.1 7�.0 SS.4 �5.1� �5.1 �8.1
50 �5.1 80.9 59.1 45.1$ �5.1� 4�.1
63 �5.1 9�.6 60.a 45.1* 45.1� �9.5
80 �5.1 8�.5 6�.3 �5.1 �6.9 51.6
100 45.1 8�.� S6.A 45.1.� �5.9. 53.4
la5 �65.1 9�.0 69.6 �5.1� 45.1 53.�
160 �5 .1 94 . 9 '7a .1 �65 . 3. 46. 9 53 . �
aoo �s.i s5.s �a.s �s.i� ��.i ss.o
25Q ab5.1 93.7 72.3 �5.1* 45.1 54.5
315 �5.1 93.5 72.� �5.1 46.9 5�4.�
400 �5.1 9�.5 'f�.� �5.1* 46.1 5�.4
500 �5.1 91.3 91.� �5.1* �6.1 53.8
630 45.1 91.3 i1.6 �65.9 �7.5 53.�
900 46.1 90.7 i1.0 �6.9 ��.6 5�.9
lh �5.1 91.� 59.5 46.9 ��.3. 51.6
1.25k 45.1 90.0 67.� 46.� 48.1 49.9
Overall 60.a 101.�i 8�.1 i0.5 51.1 67.5
� lev�l 57.� 101.� �1.� 57.6 58.� 67.0
� ,.� �s .:
. �
_ P � �
, . , �.R, _ ,�__ . . �.�•. y. � - �� . 6, .;,, ..
:� � ;_ .� : ,_
41
46.1
�5.1�
48.1
45.1
45.1$
�6.9
�5.1
45.1'�
46.9
�L5.1
95.1
48.1
50.5
5� . 0
57.5
60.1.
6a . 3
6� . 0
66.6
6@.2
�o.a
72.0
72.5
7a . 4
i3.1
72 . �
71.8
70.�
6�.7
66.1
�
1.0
49.1
�6.1
' 49.9
��.5
46.9
, �§9.9
�i.5
, �6. 9
49.9
49.�
52.1
56.4
59.'7
6�.6
6@.5
'71. i
73.1
74.8
'7�.8
83.4 "
es.o
86.3
�6.6
�6.0
86.1
615.9
��.3
8�.6
83.�
6t1.7
96 . ].
95.�
�BN SvsYtm�s wwD Tsc�woLo+�asa �E�t �po�4 A1o. 5196
�S 5 .
D��TYOl�: 15 , _
��iZ' T : i s 33 PI[ A� li �� 1999 . �
Centil�e, I,a
Freq Min Max Leq 99.0 90.0 50.0 10.0 ]..0
25 25.9 49.2 39.1 30.5 33.0 36.3 39.6 4a.5
31 3Z.1 51.8' �LO.S 33.6` 36.� 39.9 �3.1 46.1 .
40 35.9 59.1 4�.2 37.�L 40.0 �3.1 �6.5 50.4
50 36.3 65.0 49.3 �0.9 �3.Z '46.4' 51.1 58.6
63 41.9_ 5�.4 52.'� 4�.2 46.5 50.3 5�.9 62.2
80 .45.5 SS.9 55.5 �5.�' �19.9 53.6 5�.2 64.5
100 44.9 7Z.� -` SS.Z �7.5 �9.8 54.0 59.]. 54.2
125 42.5 -'4.1 55.6 '45.Z '4�.9 5Z.1 a8.1 55.1
160 �A1.7 69.� ' S3.9 '`4�.8 47.5 51.6 56.9 62.2
200 `43.1, 6�.1 53.5 �5.1 '�18.3 51.8 56.4 61.2
250 `�3.6 SS.S 63.Z �6.0' 48.� 'S1.S 55.� 50.9
:315 45.0 63.5 53.0 '4S.% 48.� 51.6 55.`7 50.1
400 �5.3 54.0' 53.� �67.3 49.2 52.2 56.9 60.'7
500 �i.�'; '53.8 'S4.5 "4�.5 `50.6 53.4 Si.2 60.2
630 48.4 '63.@ ' SS.� 50.1` 52.� 55.1 58.0 60.5
800 `51.5 �6.5 ° 59.0 ''S3.4 55.8 5�.6 , 51.1 �3.4
lk 51.�' 65.4 59.8 'S4.a 'S6.8 59.4 61.8 63.9
1.25k 50.@ 65.5 59.2 53.6` 56.4 56.7 61.1 63.3
1.Sk 49.4 S�.i 58.5 52.6 55.5 5�.0 SO.S 62.5 _
3k 46.0 '60.� 55.1 '�8.0 52.0 ; 54.8 ,59.5 59.2
2.Sk �CO.S 58.0 51.4 �2.9 47.6 , 51.0, 53.9 56.0
3.15k 36.2 58.0 �i�.l 3i.8 �3.6 47.6 50.6 53.1
�k >Z9.5 53.� �63.7 3a.1 ' 38.2 �3.0 45.� ,49.�
5k 25.1 51.7 '�O.a 28.1 ' 33.5 39.3 �3.0 �6.0
6.3k a5.1 46.0 35.9 25.1* "a8.6 35.0 39.0 ��.1
8k 25.1 �45.� ' 31.1 25.1$' 25.1* 29.9 3�.0 37.'I
lOk 25.1 ' 40.4 a7.5 25.1* 25.1* a6.i .29.7 33.1
12.5k %5.1 3�.1 a5.4 25.1*' a5.1�' %5.1* 25.1 a9.0
16k 25.1 39.4 `a5.a 25.1�' %5.1* 25.1* 25.1* 26.1
ZOk 25.1 38.3 a5.� a5.1+ 25.1* 25.1* 25.1* a5.1*
Ovezall 6.1.6 y5.� 58.5 63.0 65.5 ' 58.1 �0.5 `f2.9
A lev�l 59.1 '�3.0 56.8 61.5 64.1 65.4 68.7 �0.5
� Valu� 1 t�d � c r �� of algr�3�, t :�d �'ar 1���3.�
m
�
0
', �
i ,
( i
p PINING ANO EM/IRONMENi �OMMiiTEE
John Himle, Chair .
Alton Gasper, Vic� Ch�ir
Steve Cramer
Dick Long
Louis Mi11ec, Jr.
Darwin ReedY
Georgiann Stenerson
METRt�PC�UTAN A(RPORTS COMM1SStON
NOTiCE O� RE{9Ut� M�NG O� °I'i-iE
P�NBNG .�D E�Ii/lRONM�t► Ct�NIMI
�'ues�ay, �4p�i17, 1998
2t�� �.m.
• Room 3040. Meaanine Leve!
Lin�ber�gh T�rminal. �l/oic�-Gnambetlain Fieid
� - AG DA '
__ _,_
.
- .-►;.. . . _ .- -. - . . ._ . _
. � _ - ,-. �. �
� �:
_ � � = .. . __
-- . .: : � . . . _.. , __ _
_ _ _
_ �,
- :. - _ � � . "r w� • ■ r• �- • ._ ». � � � - �
'� • • - _ .... , '
.,. ,a�__.. ,
� Y-' •�f ✓-1• �' ,.� ,_.- _ . •' ' •'�..','- .,�-
_ : . : _
.- • � � . i . _�. ' .. ._, . -. . -� _-. _ . . .
� _ _,
. -_.
_ : �, , � �- : yl,
_
- _, . �- .: - _ . .= - . -« _. _.-
-. • .• - • -
, � �
� . _� - � .� .:
_ - �, . . • . . . . ,� -
• � • • � � - .. J�� ..1 • . . ' `
. _ '. • • „ � • ' -;...
C . : , ��: � ' � � " � ' ..� • � ..
� V_ _ , .V � `- ° � � .�.
. � _ •. . � .: � .� �
_ - ' I '�'=''
��� _ � ■ � ��_ , •... _ �
. _.. _. ..... ._..
= _ � " � � `,' .� �. � l�/► � v �
.� �
� . ' . — {_ .. r � �� � ' • � "' . i - ....�. � ...� _ �� • • _ "� �.:-' �. - • . . _.. _ . .
•�" "x'
� _ _ ° � :'•�-.. .. � w �• - � ,.� :, •�,.. _,...
r ` . r%. .._ u �� �. s . �� � . .. � �� • . � .,, ..:_
�i:� .'
� �..._ _,t • � <._. � • • :. • • � ._ � r� • _ . . • --..
_ ` _ -��� . . �. � .. : __
. _ � • � - ar_� ,. . _ • . = .: � • • . - - � �ti .. . ..� - -'
r - ., . �_ _ . _ ... -
- -
-..- • .. _ �- - .. _ . --
• - . _ . : ..
_ . � __
. - �.. �. • .. :
_ . . • _ _, _ _i• "- -
: . , � . . � _ _
� - .. .. : . �- . -. . � --. _ . .-
. w � . � . �__�i . - -
• - . --
�
Rob�ct J. Vorpahl, Progt`am Oevelopment Engineer _
CHANGE �NAGEMENT POLICY REPORT
Nigel D. Fnney, Oeputy Execvtn�e Director— Ptanning and Environment
FE�RUARY 199� AC71VIiY REPORi FOR M�Q OFFiCE P�RK
Gordon P. V1/enner5trom, DirEttor — Cemmercial Management � Airiine Affairs ;
��� o�w�r_ ncc�r�ac Q��nQ'�1FtNP�iNt;S CC�NCL�1S►C�t�lS AN�: OF20ER - FLYI�IG
� . . --�- . ■ - • • .-
_ . _ _
_ ,, _
..�.�•. � � ..- -• • �� �. ..r- • - .�
� - -
_ �, ! � , . . �.._ _ _.-
_ _. �_� _ �_� .: . �
.- � - .-. .._� - i -..�. - _ , _ . . _.
__� , � . �
_- .-..__
- - _.. _, _
__ � � � ,. �
. _ . .. . __.
. ..
.� . . „ . _ - � • , -=�-�_
.- � , _ _ ■-. -� � - � - ,. - _ , _ � . _
� � � � � - � •-� •.' • � - = -
.- � -. �-. ._� - • - ,._ ' _ . - • • -
-` •• , � •
�. _ • _i.. . - _ �'- - ` .• .. � _.:
• . , �\ � �- ` � ' i . � _ i���1 ,-� �-
�- ' •. � • i . �' «i. _�_,
97. DiSCUSSi�Pt O� PARECiNG �UCTUR� DESiGN PROCESS
tVig�! D. ey, �c ' e Di e— Planning ar�d Envieonrr�ent
.
. _ .. . . .:. ('
. . .. . � . \
�
iTEM 1�
;
't(�; Planning and EnvironmentCorr�rniiiee
F�Q�; Nigel D. Finney, Deputy Executive Director� Pianni�g and Environment
(726-8187j
- z -� : -� � .as . .Y�, : •,-,: �-� �w . .-. �.,°�s� :
De4T°�: March 30. 9 99�
ih� acquisition of tP�e Rtchflefd neighborhoad� af N� Fard iawn ancJ Rich A�ar�s is n�arfy
compiete. Aii of th� 350 singte-family homes have been acquir�d and all but one famZy
relocated. Th� businesses. church and apartm�nt buildi�gs have also been acquired and t�e
business buildin�s and apactments wilt be vacaied by Jun� 9 of this yeae: The ehurch Mas
been vaeated and is scheduled for demo►ition irt �4pril.
� . . -. �.._ .� _ . �. _.. .F � -- . ... _ _ . , -
� _ � . .,, . . , r ,.. � = � „, .. . , . . . . . ^� . , . ._ : . . � - _
• " - � � _ � -• . . � - ■ �� -. _ � • _ w-. ' , _ � • _ • _ � • _ _ • � � _ - • _ • .= _..
. •:....-...,�_ � '' �- �.' •' •• � • .. �.... - .: ' •. .. - .. � � ,. � :.-..�"• • �... - •.:. . .'` ..��'-
.�• . `• _ _ � �• •_ .s„ :. •�• , _, w• � -• ,�� . . • .
� � •i•
Attached are copies of two lett+ars trom th� City's �ttomeys far this m�tter (Attachment� 1� 2).
The attom�y, : suggcst that 4he �AAC inidate condemn�4ian pro ings for �ach of the two
parks. Sta� and tl,e Cammission's Land Acquisiticn Gonsuitartts and Condemnation A�omeys
agree thac a negoti�ted se�ement is uniikely v�ittt this wide div�rrgence of opinion on th� values
of the proper:y. ,4ccardingly, staff recorr�mends pro�ing witPt condemn�tion. whicn wili
resuit in ti�e vaiue being determin�d by a cauri�ppoirrted boarc! of c�mmissianer�
knowi�dqeabl� in real �d appraisal pr�paration.
- - . _. . . _ - _ , _ ,, . , ,,. _
• ��^ . _, r .^, - � _ ,. . - .., � . . ,_ � _ � • � - . _ • • ,.. .
. . �.,. _... � � ,: . - . � �-: - .... --� . . - .�u, � -� a . �- � - .�.n.:.. _ . r_ - - • ,- � �
_ � � • � ,�, n.¢. ••- � � • � :,�: � • w ...• ,,., ' • • .. r "-� '� • • � • � �-� -_.:. • . • � ' .: • _ _ .....�
' - � • ,-� � .,, � � � °: -_ - �1 • ` .,� • � • • • '� _ � • � ���� • �� � • - � .'. � � �
• � • �- ���• � •
+ " ' �1�: � yl � : ' � _ ���
_ _.
� i' ,� • �' ' �`. , ��� �' • . � � - • •':
1 • - - ! • • ` - � - - - • • � • • - ; �
..-• 1 .7 �• _ -c• . ',c - �= : 'J
� � � � � � � _ -� _ . � ` � � � '
� • , _.'
C
� _ - ��
,,,
; ' ' �-- � irx
�-� K �— <., ur ,
._ _
� � �, � , �:� '�
. < :� :: �.
�_
- :� _ . �,i„ .. -. � � •
.. . ... 7:A •. 2 :.�- :,. . . » _�. �• ., ... . . . �.._ _ . --
_ .� ,m ... ;� =. � >� ,� _ _
_ � �i
� . _ : .
n , � .
u
_ _ �
... .
_. . . .,, �-. _ . , _ `
:,� _. .� -� . . � .a,_ - �� �_� .
:.; r,.. . . ,,,; � _ �*�
.�. .
� . . ... _ � � r mi .�. . "1 � ... �, � r ;s/C . �
_.
�
.,, ,. � .. : i . : .. �»
.. :.. ..
._ , , _.. - - .. .
' _
sm i: _ . _'Hmis • _. ..,•_1 .- -
_. _ �, � ,� �. . :� � � � � -� i �, �m i � - _
�
� .,. ,,. . :...
.,
�
. - '
,�: � ; , �`�' . .i x - . .
,.. _„ ". • " . :• ;.� �. .„*,^� � _ �x �. '.,
�_ _
::� . . � ; :< �� �.�c^ i ._ `iz . �. _. ,,. �. .:_ %�.
^ ' �;
-�. �. .� . .. a .
_: _ .,. .. � - - - -
.. ��. . .w - -
.> . .. � � •: ��i . L _ ^� •. "�:.,
+ �
«. . :t. '�: '_ .� .: :a Y _ < .. . , �� .A. . . _ _ �� _ � 'i_ _ _
. .- • :.> - • F.k . �i,
..... _ ° �..:ii. F� ;3
�r" !,
. .w ., ., - � e �
� .... . ,._ , g o- .,, . • .. ` _; 'rz • . « — _
_ ._. .. ; . f , , ... ,... .-
. .. - �
� � :'. • i t .:. +. �'
— ` ' '• ., , r . � r ,. _.
- = _ _ . ,." � ' � ` �i'. • _ i ,"`� �_ �+ " '
. . _ . � -� �;: �I ' , � e'n
i � {, i: �,' �. '. � � 4:- . •. � ,� r ... _ - , _, , .
i� .. � - �:. �
,� � � _ _. , p ", �; .�=, kr _ �. �'� - "
� .' ._ �: ' .. �: .�
� � .. � � .! :it ._ s , _, . ..
s _
_ ` _ . ._ e ,_ }. . .a � � �� y • G',�. � •
i � cra"
r � ..
v - :,� � . �y�i'� �� ,_ 3 ,:� �- , �* .� -- �-. ._ . ,
'� • . • '4� � - -. ti
_
a. . ' t �� •.' �'�.' _ '
- ^�„ ' � �,n, .
�. .�s . � �m �� • ., � r'
1 ' . �E :�, , . '
- ' � � �, , ..., .
, ._a -. r - . _ ..._.� ., .
i P. ' C »; :. ,�,�tt, " _ .:, � :" 9..
� , ie..' • �` r: ` . .,t , .'m. -� .. -
-- . r B-' , � r � :�
�.
� : • :" ,:^ .'.,st • .. • . . �... .,. ' .
• _ • �., _�.. . . .
- 1. �
r° .. . �� . -� -� � • i rt:, = . 'ka '�. �.
„ � �� ?� .; ...
,., .� .
)
. � � � •_• � .p� �. <.� . ':
+ � � �� :. ,.. ,. �y rz, .
• .
. _ .� ' � ,� s � '_ � _t • .. � x � ,;,'� .1. ,. � .,. "
xa -
. u- •
w / ::- � � - . . . ._. w _ .. . .
" ' ' " _ h-
.. '
.� _.. . � .� ' � ' �. 3� �. • r, �.. ., ' � ii � �
- � � � °� ;:. ��
�
� . _ _ . _ � � r • r S S, �, , . _ _ .
�. .
� � ._ � F �� . .. .. - -�
, '
� ,t, , , � ' n � • � -: -a; • r. r �.'. � -
� rCi .r = . �}„
?; : i � J . • . • i � ., �. . � . . ._ .. ,.. °: , .
� . r
, , � „ .... . ... � � � - -
� i� i
.. �. . . �. ..._ _
' � �` � _ ., . e .. ' '
� � _
... -
+: , .. , . � �. .. „ �: :: `�' ., . . ,�w •� .
, � . . . .. . .� _ . '. �, .�;. �: - `
, �., , t ' �: 's • �
�
a �.r ; .�"��. j _
n
. . . . � :� � � � i.. n: r �.-
..� ... � .. . ..
. ., � �t. � . . . . .
U�,". � ' �. `.,..� p .:- P � � . , ... _
� : �< .
y
��� �
� `.per :� � • ti • • � •
_
_.. ,.. .er . .
a -' _.
. . .c " . � �. ... • � . . � .x: � • • • .. .
: , n �
a .
, : � .-s ... � ,C.
<- �
„
1s �
� sc�
� F F � � � �� �� �. �r.
a 4..,. .- 1 rn', f ..:# ; -.
• .. �
1 _ � � � .., =� " ' , i "
.. -_ -- • . ' .�
�.. > . �" '' � ... . ,1 �: fi,� `° �. • - '■
� � , � t ��
_ '. e, . . . .. , �,
; _, i . . _ _ - ' � _ _
. . ' , . ,,. wn � i . .
° �'. ` �i � .r: �� �� � ��
x. �• ^
_" .; !4 � - . .._
- • r 1 � :. . �i . . . ,
_ . . . , >. f � �
� . � -.� � :` �`, � : :�' �r • �. �> >� • ' � ,
-�, . ' : ;, � '
.; � ; , _� . . . .
�-�." , : , • _� '� . . �-- `
�
. � -
. ._ . , _� �. ; _ v �,. �� v . � . � � � � __ _
„ , ,.
... :... ,. � -.
�:.�, -. . , . �. , :
� .. a. �
: . . �. ,. , � '. _
. , � .. . ,. _ � .
��- � . ... " _
... . .. n .� � :n �. � � _ - -
. � _ �, � �_ ,. ._ , t ' �r, .
- � .,
< :
�r
., `" .. . r. �'.. . ,,, ,_ .,; , .. . -. .. :..
_' - '
� ._ � �. � ��r •� '� � 'i� -
4 v w
., .�
.. �
4 � �
:',
' _. 1 . . . . �. �
,., o- .,. >: _� r. �... . „ .. �
" i .: � .e �: • 1' „ ..� , �.. , �
�
- � . � '!
> ..
._. _ � �_� �v
� ..
� . _ � ,,.. ,. r... , .-. � '� .�u; � r '_ : Z ;? � • �X�' � u. ..
, �
i � ` •:j ^ '� - � :.: ;, „; '
.., .._ • t '. , _
� n ¢r .r. � .. � .., ., . , , .
�_ . - ,. v. . _ .. ._ ;; '
' � ;w: .< � .: - � � • 11 • ��� + �,.� �' ��^ '� • , - • 1 '.: '°"
wBElt , the F' , r�eogflizinq th� rralus� t'or �hicti �P�, F�TS �nd
� land� •�►anaged, ha� e�t�lish�d �,000 Se�t a�►v� ground
lev�al (�GL) a� the req���ted nimu� altitude for air�g�ft �lyinq
iaa si�apae� oeer lands �ct�.i.ni�t�s�d by th� ��5, �S and BI�.
o�1ro�a. rorv� s0 n�
FAX 'TRA6�SM1'F"i'Ai• ��Pee�� a•
A7 � �►. P�i O tL
o.w� s P o�;S�SB""' Z
F., . _ _- .,�... =';' 9 _ �c-� _ ic-, r�
, � ' 1 �
�
� __.
D.
u <,x � . Nn :� ; � =; ..� x�� -��°�, �
.
, ,;e . � �;.
x a
� k , � ,� - �
, � �r ._ .., . � r . . - .; . . �
_ :.
� _ , .� , �� � ��
� .* _
,.;:. �� _ �_.
o. � � �. ,-� _ i; � =`�
<.,.
_ Y. . • -• �� �`
�. - .
�.
_ - «; _ .� _i> --
�`
� _ -
m ,... r -_ .x :- -�_ � _ _ , , _, , .
_ � , ..
�. . �. . � �'� u� • . .� w .. �
,;,, i�. ' i ii ir . � �� -. •
•
y. s ,_ , ' �. . ' .�r,�. �,
�< . �u
! � �_� • '� --
• �: _ .,:r. . ,. - Z; z "� _ _ .�, `«�'_i Y ,- . : . , . _ . , -..,
„,� .. �. ,a ..' ., � • -- _ ; H, .�° u: � �.?
� � �
. _ ... �, _ w .. , , .
.: �r . � ,-. .�. � .. .. ezr; ; . .;
� • • `�, m�� r„ i 4
. � . :` , .' :� _ _ _ '' _ _ ��� - ;"- .�,� �
. . n ., ,� ' �* •e
'. !. ;-� .� �' .. _ ._ r . �_ .. . _ . , - �' �
` i � � �
�.
_ _ -. .. . . . '
.� �
,. ,... . � � �� �„- �.• :, � , • i . ',t �,. ' ;. � !.
.. ` • � . ..,. � , .. �. .� � � � a- : ', ' r+ • � ..: ..
. _, .
.. � ' ., ��. . , � ..: , un , .. = ._
� .:: ; �.� Ty � 1�_� - ; r. ' �c QV2' '�. _'i` �� .. a. =' - 1 • :i
_ _ ,... ? , -. ' � � �' - �� " �
r � r� , � � •„ � �
-, � i • . ^ •; � . . _
• • � � • . � . _ .. . . � - .:... , �^.
�- . �� ., � ._. �, . �'�+ � _ �' ,-.�„ . �. � .�, � ." .- ,> � � . . -�. i
. _ ,a, „
� �n .' r�'s . -
., . .
,
�: s u.. � ;g:
. ,. , ... � �� 7� . . . � .�, . , , s a i!' . . ,�:. 5 �f
t ,gs z. . :.� ` �" ^-� • � 1-
�.::. ., . - � �:. ..� "�z -. � . • % ��' -: . '�'
� 6�' '�. • w5 1,. . _ :-w � ..s ,,. -,
t
,. . ... .. ,,, , _.._ . ' _
,� _ -• _, �: .;:
�:., ` " -� � '�4 • 1� . /�t, ._. . 5A , . J • i.:} �� �' . �. .�. x
... . . � . . . ' v.r : �� �, • .
�, �. : - ...i. •(,� � ' � �. �
• ! �
t y . . , �2 ; ,.0 • �„ • � ^a� • _ � �
� ,. - . . . . .�
.. . _. ... - w � '� ..
': .: �. .._.. ► � • " '- �/ � �` .. :, ,. ;.« .. :... � � � � � _ _
.... r.. �. . �... '�, . ',: '�;�:"" .' :: � �� � � �'� ��.. •
� ,
s
, .t � � dr , � F-' ' �i o� . ..'�,! � " '� : _
h ,. �o- � . i •1
. � r. ., � �� _
. . _ • .. '.�" ". - '`' " � 1 � • :" '� ' �
� �
• • �� � '� ., � . _; , i : � ._
4 �
_•• a • i� � W3. � �1 � �" � �
. . .. �: » . n, :.: • •
? �;
�. �� _a y �: . .. ..� ,. ::.
r
♦. . Z= .>
:. . > .. �, e� ., ..,
� tt, �i
, ��. �� : . .. .; " � .. ��"��. , w T.t . -:.. .^ �.. .�. . . _
= k
� .:>. . �: ..�. ,�. -
:� 1.
`E; -• : - • I � ��
m
�:. �_ . „ �. . , : , , . � � � ,.. � � -
.� �� , . .. �: � • �,
� • �.
in " �t r
. •: , r,- ,� . . . . ,u. ,.
. .,..-tir .� .� . ,. _ _ v- .�. . .,, ,
�» ,: -. , . _ _ .
" .v „ '- � :I_ `` � ,�, ' .:`
, ,� µr.. ��.
I� s� a
.- �, : s. .r � � r.; . . ,. ,, � ' i
� r ,,. i, , ',.. � . .
u� � � • < � � Y � t� _� � ��
k >,. . _� m � . ..« , �r ." +� �°
� � � �� � n ...� �,i ., < _. z . -.-.. v . .._
. , _
,�. ..� ._. . w � ,- ,
. _ � � � . , ., � , .� r- -<: ,� ,..
_
. . _ , . . - : ' s�, . � �
, � �- '= .a3 ��` • • k � �� ! 'z . %� � "'��
. -.e . � .�nr .: .� r� "" ' . :
d �e
.. .�. � � ,� �
�, _ . r! . L� -� �r � ,�,� ye • 1 � • �
� e^. . . .. .. _ ` � .
.., . . .. ik • �.:� �� : w • .
� ... �• • •, � rj � �i P. �� r .:. *
• . .. . s �` ' .. • • • • .;. � ",: �i =: •-. �. .'. . � � : • .'. ':� , •�
�, �
� ,. �,� . _ '�.�.� - t� . • : � " .S •: .=, ,� • i.
.. � " � ;�„ , . .;,. ; ; ..., . ... . . ,.
. - - - � - a _ i.. .• . •
. , � � ,.,, .` � � .i: � � ii . a . .i
..: _: � :. • ... � •
� „ , _ : ' " - +. - • . " �'
_ ' :. [� ' • :c � " ' . .: - �� '�
0
�'
� . ..., � �
_ - . , r. . . � �
� � :. _o �y. . . .
=, _ . . �,_
<:. - • .. „ ... ., , ,
. — . _ —, � t_ : ..
� ,�. . . .; �� ,,
. .* S . i:. , ,
�, • : � .. � �
: ., . , � ., . � ., � r; .� �� :
� ,._, . . � .. .
. �
- _ � , � __
_ _ _ . ,.
:; . ,
�„ , . . �: • '`,.. � � � s• r,. �:_ �
� �. . ..
� .: .:, ..
� � _�
.
�
�.� , .. . - .
.. ��, � , :1 _
,,
., .
-` � ;. � • '- �, ,i. � :, �r ,,-„ .,
. . . ....< , �, . .,. . . � , ..
n.r • : � � : � � _- � . ,z .
- �_ „ . �. � . : ,
1 ' .. -. , _. .,. ' - •.
__ Y�' 1�. .. � �
� �•... - �� � ' r' � �
�'�.,. , `• � '. ♦ �' i
� �, � ., �
�'�: .,�. � ii ` ' r�: . =.. � . ,..,.� . � .. �� ' ` �� , �
y �
� .. � .. . .�. �_„ „ . '_. - � :� , , [r ... ,.. ' ; . . ,
;���� � � r ' � •� � .' _ ' 1 ` ,,,t � , -
. ,
� • r_ ` �
. _ . . � . . , � .. tt
��,� ,:, . • ,'.�♦ "' :: � -.., .
,
_ a . � � i • .:� , , .
� , - �" � : e�, • .. •
., �
� :s , � � :- - , ,;
� �
c
� � i
.�. rir � [. ' , ^ r �i: �' . ' � „ .`r, ,�' '` - = � '�
� •
• �
. ., . .
..� � �
,-� ' w F . :. :�- , ,u . ..
.. . . ., . ���3' • : ,,, u ,� . .. ,
. _. , .. .. �. � i' � �i .i ..
:� i : . ,� �.r 1 ... '. • : , .« . , _.. � � ' '
� � ,.
:. , .� � ^ i : 1 ' .
J. . v.. _ . _ � ., �
; ^
, ,� • : .� � • -
, .� . ,
� � s"s ' •. � ' �I � • _ , � . . � x - .- � �
y �,
_ .`I
.
. : , . � : _ =
n .� � . ;�. 1 1
_. _ .r .. . �� . ; .
� � .: I . .
. � ,_
r . -r;
� .
� �,
�:," + •.��.
� ♦
� � �
r � . � `+'
1 � •
�
. � - � . , . �, �,.
1' ;� • �
Received Time Aug. 6. 8:59AM
\'
�
C
C � �f
��
�
�
�
� '
� � r s �
,, . ,, � - � _- a �. . .
�,
�� • <: ,a ., .:: �. . � . Y �, ,
� — . . ` .� r; — � � . :� � . � � �_ �
.
• .. ,.. .. ; � ,. �-. — .
_ « .. . —� �.
: .. • _ : _
.: .` — �;. • �. — . �
�> - � �� •. v� E; ;,
�c. '
'� ` . � .m - -e -- '�' .. .':. � "� �,.: �,-• :; ,. . ;i� - � -
> ..� • - : .. .x - . � • , � ,� . . .....
1: i. .�. •. � , ':��: `�
' � ' �a ;•Y' 1 �, � ` � ...-�. � "_ �.:. ` �: _ " - �
ry ,
e� .'� i i� : i�' L�`i �.
�: '� �ww ��;� � �z � �' y� � .� , ' �'i. .= .,. _, � . ✓ ,� ,. ... � .
� . _w , w. . `�. . . :��: ,. , ., - . -
,�. .� p_ -�,�` ., � � ��, ��: :;
-� ' uC- � � a� � � n a �� �, . . . .�. . .
_ . .� . t, ,r , > . : _. � .,, .. ,., . . .,. �z � , .< „! �"
� - " :� a o- r�i
, .. ; � . .._ , r .
_ ., _, <.. ...,- ,,.
r
- ' • �' • ,_ 7 ii ;_.� . .
• � '-' � . � 1 •. _ t." _ .
_ , � ._ ,- e. . . � . . , ' _
. � • ' .: ti � • � � � .i", . i ,� . . r.n ,... .
�. ,
�2 .s .� � . . .x aa . � _ .._ .. ,
_ a. . , .. . _ . .._ ..., - . ._ . :- : • :. •
- • ' �
6.
� �� � .
7
„ , .. ..._ /_
. ,,. ,�.+'-� � y.. _
3 � '
! ..
_.— _,• ➢ _.. � ..._
. , . � . ,� . �, . . ,�.„�
. ;,c� -
�
�1�'' � a.
,.i�i/„ .�� r L�Ll..,< '5 —il�l
_ _._._. � . _..
�� - � ' • , , � � , .
.
«. �-� � _ _ �, . � �. ! _ � � . . t� r`� _ � - _ . '`�
�; m.,_ ;
...
_ i� -
:c% � ' • �= '�
� �'+:7
.v ' � .... ':
__.
,.: _
k •'.•`y
' i ���
, - _
�I �� i,� L._.,„.
_
� _
. ..� � _� _._.
r'., �
\ �' >..
. ` i
��� �
. �� -
' ��:�
� : � � ,,,_.
` �� � y ----
�t
Vl p
� 01 .
O �
� � O a q � �� � tl � �
"" a
¢ � m �o ����� !
m �U E
� mN.�`_c �
��(n�>'� ' ��� � 3s rn
� �sZN p �i�s� 8g� � �Xy c,so,
� .� p� � N � � � � � p �� � g N
5
Z
�� L � N
= m w � � � s ��°$� ���� � ¢
m �fl �N N �s �y -N.�'3
Q fA r ._
��j E f� tfl ga �� y � $
�p � o
5
�m p �y � � g� . a �
� � � � g8$
� a V �'� � �
�� ��
..
�
•a
1 r r.... .f... O r..Y ..O..Y.O...7 .. ... 1
� y Y�(i O Y i1 O> > 4 ti U>> r
: : :'
: : :' : : : : : : : '. : : • , • : : '. : : '
. . ' : :' � : : : : : ' 1 : : : : : : � : : � '.'
. : : :I t : : : : : : `. I : •. : : : � '. : : :'
� : � :I f : : : : � � ' : : : : : � : : ; � �'
: ' : :' : : : : : : ' ' ' � : : : �
� ' V • : ' � : � : :I
� � � � :) • � • � : • � • � , • � ' � � •)
� �f0
: ��� � � � � � ���
� r� ��� ,
� � E�j � �
J � � � � � ! O � � � W Y � � � W � � � �
0
� O
(
... O..m B r � 0 > > � � ] Y � �
0 U Y � U O . t .. B • > > u � O U > > �� .. .
: : : : : : : : i : : : ' : ' ' : : : : : :. : : : : : : : : : . �
: : : : : : : � � : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : ' : : : : � �
: : : : � : �' � :' � :' :I : : : � : ' : : : � : : : :) : :' :I � .' : � .
: : : ' :I : :) : :� � :' ' : : : � : ' : : ' : '� : : :I : i' :� : :' i
: : ; ; :' ; �I � il : :I :I : : : � : : : : ' : : : i :' ' :' :' ! :' : �� �...
: � :) : :' : :' : '.' :I : : ; � '. : : : : : : : : �' � '.' :' : :' : � . � .
� ' �' � � :I :) : : : :I : : • : : : ' ' �' :� : :� : . .
:. � � ' �' : :' � 'I I :) : : : :' • : : � : : . . : :' � � I :� : :) � . .
� �� . ( ' �I ;' : : : �j� � � : � � • � '• :� • •) :)j � �' � . .. .
• . :I : '�� �� I ( . . . y : � I I 1� . .
��������� �� �'���� ��: =��� ��#��
� � �,� ,� � � � �� � ��� �
��������� . .����� .�������������� ;
wY. ..... . �� .. . ...... . .... . Q • 4 0 4
0 0.. a o � o.. p . .
+s �avosoaomomao amoa •ae oa/o
u..�� o 0 0 .. 3 p. a..m P� i� �� � .
- ._. .
' . . : �� � � � . �
. . f� : ' ,
, :I :
. . ' EI : ' . ' . � '
� � � . : i� : �: ' . . .
� p�� � � i . . � � � .
�: • ' .� � :� �g��:� ��E`E
� °$y � Fj��3� �a�c� �a�c��°a��
.�� :�� �� js����� � :��p Cg� � ��qm py� a
� ��5������N3���Gv1Q�J��5���6���� �U ��uE.
:' i :
:' : :
:' : •
:I : '
I . : �
�'
� : � � : : � �
� ����
' ���� �
� .���� �
�oa . .�� _._ ., � . . .
,__��, ___ , �_ � o o�o �
� O O Q 0 9 a Y a O Y O>> t1 � Y� � U N U U>>'! >>>> G O�� V
i r 7 O.O O 9 i� O Y O O'J J O� N r r� Y� Y Y U>>>�> >> 7 O r� U�O�Y r r�ti . .. .
, . . . , : . . ' . _ . . �, .
� :. . . , . .. �. : . . � . . . ; : . . .
� : : : . . : ' . � . . � � �
I � '
. � � . . ' ' �� � . . . . . . I.: . .. .. ..
, . ' : . .' . . '�
' � . . � ' � . . . �I .
• � � � , � . ' . . ' . . . . � � �' . .
I
:� : : : . '
; i .1a : :� � ; � � � �� ;I: ; � , _� �� �
` � a3� � `� �� ��x� 8
� ��` �:� �:�� � ,�,�; � � _� ,: �. � .
��� � �� ��� n �e �'� �
���������������������������. ����������� .. -
��� � � �� ��� ��:�� �� m �,
� � � �,
�:���_ �.����� �� s� �
�'"m ��=5e� m �aS a������8 .Y
���,� ���� �'01��� � °$� .��E1^ � �
��8f� �'���� � �aa��p$9� s�
� 4 A m G N
�,���ffiss �� ���' ���� ;��m ���
� �y,o�� ' ���_ �m$r'�EE��� ��'
,� :�3t��:� �a�m$ :������y�� ��
� �a '�8��� � ' �� g= _ �so�
�c �� �� � ��'�� �� � �� � $ ��
� � �e��m��s � �e��� � �����'� ��
°p ,� $�'�� ���, �';a� s� �'��sgQ��a ��
r C, � m�. x� '� � a� .�
� w ���5���� ������a �a��������� �s
�m � �
���� ,�'�
��;� �, ��
y." ` ��.�
�� "_�"' --
�� ��8.�oa��
� •� � i m o�.. �
z g8g_z�v'�
", �
• sr -m=
���� ;������� � _ _ •
3��'����������s� � ---
� : : :� ° ;� : : ��
�g�a�.�� �� ��
�� ,�iZ:�s�=�m+ �a •�
�a y a �.
0
1S0 N C � � �� �
c E g � � �
d• d � �
4 .
��'fn '� � �r � ffi.� 9C �� $~ m ��
_ '_ � ��� 3��' 4�€� �
�� � B �' � �sg� �,�"' ��: �.
'° 3 � $� � � ,� $ �' a $ g � Y C �e = �
��_ `` g� �5�� ��a° �i � ��
� �
� s�= �� ���� d o� �� ��� ��.� � �
� d A „r� d �.e E¢ ��'$ � �� �'` '° q G !�
� ���"��ya4-��y T��j�7�a�,/1 �,�'� •��5 ��
� d 5i q a ii C)5 L G C^ ii 9� iS
�' =L'rnou� >:!a�,g$�� ��_�� �
� O'� n` E'T'8 �, y i� 5� °'� � Z�'�
.� °' � �` � g"o c � .�p �
�, °c$1s g.�''" �.��°t6-7 �� �E1Q�''� � e 9�pqq� `�� a aQ
Y ❑L,L1.O�QfA 0¢ZlIIVY. �I�S �i GN.�G � +`
p, a o e• e e o e e • o •
C .ii A C � � Q1
rn = � p � � '� q � � p�j 'G '�C
�E�T°' $'°u �,�9��d E S�c
�� Q 3 g' o`� �� Q� g�' '� �' o p.n-qo
L y�. � y! '° v� C L `o �p 0� C y3 ryp� C
C�i.�OL� m7�CT�'OC}? �� 77O
� � � ��'— 9�,�
�, ° 3 � S $ a+ � ,'� � E ,E �°e'3 .o � £'8
�—vb'�—'y' �'.�$$�QEyp ���$ ��°�9t�g
'C � � � ? L G �1 $ ��` 'C � � •S � C Q � � q
q°�'cE� �.g�`�5��� .$ �s���
L�'��� � Q H �
� � s Y
��3� � '�,� � �b g��� �°�' �� �a—'
Q�� � � e�y � �m� �c E g
� �' � o b
�� gV � .6� ��� �� �� �a u��� E�
�
�
_ _ � d �� �',� �
g
�° �3 � '� �'d� ` S
t �
'O 5 A q �
q�� g �.� .� �'�s� �' �,��� �
_� €
p ��',3� ��5 � ��� �'� � �i �
.°o q$'i' ���°� ����',�, ��'�a � 3
�� E�� � �,� �+ g F ���i�
=_� ��'-� � St :�+i°$ aa c..
o � � �r�
� ��� � �� c ��� �i E'� c.r
Q � � T .
� E sr�s�i ��' 'co �o N�d�� ,4
Y „w ' "d��q Ea`r c�
3 ds $ 5'.� c p ��v��� ��� 8. �
� Qi3�z �g g.Q� �'��^ 9�y��� �
�5 E�r �o Se �� �'���� 33'`a
a ����� � ���� �� ��.��' ����� .. ...':� �
�
C1 ''
d � �;
U -
c
m
y' '
.N.
T : `•
� : �a:
� ...
d
OI
=E-;
W
�
�
.
�`��-� 4 _ _ � .. �..
�L. .
. . .. ... . .. . .
.. � ' �
... • •
� � ,
' � " '� '� �
. ':�D. -
, . J _ � aiC�'iL� .
•Y' , =�6K'i 1��. .�� .-•.7 � „�Y'�.��f �^R. � _ ' j,^..
_ :7r:r•s��' ',i.'� '. ' �'tr.: �ar+..�6:.: ' '..y
- ��5e. _ R� . .'�"'$'"''�""A't''�`*'`'". �'',a, �''' . .
—i -- " `_" --- = - ' - - r^ ( f�0/� �� • o'- -�
j ���'�, �, 1Y' .'�- � - _� i. � ' • � . .
. _ .Y. t� . � -�_ . �.-�� ,'. . . _
_- -r = .. �, :
� � �
. - ; - -, _ . ��.�. . : � ...
� � .' �. ` `'�" -; " ��s' ;.' /�_--� . ;
� �� _ ___ �-�o`- / . '��. �j• .
G7�-
� . o
�D /'' - _' - -�i' � / ` � ' ' �-•
- - �. � � �p / � �' . >"
�� `/ ,;'..,' O � _ '
. � _ = I ��/ J;, �• � o� 1 � =--__:�;� r ^ -- .
�'1 �( � ��`�` � � �� ( _ T �a' ` '� a�,°�o+0 1
:�� � • ;
. �/; . � ' t m, � . . . . �
� /'" � % . � � . � p .. � .
r, , i � � / " j � � � \ � g , . . ' . .
a +N
' '\ � ! r, 0 . � ....:.. ... . � .
..�-�'W �0 � / . n 1 . • '( �.��� ---"; , -------1
' • �- 1 . .t ,� e �
1 /
� i .. �' '"� 3 i - � �. .-. a +\
� / , � � .l �- I , o i /� �? . ` ......
, . � �r �. \- i ..... -.,....
�� � ' / __ o,' t J.a ' 7:.. 'nv' .
�. �' q � 1 6. �'�iI �/ •�.G.
. ./•� � o �. o / - � .. .
O �� / ,
' � � /
' � • _ .' • _ . 0 j ��� ..
. � �'0 �� '- �WOO� (� �• r� �-
� . �'~ ��` I �
'� ( - - � o � , � , :te
' ,� � -"��i°II' e s . o�
a ., a�Y �8 �T�li� d � ;f :, � °
. ' ; ,d . � _� � �� o a�, � .� „
_ - _ � o , �
�:- ,e �- ,.. � ,
� � � = ;,""' : � ,� � 'm � , :
• �, � _ �
/ i x�a — -& ,
ea . A
_ _ ' \ ' ' • �/Y��' - '� �m � : /m u
`� � '0. � ° Z.
� ~ ,• . 1' '�- ' , ' i � . �� . .
. l�- • . o ' � �
.. va .. ^ � •
�' � t � _ ,� ,l, a�� � e �,� 0¢ I
� t 1� ;_� ' 4 � B . ' � �
�� _ ;�'' ; `` �. �i � J � p ♦ d � �
--- � �` � : .;\ e �/ ---�k�`'��' 1
� ` i �� "��`� , ''��\� '� � : - • , ,� � V ai
m' - ��-' . : %� ` ,�\ � � ' "�..�" g /' -------- � ° -�B1
, "• ,;, ' ,�-_ ^�
. .
, , ; �.
� �.
._ _ • , ..
-,--- • ' . �� ,,,; , �., ,, � � �— � ' i
.
•
. • .
, � � r r �.,. . � . , „
�g .
.
�• .. •
, . , .
�M i �, d ` � 'r ' . .
�'� l �� 'tld 104 � f /� ^� Y � i �.�. . \�� , � � � .
. �
i •.
• ..� . • � .
. Y J ;. � � � - � -r-- - :; �fli . _ �;-'�- .:.: 4
_ • � IZ , ...,os� � , . ' ' e � .,.. �'+'�
' � .
. /
��, � . , . . I
. � � �� �\ V, ,
. . � . .,. �
� �i_ � ; o� "a _ �. � . ...
� ' � / t - -.-�.. � ` , .r �' . i � . ._
E: ' 7 ..�Y.• �• ' L_-►.:'� .s • .
• ' . P� l � .. •..
• ` ' � - v _ Sc . . �-� � . "� ,�r. � . . ' "•' �;,:"�=``:.'
, � ��,ir' ��.. � . •.;ti _ �- . . _� - - — ' - - -` . .. ,
�
t` `
J
m
''•, w. �
i ^ a L � � Y��� pe : an.
j Ea' � . $ . S m� a:=. � �s ; �
! _n " •3; _ SE gn_. 3�:
_ � g � �o: o�. y � �- =o� :
e�' � a-� g • i _:
L�-� si :- c$ aS^ _" g,3 �
� §$' a.�,o� �v y es ag2� =', 30 � =dt
Z � �`' �� _� � - ��� "�: a' � __.
o � a�• " �� - � "Y= .` � __.
` S� �E. L.:• �� + S�s _ s� i ��
a � �_.. _., w5: " , �.
'¢� -� Ep. 8�, _N, co � � _ _e i - ;
v � :Q� �. � � o_: �o • �„e� �G:
oF ;S o�' 0.2` aa, g» =o�.'Ba 3'$ s t'
i =_� _ Bs 9; p.s .^ •t 9e' 3: 8e.
� ;a• �~ gs ��� •_� �cs �a � ' ��
i 3� "` - ;�^ q.. $o� �8�,,�$ � �o;
: e= �� ��: _ ,3�. 3�" _ �$ � _�
� 0# _-. 3$ _ aE.,�8g� ��s• s;'`' y��
i 3" -o '� � sy, e= �3 c'c.gl� �»
iW s '" c _ o '� 9 '
� n 8= 33' �c >� m3x' �.. .So"' ro
Wx n 1 = I � V
s r—�
<y " � o: • ' o � u m
i� ^. � I O 6i� o
i? _ . • , i
E � tn � n n 7-'. c � h 2, » . o'
¢u!J �� 5 e' .�� �: <� �E �rv .s.
�tl;�Q=� �.�:�e� �. '.is »�• ` �
. ¢u' �»: �`� -� = $: "s �; z" i ¢ a:
�=� �p ��� ?�; ��' s�' ?=: �- : ^?; �: i w ��`
..> �. � � O �
i � j$ ` i$ F e '
� �g t � � � � . � ary' .
� os_' . _ i ' � � g ��( �
It:` = t- s� � g =`zi g_
3.v' ,� I '�- a $r^�,` � ��i �o,.
o vz.. � �� 8 i� : s�`p =__�
�_ ^�g � j „� ' �e� � 1' ' 3=�
¢� -�� � i S� $ z�` � j z�� =
V i � o� � a��} . $ . � :
W 1 �� � � a3. '� S'Z. 3 ��4� 3� r
c ne: -!�� v.. 8at ' e :
. �;a n: � • s�S a=.
Sg@ � f s� �n ,�_� i' go; �e:
=-�� �� =`" '8w ^ o�=
; sof gc _» : a��
I ��8; -" �.�! s�� E~• �N, 6gE ��:
���; � � �_; 3Y� �o: $Y ag� �r,
. �8<��s a�� " •
� 8.��s 's xs-�5�� �� a3 ^�. ��:
A
�2 ^ V
� � ' �� � E �
c� � � j
=u
s o �' > > ta �
t . � ; � —
( t � .
\ � � � "_ .
: . .
i � i : �
� �� I ; . � • e , �
€ u I � � ` } • a' 0 ^ � Z 0
8 i E `'>� =a� W � �� O 3' Z
_�' w . _' : �� ;Ei .,� p ^ � y,i 0 s �
F_ o� �a � s=' s� ea; s -�u$ ��° � 6i �
�`� ¢U i` i 5�.' z�! a�� C�.� �V �3 �-� Q�` Il
o - "s
'a
o ° � �
'� m C o
a �o . �
� - ' u' v
�� . 'm ¢ = N °v m �I� �:.
m I
�-m�2Q>
fi� m3�y c°1rnN
`� C p cr � y��.� ;
� c io �n p cv e�
w � p � c � � +e �� i�
�ey m E eo � ':�C � ..J
Z O N N �:'v�...�
m .�fD.. �.
0
C
L
a
�
�
�
U iW gg
¢ E � �
¢�
o��=�
z
0
.,, a �
a,
N
W
y �I
W
� � E
F- '� E �
1d-, .� a a g
m s a +,
4o LL�
�= e
_ °0 � $
s � =-a—
a =
, �
��� � i � � � _i_� �g�g i s � � �� _
� - : � � � �
i � - � �r
s'_, : t .. ! � ; � ; g� . � ( >� � '�P '�
a� i S � S �� i� I`� a �_ ." =g ��a �-
E81'� i�i i.• � E i:� !��N '��
� � =m� ;��` � �' � tt�
��!,am� � � �.'n� ";_ � 8�� �Q I �38 $��
33E�#i� i� f="!�2.� �-o:€�o ;o�0 3�
� � � . `9 xa2 ' _-1 'a'- : ��8
.�� �!j .2 i � ' ;�� �>> i »3' �= � s-= zs
�' � � g� �" � a8� i� � 83t�
� , � � ' Soi y�i =3E � " �.�
,�. =_� �x � 3$a
a�1 ��l'�5 ' �� ' � � =�
_�, i �«� _�! � '� ; ��' �� ^+`E„
�Si tx� 5ri ��; i_t �C f a� �e � 88� 9�
; ` � ' �c' ' ��� ` $ I �» ' p$. $
3�� � «� ' -<� yC
a�i „� w�1 sa� -� ! �
��� >•`i� o�j �' ��� �ixo'. �a„3! ��t'i ��s $S
��� �S:I ��i �v; <3i �€�m� ��3 ���; o�� ��
' �:: . _ ' _ '
�: _E =i =i �; � ��� �j �; �� _
:'�_o• ' :' � o �o .0 ci ..
.€ ' � ' '-
. : , __ �
a=_ x � �_
�: � ;_ , � � i g .
�c S � � i _ � 8+ i
�� � l$ �s i�$�� ;
'°9 = � � � ; ! �`' b �
Y,� � : 1 :
�� ; � i �r= -� � i
^ � ,g=:
�� � ' � � 8�; �$� = I
tw '
a' � � �Z� >g� r ;
�" � '• �,; �>: �-: :�;
,�s xn ..$ � o� • �S B'3: _ ' :
�
_=� � j gi't �+�'i ' �' g^;
��� a ! ��� ��� �3i'8�
�s� ��� =�i �.�' °'.�; �a�
a�� -'' y i ��; �
3�� �2�i :sS� ��� a.�: �g�
�i �: _
; � . i � { � � ( , e I ' ! � ; .
� � i � � �� i I �
_� �����_ ` ; _ ; � .� �= i �� � _ .�: 3: �;� ; ��
��g' g�s �R' „' '� � � ' � 1 Q" ! !� -"r ti g.. �' s�•` �: �'
� � �' i2; ��i'g iy$o; #,� i�s� ,�»� `�� i$��g�� 3 �, �: �a���: � .
s� 2,. IAx� «i S�$^� � ��gi'@a' ��� (s4iss'� � �E" .�:_��� g:
E: p3§j�''ii€��Sa���':�� i �'e�'� i�� ���i�S{ �„ �a�:g�'$€: �.e�� � �
�� a�?� ��� �_' z�� - : �� ' �x; $_ , �� -�` =a� �= � �=� �$ �g` ��' 3?
G 1¢� �� ► �W ,� �m c,� �s » cP i� �� � i a •_
; ,° - '� ,� � :�_� � � _ ' _ �
U o� €_ � a � E I a n� ' � � - � � :�� - �� •
Z ; a� � �� ;'�° '� �� � o� =3�? � - = = w:� t a�,• �R•
¢a e � ' �� I E�'�'t8 :� - � =- 8St � 5 . $ � g � �y =
Omn�n � ;� � ��:' �a` s '�„ � s� �o; $ '8 = ; a �'� i �� s� •
� i � _ �. �� ^ � �� �. S - � = . s � �L � , „� n� .
o' �� I =^���n�a �' f :�g� � � } E o �a '
.� a) �z i 8��:3�co�� � � � L�: = u '$ ~ E � ? 8e �R
�� �� � ��g� �'f ' 3 i �_ :��v a 3 g j $ $ � �� ��
W o i m�._� `�� � c= o� "�m� ^a '6`' _ �� 4� d_
W �� �c � ms�� E�' �E : c�• a"� ^ ni� .� _ r, ' c e_ uQ
i g . �w. . -. E'' L$ a � ' �; ;_
�"'_ � `=`�' 9;g G`�c; �N.;�i ,'0,6 ��i g$ ^^, 3;.. _ �� - o�, �� 4€ �
� s� � ! ��N s3 . ...; g$� e d� _ - ;� ��z = .'.s� " ;^_ �s` __
,e9 i - ;_,� co '�. •,1 s=� a'o M3 __ -= -' ag � 3` N�
m s Z .s � $'� �� '" �a� �m� ""NS� �c' ��� ac o� -.�� a� - }�i - �u.
Qo �a �.�5ii �,s���3:�#:��' �o� <a �� <s <.z .c <z .. >o .-� s=
= r �s I
"=s$
�E _ � I ci: o (
' � i i
� � � , n . o o • .. . .� ca c� a i m: . �.
... " `i � i � , �� � �t�'� ..
i ' , � � ' ` � � _. . _' . ' ...... �
� � s
' ! ! � , t ' , �. t � �
- � � _ �� ��,� � ;I a; �. ? � _ "_> a �6
� � _�� �n y� y: " : `� >o =., .. ,„�
�G v�i$5 W»a j�kiYBf�a'wa$ i9ilj a�,�g ��� �se� �' g`~��,Xs1
�e O �� u=i'� � i�� �E"': ��f O �� � �_I Q �s; �a �; as �3�'_; a�� a z�; � e
' 9c � e�` 2 0 1 u .
y � � F- Ta �+'1 m i $��
� .�' t m� : ac '� ,� s � Q Wy 3S�t
�� C� L m 0 OC C m Y�l O�_ � t m m
'���_ ~=E� E�•��om'�' a�;m
�vcm m`ooa� ��0� a0' 'oZ•-c
�au�i= irCE o��t mo m`oiu�c�
"' C m v � G�,O ,C v m v) V m � yi � ov+i
O
m O O O � m m L p N O�` m N m � cYi O�"
.y. � � m� m N 'O C C V r m V°� �
�'� m° m c� �$ E v m�°� c V m= o'
oy ty � m�... � m N t0 'O C E 3 D'� m N
o■ �pA �.A3E -'�03o EE�o�m� vmooE
t� �,
09 ■� 9 L m�� m 3� m O� m � L m G� N O Q� m r C 0
>� � m E� c� E o.i � m� W o_` �� z x i
_
�mm�� m oo mo. m 9- �m
, �
c 3� n � � m�� A �� a�� m o m� m m�
� mc •ao mc m �m .v, q..Emo
m m O G y @ Y C C L = N �>'O � O� y m p� �+
...�.�.�.�.C. .Y. m��.L....�...wp O m..N..m..0 ..m N N E.�.
m qmc m_. LaE�-y� �mim�
a3m�� mcD� : ��Em�rn ooc�0
PR C m, a 0 O C V �9 O � �� �7 D
r4A m� g'mc W oma°_' m.c�m`°_� c3oEm
'nm�_o �cmm- mvt 'oca mom`Eii
,�L^-c "0>t`o .cc-maom �=Eoa
1-_��_ mG=.. c r m� m m c�t tp�a �:
�� i
s
�
•B
'k
;�
_ z++_...-�' `C.5 ;,
_ _ _� ':',.r�,��� . .
, :A _ _
•��,• �� . .y�. -. • Ij
._ � �.�� • . . = . ' ' � f
_• c.+�• `� . -- • • i
. ..�w- ,� �': Y••. , .�t � . . `
� �v� = ��.r�:i� Mt� ��"t���. . . e— �. c — — . �
�. _ _ . . .. , � ..... .��... ..� �
�. ' - • �; •• • �
��•�.= .�ai�.Ci� �:'.....-���m.;��, �
� "d�'� _� . ' 4�' : .� t� .� - s'::� - .
::� > t ^°'' "_
���':�•:m:ID � L '�'m � .�,, ' � ir I
��' SL�:'C . � • •+d0"pj� ,m r t • • v I
� � +�=� .�'�� _ � I
�`ti: : .� � ,�,.�-, = � - �
�:��'�`�:�-�" � . s "` � ��� "�' _• =- . � p ..
-��
.� � .:�. . �a+ ,�� :
a :;re,:,� •.c,-.�r�' �.;:�c� .'i �, - . q
c �las•= �.::.s-.���.•m � � . :. o
�~ m. �
o� ��a-���.� ���� � _ '��
� � F���'V � � K .. , �'_ _ '.'!.."X�� ��'
0� — �l.�M:.� }'�� • � ".�.i ' i
~' �.. .. � �'M�.•Q .N C'�N j
CD.�� --w. :�, �� .Q ,�. . . � C j I
C=.�:�:� ;z,,,, , ."�. ��� . . • ._'"' 2v C'tJ I
{5 4.��;.'�_�:!=:`�,� "��p �'`'� �� �'' i �
�� ti N
p � v �i "w �X� = r � df .`p��"!v''m C . .-� .a� � I
� O�. � �' �-t' a,� �- W C� p O� CIl 'cM
o. W:o :a �_�.= a�� c n o y c� =`� .=; �
o.-m: m: :� �^-� �- . � :o rs � •� c � p ea e�s
C; n m Q•_ >�- O.. � o� � t.� C� C�
�a ia � ., . .:. �. ,,o .
!!� �-.:� ..� �:�` j
� � blC � � • ;�` v:+� •?'� D � ..'a . �
���:�.,m W � . �.3 �� .�.. . � . �f.-t. <::-qp ;�.: " .._..
�-� � �. �.� � .� �
�` a� c��°"' � Cj '� s• a �„o c � m e�u w .� x �,,, � a� '� an
.,
f ��U �°' " ani o�^ o �� m ad'i �c' �=� ` °' .� �� c � � � ��
�w>-ci ��"� >' a,���>,� °'.���°' �'a��a�>, .-���oa'>,�
� ���� x�� � ai � o :� o.'� � �F' '�� m �a o � o = e°�i.^� o �•� c�.� �� �
o�; .� .�o�c;� �o�.c�A� -c�a�x `•°���.�' mA'���a,�
u'a`�ioC� aiz:ca"'a��>o �,a r=°m�ai' ':"�c�c�tw rsl�a�i�,y>� ^aip„..`�a'.rti�+�o
' � >a y � v1 > � > CV .� a y .,,, "►�y+ > � � � � ..., �A � � ... ,-r � O a0 .� .� LL m
' —�f m �."C C :^� '-L�^^ON�+A ha "GN n�iA.0 � �w�� o'� ��."" � ��r-' •�U'F" > � v.°�S'o
p �..' � � � d +-� ^ d .-i f�.. +a .0 � ^'� C j C �6! u w > O >
' ^ N Li ' S L�p�: -.. d.C." d G �. �, 4, 'Q; � tS! y
.. m '`-'ai4:.c`�� �o o�y"' � ,n az'iU d"'[""� � c� ��"-. 0 3 �>,� � ai.'�"' c.�� �� c y p„a`�°i
..� �� a. .c c. - c� o a a� c� ca a� �S. -a �, CA �c
• m � C� � � � � � er �s Q � z, � � o "� z�„ > A :r'. � .� y .a 'ry,^,, ;a ,«; a u � o �''o c -o y �fi+
� ' � ���.��:� °�'�>uw�� a����.� ��o��� `��v=� „"'��a,,�
' .: cas.m..� �a�„ p'� .s. E. • U� ;car.o v Em:ve�..., '��,.�pob
� � �; t� }°' tw'i tuo o� 3�`° +,Y s. i�0r '� QS ��.. J Q�� f° %Y csi x��'i o a' �, aV , �%. Q 4. .c tn
, 3� � > o�r o...t� 3• a� _ s. o y•^w x o.� m m
m -� ��O O� �� e0 w O"C y w � t„ G�^" d d =� d,._'d � y 'y� G• �%'i d+' o'"-. yC � d q�p"� �.�.a
csf
� c� -:,AU�r�a.o f� ot� olr�E!.°' �-oL�A�°�.� .:cJ�.;�t�G4'.;� W m�AL� v�,r°.' Wr'�f� E��,3�
f
�
� m 'a
�
�
C�
C_ �
�
�. � /
� i
c�
:d ;4
C ,..,
C �.
'l.
b ..
� �G
J�y
w �
v: �
.i� �
oc
.'�n
C .^..
� � C
E:=�
�
�
O�
._ M,x.C"'�
,� ., ,,
rbE���a�i�,=
C � � � � � 'l.
ro C y„' S' '+� t�/: O
.G •"'�V ��u
� f; ;j •= G���^:
y � G•f.w �
I' ti.^C O J4 'J. > y
N w • �J �w L'�
C� � c... :J
p:s C y G, � 5��'
=°:° o.?�'�� b w:�
� l ..� .0 Z:, 'sC'� � cv0
d � :.c s ,� c ro .�
�c.�SLC•�,s�,,'u:o
C •� •� '� � •L ,S O..�a
. � � � � v � �
:V �
=a�.�o�s�'�
c
b
r
'�.O
i�+
T.
s
L
c�tt
�,
O
�
0
bG
G
G
'�
� :�
z�
�
3
�
v "O
c0 ,4;
O ;�
3 �
'� a
��'. �
'I. �
a�
d �
H .�
�
c o�
� "" •II :.
� c.� b� c'�v ?9 y c a,.� � �
� s87,cc�»3aa3.�u�.c�o e�
y :a�a�v�odx0`4=ac.,�� :
. . .y .0 y OJ G'r .� "� � E L, � � �,y'
N y�'C^'jy� di1'i0.:1 J.. p�'
� �' 9.' u: ... ��., �•
�. ���'a���������
� .G "`30 , J a �+ aa cd y � � •.. .0 C f"+
E" .� ��.�°�i�a�b�� .�
.; 3 `.� n� .� .� �
'� .:0.��.wt.�.. ���w L�. �"��'" �
� b.G..� ii�� � � Os�uy�`'T'" O
•� "�L'0 a�.r��a pa� y p�s Ow �
� a� .° 'v ,:q � ^� 3 3 U � a � � c�i
o � 'cs. e+
�' i° ^Cy�o�"
QE-� C` c�JC i r."7. F�', .'� c�v c�0 �r3 G. G.� Q 4
� �w
v: C y C .� � � �
� ro O �O � C 6�7 O��
� .y � y � :C q�,� .^.. ".� :3 i.
.0 .�. f• '� � "G
+'>a�A E��� ou�.
� •� �"C > '+'a ''a C` � �. O
��-1 G i 'i.. � J� � ��
^ G � cC 'C t ��'' C ,�p � .�.a
� ;SS 'O � .�.� y � ' i U% CJ �
�;,d.'�'_s� � o.� � E,�r'
^ '� G :�. � � � V . : .� '�
.np � o .� rG. � ,�= C � �
�3�� _��� ��`��
" y^ v_ n � �S c
K „yd :C G „''n_. O . > r«, �
� � +� „C '�»" 6i = �
xarr� �.� 3-a �¢ � � :r
�
c �
� y c
: .� ':
� y �
.� C 1
Jsw
�.x0 � GG7
�; f C�.
a
ro 3 b'c
�� ��
L � ��.r �
S
� � � �
� �
� o = �
Fa��
_ � a.
3 ;;
�c�oo.� �a
� �% ^O '� e�s u
� .�' '� ° C aXi :r'
:q � � � C ,r :0
';� :4 � e� !.`�, G �y
,L� V' Y d :7 a r.
O C�,' �� 6� "G C
C "O �� ^ �= w' t'�.,
O � �:^
� � v'^ >,� O„
� .., ^ 3 � �, -�
i :� b :o :.' .�.� �
'� � � ro �o�,t°_u
N o.�Z � 5^C
—'- �
C
� 0
Ql
m C ��
c = 3 �^
p� w` OC
C 3 � r. o
� C p '� Of
C = t � � C
� � o � C
J Z �� m2
a
ea
�
0
�--�-� --�
r
� •� u y �
� • . �
O 'C rL.t � V v" "a 's^. .s.,
_ � V � � � �,C. .�C w y O °r -C
3= 7� C�C C tC L O� .0 p� �
� "C C G. 6� r.� „� rr. :i
•� 6� ..�.� t" �� m r'' C�C .C'3' C CGJ E L
� E "� � .b O
��
�� OC C7 V"C � CJ � y:
y � � °� w CCI O = '� �Q�' v >;, ,�„`�G
y O.� ,�' �' y hR'i-ti W �;SS '.�'.
C ..� �J
•bpO��G' v' "'`C = "'Ga � p "L'� •� 6Li > G
C^� i 3 �,C c• S J �>�.0
� Ca v. �,: � +.�
� a� .0 !sC .^.. c� o
��' 6� C � � L '— L C�
G`:�y�.c 3�3E-�.�o =��s"c
.0 v � C .0 � � C s- �
y � 'd L" C � 6�°7 C7 C�' � �r C � .l •� �
� �CC=.:: � . ..+ > y"CSG L C 5G�"�
:C.�.i�La CGC �e�.�.�.G.: C.�L'f�,:.,�
!.O'" 1�° 00
�' �` �
A -C � "C d � y .�C
„v.. y L ..a e0 v ,> ,L ..�
�e. �„� .�. 6> M � O O l, L hf. .�
�M b � O. r�r,�.�J �'Cs�C ett
0 C C�tl.� >,y `O �y 67 G'r� c'c0 x" G�'��.6J �
s �o � ,� c ,
�,,oG � � v�,�E l..�ss��,� �,�'•C �
� � E �s i � G y� �> � � c > y c �— �
����u.c v..c..,ioc��•Q>t�o.5��
�y � � .� � � ,� : y .> ae � �' � ca C C � .c :�
.�yc��._ �;:o.LGcC� °yL'�3�
• c��� � i� a; a G g c a�.� a c c� L�'_
CCG'H�.wO`C � yQ; � y�i 4% 'ti G�1Z.C'
.� .. � "C '-� C C � � .++ > � � t��` O1 C '
' ayj CO > � �.��' _ .: '. L ,,,� �^J �..Q 3 y .� b .�J
. . ....�G...��G;� C V' r`��,� ��...Ti � .�� C�.j=' E C�
� e'�a�r 3�� � = o d> � v.? �c� u c� E
�x .c .s •� � :o m �x .., o :v � ._ ,.^. a � , v
•. __ .Wu�rf>>�:.�: Gw b.� oJ.: GZ..� oG.a �i
r
O
�
} .
�
i�
.
�
�\ ..
�
,�
I; 1
��
.,
�'i�`' ; ` .
- �-
= J 3 s s x: � 3�X T _ a r-"� - r � y
>- = - ^ - -- y 3 =� - - ' �- �.-
- �' c - � � =s
_a? "� E:� -� ss= ?=�� 3 a- F-
. �3 -x� 3 .._ : "o=� ' _- o�
^I � G = � � T 3 � 'l. � � F � _ � Y X > = � � � ^ C
� � .. � � � • � = f �.e �.^ � � � '� �. �
^__ ��' r � 1� �_^ C r �.d ' � C 'Y C X
3 ;= 3_ a= V "' = _g� `'�'_ _ .z _ >._ .; =s �S Z y��
� `- >> ^i - 3 =: . '�= ..� ' - _ L 3 � E �.�2
'l, .� � ^ � � � � G L ^ � � a ^ � X ^ ^ ' = � U ?' t%, � x
�- � C t G.' 7.. E j�� C C q� � l. YL y ^ G� L O
s'- �3 5=- ��==�- E"�=_ E?x izaxc ef�'�ca
�3 sc A�= 22�� �5i'' '°�= ca�.. _�yW Fm
3= 3.; � 3 3 Hs �='= a'c = - �L 3__S 7 m �� c e
•1. �r= :n � = c _ -3 2 �_ :i: '-_ . . i � c > . z ¢ziv:ma
W �
ci �
��
�
� N
W C
� �
0 �
J 4
� •o
J ��
� d
Z w
Od
¢
�
, �
C � = � s = � >
= _ _ . _ ' c - _ _ > - _ � � � : 3 - .
_��=c=-3 -- - �s- ? � _=3 = .•r._ �:> -c �Z
3 ^ -�' _ ac = � _ > z �-T= ��., _ _ f - - " 5� 3 _ i
_` ' �_x =�r ___ '-- _`� ^3= ___.
3��` + �'�' ` ='c� ^'=^--' x-r -1- ' = 3�c,�-i
^ l ' z V �h � y 3 � _ V' � t C�' 9 � t � � S J � _ � � i % C .� � ` � �
C r c � 3t= Y � .=�.c � �' ��''= cq �.. ^'�'�= �'= j �' - � c�= � i:
y �� ^ nY ? � c' - '�= a.__ � ` � - ' x t _-? :vc - _ - c•r. �
R=3�� 3�. m•a� a `=ti ��V�?c=' �==c y�v `Yy �c.
�+Ea's= �,�it 3c.c � u.3.� �c3�3c-y�-: ra-'z c�i='� c' �����
� ' c = ° ^ ' - = = -
e . t ._ ' en y r� .; -G m: S„{�m :� � pi'Ex • c• ' i a-y - r•f-
� q:., z a j�+ � 1_ �? : �_ m�== �_ z E � Z ''r v 3= m=� s=_� �
_� ^ •E. �, s.
g� � 3 � ^ d A E E i � Y' � � ,= > > E E c � � T - R " = � ' _ _ � � -� � � :L - �
0�:�2Zu:�N� ��oA -�i C7�M3. SX�.���`c� J.�-.Z= z^- . J3s.sc�3x
_ - 3 3
'a 3 � _ s -
__'�E,�
= -= �
� � V �
3_�3.yJ
�" _
c - � ? `v_ �
_ 3 q � s5 ?
� L
.. �' �'=.�'
R f ' �, � �^ 7�
� � ? s ' �
Zm= �=o'�
� 'C
G 2 � a ,� � �
= 3�--'' =j �'
i� � 9 .'� L'. � .:
>
� s�o � .l ` i=' r� ?^
cr �'° a ^ 3 j 3 � Z: ?s s= = == c
�.i-�+ �q� �'=<:' i =9�_ _-. j
�_ :.
`� 3 c _ y_� _ �i m =y � � � _ _ __ -s � V C
-omy�c.,c rc��=i•1:5. - �c =^' �_'
,G � �'i0 C?y t � � �"�S � C '{L - � ^ � ^? �' ='i�
= �
y �;,)y��xEv �.ai�_z.c-• 3^`Z� >n_ ''6�
�L:`=�vo+3r . n .c3z_� =Z="s '.�r .=_
3 >C��oa`+4Z ��S �3_Z^x ''�=�1 �`_ c ��
� J �.� � F 5 � -x _ .E y ^ y _ '� r _ _ ` _ �r ^ cL � °�
o y �� � ��c 32 y q :�; 3 � � -� 3 _ � ^ _ s = = � X = :r ? _ _ c
�p t_''9 �•;E E �x � = ==f " =<: - c �'v�'= c � ^ �
G �qr� a♦r� 7. �s q _ � ��= ` _ _ _= = _ C = = �� �
� S i['G C:/:��'V.. C �o= � .. � = � `.j = ' .. �� . � � �
p'Y:cS.Ty=cs"' '^�°"=_=>':= v.z3=i� '�nl�,' =pY�;'e
'T�p�G7tYJ'.�^c-�q �C = c7� =._— �c ���i C-�
10 G � C = or rS � � = %- � �Y� �`"- ^ r � - 'N � �
L� '�tic -: ^`�- i5 __ �t
x m� � .c 3.s�= �_�x � m=-'- �c : S� u. �:r.;:
3 S or �'¢ a'c � G ""
S
�
. ........ ..�
�>'��i ! � },f.. �_ i' 3 j'_a
'S''� 1 ir 'y' 'f S_.
� _ "�4 -. :'- -_`_,�rs=�
/� z *��t.=� :�
�� =a
�I � i �� — 2i=, E�?i=didT �
__
2'S�' �t - •'� __e �- .
�
, � . . � .. . . . _ �
C �
- �.
2
O
� �
\ /
�
� �)
A � C
L '! O � C Y �� � L
Q �d„ C
N D'" ,�Em''md °8
`c
� E m ..
° 3 a � Z U N c rn ��
.- � r � N y � � ;
> m= �' '-` 3`° y m m w g
�oEm� ��3�mE 1pOa.
O p,C T y� L m�'C o m
� y N� N'O tA V G' � O�
y LLD y�y=L O C '�
:9 N~ �� �y �
c c° i. U 3�a vi ,Q Z' �
t0 O y y L W p Q� L N Ol O
E^� ao Z°'^ N= a�i o
O1
��`o,�m o�mcn'i�: V m
°' 3 mcm�i._ oE
a_w`
m��°i oE=ELaN '>c
i tn O V'O N O� �'T �C � m'
�'� m m 3 L c� a� o° � o
6i o��-cN� c�3ooE m uE
==�°o� �wg'6�a3�N do
�i .�. C t9 d 4? V� 01 T'- � N� Qt
t9 w o u o` o � o� c Em r�.- �
�r'=-om°L �.` 3oa�°��'L d��
6l
O � C
C y
� � C
p � O
� N �
T d y
C1 C V
O �;p
a= y
m y
= o '�
C 3'
O U �.
y � C
� O O G
_ y d
N � N d
7 J D �
ry O >y
J �' a 9'
N
� C � O
mm�
�` � = N
N
.�.� a T�
N �
> � l7 �
wo>c
C N�
p� y Y
C N�9
� ^�> �
tC0
NLE°
- E9
a.,� o a
mm'flc
m
��z�
N � �
�'Lc�
��a�
'�
O � L y
m T y �
�
E m � �
�p y L C
t m E �
a ; 4rn�
�_�° W
:`�' �• .a,��1
� �
�"
► .
'.y".. � � � �'
a m �
� t �
O � O i. ,
U.. � � • '�' �
0 m p�
C L � � C
m �, r��io. � �c
� 9 � C q Z m� m!!� C
J � � u�i � � 3' lC0 � �
�rn°:91°� `��E
C y� y m� m�
t?0 N W��¢ U� N�Q m
?� � m� C m m W ^
� " °'N c� �= >_ �acT,
N as � ot>�= `� E °
a= �r � m�
LN$_`ma�`o^�gGf�6�mg
m��m� t E
� �
`w �,�U y E��'}r'� ��
v N g��$� E rn g H�
o� C��� y E � E o�
a ¢ �� m.. �
C O � � C "p � ' � m m �p
C �� � N 6E7 �!C E i
C
��p N='� C G N N m��
r�3a�� � �a:=�v
� `°
��
d
W ;9
� N
W 'fl
Li' �
A �
J�`
3 O
Q d
� V
0 d
Q
Q
0 �
� Y �
5�3 i'
s
� � f x � •�'� �`-
° ��� �
m � � € �€s g�
L N C S]� g8$
Q g 5 ..7P
A � � � �,��F� ��=F .��5
.O � p m V ���� �� .^��a
N d ��Y�
z.in � � � ��'e� ��a3 ��e
p1�L� i�N ���� �� ; ��4
G� m 0 NtC � G £3 �d
� o ; m � � a��� �j
mdW E � a�f� s
$ Q�. �.' Ci m Q. ! � � � F� 1�. ''i' �
o ;��� �..
6�j t e n � �
_ �
'° m E m� m,�
m �`p � ^ N L N
t T � Q N � � �
lC Q(� � V�, C� C O
� �ai � c m�v• 3-
HEoa�wmomt
� m� m Y'C = C l0
m����a.�-�c�3
3 p7 � -9 E � a
N C'_ it d p �
� � � :� N � C Q m �
m� m,p 1�
��m c `° �'��
� m o �, A m�
aEim3�"w�a.g�.
Ol � y '� � C � 10 �'
� y�� L d N> > m
u � c � � � a�i,$ � i,
E�'�'°'E`v,'4�°>�
m � m d
N 3� O C N N C_
N
iC � z N .1� �` �
d�'S N L � m m.�
�Ncw�`�$E33o
� l0 N � �
O C; V' N A�
01� Offn =� d C
C O
L O¢ L C~ a�
�
y � O � Q� � N
NEv9d�o'S
C � G 1y0 0�7 ,O � 'C
m � o ; a �o � '3
n _ �`_ c
� � Z ` � U � G
��a,o,m�L$m
N� m� p� G tj D
�� io o. � rn a�
1y �. fOL� � �L
� N � C �
Q5�1 y m � ��
uj " � CCn�� � N�
^ 01� C •- m m �
a� Ey�cW9�v�
r 'c m
o �= a� a� � c
�'�
� N �i � � O N �
� OI m w jA C!� Ip y
Q'SSmtOLm�
N `
� �p
O �p i.Q g�
9 L m C �
m
!C9 T # d N
N C = _
t E � � = �
� 7n.� � �
,�����_
m m � � �
g� p, N C m
rdE9m�3
�oo,.�m'�m
� � C # �(,t m
(,J N ` 7 �
O.Y pytp � � �
�.G = NL N
� y t0
C:� Y
m � � �o � �
O ,L � Q� O C
0 C N 9C (p p 'p�
� N O W L U N
�
a
�
�pC� ��p
C a G'� y 0
>
� m y ; W � �
d mg�.>��
��,a ma9 ���
� O W � C
m„-� �o
ov-�t ��a m
�`����m;a
oa:a�� m g'�
� 3 p >_ c eo
d ma��m� m
3g=�¢Z��
�;,�: a
°m=�"� �
.#s.�Y�a �,
o h �a $
QO L� m � ul
y d m�L� 01� �Q
H 3 t=i O tN0 J�£�
�
O ` � f/ C
L d O ` .� .Q
� y T � m� m
� N N T � U
.iC ap� C -d C N � �
m C L.G U� y i7
t..) � q ~ g $ .E ,imn
E
€Hv���'°�
°��
m= m � m m m°
m pi y) �� y`�p l7
N�
� J � ' A # � ,H
.c����y�°,3�
�Y > m� '`}}5 N � U
l9 � N Tj � .� N
E:9ymU=Z�
�
2 �•
•
��� $� ; �
a
��� �; ' ��
I �
� � � a '
� � � � �
t i � �
•
•
�J_ _
�,. 1—=�� . '
♦ �
•
� �� � �
.�
�• � P
.� �g
„�
� � / \
i
1
�g ,
�a �
p���l
i �
� � , ,
,
� �
w � '
N Cn' � � � �
� � ` � I y ;
o C� � A �
Q
fA O � � �
� � �
�i ' ' � �
m :6: :%i � 1
, ,
, ,
�
.;
.� � � � ; ¢�� � �..�..� ... .. ...... . .. ... . .
6
�, g =
�m
���.�m���.�;=�
���.-,�_� �
€�t�°'��� Q ���� �
� ���I q �L'i Z �
.�m�r����3���
m�
E���B�m.�� �
¢ m
����
� �£ c��j8 �p p�� 0
3 mo �.�2'�g N o �'�,�
m �t-U gp ��.. e�'S
���ic�C75��£m���
���.���o
U=m y��
��� m���—
H � � N � C
�3= E�m_
_,���o
���� � ��
d;���,��
m./�p �mm�
p •L � N N � N . .
�g�s_�d°'
s � y E O ._ '�
YI N � a 1y9 � � . .
� �{� V Z' O+'D 3 y
tC
C g C `
Y�i°'n EXd�
Z !- 3 t�i 'l`� U �'
�
� -
� �
� A
°,'r� �� �B
d�y `� � $��_ �.�T 3m�
� � .� � = N � N ,� � � � y y
y v� �c g'
'a �
;�•�o��' ���;��$�_�=3
�a��=� �a�EBy��;���g
'�8 �� ; y,.� `.�� �� � miC
'° �� ���.� �»mp }�
� �_ � � y.��.� Q'��`
r '` N���g� ���m-
N�gz� � m��� �.�a � �,� �
� ����L C�Y � C � 0L.'O.~ ; r
�c ��N ___.�a�N�:�Q_, N�
m � � � � � � � �p � L Se ID N � � � y
Lm �p L
!� �� �J C1 'r ��� ��ra �.� lp �
E
��$��m���
� fn m m�� �( �W
Ly � Vp1 N
(� � 41 � }' '(��9 t0 y O �
��E�=�''r��
a,� c� �� c��'�''�
Q`�gji�'�,,'' ¢c� m `� �� ��a—
= L m �� Tn.�.� W O
Y � � �.� m VI �.�... ... ,. .
'p �
�� T� C Y� m Y N� 4
�p m C
� y � 9 � L N = � _ �
_��Lse=���°
.�_p In..y..m ��.r..�..�. � � ..
G � U m � t ..... .....
E g't �
mg'=$,; � � °'�A�
y G . V H
3 �� c,E_ m o�� ��
C�
�
� �
� ��
�
r
�._ :4!"`tt.'.�'S.� .
V q
�
m
W ;,°
� N
W �
W q
m
O a
� O
J m
� m
� �
� ¢
H
Q
0 �
' �
r
a
c :' �
'm o
�• {di y . .. C . � =
J c� � R E rs
R
Z � a°. ¢ E Q, s�
��� m ` c y o t,
O �03 � � zc a` -
Z c 's °' �' v
R
O �� O � .N O O Ol + ��, r :
� � N U Q d tPlf N.� Q U^ ^ �.�T C� t
Q �:'m ��'in ¢> ti ��niv � �"�'n�, C�
.g c� � Z�nz �, =a�u�a^, �u'z�, °�
tL c� m myt� �'� '�m �`ra cv%�e�
'O m�a :, �mm.� NN • Z¢ '`'i^y `�•j;v_i:v
Zd o � i.� � m� N o u� �n ` .9 0� Z i.� � �' n�:
� ';�; � rn �� i �a v o m_.,. -
C
Q =�� j�l �� ��W'EGNN E y���a� �.Z��c .
W o_'� :�"'�omio . a�x o ��u_c2
Wa.-�.. �c^ot...... � �ooS '� `^ .
Z_ W � s�cmima cnv�m�nino. �=
�P ' �
ts� ° � �m ! ;
. y O vi Q,.lCO
� T l�0 d Cl L� W y C� m S] � .. T� ` H'
�' m ii � m o �.� •- �. U E
y n d� y� N � . N� I9 N Q .. . W N O G�
t9 V� F d N N� G � 10 N. d =� i i r.
�p ..R � CJ �,. � Cj
� y t 0 N.. y. 1 �. ��� p�= d Y l0 l9 - . tl,C V �. G
C 7 Ti L� a. p) N d � U� Q��_.s
y�'ob> a_v)'"mm cm m�o
� m o E-.,�= m'�a A a�i m m o�LU
mm> °uma.a ;Ea 2yuor'
c.cc •c-
_ �
g.c�ma>Om�n=Ecmt y'"muo'ifl
E �E¢ad`� �°�c�c $�o 0
��g A �_ g,��—� E�, ,,.���¢
Nm���mg3�mmr.m fOc�cU
d� O C N 7 � m�'�p O> C m 4
N= y� C C C y 2 Ta �� �� a�_
y m d N O �� mt�� m � �20.Z b
dmmL-��om m
p� ;(n 1� � C) N fn � 10 �p3'� ; ��11 � Q
p Z' C �01, t L C C�� C�' C �1 L7 '� � 5�
Oomca,5�m ;o O.
� � _ � � y m L �' = LO C •G 0 � = N ;
mE2�°����g�EE 9�'m���
a. E �, �
m'�= N
c g'� c
d,C �.O
`7 ry � �
U C -
a�N�N
� � � d
a E�d
!C ,x d � 3
t� ��rnm
� m�D�
c t .. � a
l0 3��
J � � V m
c C N O =
t9 � _ !" 'c
c ��>�
E °s�'�
� 'o�o,m�
B uLi$Ea.E
,
$
�C
u
v
m
E
G
"c
m
g `� g �� �4 �
=sm���' a`�'�
m'TLry.� ���-(p=
mcC�����m�°pcEp
3 C�� � lC C CN m�.
� � � ANtti��
aE��'�'� '�_
N°'ym�.-^s�'$S.�N��+�
E m.0 $�C ��'�9 QI++ N
,�mm
m= o= a �� y � 3
�=m��=$m�,��gm
��s��.s�—°m_����
m C m E°.e� �' � y�b!��
L � N N W �.� �� �;� �
C =L= NL � 01� �j N�Y
Y�,��O;�GOmYGy E
a`
N�Y�p�����royC?� �
F � � U � � � � E � � L V �y �
. L -' � i. O �n
. . C 3 uGi C= r1
ccym�L
�t¢2a=
� w _ d A 3
y��^'_ �
t �30�' Z
m aZ V N y
m dd
_ ���3�a
3 t0=c'�m �
Y D d 2� a
4 �� E L' C d
{ � 3� O l0 � A
� ��Om3y.�
� E��pai ap�
C{� O p�tlj� e90= C
Y c s� c d�N �
%
S �G.'EmD�m
� >N C
� �:mo��
�=tq�'��m
d�aoSa��c
�m L L � � �(,� �
m O N �C ` m �
Z'��i9 3/0`�
N N d yy� S C L
m = yL yL��,,.�
G.'�= �yqi�m
m�v a_ �
�'g�g.��Y �
�—�`°���
'�` �o - y ,Y
m3gc�vSr
� t � $.� a,� �
>�' C d = � N
nN�go�g�
Y C N � _ � � N
�pm�cy yd'e�
E= A v Z r�
¢ ��� H ��i
m
>
2 Dy _ � id € E� � ��`�' �i2
m N N.y � �y CO �� 4 Q Y ^ �rt' O
R O �'� E.� f�.�7 . T+G � C' 6 R 2 6 � C 0� � a G
Z U � U m .`. = IC� � f: N R PIVC C �'R
r------, . � ¢ 4 n. LL ; i. c Z � @ � � u a � � $�—
. �' ��' �`r _�� �' � E Nn�� ic�� .EE�
'�6��t�'. _.. = c R u 4 a a'== g'-
' � �{: � i. _ X a e3 �8i �cei � m c vRi �.N �Ei ��
, 'ep =,3.k mc cN � 4'm g, v�$.tC' ggm
• � . = C.' 'rt ¢ 2 L C .0 U;� O 10 C y
r t Z i! tY.' .. T 1: �y C V s Ct ���
� . ��:' f L! G � �� N C Tj ' N R�' .`. C t .
�` �� � L C 4 C 6 6NI U^ N� C C A d �` R � ry 9 ..
� C� Z � L Q,, ���y,,,iii
�_, t_. � � C! C R 7 L C� � R,'a�, (�C^. C�j C v C�p p � N S:..
�E'°` G=� >>� E'9E aR cp �° � a� am
Z tC � .�. Q � � 'S � ` . t ? 2 T i C � .: } C � L uyj � � � N � ; �
Nm cn0�-.... .•: - vL��`gav=-�� vgBgF�t �a2
j c� '�"� =Q=''`—=�`��'Rd�'g�'°���,���E;€
j� �� ' CC �a'c>°'wa ;N.m-i2i Eb'a= ' ��Ema+
�� �EO��: �=� �:��:?�OR ��LL�:�m� mg�
=�:_a€�,� � ��$�
�
W �
2i
O�
a�
Q
N
W
0
°, v �
_
�¢ a
<
m U a;n
_� r
�
L ! �
V � O
'o : �
G { ;
> ' o
� ,c
� �
O , 9
0
a �
� xV
O C
C O
o , �
a c
� , O
a cLi
� i aN
O � �
E � g�p
O � �' N
v.p ( n�
�p ? a
G
; O m
n� r�
p=°� �3
C o
O Q � �'O
m ' oo
m O � 3 U
��i �D
cs a
�>� = $
m p
m�� �3s
0�
i
� � � i
C �� � ' m p
� v
p � W � � ' T
� � � . m
� L
� � ~ i 3 � m
� � � � '
� �
D � � D I �
i $ ' o � m
I >
9 a �� � L
� � A � C �
; � b
W
3 � " �n ; 19 Ev �
c .-'"o a � '
p � N � � � O
a i � a,� o i m �
i �
� ��SI� IT
� o
0 m ' p �
P ( L O I p �
m o im �
� s'
�� L� _m
� � Y C
� p' g� � c �
I q = �
-o m a
; �■� o �a
�� Op� � O
O � I L m C �
� O � m I i7 w C
q E �_
�� 2ml Qeol r�
71 �I v
"I '
_-
��
„ p.
U �
�I 0 N 7 �I o 7
o : ac s" „� o; =
I ' : o : » Wp : EI '� o
�.�'� �'� tl aEl Pi Q E�-I 1=$) o
N W
Z� W g� �Q � r� $ �� �
�•��. Y �I E �Y i`o� �E� E
�� � S) � a Z u�;l ��� ��
-, � � , �- �
a
m
A
�
0
ia
>
m
L
W
O
O �
-m �
c �
O �
c
>
h
E
L f
�.N',
�i �
m �
m 3
o�
00
n tp
C O
m '
� �
mo
c� E
m ' 9 I
g . : �m � L
Cl � � t'� i. m ' 8 I
m m �;� ac a �
L� = R � � I
� . cC�� ? �c a
f) � � RI � r� C m �
� � �
� m. u o�i: ' c m - I
� , �c'R,� � �2S 9 E U �
p � ;��' � . Y . Yj
t ! u� �nE P1 � � I
o �p c�o m �
L a= �� V n ' m �
y � � ajp 10 � > Y
_ U � N N�
Cl C� m � V C. 9 I
p m O �p m m O � t"f p
t o a = o. a
m �L �- 3 m m
c o� m�3E.o L' L
� Ym ��m O 3� �
m '�� c_o' ; 'pc =
,� ; Rt m O a j� O
C • � C ` > i � � U . m
°� �m o=a. � �� -
X .. Y �. �yC m �CQ =
��I �+�' o°c� o � �x "; '
'� `O` T�"�' O aY; g �
m O11 . �0 a� �� C p� � .
t� � p C� P{L i0 ' • C'O � C•
3^n. c r� � av; � ! i'�I 3�
C7 00 0:
� O� , �t ; p`m= ��' �` C i �N
18
oC aO1 an�. C,�: mw $
�o� C �p ta0 00 �� »�� C�
$�p� �m: �pC� oN� �+p' �e,
p�: 00. >�_• C'•: ��' Q�
am oc. `$�i' �'�a� m� Ec
5� �po G° o, pci mi °o
�o� fL'�� Uat' �u� =' 'Qo
i ��';� .6i .�'�_r_�-
T i c� f �
C� t/ ; U I U � (
_ �
i ' � � .
; � �
, .
! j ' . :
; : ��, ' ��
t 0� � M f � U` N
m� S�� r� i QE �� �°P
�A �`� LL4'"; �'�' i L � �q' n
•
(� _• Ea;�` I�G �� ¢�
O �_� a` � ; �a� �.)
t�i �O •� ,�-
W
O
'a
�
., : ^ " c i
� 9'' � � t _ � _g� g �' p �$ � ' ��
o eo m : $ � _ o E � m = ' d . . . � ; 'c �
c E a .ti'' E a .• c c. m. �� '" a o g $R' $� � i� 'o=
O m t � ai n� � Q$ m n � C 9 � • m ���j � O ,n . � �
n=m '. 9 i. - o L C L`m. . � r Q= i0 T ��_ � g O �A �'O x»
�i�^ vi:. co -t o n � � E 8 oa n�. _� ar. n e�m
i m m- m.. : e m 3• c a u_ �,r.. .�o . aL
a'cm c,• m'm e m c _in' n .�i o ' � ,i m �= �� a° o:
W � ��4m� aai �a '�°� t ; nm ; 5c 3N '° �� ,8�..��' ,-o � � ea
� aL?S �'m �C �'�' ;o �`m =E� am, m�� oo � �� ' ��p� $ �a �o Em
�= n O a.. � L�, a 7
W �o._ E� m8 =o m;r> > o�"e `m�n qoN =a = n �,w' �'" �s. E
� - � ' -�� .=a � �� a.B o . 9: uf � � ,ii� . ��3. 3' gc �a ic m
Q�� m cm °A o t- � mo �;o $�o a� � _$ °� ��• °>c � vo
� Dn•C ��D...�E �` �� � O�� �� � N C G � l'�9 S- �N
C m � .� q � �
U D � C O -6 O �0 > p. a'� OG G m u Y'0 _�. C� � � ..
_. C ..t .. $ L_ 0 � C�� � �0.. p� . . }� 3
■u�a La� �n �=c n�i �� c� �� ';� � -
; � ' '�' � a �
V II II 11 II nc �$ oV � $ � m • - -
.e� �� a:3 ;� �tx����$ C' �e $���. �Em �?m � . �.�
O c6U � � ��� o = g �a m_ o=. . �� o � o �b� ��� q . E `
maA ao o^w cm = �� E �,v�' 3° �t°' 'Yer 3 a...`o .ca 'c c
_ =sm �'� oa o� �a m� 9a =� mo� sW �•� =; �� amn o> = o�
• � O o � _ e.� m .��t• :�a.n�n. �� °0 3 ° " m°-�c.
6, ;qc �� '�o i.� a`° o.5a �E. --�'� ce� �t fi�' S �� °ma �o v t3
� QI uQ �� laam 9Cp . t�.. 'tCC 0m� ��. O 0� N. ����C= m� L{[p�
. V, q>> W'� i�i T 4 0� .� D C; �� !0 m� G�mn C � C O. C.. � m�= imC N Yt� �� �� P t9 m�• � N
...W�' =�= .�.ICO C� �G��. 00.� a� �m�• �� a�0•�� .�O�;t =�C a'� CG �i. Z'�!C n� 1'Y0Q �C
��. . NO CC O � ==� am.� �. o' ..=y�� t>�m rGi!'� mp �n OS� mp'C m0 aCi^ NC
�%v �'ms ,pe �� .��.. s ..N$i�.�s .�9� �: �$$ �� L�y QS ��...G�'; ca co 'o�°
q YQp O� .�Sp �c Cm $C � _ �d
W� a3m ma �,'a �a 8x mo ��i. �e ��°''m $_ L= `N °g 8=� �pm Y°-r' �°
D' � i �EL 3� o= do �E ois �m >n um� =m ao im $m � p$ =n t9�
�$ �� o��m mc ��- E.'_ �w Eo =� ��' mA.ic 3� c�+ mY o'-° ��n 6.c _= a�i�
.c b _ a mn >Dd � . Yy...�
f, a` og 'Oo� =n ?m ah. Se 4�' mo o; EmE ct $�3m`. �.� �mm �c S; c=p
a, n E m m= c•- E m a•9 m m� i0 n 'O m m G. e0 � �n C�D
�{�� 0� � m�� t G o'1 U �� O C� y� L N� m p E 61 Y N d E L N� 1t') �C N m a` � N'O Q Oi ;
r � C.4 = J N Vr,r � t 0 L,C i C e0 m t L . � �p p _N L� G � p O ly m '� L L IC L C +' C O po
� e8 p L' O: R <�N I�D @ In4 Q el LL� 1� � 6 m N 3� ►� O Q� gL � m�. 4 GO r� d� LL 7C1
•O Z�R
< � �J �� v ` � n ` � � � � ' � �e � ci ; ; � �
2 � a ' . -- --
� � .. ' �' � > > co � � � v
: n ,
� � ! i I U I vi � I
�
�
t
�
u � ^
; � a g a
C 4 C
^u i `e a � � c
O 0 � Q � � �'� y �. Q . � _ �
C 4 Q a
� � 4 y� �
c` I J ~a '!m ~m. �,�,o •o
V y I �U �� �O � � � ,� �W
i � � d
M
• C
D e
i
y ; .V.. � O
] ` .
G
Oy �C W � �
pyi' Q h0� W 30
ro No" Q�('�{E' X �
�� '�� N 8L"�.• Z �?
.��J�:��
0
m
O � �0q{ N
�'� � (� „
m i • V Z y
�a
st4 �y e
�y �y �_
� ,
k gN ` . �
ma Ji" : �+:
4 N 6 �
N C Yl N� G
C � h `y
� p � o u �' �
p a
� C O.� G o�j q•G
' �E �� 2 tt c4
, � . � �_ � ��, �O �n W
=� o-
� LL
� CG� O . •� Of N M A ��` Cm6� O) 7� y� m C O
� d�i M Q'C � t� � etf O�9 t g vi $ � y� A m A. m C`n W�
.� G tl/�L AqLII A►l �C U�"N/ m�� G„�,,, � m 6> j...
O C � G O C 9 m > C� yj. t0 V F�. �
`���a�imm �mEt°�a c`��oc .`°c �m �9cC7E
= n'n � 'fl :° 3 L m � � � °' = ' U � ° 'c � ° an, m c `_ � C)
C m.� m�. � d y N y G A.. C Q C� � 3' X V� w LL� C Q �p Q
� B O � 0i = ��� 3' tJ1 L m. !' C N" C Cp 9 a y m dj
'oa�c=� myo�am yc'yoE n'E9Eo .�wy�'o
�� m'�� � a� `yE�v �t � oL � E c a°i m� E� c � �¢ �a
� m� � ro N c�o m a � G y� ` y� c�o �� y c O� ���
� � � m � '> c � m
_ � Q,E$ �c H
•� ma�iA� ���y`°c �oa�� e4i3���o C�e�a°n,cc
• � s:.Em �coo._oi'm ��L� mmeoo m"E �
am�Wmm ym�E�,�� NaacLim >>�mo� o�c�¢��
c�a•--,c 'o= o � �cEtE m�°,��' a .m �
� 0 E � � .L�.. �� � � c � y m � � � � 3. o � L � � ? c ' Q � `� � o
■ l0 E E O m y y N A� � � 0 C� O—'D (If L.� y.'�.. m'D � m iff
.......G..w L. C.�. m...... �.. GI...E..N..(Q R1. C ...y.. y. �=.G, .... Y...O �. =.�..f0 .....� C�. �.� iD ...
ie3�voi3 =�e�am°`°E s`-a_Q.c m n'�$ cmE 9E
"= �_ E o y dN �' �o �� e� m o ��: � c m°'a-� m�
y��` d� vi c�� � u, _ am � � � �' a � a� E�
aa �v gt 3r, � � � �� �m g� $m `o o� m
�S E'm E� a-='ccoi n 35 `� m c �e o E ��'r m c°�L v�acZ� �
+
( )
c`J
c.. c� «: v
� c� .�c O �
o a� E- � � `
�oG �a� o�
� v � ~ w W,
�s
.0,�.� O.� y
• � r7 v 1�. 6�i
'y Rl � C� � 6i
�
•,,°�-, .� c a� •= 'c
���.>= ats
�
y y r.0 C w
� `� a'�i y �a �
� U� y.� i„ Gr' �
'►. ;c � � � - 04
= c � �'� 3 a
c� a' ` c $ .0 �
Q` C�°L' y y L�
Q' ,_ � Nf "O � .C�
'� �.+ C> C ' C
_ � •'C .� a
F-� ��nc:`.F's- E
�
� L
> rI
� C
W
N U
� �
� j 3
O
R oq �
L y�
s � `°
� � a�i
C .� 3 E
m� e�C C •i
O
C pp •� =
m
JC`.Z �
SZbSS PITN 'uol�u�woo19
�aauS y�p8 �sE3 S [ S £
�
A,
... - . . . ' ,._ . . � . ... .
. . . . .. . .
. . ,.. . . ,.r. ,� . . .. . . . - �
-� - - • `.� � .. . - . � �
y . .' ` �+�: ;� :��` :_�`.' �' ,�;�� .� ''•� ', = , -
. � :r�:�`�:�� '�, e �'o �:�'�� .
.; , i�: � �� ����, = � � - � m..
. .. -�"°��• '� •.�:,�� ".��'�::�'�'.�- �. - .
�'''�, _::.r•�.�.��.:,� - —►,'�•,�, '°° ,�..' . •:°� �- _ �-� '
.. . ''+�•,.� ��i�'r�'� • 'v`�'*�"1 `o''.y '�°, �. m _ .'� ;.
`•l: �.' y; w�0 : �. y ' , .
. ' ; "� ; �-. �r � �j/� : '.:• . �. .aa ?'�p. � ' � r ."� r
� .'�.:y�''u � •�y ,P�. , i�.��d.•s• .�
. �. �"� � � ._ � + ..'-. ..,� �� ' -�
� .. , ' '�'= � < •'��:'� •�''es � � � :�. � .,�
. �t:��� '� � 9 -�, � { ;��� .�.� e
_ . � :�a;;�,'�:�'..._;��� �'�' ".� '" ��-��.:��.
. . . -.�. � � .� ..� � . `=� � :� � � � � -. ��.-. `��'� ...o
� � � � :B �"�� ,'�. .� � �,`'�� � '� ; ~:� .�
� . -� � : ~ � �. - . :�.�.. , �
:.\� �.:�:�' � �, �� .:� ,.y •� �,�' m, 'I
: - �,.���::��� � :.��.�.��� � �����- . :�.:.� . �� ,
.� � . � :, � .� :�.. �:� � �: :�'�� .4 :�._ . .� .� �- .
. � �w ��' ��� .�. . -� �.� � z ;'-�, � :� R : �. . .
• �� �• � � .. =- �.� � p '.�. � �� . .. .:,��,. �: .
.}' .
.. , • _ _., - ; � _ . . - - .
� ' . _ . - • � , . , . . . • _ . .^=': - ' , ' ' .` .
. . , :�.� �:. . ,�.�;�R�:� 8� =-� .Q ..- . - .: -
�i ���a ' ..� ���y.-�� �,�
—�•� ^�. � ' a � � � � � �•-
� � -� �. c �o ..R'.� m�, �•ao
:�� ..�' � "' �ea ... � v��
� �. . ' �� � �c' '� . � � �- .m � .
� �.
�=
� . � ,:�. � �" �'' � -o � �
�. �.-� �° �'��.:o Q
�. . �� �.. �'�,`� � � � � ��
� _ .�.. . � �� g..�, � �:� � �.
b� .� � ,,.� o .�:�.:�;� .�, �
� �' < � �-.
�:. :� �, : � � :-� � .w. � <
O .� �. - .� � �.� �'' �_ � �
� , - �'�:-�'. - �; � � .� �' � �
.�, � � � �
=¢ �, :�;-.��. �-`��o..�s=-�
`� �•.$�,, � � :�' -s � � � .�
a
� • � .�. �'�'.' W'� H.
� . .�. - � � . . `... _ . . . .
' . � .., ��a'. ... ���' � . . . ..
1�.: ' .'. � � . . �,�' '� g � .� :��°°►. ... � : � . � .
. . .A : ... ,�' .� `� • � C Cb; � `. �.• - _ .
. i.� � lr F. � • �° � �" � ,C� � � �' ' � � • '
. . _ .i :^ 'r :•: r=!''a.,v*; �''�' � ': � � f0 C _r ' �. '8. -,� � �. .. . ^ .
• _.�c.' .._. x`:-�.. :� �,�'�p�.•y�, �-�. � � � a as� • cD . :� . .
' « - :''. . ,'s ;•�: � i� �• � 9' .n � � � � - ,� '� � . �p
� p .,.�
_ . . :�.�.: .� _ = ;� • � a �. _ �� � . .
� � - . �� ..��� � � �� _� � .� o � ��� � � ��
_ _ . . ... � - � � � � ��. � �� �n. �'-� �� � ... � � � � ,�
. . .= e A � � �y � 'O � . Q. � .; � "J �
� • ' :. � •• •.. �. � �. • � m �'
. ,.. �
. � �
.#
,�. c-- - .. . _ �. .. . � ; .;:. � �`. ,o y . . . ._ .. ... .
•. � � .
.... .��-�� �' � ' � �o ti' �3'. �
�
._
• � A � y � � _ . � .� � .�.
, . Y . �: �� , p �9 . . ,
. ' �` =:�s: • � 4'�' p� A � o., (/� � .
. '+y , �� •� .� � . � '!8 �. � • Z � � .
;.. .
. . , . �
•_. . �
. .. o
. . . �
� ,..: , ,. '_ •� � .
' �O
.
.
. � r, ;' ."^ . r� r. - �"� 'i `v • '
. �
. . . , .� _ _ , M ,
. ... .-
• . , _ �� .;r.� � -.^.���� . .� . � • .
.� •� , � .
t ..r.,:.�i .3. �. � !s:'�� ;,:���:'�_ w . ���.�•..� �% . ,� . ,...�' _ . ' .
� . . ' . �'. , .. .
� .
, , � � �
��Y �
. .� :q�. :.�•'z 4�. '�s • '�G'� C .� C - R . � • � .� � . ,' ' : _ " .
� ' � .G' ���:: '��` ^�r� •� .�•i . �t. TC.9 � • _ ,. � .
�r ':.^.�.J•;i,',''. '•• �5:.� • .� �'_: . � �� ' ' �,�';�. . .. " �_ ,
. , . 7�t',:•.ft., � � '. :,� 'L +.�' r�. , . . . .
. .. � ' i , <y{ �.y1,'r'�.in' :." ;"�• � ,� •'. �•7.. � . �� , . ' ' � . ' � i _.
. ��r �a `'�� ,?'�P'i'�t��+. � .r- � ' '�'Y " ',.�.'.f L� • •i; _ ..:� .
F.Y •,�.�.�lt• _f rnt�F...�ic7,'�:,�j'�,�- ;-y..._S:�.w..yJ;,• �+� : `h; r,. . y;.'+ ', ,?'' . ' ' ' . .Y
� ��. '�'�! . .n`� � t • . •�. .: i ' •
. .'_,;5._ ?;✓:��.r 'w-.�-,,, 'r..�i» .{��i,'` .s'i" :!. . � ��.c 7� _ .w,. �`�;�'').': y;. ���„ ."�, • '
� _ . �• � .. , . _ . ..-. ,..- - ._ . . i_ . ..
.
0
/ �,
... . � � .. � .. \,_.
.
'
i �.�, ' ` � - ..,. _. �..
�. ...' . � `... .. .;. , , ._ I • ,I� . � ,�£ • ' : :� . >. ,,
.� . �. !. ;__ _ .
��. Provid� visitor services
A new accessible fishing pier was desi�ned and constructed by volunteers. Refuge
Volunt�r Bill Greenwald designed the pier and it was constructed on C�daz Pond by
T'ree Ttvst crews. Fundin� for this peoject was provided through the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service's Recreational Fishing Program.
- .,
. ��
.�� ��
.r . � +��
:.�•��}.,�e �''�r�^�'�'"�q I
�S�F �
' I
Photu �. Volunteer desisned and constructed accessible
fishing pirr at OId Cedar Avenue.
Th� Old Cedar Avenur observation platform was constructed by Tree Tnast during
the year. The p(atform was rebuilt after arsonists tocched it, and later un the yeaz, it
was p�rtly burn�d a�ain. Perpetrators have not been found.
The L,yndale Avenue parl:in� lot and boat ramp wece completed in cooperation with
Minnesota DNR, the City of Btoomington, and the Lower Minnesota River
. �.
,\ _ -3 Minnesot� Valiey N�ion�1 Wildiife Refuge ,�'
� �
�--� Watershed District. This facility is formally known as the Russetl B. Sorenson
) Landing in recognition of the contributions oF a deceased member of the Lower
Minnesota River Watershed Distric:t.
Recreational fishin� opportunities were enhanced on Minnesota Valley NWR through
the stocking of 30 two-to-Pour pound largemouth bass ih Cedar Pond in June. In
addition, 3.000 tin�erlin;; blue`;ill were stocked in this area in September. In support
of Youth Fishing Day, �-�0 bass and bluegitl were stocked in the Youth Fishing Pond
and Hogback Ridae Pond in early June.
� ����� �. :, �,.,.,.,.,,.,., u„�,... ... . . .., .. . .._... . .------o --,
1 IIV�V / . • VIY��a�.�.�.a ♦� v��• v�• • ..... . ��..._-_—_ _ _ _ _ . V
constructed accessible blinds.
� � 2; � Minnesota Valley Nadonel Wildiif� Rtfuge
f' A watecfowl huntin� season for people with disabilities was the most successful ever
� at Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refu�;e. In 13 days of huntin�, 10 huntcrs
harvested 60 ducks and 13 �eese.
rno[o e. �ona�non �csiir. rres��cn� v�
Capsble Partners, inc. and Sandy made
�_uod use of tt�e wheelchair accessible
blinds at Minnesuta Vallev National
Wildlife Refu�,e.
I.aee in th� year, accessiblz huntrr blin�is were constructed by the St. Paul Technical
Coltege Carp�ntry'Class at a material cost of $707.��. This was a cooperative project
in which the Refuge paid unly tor the materials. The btinds will gready improve
huntin�; oppoe�eunities for peup(� with disabilities on the north shore of Rice Lake of
the UPgrala Unit.
Our r�cently acquired Rapids La�e Unit was upened to public use, including hunting,
beginning Sepeemb�c 1, 1996. Sinc� the 1�00-aere az�a was purehased ia cooperation
with 11�innesoea Department oF Natural Resources, we hav� ogened this ar�a to
hunting consistene with State regutations. The unit offers the visiting pubtic a variety
of opportunities including spectacular views, wildlife viewin�, and huntabte wildlife
populations. Upon full dzvelopment, �he visiting pubtic will also hav� greaeer
environmental education and outdoor recreation possibilities such as hiking,
C
�
.5 Minnesota V�Iiry N�tional Wildlife Refuge �
( j z6
��,.,
Ij
photography, fishing, canoeing, and interpretation of Minnesota River natural
resources and history. , �,
The brochure known as The Caretakers Walk for the Bass Ponds was reprinted this
year. .
Environrnental education activities during the year are as follows:
Visitation
� A total of 19,333 people were reached via field trips, off-site progr'ams, and
community events.
p�• ool
A new preschool program was estabtished educating 800 students, ages.3-5, on
the value of habitat.
Photo 9. Preschoolers biazing a trail in the fresh snow.
Sc�t�
A new volunteer-led Watching Wildlife program was initiated and a
cocr�sponding patch was developed. Over 500 boy and girl scouts participated in
activities in 1996.
Eagle Scouts planned and led restoration projects and built 50 wood duck boxes to
be distributed to private land owners.
Two Watching Wildlife Skills Workshop trunks were developed for regional use.
Minnrsoca Valley Netional �idlife Refugo
f�
A Project Wild curriculum workshop was host�d exclusively for scout leaders.
Curriculum -
• A six-month review of the Refuge's curriculum, involving 250 hours of volunteer �
time, was complet�d by staff, volunteers, and oth�r resource prof�ssionals. .
� The Refuge launched a new action-based water quality curriculum for 7-12 grade
students. In this prograrn, students monitor up to 16 refu�e water samplin� sites
using state-of-the-art "Water Quality Trek�cing Pa�lcs." A S 15,000 Met Council
grant helped off-s�t the cost of this project.
Fifty-five Taligiass Prairie Tnuiks w� distributed throughout the Region 3.
Three new co�muruty partnerships wer� initi : Und�Water Worid in tbe Mall
of America; Bloomington Community Education; and through the Univ�rsity of
Minn�sota, a Atatural History of Iv�T River Educator Workshop Series.
Ten new schaol partnerships wer� for�n�d which for the first ti�n�, includcd a
technical college and a pr�school.
Two n�w parteter school pro components w�re dev�loped. They are senricc
leaining projects that coanect sstuudents with resource-based projects and �,.
eavironmental values ass�ssments vvhich attempts to measure program succ�ss. ��
Educator Worksho�ns
• The Refuge bccam� an official Project VVET facilitation site for this nationally
acclaimed curriculum.
• A�Iinncsot� Vall�y's Visitor Center was the site for 14 workshops whe�re 415
participants enjoyed workshops hosted by the Refiage and other agencies.
. .; . . ,. . . . . �. . .�„ � .
. . . . � . � ., � . . .,
: . .. . _. .
� .. : . ,, -. . . . . . , , .. .... �..
V„gj
Oppomiaities %r volunteers in educator workshops, scoutin$, Water Qualiity
Trekking Packs, and school field trips increased 216% increase over the gast yeaz.
�t� v�iey r� � ver�a��re ��,�e
:� � '.
A Home Page for Minnesota Valley NWR was created in July 1996. Our world wide
web address is: http:/�www•fw's.�ov/—r3pao/mn_valU
��� ��
d`
`�,:���,,,� :
� ��:;� s� u•��
�
f �--. M � , .
_•-�i ���-
-
1;:
. __ �
t
��, y . � .�
Mirmesota VaMey N�onaf VYbdlife Retuge is � of only a feroa �b� �ilc�ife re(u�s in tt� n�ion, a p�e
u�here wild coyotes, b�d ea�es, bedgers, �d beavers � r� d� m 2.2 rtti�on peop�. WiCtin tltis 34-rtd�
cortidor of marsh, , and forest tt� is m�d by tl�e U.S. Fi�h and 1€�Iidlih Sorvle�, �t'f 6�
aver 300 species ot �ama� �i opporauri6es for a v�de rang� of a�ddoor and educ�ona! act�Ues.
Minnesota Va�sy N�onel Wildiffe Refuge is just ane � m�r refuges in tfie Greet Lakes - Bia Rive+s Roaion
(Re on 3 Our rms�on is ro protect, restore, end consenre the eco�cel cortxnure0es of tt� l
M�nnesota River V�ley �d its associated wate�heds.
: : - . n `:-.
Refug� staff participated once again in National Wildlife Week during April 1996.
An estimated 5,380 kids were contacted. The theme of this year's activities was
Wading into Wetlands.
In cooperation with the Como Zoo in St. Paul, nearly 2,000 folks were provided
_ information about migratory birds during International Migrratory Bird Day on
May 11, 1996.
Staff assisted with �ducation and outreach at Scott and Carver County Soil and Water
" Conservation days and at Fannington Hi�h Schaol, presentin� programs to over 1,200
students.
28 • Mint�esota Vallry N�tion�l �Idlife Refuge
( ) .
�� On October 12, 1996, in cooperation with th� Fri�nds of the Minnesota Valley, the
Refuge hosted a 20th Anniversary Ce(cbration for Minn�sota Valley NWR The
event was held during National Wildlife Refu$e Week and an estimated 800 visitors �
participated in a variety of activities and programs: �,
t'ROLO i U. d ISI[ofs CnJoying [tle C(1[e1"[3�nmGn� a� tuc
Visitor Center. Photo by Bill Arden.
Th� Regional Resource Center, located at Minnesota Vatley NWR, disYributed the
following materials to other Service field stations, schools, and the �eneral public:
Item Distribution
Videos 1061
Displays 62
Films 139
Environmental Education ICits 96
Slide Presentations 39
Minnesota Vallcy NWR hosted the Minnesota Federal Junior Duck Stamp
C
` z9 Minnesot� Valiry Netionml W'�dlife Refuge
� /'
` `
.- Competition. This year had 853 entries. Minnesota's Best-of-Show winner, Rebekah
i��� Foti, placed in the top fifteen in the national competition. �
Photo 1 1. Kebeacan rou s arrwvrx can�cu ���� u,� �.,
Best-of-Show award.
C J 30 Minnesota Valiey Netiona! Wildlifo Rcfuge
�
C�
C
i
(�� ' � I,
........... �..�
"{ .��:�`. � �r . .;. ,r �. � � �- -
_ ` � �
" ,� � ..r'�. � " m- �� -
• � • � � �v
_ ' �t:;. � ''r!"
...'`Flood's Wrath Hits Home" "Area Waits, Prepares for Spring Flood'' "A
River Runs Wild and Vicious"... the headlines spoke as the water continued
to rise.
�C � .�' ��y.x�• '� .: !�►
Re e anage D te
f'YI- ��'
( , Geographic A Date
A conservative estimate of 177,000 individuals visited th� Refuge durin� FY9�. Most of
this visitation (114,000) occurred on Refuge trails and observation points. An estimated
�,000 hunters visited the Refuge and spent a majoriry of their time pursuing;whitetail deer
during the archery season. V�'e also provided fishing opportunities to 3;SOO anglers.
Our environmental education pro�ram reached out to approximately �,500 students and
teachers. Most of these �roups visited the Refuge Visitor Center and participated in one
, of our environmental education curriculums We'also contacted n�azly 11,000 .
individuals with off-site pro�srams and events. The following sumrnarizes our highlights
associated with visitor sen�ices and outreach activities. �
���. 1/�da� V%�%f0/' ��1/%��S < i` _
- �ibits �nd Facilities
t'is�Por Center Ca!ler�� Exl:ibits
Nine different exhibits graced the walls of the Visitor Center's art gallery and six
opening receptions were held. The exhibits were used` as a theme for the River
Stewazd Saturdays and drew many first time visitors to Minnesota Valley National
Wildlife Refuee. The exhibits were listed in the "Art"s and Entertainment Section" of
the local area newspapers. Art �allery exhibits in 1997 were as follows:
• Award Winning Nature Photos by the Minnesota Nature Photo�,raphy Club
• Minnesota Roots by Artist Nancy Lamberger
• Endangered Species. Traveling Exhibit by the Bell Museum of Natural
Historv
� Art Acres bv Artist Trisha Fabrv
• Minnesota Junior Duck Stamp Exhibit by Minnesota Young artists in grades
K-12
s Minnesota Critters by Artist Dodie Logue
• Orchids and Wildflowers of Minnesota Scientific and �tatural Areas by '
Artist Denise Friesen
• Confluence and Influence of the Minnesota River by Artist Wendy Lane
_• M�tamorphosis by Artist Agnes Fine __ _
I _ _ �
21: Minnesota Valiey N W R
Bloomd�gton.Ferr�� and N��lkie L'�tit F�cilities
) The Bloomington Fern and �'�'ilkie L`nit parkina lots ��ere completed by Hennepin
County during the ��ear. Tl�e project ���as required mitigation w•ith the new Highway
169 Bridge that transected th�se units. Ii� addition. parking lots and boat ramps for
Rice and Fisher Lakes �ti�re also coii�pleted. Trailhead kiosks and signage will be
installed in 1998 b�� Refu��e �taff. -.
�tQcreational ProQrams
Yoatng 6i'aterfowle�•s Proa�•ui�c
In cooperation with se��eral ��artners includin� the :�Iinnesota VVaterfowl Association,
Minnesota DNR, Bur�_er Brothers Sportin_ Goods, and the Minnesota Duck and
Goose Callers Associatio�l. tlie Refu�e reinviaorated itsvouth waterfowl program in
1997. Consistent ���ith a fresh plan de��eloped h�� Intern ivtike Bonham (tTniversity of
Wisconsin - LaCro�se ). Rztu�_e staff' and volunteers shared top quality classroom and
field experiences for 1 1��outh and ei�,=ht mentors. These individuals spent 115 hours
on Long Meadov� Lal:e hai•� zstin`= 36 ducks and two geese. Following the season, a
wild game feed ��a� ho�ted b� Refu�=e staff and �;�as attended by 40 individuals who
enjoyed mouth-�atzrin;� ��ild �_ai1» disi�es.
Photu -t. Y oun�_ v� aterto��'IeCS teGCIVC IIIDU uVuvu ��� ���..
finer points ot�duck and �_aose calling. Photo by Terry�
Schreiner.
22: A�innesota Valley N V�' R
c
l�ssabled �'aterfo�vl Hunti,tg �
Fifteen disabled hunters spent 78 hours harvesting seven ducks arid eight �eese on .
Refuge lands durin� the 1997 waterfowl hunting season. This program is or�anized (
and administered b�� a non-profit or�aniza.tion known as Capable Partners. �
F'nvirnnmental Fducation Acti�•ities
Csarricudu»�
After much revie�� .��ork continues on the nev�� environmental education curriculum
for the Refuge. It is bein_ developed by Refuge staff and volunteers and will greatly
bencfit our environmental education pro�ramming. Upon completion, teachers and
students will have the opportunity to participate in no less than ten Refuge related �
natural resource topics. The curriculum is expected to be completed eazly in 199�.
Pr�schoo119rogram
Our preschool pro;�ram continues to be successful. Over 1.000 youngsters
participated in en��ironmental education activities that addressed a variety of topics
including wildlife l�abitat and miRration.
�a�► RiveP Journe��
In cooperation ��itl� tl�e Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (a unit of the
National Pazk Ser��ice). Refu��e ai�d Park Sen•ice staff developed a prograzn for 4th
to 6th grade students to e�plore the Minnesota and Mississippi River on a
paddleboat. Over a t�a�o-N�ee1: period in Ma��. 1997. 1.01 � students participated in this
Pra�• (� .
rhoto �. >tuaents learn about wetiana b�ras.
23: Iviinnesota �Valley N W R
Scouting
; 1 A variety of pro�rams and activities have been developed for Boy and Girl Scouu
who desire to learn more about natural resource issues. Unce such program, the
volunteer-led Watchin� Wildlife Program, now in its second year, reached over 700
Boy and Girl Scouts. As part of our program, a scouting incentive patch has been
developed and is distributed to scouts who complete four or more programs. In
1997, 27 scouts earned these patches. Finally, four Eagle Scouts planned and
completed Refuge projects which included brush clearing and wood duck box
construction.
Partnership Scltools
The number of "Partner Schools'� that participate in Refu�e environmental education
programs was increased to a total of 16. This program was established a few yeazs
ago to encourage teachers and schools to become more involved in Refuge activities
and programs. Participants receive priority scheduling and are encouraged to
provide some assistance to the Refuge in the form of a service learning project. In
some cases, school districts also receive financial assistance to pay for the cost of
busing kids to the Refu`e. During 1997, we focused the Partner School program on
inner city schools ���ith hi��h minority student enroliment.
Water Qualit�� Trekking Pack
The Vvater Qualit�� Trel:kin` Pack, developed by Suzanne Trapp, is
�� �,� a long-term biolo<<ical monitoring pro�ram that engages 7th-12th grade
students throu_hout the Lov��er Minnesota River Valley in hands-on water
quality monitorin�_. ti� Au`_ust 1997, the pro�ram received a grant of
$28,000 from Car�ill. With this money. many new backpacks filled with water
sampling equipment were created. busing money was made available for
participating schools. and a Pro�ram Coordinator was hired through the Friends of
the Minnesota Valle�� to oversee all of the program's logistics and to set the tone for
the program's futu�:e.
Int the Fall of 1997. over 50 teachers and students participated in the Water
Quatity Trekl:ing Pack training sessions. From this, 13 classes and
over 300 students N�ill be sampling a total of 16 sampling sites along
th� Valley. Their sampling results gathered throughout the school
yesr will be used by Refuge Biologist Vicki Sherry and will be shared
with organizations such as the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the
Lower Minnesota River Watershed for long-term trends monitoring.
� ' � � Resnurce L,ibrarv
Minnesota Valley NWR houses the Region's Resource'Library, the purpose of which is
( � distribute a vaziety of materials to other Service o�ces, teachers, and conservation
-: ) .
24: Minnesota Valley N W R
organizauons. Services provided by the Resource Library are as follows:
• FWS displays were distributed 40 times to Service o�ces and public
conservation agencies.
• A total of 961 videos and films were distributed to teachcrs, Service offices,
and public conservation agencies. ,
• Responded ca 3l4 requests for information ar�d natural resource materials
s
Educational Kits were distributed to 92 different organizations that include
schools. other Service o�ces, and conservation organizations. A sunnmary of
the uses of these kits is as follows:
Prairie Trunk 21
ProjCct Wet Trunk 2 �
Suitcase for Survival 20
Enviroscape Model 16
VVetland Trunl: 17
Wolf Box 16
Zebra Mussel Q
Total 92
a . f`�°��Cff
S�ecial E��ents
� Junior I�uck Staonp Co�rapetatio�a
- The Refu,e a=ain hosted Minnesota's Junior Duck Stamp Competition for
1997. Sevcn hundred students in grades K-12 participated in the competition
representi»`.: �? individual schools. Kevin Edstrom; Park Rapids, Minnesota,
captured the Best-of-State Award with his pastel rendering of a mallard hen
and ducklin�:s. In the National Competition. Kevin's art placed in the top
fifteen. Five-hundred guests participated in the Junior Duck Stamp Award
Ceremon�� held across the street from the Visitor Center at the Airport Hilton
Hotel on March 15, 1997. A vaveling eachibit was developed and traveled to
s�ven sites. six of which were out of the Metro area. Total viewing audience
is estimated at approximately 5,000. The traveling exhibit w�s also displayed
at the Second Annual Duck Habitat Day in Minneapolis.
�
25: �tinnesota Vailey NV1�'R
C'
C�� I
he felt upon receivin� a second place
award far the Minnesota Junior Duck
Stamp Competition. Photo b�� Judie
'v(iller.
Natiorea/ Wild/ife Rc�fir; e W eek
Refuge staff once a`aii� participaced in \ational Wildlife Week during April
1997. A total of �.1 �� students ��ere contacted. The theme of this yeaz's
program was "Nature's Web: Communities in Conservation."
Irtternational Migrntor�� Bird Day
In cooperation with the Como Zoo in St. Paul. an estimated 3,215 folks were
provided information about mi�ratory birds during International Migratory
Bird Day on May 10. 1997.
Youth Fisl:dng Day
On June 7, 1997, the Refuge and numerous partners hosted Youth Fishing
Day at the Bass Ponds. Over 4�0 attended the event including 250 inner city
youth and kids invol��ed with the Bi� Brothers and Big Sisters program.
Sixty-five fishing experts and volunteers made the event a success by
educating the participants on proper and ethical fishing techniques. Following
a fish fry hosted by the Red Lake Nation, participants spent the afternoon
catching bluegill and largemouth bass. Each kid also took home educational
literature and their o���n rod and reel.
26: Minnesota Valley N W R
rno[o �.,y voun�ster anxwus w�ry nis n�wry acyu�rca
skills at Yout17 Fishing Day. Photo b�• Vicki Sherry.
C
Rs�eP Steeo�ard Satsrrdavs
The Friends of tl�e tilinnesota Valley in cooperation with Refuge staffhosted
ten River Ste���ard Saturday events during the vear. The purpose of these
events ��as to increase public awareness of the Friends and the Ftefuge and to
address issues facin;= the Lower Minnesota River Valley. More than 1,700
people attended one or more the following events: ``Endangered Species";
"Artscraps and .�nimals": ".fust Duck��": "Minnesota Critters"; '`Watersheds &
Wildflowers": "'��tinnesota River": "S��amp Stomp''; "Fishing Clinic"; '`Trash �
& Treasure Hunt": "Val1e��Venture". �'
Enricl:►nent Sc�ric�s
, An evenin�: hi�_hli`_hl orthis ��ear�s pro�ram was the enrichment series.
Speakers were scheduled monthl�� to talk on a refuge related topic for the
volunteers and Friends members. A total of 444 people attended these
gatherin�s.
Scott Counn� Outtloor Education Days
Refuge staff and ��olunteers gave presentations about wildlife and the Refuge
to fifth and sixth s�raders from Scott County schools.
C��a►er Counry Dnys
Refuge staff ;_a��e presentations to over 300 youth from Carv�r Counry
schools. Talks included topics about wildlife and the Minn�sota Valley.
27: Minnesota Valley N W R
m„B.
s" \
`-�.....yl
0
�
0
4
a
r-------.—.�
, ,
i
f� ' � ;#�3�� �
� �R�R ��D1����� m A � � � �
� � dpa000.000• .d .�� p2 » � �
Q ������ � �. � . . � � � � � 9 ' �
� � � F �
,,
�
m
��� ������ ����.� �
.� � �
> � � .� � � . .
� � � � � E� ; �a �
8 � � � � � � „ � y ; .
� y
� �� � � �
m �
G <� � a ,3 � > � E Q '� � � g � � �
0
— A �, ����m s�c�>��.����� � �
� � � ' :� ,� a. �= '7t � � � '
8
�
��9 ������ '�� � g��� �
�,� .��� ���a �.�-p�� �
��° a�;����I�� �����a �
$'� � � � Y ����p �:� �.�7 �- �
o T �0�.��:_b p ,s7, $.�j9 � ��� 4
s�8� �3�� � � �'�
q9 C���° a; E`� u
'a> �8 § �'$$� '�� '°,�� �� .� 9
>a �.; ��s �1� 7e
�— g• � y. =�; Y� �•= S i
�z� '����'��'� .a 5����''�
$�� � ��3 �r�•-s��
=���#� � ���� b � � �x.���<��
3�� ��������� ��� ��
3
� ���������
� � � �� � � � t
� � a � � � ,s�" � �
� � � 3 � E
�
C (
�e. '
_ . .�.- r� • I
. �
.�
�
� �
1?0 =
� v
� � a
� � AI
� p � �
u '
� A N
v
�
W .0
� y 4
G
O E
� �
� •�
>
� C
� W
0
.� � � � r
� � i.f = 3 � �
� � - T � - � �
_ = ' ° 3 � c
_ �' � • '� .. . _
- _ - : � L ' - = 3 �
_- � 'q ` �n � : _ �
_ N � .i a,.� �
� � � � 7 7 �
� _ V � � ; .^ � -
€'`-_'c '� • L' _
�'__ = a 's� =
_ _ _ - � ^ ,; _ _ _ = g �
� � n 7 '� � :y � ��� �
�J�=� a �r= - =
�=v=•'b' �_��>�=
�_
(.J = VI'C 7 � � V ��� J J
=_�-
� y'_-�=
-0 � � S
' ' c „
a _ _
; J n � �.
N .". � � �
�.�'i� e'� �
�: :.� 3
c= `.?� �=
�y a � 3 = a
ir�yi^ � "�L
�'���>�
� 7
? 3
°_?^'e'
i -'
. � �
� � �
�'�� L
' �u
a�
�u y o =
��1G, C ���
Y �' � ? j� S
S 3' � ^ �
�r �
�._
�==-r"t
� ^ q �� =
.G �
c-='n3�
u' �.� �.=_3
O
. S • 7 � C � Y � r
�.Y � sJ 'f � = C � � Y :a � � � '� O �i O � O
��= L C � =� ^ � �� T u m�J Y 7� 9� 7= ll C
y= �.� i J � u'� G 00 �. 9 C U S C�. ��
� Y'C
> c =.i 3 c a � T3-'.� � N u u:a c,. c o jy � e� ��� c �.
a��v�' -'��� 5:°�++�� �e.=E� "��FS`3m a�,.�a'�
� �.c.c� 3 �c..yy . .iy_+ ;u�a u'e �•� -'�i._� 9
M ° .. a � �_ ^u °'r V` � � � u o �
���y u� c.�.. re.= .^. = Y a, c z� a V.� �' y J t 5 � a E
= rS• �°��Xa $ '^ �' � �°= '� �y�`� ` ugH
i�� ���y� � �Z j� N.. C YL � �` Vy:�7 �'��L O �?� q
T9= C �O��V �xT � '� 3� TC`�� ' u�ip�
a y'? � L � u �� � 3 � � � 3 :o A u a � � .=� �^L � � 3 > �: � � � � � � 3 3
Stc="=nj� �acj�� �c�A��� �g3Y`�3�aG �'���'.�-.m �,p�...3�} `a.�
�Uc'���� r�"i��E3 �C��>>� dti3t3� �ii.°i`ii� 5��8�O�C
c
w .
� $ ,
� c s •
�? 3
x 3 Y ,
� - �
_ ; ; .
- ' ? I
;��i
.v' � '
_ � � ,
i c :
c � a •
� w _ '
= - c i
ao _ � .
y Y � '
E .e � �
u .i� •-
�'� �'
� L �
� � 3i
v ao
_ � �
, 7 L �
� � J
C T
n
� 3 L
3 ; y '
t - 5
- 3 °
3 ;
i�7 .. � i
H .', � � a c ^_
'�u ��
M ° ? ' _ � y ; .
� (J N �
;""'?'� N "-
o, u u
�'��? C� ?r=�
3v�? m
��.c �':. � � �^'03
C� y L � � .Cj a
>i�' � „� yYu c _
� y'`u v 3 a C � L 3
5����L Y� y
�� �,>; ry� �
'.Si.�. 9 U C� R �L �
y���3rs �`__�
.c� ocu �
�a�s` 3= �i�-x
� V
� O
� ; C
0 0 �
i
N P.`
' � o p,
C C Y s II Y
Y r`
.p C C � �'Z,.
E 43
� � N N .p 3
s'E : "�
G '� 3
Y
�
"; e i v�
a °
� u
� � y ° � �
i� m � 3 Y �
`v '^ � ; ? �o
� � _ _
.�r ��� = -
. i � _ „ ==
, � _ .
s a ; a - � .
� � a _ 'o
3 Y a. � .
6 9 � > > � _
'° .y � � c " � '° �
� C .� ������ � v
r � 3 - � � =
e -
� - m c o = =
� 3 + ., 3 ` �
9 s _ , r
�� � =�= E �3 =
Q'a '�.,� �,. u z' 5
C '� � o '
� p - c
a�� �y ? .� a y v_ '
m•4•� a�� a�� �0.�
�oy � 3��� y r 3_' u
aZ � � � C � � '
S.e 3 � 3 '
b._ � � �3 � .� .,, � ,� _ z �
� c � = �o ; 4 � `o � c � U �
� c� > i, � E�•� � � v � y 5
; 4 �" ' e - o s , o - -
� � c i, �' � � � � a'd = u ' '
y � e
u','v-� �°,� � yb2FU V'� �� �
'a � »� v'� 3 . • !=
a�.
�F:
a-
s'
�S
�
F� �
�� m
' � "��
• �
i:t � ��
�' �. �
u
i. �i'. 't� i
c:.,:.vt ^�-I
cY .
�'
0
.
B � 'g! u �
= N " ;, � '3
� � a M
n. �.�
_�� ��a
��a �°�
��
r "•� $�a
� � '� � �
my
�=pd '�E°°
.ad� .���
r--�- __
�
� �'� 3 _Y $� r� � m = �'q
� ��� �c�_ �� _; 3; � .��
u
ti $'�� ��;�� _= _ �� �� _�� ,��.
� � � �_ �'� � � _ " ffi��
�� �ffi�� �� ��' �s `�•
-° ..0 � '° � �.�� � m
��.��g � : �
��7 � :��'�� �t� ��� � � : �a �Z
�.9 '�E � `�: ��m_ ' �•� .�
.���r� �;,�• � ,� �;:� � � � ����
�.=��3 �gg� . =g =,.� �� � �;� :a.��
���._� ���` � � � -� � �._ ,� «���
. g $ .: m � � ��..o
_ � r ��
i
,
��
�
--,..�
�.
�
�
� u�
i � i
s
�� ��',�� � ��� � � a;� �� � .=;'� �� ��
�� � ��:_� .���.�q�, =�,���3.�,��$������
7 Y �
�_����.� �i.� ,� ���s��'��� ."���.':� . ' �����
'� .a��,�� .� ��� : �4��8 . �.������.��� ��a�� :�
�a ��� ����� � .�s������:����� =� ��=��.���
��j � r .�: t-� �:s����,�x� �.�� ����9' �.�y�� �.��
> tl��.3� y����� �a ����sm���=�9 �Cv�� �
��.�°.����� . ��g��.� m:�s��<���'S������ ro`��,�,a��4
��.= ,�� �- � u3 � ��,� � � i ����.� �� � ��.� ��
F� '"� <��5�'� s��"~�.����r'�L3y ���� ti. 34.
� �� �'m < i �a s � ,� � <ai 3 �� 3 3'�,
0
�
�
�
�
K
� ��
? � j
�� T ^
j N C
.��
m � � ;
1s ��
� � 3 v',
•�„
�� � �f
3 � �, �
L 9 � �
� a � �
` � P O
0
:,� <' �,.%n
N
•• 9 � � C r'
L �
� E �53�'
'
3�t � m m
m � �
Y � a0
� �.
_ = �� �
s ,
� —
� �
3 O � � � 9 �
v �
Y .=° c .v e � � o.
y R .� 7 .Y
_ "J � "J � s C �
3 w,O� c c �� 3
� � b= � �� �
O. .� 9 ; 6 �+yt C
Z•_ ^3 a,�t'o �
5 , _ � _ •
� u � e ^ =
� 'n'd ° m3 ��„
>._ � �e ��� �
� e m ! � ao u �
� : � " ' 3 c 3 �
�C+ Y � yr �
i ..'i U :/: L .'J J r '.C'J
� �
''c �
j 3 �
�� g e
a. y�
L a � �
C ; � �
3� $3�
C m 'f �
u ■
C m � � O
b � � C
�' > ;
T9 y a 1
a� � 3�3
ea �
ra� ��
o y
� _ � $ � �
5
m � e y '^ g
�t 3 i _ g
C S.o''i' �to
on�,�yp��
O T � Y ry
����°°�'''
� � o
� c o�=��2
� '��>3�
� '° —
c � �
� 0 3 0
m
s� ��9'n
L T �
��m
a =_ �
3 m ='�
�
�
s � F
� �
3 ti � �
L .�
� '�
-.3 � �
C p N �
'i m ' _
� •in � O.
� �
� �
m� 3�
9 0 �
'3 ,x $ <
�y 4 g )
� � � � �p
� g O
C '� f O
� e w
�s��
o g.�
����a
" 3 4`
�. ��>3�
�� 3
.3
��
� 3 _��
1
1
� C
; < <
Y �
� ��
� � �
r
? �
a `
�C �
2 'o a`
C � j
m �
�
� 3�
� ��
� �<
�
y ��
� E �gg
a = -
� m !y;° H
W ' j� a C
� V
� � :sS ,0 4.
C � 6 3 �°,
h
� �
� _ � � �
� �
�,:-
`-a-�"'`�'-- --'-----_- — --'- .- -- - - �
"�L7+ r'+-._ �'` " } ! --'-_"'.__ . ' . .
���h.,,l� �"�.._�---------''��_�
� �✓
�`'
' `�
�r 3 � .
� 'C C m
= - j �- C
T � ^ u C �
u E � § � .
- _ > ;'; B g g
7� C y T L"
" m 3 ^ � .�-_ Y,
Y _ � � � � � �
� " i c � � �
4! b � + � � � >,
< � � � y � _ �
E _ � - a
_ = �
v � , '�',�- � ; d
O y c o �='a ;?
2 a ��` � 3 � o
� �? � � � E �
� � ` C � ,
Y % `
'n 'C .'� �V.. G � �
� �
� � 7 v
A Yt�" - .'J C � � C �
T I" = Y _ = � .�
�� •'�• � q n � �
u 3 3 ,�, m �' _ �:
e� u �;�o ,� � r
� y �o _. m �.
_ Tc a .� ,�, � s
U N �J � d 7
3 � L � in � � � e
,�
3 � = � � � > ^ ;
0
� s � ^ � 9 � i. �
� '= � � a. m E # � a
m X � C . c� x'> 7
C
'� C' C TC1' C 9 a�.�%i
�'" Y C N n 6 V r n
b _':
�
f
iak
B.
.a
X
s
�
�
�
�
( � .. . . .....��_� . .
� .
� E � �
� �
� � 6 ,
; a� �-
� �Y�Z
.,�� � .
� �
�a���;� �� �
��` � �
���� � ��
;.=a,.�_ a
��s�bs �� �
����.�' .:� �
� �a� �
� �� � � �� �.��.
. �.��� �� ,�. ��#��
,.� �` � � ��
� ������: � ���
� � � g 3 � $ �� �• � ��
� � � �� � �.
� a: @ � :�
�'� � � � � � �' � g � 8 � � � � s
C � � � � � �
rg:, y� �� �
�a���.a ��
� �
� ga�� �'3 �
� $
� .�. �� o m
s "� g
� � g�� �� �
�; �
�� ��x �� §
$' ' 'r� tl '�i • �
� �� •���'� : � $ �
�,�� >�� � �� � •
�'' g �' � � = �
.
s � �'
6;.i ��3 �. .:
r � � s��� � � ��
�� �ffig f� ��
� � � .�
` q# � .
:� � �' � �g ��
.�3 �� �p 4 .2
� 2
�
� � �.A� g � � s
.��� �A .��� ��
�>� ���� ��3 ���
�
� � � `g �
�9����
������
����
��• i3�
�,'� � � �'
�.�� � H
���.��s� �
.� 9 �
� �;�F=
�� g;�����
� , P ♦ P
� • # �
� � �� � � � � � � �
y = �
� � � � 'C i � n ev 2 p .Y
.�� �y
Y
W pS � � d
g§ 9 8 � � � � , ^ � Y :
Y� � t- 3 3�� y e
� V. � � � � � t�n i � � J
��g:������ ���
' F Y � 5
n
= v
� � �
z 3 s
� ' �
_ E t
y y �
�„� _ Z .
a, u
1i � = r' -
.�. ' , y �
; _
,
„�„ v n �.c
��, •;[ : � ++ o
�.
'c c �'
`7' � � � � m
` y ,� Q C L
�a � � > d L
y 'E3 � ,s
,. v c a �
0
�„ ' ' 3 � �' N
� � 9 O M1
v T L .� Q
y � � 00
O b
�y 3 a ^ y � W
�o'o �V,`�
: c ;, -
�:.1 g� _o�
T '� ,
�� �i �i
E� d a � z
n `u J ` �
I� L
�U E-oG�G
O ,..��. yC Jt
� , S �
� �
�' � � ' ''=
�c��,�r�' ���,a
�� � ��3 mc
4My�4' �-' �L � 3
J y:�t� m C u N T
4 0 � $ � � �'c� � $
si33 �ct�.a� � °'-
30��• r�n��u
. n� a � �� a r� 3
e�2 3 ��nu
c
= �
5 .3 4 � a
S i a A 7
+4 � 'u z
a � �' L
Y a _ � as
£ .�, a � +� _
"; .e ., � $ '
. , � u • 3 ° E
> > � �
' y y Y U 3 C u
� Y in � y y 9�
Z � Y O'i 'i' T
�. 1 C S y n G C C
�
� :';�: "a , '
0
v u
:��
� '� =
L " `
.a o
u p
� 3 � �� �. Y
�=� ° �1
�r�
0 0
� C 3
a� E� a �
3� V � � E .�i � .
u �.�}�� E ;w
E � g� ��� u
3> "o.e �
� m� u > �'m
�
� U U � > .M '�
u�>;$ � u �
�..��y E3
� 0•�.3 � N�
L' K �$. o� x.
N � 0 p dy� �
L� C �d C Cp �j
•C � O �C �C � .�
�y C C .0 ea E
� FJ C
b. � � 3 •a'E �
� u
� S E E q
a�St� a�_�o-
�
0
� _�
I
d �
�� C �
$°� � � �����
y� � m
�_ �
��e� ���"�
•� ��o..�
Y
� �T�� �g �
.= � �
� 4 .� a
e �
� �s�� ,�'� �.
w � •- �
� ;�� � ���g
� � � �����
�
��� ` •� mg�.�e�
y � �� � s�'��'b
< T; m �� ��
�� �� �B
� � sa
��� ���� �
m �. � � .� �� � .
a ��a � .�. �.�
�
-
r�
�
0
Minnesota �Jalley
�datiora! 'Nildlife Refuge
Visitor Center Map
;�tinnesota Valley
Vational Wildlife Retuge
3815 East SOth Sveet
Bloomington, MN 554:5
r� �^�•�::,tir'• (;eneral �tl� I
� � [nformadon
;_r.l� '� 61'JSSJ-5900 ............. .....++..
. '__ . . . _. �
�
�
,
;� I
� • �
.�.
J:
. �. .
_ t
. /.�._.._. u i!
7. �.\r
r �
s R .. ^ ��• �r..:
'I,� ,.
i�r - �„
�' � �
�
��::c ..;� r
L ����
1 �
��
___ ...�:� ��.__
J.. �
�.�
"� � _�
�
V
v
n� � y� ,� y ao
4- c '..
� p o -�c > y y y
� ,, � _'� J � �s
CG y ,� ��' 'p � � �
� =' y � o � o � �a
� �v, �°�� cD� ° � y ec
C -C
� CO O E�` ed � y 0
°E`o8� vo•.r
� o 0 0 -o � � � �
� " �: -� °� :: '' a``i u
3 � � O
�
J� O O� C� U
U � � a�i � �
� Q
y v�f �
� �
� � � o
t'"� � N
� � Q '�
'� � L
� � 3D � C
� � � y w
s `o��u
y e,,,, C7
3-'s�
.. r.
cn` o �
O
�
` :
� c
� o
.. €
o �
cl1 '� c�
�.. i C
�-�D � N
m� E
e0 �a,�„
U
� �
,� N
'�'
3 �
�I1
� �
L �
O (, � Oy
. ` � _
� p � G
z .
T = T,`
y y v,
ea v � c
> > = �
o � M ,c
N E
L O
C O
� �
� v
L �
O •�
o � R
�
�
� .� R
�' l0 H
N '� �
� � c
r°J.n o, �
�
� � n
d
O � NN
�°e(�Z
aaa �.
c v? _ €
Z= �p�.
�
N
�
M'1
N �
�, z
s �
� o�o 0
� � c
� =° �E
� ' ��„ o
cr
M CG
.�
v:
ti
ti' C
P
a�
� �
� 3 �
� `� =
� ` 3
�
� x �_ �
�.,
L i � _
� ,c '�
� -
• � q -�
� � ti
� � ` �
Y :J
� ^ :J •l.
tn :. � = c
.0 � � cs G
t� � • ^
/y V�
Y� V _1w `�' _
o ` � •� ti
� • � � �
`' � ,�
� =-
6d. ^
-- '� : �
C. C
v. �
� v
� �
r... �
� �
` c
��
C �
L �
o�
�
�
�.�r �
i �
� c
��
h
._ �
� N
= y
a� _
� �
� S
= H
� y VC.,
� y C
°����
�, �``v >
_ ..` ' �
e ,c` �'
' e .c � ` a�
•��� �
' c �
� G
c� ,� � $ a `� �
�' ��•• .�^,,' C1 � °C y
v
�V � ,•`` 3 � 6
•.; � � � �
� V�y
�\' V � � �Y �
�; � ••,, � C
w; � �
i ( � J y �
' � C �
i I
V �
C G. C`,�
, ( O' 3 C
:3.i .G �
. . .. . � ..... ............ . .
� y
' U �
�
-c 3 4-
3 � y
V C
C j �
� � �
� v �
L 3 :9 y
'° = N c
C N G �
C = C
��- ' OA
� � �s A � a
� 3 � � —°
� `c ° � � o �
� h � 3 .� o � _ �
�
� � � • � � �
� �
� � •..
6 �, �i o ` �°. .. . v_
� Q c � s ? � Q O o ev
� i'r+' s M' � � a� c°�i `��°
� .. °� .
m � '� � 3 0 �' � s �. � '�
���` �� �� �C�' i °�.�'c
'� Oi O Q'� °' 6� � �� t
� C =
« .. .,. o � 3
� � � c c `" • tJ � -c c
� tr N• � y ro ���y . O
d t
. y 0 � � y
o Q � � .. .. � V �
o G
� •U 0 � >+ U
� pp f0 �n
� >, • = g .. O
� O v, � � �
�
� �C � e�.. � .�
" t�: ` G Q �
�
� ?� 3 y s
= � � n � � �
� tA ^..l�J � .... . ` C '�
„ � — a �, 3
Y ` G � iS C �
3• �
� � _ � � � �
'= `-' ^ :. ' ` ^ �
= G �= � � -' o0
y
Cr� '
�,1 = Q`J � tn c� `
c 3 _ �
� c � � � � ,C•� �Z
'v ,,,,
� pq C C,�, �c � C ^ Ct
� � ._ � ` � C ` ��' w f � L
C. v: � ee - pv i:� _� G
� ` � = =
v ",�r z C � R" . U � � � iw�� �I :J �
^�; ^ - L= �c„ ��='=
y� .. `� , ` = e: _ � ., � �,c x
. ._ _ t� • „ � � u �
.r '.: , j � � _ . _ w, ..0
i� 1 r � .�: wJ.
�, . � �, �
� 'c � 3 3 � �` �^
.+. �• � � � ` .' ... . ^... J. `
� � ` C r �c � �' � � y� � � �` C u
A � J � � � �..� � ` � � �
p-. .. �. L N ` ` � M' _ _ ._
. , _ ^ : •. ,� , _
� .. .
.
� .r �. ti � � : :i; �y v r a
` 'ti ` � � � `
�� � � � _ _ , S J
:r. � ` � r. r �
_ � G, C �G � � G � •i
� � C = � ^ =�, _ ' � °L � a�
� u �, = � m G � �
L
.= '�' ` J C � C v C G
> ." C ;d � � � �
� .`�c . _ � � ' � � v �
C
s a�
= �
� G
_
� —
� t�
��
��
a> �
�` �
C �
v �
C �
eo
u `
? �' �
� � � r
i 1� �
-c ^ > c�,
� �. =�•-`
d � � �; �
�y � Z =
� �� \ '� y �
.� _ _
m. .
:: .��. �r`�'�',' fi` �' c,
� V = ` V: '.�
�.o .� � _ c
.'1► Gi; nj 'C �
C tn
_ c7
� � e�=C
i � L:.
� � �
, � c
I '�' oL
V.' . �
I
oc
� y '�
; J `'.�' j`
� � � ��.., � ?
0 � i a
-�- ' " E
��g
y ° ` c
:� � c,
� a c s y
M, � ,�
� �� � x
C � o
c �. .
.� ,s C Z -C.
O}��1. ki :.,,�. . �3
. 's
-�- C; "� �.
i � � ;
� :,,, .c . ' �:.
C � F � ,..
� � � � �
��C`_;
� .fi `: 5.,
�
. v .. .tii
,. -• Y ; _.
P ... `ie i::_..j .....
.+� ' • .l
,� .�� "` �._
� � N
s � ��
x �
.;,.:
: -.
•:
-�
►
•;
•
:;:
-�.
•
!''
R
o � -''
� � �
� = 3
� � �
"a � �
j _ �
'� 3 �
� -� � �'
� � �
+► � � , •O
�, � ? c -v
i � ` � � p
Y .'7 R :C
� Y .� � 3
� ? � J � � w
V v� � aE.� �
� " � � p�,
4: � � r. � � y w
N `� �.�5 O ^ � � �^`,
"' o
d n '`�" � RS VO C�.�.
W , C/+ N ;� .G ' in �
3 y .; �
� N �'
C c; 3 p
.� � �
� � c �
c
O
N
�
N
�
c
3
y
t
�
�
c
� �
C �
o �
� C
H y
N y
� �
�
� � � �
O i q' o
� � O .0 v
� fi�jW r
� v� C'S � ,� �
. �
� � � � � �
y a• o -.
�
"$ ,� .�. � a t�
�
Z��-�.°'a-v
•y �
4 � �
3 G�
G �
� �
�
o �
0
. _ ` �
'� � �
' .� 3 c
�
� -v .�
3 � �o
� � o
� n �
'= a . y
� :n . ^�
� ��� � � :�
�� i v y�'j a' C
G �. Z �
a ..L,� �C � � .G C
:J
V. y Ct, '4 •^ C C
� � � J s �
tn y a •=' � �v N
W v i � � .,=j V
` y � .� � � �
a�+ •� � ' w � R
�p .; � 3 :° � c
� � � � n S v
� � � �
CO �
;��U �
Ro��
EL -��v �
a� �
C� 3 c
� v
�
:: '
c �
U =�
`o �.�v �`
= � �
�
n � �
� � ¢
-�c c � �
:� � • a�i
� :� o.,�
� � � �
3 _, fi � ;n �
� � � �, � �
� � �.'�. .p y
c � � M :C � y
�� � "^'"'„' RS O vf
� '> ' v � �
� � � c a`�'i '� �
� i � t s o
� � � � �n � �
� � � 3 0
� � `� � � G. Ci
� 'J � O� .0 .r
v�1 "' y �
� � O
o � .�+ �
� �• �
c a� � w
. c. � Q -a
� 'v
c`"n � 0'3
ev
� y
'C
� Q
-� 3
3 �
�
��
O
� �
-° 3
;a o
C y
c
.`
:� �
Y C
�3 '�
p� � i
..r
w �.r i-
� � �3
� � � � -
w �v q, o �
� a � °' ,-� a
� a 3 �,,,' e'
� � fi ,
� � o �
� fi � � � �
` � � �v �
� o, C Q. '� �' �
7����i � N�
�r 3
� Q �
.� O �
� U �c
� _ � c �c
I = 0 '� .M
� �C g �
- � `v
:J
� y :/
� � �
a�
� � �
t,., �
� � '�
'�O .^„::
• � o,
c A .= r°� s '�
W � p � � �
�II � � g �
v s m � a.
:±� O m O `+_i Q
� � cs ^';
� �, � ,
�.
O m �
� � O
�
`
.
Programs are Jree and opea lo the public, buc reservations are
�' required. Cal1 612/854-5900 jor reservations and direcriuns.
Sun P�on Tue Wed Thu� F�i S�t
Bookshop Open ,_�
1 House & Bird
�
Program
500-? �Opm
,,,�� .,,, 7 � 9 10 11. 12 ; :� 3
14 15 16 17 1� �9 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
2$ -29 3 31
, � ro. w�.,_�___.. � __. �W �.w�. =_w�.� __�� �� ..��_ �W.�.�. w.� . _ __� ���� _ � .. �
��■�3�1���!'�� y'�!.'�■��■����'I�����
; .� ,_ ..:
; u� � �
; . t. ,_, . _. ;�
. ,
-: „�-.-_
. � _ . �.:
1= +�: � i:
I��'
• :; �
r
C
_ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _.
E���•' ���ii�'J���'�1���'���I��'
� . ,
,� � : . � � �
� .�, . .
. , ,
• � ,��,,,,,,,,�, ..
, _ _ �.�"�
••, j�-�''' :,
�t 1;
1 �� ?
:' .
�' ���.
..�(>.
r7`� ,
t/1 'p
� � �
� A �
� O
O y �
' � �
'O 6� T�
� O LL
U
ti
y ^x
,II c
��
V N
� Q
� y �o
�
� = N
O
b=
a3
o e e a e o
J' � S =' �' C
?' �q � .a'.. c'�9 = _
.O,a a �
`y � �' � A 7C
y . O D
� � � � S
l9 .A � � � �p
m v, o -� ^
� O � � m
. � .0 � "�. Vf
n = y "►, tD
� � Vl �'
�� �� A
^
n '< �
cd
�' g
c�
�
;�
f/1 � O' Q� ..L � . .
f�9 ^, O fD "". �
e9 � '' O =.
�: `7 � R � �. w
w � � � � ?
� � � H � �
� � � � a `'°�
:aj o A
� � ^ y � �.
n p � � C S �p�
1 u,h A�9
�
� p 'i � f�D � •• �
� C � � � � �
� � � O � ? � �
"'. t9 C '� � Ct
O ',� �C ='
'0 �
� y 1�� a 0 v
�' Cj � ��� � � �j �
•
:. y�° ' ? C C '
� � .� �� � � �
`� � � A O � CD
� i�. � � ^ �
� � �
� _• �' � R �
tD C � � ?
� y G y tD
a�i c�,� a�
C � � � =1
� ^�° y � �0
s����'
�
e� ,� � m �
�y �3 d
�o���
� �� _�
� a,
� _ �
' '
1 �° n � m ° n
o n ��
� � �= ° ��
0
� 0 5- � a
. CA
� �� � � �
' o � ? �
a
I " ��
� � �.
� s� �, �, �
_ � N O
� �
�
' oo y
� O �
W W
' N
' �
� A
' O
' A
� ^
�
� 0
1
1 �
�
1
1
� � a .. , .� .. �x. . �r , � , � ,,�.
� - _. , . �.
s-�
e� «�� � . . . , ,�. w ,,�
f .
0
N
� �
a� �
�
�
E �
v � �
G
a° y =
(A w �
m L �
� � �
�'��
� �
� � ��
N � U
�J�
- O
� a �
t� s° ?5
a4 •y
5 ,.
� 3 �
�'ti �.
c;��
y ��
� � �
� � =
: 'v
� > �'
•
.
•
C
O
.�
�
�=. GA
C '�
� °A
'� bA
.0
� �
�
w m
�an �
5 a�i
... �.�, �
o � '3
�
�ww
. . .
i •
� O
O �
-O
,� O
� •�
� �
CS �'
-0 �
4
O �+
y �
:: �
O
� �
� o
u
� �
.�
Q �
o �
�
�
�
•
• i;
•
�
�
w
3 c
� �
3�
� `'
N
� = O
0 y
Q � �
� � �
� C
� � �
U�A
'fl a> �
O ��
G T
(0 � �
Q y W
M
�f � � �
� � �� �
�" CO '� � ::
mc�n�m5
� � w � �
�"'i' °°3
C � y �
� � 5 A a�"i
� ¢ m o 0
� � :'> a�i w
� � �. � ei
9 � y a?
�a/�uox�
:b iIi .•a N R
■
;
,
,
�:
�
s
O �
� O
� a
OD n'
. o
a.c o
� � � a
�.
� (/j — U
� d � �
_ .v
� N � �
°� o $. `'�
� J � Y
�E=3
� a' �� a�
�r o ,�t y
�i o � cr
d� N '� �
� � C e�o
� ��c' � y
B O� � y
•� '>
C �j
P V �
� C; :r �n
l� � v ;�
� �. �.:�C
�
� � a
� �` � �
C�w�
� � � � ti
� t� r� � a
op v, y
O � � � e�
id O w C C t� CD
O
"' tip � e_ti �. _ei � C �
.� .G 'c E E C = `�' �n
6Ci 6� � �p�� j C� �
Op � '� .O (!� � � � e�0
.�� 'o� .0 � O ._ � `"'
o` c�,° o �' � C> > .c o
� E �v E y � � � �
� w� y ��:fl Q�,� = C
'� � �
•��a. x�����
cpa E H ��� ����E�-
� L�; c°� •= `°
� � •= � � ,E � ,c � �
��mw g =�C�,
� � G � > � _ � `�`� y �'. i%!
� � AC N � " � `' '�
u
� � u � ,t° 3 C '�C�' ° �
.yn �7 � C�O V1 N
O��C .C��.C'CEE
'� o r • = o, ;a ;; �o
Z,`w'�� o'y;e�3'��
� N �� •� �. O .L: � � � Q
>u�� v� �;�yv"c.
�Q��E_�a ���.�C`°c
(h �' � _ ,y y G _ a �' y aor
C�-' �� i' �� �•� p y p r
� C �"' �''' � �
3 � .� > � O � C
O ' F S e�0 i0 v e0 �
a�
`o c°
4. y
,s u
�
y y
y� V'
' c
°� o
3 3
`
� �
"d �
� c
-_ `o
ow
� c c
.�C
� � �
�i `
� C w
dm0
c •b � �
a � .c E'
����.=c
� O .0 3 � r
� GMD�,�N O'�
H �
. � A. � •y � .�
O�tn � ��'
� � �
� � � `�
� � •N � .'" O
� 0 p ia � � 6i
6L c�J L� :� �
on I
� a� o
.c � /
� � `
�
� � .�:► �!
_ '� • s N
.,
a � '� � �
� � s '� �
�wr:. O 'v i
��� m � (
' � °�' � C I
�
.o :` ` � � ,
� _" (
c,, .
�
J a a �, ..
a �'�.. � � i
� M � :.;
.0
� � � i
Y � $ �� ~ � �
�r.:�,y � � �
��� �
� � o � � `
.r ("" � C v. •�.
�. �
O � `9 � ' '� i
�
m�E,�3 c,
'o: � e � � �:
'� N �'
p� � � �
g�a � � !w/] �
� y S �'
a 'i�'.� ' �' y
� y C� � s C'
•G = � �
� _ � U � 3 v
, c� :— � o cn
� ao 3`= � a� c
� � � �..�9,�"> A
°�•, �+ � � � o,n . �
�O y` o C° U o
�... o ; �.�•-.3 �'�:
°� N � C � � � � �
ro o, � � „ -- `
� ::�r°'�o:� �a�iL'"y
� .° =� "� °' °-'
� c.
+r � � � � �a a "' 'a-
s�m V O� � o� � y y 4"' �.r
r.
m w, a � p� � °�3 .fl ;� o
f� .
� � Q � v ^ � � � •� �
pw-���a 3Ea��
^� .E c ~ � � _, � � � �
. �,� ���v wiQC�
0 E+ G+ ... , o s s •
. y��-3
�.
a� ._ '$
� � � ',
�
,.�
�
,
�....._... � � . .. .
.9 =
5 '° a�i b
a.�:i � � � �
$v o �F
�.. � .�C �i.r 6)
� � � � .5
� � (> �t� � �
0 � � a
� � � � "a �
�=� �� �
C "' tA QD 6> .6;
������
.S � � d w �
a� �� ��
.. 'C7 d
�J�' � �C � � 'fl
o � � o ? �
a�i � � c y �
a� 3 :3 o to
�r :MY
�� r � �
3 .3 � C t` �
O�w� a�i Y:'
w G''O � � G,
�•��o���
� �
��.�8�=��
�
�� y � N � 5
u � o � v c
�..°�.5w.°� �
m
1
� �
.� N �� � �
i'+� g� � oU�-�
> o� � u �' u
�,° a a��t'�
�� � �p���� �
.�„ G � .� u � � �p �
C
p y .G � � � O O
3 � � � a �' � a
� � p $ . o � u
'a v '� c a. �
0 p a0 OCD �� m� C
� .� �p � '� c � = $
N
'� I.j 'C �C OA `p N
;� Q''c zt :a a•" a•� `� o y
� �.Q �E a+� � � y �
= y � O 0.�� C� ��
u,� v� �' c u'v
�/ _ .o •- 6s $ � ,o yF � ;� �
Fm! .�, � � �€,a ��� � m
- O QC y � � _ _ t�„i = `�
� a G] i%co �'.0 S cr. a.c E-
� s o a e o e •
0
����
�� �� od
� �o � ���_
s � `3 � a -�a ti � °i s � a
�' E. d, Q s h$ �' '� i o
� ��
� �a V�� e 3 $ o E a
m����'� �o
s � �, ...
E'�„eo�,='� .��
- ° �+`+� °�° �`�
��mm
/ � '
.� �! "--..---;-.,.:.
� _.��
� , (
..-.�- � -w-� � �'� �"° � � �"."i �=� •, %�g "� '� �� '�
� s " � - ,�� � � � �' � �.' � �-..
��� ��� � � �a � � ��.� �� � � �� �� � ���
�
. � . . . ._ �, :. '.. ; � � ;•
• '
� , � , � � � � � �;� '"' `� '� �'� `< � ,�, �. �� .:. •,�'r • ;
. � u �� �, � �.� .z � � '�"'� g .� � � ��"� �� � � ��� fl�}��? � e�"� �� � � ? rr '«_� �� -
_ r �
��� � � �: �� � � T "� �b. � �` � � a
s � �' i. �i, ��� • � — —
, � . . � � � '. .
¢ , . • .� • , jy, �, � . , �.
� Q :, ,� � � � s � � .
� r e �e �
w s iA .',� � � � e.c i
! �
x 9 • • r
Prepared fnr
The Cify of RichfielJ, nht�
Prepared by
The Brauer Group, Inc.
Project Managers
On the �asis of Inforrr�ation ancB Analysis Proviclecl by
Dr. Sanford Fidell
Airport Noise
Brauer � Associates, Ltd.
Parks and Recreation Facilities
Walter E. Giilfilian
Airport Planning and Operations
Dr. Geoffrey Gosiing
Aviation Systems Planning
�City of Richfield HRA V�lesfi�vood Professional Services
Housing/Redevelopment/Relocation Transportation and Traffic
SfinS Communications
Ccammunications
Richfield Community Senrices
Public Works and Public Safety
Steven Pflaum, Attorney at Law
Legal
A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTHSOUl'H R! �NWAY AT THE fl�SP INTERPIATIONAL AIRPORT
� � � � . . . � � _
� '. • c• - •. • r -
= � � . � : _ � �
PART SUBJECT PART-PAGE
: ,
~f7_1;�i�!i!N7
��7;1:�i�:1:1��1
- •
',
�
� �� ;�:
Execuiive Summar�/ ......................ONE-1 to ONE-12
Ideniification of Stakeholders.......TVVO-1 to TWO 4
Defini�ion of Impacts............THREE-1 to THREE-11
Miiigation Proposals ..................FOUR-1 to FOUR-7
Implementation Process ................FIVE-1 to FIVE-6
.... .: r. .
A. BBN Report No. 8196
�. BBN Report No. 8211
C. City of Fiichfeld Comprehensive Plan D�t��
� � � � , - 7 r w ry . �
• . , ; � �
•
� :: , : � , • •
FOR
THE It�PACTS TO RICHFIELD STAKEHOLDERS
RESULTING FROM DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATION
OF
�- - = -=; � L.
.`: 1 S �• f; -:: y G 4 a - J
� +, 3 W `'�.. `� .� ',v. r' 2 '�; 4 H 3, :�' [�
FOR
THE 11�INNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT SITE
MINiVEAPOLIS, �/iN
SECTION NO. SUBJECT PAGE NO.
1.0 Ovenriew ONE-2
1.1 Supporting Detail ONE-5
1.2 Identification of Affected Populations
and Other Stakeholders ONE-5
1.3 Identification and Definition of Impacts
to be I�itigated ONE-7
1.4 Mitigation Proposals ONE-9 �
1.5 Implementation Process ONE-11
1.6 Exhibits....Noise Impacted Areas in Richfield ONE-13
1. Summary from BBN Report No. 8196
2. Summary from BBN Report No. 8211
3. Noise Impacted Areas in Richfield...and Existing Land
Uses
4. Redevelopment Area...Existing Population
5. Redevelopment Area...Existing Market Values
6. A Redevelopment Concept
7. Option Six Plan For MSP Site Development (EIS)
C
A flAITIGATION COPICEPT FOR A NEW PIORTH-SOUTH RUPIWAY AT THE flflSP INTERMATIOMAL AIRPORT
�
7 00 �V��I�W
This report contains the City of Richfield's concept for mitigating the impacts that wouid
be produced by the proposed north-south runway at Minneapolis-St. Paul International
Airport ("MSP"). Notwithstanding the significant noise, traffic, economic, and other
impacts that the runway would produce in Richfield--impacts far greater than those that
would be experienced in any other community--Richfield does not oppose improvement
of the MSP site. However, Richfield believes that the project must include a
comprehensive mitigation plan that reduces negative impacts to the fullest extent
possible. This report outlines an effective concept for achieving that objective.
The draft Environmental Impact Statement for the runway project released in late 1996
(the "DEIS") failed to address important potential impacts, such as low frequency
aircraft noise, and consequently failed to propose any mitigation for those impacts.
Richfield was therefore forced to analyze impacts overlooked in the DEIS and to
formulate appropriate mitigation measures.
Richfield retained the Brauer Group, Inc., a planning firm with more than thirty years of
planning experience in Richfield, to senre as project manager of the mitigation effort.
,- -. To support the Brauer Group's expertise in mitigation of "traditional" land use, traffic,
� ) and economic impacts, Richfield hired BBN Technologies, an internationally respected
" acoustical engineering firm, to analyze whether the new runway would create significant
noise impacts in Richfield.
BBN focused its attention on low frequency runway sideline noise frorn aircraft on or
near the ground, such as that produced by aircraft while taxiing, taking off, employing
thrust reversers on landing, or undergoing engine maintenance run-ups. Such low
frequency noise is experienced as low rumbling and/or vibration which can last far
longer than noise produced by an aircraft overflight. Recent years have witnessed
increased concern about low frequency noise at airports across the United States,
inclu�;�ag San Francisco International Airport, Boston's Logan International Airport, and
Baltimore-Washington International Airport.
In its initial report (Summary appended as EXHIBIT 1, and the full report as Appendix
A), BBN concluded that the new north-south runway would increase low frequency
noise in a large portion of eastern Richfield and that such sideline noise could not be
effectively mitigated by either a noise berm parallel to the runway or traditional
residential soundproofing measures. Specifically, BBN found that:
�• Aircraft operations on the proposed runway would "substantially elevate [low
frequency noise levels) up to about a mile from the runway. ..."
r`
�
`--' PART ONE.....EXECUTIVE SUflAfViARY PAGE ONE - 2
A RAITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A PlEW iVORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY AT THE ANSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
"Levels of low frequency noise expasure similar to those that will be created in
eastern Richfield by [the new runwayj have given rise to noise complaints in
communities near other airports." -
An acoustic barrier (noise wall or berm) of sufficient size to�provide appreciable
low frequency noise reduction for eastern Richfield is unlikely to be cost-
effective. (Appendix A at page 3.)
Having learned that the new runway would increase low frequency noise levels in
eastern Richfield, the challenge then became to determine the area that would be
exposed to significant low frequency noise impacts. Consistent with applicable state
and federal environmental laws, Richfield believes that the extent of significant impacts
should define the e�ctent of needed mitigation. On the basis of a second study
performed by BBN (Summary is EXHIBIT 2 and full report is Appendix B) which
measured the degree of community annoyance associated with low frequency noise--
the same consideration underlying the FAA's 65 DNL standard for defining significar�t
"traditional" airport noise impacts--Richfield defined an area of significant impact within
a low frequency noise level of 75 dB. The "fVoise Impacted Areas in Richfield"
(EXHIBIT 3 OF Part One) corresponds with the 75 dB low frequency noise contour.
1.0.1 Conclusions ancl Proposals in ihe Mitigaiion Concept ..............as reflected by
the land use plan depicted in EXHIBIT 6, Richfield's Proposed Redevelopment Concept
as part of the total mitigation proposal includes the following elements:
a. Redevelopment of the portion of Richfield subjected to significant noise impacts
from the new runway with the twin goals of (1) replacing largely residential land
uses with development compatible with the noise produced by the runway, and
(2) minimizing the resulting population loss. To that end, Richfield's
redevelopment concept would replace existing land uses with high- and low-
density office and commercial uses in the eastem portion of the redevelopmer�;:
area, and with high-density, noise-resistant residential uses in the remaini��
portion of the redevelopment area east of Bloomington Avenue (further away
from the new runway).
b. All structures in the remaining area within the 75dB low frequency noise contc4�
would be sound insulated under the current residential soundproofing program
specifications, and �vould receive additional low frequency noise mitigation wor�c
including more resistant windows and doors, special suspended ceilings,
vibration reducing fasteners for wall-hung objects, dampening materials for
treatment of dishes and other objects in closets, cupboards, and shelves, and
minor structural improvements that will significantly dampen vibrations and
Pi4RT OPdE.....EXECUTIVE SUMNIARY
PAGE OPdE - 3
C�
A AAITIGATIOW GOtdCEPT FOR A PlEW PdORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP IPlTERNATIOPlAI. AIRPORT
noise. Ali homes in the two-block wide "transition area" beyond the 75dB line will
� receive dampening materials for wall-hung objecfs, and treatments for all closets,
cupboards, and shelves.
c. Relocation of the approximately 2,000 residents and 35 businesses that would
be displaced by the redevelopment concept.
d. To reduce social impacts (community-wide), programs that retain most current
residents and businesses, with new developments that are designed and priced
to retain residents and businesses, and by incentive programs that encourage
residents and businesses outside the redevelopment area to occupy the new
construction, so that existing homes and business spaces are available first to
those displaced by the redevelopment. .
e. Replacement of the Rich Acres and New Ford Town parks and related facilities
(if it is determined that the loss of those facilities is consistent with state and
federal law), including the expansion of the Ft. Snelling Golf Course into ari 13-
hole facility and the provision of a replacement site for the community gardens,
bluebird restoration project, and the archery range.
f. Improvements to E66th Street, Portland, Twelfth, Bloomington, and iVicollet
;� �
Avenues, to accommodate diverted overflow freeway traffic, and "traffic calming"
� % devices that will discourage further diversions through adjacent residential areas.
The transportation mitigation should also include provisions for improved trans�t
access to the airport, including access to light rail transit.
g. A 200-foot wide "greenbelt" of mixed trees and prairie grasses would be provided
over the full length of the NiAC site adjacent to TH77. The greenbelt would
include berms and fences where needed to minimize off-airport intrusion of
landing lights from ground operations by aircraft, and plantings that will support
the current bluebird restoration project on the golf course site.
h. Increased freeway vehicle traffic noise would be mitigated vvith the best availar�+�
technology (BA� for aesthetically pleasing and ecologically responsible sound
barriers or depressed grades (while maintaining visibility for new businesses
along TH77), landscaping, parks, and trails, over the complete length of the
improvements on TH62 and nIIAC border on TH77 in Richfield.
i. Groundwater quality impacts would be mitigated by appropriate wellhead
protection or closure improvements to wells that would be abandoned.
j. MAC property adjacent to Richfield in Taft Park would be annexed into Richfield,
and MAC will not acquire any more property in Richfield.
( '�
�_ .
PART OPdE.....EXECUTIVE SUM1fIMARY PAGE OtdE - 4
A hAITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A fdEW NORiHSOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERPdATIONAL AIRPORT
k. Construction impacts would be mitigated by equally distributing construction
traffic to all four access points on the IV1AC site, by completing improvements to �
the E66th Street/TH77 interchange before runway 17/35 begins, and the E77th
Street tunnel and ramps before the air cargo area is operational.
I. Full funding of the redevelopment project, including replacement of taxes, fees,
and other revenues lost to the City of Richfield and the Richfield School District,
would be provided over the full term of the redevelopment project and an escrow
or endowment fund established to fund losses beyond that time.
'i.0.2 Implementation Process........vvould be planned, designed, and managed by the
City of Richfield. Planning and design activities would likely take nine to eighteen
months, while actual r.edevelopment work would require six to ten years. Total cost of
implementation of the proposed mitigation program over the assumed ten-year Ilfe of
the project would be approximately $358,500,000 in 1998 dollars for the broad
conceptual plan outlined in this report using zero base TIF funding (less than sixteen
percent of the estimated $2.3 billion cost of the north-south runway project). The final
plan may cost more or less, but musi include effective monitoring, communication, and
enforcement of all the terms and provisions, particularly those on continuing airport
operations.
1°� ��I����I�g ������ ................for mitigation of each of the impacts of the �
proposed new runway 17/35 (the "north-south" runway) and related development is ��
presented in a brief, statement format as follows:
1.1.1 TERMIIdOLOGY AND CA'TEGORIES.........of impacts and mitigation proposals
in this report refer to specific items (and alphabetical designations) thaf are used
in the DEIS. Those that are omitted are acceptable or not applicable.
1.1.2 I(V RICHFIEL.D....environmental consequences and impacts are compounded
and quite disproportional to impacts on any other community, while mitigation
options and choices are few, complicated, and not easily understood by the
affected residents, institutions, and businesses.
1.2 Identif�cation of . ec�e I�siitutior�s, opuiation�, and
t er S�akeholders............include affected institutions, facilities, residential
owners and renters, and businesses that are not identified in the DEIS, but as
stakeholders must be important participants in an equitable, fair, and successful
mitigation process. Stakeholders today include (but are not limited to) the following:
'0.2.'i THE CI'N OF RICHFIELD.......represented by its City Council, Housing and
Redevelopment Authority, Planning and Community Services Commissions.
.,.
PART OP1E.....EXECUTIVE SUflANIARY �
PAGE OfdE - 5
A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW PdORTHSOUTH RUPlWAY AT THE flASP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
, �
1.2.2 INDEPENDENI' SCHOOL DISTRIC'f 280.........represented by its Board, staff
and parent-student organizations.
'i.2.3 nA'f. CALVARY PRIV�0.TE SCHOOL .............represented�y its Board, staff, and
parent-student organization.
1.2.4 MT. CALVARY & RICHFIELD EVANGELiC�►L FREE CHURCHES...represented
by their Church Boards and staff.
1.2.5 THIRTY FIVE (35) BUSINESSES .............represented byowners, managers or
employees. -
'i.2.6 SIX HURIDRED FOUR (604) SINGLE F�►I�ILY HOUSEHOLDS..........will
represent themselves.
1.2.i FOUR FOUNDRED (400) RENT�►L. MULI'IPLE DWELL.INGS wiih SIX
FIUNDRED FORTY OIVE (641) TENANTS.......will be represented by owners,
property managers, and tenant representatives.
1.2.8 A►BOUT 10,000 USERS OF EXISTIIVG PARKS, GOLF COURSES, and
; � A'THLEI'IC F�4CILITIES.......will be represented by the Richfield Community
` � Services Commission and designated representatives of each of the specific
recreation and athletic groups that are affected.
'i.2.9 �OUR (4) FRANCHISE INFF2�►STRUCTURE ORGANI�►TIONS...........(electric
power, gas senrice, telephone, and cable tv) will be represented by employees
and managers.
1.2.10 fVATUR�►L SYSTEMS .......................of wetland and upland plant (urban forest)
communities will be represented in the process by the Community Services .
Cornmission and designated representatives of affected arboreal groups.
1.2.11 CtJST'OMERS APlD VISITORS.........affected or impacted by the development
include non-resident customers of the businesses and visitors to residents in the
affected area, will be represented by residents and business owners or
managers.
1.2.12 SOC10-ECOIVONAIC � PHYSIC�►L CIi�4R�4CTER OF NEIGhiBO�HOODS...........
will be represented by a cross-section of the resident population, the HRA,
Planning Commission, City Council, and special Task Groups designated by the
Council with the advice and assistance of special consultants.
PART ONE.....EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGE ONE - s
A NIITIGATIOPI CONCEPT FOR A PIEW NORTH-SOUTN RUNWAY AT THE MSP IIVTERPlAT10NAL AIRPORT
. _
103 Identofication and efin�t�on of impacis io be s�igaieci.... (�
,.
The DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATE(VIENT for the IVISP expansion project
lists °Environmentai Consequences" under 33 headings (A through GG), and describes
the affected environment, the impacts, and mitigation measures proposed under each
heading. This report modifies, or expands on those impacts, and adds new categories
as follows:
1.3.1 A. AIR QUALITY........must be expanded to include impacts from airc�aft
engine exhaust while on the ground to residents and businesses nearest to
the new runway.
1.3.2 . C. �IOTIC COMMUNITIES..........must be expanded to recognize the loss of
the urban forest in New Ford Town, Rich Acres, and the proposed
redevelopment area , as well as the upland habitat in the existing golf
courses and parks that are lost.
1.3.3 E. CONSTRUCTIOiV IN9PACTS...........must recognize the disproportionate
impacts on Richfield transportation and traffic if traffic and highway upgrades
are not completed prior to construction.
1.3.4 L. ECONOI�IIC........impacts must recognize the disproportionate economic
impacts on Richfield under airport related development, golf course (
revenues, tax capacity, population, antl student losses. �
1.3.4 N. INDUCED SOCIO-ECOtVOMIC IMPACTS............must be expanded to
reflect the disproportionate socio-economic impacts on the smallest
neighboring city, that will lose population because of the need to convert
- large areas of fine residential neighborhoods into non-residential uses.
1.3.5 O. LARID USE............conversions of 1,000 residential units to compatible
non-residential and special construction residential uses within the low-
frequency noise impacted area musf be included as impacts to be mitigate<<+.
1.3.� P. LIGHT EMISSIO(VS.........mitigation must include consideration of he
impacts of powerful landing lights from aircraft while taxiing in the air cargo
area that will intrude on Richfield properties west of TH77.
1.3.7 S. IVOISE.......... impacts, including those frequency impacts defined in BBN
Report No. 8196, must be included in the effects to be mitigated. See
EXHIBIT 3, Existing Land Uses Within the Low Frequency Noise Impacted
� Area, that delineates the boundaries of the impacted area
� �
PART ONE.....EXECUTIVE SUMfViARY PAGE OPIE -%
�
; ,
� �.
A RIIITIGATiOPd COtdCEPT FOR A PdEW PIORTH-SOUTH RUPIWAY AT THE MSP IfdTERPdAT10NA� AIRPORT
1.3.8 R. PA,Rf�CS AND RECREATION..........areas within the DNL65 contours
should include Washington Park, and the low-frequency noise APE must
include Christian Park in addition to those listed in the DEIS. Replacements
for the Golf Courses, Baseball Fields, Community Gardens, and Archery
Range should be included in mitigation funding consistent with State and
Federal laws and rules.
1.3.9 T. SOCIAL INiP/�CTS..........from displacement of 1,000 residential units and
35 businesses in Richfield must be recognized as substantially more impact
than on any other city, and the basis for community support funding.
1.3.10 U. SEC'f10N 4(� IMPACTS...........should include replacement of the IVew
Ford Tovun and Rich Acres Parks acquired under appropriate State and
Federal law requirements.
1.3.11 W. T6L41VSPORTATION ACCESS........will have negative impacts on access
to TH77 for Richfield residents and businesses, and increased traffic on the
freeways will result in additional traffic diversions to local Richfield streets.
The DEIS must also include improved transit access to and from the City.
1.3.12 Y. VISUAL IMPACI'S ..............of converting golf course and open space
amenities into paving and large buildings must be considered and mitigated.
1.3.13 BB. Sl1RF�4CE WATER QUALITY..........musf confirm that the Richfeld
Storm Water Plan is not compromised by the additional runoff from airport
development and loss of storage areas for City flows.
1.3.'94 CC. GROUfVDWA'TER (�l1ALIT1(.........should include proposals for wellhead
protection of acquifers that supply Richfield wells from future co�tamination.
1.3.15 GG. DESIGtV, AI27', AiVD ARCHITECI'URE..........must recognize that the
very large air cargo structures that will replace the golf course do have
substantial negative impact and need to be mitigated.
1.3.16 11. OiHER IMF'ACTS NOT INC�UDED BN 'TFIE DEIS.........that should be
included are:
a. Long-Term Fiscal Irnpacts on the City and School District......should
be recognized and identified as a continuing responsibility until school
population in the impacted area regains current levels.
b. City Boundaries........should be modified to consider trades of MAC
acquisitions within the City for current and future MAC lands outside of the
primary airport site.
c. The Legal Process........for effective mitigation must be adopted.
PART ONE.....EXECUTIVE SUMNiARY
PAGE OPdE - S
A ANITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW FdORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY AT THE RASP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
1.4 I�iiigation Proposals
,
1.4.1 A. �41R QIJALITY,..,,,..in neighborhoods adjacent to the new runway must be �
monitored and reported regulariy to residents and the City, and should be
controlled as much as possible by limiting the number of aircraft queued for
runway 17135 and cargo areas, and other measures that may be developed.
1.4.2 C. �IOTIC CONIt�IUNIT1Es........that are repiaced by pavements and structures
on the MAC site must be mitigated by providing a 200-foot wide °greenbelt" of
mixed trees and prairie grasses over the full length of the MAC site adjacent to
TH77, must fund replacements for mature trees lost in the redevelopment area,
and continue the bluebird restoration project in this greenbelt area as well.
'i.4.3 E. COIVSTFtUCTIOM It�PACTs........in addition to measures outlined in the
DEIS, must be mitigated by completing improvements to the E66th Street
interchange prior to 17/35 construction, and directing construction traffic to be
distributed over all four NIAC access points.
'i.4.4 I. ECONONIIC........impacts on Richfield (the smallest neighbor with the most
economic losses) must be mitigated through complete fiscal support of the
redevelopment project, replacement af tax, fees, and other revenues lost to the
City and the School District, on-going funding of community organization and
participation activities, Purchase Value Guarantee and improvement incentive
programs for all residents east of Portland Avenue. �
'i.4.5 N. INDIJCED SOCiO-ECOtVOMIC IMPACTS........can be affected by t1�AC
policies that support redevelopment of the noise impacted area or Richfield, and
financial support of activities that encourage residents and businesses to remain
in Richfield to reduce negative impacts. (See Implementation for cost estimates)
1.4.6 O. L,4ND l7gE,,,,,,,,,,,,,proposed for the primary noise impacted area of Richfield
(See EXHIBIT 6) should be fully funded for redevelopment by the City. MAC
must not acquire any more property or property rights within the City of Richf:�i�:1
1•4•i P. LIGHT' EIl�ISSIOIVS.........from aircraft moving on the ground in the air cargo
area adjacent to TH77 should be mitigated by construction of berms and fenc�s
in the "green belt" area, and by restriction of the use of powerFul landing lights ir�
this area from 9:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.
1.4.8 Q. NOISE..........mitigation activities must extend structural protection beyond
the DNL60 limits for all runways, to include all of the areas within low frequency
75dB, or A90 (BBN Report 8196) area limits and a two-block "transition zone"
delineated by EXHIBIT 3, fVoise Impacted Areas in Richfield. Structural
i�
P/�RT OPdE.....EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGE ONE - 9 ��
A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A PlEW (dORTHSOUTH RUPIWAY AT THE MSP IPITERfdATIO1dAL AIRPORT
(� ) protection must include replacernent of doors and windows and other actions
that will specifically reduce the impacts of low frequency sound and related
vibrations. MAC must accept the redevelopment concept (See EXHIBIT 6) and
provide for all required financing. (See 1.5, Implementation for cost estimates).
a) Surface Access 1'ranspor�tion Noise ..................should be mitigated v�rith
the best available technology (BAl� for aesthetic and ecologically responsible
sound barriers, landscaping, parks and trails.
b) Operaiion of Aircraft Er�gines in the Air Cargo Area......must be limited to .
6 a.m. to 9 p.m., and will be moved by towing at other times.
c) Fund an Indepencient Study of the Long-Term Health Effecis of Aircrait
� Noise.........in the noise impacted area of Richfield.
1.4.9 R. P�a►RKS AND RECREATION..........impacts must be mitigated by approval of
Richfield proposals for replacement of the Rich Acres and New Ford Town Parks
land, amenities, and improvements, provision of a replacement site for the full
community gardens and archery range (on other vacant f�SP land), relocation
assistance and expedition of land acquisitions and exchanges that will result in
replacement of the ball fields, and expansion of the Ft. Snelling Golf Course into
an 18-hole facility, and full funding of all of these activities (See 1.5,
Implementation, for cost estimates).
! `�
( 1.4.10 T. SOCIAL INIPACTS.........must be mitigated with full funding of relocation ofi all
2.000+/- residents (owners and tenants) and 35+/- businesses that are displaced
in the relocation concept (See EXHIBIT 6) with related high�nray transportation
improvements, funding of community organizations including effective and timely
MAC responses to requests and related interaction activities with the City and all
residents substantially affected by the MSP project and the resulting
. redevelopment activities, and Purchase Value Guarantees for all residents east
of Portland Avenue within Richfield. (See 1.5, for cost estimates.)
1.4.11 U. SECTION 4(fl IMPACTS............should include New Ford Town and Rich
Acres Parks covered under R. PARKS AND RECREATION, above.
1.4.12 W. TR�4NSPOR'TATIOIV ACCESS.........mitigation must include improvements
to the E66th Street/TH77 interchange before 17/35 construction, and a
functioning TH77/E77th Street tunnel and ramps before the proposed air cargo
area is operational. Overflow traffic that will be diverted from the freeways to city
streets (E66th Street, Portland, Twelfth, Bloomington, and Nicollet Avenues) will
require improvements and upgrading those streets, and traffic "calming"
improvements to discourage further diversions through adjacent residential
areas. Provision must also be made to provide improved transit access
(including access to �R� to and from Richfield.
� ���
PART ONE.....EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGE ONE -'� O
A�flITIGATiOM COPICEPT FOft A PdEW P10RTH-SOUTH RUNWAY AT THE AflSP IPdTERPdATiONA� AIRPORT
1.4.13 Y. VISUAL IMPACTS........,....of the conversion from golf course and residential
area to vast paved areas and large buildings must be mitigated by development (
of a 200-foot wide "green belt" described under 1.4.2 above, and enhanced �
architectural treatments for building facades facing west (see 1.4.16, below).
1.4.14 BB. SURFACE WATER QUALITY.........must meet all requirements of the
Richfield surface water management plan.
1.4.15 CC. GROUNDWATER (aUALITY...........��nust include appropriate wellhead
protection or closure improvements to the existing wells that will be abandoned
in order to protect the aquifer that serves the Richfield water system.
1.4.16 GG. DESIGN, ART', ARCHITECTURE..........must provide the "green belt" area
previously described as a buffer, as well as enhanced architectural treatment of
facades of the air cargo buildings that will be in full view from many multiple
residential units less than 1,000 feet to the west.
1.4.17 II. OTHER IMPACTS idOT IfVCLUDED IN TFIE DEIS...........as follows:
aj Long-1"erm Fiscal Impac�.s ..............on the City and the School District
should be mitigated by compensation equal to the tax, fee, grants, and other
revenues lost because of all of the impacts of this airport project. (See 1.5,
Implementation for cost estimates).
b) City Boundaries...........should be revised to exclude New Ford Town and �
Rich Acres, and should be expanded to include all of MAC property in and �
adjacent to the City (Taft Park area).
c) The Legal Siaius and Process......required for effective implementation of
the approved mitigation plan must be adopted by both the City and MAC.
' •;•. ;_. � e��, '�_•;� -
1.5.1 ADOPTION OF A COt�PREHENSIVE MITIGATION PL�4N ...............must first be
accomplished by CITY, and the funding mechanism adopted by MAC, through
formal resolutions. The PLAN must include full funding, staffing, allowance for
outside consulting commitments, stakeholder involvement, a communications
program, a time line, and an effective enforcement procedure, in order to suniive
periodic changes in Council Members, Commissioners, and staff, as well as
continuous changes in the affected participants and "public interest" groups that
weave in and out of all redevelopment projects.
1.5.2 IVfAfVAGEIVIENT OF THE PI�4N...........will be assigned to staff or consultants as
appropriate, by the City. The IVlitigation Project Manager (NIPfVI) will work under
the direction of the City Manager or designated staff. The City IVlanager will
coordinate and communicate regularly with MAC through the Executive Director. �
`
PART ONE.....EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGE ONE -'I'�
A PNITIGATIOPd CONCEPT FOR A MEdI/ NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP IIdTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
__ 1.5.3 STAKEHOLDER P�►►R'fICIPATION IN MITIGA'TION ACTIONS........will include
� � frequent a�d consistent information provided promptiy to "hot line" caliers, and
frequent, scheduled, disseminated by newsletter, direct mail, media releases,
presentations to neighborhood gatherings, informed feedback through response
cards and calls, random sample telephone intenriews, interactive public forums,
and the continuing involvement of various stakeholder representatives through
specific neighborhood and/or project task groups.
c. Plan Provi�ions to Encourage Fte%niion of Curreni Residenis and
Businesses.........must be part of the basic approach, and will include
financial incentives, priority access to existing or newr construction, financial
assistance for remodeling or expanding existing structures outside of the
redevelopment area (east of Portland Avenue), and other forms of transitional
and long-term assistance that will encourage current residents and
businesses to stay in Richfield.
b. Participation...........is critical to the success of the mitigation program.
Unless stakeholders are part of the process, and have a substantial part (not
simply input) in the solutions, the situation will be dominated by disorder and
conflict, to the detriment of the community and the MSP project.
1.5.4 �4N ESTIMATED TIME LINE ..............target dates will be related to the airport
facility final design and funding. A preliminary estimate would be nine to
eighteen months for planning and design, two to three years for soundproofing,
`i and five to ten years for actual redevelopment acquisition, relocation, and new
construction.
1.5.5 t�ITIGATION FIJNDING l'O BE PROVIDED BY THE PROJECT.......is estimated
to be $358,500,000 (in 1998 dollars) over the life of the entire project (10 years),
although some specific funding (trust or endowment funding for continued loss of
City or School District revenues) may continue beyond that time. This estimate
includes the gross cost of land purchased for redevelopment ($110 million). The
financial impact on MAC is expected to be partially offset by land sale proceeds
and possibly the use of reduced base tax increment financing. The reduced
base tax increment financing would require special legislative authorization.
1.5.6 REVIEW 1'HE PROJECl' AND THE M�►IVQ►GEMENI' PROCESS
ANIdUALLY.........in order to evaluate the effectiveness, responsiveness,
timeliness, appropriateness, enforcement of the provisions, impacts on affected
participants, and consistency with Comprehensive Plan provisions will be
required. The City will update all provisions, and make changes required to
improve the delivery system and the project. The City and f�AC must also
update all legal, financial, legislative, and management criteria and constraints
on an annual basis.
� )
� PART ONE.....EXECUTIVE SUnAMARY PAGE ONE -"I Z
A 6HITIGATION COPVCEPT FOR A PIEW NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERPIATIOPlA� AIRPORT
�.
1.6 X I li .
.........included in PART ONE...EXECUTIVE SU111�MARY, include the
following:
EXHIBIT 1. Summary of BBN Report iVumber 8196,
An Analvsis of Anticipated Low Frequency Aircraft Noise Due to
Operation of a Proposed North-South Runway at MSP
14 May 1997
EXHIBIT 2. Summary of BBN Report Number 8211,
Field Studv of the Annovance of Low Frequency Runway Sideline
Noise
14 October 1997
EXHIBIT 3. Noise Impacted Areas.....Existing Land Uses
EXHIBIT 4. Noise Impacted Areas......Existing Population
EXHIBIT 5. Noise Impacted Areas......Existing Market Values
EXHIBIT 6. The Proposed Redevelopment Concept
C
EXHIBIT 7. i1AAC Option Six Plan for MSP Site Development
PART ONE.....EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGE ONE -13
( �
EXHIBIT 1 � j',
An p,naiysis oiAnticipated Low F'e-equency Aircraft
I`loise in Richfield Due to Operation of � Proposed '
�torth-South I�unvvay at 1VISP ,
I` : ; .. ' '
�' XBCY.tt1�'e �UBilillat'�'
'I'he Study
In 1997, the City of Richfield hired Dr. Sanford Fidell of BNN Systems of Canoga,
California, to examine the low frequericy noise impacts on eastern portions of the
community from aircraft ground operations on a new North-South Runway.
Low frequency aircraft ground noise is the rumbling noise made by aircraft on the
ground. It is made by aircraft prior to brake release, during take-off roll, when applying
reverse thrust upon landing, when taxiing to or frorn runways, or when running up
engines for maintenance or other reasons.
Sometimes it is audible in homes, sometimes it is not. It also causes rattling of windows
- and objects within homes. Neighborhoods in the Los Angeles, San Francisco and Boston
� azeas are also struggling with low frequency noise impacts.
Low frequency noise is a challenging concern for communities to deal with because of
the inability to use traditional noise assessment methods to measure it and traditional
. mitigation tools to lessen impacts.
The problem is that standazds aircraft noise metrics, contouring methods, and interpretive
criteria used for regulatory purposes are measured in A-weighted units. Noise
measurements expressed in A-weighted units are most heavily influenced by high
frequency sound in the vicinity of 1 kHz (about two octaves above middle-C on the
piano) but aze highly insensitive to low frequency sound.
Conventional acoustic treatments aze much more effective with reducing high frequency
noise produced by aircraft overflights than with low frequency aircraft ground noise.
Conventional acoustic treatment may not yield a sufficient improvement in low frequency
transmission to prevent residents from noticing low frequency aircraft noise in their
homes. Furthermore, conventional acoustic insulation measures do not necessarily
prevent the production of indoor rattling noises in homes.
The field measurements made by BNN were undertaken to establish current low �
frequency noise levels and to permit estimation of future low frequency noise levels in
! � parts of Richfield near the proposed North-South Runway.
Suenanary of Findings
�
° Aircraft operations on a proposed North-South Runway at MSP will substantially
elevate ambient noise levels in one-third octave bands below 100 Hz in areas of
Richfield up to about a mile from the runway, by 20 dB or more under some
conditions.
.
.
.
This increase in low frequency noise levels is not apparent in the (A-weighted)
aircraft noise exposure contours produced by the FAA's Integrated Noise Model.
Levels of,low frequency noise exposure similar to those that will be created in eastern
Richfield by operations on proposed Runway 17/35 have given rise to noise
complaints in communities near other airports.
An acoustic barrier pazallel to the proposed runway of dimensions adequate to
provide appreciable low frequency noise reduction for much of eastern R.ichfield is
unlikely to be cost-effective.
Low frequency noise produced by jet aircraft operations on the proposed North-South
runway will be of sufficient level to create audible rattling noises inside residences in
a large area of Richfield, including some residences with conventional "acoustic
insulation" treatments.
° Areas of Richfieid that will be exposed to low frequency noise from aircraft
operations on the proposed North-South runway at levels sufficient to induce rattling
noises inside homes extend farther westward from MSP than the 60 dB DNL cont�u:.
EXHIBIT 2
�
Field Study oi the Anr►oyance
of L.ow F'requency Runvvay
Sideline I+toise
�,�° ��• , ��-
Executive Summary
The City of Richfield was interested in gaining a better understand of the potential noise
impacts of the proposed North-South Runway on homes in the eastern portions of
Richfield. The City asked airport noise consultant Sandy Fidell of BNN Technologies ot'
Canoga Park, California, to conduct a field study of the annoyance of low frequency
runway sideline noise.
Prior field measurements of the low frequency noise produced by aircraft operations on
an existing runway at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP) indicated that
aircraft operations on the proposed new runway would produce rumbling sounds in a
large azea of eastern Richfield. The rumbling sounds would have characteristically longer
onset and offset times than those of aircraft flyovers.
Low frequency sideline noise from the proposed runway would also be capable of
producing perceptible vibration and second emissions such as rattling in homes in areas
of Richfield as many as a dozen blocks to the west of the new runway.
However, the likely extent of the annoyance associated with such vibration and rattle
could not be directly determined from the acoustic measurements. This study developed
information about the annoyance of low frequency aircraft sideline noise through direct
questioning of residents of a communifiy located the same proximity to a runway as
Richfield will be to the North-South Runway.
A total of 644 residents living in El Segundo, California, between 1,000 and 5,000 feet to
the side of Runway 25R at Los Angeles International Airport were interviewed. The
residents completed a brief telephone interview about neighborhood living conditions in
general and aircraft noise in particular.
Three sets of simultaneous acoustic measurements were made at subsets of seven points
in the interviewing area to quantify typical outdoor low frequency noise levels created by
individual aircraft operations. Outdoor low frequency aircraft noise levels in the
interviewing area varied over a 20 decibel range, from 70 decibels to about 90 decibels.
Summary of �'indings
They study found that 46 percent of the 384 El Segundo respondents living at addresses `'
with 80 decibels or less of outdoor low frequency aircraft noise noticed aircraft-induced
vibration or rattle in their homes; that 29 percent of all such respondents were annoyed by
such vibration or rattle in some degree, and that 14 percent of all such respondents were
highly annoyed by such vibration or rattle.
Other findings were:
• Neazly 40 percent of El Segundo respondents who lived in areas with low frequency
noise levels of 70 decibels or less noticed indoor rattle or vibration.
• Even at low frequency outdoor noise levels 20 decibels higher, only about half of all
respondents noticed vibration or rattle in their homes.
° The percenta.ges of respondents who were annoyed in some degree by rattle increased
by about half (from 24 percent to 37 percent ) over this 20 decibel range.
• The percentage of respondents who were highly annoyed by vibration or rattle
quadrupled (from 4 percent to 20 percent) over the same 20 decibel range.
• Roughly the same percent of survey respondents in El Segundo were highly annoyed ''
by indoor vibration or rattle at a low frequency noise level of 80 decibel as the �
Federal Interagency Committee on Aircraft Noise considers a threshold for regulatory
and policy action in the cast of long-term, A-weighted noise exposure.
It follows from these observations that:
° The range of outdoor low frequency noise levels from 70 to 90 decibels encompasses
the range over which indoor vibration and rattle grow from a minor to a major
concern.
• Plausible cases can be made for defining a threshold of significant impact of low
frequency aircraft noise in Richfield in the range of 80 to 85 decibels.
• About 10.6 percent of the residents of Richfield in the azea west of the proposed
runway may be expected to be highly annoyed by low frequency aircraft noise at a
level of 80 decibels, whiie 16.2 percent may be expected to be annoyed at a level of
85 decibels.
The Federal Interagency Committee on Aircraft Noise determined that the de facto
threshold of noise impact as a standazd policy for noise insulation purposes was 12.3
percent of residents -- 65 Ldn (decibels). Therefore, significantly more residents of � y
eastern R.ichfield will be highly annoyed at the 85 decibel level than the Federal
-,, Interagency Committee on Aircraft Noise considers appropriate on a national policy
i i
basis.
Localiy elected officials might take at face value FAA's state position in Part 150 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations, that nationwide land use compatibility guidelines "
are not intended to substitute federally determined land uses for those determined to
be appropriate by local authorities in response to locally determined needs and
value..."
By endorsing acoustic insulation for homes exposed to aircraft noise from MSP
operations at levels as low as Ldn 60 (decibels) the Minnesota Legislature has
expressly rejected the Federal Interagency Committee on Aircraft Noise's land use
guidance recommendations, and implicitly decided that the prevalence of aircraft
noise annoyance should not exceed 6.5 percent of the population.
If similaz reasoning were applied to the cast of high annoyance from low frequency
noise in Richfield, the threshold of impact would be 75 decibels.
�XHIBIT-3
>, �� �„ , .
• �� ,, � ..- .�� - �;
� �. - �,' ; _
0
� �
a
o �
J =
J � � N � � ^ m � � � �
W .- V
_ .
����%„ .. �
�
W �
; s
Z � � u~i z° a
O � N N N N
63RD ST.
84TH ST.
BSTH ST.
B6TH ST.
87TH ST.
68TH ST.
69TH ST.
70TH ST
71 ST ST.
72ND ST.
PPi�alary APea
=:�:�l.�:':�=� .���i8 �_.��.;:�Ll:::��-:�; ::>�Ci'C:;c.�=
T ' 15.62
Apac[mene 32 6BZ�69 �9 �
I'__ —.-."_'__
Commecclel .f... . 61 ...930�31 2,7 I o.z�l
9e � xi.u�
wa�e�--%_ .!____zv l zezou.ieo l — e.a� i
._Park. � . . ( � �.. 6 � 836�12.fi56 � � 19.20 �
Qua�i-Publie� 1� 52851.709) 1.21:
AessdenCiel� �� 892 i 78�8215.98�j�� 180.17
School ( .2 j 60123.119 �. 1.381
� vacaae I � 2! � 28053.501 � 0 6� i
ApaMroM Units = 401
Redeveloprnent �ea
=:r�i;ss,r:.; �,:�ozo.se :`xce.f - _noeaays:.;�
�Apaccment � 32 � 680�69.2�9 i 15.62
;ceuz�ti I il iae�.z��l o.z�j
�Commeceiel � �B � 789568.690 � 18.13�
IDuplex � 29 � 282011.180 � 6.�7
Pa�k j 6, 836�12.656 � 19.201
itteeldential I 5�6 � �95335�.5�5 � 113.71�
' School � 2 � 60123.119 j 1.38 I
jVaeaat � 1� 21399.932 0,19
ApahrraM Units = 401
Comprehensive Plan
;,:�s�o�: �.o��en:«is ��-�;:area=.';:',::::�:'x��y;�:..;;
;Aparcment � 30i 665893.833� 15.29�
(Co�ecual I 4� � 762862.633 I 17.511
��� _ i
I 89105_5 7� 6 q,�
Re�tden[1e1 � 78�2�.33� I 8.691
._ --� 28 I 2082011, L . , ,'.961
(.Vacant } 1� 21399.932� 0.q9
ApartrtxM Uni� = 387
�P��SI�IOrO 14i�8
73RD ST. :'tae�t�'� 'r'.e�coeis :-^-::i:6to�c�':.�`:; :=acc � aF,�
�c.
3 -8��0.32�
74TH ST. co�ehcsat 1o"i , _
a _ 1 1 936.63
�� r 140514.66, �
_ , � 8711.60
' __"�_ —
2 � 3.33 �
�Pi r__�.. , i
. .. _.. T
� 9 ( 1.16
p$rk 1 �76�95.721 10.9�
?STH ST, peaidencial � �09 3616760.663 83.03
School 1 2�071�.323 5.53
Apararmrtt Units = 10
76TH ST. t+
7TTH ST.
- 500 0 500 1000 Feet
78TH ST.
,
EXHIBIT 4
rccDEVELOPMENT AREA — Existing
�
LAND USE
Single Family
"ngle Family High Density
uiti-Family Medium Density (25 u/ac)
Multi-Family High Density (50 u/ac)
pegionai Commerciai/Office
gh Density Office
�ow Density O�ce
Neighborhood Commercial
arks
_ .reets
�acant, schools, churches, q�
TOTAL
' 'nciudes all commercial uses
21MARY AREA
LAND USE
ngle Family
' '�gle Family High Density
`,�iti-Family Medium Density
�Iti-Family High Density
Regional Commercial/Office
��gh Density Office
�w Density O�ce
rveighborhood Commercial
Parks
reets
..:her
(vacant, schools, churches, i
�TAL
° Includes all commercial uses
blic
NOISE IMPACTED AREAS IN RICHFiELD
Existing Resideni and School Populations
onditions vs. Proposed Redevelo ment Conce t
Totai School
AREA ac) Conce t Units u Conce t Population Conce t Population
113.7 547 1258 179
6.5 50.5 58 404 122 848 20
15.6 401 641 1155 122
16.5 825
18.2" 48.8
18.2
34.7
1.3
19.2 24.3
60.6 18.5
5.06 5.5
)
220.7 218.3 1006 1229 2021 2003
Total School
AREA (ac) Units (u) Population Population
180.2 893 2054 � 377
6.5 56 122 11
15.6 401 641 40
21.4•
29.7
47.4
6.42
285.8 1352
28171 428
321
l Page 1 4/30/98
81
17
o :
_ � � _
- .- � �
�o'�� � ������ �����'� ���������
Existi.ng arket Value of Prop�rties
Z �
O
ui
Z Q w
� � �
_ � s x x Q � x = F- o -
� �� k� W o m� � Z .
•' m f' �- � U J �- N N N .
•
Primary Area
.,;.r _ >:;�..:.. - _.�._:.:.,___..:_:_,�.
63RD ST ?:fascl.=�:: - >`.��;g�zcsl " `i34a�eE:'va.�e��
Apartment � 32 9438000
64TH ST church '� i( p'
ICommercial _I 61 16308300
IDuplex 29 287J000 '
65TH ST � Park 6 I 0 I
� Quasi-Public I 7, I p;
�Residential � 892 � 73277100 �
i
66TM ST I schooi j 2 i o,
� Vacant ' 2 ; 97000 �
6TTH ST
68TH ST
69TH ST
70TH ST
715T ST.
72ND ST.
73R0 ST.
�4TH ST.
Redevelopment Area
';.'�aa�;~tTse`•j` =�;P�a cel:�; =:i�.C1Esc:.uafi�"�';
;Apartment j 321 9438000 !
j Church � 1 � 0�
�Commercial i 98 � 14959100 (
i
� Duple:s � 29 � 28?3000 !
� Park i 6 j p:
IAesidential ! 546 � 46487000 ;
j SChp01 2' 0 I
j Vacanc i 1 � 78C00 ;
Comp Pian Area
''=�'anif;.:#ta�:; :"; `="!�,'L?siic;e�s� ;_�ht�1�e,C:'Ya�3:sic':
Ap nt � 85940 0
attme.-__,.._ ___..... 30 �_.._..._ -.-
Commercial _,�7 14814100 �
�—._.__:
Duplex 29 � 2873000 �
� Park � 5 j � I
�Residential � 228 ' 19433900 �
( vacant I 1 � 78000 I
N
75TH ST.
-�� �r:iF r`:
I I� ! ehD':;.(�
500 0 500 1000 Feet
76TH ST.
February 4, 1998
?TfH ST.
C
[�:(:ii=�
II ../' '� L—�
T�
��,. .� t�:�. �.�
�1 �J r-,
�
83RD� � _,= T•.
=- ���.
T ��
=�I ��
�� � ^_ �
� � � ~
� � �
�. � `� '— _
�.� ~ �
'�' L.�. �
�m 1�� ��
66'jH ST L" �: i( � .
���-'' �� _
;�---- .
_�__
. �:—,— -
=�=— _
—���
�^.
��^�
���`.�•
—� ��
��
-�� i.
_�� ,,
-�� I
_ �
= '= - I
���=
�� =_`
��
�-=-� : = � -
=��^��
�--���'/
����� �
���� �
�����
��%��
� _=== =�-� w (�
�� ^���
�
���
��. �
����
��
� ��
. �� �
�� -
� b�
_
�
i __ ' � ,� � ' � - ;�;
� _
.; �.. _ _ _ �
x � • �, ����� , - �� �� '� ��, - , �- ; � �i ' � t � t� , � �� r= t� �
. "`k�:.
Y �
•
c'.L'u
��� ; � ;�
' ' ��
Proposed Concept
77TH ST.
�am sT.
500 0 500
�-�
February 3, 1998
i: )
I
0�� tl �0000e'����'B �F!'� 9��� �� ����@�8 8�@��Eo�� III
OF
A N111'IGATION PROPOSAL :-
FOR
THE IMPACTS TO RICHFIELD STAKEHOLDERS
RESULTING FROM DEVEI.OPMENT AiVD OPERATION
OF
�: � .4 � :. �_ � _
•-
•-• •• • � • • • --•-
•-•
�� . -�� : � �. - �; _ ; �:
.a . _ , � �
•�- • � � • . • � • r -
NO. SUBJECT
-----------------------------------------------
2.1 Overview
2.2 Stakeholders
2.2.1 The City of Richfield
2.2.2 Independent School District 280
2.2.3 Private Schools
2.2.4 Churches
2.2.5 Businesses
2.2.6 Single Family Dwellings
2.2.7 I1�ultiple Dwellings
2.2.8 Parks, Golf Courses and Athletic Fields
2.2.9 Franchise Infrastructure Companies
2.2.10 Natural Systems
2.2.11 Others
2.2.12 Socio-Economic and Physical Character
2.3 Summary and Conclusions
PAGE �1{).
TWO-2
TWOr:�
TWO-2
TWO-2
71/VO-�
TWO-2
TWO-3
TWO-3
TWO-3
TWO-3
TWO-3
TWO-4
TWO-4
TWO-4
A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTHSOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP IfdTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
_
2.1 OVERVIEW....Affected Institutions....:.....and facilities, residential owners and �
renters, and businesses are not identified in the EIS, but as stakeholders must
be important participants in an equitable and successful mitigation process.
Organizations and their representatives, and individuals that are stakeholders
are identified in the following paragraphs.
2.2 ST�►KEHOLDERS AND REPFtESEiVT,4TIVES
2.2.1 The City Of Richfield.......participates in the process represented by the City
Manager and staff designated from time to time as necessary. The City Council
makes all decisions and approves all agreements, with review and
recommendations from the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA),�
Planning Commission, and Community Services Commission.
2.2.2 Inclependent School Disirict 280.........participates in the process represented
by the Superintendent and designated staff. The Board of Education makes all
decisions with consultation and review by staff, consultants, and parenU
student/teacher organizations.
2.2.3 AAt. Calvary Church and School............participates in the process represented
by its Pastor/Principal and designated staff. The Church/School Board makes all �,
decisions in consultation with staff, consultants, parents, students, teachers, and '
the congregation.
2.2.4 Richfield Evangelical �ree Church............participates in the process
represented by its Pastor and designated staff. The Church Board will make all
_ decisions in consultation with the congregation.
2.2.5 'fHIRTY FIVE +/_ BUSINESSES .............participate in the process represented
by owners or managers. Most decisions will be made by local owners with
consultations with partners or shareholders, but some decisions may need to be
made by officers of a parent corporation located outside of the City or state.
Current businesses that appear to be removed or are substantially impacted by
highway improvements and noise include (complete roster found in Addenda F).
a) otel6
b) Arnerican Family insurance Appraisal Center
c) Richfielc! Liquor Store
d) �4t�lOCO Service Sta�ion
ej Opticians
fl Barber Shop
g) Lieno Service
_ h) Pet Hospital (6521 Cedar Avenue)
�
PART TWO....tDEtdTIFICATION OF STAKEHOLDERS PAGE TWO - 2
A MITIGATION COMCEPT FOR A MEW NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP IPdTERNATIONA� AIRPORT
( � 1� OffIC�'S �2'�'%'�
J� �PISSOtt $tUCCO
k) Ryan Consiruction Office
I) Annual Color
m) O�ces (4+/- businesses)
n) Auto Body
o) Warehouse (2)
p) Smith � Nielson Auto Service
q) Affordable Car Rental
rj Casper Priniers
s) Ftichfelci Vehicle lenpound Lot
i) �4uto Repair
u) Diamond-Vogel Pain�k
v) Hagen Floor Covering
w) Pet Hospital (6301 Cedar Avenue)
x) Larson Roofing anci Sheet Metal
y) Casper Printer
2.2.6 OVER ONE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED FIFTY ('i.350j SIIVGLE AND
DOUBLE HOf�ES.......in the primary impact and 2-block transition areas will
,- participate in the process and will make decisions themselves. The owners of
�- ) the single and twin homes are listed in a roster found in Addenda E.
2.2.7 Tln/EN1�( SIX (26) MULTIP�E D�ELLItVG STRUCTUF2ES �nriih UP i0 FOUR
HUNDRED TEN (410+/-j UNITS.......will be represented by building owners or
property managers who will in most cases make all decisions, and also renters
who will participate in the process as affected individuals. The owners and
resident representatives of multiple units are listed in Addenda E.
2.2.8 UP TO 6,000 USERS OF Pi4RKS, GOLF COURSES, and i4THLETIC
FACIL.ITIES........will be represented by the Community Services Commission.
that will recommend actions for decisions by the City Council. Representatives
of the larger user groups may also participate in the process.
2.2.9 FOUR (41 Ft�ANCHISE iNFRASTRUCTURE C�RGANI�►TIONS (electric po�ver,
gas service, telephone, and cable T�............participate in the process
represented by designated staff, and decisions by appropriate officials.
2.2.'i 0(dATURAL SYSI"EMS .......................will be represented by City staff and
representatives from the Community Services Commission. Decisions will be
made by the City Council after review by the Community Services Commission.
PART T�IO....IDENTIFICATIOPd OF STAKEHOLDERS PAGE TVVO - 3
- A AflITIGATiON CONCEPT FOR A NEdV NORTHSOUTH RUNWAY AT THE nHSP IPlTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
2.2.11 OTHERS .............such as regular visitors to residents and customers of affected �
businesses will be represented by residents and the business owners or
managers.
2.2.12 FUTURE SOC10-ECOiVOMiC AiVD PHYSICAL CH,4R�4CTER OF THE
COi�IViUNITY...........will be represented by City staff and representatives From
the Planning and Community Services Commissions and HRA. Decisions will be
made by the City Council and HRA.
2.3 SUI�t�ARY,4ND COFdCLUSIONS .............begin with the obvious conclusion that
managing and accomplishing a project that affects the lives antl livelihoods of
thousands of people and dozens of businesses and institutions will not be easy,
simple, or quick. The process must permit and encourage meaningful,
consistent, and persistent participation in the activities and decisions, not mere
int�ui.
It is equally clear that unless these stakeholders are a part of the process, and
have a substantial part in the solutions, the situation will be dominated by
disorder and conflict, to the detriment of the community and the tVISP project.
Bo.th the City and NIAC must accomplish the project with the stakeholders, or be
faced with reactions and resistance to what is being done to them and th�� c�'�_�::-
that results.
�'
�,
PART TWO....IDEPdTIFICATION OF STAKEHOLDERS P�4GE TWO - 4
� _ �.:. . ,: � ' � i � : � i ` `�` ,� � u ��� �� , .- , � : ' �� ': � , �.
TA�LE OF CON1"ENTS
PART SUBJECT PAGE
3.1 Overview 3-3
3.2 Specific Additional Impacts And Consequences
3.2.1 A. Air Quality 3-3
3.2.2 B. Archaeological Resources 3-3
3.2.3 C. Biotic Communities 3-3
3.2.4 D. Bird-Aircraft Hazards 3-5
3.2.5 E. Construction Impacts 3-3
3.2.6 F. Coastal Barriers 3-3
3.2.7 G. Coastal Zone Management 3-3
3.2.8 H. Endangered and Threatened Species 3-4
3.2.9 I. Economic 3-4
3.2.10 J. Energy and Natural Resources 3-5
3.2.11 K. Farmland 3-5
3.2.12 L. Floodplains 3.5
3.2.13 M. Historic/Architectural Resources 3-5
3.2.14 N. Induced Socioeconomic Impacts 3-5
3.2.'i 5 O. Land Use 3-5
3.2.16 P. Light Emissions 3-6
3.2.17 Q. Noise 3-6
3.2.18 R. Parks and Recreation 3-7
3.2.19 S. Site Preservation 3-8
3.2.20 T. Social 3-8
3.2.21 U. Section 4(fl Lands 3-9
3.2.22 V. Solid Waste 3-9
3.2.23 W. Transportation Access 3-9
3.2.24 X. IVlajor Utilities 3-10
3.2.25 Y. Visuallmpacts 3-10
3.2.26 Z. Wastewater 3-10
3-2.27 AA. Water Supply 3-10
3.2a28 BB. Surface Water Quality 3-10
3.2.29 CC. Groundwater Quality 3-10
3-2.30 DD. Wetlands 3-11
3.3.31 EE. Wild and Scenic Rivers 3-11
3.3.32 FF. Wldlife Refuges 3-11
3.3.33 GG. Design/Art/architecture 3-11
3.3.34 Other Impacts Not Covered in the DEIS 3-11
A MITIGATIOPI CONCEPT FOR A PdEW NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIOMAL AIRPORT
. , � �
� . �. . : � � �... • • ..
3�� �����'�� ................of the impacts and consequences of the project as
defined in the DEIS indicates practically no adverse affects on the City of Richfieid and
its residents, while a more studied view shows very clearly that the impacts and
consequences are extensive, pervasive, persistent, and compietely disproportional to
any other community affected by the project. Effective and responsive mitigation of
these impacts will be more important to the affected residents, businesses, institutions,
the School District, and the City, than any aspect of the expanded airport project itself.
3.1.1 ENVIROIVMENTAL CONSEQUENCES........are listed in the DEIS under 33
major categories that will result from the expansion.of MSP under OPTION 6. In
order to be consistent, impacts and mitigation proposals in this document use the
same descriptors and titles found in DEIS. The DEIS found:
a) Outside of Richfield.....about a third of those 33 impacts are not applicable to
the City. Mitigation wras found to be "not feasible" or "not available" for two
categories (Birds and Endangered Species), and another seven impacfis
involved mitigation activities on the MSP site only (Surface Water, Ground
Water, Wetlands, Energy Consumption, Solid Wastes, Mother's Lake, and
Des ig n/ArtlArch itectu re).
b) Future Negotiation.........was the answer to eight impacts to be "worked out
with appropriate agencies" as the project evolves (Archeological,
Construction, Historical, Land U�e, Lighting, Noise, Social, and Induced
Socio-Economic) under vague guidelines outlined in the DEIS. The
"agencies" and the specific issues to be worked out are not clearly identified.
c) "No iVlitiQation"........was the conclusion for nearly half of the categories (14),
In the DEIS. Six of those (Coastal Barriers, Coastal Zones, Farmland,
Floodplains, Future New Airport Site Preservation, and Wild and Scenic
Rivers), clearly do not apply to the f1�SP site and would therefore require no
mitigation, but the other nine (Air Quality, Parks, Public Lands (4fl,
Transportation Access, Utilities, Visual Impacts, Wastewater Systems, Water
Suppiy Systems, and (Voise), involve significant impacts that need a
mitigation proposal.
3.1.2 IMPACTS ARID COBVSEQUEidCES............not covered, found to be insignificant,
or rejected in the DEIS must be considered in light of the completely
disproportionate burdens inflicted only on Richfield. This part of the report
identifies and defines additional impacts and consequences to Richfield under
each of the headings, and adds some additional categories not considered in the
DEIS based on extensive testing and research by the consulting firm BBN, and a
more accurate analysis from the perspective of the community most affecfed b
the project. y
PART THREE...IDEPlTIFICATION APID DEFIMITION OF INIPACTS PAGE THREE - 2
t-
C
� �
r
.___
� l
(, 1
A MITIGATIOM COPlCEPT FOR A PdEW NORTH-SOUTH RUPdWAY AT THE flASP INTERtdATlOidAL AIRPORT
3e2 A I�TI� AL I d4C1��........not covered in the DEIS are identified and
described under each heading found in the DEIS as foilows:
3.2.1 A. AIR t�UALITY...........consequences are covered in the DEIS except for the
problem of odor from jet engine exhaust on the ground. These very strong,
"petroleum" or "exhaust" odors are quite evident in the New Ford Town area that
is even farther from the 12R runway stacking and take-off area as the homes
and businesses west of Cedar Avenue will be from the same stacking and take-
off area on the proposed 17/35 runway. This issue must be addressed with
testing and monitoring, and appropriate mitigation measures must be applied to
this important impact. (See also 3.2.5, E. CONSTRUCTION.)
3.2.2 B. ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES.........are covered in the DEIS.
3.2.3 C. BIOT'IC COMMt1NITIES ................described in the DEIS do not include the
loss of the urban forest area in New Ford Town and Rich Acres neighborhoods,
the Golf Courses, and the residential areas west of Cedar Avenue that will
require complete redevelopment. These areas represent a rather significant
(over 600 acres) area of habitat for birds and a variety of small critters that
provide habitat as well as visual benefits to the whole community and should be
replaced or mitigated in some form. A clear example of an impact that applies
only to Richfield.
3.2.4 D. BIRD-,41RC6�F'T HAZ�4RDS............are covered in the DEIS.
3.2.5 E. CONSTRUCTION IMPA,CTS .................will fall disproportionately on Richfield
because of the fact that the major construction project is the new runway 17/35,
� immediately adjacent to the City over its full length. This part of the MSP site is
the most likely location for batch plants and materials storage for the runway and
other work on the buildings, and the TH77-66th Street access will be the primary
access for construction traffic.
Air quality control during construction will be particularly important to Richfield
residents inasmuch as they will be nearest to the construction activities. Extra-
ordinary efforts to reduce and control dust, exhaust, and other emissions from
construction activities, materials storage and handling, materials processing, and
particularly from demolition must be required. Construction operations time of
day and night requirements of Richfield must be met.
3.2.6 F. COASTAL �ARRIERS.......do not apply to this project.
3.2.7 G. COASTAL ZONE N1Atd�4,GENIENT.........does not apply to this project.
PART THREE...IDENTIFICATION AND DEFINITION OF IMPACTS
PAGE THREE-3
A NIITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW PIORTHSOUTH RUNWAY AT THE AASP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
3.2.8 H. ENDAMGERED and THREATENED SPECIES......are not a factor in the City. �
3.2.9 I. ECONOMIC...........consequences and impacts on Richfieid will be more
significant and disproportional because Richfield is much smaller in every aspect
(area, population, housing, empioyment, commercial services, tax base, etc.)
than the other three neighboring cities, and more pervasive because the new
runway impacts large abutting areas of the City over its full length and for the full
duration of take-off and landings rather than over a narrow flight path during
much shorter overflight periods. Everv takeoff, and everv landing on the new
runway will impact people in Richfield, unlike overflight noise that is distributed
widely as each plane takes a somewhat different departure or approach path. A
fair and objective analysis must acknowledge this significan�dispropo�tionality
and include mitigation proposals that will be appropriate to the circumstances.
Some specific economic impacts that must recognize this difference include:
a) AIRPORT REt�►TED DEVELOPMENi' .............policies and practices of MAC
toward on and off-site airport related development will have significant impact
on the population, employment, tax capacity and revenues, and suitability of
residential uses......in other vvords, the very viability of Richfield. A
disproportionate effort must be made in Richfield first to minimize, and also to
effectively mitigate the impacts of these related economic consequences.
b) RICH ACRES GOL� COURSES.........provide a significant economic return to
the City that is used to support other recreational activities, as well as a small
revenue to MAC. This is a consequence that must be recognized as a factor
that f�IIAC land acquisition policies and plans can mitigate by assisting and
supporting the City in finding and developing replacement facilities on an
expanded MSP site or adjacent lands, and providing funding to cover
relocation expenses as with other displaced businesses on the site.
c) TAX CAPACII'Y LOSS..........from acquisition of taxable properties must be
recognized as an impact that can and must be mitigated through MAC plans,
policies, and funding in support of development of non-planeside, airport-
related, compatible uses in redeveloped area of Richfield as a first choice in
recognition of the disproportionate impact on the City. �
d) POPULATIOfV LOSS ......................must be recognized as a most serious
and disproportionate impact to the viability of the entire community of
Richfield. Population loss in the proposed redevelopment area, in addition to
that already experienced in New Ford Town and Rich Acres represents at
least ten times that of any other affected community.
e) STUDENT LOSS............represents a very serious threat to the viability of the
School District since students generate state-aid revenues and other benefits
for the school district that are even more important that the real estate tax
revenues. A loss of up to 240 students in the redevelopment area in addition
to the 170 from New Ford Town, requires closing of at least one elementary
school, and increased overhead costs for secondary schools.
PART THREE...IDEPdTIFICATIOM AND DEFIiVIT10N OF IMPACTS PAGE THREE - 4
A RAITIGATIOPI CONCEPT FOR A PJEW PIORTHSOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERtdAT10NAL AIRPORT
- 3.2.'90 J. ENERGY SUPPLY and NATURAL RESOURCES....are covered in the
' � DEIS. �
3.2,11 K. FARtVtLAND .................there are no farmlands involved in the MSP site.
3.2.'�2 L. FLOODPLAINS.........there is no floodplain encroachment or modifications.
3.2.13 M. HISTORIC/ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES ..............no significant historic
or architectural resources are at risk in Richfield.
3.2.14 N. INDUCED SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS .................are also discussed
under 3.2.9, ECONOfVIIC IMPACTS, above, and the economic aspects of the
impacts of noise (particularly low frequency noise) are also discussed under
3.2.17 Q. NOISE. However, the social consequences that result from
conversion of a substantial portion of east Richfield from a largely single family
residential community into a multiple and largely non-residential complex, will
have both short and long term social and economic consequences that must be
recognized, defined, and become basic considerations for the design and
management of the mitigation plan
Over six percent (6%) of the population of Richfield have already been, or will
, be displaced and another six percent (6%) will be substantially impacted by
'- � sideline noise due to the construction of, and operations on new runway 17/35.
�__ �
None of the other affected communities will sustain this level of disruption in
either absolute numbers or as a fraction of total population. The project must
recognize and assume responsibility for mitigation of the impacts and
consequences of this substantial and disproportionate disruption to the basic
community social fabric and economic base.
3.2.'i 5 O. LAND USE..........in the most severely noise and air quality impacted area of
Richfield west of TH77 must be substantially converted to non-residential and
new noise resistant residentiaf uses prior to opening the new runway 17/35.
Recent tests and sunreys funded 5y Richfield have shown that the extent of the
unacceptable impacts (moderate to severely annoyed) is considerably larger
than that vvhich is shown as the affected area in the DEIS. About 1,000 single
and multiple residential units are affected to an extent that requires conversion
from residential to more noise tolerant residential and non-residential structures.
While the DEIS explains that MAC and the Nietropolitan Council are
"working......to develop a set of mitigation measures" in all of the communities
surrounding MSP, the DEIS must recognize, that the low frequency noise
impacts of runway 17/35 development on Richfield require redevelopment that
� must be funded by the project. A definition of the primary impact area, and the
proposed redevelopment area, are shown in EXHIBIT 3 in PART OIVE of this
( ��i document.
` PART THREE...IDENTIFICATION AND DEFINITION OF IiIAPACTS PAGE THREE -�
A RNITIGATION COPICEPT FOR A WEW NORTHSOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERIdATIOiVAL AIRPORT
C
a) ,41RPORT REt�TED (RE)DEVELOPI�EfVT........as previously discussed
under 3.10.1 I. ECONOMIC, points out that MAC policies, plans, and funding
can provide a primary stimulus for quality, economically viable, new
developments in the noise affected redevetopment area.
b) "FUTURE'y WEST 'fERMINAL ...............presents a dilemma for Richfield land
use planners in that the new terminal and second access will likely support
more regional commercial (hotels, restaurants, etc.) demand in the area
around the TH77 and West 66th Street interchange than would be the case if
a new terminal is never constructed. This question needs to be clarified
between MAC and the Legislature so that Richfield can plan for appropriate
related futu�e redevelopment, including LRT access to Richfield.
c) RESIDE(dT1AL DENSITV..........in the redeveloped area must be as high as
possible in order to replace the population lost from New Ford Town, Rich
Acres, and from the noise impacted area from runway 17/35. New residential
structures must be larger scale buildings with special design and materials
that dampen low frequency sound transmission, and resist the related
vibrations, and must be eoncentrated in the farthest reaches of the
redevelopment area to blend in with existing housing and stay as far away
from the noise source as possible. (See Exhibit 3.)
3.2.16 P. LIGHT EMISSIONS............discussed in the DEIS do not include the impact �+
of landing lights from aircraft moving on the ground in the air cargo areas.
These very powerFul lights will intrude into the Richfield neighborhoods west ��f
TH77, and must be restricted by operating regulations, and effectively mitigare�.
3.2.17 Q. NOISE (AIRC�FT AND SURFACE TR�4NSPORTATION)..........represents
the greatest consequence with the most intense impacts on a very large portion
of the City of Richfield. Because the DEIS and a special study by consultant�,
found no significant impacts without actual field measurements and analysis,
the City retained �BN Systems to measure low frequency aircraft noise levels
along existing runways, and project those results on the areas of Richfield that
will be affected by this noise. (See Addenda A and B of this report.) A
summary of the results obtained follows
a) STAtVDARD MEASIJREMENTS ...............for the nIIAC studies are all based
on A-weighted measures that do not accurately reflect low frequency ncis�
and induced vibrations (secondary emissions). Without any documented field
measurement, the DEIS concluded that "Low frequency noise and vibration
levels....would be well below the levels which would cause structural damage
to buildings or health risk to residents in the neighboring areas of Richfield."
Thafi conclusion may be half correct, but it is callous and clearly unresponsive
to the real and substantial needs and concerns of the affected residents, and
does not recognize the extensive, and disproportionate impacts of low
frequency noise on Richfield. `- '
PART THREE...IDENTIFICATION �►ND DEFIPIITIOM OF IMPACTS PAGE THREE - 6
A NIITIGATIOM CONCEPT FOR A tdEW P10RTH-SOUTH RUPIWAY AT THE IV9SP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
( )
- b) SPECIAL NiEASUREMEIVTS ...............authorized and paid for by the City of
Richfield, conducted and reported by BBN Systems in May of 1997 (copy of
the report dated 1411�ay '9997 inciuded as ADDENDA:A to this report), show
that low frequency noise and secondary emissions wifl be substantially more
severe than what is shovvn or can be interpreted from the standard results
reported in the DEIS. Low frequency noise impacts are being recognized and
mitigated in several airport projects in the US and must be recognized and
mitigated here as well.
c) STANDARD ABATEMENI' AND MITIGATION PROCEDURES.........outlined
in the DEIS including PART 150 sound insulation and structural
improvements, and the construction of berms or other acoustical barriers on
the MSP site included as mitigation recommendations in the DEIS will be
ineffective for abatement or mitigation of low frequency noise.
d) FIELD STUDY OF �►NNOYA(dCE FROM L.OW FREG�UENCY tdOISE......was
authorized and paid for by the City of Richfield, and conducted and reported
by the firm BBN Systems in October 1997. (See copy of report dated 9
October 1997 as ADDENDA B to this report.) The study was a structured
telephone interview of residents in a neighborhood of EI Segundo betvveen
1,000 and 5,000 feet from the centerline of an operating runway of Los
Angeles International Airport (LAX), a situation similar to the proposed 17/35
�' `� at MSP. Study results found that 21 % of residents were °highly annoyed,"
�- ' and 29% were "very" or "extremely" annoyed at 80 dB levels of low frequency
noise (LDN 65 dB, A-weighted). This level is well above what the FAA and
the courts have considered to be consequential and subject to mitigation
activity, and must be recognized.
� e)1'HE IMPACTED AREA............described in BBN Figure 3(ADDENDA B) and
Richfield EXHIBIT 6(PART ONE), is a geographical representation of the
area that will have highly annoyed residents as a result of low frequency
noise and secondary emissions impacts from runway 17/35, and must be
mitigated in an effective manner.
fl SURFACE �'RAIVSPORTAT'IOIV NOISE IMPACI'5...........are described
adequately and proposed to be mitigated properly in the DEIS.
3.2.18 Ft. PARKS AND RECREAT'ION ..................consequences to Richfield are all
the direct result of selection of OPTION SIX, and result in a loss of nearly one-
third of the total park space of the City, 100% loss of City golf courses, 100%
loss of the community gardens, and over 50% loss of softball and baseball
fields. None of the other adjacent communities faces any park loss, much less
loss of this magnitude. The DEIS fails to consider the magnitude or the
dispropo�tionality of these losses to the City if Richfield in finding no impact and
no mitigation required. Specific consequences and impacts in the DEIS should
�'� � ��� include: ,
PART THREE...IDENTIFICATIOtd AND DEFIPdITION OF IIV9PACTS PAGE THREE - T
A RIIITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTH�OUTH RUNWAY AT THE flASP INTERNATIOPIA� AIRPORT
a) PARKS A(dD FACILITIES WITHIN THE AREA OF PO"fEN'iIAL EFFECT �
(APE) .............listed in the DEIS inciude Taft, Rich Acres Goif Courses, East �
Softball and Baseball Fields, the Community Gardens, and the Archery
Range. To that list should be added Washington Park that is cieariy within
the DNL-65 noise contour (from 4/22), and Christian Park should be added
based on the BBN study which shows low frequency noise levels from 17/35
(80dB equal to the DfVL-65) cover a portion of that park as weil.
b) T�/O NEIGH�ORHOOD PAROCS ..................(New Ford Town and Rich Acres
Parks) are clearly publicly owned parks under Section 4(fl, and the loss must -
be recognized and mitigated in some form.
c) COiUII�UNITY GARDENS AND A►RCHERY RANGE .......................cannot be
replaced in any public site within the City for a variety of reasons, must be
recognized as unique to th� IVIAC site, worked into some of the unused
spaces in the Long-Term Comprehensive Plan for the MSP site, and costs of
relocation included in the project costs. �
d) RICH ACRES GOLF COURSES A(VD DRIVlNG ftAtVGE...........is lost
because of the 17/35 runway option selected by MAC, and regardless of the
land lease contract arrangements, MAC should recognize the substantial,
disproportional, and inequitable impact on the Richfield parks, open space,
and recreational system by supporting and actively assisting the City in
relocation funding for developing replacement golf facilities.
e) DISPROPORTIONATE IMPACTS ......................from substantial loss of parks -
and recreational facilities fall o� on the City of Richfield, and are clearly out !
of proportion when compared to all of the other adjoining communities, and
should, therefore, be acknowledged and mitigated.
3.2.'i 9 S. FUTURE AIRPORT SITE PRESERV�4TIOIV............does not apply.
3.2:20 1'. SOCIAL IMPACTS ................are another example of the disproportionate
impacts and continuing burdens of this project on Richfield.
a) COIVinIIUNI'TY lPISTITUTIOFdS ...................Rich Acres golf courses are one oF
only two businesses existing on the present airport site that are being
terminated. The DEIS points out that relocation assistance will be available
to the Airport IVledical Clinic business relocation, so it quite logically follows
that assistance must also be available to the Rich Acres Golf Courses
relocation. There are several other medical clinics, but only one golf course
in Richfield, or for that matter, in this portion of the metro area. This is
another example of the disproportionate impact of this project on Richfield,
and certainly requires extraordinary (and disproportional) mitigation.
b) F#OUSEFIOLDS DiSPL�4CED.........should include the 410�removed from New
Ford Town and Rich Acres. While the DEIS says that there is no connection,
the fact that the actual runway construction goes directly through New Ford
Town (IVF� and lies within a few hundred feet of Rich Acres (RA) makes it_
PART THREE...IDEPITIFICATION APdD DEFIPIITIOId OF IflAPACTS PAGE THREE - H
A NiiTIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW PdORTHSOUTH RUNWAY AT THE RASP IPJTERPIATIONAL AIRPORT
i ) quite clear that OPTION SIX could not be built without removal of all of these
homes In NFT and RA. The DEIS says 390 of the 444 households displaced
are in Richfield. Add to that those over 1,000 households west of TH77 that
are within the low frequency noise redevelopment area, and the total
Richfield households lost is 1,390 out of 1,444, or 96% of households
displaced by ihis projeci are in Richfield. That is certainly disproportional
and must be considered as a significant social impact to the community
without comparison in any other adjacent city..
c) �USINESS C11SPL�4CEMEN'T ....................is equally disproportionate in that
20 out of 28 (off-site) businesses that will be displaced (DEIS numbers) are
located in Richfield. The other displaced businesses are in Bloomington,
and while they are larger businesses, they represent a much smaller
proportion of that city's business base. Again, the disproportionate nature af
this impact should be taken into account when responding to the mitigation
requests of the City.
d) WORtC WITH "APPROPRIATE...AGENCIES" .............should include the
state Department of Economic Security as suggested in the DEIS, but
common sense (as well as common courtesy) requires that the first contact
and clear understanding must be with the City of Richfield where all of the
impacts and consequences are disproportionately larger than on any other of
the affected communities. Recognition is a first step to reconciliation.
3.2.2'i U. SECTION 4(fl IMPACTS .............lists should include Rich Acres and New
Ford Town Parks since both are City owned praperty and were fully utilized for
park and recreation purposes. Washington Park should also be listed as falling
within the designated noise impact area, and as a result of the BBN work, a
portion of Christian Park also falls within that noise boundary. All of these
impacts should be recognized and mitigation provided.
3.2.22 V. SOLID WASTE IMPACTS..........covered in the DEIS do not affect Richfield.
3.2.23 W. 1'Ri4NSPORTATION ACCESS...........described in the DEIS fails to mention
existing airport traffic access from TH77 to the MSP site from the 66th Street
interchange and the impact of fhe improvements to this interchange that are
� required. While it is not the major airport access point today, it will become
much more important as the primary access to the major construction site and
the enlarged cargo and service area of the MSP site when the runway 17/35
development is completed.
a) TH77-66Tti STREEI' INTERCHAIdGE............has a major impact on
Richfield. Sixteen (out of 30 in the area) businesses will be removed to
construct this interchange (another example of disproportionate impacts), and
there is no doubt that the level of service fior Richfield traffic will be
PART THREE...IDEPITIFICATION APdD DEFIPlITION OF IAAPACTS
PAGE THREE-9
A MITIGATIOPI COiVCEPT FOR A NEW PlORTH-SOUTH RUPdWAY AT THE IVISP INTERPIATIOPdAL AIRPORT
lowered as a result of the increased airpo�t (truck cargo) traffic. This ;
interchange improvement should be completed before runway construction (
begins, or certainly, before the new cargo area is operationaL
bj'fH62 ADDII'IONAL LANES ..................will also impact Richfield homes
and require taking of a portion of the Veterans Park site and should be
mitigated.
c) TRAFFIC DIVERSIOtV TO LOCAL STREETS .............will be a serious
impact only in Richfield, particularly on 66th and 77th Streets as far west as
Lyndale, for overflow passenger traffic that departs to or arrives from the
west (most of the traffic), and for the truck traffic from the air cargo facilities
along runway 17/35. Analysis (and common sense experience) shows that
trafFic will by-pass clogged freeways by using local streets for alternative
access or escape. The project must include provision for active and
effective measures to accommodate additional traffic on local collector
streets and for keeping it out of residential areas. �
3.2.24 X. t�AJOR UTILITIES .............the power line relocation does not affect Richfield.
3.2.25 Y. VISUAL IMPACTS ...............that result from the conversion of the NFT and RA
residential areas and Golf Courses to large airport vvarehouse buildings and
pavement are not considered to be significant in the DEIS. Richfield residents
that have a view of this part of the airport site will experience substantial
denigration of what is now an excellent view of trees, turf, and open space. ��
tVlitigation of the view from the west must be included in the project.
3.2.26 Z. WASTEIN�4TE62 ................will have no significant impact on sewer service,
capacify, metropolitan wastewater allocations, or alterations of service charges
to the City of Richfield according to the DEIS. This must be the case.
3.2.27 �4. VVA'fER SUPPLY.........for the City of Richfield will benefit indirectly from the
conversion to IVlinneapolis water from on-site production wells that draw from
the same acquifers that supply Richfield municipal wells. tVo impacts need
to be mitigated.
3.2.28 ��. SURFACE VVATER QUAL.ITI( ..............impacts are entirely contained within
the IVISP site writh one outfall to the IVlinnesota River so that none of the IVISP
site nanoff goes through Richfield, or impacts Richfield storm drainage
systems except for provision for storage in the Mother's Lake complex. The
project must recognize and mitigate any loss of storage and modifications to
the Richfield storm drainage plan that are required due to the loss of this
storage area.
3.2.29 CC. Gi20l9NDWATER QIJALITl� IiVIPACTS............must be monitored until the
existing wells are capped and plugged, so that they do not become the �
.._
con uit for surface contaminants to enter the Richfield wells aquifer.
PART THREE...IDEPdTIFICATION AP1D DEFINITIOPd OF I�IPACTS PAGE THREE -'I O
�� �
� �.
r_ j
( l
A t�I1TIGATIOM COPdCEPT FOR i4 NEW PIORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIOtdAI. AIRPORT
3.2.30 DD. WETLANDS ..................impacts are ail on the MSP site itself.
3.2.3'9 EE. V�ILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ..............do not apply to the MSP site.
3.2.32 FF. WILD�IFE REFUGES ...............the wildlife refuge impacts are covered.
3.2.33 GG. DESIGN, AR'i and ARCHITECTURE ..............conclusions of the DEIS that
the air cargo buildings proposed to replace the golf course ..."do not represent a
substantial change from the existing visual conditions and will not disrupt the
natural environment or aesthetic integrity" .............are certainly inaccurate, if not
completely misleading. The golf courses are a positive, cultivated open space,
visual amenity, while the air cargo buildings will be a very negative visual
intrusion. The impact of these large buildings, much closer to the highway and
existing residential areas than any of the existing large structures now on the
MSP site, certainly require effective mitigation.
3.2.34 HH. SHURT and LONG TERNt COMMITNtEidTS OF RESOUFtCES...........are
covered in the DEIS.
3.2.35 OTHER CONSEG�UENCES AP1D II�PACTS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN Th1E
DEIS..........as specific areas of concern. While some legal aspects are
mentioned in the discussion under a few of the specific areas, the legal status
and relationships of iViAC and Richfield, and the legal processes involved in
implementation of mitigation activities should be recognized and defined,
particularly in regard to the implementation of short and long-term mitigation
programs, and the specifics of funding.
1. Legal Relationships .............between nIIAC, the City of Richfield, and the
affected parties and entities should be defined, understood, and agreed upon
� as a basis for implementation and funding of a comprehensive, and effective
Mitigation Plan as outlined in this report.
2. City Boundaries..........for IVew Ford Town and Rich Acres should be removed
and traded for equal or greater areas of IVISP properties that could be
incorporated into the City of Richfield.
3. The Legal Process ....................for implementation of the IVlitigation Plan
including scope, authorities, responsibilities, accountability, funding, and
related matters should be defined, understood, and adopted by MAC and the
City, so that the arrangement can be clearly communicated to, and
understood by, all affected individuals and entities.
4. The Fiscal ConseQuences .............and impacts on the public (City and School
District) treasury, a new expenditure pattern to support a very different mix of
uses and occupants, and the fiscal basis for financing redevelopment and
loss of revenues during the transition, must be recognized, defined, and
funded as part of the cost of the runway project.
PART THREE...IDENTIFICATIOPI ANO DEFINITIOP! OF IMPACTS PAGE THREE -'�'�
.�� . ;� � � �, ,
� �; � �� • . •�' � � .'' � . ,
T'ABLE OF CONI'ENl"S
SECTION NO. SUBJECT PAGE
---------------------- 4-2
4.1 Overview
4.2 Mitigation Proposais
4.2.1 A. Air Quality 4-2
4•2•2 B. Archaeological Resources 4_Z
4.2.3 C. Biotic Communities 4_2
4.2.4 D. Bird-Aircraft Hazards 4_2
4.2.5 E. Construction Impacts 4_2
4.2.6 F. Coastal Barriers 4-3
4•2•7 G. Coastal Zone Management 4-3
4•2•8 H. Endangered and Threatened Species 4.3
4.2.9 I. Economic 4-3
4.2.10 J. Energy and Natural Resources 4-4
4.2.11 K. Farmland q,�
4.2.12 L. Floodplains 4�
4.2.13 M. Historic/Architectural Resources 4-4
4•Z•�i4 N. Induced Socioeconomic Impacts 4-4
4.2.15 O. Land Use q,�
4.2.'�6 P. Light Emissions 4-5
4.2.17 Q. Noise 4-5
4•2•18 R. Parks and Recreation 4-6
4.2.19 S. Site Preservation 4-6
4.2.20 T. Social 4-6
4.2.21 U. Section 4(fl Lands 4_7
4.2.22 V. Solid Waste 4-7
4.2.23 W. Transportation Access 4_7
4•2•24� X. Major Utilities q,_7
4.2.25 Y. Visuallmpacts 4_7
4�•2•26 Z. Wastewater 4_g
4-2.27 AA. Water Supply 4-8
4.2.28 BB. SurFace Water Quality 4_g
4.2.29 CC. Groundwater Quality 4_g
4-2.30 DD. V1/etlands q,_g
4�.2•3� EE. Wild and Scenic Rivers 4_g
4.2.32 FF. Wildlife Refuges 4_g
4.2.33 GG. Design/Architecture 4_g
4.2.34 HH. Short & Long Term Resources 4_g
4.2.35 Other Impacts (Vot Covered in the DEIS 4-8 .
A MITIGATIOP! CONCEPT FOR A NEW MORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERPlATIONAL AIRPORT
� �
�.o� �� V' ................the consequences and impacts defined and described
in the previous part of this report require mitigation. This Part presents, in outline form,
a brief description of mitigation measures for each of the subject areas included in the
DEIS. These are "proposals," or "Concepts" and do not represe�nt a"plan," since a
specific "plan" for mitigation must be negotiated, prepared and adopted by both entities.
4,2 IT°I Al�l P SA,LS .............in addition to those outlined in the
DEIS are outlined under each of the major headings defined in the DEIS as follows:
4.2.1 A. A►IR QUALI'TY...........all five "possible" mitigation measures and all four
construction mitigation proposals listed in the DEIS, should be adopted and be
required. In addition, the problem of odor from jet engine exhaust on the ground
must be mitigated through operational policies that limit lengthy waiting on the
taxiway, threshold ramp, and air cargo area, and other policies that will reduce
the concentration of exhaust fumes from aircraft on the ground. Air quality
monitoring stations should be set up in the affected Richfield neighborhoods, and
regular reports of current conditions and mitigation measures in place should be
provided to the City and residents on a regular basis. (See comments under 3.6,
E. CONSTRUCTION as well.)
i ) 4.2.2 B. ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES.........are covered in the DEIS.
4.2.3 C. BIOTIC CONIMUNITIES ................the loss of the urban forest area in New
Ford Town, Rich Acres, and the Golf Courses should be mitigated in part by
providing a substantial (200 foot) "greenbelt" along the full length of the MSP site
from nllother's Lake to I-494. This space should include berms high enough to
block lights from vehicles and taxiing aircraft, dense, mixed conifers and
deciduous trees and prairie grass ground cover. The trees should be selected for
cover, nesting, and feeding benefits for small birds (including continuation of the
Bluebird project) and mammals, but will not be attractive to ge,ese and other large
waterfowl. Funding should be provided to plant large trees and shrubs in the
public spaces in the redevelopment project.
4.2.4 D. BIFZD-AiRCRAFT HA�4RDS............should be reduced by discouraging
geese and other large waterfowl from nesting and grazing on the MSP site, and
not by altering the flight distribution patterns that produce disproportional impacts
on Richfield residents.
4.2.5 E. CONSTRUCTIOIV INiPACTS .................�nrill fall disproportionately on Richfield
and policies must be adopted and enforced by MAC for construction operations
PART FOUR.......MITIGATION PROPOSA�S
PAGE FOUR - Z
A MITIGATION COfVCEPT FOR A NEW NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY AT THE RIiSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
to distribute traffic, storage and processing of materials, and other activities
appropriately between several access points rather than directing all of the tra�c
and activity to use the TH77 - E66th Street access point. The 66th Street
interchange improvements must be completed before 17/35 construction begins,
and the 77th Street tunnel and ramps must be completed before the air cargo
facilities are operational.
4.2.6 F. COAS'TAL BARRIERS.......Act does not apply to this project.
4.2.7 G. COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMIENT.........Act does not apply to this project.
4.2.8 Fi. ENDANGERED and THREATENED SPECIES.........not required.
4.2.9 I. ECONO�AIC...........consequences and impacts on Richfield will be more
significant and disproportional because Richfield is much smaller in every aspect
of economics. The DEIS must acknowledge this significant disproportionality
and include mitigation proposals that will be fair and appropriate to the
circumstances including:
a) AIRPORT REL�4'fED DEVE�OPNIENT .............policies and practices of
MAC toward on and off-site airport related development must be formulated
and implemented to have significant positive impact on the population,
employment, tax capacity and revenues. A disproportionate effort must be
made in Richfield first to minimize, and second to effectively mitigate, the
impacts of the economic consequences through encouragement of
appropriate, airport related development in parts of the redevelopment area
shown on EXHIBIT 6, and through long-term support of economic activity in
Richfield.
b) RICH ACRES GOLF COURSES.........elimination represents economic loss
to the City as well as MAC, which should be mitigated by land "acquisition
policies and plans that aid and supporE the City in finding and developing
replacement facilities on or nearby the expanded IVISP site.
c) TAX CAPACITY LOSS ................from acquisition of taxable properties
should be mitigated by payments to the City and School District for
revenues lost during redevelopment.
d) POPUIr4TION LOSS........particularly of school-age children can, and must
be mitigated through 11nAC funding to support and encourage development
of new housing that is noise resistive and attractive to residents in the
airport related redevelopment area of Richfield. Encouraging "empty nest"
owners to move to new townhouse or multiple housing so as to make their
single family home available for updating and upgrading to retain displaced
families must also be supported by subsidies for acquisition and upgrading
those homes. Extra effort should be made to retain and attract school age
_ children.
PART FOUR.......AAITIGATION PROPOSALS
PAGE FOUR-3
�
('
,
A RflITiGAT10N CONCEPT FOR A NEW IdORTH-SOUTH RUPlWAY AT THE �flSP INTERNATIOMAL AIRPORT
--- 4.2.10 J. ENEFtGY SUPPLY and NATUR�+L RESOURCES........affect MSP oniy.
; I
4.2.11 K. FARMLAfVD .................no farmiand is involved in the MSP site.
4.2.'i2 L. FLOODPt�►IfVS.......not required for the MSP site.
4.2.13 M. HISTORIC/ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES ............................there are no
significant historic or architectural resources at risk in Richfield.
. 4.2.14 N. INDUCED SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS .......................economic mitigation
is discussed under 4.10 I. ECONOMIC IMPACTS, above, and mitigation of the
noise (particularly low frequency noise) is discussed under 4.18 Q. .NOISE, in
following paragraphs. In addition, the social consequences must be mitigated
first by much improved and effective communications with the City, affected
institutions, residents and businesses. MAC must also fund Richfield programs
that �reinforce the social fabric through community and neighborhood
organizations, existing City loan and grant programs for maintaining and
upgrading remaining housing stock outside of the redevelopment area, and
extraordinary communications with residents and businesses in and adjacent to
the redeveloped area during an extended transition and redevelopment period
(at least 10 years). EXHIBITS 3, 4, and 5 indicate the e�ent of population,
students, and market value impacts in the noise affected area, and EXHIBIT 6
� includes projected resident and school populations as well as potential market
value for tax base for a redevelopment concept for comparative purposes.
4.2.15 O. L�4ND USE ................acquisition "write-downs," planning, management and
operations costs for the redevelopment of the area impacted by low frequency
noise must be funded by the IVISP project in recognition of the unique and
unfortunate location of the new runway with its dispraportionate impacts on
Richfield. Funding should begin with the investment required to prepare a
specific redevelopment plan that will define the scope and nature of the project,
estimated time line, and costs, include acquisition and relocation expenses, new
development land cost write-downs, allowances for extraordinary noise
abatement construction costs, and administrative costs for the complete project.
EXHIBIT 6 is a graphic depiction of a proposed land use redevelopment for the
noise impacted area following the same principles that supported the City
Comprehensive Plan update completed in 1997. Non-residential land uses that
housed in large structures are proposed on the land nearest the NISP site in
order to provide a buffer for residential areas to the west. New housing would be
high density multiple dwellings primarily for seniors, and single family attached
(townhomes) constructed with extraordinary noise abatement materials �
PART FOUR.......MITIGATIOtd PROPOSALS PAGE FOUR - 4
A MITIGATION COMCEPT FOR A NEW PlORTHSOUTH RUNWAY AT THE fiASP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
and designs. Sorne additional open space and recreational facilities a�e
provided in an attempt to build a town home complex that will retain or attract
families with school-age children.
a) AIRPORT RELATED (RE)DEVELOPtVtENT............activities and uses
generated by MSP development that are consistent with the redevelopment
plan adopted, should be encouraged to locate in the redevelopment area
through MAC policies, plans, and incentives.
b) "FUTURE" 1NEST TERMIFVAL ...............should be included in the 2010
MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan, so as to eliminate the uncertainty
and support development of high value and high quality regional
commercial projects as depicted in the redevelopment concept (EXHIBIT 6).
The LTCP should also include provision for an extension of the LRT system
to Richfield and/or connections to bus feeder lines.
c) RESIDENTIAL DENSITY ...................programs and policies must be
adopted, funded by the MSP project, and effectively managed by Richfield
in order to develop higher densities that can replace lost population in
structures that minimize the noise impacts. Effective efforts including
financial incentives will be necessary to open and upgrade many single
family homes outside of the noise impacted area to retain displaced
families, and attract new families with school-age children. Neither the City
nor the School District can afford to lose any more population than has
already been lost through acquisition of New Ford Town and Rich Acres.
4.2.16 P. LIGHT EMlSSIONS ................from aircraft moving on the ground in areas
very close to TH77 must be mitigated with berms, walls, and plant materials in
the buffer strip along the full length of the air cargo area adjacent to TH77.
�
Q. NOISE (AIRCRAFT AND SURFACE TRANSPORTATION)..........represents
the greatest consequence with the most intense impacts on a very large portion
of the City of Richfield. Mitigation should include all of the thirteen abatement
measures, and all eleven land use planning measures listed in the DEIS, and in
addition:
a) S1'ANDARD NIE�45URENtEN1'S ...............must be modified so that they
accurately reflect low� frequency noise and induced vibrations (secondary
emissions) as well as primary (high frequency) noise.
b) SP'ECIAL. NIEASUREIVIENTS ..............conducted and reported by the firm of
BBN Systems in May of 1997 (copy of the report dated 14 IVlay 1997
included as ADDENDA A), should be accepted as 4he defined area for
aircraft noise mitigation activities as new FAA and NiAC standards.
cj EX1'RAORDItdARY nflITICATIORI PROCEDURES ..............over and above
the standards outlined in the DEIS including PART 'i 50 sound insulation
and structural improvements, and the construction of berms or other
acoustical barriers included as mitigation recommendations in the DEIS
PART FOUR.......AflITIGATION PROPOSALS PAGE FOUR - 5
,
� �)
i
A AflITIGATIOPi CONCEPT FOR A PIEVN NORTHSOUTH RUNWAY AT THE 6ASP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
�
e)
�
should be authorized in view of the extraordinary nature of the impacts (low
frequency noise), and the disproportionate impacts that will be experienced
in the complete primary and buffer zones in Richfield. (See EXHIBIT 3.)
FIELD Sl'UDY OF ANNOYANCE FROM LOW FREG�UENCY FdO1SIE......
should be used as the basis for defining the impacted area to be mitigated
as outlined in the BBN Systems report (See copy of report dated 9 October
1997 in the ADDENDA B, and summary as EXHIBIT 3 in Part One).
1'HE IMPACTED AREA............described in BBN Figure 3 represents the
noise impacted area, and EXHIBIT 3(Part One) of this report delineates the
primary and secondary noise impacted (mitigation) areas, EXHIBIT 6(Part
One)�of this report is a graphical representation of the area that must be
redeveloped with compatible land uses, funded by the MSP project.
SURF�►CE TR,�NSPORTATION NOISE IMPA►CTS..........mitigation should
include all measures described in the DEIS.
4.2.18 R. PARKS AND RECREATION ..................impacts and losses to Richfield are
all the direct result of selection of OPTION SIX, and must be mitigated as a part
of the IVISP expansion project. Specific mitigation should include:
a) P�ARKS AND F�4CILITIES WITHIN THE AREA OF P01'EPITIAL E�FECI'
(APE)............should include Washington Park that is clearly within the DN�-
65 noise contour (from 4/22), and Christian Park, based on the BBN study
which shows low frequency noise levels from 'i7/35 (80dB equal to the
DNL-65) cover a portion of that park as well. Cost of all redesign and
redevelopment required to mitigate increased noise intrusion should be
funded by the NISP project.
b) TUVO NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS ..................(New Ford Town and Rich
Acres Parks) are publicly owned parks, and the loss must be mitigated by
. payment in full for the fair value of the 6.8 acres.
c) COMnAU(VITY GARDENS ...................may be mitigated by permitting
development on other unused and available sites owned or controlled by
IVIAC in recognition of the disproportionate impacts on Richfield.
d) DISPROPOR'TIO(dA►TE IMPACTS ......................from substantial loss of
parks and recreational facilities o� on the City of Richfield are clearly out
of proportion when compared to all of the other adjoining communities, and
should be disproportionately mitigated through assistance in finding land
and funding acquisition and development of replacement sites and facilities
for the golf courses and athletic fields lost to the (�SP expansion project.
: . - : _.•• ._ . • � : ..- .
...
4.2.20 T. SOCIAL IMPACTS ................are another example of the
disproportionate burdens of this project on Richfield and should be mitigated.
PART FOUR.......NiITIGATION PROPOSALS
PAGE FOUR - 6
A RflITIGATIOPI CONCEPT FOR A PIEW IdORTH-SOUTH RUPdWAY AT THE ANSP ItdTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
a) CONIMUNITI( INSTITUTIONS ...........................Rich Acres golf courses
should be provided full relocation assistance allowed for displaced �
businesses under the Uniform Relocation Act, to the extent permitted by
State and Federal laws and rules.
b) HOUSEHOLDS DISPLACED.........should receive ali of the relocation
assistance required by law, as well as special assistance for families with
school-age children to find housing in the community outside of the actual
redevelopment area but still within the school district.
c) BUSINESS DISPI�CEII�ENT ....................should receive all of the
relocation assistance required by law as well as special assistance in
finding locations within the redevelopment area or other sites vvithin the
community.
d) VYORK lNITH "APPROPRIATE...AGEfVCIES" .............should include.the
state Department of Economic Security as suggested in the DEIS, but the
contact should be made together uvith the City of Richfield. IVIAC must
recognize the disproportionate impacts on Richfield and begin to work more
effectively with the City in the redevelopment project and in everyday,
normal operations.
4.2.2'i tJ. SECTION 4(� IMPACTS .............identification and mitigation efforts
should include Rich Acres and New Ford Town Parks, together wiith Washington
Park and a portion of Christian Park that falls within that noise impacted area.
�
4.2.22 V. SOLID l�ASTE IMPACTS............are covered in the DEIS.
4.2.23 W. T�tVSPORTA'�IOR! ACCESS...........mitigation must also include
upgrading the TH77/66TH Street interchange and constructing the ?7th Street
tunnel connection under and ramps to TH77 prior to operation of the enlarged air
cargo facilities, and should be done before construction begins.
a) TH77 �►ND EAS'T 66Thi STREET INTERCHAfdGE............requires major
mitigation for businesses removed, and the cost of all improvements
required to maintain the existing level of senrice for Richfield traffic. This
improvement should be completed before runway construction begins, but
must be completed before the expanded air cargo operations begin.
b) TH62 ADDITlON,4L t�tVES...........mitigation is provided in the DEIS.
c) T�FFIC DIVERSION TO LOCAL STREETS .............must be mitigated by
including the cost of upgrades and improvements to local streets,
pa�ticularly 66th and 77th Streets, and north-south collectors Bloomington,
12th, Portland, Nicollet, and Lyndale Avenues. Funds should also be
provided to cover costs of "traffic calming" means and devices that are
required to discourage diversion of traffic through residential streets.
4.2.24 X. AJOR UTILI7'IES......power line relocation does not affect Richfield. ��
PART FOUR.......IVi1TIGATION PROPOSALS PAGE FOUR - 7
A WIITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEVV NORTH-SOUTH RUPVWAY AT THE NflSP INTERPIATIOPdAL AIRPORT
4.2.25 Y. VISU�►L IMPe4CTS ...............from the conversion of the golf course
and open space to runways and cargo buildings must be mitigated by
construction of a 200 foot wide (minimum) "green strip" with berms, prairie
grass and trees over the full length of the MSP site along TH77.
4.2.26 Z. WASTE�/ATER..........will not impact on the City of Richfield.
4.2.27 AA. WATER SUPPLY.........no impacts on Richfield.
4.2.28 BB. SURFACE WATER C�UALITY........no impacts in Richfield.
4.2.29 CC. GROU(dDWATER QUALITY INIPACTS...........ihe DEIS should
outline proposed methods to protect the groundwater sources used by
Richfield, and clearly accept all future responsibility for remediation that
may be required as a result of contamination fram operations on the MSP
site.
4.2.30 DD. WETLAIVDS .................no impacts to mitigate in Richfield.
4.2.3'9 EE. WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ..............not applicable.
4.2.32 FF. WILDLIFE REFUGES ...............none in Richfield.
4.2.33 GG. DESIGN, ART and ARCHITECTURE ..............construction of the
runway, taxiway, and air cargo buildings along TH77 require mitigation in the
form of a development of the "green strip" described above, and must
include fully informing the City of building proposals, and responding to
reasonable requests for site design, architectural., and operational
conditions that the City may request.
4.2.34 HH. SHORT anci LOfVC TERNI COI�AMITMENTS OF
RESOURCES...........mitigation requirements in the DEIS are acceptable.
4.2.35 OTHER CONSE(�UENCES AND IMPp►CTS NOT IfVCLUDED IN THE
DEIS
a, LEGAL AND FISCAL COidSEQUEtVCES..........are not included in the DEIS
as specific areas of concern but require mitigation as follows:
1. �eQal Relationships .............between 11�AC, the City of Richfield, and the
affected parties and entities must be outlined, understood, and agreed
upon as a basis for implementation of a coordinated, comprehensive,
and effective Mitigation Plan including redevelopment.
2. City Boundaries........... for New Ford Town and Rich Acres should be
traded with other MAC property that could be developed, or compensated
PART FOUR.......�lIITIGATION PROPOSAI.S
PAGE FOUR - 8
A fl�ITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A PdEW NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY AT THE flflSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
to the extent of the 28.6 acres of street right of way acquired by MAC.
3. The Leqal Process........ . �r
...........for implementation of the Mitigation Plan t,.
including scope, authorities, responsibilities, funding, accountability, and
related matters should be defined, understood, and adopted by MAC and
the City, so that the arrangement can be clearly communicated to and
understood by all affected individuals and entities.
4. The Fiscal Consequences .............and impacts on the public (City and
School District) treasury, due to substantial changes in sources and
nature of revenues, a new expenditure pattern to support a very different
mix of uses and citizens, and the fiscal basis for financing redevelopment
and loss of revenues during the transition, must be�recognized, defined,
and mitigated by providing an escrow or endowment corpus that can
provide continuing funding of future losses in full.
5. Quality of Life Impact .................a system should be established to monitor
impacts that the proposed north-south runway would have on the quality
of life outside of the mitigated area. MAC should be responsible for
mitigation of those impacts as identified.
PART FOUR.......MITIGATIOfd PROPOSALS PAGE FOUR - 9
C�
_ .. _ _ � - •
� � _ - _ - � :
£ _ � � �`
f '
i � � �
� �
.� � . � • � � �
. • �. . � •' ' � •' ' • •
•
� t � •, ' - � � � �, ' �
FOR
THE MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT SITE
MINiVEAPOLIS, MN
Prepared for
The City of Richfield, MN
:, : � � ;. . _ ,
PART FIVE Implementation Process
5.1 Overview
5.2 Adoption of a Mitigation Plan
5.3 Legal Basis
5.3.1 Independent Project
5.3.2 Funding Basis
5.4 Management of the Plan
5.5 Stakeholder Participation
5.5.1 Stakeholders
5.5.2 Participation Process
5.6 An Estimated Tirne Line
5.? Estimated Mitigation Funding
5.8 Estimated Annual Budget
5.9 Annual Review
FIVE - 2
FIVE - 2
FIVE - 2
FIVE - 2
FIVE - 3
FIVE - 4
FIVE - 4
FIVE - 5
FIVE - 6
A MITIGATIOM COPICEPT FOR A PIEW PdOR•TH-SOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP IMTERNATIOPIA� AIRPORT
. � � ,
� � � , , � � � - �
5.1 OVERVIEW ......................of what may weli be the most important aspect of a
successful mitigation program, the implementation. Effective, active, and
consistent participation by those affected is essential to accomplishment of the
physical objectives of the mitigation project.
5.2 ADOPTION OF A COf�PREHENSIVE i�ITIGATIOId PL�4N ..:.............by the City,
and approval of the funding mechanism and funds by MAC must first be
accomplished by �ormal actions of the City and MAC. The City will provide a
complete PLAiV including effective staffing, provision of office space and
equipment, a projected time line, performance goals and objectives, and a
schedule of funding requirements from MAC, by formal resolutions.
5.3 THE LEGAL........process must be complete and appropriate to the requirements
of both the City and MAC, as well as any specific Legislative directives for the
redevelopment and related community support activities included in the
approved mitigation plan. The basic agreement must provide an effective
procedure through which the stakeholders and the City can obtain timely and
appropriate responses to all inquiries and requests, and effective enforcement of (
the construction, development, funding, and operational commitments made by
MAC.
5.3.'B INDEPE(dDENT PROJECT .................for redevelopment must be set
apart from the actual airport construction project as well as from the day-to-day
operations of both the City and MAC, in order to effectively complete the
mitigation activities, and to maintain credibility with the affected stakeholders.
The mitigation Plan must be seen as an undertaking worthy of its own specific
identity, responsibility and authority, rather than an insignificant adjunct to the
huge airport construction project, or simply short-term extra duty for City staff.
The City may contract with a private sector development entity (or entities if the
project is divided into geographical or functional units) for planning,
management, relocation, demolition, and construction of the redevelopment
portion of the overall project. �
5.3.2 FUtdDING �ASIS ...............from all available sources for both MAC and
the City should be effectively applied in order to generate as much as possible of
the investment capital and management costs from the development project
itself. The City and MAC will likely need to' cooperate in asking the Minnesota
Legislature for special funding and management authoriiy for this unique
situation. _ _ �'
PART FIVE...IMP�EAflEMTATION PAGE FIVE - 2
A AflITIGATIOPI CONCEPT FOR A WEW NORTHSOUTH RUNVI/AY AT THE AASP INTER(�ATIONAL AIRPORT
-- ., 5.4 MANAGEMEN'T OF THE P�AId...........should be directed by a Mitigation Project
' � Manager (MPM) hired or retained by the City. The h/IPM will employ staff and
retain consultants, utilize City and MAC staff when appropriate and applicable,
direct and coordinate the work of the redevelopment contractors, and will
prepare a budget document for adoption by the City and review by MAC each
year. The MPM will be responsible to, and work under the direction of the City
Manager or designated staff. The City Manager will coordinate and
communicate with NiAC through its Executive Director, and will make
presentations to both groups and to the public on a regular basis.
5.5 S'TAKEHOLDER PAR'TlCIPATION IN MIl"IGA"fIOtV ACTIOtdS........must include
frequent, timely, and consistent information provided promptly through a 24-hour
"Hot Line" for the Richfield mitigation project, and frequent, regular dissemination
of information and news by newsletter, direct mail, media release.s, presentations
to neighborhood groups, signage, hand-outs, etc. Feedback, input, and critiques
from the affected individuals and groups should be provided through forums,
focus groups, telephane and in-person interviews, etc., on a continuous basis
throughout the project. Meaningful participation will most likely prove to be the
primary means available to help preserve the solid community character that
exists in the affected area today.
, , 5.5.'i STAKEHOLDERS ................include at least three distinct groups, each of
� � which view the project and the process quite differently because of different
risks, and the nature of involvement over time. While all will need to knovv the
same basic information and have the same opportunities to participate in the
process, each group will have differing concerns and needs that must be
recognized and met. These groups can be defined as follows:
a) The Displaced............stakeholders are the first group, and are the easiest to
identify and communicate with because they are within the boundary of the
redevelopment area itself. They are involved in the project until they are
displaced, and most will noi have any long-term involvement unless they
move to a new location in the redevelopment project or to a home in the
neighborhood that is made available to them. Every effort should be made to
retain current owners, businesses, and tenants, particularly families with
school-age children, through finding and swapping available housing in the
adjacent neighborhoods, and through financial incentives to help them
improve or acquire new properties in the redevelopment area.
b) Abuttina........stakeholders are the second group because their property is on
the outside of the redevelopment boundary line and are most directly affected
by the actual redevelopment activity and the future structures and uses.
Abutting properties, like the displaced, can be exactly determined by their
property description, and, unlike the displaced group, are most concerned
with the long term aspects of the project since they will remain through
� _ ! redevelopment.
PART FIVE...IMPLEMEPITATIOtd PAGE FIVE - 3
A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW PIORTH-SOUTH RUPlWAY AT THE MSP IPITERNATIONAL AIRPORT
c)
d)
e)
Borderina........stakeholders are the third and largest group. They are those
that will remain where they are today beginning one lot or so beyond the
boundaries of the redevelopment area, and extending to a not so easy to
determine outer limit. Concerns may be views, traffic, non-residential land
uses, occupant demographics, etc., most important of which are the long
term aspects of the project. Stakeholders should share in the definition of
this area early in the process. Ultimately, any who believe that they are in the
affected area, and are actively involved, will be included.
Neighborhood.........stakeholders are those that live or work anywhere east of
Portland Avenue and wish to be involved.
Communitv .................stakeholders will come from outside of the geographic
areas defined above, and will include representatives of community groups
(Chamber of Commerce or Service Clubs), quasi-public institutions (churches
or clubs), public institutions (Conservation or Watershed District) as well as
individual residents and business people.
5.5.2 THE PARTICIP�►TION PROCESS .............must include clear, adequate,
and complete information so that fihe stakeholders can make informed judgments
and decisions. The process must also be flexible and open to changes in both
substance and form that come from the participants. The managers, leaders,
and moderators used in the process should be experienced, objective, and
without a vested interest in any outcome.
5.6 AN ESTIMATED TIt�E LItVE ...............begins with negotiations, adoption,
funding, and designation of management of the PLAN, and will continue until the
last mitigation activity has been accomplished. Specific TARGET DATES will be
related to the airport facility final design, negotiated mitigation parameters,
funding commitments, construction and operating schedules, and other factors,
most of which are not yet evident. A preliminary outline based upon the
recommendations in this report is as follows:
Negotiate the Nlitigation Plan Joint Powers Agreement
Approve The Agreement and Select the MPIVI
Initial Stakeholder Information and Communication
Complete Investigations, Sunreys, and Designs
Public and Stakeholder Review of Preliminary PLAN
Complete Final PLAN, do Funding, Bids and Contracts
Demolition, Construction, Relocation
Periodic Feedback Forums and Sunreys
Project Management Review & Evaluation
Project Completion Review and Evaluation
3 to 5 months
2 to 3 months
3 to 4 months
5 to 6 months
2 to 3 months
9 to 18 months
5 to 10 years
quarterly
annually
3 to 4 months
5.6 IVIITIGATION �IJIVDlIVG 'fO BE PROVIDED FOFt THE PROJECT......is based
on the following considerations and assumptions:
PART FIVE...IPVIP�E6AENTATION PAGE FIVE - 4�
C�
C
A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW PIORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY AT THE PI�SP IPlTERPIATIONAL AIRPORT
�' � 5.6.1 Project Life..........is assumed to be ten (10) years.
5.6.2 No Allowrance.......for inflation (1998 figures). .
5.6.3 Specific Developenent Plan.......must be prepared and specific cost
estimates may be more or less than estimates in this conceptual proposal.
5.6.4. Zero Base TIF Funding......is expected to be available for the project.
5.7 ESTIMATED MITIATION �UNDING REQUIRENAENiS.......are as follows:
ITEiVt NO. DESCRIPTION OF MITIGATION ACTION ESTIMATED COST
1.4.1
1.4.2
1.4.3 `
1.4.4
1.4.5
1.4.6
1.4.7
1.4.$
1.4.8a
1.4.8b
1.4.9
1.4.10
1.4.11
1.4.12
1.4.13
1.4.14
1.4.15
1.4.16
1.4.17
Administration
Air Quality Monitoring & Nlanagement - $ 3,000,000
Biotic Communities - 1,500,000
Construction Impacts 40,000,000
Economic Impacts 14,000.000
Induced Socio-Economic Impacts 14,000,000
Land Use (Redevelopment Only) 110,000,000
Light Emissions (Included under 1.4.2, above)
Noise Treatment for 740 homes 29,600,000
Health Impacts of Noise Study (20 years) 10,000,000
Highway Noise Mitigation (Included under 1.4.4, above)
Parks And Recreation 12,000,000
Social Impacts 36,000,000
Section 4(� Parks (2) 2,500,000
Transportation (In addition to 1.4.3, above) 33,500,000
Visual Impacts (Included under 1.4.2, above)
Surface Water Quality 500,000
Groundwater Quality 500,000
Design, Art, Architecture 6,000,000
Other Impacts.....Fiscal 16,000,000
See Detail in 5.8, below 2,500,000
ESTIiVIATED TEN-YEAR MITIGATION COSTS $ 331,600,000
5.8 ESTIMAI"ED ANNUAL MANAGEMENI' COSTS............are based on the scale
and magnitude of the project concept outlined in this report as follows:
a) Professional and Suppoefi Staf# (Estimated Annual Cost Range)
Project Manager ................................................$ 45,000 to $ 55,000
Assistant Project Manager ................................ 30,000 to 35,000
Administrative ................................................... 25,000 to 32,000
Professional Staff (or consultants) ..................... 35,000 to 40,000
Technical Staff (or consultants) ........................ 25,000 to 30,000
PART FIVE...IMPLEMENTATION
PAGE FIVE - 5
A NIITIGATIOfd CONCEPT FOR A tdEW NORTHSOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIOPlAL AIRPORT
Li�
c)
d)
e�
Office Space and Equipmeni
Office Space, Equipment, & Furnishings.......... $ 10,500 to $ 13,OOo
Personnel Fieid Equipment (Rental) .................. 3,500 to 5,000
Communications Expenses
Telephone.......................................................... 3,000 to 3,500
Internet.............................................................. 1,000 to 1,500
Teleconferencing ................................................ 11,000 to 13,000
Postage, Messenger, Express .......................... 2,000 to 3,000
Travel, I�ileage, and Other
Auto tVlileage and Travel .................................... 3,000 to 4,000
Other Expenses .................................................. 2,000 to 4,000
Management Consultant and Government Suppori Services
iVlanagement and Le�al Services ......................... 30,000 to 40,000
Government Support Goods and Services........... 9,000 to 12,000
Estimated Total Annuai Cost For Project Management $235,000 to $273,500
Estimated Total Project Management Cost (10 years)...........$2,350,000 to $2,910,000
4.�'7
REVIEW THE Pi20JECT AIdD NIAtd�4GEP1AEFy'T PROCESS ARlNUA►LLY.........in
order to evaluate effectiveness, responsiveness, timeliness, appropriateness,
and to reviev�r all legal, financial and legislative criteria and constraints.
aj The NIPM vvill prepare an annual report that details the activities of the past
year, specifically describes the status of each subproject, and outlines the
proposed action plan for the next year.
b) The action plan will be developed with participation of the stakeholders.
c) The action plan will be reviewed, amended, revised, and approved by the City
and financial elements confirmed and adopted by MAC.
dj The Richfield Planning Commission will use�this project review process as a
basis for recommending amendments to the Comprehensive Plan for review
and adoption by the City Council.
PART FIVE...IMPLEN�EiVTAT10N
PAGE FIVE - 6
�'
�� � �
�
; )
$BN SYSTEMS AND TECHN�LOGiES • BBN REPORT NO. 8196
• :/[ i .• ., :' E�1 i�: :' :�.= i. `--:
1 II�1T'IZ(�I)iJC'TIOI�t �iN�D SiJIVIIVI�2Y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
l.l BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 SLTMMAR.Y OF FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3 ORGANIZATION OF REPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2 I)ESC�PT'IO�T i)F b'IELI� �ASiJ�1VI�N'�S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1 LOCATIONS, TIlVIES, AND DURATIONS OF MEASUREMENTS ........ 5
2.2 INSTR'C]NTENTATION . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3 DATA REDUCTION AND ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3 �SiJLT'S .............................................................9
3.1 OUTDOOR NOISE LEVELS AT MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS ......... 9
3.2 AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS (ABSENT AIRCR.AFT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3 NOISE LEVELS PRODUCED BY AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS AT
MEASUREiViENT LOCATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.4 RELATIONSHIl'S BETWEEN A-LEVELS AND LOW FREQUENCY
CONTENT OF AIRCRAFT NOISE AT MEASL:TREMENT LOCATIONS ... 16
3.5 RESIDENTIAL NOISE REDUCTION MEASUREMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4 l�tOISE COl�1T'OITR A1�1P�YSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.1 DAY-I�tIGHT AVERAGE SOUND LEVELS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.2 A-LEVEL AND ESTIMATED LOW FREQUENCY NOISE
CONTOURS....................................................19
4.3 TIME ABOVE C4NTOURS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5 I)ISCUSSIi)ri .........................................................23
5.1 CRITERION FOR LOW FREQUENCY NOISE LEVELS SUFFICIENT TO
PRODUCE SECONDARY EMISSIONS INSIDE RESIDENCES . . . . . . . . . . _^. �
5.2 UTILITY OF A BARRIER AS A LOW FREQUENCY NOISE REDUCTION
I�iEASURE .....................................................�-;
5.3 EFFECTIVENESS OF ARCHITECT'URA]L TREATMENTS TO MITIGATE
LOW FREQLTENCY 1VOISE EFFECTS IN R.ESIDENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
6 GLOSS�It�' ..........................................................27
6.1 ACOUSTIC QUANTITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6.2 OTHER TERMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
APPEIVI2IX A DATA T�UL�sTIt�NS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
i
BBN SYSTEMS AND TECHNOLOGIES BBN REPORT 1Y0. �196 �
.
C,
C.
��
BBN SYSTEMS AND TECHNOLOGIES BBN REPORT NO. 8196
�r ��
�'igure 1
Figure 2
�igure 3
F'igure 4
��gure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
' `,
( � Figu�e 10
Ffgure 11
�igure 12
Figure 13
Figua-e 14
Figure 15
F'igure 16
F'igure 1"1
- � ��. .�.
Noise rneasurement locations with respect to MSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S
Short-term equivalent levels in one-third octave bands of ambient noise at two
measurement locations during periods without aircraft operations on nearby
ninways.........................................................10
One-third octave band composite maximum spectra of analyzed DC-9 operations
recorded at Locations 1 and 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
One-third octa.ve band composite maximum spectra of analyzed DC-10 operations
recorded at Locations 1 and 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
One-third octave band composite maximum spectra of analyzed Boeing 727.
operations recorded at Locations 1 and 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
One-third octave band composite maximum spectra. of analyzed Boeing 757
operations recorded at Locations 1 and 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
One-third octave band composite maximum spectra of analyzed Airbus 320
operations recorded at Location l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
One-third octave band composite maacimum spectra of analyzed.lVID-80
operations recorded at Locations 1 and 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
One-third octave band composite maximum spectra of analyzed Baeing 73'7-200
operations recorded at Locations 1 and 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
One-third octave band composite maximum spectra of analyzed business jet
operations recorded at Locations 1 and 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
One-third octave band composite maximum spectra of analyzed twin turboprop
(commuter) operations recorded at Location 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Regressions of maacimum A-weighted aircraft noise levels (as measured at
Locations 1 and 4) on low frequency noise levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Average difference between sirnultaneous indoor and outdoor noise levels of five
aircraft flyovers measured at Location 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
DNL contours for MSP in the vicinity of Richfield produced by INM Version 5.1
for the year 2005, based on MAC's operational assurnptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Estimation of low frequency noise levels from proposed runway 17/3S. Estimated
low frequency lirnits are parallel to proposed runway 17/35 and tangent to Lmax
contoursfrom INM ................................................21
Contours of numbers of minutes of A-weighted aircraft noise in excess of 65 dB,
in half hour increments. Positions of schools aze starred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Relationship between direct audibility of low frequency sounds and audibility of
secondary emissions in a residence excited by jet engine noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-�
iii
$BN SYSTEMS AND TECHNOLOGIES BBN REPORT NO. 8196
1V
�
�
C
BBN SYSTEMS AND TECHNOLOGiES BBN REPORT NO. 8196
�: E�� ` • ���
'Table 1 Summary of equivalent sound levels observed during measurement periods. ... 9
Table 2 Numbers of recordings of operations by aircraft type analyzed at measurement
locationsl and 4 ..................................................11
'�'able 3 Definitions of quantities tabulated in Appendix A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
v
BBIV SYSTEMS AND TECHNOLOGIES I
B$PI REPORT NO. 8196
C
��
��
P:BN SYSTEMS AIYD TECHNOLOGIES BBN REPORT NO. 8196
4
�� � '�� r�i �� � ��.4 i� �'
This report describes, analyzes, and discusses the implications of a set of low frequency
aircraft noise measurements made in the vicinity of Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport
(MSP) at the request of the City of Richfield. The locarions at which these rneasurements were made
support estimation of future low frequency aircraft noise levels in azeas of Richfield immediately
west of an anticipated North-South runway (17/35) at MSP.
Future aircraft operations on a proposed Runway 17/35 on the west side of MSP, as well as
operations on runway 4/22, will expose eastern portions of the City of Richfield to additional noise
from aircraft in flight and from aircraft ground operations. Some of this noise will be audible in
residential areas of Richfield beyond the immediate airport vicinity, and will differ in character from
flyover noise. The City is concerned that standazd methods developed for federal regulatory and
administrative purposes for quantifying aircraft noise and assessing its effects may not be fully
adequate for characterizing potential noise impacts created by operation of the new runway.
Such concerns are not unique to the City of Richfield. Communities near San Francisco
International Airport (SFO) and Logan International Airport (BOS), for example, have also recently
sought to develop information about the adequacy of standard aircraft noise assessment methods to
account for the effects of low frequency noise generated by aircraft operations. The basis for this
�' � concern is that the standard aircraft noise metrics, contouring methods and interpretive criteria used
-----' for regulatory purposes are all A-weighted.l Noise measurements expressed in A-weighted units aze
most heavily influenced by acoustic energy in the frequency region in the vicinity of 1 kHz (about
two octaves above middle-C on the piano), and are highly insensitive to acoustic energy at low
frequencies. .
A-weighted noise levels aze thus little influenced by low frequency noise from airport ground
and near-ground operations that may be audible at considerable distances from runways. Such
noises include those created by taxiing, takeoffroll, deployrnent of thrust reversers on landing, and
engine maintenance run-ups. At some distance from an airport, these aze generally heard
episodically as low rumbling sounds with characteristically slower onset and offset times than those
of aircraft flyovers.
One of Richfield's concerns with low frequency aircraft noise is the efficacy of residential
acoustic insulation measures intended to mitigate airport noise impacts. Architectural treatments for
reducing indoor noise levels in residences of the sort undertaken to mitigate aircraft noise impacts
on communities are designed to an A-weighted criterion. Airport proprietors may apply for federal
funding for acoustic insulation programs intended to provide an indoor Day-Night Average Sound
Level (DNL) of 45 dB for residences located within an airport's FAA-approved DNL= 65 dB aircraft
noise exposure contour. (DNL is by defmition an A-weighted noise measure.)
�' � � Readers interested in definitions of acoustic terms may find them in a Glossary in Section 6 of this report.
B$N SYSTEMS AND TECHNOLOGIES - - $BN REPORT NO. 8196
Standazd treatments that are often included in FAA-funded acoustic insulation projects �'
include multiple glazing, solid-core exterior doors, and sealing of wall andlor roof penetrations.
Depending on home construction and proximity to runways, measures of this sort aze generally
adequate to provide roughly 5 dB of additional A-weighted noise reduction for residences.
However, since cold climate residential construction often attenuates outdoor noises by 25-30 dB
(A-weighted) indoors when windows are closed, an additional 5 dB or so of attenuation may be
superfluous in reaching an indoor DNL value of 45 dB in azeas with aircraft noise exposure levels
in the vicinity of DNL = 65 dB. In such cases, the value that home impmvements undertaken as part
of an acoustic insulation program may provide are for purposes other than noise mitigation per se.
Conventional azchitectural treatrnents may not yield a sufficient improvement in low
frequency transmission loss to prevent residents from noticing low frequency aircraft noise of the
sort noted above in their homes. Furthermore, conventional acoustic insulation measures do not
necessarily prevent the production of indoor rattling noises ("secondary emissions" made by objects
on shelves, pictures hung on walls, and other household bric-a-brac) in homes exposed to low
frequency noise of sufficient leveL
The Metropolitan Airports Commission's analysis of low frequency noise effects of aircraft
operations2 states (in full) that
"Low frequency noise and vibration levels associated with aircraft operations on the
proposed Runway 17-35 would be well below the levels which would cause (
structural damage to buildings or health risk to residents in neighboring areas of
Richfield." ��.
Although it is reassuring that low frequency noise and vibration from aircraft operations on
the proposed runway will not sicken Richfield residents or collapse their homes, such reassurances
do not address more plausible impacts of low frequency aircraft noise: notably, annoyance due to
direct �audibility and/or secondary emissions. They also do not address the efficacy of conventional
noise mitigation measures in the low frequency region.
The field measurements described in this report were undertaken to establish current �ow
frequency noise levels and to permit estimation of future low frequency noise levels in parts ��'
Richfield near proposed Runway 17/35. Since this runway has not yet been built, measuremeiii�
were necessarily made at locations relative to MSP's existing runways that correspond to points of
interest in Richfield with respect to the proposed runway. Several noise contour analyses were also
conducted to aid interpretation of the field rneasurements.
' As stated in a letter of 25 April from the Deputy Executive Director for Planning and Environment to Richfieid's ;
City Manager. __ _ _ _ _ (
\
��
$BN SYSTEMS AND TECHNOLOGIES BBN REYORT NO. 8196
� �, � • ;,;
The major findings of the field measurements and analyses described in this report include
the following:
� Aircraft operations on a proposed North-South runway at MSP will
substantially elevate ambient noise levels in one-third octave bands below
100 Hz in areas of Richfield up to about a mile from the runway, by 20 dB
or more under some conditions.
• This increase in low frequency naise levels is not appazent in the
(A-weighted) aircraft noise exposure contours produced by INM.
• Levels of low frequency noise exposure similaz to those that will be created
in eastern Richfield by operations on proposed Runway 1'7/35 have given rise
to noise complaints in communities neaz other airports.
• An acoustic barrier parallel to the proposed runway of dimensions adequate
to provide appreciable low frequency noise reduction for much of eastern
Richfield is unlikely to be cost-effective.
• Low frequency noise produced by jet aircraft operations on the proposed
'�. � North-South runway will be of sufficient level to create audible rattling
noises inside residences in eastern portions of Richfield, including some
residences with conventional "acoustic insulation" treatments.
s Areas of Richfield that will be exposed to low frequency noise from aircraft
operations on the proposed North-South nuiway at levels sufficient to induce
rattling noises inside homes extend farther westwazd from MSP than the
60 dB DNL contour.
,� ' . ;�: � � ; � � x� �
Section 2 of this report describes the manner in which low frequency noise measi.u•ein.;�.��
were made and processed. Section 3 summarizes the findings of the field measurements. Section 4
models future aircraft noise levels in Richfield made with Version 5.1 of FA.A's Integrated Iloise
Model (Il`�. Section S discusses the implications of the field measurements and noise predictions.
A Glossary is provided in Section 6 to define acoustical terms, while an Appendix contains
tabular summaries of one-third octave band levels observed during the field measurements.
3
BBIV SYSTEMS AND TECHNOLOGIES BBA1 REPORT NO. 8196
4
9
I
�
BBN SYSTEMS AND TECHNOLOGIES BBN REPORT NO. 8196
'�, � :�� :,: ;• - ,: i: ''^x, s £� t' ;
_ _ . :
} � � ..:; ' '. ', .. . �� s g a
This section describes the circumstances under which the present low frequency aircraft noise
measurements were made.
e�; .. � ;�� � ,IF ;1- �'' �% _ �-� � ' �
Outdoor aznbient noise levels due to aircraft activity were measured at five positions in the
vicinity of MSP on 16 and 17 March 1997, as shown in Figure 1. The microphone at Location 1 was
placed at the north edge of Fort Snelling National Cemetery at the bottom (north side) of a berm
separating the cemetery from the airport. The distance from Location 1 to Runway 29L/11R was
1,000 feet. The intervening terrain between this measurernent location and Runway 29L/11R did
not obstruct the line of sight to taxiing aircraft. Measurements were made at Location 1 from
12:55 PM to 4:15 PM on 16 March and from 9:30 AM to 10:15 AM on 17 Mazch.
Figure 9 Noise measurement locations with respect to 11ASP.
The microphone at Location 2 was in a parking lot in Christian Park in the City of Richfield
neaz the corner of Bloomington Avenue and 69th Street. Approximately two hours of the recordings
at Locations 1 and 2 were made simultaneously. Measurements were made at Location 2 from
2:00 PM to 4:00 PM on 16 March.
�
$BN SYSTEMS AND TECHNOLOGIES BB�I REPORT PIO. 8196
Simultaneous indoor and outdoor noise measurements were made at Location 3, a private l
residence in the 6'700 block of 17th Avenue South, selected as a venue for low frequency noise
reduction measurements. The contemporary wood frame construction aad condition of this
residence was typical of that of many others in the surrounding neighborhood. The outdoor
microphone was placed near the northwest corner of the residence. Nieasurements were made at
Location 3 from 7:30 PM to 8:30 pm on 16 March.
Location 4 was at the north end of 17th Avenue in the City of Richfield in a cul de sac neaz
Grant Pazk. Measurements were made at Location 4 from 9:00 AM to 10:00 AM on 17 March.
Short-term measurements were made at Location S near Highway 7� at 74th Street at
6:30 PM on 16 March to assess the contribution of surface tra.ffic on Highway 7'7 to the community
noise environments of Locations 2, 3, and 4.
Wide-bandwidth recordings af.aircra$ and other noise were made with two sets of one-half
inch electret microphones, associated pre-amplifiers and power supplies, and digitaI audio tape
(DAT) recorders. The one-half inch electret microphones were Bri.iel & Kjaer Type 4155, with ]ower
frequency limits of approximately 5 Hz. One DAT was a two-channel Sony model TCD-D 10 Pro II
capable of recording signals at least as low in frequency as 12.5 Hz. The other DAT was a Sony
model PC-204 four-channel instrumentation recorder capable of recording DC signals. The entire
instrurnentation chain of both measurement systems was capable of recording signals at least as low (�
in frequency as 12.5 Hz. The calibration histories of each system were traceable to primary `-
standazds maintained by the National Institute of Standazds and Technology.
Video recordings of airport activity were made during the course of noise measurements for
assistance in identifying noise events produced by specific aircraft rnovements. One channel of the
four-channel DAT was used to record air traffic control radio communications as a further aid to
identifying aircraft activity.
,� ' '1 • 1
One-third octave band levels of sounds recorded in the field were analyzed with BBN's
proprietary LABWARE and BBN/PROBE`� soflwaze packages running on a VAX server 4000
rnodel 300 and VAX station 4000 model 60. Data collection samples were taken at 0.5 second
intervals at a 0.5 second averaging time, in accordance with the practice specified in Pazt 36 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations. Frequency analyses were conducted in "high frequency" (25 to
�
0
BBN SYSTEMS AND TECHNOLOCIES BBN REPORT N0.8i9G
� � 10,000 Hz) one-third octave bands3 at all locations, and in a"low frequency" (1.6 Hz to 1,250 Hz)
one-third octave bands at Locations 3 and 4.
' Part 36 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, which establishes measurement procedures for aircraft noise
certification in the United States, identifies the 24 one-third octave bands between 50 Hz and 10,000 Hz as the frequency
___ region within which aircraft noise must be measured. The lower limit of the current "high frequency" analyses encornpasses
� j and extends below that specified by Part 36, while the current "low frequency" analyses extends to even lower frequencies.
%
$BrI SYSTEMS AND TECHNOLOCIES $BIVREYORT NO. 8196
C
C
_ \.
L
BBN SYSTEMS AND TECNNOLOGIES BBN REPORT NO. 8196
'.
. 3 � T5
Tabulations of A-weighted, overall (unweighted), and one-third octave band sound levels of
aircraft opera.tions, along with centile values in each one-third octave band o.bserved during the field
measurements, may be found in Appendix A. Summaries of these data and aircraft-specific data are
presented in this section.
,� . �, � � ;. �: ; . ��. �� .
Time-averaged noise levels produced by aircraft, surface traffic, and other community
sources are summarized in Table 1 by measurement locations. The sound levels reported in this
table aze short-term equivalent levels for the indicated measurement durations.
Table 1 Summary of equivalent sound leveis observed during
measurement periods.
. ,. . . . ..
.. ..
Figure 2 plots short-term equivalent levels of the arnbient noise environments at
measurement Locations 1 and 4 during periods without aircraft operations on nearby runways. Noise
levels in one-third octave bands at frequencies lower than about 160 Hz are notably higher at
Location 1(1,000 feet from Runway 11L/29R) than at Location 4(a site in a residential
neighborhood about 4,600 feet from the neazest runway). Even though no aircraft operations wzi.;
in progress on Runway 11 L/29R during the time for which the spectrum shovcm in Figure 2 was
measured at Location l, other aircraft were taxiing elsewhere at the airport, and other motori���:.��
equipment was in use. Thus, the low frequency noise levels shown for Location 1 in Figure 2 al�rnos`
certainly overestimate low frequency noise levels in most areas of Richfield. Low frequency noise
levels in most parts of Richfield west of Cedar Avenue probably differ little from those measurPd
at Location 4.
�
BBPI SYSTEMS AND TECHNOLOGIES BB1V REPORT IVO. 8i9G (
BO
�
'
.
J
C ��
� r
O Q,
� 0
9 J
C •
m 7�
O C
Y �
� h
� 9
Q ��
t N
O
C
0
�
20 •1—r--i i r i i i � � r i i i � i i i i � i � i`m i i
N � a�i m m g �'�° r N n � �7'i m � S � �' � �7'i �' � gp $ 25
N N P) o I(1 (p m
Ons4hlyd OcSsve Band Cm�r Frequonry �Ha)
Figure 2 Short-teRn equivalent levels in one-thi�d octave bands of ambient
noise af two measu�ement locations during periods without
aircraft operations on neafby runways.
C
3.3 l�t�ISE i�EV'EI.S I'lgC)I)LTCED ��' AI�t.0 FT OPE 'I'Ii)I�TS A'T
1V�EA�II I�IE�t'T LOCA�'IOI�TS
l,
Approxirnately 150 aircraft operations were observed during the various measurement �
periods. Of these, composite maximum spectra4 for the operations of common aircraft shown in
Table 2 were calculated in one-third octave bands between 25 Hz and 10,000 kHz. These operations
(1) were positively identified either by field observation or by review of the videotape made during
data collection, and (2) contained no appreciable artifactual noises such as those created by wind
gusts, other aircraft operations, or surface noise sources.
Plots of the maximum level in each one-third octave band during a period extending from
30 seconds before to 30 seconds after the peak level for each aircraft operation are presented by
aircraft type in Figures 3 through 11. Note that the (maximum) noise energy in low frequency bands
during nearby operations by jet transport aircraft often exceeds the (average) ambient noise levels
in the same low frequency shown in Figure 2 by 30 dB or more.
° A"composite maximum" spectrum contains the highest level in each one-third octave band occurring at any time
during a noise event. Such a specirum is more appropriate than one based on average or instantaneous levels for purposes
of predicting secondary emissions inside structures. -
�
10
BBN SYSTEMS AND TECHNOLOGIES �BN REPORT NO. 8196
Table 2 Numbers of recordings of operations by aircraft type analyzed at measurement locations
1 and 4.
�oo
00
eo
m
o v
� _ TO
m s
o �
>
a p
u �
� o �
o n
c E
� �
a
E
p e SO
�
10
�0
20
i�i �' a m o o � ' o 0 0 � o o e�i o o n d o g ^ o $ o $
A N lV �f � O O O ^ ' w O Vf O
� H A f p 0 O
OnethYd pcbre 8and Contor Frapuoney plz)
Figure 3 One-third octave band composite maximum spectra of analyzed DC-9
operations recorded at �ocations 1 and 4.
;�, �,. -
T,I�►IRCRAFT TYPE '� i.00A770P1 �s O ERRA,�� S�
�- ,�
Y �. .� �-� k,.. n .: '-- . ; �•,
DG9 1 7
4 6
OG10 � �
4 4
T27 � 5
4 1
757 � 3
4 5
A320 1 2
MD-80 � 2
4 1
737 � 2
4 2
Business jet � �
4 1
Twin turboprop 4 3
r
11
BBN SYSTE�MS AND TECHNOLOGiES BBPI REPORT NO. 8196
�oo
DO
80
�
o v
� � 70
n
� i
� J
>
� 'C
� � 80
O @)
t E
r �
e E
p q SO
2
eo
ao
zo pp p a o
N � • tlf O O ^ � � N ��'1 fl � � O O O I�Y O O � i O O n O
W N !I f M O a
Ona�thlr0 Oetavo tand Centar PreQueaey (Ha)
F'igure 4 One-third octave band composite maximum spectra of analyzed DC-10
operations recorded at Locations 1 and 4.
,00
eo , � `
— 1
eo �
m
o �
� ' 10
w o
� a
> J
A O
u C
o g eo � ,
�� I
� E
. a
• E
p � SO .. .
i _
�0
]0
-+--�xa�rn t�o..Le<am� f�p—teeatro 1�r..Lwa�b� 1�i��KO1Nl1 1�O.I,ytlIIOC �
SO
. •+ q o� o in o. e n e e o m g o� o o g � O o o � o e o a
a � a+ m o o r c o n � o � o
.. fl ..... .... ...�' .,� � !1 !�I Fl � » Q O O N � N N .fl � ��ff O m
. . � �� � � One�ihMd Octaw�0aed CeatarFnauener �M:►
Figure 5 One-third octave band composite maximum spectra of analyzed Boeing
727 operations recorded at Locations 1 and 4.
12
C
BBN SYS'tEMS AND TECHNOLOGiES BBN REPORT NO. 8196
too
00
, eo
m
0 0
c � 70
m
m >
m J
>
A O
C
� � 8�
O 1A
t E
� �
� E
0 �w 50
�
10
�0
20
�n » o o � o e n o e o ^ e o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o e e o e o
a � e �n m m o ^ � o n o o � o o in o 0 o u> o 0 0 0
� tV N II 0 R� O���m ' ' ^ O uf � O O n O
N N !f f N O O
� � Ono•thirtl Oetavo �aed Cmntor Froqueney (H:) �
Figure 6 One-third octave band cornposite maximum spectra of analyzed Boeing
757 operations recorded at Locations 1 and 4.
,00
00
eo
m
a o
���o
M
Qi '
e •
> d
• p
C
� p 80
Q m
c E
T �
� E
q q SO
S
�0
�0
20
Cf rtf O O 1'1 O O Yf O O O ' O O O O $ O O O O p O p O O
N �: f �fi O 0 � � � N N II � ��ff O O O N O O 1� n O O !�i O
A �' �' " lV N �l ! p O O
One•thlyd Oetarm 0and CeaurFrmpuaney (H:)
Figure 7 One-third octave band composite maximum spectra of analyzed Ai�us
320 operations recorded at l.ocation 1.
13
BBN SYSTEMS AND TECHNOLOGIES BBN REPORT NO. 819G
,00
so
eo
0
� _ TO
o �
o �
Y
O
�p p 80
i n
c E
t �
oE
� SO
S
40
]0
20
� w � � m s s � $ s � � s � m � � � � � � � � � g �
� '+ ti n r� o
. Oeo�had Oetavo �antl Canto� Froaumncy �H:)
Figure 8 One-third octave band composite maximum spectra of analyzed NiD-80
operations recorded at Locations 1 and 4.
,00
ao
8a
0
e o
� " TO
• 'a
m s
a �
� J
4 e
e
O o 80
9 y�
c E
T o
• E
p � 50
a
40
]0
20
N ^ O Mf O m w w � I'1 N fl f O m O .O ��'1 O � N � O O O p�
Onm•thl�d Oetaw 6and Center F�aausner (Ht)
Figure 9 One-third octave band cornposite rnaximum spectra of analyzed Boeing
737-200 operations recorded at Locations 1 and 4.
14
i'
�
C.
BBN SYSTEMS AND TECHNO�OGIES BBN REPORT NO. 8196
�oo
eo
eo
m
� �. � o
�
� �
• J
s
« �
� � 8�
O @�
c E
� �
E
p q SO
i
10
JO � � i [ . ; , ' '
I j j �
r�Lecollen t �F{.eeeUen �
ZO 1 p p I eI p1 1 p1 i 1
N � O H 0 O O ' S O � y p O O � O N O O N O O O � O
A N N !1 O M O ^ ' � � n m
N lV 1�l O O
Ona•thlyd OeUvo Band Qmntor Fraquaney (Mz)
Figure '90 One-third octave band composite rnaxirnum spectra of analyzed business
jet operations recorded at Locations 1 and 4.
,00
90
B�
m
'� � 70
c
w —
i0 i
O j
R
O
� O B�
'O ap
c E
� �
E
p � 50
�
. �
;
�
. t
_. .......�. _ _. _. ...� . ' ; ' ' '�
i
�
� i ! � i . � . , . . .
' �
10 .._.. �_ .._ . . ! .._......_.. , .. ... ._. . . . _._ ...._ �_. . ....,.._ ......_..__.�. . _ _...._ . . _..... . _ ._
, i i
� ,
i i ; ,
�0 ' � . , . . .... _ . . _. . _. _. .. ....,..
. .....: . . ..� ....�._ . . .. i . ..� _..I.. . ..� _. . i _ ..L...__.._..... ..._ . _ . .. I._
, �
� —�—Lowqon4 --�--Loeatlon4 -+—Looaqont —..—loeoUon�
20 p p p ppp
CY11 � P Iff O S O ^ S „ {V fl Y �f1 O 0 O N O � N �f ' � O �
A
Ono•thl�d Ootava Band ConterFraquoney (Ht)
Figure 11 One-third octave band composite maximum spectra of analyzed twin
turboprop (commuter) operations recorded at Location 4.
15
BBPI SYSTEMS AND TECHNOLOCIES BBN REPORT NO. B19G
,� j� : � • 4 �� ' �. ;, �, � � -: . i �, : . ,
..- ;r� ��� ��
� . �:� ,�. _ � . .�� �.
. � �
Figure 12 regresses the measured A-weighted level of aircraft noise events at Locations 1
and 4 at the times of their maximum level on the low frequency content of the aircraft operations
shown in Figures 3 through 11.5 The low frequency content is defined for purposes of Figure 12 as
the greatest of the one-third octave band levels in the composite maximum spectrum for the time
period 30 seconds before and after the peak A-weighted sound level of an a,irccraf� noise event in any
of the six one-third octave bands centered at 25 Hz through 80 Hz. The linear regressions for the
two sets of observations shown in Figure 12 account for almost two-thirds of the variance in the
�
o �
o �
v
�
y�j 75
u
i
Q �o
e
�
3
J �
e tea.m./ � �
O late0c� � ' '
' —AMraseun t ' ! �
— Ibpm.nn � � � ' �,,,,, �"i'� e
e �
�.�'�"��' ° � A
e ,�,� "'s • :
s . e
a
i
„i e ; e
/ ' a
�,,, -" s a
� �" o
/. �! .
e
. m a • � ,
•
C
�i '
■
• • Sunwnxy af lkrm Rapr�tabts
SbPs tru�opt f
a Lor�ion t 0.45 M.87 0.81
tncu�, • o.so z�.s� o.n
P�bictw VaAahM: Me�tlmun AswipNmf La�d pt� flypvar
Piodiqtd VmlaWa: 1Aa�knten I,avai h ay 1/7 Opa�a Batl
ce�wmn n m,a eo kz e.au.fw waq FyoYer
ss � � ;
85 f0 75 � 85 90 05 1� � 105
A+woighted Sound �ovsl(dB)
Figure 12 Regressions of maximum A-weighted aircraft noise levets (as
measured at Locations 1 and 4) on low frequency noise leveis.
relationships. Most of the variance unaccounted. for by the regressions is almost certainly due to
differences in aircraft types and operating conditions.
�' �i ; �` ; �: �. ��. ; -�, � .�
Noise levels in each one-third octave band were analyzed at locations outside and inside a
bedroom in the northwest corner of a house at Location 3. The room was 12 feet wide (east-west)
by 11 feet-8 inches long (north-south) by 8 feet high, with windows located at the east comer of the
north wall and in the center of the west wall. The microphone was located slightly south of the
center of the room. Noise reduction levels in each one-third octave band were obtained for a period
5 Note that the A-weighted maximum level of an aircraft noise event is not the same quantity as the A-weighted level
of the composite maximum spectrum. The former quantity is an A-weighted sound level that occurs at a paRicular point in
time, while the latter is not measurable in real time.
16
C_
�
BBN SYSTEMS AND TECHNOLOCIES BBN REPORT NO. �196
of 30 seconds before and after the unweighted peak noise level for each of five aircraft flyovers. The
i j averaged one-third octave band data are presented in Figure 13.
Figure 13 shows that the noise reduction of the house improves rapidly with increasing
frequency in the region of current interest, from only about 5 dB in the one-third octave band at 16
Hz to an average of about 20 dB in the frequency region from about 25 to 80 Hz.
ao.o
a�.o
so.o
m
= 25.0
c
0
u
9 20.0
d
�
� 15.0
'o
a
10.0
5.0
0.0 O p O
� N N � V�' 1� � a�O O � m O itl � O � 1+�7 O C7 1t7
� N N l7 ? IA c0 W O �
One�fhitd Octave Band Ce�ter Frequency (Hx)
Figure 13 Average difference between simuitaneous indoor and outdoor
noise leveis of five ai�craft flyovers measur�d at Location 3.
17
BBN SYSTEMS AND TECHNOLOCIES BFiN REYORT NO. 8196 �
6
�
BBN SYSTEMS AND TECHNOLOGiES BBN REPORT NO. 8196
� �
4 l� ISE � NT' LT YSES
The analyses summarized in this section, conducted with Version 5.1 of the Federal Aviation
Adrninistration's Integrated Noise Model, are based on the operational assumptions (fleet mix,
runway utiliza.tian, flight tracks and profiles, numbers of operations, etc.) adopted by MAC's noise
consultant for the year 2005. Any differences between the shapes of the noise contours published
in the DEIS and in this report thus reflect differences between INM Versions 5.1 and 4.1 l. Even the
I]'vM 5.1 contours should not be regarded as definitive estimates of future aircraft noise levels in
Richfield, however, since they do not reflect noise created by aircraft taxiing to departure positions,
and remain highly sensitive to conjectured levels and types of operations.
Prediction of airport activity a decade in the future is an inherentiy uncertain proposition,
with considerable potential for error. For example, the total number of daily azrivals at MSP
assumed in MAC's INM contours for 2005 was 664. The O�cial Airline Guide identified 830 daily
arrivals at MSP during a recent (winter) month, or 25% more than assumed on an annual average
day in the DEIS contours. All other things being equal, if aircraft operations at MSP continue to
grow at a modest rate of 4% per annum, nearly twice as many daily arrivals could materialize in
2005 as were predicted in the DEIS. The only levels of aircraft activity that aze unlikely to be
surpassed sooner or later at a successful civil airport are those associated with maximum airport
capacity — itself an uncertain figure. �
r � . .r ,
, � t . . , . ��
�
� ) Figure 14 shows DNL contours for the yeaz 2005 based on MAC's operational assumptions.
- The Minnesota State Legislature contemplates that acoustic insulation may be provided as a noise
mitigation measure in residences with aircraft noise exposure as low as DNL = 60 dB. Several
dozen blocks in northeastern and southeastern Richfield will lie within this region in the year 2005
if MAC's operational assumptions prove accurate.
• ��� �1, �: ;� �. ��.
��; . ��� " ��� _ �•� �
The curved solid lines superimposed on the street grid to the east of Cedar Avenue in Figure
15 are maximum A-weighted aircraft noise contours. These contours reflect noise created by aircraft
activity on Proposed Runway 17/35, Runway 4/22, and Runways 11/29. The relationships
developed by regression analysis in Figure 12, in conjunction with these maximum A-weighted
contours, yield at least rough estimates of future low frequency noise levels due to operation of the
proposed runway.
These estimates are represented in Figure 15 as the straight dashed lines drawn tangent to the
closest points of approach of the maximurn A-weighted contours to the proposed runway, and
parallel to it. The greatest expected sound level in any one-third octa.ve band between 25 and 80 Hz
(inclusive) at any point along the dashed line closest to the proposed runway is 95 dB 6
( 6 Note 4hat low frequency levels as high as 95 dB are not expected in residen6al azeas of Richfield.
;
)
19
BBN SYSTER4S AND TECHNOLOGIES BBPI REPORT NO. 8196
The methods used to estimate levels of low frequency noise that will be created by aircraft
operations on Proposed Runway 17/35 are uniformly conservative. For exatnple, the primary �
sources of attenuation in outdoor sound propagation aze geometric spreading and atmospheric
absorption.' Only the former is of any consequence in the case of present interest, since atmospheric
absorption of sound reduces sound levels as little as 0.1 dB per thousand feet in the frequency range
below 100 Hz. Nonetheless, even though the A-weighted contours shown in Figure 15 decrease with
distance from the proposed runway more rapidly than would low frequency contours, the positions
of the low frequency contours aze estimated from those of the A-weighted contours.
. �;, E� ; �. �. ; �. � . �_
The contours displayed in Figure 16 indicate the number of minutes per 24 hour day that
outdoor A-weighted aircraft noise levels are expected to exceed 65 dB in the yeaz 2005. According
the Environmental Protection Agency, this is a sound level above which noise can reduce speech
intelligibility below 95%. The contours show that speech interference due to aircraft operations will
range from half an hour to an hour and a half per day in some parts of Richfield west of Cedar
Avenue. The stars show the locations of schools with more than half an hour per day of potential
speech interference during open-window season.
Figure 14 DiVL contours for MSP in the vicinity of Richfield
produced by INM Version 5.1 for the year 2005, based
on i1AAC's operationai assumptions. �
" Ail other things being equal, geometric spreading from a point source reduces sound levels by 201og (distance),
or 6 dB per doubling of distance. Although very low frequency sound waves may be ducted over long distances in neat-
surface waveguides in certain conditions with little loss in energy, such effects were not considered for current purposes.
Other propagation effects, such as ground absorption and refraction due to temperature and wind gradients, are of lesser import
and/or too temporally variable to merit consideration in the present context.
�
�
BBIV SYSTEMS AND TECHNOLOGIES BBN REPORT NO. 8196
Figure 16 Contours of numbers of minutes of A-weighted aircraft noise in excess of 65 dB,
in haif hour increments. Positions of schools are staRed.
Estimeted low Frequency Nase �evels — — — — — — — — —
lmaxComaurs
Figure 15 Estimation of low frequency noise levels from proposed runway
17/35. Estimated low frequency limits are parallei to proposed
runway 17/35 and tangent to L,„� contours from INM.
21
BBN SYSTEMS APID TECHNOLOGIES BBPi REPORT P10. 8196
C
C_
22
BBN SYSTEMS AND TECHNOLOCIES BBN REPORT NO. 8196
i �
•�� � • ,�, � �•� z�; � , _�, �; ,
� . � ,� ;. � �, � u ,�; ��� ��; ., . -'
�, ..4 , ���
���
�:r :
No formal standard or recomrnendation by an agency with regulatory acoustic interests
identifies a particulaz low frequency sound level likely to produce secondary emissions iaside
residences. Information from a variety of sources, however, tends to suggest that sound levels on
the order of 75 to 85 dB in the frequency range of about 10 to 100 Hz aze capable of producing
indoor rattling noises in residences.
Blazier, for example, has published information indicating that sound produced. by ventilating
systems at levels as low as '70 to 85 dB in the octa.ve bands between 16 and 63 Hz are capable of
producing perceptible acoustically induced vibration.g These figures coirespond to one-third octave
band levels on the order of 65 to 80 dB. Hubbard9 identified one-third octave band sound pressure
levels on the order of 70 dB and 80 dB as adequate to cause perceptible vibration of windows and
walls, respectively, at frequencies on the order of 50 Hz. One acoustical consulting firm'° has
recommended a C-weighted sound level of 80 dB "...as a criterion that would correctly identify most
[aircraft noise] events having vibration-producing potential..." in the circumstances of aircraft noise
exposure in certain neighborhoods near SFO. (Because the orientation and distances of runways and
communities differ between SFO and MSP, this 80 dB criterion is not necessarily directly applicable
in the present circumstances.)
Figure 17 was compiled from BBN experience in the design and construction of U.S. Air
Force "Hush Houses" — jet engine test cell enclosures designed to reduce noise impacts from engine
maintenance operations at airfields. The figure shows that rattling sounds are often noticeable when
a structure is excited by aircraft engine noise at one-third octave band levels on the order of 75 dB
in the frequency region below 100 Hz. Note also that a"low frequency noise problem" can occur
in three of the four quadrants identified in Figure 17: inaudible/rattling, audible/not rattling, and
audible/rattling.
In short, a one-third octave band level of about 75 dB at frequencies below 100 Hz appears
to be a reasonable threshold for purposes of assessing the potential for adverse community response
associated with indoor rattling noises caused by low frequency aucraft noise. The straight dashed
" Blazier, W., "Noise Control Criteria for Heating, Ventilating, and Air-Conditioning Systems," Figure 43.11 of
Chapter 43 of Harris, C. (ed.), Third Edition, Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control, McGraw-Hill, 1nc.,
New York, 1991.
' cj. Figure 9 of Hubbazd, H., "Noise Induced House Vibrations and Human Pcrceprion," Noise Control Ercgineerrng
Journal, Volume 19, No. 2, pp. 49-55, SeptembedOctober, 1982.
10 cf. Section 3.1.2 of HMMH Report 294090, "Development of Single Event Noise Metrics for Use in Identifying
Aircraft Operations for Possible Mitigation," January, 1996. .
23
BB}K SYSTEMS A}VD TECHNOLOG(ES BBP1 REPORT NO. 8196
lines in Figure 15 show that low frequency energy created by aircraft operations on Proposed
Runway 17/35 will have the potential for inducing secondary emissions in residences in azeas of
Richfield a dozen or more blocks west of Cedar Avenue. Each aircraft noise event that produces low
frequency noise in excess of 75 dB is potentially capable of exciting secondary ernissions inside
residences. Residents of homes near a runway supporting hundreds of operations per day that
produce such low frequency levels could experience comparable numbers of aircraft-induced rattling
noises.
5.2
Figure 17
�
>
m
J
� 120
�
a
m � 110
a�
� � 100
o `0
�a
� 0 90
� N
m � 80
mm
>�
o�o
= so
� �
O
Thresh�of hearing
_ , � �
Inaudibk and �
RattNnp �
� �
Inaudibta no1 \
Rattlin9 \\`\
\\
,o
F-16, one engine
A/B �50 feet
/
diCb atW Rattlln0. .
Threshold oi rattling
h��, wd�� �o, ��,o
Frequency, Hz
� �
,00 ,000
Relationship between direct audibility of low frequency sounds and audibility of
secondary emissions in a residence excited by jet engine noise.
,�r ; ,• '• • � •� �� �. �
. �; , � .
A noise barrier parallel to and immediately west of Proposed Runway 17/35 is one measure
that� could in principle mitigate aircraft noise impacts in Richfield. The physical effect on which tht
effectiveness of an acoustic barrier depends is diffraction: a change of direction (bending) of a
wavefront azound edges or comers of obstacles by means other than reflection or refraction.
Diffraction creates a"shadow zone" immediately adjacent to the side of a barrier that faces ��v���
from a noise source. Several important properties of noise barriers include the following:
• A noise bazrier must interrupt the line of sight between the noise source and
the receiver to produce any shadow zone at all. To produce a shadow zone
extending an appreciable distance behind the bazrier, the interruption of the
line of sight must be on the order of several wavelengths.
• At distances beyond a barrier's shadow zone, levels of sounds diffracted over
its top are no lower than they would be in the absence of a barrier; and
24
C
BBTI SYSTEMS AND TECHNOLOCIES BBN REPORT NO. 8196
• The distance that the shadow zone extends from the faz side of a barrier is
1 frequency-dependent. A bazrier that produces a deep shadow zone at high
frequencies may be acoustically transparent at very low frequencies.
The wavelengths of interest for present purposes — those in the low frequency range from
about 25 to 100 Hz — vary from about 11 to 44 feet. This implies a height of at least one hundred
feet for a noise bamer capable of yielding a diffi-active shadow zone for low frequency aircra.f} noise
that extends more than a few blocks behind the barrier."
Construction of a bazrier a hundred feet or more in height and nearly two miles long is cleazly
an expensive proposition. If implemented as an earthen berm, it could require the excavation,
transport, and placement of more than 10 million yazds of fill over a period of years. Such a barrier
could probably be designed to reduce low frequency noise levels created by aircraft ground
operations by 10 dB or less in areas of Richfield up to half a mile from the runway. It would provide
no relief, however, from the noise created by airborne aircraft approaching or departing the runway,
and thus would be of only limited utility for noise mitigation purposes.
��. �� � ��� . , �• t�;
� � �. �, �, ;
:. �.;
Conventional architectural treatments considered for mitigating aircraft noise impacts are
unlikely to provide meaningful increases in the transmission loss of homes in the low frequency
( ) range (below 100 Hz) of current interest. The only azchitectural treatments that are capable of
-'' increasing the acoustic transmission loss of residential construction are those that affect either mass
or stiffness or both. These measures aze not likely to be practically affordable or esthetically
acceptable in the present case.
For example, adding mass to a residence through wall treatments (e.g., exterior facings) is
an expensive proposition that would probably require foundation modifications or new footings, and
could conflict with fenestration and other building code requirements. Adding appreciable amounts
of mass through roof treatments could require re-&aming. Adding stiffness to an existing wood
frame home would require structural modifications in many cases, and might not be effective in
modifying the low frequency transmission loss of the building in a meaningful manner in any event,
since wall resonances will lirnit the improvements achieved by stiffening.
�� Modest increases in barrier effectiveness have been reported recently under a limited range of conditions by
means of active measures (partial cancellation of the diffracted wave). It is doubtful that active control could provide a
practical or cost-effective increment to the effectiveness of a passive barrier at the low frequencies and high sound pressure
� ��� �� levels of current concern.
F��
BBN SYSTEMS AND TECHNOLOCIES BB1V REPORi PIO. �196 �
�
\
26
BBN SYSTEMS AND TECHNOLOGIES BBN REPORT NO. 8196
r� _��` ' �
Definitions of most terms in this Glossary correspond to those of American National
Standard Sl. l-1994 Acoustical Terminology.
A-weighted sounci level: A single number index of a broadband sound that has been subjected to .
the 1�-weighting network (q.v.).
A-vveighting network: A frequency-equalizing function intended to approaci.mate the sensitivity of
the human hearing to sounds of moderate sound pressure level. �
C-vveighted sound exposure level: Sound exposure level, as defined below, where C-weighted
sound pressure is used instead of A-weighted sound pressure. Unit, decibel; abbreviation, CSEL;
symbol, LcE•
clay average sound level: Time-average sound level between 0700 and 2200 hours. Unit, decibel
(dB); abbreviation, DL; symbol, Ld. Note: Day average sound level in decibels is related to the
corresponding day sound exposure level, LEd, according to:
,__ ,, Ld = LEd — 10 log (54000/1)
i �
where 54,000 is the number of seconds in a I S-hour day.
day-neght average sound level: Twenty-four hour average sound level for a given day, after
addition of 10 decibels to levels from 0000 to 0700 hours and from 2200 (10 p.m.) to 2400 hours.
Unit, decibel (dB); abbreviation, DNL; symbol, L�,. Note: Day-night average sound level in decibels
is related to the corresponding day-night sound exposure level, LEa�, according to:
Ldn ' LEda ' 10 log ( 86 400 / 1)
where 86,400 is the number of seconds in a 24-hour day. A-frequency weighting is understooti,
unless another frequency weighting is specified explicitly.
anstantaneous sound pressure: Total instantaneous pressure at a point in a medium minus the
staric pressure at that point. Unit, pascal (Pa); symbol, p. �
raiaximum sound level; maximum frequency-weighted sound pressure level: Greatest fast
(125 ms) A-weighted sound level within a stated time interval. Alternatively, slow (1000 ms) time-
weighting and C-frequency-weighting may be specified. Unit, decibel (dB); abbreviation, MXF'A;
symbol, L�,,,,� (or C and S).
27
BBPI SYSTEMS AND TECHNOL.OGIES BBIV REPORT NO. 8196 �
__ .
night average sound levet: Time-average sound level between 0000 and 0700 hours and 2200 and
2400 hours. Unit, decibel (dB); abbreviation, NL; symbol, L�. Note: Night average sound level �
in decibels is related to the corresponding night sound exposure level, LEo, according to:
La = Lgn — 10 log (32400/1)
where 32,400 is the number of seconds in a 9•hour night.
one-houa- average soumd level: Time-avera.ge sound level during a time period of one hour. Unit,
decibel (dB); abbreviation, 1HL; symbol, L1e. Note: One-hour average sound level in decibels is
related to the corresponding one-hour sound exposure level, LE,h, accordi.ng to:
Llh = LEIh — 10 log(3600/1)
where 3600 is the number of seconds in one hour, 1 s is the reference duration for sound exposure,
and sound exposure E is in pascal-squazed seconds.
pea� sound pressure: Greatest absolute instantaneous sound pressure within a specified time
interval. Unit, pascal (Pa). Note: Peak sound pressure may be measured with a standazd frequency
weighting. �
peak sound pressure level; peak frequency-weighted sound pressure level: Level ofpeak sou��;�
pressure with stated frequency weighting, within a stated time interval. Unit, decibel (dB); example
abbreviation, PKA; symbol� LApk• �
sound exposure: Time integral of squared, instantaneous frequency-weighted sound pressure over
a stated time interval or event. Unit: pascal-squared second; symbol, E. Note: If frequency
weighting is not specified, A-frequency weighting is understood. If other than A-frequency
weighting is used., such as C-frequency weighting, an appropriate subscript should be added to the
symbol; e.g., E�.
Duration of integration is implicitly included in the time integral and need not be reported explicitl�,
For the sound exposure measured over a specified tirne interval such as one hour, a 15-hour day, or �
a 9-hour night, the duration should be indicated by the abbreviation or letter symbol, for exai�l�_..
one-hour sound exposure (1HSE or E,,,) for a particular hour; day sound exposure (DSE or Ed) from
0700 to 2200 hours; and night sound exposure (NSE or En) from 0000 to 0�00 hours plus from 2��U
to 2400 hours.
Day-night sound exposure (DNSE or Edn) for a 24-hour day is the sum of the day sound exposure
and 10 times the night sound exposure. Unless otherwise stated, the normal unit for sound exposure
is the pascal-squazed second.
sound level; weigbted sound pressure level: Ten times the logarithm to the base ten of the ratio
of A-weighted squared sound pressure to the squared reference sound pressure of 20 ,uPa, the
�
m
BBN SYSTEMS AND TECHNOLOGIES BBPI REPORT NO. H19G
squared sound pressure being obtained with fast (F) (125 ms) exponentially weighted time-
�` 1 averaging. Alternatively, slow (S) (1000 ms) exponentially weighted time-averagi.ng may be
specified; also C-frequency weighting. Unit, decibel (dB); symbol LA, L�. Note: In symbols, A-
weighted sound level LAT(t) at running time t is:
LAT(t) = 10 log (1 /ti���pA ��) e-tc-�)i� d�1/po
�
where T is the exponential tirne constant in seconds, � is a dummy variable of integration, pAZ(�) is
the squared, instantaneous, time-varying, A-weighted sound pressure in pascals, and po is the refer-
ence sound pressure of 20 ,uPa. Division by time constant ti yields the running time average of the
exponential-time-weighted, squared sound-pressure signal. Initiation of the running time average
from some time in the past is indicated by -� for the beginning of the integral. ANSI S 1.4-19$3,
American National Standard Specification for Sound Level Meters, gives standard frequency
weightings A and C and standard exponential time weightings fast (F) and slow (S).
sound pressure; effectave sound pressua-e: Root-mean-square instantaneous sound pressure at a
point, during a given time interval. Unit, pascal (Pa). Note: In the case of periodic sound pressures,
the interval is an integral number of periods or an interval that is long compazed with a period. In
the case of nonperiodic sound pressures, the intervat should be long enough to make the measured
sound pressure essentially independent af small changes in the duration of the interval.
sound pressure IeveL• Ten times the logarithm to the base ten of the ratio of the time-mean-square
` � pressure of a sound, in a stated frequency band, to the squaze of the reference sound pressure in gases
of 20 ,uPa. Unit, decibel (dB); abbreviation, SPL; symbol, Lp.
time-average sound level; �ime-inte�val equivalent continuous sound level; tiane-i�terval
equivaleni continuous A-vveig6ted souod pressure level; equivalent con4inuous souncfl level:
Ten times the logarithm to the base ten of the ratio of time-mean-square instantaneous A-weighted
sound pressure, during a stated time interval T, to the square of the standazd reference sound
pressure. Unit, decibel (dB); respective abbreviations, TAV and TEQ; respective symbols, LA,. and
L,�qr Note: A frequency weighting other than the standard A-weighting may be employed if
specified explicitly. The frequency weighting that is essentially constant between limits specified
by a manufacturer is called flat.
In symbols, time-average (time-interval equivalent continuous) A-weighted sound level in decibels
is:
LAT = IO IOg �1/T� rTpA�t�dt1�p0
Ja
= Lweqr
�
BBPI SYSTEMS AND TECHNOLOGIE5 $BN REPORT NO. 8196 �
_
wherepA is the squared instantaneous A-weighted sound pressu=e signal, a function of elapsed time
t; in gases reference sound pressure po = 20 �cPa; T is a stated time interval. In principle, the sound (
pressure signal is not exponentially time-weighted, either before or after squaring. �
sound exposure level: Ten times the logarithm to the base ten of the ratio of a given tirrie integral �
of squared instantaneous A-weighted sound pressure, over a stated time interval or event, to the
product of the squared reference sound pressure of 20 micropascals and reference duration of one
second. The frequency weighting and reference sound exposure may be otherwise if stated explicitly. ,.
Unit, decibel (dB); abbreviation, SEL; symbol, L,,�.. Note: In symbols, (A-weighted) sound
exposure Ievel is: �
LAfi = 10 log �(� rpA(t) dtl /po to
�O �
= 10 log �E/Eo�
= LAT + 10 log �T/to�
wherepA is the squared instantaneous A= weighted sound pressure, a function of time t; for gases po
= 20 ,uPa; to =1 s; E is sound exposure; Eo = poto =(20 �cPa)Zs is reference sound exposure.
energy average: Colloquial term for time-mean-squaze average of the sound pressures for a series `\
of sound signals.
energy sutnmation: Colloquial term loosely used to indicate addition of noncoherent sound signals
by the sum of the squazes of their sound pressures or the sum of their sound exposures.
1VIAC: Minneapolis Airports Commission
peak overpressure: Maximum positive pressure produced by an impulsive sound. Often used to
describe the magnitude of a sonic boom, in pounds per squaze foot (ps�. One pound per square foot
is equal to 47.R9 pascals or a flat sound pressure level of 127.6 decibels.
30
BBN SYSTEMS AND TECHNOI.OGIES SBN REPORT NO. 8196
• � � � �� ar . .� . .:. . .��
_�
This Appendix contains tabulations of various one-thi.rd octa.ve band levels in the total noise
environment (containing noise both from aircraft operations and surface noise sources) at each
measurement site, in the format shown in Table 3.
Table 3 Definitions of quantities tabulated in Appendix A.
:,�- COCilI1�N i � ..,.�z � ��,r/ �,p� ,:�, ..�. � �� i �=
_� �Fl. �p � r� r F � T � �Y4UMIV �� �� �� �" + C Yr �._' �uk'
HGl1D���A..� �, � _'e+- i"�,�,�,�u- �� ��.-t'Y '4ay. ��a:�."�c...•o-i�-e...n�. y,��;
:. .' . . ,G4..: �:...
.. :-7. ._ ....: . ... . . . . �... .: r ... i. '�;..� ._ .-, !�. -1 . . .n,.�` �Rh• . ...r!. },-" ....;. ..{.:!
Freq One-third octave band center frequency, Hz
Min Least fast (125 ms) A-weighted sound levei within stated
time interval
Max Greatest fast (125 ms) A•weighted sound level within
stated time interval
Leq Equivalent sound level during stated time interval
99.0 Levei exceeded 99% of the time within stated time interval
(first centile)
90.0 Level exceeded 90% of the time within stated time interval
(tenth centile)
50.0 Level exceeded 50% of the time within stated time interval
(median level)
10.0 �evel exceeded 10°/a of the time within stated time interval
(90th centile)
1.0 Level exceeded 1% of the time within stated time interval
(99th centile)
31
BB1V SYSTEA4S AND TECHNOLOCIES BBN E2EPORT 2V0. 8196
LocnTac*,* i
DUR}1TIC:. : 4 6 MIN '
START TIP�'8: 9:30 AM ON 17 MARC'S 199?
Freq
25
31
40
50
63
80
100
125
160
200
250
315
400
500
630
B00
lk
1.25k
1.6k
2k
2.5k
3.15k
4k
Sk
6.3k
Sk
lOk
12.Sk
16k
20k
i�
43.6
43.6
43.6
43.6
43.6
43.6
43.6
43.6
43.6
43.6
43.6
43.6
43.6
43.6
46.6
47.6
47.6
46.6
44.6
43.6
43.6
43.6
43.6
43.6
43.6
43.6
43.6
43.6
43.6
43.6
Overall 70.0
A level 58.9
Max Leq 99.0
C
93.6 72.9 54.7
94.5 75.0 54.0
98.2 77.3 52.2
100.1 7�.9 50.3
100.5 77.7 48.7
97.9 76.4 47.6
94.4 73.9 45.4
94.0 '71.8 43.6
92.5 69.3 43.6
88.� 67.0 43.6*
91.2 69.6 43:6*
94.0 72.6 44.0
96.5 '73.3 43.6*
92.6 72.1 43.6*
96.I '73.1 46.6
91.7 71.4 50.3
93.'7 �7.3 49.3
89.8 68.4 48.4
88.5 66.3 46.0
84.5 62.8 43.6
80.8 59.9 43.6*
78.3 55.2 43.6*
76.4 50.3 43.6*
76.0 47.0 43.6�
75.5 45.5 43.6*
�3.4 45.0 43.6*
73.2 45.3 43.6*
69.5 44.1 43.6fr
67.1 43.8 43.6*'
64.3 43.7 43.6�
Centiles, Ln
90.0 50.0 10.0
59.3 64.6 74.5
61.6 66.5 76.3
63.5 68.1 77.9
64.7 69.2 7�.8
63.0 67.4 77:7
59.6 65.6 7?.9'
56.0 63.5' 76.'7
52.6 60.5 74.3
49.0 58.0 71.5
51.7 57.3 70.1
54.5 59.3 '72.4
56.7 61.4 74.0
55.0 ; 60.6 73.3
54.5 60.0 72.4
54.9 60.4 71.2
53.5 59.8 71.3
52.3 58.4 70.0
50.6 56.6 68.9
48.4 54.1 64.4
44.6 50.1 61.0
43.6 46.0 57.5
43.6* 43.6* 52.'7
43.6* 43.6* 48.0
43.6* 43.6 44.6
43.6* ` 43.6* 43.6*
43.6* 43.6* 43.6*
43.6* 44.2 44.2
93.6* 43.6* 43.6*
43.6* 43.6* 43.6*
43.6* 43.6 43.6
1.0
85.5
88.2
90.4
91.0
90.5
88.3
86.3
83.9
81.5
78.6
82.1
85.0
85.8
8 5 . '7
86.6
85.1
93.7
82.3
�9.9
76.3
73.5
68.5
62.0
56.0
49.3
44.4
45.2
43.6*
43.6*
43.6
105.2 86.9 '71.4 ?3.2 78.1 89.8 98.7
99.6 80.8 60.2 62.7 67.7 B0.0 93.8
* Value limited by dynamic sange of analysie, optimized ior maximum levels
\
32
BBN SYSTEMS AND TECHNOLOGIES BBN REPORT NO. 8196
; r-� LOCRTION 1 •
� DUR2�ITION: 3 0 MIN
START TIME: 12:55 PM ON 16 MARCH 1997
r'�
� I
f
Freg
25
31
40
50
63
80
100
125
160
200
250
315
400
500
630
800
lk
1.25k
1.6k
2k
2.Sk
3.15k
4k
5k
6.3k
8k
10k
12.5k
16k
20k
Min
48.8
46.3
50.3
49.6
50.2
48.1
44.8
39.7
39.7
40.7
42.7
42.7
43.7
42.1
42.'7
42.7
40.7
41.5
39.'7
39.7
39.7
39.7
39.7
39.7
39.7
39.7
39.�
39.7
39.7
39.7
Overall 62.3
A level 53.1
Max
78.3
81.0
84.5
83.8
80.6
84.6
78.3
74.3
76.2
77.8
80.8
81.3
83.3
80.6
78.2
77.2
72.6
66.4
64.0
62.0
58.3
56.3
57.2
56.5
65.2
59.9
52.4
49.3
44.5
40.7
89.1
83.9
Leq
61.'7
63.9
66.7
64.8
63.8
63.8
60.5
58.9
57.9
57.7
58.1
59.4
60.5
59.9
59.5
57.6
55.6
53.2
50.9
46.7
43.8
41.6
40.9
40.3
40.7
40.0
40.4
39.7
39.7
39.7
?4.1
65.1
99.0
51.0
52.0
53.2
52.4
52.1
50.3
46.9
43,.7
42.7
42.1
43.7
44.5
44.8
43.7
43.7
44.1
42.1
41.5
39.7
39.7*
39.7
39.7*
39.7*
39.7*
39.7*
39.7*
39.7*
39.7*
39.7*
39.7*
64.0
53.5
Centiles, Ln
90.0 50.0 10.0
54.1 58.4 65.5
54.8 59.6 66.6
56.0 60.5 69.2
55.4 60.8 68.3
54.7 59.0 67.2
52.7 5�.4 65.8
49.4 54.7 63.6
46.4 52.1 62.6
45.'7 52.4 61.3
44.8 50.7 60.8
45.4 50.1 60.3
46.2 51.3 60.8
46.7 52.8 61.9
46.0 52.4 61.9
45.7 52.0 61.8
46.0 52.1 60.5
43.7 50.9 59.5
43.7 49.3 57.2
41.5 46.9 54.8
39.7 42.7 50.4
39.7 41.5 46.7
39.7* 39.7* 43.7
39.7* 39.�* 40.7
39.7 39.7 40.7
39.'7* 39.7* 39.7*
39.7* 39.7* 39.7*
39.7* 40.3 40.3
39.7* 39.'7* 39.7*
39.7* 39.'I* 39.'7*
39.7* 39.7 39.7
65.6 69.6 �7.8
55.0 60.0 67.9
1.0
69.7
74.6
79.1
73.9
73.9
74.6
71.1
70.1
68.5
69.0
70.0
71.7
72.7
72.3
71.7
68.'7
65.4
62.2
59.9
56.1
52.6
49.8
49.2
44.8
43.2
40.9
41.3
39.7*
39.7*
39.7
83.5
76.4
* Value limited by dya�mic range of aaalysis, optimized fos m�ximum levels
33
BBN SYSTEMS AND TECHNOLOGIES BBP1 REPORT 1V0. 8196
LOCATION 1
DUR7�TION: 120 MIN
START TIMB: 1:30 PM 16 MFIRCH 1997
Freq Min
25 48.4
31 49.3
40 50.1
50 49.0
63 45.7
BO 43.7
100 41.5
125 39.�
160 39.7
200 39.7
250 39.7
315 39.7
400 40.'7
500 40.7
630 41.5
800 41.5
lk 39.7
1.25k 39.�
1.6k 39.7
2k 39.7
2.5k 39.'7
3.15k 39.'7
4k 39.7
Sk 39.7
6.3k 39.7
ek 39.7
lOk 39.7
12.Sk 39.7
16k 39.7
20k 39.'7
Overall 61.1
A level 52.6
M3x
86.3
91.2
91.0
91.9
89.2
89.9
92.1
94.3
95.4
94.9
96.2
94.3
95.1
95.6
93.8
93.1
90.8
90.6
88.2
85.8
81.3
76.6
70.3
65.1
64.0
67.0
63.3
54.8
52.4
49.3
104.3
99.6
Leq
68.7
71.1
71.9
71.1
69.0
68.7
69.9
71.4
�2.3
73.5
�3.9
73.2
72.8
72.0
71.2
70.2
68.6
6�.2
64.9
61.1
57.1
51.7
45.5
41.8
40.6
40.9
40.8
39.8
39.7
39.7
84.0
77.9
C�
99.0
52.3
53.1
53.5
52.1
48.8
46.2
44.1
42.1
42.1
41.5
42.1
42.7
42.1
42.1
43.7
43.2
41.5
41.5
39.7
39.7*
39.�*
39.7*
39.7*
39.7*
39.7*
39.7''
39.7*
39.7*
39.7*
39.7*
63.3
53.2
Centiles, Ln
90.0 50.0 10.0
55.6 61.0 7Z.6
56.4 63.2 '74.5
56.5 62.1 75.6
55.0 60.4 73.7
51.4 56.9 70.6
48.8 54.5 69.5
46.4 52.3 70.4
44.8 50.6 71.3
43.7 49.8 71.9
43.'7 49.8 73.0
44.1 50.3 72.'7
44.5 50.7 72.3
44.8 52.1 '71.6
44.8 52.4 69.5
45.7 52.7 68.2
45.7 52.8 66.1
44.5 51.8 63.6
43.7 49.9 61.1
41.5 47.6 58.7
39.7* 43.7 54.2
39.7 41.5 49.4
39.7* 39.7* 45.7
39.7* 39.7* 42.1
39.7* 39.7 40.7
39.7* 39.?* 39.7*
39.7* 39.7* 39.7*
39.7* 40.3 41.3
39.7* 39.7* 39.�*
39.7* 39.7* 39.7*
39.7* 39.7* 39.7
65.4 72.3 85.3
54.6 60.7 '75.4
1.0
'79.9
81.8
83.8
83.7
82.3
82.0
63.3
84.8
86.1
87.5
87.7
87.3
86.6
66.0
85.3
84.4
82.9
81.4 .
79.0
'75.1
71.1
65.5
5�.8
49.8
44.5
42.9
42.1
39.'l*
39.7*
39.7
97.4
91.9
* Value limitnci by dyaamic rang� of analysie, optimized for maximum levels
34
�.. ,.
� �
� �
SBN SYSTEMS AND TECHNOLOCIES SBN REPORT NO. 8196
LOCATION 2 '
DIIRATION: 117 MIN
START TIN�: 2:01 PM ON 16 M�RCH 1997
Freq Min
25 15.1
31 15.1
40 15.1
50 15.1
63 15.1
80 15.1
100 15.1
125 15.1
160 15.1
200 15.1
250 15.1
315 15.1
400 16.1
500 24.0
630 34.2
800 41.5
lk 40.7
1.25k 38.1
1.6k 34.2
2k 27.6
2.5k 21.1
3.15k 16.9
4k 15.1
5k 15.1
6.3k 15.1
8k 15.1
lOk 15.1
12.5k 15.1
16k 15.1
20k 15.1
Overall 51.0
A level 47.6
Max
71.8
68.0
70.7
66.0
67.0
67.1
64.4
71.9
68.5
66.5
66.5
62.3
65.0
62.2
63.1
63.4
'75.6
60.8
62.0
65.1
62.0
72.4
59.3
6'7 .1
62.0
59.5
63.4
66.7
58.4
54.2
7$.2
78.5
Leq
35.9
36.1
39.2
39.9
41.4
43.8
45.4
47.3
47.2
47.5
47.4
47.1
47.5
47.5
47.8
48.8
52.2
44.6
40.2
35.2
36.5
47.4
30.4
42.0
37.2
32.4
30.8
27.3
22.7
23.6
59.6
57.0
��a�]
22.3
25.0
27.1
30.6
33.4
36.0
37.3
37.5
37.7
38.2
38.2
38.3
38.8
40.0
41.6
43.7
43.3
40.5
36.1
29.5
22.5
18.6
16.9
16.9
15.1
15.1*
15.1*
15.1*
15.1*
15.1
52.7
49.'7
Centiles, Ln
90.0 50.0 10.0
25.4 29.0 35.6
27.7 31.2 36.5
29.8 33.1 3B.5
32.8 35.9 41.B
35.5 38.3 43.1
37.9 40.6 45.7
39.2 41.9 47.9
39.4 42.0 48.7
39.5 42.4 49.4
40.0 43.0 50.2
40.2 43.4 50.6
40.2 43.2 50.7
40.8 43.8 51.0
42.0 44.8 50.5
43.7 46.3 50.5
45.5 47.8 50.5
45.0 47.0 49.2
42.0 44.0 45.8
37.7 39.5 41.7
31.0 33.1 36.2
24.1 27.2 32.6
21.1 25.3 31.6
19.3 23.4 29.4
18.1 22.1 28.1
16.9 20.8 27.0
15.3 18.8 25.2
15.7 18.1 23.5
15.1* 16.1 20.8
15.1* 15.1* 16.9
15.1 16.1 16.1
54.1 56.2 61.4
51.4 53.4 56.6
1.0
45.2
46.3
48.3
49.3
50.6
53 .2
55.8
58.0
58.4
58.1
57.5
56.8
57.0
56.0
54.8
53.7
51.5
48.2
45.0
42.5
41.3
42.3
39.3
37.6
36.1
34.3
32.7
29.6
24 .4
19.9
67.9
61.3
*Value limited by dyaamic raage of analyais, optimiz�d for m�cimum lev�ls
35
BBN SYSTEMS AND TECHNOLOCIES BBN REPORT AIO. �196
LOCATIOP7 3 OUTDOORS
DIIRI�TION: 58 MIN
START TIBiB : 7: 3 � PM ON 16 MAttCB 19 9 7
Freq
25
31
40
50
63
BO
100
125
160
200
250
315
400
500
630
800
lk
1.25k
1.6k
2k
2.Sk
3.15k
4k
Sk
6.3k
Sk
lOk
12.Sk
16k
20k
Min
24.5
24.5
26.9
28.5
33.4
34.2
33.5
33.2
34.5
37.6
38.3
38.6
38.6
39.2
39.4
40.9
39.5
38.0
34.6
28.5
24.5
24.5
24.5
24.5
24.5
24.5
24.5
24.5
24.5
24.5
Overall 51.7
A level 47.9
Max
48.8
47.1
51.3
55.4
59.2
58.1
65.3
64.1
69.8
70.9
67.9
69.9
�1.2
69.3
68.7
64.6
59.8
64 .4
62.9
59.2
57.5
54.9
52.2
51.5
52.4
50.1
46.1
42.4
36.3
28.9
77.8
72.7
Leq
34.6
33.9
36.3
36.3
41.4
42.8
44.8
45.6
48.8
50.0
49.8
50.5
51.2
50.1
49.8
48.6
46.8
44.8
41.4
36.1
32.2
30.4
28.7
a�.s
26.�
as.s
25.4
24.6
24.5
24.5
60.0
55.8
99.0
24.5
25.5
29.3
31.7
35.1
36.6
36.3
35.2
36.5
38.�
39.4
40.4
40.2
40.4
40.9
42.0
41.4
39.6
36.2
29.9
24.5
24.5*
24.5*
24.5*
24.5*
24.5*
24.5*
24.5*
24.5*
24.5*
52.5
48.8
Centiles, Ln
90.0 50.0 10.`0 1.0
26.9
as.o
31.0
33.5
36.9
38.4
38.0
36.8
38.1
40.1
40.6
41.4
41.4
41.6
42.2
43.5
43.1
41.4
38.0
31.2
26.3
24.5*
24.5*
24.5*
24.5*
24.5*
24.5*
24.5*
24.5*
24.5*
53.4
50.3
30.5
31.5
34.0
36.4
39.4
40.8
40.5
39.6
41.0
42.9
42.9
43.9
43.9
43.9
44.3
45.3
45.2
43.6
40.0
33.2
27.5
24.5*
24.5*
24.5*
24.5*
24.5*
25.1
24.5*
24.5*
24.5*
55.1
52.0
38.6
37.2
38.0
40.6
43.0
4 5 .:2
48.2
49.0
52.2
53.3
53.4
54.3
55.1
54.4
53.9
52.1
49.6
46.7
42.5
35.4
29.3
24.5
24.5*
24.5
24.5*
24.5*
25.1
24.5*
24.5*
24.5
63.9
59.4
44.3
42.3
47.7
46.7
49.5
51.2
55.2
56.7
60.3
61.4
60.8
61.2
62.2
60.2
59.9
5'7.5
53.9
50.�
47.8
45.3
43.1
41.4
38.9
36.2
33.4
30.1
27.5
24.5
24.5*
24.5
�0.1
65.2
* Value limit�d by dyaamie raag� of analysia, optimiz�d for maximum levels
36
C
C
C
�
BBIV SYSTEMS AND TECHNOLOGIES BBN REPORT NO. 8196
LOCATION 3 INDOORS, NO OTHBR NOISB SOIIRCS
DURIITION: 58 YdIN
START TIMB: 7:37 PM ON 16 MARCH 1997
Centiles, Ln
Freq Min Max Leq 99.0 90.0 50.0 10.0 1.0
25 15.0 53.7 20.8 15.0* 15.0* 16.8 21.5 26.4
31 15.0 4�.1 18.5 15.0* 15.0* 16.0 19.8 25.5
40 15.0 44.6 20.4 15.0* 15.0 18.0 21.5 30.6
50 15.0 51.5 27.2 17.4 19.0 22.0 30.5 36.7
63 15.0 45.9 22.9 15.0 16.0 19.0 25.6 31.9
80 15.0 53.7 24.9 16.8 16.0 20.4 26.9 32.4
100 15.0 53.9 26.5 17.4 18.5 21.3 28.3 35.9
125 17.4 52.4 29.6 19.4 21.7 25.9 32.4 39.1
160 17.4 61.1 30.6 19.8 21.5 25.6 32.9 39.7
200 18.0 61.0 31.4 20.1 21.3 24.3 34.5 40.7
250 16.8 59.7 32.0 18.0 19.8 22.9 35.9 40.7
315 16.8 60.9 31.8 17.4 19.0 22.8 36.4 41.4
40� 15.0 64.� 31.5 15.0 16.8 20.4 33.4 39.6
500 15.0 61.3 30.5 15.0 16.0 20.4 34.9 39.7
630 15.0 59.'7 29.8 ' 15.0 16.8 18.0 34.2 40.2
800 15.0 58.4 30.9 15.0 15.0 18.5 35.3 42.1
lk 15.0 55.9 30.2 15.0* 15.0 16.8 35.5 41.4
1.25k 15.0 53.7 30.2 16.8 16.8 18.0 35.3 41.4
1.6k 15.0 55.3 30.7 15.0 16.0 16.8 34.7 42.4
2k 15.0 57.3 30.0 15.0* 15.0* 15.0 32.4 41.4
2.5k 15.0 56.0 27.9 15.0 16.0 16.6 29.2 39.1
3.15k 15.0 58.9 29.6 15.0* 15.0* 15.0* 27.3 40.6
4k 15.0 56.1 27.2 15.0* 15.0* 15.0* 26.9 39.1
5k 15.0 52.9 26.4 15.0 15.0 16.0 25.4 38.5
6.3k 15.0 52.6 25.1 15.0* 15.0* 15.0* 24.4 36.6
8k 15.0 53.0 23.4 15.0* 15.0* 15.0* 22.6 35.1
lOk 15.6 58.6 24.3 15.6 15.6 16.6 21.3 33.5
12.5k 15.0 54.1 21.0 15.0* 15.0* ' 15.0* 1$.5 31.0
16k 15.0 46.2 17.8 15.0* 15.0* 15.0* 16.0 27.3
20k 16.0 47.4 17.8 16.0 16.0 16.8 16.8 22.9
Overall 31.6 72 43.2 32.2 33.0 35.6 46.9 53.0
A level 27.5 69.1 40.9 2�.7 28.0 29.8 44.3 52.2
* value limited by dynamic range of analysis, optimized for maximum levels
37
BBIV SYSTEMS AND TECHNOLOGfES BBPI REPORT P10. 8196
LOCATZON 3 INDOORS, NO OTHSR NOISB SOURCS
DIIRI�ITION: 58 MIN
. START TI2� : 7: 3 7 PM ON 16 M�lt2C8 19 9 7
Freq
1.6
2
2.5
3.15
4
5
6.3
8
10
12.5
16
20
25
31
40
50
63
80
100
125
160
200
250
315
400
500
630
p00
lk
1.25k
Overall
A level
Min
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
7.4
8.0
5.0
6.0
8.0
14.4
10 . '7
12.4
14.6
16.4
16.9
16.6
15.6
13.4
11.0
10.1
9.8
10.1
10.4
11.0
29.0
28.7
Max
21.3
22.9
26.7
27.7
28.9
33.9
34.9
32.5
34.8
42.1
48.4
57.8
51.0
44.5
44.9
51.4
44.6
46.8
48.5
49.8
50.1
53.0
53.4
52.6
55.1
50.7
53.5
54.7
58.1
56.3
62.3
61.3
Leq
5.6
5.4
6.5
5.9
6.6
8.7
9.4
10.3
10.9
13.7
25.1
25.1
19.2
17.2
19.5
26.8
22.4
23.5
25.7
29.3
29.8
30.4
31.1
31.2
29.4
29.4
29.1
30.3
30.2
30.2
41.3
40.5
99.0
5.0*
5.0*
5.0*
5.0*
5.0*
5.0*
5.0*
5.0*
5.0*
5.0*
11.3
12.4
B.5
8.5
10.4
16.2
13.1
15.0
16.1
18.6
18.8
19.1
17.0
15.3
12.8
11.5
11.0
11.7
11.7
12.2
30.1
29.7
Centiles, Ln
90.0 50.0
5.0* 5.0*
5.0* 5.0*
5.0* 5.0*
5.0* 5.0*
5.0* 5.0*
5.0* 5.0
5.0* 5.0�
5.0* 5.4*
5.0* 6.8
5.0 9.8
15.0 20.1
15.5 19.9
11.0 14.6
11.0 14.3
12.8 16.0
18.2 21.3
14.9 17.6
16.6 19.4
17.7 20.6
21.0 25.6
20.9 25.2
20.5 23.9
18.7 22.6
17.6 22.1
15.2 19.7
13.9 19.7
12.4 16.7
12.9 17.1
12.9 15.6
13.4 15.2
31.3 34.8
31.0 34.2
10.0
6.0
5.0*
8.0
6.0
5.0
9.0
10.1
12.1
12.4
15.7
28.9
27.0
21.0
19.1
21.2
30.2
25.4
26.9
28.2
32.3
33.0
34.5
35.6
36.4
33.5
34.9
34.4
35.3
35.5
35.4
46.3
45.4
1.0
9.4
8.5
11.0
9.8
12.2
15.7
19.4
21.0
21.3
22.4
35.1
33.1
26.7
26.0
30.5
36.9
32.3
32.1
36.3
39.1
39.8
40.5
40.7
41.3
39.4
39.9
40.4
41.9
41.1
41.4
50.7
49.9
* valu� limited by dynamic range of analysis, optimized for m�ximum levels
�
�
C_
BBN SYSTEMS AND TECHNOLOG[ES BBN REPORT NO. R196
LOCATION 3 OUTDOORS
� DU'R.ATIOPi: 58 MIN
START TI2�: 7:37 PM ON 16 MARCS 1997
', i
Freq
1.6
2
2.5
3.15
4
5
6.3
8
10
12.5
16
20
25
31
40
50
63
BO
100
125
160
200
250
315
400
500
630
800
lk
1.25k
Overall
A level
Min
24.5
24.5
24.5
24.5
24.5
24.5
24.5
24.5
24.5
24.5
24.5
24.5
24.5
24.5
26.3
28.5
33.1
34.9
33.6
33.2
34.5
37.6
38.4
38.2
38.4
39.0
39.5
40.9
39.4
38.0
51.6
50.3
Max
31.0
28.9
32.6
28.0
2�.5
31.9
28.5
28.9
31.0
36.4
41.$
50.3
48.9
46.9
51.0
55.4
59.3
58.0
65.0
63.8
69.5
70.6
67.8
69.8
71.4
69.8
68.5
64.5
59.9
64 . 2
77.7
77.'7
Leq
24.9
24.5
25.1
24.6
24.5
25.2
24.6
24.5
25.3
25.8
28.5
32.3
34.6
33.9
36.3
38.4
41.4
42.B
44.9
45.'7
48.8
50.0
49.8
50.5
51.3
50.2
49.8
48.6
46.9
44.8
60.0
59.7
99.0
24.5*
24.5*
24.5*
24.5*
24.5*
24.5*
24.5*
24.5*
24.5*
24.5*
24.5*
24.5*
24.5
25.5
28.5
31.5
35.0
36.6
36.4
35.3
36.5
38.8
39.4
40.4
40.2
40.4
40.8
42.0
41.4
39.6
52.3
51.2
Centiles, Ln
90.0 50.0 10.0
24.5* 24.5* 25.5
24.5* 24.5* 24.5*
24.5* 24.5* 27.5
24.5* 24.5* 24.5
24.5* 24.5* 24.5*
24.5* 24.5* 26.9
24.5* 24.5* 24.5
24.5* 24.5* 24.5*
24.5* 24.5* 26.9
24.5* 24.5* 27.5
24.5* 24.5 32.1
24.5 28.5 35.6
26.9 30.5 38.6
28.0 31.5 37.2
31.0 34.0 38.0
33.5 36.4 40.6
36.9 39.4 43.0
38.4 40.8 45.2
38.0 40.6 48.2
36.8 39.6 49.1
38.0 40.9 52.4
40.1 42.9 53.4
40.6 42.9 53.4
41.4 43.9 54.3
41.4 43.9 55.1
41.6 43.9 54.5
42.2 44.2 54.0
43.4 45.3 52.2
43.1 45.2 49.6
41.4 43.6 46.7
53.2 54.9 64.0
52.0 53.8 63.7
1.0
28.5
24.5
29.3
26.3
25.5
28.9
26.3
25.5
28.5
32.1
36.9
42.1
44.3
42.3
47.6
46.6
49.5
51.3
55.1
56.7
60.4
61.4
60.8
61.4
62.1
60.3
60.0
57.5
53.9
50.8
70.0
70.1
* Value limited by dynamic range of anmlysis, optimized for maximum levels
39
BBPI SYSTEMS AND TECHNOLOGIES BBN REPORT NO. 8196
LOCATIOP7 4
DU'R�]1TION: 56 MIN
START TIYiB: 8:55 APS ON 17 I�ARCH 1997
Freq
25
31
40
50
63
SO
100
125
160
200
250
315
400
500
630
800
lk
1.25k
1.6k
2k
2.Sk
3.15k
4k
5k
6.3k
ek
lOk
12.Sk
16k
2 Ok
Min
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
Max
68.8
76.1
77.0
�9.6
79.0
85.1
'89.5
91.9
95.2
94.8
93.5
94.0
91.9
91.1
91.2
90.6
90.7
89.6
89.1
87.5
84.1
?9.8
75.0
72.0
68.7
65.2
63.2
60.4
55.7
50.7
Overall 59.8 101.2
A level 56.9 98.4
Leq
49.2
52.�
56.1
59.0
60.1
62.2
65.8
69.4
72.0
72.4
72.2
72.4
72.2
71.7
71.5
70.8
69.4
67.8
65.4
62.2
58.3
53.9
49.5
47.0
45.�
45.3
45.4
45.1
45.0
45.0
99.0
45.0*
45.0*
45.0*
45.0*
45.0*
45.0
45.0*
45.0*
45.0
45.0*
45.0*
45.0
45.0*
45.0*
46.8
46.8
46.8
46.8
45.0*
45.0*
45.0*
45.0*
45.0*
45.0*
45.0*
45.0*
45.0*
45.0*
45.0�
45.0*
82.1 60.3
78.0 57.5
Centiles, Ln
90.0 50.0 10.0
45.0* 45.0* 50.1
45.0* 45.0 53.9
45.0 48.0 57.4
45.0* 48.0 59.9
45.0* 49.4 62.Z
46.8 51.5 63.9
45.0 53.3 66.5
45.0 53.3 67.9
46.8 53.'7 70.8
45.0 54.9 71.9
45.0 54.4 72.3
46.8 54.2 72.1
46.0 54.1 72.9
46.0 53.6 72.3
47.4 53.1 71.7
48.0 52.8 70.7
48.0 51.5 68.5
48.0 49.8 66.0
45.0 47.4 62.9
45.0* 45.0* 58.3
45.0 45.0 53.1
45.0* 45.0* 46.8
45.0* 45.0* 45.0*
45.0* 45.0 45.0
45.0* 45.0* 45.0*
45.0* 45.0* 45.0*
45.0* 45.0* 45.6
45.0* 45.0* 45.0*
45.0* 45.0* 45.0*
45.0* 45.0* 45.0*
60.9 67.3 82.3
58.1 61.4 7�.8
1.0
59.5
64.6
68.1
71.4
73.2
74.6
'79.0
83.1
85.9
86.2
86.3
86.0
86.2
85.9
85.2
84.4
83.4
81.5
79.0
75.6
71.6
66.0
59.7
55.8
50.8
47.6
46.6
45.0*
45.0*
45.0*
96.1
92.0
* Value limited by dynamic raag� of analyais, optimiznd for m�ximum levals
40
Cr
i
BBN SYSTEMS AND TECHNOLOGIES BBN REPORT NO. 8i96 I
i
,---���� LOCATION 4 �
( � DUR.ATIOPi: 56 MIN
- START TI2+�: 8:35 AM ON 17 MARCH 1997
_
l� ��
Freq
1.6
2
2.5
3.15
4
5
6:3
8
10
12.5
16
20
25
31
40
50
63
80
100
125
160
200
250
315
400
500
630
800
lk
1.25k
Overall
A level
Min Max
45.1
45.1
45.1
45.1
45.1
45.1
45.1
45.1
45.1
45.1
45.1
45.1
45.1
45.1
45.1
45.1
45.1
45.1
45.1
45.1
45.1
45.1
45.1
45.1
45.1
45.1
45.1
46.1
45.1
45.1
60.2
57.2
61.1
58.6
56.2
65.9
62.0
62.0
63.2
62.2
66.7
70.3
64.9
69.0
69.7
75.7
78.0
80.9
78.6
84.5
88.8
92.0
94.9
95.5
93.7
93.5
92.5
91.3
91.3
90.7
91.4
90.0
101.4
101.8
Leq
45.6
45.2
45.8
45.5
45.4
45.9
45.6
45.5
46.2
46.1
46.1
47.6
49.3
52.8
56.4
59.1
60.2
62.3
66.0
69.6
72.1
72.5
'72.3
72.4
'I2.4
�1.8
71.6
71.0
69.5
67.9
82.1
81.8
99.0
45.1*
45.1*
45.1*
45.1*
45.1*
45.1*
45.1*
45.1*
45.1*
45.1�
45.1*
45.1*
45.1*
45.1*
45.1*
45.1*
45.1*
45.1
45.1*
45.1*
45.1
45.1*
45.1*
45.1
45.1*
45.1*
46.9
46.9
46.9
46.9
60.5
57.6
Centiles, Ln
9�.0 50.0 10.0
45.1* 45.1'* 46.1
45.1* 45.1* 45.1*
45.1* 45.1* 48.1
45.1* 45.1* 45.1
45.1* 45.1* 45.1*
45.1* 45.1* 46.9
45.1* 45.1* 45.1
45.1* 45.1* 45.1*
45.1* 45.1* 46.9
45.1* 45.1* 45.1
45.1* 45.1* 45.1
45.1* 45.1 46.1
45.1* 45.1* 50.5
45.1* 45.1 54.0
45.1 48.1 57.5
45.1* 48.1 60.1
45.1* 49.5 62.3
46.9 51.6 64.0
45.1 53.4 66.6
45.1 53.4 68.2
46.9 53.8 70.8
45.1 55.0 72.0
45.1 54.5 72.5
46.9 54.4 72.4
46.1 54.4 73.1
46.1 53.8 72.4
47.5 53.2 71.8
48.6 52.9 70.6
48.1 51.6 68.7
48.1 49.9 66.1
61.1 67.5 82.4
58.4 67.0 82.1
1.0
49.1
46.1
49.9
47.5
46.9
49.9
47.5
46.9
49.9
49.4
52.1
56.4
59.7
64.6
68.5
71.7
'73.1
74.8
78.8
83.4
86.0
86.3
86.6
86.0
86.1
85.9
85.3
84.6
83.2
81.7
96.1
95.8
* Valua limited by dynami� s�nge of aaalysis, optimized for maximum levels
41
BBN SYSTEMS AND TECHNOLOGIES BBP1 REPORT NO. 8196
LOCATION 5
DURATION: 15 MIN
STRRT TII�: 6:33 PM ON 16 MARCFI 1997
Freq
25
31
40
50
63
ao
100
125
160
200
250
315
400
500
630
800
lk
1.25k
1.6k
2k
2.5k
3.15k
4k
5k
6.3k
ek
lOk
12.Sk
16k
20k
Min
26.9
32.1
35.9
38.3
41.9
45.5
44.9
42.6
41.7
43.1
43.6
45.0
45.3
47.2
48.4
51.6
51.8
50.8
49.4
46.0
40.6
36.2
29.5
25.1
25.1
25.1
25.1
25.1
25.1
25.1
Overall 61.6
A level 59.1
Max
49.2
51.8
59.1
65.0
68.4
66.9
72.4
74.1
69.4
68.1
65.6
63.5
64.0
63.8
63.8
66.5
66.4
65.5
64.7
60.8
58.0
58.0
53.9
51.7
46.0
45.7
40.4
38.1
39.4
38.3
75.4
73.0
Leq
3�.1
40.6
44.2
49.3
52.8
55.5
56.2
55.6
53.9
53.5
53.2
53.0
53.8
54.5
55.8
59.0
59.8
59.2
58.5
55.1
51.4
48.1
43.7
40.2
35.9
31.1
27.5
25.4
25.2
25.2
68.5
66.8
99.0
30.5
33.8
37.4
40.7
44.2
46.7
47.5
45.2
44 . S
45.1
46.0
46.2
47.3
48.5
50.1
53 .4
54 .2
53.6
52.6
48.0
42.9
37.8
32.1
28.1
25.1*
25.1*
25.1*
25.1*
25.1*
25.1*
63.0
61.5
Centiles, Ln
90.0 50.0 10.0
33.0 36.3 39.6
36.4 39.7 43.1
40.0 43.1 46.5
43.2 46.4 51.1
46.5 50.3 54.9
49.8 53.6 58.2
49.$ 54.0 59.1
4�.9 52.1 58.1
47.5 51.6 56.9
48.3 51.8 56.4
48.4 51.6 55.8
48.5 51.6 55.7
49.2 52.2 56.9
50.6 53.4 57.2
52.4 55.1 5H.0
55.8 58.6 61.1
56.8 59.4 61.8
56.4 58.7 61.1
55.5 58.0 60.5
52.0 54.8 5'7.5
47.6 51.0 53.9
43.6 47.6 50.6
38.2 43.0 46.4
33.5 39.3 43.0
28.6 35.0 39.0
25.1* 29.� 34.0
25 .1* 26.'7 29. �
25.1* � 25.1* 25.1
25.1* 25.1�' 25.1*
25.1* 25.1* 25.1*
65.5 68.1 70.5
64.1 66.4 6B.7
F�7
42.5
46.1
50.4
58.6
62.2
64.5
64.2
65.1
62.2
61.2
60.9
60.1
60.7
60.2
60.5
63.4
63.9
63.3
62.5
59.2
56.0
53.1
49.2
46.0
42.1
3?.'7
33.1
29.0
26.1
25.1*
72.9
70.5
* Value limitmd by dynamic range of analysis, optimized fo= maximum levels
42
BBN Report No. 8211
.
�
� w= �.
� �
r t .. , °� ; 3,� � y�.,, .,�.� ::..
�
v -
., . � , �
�
. ; m.
'a ?
� t� � � - � ' -
� ���
� � «�
�� � - /v � _
Sanford Fidell, Laura Silvati, Karl Pearsons, Stephen Lind, and Richard Howe
14 October 1997
Prepared by:
���1 T'EC�INOLOG�.S
A Unit of GTE Internetworking
21128 Vanowen Street
Canoga Park, California 91303-2853
Prepared for:
CIT�� OF I21CHFIELD
Office of the City 1Vlanager
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, Minnesota 55423-2599
BBN TECHNOLOGIES BBN REPottT No. 8211
�
,.' ?�. � ;. ,' � ' ` ,., ? = i ,ti
, � . I, i , . : i ,
1 IN'I'�tOB)L1CTI01� ...............................................................1
2 �ACI�G�tOtJNI) ................................................................3
2.1 SPATIAL DISTRIBU'TION OF RUNWAY NOISE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1.1 Natur� of Runway Sideline Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1.2 Assessment of Low Frequency Noise Effects on People . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2 STUDY GOAL AND DESIGN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3 NIETI30D ......................................................................7
3.1 CHARACTERIZATION OF LOW FREQUENCY NOISE LEVELS IN INTERVIEWING
AREA......................................... .........................7
3.1.1 Simultaneous Multi-Point Outdoor Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1.2 Instrumentation ......................................................8
3.2 DATA REDUCTION AND ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2.1 Supplementary Indoor Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
� 3.2.2 Construction of I.ow Frequency Aircraft Noise Gradient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
' ___ 3.3 INTERVIEWIl�TG PROCEDURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
............................ 9
3.3.1 Design of Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3.2 Calling Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4 RESUL�'S .....................................................................11
4.1 OUTDOOR AIRCRAFT NOISE LEVELS AT MEASURElVIENT SITES . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2 AGGREGATE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN A-WEIG�[TED AND LOW FREQUENCY
NOISE LEVEI.S ..........................................................11
4.3 LOW FREQUENCY AIRCRAFT NOISE LEVEL GRADIENT IN INTERVIEV�ING
AREA...................................................................12
4.4 RESULTS OF IlVTERVIEWING PROCESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l l
4.4.1 Summary of Interviewing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.4.2 Location of Respondents with Respect to Law Frequency Noise Level Contours .. 13
4.5 RELATIONSHII'S BETWEEN RESPONSES TO KEY QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS AND
LOW FREQLfENCY NOISE LEVEI.S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . 15
4.5.1 Prevalence of Notice and Annoyance of Vibration or Rattle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1S
4.5.2 Prevalence of Complaints and Attempts to Alleviate Vibration or Rattle ......... 16
4.6 RELATIONSHIl'S BETWEEN A-WEIGHTED AIRCRAFT NOISE AND
ANNOYANCE ...........................................................18
4.6.1 Prevalence of Aircraft Noise Annoyance Associated with A-Weighted Cumulative
Noise Exposure l g
� _ � 4.7 RELATIONSHIPS AMONG QUESTIONNAIRE 1TEMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
i
BBN T'ECFnvoc,octFs BBN dtEeoRT No. 8211
4.7.1 Relationships Between Annoyance Due to Aircraft Noise in General and Annoyance (
Due to Vibration or Rattle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.7.2 Relationship Between Complaints Due to Aircraft Noise in General vs. Rattle or
Vibration..........................................................19
5 I)ISCUSSION ..................................................................21
5.1 COMPARISON OF OUTDOOR NOISE MEASUREMENTS WITH PRIOR LOW
FREQLTENCY NOISE MEASUREMENTS AT MSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.2 T'RANSPOSITION OF SIDELINE MEASUREMENT POINTS AND LOW FREQUENCY
NOISE CONTOURS FROM LAX TO MSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
53 CONSIDERATION OF EFFECTS OF OPERATIONAL DIFFERENCES BE'iWEEN LAX
RUNWAY 25R AND MSP 17/35 ON LOW FREQUENCY AIRCRAFT NOISE
LEVEI.,S ....... ....................... .... .... .... ........ ..22
5.4 CHANGE IN PREVALENCE OF ANNOYANCE DUE TO LOW FREQUENCY AND
CUMULATNE A-WEIGHTED AIItCR.AFT NOISE LEVELS WITH RUNWAY
SIDELINE DISTAIVCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.5 ADJUSTMENT OF ANNOYANCE JUDGMENTS TO ACCOUNT FOR RELATNE
SENSITNTTIES OF RESIDENTS OF EL SEGtTNDO AND RICHFIELD . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.6 IMPLICATIONS OF IIIDOOR NOISE MEASUREMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
5.� IDENT'ff�YING A THRESHOLD OF LOW FREQUENCY NOISE IMPACT IN
RICIiFIELD ..............................................................26
6 ��'EREIVCES .................................................................29 �,
7 GI,OSSAItI' ........................................... ......................33
APPENDIX A SUR�'Y INSTItLTiVY�1�1T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
APPENDIX B N1�ItItAT�� ACCOUr1T OF FINVINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . 41
B.1 DURATION OF RESIDENCE (QLTESTIONNAIRE ITEM 1) . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . 41
B.2 MOST AND LEAST LIKED ASPECT OF NEIGHBORHOOD LIFE (QUESTIONNAIRE
ITEMS2 AND 3) ..........................................................�1�
B.3 CHARACTERIZATION OF NEIGHBORHOOD AS QiJIET OR NOISY
(QUESTIONNAIRE TTEMS 4/4A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
B.4 ANNOYANCE DUE TO STREET T �•, � C NOISE (QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS
5/SA) ...................................................................43
B.5 ANNOYANCE DUE TO AIlZCRAFI' NOISE (QLJESTIONNAIRE TTEIvIS 6/6A) ...... 44
B.6 NOTICE OF VIBRATION OR RATTLING SOUNDS (QLTESTIONNAIltE TTEM 7) ... 46
B.7 ANNOYANCE DUE TO VIBRATION OR RATTLE (QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS
8/8A) ...................................................................46
B.8 FREQLTENCY OF NOTICE OF VIBRATION OR RATTLE (QUESTIONNAIRE
ITEM9) ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,.............................................48
�
_ �
�.
ii ����
BBN TECHNOLOGIES BBN REPORT NO. 8211
B.9 IDENTITY OF VIBRATING OR RATTLING OBJECTS (QUESTIONNAIl2E
TTEM10) ................................................................48
B.10 ACTIONS OCCASIONED BY VIBRATION OR RATTLE (QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS
11/11A) .........................................: ......................49
B.l 1 COMPLAINTS ABOUT VIBRATION OR RATTLE (QLTESTIONNAIRE TTEM 12) .... 49
B.12 COMPLAINTS ABOLTT AIRCRAFT NOISE (QLTESTIONNATRE TTEM 13) . . . . . . . . . . 50
,• � . �, ,�.. �, � ,�,� ,
iii
BBN Z`ECFIIVOLOGIES BB1V REPORT IVO. H211
.
�
l ._
1V
B$1V 1�CHNOLOGIES BBN REPORT 1V0. �a1i
i �
�fgure 1
Figure 2
F'igure 3
�
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figtire 8
Figure 9
`� , � Figure 10
F'igure 11
Figure 12
Figure 13
Figui-� 14
Figure 15
�igure 16
�igure 17
Figure 1�
�igure 19
Figure 20
� )
Estimated low frequency aircraft noise levels in 5 dB contour intervals, constructed from
runway sideline measurements made in the interviewing azea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x
Cumulative percentages of respondents noticing, annoyed by, and highly annoyed by aircraft-
induced vibration or rattle, with respect to outdoor low frequency noise level. .......... x
Compazison of areas in Richfield within DNL and low frequency noise contours. Upper
panels show noise contours. Lower panels shade areas with 1) low frequency sideline noise
expected to exceed 80 and 85 dB due to operations on proposed Runway 17/35, and 2)
A-weighted cumulative noise exposure in excess of Ldo = 65 dB due to all airport
operations . ............ ................................................... xi.
Dosage-response relationship endorsed by FAA for purposes of predicting annoyance
produced by (A-weighted) long-term average noise levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Boundazies of the interviewing azea in relationship to LAX Runways 25L and 25R. ....... 5
Examples of common types of residential construction in interviewing area . ............ 6
Locations of monitoring positions in relationship to LAX Runways 25R and 25L. ........ 7
Relationship between A-weighted and low frequency aircraft noise levels as measured within
the interviewing area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Contours of low frequency aircraft noise levels throughout the interviewing area. Shading
changes occur in 5 dB intervals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Cumulative distribution of respondents by outdoor low frequency noise levels. ......... 14
Cumulative percentages of respondents noticing, annoyed by, and highly annoyed by aircraft-
induced vibration or rattle, with respect to outdoor low frequency noise level. .......... 15
Cross-tabulation of characterizations of annoyance with rattle and frequency of notice. ... 16
Prevalence of complaints about aircraft-induced vibration or rattle and attempts made by
respondents to alleviate such symptoms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Cumulative percentages of respondents noticing and failing to notice vibration or rattle with
respect to estimated outdoor aircraft noise levels at their residences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
DNL contours overlaid on the interviewing area in El Segundo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Prevalence of a consequential degree of annoyance with aircraft noise among
respondents...............................................................19
Comparison of regression equations used to predict low frequency noise levels from
A-weighted maximum values of aircraft noise events at A�ISP and LAX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Transposition of sideline measurement points and low frequency noise contours generated
from noise measurements taken in EI Segundo to corresponding positions in eastern
Richfield. ................................................................22
Comparison of rates of change in prevalence of high annoyance with increasing sideline
distance for DNL and low frequency noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Prevalence of aircraft noise annoyance as a function of long-term average A-weighted aircraft
noise within five groups of Richfield residents, as reported by Fidell, Silvati and Howe
(1996), and four groups of EI Segundo residents .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
�
BBN TECHIVOLOGIES BBN REPORT NO. 8Z11
Figure 21
�'igure 22
Figure 23
Figure 24
�'igure 25
Figiare 26
Figure 27
Fagure 2�
Figuire 29
Figure 30
Figure 31
Figure 32
�igure 33
�igure 34
Likely response of eastern Richfield residents to low frequency noise from operations on (
proposed Runway 17/35, estimated from differences in response bias between Richfield and
E1Segundo. ..............................................................25
Summary of responses to Questionnaire Item 1 (duration of residence) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Summary of responses to Questionnaire Items 4/4A (characterization' of neighborhood
noisiness) .................................................................43
Summary of responses to Questionnaire Items 5/SA (characterization of annoyance to street �
tr�c noise) . ............... ... .......................................44
Summary of responses to Questionnaire Items 6/6A (characterization of annoyance to aircraft
noise) ................. .................................................45
Cumulative percentage of respondents annoyed in any degree by aircraft noise, with respect
to estimated outdoor low frequency aircraft noise at their street addresses . ............. 45
Summary of responses to Questionnaire Items 8/8A (chazacterization of annoyance of
vibration or rattle) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Cumulative percentage of respondents annoyed by aircraft-induced vibration or rattle with
respect to' estimated outdoor low frequency aircraft noise levels at their residences. ...... 47
Cumulative percentage of respondents highly annoyed by aircraft-induced `vibration or rattle
with respect to estimated outdoor low frequency aircraft noise levels at their residences. .. 47
Summary of responses to Questionnaire Item 9( frequency of notice of vibration or
rattle) ..............................:.....................................48
Summary of responses to Questionnaire Item 10 (identification of types of objects that
vibrate or rattle) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4'(
Summary of responses to Questionnaire Item 11 (characterization of reduction of ` '
rattle) ....................................................................50
Sound pressure levels sufficient to cause perceptible vibrations of house structure elements
over a range of frequencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Relationship between direct audibility of low frequency sounds and audibility of secondary
ernissions in a residence excited by jet engine noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
vi
l
BBN TECf�VOLOGIES BBN REPORT NO. 8211
1° <.' i �
Table 1 Average A-weighted and low frequency aircraft noise at measurernent locations. ........ 11
Table 2 Accounting for the results of contact attempts from the sampling frame . ............... 14
'I'able 3 Comparison of cumulative percentages of El Segundo respondents noticing, annoyed by, and
highly annoyed by indoor vibration or ratde, with respect to outdoor low frequency aircraft
noiselevels . ..............................................................2�
'Table 4 Summary of verbatim responses to Items 2 and 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
vii
�
BBN �I`ECfINOLOGIES BBN REPORT 1V0. 8211
C�
�
BSN TECHNOLOGIFS BB1V REPORT NO. 8211
i �
= 11►/ �/` a : `
A social survey of community response to runway sideline noise (including low frequency aircraft
noisei potentially capable of causing vibration and rattling sounds inside dwellings) was undertaken in a
neighborhood in a geographic position relative to an operating runway at Los Angeles International Airport
(LAX) similar to Richfield's position with respect to a proposed Runway 17/35 at Minneapolis-St. Paul
International Airport (MSP). A structured interview elicited information about annoyance due to aircraft
noise in general, notice of vibration or rattling sounds due to aircraft, annoyance due to such sounds, and
actions taken by respondents to lessen rattling in their homes.
A total of 644 respondents residing between 1,000 and 5,000 feet to the side (south) of Runway 25R
at Los Angeles International Airport completed a brief telephone interview about neighborhood living
conditions in general and aircraft noise in particular. Three sets of simultaneous acoustic measurements
were made at subsets of seven points in the interviewing azea to quantify typical outdoor low frequency noise
levels created by individual aircraft operations. Figure 1 shows the estimated low frequency aircraft noise
levels in contour intervals constructed from these measurements. Outdoor low frequency aircraft noise
levels in the interviewing area varied over a 20 dB range, from about 70 dB to about 90 dB.
Figure 2 compares the cumulative percentages of respondents who noticed aircraft-induced vibration
;- �r rattle in their homes, who were annoyed in any degree with such noise, and who were highly annoyed with
�`., ach noise, all with respect to outdoor low frequency noise levels at their residences.
The survey datapermit extension of FICON's rationale for defining land use cornpatibility to identify
a threshold of significant impact of low frequency aircraft noise in Richfield. The expected prevalence in
Richfield of high annoyance with low frequency noise at a level of about 80 dB would not differ
significantly from the prevalence rate associated with FICON's criterion for compatibility of long-term
aircraft noise exposure at an (A-weighted) level of Ld„ = 65 dB. (Plausible cases could also be made for
somewhat lower and higher definitions of thresholds of significant low frequency noise impact, as described
in Section 5.7 of this report.)
Figure 3 illustrates the conseguences of adopting two thresholds of significant low frequency nois�
impact consistent with FTCON's rationale. The two upper panels of Figure 3 show expected DNL and low
frequency noise contours in the area of eastern Richfield adjacent to proposed Runway 17/35. The DNL
contours in the upper left panel show noise exposure due to all airport operations as estimated by Version
5.1 of FAA's INM computer program. The low frequency noise contours in the upper right panel are
derived from runway sideline noise measurements made at LAX, adjusted and transposed to MSP. Th�
lower left and right panels in Figure 3 show areas with cumulative A-weighted values of Ldn ]ess than 6S
dB in which low frequency sideline noise is expected to exceed 80 and 85 dB, respectively, due to operations
on proposed Runway 17/35.
( ) � Please see the Glossary for de6nitions of "low frequency aircraft noise" (or simply "low frequency noise") and
�� other acoustic terms as used in this report.
�
BBN TECHNOLOGIES _ BB�I REPORT NO. 8211 _
C
�
BN TECFINOLOGIFS BBN REPORT I�IO. 8211
;' �� ,, ¢'�: " �• � ,� ' _
This iield study of the annoyance of low frequency runway sideline noise was undertaken at the
request of the City of Richfield, NTinnesota to further its understanding of the potential noise impacts of a
roposed North/South runway (17/35) at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP). Prior field
measurements of the low frequency noise produced by aircraft operations on an existing runway at MSP
�Lind, Pearsons and Fidell, 1997) indicated that aircraft operations on the proposed new runway would
roduce rumbling sounds in a lazge azea of eastern Richfield, with characteristically longer onset and offset
times than those of aircraft flyovers.
Low frequency sideline noise from the proposed runway would also be capable of producing
perceptible vibration and secondary emissions (rattling noises audible inside residences) in areas of Richfield
- s many as a dozen blocks to the west of the new runway. However, the likely extent of the annoyance
�sociated with such vibration and rattle could not be directly determined from the acoustic measurements
of Lind et al. (1997). The present study developed information about the annoyance of low frequency
ircraft sideline noise through direct questioning of residents of an appropriately situated community at an
xisting airport.
Section 2 of this report contains general information related to the purpose and design of the cunent
_ udy. Section 3 describes the methods used to collect information about low frequency aircraft noise and
re� '�ons to it. Section 4 presents the results of the study. Section 5 discusses the application of these
';. __..�gs to Richfield. A Glossary defines acoustic terms as used in this report. Three Appendices contain
.,applementary information, including the questionnaire and a narrative account of findings.
BBN TECHNOLOGIES BBN REPORT NO. $211
_ ' ,
Figuee 6 Examples of common types of residential construction in intenriewing area.
,
6
�
,
BBN TECHNOLOGIES BBN I2EPORT IVO. 8211
�� �
This section describes the methods used to estimate low frequency aircraft noise levels and to
conduct interviews.
3.�
3.1.1
, ♦, f' �'t� ..�; .,'� i •� � ,. ., V,. R
�� ��a i� 1''.
Simulianeous li�ulti-Point Outdoor 1Vleasureanents
. Outdoor ambient noise levels due to aircraft activity were measured simultaneously at several
combinations of seven positions south of Runway 25L in the City of El Segundo, California, on 31 Tuly
1997, as shown in Figure 7. Runway 25R was used for departures and 25L for arrivals during the
measurement period. �
_____ _ _ �_-__
---- ._—._ ,�—�--
�-_-=-----= _�`--- --`.�_:_-_� -�.�_
�L____-_-----"--_--' I
,,.
im��i ----- � ,
�—; _r-�--�. _�C..—�.-(_._F��� _.--_c��
���...�..� �� �' ..�.. �
i_ � I _ -D ± ;��; � { '
�I i , i
; --� -; �-�, - �---- �1�.-�.-- ;
_._ -----'--- --
o.e o o.e t.s aebs
��f\-.,. .
Figure 7 Locations of monitoring positions in relationship to L.�1X Runways 25R and 251..
The microphone at Location A was located just west of the corner of Imperial Avenue and Hillcrest
Street. The distance from Location A to the extended centerline of Runway 25R was approximately 1,700
feet. Location A was on a rise overlooking the airport. The intervening terrain between this measurement
location and Runway 25R did not obstruct the line of sight to departing aircraft.
The microphone at Location B was neaz the corner of West Palm Avenue and Hillcrest Street. The
distance from Location B to the extended centerline of Runway 25R was 3,900 feet. Location B was in a
residential area on a hill near the airport. The intervening terrain and buildings between this measurement
�' �location and Runway 25R partially obstructed the line af sight to departing aircraft.
,
7
BBN TEcfnvoi.oG�s BBN HtEPORr No. 8211
The microphone at Location C was near the corner of Imperial Avenue and Sheldon Street. The �
distance from Location C to Runway 25R was 2,200 feet. Location C was on a hill overlooking the airport.
The intervening terrain between this measurement location and Runway 25R did not obstruct the line of
sight to departing aircraft. �
The microphone at Location D was near the corner af Sycamore Avenue and Sheldon Street. The
distance from Location D to Runway 25R was 3,500 feet. Location D was in a residential area on a hill near �°
the airport. The intervening tenain and buildings between this measurement location and Runway 25R
partially obstructed the line of sight to departing aircraft.
The microphone at Location E was neaz the corner of VVest Palm Avenue and Sheldon Street. The
distance from Location E to Runway 25R was 4,400 feet. Location E was in a residential area near a school
on a hill. near the airport. The intervening terrain and buildings between this measurement location and
Runway 25R partially obstructed the line of sight to departing aircraft.
The microphone at Location F was near the corner of Imperial Avenue and Center Street. The
distance from Location F to Runway 25R was 2,500 feet. Location F was in a residential azea partially
shielded by the elevated roadbed of Imperial Highway. The intervening terrain and buildings between this
measurement location and Runway 25R obstructed the line of sight to some departing aircraft.
The microphone at Location G was near the corner of V�7est Palm Avenue and Center Street. The
distance from Location G to Runway 25R was 4,800 feet. Location G was in a residential area on a hill near i
the airport. The intervening terrain and buildings between this measurement location and Runway 25R `
partially obstructed the line of sight to departing aircraft.
Measurements were made at Locations A and B from 10:30 AM to 12:30 PM.
made at Location C in intervals cortesponding to the other measurement locations
5:15 PM. Measurements were made at Locations D and E from 12:15 PM to 3:00 PM.
made at Locations F and G from 3:30 PM to 5:15 PM.
3.1.2 Itistrumentation
Measurements were
from 10:30 AM to
Measurements were
Wide-bandwidth recordings of aircraft and other noise were made with two sets of one-half i�,. �:
electret microphones, associated pre-amplifiers and power supplies, and digital audio tape (DAT) recorders
at six of the seven locations. At the seventh location (C), a Larson•Davis 2800 spectrum analyzer replaced
the DAT and only the overall A-weighted level and low frequency composite levels were recorded. The
one-half inch electret microphones were Briiel � Kjaer Type 4155, with lower frequency limits of
approximately 5 Hz. One DAT was a two-channel Sony model TCD-D 10 Pro II capable of recording signals
at least as low in frequency as 12.5 Hz. The other DAT was a Sony model PC-204 four-channel
instrumentation recorder capable of recording DC signals. The entire instrumentation chain of all
measurement systems was capable of recording signals at least as low in frequency as 12.5 Hz. The
calibration histories of each systern were traceable to primary standards maintained by the Natianal Institute
of Standards and Technology.
�
�
i
BBN TECFIIVOLOGIES BBN REPORT NO. �211
'� Video recordings of runway activity were made during the course of noise measurernents for
assistance in identifying noise events produced by specific aircraft movements. One channel of the four-
channel DAT was used to record air traff'ic control radio communications as a further aid to identifying
aircraft activity.
;�; : . •r � � ,�; :, '1� :� . �
One-third octave band levels of sounds recorded in the field were analyzed with BBN's proprietary
LABWARE and ProbeT"' Software packages running on a VAX server 4000 model 304 and VAX station
4000 model 60. This software identifed the maximum sound level observed in each of the one-third octave
bands centered at 25 to 80 Hz in the 30 seconds prior to and following the (unweighted) rnaximum noise
level of each aircraft noise event recorded in the field. Sound level samples were taken in contiguous O.S
second intervals at a 0.5 second averaging time, in accordance with the practice specified in Part 36 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations.
3.2.1 Suppletnentary Indoor �Ieasurements
Noise reduction and indoor low frequency noise measurements were also made in four condorniniurn
units in the building seen in the top panel of Figure 6. This complex is located approximately 16(}0 feet to
the south of the extended centerline of Runway 25R, about 1500 feet beyond its departure end.
' ��� 3.2.2
A spatial interpolation (spline) algorithm was applied to the outdoor low frequency noise levels
measured at seven points in El Segundo to generate a set of contours from which low frequency noise levels
could be estimated at each street address in the interviewing area. The algorithm treated the low frequency
noise measurements as elevation information to fit a surface through the field measurement points. The
algorithm in effect draped a rubber sheet over the interviewing azea in a manner that both preserved the
actua� sound levels observed in the field measurements and minimized the total curvature of the resulting
Consta�.actso� of I.ow �'requency Aircraft Noise Gradient
surface.
� �.� .� :�; �, f ..
3.3.1 IDesign of Qaaestionnaire
A structured questionnaire consisting of thirteen closed response category items was developed to
accommodate the study objectives. The number of information requests varied from 8 to 18, contingent on
responses to branching items. Many of these items had been posed with identical wording to residents of
airport neighborhoods elsewhere. The survey instrument is reproduced in Appendix A.
The interview was introduced as a study of neighborhood living conditions. The first three
questionnaire items were preliminary questions about duration of residence and about the most and least
favored aspects of neighborhood living conditions. These were intended to confirm the eligibility of
respondents for interview, and to provide an opportunity for spontaneous mention of aircraft noise as least
( ) favored aspect of neighborhood living conditions. The first explicit mention of noise occurred in Item 4
�
$BN TECHNOLOGIES BB1V REPORT NO. 8211
("Would you say that your neighborhood is quiet or noisy?"). The intent of this questionnaire item was to
solicit an overall assessment of neighborhood noisiness prior to any mention of aircraft noise in particular.
Item S inquired about annoyance due to street traffic noise. This item provided a context for
subsequent questions regarding annoyance due to aircraft noise:
.
.
.
.
.
.
Item 6 inquired about annoyance due to aircraft noise in general;
Item � asked whether airplanes produce vibration and rattling sounds in respondents'
homes;
Item 8 asked for a category scale rating of annoyance due to such vibration and rattle;
Item 9 sought information about frequency of notice of vibration and rattle;
Item 10 asked for the identity of vibrating and rattling objects; and
Item 11 sought information about actions taken to lessen vibration or rattling noises.
No time frame (e.g., last week, last year, etc.) was specified for these items, since there was little
reason to believe that low frequency aircraft noise levels in the interviewing area had changed appreciably
within the last several yeazs; because it was considered counterproductive to draw respondents' attention
to particular historical periods; and because a�response based on respondents' general long-term experiences
was preferred to a response based on any particular recent occurrences of vibration or rattle.
Items 12 and 13 asked about complaints concerning vibration, rattling, and aircraft noise in gene: a1
3.3.2 C�liirag Procedures
Telephone interviewing was conducted under central supervision by computer assisted means.
Software automatically selected telephone numbers for dialing, stored responses to questionnaire items, time
stamped interviews, and scheduled callbacks. A dozen interviewers were trained to conduct the interview
in accordance with written instructions reviewed during briefing sessions prior to the start of interviewing.
As many as nine contact attempts (an initial attempt followed by eight callbacks as needed) were made to
each eligible household in the sampling frame in an effort to exhaustively sample opinion throughout the
entire interviewing azea. About 20% of the interviews were validated by follow-up calls.
a
10
C
_ � _
BBN TECHNOLOGIES BBN REPORT 1V0. 8211
,, , S
This chapter presents the �ndings of acoustic measurements in Sections 4.1 through 4.3, and the
results of interviewing in Sections 4.4 through 4.7. Discussion of these findin�gs and their implications may
be found in the next chapter.
•; ;�, � � ;�; � : � � .t ; �� � , . �
r :.
Averages of the maximum A-weighted and low frequency noise levels produced by all aircraft
departures on Runway 25 R at the points shown in Figure 7 during the measur�ment period are summarized
in Table l.
Table 1 Average A-weighted and low frequency aircraft noise at measurement locations.
°Adjusted by proporfion of operations conducted on Runways 25R and 25L.
'' `., ' i' ; . ' • ; ��. . . �� ;� ; , � , �, ._ - •�x �; ,.
� :�; �,
Figure 8 displays a linear regression of the maximum A-weighted sound level of all aircraft noise
events observed at all measurement sites on the low frequency noise level of the sarne noise events. The
regression equation for the predictive relationship seen in Figure 8 is:
Low frequency aircraft noise level= 0.82(A-weighted maximum level) + 15.5 dB
11
t
BBl�i TECHNOLOGIES BB�i �EPORT N0. 8211
110
100
9 9�
>
J
'� 80
O
�
� 70
m
m
IL
� s�
50
40
� � a
e
' a � � � � a
, � a ' � • � m e : .
+ � m
- �-• e- - - � _ �
. . •:fo..�.._. _a:a.'e�����• e i ��� e --..
• o « ' '.�.�!• �, : :' � . '
� *� ea � rr� • •
■ . 0 . .
x X �. � k���+� �� y a` i .
- � ' •#arj �,a -a • - --_.. .. e __ . o _ - -- _.. .
x M a x
x p • ap a0 e•
a � � � e = �
s. s s
o�ea$ a sa • b
e • . . � �o ='°n a�s� , e e)
' $ • a°m �`� ' e
d
. 4 � a
II
� H 0
Summery d Llnmr Hopoaelon e C2
. �.� 6kpa. . . �.. hnasw� r �• 1
O.t2 /5.51 0.80
. � .. ar.acwr �onaer: a�eaum a..sqmm �m� auaq yow
,.._ .. . .... ._ . • 9
G�emnma �sruma: uaieoum Mm a eny tn «�ea eam oaww+ a ad oo �u Y+eeianm EUYro O�aw .� � �
� ... � . . . , . . . . . : .. .... . ... � � �
� —ngmlBlOn
50 60 70 80 90 100 110
A-W eighted Sound Lavel (dB)
Figure 8 Relationship between A-weighted and low frequency aircraft noise levels as measured within the
interviewing area
' This relationship accounts for 48% of the variance in the field measurements at the various
measurement sites. The standard error of estimate of the regression is 6.5 dB.
4.3 LOW F QLTE�iCY AIRC FT NCiISE I.E�I. G I2IENT' IN
I�tT'EIt�EWI�1G t� A
Figure 9 shows contours of low frequency aircraft noise levels throughout the interviewing area.
Low frequency aircraft noise levels diminish about 7 dB per thousand feet orthogonally to the runway
sideline within the interviewing area:3
4a4 itES�..II.TS O� II�tTEi2VIEWII�IG PROCESS
This section describes the results of interviewing per se. A narrative account of the substantive
findings may be found in Appendix B.
3 This is an empirical figure that is highty situation-dependent and hence, not necessarily applicable in the vicinity- C
of other airports. -
12
sBrr z�cffivor.oGtEs BBN REPORT NO. s2ii
���--_ = _� _ --_� -
.. _. —n-^ __'�.�--""""".....:�
� o t 2 tuii�es
Figure 9 Contours of low frequency aircraft noise levels throughout the interviewing area. Shading changes
occur in 5 dB intervals. �
�` - � 4.4.1 Surnmary of Interviewang
Table 2 documents the results of the interviewing process. In all, 644 interviews were completed
for a completion rate of 87%. Failure to obtain an interview was due in most cases to refusals or non-
contacts (13% of the total sample). Only 24% of the telephone numbers in the sampling frame were
considered non-sample. Fifty-six percent of the completed interviews were with female respondents, while
44% were with male respondents.
4.4.2 Location of 12espondents with ltespect to Low �requerecy IVoise I.evel Contours
Figure 9 also locates street addresses from which completed interviews were obtained with respect
to the low frequency noise contours constructed from field measurements. As rnay be seen, the density Qf
completed interviews is nearly uniform throughout the interviewing area. Figure 10 shows the cumulative
distribution of the numbers of respondents who lived at street addresses with given low frequency noise
levels. About half of the respondents lived at addresses with low frequency aircraft noise levels greater than
75 dB.
13
$BN TECHNOLOGIES BB1�1 REPORT NO. �211
Table 2
Figure 10
Accounting for the res�its of contact attempts from the sampling frame.
,
'„�` =.i�..�;'4 .. i.�I5POS1110Pd:O�.TELEPHOPd
Total Number i� S�mpiing Feame
Non•Sample Numbees
Disconnect
Business
Fax/modem
Wrong
Non-Engiish speaking •
Number changed
Totel PJon-Sample
Plon-Contac4 Numbers
Mswering machine
Retired numbers (8 cailbacks)
No answer
Not available
Totai Non-Contact
Totai Numbers Available foe in4erview
[fotal - (Non-Sample + Non-Contact)j
Plumber o4 Complet�d In4ervfews
Number o4 Refusais
Compietion R�te
(644 / 742J
Re4usal Rate
j98 / 742J
4 , '
I�j�' � � �
F . . .i� 1'�:
1 �665
156
64
54
55
10
64
403
. 64
336
I15
5
520
742
644
98
.87
.13
�oo
N
C 1.O
� 600
c
0
m 500 �•8 �
2 �
0 400 0.6 =.
`m c
� 300 v
Z 0.4 �
� 200 ,�'—�'
E 100 0.2
�
V 0 0.0
60 �0 80 90 100
Outdoor Low Frequency Noise Levei (dB)
C
C
Cumulative distribution of respondents by outdoor low frequency noise levels.
\.
14
e
BBN TECI�VOLOGIES BBN REPORT NO. 8211
�� � � �
� 4.5 1�I.ATIOI�SHii'� �ETWEEN SPOI�tSES TO �'
Q�JE�T'IONI�EiI ITEIV�S A LOW F QITENCY �t�iISE LE�LS
4.5.1 Prevalence of Notice and 1�a►noyance oF Vibration or Ra4tle
r �
Figure 11 compares the cumulative percentages of respondents who noticed, were annoyed in any
degree, and were highly annoyed by aircraft-induced vibration or rattle in their homes. The denominator
for all of the percentages shown in this figure is 644, the total number of respondents who completed
interviews.
��
� so
�
c
a�
�
o so
a
�
a�
��
¢
0
C 30
�
a`�
o- 20
>
�
E�o
�
V
sa
Percentages based on all campleted intenriews (n = 644)
��e
n°�
�do
(
�°
��d� o �. v�b�d�
..,.� a�e'"
��g or r��e
P^�� to �b�'�on
�� d�e
H�9� °�noYe
Outdoor Low Frequency Noise Levei, (dB)
Cumulative percentages of respondents noticing, annoyed by, and highly annoyed by aircraft-
induced vibration o� rattle, with respect to outdoor low frequency noise level.
Figure 12, displaying a cross-tabulation of responses to Questionnaire Items 7 and $, provides
additional detail of the relationship between frequency of notice of aircraft-induced vibration or rattle and
degree of annoyance with vibration or rattle. Each plotting symbol in Figure 12 represents a single
respondent's pair of [frequency of notice/degree of annoyance] responses. Greater numbers of respondents
are represented by denser areas of plotting symbols. In general, greater numbers of respondents are more
highly annoyed by more frequent notice of vibration and rattling.
15
BBN TECFINOLOGIES BBN REPORT NO. 8211
FiguPe 12
Rarely Few ti Onoalday
Once/month OnceMreek Sever�l/d�y
Frequency of Notice of R�ttle
Cross-tabulation of characterizaiions of annoyance wi4h rattle and frequency of notice.
4.5.2 Prevalence of Complaints and Attempts to Alleviaie Vibration or Itattle
Figure 13 compares the prevalence of complaints about aircraft-induced vibration or rattle and
attempts made by respondents to alleviate such symptoms. Note that the two curves begin to diverge from
one another at a low frequency noise level of about 85 dB. Figure 14 compares the curnulative percentages
of respondents who did and did not notice vibration or rattle with respect to low frequency noise levels at
their residences.
,_
. �
16
BBN TECHNOLOGIES BBN REPORT NO. $211
Figure 13
( �`Figure 14
�_�
25
c
a�
-a
o ao
o.
�
a�
�
� �s
�
0
...
c
a�
� �o
m
a
m
>
v 5
�
�
�
U
0
Pe�centages based on all completed interviews (n = 644)
as ea es ea m ee se �o » n rs �a �s �e n�e �a eo e� ea ea sc es ea e� ee es eo a� aa
Outdoor Low Frequency Noise �evel (dB)
_ Attempted to Alieviate Complained About
Rattle Rattle
Prevalence of complaints about aircraft-induced vibration or rattie and attempts made by
respondents to alleviate such symptoms.
so - -- -
so
�
�
'�
8. �w
a
0
z
0
c 30
�
0
a
� 2°
•
�
E
�
V 10
0
lew Froquanry Noise Laval (d8)
—�— Ratlb NotNotiaod �— Rattla Noticed
Cumulative percentages of respondents noticing and failing to notice vibration or rattle with respect
to estimated outdoor aircraft noise levels at their residences.
17
BBN TECHNOLOGIES BB1V REPORT NO. �211
� � n � °�; '.r � �;,
. ;�; � ` ` I A. ;
� , i
4.6.1 �'Sevaience of 1�ircrait Noise Annoyance Associated with A-VVeighted Guanulateve lvoise
Exposure
Version 5.1 of FAA's Integrated Noise Model was used to construct the DNL contours due to activity
on the southern pair of runways overlaid in Figure 15 on the interviewing area in El Segundo. Figure 16
plots the prevalence of a consequential degree of annoyance with aircraft noise in general among respondents
grouped in El Segundo into 4 dB-wide noise exposure intervals (Questionnaire Item 6). The solid curve in
Figure 16 is the dosage-response relationship endorsed by FICON. The pro�cimity of the data points to the
FTCON curve indicates that the prevalence of annoyance with aircraft noise in general among respondents
in EI Segundo is well predicted by this relationship.
� o � 2 nn�bs
Figure 15 DNI. con4ours overlaid on the interviewing area in EI Segundo.
18
...,_i''—
BBN TECHNOLOGIES BBN REPORT NO. 8211
�
.°�
� 100
'o
Z
v 80
Q
A
.O
� 60
A
O
C
C
a 40
_
�
_
y 2�
c .
a�
v
c
0
� 0
� 30
•
•
•
•
40 5� 60 70 80 90
Day-Night Average Sound l.evel (dB)
Figure 16 P�evalence of a consequential degree of annoyance with aircraft noise among respondents.
4.7 LATIONS�III'S A.MC�NG QiJESTIC)NNA� ITEIVIS
( j 4.7.1 Relationships �etvveen Annoyance I�ue to r�ircrafi Noise in General and Annoyance Due to
' --' Vibration or i�attle
Of the 644 respondents who completed interviews, 29% (185) described themselves as highly ("very"
or "extremely") annoyed by aircraft noise in general, while 21% (136) described themselves as highly
annoyed by aircraft-induced vibration or rattling sounds in their homes. Thus, somewhat fewer respondents
were highly annoyed by vibration or rattling sounds than those who were highly annoyed by aircraft noise
in general. .
Of the 136 respondents who described themselves as highly annoyed by vibration or rattling so�� �.�' �
however, 23% (25) were not highly annoyed by aircraft noise in general. A x2 contingency test indicat�es
that this difference is unlikely to have arisen by chance alone (x �af-1� = 236, p<.O1). It is therefore ar��
that annoyance associated with secondary emissions �is not cornpletely subsumed by annoyance due to
aircraft noise in general.
4.7.2 Ftelationship Between Complaints Due to Aircraft Noise fn General vs. itattle or Vibration
About 29% of the respondents who were annoyed by aircraft noise had complained to the airport
about aircraft noise in general. A slightly smaller percentage (25%) of the respondents who noticed
vibrations or rattling sounds in their homes had complained to the airport . About 30% of the respondents
who noticed vibrations or rattling sounds had complained to the a.irport about them.
�
BB1V �`EECHNOLOGIES BBN REPORT NO. 8211
0
..... . . .. . . ......... ... . . ... . .. . . . .. . .. . ........ .. .. . . . .. ..... . .. .... . . . .. .. . . .. ... .. .. . ..... . . . ... .. . . . \��.. .
2�
BB1V TECHNOLOGIES BBN REPORT NO. $211
�� - s� � � � '�; �,,
" .�. . ; .� • '�� ' ���, ' _ �: i �; ' �, ���, i�: '�, .�' : s� :
'�. � ;,,,. �` ;,. � ,�,�, ,. . �. .�� ' �. ;�:
Figure 17 compares the regression equations used to predict low frequency noise levels from
A-weighted maximum values of aircraft noise events at 1VISP and at LAX. The relationship observed at
MSP has a shallower slope than that observed at LAX, but the low frequency noise levels predicted by the
two relationships are in fairly good agreement in the range of A-weighted sound levels of primary interest.
In the range of 75 to 85 dB, for exarnple, low frequency noise levels predicted by the two regressions differ
by only ± 1 dB. The differences between the two predictive relationships are attributable to a variety of
factors, including differences in the geometric relatianships between measurement points in the two studies,
differences in terrain, differences in fleet mix at the two airports (the aircraft fleet operating at LAX is more
heterogeneous than that at MSP, and includes a greater proportion of heavier aircraft), and differences in
meteorological conditions.
_ „
�� _ ) �
` .._ m
>
m
J
'O
C
�
O
�
A
U
C
. y
�
v�
m
LL
S'
O
J
� oo.o
so.o
8�.0
70.0
6�.0
r � �
50 60 70 80 90 100
A-Weighted Sound Level (dB)
— LAX
• - - MSP
Loc 1
Figure 17 Comparison of regression equations used to predict low frequency noise leveis from A-weighted
maximum values of aircraft noise events at MSP and I.AX. �
5a� 'T��tSPC�SITIi�I�1 OF S�EI.IIVE ASlJ MENT POII�i'T� AND L4)W
F12EQTJE�iCI.' �TOISE CCii�TTOLIRS F1ZC�M L� T'O �iSP
Figure 18 transposes the sideline measurernent points and low frequency noise contours generated
��`_,_,,�from outdoor noise measurements in El Segundo to conesponding positions in eastern Richfield.
m
BBN TECEIIVOLOGIES B�N REPORT 1V0. 8211
Differences in operational flow (east to west at LAX, and north to south on proposed Runway 17/35) of �
departing tr�c were accommodated by reversing the easternrnost and westernmost sets of ineasurement
positions at LAX. The alignment is necessarily approximate, since the lengths of Proposed Runway 17/35
at MSP and of Runway 25R at LAX differ.
o.e o o.e ,.a eaa.a
Figure 18 Transposition of sideline measurement points and low frequency noise contours generated from
noise measurements taken in EI Segundo to corresponding positions in eastern Richfieid.
�< ° ��, �. ,; �, � �. � �, . . ., f ' • i t ' ' �
� • • •. r � � �, � ��.
� � � �. �.
Even though low frequency aircraft noise is defined for present purposes on a per-event rather than
a long-term cumulative basis, stable estimates of community responsP from a given set of aircraft opera�,ui»
at major civil airports are possible because of (1) the small number of common aircraft and engine types that
dominate the fleets at lazge airports, (2) the small range of variability in numbers of daily operations, and
(3) the fact that the estimated values of low frequency noise have been derived on a fleet average basis.
C.
A precise extrapolation of future low frequency aircraft noise levels at NISP from measurements
made at LAX is not possible for several reasons, of which the most important is a probable difference in
numbers of heavy aircraft operating at LAX and the proposed Runway 17/35 at MSP. Since nobody can
predict the future fleet mix and operating range of aircraft at MSP with certainty, no straightforward
rationale for direct numeric comparisons is available. For example, some hush-kitted, barely-Stage-III
aircraft likely to be operating at MSP for many yeazs to come could well produce low frequency noise levels
little different from those produced by heavier Stage III aircraft. �
_
22
� �
BBN �`ECFiNOLOGIES BBN REPORT NO. 8211
On balance, therefore, little justifiable alternative exists to direct application of the low frequency
noise levels produced by operations on southern runways at LAX to those likely to be generated by
operations on the proposed Runway 17/35 at MSP.
�r c. "�' �' : �; : _ .�+ :�_ ��k ;�' ` ����
J, ,�E ��,, - �_�rc � P �. ;�' � ��� '�' �', a �
i '� ' 1° :1� •�,
Figure 19 compares rates of change in the prevalence of high annoyance with increasing sideline
distance for DNL and low frequency noise. Over the range of noise levels measured and modeled at LAX,
the prevalence of annoyance due to low frequency noise is uniformly greater than the prevalence of
annoyance predicted per FTCON from DNL values. In other words, at ttie relatively high noise levels
observed in this study in an azea adjacent to a runway, rumbling sounds and indoor secondary emissions
from individual aircraft operations produce more annoyance than that associated with long-term, A-weighted
cumulative average levels of equivalent numeric value.
.
.�� Mnoyance due to low frequencyr mirorsft noiae
`. � %6HA @ 1.35• paw t�quency nolsm leve� . 70.1
� \ �
.\
.`
.\\\
.\
.`
.\
40 �
.�
.`
.\
.\
.`
30 � , �
.�
.\
.\
.�
20 �'.
.`
.`
.\
.�
� Q Mnoyance from annuai average DNL due to airaatt �oise
%FIA s 100/[1 + exp (11.13 -1.14'ONL)J _
1000
2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Runway Sideline Distance (ft)
Figure 19 Comparison of rates of change in prevalence of high annoyance with increasing sideline distance
for DfVL and low frequency noise.
23
BBN TECE�IIVOLOGIES BBN REPORT NO. 8211 �
'� 50
m
T
O
C
a ao
�
�
o�
_
� �
�
m
�
�
y ZO
m
Q
`o
� 10
m
U
�
m
a
0
6p ' 65 70 75 80
Day-Night Average Sound Level (dB)
a EI Sagimdo � RiehfreW
Figure 20 Prevalence of aircraft noise annoyance as a function of long-term average A-weighted aircraft noise
within five groups of Richfield residents, as reported by Fideil, Siivati and Howe (1996), and four
groups of EI Segundo residents..
" : 7,, �, ` . '� .,�, ' + ''b ,. _ �, .l . ,➢ ` ; •; i�.
• � .• • ,. �� �,' .,f '/�'; �, �'.,��'�`
.
,'
Figure 20 plots two sets of data points against DNL:
• The prevalence of aircraft noise annoyance within five groups of Richfield residents
(total n= 787), as assessed in a recent study (Fidell, Silvati, and Howe, 1996) by
means very similaz to those of the present study; and
• The prevalence of aircraft noise annoyance among five groups of El Segundo
respondents (total n= 644) in the present survey.
The two separate curves about which the respective sets of data points cluster in Figure 20 are
dosage-response relationships constructed as described by Green and Fidell (1991), from which it is possible
to quantify response bias in both Richfield and El Segundo. "Response bias" is the willingness of
respondents to describe themselves as highly annoyed by aircraft noise for completely non-acoustic reasons.
As expressed in units of D", response bias is effectively a value of DNL above which people in a given
community are willing to describe themselves as highly annoyed by noise. The value of D° for Richiield
is 71 dB, while that for El Segundo is 72.6 dB.
24
C
�
BBN TECHNOLOGIES B$N REPORT NO. $211
�' � In other words, survey respondents in El Segundo were observed to be more tolerant (by 1.6 dB) of
' aircraft noise than those in Richfield. Much residential housing in El Segundo postdates the beginning of
aircraft operations on the south runway complex at LAX, and most respondents in El Segundo elected to live
in the area with full knowledge of their proximity to busy runways. They are therefore self-selected to some
degree for tolerance to aircraft noise. No similar self-selection for aircraft noise tolerance is likely among
respondents in western Richfield, where housing antedates runway construction, and many residents live at
greater distances from existing runways than in EI Segunda
The difference of 1.6 dB in response bias between the two curves in Figure 20 can be used to adjust
annoyance prevalence rates observed in EI Segundo to those that can be expected in Richiield after
operations may begin on the proposed runway. Since respondents in Richfie�ld are less tolerant of aircraft
noise than those in El Segundo, 1.6 dB can be subtracted from the noise levels measured in El Segundo to
render the prevalence of high annoyance in El Segundo equivalent to that of Richfield. Thus, for example,
one would expect that the prevalence of annoyance associated with a DNL value of 83.4 dB in Richfield
would be comparable to the prevalence of annoyance associated with a DNL value of 85 dB in El Segundo.
Figure 21 replots the information presented in Figure 11 to represent how people in eastern Richfield would
be likely to respond to low frequency noise from operations on the proposed runway.
N so
�
�
�
�,_.�� o so
i ) �-
d
__ , or
_ �
¢
0
� 30
m
U
L
N
a 20
m
>
.�
� �o
_
U
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 �1 72 73 74 75 i6 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 A9 9(1
Outdoor Low Frequency fVoise Levei, (dB)
—$— Notice Rattle Sounds --� Annoyed by Rattle Sounds
Highfy Annoyed by Rattie Sounds
�
Figure 21 Likely response of eastem Richfieid residents to low frequency noise from operations on proposed
Runway 17/35, estimated from differences in response bias between Richfieid and EI Segundo.
25
BB1V TECHNOLOGIES BB1V REPORT NO. �211 �
5.6 i LI�A.TI�1�S Ci� OOR �tOISE �iEA.SiJ MENTS (
Attempts were made to record the sounds of rattling objects inside several condominium units at one
complex near the western end of Runway 25L of noise reduction. Residents of these units had reported
frequent rattling of (open or partially open) windows and of sliding closet doors, particularly during
nighttime departures of large cargo aircraft. No aircraft created sufficiently high indoor low frequency noise
levels to excite audible secondary emissions during the time period that the indoor measurements were in _.
progress. It was possible, however, to artifactually re-create such rattling by windows and sliding doors, as
by bumping lightly into the wall neazby.
It thus appears that even in close proximity to an active runway, only the noisiest of aircraft
operations (e.g., those of the largest aircraft departing the airport at the highest thrust settings) excite
secondary emissions in acoustically treated housing units. It is equally noteworthy, however, that even such
apparently infrequent occurrences of vibration or rattle are memorable and highly annoying. Although older
windows of homes in eastern Richfield with low frequency noise levels in excess of 85 dB are likely to rattle
during some aircraft operations on the proposed runway, replacement of such windows with tighter �tting
windows will might well suffice to minimize production and notice of rattle by residents.
°i, ; : :• "�; � �; : � ' � . �- _ � ,;
°���" � ' 1
As described in Appendix C, prior estimates of thresholds of effect for low frequency aircraft noise
were based on informal interpretations of physical measurements, without benefit of quantitative noise ��
effects information. The present findings provide a more systematic basis for defining a threshold of effect.
Table 3 summarizes information useful for such purposes over a 20 dB range of potential threshold values.
Each row of Table 3 shows three percentage figures for low frequency noise levels in cumulative
increments of 5 dB: the percentage of all respondents completing interviews who reported notice of aircraft-
induced vibration or rattle; the percent of all respondents who were annoyed in any degree by vibration or
rattle; and the percent of all respondents who were highly ("very" or "extremely") annoyed by such vibration
or rattle. The denominator for the percentages figures within each row is the number of respondents with
low frequency noise level no greater than that shown in the first column.
Thus, for example, Table 3 shows that 46% of the 384 EI Segundo respondents living at addresses
with 80 dB or less of outdoor low frequency aircraft noise noticed aircraft-induced vibration or rattle in their
homes; that 29% of all such respondents were annoyed by such vibration or rattle in some degree, and that
14°% of all such respondents were highly annoyed by such vibration or rattle. Other raws of Table 3 show
r
f�
�
BBN TECHNOLOGIES BBN REPORT NO. 8211
�1 Tabie 3 Comparison of cumulative percentages of EI Segundo respondents noticing, annoyed by, and highly
`__ annoyed by indoor vibration or rattle, with respect to outdoor low frequency aircraft noise leveis.
similar figures for respondents at other potential criterion levels. Several aspects of the information
summarized in Table 3 are of interest:
a Nearly 40% of El Segundo respondents who lived in areas with low frequency noise
levels of 70 dB or less noticed indoor rattle or vibration;
0 Even at low frequency outdoor noise levels 20 d8 higher, only about half of all
respondents noticed vibration or rattle in their homes;
.� � The percentages of respondents who were annoyed in some degree by rattle increased
by about half (from 24% to 37%) over this 20 dB range;
• The percentage of respondents who were highly annoyed by vibration or rattle
quadrupled (from 5% to 20%) over the same 20 dB range; and
• Roughly the same percentage of survey respondents in El Segundo were high'�;
annoyed by indoor vibration or rattle at a low frequency noise level of 80 dB as
FICON considers a threshold for regulatory and policy action in the case of long
term, A-weighted noise exposure.
It follows from these observations that:
• The range of outdoor low frequency noise levels from 70 to 90 dB encompasses the
range over which indoor vibration and rattle graw from a minor to a major concern;
and
• Plausible cases can be made for defining a thresliold of significant impact of low
frequency aircraft noise in Richfield in the range of $0 to 85 dB.
27
BBN TECHNOLOGIES �B1V REPORT NO. �211 `
As Figure 21 shows, 10.6% of the residents of Richfield in the area to the west of the proposed r
runway may be expected to be highly annoyed by low frequency aircraft noise at a level of 80 dB, while `
16.2% may be expected to be annoyed at a leve] of 85 dB4. The 95% confidence interval for the former case
(10.6% highly annoyed at 80 dB) is t2.4%. This interval contains the 12.3% figure selected by FICON as
the de facto threshold of noise impact implicit in its derivation of a policy point of L,� = 65 dB from its own
dosage-response analyses. Since the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for latter case (16.2°Io
highly annoyed at 85 dB) does not encompass FICON's 12.3% figure, significantly more of the residents �
of eastem Richfield would be highly annoyed than FTCON considers appropriate on a national policy basis.
In recognition of the general uncertainties of predicdon of environmental noise levels, noise irnpact
thresholds aze customarily distinguished only at 5 dB intervals. Since a threshold of low frequency noise
impact such as �2.5 dB would imply greater precision than is warranted, values of either �0 or 85 dB could
reasonably be adopted in the present case. Public officials entrusted with making a decision in this matter
might argue in favor of 80 dB if they preferred to risk conferring slightly more rather than less protection
on a community than FICON recommends, or in favor of 85 dB if they valued the commerce associated with
airport operation more highly than peace and quiet in residential neighborhoods.
Alternatively, locally elected officials might take at face value FAA's stated position in Part 150 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations: that nationwide land use compatibility guidelines "are not intended to
substitute federally determined land uses for those deternuned to be appropriate by local authorities in
response to locally determined needs and values...." If they did so, they might well decide that some figure
other than 12.3% of their electorate should tolerate consequential annoyance from a novel form of aircraft r-
noise intrusion in their homes. �By endorsing acoustic insulation for homes exposed to aircraft noise from \._
MSP operations at levels as low as Ldo = 60 dB, for example, the Minnesota state legislature has expressly
rejected FICON's land use guidance recommendations, and implicitly decided that the prevalence of aircraft
noise annoyance should not exceed 6:5% of the population. If similar reasoning were applied to the case
of high annoyance from low frequency noise in Richfield, the threshold of impact would be 75 dB.
Such obviously political decisions cannot be justified on technical grounds alone. Value judg� �.:;nts
about matters of this sort require a balancing of the degree of protection that an airport merits from
community interests and the degree of protection that a community requires from an airport.
4 These percentage figures ace not directly comparable to those in Table 3, which are based on different /
denominators. C
�
B$N TECHNOLOGIES BBN REPORT NO. 8211
Blazier, W. (1991). "Noise Control Criteria for Heating, Ventiiating, and Air-Conditioning Systems,"
Figure 43.11 of Chapter 43 of Hartis, C. (ed.), Third Edition, Handbook of Acoustical Measurements
and Noise Control, McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, NY.
Broner, N. (1978). "The Effects of Low Frequency Noise on People — A Review," J. Sound Vib., 58:4,
pp. 483-500.
Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICOI� (1992). "Federal Agency Review of Selected Airport
Noise Analysis Issues," Report for the Department of Defense, Washington, D.C.
Fidell, S., Silvati, L., & Howe, R. (1996). "Social Survey of Community Preferences for Aircraft Noise
Mitigation Measures," BBN Report 8172, prepared for the Minneapolis Metropolitan Council.
Green, D. M., & Fidell, S., "Variability in the criterion for reporting annoyance in community noise
surveys," J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 89:1, pp. 234-243.
Hanis Miller Miller & Hanson Inc. (1996). "Development of Single Event Noise Metrics for Use in
--. � Identifying Aircraft Operations for Possible Mitigation," HIVIMH Report 294090 for San Francisco
', ) International Airport, AirportlCommunity Roundtable.
Hubbard, H. (1982). "Noise Induced House Vibrations and Human Perception," Noise Control Engineering
Journal, 19:2, pp. 49-55.
Lind, S., Pearsons, K., & Fidell. S. (1997). "An Analysis of Anticipated Low Frequency Aircraft Noise in
Richfield Due to Operation of a Proposed North-South Runway at MSP," BBN Report 8196.
�
�
BBN TECHNO[.OGIES BBN REPORT 1V0. 8211
�
30
I
BBN TECI3NOLOGIES BBN REPORT NO. 8211
The authors are grateful to the residents of the interviewing area for their willingness to
express their opinions in the current study and pernut indoor noise measurements in their homes; to
Mr. Harvey Holden, Airport Projects Administrator for the City of El Segundo, Califoriiia, �or
facilitating field measurements and comparisons with INM projections at LAX; and to
Mr. Waiter Gilfillan for early discussions of the design of this study.
31
BBN �I`ECHAIOLOGIES BBN 1ZEPORT NO. 8211 �
.
C�
32
B$N TECHNOLOGIES BBN REPORT NO. 8211
�
� ��������
Definitions of standardized acoustic terms in this Glossary corres.pond to those of American
National Standard Sl.l -1994 Acoustical Terminology.
t�i-vveiglated sound level: A single number index of a broadband sound that has been subjected to
tYie A-weighting network (q. v. ).
.es-W�9g�'ltHllg 13�tWOI'�C: A frequency-equalizing function intended to approximate the sensitivity of
the human hearing to sounds of moderate sound pressure level. �
composite rrflaximune spectrum: A spectrum in which the values of one-third octave band levels
represent the maximum value observed in each band at any time during the course of a noise event
composaie spectrutn: A spectrum of a noise event in which the levels in each frequency band do
not necessarily occur at the same moment during the course of a noise event.
C-weighted sound exposure level: Sound exposure level, as deiined below, where C-weighted
sound pressure is used instead of A-weighted sound pressure. Unit, decibel; abbreviation, CSEL;
'� � � symbol, LcE•
( )
day ave�age sound level: Tirne-average sound level between 0700 and 2200 hours. Unit, decibel
(dB); abbreviation, DL; symbol, Ld. Note: Day average sound level in decibels is related to the
corresponding day sound exposure level, LEd, according to:
Ld = L� - 10 log(54000/1)
where 54,000 is the number of seconds in a 15-hour day.
day-t►ight average sound level: Twenty-four hour average sound level for a given day, aftcr
addition of 10 decibels to levels from 0000 to 0700 hours and from 2200 (10 p.m.) to 2400 ho���c
Unit, decibel (dB); abbreviation, DNL; symbol, Ld�. Note: Day-night average sound level in cie�;�••
bels is related to the corresponding day-night sound exposure level, LEao, according to:
Ldn ' LEdn " 10 log(86400/1)
where 86,400 is the number of seconds in a 24-hour day. A-frequency weighting is understood,
unless another frequency weighting is specified explicitly.
energy avera�ge: Colloquial term for time-mean-square average of the sound pressures for a series
�� � of sound signals.
33
$BTT TECEIIdOLOGIES �B1V REPORT 1V0. 8211
energy surnmatimra: Colloquial term indicating addition of noncoherent sound signals by the sum (
of the squares of their sound pressures or the sum of their sound exposures.
instantaneous sound pressure: Total instantaneous pressure at a point in a medium minus the
static pressure at that point. Unit, pascal (Pa); symbol, p. �
low frequency aircraft noise level: As used in this report, the overall level (unweighted sum) of
the sound levels during an aircraft noise event in the one-third octave bands centered at 25 through
80 Hz, inclusive, calculated on a composite maximum basis. The "low frequency noise level" of an
aircraft noise event so defined is thus the sum of the maximum sound levels observed in six one-
third octave bands (those centered at 25, 31.5, 40, 50, 63, and 80 Hz) at successive half second
sampling intervals during the course of the event. A measure of this sort r�flects the potential of the
low frequency portion of an aircraft's noise emissions to excite structural modes (and hence, cause
secondary emissions) in typical residential construction.
maximugn sound level; maximum frequency�weightecl sound presstare level: Greatest fast
(125 rns) A-weighted sound level within a stated time interval. Alternatively, slow (1QU0 ms) time-
weighting and C-frequency-weighting may be specified. Unit, decibel (dB); abbreviation, MXFA;
symbol, L,�,x (or C and S).
night average sound ievel: Time-average sound level between 0000 and 0700 hours and 2200 and
24(}0 hours. Unit, decibel (dB); abbreviation, NL; symbol, L,,. Note: Night average sound level in C
decibels is related to the corresponding night sound exposure level, LE�, according to:
L� = LE� - 10 log (32400/ 1)
where 32,400 is the number of seconds in a 9-hour night.
one-hour �verage sound level: Time-average sound level during a time period of one hour. Unit,
decibel (dB); abbreviation, 1HL; symbol, Lih. Note: One-hour average sound level in decibels is
related to the corresponding one-hour sound exposure level� LEIh� �cording to:
L�h = LEih - 10 log(360Q/1)
where 36Q0 is the number of seconds in ane hour, 1 s is the reference duration for sound exposure,
and sound exposure E is in pascal-squared seconds.
peak sound pressure: Greatest absolute instantaneous sound pressure within a specified time
interval. Unit, pascal (Pa). Note: Peak sound pressure may be measured with a standard frequency
weighting.
34
BBN TECHNOLOGIES $BN REPORT NO. 8211
i' ��
peak so�aaad pressure level; peak frequency-weightecl soua�d pressure level: Level of peak sound
pressure with stated frequency weighting, within a stated time interval. Unit, decibel (dB); example
abbreviation, PKA; symbol� LpPk.
sounci exposure: Time integral of squared, instantaneous frequency-weighted sound pressure over
a stated time interval or event. Unit: pascal-squared second; symbol, E. Note: If frequency
weighting is not specified, A-frequency weighting is understood. If other than A-frequency
weighting is used, such as C-frequency weighting, an appropriate subscript should be added to the
symbol; e.g., E�.
Duration of integration is irnplicitly included in the time integral and need not be reported explicitly.
For the sound exposure measured over a specified time interval such as one hour, a 15-hour day, or
a 9-hour night, the duration should be indicated by the abbreviation or letter symbol, for exarnple
one-hour sound exposure (1HSE or Elh) for a particular hour; day sound exposure (DSE or Ed) from
0700 to 2200 hours; and night sound exposure (NSE or E„) from 0000 to 0700 hours plus from 2200
to 2400 hours.
Day-night sound exposure (DNSE or Edn) for a 24-hour day is the sum of the day sound exposure
and 10 times the night sound exposure. Unless otherwise stated, the normal unit for sound exposure
is the pascal-squared second.
, )
`- sound exposure level: Ten times the logarithm to the base ten of the ratio of a given time integral
of squazed instantaneous A-weighted sound pressure, over a stated time interval or event, to the
product of the squazed reference sound pressure of 20 micropasca.ls and reference duration of one
second. The frequency weighting and reference sound exposure may be otherwise if stated
. explicitly. Unit, decibel (dB); abbreviation, SEL; symbol, L,�. Note: In symbols, (A-weighted)
sound exposure level is:
r 2 z
LAE = 10 log fo pA(t) dtl /p� to�
= 10 log �E/Eo� J
= LAT + 10 Iog�T/tp�
where pA is the squazed instantaneous A- weighted sound pressure, a function of time t; for gases po
= 20 ,uPa; to = 1 s; E is sound exposure; Eo = poto =(20 ,uPa)2s is reference sound exposure.
sound level; weighted sound pressure level: Ten times the logarithm to the base ten of the ratio
of A-weighted squared sound pressure to the squared reference sound pressure of 20 µPa, the
squazed sound pressure being obtained with fast (F� (125 ms) exponentially weighted time-
averaging. Alternatively, slow (S) (1000 ms) exponentially weighted time-averaging may be
specified; also C-frequency weighting. Unit, decibel (dB); symbol LA, L�. Note: In symbols, A-
weighted sound level LAt(t) at running time t is:
� �
35
BBN TECH]VOLOGIES BB1�I REPORT-N0. 8211
LAt(t) = 10 log �(1/t� f 1 PA ��) e-t�-E�is d�l�po l
p 1 1
C
where T is the exponential time constant in seconds, � is a dummy variable of integration, pAZ(�) is
the squared, instantaneous, time-varying, A-weighted sound pressure in pascals, and po is the refer-
ence sound pressure of 20 �cPa. Division by time constant ti yields the running time average of the
exponential-time-weighted, squared sound-pressure signal. Initiation of the running time average -
from some time in the past is indicated by -� for the beginning of the integral. ANSI S 1.4-1983,
American National Standard Specification for Sound Level Meters, gives standard frequency
weightings A and C and standazd exponential time weightings fast (� and slow (S).
sound presstare; eff%c�ave sour�d pressure; Root-mean-square instantaneous sound pressure at a
point, during a given time interval. Unit, pascal (Pa). Note: In the case of periodic soundpressures,
the interval is an integral number of periods or an interval that is long compared with a period. In
the case of nonperiodic sound pressures, the interval should be long enough to make the measured
sound pressure essentially independent of small changes in the duration of the interval.
sound pressaare levelr Ten times the logarithm to the base ten of the ratio of the time-mean-square
pressure of a sound, in a stated frequency band, to the square of the reference sound pressure in gases
of 20 ,uPa. Unit, decibel (dB); abbreviation, SPL; symbol, Lp.
time-average so�and level; time-interval equiv�tent contiaauous souaad level; tiaa�e-interval (,
equivalent continuous A-weight�l soured pressure level; equivalent contiaauous sounai level:
Ten times the logarithm to the base ten of the ratio of time-mean-square instantaneous A-weighted
sound pressure, during a stated time interval T, to the squaze of the standard reference sound
pressure. Unit, decibel (dB); respective abbreviations, TAV and TEQ; respective symbols, LAT and
LeCqr. Note: A frequency weighting other than the standard A-weighting may be employed if
specified explicitly. The frequency weighting that is essentially constant between limits speciiied
by a manufacturer is called flat.
In symbols, time-average (time-interval equivalent continuous) A-weighted sound level in decib�i�
is:
LAT = 10 log�(1/T) f TpA(t)dtl/pol
° J 1
= LAeqT
where pA is the squared instantaneous A-weighted sound pressure signal, a function of elapsed time
t; in gases reference sound pressure pa = 20 �cPa; T is a stated time interval. In principle, the sound
pressure signal is not exponentially time-weighted, either before or after squaring.
\
36
( �
�
BBN TECHIVOLOGIES BBN REPORT NO. 8211
� i� �_ , �. _ � �; h� - �` - -
Introduction: "Hello, Mr./Ms. (I,ast name), this is (interviewer name), calling from
Interviewing Services of America. We're conducting a scientific study of living
conditions in El Segundo, and would greatly appreciate five minutes of your time."
ITEM 1) About how long have you lived at [street address]?
Coding:
less than one year
. one to less than two years
two to less than five years
five to ten years .
more than 10 years
TTEM 2) What do you like best about living conditions in your neighborhood?
Coding:
key phrase in verbatim response
TTEM 3) What do you like least about living conditions in your neighborhood?
Coding:
key phrase in verbatim response
ITEM 4) Would you say that your neighborhood is quiet or noisy?
Coding:
Quiet
Noisy
Quiet, except for airplanes
SKIP TO ITEIt�i S if response to Item 4 was "quiet"
Follow up question if response to Item 4 was "noisy" or "quiet, excepi jur
airplanes ":
1TElVI 4A) Would you say that your neighborhood is slightly noisy, moderately
noisy, very noisy, or extremely noisy?
Coding:
Slightly noisy
Moderately noisy
Very noisy
Extremely noisy
37
BBN TECANOLOGIES _ �B�I �LEPORT 1V0. 8211
TTEM 5) While you're at home are you bothered or annoyed by street traffic noise in your `.
neighborhood?
Coding: �
No .
Yes
SKIP TO ITEM 6 if response to Item S was "no"
Follaw up question if response to Item S was "yes ":
ITEM SA) Would you say that you aze slightly annoyed, moderately annoyed,
very annoyed, �or extremely annoyed by street traffic noise in your
neighborhood? �
Coding:
Slightly annoyed
Moderately annoyed
Very annoyed
Extremely annoyed
TTEM 6) While you're at home are you bothered or annoyed by aircraft noise?
Coding:
No �,
Yes
SKIP TO ITEM 7 if response to Item 6 was "no"
Follow up question if response to ITEM 6 was "yes ":
TTEM 6A) Would you say that you are slightly annoyed, moderately annoyed,
very annoyed, or extremely annoyed by aircraft noise while at home?
Coding:
Slightly annoyed
Moderately annoyed
Very annoyed
Extremely annoyed
TI'ENi 7) Do airplanes make vibrations or rattling sounds in your home?
Coding: �
No
Yes
�
SKIP TO ITEM 13 if response to Item 7 was "no" .
�.
38
BBN TECHNOLOGIES BBN REPORT NO. 8211
�.__..
` � Ask Items 8 through 13 if response to ITEM 7 was "yes ":
ITEM 8) Are you bothered or annoyed by these vibrations or rattling sounds in your home?
Coding:
No
Yes
SKIP TO TTEM 9 if response to Item 8 was "no"
Follow up question if response to ITEM 8 was "yes ":
TTEIVI 8A) Would you say that you are slightly annoyed, moderately annoyed,
very annoyed, or extremely annoyed by vibrations or rattling sounds
in your home?
Coding:
Slightly annoyed
Moderately annoyed
Very annbyed
Extremely annoyed
- ITEM 9) About how often do you notice vibrations or rattling sounds in your home made by
'� ) airplanes?
_. Coding:
Several times a day
Once a day
Once a week
A few times a week
Once a month .
Rarely
Other
ITEM 10) What sorts of things vibrate or rattle in your home?
Coding:
Windows
Doors
Pictures, mirrors on walls
Items on shelves
Walls
Other
TTEIVI 11) Have you tried to do anything in your home to reduce vibrations or rattling sounds
made by airplanes?
; � �� Coding:
�,, .,
39
B�Id T`ECffiVOLOGIES BBN REPORT NO. �211
_ _ _
No '
Yes
SKIP TO ITEM 12 if response to Item 11 was "no"
Follow up question if response to ITEM 11 was "yes ":
TI'EM 11A) Have the vibrations or rattling sounds made by airplanes been
lessened by the things you have done?
Coding:
No
Somewhat, slightly
Yes
ITEIVI 12) Have you ever complained to the airport about vibrations or rattling sounds in your
home made by airplanes?
Coding:
No
Yes
TTEM 13) Have you ever complained to the airport about aircraft noise in general?
Coding:
No
Yes
C
�
4p .
BBN TECHNOLOGIES BBN REPORT NO. $211
� ,� � ,� j- i• G/ �� i � ,a � ',;
I s' R`a., ' 5 t 3 �`s�.
Percentages cited in this Appendix are based on numbers of responses to individual
questionnaire items rather than total numbers of respondents interviewed. Thus, for example,
although 42% of the people who reported annoyance in Item 6 were "highly" ("very" or "extremely")
annoyed by aircraft noise, only 29% of all respondents described themselves as highly annoyed by
aircraft noise, because only 69% of all respondents answered Item 6 affirmatively.
Percentages cited elsewhere in this report, particularly in the context of the prevalence of
attitudes among the entire sample, may therefore differ from those noted below.
�;� � �' : '�€ �' � �� �1 €� •� "�' i
As shown in Figure 22, a majority of respondents had lived at their current addresses for
more than 10 years. About 17% of respondents had lived at their current address for five to ten
years; 14% for two to five years, 2% for one to two years; and 3% of the respondents had lived at
their cunent address for less than 1 year.
> 10 yrs (64.4%)
(13.5%)
5 to 10 yrs (172%)
Figure 22 Summary of responses to Questionnaire Item 1(duration of residence).
� �� _ . :r. � : �� . �., � � �: • ��� ��r ��� .r
�
�, ', � i • :i• • ;1,
� ) Verbatim responses to Item 2 were not analyzed in detail. Responses to Item 3, inquiring
_ about the least liked aspect of neighborhood life, were coded by mention of aircraft or aircraft noise-
41
BBN TECHNOLOGIES BBN REPORT NO. 8211
related issues vs. all other responses. Aircraft-related responses were the most common of the least
favored aspects of neighborhood life, as summarized in Table 4. Other common responses included
traffic, taxes, and crime.
Table 4 Summary of verbatirn responses to Items 2 and 3. „
LEAST FAVORED ASPECT OF NEIGHBORHOOD:
Aircraft/airport-related
°Nothing"
Miscellaneous responses
MOST FAVORED ASPECT OF NEIGHBORHOOD:
"Safe, low crime" -
"Small town, community"
"Quiet, peaceful"
"Nice peopie, friendiy"
°Convenient"
"Clean"
"Good schoois" '
Misceilaneous �esponses
51 °/a
15%
36°/a �
26%
18%
17%a
10%
6%
4%
2%
17%0
�.3 CIi�.I�CTE ZATICiN OF IVEIG O OC)D AS �IJIET 012
�1()ISI' (QIJE�TIO�TNAI ITE ' S 4/4A)
About half of the respondents described their neighborhood as quiet or "quiet, except for the
airplanes" (15% and 38%, respectively). About 46% of the respondents described their
neighborhoods as noisy.
As shown in Figure 23, among respondents who described their neighborhoods as noisy, 36%
described their neighborhoods as moderately noisy, 2I% described their neighborhoods as very
noisy, and 21% described their neighborhoods as extremely noisy.
42
i� j
BBN TECfiNOLOGIES BBN REPORT NO. 8211
EMre
Very (21
(21.4°/a)
lely (36.2%)
Figure 23 Summary of responses to Questionnaire Items 4/4A (characterization of neighborhood
noisiness).
�.4 A�tI�1C1�'AI�10E DLTE TO ST'REE'T TI2A�F'IC �TOISE
(QIJESTIiJI�tI�tAI I'T"ElYIS 5/5A)
The great majority (89%) of respondents were not annoyed by neighborhood street traffic
noise. As shown in Figure 24, of those respondents who were annoyed by street traffic noise in their
homes, three quarters reported that they had been only slightly or moderately annoyed.
43
BBiV TECHNOLOGIES BB1V REPORT NO. 8211
C
Very (t
�
Slightly (43.59G)
Figure 24 Summary of responses to �uestionnaire items 5/5A (characterization of annoyance to
streef traffic noise).
�.5 Al�t�10�.'ANCE D�1E TO AIRC�FT �10ISE (QITES'TI01�1�1AIR.E ��_
ITE1V1� 6/6A) '�,
Overall, 69% of the respondents reported annoyance with aircraft noise while at home. Of
these respondents, 22% reported they were slightly annoyed by aircraft noise, 36% reported they
were moderately annoyed, 20% reported they were very annoyed, and 22% reported they were
extremely annoyed by aircraft noise while at home (see Figure 25). The percent of respondents who
reported a consequential degree of annoyance (sum of very and extremely categories) due to aircraft
noise was 42%. Figure 26 displays the cumulative percentage of respondents who were annoyed in
any degree by aircraft noise, with respect to estimated outdoor low frequency aircraft noise levels
at their street addresses.
BBN TECBNOLOGIES BBN REPORT NO. SZll
Figure 25
Figure 26
Extrerr
Very (19.
(22.2%)
ty (36.0%)
Summary of responses to Questionnaire Items 6/6A (characterization of annoyance to
aircraft noise).
�
� ,00
t
�
¢
,� 80
v
�
g
�
e �
�
`c
� 40
�
�
0
�
� 20
�
�
m
E 0
�
U
Outdoorf.nw F�equer►cyAblse Lewl (dB)
Cumulative percentage of respondents annoyed in any degree by aircraft noise, with
�espect to estimated outdoor low frequency aircraft noise at thei� street addresses.
45
f
,
B�1�I Z`ECHNOLOGIES B�N IiEPORT NO. �211 �
�:, � � � , ! i :� ' � ' � ;� � ' �° ; �- '
�° � . �
About half (53%) of the respondents reported notice of aircraft-produced vibration or rattling
sounds in their homes.
�.7 AN�10YA1010E D�JE T'O ��TIC)I� OR �TTLE ,
(QIJ�STI01�1�1AI ITE �/��)
Of the respondents who reported noticing aircraft-produced vibration or rattling sounds in
their homes, 71 % reported that they were annoyed by the rattling sounds. Among the respondents
who reported annoyance due to rattle, 56% described themselves as annoyed to a consequential
degree (i.e., "very" or "extremely" annoyed) (see Figure 27). .
Exuemely (29.9%)
Ve
Moderately (33.2%)
Figure 27 Summary of responses to �uestionnaire Items 8/8A (characterization of annoyance of
vibration or rattle).
C
Figure 2� displays the cumulative percentage of respondents who were annoyed in any degree
. by aircraft-induced vibration or rattle. Figure 29 shows the cumulative percentage of respondents
highly annoyed by aircraft-induced vibration or rattle.
_ _ �_
46
BBN TECEIIVOLOGIFS BBN REroxT No. 8211
Figure 28
Figure 29
� too
�
c
� �
�
�
� �
a
3 '°°
�
a
� �
�
U0
OutdoorLow Freyuency Nass Level(d8)
Cumulative percentage of respondents annoyed by aircraft-induced vibration or rattie with
respect to estimated outdoor low frequency aircraft noise leveis at their residences.
�
a �
a
� 20
�
�
15
10
�
�
� 5
5
� 0
C3
Oufdoor Low FIBquBrray Noise Leve! (dB)
Cumulative percentage of respondents highly annoyed by aircraft-induced vibration or rattle
with respect to estimated outdoor low frequency aircraft noise leveis at their residences.
47
BB�T TECfiNOLOGIES BBN �EPORT 1V0. 5211
� ;: � �:. � ° ,, i � �� . , �, � . . :
� ;,� '' �'
Respondents who repoRed noticing vibrations or rattling sounds in their homes were asked
how often they heard these vibrations or rattling sounds. As shown in Figure 30, about 63% reported
that they heard rattling sounds at least once a day, 8°lo reported hearing rattling sounds once a week,
12% reported a few times a week, 5% reported once a month, 8% reported that they rarely heard
rattles, and 4% reported hearing rattle at intervals other than those noted above.
�.9 II)E�1TIT'�' OF G OR TTI.ING O� CTS
(QgJESTI0�11V'Ai ITE1VI10) �
Respondents who reported noticing vibra.tions or rattling sounds in their hornes were asked
what�objects rattled in their homes. About 74% of these responc�ents reported that their windows
rattled, 5% reported pictures, 4% reported items on shelves, 4% reported walls, 2% reported doors,
and 11% indicated that other objects rattled. Multiple responses were permitted for this item after
the above responses were solicited. Eleven percent of the respondents reported two things that
rattled in their homes, 7% reported three things, 4% reported four things, and 1% of the respondents
reported that five things rattled in their homes (see Figure 31).
Figure 30
or,cen„«,m �
Fe+r umedweek (tz.o5c)
Orxe/aaek (7.
Sarerd thnes/tl.y (51.0%)
Surnmary of responses to Questionnaire Item 9( frequency of notice of vibration or rattle).
48
BBiv TECHNOLOGIES $BN REPORT NO. 8211 �'
Wa
items on shehres (3.�
Pictures (5.0°/a
Doors (2.3%)
Vndows (74.0°/aj
Figure 3i Surnmary of responses to Questionnaire Item 10 (identification of types of objects that
vibrate or rattle).
;, ( :, �. �� ��,�, .�, ��, � ,�. ',, ;� ;�� . ; �� ���; ��� �� �
• � � " �
Approximately 32% of the respondents who noticed vibrations or rattling sounds in their
homes reported that they had tried to do something to reduce the rattie. As shown in Figure 32, 42°Io
of these respondents reported that their actions had reduced rattling sounds in their homes, 26%
reported that their actions were somewhat helpful in reducing rattling sounds, and 32% reported that
their actions had not reduced the rattle in their homes. '
'�` ' .�� ? . :.. � .�F ;= - .� .�• :, :�.� ' ��j �r�= i�� ;, a
:,�
r�" E '�. �' ''�`
One quarter of the respondents who reported noticing vibrations or rattling sounds in �heir
homes had complained to the airport about the vibrations or rattling sounds in their homes.
��Iv TECHIVOLOGIES �BN REPORT 1V0. 8211
�.12 CC) I.�AII�TS A�OUT' AIRC FT �tOISE (Qi.TE�TI0�INAI
I'TEM 13)
About 22% of all respondents reported that they had cornplained to the airport about ..�; � 't
noise in general.
No (32.4°,�)
5oi,�..�.a, i��.. ,o�
Yes (41.9%)
Figuee 32 Summary of responses to Questionnaire Item 11 (characterization of reduction of rattle).
so
C�
C
BBN'TEc�voc,oc�s BBN REPoxT No. �211
' � `� r� � ' �� ��x :������a �'� "� •. R
�� =�� .,_ ���,-, � `�'� �
b
For the convenience of the reader, this Appendix paraphrases portions of the text of
Lind et al. (1997) that discuss prior efforts to define interpretive criteria for low frequency noise
exposure on bases other than community response inforrnation.
1Vo forrnal standazd or recommendation by an agency with regulatory acaustic interests
identifies a single low frequency sound level likely to produce secondary emissions inside
. residences. Information published in a number of sources, however, tends to suggest that sound
levels on the order of 75 to 85 dB in the frequency range of about 10 to 100 Hz are adequate to
produce indoor rattling noises in residences. (Broner [1978�, hawever, cites case studies in which
even lower levels of low frequency noise have been identified as annoying.) �
Blazier (1991), for example, has published information indicating that sound levels produced
by ventilating systems as low as 70 to 85 dB in the octave bands between 16 and 63 Hz are capabie
of producing perceptible acoustically induced vibration. These figures correspond to one-third
octave band levels on the order of 65 to 80 dB. Hubbard (1982) identified one-third octave band
sound pressure levels on the order of 70 dB and 80 dB as adequate to cause perceptible vibration of
windows and wails, respectively, at frequencies on the order of 50 Hz (cf. Figure 33, previously
;-, included in slide set for a presentation in Minneapolis).
�
�
� One acoustical consulting firm (H�TMH, 1996) has recommended a Gweighted sound level
of 80 dB "...as a criterion that would correctly identify most [aircraft noise] events having vibration-
producing potential..." in the circumstances of aircraft noise exposure in certain neighborhoods near
SFO. (Because the orientation and distances of runways and communities differ between SFO and
MSP, this 80 dB criterion is not necessarily directly applicable in the present circumstances.)
Figure 34 was compiled from BBN experience in the design and construction of U.S. .. �.i;
Force "Hush Houses" — jet engine test cell enclosures designed to reduce noise impacts from engine
maintenance operations at ai�elds. The figure shows that rattling sounds are often noticeable w;c:n
a structure is excited by aircraft engine noise at one-third octave band levels on the order of ?� -!R
in the frequency region below 100 Hz. Note also that a"low frequency noise problem" can �� �� �.i
in three of the four quadrants identified in Figure 34: inaudiblelrattling, audible/not rattling, :u�d
audible/rattling. �
51
BBN TECHIVOLOGIES _ _� BBN ItEPORT N0. 8211
Figure 33
m l�lous�e E/ements;
a
' 8 Floas
m. . . . . . � � . � . . �
`� Well3
� 6p
� IMndows
a
-o
o '� PerGeived Vibrations
� �
2
0.1 �A 10 f 00
One-Third Octave Band Frequency, Hz
Sound pressure leveis sufficient to cause perceptible vibrations of house structure elements
over a range of frequencies.
, .
m• F•16, one engine
, i20 � 50 feet
y Thresho/d of hearing
a�1i0 �� .
�m '-
� 100 j j.a�e� �d Ra�
� � triaudfble and
� o g� Ra� j Thresho/d of rettling
'° N � jj
m � 80 \
�m \�
o� 70 k aomr�a .\ \\ II �wa r� nta'�p
'r� `\ �IIIU
� ��4,
� so
�
o> >n �oo �000
Frequency, H=
Fiauee 34 Relationship between direct audibility of low frequency sounds and audibility of
secondary emissions in a residence excited by jet engine noise.
52
C.
C
\
0
Atiachment A.3 - Comments and Responses on the Section 4(f� Evaluation
�
Table of Contents
Written Comments and Responses �
United States Department of the Interior (USDOI)
City of Richfield
Minnesota River Valley Audubon Club
Kathleen Egan-Benck
Heidi Ormond
Scott and Patricia Sharkey _
Karen Steger
Kathleen Stuebner-Holt -
<�
C �� �
�
,
,
_. atMT r .
� ' United States Department of the Interior
' . �
OFFtCE OFTHE SECREL�RY
��+c,r +•'� Washingtoa. D.0 20340
ER 98l316 •
JUN 3 0 1998
Ms. Jane F. Garvey
Administrator
Federal Aviatian Administretion
800 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, D.C. 20591
�� �
Dear Ms. Garvey:
This letter responds to your request for the Department of tfie Interior's (Departrnent) comments
on the draR Section 4(n Evaluation for the Proposed Addidon of a New Runway and Other
Airside and Landside Improvemrnts to the Ivfinnrapolis-St. Paul Intemational Airport, City of
N�inneapolis, Hennepin County, Ivfinnesota, dated May 1998. Our commenu are speci5c to
Section 4(� issues associated with the Mmnesota Valley Nationa! Wildlife Refuge.
Background and Missions
Section 4(� of the Departmrnt ofTransportation Act states that the Secretary of tho U.S. �
Department of Transportation may not approve a pmject which requires the use of any publicly
owned land &om a p�tic park, recreation area, wiidlife refuge, or historic site oFnational, statq
.or local significance, unless there are no feasi6le and prudent aiternatives to the use of such land,
and uhiess the project includes all possible plazuring to miitimize harm resuiting from the use. • A
use can occur not only when land &om a Section 4(� site is acqu'ved or occupied for a
transportation project but also when the proadmity impacts of a project are so great that the
purposes for which the site e�dsts are substandally impaired.
The Fedcral Aviadon Adirrinistration (FAA) is charged with regulating air commau ro foster
aviation safery; promoting civil aviation and a national system of airports; achieving efficierrt use
of navigable ainpace; dev�loping and operating a common system of air traffic convol and air ,
navigation; and developing and impiementing programs and reguiations to contmi aircraft noise,
sonic boom, and other rnvironmmtat e$'ects of civil aviaiioa _
The mission of ttie U.S. Fsh and WildGfe Service (Service) is to conserve, protect, and enhance
Ssh and wildlife ha6itau far the coatinuing beneSt of the Amaican people. The IvSnnesota Vailey
Nationa! �1dGfe Refuge (MIJVNWR) was established by Congrus in 1976 to preservo tt�e
valuable naturat and wltural resources of the Lower Mumesota Rivc Vallry, while providing
wildlife-oriented recreation and educational oppactunities for a broad spectrum of tho population
Genenl Comments on Section 4(Q Evaluation
Feasible and Prudent Alternativrs. We cannot concur that there are no feasible and prudent
alterna[ives to the proposed action, which is the imptementadon of the M�nneapolis-St. Paul
Intemational Airport (MSP) 2010 Long Term Comprehensive Plan (Z010 LTCP). The 2010
LTGP inctudes development ofa new 8,000-foot runway (17/35) with related airfield and
roadway modifications. While we are not opposed to the expansion ofMSP, the Section 4(�
Hvaluation has not analyzed all the alternatives in 6ght af Section 4(� impacts. Before we can
concur that there are no feasible and prudent alternatives, the range of alternatives must be
ana}yzed in the context of conswcave use oFthe refuge and presrnted in the Section 4(�
Evaluation.
A. A revised Section 41f) Evaluation is not needed
See response to USDOI Comment A on the FEIS.
n
Ms. Jane F. Garvry
0
Minimiang Harm and Unavoidable Impacts We also cannot concur that all possihle measura
to minimize hazm to MT�IVNWR have 6een taken by FAA if the decision is to conswct and '
operate Runway t7/35. In gmerai, the compensation offered by FAA for unavoidable impacts is
only canceptuat in nature and falls far short of the specific measures recommended by the Savice.
Under no circumstances will the Service accept the midgation as desenbedan the Section 4(�
Evaluation for the impacts that will occur on lands within the authorized houndary of MNVIJVVR.
tn our March t8, 1996, letter on the Dcaft Environmrntal Impact Statemmt (DEIS), we toak
issue wieh FAA's Section 4(� anafysis, We stated thai MNVNWR lands would be impaaed by
noise from the expansion of MSP. In particular, the educational values of the refuge would be
adversely impacted by increases in no'ise levels. In the spring of 1997, FAA recognized the need
to enlarge the scope of their Section 4(� detercninavon and include lands ofthe refuge.
Foqawing a saies of ineetings and discussions designed to resolve the Section 4(fl issuq the
Service, in a May 22, 1997, letter to the FAA'and the MetropoGtan Airports Commission (MAC�,
provided iu analysis of noise impacu and a quanti6cation of appropriate compensation that woutd
be needed ta mitigate the advecse impacts of tfie proposed actioa
The compensauon plan was developed by the Service based on its hest professional judgement of
what the impacts of increased noise and the presence of aircraft ai low altitudes will be to the
refuge and whaz can be done to midgate for these impacts. The proposed compensation plan
uacludes the following elements: (1) replacement for 4,090 acres of ref'uge lands to be impacted
by noise &om the airport; (2) consuuction and development of a visitor center/contaa starion in
the Rapids Lake Unit, Cazva County, to zeplace the lost use of the currrnt visitor center in
Bloomington; (3) replacement of nature trails, boardwatks, and ocha structures that wil! lose their
value 6ecause of increased noise leve[s; (4) a trust £und to manage tfie new lands and opetate the
new faciGry; (S) an imeractive och�bit at MSP to provide inforniation about fish and wildlife
conurvarion and Savice progrsrns; and (6) planning costs incurred by tfie Service. The total
estimated cost ofthis compensation is a6out S27 milGoa In a follow-up letta ofApri123, 1998,
the Service proposed a conserntion user fee program that would add a small surcharge to cach �
ticket ("pay as you fly'7. Revrnues from this program woutd be used for naturai raaurce
programs on pubGdy owned or managed lands impacted by the airport.
7n response co the Service's recommendations for compensation, the FAA agreed to partially
compensate for 1,083 acres; rry'ected the proposed visitor centa/contact stadon; generally
accepted replacement of refuge suuctures; rejected an operations uvst fund; agreed to
accommodate an exhibit at MSP; and accepted planning cosu (see the May 1998 Section 4(�
Evaluation). No cost estimates were provided. See Enclosure 1 fo� a compazisoa of the
Service's and FAA's proposals. , •
C
0
�
I B. B. See General Response 7 in the responses to
comments on the FEIS.
Ms. Jane F. Garvey
Memorandum of AgreemenG The FAA requated that the Sesvice enter into a Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) to identify appropriate wmpensation for unavoidable impacGs fottowing
comptetion of the Section 4(� Evaluation. While the Service agrees in princip(e thai an MOA
would 6e appropriacq it cannoc concur with the generai [anguage of the draft MOA found in the
5eciion 4(� Evaluation and will not agree to be a signatory until the specific detaits of
compensation have been agreed �o. As indicated in the previous section, the Service and FAA aze
quite Far apart in their negotia[ions regazding appropriate compensavon Far noise impacLs to
MNVNVVR and it would be inappropriate to commit to an MOA with so many issues still
unresolved. We beGeve that an MOA acceptable to the Service should be finalized prior to
completion and issuance of the Record of Decision by FAA.
Lack ofPublic Im+olvemeat The Service does not believe thaz the general public has been made
awaze of the impacts that the new runway will have on MNVNWR. Puhlic input on this issue has
not beea �qeneially sought out by FAA, nor has it been used in the development of altomativa or
apptopriate compensation. The Section 4(� Evaluation itself has only been circulated to a•limitai
audience and its avalability has not genaally, been made known ta the public. Because SaKion
4(� issues related to the refuge aze relatively'new and were nather included in, nor �art o£ the
public participation process fnr the DEIS, more substantial public involvement is needed ai this -
time. In addidon, MNVNVVR has a rich history of pubGc support and imrotvemen� minimiung
public involvement for a pmjea such as this wiU likely have sevae consoquences to the refuge
and will be in iiirat conIlict to past pcacrices.
C. See Generai Response 7 in the responses to
comments on the FEIS.
D. 5ee response to Friends of the Minnesota Valley
Comment K on the FEIS.
Ms. Jane F. Garvey
4
C�
Missing Correspondence. The Service's letters of April 16 and 23, 1998, should 6e included in E. E. See response to Friends of the Minnesota Valiey
the 6nal Section 4(� Evaluation to document the Servicds conccm about the airport expansion Comment K on the FEIS.
project and desire to obtain specific commitmrnu from FAA and MAC for appropriate
compensation. �
Bird-Aircraft Strikes: Unresolved concerns rcmain invoiving the potendal for bird-aircraft strika
with the conswction and use ofRunway 17/35. The enclosed article (Enc3osuro 2) indicates thai
nationally the threat of b'ud strikes may be gowing worse becausc of the success of wildlife
conservation programs. The objectiva of the proposai project and the mission of MNVN�VR
appear to be at odds. While FAA must suive to assure that bird-aircraft shiica aze avoided, one
of the primary functions of a refuge is to attract lazge numbers of birds to its wetland and F.
grazsland habitau. This apparent dilemma deserves more discussion in lighc of the significant
public safety hazard.
Lands Caruidered Eligible far Replacement The 6oundary of MNVNWR was established by
Congras in 1976. In additioq a master'plan was completed in 1983 and identi6es and plans
activicia and facilities far aU of the lands proposed for acquisition by the Service within the
authorized refuge bourtdary. The compensation recommendations proposed by the Service aze
bascd on its 6elief that all tands within that authorized boundary for the Black Dog and Long
Meadow Lake Units should be considered eGgible for replacement under Section 4(�.
However, FAA has specifically excluded &om 5ection 4(� consideretion all of two signi5cant
cracts of land (the Kelley tract in the Long Meadow Lake Unit and tfie Northern 5taies Powa
Coryoration lands in the Black Dog Unit) based on the contention that these ►ands are not pubficly .
owned. A portion of a third vact (the Ciry of Bloomington lands in the Long Meadow Lake
Unit) has been excluded based on the fact that it lies outside the 2005 DNL 60 contour. Ses
Enclosure 3 for a map and ta6les desciibing the land ownaship within the approved boundary for
thae two MNVNWR Units. All tivee of the tracts in qurstion aze within the authorized refuge G�
boundary. The 1983 masta plan also identifieci specific interest in and plans fo� these vacts. We
are deeply concerned about the exclusion of these tracts from Section 4(� cansiderarion, az thae
lands will be adversely impacted by the new nuiway and are integra! to the mission of the Service
at MIJVNWR �
The 5ervice made its first offer to purchase the Kelley tract in the Long Mcadow Lake Unit in
1979. Negotiavons have continued in the intervening years and a signed agreement for the
Service to purchase the property is erpected within 30 days. The Congress appropriated funds in
the Service's Land and Water Conswadon Fund AQpropriacions for FY 1998 specifically
earmarked for the purchase of the Kelley properry.
The Northem Stata Power Corporation (NSP) tands in the Black Dog Unit have been managed
by the Service since 1982 under a lease agreement with NSP. This is a 50.year tease that is in
effect untii 2032. The lease states that the lands will he managed az part of MNVNWR
The MNVNWR manages lands owned by the City of$toomington in the I.ong Meadow Lake
Unit through a Memorandum of Understanding signed in 1997. This agreemrnt is in effect until
either party wisha to ternunate it. The agreement allows the Service co condua wildlife
management activities and environmental education and provide nature-oriented outdoor
recrearion. Additionally, the Service is allowed to erect and maintain signage, and pavol and
enforce �efuge regulations. Both the NSP and City of Bloomington properties, as lands leased to
or under agreement with the Service, aze a part of the Nationa! Wildlife Refuge System, subject to
SOCFR rcguiations.
F. See the response to U.S. DOI Comment D on the
FEIS.
G. Sae General Response 7 in the responses to
comments on the FEIS. ,
\ .
�
�
� Ms. Jane F. Garv�
1993 Interagency Agreement Between Nalional Park Service, Fish mrd �ldlife Service, Bu�eau
of Land Mmragemenl, and Fedrral Aviation Adminrstraliort These agenciGs agreed that it was
advisable to resuict aircrafi over pubic lands administercd by the National Pazic Service, Fish and
Wiidlife Service, and Bureau of Land Management to aJtitudes of 200Q feet or greater above
gound level (AGL). This agreomrnt is directed primarily to overflights of these lands, not airport
operations planning. In the M5P situation, the 5ervice believes ihac noise from aircraft over 2000
feet AGL will adversely affect the environmental educational valua of the refuge and should be
factored into the noise analysis addrased in the Section 4(� Evaluation.
Comments oo Technieat Aspecu of Section 4(Q Evaluation
Underestimated Operations Over the Refuge. 1'he 5ection 4(� Evaluation states tfiat 5,620
8ights a month from the construction and use of Runway 17l35 will over8y the Bass Ponds
between 500 feot and 2,000 feet above ground level. The FAA's Tennina! Area Forecast prtdicu
658,900 operations for MSP in the year Z010. Ttie FAA assumes that Runway 17/35 will account
for 36.6 percent of departures and Runway 35 will account for 16.9 percent of arrivals in an
average year. This would result in I4,688 operations per month for the new runway. It is likely
that most of thesc operations will overQy the refuge; therefore, any noise analysis completed for
the refuge should utilize this lazga figure.
a
H. The �oise analyses factor in all expected
overfiights, including any related to MSP operatians
that are above 2,000 feet. The comment correctly
notes that the referenced agreement is advisory in
nature and is primarily intended to increase pilot
awareness or modify pracedu�es, if possible, to avoid
low-altitude overflights of naturai resource lands. The
FAA has acknowledged the interagency agreement
with reference to this refuge, has daterminad that
there are no feasible and prudant alternatives, and has
committed to provide for reasonable mitigation.
See response to U5D01 Comment E on the FEIS.
Uncertainty in OperaBona! Assumprions. Estimates of future operational tevels for MSP as a
whole and for the proportion of total operations thaz will be conducted on proposed Runway
17l35 aze wf8cirntly uncettain that litde credence can be placed in the predicted noise levels � .�. J. See FEIS General Responses 3 and 4..
created by such operations az a givm dace. .Thus, cocrespondingly Gttle con6dence can be placed
in t6e adequacy of ineasures intended tu mitigate nois� impacts at a particular future date. ' '
Use ojlnappropriare Noise Meuie. The Day-Nght Sound Level (DNL) noise metric, as usad
throughout the Section 4(fl Evaluation to docummt noise "impacts" to MNVNWR, is
inappropriate for several reasons. The FAA's "Land Use Compatibility Ctiteria" and
accompanying DNL levels werc daigned with ti�e objective of assuring that uses of tand around
an aiiport aze compazble with sirport operations. These criteria were not daigned to be used to
eitha assuracompatibility betweea the airpott and other land uses or to deternrine the level af
impacts that oecur from the e�cpansion of airport operations and the miagation needed to offsct
these impaets.
In addition, recem• court cases [Allision x Depm7men! of Trmts�wrtatio� 908 F.2d 1024 (D.C.
Cit 1990); Nallonal Pm�kr mtd Conrervation Ass�x, v. F.A.A. 998 F.2d. 1513 (I Oih Cir. 1993);
Ciry of Grapevrne, Tez v Depc�tment of Trmuportatian 17 F.3d 1502 (D.C. Cir. 1994)] have
found thaz FAA does not have a noise meuic that is appropriate for use in areas such as national
wildlife refuges. To date, such a noise metric has not bern dtve(oped and we do not believe that
concinued use of the DNL metric is appropriate. In the a6sence of an accepted noise metric for
natural areas, we believe that the responsibitity for determining the impact of aircraft overflights
on a nationa! wildlife refugo resu with the 5ervice. Consequendy, the Service assessed the impaa
to the refuge and identified appropriate compensation in its May 22, 1997, (ettv.
The Service believes that a betta indicator of impacts to environmental education uses of the
refuge and other refuge activides, such as bird watching, should be used to evaluate noise
impacts. Further investigation of this noise metric is essential.
Luegrared Noise Mode1. Several questions remain about the use of the Integated Noise Model
and data used to complete the noise analysis for TiII1VNWR In light of this, the Service is
committed to reviewing this information. By letter dated May I 1, 1998, the Service requested
that the input data used by FAA in this model be provided to BBN Tochnologies, whose services
have been retained by the 5ervice for assistance in analysis of the noise impacts. However, BBN
did not r�ceive the requested data in time (received June 5, 1998) to complete a thorough revicw
of the information and provide input to the Service to be included in the Deparunent's commenu.
Due to this delay in receipt of the requested data, the Depaztment requested an extension of the
commrnt periods for both the F'mal Environmental Impact Statement and the 3ection 4(�
Evaluation. This tequest was denied by FAA. Therefore, the Service and Department will have
addi[ional comments upon completion ofa review and analysis ofthese data.
�. � K. � See response to USDOI Comment E on the FEIS.
L.
L. Comment noted.
Ms. 7ane F. Garvcy
6
Impacu Upon Aesthetics. The use of the new cunway will impact refuge prog�ams and activiries
beyo�d those associated orily with noise. Of equal importance, especially to ihe visitor that s�elcs
solitude and the opportunity to view nature in a relatively undiswrbed setting, u how aircra8
intrusions wi11 compromise the aesthetics of the refuge. W:thout quesdoq all 4,090 acres of
refuge lands in the Long Meadow Lake and Black Dog Units will be subject to these frequent ��
aircraft evenu, thus compromising the aesthetics oFthe area and the visitor's experience.
SiJ11�II�IARY COMII�NTS •
Afl. With the new runway operationai, aircraft nt�..
due to overflights wili be the dominant disruptive
impact within the Refuge. Aesthetic impacts from
future operation levels and tha location of flight tracks
cannot be separated from the noise impact, and are
therefore not recognized separately to describe impacts
or determine the appropriate mitigation.
The Department ofthe Interior objects to Section 4(� approvat of this projecc. The reasons for
this objection aze these: (1) project aiternatives have not been fully evaluated in light ofthe
Section 4(� deternunation tltat the use ofMSP Runway I�/35 will result in the conspvctive use �, N. See General Response 7 in the responses to
ofMNVNWR; (2) the Service and FAA have not agreed on meawres to minimize harm to the comments on the PEIS.
m.fuge and agreement must 6e reached before the Section 4(fl approval is granted; and (3) there
are many technica! prohlems with the Section 4(fl Evaluation that need to be corrected before the
analysis of project impacts to the �efuge can be completed. The Departmrnt will not concur with
the Section 4(� Evatuation until these issues are resolved to aur satisfaction.
The two provisos of S�ction 4(fl, that thqe are no feasi6le and prudent alternatives and all
measures to minimize harrtt have been taken, are mandatory provisions of the law which must be
addressed by the Secretary of Transportacion. It is the opinion of the Department that these two �. O. See Responses A and B, above.
provisos have not yet been adequately addressed. Therefore, we recammend that a revised
• Section 4( fl Evaluation be prepazed. • .
The FAA has requested that the Service enter into an MOA and giant an avigaaon easemenc for
B an
overflights ofMNVNWR, The Service will not sign the MOA or grant the requested easemenc P, p, See General Response 7 in the responses to
until Section 4(� issua are resolved. The Department is prepazed to request that the Council on comments on the FEIS.
Environmrnta! Qualiry enter into discussions on this project with the Service and FAAr
Mr. Dan Ashe, the Service's Assistant Director for Refuges and Wildlife, is available to meet with
you or your representa6ve to resolve these outstanding issucs, ge pn be reached at (202) 208-
5333. .
, . �..
We appreciate the opportuniry to provide these comments. Additional comments will be provided I
whm t6e Service haz received input &om BBN Technologies based on review of the requated
noise metric data. ,
Sincerely,
.��" ��� /
Willie R Taylor• �L"
Director, Office ofEnVironmental
Policy and Compliance .
Enclowres (3)
cc w/Encls: .
Franklin D. Benson, Managa, IvfinneapoGs Airports District O�ice, FAA
Jenn Unruh, Metropolitan Airports Cortunission
Ngel Finney, Meuopolitan Airports Commission
John Fi'imle, Metropolitan Airports Comrnission
Ivfike Sullivan, Mumesota Enviranmental Quality Boazd
John Larson, M'innesota Environmrntal Quality Board
Sandy F'ide(1- BBN Technotogies
Dan Ashe, Assistant Director, EJ.3. Fsh & Wildlife Service
Don Barry, Assistant Secretary, Fish and Wildlife and Parks, Department ofthe Interior
�` ��)
Enclosure 1
Comparison of F'ish and Wildlife Service
and Federal Aviation Administration/�Ietropolitan Airports Commission
Compensation for �irport Impacts to I�%innesota valley National Wildlife Refuge*
. Fash arza' T�ildlij'e Service Estirnaie
te Fstimated o�
Full compensation � 1 �, 746,500
for 4,090 acres
Visitor Contact
Station near Carver �2,S48,000
RepIace nature trails, �1,80�,800
structures, boazd
walks, etc.
Operations irust $4,000,000
Fund
Interactive E.Yhibit $1 � 0, 000
at \�ISP Terrninal
Plannir.s Costs �?.0�0,000
?'otal �'sti»rated ,�26,950,300
Cost
�'AA/1�.14 C Response
I� �stimated Cost
Partial repIacement None given
of 1,083 acres
Rejected _
"�enerally accept" None given
Rejected
0
"will accommodate" Nane gi,ven
a .� ��. � _r
Total �'stirriaPed None given
C'ost
�
*Fish and Wildlife Service best esti.mates were provided to the Federal Aviation Admuustration
and the Metropolitan Airports Commission in l�iay 22, 19971etter. FAA/MAC responses were
provided to Fish and Wildlife Service in Secrion -�(f} Evaluation published on May 1, 1998.
[Image]
[Image] '
Article 8 of 17 �
Bird Strikes a Bigger Threai Than Ever
Robert Goyer
06/O l/98
Flying
Page 36
Copyright LTMI Company 1998. All R.ights Reserved.
Copyright Hachette Filipacchi Magazines, Inc. Jun 1998
Enclosure 2
��
According to repor[s from the Air Force and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service , the threat of bird strikes,
especially that posed by large birds, may be growing worse due to successful wildlife conservation prograrns.
In a story in its mont2�ly publication,Torch, the Air Force's Air Education and Training Command reported
that based on the Air Force's recent experience, the threat seems to be increasing. The most tragic
bird/airpIane encounter in recent years took place in 1995 when an Air Force AWACS plane crashed after
running into a flack of Canada geese shortly after takeoff from EImendorf Air Farce Base in Alaska.
Twenry-four crewrnembers died in the crash of the military version of the Boeing 707, It wasn`t an isolated
incident The Air Force says that iu aircraft are involved in a staggering 2,600 bird strikes ayeaz, resulting in
an annual average of $38 million in damages. Birds don't just aim for military airplanes: ICAO pegs the (
number of civil aviation bird strikes between the years 1988 and 1992 at better than 25,000. The FAA says \I
that it's aware of around 240 bird strikes a year, with damage in the millions of doIlars. Because not all bird
strikes aze reported, the numbers aze likely much higher than that
The closer you get to the grour�d, the greatez the chance of a bird strike. More than 80 percent of bird strikes,
according to Transport Canada, aze happening in the vicinity of the airport, and the U.S. Air Force says that
�7 percent of iu strikes take place at lower than 2,000 feet agl and that more than half of all strikes occur at
500 feet agl or lower, though there have been reports of strikes at altitudes as high as FL 370.
The Fish and Wildlife Service agrees there's a problem. According to the Service, the population of urban
Canada geese has more than doubled over the past 25 years, mostly as a result of programs to conserve
wetlands and other bird habitats. Other species of large bird have seen similar population increases over the
past couple of decades. And many of these Iarge-bird species are giving up migration ahogether, electing
instead to reside year-round at golf courses, public pazks and, unfortunately, airports. Service personnel have
been working with local and state authorities and airport managers to try to all�viate the problem. Geese
have been successfully "controlled" by a variety of,methods, inc3uding habitat modification (letting the grass
grow long seems to keep the birds away), haiing, using falcons and dogs, erecting electric fencing, and lethal
methods such as hunting. Capture and relocation programs, popular last decade, are not being used anymore
because it's impossible to ftnd state or loca] authorities that will take the captured birds.
[Image] � � _
Copyright � 1998 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. �
t'ttt.JJEC;'I'�LU '�UU� llnL �llzt'Ui�'.l' l�Ui: �; i\1PaCT Enclosure3 ;-
MINI�ESOT� `� �LLEY I�ATIOI� �L 1'1'ILDLIFE REFLGE �°Bu�"�"o ��i
UNITED STATES r UN17Ep S7AlES ��
DEPAHTYENT OF THE INTERtOR CAR�'ER, D.�IiOTA, HErAEPiT, A1�D SCOTT COL'J�T?E�, JiIK1�E50TA�• �,sn AND VAtDur� seR�c�',
_ ����-.-1—�—� � '. '�T f ' �' , ' .:` - _._-__-.—. � a � �J.:_ �' � ...;� � i s �� ' � _-�'"'�. 11 ��, I
. . . .,
, ._ _ . . .
. .. ,
, - _
� i •, 32.�..N
. ., � .�1 .. �.. --i � �
:-.._� _�- � . __ � . �
�.----_. _----- _,�,� . � ,�. . .�'� i � r,^�...,;
'_ .
_
_---
..
� � .I --- i TTy-494� ; ; ---- - ;- . . .V[stt r�_ : � �' `� '''
_�
.� _ _ ,
�_ —. _:�.__-
. : , i � , ,/
, ! � � � i i_ __ . . � : . . __ _ - - --- .. ., _._ �
� � ' ; ' o + � t � � �% �
� I ' � ----
I � i� � �; ,� —= : .` -- - . O �:� ,� �� ;
� � � �-,, ;,�, --: _. . - -.. .... + � ,ri
� � I �� 1�, : ; -- 5 +* " � ;'��, ;; �f
� � i , � . 1 +. r"/ �
� I I ` -+-�---. . Nall ol : ~ , �
� � 1 I I ( � I ' �_ ARIefiCB '.. ._....__ '�` .t9 ..,. y + +� + �*,:, ��
t 1�.+ ♦ + �
I ii i I ; I � � I i i I� i-- -: -- .... ,�20 r `--�, ++� + ' ++. r 61 bi (` ir�^�``" i
� � � � � ' �' �N~. ' `�.----- � Ij��; ��},. f +�,.+ J��i �
� � � � ( ( , ; � v' + t�� + + � 1
�\% I � ( i � � � � . �"' . - „ `�' + + �:!�=� + � a'r�+ �
I ( � , I . Ij. i� + + +� . +..a 1
� + + +- j
I ( I '� ' ( i � � I � . i =; � _._� �P-i� L� i+�.++�+ � + + -� rr
�I. � � � ( ( � � f i� �' \�-. \ �' �+ +�;�*'-r"'*, +}+ �:+�+ r
, B;LOO�IAI�1GTC1i�1 � I ' � '�• '� �26'�25i� ��: �'�-�"'"�,-...-,�,:: , +: f�i +'+` r� Long Meodow
� ��' � I � I I i� i i�-' � i - I� ',� i.27 � '':';'.' .:,.—
{ �� _ • ;: + + � � + Lake Unit
� i I � � f _i�'� . . �'129 j!%�� : •:�,:,t;4�� � � 17 + + �
�, I � �`" --. ��S � ��A� + ++"'+ ++ �j`_{
� , i I � I < < — : ;�.. __. ',. :'J30 \ � . 'i?�..�': : . � . + w � + �+ + � � � � i� f',�y
� � 1 � i ( .. + � . � l� �. •° .; •:.f.�:' . . + + + ��
��
� ( � � � ��l—j'-1 ' 7 i 2 r; + tT+ + +
� i i 13 � �• +'.r~ + a
I I � � , I � i j i � � ; r +•35 � .--\�� !' + � .:. ; ,
� i � I � ' � ( , ! ' ' ''�'�` `` 1 Q'. `7' .' + .; /� i ' �'
� I I I �� 39�f � «n Pi ++ `�'' + � �2d/ � , �
� ' i i : � . . , �� ` .... �� �i} . :
�I r---� � '� I ! � � ' ' i ' . / i'r ,� � ;. `�5 _,•�`.'21 � @. �: � f `''�
/`'� i (��=_� � � ; ' ;4 `�- . � 11 .{} '.' �/� ` \ y` , h\� �,�.
i f � i � � . � i , _- f� Sp� 42� � \3.i'of, Z4� _�r'= +(/ �22' • �� ,���,~ ,. r
� � � ` � � ' tOid�Cedar Aven ^ -y�, y:-,,�•:� �-.� i � L ;�
� � �+ ` ,_ ' ' ' ' ' , i '` ����� t • ',T,^ 40';' ,�-'� � `�,
1 � � ' i �� j %'� \� �� ;ti;;. ��..' .•'�,�---'� ' _...-
! I I i : , �55� y�-r�'�-. -;.-�
i ` �' ! i i ,r. �" _ ! `;,-�` ',-, ;'� �M1 � _ �wy. 77 Tcail ad
�� � � �r 57.�� _ •�� �,�.. • • ; � , ;,
-- �� � ; � i i I 1 i ' .���;58�i 5 ; �:y�" '�%r ��' ` J-i! ->.r�. _ r'S06j �25� . ��� �
� � � : i I � � \� �F7 l 4H2�'. � I ',.� i � i \ .�r �— I
� I ' • . � � ; �� / :� � �J �
� 4 ! � i � � �- �',�--- � � I �` ,� �� ��l �� /�,r/ / `/ . �; �7 � '�� � j
; ; I � I �.,' � r-i I i i - : ,�.Kr-'. � � �i,:r � � ' � �`� � � � k
V I i' '' � � c ! �;;, ::y i �� _ � ; t
� ( �: 1 � � , '''+� , �;%'�/�i � � � : �' � ;4. �� �� i .
� � � " ( �j r-• ryw" � . 65 .,'J� �/ � � � ' �-. /`J;: �'--,--,�_�
�i ( X=-� ': 1 I � t �t '$ ° i . `�� ,..,'v,;;; ; ; � � ,�2; . .57 �::._ �; / i i
� �-' r i� ,-,i�i/� f i i i ...'. `� � f �" ?
�( '� '\ f � i � f ri � i � "��l %`�--�`-
{--- % f� /� / � ' i � �..: � '~ '/ � \ ! �—+ "�.
• ,J-�-�, � e r �� � � . � : ; �^�AGAf�- ��
L`` �,� � � . - --='--'�,, ...-. � � } � �,
�.� .
so�,� 5° ��' r, ' ' ^ . . ; � 1 �`, �: i �
� � / i l i � � "/ i� � � ' '' i ; i�1` �;""'_' i j
. i ' ��`'` � �
� // . // // / ` � \ ' . I i � ��i
r-1�/ /// // ' �10� y
�i 0 ii ii ii iii � - _ t. ��li
�g7� i iii ii i� ii - - � � � �- —1
h�- /i 1'" � ii// riii/ .�, i'^ � 1! ( I� t' � /1
� c,. /, > iii i//i � � .. �� t / I.
� � - '/ m .-. - ��-� ��^ '�• � �-- ,��� �
iii riii �
i iiiiiiiiiii - "� � �.
i � � i � � � � � i � . _._. _. .. . ;'� 'i ir_ • "v' %-� '-., �? i �{rl :;
i �iiiiiii�iii� , - .- : ._. ' _ _._ ;,Z--�i - ' . � _;!,rf ,: i
ii�iii��i����� •_. , � • � ; � f �'
i - �
iiiii�iii��ii� _. , — - : , ,
/i/iii//i//iii � ; _ " ' � '"�`�,;/i�
i i i i i i : . . . ._.,,__ �. 'y' � �
:_; - � ,' /• � ' ti
i i i i i i 69 31ock �og _' _- '• _ '.." �� t_.�' � ,' L._.'-3 �JI,' � �� i
i i i i i i `70� Lake Unit �• ''�� '• i�, �• ��' ,(r i � �
�;: -2'' �'' ; _ ''� — _ • _� � (-; ; �. I `
��.. � 29 , - . ---- ;
� i �`' _ ,. -'i (-. '�Gi •� i
`68 `:'�' %� --! ' � ' ..'Z. ' ,. i'' i"
; . �---? _ . _ - _ . — _ --i—� ,�;�'_..- 4--. i � ;
. :- :
.:.. ,
.,. ; � _ , :,
,.
, .. .
. , ._.
.�
,_ f _; v _ - . �.;�:,
fis . ;
:
�.--
. ! . _, . .- _. �. �
___._
.
.
_.
_ ,. ^.
, � � , � . . , , �`�', � ,
. . .._.._; .
.
, �?`, : , __,__ _ � .�.
.
,,
.�.
,,.,
�� 1 �'� i : ... :__ . �� ,.� '.J
� I _ . .,-y: � . � . . � -�'_' . �
� -•.
---�-A_ . . . , --.. .
.' ! I
� "`I �- � � .. - —
..
�.
..
_ �t1 I
, _ • � . .._ �_ ��.
�--
�
:�
-y� � f .,,.�-'�'�� ( --- —. .. . ��','. J : � � _._' i I
'�5
-couPi�a ir+ niE ornsorr oa ae�Tv �� Minnesota Volle NWR �
F770Y USGS OlC DATA, MN7H AND PETERSON ENIVIRONAIENTAL c- y i 5 1/2'
FORT SNELUNC, MINNESOTA ;M��• ��•:T: U.J. �1Si7 C(IC� WIiG�lii� SE'!VIC� ; Noise Monitoring Site MEAN
POSTED: JUNE 7998 OECL1NA710N I..
••.. NSP J •
i . ! � p� Decibei Noise �9fi5 �
J City of ioom.nc;on � 57 DB�� I
ONE MIL� , Level Contour
� Kelley .-o�er;y ; � 3R MN 839 i
P!D Number
No.2
Long Nleadow Lake Unit
Sa(1) 14-027-24-43-0002
49 23-027-24-11-0001
66(b) 24-027-24-22-0002
66(a) 24-027-24-22-0001
5 06-027-23-24-0005
18(a) 06-027-23-24-0016
18(b) �06-027-23-24-0014
" 18(c) ;06-027-23-24-0015
19 06-027-23-31-0002
17(a) � 06-027-23-13-0001
17(b) � 06-027-23-41-0001
17{d) �Q7-027-23-11-0001
17(e) 12-027-24-41-0001
7 7(f) 107-027-23-31-0001
17(g) (13-027-24-11-0003
26 12-027-24-24-0036
25 � 12-027-24-24-0051
27 � 12-027-24-24-0055
28 i 12-027-24-31-0013
210c jNot Avaiiable
23 � 01-027-24-44-0004
24(a) 112-027-24-11-0002
24(b) ;12-d27-24-12-0029
32 �12-027-24-34-0009
33 � 12-027-24-34-0006
3� I � 2-a27-24-34-0007
35 � 12-027-24-34-0008
36 12-027-24-33-0030
37 � 12-027-24-33-0024
38 � 7 2-027-24-33-0021
39(a} � 12-027-24-33-0026
39(b) 12-027-24-33-0027
50 14-027-24-14-0037
51 14-02�-24-14-0028
52 � 14-027-24-14-0035
53 14-027-24-14-0039
54 � 14-027-24-14-0010
55 14-027-24-14-0033
57 ' 14-027-24-14-0031
58 14-027-24-14-0029
59 14-02�-24-14-0043
31(a) 12-027-24-34-0002
31(b) � 12-027-24-34-0003
31(c) (12-027-24-34-0001
31(d) 13-027-24-22-0002
41 � 13-�27-24-21-0001
21 a 13-027-24-21 •0002
42 I 13-027-24-22-0001
4/30/98
�nersnip w�Tnm ur�� e� 2005 High
and Witdlife Refuge Boundary'
Owner
I
(City of Bloomington
�U.S. Fish and Wiidlife Service
(U.S. Fish and Wiidlife Service
)U.S. Fish and Wild(ife Service �
�U.S. Fish and Wildiife Service �
1United States of America (
Appletree Motel Partnershi�
�Appletres Motel Partnership
�U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
J. Keiley etal
'J. Keiley etal
J. Keiley etal
C. O'Nei! Trust
J. Kelley etal
J. Kelley etal �
Wesiiey Dewev etal
�U.S_ Fish and Wildlife Service �
�U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service �
�U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service �
�Mn/DOT (FW5 easement) �
�U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service �
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service �
�United Siates of America �
(U.S. Fish and Wild(ife Service �-
�U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service �
�U.S. Fish and Wiidlife Service (
(U.S. Fish and Wildtife Service �
�U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
�U.S. Fish and Wiidlife Service (
�U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (
1U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service �
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
�U.S. Fish and Wiidlife Service
�U.S_ Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Fish and Wild(ife Service
U.S. Fish and Wiidlife Service
�U.S. Fish.and Witdlife Service
�U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
State of Minnesota
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Pa�a 1 nf 2
Enclosure 3
erswn
Atfected Parcel ITotal Parc
Area - Acres Area - Acres
68.26
26.22
0.95
0.40
1.26
0.91
7 2.01
88.37
159.2i
79.13
70.31
36.79
1.86
0.12
0.91
3.08
76.00
5.63
204.90
8.98
0.73
1.87
129
1.6y
1.72
1.54
0.28
2.60
3.96
0.30
0.35
0.63
• 0.49
1.51
0.09
1.09
0.95
1.30
6.88
0.64
2.55
11.68
27.99
8.77
4.60
78.60
50.45
0.95
0.40
6.90
7.30
3.74
1.20
57.88
252.60
300.81
79.13
77.94
36.79
1.86
0.12
0.91
3.08
76.00
5.63
?04.90 �
8.98
0.73
1.87
1.29
1.61
1.72
1.54
0.28
3.96
0.30
0.35
0.63
0.49
1.51
0.09
1.09
0.95
1.30
0.64
2.5�
11.68
27.99
8.77
4.60
�� �
�� }
� . ��
Enclosure'3
Pubiic- rivate �and Ownership Within DNL 60 2005 High orecast (INM Version 5.1)
and Wiidtife Refuge Boundary'
I i
Tract Affected Parcel Total Parcel
I PID Number I Owner
No.2 Area - Acres Area - Acres
Long Meadow Lake Unit �
43 i13-027-24-22-0004 D.F. and M.L. Long 1.64 1.64
44 13-027-24-22-0008 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 3.15 3.15
45 (13-027-24-23-0001 U.S. Fish and Wiidiife Service 65.93 65.93
46 j13-027-24-32-0001 ;U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 14.66 14.66
47 �14-027•24-41-0007 �U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2425 24.25
48 i13-Q2�-24-31-0001 �U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 171.52 172.30
40(1) ►13-Q27-24-1�-0001 (U.S. Fish and Witdlife Service 11.03 � 11.03
40(2) i13-027-24-11-0001 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 15.04 15.04
40(3)/40a i13-027-24-13-0001 �U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 25.93 2S.93
22(a) (18-027-23-22-0001 �U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 44.70 44.70
22(b) 13-027-24-11-0002 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 5.33 5.33
22(c) j13-027-24-14-0001 �U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1.g� t,g7
21 !07-027-23-33-0001 �United States of America 39.40 39.40
2h(a) ;10=00700-032-76 IUnited States of America 68.80 68.80
2h(b) { 10-01800-030-01 United States of America ,. �� �, � 5
I Subtotal 1469.40 �
� USDOI acres 871.04
j other than USDOI public! -owned acres � 146.81
privately-owned acres 451.5�
Black Dog Lake Unit (
306 10-01800-010-54 Brian Sae er 1.55 1_55
225(c) �� 0-01800-012-52 Nae le Outdoor Ad Co 1.20 �.20
225(a) ��� 0-01800-011-56 Nae le Outdoor Ad Co � 3.52 3.52
225(b) j 10-01800-013-50 Nae le Outdoar Ad Co ( 0.17 0.17
226 �1 0-01 800-01 3-52 Metro WaSte Control Comm 0.34 0.34
73 �0-0�800-o2i-57 �US Fish 8� Wildlife Service 12.99 12.gg
71 �02-02410-017-75 US Fish & Wildlife Service 3.14 94.90
72(a) 1 0-01 900-01 2-28 �State of Minnesota 32.94 39.01
�2(b) ,10-01900-073-28 Northern Natural Gas Co, 2.32 2.32
2a 1 0-01 800-01 2-56 United States of America 15.33 15.43
207m(1) �02-0271 0-01 1-75 NSP (FWS (ease) 25.49 75�.90
Subtotal 98.99
USDOI acres 31.46
other than U5D01 ublicl -owned acres 33.28
privately-owned acres 34.25 �
TOTAL acres 1,568.39
Total USDOI acres 902.50
Totat, other than USDO1 ublicl -owned acres 180.09
Totat Privately-Owned acres 485.80
Source: City of Bloomington and Dakota County Assessors' Office; USDOI; HNTB analysis.
' This table indicates current ownershi of Henne in and Dakota Coun arcefs within the MVNWR
USDOI reference, subdivided b parcel: see Figure FF-9
di�nroa
o � ., .-, � .. � �
IN fiEPLY REFER TO:
FWS/AR,W
United States Department of the Interic�r
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Bishop Hcnry Whippie Federal Building
1 Federal Drive
Fon Sneiling, MN 55111-4056
Mr. Franklin D. Benson
. Manager
Minneapolis Airports District Office
Federal Aviation Administration
6020 28th Avenue South #102
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450-2706
Dear Mr. Benson:
►•' ; ...,
•
�.%�.A., �"'�s.
:��r,^. . s . ..'F:
: � . __ �. '99�
t.,:� FiS
� :1'1
� __
��-
,:.�,� —
i;�
!c� 0 .'i _ _ ,"�
We have received and reviewed the draft-predecisional Section =�(� Evalaiation for Minnesota
Valley National WildIife Refuje. While we appreciate the opportunity to review this dacument
before it becomes public, we still have some very deep concerns about several issues associated
with� the construction of the new runway and its impacts upon the Refuge. Please note that these
are the same concerns we shared with you in our March 20, 199$, letter and during our last
meeting which occurred on March 2�, 1998.
The following comments reiterate our previously e:cpressed concerns:
• The proposed compensation for Refuge impacts is still conceptual in nature and only
vaQuelv desczibes what the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Metropolitan
Airports Commission (i�1AC) offer as miti�ation. Just as tive provided you our best guess
estimates for RefuQe compensation in our May 22, 199�, letter, tive request the same from
FAA. and NIAC on the components you are willing to fund.
• As stated in our March 20, 1998, correspondence, we believe that the mitiQation as
presented in the Section -�(� Evaliratiofz falls far short of what �ve believe the impacts to
be upon Refuge programs, activities, and visitor usage. As an e.r•ample, the 1,033 acres
offered for mitijation is sianificantly less that the 4,090 impacted acres that we believe
will be impacted. Of particular concern is the e:cclusion of the Kelley tract and lands
administered by the Refu,e throu�h an aareement with Northern States Power company.
�Ve also note that F� has recently changed their position on lands �vithin the �7 DNL
contour for which l�1AC had previously committed to provide compensation for in the
Sc.�ction -�� Scrmma�y dated :��tarch �, 1998.
__ Mr. Franklin D. Benson
�� �)
2.
• We also remain concerned about the lack of public knowledge and input in�to this process
specific to the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge, a federal facility of national
� significance. Due to the above-mentioned concerns, we are preparing to develop and
initiate an outreach effort that will clearly articulate the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
position on this issue. �
In light of all of this, I decided to postpone our meeting scheduled for today, April 16, 199$, until
FAA and MAC had time to once again, consider and jointly address our concerns. From my
perspective, additional meetings would not be productive until these concerns are specifically
addressed. ......._...... .. � ' �
. ., ,
,:- ... . . .. _.....
. . • ' rely, � , . .
�.;
�I � : .; � , • i „' .
William �
Regional I
w t .
United States Department of the Interior ������� ��'='��
. (
FISH AND WILDLIFE SBRVICE \ �
Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge 1. �• .�
3815 East 80th Street � ` �•��!��
Bloomington, Minnesota 55425-1600 �' •
�
Apri123, 1998 Y' �� - •� /.
� ��o ,s"^��;�....�" ._.--
--._.:. _�.._._
Mr. Franklin D. Benson,
Manager
Minneapolis Airports District OtFice
Federal Aviation Administration
6020 28th Avenue South #102
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450-2706
Dear Mr. Benson:
; _.
We understand that the Federal Aviation Administration and the Metropolitan Aiiports
Commission are struggling with our request for mitigation as described in my May 22, 1997
letter. In light of this, we offer another alternative as outlined below for your consideration.
Rather than a large, one-time payment for mitigation, this alternative will provide perpetual
compensation for perpetual impacts to Minnesota Va11ey National Wildlife Refuge and to other
natural resource areas surrounding the Twin Cities International Airport. As indicated in the
attached mock brochure, "For as long as eagles soar and aireraft f1y over the Mississippi and
tLlirrnesota Rivers, fi�nding will be made availabl� fvr land acquisrtion, restvration of wildlife
habitats, and development vf recreatiof7al airci' environmental education facilities. "
From our perspective, this alternative would be very popular among individuals and organizations
within the conservation community. We could also promote it as a win-win partnership in
conservation between the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC), the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), and conservation agencies in this area.
If MAC and FAA were willing, perhaps we can develop an alternative that might combine both a
one-time, up front payment with perpetual compensation. At any rate, we are open to discussing
a variety of options that will fully address our collective needs.
.
i
,
i
Mr. Franklin D. Benson � �
� �.`� '
i
Please feel free to contact Mr. R.ick Schultz if you have any questions concerning this alternative.
As we have expressed before, we are not opposed to the new runway nor do we want to delay its
construction one sin�le day. We do believe, however, that the new runway will significantly
impact Refuge programs and interests in this area and we are committed to receiving appropriate
compe�sation %r these damages. , n
. Hartwi
Regional Director
cc:
Mr. Nigel Finney (MAC)
Major Components of Sharing Ozrr Skies Alternative
Minnesota Va11ey National Wildlife Refuge
April 23, 1998
Underlying Concept ,
. Perpetual compensation for perpetual impacts upon State and Federal natural resources
and programs near the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport.
Generation of Funds
A conservation user fee amounting to $0.25 would be assessed on each passenger using
the Minneapolis-St. Paul Intemational Airport. Based on 199'7 figures, a total of $7.5
million (30 million passengers) wouid have been made available for conservation purposes
that year. .
Administration of Funds
Either an existing or a newly created non-profit organization would be responsible for
administering funds. Its Board of Directors wouid oversee the investment, use, and
distribution of these funds. .
Partnership in Conservation
This alternative would generate a great deal af positive public relations for the
Metropolitan Airport Commission, the Federal Aviation Administration, and all of their
partners.
0
C� �
�! .
�
� �
:J n
� �
� r �
= .G.3 ^ r es
/� V �
_ f v+�.r •L � „`„� �
� ' f• , f. CS v+ „�„
� .f�' � .� �,u v
� • .^„ ' .:+ l'S 's:.
f: � =+ ..T W yV,� c'S
J ^ �'"' U ; -„ �„� t�
� l r � ;� '�
L :.I J •+� � J
�i :,+ :J � �.a.� :J
•r, > > c; � O �
~ � � �tr � � �..
`�i � �'' �
� ,� t�.ri G V J
�� c � ° E �
.0 t!; �+7 j� � 'l.
f�-+ V.� � C 0 v
� .: � ..�.�
.+ . �" O �-+
�-=
:. V ;: � , ,�, ; • ..� �.:.
� '� i.=. .7 V J � � V
--'c:� r �'� � �
U � J
.I..� -� �
~ .,j p � �
• j �,, „fi
;�� �=, ;,J 4.r ^" `J ;,�
��" � O 3 J :J j O
O dd > (, �.4.1 �� ^ �..y � ^ :ii
.... � ' y,� � � .. l "J .�. n '"
..r =
; � � � 3,.� i '� .�. .r .
:� ' 4.r
;J � n � � v � ;? `� �'S
.'� � � 'u . ^C, • 2 � J ^ � 'J � �,'�"'., �.i+
�l'� '+ r frJ J: ^ ++ �% C
1�. U �C'' r�-� ~C,Y '> "� n v' ~+-V+
c"r' V' ^' , J �� J -" — 'J • C �
� `� � � � c� f "+ --' ', ^' :JJ G
" ' �j h :-i 3-+ c:.+ �.�
i•� ,� '" � ...�.�
� .� u` � w � � .� ^ ,'1J,, y O
J
� . � � .� � O ;:f � �,j .� � ,,�'ti' � i/
...~'�'. ri .�J.. � �"' � i � L� � • `� ;,j ? t/� :�
� U f � a� W c' f C+ a:-0 , v
c' "'3`' "� C � � �' „ =• �s i. V � �
> C
.^
'� � r. � � . C� r. W � C, J � �
: C 0 �
,,�r, � � ^ � '`'' ,� � •r.
� G � � •� a .�^., �
� s"'' " . � C � ^ �' ^
� � •� G � ^ � U
v
� •'�-' 4" • � �-'" � 0 .i �L
� C r
"'� i.. � ° �' =
� � u �C r 3 � C '�
�,� � � •--� � _ � .,,_, C
� r,,, � +� c.� r p .� '
� � L
� .a� ..v'.' tn i. J G V
t,�j .� C. ' ^ � U iC,� � �.`rj'
V .i �^. � '+= �' y^,`'�„ U
� v r � .
�'' � Ci :J i.+ J U i•�.
(� � �� C C C'' n.f . i.
� '�' � . � � � ^ L" M
`'r . .f.' ti -�'.. '�' g� • � J U
;.,'�.
� :
r.� �: y'.r'. ;� :,� =
� � � : �
�: G' �...C' J' a:. ,� S..
r, . C � :.�
= G ' :J J � :J
! � > t ^ ,r C� r�:
J � :S "' .- =�
� t' 1% :J ;,,1 � r '-'
' �i :J � � +, n
4r S!: � r � "�
n. :� �' ,-.
"' � J J: i ��
� � ^ J � �.
� y :J t,, �
^ � � J � �
� 'i ;,f�- :J U r
.,. � � ..
�= .i� � .^�. � ^ f 'l;
C� •r, r• � j � :.i w
� �� � y � • �
`� � v � :+� :� � i
:J 1 :.1 .. � ,. � :J 'l,
c
��
O
� '= � .
a.. `
� � C
C = 3 � r �
'i. r �-- � •r. C _ •r.
` G.v � G� � C ,- r � ti= �
� G . �,,,,, .. .,, � +- -r, .,, cC '�.
... r �. :,7 � .'� l '� :r
'� .J- �s r � `J � ^ J J u � . .^�.. ` J L • �
.�. y� �v: � �� :J `� `�" J :: •t"' ^ ;J •� r •�•• E
e: , n '�`'�, ,,,, :+ c.� J •r. ;,� � � � •r. �
:� :J �= C :.7 `� ^ �' � � ^ � C C c�
^ � ^ V ^
� = '� � ^ t: � r r � : c' =+ � 'a � � U
.
^ r, CJ •r, `y,�, J ,�,, •,� ' r � � ;� C"' �
,,,r � . .. +-� . ^ ...^. � � es
.. �
+: :.7 .� . ^ � . . . , . :r . �+-� CJ .
f '�' '�.' ; . . ,i .. v . :J `.+ .� �. ... U .. . "'J � y +-. Q 4r
� �`'`' . = E� � c.. � = f° U E''
� C � �^'-. .= u � � �= C r
. ._ L : E �,
— :J �, ^.^. >"' W c' `-+ U v C
.
� ..�1.'. ^ .. i" „�..., . e:.._ �" .. r+'—rr... J _. J y. ..� .. ... . �.. . �. C'V„ . � . �..
,.. .
�= j- :� f f ., . •. . � � % :. ;• •r.
'J � � J ,',j �' L � :� J � CJ � C • � '� .J+
w � ` _ �. r w :+ :.. ,,� �
� � � � yJ., • ic ' � .. ' � J r: �"' ^ e^„ V ''-
/� •r, :� •� /i�. r a,,,
` � � . �� . � � T y , � Y 4 � • r U f i�r � �"wi
� �. v ` •� u v �. :� G G .�, .,, c,�r7 r ' , _, ,^��
B
�
t'
A
�. ^
� � y . �
^ `) � = � ^ "' ,i
G r � �.�. :.+ = _ •r. C
r• � C,� �y " . ^ ;J
i' ,.�''j :.�. r: ^ = �
n
"' `n 'l. �
" 7 :J " = � y �
i'' � °'� �': :' � .� � " C
. � ��.� �� 3 ;; `'
.,,, ._ . ,.
r � � �
J � ' ^ ,- �
^ .- — � � ^.
� C J � � ; � � �
�.. .�, y„ '�1,, J �
� �' � � � '- � � r
Gl ..�-_
^ .�.. .
r" r r' y V iw
"' G�'�. �.. P G c�..�
^
• J G C r. `._ ;, „ 1,.
v
� '.� Z • - � G f; C
:r n J �., .—_ . — �Lu, e�-.
i. � C/� L 'J } i � L
n .�.r ^.i . � 'l. . l �
= � � % ..� •x ^ .� U
- � .J
U.S. Department AI�'4RTS DISTRICT OFFICE - MINNEAPOLIS
of Transportation 6020 - 28th Avenue South, #102
Federal Aviation Minneapolis, Minnesota 5�450-2706
Administration April 29, 1998
Mr. William F. Hartwig
Regional Director
Fish and Wildlife Service
Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge �
3815 East 80�h Street .
Bloomington, Minnesota 55425-1600
Dear Mr. Hartwig:
%').i�° � ; . E i s
y %f)
�
�ovruoo sru�ot
Cb' 0
���n�
�y z� 9Y
��� �,M�,.
�p0
IqfMtY116NATLNE
��
OATE
SL'�.�I-�
��� s,m�.
• �NfT7ALSr3�6NnTV:1E
Thank you for your letter of April 23, 1998, p�oposing a conservation user fee as a
means of mitigating for future aircraft noise impacts to the Minnesota Valley National °"�
Wildlife Refuge. We certainly appreciate your creative thinking and desire to reach a�,,,�9Y4�
win-win solution. �
• INR1A{'y9)pNATUqH
However, the collection of a per passenger fee or tax for commercial air travel such
�' \� � as you propose, commonly called a"head tax", is prohibited by 49 USC 40116(b). �*�
'--- � We too want a fair and reasonable solution to the issue of mitigation for impacts to
the Refuge and are continuing to work to that end. �� "°"'""°°'"°°`
Sincerely,
Original Signed By
Franklin D. Benson
Franklin D. Benson
Manager
cc: Nigel Finney, MAC
MSP-ADO-680: RAHuber:rah:4/27/98
F:\USERS\MSP680BH\MSP\HARTWIG.DOC
FAA Fotm 1360•14.1 (6•89) OFFICIAI FI�E COPY •u.s.aao:�cflaa�ee•oi2izo�o�
m��n�
WTE
ROUTING SYA180�
n+rtsr.�vsierurune
wre
NOUTIN6 9YMDOL
INfT1/.tYJ10NATURE
OATE
HOUTIN6 91'MEO�
INfT1ALY316NATURE
ara
Sec. 4p116 SUB. VII, PART A—AIR COMMERCE AND SAFETY 10�
closure when the appropriate Secretary or the Postal Service de-
cides that disclosure of the information would—
(A) prejudice the United States Government in preparing �
and presenting its position in international negotiations; or
(B) have an adverse efiect on the competitive position of an
air carrier in foreign air transportation. '
(b) WITHHOLDING INFORMATION FROM CONGRESS.-This seCtion
does not authorize inform.ation to be withheld from a committee of
Congress authorized to have the information. �
' � � § 40�16. ��ate taxation
(a) DEFINITION.-In this section, "State" includes the Disirict of
� Columbia, a territory or possession of �he United States, and a po-
. litical authority of at least 2 States. -
� (b) PROHIBITIONS.—Except as provided in- subsection (c) af this
section and section 40117 of this title, a State, a political subdivi-
sion of a State, and any person that has purchased or leased an
a.irport under section 47134 of this title may not levy or collect a
� tax, fee, head charge, or other charge on—
(1) an individual traveling in a.ir commerce; .
(2) the transportation of an individual traveling in air com-
merce;
(3) the sale of air transportation; or
(4) the gross receipts from that air commerce or transpor-
tat?on.
' (c) AIRCR.�,T TAKING OFF OR LA.NDING IN STATE. A State or ��
political subdivision of a State may levy or collect a tax on or relat- �
ed to a flight of a commercial aircraft or an activity or service on
. the aircraft only if the aircraf� takes off or lands in the State or
political subdivision as part of the flight.
(cI) UNREASONABLE BURDENS AND DISCRIMINATION AGAINST
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.--{1) In this subsection—
(A) "air carrier transportation property" means property
(as defined by the Secretary of Transportation) that an ai.r car-
rier providing air transportation owns or uses.
(B) "assessment" means valuation for a property tax levied
by a taxing district.
(C) "assessment jurisdiction" means a geographical area in
a State used in determining the assessed value of property for
ad valorem taxation.
(D) "commercial and industrial property" means pro ert
(except transportation property and land used primarily for ag
ricult�ure or timber growing) devoted to a commercial or indus-
trial use and subject to a property tax levy.
(2)(A) A State, political subdivision of a State, or authority act-
ing for a State or political subdivision may not do any. of the follow-
ing acts because those acts unreasonably burden and discriminate
against interstate commerce:
(i) assess air carrier transportation property at a value
that has a higher ratio -to the true market value of the prop- �
ertiy than the ratio that the assessed value of other commercial
and industrial property of the same type in the same assess-
meni jurisdiction has to the true market value of the other
commercial and industrial property.
\�
� )
t �
COMMENTS OF CITY OF RICHFIELD,
iVIINNESOTA ON SECTION 4(fl EVALUATION FOR
MINNEAPOLIS / ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Iames D. Prosser
Richfield City Manager
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, MN 55423
(612) 861-9700
Charles K. Dayton
Leonard, Street & Deinard
150 South Fifrh Street
Suite 2300
Minneapolis, MN 55402
(612)335-1500
Steven F. Pflaum'
Charles M. Gering
McDesmott, Will & Emery
227 West Monroe Street
Chicago, Illinois 60606
(312) 372-2000 �
Juae 30, 1998
1. INi'RODUCfiON
The City of Richfield, Minnesota ("Ric6field") submits these comments on the
Section 4( fl Evaluation compteted in connecdos with the Dual Track Airport Planning Process at �'
Minneapolis St. Paul lnternational Airport (the "Project"). As e��plained below, the Section 4(�
Evaluation completely fails to address the impacts of the Project, and needed mitigation
measures, with respect to important Section 4( fl resources that woutd be used by the Project
The Evaluation also inadequately analyzes the impacts of the Project on other Section 4(�
resources, and fails to consider feasibie measures needed to minimize those impacu.
II. PARK AND RECREATION AREAS
The Section 4{ fl Evaluation improperly ignores consideration of two paz1;s in Rich Acres g'
and New Ford Town (both azeas are ►ocated in Richfield) which would 6e eliminated by the
Project The proposed runway would appazently litemlly run through one of those pazls. At
page 20, the Section 4(� Evaluation states that "[n]o parl:s and recreation azeas subject to Section
4(� review� will be acquired for development of the MSP Aitemative." This statement is
erroneous because it fails to mention that MAC is seeking to acquire rivo pazks in Rich Acres and
New Ford Town specifically in connecqon with the Project. (Documents reeazding MAC's
acquisition of the pazks aze attached to these comments.) The acquisition of those pazks cleazly
constitutes a"use" of 3ection 4( fl msources. The Section 4( fl Evaluation furthar fails to consider
appropriate mitigation measures in connection with th� elimination of these pazks.
C
A. See General flesponse 7 in the responses to
comments on the FEIS. The FAA and the MAC
maintain that the May 1998 FEIS and the Section 41f)
Evaluation were adequate for the purposas of
evaluating alternatives, disclosure of impacts, and for
soliciting public input on the proposed action.
B. This acquisition was compieted undar a
completely separate noise abatement action,
implemented based on existing noisa impacts and in
response to requests from the City of Richfield, as
documented in the EnvironmentalAssessment, New
Ford Town and Rich Acres Noise Abatement; MAC,
December 1992. The acquisition of these two parks
was not considered a Section 41f) impact 6y the City
because they were determined to 6e insignificant, as
stated in the November 19, 1992 letter to Nigel Finney
of MAC from James D. Prosser, City Manager.
C
l� �
III. WiLDLIFE REFTJGE
The Section 4(� Evaluation cotrectly concludes, at paee 20, that the Project "witl substantialiy
impair public use or enjoyment of Section 4(� resources witivn the [Minnesota Valiey National C.
wldtife Refugej" and therefore "would result in the consnvctive use of a portion of the Refuge."
Richfield joins in and adopts the comments submitted by the United States Departrnent of the
Intezior on the EIS and on the Section �#(� Evaivation with respect to issues relating to the
inadequate analysis of impacts on the Refuce and failure to propose feasible mitigation measures
to minimize the effects of such use.
C. Please refer to the responses to U.S. D01's
commants o� the Section 41f) Evaluation and the FEIS.
IV. CONCLUSiON
For the foregoing reasons, the Section 4( fl Evaluaaon does not meet the requiremenu of [�. D. Please refer to the responses to comment A,
49 U.S.C. § 303(c), and fails to provide an adequate basis for a determination whether (1) there a6ove, and to the responses to the U.S. DOI's
are ao prudent and feasible alternatives to the Project, and (2) the Project includes all possible comments A and B on the Section 4(f) Evaluation.
measures needed to minimize harm to the Section 4(� resources. ConseqnenUy, no decision can
be made whether to approve the Project until these fundamental flaws aze corrected.
Dated: )une 30, 1998
Respectfully submitted,
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNE50TA
James D. Prosser
' Richfield City Manager
6700 Portland Avenue
RicUfield, MN 55423
(612)861-9700
Chazles K. Dayton
Leonard. Street & Deinazd
150 South Fifth Street
Suite 23Q0
Minneapolis, MN 55402
(612)335-I500
3teven F. Pflaum
Charles M. Gering
McDermott, Will & Emery
227 West Monroe Street
Chicago, Illinois 60606
(312) 373-2000
BY'. 4_ _.
Steven F. a
-2-
DOCUME:vTS REGARDING MACS
ACQUISITION OF PAR}CS IN RiCHFIELD
PIANNiNG ANO ENVIRONMENT COMMlTTE=
John Himle, Chair
Attcn Gasper, �cc Chair
Steve Cramer ,
Dick Long
Louis Miler, Jr.
Datwin Reed
Y .
Geargiann Stenerson _
METrT�POI.tTAN AlRPORTS COMMI5510N
NOTIC� OF REGULAR MEE i iNG OF THE
PLAN�IWG AND ENVIRONMEN7' COMMITTE
7uesday, April 7, 1998
Z:oo p.m
- Roorn 3040. Meaanine Leve!
Und6ergh iemVnal, WotcS-Cnamberialn Field
• AGENDA '
C�NSEJJT' �
(Consent items 6s�d are svbjed r� d�sc�ssion at �e request of any Camrnissionerj
'1. FtNAL PAYMENTS—MAC CONTRACTS
a. 'IE96 t 3nCside 8"rtuminous Cons�ur: ion— MSP (Gary G, Warre�, AirpoR Engineer)
6. GTC MiddlelWesL— Geneta! Conswccon (�ennis Kowaike, Landside Projcct
Managerj '
c D Str2et Madfications — N1SP (DaMis Kowauce, l.andside Prajea Manager�
d. 1996/9? Part 950 So�csd insuiation Program (Joseph Shortreed, l.anasic3e Projea
Manage�
2 SEMI-PfNALPAYMF�I7'�'—MACCONTRACTS '
a Red Concaurse Cancessions (Dennis Kowe�ce, Landside P�jed Managerj
b_ Bulding Area E�cpansion — St Pau! Dowrttown Airpott (Robert J. Vory�ahf, Program
Develapmertc Engineer)
3. CHANGE OE2DER — MAC CONTnACT
a GTC East Verticat Cimalation - MSP (�enn[s Kawalke, Lancisitle P�Ject Managdj
�t, 610S REC�T/EO - MAC CON'TRACTS
a. Paricin� Struc�ra RehabSitation-1998 (Re6ertJ. Vor�ahL Program Development
Engrtreer)
b. Materials Stocage Hwldmg — MSP (Aobert J. Verpahl. Prngrarn Developmertt
E�ginee� • •
C D Streei Tr�c Signal (Dennis ProbsC Bu�ding Cartstnrc;ian Manage=j
d East Commet�ia! RcaWray improvements— MS? (Robert J. Vorpahl, Progrsm
Development Errgineer)
e. Sun Caurstry AirSnes Fiangar (Ra6eR J. Varpahl, Pmgram Developm�rt Enginee�
f. East 8uuovig Area SewedWater Main — St Pau► Oovmtovm Airport (Gary G.
Wartnen. Airpact Enqineerj
g. Part �50 So�md Insuiation Pmgrdm—MarGh Bid Cyde (Joseph Shortreed, Lanc7side
Pmjecz Manage�
I
C
�
5. REVIEW OF UPCOMING CONSTRUCTiON PROJECT BfDS
RobeR J. Vorpahl, Pragtam Development Engineer
6. CHANGE MANAGEMENT POUCY REr-'ORT
Nigel 0_ Fnney, Deputy Exewiive Dire�r— Planning and Environm�t
7. FEBRUARY 1998 ACTIVITY REPORT FOR METRO OFFICE PARK
Gordon P. Wennerslrom, Dirn-tcr—Commerda! Management B�Airfine Affain
8. HEARING OFFICERS RF30RTIFiND�NGS CONCLt1SIONS AND ORDER — FLYING
CIOUD AIRPORT LAND ACQUISiT10N HE,�.RWG.
Mark J. Ryan, Airpart Plarner
9. APPROVAL OF US WEST PAYMENT— GTC EAS VERTICAL CIRCULATiON
Dennis ProbsZ, 8u�7ding Construction Manager
10. CAP(TA� IMPF70VEMEtJ i PROGrZAM AOJUSTM�NTS
Nigel 0. Finney, Deputy. ExecJtive Direc�r— Ptznning and Environment
11_ PRQ1E�iBUDGETAD'JUSTMENT
. Steven J. Ve�'�i, Manager Part 150 Program
'12 iUNNEUBRIOGE ENGIN�ING CONSULTANT SZECTICN
Gary G. Wacrnn, AirpoR Enginr.s '
O(SCUSS(ON .
�3. POTENTIALACQUISt1lON - BUREAU OF MWES �ROPE�iY
Nige10. Fmney, �eputy Exeadive Director—Ptanning and Ernironment
� 14. ACQL1ISffiON OF C17Y-0WNED LAND IN NEW FQRD TOWN ANO RICH ACRES
Mgel O. Finney, Deputy Ex=cutive Dir�tor— Pfanning and Envimnment
15. MASAC RESPONScTO AUDIT
Roy Fuhrmann, AviaSon Noise 8� SateJliie Programs Manager
16_ DISCUSSiON OF FEAS18(l!N/COST=INTERMEDtATEAPM STOP
Dennis Prn6sL 8ui7ding Construdion Manager
17_ DISC[1SS10N OF PARKING 57RUCTURE OE51GN PROCESS
Nige! D. Finney, IIeputy Exec�tive Oirecar— Pfanning and Envirnnment
IVI EiVi C� RAN D U 1VI � �,�M ,4
TO: Planning and EnvironmentComrniites
FROM: Nigel 0. Fnney, Oeputy �ecutive Diredoc— Planning and E.nviranment
pz�-ai e�
SUBJHCT: ACQUISIT70N �F CITY OWNED �,AND IN NEW FORO TOWN ANp
RICIi ACRES
DATE: Mard,3o,�sss
The aquisition of the R[chfieid �eighbomoods of New Ford Town and Rich Acres is nearfy
compiete. Afl of the 35t] single-family homes have 6�n acc{uired and aii but one famdy
refacated. The businesses, chur�h and aparsent ouldngs have also been aquired and the
business 6uildinqs artd aparsments wiil be vaeaied 6y. June 1 of tfiis year The ehurch has
been vacated and is scheduled for demali5on in ApriL
There aro only a few vaeant lots and the wvo parks (e� to acquire. 'i'he ;wo parks and one
vacartt lat are vwncd hy ttte City of Richfield. i ne city-owned properry has been appraised and
atters made to the Ctty an eacn parcnl. Tt;e City has atso had appraisais prepareC and there is
a suhstantial drz%rence of opinion on the value af tne lantl with 2spect;n tt�e pancs. The MAC
acpraised value for both parks is 5487,QOp wh8e the City's pmbined appraisals total
$8,030,0�0.
Ariaehed are copies of two letters imm the Cify's aCameys forthis matter (At�c+�ments 1& 2J. �
The attameys suggc�t that thc MAC ini5ate mndemnation procaedings for eactz af the two
parlcs. 5tafr and the Commission's L.and Aquisition Consultarrts and Condemnation AComeys
agree cnat a negetiated secement is unitkery wirn mis wiGe divergence ei opinion on the vaiues
ef tfie prope ,ry_ Accocdingiy, stag rennmends pro�Jtng witn pnaemnatlon. whlcti wiu
rescilt in the vaiue 6eing determined by a court-appoirrted board of commissioners
{mowledeeabiein reai estate and aP0�sa1 Pre?aration.
Previous autt�ority given to s:afF wit,h resFed to initiating mndemnatian (eminent domain)
proceedinas was limited � privately-owned parcel5: therefnre. it is nece�ary w lake spedrtc
acnon witl� 2spect tn tfle pubiicfy-owned parce!s. A proposed resolution is atso aCached
(Attachment 3) dedaring tnese adons a puCiic ourpose and aumorEzing eminern aomaln .
proceed"mgs. .
COMMfTTF= AC?lON REOUEST�
RECOMMEND TO i'HE COMMISSION ADOP IION OF THE ATTACHED RE50�U i ION
OECLARING THESE ACQU151770NS A PUH[1C PURPOSc ANO AUTHORfZJNG STAFF TO
PROC�ED WIi1i FJ1r1�NEiJTDOMAiN P40CEEDINCiS_ FURTHER,'if-tqTTHE DCECU'TtVE
C7IRECTOR OR HIS OESlGNEr BE Al.lTI-10R1Z_D TO DCECUTE TyE NECESSARY
DOCUMENTS.
w.�,.�a„vaa+c:w,
\
��
7une 29,1998
MINNE50TA RIVER VALLEY AUbUBON C�UB
Box 20400, Bloomington, Minnesota 55420
Glen Ora�Et
Fedrral Aviation Administration
602U 28th l+veuue South, Rm.102 ,
Minneapolis, MN 55450
Re: Commeuts dn the US Depattmem of Transporration Fedcral Aviation
Administration's Scxtion 4(� Evaluation for the Minncapo7is-St, Paul Iaternational
Aizpnct's new narth-south ntnway expansion. Cumments due by 7unc 30, 1998.
bear Glen Or�utt,
I am writing on bet��Lf of the Minnesota River Valiey Audubon Chapter (MItVAC�.
MRVAC is the loeal ebapter of Audubon of ap ximately 1000 members, we meet in
tht'Visuor's Cmter of tfie Minnesvta Valley � nat Wildlife Refuge.
Wc heip with many of the Refuge pmgrams, hold birding classes in the indoar
classiooms and also at the Bass Ponds, and bave many volunte.aa with the Rcfuge tfiat
3ea�vnmeous birding fieldtrips in t6e amas to be affected by this expansian. We are
co�ned about protca�ting impartant nanual resou�es and wildIife habitats. .
Because of our birding iuvolvemem wrth the Refuge I am going to conam�te uh kha
impacts of the appiaximately 84QD flights daily will have on theBass Pone�qd I.ung
Msadow Lake Unit of tbe It�fuge. Thete is no questinn that these IIights ani} t�e added
nois� levets will adveisely impacx (and probabty end} any of ots regutari�r s�duled
.f�ld�ips end outdnar classraom adivities in thcse azeas. Our members havsmme to tdy
� and expecx quaiity birding ied by our many bading e�c7�errs and these aaivities will
fiave to bc providcd in othq locations. in addi6on, these �r,as are highly zegardca fqz
9ndividaa2 manbers to talcn day hikrs and do local badi»g trips, these a�eas are rankcd as
the tnp placcs Eo bird watch in the Tbvin Cides Metc+opoli�an area. �
Bxause this expansion dors consGtute a"consauctive �.se° ta�ng of the above .
mmrioned Refuge ]ands weare in full suppozt of tht miti�ation rcquest that was
submitted by the USFWS of appm�rimately $27 million aod feel that this is a reladve!y
minor cosc oonsid�in4 the full scope of tha projxt czpansion. Wc aiso fecl that anv final
detamina6on of the �IS cannot teke plare without t6e mitigatinn package apgiuval, this
is an integral part of tbe finaiF.,nvironmental Impact Statemmt.
'ILank yas 5�r the cbsnce to evmma�t on ttva e�pansion, and �ti,cipazion ia the Opm
H�sz Wat was 6eid an Thursday, A�Gay 28th to ativw public iavolvana�t in the refu�e
muigada� Pmcess•
5ince�y, .
a����
Lo3s N�d
Pcesidmt, Mmnesata Riva Valiey Audubon Chapier,
10368 Columbus Cisle, BloomingWt►, MId 5342D
� Commission�� �ng & Envttvnmcuta! Commrttae�, Metra��olitan Aixpritte
M� 5uWvan, D'ns�, B�TF.avironmwtat Qua2ity BaaM
The Honaiable Jim Rams�d, US Coa s, MN 3rd visMct
Birk Schuttz, Managa, Minnesaa V l��.y NVYR
The FAA concurs that the cited impacts are of
concarn. See General Hesponse 7 in the
responses to comments on the FEIS.
i
�
The FAA cancurs that the cited impacts are of
, concern. See General Response 7 in the
responses to comments on the PEIS.
� � �.
�.
I
. . . . . . . . . .. . ..... .. . ....... .. . . . .. ...... ..... .... ... .. . ..... .. ..... .. .. .... ..... .. .. . .. . . ... .... .. . �r... .
June 29, 1998
Glen Orcutt, EIS
FAA/US DOT
6020 - 28th Ave. So.
Minneapolis, MN 5545�
Dear Gien:
1 am getting in late on this whole issue of airport expansion, runways, and noise
abatemet. However, I have been a Richfield resident for 12 years. in ignorance, I
assumed councii members, planning consuftants, MAC, FAA, the Minnesota legislature,
and our Govemor would have this neighbofiood's best interests at heart. This is not
so.
The weekend of Father's Day, June 20 - 21, we had 1D0 flights over our house.
Please keep in mind, the normal rate we've experienced is 2 a day. Just who thought
this scheme up, and why has it been decided that I don't need my backyard in the
summer in Minnesota? I can't make a phone cail, talk to my husband, watch N, or
sleep with the windowsopen in the summer. I repeat, this is SUMMER IN
MINNESOTA (two months of bad stedding) and I can't have my windows open bequse
of the racketl The planes start at 5:30 AM and end at 12:30AM -19 hours of airplane
noise every dayl!!. I notice the clodc when they fly over because 1 am incredulous that
ANYONE would think this is a fix ta the problem. Whether these flights are passenger,
cargo, or National Guard is irrelevant Worfcing peopie go to bed at night to sleep. J
listen to 3 hours of airplane thunder and rumbie after I go to bed! At the very Ieast, we
should be allowed to sieep! Instead of worlcing to make the house payment - the airport
should be paying me to put up with this gross intrusion of personal privacy and right to
peace and quiet Teen-agers have a curfew of 11pm in Richfield - WHY DONT
AIRPLANES HAVE A SIMILAR CURFEW HERE! Added to this mess is the expense of
running our central air canditioner every night to mume ine jet rumble. I think we should
be reimbursed for this, as we1L
Richfield was here before the airport. There is no reason to expect residents to give up
quality of life because the public now demands 20 different daily flights to Chicago, etc.
etc. etc. The demand for more flights has not been met with an equitable and
effective method to handle the noise and traffic. To expect Richfield to continualfy give
up land, peace and quiet, and a sense of community identity to the ever-increasing
airport growth and airplane travel is nothing short of immoral, illegal, and unethical.
When people buy a home, they expect a reasonable quality of life - short of natural
disasters - to be maintainerJ. This situation is not reasonable and it is a disaster!
�1. A. Please refer to responses to comments received
from the City of Richfield on the FEIS and the Section
4(fl Evaluetion.
��
Glen Orcutt
June 29, 1998
Page 2
Perheps the real motive here is to force Richfieid residents to move out on their own.
This would relieve the airport of any messy legal batties or expensive buy-outs.
Residents fleeing Richfield due to airport noise would certainty decrease property
values, too. Great buy for the airport, though. 1 don't see any evidence of new
windows, doors, and insulation being instailed in my neighborhood, either. Why make a B. B. ' The City of Richfieid participated on the
`temporary" situation bearable when it reaily isn't temporary, after all. My husband is committee that developed the Noise Mitigation Plan,
getting the house ready to seil - if someone witl buy it amid ali this rackeL No doubt, we which inciudes measures that wiil be applied to the
will seli to someone unfamiliar with Richfield; I've told everyone l know what a horribie City of Richfield. The City's redevelopment pian was
situation this is. The word will get out - Richfieid is NOT a desirable place to live proposed by the City of Richfieid, not by the MAC or
anymore. Why are you pianning all these new multiple-dweiling units? So more people the FAA. Community stabilization, which addresses
can experience the consfant nombardment of airpianes? Hellol People want a lot such factors as property values, is o�e of the measures
more for their money than the sight and sound of 50 airplanes swarming over their inciudad in that plan.
property daily. Surely the out-of-town consuitant (hired for how much money?) will
come to the same conclusion: airport noise isNOT conducive to a quality living
environment. Of course, the consuitant probabiy had to fly into Minneapolis to te(i you
that 1 can make that statement right from my backyard in Richfieid for no extra charge
at aiL
Basically, it is very arrogant and irresponsibie to assume one group of people should
bear the brunt of hardship for another group of people. The State of Minnesota and the
City of Minneapolis, et al, benefrt greaUy and largely because of the airport. Why the (
onus is on Richfield to pay the consequences of expansion with no reasonabie • �,
compensation is 6eyond practiql and logiql thought. It is medievaL
C. C. Please refer to the responses to comments A and
Move that airport - or buy out the rest of Richfield. We did not buy homes here so that e above, and to Generai Response 6 in the responses
we could later give up all quality of life. Let EVERYONE have a distance to drive to the to comments on the FEts.
airport and a peaceable home to go back, toa Otherwise, you are going to witness and
be a direct agent to the decay and collapse of a wonderfui residential area. You
wouidn't tolerate this forever - why do you think we shouidt Nothing less than
responsible behavior is acceptable. Otherwise, i recommend you ail resign {rom your
posts. You are not representing me and my neighbors properfy in this situa6on.
Thanks For Nothing!
��������
Heidi Ormond
7333 5" Avenue So.
Richfield, MN 55423
Sunday, May 10, 1998
Franklin D. Bcnson, Manager
F_4A
6020-28th Ave S, Suito 102
Mumeapois, MN 55450.2706
Dcar Mr. Benson:
The FAA and the MAC have proposcd bw7cting a new north-south nmway az
?vfmneapolislSt. Paui-Intamacim�al aQport. If consuucted, ilus nmway w�71 have a major
negative impact on thc Mmnesota Valley National W�1cDife Refuge. We are concemed by ths
sanring laek of concern shown by aaport aufhorities regarding the ur�pact on the rofug�.
The Muuiesota V alley National Wldiife Refuge is• a treasure. It is the resutt of yeazs of hard' !
woric aad is the finest m�bau ref6go m tfee counuy. Qver ZOO,d00 peopte visit the refuge
Y�Y. I[ offers coundess forms of recreadon As important, the nfu�e is an ouuloor
ctassroom used Iry school ciuidren througi�out the metropotitan ara.
No amowrt of money can reptace the harm which an'II be dono by the new nmway, The
aoise bwden �posed by tho a'vport is aiready intolerable. The mitigation ptoposed byr th�
F�sh & W�ldlife Service is izasonable and 'm our opmion too consavative.
We �iate the fact thax the aaport serves a valuable pub6c function, We ask thai the
FAA and the MAC scicnowledge t6e equally impartant recreationai func6vn pravided by the
nfuge. Tho budgeted costr for the new runway must include 526.9 m�7lion in mitigation as
nqaested by Yhe niuge. If the FA.A and the MAC cannot afford the entite cost of this
pi'ol� �e ��Y should not be.coastrvcted. .
SmcaeiY Yo�,
�5��`l-`�✓ Q`� I
s�oa w, st�x�y,
C-g'atr,c�a�" .r: si .
7110 K
Hloammgtou, vlTi 55438
cc : Rick Schuliz, Minncsota VaIley NWR
Noison Frcnch, Frieads of the M�esota Valley
The FAA concurs that the cited impacts are of
concern. See General Response 7 in the
responses to comments on the FEIS.
NAay 8, 1998
Franklin Benson, Manager
FAA Airport Distrid Office
6020 28th Avenue 5. �
Niinneapolis, MN 55450-2-%0.6
Re: Minnesata Valley Wiidlife Refuge
Oear Mr. Benson:
1 and countless other Minnesotans treasure the wiidiife refuges we can •
enjoy throughout our state. These refuges are not just for our enjoyment,
howeve� they are a necessary haven for the wiidlife that need ta have a
peaceful and spacious habitat in which to live and prosper.
The U.S. Fish and wldlife Service has conducted an eMensive
assessment of the expected threat and damage that the airport e�ansion will
bring to the wildlife community of the Minnesota Valley Wiltllife Refuge, and has
asked the FAA to purchase 4,000 new acres of wildlife habitat and the creation
of a new visitor facility to compensate the public for the loss.
This is not unreasonable. The FAA is dispuUng how much land will be
nega6vely affected 6y the noise of flights using the runvray, The new nu►way
will carry 35% of the airports' departures and 17% of its landings. That will bring
a signficantly negative impact on the Wildlife Refuge. The FAA should do
everything it can to compensate fully for the damage this rurnvay wiil bring to tfiat
area and should not fight the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in its admireble
mission to preserve one of the most beautiful urban wildlife habitats in the
c�try.
Youts truly,
�C�tew/
A Steger
3051 Highpointe Curve
Roseville, MN 55113
C
The FAA concurs that the cited impacts are of
concern. See General Response 7 in the
responses to comments on the PEIS.
\.
May s, 1998
Franklin D. Benson, Manager
FAA
6020 28"' Ave. S. Suite 102
IViinneapolis, MN 55450-2706
Dear Mc Benson:
I am writing to express my concem over the environmental impact of the new
airpart runway on the Minnesota River Valiey Wildiife Refuge.
1 am an amateur 6ircler and have enjoyed many hours watching birds at Long
Meadow Lake and ihe Black Dog power plant area. Hearing bird sounds is a big
part of bird-watching and the constant jet noise will certaiNy be a deterrent
This refuge is a treasure in that it is in an urban area, accessi6le to many, and
yet attracts such wonderful diversity. Many "firsC birds of the season are seen
here, as reported on the birding list-server, MNBIRD. Just monitoring this list-
server shaws how important this area is to us — hardty a day goes by that
someone isn'f re,;,,riing on their trp to the a: �.
I believe compensation is necessary to make up %r the degrada5on of this area.
I support tne settiement requested by the t!S Fisn and WiidliFe �ervice in this
c�se. There must be adequete acr�eage and facilfies in a quiet area to contlnue
to serve the public in the way that it is served today.
With hopes that you will reconsider your position,
Sincerely, . ,
3��2���^-�'%)�t,�t ' ' °''vl�
Kathleen Stue�nar-Hati
17635 24�' Ave. N.
Pfymouth, MN 554a7
(612}476-2359
cc: Jeff Hamiel, MAC
Richard D. Schult2, Manager MN Valley National Wildlife Refuge
Friends of MN Valley National Wildlife Refuge
The FAA concurs that the cited impacts are of
concern. See General Response 7 in the
responses to comments an the FEIS.
C�
Date
Augttst 11,1998
Attachment B
Federal Agency Correspondence
SubjecE
From U.S. EPA to FAA — Regarding coordination on NEPA process
issues
September 18,1998 From FAA to �T.S. Fish and Wildlife Service — Regarding the
Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refixge mitigation plan and the
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
September 21,1998 From Assistant Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to FAA—
Regarding the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refixge mitigation
plan and the MOA
% September 21,1998 From Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Interior to FAA—
��, - 1 Regarding the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge mitigation
plan and the MOA
September 21,1998 Memorandum of Agreement Between the Metropolitan Airports
Commission and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
C
C
Ja�tEO STqT�
s.
c� y2
$ W
c�
e
__ �
/ ,. _ _., �i�,�Tq` �ot�G��2
i �
�-�
/
� �•�
Ui�lITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 5
77 WEST JACKSON BOULEVARD
CHICAGO, IL 60604-3590
Mr. Glen Orcutt
Federal Aviation Administration
Airports District Office
6020 28th Avenue South, Room #102
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450-2706
Dear Mr. Orcutt:
REPLY TO THE ATTENTION OF:
B - 19J �' ::�"
;� �
_
�L'(� N �
4
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) appreciates having had the opportunity to
discuss the Dual Track Process used for evaluating ways to enhance aviation capacity in the
Minneapolis-St. Paul area. We believe that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has
facilitated and participated in an open dialog about this project. On July 7, 1998, EPA staff inet
with FAA staff to discuss the EPA's letter dated June 15, 1998 which compiled EPA's comments
on the Final Environmental Impact Staternent (FEIS) for the Dual Track Airport Planning
Process. The FAA has submitted two information packets (July 13, 1998 and July 27, 1998) as a
follow-up to the July 7, 1998 meeting.
EPA found the information supplied by the FAA submittals to be helpful. Although some of the
information had been previously reported in the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport
(MSP) Long-Term Comprehensive Plan (LTCP) Alternative Environmental Document (AED), it
would have been appropriate and useful to include this information in summary format in the
FEIS. In particular, efforts that reduced wetland impacts from 46.9 acres to 32.9 acres,
accomplished during the time frame between the time the AED was issued and the time the EIS
was published, would have helped to support the FAA's "Finding of No Practicable Alternative"
determination.
The FEIS is an evaluation of environmental impacts associated with future operations at MSP.
In particular, the purpose of the FEIS was to document environmental impacts at MSP resulting
from operations projected from the 2010 Long-Term Comprehensive Plan (LTCP). Although the
new North/South runway, Runway 17/35 will be a large part of the proposed changes under the
2010 LTCP, it is only part of the 2010 LTCP. Through the clarifying information obtained by
EPA, we understand that unlike Runway 4-22, the ne��� North/South Runway (Runway 17/35),
will not be used for long haul international flights. While we agree that the impacts associated
with the Runway 4-22 extension were discussed in this FEIS from a cumulative impacts
perspective, we still would have prefened to see the F:�A NEPA decision on Runwav 4-22 be
incorporated into the Dual Track EIS process. Ho�ve��er, we acknowledge that the finai course of
action is a policy decision that is the responsibility of the lead federal agenc��.
Aecycied/Recyclabie•Printed with Vegetable Oil Based inks on 1004'o Recycled Paper (40%'Postconsumer)
The issues of the worst case noise scenario and full disclosure of existing aircraft operations will
need to be resolved with regional and headquarter EPA/FAA meetings since they have significant �
ramifications for all other FAA Environmental Impact Statements cunently under preparation.
We trust that this response will be helpful to your agency. If you should have any questions,
please contact Sherry Kamke at 312-353-5794.
Sincerely,
�''�'� �.�G�Gc.� �
�
'chael W. MacMullen
Manager, Environmental Review Group
Office of Strategic Environmental Analysis
�
� �
U.S. Department
of Transportation
Federal Aviation
Administration
' : •'•�:
Mr. Dan Ashe
A.ssistant Director for Refuges and Wildlife
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Department of the Interior
Washington, D.C. 20240
Dear Mr. Ashe:
�' � .
� � � � ? 1998
_ r� f
.-,,
. -�� �/
�.
�.��,a ' �: : : --
.__._
� ---�-----.,
Thank you for hosting the headquarters meeting in which we discussed your agency's
concerns about the impacts on the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge from the
new runway proposed for the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, and for your
ongoing involvement.
I want to reiterate the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) appreciation of the value
of the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge and of its importance to the community.
There has been extensive study, with public involvement, extending over a period of years
of possibie solutions to airport capacity needs in the area, culminating in the cunent
runway proposal. The FA.A believes there is no feasible and prudent alternative and that
further search for another alternative would not be productive.
It is unfortunate that an area of the Refuge and the airport are located in such close
proximity to each other. Portions of this area have been subject to aircraft overflight noise
before the Refuge was established and in the intervening years since establishment.
Significant road and rail transportation comdors adjacent to this area of the Refuge also
contribute to the noise environment. Historical and existing noise levels have been taken
into account by the FAA in evaluating the extent to which additional noise from the
proposed run�vay would adversely afFect the activities and values associated with the
Refuge.
Noise monitoring was conducted in 1997 to measure e�cisting noise, including road and rail
noise as tivell as aircraft noise, at eight locations in the Long Meadow Lake and Black Dog
Lake units. Existin� monitored noise levels ran�ed from values of 43 to 64 dB, calculated
in 14-hour Leq. These Leq values correspond to a range of from 52 to 65 dB, when
( ) calculated in DNL. (DNL values are hi�her than Leq values because of the nighttime
2_
penalty added to the DNL metric.) This range of noise encompasses noise levels typically �
encountered in suburban and urban residential areas. ,
We have undertaken extensive review of the additional noise that would occur with the
operation of the new runway. We did this, not only using the DNL metric, but also using
Leq, peak daytime SEL, and time above methodologies. The 14-hour Leq metric was
selected in consultation with representatives of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
to relate noise exposure to hours of visitor activities in the Refuge. We paid particular
attention to noise increases that would be substantial enough to cause a change in the
noise environment sufficient to adversely affect Refuge activities and values, considering
the anticipated noise increases within the context of the cunent range of ambient noise
levels in this portion of the Refuge.
We have determined that the proposed runway will bring additional aircraft noise to a
portion of the Refuge at increased levels substantial enough to constitute "use" under
Section 4(fl of the Department of Transportation (DOT) Act. We believe the area that
would be subjected to constructive use essentially conforms to the DNL 60 dB contour,
when considering Refu�e activities, past and present noise levels within the Refuge, and
expected increases in noise with the proposed runway using the above variety of
methodologies.
The year 2005 was used in the noise analysis rather than 2010 because noise exposure will
be greater in the earlier year. By 2010, quieter aircraft technology will more than
compensate for increased numbers of aircraft operations, and noise will be reduced on �, _
both a single event and a cumulative basis. For the evaluation of overall noise impacts and
aircraft operations over the Refuge, the FAA was careful to use reasonable operational
levels consistent with FAA's Terminal Area Forecast.
The FAA's Section 4(fl determination has not been quickly or (ightly reached, and it by no
means minimizes our estimation of the effect of increases in aircraft noise in the central
portion of the combined Long Meadow Lake and Black Dog Lake units. Our
distinguishing between publicly-owned and privately-owned Refuge lands within these
units is due to the statutory scope of Section 4(fl, which specifically includes only
publicly-owned lands of a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge.
With respect to mitijation, the FAA's standard is that of Section 4(�, i.e., all possible
planning to minimize harm from the use of Section 4(� lands. You have confirmed that
our two ajencies are agreed that appropriate financial compensation to FWS, which can
then be used by FWS to establish Refuge facilities in other areas removed from the airport
vicinity, is the appropriate mitigation approach to minimize harm. Subject to further
discussion and consistent with rec�uirements that must be adhered to by airport
proprietors, the provision to FWS of retail and e.chibit space in the airport terminal by the
Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) may be included within the compensation
agreement in lieu of a portion of the monetary settlement.
_ __ \
- I am pleased that a Memorandum of Agreement regarding this mitigation is being
1 finalized. Preliminary indications are that an amicable settlement can be reached on the
amount of compensation, although the appraisal process is not estimated to be completed
until the end of September 1998. Preliminary results from the appraiser have found that
real property damages to the existing Refuge property will be no less than $20 million.
The FAA acknowledges that additional compensation above the $ZO million amount will
be offered for costs necessary to realign the Refuge (e.g., new facilities, design,
engineering wark, overhead tied directly to the realignment) and for increased costs to
operate the Refuge facilities. The process of appraisal and settlement uses methodologies
and fallow� requirements which consider the types of concerns raised by FWS that have a
bearing on the final compensation amount.
I assure you that the FAA intends to work diligently with MAC and FWS to resolve the
compensation amount in the public interest. The FAA is proposing to issue a Record of
Decision with the clear commitment to expeditiously reach a final settlement amount with
FWS and MAC before a Federal grant or the use of passenger facility charges could be
approved for any projects approved in the Record of Decision.
I trust that the many recent meetings and exchanges of information between our agencies,
the Memorandum of Agreement, and the assurances in this letter have served to resolve
previous verbal and written FWS objections.
' ._ _ Sincerely,
� )
��
���
�����
Lynne Sparks Pickard
Manager, Community and Environmental
Needs Division
���
(��l
,
.
United States Department of the Interior
In Reply Refer To:
FWS/ARW
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Washington, D.C. 20240
Ms. Lynne Pickard
Manager, Community and Environmental
Needs Division
Federal Aviation Administration
800 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, .U.t.:. lU�yl
Dear Ms. Pickard:
�.A.A., MFis.
�i,�ports Dist. Off.
s�P z 3 �g9a
Over the past several months, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Metropolitan Airports
Comrnission (MAC), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) have worked diligently to
address adverse impacts to lands of the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge (MNVNWR)
that are anticipated to resuit from the proposed addition of Runway 17/35 at the Minneapolis-St.
Paul Intemational Airport.
We are pleased that our respective agencies have negotiated and will soon be signing a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) (copy enclosed) that proposes compensation to address our
concerns regarding impacts to l��iNVNWR. resulting from runway expansion. All of our previous
concerns have been resolved through discussions with FA.A and MAC and by the compensation
presented in the MOA. As we have discussed, the adequacy of the implementation of the plan to
minimize harm to the refuge depends upon successful negotiation of additional compensation for
the realignment of and increased costs to operate the refuge, as called for in the MOA. Based on
our extremely cooperative work to this point, with both the FAA and MAC, I foresee no barriers
to swift and positive resolution of all remaining compensation matters.
We appreciate the efforts ot I�IAC and FAA. in working with the Service to reach agreement on
the MOA and look forward to completing negotiations in the very near future.
Sincerely,
.
Daniel M. Ashe
Assistant Director -
Rcfuges and Wildlife
� � Enclosure
� _.r�
r.
C�
C
_ C�
LTnited States I�epartment of the Interior
ER95/869 & 98/316
Ms. Jane F. Garvey
Administrator
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240
Federal Aviation Administration
800 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, D.C. 20591
Dear Ms. Garvey:
� .. Mp:>.
���. c,i�.
SEP 2 3 ,Gg�
•V�: '" ;
Over the past several months, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Metropolitan Airports
Commission (MAC), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) have worked diligently to
resolve issues related to Section 4(fj constructive use of lands of the Minnesota Valley National
Wildlife Refuge (l�!IIVVNWR) anticipated to result from the proposed addition of Runway 17/35
at the Minneapolis-St. Paul Intemational Airport (MSP).
j' � As expressed in our June 30, 1998, and earlier letters regarding the Section 4(� Evaluation of
- May 1998, we were concerned that alternatives to the expansion of MSP and alternative runway
alignments at MSP had not been adequately evaluated in light of the need to take refuge lands,
and we could not, therefore, concur that there were no feasible and prudent alternatives to the
proposed action. In discussions since that time, FAA and MAC have more clearly articulated
their evaluation of the altematives with regard to Section 4(� impacts. The Service has also
come to recognize that each of the alternatives that would avoid impacts to MNVNWR result in
other unique problems that preclude their selection. Therefore, the Department of the Interior
now concurs that there are no feasible and prudent alternatives to the constructive use of Service
lands resulting from the construction of a new runway at MSP.
The FA.A and the Service have discussed in more depth the considerations and analysis that �vent
into FA.A's Section 4( fl Evaluation. Discussions have confirmed that the Service, FAA, and
iVIAC are in general agreement on the scope of impacts that need to be mitigated.
The Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) (copy enclosed) that has been agreed to by FAA, MAC.
and the Service includes specific measures needed to minimize harxn. Based on the signing of
the MOA, its inclusion as part of the Record of Decision for the project, and pendin� successful
neQotiation of additional compensation for the realianment of and increased costs to operate the
Ms. Jane F. Garvey 2
refuge, the Department of the Interior concurs that the project includes all possible planning to
minimize harm to M:NVNWR..
We recognize that FAA is working with its partners on the Federai Interagency Committee on
Aircraft Noise to deterniine whether there are noise metrics better suited to evaluating impacts on
national parks. Agreement on such a metric will go far in facilitating earlier resolution of
wildlife refuge issues such as this.
We appreciate the efforts of MAC and FAA in working with the Service to reach agreement on
the MOA and look forward to continued cooperation in its implernentation.
Sincerely,
/'�r f,�.�„ cF � l. � �^„�� "
� ��/
Willie R. Taylor
Director, Office of Environmental
Policy and Compliance
Enclosure
�
C�
C
•�• � � • �
.
.
��.� .. . �.�� �, .: �.
AND THE
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
A. Purpose
The purpose of this document is to formalize a binding PVlemorandum of Agreement
(MOA) between the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Senrice (USFWS) regarding unavoidable adverse impacts to the Minnesota
Valley National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) anticipated to be caused by the construction
and operation of proposed Runway 17/35 at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport
(MSP) and for the mitigation of those impacts to the Refuge. This Agreement is
necessary to document the mitigation that will occur in response to the anticipated
unavoidable adverse impacts to the Refuge caused by the proposed Project, and
provides a specific program to satisfy all possible planning to minimize the harm
documented in the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) finding of "constructive use" as
determined in accordance with Section 4(fi� of the 1966 U.S. Department of
Transportation Act [49 U.S.C. 303(c)].
i; � This MOA is hereby made and entered into between MAC and USFWS under the
�_; authority, respectively, of Minnesota Statutes 473.801 and of 16 U.S.C. 668dd. The
FAA is signing this MOA as a"concurring" party to show its good faith and intent to fully
enforce this MOA and relative conditions in the FAA's Record of Decision. The FAA
agrees to withhold approval of any Federal grant or approval to use passenger facility
charges relative to the construction of Runway 17/35 pending completion, to the mutual
satisfaction of all parties, of further negotiations required in Section B.
This MOA will be an official portion of the Record of Decision for this Project.
B. Stipulation
Mitigation to the USFWS
The parties to this MOA have agreed, and stipulate, that the mitigation to offset
unavoidable adverse project impacts to the Refuge will be a cash settlement paid by the
MAC to USFWS, to be deposited into an account approved by and accessible to the
USFWS. The amount of the cash settlement by MAC will be based on appraised values
in conformance with applicable appraisal standards and regulations. In no case shall the
amount of the cash settlement for real property damages to the existing Refuge property
be less than $20 million, which is based on an estimate of valuation by the appraiser.
Additional compensation of jamount to be determined� will be provided to USFWS to
realign the Refuge (e.g., new facilities, design, engineering work, overhead tied directly
,- to the realignment). Finally, for increased costs to operate Refuge facilities, �mount to
� ) be determined� will be provided to USFWS. The final appraisal may include
`
MOA between MAC and USFWS 2
compensation for these additional items. If it does not, compensation wiii be negotiated.
In lieu of (amount to be determin �� monetary compensation, USFWS and MAC will �
consider quality retail and exhibit space in the MSP terminaL
The parties agree to complete negotiations within 60 days following receipt of the final
appraisal.
The funds constituting the settlement amount will be deposited into the account
approved by and accessible to the USFWS within 120 days following start of
construction of proposed Runway 17/35. .
USFWS agrees that any settlement received from the MAC will be expended on projects
designed to offset or replace Refuge land, facilities, and/or programs impacted by the
construction and/or operation of proposed Runway 17/35.
Mutual Assurances Amona the Parties
It is anticipated that the mitigation specified in this IV10A (pending completion of further
negotiations required in Section B) will be sufficient to provide the Refuge with
replacement land of habitat quality equal to that which will be impacted by the Project,
and to provide for the construction of ponds, hiking trails and trail markers, and other site
improvements which will be necessary to replace comparable Refuge components
adversely impacted as a result of the construction and operation of proposed Runway
17/35 at MSP.
Therefore, the parties to this IV10A have agreed, and stipulate, that the mitigation to be �
provided to the USFWS as specified above (pending completion of further negotiations ��
required in Section B) provides full compensation for the impacts of proposed Runway
17/35 upon the Refuge. The parties further agree and stipulate that in exchange for this
compensation, heights of structures or objects shall be limited such that they do not
exceed the criteria of 14 CFR 77.25 and aircraft shall have the right of flight and to make
noise over Refuge property located within the Long Meadow Lake and Black Dog Units
that are the subject of this compensation.
Nothing in this MOA precludes or limits the USFWS from continuing to appropriately
manage Refuge lands.
C. Il�odification or Termination
This MOA will continue in full force as long as the existing MSP site continues to be used
as an airport. At any time the MAC or the USFWS may request consultations to review
terms and conditions of this fVIOA.
MOA between MAC and USFWS
D. ExeCution
In witness whereof, the following agents, having fuil authority to legaily act and commit
for their respective agencies, have hereto caused this AlIOA to be executed as of the last
date herein signed. This MOA may be amended by mutual written agreement of the
parties.
tViETROPOLIT IR O TS COMMI SION
BY: �' .� �
J rey . Ha iel
xecutive Director
UNITED STA
�
Regional Director
CONCURRENCE:
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
BY: .`-r�...,J�,� ' � %�,�+,,
Franklin D. Benson
Manager, Airports District Office
DATE: / L�� /��
DATE: 1 � �? c �
DATE: _� - Zl��'
C
C�
C.
, __ Attachment C
1
Late-Filed Comments on the FEIS and Responses
Attachment C contains copies of correspondence received after the close of the public
comment period for the FEIS on june 15,1998. These letters are identified as late-filed
comments. While not legally or otherwise obligated to respond to the content of these
letters, the FAA has chosen to respond on this correspondence in the interest of working
with these commentors in pursuing efforts to resolve these matters.
The three letters responded to within this attachment are as follows:
• August 18,1998—Letter from the City of Richfield to the FAA
• August 24,1998—Letter from the Richfield Care Team to the FAA
• August 27,1998—Letter from the City of Richfield to the FAA
Each of the above letters is presented on the following pages, along with responses.
.�
G
W
'p
Y
{�
u
a
`o
�
0
w
�
P
�
m
r�.
s
M
e
a.
� ��
d
V
0
�
e.
d
�
t0
�
c�
..C�'
U
�
�
�
r
�
N
�
O1
Q
�
d
rn
10 0
C �
f0
� �
c �
o �Z
C � �
� Q tq
m
Y L O
� N �
�- o c
`�N C
�Ll..f�D�L
C
O
N
C
d
m
V
�
m
N
O
`oE
� }{ F
�..
`o = r u
o � �,�
:� G •p ,�
�O U
'�� � ,uG p
_ �y u o u
0
� � �� u
3n�uo.�
u
V
T � O �
m����
Q p
u u G u '"
� 1'j. V i 5u
�.5 �s.d
•c � � � •�0
m
� C
u = � u G
E's�c� o
����
i ti �' � 9
W C n.=O �
u �� E .+
a, u °n
� �
�
U
.." ` � N �
p p � m N„
� v� � C 4
6 Y� �
� q � W Y
sA�o
0
e o� � €
�'�Eo�
C C
u�io 8=a
y
� Q O
_ � o
0
'v o �
��� •
o � ,^
p N „ ?�
'� .�O N m
� f.'�- a a
fD N Q
0 0 � m
dato
cQ�'
� �� �
y�-= C
� N ...
C
G) y ,= O
�O 0 N Q�
o, � c
� d � N
d C � �
��L
N
w lp ;C O
�. 3 E
�� c-
.=�,Em
t0
a�i'�Oo
N f� T1 Ol
� 'C N �E
U Z V N
C
a' N � C
T
�a��
O y y
� a � o,
�C CI
t� 'C N ..�
0 v�
O V. O p p�
o 'a > H '"
T' -x 3 „ .''% o � �a
�"`_'�����
V.�r�. � 'r� q � .c �
LL �.�. C �'. � 'G C
u �n � a `u
i �
C 9 U� W q D
�- ro u
���°`��•�
„ �y c
� 9 `o '" ti '� e .c
v�3�,s.�.�2'0.
� � � p v�i p E
�o a�a � G � � W
O �.K
g�u4. v•�si.e
u•0 • u u u'�°+ c
^ n o
C C CO ` Q y y•
T.„ !� •� �
� _ � � � � y �
� u � .c R. e�d • m
= '' v GJ o � ? _
-A��
'� e
o_ �'A �.�
_ "' � �9 O 9 6
��i° ��a9p
� � � � D A = N
In U G � N
p o o u--
��os.^Z•' �'o
ty � O y d W'o c
u m.c �� o'� �
Cy= o� • � �
O � � .VQ. � � y �
� G O� O'^•�, 4: Y
U: a C �+� o� o.'�,
'Jr. � C m rj ,�j E `�' Cp.
� �y u � � � v
•c'„' �3�
N � � V�p •� ,fl a G
�^ � A Y'O �'i Y r
u .p
ua�v=�bas
�
m
r
'o
'O
s
�
�
W
�
'rJ'
.�..
u
9
0
�
�
i
x
�
a
�
N
<
�
�
Q
� u
G a
C "" �
>. O � � — ..�_
3�i� � y o?,,, .fl n,
C°''o, p��,o Uj �c m� �
�� E N�� .p � c 3.c � �
L � � o a
_¢�.n.s.�. � � m wr � m= a�
�tiA m os'_ o m c'°�=,a� 3
�'-s � �►- E a�;=•E � _� �
� o°°tn 3 c y 3v o=Z °
Z � °.W �'° �'n � � � y
,G y 0 � f0 � � V � y .N � m �
�p C ,,,,, "' � v ?. � _ � .O
�o � � E� N'� �n � v �--.c
C`- � Uf � C�p C? '� N L� y.0
NN•- m`. �o � C m�"' ��
c�'i ��'°�mcO°�dc���9
w c „r
am >.y ��? io�.-•- c° 0 3
�� � ��v g'°c E -o
'O T• � �- O v7
iO „'_,,, Q � � p � � V � � � C N
_'- � N� C� N y � a U V=
0 3 »:. :� w o ,�a,, 'o !� -. E !- �
> N I� �•- C p f0 � G��2
N U) p ,� j9 f6 T C L �.. p�._ �
p, C_ N� �N C U�, � N m E_
'p d t� p. N C U� E W�y �
tp 7. ��O � � t/� d C.r. t0 ...,
O C .0 � � � N � tn �. O �
'C G
C N�}• �- C� y�� y y
0 0.= ��_�n �� a��i�..s o E.�
•`��m� Va.o3,�=uNi�ai
E 3���g E= o a,�'E vi o
U� � 3�'C oim,=•C= o�� o
0�o�'3�Q,-- �U sa
N G'p i7 'O C C d.O N 1n Z. '_
ain.�c�L � m�:� m � o �t,� �
�v�.o�--rn.omv,o.�am �
4 c�i d°°:° � v acao oQ o�r.
C v� �.-. �p � o N�,'C �`�
tU �p V�,O C� C- N C._ L C
o"' o aav°;o E¢ aN n.�� rn
� ... � l9 �
�� aa� rnv, � ou-`o�.
�?^ � O�O C d N„ C
� �U� `�n,� T.C�.N T�(n� aEi
tL- c. h�-� a r�' N C� F- N'� N� G
� �
W� Q� �� D � N
O ��
�N �' �����'
� ��
u � � � � �i � ¢
Y
N
N
�
�
o�
c. �
m
'o �
a�
a3i T
ayi g
a �
O �
0
'� �
E .�
0
cr d
• o .o
N p,'y
� O O
O.
�_"' � f0
N
R � O
D
p � N
G. � t0
� p� tD
� j >.
. �
��oN
� N �
N Q1 a
� � O
.� O T
� � �
� U �
°'�y:
V � �
L E
0 � r
� y ...
U��'
d � U
,= N N
� N �
�
�� �
N
\ N
a rn
�- . tU
c
U ��,
� • � �
0
flJOy
�yE
� � m
��"SC7
� o o•
rnm m
NUv�v�
v
n. o
OV
C
�
. � p �--_ V�,�.D
August 28, 1998
Mr. James D. Prosser
City Manager
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, Minnesota 55423
Dear IVir. Prosser:
This is in response to your August 18, 1998, letter expressing concern for low
frequency noise impacts on residents of Richfield from proposed expansion of
the Nlinneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP) and requesting a meeting to
discuss this matter.
The planning and environmenta) process leading to a pending decision on
- expansion of MSP has been extensive. The process began with the enactment of
�f ,) the Metropolitan Airport Planning Act by the Minnesota Legislature in 1989 and
has continued through with the issuance of a Draft Environmental Impact
Statement in December 1995 and a Final Environmental Impact Statement in
May 1998.
Comments that the FAA has received regarding possible low frequency noise
impacts will be addressed in our Record of Decision (ROD) which culminates the
Federal environmental process. Studies on low frequency noise prepared for the
City of Richfield have been submitted to and reviewed by the FAA and they also
will be addressed in the ROD. In addition, to the extent practicable, comments
received on the FEIS, such as your letter, will also be addressed in the ROD.
Since the FAA is currently into its decision-making process for the proposed MSP
expansion project a meeting with your organization is not considered to be
appropriate at this time.
Sincerely,
�riQine) 5igned By
Fr�nklin D. Benson
Franklin D. Benson
Manager
� )
,
OFFICIAI Fll.E COPV
cc: AGL-610/APP-600
� File: iViSP Dual Track ROD
WP: Prosser.doc
AGL-iVISP-ADO-680, RHuber, rah,612-713-4357,8/28/98
2
C
C.
_---� • [7
.,�''>`� `e=' C
..� `.. a`. �
nga•� !-. ',:�:
rFr-E'^t .i ' �
.».�iE='��f-.:F , :_`
i;•�i71, , .,
� � �,;. . -
_�1.'.=��=�� :d�.'.•��:i �;� 3
'�
�
�
w
.v �
�
� �
� �
'.-`�;; f�.r.�..�,s.,� �
. ^ �:-.
'' , %.:: �:-;s', �
. _ : •• w
. �y �
. ,.�
►--„ .. •-' �
. .
._. . .
.. • ��. .. ::.
..;::.,.
( � .
OC
O�
o,
�
'*
N
�
.Q'
G
'S
�
h
�
O
a
r
w
O
�
m
� � � �
� o =
•� ��',� > �
� ¢ o
� � � � �
v � � � y
c v
�v ���
Q�� � q
V
� �1y It"r N Q
C
�,��� o v �
��o�
N � �G Q y Q
.�� �� o��
c0 cci v � e`c� . � �
� � o � � •� �
�������
� � O
�.Nop�o�
a
�F � � � v � tC
7., ar '� N �..
C•��U�f.�
(� � �^ .� . r� � o,
'� a N ,2 3 � �
y � � -o F" -- '�,
v _' y ;"' w
V � a l� '� �
a �a.�.g� �
� � � 3 V
�.�-�w� y
o rn o .� `„
�
� °'='�r'��
.- � o 0
:��v���a�
s� o �'r' �
o � � c�i o �
� o � `' :^ o o �
:a ' -v o � v' o �
��F N v c'^ ` b a`�
E c�7c C.d� �T_ v
SA o
3 0` n..�¢ o�in
$
'o
�
c
u
E
E
0
C.1
Q
��
C r:N
s�.- �
.. � y �. �
W Ti ^ s � 1+
� � �
� � ,n'di„�`��. �x
�1 . .� ^-� m o � y �;
', � � h. � a%?y p �"'�,,, O
� � � ti � � �� O
C Q �y � -,,�, .fi � t.
.� -Ng���,fi�a
O C � � ry � � �
�
� � v > r�, �, o
,,, t,� h � b
� �c v �� i. � � �
� � � O b o�,,,,- �p r. j
�o
'� W.�C C y O O O�
� a� •t� v '^ � � � O
b.a N� � � o'`
�7 � � � v ` v � •r'�°
�
n> v'+ •= � fi '� �. �O �
� � a ,��' ,�ti�„ h C ;,,
� 4
.r'�" � y� y� b fi O
� � ti � g
� � � � o � b � �
o= 5�;=,�Qo
y v� N. � L fi��
a� �
e�v C a.r r�. t+ ��¢+ ,�
3 � '� = b c b ^- ��
o a '^ � ;' y �
o 'r,^� c�, 5 � � d `'=, �
K
a� ^ W.-: '� d 3 a�
� v � a "°'b
U � „"� C ' ` '.�i y `, O
�
c�o 3�,��„ mp`� �`''�^
� v e: y � �, a, �,
►-�+R.''� v O V '�' q'.O
�
H
�
U
-v
v
�
a
H
C
C"
= O
C EU p'�
:� •� '� 3 a.•= " �
�
_ � -o � � � .o o �
� �Ct--� "� ��
I � o � �o ., �
6 G e`y �„ u'�
m.= 'bN o'� u o a,� c�i
_ .,
..... �� �'r�'� o•a u u�p o u
C�j = w� N V U� H
U �
O'� '� y� 6� O.0 C
= 1� �•E Y� � U O G
ai u u A> o � c�
��'' n0 u �' n .cx 'fl •C
"V .N {iw V G 'O M1i �� �p �
N C•� u.o c u�.:.
� y..C. -Y C S 1C t�J p, p
,�3 '_' " G —
A �o c ,_ �y. " 'a '° o
S��� � C� 7� U tGJ
�a.��m'�aEb•�E
� � ,o , c � c E
'r m . .a o
�= u m 5 C=� 'o ' V u �
a ^ � ` R
o•
� � �0".3 '`u '"' .o ;°..-n a c s
u � m G. �•- • .
� r R
� mY= E
' � ein:= " e o� c C'a
e � � � t�J ^ �'p � V
O
C� r N�C C C C O u
� U.p N tC/ � C'C � pq
G
O�^D'� t`� P Y= Gr C vi
,,,, ,A„ 5� � C o Q. �.,c° "�
:E X�.m ;o•m u �
� � oo � C' c�"' = w u
u� 'o o. ,c u "+ �
c >�~ e u'o=,L=;v�
O �
.'� i� C R� V N` tJ
c.� 'v �.� c C'C u�p 1J'
� v �D io .O • . � p � ,C
u
�3 c n:°...-°� � ` s m
�n�� o E o c.°� ^ c
u•
o�> ic .�.i u� mho 2
o � .�G O � [r > � u � •r
�t � � �o� °�E'�.�i c
G
G
O
v "
< 3 u v
� o��� �
� � s u
���� �
r
y ° r � a
`0
R
G �m u C �
C F � h N
V C G E r
p p'� tJ �
u � u•� E
i'�' u > c u°
u
D O C u =
d N
o V y E u
C p
� j � u O
G
ie e+ 3 t0 0
E�C.S a
$ �3 6�i. 'C' C
� = u �
h F = �
� � r � �
.mt/] N C p
,fl L V u C
D � O
U � n � u
� Y c E 'C
�p C v�
� u .� u .�
oa3,o'_'
u
E c� u � �
�Cu
� G" C (-+ p
'$ D Y ' _
�.�DC C �
. o �
C � c ^ �
u, n � � e
�'o u E'+
eF- Z o: 'm 'oo
U
�
,. ,.�a _ � , . ...�.a , , .._ .,. � ,� ._ .�., �
�tit._ _ss: �,.».�,�,„,.
61 N �
dD 0 � �
�a3�=�
w � 3
� � o �+
d
n,��U�
�.�y��
�
o v � E"' �
�� � � �
� u v
w � � �
� `." •� ru
>,.o � .c
� U
G � L+.+ � N �
.y � � � � �
� �
� v �° r'
��m � �
�=.o�
v � � co 0 0
a'� 3 � u c�
�m���R
� � C � d O
m � = '-� $ �
}� R y> y
�a
0 0 � ,� .c "�
� •'i� � � m cn
� > � ° '�
� � �� a
.n O
� � � � �
� cQ `",_,J" ts: > '�
W � -� � �
� � � y �
> �
� � � �
O R. p .�
a $ Y � >,
m ,a
� °' .r .� �
. � O V
�� � �
� ' � � tS7
� � -� L o
��� �o�
�r� '�' '- `b �
�
� � � 3 N
in m y
� d C
� O, � D cC
'd
a��-��
� � `� � �
v
rd °' � 'fl a
� u
�o�A�
b �
�•��� �
o � o
vNS � n.� tJ
� �o � � a
" � � .�
a. ;� .,a 3 ,�
Vt �°' 47 � c.
'L7 -� � n3i • �
� �* . � y�j . m
H
3ca��"
C
� � b �
O
�..� �
oW m 3`.�
� iO � � � O v'
.� �Z v �
>,
� a � � � � b
� � � O � � p
��.��3��
n, � � a sy b �
� �' -5 �� '.� � ❑
�� .� � � .1'��° T' .�
v. �p,, a> >
p � ' U y � � G�7
� z
a p � � ..� O �
x � .€� �.g ��
a a, �' ;c �, � �
x:cc��i���>
,,,� � a, w �v c o
�;� o o.� °: "
�� � � o
.'�3 -v � i, ,a
� � � 3 Q C "�J
� y
� � � v �
��'c� �� �
a� � o
n`�yi a'� ca��7U
y' t� ��� R7 . g r
•- .� � � v o p
N '� p, y o4 e'
3.�e�ca'�i.�oQ
I:!
.�
0
a.
0
� o
� �
� U
v
�
w �;
N�
� et�
t�7 w
a> .�
� a
u
V
C�
�� -
_ _ C�
�
—� - 0 ?' _ � `' �
August 28, 1998
Mr. Charles Starner
CARE Team Co-Ghair
The Richfield CARE Team
6515 - 18th Avenue
Richfield, Minnesota 55423
Dear Mr. Starner:
This is in response to your August 24, 1998, letters to Ms. Cecelia Hunziker and
Mr. Larry Ladendorf of the Federai Aviation Administration's Great Lakes Region.
You expressed concern for low frequency noise impacts on residents of Richfield
resulting from proposed expansion of the Minneapolis-St. Paul International
Airport (MSP) and requested a meeting to discuss this matter.
The planning and environmental process leading to a pending decision on
� ) expansion of MSP has been extensive. The process began with the enactment of
the Metropolitan Airport Planning Act by the Minnesota Legislature in 1989 and
has continued through with the issuance of a Draft Environmental Impact
Statement in December 1995 and a Final Environmental Impact Statement in
May 1998.
Comments that the FAA has received regarding possible low frequency noise
impacts will be addressed in our Record of Decision (ROD) which culminates the
Federal environmental process. Studies on low frequency noise prepared for the
City of Richfield have been submitted to and reviewed by the FAA and they also
will be addressed in the ROD. In addition, to the extent practicable, comments
received on the FEIS, such as your letter, will also be addressed in the ROD.
Since the FAA is currently into its decision-making process for the proposed IV�SP
expansion project a meeting with your organization is not considered to be
appropriate at this time.
Sincerely,
Original Signed By
Franklin D. Benson
� � Franklin D. Benson
-- Manager
OFFICIAL FILE COPY
_�
��
'TE
� l�gl �s
UTING SYM80L
�8� �
r`�u�sa.i.s.��c
_ ✓ '�
�
�,3� �g
6d�
�
8 - �--� - q�
2
cc: AGL-610/APP-600 .-
�
File: AIISP Dual Track ROD
WP: CARE response.doc
AGL-MSP-ADO-680, RHuber,rah,612-713-4357,8/28/98
w
'O
u
�
�
a
�
U
�
�
�
�
a
�
N
7
C
Y
c
a
Y
a
�
W
�
Z
W
�
�
W
�
}
m
0
W
�
W
�
J
W
�
`
Y
�
rn
rn
n
N
N
7
m
�
Q
ti
0
a
�a
m
�
G
�
N
V L
c � � u�i
0 0 o c
c ` � �
m N � Z
0 � � �
C � Q m
c y a� T °a
� �p Q N G)
C QQ
� � LL � � �
f0
T
N
3
c
�
d'
v
d
0
�.
O
a`r
� O
c a
E ;Q
d
c t0
O C
U °
m �
� �
N �
N C
N�
N =
z° a
U y
c�
� N
Q O
a a
tL N
C
J �
d
�
� wtn = rt'S� tn
w t// V ��� � W(�
0 0� `a �z ��
Z� °Y ' W�~�i
� p � � u> � �' a
� w tt t Q 2 �n �
C
0
N
c
w
m
�
N
d
�
� O
ma
�G Q
m �
U C
G
� O
c c
o �
� C
� —
N C
� O
c m
U L
Ct�o
'= 3
N
W Q vj
� E o
o _. a
W
c m m
N C
m ._
� .p O
— jp O
m
m °� m
� E�
� � o
N
N C '�
� n
� U U
7
Q � rn
�' Q N
E � o
C .= U
°a 3 u�i
� ° E
m `o �
.3 c --;
D �p y
LL � m
.o
'p
0
0
L
0
�
s
rn
.�
Z
'D
O
3
Q
o n
N �
m
T r'
'm Q
C N
� T
N �
�O �
Z
U -�
w �
m ?
N
L1. Q
.a
m
J �
U
�''S �
�i N
r �
0 0
a�
N
� �
m �
C U
lL Q
.
�
U
�
`u
�
c
u
'�v
C
E
�
b
'�
G
s
s
Sy
L
a
u
ii
�
V �
o �
a u
'uU �
` h
� c
� U
U C
5 "
O Q.
= u
u�
� � .
< o
G .�..
4
r
O
a
Q
G
0
.�
c
Q�
c
C
0
m
c
t
>
w
E
� m
�� rn
m °i
m =
Q
N Q
•o ...
Z C
�
o �
v o
Y �
N C
E' Ip
AS
C w3
� a`�
v—
d�
LL
N
J �2
O N
T �
� _
��
.O
C
N
M
a
Q
t'
O
a
Q
m
C
0
.�
C
`m
C
C
0
`o,
G
L
�
w
O
f9 �
m °�
�a
t0 c
G �
O
t0 =
N n'
C �
�
c `�
o w
� C
m �
c
'� w
a� �
� �
� O
� O
C N
O �
O) 01
C �
:c Q
N
?(p N
> �
v o
O �
E �
. _
r V
m �
tO Z
�m
m
w �
o �
Q ,L7
W d
� �_
N t
�O �
Z
� c
'0 �w
'Q o
C W
m �
�
w v
LL �
Q
�x
U.�
J 'O
c
m �
� `o
U n'
C Q
s� o
.� .0
E Q) Q�i
� C �
u ,�
�p N �
U G.., d O O
a.E e E m� �
� = o u p .� m
, O > �
s O.p.9'p V ;...
� � � � C U E
��. u.:�
o �'�'� 3 c
'� u.3 �
�' $ iv w t' ��
t Y b .G .� _ '�
a� ? u` ` ° a
m �.. � � u �
a. o � .� u �o
.o c � �O � �
�o a �_ � �
� ._ � u c o
�� {t� s v7 � u
.o � { � c�
�p V" •� M m d N
� u ,ti `o � � �u
u'�•v
o'��� � o�
v �'�,c t �'c
o u t^ o'�" f:' ^�'
.�J �. V'O � � u
C` Q'+ � �` '�" t�.
.. � •e e > .. o
c
u p V.° u C T
'`� ,vi u 'C •C �c
0�2�4,0
u
C� V p iC c.c
Q E � " � = .o
.� U O' � C�^. � U
U� V C 4 U h
'c�' C g'° u" c o
a•p C � u 'O •. ry
v� .V �'O p `
u �C � 4.� � G i
C F o O� b=�
� �n, �„ �,6 °s.�
e ��.,, m �= u
i�r '�
� E � N�r '� �
�� - � r N �
� a � u N c�i
v��o .-= m=t E
R1
• �,
N
L p 19 L'O m >p
N 'D � n' N .0 > �
c�^� a~m m
� p(Tp O� jp O N
�acmaE�;�o
V a� N L Ul O W`d
m-a .� L � w a
=s NE- `o? �� m
�°n o a �o � � � o �
�- ° ` a ; -: o. �' °a
j y1 �. L C C`l � O
U
> � o m ..- 'm n
m �
.c �� a. 3 0
� a� o rn c ° �
� E � y = O O
t'� o E•� o o y
�y ,a a U a� .m a>. u
t GN L "' N U t0
¢ � � � j a
.c � c ° m a'E
� @ ° y .c a � v
v � �z v"E `9�p
� acm ��0 5
°7 w m—�01 a� o m>,
C 3 C.0 � L m= C
O O—'p O.V .� W Q7
E m� w a�• m Q.
.ocaE��EN°'
E ' � ° �`
N� f� � C D� � S�
_O C N �' � O O GEI D
O U O In C� Q'O N y
C a N �> �. N>` U
L G p� b t9 v f0 r 1p N
u o c� �'v � o c E
�•�, c �� c�j am
Z � � � ^ ui `i � ° m
f� C • .a LL N?, N
CD O� C N N N O� L
T V f0 'D L L � L 3
_� G U O 19 C`O 7 O
� a .c m
N�N � C�1 >>' yj •VN-i N O
>, L N fU �(0 p fp
L C O!L V�i C 0. W O�
t- m vJ 3 m ��' L`a E
O�
v
i.
m
�n
m
u
Q
LL
0
0
�
m
m
m
�o �
�z
° Na
'; o ;
_ Z
� Z ;
�' � i
� O Y
w •-
LL
U �
�
�
z
w
>
Q
a
z
Q
�
�
C
O
a
0
u
C���
C
_ _C
� )
c
0
y �
C p�
m �
ON
C "' N
'Y 7 Gl
G ��
LL Q n.
�
5 � � r
c � 7� u �q � E �
.p � �e c 'L u ��'
o° E � � � v �
. � y
o = o �= �C 'v •m �= m
n E ry �� u,= . c
r�°' � o�= C � s c
� a„ o m �
` � � u o y vi � C
� � � r w
� u$ � G_ u u�
�U �n y ��+ N.0 u N
Cl
0'= mZ •,c,o "—
0 2 ° u'a �> m� 10
'C 0�C � � � p�•C
3 C� ��;y e' a�a u
�"''OO�n �d�o m�
m,$ o Ea �:=c
'- z ° � o o � :°
0 0 _ �p `
= p N O G. ` ,p •N
rti � � _ ,o � b = �
N�n r
y u' r�.mC � V C
jJ' E w f: '�'��` � 1'F� �.O
cU'9 � m" t N c
>.�.E•-v ° o
= c vJ c Z c E.`' o u
o �• c
'o °u n> .s�„ � � u o
�° c �
� u,E u c o m u e
==„e'v�E o��
y'����o y n �o u �i
�,., ac4:.
O y V � r ,7
C'O C �. .� .D C = 'G
V � . y 'O O t .
� ., n
c �.� .�. u �� p m
i..'� .`°,�c'3 0`= E
¢ >, c � �+ �' u C r�
I.�s., p ��' � E�_ 'm
� � o.u,1 �., E.� o,_
� 2 �� � u° .� � S
V
•
v
� c a ni
10 y � p .D ;p
C
O p pNj �p � c9 - �
a U � pI � C �
c�' f0 �'Es E.'-"�m
a
N N E w me( °n a a m
v_, a�- E'Q v o a�
t� C U LL 3 C� '�
� v�•N y.Q7C � C.m G
41
� ?. C.�C t � �2r CT
D jp O•`� O U C a� C
�^C'O � O•�"" p
� W a D V ry� U
V' v� c0 C�'D QI N D
L 1n f9 dl O�� �j L
!0 �.. 1� Q '� � Vl
� eLf� C G D 3� T
N 7� �p p C� L O 14
� s� N /�
V i N
�LL•j N V `� � y
w°' a m' oi u m v>
r � n n' �- •- � � 'v
�^ = m E�°� w�n � c
� � - � v, -a v u� �
�� w°�' io > N� m a a
a� E c � m � N[D dQ, c
Z g
�1 � U V 'p L ,N m 'C � (0
'O V� a O� p� �� m
� a�ip o�� v 3=.'c =�
.c o� d .o u� rn�= 3 a
� a n,� o� m c �' o �
p �p C
� O '} �p a C � Y O
W y W t/1 � Ep ;0 N� O N
G= � y a U.�p c0 Y>
� 0� N N Gf �� �— fD
N ��>`'p C LL E TJ C
E c���`o c � ��� n,
� o v m > o_
U•N C... t0 U 7 L'N 3�
�U V f0 f0 .0 C m E'O W d
Nv s d�
O � ��O �(D p b_ � N
� � w Q��-.c Z.�
v p, °' u�i � O c� � N'N
N p�� C S' �p � N T
�O U a� � O.m'D t�J U f0
���rnr.o E�'� � o
c
0
.�
N
:O
V1
C
U
�
O
D
�
O
�
Y
C
t
H
s
c
0
v
u
A
H
�
�
�
�
U
'C .
C
0
G
r
5
�
�
.o
E
U
u
'9
''ti
u
�
��
< a
'y
�
m
�
u
�
t
u
s
�
�
�E
�
i
Q
O
.n
0
.�
�
c
�
�
`
:
�
0
�
C
C_
- - . - - -- -._��,., �,�.,� ��� -. ot� onn B644i #2/a
� �T a ` � �
September 1, '9998
:vlr. James D. Prosser
City Nlanager
��ity of Richfield �
�3700 Portiand Avenue -
�ichfield, Minnesota 55423 �
�ear Mr. Prosser:
J'his is to acknowledqe receipt of yaur Augt�st 27, 1998, letter transrnitting
:nfonnation on low frequency noise analyses and requesting that the Feder�i
4viation Administratian (FAA) delay issuance of the Record of Decision (R4D).
As indicated in our letter of August 28, 1998, comments received on the Final
�nvironmental Impact Statement, such as your letter, wii! be addressed in the
�OD to the exfent practicabie. �
Sincerely,
:=ranktin D. Benson
Ulanager
:c: AGL-610
File: MSP Dual �l�rack ROD
WP: Prosser 9-1-98.doc
AGL-MSP-ADO-680.RHuber,rah,612-713-4357,g/1 !9g
,,: a.�.,, . , � ,.,, ,
;o �
C
�
RESIDENTIAL SOUND INSIILATS�N
,- . p,.T BALTIMORE/WASHINGTOI�T INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
� � � � � ��� �AIP 3-24-0005-39
' ENGINEER'S REPORT
RESIDENTIAL SOUND INSULATION
AT BALTIMORE/WASHINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
AIP 3-24-0005-39 �
ENGINEER'S REPORT
�'�'*1ER.AL PROJECT INFORMATION
Baltimore/Washington International (BWI) Airport is located on a
3,158-acre site in Anne An.indel County, Maryland nine miles from
Baltimore, Maryland and 32 miles from Washington, D.C. The
Airpo=t, which is owned by the Maryland Aviation Administration
(MAA), provides air carrie=, commute=, air cargo, and general
aviation se=vices to the Metropolitan areas of both Baltimore and
Washington. The region served has a population of-approximately
five million within an area of over 5,000 squa=e miles. Annual
aircrait operations at BWI totaled 290,789 in 1995 and total
passenge=s equaled 13.2 million. Annual aircraft operations are
forecast to exceed 318,000 by the year 2000 and tatal passengers
are expected to reach 15.3 million.
Of the annual aircraft operations, approximately 82 percent are
presently commercial. air carrier and the percentage is for�cast
Co increase. The percentage of the ai= carrier fleet operati.ng�
at BWI that are stage 3 aircraf� averaged 62a as of July 1, 1996.
In January 1989, the MAA submitted �o the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) a p=oposal for a Noise Compatibility Psog=am ('
for BwS tFAR Part 150). This proposal, which was approved by the `.
FAA on June 28, 1990, ir�cluded a program of residential souad
insulation fog 818 houses located in communities off the end og
BWI's Runway 33L/15R. The communities included in the Pzogram at
that time were Glen Burnie Park and part of Queenstown, which
were within the '70 DNL (day/night average sound level) contour on
a 1987 map showing the noise levels existing at that time. On
Februaiy 7, 1995, the FA.A approved a Supplemeat to th� Noise
Compatibility Program that added part of the Allwood ComimuniCy to
those eligible for sound insulation. G=ant No AIP 3-24-0005-39
lists 60 houses for soundproofing, of which 45 are located in
Glen Burnie Park or Queensto�rn, and 15 are in Allwood.
� . � �- --• �
Glen Burnie Park and Queenstown areas:
These areas fell within the 70 D1�TL contour of the 1987 base year
map and within the 65 DNL contour of the 1991 base year map.
They are projected to remain within the 65 DNL contour in 1998
and Z003. .
Houses in these areas typically experience exterior noise everits
ranging from SO to 104 dBA. They are located off the end of
33L/15R which is used for arrivals when the Airport is in west (
operations, and depa=tures when the Airport is in east .
,operations. They a=e, the=efore, exposed Ca multiple flight
';paths and the noise levels in individual houses vary depending on
the di=ect�on of aircraft activity, as showxi in Exhibit A.
� �
Since 1991, the MAA has�received three grants for the
soundproofing of houses in these areas under the Ai�po=t
Improvements Program, Grants AIP 3-24-0005-23 for 176 houses,
AIP 3-24-0005-3]. for 6o houses, and AIP 3-24-0005-32 for 60
houses. As of A�igust 31, 1996, 215 of these houses have been
soundproofed, and 58 are in the constructicn process. Of the
=emaining 23, several have modifications already designed, but
�re on hold due to the illness of one of the homeowners (these
communities have a large percentage of elderly =esidents). We
expect to have�completed all the houses curreatly u�nder grant,
excepting those on hold, by Novembes 1996. The houses that are
the subject of this grant request have applied for t�he program in
1995 and are on the waiting list.
A�lwood:
Fifty-four houses ia the Allwood subdivisioa a.nd adj acent to that
subdivisica on Aviation Boulevard, are now eligi.ble for the
Homeowner Assistaa�.ce Prog=am. These houses fall within the D'NL
70-75 contour in the 1993 ce=tified Ai.rport Noise Zone (ANZ) . It
is p�obable that these houses would have fallen within the 198?
base year contour that has been the basis of the Homeowne=
Assistance Brogram had the currenC ver5iori of the InCegrated
Noise Model (IIV�i) been in use at that time. These homeowners are
most affected by the s�art of takeoff roll on Runway ZB.
•,��!!�._. . � . w_'_�-�t.!!l,.� n
Glen Burnie Park and Queenstown:
Houses in Glen Bu=nie Park and Queenstown will continue to .
receive the same standard package of modifications described in
the Engiaeer's Report for AIP 3-24-0005-23. This standard
package was developed usa.ng the D � axi Gua.c�e �ar Sound Insulation
o� S� ng�.e Fam�.l.v Resid�r���a Dwellinas N��r 'BWI AirnorG ( ��
��) that was developed for the MAA by Wyle Laboratories. The
Desigri Guide was submitted with the Engineer's Report for AIP
3-24-0005-23.
The =esults of our post-modification surveys in these communities
indicate that any =eduction in the modifications would have a
negative impact on horneowner satisfaction, which has beea
unifo=mly high with the exception of one problem. In the
year, some homeowners have stated that ceztain rooms that
been soundp=oofed =emained noisy after t=eatment. It was
subsequently discovered, du�i.a�g field Sound T=ansmission
�
�
last
had
Class
(STC) testing for the acoustic windows, that in some houses, the
effectiveness of the standard wall treatment was undermi.ned�by
gaps a=ound the windows which are normally ccncealed by the �
window casing and su=rounding sheetrock. In some houses, the
rough window openings were not unifo=cn in size. As a result,
some of the original wood windows were placed in the zough
opening and shitraned into place leaving unirisulated gaps around
the window as much as one inch wide. When the acoustic window is
placed in the wood�f=ame, these gaps fo=m flankiag paths around
the wiadow.
The only way to discove= whether this condition exists is to
remove the window casing and apen the sheetrock surrouadiag the
window. When the casing is removed and the sheetrock opened, the
abno�mally laxge gaps, if any, can be filled and s.ealed.
Retesting after this correction was made showed tha� most
flankiag paths were elimi.nated by the cor=ectione Since
instituting this chaage it has been fouad that about one qua�ter
of the houses treated have some windows in which tl�.s conditiaa
would be a sigaifican� problem. The proposed solutioa is to opea
the sheetrock around the windows in all future houses, so that`
any gaps that exist may be Eilled. This adds an averag� o£ $400
to the cost of each house, but ensures that �he souadproofing
goals of the prograrn are fulfilled.
• ...
The noise situatica affectiag the Allwood community is diifereat �
from that experienced in Glea Burni.e Pa=k and Queenstown. Rathe=
than overflights, where souad cazi vary according to the
flightpath in use, the principle noise source is the start of
take-off roll for depa=tures from Runway 28. Tl�e frequency .
coinposition of thi� noise is quite different ftom tYiat generated
by overflights, and so somewhat different modifications will be
required to effectively reduce interior noise.
M�A first began to recognize the extent of this problem when
field audits were begun in Allwood i.n preparation for designing
soundproofing modifications. The technicians conducting the
tests notieed that they perceived the sound levels as being mnsch
greater than those they had experieaced whea testirig izi Glen.
Buraie Park, yet the equipment did not register sour�d levels as
high. They also noticed that Qisible, feelabl� vib�ation, that
registered on the monitoring equipmen�, continued even after the
audible noise had died away. The souad and vi.bratioa propagated
throughout the house registering as high, o� higher, ia the rooms
farthest fram the noise source. These perceptions on the paxt of
the field staff, coupled with the fact that most of the
complaints received from Allwood residents concemed "rumbling
and shaking," seemed to indicate that low-fzeguency sound was a
significant part of the probleme
For this reason, a conma=ison test was unde=takea measu=ing.the
--�same events using both A-weighted and C-weighted decibels. Of
the various metrics available for measu=ing sound, A-weighted
decibels (dBA) have traditionally been used as the standard
method of ineasuring the loudness of an event. All sound is
composed of energy in varying frequencies. The human ea= is not
sensitive to all frequencies to the same extent. Accordingly,
sound events containing more ene=gy in the frequencies in which
ou� iaearing is most acute, will be pe=ceived as louder than
events containing most of their ene=gy in frequencies outside the
normal hea=ing =ange. A-weighting.is considered to be the met=ic
that is most represeatative of humaaa� hearing; however, A-weighted
measurements filte= out as much as 40� of the low-E=equealcy sound
energy of an event. Exhibit B shows the effects of filtering at
diffe=ent frequencies.
Loudness, howeve=, is not the only factor that contributes to the
aanoyaace caused by a sound event. Intensity should also be
conside=ed whea assessiag people's =esponse to r�oise. High
inteasity low-frequeacy noise p=oduces an audible sound usually
described as "=u'cnbling" or "roaring" thaC many people find
disturbiag. This type oi event also groduces strong vib=ation.
2"his vibratioa is observable ia building componeats, such as
vaiadows, doors, and ia some cases, walls. It can also p=oduce
secondary ef f ects of seCting into motion dishes , mi�csers ,
pictures and other household objects.
�� � Noise generated by stax�t of take-off zoll contains les�s high-
frequency sound energy than is preseat ia noise events caused by
— ove=flights; however, it coatains a sigriificantly g=eater
percentage of low-frequency energy. Whea a neighborhood is
affected by noise that is predominantly low fzequency, the extent
of the problem i�not well expressed by noise measu=ements using
A-weighted decibels.
C-weighted�decibels include nearly the full frequency spectrum
without �iltering. Noise reco=ded in C-weighted testing of
overflights nozmally =egistezs about 0 to 6 dB higher than A-
weighted testing of the same events. C-weighted =esults in
Allwood averaged about 12.dB higher than A-weighted results,
indicating that the noise in Allwood had a much greater 1ow-
frequeacy component than a typical overflight. Exhil�it C shows a
compariso�. of A-weighted measurements and C-weighted (no
filtering) measurements for the same events in the Allwood
community.
It is generally accepted that low-frequency noise propagates well
through air and structu=es and is more difficult to ma.tigate than
high-frequency noise. Since the modifications outlined in the
Wyle La.boratories D��Qn Guide are based on overflight sound
measu=ed in A-weighted decibels, there was some concem that the
- standa=d modifications woul.d no� provide signiiicant relief to
� �_�. ) .
4
Allwood residents. Consultation with Eric Stusnick of wyle
La.boratories and Nick Miller of Harris, Miller, Miller and Hasison
confirmed that the =ecommendations shoum in the 1�e�icn Gui.de for
treating houses within a 70 D1�L contour would be likely to be
significantly less effective against noise that is predomi.nantly
low-frequency. �
Interio= measurements for two Allwood houses using C-weighting
indicate that the existing structure stops only 8-15 dB of ncise
when the full spectsum is considered.
. .- - . _ . . .. _ _ :. . � . -. _ .- .
_._ . - _ - . . . - _ - _ _. _._ .
- - - - - - - . .- .. _ .. -. . -
-. _.. -. . _ . -. - _ . � .. . _ �_
-... . , � _ �- -. . _.. _ - . •�
_ - •-. _ . • � _ _.- - . • . - . ��
... .- . • - -.. .. .._ � . -. . -
_ �•' _ • - _ •• . - r "• -� � - • - - •• �- •. • � • - �- •!!
• ^
• - - • • • • � _ • • • - • • • - ti - � - _ � �
- • ^ � � ' • �� • - • • � 1 . . � • � � _.
_ _
� � - - • • - • • • - - . � _ � • - . � - - • • •
• ^ .. • • - � � • : o - - • • _ � � � � _ � - _ • • . •
•• _ • • -• = • - '_ _�• • -- •,� • • • • •-
1 � - - - . • , • � • - • - • • • � . _ :
� • • _ • • - - • • � � - . - • - • - _ • • • -
� - • - • � � - . _ _ _ - • _ • • • • . _ • • - : � � .
'i'he justification for a sound insulation program is to prowide
relief to homeowners and to faster a better relationship between
the Ai.rport anci the conunuaity . It would serve no puzpose to
const=uct modifications to "soundproof'� a house if the occupants
would not perceive a significant difference.
To date, airports have been dealing with the o�rerflight noise
problem, since that is the problem that affects the greatest
number of people . To the best of our }c$owledge ao airport� ha.s
attempted to design modifications specifical3.y for a low
frequency situation. Tize acoustics industry acl�owledges that
low frequency ncise is more difficult and expensive to abate, and
most architectu�al products commercially available are geared
toward abating hi�her frequency noise.
The majority of sound-rated building components are rate�
according to the amount of souad transmission loss they provide,
using the single number rating for STC. The STC rating is also
weighted so that low frequency noise components are not accouated
for as heavily as mid and high frequency aoise componeats.
Accordiagly, a window rated STC 45 would be quite adequate in a
house located within the 70 DNL contour if the prima=y noise
�
C
C
source were overflights. It probably would not be adequate, in a
f�,ouse locaCed within the 70 DNL contour where the primary noise
aource is start of take-off =oll.
Exhibit D also contains.suggested modifications far providing
sound insulation that would be mor� effective for the low
f=equency situation occur.ring in Allwood. Working vaith ADC,
M�,A's arehitectu=al staff developed two sets of standardized
modifications that combine the =ecommendations of the report
modificatioas more aesthetically and functioaally acceptable
r One set of•modiiications alters the
the
with
to
the average homeowne .
interior of the structures, the other alte=s the exterior. The
acoustical design goal of these modifications is as follows:
TY�e exi.stin.g design standard approved in the .p=evious
Engineer's Report:
. - . � , � _ _
, , .. - - - . .. - - . . � .:• . .-. ..�
_ ,,, • •_ ._. _. - .. 1
_.. . ._
Minimum of 5 dBA improvement in noise =eduction irt each
room trea�ed.
With the additicnal goals:
Minimum of 7 dBC improvement in low frequency noise
reduction. .
Minimu�_.7:6 dB A-C imp=ovement in the diffe=ence between.
the A and the C weighted noise reduction.
�•� a�.._=! � �
The A1lwood Subdivision contains only two basic house styles and
most� do not have additions. Standard improvements will include:
- Replacement of existing windows with units =ated STC 45
plus the addition of an exterior sto=tn window zated STC
30.
- Replacement of doors and storm doors with solid core
doors 1 3�4" in thickness and solid core stozin doors
with 1/4" glazing rated STC 30, with a minimum air
' space of 4 1/2" between the p=ime door and the storm
unit.
6
- Baffling of kitchen exhaust vents, =idge vents and very
large attic vents.
WiCh regasd to wall modifications:
The interio= wall modifications will be as follows:
- Addition of one layer of. sound deadeniag board and
�hree layers of 5/8" sheetsock to exterior facing walls
that are not faced with brick.
- Addition of two layers of 5/8" sheetrock to ceilings in
upstai=s bedrooms, plus the additioa of R-30 insulatian
ia attics.
. .- • •
.- - - . � .. _ -
=_�. _ . _ . . .. _.. .- ... _ .. . •
. -��- .,_ . . . _.._ _, ,, _
.. _. -. _ ,_ ._..- • • • •- - ••
, . � .. . _. � _ -. .- --. ._..-
,.. .. . , _ . - ..- . - - ..
.- . .. ... ..- .- --. .- _ _ . _,_, •-- .
_ , . .. .- . _ _.
•.. . .- - .- . - ._ .- --. - ..
. . ..- _ _ �: . , ... _.. - .- ._
. _ -. . _ - . _ ..
Nea=ly all the Allwood houses w�=e constructe$ with.ceatsal air-
conditioniag. The use of multiple layers of sheetrock aad the
increased use of 'cleaci air' spaces ia the window and door units
will requi=e more attention to ventilation to avoid the creation
of moisture problems and to maintain adequat� air quality.
• �. ;. �: •�
_ �_ ,, , _� � _ ,_ , ,_ ,- ., , . _ _.
.. . .. - . • ... .- .- . ... -. w��__, _,.
,, __ ,, . _.. - ..- .,, .- . - . _.. ..- .�, .-
_ . . -•• •• -_ • - . . .- -. . _ _ �
_. _ �, _ , .- . _. . . . . _ _ ,_ . -
-._ _ _ , ,� _ , _ , . .. . . -. .. - .-
_ �- _w ,_ �, _ ,. . . .. .- . - ... _ - • -
_ � � _� ,_ - ... - -. _ . .. �-. _ .: _..
., ., . . . .- . _� � �_ ,, , ... .
,. _- --..
C
7
�� _
� • � ' •
�.�.,r 1L,_-�,. ..
��� �n addition to the basic sound
a certain amount of ancillary
retum the house to� its nornlal
repaneling rooms where c�sywall
window in a bathroom to avoid
is an ob�rious mismatch, etc .
insulation modifications, the=e is
cosmetic work that is necessary to
appea=ance ie., repainting or
work is doae, =eplacement of a
c=eating a facade where one window
This work is necessary to avoid diminishing the resale value of
the house aad to retum it to fuactional condi.tion.. A standa=d
fo= a1l.owable cosmetic work was submitted as Exhibit E in the
c:ciginal Engineer's Repo=t fo= Grant No. 3-Z4-0005-23.
Cosmetic restoratioa will remaia essentially the same as the
staaidards.previously applied in the program.
�z �..c� ���! ! . .�� �
Z°he total cost per house in Glea Hurnie Park and Queenstown has
raaged from $20,000 Co $35,OOq, aad has conti.nued to ave=age
approximately $25,000.
Preliminary estimates for Allwood indicate that the per house
cost will be in the $28,000 to $32,000 range.
___ �ZTBTT.ni�TT,TTY OF� COr1'�'R.ACTORS
r � .
Each house is treated as a separate contx�act. Homeowne=s are
required to solicit at least tluee bids from cont=actors on aa
approved list established by the MAA. Approved cont=actors.have
met certain requirements including attendance at� a semina= given
by the NiXA oa the Sound Insulation P=ogram. The contracto= bid
process will also =emain the same.
. , . , �.� a .,�� .� :�t:�� .•�� �. •.. �.�K.�,��
� .�. _. t._ 4....w,�.
As delineated in the earlier Enginee='s Repo=t, a standard set of
project specifications is supplied to each contractor and its
coatents apply to all'houses �.n the p=ogram. A separate floor
plan with window, door aad wall finish schedules is pzovided for
each house. The speeifications book was o=iginally prepared by
Wyle Labs and has been =evised, as necessary, by G=einer, Ine.
and by the MAA. The MAA's Program Architect aad design staff,
with consultant assistance as necessazy, will prepare plans based
on reconanendations in the Wyle Desiga Guide.
This practice will remain the
details added to acco�nodate
House- specif ic modif ications
air conditioning systems will
coasultant� .
( 1
� ,
same, with new architectural
the modifications for Allwood.
to the existing ventilation and/a=
continue to be designed by
�
Coastruction supervision, and punch list inspection to ce=tify
satisfactory completion are provided by MAA's full time Program
Construction Inspector. Additionally, MILCO, the current
supplie= of the acoustic windows, is responsible for inspecting
and approving the window installatioa.
plans and cost estimates for the p,llwood house types will be
submitted in the supplemental report, along with the new �
architectural details.
Please note.that room additions constructed after the
establishment of the ANZ in 19'4 a=e not eligible for�
soundproofing by order of the Maryland Boa=d of Public Works.
0
C_
. .. .... .. ......... ....... .._ .... ..... .. . . . . ........ .......
9 �
( ).
N�►.�.I C � :
TAB%E 1. AI1tCRAFT SOUND LE�/EI.S vs. A-WEIGAT%NG �tE'T�VORK '
Freqas�ecgr A-Weighing Boei�g 737-300 Boeing 7S!
20 •50.5 . � �3 90
25 -44.7 85 91
31.5 -39.4 85 93
40 -34.6 �7 94
50 -30.2 87 95
63 � -26.2 �9 96
�0 22.5 � 96
100 -19.1 � �
125 -16.1 � 96
1b0 -13.4 � 9S
2� -10.9 �9 94
'�� -�.6 �9 93
• 315 -6.6 $� 91
400 � -4.� �� 90
5� -3.2 •88 89
�1►� 11:
� ° �.. : ., �, , � : . �11 1 i: : • 1 : �1� � 1:: • ''
:;/ i '�1
--- _ ,.. .-- — -- ----- — -- :----- — .__.---• -- ..,__ ---..,:--- --� ----
1 .i i! ' •II . • •' �
� : 511, `; .�1 :; �il
:.1'' :'i • . 1 • i . � :1' : • : � •, ` : d �. �
- I ��„— , � ��■—����
: 1 1 � � � _. � � �
' 1I . ��,1—_���
_ , ' , . —■I�.■.- ' �i 1 �.
_ 1 � � �.����■
_
' :. � _ .���■.
_ __
� � �� ., _ _. . �� � � �.
_ � .. _ . . I ;� _ .� � �■
_
'. :.• _.. � --�.�
_
I _. , �.1 ;; —■ � � �
�
' � : ; 1 l i
_
_
' � _ � t -��iiir�
_ .��
, �. ,_ —���-
tiY�GE DIk"�EN'CE +11.6Z
m
0
��
�
�,G
� � �.�F� ;� .y
:�t %� F
:, r�� . �, -- ���_
�� ��, .
,;
��� � t� =1; '�I::� �:�1�,:`. � • ;C� � .�, .��.
Pr�pazed for:
Real Estate Division
Maryland Aviation Administration
P.O. Box 8766
BWI Airport, MD 21240
Acoustical Design Collaborative, Ltd. Project No.: 96.01
Date of Report: 24 3uly 1997
Prepared by :
Acousrical Design Collaborative, Ltd.
5119-A Leesburg Pike No. 161
Falls Church, VA 22041-3207
Tel: 703.533.�717
. ry5_"`
Neil Thompson Shade
President and Pri.ncipal Consultant
This report presents the results of acoustical measurements and analyses undertaken to
determ.i.ne the improvement in sound insulation properties for two (2) houses located in the
Allwoal neighborhood near BWI Airport. Both homes were modifified as part of a feasibiliry study
to determine whether sound insulation modifications to the exterior walls or the interior walls aze
more effective at reducing primarily low-frequency afrcraft noise.
1 ;` � t . �, ,,,
The two (2) houses included in the feasibiiity study include 231 Allwood Drive and 232
Allwood Drive. Both �houses aze identical' in age, 'size, and construction. Table 1, below
snmmar;zes the major consuuction features of th� houses as it affects their sound insulation
properti�s.
'TABLE 1. COPISi'ItiJCTI0A1 IE�AT'�T1Et�5 OF i�ST �i3US'E.S -�'.E�11�iODI�CA'1'ION
�ouse Addr�ss Origpaal �all Cansrtniction � ��dow ' �oflCealin�
Consta�ar.tioa : Constructioa
231 Allwood VinyUMetal Siding - 3 Walls; Wood Siagle Paae Asphalt Shingles; Plywood
Brick - Front Wall; All Double Hnng 5�broofing; R 13 Attic
Drive ��or walls 1/Z" GWB w/Storm Wiadows Insulation; l/2" GBVB
232 Allwood Wood Siding - 3 Walls �laod Siagle Paae �lPhalt Shiagles; Plywood
Brick - Front Wall, All Subroofiag; R 13 Atdc
Drivc ��or Walls 1/2" GWB Double Hung . ��on; 1/2" GWB
Table 2, below summarizes the construc�ion modifications performed on each house.
TABLE 2. CONSTItiTCTION FEATiTut�S O�' TEST �OiJSE.S - POS"I' 1ViOD�FYCAi'IORt
House Addres.s Modified 1�Vsll Conste�uction M°�� ��dow 1Vdodified Itoof/Ceiling
Construc4aon Construction
VinyUMetal Siding - 3 Walis; STC 45 Prime
231 Allwood Asphalt Shingles; Plywood
Brick - Front Wall; Madified Window with 1%4" Subroofing; R-30 Attic
Drive (Interior �urior Walls 2-3/8" GWB + Laminated Glass „
MO�� 1/2" �berboard Storm �non; 1-3l4 GWB
Wood Siding, 1" Cement �C 45 Prime �Phalt Shingles; Plywood
232 Allwood Boazd. 1" Fiberglass. Vinyl w�dow with 1/4" Subzoofing; R-13 Atdc
Drive (Exterior Siding • 3 Walls; Insulation between Ceiling
Mods) Brick - Front Wall; All mina � Glass Joists; 1/2" Cemeat Board over
Interior Walls 1/2" GWB $tO� Ceiling 7oisu; R-13 Insulauon
� � ', �', ;i , ° � , ., �; ..0, �.: .
� The Noise Reduction (NR.) measurements were performed on the following ctates:
�
C
C,.
�
� BWI Low Frequency Modifications 2 25 July 1997
Final Analysis Report
• 29 Nov�mber 1996 (pre-modification measur�ments)
• 17 June 1997 (post-modification measuremcnts)
Two (2) rooms, typically the Living Room and Bedroom #2, were measured to determine
the NR. values between the 20 to 40Q0 I3z 1/3 octave band cent�r frequencies, A-weighted, and
C-weighted values.
1bleasurements were performed in a.cccordance �uith pracedur�.s outlined in ASTM E966(92),
Standard Test Method for Field Measurr�nent of Airborne Sound Insulation of Building Facades
and Facade Elements." The intent of this testing methodology is to assess the installed sound
insulation performance of the entire building envelope (wall, roof, windows, and door).
A Norsonic Type SA110 sound level analyzer with a I�orsonic Type 1201 preampli.fier and
Type 1220 free-field microphone were used to collect the noise level data. The sound level
analyzer and microphon� were calibrated with a Norsonic Type 1251 acoustical calibrator prior
to and after performing the acoustical measur�me�ts. �or all measurement� in the receive raom,
the microphone was posidoned 4'-0" above the floor and continuously rotated abaut a 3'-0"�radius
(� � to � ensure good spatial repr�.sentation of the sound � field. The microphone was kept a miniinum of
3' -0" away from the exterior wall surface in the receive room to m;n;m;9e the influence of the
direct sound field on the measurem�nt results. The source microphone positions were flush at the
exterior wall and roof surfaces as noted: in §8.3.3 of thc standard.
Pink noise was produced by a Idorsonic Type 230 noise generator and amplified by two
BGW power amplifiers driving an Eastern Acoustic Works KF3� horn loudspeaker and a Model
SB250D2 subwoofer. The loudspeakers wcre positioned approximately 20'-0" from the house at
the front yazd at 25'-0" above and angled down towards the house. For all the surveys, rooms at
the front af the house were measured. T'hese rooms have both a front and side wall exposure and
both walls were measured as part of the survey. Since one of the objectives of this study was to
evaluate low frequency noise, the positioning of the loudspeaker at the front was deemed.
acceptable, due to the diffractive properties of low frequency sound. The low frequency sound,
with its wavelengths comparable to or larger than the dimensions of the house, will bend (diffract)
azound to the sides of the house. Thus, the low frequency sound levels will be similar at both the
front and sides of the house.
The outdoor temperatures ranged from 45° to 90° and the relauve humidity was between
28% and 75 %. Wind speeds wcre below 10 mph. The in.door temperature and humidity
conditions were r�presentative of •typical indoor condirions.
( ) The average of the measured sound levels at the exterior and the receive room were
�" corrected to account for ambient noise levels, the angle of incidence for the loudspeaker
orientation, and subtracted to obtain the average NR values between the 20 to 4000 Hz 1/3 octave
�'�
�
�
0
L�J
L�
�
�
L9
�
�
�
�
BWI Low Frequency Modifications
Final Analysis Report
3
25 July 1997
C�
band center frequencies, A-weighted, and C-weighted values.
4.0 NC,ISE DIJC'TIO�' ASLT. , fE T�
The results of tbe pre-modification and post-modification noise reduction measurements
were used to calccilate the improvemenf in the sound insulation performance for the interior and
exterior'modification schemes. The actual insulauon p�rrformance. for the post-modification
conditions was also deteTmined and are comPa�'ed to the pre-m�dification conditions. The results
in the Tables 3 through 5, below are presented in terms of �TR in d�ciBcls (dB)� where higher
values of NR are representative of higher sound isolation: p�rformancc.
4.1 $' 11�IC)I) CA�"IOIv I�tO Z7C 01�1 V S
The pre-modification naise reduction valucs aze sum�arized in Table 3, belocv for both
A-weighted and C-weighted metrics. � '
��� s. ��-�o��cA�orr �.-vv�G� � c=��� r� v�.�s t��
House Address It�m Name A-Wtd Id�t C-Vi�td 1V�i �verage A- Average C-
Va1ue '��lue �H'td � Va1ue Wtd 1Vgt Value ;
\
231 Allwood Bedr°°m ' 32 2� 32.5 26A
(Inurior Mods) Living Room 33 �
232 Allwood Bairoom 29 27
(Far�rior 30.0 25.5
Mods) Living Room 31 24
� 4.2 POST-IVti)I) CATION' I�'i) DIJC �.iN i�� S
The post-modification noise reduction values aze s►�mmari'ed in Table 4, below for both
A-weighted and C-weighted m�trics.
TA�LE 4. Pi>ST-MO�IIFiCATIOPt A•WEIG� AND C-WEIG NR VALUES (dB)
House Address It�om Name �'Wtd NR C-Wtd N�t t�e.verage A- �oerage C-
��ve y�ue dVtd NR Value Wtd NR Value
231 Allwaod Bedroom � 45 33
43.5 30.0
(Incerior Mods) Living Room 42 27
232 Allwood Bedroom 40 34 40.$ 30.5 �
(Exterior
Mods) Living. Room 41 �7
' � BWI Low Frequency Modificacions
Final Analysis Roporc
4
, � � ; r • r �.. . ,� , �
25 July 1997
The improvemenr' in sound insulation performance is sl,mma,;�ed in Table 5, below (for
A= and C-weighed metrics) and in Figures 1 through 4, below (for 20 to 4�00 Hz 1/3 octave band
frequencies).
TA.BLE 5. IlVIPROVEMENT IlY A-WEIGHTED AND C-WIIGHT'En N�t VALITES (dB)
A-Wtd NIt G-i�7td 1V'R ��'�e A- Average C-
House Address Room Name �provement Imgrovement �td NR Wtd NR
Improvement Improvement
231 Ailwood B�oom 13 6
(Inurior Mods) g � 11.0 4.0
Livin Room 9 2
232 Allwood Bedmom 11 7
(Extcrior 10.5 5.0
Mods) Living Room 10 3
� _��, �-,_ . .� :.� �, � � �.�; ,��F •_ �: ; ; ,��� � ��
Exarnin;ng th� individual and ave�rage NR valucs in th� above tables Ieads to tbe following
general conclusions:
1. The interior and exterior modifications resulted in an average A-weighted noise
reduction improvement of just over 10 dB, with a range between 9 to 13 dB. The
average noise redu.ction improvement (10 dB) corresponds to a subjective 50
percent reduction in the loudness of the ttansmitted mid to high frequency exterior
noise compazed to the pre-modification conditions. The range of noise reduccion
improvement (9 to 13 dB) corresponds to a subjectivc reduction between
approacimately 45 to 60 percent of the loudnes�` of the transmitted mid to high
frequency exterior noise c4mpared to the pre-madification conditions. Note that
these values aze representativ� of mid to high frequency noise and are based on
studies relating to the characteristics of human hearing.
2. The interior and exterior modifications resulted in an average Gweighted noise
reduction improvement of 4.5 dB, with a range between 2 to 7 dB. T'he average
noise reduction improvement (4.5 dB) cortesponds to a subjective 50 percent
reduction in the loudness of the tra,nsmitted low frequency exterior noise compazed
to the pre-modification conditions. The range of noise reduction improvement (2
to 7 dB) corresponds to a subjective reduction between approximately 25 to 75
percent of the loudness of the transmitted low frequency exterior noise compared
to the pre-modification conditions. Note that these values are representative of low
�( BWI Low Frequency Modifications 5 25 Iuly 1997 (
�
Fina! Analysis Repon
� frequency noise and are based on studies relating to the chazacteristics of human
hearing.
�
�
�
�
3. Wben viewed in terms of the A-weighted noise reduction values, the exterior
modification scheme providcs slightly b�tter (1 dB) noise reduction for the Living
Room whil� the interior madification provides slightly bett�r (2 dB) noise reduction
for the Bedroom. �
4. When vi�wed in terms of the C-weighted noise reduction values, the exterior
modificarion scheme provides slighdy better (1 dB) noise reduction for both the
Living Room and Bedroom.
Examining the individual one third octave frequency band noise reduction values in Figur�.s
1 through 4leads to the following general conclusions:
1. On average at the v�ry low frequencics (below 50 Hz), the interior modification
scheYne provid�s slightly higher nois� r�duction at somt frequenci�s than the '
e�rior modification sch�m�. T'h� likely cause is the mass-air-mass resonance
frcqu�acy which accurs for the exterior madification schcme and has the t�ndency �
to c.iiuinish 1ow frequency noise reductioa. Tll� interior madificadon does not have ��_
the narrow_air ca�vity that exis�s between the ccesmeent boazd and elcisting s�--�and
will not have as low a mass-air-mass r�sonance frequency.
2. Between 50 to 250 Hz, the in�rior modification on average provides greater noise
. � reduction`than the exterior ffiodification with the exception of the 50 to 125 Hz
r�gion in the Bedrooms, where the exterior modification is superior. It is not
known why this trend exists, however for most of the measurements, there is a
substanrial diminution in noi�e reduction at 100 I3z, due to mass-air-mass resonance
between the storm and prime windows, which is calculated at 95 Hz.
3. . Above approximately 440 Hz, the exterior modification provides greater noise
reduction than the interior modification. This is likely due to the spacing and
fiberglass insulation provided as part of the futred-out c�meat board i.nstallation.
4.
Exa*n;ning the noise reduction improvement for tbe rooms in each house shows a
coraplicated data trend, where improvements aze greater in some frequency regions
for one room compared to the other room. However, when averaged., the overall
noise reduction improvements for the Living Roonn and Bedroom in a given house
are similaz. This suggests that a balanced sound insulation characteristic has been
, a�t�i�v�d ��_s _f��r sugp�z�ted by the minor differences in the A-wei�.hting an
z ted �h
C-wei htin noise reduction values as a function of raom type as discussed above� -
� g
( � BWI Low Frequency M�dificacions
Final Analysis Rcpoct
G
;� ��+ •� ��� i' . ����� � �. ��� �� :, 'GI �� •
25 July 1997
The post-modification noise measurement data has been. compazed to the acoustical design
goals recommended in our 18 September 1996 memorandum. The acoustical design goals include
the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Maximum interior DNL of 45
1Vlaximum of 60 and 65 d.BA for interior noise events in Bedrooms/Television
Room and the remainder of the house, respectively.
Minimum 5 dBA noise r�duction improvement
A�iinimum 7 dBC noise reduction improvement
f�� ,1�
• , s• •° ��� -
�--� Assuming the houses az� located within the 70 DI�TII. contour of BWI Airport, a mi.nimum
' ) noise reduction of 25 dBA would be required to achieve an interior 45 DNL. Examination of the
� post-mod.ification A-weighted noise reduction values in Table 4 shows that the noise reduction
values range between 40 and 45 dBA. Thus, the maximum interior noise lcvel goal of 45 DNL
has been achieved.
Exterior A-weighted noise le 97 dB were estimated for the Allwood neighborhood
and summarized in our 1 Au t� 1997 r ort. Using the post-modification A-weighted noise
reduction values in Table 4 r�s estimated interior noise levels between 52 and 57 dBA.
Thus, the maximum interior noise level gaal of 60 and 65 dBA in Bedrooms/Television Room and
the remainder of the house has b�n achieved.
,� ' : 1 � r�' �, �1� ° •� _ '� ��;,° ,.. ,�, ;�:
Comparing the improvement in A-weighted noise reduction (9 to 13 dB) in Table 5,
indicates the 5 dBA noise reduction improvement goal has been achievcd..
,� • , : 1, • , ' o ; • . 1 1!'' ' � ' � �
(' �) Compazing the improvement in C-weighted noise reduction (2 to 7 dB) in Table 5,
�--� indicates the 7 dBC noise reduction improvement goal has only been achieved for the Bedroom
of 232 Allwood. The Bedroom of 231 Allwood is 1 dB less than the C-weighted noise reduction
BWI Low Frequency Modifications 7 25 Ju1y 1997 _
Final Anatysis Rcpon � �
goal improvement. The Living Rooms of both houses are between 4 to 5 dB less than the C-
weighted noise reduction goal improvement. The probable cause for the reduced Gweighted noise
reduction in the Living Rooms is likely due to the lazger ratio of glass and door to wall area in the
Living Rooms compared to the Bedrooms.
r � �'' �• f 'I <� �` • ), .� ,�`
Improvemcnts to the modification scheme, applicable to both the interior and exterior
designs, would include use of dual lite STC 54 window assemblies in lieu of the STC 45 prime
windows with the 1/4" laminated gL�ss storm windows. 'Tlie STC 54 windows will have a greater
air space between the glass lites which will result in inereased low frequency noise r�duction,
compared to the STC 45 windows. Additionally, there�will be no low frequency mass-air-mass
resonance frequency, due to the supplemental storm window, to further degrade low frequency
noise reduction performance. If ham�eowners are reluctant to accept the STC 54 windows due to
their si�e and pot�nitial difficulty' in. opeaing, a reasonable compromise is to use the STC 54
window as a r�placeffient for the lazge fixed. "picttare" window in tlae I.iving Rooms and use the
STC 45 prime windows and the 1/4" laminated glass storm windows at other openings.
Of the two modificadon schemes, the exterior modification is considered to b� slightly,
superior to the interior modificatiom. Not� that the interior modifications provide acc�ptab�
improvement in sound insuladon perform.ance.
�.0 SLTI�1L�vl[�7E��' �iIVI) COI�tCI,�7SIOl�TS
Noise reduction measurements have been made in two (2) houses in the Allwood
neighborhood to detcrmine the improvement in sound insulation properties due to both interior and
exterior modifications. The nois� reduction measurements include 20 to 4000 Hz 113 octave band,
A=weighted and C-weighted metrics:
When viewed in terms of A-weighted and C-weighted noise reduction measurements, the
exterior mod.ifications provide modestly better performance. Closer examination of the 113 octave
band noise reduction data indicates, on average, the interior modifications are more effcctive at
some low to mid frequcncy bands. This is due to the mass-air-mass resonance frequency, and thc
attendant reduction in low frequency sound. insulation, attributable to the cement_ t�ctalla�an.
Above approximately 400 Hz, tiie exterior modification is more effective, due to the furred. out
cement boazd and cavity insulation. All of the 1/3 octave band noise reduction data indicate a
large reduction at 100 Hz, due to the mass-air-mass resonance of the storm window and prime
window assembly. � � � '
All of the proposed acoustical design goals have been met by both the interior and exteri�T
modifications with the exception of the C-weighted noise reduction values for the Bedroom of ��.
A.11wood and the Living Rooms of both 231 and 323 Allwood. For the Bedroom of 231 Allwood,
25 July 1997
� �Modificacions 8
Ba✓I Low Frequency
Final Analysis Repon
the C-weighted noise reducrion value was 1 dB less than �� r� W� az,ea rwh�ch i higherot an,
the noise reduction is controlled by the ratio of window an
that of the Bedrooms.
1"he exterior modification is considered to be slighdy better than the interior modifications,
bowever the interior madif cations �'�'ould appeai' to provide acc�ptable performance.
e house modifications, use of STC 54 windo`Ns is rec°mmend� � lieu of the STC
For futur 5��, �y�dows to provide greater low frequency
E 45 prime windows and the 1/4" laminat�ci glas� �� STC S4 v�tndow can be used as a
sound insulation perfo��• As a compromise.
" icture" window in the Living Room. This will help increase the
r�placement for the fixed P
Living Room low frequency sound insulation.
L�
�
L:,
��
FREG1 BEDROOM LNIidG ROOMI
20 6 6
25 9 fi
32 9 �
40 % �
� 5� g 4
63 14 6
80 12 ' 10
100 g 3
125 10 5
160 9 8
200 8 : 13
250 10 16
315 16 26
400 19 2�
500 30 ��
630 23 26
800 25 24
1000 23 24
1250 27 20
1600 26 21
2000 26 19
2500 26 19
3150 24 24
4000 3� 29
�
�
�
�
��
�
�. �„-��-.. . .
_ , - .
: ... . -
35 � � � � - ; ; �
; ; �
30 � ; � _;_:-;-;-�;-: �-��-*' '''"
�-,-��-� �
, � ; ; , ; .
;., �� ��
� ������
; ' , . , , : : ; , , *_ ,_
m Z.CJ � ' r"� � � � �� ; — � � � � � r ; ��
�
.0 �� � � � � �
;:�.,,,,,,:, � � ,
e� ;,.;�;�,,,.� ;,,. �
a ;,,.., , � � _,''
„ ,,�
... �O • 1 �',, � � ��� 1 � r �1� ,I 1 , �.• � ?• � 1 ^
W
o� �'.� � � � .:�,� �
6 � � �� r� ��� �
W � � � � � � � � �
� � � �'� � � � � � � � � � � � ' �
' , , . :-,
,,� ,,, ��: -;-'-�,-�
.. �i �5. ,����• r�� w' �' ,��� � � - .. .. ..
o, � � � ' � � � � �
� ��� � �� ��
; �� � ,�
, � , , � ; � �
' ,� " ,,;,��
� , , , , , _„__,-�.._:,-�,•�-
, •
g 10 -�-•-�- , � � , �
; ; � ; , ; ; ;
, �
� � ' ; ' :.; ^
� ; ' ' - - - -
5 - - -� - -' � .
� .
; ; �� �� ;� ;
„ „ . �
; „ �� � � :;���
0 , o ,�� '��
N t'NO Y�'9 m P N M tf� m nj O� �
9/3 OCiAdE Ft�EOUElddCY B�►IdO� F1Z
--�BEDROOAA UVING ROO�
� ;
�; , �
' F�tECd �EDROOM LlVING ROOM
20 ? g
25 12 11
32 12 11
40 9 9
50 9 10
63 5 9
80 7 10
100 2 �
125 8 8
160 14 '10
200 14 15
250 22 �
315 24 20
400 22 18
500 20 19
630 17 23
800 15 �
1000 17 29 �
1250 17 '16
1600 23 17
2000 21 16�
2500 20 17
����� � � 3150 22 �
4000 25 24
�
�
35
30
5
FIGURE 2. NOISE REDUC'ilOPl IIHPROVE�E� "
g31 ALLWOOD DRIVE
��;;' �� � ��
� �� � �
,: , ,,,, ; ;;, .
_���..�-�--�-�-�-*�r�-r��+'�'�''e _ ��
� , ,
���;;;�; �: ;::� �
������� �� ,��, �
- -��-T--�-�-�.;_�.,-�-:=;-�.:-:--;-
� � �
������� � ��
; , ' . . , � � � ; � „ ' ; '
.�� y��-�-�•r-�• r , r •�r� -�
� � � 1 1 � 1
; : �
; ; :. �� �
, :., ; , � ' ,.
� �'..��������^ -r� � - '��'�
,.. , , „',` „ . . .
, ,,,. ;, .,�
;:; , , � „
; � �: ;,;;::; �;
,_, ,- ,-�.•-•�- -�,---
, � � � � .
�� � �
, ;, . ��
� � � � , � ; " , � ' ; ;
� �. -.. • •� �f� � ' � � 1 � � �r �
; , . . : � . ; .
� � . � � � �
„ �. �;;;, , .
� � ,���� � �
O N � It! �7 N " ^ It7 C� � �7 ^
v� N N9 ^, N �
9/3 OCTAVE FRE�UEPlCY �APdD� Ftg
BEDROOAA UVING ROOM
__�-__�-- . .. _ --
FREQ
20
25
32
40
5d
63
80
100
125
160
200
250
315
400
500
630
800
1000
1250
9600
���0
2500
3150
4000
6,
9
9
7
8
14
12
8
10
8
10
18
19
30
23
25
23
27
26
26
26
24
31
232
7
12
12
9
9
5
7
2 .
8
14
14
22
24.
22
2�
17
15
1T
1?
23
21
2�
5
, �,. • - •
- . - ,
_ , _ �,;:.
35 � . �
; �� ��;
30 -�-;..r;_�-�-;-;-�-:•;-;-: ;-�;-;-r;-�-
�� ,
�
���; ; �;;�,�
m 25 .;_ �-�-�-�-� �-:-:.-: :-' :--,.
� � '
.,. ,. ,,, � ;,_,,
� ���;���;;�'� �����
� � 2� +•�•���r•r�-�M�� ��. � �'�•r�•e r�
, � � � , �
w :�; ,;;��� �� ' ;�
> � � ��� � �� „
' ; ,,; ;��,; : ,�
a 15 -:-;-� :-,-��-'-.- -.-,- , r.-.-
� „'".;, „�„ ,.
� „ ;, ,,, ; �
, . . .
� ,� ,�; ; ;;:;:;;, �
,�� z 10 �♦ 1 �.♦ �! �r �'r 1� T T
'� � , � � � � -��-
� ,� ,
; , , � �
;,� ,;, ,; � �
5 M� T�'r 1�, � t� 1� 9� P� !� r 1� t�I� `�
�, : �� "�� �
� � � ; � �. � � ; � � �
�. ��
;� ���� � �,������;�
O N M' 1t'! � N O � pp 1"•
p o a
r' 1Cl O N
r N M r N P!
9/3 OCTAVE FRE�UEPLCY D� FtZ
231 �
0
J �
���
i
. �4E�
20
25
32
40
50
63
80
100
125
160
200
250
315
400
500
630
800
1000
1250
1600
2000
2500
,__. 3150
�. J4000
231
6
9
5
4
0
5
3
16
26
21
21
26
24
24
20
21
19
19
24
29
232
9
11
9
10
0
S
10
15
22
20
18
19
22
21
16
17
16
17
�
FIGURE 4. NO�S LN'�� RO �S�PROVEl1AE1dT -
35 , . .� � ' ��� �
, , � � � �
_*_��_' _�_�._T_�,_;__;_;..;.:_ -�-
30 „ :� �; ;;���
,;, ;� ,� ��
;�,�,�, �
� , ; , , . �,_;_�„_
� r � � � � �. ; �.
m 25 •��^ � � '
.� ' , , : ; ; ; , , � � ;
, �
►= � � � � � � ;. �
z , , ; � � ;_; �. ,.:., .
ui ZO ""�-,-' '-. � � '
� ;; ; �
; �
> �� �� " '; �� _
.';_'_�, , �;_� ;_,_,.;-.
� 15 -• '"�
a , ����
� ��„ ; � ;;; � �; ;
�
; , ; , � � �_�„_�_.-;
� ;_ - ; -
�o '"' '
� ; „ . ,
, , ,
, � :.;,: �
;',� �:;:' �
� ; ; , . � _�. . _ -,_: ;-:
5 � r� r !� � � � �
� �w - � � � �
�• � ,,, „
�� � �,:;
,.; ;, ;; :,,,,
;, , �.
� Q , Q N 1 p Il9 Op Qv N �y �('/
N � `+• C4 � N � �tf W ,r N �
113 ACTA�dE FR�OUEPlCY BAPID. Ft�
231 232
tu f r rt y f i
t Iti r- � i t Int rn ° I
: i r rt
HNIMH Report No. 294730.03 / 2931 00.09
April 1998
Prepared for:
Nlaryland Aviation Administration / Federai Aviation Administration
Prepared by:
Nicholas P. Miller
Eugene 11�. Reindei
David A. Senzig
Richard D. Horonjeff
Harris Miller lVliller � Hanson Inc. �
15 New England Executive Park
Burlington, MA 01803
C
Study of Low Frequency Takeoff Noise at Baltimore - Washington Intemational Airport 1
Report 294730.03 / 293100.09 April 1998
� �
1. EXECUTIVE SUnAt1�ARY
This study had 3 objectives:
1. Quantify the start of takeotf sound levels at a house in the Allwood area adjacent to
Baltimore-Washington International Airport,
2. Quantify a resident's judgement of these stazt of takeoff sound levels, and
3. Measure the propagation rate into the community oE the start of takeoff sound levels.
These objectives were met through continuous monitoring of sound leveLs at three different hauses
near Baltimore-Washington International Airport (BWl� and having one of the homeowners rate
the objectionable quality of many of the start of takeoff sound events. Additionally, at tlie dosest
home, wall vibration data were measured for many of the events, and full frequency tape
recordings made of a sample of takeoff sound events.
General conclusions from this study may be summarized as follows:
1. Automated measurement of takeoff event sound levels is not reliable; many of the events occur
� � too dose in time to permit standard identification using fixed threshold exceedence as an
�' -_-% indicator of start and end of event. That is, using a fixed threshold could result in more than
one takeoff being included in one measured "event".
2. It appeazs that, though low frequency sound energy is important in determining how a person
may react to the noise, higher frequencies also play a role - if there is enough energy in the
higher frequencies, events can also be bothersome. In other words, human reaction does not
depend totally on the Iow frequency content of the event.
3. C-weighted metrics (Lmax and SEL) correlate better than the same A-weighted metrics with
human judgements of the objecfaonable degree of an event.
4. Maximum wall vibration levels (max rms particle acceleration) correlate strongly with C-
weighted maximum outdoor sound levels, and do so somewhat better than with maximum A-
weighted levels.
5. The average drop off of C-weighted maximum levels, from Site 7 at 3200 feet from Runway 28
to Site 3 at 7800 feet is very close to "spherical spreading" - that is, the maximum C-weighted
levels drop about 6 dB for each doubling of distance.
HARRIS MILLER MILLER 8� HANSON INC.
G:W ROJECT51294T3018WILFMREPpqTSREPOpTS.WPD
Study of Low Frequency Takeoff Noise at Baltimore - Washington International Airport
Report 294730.03 / 293100.09
2
Apri11998 �-
6. The homeowner ratings of the events, (ratings from 0 to 100, higher ratings signifying the more
objectionable events) together with simultaneous sound measurements of the events can be
used to estimate how this homeowner (or a person of similar sensitivity to the events) rnight
rate the events as heard at greater distances from the airport. The homeowner, living in a home
approximately 3200 feet from the runway, rated about 75% of the events as more objectionable
than 40. If the same resident lived at the furthest measurement site, about 7800 feet from the
runway, approximately 50% of the events would be rated as more objectionable than 40.
HARRIS �UII�LER M►I.LER 8� HANSON INC.
G:�PRO.tECTS294T301BW 1�FMpEPORTSIAEPORTS. WPD
Study ot Low Frequency Takeoff Noise at Baltimore - Washington International Airport 3
_ Report 294730.03 / 293100.09 April 1996
l
2. INTRODUCTION
Residents of the comrnunity of Allwood, northeast of Baltimore-Washington International Airport
(BVVI), have long been concerned about the sound levels they regularly experience from jet aircraft
departing on Runway 28, see Figure 1, page 5. In 1990, portions of Allwood were computed to lie
outside the "Airport Noise Zone" - a contour of sound exposure computed with the Federal
Aviation Admuustration's (FAA's) Integrated Noise Model (INM). Measurernents made by the
Maryland Aviation Administration (IviAA) in these portions consistently showed levels in Allwood
to be higher than the computed levels. As a consequence, MA.A and FAA jointly funded a study
of the start-of-takeoff sound levels, a report was producedl, and the INM was ultimately revised
to more accurately compute sound levels in ttus region around an airport. _
After revision of the INM and computation oE sound e�osure coniours, some of the residences in
Allwood fell within the Airport Noise Zone and, according to MAA policy, were then eligible for
sound insulation, Sound measurements made before providing sound insulation showed in some
residences that indoor eriteria (achieving a Day-Night Average Sound Level, DNL, of 45 dB in all
habitable rooms� were rnet without additional sound insulation. However, MAA staff making the
measurements noted that aircraft noise levels sounded loud, and that the houses seemed to �vibrate.
i ) Sinular observations and studies made at other airports3 suggested that the standazd A-weighted
` method of ineasurement did not fully account for the perceived effects of takeoff noise, and MA.A
and FAA elected to conduct this study of sound levels, vibration levels and human judgement of
sound levels in and near Allwood.
Horonjeff, R.D., "Analysis of Aircraft Noise Levels in the Vicinity of Start-of-Takeoff Roll
at Baltimore-Washington International A.irport," FAA.-EE-92-01, May 1992.
FAA Order 5100.38A, "Airport Improvement Program (AIP) Handbook, Chapter 7, Section
2, Noise Cornpatibility Projects.
San Francisco International Airport: Alverson, S.R., et al, "Development of Single Event
Noise Metrics for use in Identifying Aircraft Operations for Possible Mitigation," H�VIM:H
Report No. 294090, January 1996.
Boston Logan International Airport: Horonjeff, R.D., et a[, "Logan Low-Frequency Noise
�,, f,,� Study," HNIMH Report No. 293810.04, June 1996.
HARRIS MILLER MILLER & HANSON INC.
GIARQJECTS129473018WIlFMREPORTSIREPORTS.WPD
Study of Low Frequency Takeoff Noise at Baltimore - Washington Intemational Airport 4
Report 294730.03 / 2931 00.09 April 1998
C
2.1 Objectives
This study had 3 objectives:
l. To quantify takeoff sound leveLs in the Allwood area, �
2. To quantify the human judgernent of takeoff sound levels, and
3. To determine the propagation rate of C-weighted sound levels.
2. i.1 Quant;fy rakeoff sound Levels in Ali�rood
Sirnilar studies� have shown that takeoff sound can have considerable energy in the lower
freguencies which may add to the perceived loudness and produce the vibration of structures.
Because A-weighted levels de-emphasize the lower frequencies and C-weighted levels do not, the
study was conducted to measure C-weighted levels of start-of-takeoff noi�e in the .Allwood area,
as well as A weighted leveLs. Additionally, wall vibration levels were also measured, and sample
tape recordings made to capture the full frequency information about representative departures.
2.1.2 Quantify Human .ludgerneni af Sourad L.errels
� -
Since no data exist th.at coaelate the aircraft noise events with human perception of the events, one
person, who resides in the Allwood azea, rated events while noise monitors acquired sound and
vibration data inside and outside that person's residence. The homeowner was instructed to use a
scale of 0 to 100 for rating the least to most objectionable events, generally using multiples of 10 in
assigning ratings. It was suggested that they should try to use ratings of 10 to 90 for least to most
objectionable so that there would be "room" for the rare exceptionally quiet or exceptionally
objectionable events. A few events were rated between the multiple of 10 ratings and denoted by
ending in 5. Appendix A details the instructions given to the person rating the events.
2.1.3 Defermine PPopagation Rate
To determine how C-weighted levels propagate in residential communities, three noise
monitors were placed in the Allwood area at varying distances along a line from. the start-of-
takeoff roll at the end of Rvnway 28, Figure L �
�
HARRIS MILLER MIL�ER & HANSON INC.
G:IPHOJECTS1294T30\9W ILFMAEP ORTSV4EPORTS.W PD
,
� ��
Study of �ow Frequency Takeoff Noise at Baltimore - Washington Internationai Airport 5
Report 294730.03 / 2931 00.09 April 1998
���'igure 1. B�'VI Airport Area I.ayout �%ap �itb �Yeasurement Sites
HARRIS MILLER MIU.ER b HANSON INC.
G:IPROJECTS129473018 WILFMAEF+0�T51AEPORTS.WP�
Study of �ow Frequency Takeoff Noise at Baltimore - Washingto� international Airport g
Report 294730.03 / 293100.09 April 1998
2.2 Nlethod
\
To complete the objectives, three measurement locations in the Allwood area were required; one
location close in to the start-of-takeoff roll with a detailed measurement scheme, and two further
out locations. The residence of the person rating the events was selected for the close in location,
Site 7, Figure 1. At this measurement location a total of five (5) noise monitors were utilized; A-
weighted and C-weighted sound levels outside the residence, C-weighted sound level inside the
residence, un-weighted vibration leveLs on the south wall (facing the airport) and on the east wall
of the residence. .Only C-weighted sound levels were obtained at the two further out locations
using similar noise monitors. Sample simultaneous indoor and outdoor tape recordings were also
made at Site 7. �
_. _ \ G
HARRIS MI�LER MILLER & HANSON WC.
G:1ARQIECTS129bT3fT8 W iIFMREPORTSIREPORTS. WF�O
Study of �ow Frequency Takeoff Noise at Baltimore - Washington Intemational Airport 7
.�
Report 294730.03 / 2931 00.09 April 1998
3. NIETHOD
Three measurement locations were selected to be on, or nearly on, a line oriented approximately
120° from the Runway 28 heading, see Figure 1. The three locations along the line were at distinct
distances away from the start-of-takeoff roll, as given in Table 1. The two further out locations were
intended solely for the purpose of dete��n�ng the propagation rate of C-weighted sound levels
when used in conjunction with the outside C-weighted leveLs at the innermost location. The closest
location to the start-of-takeoff roll, Site 7, was used to quantify the takeoff sound levels that
correspond with the hurnan judgernents of those levels. A total of seven (� monitors were utilized
to accomplish this objective; five (5) at the neazest location and one (1) at each of the remaining two
locations. The two further out monitors were setup to measure continuous C-weighted sound
levels and to capture Gweighted noise events, whereas the closest lacation monitors were set up
to measure C- and A-weighted sound levels and ur►-weighted, or flat, vibration levels as given in
Table 1.
Inside the residence, measurements were made in the living room where the resident rated aircraft
takeoff events. '
(� �'a'able 1e I�Ieasu�eme�at I.ocatfioaas anrl Data Acq�ired at E�ch Site
Site Dis�ce from Start Quantities �Ieasured @
Nunaber of Runway 2� Monitor #:
7 3200 ft iDutdoors
7 C-weighted, continuous;
Sample tape recordings.
4 A-weighted, events.
�adoo�s
� � C-weighted, continuous;
Sample tape recordings.
1 Vibration, south wall.
2 Vibration, east wall.
6 4600 ft 6 C-weighted, continuous.
3 7800 ft 3 C-wei hted, continuous.
1; ) .
HARRIS M(LLER MILLER & HANSON INC.
G:�PROJECTS1294T9p1gW�tFMqEPORTSIREPORTS. WPO
Study o( Low Frequency Takeoff Noise at Baltimore - Washington International Airport g
Report 294730.03 ! 293100.09 April 1998 :
4. RESU�TS ��
Data analysis lead to three basic results:
l. Outdoor C-weighted Lmax is identified as the preferred metric for evaluating takeoff
sound levels for correlation with hurnan judgements;
2. Measured vibration levels support the use of C-weighting to quantify the effccts of start of
takeoff sound levels; �
3. The propagafion rate of C-weighted Lmax sound levels was determined through and
beyond the Allwood area. '
4.1 C-weighted Lmax Sound Levels �
0
4.1.1 Initial Analysis
The first step in determining the preferred metric for evaluating the takeoff noise events was to
correlate the resident rated events with the various measured events at the residence. The rated
event data were entered into a spreadsheet and the times of the rated events were automatically
correlated with the noise monitor event Lmax times. A filtering method was used on the correlated
data to cliscazd invalid rnatches due to event length and/or the time difference between the event �
Lmax time and the rated event time. The valid data were then plotted with the rating as the
dependant variable. The plots showed no direct correlation of event rating to sound or vibration
level, see Figure 2 as an exarnple.
Automaiic Corre(ation of Data
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Indoor Lmax (dBC) - Site8
F'igure 2. Itesident 12ating versus �door C-weig�ated Lan�x - Auto Correlated
HARAIS MILLER MI�LER & HANSON INC.
G:IPROJECTS129473018 W ItFMREPORTSREPOHTS. W PD
Study of Low Frequency Takeoff Noise at Baltimore - Washington Intemational Airport g
Report 294730.03 / 2931 00.09 Aprii 1998
I �
.As an attempt to understand the ratings assigned to each event, the tape recordings of departures
were used to playback a sample of events and listen to them in the laboratory. A total of 14 rated
events were recorded, put on a demonstration tape, and listened to in a sr�all room with the output
calibrated to approximate the level actually heazd indoors by the resident. Figure 3 shows the C-
weighted Lmax level of these events and the ratings assigned by the resident. Three consultants
independently listened to the tape and rated the events as they listened. This test resulted in the
conclusion that the events were rated similarly by everyone; the higher rated events were rated
higher by the listeners as well. The recordings were also analyzed for frequency content using a
Larson-Davis 2900 spectrum analyzer. The analysis confirmed the existence of low freguency
content in the data; the reason for measuring with C-weighting. Figuies 4, 5, and 6 show the
frequency content of three of the events labeled 1, 2, and 3 in Figure 3. Figvres 7, 8, and 9 show the
corresponding time histories.
Figure 4 shows the specira for event number 1, rated as 80 and Fig�ue 5 shows this information for
event 2, rated 90. Interestingly, the C-weighted values for both events are almost identical, while
the higher rated event, event 2, has higher A-weighted levels. Though this result may be true for
only some events, it suggests that more than low frequency noise contributes to the overall rating
of an event. It is likely that when events aze loud enough, a wide range of frequencies contribute
� � to the human judgement af the objectionable quality of the sound.
�
HARRIS MILLER MILLER &� HANSON INC.
G:1PRQlECT51294T3018 W ILFMREPppTS�FiEPORTS. W PD
Study of �ow Frequency Takeoff Noise at Baltimore - Washington International Airport 10
Report 294730.03 / 293100.09 Apri) 1998
�
�1
.�
:�
.
� - �
' 1
e '
�
�
" ' � � , �
•
' ��� �n■���s��■�
� ����s
' �■���
�
.�
:
�
70 i5 80
Indoor Lmax (dBC) � Siie8
.
85
�igure 3. Resident Itat�ra�s of T�g�e Recordesi Events v�r�aas lncloor C-wefghied I.�ax...-
100
m 90
�
= 80
a�
� 70
� 60
L
� 50
� 40
�
°- 30
�
� 20
� 10
0
12.5 25 50 100 200 400 800 1600 3150 6300
16 31.5 63 125 250 500 1000 2800 4000 8000
1/3 Octave Band Center Frequency (Hz)
--$— NAau —�— SEL
�igure 4. Spectra of Tape itecorde4i Ev�rat 1- Itesident Rating of �0
HARRIS MII.LER MILLER 8 HANSON INC.
G:IPROJECTS129t73018 W Il FMAEPORTS1FiEPORT5.1NP0
,
\,
• • �
Study of Low Frequency Takeoff Noise at Baltimore - Washington Intemational Airport
Report 294730.03 / 2931 00.09
� �
) —
�� ���
1 �
,.._✓.;
�
,..
a�
>
a�
J
a�
�
�
�
�
a�
L
a
�
c
�
0
�
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
O 10 20 40 80 160 315 630 1250 2500 5000 10000
12.5• 25 50 100 200 4Q0 800 16Q0 3150 6300
16 31.5 63 125 250 5Q0 1000 2Q00 4000 8000
1/3 Octave Band Center Frequency (Hz)
Ma�c —�— SEL
11
ril 1998
Figiare 5. Specta�a of Tape 12ecorded Ewent �- Iteside�at Ita�g of 90
.-.
m
-v
..�
a�
>
a�
J
a�
�
�
�
�
a�
�
a
�v
c
_
0
�
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
12.5 25
16 31.5
—�— Max —�— SEL
50 100 200 400 800 1600 3150 6300
63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4d00 8000
1/3 Octave Band Center Frequency (Hz)
F'igiare 6. Spectra of �'ape I�ecorded Event 3- Resislent Itating of 30
HARRIS MILLER MILLER & HANSON INC.
G:�FROJECTS12StT30\B WI LFMREPORTSIREPORTS.W PD
Study of Low Frequency Takeoff Noise at Baltimore - Washington intemationai Airport
Report 294730.03 / 2931 00.09
�.�
72
April 1998
C
r agure ��. 't'ic�e �iistoay of T��re I�ecorai� Event 1- I�eside�t 9ang of �0 '�
90
.-,.
80
m
� 70
a�
>
°; 60
�
� 50
0
�
40
30
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 .90 100
Time (Seconds)
--- A-level C-level �-- Linear 20 Hz OB
_ �igure 8. Ta�rae History of Tape �ecorded Event 2- Resideaat-�taiung of 90 , ,_(
HARRIS MILLER MIL�ER & HANSON INC.
G:1PfiQ1ECTSi29dT30�BWIlFMAEPppT51pEPORTS. WPD
5tudy of Low Frequency Takeoff Noise at Baltimore - Washington Intemational Airport � 3
Re�ort 294730.03 / 293100.09 April 1998
•�
.�-.
8�
m
� %�
N
>
J 60
-a
� 50
0
�
40
30
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time (Seconds)
--- A-level C•level -- Vnear 20 Hz OB
Fig�are 9. Tiane I�istory of Tap�e ltecorciecl Event 3• ltesicient �ta�g of 30
( j Because the resident ratings of the 14 recorded events seemed consistent with the judgements we
made, that is, the events that sounded louder to us also received the higher ratings by the resident,
we concluded that the lack of correlation with the sound levels shown in Figure 2 could be due to
the imprecision of the automated identification of events. In other words, the events of Figure 2
might be incorrectly associated with the ratings, or the automated event identification could have
grouped more than one takeoff in an "event". This listening trial also confumed for us that there did
not seem to be any unusual qualities of the sound, such as loud rattle, that might affect the ratings.
Consequently, we elected to use a non-automated approach to identify and compute the desired
sound level metrics for a larger set of rated events. �IlvIIvII3 softwaze was used that clisplays the
monitored time histories on-screen and permits user-selection and calculation of inetrics for any
chosen time interval. Such an approach pemuts detailed identification and quantification of closely
spaced events.
Two days were selected that had a wide range of ratings and a large number of rated events;
August 25th and 26th,1997. For each rated event, the continuous time histories frorn each monitor
that acquired full time histories were viewed and analyzed for SEL and Lmax. For the monitors
without full time histories, the single event data were reviewed and for every event that correlated
� � with a rated event and had a reasonable event length and Lmax time, the SEL and Lmax for the
,
HARRIS MI�LER MILLER &� HANSON INC.
G:IPROJECTS124t73p1gNp LFMpEPORT5IREPORTS.WPD
Study of Low Frequency Takeoff Noise at Baltimore - Washington Intemational Airport y q
Report 294730.03 / 2931 00.09 April 1998
event were recorded'. This two-day period of data showed stron er correlation with the rat' �
g ings.
The ratings versus the measured data for this two-day period are presented in Figures 10-17.
Inspection of these plots suggests that the best conelation of inetrics witri the ratings appears to be
the outside C-weighted Lmax and SEL, and the South Wall vibration levels. This conelation is
judged by looking for the most defined pattern between rating and metric. In these cases, the
pattern is one with points plotting from the lower left (low rating, Iow level) to the upper right (high
rating, high level). To mathematically confirm this presumed conelation using a larger data
sample, additional days of data were analyzed. -
Specifically, additional data were reduced to pernut a more rigorous anaiysis of the f,ollowing
relationships:
1. Resident rating compared with outdoor A-weighted Lmax.
2. Resident rating compared with outdoor C-weighted Lmax.
3. South wall vibration levels compared with outdoor A-weighted Lmax.
4. South wall vibration levels compared with outdoor C-weighted Lmax.
The outdoor levels aze chosen because of the (reladve) ease of ineasurin and red' ' `\
g p icting them as
compared with interior levels. Also, listening to tape recordings of the interior sounds showed that
other noise sources (television, radio and voices) may have affected the measured indoor levels. The
comparison of resident ratings with outdoor sound levels is presented below in Section 4.1.2.
The vibration levels of the south wall aze of primary interest because this wall faces the runway, and
it is the one fc+r which the vibration levels appeaz better correlated with resident ratings, compaze
Figures 16 and 17. Comparison of ineasured wa11 vibration and outdoor sound levels is of value
because if they are closely correlated, then they may be used interchangeably in analysis. For
example, to the extent that C-weighted levels correlate with south wail vibration, then the C-
weighted levels predict the vibration levels and can substitute for them. Further, if C-weighted levels
correlate with the ratings, then it can be inferred that the vibration levels will also coirelate with the
ratings. These vibration levels aze discussed in detail below in Section 4.2.
4 Monitors 7, 8, and3 ran condnuous time histories; monitors 4, 1, and 2 were triggered by
monitor 7 and recorded data only when the outside C-weighted level exceeded 65 dB(C). (
_ \
HARRIS MILLER MILLEA $ HANSON INC.
G:IPROJECTS1294730�8 W II.FMpEPORTSIREPORTS. W PD
Study o( Low Frequency Takeoff Noise at Baltimore - Washington Intemational Airport � 5
Report 294730.03 / 293100.09 April 1999
�' ,� _—
- August 25-26, 1997 :
j )
55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Outdoor Lmax (dBC) - Site7
�igure 10. Itesident ltatiaag versias i)utd�r C•weighted I.� -'Two Days
100
90
80
c°' 70
:�
� 60
c 50
a�
:° 40
� 30
20
10
0
70
August 25-26, 1997
75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115
Outdoor SEL (dBC) - Site7
f y;Figure 11. Resident �tating versus Outdoor C-weighted SEI� - Two Days
;
HARRIS MI�LER MIl.LER & HANSON INC.
G:\PqOJECTS129473p1gyy�(,p►�pEpORTSWEPORTS. WPD
Study of Low Frequency Takeoff Noise at Baltimore - Washington Intemational Airport �g
Report 294730.03 / 293100.09 April 1�98
August 25-26, 1997 �
��
.�
:�
.
� ��
,' . �
1
�
. ,�
' � �
• �r
� _. . . ��
1 �t., �� ��
i
�
55 60 65 i0 i5 80 85 90 95 100
Outdoor Lmax (d�A) - Siie4
F'i�are 12. �tesideaat �tatiaag versus i�utdoor A�wveaghiesl I.��; - T'�o Days
. �. �
� r . . ••_
75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115
Outdoor SEL (dBA) - Site4
Fagiare 13. Itesident Itating versus Outdoor A=weigttteci SEI, -'Tv�o Days _ __
_ � �_
HARRIS MI�LER MIL�ER & HANSON INC.
G:IPROJECT5129dT30�B W it,FMpEpORTS1REPORTS. W PD
� �
� �)
Study of Low FrequencyTakeoff Noise at Baltimore - Washington Intemationai Airport ��
Report 294730.03 / 293100.09 April 19�8
; August 25-26, 1997 �i
100
90
80
c' 70
:�
� 60
c 50
a�
.� 40
� 30
20
10
0
50
55 6� 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Indoor Lmax (dBC) - Site8
Fagur� 14. �tesident �ttating versu�s I�adoor C-wea,ghted L�nn�c - Two I)ays
100
90
80
c' 70
:�
� 60
c 50
a�
.� 40
� 30
20
10
0
70
August 25-26, 1997
75 80 85 90 95 100 1�5 110 115
Indoor SEL (dBC) - Site8
i ) g'igure 15. �tesident Itating versus Insioor C-weightecl SEL - Two Days
HARRIS IVIILLER MILLER 8� HANSON INC.
C,:IPROJECT51294T30tB1N1I,FMpEPORTS1AEPpRTS. W PD
Study of Low Frequency Takeoff Noise at Baltimore - Washington Intemational Airport y g
Report 294730.03 / 293100.09
� � Aprii 1998 �
j
���
South i/Vall
August 25-26, 1997
;
r�g�e tb. lzesidea�t �ti�g vers�is South i�al� IVI�� Accele�t�on i,e�el - Two I9ays
100
90
� � 80
;� 70
� 60
c 50
a�
:0 40
�
� 30
20
10
0
5U
. .
� � , �, •
�
55 60 65 70 ?5 80 85 90 95 100
iViax RMS ,4cceleration Level (dB re i ug)
.� igure 17. .tiesident �tating veasus East W�gg IViaximurn Accelerataon I,evel � Two Days
HARRIS MI�LER MILLER & HANSON iNC.
G:IPROJECTS129aT3p�g W itFMqEPOqTS1F1EPORTS.W PD
� �"
Study of Low Frequency Takeoff Noise at Baltimore - Washington International Airport 1 g
Report 294730.03 / 293100.09 April 1998
)
4.1.2 Refined Analysis
Events were visually identified and metrics computed for another 4 days of data, a total of six days:
August 21st, 22nd, 2Sth, 26th, 27th, and 28th,1997. From the six day period, it was confirmed that
the A-weighted levels did not correlate with the ratings as well as did the C-weighted levels, see
Figures 18 and 19. Logically, for correlation of a metric with the ratings, low values of the metric
should correspond to low ratings, and high values to high ratings. Though high values of both A-
weighted and C-weighted Lmax in Figures 18 and 19 tend to correspond with high ratings, only the
C-weighted values demonstrate a consistent pattern from high values / high ratings to low values /
low ratings. Quantitative analysis using logistic regression confirms this observation.
Logist Regression
Logistic regression is a statistical analysis method that provides quantitative evaluation of data of
the type presented in Figures 18 and 19. Basically, logistic regression provides the best curve that
relates the independent variable or dose (sound level, in this case) to the probability of a specific
outcome or response. Curves so derived aze often called "dose-response" curves. For appropriate
(i"`" ,l use, the dependent variable or response is usually "d.ichotomized" or divided into "yes" and "no".
% For this analysis, the ratings are divided into greater than 40 as `�es" and less than or equal to 40 as
"no". This division reflects the notion that, around an airport, some degree of noise should be
expected and acceptable. Hence, for this resident, the dichotomization at 40 implies that exposure
to events rated in the upper half of the scale is the circumstance of greater concern than exposure to
events rated 40 or less.
Once the dependent variable is dichotomized, logistic regression produces the curves in Figures 20
and 21, with 90% confidence limits for those curves. Each curve is the best fit to the data for
predicting the actual distribution of responses that resulted from the doses. That is, of all possible
"s" curves that start on the left, at low sound levels, at 0% response, and end on the right at 100%a
response, the one derived best predicts the actual data set.
Interpreting these curves is straight-forwazd. For example, the curve in Figure 20 shows that for
outdoor C-weighted Lmax of 75 dBC, for this particular resident there is a 25% chance that the event
will be rated at greater than 40.
HARRIS MILLER MILLER 8 HANSON INC.
G:IPFlOJECTS1294?3p�gyy�LFMqEPORTSW EPORTS. W PD
Study of �ow Frequency Takeoff Noise at Baitimore - Washington international Airport 20
Report 294730.03 / 293100.09 April 1998
The steeper the dose-response curve and the narrower the confidence limits, the more likely is the `'
curve to accurately represent the underlying data, and the more reliable is the relationship between
the dose and the response. A very flat or almost hori2ontal curve rneans there is little or no
relationship between dose and response, as, for example, when 20% of the responses are no,
regardless of dose. A very steep or almost vertical curve means there is a very cleaz and almost
"threshold" relationship between dose and response. Comparing the curves of Fio res 20 and 21
demonstrates that the C-weighted maximums better predict the responses than do the A-weighted
maximums.
C�
..
HARRIS MtLLER MILLER & HANSON INC.
G:�PqpJECTS129473018Vy�LFMpEPORTSIREPORTS. W PD
Study of Low Frequency Takeoff Noise at Baltimore - Washington intemational Airport 21
__ Report 294730.03 / 293100.09 April 1998
� )
;
August 21, 22, 25-2�, 1997
55 60 65 70 i5 80 85 90 95 100
Outdoor Lmax (dBA) - Site4
1+6g�ire 1�. Resident ltating versus Outsioor A•�veig�teai I.�aax - Si� I)ays
i )
100
90
80
c' 70
�
� 60
c 50
a�
.� 40
� 30
20
10
0
50
. •: ; , . .
(
`�--�� Figure 19. Resident Rating verseis Outdoor C-Weighted L�ax - Six Days
HARRIS MILLER MILLER & HANSON INC.
G:IPAOJECTS129l�301B WILFMRFpORTS1REPORTS.W PD
55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Outdoor Lmax (dBC) - Site7
Study of Low Frequency Takeoff Noise at Baltimore - Washington intemational Airport 22
Peport 294730.03 / 293100.09 April 1998
Chance of � (
Ratings Exceeding 40
� 1 - - ,.., • , � . .
p �0�
� 90
m 80
� 70
°� 60
° 50
C 40
� 30
a�
c 20
`� 10
�
U �
60
65 70 i5 80 85 90 95 100 105 110
Outdoor Lmax (dBC) � Sitei
�
Fig�are 20. I)ose Respoaase Relataonshap for C•Weighied I��aax and lta��tags > 40
� � ( �-
. - � •,, � --r • ,i
� 100 i i �v� .--.-vv�� ��«�.a �e e �Q�
I I ! i � i...I-•---t-'-r- -.
90 � i � , '
I i. i � � ......� , � .._--i•_'
n � � i � + i ' .
� i••" � ( t.�-�-r �
� 80 � I i � � � i �, � (.......•r' � ; � �
C �� i i i I I i I i i, � `
� I I � I I ! � I !
� 70 � I I ' ' i .E•' � � ! � i I I
! I I I b• �( i I i � i
1 I ' i i.• � !-' � i � I I !
� 60 � ,
� �� i � � 1%, I� I I I I I
%�J� � � � � � I ' 1 � j �
� ' � I I I ± i '
' ' I I I
0 40 i� i � ;- �' i i E
� , �� i �, � � i �
`— gp � � � a i �� i i; i i�
� ' � �� i i i i I i I i
C,) � I.......� ...• ' i � , � I
C 20 ,.a••�.. �, , I 1 � i ; �
.c 10 ... , � i,,. � i
U p -: -`--_. _ � � , i . � . .
i � i i i< i i � ;
40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Outdoor Lmax (dBA) - Site4
Figure 21. I)ose �tespot�se �telataogaship for A-iWeightecl I.maFc and Ra�ings > 40
�
HARHIS MILLER MI�LER & HANSON INC.
G:NRQ! ECT51294?30�BN/�LFMqEPOflTS1REPORTS. W PD
r ,
Study of �ow Frequency Takeoff Noise at Balt'imbre - Washington International Airport 23
Report 294730.03 / 293100.09 April 1998
�
4.2 Vibration Levei Measurements
4.2.1 Correlation with Sound Level Maximums ��
Using this same six-day period of conelated measurements and ratings, the vibration level
measurements aze plotted versus the corresponding outside C- and A- weighted Lmax levels,
Figures 22 and 23. As seen on the plots, there eacists a close lineaz relationship between the vibration
levels measured and the sound level measured outside; i.e. the higher fhe sound level, the higher
the vibration level. Though both the C- and the A-weighted levels are correlated with the vibrafion
leveLs, the C-weighted levels correlate somewhat better. Using standazd least-squares analysis, the
sample correlation coefficients for all plotted points are 0.63 and 0.62 for Figures 22 and 23,
respectively. However, if the four furthest outliers in each figure aze omitted, the correlation
coefficients become 0.91 and 0.84 for the C- and A- weighted data, respectively.
4.2.2 Comparison of Vibration tlAeasurements with Published information
Guidelines for judging human perception of vibration leveLs have been published in several
�' � forums 5 Hubbazd provides sound level thresholds at which the induced vibrations in windows,
" walls and floors may become perceptible. He also identifies thresholds of tactile perception - that
is, vibration levels that aze likely to be perceptible to finger tip touch. Figure 24 presents the
ma�cimum outdoor spectrum for event 1, rated as 80, see Figure 4, but also includes the Hubbard
window, wall and floor thresholds of perceptible vibration. For this event, the outdoor sound
pressure leveLs clearly exceed the window threshold and somewhat exceed the threshold of
perceptible wall vibration.
Hubbard provides information about tactile perceptibility as a function of the frequency of
vibration. Overall vibration levels were rneasured for this study, but judging from the spectra of
Figvres 4, 5, 6 and 24, it is likely that much of the induced vibration energy lies between 20 and 100
Hz. For tlus frequency range, Hubbazd data (Figure 10 of the Hubbazd article) show the threshold
of tactile perception to be between acceleration levels of 75 and 80 dB. Figure 25 repeats the South
Hubbard, Harvey H., "Noise Induced House Vibrations and Human Perception," Noise
Control Engineering Journal, 19, (2), pp 49-55, Sep-Oct 1982.
American National Standards Institute, "Guide to the Evaluation of Human Exposure to
( ) Vibration in Buildings," ANSI S3.29-1983.
�,
HARRIS MILLER MILI.ER 8 HANSON INC.
G:�PRQIECTS129t7301gyy1�Fid1F{EPORTb1REPOflTS. W PD
.
Study of Low Frequency Takeoff Noise at Baltimore - Washington Intemational Airport 24
Report 294730.03 / 293100.09 April 1998
�
Wall acceleration levels versus Gweighted maximum sound levels and identifies this threshold.
According to the Hubbazd data, this figure shows that Eor the measured events, induced vibraHon
leveLs become perceptible to the touch when outdoor C-weighted maximum levels are higher than
�5 to 80 dBC.
The ANSI standard S3.29-1983 identifies base response curves that correspond to the approximate
threshold of vibration perception of the most sensitive humans. These thresholds are frequency
dependent, are different for vertical and horizontal directions, and aze intended to address the
ar►noyance effects produced when a building responds to a vibration source. Figure 26 repeats the
data of Figvre 25, but shows the range of these ANSI thresholds for horizontal vibrations between
20 and 80 Hz.
.-.
m
�° 110
�
a�
>
J 100
ai
c�i
� 90
�
� 80
x
c�
�
� 70
�
= 60
. � � •, •
�■����■�■�����������
��■■■■■■�����.■��■■■
■■■■��■■�■����������
■■■■■■■■���■■■■■■��■
�■�■■��■����������■�
������������������■�
��������������������
■■�■■■���������■■■�■
��■����������■������
�������ii����������■
c°n 50 55 60 65 70 ?5 80 85 90 95 100
Outdoor Lmax (dBC) - Sitei
Figure 22. South Wall I1�[axirnum Acce9eration I.eveLs ve�°sais Outdomr C-weighted L�tax
HARRIS MILLER MILLER & HANSON INC.
G:1PHQIECTS1294730�8WILFMpEPORTSW EPOATS.WPD
• ,
Study of Low Frequency Takeoff Noise at Baltimore - Washington intemational Airport
�e�ort 294730.03 � 293100.09
j
m August 21, 22, 25-28, 1997
�_..�
25
April 1998
— ��� .
� , ;
, . ; . ,
� � � � :
_ , ; �
. � -- -- . ----__(� i..__ ; � i i �.._.._.__..-- -.._---- - ._ j --------
J 1�� � ' , ' �' : ; :
I
� � i � � ( � � � � � ' � � ' � �
� � ' � •' � � i
; � i i ! i ! I�i I ` � ; , '
90 , � ; � � � : . � � ;
! � � � 1 ; i � � ��:o i :� � � �
i C� i � I � �. �. � ! � ; i ;
� ' i I � � �� I� `�J� • :•I j � � � i
rt gp , � ; ' � ,
� � � C i�' I� �C i i i i i I �
� � I I : = I � � � � � I I � I �_
�o � �
�� f��l!� I�"'li'I
� i
�� so. '' , I I�I I I:�� i I l I I i
;�n 50 55 60 65 i0 75 80 85
Outdoor Lmax (dBA) - Site4
90 95 100
�igtare 23. South Wall NIaxianu�a Accelerai�on I.eeeLs versi�s Outcloor A-weighted Iranax
.-.
� 100
� 90
� 80
� 70
� 60
�
� 50
a�
tL 40
� 30
0 20
X 10
`� 0
�
1"L.5 25 50 100 200 400 800 1600 3150 63d0
16 31.5 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000
1/3 Octave Band Center Frequency (Hz)
Hubbard C�iteria »» --�— Windows —+— Walis 4 Fioors
�" � Figure 24. Spectra for Itecorded Event 1(Outside) - Resident Itating of 80
HARRIS MI�LER MILLER 8 HANSON INC.
G:1PR0.1ECTS1294�3p19 W �LFMqEPORTSIREPORTS. W PD
Study of Low Frequency Takeoff Noise at Baltimore - Washington International Airport 26
Report 294730.03 / 293100.09 April 1998
__ \ .
m August 21, 22, 25-28, 1997
-o
, ��������������������■
� „ ��������������������
, ��������������������
, . � �����������������00�
��������������������
. : � ��.•• �• �,�������"�����rFii�����
' _ ��''�[ , �€. �' �'���� �'� 'r „ � , _
_� • • �r � � r . 'M+�. �.: - �c .�l� � ":♦1a � ti i
� �_�/<�:S ...t . _ _�E� �.:.�_r�.�.w::J
.::.hE...__��..::.� _..;,:. __�.;...�._....,
� �■■■�■■■.������■■■■�
' ■■■■■■■■��■■■■■■■■■�
,,�������i����������0�
c�n 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Outdoor Lmax (dBC) - Sitei
Figure 25. Soutfla Wall l�I ° a� Ac�el��t�on ��e�s Cmnaparecl v�ail� �ub6aY°d Tactile ,
Threshold �,.
.
m August 21, 22, 25-28, 199i
� 110
cn
a�
J �
� 100
a�
�
� 90
�
�
� 80
x
c�
�
� 70
�
s
= 60
v� 50 55 60 65 70 i5 80 85
Outdoor Lmax (dBCj - Site7
90 95 100
_ �igure Z6. South W�il Nlaxaanunn Acceleration I.evels Coanpareci w�itla AI�tSI �es�mids \
HARRIS i1�ILLER MILLEfl 8� HANSON INC.
G:IPROJECTS129473018WItFMREPORTSW EPORTS.WPD
Study of Low Frequency Takeofi Noise at Baltimore - Washington Internationaf Airport 27
Report 294730.03 / 2931 00.09 Aprii 1998
� 4.3 C-vveighted Sound Levei Propagation Rate
If the C-weighted maximum level is the best readily measured rnetric of takeoff noise, how do
sound leveLs, as measured in this metric, vary with distance? The C-weighted Lmax data from the
two further out measurements sites were obtained for the same six day period of events. Figure 27
shows the C-weighted Lrnax values measured for some 84 events as a function of site location.
Note that the distance scale is logarithmic.
The heavier line connects the mean value at each location, and the lighter lines show the theoretical
"spherical spreading" drop off of sound level with distance. Because the logarithmic scale is used,
the theoretical propagation rate plots as straight lines. The theoretical drop-off rate is 6 dB for every
doubling of distance. The average drop-off rate for the 84 events measured simultaneously at Sites
7 and 3 is 5.6 dB per doubling of distance, or very close to the theoretical propagation rate.
As shown on tlus plot, regazdless of the data scatter, it is cleaz that the further from Runway 28, the
lower the average C-weighted maximum sound level. This drop-off is presented in Figure 28. This
figure shows the percentage of ineasurements above a certain C-weighted maximum sound level
for each measurement site. The percentages of each measurement sight clearly sepazate Erom the
others in the range of C-weighted Lmax levels of 75 dBC to 95 dBC. The closest location had the
.. ,
� � higher percentages and the furthest had the lower percentages, showing that the doser in to
Runway 28, the more occurrences there were over a given C-weighted Lmax range.
Finally, the measured levels of Figure 27 may be used in combination with the "dose response"
curve of Figure 20 to estimate how the person providing the ratings would judge the same events,
but� heard at the three different sites. In other words, if a person with the sensitivity that is
chazacterized by the curve of Figure 20 lived at each of the three different sites, how might he / she
rate the takeoff sounds experienced at earh of the sites? Figures 29, 30 and 31 provide an answer.
These figures show, for the events measured simultaneously at each site, what percent would likely
be rated as more objectionable than a rating of 40 for each 5 dB range of C-weighted rnaxirnum
level. Table 2 summarizes the data of these figures. As shown, the total percent of events likely to
be rated greater than 40 decreases with distance from 77% of all events at Site 7, to just under half
at Site 3.
HARRIS �1flILLER MIL�ER 8 HANSON INC.
G:\PROJECTS1294T301BW�LFMpEpORTSW EPORTS.WPD
Study of Low Frequency Takeoff Noise at Baltimore - Washington Intemational Airport 28
Report 294730.03 / 293100.09 Aprii 1998
I `
�
Feet to Runway 28 (logarithmic)
�ig�are 27. Outd�r �-e��ighted I,inuc at �c�a of �e e� NI e�aent Sates
100%
�
�
c
� 80%
a�
�
� 60%
a�
0 40%
�
�
� 20%
�
�
o�io
Percent of 11�easurements above
bottom of 5 dBC Range
_ � � � � �
� ,
:
� , ; �
: �:
. ,
I � �; �
,
� i � � ! ;
� ' I j !
I i i j �
� � � I I i j
' ' I I � , ►
, �
i i i i i I' 1
I I I ; �
� oa va - iu iu -�a /5 - ttu t3U - t3b tib - yU 90 -95 95 - 100 > 100
Outdoor Lmax Range (dBC)
� �;
- Figure 2$. Percent of Il�Ieasuretraents at each Site above a C-w�ighted I.taaax �
HARRIS MII.LER MILLER & HANSON INC.
Ca:�PFlQlECTS1294730�8 W II.FMpgpORT51REPORTS.WP D
�
Study of Low Frequency Takeoff Noise at Baltimore - Washington International Airport 2g
Report 294730.03 / 293100.09 April 1998
i )
Table 2. Percent of Takeoff 1Voise Events Rated > 40 at Each Site
Range of Location, See Figure 1
Measured
Lmax (C) Site 7 Site 6 Site 3
65 - 70 0.00 0.00 0.09
70 - 75 0.32 2.85 4.44
75 - 80 5.42 6.87 10.70
80 - 85 15.98 23.62 15.56
85 - 90 32.6? 9.53 16.44
90 - 95 9.42 14.62 2.00
95 -100 13.60 4.31 0.00
> 100 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 77.42 61.80 49.23
HARRIS MILLER MII.LER 8� HANSON INC.
Ca:\PROJECTS1294T3018WIIFN1pEPORTSW EPORTS. WPD
�
Study of Low Frequency Takeoff Noise at Baltimore - Washington international Airport 30
Report 294730.03 / 293100.09 Aprii 1998
�
3;
0
^ 3t
� 2�
c�
� 2�
c
w' 1�
�
�
� 1C
N
i
a� �
�
v
ite7� 3200 rom unway 28
i j � � S �
� � I ; � � � I
, ;
I ` �
; � i (
�
r
I ; �
i
, j � � I
I � + ' ' ! i
, ! ' � I
I � : � � '
� , � � , �
i ? i �
� � f
� �
( f � i '
. � I
t%'ti h'I". _ 7/1 7n 7r ��r nn � n.. •
0
_ .�... • •, . ., -. ., . .., - uv vv - oa o� - �U yU -y5 yb - 1 UO > 10�
Outdoor Lmax Range (dBC)
,:.�
C
Figure 29. Percent of �.2.esfdent It�tings > 40 veasus C-weighted I,max - Close-in Site �
HARRIS MILLER MILLER & HANSON INC.
G:�PROJECT51294T301BWILFN1pEPORTSW EPOFTS.WPD
I
Study of L.ow Frequency Takeoff Noise at Baltimore - Washington International Airport 31
Report 294730.03 / 293100.09
April 1998
35
0
� 30
�
� 25
�
.� 20
c
a�
W 15
�
0
c10
a�
�
a, 5
a
n
, '+C1VV TI TC0171 t'tUflWaY
--- ---- •� ��-�� ��-vvov-a�a�-yu yU-y595-100>100
(�utdoor Lmax Range (dBC)
;
F'agiare 30. Percent of I2esideatt Ii�tings > 40 v�rsus C-�eighteti I,an�.x . Midclle Site
, ��
��,_ _�,�
35
0
� 30
�
� 25
�
.� 20
c
a�
W �5
�
0
c10
a�
�
a, 5
�
0
, � o�v r� rrom rtunway z8 --
- - -- . � • � -. � , .,► - vv ov - a� o� - yu yU -95 95 • 100 > 100
Outdoor �max Range (dBC)
�, )Figure 31. Percent of Resident ltatings > 40 versus C-weaghted I,max - Furthest Site
�
HARRIS MILLER MILLER � HANSON INC.
G:�PROJECTS1294T3p1gyy��(.nqEPORTSW EPORTS.WPD
0
Study ot Low Frequency Takeoff Noise at Baitimore - Washington International Airport A-y
Fieport 294730.03 / 293100.09 April 1998
APPENDIX A. INSTRUCTIOtVS FOR RATIPVG ,41RCRAFT' EVENTS
Purpose: Thank you for participating in tuis study. The goal is to learn more about people's
reactions to aircrafi noise as experienced inside their own homes, especiallq in neighborhoods like
yours near airport runways. Later comparison of our measurements with your reactions will prnvide
vatuable insight into what aspects of the nnise aze most objectionable to resideats as erperien.ced
inside their own homes.
Generai Instructions. You will be listening for individual sircraft noise events and rating each
one on the form provided oa the reverse side of these instructions. We do not eRpect you to do this
all day long. Pick a 15 to 20 miaute listeniag period during the day whea there is a concentration
of sircraft activity. This will give us the moat information and requir� the least amouat of qour
time. If your schedule permits, pick a di$erent listeni.ng period each day ... perhaps the moraiag
one day, ihe evening the neat, the afternooa next, and so on. This w�l provide us with a complete
range of weather conditions and ruaway use characteristics over the 4-week data collection period.
If aircraft are barely audible (from both takeoffs and landiags) whea you begia a listeaiag period,
simply pick a differeat period later ia the day if possihle. It is not mandatory }hat you complete oae
sessioa euery day.
We have placed instrumentatioa ia your living raom'to monitor souad and eibratioa, so this is the
raom ia which we would ]�7ce you to listen. Please make qou�cself comfortahle, but for corisistency
between Iisteaing sessions, we ask that you turn off radios, teleeisions or other noise-making devices
during the session. During peak periods of sinraf� activity, we suspect this tisteaing task will
require your undivided atteation. Iaterruptions, such sa telephone calle,�etc. are bound to occur and
we eapect you will need to suepend your listening task whea these occur.
��
You have been provided witl�, 2 clipboards and sets of forma Each persoa fills out tiieir own form
during the sessica. ; . (
Each moraiag place any completed. forms ia one of the self-addressed'envelopes we have pmvided,
and simply leave it for our equipmea� serviciag techuicis,n, •.'•
When you hear aa aircraft; please note the time fr�om the wristwatch attached ta the clipboazd
when you are confident yon hesr the sound of a new sircraii (time to the nearest 10 or 15 secoads
is quite adequate). Write that tame on the form. The watch has beea synchronized with clocks in
our noise measuring equipment so we can correctly match our measurements to your responses.
Continue to listen to the aircraf� as the sound level increases, thea deareases, and finally fades '�
awsy. .
When the sircraft noise �vent is over. In the box to the right of the time, eater the numerical
.raiing that best describes how you felt about the entire noise event from begin.aing to ead. The
numerical scaie is meant to provide yon with a range of x�esponsea Sram least objectionable to most
objectionable to rank qour impresaion. You are fr�e to decide for yourself what aspects of the noise
and/ur vibration most iafluence grour feelings. Furthermore� the relative importance of these aspects
maY ��e 5rom ona aoise event to the next. That is your prerogative, Two sample entries are
shown on the first two lines of the form.
If a nevc aoise eveat starts before the �a;:�vious one is over. Contiaue to rate the first event
until you can no loager hear it. Thea �:;aceatrate oa the new eveak If tiie new eveat has
• progressed to far before you caa canceatrate oa it, simply igaore at and wait for the ne�ct.
If you have question� Please call us at our toll-free number 1-500-859-1401 during business
hours (8;30 am to 6:30 pm). Ask for David Senzig, Dick Horon�jeff�or,Eleaa Langlois. Thank you.
' ( "_
HARRIS MILLER NIILLER 8 HANSON INC.
G:IPROJECTS\29dT3018 W 11.FMAEPORTSIAEPQHTS.W PD
Study o( Low Frequency Takeoff Noise at Baltimore - Washington Intemationai Airport g_�
Report 294730.03 / 2931 00.09 Aprii 1998
� APPENDIX B. NOISE MEASUREi1�Ef�tT DATA
Ha�Ri;
�:wRo,rEc.rs�ssr.�+ewn��rs�aoars.wwr�o
Study ot Low Frequency Takeoff Noise at Baltirnore - Washington Intemationai Airport B_2
Report 294730.03 / 2937 D0.09 Aprii 19gg
�
a
__._
HARRIS �VIILLER II�ILLER 8 HANSON INC.
a:wRaEcrs�xser,iaew►��oarswePoars.wpo
C
C�
, ,.
r'' ��)
26 August 1998
Mr. James D. Prosser
City Manager
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, MN 55423-2599
Dear 7im,
Mayor
CounCii
c`
�,�� �.
�.�-�M
Public
works
�r�'yr����U f�;vv 2 f ���rJ
��_
BBPI Technologies �..L�-r`''
�
xINET FKING
� f�,,w P�O.�V�. �A�ED BY 88N
yN�n��. U8H• .m�
�
R�. Serv. �
Llq. �lt. �—
Cier� �. �� �
Gomm. �Sl. .,,�� � Serv. �_._.�
HRA
21128 Vanowen Street
Canoga Park, CA 91303
818-347-8360
Fax:818-716-8377
http: //www.bbn.com
I enclose a brief review of the applicability of several recent technical publications concerning
low-frequency aircraft noise at Baltimore-Washington International Airport to the circumstances of
noise exposure expected in Richfield if MSP's Proposed Runway 17L35 becomes operational.
In brief, the proximity and locations of homes and runways in the Baltimore study, as well as
the circumstances of noise exposure from aircraft ground operations, are sufficiently similar to those
predictable in Richfield that the findings of the Baltimore studies are readily interpretable in the local
context. In fact, some homes in Richfield are closer to the proposed runway at MSP than some
homes in Baltimore' are to BWI's Runway 28, and some C-weighted and low-frequency aircraft
ground noise levels measured in studies sponsored by Richfield are even higher than those measured
near BWI. Thus, measurements and analyses performed of low-frequency aircraft ground noise and
its effects in Baltimore reinforce those provided to MAC by Richfield.
Since FA.A has approved payment for architectural treatments intended to improve the
low-frequency noise reduction of homes near Battimare's airport, there would appear to be little
technical rationale for not considering similar treatment to homes in comparable circumstances in
Richfield. At the very least, FAA's recent technical analyses and policy positions impose a further
burden on MAC for disclosure, assessment, and consideration of mitigation of low-frequency aircraft
noise effects on Richfield.
Sincerely,
BBN TECHNOLOGIES
A Unit of GTE Internetworking
.---
�� �-- J � .
�
San�ord Fi�ell
,'
enclosure
cc: Steven Pflaum, MWE
A part of GTE Corporation
_ _.
�IIVIII�ARITIES IN CURREN'T I,OW-�'REQ�JENCY AIRCRAFT 1\10ISE EXPOSURE AT
�ALTIlV�OR:�-WASHINGTON INTERNATICiNAi� 1�IRPC�R'I' AND EXP'ECTEIi �
�+ XPOSiTl2E IN RICHFIELI)
After considerable study funded jointly by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and
the Maryland Aviation Administration, FAA has recently approved funding for architectural
treatments to homes near Baltimore-Washington International Airport (BWI) to mitigate
low-frequency noise produced by aircraft ground operations. FAA expects to pay as much as
$32,000 per home (and other related costs) for 54 homes in one subdivision to achieve a C-weighted
reduction of at least 7 dB in low-frequency noise levels inside the homes, and a minimum of a 16 dB
improvement in the difference between the A- and C-weighted noise reduction.
Several documents describe the low-frequency noise environment produced by aircraft
ground operations at BWI, its effects, and authorized mitigation measures. These documents
include:
• H1VLfV1Ii Repart 294730.03/293100.09 ("Study of Low Frequency Takeoff
Noise at Baltimore-Washington International Airport"), dated April, 1998.
T'his report describes field measurements of low-frequency aircraft departure
noise and vibration made at locations to the side and behind a runway at
Baltimore-Washington International Airport (BWI), as well as a set of per- ,,
event annoyance judgments.
�, , ,
• An (undated) Engineer's Report entitled "Residential Sound Insulation at
Baltimore-Washington International Airport" (AIP 3-24-0005-39).
This report describes and approves architectural treatments intended to ,
improve the low-frequency noise reduction of residences near the airport. ,
• Acoustical Design Collaborative, Ltd. Final Report `BWI Low-Frequency
Noise Analyses for Aliwood Neighborhood," dated 24 July 1997.
This report describes noise measurements and analyses of treatments made
to two homes near BWI to increase their low-frequency noise reduction.
Information presented in these reports is compared below to that developed in two studies
sponsored by the City of Richfield, MN (Lind et al., 1997; Fidell et al., 1997) concerning expected
low-frequency aircraft noise levels from future operation of a proposed Runway 17/35 at
Minneapolis-St. Paui International Airport (MSP).
Figure 1, adapted from Figure 1(page 5) of HIVIMH Report 294730.03/293100.09, shows
the locations of homes at which C-weighted aircraft noise levels were monitored. Figure 2
transposes the location of Site 7 of the Baltimore study to Richfield. HMMH Report
294730.03/293100.09 describes the location of Site 7 as 3,200 feet from the end of the runway of ��-
1
interest, on a bearing of 120 ° from the runway heading. The comparable location in Richfield is
' i about seven blocks west of Cedaz Avenue, a little north of 62nd street.
Stufy ol Low Fraquer�cy Takeott Noiae at Baltlmoia • Washington IMematicnal Ai�port ' S
Raport29d730.03/2931�0.�9 pP� 1�g
F[gnre L BWI Air�wrt Axea Layont Map with Measur�ent SStes
HARfl18 MILLER NIILLFA & HANBOt� INC.
v�ao
�rtec
ments
Figure 1 Adaptation of Figure 1 from HMMH Report 294730.03/293100.09. (Color natations
added.)
Also shown in Figure 2 are the low-frequency aircraft noise contours developed from
analyses of runway sideline noise measurernents described by Fidell et al. (1997). The point in
Richfield that corresponds to Site 7 in Baltimore is within a block of the 80 dB low-frequency noise
contaur.' Blazier (1991), Broner (1978), and Hubbard (1982) have a11 identified levels on the order
�,, ,, ) � As described in Fidell et al. (1997), these low-frequency noise contours reflect a composite maximum sound
level in the one-third octave bands centered at 25 through 80 Hz, inclusive, to the side of an aircrafr passby.
of 80 dB or lower in one-third octave bands below 100 Hz as adequa.te to cause perceptible vibration
and/or rattle.
N j
C C � 01 p Q
.GYY � U .COY.L.. � ..'C.� C 'D:
� o�`m o:c o=,- c� r, v�n •- ,�=-" � LoG3tion equivalent to Site 7
�n a O a U U.-w .- �.- .-.-. E y=� _. U��. .
o-:: --�:: in the HMMH report for BWI
: I � � ( o X ,�;
, , m: ,Ii (i.e., 120°:and 3,200 feet)
� . i � � ' ;.::i-, /•-
— u,�i�'. J ' � � ..... � r�::,,
.—.—: .•�. i i ./';:• .. �'�,..
BZfIfI — r'C—`�.=ti-'_ . ' r r t � � . % � � :it� '
_ ' '��+ -� � .�'ti- � � j `.. ",�` - :
., '�i
63rd ----. ! F , � '� �.r�.
8 ' i � ; ; � ..) �*_�. �: �\1`
i I, �
sam � ; 75� 80— 85 � ;"� ::
_ `� � � ;
�. �
seu, _�_'I_` �: � � I � � � _ i ; ,
,:' � � �. � ._�—
66th - �_ _ ' �. , � , ' ,` 7.,
67th I i i,,I �' I_ i
I � , � . i I �
i � -
68th ' I �
� � . � �• � � � � 6 .. � � ,
� !
69th � � � '' 'C3 '
.
� ' ----- � -_.._ ' i � N I/�"
70th r i-= _'t; �iil"-=--
71st I '. _,— ,, i' f . 0,;'
, � I � :� .�,'
72nd ; ~ � � � y a' .;L�_.
� i i :.
� �-.:..I , I � ..,:>� s
73rd , , t � •. b`. � � . �y
i
� � t ''l.. �
�4th � t �` , �� i} f � ^ C�
75th � ( ; ,' . .'`';.:� ��
. ' ' � � ��
:
,
' -�---r= � '
-�-----�-- .,.....___._..._...1._.........__.._.--�-----�-��-� �.• .
76th ---..._._.. __ , � .. (:- 4.
` I � � � -�r — - _'!
i `.�
77th •:-._ t �" - .—\— .
<.
� , � � --.._._..
-� -- . 7 " ' '��- ...-----_.
� . ...._. . , .----_... ..�........_...
- — = , --_ ==-�I =.,,�,'. _ —�i _� fi j- � �1
_�_^ ___,._.�
—.— _� ..� _ � :' _y �,.
�.- —
•._ : � � . .
�
, � , ......i _...I......._........__..
__. __.__....__ , �'�— �
! �o Low Frequency �� 6J
-F
i
� ��� DNL
Figure 2 Transposition of the location of Site 7 of the Baltimore study to Richfield, MN.
Figure 3 overlays the same low-frequency aircraft noise contours on the neighborhood near
Runway 2$ at BWI. Much of the Allwood neighborhood in which FAA has approved architectural
treatments to homes to improve their low-frequency noise reduction lies within the interval of
low-frequency aircraft noise of 75 to 85 dB, as do many homes in eastern Richfield (cf. Figure 2). �
;
�
�
c:
85
Study of L.ow Frequexy TekeoH Yoine et Battlmore - Weahirgton Intemational Alrport 5
Raport 294730.03 / 293100.09 �^� ��8
Figute L BWI A3rFwrt Area Layaut Map with Mc.a�trement Sltrs
l�UwRiS Mn.LER Miu� a HnNsoa iNc.
�
Figure 3 Overlay of low-frequency aircraft noise contours developed from analyses of runway
sideline noise on the neighborhood near Runway 28 at BWI.
It is also interesting to note that the low-frequency content of the aircraft noise measurements
reported in HMMH Report 294730.03/293100.09 is quite similar to that measured in comparable
locations both in Minneapolis (Lind et al., 1997) and in Los Angeles (Fidell et al., 1997). Figu.re 4
compares noise levels of the aircraft noise event shown in Figure 24 of HMMH Report
294730.03/293100.09 with aircraft noise levels measured at MSP. T'he measurement location at
MSP was to the side of the middle of the runway. The levels measured at MSP are averages for all
MD-80 and B-727 aircraft observed during the measurement period. The aircraft noise levels at
MSP are similar to or higher than those presented for BWI in many of the one-third octave bands.
(� )
,
0
0
Figure 5 compares noise levels in low-frequency bands of an aircraft operation measured at
BWI with noise levels measured at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). The measurement
location at LAX was 2,400 feet to the side of the middle of a runway supporting departure
operations. The levels measured at LAX are averages for various aircraft types (see legend). The
low-frequency one-third octa.ve band levels produced at runway sideline by departures at LAX do
not differ appreciably from those reported in HMM�3 Report 294730.03/293100.09.
The close agreement between statements included in FAA's Engineer's Report for
"Residentiai Sound Insulation at Baltimore/Washington International Airport: AIP 3-24-0005-39"
and those contained in prior studies of low-frequency aircraft noise sponsored by the City of
Richfield (Lind et al., 1997; Fidell et al., 1997) is also of interest. Table 1 summarizes a number of
these points of agreement.
m
�o
�
d
m
J
�
c
�
0
N
'a
c
�
m
>
m
w
O
'�
`
s
H
d
c
O
��o
�oo _
so _
�
70 - �
60 _
5p _
40 -
30 _
20 _
10-
0
ti`� 3'� a° 5° 63 �° ,�cp ,�,y`' ,,�o° ,ycp tiFp ,��.h bcp �cp �3° ��p �000 ���,o ^600�aoo�hoo��yo �000h000��oo
Orse-Third Octave Band Cerrter Freq�ncy(Hz)
_� Event 1 at BWI from I-PJM�I R:port 24d730.03�293100.09 Fi�re 24 �_ Average 727 from bcation 1 at AASP from 88N F�port 8196
_,� Average Arfl 80 from IocaGon 1 ffi N6Pfrom 88N F�port 8196
Figure 4 Comparison of noise levels of the aircraft noise event shown in Figure 24 of HMMH
Report 294730.03/293100.09 with aircraft noise levels measured at MSP.
5
C �
C/
-
� �`,
100 .
� � Event 1 at BWI from t-iVi1iH i�port
294730.03/293100.09 i=gure 24
m 80 � Average MD�80
'� �'
" �_ Average DC9
w
ai 70
—� � Average DG10
'o
� � • � Average 767
� 50 � Average 757
m
d
� 40 �_ Average 747
r.
c�
O
'fl 30 �. Average 737
�
a� 2� _ _ -...-.—°— n..�.�e 727
c
O
10
0
25 31.5 40 50 63 80 100 125 160 200 250
One Third Octave Band Center Frequency (Hz)
Figure 5 Comparison of noise levels in low-frequency bands of an aircraft noise event measured
at BWI with aircraft noise levels measured at runway sideline positions at LAX.
0
�
U
�
�
�
�
.O
C
A
v
C
N
�
�
3
a
O
�
N
'�
�
N
�O
N
O
N
c
O
a
�
a
a�
c,=
L
�
�,
U
�
�
N
C
�
C�
� M
U �
C �
� o
� o
��
� N
rn�
`�° a.
� Q
..N�. �
C
O
0. �
�
U t�
'� �.
L �
v �
� ��
� �
� W
�c
C �
� �
� T G � _ ��O � v O �7 / �
� � 7� '� � O C N t0 y G y N (p / .�..,.�.
a�N �l7 � � w f0= Nt d �w ..N+ t0 N O'C N�y y��' \I � �
•- � � ._ ,
u�cN� mm m�N�~�°� ��... cc�v �� .o Z ��� :
C C'�p U N'- ._., �f0 ._.. N L �� p� O C� C �'"' "�" C� N �'C C N
�� '�• C �p�_ �+mmN O,y�,� O � 'S" 'OL tD � p��•_
�� G N C C N � N NNo - t �) � 3 a G, tll � N. O� � C�� f0 �N y N
�� U N,.�„ � U N O ��,��, Q.1 N f0 C ¢ C C O�� d f9 .O �� �� C w 3� C
p_�._ � c� c �o� 10� � Y m � 3 oa � m o>> c¢� m
` ��a ���f0�' > � � � � � �E �
�ajJ � � N G7 3 Q. V U y� f0 7ti N C 6/ O� i.'-" C N 'O �� ' N T� ' lO 4.
� o• ayi � � � a�i �' °� � � ° y o� a' v � �.oc .o � `'c�3 � �� rn
� �- �: �'
��.c �� 3�� m E m � C.a c > m� � m m �n °� � ��� c` � v=i a�`� N
W w y� L� � C.� .'�w � d f0 >> C e . � Ql N C� w p O O. O�� t0 d y C�
W O� N C �� O� C N��• y� t�i cTC � C 3� � N O'� Y N � ��� O� U O
.Z � d L � •� ,_ . t �. ,p .G ,p � C vl �- U O lU � .0 p .0 �-
'C � rn a� ,c �� � rn n; m c 3 .."'.. �'o co•- �°� m'vz rn._ � d a
Z Na d`m d rn� � d� y�� ��o � �� y c� o �� m�o m o y c o 0 0
W�,c>°' ao� o'co��:d„a� o.aN �md� _�!� ��E oNyD
�� c�, :? cg' � uj �� c c �'� .o E ��+ o� Z m v � c o E � c �� .c m�
. � T� � �� � C ��� C y �L � � C N O,0 � G�L . �� � � � m3 3
c`o ��� �'3- m� m 3��� c d � c� o'� o� c� d� � ���o o a�i � H
y�mc `ma�'io ,c.c�c°�. c�'.00 oc�id_ .�3�Q, ��> •�y�a a�°�o
� �1 y (�j . N Qf = � > � N � O p N N C 3 � � 'O � Uj V N � � '-�-p '�,,?, � 'p�'�� � � V
N L C C N a V N�� C1 �' p�'� �;C �,p tA 3'�p O� N N� d,�y, � U U y:a t�.
Z rn� rn o� � d as�'c cN� � � ys o� N o. � o� �'S o� � m a�i �
t m H = av ao m d m m a m aE - c m c�n m .nv E
�
a � � � � =
N
. O �� C U y V � �� p d
y y p�. y Q •`-N w� C ,� C +C N L
C Qf � N > Q1
E c � '�" ""� � '� .n � cf9i �w—�-, c � � _ �d 'w �
c o�� c a � '�m m '� m� '�0 m�o �.� m
� � c� a� � • r; � E � '�v� rn � •- �? Q c
c> m� ��°-� c :° �� �,—°�p m o ,a�i � c c 3 c � a�
a�.°'c� �� o y�- o:n n, � y �� o a�
� d �w m m � 3 m ,� ° a� ... !� c o m�a � N y
� 'p d. T O N � N N � N N tC � y j� t/1 � N�r-
�'c 'o'cE� rc�a� ���c m �ym Em� ui�3
,c m �O m� �� c �° c m a am � � � o X�
o m r�
h� N t�i1 G c�. N �m N.�c ��. t,�j " m � w o 'o C@ 'C U) m
� V O C G. u- Qf "" y C N C� �` r� . C d� T �..y.. A
� �� p+:, y C C M �_= d c N O �.r U � C p)
'p "C m fn
w�U ��y.- �E� a�ida��iu- m �od ��c ��m
� @ n o.c �o o � � .c �»� c_ v � y� $ a`°i y � � o
� � p � � � m �,o� m�o o� c m �� o �� 3 c m=
W � � 0= � a� o y� ���'.=- Q y � y a�iv � c°� E �
x w m � N� y° ��.19 � a�i `� m n �.`.�°. c ��..'��. � N o
V �� �� m= �f° .�„�m_,=•y,c o= d �C � ac o
���°�' � m m o�o m� c c oo �� ��' � a�i ��� �' EZ.7-..
'v "'vy>o 0o a� ��� 'o°� ��� ��^a� .d:-
0 0 � c v� cu`' � m� �? �p.o p c � cm � m E � N �
�-�'' � m f0 ct0i�o o»= aai 3 y� o�� �� a��iw c�i m c� c rnoi
��� � �„�,�„ _� �� `��' 1° c� ao� c� :c 3 m ;c � o �•� c
N'O O O� �� C� N O � C O ��� V N N- t� 'S� �+
C� C tn � G N� y L � C� O w.: N C t4 C y f0 l0 � N �¢ �
C T V d tn lO ' '�- f9 � N ��0 -.0
N=� E t7 �'O T ��.N N!A �� � N N p N�S CO W O N �� :
� �� a� �� c N c �� �� c a� � c rn �>� �� N c c m`m
�
c�»- .�c E m c� ��� io c��'n o.c c� � c� m a�i f° '� m
�� 3 ... o c� c ¢ y m o � rnc��o �n.y o a:� o N c � �n �
� o �moo� .c�, �cd�� :m U�o V oc�� -'c
- 3 • a�o �n.� -` m �c =• a�.�. cc -� . c- c.. � ` o�
c
�
o c
0 y y d 0 y fD �'S �
w •� •� O �� O y 0�
N C tA C y � � C C u- N
C C
•C C� C O � C U •�A N'O
N d� 67 � 9+ y C � C
� � � N �.. N C N� C 'O T�
W a a � 'o Q � ar ��
� a�im �?� ,�o � cd ;cco
W �� � �o cy v»- � rn�°�
� �o c� o� ,: � �o n� 3oa�
— o o �
CTj � O 01 O C) �` :fl ` � Q`� y
C� C� 7+� .�- N"�� 0 O N C
= O O t` _ f9 O y "_ tp " ?. E T
O O �
N�.�. Of ` f9 ` C C � N 0 �(q 'O fU0 � C
�• fU N f0 •a •� U ... �
. Jt4 . d � � � . . . . .. �. y . .�...� � . �. � � �.. � ..
- z.� c,�c w.: �' zE ¢E�'