Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1995-03-08 ARC Packet
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION AGENDA MARCH 8, 1995 - 8:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of February 8, 1995 Meeting Minutes. 4 Acknowledge Receipt of Various Reports/Correspondence: a. NOISE Newsletter for January, 1995. b. Star Tribune Newspaper Article Regarding Expanded NWA Service to Canada. c. Pioneer Press Newspaper Article Regarding FAA's Aviation Capacity Enhancement Plan. d. Resolution of the City of Minneapolis Creating a MSP Airport Task Force. e. MAC 1994 Annual Report to the Legislature on Airport Planning Activities. 5. Unfinished and New Business: Dual Track a. Election of Airport Relations Commission Officers. b. Discuss MAC Request for Comments Regarding New Noise Management Methodology. c. Discuss Planned Meeting of Noise Impacted Dakota County Communities. 6. Verbal Updates: a. Status of Non -Simultaneous (Crossing) Departure Procedure Implementation. b. MAC Decisions Regarding MSP LTCP and Runway 4-22 Extension. 7. Other Comments or Concerns. 8 . Adjourn . 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. NOTE: Due to the rescheduling of the February MASAC meeting to March 7, 1995, the most current MASAC Technical Advisor's ANOMS Report is not yet available. It will be included as part of the Commission's April meeting packet. 7 cj-c7)19 Asia CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION FEBRUARY 8, 1995 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Airport, Relations Commission was held on Wednesday, February 8, 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, Fitzer, Leuman, Olsen, Stein and Surrisi. Commissioner Olin was excused. Also present 'were City Administrator Tom Lawell and Senior Secretary Kim Blaeser. APPROVAL OF MINUTES II Commissioner Olsen moved approval of the January minutes, with correction. Commissioner Leuman seconded the motion. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF VARIOUS REPORTS/CORRESPONDENCE 11, 1995, The Commission acknowledged receipt of the ANOMS report for November and December, 1994. Chair Beaty pointed out that according to the' Complaint Summary, Mendota Heights' complaints are down. Administrator Lawell pointed out that Runway 11R was used heavily during nighttime operations for November and December. Administrator Lawell reviewed MAC Air Noise Complaint Maps for November and December. Chair Beaty pointed out that according to the ANOMS Community Overflight Analysis, the southeast 'corridor receives the majority of overflights. He stated that he believes the City should continue demanding equity in distributing overflights. Chair Beaty stated that he would be in favor of supporting airport traffic hours changes from 6:00 A.M. to 11:00 P.M. to 6:30 A.M. to 10:30 P.M. Commissioner Fitzer stated he would e willing to endorse a change if the City would be guaranteed that aircraft will fly directly down the middle of the corridor. Airport Relations Commission February 8, 1995 Page 2 In response to a question from Commissioner Olsen, Administrator Lawell stated that he has not received information regarding the implementation of the crossing pattern of aircraft during non -simultaneous operations. Lawell stated that he would call Mr. Finney and request a letter updating the City on their EIS results. The Commission acknowledged receipt of the MSP Monthly Complaint Summary through December, 1994. The Commission acknowledged receipt of the Runway Use Summary from August, 1993 to December, 1994. Administrator Lawell explained that this report, at the request of Chair Beaty, was generated by himself. He stated that this report compiles information from the ANOMS report using statistics on the number of aircraft operations which operated from the various runway ends, both in terms of all aircraft operations and jet only operations. The Commission acknowledged receipt of the SMAAC Newsletter for January, 1995. Chair Beaty referenced the SMAAC article regarding airport capacity problems and stated that the Commission should consider discussing the possibility of there being two airports. Administrator Lawell stated the City of Minneapolis has established a task force which will study this "Remote Runway Concept" plan. The Commission reviewed Northwest Airlines position regarding the Remote Runway Concept. It was noted that Northwest Airlines is opposed to this concept. A brief discussion ensued regarding the extension of Runway 4- 22. It was noted that the City of Minneapolis has endorsed the extension of Runway 4-22, but only if it is used to relieve air traffic over South Minneapolis. The Commission discussed the Cities of Richfield and Bloomington's position regarding this possible extension. Chair Beaty stated that he is in favor of extending Runway 4-22 if it will be used to equitably distribute the air noise. In response to a question from Commissioner Olsen, Administrator Lawell stated that if a north/south runway is constructed, then Runway 4-22 will be rendered largely unusable. Airport Relations Commission February 8, 1995 Page 3 The Commission discussed how aircraft will travel using different runway configurations. Administrator Lawell stated that the military facilities will need to be relocated should a third north parallel runway be constructed. Administrator Lawell reviewed a Runway Protection Zone Map. He discussed restrictions in constructing buildings in the safety zone area. The Commission acknowledged receipt of information submitted by Commissioner Surrisi regarding expanded NWA service to Canada. The Commission acknowledged receipt of an agenda for the February 16, 1995 MASAC Operations Committee. Administrator Lawell stated he would be attending this meeting. It was noted that the MASAC Operations Committee would be discussing New Noise Management Methodology. CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON THE STATUS OF THE DUAL -TRACK AIRPORT PLANNING PROCESS Chair Beaty stated that this item had been tabled from their January meeting. He stated that he would like to have the Commission pursue discussion on whether or not the airport should be moved. Commissioner Leuman stated that if the City of Mendota Heights no longer wants to be affected by air noise, then the Commission should be in favor of the airport moving. Commissioner Olsen inquired if the City can afford losing the airport. Commissioner Surrisi stated that she' moved to Mendota Heights to be close to the airport. She stated she would like to see the City of Mendota Heights continue to work on co -existing with the airport. She stated she would like to see the City be more aggressive in arguing equity in distributing the air noise (i.e., changing the corridor boundaries). Commissioner Leuman inquired if the dislocation of jobs was included in the EIS document. Administrator Lawell responded no. He stated the City of Minneapolis has initiated their own study on how their business community would be impacted if the airport were moved. Commissioner Fitzer stated that he is leery of moving the airport. He reminded the Commission of the problems with the construction of the new Denver airport and how expensive it was to construct. J Airport Relations Commission February 8, 1995 Page 4 Commissioner Beaty suggested that any concerns generated by constructing a new airport will not exist as the years go on. He further stated that when he was appointed to the Commission, he was optimistic that the City of Mendota Heights could make some progress in convincing the MAC that the City experiences an inequitable amount of air noise. He stated that he is no longer optimistic. In response to a question from Chair Beaty, Administrator Lawell stated that some socio-economic implications have been analyzed in the dual track airport planning process but that such implications are difficult if not impossible to quantify. Chair Beaty stated that he is concerned for future growth in the existing airport and that more air noise will be generated. Commissioner Surrisi stated that the airline industry is getting healthier. She stated that it may not matter that the number of operations increase at the current airport as long as the air noise is not significant. She stated that new aircraft (such as the A320 and 757) will help reduce the air noise problem. 0 In response to a question from Chair Beaty, Administrator Lawell stated that the City's business park is guided for office and industrial use and that such development greatly benefits our.City's overall tax base. He stated that if the airport is moved, the business park may change in terms of tenant mix, but the overall land use would probably not change. Commissioner Stein stated that he is in favor of the dual - track process. He stated that he would like to see the process of moving the airport slowed. Commissioner Stein stated that he had recently had an opportunity to listen to a speaker on the dual track process. He inquired if this individual could be invited to speak to the Commission about the dual track process sometime in the future. Commissioner Stein further stated that he likes the transit rail concept. Commissioner Olsen stated that he would like to see the City stand behind the dual -track process study. Chair Beaty stated that the City should follow the dual -track process to its conclusion. He stated that the air noise pollution from airplanes will not go away. Administrator Lawell stated that the City Council has suggested that a joint workshop with the Airport Relations Commission be conducted. He stated that one topic of discussion could be the Dual -Track Process. • Airport Relations Commission February 8, 1995 Page 5 DISCUSS MAC RESPONSES TO COMMENTS REGARDING MSP LONG TERM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Administrator Lawell explained that the Metropolitan Airports Commission is accepting another round of public comments on the adequacy of the Final AED through February 13, 1995. He stated that after this deadline, the MAC will meet to formally select which MSP expansion alternative is most preferred. Administrator Lawell briefly reviewed letters and the MAC responses regarding the MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan. Administrator Lawell stated that it would be helpful if Commission members could be available on short notice to attend the meeting. Commissioner Leuman inquired if the City is aware of what MAC Commissioner Louis Miller favors. Administrator Lawell stated that a letter could be sent to Commissioner Miller inquiring about his position. METROPOLITAN COUNCIL TOUR OF COMMUNITIES SURROUNDING MSP HELD ON JANUARY 31, 1995 Administrator Lawell briefly reviewed information which was submitted for the tour of airport impacted properties. The following properties were reviewed: 1. Mendota Bridge and Mendota Interchange Project 2. Curley Neighborhood 3. Lexington Heights Apartments 4. Roger's Lake Neighborhood 5. Friendly Hills Neighborhood 6. Hampshire/Copperfield Neighborhoods 7. Kensington Neighborhood 8. St. Thomas Academy and Visitation Schools 9. Furlong Neighborhood 10. "MAC Site" Redevelopment Area 11. Fairfield Inn by Marriott Administrator Lawell stated that the tour information was well received and that people were interested in the City's community development efforts and sound attenuated homes and businesses. Airport Relation Commission February 8, 1995 Page 6 CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS TO THE AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION MADE ON FEBRUARY 7, 1995 Administrator Lawell informed the Commission that Commissioners Surrisi and Olin were reappointed to serve three year terms on the Commission. MISCELLANEOUS Chair Beaty suggested that the Commission consider conducting a joint meeting with the other Airport Commissions from the Cities of Eagan and Inver Grove Heights to discuss common interests and concerns about air noise. He stated it would be nice to identify common bonds between all the air noise affected cities. It was suggested that the Chairperson from each Commission meet to consider if there is a common ground amongst the cities. If there is a consensus, then staff members from each city should meet to prepare possible discussion items for a joint Commission meeting. Administrator Lawell stated that he would draft a letter, for Commission review, which would be sent to the Cities of Inver Grove Heights, Eagan, Sunfish Lake and Mendota, inquiring about the possibility of conducting a joint meeting between Commissions. It was the consensus of the Commission to conduct a joint workshop with the City Council. The Commission directed staff to inquire with City Council about a possible March 30 or April 27 workshop date. Commissioner Stein stated he would look into the possibility of inviting Mr. Brian Addis to their March 8 meeting to discuss the dual -track process. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the Airports Relation Commission adjourned its meeting at 10:36 o'clock P.M. Respectfully submitted, Kimberlee K. Blaeser Senior Secretary THE NOISE NEWSLETTER JANUARY 1990 PUBLISHED MONTHLY BY THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION TO INSURE A SOUND -CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT Volume V, No. 1 LAND -USE PANEL CONCLUDES WORK; NOISE CRITICIZES PROCESS by Charles F. Price Executive Director A Federal Aviation Administration study group, appointed to develop national policies leading toward compatible land use around the nation's airports, has ended its work with submission of a report which falls far short of addressing the full scope of the complex problem it was appointed to investigate. The panel, of which NOISE was a part, produced after extensive internal dispute and negotiation a report that recommends awarding Airport Improvement Program grants to non -airport sponsors who are willing to plan cooperatively with airports; encourages voluntary agreements be- tween airports and communities where possible; and favors "flexibility" in establishing thresholds of residential compatibility with aircraft noise (but without saying what flexibility is). also supports a revision of the FAR Part 150 program "to recognize and publicize successful land use compatibility concepts including agree- ments among airports, communities and FAA to reconcile airport opera- tions and land -use plans; more effectivecitizenparticipation; andencour- agement of innovative land -use control techniques." In other recommendations, it urges coordination and consistency among all federal regulatory and funding programs that impinge on airport and land development, and asks FAA to take a leadership role in providing technical assistance to localities which may need advice about best land - use planning techniques and practices. Over the past year, the NOISE Newsletter has often reported on the work of the Study Group, with an emphasis on the shortcomings of its proceedings. Many of these concerns were expressed in letters from NOISEFirst Vice President Sharron Spencer, Council Member of Grape- vine, TX andExecutive Director Charles F. Price on January 25 to George Howard, Chairman of the FAA's Research, Engineering and Develop- ment Committee, of which the Land Use Study Group was a subset. Both Spencer and Price were members of the Study Group. The text of Council Member Spencer's letter follows: "Some 18 months ago, I accepted your invitation to serve on the Compatible Land Use Working Group. The Group's final report has been completed and the time is now appropriate to share with you some observations of this process and the inner workings of the Group itself. I el fortunate that you asked me to participate in the Working Group, and . hope that there are future possibilities for the public sector to participate so that unique viewpoint can be represented. "From the outset the stated role of the FAA was to assist the Study Group and provide staff support. By the second meeting the FAA's attempts to manipulate the agenda topics were apparent, and group members were expected to maintain the records. The Chairman took the minutes and provided copies to the members rather than a support person whom we were told would be provided at the outset. It was several months into our process before a consultant was retained to begin reducing to writing what had been discussed. "The consultant's first report iter solei oninput from � b�; appealed, Y FAA representatives and it was quite different in several areas from what actually occurred. The FAA's strong -aim tactics were further clarified • when a report presented to the Group t one meeting was changed in several areas by the next meeting. Upon very direct questioning of the consultant during that meeting, we learned that he had been instructed to make the changes by the FAA representatives. This is the point where you were asked to attend our meeting to review exactly what the role of the FAA was to be. The depth of frustration anddownright disgust I felt over the FAA's strong-arm tactics is difficult to describe in writing. "Members of the Group were from very diverse elements for what I understand was the first time. I commend you for that and felt (and still feel) it would be a good example for future working groups to also be so diverse. As the only elected official in the Group, Inaively expected each of us to sincerely look at everything on the table from all viewpoints and really try to provide a workable solution to the very serious problem of incompatible land uses adjacent to airpoits. In the final outcome, nothing really changed and members voted depending on whom they were either employed by or who they represented in disregard to discussions wherein the "old ways" of doing business were readily recognized by all as being part of the compatibility problem. Some hof the members came to the first meeting or two, and then showed up 09 the final meeting date to vote, having not attended the intervening meetings and perhaps even learned something. "It is clear to me that the FAA wanted from the outset to control the Group's outcome and limit it to a proposed federal grant program which would have been funded from the Airport Improvement Program. Once the Group had crafted such proposed language for the bill, FAA represen- tatives were staunchly opposed to topics which ran counter to the interests of the airlines and airports. This was especially disgusting to those of us who were dedicated enough to travel several hundred miles to attend the meetings. The cost of this dedication to me personally and to my city alone was over $8,000. continue on page 2 January 1995 Page two LAND -USE PANEL continued from page 1. "I want to thank you for making my participation possible. I hope my observations will enable future groups to learn from this experience and I encourage you to make possible participation by the public sector a reality." Price's letter to Howard said: "The work of the FAA's Study Group on Land -Use Compatibility has come to an end and a report summarizing its findings has been presented to the Research Engineering and Development Advisory Committee. Consequently, you are aware that, due to the diversity of the interests represented on the Study Group, the panel was unable to reach a consensus on several matters related to the issue of compatible land use around airports. Thus the report submitted to you can scarcely pretend to have addressed, much less come near solving, the complex problem the body was assembled to examine. "However, the purpose of this letter is not to belabor the shortcomings of the report. They are frankly conceded in the document itself, especially in its appendix, where the contrasting views are set forth in some detail. Instead, I am writing to express a serious concern about the process which govemed the work of the Study Group. "The FAA and you as Chairman of the RE&D Advisory Committee are to be commended for the effortyoumade to include community represen- tatives in the makeup of the Study Group. Too often in the past, similar working groups have suffered from insufficient or completely absent community involvement. However, the laudable inclusion ofcommunity interests in the Land Use Compatibility Study Group was canceled out in practice by the FAA's cynical manipulation of the aviation industry majorities that still dominated the panel in order to limit the scope of the inquiry "Complaints by the community interests about the FAA's heavy-handed stage management of our agenda were aired at several points during the arduous course of the Study Group's life, most particularly at a meeting on June 3, 1994 in your offices, when it was learned that the FAA had caused the official notes of the group's proceedings to be be changed, without notice to the members, in a way that seriously distorted the record. Community frustrations ran so deep on that day that you were asked to meet with us to clarify the FAA's role in the work of the panel. You assured us that"by no means should FAA guide anything that comes from thegroup." You stressed that FAA's role was to facilitate, not direct, our work. "We concede that it would have been very difficult for the views of community interests to have prevailed in any case, given the controversial nature of the issue and the dominance of airline, airport, and other aviation industry spokespersons on the panel. But we understood this disparity from the outset and were prepared to deal with it, so long as all the parties shared our willingness to re-examine their accustomed views and to compromise where necessary in order to advance the debate to new and hopefully productive ground. "In joining this effort we earnestly hoped for a legitimate debate among the concerned parties about all issues bearing on the problem of compat- ible land use. Instead, we soon learned to our dismay that the FAA had but one major purpose in mind for the group: Approval of a new grant program for non -airport sponsors, funded by the noise setaside of the Airport Improvement Program, which would help communities and airport operators plan cooperatively for compatible development. While this was a laudable goal as far as it went, such aprogram (even if enacted, as now seems increasingly unlikely) would not by itself address complex problem of land -use compatibility. "A few other issues which community and other interests on the panel believed were vital to address were eventually touched upon as well - the need to overhaul the Part 150 program, the need for coordination among all relevant federal grant and regulatory programs, the importance of encouraging airport -community agreements. But generally speaking, - any subject other than that of the grant program, which the FAA had apparently pre -selected as the desired outcome of the group's delibera- tions, proved difficult to pursue. And as the Study Group report makes clear, the issue of the viability of the DNL 65 dB threshold, crucial to the question of compatibility, could not be resolved or even usefully dis- cussed. "In hopes of making the work of the Study Group somewhat objective, NOISE had always believed that the chairmanship of the group should have been given to an individual who was knowledgeable about the issue but not connected to either industry or community interests - perhaps someone from the academic world. Unfortunately we were given a chairman with an airport background and outlook. "We had also believed that the job of the FAA should have been just what you said it should be - to facilitate but not control. Instead, it was clear throughout the life of the Study Group that the FAA intended to protect the interests of airports and airlines at every turn, and to fiustrate or cut off pursuit of any matter of which those interests disapproved. • "As a consequence, the Study Group soon became little more than arena for the endless restating of all the tired old adversarial arguments the opposing interests. In other words, it became a complete waste of time: Several very busy people representing all sides of the issue from all parts of the country were forced over a year's timeto travel long distances at great expense to attend meetings devoted to debates everyone had already heard dozens of times before. "While it is commendable that special efforts were made to increase community representation on this particular body, in the end those efforts were negated by the flawed manner in which the process was managed. It is our fur opinion .that the FAA should establish no further study groups or working groups involving community interests unless it is ready to permit them freedom of inquiry and action. To do otherwise would be to simply worsen a relationship that is already characterized by mistrust and suspicion. "As you may know, NOISE is an association of local governments dedicated to reducing the impact of aircraft noise on communities adjacent to commercial airports. You may not know, however, that although we seek noise abatement, we are not anti -aviation. Indeed, we have a tradition of working with the aviation industry, airports and airlines to achieve more acceptable levels of aircraft noise, and have recently opened our membership to airport operators in an effort to facilitate communication on matters of mutual concern "We have been in the past, and will remain in the future, ready and willing to participate meaningfully in any legitimate effort to address the land -use compatibility problem." January 1995 Page three NOISE MEMBERSHIP SURVEY - RESPONSE NEEDED Reprint from December 1994 _.te December 1994 NOISE Newsletter contained a questionnaire relatively few responses have been received. The questionnaire is authorized by the NOISE Board of Directors at its winter meeting in reproduced in this issue. Please complete and mail or fax your Minneapolis designed to elicit information from the members about response to the national office byFebruary28. so that the results may the need for the organization to undertake strategic planning. To date be used as the basisfor Boarddiscussion at the MarchBoard meeting. 1. Do you think it is necessary for NOISE to re-examine 10. If yes, in what ways? its goals and activities by undertaking a strategic planning exercise? YES NO 2. If strategic planning is undertaken, would you take part? YES NO 3. Do you believe that NOISE should focus its efforts exclusively on matters related to aircraft noise? YES NO 4. Jim what other concerns do you think NOISE should address? (Check one or more.) a. — Hazardous waste disposal b. Air pollution c. — Water pollution d. Mass transit links to airports e. ,._.. Land -use planning and zoning f. High-density slot rule g. ` Other (Specify below) 5. Who do you believe should be involved in strategic planning? (Check one or more) a. Board members only b. All categories of NOISE members 11. If no, how could the nation 12. 13. 14. 15. 6. Do you find that your membership in NOISE helps you deal with your local noise problems more effectively? YES NO 16. 7. If yes, in what ways was NOISE helpful? 8. If no, how could NOISE do a better job of helping? )o you believe that NOISE's national lobbying effort is effective and useful? YES NO lobbvina effort be improved? (Be specific.) '� w How could the NOISE Newsletter be improved? How could our NOISE conferences be improved? I Do you make a special effort to attend NOISE Boan meetings? YES NO If no, why not? i } recruit new municipal members of NOISE? YES NO Name Title Address Fax Telephone ud! y JYYJ FAA NIXES TWO MORE WAIVER PETITIONS; ONE CARRIER FILES CHALLENGE The Federal Aviation Administration has turned down requests by Fme Airlines and Frontier Airlines to be excused from the first interim compliance date last December 31 for phaseout of Stage 2 aircraft under the government's Part 91 fleet mix rules. One of the two carriers denied a waiver, Fine Airlines, has filed the fust court challenge of the fleet mix rules. The carrier charged in a suit in the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals that the FAA acted arbitrarily and capriciously in issuing the denial. . The turndowns of Fme and Frontier brought to five the• number of petitioners whose wish to be exempted from the first phaseout deadline was not granted. The others were Millon Air, Air Tran, and Air Train. Two other requests were filed, however, last December 15 by Vanguard Airlines and Volga Dnepr J.S. Cargo Airlines. Another carrier, Casino Express, filed and then withdrew a petition in December. Another waiver request, by Antonov, a Ukranian carrier, has not yet been decided. Page your' NOISE BOARD TO MEET MARCH 11 IN WASHINGTON The Board of Directors of NOISE will meet from noon to 3 par Saturday, March 11 at the Washington Hilton Hotel and Tower.. Washington, D.C., in conjunction with the National League of Cities' Annual Congressional City Conference. A luncheon will be served. The main order of business will be a discussion of whether to undertake strategic planning during the annual conference of NOISE next July. Board members will be notified of the meeting room location by mail once a room has been assigned. NOISE CONFERENCE SET FOR WASHINGTON JULY 26-29 The next NOISE annual conference will be held July 26-29 at the Marriott Key Bridge Hotel in Rosslyn, VA, sponsored by the Committee onNoise Abatement at Dulles and National Airports (CONANDA), an arm of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, a regional planning and coordinating body, and by the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, one of the two charter members of the new NOISE Airport Operators Committee. NOISE National Organization to Insure a Sound -controlled Environment 1225 Eye Street • NW • Suite 300 • Washington, DC 20005 • Charles E. Mertensotto City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota MN 55118 NOISE National Organization to Insure a Sound -controlled Environment 1225 Eye Street • N.W. • Suite 300 Washington, DC 20005 • 202/682-9386 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM NOISE Board of DirectOrs Charles F. Price, Executive Director February 3, 1995 Resignation f Due to health and personal reasons it has become necessary for me to resign my position with Linton, Mields, Reisler & Cottone, Inc., (LMRC) effective March 31, 1995. This of course means that I will also be giving up my job as Executive Director of NOISE. During the two-month period between now and my departure I will be working part-time as I make arrangements to move from Washington to my home state of North Carolina. I have pledged to President Tom Egan that before leaving I will do all in my power to complete plans for the summer NOISE conference. I will of course also discharge my normal responsibilities in connection with the upcoming Board meeting, which ig scheduled for Saturday, March 11 from noon to 3 p.m. in the Bancroft Room of the Washington Hilton Hotel and Towers. LMRC will designate an individual to be presented to the Board for your approval as my successor., That individual has not yet been named. As soorras this happens 1 wiF: • communicate the information to you; I am confident that the nominee will have been named by the time of our meeting and he or she will be able to meet with you in March.' As you know, we are in the midst of a process leading toward a decision about whether to undertake strategic planning at the July conference in Washington. If the Board decides in March to pursue strategic planning, I am sure that my successor will be able to act as facilitator for this exercise in my stead. In March it will also be necessary for us to make a technical amendment to the existing contract between NOISE and LMRC simply to reflect a change in the corporate name from LMRC, Ltd. to LMRC, Inc., reflecting acquisition of the firm by The Carmen Group, a Washington -based consulting firm, effective January 1, 1995. Since the current eontract also names me as executive director, that must be changed as well. The current full contract is due to be considered for renewal at the July Board meeting. As far as I know, LMRC under its new management structure is as committed as ,ever to serving NOISE and advancing the cause of aircraft noise abatement. I trust that NOISE will grow and prosper under the stewardship of a new executive director and new management at LMRC. I have enjoyed my work with NOISE and the relationships I have formed over the years with the members of the Board. I am sorry that the work must now end for me. I hope it will go on for you even more successfully than in the past. Thank you for giving me the privilege of working for you. • Airlines Northwest expanding air service oto a number of Canadian c't'es ;Flights start in May :ender open skies ::accord announced Eby U.S., Canada ly Josephine Marcotty 'Staff Writer Northwest Airlines will add 10 flights a day between Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport and dive Canadian cities under the open . skies agreement announced last ,week by the governments of the United States and Canada. All but one of the newly scheduled ,flights will begin May 1, with the -.other to debut May 15. Destinations will include Vancouver, British Co- lumbia, and Montreal, Quebec, which are two of Canada's three largest cities. _The U.S. Department of Transpor- tation said Monday that 12 U.S. airlines were awarded authority for regular service to 17 Canadian cit- ,ies. Federal officials predicted that traffic between the two countries will increase from 13 million annu- ally to 19 million within a few years, :3. FLYING THE OPEN SKIES Northwest said it will begin non-stop service between Minneapolis and these Canadian cities as a result of the open skies pact signed last week. Existing twice-daily service to Edmonton, Alberta, and thrice- daily hriddaily service to Winnipeg, Manitoba, will continue. 0 500 Miles Other carriers .awarded routes• -Y'Delta • r:>,• Coittineilial " :united Vancouver, British Columbia Twice daily Starts: May 1 Regina, Saskatchewan Twice daily Starts: May 1 Sources: Northwest, AP and the two countries would share a $10 billion increase in commercial and tourism spending. Transportation officials predicted that without the arcane and compli- cated regulations that limited air - Star Tribune Graphic line access to Canadian markets, flight times will be cut in half and fares will plummet as more airlines offer additional nonstop flights. Canada continued n page 7D Canada Continued from page 1D skies agreement will u good news to all The new open ears. U.S. d in over three y This is very, very f us in the northern Je United States, ad e executive director ofsthe nMetropoli- tan Airports Comm Though Northwest prevailed in its efforts to obtain routes to and two of Canada's largest cities, authority to Airlines to Toronto awarded authority Cana- da's largest commercial center. art of the be phase ver ff Hamiel, service to Montreal and ted oafter for two years, • will be lime which airlines from both countries will bey. Service to Torontolowed to serve wille bet e freely. ears. restricted for three y Airlines are given free rein t ser- vice other Canadian cities, Canadian ve free access to U.S. c ties.rd, under the are given service This report includes inform Northwest Detroit willt beginfrom Star po ribine ncludeeservices capital py al of taws ano willthe Canadian vice lay 15 betweenDetroitand vice May Halifax, Nova Scotia. ion FAA predicts number of air traveler in U.S. will double in two decades RANDOLPH E. SCHMID AssOcwltO PRESS WASHINGTON A major expansion of U.S. airports is urgently needed to handle an expected doubling of passenger traffic in less than 20 years, a federal report says. • Immediate action will be needed to avoid increasing delays, according to the report issued just days before the planned opening — finally — of the new Denver International Airport. . The Federal Aviation Administration's Aviation Capacity Enhancement Plan an- ticipates a doubling of passenger travel in the next 18 years.: This year, air traffic is up between 3 percent and 6 percent at various air- ports, the FAA noted. And most large. airports are already operating at "close to capacity. especially at peak • hours," said Monte Belger, the FAA's associate administrator for air traffic services. "We will clearly need additional run- way capacity, whether in new airports or additional runways at existing airports," he said. Airport capacity is going to be the limiting factor on growth in air travel, Belger said, and bis office is focusing on where new facilities will be needed most and how to get the resources to thein. Improvements in air , traffic control will help ease the problem by allowing 'planes to take off and land • more fre- quently and closer together, he said, ,but additional runways will also be neces- BBelger said his office is'studying ways to assist local governments. in ping and expanding their airports and in find- ' ing new wads to finance this work, '`in- cluding seeking private investors. -In 1993,23 airports across the country each experienced at least 20,000 hours': of flight delays at•an average cost per plane of $1,600 for each hour of delay, the FAA reported. Without increases in capacity, the . number• of airports experiencing 20,000 hours of •delays will grow to 32 by 2003, - : the report said. City of Mendota Heights February 27, 1995 The Honorable Rod Grams United States Senate 2013 Second Avenue North Anoka, MN 55303 Dear Senator Grams: 1 am writing to your office to request a copy of the Federal Aviation Administration's Aviation Capacity Enhancement Plan, a recent federal report. This report projects air traffic and flight delays at 23 airports around the nation and states that major expansions of U.S. airports are urgently needed. The City of Mendota Heights is severely impacted by air traffic overflights and related noise, thus any federal reports detailing air traffic projections are considered to be vital information that pertains to our health, safety and welfare. We would greatly appreciate if your office could provide the above referenced federal report. An Associated Press article regarding the Aviation Capacity Enhancement Plan is attached, for your information. Sincerely, CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS A t Charles E. Mertensotto Mayor CEM: kkb Attachment 1101 Victoria Curve • Mendota Heights, MN • 55118 452.1850 AIRLINES v . Northwest Airlines speeds up order for 15 new Boeing aircraft DOUG IVERSON STAFF WRITER Northwest -Airlines announced a jug- gling of the delivery dates of aircraft with an unusual twist: early delivery of 15 Boeing 757 jets. The Eagan -based carrier, on the heels of a $295.5 million profit in 1994, said it had arranged to take delivery of five narrow -body 757 jets later this year and 10 more in 1996, two years ahead of schedule. In exchange, Northwest wins flexibili- ty. It has been allowed to defer delivery of 25 other 757 jets originally scheduled for delivery beginning in 1998 until after 2000. It also has the option of deferring four Boeing 747-400 aircraft scheduled for delivery in 1997 and 1998. "This is - a beneficial agreement for both companies," Mickey Foret, execu- ' V CONTINUED FROM IF Northwest to substitute other models of Boeing aircraft for ex- isting orders, the airline said. Initially, the move will mean an increase in capacity for North- west. The Boeing 757s seat 184 passengers and will replace aging 727 jets, which seat about 146 pas- : sengers.: Federal noise standards hequire that Northwest either • modify the noisy 727s or replace them with new, quieter jets. 'Per or Boeing, it's the biggest ac- celeration of an order in more . OM two years. ""This is the first time in a little wliile that someone has asked us • t6 me.- ^ome airplanes up," said , Nick am, Boeing spokesman. tive vice president and chief financial officer, -.said in a prepared statement. "We can smooth out and better time our scheduleof new aircraft deliveries." Foret said the company had obtained financing for the 15 757 jets, resolving a key financing requirementfacing the company in the next five years. Pratt & Whitney will provide the engines for the aircraft. Deferring remaining •Boeing 757s and the option to put off delivery of the -747s will allow the carrier to: defer as much as $2.4 billion in capital expenditures sched- uled in 1995 to 1999. `: "This will save Northwest almost $400 million in self -financed' aircraft capital expenditures, a significant improvement in Northwest's net cash flow," Foret said. The agreement with Boeing also allows • JETS CONTINUED 0 "That's the good news." . - Flexibility in fleet planning> is • key for an airline, since guessing wrong can be costly. In December 1992, Northwest had to absorb AC - counting charges totaling $654.1 million for canceling' 76 Airbus and Boeing jets and deferring ,de- livery of others. The $654.1 mil- lion was for lost deposits and pen- alties. Northwest has opted to modify engines and interiors 'of,. its older DC -9-30 jets, which carry 100 pas- sengers, rather than buy replace- ments. The company also said Monday it had converted 40 options to pur- chase engine hush kits for DC -9-30 aircraft to firm orders. That brings the total number of hush kits ordered to 80, with options for 50 more. ' 3F ► B — Pc one.\-- R- e bJ -mob, 1I I qq5. cru-es. rues ) I `Viest Airlines'.fleet is 'ail fes need further J u lin of deliverydates w, ,,„-.k , j � g ;Taft; opting to speed delivery of some 757s erste,21im•,:increased.flexibility 4w* PIONEER PRESS 02/06/95 13:23 FAX 612 222 4755 MERTENSOTTO FEB 6 '95 13:41 L f ilia LM!0TDM r.eiXTVAUE" ay RESOLUTION of the CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS Mead, Herron, Scott. Dziedzic, Campbell, Rainer!, Cher yhomes, Nliand, CITY (WIhill PAGE.H3 n .td.h )4/‘ Ij 002 Creating a City of Minneapolis MSP Airport Teak Force to examine, the socioeconomic Impact on the City of Minneapolis resulting from elthar expatriding the 41rpo16 cui'ro t t(t ar nfeving 114 66 0 4. Whereas, within the next 15 months, a major metroposten decision involving tyre future of the Minneapolislet. Paul Airport may be readied by the State Logluiature that will have significant economic, environmental, and social affects on the City of Minneapolis; and • Whereas, through the 4980 Dual Track Al ort Planning legislation, the State Legielaturu directed the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) and the Metropolitan (Met) Council to study these implications in determining how best to provide for future air transportation in the reglen and the State; end Whereas, since that time the•MAC and Met Council have selected a new airport site in Dakota County just southwest of Hastings; and Whereas, the MAC and Met Council planning process for either creating a new airport or for expanding the existing airport ie being handled by two technical committees and one advisory committee; further, in the membership of all three committees, the City of MInne epolta is represented by only one part eipant and M' erees, the MAC and Met Council's economic study will focus primarily on the raglonal impact of expansion versus a new Location; and Whereas, given its scope, an economic study carried out by,the MAC end Met Council may not address all issues germane to the City of Minneapoiis; and Whereas, the City of Minneapolis should not take a position supporting any option until ail issues important to the City are Identified, evaluated, and addressed, and sufficient data are produced to make en Informed decision; and Whereas, a position on the preferred alternative should evoiye from a consensus, building process that brings together intetpsted parties to Identify, evaluate, end address these issues and subsequently, to produce recommendations for hie Mayor and the City Council; and gw.foorA.. au Pawn Fax Noto p 0 parm� $! met r� comm. Hca MfPI4 .tab 1 opo t 471 -1.2,07 rat 02/06/95 13:24 FAX 612 222 4755 muni LichtJ1In 1 WNW r. L. L, r. • MERTENSOTTO 444 CITY OF ME WOlx" (t ut,i U t. G4 Y3 i1:/i. 1 I : I 0/NU. WU4d I U4 Y r/4 Whereas, City of Minneapolis position on the airport location must be devetopod within the next twelve months irfhe City intends to have an impact on the Airport Planning and Decision-making process; Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved by The City Council of The City of Minnespolls; That the City of Minneapolis will creels a City of Minneapolis MSP Airport Task Faroe to &semisoft todlohoonom a Mot Off tine My mulling tg from IOW expanding or relocating the airport. That this task force will also eVeluate the socioeconomic impact on the City resulting from a third option, a "Detached (Remote) Runway*" configuration. • That the task force will have access to City staff as well as be staffed by e consultant who can effectively assist the group In developing its recommendations. . That the task force will be broad based to include the diversity of views needed to formulate a unified, City-wide position, , • '02/06/95 13:25 FAX 612 222 4755 FEB 6 '95 13;43 ...... T....+ay... • 4...0.14.14.4..• _• ..• 4 ILLI,.,,... •_ PAGE.04 1I •.4/vi• t 7•iJ/V. 40 VVKVJI U.1 s JJY Z&P - Your Committee reCortlrnends approval of the following appointments to the MSP Airport Task Force: Harold Brandt!-8r+o tafd; Minneapolis resident 2904 Laura Coda-Mlnneapolis resident, 1601- tam Av NO; Garen Dewar. Nan-profrt deveiopmont organization; Minndep°ll4 rasldenti 4250 Harriet Av 8; Frank Hornstein—Environrtental concerns; John Kelly. -lice President, Ryan Properties; Minneapolis resident, 5017 Columbus Av 8; 41 John Labvsky—Minneepoifs Downtown Council, 51 8 9th et; W Ibur Maki --Professor, Agricultural & Applied Economics, Univeraity'! - Minnesota; 4520 Oxford Av, Edina; Av 8; Judith Martin—Urban planning/Geography and City Planning Com Minneapolis resident. 14 Grove 8t; Av; iasioner, Chuck Nasrland--Minneapolis Tech Corridor; Minneapolis resident, 330 Prospect Claudia Parliament --Associate Professor, Agricultural & Applied Economics, .University of Minnesota; Minneapolis resident, 2818 S 7th St; Robert Randle—African American Chamber of Commerce, former chair of City Planning Commission; 1121 Glenwood N; Regina Reed•.Reattor; Minneapolis resident. 4337 Oakland Av; Shelley Regan/John Be ford—Greater Minneapolis Chamber of Comma e 6th 8t; Hugh Schilling—Former M.A.C. emir; 1170 .16th Av S (business addres&y; ©avid Sternberg—Heitman Manager, SOMA Board; Minneapolis resident, 3417 8t fouls Av: Craig Swan—Chair, Economloe. Department, University of Minnesota; Mtnnsaaoifs resident 2631 Irvine Av 8: 02/06/95 X : 3 2 0 ' FAX 6 24222 4755 1AVA L•31uu+Kviv2 OL r141 U1n L. 11. ginnI0 Uv -a.. PAGE.©5 k1ur1U1. L4 44 II:LL/371. 11:10/SU. 30OU403IU4 r 4/4 Sandra vargas-•Minneapolla resident, 3129 45th Av Si John WIUams—Mtnneepatis Building Trades Council, 312 Central Av; Bonnie Wrttenberr—SMACC; Minneapolis resident$ 6224 Clinton Av S; Council Members—S. Dore Mead. Steve Minn, Alice Reinville, Dennis Schulitad, Pet Scott. Scott moved to amend the report by deleting the appointments of Prank Hornstein end Council Members S. Dore Mead. Steve Minn, Alice Reinvltte, Dennis $achuisted. Pat Scott end by adding the appointment of Terrell Towers; MinneepoGs resident, 3247 Upton Av N. Seconded. Adopted. The report, ea amended. was adopted. Approved u ro Autos* 'w'.tyt`r '� :' �[7MRY'Y� -:• `ii'%�ia.11-213.1-t...,il 01111D *L:;r M QUVWGL tan , :»1-l,•i.L'ir�r'.•••. A'tYi KAY �.i..iJT • Svr 1lot1k0 J . 9ild.� . VdFt1Ero t3f • 1�J.•. borTTO Attf�tK ,;• mmack "I -'.`�� tltY V , {_�` �'b K71fi�RRfGE .._ i1t11i1lfJt � t�+At ." ? _..Istkile ■irfl. Ian PA&8 ATTEST 61421011r.I U APPROVED .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 FROM: Nigel D. Finney, Deputy Executive Director - Planning and Environment RE: 1994 ANNUAL REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE DATE: February 14, 1995 Attached for your information is the 1994 Annual Report to the Legislature, summarizing activities related to the Dual Track Airport Planning Process of the Metropolitan Airports Commission for 1994, and providing an overview of the work that will be undertaken during 1995. This report is required as part of the 1989 Metropolitan Airport Planning Act. During 1994, activity focussed on the Update of the Long Term Comprehensive Plan for Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport and on the Long Term Comprehensive Plan for a potential new airport. Both of these activities are intended to provide the preferred MSP development concept and the preferred new airport concept for comparison in the final step of the Dual Track Airport Planning Process. During 1995, the MAC will select the preferred MSP development concept and the preferred new airport concept. Work on the Final EIS will be initiated in coordination with the FAA. The issues of economic impact and financial feasibility will also be studied to provide input into the final decision-making process. Please contact me at 726-8187 if you have any questions regarding this report. The Metropolitan Airports Commission is an affirmative action employer. ' •.t;ortrts: AIRI.AKE • ANOKA COUNTY'ALAINE • CRYSTAL • FLYING CLOUD • LAKE ELMO • SAINT PAUL DOWNTOWN • DUAL TRACK AIRPORT PLANNING ACTIVITIES 1994 ANNUAL REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION February 1995 Dual Track Airport Planning Activities 1994 Annual Report to the Legislature Metropolitan Airports Commission Introduction The 1989 Metropolitan Airport Planning Act requires that -the Metropolitan Airports 'Commission (MAC) report to .the Legislature by February 15 of each year°on:its airport planning activities for the preceding year, and its anticipated activities for the -upcoming year. For 1994, the following activities are discussed: • 1993 Report to the Legislature. • • Minneapolis -Saint Paul International Airport Long Term Comprehensive Plan (MSP LTCP) Update. Minneapolis -Saint Paul International Airport Long Term Comprehensive Plan Draft Alternative Environmental Document (AED). • New Airport Comprehensive Plan. • New Airport Comprehensive Plan Draft AED. • New Airport Site Preservation Study. • Remote Runway Study. • FAA Airspace Capacity Study. • Supplemental Airport Study. • • Economic Impact Study. • Community Impact Study. • Dual Track Airport Planning Process Report to the Legislature. • Community/Agency Coordination. Dual Track Airport Planning Process Environmental Impact Study (EIS). -1- I For 1995, the following anticipated activities are discussed: ■ MSP LTCP Update. ri ■ MSP LTCP AED. ■ New Airport Comprehensive Plan. ■ New Airport Comprehensive Plan AED. ■ New Airport Site Preservation Study. r' ■ Remote Runway Study. . • Supplemental Airport Study. • Financial Analysis. • FAA Airspace Capacity Study. • Dual Track Airport Planning Process Environmental Impact Statement 6-1 i • Economic Impact Study. • Community Impact Study. • Dual Track Airport Planning Process Report to the Legislature. • Community/Agency Coordination. Total costs for MAC Dual Track planning activities for 1994 and 1995 are provided at the end of the report. Work Completed in 1994 -3- 1993 Report to the Legislature Purpose and Objective In February 1994, a report to the Legislature similar to this document was prepared and submitted. The report described 1993 work and anticipated 1994 work. Status and Results " The 1993 report was submitted to the Legislature on February •15; 1994. The"report summarized progress on the following initiatives: ■ Aviation Activity Forecast Update. ■ Minneapolis -Saint Paul International Airport Long Term Comprehensive Plan Update (MSP LTCP). • MSP LTCP Environmental Scoping Process. • FAA Capacity Enhancement Plan for MSP. • New Airport Site Selection. • New Airport Site Selection Study Alternative Environmental Document. -• Dual Track Airport Planning Process Environmental Impact Statement Alternatives. • Community/Agency Coordination. • Governor's Task Force on Metropolitan Airport Planning. Minneapolis -Saint Paul International Airport Long Term Comprehensive Plan Update Purpose and Objective The Long Term Comprehensive Plan (LTCP) for Minneapolis -Saint Paul International Airport provides a blueprint for airport development through the year 2020, should the Legislature decide to retain MSP as the region's air carrier airport. It includes a 2010 development plan and a 2020 conceptual plan. The previous plan was approved by the MAC in December 1991. - The Metropolitan Airport Planning Actof:1989 requires that this plan -be ,updated priorto the recommendation to the Legislature. The updated plan will provide ;a benchmark to compare with the comprehensive plan being developed for a potential new airport. Status and Results In 1993, as the first step in the update process, the aviation activity forecasts for MSP were re-evaluated. In 1994, these forecasts were used to reassess anticipated facility requirements, and determine if the six previously identified development alternatives needed to be amended. The MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan Update was nearly completed during 1994. To date, the following components have been accomplished: Update of Existing Conditions at MSP Update of Forecasts of Aviation Demand Revision of Airport Facility Requirements Revalidation of Airfield and Terminal Alternatives Update of 2010 Development and 2020 Conceptual Plan Using the revised facility requirements, four of the six original development concepts were revised and analyzed: Alternative 1 -- Construction of a new 7,700 -foot north parallel runway and an additional passenger terminal east of the existing terminal. Alternative 2 -- Construction of a new 7,700 -foot north parallel runway and a replacement passenger terminal on the west side of the airport. Alternative 5 -- Construction of a new 8,000 -foot north -south runway on the west side of the airport and an additional passenger terminal east of the existing terminal. 1 Alternative 6 -- Construction of a new 8,000 -foot north -south runway on the west side of the airport and replacement passenger terminal on the west side of the airport. -5- Altematives 3 and 4 were eliminated from further consideration during the scoping process because of significant operational and noise concerns. The four remaining altematives were refined based on the revised facility requirements. The Commission expects to select a preferred development plan in February 1995. Minneapolis -Saint Paul International Airport Long Term Comprehensive Plan Li Draft Alternative Environmental Document (AED) • Purpose and Objective The consideration of environmental impacts is an integral part of the Dual Track Airport Planning Process. An Alternative Environmental Review Process approved by the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) was initiated along with -the MSP LTCP Update. The process is similar to an EIS in.terms of detail and level of analysis, however the document only considers the four MSP LTCP development alternatives. The analysis in the AED focuses on environmental impacts, and specifically on differences among alternative airport development plans, since the purpose of the AED is to help select among alternative MSP development plans: Status and Results Results from the AED analysis will be used in the decision-making process to select the recommended MSP development alternative and in the final EIS. The AED considers 19 environmental factors in evaluating the four MSP development alternatives, including: • Air Quality • Archaeological Impacts • Biotic Communities • Bird -Aircraft Hazards • Construction Impacts • Endangered and Threatened Species • Energy Supply and Natural Resources • Floodplains • Groundwater • • . • • • • • • • Historical/Architectural Land Use Issues Noise Impacts Park and Recreation Areas Socioeconomic Impacts Surface Water Quality Transportation Access Visual Impacts Wetlands Wildlife Refuge In late 1993, a Scoping EAW and Draft Scoping Decision Document were prepared to identify issues that would need to be addressed in the MSP AED. An agency and public comment period on the Draft Scoping Decision Document (DSDD) for MSP began in February 1994, and a public hearing was held on February 15th. A final SDD, which incorporated the significant comments received, was adopted in March; 1994. A Draft AED was published in October 1994. A 60 -day public comment period followed; a public hearing was held in October. • New Airport Comprehensive Plan Purpose and Objective After the Metropolitan Council selected the Dakota Search Area in December 1991, a site selection study was undertaken to identify a recommended site for development of a potential new airport. The study culminated in the Commission's selection of "Site 3" on January 27, 1994. The site is located about 28 miles southeast of downtown Minneapolis, near Hastings. A comprehensive plan is required by the Dual Track Legislation, and is designed to -identify a preferred layout -for the -potential new airport. It will determine the size,.location and design of.runways and taxiways, passenger terminals, ground access and parking, air cargo, general aviation, support facilities and utilities. Status and Results In 1994, three alternative layouts were analyzed for operational efficiency and environmental impacts: Alternative 1 is designed to maximize the percentage of time the most efficient operating modes can be used and is the largest alternative at 9,600 acres. Alternative 2 is similar to Alternative 1, except taxi times are decreased and the site is reduced in size to 9,330 acres. Alternative 3 is designed to minimize the site's size (8,640 acres), yet still incorporate the elements identified in the conceptual design study. The MAC developed an evaluation matrix which analyzed the three alternatives based on various criteria. Nearly 50 criteria were analyzed in the following categories: • Airport Efficiency • Airspace Interaction • Military Facility Location/Efficiency • Airline Cargo Facilities Location/Efficiency • All -Cargo Carrier Facilities Location/Efficiency • General Aviation Location/Efficiency • Airline Maintenance Location/Efficiency • Site Expandability/Flexibility -8- • Displaced Population/Employees • Planned Development • Noise Impacts • Tax Base • State Safety Zones • Historic, Architectural, and Archaeological Impacts • Farmland Impacts • Parks/Recreation Land • Wetlands • Floodways • Stormwater Runoff • Minimum Acreage of Airport Property • Differential Costs 0.1 114 .rt -9- New Airport Comprehensive Plan Draft Alternative Environmental Document Purpose and Objective Under the Alternative Environmental Review Process approved by the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB), an Altemative Environmental Document (AED) is being prepared for the new airport. The process is identical.to the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement in terms of addressing issues and • potential environmental impacts, however only alternative layouts for the new airport- are considered. The document is similar in scope to the AED for MSP. - :The analysis in the AED focuses on the differential environmental impacts of the three new airport layout .altematives so that a preferred layout can be identified: '- Status and Results The MAC prepared a Scoping Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) and Draft Scoping Decision Document (DSDD) to determine the extent of environmental review necessary. Following a Public Hearing on May 12, 1994, three alternatives were selected for further study and outlined in a Scoping Decision Document adopted by MAC in June 1994. The draft AED for the new airport comprehensive plan was made available for public ..: rcomment in December 1994; a public hearing will be held in January 1995. -10- ..n eY� Remote Runway Study Purpose and Objective During the Dual Track Process, a Remote Runway Altemative was suggested. Under this . altemative, the existing infrastructure at MSP International Airport, including the terminal, . parking facilities and other support facilities, would be maintained as today; however, a • set of runways would be constructed at a remote location where aircraft operations would occur.- A high-speed rail link would transport passengers between the terminal area and the remote runway complex. The purpose of this altemative is to maintain the ,convenience of the close -in facilities already in existence at MSP while moving aircraft operations to a site more distant from the population. The initial phase of the Remote Runway Study will evaluate the feasibility Status and Results In 1994, the MAC prepared an RFQ and workscope for the study. of the concept. New Airport Site Preservation Study Purpose and Objective The MAC is undertaking a study of the effects of preserving a potential•new airport site in Dakota County. While it is possible that a relatively short period of time would transpire between when the State Legislature decides to build a new airport and actual construction and operation, it is also possible that a decision could be made to preserve the land and build a new -airport at some point further.in the future --• between now and .2020, when warranted by higher demand levels. Under the New Airport Site Preservation Study, three scenarios are being analyzed. The first assumes that the site would be preserved for a period of 10 years after the Legislature decides to build a new airport. The second scenario assumes that the property would be held for 20 years before a new airport is built.-. The last scenario investigates the effects of preserving the site for 20 years, then deciding that a new airport will not be built on the property and releasing the land back for other land uses. The three scenarios will be examined for their financial impacts on land owners and public agencies (townships and school districts), economic impacts, social impacts, environmental impacts and costs. Status and Results . 'In 1994, the MAC researched existing land use patterns and infrastructure in the vicinity of the site and estimated how land use patterns and infrastructure might change over the next 20 years. A preliminary property "footprint" to be used .in the study was also identified. -11- FAA Airspace Capacity Study Purpose and Objective { The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) completed a Capacity Enhancement Plan for MSP in 1993. The study included an analysis of airfield capacity enhancement options .designed to meet 2020 needs. In late 1994, the FAA initiated an Airspace Study for - MSP.' The purpose of this study is.to identify capacity deficiencies in. the surrounding airspace structure and propose solutions that will meet future activity -levels. As with the airport capacity. study, the airspace study is part of an ongoing effort by. the FAA at major airports around the country. A task force was formed consisting of FAA air traffic controllers from the MSP control towerand the Minneapolis Air Route Traffic Control Center. Also participating are airline -personnel and aviation planners. The task force will meet approximately every six weeks, throughout 1995. Status and Results In late 1994, the FAA initiated an Airspace Study for MSP. An FAA organizational meeting was held to begin work on the study. An initial meeting of the task force was held late in the year to review input to the analysis. ir • E.1 Supplemental Airport Study Purpose and Objective A supplemental airport is among the alternatives suggested to meet the region's future aviation needs. Under this altemative, certain components of aviation demand (e.g., cargo or military activity) would be relocated to another airport. This would free -up capacity at MSP and allow greater use -for passenger flights while reducing expansion needs. The supplemental airport could be -connected with MSP via high-speed.rail. . • • MnDOT will study this alternative to determine its effectiveness in meeting 2020 aviation demand, identify the environmental impacts, and quantify the associated costs. Status and Results In 1994, MnDOT prepared an RFQ and workscope for the project and distributed them to potential consultants. Dual Track Airport Planning Process Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Purpose and Objective Federal and State Environmental Impact Statements (EIS's) will be prepared concurrently K with the Dual Track Airport Planning Process. The purpose of the EIS's is to identify, - describe and .compare the environmental consequences of,.the .recommended MSP development plan, the recommended new airport comprehensive plan, a No Action alternative, and other reasonable alternatives that meet the region's Tong -term aviation needs. -Since the Dual Track environmental review process approved by the Minnesota EQB required the MAC to perform EIS -level analysis for both MSP and the new airport, much of the effort involved will be in the compilation of analyses from both the MSP and new airport AED's. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is responsible for preparing and processing the Federal EIS, while the MAC is responsible for the State EIS. The Minnesota EQB will determine the adequacy of the State EIS. In order to eliminate duplication with State and local procedures, the EIS will draw extensively from the AED's. Status and Results To date, potential options for the MSP No Action alternative have been identified and are still under discussion. As other alternatives are identified, they will be considered and analyzed in the EIS. A significant effort was expended in order to detail the relationship between State and Federal agencies during the EIS process. As the process now stands, the FAA will hire a consultant who will prepare the Federal EIS. They will work closely with the MAC, who is responsible for the State EIS, in order to minimize duplication of effort and reduce review time. MAC and FAA have been working toward a Memorandum of Understanding and a Work Scope for completion of the EIS. -15- Economic Impact Study Purpose and Objective Airports and their associated activity affect local and regional economies. It is important to identify.the various economic impacts -- direct, indirect and induced resulting from each of the airport development altematives. The economic impacts of no- action scenario vs; continuing development of MSP or development of a new a rport will bean integral part of the analysis leading up to an airport development decision by the Legislature. The work performed will be incorporated into the final Environmental Impact Statement. Status and Results Evaluation ;of economic impacts wilt be initiated in a study by the MAC and the Metropolitan Council. A work program for the economic analysis was completed during late 1994. 1 .ry Community Impact Study Purpose and Objective The purpose of this study element is to examine the community impacts associated with the construction and operation of a new airport, or for expansion of MSP. Where adverse consequences occur, means of mitigating these impacts will be explored. Changes in - land use and development around each of the airport sites, as' well as -the effects of acquisition of land and the removal of land from development, will be addressed. The changes in demand for public services will be analyzed, together with measures to mitigate any adverse impacts on adjacent communities. Status and Results - ` Evaluation of community impacts was included as part of the site selection process for the new airport, and is being conducted under the new airport comprehensive plan. Community impacts are also being analyzed in a preliminary manner for potential MSP development. The analysis will be continued in preparing the Alternative Environmental • Documents for the new airport comprehensive plan and for the MSP LTCP Update, and in the Dual Track EIS. -17- r J Dual Track Airport Planning Process Report to the Legislature Purpose and Objective The Report to the Legislature will lay out the *key data, analysis and rationale for the recommendation to the Legislature for meeting the Tong -term aviation needs of the Twin Cities. The report is to be completed by -July 1996. A recommendation by the MAC .and the Metropolitan Council will be included in the document. Redrafting of the Outline for the Report to the Legislature was begun in 1993 and completed in 1994. The draft incorporates comments provided at, -and subsequent to, public hearings held in 1992 on the previous draft, and identifies the questions and key issues that will need to be addressed in the Report to the Legislature. , Status and Results -18- Community/Agency Coordination Purpose and Objective Throughout the Dual Track Process, a high level* of public and agency coordination is being maintained. MAC staff and consultants are working . on a continuing basis: with .----- several committees and review groups in each of the study elements. r-: Status and Results The following activities took place during 1994: • • Briefings of the State Advisory Council at the request of the Co -Chairs. • Regular meetings of the Dual Track Task Force. • Regular meetings of the New Airport Comprehensive Plan and MSP Technical Advisory Committees. • Presentations to MAC at major decision points. ■ Periodic newsletters. ■ Public information meetings and public hearings. The MSP Technical Committee held meetings on February 23, March 22, April 19, May 24, June 21, July 19, August 16, September 20, and December 20, 1994. The New Airport Technical Committee held meetings on February 23, March 23, April 20, June 22, July 20, August 17, September 21, and October 26, 1994. The Dual Track Task Force held meetings on February 24, March 23, April 20, May 25, June 22, July 10, August 17, September 21, October 26, and December 21, 1994. Public meetings were also held on February 15, 1994 for the scoping process for the MSP AED, and on May 12, . 1994 for the scoping process for the New Airport Comprehensive Plan. A public hearing was held on October 26, 1994 on the Draft AED for the MSP LTCP Update. A public information meeting was held on July 30, 1994 to review the results of the New Airport Comprehensive Plan alternative layouts analysis. Presentations were made to. the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board Technical Representatives on January 11, March 8, and June 6, 1994, and 10 -the Environmental Quality Board on January 20, March 17, and June 16, 1994. Presentations were made to a variety of community groups at their request throughout the year. -19- j 9. Work to be Conducted in 1995 -20- Minneapolis -Saint Paul International Airport Long Term Comprehensive Plan Update Purpose and Objective • _.. The primary -goals for the LTCP Update in 1995 are to determine. the projected aviation activity levels for MSP, assess the changes in facility requirements from the current LTCP needed to meet these levels, update the alternatives previously considered; : and either • -• reaffirm the previously recommended development plan or select a different concept: Status and Results The MAC will select a preferred plan in February 1995. After the recommended plan is • identified, a detailed Airport Layout Plan will be prepared and submitted to the FAA for approval. These tasks should be completed by spring of 1995. -21- Minneapolis -Saint Paul International Airport Long Term Comprehensive Plan Alternative Environmental Document Purpose and Objective The Final AED documents the environmental and community impacts of the four MSP development altematives identified in the LTCP. • Status and Results A Determination of Adequacy on the Final AED will be made .by MAC meeting. -22- at its February f; Li New Airport Comprehensive Plan 'Purpose and Objective A New Airport Comprehensive Plan will describe the recommended layout and phasing of facilities at the proposed new airport site. The plan will be similar in scope to the MSP LTCP in order to allow for direct comparison. Status and Results Final MAC action on a preferred .new airport plan is scheduled for April 1995. • After selection of a preferred plan, the following activities will be initiated: Prepare Airport Plans -- Detailed plans will be developed, including airport layout plans, land use plans, an airport property map, and an airport access plan. A 2010 Comprehensive Plan and a 2020 Conceptual Plan will be prepared, as well as an Airport Layout Plan for FAA approval. Prepare Transfer Analysis -- Assuming that MSP is closed and all aviation activity is transferred to the new airport, a transfer schedule will need to be developed. The • schedule will also address necessary interim improvements at MSP while the new airport is being constructed. Prepare Implementation Plan -- An implementation plan will be necessary to identify administrative and institutional procedures, permits, and legal and regulatory actions required for construction and operation of the new airport. The information will be used to create a schedule of required implementation actions. -23- • New Airport Comprehensive Plan Alternative Environmental Document Purpose and Objective An Altemative Environmental Document (AED) substitutes for an EIS in preparation of the New Airport Comprehensive Plan. Since the purpose of the AED is to help select the best development alternative,: the -analysis--im the document focuses on differences between the altematives. Status and Results The final AED, incorporating comments raised during public and agency review of the draft, will be reviewed by the Minnesota EQB at its March 1995 meeting, with a final MAC Determination of Adequacy of the AED in April 1995. -24- New Airport Site Preservation Study Purpose and Objective The new airport site preservation study investigates the effect on the surrounding community of preserving land for a new airport.=•Three scenarios are being analyzed. The first assumes that the site would be preserved for a period of .10 years after- the • • • Legislature decides construction for a 'new airport would begin. The second scenario assumes that the property would be held for 20 years before a new airport is built. The last scenario investigates the effects of preserving the site for 20 years, then deciding that a new airport will not be built on the property and releasing the land back for other land uses. The three scenarios are being examined for their financial impacts on land owners and public agencies (townships and school districts), economic impacts, social impacts, environmental impacts and costs. Status and Results In 1995, working papers will be prepared which document the economic, community, and financial impacts of the three alternatives described above. These working papers will • be compiled into a comprehensive report describing the results of the study. Information from the analysis will also be included in the EIS process. ti Remote Runway Study Purpose and Objective The Remote Runway Study will analyze the feasibility of moving aircraft operations from the existing runways at MSP to. a .remote site. Under this alternative, 'existing•terminal and support facilities would be maintained at MSP. Passengers wouldbe transported via high-speed rail between the existing MSP terminal area and the remote runway facility. The Study will quantify the environmental financial and operational impacts -of this altemative. • The results will be incorporated into the Dual Track EIS. Status and Results In 1995, an RFQ will be distributed and a consultant will be selected. ; The analysis is expected to be completed by the summer of 1995, for incorporation into the Dual Track [1 EIS. Li f ' Supplemental Airport Study Purpose and Objective The Supplemental Airport Study will analyze the feasibility of moving certain components of aviation activity (for example cargo and/or military) from,MSP and relocating them at an existing airport. This move.would allow greater use.of MSP by commercial airlines and may reduce the need for new MSP facilities. The Study will quantify the . environmental; financial, and operational impacts,of this altemative. The _results of this study will be incorporated into the Dual Track EIS. Status and Results In 1995, MnDOT will select a consultant to perform the analysis. The study is expected • to be completed by late 1995, for integration into the Dual Track EIS. -27- Financial Analysis Purpose and Objective • An important consideration under the. Dual= Track- Process is -the cost and financial feasibility associated with each altemative. For this reason, it is essential that the . financial aspects be analyzed in detail. The MAC -is responsible for determining the costs . -associated with the various development altematives and developing a financial plan for MSP expansion and for new airport construction. In .1-995, the MAC will select a consultant to perform the financial analysis. The study is expected to be completed by late 1995 for integration into the Dual Track process. Status and Results -28- FAA Airspace Capacity Study .Purpose and Objective . = The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) completed a Capacity Enhancement Plan for MSP in 1993. The study included an analysis of airfield capacity enhancement options - designed to meet 2020 needs. In late 1994, the FAA• initiated an Airspace Study for •. MSP.. -The. purpose of this study• is .to. identify .capacity deficiencies .in the surrounding airspace structure and propose solutions that will meet future activity levels. As with the airport capacity study, the airspace study is part of an ongoing effort by the FAA at _major airports around the country. • -=A task force was formed consisting of FAA air traffic controllers from the MSP control tower and the Minneapolis Air Route Traffic Control Center. Also participating are airline personnel and aviation planners. The task force will meet approximately every six weeks, throughout 1995. Status and Results f: The MAC is working with the FAA to ensure consistency with on-going MSP LTCP work. The study is expected to be completed in early 1996. The results of the work will be incorporated, as appropriate, into Dual Track documents. Dual Track Airport Planning Process Environmental Impact Statement Purpose and Objective -- Federal and State Environmental Impact Statements (EIS's) will servelto describe and document the environmental impacts -of the various alternatives proposed to meet the region's future aviation needs,.including the recommended MSP. development plan, the • recommended new airport comprehensive plan, .a No Action altemative, ,and _other feasible alternatives. Status and Results A Scoping Document/Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAVV) and draft Scoping Decision Document will be prepared in the spring of 1995 for public and agency review and comment. The scoping process will allow interested parties to review and comment on the proposed scope of the EIS. A draft EIS will be prepared for review and comment by the end of 1995. Economic Impact Study Purpose and Objective . • The economic impact study will identify direct, indirect and induced economic impacts :t= = resulting from:each of the airport development altematives. The economic impacts of the no action altemative vs. continuing development of MSP or the development of a new •:• airport will be an integral part of the analysis leading up to a decision by the Legislature. ; The work performed will be. incorporated -into the -final Environmental Impact Statement. Status and Results The economic impacts will be quantified and documented in a draft report by the end of 1995. r-: tj r Community Impact Study Purpose and Objective This study will 'examine the community impacts associated with the construction and operation of a new airport versus expansion of MSP. Where adverse consequences occur, means of mitigating these impacts *will be explored. Changes 'n land use and development around each of the airport sites, as.well as the effects. of acquisition of land ,and the removal of land from -development, will be addressed: The changes in- demand . - for public services will be analyzed, together with: measures to mitigate any adverse impacts on adjacent communities. Status and Results A community impacts draft report will be prepared for review by the end of 1995. The report will rely on analysis already performed as part of the alternatives analysis for MSP and the new airport, as well as new analysis. -32- • Dual Track Airport Planning Process Report to the Legislature Purpose and Objective �-. The Report to the Legislature will recommend a long-term aviation strategy for,the Twin • Cities and lay out the key data, analysis and'reasons for the recommendations. The report is scheduled to be completed by July 1996. Status and Results A detailed outline of the Report to the Legislature will be discussed with legislators, the . MAC and Metropolitan Council, and the public during 1995. -33- Community/Agency Coordination • Purpose and Objective -= Each step of the Dual Track Airport Planning Process.requires a high level of public and agency:coordination. MAC staff and consultants will continue to work with several committees and review groups during the, process,. and coordinate with governmental agencies where appropriate. Status and Results The following activities will be continued in 1995: ■ Briefings of the State Advisory Council at the request of the Co Chairs. ■ Regular meetings of the Dual Track Task Force will provide a policy oversight role for the continuing work on all study elements and in key decisions. • Meetings of the MSP Technical Committee prior to selection of the preferred MSP development alternative. • Regular meetings of the New Airport Technical Committee through March 1995 to review technical analyses prior to the selection of a final alternative layout. ■ Presentations to EQB for review and comment on Scoping Documents and Alternative Environmental Documents. • Presentations to MAC at major decision points. • Public meetings and hearings at major decision points. • Periodic newsletters. • Public information brochures at appropriate points. • Community presentations as requested. The community and agency coordination element of the Dual Track Planning Process is an ongoing effort. This will include regular meetings of the committees, and public meetings and hearings at key points of the study. -34- E71 Costs for Dual Track Airport Planning Activities ' MAC COSTS -- 1994 Consultants 1. Met Council EQB $1,703,896* $165,000 $75,000 * Includes work completed in 1993 but invoiced during 1994. MAC COSTS -- 1995 Consultants Met Council EQB $1,611,000 $85,000 $75,000 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO March 3, 1995 Airport Relations Commission Me DISCUSSION Tom Lawell, City Administr Election of Airport Relations ers Commission Officers As described in the attached Rules of Order for the Airports Relations Commission, annually the Commission is to elect a Chairperson and Vice -Chairperson from its membership. Technically this election should have occurred at our February meeting, but the matter was inadvertently omitted from the agenda. At any rate, we should be sure to conduct the election at our March meeting. All members of the Commission are eligible to serve as either Chairperson or Vice -Chairperson. Nominations will be accepted for the two positions and you may nominate yourself., or make arrangements to have some other member nominate you, if ;you wish to volunteer to serve as an officer. If requested by a member of the Commission, voting will be by written ballot. Otherwise, voting will be by voice vote. ACTION REQUIRED Commission members should nominate and vote for both a Chairperson and a Vice -Chairperson whose terms will begin immediately and will be effective through February 14, 1996. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Airport Relations Commission Rule$ of Order In accordance with the City of Mendota Heights Ordinance No. 290, AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION, the following rules of order are adopted by the Airports Relations Commission to facilitate the performance of its duties and the exercising of its functions as a Commission created by the City Council. SECTION 1. MEETINGS 1.1 - Time. Regular meetings of the Commission are held on the second Wednesday of each month at 8:00 o'clock P.M., unless otherwise agreed to and so stated in the agenda. When the regular meeting day falls on a legal holiday, there is no meeting that month unless otherwise rescheduled by the Commission. 1.2 - Special Meetings. Special meetings may be called by the Chairperson or the City Administrator. 1.3 - Place. Meetings are held in the City Hall Conference Room, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights. 1.4 - Public. All meetings and all records and minutes are open to the public. 1.5 - Ouorum. Four Airport Relations Commission members, at the beginning of the meeting, constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. When a quorum is not present, the Chairperson may adjourn the meeting or hold the meeting for the purpose of hearing interested parties on items on the agenda. No final or official action is taken at such a meeting. However, the facts and information gathered at such a meeting may be taken as a basis for action at a subsequent meeting at which a quorum is present. 1.6 - Vote. Voting is by voice except as otherwise stated herein. Commission members voice votes on each issue are recorded. In the event that any member shall have a financial interest in a matter then before the Commission, the member shall disclose the interest and refrain from voting upon the matter, and the secretary shall so record in the minutes that no vote was cast by such member. SECTION 2, ORGANIZATION 2.1 - Membership. The number of members of the Airport Relations Commission is established by the City Council. Appointments are made by the Mayor with the consent of the majority of the members of the City Council. 2.2 -Absenteeism. A Commission member with three consecutive unexcused absences is dropped from the Commission and the City Administrator then informs the City Council so that another appointment is made. An absence is excused if the member notifies the City Administrator or Chairperson before 4:00 P.M. of the day of the meeting that the member will be unable to attend. Minutes of the meetings will record whether the absent member was excused or not excused. 2.3 - Election of Officers. At the February meeting each year, the Commission elects from its membership a Chairperson and a Vice -Chairperson. If the Chairperson retires from the Commission before the next organizational meeting, the Vice -Chairperson becomes the Chairperson. If both Chairperson and Vice -Chairperson retire, new officers are elected at the next meeting. If both Chairperson and Vice -Chairperson are absent from a meeting, the Commission elects a temporary Chairperson by voice vote. The Secretary to the Airports Relation Commission is appointed by the City Administrator from the City Staff. 2.4 - Tenure of Officers. The Chairperson and Vice - Chairperson take office immediately following their election and hold office until their successors are elected and assume office. 2.5 - Duties of Officers. The Chairperson, or if absent, the Vice -Chairperson presides at meetings and performs other duties as may be ordered by the Commission. The Chairperson conducts meetings so as to keep them moving as rapidly and efficiently as possible and reminds members and residents to discuss only the subject at hand. The Chairperson is a voting member of the Commission. The Secretary is responsible for recording the minutes, keeping records of Commission actions, and providing general administrative and clerical service to the Commission. These Rules of Order were duly adopted by the Airport Relations Commission of the City of Mendota Heights on March 9, 1994. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO March 3, 1995 , TO: Airport Relations Commission Members FROM: Tom Lawell, City Administrator SUBJECT: Discuss MAC Request for Comments Regarding Management Methodology DISCUSSION New Noise Attached please find a memo from the MAC requesting our comments on the New Noise Management Methodology proposed by the MAC. This issue was recently discussed at the MASAC Operations Committee meeting held on February 16th, and will be discussed again by the Committee on March 15th. Our written comments regarding the proposal are due no later than March 10th. The attached two page New Noise Management Methodology document describes a fairly detailed process by which the use of Stage II aircraft at MSP will be tracked into the future. The regulation which ultimately controls the continued use of Stage II aircraft throughout the nation is a FAA regulation known as 14 CFR Part 91, a copy of which is also attached. The MAC's New Noise Management Methodology must respect the requirements of the FAA's regulation and may not imposelother more stringent Stage II phase out rules for MSP. As such, the MAC has proposed that any New Noise Management Methodology adopted for MSP be implemented through the use of Voluntary Noise1Management Agreements with the carriers operating jet aircraft at ESP. The Commission should discuss the elements contained within the proposed New Noise Management Methodology and provide comments regarding usefulness, strengths and/or weaknesses. Areas which we may wish to spend some time discussing include: 1) The definition of "nighttime" and "shoulder hours" with respect to reporting requirements. 2) Ability to hold Northwest Airlines to its pledge to meet the December 31, 1999 Stage II phase out date. 3) Ability to impose or recommend interim phase out targets leading up to December 31, 1999. ACTION REQUIRED Commission members should review the attached 'New Noise Management Methodology and offer any comments or suggestions they would like to have conveyed to the MAC and MASAC on this subject. RESPONSE REQUESTED OPERATIONS COMMITTEE TO: Mark Saimen, Chairman.W Bob Johnson fc1U5trL. Dick Keinz -rnAC_ Jon Hohenstein-Ecc9cxi Charles Curry - Craig Wruck_ J-' us " / John Nelson--gjaom Pc.p Jim Serrin_ry-)P)S Tom Lawell _ m fiI As requested at the Operations Committee February 16,1995, please forward your written comments on the eight items listed in the MSP • Noise Management Methodology no later than MARCH 10. Your comments should be forwarded to: Jean Deighton, Committee Secretary METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION 6040 28th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55450 The comments will be reviewed and finalized at the next Operations Committee meeting on March 15, 1995, 1:00 p.m., MAC Lobby Conference Room. The draft will be presented to MASAC at the March 28th meeting. New Noise Management Methodology 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 turn 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 on, airline participation. To provide a reasonable comparison period, thenew 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 acalendar 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 /f 91.853 final compy Civil subsonic airplanes. -N. Except as provided in ¢ 91.873, after December 31. 1999. no person shall operate to or from any airport in the contiguous United States any airplane subject toil 91.801(c) of this subpart. unless that airplane has been shown to comply with Stage 3 noise levels. --C121.2 Waivers from final compliance. (a) A U.S. air carrier may apply for a waiver from the prohibition contained in 4 91.853 far its remaining Stage 2 airplanes. provided that. by July 1.1999. at least 85 percent of the airplanes used by the carrier to provide service to or from an airport in the contiguous United Stales will comply with the Stage3 noise levels. (b) An application for the waiver described in paragraph (a) of this section must be filed with the Secretary of Transportation no later than January 1. 1999. Such application must include a pian with firm orders for replacing or modifying all airplanes to comply with Stage 3 noise levels at the earliest practicable time. (c) To be eligible to apply for the waiver.under this section. a new entrant U.S. air carrier must initiate service no later than January 1.1999. and must comply fully with all provisions of t. section (d) The Secretary may grant a waiver under this section if the Secretary finds that granting such waiver is in the public interest. In making such a finding. the Secretary shall include consideration of the effect of granting such waiver on competition in the air carrier industry and the effect on small conununity air service, and any other information submitted by the applicant that the Secretary considers relevant. (e) The ierm.of any waiver granted under this section shall be determined by the circumstances presented in the application. but in no case will the waiver permit the operation of any Stage 2 airplane covered by this subchapter in the contiguous United States after December 31.2003. (1) A summary of any request for a waiver under this section will be published in the Federal Register. and public comment will be invited. Unless the secretary finds that circumstances require otherwise. the public comment period will be at leaat 14 days. 91.875 Annual progress reports. (a) Each operator subject to 4 91.885 or * 91.887 of this chapter shall rube an annual report to the FAA, Office t Environment and Energy. on the progress it has made toward complying with the requirements of that section. Such reports shall be submitted no later than 45 days after the end of a calendar year. All progress reports must provide the information through the end of the calendar year. be certified by the carrier as true and complete (under penalty of 18 U.S.C. 1001). and indude the following information: (1) The name and address of the operator. (2) The name. title, and telephone number of the person designated by the operator to be responsible for ensuring the accuracy of the information in the report (3) The operator's progress during the reporting period toward compliance with the requirements of j3 91.853. 91.885 or 1191.887. For airplanes on U.S. operations specifications, each operator shall identify the airplanes by type. model. series. and aerial number. (i) Each Stage 2 airplane added or removed from operation or U.S. operations specifications (grouped • CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO March 3, 1995 , TO: Airport Relations Commission Members FROM: Tom Lawell, City Administr SUBJECT: Discuss Planned Meeting of Noise Impacted Dakota County Communities DISCUSSION I � At our last Airport Relations Commission meeting we discussed the possible get-together of representatives from the various airport noise impacted communities of Northern Dakota County to discuss issues of common purpose and concern. Cities suggested for inclusion were Eagan, Inver Grove Heights, Mendota and Sunfish Lake. The Commission further suggested that this initial meeting be attended by Chair Beaty and I, and that if the other cities were interested, a future meeting of all airnoise commissioners could be arranged. I have contacted representatives from each of the cities and all have expressed a desire to discuss a more collective approach to the airnoise problem. We all recognize that we will be unable to agree on every aspect of the airport's operation, but there are a sufficient number of common concerns and interests around which we can collectively rally. The tentative date for the meeting is Tuesday, March 21st at 7:30 a.m. The location of the meeting has not yet been determined but will be finalized by the time the Commission meets next Wednesday. A letter formally inviting City representatives from Eagan, Inver Grove Heights, Mendota and Sunfish Lake will be mailed early next week also. Commission members should determine which airnoise related issues are most important to discuss with the representatives from the other cities. This input will be important in developing a tentative agenda for the proposed joint meeting. ACTION REQUIRED Commission members should provide input to Chair Beaty and I regarding the issues they would like to have discussed at the planned joint meeting on March 21st. lb City of 1Heights Ms. Linda Cummings Mr. Ron Marmo City of Inver Grove Heights 8150 Barbara Avenue Inver Grove Heights, MN 55077 Dear Ms. Cummings and Mr. Marmo: March 9, 1995 I am writing to you on behalf of the Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission regarding certain airport related issues which affect us all. While it is likely there will always be air noise issues which will divide us as cities, our Airport Relations Commission believes there are many air noise control measures we can collectively support. Believing that a unified voice is ultimately more compelling before the Metropolitan Airports Commission, we would like to invite you to a meeting at which we could explore our common goals relative to the operation of MSP International Airport. As we tentatively discussed via telephone last week, the proposed meeting date is Tuesday, March 21, 1995 beginning at 7:30 a.m. The location of the meeting is and rolls and coffee will be provided. We look forward to working with you and your community in furtherance of our collective air noise mitigation goals. Should you have questions or comments regarding any of the above, please let me know. Sincerely, CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DRAFT Tom Lawell City Administrator 1101 Victoria Curve • Mendota Heights, MN • 55118 452.1850