The URL can be used to link to this page

1995-06-14 ARC Packeti � CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ; DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA � i AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION � � _ AGENDA . � . i JUNE 14, 1995 - 8:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order ; 2. Roll Call , I 3. Approval of May 10, 1995 Meeting Minutes. 4. Ackn wled e Recei f Variou R s Corres n nce: � ' e a. MASAC Technical Advisor's Report for April, 1995. ; I b. MASAC General Meeting Minutes from April 25, 1995. ; c. MASAC Operations Committee Minutes from May 12, 1995. I d. SMAAC Newsletter from May, 1995. ; e. NOISE Newsletter for May, 1995. i f. Richfield Sun Current Article from May 31, 1995 on 4-22 �Extension. g. Part 150 Buyout Update from May, 1995. I h. NDCARC Letter Sent to NWA President John Dasburg. ' 5. Presentation: a. Airport Relocation Options - Remote Runway Concept Invited Guests John Richter and Henry Snyder 6. Unfinished a�nd New Business: a. Discuss Status of Nighttime Noise Abatement Procedure - Runway 22 Standard Instrument Departure (22 SID). ' b. Discuss Status of Non-Simultaneous Departure Noise Abatement Proce�lure - Corridor Crossing Procedure. c. Discuss Metropolitan Council Planning Process Related to Collaborative Airport Planning. 7. Verbal Upda•tes: a. Remiruder of Upcoming Presentation to the City Council Scheduled for ' July 1'8, 1995. 8. Other Comments or Concerns. 9. 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 Heughts 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. �ti a CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 10, 1995 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Airport Relations Comn held on Wednesday, May 10, 1995, in the City Hall Large Conferen� Victoria Curve. The meeting was called to order at 8:00 o'clock P.P following members were present: Beaty, Fitzer, Leuman, Olsen and Commissioners Olin and Surrisi were excused. Also present were C Administrator Tom Lawell and Senior Secretary Kim Blaeser. APPROVAL OF MINUTES � Commissioner Olsen moved approval of the April 12, 1995 min Commissioner Stein seconded the motion. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF VARIOUS REPORTS/CORRESPONDENCE sion was Room, 1101 The tein. The Commission acknowledged receipt of the MASAC Technical Advisor's Report for March, 1995. � ; Chair Beaty stated that the use of Stage 3 aircraft at MSP is up 4 percent from 1994. He stated that the number of March complaints has increased from 823 in 1994 to 1,094 in 1995. � The Commission compared the number of departure aircraft noise events the Cities of Mendota Heights and Inver Grove Heights receives� t i The Commission acknowledged receipt of the Corridor Gate Penetration Analysis Report for March, 1995. The Commission discussed how the MAC data indicates that there are more planes that veer farther soutli of the corridor boundary than north of the proposed 95 degree north b�oundary. Administrator Lawell stated he would inquire with Mr. Foggia as to how gate penetration is measured. �� 1 •-� The Commission acknowledged receipt of the MASAC General Meeting Minutes from March 28, 1995. Chair Beaty stated that Mayor Mertensotto attended this meeting. Chair Beaty noted, as per the March 28th MASAC minutes, that the Hawthorne Woods development, located in Eagan at Diffley and Dodd Road, has been inundated with noise. They discussed how this area is inquiring about the use of the corridor's southern boundary. The Commission discussed how members of the MASAC are appointed. Administrator Lawell stated that he would provide copies of the MASAC meeting mir�utes in future Airport Relations Commission packets. The Commission acknowledged receipt of the MAC Dual Track Airport Planning Process LTCP Report - April 1995. Administrator Lawell explained that these reports are issued periodically and that this particular report discusses the proposed airport expansion plans. He noted that this report does not depict plans to someday construct a third north parallel runway. The Commission acknowledged receipt of the NOISE Newsletter for April, 1995. The Commission acknowledged receipt of the Northern Dakota County Airport Relations Coalition Ranking of Airport Related Topics for Multi-City Collaboration dated April 19, 1995. Chair Beaty informed the Commission that the Coalition agreed to focus their efforts on the following topics: 1. Nighttime Restrictions on Aircraft Operations. 2. FAA "Close-In" vs. "Distant" Departure Procedures. 3. Non-Simultaneous Departure Procedures. Chair Beaty stated that their next meeting will be on May 17th. Commissioner Stein informed the Commission that he would attend that meeting. The Commission acknowledged receipt of a memorandum from Mr. John Foggia, Manager of the Aviation Noise Program, regarding Part 150 Sound Insulation Status for St. Thomas Academy and Visitation. The Commission noted that these schools have been given priority over two Minneapolis 2 �� _ : scMools in receiving saund insutation modifications under the M Implementation Program. DISCUSS DRAET LETTER TO NWA � REGARDtNG AIRCRAfT TAKE-OFF PROFILES � Part 9 50 Chair Beaty explained that in warkin with the Northern Dakota�County Aicport Relations Coalition, one o the f s � sues chosen for joint action was the "close-in" vs. "distant" departure ocedure issues. He explained that the Goalition agreed ta send a joint letter #o the MAC and Narth�nrest Airlines asking to be involved in defining and choosing between the two procedures. He expEained that Mr. Jon Nohenstein, Ciiy of Eagan, volunteered to draft a letter which is to be signed by thee Mayors of each of the five represented communities. � � Beaty explained that this letter was reviewed a� a recent workshop wi#h the City Council and a number of revisions were suggested. � Beaty stated that this letter should reflect accurate numbers in how the carridor is not used properiy. Administrator lawetl suggested tiiat the letter could include 1994 Departure counts off of Runways 11 L and 11 R. ;� The Commission noted that an otder community, such as Mendota Heights, did not have the iuxury iike a newer community, such as Eagan; ta devetop areas based on airport noise impact. Administrator Lawell stated that Commission Surrisi suggested that the letter be addressed differenfily. Commissioner Olsen concurred �and stated that the letter shouEd be directed to the CEO of the company. Commissioner Beaty sfiated that Commissioner"s Surrisi's suggestion to test the procedure #irst instead of implementing immediately was a good 'sdea, � Commissioner Otsen stated that he does not want the City to endorse an idea that will increase noise in other parts of the City, such as the river V�ttey. , . ; The Comm�ssion brie€ty discussed the G[abal Positio�ing System and how, with its preciseness, could create more of a naise problem in areas where air noise may be random. Chair Beaty stated that with this system, the corridor may shrink. ! The Commission directed staff to make the revisions to the letter and have a copy avai(abie for their review in June. � 3 .= � DISCUSS BACKCROUND INFORMATION ON MSP NIGHTTIME AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS Administrator Lawell explained that this item was identified by the Northern Dakota County Airport Relations Coalition as one of their top three priorities for joint action�. He stated that this issue has also been chosen by the MASAC Operations Committee as a topic which needs to be addressed during 1995 and discussions related to this topic began in April. Lawell reviewed material, which was submitted as background information at the recent MASAC Operations Committee meeting, on the subject of nighttime aircraft operations. The Commission discussed enforcing voluntary nighttime restrictions, and runway usQ considerations and crosswind runway use. It was noted that Mr. Wagoner had informed the Commission that weather conditions largely dictate runway usage and that runway usage is determined, usually, at the beginning of the day. DISCUSS STATU� OF NON-SIMULTANEOUS DEPARTURE PROCEDURE IMPLEMENTATION Administrator Lawell explained that at a recent meeting, Mr. Nigel Finney informed hiir that he had finally authorized the environmental work to be done. Finney had explained that he had instructed Mr. John� Foggia to contact HNTB to set up a meeting to discuss the type of work to be done and to get the process started. Lawell explained that he has sent a letter confirming his commencement of this work and asking that the City of Mendota Heights be included in this process. The Commission briefly discussed possible ideas in minimizing the impact of aircraft noise during nighttime operations. DISCUSS PREPAR/�TION FOR UPCOMING PRESENTATION T� THE MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL Administrator Lawell suggested that the Commission consider reviewing their Plan of Action Report and outline their progress throughout the past year. The Commission was of the consensus to present their progress report to the City Council on July 18th. 0 MtSCELLANEC}US DISCUSSIt�N Chair Beaty stated that the workshop, the Mayor discussed fihe Duai Track Process. Beaty stated that he had informed the Mayor that the �Commission supports the Counci('s stand on the Dual Track Process. Beafiy �explained that the Mayor had discussed that it is now time that the City tatce another stand and inform the MAC that Mendota Heigh�ts has been treated unfairly and thafi the City believes the airport should be moved, Beaty stated that the Mayor believes that other cities may feel the same way and�take a stand with Mendota Heights. Beaty infarmed the Commissron that same Councilmembers are cancerned that Mendota Heights may receive negative advertising if this new position is pursued. Cammissianer Olsen pointed out that the City has always looked at having the airpart moved because of the air noise. He stated the City has not discussed, if the airport is relocated, how that will affect the City's industrial park and its residents who choase to live close the airport. Administrator Lawell stated #hat the City of Bloomingion wants the airport ta �ernain. Chair Bea#y suggested that this item be discussed at a future Commission meeting as there are a lot of pros and cons to this issue. � Chair Beaty sta#ed that he would like to find out more about system. Administrator Lawe(I suggested that a representativ� Honeywe!! be invited to attend a future meeting. UPDATE ON FEDERAL CHARGES QF PRiCE-FIXING INVOLVING CONTRACTORS PERFORMtNG PART 150 SOUND INSULATIQN V1/ORK Administrator Lawe11 informed the Commission ot the status ot �tne contractors working far the Part 150 Sound Insulation Program.� He stated that #hree contractors have been indiated, but that the MAC has done an � admirable job handling the administrative implications of this action, and in minimizing the impacts individuaE homeownecs wi11 face as a result. 5 ADJOURNMENT There being no further comments, the Airport Relations Commission moved to adjourn its meeting at 10:30 o'clock P.M. RespectFullv submitted, Kimberlee K. Blaeser Senior Secretary � �. Minneapolis / St. Paul Interna#ional Airpori _ . � � MOIVTHLY MEETING - Metropolitan Airport Sound Abatement Council � chnL,non: R.o6erl P. Johnioo Vice CMirman: soon a�in reehnim! Adviror: John Fo�a s��: J� n�� Airbome £�rear: s� so� AirTmmporf Araociation: P�1 McGraw ecre: Chadn W. Carry Jr. ctry ofeloom;Aqroe: Pehma Lee v� wu�: cry �e�u�: i� xt�.. c;ry cf Eagan: Dwdn ATiddc Ciry eflmar Grove Xeidkr: DemL Maddm Ci y clMendola Neightr: Jt� 8mit6 C7y c�Mlnrrapalir: J�a B.9erein J� w��a Joe I.ee Judith Dod¢e C;ry cfRicldeld: �� n� ra� ay ysr. co�, ra.�: �e na�. Ciry cfSr. Paul: Sook Hrmiu c�c.w�a� Caeol Aon McGuiro Ddfa Ai�Lik.rine.: �� m P�deret Erpnu: T� xe�«r Fedemf Aviotion AdmitiatmNon: Brvoe Wa�ooa Rooald Glaub MACSta�• Didc Kdns MBM: Robatl:Jot�a�m Mua6a Natlwut Airlit#: Lwemee MeCabe Menvpoltlan,urporc+ cormni.rrinR Commiaimer Nba Garper MNAirNationalGmd: M�or tN.,t S. xe. Nor!lovutAiAtne.r: nt.r� s.tmm J�ra s.Y� Sr. Paut Chu+ber oJCw�me,ee: Jxk Ho�kle� s�nco�u.y.u.r,�..: �,te �. c�a Uniftd Airlirw /tr.: Allan Tomilam United Paml Service: i�a �o US. Air Force Rererve: c�e.m serm ce� us. s�pptemenra! cc,rim: e� �. n� Metropolitan Airports Commission Declaration of Purpases 1.) Promote public welfare and national �security; serve public interesk convenience. and ne�essity; promote sir naviga6on and transportation. international. national, state. and local, in and through this state; promote the efficient, safe, and econo�ical handling of sir commerce: assure the inclusion of this state in national and international programs of air transportation; and W those ends to develop the full potentialities of the metropolitan area in this stace as an aviation center, and to correlate that area with all aviatioa facilities in the entire state so as to provi� for the most economical and e£fective use af aeronautic facilities and services ia that area: 2.) Assure the residents of the metrc�politan area of the minimum environmental impact from air navigation and transportation, and to that end provide for noise abatement, control of sirport area land use, and other protective measures: and 3 J Pro�ote the werall goals of the state's environmental policies and minimize the public's exposure to noise and safety hazards around airports. Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council Statement of Purpose This carporation was formed in furthera�ce of the gen;eral welfare af tl�e communities adjoining Minneapolis-Sk Paul International Airpart - Wold-Chamberlain Field, a public airport in the Caunty of Hennepin, State of Nrnnesota, throagh the alleviatioai of rhe problems created by the sound of sircraft using the airport; through scudy and evaluation on a continuing basis of the problem and of suggesdaa for the alleviatio� of the same; rhrough iniaaaon, coordinaaon and promotio� of reasonable and effecfive procedures, control and regulations, consistent with the safe operation of the airport and of airGraft using the same: and through dissemination of information to the affected communities. their affected residents. and the users of the airport respecting the problem of aincraft noise musa�ce and in respact to suggesdans made and acdons initiated and taken to alleviate the problem. Metropolitan Air�raft Sound Abatement Council Representation The membership shall include representatives appointed by agencies, corporations, associati�s and goveinm�ntal bodies which by reason of their statutory authority and responsibility or control wer the sirport, or by reasa� of their status as airport users. have a d.irect interest in the operation af the sirport. Such members will be called User Representatives and Public Representatives, prwided that the User Representatives and Public Representatives shall at all times be equal in number. The Airport 24-hour Noise Hotline is 726-9411. Complaints to the hotline do nat result in changes in Airpon activiry, but pravides a public sounding board and airport information outlet The hotline is staffed 24-hours Monday - Friday This report is prepared and printed in house by Roy Fuhrmann and Traci Erickson Quesflons or comments may be directed to: MAC - Aviafion Noise Progam DTinneapolis / St Paul International Airport 6040 28th Avenue South IVTinneapolis, MN 55450 Tel: (612) 726-8108, Fax: (612) 726-5296 Metropotitan Airports Cocrnmission Aviation Noise Programs � Operatzons and Camplaint Summary 1 ;. . Uperati.ons Summary - All Aircraft ............................................... .....................................1 _ MSP April Fleet 14Iix Percentage ....................................................�':� ..................,,...............1 Airport April Complaint Sumrnary ............................................... ' �......................,.......,.,.1 Aprii 4peratians Summary - Airport Directars 4f�'ic.� .................. '�......................,..........1 � .Minneapolis = St. Paul.�nternatianal Airport Cotnpltrcint Summary 2 � � Complaint Summary by City ............:.............................................:................»...................2 � Tawer ,Log Reports 3 AllHours .........................................................................................:....................................3 Nighttime Hours ' ....................' � ........3 .......................................................... ......,..................... AllOperations 4 � . Runway Use Repart Apri1199S ......................................................:....................................4 Carrier Jet �Operations S ' Runway Use Report Apri.11995 ...................................................... .................................5 Nighttime - All Operaiions G� � . . . ; RunwayUse Report Apri11995 .......................................................................................:...6 Nighttime Carrier Jet Operata'rons � ' Runway Use Repart Apri11995 .......................................................:�..................................7 Carrier Je� Qperaiions I�y Type 8 Aireraft Ideniifier and DescriptionT'abte 9� ; Runway i�se - DaylNight Periods - All Operations 10 DaytimeHours......» .......................................................................... � ............,.................10 �'ommunity Overfl'ight Analysis � ll � Caxrier Jet Operatians - All Haurs ................................................... ..............................11 .... Carrier Jet Operatians - Nighttime �l lpm - 6 am) ....:....................... �,...............................1.1 Aviation Noise Program,s � � � Remote Monitoring Site Locations IZ Carrier Jei Arrival Related Noise Events 13 Count of Arrival Aircraft Noise Events for Each RMT .....................................................13 Carrier Jei Departure Related Noise Events 14 Count of Departure Aircraft Noise Events for Each RMT ................................................14 Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events Identified Ten Loudest �ircraft Noise Events Identified IS 16 Ten Loudest�iircraft Noise Events Identifaed l7 Ten Loudest �lircraft Noise Events Identifzed Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events Identifzed Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events Identifzed Flight Track Base Map 21 18 19 20 Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring Systems Flight Tracks 22 Cairier Jet Operations - Apri11995 ...................................................................................22 Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks 23 Cairier Jet Operations - Apri11995 ...................................................................................23 Analysis of Aircraft Noise Events - Aircraft Ldn dB(A) Analysis of Aircraft Noise Events - Aircraft Ldn dB(A) a Aviation Naise Programs 24 25 a � � j . Operations and Complaint Summary i Apri11995 ' Operations Summary - All Aircraft � ........... .....................:.............. ..........................:�::..::.., .. � ::::»::. ....::.....;.:.:.::. . : : ...� ::..... . .. ..: ..:. : .. :::.....::;...:;:.,.:.;..::..:::: ;;::::::: ..............,:: .:::::.:::::: ��>.;,;: ttti'isri::• ,.. ,_::_:::.:`:�if�e.r.�tz�t�:r� .... . r:;�:�+'%:�'i'e'i'ew•.`�`::"�...;:':��'•fi�i+iadiiii[�iai::�:`:. .':::�;:�:1"•,�;:; 04 606 3.7% 45 22 91 0.5% 632 11 7332 442% 8482 29 8528 51.6% 72�1 MSP April Fleet Mix Percentage Stage 2 60.6% 56.8% 595% Stage 3 39.4% 432% 40S% Airport April Complaint Summary 0.3% I I . 3.9% I 51.7% ; � 44.1% �� I I I 56.5% � 43S% ✓ . 112isc. 1 0 , > ;:�_�::.< ::::,:::., . .. �.��:�:� � �i'.�•.`�i:.<::'•;.::: ^:'••� >:::��`:��'<��>s•z•'•:: ;: �:.:�; ��.:� �':�.�:<:::�:::::::: : ..>.;<. . •.. .,,::. . ..>.. ::,.::.;:;:•::•:,: ;<: April Operations Summary - Airport Directors Office � Aviation Noise Programs Aitports CommiSsiati Page 1 Metropolitan Airports Commission Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport Complaint Summary E� Apri11995 . Complaint Summary by City .;•.y:::.::;n:•::.,,• . .. .. . �y .�:�i:�::;:: %::��Y•,:�:~..'::�:::':''?':.:';:.:�~�:�:t::::;: �;'::��::: '`:�il�i7E7tT::��s�. %:;:��.>:�'�'��.'t`'��:?.:'�.��'::;�:'��.:�?: :�r>::.;�,•:::::: r :;: ::...::: .::.: ... .:. . ::..;:�..::::• :.::; : .:•:.;::•:•:•� . .:.. �q ::r: ;. •;.;; • . .x;.::: •� ••:.;; :':: ..; ;: :' .: . .....::. ,�:::. ... .•..•.:.:.•..;...:.: . .. ::::•i��::•: •:.ls`�:: Apple V�]]ley 1 12 13 � 1.8% Bloomington 2 - 5 7 1.0% Butnsville . 1 23 24 3.3% Eagan 27 227 254 34.8% Edin� " 1 6 7 1.0% Falcon Heights 1 0 1 0.1% Golden Valley 1 0 1 0.1% Inver Grove Heights 7 112 119 16.3% . Mendota Heights 7 50 57 7.8% Minneapolis 63 132 195 26.7% Minnetonka 0 1 1 0.1% � N. St. Paul 0 1 1 0.1% Richfield 8 22 30 4.1% S. St. P�ul 1 8 9 1.2% St. Louis Patk 0 1 1 0.1% St. Paul 5 6 11 1.5% . . . . ::.<��;::;. . ..... ...... . .. .... ................ . ��. . .. .. . .. : :..:.::......... .. : . :.:: . : .. . . ..... . . ::� .::. .:. .. �� . :. .: . �:::<F<:>: :�:::�3:�::::::.:. . � �::��`�.: ;. :.,..: Time of Day Nature of Complaint Page 2 Aviation Noise Programs •�t;�til�?'''.•: ,, �::i � :`::::! i`:":� `;`:i�5�rt�4`f;?: :;?i::. s��..;.,:<: �:�ti..;.. ��.<::�:::.�;>.: � .,k..+. : :i<`:: 5 ?ii.i;�:� a`2?•'':�.��:?:�i:�:?:;: •: e Tower. Log Reports Apri� 1995 .4tt Hours �<.:1�;;�.1,l�,�,i`.: : �� Night�m� Haurs � `�{:>��><� �:�;�:;`> . . .'-';'iicc:i�i:';:•'•:: T: _:.. �rts Co�s / Metropolitan Airports Commission � All Operations Runway Use Report April ..::....:.:.�:...::. ;:.;:.....:.� � �'':;��:::.:.`:: ::;.::��...... > :.�:::s��:>::::. � `'>� � �:�:�:;'::.. :��.:..:� : :��:��`a>;_::. : .�, 11 �'. ::<�::��'o.:::. Page 4 ' Aviation Noise Programs � Carrier Jet Clperations Runway Use Report April l9 Aviation. Noise Frograms : u.sE�. t.r� �i-----�� Page 5 Metropolitan Airports Commission Nighttime - All Operations Page 6 Aviation Naise Programs w Nighttime Carrier Jet Operations Runway Use Report April �5 Aviation Noise Programs Airports Commissian Page 7 Metropolitan Airports Commission Carrier Jet Operations by 'I`ype Apri11995 � �: �;::>:::r;::.:;:::...:.::<.:: :: . . ...... ::::�ir��>::t>`�:� ':`��::: :� ��:>:�o:i€�i��:°�:r<.`. :::::�;��c�i:�::: :� .::::.� ::.::.:.:::::.::.�:'3�`� .: :;�., . . . . .. .. ::�:�>: B727H 162 0.8% . DC9H 1229 5.9% B707 0 0.0% B733/4/5 1109 5.3% B747 157 0.8% B 74F 1 0.0% B757 1524 7.3% � s�6� o o.o�o DA10 10 0.0% DC 10 858 4.1% DC87 120 0.6% EA32 1893 9.1% FK10 721 3.5% L1011 123 0.6% NID 11 12 0.1% MD80 1127 5.4% BA10 8 0.0% - BAll � 1 0.09'0 B727 3565 17.1% B737 517 2.5% DC8 73 0.4% DC86 27 0.1% DC9 7554 36.2% FK28 51 0.2% �'�:�� .�.>;;��<::'�::>�:�::. :.::::.:: ::.:::::::::::: .. .... .. . ;:;.; ::::..:::..::..::::. .:.::..:..........;.....::..�:....::; ::<::: .. .. . . ......... ..... . '� ��` ...... .��::�::�`��:: :' .:::::...�::��°�:: :: Page 8 Aviation Noise Programs 43.5% Stage Ill 56.5% Stage II P Bn� � s�a�x B707 B733 B737 B73S B747 B74F B757 B767 BAll BEC BEl BE80 BE99 CNA DC10 . DC8 DC8S DC86 DC87 DC9 EA32 FK10 FK28 FK27 L1011 NID11 1�ID80 SW3 SW4 SF34 Aircraft Identifier and DescriptionTable ; I ............. .. �::�::::;:;::....... . ...... .. .................. �: �:: ::: : : : . . . . . . : : : : : . . . . . . . . . . . . .: : : .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . �...: ...: : : : :.. � .:.... . .. . .... . . . . : . . .. : . : . . . :.,: : . . :. . : ::.>. . : :., . : .:.::.. .. .:. :: . ..:. .: : .::... ::.: .. . ... . :.: . . .:. .:. �...� . : ... ..:. .. :.: . : : .::.: ..:. . . :� . . . . : .. ..:. ..:.: . :.: ....:. ::. . ..� '.�...�, . .. :::....:...:: .: . .::.:. . .::.:::::..:.. . . :�::: �. ��::. BomvG �2� ' � . . �� BOEII�TG 727 - HLTSH KTT � BOEING 707 BOEII�IG 737-300 � BOEING 737 BOEING 737 200 SIItIFS BOEING 747 BOEING 747 FRIIGHTER BOEING 757 � BOEING 767 BRTTISH AEROSPACE 111 � � BEECHQtAFI' (ALL SERIFS) BF.ECHCRAFi' 1900 BEECHCRAFT KING AIlt , BEE(�(�FT QUEIN AIR ' (�SSNA (ALL SERIFS) , MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC10 � MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC8 MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC8 STRETCH ; MCDONNELL DOUGI,AS DCS 60-SERIES ; MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC8 70-SERIES RE � MGDONNELL DOUGLAS DC9 ': AIRBUS INDUSTRIES A320 i FOHI�[t 100 � FOHI�t F28 � FOKI�it F27 (PROP) ', LOQ{FIE�ID TRISTAR L1011 MCDONNII,L DOUGLAS DCIl , M(�ONNELL DOUGLAS DC9 80-SERERIE,S � SWEARINGEN METROLINER 3 � SWF.ARINGFN MhTROLINIIt 4 ' SAAB 340 I Aviation Noise Programs Airports Commissian Page 9 Metropolitan Airports Commission Runway Use - Day/Night Periods - All Operations Minneapolis - 5t..Pau1 International Airport Apri11995 Daytime Hours Nighttime Hours Page 10 Aviation Noise Programs � �trOP011tflII �l1I�OLLS COIIlII11SS1� I Community Overflight Analysis ; Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport Apri11995 Carrier Jet Operations - All Hours ! Carrier Jet Operations - Nighttime (llpm - 6 am) Aviation Noise Programs Metropolitan Airports Commission Remote Monitoring Site Locations Airp�rt Noise and Operations Monitoring System Pa8'� 12 Aviation Noise Programs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Meaopo� litan Airports Commissian Carrier Jet Arrival Related Noise Events April 1995 ' ; Count of Arrival Aircraft Noise Events for Each RMT � .i..••::�i ••••�. ;:::••::;.. :.1,'I,.i I�nneapolis Minneapolis NI'wneapolis Minneapolis Minneapolis Minneapolis Richfield N�inneapolis S� Paul St. Paul St. Paul St. Paul Mendota Heights Eagan Mendota Heights �� Bloomington Richfield Bloomington Richfield Inver Crrove Heights Inver Grove FIeights Mendota Heights Eagan Xerxes Avenue 8c 41st Street Fremont Avenue 8c 43rd Street W Elmwood St�eet & Belm�t Avenue Oakland Avenue & 49th Strcet 12th Avenue 8c 58th Street 25th Avenue 8c 57th Sh�et Wentworth Ave & 64th Strcet Longfellow Avenue & 43rd Strcet Saratoga Strcet & Harlford Avenue Itasca Avenue & Bowdoin Street Finn Street & Scheffer Avenue Alton St�eet 8c Rockwood Avenue Southeast end af Mohican Court First S�t & McKee Street C�llen Street & Lexington Avenue Avaloa Avenue & V'ilas Lane 84th Street c� 4th Avenue 75th Street � 17th Avenue 16th Avenue & 84th Street 75th Street & 3rd Avenue Barbara Avenue & 67th Street Anne Marie Trail End of Kendon Avenue (:hapel Lane & Wren Lane Aviation Noise Programs 1210 1170 1930 1630 2450 2600 580 321 47 59 28 43 108 2760 1481 2790 150 340 170 630 340 1297 1674 1535 60 87 237 579 1190 1886 56 29 17 23 12 18 23 267 143 1708 53 91 240 8 28 26 87 97 2 4 11 52 583 971 6 3 6 7 1 3 9 20 7 63 8 14 18 3 0 1 2�F 8 0 0 0 0 3 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 5 0 Page 13 Metropolitan Airports Commission Carrier Jet Departure Related Noise Events Apri11995 Coa�nt of Departure Aircraft Noise Events for Each RMT ................... . �;::»<:�::..:.::............ . . .. .. . . :`::::::::::;a:::. :,: ... ...�::� :>.:,::�::>:`:::�:z>��':...:.:::.... .�� ; :...:,.:;::.:..: ....: ;........ ....: .: . ...::.. ..:..::::�>: �•r•:::: �'%i� : ".�:.�:�::":: ::c... .., .. . : :::.......::. . . .. . , : . ... ...... :... .. : . ... .... . . : : :; ,.:::.::.:,::::..: . :.: :..:'.:::.: ... . .. .. . :::. .::. . . ..: :::. : :: ::::. ... : : .:; :.:� ::::<:.:..»:: :>. �:>.::..::::,.;��::.:.>�.::,;��:: :::::�^� : :::.: ::.....;::: ::. >�:�:::.i� �:..:: .:::::. .�:':..::.i� ;::.:.:, ::::. .: � .. `�:':. :: ::. :�.. .;.;>::�� ::�:;.;�..:::<.::. ::;::: ��. :: >:::;:.::.:��........ :. � ::.:: : :.:.... . :. . .. :..: �.:.:..�.:::: :;::::: �::�:::::.:::: ::.::: .: :.:.:�:.:..::..:: . .::::,.:�:. .:; :::�:.:�:::::.�.t:.:.:�::.::��:: :::>::.::.: ��. : ....::::.: �� .: .: . ::::.: :e:::�...:..:..::::�e::: t�... >�� :::::�>:..:<::�::: :;::�::�:� :::>:.��:>�<::::..:...:::>..::::�.>� . >�.��::��::�t�::.>>.�:<:::;.:::::.:.:.:...:::.:. :::: �.:::::.::�...; :.::.:.::... ::::;::�:::�::::.:.,:.::::.:.:::::::::<:::<�>:::�.:�:�.:<��:��,:;: .....:. ... ::::...::::::.�.;� .:..::.::.::.:..;...::.:�.:�:.:�.::�,::::.:;�.;.:::.:::..:::.:.:,..�:.::.:::.:.::;:::::.,.. .. .: .:. . : :..: .>;::: .:�>:;<<.� ..... .: .. . .:::.. .::. ;�:� .,.. .::::;.;::.: .,. .. .. . . � . �:�4�:: : ::�. . �:>:��:� � >;�1�B::�::. 1 Minaeapolis Xerxes Avenue � 41st Sireet 399 77 1 0 2 Minneapolis Fremont Avenue & 43rd Street 260 98 9 0 3 Minneapolis W Elmwood Sh�eet & Belmont Avenue 1020 358 25 1 4 Minneapolis Oakland Avenue & 49th Street 1260 610 81 12 5 Minneapolis 12th Avenue & 58th Street ?A43 1380 711 151 6 M'inneapolis 25th Avenue & 57th Stceet 2887 1703 690 284 7 Richfield Wentworth Ave 8t 64th Sbrcet 1173 468 91 4 8 Minneapolis Longfellow Avenue &. 43rd Street 788 321 38 1 9 St. Paul Saratoga Street & Hartford Avenue 45 18 0 0 10 S� Paul Itasca Avenue & Bowdoin Street 38 19 0 0 11 St. Paul F'mn Street c� Scheffer Avenue 46 16 2 0 12 S� Paul Alton Stieet & Rockwood Avenue 59 23 1 0 13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mo�ican Court 842 218 14 0 14 Eagan First Street 8t McKee Strcet 2610 320 76 0= 15 Mendota Heights Ciillen Street 8c Lexingta�n Avenue 2056 833 75 2 16 Eagan Avalo� Avenue 8t V'�las Lane 2771 1766 276 11 17 Bloomington 84th Street & 4th Avenue 260 41 13 1 18 Richfield 75th Street & 17th Avenue 603 167 88 14 19 Bloomington 16th Avenue & 84th Street 319 134 37 4 20 Richfield 75th Strcet & 3rd Avenue 356 46 11 1 21 Inver Grove Heights Barbara Avenue & 67th Street 796 99 5 0 22 Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail 1179 148 3 0 23 Mendota Iieights End of Kendon Avem� 3309 1260 647 76 24 Eagan (�apel Lane & Wren Lane 830 173 13 0 Page 14 Aviation Noise Programs : � ' Metrolpl olitan Airpc3tts Comuussia� Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events Identified I . , RMT #1: Xerxes Ave. & 41st S� RMT #2: Fremont Ave. & 43rd St. Minneapolis � Minneap I tis �I , RMT #3: W. Elmwood St. & Betmant Ave. Nlinneapolis 04/02I9517:22:48 04/�31�5 I9:37:11 04fU5/95 19:04:28 04/10/95 10:32:17 r,�ns�s is: ��:zi 0��o�1�ss �.a.�:�o 04r24/9S 16:10:06 fWI21/9510:48:49 04/141�5 $:2'7:07 041i319514.OS:01 0 � r � � 99.5 97.3 96.3 �.z �a.a 93.2 93.2 93.2 92.9 90.6 RMT #4; Oakland Ave. & 49th St. Minneapo�lis ;I oa�s�s Zo:az:2s 04JOi/95 9:41:31 04/�iJ95 7:30:31 (14/02l95 17:24:40 04/16/95 17:04:15 04/05J'�5 20:18;15 {3�C�319S 16.49:35 Ck%ll/9S 7:37:53 04/06l'95 17:42:34 041211a5 20:11:43 Aviafion Noise Programs B727 B�27 B727 B737 B737 B727 B727 B727 B127 � 103.9 103.6 102.8 102.2 101.1 1dI.0 I00.9 100.2 100.1 100.1 Page IS Metropolitan Airports Commission Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events Identified RMT #5: 12th Ave. & 58th S� Mimnea�polis ;::��::::::. .�::::::.:::��:::::.� ::::::......:.:.::..:.: .:.:..::::: :;:::::.::., ;:;::.:,:::..:..:::::.::::::::::::::...:::.; `:::': �::�:'.�:�:`:::��':1.�:`� :�: .:�. :� ;��: :..: �� ;:�::.:.:::::� �.'::: �:::: :: .:::;.;::;:::::.: :::� .:::.::;:::::::;:��: <: :>:: .:::�...... �: >� :� �:�:� ::.:� � .. ::. :: :: ..��; > :. `�`�'. :: :; ::.: :.:.: :::: `' 04/07/9511:14:35 B727 108.5 A 04/011'95 7:16:18 B727 107.1 D 04/18/9516:12:22 B727 105.5 D 04/23/9515:16:49 B727 105.3 D 04/ll/'95 9:03:44 B727 105.2 D 04l24/'95 7:36:31 DC9 105.1 D 04/21/'95 6:13:23 B727 104.9 D 04/22I'95 9:32:32 B727 104.8 D 04/OS/9518:27:56 B727 103.0 D 04/z8/95 21:47:10 B727 102.7 D RMT #7: Wentworth Ave. & 64th St. Richfield ::..........:...:��:.;:::.�::::::::.::......::::::.::.::: ;.::.:.:.....;,......;:,.:..::............:.:.:.:�::;:.::::.::::..;.., � � :::?��::i��:' ��:�:��:�.;;:1�:::��:':� ��'.::.;:::�:;:��":: ::.::. ;:>, �. �::�3a�``::,..,,.;.:;.: �:'`��::::�:::>: :: :::: :::.::::: :�:>: :::>: ::�;::::�::>::::>: .>:: ; :� �'. : � �� :::.: ::: .:::: �.�� ;,: � � :: :;�:::;: :........... :: >� :: :;� ...... ,: ::: :..:. :�: :; .:;..;. . :..: .-:.�..:::. ..: ,: .. ;::>:: ::�.:r'�'4��:::::.��.;.. .:::>:� :. 04/16I9514:51:11 DC� 105.1 D 04r24/'95 7:45:41 B727 103.1 D 04/12/'9513:23:11 B727 103.0 D 04�22/'95 7:45:16 B727 100.3 D 04/Ol/'9511:30:33 DC'� 100.0 D 04�17/95 7:22:01 B727 99.9 D 04/21/9518:36:15 B727 99.8 D 0423/9519:07:05 B727 99.1 D 04/06I'95 7:26:35 B727 98.8 D (T4/13I95 9:34:10 B727 98.4 D Page 16 Aviation Noise Programs RMT #6: 25th Ave. & 57th St. Minneapolis : .........: .. �: ..: ...........: .:: ...: .: .,: ..: .: ..::::.: .;�: .:::::.:: � .: .: .: :, ::::: �:: �,:; :: ........, _,..::::::::: .........: . . .> ? ;;��:: �: : ::�A7�e:: ; `: :•�.: . `'�:�:��:: �: ;: ;�:#�< :i ; :;. : . . ....... .... :::::::::.:. ,: .:. ; :. ::. ..:.... .:.::..::..: �� v:�' :' "�`;��?: '::: ��:e�e�:: ;:. ... . .: 04/12/'9516:55:25 B727 109.9 D 04/02I'9517:21:59 B727 109.6 D 04/02/9517:24:14 B727 109.6 D 04�21/95 20:11:19 B727 109.3 D 04l28I'95 20:02:03 DC9 109.0 D 04/OS/'95 20:17:48 B737 108.9 D 04r11/9518:30:42 B727 108.7 D 04/OSI9519:21:09 B727 108.6 D 04/Ol/95 9:41:07 DC9 108.2 D 04/2�/95 7:55:14 B727 108.1 D RMT #8: Longfellow Ave. & 43rd St. Minneapolis .......:....:..:::..:::::::::::::::.:::�::..._:..:..;....:. ;...:::::.:::.;....:::..: .:....:...:::..::.:::.. ;.::::.::::::........: .�:.�:=��::::�:;::°:::;:`�>;�>��`��'�:':>:� .>i��G�:�:� <::.::>�.:.:.:...��:�.;:: .. . .::..�. : : : : . .<:��:�:�':��: � . ::::.::�.:;A�f��: � :: : .:. .... ..... .... . ..;: ::::.: �>� ..::::::::::... .:; .,.::.:.; :.:::..:.....: :. . .: ... . .. ; .:��.:; : :..:::.::::::: .:.::.:...::: .:. .::: �.: .. . :�.. . :: :.:. .. .. . .: . :...:: . .............................. ............ ...................... ..................... ..................... 04�21/'9517:22:03 B727 102.0 D 04/06I9517:19:04 B727 99.3 D 04/13I9517:18:58 B727 97.6 D 04/OS/9519:21:34 B727 97.3 D 0427/95 8:16:09 � B727 95.7 D 04�7/9511:12:10 B737 94.7 D 04r14/'9517:18:26 B727 94.7 D 04/04I9514:41:15 B727 94.3 D 0427/95 7:09:16 DC9 94.2 D 04/22/95 8:11:42 B727 93.9 D Metr I� litan Airports Cainmissioa Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events Identified � I i RMT #9. Saraioga S�. &�Iariford Ave. R;MT #14: Iiasca Ave.� ;& Bawdoin Si. ,� St. Paut S� Paul� RMT #Il: Finn St. & Scheffer Ave. St. Paul 04tZ41�5 I1:16:42 U4IZ1t95 16:31:38 04/02/9S 12:45:58 (k�!(Y(n/95 14:24:11 9 04/291'�5 13:55.55 04l0219S 9:10:26 fl4l29/95 14:15:08 04129l9S 20:49:32 04JD2(95 7:25;i9 p4/12/95 10:18:27 Bn�� SF34� B'127 � DCIO� DC9 � DC4 � B727 � B727 i B727 RMT #12: .Aiton St. & S� Q4I20I9S 15:05:53 04/191'�515:44:30 04f24/9511:16:47 U4/10/9S 7:01:34 04/06J95 14:19.29 {}411519515:44:43 04l2$�95 14:41:51 04�21I95 10:35:22 Q4I271�S 14:08:39 04/05195 13:21:11 Aviation Noise Programs 4: 1 � 97. i 96.1 92.9 91.4 91.� 9Q.4 90.3 90.2 89.9 89.5 93.9 91.8 91.2 90.3 89.I 89.1 88.9 88.8 88.7 $$.fi Ave. �i� Page 17 Metropolitan Airports Commission Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events Identified RMT #13: Southeast End of Mohican Court Mendota Heights .. ...... . .. � ::. .:1��x :.....:..`.,:'.:;,,...::::.; :. �� :� �`::�:::. .:: ::.>� :.::::::.. :.:. . .: .: . .: :. � �:�. ::�a�:<`.i.:im+�> �� . :::: ::�� :: ` ��:�:::: .:�:��:c :.:.:.:. .... .: :�.;:.:: � :: ... ..... . •: :• •: •. ::. � . .,.. �?!�•': .:: ; . 04/08/9517:07:20 B727 94.8 D 04/15/9514:48:17 B727 94.6 D 04f07/'95 9:38:20 B727 94.3 D 04/08P95 7:55:42 B737 94.3 D 04/12/'95 8:11:03 B727 93.0 D 04R8/9518:55:47 B727 92.7 D 04/18/9512:05:58 B727 92.5 D 04/07/9517:26:27 B727 92.0 D 04/OS/9514:40:33 B727 91.9 D 04/07/9514:41:05 B727 91.8 D RMT #15: Cullon St. & Leadngton Ave. Mendota Heights :.::.:.::::::>�::::: � ��;:....:..;:.:..:.:�.....:.�.:.....; : .:: ; ... .::. � : : � ::. .�;. .:.: :.::�:,.....,:..,..:� : .::..��:' ��'::.::�s�,e�:Tiu�:: �:�`' ::::.:.:�:::.; .:. . .. . . :::�:�:�`>:: . ;:.. �� :. : : :...::::::: .»:::.:::: ..::;. . : . �� 04/12/'95 8:10:41 B727 101.4 D 04/07/9517:18:22 B727 100.8 D 04/08/9513:10:35 B727 995 D 04/OSP95 8:16:40 B727 97.4 D 04�20/9518:15:01 B727 96.6 D 04/18/'95 7:39:55 B727 96S D 04/02/95.14:46:00 B727 95.9 D 04/15/9514:47:59 B727 95.7 D 04/12/95 6:09:31 B727 94.9 D 04/02/'95 5:52:30 B727 94.8 D Page 18 Aviation Noise Programs RMT #14: lst S� & McKee S� Eagan .... ..... .... ::.;.;;.,.,::r:..;::.:..::,:::.;:;:;: ".: <::::>.::tki!�:::::.;::: ��<��ic:::;:,, :::::::.:.. . ;��::. .�m� ;� ::::: :�►:: :: > > : ..� .. .....� :: : : : ..: :::.;::. �: :. :::•. . ; ... ..: .... ..........: . . .. .,:...... . .: .:: : :: :; .: • ..... . . .. • ��.:::::: ...... ': 04/18/9518:03:04 B727 97.3 D 04f07/9517:51:13 B727 97.1 D 04/15/9515:18:22 B727 97.0 D 04/13I9518:10:07 B737 96.8 D 04/18/9517:06:01 B727 96.7 D 04/OS/95 7:25:14 B727 96.6 D 04/18I9516:20:52 B727 96.2 D 04/18/9518:32:01 DC9 95.8 A 04f07/9518:39:56 B727 95.7 A 04/28I'9512:37:26 B737 95.5 D RMT #16: Avalon Ave. & Vilas Lane Eagan :. ..;�:::.: .;:::.:.;;::>�:.,.;.:;..:, .::::::.:::::.:.;::: _; �� . .::... ....... ::. ..�::..::':::>•:��t:::::>:��::...;�::....::: :. ::> ��:: :::� .::�>� :;: .......... ........... :: �i�i�:: ::: ....... , , .. .. ::......: :: . :........................ .... .;..:...:::::;: ::.:: :::;..::: . . ..... ..:� ..:: . . :. .....: ..;. <;<::'�>�� :::. ....:....:. :::::� ::.�: 04/18/'9517:11:58 B727 102.7 D 04/08/95 7:49:54 B727 101.9 D 04f07/'9515:38:53 B727 101.6 D 04/18/95 7:45:09 B727 101.4 D 04/18/95 9:41:58 B727 101.1 D 04/08/'9513:13:55 B727 100.9 D 04/15I'9516:37:34 B727 100.9 D 04/08/95 9:29:41 B727 100.8 D 04/12/95 8:01:24 B727 100.4 D 04/OSI'9517:02:06 B727 100.3 D i] � I � . Metrapalitan Air�xyrts Commissi� Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events Identified I � RMT #17: $4th St. & 4th Ave. RMT #18; 'iSth St. & 17th Ave. Blaamington Richfield R:MT #19:16th Ave. & 84th St. Bloomington 041ib195 21:24:13 Q427/'95 14:28:29 04/06/95 8:41:56 04/04h►5 22:24:57 U4f021�517:24:30 U4/13/95 6:3p:48 04/12/9S 6:54:01 t34la4195 8:06;27 oaro��s a�: ia:o3 04/12/'95 10:12:10 B727 DC9 B727 B7z� B727 B727 B727 B127 s7a� B727 103.6 103.4 102.5 IO2.3 i42.1 102.4 101.7 102.5 �oo.s 100.7 R:MT #20: 7Sth S�. & 3rd A�e. 04II1�95 IO:SS:03 04fQ2/95 22.25:33 Q4/13/9S 11:14:0'1 04/16/95 21:14:25 o4ro��s ��: z�:o� 04/12195 22:43:17 04�27/95 14:28:�45 04/12/9S 10:37:50 04I(}6t9517:14:33 04/04/95 21:08:1U Aviation Noise Programs s��, I B727, � B727 � B727� B�a� 8727 DC9 I B727' DC9 DC9 102.2 99.7 95.8 93.7 gz.� 91.5 91.3 91.2 9(}.5 90.4 � � � 0 � � � Page 19 Metropolitan Airports Commission Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events Identified RMT #21: Baa�bara� Ave. & 67th St. Inver Grove Heights .....::::..:..::,:::.:::::::.�::::...::::.: :,::.:.:>....:. .;�::.� .:::::::::::.;..:.:.................::.:: ;..,::.� .:::.:::::::<:: � ��: '' ::1.��ie::. ��:' :�:::��'�:::: �.>�>:.:... �"�: . ' ::'�''�ilG' � .:; .�.:�..�:.::.; . :.:. .:. : .: . .. . .;. ... ::: ..: ::.. . :::::::. ' � ... . ... : . . :.�: ; :�a�::�ti�>�'.. .;.; ;: >.: _:. :.... ; '�e_ <: 'T��':.:?:;�`'::�.:.: 04/30/95 21:51:20 B727 91.7 D 04/10/'95 9:21:53 B727 91.5 D 04/OS/9514:41:14 B727 91.1 D 04/10/9518:53:26 B727 90.8 D 04/08/9513:22:27 B727 90.6 D 04/06/9519:56:48 B727 90.0 D 04/14/9518:48:04 B727 89.9 D 04r10/'95 7:56:27 B727 89.8 D 04/06/951927:25 B727 89.7 D 04/�02/9510:05:19 DC9 87S D RMT #23: End of Kenndon Ave. Mendota Heights .. . ... ... ::: ::�;�:::��'`:��`' >``:�.::�;:;�::::::::::.;; :�.:�:'�:::..:::::::::�:::: 1 .. .�. ... . . � �.2�i$.,. �`•:: �:: � :...'': •':::::::::'..`E?:. � :a :: ::%;.>::;?::•::. ' .:: :: ,::.:': i:::::?.: ; ; ;' '' . .. C:: Y ;.' .:. •r:ii:: ;::�,�,M,.�� .:. ...: � :: :: •:. :.........':.^•. .: .: }:....... S } :. ,�:. '}: :. � .. . ... •:.::.:.. �:: •>::.::::�"::�:��: :':.:.:: • 04/�08/9513:10:26 B727 104.5 D 04/l0/9518:14:51 B727 104.3 D 04/09/'9511:27:30 B727 104.1 D 04/12/'95 7:47:22 B727 103.9 D 04/10/9517:02:48 B727 103.7 D 04/18/9517:21:05 DC9 103.6 D 04/08P9511:41:17 B727 103.5 D 04/10/9512:14:00 B727 103.5 D 04/12/95 7:55:28 B727 103.2 D 04/07�'95 9:37:51 B727 103.1 D Page 20 Aviation Naise Programs RMT #22: Anne Marie Trail Inver Grove Heights :: ::: :::;:., .:... ::.:::::�::: ;:::��.. :.: � :;. :;>;;::�::< ; ::: . �.:::::..::,::.:.: .:..::.:::::........:: �:�::� � ;:.:�.� ......::::::.... :`_ ., `� ,t�'` ; :: >��c:� :: :: . .� .::.:.:�ai�:�m < � ; :: :t�:::;� `.. ,: .. . .. ..: . ....... . : , ; ,. ;>:: .: .: . :. . .....: : ::...� ::::..:.....:::�: � .: :: .:. �:� :. � ::� .:: ; �'�`li�> .: r ::�:;ei��> <;: ' ."� �::: 04/18/9519:45:11 DC9 91.9 A 04/15/'9515:39:39 B727 90.6 D 04/07/9511:31:15 B727 90.4 D 04/08I'9514:56:00 B727 90.2 D 04�30I'9514:55:35 B727 89.9 D 04I�02/95 9:39:19 B727 89.7 D 04/14/'9514:53:02 B727 89.6 D 04/20I9514:43:41 B727 89.6 D 04/06/'9519:54:31 B727 89.5 D 04/10/'9518:21:58 B727 89.3 D RMT #24: Chapel Ln. & Wren Ln. Eagan ;: ...;::.> :::::::: .:::: ..:: :::.>�:: ..::::::::::,�:::::. :::: :::: :.:: �:: .. �:::.: .;�:.::: ..:..........: :. ;..: ...::::::::: ....: r .:..`•::.::•: •=�• ::::�••:•.• '.�t �r iv� � �::' s � :..,,. .... . . :::.... :... :. : .: > . . :::: :17ct�:Si;':.'�:::: �:�','„ft2►„',, :� ��;i:: .?�.,:•. :`.,, :;. :: . . :: :....: .::� . ::.::.:: .:::: • : �y� y :: . . ::{7il;LQ:��fF,Y.' �� { � .�i;Y :: � :; ::��rxi:: :; : .:.:; `:. :•""�.;:.:.:. .:.: < .;... .: :. .: . � �� . � .:. ��:::.:;::::::. . � �<: .... . ... :>:. . .:.:::::.��::.;��:::;?; ......:.: :::: 04/OSI9513:48:32 B727 99.5 D 04/27I'9514:44:56 B727 98.9 A 04/30N510:13:59 DC9 98.8 D 04r171'9519:00:46 B737 98.2 A 04/30I9510:49:16 DC9 97.7 A 04/OS/'9513:43:24 B727 97.2 D 04/OSI'9513:51:50 FK10 96.9 D 04i18/9511:23:43 DC9 96.7 D 04i18P9514:34:31 DC9 96.6 D 04/301'9510:41:24 B727 96.5 D . . Flight Zirack Base Map Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring 5 . , � ,� �,.{: � - „ .� reJ�r. • y . ' _ r 4 :� . � 5 i•y, # � � � T Aviation Naise Programs Page 21 • .� ��►� �I�//.1►//; 1� ,'4 � • j9, �Z . ♦,'/'�,� /��;��1 � `' / ` `•• 1 . . �\��1 `��I�!'�� II 4' � .:., t i..►'! I �. � . '��.��" i�� G"�' i :t ,�,\; . � � ,.\c,!�:I� � �Tp� • . "\`,��r •,/�r�I��' ' ,�r ,,; � � -\ i y - . � � �� i � � � v�<�� i—� , ��. ,. . _ .� q�� i ,, .:; .. ,i .� . , ••': y �� //,�"��v '�� _ �� . . �� 'iii�� ► ■ �Ii��h4 ��, �� •� q � . .•,•�•� � � � �I:ilfi�„ • . .r�/ E�I��'- r : ... _ . . �� %��ll,I�ri►'� � . ..-� .. 1 � • -_ � �' ' -`. .`_i /�,,��/ . . - � .i/i% .y � �, �. i �' /� , �' ii � � �• �, . i 's��4\ , .. �i� � � Il�p � , �� // • �t\q� ,' ' , • � �� I//y� „� �� • " �. '� � �� ' ' . =Iw°I.J -' •.�l 1��`t ��„" \♦ �. . –• _ _ .._._ _ �(►_ A��. !: ��:,'a'!. . � \��\\� .:. ', . . ' - 2 ��, „ I��—II , ,' ' ��it^� �-�1i, 11. - I��I�( � . � ..�; .� i +'1 i I �, . . :, ��..,,��, f'�il��l � .._ :...!_. �•��.��r� �\t • \�, ��II'�'1� . , �� 1 ' � <� _� '� -/�� . !. .�.�� ,��:�� ..'�� n '�t �. �'\`��\�U� . ��i�nllt�:;� � �` " �, . � �i _ .�.��,�� •�� ,��: , ; . � . ` , . � : :I � . � ! 1�i .:'i1�� l�. , ,; '.��ll'� �► :� r '_ � � .. ��i�q �:. �. - - . . .,.: �. . %i �� ,��,��, • .�• i. � _ / r/[ � � - � �c:�r.„ . •��' �� - :� �►_ ,/�,.: �i _,� i ��+ ti \ �. � i , , �� ► . �� '-�. � '. �.i ♦�h � 'C :! �� .w �•�� I�\e. i D � �i iJ �/� ,•'',`; ` `. y., �' � .� � . e� � .,, a\��-,� �1��. q\a�r .�'� . ��:. Jt � ` ��►��►►�.:i.�:\�:."�-" ,'�'��_`•"'-- � .. . . .. _. .':� ��C��. � �� "~ ;� _- -- - � • �\� � � ^-�► �•//ii \!� � \\\ � ��• , � - • : �� ` �� ._,, ��\� \�`' �.-`` �E.: � . .. - .. `�\ :��.� `i� ` �-4 'If �: �,4, ...�� \l� .' 4�� . • �..: � ` i ��\\�� 'i�.i �' � - � ` .., � � _ ; -\�1 �. �� .. . . '\•`\� _ \ . ., r �' \\ ♦ \� � ��\� \\ ' . ' ., ��}��Li � ��` \�� . . � \�� \ \ ..� . '`` ' . .. \ " . ,., . ' �li;i '� _.•V. � �.` .��` � , ` e �� -�-1\\ry � ' . � _ � `�� \� � � �" �\ � � ' • _ �� ♦. . •• � . �\ �,�t � = . . � �\\ � \ '#�... � ; � . • \� � � � ►1,�,.�, . � - � � ' p\.� I �v =.� '� �\\�. �\��'li' ��. \ �� . � 11 �� r. ��=►� \ � � I� \� � , • . . �, _,�� . I . �. �, •,I� �� . . ', , . _ , ►`�, , _ . a►-�:_ ,� . . . ` �� 1.�/�•� ` . ��ii � . -. ��'',I� : r: �� :.'\ ��:��.• �� s / I .''�•�� I�►-'1.. --- �__ .r/�.�i:'�, �.�,� ., ;L•. i � �� ' . . i.1,ii�� Ilir`� .. � � '� �� ►� // � ,��\ -� , ,. ' �'` ' � \,�y . t'��, �I'� \��.p�� , . , � j.�' � . � P ��i' �►J.��. . , ;` ;Y �� ,�;�; . - : . ,,� ,;, :�� . - • . .��► , ,.,�., . , ` ,. ' , ..Y \ . !' - �; . . , ; �`��.��:: , - ' . . . �,~ � , �, ,�� , _— , . ,;, • � ' , � � . . , � ' %"�'� - � ,: . • . ` .. ,, ,; ' ��:� . • ;. . ' � , . . , , e�: , . ` i; . � • ' . . ' � t " . �. •c 5� , , �. „ : a �� '! * � � I � ; - v ♦ i —+�;� v � , � � ` , �\``'� 1�� 1�TTL' , ,1� \,( � .! t � ��' � \�\`��\ / �.�' j�� JI , • , /� ,� � i , t .� if z � �i ". ��ii r t;'j� �ti �r i t� � .ti��'� 1/� 7 �� `„ � . �ti ��,`r,��,:�;►�ii,�w • , , . ., �,�1"�,/.,;;�%�'�� u�� :r � � ��,.��►��• ��.ryf : �:,�� - � ��..�..R�,r- l�� • � ti � �� t ��1 �,ft1 ` �.. . , i � ��\, � �� j ., ;ti,,�• ,�i ' . ,' . `� `'�.:�°;:j��j �'►� r� °w �` � ��,�► __ � U �: . \.I�� M�\y��/�1, `��„ �, ,� r1�11 �.-.. ■ � •,1� i � � 1 4�11 it�lii 1� � . . � \��f�tit�� . . . •a�y. � .� �v y �i�jl� , i�t, t111��r\�► �� ..*.�►��:%. - . � . , 7�`'y 4,. . '``� �)j - , � ��."►. .,� ��►� . � � r � .�; r'�I rc . �� ,/�iC,�� \�l.t�,`�� .. I�I��j��y. `�` fi`� . ; , � � V \�� ' ...►. . �. ^,.. ., •.. � �i �G* . . � v. - � i � �•,�, �:;. ' 4 � � �i,(, � , p j. • .�i . � �. � �►�wif%�f�: �� ` '� �, r . i � �. t� ��irli �� C� �°' S r�/,'�'- r.,,r�� 4 �\ �:.��i��/1►�',. .,�. i � _ ��i`�� IIFi�Ii � a:' '. _ ° . r .+�, � Il . 7Y�!��i � � -• . ,�►'_„\►u ` r♦. _�//� � .:��-��dl�.i�►jR��l►�•:%�/i � _ � � � .�t�U`� _ t �t � ti • � �_ -_ � � �� i` � ��'j�tisrl:��i%� , ' - s .. / � • _ _ . ` ' � 1 �iM,'w �' f •... . � . ' .. • ""' ,-, . . , . . „ �� .. _..;'..; � - ��/� ti .� �.� rJ\ . 4 . . " /Y :� .. � / ; �.., .. , ', . �� ,,.��.I: � , � �:; ��i , ��l�'1 e �. �q' �.' ��„�-� � . �% � � . 1'_�' � , .• � .J;. ' �' ==„ .. ' M1 . .. .. � � . /: �. ' . � .�'n`'r��e.►e.:i��. � � . . �%-'.r��t�tr, q •,�, . ''�..t - , � . ��:�/ ��i + � ` �" "'�i�i� �� I�� , � � ' M,.,,�„►�//% n C�:!'� � . . . �., . , � . :_:.,�.r..�/,r��p.:'. � � . ' j� Y+ , .. � � � s � � \1 �. \ �. . � ll�. rT . �1.ltf ti i ` �� ii � 1 : � � 5 „ i'• `'i11�'�'` .�� ; .. : '.' IIM��itf�1T[�� hTz ti ��5t 1;i�+ , •' � . %��/.}/l�i\..rr.'Ll��!••_�:, aA't�..�r.r . . , �!',..��-��W,f1�i1. i� . . l�{��+;�4��. : �' � .....: t .. �..,,. � ",., . . ; .: . � : .+v► �^ r �� ; � c - . . � � ► . _ ,�\ v �+.�� . � _ . _ . � �,. � �'w �\ . �� , '� `, : � � � 1 � ti �` . � ^.'��-�"R,-�� +.� �• } ..r�� . +� � � �'��, � \ � �.. �"`� t, ��.�``"� �.�."�.��',, - • ' � „�,,,\` � t `�!.�" • � s � ri , , \\-'��C��`:1 ��.. . . . , . ;, �- . �\>��., c u �'.^ \ �\ti � �� . �_.../ii � � ��'\"��\� "`� . `� ` � • :\'� . `�\"1�� s " - . �Z �� ,� `�� -�-.4yx � �:' � .�., `, l i��.;` ,� .�:�\\\{� �. - .. .�, '•..,,.`.ti� � �\�:. �. . � ..�' F t `; . . �� ' `'`' .. t! . � �. . y . ♦..i �y,,,� �,�_ . _ � �� • '�.y z a� � . \ v. � �� .' �; �. `.,. � y � _ � ' � . ` �`�"` ' `~+ - � :�:.. �*�Ni` � .. � - . .: `� \ � �� \\ ,ti�"� � �� Y ► - . � µi .; .., ��.A'� �� •r . „ ' '� /I� T � `, ��frl�\ .. � j . . �r. i - � �Q'`1 ��`\� t .. �{,�� "' �^�. ..... � �`��':.y\ � t. rs � :;: __. �`t'�'i j�,,,. , • rlprli//„' . - —�t,�"�� t , , ..;. > ,•; „ ~ _,, y� . . ' ,�.--�' "`��t•.Gs.� . . >as'. . � .. �i"I��'"►�:, -- = � • �•-�•i—• ��` . �: 9' •'`; ��1 `i � , "' .. . � ; ^ tt y t � 1 jt1 Y *� -, ' �,`„{l,y:' �� , • �{��%1 sr � ;. 1`.� �, v1' 1 . s ii+r,� .�! �`}� ��'�c �' o� ;r"; �i"`.�►'��.4` . , •' ;n, ��1''' � ' , `' ��,'t�1": 5� , t a `'y, : •;�� `„�* =,��jh�! � � ` � � a� i \" � . j�a.i � C. � ` �. �. � ��„ � \,�'� ��"'� �! i, .. - . ' � \ � ~ , . � �� . � �� - \ti ��► �� . , . • . ; ' , �� \,,'::` . .� ��► r � i:� • _i,':�� . \: . . . . 'Z'1.�`� � � t . � . ♦. , . y \ :• .r . f � • .� ;. •' ' - .i 'i � ' ' ' � � . . . . . _. . �� . , � � •..\`. s. . . . . . . �'. . : ..• ''•::;5 . ' .. � i . . , � ' � .. .. . .� ,.r � . �.." � I� `1 , . . . :: •� . . . ..w.. : ; � , . � � � • r �'«, `i ��•�' . , � � �t �;�� t•. . .. . _ . _ . . � • " .. �:. . . ' " ' . _ .. •. �� .i .'L 4:.: \�. Metropolitan Airports Comm.ission Analysis of Aircraft Noise E�ents - Aircraft Ldn dB(A) Apri101 to Apri130,1995 Noise Monitor Locations ::::.�:::::::. . : .;::...,,,.:�;.�:.:: ::.;..:�.;,:::.; :: ��.;;::..:.�::;;::;:; ;`,�. ::��':"��',. � .<:::`�.:;..,:,.;';.:,.', ;':.:,.:; .:::::::.::.: .:.:..::,:;;:::;.�� :: ';:.::;;::..::::::.._::�:: ..:��.::::::::,...:�..,, .,;,.,::�.�:,,'�....:: ::::::`::,�:�:::;:::::: :;::::::::,:::::;:.'.�:: :. .: :.:.. .; •;: .:A�:� :: :: �#::.: . > .: ... :.: .::: :. #3 :: : . #�� :: .; .�5 :. .: �fi ;:.> :: � : :: #$ ....; .: �.:. > ; #�:�.b:: �, :. ��.:,+ : �� .. 1 59.7 61.0 68.4 685 76.8 80.9 69.4 62.4 47.6 57.8 � 53.1 59.1 2 60.4 62.4 64.1 66.7 69.3 72.1 67.9 59.3 50.1 59.3 45.3 53.7 3 59.3 61.1 61.2 64.3 73.0 78.3 67.1 62.4 492 60.2 46.8 55.8 4 58.6 58.3 61.8 65.2 71.1 77.3 64.8 62.3 55.2 53.1 50.1 54.5 5 61.2 61.0 68.1 66.2 73.1 77.0 59.4 61.6 51.4 58.1 60.4 � 58.8 ( 58.3 * 65.8 66.1 * 78.0 66.8 63.0 45.0 53.3 41.4 56.6 '7 60S * 68.4 66.3 71.4 72.3 57.9 64.1 48.3 61.2 57S 54S 8 58.7 * 65.2 62.4 64.2 68.4 59.3 44.0 455 43.0 45.3 40.8 9 54.1 * 61.8 60.1 70.2 67.9 55.4 43.8 40.7 47.8 445 47.6 10 � 61.0 63.3 65.9 65.5 74.6 71.8 60.7 56.1 51.6 51.1 44.0 59.3 11 64.7 * 71.0 65.9 77.3 71S 63S 58.4 51.9 61.6 56.1 55.8 12 62.0 * 67.1 67.9 76.0 80.1 67.6 62.6 52.1 60.3 54S 57.0 13 59.0 56.0 63.0 65.2 78.2 79.2 67.1 63.9 47.9 58.2 47.9 61.0 14 59.9 62S 67.3 65.4 72.7 72.1 60.6 565 44.8 58.3 54.7 46.1 15 60.1 63.0 68.6 64.9 66.7 71.4 59.3 62.0 44.1 55.7 47S 50.9 16 57.1 58.7 63.4 65.5 * 75.7 63S 57.3 42.6 54.4 45.7 48.3 1'7 585 59.3 65.9 65.9 * 79.1 67.0 60.3 48.8 48.1 47.2 53.6 18 635 65.4 68.9 67S 75.7 78.2 70.0 62.7 54.9 56.0 59.0 55.3 19 60.8 61.3 65.2 68.3 76S 79.8 67S 63.2 48S 47.7 42.4 74.7 2p 63.7 65.0 68.0 66.3 * 73.3 59.9 59S 50.7 57.0 56.0 69.6 21 59.2 61.9 68.2 70.7 78.9 8�15 68.� 64.3 48.1 53.6 46.3 54.3 22 57S 57.� 63.9 64.6 75.7 78.0 68.1 61.4 48.1 49S 49.9 47.8 23 57.1 59.8 62.8 66.5 74.8 78.1 64S 60.7 48.8 51.2 43.6 45.1 24 58.3 59.0 62.0 68.4 76.3 79S 71S 63.6 51.3 62.0 52.1 56.3 2$ 61.2 58.7 632 65.3 74.1 69.3 70.2 59.4 49.3 54.7 51.4 61.1 26 59.3 60.1 62.3 67.9 71.8 70.1 62.4 61.0 45.8 60.0 44.7 59.3 27 58.3 58.7 62.8 66.1 75.8 79.2 67.6 64.4 46.6. 47.9 56.7 51.8 2$ 56.8 59.1 63.1 65.8 73.3 74.2 68.1 57.0 49.9 54.4 49.6 56.4 29 565 59.7 62.7 61.1 68.8 68.9 54.8 55.3 55.6 58.6 46S 42.7 30 SSS 57.4 62S 60.6 68.4 67.7 51.6 51.1 48.6 47.1 43.2 44.3 Mo. Ldn 60.1 60.4 66.1 66.3 73.4 77.4 66.4 61.6 54.2 57.9 53.4 62.4 Page 24 '� l,ess lhan ,l\weaty fou*hows of da�a available � � Aviation Noise Programs ' 1 y Analysis of Aircraft Noise Events - Aircraft Apri101 to Apri130,1995 Noise Monitor Locations 1 57.4 2 50.2 3 54.2 4 44.5 5 63.3 6 58.4 � 66.1 g 63.9 9 62.3 10 65.3 11 62.5 12 65.7 13 44.6 14 65.2 15 65.8 16 59S 17 60.2 18 62.6 19 59.1 20 65.2 21 44.8. 22 46.0 23 55.0 24 57.0 25 * 26 * 27 58.6 28 62.8 29 63.5 30 64.1 Mo. Ldn 625 �� 72.9 62.7 64.4 67.3 64.6 66.7 68.6 72.7 60.8 66.2 67.7 *. 63.1 63.3 61.7 64S 65.0 65.2 62.7 67.1 60S 61.8 56.7 62.1 63..7 62.8 62.0 65.4 65.0 63.7 � 65.7 59.7 68.6 67.2 75S 71.6 60.0 64.3 67.3 63.1 68.1 57.6 57.3 57.6 69.1 68.2 74.6 72.1 57.6 52.6 68.8 57.1 71.9 65S 63.2 66S 71.4 63.4 71.9 70.3 55.0 61.2 71.6 64.1 69.3 69.1 60.1 68.3 74.8 61.8 62.6 * 51.3 66.1 75.2 64.6 63.8 * 55.0 65.8 71.0 68.1 67.1 49.3 51.9 67S 73.9 68.1 66.9 55.2 55.8 66.4 72.5 63.2 652 48.8 62.2 68.7 71.6 61.3 71.0 68.0 645 56.5 70.0 63.1 73.3 725 59.2 66.6 705 64.7 65.0 45.8 58.6 67.4 71.3 60.6 62.1 42.6 50.9: 62.7 69.8 61.4 67.3 53.4 56.2 62.0 71.6 61.8 69S 73.0 54.9 66.1 73.6 59.3 65.2 55.0 60.4 61.3 69.0 63.1 69.3 70S 57.6 67.9 73S 66.3 64.9 52.0 56.1 53.3 68.1 59.3 67.3 66.9 57.0 53.3 70.0 625 71.6 72.8 56.3 57.8 65.8 59.9 70.4 65,3 56.7 59.9 69.2 62.3 61.3 50.6 54S 55.8 66.8 67.3 63.7 63.1 53.1 58.7 , 70.3 59.8 70.0 54.3 61.3 59.4 , 67.6 63.6 67.7 58.7 56.8 64.8 72.4 63.2 69.0 60.6 59.5 64.3 72.0 55.2 55.8 53.0 49.6 65.4 71.2 66.5 645 49.4 45.9 64.0 71.5 63.8 70.4 67.8 60.3 C�� * L.ess than twenty four hours of dafa avaitable Aviation Noise Programs 54.6 53.1 44.9 48.7 60.7 59.6 62.7 63.3 60.4 63.8 59.6 60.4 46.1 62.8 * 55.0 61.3 59.3 55.9 62.3 49.6 53.9 54.8 56.7 59.3 61.4 54.9 61S 63.1 62.3 60.1 I� �olitan tlirports Commissi� i� dB(A) � � � 56: 65. 62.8 61.6 63.7 61.2 � 62.9 E 57 62.7 69.3 63.2 56.6 72.2 71.8 75.0 75.3 735 75.1 74.7 75S 62.3 72S 72.7 71.8 70.6 73.6 69.3 74.8 59.9 58.2 65.7 69.5 64.1 70.8 67.6 73.2 73.7 75.0 7� �� 63.8 65.4 63.1 62.0 73.7 66.8 69S 69.9 66.0 68.5 66S 67.6 63.7 66.7 66.4 64.2 65.8 67.2 64.7 68.9 63.6 64.0 61.8 64.7 63.1 66.9 65.7 � 68.4 68.4 67.3 68.8 Page 25 ANOMS02 C:1123DA7A s CITY C?F MENDOTA NElGH7S AhiOMS Aircraft Operatiions Data January 1995 to June 1995 January Percent February percent March Percent April Percent May Percent June Percent 1895 of Usa 1895 of Use 1995 af Use i885 of Use 1895 af Use 1995 af Use ALL OPERATIONS Dapartures Q4 43 0.2496 62 Q.40% 58 0.3196 45 4.2796 0 ERR 4 11L 2,97$ 16.78% 2,294 i4.�496 4,827 26.8296 4,d73 24.$4% 0 ERR 8 11 R 3,054 17.2190 2,428 15.6096 5,5U8 29.46% 4,409 26.8$% 0 ERFL 0 22 774 4.36% 6Q1 3.86% 521 2.7996 632 3.85% 0 ERR Q 29C 5,558 31.3990 5,316 34.16% 4,132 22.94% 3,754 22.89% 4 ERR 0 29R 5,343 30.10% 4,860 31.23% 3,648 18.5196 3,4$7 21.26% 0 ERR 0 Subtotal {Departures 17,75d 100.0{?96 18,561 1Q0,44% 18,694 14Q.00% 16,44t} 100.Q0% 0 EFtR 0 Arrivals . . 84 22T 1.23% 't96 'I.21% 11L 2,741 14.8996 2,185 13.48% 11R 2,9p8 15,7996 2,156 13.3096 22 66 0.36'� 74 0.46% 29L 6,643 36.07% 6,'!52 37.959b 29R 5,834 31�67% 5,449 33.6196 Subtatai (Arrivais) 18,4i9 t00A0� 16,212 100.0096 Total (All OperaUons 36,169 31,7T3 JE7 qPERATiONS Depar#ures 386 2.02% 606 3.66% 4,681 24.55% 3,601 21.75% 4,807 25.2196 3,731 22.53% 163 d.859'0 81 0.55% 4,$05 25.2U% 4,478 2T.4596 4,227 22.17% 4,050 24.4896 18,069 104.4d4o 16,55T 140.00% 37,763 32,957 0 ERR 0 ERR 0 ERR 0 ERR 0 ERR 0 ERf2 4 ERE2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 ERR ERR ERR ERR ERft ERR ERR ERR ERR ERR ERit ERR ERR ERR 04 0 0.0096 6 0.66% 1 q.01% 0 0.00% 0 ERR 0 ERR 41l 1,&94 16.24% 1,29! 'l3.77% 2,7$7 24.62% 2,4$1 23.84% Q ERR 0 ERR 11R 2,d14 19.26% 1,&23 17.3196 3,665 32.24% 3,066 29.8296 0 ERR 0 ERR 22 538 5.1296 346 3.693b 285 2.5196 377 3.67% 0 ERR 0 ERR 29t 3,324 31.79% 3,441 36.27% 2,583 22.8i% 2,372 23A7% 0 ERR 4 ERR 28R 2,8$8 27.6290 2,711 28.919b 2,037 17.82% 2,405 18.64'Ye 8 ERR 0 ERR Subtotal (Dapartures 10,455 100.Q0% 9,378 100.00% 11,368 10q.00% 10,281 100.00'Yo 0 ERR 0 ERR Hrrivais ' 04 108 0.9696 114 4.14% 245 2.059fs 431 4.0896 4 ERR i1t 1,877 14.8896 1,342 13.Od9b 2,949 24.69% 2,2$8 21.$290 0 ERR 11 R 1,7$9 i 15.88%�" 1,352 "" 13.50%� 3,110 - 26.03%`Y'2,39T - 22.70% ��' 0 ERR 22 14 0.1296 33 0.3396 92 0.77% " 48 0.45% 0 ERR 29L 4,i45 36.79% 3,835 38.2996 2,968 24.85'% 2,801 28.5246 0 ERR 29R 3,539 31.3696 3,380 33.7596 2,582 21.61% 2,601 24.63% 0 Ei2R Subtotal {AttiYets} 11,266 i4Q.40% 1Q,d18 900.4096 11,946 100.0446 14,561 100.Oq% d EE2R Total (Jet Oniy) 21,721 19,394 23,814 20,&12 0 Mendata Heights AEt N4ise Cot►�Iaints fi4 139 154 57 0 a E�x 4 ERR 0 �'"`-' ERR 0 ERR 0 ERR 0 ERR 4 ERR 0 0 r �� MINUTES METROPOLITAN AIRCRAFT SOUND ABATEMENT COUNCIL GENERAL MEETING APRIL 25, 1995 7:30 p.m. - 6040 28th Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 1. Call to Order� Roll Call . The meeting was called to order by Chairman Bob Johnson at 7:30 p.m. and asked to call the roll. The following members were in attendance: Mark Salmen Iviartha Faust Peggy Hillman Bob 7ohnson John Richter Jim Serrin Joe Lee Gordon Wagner Mike Teegardin Scott Bunin Carol McGuire Craig Wruck Thomas Hueg Don Priebe Jamie Verbrugge John Nelson Mike Schlax Jon Hohenstein Jill Smith Juan Rivas Jim Hollenbeck James Kunzman Advisors Bnice Wagoner Cindy Greene Ron Glaub John Foggia Roy Fuhrmann Traci Erickson - No�thwest � Northwest UPS MBAA Minneapolis Minneapolis Minneapolis _ Minneapolis Minneapolis St. Paul St. Paul St. Paul St. Paul Richfield Richfield Bloomington Eagan Eagan Mendota Heights Burnsville Burnsville Inver Grove Heights 1 ;�secretary was FAA FAA FAA � Technical Advisor MAC Supv.Av.Noise Programs MAC ANOMS Specialisf I i I /v Guests Borys Polec :•� � � _►.� �. _ � �.' �, Minneapolis The minutes of the March 28th meeting were approved with the following changes: Jamie Verbrugge, Richfield: Page 3, under Item 5 add: Current use at MSP is approximately 40 operations per hour. With the Runway 4/22 extension, operations would increase to about 60 per hour. Page 3, Item 5, under Operational Change add after 1550': (amvals on Runway 04). Page 3, Item 5, under Noise Redistribution add: 7000 people will be impacted, 4000 will experience some relief for a new increase of 3000 people. Page 6 add: Jamie Verbcugge to the voting tabulation, changing Yes votes to 17. Don Priebe, Richfield, comment on Page 4. A direct transcription of Mr. Priebe's comment taken from the 3-28-95 MASAC meeting tape reads as follows: "that the net effect of the 4/22 extension will be an additional 3500 to 4000 people in the Ldn65 contour, and that results primarily from the fact that the break release point or the departure threshold on 22 departures will move roughly 1/2 mile down the extended nznway and thereby 1/2 mile closer to the most densely populated area surrounding the airpo�t which is the area between 66th and 90th and east of 35W".—•Mark Ryan, MAC -Airport Planner,-said "Mr. Chair, i�believe•�the number is �a net 2960 and that includes the people in South Richfield and Bloomington. That is the number in the approved EIS." Borys Polec asked that his comments on Page 3 be corrected: "I said I am opposing north/south nuiway parallel to Cedar Avenne, not 4/22. I am for extension of 4/22. I am opposing Bloomington proposition to build north/south runway parallel to Cedar Avenue. When I quoted I said that when the close up, they put everything over us when the repairs aze being done, then we are going to have 60 planes per hour. At present we don't have". John Nelson, Bloomington. responded, "the proposal Mr. Polec refers to is in the long-term comprehensive plan at MAC, and the construction of a new north/south cunway is not a Bloomington proposal". � ��.. �� -� �K " 1 � � i!!1 _ L . � 1 No invited guests. Two letters dated March 30, 1995 were received from John Nelson,City of Bloomington: one to the attention of the Executive Committee concerning the format of the MASAC meeting agenda, and one to the attention of the Operations Committee regarding achievement of the 1995 MASAC goals and work plan. Chairman Johnson responded that these items have been taken care of at the two committee meetings. �' " U tl'..�� !1• •� el� •ll ► 1 " ►� 11".�• - � ��'� � � . -� �- : � �� !1� �! �1 1" '1�• � 1�G i 1 •,_• • �1 �1 �1 1' �.1.� "1 �l John Nelson, Bloomington, conveyed a point of order to this motion that the original conditions for tabling this motion were that all the state and federal agencies had to first give 2 �+ approval. Record of Decision has been released by the FAA. Approval has received from the Metropolitan Council, therefore stipulations not being met, the of order. Joe Lee, Minneapolis, withdrew the motion. � ' :' '. � '� u' � •�-� �i •i�i� 5. A copy of the 4-21-95 Operations Committee Minutes were distributed. not yet been motion is out Mark Salmen, Chairman, reported that the meeting was an introduction to nighttime noise issues which MASAC will be dealing with during the next few months. MAC staff distributed and reviewed an information package which covered Standard Instrument Depa�tures (SIDs), Nighttime Operations and Shoulder Hour Considerations, RUS Considerations, and Crosswind Runway Usage. Discussion was open for comments only. Members were asked to review the material distributed, and discussion of recommendations will begin at the May; meeting. Bn�ce Wagoner, MSP ATC Chief, introduced Cindy Greene, FAA Procedures Specialist, who also provides technical suppo�t for the dual track process. Ms. Greene presented, the following summary of 4/22� operations �with •the extension. ; With the extension of 22 there would always be two full-length, runways available on the airport. Runway 29L is in need of reconstcvction which would require the runway to be out- of-service. There are also temporary closures of the parallels for snow removal, pavement repair, etc. If 29L is closed, there would still be the capability of 29R for landing traffic, and 22, with the extension, would be used as the departing runway. The two runways would be independent of each otlier which means operations can occur at the same time on both of the runways. This maintains the capacity of the airpo�t during the loss of 29L. The extension will allow flexibility to operations whenever a runway is closed. Operations will not be as complex because aircraft do not have to cross two runways. With the extension of Runway 22, the inter-dependency of Runway 29R with Runway 22 is basically eliminated. Aircraft can depart from the displaced threshold independent of operations on 29R As operations increase, aircraft can stay on a landing 29L/R �and depa�ting on 22 mode for a longer period of time allowing more traffic to utilize those ninways before having to use only the parallel runways again. With the extension, the maximum anticipated landings on 29L/R, would be 60 aircraft per hour (which is the maximum now on 29L/R) while depa�ting 40 on 22. One runway is not capable of more than 40 deparlures. Within a 15-minute timeframe, the cbntroller lrnows if thgre are going to be too many operations to stay on the current configuration. It is �easier for the controller to interact deparlures on cunways that intersect than it is to time a departure with an arrival. This is more positive control for ATC, whereby they clear that aircraft� for deparlure after one is through the intersection. This is a maneuver which is used all thel time. ( Along with the extension will be a queuing taxiway. New concrete will be added which is a good feature for air-traffic control. The Queuing taxiway will hold approximately six aircraft. • ; i 3 I I I i In the final EIS the FAA addressed the six headings off Runway 22. There is a point where � the 165' heading coming off the airport interferes with the airspace utilized to land on the .� pazallel runways. Use of the 165' heading will be addressed procedurally by the FAA. The FAA has not determined when that heading can be issued with the extension. Mark Salmen, NWA, commented that the MASAC Operations Committee will be reviewing, in detail, a Runway 22 SID which would address a particular heading and a ground track that an aircraft would follow as it departs Runway 22. Ms. Greene cladfied that FAA procedure on turns, unless directed otherwise, is that they are given immediately after depacture allowing for separation and divergence. - A question/answer session followed the presentation. � The final EIS and Record of Decision refers to use of 4/22 in a ba(anced manner, but does not specifically state that Runway 4 would receive increased traffic. The tower uses the RUS when traffic and wind allow. Regazding ground noise, the cunway would be used with the displaced threshold for the vast majority of operations except for heavy operations that need to depart full length. Cindy Greene specified that arrival capacity on the parallel runways was about 60 operations per hour, under vis�:al conditicns. Deparlure capacity for both nuiways was 80 to 90 operations per hour. That is, •40 •ta�•5 departures �per runway. Using an intersecting iunway (such as 04/22 under existing conditions), capacities are not as high as parallel cunways only. Blast turbulence: All aircraft create some type of turbulence. On Runway 29R, a landing aircraft is only interfered with if there is a"heavy" (747, DC-10) departing on 22. The arrival cannot pass by the turbulence caused by that heavy jet. Noise relief over Minneapolis would be greatest with MSP operating under arrival bank conditions, and winds allowing Runways 29L and 29R arrivals (at the 60 per hour rate specified above). Because the airport is under arrival bank conditions, demand for depa�tures is down, and Runway 22 is used for deparlures - up to about 40 per hour. Bruce Wagoner, MSP Tower Chief, added that overall increases in traffic would not alter use of Runway 22 for depaitures when the airpoct is accepting arrival banks. The increased pavement with the extension of Runway 4/22 is a plus for safety and for increased movement of aircraft. 6. TectLnic�l Advisor's R�nway�y,stem Utiliz?tion ReFort and Complaint Summarv The Technical Advisor's Runway reports were distributed for March 1995, and reviewed by John Foggia Points of interest included: Stage 3 percentage is up and this should continue to improve as the DC9-30s are hushed throughout 1995 (13 were hushed during the month of March). Air carrier operations are up from 715 in 1994 to 742 in 1995. There was an increase this month in use of arriving 22 and departing 04 for all operations at night. Mr. Foggia called attention to a new set of cha�ts for a different way of looking at all operations, which is an improvement over the bar graphs. John Richter, Minneapolis, comptimented John Foggia and staff for a well prepared report. 4 � . y � , ; � % ,� 7. Persons Wishing to Address the Council ; � Michelle Padden, 3908 Stonebridge Drive, Eagan, reported an overall increase of noise in Eagan during the day, and a substantial increase of noise late night and' early morning. Statistics show that Eagan is getting the majority of this air traffic noise. The�aircraft should be using the industrial corridor during these hours instead of over neighborhoods. Chairman Johnson responded that the MASAC Operations Committee is currently reviewing.these issues. Members aze well-aware of Eagan's noise problems_ ( �Juan Rivas, Burnsville, commented that the new GPS technology would greatly help aircraft to stay in the Corridoc John Foggia responded that GPS will help to restnicture air space and place aircraft to the best of our advantage relating to noise. I Jon Hohenstein, Eagan, re(ayed that the City of Eagan has been very active in keeping residential development outside the Metropolitan Council's contours. Ms. Padden's home is a good two miles south of that contour. Eagan has been putting commerciaViridustrial where aircraft are expected to operate, and keeping residential homes out of it. � A � Jill Smith, Mendota Heights, commented that the Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor protects �� people closest to the airport, but the aircraft operations fan out. This means th�at more aircraft � are going over individual homes. ' 8. Other Items Not on the Agenda Chairman Johnson reported on two MAC Commission meetings. A special meeting was held today, April 25th, to deal with the contractor problems who are involved with the Part 150 Sound Insulation Program - four individuals were accused of conspiring to fix prices. The final action of the Commission was suspension of the accused contractors pending completion . of the legal action which the FBI and Department of Justice initiated against tfie individuals. Sta.ff and CEE contacted each homeowner and are getting new contractors t� finish up the work. � ; At the regularly scheduled April meeting, Govemor Carlson introduced the new MAC Chairman, Pierson "Sandy" Grieve, and spoke about the economic impoctance � f the airport. 5 ' ;� � ��•� Chairman Johnsan adjourned the rneeting at 9:00. Respectfully submitted: Jean Deighton, Secretary ��Zili u � ► ►� _ � � : Futi Commission J'une 19, 1995 1;00 p.m.- Room 303 Planning & Environment Committee June 6, 1995 ' 1:0� p.m. - Room 301 MASAC 7une 27, 1995 i:30 p.m. . - - �.� . � ,.� r MINUTES MASAC OPERATIONS COMMIlTEE MAY 12, 1995 The meeting was held at the Metropolitan Airports Commission General Office called to order by Chairman Mark Salmen at 9:10 a.m. • The foilowing members were in attendance: Mark Salmen, NWA - Chairman Craig Wruck, St. Paul John Nelson, Bloomington Dick Keinz, MAC Tom Lawell, Mendota Heights Mayo� Tom Egan, Eagan vi : John Foggia, Technical Advisor Cindy Green, FAA AGENDA NIGHTTIME NOISE ISSUES Chairman Salmen called attention to the order in which to deal with the nighttime nc stated by John Nelson, Bloomington, in the minutes of the last meeting. It•was agrei in the following order: ' I 1. Nighttime SID 2. 4/22 Nighttime Use 3. RUS Practices 4. Shoulder Hours and - � issues as to continue In regard to the New Noise Management Methodology (NNMM), John Nelson referenced (from the committee's study package) a statement taken from the Voluntary Nighttime Agreement "background" text: "MAC desires significantly better compliance levels than those indicated in the above table (Stage 2 Nighttime Voluntary Agreement - Operations 4th Quarter 1994 Report). One way to achieve greater compliance is to extend the Voluntary Nighttime Agreement�to all carriers operating at MSP at night." John Nelson. moved. and Dick Keinz. seconded. that when the verbiage be included. A vote was taken and the motion carried. This would be an extension of the existing voluntary agreements that we have with all of the cargo carriers plus� Sun Country Airlines, to all the carriers at MSP....it is a part of the NNMM, so there is no point in further debate over the issue. The MASAC full body will be informed that it was moved, seconded, and approved that officially Stage 2 nighttime restrictions that are similar to the voluntary nighttime restrictions 1 � I i � already in place are incorporated into the NNMM to be discussed at the June P&E. John Foggia will emphasize these items to Jeff Hamiel, Nigel Finney and Tom Anderson. Nighttime restrictions will be removed from Operations Committee discussion of issues since it will be incorporated into the NNMM. : ��_ . s��:.� ; -• � � Chairman Salmen opened discussion. Based on the EIS and FAA analysis, what will be accomplished by implementing a nighttime SID. He requested that members focus on what improvements will be made with this procedure in place. , John Foggia reviewed the history and background of a Runway 22 SID. The proposed procedure would shift departing Runway 22 aircraft over the Minnesota River corridor to avoid high-density residential areas in both south Bloomington and Burnsville. The proposed 22 SID procedure is: As soon as practical after departure, turn left to a 180' (M) heading. At 3 DME f�om the MSP VORTAC, turn right to a 245' (M) heading, thence vectors on course. A lengthy discussion followed Mr. Foggia's briefing as follows: (in order communicated) * During high traffic volume periods, the SID procedure can cause queuing taxiways. The FAA is trying to ensure safe separation operations, and minimize delay. Because traffic is light at night, nighttime SID may be worthwhile. ` There are DNR concerns. delay of aircraft on of aircraft, expedite consideration of a ` The City of Savage would raise concerns if the 245' heading on a straight line continues over that community. ` Noise will not be eliminated, but a.SID will help relieve noise over certain high-density residential areas (Richfield, Bloomington, Burnsville) * The Runway 4/22 extension does not interfere with the SID - all SID departures leave from the same point. A similar SID was addressed in the EIS of the 4/22 extension. * The operational capacity, safety capacity, fuel economics, bird strikes, and airspace structure will all be analyzed and taken into consideration * The SID helps balance air traffic and improves noise equity between communities. ` The intent of a nighttime SID is to be used when conditions allow. Chairman Salmen quoted the following: "Included in the SID environmental evaluations will be noise analysis of the proposed 180' (M) tu�n followed by the right turn to 245' (M), and a base case assuming current, non-SID departure operations from Runway 22. Analysis of impact on the bird sanctuary, and potential for bird strike are also to be addressed. This proposal was determined by the FAA to require an EIS and thus, has now been incorporated into the D�aft EIS preparation for 2 * . ��; : • 1 � r j R• the Runway 4/22 extension." He then requested that a record search be done, and to obtain a copy of the FAA Form (26 items) used as an environmental check list prior to implementation of a new procedure. Further needs include completion of environmental studies and how to implement the tower order. I Cindy Green, FAA, added the following steps needed for app�oval of a SID: (1) MAC �roposal to FAA for implementation, (2) Draft tower order, (3) Region and Union comments, �(4) Controller - breifs, (5) Implementation. Ms. Green also questioned the expected improvement or outcome of implementing a nighttime SID. In her opinion as controller who has worked the nighttime shift, the only operations over South Minneapolis are at the tail end or beginning of the 11 p.m. - 6 a.m. "switch" in operations to or from the Eagan-Mendota Heights Corridor. Those� a�e the only operations which may be assigned over South Minneapolis and those few would noi be prevented by the proposed nighttime SID. John Foggia explained that those were not the operations the SID addresses; it is really aimed at the single events that depart Runway 29UR well into the nighttime hours. He will produce a listing of operations over South Minneapolis during the 12: a.m. - 5 a.m. period for 1994 by time and aircraft type for the committee. I The committee determined the followi�g steps to move forward on the proposed Nighttime Runway 22 SID. � 1. Establish environmental issues already completed 2. Get a copy of the FAA 26-item checklist 3. Contact HNTB on environmental issues 4. Determine depa�ture end point verbiage with tower staff 5. Examine ALPA's concerns and investigate. Report back to this group. (Bird strikes, 3000' ceilings) 6. MAC staff will evaluate and report wind and operations data from ', 12:00 p.m. midnight to 5:00 a.m. This will answer ATCs questions � on how often the SID will be used and the intent. . � 7. MAC staff will create a well-defined SID proposal - format to include FAA requirements to be presented at the next meeting. Chairman Salmen relayed that this group will concentrate on the SID, put out a quality product, and then move on to the remaining 1995 MASAC goals and objectives using the scheduled due dates as an outline only. . I The next Operations Committee meeting was scheduled for June 7, 1995, 1:30 The meeting was adjourned at 11:05 a.m. Respectfully submitted: Jean Deighton Committee Secretary � V Y. 7 . � _ , � • . • . • ' . � ., „ • � . •� ' � •. � .� • - . , ' ' . . ' ' . . .:t.� 1 .� y, � • ` ` , �'Y. . - . , Pa'..� • , ` ' • , ' 1. 1 • ' . �` : r , � r.�.'� `� � . V >> �l� ' � } . s��i �, ' ` � •.., t. . . . . ... . ♦ . �� . � � +` t ..v ' ' i. *- .' . - ,S� `S r , .. {�� 1ss�r:• -!�y ' . ^'S p.. ' �,`.. ' • 4 a.. � ,' � . - ..r , r .. � ,. - . _ .. . + , i�eC� '7R :?;cy. � ' ' s'c t' �. 's`.: . !.'!'��=�"R.�'t .. � - . . . �i � '��, ' • .. x t - + _ ' - . •. ��,r.- . , . . ,`. , ` . .. , ° . . . y . • ; o.ti..: ri '_;"i`� I ti . . . . . ' . . - ' + .. . • . . _ . .. � . • , ' . .t. : . - , , `�� • � � '�� ., . � , . .n . �� %t � . � '_ . .� . _,+"��.4:r�q}ii .. �?'��-""� � . >S..st.; :'v'Y��. - .. -. . ..i. .L_� • . . , ' ' _ . .. : . � ,a . _ .A� .;t:A`. ,T'... i{..�E'.Iit;?, " ' t�., ' �? ':='f`-. �,�r; .. y : ' - r'y ,i � ' ' . * � �Y / t � . ' � . . . ' ; ^ . • '' _ � , . . • , • ,r , . ` Y , .. = � I . - - + ' ' . . •. - - " ' , . . , . . �. ' .. ..: . ,. . "', i..,. - � ' ' , . � - . � " } .r . . .� � � , � � . • . � �,i...` , • .. - ' ,. • ' ' ' , • _ ' , , ' _ ''' : ` - . ' _ ' ,' . • Y F - � . .. ; ,. : , - � `. - : - \ • '' , � _ . ' , , - ' e ' ' .:. �Ii/iAA.� 1'��VV�SLETTE� .:. SOUTH METRO AIltPtJRT ACTION CCIUNCIL s22-s1�s May,1995 �Vlirtnea,polis Airpoart Ae�ir�ns A Niinneapolis task force has . been formed io look at airport options and how they affect the city of Minneapolis. Matfrnr Sfu�mtt Sayles BeXton warked ha7rd io ensure that the task forre cont�ined representation from south Minneapolis. Among members of the task force from south Minneapolis is SMA.AC board member Bonnic Witlettburg. t?ther members include 8ugh Schilling, former chair of the Metropolifan AirporEs Comnussion Schi.11ing was fired from the MAC by GovernorArne Cartson for hi.s support for a new airport. � In our last newstetter, we alluded to a list of actions the cify of Minneapolis could take on behalf of their residential neighborhoods. We have received a number of inquiries abaut a�ur "secret plan". so here it is; 1. Hire Tom Ga►odman as legal couitsel.to e�cplore furEher actions the city nught fak�e to reduce the burdens of airport noise an Cl�' T@51t�@It�'S. � 2, Prepare data an noise eff � ye� on � property values that could be used in a court of law. Make that data �available to residents, along wi�ii counseling�on how to fi1e an inverse condemnation�suit The city should aide homeowners in their battl.e. �� 3, Put pressure on the �MAC to begin insulation of all homes in the `b5 Ldit noise contours. � . 4. Establish a noise commission, and work in conjunciion with Eagan, Mendota Heigh#s, and inver Grove Heights ta pressure the MAC to shift traffic bo the 4-22. Qrganize a withdrawal from IVZASAC. MASAC works tu the de#riment of th�,se communities. � 5. The mayor and Hennepin Couniy` Commissioner should hold a joint news conference to prot�st #he effects of noise pallution an city neighborhoads. ♦Z 6. The city should oppose expansian of the currnnt airport and supgort plans to relocate the airport in an area that will accommodate all the fut-ure traffic growth that is necessary #o sustain ecanamic development The city should actively � explore the sa-called third track optian, which involves putting t�ie runways at fihe Rose�mount site, liinked' �o the present facility by high� speed rail. - , Dual �Track Prvicess I}ecision time is one year away, but the overwhelming sentimernt in the sta#+� seems" to be opposed fo buildiiag a new airport, � Nortfiwes# Airlines is ac�amantly opposed not only to re%cating th��airpor� but even 1� expanding the present one. Norkhwest � even opposes the Mefronolif�n Airporfs Commissions plans �to build a new t:erminal buillding, fQr exaniple: �. � � Mariy people in the st�te worry that Northwest�nught�leave. Indeed, there is � . ' nothing to prevent the airline firom picking � up stakes. B.ti�t��e.fact�is t�tat 1��15P is�� _._:� _ .., Noritiwest's�'mosf�profit�ble hub, and there. -.� is little inducement for them to move. . There is tc�mendous apposition to a new airpark�in Minnesota.'The start up prablems with �khe I?enver Int�rna#�onal Airport arre be.ing cit�d a� �reasans not to expand or move fihe present airpor� Traff�c continues tu grow, and tlie Metropolitan �?►irports Commission continues to promote growth of operations at the airport. But any aitempt to move i� or even to e3cgand i� will be met with strong opposition SMAAC NEWSLETTER +` Letters frvm our Members One cif our members wrot� in with some good quesfiions that are on everybody's mind. Here they are, and� oiir.�answers: 1. Da calls to the noise complaint line make any dif,�renae? � : - . � . � . : � � . � - Pmbably not The .14ZAC, iecoriis. the calls, and. keeps recor.ds; � biut cioes n�it �4'd�3' �??'Port operatiQns aun: a�y way. But �.z. ' when complaints: drop, the �IViAC .us�r�hat � ` . . � . . .;.:.... . as "evidence" �Iiat it is sal.ving:#he.noise. �.'.::., � . problem: Most of the 11iiAC's ".noise" �.`�'� mitiga#ion" isjust�tha�_noise.,.��,µ - u. - .- • . . 2. It app�urs thut fhe eities of Richftetd tutd Bloomingtorc have a greuter say in how .#he noise is distrt'bufed, erjerc though the number�of '� households aj,�'ected is significaritly higher. in south Mirsttea. pol�s. Zs � this a valid observation, : mtd i, f so, why? . . . � . .� . The cities of Richfield and �•� Bloomington have been far more active, politically on the noise issue than Minneapolis. Richfield, for example, is �� fi]ing a suit against the MAC_ta prevent � them from using an e�ctended 4 22 to redisfribute noise. Also, the Ciiy of Richfield has been pushing for years to promote a t�urd parallel runway over Minneapolis, rath.er fihan the preferred hZAC aIternative of a North South runway. • S1I/IAAC NEWSLETTER The Metrapalitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MA�AC� is conirolled by "the airline indusfity and by com- munities least affected by noise. That includes Richfieid and Bloo�ingion. MASAC now works mainly to preserve the status qua and generally apposes any measures that would bring relief to south Minneapalis. 3. Shauld I give up and selt my hvme befrn�e it gefs zvorse? . Everyone has ta make his own decision�an this matter. Many people have left tfie area because of the noise {including all past and present SMAAC presidents except Frank Ario}, C}n fihe other hand, everyone is affect�ed differently, and many are tntilling to live wi.th the noise because they lilce the neighbarhoods. No one buys a hause in #iie area nat knowing about�the airpar� yet houses keep selling. One thing that preserves the community in the face af airport noise is the e�cbensive park systern: h�nehaha creely Nokomis, Hai�ie�, Diamond Lake, Hiawatha, etc. Iti ad'dition, the homes in the area are some of.f3,ie finest in the metmpolitan area. � Any real estate agent can tell you that many people refuse to consider the � area because of the noise,. and�that in turn holds down property values. Though SMAAC has so faz failed to win i#s cases in cour� the fact remains that the MAC is 8v.i1tY of illegai ��cing of property, in violation of the 5th amendment of #he U.S. Constitu#ion. The U,S. Supreme Court is beginning to look more favorably on property rights cases, especially in view of Federal regulations regarding weflands. 3� Someday perhaps a successfui suit will be launched, and area residenfis will receive some compensation €or their losses; although it will require a transformation of our caurt system to one that�upholds enviranmental law, as well� as property rights. , ., i The choice is yours; but an objective assessment of the situation says that r+�lief from noise wilI be a cansf�nt battle, and a new aixgort faces strong political oppo-. : sition from many sources in �the state. ii ��c�,n.ual S ritl 1Vleetiri � �i ` ti g Diamond Lake Lutheran Chwrch 576Q PortPand Ai�+�. , wednesday< Iune 7th,1995 � �� 7.34 p.m. � - . . , � � � ,..: -:.StCZJ8�C1`R�t - ,��rnrer��lfh V.�Iard CounaI h7ember MinneapaXis representativ�e on the .. . _ -. MefrapaIittm Aitports� ,C � mmissiart. Com _ . . - . . i� E1ecEion of New Frank Ario Dave Fis�cher Dean Lindberg Eileen Scully Nomi.nees ' .;. �i1 ' � s r :r : Clark ond Gram Mamer n Simer THE NOISE NEWSLETTER � PUBLISHED MONTHLY BY THE NATIQNAL QRGA.NIZATION TO INSURE A SQiTND_CC31��`I'RpLLED Valume V, Na. 5 PRELIMINARY PROGRAM SET FOR Nt�ISE C+C.�NFERENCE '95 by . Charles F. Price F.�cecutive Direczor The 1995 conference of the National Organization to Insure a Sound-contralled Environment (NOISE) July 26-29 in Washington, DC will offer registrants a unique opportunity to Iearn about current developments in the technological, political, and regulatory aspects of noise abate- men�. Spedai emphasis wlil be piaced on the attitudinal components of community response to noise and on an eacamination of the ways in which the noise problem may be changing with the phaseaut of Stage 2 atiircraft. ___�rnoter far the conference will be Geoffrey GosLing, of the Institute for Transportation Studies, University of California-Berkeley, a' distinguished scholar in transportation studies, who will set the �stage for the symposiurn with an euamina�ion af its overall theme, which is the question "Is There a Noise Prablem?". This theme was chosen to confront head-on an argumeat often heard these days from the air- lines and the government that anti-noise activ ists are increasiagly out of touch with current developments in noise abatemen� The phasing out of Stage 2 aircraft and the shrinking of the DNL Cs5 dB contour, they argue, coup2ed with the rise of other enviranmental concerns, suggest that anti-noise activists should now mave on ta more relevant concerns. Gosling will provide an ab�ective summary of the contending views about what the future holds in the field of aircraft noise and what should be done about it. He wIll frame the debate in a context of economic, political and environmental lities. The address will build a foundation for .soned decisions by pubiic policy-makers in this complex area. The first full canference session will be devoted to the theme, "Economic Pressures and Environ- MAY 1995 mental Hazards: Must Noise Concerns Take a Back Seat?" The enactment bf the Airpart Naise and Capadty AcC of 1990 (ANCA) is regarded by the government and the airlines as the defini- tive tool for solving the probtem of aircraft noise. James D. Erick�on is the new direcCor of the Federal Aviation Administration's Office of Environment and Enesgy. He will explain � whether ANCA implementa�ion is actually meet ing that goal and will describe how other envi- ronmental issues are coming to the fore. ,j . John M. Meenan, Assistant General Counsel of the Air Transport Association of America, repre- senting air carriers, will discuss the econamic� constraints airiines face while they strive to meet the ANCA mandate while international pressures build far even further noise reduc- tions. ; � Regardless of the progress of ANCA implementa- tion, naise does persist as an issue bedeviliug airports and their neighbors, demanding to be addressed. The second session of the confereuce takes a Ioak at a praminent �p1e. Seattle-Tacoma Iuternational Airport wanCs to build a third runway but the expansion must be approved by an Expert Arbitration Panel estab- Iished by the Puget Saund Regional Council to verify the effectiveness of the Port of Seattle's noise mitigation programs, ' �Diane Summerhays, manager of the Port's noise abatement program (invited} and Feter J. Kirsc.�i of the Washington environmental and land use law firm of Cutler & Stanfield, who represents ai'rport neighbors, will analyze the public policy implications of the panel's work. Sanford Fidell of BBN Systems and Technologies, Canoga Park, CA, a nationaUy known noise researcher, will describe the re- sults of a recent survey of community response ta noise in the area. i( {continued on page 2} � E May 1995 Page two CONFERENCE (Continued from Page 1) FAA Administrator David R. Hinson has been invited to give the luncheon address on the first day of the conference. The second day of conference sessions will begin with an examination of the issue of noise mea- surement. Anti-noise activists have long dis- puted contentions by the government and the aviation industry that the DNL metric is suffi- cient as the preferred tool for measuring noise impacts. Increasingly, however, the parties are also debating the validity of the government's DNL 65 dB threshold for determining adverse noise impacts on residential living. The issue is vital because the threshold is the device used by the government to measure progress toward quieting the airport noise.envi- ronment. Eric Strusnick, an eminent acoustical researcher for Wyle Laboratories in Arlington, VA and Steven E. Pflaum of McDermott, Will & Emery of Chicago, IL, a leading attorney special- izing in airport noise issues, will examine the controversy and its implications for public : •� policy-making. . The conference agenda n�xt turns to the ques- don of the usefulness of airport noise monitor- • ing. The technology of monitoring airport noise grows ever more sophisticated and offers more and more data about who is making noise and where. But what is the end result of this ava- lanche of data? What does it really tell us? What can an airport or a community really do with it? Is it a useful tool of public policy or is it only an extremely expensive and elaborate toy to amuse the technocrats, enrich consultants and befuddle or mislead the public? ' _ . Richard J. Linn, noise compatibility planner at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport, de- sarlbes the new monitoring system at DFW and the kinds of information it provides. Steven R. Alverson, manager of the Sacramento, CA office of Harrls, Miller, Miller & Hanson, leading noise monitoring consultants, will discuss the ways such data can be put to effective use. . Luncheon speaker on the second day of the conference will be Dom C. McGrath, Jr., AICP, Director of the Institute for Urban Development Research, The George Washington University, Washington, DC. - Department of Transportation Secretary Federico Pena has created an advisory panel to report to Congress on the operational implica' tions of the new civil tiltrotor technology, wi combines the advantanges of a helicopter with those of a conventional aircraft. McGrath, a nationally known urban planner who is chair- man of the environmental subcommittee of the Civil Tikrotor Development Advisory Committee, has forced the panel to confront the likely noise impacts of the technology and the inadequacy of the government's preferred noise measurement tools when applied to civil tiltrotor operations. He will provide critical overview .of the panel's work leavened with his characterlstic humor. Next the conference wlll turn to a consideration of the theme, "Human Response to Noise: Lessons for Public Policy Making". Everyone knows that some portion of human response to aircraft noise is attitudinal, subjec dve, and that it can give rlse to public outcries that can complicate, impede or even stop airport expansions, changes in overflight patterns and other operational actlons. But how much of the response is subjective? How does this vary from persun to pei-son? Is this component measurat*�p and does it deserve� to be given serlous weight If so, how can it be taken into account in the making of public policy? Susan Staples, a leading psychologist from Stone Ridge, NY who has niade this subject her spe- cialty, and Richard Kassel. an attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Coundl in New York City who has studied community response to noise, will discuss these and related questions. Still to be finalized are presentations by the organizations sponsoring the 1995 symposium, the Committee on Noise Abatement at National and Dulles Airports, an arm of the Washington Metropolitan Council of Governments, and the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, operator of Dulles and'National and a charter member of ther NOISE Airport Operators Commit tee. The two cosponsors will host a reception on Wednesday, July 26 at a place and time to be announced. Invited as welcomers at the recep- tion are U.S. Reps. Constance Morella (R MD) and James Moran (D-VA); Mary. Margaret Whipple- member of the Arlington, VA Board of Commi� sioners and a former member of the Board of Directors of NOISE; and James W. Wilding, Genera� Manager of the Metropolitan Washington Air- ports Authority. 1�95 )n Thursday evening, July 27, the enviranmen- tai and land use law firm of Cutler & Stanfield will sgansor a reception for conference attend- ees in the lobby of their office building at 700 Fourteenth Street, NW in downtown Washington. Planning for ather conference events is-still under way. - The NOISE Board of Directors will meet on the preconference day, Wednesday, ,ju1y 26 from 3 to 5 p.m. rather than on Saturday morning as has been traditional. Saturday wlll be a free day for eaccursions in the nation's capital. The conference mailing wili be sent oat soon after Memoral Day. � Site of the conference will be the Key Brldge Marriott Hotel in Rosslyn, VA �ust aaross the Potomac River from Washington. In facC, a short walk across Key Bridge will bring atrendees to the famous shopping and restaurant district of Georgetown. . Rates at the hotel wIll be $95 single or double occupancy. You may call the Key. Bridge 'riarrlott directly for reservations at 703/S2A�-� 64Q0 or 1-80Qt327 9789, ar call Marlatt Worldwide Reservations at 1-800/228-929U: Be sure to iden- tify yourself as a registrant for the NOISE con- ference. The hotel raom block is being held until July 5. Any reservations received after the cutoff date Krlil be accepted on a space andlor rate available basis. _ NRDC �CONDUCTS AIRPORT SURV�Y TO SPOTLIGHT ENf VIROr[MENTAL, OPERATICINAL . ISSUES The Natural Resources Defense Counatl (NRDC) is surveying the managers of 12S of the nation's leading airports as a basis for a repart on the envlronmental implications of airpart opera- tions. . The r[RDC questionnaire, sent Aprll 28, asks questions about the general geographical layout of the airport, transportation and land use pat- terns, and selected environmental concerns. Airport managers are asked to provide informa- Page t6ree tion on how the airport is inanaged, its vo�ume of cammercial and general aviation operations, its size, the number and Iength of its runways, the characteristics of land use's surrounding the airport and the population�wiChin the DNL 65 dB contour and within a three-mile radius. , (�yiestions are also asked about the availability of mass transit and ather modes of ground d-ans- portatlon, the type and sta'tuS of any airport eacpansion p1ans, and the nature of airport noise mitigation measures. � � Specifically, airports are asked whether a noise abatement office is maintained and if so, the number of noise comglaints Iodged monthty, aad the manner in which such� complaints are handled. (�j.iestions also inquire wheth�ar curfews and/or other noise ar opeiational restrictions are in effect and if so, whether they are manda- tory or voluntary. ; � Airpvrt managers are alsa asked whether noise abatement takeoff and landing pracedures are in effect and, if the airport has undertaken Part 15�? noise compatibility planning, are asked to inqii- cate the status of that pracess:�• . The NRDC is a natianal non-profit environmenta! arganization located in New York City. In its cover letter distributed with the survey ques- tiunnaire, NRDC described, itseif as "a respe�ed force in bringing about rational solutions for enviranmental problems." � Since 1991 NRBCs Airparts Froject has advocated sound.Iang-term glanning fur a,izports aro, � d the nation, NRDC and �iOISE have often cooperated in na,- tianal lobbying ef€arts directed taward national ' noise abatement. The two' or�anizatlons and the National Airport Watch Group were espedally active in 1991 and 1992 in efforts suppordng legislation that would have granted federal tax credits for owners af Stage 2 planes retrofltting them to meet Stage 3 noise standards. The joint lobbying efforCs� were underCaken aut of a concern that the finanrial troubles giag'uing F airlines might tempt the�i to seek repeal of the Stage 2 phaseout mandated by th� Airpart Nofse and Capacity Act of 199Q. � How�v�r, airlines have generally remained committed to the phaseoat despite their economic woles. Resgandents were asked to return questionnaires � by May 26. i � � R �ch#ield �atary r �tie�ves award t�L�tYQ.rsiF?Itf� i�rlt:n .. r� #.�Lr �-'�k?`��, ..�j... ...�.�_ �^ .� �t �i 4�� r�^ � �� . �. 4 ,�:�: y `` n t : ; r��.� � � : �. �:N-� . Sp�ri�ns mak� �lass�c c�olf ieam� �� .- ,� ,� �,.,... � � � �� -�2 �'1111yY�. d.1S 1�t� � � headed far media�a�r Both sides pessimistic about reaching r�tiated settlement in exiension feud I3y Mike Westholder S�Zff Writer The dispute over tlie exten- sian of runtivay 4-22 at Min- neapolis/St. Paul International Airgort is he�zded for mediation. The Metropolitan Council ruled Thursday that it would not vote to apprapriate funds for �he project until the affected parties attempt to reach a mediated campromise. OfCciuls from R.ichfield, Bloomington, Minneapolis, the Metropalitan Airports Cammis- sian (MAC) and possibly North- west Airlines will be involved in the mediation. Th.e recommendation came fz•am the Met Council's Trans- portatian Committee two weeks ago. The council must authorize funding for tl�e 4-22 rumvaq ex- tension if it is to proceed. Richfield has fted a lawsnit against MAC and the Minnesota Depaitment of Transportation {MnDOT) claiming the praject's �nvironmental Impact Study was inadequate and doesn't com- pIy with state and federai Iaw. If a compromise ' can be reached in med'zatian, the law- suit could be dropped. Richfield and Bloomingtnn ciiy cauncils oppose the rnnway extension's use as a toal for noise redistribution, They do not op- pose its canstruciian for long- haul and international flights or its use during reconsiructian af the souih parallel runway. While represen4�f�ives from both sides of the debate said me- diation was a positive step, th.ey RITNWAY: To Page 7A i �:t... � . �. � .i . '? :irn + " . '.}y. e.•a' �e',"� y 11 ► � +{^.•-� �:. t•T�(`3 � • �I �,� Y .�, � • .,,�' � .'•1e.•' ��,� ij�� S':� � !f "i Yp t�"1�^i�~. ��/i ;fv' ;? J�S. �� ;>. � � �k ,�: � � �;�:-� � . ,� �� ,, w �3�Y�`�, :.�� .1;� ��.�{.i�.��, ��` •,.�: . . 1�,��, . �! � 3. ��-:t: i i;=, ,h.: f. ,� � �# � + ;, � ; 1"1°�.I :.; t;;t : �t . � e{!� }Ai �: � � j . f _ :�ji I' . .: � �'��.� l i !s' � ..' i .. .. , t � ��: , ��. �:�>:;: . �.,,_� u� � � -� Y�§, � � t a �� :._�.;; ' ¢�� •<.. �.., r �� . Y $ �. �� :��'� �'-.:�,. •��;�;',•�' � �� :�'��., �' �� R�. �. �r} ��""G~ra ( ;a. ��: "> .� . �� N�}4 ^'^''p- , ed8i. 3.2:«�+i , �: �� -. � �. I�ig�ing in �lh 1'Vc►rke�s use �t crnne to *nov G6th Streei; and Po2 tlaiid.Av 19�J8 environmental reguXci � .._.._ .._..� � � e +dirt e� �;asol.ine storage tank Th� enue. Many gas stations are i Lioiis. (David Eyestone/Staff l T'Ti-i�r'"D► .0. �.., ��,. Richfield Sun•CurrenUWeanesday, May 31, 1995 Runwag�: Met Co�.ncil must approve proj ect funding to proceed From Page lA were equally doubtful a compro- mise could be reached. "If they come up with a com- promise, it would be a desirable thing," said City Councilmember Don Priebe. "I'm not optimistic it will happen. Minneapolis and Richfield are diametrically op- posed on this issue. "We say `we aren't willing to accept the runway extension if it's used for noise redistribution.' Minneapolis is saying `we won't accept the' project unless it in- cludes a noise redistribution as- pect " The very different goals, said Com- missioner John Himle. "It's a lot easier to compro- mise when you agree on a goal but differ on tactics," Himle said. "But if you differ on goals, it's so much more difficult to agree." For mediation to work, all fac- tions will have to be willing to give a little, Himle said. "So far, no one has been will- ing to budge," he added. "If all sides demonstrate more flexibil- ity, it's worth the time and effort, but if everyone thinks the others have to move ... it will be a waste of time." A compromise up for discus- parties involved have sion could be placing limits on From Page lA the amount of noise redistribu- tion implemented using the run- way, Priebe suggested. Mediation could resolve the issue more quickly than Rich- field's pending litigation, some- thing MAC would prefer, Himle said. "We clearly believe moving ahead with this project this year is critical," he said. MAC would like to begin work during this summer construc- tion season and take advantage of federal funding, Himle said. Likewise, the south parallel needs to be repaired soon. Without the runway exten- sion, airport trafiic would have to be reduced to a single runway during construction. An 11,000-foot extended run- way is also critical to attracting international air traffic to the airport, Himle said. "Not having a runway to ac-, commodate some international flights would be a big blow" to those efforts, he said. Richfield staff has also been proceeding on other fronts in its campaign to stop the implemen- tation of the runwa}�s noise re- distribution plan. City officials continue to lobby the Met Council to con- vince members the proposed runway use plan would be an in- 7A appropriate use of land and iunds, said City Manager Jim Prosser. On the legal front, attorneys for the city have filed a second complaint in federal court as a backup to the complaint filed in state court against MAC and MnDOT. Parts of the state case could be pre-empted by federal law, so the city will protect itself by fil- ing in both state and federal court, Prosser said. The second filing is only a pre- caution and may not be needed, he added. Attorneys do not plan to fight the case in both venues simultaneously, Prosser said. : Funds from apartments sale to be used to repeat process portunity to prevent the deterio- ration of rental housing in the city at no cost to taxpayers, said Harms. "This would generate funds for other projects that will help us toward our stated goal to im- prove multi-family dwellings in the city," he said. The program would be self- funding with rent from the apartments financing improve- ments and management costs. Samuel A. Goodman Enter- prises (SAGE) offered to give the properties to the HRA for tax reasons. The properties are Crestwood Apartments, 7740 4th Ave. S.; Hampton Place, 734 E. 78th St.; and Heritage Square, 1000 E. 78th St. Gov Arne Carlson was ex- pected to sign the bill, bringing the plan back to the HRA for fur- ther consideration, Harms said last week. "With the governor's ap- proval, Richfield will gain a pow- erful new weapon in the fight against housing decay,° said Rep. Edwina Garcia, DFL-ftich- field, who authored the bill in the House. "I believe this program will help maintain R.ichfield as a place where families can find quality, affordable housing," she added. The companion bill in the Senate was sponsored by Sen. Phil Riveness, DFL-Blooming- ton. The HRA put discussion of the plan on hold while the bill was being considered. City staffers will now further analyze the proposal and come back to the HRA with a recom- mendation. It will likely be dis- cussed at the next HRA meeting in June. Initial analysis conducted by staffshowed the project could be done without cost to taxpayers, Harms said. Also, the HRA plans to solicit input from the community be- fore making a final d�ecision to accept or reject the properties, he said. "It's a matter of significant in- terest to the community," Harms said. "I'll recommend we hold a hearing and give taxpayers an opportunity to ask questions and make comments." After �veighing the benefits, risks and public concerns, the HRA will demonstrate its "leg- islative �visdom' and make a de- cision on the proposal, Harms said. ,. _ ---------..■r��r�r�r�■r��/��IIIIAIIIIII'�� PART 150 � '�'*.�`S s I: i � .�. ISSIIE I$ With wasm weather upon us, hause maving activityihas increased. ��i��i��iit��1��r��,��rf��N��E«��t� I: �; 1: � I:i` • " :� : �'t u•ica� � _�� An Open Hause sponsored by MAC and WDSCO will be conducted on June 14, �995. The Open hause will be held at the Richfield City Hall, in the Council's Chambers, from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. WDSCO will provide an overview af the acquisition and relocatian process as we11 as being available for questions from homeowners and tenants. The City af Richfield will provide inforniation and material regarding the Rediscover Richfield prcagram. Cookies and coffee will be served. All homeovmers and tenants are encauraged to attend the meeting. Those who are included in Phase III, which includes priorities (11) through {l5}, {if there are funds remaining after completzon of the abovetnentioned Priarities, Priority t16} wi11 be added), will receive the projected time-line. The time- line will inform homeowners when the first initial interview's, and appraisals wiii begin for Phase SII. M'1` i � 1� : M' ' • Fiameowners and tenants in both New � Ford Tawn and Rich Acres have . recently voiced concerns, regarding �he City o£ Richfields Park and - Recreation activities cantinuing throughout the �process o� the ,� � buyaut. The City of� Richfield continues their de8icatian to provide parents and chiZdren with recreational opportunities which includes games, aff park trips, projects and crafts. Playgraund programs for your neighborhood youth �his summer can be found at the New Ford Town Park _, located at 65th and 21st Avenue. � Please contact Michelle (861-9385) at the City c,f Richf ield far any questions or ;}cancerns regarding registratian for summer activs.ties. AND R}3L4.CATION S� II Appraisal. i3pdate s As of May 22, 1995, there is only (1} remaining') appraisal to be ordered far Phase II. To date, Herman Appraisal Senrices has completed (70)j field appraisal studies. WDSCQ has received {68) appraisal reports, and t68) environmen�al reports fram PSI. WDSCO has naw receivecl certification Eor (67) of the appraisals foxwarded ta the review appraisal firm, Due ta the near completion af the Phase II appraisal process, this May issue of the Buyout Update wi21 be the last issue to regort the Phase II appraisal status. i � Offer Llpdate: Similar to that� of the appraisal progress far P2iase IT, the offer meetings �or Phase II are alsa nearing completion. It is imgortant� ta remember that each homeowner has 60 days ta accept their written � acquisitian and relocation affer. The time frame is designed ta allow each homeowner �.he time needed to begin laoking for a reglacement hame. Each hameowner regulates the time frame �o meet their individua]. needs, many are reaciy 'to aecept within a few days, while others wish ta utilize �.he fu11 60 days allotted. As of May 22, '� 1995: {60} offer meetings have beezi held, with (42� homeowners accepting their offers. Closiag Updates WDSCO will conti.hue to repart all Phase II Acquisition and Relacation closings, even ance the appraisal and offer progress is completed for .. i - The Part 15Q Buyout Update is a newsletter by the Metropolitan Airports Commissa.an'and W.D. Schock Company, Inc., containing ' information an the MSP Land Acquisition and Re�ocation Projects. this second phase of the project. As of May 22, 1995, there have been a total of (28) acquisition closings conducted in Phase II. ,In addition to the acquisition closings, a total of (8) homeowners have closed on their relocation homes.. To date, (4) properties in Phase II have now been vacated. PROP$RTY � MAC and WDSCO would like to start off by thanking everyone for adjusting to the new dumpster hours (first and third Saturdays 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.). we seem to have ironed ' out all of the misunderstandings. As you probably have naticed the grass is once again growing. Our Property Management Company of Pham Express is diligently keeping the yards at the vacant houses cut and trimmed. If you see a vacant house that has any problems feel free to give WDSCO a call and we will take care of it immediately. If you take a look around the neighborhood you will see a lot of house moving preparations going on, WDSCO will be monitoring the actions of the house movers, and will txy to keep ,the sites as clean as possible. MAC and wDSCO would like to ask that you keep children away from playing around the vacant houses, Chey could be extremely dangerous and we do not want anyone to•get hurt. Thanks to the efforts of New Ford Town and Rich Acres residents calling in reports of suspicious activities, vandalism has had a steady decline. Again if you have any questions about Property Management, give us a call. BiJYOUT FE�BACK Q: What is a D.S.S. inspection and when is this inspection performed? A: D.S.S. mea,ns decent, safe, and sanitary. This inspection is scheduled and paid for by WDSCO, once a proposed replacement dwelling has either been purchased W.D. SCHOCK.COMPANY, INC. �� 5844 28th Avenue South Minneapolis, I�IlJ 55417 Phone: (612)724-8898 (800)260-7062 t�''t1e s,'Nl 4 a� t �a : _ A y � ~ T } O ! . . � I � � �A�O � or leased. All purchases or leases are subject to an approved D.S.S. inspection. If a dwelling does not meet D.S.S. codes, all repairs must be completed prior to any replacement housing payments being disbursed to a homeowner or tenant. The inspection is completed by local certified inspectors. Each inspector completes a checklist of basic requirements that insure the replacement dwelling meets the federal standards for a decent, safe, , and sanitazy dwelling. Please be aware that the D.S.S does not take the place of a city code compliance, or a complete home inspection report. The D.S.S. is specificatly designed for federal relocation requirements only. When do I have to decide which type of moving expense payment I wish to choose? A: Once you have located your new replacement dwelling, your WDSCO consultant will work closely with you to ensure that you are given all the resources necessazy, for you to detennine which type of moving payment is right for you. Should you choose the actual moving expense, it will be very important to contact the moving company of you choice to obtain a binding bid as soon as possible. Your WDSCO consultant will also order a second bid the same week. Both bids must be in wDSCO�s office a ninimum of t15) days prior to your scheduled closing, if you have purchased a home. This time frame is crucial to ensure that all of your relocation funds are delivered to you the day of your relocation closing. If you have rented a replacement dwelling, your moving bids will need to be received by WDSCO a minimum of (15) days prior to the first date of your signed lease. Should you decide to move yourself and utilize the fixed moving payment, please notify your WDSCO consultant within the same (15) day time frame as stated above. Our goal is to make sure that each homeowner/tenants relocation monies are made available within the time frame they are needed. . .� .r,...-.Y�, .. ; `� `+'?3'`., • ,. ' nar--'�.�.�' _ � ... �� , : � � ��-�.-. =; �_ .. � Tom Lawell 1101 Victoria Cuxve Mendota Hghts, [�RJ 55118 r � , June 1, 1995 i NORTHERN DAKOTA COUNTY ,, AIRPORT RELATIONS COALITION Cities of Eagan, Inver Grove Mr. John H. Dasburg Northwest Airlines, Inc. 5101 Northwest Drive Eagan, MN 55121 Dear Mr. Dasburg: Mendota Heights and ,� Heights, Mendota, Sunfish Lake As communities located southeast of the airport which .receive well over half of all noise impacts from Minneapolis- St. Paul International Airport, the cities of Eagan, Inver Grove Heights, Mendota, Mendota Heights and Sunfish Lake are cooperating on issues in which we have a common interest. This group, known as the Northern Dakota County Airport Relations Coalition, has identified a number of common concerns we would like-to see addressed. The first of these concerns �elates to "distant" and "close-in" departure procedures as outlined by FAA Advisory Circular No. 91-53A. + ; We understand that Northwest and the other airlines are in the process of developing these procedures and that they will be presented to the Met�ropolitan Airports Commission and the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council for implementation at MSP by runway end. For aircraft departing MSP to the southeast, a modified departure procedure would greatly lessen the air noise impacts currently experienced by the residents of our five cities. As Mayors of our respective communities, we unanimously request your cooperation in developing and testing these departure procedures whicti promise to improve the noise environment surrounding MSP. ; I Mr. John H. Dasburg June 1, 1995 Page 2 We look forward to actively working with you on this important ende�vor and we await your reply. For convenience, please direct your reply to Mayor Egan at 3830 - Pilot Knob Road, Eagan, MN 55122. � Sincerely, Tom Egan City of Eagan . e ��,�,�,� � `�.�� ... � _. �� Charles Mertensotto Jim Toy City of Mendota Heights City of Mendota � Joe Atkins Frank Tiffany City of Inver Grove Heights City of Sunfish Lake � cc: Mr. Sandy Grieve, MAC Chair Mr. Bob Johnson, MASAC Chair Mr. John Kern, NWA VP-Aircraft Operations � 0 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO June 8, 1995 TO: Airport Relations Commission Members FROM: Tom Lawell, City Adminis at SUBJECT: DISCUSSION Presentation of Airport Relocation Options - Remote Runway Concept �I At our last meeting, the Commission discussed the airport relocation track of the Dual Track Airport Planning Process. More specifically, the Commission is considering various strategies the City may want to follow relative to airport relocation based on input received from the City Council at our recent joint workshop. Further discussion of this issue has been carried over to our June 'meeting, and to help provide additional information on the available relocation options, I have invited two individuals to join us to share their knowledge and perspectives on this issue. Invited to our June 14th meeting are Mr. John Richter and Mr. Henry Snyder, proponents of relocating either all or part of MSP to a location in Dakota County. They will discuss, in particular, their concept of relocatin the act! ve runwa s 9 , Y from MSP to the University of Minnesota Research Site located in Rosemount, maintaining terminal functions at the present MSP location, and connecting the two sites with some sort of high speed train. Both individuals have a great deal of experience with airport related issues, and their presentation, I am sure, i ill be most informative. ACTION REQUIRED Receive the presentation from Messrs. Richter and Snyder and discuss with them their perspective on the need for a new regional airport to replace MSP. � ��..00I�. 1'�1 � �� ou nt�.�.n. l�l e�; in OeYW�ea ':'�. f 4 ;r ..'�S r? � ; •7 �A: �: ��: �'_t �,� ,i, ,. X � a ' -� .:_ '—: � Y ;;' ; � y : ;�:' .,�;� Airport nets nearly $13 mi�lion in first 2 months, more than doubling fo,'recast. Page 4A ya ■ .r� � �� Deborah Goeken, City Editor — �tnc+.'.i..,�i:�., �.e,•a wex ,.,�eo !vv_ DIA doubles e ected rofit in first 2 i�onths . Xp p � Higher revenues, lower costs fatten bottom line for March and April By Kevin Flynn RocyMwwu� A'roi Slagwdrr. Denver Intemacional Airpore made more than twice as much money as the city expecced during its frst two months. 'fhe ncw airport had nearly 513 million in nec profits in March and April, campared with the SSS mil- lion that had been forecast. Higher revenuesandlowercostsaccount- ed tor the hwlthy bo[com line. "We've all been vying to pull in our belts," Aviation Manager Jim DeLong said of che March and Aprii 6gures. Openting expenses Romer ve�coes taac break Governor says he killed bill because it looked like a last-minute deal By Dan 4uaddar RakyMawdain Nem Capi�d Bwrau Gov. Roy Romer surprised crit- ia Monday by vecoing a tax break tor Denvei s pro sports teams [hat was pushed through the legisla- ture by special IHSIDE interests. ■Measurea HB 1071, intended to ex• which sought to pediie aeaui blunt a Supreme ce�altYll7A Court ruling ■Tnreein- that property mateson � exemptions � Co�orada's on government � oeatn ra,�/12A �and were ille- gal, was insert- ed into a property tax bill in the �nal minutes ot che legislature's final day. Romer killed the hill mainly be• cause o( a public perceptinn that the deal was done behind c�osed ��. "f think the bill was a good-faith effort on the pan of [he legisla• ture:' Romer said. "Bu[ the pas- sage of the bill, in the lasi minuic of che legislative session, was in- [erprcred as a midnight deal, or [aa break, for weal[hy and power- ful intercscs. "7'hat was not my intencion, and 1 don't baGcve it was the incention of the legislature:' he said. The Denver Nuggets. who lob- bied tor the bill as part of their eHort to develop the Pepsi Cen[e,r, said the veto would have no im• u DL4 ran 52.2 million less than budgeted, mostly thtough salary sav�ngs from u�lled jobs. DLi s total revenues were 581.6 million, counting interest and [he airpon's 53 ticket tax. Expenses. including debt paymen[s to bond- holders. were 568.7 million ta� che two-month peciod. Interest earnings came in 532 million higher than budgeted. The city is earning higher interest be- cause it has millions le(t in the praject's construction account as the ciry and wntractars negotiate hill payments. DIA's 6nancial pertormance during March and April is oudined in the preliminary official state- ment tor this month'S 5295 million bond sale. To[al revenues from landing pact on their negotiations with the ciry to build the arena. Nuggets senior vice presidmt Gary Hunter said the bill wouldn't have guaranteed that the Nug�ets pay no proper[y [axes. The �ug- gets pay no caxes at McNichols Sports Arena because it is a city faciliry, and the team is negotiating wich [he city to continue that s[a- tus at the Pepsi Center, which the ceam will own. "$o we will still have ta find a ueauve way to determine just what kind of management fee or fees, rents, concessions and other sources at D[A were 5850.988 higher than anticipated. Debbie DeMuth. DIA's Gnance director, said nearly all o( che rev- enue is in wsh from airlines, con- cessionaires and others. A small portion hasn'[ been colletted, in- tluding 5559.963 (rom MarkAir and a smaller amount trom Mexi- W na. Other revenue. compa:ed to what had been budgeted: ■ Concessions. led by parking, brought in 53.1 million more. ■ Unding tees were Sl.! mil- lion higher than budget. ■ Rent revenue a•as S2.6 mil- lion less than expecad. due most• ly to Continenql Airlines' lease cutting its gote commitmrnt in half. posussory interest ax we 11 have to pay to make [his deal work;' Hun[er said. The "midnight amendment" to the proper[y [ax bill would have stopped county assessors (rom making assessments on lease holders of government Iand, like the Denver sports teams. DW concessionaires. and pthers. The Supreme Court gave asses- sors the right to do so when in April it declarcd unconstitutional long•swnding property tax exemp- tions tor use o( Aovernment land. DIA BALANCE SHEET � I UnauOitetl revenues and expen5es oi Dern htarcNApni 1995. acwai �ersus budgeiea: I Mual Rents 535.231.373 Concessans 12.931.766 larW�ngtees 16.508.7,35 Passengerw, �.137:319 imerestinopme 6.677.091 OtMr 3.1a6:184 TOTALREVENUE 81,632,468 Personnel. I maintenante 22.850.622 DeOtservice a5.830.639 TOTAL IXPENSES 68,681,161 1 PROFlTS 12,951,i7 sa,.c.: car �t nm.... r..r��.ry wrd.i s�.�.��. ai.a J�M i. � � Romer uid the matter deserves careful examination, and he wants the legislature to addrcss [he situ• ation in its neat session. "We want fair and equitable [ax policy." Romer said. "We have to define what possessory• interests are. What we want is for everyone to he treated equally, and (or busi• ness deals to be bwlt on a consis- ten[ tax policy... The court decision came in a wse pi[ting Montewma County o�cials against a concessionaire at Mesa Verde National Park. intemauonai arport io� Budpled 337.862.500 9.857 79B SS.a09.500 7,032.202 3.4C9.998 3.837.270 77,4A9,268 25.0a5.700 a6.867.156 71,912,856 5,536,l12 sy.�.m a�.�� eaw.. Gov. Roy Romer vetoes a bill Monday that would have provided a tax break for professional sports teams such as the Denver Nug- gets. l/M� M<COMl� wxH uw�:a.. Ns.+ Cnunty offitials had fought a five• ycar wurt battle over the matter. ftob Slaugh, an atrorney (er �luntezuma Counry, said Monda. he was "real pleased" by the veto. "As bng as you have a propem• wc system. You have to be tair to e�•eryonc, and that vres all we were uying [o accomplish." he said. Romer aised the possibility of a special session on the �ssue, and he asked that counry assessors hold oH on levying tax assessments on governmen[ land unril some leg- �slative direction is reached. � � � � � �'- -i. a:.�?,^.?'r"'";2�'.,.s:'s?..7'u: n n � r �,:[.r�,L„��a v''Q��Eii '` � ��o�t-p"7 -�s:;...,y,g ��*. ,w: . _. e � � - ;, - i .fl�`Y�.;.,.aK.' .^�;w>� ;.%!�::w"P'`.�:'i�w,'� i-.;1'k �.��t. "'='S. R�. '.'� �':'` .�..a��.,r. -a.t "` .<r riT'..`ix�: �i� r .^ � •�` +''` M ' ��' ,�� . .�' �� =�xMOslpAl�� < -c s � � r. L� � �. � { .�� P �Y -• 2, - ., t . _ ., . w t.. � �. 1� n �2 �' fi..' 3� Y" J��t y �.� ��i3 �� Y. S ;.. � xn'>w� s..s�^' ''�; y <:3 �."C'. x .r.'r :,� . ;a,,.• �r. :��, • , i * • ! � i! E` . ' � � �, i. . ' i� ' ' : 1+ .:wti... . � - �.�� Dan Knox, Busmer.s Edrtor - 892-5242 R�� i/om! � conslryt. ti4n O1 rooi Cranf Jf. FRQNT RANGE CONSTROGT#4H Some ot the projects hetping to boosl commescia! building by 24°!0. soorH siaE #.. EwMng, Sys:ems InC unoer Cons[rut(N7n m MenC�d� 01fite P3rk ac tx�CWn �t4y 1-25. 2.ParkMeaoo s::�sT4•�.25. 3. Mernq 4yncn. Mgnaan 4. MEdafMS .Y.an.e:��M2. DOwCr CCn[Ct f�Ctl to Pdrk MEd0pw5,. 5. Centenrnat From¢c�ape. acrQu �r,ty tene FoaC from Pan. 11¢aaows. 8. Fan� a�ace. G-7G. �.ues G�een prrve 2ntl ?drk M¢anows Drn� C4i0RA00 BO!ltfYARO AREQ 7. Ota CEteOnry Cen.er yit gtatl�ng tarW �a Boutlers Sauare av Cob�dOp 81W aM NCn:uCky. aowhrow� $. MO+t2 t10tEi. = T:r. d'y0 tvC�tOn 9. Ocean ac�me�� = Cenc�a• �ane vaney. tOu�Sv+uE BAOOx«lit9 WESTMInSTER .... �.�... Rocky++kwntam NewS Mon.. 7vne 5. 1! TODAY THIS WEEif Yf^�� --- TllESDAY: Rea! Estate �.l WEDttESDAY`. $mall Businec 'j� ,•(f1";\ ,T'C'(J THURSIMV: Markefrng & Re1� lYilJi. �!L 1 FRIDAY: f'ersona! l:omputin� 't ; u:arE�'rE / � s �+e. � jj� sa,c�aon ...�'� � rs. oe�u Q r.p�trripn mti. woon �104TNGlENN�. Q �Y r.ww�u� •isenai w�r �� W�1htERtE RiOGE �� T6, � �� ,,`��,,o, _ r"� `�.'�✓.�. \ r ✓� ,, ! , 4��,.%''�.� e� � DENVER w� waau \ �� • �i� �� u�ewoo � t\ µ0Rp150r! �as '_" '"-" i / ; ._ - i' � '` � E�EWCKND •' I xs cFEEn'�Wpp i `� "�` �n1E70�. - ; vit�:Gf f � \`V ' �' --� _'� �>'� ! " onqq � � :;r`' r;:- -.: . �;+rrt- 1 ?�,:�:- a j; ; :T'}'.� j: „hti,:F[i`�, q� . �a:��'3 fi �� f�. i�;�, , r :�' ,;� '� ii.:. �.N' .pP � � � �� ' �i y`*:, � k � . � y � ��.: � i' < � a �,� � ,� ;!� �" � • .a� -� � �� . L ; . .Y�'i i% G� i 5 'f4^: a !=' s >. ; r• L i� « . . � ��: �� ;'�� '�_ ��'�;, . �'t�== : �J 'r.�+ : % .� Constructionofstores, �mve:senearcheproposedPark plantsandwarehouses tieadow$;hoppingcenteracC-414 and Inrerstate 25. 'SOSl"$24%,O�{SCiUR� Forasoapsha,rnnsiderthe softer new-home market i ijCCasiineEauievard. P ectsei• ey lohn Rebchook ther on the drawmg board or a�• Ra4yMountaw.�iws Rral Estrnt EJ�w. rradv apprqved on bpth sides at �ltCa;lin aze: frenzyofcommercra! _ ■��-s�."reen?vSannmaviethe- buildingiscreating ; acer. thousands of high-pay � • Four mid-priced hotels with ing consvuc[ion 7obs almost �00 rooms and an estimated that some feared wooi�a �'•'-�ue oi more chan 524 mi]Iian, disappear with the ' ■� IW,000-square�faot Home compledan of Denver Imernaunnal ` ��=Po�• Airpurt. Coors Field and Elitch : ■ A S27 millian manufacturing yaadens. ( plant tor Quanzum Corp., the ' ARaky,Nou,7W �n Nzws survey `��orid's fargest manutactucer of ' shaws [hegrovrth is being tueled computerdisk drives. by everything from so•called "Aex A couple af miles south at che space` - hybrids oi office and t»terkckcn C�ce Fuk in Broom- ��arehouses -[o "caiegory kilter" tieid, more than SI00 million of retail stores such as the Incredible I cnnsvuction is on tap for the next Hnite Hatet vndr. rrndua tion ia dawnfn ��u�� xo. Pepsi Center. Cenval Platte Va�ky. li Fashion Paviiions, abng 16th $Ireet Mall, 12. Brooks iower reMrration inW con6omin�ums. STAPLfTON 13. Wng SooPers warehouse N4RtH 14. HOmC Qeppt untlCt cpnSUUCtrOn �n B�g•s. +�aaress 1001 G.am St. momton. 15. La,�sw�e no2eis at u.S. 36 ano MtCaS��n $!W. 16. �n2enocken note� ac 9S[rt nvenue antl u.5. 36. 17. 6dk pffKe•ware�+ause at 6Ch 8nU InC�anna 1$. SOO-+OOm 4:A r+OiH 19. Derrver west vei�ge, 67Q, Cotta+ anu 6�n Avc, PYoiect CenstrucUoo toufion 1ob Esfimatas PsrkMeadows 2.SpU ppuglasCounry McrriYlm� 2.000 Dou�asCounry fu Pmia�n I.200 pownzown Uenrer DtA 568-room botd 1.2W � OtA Adam'sMark 7�p pa�� IMartocken 600 8roomfieW CeatsanEal Promsnade 304 t)augtas Camry MadowsMarketpiaee 300 Oou�asGqunry MercantNe Sqwrc 230 p�l� Notlxe ezecutiva 200 Dovmtovm Skmer Wcst Yllage �pp ��.n Ocean Ioumey Zpp �,�� Source: De�e�opers. contr�ctas sou[hern end of the mecro area. Tt,anks to che Park Mcadows regional mall - the Lzrgest single cons[ruction project underway- the da!!ar volume at construttion CBtitI3[L5 TOSC �7p d W}34ppI11g 1,019%in che 6rsc tour months of the year, comparcd with the same Ipenod last year. . Whi2e some shudder at the nun ber of apartmencs, hotels, stores and other cammercial properties springing up, the activuy has ' hC�jl£f� C06{{SC: 2 50{SCiltn� ilpw� } home market. � "When a big project Gke DIA is completed, a bunch of workers leave town, but when big projects I$ mon4tis, inctuding a neW inter- and a 55,000-square-tooc bui�ding tikes ours comes on Iine, a keeps secnon at 96th Avenue and U.S.36, (or Caram f{ealth Gare. �� h�e: ' said Bil! Denton, de• a 27-hole goU tourse, a 57.000- velopel of the pcoposed Denver square-faotme�lerencecenter,a Off3e#5safterhomemarket FashionPatn7ionsatongthelGth 30(}-room hotet, a I25.OpU-square- Sueet Ma11.'the pmjece recenUy foot otfice for Corporate Express If that's not enough, consider booming Douglas County at Che See BOOM on 40 -- r.a . .. �� CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO June 8, 1995 TO: Airport Relations Commission Members FROM: Tom Lawell, City Adminis at � � SUBJECT: Discuss Status of Nighttime Noise Abatement Procedure Standard Instrument Departure (22 SID) DISCUSSION Runway 22 The subject of Nighttime Restrictions on Aircraft Operations was� identified by the Northern Dakota County Airport Relations Coalition (NDCARC) as one of our top three priorities for joint action. This issue has also been chosen by� the MASAC Operations Committee as a topic which needs to be addressed during 1995 and discussions related to this topic began in ApriL ; At the MASAC Operations Committee meeting held on May 12th, the group further discussed the implementation of a Standard Instrument Departure (SID) procedure proposed to be flown during nighttime hours for departures utilizing Runway 22. These departures would route aircraft south along Cedar �Avenue, and then southwest along the Minnesota River corridor. Background material and a graphic representation of the proposed SID are attached for your information. While the use of the 22 SID would not directly benefit Mendota�Hei hts, the 9 establishment of a more noise compatible corridor off of another runway could open up opportunities to redefine the distribution of nighttime aircraft operations. Currently the Runway Use System (RUS) for MSP idenfifies the Mendota Heights/Eagan corridor as the preferred choice for nighttime operations. i Another potential benefit to be gained by the implementation of the 22 SID is the precedent setting nature of the adoption itself. Unlike many airports across the country, MSP does not currently make use of SIDs to any appreciable degree. The successful implementation of a 22 SID would hopefully open the possibility of enacting other SIDs at the airport, some of which might prove directly,beneficial to Mendota Heights. ACTION REQUIRED Review the attached material and offer any comments or suggestions you may have. The next MASAC Operations Committee meeting date is July 13, 1995. ', I 0 u S ARY OF B-727 a��i�:�l SID SIl�ZLTLATOR I � INFOI�;MATION � Standard Instr�ment I)ep�rture (SID) simulator data: � ' � -� Indicates idealized proposed SID is SAFE. � Indicates idealized proposed SID is FEASIBLE. � � Simulator data is valid for B-727 and MD-80 only. -� Simulator data doesn't reflect the actual traf�c mix. ►� 1 ►I ! ; �: �1 ! ��1 � TO: FROM: SVl:r�+.rl� 1 i DATE: DEPARTMENT of MASAC Operations Committee - Runway 22 SID John Faggia, Noise Administratar Runway 22 SID Meeting Summary for�2b September 1991 27 Segtember 1991 A meeting of the MASAC 4perations Committee regazding data review for the Runway 22 Standazd Instrument Departure (SID} iiluminated a number of issues for consideration prior to deveiopment of a farmal proposa�. The foltowing points were agree�i to unanimausly hy the group. � 1. The 22 SID procedure has noticeable noise mirigation merit. It can be safely accomplished by both aircrews and Air Traffc Canual personnel. Minor changes ta the proposed heaflings can be instituted without undue difficulty. ' � 2. The 22 SID can be improved by revising the second turn heading from 230°(11� to ?SO°(11�. This heading refines the procedure by keeping more aircraft naise over the Minnesota River bottoms. Noise mztigation properties of the pracedure relative to bath Burnsville and Savage aze erihanced, whiie benefit to Bloomington is maintained. , I 3. A heading change from 230°(M) to 250°(Ni� must be tested under actual conditions for FAA environmental review purposes, The Federal Aviation Administratian (FAA) indicates their environmental review of a final praposal will require a count of residents included in each alternative. ;� 4. The process for approving the procedure by MAC and FA.A is as foliows: MASAC Operations Comrnittee appravai; � MASAC fuil body approval; MAC Planning and Environment approval; MAC Full Cammissian approvai; MAC prapases procedure to FAA; FAA undertaices environnientai review; FAA approves pracedures; 56 day cha�xing cycle to publish the procedure. '� 5. The timing of the above pracess would allow little, if any, time to implement the; SID prior to construction of the runway 4/22 extension. Testing of the new heading will be postponed until outcame of the 4/22 Runway Extensian Project is better definai. '� 6. The Airline Pitots Association (ALPA) recommends weather minimums limiting use of the SID during high patentiai bird strike conditions. � j cc: Dick Keinz, Director of Environment et al. . . . � '�' } I . � � Metropolitan Aircraff Sound Abatement Cauncii � Chairman: Scott 8un#n Pas# Chc�irs: Walter Rockenstein, II, 1982-1990 Jan Del Calzo, 1979-1982 Stantey W. Olson, 19b9-49T4 Technical Advisor: Steven J. Vecchl MEETING NOTICE MASAC OFERATI(JNS CC�MTI�CTTEE 6040, 28th Avenue Sauth Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450 (b92j 726-9d't1 i There wiil he a MASAC Operations Committee meeting FRIDAY JANUARY 24 1992 ak 10:00 a.m, io be hetd at the general office of the Metropai'dan Airports Commission. NORTH VIKING RQOM, 6040 28tii Avenue South, Minneapolis. � AGENDA: RUNWAY ?2 SiD tStandard tnstrumeri# Deaarte�rel f. Review 9-26-9t MASAC t3peratians Commitfee Meeting 2 Disc�ssion: Headinct Aftematives 23o clegree (M} 240 degree �fN) 245 degree (M� 25o deg�ee (Mj 3. 4. 5. Discussian: Preferned Headinq Altemative 245 degree (M) Ernironmet�tal tssues � ,� ,�� .� • � s�s • •.• . - . - -. .. . . ' 1 f � • F , t ! ` • .1 ' t M Member Distribution. Bob Johnson, Chairman Captain Vctor Britt Bob Boston Dustin Miridc Charfes Curry Craig WNck Robe�t Mood ,1im Semr� l�try Shaughnessy Qick Keittz, MAC Advisory: Bruce Wagoner, FAA John Foggia, MAC � f�r . �� _.. �.-�.� �.�: �rtii to the � � i !f you are unable to attend, ptease ca�!! Jean Deighton at 726-8141, w�th Attemate's � f ( .a� R�cycka � Paptt _' W� � G� 11� �; �- �Q " ' �-�''�t � � � --"...�.. f .� ...� . � FACTGIRS TO BE CONSIDERF..D IN IMPLEMT,,NTATION OF A RUNWAY 22 SID I-2492 ' � OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS First Turn Point • The turn ta 180 degrees has been tested at twa points: at the ILS Rzznway 4 middle marker. . * Turning when able by most aircraft wauld occur well before the marker, thereby reducing noise e�posure to east Richfield. able, and * Turning at the Runway 4 middle marker would provide a more accurate procedure with regard to geographic position aztd would be more feasible in low visibility condirions. i � * A geographic reference (Iike Cedar Avenue) is not feasibla because it wo'uid increase piloC workload bp requiring the pilat to look downward for a geographic reference. Also an sarne aircraft, during climbout the reference may not be within the pilo�s field of vision. • I * Hfter extension af Runway M22, an ad�us�nent to the turn point may b� necessary. Second Turn HeadinA - A range of 230 to 2S0 degrees for the second turn in Che SID is being evaluated to deternune which heading provides the besr naise benefits. * A heading af 245 degrees appeazs to provide the least residential naise imgact on either side of the river» . ;� * There is Iittle cl�fference irt flight distance between the 230 through ' 250 degree heading alternatives. � Canacitv Impact - Current - Implementatian in the shart-term could require all Runway 22 depamzres to use the SID. � * The FAA wiil only use singie degarnire tracks when deparn�res on a runway are less � than 30 per hour. ; � � * Runway 22 is used only during hours when departures average less than 30 per hour, so use of the SID for all departures would not reduce capacity. '� * At current traffic levels an annual average of 48 da�.ly Runway 22 departures would use the SID based on the limited periods of use when hourly departures are Iess than 30. �J / r---�----- �, . � � . � Capacitv Imvact - Future - It is expected that the SID would remain iri effect after the Runway 4-22 extension. il * When the Runway 4-22 extension is completed, the procedure could not be used far all the degartures because rhe use of a single departvre irark woeild lirnit the runway • capactiy. This would conflict with the puxpose of the runway emensian. * The SI�D could be used to direct the southbound departures (30 percenti of Runway � 22 departures in I99b) away from the more densely populated a'reas in the Burnsvzlie area. " �, * The deparntre tracks to the rcarth and west which are planned for use after the runway is e�ctended should probably be retained. Appraximately 30 peicent af the forecast depamtres would be north and westbound. ' 4 * The remaining 40% oF futwre departures from Runway 22 wouid be directed east of Cedar Avenue an a heading af 165 degrees. ( * Attempts to separate procedure assignments on the basis of Part 36 Noise Levels �� (Stage 2 or Stage 3) is an aption, alfihough it may not be desirable due to the FAA ,�-�" controller workload. ', � 'tJisibi�itv Minimurns - During the test conducted in Aprit I99Y, weather minimums were a 3,Q00' ceiling and visibiiity of S miles or greater. � * Using the IIS Runway 4 middle marker as the first turn point couid provide coezrse guidance even below these tested mini�nums. . � * Weather minimums providing for bird-strike avoidance must be evaluated in an environmental study. � � �� !' � . ��' ll ENiTIitONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS � Noise Imt�acts = implementatiott af the SID wauld provide some reducdon in the number of people e�tposed to aircraft noise. - �� , * The change in the 2991 noise contaurs restilCing from use of the SID is significant. The total population residing within Lhe 65 Ldn decreases by neariy 4,QOQ (34,370 ta 26,463). Overall noise impacts would be identified 'ut an environmental assessment. � * By 1996, there would be no benefit as measured by Ldn 65, since new Runway 22 departure tracks (as a result of the runway extension) that direct 75 percent of the • departures east af Cedar Avenue woutd be in place. Using the 5ID for southbound deparnues in the future would, on a single-event basis, help by directing some noise impacts away fram residential areas. Single event contours for Stage 2 aircraft (B- 72?) were prepared for areas experiencing mare than 7S dBA on takeoff. These ' contours show a shift in noise impacts away fram Bloomington and Burnsvii2e to azeas east of Cedaz Avenue and along the river valley. Again, averall rioise impacts would be identified in an environmental assessment. Minnesota _River Valley Natianal Wildlife Refu„�e - The wildli€e refuge awns or controls several hundred acres af Iand along the river valiep. Much af this Iand is also a bird sanctuazy. I � * FAA reguladons request overflights of wildlife refuges or bird sancmaries by aircraft at aititudes of 2,000 feet ar more ahove the highest point within the refuge. * There may be some bird-strike potendal which could be seasonai or! continuous which would be identified during an environmental review. ;� MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: DEPARTMENT OF MA.SAC Operations Committee - Runw�y 22 SID John Foggia, Noise Administrator Runway 22 SID Meeting Suininary for 24 January 1992 27 January 1993 ' A meeting of the MASAC Operations Committee resulted in unanimous approval of a pre- ferred second heading of 245'(M), and recommendation of the Runway 22 Standard Instru- ment Departure (SID) procedure to the MASAC full body. ,.� I 1. The group reviewed minutes of the 26 Septennber 1991 meeting detaihng specific con- cerns raised regarding the tested pracedures. The simpler of the two tested alternatives, requiring a turn as soon as safe and practical to a 180°(M) heading, was deeined the best alternative. � I 2. Various heading alternatives were discussed including second turns to 230°(M), 240'(M), 245'(M), and 250'(M). The 230"(M) heading was tested in flight simulators and in actual flight, and the MASAC Operations Coininittee previously expressed interest in exploring benefits of other heading possibilities. Graphic representations of the headings and associated 75 dBA 727-200 single event contours were� discussed. Advant�ges of the "early" 180°(M) turn coupled with the 245°(M) second turn included removing residences from the single event contour in R,ichfield and Blaomington, and containuig most of the iinpact in the Minnesota River Valley. :) 3. A discussion of associated environmental issues followed including review of the envi- ronmental evaluation process, and a list of potential environmental assessment topics. The Federal Aviation Adminisfration (FAA) explicitly requests evaluation of delay issues, and the Airline Pilots Association (ALPA) requests investigation of bird strike �potential and application of weather minimums at 3000 f� ceilings and visibilities of 5 inile i(3000 & 5). 4. The MASAC Operations Conuiuttee unanimously approved recommending the fol- lowing 22 SID procedure to the MA.SAC .full body: As soon as practical after departure, turn left to a 180'(M) heading. At 3 DME from the MSP VORTAC, tu� right to a 245'(M) heading, thence vectors on course. �UBJ !! S C epcirtm� �t of Transp�oriat�c�,� Ft�� i A�v��ti �» Adm��isir�tion �I��1:TEA?�LIS ATCT MI?�hEAPOLIS, MTP�ICESCTA 1 SrC?, L i'�L�Lii.%�.(CGJ Fli.��i y tt/ :C1T.1 F 1lYA �.L Y L.. � ��Yi? f�. ii . r''Iw� iiiv� 7110,42 4j(7$191 Car�ceflatian t�ate: 5101 i � 1 �. Pi'�tPO�E� Th:.v nctic`. pz;vid�� test pr.ocedures foz ai�, 3pe�3t�4�?�tI �?�X�4:Y,,e� ze�urd�:.�r'� .ti.lIlG:uj i2 alter::�,+�:;ra ? are s1c�:naCive 2 SI�i's. , � T � 2» DIS1�;t�:1TIC�N. T';�is :�aLw :e is �j 9LTib�aced ro AGL-530, ;�5P (;2A.X) ,�rea `2ana�e:s, tLi3 5u�ervisors, n�aa�, Piocedures and �luta:�ati�rn �tazf,er.ci fac�?i�}• files. . ^ . �I 3. B��C�tG�fl;3tiD. Ti:c �fec:opo.;it�n �,irporrs Commission and Nortnwesc �irl±r.es h�ve de•�e?o�>ed �wo SI�'s :or Ru:�way 22 wh�.c'� we laave agreed ta zest. The o� j ect�ve i:s tp ��.y the S�D ��i.=h Vox CI',wesC Stage ZI anci Sta�e i?I� j ete or.Iy, for a tot�S oW :?5 departures ahi�:h �aay t ake �wo or thr�e d�ys. The e+esxs taill b� cond�:cted d�.zri�.g geriad5 a£ ..i�ac ttgffic and an a 2�I22 or 22 contigurution. 4. PROCEJU::tES. a. '�'e �.ther — Ceiling a�: or abc ve 3, 004' , visibillty $t or tti brakir.g act :on good, na tai�.��iad conponent. ' b. � : �.rea Su e:w,r�sox ShaII: �1:� De�_�e =��ha tha firsC �t,'A departure i5. 5 ��ie� , {2; k�s�•e GrcLna �o:3traS ai Clearance Deliver;• ask. the �i?c�;. if 'r.e '� .:emiliar ;,�i�:': alternat{va 1;or 2). Yf the ze�pcnse i� affirmative, ad��ise 4he pilot t� �:: }��t a�c�rria�;.,•c _ (or Z„ �aintain S,4QOf . � ::GT�: :.i ;.rze �>iloc i� �nian��2iar �e c&r� �read ;�in c` SiD, �aor:�7.o_d ;rer:nitLir.g• ,i ;3� '•�`her. Loc�l i:.s}:es �akcoff c?ear�ri_e, rep�at the ST� �, �. ,;`v'iin, 1,: i� flt' c�.te::'�t'�'t2 1� cl eared for CB�:@O�I Runt:�3V ZL, i ;G � .�.t �'s:e ap�r�pr .at� inc rmsl) _ime � ser.d �he a�.ze� af t � �i�:.E: Derartu : 2 eC�z:: al. :.1.iI nct turr. t�c: ai:.rd� * I xxcr t`�a 23� h•:: �j a� t: t�Z ,' ��i�, so a litt�e �}:tr� '' 8Y;1C { ;1$ �,.,a�' ��' ?'EGtI;� SE 4� � t1i`SiiiC'.:i��'.rr': `..��.."`.�`..j�� r t�C� �,.,� i � ":�C'a .'�c:l:��i� � :iiP.� _�1�:-�f _ _ . _ , - : :. -. ;�rc.. :�:��a;. ...:�� ; �:tcraat'_va ._ .. - _ . • . . ;J a; si�a�d, ta de�arCuY�. ;tilita�F"[f �',�3V� -•``Y� � � r+l �i �: � - — — _ = •t c_� r � i = 1 ; •t : � 1 T � T :i`J~x : =l.i � / �L�. �i2 ' . � �'�� ;:} Kpp�.S* c�i� pr�cedure tc �ubseeuenC 1'�tA 22 �egaxtur� s. (^; r�res Supercis�rs �ie:.se provide "SS�-4 the tir.:es iZ3 of �he .es= pa�ameters and :he cal� sa� :s o� :1.� :d��? aircraft �Art' cipac�.:�g.' i ��'�� Bruce tYago!1er Assisran� ��.ir Traific �1a: ag :r r P:.�a �� ; 0 � 1 �.. � � � • - . . � � � � � . . � � '1 1 �. 1 I '� . F-� , r•SSP ��C: .y71? �.42 Appendi:� i A��er,d�:1 i- P�4Ps��?:� TC TTiE F�: �t}n iESTZ:�G PRflPQS£D SIi} �LTERI�aTIVES Ii��4�?i:�Ti��"3: 4/U=; �1 Cc;r.ra�1��.1Lty af a st�ndard ;zs:r�s* �r.t Qepartiure (SZD) c•rith expecCa�ivns o: �h= com.�nur.it; �s cer.t?ncer.t or. � 3ep�rt ure procedure ca�8ble of keep3n� aircraf� ovEr a spe��ified sr�a. The efEect; of wind &n.�. equigment r�ix :��isc �e eva�u�tad to see i�' •_�e �r�pcsed Si�i •�ill m�aE t these cz�te��. Si�cal�tor �rur,s i:�d�.cate �r:�cr.ez a�::cY�c�•s ean canfor�s to the requirea�nts of ti:e SI�. $ingle event anal� s; s o:: in�iv� dual B-72 T and �II --$fl departuz�s ind�cac� sa£et'y and feasibilit;� of the coacept. :�t t�is time, radar rracking dat& of actua�l SI� use is neces�a:;y Co e::a�ine exp :cted vf x�ance of gYounc tr�cks and t`c� de�*elap r.a�se analysis f:>r an=ici�tzced ia�;�acts. s �j }.,� PAOPO$ALS: � '" ��,v, i A:!.TERNc�'*I'�'E I ?�s :ioon as praccicai after departure, Gurn l��ft to a 1.80 {�:} hea�ing. �t 3 DM� fram the Minneapalis V�:)Rx��C {MSP 3 D�IE) . curn xight �o a 230 (:�) he�tdir�g. ,.� A::.TER?vaTYVE 2 �a��itain rtn•a3y head�ng uz�til overhead tre ILS R�tn*:r�.r 4 raidcle �z�:-k�r beacon. iTpan re�eption of the :�{ddle ��.�rka= beacon tsrr. 1ef+� tc a I$q (M) heading. At 3.5 Dr1� i�:�oM ri:e ��i�:�:�eaaol:.s 4`ART�r �riSP 3.5 D2�IE}: tu�n right to a 2::0 �:d} :;e3ding. • � �� i�-' � ' - . �'or eac?-� S:'.:� a��rr.ative 'Z4t:/Ht�T3 �es�res a mtni�um �f �iae?.t�e (l2} Qss��r.=� deaartar_•s : iCez].ly six •��;.�; St2ge T_il equipment, and six wirh Sta�e :I equi�:��:�:. �`ar �ase of •�r�c.�ssir� aizczaft tracki�g info::.".3fi�.GTt; =:.yC/ii:�'�':�i rzcu' � prefex d�.:-i'. off Ar�sS III e�,.i�:r,ent. � � May 12, 1992 1-IOWAqO NEEDLES TAMMEN � BERGENDOFF ARCHITECTS ENGINESRS PLANNEiaS Mr. Nigel D. Finney Deputy Executive Director- Operations Metropolitan Airports Commission _ 6040 28th Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450 Re: Request for Authorization- Environmental Assessment for Runway 22 SID Dear Nigel: '��l t.rnud (:r�rtcr Pl�rcu 1 -lre.tznrcbi�r. l "i��r�rra '?i/•b/S,iti I I ( -q,i 1 (HY•t- �-IN� Per the request of John Foggia, we have prepared a proposal to conduct an environmental assessment for the proposed Runway 22 Standard Instrument Procedure (Burrisville SID). The proposal, which is attached to this letter, includes a request for an authorization not-to-exceed $40,000 to cover the preparation costs for the EA. We believe that there is a considerable range of costs that may be incurred on this assignment, depending on the level of public and agency concern that come to light during the environmental process. ' � If limited concerns and analysis are required, the work can likely be completed for approximately $15,000-$20,000. However, based upon our lrnowledge of I the project and concerns expressed to-date, we believe that more analysis and coordination than this minimum amount will be necessary. As such, we are including a proposal for work in the amount of $40,000. If additional concerns beyond those already lrnown come to light duiing the process, an additional authorization may be required. I Please review the attached proposal, and if it acceptable, provide us with an' authorization to proceed with the work. I Very Truly Yours HOWARD NEEDLES TAMMEN & BERGENDOFF i i! �- .�(�`'�� Evan C. Futterman Project Manager ECF/ef xc: R. Beckman R. Madgwick �� d� __ .. .._..'- .:' ' ._.=.,;`_�'_... -; �: . . . , __ . � .. . � . .: . . ..� .: ... . ... ....., � . _ . . ... 4��OC�et��- ':.. ' . ' ••: . ...... �� .... �..� �� .. � • ... •..- . . � Environmental Assessment � Runway 22 Standard Instrument Departure � Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport The following task outline to conduct an Environmental Assessment (EA) 'for Runway 22 Standard Instrument Departure (SID) is in accordance with CEQ regulations,� DOT 5610.1C, FAA 1050.1D and FAA 5050.4A. It is anticipated that the tasks outlined will be completed in a six-month schedule. This schedule (and associated project costs) includes provision for a public - hearing (it is anticipated that the work can be completed in a four-month timeframe if a hearing is not conducted). The scherlule assumes that minimal problems/controversy are encountered in the analysis. The only two anticipated areas of environmental concern as a result of the Runway 22 SID include 1) noise impacts and 2) overflight of the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge along the Minnesota River. I Task Outline PHASE A. CONDUCT PREPARATORY TASKS 1. Develop Preliminary Purpose and Need Statement. a) Identify the problem. b) Identify the timeframe for such action. c) Provide currerit and projected activity statistics. d) Meet with FAA to coordinate project activities. 2. Develop list of Federal, State and Local Coordination Agencies. coordination materials. PHASE B. PREPARE DRAFr EA 1. 2. Prepare proposed � Table of Contents of EA. Prepare Purpose and Need Section of EA. and distribute 3. Identify and Describe Alternatives, Including Applicable CEQ Sections listed in FAA 5050.4A, Ch 5, Para 47(c). The Alternatives Section shall include: , I a) A list of alternatives considered, including the proposed action, with only enough i 1 i 4. b) c) d) i description to explain them. For each alternative, any connected or cumulative actions shall.be included (CEO 1508.25 (a) (1) and (2). Identification of the sponsor's proposed action if one has been chosen. A concise statement explaining why any initial planning alternat�'ves have been eliminated from study. A listing under each alternative of any areas of potential significant impact or a statement that the alternative has no significant impacts per the thieshold analyses perfo'rmed under paragraph 47(e) in FAA 5050.4A. The EA shall indicate whether an alternative is being analyzed on the basis of mitigation measures assumed to be built into it. � e) A listing under each alternative of any applicable Federal, State purpose laws and regulations and potentially required permits and li CEQ 1502.25(a)). fl Graphics as appropriate to aid in understanding the alternatives. I Describe Affected Environment, including: a) b) c) A location map, vicinity map, and airport layout plan. Existing and planned land uses and zoning in the affected airport affected residential areas, public parks, wildlife and waterfowl floodplains, farmlands, coastal zones, recreation areas, and his archeological sites. � Nearby schools and places of public assembly, hospitals shopping political jurisdictions affected by the proposed development. d) Population, industrial and commercial growth characteristics, and a to justify the project and -determine secondary impacts only if thesE the proposal. e) � Local special ses (reference ;inity, including uges, wedands, ic facilities and and adjacent �umptions used are relevant to Any contemplated future actions, including facility installations''and procedural actions, which have not been included in the Alternatives section arid which should be described to show their relationship to the proposal. Other planned and developed activities in the affected area (e.g., highways and other transportation projects, housing development and relocation, etc.) which are interrelated to the proposal and/or which would produce cumulative impacts. � 5. Conduct Analysis, and Describe Environmental Consequences for the following Categories of Impact listed in FAA 5050.4A, Ch 5, Para 47(e): � I C� a) b) c) d) e) fl g) h) i) J) k) 1) m) n) o) P) � r) s) t) u) Noise Compatible Land Use Social Impacts Induced Socioeconomic Impacts _ Air Quality _ Water Quality DOT; Section 4(� Historic, Architectural, Archeological, and� Cultural Resources Biotic Communities (including both flora and fauna) Endangered and Threatened Species of Flora and Fauna Wetlands Floodplains Coastal Zone Management Program Coastal Barriers Wild and Scenic Rivers Farmland Energy Supply and Natural Resources Light Emissions Solid Waste Impact Construction Impacts Other Considerations Prepaze Preliminary Draft EA for Review 7. Incorporate Comments and Produce Draft EA for Agency Comments and � Public Review. PI3ASE C. PREPARE FINAL EA. 1. 2. 3. 4. Provide notice of opportunity for a public hearing. Include a statement that anyone interested has up to at least 30 days from the date of the notice of opportunity to request a hearing. If a hearing is requested, provide notice of such hearing including the time, date, and place of hearing. I Compile List of Preparers. Prepare Documentation of Coordinadon. Prepare Comments and Response Documentation. 3 , . � 5. Prepare Appendices to EA. 6. Prepaze and Distribute Final EA. i 7. Obtain FAA Decision Document and Include in Record Copies. 4 . � — ---- .�_�,,� - - -- - - - .. � ' � � 30 ° {�.M.�. � � �� r CQ%u5 g�� ' 10000 ft � � ��,_� t"Ot��— `� °�'�s 1 -chc • 3.5 {?s`nE � � � � Q ,�`�j�+ ct �'zj' � .. �� (I'II�T Il��i) Irll►Tl RF��S) S71kT ►:�I II1� I��I IL ��I.�1'/�fi I I Iltl: -� A I Ih •��►� --�� F�ti-��: r-: �� ii�il ,, i� i . , . . ,. MPUNIVIi in�� I' ` 1....ii�iun� Ffllt (.NU ( (IN (.hnn IIM I7IH m N40'OS9]'•W112•I1.I8' SAN fRANCISCO f(,)WFR d ___ I?U S 'lA9 I a � �� flAY Uf P CON � 170.9 J77 4 $ g�.:+ fI CHiCO� °°'� i'QiOV,�� ` 109� 8 CiC � � �3'' Q' Cho�� 75 � N�B"5�:11_— —a��0 N39•47,39':WIZI•50.83' W122•24.11' /O b�� \ O q,��9 Q 0� z_ DO � SACRAMENTO MEr�DOCINO ?9B° � ��575aC�-_, 112-�9 ENI �• s9� \ N3B•i2.OB' � Chon 99 .s�wi2x•zz.es• .o • Chan 70 p'� N78•26 62'-W I I1 •33.10' N3�•03.19'.W 123 • 16.45' l•i, H•2 t•2. H � ♦ '��b SCAGGS ISIAND � D��c�O� 112.I SGO�=• a . N38•10.76hW122•22.39' A No� 5000 a•24 � �, lO� 068°� � NDEN r� (ab) I 14 8 L�N � � �� REBAS Chon V5 � N3e•oa.e7• SAUSAIIT�i p35�� N�7•56.44' W121'OO.i$' 116 Z SAU �� W 122 °23.02' L•2. M•7 Chan 109 � � A 600 NOTE: Runwoyt 281; R v N Caution: �errain abo�e 1p00' o� NOTE• Mt. Son Bruno weother inlormotion ovoiloble o� I 18.05. SAN FRANf.15C0 115.8 SFO � � � Chan 105 3.5 NM NW. For obstrudion clearonce o I� minimum climb of 425' per NM � •• to 1500' is required. NOTE: For use by Runwoys 28l/R '�a departures when weother conditions i� N�7°A0.71' P�rmit. Jets 2000' ceilinp ond A s W 122 •20.07' three miles pravoiling visibility a� 4 RADAR with five miles to the west ond �� northwest. Props I500' ceilinq �� same visibility. nof �o scole. DEPARTURE ROUTE DESCRIP710N � TAKE-OFF RUNWAYS 1LIR: Climb via SFO R-011 to the 4 DMEIRadar then turn IeR heading 320° to�intercept and proceed via SFO R-342 to cross REBAS INT ot or above 6000'. Thence via (transilion) or (assigned route). TAKE-OFF RUNWAYS 28LIR: Turn right as soon as feasible heoding 030° to intercept and proceed via the SFO R•342 to REBAS INT. Cross REBAS INT a1 or above 6000'. Then via (Iransilion) or (assigned route). Maintain VFR condilions until infercepling SFO R-342. CH1C0 TRANSITION (CUITI.CIC�: From over REBAS INT vio SFO R-342 and CIC R-190 to CIC VOR/DME. LINDEN TRANSITION (CUITI.LINJ: From over REBAS INT via LIN R-248 to lIN VORTAC. MENDOCINO TRANSITION (CUITI.EN1): From over REBAS INT via SFO R-342 ond ENI R-118 to ENI VORTAC. RED BLUFF TRANSITION (CUITI.RBL): From over REBAS INT via SFO R-342 and RBL R-168 to RBL VORTAC. SACRAMENTO TRANSITION (CUITI.SACI: From over REBAS INT via SAC R-216 to SAC VORTAC. QUIET nNE DEPARTURE �P1lC �V� �CUlT1.REBAS� /P!/r1T NA�n /o�n � cn n�n . .-� SAN FRANCISCO. CAIIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO IP" CITY OF� MENDOTA HEIGHTS - MEMO June 8, 1995 TO: Airport Relations Commission Members FROM: Tom Lawell, City Admini SUBJECT: Discuss Status of Non-Simultaneous Departure Noise' I Procedure - Corridor Crossing Procedure � DISCUSSION Abatement At our last meeting, the Commission was informed of the status of the non- simultaneous aircraft departure procedure and its related environmental review. You may recall that MAC Deputy Director Nigel Finney has authorized the consulting firm of HNTB to conduct the necessary review and to prepare the required environmental documentation for FAA review. On Wednesday, June 7th, I met with Mr. John Foggia, the MAC staff member who is coordinating HNTB's work on this project to inquire about its �status. Mr. Foggia informed me that he was meeting with a representafive of HNTB on Thursday, June 8th to discuss this and a number of other topics. I have attempted to contact Mr. Foggia to get an update on this matter but, at the time of this writing, have been unsuccessful. I have specifically asked Mr. Foggia to investigate and report to us the following: 1) The specific information which the FAA will require in order to process the environmental assessment of this revised departure procedure. 2) The anticipated time line for review and implementation o i this revised departure procedure. By the night of our meeting, I should have additional information to report. this topic _ � •,.� »:� CiTY OF MENDOTA HEtGHTS �* June 8, 1995 TO: Airport Relations Commissian Members FROM: Tam Lawell, City Admini SUBJECT: Discuss Metropolitan Council Planning Process Related to Airport Planning DISCUSSION As we have previously discussed, the Metrbpolitan Council, as part of the Duai Track Airport Planning Process, has initiated a collaborative study to identify those land use planning and impact mifigation steps which would need to be taken to allow MSP to remain in its present tocation for the lang-term. The most recent meeting of this group took place at Mendota Heights City Hall on June 1 st at �which time a number of issues w�re discussed, inctuding: � � �� 1) Principles and Concepts of MSP Communities' Cotla6orative Efforts in Airport Planning. ' 2} The Minnesota Airpart Zoning Act and its tmplications for Communities Surrounding MSP. 3) Tax Increment Financing as a Tool for Land Use Compatibility Develapment and Redevetopment. Background material related to each of these issues is attached for+your review and discussion. These materials, particularly the "Principles and Concepts" document, will be discussed with the City Council at an upcoming meeting. Should you have comments or cancerns you would like to have passed along to the Council, please let me know at our upcoming meeting, ACTION REQUIRED The Commission should discuss the attached material and identify any comments or concerns they wouid like to have passed along to the Citjr Councit. i 'vi � a __ ti, I I Principles and Concepts of MSP Com�nunities' Collaborative F A.irport Planning ! in �; I GOAL: Assuming that Minneapolis/St. Paul Airport (MSP) will continue; to operate for an undetermined length of time at its current location and possibly expand, the local govemments affected by airport operations are committed to maintaining themselves as healthy communities from a social, fiscal, and quality of life perspective. To that end, they have agreed on the following principles and concepts to guide their cooperative planning efforts to' redevelop the airport area with the Metropolitan Council (Met Council) and the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC). This planning effort will include an identification of the impacts of MSP operations on these surrounding communities, preparation of . a community stabilization and revitalization document, identification of sources of funding and agreement on a proposal for inclusion in the Dual Track Process for mitigating the impacts of continued operations of the airport at MSP. However, the community stabilization and revitalization measures available to airport-area communities should not be applied in such a way as to result in uridue burden to individual residents of affected communities. i These cooperative planning efforts should not be interpreted as supporting the retention of MSP at its current location or moving it to Dakota County. �I � PRINCII'LES AND CONCEPTS: 1. To enable communities to take the initiative in dealing with the adverse impacts related to the airport, a range of "airport specific" redevelopment tools, to include �new tools and the broadening of existing tools, such as targeted tax-'increment fmancmg, should be made available in the airport development area. ' I 2. Airport development area boundaries established for the application or availability of mitigation measures and tools must go beyond noise contours, because airport impacts are varied and may affect a community in other ways. 3. If expansion of MSP results in demolition or removal of buildings and uses and a concomitant loss of tax base in adjoining communities, this loss must be compensated by a lump sum payment or annual offsetting tax payments to local governmerits and school districts. 4. When housing in a community is removed for airport purposes, funds should be provided to the affected local governments to construct or rehabilitate equivalent housing elsewhere in that community if feasible. I 5. The benefits of airport expansion, such as increased economic development and impact assistance, and the burdens of airport expansion, including impact on the environment and quality of life, should be shared equitably among affected communities to the maximum extent feasible. 6. . Steps� should be taken over°time by each community in partnership with MAC and the " Met Council to create compatible zones around t�e airport. These zones should be accomplished duough a combination of acquisition, zoning, and redevelopment tools to assure that the zones remain an integral, functional part of adjacent communities. 7. Steps should be taken by each community to identify and phase out over time existing high-intensity uses in areas where existing uses preclude application of safety zone development restrictions. Redevelopment tools should be made available to communities to facilitate and� expedite this process. �No new schools, hospitals, and multi-family housing should be built in these areas. 8. Airport development area communities should take steps to ensure that all new and infill development within the airport development area is compatible from a noise and safety perspective. This should be accomplished through the use of improved building codes, zoning regulations, and sunilar restrictions. 9. Steps should be taken to assure that existing as well as future community-wide redevelopment plans associated with airport development area impacts are integrated into the community's overall plan. (to include the addition of community-wide amenities...) 10. The Met Council should take primary responsibility on behalf of and in cooperation with affected airport development area communities to ensure that the above-listed principles and concepts are fully considered in the dual-track process. These principles and concepts should be reflected in the Metropolitan Council's Development Guide and the Dual Track Decision Document. THE MINNESOTA AIRPORT ZONING ACT Minnesota Airport Zoning Act, Minn. Stat. Sec. 360.061 et seq. provides for state-"authorized zoning for municipalities with an airport hazard area within their territorial limits.; ( In the case of cities of the first class contiguous to MSP, a joint airport zoning boazd shall be created by MAC and given the police power for zoning of airport hazar'ds (Minn. Stat. Sec. 360.063). The regulations to be promulgated are to prevent, eliminate, alter or otherwise restrict the development of airport safety hazards that may obstruct air space. The regulations may address the location, size and use of buildings, and the density of population within the hazard area. The Minnesota Department of Transportation Office of Aeronautics has prepared a model zoning ordinance for use by municipalities or joint boards. r � The joint board is to have two representatives from each county or municipality iniwhich airport hazards are located. The joint board can act on behalf of entities failing to join the boazd or failing to adopt or enforce zoning regulations adopted by the board (Minn. Stat. Sec. 360.063, subd. 3(2) and (3)). The joint board is required to propose an ordinance for Minnesota Department of Transportation Commissioner's ("Commissioner") review and approval. The ordinance must meet the "minimum standards" prescribed by the Commissioner. � In the instance of MSP, MAC did not initially establish a joint airport zoning boazd. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. Sec. 360.063, subd. 4, the Commissioner prescribed an airport approach plan and turning standards. Although the Commissioner has the authority pursuant to subdivision 6 of Minn. Stat. Sec. 360.063 to adopt the plan and standards i£the joint airport zoning board fails to act, the Commissioner chose to withhold funding to MAC unless a joint board was�convened. � MAC requested pursuant to Minn. Stat. Sec. 360.063 that two members from each municipality and county included in the airport hazard area be appointed to a joint airport zoning board. An ordinance was developed, reviewed by the Commissioner, public hearings were held, and it was adopted. Individual municipalities are to implement the zoning ordinance approved. �I The liability concerns created�by this process were not anticipated by the,legislature. They 4+� include the potential of adversely affecting development rights or even effecting the "taking" of property that is determined to be a non-conforming use thereby creating a potential �to pay compensation. This concern is heightened with the Minnesota Supreme Court's decision in McShane v. The City of Faribault, 292 N.W.2d 253 (Minn. 1980). In McShane, property owners who wi�shed to sell their land sued the city of Faribault, Rice County, and the Faribault-Rice County Joint Airport Zoning Board, challenging portions of the airport zoning ordinance as a governmerit taking of their property without just compensation. The supreme court recognized that the "takings test" for zoning regulations is normally whether the zoned property is regulated so strictly that there is � reasonable use of the property remaining. The court noted that this "no reasonable use" test is proper for ordinances which are adopted as part of the arbitration function of government--that which azbitrates competing land uses as part of planned and orderly development of the land. In McShane, the supreme court held that the airport zoning ordinance was for the soIe benefit of a gavernment enterprise, not an arbitration of competing land uses. Therefore, the court said, the test was whether the praperty suffered "a substantial and measurabie decline in market vaiue." Since all parties in the case had conceded #hat the diminutian in the McShane property's marke# value was substantial, tlie court remanded the case to the district court to issue an injunciion against enforcement of �the ordinance, conditioned on the zoning autharities either repealing the ordinance or commencing condemnation proceedings. Although the airport zoning Iaw provides far an administrative permitivaiiance pracess, the court held the praperty awners did not have to fallow the process because they wished to sell their land, nat develop it themselves. Thus, without some assurances on the compensation issue, some local governments around MSP have been hesi#ant to implement the ordinance ar ta deny proposed land uses that may not be in accord with it. The proposed new parallel runway resulted in a review of some of the cities' zaning ordinances. Minneapaiis, however, did nat need to modify its zoning ordinance due to existing residential land uses. Minn.Stat. Sec. 360.066 subd. la allows municipalities to minimize disruption of exis#ir�g land uses where residentiai neighbarhoads are already in existence. This has allowed Minneapolis to avoid the reclassification, elimination or removal af an existing residentiat use to the extent such use is consisten# with reasonable standards af safety. It appears that the joint board's zoning ordinance, although adopted by the joint board, �has nat been codified into mast municipalities' zoning codes. The Commissioner has not insisted that any further action be taken, and the usefulness of the joint board in a highly developed area appears questionable. Lacal action on development proposals canflicting with the joint baard's airport zoning ordinance will rest largely on th.e facts, i.e.: whether there is a diminution in vaiue; 1� Sdy whether it is measurable; if so, whether it is substantial; whether the landowner wishes to sell the properiy or develop it; and whether the particular zoning restriction promotes only a specific gavernment en�erprise ar is part of the gavenunent's arbitrahan role. If there appears to be a chance that there would be liabil�ty far damages,�local governments have been reticent to implement any strong restrictions. Issues �'or Discussian: �_ 1. �iow can the joint zoning baazd ordinance be made effective? 2. �Jill legai or financial suppart be necessary? Fram whorn? 3. Should the airpprt zoning ordinances be integrated with the Cauncil's model regulations for noise? 4. What should be the applicability of the zoning ordinance to expansian plans? �, Tax Increment Financ.ing as a Tool �. , , . _ j Tax increment financing (TIF) is used by many communities to finance.�development by issuing revenue bonds for a TIF District which is a specific parcel within a project area wher.e new tax increments will be captured to pay �principal and .interest on,the bonds. As fong as 20% of the debt service on the bonds can reasonably be expected to be paid with tax increments, the bonds can be issued. The county and school district do�not have veto power, and a referendum is not needed. - ;� There is no impact on school funding as schools receive a per pupil amount�from the state multiplied by the number of student units. The amount calculated is then first paid from the property tax base with the remainder from state ai.d. Since there is an impact on the State, however, the municipality experiences a local government aid penalry.. Th�e penalty is a calculation based upon how much less the aid to schools is due to the captured property value. That amount is deducted from the municipality's (ocal government aid (LGA) and if necessary, homestead and agricultural credit aid (HACA). The loss of aid varies depending upon the type of TIF District. �� . Tax increments may be utilized in a geographic area designated as a develoj or project redevelopment area. There may be more than one tax increment fin� in a development district. There are five general types of TIF districts incluc 1) Redevelopment Distr.ict � �. . .. 2) Renovation ar�d Renewal District 3) -Soils Condition District 4) Housing District 5) Economic Development District �ment district incing district ling: The municipalities or portions of such municipatities surrounding MSP may;qualify under one or more of these districts. Eor example, a redevelopment district requires that 70% of the parcels are improved with more than 50% of the buildings structural.ly substandard requiring substantial renovation or clearance. To be "improved", 15% of the parcel must contain . improvements. Homes and other development qualifying for fecleral noise insulation would meet this definition. A limitation, however, is that 90% of the increment must be used to finance the cost of correcting the conditions that allowed the parcel to be designated a redevelopment district. � Another way MSP communities may qualify is a renovation and renewal district. This is similar to a redevelopment district for parcels to qualify except only 20% of,the buildings must be structurally substandard and another 20% must require renovation or clearance. Finally, the economic development district is a broad classification for parcel I not meeting any other type of district. To qualify there must be a finding that the district will: 1) discourage business from moving; 2) increase employment; or 3) preserve and enhance the tax base of the state. � � � ,. �� :., Various steps are needed to use tax increment financing effectively in the communities surrounding MSP. First, a Development District or Project Redevelopment Area needs to be established. The purpose of defining a district or project is to establish the geographic area in which tax increments principally must be spent. To establish a district or project, an authority that will manage the developments must be identified and�each tax increment financing district� (the' property that generates the tax increment) .must��be approved. Each MSP commUnity may already have �its HRA or Eouncil designated for this purpose. The MSP communities also could establish an "Airport Redevelopment Board" with representation of all parties. This might be useful if special legislation is sought to establish an "Airport Redevelopment District" to include all MSP communities. Such an "Airport Redevelopment District" could be developed to specifically address the concerns of MSP communities and assure more flexibility in identifying the uses for tax increments, perhaps based on the 65 LDN contour. For example, although a redevelopment tax increment districY may currently be established in an area within the 65 LDN, there are restrictions on the use of the dollars for renovation including noise attenuation of single and multi-family homes. Other general restrictions on.the use of tax increment also might be modified. Currently, allowable general uses of tax increments include only Iand acquisition, site improvements, utilities, demolition, relocation and administration. Another limitation of the use of tax inci•ements to consider removing in such a special district is a restriction on the pooling provision where only 25% of the tax increments can be used outside the district. � � � � - The availability of a tax increment district does not assure redevelopment.� Issues for further exploration include: � � � � . . 1) How do the MSP communities compete in the larger real estate market by making their sites more attractive to developers� There is a lot of land already available to developers for airport-related uses. Even if a district or .project area is established, the communiiy must still find a developer. � 2) Should�the communities consider a special district or project area for commercial and industrial uses and an additional bonding allocation for housing? The governments' ability to.tax a house is only 1% of the first $72,000 is value versus 4.6% tax on the full value of commercial and industrial property. � 3) How large should the project area or district be? Will there have to be special legislation for each community� If not, will the group be required to establish a joint authority for approving projects within the district? 4) What additional exemptions or specia) considerations may the MSP communities want for a special district?