2018-03-21 ARC PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION
March 21, 2018
7:00 p.m.
City of Mendota Heights‐ 1101 Victoria Curve
1.Call to Order
2.Roll Call
3.Approval of Minutes
a.Approval of Minutes of January 17, 2018 Meeting
4.Unfinished and New Business
a.Update on NOC Response to Fair Skies Proposals/Requests
b.Review of Airport Operational Statistics (link: https://www.macenvironment.org/reports/)
i.Complaint Information
ii.Runway Use
iii.Noise Monitor Charts
iv.Turboprop Charts
c.NOC Meeting Agenda for March 21, 2018 (link:
https://www.macnoise.com/pdf/NOC%20March%202018%20Agenda.pdf )
5.Acknowledge Receipt of Various Reports/Correspondence:
a.MSP 2017 Annual Noise Contour Report (link to full report: https://www.macnoise.com/pdf/final‐
msp‐2017‐annual‐noise‐contour‐report‐web.pdf)
b.January 24, 2018 NOC Meeting DRAFT Meeting Minutes
c.News Articles
6.Upcoming Meetings
a.Noise Oversight Committee Meeting 03/21/2018 1:30 pm
b.City Planning Commission Meeting 03/27/2018 7:00 pm
c.City Council Meeting 04/03/2018 7:00 pm
d.MAC Board Meeting 04/23/2018 1:00 pm
7.Public Comments
8.Commissioner Comments
9.Adjourn
Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 120 hours in advance. If a notice of
less than 120 hours is received, the City of Mendota Heights will make every attempt to provide the aids. This
may not, however, be possible on short notice. Please contact City Administration at 651‐452‐1850 with
requests.
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION MINUTES
January 17, 2018
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission was held on
Wednesday, January 17, 2018 at Mendota Heights City Hall.
1.Call to Order
Chair David Sloan called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm.
2.Roll Call
The following commissioners were present: David Sloan, Jim Neuharth, Sally Lorberbaum,
William Dunn, Gina Norling, Arvind Sharma and Kevin Byrnes.
Also present: City Administrator Mark McNeill, Assistant City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson,
State Representative Rick Hansen and State Senator Matt Klein.
3.Approval of Minutes
Approval of Minutes—November 8, 2017 Meeting
Motion by Dunn/Second by Lorberbaum to approve the minutes of the November 8, 2017
ARC meeting. Motion carried 6‐0; Sharma abstained.
4.Unfinished and New Business
a.Legislative Discussion with Representative Rick Hansen and Senator Matt Klein
Chair Sloan provided an introduction and general background of the Commission.
Commission members introduced themselves and provided background on their role
on the commission.
City Administrator McNeill introduced MSP Fair Skies Coalition requests and
provided background. Administrator McNeill shared that MSP FairSkies has
requested the NOC enhance the NOC with greater stakeholder (citizen)
representation, establish a goal to reduce noise, and to produce a 55dB and N65
NEM/Contour. Administrator McNeill noted that there is potential for legislation to
be introduced by FairSkies.
Representative Hansen and Senator Klein provided a legislative update which
included a discussion on the approaching census and future redistricting relating to
the Met Council and MAC. The importance of looking at the process and the impacts
of redistricting on MAC representation early on, was emphasized.
Commission members were asked about the interaction with MAC officials and
governance. Commissioners noted that interaction with MAC is more so with MAC
staff and the FAA. MAC Board meetings are held within the airport. Online
Item 3a
accessibility to meetings was offered as a suggestion to improve interaction with
MAC.
b. Airport Operational Statistics
The monthly operational, complaint, turboprop and noise monitor information and
charts were reviewed.
Commissioner Neuharth reviewed Turboprop information and suggested a future
discussion with NOC about a more fair distribution of flights north and south. The
Commission decided that turboprop information should be charted for both north
and south flights.
Commissioners determined that Commissioner Byrnes should continue to provide
articles from the NOC and MAC.
Commissioner Sharma noted that the hotel would not be done in time for the Super
Bowl and that Jet Blue has started to provide service from MSP.
c. Joint Meeting with Eagan Airport Relations Commission (Airfield tour May 8, 2018)
Assistant City Administrator Jacobson provided information on the joint meeting
with the Eagan Airport Relations Commission scheduled for May 8. The agenda
includes a presentation by NOC management and a tour of the airfield. The meeting
will take place at the airport.
The Commission noted that the September 12 meeting date does not work.
Depending on the agenda, the meeting could be cancelled or if a meeting is needed,
it would be rescheduled to the 26th.
5. Acknowledge Receipt of Various Reports/Correspondence
The November 20, 2017 MAC Board meeting, the draft minutes of the November 15, 2017
NOC meeting, MAC Noise Program 2017 Year End Highlights and news articles were
reviewed.
6. Public Comments
There were no members of the public present.
7. Commissioner Comments
8. Adjourn
Motion by Neuharth/Second by Dunn to adjourn at 8:12pm. Motion carried 7‐0.
Minutes Taken By:
Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator
MEMORANDUM
TO: MSP Noise Oversight Committee (NOC)
FROM: Dana Nelson, Manager—Noise, Environment & Planning
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO MSP FAIRSKIES REQUESTS
DATE: March 7, 2018
At the September 20, 2017 NOC meeting, the co-founders of the MSP FairSkies Coalition made
several requests to the Committee. The presentation slides containing these requests were sent
to the Committee following the meeting and added to the meeting presentation deck at:
www.macnoise.com/sites/www.macenvironment.org/files/pdf/noc-presentation-20170920.pdf.
In summary, the following requests were made to the NOC:
1.Enhance the NOC with greater stakeholder (citizen) representation
2.Establish a goal to reduce noise
3.Produce and publish a 55 dB DNL and N65 NEM/Contour
The NOC Co-Chairs directed MAC staff to present information for consideration with respect to
each request at the November 15, 2017 NOC meeting. Presentation slides containing these
considerations are available in the meeting presentation deck under Item 3 at:
www.macnoise.com/pdf/noc-presentation-20171115FINAL.pdf
During the November 2017 meeting the Committee members discussed the requests and
determined it was necessary to allow time to consider staff’s presentation, discuss among the at-
large groups and respond to the requests at its January 2018 meeting. During the January
meeting the Committee members discussed the first two requests above. MAC Staff presented
contextual points related to the requests. These presentation slides are available under Item 4 at:
https://www.macnoise.com/sites/www.macenvironment.org/files/pdf/noc-presentation-
20180124_final.pdf.
During the NOC’s discussion in January, a representative of MSP FairSkies was available to
answer questions and provide additional detail to the Committee. Related to the first request,
Committee members recognized the importance of a balanced forum for discussing aircraft noise
issues at MSP. It was noted that the predecessor to the NOC did not have such a balanced
membership, which contributed to its discontinuation. The Committee agreed that the
membership of the NOC should remain the same with six industry representatives and six
community representatives, however they recognized the opportunity to review the NOC Bylaws
in an effort to facilitate greater citizen input. Therefore, the Committee decided to create a NOC
Bylaw Review Subcommittee made up of the following four member representatives: City of
ITEM 3
12
Item 4a
Minneapolis, City of Bloomington, At-Large Industry, and Chief Pilot. The Subcommittee has met
on one occasion and plans to bring recommended Bylaw changes back to the NOC in May.
With regard to the request to establish a noise reduction goal, the Committee thoroughly
discussed the challenges in creating a goal that is specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and
timely given the strict regulatory requirements imposed on airports in the United States in the
name of noise reduction. The Committee agreed that a significant amount of effort and resources
are provided to the residential sound insulation program and passed the following goal: To provide
residential sound mitigation out to the actual 60 dB DNL noise contour by the year 2024. It was
noted that passing such a goal will not prevent the Committee from discussing the establishment
of additional goals in the future. The draft meeting minutes from the January 24, 2018 NOC
meeting, provided in Item 1 of this agenda packet includes a detailed account of the dialogue
during the meeting.
This request and ensuing discussion at the NOC regarding the establishment of a noise reduction
goal is the impetus behind conducting the MSP Noise Management Benchmarking Study,
discussed in this agenda packet under Item 5. A component of the Benchmarking Study is to look
at how other airports are discussing and achieving noise reductions and identify improvement
opportunities for the MAC Noise Program Office and the NOC.
Due to the length of the meeting in January, the Committee decided to delay the discussion about
the remaining requests until its March 21, 2018 meeting.
REQUESTED ACTION
PROVIDE COMMITTEE RESPONSE TO THE REMAINING MSP FAIRSKIES REQUESTS.
13
Complaints by Location—By Month (2017, 2018) 2017 Mpls Eagan Edina MH Blmgtn January 92 26 11 11 7 February 143 30 23 14 7 March 160 37 23 17 13 April 183 45 40 20 11 May 203 54 32 18 17 June 285 49 31 16 16 July 286 65 32 31 10 August 286 77 36 19 19 September 290 62 21 13 9 October 151 40 16 14 6 November 111 31 13 8 5 December 84 24 12 5 6 2018 Mpls Eagan Edina MH Blmgtn January 84 21 10 7 5 February 86 21 18 7 3 March April May June July August September October November December Location = Complainants Percent of All Departures by Location (2017, 2018) 2017 Mpls/ Richfield30R Eagan 12R Edina 30L MH 12L Blmgtn17 January 24% 6% 32% 10% 28% February 25% 4% 33% 9% 30% March 19% 8% 30% 14% 29% April 23% 9% 29% 14% 25% May 27% 6% 30% 12% 27% June 26% 5% 28% 12% 29% July 17% 7% 21% 19% 37% August 24% 5% 23% 14% 34% September 20% 7% 18% 16% 39% October 23% 4% 26% 14% 33% November 23% 4% 25% 12% 36% December 29% 5% 33% 8% 26% 2018 Mpls/ Richfield30R Eagan 12R Edina 30L MH 12L Blmgtn17 January 26% 4% 30% 8% 31% February 23% 5% 29% 10% 33% March April May June July August September October November December Item 4b.i.Complaint Information
9226111178421107524%6%32%10%28%26%4%30%8%31%0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%0102030405060708090100Mpls Eagan Edina MH BlmgtnPercent of All DeparturesNumber of LocationsLocationJanuary Complaints and Departures By Location 20172018City January Complaints January Night Departures 2017 2018 2017 2018 Minneapolis 2,018 2,931 171 131 Eagan 1,744 958 99 110 Edina 91 65 211 188 Mendota Heights 139 32 71 52 Bloomington 369 88 2 35 Total 4,361 4,074 554 516
14330231478621187325%4%33%9%30%23%5%29%10%33%0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%020406080100120140160Mpls Eagan Edina MH BlmgtnPercent of All DeparturesNumber of LocationsLocationFebruary Complaints and Departures By Location 20172018City February Complaints February Night Departures 2017 2018 2017 2018 Minneapolis 4,419 3,063 113 128 Eagan 1,940 1,188 72 107 Edina 146 50 149 230 Mendota Heights 130 107 36 99 Bloomington 521 37 8 115 Total 7,156 4,445 378 679
Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC)
Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP)
Noise Oversight Committee (NOC)
MAC General Office Building
Lindbergh Conference Room
6040 28th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55450
NOC Committee Members
Dianne Miller – Co-Chair, City of Eagan Representative (City of Eagan)
Jeffrey Hart – Co-Chair (Delta Air Lines)
Ryan Barette – Minnesota Business Aviation Association Representative
Kyle Bronowski – At-Large Airport User Representative (Endeavor Air, Inc.)
Pam Dmytrenko – City of Richfield Representative (City of Richfield)
Andrew Johnson – City of Minneapolis Representative (Minneapolis City Council)
John Klinger – Chief Pilot Representative (Delta Air Lines)
Todd Lawrence – Charter/Scheduled Operator Representative (Sun Country Airlines)
Tom Link – At-Large Community Representative (City of Inver Grove Heights)
Dwayne Lowman – City of Bloomington Representative (Bloomington City Council)
Jay Miller – City of Mendota Heights Representative (Mendota Heights City Council)
Angie Moos – Cargo Carrier Representative (United Parcel Service)
MEETING AGENDA
March 21, 2018 at 1:30 pm
MAC General Office Building
Lindbergh Conference Room
(Jeff Hart, Delta Air Lines, will be the acting Chairperson for the meeting)
*Note: 1:00 to 1:30 – Committee Agenda Review Session
(NOC members only in the Coleman Conference Room)
1.1:30 – 1:35 Review and Approval of the January 24, 2018 Meeting Minutes
2.1:35 – 1:50 Review of Monthly Operations Reports: January and February, 2018
3.1:50 – 2:30 Response to MSP FairSkies Requests
4.2:30 – 3:00 MSP Noise Management Benchmarking Study Scope
5.3:00 – 3:20 2017 Annual Noise Contour Report and Mitigation Eligibility
6.3:20 – 3:30 Vortex Generator Noise Monitoring Study
7.3:30 – 3:40 Super Bowl Activity Debrief
8.3:40 – 3:50 Review of the Winter Listening Session
9.4:00 Public Comment Period
10. Announcements
11. Adjourn
1
Item 4c
MEMORANDUM
TO: MSP Noise Oversight Committee (NOC)
FROM: Dana Nelson, Manager—Noise, Environment & Planning
SUBJECT: 2017 ANNUAL NOISE CONTOUR REPORT AND MITIGATION
ELIGIBILITY
DATE: March 7, 2018
In October 2007, the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) and the cities of Minneapolis,
Richfield and Eagan, received judicial approval of a Consent Decree that provided settlement of
the noise mitigation lawsuits filed in 2005. Pursuant to the Consent Decree, the MAC is required,
by March of each calendar year, to prepare an Annual Noise Contour Analysis that reflects an
assessment of actual noise generated by operations at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport
(MSP).
Consent Decree Background
The first amendment to the 2007 Consent Decree was initiated in 2013 and establishes
Residential Noise Mitigation Program eligibility based on annual assessments of actual MSP
aircraft activity rather than projections. To be eligible, a home must be located within the actual
60 dB DNL noise contour and exposed to a higher noise mitigation eligibility area when compared
the previous noise mitigation program area for three consecutive years. The first of the three years
must occur by 2020. The Full 5-decibel Reduction Package is offered to single-family homes
meeting these criteria inside the actual 63 dB DNL noise contour while the Partial Noise Reduction
Package is offered to single-family homes in the actual 60-62 dB DNL noise contours. A uniform
Multi-Family Noise Reduction Package is offered to multi-family units within the actual 60 dB DNL
noise contour. Homes will be mitigated in the year following their eligibility determination. The
2013 actual noise contour marked the first year in assessing this new mitigation program.
A second amendment was made to the 2007 Consent Decree in 2017. This amendment allows
the use of the Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT) to develop the actual noise contours
each year, beginning with the 2016 actual noise contour. In 2015, AEDT became the federally-
approved computer model for determining and analyzing noise exposure and land use
compatibility issues around airports in the United States. The second amendment also provided
clarity on the Opt-Out Eligibility criteria. Specifically, single-family homes that previously opted out
of the Partial Noise Reduction Package may participate in the Full 5-decibel Reduction Package,
provided the home meets the eligibility requirements.
2017 Annual Noise Contours
The 2017 Annual Noise Contour Report evaluation concludes that there was an overall decrease
in residents within the 60 dB DNL noise contours as compared to both the 2016 actual and 2007
forecast noise exposure contours. Most areas around MSP have been provided noise mitigation
beyond the actual 60 dB DNL noise exposure levels experienced in 2017. Based on the 415,703 1
total operations at MSP in 2017, the actual 60 dB DNL contour is approximately 27 percent smaller
1 Based on airport operations counts documented by the Federal Aviation Administration for MSP in 2017.
ITEM 5
17
Item 5a
than the 2007 forecast contour and the 65 dB DNL contour is approximately 38 percent smaller
than the 2007 forecast contour. The predominant contraction in the contours from the 2007
forecast to the 2017 actual noise contour scenario is driven largely by a reduction in total aircraft
operations by 28.6 percent, 274.9 fewer average daily flights in Hushkit Stage 3 aircraft, and a
daily average of 3.2 fewer flights during the nighttime. However, there continues to be small areas
where the 2017 actual noise contours extend beyond the 2007 forecast noise contours
establishing First-, Second-, and Third-year Candidate Eligibility under the terms of the amended
Consent Decree. This expansion of noise impacts can largely be attributed to nighttime runway
use variances between what was forecasted for 2007 and what actually occurred in 2017,
particularly an increase of the nighttime arrival operations on Runways 12R and 30L.
First-Year Candidate Mitigation Eligibility
The 2017 actual noise contour includes 63 single-family homes within the First-Year eligibility
area for the Partial Noise Reduction Package. These homes were previously eligible for
homeowner reimbursements. Of these homes, 33 are located in Eagan, 25 are in Minneapolis
and 5 are located in Inver Grove Heights. There are no multi-family units within the First-Year
eligibility area. If these 63 single-family homes remain in a higher noise impact area compared to
the previous noise mitigation program for two more consecutive years, they will be eligible for
mitigation in 2021.
Second-Year Candidate Mitigation Eligibility
The 2017 actual noise contour includes 243 homes within the Second-Year eligibility area. It is
important to note that a reduction in aircraft noise exposure in 2017 compared to 2016 resulted
in the 2017 actual noise contour shrinking in Minneapolis along the arrival lobe for Runway 12R.
Based on this analysis, 200 single-family homes and 149 multi-family units that met the First-Year
Candidate Eligibility criteria in the 2016 analysis no longer meet the noise level criteria required
for Second-Year Candidate Eligibility.
Of the 243 homes within the 2017 Second-Year eligibility area, 140 were previously outside the
program area and 24 were previously eligible for homeowner reimbursements. The 2017 actual
noise contour includes another 79 single-family homes within the Second-Year eligibility area for
the Full 5-decibel Reduction Package. There are no multi-family units within the Second-Year
eligibility area. If these 243 total single-family homes remain in a higher noise impact area
compared to the previous noise mitigation program by virtue of the 2018 actual noise contour,
they will be eligible for mitigation in 2020.
Third-Year Candidate Mitigation Eligibility
The 2017 actual noise contour includes 430 homes within the Third-Year eligibility area and will
be invited into the mitigation program in 2019. Again, it is important to note that a reduction in
aircraft noise exposure in 2017 compared to 2016 resulted in the 2017 actual noise contour
shrinking in Minneapolis along the arrival lobe for Runway 12R. Based on this analysis, 53 homes
that met the Second-year Candidate Eligibility criteria in the 2016 analysis no longer meet the
noise level criteria required for Third-year Candidate Eligibility.
Of the 430 homes that meet the Third-year Candidate Eligibility, 249 homes were eligible for the
Partial Noise Reduction Package. Of these, 177 homes were previously located outside the
eligibility area and 72 homes were previously eligible for homeowner reimbursements. These
single-family homes are entered into the 2019 mitigation program to receive one of two mitigation
options, as detailed in Section 9.5(b) of the first amendment to the 2007 Consent Decree. The
remaining 181 single-family homes are eligible for the Full 5-decibel Reduction Package.
18
There are no multi-family units that meet the criteria for Third-Year Candidate Eligibility.
Homeowners of eligible properties will be notified by the MAC in writing by mid-2018.
In cases where homes have received previous reimbursements or mitigation from the MAC, those
improvements will be deducted from the efforts required to increase the home mitigation relative
to the actual noise level, per the amended Consent Decree.
The blocks meeting the First-, Second-, and Third-Year Candidate Eligibility by virtue of the 2017
actual noise contours are shown in Figures 1 and 2 on the next page.
Red blocks are those that were previously outside any previous mitigation area and are inside
the Partial Mitigation Package area.
Orange blocks are those that were previously inside the mitigation reimbursement area and are
now inside the Partial Mitigation Package area. Any previous reimbursements paid are deducted
from the dollar allocation for the Partial Mitigation Package.
Blue blocks are those that were previously eligible for the Partial Mitigation Package and are
now inside the Full 5-decibel Mitigation Package area. The value of previous mitigation provided
to the home would be deducted from the Full 5-decibel Package.
19
Figure 1: 2017 Contours with Mitigation Program Eligibility – Minneapolis
Figure 2: 2017 Contours with Mitigation Program Eligibility – Eagan and Inver Grove Heights
20
2017 Mitigation Program
In 2017 the MAC began the project to provide mitigation to 138 single-family homes that became
eligible by virtue of the 2015 actual noise contour. As of February 12, 2018, 92 homes have been
completed, 37 homes have begun the construction or pre-construction phases, and nine homes
declined participation.
Two multi-family structures are also eligible to participate in the Multi-Family Mitigation Program
in 2017; one property is in pre-construction, and one property declined to participate. The year-
to-date construction cost for the 2017 Mitigation Program is $1,795,957.
2018 Mitigation Program
In late 2017 the MAC began contacting the homeowners of 283 single-family homes that achieved
eligibility by virtue of the 2016 actual noise contour. As of February 12, 2018, five homes have
been completed, 271 homes have begun the construction or pre-construction phases, and seven
homes declined participation. The 2018 Mitigation Program does not include any multi-family
properties. To date, $90,252 has been spent on the 2018 Mitigation Program. Figure 3 below
illustrates the areas that are included in the 2017 and 2018 Mitigation Programs in green. Those
outlined in blue will be invited to participate in the 2019 Mitigation Program. All blocks eligible for
mitigation in the 2017-2019 programs are located within the City of Minneapolis.
Figure 3: 2017 Contours with 2017-2019 Mitigation Program Eligibility
The 2017 Annual Noise Contour Report is available at http://www.macnoise.com/noise-
mitigation-program/msp-annual-noise-contour-analysis-reports. MAC staff will present the 2017
Annual Noise Contour Report and associated mitigation eligibility at the March 21, 2018 NOC
meeting.
THIS IS AN INFORMATIONAL ITEM ONLY; NO COMMITTEE ACTION REQUIRED.
21
MSP NOISE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
DRAFT MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, 24th of January 2018 at 1:30pm
MAC General Office
Lindbergh Conference Room
Call to Order
A regularly-scheduled meeting of the MSP Noise Oversight Committee, having been duly called,
was held Wednesday, 24th of January 2018, in the Lindbergh Conference Room at the MAC
General Office. Chair Miller called the meeting to order at 1:31pm. The following were in attendance:
Representatives: T. Link; L. Moore; G. Goss; H. Moody; D. Miller; P. Dmytrenko; L.
Olson; D. Sloan; A. Moos; D. Lowman; A. Mason
Staff: D. Nelson; B. Juffer, C. Leqve; A. Kolesar; J. Lewis;
Others: C. Koppen – UPS; D. O’Leary – City of Sunfish Lake; M. Nolan – City
of Edina; Maria Reagan Gonzalez – City of Richfield; J. Winingar –
FAA; J. Davidman Delta; L. Grotz – City of Edina; B. Hoffman – City
of Saint Louis Park; K. Terrell – MSP FairSkies; S. Devich – City of
Richfield; M. Sands – FAA; S. Thompson – MSP FairSkies
1.Review and Approval of the November 15, 2017 Meeting Minutes
Chair Miller, Eagan asked if there were changes to the November Meeting Minutes, there were
none and approval was moved by Representative Dmytrenko, Richfield, seconded by
Representative Goss, Delta, and passed unanimously.
2.Review of Monthly Operations Reports: November and December, 2017
Brad Juffer, Assistant Technical Advisor, reported that there were 32,268 operations in
November and 33,098 operations in December, with November 2017 slightly higher than 2016
while December 2017 had 5 less flights than December 2016.
Juffer then reported there were 1,789 flights between 10:30 PM and 6:00 AM in November, which
is two more than November 2016. December had 2,119 nighttime operations, which is 33 less
than December 2016.
The annual flights recorded in the MAC’s Noise and Operations Monitoring System (MACNOMS)
in 2017 was 413,480. This is a minimal increase of .6% from 2016. Total operations between
10:30 pm and 6:00 am ended the year at 24,241. This is a 3.35% decrease from 2016.
Item 1
2
Item 5b
MSP Noise Oversight Committee
24 January 2018
2
Juffer then noted that MACNOMS does not record every operation at MSP, historically we
capture 99.5% of all activity as reported by the FAA. In 2017, the FAA recorded 415,703
operations at MSP.
MSP runway use during 2017 saw more of a balance between use of North Flows and South
Flows than in 2016. Approximately 50% of all departures in 2017 used Runways 30L or 30R while
nearly 50% used 12L, 12R or 17. Approximately 57% of all arrivals in 2017 used Runways 30L,
30R or 35 and 43% used 12L or 12R.
The chief cause of change in runway use is a result of the FAA’s efforts to adjust to CRO rules.
Northbound arrivals to Runways 30L, 30R and 35 increased in 2017 when compared to 2016.
The net result was more hours spent in a North or Straight North Flow.
Departures from Runways 30L and 30R also increased in 2017. The change was not balanced
between the two runways. One of the effects of CRO was the FAA funneling departures to
Runway 30R during CRO operations and in 2016 there were atypically more departures on
Runway 30R than on Runway 30L. This condition returned to a more normal state with Runway
30L handling 27% of the departures and Runway 30R taking 23%.On the south flow runways,
arrivals to Runways 12L and 12R decreased by more than 13,000 operations and the same
13,000 reduction occurred on Departures from 12L,12R and 17. The drop in time spent in South
Flow was absorbed by time in a North Flow and a slight increase in Mixed Flow.
Juffer then reported on the trends in fleetmix categories, noting that the annual numbers for
carrier jet splits follow the trend from 2013 through 2017. The use of narrowbody aircraft is
increasing, use of regional jets is decreasing, and widebodies are stable.
The noise office received complaints from 244 locations in November falling to 187 in December.
In 2016, 304 locations filed a complaint in November and 183 locations filed a complaint in
December. These locations filed a total of 8,929 complaints in November and 7,184 complaints
in December. The two months had 2,500 more complaints than the same time period in 2016, a
19% increase.
For all of 2017, the Noise Office received 149,055 complaints. This is an increase of 32,000 or
27% from the previous year.
Juffer used a grid map to visually differentiate complaint numbers and locations.
Grids highlighted in yellow filed 12 or less complaints for the whole year or 1 per month. There
were 179 of these areas out of the 403 total. 63 areas only filed one complaint all year.
On the other end of the spectrum,
• there were 8 areas of the metro that filed between 10-25 times per day
• There was 1 area that filed between 25-50 complaints per day
• There was 1 area that filed more than 50 complaints per day
Juffer then changed to a graphic showing the grid shading to represent complaint location
density.
3
MSP Noise Oversight Committee
24 January 2018
3
The majority of the 403 unique grid areas from 2017 had 10 or less locations. 368 or 91% of these
locations had less than 10 locations. What is noteworthy is 60% of the grids had 1 or 2 locations.
Moving up the scale
• 21 grids had between 11 and 20 locations
• 11 grids had between 21 and 30 locations
• And 3 locations had more than 30 locations. There were 105 locations in this 3 grid area
E of Lake Harriet
Juffer explained that the top ten complaint locations filed a total of 78,106 complaints or 52% of
the total at MSP. The top 25 locations filed 101,761 complaints or 68% of the total at MSP. On
the opposite end, 1,146 locations or 71% of all accounts filed 10 or less complaints.
Juffer continued with presenting sound monitoring data. He reported a total of 438 hours of
November was spent above 65 dB recorded by aircraft at the MAC’s system of 39 Remote
Monitoring Towers (RMTs), dropping to 365 hours in December.
The RMTs recorded 83,362 aircraft events above 65 dB in November and 73,949 events in
December.
Juffer continued on to noise abatement, the Runway 17 Departure Procedure was used 99.7%
and 98.8% of the time in November and December, respectively. There were 46 jets that turned
west of the turn-point in December, higher than normal. During December 7, strong winds from
the west/southwest were reported, resulting in 15 flights diverting west of the turn point.
The Eagan-Mendota Heights Corridor Procedure was used 97% and 97.2% of the time in
November and December, respectively. Juffer noted the continuing trend of 4 consecutive
months with > 97% usage. The Crossing-in-the-Corridor procedure was used 25% and 31% of
the time during the day and 45% and 34% of the time at night in November and December,
respectively.
On the Runway Use System, high priority runways were used 54% and 55% of the time in
November and December, respectively. In November there was more balance between
North/South priority runways. That shifted in December when 50% of the hours were spent in a
North Flow and 27% of the hours were spent in a South flow.
Juffer then reported the 2017 year-end noise abatement trends compared to 2016, noting the
annual use of the Eagan-Mendota Heights Corridor and Runway 17 Departure procedures
increased, while the Crossing-in-the-Corridor procedure fell slightly and the RUS high-priority
runways remained level
Representative Link, Inver Grove Heights, asked why the nighttime flight numbers leveled off
and Juffer responded that there may be one specific reason, then a multitude of other reasons
for the leveling-off of nighttime operations in 2017. During 2016 Delta Air Lines had a computer
interruption, which led to many nighttime operations in order for the flight schedules to get back
on track. Representative Olson, Minneapolis, asked to clarify November and December’s flow
and the percentages of their use. Juffer responded that in both months, anything that isn’t
represented by the North Flow/South Flow/Mixed Flow would be either considered Unusual, which
4
MSP Noise Oversight Committee
24 January 2018
4
didn’t occur in December, or Opposite Flow. Opposite Flow numbers aren’t usually reported
because they represent so few operations because it usually occurs only at night.
3. Update on Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport PBN Ruling
Dana Nelson, Technical Advisor, reminded the committee that the D.C. Circuit Court ruled that
the FAA vacate Performance Based Navigation (PBN) procedures implemented at Phoenix Sky
Harbor (PHX) Airport for failing to follow environmental laws and for failing to involve all
stakeholders. In response, the parties jointly filed a petition to the Court to accept a two-step plan
that they co-developed. The petition asks the Court to clarify the scope of its order; requesting
the Court limit it to the nine westbound Area Navigation (RNAV) departure procedures at PHX
which were the focus of the litigation and to remand but not vacate the procedures. Step one of
the petition says that the FAA would create new, temporary instructions for departures to the west
that would route aircraft near the airport in a manner to approximate the routes prior to the
implementation of RNAV departures. Step two states that the FAA would develop new westbound
RNAV departure procedures and consider routes that approximate the routes prior to the initial
RNAV implementation near the airport. The FAA also would consider feedback on procedures
throughout the Phoenix area. The FAA would also be required to conduct community outreach,
safety and environmental reviews during these two steps.
Nelson then reminded the Committee of its 2014 RNAV Resolution for MSP PBN procedures and
stated that these recent FAA actions in Phoenix reinforce the exact points raised in the NOC’s
RNAV Resolution: a successful implementation of such RNAV flight procedures requires
community outreach.
Chair Miller, Eagan, asked if there was anyone present from MSP FairSkies that was planning
to speak as Kevin Terrell was not present. Nobody came forward and as such, Chair Miller
swapped agenda item 4 and 5 to accommodate.
4. Annual MSP Fleet Mix and Nighttime Operations Report
Dana Nelson, Technical Advisor, reminded the Committee that at the end of every year, the
noise office reports the annual fleet mix and night time operations information. In November 2017,
the Committee had some suggestions for data points to be added to the report. Staff took the
opportunity to revise the report to account for the Committees feedback and to use year-end 2017
data for an annual comparison.
Nelson’s summary of the Annual MSP Fleet Mix and Nighttime Operations Report began with a
steady increase in narrowbody jets to 57.3% of aircraft while regional jets decreased to 40% and
widebody jets have stayed at a steady low level, about 2.7% of the total aircraft fleet.
In the widebody category, the A330 continues to be a more popular jet with the B763 coming in
second, the MD11 is third and the B777 is fourth. In the narrowbody category, the two top aircraft
types are the A319 and the A320, the B738 is next, and the last is the MD90 at 8.8% within this
category of aircraft. The regional jet category shows the CRJ2 being used the most, the CRJ9
dropped from 13% to 11% in 2017, and the E170 came in last.
Nelson presented a graph that showed each aircraft in the fleet and its related certificated noise
level as a source to compare the cumulative noise levels associated with the fleet mix. Stage 3
noise requirements are what is currently required by the FAA and all the jets meet that criteria, all
5
MSP Noise Oversight Committee
24 January 2018
5
but one of the jets meet the Stage 4 noise standards, and majority of them meet the new Stage 5
noise standards.
A graph showing the altitude points for aircraft arriving to MSP was presented and Nelson noted
the altitude arrival patterns and points have been consistent since 2016 with the average around
1,000 feet above MSP field elevation. Looking at the same points for departures, Nelson again
noted the consistency in aircraft altitudes with the average altitude between 1,400 and 1,800 feet
above MSP field elevation.
Nelson mentioned the average daily nighttime operations and showed the numbers from 2008-
2017 and reported an average of 66 operations per night.
Overall runway use numbers for 2017 as compared to the 2014-2016 average show that there is
some variation. Runway 35 has a slight increase in arrivals as does 30L, while arrivals to Runways
12L and 12R both show a decrease. Nelson presented a chart showing the top 15 nighttime
operations by airline, reporting that Delta has the highest contribution to the total nighttime
operations count, however their nighttime operations are only 4% of their total operations at MSP.
United Airlines increased nighttime operations from 2016 by about 30%, Delta decreased by 6%,
FedEx increased by 31%, and Endeavor decreased by 41%. These numbers are representative
of actual operations, not scheduled operations. Related to this, Nelson then showed a graph
representing the top 15 aircraft during nighttime operations and the B738 had the highest count
which is about 11.3-17.1 EPNdB below Stage 3 noise standards. Nelson also noted that the
majority of arrivals at night are originating from western airports such as Los Angeles, Las Vegas,
San Francisco and Phoenix. On average in 2017, 50% of nighttime operations occurred between
10:30 PM and midnight. Comparing 2017 numbers to the average of 2013-2016, the biggest
increase occurred between 10:30pm-1:00am while the operations decreased from 1:00am-
3:00am. When comparing the variation in scheduled nighttime operations to actual, there is an
increase in actual for both 2017 and the average of 2013-2016. It should be noted that the source
for tracking the scheduled operations at MSP doesn’t account for all operations, such as some
MSP regional jets or cargo schedules, therefore those operational statistics are only for a portion
of the data.
5. Response to MSP FairSkies Requests
Chad Leqve, MAC Director of Environment, provided background on the MSP FairSkies request
presented to the NOC in 2017. MSP FairSkies requested the NOC: enhance the NOC with greater
stakeholder (citizen) representation, establish a goal to reduce noise, and to produce a 55dB and
N65 NEM/Contour.
In regards to the request to enhance NOC with greater stakeholder engagement, Leqve provided
history of the NOC and how it came to be in 2003 after the disbanding of MASAC in 2001. He
reviewed the NOC’s mission, the Committee’s focus on balanced forum for discussion, and noted
that the functions of the NOC are to be conducted in a manner that considers public and airport
user concerns. Public input is taken into consideration on a variety of communication channels
through the MAC and NOC and Leqve gave examples of how citizen input has guided NOC action
and that some NOC accomplishments have won national awards.
Chair Miller, Eagan, asked Kevin Terrell, MSP FairSkies Co-Founder, for comments. Terrell
commented on implementing the NOC mission and how the metrics listed are process metrics and
not outcome metrics. An outcome metric would be listing the number of people impacted by noise.
6
MSP Noise Oversight Committee
24 January 2018
6
Chair Miller thanked Terrell and addressed the NOC for their comments on the first request.
Representative Dmytrenko, Richfield, stated that she is interested in looking at and possibly
adjusting the bylaws to see how citizen representation can be improved. Representative Link,
Inver Grove Heights, stated that this conversation has been occurring among the At-Large
Community members and while the MAC staff has done a lot to improve citizen input, there may be
room for more to be done. That may be done in how the agendas are structured, how the NOC
provides for the input, and stated that FairSkies and other organizations have considerable
information and value to offer. The At-Large cities agree that the NOC structure, as it is now, works
well and is a balance between cities and airline industries. Bottom line, the At-Large Community is
comfortable keeping the NOC membership the way it is now but providing for increased
opportunities for FairSkies and similar groups to provide information. Representative Goss, Delta,
reminded everyone that industry members are also community members and live near the airport.
In addition, Goss mentioned that he is struck by how challenging it can be to receive citizen input
and is very concerned with the idea of changing the NOC membership structure itself. However, he
noted that this forum does not provide greater opportunities for organizational or individual
involvement. Overall, Goss said it is important to re-evaluate how the NOC allows for input from the
public during its meetings. Representative Sloan, Mendota Heights, said that he agrees with
Terrell’s analysis of including the customer input but to be careful to evaluate if the collective voice
is being spoken, or if it is that of a particular community, or even that of an individual. He stated that
there are meetings once a month in Mendota Heights where the community can present concerns,
those concerns are brought to the at large meeting and then to city council who then brings those
to the NOC. This is in addition to Listening Sessions where noise office staff attend and can listen
to community concerns face to face; more than one of these sessions led to items being added to
the NOC’s work plan. With these resources available, the citizen attendance is minimal and it’s hard
to encourage participation. Representative Lowman, Bloomington, commented that if there are
changes to the process for citizen representation that it’s important to note the process to NOC from
MASAC and the steps that were taken to get to where the NOC is today. He also noted the location,
time, and public transportation issues that may be barriers to citizen engagement. Lowman then
echoed Goss’s comment about the process for which to make a public comment at a NOC meeting.
Chair Miller said there have been a lot of comments and asked for solutions to the question being
raised. Lowman suggested that creating a subcommittee may be helpful to address the issues of
citizen representation and public comments during the NOC meeting to make some direct
recommendations to the NOC Committee. Link said he would like the group to look and asses the
bylaws as they are what restricts the citizen input processes at NOC meetings. Goss asked a
clarifying question, given the NOC is an advisory body to the MAC, is the structure dictated by itself
or does the MAC Board have input? Chair Miller asked Leqve if bylaw changes were made, would
they need to be approved by the MAC Commission. Leqve responded that suggested changes
would be brought to the Planning, Development & Environment Committee which would then go
before the Full Commission. Chair Miller chimed in that she would be interested in the public input
process being similar to that of a city council meeting; a set time is in place, everyone has a certain
amount of time to speak and there aren’t so many procedural rules. Sloan asked what the FairSkies
group has to say about the conversation.
Kevin Terrell, MSP FairSkies, said that the request being made is a symptom of lack of trust in
the process as well as a lack of perceived transparency on the impact of noise on the community.
As such their community feels that they need to be closer to NOC conversation and there needs to
be a better way to comment, the city council approach is legitimate and a fair approach. Lowman
asked what is meant by lack of transparency and what he means by saying his group should be
closer to the issue, and to clarify the citizen representation because realistically the city
representatives on the NOC are meant to represent its citizens. Terrell responded that MSP
7
MSP Noise Oversight Committee
24 January 2018
7
FairSkies started because the 2012 flight tracks were published, came out of nowhere and the NOC
wasn’t representing citizen interest. In regards to transparency, Terrell states that citizens are being
told that nothing has changed yet when he received the noise exposure map and had the University
of Minnesota map the noise levels, 30% more people are within the 55 dB DNL noise contour than
they were in the last two years. Lowman mentioned he would like to continue a conversation with
Terrell offline, Chair Miller asked for sub-committee volunteers. Bylaw subcommittee members
are: Dwayne Lowman (Bloomington), Loren Olson (Minneapolis), Gordy Goss (Delta), and Alex
Mason (At-Large Industry). The group will meet within the next couple months and come back to
the NOC with suggestions bylaw changes; a motion was made by Chair Miller, seconded by
Lowman and passed unanimously.
Chair Miller, Eagan, moved on to the noise reduction goal. Leqve provided context for aircraft
noise regulations and covered the roles and responsibilities of the FAA with regard to Federal
Aviation Regulation Part 36, Air Traffic Control, Federal Aviation Regulation Part 150 for noise
compatibility and land use planning, the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990, and Federal
Aviation Regulation Part 161 regarding access restrictions for airports in the name of reducing noise.
Leqve ended with explaining his experience with goal-setting using the SMART model – Smart,
Measureable, Achievable, Realistic and Timely – has served him and his staff well in the past.
Chair Miller asked Terrell if he had comments before the committee discussion. With regard to
FAR Part 161, Terrell said there is an airport in California that stated it doesn’t want federal money
and therefore has regained control of the airport. As he understands it, MSP has handcuffed itself
to federal control of our local airport in exchange for a trivial amount of money. Representative
Goss, Delta, interjected and asked Terrell which airport no longer wants federal funding and also
what amount of money Terrell, himself, perceives to be a trivial funding amount. Terrell stated that
he thinks the amount is about $150 million over 10 years and couldn’t name the airport in California.
He followed up by saying there are noise restrictions that can be made and while many are against
federal law in the US right now, there should be a different way to measure noise so it can be
reduced for the neighboring communities. Representative Olson, Minneapolis, asked MAC staff
how a creative solution can be formed to track trends. She mentioned the DNL map and asked if
the contours would shrink if the nighttime penalty was not included in the DNL calculation. Leqve
responded that more nighttime operations means more impact, and the MAC tracks trends at the
airport. He mentioned that he and his staff are committed to tracking trends, trying to transparent
and explain to citizens why they are experiencing the things they are. He mentioned staff would
commend ideas and thoughts from the Committee to leverage the information and data we are
collecting to help address citizen concerns. Leqve explained the nuance that many people use the
term impact differently, which makes this discussion difficult. He also said he thinks goals are very
important, however he is sensitive to expectations and maintaining the balance between the varying
interests of all stakeholders. Loren clarified that her question is technical, in nature. If the penalty
for nighttime operations was eliminated, what would happen to the contour? Leqve confirmed that
without the nighttime penalty, the noise contour would shrink. Olson confirmed that adding the noise
penalty to nighttime operations is a decision made by FAA to recognize the impact to residents by
those flights. She continued that she’s interested in looking at other metrics to measure noise and
that she wouldn’t necessarily look at number of people within a certain area, because at least in
Minneapolis’ case, the city is growing in population. Olson also noted that she isn’t afraid to create
a metric or goal that we don’t always succeed at. Representative Lowman, Bloomington, asked
is there a SMART goal to be made for reducing nighttime flights that can fit within the restrictions of
the six regulations laid out earlier?
8
MSP Noise Oversight Committee
24 January 2018
8
Terrell stated he wanted to provide context for their 55 dB DNL noise contour goal [in reference to
FairSkies previously stated goal for a 50% noise reduction by 2025]. He stated that he found an
airport that was similar to MSP and found Amsterdam, it’s relatively the same size, the same
distance from a major city, and has roughly the same amount and type of flights. He then looked at
their contours and their noise impacts, then based of that information, his group came up with a
specific and reasonable goal for MSP based off Amsterdam’s information. Leqve said the goal is to
have the 60 dB DNL contour mitigated by 2024 by virtue of the Consent Decree. Receiving funding
approval for that goal with the FAA has been a delicate process due to regulatory framework but
it’s something the MAC devotes a lot of resources to and is dedicated to seeing through. Attempting
to create a noise reduction goal that decreases DNL is part of a larger conversation that includes
countering efforts to continue to have competitive air service, providing economic travel options to
consumers, airlines adding flights based on passenger demand. Leqve also mentioned hesitation
as a staff member perspective of creating a goal that we don’t have a chance to accomplish. Chair
Miller asked if there was another airport across the country using airport generated revenue to
mitigate out to the 60 dB DNL and Leqve responded no, there is not. Goss mentioned that the DNL
increase year over year may actually be from increased nighttime flights by Spirit and Southwest
Airlines and other members that aren’t on the NOC. Leqve clarified that increase off 12R and the
added mitigation is related to nighttime operations but also overall runway use. Goss recognized
that the issue at hand is multidimensional and that maybe the airlines we are looking to have a
conversation with about nighttime operations are not actually on the NOC. He followed up by saying
that he does not accept the comparison of MSP to Amsterdam. The airports may be the same
distance from the core downtown area but there is a significant land use difference, and as a pilot
who has flown into both cities numerous times, the two cities look nothing alike. Goss said his
concern is that a goal will be set up that isn’t achievable and realistic and that would do everyone a
great disservice. He likes the idea of broadening the lens of creativity in goal-setting but making
sure the goal is reasonable and attainable. Lowman suggested that this conversation go back to
MAC staff and see if they come up with something. Leqve answered that the best way to go would
be to codify the investment made within the 60 dB DNL mitigation program. This is the goal, it has
been set, the investment has been made through an agreement with the local cities, and it’s in
process. Lowman made a motion to solidify the goal to mitigate homes out to the actual 60 dB DNL
by 2024. Olson stated that there is a legal agreement to already mitigate out to the 60 dB DNL but
she would like to see a goal that stated a noise reduction by acreage and when that can’t happen
there will be mitigation to the 60 dB DNL without an end date. Lowman asked for staff input as he
wasn’t comfortable changing his motion without staff feedback if it was achievable. Leqve
responded that his team is always trying to reduce the size of the contour but for now leaving the
specifics of the 60 dB DNL and the end date creates an achievable metric and fulfils the timely
component of a SMART goal. Representative Dmytrenko, Richfield, added that it may be
advantageous to open this conversation to airline representatives that aren’t at the NOC table as
means for creating a message of awareness and advocating for reducing nighttime operations. She
also suggested that it may be helpful to have a goal-setting work session in the future. Goss asked
to clarify the goal for mitigation the actual 60 dB DNL contour by 2024 is a part of the Consent
Decree. Staff responded it is. Chair Miller pointed out that even though the Committee is
considering and establishing a goal today, it does not preclude further discussion to establish more
goals in the future. Lowman’s motion was called to the floor again and was passed unanimously.
Chair Miller, Eagan, moved on to the third request by MSP FairSkies to publish the 55 dB DNL
and N65 noise contours and Noise Exposure Maps. Leqve started by saying that he and his team
recognize residents beyond the 60 dB DNL contour experience aircraft noise and sticking to the 60
dB isn’t a means of ignoring that. Chair Miller interrupted and said that Representative Goss,
Delta, had a flight in one hour and asked if there was a quorum if he left. Dana Nelson, Technical
9
MSP Noise Oversight Committee
24 January 2018
9
Advisor, responded that there wasn’t and as such Chair Miller said the Committee needed to delay
this portion of the presentation and decision to the March 2018 meeting.
6.Vortex Generator Noise Monitoring Study
Dana Nelson, Technical Advisor, the Committee decided to delay the presentation of this report
until the March 2018 meeting.
7.Super Bowl Communication Plan Update
Dana Nelson, Technical Advisor, stated that she emailed the committee a fact sheet with
anticipated flight information related to the Super Bowl. That information will be on the Noise website
and handed out as part of the Winter 2018 Listening Session.
8.Public Comment Period - None
9. Announcements
Dana Nelson, Technical Advisor, made note of the Winter Listening Session on Tuesday, January
30, 2018 at Mount Olivet Church and the next NOC Meeting will be Wednesday, March 21, 2018 at
1:30pm.
10. Adjourn
A motion to adjourn was requested by Chair Miller, Eagan, moved by Representative Dmytrenko,
Richfield, and seconded by Representative Lowman, Bloomington.
The meeting adjourned at 3:11 p.m.
The next meeting of the NOC is scheduled for Wednesday, 21st March, 2018.
Respectfully Submitted,
Amie Kolesar, Recording Secretary
10