The URL can be used to link to this page

1995-02-08 ARC PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION AGENDA FEBRUARY 8, 1995 - 8:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of January 11, 1995 Meeting Minutes. 4. Acknowledge Receipt of Various Reports/Correspondence: a. MASAC Technical Advisor's Reports December, 1994. for November and b. MSP Monthly Complaint Summary Through December, 1994. c. Runway Use Summary From August, 1993 to December, 1994. d. SMAAC Newsletter for January, 1995. e. Information From Commissioner Surrisi Regarding Expanded NWA Service to Canada. f. MASAC Operations Committee Meeting Agenda for February 16, 1995. 5. Unfinished and New Business: a. Continued Discussion on the Status of the Dual -Track Airport Planning Process. b. Discuss MAC Response to Comments Regarding MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan. 6. Verbal Updates: a. Metropolitan Council Tour or Held on January 31, 1995. b. City Council Appointments Commission Made on February 7. Other Comments or Concerns. 8. Adjourn. Communities Surrounding MSP to the Airport Relations 7, 1995. Auxiliary aids for disabled persons are available upon request at least 120 hours in advance. If a notice of less than 120 hours is received, the City of Mendota Heights will make every attempt to provide the aids, however, this may not be possible on short notice. Please contact City Administration at 452- 1850 with requests. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION JANUARY 11, 1995 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Airpor Relations Commission was held on Wednesday, January 11, 1995, in the City Hall Large Conference Room, 1101 Victoria Curve. The meeting was called to order at 8:05 o'clock P.M. The following members were present: Beaty, Leuman, Olsen, Stein and Surrisi. Commissioner Olin was excused. Commissioner Fitzer was absent. Also present were City Administrator Tom Lawell and Senior Secretary Kim Blaeser. The Commission welcomed guests John Foggia and Roy Fhurman both from the Metropolitan Airports Commission. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Leuman moved approval of the December 14, 1995, minutes. 1 Commissioner Olsen seconded the motion. AYES: 4 NAYS: 0 ABSTAIN: 1, OLSEN ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF VARIOUS REPORTS/CORRESPONDENCE The Commission acknowledged receipt of the Richfield Part 150 Buyout Update for December, 1994. The Commission acknowledged receipt of the NOISE lNewsletter for December, 1994. Chair Beaty inquired about the July conference and who will be attending the conference. Administrator Lawell stated the City has not received information regarding conference sign up. He stated that the conference was held in Minneapolis last year. DISCUSSION WITH MAC REPRESENTATIVES REGARDING MENDOTA HEIGHTS/EAGAN CORRIDOR AND OTHER AIRPORT RELATED MATTERS Mr. Foggia explained that he will provide a slide prsentation along with answers to some questions raised by the Commission during the discussion with MAC Commissioner Louis Miller. Mr. Foggia explained that residential development has been completed around the entire airport. He stated that northwest of the airport, people live 1/2 mile or less to a runway. He Airport Relations Commission January 11, 1995 Page 2 stated that the southeast area of the airport has less residential development with less development directly off of the runway. He stated that a corridor has been in place since the early 1970's. Mr. Foggia presented a map overlay of noise contours. This slide reviewed the 1990 Land Use with 1996 Forecasts of noise exposure contours using Ldn increments. In response to a question from Chair Beaty regarding why the contours seem to extend further south than indicated on the maps, Foggia stated that there is a more concentrated flow of traffic in the southeast area and that they attempt to keep air traffic within the corridor. He stated that the heaviest airport traffic is between 6:00 A.M. and 11:00 P.M. and that volume dictates what runways will be used. Foggia presented a slide representing Land Use using the 1996 Noise Contour which highlights the impact on residential and multi -family units. Foggia explained the Ldn 65 contour and how the Part 150 Sound Insulation Program has been implemented at MSP. Foggia explained how the Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor operates. He explained where the 29L localizer is located. Foggia explained that aircraft departing through the corridor are not permitted to turn on course before three miles. He further explained that Mendota Heights periodically has complained that aircraft are issued 090 degree headings. He stated that he has never seen this heading issued. He further explained magnetic field changes. In response to a question from Administrator Lawell, Mr. Foggia stated they intend to change the runway headings within six months. Foggia explained how aircraft are issued a specific heading, why specific headings are used, and why headings do not always correspond to specific ground tracks. He explained that there is an operational boundary due to the St. Paul airport. He explained when a 105 degree heading issued. Foggia explained that fanning, as conducted over South Minneapolis, allows for distribution of aircraft. He stated that the MAC has historically opposed fanning to the Southeast of the airport given the available area of non -noise sensitive property, i.e., river bottom, highways, industrial uses, cemeteries, etc. Airport Relations Commission January 11, 1995 Page 3 1 Foggia explained that 68 percent of aircraft departing have a destination to the south or east of the airport.:, He stated that the flow of traffic is determined by volume and wind. Foggia explained that with MSP being NWA's main Hub, NWA traffic dictates where most of the air traffic is:flying to. He stated that NWA functions more to the east. 1 Foggia explained Corridor "Edge" Compliance. He explained the south side and north side boundaries along with jet early turnouts. He stated that the ANOMS report is used to determine whether the corridor is being used properly. Foggia reviewed an ANOMS Base Map. He pointed out where the three mile turn radius is located and when early turnouts occur. He stated that weather conditions can dictate early turnouts. Foggia stated that Mendota Heights is on record wanting a more defined, narrower boundary during non -simultaneous operations. Foggia explained that Bruce Wagoner sent a letter to Nigel Finney, in November, requesting that an EIS be completed to allow the crossing pattern of aircraft during non -simultaneous operations. Mr. Foggia stated that he and Mr. Finney will meet on Thursday, of this week, to discuss this matter. Foggia reviewed Corridor Gate Penetration for 1994 indicating total jet carrier operations to be 6,895. Foggia explained the purpose of the gate penetration analysis is to determine how many aircraft turnout early and violate the three mile restriction. He further reviewed the North Bourldary Gate Penetration and a diagram showing aircrafts going through these gates. He explained that the South Boun&ry has a significant concentration of planes. Foggia reviewed the September 1994 total operations. He explained there were 5,656 departures with 41 departing the north gate and 675 departing the south gate. He stated that the FAA has indicated that they would like these numbers to decrease. Foggia closed his presentation by stating that the corridor is not perfect and that corridor compliance needs atteriltion. He stated that the next generation of aircraft and navigational technology will make a significant and positive difference. He stated that by 1998 MSP will have a Global P9sitioning System (GPS) in place which will revolutionize the aviation system. He stated that the GPS allows for more' accurate aircraft positioning. Foggia briefly reviewed the status of hushkit installments by Northwest. He briefly reviewed the status of 727 aircraft retirement. He stated that Northwest will begin retiring the 727 aircraft in 1995 or 1996 and they plan to complete the 1 Airport Relations Commission January 11, 1995 Page 4 retirement process by the year 2000. He stated that Northwest has indicated that this is contingent on how many new airplanes they can purchase. He 'stated that Northwest currently leases aircraft. In response to a question regarding changing the restricted nighttime hours of operation at MSP from 11:00 P.M. - 6:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. - 7:00 A.M., Mr. Foggia stated that aircraft carriers voluntarily comply with nighttime restrictions. He stated that cargo carriers fly only at nighttime and that most are using Stage III aircraft. He stated that the concentration of cargo operations is between 11:30 P.M. to 12:00 A.M. and 5:00 A.M. to 6:00 A.M. Foggia explained that to extend the "shoulder hours" of flight operations, it becomes a practical problem for aircraft carriers because they are responding to public traffic demands. He stated that a push from 6:00 A.M. operations to 7:00 A.M. would be impossible as the bulk of early operations departing MSP leave at 6:00 A.M. He further stated that changing the hours from 11:00 P.M. to 10:30 P.M. may be considered as the density of operations is not as significant. He further stated that time zone differences need to be considered. Chair Beaty stated that late evening flights are not using a crossing pattern. Mr. Foggia responded that he would speak with Nigel Finney as there is no apparent reason why this is not being done. Commissioner Surrisi inquired about the C130 military aircraft flight paths. Mr. Foggia explained that the C130's are not jet aircraft and have been approved to be issued early turns. He stated that the noise abatement procedures do not address military aircraft. He stated that military aircraft operations are very low. Foggia stated he would inquire with Mr. Finney regarding noise abatement procedures for C130 military aircraft. In response to a question from Chair Beaty regarding the Eagan/Mendota Heights corridor, Mr. Foggia stated that the GPS system could give some relief to Mendota Heights. He stated that the FAA required 15 degree separation of aircraft may also change. DISCUSS UPCOMING MASAC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING SCHEDULED FOR JANUARY 12, 1995 Administrator Lawell explained that the Executive Committee of the MASAC has called a meeting for January 12, 1995, at 9:00 o'clock A.M., to discuss the interaction of MASAC and the MAC on matters related to airport noise. He explained that the Airport Relations. Commission January 11, 1995 Page 5 purpose of the meeting is to discuss the creation of a timeline and streamlined work plan fof MASAC to be coordinate with MAC issues. DISCUSS UPCOMING TOUR OF COMMUNITIES SURROUNDING MSP SPONSORED BY THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Administrator Lawell explained that on January' 31, 1995 representatives from the Met Council, MAC and the Cities of Minneapolis, Richfield, Bloomington, Eagan and Mendota Heights will take a bus tour of the five communities to see the noise impacted properties first-hand. Lawell explained that specific areas to tour in Mendota Heights are the industrial park including buildings specifically treated for air noise, the Furlong area and St. Thomas Academy along with discussing the implementation of the Part 150 Program within Mendota Heights. The Commission discussed conducting a tour of the Roger's Lake and Curley neighborhoods along with touring neighborhoods that have been constructed using the City's noise attenuation ordinance requirements. DISCUSS STATUS OF DUAL -TRACK AIRPORT PLANNING PROCESS The Commission tabled discussion of this item until their February 8 meeting. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the Commission adjourned its meeting at 11:00 o'clock P.M. Respectfully submitted, Kimberlee K. Blaeser Senior Secretary iu•uuui ■■M■ EMI EMI MUMMUMNUMMUMMEIMOM ■MM■ ■M■■MM■ Ell IM MI MI MASAC Technical Advisor's Report For November, 1994 „y Minneapolis ! St. Paul International Airport MONTHLY MEETING - Metropolitan Airport Sound Abatement Council Chairman: Scott Buda Vice Clnirman: Bob Johnson Technical Advisor: John Foggia Secretary: Jean Ddghbo Airborne Espresa: Brian Bates Nr Transport Auoeiation: Pad McGraw ALPA: Charles W. Curry la City el Bloomington: Petra. Lee Vero Wilms City cfBunaviiie: Imo Rivas City cfEagan: Dustin MIA* City el/Inver Grove Heights: Dennis Madden City ofMendota Heights: Jia Smith City ° Minneapolis: James B. Serein John Richter Joe Lee Jadlth Dodge City of Richfield: George Kamm Don Priebe City ofSt. Louis Park: Robert Adonis City ce•St. Pad: Scott Baia Craig C. Wrack Carol Arm McGuire Delta Air Lines Inc: Rich Kidwea Federal Eepress: Tam Rhdneek Federal Aviation Administration: Brace W.graer Ronald Cid, MAC Stag:• Dick Keine MBAA: Robert P. Johnson Mesatn Northwest Airiint: Leonine McCabe Metropolitan Airports Commission: Commissioner Alto Gasper MN Air National Guard: Major Mark R. Nem Northwest Airlines: Mark Salm en Jennifer Sayre M. Pad Chamber of Commerce: lack Berkley Sun Country Airliner: Luke A. Gomez United Airline Inc.: Allan Tomansoo United Parcel Service: James Douches U.S. Mr Force Reserve: Captain Steven Chapman US. Supplemental Carriers: Robert A. ML: Metropohtan Airports Commission Declaration of Purposes 1.) Promote public welfare and national security; serve public interest, convenience. and necessity; promote air navigation and transportation, international, national, state, and local, in and through this state; promote the efficient. safe, and economical handling of air commerce; assure the inclusion of this state in national and international programs of air transportation; and to those ends to develop the full potentialities of the metropolitan area in this state as an aviation center, and to correlate that area with all aviation facilities in the entire state so as to provide for the most economical and effective use of aeronautic facilities and services in that area; 2.) Assure the residents of the metropolitan area of the minimum environmental impact from air navigation and transportation. and to that end provide for noise abatement, control of airport area land use, and other protective measures; and 3.) Promote the overall goals of the state's environmental policies and minimize the public's exposure to noise and safety hazards around airports. Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council Statement of Purpose This corporation was formed in furtherance of the general welfare of the communities adjoining Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport - Wold -Chamberlain Field, a public airport in the County of Hennepin, State of Kmnesota, through the alleviation of the problems created by the sound of aircraft using the airport; through study and evaluation on a continuing basis of the problem and of suggestion for the alleviation of the same; through initiation, coordination and promotion of reasonable and effective procedures, control and regulations, consistent with the safe operation of the airport and of aircraft using the same; and through dissemination of information to the affected communities, their affected residents, and the users of the airport respecting the problem of aircraft noise nuisance and in respect to suggestions made and actions initiated and taken to alleviate the problem. Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council Representation . The membership chap include representatives appointed by agencies, corporations, associations and governmental bodies which by reason of their statutory authority and responsibility or control over the airport, or by reason of their status as airport users, have a direct interest in the operation of the airport. Such members will be called User Representatives and Public Representatives. provided that the User Representatives and Public Representatives shall at all times be equal in number. The Airport 24-hour Noise Hotline is 726-9411. Complaints to the hotline do not result in changes in Airport activity, but provides a public sounding board and airport information outlet. The hotline is staffed 24 -hours Monday - Friday This report is prepared and printed in house by Roy Fuhrmann and Traci Erickson Questions or comments may be directed to: MAC - Aviation Noise Program Minneapolis / St. Paul International Airport 6040 28th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55450 Tel: (612) 726-8108, Fax: (612) 726-5296 Metropolitan Airports Commission Aviation Noise Programs November Technical Advisor's Report IV. V. VL VII. VIII. IX. X. XI. XII. XIII. November 1994 November 1994 Operations and Complaint Summary November 1994 Complaint Summary Runway Use Reports November Tower Log November Tower Log - Nighttime November Runway Use Report - All Ops November Runway Use Report - Jet Ops November Runway Use Report Nighttime - All Ops November Runway Use Report Nighttime - Jet Ops Jet Carrier Operations by Type Aircraft Type Table November Runway Use For Day/Night Perio November Community Overflight Analysis ANOMS Base Map - Remote Monitor Site Locations MSP - Airport Noise Monitoring System Locations Jet Departure Related Noise Events For November, 1994 Jet Arrival Related Noise Events For November, 1994 Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events - RM1B 1 through 24 ANOMS Flight Tracks November 1 to 5, 1994 Jet Arrivals November 1 to 5, 1994 Jet Departures November 6 to 12, 1994 Jet Arrivals November 6 to 12, 1994 Jet Departures November 13 to 19, 1994 Jet Arrivals November 13 to 19, 1994 Jet Departures November 20 to 26, 1994 Jet Arrivals November 20 to 26, 1994 Jet Departures November 27 to 30, 1994 Jet Arrivals November 27 to 30, 1994 Jet Departures XIV. MSP Aircraft Ldn by Date and RMT - November 1994 Percent Hourly Use Percent Hourly Use Percent of Ops Percent of Ops Percent of Ops Percent of Ops . All Operations Metropolitan Airports Commission - Aviation Noise Program Metropolitan Airports Commission . November 1994 Operations and Complaint Summary Operations Summary - All Aircraft 04 215 1.4% 52 0.4% 22 337 2.3% 747 5.0% 11 6722 44.8% 7529 505% 29 7714 5L5% 6569 44.1% MSP November Fleet Mix Percentage Stage 2 60.0 61.2 61.7 61.6 Stage 3 40.0 38.8 38.3 38.4 Airport November Complaint Summary MSP 791 533 Airlake 0 0 Anoka 0 2 Crystal 1 0 Flying Cloud 9 6 Lake Elmo 0 0 St. Paul 3 3 Misc. 2 0 November Operations Summary - Airport Directors Office 720 308 143 7 Air Freight Charter 36 Tanna*v i1 1 CMG 23 MSP NOVEMBER 1994 COMPLAINT SUMMARY MSP COMPLAINTS BY CITY .,..... ...•.....,, if:'ii: V' .. ,,,,:.,,,,...,..,,,,,,,.:.:,...:,,,..:::::.:. : • - . . :.:.i.,,,..::,,,,,,,,,......,..,:,:;,,,,,,:::„. .,,,,,....*:*,,,,,,,AVA .,,,,,,*::i,.:,..:.::::,..,:x Bloomington 0 14 Early/Late 3 07:00 - 11:59 151 Low Flying 3 , 0.57% Burnsville Burnsville 2 16:00 - 19:59 9 0, 20:00 - 21:59 11 2.10% Eagan 12 3; 168 14 • Frequency 13 180 ' 34.42% .Edina 0 : - 5 • 5 0.96% Inver Grove Heights 2 40 1 42 8.03% Lilydale 0 1 1 0.19% Mendota 0 1 1 0.19% Mendota Heights 13 77 90 17.22% Minneapolis 59 59 118 1 22.56% Plymouth 0 .1 1 0.19% Richfield 1 2 3 1 0.57% South St. Paul 0 2 - 2 0.38% St. Anthony 0 1 1 1 0.19% St. Louis Park 4 0 4 1 0.76% - St. Paul " 52 4 56 i 10.72% Sunfish Lake 0 1 1 1 0.19% West St. Paul 1 1 2 I 0.38% Woodbury 2 0 2 i 0.38% ••:: ..4:$: ')TTA4" :, • .,::::...,..:...,,s.':': ' - .. . '..•:::::•::M . ' .. -.." .-, — .ziliiiiM:•kli] oii:i?.1 ' .1 " . TIME OF DAY NATURE OF COMPLAINT . .11310kNi. ..;" "' igiirinifiar _.. ..;:l.j::;.1g.0•••• I ' ,.7:::::::M7.....i.l.' . .. . . . .;.: .i, , 'jai: ... 00: 00 - 05:59 27 Excessive Noise 466 06:00 - 06:59 14 Early/Late 35 07:00 - 11:59 151 Low Flying , 12:00 - 15:59 47 Structural Disturbance 0 16:00 - 19:59 112 Helicopter 0, 20:00 - 21:59 119 . Ground Noise 71 22:00 - 22:59 49 Friginf. Run-up 3; 23:00 - 23:59 14 • Frequency 13 Tat -..-......A,:....i: . ..... ::;:l:ii:i:Mi; : - Page 2 • . „...„.....„ • -Percet ...... ...... ••• •• ••• •• •• . • •• •- Metropo itan Airports Commission Runway Use Report - All Operations , For November, 1994 I .i, . • Runway rr/D November 93 1 Count I November 1993 Percentage 04 A 215 115 11L A 3360 3040 11R A 3362 ..,,., 29'22 :: 111111 111 ::::-:::.:::iKii:ii::::::- •-.. 22 A 337 156 29L A 3899 :.:.:.:::,.i::::::. , . 4353 29R A • 3315 4386 ... TOTAL ARR. 14988 ::is::::i:::::,,,,,,,,,...,:•:0:.*i::*:::, ::*i::.**:§8110-%:::ixikm: ...,,,,,,,..):::, 14972 :::::•,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,:.:.:. „ • i::::::::::*:,:i::*:::sim • 04 D 52 . •,,,.:iMiliK 32 11L D 3876 :i:i .*-- ----iti:x§•::,,, , 3057 - ,:::::- , 214 .:.:.:.:::::„:::::•::4:::,?:.• 11R D 3653 .:, •:.: •,:i:i::-.v:',:* :.:. ::: 3013 22 D 747 . :v: 1.0:i::*:::piii::::::g AiiKimiiiiii&:::: 1172 ....::::1::::ii:: ,..::„::,•:iiiiii:: 29L D 3177 ., 4 :::::'.:. v• 3373 .. :':::: 29R D 3392 ::::i:ik:::::.:,,,-::::.:•:,:.::::::*:::::::::::::::, 3496 ::::::::::::::::::::::::ki::::•.: -::: , :4*::: -..i:::::::::.„.• TOTAL DEP 1 14897 J1OO''''•:.:Vin::K: •••••::::..:::::::M:!:1 _ 14143 -:, -.:::.:•:.:::::z:iiiiii;iililiii • . . - . • . i I ; 1 I 1. i i . January 23, 1995 Metropolitan Airports Commission Runway Use Report - Carrier Jet Operations For November, 1994 Runway Arr/Dep Count Percentage November 1993 Count November 1993 Percentage 04 11L 11R 22 29L 29R TOTAL ARR. 04 11L 11R 22 29L 29R TOTAL DEP. A A A A A A D D D D D D 150 2097 2430 221 2771 2323 9992 7 2326 2634 506 2178 ' 1819 9470 76 1876 2014 99 3177 2898 10140 7 1808 2115 899 2349 1992 9170 January 22, 1995 Page 8 Metropolitan Airports Commission Runway Use Report Nighttime - All Operations For November, 1994 Runway Arr/Dep Count Percentage November 1993 Count November 1993 Percentage 04 A 11L A 11R A 22 A 19 20 57 16 11 35 40 2 29L • A 29R 309 71 149 280 TOTAL ARR. 492 517 04 D 6 1 11L D 17 106 11R D 109 88 22 D 27 12 29L D 44 29 29R D 26 29 TOTAL DEP. I 229 :< ;==# 265 January 22, 1995 Page 10 ..„ • f• • •, ,• +. .•-•• • Metropo itan Airports Commission - Runway Use Report Nighttime Carrier For November, 1994 . \ , , . Jet Runway Arr/Dep Count Percentage November 1993 Count November I 1993 Percentage 04 A 13 - :!•j:i-- :A 5 11L A 1317 . ' ... •P ::::,'" 4. • I1R A 32 . , ::' AA:A:: 13 Ni 22 A 130 :*::::, ::::::::„. .::•• Mig::$ ::- :•:: .•-i:::3, 29L A 224 sk , ,,,,:ii:§:im:$:: •:- 90 ,,.. $••,,,,,:::::::*:*::i*••••••••• asii,:mig:.iii: :-:••• A 51 .K5.::::::;E::::**::iori::::::::3:::::::*ilig i:ig:•.:::1::::• , •,:::,,:••: :tie:e.;: 177 ••• •" &6% A•::::::&:,:::•••:::::::::,,,, :111.1 TOTAL ARR. ARR. 346302 -•,:::::„:7;::,::0:,,,,,m,:mAi ,::::k•-•a::::400ww:::::::::-, •,.fAtKim: •••"••••—• :iniiM,:,....;:4:,;,::::....:. 04 D 00 • 11L D 7 ' ::,‘ .. 32 11R D 37 22 D 10, ... - , 6 .... ..... 29L D 11 ,... .11i:;:. : ,::gi*::::. 13 29R D 7 :ii•is:iii::•,:x0,:::•:::::x:::ov::::H •::::!:::.,,::: *Ww.....:i 14 - :,•••:•:*:::::::::::•::: TOTAL DER 72•:::::KAK,: :i:e•-:•":::"-A, .::, , 3, , 4 - iiziEiiiiii:A::::::::*::, .: .... 88 ,.. ,.LiF,:po :•.,,,:ii::::::::::::::::,:Agi...,:,,.. January 23, 1995 Page 12 Metropolitan Airports Commission Carrier Jet Operations By Type November, 1994 Aircraft Type Count Percentage B727H 187 1.0% DC9H 0 0.0% B707 2 r 0.0% B733/4/5 1119 5.8% B747 125 0.6% B74F . 1 0.0% B757 1572 8.1% B767 0 0.0% DC10 903 4.6% DC87 74 0.4% EA32 1779 9.1% FK10 607 • 3.1% L1011 1 0.0% MD11 • 5 0.0% MD80 1103 5.7% BA10 4 0.0% B727 3522 18.1% B737 500 2.6% DC8 94 0.5% DC86 37 0.2% DC9 7773 39.9% FK28 54 0.3% ....::..:':: _ Total... 38.4% Stage 3 61.6% Stage 2 January 23, 1995 Page 13 Metropolitan Airports Commission Aircraft Type Table CODE AIRCRAFT DESCRIPTION B727 - BOEING 727 B727H . BOEING 727 - HUSH KIT , • 8707 - . . BOEING7O7 B733 BOEING 737-300 B737 BOEING 737 B73S BOEING 737.200 SERIES B747 BOEING 747 B74F BOEING 747 FREIGHTER B757 BOEING 757 B767 • BOEING 767 BAll BRITISH AEROSPACE 111 BEC BEECHCRAFT (ALL SERIES) BEI BEECHCRAFT 1900 BE80 BEECHCRAFT KING AIR BE99 BEECHCRAFT QUEEN AIR I CNA CESSNA (ALL SERIES) ' I DC10 MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC10 . DC8 MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC8 . 1 DCSS MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC8 STRETCHDC86 1 - MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC8 60 -SERIES DC87 MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC8 70 -SERIES RE • DC9• ' MCDONNEII, DOUGLAS DC9 EA32 ' AIRBUS INDUSTRIES A320 FK10 FOKECER 100 1.1(28 FOKKER F28 1 FK27 FOKKER F27 (PROP) L1011 LOCKHEED TRISTAR L1011 MD11 . - MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC11 1ViD80 MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC9 80 -SERIES 11 SW3 SWEARINGEN METROLINER 3 SW4 SWEARINGEN METROLINER 4 SF34 SAAB 340 January 22, 1995 . Page 14 Metropolitan Airports Commission Minneapolis -St. Paul Runway Use - Day/Night Periods All Operations For November 1994 Runway Name 04 11L 11R 22 29L Departures Day 46 Percent Arrivals Use Day 0.3% 196 Percent Use 1.4% 3859 26.3% 3340 23.0% • 3544 242% 3305 22:8% 720 4.9% 321 2.2% 3133 21.4% 3590 24.8% 29R 3366 22.9% 3744 25.8% • Runway Name Departures Night Percent Use Arrivals Night Percent Use 04 6 2.6% .19 3.9% 11L 11R 17 7.4% 20 4.1% 109 47.6% 57 11.6% 22 27 11.8% 16 3.2% 29L 44 19.2% 309 62.8% 29R 26 11.4% 71 14.4% • • January 22, 1995 Page 15 Metropolitan Airports Commission Minneapolis -St. Paul Community Overflight Analysis November 1994 Carrier Jet Operations - A11 Hours Overflight Area Number Arrivals Number Departures Number Departures Total Jet Ops Percent Jet Ops i # Ops per 24 Hours Over So. Minneapolis/ No. Richfield 18 4527 15.1% , 3997 8524 43.7% 284.1 Over So. Richfield/ Bloomington 5.5% 150 Over St. Paul- Fighiand Park 506 656 3.4% I 21.9 Over St. Paul- Highland Park Over Eagan/ Mendota Heights 275 44 7 228 i221 1.2% 7.6 ightsOver Eagan/ Mendota He 5094 4960 10054 51.7% 335.1 .•..t:.::.. :.:r:.n .-::. v:::::: ••: ..... .r .. .. ....}:vl:}};.::. :....:.}:v:Su•;:.: {t;:.v: r:: }.v. w.?•.}:... .: • : •:%' ..:./:... r: w::.v}I,.. ..: /•r. •:.•.}., ..... r: vn}•tiff} ; ., ...:... v .. i.... ..:.:v.... •::ti::�i.+}:::::::::i:: }-:.}}'.•}}_{:}•:: ii:FT:}:v.:vv::ti:::.:]i. .. ..: •: •:fir}:.;:•};;. . . I Carrier Jet Operations - Nighttime (11 P.M. - 6 A.M. Overflight Area Number Arrivals Number Departures Total Night Ops Percent i Night Ops 1 # Ops per Night Over So.141inneapolis/ No. Richfield 45 18 63 15.1% , 2.1 Over So. Richfield/ Bloomington 13 10 23 5.5% 0.8 Over St. Paul- Fighiand Park 13 0 13 t 3.1% k 0.4 Over Eagan/ Mendota Heights 275 44 319 76.3% 10.6 January 22, 1995 Page 16 i ,. ti,....•i. '.. Metropolitan Airports Commission Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Airport Noise Monitoring System Locations Site City Approximate Street Location 1 Minneapolis Xerxes Avenue & 41st Street 2 Minneapolis Fremont Avenue & 43rd Street 3 Minneapolis W. Elmwood Street & Belmont Avenue 4 Minneapolis Oakland Avenue & 49th Street 5 Minneapolis 12th Avenue & 58th Street 6 Minneapolis 25th Avenue & 57th Street 7 Richfield Wentworth Ave & 64th Street 8 Minneapolis Longfellow Avenue & 43rd Street 9 St, Paul Saratoga Street & Hartford Avenue 10 St. Paul Itasca Avenue & Bowdoia Street 11 St. Paul Finn Street & Scheffer Avenue 12 St. Paul Alton Street & Rockwood Avenue I 13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Court 14 Eagan First Street & McKee Street 15 Mendota Heights ' Cullon Street & Lexington Avenue 16 Eagan Avalon Avenue & Vilas Lane 17 Bloomington 84th Street & 4th Avenue 18 Richfield 75th Street & 17th Avenue 19 Bloomington 16th Avenue & 84th Street 20 Richfield 75th Street & 3rd Avenue 21 Inver Grove Heights Barbara Avenue & 67th Street 22 Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail 23 Mendota Heights End of Kendon Avenue 24 Eagan Chapel Lane & Wren Lane January 22, 1995 Page 18 Metropolitan Airports Commission Carrier Jet Arrival Related Noise Events For November, 1994 Count Of Events For Each RMT January 24, 1995 Page 19 :::>:::; ;::;: ,,: :::::, .::::.:.. ::�:. :.::>:.:;:»>,:.::......: �::a:::: •:: •,::.:::::::�: ::>:. •:. : ;.: <.::: A: lRtf..lt#i s:> •;` . ......... :::::.:.... •<... ::>: ;: ; ;:>:;> ::. :.::..: :. .::<; : venom: ��..Eveut� 1 Minneapolis Xerxes Avenue & 41st Street 1851 26 0 1 2 Minneapolis Fremont Avenue & 43rd Street 1446 95 2 0 3 Minneapolis W Elmwood Street & Belmont Avenue 1734 712 13 1 4 Minneapolis Oakland Avenue & 49th Street 1665 452 1 0 5 Minneapolis 12th Avenue & 58th Street 2247 1464 119 1 6 Minneapolis 25th Avenue & 57th Street 2522 1518 295 3 7 Richfield Wentworth Ave & 64th Street 161 2 2 0 8 Minneapolis Longfellow Avenue & 43rd Street 262 3 1 0 9 St. Paul Saratoga Street & Hartford Avenue 75 34 12 0 10 St. Paul Itasca Avenue & Bowdoin Street 223 71 8 3 11 St. Paul Finn Street & Scheffer Avenue 59 6 0 0 • 12 St. Paul Alton Street & Rockwood Avenue 128 4 4 0 13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Court 99 7 0 0 14 Eagan First Street & McKee Street 2226 68 2 0 15 Mendota Heights Cullen Street & Lexington Avenue 635 9 1 0 16 Eagan Avalon Avenue & Vilas Lane 2318 1045 18 0 17 Bloomington 84th Street & 4th Avenue 114 34 0 0 18 Richfield 75th Street & 17th Avenue 338 32 0 0 19 Bloomington 16th Avenue & 84th Street 72 2 0 0 20 Richfield 75th Street & 3rd Avenue 44 4 0 0 21 Inver Grove Heights Barbara Avenue & 67th Street 95 3 0 0 22 Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail 1124 13 0 0 23 Mendota Heights End of Kendon Avenue 1301 45 13 1 24 Eagan Chapel Lane & Wren Lane 1961 22 3 0 January 24, 1995 Page 19 Metropolitan Airports Commission Carrier Jet Departure Related Noise Events For November, 1994 Count Of Events For Each RMT January 24, 1995 Page 20 1 Minneapolis Xerxes Avenue & 41st Street 272 25 1 0 2 Minneapolis Fremont Avenue & 43rd Street 295 62 11 5 0 3 Minneapolis W Elmwood Street & Belmont Avenue 816 98 j 9 0 4 Minneapolis Oakland Avenue & 49th Street 1004 242 i 24 0 5 Minneapolis 12th Avenue & 58th Street 1953 924 i 298 21 6 Minneapolis 25th Avenue & 57th Street 2287 1134 542 204 7 Richfield Wentworth Ave & 64th Street 1245 332 I 52 2 8 Minneapolis Longfellow Avenue & 43rd Street 701 169 18 0 9 St. Paul Saratoga Street & Hartford Avenue 25 2 1 0 10 St. Paul Itasca Avenue & Bowdoin Street 641 2 I 4 0 11 St. Paul Finn Street & Scheffer Avenue 57 9 0 0 12 St. Paul Alton Street & Rockwood Avenue 231 10 ! 1 0 13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Court 1432 287 I 7 2 14 Eagan First Street & McKee Street 1899 362 43 4 15 Mendota Heights Cullen Street & Lexington Avenue 2032 627 78 2 16 Eagan Avalon Avenue & Was Lane 2501 1104 216 15 17 Bloomington 84th Street & 4th Avenue 311 45 { 11 1 18 Richfield 75th Street & 17th Avenue 897 267 1 127 11 19 Bloomington 16th Avenue & 84th Street 364 142 47 4 20 Richfield 75th Street & 3rd Avenue 373 1 65 9 0 21 Inver Grove Heights Barbara Avenue & 67th Street 734 101 1 3 0 22 Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail 878 95 5 0 23 Mendota Heights End of Kendon Avenue 2664 1086 494 37 24 Eagan , Chapel Lane & Wren Lane 1623 224 13 0 January 24, 1995 Page 20 Metropolitan Airports Commission Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events RMT #1: Xerxes Ave. & 41st St. Minneapolis Date TuneType Max Level A/D 11/10/94 8:35:00 DC9 100.6 A 11/06/94 9:20:58 B727 91.8 D 11/10/94 8:32:32 B727 91.4 A 11/10/'94 8:30:55 B727 91.2 A 11/12/9415:18:03 B727 90.9 A 11/17/94 18:36:27 DC9 90.7 A. 11/29/94 9:11:43 B727 89.5 D 11/03/94 19:57:11 B727 89.5 ' D 11/14/94 4:23:22 B727 89.0 D 11/04/94 8:19:04 B727 88.8 D RMT #3: W. Elmwood St. & Belmont Ave. Minneapolis Date Time A/C Type Max Level A/D 11/17/94 20:23:53 B727 101.1 A 11/26/94 16:46:42 DC9 98.4 A 11/26/94 18:36:11 B727 96.9 A 11/13/94 16:38:20 B727 96.8 A 11/05/94 21:32:38 B727 96.5 D 11/14/94 4:22:37 B727 96.1 D 11/7/9410:26:48 B727 = 95.9 A 11/17/94 19:23:39 B727 95.9 A 11/16/94 19:02:09 DC9 95.8 A 11/10/94 22:49:30 DC9 95.2 A January 24, 1995 RMT #2: Fremont Ave. & 43rd St. Minneapolis Date Time T�9PCe Max Level AID 11/18/94 12:23:10 B727 95.3 D 11/22/94 20:34:15 B727 93.0 D 11/05/94 21:33:03 B727 91.8 . D 11/21/9417:03:36 B727 91.8 D 11/16/9417:0051 B727 91.0 A 11/17/941852:28 B727 90.2 A 11/21/9412:14:19 DC9 90.1 D 11/23/94 11:53:47 B73S 90.0 D 11/04/94 8:08:14 B727 89.8 D 11/23/94 12:17:41 B737 89.6 D RMT #4: Oakland Ave. & 49th St. Minneapolis Date Time A/C Type Max Level A1D 11/14/94 9:35:10 B727 99.7 D 11/09/94 19:56:29 B727 97.9 D 11/13/94 20:42:17 B727 97.5 D 11/03/94 20:22:06 B727 97.4 D 11/07/9417:05:02 DC9 97.4 D 11/29/9410:25:29 B727 96.4 D 11/28/94 14:41:09 B727 96.3 D 11/04/94 8:07:53 B727 96.2 D 11/04/94 9:19:56 DC9 95.3 D 11/29/94 15:20:58 B727 95.0 D Page 21 Metropolitan Airports Commission Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events RMT #5: 12th Ave. & 58th St. Minneapolis Date Time A/C Type Max Level AID 11/04/94 7:57:48 B727 103.8 D 11/08194 8:00:28 B727 103.3 D 11/21/94 5:36:56 B727 102.9 D 11/21/94 7:40:36 B727 102.8 D 11/21/94 7:59:16 B727 102.6 D 11/04/94 7:51:17 B727 102.6 D. 11/14/94 7:28:44 B727 102.5 D 11/23/94 7:53:40 B727 102.4 D 11/23/94 13:16:02 B727 102.4 D 11/14/94 8:23:24 B727 102.0 D RMT #7: Wentworth Ave. & 64th St. Richfield Date Time A/C Type Max Level A/D 11/14/94 7:54:13 B727 101.4 D 11/03/94 18:43:11 B727 100.1 D 11/27/94 20:50:56 B727 99.7 D 11/27/94 20:07:02 B727 99.4 D 11/27/94 19:13:59 B727 98.6 D 11/29/94 13:16:59 B727 98.6 D 11/17/94 15:28:24 DC9 = 97.8 A 11/18/9417:10:45 B727 97.8 D 11/27/94 20:46:08 DC9 97.5 D 11/04/9410:12:34 B727 97.5 • D January 24, 1995 RMT #6: 25th Ave. & 57th St. Minneapolis Date Time 11 AIC Type Max Level AID 11/04/94 19:54:11 B727 109.0 D 11/23/94 11:48:41 B727 108.8 D 11/03/94 13:14:59 13727 ii 108.5 D 11/06/9417:16:25 DC9 108.1 D 11/03/94 2129:01D1 C9 108.0 D 11/24/94 9:41:59 13727' 107.5 D 11/08/94 9:31:32 B727 107.4 D 11/18/94 13:25:56 ' B727 107.4 D 11/09/941956:01 DC9 107.2 • D 11/22/94 19:53:27 B727 • 106.7 D RMT #8: Longfellow Ave. & 43rd St. Minneapolis Date Time A/CYP Max A/D 11/04/94 17:14:54 B727 99.3 D 11/03/94 21:29:28 B727 i 98.7 D 11/18/94 20:06:50 • B727 B127 97.4 D 11/23/94 8:03:59 B727 95.9 D 11/28/94 9:28:17 B727 94.9 D 11/04/94 13:10:57 DC9 1 94.1 D 11/04/9414:57:41 DC9 92.3 D 11/27/94 22:24:25 BZ27 91.8 D 11/22/94 9:12:13 DC9 91.4 D 11/18/94 13:26:20 DC9 91.2 D Page 22 Metropolitan Airports Commission Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events RMT #9: Saratoga St. & Hartford Ave. St. Paul Date TimeA/C Type Maxvel A!D 11/18/94 9:07:47 B727 95.8 A 11/23/94 22:48:35 B727 95.3 A 11/18/94 6:42:25 B727 95.1 A 11/18/94 8:50:40 B737 94.6 A • 11/18/94 8:04:42 B727 94.1 A 11/19/94 22:54:11 FK28 93.2 A 11/30/94 21:54:17 DC9 94.0 A 11/19/94 20:44:15 B727 93.9. A 11/18/94 755:52 DC9 93.9 A 11/18/94 7:31:37 B727 93.4 A RMT #11: Finn St. & Scheffer Ave. St. Paul Date TimeType Level AID 11/20/94 8:27:35 B727 89.5 A 11/26/94 5:58:31 SW4 86.1 A 11/05/94 7:12:04 DC9 85.3 D 11/17/94 17:28:48 B727 85.2 D II/18,94 i0 51:45 DC9 84.5 A 11/09/94 5:59:37 SW4 84.1 D 11/04/94 8:18:51 SW3 = -83.0 D 11/03/94 11:04:53 B727 82.6 D 11/19/94 6:58:32 SW4 82.3 D 11/20/94 7:57:54 B727 82.2 A January 24, 1995 RMT #14: Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St. St. Paul Date Time AJC Type Max Level AID 11/19/94 20:44:54 B727 104.6 A 11/18/94 9:08:35 DC9 103.8 A 11/18/94 8:05:33 B727 101.1 A 11/30/94 22:56:49 DC9 98.3 A 11/17/94 17:28:00 B727 96.7 D 11/18/94 8:27:12 DC9 96.3 A 11/19/94 22:54:49 B727 96.1 A - 11/30/94 22:39:18 B727 95.7 A 11/18/94 6:18:51 B727 952 D 11/18/94 6:02:45 B727 94.9 A RMT #12: Alton St. & Rockwood Ave. St. Paul Date Time T�YFCeMax LevelAID 11/13/94 12:04:57 B727 98.7 A 11/23/94 2256:24 B737 98.5 D 11/15/94 7:01:45 B727 98.3 A 11/09/94 7:59:51 DC9 87.6 D 11/10194 7:07:58 DC9 87.6 D 11/09/94 14:40:30 B727 87.4 D 11/08/94 6:12:57 DC9 87.1 D 11/08/94 15:30:27 DC9 86.4 A 11/10/94 8:03:18 B737 86.4 D 11/07/94 15:23:01 DC9 85.7 A Paye 23 Metropolitan Airports Commission Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events RMT #13: Southeast End of Mohican Court Mendota Heights Date Tune ,� C Max Level A/D 11/13/94 20:05:40 B727 1015 D 11/11/94 12:42:01 B727 100.2 D 11/13/94 19:46:30 B727 93.8 D 11/17/94 7:29:23 B727 93.3 D 11/07/94 8:12:56 B727 92.9 D 11/11/94 9:01:12 DC9 91.8 D• • 11)06/9419:57:34 B727 91.7 D 11/11/94 9:38:50 DC9 91.5 D 11/13/94 20:04:03 B727 90.8 D 11/12/94 16:00:45 B727 89.9 D RMT #15: Cullon St. & Lexington Ave. Mendota Heights Date Time A/C Type Max Level A/D 11/06/94 22:27:32 B727 101.5 D 11/22/94 08:44:12 B727 100.2 D 11/17/94 20:11:45 DC9 99.6 D 11/27/94 19:27:43 B727 99.6 D 11/06/9413:12:20 DC9 97.2 D 11/10/94 17:06:46 B727 96.9 D 11/18/94 13:07:56 B727 " -96.2 D 11/11/94 09:24:50 B727 96.1 D 11/06/94 23:04:12 DC9 96.0 D 11/26/94 20:01:07 B727 95.8 D January 24, 1995 RMT #14: 1st St. & McKee St. Eagan • Date Time A/C Type Max Level A/D A/D 11/13/94 1:34:19 B727 100.9 D 11/13/94 7:31:55 DC9 100.6 D 11/17/94 13:28:15 B727 100.2 D 11/20/94 17:46: 35 B727 100.1 D 11/13/94 14:20:05 DC9 99.9 D 11/11/94 20:34:18 1)C9 98.7 D 11/27/94 7:31:49 B727 98.1 D 11/11/94 7:38:30 13,727 98.0 D 11/13/94 13:31:28 Bi727 97.4 D 11/10/94 7:36:53 B727 96.7 D RMT #16: Avalon Ave. & Vilas Lane Eagan Date Time 1 A/C Type Max Level A/D 11/20/94 17:46:18 Bt 27 105.4 D 11/12/94 13:18:46 B727 104.7 D 11/13/94 8:15:28 B727 102.8 D 11/27/94 7:41:49 DC9 102.4 D 11/05/94 13:30:54 DC9 102.1 D 11/11/94 13:25:06 B727 101.9 D 11/11/94 8:33:03 B727 101.9 D 11/05/94 8:14:19 DO i 101.5 D 11/12/94 7:55:20 B727 101.4 D 11/05/94 13 :21:42 B727 101.3 D Page 24 Metropolitan Airports Commission Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events RMT #17: 84th St. & 4th Ave. Bloomington Date Time TYP�e Max Level A/D 11/05/94 23:39:56 B727 101.1 D 11/08/94 12:41:43 B727 98.7 D 11/08/94 16:08:03 B727 97.2 D 11/14/94 12:39:42 B727 96.9 D 1125/9412:45:22 DC9 96.1 D 11/04/94 16:03:56 B727 95.3 D 11/18/94 7:42:57 DC9 94.1 D 11/14/9410:46:52 B727 93.1 D 11/06/94 12:45:16 B727 92.9 D 11/24/94 7:27:55 13727 92.9 D RMT #19: 16th Ave. & 84th St. Bloomington Date TimeA/C Type Max Level A/D 11/06/94 7:52:02 B727 102.2 D 11/08/94 9:05:27 13727 101.3 D 11/18/94 8:11:33 DC9 101.2 D 11/23/94 8:43:58 DC9 101.0 D 11/24!94 8:01:19 13727 99.8 D 11/25/94 7:46:48 B727 99.5 D 11/24/94 7:53:13 13727 ' 99.3 D 11/08/94 22:32:32 B727 98.9 D 11/24/94 7:46:17 DC9 98.6 D 11/04/9416:10:08 B727 98.5 D January 24, 1995 RMT #18: 75th St. & 17th Ave. Richfield Max Date Time RMT #20: 75th St. & 3rd Ave. Richfield Date Time A/C Level A/D 11/18/94 7:42:46 B727 104.0 D 11/20/94 8:14:47 B727 103.6 D 11/08/94 16:07:49 B727 103.4 D 11/08/94 12:41:31 B727 103.3 D 11/19/94 12:39:56 B727 102.0 D 11/25/94 12:45:05 DC9 102.0 D 11/06/94 9:22:29 DC9 101.9 D 11/06/94 7:15:23 B727 101.4 D 11/06/94 9:40:17 DC9 101.3 D 11/29/94 9:15:26 B727 100.9 D RMT #20: 75th St. & 3rd Ave. Richfield Date Time ,fie Max Level A/D 11/05/94 21:21:50 B727 96.2 D 11/06/94 9:19:31 DC9 95.1 D 11/06/94 15:17:00 DC9 93.6 D 11/18/94 5:11:10 B727 925 D 11/25/94 12:19:46 B727 92.2 D 11/0.6/94 9:59:59 DC9 92.0 D 11/08/94 10:35:19 DC9 91.8 I) 11/18/94 7:27:42 B727 91.3 D 11/06/94 9:40:33 DC9 91.0 D 11/03/94 14:04:36 B727 89.8 D Page 25 Metropolitan Airports Commission Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events RMT #21: Barbara Ave. & 67th St. Inver Grove Heights Date Time A/C Type Max Level A/D 11/16/94 12:09:11 B727 91.8 D 11/16/94 21:57:35 B727 91.4 D 11/20,9413:11:53 B727 90.9 D 11/04/94 21:59:54 B727 89.8 D 11/30/94 18:19:36 B727 89.1 D 11/30/94 9:36:35 B727 88.5 D• 11a094 13:20:58 , 13727 88.4 D 11/20/94 7:25:52 B727 88.3 D 11/11/94 17:14:58 B727 88.1 D 11/15/94 11:45:45 B737 87.9 D RMT #23: End of Kenndon Ave. Mendota Heights Date Time A/C Type Max Level A/D 11/17/94 20;20:27 B727 104.6 D 11/11/94 9:38:33 13727 104.1 D 11/13/94 19:06:59 DC9 103.8 D 11/19/94 19:52:55 B727 103.8 D 11/13/94 19:46:06 13727 103.3 D 11/13/94 20:05:08 B727 103.2 D 11/12/94 12:00:21 13727 : 102.9 D 11/17/94 7:28:49 B727 102.3 D 11/12/94 19:54:15 DC9 102.3 D 11/11/94 19:49:01 B727 102.3 D January 24, 1995 RMT #22: Anne Marie Trail Inver Grove Heights Date Time . 1 A/ Tj:pC e A/C Type Max Level A/D 11/12/94 16:08:54 94.4 B727 91.1 D 11/16/94 8:43:54 A B727 91.1 D 11/19/94 16:09:50 11/18/94 9:57:03 B737 90.8 D 11/20/94 13:21:45 B727 DC9 90.8 D 11/16/94 13:30:26 93.0 13,727 90.7 D 11/10/94 7:36:36 D , B727 1 90.0 D 11/11/94 7:39:17 " B727 90.0 D 11/11/947:34:03 B7'27 13727 ' 89.9 D 11/19/94 7:09:56 B727 89.6 D 11/13/94 7:32:47 DC9 89.2 D RMT #24: Chapel Ln. & Wren Ln. Eagan Date Time . 1 A/ Tj:pC e Ma Lx A/Devel 11/11/94 7:38:50 B727 94.4 D 11/14/94 8:29:46 DC9 93.8 A 11/11/94 7:33:33 B127 93.4 D 11/18/94 9:57:03 i B727 932 A 11/13/94 7:27:10 B727 93.1 D 11/13/94 7:32:12 B727 93.0 D 11/07/94 7:33:02 D.9 92.8 D 11/07/94 7:45:17 Da9 92.6 D 11/13/94 8:13:34 B727 91.7 D 11/10/94 7:36:00 B7'27 91.6 D Page 26 Metropolitan Airports Commission November 1994 Operations November 01 to 05, 1994 November 06 to 12, 1994 \r11taill�l fl 1075 Carrier Jet Arrivals 2497 Carrier Jet Arrivals 992 Carrier Jet Departures January 23, 1995 2416 Carrier Jet Departures Page 27 Metropolitan Airports Commission November 1994 Operations November 20 to 26, 1994 November 13 to 19, 1994 2591 Carrier Jet Arrivals 2406 Carrier Jet Arrivals 2516 Carrier Jet Departures January 22, 1995 2305 Carrier Jet Departures Page 28 Metropolitan Airports Commission November 1994 Operations , November 27 to 30, 1994 1423 Carrier Jet Arrivals 1241 Carrier Jet Departures Friday, September 23, 1994 Page 29 Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Analysis of Noise Events with Time/Date November 01 to November 30, 1994 Aircraft Ldn dB(A) Noise Monitor Locations DATE #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 #11 #12 #13 #14 #15 #16 #17 #18 #19 #20 #21 #22 #23 #24 1 59.9 62.6 67.2 68.2 77.3 78.0 66.1 62.3 54.1 53.9 47.9 54.6 64.2 69.5 63.0 75.6 65.2 64.2 52.1 49.8 61.9 63.7 72.7 64.6 2 62.0 63.8 69.E 66.7 72.0 73.3 57.0 60.7 * 57.0 49.0 51.9 66.8 68.8 67.8 73.6 51.3 563 493 46.9 63.4 64.5 753 67.0 3 62.6 62.9 71.E 65.2 75.4 71.0 58.1 56.0 56.5 59.4 50.2 53.0 65.6 64.8 * 69.6 57.4 57.1 53.1 483 61.1 61.2 74.6 63.8 4 62.3 63.0 69.2 65.0 73.7 71.6 50.9 58.8 58.8 59.4 473 52.9 64.6 61.9 65.8 65.8 62.4 58.2 52.0 47.3 58.4 57.6 72.8 61.2 5 56.6 56.9 62.7 67.1 77.1 79.6 67.4 64.6 47.9 493 45.2 47.0 55.8 61.6 51.7 683 56.8 67.6 64.7 51.2 .46.2 57.9 68.0 613 6 56.9 58.2 61.6 65.7 * 75.7 62.8 61.6 52.0 50.9 51.1 55.6 53.1 66.1 60.4 • 68.1 61.5 68.3 64.8 52.3 46.1 58.2 69.4 63.5 7 59.5 59.8 62.6 67.4 74.4 78.8 64.9 61.7 45.2 56.4 52.3 55.4 63.1 67.0 63.2 70.7 62.1 69.8 70.2 52.6 58.1 60.7 72.6 65.4 8 57.1 59.9 63.4 62.4 * 71.2 55.6 53.1 50.4 55.7 51.9 52.8 65.3 66.7 64.7 73.0 63.8 62.9 46.9 46.8 61.8 61.7 743 64.5 9 58.0 60.8 66.1 65.2 72.0 74.9 51.7 56.5 52.4 57.8 51.2 58.1 64.9 673 653 72.5 59.6 58.9 553 48.0 60.5 63.2 73.8 66.0 10 54.9 56.1 61.4 60.3 67.8 68.4 50.0 54.5 53.2 563 47.8 54.6 63.9 65.4 * 71.1 55.7 65.2 60.9 44.0 59.5 60.2 73.9 * 11 55.3 56.5 63.1 613 68.9 693 53.4 54.8 58.7 59.7 41.5 48.1 65.6 673 66.7 70.8 50.1 53.8 50.5 493 -61.0 61.4 75.1 * 12 60.0 65.2 68.0 70.2 76.0 74.5 59.7 62.2 44.6 593 50.0 53.6 69.6 64.0 71.3 69.6 50.8 52.6 51.7 49.3 62.7 60.6 77.4 64.7 13 603 62.4 66.1 67.9 75.9 783 67.5 62.7 * 63.9 54.8 55.7 66.7 64.8 67.8 70.2 54.7 66.6 61.8 56.4 60.5 60.2 75.6 66.1 14 59.2 61.1 673 64.4 73.2 71.4 52.9 58.4 * 53.8 473 52.8 64.8 673 68.6 71.7 573 50.1 56.4 50.9 59.2 61.6 75.1 63.2 15 55.8 59.5 65.9 69.6 79.9 80.5 663 60.8 • 62.4 53.2 56.8 66.2 64.3 65.4 70.6 55.5 52.4 54.1 57.7 57.1 60.2 72.2 67.1 16 59.3 60.1 64.3 68.8 76.5 79.6 683. 61.8 433 55.9 44.4 - 48.3 58.1 _65.4_ _ 54.0. _ 68.6 _ -56.6 - -68.4 - - 68.-2. .53.7 - -45.3- - 59.1- - 71.5-. 64.5 17 56.2 57.5 61.1 66.4 72.4 78.1 66.8 613 42.9 49.2 43.9 43.4 55.6 65.7 57.7 67.7 59.6 68.6 69.0 54.4 53.8 57.4 64.7 62.5 18 52.1 56.8 61.3 66.0 71.0 77.5 65.0 61.9 52.9 43.7 48.3 43.8 50.9 61.9 54.4 67.7 65.7 71.0 67.6 56.5 56.5 57.4 62.4 61.1 19 543 57.2 62.7 61.7 69.4 72.4 57.4 58.7 46.0 54.6 51.8 56.4 64.7 64.4 64.2 69.2 64.5 70.9 68.5 53.4 60.8 59.8 733 63.6 20 56.7 59.8 65.0 65.0 70.5 73.8 58.3 55.2 48.9 57.3 51.3 53.8 65.1 66.3 68.1 69.8 47.7 51.8 50.7 46.2 59.3 60.6 75.2 64.7 January 24, 1995 30 Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Analysis of Noise Events with Time/Date November 01 to November 30, 1994 Aircraft Ldn dB(A) Noise Monitor Locations DATE #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 #11 #12 #13 #14 #15 #16 #17 #18 #19 #20 #21 #22 #23• #24 21 58.8 60.8 673 67.8 743 78.9 66.7 61.1 54.8 56.9 49.8 59.1 61.9 67.5 663. 72.4 61.0 59.6 58.1 63.0 59.8 59.8 73.5 63.5 22 55.1 62.5 66.4 68.2 77.5 803 73.2 62.4 48.0 54.4 50.0 54.1 543 64.3 59.6 70.3 61.0 603 47.8 48.9 * 59.9 69.0 63.9 23 61.0 62.5 68.4 64.9 71.8 76.8 58.2 56.4 49.0 63.5 52.7 49.2 62.6 68.4 65.5 75.8 58.8 64.5 55.8 49.9 * 62.0 75.9 66.0 24 58.7 •61.8 65.3 65.3 72.4 76.7 633 603 49.7 53.4 42.3 44.7 59.4 68.7 61.4 73.6 59.6 67.0 61.9 55.6 61.7 62.3 72.5 66.7 25 56.7 58.8 64.5 69.3 75.6 80.0 69.2 * * 68.8 54.2 60.5 60.0 68.4 62.2 72.6 57.3 70.9 663 53.9 54.7 61.2 66.1 67.0 26 60.8 58.4 64.8 69.0 77.1 80.8 • 703 63.6 50.2 62.8 51.2 55.7 57.9 66.5 59.0 70.0 59.1 63.0 58.0 50.9 •57.0 63.1 67.9 65.8 27 58.7 59.9 62.7 68.6 74.0 79.4 68.6 63.0 52.6 , 53.3 51.9 54.6 55.6 64.4 60.0 68.3 60.8 68.9 67.7 61.7 56.0 54.1 66.5 65.1 28 58.8 59.9 63.9 67.4 73.6 79.7 68.6 63.6 533 50.5 54.7 49.3 * 64.1 58.7 69.1 59.1 70.7 70.5 53.0 52.0 60.0 67.1 64.0 29 59.0 62.2 65.3 65.4 72.6 75.0 60.6 56.8 57.1 57.5 50.3 55.1 * 67.9 67.1 72.3 633 72.7 67.6 54.3 63.4 62.2 753 66.6 30 60.2 63.1 67.4 65.4 71.1 72.4 62.7 • 603 49.4 55.7 52.9 46.7 62.8 70.6 64.7 73.5 63.3 665 50.9 57.8 62.7 63.8 74.2 68.4 Monthly Ldn 60.3 60.9 65.8 67.7 73.9 75.8 663 63.2 57.8 61.7 54.2 58.3 66.1 . 68.2 65.5 73.1 63.6 66.8 63.2 59.7 62.1 - 62.8 723 65.1 *less than twenty-four hours of data available January 24, 1995 31 ....I.. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • IN • ■ • ■ MASAC Technical Advisor's Report For December, 1994 Minneapolis ! St. Paul International Airport MONTHLY MEETING - Metropolitan Airport Sound Abatement Council Chairman: Scott Benin Vice Chairman: Bob Johnson Technical Advisor: John Foggia Secretary: Jean Deighton Airborne Pnpres:: Brian Bate. Air Transport Auociafion: Pad McGraw ALFA: Charier W. Curry Jr. City cfBloomington: Petroo. Lee Vern Wilcox City cfBruniviue: Jaen Rivas City c Pagan: Dustin Monde City drover Grove Height:: Denote Madden City cfMendota Heights: Jill Smith City of Minneapolis: James B. Serdo Jahn Richter Joe Lee Judith Dodge City of Richfield: George Karnes Doo Priebe City cf St. Louis Part: Robert Admire City elSt. Paul: Scott Bndn Craig C. W ruck Carol Ann McGuire Delta Air Line:Inca Rich Kidwell Federal &press: Toa Rhdneck Federal Aviation Administration: Bruce Wagoner Ronald Climb MAC Staff: Dick Seine MBAR: Robert P. Jahnsno Mesaha Nortlevest AirUnt: Lawrence McCabe Metropolitan Airports Commission: Cammletimer Alton Gayer MN Air National Girard: Major Mark R. Now Northeast Airlines: Mark Salm= Jenndrer Sayre St. Paul Chamber ofCccnmeree: Jack Barkley Sun Country Airlines: Luke A. Gomer United Airlines Inc.: Allan Tomldn,n United Parcel Service: Janes Dooabo US. Air Force Reserve: Captain Steven Chapman US. Supplemental Carriers: Robert A. Mix Metropolitan AJrports Commission Declaration of Purposes 1.) Promote public welfare and national security; serve public interest, convenience, and necessity; promote air navigation and transportation, international, national, state, and local, in and through this state; promote the efficient, safe, and economical handling of air commence; assure the inclusion of this state in national and international programs of air transportation; and to those ends to develop the full potentialities of the metropolitan area in this state as an aviation center, and to correlate that area with all aviation facilities in the entire state so as to provide for the most economical and effective use of aeronautic facilities and services in that area; 2.) Assure the residents of the metropolitan area of the minimum environmental impact from air navigation and transportation, and to that end provide for noise abatement. control of airport area land use, and other protective measures; and 3.) Promote the overall goals of the state's environmental policies and minimize the public's exposure to noise and safety hazards around airports. Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council Statement of Purpose This cprporation was formed in furtherance of the general welfare of the communities adjoining Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport - Wold -Chamberlain Field, a public airport in the County of Hennepin, State of M-mnesota, through the alleviation of the problems created by the sound of aircraft using the airport; through study and evaluation on a continuing basis of the problem and of suggestion for the alleviation of the same; through initiation, coordination and promotion of reasonable and effective procedures, control and regulations, consistent with the safe operation of the airport and of aircraft using the same; and through dissemination of information to the affected communities, their affected residents, and the users of the airport respecting the problem of ainraft noise muisan a and in respect to suggestions made and actions initiated and taken to alleviate the problem. Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council Representation The membership shall include representatives appointed by agencies, corporations, associations and governmental bodies which by reason of their statutory authority and responsibility or control over the airport, or by reason of their status as airport users, have a direct interest in the operation of the airport. Such members will be called User Representatives and Public Representatives, provided that the User Representatives and Public Representatives shall at all times be equal in number. The Airport 24-hour Noise Hotline is 726-9411. Complaints to the hotline do not result in changes in Airport activity, but provides a public sounding board and airport information outlet. The hotline is staffed 24 -hours Monday - Friday This report is prepared and printed in house by Roy Fuhrmann and Traci Erickson Questions or comments may be directed to: MAC - Aviation Noise Program Minneapolis / St. Paul International Airport 6040 28th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55450 Tel: (612) 726-8108, Fax: (612) 726-5296 Metropolitan Airports Commission Aviation Noise Programs December Technical Advisor's Report December 1994 I. December 1994 Operations and Complaint Summary II. December 1994 Complaint Summary III. Runway Use Reports December Tower Log Percent Hourly Use December Tower Log - Nighttime Percent Hourly Use December Runway Use Report - All Ops Percent of Ops December Runway Use Report - Jet Ops Percent of Ops December Runway Use Report Nighttime - All Ops Percent of Ops December Runway Use Report Nighttime - Jet Ops Percent of Ops Jet Carrier Operations by Type Aircraft Type .Table December Runway Use For Day/Night Periods ... All Operations December Community Overflight Analysis ANOMS Base Map - Remote Monitor Site Locations MSP - Airport Noise Monitoring System Locations IV. v. VI. VII. VIII. IX. X. XL XII. XIII. Jet Departure Related Noise Events For December, 1994 Jet Arrival Related Noise Events For December, 1994 Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events - RMTs 1 through 24 ANOMS Flight Tracks December 1 to 10, 1994 Jet Arrivals December 1 to 10, 1994 Jet Departures December 11 to 17, 1994 Jet Arrivals December 11 to 17, 1994 Jet Departures December 18 to 24, 1994 Jet Arrivals December 18 to 24, 1994 Jet Departures December 25 to 31, 1994 Jet Arrivals December 25 to -31, 1994 Jet Departures XIV. MSP Aircraft Ldn by Date and RMT - December 1994 Metropolitan Airports Commission - Aviation Noise Program Metropolitan Airports Commission December 1994 Operations and Complaint Summary ' Operations Summary - All Aircraft • ••••••• ••• • • • ••• ........:::: . : ... .... .... 04 213 1.2% 46 0.3% 22 292 1.6% 1 355 2.0% 11 8912 49.3% 9896 55.7% 29 8665 47.9% 7475 42.0% MSP December Fleet Mix Percentage Stage 2 62.3 60.5 61.5 59.2 Stage 3 37.7 39.5 38.5 40.8 January 23, 1995 Airport December Complaint Summary •• • flHrt it. 1993r" MSP 813 663 Airlake 0 0 Anoka 0 0 Crystal 0 0 Flying Cloud 5 8 Lake Elmo 0 0 St. Paul 9 4 Misc. 1 0 • • December Operations Summary - Airport Directors Office ............ 1994 Air Carrier 704 Commuter 300 G.A. 128 Military 5 Air Freight 49 Charter 10 739 301 129 5 34 25 MSP DECEMBER 1994 COMPLAINT SUMMARY MSP COMPLAINTS BY CITY ARRWMii;i:?.itiktii1tet77' Blcii—ornington 1 0.15% Burnsville 0 7 7 1.08% Eagan. 21 227 248 38.27% Eden Prairie 0 1 1 0.15% Inver Grove Heights 1 150 151 { 23.30% Mendota Heights 13 59 72 11.11% Minneapolis 49 62 111 17.13% New Hope 1 0 1 1 0.15% Richfield 1 8 9 1.40% South St. Paul 1 11 12 1.85% St. Anthony 0 2 2 0.32% St. Anthony Village 1 0 1 t 0.15% St Louis Park 1 0 0.15% St. Paul 30 ••••••• 5 .s/ TIME OF DAY 1 31 I 4.79% NATURE OF COMPLAINT icitThettiffilt 00:00 - 05:59 24 Excessive Noise 6i 06:00 - 06:59 07:00 - 11:59 11 Early/Late , 20 259 Low Flying 71 12:00 - 15:59 78 Structural Disturbance 11 16:00 - 19:59 110 20:00 - 21:59 Helicopter 0: 118 Ground Noise 11 22:00 - 22:59 23:00 - 23:59 46 Fngine Run-up 4; 17 Frequency Page 2 • ....• • .1•••.•::::•:•.:;•.,-:•• • Metropolitan Airports Commission Runway Use Report - All Operations For December, 1994 Runway December Arr/Dep Count Percentage 1993 Count December 1993 Percentage 04 A 213 .o:.::::.:; 162 11L A 4548 3784 11R A 4364 < ;: % < . ': 3520 22 A 292 '°`'>1:::<>` ' 74 29L A 4583 >~ <::.:=<`' 4224 29R A 4082 4182 TOTAL ARR. 04 11L 11R D D D 22 D 29L D 29R TOTAL DEP. January 22, 1995 D 18082 15946 46 :`►':: 82 5057 4839 355 3651 3824 17772 3894 3710 376 3681 3531 15274 Page , ....... . .„„ ••-• • iV'....-'•••:::6:",...e.u.::::,i.;:4:.,„:i.:,...„..,.i,,,,:,,...‘„:„.:.„..,...„.. glf ...-._.:_. ,---...--.:,......aPPOt0011AtOi ,..m....g..,....i..., .,.:,'*-/....::::;,,..:',:y„"::;,,,i.,ii,?..*:*y-:...i...::...,;::,...,..:',07,.... ... '. " Pip -ii„,„„,„ ' 1:--.*•:-..„:. ..'i...? !::i.s.i.1':•,:.''',:;, ...4;-'. AA Aq114/4"tiOrIA '.:';'..:t.:',:',,:,.'',*?..,:::.!:..:i.i2 .'",.*'"••:.....• ••:.':' ...•••••••„.„.. ...„,„,...„,,...... „ .„....„.„. • ....,..., ,., „......,... .„:„.„...„.„,„..•:„......,•....,....... „.„ . ,„.„.„..• .,......, ......„ — ..........„,.............„.„,.„...„..e.. ,„„ ...„..„., ....• —......•• ....„• • • ...„....,..„......„,...„,„..........„. .. ..„.„.„...........„..„..— .......„ . ....,.. ..„...... „........„........ „.. ............. . ...—.......„.„.„ ..„„,.............„....,......„ .• „....„ ..„ .. •.....• „..•.„......•....—.•••. .• •••• •. •••. ...... ........„............ . • ...........„ . • •-•,„:...„:„:„„ :...: .,.. ..„ „‘„:„ — 0 Metropolitan Airports Commission Runway Use Report - Carrier Jet Operations { For December, 1994 Runway 04 11L 11R 22 29L 29R TOTAL ARR. 04 11L 11R 22 Arr/Dep A A A A A A D D D D 29L D 29R TOTAL DEP. D Count 143 2743 3009 191 3313 2589 11988 0 2927 3421 254 2521 2192 11315 Percentage • • :100%, December 1993 Count 104 2190 2355 42 2981 2591 10263 16 2225 2588 243 2552 1969 9593 December 1993 Percentage January 23, 1995 Page 8 ...„. „.. ...,.„„\\ Peree1 ". •": A „„, Metropolitan Airports Commission Runway Use Report Nighttime - All Operations For December, 1994 Runway 04 11L 11R 22 29L 29R TOTAL ARR. 04 11L 11R 22 29L 29R TOTAL DEP. Arr/Dep A A A •A A A D D D D D D Count 27 24 47 36 506 105. 745 19 52 171 15 24 9 290 Percentage 11111 __,-------� :.:y..:"$"- • December 1993 Count 12 13 35 15 297 201 573 6 81 95 22 40 40 284 December 1993 Percentage January 22, 1995 Page 10 Metropolitan Airports Commission Runway Use Report Nighttime Carrier For December, 1994 . • Jet Runway Arr/Dep Count Percentage December 1993 Count December i 1993 Percentage 04 A 21 4 11L A 12 4 11R A 24 Itt 1 11 12 t1 Itt ,:::•• 22 A 22 ,::.• •6 :.5:*•.s... •-- 1. ,..4i:Kii.::::K:i::,.,. •:•:: 29L A 339- . :.:.:•:••:,•:::::::•.• .0,1$:7,1:It:: • . 4::i•::::i:E:: 199 29R . A 70 „:::::::o -,- :::::::::-::::::i.:.• . ..-----z- mo::i:::*,-- ...: :i :: 132 -•:::::::..oz:::::::„ ,. ,.... TOTAL ARR. . 488 .....• :•:•:,:•:.:...:„.:•:. •:::::.::•?:•:•:••:: 357 ::•.:::•:•:,:::•,:•:::::::•:::T••::::* 04 D 0 , :::: 0 •••••• :::::x::•.:k :•:,:::, :.: 11L D 23 „..::::::::::x4:•:. ..,„ :•• :.:.::::m:::v.:::a.. 29 ••::•,,,• .:: .,:.:::::::i... •••: ......, 11R D .:., ,::::::4i.: '' ' 36 . .: . 22 D 6 10 29L D 4 :-:::•,:::::::::::::::::" ::::::::::::::::::::::i •• • ---•••••••• 14 :i •••• •:::::::::•:•:- :::: :•:„.i, 29R D 3 Iii.N.,.•.e. ,., *i: "."•of':::% ..:.:::::::•.•:„: 15 .::::::::::::::::•::::::::::::::::::::::•.:...• TOTAL DEP. 96••••••4•3,:::, :::::i.:::.:::::::-:- ft.•:::::0, :•:•,..x.x.:::::- Z:Mi:K.. ..:•.:.:*::iiiMigiiEE, 104 •,...,:v:::::::::::::::: -::::::::::::::;:*:Ainil ... - I I January 22, 1995 Page 12 Metropolitan Airports Commission Carrier Jet Operations By Type December, 1994 Aircraft Type Count Percentage B727H 181 DC9H B707 B733/4/5 B747 B74F B757 B767 DC10 DC87 EA32 FK10 219 0 1451 128 8 1815 1 1101 139 2275 822 L1011 29 MD11 MD80 BA10 B727 B737 DC8 DC86 DC9 FK28 17 1316 0 4253 571 154 43 8721 59 0.8% 0.9% 0.0% 6.2% 0.6% 0.0% 7.8% 0.0% 4.7% 0.6% 9.8% 3.5% 0.1% 0.1% 5.7% 0.0% 18.2% 2.4% 0.7% 0.2% 37.4% 0.3% . I Total• • >: Qa> 40.8% Stage 3 592% Stage 2 January 23, 1995 Page 13 Metropolitan Airports Commission Aircraft Type Table CODE AIRCRAFT DESCRIPTION B727 BOEING 727 B727H BOEING 727 -HUSH KIT B707 BOEING 707 B733 BOEING 737-300' B737 BOEING 737 B73S BOEING 737 200 SERIES B747 BOEING 747 B74F BOEING 747 FREIGHTER B757 BOEING 757 B767 BOEING 767 BAD. BRITISH AEROSPACE 111 BEC BEECHCRAFT (ALL SERIES) BE1 BEECHCRAFT 1900 BE80 BEECHCRAFT KING AIR BE99 BEECHCRAFT QUEEN AIR CNA CESSNA (ALL SERIES) DC10 MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC10 DC8 MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC8 i 1 DC8S MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC8 STRETCH DC86 MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC8 60 -SERIES DC87 MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC8 70 -SERIES RE ' DC9 • MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC9 EA32 AIRBUS INDUSTRIES A320 FK10 FOKKER 100 FK28 FOKKER F28 FK27 FOKKER F27 (PROP) L1011 LOCKHEED TRISTAR L1011 MD11 MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC11 MD80 MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC9 80 -SERIES SW3 SWEARINGEN METROLINER 3 SW4 SWEARINGEN METROLINER 4 SF34 SAAB 340 January 22, 1995 Page 14 Metropolitan Airports Commission Minneapolis -St. Paul Runway Use - Day/Night Periods All Operations For December 1994 Runway Name 04 11L 11R 22 29L 29R Departures Day 27 5005 4668 340 3627 3815 Percent Use 0.2% 28.6% 26.7% L9% 20.8% 21.8% Arrivals Day 186 4524 4317 256 4077 3977 Percent Use 26.1% 24.9% L5% 23.5% 22.9% t. Runway Name 04 11L 11R 22 29L 29R Departures Night 19 52 171 15 9 Percent Use 6.6% 17.9% 59.0% 5.1% 8.3% 3.1% Arrivals Night 27 24 47 36 506 105 Percent Use 3.6% 3.2% 6.3% 4.8% 68.0% 14.1% January 22, 1995 Page 15 Metropolitan Airports Commission Minneapolis -St. Paul Community Overflight Analysis December 1994 Carrier Jet Operations - All Hours Overflight Area Number Arrivals Number Departures Total Jet Ops Percent Jet Ops ! # Ops per 24 Hours Over So. Minneapolis/ No. Richfield 5752 4713 10465 44.9% 1 337.6 Over So. Richfield/ Bloomington 143 254 397 1.7% 1 12.8 Over St Paul Highland Park 191 0 191 0.8% 6.2 O'er Eagan/ Mendota Heights 5902 6348 12250 52.6% I 395.2 ..................:. :.:.............:: •::: :n'?::.: �:??y,'.:?yisi:.i::v,•:••:i::i:•is:'r.•::?.ir....�::::.4..:5:::: •.::::•,::•.::: •::.: . • n::?..;.;. w: ^:'. v: •. :-:::::•:::.. • r.; .; nn.. ?•::': f., ..., f•::>:r.:':;r1::�::;::::z:rkr::::::fi:> .: r.; .F..::: %:•:.: �:.:.: . ;;: �pi }N�jy�•`)�C{. • is 3s:>::R:,::::>:::;::L:: xri s:::: �:.:::: . •ti:: Carrier Jet Operations - Nighttime (11 RM. - 6 A.M.) Overflight Area Number Arrivals Number Departures Total Night Ops Percent Night Ops # Ops per Night Over So. Minneapolis/ No. Richfield 367 , 43 7.4% ' I.4 Over So. Richfield/ Bloomington 21 6 27 4.6% ; 0.9 Over St. Paul- Highland Park 22 0 22 3.8% i 0.7 Over Mendota Heights 409 83 492 84.2% 15.9 :.:: •- •::: ••: .. ..:: .....!??•i;: ry:;•i::, •:'i;•:;., v;: . .. :-:.v::; •::: :n'?::.: �:??y,'.:?yisi:.i::v,•:••:i::i:•is:'r.•::?.ir....�::::.4..:5:::: •.::::•,::•.::: •::.: . • n::?..;.;. w: ^:'. v: •. :-:::::•:::.. • r.; .; nn.. ?•::': f., ..., f•::>:r.:':;r1::�::;::::z:rkr::::::fi:> .: r.; .F..::: %:•:.: �:.:.: . ;;: �pi }N�jy�•`)�C{. • is 3s:>::R:,::::>:::;::L:: xri s:::: �:.:::: . •ti:: January 22, 1995 Page 16 Metropolitan Airports Commission Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Airport Noise Monitoring System Locations Site City Approximate Street Location 1 Minneapolis Xerxes Avenue & 41st Street 2 Minneapolis Fremont Avenue & 43rd Street 3 Minneapolis W. Elmwood Street & Belmont Avenue 4 Minneapolis Oakland Avenue & 49th Street 5 Minneapolis 12th Avenue & 58th Street 6 Minneapolis 25th Avenue & 57th Street 7 Richfield Wentworth Ave & 64th Street 8 Minneapolis Longfellow Avenue & 43rdStreet 9 St. Paul Saratoga Street & Hartford 'Menne 10 St. Paul Itasca Avenue & Bowdoin Street 11 St. Paul Finn Street & Scheffer Avenue enue 12 St. Paul Alton Street & Rockwood Avenue i 13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Court 14 Eagan First Street & McKee Street 15 Mendota Heights Callon Street & Lexington venue 16 Eagan Avalon Avenue & Vilas Lane 17 Bloomington 84th Street & 4th Avenue 18 Richfield 75th Street & 17th Avenue 19 Bloomington 16th Avenue & 84th Street 20 Richfield 75th Street & 3rd Avenue 21 Inver Grove Heights Barbara Avenue & 67th Street 22 Inver Grove Heights • Anne Marie Trail 23 Mendota Heights End of Kendon Avenue 24 Eagan Chapel Lane & Wren Lane January 22, 1995 Page 18 Metropolitan Airports Commission Carrier Jet Arrival Related Noise Events For December, 1994 Count Of Events For Each RMT January 24, 1995 Page 19 .:::'i::Vlt' ry5;.::. •�':;:•; :'• ':...... .: i. .: :.�.::.: .::'': ::•.:•i:'::....:.:.:u .. '::::::;::.' .i::.:.:.:.'.,.::::::::.i:.::.t:::•:i:-:..::::::'::'r::::> n .v`�.�r �..•. 44l.N.{Tr::. . :. ':, ocatao.YS?::::•{:} : :::: ::.:::.:L ::Z:::::::•::.:. .L::::::::•:::i:::-:. .::*i :`,. :i. .::.ISM✓iM:'::•:::.:::v::v::::f.4.V.14f1..:ii::�::'.::::':: ..?:::.'.:.. ve .: . .... ... /:V{'►#F.::i. :: ::::;il: ': ': 1 Minneapolis Xerxes Avenue & 41st Street 3812 62 1 0 2 Minneapolis Fremont Avenue & 43rd Street 2520 310 1 0 3 Minneapolis W Elmwood Street & Belmont Avenue 3021 1483 30 0 4 Minneapolis Oakland Avenue & 49th Street 2748 1012 1 1 5 Minneapolis 12th Avenue & 58th Street 3593 2498 516 1 6 Minneapolis 25th Avenue & 57th Street 3510 2393 792 1 7 Richfield Wentworth Ave & 64th Street 168 32 2 0 8 Minneapolis Longfellow Avenue & 43rd Street 246 27 5 0 9 St. Paul Saratoga Street & Hartford Avenue 46 26 4 0 10 St. Paul Itasca Avenue & Bowdoin Street 42 19 12 0 11 St. Paul Finn Street & Scheffer Avenue 13 4 2 0 12 St. Paul Alton Street & Rockwood Avenue 10 9 1 0 13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Court 22 16 2 1 14 Eagan First Street & McKee Street 3168 135 6 0 15 Mendota Heights Cullen Street & Lexington Avenue 151 35 1 0 16 Eagan Avalon Avenue & Vi1as Lane 2602 1691 12 0 17 Bloomington 84th Street & 4th Avenue 63 45 3 0 18 Richfield 75th Street & 17th Avenue 97 71 1 0 . 19 Bloomington 16th Avenue & 84th Street 15 14 2 0 20 Richfield 75th Street & 3rd Avenue 7 4 1 0 21 Inver Grove Heights Barbara Avenue & 67th Street 93 26 0 0 22 Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail 1137 22 0 0 23 Mendota Heights End of Kendon Avenue 1262 73 13 1 24 Eagan Chapel Lane & Wren Lane 803 68 1 0 January 24, 1995 Page 19 Metropolitan Airports Commission Carrier Jet Departure Related Noise Events For December, i Count Of Events For Each RMT 3.994 ...:.::::::::::..:.:::::::::::::..:..:::.»:. • . ;•<::E_.en :•: ,; •:;:..fir u ::::: v...e►zts:�• : ;:<:>:::Evera ... 1 Minneapolis Xerxes Avenue & 41st Street 201 48 ( 4 0 2 Minneapolis Fremont Avenue & 43rd Street 224 67 7 0 3 Minneapolis W Elmwood Street & Belmont Avenue 890 211 : 17 1 4 Minneapolis Oakland Avenue & 49th Street 1198 542 I 75 13 5 Minneapolis 12th Avenue & 58th Street 2391 1209 i 616 102 6 Minneapolis 25th Avenue & 57th Street 2617 1455 718 228 7 Richfield Wentworth Ave & 64th Street 1316 436 62 2 8 Minneapolis Longfellow Avenue & 43rd Street 685 241 31 0 9 St. Paul Saratoga Street & Hartford Avenue 39 8 0 0 10 St. Paul Itasca Avenue & Bowdoin Street 35 14 7 0 11 St. Paul Finn Street & Scheffer Avenue 29 11 2 0 12 St. Paul Alton Street & Rockwood Avenue 45 25 2 0 13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Court 329 230 13 2 14 Eagan First Street & McKee Street 2703 827 83 2 15 Mendota Heights Cullen Street & Lexington Avenue 2454 846 93 2 16 F.agan Avalon Avenue & Vilas Lane 3872 1984 j 478 27 • 17 Bloomington 84th Street & 4th Avenue 131 40 7 0 18 Richfield 75th Street & 17th Avenue 299 186 I 57 7 19 Bloomington 16th Avenue & 84th Street 257 127 I 41 1 20 Richfield 75th Street & 3rd Avenue 219 29 1 6 0 21 Inver Grove Heights Barbara Avenue & 67th Street 958 142 2 0 22 Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail 1132 139 1 0 23 Mendota Heights End of Kendon Avenue 3841 1955 i 996 92 24 Eagan Chapel Lane & Wren Lane 537 72 j 18 1 1 1 January 24, 1995 Page Metropolitan Airports Commission Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events RMT #1: Xerxes Ave. & 41st St. Minneapolis Date TimeA/C Type ax Level AID 12/12/9414:30:41 B727 98.7 D 12/10/94 16:13:36 B727 97.3 D 12/27/94 19:54:52 DC9 97.2 D 12/29/9413:04:42 DC9 94.1 D 12(24/9414:53:11 B727 90.8 A 12/14/94 20:18:33 B727 89.4 D 12/23/94 10:31:21 B727 89.0 D 12/10/94 9:40:20 B727 87.6 D 12/15/94 12:18:29 B73S 85.4 D 12/30/9416:35:53 DC9 85.4 D RMT #3: W. Elmwood St. & Belmont Ave. Minneapolis Date TimeA/C Type Max Level A/D 12/'26/9418:46: 01 B727 101.3 D 12/02/94 13:31:45 B727 98.9 D 12/05/94 13:13:12 B727 98.7 D 12/18/94 20:23:20 B727 97.2 A 12/10/94 18:31:31 B727 96.8 A 12/28/94 18:36:37 B727 96.8 D 12/13/94 18:36:41 DC9 96.1 D 12/04/94 14:39:54 1373S 94.9 D 12/06/9419:59:07 B727 94.9 A 12/28/94 14:38:27 B727 94.8 D January 24, 1995 RMT #2: Fremont Ave. & 43rd St. Minneapolis Date Time A/C Type Max Level AID 12/26/94 18:56:23 B727 95.7 D 12/15/94 8:27:09 DC9 94.6 D 12/02/94 15:18:59 B727 932 D 12/15/94 9:57:56 B727 93.0 D 12/18/94 11:12:50 B727 92.7 D 12/12/94 8:38:31 B727 92.1 A 12/14/94 7:44:10 DC9 912 D 12/29/94 8:32:47 B727 90.8 D 12/12/94 13:31:39 DC9 89.6 D 12(20/9418:21:17 DC9 89.6 D RMT #4: Oakland Ave. & 49th St. Minneapolis Date Time YPe1 Max A/D 12/23/94 20:35:18 B727 102.8 D 12/23/94 20:23:17 B727 102.7 D 12/14/94 19:58:12 B727 102.1 D 12/12/94 19:57:39 DC9 102.0 D 12/23/94 8:00:57 DC9 101.8 D 12(28/9412:16:08 B727 101.8 D 12/24/94 14:26:3 9 B727 101.7 D 12/30/94 9:18:18 B727 100.4 A 12/14/94 9:53:49 B727 100.3 D 12/13/94 17:06:20 B727 100.3 D Page 21 Metropolitan Airports Commission Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events RMT #5: 12th Ave, & 58th St. Minneapolis Date Time Type ax Level A/D 12/01/94 13:49:12 B727 109.4 D 12/16/94 13:07:15 B727 109.0 D 12/23/94 15:10:39 DC9 107.8 D 12/26/94 8:31:12 B727 106.3 D 12/19/94 15:52:27 B727 106.0 D 12/23/94 10:05:01 DC9 105.4 D . 12/16/94 18 :42:31 B727 105A D 12123/9414:57:33 B727 105.1 D 12/23/94 7:13:20 . DC9 1043 D 12/19/94 12:22:00 B727 1042 D RMT #7: Wentworth Ave. & 64th St. Richfield Date Time Type ax Level A/D 12/11/94 7:29:57 B727 101.9 D 12/16/94 13:23:11 B727 100.7 D 12/17/94 23:08:27 B727 99.8 D 12/19/94 8:42:38 B727 99.6 D 12/11/94 13:32:35 DC9 99.5 D 12/25/94 19:07:43 B727 99.1 D 12/25/94 21:12:42 B727 = 99.0 D 12/11/94 9:23:39 DC9 98.6 D 12/17/94 8:39:29 B727 98.4 D 12/28/94 15:27:04 B727 98.3 D January 24, 1995 RMT #6: 25th ve. & 57th St. Minneapolis Date Time A/C Type Max Level A1D 12/20/94 9:46:47 B727 109.8 D 12/17/94 16:13:11 B727 109.7 D 12/20/94 9:51:54 13727 108.9 D 1226/9411:28:48 B1;727 108.8 D 12/1919417:13:32 13727 108.7 D 12/17/94 20:16:42 . B727 108.3 D 12/17/94 20:15:38 B727 108.3 D 12/26/94 13:13:34 .I}C9 13727 107.9 D 12/19/94 18:31:18 B727 107.7 D 12/05/9410:00:44 DC9 107.4 D RMT #8: Longfellow Ave. & 43rd St. Minneapolis Date Time A/CLeLevel A/D 12/11/94 11:15:28 1:i1C9 99.3 D 12/17/94 13:42:41 DC9 99.0 D 12/17/94 9:11:29 13727 98.6 D 12/25/94 20:16:04 13727 98.4 D 12/19/94 8:42:11 8,727 97.5 D 12/25/9416:13:40 13727 97.3 D 12/19/94 11:05:02 13727 97.2 D 1225/9419:07:12 13727 96.0 D 12/25/9417:13:15 B727 94.3 D 12/25/9418:22:59 B727 92.1 A Page 22 Metropolitan Airports Commission Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events RMT #9: Saratoga St. & Hartford Ave. St. Paul Date Time A/C Max Level A/D 12/26/9417:01.04 B727 94.6 A 12(22/9417:15:31 B727 93.7 A 12/27/94 20:15:49 B727 92.3 A 12/28/9417:57:01 B727 92.0 A 12130/94 9:45:30 DC10 90.0 A 12/24/94 17:01:35 B727 89.4 A 12/05/94 16:44:22 B727 89.3 A 12/12/94 10:41:48 DC9 89.0 D 12/24/94 17:36:08 DC9 88.2 D 12/27/94 9:47:46 DC9 87.9 D RMT #ll: Finn St. & Scheffer Ave. St. Paul Date TimeA/C Type L el A/D 12/04/94 17:05:23 DC9 93.9 D 12104/9413:09:09 B727 93.1 D 12/06/94 17:05:42 B727 91.7 A 12/09/94 17:14:06 DC9 90.3 A 12/02/94 9:54:39 B727 89.6 D 12/30/94 16:15:13 B727 88.4 D 12/22/94 12:15:54 FK28 - 88.3 D 12/29/94 17:00:10 B73S 87.7 A 12/12/94 9:48:47 DC9 85.5 D 12/13/94 17:05:50 DC9 85.1 D January 24, 1995 RMT #10: Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St. St. Paul Date Time • A/C Type Max Level A/D 12/04/94 8:49:56 B727 99.8 D 12/26/94 16:42:15 B727 99.6 D 12/20/94 13:47:54 B727 97.0 A 12/22/94 17:15:11 DC9 96.7 A 12/06/94 9:47:43 B727 96.6 D 12/28/94 8:15:24 DC9 96.2 D 12/18/94 20:22:37 B727 962 D 12/12/94 17:30:53 DC9 93.3 A 12/04/94 7:43:05 DC10 932 A 12/28/94 7:54:47 DC9 92.9 A RMT #12: Alton St. & Rockwood Ave. St. Paul Date Time A/C Type Max Level `/D 12/06/94 13:31:37 B727 92.6 D 12/13/94 17:05:18 DC9 92.1 D 12/21/94 20:20:09 B727 90.3 A 12/13/94 18:36:14 DC9 89.8 D 12/18/94 20:22:57 B727 87.3 D 12/27/94 13:12:42 B737 87.2 D 12/05/94 18:39:01 DC9 86.9 D 12/02/94 9:54:19 B727 85.8 D 12/02/94 13:16:10 B727 85.7 D 12/04/94 17:04:40 B737 85.7 D Page 23 Metropolitan Airports Commission. Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events RMT #13: Southeast End of Mohican Court Mendota Heights Date Time Type Level ax A/D 12/21/94 23:19:54 B727 101.2 D 12/14/94 21:50:07 DC9 100.3 D 12/04/94 21:08:20 B727 100.1 A 12/11/94 23:02:07 . B727 99.6 D 12/25/94 22:23:12 B727 97.9 D 12/25/94 22:14:13 DC9 97.4 D 12/25/94 22:56:37 B727 97.3 D 12/11/94 7:59:37 B727 97.0 . D 12/25/94 22:32:42 B737 96.7 D 12/23/94 14:53:56 B727 96.5 D RMT #15: Cullon St. & Lexington Ave. Mendota Heights , Date TimeType Level A/D 12/23/94 8:53:26 B727 101.2 D 12/10/94 5:21:20 DC9 100.3 D 12/25/94 21:58:19 B727 99.9 D 12/11/94 23:07:15 13727 99.6 D 12/21/94 23:20:41 B727 98.4 D 12/11/94 7:58:47 B727 97.3 D 12/11/94 23:05:01 B727 - 97.2 D 12/25/94 22:57:20 DC9 97.2 D 12/25/94 22:33:26 DC9 97.1 D 12/25/94 22:23:29 DC9 97.0 D January 24, 1995 RMT #14: 1st St. & McKee St. Eagan Date Time A/C Type Max Level AIA 12/10/94 5:21:41 B727 101.4 D 12/23/94 8:53:38 B727 100.5 D 12/23/94 12:53:22 DC9 99.9 D 12/13/94 7:06:16 B727 99.6 D 12/26/94 7:34:12 B727 99.4 D 12/04/94 13:09:15 B727 98.4 D 12/26/94 7:26:53 13727 982 D 12/05/94 6:55:47 DC9 96.9 D 12/23/94 14:08:43 DC9 96.9 D 12/05/94 6:58:12 B727 96.6 D RMT #16: Avalon Ave. & Vilas Lane Eagan Date Time T�9PCeMax Level A/D 12/26/94 9:57:54 B727 102.6 D 12/23/94 12:50:41 B727 102.2 D 12/22/94 5:20:36 B727 101.9 D 12/01/9410:17:28 B727 101.5 D 12/28/94 21:06:36 B727 101.4 D 12/01/94 13:40:28 B727 101.4 D 12/12/94 13:09:18 D C9 101.3 D 12/11/94 7:58:16 B727 101.1 D 12/24/94 8:02:20 13727 101.1 D 12/20/94 9:25:34 13727 100.7 D Page 24 Metropolitan Airports Commission Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events RMT #17: 84th St. & 4th Ave. Bloomington Date Time T�YPCe Level A/D 12/05/94 10:01:17 B727 93.9 D 12/17/94 20:16:51 B727 93.7 D 12/20/94 9:47:13 B727 93.6 D 12/26/94 8:43:39 DC9 93.6 D 12/26/9411:34:37 B727 93.0 A 12/25/94 19:53:11 DC9 92.4 D • 12/23/94 18:49:01 B727 92.0 D 12/26/94 12:21:09 B727 91.6 D 12/26/94 12:04:16 B727 91.6 A 12/17/94 6:24:25 B727 91.1 A RMT #19: 16th Ave. & 84th St. Bloomington Date TimeA/C Type Max Level A/D 12/05/94 9:16:17 B727 101.7 D 12/26/94 15:41:09 B727 99.8 D 12/25/94 18:51:01 DC9 99.8 D 12/12/94 5:23:35 B727 99.6 D 12/20/94 11:08:57 B727 99.2 D 12/19/94 7:18:59 B727 98.6 D 12/05/94 10:13:12 DC9 - 98.4 D 12/19/94 17:51:35 B727 97.9 D 12/19/94 9:51:19 B727 97.9 D 12/10/94 5:36:19 DC9 97.7 D January 24, 1995 RMT #18: 75th St. & 17th Ave. Richfield Date Time 'hype A/C Type Max Level A/D 12/17/94 17:12:23 95.0 B727 102.3 D 12/26/94 11:28:46 D B727 102.0 D 12/25/94 16:18:41 12/11/9411:34:20 B727 101.7 D 12/19/94 13:25:29 B727 B727 101.7 D 12/19/94 18:38:09 91.6 B727 101.4 D 12/26/94 12:12:47 D B727 100.3 D 12/26/94 12:20:43 12/11/94 19:29:52 B727 100.1 D 12/19/94 18:31:22 ' B727 99.7 D 12/26/94 8:09:09 B727 99.6 D 12/17/94 12:17:46 B727 97.9 D RMT #20: 75th St. & 3rd Ave. Richfield Date Time 'hype Max Level A/D 1226/9413:53:59 DC9 95.0 D 12/16/9417:07:05 DC9 94.7 D 12/12/94 15:25:35 B727 94.3 D 12/11/9411:34:20 DC9 92.9 D 12/26/94 9:37:19 B727 92.4 A 12/05/94 9:43:12 B727 91.6 D 12/26/9413:46:00 DC9 90.1 D 12/11/94 8:39:19 B737 88.9 D 12/11/94 19:29:52 DC9 88.7 D 12/23/9410:12:14 B727 87.6 D 1 Page 25 Metropolitan Airports Commission Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events RMT #21: Barbara Ave. & 67th St. Inver Grove Heights Date Time T�YPCe Max Level A/D 12/09/94 11:09:40 B727 90.8 D 12/12/94 6:21:21 B727 90.5 D 12/12/94 16:15:26 13727 89.9 D 12/14/94 10:19:10 B727 89.9 D 12106/94 9:13:49 B727 89.6 D 12/09/94 11:08:33 DC9 89.4 • D - 12/23/94 14:07:38 B737 89.1 D 12/28/94 6:19:52 13727 88.8. D - 12/14/94 10:04:49 B737 88.7 D 12/13/94 10:01:37 B727 88.6 D RMT #23: End of Kenndon Ave. Mendota Heights Date Time ,IY LC evel A/D 12/20/94 22:32:56 B727 103.9 D 12/09/94 10:04:40 B727 103.9 D 12/17/94 23:04:04 B727 103.7 D 12/02/9416:16:11 B727 103.6 D 12/21/9416:12:42. B727 103.4 D 12/27/94 9:54:00 B727 103.2 D 12/12/94 16:19:12 13727 ' 102.9 D 12/13/94 9:34:12 B727 102.7 D 12/12/94 6:18:33 B727 102.6 D 12/13/94 16:13:16 B727 102.6 D January 24, 1995 RMT #22: Anne Marie 'frail Inver Grove Heights Date Time A/C Type Max Level A/D 12/12/94 7:19:40 DC9 90.1 D 12/06/94 9:44:43 B727 89.8 • D 12/27/94 7:56:08 DO 88.9 D 12/12/94 16:11:57 13727 88.7 D 12/25/94 6:13:51 13727 88.6 D 12/13/94 7:49:57 B727 88.4 D 12/27/94 7:15:58 DC9 87.6 D 12/28/94 6:07:45 DO 87.1 D 12/06/94 14:36:53 B727 85.9 A 12/13/94 9:47:21 B727 85.9 D RMT #24: Chapel Ln. & Wren Ln. Eagan Date Time A/C Type Max Level A/D 12/13/94 16:13:37 13727 100.7 D 12/21/94 16:13:02 B727 96.7 D 12/06/94 9:56:21 DO 96.5 D 12/13/94 10:02:30 8727 96.3 D 12/20/94 22:33:14 B727 95.4 D 12/13/94 9:57:09 B727 94.6 D 12/06/94 7:22:14 B727 92.8 D 12/27/94 6:30:57 B727 92.7 D 12/02/94 16:16:29 B727 91.3 D 12/12/94 16:19:21 B727 90.9 D Page 26 Metropolitan Airports Commission December 1994 Operations December 01 to 10, 1994 December 11 to 17, 1994 • , .47 it! • • 4,7975:‘,.. • 3763 Carrier Jet Arrivals ::-; ...de,p.:.:--.: -• , • :-.4r ---- ----'"e=7'!,.. Z • ..• , - -• ..........._-"7<t-ir-,i\s•,-. ., . _ mommouirizii--•;:, ri....„ •.,, ,.....:.,...,..„.‘„, ,,,,„,„,...,............ ...............,..., ,....„.„.„.....,..,, Ik.arArgibmitri&. ‘. ase..:. 2295 Carrier Jet Arrivals 3534 Carrier Jet Departures January 22. 1995 2204 Carrier Jet Departures Page 27 Metropolitan Airports Commission December 1994 Operations December 18 to 24, 1994 December 25 to 1, 1994 2721 Carrier Jet Arrivals !I I 3209 Carrier Jet Arrivals 2661 Carrier Jet Departures January 22, 1995 2916 Carrier Jet Departures Page 28 Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Analysis of Noise Events with Time/Date December 01 to December 31, 1994 Aircraft Ldn dB(A) Noise Monitor Locations DATE #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 #11 #12 #13 #14 #15 #16 #17 #18 #19 #20 #21 #22 #23 #24 1 60.0 62.7 ' 67.3 68.3 77.4 78.1 66.2 62.4 54.2 54.0 48.0 54.7 64.3 69.6 63.1 75.7 653 64.3 52.2 49.9 62.0 63.8 72.9 64.7 2 62.1 63.9 69$. 66.8 72.1 73.4 57.1 60.8 53.8 57.1 49.0 52.0 66.9 68.9 67.9 73.7 51.4 56.4 49.3 46.9 63.5 64.6 75.6 67.1 3 62.7 63.0 71.2 65.3 75.5 71.1 58.1 56.0 56.5 59,4 50.2 53.0 65.7 64.9 66.2 69.7 57.4 57.1 53.1 48.4 61.2 613 74.7 63.9 4 62.4 63.1 693 65.1 73.8 71.7 51.0 58.9 58.9 59.5 47.4 53.0 64.7 61.9 65.9 65.9 62.5 58.3 52.1 493 58.5 57.7 72.9 61.2 3 56.7 57.0 62.8 67.2 77.2 79.7 673 64.7 48.0 49.6 45.3 47.1 55.9 61.7 51.8 68.6 56.9 67.7 64.8 513 46.3 58.0 68.1 61.4 6 57.0 58.3 61.7 65.8 70.1 75.8 62.9 61.7 52.0 50.9 51.1 55.7 53.1 66.2 60.5 • 68.2 61.6 68.4 64.9 52.3 46.2 58.3 69.6 63.6 7 59.5 59.9 62.7 673 74.5 78.9 65.0 61.8 * 56.4 52.3 55.4 63.2 67.1 63.3 70.8 62.2 69.9 70.3 52.6 58.1 60.8 72.7 65.5 8 57.2 60.0 63.5 62.5 70.0 71.3 55.7 53.2 * 55.8 52.0 52.9 * 66.8 64.8 73,2 63.9 63.0 47.0 46.9 61.9 61.8 74.5 64.6 9 58.1 60.9 66.2 653 72.2 75.0 51.8 56.6 52.5 57.9 513 58.2 65.0 67.4 65.4 72.7 59.7 59.0 55.4 48.1 60.6 63.3 74.0 66.1 10 55.0 56.2 613 60.4 67.9 68.5 50.0 54.6 533 56.6 47.9 54.7 63.9 65.5 63.8 71.2 55.8 653 61.0 44.1 * * 74.0 63.5 11 55.4 56.6 63.2 61.6 69.0 69.4 613 54.8 58.8 59.8 41.6 48.2 65.7 67.4 66.8 70.9 50.1 53.8 50.5 47.9 "--61.1 61.5 75.2 65.2 12 60.1 65.3 68.1 703 76.1 74.6 59.8 62.3 44.6 59.4 50.1 53.7 69.7 64.1 71.4 69.7 50.9 52.7 51.8 49.3 * 60.7 773 64.8 13 60.4 62.5 66.2 68.0 76.0 78.6 67.6 62.8 61.7 64.0 54.9 55.8 66.8 64.9 67.9 70.4 54.8 66.7 61.9 56.5 60.6 603 75.7 67.3 14 59.3 61.2 67.4 64.5 73.3 71.5 53.0 58.5 50.4 53.9 47.4 52.9 64.9 67.4 68.7 71.8 59.8 50.2 56.5 51.0 59.3 61.7 75.3 65.2 15 55.8 59.5 66.0 69.7 80.0 80.6 66.4 60.9 57.2 62.S 53.2 56.8 66.3 64.4 65.5 70.7 55.5 52.4 54.1 57.7 57.1 603 72.3 67.4 16 59.4 60.2 64.4 68.9 77.1 79.7 ' 68.6 61.9 433 56.0 44.4 48.4 58.2 65.5 54.1 68.7 56.7 68.5 68.3 53.8 45.4 59.2 71.6 64.6 17 56.3 57.6 61.2 66.5 * 78.2 66.9 61.6 43.0 49.3 44.0 43.5 55.7 65.8 57.8 67.8 59.7 68.7 69.1 54.5 53.9 57.5 64.8 62.6 18 52.2 56.9 61.4 66.1 * 77.6 65.1 62.0 53.0 43.8 48.4 43.9 51.0 62.0 54.5 67.8 65.8 71.1 67.7 56.6 56.6 57.5 62.5 61.2 9 54.4 57.2 62.8 61.8 * 72.5 57.4 58.8 46.1 54.7 51.9 56.5 64.8 643 64.3 693 64.5 71.0 68.6 533 60.9 59.9 73.4 63.7 20 56.8 59.9 65.1 65.1 70.6 73.9 58.4 55.3 49.0 57,4 51.3 53.9 65.2 66.4 68.2 69.9 47.8 51.8 50.7 46.3 59.4 60.6 75.3 64.8 January 24, 1995 29 • Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Analysis of Noise Events with Time/Date December 01 to December 31, 1994 Aircraft Ldn dB(A) Noise Monitor Locations DATE #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 118 119 #10 #11 #12 #13 #14 #15 #16 #17 #18 #19 #20 #21 #22 #23 #24 21 58.9 60.9 67.4 67.9 74.4 79.0 66.8 61.2 54.9 57.0 49.8 59.2 62.0 67.6 66.4 72.5 61.1 59.7 58.2 63.1 59.9 59.9 73.6 63.6 22 55.1 62.6 66.5 68.3 77.6 80.4 73.3 62.5 48.1 54.4 50.0 54.1 54.3 64.4 59.6 70.4 61.1 60.6 47.9 49.0 53.4 59.9 69.1 64.0 23 61.1 62.6 68.5, 65.0 71.9 76.9 58.3 56.5 49.0 63.6 52.8 49.2 62.7 68.5 65.6 75.9 58.9 64.6 55.9 49.9 625 62.1 76.0 66.1 24 58.8 61.9 65.4 65.4 * 76.8 63.4 60.4 * 53.5 42.4 44.8 59.5 68.8 * 73.7 62.3 67.1 62.0 55.7 61.8 62.4 72.6 66.8 25 56.8 58.8 64.6 69.4 * 80.1 69.3 63.4 54.3 69.0 54.3 60.6 60.1 68.5 62.3 72.7 59.6 71.0 66.4 54.0 61.3 66.2 67.1 26 60.8 58.5 64.9 69.1 77.2 80.9 70.4 63.7 50.2 62.9 513 55.8 58.0 66.6 59.1 70.1 57.8 63.1 58.1 51.0 57.1 63.2 68.0 65.9 27 58.8 60.0 62.8 68.7 74.1 79.6 68.7 63.1 53.2 53.4 52.0 54.7 55.7 64.4 60.1 68.4 64.1 69.0 67.8 61.8 56.1 54.2 66.6 65.2 28 58.9 60.0 64.0 67.5 73.7 79.8 68.7 63.7 58.1 50.6 54.8 49.3 54.9 64. 58.8 69.2 59.2 70.9 70.7 53.1 52.1 60.1 67.2 64.1 29 59.1 62.3 65.4 65.5 72.7 75.1 60.7 56.9 59.4 57.6 50.4 65.6 68.0 67.2 72.4 63.6 72.8 67.7 54.4 • 623 75.4 66.7 30 603 63.2 67.5 65.5 71.2 725 62.8 60.6 52.5 55.8 53.0 46.7 62.9 70.7 64.8 73.6 63.4 66.6 51.0 57.9 62.8 63.9 743 68.5 31 60.3 60.9 65.8 67.7 73.9 75.8 66.3 63.2 57.8 61.7 54.2 583 66.1 68.2 65.5 73.1 63.6 66.8 63.2 59.7 62.1 62.8 723 65.1 Monthly Ldn 61.4 59.9 66.9 66.7 75.0 74.8 67.4 62.2 58.9 60.7 55.3 573 67.2 67.2 66.6 72.1 64.7 65.8 643 58.7 63.2 61.8 73.4 64.1 *less than twenty-four hours of data available January 24, 1995 ANOMS Monthly Review Aviation Noise Programs MSP Monthly Complain't Summary Complaints 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 0. fI 41 0 0 so, e 1992 year 1993 year ien••••••••••••••••••• as 9. 41 0. Go 1. 4.1 0 Vt. 4.) 0 1994 year I =a= I ict z i_�Z�; 1 1 ea A N CII fa Jul -93 Aug -93 Sep -9 Oct -93 Nov -9 Dec -93 Jan -94 Feb -9 Mar -94 Apr -9 3 3 r N O O A O O 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 11(1 imomi v O 4 4 May -94 Jun -94 Jul -94 Aug -94 Sep -9 Oct -94 Nov -94 Dec -94 NMI r NMI NMI N =mom 4 Ell MIMI MEIN MIN 111111.1.1 M ttemktmetter MN N MN - -Z sulaaaa, WrirealliaLY AIN AIM Ag ANOMS Monthly Review • • Aviation Noise Programs MSP Arrivals - All Operations Summary Percentage 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 M 01 ti M 0 z Q et et Os O% 1 1 asa) 03X ti 44 e 't? e V' e et 0% 0% 0% O% Ok ON Ot .. . . . 1 . t 6s, C ^• Oa 0. — 44 X ti o.$ 0 n 0 1 Q 0 z Q A Over Minneapolis Over Eagan/Mendota. Heights Over Bloomington Over St. Paul 3 41A C AimmAviation Noisy ANOMS Monthly Review Programs MSP Departures - All Operations Summary Percentage 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 7 ti fel a 7 en O z C1 a a ti e a% 41 o• • L Ci. ti e ti e e ea u 61 CI) 0 0 z Over Minneapolis Over Eagan/Mendota Heights Over Bloomington Over St. Paul s. • _ ...., ......Irrl,r...... .: . Irk, 1,....$..$...., .1j1l. ".Y, 11..1.1....., ., us IA .1...... ....F.......•... ....l ..,,l, fel a 7 en O z C1 a a ti e a% 41 o• • L Ci. ti e ti e e ea u 61 CI) 0 0 z Over Minneapolis Over Eagan/Mendota Heights Over Bloomington Over St. Paul ANOMS Monthly Review Aviation Noise Programs Carrier Jet Arrivals Runway Use Summary Percentage 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 taTTYYrrrrr ti rf O% •d O r4 01 O z O� u d JJJJJJJ. u'eJTJT .117717 t rSMI•11JJ TrrrrrtT] e O� Es. O. Q O. •L 4 Q O� O O� 0 O ti O% ti •u CU Over Minneapolis Over Eagan/Mendota Heights Over Bloomington Over St. Paul l � �'-ai�Aviation Noisy ANOMS Monthly Review Programs Carrier Jet Departures Runway Use Summary Percentage 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 M O. O z Q Q OS O% LOn 2 Over Minneapolis Over Eagan/Mendota Heights Over Bloomington Over St. Paul rte,,.,.,t ''!— -- - - - -' 11,11 .•..'..1,.,,,,,,,, ., ,.,',,.,L, 1,.'.,. 11,,,,1 • ...•..•1.•..1.. (..,,., ..'..'. 1.,l,llll,,,.,', M O. O z Q Q OS O% LOn 2 Over Minneapolis Over Eagan/Mendota Heights Over Bloomington Over St. Paul ANOMS Monthly Review Aviation Noise Programs Nighttime Arrivals - Runway Use Summary. Percentage 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 111 r, ;o1 111111.. .L 11 j1"' 11' "1 1111. ,11 VI 07 ri Rf R! Q •• e Tr Q e erQ Q 0 0 O% O� O� O� O� O� OO O� O� 1 1 , 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 e O z e Over Minneapolis Over Eagan/Mendota Heights Over Bloomington Over St. Paul mmodeadorrearodea ANOMS Monthly Review Aviation NoisP Programs Nighttime Departures - Runway Use Summary Percentage 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 —T' 1 O% bD a u O M 0 z G ti 0 114 e O't es e L e 0 ti T , = ti O. 0 0 • 0 • O' • u cis O Over Minneapolis Over Eagan/Mendota Heights Over Bloomington Over St. Paul ................... ANOMS Monthly Review it Aviation' Noise Progarns Nighttime Carrier Jet Arrivals Summary Percentage 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 a 1 en en en en o, • a. ei ++ • v V C/3 C O GZ ' blAte 11 if ,. er a a' e ON O. a 01 ON ON 1.8 . . . i . ▪ tr. X d X e a� ti e 4,1 • CO .47 a O O z Over Minneapolis Over Eagan/Mendota Heights Over Bloomington Over St. Paul 11101...ININIMINIMMINI 1.01111.1161111.1•0000011,1191 1/ ww11w..w....w. 11 •2 1 SMAAC NEWSLETTER • will not be on the global economic map in the next century," writes Stem. "In the next few years we are faced with important decisions both for expanding MSP and for determining Wand when a new airport is needed." LANDBANK NOW! • SMAAC , believes the. Minnesota legislature should vote this year to landbank for a possible future airport, regardless of the decision that is made in 1996. No one can predict the air transport needs over the next 20 years, let alone over the_ next century.. It is foolhardy -to gamble with the transportation needs of the state by not providing for requisite future air traffic growth. If appropriate areas are ,not set aside now, with unlimited room to grow, and with appropriate buffers to control surrounding development, Minnesota may very well find in 'the future that it cannot expand the airport to meet its economic needs. The airport will eventually have to be relocated, and the longer the state waits to move the -airport, the more it will cost. According to Jeff Hamiel, executive director for the • Metropolitan -Airports Commission, if the _ state does not decide to move the airport now, it will face another capacity crisis in 20 years, with the cost of a new airport rising to $12 billion. And the possible sites will be much further away from the core of the Metropolitan area. • THE THIRD TRACK - The Mayor's office has agreed to sponsor an Informational Symposium on the detached runways concept. The symposium will be organized by Joe Gasper. It will consist of a panel of citizens who have studied the feasibility • of the remote runways plan, including Henry Snyder, Jim Spensley, and Gasper. A date has not yet been set. The Remote runways concept has been raised again and again over the years but has never been seriously considered. The idea involves maintaining • some form of terminal building and parking facilities at the present site, so that airline passengers may check in, get their seat assignments, and • check their baggage. Passengers would then travel by high sped rail to the main facility, where the runways and some sort of terminal building would be located. There are many versions of this plan possible, as well as numerous technical details that would need to be resolved. The advantage of the idea is that it would give the MAC the increased capacity it needs with - minimal disruption of airline passenger convenience. It also preserves the investment in parking structures and roadways at the present site, and will not threaten businesses located around the present airport. Northwest Airlines strongly opposes the' remote runways plan. In fact, Northwest Airlines opposes any plan to expand or move,the airport. Northwest Airlines public relations rep- resentative Kathy Gaylord wrote a letter to Richard Braun, chairman of • the. MAC, opposing the plan. A detailed rebuttal to Gaylord's letter has been written by Henry Snyder. . However, Representative Dee Long has agreed to introduce legislation mandating that the • MAC study the feasibility of the plan. Moreover, in a meeting with Joe Lee, Norm Newhall, Jim Serrin, and John Richter, MAC executive director Jeff Hamiel and MAC Chairman Richard Braun agreed that the MAC would give the idea a serious look. - - _ Proponents of the detached runways plan believe it would be more advantageous to site the new airport in Rosemount. The Rosemount site is much closer to the present airport than • SMAAC NEWSLETTER 3 • Hastings, and could easily be linked to the present terminal by high speed rail. MINNEAPOLIS AIRPORT ACTIONS The Minneapolis City Council this fall passed a series of resolutions with regard to the airport. Among them, the city council has endorsed the extension of runway 4-22, but only if it is used to relieve air traffic over South Minneapolis. The Metropolitan Airports Commission has been trying to extend the runway for almost 20 years. The Mayor's office is setting up two task forces, one a "short term" task force to reduce airport noise pollution, the other to study the economic issues relating to moving or expanding the airport, and making a recommendation to the city council. SMAAC has been invited to send a representative to each of the two task forces, and has sent the noise task force a list of recommended actions the city should pressure the MAC to take. The problem of airport noise pollution will be with us for the next 10-15 years at the very least. If the airport is not moved now, the problem will be with us for the next 35-40 years. The city should establish a commission to combat noise pollution and give it sufficient funding to be effective. The city has an obligation to defend the peace and integrity of its residential neighborhoods. The second task force will study the economic effects of moving or relocating the airport and make a recommendation to the city council. In a private meeting with the SMAAC board, Mayor Sayles -Belton told us it was no longer sufficient to back the Dual Track process. The city' must participate actively in the debate, since the airport issue is fundamental to the future of Minneapolis. She believed the city council needed to see an independent study on the airport issue in order to reach a rational conclusion about the relocating or expanding the present airport. JuRAssrc JETS The Star Tribune often reprints articles from other newspapers. Why didn't they reprint the Wall Street Journal article of Thursday, November 3, entitled "Jurassic Jets"? The lead paragraph states "Hundreds of old U.S. jetliners are battling repeated break- downs and excessive wear, but some of these aging planes aren't heading for the hanger. Instead, they will be flying for another decade or more, raising serious questions about main- tenance and inspection procedures." Northwest Airlines has one of the oldest fleets in the industry: 16 years average age, second only to TWA. But 16 years is only the average age: many jetliners are much older. The article went into some detail about Northwest's problems with its aging fleet. "Northwest's DC -9's encountered 218 un- scheduled landings; 80 aborted take -offs; 65 incidents of emergency descent or loss of cabin pressure; 36 complications ,with wing -slats and indicators; and 74 major i engine shutdowns, flameouts or other problems . . . between January 1992 and August, 1994." Between June, 1992 and July, 1994, ' the jets chalked up 24 notable problems, including four radar fail- ures, numerous engine breakdowns, and four losses of cabin pressure, including one in which •4 SMAAC NEWSLETTER • backup systems failed and oxygen masks wouldn't deploy." "Often, fliers are unaware that pilots are wrestling with blown hydraulic systems and balky landing gear during flights. And most don't know about the 'severe' cracks and corrosion that mechanics find during ground inspections." last year was critical of FAA surveillance of aging planes. TUE MAcOcToPus Such problems are particularly acute at Northwest Airlines, which is trying to improve its profitability by cutting costs and flying older planes. Mel Ott, a Northwest 747 pilot, says the DC -9 program is a "last stop -gap measure to keep the fleet aloft. While there 'probably' isn't a safety problem today, you're looking to have an airplane fly 15 years more than it was designed to go, and who can say about tomorrow?" Aviation insurance providers say they won't insure some old airplanes, but an insurance broker with Johnson and Higgins of California Inc. says that "the insurers are content to allow the regulatory agencies do their thing." On the other hand, a General Accounting Office report The steady growth the air traffic is affecting more and more residents with noise pollution. According to Edward Futterman, the Howard Needles consultant for the MAC, noise pollution from MSP will affect 100,000 metro residents by 1997. The same study shows that 2,000 residents would be affected if the airport were located at Rosemount, and only 1500 if the airport were located at Hastings. Dr. Floyd Anderson, SMAAC's first president, tells us of studies documenting the health effects of noise pollution. Mike Larson, SMAAC's previous president, has documentation showing that airport noise reduces property values, hence tax revenues for the city and schools. Yet the Minneapolis City • SMAAC NEWSLETTER 5 • Council still has no position . on whether the airport should expand or move. Some Council Members have expressed the opinion that the airport should be expanded rather than moved. The city worries about lead paint, spends $1.5 million annually on a Minneapolis Civil Rights department, spends $1 million of taxpayers money on homes for the handicapped and $12 million on a buyout of the Target Center. Residents of South Minneapolis wonder why the city continues to ignore the plight, as well as the cost to the city, of tens of thousands of residents plagued by ever increasing levels of airport noise pollution. The Attorney General's office has filed a suit against tobacco companies for economic costs to the state due to smoking, but has so far not taken any action against the MAC for the economic costs of its noise pollution. MEETINGS PUBI.ICAND PRIVATE A public meeting was held at Washburn Auditorium on October 27th to take testimony from the public regarding expansion plans of the current airport. About 100 citizens appeared, and many read comments into the record. After the public meeting was over, Kathy Gaylord, public relations representative for Northwest Airlines held a small tete-a-tete with Nigel Finney, operations directors of the MAC, and Roy Madwick and Edward Futterman representatives of MAC consultant Howard Needles. They talked at length. Gaylord made no public comment at the meeting. We all suspect public meetings are mostly a sham to fool the public into thinking we have something to say about the future of our communities, but do they have to be so obvious about it? THE 4-22 EXTENSION As we were driving along the Cross - Town early Halloween evening, we noticed all the planes stacked up in a landing pattern over Bloomington -- for the first time we can remember, the MAC (Metropolitan Airports Commission) was using the 4-22 in the low traffic hours of the early evening to relieve noise over south Minneapolis. The MAC's actions demonstrate clearly, as Minneapolis MASAC representatives and SMAAC have maintained for some time, that it is perfectly, possible to reduce noise over south Mmneapolis'by using runway 4- 22 in off-peak hours. Why isn't that being done with far more regularity? Minneapolis, Inver Grove Heights, Eagan, and Mendota Heights suffer fully 95% of the traffic, as shown by records of the Aircraft Noise Operating Monitoring System. There is absolutely no reason why the MAC cannot implement their Runway Use system (RUS) which calls for maximal use of the 4-22 to distribute the noise burden as equitably as possible. Mayor Sayles -Belton and the City Council should insist that the RUS be implemented. NEW BOARD FOR 1995-96 New Board members for SMAAC are being sought for the next year. The nominating committee consists of Loren Sinter (789-2724), Joe Lee (926-8908), and Eileen Scully (824- 9735). If you would like to join the SMAAC board, give one of them I a call. SMAAC's success depends on the activities of its members. The vitality of SMAAC depends on input from all its members. Y 81.1-9S NW ''sIH elopuaw anano euolo!A 1.01.1. aoleilslugupy Apo 66 IlaAe1 iuol aLV'I 7TIf1S SMAAC ENROLLMENT -RENEWAL FORM send to: SMAAC 5116 COLUMBUS SO. MINNEAPOLIS, MN. 55417 81.18-ZZ8-ZI9 LIISS 'NAT SPIOJVahmin i 'cos SIIIII411110D 9IIS O1VNtS General (S15) -- Supporting ($25) — Contributing ($50) Name Phone Address ary Zip Please check if you are willing to serve on a SMAAC committee The number on the mailing label of your newsletter indicates the last year of paid up membership. .Please renew your membership today ifyou are not current. SMAAC is a citizen's group and your participation is vital. Your dues provide the funds to inform elected leaders in the government, the SMAAC membership, and the general public on airport matters. -L� CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO February 1, 1995 TO: Airport Relations Commission M •ers FROM: Tom Lawell, City Administ SUBJECT: Runway Use Summary From August, 1993 to December, 1994 Recently Chair Beaty requested that staff investigate away of summarizing the runway use data which is routinely reported as part of the monthly MASAC Technical Advisor's Report. More speci- fically, he was interested in finding a way to better represent the month to month trends of runway use, and also to monitor the number of complaints lodged monthly by Mendota Heights residents. Attached please find a spreadsheet which hopefully, represents in a clear and concise way the runway and complaint data from August, 1993 to December, 1994. The cover page shows the total number of aircraft operations which operated from the various runway ends, both in terms of all aircraft operations and jet only operations. The other attached pages duplicate the information from the cover page, and also provide percentage figures for the various runway ends. Mendota Heights complaint figures are shown at the bottom of each page. If the Commission would find it helpful, this summary could be updated on a monthly basis and be made part of each monthly packet. ANOMS02 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS C:\123DATA ANOMS Aircraft Operations Data August 1993 to December 1994 August September October November December January February March April May June July August September October November December 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 ALL OPERATIONS Departures 04 133 236 785 32 82 86 82 173 68 65 24 30 22 64 43 52 46 11L 3,682 2,894 1,707 3,057 3,894 2,500 3,415 2,033 3,884 4,391 5,298 3,570 5,529 4,504 5,547 3,876 5,057 11R 3,828 2,775 2,146 3,013 3,710 2,423 3,255 3,171 3,489 4,124 5,349 3,354 5,194 4,087 5,111 3,653 4,839 22 663 248 1,596 1,172 376 302 561 1,064 863 726 374 528 344 352 471 747 355 29L 3,606 5,322 4,747 3,373 3,681 3,643 3,628 4,693 3,474 2,918 2,554 4,573 3,366 3,622 2,398 3,177 3,651 29R 3,695 4,826 4,771 3,496 3,531 3,543 3,614 4,737 3,629 3,069 2,478 4,639 3,441 3,865 2,491 3,392 3,824 Subtotal (Departures 15,607 16,301 15,752 14,143 15,274 12,497 14,555 15,871 15,407 15,293 16,077 16,694 17,896 16,494 16,061 14,897 17,772 • Arrivals 04 331 51 348 115 162 146 230 208 316 247 439 282 90 224 272 215 213 11L 3,498 3,099 2,072 3,040 3,784 2,407 3,087 2,053 3,430 3,987 4,890 3,172 5,320 4,013 4,971 3,360 4,548 11R 3,433 3,033 1,956 2,922 3,520 2,323 2,993 1,957 3,299 3,774 4,823 2,983 5,057 3,853 4,825 3,362 4,364 22 318 1,545 267 156 74 66 59 80 194 242 158 149 66 182 337 337 292 29L 4,569 3,829 5,485 4,353 4,224 4,045 4,406 5,504 4,498 3,892 3,213 5,338 4,002 4,005 2,840 3,899 4,583 29R 4,130 3,905 5,529 4,386 4,182 4,011 4,248 5,406 4,013 3,478 2,927 5,333 3,706 4,308 2,993 3,815 4,082 Subtotal (Arrivals) 16,279 15,462 15,657 14,972 15,946 12,998 15,023 15,208 15,750 15,620 16,450 17,257 18,241 16,585 16,238 14,988 18,082 Total (All Operations 31,886 31,763 31,409 29,115 31,220 25,495 29,578 31,079 31,157 30,913 32,527 33,951 36,137 33,079 32,299 29,885 35,854 JET OPERATIONS Departures 04 8 0 154 7 16 12 35 25 17 9 0 0 1 16 0 7 0 11L 2,062 1,897 1,273 1,808 2,225 1,220 1,726 1,093 2,222 2,267 2,958 1,941 3,146 2,625 3,303 2,326 2,927 11R 2,676 2,261 1,576 2,115 2,588 1,393 2,161 1,424 2,400 2,611 3,729 2,299 3,856 3,031 3,744 2,634 3,421 22 386 1,174 958 899 243 180 420 805 703 587 260 323 265 257 295 506 254 29L 2,354 2,578 3,425 2,349 2,552 2,298 2,595 3,372 2,206 1,893 1,747 2,905 2,473 2,673 1,711 2,178 2,521 29R 1,724 2,059 2,615 1,992 1,969 1,762 2,023 2,636 1,938 1,673 1,371 2,259 1,956 2,173 1,385 1,819 2,192 Subtotal (Departures 9,210 9,969 10,001 9,170 9,593 6,865 8,960 9,355 9,486 9,040 10,065 9,727 11,697 10,775 10,438 9,470 11,315 Arrivals 04 203 171 173 76 104 54 145 114 222 148 328 208 66 169 212 150 143 11L 2,036 _ 1,777 _. 1,348 _ 1,876 _ 2,190 1,269 1,748 1,137 2,066 2,143 2,898 1,836 3,253 2,470 3,052 2,097 2,743 11R 2,269 1,920-1,3352,014-2,355 1,382 1,943 1,197 2,2762,242 3,238 1,955 3,640-2,783 3,455-2,430-3,009 22 170 149 83 99 42 34 29 36 127 122 92 95 39 137 183 221 191 29L 3,043 3,798 4,019 3,177 2,981 2,712 3,238 3,983 3,010 2,697 2,332 3,529 2,967 2,908 1,986 2,771 3,313 29R 2,359 3,029 3,584 2,898 2,591 2,334 2,763 3,460 2,348 2,121 1,835 2,943 2,375 2,762 1,867 2,323 2,589 Subtotal (Arrivals) 10,080 10,844 10,542 10,140 10,263 7,785 9,866 9,927 10,049 9,473 10,723 10,566 12,340 11,229 10,755 9,992 11,988 Total (Jet Only) 19,290 20,813 20,543 19,310 19,856 14,650 18,826 19,282 19,535 18,513 20,788 20,293 24,037 22,004 21,193 19,462 23,303 Mendota Heights 75 68 56 32 13 25 54 43 112 194 221 575 486 139 90 72 Air Noise Complaints ANOMS02 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS C:\123DATA ANOMS Aircraft Operations Data August 1993 to December 1994 August Percent September Percent October Percent November Percent December Percent 1993 of Use 1993 of Use 1993 of Use 1993 of Use 1993 of Use ALL OPERATIONS Departures 04 133 0.85% 236 1.45% 785 4.98% 32 0.23% 82 0.54% 11L 3,682 23.59% 2,894 17.75% 1,707 10.84% 3,057 21.61% 3,894 25.49% 11R 3,828 24.53% 2,775 17.02% 2,146 13.62% 3,013 21.30% 3,710 24.29% 22 663 4.25% 248 1.52% 1,596 10.13% 1,172 8.29% 376 2.46% 29L 3,606 23.11% 5,322 32.65% 4,747 30.14% 3,373 23.85% 3,681 24.10% 29R 3,695 23.68% 4,826 29.61% 4,771 30.29% 3,496 24.72% 3,531 23.12% Subtotal (Departures 15,607 100.00% 16,301 100.00% 15,752 100.00% 14,143 100.00% 15,274 100.00% Arrivals 04 331 2.03% 51 0.33% 348 2.22% 115 0.77% 162 1.02% 11L 3,498 21.49% 3,099 20.04% 2,072 13.23% 3,040 20.30% 3,784 23.73% 11R 3,433 21.09% 3,033 19.62% 1,956 12.49% 2,922 19.52% 3,520 22.07% 22 318 1.95% 1,545 9.99% 267 1.71% 156 1.04% 74 0.46% 29L 4,569 28.07% 3,829 24.76% 5,485 35.03% 4,353 29.07% 4,224 26.49% 29R 4,130 25.37% 3,905 25.26% 5,529 35.31% 4,386 29.29% 4,182 26.23% Subtotal (Arrivals) 16,279 100.00% 15,462 100.00% 15,657 100.00% 14,972 100.00% 15,946 100.00% Total (All Operations 31,886 31,763 31,409 29,115 31,220 JET OPERATIONS Departures 04 8 0.09% 0 0.00% 154 1.54% 7 0.08% 16 0.17% 11L 2,062 22.39% 1,897 19.03% 1,273 12.73% 1,808 19.72% 2,225 23.19% 11R 2,676 29.06% 2,261 22.68% 1,576 15.76% 2,115 23.06% 2,588 26.98% 22 386 4.19% 1,174 11.78% 958 9.58% 899 9.80% 243 2.53% 29L 2,354 25.56% 2,578 25.86% 3,425 34.25% 2,349 25.62% 2,552 26.60% 29R 1,724 18.72% 2,059 20.65% 2,615 26.15% 1,992 21.72% 1,969 20.53% Subtotal (Departures 9,210 100.00% 9,969 100.00% 10,001 100.00% 9,170 100.00% 9,593 100.00% Arrivals 04 203 2.01% 171 1.58% 173 1.64% 76 0.75% 104 1.01% 11L 2,036 20.20% 1,777 16.39% _ 1,348 12.79% 1,876 18.50% 2,190 21.34% 11R 2,269-22.51%1,920=-17.71% 1335-12.66% 2,014-19.86% 2,355 22.95% 22 170 1.69% 149 1.37% 83 0.79% 99 0.98% 42 0.41% 29L 3,043 30.19% 3,798 35.02% 4,019 38.12% 3,177 31.33% 2,981 29.05% 29R 2,359 23.40% 3,029 27.93% 3,584 34.00% 2,898 28.58% 2,591 25.25% Subtotal (Arrivals) 10,080 100.00% 10,844 100.00% 10,542 100.00% 10,140 100.00% 10,263 100.00% Total (Jet Only) 19,290 20,813 20,543 19,310 19,856 Mendota Heights 75 68 56 32 Air Noise Complaints ANOMS02 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS C:\123DATA ANOMS Aircraft Operations Data August 1993 to December 1994 January Percent February Percent March Percent April Percent May Percent 1994 of Use 1994 of Use 1994 of Use 1994 of Use 1994 of Use ALL OPERATIONS Departures 04 86 0.69% 82 0.56% 173 1.09% 68 0.44% 65 0.43% 11L 2,500 20.00% 3,415 23.46% 2,033 12.81% 3,884 25.21% 4,391 28.71% 11R 2,423 19.39% 3,255 22.36% 3,171 19.98% 3,489 22.65% 4,124 26.97% 22 302 2.42% 561 3.85% 1,064 6.70% 863 5.60% 726 4.75% 29L 3,643 29.15% 3,628 24.93% 4,693 29.57% 3,474 22.55% 2,918 19.08% 29R 3,543 28.35% 3,614 24.83% 4,737 29.85% 3,629 23.55% 3,069 20.07% Subtotal (Departures 12,497 100.00% 14,555 100.00% 15,871 100.00% 15,407 100.00% 15,293 100.00% Arrivals 04 146 1.12% 230 1.53% 208 1.37% 316 2.01% 247 1.58% 11L 2,407 18.52% 3,087 20.55% 2,053 13.50% 3,430 21.78% 3,987 25.52% 11R 2,323 17.87% 2,993 19.92% 1,957 12.87% 3,299 20.95% 3,774 24.16% 22 66 0.51% 59 0.39% 80 0.53% 194 1.23% 242 1.55% 29L 4,045 31.12% 4,406 29.33% 5,504 36.19% 4,498 28.56% 3,892 24.92% 29R 4,011 30.86% 4,248 28.28% 5,406 35.55% 4,013 25.48% 3,478 22.27% Subtotal (Arrivals) 12,998 100.00% 15,023 100.00% 15,208 100.00% 15,750 100.00% 15,620 100.00% Total (All Operations 25,495 29,578 31,079 31,157 30,913 JET OPERATIONS Departures 04 12 0.17% 35 0.39% 25 0.27% 17 0.18% 9 0.10% 11L 1,220 17.77% 1,726 19.26% 1,093 11.68% 2,222 23.42% 2,267 25.08% 11R 1,393 20.29% 2,161 24.12% 1,424 15.22% 2,400 25.30% 2,611 28.88% 22 180 2.62% 420 4.69% 805 8.61% 703 7.41% 587 6.49% 29L 2,298 33.47% 2,595 28.96% 3,372 36.04% 2,206 23.26% 1,893 20.94% 29R 1,762 25.67% 2,023 22.58% 2,636 28.18% 1,938 20.43% 1,673 18.51% Subtotal (Departures 6,865 100.00% 8,960 100.00% 9,355 100.00% 9,486 100.00% 9,040 100.00% Arrivals 04 54 0.69% 145 1.47% 114 1.15% 222 2.21% 148 1.56% 11L. 1,269 16.30%_1,748._17.72% 1,13711.45%12,06620.56% 2,143 22.62% 11R 1,382 17.75% 1,943 19.69% 1,197 12.06% 2,276 22.65% 2,242 23.67% 22 34 0.44% 29 0.29% 36 0.36% 127 1.26% 122 1.29% 29L 2,712 34.84% 3,238 32.82% 3,983 40.12% 3,010 29.95% 2,697 28.47% 29R 2,334 29.98% 2,763 28.01% 3,460 34.85% 2,348 23.37% 2,121 22.39% Subtotal (Arrivals) 7,785 100.00% 9,866 100.00% 9,927 100.00% 10,049 100.00% 9,473 100.00% Total (Jet Only) 14,650 18,826 19,282 19,535 18,513 Mendota Heights 13 25 54 43 112 Air Noise Complaints ANOMS02 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS C:\123DATA ANOMS Aircraft Operations Data August 1993 to December 1994 June Percent July Percent August Percent September Percent October Percent November Percent December Percent 1994 of Use 1994 of Use 1994 of Use 1994 of Use 1994 of Use 1994 of Use 1994 of Use ALL OPERATIONS Departures 04 24 0.15% 30 0.18% 22 0.12% 64 0.39% 43 0.27% 52 0.32% 46 0.29% 11L 5,298 32.95% 3,570 21.38% 5,529 30.90% 4,504 27.31% 5,547 34.54% 3,876 23.50% 5,057 31.49% 11R 5,349 33.27% 3,354 20.09% 5,194 29.02% 4,087 24.78% 5,111 31.82% 3,653 22.15% 4,839 30.13% 22 374 2.33% 528 3.16% 344 1.92% 352 2.13% 471 2.93% 747 4.53% 355 2.21% 29L 2,554 15.89% 4,573 27.39% 3,366 18.81% 3,622 21.96% 2,398 14.93% 3,177 19.26% 3,651 22.73% 29R 2,478 15.41% 4,639 27.79% 3,441 19.23% 3,865 23.43% 2,491 15.51% 3,392 20.57% 3,824 23.81% Subtotal (Departures 16,077 100.00% 16,694 100.00% 17,896 100.00% 16,494 100.00% 16,061 100.00% 14,897 90.32% 17,772 110.65% Arrivals 04 439 2.67% 282 1.63% 90 0.49% 224 1.35% 272 1.68% 215 1.30% 213 1.31% 11L 4,890 29.73% 3,172 18.38% 5,320 29.17% 4,013 24.20% 4,971 30.61% 3,360 20.26% 4,548 28.01% 11R 4,823 29.32% 2,983 17.29% 5,057 27.72% 3,853 23.23% 4,825 29.71% 3,362 20.27% 4,364 26.88% 22 158 0.96% 149 0.86% 66 0.36% 182 1.10% 337 2.08% 337 2.03% 292 1.80% 29L 3,213 19.53% 5,338 30.93% 4,002 21.94% 4,005 24.15% 2,840 17.49% 3,899 23.51% 4,583 28.22% 29R 2,927 17.79% 5,333 30.90% 3,706 20.32% 4,308 25.98% 2,993 18.43% 3,815 23.00% 4,082 25.14% Subtotal (Arrivals) 16,450 100.00% 17,257 100.00% 18,241 100.00% 16,585 100.00% 16,238 100.00% 14,988 90.37% 18,082 111.36% Total (All Operations 32,527 33,951 36,137 33,079 32,299 29,885 35,854 JET OPERATIONS Departures 04 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 0.01% 16 0.15% 0 0.00% 7 0.06% 0 0.00% 11L 2,958 29.39% 1,941 19.95% 3,146 26.90% 2,625 24.36% 3,303 31.64% 2,326 21.59% 2,927 28.04% 11R 3,729 37.05% 2,299 23.64% 3,856 32.97% 3,031 28.13% 3,744 35.87% 2,634 24.45% 3,421 32.77% 22 260 2.58% 323 3.32% 265 2.27% 257 2.39% 295 2.83% 506 4.70% 254 2.43% 29L 1,747 17.36% 2,905 29.87% 2,473 21.14% 2,673 24.81% 1,711 16.39% 2,178 20.21% 2,521 24.15% 29R 1,371 13.62% 2,259 23.22% 1,956 16.72% 2,173 20.17% 1,385 13.27% 1,819 16.88% 2,192 21.00% Subtotal (Departures 10,065 100.00% 9,727 100.00% 11,697 100.00% 10,775 100.00% 10,438 100.00% 9,470 87.89% 11,315 108.40% Arrivals 04 328 3.06% 208 1.97% 66 0.53% 169 1.51% 212 1.97% 150 1.34% 143 1.33% 11L 2,898 27.03% 1,836 17.38% 3,253 26.36% 2,470 22.00% 3,052 28.38% 2,097 18.67% 2,743 25.50% 91R 3,238=30.20% 1,955-18.50%=3,640-29.50%-2,783-24:78% 3,455-32.12%-2,430-21:64%3,009 27.98% 22 92 0.86% 95 0.90% 39 0.32% 137 1.22% 183 1.70% 221 1.97% 191 1.78% 29L 2,332 21.75% 3,529 33.40% 2,967 24.04% 2,908 25.90% 1,986 18.47% 2,771 24.68% 3,313 30.80% 29R 1,835 17.11% 2,943 27.85% 2,375 19.25% 2,762 24.60% 1,867 17.36% 2,323 20.69% 2,589 24.07% ash Subtotal (Arrivals) 10,723 100.00% 10,566 100.00% 12,340 100.00% 11,229 100.00% 10,755 100.00% 9,992 88.98% 11,988 111.46% Total (Jet Only) 20,788 20,293 24,037 22,004 21,193 19,462 23,303 Mendota Heights 194 221 575 486 139 90 72 Air Noise Complaints .SENT BY:FAX 612-853-2300 1-30-95 ; 3:11PM ;ALFAMSrrU DIZO QG)eu 1.114. a.SL. Pcoe 76 ;anLc:y 11. 1995 U.S. Airlines Scramble To Apply For Canada Service Openings New service opportunities to Canada's three largest cities drew applications for 47 frequencies from 15 U.S. airlines. Nine airlines have applied for 17 frequencies to Montreal; eight carriers requested 16 to Vancouver, and seven carriers have asked for 14\to Toronto. DOT will be able to grant most requests for Montreal and Vancouver but will have to cut back on Toronto. Under the framework agreement; signed by the US. and Canada Dec. 22, the U.S. can add this year six carriers operating two daily frequencies each in Montreal and Vancouver. Additions to the Toronto market are limited to two new carriers operating two daily frequencies each (DAILY, Dec. 23,1994). • United wants twice-daily service between San Francisco and Vancouvee using 737-200s, continuing to San Diego. • TWA requests two daily frequencies between St. Louis and Toronto, using MD -80s. , • American is seeking twice-daily service between Dallas/Fort Worth and Vancouver, using 757-223s, and a single daily frequency between Dallas/Fort Worth and Montreal with MD -80s. • Shuttle Inc., operating as USAir Shuttle, is asking for one daily frequency between New York and Montreal and one between Boston and Montreal, using 727-200s. • USAir wants twice-daily service between Pittsburgh and Torontd and Montreal. It plans to use 737 aircraft on the former service and DC -9-30s on the latter �-� • Northwest is seeking twice-daily service between Minneapolis/St. Paul and Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto. It will, operate DC -9-30 aircraft for the latter two destinations and A320s for the former, except in the summer when the carrier plans to use 757 aircraft. • Comair is asking for two daily frequendes between Cincinnati and Montreal and Toronto. It will use ; leased 737-300s on both routes. • Reno Air is seeking two daily frequencies between Reno and Vancouver, using MD -80 aircraft. • Delta requests two dailyfiequendes between Atlanta and Toronto, using 757 aircraft, as well as two frequencies each between Salt Lake City and Vancouver and Atlanta and Montreal, using 727s. • Continental wants one frequency between New York/Newark and Vancouver and one between Houston and Vancouver. It will operate 737-300 aircraft on the former and MD -80s on the latter. The carrier also requested one daily frequency each for New York/Newark-Toronto and Houston -Toronto service. It plans to operate 737-300 aircraft on both routes as well as the frequendes it has asked for between New York/Newark and Montreal and Houston and Montreal. • Midwest Express plans to use DC -9-10 aircraft on two requestedMilwaukee-Toronto frequencies. • • America West will use Airbus A320s on the two daily frequencies between Phoenix and Vancouver it bid for. • Alaska wants two frequencies between San Diego and Oakland, CAE., on the one hand, and Vancouver on the other. The carrier will use 737-300s and MD -80s on the service, which will continue to Los Cabos, Mexico. - • Flagship Airline, operating as American Eagle, is applying for two daily frequencies between New York and Montreal using 46 -seat ATR -42 aircraft • Chautauqua Airlines is asking to fly two daily frequencies between Indianapolis and Cleveland, on the one hand, and Montreal on the other, using 30 passenger Saab 340s. (Each application by an airline for each Canadian destination is docketed separately.) Lawmaker Backs Eight -Carrier Smoking Ban Rep. Richard Durbin, (D-IIL.), is urging DOT to approve antitrust immunity to eight carriers seeking to hold discussions banning smoking on some international service. "Granting the carriers limited antitrust immunity to discuss a voluntary ban would provide an important public health benefit that is clearly in the public interest," he wrote in a Jan. 6 letter to DOT Secretary Federico Perla. American, British Airways, Continental, KLM, Northwest, TWA, United and USAir have asked for antitrust immunity so they can come together to discuss a voluntary smoking ban on transatlantic flights (DAILY, Jan. 10). The bid sparked debate among health and smokers' rights advocates. (Docket 49973) Northwest Offers Companion Fares Northwest is offering companion fares in selected dties in the Midwest and Southeast without an advance purchase requirement It will offer one-way fates as low as $69 for two between Atlanta and Memphis, and $99 for Detroit -Atlanta Fares are available for purchase through jar 22 for travel completed by Feb. 28. Northwest recently doubled its jet service between Memphis and Atlanta, and added two new daily Atlanta -Detroit flights. Separately, Northwest has signed an agreement with Radisson Hotels International to manage and market a 501 -room hotel owned by Northwest near Tokyo Narita Airport The carrier said the accord fits in with its core business strategy to strengthen key assets. Because service to Japan is one of "the most important mrnnnnantq of emir enmrinnv" the nartnPreh+n +.�+tfrt+ -• ' . - - - • - • r. SENT BY:FAX 612-853-2300 ; 1-30-95 ; 3:10PM ;ALPAMSPF0 6128532300 612 452 8940;# 1 FAX TRANSMITTAL FORM AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION Minneapolis Field Office - Representation Department 7900 International Drive, Suite 850 Bloomington, Minnesota 55425 Phone: 812.854.4338 Fax: 812.853-2300 Attorneys: Joan Bettenburg Patrick A. Brenneman Robert W. Plunkett, Jr. Jane Schraft Cynthia Surrisl Midge Jamgochian, Paralegal Nancy Martin, Legal Secretary Barb Schilling, Legal Secretary LOCATION: 1(-411-4-'&--*& DATE: 1 "9 5- - NUMBER OF PAGES: TRANSMITTAL. FORM ONLY TRANSMITTAL FORM PLUS / PAGES SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR MESSAGE: THIS TRANSMITTAL SHEET AND THE DOCUMENTS ACCOMPANYING IT CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR PRIVILEGED INFORMATION AND ARE INTENDED SOLELY FOR THE USE OF THE PERSON OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE PROHIBITED FROM COPYING, DISCLOSING, DISSEMINATING OR USING THE CONTENTS OF THIS TRANSMISSION WITHOUT THE EXPRESS CONSENT OF THE SENDER. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS TRANSMISSION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER BY TELEPHONE IMMEDIATELY SO THAT ARRANGEMENTS FOR ITS RETRIEVAL MIGHT BE MADE. Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) 6040 28th Avenue South • Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450 • (612) 726-941 Chairman: Scott Bunin Past Chairs: Walter Rockensteln, II, 1982-1990 Jan Del Calzo, 1979-1982 Stanley W. Olson, 1969-1979 Technical Advisor: John Foggia MEETING NOTICE MASAC OPERATIONS COMMITTEE The Operations Committee will meet FEBRUARY 16. 1995 at 1:00 a.m. at the general office of the Metropolitan Airports Commission, LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, 6040 28th Avenue South, Minneapolis. If you are unable to attend, please notify the.committee secretary (Jean Deighton 726-8141) with the name of your designated alternate. AGENDA NEW NOISE MANAGE METHODOLOGY to replace Draft Noise Budget Methodology - 'fine-tune * proposal and prepare draft for presentation at MASAC March 28, 1995 PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED ITEMS BEFORE THE MEETING. Member Distribution: Bob Johnson, Chairman Mark Salmen Dustin Mirick Charles .Curry Craig Wruck John Nelson Jim Serrin Jill Smith Dick Keinz Advisory: Bruce Wagoner, FAA John Foggia, MAC Ron Glaub, FAA cc: Kathy Gaylord Jon Hohenstein • Tom Lawell RECYCLED PAPER 24 August 1993 Ms. Julie Roth City Manager America West Airlines P.O. Box 11570 Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport St. Paul, MN 55111-0750 Dear Ms. Roth: The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) was directed by its Planning and Environment Committee to develop a new aviation noise management methodology to contain and ultimately reduce aircraft noise generated as a by-product of operations at the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport (MSP). In response to vociferous public testimony at both a public hearing in November 1992 and a public meeting in September 1992, and with direction from the MAC Planning and Environment Committee, the following is a draft framework for a Noise Management Methodology to replace the Average Daily Noise Energy (ADNE) tracking system and former Noise Budget Methodology. One of the most important goals for the new Noise Management Methodology is that it be straightforward and readily understandable to all interested parties, with tangible endpoints, a clear tracking mechanism, and reporting in a format using units familiar to a wide audience. With these broad concepts in mind, MAC staff developed a proposed framework for noise management through the tum of the century. Based on these broad tenets, MAC Staff proposes the following framework for a new MSP Noise Management Methodology: 1. The most straightforward evaluation of the noise environment at an airport is tracking the actual number of older technology, Stage 2 operations. The proposed Noise Management Methodology uses Stage 2 operations (a landing or a takeoff) as a benchmark for impact on the community. Stage 2 reduction as a means of easing the noise burden around airports has been validated by federal endorsement of the Stage 2 fleet phaseout plan as part of the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 (ANCA). The goal of this new program is to achieve all Stage 3 operations at MSP by the year 2000. Because Average Daily Operations is a historically reported unit of measure familiar to many interested in the aviation noise challenge at MSP, the new proposed program uses average daily operations as a straightforward, direct measure of Stage 2 operations, and noise environment improvement over time..Use of percentage of Stage 2 operations implicitly allows for an incremental increase of actual numbers of Stage 2 operations at MSP. This new program explicitly demands no additional Stage 2 operations at MSP. This does not suggest a'cap on operations at MSP, but rather that new operations must be Stage 3. 2. Performance accounting for the new program will be based on actual aircraft operations rather than scheduled operations. The advent of sophisticated operations monitoring equipment, specifically MSP's Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System (ANOMS), eliminates ambiguities associated with estimating scheduled operations, and the need for cumbersome (often ignored) reporting schemes dependent participation. on airline 3. To provide a reasonable comparison period, the new program uses calendar quarters, rather than months as the performance evaluation period. Evidence in tracking airline operations for the past six years indicates that a time frame as short as 30 days can be misleading due to large maintenance movements, weather, marketing shifts,, and other transient scheduling aberrations. On the other hand, an annual evaluation period is too long a time period over which to manage adverse operational trends. Though a calendar quarter provides a large enough time block to account for scheduling aberrations, it allows for whatever action may be necessary to be taken in a short enough time frame to monitor and evaluate the results of such an action. Additionally, quarterly reporting and comparisons provides consistency between this proposed Noise Management Methodology and the existing Stage 2 Nighttime Voluntary Agreements, establishing a seamless, overall program. 4. For Stage 2 reduction performance tracking, the proposed Noise Management Methodology compares average daily operations of analogous calendar quarters from the current year to the past year thus removing seasonal biases. That is, to determine the change in Stage 2 operations, compare (say) winter quarter (January, February, March) of 1994 to same period one year before, i.e., winter quarter 1993. Using this technique, seasonality will not be a factor. 5. Recognizing the sensitivity to aircraft noise during nighttime hours, Stage 2 reduction performance will be tracked by three discrete time periods in addition to the quarterly comparisons noted above. These discrete periods include 7 A.M. to 10 P.M., '10 P.M. to 11 RM. and 6 A.M. to 7 A.M., and 11 P.M. to 6 A.M. 6. Tangible endpoints for the program lend credibility and a sense of finiteness to the process. The federal noise rule establishes a final compliance date for Stage 3 operations. Section 91.853 of Federal Aviation Regulation Part 91 states: After December 31, 1999, no person may operate to or from an airport in the United States any civil subsonic turbojet aircraft with a maximum weight of more than 75,000 pounds unless such aircraft complies with Stage 3 noise levels, as determined by the Secretary. Establishing the year 2000 as the all -Stage 3 goal complies with federal rules and establishes a tangible airport restriction in the event that the Airport Noise and Capacity Act is amended in the future. In order to further comply with existing federal law, valid federal waivers will be honored in the new Noise Management Methodology. 7. Because interim compliance requirements in the federal noise rule are not as clear as the final Stage 3 requirement (above), your input is necessary for determining viable interim Stage 2 reduction goals that are both meaningful and achievable. As a minimum, the new Noise Management Methodology establishes a policy of no increase in Stage 2 operations from one quarter to the same quarter in the following year, by time period as noted in five (5) above. This "no backsliding" concept as well as all provisions of this Noise Management Methodology will be a applied to all carriers operating turbojets at MSP heavier than 75,000 pounds. 8. Total Airport Stage 2/Stage 3 Average Daily Operations by Quarter will be reported in graphical and tabular form. Attached for perspective is historical performance of carriers operating turbojet aircraft at MSP since 1986, in terms of Average Daily Operations by quarter (see attachment). This historical data is not ANOMS generated, but comes from Federal Department of Transportation records. page 2 Your comments are absolutely necessary to implement this proposed noise management tool as a voluntary agreement. The Metropolitan Airports Commission remains committed to working with both air carriers and affected citizens to negotiate mutually agreeable voluntary measures that address the difficult balance between maintaining facilities that meet the vital needs of National Airspace System users, while minimizing off -airport impacts on airport neighbors. Please send your comments to John Foggia, Manager, Aviation Noise Programs. Feel free to contact Mr. Foggia at (612) 726-8101 for further information or to arrange a meeting regarding this proposed Noise Management Methodology. Your comments will be incorporated into a Draft Voluntary Noise Management Agreement, followed by a Final Voluntary Noise Management Agreement to be signed and executed by the Metropolitan Airports Commission and all air carriers operating turbojet aircraft with a maximum weight of more than 75,000 pounds at MSP. Significant interest surrounds this issue, and your prompt attention is critical to completing this process. I thank you in advance for your efforts. Sincerely, Jeff Hamiel Executive Director page 3 MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT TO: Planning and Environment Committee FROM: Dick Keinz, Director of Environment SUBJECT: Status of the proposed Noise Management Methodology DATE: November 30, 1993 On August 24, 1993, a letter proposing a new Noise Management Methodology (attachment 1) was sent to all air carriers serving the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport (MSP). This letter outlined goals and objectives of a replacement for the former Noise Budget Methodology, and its metric, Average Daily Noise Energy (ADNE). A brief synopsis of events leading to the Noise Management Methodology proposal may be helpful to new commissioners, and is included as an attachment (attachment 3). Basic requirements for an ADNE replacement and new noise reduction strategy were specified by the Planning and Environment Committee in response to the public input and conclusions drawn from MSP's noise abatement experience. This committee broadly proposed a framework for noise management through the turn of the century with provisions that it be straightforward and readily understandable to all interested parties, with tangible endpoints, a clear tracking mechanism, and reporting in a format using units familiar to a wide audience. In response to the August 24, 1993 letter (attachment 1), MAC received responses through November 15, 1993, following telephone conversations with most of the respondents. Only five carriers submitted written comments to the proposed methodology, including Federal Express, American Airlines, the Air Freight Association, Northwest Airlines, and United Airlines. We appreciated these comments, but solicited a wider response with a letter to the remaining carriers, specifying December 15, 1993 as the comment closing period (attachment 2).This second letter extended the courtesy of a last request for comment, and brought closure to phase one of this important negotiation. In brief review, the new Noise Management Methodology proposes three basic objectives: • 1. Provide an overall noise management plan applicable to all carriers serving MSP with "staged" flights. streamlining the existing agreements with various carriers and providing continuity to the noise programs at MSP. 2. Insure noise environment improvements from increased utilization of Stage 3 aircraft, realized to date, remains at least at current levels ("no -backsliding"). 3. Formalize for MSP the existing federal provision that after December 31, 1999, only Stage 3 aircraft will be allowed to operate at airports in the United States (Federal Aviation Regulation Part 91.853). Comments received from the carriers were wide ranging and often disparate. American Airlines strongly endorsed MAC's proposed action, Federal Express and the Air Freight Association strongly opposed the Noise Management Methodology, United Airlines opposed the plan with "reservations", and Northwest Airlines objected to certain portions of the Noise Management Methodology, but agreed to discuss the possibility of a negotiated voluntary agreement. American's complete embracement of the Noise Management Methodology, to include suggested interim Stage 2 reduction goals is not surprising given their 100% Stage 3 schedule into MSP already. We appreciate American Airlines' commitment to noise reduction through Stage 3 utilization, and encourage all carriers to emulate American's performance. Both Federal Express and the Air Freight Association strongly opposed the Noise Management Methodology. Both assumed that the Stage 2 Nighttime Voluntary Agreements negotiated with the six nighttime carriers represented the entirety of restrictions to be imposed at MSP. This position, that there be no further limitation on noise at MSP, was neither implied nor agreed to during negotiations for the Nighttime Voluntary Agreements. Additionally, both groups felt the "no -backsliding" provision for Stage 2 operations between comparison quarters represented a local phaseout in advance of the federal schedule specified in the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1991 (ANCA), and amounted to an imposition of fleet mix rules. A telephone discussion with John Meenan of the Air Transport Association highlighted a potential misunderstanding that both Federal Express and the Air Freight Association operated under. MAC's Noise Management Methodology strives to extend the Voluntary Nighttime Agreements that the six targeted nighttime carriers agreed to, to all carriers serving MSP. Since these carriers (Federal Express, Airborne Express, Emery Worldwide, Ryan International Sun Country, and United Parcel Service) represent the bulk of nighttime operations at MSP, daytime, "no -backsliding" Stage 2 compliance would have little effect on their operations. MAC intends to extend the voluntary all -Stage 3 nighttime (11 RM. and 6 AM.) language to all carriers operating at MSP. Staff will clarify this position during the next phase of negotiations. United Airlines opposed the plan basically because it created additional constraints to a carrier's ability to cost-effectively manage its fleet. United also suggested a MAC Noise Management Methodology was redundant to the federal ANCA because all carriers had to phase out stage 3 by the year 2000 anyway, and, "The passage of ANCA has provided assurance to these [noise impacted] communities that the improvements will continue." Unfortunately, ANCA provides no assurances to communities adjacent to airports that any noise benefits from increased Stage 3 usage will continue, except that by 2000, only Stage 3 aircraft will be allowed into airports (FAR Part 91.853). These comments by UAL highlight the two simple, straightforward reasons for moving forward with the Noise Management Methodology - 1.) that any improvements in the noise environment at airports attributable to increased Stage 3 usage must at least be maintained (no -backsliding), and 2.) a formalization of Part 91.853 must be in place at MSP to guarantee existing provisions of federal law, and guard against 11th hour amendments. In the event that federal law changes in the future, MSP will have a policy to "grandfather". United then tentatively suggested that if the noise management methodology were eventually adopted, they strongly encouraged yearly rather than quarterly comparison periods because annual evaluation periods afforded the carriers "much greater flexibility" to optimize fleet mix Page 2 without creating artificial constraints. Additionally, United suggested quarterly comparison periods would encourage planned minimization of Stage 3 operations in order to avoid potential shortfalls in meeting the "no-backsliding" requirement. Additionally, United points out that capping the number of Stage 2 opera 'ons in a period artificially restricts carriers' ability to expand at MSP. They end by noting, "It would not generally be to an airport's advantage to restrict additional competition." These comments are not surprising given the little regard United Airlines paid to the last round of voluntary agreements surrounding the former ADNE methodology. Northwest Airlines' comments were the most robust, and through their expressed willingness to compromise on a number of issues, encouraged the next level of coordination - drafting the voluntary agreement. After clarifying a number of issues, including Northwest's current financial ability to purchase new airframes, and a listing of existing noise abatement initiatives Northwest is engaged in, the carrier suggested there may be additional ways to further reduce Stage 2 operations, particularly in early morning and evening hours. This encouraging remark was followed with an appeal for compromise, "It may be that the Methodology, in light of our efforts to reduce noise over the past several years, may not have a significant impact on our schedule (or will have a manageable impact), but before we enter into a voluntary agreement we must fully understand its exact impact on our future schedules." Rather than listing all of Northwest's concerns here, let me summarize. Northwest Airlines' concerns regarding reporting periods (biannual vs. quarterly), appropriate allowances for exceptions for "unforeseen" occurrences (e.g. runway construction), and other details regarding implementation and functioning of an actual agreement, will all be addressed and negotiated. More importantly, Northwest closed their comments suggesting that if their concerns can be properly addressed, "...that we begin working closely with MAC staff to negotiate a new agreement." An overall observation regarding Northwest Airlines' and the other respondents' comments is an apparent misconception about the purpose of implementing the Noise Management Methodology. The intent of the proposed methodology is to manage noise, not monitor or regulate it. The Noise Management Methodology seeks to manage the unavoidable by-product of airport operations - noise - through two simple techniques: 1.) Stage 2 reductions using a no-backsliding provision as a tool, and 2.) formalizing at MSP the existing final phaseout date for Stage 2 aircraft, December 31, 1999, as already specified in federal law. Part of the reluctance with this round of voluntary agreements is the presence of ANOMS, and a simple, highly visible reporting unit - number of Stage 2 operations. MAC staff looks forward to additional comments from other carriers in response to our final request for input. The next step will be to meet with carriers early in 1994 (principally Northwest Airlines), to incorporate the concerns expressed in received comments, and produce a draft Voluntary Noise Management Methodology Agreement. Staff will present the draft agreement to the Planning and Environment Committee for approval upon completion of negotiations. COMMITTEE ACTION REQUESTED: Information only. Page 3 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO February 1, 19 TO: Airport Relations Commission Members FROM: Tom Lawell, City Administ SUBJECT: Continued Discussion on the Status Airport Planning Process DISCUSSION of the 5 Dual -Track At our last meeting, discussion of the status of the Dual Track Airport Planning Process was tabled to our February meeting. Attached please find a copy of the memo and supporting material which was distributed as part of the January meeting packet. In addition, attached please find several other items which might be of some interest to you in preparing for our discussion on this topic. First, attached please find a copy of a flyer entitled "New Airport: Do We Need It Or Not?" written by Mr. Henry A. Snyder and dated October 21, 1994. Mr. Snyder has long worked with other south Minneapolis interests to advocate for the relocation of MSP to Rosemount. Secondly, attached please find a copy of a story which recently ran in the MSP Airport News which summarizes the MAC meeting held on January 17, 1995. The article notes that the MAC has announced the formation of a new Dual Track Task Force Committee which presumably will make a recommendation to the full MAC on the "expand or move" question. Serving on the Committee will be MAC Commissioners Patrick O'Neill (Chair), Steve Cramer (Vice -Chair), Tommy Merickel and Darcy Hitesman. Cities represented by these Commissioners include O'Neill (St. Paul), Cramer (Minneapolis), Merickel (Arden Hills), and Hitesman (Maple Grove). At our upcoming meeting we may want to discuss what, if any, impact these appointments will have on the final expand or move decision. ACTION REQUIRED Commission members should review the current position of the City Council relative to the Dual Track process and should decide whether or not it, wishes to recommend to the Council a change in the adopted position. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS • MEMO January 9, 1994 TO: Airport Relations Commissi•n •ers 1/0 FROM: Tom Lawell, City Administra SUBJECT: Discuss Status of Dual -Track Airport Planning Process DISCUSSION At -our last meeting Chair Scott Beaty noted the status of the Dual Track Airport Planning Process and inquired as to the City's formal position on whether or not MSP International Airport should be moved. As it was explained at the time, the City has previously gone on record in favor of completing the Dual Track process and has resisted efforts by various groups to jump to any conclusions regarding the ultimate fate of MSP. It was decided that this item would be scheduled for Commission discussion on our January 1995 agenda. Byway of background, I have attached a memorandum and several letters related to this topic for your consideration. As the documentation shows, the City Council has clearly supported the Dual Track process since its beginning. While the ultimate decision to move or expand MSP will be undoubtedly political, the Dual Track process represents the only real opportunity to systematically and objectively .look at the impacts of both options. ACTION REQUIRED Commission members should review the current position of the City Council relative to the Dual Track process and should decide whether or not it wishes -to recommend to the Council a change in the adopted position. • CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS • MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Tom Lawell, City Administr March 16, 1993 SUBJECT: Dual Track Airport Planning Legislation DISCUSSION At the request of Mayor Mertensotto, this item has been' added to the City Council's March 16th Council meeting agenda for immediate Council consideration. Within the past week, legislation has been introduced in both the House and Senate which would immediately curtail the activities of the dual track •airport planning process. This process was'set into motion in 1989 with the adoption of the Metropolitan Airport Planning Act ,to analyze whether or not the current airport should remain in its present location or be moved. The current process is intended to culminate in a- joint report and recommendation from the Metropolitan Airports Commission and the Metropolitan Council to the. Legislature in 1996. Since 1989, the process has selected three potential new airport sites in southern Dakota County and specific site screening criteria are currently being applied to determine which of the three sites should be deemed the best location for a new airport, should it be needed sometime in the future. Considerable public opposition to the selection of southern Dakota County as the new airport search area has arisen. In response, Senator Pat Pariseau (IR -Farmington) and Representative Connie Morrison (IR -Burnsville) have introduced bills which would repeal the authority to conduct the dual track airport planning process effective immediately. The City of Mendota Heights has not previously gone on record regarding the desirability of either option of the dual track process. Rather, the Council has consistently maintained that the dual track process should be allowed to run its course in order that adequate information on both options be prepared in time for the 1996 legislative deadline. Sound public policy decision making requires that a fair and objective analysis of all available options be completed prior to making a final determination on a matter with such profound, long range consequences. RECOMMENDATION Mayor Mertensotto and I believe that the curtailment of the dual track process at this point in time would be a serious mistake as it would cut short the deliberative public policy process without fully explaining the advantages,p.nd disadvantages of the relocation option. As such, we recommend that the City Council go on record opposing the recently introduced legislation which would bring to a halt the dual track process. ACTION REQUIRED Should Council agree with our recommendation, a motion should be made to adopt Resolution No. 93- , Al RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE DUAL TRACK AIRPORT PLANNING PROCESS AS ESTABLISHED BY THE METROPOLITAN AIRPORT PLANNING ACT OF 1989. MTL:kkb CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, M1NNe.SOTA RESOLUTION NO. 93 20 A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE DUAL TRACK AIRPORT PLANNING PROCESS AS ESTABLISHED BY THE METROPOLITAN AIRPORT PLANNING ACT OF 1989 WHEREAS, the'Metropoliitan Airport Planning Act of 1989 established a dual track planning process to evaluate the long range comprehensive plan for the Minneapolis/St. Paul Airport and the selection of a site for a relocated 'airport, and WHEREAS, the evaluation continues under the joint guidance of tfie Metropolitan Council and the Metropolitan Airports Commission; and WHEREAS, the expansion of the present airport facility and the construction of a new airport are future, not present day, expenditures; and WHEREAS, it Is a common concern that our region's airport be capable . of competing in a world economy; and WHEREAS, the planning decisions made today will either be beneficial or detrimental to future generations; and WHEREAS, for lack of adquate knowledge, the City of Mendota Heights has expressly avoided taking an official position on whether to expand the existing airport facility or to relocate; and WHEREAS, the curtailment of the dual track process at the present time would be a serious mistake given the importance of the airport facility to the economic security of our region; and WHEREAS, sound public policy mandates that a comprehensive and objective analysis be made prior to any decision that clearly affects the health, safety, and longterm economic well-being of our region. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Mendota Heights, Dakota County; Minnesota, as follows: 1. The dual track process established by the Metropolitan Airport Planning Act of 1989 should continue to run its course culminating in a report and recommendation to the Legislature in 1996, and 2. The City of Mendota Heights specifically opposes the recently introduced legislation which would curtaiLthe dual track process, and 3. The Mendota Heights City Council directs that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to Governor Carlson, Senator Roger Moe, Senator Betty Adkins (Chair of Metropolitan and Local Government Committee), Senator James Metzen, Senator Deanna Wiener, Representative Iry Anderson (Chair of Metropolitan and Local Government Committee), Representative Tim Commers, Representative Thomas Pugh, Representative Bob Mi[bert, the Metropolitan Council, the Metropolitan Airports Commission, Dakota County Commissioners, and the goveming councils of northern Dakota County cities and cities adjoining the Minneapolis/St. Paul Airport facility. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 16th day of March, 1993. ATTEST: 1hleen M. Swanson, City Clerk CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS By el -' ,W #-44td' Charles E. Mertensotto, Mayor 2 City of • Mend�ta Heights March 18, 1993 The Honorable Arne Carlson Governor of Minnesota 130 Capitol St. Paul, MN 55155 . Dear Governor Carlson: It has come to our City's attention that the Legislature is currently debating. the future of the dual track airport planning process as established by the Metropolitan Airport Planning Act of -1989. More specifically, recently introduced legislation, SF472 sponsored by Senators Pariseau, Knutson and D. Benson,''and HF479 sponsored by Representatives Morrison, Ozment,,Tompkins, Pugh and Osthoff would immediately repeal the authority necessary for the Metropolitan Airports Commission and 'the Metropolitan Council to continue .the dual track process. Our City is vitally interested in this issue and on March 16, 1993 the Mendota Heights City Council adopted the attached Resolution in opposition to the introduced legislation and in support of allowing the dual track process to continue. Given the magnitude of this public policy labile', a deciaipn to foreclose the .relocation option at this juncture would Clearly be a mistake. The future economic security of , cur. ccegica• demands : that a.comprehensive and objective analysis of all available=optioiis'be- completed prior to- making a• decision with such far reaching implications.= A recent Legislative Auditor's report identified a number of areas in which the dual track study could be improved, and we understand those 'suggestions are currently being addressed by the Metropolitan Council. It is also important to note that the Auditor's report contained the recommendation that the dual track study continue and, as evidenced by the attached Resolution, our City concurs. Your support%of this position 'is encouraged.as.well. Should you .have questions or comments regarding- this matter, please feel free to. contact me at your convenience. • Sincerely, City Administrator . MTL:kkb GHTS 1101 Victoria Curve -Mendota Heights, MN - 55118 452.1850 METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION Minneapolis -Saint Paul International Airport - 6040 - 28th Avenue South • Minneapolis. MN 55450 ;* .;:... o Phone (612) 726-8100 • Fax (612) 726-5296 o IYIxI. n • March 22, 1993 Mr. Tom Lawell City Administrator City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Dear Tom: Office of Executive Director Thank you for your letter of March 18 expressing your support for continued work on the Dual Track Airport Planning Process. By way of background, I recently met with Senate Majority Leader Don Moe and House Majority Leader Dee Long and other leadership members soliciting their strong support of continuing the Dual Track Process. Both the Metropolitan Council and the MAC have been working cooperatively toward this goal. • From a personal standpoint, I am totally committed to continuing the Dual Track Process because itis the only opportunity that we will have to look toward twenty to thirty years into the future. At some point in time, planning processes must continue and short-term down cycles in the industry should not interrupt the long term planning process. I will insure that the Commission is fully aware of Resolution No. 93-20 and will include your comments as background information. If I can be of any help or assistance, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Jeffrey W. Hamiel Executive Director The Metropolitan Airports Commission is an affirmative action employer. Reliever Airports: AIRLAKG • ANOKA COUNTY/lit AINF • ( VC9'AI • VI VII r!, i m - A yr r METROPOLITAN COUNCIL • • Mears Pork Center. 230 East Fifth Street. St Pau!. MN 55101-1634 March 29, 1993 Tom Lawell, Qty Administrator Qty of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Dear Mr. Lawell: 612 291-6359 FAX 612 291-6550 77Y 612 291-0904 1+ Your letter of March 18 and the attached resolution were much appreciated. During this time of debate and deliberation regarding the location and/or possible expansion of MiinneapolislSt. Paul International Airport, it is imperative that all sides of the issue be heard in order to render a comprehensive„ objective and well -thought-out conclusion. I agree that given the magnitude of this public policy issue, a decision to foreclose the relocation option at this time would be a mistake which would preclude exploring what we believe is a viable alternative. Thank you for taking the time to convey your comments on this my significant issue. Any additional support that can be mustered from other communities around the region would go a long way. Sincerely, Dottie Rietow Chair Recycled Paper 3no1ilu inn: auport. ppiuung process oe cut (Art:: YES: New airport studies are flawed C NO: Eoth..options must .be explored '. Pohne confidence in the dual -track air- port planning process died last month when the legislative auditor's staff delivered its .findings to .the Legislative Audit Commission. Phrases like "bone- head, undergraduate er- rors" were used to de. scribe the work of the Metropolitan Council and its aviation consultant. The auditors chronicled •five years of exaggerations, flawed conclusions and "questionable methods?' Near afternoon's end, new Metropolitan Council Chairwoman Dottie Rietow admitted that the consultant wilt he replaced, but smiled and said everything else will be business a usual. Business as usual is no longer an option. The auditor's report reveals gross exa era - tions of noise mitigation costs and problems, current and future delay projections, economic benefits.ot a new runway or airport, and future passenger travel at International Airport. Not only was this Information used to hood- wink the Legislature into authorizing the dual - track study, but now we have five yearn of useless data paid for with 17.6 million of wast- ed tax dollars and airline user fees. Wasted because it's inconceivable, to imagine basin a $6 billion decision for a new airport on conclu- sions flimsier than a wet cardboard box. The public expects and deserves better. The Legislature cannot justify wasting an- other $3 million on an unnecessary and.nnaf fordable „relocated airport plan, especially when no Informed citizen will believe that an objective, Informed recommendation can come Dorms OMMENT GUEST COLUMNIST from this shambles. What will happen if we abandon the dual- track process? The Metropolitan Airports Commission to fully equipped to administer our world class airport well into the 21st century. Aged staff members have held to conservative estimates of aviation growth and airport adequacy.Let them focus exclusively on InternationaAir- port's future. The Leglslatnre should support the airports commission, especially with a gresslve noise mitigation measures that wB ease community disruption. Statutory authority for protecting Interna- tional for posaible future expansion currently resides with the Metro Council although the auditors determined the job isn't getting done. The airports commission doesn't predict ca- pacity problems ALInternattonal until perbape the year 2010. Nonetheless, somebody should be working with surrounding connnnnittes on development controls. Many legislators are ready. to renovate metro governmenL Tbla is an important function to inandi is the new and improved version. Northwest Airlines can he asanred that we heard their plea to Congress for relief from' unnecessary airport Improvement taxes that threaten to destroy the industry M the short term. The Legislature Is obligated to erase further waste by pcasing H.F. 47P and its Senate com- panion, S.F. 472 to bit the dual -track process. Then we can sift through the ashes, deternrbre accountability and protect everyone from fur- ther misguided planning. Omtent, an Independent-Repubtcen from Rosemount. represents an area In Dakota County Met Is being studied es a posetbie location for s new ehpod.. • WHAT YOU CAN DOr Voles your *pinion by contacting your legislator on • • Anderson, and Metra Affairs Chairman, 585 State Office Bldg. 'St. Pant, MN • 55195 296.4936 • Sen. Beatty Adkin Metro and Local Government 309 Capitol,, St. Pawl, MN 58155 296-4150 Tbe Metropoltlan Council bra use o anisatlon. -Unlike lo - car elected officials who are charged with looking at issues from a parochial perspective, the count) must ask, "Is this a concern for the seven -county metropoli- tan area?" and, more int- portantty, "How could t Is enhance or hurt our reefs long-term economic health and well b So when questions arose In the late IftSOs abort the Ion term adequacy of the Interna- tional Altpor the council — along with the Metropoiittaon AAlrporta Commission — was logi- cally ogocally identified to examine them. AnalyzTp{ the need for exparided'afrport ca- paclttr Is a complex process litvolving• complt- cateedd Issues, such as the predicted health of our" economy and the airline. industry for the • nekt two decades. That's blow long it takes, t• once the decision to expand capacitty is made, to deal with the and economic complications Inhec environmental pt itt a project of this magnitude. DoTTft RiCTOW GUEST COLUMNIST • In IM the Legislature approved a "dual- -track process" to look at both the possible eexxppoamlot► of the existinglaort and the posal- bllltyof siting a new a The process will lad to a joint report and recommendation to the Legislature In IUI. The coat of this work - approximately 210 mlmon — represents les& than 1. percent o1 the cost of build new runway or airport. The money is derived from a of each Aldine ticket purchased in the stats �ci'one thick; the airports commission has developed alongr•ange comprehensive plan de. tailing possible improvements at International Airport. On the other track, the council has selected a "search area" or general location for a possible new airport In Dakota County. • This process is drawing attention from those concerned with the negative implications of an airport in their cdlnmunity, as well u those who want the airport to stay where Itis today. It has been suggested that the dual -track process either should be stopped or changed'tp eliminate the second track (nnew airport) be cause of the problems currently facing the airline industry and some criticisms identified in a recent legislative auditor's report. This report chtlmed that the council "prema. turely signaled a need to add capacity before it makes economic sense." While the report raised some valid Issues of concern — whleh the council fa addressing — It also acknowl- edged that the "potential growth in regional operations could make a new runway desirable by 2000" and that the dual -track process shou14 continue without significant changes. a�aridosing this process becafrse of short• term trends or because exploring the option offends certain local interests le not In the Twin Cluesbest long-term Interest. We wall to ensure that our region has an adequett airport so we can compete In a world economy, A lot of jobs depend on that Weraitiowledge that some mistakes web made, but we .also strongly agree with th' auditor's major conclusion that the dual -(rad • process should continue. It's prudent to contln ue the process so legislators can make th right airport decision at the right time. Riotow shahs the Metropottlen Cotnca. 1 1 NEW .AIRPORT: DO WE NEED IT OR NOT? Henry A. Snyder Oct. 21, 1994 The question of whether we need a new airport in the Twin Cities generates a great deal of heat, but very little light. The issues .are perceived as complex, i.e: what forecast of future air traffic do we believe? what effect will Northwest's financial condition have? what are the relative costs of the alternatives? whose ox will be gored? what importance should we attach to the whole issue? who pays for it? and on and on. The facts, however, are quite simple and straightforward, and can easily be understood by any citizen. Only the politics are complicated. In the next few pages, using a question -and -answer format, we'll provide the facts. We obviously have a point of view, but we invite the reader to judge for himself/herself. The author has no economic or other interest as a hidden agenda. Our concern is to see our city, state and region maintain the high quality of life we now enjoy. 1. Q: What are the options? A Theoretically, there are four: a) Do nothing. b) Expand at the present MSP site. 1 c) Build a new airport at a larger site. The Metropolitan Council, under the dual track mandate from the Legislature, has selected an area in Dakota County, but of course other areas are theoretically pos- sible sites. Note: (b) and (c) represent the two tracks of the dual track evaluation process. d) Look for different solutions. 2. Q: Why not just do nothing? A No one in any position of responsibility favors this option. At present, MSP has two parallel runways which are too close together to operate independently under instrument conditions—which occur about 30% of the time. A third runway intersects both parallels. It is used when wind conditions change, but that shuts down one of the parallels, for a net loss of capacity. Based on a 16 -hour day, our airport is already at roughly 80-85% of capacity. Because half of our traffic is hub -and -spoke (where we're used just as a connecting point between two flights), it is impossible to plan for flights in the night-time hours to use any significant portion of that unused time. Scheduled flights must carry a reasonable number of passengers or the airlines incur large losses—and no one wants to fly from, say, Fargo to the Twin Cities at midnight and then wait 6 hours to catch the next plane to Memphis. A new or revised airport could conceivably be built in as short a time as five years, but even so, we will be totally out of capacity by then under any practical growth scenario, with delays running into many thousands of hours. 2 3. Q: Well, so what? We've got a fairly prosperous area, and MSP is so convenient. Who needs to do any better? . A Businesses --and only businesses-- provide both the jobs that require air travel and the means for paying for all travel, whether business or pleasure. No major business—absolutely none --can live just as it is and decide not to grow. A business grows or dies—no third alternative. Why? Because the normal year-ro-year cost increases which every business faces for people and materials will very quickly either eat up all the profits or force the business to continually raise its prices until it can no longer compete. A competitor who can sell more goods or services each year has a huge commercial advantage by the exact amount of the added gross profit of each additional unit of sale. That's why Japanese automakers made money while GM was losing billions.) The Japanese grew— they built modern plants and 'continually increased the number of cars they sold each year. American car makers just raised prices, and then had a multi -billion dollar disaster oa their hands. If that's what we're prepared to live with, then we can certainly make do without spending another dime. Well very soon be operating at 100% of our capacity. Very efficient—and very stupid. At that point, it won't make anyl difference. But immediately thereafter, businesses and jobs begin leaving, and our economy starts sinking. So, we can make do with the present situation --as long as the American auto industry stnIces us as an ideal role model. 4. Q: What makes us think the capacity of our air service has that kind of effect? A Good airline service is the single most . important determinant of business (i.e., jobs) growth potential. We are in a global economy. If you doubt it, ask yourself What make of car do I drive? What brand of TV do I have? Whose video games do my kids buy? Where is my underwear made? Global businesses require world-class air service. High tech global businesses also need air cargo around the clock --not possible at MSP. Global business needs to be able to use the full range of today's biggest intercontinental planes for non- stop service—not possible now because our runways are too short. As a single illustration, in the recent years following the opening of Atlanta's Hartsfield as a world-class international airport, the state of Georgia—and not just Atlanta—attracted over 1400 international businesses who brought with them well over a hundred thousand new jobs. In contrast, Burlington Northern, a lifelong Twin Cities business, moved to Fort Worth because it "needed a centrally located city with excellent air service". Kimberly Clark, in nearby Neenah, Wisconsin, moved all the way to Dallas for the same reason. When UPS moved and ignored the Twin Cities, they told us "You have the Guthrie Theater, fair -priced housing, nice environment, but no airport". And the piece -de -resistance. At the invitation of the Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce, former Atlanta mayor Andrew Young came all the way to our own backyard (as in NIMBY—Not In My Back 4 Yard) to tell us that "the biggest boost to Atlanta's international business fortunes came when the built and expanded Hartsfield Internatio Airport...." Other quotes here in Minneapolis from our competitor. "If you want to stay in business, you have to be global". and 'The time to build the airport for the next century is now". and "We were mode consciously international in what we do. That's what gave us the edge [for the 1996 Olympics] on you". Thanks, Andy. We needed that. The Twin Cities is just as close to world markets as Atlanta or Dallas -Ft. Worth or Denver. If you have difficulty believing that, just lay out a 6000 mile flight on a great circle route. And the quality of life we've got here is far superior to conditions in all of the cities that have been experiencing growth while we sit by. No one will deny that other factors, although of lesser importance, play a part. Our high workman's comp taxes are frequently cited. However, nearly three-fourths of all new jobs are in service industries, and it is a fact not generally appreciated that Minnesota's workman's comp rates for service jobs are the same as or lower than in Texas, Georgia and a host of other places. 5. Q: But airline traffic has dropped since the Gul° War. A: Certainly not true in the Twin Cities. Over the 4 years ending 1993, our operations were up 5%/year and passenger load was up 6%/year. It's also not terribly relevant. There will always be periods of prosperity and stagnation. But who builds public infrastructure based on short-term trends? Forget about forecasts, and consider this : 5 The American economy, for all its warts, is the best economic engine in the world. Why else does the rest of the world sink billions of dollars into the United States? For two hundred years, we have averaged 4% annual growth in our economy. There is no reason to assume we will be unable to continue growing at a 3% or higher rate. And, if the economy continues to prosper, the number of undershirts, lawnmowers, automobiles and airline flights will grow right along with it -- some years up a little faster, some years probably even backpedaling somewhat, but overall, they grow right with the economy because they are the economy. So forget all the fancy projections, and just ask yourself Do I still believe in the future of this country or not? If I do, is their any logical reason for believing that air travel will not, overall, grow right along with the economy? 6. Q: If we expand, then, which costs more, a new airport or a bigger MSP? A A bigger MSP, for two very simple reasons. First, expansion at MSP is a misnomer. It's not possible to simply add another runway and be done with it. For whatever construction is required, labor and materials costs are almost identical anywhere in the area. That's only logical. Our metro area is one big market, and with few exceptions, costs are the same any place within that market. We can pour 10,000 feet of concrete for the same cost at a new site as at MSP. If all we had to do at MSP was add one runway, it would certainly be the least -cost option. However, because the site is so small (3000 acres --only St. Louis, among all major markets, is smaller), the 6 i location of a new runway is such that we have to essentially write off the ,terminal and parking that's there, build new facilities on the northwest side of the property, and then build a new road network to get in and out. That, plus the very large costs incurred by having to maintain capacity operations while virtually rebuilding the airport from scratch, makes the cost of construction at MSP vs a new site a horse apiece. The second reason is the killer. Expansion at MSP will cost, conservatively, another $2 billion to tear down hundreds of homes, insulate thousands of others against a portion of the noise, tear down four major hotels now booming because of the nearby Mall of America, and remove all that tax revenue from the tax rolls. None of that extra $2 billion (pick another large number, if you don't like ours) buys a single extra seat of capacity—it's sheer economic waste. 7. Q: But aren't there people in Dakota County near the Met Council's selected site who might also be affected, and lose their homes as well? A Absolutely—but a new airport at Rosemount with six runways in an L -configuration impacts a total of 2,200 residents, against a quarter of a million for an expanded MSP. (Interestingly, MAC—the Metropolitan Airports Commission--, in its wisdom, wants a pinwheel configuration -- absolutely guaranteed to at least triple the number of people impacted.) Obviously, not all nearby residents in either location (or any other) are bothered by the noise, but any: such non-productive "buy-out" costs at a site like Rosemount are a tiny fraction of such costs in Minneapolis, the most densely populated area of Minnesota 7 It would be wonderful to locate a site where nobody would be affected. That may be ideal, but it's not realistic. No such site exists anywhere remotely within range of the Twin Cities. Our laws provide for eminent domain for just such situations—the right of the public to purchase, at fair market prices, the private property of an individual, in order to provide for the greater good of the entire community. Our civilization cannot exist without the right of eminent domain, because, without it, we could not provide the infrastructure —roads, bridges, airports, parks -- required to make our country work. So the truth is that a very small group of citizens will be forced to sell or grant easements to their property, which they do not want to do, if a new airport site is selected. That's regrettable, but infinitely preferable --and infinitely more just -- than having to do exactly the same thing to many times more people bordering the present MSP site. 8. Q: So you favor a completely new airport, then? A Not really. Neither of the dual track options is attractive. Expanding at MSP has a perceived advantage of leaving things as they are. However, we will be sinking billions into a site too small to become a world class airport no matter what changes are made. Starting from scratch at Hastings, the site for a new airport selected by MAC, has an advantage of providing a world class airport. However, we have invested hundreds of millions of dollars already at MSP, and MSP is an extraordinarily convenient location. Besides, the businesses along the I-494 strip contend, rightly or wrongly, that a new site would cost them their customer base. 8 Further; Hastings is impossibly inconvenient. It is 26 miles and a good hour •from downto Minneapolis, further still from our high-gro western suburbs. This site owes its selection to a MAC staff who knows that picking such a ridiculous site is equivalent to killing a new airpgrt. 9. Q: So that leaves some sort of fourth choice as the way to go? A A resounding yes, in our opinion. Here it is: a) Keep the existing terminal and parking facilities exactly where they are. Passengers will park and check in and out exactly where they do today. Why duplicate these facilities when they already exist? b) Build a new set of runways at the Rosemount Experimental Station .of the University of Minnesota. It's completely within the recommended site area selected by Met Council, and is miraculously close to the heart of the Twin Cities. The public already owns 7300 acres of flat land there (previously donated to the State), saving millions on land costs. Acquire easement rights on another 3-8000 acres to allow for a proper noise buffer zone. Let all tF farmers who are either paid off completely or wb are forced to sell easements continue to farm the land if they wish, with tenancy reverting to the State only when direct descendants no longer wish to farm. c) Build a high-speed rail link connecting the airfield to the present MSP terminal—a train every 6 minutes in each direction. The Canadian Pacific 9 has a little -used right-of-way which could easily be acquired for the purpose. Build a ravine bridge over the Minnesota River south of MSP to connect directly with the present terminal. • Total cost of trains, spares, new track, right of way and the bridge (about $240 million as of 1994) is fax less than the $1.5 billion required for building the otherwise needed huge new highway network. d) Build only whatever terminal facilities are needed at the new site to take care of the hub -and - spoke passengers. Full services, after all, will exist only a few minutes away by high-speed train. If and when a need can be demonstrated for building a full-blown terminal and parking at the new site, nothing would prevent our doing so. But why spend the money when it's not needed? e) Sell; lease or give one runway at the present MSP site to Northwest for their maintenance base operations, thus avoiding hundreds of millions in moving costs which NWA cannot afford and doesn't want to spend even if it could afford to do so. Although Northwest, in spite of their past rhetoric, has no practical options for moving their base elsewhere, assuring the permanence of their huge investment at MSP has to be a major advantage to the airline. f) Develop the balance of the MSP site to the highest and best use. After the ten years or so that it will take, this property, in the heart of our metro area and which now generates no tax revenues, will provide about $50 million in new tax revenues. 10 g) All the businesses along the strip and all the neighbors stay put. Nothing would change except the noise, which would go away. h) Force the MAC to end its sweetheart charges to its tepants, and begin charging the airlines and other airport businesses at; rates which are at least equal to those in most other major airports. Why should we be subsidizing profit-making businesses with landing fees and rental rates well below market? i) Do it now, while we've got a little time. Rosemount is less than 10 'miles from MSP. If we lose this chance, it will be miracle if any land is left close enough to the heart of our metro area the next time around. j) And, above all, don't listen to the critics who say it's never been done. This isn't rocket science, folks. Engineers don't need to design a new rocket that will take a spaceship to Mars and back. We're only talking about taking a high-speed train from the present terminal to a runway a few miles away. (Atlanta's International terminal is already 8 minutes by train from the main terminal, so you can see this is no big deal.) If MAC and its vest - pocketful of friendly consultants can't figure out how to do it, there are hundreds of competent engineering firms who can. By building new world-class operational facilities at a new site, while preserving a large percentage of the assets already in place at the present site, we'll get: 1) The opportunity to participate in a major way in the global economy of the 21st century—which, lest we forget, is only six years away. 2) The lowest possible cost, because we'll: a) Use our existing investment. b) Avoid nearly all the non-productive costs of buy-outs of neighboring homes and businesses. c) Substitute efficient high-speed rail for a costly new highway network. d) Operate at the existing site without interruption, while building at a new site unimpeded by existing operations. e) Turn most of the MSP site --the single most valuable piece of open land in Minne- sota—into a major revenue producer. 3) Have no negative effect on the businesses in Richfield and Bloomington. Actually, we'll get quite the reverse. More people will be coming to MSP and leaving from MSP as growth in capacity brings more travelers, and development of the MSP site will provide the I-494 strip with thousands more nearby customers. 4) No negative effect to NWA—they get to keep their big maintenance base right where it is. It's time for visionary thinking, instead of our perpetually myopic NIMBY view. Infrastructure needs require years to build, and must never be driven by the short-sighted idea that the current level of business activity, whether up or down, is a sane basis for making such decisions. 12 The former mayor of Atlanta comes to the Twin Cities and tells us point-blank that Atlanta's growth resulted directly from their airport. Somebody's going to get the growth, but if we sit on our hands any longer, it's a certainty it won't be us. An rbody for a wake-up call? P.S. We almost forgot: Q: What if Northwest goes bankrupt? A If NWA completely ceases to exist, it might take 30 seconds for one or more major carriers to come in and replace them. After all, roughly 20 million people fly in or out of MSP each year. Half of them are origin -destination passengers -- people who leave here to visit some other destination, or leave some other place to come here. Airlines will be beating our doors down to get here. The cargo traffic is virtually 100% origin - destination, so nothing happens to that. It's possible that we might see some reduction in the hub -and -spoke traffic, but it won't be much. It's a well -kept secret that virtually all of this traffic comes from cities which are geographically closer to us than to Chicago, Detroit, Dene elsewhere. It's only economic good sense airlines to use a hub which provides the shortest possible links. And with the very high cost of doing business in nearby Chicago or Detroit, the odds are clear that, rather than lose hubbing traffic, replacement carriers will be happy to divert traffic to us, where the geography makes economic sense. 13 Average out-of-pocket costs—fuel and crew --to keep a typical jet in the air now run about $40 per minute. Out of all the small nearby feeder cities that provide our hub -and -spoke traffic, only eight are closer to another major hub. (Six of those 8 are as close to O'Hare as to us. Regarding O'Hare, see below.) An advantage of as little as 50 miles, at 450 mph, means a 7 minute shorter trip each way. An extra 7 minutes, at $40 a minute, means an added cost of $280 each flight. For our 200,000 hub -and -spoke flights each year, that translates to a minimum added cost of $56 million annually to handle hub flights from our feeder cities through another hub rather than through the Twin Cities. Chicago's O'Hare airport is really the only close competitive hub site. Hubbing out of any other city would cost many millions more. O'Hare is already bulging at the seams, and is now legally prohibited from expansion. Chicago is trying to build a new airport elsewhere to handle their existing traffic. Adding the Twin Cities' present hub traffic of about 200,000 operations each year to O'Hare just can't be done. Unless our politicians are totally inept, it should be a relatively easy matter to negotiate: the airline that agrees to continue the hub operation here is the airline that gets the gates and our multi -billion dollar origin -destination business. In any event, neither the economic future of this country nor the traffic levels here are a function of which airline survives. As long as we continue to generate a growth economy in our region, there will be no shortage of airlines delighted to get that additional business. 14 �•r�'<.•�� • • JANUARY 19,1995 MSP AIRPORT NEWS PAGE 7 MAC Now Looking At 'Newt' Congress The Metropolitan Airports Commission is taking a closer look at its position regard- ing the new Republican Congress. At its meetingJan. 17; AssistantExecu- tive Director J. Robert Stassen outlined proposed plan but the MAC shied from making it a formal resolution. It called for protecting the trust funds collected as an . airline ticket tax and dedicated to aviation. - The funds now total $4 billion. Commissioner John Himle said he . oppses dedicated funds and would vote against any such resolution. Commissioner Tommy Merickel agreed. • • Stassen said the MAC's lobbyingrepre- sentative in Washington needs direction and that there is adangerof airportfunding becoming a `patchwork quilt" of individ- ual states developing their own airport systems on a piecemeal basis. • The MAC's legislative committee will review the matter and make recommenda- tions. Chainnan Richard Braun announced the formation of anew Dual Track Task Force Committee that will study the construction - of a new airport or expansion of MSP. The MACis to make its recommendation to the State Legislature in the summer of 1996. Chairing the committee will be Com- missioner Patrick O'Neill, with Steve Cramer as vice chair. Also serving will be Merickel and Darcy Hitesman. • Thearchitecturalfirm ofNeedlesTamen presented a video that allowsplarmecs watch animated airport activity and to project how new runway configurations or the status quo would be affected by the pro- jected increases in takeoffs and landings by the year 2020. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO February 1, 19 TO: Airport Relations Commission M ers FROM: Tom Lawell, City Administ 5 SUBJECT: Discuss MAC Response to Comments Regarding MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan DISCUSSION As part of the Dual -Track Airport Planning Process, the MAC is currently preparing a Final Alternative Environmental Document (AED) for the Long Term Comprehensive Plan (LTCP) for MSP. This document is intended to identify the various impacts' associated with future runway and terminal expansion options at MSP, and the document will be used by the MAC and the MN Legislature to help make the final decision as to whether MSP is eventually expanded or moved. Obviously, such expansion has the potential of severely impacting Mendota Heights and for that reason the Commission and City Council have followed the AED preparation process closely. Previously the City has gone on record, both verbally at a public hearing held at Washburn High School on October 26, 1994 and in writing with a letter to the MAC dated November 25, 1994, opposed to the construction of a third north parallel runway at MSP. The MAC has now compiled all of the written comments related to the LTCP and has published a "Draft Final" AED which totals some 150+ pages. Attached please find selected excerpts from the Draft Final AED which might be of some interest to you. Should you be interested in reviewing a full copy of the Draft Final AED, please let me know as an extra copy is available at City Hall. Submitted letters, and MAC responses, of particular interest are attached from the U.S. Department of the Interior- National Park Service, the MN Department of Natural Resources, the MN Historical Society, the MN Department of Transportation, and the cities of Bloomington, Eagan, Inver Grove Heights, Mendota Heights, Minneapolis and Richfield. In addition, the letter from Mendota Heights' residents Charles and Kathrine Rothstein also made it into the document. We can further discuss the comments made by each contributor at our upcoming meeting. The MAC will accept another round of public comments on the adequacy of the Final AED through February 13, 1995. After that, the MAC will meet to formally select which MSP expansion alternative is most preferred. The actual date of this meeting is not yet known, but it will be sometime in February, 1995. It would be helpful if Commission members could be available on short notice to attend the MAC meeting at which this final decision will be made. Hopefully by Wednesday, February 8th I will be able to give you more details regarding the specific MAC meeting date. ACTION REQUIRED Review the attached comments and discuss the expansion issues raised by the various contributors. The Commission should discuss whether or not other issues should be communicated to the MAC regarding the adequacy of the Draft Final AED prior to the February 13, 1995 deadline. Lastly, Commission members should discuss if members will be able to attend the upcoming MAC meeting at which a final expansion option will be chosen. METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION Minneapolis -Saint Paul International Airport 6040 - 28th Avenue South • Minneapolis, MN 55450-2799 Phone (612) 726-8100 • Fax (612) 726-5296 TO: Interested Persons and Agencies FROM: Nigel D. Finney, Deputy Executive Director DATE: January 27, 1995 RE: Adequacy of Final Alternative Environmental Document (AED) Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport (MSP) Long -Term Comprehensive Plan (LTCP) Dual Track Airport Planning Process Enclosed for your review is a draft copy of the Final AED for the LTCP at MSP. The Final AED includes responses to comments received on the Draft AED. This document was reviewed by the Metropolitan Airports Commission on January 17, 1995. Written comments on the adequacy of the Final AED should be directed to Jenn Unruh, Metropolitan Airports Commission, 6040 28th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55450. Comments are due by February 13, 1995. This AED is one element of the Dual Track Airport Planning Process mandated by the Minnesota Legislature, and is being conducted under the Alternative Environmental Review Process approved by the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board in March, 1992, and in general conformance with Federal Aviation Administration requirements. GEN94\AEDMEMO.195 The Metropolitan Airports Commission is an affirmative action employer. Reliever Airports: .\IRLAKE • .\NOKA COUNTY BLAINE • CRYSTAL • FLYING CLOUD • LAKE EL.\tO • SAINT I AUL DOWNTOWN APPENDIX B.-- AED COMMENTS AND RESPONSES The following is a summary of oral comments at the public hearing for the MSP Long -Term Comprehensive Plan AED; written comments are reproduced on subsequent pages. Final AED - MSP Long -Term Comprehensive Plan B-1 Oral Comment Response 1. Several persons expressed opposition to a new north parallel runway because it would result in more noise in Mendota, Mendota Heights, Inver Grove Heights and Minneapolis. 1. No response. 2. Expansion of MSP is unacceptable; should use high speed rail between the present terminal and parking facilities and remote runways in Dakota County. (Ed Wiik, • Minneapolis) 2. This alternative is being considered. 3. Concern regarding the cumulative effect of expanding MSP, I -35W, 1-494 and T.H. 62 on the Minnehaha Watershed due to stormwater 'runoff, and groundwater levels and lake levels due to dewatering. (Representative Jean Wagenius) 3. This concern will be addressed in the EIS. 4. Concern about the ability to adequately respond to a crash within the state safety zones. Without those zones, MAC fire trucks are inaccessible to a crash, and the cities' equipment can only deal with house fires. (Representative Jean Wagenius) 4. Existing MAC policy is to respond to aircraft accidents in the state safety zones. 5. Under Alternatives 1 and 2, the new north parallel runway would be only 800 feet from the existing runway, which would be unsafe. No new airport in America would be allowed to do this. (Representative Wes Skoglund) 5. The 800 -foot separation of the parallel runways will affect the capacity of the runways — but not the safety. FAA has reviewed the layout and did not identify any safety concerns. 6. In the long run, because of increases in traffic and changes in technology, the airport will have to move. We should move it now while we have the options and while it's much cheaper. (David Sattinger, Minneapolis) 6. The dual track process addresses the air transportation needs to the year 2020. It is impossible to accurately predict changes in the airline industry beyond 2020. Final AED - MSP Long -Term Comprehensive Plan B-1 7. In bad weather, full use of a converging (north -south) runway would not be permitted, which would drastically reduce airport capacity. The large residential neighborhood directly adjacent to parallel runways at MSP makes this one of the worst impacted single family areas in the nation and perhaps the world. This airport is totally incompatible with its location and should be moved. (James Serrin, Minneapolis) 7. The FAA Capacity Design Team analyzed the north -south runway layout (Alternatives 5 and 6) and determined that there would be sufficient capacity to accommodate the year 2020 traffic .forecast, with allowance for bad weather conditions. 8. Has a study been done on the emotional impact to human beings exposed to excessive noise? This needs to be included in the environmental impacts. (Chuck Ekstrum, Minneapolis) 8. Studies have been done. The Federal Interagency Commitee on Noise (FICON), in its 1992 Policy Report, stated that studies of health effects due to aircraft noise have produced conflicting results. Most studies have shown little or no association between noise exposure and non -auditory health effects. (See MSP Long -Term Comprehensive Plan Scoping Decision Document, March 1994, p. 18.) Final AED - MSP Long -Term Comprehensive Plan United States Department of the Interior mernimenam L7619 (MWR-PQ) MN 1369 X NATIONAI. PARR SERVI(:E urn... Rets nnlJag ►Mn 4,en n...n. wa..+. o10a4117I Ms. Jann Unruh Metropolitan Airports Commission 6040 28th Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450 Dear Ms. Unruh: tin 2 9 1994 We have reviewed the draft alternative environmental document (AED) for the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport Long -Tera Comprehensive Plan. Th. Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) is concurrently ing alternatives for both expansion of the existing airport and construction of a new replacement airport as part of a "duel -track" planning process for determining future airport needs in the Twin Cities metropolitan area. This AED describes the environmental impacts of four different alternatives to expand the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport. An additional AED will be prepared for construction of a new airport. The alternatives selected through the AED processes for expansion of the existing airport and construction of a now airport will become two alternatives for evaluation in en environmental impact statement (EIS) which will be prepared for the project In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. We are providing the following comments based on our special expertise in regard to protection and management of 4(f) resources and our responsibility for the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area. SECTION 4(f1 RESOURCES There are numerous resources in the affected area that are protected under section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act. As indicated in the AED, section 4(f) prohibits the Secretary of Transportation from approving any project which requires the use of any publicly owned land from a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or any land from a historic site of national, state or local significance unless there is no feasible and prudent alternative and all possible planning to minimize harm to such properties has been completed. The AED does a good job of identifying the 4(f) properties in the project area. However, because 4(f) properties are add d in four different sections of the document, 4(f) issues are somewhat difficult to track through the document. We request that Table 22 - "Section 4(f) Park and Recreation Lands" be expanded to list all potentially affected 4(f) properties, including historic properties and refuges, rather than only park and recreation lands. In addition, we believe the definition of potentially effected area as used in the document may need to be expanded. The area of potential effect considered in the AED seems to be restricted primarily to areas affected by ground disturbing activities, rather than also considering indirect impacts to 4(f) properties. The term "use" in section 4(f) applies to both direct and constructive uses. Constructive uses are those that may not require ground disturbance of 4(f) lands, but that have indirect impacts that substantially impair the function of parks, recreation areas, waterfowl or wildlife refuges, or that substantially impair the historic integrity of a historic site. The final document should clarify whether any 4(f) properties will be impacted by constructive uses. Since expansion or relocation of the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport is a DOT project, and compliance with section 4(f) will be required, we would expect 4(f) requirements to weigh heavily in the alternative selection process. A. • A. The Draft AED addressed all issues relative to the potential expansion of Minneapolis -St. Paul Airport (MSP) alphabetically and, therefore, 4(f) issues were handled separately. The Environmental Impact Statement will include all 4(f) issues in one section of the document. B. The area of potential effect includes indirect impacts (e.g., noise) for Section 4(f) properties es stated in Sections 111.1.1, 111.L.1 and III.S.1p 1 1 J a 1 0 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 MISSISSIPPI NATIONAL RIVER AND RECi;gATION AREA The Mississippi National River was established by Congress in 1988 in order to: (1) protect, preserve, and enhance the significant values of the waters and lends of the Mississippi River Corridor within the Minneapolis/St. Paul Metropolitan Area; (2) encourage adequate coordination of all governmental programs affecting the land and water resources of the Mississippi River Corridor; and (3) provide a management framework to assist the State of Minnesota and its units of local government in development and implementation of integrated resource management programs for the Mississippi River Corridor (Public Law 100-696). The proposed project could impact the Mississippi National River. A comprehensive management plan for the Mississippi National River is currently being reviewed by the Secretary of the Interior. We expect the Secretary to approve the plan sometime in early 1995. As the plan is not yet approved, our comments in regard to the Mississippi National River are based primarily on the consistency between the proposed airport expansion and the purposes for which Congress established the Mississippi Rational River. During the period before plan approval. review of projects of this nature is mandated and guided by 16 U.S.C. S 460zz-2(1). The Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport is currently adjacent to, but fully outside the boundaries of the Mississippi National River. If alternative 5 or 6 of the AED is adopted, the airport would remain outside the Mississippi National River boundary. However, if alternative 1 or 2 is adopted, the airport would expand into the boundary of the Mississippi National River. Approximately 150 acres of land within the Mississippi National River boundary would be incorporated into the airport under either alternative 1 or 2. The MAC should be aware that 16 U.S.C. S 460z8 -3(b)(1) requires any department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States to notify the Secretary of the Interior before commencing any undertaking within the Mississippi National River. The department, agency, or instrumentality also rust notify the Secretary if it proposes to fund or issue a permit for any undertaking within the area. The Secretary, under the parameters listed in 16 U.S.C. S 4608z - 3(b)(1) must then determine the compatibility between the proposed undertaking and the comprehensive management plan for the Mississippi National River. Via delegation of authority, the Secretary's review responsibilities related to the Mississippi National River corridor would be conducted by the National Park Service (NPS). We believe this mandate would apply to expansion of Minneapolis/Saint Paul International Airport if alternative 1 or 2 is adopted because of the necessary permits and funding from the U.S. DOT and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The draft AED contains no reference to or acknowledgement.of the Mississippi National River. The final document should depict the Mississippi National River on pertinent supe and graphics and address the potential impact of the alternatives for airport expansion • on the Mississippi National River. For your reference, the Mississippi National River includes not only the Mississippi River corridor, but also a four -mile stretch of the Minnesota River and adjacent lands between the Interstate -494 bridge and the confluence of the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers. Historic Resources Alternatives 1 and 2 would both result in the destruction of most of that part of the Fort Snelling National Historic Landmark commonly known as "Area J." This section of the landmark is within the boundaries of the Mississippi National River. The NPS would object to the demolition of any properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places, especially those that have achieved the status of national historic landmark. The Fort Snelling National Historic Landmark already is listed as threatened due to severe physical deterioration. Destruction of the buildings along Taylor Avenue would create an additional, significant effect to the integrity of the national landmark. We note that further research and surveys are planned in order to determine the extent and significance of potentially impacted archeological and historic resources. As these studies are ongoing, we reserve final comment on the potential impacts of the project to those resources until after the studies have been completed. The MAC should coordinate closely with the Minnesota Historical Society and other agencies to ensure the area of potential effects identified in the AED fully encamp all historic and archeological resources that could be impacted. • C. The Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (MNRRA) is shown in Figgure 24 in the Final AED and discussed in Section III.L. The impacts on the area within the MNRRA adjacent to MSP would be the same as those noted for Fort Snelling State Park (in Section III.L of the Draft AED). The management plan for the MNRRA, once approved, will be addressed in the Environmental Impact Statement, if either Alternative 1 or 2 is selected as the preferred alternative for MSP. D. The evaluation has been completed, and final conclusions on National Register eligibility have been incorporated into the Final AED. The State Historic Preservation Office at the Minnesota Historical Society has been involved in Section 106/Section 4(f) review of all facets of this project, including the area of potential, effect. E. The nine -hole golf course at Fort Snelling State Park includes more than 40 acres of land. While selecting either Alternative 1 or 2 es the preferred alternative for expansion of MSP does not necessarily preclude relocating the golf course to parkland in close proximity to the airport,such a mitigation would be difficult. The Metropolitan Council's Open Space Development Guide/Policy Plan indicates that planned acquisition of land for recreation purposes in close proximity to the airport is complete. Relocating the golf course could displace other existing recreational activities or natural resources or could gelheforoetnl e currently not contmpatdrrcreaioa activities. F. Section 111.1. of the Final AED includes the proposed interpretive/visitor center to be constructed by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources at Fort Snelling State Park. G. The MAC and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency are currently discussing the terms of e revised NPDES permit for MSP. The revised permit is expected to include technology and water quality - based standards as conditions for discharge. Appropriate controls will be designed to ensure that stormwater is discharged inppaccordance with the development alternative selected. regardless of the H. Clearer graphics are included in the Final AED. 1. The FAA Final EIS (and selection of the appropriate alternative) will not be completed until the Minnesota Legislature makes a decision. A joint report with recommendations by MAC and the Metropolitan Council will be submitted to the legislature. The AED process results in the selection of the best alternative for expansion of MSP and for developing a new major airport in Dakota County.Other reasonable alternatives for meeting the future air transportation needs of the region will be addressed in the EIS, including the No Action alternative. The EIS will also address all reasonsflore alternatives the elimination tified in scoping of any alternative. state the Recreation Resource` Alternatives 1 and 2 would also have major impacts to recreation and park lands, specifically Sossen Field and Ft. Snelling State Park golf course. The Fort Snelling golf course and adjacent athletic fields are within the boundaries of the Mississippi National River. As the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area continues to grow, land available for outdoor recreation becomes increasingly limited. The demand for golf courses is particularly strong. The loss of the Fort Snelling facility and/or the Rich Acres golf course, would contribute to increasing pressure on a network of golf courses that already is severely strained. The AED indicates that the only means to mitigate loss of the Fort Snelling golf course under alternatives 1 or 2 would be to select alternative 5 or 6. While selection of alternative 5 or 6 would avoid direct impacts to the golf course, we believe 'that if alternative 1 or 2 were selected there may be other options to mitigate for loss of the golf course. If alternative 1 or 2 is selected, we recommend that the MAC work with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and other agencies to identify potential replacement lend suitable for outdoor recreation use. The Metropolitan Council's Open Space Development Guide/Policy Plan lists more than 5,500 acres that remain to be acquired to complete the planned metropolitan parks and open space system. Some of these acres are in close proximity to the airport and may have potential for use as mitigation lands. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources is planning to construct a new interpretive/visitor center at Fort Snelling State Park. The comprehensive management plan for the Mississippi Rational River identifies this center as one of the cooperative facilities that would become one of the focal points for education within the Mississippi National River. This center would be within the area of potential effect. Potential impacts on the facility are not addressed in the AED. A revised document should address potential impacts to the planned interpretive/visitor center. )rater Duality As stated in the AED, all the alternatives would significantly increase loading of pollutants into the storm sewer system and the discharge of pollutants to receiving waters (principally, the Minnesota River). These pollutants would soon migrate downstream and impact the Mississippi National River and the Mississippi River. For the most part, the AED only lists options for treatment and mitigation of pollution. The lack of commitment to a treatment process makes it impossible to accurately potential iwpaccts. Regardless of the alternativf selected, the HPS would insist that an aggressive, state-of-the-art pollutant management system be developed to ensure strict limits on the amount of pollutants reaching the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers. feLARhi Cil The illustrations in the AED are difficult to read and interpret. Illustrations in the "Description of Six Airport Development Concepts" (MAC 1991) are more adequate. We encourage the MAC to develop clearer graphics for future plans and environmental documents. pIIAL TRACK PROCESS We have some questions about the *dual -track" planning process. The AED indicates that the evaluation and analysis of the airport expansion, a new replacement airport, and any other feasible options will take place in 1995. The MAC and FAA will prepare a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) in 1996. The MAC is also scheduled to make a recommendation to the Minnesota Legislature in July 1996. The Minnesota Legislature is scheduled to select the appropriate alternative in 1997. Since Federal actions are involved in the airport plans and an EIS will be prepared to comply with the NEPA, the FAA and/or DOT must also have a role to play in selecting the appropriate alternative. The final AED should explain how the decision by the Minnesota Legislature and the decision by the FAA and/or DOT regarding selection of the appropriate alternative will relate to one another. While we understand that the MAC is using the AED process to select alternatives for further consideration in an EIS, we are concerned that the process may prematurely eliminate some reasonable alternatives. The EIS must 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 (40 CFR 1502.14). i 1 i F. G. H. 1. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i ONNAM The Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport is unique in that it is virtually surrounded by many outstanding natural, historic, cultural, and recreational resources. Each of the four alternatives could have profound effects on these resources. We commend the MAC for their efforts in early coordination and consultation with agencies who manage these areas and facilities. We encourage the MAC to continue working with agencies such as the Minnesota Historical Society, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the MPS to help enoure the long term protection of the area's unique and significant resources. Please contact Ms. JoAnn tyral, Superintendent, Mississippi National River and Recreation Area, at 612-290-4160 if you have any questions. To discuss NEPA or section 4(f) compliance, please contact Ms. Jill Medland of my staff at 402-221-3461. Sincerely, j 1 U William W. Schenk Acting Regional Director cc: Ms. JoAnn Eyre/ Superintendent Mississippi National River and Recreation Area 175 East Fifth Street Suite 418, Box 41 St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-2901 �(��nffmST1r^AAETE �OOy qr/% DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 500 LAFAYETTE ROAD • ST, tW)L. NNESOTA • 55155.10 10 MN OMR INFORMATION 11111 111141$7 November 25. 1994 knn Unruh Metropolitan Airports Commission 6040 25th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55450 RF.: Minneapolis -SI. Paul International Airport (MSP) Long -Term Comprehensive Plan Draft Altemative Environmental Document Dear Ms. Unruh: The Department of Nottual Resources (DNR) has reviewed the Draft Alternative Environmental Document (AED) for the MSP Long -Tenn Comprehensive Plan portion of to Dun -Track Airport Planning Proeesr, we offer the following comments for your consideration. Shortland Considerations Mother Lake has a shorelnml classification of Natural Emironmen . and the Minnesota Riva has a classification of Urban. Although the airport Is ■ unique land use, the AED should acknowledge the development considerations associated vrith these classifications. I've enclosed an excerpt from Minnesota Rule regarding shore/and standards, for your reference. Floodplain Considerations Although negligible across alternatives, runway lighting structures should be constructed to avoid increases in the I00 -year flood elevation of Lite ova. Impacts to Protected Waters We note that in the stnrmwatcrlpollutnnt discharge section, Duck Lake is referred to as ■ "retenlinn basin"; as a public water, Duck Lake must be accorded the same considerations as Mother Lake or any other public water. All alternatives involve filling public waters; the AED correctly notes this would require a DNR permit. We encourage the MAC to work closely with our regional waters staff should the legislature direct you to upgrade MSP. Should the MAC have a choice between briding or filling portions of Mother Lake, we strongly favor britt ing Although bridging the sake would effectively remove the acreage front use for wildlife, filling would irretrievably destroy the wetland acreage. If possible. the shoreline of Mother Lake should be len in as natural a condition as ,ossib(e. If trees cannot he allowed to grow nenr a runway. we encourage you to consider planting prairie vegetation nmuld the Joke. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER i I A. B. c. A. It is noted that Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport and the Metropolitan Airports Commission ere not specifically subject to the state shoreland regulations. Enforcement of these regulations are delegated to local jurisdictions, such as cities. However, Section 111.11 of the AED (Wetlands) states that Mother Lake is a state -protected water and, consequently, a DNR permit would be needed. It is assumed that specific concems about Mother Lake raised by the DNR would be addressed during that process. B. This construction wifl be designed to avoid Increases in the 100 -year flood elevation, if practical. C. Duck Lake (protected water 27-25P) has received untreated runoff from the airport for many years. This use was acknowledged by the DNR in a July 1, 1993 letter to the MPCA and permitted to continue so long as the lake basin remains natural and runoff entering the lake is of no worse water quality than has been historically discharged. The MAC will work closely with DNR regional waters staff should modifications or filling of Duck Lake be required as a consequence of expansion of MSP. The MAC acknowledges the DNR's concerns regarding potential impacts to Mother Lake and will work closely with DNR regional waters staff to ensure appropriate management and/or mitigation of any waters of the State of Minnesota impacted by expansion of MSP. .knn Unruh November 25. 1994 ,'age 2 Water Appropriations and Wells Any appropriation of water (including construction dewatering) exceeding 10,000 gallons per day or 1 million gallons per year would require an emendation cion permit from the DNR. Any abandoned wells discovered in construction areas should be sealed in accordance with Minnesota Statutes sections 1031.301-345. Erosion Control Although premature to discuss construction specifics, we encourage you to incorporate erasion control measures to minimize the amount of sediment discharged to Mother Lake and the Minnesota River. Slarmwaler runoff We support any effort to reduce pollutant loading via stormwater that encs from the airport. and to treat slnrmwater that comes from associated roadways and buildings. Although this issue is generally equivalent across alternatives, we discourage the use of existing wetland% particularly public waters, as primary treatment ponds. We recommend you construct NURP (National Urban Runoff Program) ponds to remove sediments front stormwater before routing it 10 wetlands. Additionally, we understand there are many design limitations involved at this site, hut nonetheless encourage you to limit the amount of impervious surface created when feasible. Weiland Mitigation The AEI) correctly identifies the reed for wetland replacement, anticipating. 2:1 ratio for wetlands falling under Wetland Conservation Ac* jurisdiction and. I:I ratio for public waters wetlands. Although unlikely to egged alternative selection, the MAC should be .ware that the replacement ratio for WCA wetlands may be higher than 2:1 depending on site location and other factors, and that the DNR could request 2:1 mitigation for protected wetlands given the uncertninty of a mitigation the and tie lag time before replacement wetlands would become fully funelinnnf. We would expect to negotiate this issue during the permitting process should the MSP alternative be selected. impaels to Fort Snelling Slate Parks Other maps in the document accurately libel the Furl Snelling Golf Course area as "Fort Snelling. Sale Park. Military ilistory Arca". ilowever, figure 13 labels this area "Cemeteries and Military Properties" (blue). This is inaccurate, and should be labeled "Park and Recreation (green). it smears the golf course would be acquired in either Alternative 1 or 2. The AED does not indicate whether any of the Taylor Avenue Row Howes or other military buildings would be acquired, but it appears some acquisition would be necessary (figure 2). 1 he AFD correctly identifies potential for impacts to the Taylor Avenue complex (Arca C) and the lower park arcs along Snelling Lake (Ara D) resulting from Alternatives 1 and 2. Alternatives 5 and 6 would not affect the park. Thunk you for the opportunity to review this document. Generally, the assessment of existing natural resources and potential impacts la very well done. In sum, Alternative I appears to entail the kit disturbance to natural resources; It p opoaes the kat impact to wetlands and Mother Lake and minimizes aircraft overflights to bald eagle nesting areas. Pknse don't hesitate to contact me with any questions about this letter. Sincerely. 41'46cr� Rebecca A. Wooden Environmental Plainer Office of Planning (612)297.3355 c: Rod Sando, Commissioner Kathleen Wallace. Region VI Steve Colvin. Ecological Services Joan Galli. Wildlife 1ii11 Weir, Parks and Recreation Pete Olterson, Waters tan Shaw Wolff Wildlife Kathryn Kramer, MPCA Gregg Downing, EQB 1 I 1 i D. E. F. G. H. D. Agreed. E. These measures will be Included in the EIS. F. The MAC acknowledges the DNR's concerns regarding the use of wetlands for primary treatment of stormwater at MSP. As part of the on-going NPDES repermitting process, MAC has proposed that appropriately -sized wet detention ponds be constructed for each of the MSP watersheds prior to discharge. it is anticipated that these wet detention ponds would be enhanced or similar ponds would be constructed to accommodate development under any of the alternatives. G. The MAC is aware that the WCA wetland replacement ratio may, under certain circumstances, be in excess of 2 to 1. However, the actual replacement ratio cannot be ascertained until a specific wetland replacement site and design is selected. Since all four alternatives would effect the same acreage of WCA wetland, a replacement ratio In excess of 2 to 1 would affect each alternative in an identical fashion. Thus, it is reasonable to assume a 2 to 1 replacement ratio for comparing the relative impacts of the various alternatives. A 1 to 1 replacement ratio was assumed for public waters wetlands (i.e., protected wetlands under the jurisdiction of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources) because a specific replacement ratio for such waters hes not bean set forth by the legislature. Minn. Stat. 103G.245 Subd. 7(bl re- 9utres that permits for work in public waters include ... provisions to compensate for the detrimental aspects of the change". The MAC recognizes that, In certain circumstances, a replacement ratio in excess of 1 to 1 may be necessary to adequately mitigate impacts,and provide replacement wetlands of equal or greaterublic value than those affected. However, as ,with WCA wetlands, the actual replacement ratio for public waters wetlands cannot be ascertained until a specific replacement site and design is selected. As indicated in the comment, the actual replacement ratio for public waters wetlands will be determined during the permit process. H. It is noted that the golf course and adjacent recreational facilities et Fort Snelling State Park are park and recreation areas" under the jurisdiction of the Department of Natural Resources and operated by the Minneapolis Park Board. Consequently, this area should bereen, not blue, on Figure 13. The map of planned land use will be emended to reflect that In the Environmental Impact Statement. Section 111.1.2 of the Draft AED (Historical/Architectural Resources) discusses the impact of development of the north parallel runway on the Fort Snelling National Historic Landmark District and the Old Fort Snelling Nations Register Historic District, including the demolition of buildings constructed in the nineteenth century. Specifically, three barracks and nine officers' quarters along Taylor Avenue would be removed es a result of development of the north parallel runway. fri 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 tc. Minnesota Department of Transrortation Transportation Building 395 John Ireland Boulevard Saints I:111I Minnesota 55155 December 1, 1994 Richard Braun, Chair Metropolitan Airports Commission 6040 281h Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55450 SIJWIICT: DRAFT AI,TERNATIVF. ENVIRONMENTAL. DOCUMENT: LONG TERM COSIPREIIEN.SIVE PLAN, MINNEAPOLIS•ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Draft Plan. We have reviewed the Draft Alternative Environmental Document (AED) for the Minneapolis/St. Paul international Airport and have the following comments: For more Than two years we have articulated our concern that impacts to the 'Min Cities Metropolitan Area ground transportation system have not been given adequate or timely consideration in this process. We are distressed to see this inattention remains in the present document, and feel this Inattention cannot be allowed to continue. In the strongest terms, we urge that cnrrldnr•level studies he completed for each of the alternatives still under consideration before a decision is made regarding which alternative will be chosen for detailed review in the EIS process. These studies are essential to provide a reasonable understanding of the nature and magnitude of social. environmenlnl, and economic impacts; reasonable cost estimates, and the modal options and implications of each of the alternatives. The best and most complete information is essential for major public policy decisions. We are adamant that no credible decision can he made on the alternative to be studied in the environmental impact statement in the absence of more detailed information on these issues. According to the All), all of the alternatives will impact the ground transportation system. Considerable differences exist In the Impacts generated by those alternatives which require an east access, and Moose That require a west access. Alternatives #2 and #6, west access alternatives, will require extensive reconstruction of the local roadway and trunk higlwray systems. As a result, they will cause significant sneial and environmental impacts to the local communities and to the regional transportation system, as well as major impacts to both Mother Lake and Legion Lake. According to the process defined by the Metropolitan Airports Commission, these issues will not be ■ddressed until the EIS. Dy then only one alternative will he under consideration for MSP. Based on available information, we will not know if that is the best alternative, or even a good alternative. We will not allow Mn/DO'i to be put into the position of accepting a fair a rompli, and to then be pressured to make an intrinsially i i A. B. A. Corridor -level studies were prepared. MAC's ground transportation consultant, BRW, prepared preliminary layouts of alternative access alternatives for west access to a new west terminal based on the latest Metropolitan Council forecasts. These lay- outs were submitted to Mn/DOT for review and comment. In response to Mn/DOT's request for more detailed analysis of retaining the current east access with a tunnel to serve a new west terminal, BRW prepared an analysis of the tunnel which was discussed with Mn/DOT on October 10, 1994. In order to meet the schedule mandated by the Minnesota legislature, MAC selected* west access preliminary layout for environmental review in r' Draft AED; however, MAC will continue to sto access issues In coordination with Mn/DOT. B. The differential environmental impacts of the west access for Alternative 2 and 6 are included in Section III.M of the AED. The impacts were determined from a 'corridor -level' analysis along T.H. 62 and T.H. 77, es shown In Figure 25. No wetlands or historic properties were Identified. See Tables 25 and 26 and Figure 25 for the socioeconomic impacts. unworkable situation function at an acceptable level. For example, a west access would exert considerable effect. beyond that associated with construction activities for access Interchanges on iII 77 (Cedar Avenue) and T11 62 (Crosstown). There Is also the question of whether TIi 77 could accommodate traffic increases associated with the access change. The effect a west access may have on congestion on 111 77 needs to be understood Further, a west access would require substantial modification to the 1- 494/11I 77 interchange. Other similar issues also need study. We continue to request that a west terminal with an east nevem be maintained as an alternative. We remain unconvinced that the cwerall impaclrid this alternative, as compared to the other alternatives. are so obvious or negative that It can be dismissed at this early point in the process. We are also concerned that a number of ground transportation alternatives, such as high occupancy vehicle lanes, transit improvements, shuttle service, or travel demand techniques have not been Investigated. Now future LRT may play into this should be investigated as well. The impacts to these mode alternatives would clearly be different for an east terminal than for a west terminal, but until they are investigated, detailed impacts remain unknown. We cannot assume that we can simply acld or enlarge interchanges and add lanes to the present highway system to get people to and from a reconfigured airport. The Metropolitan Casimir' Transportation Development OuWe/Policy Plan states that all new traffic capacity should be given to multi -occupancy vehicle users over solo drivers, and that incentives should be provided to encourage ridesharing and transit use. The intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) restricts construction of additional capacity In Tnnsponatlon Management Areas which ere non-attalnment areas, such as the Twin Cities, unless such improvements are pan of an approved Congestion Management Plan. While the ad does not prohibit construction, it does restrict funding for additional capacity fur single occupant vehicles. The Final ACD should also evaluate conformity with the Clean Air Amendments (CAAA), and recently issued Conformity Rules. As the primary agency responsible for the transportation system in the region, Mn/DOT would like to work MAC in studying and resolving these issues. We have extended similar offers in the past, but have been largely ignored. We hope that can change, and that Mn/DOT and the Commission can work together to insure that IIie best overall transportation system is provided for the people of the region. Yours Truly, Venn ancr Jeff Ilamiel Natalia Diaz Cindy Jepson c. D. F. C. As discussed in Section III.N.2, Impacts of Transportation Access, the impacts of a west access and of en vest access on the regional system ere very similar: Figure 30 indicates the same number of lanes required on T.H. 77 for each access alternative. D. There is I currently a substantial amount of rideshering `at MSP — shuttle service, limos, taxis, buses — which would continue. An east access for ticketed passengers not requiring checked baggage is included in the west access alternative, and reflected in the forecasts. There is no commitment by the Metropolitan Council to provide LRT service to MSP, although MAC has included provisions for LRT in the terminal preliminary design. E. Conformity with CAAA will be addressed in the EIS, as stated in the Scoping Decision Document. F. MAC esteb ished the MSP Technical Committee to address technical issues in the development of the Long -Term Comprehensive Plan for MSP. In general, Mn/DOT hes not attended these monthly meetings. A meeting was held with Mn/DOT on October 10, 1894 to discuss access options. One issue is the traffic forecasts by the Metropolitan Council for the Dual Track' compared to Mn/DOT's forecasts for the I -35W and 1494 EIS s. It was agreed that this would be reviewed. A meeting on the forecast Issue was held with Metropolitan Council (MCI staff and Mn/DOT on, November 1, 1994. Mn/DOT retained a consultant to review the forecasts. An approach was agreed on and work is in process by Mn/DOT's consultant. MAC and MC are waiting for the results of their review. MAC will continue to study access options for a new west terminal that will not unduly impact the regional transportation system — and is committed to work with Mn/DOT in this study. MAC staff hes subsequently met with Mn/DOT personnel on December 23, 1994 and agreed to an approach for continued analysis of the ground access issue. MINNESOTA 111STORICAL SOCIETY Noveeber 21, lege Mr. Nigel Pinney Metropolitan Airports Commission 6040 26th Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota SS4S0 Dear Hr. Pinney. M, Dual Track Planning PrOCOSSI Hennepin County Mtnneapoll■-St. Paul International Airport co.pcehanrira /len SHPO Number, 14-0611 Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Alternative Invlron.ental Document for the Long -Tera Co.prehenalve Plan for the Hlnneapolle-It. Paul international Airport. Our comment. are as follow, 1. The report split. the information on cultural reeourc.s into separate sections on archaeological resource. and history/architecture resources. Since the same review proem applies to both groups, thls separation could be confusing for many readers. If separate section■ are maintained, each discussion should crone -reference the other. 2. The discussion of archaeoloogqteel re.ourcee appropriately acknowledges the need for additional archaeological survey. ThLs survey strategy will need to be carefully integrated into the overall development .ehedul.. 3. The archaeologic.' site In Area C, as dlecuseed on page III - 11. appears to be located within the boundaries of the Port Snelling Historic District, which is already Meted on the National Register of Historic Place.. 4. we have previously recommended that the Area of Potential affect (Ater for the project be submitted to the Advisory Council for an early review. Secau.. the API for this project is unesu.11y complex. we continue to believe that this review by the Council le Important. S. The narrative dlscupelon onrojeet effects should include specific information on the special protection afforded National Historic Landmarks during the Section los process. 6. The dlscuselon of mitigation measures for historical/architectural resources should include avoidance es ■ priority consideration. In addition to HAS•/HAIR documentation of resources, the dimeuanion of potential mitigation could a1.o include such items as design review for work on National Register properties or for new construction adjacent to National Register properties. Mitigation could also Include .pecial planning consideration, for properties affected by new development related to airport ,development. The final AID needs to include a specific •sent of effect on all National Regletsr eligible properties. as well as appropriate avoidance and/or mitigation measure. for •sch site. 7. Oath the section on archaeological respect's and the section on hletorleal/erchiteetural resource• contain information •bout the eligibility or non -eligibility of specific properties to the National P.gt.t.r. Our office has been in aloes consultation with the consultants who sae completing the survey and evaluation work for the project. and we hay* participated in dlecueolonu related to eligibility of Inventoried properties. However. for the record. the eurvey reports ars yet to be completed. and we have not, et this point, concurred with most epeclfio property e valuations. (we have commented on a few properties as part of the review of separate project proposals. For example, we commented on the eligibility of the original NOTA -Chamberlain Terminal Complex as part of an TAA a -Sean monitor project.) Leapt for saes archaeological propsrtlao. these evaluations need to be complete and included In the final ARD. S . The discussion of 4(1) in Section L is inadequate In relation to historic properties. This section does contain a cross reference to the separate chapter■ on archaeological resources and historical/.rchltseturad resources, but these two'ehapter. discus. Section 106. not section 4(1). The 'pacific applicability of 4(1) to historical properties needs to be discussed in Section L. P. Implementation of this plan will not occur for a considerable length of time. Seewes evaluation of the historic significance of properties takes into account changing perception. of significance, provisions need to be developed for updating the cultural resource review as part or the overall project schedule. 10. The report indicates that the level of ad fleets on cultural resources would be much more significant for alternatives 1 and 2 than for alternative. 6 and 4. we agree with this 0t. Mitigating the lope of significant portions of the National Landmark fort Snelling Historic District would be very difficult. and we would strongly recommend that alternatives 1 and 2 bs avoided. If you have any question regarding our comments, please contact Dennis Olmmeeted in aur Review end Compliance Section at 612-256-5462. N. look forward to working with you to address cultural resource concerns through the S ection 104 review process for this project. y - ALAIls S mite L. 6loo.berq (✓ Deputy Stat. Hletorle Preservation Officer 1 A. c. F. G. H. A. This issue was considered In the format design of the AED; no comments have been received es to confusion due to separation. Also, see Response H. B. tstory and past and use of the A id search on the hi MSP Airport property hes been completed. During early 1995, that Information will be used to assess the archaeological potential of as yet untested portions of the site and make recommendations regarding future investigative needs. C. Fort Snelling has been listed on the National Register because of its significance to 19th/early 20th century history. In discussions held with Scott Anfinson, National Register Archaeologist at SHPO, It was decided that the archaeological site in Area C — the Post Bakery Site — should be evsluated within a pre-contact/post-contact Native American context not addressed in the present significance statement for Fort Snelling. D. MAC concurs, and will continue to urge the FAA to submit the APE to the Council. E. The text has been revised to address this issue. F. The text has bean revised to address these concerns. G. The evaluation of historic properties and districts has been completed, and final conclusions on National Register eligibility are incorporated In the Final AED. Three archaeological properties were intensively tested during the 1994 field season: the Post Bakery site, the Duck Lake site and a newly discovered site east of the Post Bakery site, on the lower terrace in Fort Snelling State Park. The recommendations regarding eligibility that were included in the Draft AED were based on the preliminary results of these investigations. The analysis hes now been completed, without any changes in conclusions regarding National Register eligibility, and a technical report on the investigation will be submitted during early 1995. H. The text has been revised to address this issue. I. The text has been revised to address this issue. 1p) of O b mington, miruwsola RISww Cq=K1cpe. woe . boMingtora M'riro10 sou . (l7986a7txi • October 1t, 1994 Mr. Nod D. Fbwey, Deputy Exavlive Duma Metropolitan Akrports Commission Minneapolis • Shut Paul International Airport 6040 2tth Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450.2799 RE: Comment Letter: Draft Alternative Environmental Document for the Long -Tenn Comprehensive Plan Dear Mr. Furey: The City of Bloomington hu revie ort the lana -Tam Comprehensive Plan Draft Alternative Envirom+awl Doomed (AED) dated September 1994 for the Minneapolis -Saint Paul International Airport. This comment Forts speaks specifically to the content of the document. COMMENT 1) On pate 111-26 the Ma Cera b fisted u • properly requiring funxcr raarah 10 determine eligibility for the National Historic Register. This building is undo. cement to be danoluhed within the next six months and should not require further study. 2) Soaioa M evaluator the social tad seamark Impacts of each alternative. This analysis does mot provide Ifomation separating out impacts on the City M BIoanhington. Information on the number of fun and part time emmplor.= diviner:d, types of tuskless which may require relocation, reduction in taxable nine, and the populatlom and households displaced 'Mould be identified by municipality. Thc future developmcn potential Fort by impl ancntation of the Federal and State Rummy Safety Zones should also be analyzed. 3) The land use impart deserip*ion of a north -south runway (Section 3.2, page III -29) Is teas spoafne than the dcscriptioa contained on page 3 of Appendix A I Volume 5 of the Airport Development Conoeds Report (December 1991). Section 12 should be anxaded to beat kart as specific u the analysis contained la the 1991 report. This land use and economic impact is potentially one of the mop Impartial For the City of Bloomington. 4) 1n May of 1994, the City of Bloomington approved a 35 unit townhouse devdopmwt at 2400 Slyline Drive. The development Is currently under m *ruetbn. This d.-rdapmad appears to be within the DNL 65 rhotse mneur for artasatives Sand 6. This development should be added *0 the dwelling and population tabulrtiorn. 3) On page 111-35, that is a statement that the Nalco. Sato. Power substation located at 7900 2141 Avame South could continue operation in the runway retortion sone of the north -south runway ander an caserrnt granted by the FAA. This would be • dairade outcome and should be pursued if Akernativa 5 or 6 is alerted. 6) The dseosdon of noise abatement and land use measures on pogo 111-45 says.'* is likely that by the year 2005, what a mew nanny could be operational, that much of the arca eligible for mitigation will already have bow treated trough the co -going mitigation program' This statement 6 not *1150 kr the area east of 1177 impacted by aircraft noise from a north - south noway. Consequently, language should be included sating that it is the MAC'. policy to do noise imsulariao .net mkiptiom as pan any noway conorucloo project. 7) The map of anion 4(Q parklands (figure 24) omits the River Ridge playground at 1715 Riva Ridge Rod add= sot label the Long Meadow Unit of the Minnaaa Valley National Wildlife Refuge. The noise partitive use ska for Aherrodva 3 and 6 (table 21) anis the. Trinity School and People of Praise Church al 2300 East /1*h Street', The smirk ih section 3-K ideates that inpiwataton dthe north -south rummy (alternatives 5 or 6) will reduce die number of people In Bloomington subject to DNL 60 or grater noise levels. Thc Bloomington City Council supports implementation of the north -south rummy both as a mans for kaasing the airport's capacity and u a reasonable noise mitigation treasure for Bloomington. 77o City of Bloomington appreciates the opportunity to can mat on this document. We particularly notitad that the AED is very readable with good use of summary tables W enhance quick undcrlwding of the information presented. Any questiao about this lata should be directed to Jany Pae, Director of Community Development at 9414947. cc: )cin Ninmk. Commissions Stu Fraser, NSP 1 1 1 A. B. c. E. A. The reference to IIMet Center has been removed. B. A portion of the Ri*nway Protection Zone (RPZ) for act nine ffaacilite ies�nghsouthwof Interstatould e 494 and generally east of Avenue 24 South, including three hotels, two service stations, . construction firm, an office ,building and adjacent perking structure, a fraternal organization and a public utility substation; Their total assessed valuation, according to the Hennepin County Assessor, is 027,221,400. There ere 1,354 full-time and part- time employees J at eight of the facilities; no employees are !based at the public utility substation. Fgures from the 1990 U. S. Census Indicate there is one rental household, with three residents, in the Impacted area. As noted in Section 111.12 ,(Land Use), Bloomington is currently working on the "Airport South II Study," en analysis that includes a north -south runway scenario and the impacts on land use In Bloomington. Development of a north -south runway in Alternatives 5 and 6 would necessitate an amendment to the city's comprehensive plan that could restrict new development In State Safety Zone A, beyond the RPZ, and in State Safety Zone B. Potential development in the safety zones, beyond the RPZ boundary, that would be lost because of development of the north -south runway cannot be determined until this study is completed. C. The assessed valuation of nine properties, Including both land and buildings, located within the Runway Protection Zone of Alternatives 5 and 6 is 427,221,000. At this time, the land use policy for MSP includes ■ recommendation that properties in State Safety Zones A and 0, beyond the RPZ, not be acquired and that new development in these areas be prohibited. As noted in Section 111.12, the city of Bloomington currently is working on the Airport South ll Study," an update to its comprehensive plan that will consider land uses that assume development of a north -south runway. If that study reflects the Safety Zrecommendation , beyond the RPZ, Shen additional properties in the city of Bloomington would not be acquired. The population end household data included in Section III. M (socioeconomic impacts) are derived from the 1990 U. S. Census. New housing constructed since that time are not included in those figures end, consequently, are not included in the AED. Preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement will Include any updated • population and housing figures, to the extent that they ere available from the Bureau of the Census or other governmental units. D. This area has been added to Table 20 in the Final • AED, and would be included in the future noise mitigation program for MSP if Alternative 5 or 6 is selected. E. River Ridge Playground is within the DNL .65 contour and is depicted on an amended Figure 24. In addition, Trinity School and People of Praise Church are within the DNL 65 noise contour; Table 20 has been amended to reflect that. The Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge, which includes the Long Meadow Unit, is depicted on Figure 37. 41,11116 city of aagan October 19, 1994 HEARING OFFICER METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION 6040 20TH AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55450 RE: MSP LONG TERM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AED Dear Chak &aur and Commissioners: TIIOuA/ [CAN A.1.. ►AIRICIA AWADA SHAWN IIWINR SANDRA A. MASH IINODORI WACKIER Co.Rwi Minims THOMAS IKDGSI LJ. VAN OVEINE4 ON cant In official action token at Its meeting of October 18. 1994, the Eagan City Council considered the MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan Draft AED, and adopted the the comments below for submission. While the City hes yet to take en official positkm on • preferred track in the Dual Track process, Eagan does not support the runway expension alternatives es presented due to the tact that each would substanitally odd to the already significant Impacts of ekcraft noise akeedy lett throughout our community. iy. M en skport neighbor, Eagan fully expects Its residents to experience some noise. The levels received currently. however. are akeady excessive and expansion 01 capacity end redstrbution of impact es outined In the expansion alternatives would exacerbate these impacts stat further. As noted in the City's comments during the Interactive Planning Group phase of this process. 11 would be the City's expectation that land use based noise mitigation eltematives not be Grreed 10 the federafly recognized 65 DNL contour or even the 60 DNL contour used for comparative purposes within this study. While more complete cnn,monts wit be provided e a part of the Dual Track EIS Process, if expansion occurs et the current site, vhuaty ell of Eagan will be exposed to high frequencies of overnight which w6 require substantial levels of sound insulation and potential acquisition end redevelopment of the most severely impacted areas. The City has Identified the following Issues concerning the AED which appear to require additional consideration as the environmental review of the expansion Deck moves forward 1. Bled JUrrraft Hazed - The bird strike hazard for sltemrUves 5 and 6 may be even more significant than indicated by the draft AED es s consequence of waterfowl habitats In southwest Eagan not noted In Figure 11. While these he more than 10,000 feel from the proposed runway ends, the City has attempted to menage high concentrations of waterfowl In these areas. In particular, these habitats include Cedar Pond end Kettle Perk Pond. M eddllion. the AED anticipates north. south runway operations over some of the larger water bodies end watedowt habitats In Eagan, hcludng Bleckhaw$ Lake, Fish Lake and Thomas Lake at much lower altitudes than Is the case under current operations. (p. III -15) 2. Land Use - Regardless of the alternative selected, the City remains opposed to the relocation of the temnhat from the east side of the airport (p. iII30) and feel that the reinforcement of existing commercial development patterns should be maintained. While the costs of maintaining temhkhat operations during construction are greater than with a replacement temtnd, the potential dislocation to mayor employers east of the airport should be factored into this situation. it would be inappropriate to suggest that the City reinforce and maintain Its compatible commercial -industrial land use planning southeast of the ripen whl a sEbstantlaliy eltering the economic advantage for business lormatbn In that ante by relocating the &rpod's front door. 3. Noise - The population counts within the 65 end 60 DNL contours are probably fekty accurate. The assertion that the impact of Alternatives 5 end 6 h southwest Eagan would be confined to vacant land and the river valley (p. III -30) Is inaccurate. The 60 DNL contour ends within a few hundred feet 01 one of the more densely populated end well esleb1shed neighborhoods of Eagan, the areas south and east of Cedar Avenue end Hwy 13 (Figure 18). The same is true of the 60 DNL contour for Alternatives 1 and 2 (Figure 16) In the north pad 01 the City, although the impact of these alternatives will very depending upon the effectiveness of corridor procedures. 4. Sgetoeconoret - The estimate that Alternatives 2 end 6 (West Terminal) would cost approximately $167 million more to develop than Alternatives 1 and 5 (East Terminal) is further exacerbated by the lost opportunity costs for induced development based on the east terminal location outlined in the land use comments above (p. A. B. C. A. See Response B. for City of Richfield November 23 letter. B. The City of Eagan was contacted to obtain further information on the wetlands referred to by the commenter. Additional analysis concerning g these wetlands has been included In Section III -D of the Final AED. C. The impacts on Eagan in Section III.J.2 have been revised to address your comment. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5. Groundwatet • The statement that groundwater Is less susceptible under Alternatives 2 and 8 (West Terminal) then 1 and 5 (East Terminal) (p. fu) due to bedrock end soil conditions Is Inconsistent with the Aquifer System depicted In Figure 35 which shows levels of medium and high susceptibility In the development area of the West Terminal while the East Terminal Is almost entirely within the low susceptibility area. In addition, the east concourses would actually be expanded under the west terminal alternative. meaning that potential fuel contamination wound occur whether the terminal relocated or not. 6. planned Lend Use - Figure 13 Is tabled Planned Land Use, but In the areas southeast of the airport, k depicts only existing developed areas. A copy of the City's comprehensive guide map Is attached to depict planned land uses more accurately. 7. Mao Scales - The scales of figures depicting contour comparisons between the alternatives should be reproduced at the same scale so that the relative size of contours can be more readily compared. For example the 110 65 contour for departures southeast of the airport for Alternatives 1 and 2 M Figure 20 appears to be substantially smaller than the same contour for Alternatives 5 end 6 in figure 19 although they are of essentially similar size when compared to land features. 8. fright Traeks - Figures 21 and 22 Indicate Runway 11R flight tracks south of runway centerline. The City of Eagan does not condone the use of any flight tracks south of centerline within three miles of the runway end and Insists that the FAA be required to comply with the spirit of the corridor procedures rather than Inappropriately spreading traffic and noise impacts. Correction of procedures h this regard will modify the AED contours stightly end will correspond more appropriately with Eagan's land use plan. Higher confidence In the effectiveness of corridor procedures may Impact the City's ability to select a profaned altemaUve. Thank you for this opportunity to provide input. If additional conclusions Brise from the final draft of the AEO, they will be forwarded to you. Sincerely, \'t ram Thomas L Hedges tl City Administrator Enc. D. E. F. G. D. The potential for groundwater contamination at MSP is considered to be primarily associated with the storage and handling of petroleum fuels. A greater number of gates, and consequently more fuel, would be handled over areas characterized as moderately or highly susceptible to groundwater contamination under Alternatives 1 end 5 than would be for Alternatives 2 and 6. E. Figure 13 has been relabeled to "Land Use in Vicinity of MSP (planned use as of 1992)". F. The figures' scales have been changed to provide easier comparisors. G. The flight tracks shown are based on actual flight tracks obtained by MAC through the ANOMS system. They reflect some "drift in Runway 11R straight-out departures, which more accurately portray potential future noise impacts. ;al City or INVER GROVE HEIGHTS 8150 BARBARA AVENUE • NVER GROVE HEIGHTS. MN 55077 • TELEPHONE (612) 450-2500 november 21, 1994 Metropolitan Airports Commission Minneapolia-St. Paul International Airport 6040 - 28th Avenue South Minneapolis, MH 55450-2799 Dear MAC: This letter is being submitted on behalf of the Inver Grove Heights Aircraft Noise Abatement Commission in response to our review of the Long -Term Comprehensive Plan, Alternate Environmental Document (AED). With resppect to the Dual Path Airport Development, this letter does not specifically indicate our approval or disapproval of either the expansion of the current Minneapolis -St. Paul Airport or the possible new airport development in the Vermillion/Hastings area. Considering the close proximity of the possible new airport to Inver Grove Heights, we cannot take a preferential stance on either proposal without knowledge of the layout of runways and probable usage patterns. If expansion of the current airport facility becomes the development of choice, the City is in favor of Alternatives 5 i 6 as outlined in the AED. These two alternatives will result in the lowest level of noise impact upon our community and supports our belief that aircraft noise should be distributed equitably between the communities surrounding the airport. Sincere y, it 5 /'1 Dale Hammon* Commission Member cc: Mayor and City Council a1 1 City of Mendota Heights November 25, 1994 VIA FACSIMILE - ORIGINAL TO FOLLOW Hr. Richard P. Braun, Chairman Metropolitan Airports Commission 6040 2eth Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55450 Dear Mr. Braun: On behalf of the City of Mendota Heights, I am pleased to provide to you our formal comments related to the draft Alternative Environmental Document (AED) to the MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan (LTCP). As you know, existing operations at MSP have for many years been a source of concern and distress to a great number of Mendota Heights reeidento. Expaneion plans et the airport, as contemplated in the LTCP AED, run the riek of making the situation more onerous. The intent of this letter is to set forth those elements of the plan with which we agree and disagree. In reviewing the AED it is evident that the ground being turned in the document is not new. The MAC iponsored the Interactive Planning Group in 1991 to consider the !moues surrounding long term development at MSP. Supported by the MAC staff and consulting work by HNTB, the Interactive Planning Group conducted a through analysis and concluded that if MSP is to remain in its present location, the but runway expansion alternative is the north/south runway along Cedar Avenue. Thin recommendation was adopted by the MAC in 1991 and has been designated as the 'preferred option in the MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan ever since. In further support of the selection of the north/south runway as the preferred MSP expansion option, a Capacity Enhancement study was conducted by the U.B. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration and the MAC which quantified the relative merits of the various runway expansion options. In comparing the effects of a new north/south runway vs. a new north parallel runway, the FAA noted that the north/south runway is the superior choice by all measures: cost of construction is lower. the number of hours of delay is leve, and the overall flexibility of operating the airport is enhanced. 1101 Victoria Curve •Mendota Heights, MN • 55118 452.1850 At the public hearing held at Washburn High School on October 26, 1994, the City of Richfield ■poke in favor of the third north parallel runway based in part on a reference contained within an FAA document which apparently speaks in favor of parallel runway construction, in general. As evidenced by the FAA's recent Capacity enhancement study at MSO, this general reference is not applicable to the circumstances at MSP.. Other airport■ across the country, Washington Dulles, Dallas- Fort Worth. and Chicago O'Hare just to name a few, have similarly constructed non -parallel runway configurations. As a community which would be severely impacted by the third parallel runway expansion alternative, we were obviously pleased With the outcome of the Interactive Planning Group's effort, the MAC'■ endorsement of the north/south runway, and the FAA's i� Capacity Enhancement Plan which also clearly favors the north/south runway. In reviewing the current Alternative Environmental Document, we see nothing which would modify the 'election of the north/south runway a■ the preferred expansion option for MSP. The Mendota Heights City Council has discussed the AED at length over the past several month■ and wishes to go on record regarding the following points' sanity. Eouity. Vanity Any decision made to further expand MSP in its present location implies that the airport is likely to remain put for many, many years. Such a decision in grossly unfair without a commitment from the MAC to enact more equitable noise distribution procedures at MSP. We all enjoy the benefits of having a *close -in' airport and for those cities which surround the airport, a considerable amount of favorable economic activity results from that proximity. At the same time, a few nearby communities experience a considerable amount of negative impact an well in the form of intrusive aircraft noise pollution. Unfortunately, the distribution of the 'negatives' are not nearly as evenly distributed as the 'positives'. principle■ of fairness and equity dictate that a decision to grow MSP in its present location should include measures to ensure a more reasonable distribution of aircraft noise pollution. In the case of the City of Mendota Heights, a large portion of our community has already been asked to bear the brunt of the air noise pollution produced by departing jet aircraft. In response to this situation, we have attempted to reasonably tolerate this exposure through our sound land use planning, the adoption of highly restrictive building code standards, the selective acquisition of certain noise impacted properties, and our aggressive participation in the Part 150 sound insulation program. Nonetheless, these activities were neither designed or intended to accommodate the additional noise proliferation which would impact our community with the construction of a new north parallel runway. By any measure, additional air noise pollution within Mendota Heights would be patently excessive and highly objectionable to our residents. aisteximal Provertite In close proximity to the proposed new north parallel runway lies the historic properties of Fort Snelling. These properties ere officially recognized as the Fort Snelling National Historic Landmark District and the 01d Fort Snelling National Register Historic District. Contained within the boundaries of these districts are properties dating back to the 1500'e, representing en important slice of history for the State of Minnesota and, for that matter, the Nation. The proposed north parallel runway would not only move aircraft noise, vibration and other pollutants closer to these valuable properties, but would actually deetroy a number of historic structures. Whereas a business can be replaced, a historic landmark of the State and Nation cannot. To seriously consider • runway expansion alternative which involves the demolition of much valuable historic properties is unconscionable. (pages III -25-2e) BUnWav gme Restrictions On Figure 21 a number of flight tracks off of the existing north parallel runway are depicted. Departures off runway 11L over Mendota Heights seem to indicate that aircraft are directed to fly to the middle of the Minnesota River before they are issued instructions to turn left. This is not the case. Air Traffic Control routinely assigns departure headings to aircraft prior to brake release and pilots may initiate their turns long' before they reach the Minnesota River. Earlier turns push aircraft further and further north into our community and Figure 21 clearly does not reflect this fact. A. A. Flight tracks utilized for future noise modeling are based on existing flight track data from the MAC ANOMS system. The location of flight tracks east of the Minnesota River are based on this data. • Graphical representation of the flight tracks in the immediate vicinity of the runway end, west of the river, may have been slightly simplified in drafting the exhibit. $pies exposure Proleptic= On page■ III -34 and I11-40 of the document population and household counts for DNL 60 noise exposure projections are provided. These figure. indicate that approximately 2,300 additional people would be exposed to noise levels of DNL 60 or greater under the north parallel runway alternatives as compared to the north/south runway alternative.. Coupled with the need to more equitably di.tribute air noise to all communities which enjoy close proximity to the airport, this data further affirms she preference for the north/south runway. Safety, of Third Horth Parallel Runway. As proposed, the third north parallel runway option contemplates the construction of two primary airport runways, side by side, separated by only 800 feet. Clearly these runways will be hampered by various operational constraint. as a result of their close proximity to one another. At other airports in the Nation where such 'situations exists, pilots are often confused by the placement of multiple runways and taxiways within a tight land area. every effort should be made to avoid such a situation at MSP. Also, given that Nome aircraft utilising NSP have wingspans approaching 200 feet, the safety of such a proposal should be seriously questioned. Air Traffic Protections Based on the data provided within the ABD, it does not appear certain that the need for an additional runway is clearly justified. On pages 1II-36 and III -37, the projected 2005 average daily arrivals and departures are described. The combined 2005 daily total is listed as 1,328.4 aircraft operations per day. In August, 1994 the combined daily total was 1,315 aircraft operations per dayl The validity of these numbers should be checked and if they are found to be accurate, the MAC should seriously reconsider the need to pursue the construction of an additional runway at MSP. We appreciate the opportunity to provide you with our response and reaction to the draft LTCP AID. Should you have questions or comments regarding any of the above, please let me know. Sincerely. CITY OF HBIOHTS M. Thomas Lowell City Administrator i i B. c. B. See Response G. for City of Richfield. G. The ultimate need for en additional runway at MSP is not tied to 2005 traffic levels, but rather to 2020 levels Also, while average 2005 traffic levels are similar to 1994 peak month levels, 2005 peak levels will be roughly 10% higher, r, which may require additional capacity. MA currently analyzing capacity needs from 1994- 2020 in increments to determine the timing for a new runway. 07F10E OF THE MAYOR 750 EWA rat. enro.s • urn 331 M.v..p'M 1.1M.rw4 53415 13113 461,187331W rR. 46131 eh 3303 e/M110H BAYLES 4E)TON MAYOR November 22. 1994 Mr. Nigel Finney. Deputy Executive Director Metropolitnn Airports Commission 6040 -28th Avenue South Minneapolis. Mn. 55420-2799 (W innen palia city of lakes Dear Mr. Finney: The City of Minrtcupittis is pleased to respond with comments on the Draft Altemntive Environmental Document for the MSP Long -Term Comprehensive Plan. The City continuos to he • strong supporter of the Duni Track Airport Planning Process and views this as a significant step in the completion of that process. Whik we mnke specific comments on the adequacy of the AED which are in the attached report from the Planning Department. we would also like to take this opportunity to air several over -arching eoncems with the study for the possible expansion of MSP. Let us hope that dccision makers do not fall into the trap of believing no air traffic gains will occur after 2020! The most important issue M be raised from the City's point of view is that if the final decision to be made is to expand MSP. constmctian of only one new runway would not meet the anticipated aviation needs beyond the time frame of this planning process. The potential harmful effects of • third paalkl runway on Fort Snelling National Historic LnrdmarkDistrict and the Old Fort Snelling National Historic District weighs heavily in favor of choosing Alteratives five or six which incorporates a north -south runway. While one additional runway at MSP would meet the projected annual operating level of 2020, more nmway rapacity would be needed beyond that level. Therefore, while this document would lead people to believe that the expansion of MSP is a choice between a north -south runway ora third parallel. the truth is that should expansion of MSP be the choice of the Legislature. at some point in the future, both nmways would be needed. What we are discussing then, b not so much which runway should be built, as which nrmvay should be built first. In other words, we are talking about staging the comtnenntion of two runways, not making a choice between them. This has the very Important implication that the cumulative effects of constructing and using both runways must be considered in measuning the expansion of MSP versus a new airport. It should also be noted that daily traffic levels at MSP in August. 1994 are nearly (hose projected for 2005 (1315 vs 1328). Iran esp:lnded MSP is in the final decision of the Legislature, it is in the best interest of Minneapolis to have the airport terminal located on the west side of airfield. it moves the front door of the airport five to six minutes closer M downtown with attnendant lower taxi costs, as well as fuel and time savings for a11intssengers coming from the areas northwest, west, and southwest of the downtown area. I lowever, the additional Innes needed on the Crosstown between 1-35W and Cedar Av. will pose problems because of needed property acquisition. KC K171 6 75 7157 N7RM1.1..1 ♦f.1Kw f4,.0.CR ® Merck* Pam o. 1a. Can,.,.. rn.. A. A. The LTCP and AED for MSP are addressing needs through the year 2020 as required by the dual track legislation. This 30 -year period (from 1990) is beyond the traditional 20 ear airport master planning cycle, to ensure that development needs, and the long-range needs, are considered. Accurate predictions of traffic, even 30 years into the future, are hiphty speculative. The ptannin approach utilized for the MSP plan is one th addresses facility needs for the year 2020, ar. then identifies facility placement for additional facilities for beyond 2020 demand (or earlier than 2020 if demand grows faster than forecast). Additional environmental analysis will be conducted prior tattle construction of these post - 2020 facilities. Nevertheless, the identification of these post -2020 facilities indicates the manner in which the existing airport could accommodate additional demand beyond that forecast. In recognition of this, the original MAC recommendation for preferred plan for MSP (currently being updated) included the reservation of property for a potential post -2020 north parallel runway. L Another missing element in this document is the failure to include safety as anirea of evaluation in tripod to the rout ellemntives. Certainly it 1a es vend an law es are the other nineteen areas that have been examined. No one Tikes to talk about the possibility of an airplane crash, but ignoring the Issue Is not acceptable or wise. Specifically. in regnrd to the alternatives presented in the ACD. the safety issue is errata concern B with the possible third 'serene' runway than with a north -south runway. As we all know, most crashes occur during The few minutes Just eller take -on or before touch down. Constriction and use of the north' parallel runway would put another densely populated area ofrauds Minneapolis at risk in addition to those off the ends of the other two parallels that already are in such • situation. On the other hand. a north -sash nmvmy with all operations to the south would put the critical take orf and landing periods over a sparsely populated area. This is such an important factor That for no other reason than this, the north-snulh nmwty in Alternatives five and six should be the preferred alternative. Rear in mind, however. that u slated above. the third panikl nmway in addition to the north -south nmway will be needed at tone point in the future. The safety implications of the two new runways need to he considered. The safety issue becomes very important in the comparison between an expanded MSP and a new airport. Since we have raised the issue of safety. we would also like to point out that it !ems exceedingly strange that the Minnesota Dcpertmenl of Transportation's airport safety rates are not imposed in built up nfian areas around airports. If the theory behind these safety zones is to protect people on the ground in the event of a plane crash. then surely the area of greatest risk should be free of residential development. The new airport alternative is being studied with safety zones in plate that will have no residential development. We believe MNDOT should explain why it is not seeking legislative action to protect people living around present airports. Obviously, if these zones were to be imposed in Minneapolis they would have a aignificnm socioeconomic impact which should be studied and costs for changing lend uses determined. Again this would be an Important consideration In the final equitable comparison between a new versus expanded airport. Annlher ane of thea "mega" concaves is that the study envisions the area around the present airport to stay in its present land use or to conform to some yet to be revised Metropolitan Council's noise policy contours. It is true that in the past the City of Minneapolis has rejected any land acquisition by MAC. and has chosen not to change zoning around the airport. However, with such • vastly expanded MSP, the possibility of changing land uses to something more compatible with airport operations should at least he studied and the costs for such potential changes should be included in the cost for MSP expansion. It should be made clear that at this point the City Is not advocating such changes. However. everything -all costs- associated with an expanded MSP should be on the table when i1 comes time to compare an expanded MSP with • new airport. If a new airport does not have people living in the Ldn 60 area Then it should be measured against en expanded MSP with no people hiving in the Ldn 60 area. Finally. we would like to paint out that in 1996, the MAC will be discussing a recommendation to expand MSP, build a new airport, do nothing. or other feasible alternatives. We continue to push for a thorough study of the idea of detached nmways as a potential solution to the need for additional airport cep city. We hope Ihnt this study will be completed in a timely manner. Thank you for this opportunity 10 present comments on this draft document. We look forward to the answers for the questions raised above. Sincerely yours. Sharon Sayles Belton. Mayor PT:SSn:j IE B. See Response G. for City of Richfield. C. Existing legislation protects existing structures in the state safety zones. The City should contact Mn/DOT directly in regard to seeking changes to the legislation D. This issue will be addressed in the scoping process for the EIS. E. This alternative will be addressed in the scoping process for the EIS in early 1995. Minneapolis City Planning Staff Report AIRPORT LONG-TERM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ALTERNATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT Submitted by the Metropolitan Airports Commission DATE: November 3, 1994 PROJECT NAME: Airport Long -Term Comprehensive Plan, Alternative Environmental Document, September 1994 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Metropolitan Airport Commission is considering an amendment 10 11J comprehensive plus that Includes alternatives to build a new north sosnh runway atom Cedar Avenue and/or new panikl runways to existing runways I I and 29. Two of the alternatives also call for the relocation of the main terminal to the west (Minneapolis) side of the airport with emu from redesigned Interchange at Cedar and the Crosstown. FUTURE RELATED ACTIONS: This plan is part of the Dual Track process which is considering Ind studying two future airport sites - one In Dakota county and the other the expansion of the existing airport. ACTION REQUESTED OF THE CiTY: The MAC has requested that the City comment on the AED by November 25, 1994. COMMENTS AND FINDINGS: The City Planning Department has summarized the AED with a focus on how the airport expansion affecU Minneapolis. The summary is attached. In February, the City Pbmning Department prepared a report on the deficiencies of the Scoping Environmental Assessment Worksheet that is released by MAC in January of • 1994. The report made several sugeslions for further study in the AED. A reading of the AED reveals that very lime of what Minneapolis asked for was studied in the AIID. For example, the AF.D docs not Include; • A study of the effect on Minneapolis' water supply. Minneapolis supplies potable water to the airport. • The effect of more air traffic on Use use of recreational waters in Minneapolis. (These areas were covered only to the extent that the report found that noise kvels would be decreased slightly. There was no subjective declaration about how annoying h is to try to undertake recreational activities in a noisy environment.) • • A study of Ilse amount of dust, odor, and noise during construction. (ilse report only said that all laws and ordinances, etc. would be applicable.) • The quality of the park use experience was not specifically addressed. (It was addressed In the same way the effect on surface water use was done.) • A study of the public safely implications of having such an active airport with so many people under the take -off and approach paths. • A study of the economic impact of the airport expansion on Minneapolis and other surrounding communities. F. F. See response to the City's comments in the Scoping Decision Document, March 1994. The City of Minneapolis offers the following exceptions and specific comments on the AED. 1. The off airport carbon monoxide emissions appear to only be measured in Richfield along 66th Street. Certainty measurements along the Crosstown Highway would be warranted for impact analysis on Minneapolis neighborhoods. 2. Minneapolis finds it particularly disconcerting that, if the new west terminal is built, there will be no access to the airport from 28th Av. We do not want through - traffic using 28th Av. to get downtown. However, we would like the option to use 28th Av. u a 'front door" to the airport If the city decides to change its land use plan along the north side of the airport. 3. The City of Minneapolis sincerely hopes that the noise analysis and projections for less noise are correct. We take note that 80% of the people in the airport's Area of Potential (noise) Effect are in Minneapolis. Therefore, Minneapolis bears a disproportionate share of the noise costs In order that the airport can benefit the entire region. We also sincerely hope that the Put 150 program can be completed by the end of the decade, well in advance of completion of construction at the airport If it is chosen u the preferred alternative at the conclusion of the Dual Track process. Minneapolis also has questions u to the inclusion of St. Kevin's and the Navy Annex areas in the Table 23 depicting Households Displaced. Certainly the St. Kevin's area would be leveled for the west terminal construction or the Navy Annex for the north parallel, but both areas are listed for displacement regardless of which alternative is chosen. Is this because the ultimate gal of MSP expansion Is for two additional runways? We also believe that because Pan 150 sound insulation is being carried on in these neighborhoods, that immediate discussion should take place to hold harmless the homeowners who have participated in good faith in the Pan 150 sound insulation program, and yet in the future may find themselves targets of acquistion. 4. Minneapolis continues to be frustrated at the absence of a socioeconomic study that goes beyond the boundaty of the airport expansion. No attempt was made in the AED to gauge other socioeconomic impacts on people who ire near the airport and affected by it, but not actually displaced. A study of the effects of the airport on those people must be done by MAC er the Metropolitan Council before a decision Is made on an airport location. 5. In Tables 18 and 21, there is a fisting of land uses in noise sensitive areas showing the present and projected land usage. The tables show several schools changing from school use to residential. Certainly, this must be an error time no such changes aro in any long range plan for the city. 6. We note that on pages 11i-45, there is a statement that says tie existing mode of operating is landing on Runways 29L and 29R and departing on Runway 22. Analysis of the facts shows this is simply not true. Between 90 and 95% of traffic is presently being carried on the parallels. This might change if Runway 4.22 is extended, but until that happens, present traffic patterns should be used in any comparison or protections. 7. We are also somewhat surprised to see the projected level of daily arrivals and departures to be 1328 for the year 2005. It should be pointed out that during August, 1994, the average daily operational level was 1315. Presently Northwest Airlines is talking about adding additional destinations from MSP which would only increase the level of dailly activity. We know that everyone is a bit reluctant toproject future activity because of the Denver experience. But simply tucking the head safely in the sand is not good planning either. A wise person once said that if you are trying to forecast the future, you have only to look at the past and you should look as far back in the past u you are looking into the future. In that case, with only minor dips and retreats, the level of air activity at MSP over the last 50 years has been inexorably upward. There is nothing on the horizon to make anyone believe that the importance of air traffic will decrease. Additional traffic at MSP above the forecasted level can only man that both runways will be needed even sooner than expected. This brings up the very real question of whether or not there will be any additional runways at MSP after the two contemplated in this AED are built. 8. Finally, the traffic projections on the Crosstown and 35W seem to be too low. They are projected only at about the rate of increase in air traffic operations. It Is generally known that traffic has increased disproportionately to population growth over the last 20 years. Also, the projection of tripled traffic on 28th Av. which will not connect to the airport leads us to question the reliability of all the traffic projections. 1. N. G. The air quality analysis was limited to those intersections for which traffic volumes were provided on the repional highway network for each of the alternatives. The three intersections along 66th were the only signalized intersections for which traffic volumes were available that were also close to sensitive receptor sites. Traffic for the TH 55/Crosstown intersection were available but there were no receptor sites' within several hundred feet of the intersection. Therefore, while it may have Level - of -Service problems, it was not considered a potentially critical intersection in terms of air quality. The Cedar Avenue/Lake Nokomis Parking Intersection was not included on the regional highway network window for the MSP study area. The 28th Street and Crosstown interchange as well as other potentially critical intersections will be evaluated in the Draft EIS. • H. The access shown in the AED provides access from 28th Avenue to T.H. 62 but no direct access to the airport; however, access to a new west terminal is still being studied. Notwithstanding the development of either the north parallel runway in Alternatives 1 and 2, or the north -south runway in Alternatives 5 and 6, any long-range planning effort at MSP must consider the compatibility of the existing airport with the residential neighborhoods within the circle of major roads surrounding it. To that end, the Metropolitan Airports Commission has begun acquisition of homes in two neighborhoods that are similarly affected—Rich Acres and New Ford Town, (both in the city of Richfield. Acquisition of ;hdmes in the St. Kevin's area and Navy Annex, both in the city of Minneapolis, would be a continuation of that effort. That there might be impacts of such an acquisition and relocation program in the St. Kevin's area and in the Navy Annex on the Part 160 sound insulation program is noted. J. An analysis of impacts, Including socioeconomic impacts, necessarily must be of elements that can be quantified, ;such as population displaced and assessed valuation of those homes displaced. Beyond the geographic limits of potential expansion of the airport, the measure used to identify persons impacted by any of the atter- natives is the population within specified noise contours, as well as an enumeration of land use 'compatibility. This information can be found in Section III.K of"'the Final AED and, specifically, in Tables 16, 17,119, 20, 21 and 23. K. The 'Planned I Use" column in the tables is misleading and has been deleted. L. One of the existing runway -use -system (RUS) modes is to land on Runway 29L and 29R, and depart on Runway 22. Because this mode of operation has limited capacity, it cannot be used during periods with high aircraft traffic volumes. The proposed (extension to the southwest of Runway 4-22 would increase the potential use of this mode. The analysis contained in this document assumes the extension to be complete prior to the implementation of any alternative for the Long -Term Comprehensive Plan. Alternatives 5 and 6 would provide an additional RUS mode (land Runways 29L and 29R, depart Runway 17) that would have significantly more capacity than existing RUS modes. M. August is traditionally the peak month for traffic at MSP. Activity in this month is generally 10% higher than the average month. Since forecast operations by the year 2005 are forecast to be roughly 10 percent higher than 1994, it is not unusual that trafic levels for the peak month in 1994 ere similar to average monthly levels in 2005. August 2005 traffic levels will likely be 10% higher (1,460 vs. 1,315) than August 1994 traffic levels. The MAC is continuing to work with Northwest Airlines to. verify that existing traffic forecasts represent a good estimate of Northwest's future plans. The recent increase in activity should be viewed as an "adjustment" by Northwest to the market, and should not simply be extrapolated. N. The traffic forecasts are constrained by the projected capec ty of the freeways. See Response H. regarding 28th Avenue. ('i1Y OF i:1( 'I IFILLU 6700 Portland Avenue • Richfield. Minnesota 55423-2599 CMy Reneger Mawr Janes D. Prosser Martin Kitsch October 26, 1994 Mr. Jeffrey Hamiei, Executive Director Metropolitan Airports Commission 6040 28th Avenue South Mlnneeports, MN 55450 Con Don Priebe Michael S.ndahl Susan Rosenberg Russ Suseg Dear Mr. Handel: The City of Richfield appreciates this opportunity to comment on the Draft Alternative Environmental Document (AED) for tie Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport (MSP) Long -Term Comprehensive Plan. As part of the Dual Track Planning Process. the AED is an important step toward improving the future of air industry services for the Twin Cities and Greater Minnesota commultles. After useful review of the history of this process. and this document h particular. It is evident that the comprehensive planning has became an exercise in rationaixirg preconceived notions of a preferred MSP alternative. Environmental documents and capacity studies are i tended to be done independent of poI Influence. This Is necessary so that all ahematives wt7 be fairly and thoroughly aannalyyzD. heed. Unfortunately. ��ts Commission (Mse with AC) ridded h 1986 that the North - Plan or the South Runway was tn he preferred alternative of any improvement recommended for MSP. ft appears this is a poktic& decision to placate the Cly of Minneapolis because the runway would be an "h -out" off the south end only. MAC has not clearly Indicated whether an Instrument Landing System writ be installed on the north end of the runway. making this proposal in anus a 'south -south* runway. MAC would sooner spend mitlions of dollars to acquire and rue three hotels in B gton. rather than Implementface of aKpaort�pland planning acrorunway ss sero country. Minneapolis mipft oppose. This Nes h the Two major considerations should enter into the runway development concepts at MSP - placement of the new and how that runway MN be used. The FAA's own Airport Design Standards Nan dbook strongly recommends that any new runways at existing airports be constructed parallel to existing runways. Md yet MAC has endorsed a converging runway. A brie) surturtary of airport redevelopments across the country show how far off the mark plans for MSP really we. Six airports are proposing a third or fourth parallel noway. Three more are proposing a third and fourth parallel runway. None of them are converging runways, as the North-South would be at MSP. None of them are "In- oue runways one way. as the North-South would be at MSP. Ni are parallel runways without exceplkm. Other airports propos pudloi runways include Atlanta. Baltimore -Washington. Charlotte. Chicago 'Hare. Cleveland Hopkins. Columbus, Detroit. Houston. Kansas City MCI. Orlando. Phoenix. Pittsburgh. St. Louis. Sea -Tae, and Washington Dulles. (source: 1993 Aviation System Capacity Plan: chapter 2-10. table 2-3) The manner In which a new runway Is used Is of equal import as to iia physical configuration. A new north parallel at MSP is described as being 7.700 feel in length. The use of a new north paratl& would be limited to landings only. Given its shorter length. it would be Ideal for regional commuter aircraft which are projected to comprise over half of all landings at MSP In years to come. Since surveys disclose that most residents (74%) find takeoff notes more objections'. the use of a new. shorter north parallelyy by commuters for landings only would be Ideal. Takeoff nous contours would remain unchanged on the existing north parallel runway 2911/11L This is not the case, however. for the areas west of Cedar Avenue should the North- South be constructed. There will most likely be a significant increase in noise affecting residential areas. Ground level noise is not calculated when developing noise contours. so then is no way for the City of Richfield to assess the potential impacts of ground noise. Fhatly. and most significantly for all communities surrounding this airport or a new airport. the proposed improvements are intemat to the airport only. Ten is no effort made to assist cities in developing land uses compatible with their proximity to MSP. Pan 150 sound insulation is not enough. The New Ford Town end Rich Acres acquisition is a welcome exception for which MAC should be commended. But overall. there needs to be more emphasis on land use compatibility. Again, thank you for this opportunity to comment. The Cly of Richfietd is committed to participating to the fullest extent possible in an regional airport planning efforts. Therefore. it is with regret that Richfield must say that this document is neither balanced nor unbiased. erey, es D. Prosser y Manager A. The focus of the analysis of runway alternatives for MSP was to identify the best operational alternative, while also considering environmental issues. The operational analysis showed that both the north -south runway and north parallel runway provided good long term benefits, with the north - south runway providing slightly better benefits. An independent FAA Capacity Design Team Study of the alternatives conducted at the request of local and state officials (including the City of Richfield), confirmed that the north -south runway provided the best capacity and delay benefits. See Response D. in November 23 letter for comments on converging runways. B. A shorter runway for commuter aircraft and smaller aircraft only was investigated early on in the MSP planning process. The lack of flexibility of this option to accommodate potential increases In air carrier jet operations and in future regional airline jet operations combined with air traffic control complexities in sequencing all commuter aircraft to the north side of the airport, resulted in this type of facility being eliminated from further consideration. A 7,700 -foot runway,capable of accommodating most jet operations, was therefore used in the north parallel runway option. ( IIYC)F I:IC:I11IELD 6700 Portland Avenue • Richfield, Minnesota 55423-2599 City Miniver Mayor James O. Prosser Martin Kirsch November 23, 1994 Council Don Priebe Michael Sandshl Susan Rosenberg Rua Sussg Mr. Nigel Finney Deputy Executive Director - Planning and Environment Metropolitan Airports Commission 6040 28th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55450 Dear Mr. Finney: The City of Richfield once again appreciates en opportunity to participate in providing comments for the Draft Alternative Environmental Document (ASO) for the Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport (MSP) Long -Term Comprehensive Plan (LTCP). We will address three mein f concern: 1. Failure of the AED to effectively address compatible lend use development in the communities surroundings MSP; 2. Deficiencies in the North-South Runway concept not add d within the text of the AED; and, 3. Developing alternatives that assume the prior extension of Runway 4/22. COmpetible_4404_MOB • Throughout sections 3.2 ("Impacts,' page III -29) and K.3 ("Mitigation Measures (Noise)," page III -44), it is repeatedly stated that compatible land uses will be achieved when communities amend their respective comprehensive plans. This would seem to indicate that developing compatible land uses is not • responsibi}ity of the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC). despite the impetus for the amendments being airfield improvements that adversely effect surrounding communities end despite MAC's economic interest that the surrounding communities remain commercially end residentially viable. Because the amendment of comprehensive plans could have dramatic affects on communities, it is incumbent upon MAC to assist those communities. MAC is currently participating in discussions with the Metropolitan Council and surrounding communities to formulate a consistent and cooperative approach for regional land use development and redevelopment. These efforts should be completed prior to the issuance of the AED. More significantly, changes in the comprehensive plan will not per se producecompatibility. There Is • cost to eliminating incompatible. land uses. There is s corresponding need to induce development of compatible uses. This document should outline not only how this transition should occur but how the resources to accomplish transition will be provided. • The noise abatement measures discussed in Section K.3 rely too heavily upon sound insulation. It is 'assumed that this will achieve compatible lend use, and most of it will already be achieved by the time the airfield improvements are completed. Sound insulation is intended to attenuate noise to en 'acceptable level." Although the program is appreciated by participants, let u• remember that it is only • modest amelioration of the severe noise impacts experienced in residential neighborhoods. i A. B. A. The Metropolitan Airports Commission, the Metropolitan Council and the local communities are working together to formulate a consistent and cooperative approach for long-term regional land use development and redevelopment tools and strategies! However, this work will not be completed in time to be included In the AED. The identification of resources to address the costs of all of the dual -track alternatives will be included in the final documentation for the EIS. B. A noise mitigation plan will be developed for the selected MSP, alternative. A wide range of potential mitigation options for all of the alternatives have been discussed throughout the process with the MSP LTCP Technical Committee, of which Richfield is a member. uwaJh SOUlb_BumtDv Conceps • The AED does not clenrly disclose the impact of ground level noise on residential property parallel to the preferred north -south runway. This is especially important since it can be reasonably expected that low frequency noise from planes taxiing end taking off may not be effectively buffered. In addition, noise modeling efforts traditionally do not acccount for noise prior to reaching s specific altitude on take off. The City needs more information to accurately he impact of ground level noise on the densely populated to the west of the proposed north - south runway to respond to these issues. The north end of the runway will be less then ti -mile from the adjacent east border of Richfield. Ground noise may have significant impacts on those areas immediately west of Cedar Avenue and must be add d within the AED. • As a converging runway, the north -south runway is inconsistent with airfield improvements across the country. The Federal Aviation Administration Airport Design Standards Handbook strongly recommends runways added to increase capacity at existing airports be constructed parallel to existing runways. Without exception, airports in the United States proposing one or more new runways are planning parallel runways. No clear justification for violating this standard hes been provided. • Use of the runway is described es being 'almost exclusively to and from the south for both take -offs end landing,' (page II -1). This effectively reduces this concept to •"south - south' runway. There is no discussion as to why this runway will be used almost exclusively to and from the south. One must go back to the Long -Term Comprehensive Plan's 'Volume 5 - Airport Development Concepts" to find any discussion of operations to end from the north on the north -south runway. In that document it states that 'the runway can be used to or from the north in conjunction with Runway 4-22 when weather conditions require this' (1.3.3., page 1-6). The AED must analyse the environmental impacts associated with operations to or from the north and describe the extent to which such operations are expected to occur. • Construction of the north -south runway will require the acquisition and destruction of three hotels and other commercial properties. Pert of the environmental review should be en economic assessment of the effects on the Bloomington and regional economies. The property tax loss of those properties will adversely affect the city of eloomington.end the State of Minnesota. The primary purpose of this assessment should be to compare the impact of these acquisitions with the impact of acquiring other properties necessary to construct the north parallel runway. Acquisition of properties for construction and sound insulation proposed for the north parallel runway may have positive impacts on existing noise impacted properties. • Operational efficiency and safety are important factors for ,electing the best alternative. Use of the converging runway provides i d concerns regarding safety. However, these considerations were not even included in the AED. This important oversight should be corrected. • Displacement of employed persons es a result of Alternative 6, the preferred alternative, is far greeter proportionally than the displacement of residents under Alternative 2, the north parallel runway. Alternative 2 would displace five times as many residents (702 vs. 141), while Alternative 6 displaces tine v-tbcofa times as many employees (2,859 vs. 125). The economic affect of this tremendous job loss must be analysed, while investigating the potential hardship of displaced residents. • The AED', analysis of impacts on historical/architectural resources is biased in favor of the north -south runway alternative. Thus, the AED concludes that 'Alternatives 5 and 6 ere strongly rscoawended over Alternatives 1 and 2" ic. 1 1 1 D. E. F. G. H. I. C. Noise model calculations for the north -south runway include all of the noise from the takeoff cycle, beginning with the aircraft start -of -roil, through liftoff, and then out into the airspace. Therefore, noise contours in the AED reflect these sources, although the model assumes a worse -case flat terrain between the runway and the adjacent community. Alternatives for mitigating ground noise from aircraft using the runway, including the ear*' berms used today and future structures along west side of the airport, will be considered or, development of a mitigation plan for the runway. D. Airports across the country employ combinations of parallel and converging runways to meet capacity needs. Three of the newest major air carrier airports - Washington -Dulles, Dallas -Ft. Worth, and the soon to be opened Denver International Airport, all employ combinations of converging and parallel runways in their runway configurations. The separation of new parallel runways from existing runways is critical to capacity enhancement. The north parallel runway option for MSP is located 800 feet north of Runway 11L -29R, in order to fit on the airport site. At this distance, the capacity benefits are less than with the north -south runway. The parallel runway would need to be placed 4,000-5,000 feet from Runway 11L - 29R to yield greater benefits than the north -south runway. This separation cannot be accommodated on the current site. E. The intended use of the proposed north -south runway to and from the south has not changed since the analysis was prepared in the MSP LTCP. Additional text will be added to the •AED to make this point clear. Since use of the runway to orfrom the north would severely reduce airport capacity by interfering with operations on the parallel runways, • this use is not contemplated. Only in extreme wind or weather conditions, where the parallel runways were unusable, would the runway be used to and from the north. Analysis shows that these extreme conditions would require use of a north -south runway to the north less than 0.1 % of the time annually. This use was incorporated into the noise analysis for Alternatives 5 and 6. F. An economic study of the selected MSP LTCP alternative will be conducted during 1995. The hotels removed as a result of the runway construction are assumed to be replaced in the area, as needed by demand. MAC is working with the City of Bloomington on this and other issues related to the runway project G. The planning and intended operation of the no," - south runway (or any other runway) has been in a manner consistent with all FAA safet gulations. FAA is responsible for all safety met. relating to the use of runways. FAA reviewed the concept in 1990 and found it to be consistent with their safety standards (planning for the north parallel runway similarly meets all FAA safety standards). The FAA Capacity Design Team also analyzed the runway use and did not identify any safety concerns with any runway alternatives. FAA review and ap- proval of the MSP Airport Layout Plan, will further assure that the runway will be operated in a safe manner consistent with federal saw. H. The majority of the businesses displaced (50 out of 77) are on -airport businesses and do not contribute to the neighboring cities' tax base. Some could relocate on the airport but others will have to move to vacant land off -airport and contribute to that city's tax base. Most of the off -airport businesses which would be displaced by development of the north -south runway are dependent upon proximity to the airport; presumably these businesses would wish to relocate in the vicinity of MSP. While temporary job loss might occur, given the scheduling. of demolition and construction of new facilities, permanent job loss is unlikely. Businesses impacted by the proposed improvements et the intersection of Trunk Highway 77 and 66th St. E. are, for the most part, long-term enterprises which are not dependent upon foot traffic; presumably these businesses would wish to relocate to similar commercial areas. With respect to the loss of homes under development of the north parallel runway in Alternatives 1 and 2, locating comparable dwelling units in the immediate vicinity at comparable purchase prices or rentals would be difficult, and virtually impossible for all residents who would be displaced. Data from the 1990 US Census indicates that, while comparable housing is available elsewhere in Hennepin Co., it is not readily available in the same or adjacent neighborhoods. Additional data on, for example, employee payroll figures and housing availability will be included in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. even though the Alternatives 5 and 6 (e) are roughly equivalent in terms of the numbers of affected properties end districts, and (b) introduce noise to a new area, one in which four properties end two districts ere being evaluated for National Register eligibility. The AED rationalises this conclusion by inv that the north parallel alternatives would require the demolition of historic structures in the tort Snelling Historio Landmark District. However, the vary next paragraph in the AED acknowledges that relocating structures is • recognised form of mitigation. The AED never explains why relocation is not a viable option with respect to the properties in the Fort shelling district. Instead, further evidencing its bias in favor of the north -south alternative, the AED •warts without any explanation that a mitigation agreement cannot be reached with respect to the Fort Snelling district. The AED should be revised to analyte the feasibility of mitigating the impacts on that district and to compare the relative impacts of the alternatives in light of such mitigation. Runxmy_4L22 At the time the AED i• being prepared no final decision regarding Runway 4/22 construction has been made. It is inappropriate to prepare en environmental document that doe• not consider alternative dispositions of this proposed improvement. The AED should have analyzed the extension of Runway 4/22, both with end without Taxiway Q (i.e., with and without the use of the extended runway for noise shifting purposes), as 'sub -alternatives' under each of the four Alternatives. • The DNL noise contours depict Alternatives 1 and 2 both with end without the extension of Runway 4/22. The same comparison should have been shown for Alternatives 5 and 6. In addition, the AED should depict the noise contours for ell alternatives if Runway 4/22 were extended but Taxiway 0 were not constructed (i.e., if the extended runway were not used for noise shifting purposes). • The quantitative noise impacts analysis presented in the text of the AED should b. revised to distinguish between the Impacts that would be obtained both with and without the extension of Runway 4/22. • The AED should include runway usage information for each alternative (including •ech sub -alternative including or excluding the extension of Runway 4/22) that discloses, with respect to both daytime end nighttime hours, the percentage and the absolute number of average daily departures and arrivals for each runway end at HSP. The foregoing information regarding runway usage should be utilised to disclose the average daily number of aircraft flyovers experienced by different ernes near the airport under each of the alternatives end sub-•lt•rnativs (collectively, the 'Scenarios"). The AED should disclose the average daily number of hours in which each of the runway ends at MSP would be utilised under each of the Scenarios. • The AED should disclose the extent, if any, to which the current Runway Use, System (RUS) at NSP would be employed under each of the Scenarios. The AED should likewise disclose with respect to each Scenario whether • substitute for or modification of the RUS would be developed, end if so, the netu`re of the substitute or modification. • With respect to the sub -alternatives involving the extension of Runway 4/22, the AED should disclose the extent, if any, to which Taxiway 0 and/or the displaced threshhold for departures on Runway 22 (south of the intersection with Runway 11L/29R) would be utilized. I. J. I. The Fort Sne ling National Historic Landmark District is lege ly distinguished from the Old Fort Snelling National Register Historic District, even though some properties are included in both. While damage to National 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. The discuss on of 'Historic/Architectural Resources" in Section 111.1 hes been revised to more clearly explain this difference and its implications for mitigation. Avoidance of demolition is always the preferred preservation alternative under Sections 106, 110 and 411); demolition istije most difficult impact for which to establish adequate mitigation. Mitigation for other impacts, such as noise, is usually less problematic. Relocation is not a viable option in this instance I because it would destroy the integrity of the location of the structures — thereby compromising the historic significance of the district. Alternatives 5 and 6 require the least amount of demolition, and are thus strongly preferred fffer ed by the State Historic Preservation J. See following pages for response. Response J. While each alternative assumes the extension of Runway 4-22 would be completed prior to the implementation of the Long -Term Comprehensive Plan at MSP, each alternative could be developed without using Runway 4-22 for noise redistribution operations. In particular, each of the alternatives could be operated so that only heavy jet aircraft requiring the longest available runway would use Runway 4-22 with the extension. This use of Runway 4-22 has beeh incorporated into the operational assumptions_for Alternatives 5 and 6.• Although Alternatives 1 and 2 have been planned to use the extension as proposed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Extension of Runway 4-22, July 1994, these alternatives could also be operated without the noise redistribution runway use program for heavy jet aircraft requiring the longest runway. However, the following analysis assumes no extension of Runway 4-22. Figure 17 shows DNL contours for Alternatives 1 and 2 with no extension of the runway. The DNL 65 noise contours encompass approximately 8.0 square miles. The year 1990 population exposed to DNL 65 or greater is approximately 6,980 persons, compared to 4,400 with the extension (see Table 16). There would be 3,020 homes that would experience DNL 65 or greater exterior noise levels. A total of 22,790 people and 12,960 homes would be within the DNL 60 noise contour. The following table shows the population and dwellings within the DNL contours by community for Alternatives 1 and 2 without the extension of Runway 4-22. Table 16 gives comparable numbers with the extension. Population and Households Within Year 2005 DNL Noise Contours - Alternatives 1 and 2 No Runway 4-22 Extension Jurisdiction 1990 Population 1990 Dwellings DNL 75 DNL 70 DNL 65 DNL 60 Total DNL 75 DNL•70 DNL 65 DNL 60 Total Minneapolis 0 930 5,800 20,080 26,810 0 420 2,510 11,390 14,320 Richfield (w/o NFT/RA)' 0 0 60 1,160 1,220 0 0 20 860 880 Fort Snelling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bloomington 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Inver Grove Heights 0 0 0 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 Mendota Heights 0 0 140 890 1,030 0 0 50 460 510 Eagan 0 0 50 650 700 0 0 20 250 270 Total 0 930 6,050 22,790 29,770 0 420 2,600 12,960 15,980 'New Ford Town & Rich Acres 0 120 600 220 940 0 50 230 0 280 As well as additional residential dwellings and people within the DNL contours, Alternatives 1 and 2 without the Runway 4-22 extension would have additional noise sensitive uses within the DNL 65 + contours. There would be two additional churches and one additional park within the DNL 65 contour, bringing the total number of noise sensitive uses within DNL 65 + contours to 16 for these alternatives. There would be a reduction in projected aircraft overflights of the communities to the south and southwest of the airport if Runway 4-22 was not extended. The average monthly arrivals to Runway 4 as shown in Figure 21 would decrease from 890 to approximately 30. Those arrivals not using Runway 4 would be redirected to Runways 11N and 11R. The number of average monthly Runway 22 departures would also decrease from over 2,000 to approximately 50. The departures not using Runway 22 would typically use Runways 29L and 29R. Arrival and departure percentages for Alternatives 1 and 2 without extension of Runway 4-22 are shown in the following table. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 Alternatives 1 and 2 Year 2005 Average Annual Runway Use No Runway 4-22 Extension Runway Departure Percentage Arrival Percentage 1lN - - 30.4 11L 31.3 -. 11R 25.8 25.3 Subtotal 57.1 55.7 29L 19.5 20.2 29R 22.8 - - 29N - - 23.2 Subtotal 42.3 43.4 4 0.2 , 0.4 22 0.4 , 0.5 Total 100.0 100.0 Source: HNTB Analysis, 1994 • • tliaSeAlOnepua C.ommente ♦ The AED should include a SIMMOD analyst' addressing the hours of delay associated with each of the Sceneries. SIMMOD is essential to en understanding of the absolute end relative performance of the different alt*rnatives in terms of both cost and efficiency (hours of delay) as well an safety (runway/taxiway crossing). ♦ The AED should include a time -above -analysis with respect to each of the Scenarios. • The AED should include en SEL anelyeis with respect to each of the Scenarios. The AED should disclose the number of highly annoyed people that would be aspected under each of the Scenarios. • The AID should do more than just present quantitative data regarding the noles impacts for each alternative and sub - alternative -- it should include qualitative analysis regarding the absolute and comparative significencs of those impacts. • The AED should include • quantitative and qualitative analysis of the growth -inducing impacts that would be experienced with respect to each alternative. This is particularly important with :impact to the wast -aids terminal alternatives. The AED should analyse the cumulative impacts of the proposed alternatives end other current, planned, or reasonably foreseeable projects leer MSP. The analysis of cumulative impacts is particularly important with respect to traffic, lend use, and air quality impacts. The AED should address the extent to which each alternative is consistent with the epplicsble State Implementation Plan. Overell.Compent The AED fails in Its essential function of permitting decision - makers and the public to make an informed decision regarding the absolute end relative environmental impacts of the different MSP elternstives. The AED should be revised to address the - deficiencies identified in these comments and recirculated for public review. e D. Prosser Manager JDP:jdv 1 L. N. 0. P. Q. R. K. SIMMOD analysis has been included (Volume 5 Report! snd will be Included (Volume 7 Reportl in all of the technical reports for the LTCP addressing runway capacity and delay.The AED presents the environmental features of he alternatives. L. Tables 18 and 21 depict noise impacts (as measured in DNL, peak SEL, and time above 85 dBA) at select noise sensitive locations around the airport. M. The MSP Technical Committee end Dual Track Task Force agreed that noise impacts analysis would be completed using DNL and L,„ contours, as well as aircraft overflights and calculation of noise impacts at select noise sensitive locations around MSP. N. Noise impacts are considered significant when aircraft sound levels exceed the criteria in Table 13. The degree of significance is subjective and is therefore reserved for the reader. 0. It is anticipated that the development of a West- side terminal could result in redirected development pressures. However, these pressures would be more the result of encouragement or discouragement by local jurisdictions then they would from the movement of the terminal. As such, a quantitative or qualitative assessment of these Impacts solely on the basis of an east terminal versus a west terminal is not possible (particularly given that the air service provided by the two alternatives is identical). However, such a comparison will be included In the next phase, compering an im• proved airport at the current site against a new airport in Dakota County and an unimproved airport at the current site. P. The AED addressed differential impacts of the attematives, es stated on pages 1.1, and 111.1. The analysis only included committed projects. 0. Issues related to the State Implementation Plan and other air quality statutes and regulations will be addressed in the Draft EIS. R. The Draft AED has been revised and circulated for review. 1 1 MALLS AND KATHRIHE ROTHSTSIN 11107 Walsh Lane Mendota Nelghts, MN 551111 666-5/511 Moveaber 22, 1994 METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION 6040 28th Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450-2799 Re: MSP Expansion Plan Dear Commissioners My family lives in Mendota Heights. We are concerned about the expansion plans for the Minneapolis -St. Paul airport. We have read the "Plan Study" which is an evaluation of the impact of the different plans under study by the Commission to expand the airport. Perhaps we don't fully understand the Plan Study. but it leer that expansion alternatives 5 and 6 (north -south runway) are much more feasible that alternatives 1 and 2 (north parallel runways). We believe expansion alternatives 1 and 2 should no longer be considered by the Commission because they present significant operational and noise problems, particularly vhen compared to alternatives 5 and 6. We thought • couple points are worth mentioning in this letter. First, the study concludes that "more people will be impacted by noise by alternatives 1 and 2." Second, alternatives 1 and 2 would require destruction of buildings in the Fort Snelling National Historic iaudsark District and the Old Fort Snelling Rational Historic District. Alternatives 5 and 6 would have no impact on these districts. This seems to be critical because federal law prohibits the harmful use of national register historic properties or districts by federally -funded transportation projects, unless there is no feasible and prudent alternative. Under these circumstances, alternatives 5 and 6 present a reasonable and prudent alternative to destruction of the Fort Snelling property. Since we live in Mendota Heights, we obviously hope.that alternatives 1 and 2 don't become a reality. However, we understand that presently Mendota Heights shoulders the burden of more airport noise and traffic than does the area affected by alternatives 5 and 6. If the airport is to stay at its existing location, fairness and equity suggest that the airport problem be distributed as evenly as possible between the neighboring communities. If alternatives 1 or 2 become reality, fairness would seem to go out the window because Mendota Heights would now be shouldering even more than its fair share of the problem. If you have any questions about this letter, please contact US. cc: Thomas Lavell si rl�- �• Kathrine Rofl3tein 1 Dual Track Airport Planning Process •• MSP Alternative Environmental Document NEW • NCOURSE • AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE • DDITIONAL TERMINAL Figure 2 LTCP Alt tive 11-11 111•111 1111 40111 II a a DO 111 Dual Track Airport Planning Process • • • y • MSP Alternative Environmental Document AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE LTCP Alternative 2 a ill II 111 a DI 111 a II MSP Alternative Environmental Document REMOTE PARKING ADDITIONAL TERMINAL LTCP Alter-gtIve 5 t� r -411 -i-viii lie� Dual Track Airport Planning Process SP Alternative Environmental Document 114410.1! .1.11/14 NEW TERMINAL REMOTE PARKING REALIGNED CONCOURSES NEW RUNWAY AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE Figure 5 LTCP Alternative 6 4 IP - CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS TOUR OF AIRPORT IMPACTED PROPERTIES JANUARY 31, 1995 Key Number 1 Mendota Bridge and Mendota Interchange Project The Minnesota Department of Transportation completed the roadway construction phase of these two projects in Fall 1994. Highways improved as part of the project include T.H. 110, T.H. 13 and T.H. 55. Trail construction and landscaping will occur in 1995 and 1996. The completion of these projects will improve motorist safety and will help provide access to the office and industrially zoned land located in southwest Mendota Heights. 2 Curley Neighborhood The Curley Neighborhood, comprised of approximately 93 homes, was constructed in the 1950's and 1960's. ANOMS Noise Monitor No. 15 is located on Cullen Avenue and routinely records noise events between 95 and 100 dB. Despite this exposure, the neighborhood falls just outside of the MAC's approved 1996 Ldn 65 noise contour and is therefore ineligible for Part 150 sound insulation funds. 3 Lexington Heights Apartments Built in the late 1980's, the three Lexington Heights Apartments buildings were sound attenuated at the time of construction. Two of the buildings fall within the Metropolitan Council's Noise Exposure Zone III, while the third falls within Zone IV. Noise complaints by tenants are infrequent. 4 Roger's Lake Neighborhood This neighborhood was built in the 1960's and consists of approximately 96 homes. Like the Curley neighborhood, this neighborhood falls just outside the MAC's approved 1996 Ldn 65 noise contour and is ineligible for Part 150 funds. Key Number 5 Friendly Hills Neighborhood Comprised of approximately 250 homes, the Friendly Hills Neighborhood was constructed in the 1960's. ANOMS Noise Monitor No. 13 is located on Mohican Court and routinely records noise events between 90 and 100 dB. Despite this exposure, the neighborhood falls well outside the MAC's approved 1996 Ldn 65 noise contour and is ineligible for Part 150 sound insulation funds. 6 HampshirelCopperfield Neighborhoods The Hampshire and. Copperfield neighborhoods were built in the late 1980's end total some 260 single family units. While well outside of the MAC's approved Ldn 65 contour, this area does fall within the Met Council's Noise Exposure Zone IV. According to the Met Council's Guidelines for Land Use Compatibility with Aircraft Noise, "development in this area may be generally free from land use restrictions as such, but can benefit from insulation levels above typical new construction standards in Minnesota". With the City's adoption of a Noise Attenuation Ordinance in 1987, homes in these neighborhoods are required to be built to higher construction standards which serves to mitigate sound transmission. 7 Kensington Neighborhood This area was built in the early 1990's and is comprised of a combination of 385 single and multi -family homes. Development, of this area was originally proposed to be in excess of 800 units and the Mendota Heights City Council actively worked through the courts to reduce development density in this area, partially due to noise exposure concerns. Well outside of the MAC's Ldn 65 contour but contained within the Met Council's Noise Exposure Zone No. IV, all structures in this area are fully sound insulated. 8 St. Thomas Academy and Visitation Schools Built in the 1960's, these two private schools are home to approximately 1,260 children daily. St. Thomas Academy offers grades 7-12. Visitation School offers grades pre-school through 12. Both schools are included in the MAC's 1996 Ldn 65 noise contour and are proposed to receive sound insulation treatment in the near future. • ; 1:1 Key Number 9 Furlong Neighborhood Homes in this area date from the 1950's and 1960's. As the residential subdivision located closest to the airport, the 34 homes in this area were the first in Mendota Heights to become eligible for Part 150 sound insulation funds. By Spring 1995 all homes in this area will be fully sound insulated. ANOMS Noise Monitor No. 23 is located on Kendon Avenue and routinely records noise events in excess of 100 dB. 10 "MAC Site" Redevelopment Area This area was previously home to approximately 42 single family homes which the MAC purchased around 1974.76 to accommodate safety zone considerations for the north parallel runway. The area then sat vacant for a number of years until 1986 when the MAC sold the property to United Properties for development as a business park. Development in this area is subject to strict height, density and use restrictions. In addition, the City has actively worked with new business park tenants to take those steps necessary to plan and build sound attenuated facilities. Without such assistance, the properties would .likely remain undeveloped or underdeveloped. 11 Fairfield Inn by Marriott This 125 unit hotel was opened in late 1994. The hotel is not open to the public, but instead is used solely by Northwest Airlines. Due to the Targe volume of Northwest employees who visit the Twin Cities for training, layovers, etc., space in the hotel is easily filled. As explained by Northwest officials, this arrangement is more economical for Northwest as compared to paying room rates elsewhere in the area. ,4‘fri ing 4A - - ""• ',to" I." •••"" • • Atfe,' • •le."44` "4 1;8 P t• 4 : pt! 1.1 • J, 47•• • 1 AA %..k • _ •tra — . - - "•;41.-. • --7-7,.;-• • ,• ••••• 1;1 „„47••••:‘..,••••-•:•• t a • ••••• ••4.• 5 -" s•• I '41 ai.;--"'..›.77-;•;„ -r.114UI '1 0 11. ••• <,•1 •••• "'•-44";- " ..ettV :71 ' • g• -‘7.- • • _ :2 bir •arl, ,„Z,. • A '6 -',!Lt• ji.111 • et• tf • Ir.- ,••• • . .14 '" 77 • • • ,/ 11 • •••-.•-. !,1- .'4 • ..1 •77,,•7 117 1.^ •0' 10''th„ - -4' 4. ' • rrt,. • 7 11 • • •f.A • • P , ," 4.t see 'q •••••• •sr•,I \:, • :" ;,! - -,!. "- • .• • 15` tzi ‘•••• • '" • 4- \tr,e"-4-,.--It;',ev'Vr 4:, f r„ • - F • • , (....X.7,7/ Mod. 2 -,•;fat 1 • %tic, ts,••4, loft, - - " 4.‘ • ' • • t • • it -=•i.• • / , • ' • • rj • Ai \\ • • •,k%. ..• .1ll 1i • o • — • ' - . oft •• 'N.\ • i -,"\a. •••'1 • • • """--4,-ttr•l• • • -"* • r ti,‘•• S;Fr'r'' • • 4'*:1 t AS: • ., • , f, s _„ -5e-fx• • • , ...: . • .1's f f 7 - A • -:••••:3 , '•4\* a. t1 4,‘ .• • . 'S " • " , c IL\ • rA LIkE; itts4:2 41, --y*- ; ••av, ,;", • -;;,' • •„„.„ • • •.// . i` • -- ••••„::0, • ::•11 04' „ •-•„:771'.>.`• • rS //St r IJAY.• I. .41 - „ I 1,..•rthtfl !I • :X -tj \ :1, v... „.„ • •c'tiCK - • • •2-1<lcr' :3 EI !IfT„' ,,T117111,,,S -•.0j,•"-% ' ‘v, ‘.•;•-•;.\ - • LJ `J. ti. 34/ gp lit': ""'. 11;;Iii„TaliA r .• fet”, 5Th •qc, •,cit...,941-Zr-t, `, • CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS TOUR OF AIRPORT IMPACTED PROPERTIES JANUARY 31, 1995 ate'' " DM MAIL Pt. 2.H1g1 POINTE CT 3.PO►O VIEW TEA. 4.P01O Y►!7 •CT. S.rNaOSTONE CT. a EAGAN ® OO 55 � EAGAN