The URL can be used to link to this page

1993-11-10 - Airporti CZTY OF MENDOTA SEIGSTS ! DAROTA COUNTY, MTNNESOTA , AIR.P{JRT RELATI4NS C4IMII�i�SSI4N � � AGENDA NQVB'MBLR 10, 1993 - $:OQ P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of October 13, 1993 Meeting Minu�.es. 4. Unfinished and New Business: a. Discuss Progress of New Airgort Site Select3.c . Camments an Draft Al�ernative Environmental T b. Discuss Mendota Heights/ Eagan Carridor Issue c. Di�cuss Night�ime Flight Res�ric�ions d. Discuss Update af MSP Long Term Comprehensive 5. 4ther Comments or Concerns 6 , Adj ourn. cumen� Pl.an Awciliary aids for disabled persous are available upoa request at least 120 hours in advaaee. =f a aotice of Sess thaa 120 houra is received, the City of Mendota 8eights wi11'make every attemp� ta provide the aids, however, this may not be possib3e oa short uotice.� Please coatact City Admiaistra�i}on at 452- 1854 with requests. � c��r o� r�mo�a� $�zc�r� �DAROTA COUNTXe biINNESO�'A 1�IRPOR7C �E;'LATaONS COb�iISSION MINIITES OCTOBPA 13, �993 The reguZar meeting of the MendoGa Heighta Airport Relations Commission was held on Wednesday, October 13, 1993, in'�the City Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve. The following members were present: Beaty, Olsen, Fitzer, Stein and Leuman. Com►nissioners Olin and Healey were exeused. Also presant were City Administrator Tom Lawell and Senior Secretary Rim Blaeser. !� APPROVAL OF MINUTES Comm:i.ssioner minutes. Commi.ssioner A'YES s 5 NAYS: 0 Ol�en moved approval of the Leuman seconded the motion. PRESENTATTON: TS$ BASICS OF NOIS$ TRANS�lISSION, �+[EASIIREMENT AND REGIILATICIN 1993 Dr, David Braslau, of David Bras3.au Associates, was present to g3.ve a presentation on sound transmittal, the measurement of sound and haw sound is regulated. f � Dr. Braslau"s presenta�ion consisted of the definition of noise, noise prapagation, naise measures, effects of noise, noiae mitigation concepts, the Eagan-Mendota Heights Corridor Study and the pol�.tical and legal iasue� regarda.ng air noise. Dr. Braslau e�al,ained �here are three elements a€ noise: eource, path and receiver. He e�cplained there are two primary sources of air naise - mechanical and aerodynamic. He eacplained that aircraft noise, is genera�ed �hrough ai`r mixing with the fans ot aircraft enginea. Ia respanse to a question from CommissaLoner Olsen, Dr. Braslau s�ated aircraft�taxiing does not generate a lo� of noise and are not generally the cause of air noise complain�s. � Dr. Brasl.au presented a graphic on haw air noise decays. He further e�lained how naa.se finds paths through buildings. Braslau explained �he noise spectrum and how n�iee is measured. He atated the human ear does not hear low frequency noise. He defined decibel (dB} as Ghe level o� sound and A- weighted decibel (dBA? as perceived noise level. He explained the usefulness oE the "logarithm" concept. Airport Relations Commission October 13, 1993 Page 2 Commissioner Olsen stated that it is not the number of aircraft taking off which generates the noise but the frequency. Dr. Braslau explained that variable noise is noise specified during a time period. He explained that noise is measured in one hour intervals. He further explained the "metrics" for variable noise: energy equivalent level (leq), single event level (SEL), day-night level (ldn) and level exceeded 10� of an hour (L10). � Dr. Braslau noted the effects of noise on individuals. In response to a question from Commissioner Beaty, Dr. Braslau stated studies have been completed regarding effects of air noise on wildlife. Dr. Braslau discussed mitigation concepts relating to source control, path control and design. Dr. Braslau stated engine and power control can quiet the source but as the number of aircraft increases it may not be so effective. Commissioner Fitzer explained that Northwest Airlines requires their pilots to reduce engine power to help quiet the impact of noise and reduce engine wear. A brief discussion ensued regarding Stage III aircraft and how Stage III aircraft climb at a higher rate than Stage II. Dr. Braslau discussed FAA aircraft type certification of flight procedures. Dr. Braslau stated most aircraft are not generally flown under the ideealized conditions which exist at the time of certification. He stated the certification process is not reliable. Braslau explained noise path mitigation. He explained takeoff profiles and landing profiles. Commissioner Fitzer explained that final approach for aircraft begins at about 5 to 7 miles from the airport. Dr. Braslau stated the City of Mendota Heights is the only City to adopt the Metropolitan Council's Noise Attenuation Ordinance. He stated this Ordinance is a useful tool in helping reduce the impact of air noise in single family developments which are most affected by the air noise. Dr. Braslau discussed the corridor study he and Mr. Bob Collette prepared for the City in 1989. Copies of this document were distributed to Commission members. MISCELLANEOIIS It was the consensus of the Commission that due to the lack of ti.me available to thoroughly discuss the Mendota Heights/Eagan Corridor Issue, that this item be tabled to the November 10, Airport Relations Qc.tober l3 , 1993 Page 3 sion 1993 meeting. Administrator Lawell stated that Cominissioner {31in has suggesteci that the Commission review night�ime cur�ew restric�ions. He st�ated that this topic would be discussed in Navember as well. Cammissioner Leuman inquired if there is a mandatory curfew. Administra�or Lawell stated there is no mandator�r curfew and Commissioner Fitzer e�Zained that Nor�hwest Airlines has volunteered to no� schedule flights between �he hours of i1a00 P.M. and 6:00 A.M. St was noted by Administrator Lawe31 that cargo aircraft da fIy beC�ween thc�se hour�. Commissi.oner Fitzer stated some airports do impose curfew restrictions and impose a fine should the �light crew violate the cur�ew. � In response �o a question from Commis�ioner Bea�y, Administrator Lawell atated the replacement o� MA.C�Chairman Hugh Schi3l,ing appears �o be the re;�ult of Chairman Schil.ling's outspoken posi�.ion in favor of a new relocated MSP. He exgl.ained Governor Carlson apgarently did no't want it to appear as if his administration was choosing sides in �he Dual-Track Airport Planning Process. �� Commissioner Fitzer stated pilots are rarely� 3f ever, given instructions from the contral tower to fly a specific ground track. He stated compass head3.ngs are issue and, depending upon wind canditions, aircra�t may drift a considerable distance on their depar�ure climb-out. " � ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the Airport Relations Commisaion . adj ourned ita meeting a� ZO :10 0' clock P.Nl. �� Respectfully submitted, Kimberlee K. Blaeser Senior Secre�ary CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO November 12, 1993 T0: Mayor and City Counca.l FROM: Tom Lawe12, City Administra SUBJECT: New Airport Site Selection INTRODIICTION As Council is aware, the Me�ropolitan Airports � (MAC) is currently evaluating a location for a new major �he southern portion af Dakota County. As part of thi; the MAC ha� publi�hed a document entitled "Draft A Environment Documen�" {AED} which in now being circL publ�ic comment. Cauncil is being asked to consider � �ormal comments regarding the impac�s a new a.irpor# loca�.ion would have on �Ghe City of Mendota Heights. DISCUSSION :ommission iirpor� in process, ternat�ive Lated for �ubmit�ing a.n this On November lp, 1993 the Mendo�a Heights Airport �Relations Comma.ssion considered �his issue and discussed the recommended cont�ents of the City's �ormal comments (see attached memorandum). Given the Veteran's Day holiday on Thur�day, November llth, draft minutes from this meeting were not available on November 12th for delivery with this packet. Minutes excerpts will be available at our Navember 16th meeting to assist Council in their review of �his matter. � To summarize the Commission'a discussion, �wo mat�Gers in particular were deemed most important. First, was the' issue of aircraft noise. Al�hough we wauld expect a dramatic decrease in noise wi�h the relocation of the airport to southern Dakota County, the �rue noise impacts are difiicult to de�ermi.ne given�the level af detail pravided in the AED. More apecifically, �he AED does not show the "second tier'� of air traffic cantrol procedu`res which would direct aircraft ta and from the new airport, The�departure and arrival "gates" which the FAA e�tablishes 10-24 miles �ram the airport are not depi.cted in the AED material. Given that the new airport would be within 15 miles oi the C�.ty of Mendota. Heights, �he Cammission suggested this data be reques�.ed as part of our comments . �The second major issue of concern to the Commission involved ground access. The construction of a major airport to our south would require a substantial upgrade of the transportation system leading to southern Dakota Countyo Roadways likely impacted would include TH 55, TH 110, TH 149, I-35E, and I-494 (see attached material for more specific details). In addition, the Commission was concerned about the role rail and/or light rail transportation would play in servicing the new airport location, and suggested this issue be addressed in our formal comments as well. ACTION REOIIIRED Discuss those issues related to the affects the proposed new maj or airport site in southern Dakota County would have on the City of Mendota Heights. Should Council decide to transmit formal comments regarding the Draft Alternative Environmental Document, staff should be directed to prepare a written response to the MAC setting forth our questions and observations. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS � t� • Novernber 6, TO: Members of the Airport Relatio s FROM; Tom Lawe11, Cit�r Admini.st SUBJECT: New,Airport Site Selectian DISC'0'SSION ;� � 19! ' Commiseion �� As we briefly discussed at our last meeting, the Metropolitan Airports Commission is currently eva.luating a location�for a new major airport in the southern portion of Dakota County. This airpor� is intended'as a posaible replacement for the existing MinaeapoSisJ St. Pau1 Internatianal Airport (MSP�. As part of the Dual Track Airport Planning Process, the N�C has issued for public comment� a"Draft Al.ternative Environmental Dacument" (ASD) regarding �he new airpart site which seeka to describe:� 1. 2. 3. 4, The purpose and need for action The alternatives which were considered, el preferred The affected environment of the al�ernati consideratian ted and under The environmental consequences af the al.ternatives under consideration I The public comment period on the Draft AFD will conclude on November 26, 1993 and we as a City need to decide whether�or not we wish to go on record regarding any of the material con�ained within the Draft ASD. � To conserve gaper and sanity, the full 212 page ASD has not been reproduced. Should any Comcn3.ssion member wish to review the full document in advance of our meeting, please give me 'a call at 452-1850. In the alternative, I h,ave enclosed select portions of the Draft AED for your review. More specifically, �he sections which pertain to the preferred airpor� site (Site #3) and the associated noise and traffic impacts are enclosed. 1 The first seven pages of the attached (identified as Sections I and =I} sezve as a br3.ef review of , the site selecti.an process for a new major airport. These pages �al.so describe why Site #3 was chasen as the preferred airport site. The ne�ct 10 page� tidentified as Section III} provide a good ovenra.ew of noise generation and measurement. This information serves as a great recap of the presenta�ion provided to the Commission by Dr. David Braslau at last month's meeting. The next eight pages (identi�ied as Section IV) describe the specific anticipated noise impacts far Site #3, �.ncluding Ldn and L1Q65 noise contours and flight tracking information. Obviously, the noise impacts experienced by Mendota Heights would be greatly� decreased as a result of movin.g MSP. However, the.Ldn a.nd L1065 information included in the report onl.y deacr3be �he most in.tense naise events closest ta the airport. ' Based on his�orical complain� dat��a, it is possi.ble for residents 15-25 m:i.les away from the airport to experi.ence unwanted airnoise. While not in great numbera, the month�y noise complain.� statis�ics compiled by the MAC routinely show ca11.s from Minnetanka, Hopkins, Plymouth, St. Louis Park, Inver Grove Heights and ather distant cities. I suggest one of our comments sent to the MAC ask for additional in�ormatian regarding flight tracking within 25 mi.les of the new airport, including data an altitude an.d frequency. Thia'way we will be able �o determine if Mendota Heights would sunilarl�r become a distant yet annoyed commun.ity wi.th respect to airnoise. The final four pages diacuss ground access impacts associated with the new major airport site. As yau will see, the placement of MSP in sauthern Dakota County wauld substantially impact through tra£fic in and around Mendo�a Fieigh�s . The described ground acceas impacte afEect Trunk Highways 55 and 149r Znterstates 49h and 358, anci the Mendota Bridge. Specific commen�s made in the document which may potentiallg impact Mendota Heights include: 1. "Regardless af the aite, the assignments indicate that �he section of TH 55 common with TH Z49 would need improvements, as wou],d the segments south of TH 149 to TH 56" {see page N-2�}. 2. "Another road eegment that would experience increased iise far all three si�es is the segment af TH 149 juet south oE I-494. This would serve as the most direct link to the west between `�H 55�and the interstate system" (see page N-24). 3. "The section of TH 149 which con�a.ects TH 55 to 2-494 in 8agan is �xpected to e.xperience signi�icant impacts if an aa.rport is built in Dakota County. A posszble mitigation that would need Eurther study is the additi.on of a half- diamond interchange from TH 55 ta I-494 directed towards the west" (see page iv-31). J El.sewhere in the AED variaus road and bridge widtHs are shown. as requiring expansion in order ta accammodate �raffic demand. These expansions include: �� 1. The Mendota Bridge would need to be e�cpanded �'rom a four- lane design to a six-lane design. � 2. TH 55 fram �he Mendota Bridge to I-35E would�need ta be expanded from two Ianes to four lane�. 3, The 2-35E Bridge over the Mississippi River would need �a be e�anded from a four-lane design to a six-lane design. Surprisingly, the section af I-35E from the Mississippi River to I-494 is not discussed at a1I in the AED. In that the I-35E Missis�ippa. River cros�ing is shown to need expansian to�six-lane�, S assum.e some 3.mprovement in the remainder of I-358 would also be needed. � In terms of comments we may wish to make to MAC regarding ground access concerns, I suggest we at,least request{additional information regarding the above raised s.tems. The maps included within the AED are no� of sufficient clarity and de�ail to allow for an adequate analysis. Furthermare, traffic count data far certain key Trunk Highway segments are not shown at all in the document. These segments include TH 149 north of I-494 a.nd TH 110. ACTION R84IIIRLD Discuss the component� of the ASD which may impact the City of Mendata Heights and formulate a recommendation to the C'ity Council regarding comments we may wish to forward onto the MAC.� � � � � � 1 1 Dual Track Ai�port Planning Proce New Airport Site Selection Study D�aft Alte�native Envi�onmental Doci, September 1993 �`��eous �,�1 � A 7 3 � �� z - 0 1/ = � Prepared for: Metropolitan Airports Commission Prepared by: — NOWARO N�iOL.C6 TAMMEN O CFA�ENDOFF ARCHIT�aCTB �'cNO1NBGR8 PLANNERS and associated firms s ,►ment Acknowledgements: Cover includes Landsat-S images of the Study Area in the visible and infrared bands Prepared by Remole Sensing Laboralory, Deparlmen! of Forest Resources, College of Nalural Resources, University of Minnesota in cooperalion with the Metropolitan Counci! of the Twin Ci�ies Metropolitan Area. Landsat imagery reproduced by permission of Ear1h Observation Satellite Company, Lanham, Maryla�rd, U.S.A. I. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTtON A. Format of the Document The Draft AED is structured to comply with the format and content of Order 5050.4A of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). As shown in the table of contents, the general format is the following: � I 1. Purpose and Need for Action 2. Alternatives (under consideration, eliminated, and the prefe�red 3. Affected Environment (of the alternatives under consideration) 4. Enviconmental Consequences (of the alternatives under conside B. Background The new airport site selection study is part of the airport planning legislation'enacted by the Minnesota legislature in 1989 (known as the Dual Track Airport Planning��Process). The purpose of the legislation is to determine whether the long-term air transportation needs of the- metropolitan area and the state can best be met by enhancing capacity at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP) or by developing a replacement airport within the metropolitan area. T.he 1989 legislation specified actions for both the Metropolitan Council and the Metropolitan Airports Commission during the 1989-1996 planning period. The .following actions have since been taken: 1. The Metropolitan Council (MC or Council) amended its aviation plan in January, 1990 to include both airport improvements and enhancement of capacity �at the existing . Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP) and the location and development of a new major airport -- as alternatives for major airport development in the Metropolitan Area for the next 30 years. � 2. The Council, in December, 1991, designated the Dakota Search Area in'Dakota County as the location for the planning and development of a new major airport. The process utilized by the Council in designating the search area was approved by the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (MEQB) on October 18, 1990 as an alternative environmental review process. 3. The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC or Commission) adopted in November, 1991, a long-term comprehensive plan for MSP. � 4. The Commission submitted an alternative environmental review process for the Dual Track Airport Planning Process to the MEQB, which was approved on Mi rch 19, 1992. 5. A First Phase Scoping Report•describing the. Duat Track Airport Planrnng Process was - prepa�ed and made available for public and agency review on March 30, 1992. Three public meetings were held in April, 1992 for public and agency comment. Responses to substantive comments were published in March, 1993. � New Airport Site Alternative Environmental Document I-1 � J L� � � � C� 7. I I The Scoping Document and Draft Scoping Decision Document for the selection of a new airport site were prepared by MAC and made available for public and agency review on March 1, 1993. A public scoping meeting was held March 18'and the Scoping Decision Document, including'responses to comments, was� adopted by the Commission on June 21, 1993. I The Draft AED for the selection of a new airport site, including the identification of a preferred site, was adopted by MAC on September 20, 1993 for public/agency review and comment. ; Future actions to be taken: I 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17: 18. � MAC will hold a public hearing, prepare and adopt the Final AED, dete�mine its adequacy, and select the site for a possible new major airport. (January, 1994) MAC will prepare scoping documents, hold a public meeting and adopt a Scoping Decision Document for the development of alternative comprehensive plans at �the selected new airport site. (June, 1994) MAC will prepare the Draft AED, hold a public hearing, adopt the Final AED, determine its adequacy, and select the new airport comprehensive plan. (Marcti, 1995) MAC will prepare scoping documents, hold a public meeting and adopt a Scoping Decision Document for the update of alternative comprehensive plans at MSP. (March, 1994) I MAC will prep�are the Draft AED, hold a public hearing, adopt the Final AED, determine its adequacy, and select the MSP comp�ehensive plan. (November, 1994) MAG, in concert with FAA, will prepare EIS scoping documents, hold a�public meeting, and adopt a Scoping Decision Document on alternatives, including "no action", to meet the long-term air transportation needs in the Metropolitan A�ea. (July, 1995) MAC, in concert with FAA, will prepare the Draft EIS, hold public heari Igs, and prepare the State Final EIS. (February, 1996) The MEQB will determine the adequacy of the State Final EIS. (April, 1996) The MAC and MC will prepare a joint Decision Document with recommendations and submit to the Minnesota Legislature. (June, 1996) I The Minnesota Legislation will select the appropriate alternative (proposed action). (1997?1 � The FAA will prepare the Federal Final EIS on the proposed action. New Airport Site Alternative Environmental Document I-2 � ��re�� -�� i �. i '�� ;�. �u ,�s � � ►� � �v tn iti i i i i i i ,� � ��• �, `r2E �ous S,� � . �� ' �� Z Source: Metropolitan Atrports Comm(ss(on � � �' ►� � �'° � '�is VWAY3 KIWAY8 �MINAL BUILDIN�3 �PORT FACILITIE3 ADWAY3 IIMUM PROPERTY BE ACQUIRED Not to Scale Conceptual Layout � � � However, during tanding, Stage 2 and Stage 3 aircraft tend ta be at same low altitude as they follow the final approach course to their assigned runway. While Stage 3 engines are much quieter than Stage 2 engines during xakeoff, this di€#erence is tess naticeable+during landing because aircraft are at lower pawer settings. , At these lower power settings, the noise gene�ated by the air#rame traveting through ihe ai� is mare apparent than during takeaff. This airframe noise is similar for both Stage 2 and Stage 3 aircraft. Finalty, while departing aircraft tend io spread out toward ihei� destinations, arriving aircraft are concentrated �along the fina! approach caurse to their assigned runway. � � As shown in figure 14, noise exposure of Ldn 65 ar greater is characterized as isignificant and leads to a number of complaints. The FAA has set guidelines far land use within the Ldn 65 contour {E.e., Ldn 65 or greater}, It is acknawSeciged that the noise impact does� not end at xhe Ldn 65 cantour. For areas within the Ldn 60 contaur (i.e, Ldn 60 to Ldn 651; naise may be � characterized as maderate io s(ight. �� L,Q ! This naise metric measures the point at which a specified sound levet is exceerled at teast 10 percent of a specified time period (e.g. one-haur). The state standard states that the sound ievet should not exceed L,�65 in the worst daytime hou� {betwe�n 7.40 a.m. and 1 Q:OQ p.m.}. The L,o65 analysis produces a contour which depicts points around th� airport that experience naise levets of 65 dBA or greater for 9 Q percent of ihe haur {6 minutes} with the airport operating in a specific configu�ation. tt is catculated for the wors#.hourly noise condition which could occur off each �unway end; Althaugh the L,o metric does not consider how often the condition actuatty occurs, it does indicate what short duration "worst case" conditians could be in these areas, F.3 Noise-Sensitive Uses Aircraft noise, through the various psychological and�physiological effects it has on people, can be a source of cammunity annoyance astd conflict with various human activities� The FAA has identified acceptabie noise levels for certain categories of use, exptaining the rationale for the criteria. Table 8 outlines the recommended land use compa#ibility criteria (from�FAR Part 150, Tabte 1�1 used in this study. The MeSropatitan Council is in the pracess af updaiing the Guidelines for l.and Use Compatibility with Aircraft Naise in the Metrapolitan Aviation Oevetapmerrt Guide, Chapxer and�the guidelines were therefore not used in this study. The faltawing is a discussian of land uses and their compatibility with the compatibility criteria in Table 8. ( � Residences tothe� than hotetsl In areas where noise levels are Ldn 75 or grea.ter, all residential development should be cansidered non-campatibte. {n the Ldn 85-75 zones, new residentiat develaprnent shautd be � considered non-compatible and should be permitted only where the infilling of existing �residentiat neighbarhoods is ihe anEy reasanabte use. Fot new development� ar substantiat redevelopment in the Ldn 65•75 noise zones, insulation should be �equired to achieve interior noise levst �eductians {NLR} of 20-30 dBA, tesutting in an inte�iar levet of E.dn 45, as � recommended by the EPA. In addition �o acausticat treatment of structures,� potentiat new �esidents should be made awa�e of the naise environment. � New Airport Site Alternative Environmental Document tt[-38 � TABLE 8- 4end Uae Competibility Criteria {1 oi 2� Land Use l.dn 65-70 Residential Residential, other than hotels' Hotels Nursing homes' Pubtic Use Schools (public and private) Chitd care centers Churches Auditoriums, concert fiatts Parking Mospitais Commerciat Use Offices: business, prafessianal, government Retail tr�de Whatesate trade and retaiE o# bui(ding materials, hardware and farm equipment� Utilities� Manufacturinq and Production Manufacturing, generai2 Research and laboratory uses sensitive to vibraiian Agriculture and forestry3 Mining, fishing, resource production and extraction Recreationa! Outdoor sports arenas and spectator sports Outdoor amphitheaters, music sheits Nature exhibits and zoos Parks, galf courses, r�ding stabies and other active recreation areas Ldn 70-75 N N R(25) R(30) N N R(30) N R{25} R{3p} R(25) R(30) R{30? R(35} Y Y R(30) R(35) Y R{25} Y Ri25) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N N Y N R(30) N IN 'N N N Y N Rt30y R(30) Y Y Y N Y Y N N N N � Y - l.and use and �elated stnsctures are campatibie wxthout restrictions. . N - lsnd use and related suuciutes are not campatibte and shautd be prohibited. ( Ri25),(30) or (35) - Land use and related suuctures are generally compatible; measures to achieve Noise Level Reduction ai ai ieast 25, 30, ar 35 d8A must be i�corparated inxo desiga and constfuction af suuctures. Normal construction can be expected to provide an NtR of 28 dBA; thus, the reduction requirements are often stated as 5, 10, ar 15 d8A over standard construction. These �equirements assume mechanica! vanLitatian and ctased windaws year round. 7he use af NLR criter�a wili nat eliminate outdoar noise problems. � New Airport Site Alternative Environmental Document III•39 � � � �� TABLE 8- Land Use Compatibility Criteria (2 of 21 ' Where the city determines that residential uses must be allowed, measures to achieve sufficient outdoor I Reduction (NLR) should be incorporated into building and/or zoning codes and be considered in individua, guidelines recommend NLR of at ieast 25 dBA in Ldn 65-70, and 30 dBA in Ldn 70-75. Adjustments to the; may be necessary in considering spacific local conditions. In addition to acoustical treatment, potential resil should be notified of the noise environment. ' Appropriate Noise Level Reduction (as specified in Footnote 1) must be incorporated into the design portions of these buildings where the public is received, office areas or noise sensitive areas. , ' Noise Level Reduction specified in Footnote 1 required for residential buildings. Source: FAR Part 150 Table 1, Federal Aviation Administration � � Transient Lod4in4s Construction of hotels and motels is generally of a standard that results ii attenuation higher than that of single family homes. The nature of their use restrictions, provided that• an indoor noise level of no more than Ldn 45 is � recommended that hotels be permitted in all noise zones provided that interio sufficient to achieve acceptable inferior noise levels are required. �i � � � � � indoor Noise Level approvals. Federai e recommendations �ents in noise zones construction of interior sound �stifies minimal attained. It is NLR measures Schools It is recommended that schools be co�sidered compatible in the Ldn 65-70 noise zone provided that they have an interior NLR of at least 30 dBA. They should be considered� incompatible in all higher �oise zones. The. special sensitivity of classroom teaching to periodic aircraft noise events justifies the NLR level more stringent than. that applied to residences� These criteria would be .applied to both public and private schools. . � Hospitals Hospitals are usually well-constructecl, air conditioned, and kept closed, resulting in high levels of interior noise attenuation. It is recommended that hospitals be considered compatible in the noise zone Ldn 65-70 with an NLR of at least 30 dBA, and in Ldn 70-75 with an NLR of at least 35 dBA. They should be considered incompatible in noise zones above Ld� 75. Nursinq Homes .� Nu�smg homes are basically residential in character and should be addressed in ihe same way as multi-family homes. It is recommended that they be considered incompatible in noise zones above Ldn 70, and permitted in Ldn 65-70 only with an NLR of at least 25 dBA. Child Care Centers � Since classroom instruction is not the primary function of child care center as it is in a school, it is �ecommended that criteria for child care centers be less stringent than those for schools. It is recommended that these facilities be considered compatible in zone Ldri 65-70 with an NLR of at least 25 dBA and in zone Ldn 70-75 with an NLR of at least 30 dBA, and incompatible in zone Ldn 75+. � New Airport Site Alternative Environmental Document 111-40 � � Churches Given the small amount of time per week that a church is used for quiet ac that the proportion of time spent by an individual in a church is also small, th adopting more stringent compatibility standards is less strong than for �ecommended that the criteria proposed in the FAA's table of criteria in f applied. For schools, child care centers, or otf�er types of facilities that are complex, the criteria for these secondary types of facilities would be appliec vities and given justification for schools. It is �R Part 150 be �art of a church In addition to structures specifically dedicated to church use, numerous small churches are often established in portions of commercial buildings. These "storefront churches" are frequently located in commercial areas which are otherwise compatible with aircraft noise levels. Due to their locational characteristics and sometimes transierit nature, it is recommended that storefront churches be treated as other uses in commercial dist�icts. Commercial. Industrial and Recreational Uses � Most uses in these categories are not as noise sensitive as the uses described previously. It is recommended that. the FAA-suggested criteria in FAR Part 150 (Table 81 b�e applied. F.4 Existing Ambient Noise Levels at Selected Locations During the Summer of 1992, the MAC measured ambient Ldn noise levels in � Search Area. The measured levels are shown in Figure 15. Values in the : not measured but are estimated to be in the Ldn 50-55 dBA �ange, bas� densities within the Search Area. Actual values will be determined for affe� the development of the comprehensive plan for the selected site. The meas from a high of approximately Ldn 61 in Hastings and Farmington to a low of a� 52 in Rosemount. These levels include noise from aircraft operations at MSP airports, as well as the other sources in the area. G. Air Quality The Metropolitan Area is d'esignated non-attainment in the State Im the following pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO) sulfur dioxide (S02) particulates of 10 microns or less (PM-10) The SIP has transportation control measures to address the intersecti concentrations exceed the standard. The State is currently seeking a redesig�i attainment to attainment for SOZ, with the SIP revised to include administi selected major sources. A lapse of two years of no violations leads to attain vicinity of the rch Area were on population j areas during d tevels range oximately Ldn � other nearby Plan (SIP) for ms where CO iation from non- ative orders for Background monitoring for CO was performed in December, 1992 and Janua�y, 1993 at two sites in Dakota County which were selected to be representative of ambient air quality in the airport search area. These two sites are shown in Figure 16. For a detailed discussion of the monitoring, see the technical report entitled Carbon Monoxide Backqround Monitorin4 Report (Appendix A). � New Airport Site Alternative Environmental Document III-41 :� ;� �i � � . � i i �i � i i � i i i - ii � - � ..... J. .:J' ri',; �.._%�.� �;�.'i� :.i�i�i �ii, ' ' ��n%i.l n� Cht}T/T+�Aa'tC�� •�••\ F � � I .' :. �I .y�.c . .i � �� •�!c...� 17�VXC 4i� � • � I 41� � 4� . � '� • a . '•'`- �44 �, a• �,.s;' 46 , . . I .:ni �N,,.� ''•,; � • . . . . � +i :��,; .� �'�,••�;F, � .,',�y;• . t ��», �.:� >...... -�. . I JJ ' � I � ,1.'+� n ,� i, r..�:jj� �� .j + 'tJ. �c � . \t�1�'1 �` �' ' uaiu�c�eN N RfM� 1 , I • ! ' ---�' �� j .�� :' ! • r �„�li , V � .' ! � . .' ; `"`a �., O ,., � ' i . . ,.., �: 6�.4 �:��... t�ti'-"R �. � �„�:.._ 8 n r� s r' k� � • ' � �., _ �. �• � �� .:.�.�.�,,�._ �..�.. .. ... ...� � • .... '��c,�. . � � ... � � i � � : : �y�--�--r 'I' ,, m t.. i � � � :�. : • a' '��'� o • _�.,. ;�;i � �r� 2 •��:� ; � :s�',�� ':� �r,�I 4 'a i %t, s .�:;.. : , � -:�;� -:,�.. ��e ��- � ; i � ' 1 � � t•t: �•t•I !/�.�� ,�R�I �t. �i ' � �.I � loi.`�L �M��ii�� I ~ .y,• ,�� ij��l,ltl�a �' ;'`. I i I• f ' . t. • .'" y' I ��!0�� .�; }�i1� ;� '� :�i �;• (0. , � � � I li�!� i.�i �� _;. ;: :} -�.- .d�.�. �.� �8� � � _ : �.,. , 5d�; 5�,.� 6 ..�.�. .. s,. � ., ��. � ��. :9 .., , . ; ��y' , w. , , , �, . �� .� 'ii�. i j i G'. �.v�. �Y. .�pl� �� ",.'...`��l AC. � T��. .�� i t. '�II.. 'I�,, � :�. �:Z' • ;� ' � ' � • .,„� .. ,�' . ' �� , � � ;� � � � � ,�.`"� .� N' : �� • � . �� • , � .. . �. . .. , �� ,..�.. - • . �.., �.>, • , .. 11:;,, I; ' � �, ,��.� ��; e��ll�„�� i� �9aVlll.�' .Sh.�.' ��'�I�19! I�•�'��' t''�:�.':':.:-;.. � � 1 !t I fA {j � �� ,it��l�:• ��i �� ' `t• � ,�'`��'�� . ,. �'�� j'l�Ii �: '� c � �' ' ;� ^��:� � _� � � ' �� I..�,' �� ` �t'�. �N��•,�V.� ��r 1• p _�,� ��c�u cd�.._ ' II _ � � • ``�y . :. ��5.2 � � � .� . .I . .5 MS�R � R« .�r� '?'T{:• : .z�i`'; � i, I i N .7'� �� TAGllll �PROY,OSED I � `�c:.+:: i . _ • � '' � -- ' ... .M � .�i:;,:::; � ,;�.......t,.........._ ...........�....... _ ..�. � ��. ��.S�r �•1•• -rr r� T . (/N/VC � " %� _ - . .� J„1 �2 Y T � �:�I ,' , �' 3 .•.�o�'�.. - ��:�:kc:;�,.:..;:s.,.� cr I � ,ti, ••�^ �� '� 13 . �� I ,, 38 1 �,� i' �: ; . � �� s�`.' . ' ; , � � � I , f ' . �� •��`I� �' I . I ,�i:,�l�l� •�wx .�� . 1 ` ^�'r�A � <� b i . .f• ..f '�I1� L• - 'Y�' ,t�t rE.[7'7... � i I ,d I I '1' � - 1 i :<.� . .�� .1 ,. � � � � �. � , ..�� :, � � � i:i ' .� •r � 3• � a ,:• �� I' • • . . :-_:. "-;• . : .. , ,.:. . ;... :.:. : : .... .. . .. ... . . ,��.w��:::•:,:.� ..;w.-::::- — I' liltl j :i � � I •''�:�.' �:�•:. i �• �:�r:' ';# I o _ ::p'..;.... ,, . . , . � ; : � :.. : , 5 : � . .,: : a.. .� ;. , , .:. :.:.: ..�� _ . ..�� . �. _... , 5 . . .� . : .,, .. .:.. „ :. , .. . . _ :;:�:�:�:::�a :. . ..�_, a Y s� n' n ai, . . :. ...��. , �..� , . - � • � i . ,l��>. '� �F: , , 4,� .. � � . � : � � � � : :. : : :.: ::..;.. .- .... _ `a,:.� ....;. :.. ��;:;>;:''. � •,. � . .3 i ....... ••..::: : .�;.::r.. a:�: 2 • ....... �.��. ...._ � . ,`,__;.,.;. .:••._.•�.,::•_.,.::..:x;:•..:_u+'.::;�:�;rk;a:.::�::;:_:'%• _;•�:_::.:•: N �.. t � ... ........... _ ...w • Y � �;;.. . • •.li �::e:;zc .• .-.. '. .. a' iE...:: � :Lb::�rl ��:}i:r � � . S ! � � 1 � 11.5 . : " � • . , . ::' ': :'i i:"": '�: . ::i.-v: :.'? �-'y.;;cw� ' ' .• _ . - /� .:,tt. i �4 � � i . 3% . 0 ..� . I �, '_ ........... . •:.v i: . � . . .:�::��:::,. _....... ... � •. � :�:•:..:...-: ••..:, •,:.. ; � I . � � :� ::;: .: ..<-:.:�: . �._.... .� �:';:��`:.:;.°;-:':::.,: :�°�:. .:::��;;� � � i.' � ,� �tA�� Ili.'£ �A M1N i��;;,� � �: .�, ,� -t,... ;�� I ► i i i � � . .. . ,,.,::.. . , , .: � .. ., : �. . � . , , : �.;:_ : . ..�. .:�.��. .� . .. - - - -- - # r � , , � ► ' .:�:a. . ry, _ ��c. ::i•._�_._..'^�':. '. . . a � � : - :�:A�� 5 �.8 .,. :; � , ,... .� , , 5��`� „�� :. f._..�:�::;:�:;:::: � - .�. „ �; ;,;; 56. .0: � , ,.,,,.,�,�. ��::: ��:� �� _ .�. f,� ,, �� , ,-� � . ��,� ��., ! .; ?:;�� - - ::_�. ., , , ., . ,. . , ` . _�.. ;-: :: � 16 �` � �' i ' � '+ ; • r .: .:., �.. �:"°;' �`.�'� "- .. � ,. 't;._.r a6 ' • ! I � 28�: • . � f.• :�' �{'_u ;_.}�.n>A;�- •�.: '�',�� , � I, , v�. � .� . . ..i,_. ;'......::'i;:.:.:. .,:_,� �:� .' -� I /� r �i.��i I I . . ,�1 .:�� ; .�: ,:" ' . ` t V i� , i l'�� r,l � '' � � �%r V�� • . � e�` i • '�•, e�.;�;: .. ::: .h �,�;tv�,� , � . ' . �..�:.�ti:� �� 3a9� �� . . ^ '� ,; . , ,..,: � .:� � � � .. � � . � . . `,, . I. •'";i �` ! �a � '.�.r..!G^'r" ':h;yf:.'<�. -;.,;r•�'�. ��. � i � � � � . • � .. � , . . . . + :..�.'.:��w � � . � . e f . �� , � •.rn.:..:.. � ' . , y.:r � � ' � ' e �we< �Q�> > Q�•.•.•w.�Q ...��taroexr++we�;� wA.av o .i.�,vsrxcr.vxee�.•�.e�vwa —• •••••••.•••••••.••••••.•••••. .1...........•..•• ......N . . .. . . . . ...... .... ...� .. . ......�.. .� �..y�i l�w T /�WYY�kWYV i Zi. ZQ ( [' 4 �� I '' 1 +wet ' � � � � , � 6� ��_ . � $ 5�� ' 9. ��. 56.� 55. 54!2 60.0� 5�.5 i �6� I' . )� i �•� �' ..,i � ._ . .... • � , � .�, ! � •�, I � � . i, � .. ..�.. � � � ; �! � .� i � � i L__.... ' .y;t. � . .. _ . . __ � . _ , R�� :,:,.:� �:._ � � � 1 � ,----� , (—liAMR3...� r��w.=i ' --._;-- -�- r � - i . .•1� � �: � t ,.. j i i i ' � ` � , , L -- -� '� ' T�l��i '�� . i �; ,� �u r � k � 1 � I � � ! I ' t .' ' I M1�51�it,l.�j `r?��,+ous s��r � �.� {� �` 0 7,000 14,000 feet o� � �o Saurce: Metropolitan AirpoRs Commission Scale: N � '% Sy • ' f'"� aM,a�<'''� � Ambient Ldn Noise Levels Around Dakota Search Area � � � � � IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES A. Noise This section presents the results of the noise analysis by site. overflights are discussed. A.1 Methodotogy and Assumptions I I Ldn 65 and Ldn I , L,o65, and The year 2000 household and population forecasts were selected as the bes`t surrogate for � what development would be in place in the year 2020 when a decision would be made to develop a new airpon in the late 1990's. Land use controls would be instituted to prohibit incompatible development around the new airport site. , I � Year 2020 aircraft activity was modeled as a worst-case scenario during the 1993-2020 study period. This was based on testing of alternative forecast yea�s. The aircraft operations forecasts and fleet mix are the same as those found in the Long-Term Comprehensive Plan � (LTCP) Update for MSP. Tables 15 and 16 list the average daily arrivals andl departures by aircraft type for 2020, respectively. � � � � � � � CI � The Minnesota State Airspace Studv was used to deve.lop departure flight �tracks for the Candidate Sites. A flight track analysis was undertaken to show the average monthly flights on each track out to a point whe�e single-event noise levels generally fall below 70 dBA (not 70 Ldn1. This is typically seven or eight miles from the end of the runway. I Takeoff and landing profiles (the vertical path airc�aft follow when departing from and arriving at an airport) were based on airline operating procedures, the aircraft type and its operating weight. Air carrier aircraft were assumed to fly standard three-degree descent angle approach profiles. The INM data base includes typical takeoff and landing profiles for each aircraft. Runway use is based on weather conditions (both wind and visibility), directionYof flight, noise impacts, and operational efficiency. The set of runways used and the direction in which aircraft arrive and depart on those runways is known as an operating mode. It was assumed that the new airpon sites would operate using the highest capacity modes as often as possible. For �ighttime hours (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM), aircraft ope�ations we�e assigned to the least noise-sensitive runways (typically the innermost runways). • As with the aircraft fleet mix, the runway use input to INM is an average daily use based on the entire yea�. � New Airport Site Alternative Environmental Document IV-1 Aircrah Type Air Carri�r J�tf: MD80 DC-10 MD11 6737-300/400/500 6747-200/300/400 B757 8767 A300 A320 HST F100 BAe 146 Repional Jets Air Catrl�r Turbopropc: Jetstream 31 Seab 340 General Aviation Jets: Military: Source: HNTB anelysis. i t TABLE 15 - Duel Trock Airport Plenninp Process Site Selection AED PROJECTED 2020 AVERAGE DAILY ARRIVALS Day 52.7 9.5 39.8 118.1 24.6 61.3 15.1 1.8 101.8 3.6 12.9 1.4 3.8 Subtotal 446.4 86.2 81.7 Subtotal 167.9 30.8 8.7 Total 653.8 Nipht 6.1 1.3 5.4 13.6 3.3 10.5 2.0 0.2 17.4 0.4 1.5 0.1 0.1 61.9 3.0 2.9 5.9 3.6 1.0 I 72.4 New Airport Site Altemative Environmental Document IV-2 Total 58.8 10.8 45.2 131.7 27.9 71.8 17.1 2.0 119.2 4.0 14.4 1.5 3.9 508.3 89.2 84.6 173.8 34.4 9.7 726.2 Aircraft Typ• Ai� Carri�r Jeta: MD80 DC-10 MD 11 8737-300/400/500 B747-200/300/400 6757 6767 A300 A320 HST F100 BAe 146 Repional Jets Air Cerrior Turbopropc: Jetstream 31 Saeb 340 General Aviation Jets: Military: Source: HNTB analysis. TABLE 16 - Dual Tnck Airport Planni�y Procesc Site Selection AED PROJECTED 2020 AVERAGE DAILY DEPARTURES Day 53.7 9.6 40.1 120.2 24.9 61.0 15.3 1.8 101.3 3.7 13.1 1.3 3.5 Subtotai 449.5 79.4 75.3 Subtotal 154.7 30.8 8.7 Total 78,8 Niflht 5.1 1.2 5.1 11.5 3.0 10.8 1:8 0.2 17.9 0.3 1.3 0.2 0.4 58.8 9.8 9.3 9.7 New Airport Site Alternative Environmental Document IV-3 Totel 58.8 10.8 45.2 131.7 27.9 71.8 17.1 2.0 119.2 4.0 14.4 1.5 3.9 508.3 89.2 84.6 173.8 34.4 9.7 88.5 �.�,,i�� ir�L.l ��.,�1 � i �i�. �. 6� �,065 Impacts and Runwav Use Fiyure 24 shows the L„65 noise contours fpr Site 2. The wider contours are generated by departing aircraft; the spike-shaped contours are generated by arriving aircraft. As with the Ldn contours, the L,o65 contours northwest and northeast of the site sur � und the southern portion of Hastinfls. Usinfl year 2000 population forecasts, it is anticipated that approximately 1 � 800 people would be living within the L,o65 �oise contours. � � Annual �unway use by arrivals and departures for Site 2 is also depicted 'on Fi�ure 24. As shown, approximately two-thirds of arrivals and two-thirds of departures �would use the four main parallel �unways, overflyi�g areas northwest and southeast of the airport. The remaining third of arrivals and departures would •use the two crosswind runways, land overfly areas southwest and northeast of the airport. Qverfliahts Fi�ure 25 shows the major arrival and departure flight tracks for Site 2. The average monthly overflights on these tracks are also depicted. Most overflights occur northwest and southeast of the site. During periods whe� the airport is operating to the south, aircraft would• typically depart southeast over pouglas and Welch Townships and southwest over Vermillion, Hampton, and Castle Rock Townships. Arriving aircraft would be directed over eastem Rosemount and Nininger northwest of the airport and Pierce County, Wisconsin and Raverina Township east of Hastings. I When the airport is operating to the north, aircraft departing for cities west and south of Minneapolis would turn toward their destination over Ve�million Township soon after takeoff. Aircraft heading northwest would depart generally st�aight-out. Departures to the northeast would typically head towa�d the Mississippi River and over Wisconsin. Most arriving aircraft would overfly Douglas and Weleh Townships southeast of the airport iand Castle Rock, Hampton, and Vermillion Townships southwest of the airport. A.3 Site 3 Noise Analysis Ldn 5 and Ldn 60 Impacts The Ldn 65 noise contour extends 1 3/4 to 2 1/4 miles northwest of the site, 2 miles northeast, 1 3/4 to 2 miles southeast and 1 3/4 miles southwest (Fiyure �261. The Ldn 60 contour extends approximately 1 1/2 to 2 miles beyond the Ldn 65 contour. The contours to the northeast of the site pass south of Hastings. The year 2000 fo�ecast population exposed to Ldn 65 or greater is approximately 220. An additional 710 people would be within the Ldn 60 noise contour. Table 18 shows the year 2000 forecast population within the Ldn 60 and Ldn 65 by community for Site 3. Most of the �esidents exposed to noise levels of Ldn 60 or higher live� in Marshan, Nininger, Vermillion and � � �� ' � � � � � �. � � � .,ti �.. t+ii uit�F � u.'..� . ' • ' � � ��/' ��•:�ty� . • �qN�F� ' 'eR�eaisx�i�U'.t. wn.il {,�. F � '�,'i; i'�., �� •'�p�g � � � 9a°�emsrxa�xaszx�ss e �....� � � ty,.�a i ��\ / N�G� � 2 R SfiR A f xx��tat e e� ••�. i =�caxtetts a t cam e t a�m e x r' '�•. '� �2s ' i,` ;� � G � , L'�_A�, ' SZ ��, .. . � ininger * � ��•i. 6,SSZA � •�,, � � , z, : � • CQATES ; � . ASTtN�S'' �...,.� .�Z. \.., . ....... � RESOURCEARECOVERY � ' ""! � �� i � ��'r � , .. �ACILIiY (PROPOSED)s � • • •• � �•.., . ,� . .q ��. .. . ..��. ..._ .��. .� � .� .. r',R � ..._ .._. ..♦�..._ . ..� � �.. ..... .. .. : �"'.. � yrs�eeu� .. ..... .......... ._.UN/VERS/TY... .... F _ L�J : nl Y� . � .i a` 4a.� . . . . . , t : � oF � � j = 4,N � �?1 i , . ,.5, � i � Af/NN£SOTA ""' ' ""' "" _ ' � ' � f , . .. n ;......... L�o . � _ , • � •� 't' � � " ; � A •s t • _ A `' . � t � , Vermillio � L�� rC � ' � • � \� • � E � R:avenna �: Em��re . ` �t �...... .., � �f � � ►, x • j � ��\ � 3 � �• �. • • � ' � .. •N � , � �� • errn'�LUi,o'�' � i V i C1 N . . ..... ..., � � - •� , , i � � i . � • � ,., • �� • ' • � i � ��'f •� � ; , cD • . � � �} - _ '�� c�' - � ; . � . . ' , � a� ;. � � ' '� ' f �,�� . ^� � , .. , �� r � �\ ,` • � _ � • C,��Li' � � � � � . 2',�Qi��l S� . � `" � � . � rrxte� �•r•«� rrta.�rt•x•f.r�•x•lteec�st�ae� , f�a� a .. s �. � . . . x•.r.m•s• ' -rx„-s�ta-:;,�x•s•a ' •. acaa'a rsa�v� � ...� ..... ...^?... ..... — � — — — .— ' �� : • � A i i i = � £ � � HAMPTON � � _ tiLL-;,o'�'' ,.� 1... ....; �! � W ° . • . : ve,r,m. � , : � . � 1 t TR1,ER � IESViI�:�;� ; . i I I i � i ' . ��:: I €.. .....s._.i = � •� - - - - - --- � � I ( i _ . �.'` • -� _ • —� : ''. � . , „ i g —� �....—..,� { b �}� E ��UUS S ��r�` } �'tir� � Places of Worship �Schoots tk Day Care Facilities ` G 0 1 2 miles A�� o Source: HNTB t Cemetery ��jjing Uni�s 10 Scale: N � p ~ • • �� {, �(`,�`Ty ' +��M,K„ Site 3- Ldn Contours and Noise Sensitive Land Uses � �II � � � Jl1RISDICTION CKtk Rock Twp. Coatw Douptrs TwD• Mrah�n Twp. MnaviNs Nirirqtr Twp. llsvsnu Twp. Rofemosxu oe Verrttillion Vumillion 7wp. Pi�rca County, WI TABLE 18 - Y�er 2000 Populetion/Houcaholds Within Ldn Noise Contaurc - Site 3 POPULATION lON 66 w � LDN 60•66 � TOTAI 0 0 20 0 20 0 �0 0 14 0 O 0 90 0 Q 0 110 0 80 0 sza a �eo so 4 Q 130 0 I) Tctsl �� 20 � 710 t � Aote: Totels mey not ed ua ta �ou�dinp. Sourca; HNTB anetysis besad on year 2020 fiaet mix. 0 0 130 0 80 8 308 0 ��a so 4 0 220 0 p30 LON 66+ 0 0 10 0 10 0 30 a 0 a q 0 30 p 70 LON $0•66 � C � TOTAL 0 0 4p 0 ZO p g0 0 60 Sp 0 0 60 0 270 �,a65 imr�acts and Runwav Use FiQure 27 shows the L,Q65 naise contours for Sixe 3. The fa�ecast yeark2Q04 population '� exposed to �,065 noise levels is expected to be approximately 1,800. The L,o66 cantaur generated by easte�ly departures lies just south of Hastings. � Annuai runway use by arrivais and departures for Site 3 is atso depicted on figure 27. As shown, approximatety two-thirds af arrivais and two-thirtis of departures wauld use the faur ma'sn parailel runways, overflying areas riorthwest and southeast af the airport. The remaining third af arrivals and departures would use the two crosswind runways, and overfly areas southwest and nor#heast of the airport. Noise Sensi�ive Land Uses' A tatal of 70 dwelting units are forecast to be within the Ldn 65 noise contour fo� Site 3 by the year 20Q0. An additional 210 dwetting units are cantained between Ldn 60 and Ldn 65. There are no other noise-sensitive land uses within the �dn 60 no9se cantour. gverflit�nts �igure 28 shows ths major arriva! and departure flight tracks far Site 3, and the average number af monthly overflights. The majority of tracks are located ta the northwest and southeast of the site. When the airpart�is operating to the south, departures heading southeast woutd be cancentrated over pouglas and Wetch Townships. Departures to the east and northeast wautd ciimb out aver Ravenna Taw�ship. Most arrivats wouid make southeasterly approaches aver Nininger and eastem Rasemaunt, while some ftights wauld � pproach fram the west aver Castle Rack and Hampton Tawnships. New Airport Site Alternative Environmental Dpcument lV-10 '� 1 � 1 � 1 1 I , � �a�r� ,��--.�� .. . r ! � w � « I � • I' � s f � � � ��11 , + ` �� ` 3 L + ' � . ;� � !��y � a +, ; ' ' � �. '. '. 1�,��IdE�@�1�. ��t�=i.Y� L, � ' . � � l�'� � � • . � � � !!��F'" � . ,�'...��"l.�� ... ' � h�i� Ot � t� ' � = r"�":"'�: s�ss"._ �� ` � . � -- � :. �..i- a • � !1� ��, � �.....�....�.�- ,� . �, � � �►�`�`'� � "'e.� ""59��Coi ��M►Ik�6� IFt � � {p•1 .�—.G,C1�""~, :.,;a5... li�....wc.� �gpt� �� -�;sa""'." ,�"y�rt " +�i��1,.��► �� '�"�' � .k . i -- �I��"�� _ �� :� ��:. � �� .� _ �� . ,�, �� : :.� , � _ Y' ,,�.,,,//� ` •v. s "SAr-„�/'' \ ' • '!�!�►L � � f � # �l �*V� ��1'��.» i � � �iC� ~'�►-� ��. , �� ` = ��.��r� � � 1 i � '�, � :♦ � �..r1 •,�i,i, ��:* �. �� ....r'��i��i�� ,�� i�}�pi �"""'�' t / �,;�.,r...r.�.�n�r�.+.— !�� . � � � �j �� ,/, �ir"�i�� i��^r /��i/wr. .� � �� ! ��i�" �i / �a■ �i�.��7— �ri�}:t�' .:li�* �w■. ��t�ii�0ii=�+.� : � �� .i�iN�iii�� . ;'" � . [ .. .�.. + . . .. ' �i .. I.w �w� ��iiiR�l� ��•:i^. �a '��'�� ii� �r� � l��, r " � � ��a�G t�' •' � . 1,,,� � S� � \�i` � �1 � 1 i, � . v+ �r HNTB ' MAC Figure 27 �. s s • • � � � � :h i � i � � � � �%•" r , \ � � .`St11CL '�, � k �A =. �, '� . � .i � �- CiRAVELCb�J�CCz& � ,/� , • ' � , • ' i - -•-� --F ,� � $' '. .� • MINE3 QROb�; . j• . , . j. ' - w '� . �, �\ % ',; (3p�Y 'T�;. '-\ • ' .• ; , . . . . , j . . iy / ` � �� , _' � ' ;, ' ' �• CLOUD . �;•,: � ' ' • i �-- 's � -- I 1j� � ? LANDFILI.�t. • �y .�' .'�,�� ISL•�b ;+°" .,;,' � n m'��.r'�k }��, ' i��• /. : • : • -:�t / .. .... �.. .... �*r''�°, ,. :T.�. '.'t�.. �..J ...t... .._. .... .... • .:i ... .. ,\ �iJ,. . • �' \ • • * ' . ' •�� / %' I , � . � i ' t. � , •��, T. MUL DOW.�WNa,A � ;� �: . o' f•ti '�AIRSPAC � ., ,p�{�gCQTT �F•� ��..! I c+,�, fi'UBEMO/U�1t � • ;�...:.,,._...` AK�� ' �' . � ' '' � . �:• " '.�' � ` i" t �:. I .�,« � �« y { �� ''• � : 1```�.., ' • :. L KE .., ,�. / � � � v i �.!�.�. w .. �. , i� BEC � , . • �� ,N rc uc. • : ' APPL � ;' ..... � ,"�� 1�. " � *,�,,,t �� . YALLEY � . � ;��"`0�.«....�. '�` ''�, ''�, �„'"="•.�. ;```j� . •�_,� •��,�� i�� BALD EAOLE . . �� '�` � t n i n q p�; ` .:� � � R 4 � WINTER R003T F�EDINQ? • � , , .cs�`u'.� aK,. C�A�Eg � � � • '�� , A$i'l� � 00 �j � ;AREA .... . �.�K�n �re000uA . , ... . � - �'. ., . . . . . . � . l' . .... • �� • � .• . .... � .•� . ... ;. . ... . .. ...: .... ...i .... .... ... ..y ....� ' v r UN�Y(ASl7� ... : i •, � . / . . . . .... I � `'� � ` ` �� . . i YlNNf$Ol� � � • . �' . ' , � 4�•: i ..;.. .. � ` , ,,11.� 1 ( � - �' : � ��: d � ' 1 1� ` 1 t�f i �< < % { � � � � � 7l $ i� 0 �: i) a i.� � i . � {.� ` :� Yermi � . ��OOL .... .... .... . 1 ! O : : � ...... -.�%� ER1 !�9 � � i • FAAMI!Pti�TC��i � � � ��'i ��r... F � � �� °- 1': C � `:V I A � : � �.�.` w . .� / � _ • ` � i �, `, � M;..�� . m�� , � u�F�i44'f1..1.� � � � �;� i � � , lEJ .� ,�� . N � ; ' '�.,� j ` � � � ��. � , � � . . , • '�; > ,... � . � � . : ' f��, ; ,, � � . � - ,� : � { ,\''�neo ` , . . 3��W � � � � •. : . . �. ..:. . y \ �,� � � . .. . . . • '"•.,�.. � l. ; . . ; . . — _�••�ti: — � — ' axnrn�a� t �,,,�,, ...... . .... .... .... ... .. Y � �' .... . .. f, ..��....,�+n... :y`w�•e«e�. ...i....w..w� ...�.,.. vw... � ` ` � i ` , i`�` ..I...... , 'iy± �j�::�AIRUKE • .. �c.� 6 '� ""i `" ` �,` ..i. e': ,�., . '' .. :� AtRSPAC,E,��'•.��'�' � NAMPTQN �� ' � .♦ � :: p , ,�, .,...•: ''��; . � � .:� ��. ..: ; �r� : ,y . ei: '�. .�:3 • � � ' � ; 1 .. � ��i� '�'�' , ' ' ��S,W�..:.� ?�S_(J . ,�. . . `�� .I - " ' ' , 'A�'% ' � = 320 '� �► •� ♦ � � _�' .,. ♦ �'�: t . , . .. �� . .. . . /..� � ' `�• •,` ��• . ;� �� ..� ? ,�� :�•' . . `' '�,. • I' ;� ., �'' . .` _ .�� '� '�/E•' �` �� i ` ... ,� I� z„q�Etli9iCl! .I . � . .. • � _�! � I � ' �'�i' � �c�,,� `N.a �� : • `'�= .. .j �.•• � • r. • � � � o E . •,�... -. . . , � , ... : � � � � �_ w��.crt - - ,�', � - "- :— �C �i e� i i' e �---'•�.:,—�_ '° 's • _ _ H -a� ' Y o n ! — ° � � CAMION �+� ~�� .•r.•� .R,o C K'. . . � .. �.. • •� � '. � W I� i c h RNER � j: ! . ' ' ', � . ... �� .- . -I . ... . ' , �au�laa� �o � � °� C�'� ... � •, i . . . ��E"�"L5 S�.ti � MDNR Protected U Frietz Heron Rookery —•��— Monthly Arrivals Below 2,OOU Feet � �� }�,� Wetland U Baid Eagie Nests —•� Monthiy Departures Below 5,000 Feet 0 1 2 3 miles 3 Z g��: H�g 0 Other Airport Airspace Scale: I�—`J ; {� ►� . {�o N }��'�� Site 3- Flight Tracks, Airspace, Bald Eagles and Bird Hazards ��Rrnv�} � � iarmstead wixh which it is assaciated} indicates that comparable hausing would need to be located in a similar, rura! area. Rural residents that live an large lots (including ihose properties w with "hobby farms"�, whece the principa! use of the property remains resideritial, would be less � difficuii to relocate because the structure is •typicatiy of newer construction and is not site- dependent (like a family-awned and operated farmstead). A detailed residential relocation study wilt be performed far the selected site. � C.3.2 8usiness Retocation � Many af the businesses impacted by the Candidate Sites wi!!, in general, be difficuli to relocate for a number of reasons. Frst, most of the businesses are site-dependent for iheir survival. This is particularly #rue for the agricultural-based businesses and for businesses which utilize iarge irac#s af land or indust�ia! operations {quarrying, €or exampie7. Secandly, most of the � businesses are sole proprietorships ar small companies that cannot be relocated or transfer emplayees ta oxher 3ocatians. Fina[ty, there are few areas within the Greater�Twin Cities regian where such activities p�eviously described could be relocated because of the need #or large � tracts of land. C.4 Ground Access lrripacts � C.4.1 Methodolo4v Ground access impacts were analyzed thraugh the use of the regianal travel demand model. Data fram the 1890 census was used as input fqr the tr�p generation rnodel and information from the 1990 Travel Behavior Inventory was used to update the parameters used in the trip- distribution and xicne-of-day models. The best available socio-economic data was used for the forecast year of 2020. These data were modifisd appropriatety to account for airpc�rt-retated employment (at the Candidate Sites) and for induced development. The highway netwark was modified to refiect the necessary changes resutting fram the siting of an airpart in the Search Area and to include important local roads. The vehicle trips included in the regional madel consisted of automobiEes, iight t�ucks {3,300 irips} and heavy trucks {3,454 trips}. The truck trips were the same for each Candidate Site assignment. For a detailed discussion of the ar►alysis and approach, see the Ground Access Impact Study listed in Appendix A. C.4,2 Imoacts Common to AU Candidate Sites I The location af an airport in Dakota County will increase the traffic volum i s m the area. The following analysis describes the �oad improvements needed to handle the airpart traffic without reducing the teve!-af servtce for the Dakota County residents, � A portion af the travet demand is the same far a!! three sites under consideration. Particular attentian was given to differentiat improvements. The impacts on the river crossings are the same for each of the new airpon scenarios (see Table 25). Regardless of the site, the assignments indicate that the section of TN 55 common with TH 'i 49 woutd neeci improvements, as would the segments south of TH 149 to TH 56. Another road segment that wauld experience increased use for all three sites is the segment of TH i 49 just south of i-494. This wauld serve as the most direct link toi the west between TH 55 and the interstate systern. tVew Airport Site Altemative Environmental Document IV-24 � z1� .'3i i � �� 1 / 1` �'� 1' TABLE 25 - Lener Re utred b Cendidete Site tn 2020 • Facili From To No-Build Site 2 Site 3 Site 8 Exiatin Plenned (2010 BRIDGES :� � 1-35W SF• 8F 8F 8F 4F 6F TH 77 6F 6F 6F 6F 6F 6F I-494 est 6F 6F 6F 6F 6F 6F TH 55 6A 6A 6A 6A 4A 4A I-35E 6F 6F 6F 6F 4F 4F TH 3 4F 6F 6F 6F 4F 4F 1•494IEast) 6F 6F 6F 6F 4F 4F U. S. 61 4A 4A 4A 4A 2A 2A ACCESS ROADS Access Ai ort CSAH 85 --- 8F 8F --- --- --- CSAH 85 Access Road TH 55 --- 8F 8F --- --- --- Accass Road Ai ort CSAH 42 --- --- --- 8F --• --- ROAOS TH 55 Mendote Brid a 1-35E 4A 4A 4A 4A 2 4 TH 55 Common Section TH 149/TH 55 4F 4F 4F 4F 4 4 TH 55 TH 149 TH 3 4A 4F 4F 4F 4 4 US 52/TH 55 TH 3 TH 56 4A 6F 6F 6F 4 4 US 52/TH 55 TH 56 TH 55 6A 8F 8F 6F 4 4 US 52 TH 55 CSAH 42 4A 4A 4A 4F 4 4 TH 55 CSAH 85 CSAH 42 2A 6F 6F 6A 2 2 YH 55 CSAH 42 US 52 2A 6F 6F 6A 2 2 TH 149 TH 55 I-494 4A 6A 6A 6A 4 4 U.S. 61 In Hastin s 6A 6A 6A 6A � 4 4 CSAH 42 US 52 CSAH 71 2A 4A 4A 8A 4 4 CSAH 42 CSAH 71 TH3 4A 4A 4A SA 4 4 CSAH 42 TH 3 CSAH 31 4A 4A 4A 6A 4 4 ' A= Arterial Design Standards F= Freeway Design Standards Source: Metropolitan Council New Airport Site Alternative Environmental Document IV-25 ;� I�� j� :� .� i rA :i � �� i i i i� ii i �■ � � _ . - - - -r C.4.5 Site 6 The roadway access connecting Site 6 to Highway 52 is shown on Figure 36� The daiiy travel demand assignment is shown on Figure 37. The access from Site 6 propases to use a new fI�I1t-4�-way alignment to reach U.S. 52. ,� The travei demand to the airpart would need up to 8 lanes at freeway design standards between the airport and U.S. 52 {see Tabte 25). The segmeni af U.S. 52 f�am TH 55 to TH 56 exhibits less demand with an airport at Site 6 than Sites 2 and 3. Beyond that point, the impact from the three sites are simitar and have been addressed in $ectian C.4.3. Also, the assignment for Site 6 loads travel demands onto CSAH 42 more than do Sites 2 and 3. The assigned demand is such that impravements ta that road couid be necessary between U.S. 52 and CSAH 31 in varying degrees (see Tabte 25). f� I Travet within the county wauld be impacied by the disruption and relacat�an of roads in and araund the site. Site 6 would require the relocation af U.�. 52, ' �along with the eliminafsonlretacation af several minor caunty roads. The change in xravet, time created by these changes between some Dakota County cammunities and the estimated number of atfected t�ips is shawn in Tabie 26. j C.4.6 Mi;iqatian Meastsres Table 25 indicates the potential road improvements required to meet the needs of the travel demand generated by the no-build and the three Dakata County alternative airport sites. Fiflure 38 illustrates these potential road impravements. Table 27 contains data on the existing major river crossings, alang wiih data on the patentiai for improvement to thase bi idges. The sectior� of TH i 49 which connects TH 55 ta t-494 in Eagan is expected to expe�ience significant impacts if an airport is built in Dakota County. A possible mitigation that would need further study is #he addition of a half-diamond interchange from TH 55 to I-494 directed towards the west. � The level of tra»sit usage tmade sptit} assurned far this analysis is the same as the one ex�sting at the current site. If an improved and faster transit option were provided, with attractive corinectians to the test of the region, the tevel of transit usage coutd bs improved and the level of auto iraffic reduced. � New Airpart Site AEtemative Environmenial Dacument iV-31 CONCEPT North-Souuth Runway with additianat East Terminal G�NGEPT North-South Runway with replacement West Terminal • This concept includes a new 8000-foot north-south runway • This concept also includes a new $p00-foat north-south runway {actually nonh northwest-south south�ast} which wouid be lacated an the with the same desaiptian as in Concept 5. west side of the ai:tport. This runway would be used predominantly for • Concept 6 includes a replacement west cerminal which would be takeoffs to the south or landings fmm the south. developed an the west side af the airport for aIl airlines. The new termina� • This runway configuration would tequire acquisitian of residential wauld accommadate terminal functions far all the airlines serving MSP, and commercial areas, including New Ford Tawn and Rich Acres, as well as including domestic, intemationa� and regional carriers. A concaurse far the Registry, Sheraton and Excel Inn hotels. international flights would be located adjacent to the new terminal. A11 • Cancept 5 aiso includes an additianal passenger tecminal east of the cancourses would be accessed via an eznderground people-mover system existing terr�inal which would house all Northwest Airlines operations. from che west terminal. • A remote parki.ng/pick•up/drop-of�facility wauld be developed an • Termiaal and parking facilities would be removed from the area the west side of the airgort ta pmvide an alternate access paint to the between the Gold and Green Concaurses and replaced with aircraft parking_ airporc.- The cerminal cvould be servecl by a loap roaclway system wich gates. A remote parking/pickup/drop-of�'farility would be developed on access off the eacisting main entty mad from Highway 5. the east side of the airpart using the existing airpon entrance road. • Additional gates would be provided on a new sacellite coacourse an • Automobile patking f�cilities would be constructed on top of the the west side of the airporc which wauld be accessed fram the terminai new terminal. A new raadway system would be developed co provide access buildings via an underground people-mover system. ta the west terminal via interchanges on the Crosstown Highway and Cedar Avenue, ,� Concept Euatuaiion Airfieid Euatuatian Airfielc! evaluatian factors indicate that far good weacher condicions, each af che rhree proposed runways would operate ac essentially che same level of capariry and delay. fihe parallel runway concepcs provide chree arrival screams in cwo directions. fihe nonh-south runway provides chree arrival screams in one direction only but pravides a third depanare scream m the other direction. The south paralle! runway has some disadvantages from an operational perspective due co its norchwest scagger, as well as creating problems at che nocchwest end ia relatian to Cedar Avenue. Under poar weather conditions che parallel runways pecmit a maximum of rwo independenc acrivaI streams, while the north-south nanway would al.law three azr'sval stc�eams the majority of , the time. 'This Ieads to higher capacity and lower delay for che nozrh-south cunway under these conditions. In addition, the norch-souch nanway would allow for addidana! flexibility under snaw ' condicions wich a wind fram the norchwest chrough the northeast, and would allow developrnent ofaddicional runway use � configurations consistent with the criceria ! currentty in use. Concerns regarding implementation of the runways foct�s primarily on the narth parallel runway where two military facilities wauld have to be relocated, and the Fort Snelling Historic District would be impacted, requiring mitigarion measures. At! runways would paint toward the Minnesota River and/ar partions of the Minnesaca River Valley Naciona! Wildlife Refuge. Furcher revsew of chese impacts would be required during che environmental impact analysis that will be compleced as pan of the overall decisioa process. OveraIl, che norch-south runway of�'ers che best aperacional advantages of all the concepts, inctuding increased runway capacity in both �;ood and bad weather canditions. While all of the concepts provided adequate capacity in good weather, the north-south runway would provide significantly mare capacity in bad weattter as well. In addition, che north•south runway provides beccer operatianal independence from existing runways for operations by larger, wide-bodied aircraft. Terminai Euaivation The east terminal concept foruseson attempting to fic another terminal building into the existing complex, where airlines would be split between two i�uildings and where limited space would he available for international facilities. Impiemenca�ion would be a significanr issue ia attempting co construct a major facility in the— midst of the existing terminal area. Further, che east rerminal expansion wauld preclude development of a crass-f e!d taa{iway at the easc � end of che airpon. This taxiway would provide significant savings in ceduced caxi cimes and alleviate congescion that would atherwise occur off che end of the Red and Blue Concaurses. This concept wouid aliaw anly limited terminal facilicy and gate expansion beyond the 2020 cime perioc3. A new wesc ternninal would pravide a new image for the Twin Cities and the State af Minnesoca. Ic offers a superior terminal facility for airpon users, wich reduced passenger walking distances and improved access co amenities. Domestic and international aperacians would be consolidated in the new terminal, thereby enhancing the international attractiveness af the airport and che Twin Cities. Access to the west terminal would he from both the Crosstown and from Cedar Avenue. • These eatrances, combined with a remate facility on che easc side of che airport shnuld help to distribute trafT�ic on the regional roadway spscem. However, additional analysis and concinued refinemenc af roadway issues is necessary to further define both interchange configurations and roadway impacts. The cansrruction phasing of the narth-south runway and replacement west terminal would be much less disruptive than with the ocher cancepts. Concept Eualuation Noise Malysls The narch parallel runway would continue to direcc noise to che northwesc and southeast'as ic accurs today, continuing to impact South Minneapalis, northern Richfield, and the cities af E�gan and Menclota Heights to the soatheast. The greatec impacc to che southeast would be an Mendota Heights dtze to heavier use of the twa • tunways an the norch side of the airpart. The souch parallel runway would also continue to concentrate noise impacts to the northwest and soucheast, impacting South Minneapolis and nocthern Richfield ta che northwest and Eagan and Mendota Heights to the sautheast. in this case, hawever, the new runwaq on the south side would concentrate operatians on these two runways with a greater imgact ta the southeast on Eagan. The norch-south runway provides the best potential to mitigate future noise impacts by direccing almast a third of all takeoffs and landings to and from che south, over less densely populaced areas. During the most noise sensitive nighttime hours, this capability furcher enhances � the potentiat izse of the e�cisting noise abatement Runway Use System (RUS), by redirecting current '� Runway 22 deparcures and Runway 4 arrivals ta �` the south end af the new runway. Areas impacted wauld include Blaomington, Eagan and Burnsville. capita� costs Faciliry Costs Airfield Coscs Subtatal Terminal , Subtacal Mlnneapolis-St, Paul I�ternatlonal Airport Long Te�m GomprEhenslue Plan Capitai Costs of 3ix Development Concepts (Millions) Concept I Cancept 2 Concept 3 Concept 4 Concept 5 Concept 6 190.8 190.8 876.6 I,1S3.0 81.9 873.8 81.9 115.6 115.6 1,161.1 884.8 1,165.7 4cher Facility Costs . Subtocal 217.2 217.2 217.2 217,2 217.2 217.2 'I'otal New Facilities Cost $1,2$5 �1,561 $1,173 �1,460 $1,21$ $2,499 Mitigation Costs Scate Safety Zone Noise Mitigation per FAR Part I50 Criteria $4.7 $4.7 $102.2 $1d2.2 $0.0 $0.0 �89.0 $89.0 $IS0.0 $150A �98.4 �98.4 Additional Community Disruption Mitigation �3,153.8 �3,153.8 $3,134.3 �3,134.3 �3,311.0 $3,311,0 �1 Metropoii�an Airports Commission Cancep� Seiection Praces� Pu�iic Groups Formed PuU1ic Meetings Netd Twv public groups - the MSP Aizporc Interactive A series of public meetings were held in May and Planning Group and che MSP Airpon Planniag June and again in 5eptem6er to provide Task Force • were formed in early 1991 by MAC information on the development concepts for the to work with che Commission co develop che Long I:ong Term Comprehensive Plan for MSP Airparc. Term Comprehensive Plan {LTCP} for MSP The May and June meetings included a Internationai Airport. � decailed presentatian on the six pcoposed The purpose of d2e Inceractive Planning developmenc concepts, Group was to help determine off-site im�racts and Concept I: Nonh P�rallel Runway wich potential mitibation measures for each airpon additianal East Terminal ' developcnent propasal in the LTCP. The Group Cancept 2: North Parailel Runway with consisted of elecced afficials from the canamunities replacement West Termiaal adjacent co the airparc, including Minneapo�is, St. Concept 3: South Parallel Runway with Paul, Rich�eld, Bloomington, Eagan, Bumsville additional East Terminal and Mendota Heights. Concept �€: South Parallel Runway with The Group's report, "'Of�'-Site Impacts of the replacement West Terminal Six'Aizport Development Concepts;' was Cancept 5: North•South Runway with submitted ta the Commission in August. Each additional East Terrninal city provided their own information for the reporc, Concept G: North-South Runway with identifying the impacts and detetmining the repiacement West Terminal mitigation measures for each of the six The spring meetings were held throughout development praposals. Hawever, the Group roak the Twin Cities as well as in communicies adjacent no of�icial posicion an che developmenr concepts. co che airport. The Task Force served as a sound'zng board The September public meetings facused an for work in process on the LTCP and was a braadly the Commission's pceliminary selection of Concepc based group composed of local, state and 6 as a preferred option far develaprnent. These metrapolican officials. At its August 1991 meetings were held in Eagan,-Bloomington; St,— meeting, the Task Force selected the notth-south Paul, Mendota Heights, Minneapolis, Richfield runway and replacement west terminai (Concept and B.urnsville. 6) as the pceferred expansian option for MSP. This � A Public Hearing was held Nov 12-13 to recornmendatiori was farwarded to the aitaw public and community input regarding the Metropolitan Airpans Commission. tecommended alternative. a MAC Selects Cancept 6 In arder ta meet the tegislative deadline for • adoption of the LTCP, the Commission held a� special meering on Aug. 27, I991 and adapted, for purposes of public review, Concept G. The � resoiution was as faliows: "That the Commission adopt, for purposes af public review, development Concept 6 for Minneapoiis-Sr. PauI incernacional Airparr, incorporatin� a north-south runway and a west terminal comptex. Snch seiection to be furcher reviewed by the Cammission following the public review process. The Cammission also advises chat any expansinn needed at MSP International beyond the year 2020 could require develapment of a north parallel cunway." " Following the September public meetings, and the November public hearing, che Ccsmtnission held a special meetzng an �Nov. 25, 1991, and approved the fallowing resolution: . "That the Commission adopt development Concept 6 for Minneapalis-St. Paul Internacional Airpart, incotporating a nonh-south runway and a west terminal complex, such selection to 6e used in the contiauing work related to che dual-crack planning process, and ta be ased as the basis for the update required by the State Legislatute prior to a fina! recommendation regarding future airport development." �SP 2�20 �oncep�ual Pl�n The ai�eld, terminal, and other Facility components of Cancept 6 were refined and detailed to produce che MSP 2020 Conceptual Plan, The key features of this plan are as fallows: Air�eld • A new 8000-foat rionh-south runway (accually north northwest-south southeast} would 3�e located on the west side of che airpon. • The north-south runway wouid be used predaminantly for takeoA"s co the south or landiags from.the south, in conjunctioa with operations eicher to the southeast or northwest on the parallel runways. � • The new runway would operate independently of the parallei n�nways in good weather conditions and in some poor weather conditions. Ie is dependent during other times. • Construction of rhe new•runway would require zhe acquisition af residentia� and commenial areas including New Ford Town and Rich Acres, as well as the Registry, Sheraton, and Exrel Inn hotels. • Suppon raxiways to serve the new runway and new facilities wauld be developed on the south and wesc sides of the airpact. Relocation of several bays of the Nanhwest maintenance base would lae required. • Additional runway develapmenc i�eyond the year 2020 would involve a chird parallet northwest-sontheast runway located 800 feet north of the existing nocth parallel (same new runway as shown in Cocicepcs 1 and 2). Terminal Area � A replacemenc terminal for all airlines would be developed on the wesc side of the airpores, providing a new irnage for che aitpon. The new faciiity would accommoctate terminal functions for all of the airlines serving MSP, includiqg domestic, international, and regional carriers. A concoucse for international flights would be located adjacent to the new terminal. Autamobile parking facilities would 6e constructed an top of the new tecrninal, pcoviding minimal walking distances and travel times for passengers and visirars using the tetminal. • The existing terminal and parking facilities would be removed from the area becween the Gold artd Green Concaurses and replaced with aircraft gates, would be developed on the east side af the airpon using the existing airport entrance road. Passengers could park or be dropped off at this remate faciliry, and then ride the underground people-mover to their gate or to the west terminal. • A new interchange system would be develaped to provide access ta che aew west cerminal via the Crosstawn Highway and Cedar Avenue. • Additional terminal developnnent beyand che year 2020 would involve expansion of the terminai on the northwest end of the building. An area has been identified for a secoad saceiiire concaurse to provide for post-2420 gate expansion immediately east of the new international concourse. Other �irport �ac�iities • Additianal air cargo and a�rcraft mazntenance facilities wauld be located on the south and west sides of the airport and in the area betcveen the new runway and Runway 4-22. + Navy Reserve facilities would be relocated ta the wesc side of the airpon near che end of Runway 4- 22. • Additional MAC/FAA. facilities would be • A new twa-way ta�ciway would be constructed at .�1 af the rancourses would be accessed via an aevelaped souch af Runway 4-22. che east end of che Green and Gold concourses, unaerground people=move"r system frocn che wesc • Replacemenrgeneral aviation facilities would lie connecting the north and sauth sides oi the terminai, with undergraund crass-connections located on the south side of the airpon. ' airporr, this taxiway would significantly improve be��en the Green and Gold Concourses. • A replacement aic traffic control towec would be the circulation of airccaft an the airport. . A remote parkinglpick-upldrop-aff �arility ��aced adjacent to the new terminal building. I �, � AppendiK Metropolitan Airports Commission Members Hugh Schilling, chair Sam Grais, vice chait* Faye Petron, treasurer Mark Brataas Clinton Dahl Jan Del Calzo Alton Gasper Kennech "Chip" Glaser John Himle Ron Jetich Virginia Lanegran Tim Lovaasen Nick Mancini � Howard Mueller Thomas Vecchi Jeffrey Hamiel, executive director *decea.red For further informacion on the Mecropolitan Airpons Commission, please call Jenn Unruh at ,,,, ,,. ,,,. - — -- MSP Airport Interactiue Planning Group Walcer Rockenstein II, chair Steve Cramer, Minneapolis City Council Thomas Egan, Mayor of Eagan Manin Kirsch, Mayor of Richfield Robert Long, St. Paul City Council Daniel McElroy, Mayor of Butnsville Charles Mercensotto, Mayor of Mendota Heights Neil Peterson, Mayor of Bloomington �2 MSP Airport Planning Task Force �in Lovaasen, chair . Daniel Aberg, NDC Chambers of Commerce Richard Beens, Contingenty Planning �ommittee George Benz, MN Chamber of Commerce John Bergford, Greater Mpls Chamher of Commerce . Scott Bunin, MASAC John Tocho, Dakota County , James Donoho, UPS Phil Eckhert, Hennepin County Joe Finley, Transponation Advisory Board Kachleen C�aylord, Nonhwesc Airlines Donald Groen, Bloomington Chamber of Commerce Ed Gutzmann, St. Paul Chamber of Commerce Tom Harren, State Planning Agency Rick Hemmingsen, Burnsville Chamber of �' Commerce John Kenealey, Richfield Chamber of Commerce Charlie Kennedy, MPCA James Senden, Metropolitan Council Tom Rheineck, Federal Express ;john Riley, MN Dept. of Transportation David Swanburg, U.S.A.ER. R James Thorne, Northwest Airlines �Stisan Von Mosch,—Ramsey Couney Major Lew Wolf, MN Air National Guard � FROM: CSTY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Aa.rport Relati.on Tom Lawe11., City SUBJECT: Mendo�a HeightsJ i • October 8, 1993 s Commission M ers Adminis� Eagan Carridor Issues As we discussed at our las� meeting, the single mo�t a.mpor�ant air noise factor affecti.ng Mendota Iieights is the aircraft depa.r.ture carridor which exists to the sou�heast af Mi.nneapolis/ St. Paul International Airport (MSP�. Given its importance, the Commission requested that we begin discussing this topic at our October mee�ing. BACR�RQ�,TND Operationa at MSP have obviousl� changed a great deal since 1943 when the Metropoli�an Airports Commission was established by the State Legislature. As the type and frequency o� aircr'a�t using MSP has evolved, the facility and operational procedures used to accommodate the traffic have al�o evolved. � The exi�ting airfield configuration o�' MSP consists of three active runways: two parallel runways, 11R-29L {�outh pa.ra�llel} and 11L-29R (north parallel) ora.ented northwesi�/southeast; and Runway 4-22 (crosswind) oriented northeast/southwest. Runway 11R-29L is 10,000 feet long by 200 feet wide; Runway lIL-29R is 8�200 feet long by 150 �ee� wide; and Runway 4-22 is 8,256 feet long by 150 feet wide. � Given the volume of aircraft at MSP {approximately 1,000 aperations per day), �he twa parallel runways are �operated simultaneously during most of the daylight hours. During periods af simultaneous arrivals and departures, two air� traffic controllers are working in the FAA control. tower indepeadeutly of each other. As such, specif�.c rules need to be in p3ace ta insure the safety of aircraft operating within the relatively�confined airspace. To the e�tent these rules define specific areas for air traffic containment, they direc�ly a�fect the air noise exposure we experience. 1 � 4' • ~ ♦ 4 Y�,� � � • � 0 DEPARTMENt OF TRANSPORTATION • � � EEDERAI AY4AilON AbMlNtSTRATiON .- AfiLT Mpi�/St.Pau1 Intl. Arpt. Minneapolig, Mn. � SUBJ: RtR+1WAY USE PRt)GRAM - NO�,SE AiiA2EI� PLEASg MARE T� FOL'IAi+iII�G PLN AtZD 7.1� CSANGE TO PAGS 4 oE j Paragraph 4.c.(Ij liae 3- 3.asert after ruawap headiag •- o �and thea contiaue on • far thrae miles tt cetera. ..- STEit A. Chief • �"i �' 4t �3" � ♦ �f � � {��I�i�� • . ' 1��1� ' CH� 1 P ATGT 710Q.2C 5/30j73 Conceliafion p�,t•: After £iling. u�b j eat o�der: f 11Q degrees ---, `�:; ,�.,��-,�="'"�'*: ,-.. ,,. �.--,�,�-. ,;� ,- - „-. • - � ' y• � , yj�(�C~ +• ^ • „ .t: K"„ ^� � 2,t .r�. y}. � . � . '� » �• '.+u. � :��" ,��'rc- .. . tii.:�Y%,r :;i4,«;;� �;� ' . ,• . ' �. '� - � :• ,g:'c.:�.. .��f ��• ,ap,� ...:..:.^t�t.u�'�.':.t�.-, '4''�� ' . .. , F �r� ,r y � ; t • . .laF . ' .i #rxt. 1'�q-i' 1R.S�.r .: a. . 'x i . . , `i: a �.. ' . . ' � ^ � �ti�^'+'<.+ • x._ • '��'^•.•i :.' y� %C. r� c' Y _ . s • . ,. . '' = = ; :.^ �� ."s _ ";a . t`�'y�. . ♦ � . ,'y1'-n. .,. '! . . •�_ . •' ; '� 1 � F�t C. � +i iii Te._ . 2'l �j. .� .i,_ •%3 , ._...c. .-: � . • i. :+ . .. SS¢'� ( =rr�1;; .:;,�: - • • �. ��'�:o yY�3F'i� ;�; :.�.�r,,7,� •'r � ,ti �y . ' . a =�y. ..��. ... 1(� �i~�t�� `'�i::�.�t�i: �gt�i,•,��"y" 'CiZ''�' 's '{ �y`�x`�~�il•• •• wt�•• • .�. +' �f.s'��. �.�6'"'. • ��y+ry.�^ �i� • � ti, l. •i- .: `T; y �. � . . . . . �. s ' �'�,�y�� • •-�:��,.�1� � �..+.�'��`�.�_ �' �.. �.. • . � ' a. . . , • • , h i.' 1 sb .. .Y : 4 ':� . . . ' .•1 ' '.s . � � }j r..Y"',i�> ' � . , • • ,.. • G ^' . . ' - j gt . P �, � „ . . . - � t' ' : • . • . „ ' � ' � . . • .• . OtsMbution � AT��W ��+7V 'pNt{�—..1NV�./ pyri/"`�' • aaw7asV �t • . Q�i� Yi4i',f , ia�a+$t ��' . _ - �A� ��a�'�3zo:i.t n�s . • � � , _ � i ' - � • ; • . . ' :. � � ` t ' t �. ` V . j � �-', I - ` � ' .� . � % . i + . , ALL OO�J ALL OSNW TYOOONW TYOOSNk' HNLOONW HNLOSNW MSPDTNttiT MSP! MSPPONW SEADDNW SEADTNW SEADRNiJ SEAI�II�, MSPDRIZW MSPDANGJ MSPMCNiv 0 MNtJ MSPOZNW TYODDNW � � � � CC NELSON MSPDitNW • ' ' LEE SEADRNW � � • �� • STEL7,IG MSPDANW ' .. '. ' ' GRIFFIN SEADDNW � . . MORITA TYODDATId ' NEPPL MSP07.NW ' � •• LTNSTAD MSPMCNW �` � ' � ' �• � 1/ FIF 73/30 S/30/73 TAB PLTS GENERAL POST IN ABOVE�FIFS . •,�' 2/ NOISE ABATEt•�21T/MSP . .� 3/ EFFECTIVE I��II�lEDIATELY A�'Ei7 DEPART�'i.E PROCEDURE WILL BE UTILIZED FOR TAKE-OFFS 0�1 RUIv'WAYS 11R a�TD 11L AT MSP/ TIiIS PROCEDURE NECESSARY TO �AVOID NOISE SEi1SITZVE liREA/ TOI•IER INSTRUCTIOIIS tiiILL ADVISE FLIGHTS TO TURN I.EFT FROM TEiE . RUI�ITdAY Ii�F,DING OF 115° TO A?'.Er�DI�::= OF 110° AS SOON AS PRACTICAL AFTER TAKE-OFF ' FROM RUNWr�YS 11R AND 11L/ THE I,EF: TURI�I TO A lI0° HEADING S�HOUI.D NOT BB STARTED BELOW 500' ABOVE GKOUIdD LEVEL AND I•:�T BEFORE CROSSING THE SOUTHEAST END OF RUNWAYS 11R OR I1L/ THE 110� HEAUING SHOULD BE FLOWN PRECISELY/ THIS PROCEDURE IS DESIGNED TO.KEEP AIRC�FT ON A FLIGHT PATH NORTH OF THE RDiZWAY 29L I.00ALI7.ER COURSE/ SHOULD IT APPEAR THAT WINDS ALOFT WII:L CAUSE YOUR FLIGHT TO DRIFT SOUTH OF THE RUN�JAY 29L LGCALIZEK COURSE CENTER LINE, THE TO'WER OR DEPARTURE COAITROL SHOULD BE NOTIFIED SUCH THAT FURTHER HEADING CHANGES MAY :• $E AUTHORIZED/ I10 TURNS TO ON COUriSE WILL BE STARTED UNTIL RF.ACIiING A POINT THREE -iZAUTICAL MILES FROM THE SOUZ7:EAST. EZZD OF RUNWAY 11R AND I1L/ OCCASIONAL � VARIaNCES TO TfiE PROCEDURE MAY BE 1:ECESSARY BECAUSE OF TtTRBULENCE OR CERTAIN WEA7 CO2dDITIONS/ ARRIVAL PROCEDURES REtf�,IN THE SAME/ STRIG� ADHERANCE TO THE •21Ek' PROCEDURE IS REQUIRED/ FUTURE CHAi?GES IN DEPARTURE PROCEDURES Mt1Y BE NECESSARI'/ MONITOR ATIS A2JD KEEP CURRENT ON PY:OCEDURES/ USE YOUR SKILIS SUCH THAT OUR INDUSTRY HAY BE COMPATIBLE WITH OUR AIRPORT NEIGHBORS/ 4/ FIF MAINTAINERS REQUEST Ii�iED ACK �'.BV MESSAGE POSTED IN IIR FIIt/ HOCHBRDNN MSPDZNW cc: Fredrickson Anderaon . Lee Severance • Moen Gerszeuski - FAA McAndrews � • • � A'i�(� 5 � . ' � . . . . . . . . . . � � :�, . :-. :f . . .{: � :� ;:r:; _ . . . . _ . ••A' :. •':n � • 1 L•�• ,. � •� v . ��c ��: , .. . . :�,�,.'::� � "' .. � . � .. � �; Metropalitan Coancii Meeting af March 14, 1991 Business Item: METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Mears Park Centre, 230 East F`�fth St, St, Paul, h�innesata 55101 REPORT OF �`�iE 14�L"I"RQPULITAN SYS"TEMS CUn�1�II"1'TEE DATE: March 8, 1991 TU: Metropolitan Council SUBJECT: Mendota Heights/Eagan Corridor Proposal - Task Force Definition BACRGROUND -2 At its meeting on March 5, 1991 the Metropolitan Systems Cammittee discussed the Mendota �IeightsJEagan Corridor proposaL With the advent o£ jet aircraft in the eazly 196{}s, a � Pre£erential �. Runway System" ar PRS, was implemented to direct aircraft over the two less populated cities to '�• abate in,creasing noise impacts in the devetoped urban areas west aud nartfi af tire aiipart. Thus, - a"comidor" for • overflight was established and recognized by the MAC� Airlines, F.AA and communities. The Caunc�i's Aviation Guide was revised to inciude iand use compat�'6�ity guideliues for aircraft noise and incc�rporated the corridor concept� Dwring the early 198Us, air traffic increased drama#ically, the FAA imp%mented uew air �c cantrol procedures and aircraft � were flycng autside the "corridar," th� PRS no longer £unctioned, the MSP Master Plan was out of date, and nu�uerous land changes were occurring The Metmpolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement C,auucii (MASAC), an MSP aircraft noise advisory body to the MAC, reviewed and discussed for two years alternative flight tracks and procedures to keep ain:raft within the "corridor.° The MAC established a Corridor Task Farce in 1990 and the attached memarandum expIains their recommendations. ISSITES AND CONCERNS ' Staff indicated that the cammunities had su,ggested severai changes to the memorandum in order to clarifiy specific concerns, In the last paragraph on page one of the attached memorandum, the refereuce indicating the communities wanted the "carridar" de6ned as narrowiy as gassii�ite, should read "within each city." On page two, they wanted the task force recommendatioa to include specific reference to runway headings so there wouid be no gc�ssibiiity for future misinterpretation; the text far that pazagraph should read: ' � "That the carridars north bowndary be defined by the middle marker/100 degree (magnetic) grouuci track €or nznway 1IL dcering simultaneaus departures, aud runway cenierline extended 118 degrees for non-simultan.eous departures. The southern boundary defined by the middle markerl115 degree {magnetic) ground track %r ruuway 12R, and 105 degiee {runway centerline, three degrees north), for non-simultaneous departures." • � Staff also clarified that no immediate revisions would be necessary for the comm plans. A technical review process and aviation guide revision would occur over years after which comprehensive plan amendments may be needed. RECOMMENDATIONS That the Metropolitan Council supports the Corridor Task Force proposal re� requests that the Federal Aviation Administration seriously consider its implem Respectfully submitted, Don Stein, Chair as.i�cZ 0 r comprehensive next one to two ions and � W DAT.E: TO: FROM: SIJBJ'ECT: Bacl�ground: . zv��rH.oPaz,�r�v couNc� Mears Park Centre, 230 East Fifth Street, S� Paul, Minnesota February 27, 1991 Metropolitan Systems Committee Transportation Staff (Chauncey Case) Mendata Heights/Eagan Corridor Praposal:Task Force De�nition In the mid -1950's, the expansian plan for h�nneagolis-St, Paul International airgort was being put into e£fect� Twa new parallel runways were being canstructed and tb.e crosswind runway extended The pazaltel runways {29Left, and 29Right�, became the uzain approaches to the atrpart with atircraft arriving and departing over the cities of Mendota Heights and Eagan. � With the advent of jet aircra£t in the eacly 1960's, a"Preferential Runway System�, or PRS, wa�.. iinplemented to direct aircraft over the iwo less-pagt�ated cities ta abate increasing nazse unpacts iri � the developed urban azeas west and north of the airport. The land uses off the� ends of these_ runways was generally un@evelope@ and(or planned for compattble nses with the excegtion af Acacia Park, an area of about 53 sin,gie-famity homes acquired by the Metrapolitan Air�orts Commission (MAG� in 1973. Thus, a"comi.dor" £or sircraft overtlight was established arid arecogni� by the MAC, Airlines, FAA and cammunities. In 19'76, as a reseiit of the Metrogolitan Land Piaai�ing Act, #he Cauac� initiated a jaint agency/community effort to prepare aircratt noise infarmation for use in local plan development� The end result was incorporatian of Iand Use C�ide�es far Aircra£t Naise into the Aviatian chapter of the MDG The Gvidelines includeci a Noise Policy Contour for MSP that defined the land use corridor, PRS, MSP hiaster Plan, and FAA air traffia control pmceduze {see diagran� A attached}. Duriug the earty I980's, the air traffic increased dramaticallp, the FAA imglemented gew air tcaffic control procedures and aircraft were IIying outside the "corridor", the PRS no longer functioned, the MSP Master Plan was out af date, and numer+oeis land use changes were occurring � In i987, tl�e Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Councii (MASAG�, an MSP aircraft noise advisory body to the MA� stazted to review/discuss alteraative flight tracks and procedures to keep airciaft within the Carridor. ' j MAC Corridor Task Farce: In Mazcb, 1.990, the MAC established a Camidor Task Force in an effort to resolve a two year dispute on the issue. Both Mendota Heights and Eagan have pregazed a compreherisive plazt and plan amendment� to reflect the Counci2's Guidetines and wanted the corridor to be defined as narrowly as possible; whereas, the FAA would prefer the widest passble corridor �for air-trraffic cantrot reasons. I It was established that the corridor relates primarily to turbo jet aircraf� Piston powered aircraft are often directed by air tra�G'ic cantrol to tura outside the cor represent fewer ogerations and have significantly less noise imgac� The aircraft d"uec corridor are not allowed to make any north or south bound turns until they are pas nd turho-prop ior siuce they :d thraugh the the three mile limit� A.ircra£t departures during simultaneous operatians require a minimum 1S degree segaration which must be observed in the corridor de�inition. During periods of non-simultaneous departures it is possible to crass traffic to keep them: in the center of the historically de6ned comdar. All approaches thzough this area are straight-in to the parallel runways and are not part of the praposal. The task farce concluded its wark in January i991 and made the following rec,omm �ndation: That the cnrridozs north baundary be defined by the middle markerJ100 degree gr� und track for runway 11L during simuttaneous departures, and a sauthem baundary for runway I1R by a middle marker/115 ciegree ground track. Bath tha simuitaaeous and nan-simuttaneaus departure ground tracks are degicteci in diagram B. The FAA will review the praposal over the ne�ct severai wee?cs and will determine whether ta adogt it� Findings. K' The corridor refinement proposal as recommended by the task fores �s a camgromise by the two ` affected cities to deal with the aircraft naise impacts in an equitable manner. The groposal reflects_ the intent of the Cauncil's current noise policy contour �'or MSP and is consistent wi#h land use compatii�ility policies and locaI camprehensive planning activities. If the proposal is appraved by the FAA, it is anticipated that new noise contours would be prepared and be useci as a basis for eventual revision to the aviation guide chapter and local comprehensive plans. This contin.ued effort at aircraft noise contral is needed for the short term and is not affected by the dual-track strategy. Recommendatian. Tiiat the Metrapolit rec�uests that the Fec ' ""i" ; � i'' `"_---... . .. ' ' ,� ' , _ '` ;•��;+: n •T . � ` . . • �.�J,,,�, � � �,•�► r .....--- ""'"" ' ''�^-�- ;--.._. � ` Y � ' ' �'°"p � ' --'~ g /� j _ .. � ' � � . ,� . . � ' , `V ' ' �, �� . . • ' � T • • 16i� % '. ' ; ' ;;� ,.:. ..:.s.-r""'_. • '••. y ! G,' . � • ' � _ •": • �.. . • • . . /'�.,� ' ' ;`► . . . '! . - •o�_ _ -: --• � • � �q , �. • t %' � ��, �• t•,_. i � • ..�-,_„' —. � • �, , � "� � • • Z � � . . � • � / , � � �V ; � ' , ••-^---:��;..:.,_ , I ' •, . : 1 ' % . • t . ' ' .' • il • . . . : ', �i' 'e. �� ' _ ' • .��•'- . . , , t• "» ' • � ' � , , F y` . ,•� , , .',�. ,. :" ` �;��,..; — �____.,--. ' : '."�',.' ' • �j .t � ' . I I.. ''��'••� � • •�y�~Ns1 .''^�--••—�s . �'� ♦. �,y i �) '� �, . .. � • N MM� � � � . . . � =a "`^- • �+ . � I/ • ' { �.I�s. � �' .. ,i' �t • l o ;�.$,•t .. � { t ¢I; , . (�91 , _` �� ; .�...,,� • , . ��: c�,:* � .',li ,, tO �., . (�`i ►I • .•'.�^a .+t;' .Y '�. � •. ��--•��""--.�,�--�.,_A iI . n. y+ * � � �j� , un �Y.' . r �. ', r f - jt l ti j . � . a.. .'r (• • �:" ,,,� Y� �i !. �r� r � r � � t ( . �. : , � tyGt• � . � y �.�'� `� i 5 •�, ' . ' �, . r� f � �.t ::.=; . �! . • r_ , . ' _ � � .: � t�; .l 1 � : . . �j i .lt. . .. a w'�y , .. � .. t ��r. � � r ' . �N • � � . ` �..�" , � �. • II . � i , . I • � 's► ' ' .... / 1 ' . , i : �t • . .i . ' ,�,. •+`'.u� � •s • � . � ' ,/ :v,+' �i,k��......� � �t y �i.. ' : :1 Y� � '� . Y V f ` i . • \ � �1 � • • k . � r � � r 1 ' '� � i r ` � 4 . � V ►i w{ r �1� • . • �.y �'i,.;,� � � : ' �; � � . . • # �. '�/,�i . .,� • � /� • , . . . � . K M9� ' � � � � V'/1' `�� .' � aM t rY' �r �� f1'.� t ��. '4 l �tT{ ' � • ' ' r • •i( • 1 ��lr . . , t � ' rtti' . �' • tY� �« ,� � M,.7✓ � � � �t U 7 � � ♦ • 1Y+ ql: � � � •/ � . ,�.?, t�.b 1 ' . � . � +�� , . �d�+,+w �. . t { �,�µ � ,r•. . , � � r� � �� y�, ,a,w.. • . . . / . ti t �` .�� ' , , • ?;�< •'. . , e"` /'� .� . . . , �" � ��' , ti' �� 3ti � ��'b� { . ��.5. „ !!�� _ /r• � 1 • � s�•s� • ' ��t�j • /__ �"4 � � • � otS�M7� V *V ��" �� . . + "' t1 . � � / l tl� ,a+ "._ � Y ' $ ,` . .,i , . �• • �� t � �i �. � . 8� . . . � `�. ' 1 itt� ( �r•� � if 11i� � �� , M7 ' � � ^~� •�., `ti i 1� iw �f f+IdoY�. JAW't 3t! r -� , i.. 4Z •,� �� • ` i r : r,. .. �r. c �T /�,�; j � � r�^' � � �' • � aj^/. • t! �t�1 r �Ji . re • v� • �'f9� � � ti} � �.7 t � ` • � ;� . K'�t� . ♦ . 4 I � . 1 9� ` , ' � �� , �� ' , � • = t'r;� . *„ , , j • • • � ��t! " .�:;,. � rt . . .; J' ��s, + �, •� «rw� • , e � ' . `� ';. i' : ! JI ' . . , ., �tt , . ' ,�y `:�`.cu C ' ' : � , Oti , y� �/I/�I yt�.� � �•4 ' �tF` yy r �i � 3 i,t1iH1 "��.�� . . .r4 ..t.� = .�t4 �q�:9 JDI �''� ` � ' 7 tN?J � �� C 1+�1�►4 tl100�'7�1N' f';{ i �. ., ��' r, . � ., � 9- �-'� '" rr� -- -,. � .._", _ . I _ .o _ + i' •� �•i.t•� �' :-� . '�-� ' �,W,�•.r,.._. ...•. �_. : ,��:4,. s • • s _ •.� 2 • .�� _ �� ' ,~ � � � � /'� N• • ' �"1� �� T—J--. �,r � u � �•�V"'"� �� --"' 1. % _�' � ' �. = s, �i i.w r , ,: .� .•=.,. �.... .� � ._.,��• ,,! . • .,. ,,� � ~ .j ... ... Yenaota� .G . � ., •1 • • .. �i�� !•i ,a.. � �. ' t��t� � • � .. � . ,. � ��' . • �� r.S j _ .tt� � •�;�� /,% �� • ; ..S H. t � ' i . ' � t� i 2 � .� � � I/!w� � . S . � �� •�. � . • �� . �. � '� � S oo �� / ` "':M':� � �l r '� ' �I..� �• •R.••`� .� � ' _'I ', , �� i t` ; ._, � � , `, , � J � . : : � ,� � �� \�/ //,•� i1 1 O M�nOola Nei�Ma L �:a� � � •�,� ,� � 4 �� j.• ,� .f_� `� . ,.� ;;p„ � i 'L�+ i � 9 � � � � � ! � •x :� �. l � ; � : r ' ;.� — �' �:'°'Y'� �� <;>�� . � , • ,,,,,.."""`-�,,.� � n �;,,. i Y � • � � r. 7 , ' � ' �`�� yI � �� ;•'1�1�1�` �r ��' \ � �i • iYLLi.t �� M�nn��0eht 31. ►�ul �e� �, �� s�"�� ''^ ` tl t ' 'S� ` 1 Interna�ienU � �� • Arr0orl f � �. • ♦ � `�/ r � ' SunlhA L�k• �� t u'• _ . f = � � � •' r r /� � Inner Gro�� NuO�u 1 r� . I •� -- -- ---- ;.._�.. t0i� r r. - -• -- ----� - --- -- — �'' �\ � � • . � — .... , v `�' � � t✓ •�,�,;�, ,�� i ' . � �j � ...�;... � � r�.1t1\N• .� } • • �\ � / j� ' ! ,yAJ � [ � � ��}.rIN 3', � • .• ' �� ; � � ,� � � `/• ~ � 1� . � ' .t� • , • � w� � �///�� • f y S ' , . � ; 'w • • ^ 11' �, ! 1100RIM7�011 �� ! J[� , T � � ` 1 /l ... • v � �7�s •,� �� { �t .t ..� � . � i =�/O � /w � � � � 0 � �• � ' •.4 • � % , . � � 1 � � •� r^ + � ' w�. �* 1 "" Sr l E�9an �M r /FL�� _ Y � � j!� � .• • . ``` ' , M ` \ ' //go i � n ' �nw•�,. �. � �`� � / �� =1 . 1 r V' �r� ��• il � 1 = M1 1 `I� M� �1 � � ` �.�� ,/ ��..� T � � , ,� .•---�.. ..�a �� ,' �� . . :t , 6�:�7" . w.. � , i . . , ' �r j , } 'J .► \ � � .�r�� I � � I � t' ^ 4=' � ' �� 1 � � • M .. �«_ t �.r � � • �� 4 r- . .. � � ..� r �t • " �.w 1 f - '`r. ....«� I� � _ �v!.. ��;�,.,.. jr- . _ -}-� � ' j ��v�.. • � r J ��i � � ! (� i\� „ ��•�. : j'` ,; � i.::.-.. . . , : .. ,. � i �._ � � M.A.C. Proposal ��.� �,�.� M��,�� a,� .�...» +r � I� L � �fi> � - _ -- -- - - - - Sirriultaneous Departures � �, � , 11L Departure MM turn 100° (M) Track '��. � 11R Departure MM turn 115° (M) Track �,��'' ``� � ' :,w ,: �• i � -! ....... _ �„ . , N ,. ...� ;.� � , � � M. A. C. Proposal . � - ...� .t �. ' � ; ; '- ,; � � Non-Simultaneous Departu 'res � � � � � t � ;,�:� �� " . : 11L De L._:> ;-� , .� '.:' � D � . � 8 '" parture 118 (M) Track �, �� ; , � �,• .' . 11R Departure 105 ° (M) Track , ::,.. � � �'- •a ' • ' � �. ,. 1 i ,-., . . . .. . . . . . ... .� �-. . �. .. � , , ,��.: .. � — - ---..�., - ----- -- - . . '•'c.c �.e:9a�1:i: :,►:. ...�-. _ . C..�� 1t3T O� .�i�erida�a. %�eightS � December 33, 19,91 Mr. Hugh Schilling, Ghairman Metropa2itan Airports Comm-ission 6040 28th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN .5545Q Mr. Bruce Wagoner Airport Traffic Contral Tower 6311 34th•Avenue South Minneapoli.s; MN • 55450 � Dear Mr. Sahil.ling and Mr. Wagoner:. I am writing to you ta ask your help in solving the number one coinmunity issue wxthin Mendota Heights - aircraft noise emanating from Minneapolisjst. Paul International Airport. �ver`the past several years, our community has worked diligently with your staff in an attempt ta address this problem. To date these efforts have proven ineffective at best. . � I am asking for.your support of a revised aircraft corridor to solve this longstand�:ng. issue. The balance af this lett�er wilZ describe the reasons for our concern and the operational details of the revised aircraft aorridor request. � Baakground . _, , Ta fu11y understand the inequities which presently exist in air traffic distri.bution over aur community, it is important to reaogni.ze th.at major changes have taken place at MSP over the past 2ti years. These changes include the HIIB concept �rith its depar�ure peaks, physiaal improvements to R�nway 11L/29R, air traffic�contra2 procedural changes, magnetia dec�.ination shifts of ground tracks to the north, and most recently, the added use the.corridar receives under the Runway Use Sys�em. All told, these'changes have increased departure traffic off Runways 11L ant� IlR approximately 266 pereent from 1977 to 2989. 1141 Vietoria Curve • 1V�,endota Heights,lVLN - 5511$ 452 • 1850 Mr. Hugh Schilling Mr. Bruce Wagoner Decexnber 31, 1991 Page 2 During this period of time, little has been done aperationally ta recognize the changed character of flight operations, at MSP. Several at�empts have been made by Mendota Heights ta refine the corridor working through MASAC, its various subcommittees,'Iand mast recently, thraugh a Blue Ribbon Task Force established!�in 1990. None of these efforts have proven successful, and in fact, the noise problem has instead grown progressively warse. ;� Cansider the current situation regarding 11L and 11R departures: I - The Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor was put into place appraxa.mately 20 years ago when MSP was an infinitely less active airfield. � - The corridor restricts all turns by aircraft departing Runway liR by requiring aircraft to fly no further sauth 'than e�ctended runway center line far at least three miles.. � � - The corridor requires all aircraft�departing Runway i1L to immediately turn north over Mendota Heights such that the resultant departure track. diverges at least 15 degrees from the aircraft departing Runway liR.� - Current operational procedures for the corridor�funnel aircraft over lang� established� Mendota Heights neighborhoods causing repeated overflights by departing aircraft every 80 �0 90 seconds during peak depa'rture perio+ds. � � � � ' Since the corridor's inception, Mendota Heights has consistently maintained equitable ciistri.bution of aircrait noise amongst all cozmnunities surrounding MSP is the most desirable answer to the airnoise problem. No one community should enjoy the locatianal advantages of being close to MSP, while� being arbitrarily and artificially pratected fram the•most obvious impact of tha�•close praximity, aircraft noise. � � The failure to enact a mare equitable ciistributian of aircraft � noise is even more disturbing when you realize there �are no operat�ional or techni�cal barriers ; precliid�.ng such distributxon. In fact, the concept of dispersing aircraft naise is put into practice daily on every other runway� end at MSP witi� the except�.on of Runways 11� and i1R. � Mr. Hugh Schilling Mr. Bruce Wagoner December 31, 1991 Page 3 The recently completed Environmental Impact Statement (EISj for the e�rtension of Runway 4f22 clearly indicates a preference far mare equitably distributing airnoise. Specifa.c excerpts�fram the EIS include {underlining addedl: - Page xiii "To (Runway 4-22} areas....�� increase use af the �o - Page xiii "The proposed praject ,�edistributi.an of some fliqhts...." - Page xvi �'In additian to the resu3ting froru the pro1ect...." Runway - Page 20 "The propased e�rtension of Runway 4-2'2... is neaded ta immediately provide some reduction}of the aircraft naise in the most heavily impacted areas... and to better distribute that naise:�' � - Page• 90 "The shift. not only begins to d�.stributa overflights mare evenly around the airport...."j In fact,�similar argu�nents were used in advocating adoption of the current Runway Use System {RUS), and the se of the new North/South runway as fihe preferred expansion � native in the MSP Long Term. Comprehensive Plan. Aircraft d� is an already.accepted method of noise mitigation.at MSP, are asking for a commitment from the MA.0 to treat 11L departures in a similar fashion. Carridor Propasal Based on the above, it is clear the prese arrangement is .long overdue for revision. After analysis, the City of Menda�a Heights is submitting a the ter- �and we and 11R a revised aircraft corridor which addresses the noise equity issue for 11L and 11R departures. Specifics of the praposal are as fvllaws: ; .< :. �'� - Corridar Boundaries •� Boundaries of the corridor during departure peaks are - a) a 090 degree bearing from the Runway 29R n�ti.ddle . marker for Runway 11L. � Mr. Hugh Schilling Mr. Bruce Wagoner December 33, 1991. Page 4 b� a 150 degree bearing from the Runway 11R/29L. Boundaries of the corridor during are - a} b} a 3.10 degree bearing fram Runway 29R for depar�ures off Runway liL. a 125 degree bearing from the Runway 11R/292,�. •�' Periods af Operation end of marker end af The peak departure fanned aorridor is intended ta be used only during the mast intense departure periods at� MSP. Based on tower data, it appears such departure periads accur an an average af approximately 5.5 to 6 haurs per day during the week, and three hours per day during weekend days. Therefore, use of the fanned corridor procedure is proposed to be capped at no more than eight hours eaah day between the hours of 0704 to 220QL, Summary and Conci.usion To summarize �he new procedure, during peak departure periads a full dispersal of aircraft over a 60 degree cone of operatians is proposed. This dispersal is consistent with departure aativit� elsewhere around MSP, and is consistent with the rationale utilized in the establishment of the RUS, the EIS for the e�erision of Runway 4J22, and the seleation of the Nori�h/Sauth Runway as � the MSP expansion opt3.on of choice. During non-peak departure periods, a smaller 15 degree cone of opera�ions is proposed, aentered an the e�ended runway centerlines of 29L and 29R. This approach respects the value of the corridor conaept during those periods when departure traffic can eguitably be contained within it. � It.•'�.s,, important to nate that our revised corridor proposal does nat advoca�e for fihe total. abandor�ment of an aircraft corrido'r. The revised fanned corridor pracedure is proposed duri.ng peak departure periods only. At other times, when it is operationally feasib7.e and equitable to da sa, we propose fihe cantainu�ert� of aircraft within a more narrow corridor. 'I CITY QF MEND4TA HEIG�i`I'S � • August 14, 1992 TO: Ma.yor and City Council FROM: Tom Lawell, City Adminis r SUBJECT: Air Noise Corridor Update ZNTRODIICTION On August 6th �he Mayor and I attended a meeting Corridor Task Force to further argue iar a test of adop�ed Fanned Corridor Praposal. Comments were ma meeting which indicates that MAC officials are not wil]. the MAC Ci.ty' s at that to test �he City's proposal and ins�ead desire to concentrate air traffic even more so over our community. The intent af this memo is to better infarm �ouncil of these recent developments anci aoiicit Council direction on this impor�ant issue. DISCIISSION The Federal Aviation Administration (FAAj currentl.y�utilizes a 28 degree cone of air space in which to route aircraft� departing MSP to the southeast. As we have di�cussed many times in the pa�t, an artificia�. and arbitrary boundary was adopted by the FAA in 1972 which forbids aircraft from turning south during the fi'rst three miles of flight. Therefore, a11 turns given wi.thin the 28 degree cone push aircraft to the northJ �directly overflyi.ng long established Mendota Heights neighborhoods. Mendo�a Heights has long argued against the procedure, and has been an active participant in the MAC's B3.ue Ribbon.Corridor Task Force �hich was e�tablished in March 1990 to addres� this issue. The Cit has consistentl main�ained that the ke air noise problem witha.n the communi�y is repeated aircra�t over�lights which, during peak ti.mes, can average up to one aircra�t�every 82 seconds. For this reason, the City had proposed a more equitable distribu�ion of aircraft during peak departure periods1 to help lessen the air noise concentration problem. This �praposed procedure would be in affect at mos� six hours per day, a.nd would spread ayrcraft over a 60 degree cone of air space by remov�.ng the arti�icial southern boundary. The procedure woul.d iri na way increase �he noise exposure area wi�hin Mendota Height�.l From August 15 to 4ctober 15, 1991 the MAC conducted a 60 day test of a revised fligh� corridor which utilized only a�15 degree cone of air space. MAC assured the City the procedure would �ignificantly reduce air noise within Mendota xeights by rou�ing departures over the athletic fields at St. Thomas Academy, thereby passing we�l south of most Mendota He3ghts residential a'reas. The �est un�ortunately did not adequa�ely res�rict aircraf.t �o �his area, and depar�ures continued to directly overfly Roger's Zake neighborhood, Friendly Hill�, Delaware Cro�sing, e�c. 1 On June 2, 1992 the City's Air Noi�e Consultant; Mr. Bob Collette, attended a Council meeting to present the results of the 60 day test. At tha� time, basad an camment� fram Mr. Collette and noise impacted neighbor�, Council concurred that the coricentrated 1.5 degree procedure did not adequately address �he Gity' s� air noise problem, and further endorsed the Ci.ty's Fanned 60 degree Gorridor Propasal. � At the August 6th MA.0 Corridor Task Force meeting, MAC officials re3ec�ed t�he City's proposal and inda.cated their intent to ask the MAC Gommission to endorae the 15 degree pracedure and recommend it� implementation to the FAA. The matter will�likelg be before the MAC Planning and 8nvironment Committee on Sep�ember 8th, and the full MAG Commission on September 2lst. If recommended by MAC, the FAA would �hen undertake an environmental review of the procedure which could take anywhere from 45 days to 18 months. RSCOML�NDATION As Council has previously concluded, the cancentrated 15 degree corridor procedure does nothing ta improve the noise expo�ure situation in southern Mendata Heigh�.s. Staff Erom MAC�has taken a position diametrically opposed to the Council's preferred concept of dispersing aa.rcraft noise over a more broad 60 degree cone. For these reasonsr I recommend that we actively oppose any effort by the MAC and the FAA to further concen�rate aircra�t over aur already �eriousl.y noise impacted neighborhoods. � ACTION RE4IISRLD Council shauld discuss the mos� recent corridar and the City's most appropriate response. MTL:kkb opments � City o� 1��ie�dota Hei�1�►ts August 25, 1992 Mr. Jeff Hamiel Metropolitan Airporte Commission 6040 28th Avenue Sauth Minneapolis, NIltii 5545fl , Deas Mr. Hamiel: As you kaow, the City of Mendota Heighta is a mem�ier of the Eagan-Mendota 8eights Corridor Task Force which was formed by the MAC in March 1998 to addrees aircrait departure concern.s �withi.n ��he two cammunities. At the last •�'ask Farce meeting held `August 6, 2992 it was� ,announced by Mr: Dick Re3.nz that the MAC will begin steps to permanently-im�lement the concentrated 15 degree carridor procedure whi.ch was tested Zast fall. This letter zs to formall�r notify you that the City of Mendota Heigh�s is opgosed to this recommendation. Furthermore, we request that no action be taken by the MAC towards. i.mplementing this procedure.�� . � •. � ��. The reasons for the City's opposition ta the constrict�ed corridor procedure are numerous and significant. Our coicerns are as followa: �. . 1. �r u/t . r• � r � u :�•• . '- ! �1 = At a meeting of the Corridor Task Force held January',30, 1991 you diecuesed with the Task Force parametere of the departure procedure praposed for testing. AC� that time you indicated your desire to contain departures no farther north��han the ath].etic f ields at St . Thamas Aca.demy located on the corner af Mendota Height�s Road a.nd Lake Drive. This procedure would bypass nearlg all res3dential areas-witihin Mendota#Heights. As the test� results issued by your office on March 4, 1992 clearly indicate, aireraft were significantly further north than St. Thomas Academy, and the expected noise relief never ma�erialized. �• � 11Q1 �Victoria:Curve. =1Viendata Heights;�1�►fiN � 55118 � �-'�! � �1850 - . .. Mz'. Augv Page 2. � The test results provided by the MAC clearly indzcate aircraft toa numerous to count signifi.cantly ozrerran the defined corridar boundaries. To adopt a revised corridor procedure based on test results which indicate this degree of non- compliance is foolhardy at best. ' � Despite the optim:istic projections, the tested corridor procedure actually served to worsen overflights�and naise pollution with3.n.porGiona of Men.dota Heights. The procedure resul�ed in a greater concen�ration of flights ove`r many long established neighbqrhooda, and aircraft noiae ;complaints increased significan�ly as a result. Ba.sed on da�a contpiled by the MAC, noiee complaints-received from Mendata�Heights residents during the•test were up 89 percent compared to the same time periad in 1990. The intensification of'�departure traffic over our commuait�r was no�. coutained within jthe City's - . indus�rial/b�tsiness...park .area ;as...intended..} As . a result; r'many.: -� ...� � residen�ial properties were inardi�a.tely impacted by the condensed flow of air �raffic. ' .` The City of Mendata Heights supported the concept of the 60 day� test in hopes af d�mi.nishing the repeated aircra.f�. overflights experienced b�r our resici�nts. The intent af the test was to generate emgirical, da.ta upoa which a reasonable decisioa could be made regarda.ng the merits of the tested procedure. Clearly the test failed to achieve its intended abjectives and therefore should be rejected. � � Prior ta any fur�her consideration of the limited corridor procedure by �he Metropalitan. Aircraft Soun.d Abat�ement Cauncil, �he MAC Plar3ning and Environment Comutittee, or the full MAC, we request a meeting with you and yaur staff to further discuss our i concerns . :; � . . • , ! :.'�:. _ . -- .. � .. � . . ..� ^ •_ . . ...... . � .�. . . ��,;: ;:,_.. :, ��• �. ;.. The evolution of the different facility and operational changes which have occurred at MSP could fill volumes. At the risk of information overload, I have atta.ched for your review a number of letters and memos which have been produced over the past several years relative to this topic. I have also attached a copy of the FAA Tower Order dated May 30, 1973 which formally established the present Mendota Heights/ Eagan corridor. In addition, I�will have available at Wednesday's meeting copies of a reporti the City commissioned in 1989 to analyze the Mendota Heights/ Eagan corridor issue. I Should you have questions prior to Wednesday's meeting, please feel free to give me a call. 'I � � � � II. ALTERNATIVES A. Alternatives Under Consideration 1'he aiternatives under consideration -- �eferred to as "Candidate Sites" -- aa 3. The Candidate Sites (2,3 and 6) were selected for further study by the 1993, as a result af the scoping pracess autlined in the Scoping Decisioi Airport Site Setectian Study. ? shown in Figure 1AC on June 21, Dacument, New Each site is approximate(y 10,000 acres in size and includes six runways, taxiways, terminal buildings, support facilities and the federal runway protection zones (RPZ"s):. The canceptual layout for each site is shawn in �igure 2. When the site is setected, a detailed comprehensive plan will be prepared which will result in refinements ta the canceptual layout. However, the o�ientation of the runways will not be substantivety altered. � Site 2 is located east of the City of Vermi!lion, southwest af the City of Nastings and sautheast of the Vermitiion River. The four main runways are oriented on an azimuth of 312° fram true north (WNW direction); and the two crosswind runways on an azimuth of 42° (NNE direction?. Site 3 is similar ta Site 2 except the runways are rotated 23° clockwise, with the main runways oriented on an azimuih of 335° and the crosswind runways 75°. � Site 6 is located northwest of the City of Vermi!lion, encompasses the City� of Coates and is narth of the Vermillion River. The four main runways are oriented on an azimuth of 349° (NNW) and the two crosswind runways on an azimuth af 79° (ENE�. B. Atternatives Eliminated . Ths pracess to identify potentiatty ieasible sites and the screening of these sites to seven patential sites is given in the New Ai�port Site Selection Scoping Document and Scoping� Decision Document (SDD�. Of the seven potential sites considered in tfie scoping' process, four werei eliminated iram further cansideration. The faur sites are shown in �gure 4. Reasons for their elimination are given in the SpD and summarized as follows: � Site 1-- severe impacts on City of Vermillion -- impacts on ftaodways Site 4-- displaces cities ot Ve�mi!lion ar�d Coates -- impacts on public park/recreationa) land and fiaodways -- potential bird strikes -- impaci on state-iisted rare species EVew Airport Site Atternative Enviranmentat Dacument .� II-1 -�-�- -�- ;�sr--�r ��- � � � � �. .� � � � � � N i�� :,' � � , : .. 4 ��,�: ....�°. ;;:�, - �. � ,.:� y.'!•� • �. � `s l' '��ii� , ''�� , f 1' L', � �..' {+��r ,,; �,. ,- � ,. _�',,�� 4r.�,� �1��I�� . �_: �+�.''i�'.`.�.:: .� •�i �i�l� i!:ti�' .. , _ �. , r� K �,,:.�� ; 1,_ " �/• � .� ,; �a;.,l;; � ',, »µ ••.•. ... V� ,�` 7s:ar7rx � �\� ` � � . . � �� ► QQ:�� ...._. _. i �� 1 i ; �,� �� , r i i_...e l o . I i • '� I � �'•• � ' y. � d��, o � �u II u� �•, u ,_ .` •�u j�i� : �,� ��• ( I • � � .1 1 � � �� i•�'- - ; I� . i .�A II ._ � ...� ._ �:��.� .- j _Y�-- . . : ,� : �_ �..: .:�.......,�.,- r ) ,,t, :. j r� ��'•. ; �"'rf• '.Sr`�ts,si� 'f �1 . . . •� .�'.� � � LV � � T. � ; j ' �� , � � .,,, � �v.. �Sip�2 R�,v� �. � � � � ,l.. ��.,, � { r-: • ,I'• � � KOC } ��` • �i`'... � . � •�ES1ER � •,REFIN Y 'i�.S.P.G.L ' I • � "-,�,...-•r I , •'NpRt� � R xa � QUSr T.�WbA�$TE FAC. I I . I . ,,, . 1, ��'� � •�'�o �•��•� ' "�.��:�»� . ; , , � A b�r�eae ��+ e x�ca f� d- --+- ..� j . . �=+�x�xca e a aaa e a raa a , ! � , y .. . I•- •• - r,,,.'1 I..r,...l • I � I� I i� 1 f 1 Q f� i . ' _r:.: :::_ ... � •� QAT� � i I AK tA"C T " - t ; RES UR E REC VERY I �.� � �,� . i i� I! , Y.��.•-w—�W NI FA IT��(PRO OSED� • I.I I � , ._. �"N�v ,�1�f►..•-!'r' i . � .� _ _...�._.. i- . J.,.. .�... .._ ....i � �� .•�� i,_I J ' � ( �� I :,�i N r.h i • � t— ; ' , _ , , ; � � 4 �.J ,.. .�._ . i � �� . ; �� i �'1 ; ' ,�,,ti,,x�':.., , I �� : �". � � ` 1f e �r ► m; I � o n I.. ..'J lll � � • ...�'; . ,i' . � .i � ! = i ,.. � 'I 1._. . �� I �, _ � ... �� .. . ; ; :; r ! � — —I � : . , ;! : .' ..1 ;�J , ,;►I;1 I. � �;' ;� F . .-� � �� • � erm.�.lUi.o'r'' R'tiN � � r � . � � � � � �.. � �� j' ! .�� t i�� ' ' � i I � ! �, � i ! _!' '�. � i �. _. ..� t:�1 � I _ , _ .. ' ' I ..._ , i .......... .-- ,�,�,�.�.,�,, � � ! �' � ..1 , � '- i.t�� b��i7ii1 .�t �- ��, � ..�.�x.,�.x I _ _. _._vQ�;,�,,�L�%i,o'n'� i, - � �.......� - � i �� !} S,� � 1 ti 7' ' SG \ , z Source: New Airport Site Selection Scoping Document . ��' �; i '�,. : ` . �' � ��,/ `.i u,..ycR-. 1- 1� °,� I � ! .l 'fi ` . �.� , �. ' , �(� , ;; . t. � �j '';•; ' :� `� �•. . l�i`��; ��„�••. ........I, i �ii.�( ,,,�tr.� ��j';�� .; � ,:. : � � ' � � ! � ' � i�� a��-�' F,�`"' ;- 1 '``��,: �, —� � I I I�I � �j�. • o. ��2S �+�. �;i � ,�. � I ' A�..,� SZ. ' ��'� �' � '� ' i '; � �'� . �i" �� Ssz� ` � .:i i% �"� ... .. ��; I lul; �� t A�T��C . I � , � `� 1 ,, ,.�..I, � ... .i . t ;;ti � ��, � , �� . . _... _ .l _. .. ..� � � .� . �,� �I;�j .:. ' , � �s1�ad�,� -Pl•-i �_. •-- -_..� ,. �b' � y. I : �., -.i `�� '�,� � � �-� ,.► � � ��.� ; � ...L.. f� ` � : � i'h:.� I I • � 1 i ••(�' a � `,�? :'' .'� . I 1 ••. i. �' � � �r• i . •: � : , f �� : � • •• I � � � ; � �r � .• � � i ' � I i � ' p �• ! ' � �� j 1.. �. �` , � �,. . �. ` i ' •;!YI i � � i � i ! �� ! <,�'� ! � ' � ��. `i � � � -�` •�� „ + � �• 3 N i �� I i C��.J �� b i ' • ,•, � I � ,, •• ; � `; � i •_ �.•� • •��, , :� ^�.�• ; _ � . �� :•_�� , �:��• •� , b : �i••�"' ; ' . ) � ! �... ' i ii�u�se�r►�ac�c•k•xanc•x-sR�x�z-��ex;xh�e•x a�.c-zxiscrzrk:•�ae�x'xx��rra-�..�......-- � i � ' j t i - � _ � . � -� - �- --S - '- � 1 � i. _. .. � ' I � I : � : . t--, ; ��j�� •-�-•-�-�- Site 2 •••—••• Site 3 0 1 2 miles •-•—•-• Site 6 Scale: N Alternatives Under Consideration � �J � � � � � � Site 5-- displaces City of Coates -- noise impacts -- impact on City of Vermillion -- potential bird strikes -- wetland impacts Site 7-- displaces City of Coates -- noise impacts -- impact on City of Vermillion -- wetland impacts C. Preferred Alternative The site preferred by the Commission is Site 3. To evaluate the three Candidate Sites, the Commission utilized 65 criteria, which are listed in Appendix B along with their application to the three sites. The criteria show that Sites 2 and 3 are preferable to Site 6. The main advantage of Site 6 over Sites 2 and 3 is the savings in travel time of 11 minutes for the average resident in the Metropolitan Area. However, the proximity of Site� 6 to the Koch Refinery creates several problems. Smoke and induced fog and cloud formations by the refinery will result in greater instrument operations and lower capacity at '�Site 6. These formations will be illuminated at night by flames emanating from the refinery stacks. Both the refinery and the airport would be limited in their ability to.expand -- since the refinery will �limit runway development to the north, and the airport runways will limit stack� heights at the refinery. In addition, Site 6 has airspace conflicts which would require the closure of South St. Paul Airport, and adversely affect instrument landings at St. Paul Downtown Airport and operations at AirJake Airport. It would also displace the City of Coates, impact the most wetlands and have the greatest constraints for future expansion (wetlands, Vermillion River and Koch Refinery). � Sites .2 and 3 have similar impacts since they occupy the same general location. Site 3 was identified as the preferred alternative because it would have less impact on the City of Hastings than Site 2. Site 2 would have more adverse noise impacts, and place more constraints on the ability of Hastings to expand -- beceuse of the orientation and location of the �runways. . . . . . I . The identification of a•preferred site in the Draft AED is to mform the public and agencies of the Commission's preference and enable them to comment on the p�eferred site. Following the public hearing and comments on the Draft AED, the Commission will resporid to comments and select a site in the Final AED. � New Airport Site Alternative Environmental Document II-4 . � � �. � � � �� V�J silos, a granary, and various sheds and outbuildings, such as a privy, smokehouse, chicken coop, livestock pens, and machinery sheds. The City of Vermiliion, which includes a mix of religious, commercial and residential buildings, contains the only urban properties in the area with National Register potential. I In the area's northwest corner, the remains of the former Gopher Ordnance Works offer a sharp contrast to the rural tradition. Over 11,000 acres of farmland was appropriated by the federal government in 1942 for a smokeless powder production facility, which was never fully developed. After the war, most of the property was transferred to the University of Minnesota, which has operated the Rosemount Research Center at the site� since that time. While many structures built for the Ordnance Works have been demolished or moved, the buildings and ruins that remain are interesting artifacts reflecting a crucial pe�iod in American histo�Y. 1 The smokestacks of the Ordnance Works, visible for miles, are but one if the intrusions impinging on the historic integrity of the area's rural landscape. Although beyond the boundaries of the area to the northwest, the Koch Refinery overshadowstthe horizon, an insistent reminder of the modern, industrial world. Exurban residential. development is less concentrated -- but can be a more serious threat to the agrarian landscape. The area's character is also changed by alterations to the infrastructure, including the'addition of new power lines and the widening and resurfacing of historic travel routes. Despite these encroachments, however, the area's agrarian heritage remaims pervasive. It appears that at least a few properties reflecting this heritage may be eligibte �for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. The Gopher Ordnance Works district, representing the legacy of World War I1, may be eligible as well. F. Noise This section discusses aircraft noise characteristics, noise metrics, and site sele.ction noise analysis methodology, and describes the affected environment in terms of ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Search Area. F.1 Description of Aircraft Noise Characteristics' Every noise event has certain characteristics. At any instant, a sound may Ibe loud or quiet (depending upon the amplitude of the wave), high or low pitched (depending on its frequency), sudden or continuous, or build to a peak and fade away. A sound may have identifiable pure tones in an otherwise broad spectrum of undifferentiated sound. This complexity makes it difficult to describe a noise event with a single number that can fully convey all of the characteristics of that event. I The major source of noise associated with aircraft operat�ons is aircraft power plants (typically jet engines). As an engine's fan blades and turbo-machinery rotate, they produce turbulence that generates high frequency noise (e.g. the familiar compressor whinel. �Also,.as hot jet exhaust is mixed at high velocity with the cooler ambient air, a loud low f�equency roar is produced. These sounds are more prominent on older technology engines (such as those used on the McDonnell Douglas DC-9 and the Boeing 727). � ' The repor4 'Airuatt Noise Impact • Planninp GWdelines iw Loul AQenctes.' United States Oepanment of Housinp �nd Urban Development, 1972, has been drawn upon in the preparation ot this section. � � New Airport Site Alternative Environmental Document III-33 � � � I� LJ � In newer technology engines (such as those used on the Boeing 757 and McDonnell Douglas MD11), the ratio of the air passing by the combustion chamber to the air flowing through the combustion chamber (known as an engine's bypass ratio) is significantly increased. Fan noise is minimized by eliminating inlet guide vanes, modifying geometrical relationships between the fan blades and the outlet guide vanes, slowing blade tip speed and lining the nacelle ducts with acoustically absorbent material. High-bypass engines generate lower frequency fan noise and less jet exhaust noise and are typically much less annoying than low-bypass ratio engines. A less obvious source of noise is the sound of the airframe traveling th aircraft engines become quieter, airf�ame noise may contribute more to generated by aircraft. F.2 Description of Noise Metrics The following sections discuss three noise metrics: A-weighted decibel (� Average Sound Level (Ldn), and L,o. � A-Weiqhted Decibel (dBA) � the air. As overall noise iBA), Day-Night The characteristic most commonly used to describe noise is its loudness, measured in decibels (d6). Since the sound pressure that causes physical pain to most humans is approximately one million times greater than the threshold of hearing, decibels are measured on a�logarithmic scale that "compresses" the resulting values to a range of 0 to about 120 d6. A 10 dB increase in the sound pressure level is perceived by humans as approximately twice the volume of sound. Also, most people cannot readily detect changes in sound pressure levels of less than about 3 dB except in a laboratory environment. Since decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale, • normal addition does not apply when determining the impact of multiple noise sources. For example, the total level produced by two 100 dB noise sources is 103 d6, not 200 dB. The level of 10 such sources is 110 dB, and the level of 100 sources is 120 d6.�• The human ear is more sensitive to higher frequency sounds; therefore, the A-weighted decibel scale (dBA) was developed �to take into account this greater sensitivity. The dBA scale is most f�equently used in aircraft and other environmental noise analysis. Typical dBA levels of some common sounds are shown in Table 7. According to the FAA Advisory Circular Noise Control and Comoatibilitv Planninq for Airports (AC 150/5020-1), the "A-Weighted Sound Level has been found to correlate well with people's subjective judgement. Its simplicity and superiority over unweighted sound jpressure�level in predicting people's response to noise have made it the most widely used metric for assessing the impact of aircraft noise and for comparing that noise with other community noise sources." � The FAA has determined that A-weighted levels should be used when measuririg and describing instantaneous noise levels. The maximum A-weighted level.reached during �an aircraft noise event is perhaps the most common and simplest way of describing the nois i of the event. In general, the noise level associated with a certain sound decreases by 6 dB for each doubling of the distance from the noise source; however, certain factors affect noise�attenuation and transmission, including g�ound cover and the incidence of barriers, vegetation and buildings. These factors become less important when the noise source is airborne.l Meteorological conditions also affect noise transmission. Tempe�ature gradients, wind speed and direction, humidity, and atmospheric pressure can combine to cause a 10-15 d6 change in the noise heard on the ground for similar ove�flights of the same aircraft. New Airport Site Altemative Environmental Document III-34 TABLE 7- Common Sounds on the DBA Scale , I Sound Military jet fighter takeoff at 500 feet; Armored personnel carrier Rock music with amplifier (uncomfortably loud) Loud motorcycle at 20 feet; Riveting machine Boiter shop; Power mower (very loudl; Jet plane takeoff (6727) at 1000 feet Orchestral crescendo at 25 feet; Motorcycle at 25 feet; Diesel locomotive (20-30 mph) at 50 feet Busy street; Diesel truck (moderately Ioud) 40 mph at 50 feet ' �nterior of department sto�e; Vacuum cleaner at 10 teet Ordinary conversation at 3 feet; Air conditioner at 20 feet Quiet urban daytime; Dishwasher neM �oom Average office City �esidence (very quietl Quiet country residence Rustle of leaves (just audible) Threshold of human hearing Source: HNTB analysis from multiple sources. Sound Level Relative Loudness Reletive Sound (dBA) (Approximete) Energy 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 128 64 32 16 8 4 2 1 1/2 1/4 1/8 1/16 1 /32 1 /64 New Airport Site Alternative Environmental Document III-35 � ,000,000 100,000 10,000 1,000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001 0.00001 �J 0 �J i i L. � � � � � � � �J _� � Dav-Nictht Sound Level (Ldn) i While it is important to measure the noise of a single event, the long-range impact of prolonged exposure to noise can best be described with cumulative metrics. The Day-Night Sound Level (Ldn) was developed under the auspices of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to measure the cumulative impact of multiple noise events in an average day. It is the logarithmic average of sound levels in dBA and is based on a 24-hour Equivalent Sound Level (Leq). Ldn values incorporate a 10 dBA penalty to noise events occurring between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM to account for people's increased noise sensitivity at night. Ldn 65 is typically the level used assessing noise impacts and for land use planning, althoughi for this report a lower noise level of Ldn 60 is also analyzed. ( Ldn (also known as DNL) has been equated, through social surveys, with public reactions to different noise levels. The Ldn metric is recognized by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Defense as a proper basis for land use planning around airports. • I The Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON) recently evaluated� Ldn as a noise measurement tool. Their August 1992 report noted that there "are no new descriptors or metrics of sufficient scientific standing to substitute for the present DNL (Ldn) �cumulative noise exposur.e metric," and that Ldn methodology "is considered the proper one for civil and military aviation scenarios in the general vicinity of airports." The FICON report noied that "aircraft noise predictions below DNL 65 ... can be less accurate and should be ,interpreted with caution." Figure 14 illustrates typical community annoyance•to various Ldn levels in the form of a graph. I Ldn is the index preferred by the FAA, which has developed the Integrated Noise Model (INM) for Ldn calculation. The INM model takes into account flight paths, number of operations, and the flyover noise associated with a specific aircraft types on a given flight path corrected for the du�ation of the sound. Contours of equal Ldn value are then developed and mapped, reflecting the average noise of takeoffs and landings over• a year's time. Ldn may also be used for quantifying other noise sources such as auto traffic, and for comparingithem to airport- generated noise. In the past, the shape and size of the Ldn noise contour for an airport was la�gely determined. by departing aircraft. But as airlines change over to an all-Stage 3 fleet, noise contours have been increasingly influenced by the noise generated by arriving aircraft. • There are several reasons for this. Since Stage 3 engines are more powerful than Stage 2 engines, aircraft can - climb more quickly. This means that during'departure, Stage 3 aircraft will pass a fixed point nn the around at a hioher altitude than a Staae 2 eirCraft, reducin4 noise on �the qround. 90°Ia $�°%a ?0°/a m � c f 0°/a Q m �. a 50°/4 � 0 v 4Q°/a � a� a 3U°lo 2t}°1a 1 fJ°jo � Annoyed Very Ann'oyed 1 fiQ C5 � Noise L.eve! (Ldn� � �,E�*°15 5.,, Saurce: Adaptation of lnfprmation Presented in the EPA Fr t` t�� Publication'InfoRnation on Levels of Environmental � � Noise Requisiis ta P�otect lisatth and Weifare wi#h � �z an Adequate Margin ot Safety . : �, � ,t` . �~�iqp�Tg �� Effects of Noise: Typic tEl-3fi 75 Community Annoyance . ' 0 Mr. Jeff Hamiel August 25, 1992 Page 3 Please contact me at your convenience to schedule i` mutually agreeable date and time. � C�f Sincerely, i ' i:�i � • .I" !` i t ! . . , . �+._ - • -.;. MEMORA►NDUM T0: Planning and Environment Committee TROM: Richard B. Keinz, Dirxtor of Envimnment (726-8134) SUBJECT: CORRIDOR TASK FORCE RECOMMII�IDATION DATE: September 2, 1992 �• M 10 Aircraft operadons ia the Eagan-Mendota Heights Corridor southeast of the sirport have beea�an issue dating as far back as 1969. Modifications to the boundaries and operatioa of traffic in the corridor }iave bxa made over the years always iavolvinY MASAC. Laad use plaaning on the part of each of these communities has preserved a predominaatly commerciaUindustrial corridor for more than 3 miles from the sirport. ' Traffic increases during the mid-1980's generated more complaints by noise impacted residea I aad a renewed �ffo�t to revise the cocridor definition and aireraft operations southeast of the sirport. MASAC struggled with the issue for several years without success. In 1989 Jeff Hamiel established a Blue Ribbon (Corridor) Task Force of affeoted parties to resolve the issue more expeditiously.- The Task Force studied'the issue until January, 1991, whea all members agt+ad W a 60 day test of a refined corridor procedure gut forth by MAC with the agrament of FAA. The test prxedure constrained opccations ia a�nazmwer corridor. reducing the number of residences impacted by sircraR noisa. By this�time, the City of Inver Grove Heights had joined the discussions. . .. . . . � � � - . . ,� .._ . . . 1 . More moetings and more data analysis from the 60 day test followe� but resolved nothing. It b�me apparent that the ci6es,of Mendota Heights, Eagan and Inva Grove Heights would never be able w agrce on a position. Each clung to 1t�eir own proposal; Mendota Heights to fan traffic 60 degras at least during peak traffic times, Eagan to kocp all traffic north of Runway 29L localizer sad prohibit turns for 3 miles and Inver Grove Heights to fan tra�fic 20 degrees and eliminate the 3 mile turn restriction. • I It seemed countor productive w continue meeting as a Task Force since we were malung no pmgress wward consensus. MAC staff therefore suggested a ra:ommendation to implement the refined corridor procalure as tested in 1991. This is not as unilateral as it appeacs. MAC staff has agrxd to work with the FAA Air Traffic staff to continue to improve operatioas where possible as we moniWr activity with the Airpod Noise aad Operatioas Monitoring System now being installed at MAC. � The attached minutes of th� Au�uust 6,1992, Corridor Task Force Meeting detail some of the controversy that exists ia the corridor and a ra;ommeadation to procad with s proposal W the FAA. Also attacfled are copies of recent comespondence from the cities of Eagan and Mendota Heights whicfi further details�� their positions oa this issue. ' I • Staff will make a detailed presentatioa on the history and evoludoa of this oorridor issue at �the Committee mating. We will attempt to represent fairly the positions of all paties involvcd. We will also d�scribe a proposal for your consideration to forward to We FAA for implementation. � COMMITTEE ACTI(�N RE4UESTED . • ~ RECOMMENLI TG � FULL COMMISSION THAT STAFF BE DIRECTED T() FORWARD THE FOLL4WING PRO tL. TO THE FAx> r=4R IMPLEMENTATION: � . AP RT i WH� �VER POSSIBLE, UNDER N4N-SIMULTANEOUS DEPARTLJRE Ct?NDTTIONS; AIRCRAFT DEPARTING RUNWAY � i IR WILL BE ASSIGNED I A I�AD,.�tG TO MA.IIVTAIN A GROUND TRACK 4F 105 DfiGREES(M}. �� AIR.GRAFT DEPARTING, RUNWAY 11L WILL BE ASSIGNED 'A ��ADI�+TG TO MAiNTAIN A GROUND TRACK ALONG THE EXTENDED RUNWAY CENT7�12LLINE APPROXIMATELY 118 DEGREES{M). � pAR `�? VY;HENEVER POSSIBLE, UNDER SIMULTANEOUS DEPARTURE C4NDTTIONS, WIE�N DIVEEtGING PATHS ARE NECFSSARY FOR AIRCRAkT SEPARATION: . , .AIRCRAFT DEPARTING RLINWAY i1R WILL FLY TO THE RUNWAY 29L MIDDLE MA,RKER AND EXECUTE A TURN TO A HEADING ASSIGNED BY ATC SUCH THAT THE AIRCRAFT GROUND TRACK APPROXIMATFS A IIS DECREES(Iv� TRACK FR.OM Tii'E 29L MIDDLE MA�RKER. AIRCRAk'T DEPARTiNt3 RUNWAY 11L WILL FLY TO TFF� RUNWAY 29R MIDDLE MAI2KF.R AND EXECLITE A TURN TO A HEADING ASSIGNED BY ATC SUCH THAT THE AIRCRAFT GROUND TRACK APPROXIMATFS A 100 DEGREES(M} TRACK FROM TI� 29R MIDDLE MARKER, _ . . ' - . , .. . ! �: • .. :, MINUTES MAC CORRIDOR TASK F.ORCE � AUGUST 6, 1992 1he moetiwg was held at tlre Ganera! Office MASAC Room of t�e Met�+opolitaa Airports Commissian. Thc mextiag was c�!!ed to order by Chairman Dick Keinz� at 3:i8 p.m. 'Ih� followin$1V�r,mber� were in atuendaaco: Tom Lawell, Mayor MertensotW, Muyor F.paa, Jon Hohanstein, Scoa Bunin, Dick Keiaz dviso�y: Brucx Wa�oner-FAA, Claudia Brumbau�h FAA, Ch�rlie Keaaedy-MPCA, Joha Faggia-MAC �u� ss : Les ease, sob coltetce, Duaae xebcrc � AGENDA TTF.MS: 1. Appruvs! of 3�iy 8,� 1992 Minntes �. 2. Rovicw proposils snbmittai at the Iuty 8th maxin� � Discuss opeions finr �aslizia� s reoommcndacioa to MASAC aac! thes Mr,ttopolitaa Airparts Crimmissian • . . � • . T3e 3uiy $� I992 aainutes of tite MAC Corridflr Ti�slc Fot+ca were approved u grescnted. C'�airman K�inz opena! diseussiaa aa propossts aubtaittaf at the ts�t ma�ing ssking ea�ch of the cities ta hi�hli�ht their corridar prnpos�ats, especiaily say d'iff� from pc+evions positions. •� ,. Tom I.iw�cll raviawed Meadots Hei�ht� gmposv st�ta� tha CarrIcbr b��uadures far dcparaire gcalcs anci noa-d�psri�+e paks. 'Their request far s fanaed C,omidor it inte�dad to ba n:e�d onty cinrin� Ixak de�atuc+e periods wiuch wautd he3p alleviata tha problan of cq�etitive ovudighb over Me�dot� Heights. Meuaota Ha�hts does not sedc to sbaadoa the Canid�ot ss it sbads todty, bui r�tha Lo reeo�aiu ths',t dvrin� Pealt degarturrs periads (S.S '• 8 haeus per dsy} �odsy's Con�dor definitio�t is uasatis%ctory. Tba �ity has requesto�d the Corridor b�`ouadaria as �xtod in their prapos�l be i+ecommr,acied far tesun� ta the FM by MAC withia 60 dsys, aad dut.the sctual tating af this praxcinre ba accomplishod withia �:atendar year 1992. y . _ . . � ,� Jon Hoheastcin kitaatai Eagsa'� positio� of eontsiameat of trsffc ovtr aa ara wherc a,s fGw hasass �s possible are impscted by easuri.n$ all: a be aarth of t�e exuaded a:aterliaa of Runwsy 11R with s 15• scpuatioa ta tbe aorsh ss testat ia i99�'Iiza aty �tso tequested tbe G�rridor tat ba redone for a paiod oi I80 dsys. � C�airmaa Keiax bessa �iisc�ian an optio� for fi�aiizin¢ a rr�ommt,adattea. It ia xppareat t6a cities of Fs�aa aad Meadata Hd�ts w�t ba un�►ble to ra� a�reemeat ar conoeasu� oa how to modify Corridor operstioas. It ts aonaoer�e�adu�ve ta voa�►ue mer�tiag ia li�ht af this impsss+c. Mr. ii�aiiet, at the Jaty 8, 1992, matiat �k,a! t6is Tasic Faroa t4 comptet+e its deU'i�crations wit6in• bQ dsys. Att6oup,� the Tisk Force panot a�e on s modified CaKridor prooeduc+e, most membaa r�allzed t6at s Corridor of relatively open� cormmac+cially maed Ir�nd eacistt for soms cl'isbnoe aouthast� of ttea'ai:part. Most',:grred this Cocridor should be greserved sa tluet tha hi�est noese iaigaei a#%�xts the Wwest mimber of peopte. A Corcidor procedura cantaiaia� aperations withia tl�e commarciaU'wdasttiat u�ea impacts tbe fewest t+esideats with bi�fi Ievd uoise. Mr. ICr,inz then smted t6at in rawguition of thesa facwra, it will be �is recommaadation w MAC sc�f'f tha�t the Metx+�palitaa Air�orts Commissioa fo:wsrd a pmpos�l .w the FM to imglement tlie Carridor rofinemact groctcinre as testod from August to Octaber, I991. TE�at is: PaR 1 Whenever possible� uader naa-simultaneous depactuc+e canditiaas: -+ Aircraft daparting ruuway 12R wilt be assigned � heading ta � aintain a gmuad . track of 105•(Mj. -+ Aircraft departing runway I IL will be assigned a heading w maint�un � gruuad track along thc exuadod ruaway a�ntcriine agproximaLely 1l8,•{M). P�rt 2 Whenovcr passibie, seader simultaa�aus d�partu� canditions, whan aa�ssary for aircraft s�a�uon: ' -+ A'ucraft dr3mrtia� ruaway 21R will fly ta the_ rnnwsy 29L raca�t� a dua ta s beadi.a� �ssigaed by ATC s+uch that ffia i . appraximatcs : 115'(M} teacic froa� the 29L middte aiar3cer. -► Aircraft departin� cuuway 11L wilt fly w the rnnway 29R racxut� s wrn to s headin� assi�aed by ATC sncii that the ai apgroxiamua a 104'� tradc f�om tha 29R middle msu3cer. Further discussian etarificd t8is w�ould aot ba t6a fu�a�t word oa the Corridar isste�. 'The Qperatioas Monitaring System {ANOMS7 wilt sllow MAC staPf, FAA staff aad othet liuther improva opastioas ia t�c Corridor. �� : maricer and groua�! tracic : marktr aad ,�round tracic Naisa aad p�uties to Scact Bunin ia�uir+ed about sc �•nal nsvi�atioast uds aad ort-board aircr�ft asviEation systems. Jaha Fa�is r--ynciod that pcifora. :: aacl asvigatiaa�! sysocm: are imgroviag coasnatly. Ci�ad wa+e F4�i►t Msaage� SYsums (I�uIS} au4 3loba�t Pbsidaaia� Sat�ites (t3PS}. Improvemcars wilt `c,ontiaue to be msde ia wch Cocridor operatioas and aaise iatgaas. � � ` �.. � . � , . . � . _. - . .. The fottowin� teatativa a�hedub w�s diacussed: � � '. . . -+� Aa�nst 25,1992, retnra ti� rooammaadatiaa w MASAC� � an iaformation iteai. �' �, �� . ' . . - .. . .. . � .__ . -* ' Soptember 8, I992, st�' p�duioa to tha �Pfanain� aad, Eaviz+onmeat Committee of the Metrapolitaa Airports Commis�ioa with: s tecammeadatioa ta r�quat fult Commission approval to � the propas�ls to t&e FAA. -► Septe�ber 21,19�2, fi.nat'action by tha lbIt Metrapolit�n Airports Cammission. �� - -+ Ocsaber 1,1992, forward pmposals w the FM. FM cantd be;ia ifis cavironmeatsl sxsessmeais at tbat time. Sapuata Eavis+anmeat�l Assesssaca�ts 's} c�cnld 3ad W eit3�tr s F`iadin; of Na Si�Hcxni Imp�c�Z (FONSn withia 6 months, or determinstion .} fiilt II3, whBcb conld t�a ap to tw�o years w complete. � . ihae bda; na majot ob,jxtia� ta tha propout, s vote was not takea. StaPt wltt pcoceed as describod sbova. T6a Carddoz Ts:ic Farca w�l aot be caltad ta mat a�ain. Memba�' wiIl ba kept iafoimal of the outUnod givoa:. Ian Ho6eascsia mg�sted t�at oa-�oin� maaitorin� �ad nwi�w of tha Carridar be t�cportad ta membsxs at 6 month iauxvata. ' � Measbta H«�hts bcou�6t w t6a atteatioa of the members ti�at the curnat Co�czidor pracodura ascd by FAA dureng acn-simuttaaeous ope�tians directs aircraR depactia� Ruaway I1L to s 105' he�di�o� csusing naaec�ssiry naise over resideatial nei�bborhoods aear tha norttzeia ed�c of the Cocsidar. It was' su�Yested d�st FM consis3tr a separata roqnest w direct aircraft degartia� Ruaway 11L ta maintain tumn�+ay heading Y . ,.,':. thereby kaeping the major naise impact aear.the ceater of the Coriidar. AI2 agrecd this would bc a tnajor �: improvemcnt over pt+�seat operations and should be pursuai indepeadent�y fmm tiie second_pait�of tha Carridar rei'inemcnt proc�ctnre whic6'addresses simuttaa�aus operations."' � . ' •.� .:: ... . > :' _' Prior w adjournmcat MAC staff offerad a demonsiradoa of ANOMS to Mayor Mertensotto of M�adota Hoights becausc hc 6ad baen unabtc to attead the July Corridor Task Fone Mt�ting. TLe Moeting was adjouraai at 3:45 p.m. Rzspoctfully submittcd: Jeaa Deightan, Scaccetary . 1 .� ,� . �� - :� � M�MORAN��C� . DEPARTMENT 4F ENVIItONIY Ti�: Nige1 Finney, Executive Deputy Directar of PlanningJFnvironment �� SUBJECT: DATE: Jahn Faggia, Manager, Aviation Noise Program Corridar Issues November 11,1992 This communication is not intended as a history af ihe corridor, nor to intricaaies of the this multi fa.ceted problem. Raiher, it seeks ta provide pe the corridor challenges and up ia date fac#.s regazding corridor issues. you on the on some of The Metropolitan Airports Commission {MAC} encourageci community m�bers of #he Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (�VlASAC} to adclress the corridor issue during the ntid-1980s. After fiitilely wrestling with the pr�blem for #hre� years, Jeff Hamiel appointed a `Blue Ribbon Commit#ee" of parties directIy involved with the issue. As far as community partici.pation, Mendota Heights and Eagan were appointed because they adjoin the�airport, dealt wifih land use issues relating ta t�ie carridor, and were exposed to the most iniense noise unpacis sautheast of ihe Minnea.polis/St. Paul International Airport (MSP). Because th.e extent of basic land use protectian in Mendota Heights and Eagan extended appmximately to thiree miles from the ends of the parallel ninways, an agreement was rnached with the Federal Aviation Adn�ini�stratian to issue turn instructians after aircraft were t�u� mi%s fram the runway to heip maintain the integrity of this commeirial/industrial corridor. This strategy kept ��aircraft from ov�rflying arc�as south of the c:arrido� The narthern baundazy was mainiained as an aperationat limitatiorz due to the pro�cimiiy of the S� Paul Downiawn Airport. When considering noise distribufion equitability, noise le�ael and intensity of impact must be cansidered. An aircraft pznducing 90 dBA meas�urd on the ground one to two mi2es fmm the airport likely produces about 75 dBA sevc�n miles frcam the airpart. Both levels areate an impact for residents, but th� int�sity of unpact is si�cantly differen�. No matter what the initiai noise level, distance from the airpart equates to altitude above the ground, and increased ciistance between noise sources {aix�craft} and naise receivers {r�siden�s}. Consequen�.y, no'jse abatement programs at MSP, and at airports around #he warld, have concentrated on prograais addressing the highest Ievel, most intense noise impacts close to the acrgort, befrrre addressing tiiose impac�s farther from the runways. Fanning is a valid noise abatement technique when no pneferable alternahves �cis�. In the case of areas northeast t�uough northwest t�u�ough south of 11�SP, a nearly homageneous development of residential land use exists. No direction far aircxaft depari-ures provide lesser x�esidential noise impact tl:iait another direction. Qn the other hand, �o the southeast, thanks to efforFs on the part of Mendota Heighfs, Eagan, the Met�politan Council, and MACf land uses within t�u�ee miles of the runway ends arn predominantly river bottom, commex�cial and industrial. This allows the highest intensity noise (when aircraft are ciase ta the ■ airport and departing? to be concentrated aver an area purposeful.ly intenc�ed to e�cclude residential development. Land use policies close to an airport represent the most1powerful noise� abatement tool available. The Federal Aviatian Administration over-flies compatible land uses wherever possible, and encourages development and pmtecti.an of compatible land uses as its tap priority fox noise abatement strategy through the Part 15Q Program. Disregarding an oppartunity to utilize a commercial/industrial "corridor" like the one sautheast� of MSP would be irresponsible noise abatement policy on the part of the Metropolitan Airpori� Commission. Our goal is to affect the lowest number af residents with fihe highest intensity noise level.�. This requires assigning areas clasest to the airpart the highest priority relative ta noise abatement strategy: To the northwest, over south Minneapolis and norkh Richfield, this implies spreading the highest intensity noise impact over a gr�ater azea, since no favoxable ciirection e�cisis to unpact the fewest residents. The same technique must be employed for depa�rhi,res southwest, over south Richfield and Blaomington, and northeast over Highland Park Disregarding the naise advantages of the comme�ncial/industrial corridor for southeast departures wouid open residenfial areas very dose to the airport in the City of Meztdota� residential areas in Mendota Height�s narth of Highway i10, and �esidential areas in Eagan sauth of Interstate 494 ta extremety intense jet aircraft naise unpacts. Noise events from'90 to 1(}0 dBA are very rareiy euperienced an these areas today, but would become commonplace within.11 J2 to three miles of the airpart if a"fanning" departure were impiemented. This level`of intensify is unacceptable in light of tlie apti.on to avoid it by aperating over the commereial%industrial "corridar" close ta the airport. As with every public palicy, trade-offs in benefits impact fihe most well-intentioned proposals. With respect to maini�inang fihe integriiy of the commercial jindustrial corridor,� frequency of overflights far small pockets of resideniiai nses inside af three miles from the nanway ends is fihe immediate cost for pmtecting as many residents as passible firom excassive air� noise Ieveis. The Metropolitan Airports Con�mis,sion is fi.rmly dedicated ta an e�cfensive Part 150 i and Use Camgatibility gragram to address those residential amas close to the airpart impacted by intense noise levels. Part 15Q uti]izes , soundproofing, purc�iase guarantee, pmperty acquisition, and combinations of these land use compatibility t�chniques to alleviate intense noise impacts. Fairness is an issue with respect to noise impacts. However, numbers of overElights musi be weighted by nearness to the airpart because aircraft close to the facility are ctoser to the ground, c�eating a greater impact than they do f��rther ou� Retaining a campatible land use corridor is not the final word on corridox issues. Moving ahead with a corridor-nararowing propasal is just one phase in an on going effort to min��,;?� noise impacts for all airport neighbors. This position has been made clear on numemus occasioms. MAC has explicifly stated that sfaff would address fihe mosi intense iunpacts closest to the airport, then move farther out to refiine pracedures. Thi,s avenue is chasen precisely because the Metxopolitan Airparts Cauvnission daes not represent one or two neighbarhoods, but rather communities thmughout the metropolitan area. An airport proprietar must exercise effectual management by making the best decisian based on the available knawledge. Taking` no acfic�n, or reversing sens�Ie noise abatement policy recognized the warld-over, would be 'u�esponsible. Again, MAC policy is to *n�n�*n;7e noise impacts far airport neighbors. Those closest to the airport are burdened with the mast oneraus noise impacts and shauld be addrnssed first. The neact step is fo consider options for airspace management beyored three miles from the airport. Spreading airaraft overfligh�s aver a wider area daes nat necessarily spread noise� impacts out Page 2 "fairly". iri the case of areas north, west and sauth of the airport, fanning represQnnts an atteznpt at equitabiiity. Thi.s so-called "`fanning" presents itself as the best alternative given fihe available technologies. However, MAC is often attacked. for not r�ducing noise impact, but merely "spreading it out". By overflying reiatively unpopulated areas in fihe indusfirialjcommercial corridor, we realize an opporh�nity to actually r�duce intense noise unpacts on residential areas. Additionally, maintaining the commerc:iaiJindustxiai corridor soufheast of the airport does not "target" communities upstream from those areas closest to the runways. The Airport Noise and 4peratians Monitaring System {ANOMS}, ui3lizing radar tracking information, continuat noise monitoring data, and complaint informatian pmvides a multi-�di.mensional view of airport operations previously unavaiiable. The most saphisticated af its kind in the world, ANOltr,GS will help the airport, surrounding communities, and khe Federal Aviation Administration (FAA.) reach rnasonabie, viable conclusiozrs regarding how ta operate fihe a�rport iii tite niast responsible manner possible, especually iarther from the runway ends where more flexibi.li� in operations e�cists. ; I Each cammunity surmunding the airport perceives iis impacts to � gr�a#er than they should be �acposed to. We understand this perspective, and agrnee that the given impacis should be �v�n�imuzed to the greaiest extent passible. It rnust be noted that airspace deciszoi%making is not accomplished by considering only the airspace above individual communities. Noise impact per flight is appraxinnately equal at equal distances from ihe airport. In gene�ral, �tiat �impact lessens fihe farther a receiver is from the runway. Therefore, in considering unpact at di`stances farther from the airpart, number and fr�quency of overflights pravides a reasonable measure of imgact. The Metropolitan Airports Commis$ion is prepamd to work with the various communities surrounding the airport using AN{JMS generated data to review alternative airspace management techniques to �n�rn��p cii.stant noise impacts. I provide a sample of ANOMS generated data for yowr review to glace in perspective #he effect of "fanning" on the northwest side of the airport versus current "non-f�nnirr.g" pmcedures southeast of the airport (figs.1 and 2). Please note that at distances beyond .six miles fmm the runway ends, benefits af "f�uuiing'• apparently become negligble. The figures repx�esent the Iatest 31 days of depariure tracks; a total of 18,323. Viewed anather way, noise unpact at two locations inside thr�e miles from the runways were compared wittt nois� impact at fiwo naise monitoring tawers in in�er Gmve Heights. The number of nois� events g'rnater than 80 dBA were counted at each� site. Inside of t�u�ee miles, ANOMS s%tes 23�and Ib recorded 2,118 and 4,281 events, rnspectiveiy. At the iwo lacations in Inver Grove Heights, about 6.5 miles from runway end, ANOM� sites 21 and 22 recorded 492 and 298 even�.s respectively, greater fihan 80 dBA.T`his sample covered June 27 through july 26,1992. Inver Grove Heights in parbiculaz received. more individual attentian over the past two years t�kan any other single community surrounding the airport. Numemus meetings with elected affi- cials, the Naise Commission, and the City Council. reflect MAC's commiiment to maintain a dia- logue with Inver Grove Heights. F�ctensive fiznds have been expended responding to the Camdar Task Force, and ta requests for inforrnation and dat�a, speci�'ically by Inver Grove Heights. A decision must be reached, in order ta move fz�rurard with angaing study of the cam- dor. Extraordinary amounts of time and effort have been dedicated. to the comido'r issue, and to Inver Gmve Heights in partic�uiar, on the part of MAC staff, community of�cials and other agency officials. Delaying the tou,gh decisions at this fime prevents us from moving forward and addressing noise and airspace issues beyond ihe carrido� Pnzdent, decisive actian �nrill assure we remain comsnitted to rn,fining operations over all communities surrounding MSP. � Page 3 IYOV 1� "�G 1 t� 11 f`It I KU H1KF'UK I 5 Wf`II'I. ' 1TiJJ�� V Ls.�- T�O: A11 GOIDmtS4I0IlelS 1-'. G/tl . 1 • FROM: Lligat D. �y. Dcputy F,:acutire Din�ur - PL�anic� & Eu.vuonmcnt (72G-8187) • SEFBJF,Cr: EAQAN MEND4TA HEIOHTS CORRIDOR ' . � DATE: Novembar I3, 199?. � • . , . • • �At the November Planning and Environmant Cammittea meeting, aaion wa� ta3cQu to recomttienQ• a 64� day test of a ca�rldor pmposat developed by tIia Clty oY Mendota �Jeighu no Pen uaffic tn rhe �c�udi�ast .af thz airport. Tha ar�i� recommeadaao� was to r000mmr,nd that FAA condana, and formaI'ue, the psst policy of confiniag trtit%c to di� primarily commorcial-industrial corridor to tbe Bout�east of the sirpoct. As �isctisaiaa of tiie coaiCor issue CamiinuQs �t the Commissioa level, d�e following tacmri shoutd be • coacidered: - � 1. MAC goIicy hzs beea to Impact the fewasc number of peopla wlth ai�cr$$ aoise. ro die nnrth of �Yte xirpart, papul.lion densi[ies are rzla�iv�ly c��unt, d�ecdnre fanning traffic is a means to ensure rbac an area is nat dispraportionateay imgactea. To thc so�utheast, sa area is preseai which ia prunarily commerciat-indusau�l, th.ecefore a uaiqne oPPa�tt3' aciscs w�ize �irr�aft takeoffs �md lyndings over aa uea o� eompatibl� land usz. This policy position. devetopod witlt mpert fmaa the co�mnnitees and tho Mtuo Council ha4 beea commuaiptad w tha affocted communuies, and hes basn used as tha bzsis for assuring campuible [wd use declsions. • I 2. The actiaa taken by tha MAC is advisory to tho FAA. A$ �1C }7� ICSpODS1biG �OL maldag sir trsffic caetrol decisians, tf�e FAli wi11 review the request aud{ detern�e urhaher nr noc chey wlll procxd wtth a test. Ic is liicely that prior tn thix decisicm, thc FAA w71 nndertalc� anviro�eatal rcvicw: th� extrat of anvira�untal reviaw neccssa�ry is uakn�wa at this tImo and would probably not �e clear un6t s£ormsl requeat is m�da by the MAC, however given the couuoversial na[ure oi [he proposed test the FAA may tiztermine that an em�ironmzntal imPact uatmnant wauld be required btfare initiaring 3 tcst. Past pmaia has b�ea for FM to reque.�t that the hiAC do most oi tii� t�chnicat wo�c asaoeiated witii this process, theceby inew�cing eo5ts far the MAC. Tl:e'magnicude at the costs are unkaowa, however past e�pe�imce i�s ahnwn that thty � would ba suhstantlal. NOV 1� '92 17�12 METRO AIRPORTS COMM. � P.�iO 3_ 5. 6. The purpuae and definidon of thc erst must be cltarly dePiqed: e. The procedures that are to be tasted must be cleaz. b. The daa thu wIll ba gachered, and how it will be ev�atuatecl a�ul repuneci uwst be detesuuaed. c. Csieeria for definiag success o� fallura meist be established.1 The naise imgacts af n�t can he decermin� fmm uomputec madeiling widiout impacxinE people, The purpose of a test would bc to daeraeine wheti�er tlie air traffic Contml procedures reqoired tn implement che proposal ate feasible. Siace fuusiag is curre.ntly tatiing place r�� the ncsrthwest, it is obvious that i[ could also be accomplished to the southeast. � A eor�Wor reflnemeac proc,edu�e wa.c t�.ccesl. in 1941. Thn tesc w-as w be fur b0 days. howaer ia reality 18 mon�s efapsed from thc formal rrq,uest by MAC through environaseatat assessmeat and review, air traff"cc conu�oi sraff aaming, rhe test iuelf, compilation of tesc clu2 and fli�.t traeYs, evaluation, and reparc genecation. The wre! cost w MAC for this ust ap�roached �iS0,00d_ � The previane corridor test was less connroversi� because sircraR noise under the ces�ed procedure impaaecl fewes humrs, that is, lhd i►oise contont foc the test wae xlightly smaliet. Tho Mcndota Haghts propoaal is a dcpazturo from the compattble laad usc ste3tegies meationed above, and wil l impact a significant mimber of new iesid'ences (1 Sfi) wlib alrecaft no3se above Ldn 6S levels. Due u� che cx�ntrvvrsr�ial nasura oP �I�is ee.ct, tx�r4� dme and cosc could be substamially g�entr,r than pieviously Gxperienced. � A deels[on m limic aicetaft operauo�s to•the exisdng a�mm�cllur u nat �ht en�l �of corridor aaal� a�ul planniag. The MAC has indicatdd a wrllingness to cout�nue to work witk aIl i7IA FACSIMILE - t7RIGINAL TO FOLLOW Mr. xugh Schilling. Chairman Horton Holding, Inc. P.C?. Box 9455 Minneapolis, N!N 55440 Dear Chairman Schi2ling: ��ity oi �eights November 13, 1992 C?n Monday, November �.6th the MAC will consider the proposed test of a revised flight departure corridor over Mendo�a Heights. and Ea an. A recommendation to test the revised rocedure was 5 P considered by the MAC Pla�3ning and Environment Committee on November 5th, and received their unanimous recommendation. Our° City Council fully supports this action and urges you toiadopt the Committee's recommendation for a sixty day'�est o� tlie revised= procedure. As we are a11 aware, the frequancy and intensity of air noise at MSP has changed a great deal over the years. Ye� the�departure procedures utilized ta �he southeast of the airport�have not changed at all over the past twenty years. To more equitably distribute noise to all who benefit �rom close airport proximity, the revised corridor procedure was developed and is recommended for your appraval. � � The attached position paper further explains the City's desire to elimxnate the repetitive aircraft overflights currentl�r e�perienced by many long establi.shed Mendota Height� neighbarhoods. The proposed test will allow the MAC� to utilize the capabilities of the newlg installed A�.rport Naise Operations Mona.toririg Sys�em (AN�MS) �.o evalua�e the impacts of the new procedure. � . 1141 Victaria Curve • 1Vi.endota Heights, -1ViN • 55218 452 • 1850 � � . . . . . , . . � . -- Chai�.n Hugh Schilling ; November 13, 1992 ' Page 2 Mendota Heights Mayor CharZes Mertensotto, Couricilmembers: Christine Roch and• Jill Smi�h, along with other City' representatives will be present on November 16th to further discuss • this issue with you and your Commis�ion. Should you have questions prior to then, please do not hesitate to ca�l. Thank you i.n= advance for your support on this impor�.an� issue. � . MTL;kkb Attachment � � Sincerely, CITY OF MENDOTA XEI Tom Lawell City Administrator � � CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS EAGAN/MENDOTA HEIGHTS CORRIDOR POSITION PAPER OCTOBFsR 20, 1992 THE PROBLffi�i Due to inequitable, antiquated flight procedures, many long standing Mendota Heights residential neighborhoods unfairly receive repeated aircraft overflights every 80-90 seconds during peak departure periods. � THE CAIISS Antiquated departure procedures require all aircraft departing Runway 11R to fly no further south than extended runway centerline for a period of at leaat three miles before initiating any turns. During peak periods, aircraft departing Runway i1L must immediately upon takeoff, turn north over Mendota Heights to provide a minimum of 15 degrees separation between departing aircraft.j As the aircraft volumes at MSP have dramatically increased over the years, the human i.mpact of this procedure within Mendota Heights has dramatically grown as well. � THE FACTS Fact #1 - inappropriate and unfair. The southern boundary prohibiting turns to the south off Runway i1R was established in 1973 by a one page tower order written by then Tower Chief Lester Case� Almost unbelievably, the procedure was implemented without the benefit of a public hearing or an environmental review. Since that time, air traffic at MSP has grown 'uiunensely, Runway 11L has been assigned equal atatus andjuse with Runway 11R, and the HUB concept has come into being necessitating more and more simultaneous departures. Between 1977 and 1989, departure traffic off Riways 11I, and 11R increased approxima.tely 266 percent. Through it all, the southern boundary ha.s remained in place 4 severely li.miting noise mi.tigation opportunities availabl;e at MSP. Fact #2 - procedures cannot be changed. The present procedure which di�proportionally'allacates to Mendota Heights � an unfair share of � aircraft overflights is unnecessary. There are no operational or technical barriers precluding the implementa�ion of a more equi�able noise dis�ribution procedure. Departures over Minneapoli�, St. Paul, Bloomington and Richfield are all fanned to help disburse aircra£t naise amongst adjacen� property awners. Therefore, precedent for a fanned departure' procedure e�ci�t� off every other runway end at MSP, � The Environmental Impac� Statement recently prepared for the 4-22 Runway Extension Projec� refers repeatedly to the merits of redistributing air noise mare equitably around MSP by ailowing aircraft to overfly areas not prevaously impacted by aircraft noise. Why does this reasoning not equall�r apply to departures o�f Runway 21R? . � Fact #3 - The concentrated corridor procedure proposed by MAC staff Fact #4 - si�uatian. The concentrated corridor was tested for 60 days in the Fall of 1991 as a means of providing noise relief by further containing aircraf't within departure headings of 100 degrees and 115 degrees. Sn reality, the te�t failed �o provide meaningful noise relief to the City of Mendota Heights. • � During the test, the narrowed flight corridor proved physically inadequate and unworkable as aircraft routinely strayed beyond the corridor boundaries. In fact, the narrowed corridor resulted in an increa�e in noise i.n a signi�icant portion of Mendota Height;s due to the increased repetitiveness of aircraft overflights. The majority o� neighborhoods within Mendota�Heights impacted by air noise are long established areas built in the 1950's and 1960's (Furlong, Curle�r Addition, Friendly Hills, Roger's Lake, e�c, ). From the beginning, the City has consistentl.y followed alI rules and regia.l.ations se� forth by the MAC and the Metropolitan Council regarding land use in thzs area. - • i 0 Praperty in the surrqun.ding areas has been gi: City's Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive residential ever since 2959. Tn addition, Comprehensive Plan as approved by the N Counca.l in 1979 shows the land zn. this area completion of existing neighborhoods and o residential deve3.opment. .As recently as Metropolitan Council affirmed �he appropriate City's development plans for this property. THE SOLUTIC)N .ded by the �lan to be he revised trapoZitan subject to her inf il1 1987, the iess of the Grant relief to established Mendota Heights neighborhoods established in the 1950's and 1960's from intense noise,pollu�ion by eliminating repetitious overflights by departing aircraft, During periods o� peak departures, allaw aircraft to operate in an equal amount of air space on either side o� the runway's e�ctended centerlines (operatianal boundary of 090 degrees ofi Runway 11L as measured from the Runwa�r 29R midd].e mar}cer, operational boundary of 150 degrees off Runway 11.R as measured fram the Runway� 29L ma.ddle marker). Aircraft would no� be aliowed ta turn off these headings during the first three miles of jflight. This fanned corridor wou3d be in affect only during geriods of peak departures - approximately 5 to 6 hours per day dur3ng the week, and approxi.mately 3 hours per da�r on the weekend. � - During non-peak periods, Mendata Heights encourages utilization of the industrialjfreeway area ta mi.nimi�e residential noise impact, During periods of low departure tra�'fi.c,�aircraft departing Runway lIR should be asaigned a heading of 105 degrees and aircraft departing 11L shauld be assigned runwa.y heading. REQU8ST8D ACTION The City of Mendota Heights recommends and reguests��hat the MAC, in cooperation with the FAA, conduet a 60 day test o� the above outlined fanned corridor proposal. I The effects of the 60 day test wili be analyzed using the NlAC's new ANOMS noise monitoring s�stem:. Based on the objective data collected by the system, all; affected partie� will have an opportunity to fairly and reasonably analyze the e�fects o� the tested procedure. � ; CITY OF MENDOTA HETGHTS i • Navember &, T0: Members of �he A:irport Relatio s Commission� FROM: Tom Lawe11, City Administra SUBJECT: Nighttime FZigh� Re�trictions DISCIISSION � One o�' the moet disturbing aspec�s oE the aircraEt� noise issue invalves �lights scheduled at night. During daylight hours many people are of£ to the warkplace and are unaffected by aircra�t overflights. Those who are home during the da�r typicaily have other sound generating activit�zes underway and the a.mpact of aircraft overflights is lessened. But at nigh�, when activity ievels wind down and a majority of the popula�ion at�empts �o sleep, aircraf� noise can beeome par�icularly bo�hersome. By definition, the FAA Integrated Noise Model (INM) considers any noise event occurring between i0;00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. as a "night�ime" noise event. Recognizing that people are generally affected more by aircraft naise at r�ight, the Ldn noise contours generated by the INM reflect a 10 dBA penalty for any noise event occurrzng between these hours. The key questian thus becomes, what can be done to minimize night�ime aircraft operations.� The MAC has his�orically refrai,ned from adapting mandatory restrictious and limitations regarding aircra�t opera�ion� at MSP. In the alterna�ive, they have relied upon voluntarr��rr agreements with each a�.r carrier ta address air noiae concern�. The stated reason for this approach involves the likelihood of a lawsuit being braugh� by one or more air carriers on the grounds of interference wi�h federa].ly protected interstate commerce. The federa]. adoption of the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1.990 further strengthened this argument. The MAC believes they have been successful with the voluntary approach and have repeatedly rejected demands by noise control organizations to take a stronger stance through the adoption o�' ma.n.datory restrictions . � w r "' Current vo3untary agreements in place be�ween the�MAC and air carriers operating out of MSP include the fo].lowing: � 1. All cargo carriers have signed voluntary agreemen�.s �o �ly only Stage 3 aircraft between 11 p.m. arid,6 a.m. 2. Northwest Airlines has agreed through various loan covenan�s and a.greements with MAC to schedule only Stage 3 aircraf t in and out of MSP between 11. p, m � and 6 a. m. Despi�e �hese restricti.ons, MSP continues to� experience bothersome nighttirne noise events. With the full implementation of the. AN4MS naise manitoring system, we naw have access to much be�ter data regarding nighttime operations. For example, during the manth of Aug�zst 396 arrivals and 120 departures were recorded at MSP duri.ng nigh�Gtime hours, Many of these were Stage 3 aircraf� in compliance with the voluntary agreements. Others �+iere flight� which were scheduled �o arrive prior to 11:00 p.m. but for some reason were delayed in landing. �The high n.umber of arrivals vs. departures wauld seem to veri�y this observatian. � . The ANOMS data also show the relative use of each runway during nighttime aircraft operations. In accordance�with MSP�s Runway Use System (RUS}, most aircraft operations at nzght are to be rou�.ed over the Mendota Heights/ Eagan i.ndustrial corridor. 0� the 396 arrivals noted in August, 312 (?8.8�) arrived on runway 29L while seven {1.8�} arrived on 29R. Of the 120 noted depart�ure�, 8'7 (72.5�) utilized runway 11R while two (1.7�) used 11L. �Consistent with the proviaion� of the RUS, this data shaw� a strong use of the sou�hern parallel runway during ni.ghtti.me operations. � A� our November meeting I wil.l present a number of graphic� which wil]. hopefully help clari€y this issue. Should you have questions before then, please feel free to caZl a� 452';1850. '. � C' ._ `k _ _� , CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO November 6, 19� TO:. Members of the Airport Relatio s Commission FROM: Tom Lawell, City Administ SUBJECT: Update of MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan 13 Attached please find a copy of a letter recently received from the MAC regarding an update to the MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan (LTCP). The City has been invited to serve on a� Technical Committee which will provide input and review work done on this plan update. • � The implications of the .LTCP update will be discussed in greater detail at our November meeting. + 0 �`''� �„* � `* �t .,,* -i� �'_ � METROPOLITAN �lIRPORTS COMMISSION Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport 6040 - 28th Avenue South • Minneapolis, MN 55450-2799 Phone (612) 726-8100 �• Fax (612) 726-5296 October 27, 1993 Tom Lawell City Administrator City of Mendota Heights 1101 �ctoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Dear Tom: As part of the Dual Track.Airport Planning Process, the Metropolitan Airports Commission is required to update the Long Term Comprehensive Plan (LTCP) 'for Minneapolis-St.� Paul International Airport (MSP). The LTCP was completed in November '1991, consistent with statutory requirements and �ecommended that future development of MSP should include a new west terminal building and north-south runway. � To assist in this work, the MAC is forming a Technical Committee to provide input and review work done on this plan update. Membership on the Technical Committee will consist of representatives of local, state and federal agencies, as well as airline and other airport users. ' * You, or your designee, are invited to participate in the Technical Committee. We expect to have monthly meetings of the committee, with �meetings scheduled to coincide with key points in the study. The meetings will be• held at the MAC General Offices, 6040 28th Avenue South, Minneapolis. � Our first meeting.is scheduled for Tuesday, November 9,1993, at 1:30 p.m. to discuss the upda�e process, the overall Dual Track Planning Process, and organizational matters. Please provide written confirmation of your participation in the Committee. A second meeting will be held a few weeks later to begin to address the specifics of the update. If you have any questions, please contact me at (612) 726-8187, j Sincerely, Nigel D. Finney Deputy Executive Director Planning & Environment The Metropolitan Airports Commissioa is an affirmative action employer. Relie'ver Airports: AIf2LAKE • ANOKA COUNTY/BLAINE • CRYSTAL • FLYING CIAUD • LAKE ELMO •$AIlVT DO�MNI�OWN . t . H . ... ...,T..,._'„� �,,,7a.ry �. ,1 � ii � • . r' rytr � J, ��; .. r� .\\� • _^+,� �: ti�� .. ..�. � a' rp, ` � � � S 1,' . � . . �� ~ , � M1 .r: i �D' f t+�t_, = 7 i""' i i � b1,� 7 � • . , �+ �t= . i t,v,; � �rt,�"y4f~"``,'s,�-t t s.: ., � -i ' i t' `•' . �� x � .,�i's•" :. %!�j . r sr,��' � . � .�i t �.J; M1 �'�nRU �'`'r�� S O :y•f ` • t'�. �.� ''-� +'. � �R ' � . . � ' M' `' y'� �'./� '`+ .y �.., •<� � �. f', �` .s. `_ ry 'f C.L�1'+ tt5 %/'� fr' :,,` � ; �.� gtaM�01 pH ... '� � O�� jh . � t `�' �, ,� ` ` . � t' � .; ,-.;• , �t.. �;. xs. i , -%.� r .. . ne�ppj' , �...x!�..,;��, �:�; : . � . �'`�,4' ��- � _ � .� w,�.nW '"�.: . • , . ... ,Si.s# � 1a +x�. �1,'. 5 1 , �-'^ ' r: p r,!r ` .�sn:sr � SNChfYlEW �'N:lC f. '"�' c` �'' • ' 'i'M1 i N`U 1 �ii �, /' �y,r t7 �ti N�� q O7TSy,4,_,� AH1CkNAS �:AR � 4, . � • � _ 1 =i�f�`�. /,.,Y•"r,+/ „ �� t � <,., �t .;,� i .._S!r �r'f'`" , l -, t 1;� , , ' • .. "r �- :.' ...;t' J��S''� {a; ,O •'�� .� � i.�4iib. 4».., •C;�.�f �i:�� ,r; �` , f�, �, ., . . �f�:• •• '�'^ ... •)...: �. )+t ij ;. { j' �� . r • 1 % • v r7a . . . . . ,: ,: ..,..4 ,. ,� �f_._"rf�po�_ �. �.f--, .� �� ' �' }.,: i `i� 'j.... ^ ' f� � r . _i . ' � � , .. .'•','-0�.4. . . . ' • �, +ll � �//^r+(lf iJ �I � ,if �� • ' ' �. f,.�'Y' / �' r . . ,y � - • �` ' ' �i • � � � ~' . i +' •f %} :' iK' :,tw✓� � i �t � , .� . ,,."t�.' t _ ! l . .'?�4+'; ,i•`f� �, ,` , �; . �. � . �._..: �a. % ri.:.�%•�•; . ^. NHt '`'- / t � 7y�� _ 1 ` ' ! ' • •' ", i �..+'.• tr ' '+R`i...K:;'k i •_•C,_...li ': ��.h t � ,✓ f �i'Utt� . ' • _ . . :t .r/ . 't� ..'•t• �`;Y1�� F�. „xi ;: ' �. ' w?i'i`�.%� � / � ..$..R �� ,vC"'cn ' . �,"t. '� , ` y�.•. ..,�:c�.,: ....,,,,.,,ritF ,�70,.� .-,;j��-...., �`} ' • . . . � t' . "�y `��f= _.... 'ry",% `_ ws�'"� "i� .r,;,;•:.�. ;E;i'�a::��v:� { �F. ��f. n.�,t� ' �, . �% �::c i . • : : :� a / , j `�:jx:j ..^-7'•ic„�=„ ��-..�.... ,�� ' . . .r'�r� ��u � :r.*'�.'�:>!,.,�,��,. ,r,. ',:'' ,S�' •�'."• : t n;,:f; :-7::=,�i-� .'a�x:�.� ..f� ! ".t:� ,j,., T••:-...�,:{;,,�. !�/ ,r:,� •.�t. :;;_,+�t',:,K s }'; ,�_'r;.;;;..' '�. �,A .�:�s: ;;.�,,,� •;;t=^ 1 �.., .. ..3.�.-�-...,�' �}�, �. •? .'; . 'Y',4"�3��t��y.:� '�:., .1 t ` :� y+?}^jr, � ,.�.. .� f, tr...._Y,�y� � ••::�- _..s' } • .. _:.�,.-�;::.:::.y:�x t po .'� � ':,::. �Y'• :� \� �ln. ��*�.� " �l �'� i� "r.', r t "�." . •", .,• �� ! mt 1 .�'� .. . '�•: . .�• tt; � � �' ,!,'�'F;<'r•'' iy�/.•.... .:.. x.in:. ��'[y� .i �... ..�,;,..`...� .��. •%: , ��/7)fl. w..,, r ,r * .. . :�. •..,r:; i�o . `�,��F•-....: r •'L. ..ti�,�t;,l0��:,�-,t,;;�.' ?�! _•. �t"� ai'�f.`f� i � 1 }'j _.'';i >�Y, 1 �`,j� � � ��, j , i ��/�J ~ � ;, � i� .a7�.rf.i��:z::_SvS•'`�+,� Y• "'�,r ,� � 8{� :�1 �^"`•,�+,+. 2�.. LJ �e;.` . ?'�-:: '�: • ..� M, ,�;��t� .:i� y : �� ll�� `.1��..,i, } l �+ �' ��.,�..:....�� ';J� . ""`+ i....« 7'!G9;:;t.. "" �,� t`.�•�''� 1........,C�.i-'n~ � f � ' � t ' �� "� ,1ty �,�;,�, „��f1.. 1 r r: +: ,� � ('� �+- • � �:+o+,,... ,q�„�...r�-i, �_ � ,� - • �,f c.nifiC' i}%v:...�':�--^;�:::...; ' i '\ . ..r" r+ . • �,,;�� 7 � ...� . : 7 i�. . '�� ,f�.....1r ' ; _.�.: . :� ., ..r =.�., . . �, /�t..:,U "`t�.._`!�- ;.,. � , :�t�: ,. .±r'� u��"•�': .:;....�. -�',:,.: ::�: . �i�`, s::�-- .��! ( ; f .�-'.... : .� i M •"':;J1 . ; . -, � i: ""':� ��:`K"'�=.{ t� • � �`""� t � �� T j} -ir..c., `� ' 71C,t�� ..''uS r �;.' ' � rr�.. �� 't. ` i ��/ <� g�:u;'r.Ct%.7� 5;�;,.•�•`.. � �!�ti�t<jL.lo '�a �'-r...�„� ��'�.. �f�' :� �f1�7�:!a.�r, � t � �r '�',�i �X"� ?k C3ti}gl:. f'��: f ,� '' �„�� 7N C.2i.8Q , s �ir ,. 'r4�f':',..`j. � ,;` '`�4,.,;r. ^ - «;. . � � � { �hrlt � , t;... „;. , � i r'. �, • �� ^�z...;,.# � � : � Y r J '°'a�.id�w i f `i �r .:•• r :i `+c� �s.. i. �� , t L : : . ^-��:,,,. .. t ' '`1 ;/f -• 4. �� • ' y �,z v .. t�.d• r,+r.,.'zE?' i' vw��ut � \ � t... .,.t .a.:� Ovi�l�;� :.t .� . : ! ,� '•�'-`.� 1 '.r . ��. ✓` '7 x�.Y �y � t .s �$4 �+ 7: i � ..` i.....,.r ,r +�s�,. +.� Q f "x:.�"•}:"k � ��: � e' Q_7fj� t' :� '� ��. ��f� �jj'Ob� l 7. ;,�j --z•.. ,-..yY�.�... � .. } .. � 'r ', : - .. � $RY�N '� �(i'6 t� haa:r i.*� • �; ?...�.$ ' '' ,\� r"fUi? �•Sk91 ... 3 ~�� ^�`'`:•-�....�= r ~~1 ,'� . ' � 5L i _.�`:�: �� t'titY&, +, t L ?J+,i,,lr1. `X, � ~I? � A , � i�l �•%1.P�`'�• ,, � { U�'(y y� � i�x0 ,1.% n,•� � 7.:..e ond J� � .�s� , >��"', .rr;,��j:.: � ��:1 y�JdB i� .Ml,yr'rth.�2.� i)?.5�� x 1 � � �+ C /p9�1��tOAN ��• ��j d C J �Jse . ' ! . ; . T�[ ,Nan:i„(/ , .... 1b �y 5 7 Ck f $� � / F+FA�+ �'" �6ry,; 7� d�35� �ad BUk� ' ., �Y �- /v".'�a :efNw�Z/ • i•.., �^-.. ' • 1 • t-.....•. !1Q:s•ii . Y 1 011jHbAtE � Q. f:t�f � Gpix 'e . --' t �� ` " ` � '` ! {� t� ft,.,,.:. , :' �� ; �4 . � MSAj �, 4 A. tT f tqNq BT ..�� jj / t�! )Oe � �jQQ`h 4' . �� .. -�.; . ;.:,' �� .Y � � �. � (Jo O f.;t .c.w. �ii.CEr•'� :�� .,s:S �,K ��'3t � ` i� �Aro �t e ' ? ,� - ..� 7• �'. • £.. �:'. 6qtyy • � ; �t . � .a`, f � t.. y.� � � � t J3 , .. ` J ° =... 3 ` : �;::�L:"...a :��.>�� r f �'� � J.t; ° � .r� � ♦ � H Si gq Aftpry � 1:. ' }MA-.....�.�.t pf � ' �, �.�; y ��,,!!�a CIR.£ •.. �:�-.,1 h.ti�a �• n:+.� ,.�J ` J� \" Z � �' �U � � 0/ ��„ ,x�- .✓�':��'"�.. 4' �' � � `u � , rJ1. ,,,, f� MI } f `�� i a�. .,�'t ^�.9,r,�Jyy�«..7� � '1't;f ,i=, . . J Q i W .x. Hpp+ % --�� . �,: .._��g'lc,j`r � . � .;�. - hf�: t ,�. ,1 ' "{ '`. { �y ';\..%?"cv r 1Ny �AIL2.!({ "-:w � P� EY � .,,..,,,/ KI • ) , �l ..e(* 'y.� ..k •: �<�' t.,;. � .90 S :?a.;t '�g i• �') ..� j i n,�� , ..� at., j� y1 �ST � t ;,y .r,•� , . 'tAy.+b�•.: _ �.�,j�'. ' H:':` o !.2 � `�7`�1 �e. v ia:.. '�t i� �/.+�, � �f G � �,t ~^:i:, j� � ' � ' �N �. :.>T ,,%�:-.. ..,,..,F.::�:.� � _ �:.�:-• : ,za:, w v' u. . : ,... � ' � t �''� ' �": y.. !t ""=::� 'zsc:'._s - � •••n..%t' �, h'L�Ai..<� Y iE tii M .:1 �•� �43 �R ,�,• ';,.� ;��a, ::�,AlflArf t'?-:..> , �+ -. ,( ..'.f.' th �r (+ $�.'2. '� iT43J �� . r- ,' •�r'',,�t. shK;r. ~ *�' --�I "�.'`,�„�.�:.'. ' ;".- � r� c�r _./"�^'.. .,r' �, � �7 (',,y • ' �f j � , �'' .� %'`� f +. f�� ... ` '�'<<': 1 {P.iJ'+ ' _ :11 _. Y �� IK'1P.f 7b ? P: e � � � i2 ' i . i ��.f . Y _ __......a�........' x'>Ss tiy �,' .ss� • � �,r ' i� �� ,,.�_� .i. li �CK !� QOY J� J r t° } 'j Fott ""' � • •1 � .. ` " .. s. r y �•t t ,� , 'h ;'� ;� i ` '�� Y,�' � � ��'r'�F .iii�,:�.��-.. `u t �),:1; , 9.:.�'.'y' .: la , f,,". �; ' ` s) Yr `1NAgr z2 9 ��'�^t, 1� ' 1� /� G�rr 8e ,~ �, + R' :�'rt '"� � _�•'.'�.�'�,�,,�i %^��"l � � ... '� �:'pL7vrj`�s!% T"'YI ..�».::. � ��j�. r 16S'� b�'„ .�J t 4,; ( �9 �t QZ 1 `° 1 �Q7 S � � `, "! .�• t '�-�_�..,'Z�`�n ; • 4-, rA, J;; ;� ✓� ''Sr�... � � j � �'� � � • j YZr &�uwQotl .�''� R .1' k '4, ' - . �. �..:: :� ' %� c4.. 'j : v ., t'i"i :it ? try L: �_ �• • �S' � �i `I . y j' w / l.f38 `j��.. � GtOvc it.'`.� �� ' � •i' 1 e � ~i �"L... ..: . . Q j�j.� �wp ��': :t% � .? � �._,% "�j /`�. !t�l�,,,f,,• r ��""��`^'.'"'^':»,,, 'T % 7^�'�} _`"�1'„ri/'2 1 �y,� � #br yE;� � Kpg�A�S � �� ft ��j�fi i ; � � ; ,.�,h.: v �:�+..:.`•• . �=' '.° �..r .. f i �-..�.� .R g{��`'� y>,�� ,�M � � . Ffl� EBr- 6 k`.y � � �i r� i? `t`�.� � ��rHIIV�pK�.{^' y-.S �` �' «y � . m �t7 V �3 : $ � �� . , •=` 1 �1 . 1 ~ .�:� cs�..: � 4 , nfQ '� • u „r ( r / 9at +� �r - A �V ""e.Mr �� Pe.�iy mOU ! �� , '"' V„ t / � :o.-:e -•, ,` �'.f'z a � � � `t �'" - �._... _.�,`i' �, l!i •�, ! � :: � t •i�%'..ar�l� ' � r� , � � le :� �1 � ,?., � /� ....�I`'�-�-....,r�, � '1 � kry'S �i • �Y !� n �ua"{ o ��• -:....' ��_pi'i .: � � r ., Q � �Lf '" O br} �� r � t i •��:,,;r�,� :yrr`�rt`�vic�r2Q,^� i . � �- � �. Srl { ..,,,,.. r _.-.._��.� � � aA d�r :. r . ,� ' t;�T � ?' � i. .3� '<.' � _ �'rY:.f � iydia ��t'f, ' 'U�� .. W t, ^v ,� , t1Mi Coateij �S�H� � �'` `-. •'i�R.. ' �.. � 13 � ,f�,.�ff •l" ' � t � j �„ -�] • % ,s , +yt J r ~ �,{1 ?q � 'j SX�. E / p,� '�'Q; y \ �, � /'.l' i Sj, ». _ � , . C� i ` ! M ADOWI Y'� ? . �., '� ! � Dual-Track A�r ort Planning Process Long Term Comprehensiue Plan � r T a b i e o f C o n t e n t s � p �� i a l A ir or t Developmenc Options ......................Page 2 Cancepts 1 and 2 .............................Pa�e 3 Concepcs3 and 4 .............................Page 4 Concept5 and 6 ...............................Fage 5 ConceptEvaluacion ..........................Page 6 NaiseConcoars ................................Pa�;e 8 Concept Seleccion Process ................Page 9 2020 Concepcual Plan ....................:.Page 10 Appendix.........................................Fage 12 A dual-track planning process - designed to �� M� �i ei�� [� presetve the region's future major aicport aptians - The Metropolitan Airport Planning Act required was established by the Minnesota Legislature's � the Metrapolitan Airparts Commission to develop Metropolitan Airport Plat�ning Acc oE 1989. The �� Q�t �� Term Comprehensive Plan protess is being conducted by the Metrapalitan �,T�p} for Minaeapolis-St. Paul International Airpores Commission and che Metropolitan Airporc by Jan, l, 1991. This deadiine was . Council, subsequencly excencted ta Jan. 1,1992. The planning process was begun because The LTCP Eor MSP International Airport is separate scudies conducted by MAC and the intended ca provide a developmenc pian for 2010 Metropolitan Council have shown that additional and a conceptual plan for the year 2020. The airport capaciry is needed in che future co meec che plan, as directed by the Minnesota Legistature, is Iang-term aviarion needs oE the re�ian. based on the assumption chat MSP would One track facuses on possible ways ta continue to be the region's major aicport, improve the current airport. The MA.0 canducted The primary goal of che LTCP is to this planning and developed the Long Term determine the projected accivity and passenger Comprehensive Plan for Minneapolis-St. Paul 1�,��s far MSP International Airporc, assess the Internatianal Airpon. The other track focuses on �xcent of facilicies required ta meet this accivity designating a search area (a large tract af land �d to investigate ai�eld and terminal alternatives within which a site will be selected) for a possible te rneec these needs. In addition co funccional•and replacement airport for che region. The Qpe�tional issues, the LTCP addresses che Mecropolican Council conducted the search area compatibility of che airpon with its urban scudy. Bath the MAC and the Metropoiitan �nvironment. Council were required to connplete their studies by ��ring the 1990-1991 timeirame, a series Jan. 1,1992» of runway and cerminal options were considered. Beginning in 1992, MAC will select a site These were screened to the best three runway within the search area and prepare a alternatives, including a norch parallel runway, a comprehensive plan and environmentat analysis by south parallel runway, and a narth-sauch runway, the end af 1995 for a new airpart's propased and rwa terminal alternatives, including an development. By 1996, the tavo agencies are to addiaonal easc terminat aad a replacement wesc repon cheir recommendations on the direction ' r_ terminal: Pallowing detailed evaluation, a final� —future airport d"evelopmenr should cake io the "consolidated" airfield/terminal alternative was Minnesota I.egistature. then selecred as the MSP Intemational Airport 202Q Conceptual Plan. 4. - Runway and Terminal Deuelopment Options Forecasts of Fuh�re Actiuity One of the early tasks in the preparation of the LTCP for MSP International Airport was the development of forecasts of ai�rpon activiry chrough che year 2020. The forecasts served as che basis for the developmenc of detailed airport faciliry requirements for MSP, including runway, terminal, cargo and other facilities. The forecascs were developed based on historical airport activity and fucure forecascs of tegional population, employment and other sociaeconomic factors. The forecascs included specific projections of airporc passengers, aircraft operacions, air cargo tonnage and other airport accivity. A comparison of the 1989 and projected 2020 activity is as follows: � Total Passengers 1989 2020 18,548,000 39,254,OOOI • Air carrier 17,480,000 36,964,000 � • Regional carrier 1,068,000 2,290,(?00 Total Aircraft Operations 375,000 527,000 • Air Carrier 215,000 333,000 • Regional Carrier 69,000 106,000 � • General Aviation 66,000 50,000 • Military 7,000 7,000 • Ocher 18,000 31,000 Total Cargo Tonnage 280,000 508,000 Airport Facility Requirements Airport Deuelopment Concepts The analysis of airpon requirements included The chree most promising airfield alcernatives and airEield (runways and taxiways), terminal and other two best cerminal alternacives were combined to facilities. These requirements were developed yield six consolidated concepts for detailed based on the forecasts of activiry through 2020. evaluation. State stacutes require thac proposed The runway concepts which were reviewed by the runway and terminal opcions mus� be evaluated Commission were developed with che goal of and compared on the basis of the following providing three independent runways at MSP criteria: Airpott. • Aviation demand and air transportation Key operational factors considered for che needs; airfield included opecational independence in good • Airpon capacity limits and pocential; weather, dedicated arrival/depanure runways, • Facilities requirements; additional poor weather capacity and taxiway • A plan for physical developmenc, improvemencs to improve the ground flows of including financial escimates and a developmenc taxiing aircraft. schedule; The terminal requirements included an '• Airport operational characteriscics; • increase in gates from 67 to 97 by che year 2020, • Compatibility with mecropolitan and local an increase in total terminal building space from physical faciliry syscems; 1.5 to 2.9 million square feet, and an increase in • Environmental effects; - tocal automobile parking spaces from 20,000 to . • Safety; 44,000 (25,000 public and 19,000 employee). • Effect on neighboring communities. Also, domestic, internacional and regional The decailed concepc evaluation criteria facilities were developed in sueh a manner as co be utilized in the LTCP evaluation cook inco consolidated in one building. consideration all of these faccors. The final criceria Ocher requirements included 33 additional included airfield, terminal, roadway, ocher facility acres of cargo building and apron area Eor a total of location factors, environmental and land-use (off- —89 acres; and 157 additional acres of aircraft site) considerations: The on-site evaluation maincenance facilities for a total of 346 acres, included extensive airfield computer simulation. �'� CONCEPT 1 � � CONCEPT 2 �� North Parallel 6unwa�i witl� addiUonal East Terminal �� North Parallel Runway with replacement West Terminal • This concept includes a new 8000-foat north parallel runway, used predominantly far landings. Departures would occnr on the euisting north parallel runway, with arrivals and departures on che exisring souch parallel. • This new runway waald increase airpart capaciry by separating arrivals and departures onto dedicated runways, More operations would occur on the two narth nznways than on the south runway. • This runway configuration would require acyuisician of same residential property north of the Crosstown Highway for che Runway Pratectian Z.one and wauld impact a portian oEFort Snelling. • Concept 1 also includes an additional passenger terminal easc of the t. e�cisting terminal which wauld house all Norrhwesc Airlines operations. --A new satellite concourse on the airport's west side would lie accessed by a people�mover system. • A remote parking/pick-up/drop-offfacility would be develaped on the west side af the airpart. The terminal would be served by a loop roadway system with access off the existing main enery road from Highway 5. � • This concepc also includes a new 8p00-foat north parallel runway with the same descripcion as in Concept l. • Concept 2 includes a replacemenr west terminal which would be developed on the wese side of the airpatt far all aictines. The new terminat wauld accommodate retminal functians for a11 che airlines serving MSP, including domestic, international and regional carriers. A concourse far internacional fli�hcs would be locaced adjacent co the new terminal. All concourses would be accessed via an underground "people-mover systern from the west terminal. • Terminal and parking facilities would be removed from the area .between the Gold and Green Cancaurses and replaced with aircraft parking gates. A remote parkiag/pick-up/drap-of�'facility would be developed on the east side af the airport using the existing airporc eatrance road. � Automobile parking facilities would be constructed on tap of the new terrninai. A new roadway system would be developed to provide access to the west terminal via incecchanges on the Crosstown Highway and Cedar Avenue. CdNCEPT South Parailei Runway with additional East Terminai SouUi ParaClel wlth replacement West Terminal ' — * This concept includes a new 8000-foat south parallel cunway, used • This concept also includes a new 8000-fooc sourh parallel runway predominancly for landings. With two runways on the south side of the with che sarne description as in Concept 3. � airport, mare operations would be shifted to the souzh runways. • Concept 4 includes a replacement west terminal which would be • The runway woutd require considerable zeszdential relacatian, developed an che west side of che airport far all aixlines. The new terminal . znclading New Ford Tawn and an area between Cedat Avenue and the would accammodace terminal functions for aIl the airlines serving MSP, Crosstown Highway. It would also require a strtzcture over Cedar Avenue including domestic, internatianal and tegional carriecs. A concourse for` to provide an adequate runway safety area, international flights wauld be lacated adjacent to the new terminal. Ail • Concept 3 also includes an additional passenger termina! east of the conrourses would be accessed via an underground people-maver system existing rerminal which would house all Northwest Airlines operations. fram the west ternnina,l. « A remore parking/pick-up/drop-off facility would be developed on • Terminal and parking facilities wauld t�e removedfrom the area the west side of the airpon to provide an alternate arcess paint to the between the Gold and Gteen Concaurses and replaced with aircrafc parking � airport. The new terminal would be served by a loop roadway system with gaces. A remote parkinglpick-up/drop-off faciliry wauld be developed on ___ �_^__,�__ access off the existing main entry raad fram Highway S. the easr siiie of the aiipor� using che existing airpart entrance mad. • Additional gates would be provided on a new satellite concaurse on • Autamobile parking facilities would be canstructed on top of the che west side of the airport which woutd be accessed from the terminal new tetrninal. A new raadway system would be developed to provide access buildings via an underground people-mover system. to the west terminal via interchanges on the Crosstown Highway and Cedar Avenue. � � r•