2001-05-09 ARC Agenda PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION AGENDA
May 9, 2001 -- Large Conference Room
Call to Order - 7:00 p.m.
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of April 117 2001 Minutes
4. Unfinished and New Business:
a. Continued Revision of Airport Noise Video Script
5. Acknowledge Receipt of Various Reports/Correspondence:
a. Notice of Cancellation of April 13, 2001 MASAC Operations Committee
Meeting
b. Notice of Cancellation of April 24, 2001 MASAC Meeting
C. Materials from April 24, 2001 MASAC Municipal Caucus
d. Memorandum from Roy Fuhrmann dated April 2, 2001: 1996 Completed
Homes within 2005 60-64 DNL Contour Area
e. Memorandum from Minneapolis Mayor Sharon Sayles Belton dated April
11, 2001: History of the Part 150 Metropolitan Airports Commission
Sound Insulation Program
f. Part 150 Sound Insulation Expansion Discussion with Mayor Sharon
Sayles Belton, April 30, 2001
g. Letter to Senator Pogemiller and Representative Abrams from seven
Mayors dated May 2, 2001
h. MAC Planning and Environment Committee Meeting dated May 8, 2001
i. Southwest Journal Article: "Got a problem with air noise?", March 12-
March 25, 2001
j. Star Tribune Article: "Airport's Future Still a Question", April 30, 2001
k. Airport Noise Reports
6. Other Comments or Concerns
7. 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 IIeiphts
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
APRIL 11, 2001
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission was held on
Wednesday, April 11, 2001, in the Large Conference Room at City Hall, 1101 Victoria
Ai ve. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
The following Commissioners were present: Chair Scott Beaty and Commissioners Joe
Leuman, Liz Petschel, Ellsworth Stein, John Roszak, Gregg Fitzer and Vein Edstrom.
Staff present were City Administrator Cari Lindberg and Administrative Assistant Patrick
C. Hollister. Mr. Hollister took the minutes.
MINUTES
Commissioner Leuman moved to approve the February 13, 2001 Minutes with revisions.
Commissioner Fitzer seconded the motion.
AYES:
NAYS:
WELCOME TO VERN EDSTRONI
The Commission welcomed new Commissioner Vern Edstrom. Commissioner Edstrom
said that he was glad to be on the Airport Relations Commission and that he looked
forward to working on air noise issues.
AIRPORT NOISE VIDEO
Commissioner Petschel, Ms. Lindberg, and Mr. Hollister gave the Commission an update
on the meeting with professional scriptwriter Lisa Bartels -Rabb on March 29.
Commissioner Petschel said that Ms. Bartels -Rabb had done a wonderful job thus far on
the script and that the Commission probably only needed to make minor revisions to the
script.
The Commission reviewed the draft video script provided by NIs. Bartels -Rabb and
recommended revisions. The Commission asked Mr. Hollister to contact Lisa about the
revisions and to discuss the actual video production with NDCTV. The Commission also
asked Mr. Hollister to inquire with the MAC about various graphics for the video.
ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF VARIOUS REPORTS/CORRESPONDENCE
The Commission briefly reviewed the following documents:
a. Notice of Cancellation of March 27, 2001 MASAC Meeting
b. Materials from March 27, 2001 MASAC Municipal Caucus
c. Memorandum from Barret W. S. Lane of Minneapolis dated March 30,
2001
d. Appointment of Councilmembers Krebsbach and Dwyer to the
Reconvened Joint Minneapolis -Saint Paul International Airport Zoning
Board
e. March 7, 2001 Star Tribune Article: "MAC studies new choices forjet-
noise insulation program."
f. Notes from March 7, 2001 ARC Meeting (no Quorum)
g. Eagan ARC Agenda for April 10, 2001
h. Airport Noise Reports
The Commission asked Ms. Lindberg if the Council had adopted, or was intending to
adopt, the proposed Resolution regarding the Part 150 program in Item c. above. Ms.
Lindberg said that the Council had not adopted the Resolution, but that she would ask the
Mayor if he felt the Council should adopt it.
RESCHEDULING OF FUTURE MEETINGS
Chair Beaty said that he would have difficulty attending the ARC meetings on July 11
and August 11 unless they were rescheduled. Commissioner Roszak added that he would
not be available for the October ARC meeting. The Commission decided to reschedule
the July meeting from Judy I to July 18, and to decide about the August and October
meetings later.
ADJOURN
Motion made to adjourn by Petschel and seconded by Leaman.
AYES: 7
NAYS: 0
The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
May 7, 2001
TO: Airport Relations Commission
FROM: Patrick C. Hollister. Administrative Assistant
SUBJECT: Continue Work on Air Noise Issues Video Script
Discussion
At the April 11, 2001 meeting of the Airports Relations Commission, the Commissioners
reviewed the draft script of the airport noise issues video. The Commissioners
recommended some revisions to the script, which were incorporated into the draft and
submitted to our professional scriptwriter, Lisa Bartels -Rabb. Cari Lindberg and I then
net with Ms. Bartells-Rabb on May 1 to discuss the script. Attached is the most recent
draft submitted by Ms. Bartels -Rabb.
Action Required
Review the attached script and continue revision of the Airport Noise Issues Video. Staff
will convey any input from the Commission to Ms. Bartels -Rabb.
Can't Anyone Do
something
About the Noise?
Aircraft Noise Issues in Mendota Heights
and Surrounding Communities
A video script prepared by
Lisa Bartels -Rabb
for the
Mendota Heights Airports Commission
Bartels -Rabb Communications
3116 29th Ave., S.
Minneapolis, MN 55406
612,729,3038
Takeoff or landing from
MAC video. Panorama of
airport
Local footage of Mendota
Heights (historical, neighbor-
hoods)
Video of plane over Mendota
Heights water tower, with whoosh of
noise
Video of control tower;
float in logos for the FAA and MAC
Video of MAC building
Footage of meeting
With an average of more than 1,000 flights a
day, the Minneapolis /St. Paul International
Airport is the tenth busiest commercial airport
in the United States. In the 10 years between
1985 and 1995, the number of landings and
takeoffs a year at the airport grew by 25 per-
cent. In 2001, flights daily are expected
n and out of the airport. Current estimates
for the year 2005: 1,575 flights a day.
A busy airport —while good for the local and
state economy —is not without its disadvan-
tages.
One of the biggest of these is noise.
The problem of airport noise is nothing new
Since the advent of the jet age in the 1960s, the
federal government has created laws and regu-
lations to address noise issues at large airports
and their surrounding communities. The
Federal Aviation Administration is charged with
enforcing such laws, but its main mission is to
ensure safety.
In Minnesota, the Metropolitan Airports
Commission, or MAC, serves as the governing
body for the airport. Its 16 commissioners are
appointed by the governor from throughout
the state. The MAC was created by the state
legislature in 1943 to manage area airports.
The City of Mendota Heights has its own
Airport Relations Commission, which monitors
proposed airport rules, procedures and pro-
grams that impact air noise levels within the
community.
Map, video of airplane in flight
Find:
• Configuration of proposed
Vermillion runways
• Show video of airport?
• Footage of 1735 under construc-
tion
The three basic approaches to
mitigating aircraft noise:
• Manage fright tracks
• Make planes quieter
• lnsta!l sound insulation and
conditioning
Video of a take -off
Graphic or map illustrating MSP
runways and flight tracks coming off
of them (from MAC; showing entire
airport)
The Airport Relations Commission created this
video program to help residents of Mendota
Heights and neighboring communities better
understand current causes for air noise and
what is being done about them.
Airport noise in the area is not likely to go
away anytime soon. In 1996,the Minnesota
legislature ended the "dual track" planning
process. Until that time, the MAC was in the
early planning stages for construction of a
major new airport in southern Dakota County,
while at the same time improving and expand-
ing the existing MSP airport. Improvements to
MSP have continued, and it will remain the only
major airport serving the metropolitan area to
the year 2020 and beyond.
• Manage flight tracks and times to distribute
the traffic as equitably as possible over the
entire metropolitan area.
• Make the airplanes quieter; and
• Provide sound insulation and air conditioning
for homes, schools and other public buildings
located in areas most greatly affected by air-
craft noise.
Every time a plane takes off from an airport
runTV ay, its departure from the end of that
runway is a carefully orchestrated event. As
aircraft leave the runway they follow
predetermined paths, called "flight tracks."
Each airport runway has its own set of flight
tracks which fan off at different angles from the
end of the runway, almost like spokes. Each
flight track is identified by a "degree" reading.
Contour map with Eagan -Mendota
Heights Corridor clearly highlighted
(from MAC)
Windsock at airport
Computer graphic of plane taking
off over Minneapolis
Computer graphic of plane taking
off over Mendota Heights
Simultaneous departure video
(Ask MAC or have Associated
Bearaus (spit) film this; consider
aerial photo showing runways or
computer graphics)
Footage of head -to -head operations
(from MAC, #30 in original draft}
(Computer graphics or MAC video)
The flight tracks above Mendota Heights
spread over an area roughly bounded by
HighwayI 10 on the north and Interstates 494
and 35E on the south.As aircraft fly repeatedly
through the flight tracks in this area, it becomes
relatively easy to identify the air corridor and
where the greatest concentration of air noise
will occur.
A number of factors determine which runways
and flight tracks will be used. One of the most
significant of these is "prevailing wind."
Departing into the wind optimizes aircraft per-
formance during takeoffs.
During winter, when prevailing winds tend to
be out of the north, the majority of departures
occur over Minneapolis.
During warmer months, when the winds come
out of the south, more planes depart over
Mendota Heights and Eagan.
During the busy daytime hours of 6:00 a.m.to
10:30 p.m., both parallel runways receive maxi-
mum use. Planes take off simultaneously from
the ends of both runways using pre -assigned
flight tracks. For safety reasons, these flight
tracks must always be separated by at least 15
degrees.
During nighttime hours, from 10:30 pm to
6:00 a.m., the tower may move to what is called
head -to -head take offs and landings. This means
that both ends of the parallel runways over
Mendota Heights and Eagan are being used for
take -offs AND landings during the same period
of time. A plane taking off on the Mendota
Heights runway needs a safe separation from a
plane landing on the Eagan runway. Head -to -
head operations do not occur on the north
end of the parallel runways over Minneapolis.
Plane over Mendota Heights water -
tower
2000 Overall MSP Average Runway
Use diagram
[MAC graphic of last five years'
total?]
[verify #s: Is this 15,000 based
on 3% or the corrected 6% dif=
ference?]
Bar graphic illustrating increase
in summer flights over Mendota
Heights
Map or computer graphic
showing fanning
Because of the current Runway Use System
deployed at MSP the Eagan -Mendota Heights
Corridor receives many more overflights than
other communities.
This corridor annually receives 51 percent
[verify all #s] of all departures and arrivals to
MSP. About 45 percent of all incoming and out.
going planes follow tracks over fly over
Minneapolis. Only 3 percent of flights are
directed over Bloomington, while less than I
percent fly over St. Paul.
In terms of percentages, the difference between
the portion of flights arriving and departing in
the Eagan -Mendota Heights corridor as com.
pared with the flights over Minneapolis doesn't
sound like much. But those few percentage
points can equate to as many as 15,000 more
flights each year over Mendota Heights and
Eagan,than over Minneapolis. That's an average
of about 41 more flights a day.
This difference is even more pronounced
during the summer months, when prevailing
winds from the south mean more departures
are directed to takeoff toward the south.
As the airport has become busier over the
years and the ends of both parallel runways
have become heavily used,fanning patterns and
flight tracks off the ends of the Mendota
Heights and Eagan runways had to be precisely
defined. The flight tracks over Mendota
Heights resemble a symmetrical fan.
f�
Graphic of invisible wall" over
Eagan, with alternate tracks
over Mendota Heights
Map showing communities
Video graphic illustrating
crossing in corridor; sequence
with script
Video of hush -kilted Northwest
DC-9 or 727 during take off
(from MAC)
Shot of newer Stage 3 aircraft (take-
off ofAmerican airbus or 320}
The tracks over Eagan, however, are restricted
to a smaller area. Restrictions on fanning over
Eagan date back to the 1970s. The end result is
that, during busy times when weather
conditions and prevailing winds require that
flights depart to the south, the number of
aircraft directed over Mendota Heights will be
greater than that directed over Eagan.
Sound mitigation is an objective that
communities, MAC and the Federal Aviation
Administration share in common.
One of the positive results from the
collaboration between Mendota Heights and
these organizations is what is called the
crossing -in -the -corridor procedure. One of
the flight tracks over Mendota Heights runs
primarily over Highway 494, and is very close
to a similar flight track coming off the Eagan
runway. During slower times, particularly at
night, the control tower can now direct aircraft
to "crossover" from the end of both runways
and fly through this freeway track, resulting in a
significant reduction in noise for residents. The
Mendota Heights Airports Commission led the
advocacy effort for implementation of this pro-
cedure.
Many airlines flying in and out of Minneapolis/
St. Paul International Airport continue to use
older jet aircraft. To meet current noise
limitations,these aircraft have been retrofitted
with Stage 3 Hush Kits to make them quieter.
Newer planes already include technology to
meet Stage 3 standards. They use larger and
more powerful engines that produce less noise
than even the older engines that have been
retrofitted with hush kits.
5
Video with sound of 727 departing
and then same with A320
(MAC or N D C 18) (adjust volume)
Illustrate tracking system
Graphic of monitor (infield?
From MAC)
Most current DNL contour, large
(From MAC)
Close-up of contour over Mendota
Heights
While the transition to Stage 3 standards is a
step in the right direction, it does not alleviate
all noise problems. Future elimination of hush-
tted aircraft and the step into Stage 4 stan-
dards is hoped to eventually reduce noise levels
even further. [When? Check with MAC on
expected date; check May noise reports;
10 pf DB reduction.]
Because it isn't possible to entirely eliminate
noise from aircraft or direct flights so that they
never fly over residential areas, it is especially
important for agencies like the MAC to know
which neighborhoods receive the most noise.
Every plane that arrives at or departs from the
airport has its flight track monitored as well as
the aircraft noise it generates. Sophisticated
tracking and listening devices make this
possible. Each month MAC makes this infor-
mation available so that aircraft performance
and adherence to assigned flight tracks can be
evaluated.
The cumulative effect of all this technical
information is the ability to identify what is
called the "Day and Nighttime Levels" or DNL
contour. The contour refers to the total of
every aircraft event that occurs over a
particular community monitor and the decibel
level of the noise it generates. The airport
defines daytime as 6:00 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. and
nighttime as 10:30 p.m.to 6:00 a.m. When
every flight operation and the noise it gener-
ates is grouped cumulatively, flight and noise
patterns can be mapped for each neighborhood
near the airport.
These patterns or contours reflect the average
sound decibel levels that communities are
exposed to. And they are used to determine
which homes and other buildings may be
eligible for sound mitigation assistance.
MAC video of new window installa-
tion
Highlight contour map to show
which areas have already been
eligible for the insulation and the
potential areas of the DNL 60 to 64
contour.
Video of new runway construction;
aerial of new runway
Community shots again, with
noise overhead if possible
During the last 15 years, the Metropolitan
Airports Commission (verify) spent $174 mil-
lion to install sound insulation and air-condi-
tioning systems in homes lying within the DNL
65 or greater noise contours. The MAC
bought an additional $51 million worth of
homes in the worst noise areas, closest to the
airport, enabling the residents of these areas to
relocate.
Most of the homes in Mendota Heights that
qualify for the sound -insulation program have
already been insulated. But updates to the
program may mean that the insulation program
will eventually expand to homes in the DNL 60
to DNL 64 noise contours.
The new north -south directed runway,
currently under construction and scheduled to
open in 2003 is expected to reduce the
percentage of flights over Mendota Heights and
other communities in the corridor. But the
primary goal of the new runway is to increase
the airport's capacity to serve more flights. A
new runway for a major metropolitan airport is
almost always a temporary solution to noise
problems. It basically just redistributes noise to
other neighborhoods. And as demand for air
travel continues to grow, the initial relief
provided to communities in existing corridors
may be expected to disappear within as few as
10 to 20 years.
It seems all too true that airport noise is here
to stay. But it is also true that much can and
should be done to alleviate as much of it as
possible for residents and businesses in our
community. The Mendota Heights Airport
Relations Commission meets monthly to
address aircraft noise issues, as well as eco-
nomic development and land use issues related
to the expanding MSP International Airport.
7
[Visuals for this next section could
be what Scott suggested in his origk
nal draft, perhaps with captions for
each bullet point]
• Equitable runway use
• Expanded sound insulation
• Use of new technologies, such as
GPS
• Eliminate head -to -head o�era-
tions
• Update fleets with quieter Stage
W and Stage IV aircraft
• Reduce nighttime flights
•Monitor MSP plans to ensure
against even more noise
• Support airport and airline
efforts to reduce noise
Each year, the commission develops and revises
its goals and objectives to help prioritize the
city's efforts to mitigate noise in the
community. Current priorities of the commis-
sion include advocating for:
• greater equity of the current runway use
system.
• expansion of sound -insulation program to
program homes in the DNL 60 contour
• Use of new technologies, such as global
positioning systems to direct planes over
unpopulated areas;
• elimination of head -to -head operations;
• speeding up the replacement of older
hush-kitted aircraft with much quieter
manufactured Stage III and Stage IV aircraft;
• reducing the number of nighttime flights over
the area;
• monitoring expansion plans and activities at
the airport, to ensure that the noise problem
does not become even worse for Mendota
Heights residents and their neighbors.
• and supporting other reasonable efforts to
reduce noise from airport operations, such as
using ground run-up enclosures, sound barri-
ers, reducing the thrust of departing aircraft
and expanding noise -monitoring technology.
R
Community shots
Shot of MAC building with text
overlay:
www.mspairport.org
[verify]
MAC's Noise Complaint and
Information Hotline:
612-726=9411 [verify]
Mendota HeighisAirport
Commission Meetings.
2nd Wednesday of each month
7930 p.m.
at Mendota Heights City Hall
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Residents of Mendota Heights and its nearest
neighbors bear a large share of aircraft noise.
Unfortunately,there are no simple solutions,
because so many factors affect the direction
and flight tracks of planes coming in and out of
the airport. Some of these, such as wind and
weather, are beyond human control. Even so,
there remains much more that can and should
be done. And the Mendota Heights Airport
Relations Commission will continue to work to
ensure that it is.
To learn more about airport noise issues, visit
the Metropolitan Airport Commission's web.
site at www.mspairport.org,
To register a complaint, call the air Noise
Complaint and Information Hotline at
612J26-941 1.
The Mendota Heights Airport Commission
meets at 7:30 p.m. on the second Wednesday
of each month at Mendota Heights City Hall.
Its meetings are always open to the public.
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC)
6040 28th Avenue South • Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450 • (612) 726-8141
Chairperson: Mayor Charles Me tensotto
Past Chairs: Robert P. Johnson, 1995-1999
Scott Bunin, 1990-1995
Walter Rockenstein, II, 1982-1990
Jan Del Calzo, 1979-1982
Stanley W. Olson, 1969-1979
Technical
Advisor: Chad Leqve
MEETING CANCELLATION NOTICE
MASAC OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
THE REGULARLY SCHEDUCLED
APRIL 13, 2001 MASAC OPERATIONS
COMMITTEE MEETING HAS BEEN
CANCELLED
MEMBER DISTRIBUTION
Chairman Charles Mertensotto
Bob Johnson, MBAA
Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan
Ron Johnson, ALPA
Brian Bates, Airborne
Mary Loeffelholz, NWA
Dick Saunders, Minneapolis
Pending, Bloomington
Roy Fuhrmann, MAC
cc: Patrick Hollister, Mendota Heights
Charles Curry, ALPA
Will Eginton, IGH
Jennifer Sayre, NWA
Pam Dmytrenko, Richfield
Tom Lawell, Apple Valley
Tom Hansen, Burnsville
Advisory:
Chad Legve, MAC
Ron Glaub, FAA
Cindy Greene, FAA
Keith Thompson, FAA
Jason Giesen, MAC
Shane VanderVoort; MAC
Glen Orcutt, FAA
Mark Ryan, MAC
Joe Harris, MAC
Jan DelCalzo, Minneapolis
Glenn Strand, Minneapolis
METROPOLI'IA AIRPORTS COATMISSIO
+� Minneapolis -Saint Paul International Airport
T 6040 - 28th Avenue South • Minneapolis, MN 55450-2799
a i Phone (612) 726-8 100
T„
F
T
MEETING CANCELLATION NOTICE
METROPOLITAN AIRCRAFT SOUND ABATEMENT COUNCIL
APRIL 24, 2001 MASAC MEETING HAS
BEEN CANCELLED
�If you prefer not to receive further MASAC-related notices, please contact Melissa
Scovronski at 612-726-8141 or at mscovron(a�mspmac.orq.
n,E tize��E�r�,� Airports c�m�,1>sn,�, �., �„ .,ffi��„n�•e ��n�„ ���pi,>pe�.
�� �� ��.nspairportmm
R I' �lipor�a :\IRL1 KE - :1NOKA COLr.VT1"/BLAI\'E • CRYSIAI. = FI.,YIVG CLOUD • LAKE EI_\IO • S.AINT P1CL UOl\'\r(OIVi\
MASAC
MEMORANDUM
TO: MASAC
FROM: Chad Leqve, MASAC Technical Advisor
SUBJECT: Cancellation of April 24, 2001 MASAC Meeting
DATE: April 17, 2001
MASAC
Since the airline resignations from MASAC and the associated proposal of a Blue Ribbon
Panel, Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) Executive Director, Jeff Hamiel, has
been having ongoing discussions with the airlines in an effort to establish airport user
representation in the MASAC review and evaluation process. As part of this ongoing
process Dr. John Brandl, Dean of the University of Minnesota's Hubert H. Humphrey
Institute of Public Affairs, has been retained as a third party review agent in an effort to
establish possible organizational restructuring proposals that will address both the airline
and community interests and concerns. Dr. Brandl is a former South Minneapolis resident
and thus has a first hand account of the noise environment around Minneapolis -St. Paul
International Airport (MSP).
Dr. Brandl has received an extensive amount of documentation and information about
MASAC and has reviewed the information in an effort to begin the process of
formalizing an organizational restructuring proposal. It is anticipated that the review
process will include interviews with various community (including community Blue
Ribbon Panel appointees) and user representatives.
As a result of the Panel's status, the April 24, 2001 MASAC meeting is cancelled.
Future meeting status and updates on the future of MASAC will be provided as
information becomes available. Please note that this notice is with respect to the
regularly scheduled MASAC meeting and is not related to the proposed VIASAC
Municipal Caucus meeting scheduled for the same date.
Updates on the progress of this initiative and any associated items will be provided as
information becomes available.
If you have any questions or comments regarding this topic, please contact me at 612-
725-6328-.
'City of Minneapolis
City Council
Barret W.S. Lane
Council Member, Thirteenth Ward
350 South 5Ih Street -Room 307
Minneapolis MN 55415-1383 NIEETING NOTICE
011ice (612) 673-2213
Fax 673-3940 MASAC Municipal Caucus
TTY 673-2157
Apri124, 2001
7:00 — 9:00 pm
Minneapolic City Hall
350 S. Fifth St,
Room 327 M
Enter the building via the 4`h St. doors; all other entrances are closed
after 5:00 pm. Take the elevators on your right to the M level and
follow the signs to the City Council Offices.
The closest ramps are the Haaf Ramp (Uetween 4`I' and Sth Aves. and 3`d
and 4`1i Sts.) and the Gateway Ramp (between 4°' and 5t1i Aves. and 3rd
St. and Washington Ave.). There is limited street parking available.
For more information, please call Barret Lane at 612/673-22li.
wvn¢ci.minneapolis.mn.us
ASirrnative Action Employer
MASAC Eagaii/Twendota Heights Departure
Corridor Analysis
Metropolitan Airports Commission
15 (0.3 %) Runway 12L and 12R Carrier Jet Departure Operations were
North of the 090' Corridor Boundary During March 2001
i t_ 1Minneapolis-St. Paul
Penetration Gate Plot for Gate North Corridor
03/01/2001 00:00:00 - 04/01/2001 00:00:00
15 Tracks Crossed Gate: Left = 1 (6.7 %), Right =14 (93.3%)
6000
5000
U.
c
0
4000 ..........
m
w3000 ....._...._ ....:.._.............. _.._... ._ ._:...0.
O
2000 ..... .O-�...... .0......... ....
O O O
> 1000_.............
0
a
a n
—2 —1 0 1 2
(Runway End) Deviation From Center of Gate (Nautical Miles(�orridor End)
I'aee 2
Ntonthly
Eagan/Mendota
Heights
Departure
Con idor Analysis
Metropolitan Airports Commission
363 (7.4%) Runway 12L and 12R Carrier Jet Departure Operations were
South of the Corridor (South of 30L Localizer) During March 2001
Minneapolis -St. Paul
Penetration Gate Plot for Gate South _Corridor
03/01/2001 00:00:00 - 04/01/2001 00:00:00
363 Tracks Crossed Gate: Left = 214 (58.9 % ), Right = 149 (41.1 %)
^ 6000
LL
m
c
5000 ....._... _.._.:..___._ _.;....._._..._.. ..................
0
m O O
w3000 ....._...... ...______........_._.._.....:..
8 ®00 O
0
a2000 .._..O.. .o._ ,.. _. .........
> 1000
o O
a O
Q 0
-2 -1 0 1 2
Cor idor End) Deviation From Center of Gate (Nautical Mifes�Y Mid -Point
rs
+ Arrival O Departure ❑ Overflight
Monthly Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis
Page 3
Metropolitan Airports Commission
5 (0.1%) Runway 12L and 12R Carrier Jet Departure Operations were 5°
South of the Corridor (5° South of 30L Localizer) During March 2001
G
u
- 9 Minneapolis -St. Paul
Penetration Gate Plot for Gate South_Corridor_5deg
`1 03/01 /2001 00:00:00 - 04/01 /2001 00:00:00
5 Tracks Crossed Gate: Left = 5 (100.0 % ), Right = 0 (0 0%)
i
6000
5000.
c
0
m4000 ......._....._.._._._._......:................_;..............
w
w 3000
`o
0 2000
11000 .._ __.....__.. _ _. ._....:..........._ .. :.. ..........
0
M
a 0
-2 -1 0 1
(Corridor End) Deviation From Center of Gate (Nautical MifesY Mi<
+ Arrival O Departure ❑ Overflights
Pafle 4 Monthly Eagan/Nfendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis
2
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Top 15 Runway 12L and 12R Departure Destinations for March 2001
�,
r•
�,
Percent ,
11
q1q1 •,
ORD
Chicago - O'Hare
1240
325
6 (70
DEN
Denver
2370
156
3.2%
DTW
Detroit
1050
131
2.7%
STL
St. Louis
1600
130
2.7%
DFW
Dallas - Ft. Worth
1930
121
2.5%
PHX
Phoenix
2310
110
2.2%
ATL
Atlanta
1490
107
2.2%
MDW
Chicago - Midway
1240
103
2.1 %
EWR
Newark
1060
87
1.8%
MKE
Milwaukee
1140
86
1.8%
MCI
Kansas City
1880
83
1.7%
CLE
Cleveland
logo
82
1.7%
PHL
Philadelphia
1110
77
1.6%
IAH
Houston
1850
76
1.6%
SFO
San Francisco
2510
76
1.6%
Monthly Ea�an/1Vlendo[a Heights Departure CoiTidor Analysis Paoe 5
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
Table of Contents for March 2001
Complaint Summary
Noise Complaint Map
FAA Available Time for Runway
MSP All Operations Runway Usage 4
MSP Carrier Jet Operations Runway Usage
MSP Carrier Jet Fleet Compositi
MSP All Operations Nighttime Runway Usage 7
MSP Carrier Jet Operations Nighttime Runway Usage 8
MSP Top 15 Nighttime Operator's by
MSP Top 15 Nighttime Operator's Stage Mix 10
Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks 11-14
NISP ANOMS Remote Monitoring Tower Site Locations Map 15
Carrier Jet Arrival Related Noise Events 16
Carrier Jet Departure Related Noise Events 17
NISP Top Ten Aircraft Noise Events per RtMT 18-27
Analysis of Daily and Monthly Aircraft Noise Events Aircraft Ldn dBA 28-29
A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program
Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
MSP Complaints by City
March 2001
Note: Shaded Columns repcesen[ MSP complaints fled via [he Interne[
A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANONIS Program
2 A Product of the Nlctropolitan Airports Commission ANONIS Program
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
Available Time for Runway Use March 2001
(FAA Runway Use Logs)
March 2001 FAr1 Airport Traffic Record Counts
2000 Daily Counts
2001 Dail Counts
_
Air Carrier
730
749
Commuter
315
324
General Aviation
352
3l1
Military
3
10
Total
1405
1399
A Product of [he Metropotitan Airports Commission ANOINTS Program �
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
Carrier Jet Operations
Runway Use Report March 2001
4 Arr So. RichfieldBloomington 8 0.1% 32 � 0.2%
12L AtT So. Minneapolis/No. Richfield 2280 14.6% 2563 18.070
12R Arr So. Minneapolis/No. Richfield 2534 16.2% 2931 20.6%
22 Arr St. Paul/Highland Park 7 0.0% 43 0.3%
30L Air Eagan/Mendota Heights 5649 36.1% 4765 33.5%
30R Arr Eagan tNlendota Heights 5174 33.0% 3904 1 27.4%
Total Arrivals 15652 1000% 14235 100.0%
4 Dep St. Paul/HighlandPark 7 0.0% 7 0.1%
12L Dep Eagan t/�lendota Heights 2274 14.6% 2605 18.4%
12R ep Eagan/Mendota Heights 2618 16.9% 3058 21.6%
22 Dep So. Ric hfieldBloomington 89 0.6% 188 1.3%
30L Dep o. Minneapolis/No. Richfield 5866 37.8% 4769 33.8%a
30R Dep So. Minneapolis/No. Richfield 4678 30.1% 3505 24.8%
Total Departures 15532 100 0%o 14132 100:0%
Total OperatioDs 31184 28370
A Product of the Metropolitan tlirports Commission AtVOr�IS Program 5
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
Nighttime All Operations 10*30 p.m. to 6*00 a.m.
Runway Use Report March 2001
A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANON[S Program �
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
March 2001 Top 15 Actual Nighttime Jet Operators by Type
10:30 p.m to 6:00 a.m.
Total Nighttime Jet
Operations by Hour
` lIotir
Count
2230
586
2300
473
2400
147
100
67
200
30
300
27
400
106
500
310
TOTAL
1746
Airline -
ID `
StI e --
, e %
Count -_
American
AAL
3
F100
61
American
AAL
3
MD80
4
Airborne
ABX
3
DC8Q
21
Airborne
ABX
3
DC9Q
35
Trans Air
AMT
3
B72Q
26
America West
AWE
3
A319
4
America West
AWE
3
A320
44
Champion Air
CCP
3
B72Q
57
Comair
COM
3
CRI1
38
Fedex
FDX
3
A306
30
Fedex
FDX
3
B72Q
5
Fedex
FDX
3
DC10
51
Fedex
FDX
3
MDII
4
Kitty Hawk
KHA
3
B72Q
27
Northwest
NWA
3
A319
8
Northwest
NWA
A320
295
Northwest
NWA
3
B72Q
37
Northwest
NWA
3
B742
15
Northwest
NWA
3
B744
2
Northwest
NWA
3
B752
234
Northwest
NWA
3
DC10
3
Northwest
NWA
DC9Q
230
Otani Air
OAE
DC10
37
Ryan
RYN
3
A320
37
Ryan
RYN
B72Q
92
Sun Country
SCX
_
B720
98
Sun Country
SCX
3
B738
20
Sun Country
SCX
DC10
15
AhTran
TRS
3
B712
30
United
UAL.
3
B72Q
33
United
UAL
3
B73Q
19
UPS
UPS
3
B752
9
UPS
UPS
3
B763
1
UPS
UPS
3
DC8Q
49
Total {
1671
Note: The top li nighttime operators represent 95.7% of [he total nighttime operations.
A Product of the Ntetropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program
Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
Carrier Jet Departure Related Noise Events
March 2001
Departure
Departure
Departure
Departure
RMT
E'en&
Events
Events "
= Events t'
ID
City
Address
>6SdB
>80dB
>40dB ?
>100dB "
1
Minneapolis
Xerxes Ave. & 41st St,
1140
146
0
0
2
Minneapolis
Fremont Ave. & 43rd St.
1342
210
2
0
3
Minneapolis
West Elmwood St. Ave.
3 34
452
25
0
4
Minneapolis
Oakland Ave. & 49th St.
3618
612
32
0
5
Minneapolis
12th Ave. & 58th St.
7617
2398
544
3
6
Minneapolis
25th Ave. & 57th St,
9086
2950
997
56
7
Richfield
Wentworth Ave. & 64th St.
5320
1430
141
0
8
Minneapolis
Longfellow Ave. & 43rd St.
2937
753
24
0
9
St. Paul
Saratoga St. & Hartford Ave.
94
5
1
0
10
St. Paul
Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St.
52
7 1
4
1
11
St. Paul
Finn St. & Scheffer Ave.
50
5
2
0
12
St. Paul
Alton St. & Rockwood Ave.
66
3
0
0
13
Mendota Heights
Southeast end of Mohican Court
2135
265
2
0
14
Eagan
1st St. & Mckee St.
3252
657
65
0
15
Mendota Heights
Cullon St. & Lexington Ave.
2576
470
11
0
16
Eagan
Avalon Ave. & Was Lane
3297
1080
253
1
17
Bloomington
84th St. &4th Ave.
272
24
10
0
18
T Richfield
75th St. & 17th Ave
449
79
32
3
19
Bloomington
16th Ave. & 84th St.
246
41
7
0
20
Richfield
75th St. & 3rd Ave.
703
16
I 1
0
2l
Inver Grove Heights
Barbara Ave. & 67th St.
859
45
0
( 0
22
Inver Grove Heights
Anne Marie Trail
903
57
0
0
23
Mendota Heights
End of Kenndon Ave.
3354
1096
350
0
24
Eagan
Chapel Ln. & Wren Ln.
2347
260
3
0
25
Eagan
Moonshine Park 1321 Jurdy Rd.
1613
23
1 0
0
26
Inver Grove Heights
6796 Arkansas Ave. W.
1092
97
0
0
27
Minneapolis
Anthony School 5757 Irving Ave. S.
2934
453
21
1
28
Richfield
66J516th Avenue S.
6288
532
6
0
29 M nneapoliE icsson Elem. Schoo14315 31st Ave. S.
2076
242
1
0
Total Departure Noise Events
68852
14408
2534 :
65 '
A Product of the Me[ropolitan Airports Commission ANON(S Program 17
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
Mar-01
(KNIT Site#4)
n..o. R. dQth Rt Minneanolis
Date/I'irre
Flight Nurrber
Type '
Arrival/
Ik al, re
Runway
L rax (dB)
3/13/200113:32
AMT335Q
E
D
30R
96.8
323200116:13
DAL1624Q
D
30R323200112:38
NWA832
D
30L
94.7
329200114:18
Ld�54SC
LJ25
A
12L
94.1
3/1200120:13
DAL1683
B72Q
D
30R
92.9
32720019:28
NWA671
B72Q
D
30R
92.8
3/17/200116:12
DAL1624
B72Q
D
30R
92.6
3/12200116:43
UAL1201
B72Q
D
30R
92.5
3/320019:23
NWA671
B72Q
D
30R
92.5
3/1620017:31
NWA718
B72Q
D
30R
92.3
(RMT Site#5)
,nth A-,,. P. GQth Ct Minnannnliv,
Date/lirre
Flight Nw ber `Arc
aft Type
Arrival/
Departure
Rt nway
L rax (IB)
3/3020017:09
SOC755
B72Q
D
30L
100.1
3/9200111:15
CCP960
B72Q
D
30L
100
32120016:15
CCP165
B72Q
D
30L
100
3 �120017:17
SCX789
B72Q
D
30L
100
3/31200115:34
AAL1788
F100
D
30R
99.6
3 9PM01 18:06
CCP502
B72Q
D
30L
99.4
3/9200114:07
SCX748
B72Q
D
30L
99.4
3/1520018:27
CCP201
B72Q
D
30L
99A
326200111:18
CCP960
B72Q
D
30L
99.3
3/10200113:42
GSX748
B72Q
D
30L
99.2
(RlVIT Site#6)
�,cth e.,� P. S7th Cr A/Iinnagnnlic
Date/I irre
Flight Number ✓
Aircraft Type
Arrival/
Departure
Runway
Lzrax (dB)
320200119:31
SCX843
B72Q
D
30R
3/1520019:09
UAL1506
B72Q
D
30R
1�0�3
3/32001 13:31
N VVA624
B72Q
D
30R
320200118:20
UAL1643
B72Q
D
30R
3/27200113:46
NVVA446
B72Q
D
30R
102.9
3/16200113:12
NWA672
B72Q
D
30R
102.8
0/20200115:33
SCX741
B72Q
D
30R
102.8
3122/200119:52
SCX843
B72Q
D
30R
102.7
34200120:57
2
NWA677
B72Q
D
30R
102.7
3/d200121:16
NWA127o
B72Q
D
30R
102.6
A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program 19
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
Mar-01
(RMT Site#10)
rracra A.,P k Rowdoin St.- St, Paul
Flight N trrber
Aircraft Type
Arrival/
Departure
Runway
Lnax (dB)
6
NWA19
B742D
4
100.12
ji
NWA19
B742
D
4
98.6
0
NWA19
B742
D2
NWA19
B742
D
4
94.4
32120015:36
FDX1407
DC10
A
22
93.1
32120014:33
RYN610
B72Q
A
22
89.4
3/10/20016:55
BW48
BE80
D
4
89A
32120015:30
ABX354
DC8Q
A
22
88.2
32120014:30
UP558
Unknown
A
12L
86.7
3/17200114:23
NWA43
DC10
A
22
86.5
(RMT Site#11) Ct Rr CPhPfFPr Ave.. St_ Paul
Date/i uiu
Fli6ht Nlurrber
YA rcraft Type
Arr val/
Departure
Runway
L sax (dB)
3 /8/200114:03
NWA19
B742
D
4
95
3/22200114:56
NWA19
B742
D
4
91.4
323200113:43
NWA19
B742
D
4
84.6
32420017:23
B 58
BE99
D
30R
81.6
3/15200113:01
NWA19
B742
D
4
81.4
3i920018:14
NWA1861
DC9Q
A
30R
80.6
3/5/200121:57
KHA709
B72Q
D
30L
79.5
325200113:37
NWA624
B72Q
D
30R
78.8
3/7200122:07
NVVA688
DC9Q
D
30R
78.5
32420017:07
BMJ48
BE80
D
4
77.5
(RMT Site#12)
ntr,,.. Cr R. Rnrkwnnrl Ave__ St. Palll
DateJl'irre
FlightNur_ber v
Aircraft Type
Arrival/
Departure
Runway
Lnrrx(dB)
3/1420017:10
BMJ48
BE80
D
12L
82.2
327200121:27
NIES2861
SF34
D
12L
81.5
3/15200113:01
NVVA19
B742
D
4
81.3
32920019:26
ME52874
SF34
D
12L
79.7
329200113:49
MES2765
SF34
D
12L
79.6
32020016:45
BTMJ62
BF80
D
12R
79.6
3/19200120:53
MES3366
SF34
D
12L
77.5
32820018:05
NVVA409
DC9Q
A
12L
7.4
3A8/200121:17
MVA1507
A320
D
12L
75.9
32020016:44
BMJ52
BE80
D
12R
75.3
A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ,AtvOMS Program
21
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
Nhr-oi
(RMT Site#16)
A vatnn Ave_ Xc Was Lane. Eagan
Date/rine
Flight Number
Aircraft Type
Arrival/
De
Rtmway
Lrrax (dB)
3/1420016:33
CCP165
B72Q
D
12R
100.6
3/14200120:44
NWA674
B72Q
A
30R
99
3/19200111:25
CCP960
B72Q
D
12R
98.8
3/1020016:39
CCP165
B72Q
D
12R
98.7
321200110:11
SO(403
B72Q
D
12R
98.1
328200114:06
CCP201
B72Q
D
12R
98
3/3020017:26
SO(529
B72Q
D
12R
98
3/12200112:58
CCP901
Unknown
D
12R
97.9
329200113:48
NWA446
B72Q
D
12R
97.9
3/12200114:13
SCX748
B72Q
D
12R
97.9
(RMT Site#17)
Roth Cr Xr 4th Ave__ Bloomington
Date Jlirre
Flight Number
Aircraft Type
Arrival/
Departure
Rrmway
Lmax (dB)
3/3 0200113:04
NWA19
13742
D
22
99
3/9200112:40
NVVA83
B742
D
22
96.7
3/1200113:24
NWA19
B742
D
22
95.7
0/10200113:34
NVVA83
B742
D
22
93.6
3/30200112:40
NWA83
B742
D
22
93.5
3/14200121:21
NWA56
B742
D
22
92.5
3/3200112:46
NVVA83
B742
D
22
92.4
314200112:57
NVVA19
B742
D
22
92.1
3/3200112:59
NVVA19
B742
D
22
91.7
32200115:22
NWA42
DC10
D
22
90.2
(RMT (zite#18)
75rh Sr ,� 17rh Ave_ Richfield
Date JPirre
Flight I�hurber
Aircraft Type
Arrival/
De arhue
Rtmway
Lrrxix (dB)
0/30/200113:04INVVA191BB742
D
22
103.1
320200112:40B742
D
22
101.3
3/9/200112:39B742
D
22
1005
0/14/200112:57B742
D
22
99.9
0/3200112:46
NWA83
B742
D
22
99.5
3/18200115:17
NWA1176
B72Q
D
22
99.1
3r200112:58
NWA19
B742
D
22
98.3
314200121:01
NVVA1049
DC9Q
D
22
98.1
318200115:44
SCX748
B72Q
D
22
97.3
318200115:20
NWA564
B72Q
D
22
97
A Product of the D:[e[ropoli[an Airports Commission ANONIS Program 23
Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAQ Technical Advisor's Report
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP
Mar-01
(R1ViT Site#22)
Anne Marie Trail, Inver Grove Heights
Date/13rre
Flight Number
Aircraft Type
Arrival/
Departure
Runway
LnAx (dB)
32020019:40
AMT625
B72Q
D
12L
86.9
0/28/200114:07
CCP201
B72Q
D
12R
86.2
3/1920016:36
CCP160
B72Q
D
12R
86
32820018:12
CCP905
B72Q
D
12R
86
3/1020015:22
CCP907
B72Q
D
12R
85.7
3/1420017:13
SCX529
B72Q
D
12R
84.8
322200114:16
SCX741
B72Q
A
30L
84.1
321200113:30
CCP201
B72Q
D
12R
83.8
3/1920016:15
SCX755
B72Q
D
12R
83.7
3/1920016:17
AMT304
B72Q
D
12L
83.6
(RMT Site#23)
End of Kenndon Avenue, Mendota Heights
DateJlirsre
Flight N�urber
Aircraft Type
Arrival/
Departure
RLuiway
Lrrax (dB)
on21200119:36
NWA1298
B72Q
D
12L
99.7
no/18/200119:30
SCX843
B72Q
D
12L
99.4
3/30200114:40
NWA624
B72Q
D
12L
98.7
3/30200119:08
AMT334
B72Q
D
12L
98.5
3/18200110:03
SCX791
B72Q
D
12L
98.3
3/1920017:26
NWA718
B72Q
D
12L
98
329200111:27
NWA1271
B72Q
D
12L
98
321200120:11
DAL1683
B72Q
D
12L
9T9
321/200111:28
NWA722
DC9Q
D
12L
97.8
3/30/200112:17
CCP960
B72Q
D
12L
97.7
(RMT Site#24)
Chapel Lane &Wren Lane, Eagan
Date/I'irm
Flight Nruri�er
Aircraft Type
Arrival/
De arhu2
Runway
Lrrax (dB)
3/21200114:08
SCX748
B72Q
D
12R
91.2
313200112:50
NWA83
B742
D
12R
91.2
3/1920016:15
SG(755
B72Q
D
12R
90.8
0/1920017:17
SCX529
B72Q
D
12R
89.9
3/ 4/20017:13
SCX529
B72Q
D
12R
89.4
32820018:11
CCP905
B72Q
D
12R
89.4
320200112:18
MVA921
B742
D
12R
89.3
3/19/200110:03
NWA19
B742
D
12R
89.3
0/1020017:42
UAL1453
B72Q
D
12L
89.3
323/20018:20
BNIT35
BE80
A
30L
88.6
A Product of the Nletropoli[an Airports Commission ANOMS Prosram 25
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for 1VISP
Nlar-01
(RMT SiteTt
6645 16thAvenue S., Richfield
Date/rirre
Flight Number
Aircraft Type
Arrival/
Departure
Runway
Lnax (dB)
324200110:54
RYN738
B72Q
D
30L
93.3
3/7/200121:28
DHL142
B72Q
D
30L
93.2
323200110:30
BMJ56
Unknown
D
30L
93
32720016:35
BNIT56
BE80
D
30L
90.6
323200115:23
NWA564
B72Q
D
30L
90.5
3/7200121:39
ABX353
DCBQ
D
30L
89.8
3/120016:58
BMJ56
BE80
D
30L
89.2
3/1320019:08
NWA1074
DC9Q
D
30L
88.8
3h20016:11
Unknown
Unknown
D
30L
88.5
32420019:14
UAL1506
B72Q
D
30R
88.2
(RMT Site#29)
Ericsson Elementary School, 4315 31st Ave. S., Minneapolis
Date JI'irre
Flight Number
Aircraft Type
Arrival/
De arhue
Runway
Lrrax (dB)
323200114:01
NWA672
1372Q
D
30R
90.3
3/3020018:35
SO(407
B72Q
A
12R
89.9
326200113:42
NWA624
B72Q
D
30R
89.8
326200112:23
NWA506
B72Q
D
30R
88.6
3/31200119:55
NWA628
B72Q
D
30R
88.5
32420016:09
SCX749
B72Q
D
30L
88.2
32620019:07
UAL1506
B72Q
D
30R
87.7
3/320019:05
UAL1506
B72Q
D
30R
87.3
325200113:36
NWA624
B72Q
D
30R
87.2
320200119:35
SCX792
B72Q
D
30R
87
March 2001 Remote Monitoring Tower Top Ten Summary
The top ten noise events and the event ranges at each RMT for March 2001 were comprised of
90.3 % departure operations. The predominant top ten aircraft type was the Boeing 72Z Hushed with
66.2% of the highest Lmax events. Note: Unknown fields are due to data unavailability in FAA flight
track data.
March 2001 Technical Advisor Report Notes
Note: Missing FAA radar data for 1.2 days during the month of March 2001,
A Product of the Metropolitan Airports Commission ADIONIS Prod am 27
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) Technical Advisor's Report
Analysis of Aircraft Noise Events - Aircraft Ldn dBA
March 2001
Remote Monitoring Towers
Date''
#16
#17
#18
4f19
#20
#21
#22
423
#24
4#25;,
#26
#27
428#29
1
683
53.4
543
43.4
47.4
41
53.5
62.6
60.8
572
50.2
63.1
64.6
612
2
70.9
52.3
53.5
48.3
52
51.6
57
58.7
61.8
51.8
49.5
63.3
64.9
61
3
67.8
54.3
58.5
47
45.2
42.6
53.1
63.4
59.4
45.3
53.4
63.8
6
54.9
4
69.1
432
482
46.2
52.4
36.8
54.5
50.6
60.1
51.1
45.3
59.6
63.4
58.9
5
66.6
38.2
47.3
37.9
51
35
50.7
50.6
58.4
44.6
48.3
60.6
65
57.7
6
67.8
49
56.3
.51
49.3
43.6
52.5
59.7
59.9
50.7
46.4
61.9
642
60.3
7
69.2
52.9
55.2
54.5
56.3
37.6
58.7
57
63.1
52.7
48
69.5
66.5
62.9
8
68.6
47.2
48.7
40.3
53
36.2
55.9
57
61.8
40
46.1
64.2
66.2
61.5
9
69.6
54.6
593
55.4
46
52.5
57.7
70
62.5
54
55.4
63.7
62.5
56.7
10
72
55.6
58.9
51.9
54.1
56.8
61.7
68
65.2
51.8
62.2
61.3
62.2
57.3
11
69.1
47.9
55.1
53.8
44.8
55.7
55.1
70.2
62.2
51.7
58
50.8
57.1
39.7
12
71.1
51.9
39
46.6
55.8
52.9
59.1
65.1
62.9
58.8
54.2
58.1
64.3
60.3
13
71.1
52
58
51.6
56.5
43.5
59.7
64.1
63.2
56
55
603
61.5
61.8
14
72.6
55.4
61.9
49.4
53.1
45.7
58.7
62.6
64.4
58.2
52.6
64.6
63.9
58.7
15
70.9
51.4
53.8
53.3
41.9
58.4
58.1
69.4
63.7
60
61.5
64.8
65.6
50.5
16
67.6
49.5
50.1
33.7
49
48.8
55.5
59.2
61.4
46
52.5
673
64.2
58.9
17
67
52.1
532
48.9
50
42
52.6
51.4
58.8
53.4
45.4
63.8
62.4
56.6
is
69.6
52.3
65.1
61.4
44.6
55.6
56.4
71.7
63
53
58.3
332
50.7
29.6
19
71.7
36.1
38.8
41.9
n/a
59
64
73.5
67.3
59.1
62.3
40.9
52.7
41.3
20
69.6
49.6
54.1
50.2
49.6
57.1
60.2
70.2
64.9
58
593
60
632
57.6
21
72.1
53.9
57.4
49.6
40.3
57.5
58.2
72.8
64.1
58.9
60.8
60.8
60.8
42.4
22
68.1
43
48.7
47.7
47.9
n/a
57.4
53
61.2
36
45.3
61
65
60.7
23
68.7
44.4
47.9
46.5
52.2
45.9
57.6
53.9
62.2
49.2
49
60
65.1
63
24
68.7
473
50.4
38.9
52
382
55.5
51.1
61.1
48.8
47.7
60.2
65.8
63
25
683
43.7
42.7
50.4
51.7
38.7
55.7
52.4
60.5
43.1
45.4
61.7
63.8
61.5
26
66.9
51
49
43.8
542
40.5
54.5
56.8
60.2
48.9
47.6
62.2
64.8
62.5
27
67.7
52.7
55.7
52.4
48.5
57.4
58.1
70.9
63.1
52.8
55.9
62.9
62.6
54.6
28
1709
35.8
32.7
55.1
58.7
57.4
56.9
72.7
65.3
63.6
60.1
46.3
61.8
3 L3
29
71.9
30
M.7
38.6
n/a
58.5
593
71.5
63.7
63.7
58.8
36.5
60.9
n/a
30
72.9
58.6
62.2
53.9
45.9
60.1
60.2
72.7
65.3
61.1
60.4
62.1
33 7
43.8
43.4
36.6
52.1
60.7
58.9
49.6
56.5
56.1
X25
Mo. Ldri
69.9
51.7
5664
51.7
51.8
53.8
57.8
67.7
62.8
5665
56.6
62.4
A Product of the Nte[ropolitan Airports Commission ANOMS Program 29
MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT
To: MAC Commissioners
From: Roy Fuhrmann, Manager, Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs
Subject: 1996 Completed Homes within 2005 60-64 DNL Contour Area
Date: April 2, 2001
At the March 19, 2001 MAC Commission meeting a question was raised regarding the
location of some homes that will receive sound insulation as part of the 1996 sound
insulation program and their relationship to the 2005 60-64 DNL contour area. As you
will recall, there are an estimated 2,370 homes within the 1996 65 DNL contour area that
will receive sound insulation modifications as part of the currently approved Part 150
program but will be outside of the 2005 65 DNL contour.
In an effort to clarify the relationship of these dwelling units with respect to the draft
2005 60-64 contour area, staff has included a map depicting the parcel blocks of interest.
The attached map depicts the 1996 65 DNL contour in red, the projected 2005 65 DNL
contour in green and the 2005 60 DNL contour in blue. All shaded blocks will be
completed as part of the 1996 sound insulation Part 150 program. Blocks colored in
purple contain approximately 2,370 dwelling units that will be sound insulated as part of
the existing Part 150 program and are within the projected 2005 60-64 DNL contour area.
ff you have questions regarding this informational memorandum, please contact me at
612-725-6326.
k a....
§E
/
\
02
D
�
»yw y -AVE
nffice of the Mayor
-0 South 5th Street - Room 331
Minneapolis MN 55415-1393
Sharon ay as Belton
Mayor
Office (612) 673-2100
Fax 673-2305
TTY 673-3187
inneapolfs
crty of lakes
TO: PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT CHAIRMAN ROGER HALE AND COMMISSIONERS
FROM: MAYOR SHARON SALES BELTON
SUBJECT: HISTORY OF THE PART 150 METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION SOUND
INSULATION PROGRAM
DATE: APRIL 11, 2001
Executive Summary
In 1996, the Minnesota Legislature made the final decision to continue the development of the St, Paul Paul International Airport (MSP) in its current location and directed the Metropolitan Airports
Commission (MAC), to implement the 2010 Long Term Comprehensive Plan for the airport. With this
decision, the legislature also directed MAC to develop a noise mitigation plan which includes aggressive
steps to mitigate aircraft noise for the surrounding communities.
The following pages of this document will present a timeline of recommendations and newspaper articles
presenting ample evidence of Northwest Airlines and the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) support
for the expansion of the Noise Insulation Program out to the 60DNL.
Time Line:
A. Legislative Requirement
The 1996 Dual Track Legislation requires MAC to form a Committee to develop a noise mitigation plan
for MSP. Members of this committee included Mayors of impacted communities, MAC Commissioners,
Northwest Airlines, Metropolitan Council, and MASAC This Committee developed recommendations
for a Noise Mitigation Program that focused on four primary areas: 1) Sound Insulation, 2) Community
Stabilization, 3) Operating Procedures, and 4) Runway Use.
B. Sound Insulation Recommendation
Based on current trends, the Committee recommended that the residential insulation program be
expanded to the 2005 DNL 60 contour. Furthermore, the Committee recommended that the MAC
vMw.ci.m inne apolis.mn.0 s
Atfrmaliva Action Employer
evaluate the potential for continuing the program beyond the DNL 60 contour when that area has been
completed.
C. October 28, I996 the MAC Approved the Recommendation of the Noise Committee
1. The program be expanded after the completion of the current program to incorporate the area
encompassed by the 2005 60 DNL.
St. Paul Pioneer Press:
An additional 5,000 homes surrounding the Twin Cities airport maybe soundproofed under a proposal
the Metropolitan Airports Commission recommended to the Legislature on Monday.
The proposal approved unanimously by the airports commission was developed by a task force mandated
by the state Legislature last spring when it authorized expansion of the existing airport at its current site.
The task force includes mayors of Minneapolis, St. Paul, Richfield, Bloomington, Burnsville, Eagan,
Mendota Heights, and Inver Grove Heights; members of MAC, the Metropolitan Sound Abatement
Council, Metropolitan Council, and Northwest Airlines.
Money for both phases of the noise mitigation program is expected to come from a combination of
passenger ticket charges, airline fees, other airport revenues, and federal aid. The recommendation
approved calls on the state to help out in case those funds are insufficient.
Attached Exhibits:
Exhibit A: MSP Noise Committee Background
Exhibit B: Background and Assumptions
Exhibit C: Noise Committee Membership
Exhibit D: MSP Noise Mitigation Program (MAC, 1996) Excerpts
Exhibit E: Recommendation to look at the area out to the 54 DNL contour
Exhibit F: MSP Runway Use
Exhibit G: Sound Insulation Acoustic Goals
Exhibit H: St. Paul Pioneer Press Article "Airport Panel Oks Noise Insulation For Homes
Expansion Plan Covers More Homes, New Area; Is Sent To Legislature
i
18.1
18.2
1
lei kyj 1
u. .,. _ .... .. - -
T,7
With this decision, the legislature also directed MAC to develop a noise mitigation plan
which includes aggressive steps to mitigate aircraft noise for the e surrounding
c
MSP Noise Mitigation Program Excerpts
The following pages highlight the Noise Mitigation Committee's findings and
recommendations, which include:
Sound Insulation
Community Stabilization
Airport Operations
Runway Use
_x�y„�rio�s
Metropolitan Airports Commission -Noise &Satellite Program � Nandbook l998 1-
On October
I. INSULATION
2.
3.
The residential sound insulation program for the area encompassed by the
1996 DNL 65 contour be completed on the currently approved schedule:
4. MAC and affected communities seek approval from FAA to develop
neighborhood and "natural boundaries' that reflect current conditions at the
outer edge of the expanded contour to the maximum extent possible;
5 Prioritization' of the expanded program should be to initiate single-family
homes upon completion of the currently approved schedule, and begin work
on the following newly eligible dwellings/buildings, beginning with the highest
noise exposure levels, in accordance with a schedule agreed upon with
each affected city — multifamily dwellings, nursing homes, churches with
regular weekday daycare/nursery school types of operations;
6.
�• The Metropolitan Airports Commission commit to funding its community
based noise abatement program on an accelerated basis beyond its current
level of $25.5 million annually.
8. MAC should develop noise impact models which reflect the impact of ground
level noise on residential properties. Mitigation for low frequency noise
should be developed after consultation with independent noise mitigation
experts.
9. Completion of the sounri inciiin+;n
COMMUNITY STABILIZATION
The Metropolitan Airports Commission should participate with affected communities
to identify and quantify any impacts the airport may have on declining property
values and/or other negative consequences on neighborhoods near the airport. To
the extent that negative consequences can be quantified, a Working Group should
prepare recommendations to MAC for consideration by the Minnesota Legislature.
Community stabilization measures considered should include, but not be limited to;
the measures described in the Metropolitan Council -MAC Community Protection
Report. The
. measures include purchase and property value guarantees and
housing replacement to complement the tax credit and revitalization area legislation
adopted in 1996,
A Working Group should be convened including representatives from MAC, Met
Council, Northwest Airlines, affected communities and legislative staff. The
Should identify a program design, funding options, administrative
-and eligibility area.. T,be final legislative recommendation should be
pcdto-MAC-and other interested parties for endorsement and inclusion in
1997 legislative programs.
III. AIRPORT OPERATIONS
The following be incorporated and evaluated in a Part 150 update:
1. Take action, as required by the 1996 Legislature, to prohibit use of Stage 2
aircraft after December 31, 1999.
2. Modify the night hours to 10:30 p.m. - 6:00 a.m. and limit activity during
these hours to Stage 3 aircraft.
3. Develop a departure procedure for Runway 22 to direct aircraft over areas
of commercial development and the Minnesota River Valley,
4. Seek cooperation from FAA to implement departure procedures as
appropriate at each runway end.
5. Evaluate departure procedures in the Eagan -Mendota Heights corridor.
6. Work within the aviation industry to encourage further reductions in aircraft
noise levels.
7. Negotiate the Stage 2 prohibition, noise abatement procedures, and
expansion of night hours, incorporating appropriate penalties for non-
compliance.
8. The MAC noise monitoring system monitors should be increased in number
to provide more coverage of actual impacts in the airport vicinity, in
particular, areas affected by the north -south runway. Areas affected by the
parallel runways may have additional microphone locations to monitor
continued and growing volumes of air traffic as the airport expands. This
system should be used to corroborate the accuracy of the modeled contours
for noise program eligibility.
IV. RUNWAY USE
1. Completion of the environmental process and construction of the North -
South Runway should be expedited and completed as soon as possible.
Progress should be measured against this schedule:
a, commence construction — 1988 _
b, complete construction, open runway — 2003
2. In the interim, Runway 4/22 should be -used for noise mitigation purposes.
This requires the following:
a. Construction of associated taxiways;
b. Mitigation program at the southwest end of Runway 4-22 in the cities
of Bloomington and Richfield as required in the Final Record of
Decision (March 28, 1995). The acquisition portion of the mitigation
should be initiated as soon as contracts for the associated taxiways
are let and should be completed within a period of two ,years. Funds
for the acquisition program should be in addition to those designated
for the residential insulation program, consistent with the existing
acquisition program. The insulation portion of the mitigation should
3
be integrated with the current MAC program, starting as soon as
contracts for construction of the associated taxiways are let, or the
RUS is implemented, whichever occurs first The insulation program
Should be implemented at the rate of at least 20% of the total homes
ad defined in the Runway 4-22 mitigation program in each year until
all of the single family and multiple family units within the 1996 DNL
65 contour are insulated. To the extent practical, MAC should
identify funding and program administration options to minimize
delay c• If theiNorthSouth Runway etion of the isncinsulation ompl tedpbeefforreminsulation of all
eligible homes is completed, the insulation program for the area
impacted by aircraft using Runway 4-22 may be terminated.
3. Completion of this program is contingent on the MAC maintaining a bond
rating of at least A.
i
BACKGROUND AND ASSUMPTIONS
r
2.
BACKGROUND
A. The Minnesota Legislature has made a decision to continue to develop MSP,
and has directed the MAC to implement the 2010 Long term Comprehensive
Plan for MSP.
B. With a legislative decision to continue to develop MSP, a noise mitigation plan
should be developed for MSP which includes aggressive steps to mitigate
aircraft noise and help community stabilization.
ASSUMPTIONS
C. The noise mitigation plan should include both traditional and non-traditional
approaches to noise mitigation.
D. Both the benefits and impacts of airport development and operations should
be shared equitably among affected communities to the maximum extent
feasible.
E. Mitigation/stabilization activities must be directly related to aircraft noise
impacts.
F. First priority activities for funding are noise insulation; second priority activities
for funding are community stabilization.
G. Implementation of mitigation activities is a shared responsibility of the MAC,
the airlines, the State of Minnesota, the FAA, and the communities.
H. A funding program adequate to support implementation of the mitigation
program should be prepared.
I. The mitigation plan should be evaluated for effectiveness; revisions should be
made as necessary to reflect changes in the noise environment.
NOISE ENVIRONMENT
A. Legislative Reouirement
The 1996 Dual Track Legislation requires MAC to form a Cnmmitfaa +
p� is can consiger areas out to the DNL 60. The Noise Mitigation Plan is to be
submitted to�ie� a e visory ounci o�ropolitan Airport Planning for review
and comment to the Legislature. This review and comment is to take place within 60
days after submittal.
In order to develop the Noise Mitigation Plan, the MAC formed the MSP Noise
Mitigation Committee. This group was charged with evaluating existing programs,
determining future noise exposure levels, and developing recommendations to be
considered by MAC. The Committee was chaired by MAC Vice -Chair Steve Cramer
and was made up of the following:
Metropolitan Airports Commission Steve Cramer
Alton J. Gasper
John Himle
Richard Long
Tommy Medckel
Louis Miller
G
City of Minneapolis Mayor Sharon Sayles Belton
City of Mendota Heights Mayor Charles Mertensotto
City of Eagan Mayor Tom Egan
City of Bloomington Mayor Coral Houle
City of Richfield Mayor Martin Kirsch
City of Inver Grove Heights Mayor Joe Atkins
City of Burnsville Mayor Elizabeth Kautz
City of St. Paul Chuck Armstrong
Northwest Airline
MASAC Bob Johnson
The Noise Mitigation Committee met 8 times between May and October. Copies of
the committee agendas are included in Appendix A. A public meeting was held in
August.
At the initial meetings of the Mitigation Committee, presentations were made on past,
present, and anticipated noise conditions at MSP. This information focused on levels
of operations, runway use, and resultant noise contours and impacts.
v�iaviul rttt 12:JJ tA,L 651 29tl a7J1 AIN LEGISLATIVE LIBRARY
• ` •' 4
�. • " �.;
� * •''
lovember 1996
TL
72S.3
.N6
M77
1996
�... 40. nii.n Linnnttz Lin012
The 1996 Dual Track Airport L
schools in Minneapolis and 2 s
area in the 199&2002 time pei
B. Proposed Sound Insulal
The Mitigation Committeeeval
North South Runway in operat
presented in Sedtion 2-C, !and i
*own. on Figure 2-8. -The
baseline and high forecast B�
use of contours associated:with
in requires the MAC to insulate four additional
in Richfield located in the 1996 DNL 65-60
'" t�iilvTl
�d the future noise environment at MSP with the
Data related to use of the proposed runway is
e impacts associated with the runway in 2005 are
nmittee evaluated contours associated with the
on current trends, the Committee recommended
high forecast
G anaI sis o me commm indicated that the residential insulation ram
s ou a an ed to the 2 NL 60 contour. This area while no resenuly
Ulw1bleor AIP runaing. is eligible
Program, Use of this contour-twoulcl add 6,357 homes Jo theistin ro am.
i ure - s ows t e areas between the 1996 DNL 65 c BOO the 2005 FfiQh
orecast 60 contour.
fee
qndptp
wRn me souna insulation orogra
proposed As n be seen the Al2w=tiate
bo�tt�ie exisLnq and expanded
cost of
tion Sound InsulaProgram indiLrling thedeferred
Runwa 4=22 MiU ation Pro ram
w ul
homes wou based on' DNL
bontours from
wou a in oven com eU0
.o the cun-ent prpm 11 the DNL fi5 .
The evaluation of future eligibili
' is based on the procedure currently approved by
FAA whereby a block is include
as eligible if the block is touched by the contour.
The Mitigation Committee. has
;recommended that MAC work with FAA to gain
approval to use neighborhood o
"natural boundaries" to define eligibility.
Multifamily residential unitswoul
l also be eligible for sound insulation. A total of 850
multifamily parcels would'be eli�ibie
and would be completed following the current
single-family residential program
6
The Mitigation Committee''also
eviewed other land uses for application of sound
insulation. Continuation of the
'school insulation program out to the 2005 DNL 60
contour was recommended. Nine
additional schools, located in Bloomington, Eagan
and Minneapolis, would be eligible
under this expanded program. Day-care facilities
and nursing homes were ;also 'recommended
for inclusion. A total of 6 day-care
facilities and 2 nursing homes
IWOuld be eligible for insulation. These insulation
projects would be prioritized bV
noise level, and would be undertaken following
completion of the residential program,
The Miti ation CommiAee has ai
o r
or continuing the program bey nd the DNL 60 contour when that area has been
com leted. The reconlmendation i o the DN to r and
evaluate the ssi i i ' for=
and a summa of
ata
"4s. shown
in
Tables
3=5 and
3-6_
C. Property Acquisition
i
The property acquisition component of the noise mitigation program has been used
much less frequently than the in. uIation program. Limited acquisition has occurred in
Bloomington, Richfield, and Men4 ota Nelghts. The largest application of the program
has been in Richfield in New Fo(d Town and Rich Acres. A total of 349 single-family
residential units, 7 mulli4amily its, 2 businesses, and one church are involved in the
acquisition program at an estimated cost of $55 million. This program is nearing
completion. The City of 8loomi,! on has proposed acquisition of approximately 75
homes in the northeast comer i'f the city. This acquisition is part of the mitigation
associated with increased use o t2unway 422.
_ Acquisition will continue to+be available as part of the mitigation program. it will only
be applied when requested by (the affected community, and will not be applied to
isolated lots or structures. �I
Committee recommendations related to these components of the noise mitigation
program are as follows:
1. That the resid �ritial sound insulation program for the area
encompassed by the 1996 DNL 65 contour be completed on the
currently approvea schedule;
2. That the program be expanded after completion of the current
program to incorp{{orate the area encompassed by the 2005 60 DNL;
3. That the 2005 60 DNL contour be based on the most accurate
projection of traffi6 levels and use of appropriate ANOMS data;
4. That MAC and :(e�ffffected communities seek approval from FAA to
develop neighbors. ood and "natural boundaries' that reflect current
conditions at the b� uter edge of the expanded contour to the maximum
extent possible;
5. The prioritization t?f the expanded program should be to initiate single-
family homes updn completion of the currently approved schedule,
and begin work n the following newly eligible dwellingstbuildings:
beginning with th highest noise exposure levels, in accordance with a
schedule agreed ippon with each affected city — multifamily dwellings,
nursing homes, (.churches with regular weekday daycarelnursery
school types of operations;
^ 6. That the program funded by a combination of PFC revenues, airline
fees, internally gdddnerated funds, and federal aid, with estimated total
and annual. cost+ as summarized below; to the extent that MAC
cannot fundi.this bxpanded program in a reasonable period of time,
support from thel.8tate of Minnesota should be sought. In no case
should unreimburped financial impacts fall on affected residents or
their local govern ents.
7. That the t&trop flan Airports Commission commit to funding its
community based; noise abatement program on an accelerated basis
beyond its currenllevel of $25.5 million annually;
8. That the Commission evaluate the airport noise environment 18
months prior to ttfe estimated completion of the expanded program.
If conditionswarrant, a modified sound insulation package should be
offered to eligible dwellings/buildings within the 54 DNL contour
which achieves a Ileast a 3-5 db interior noise level reduction:
35
9. That MAC develdp noise impact models which reflect the impact of
11
ground level noise on residential properties, Mitigation for tow
frequency ?noise; should be developed after consultation with
independent noisg mitigation experts.
Table 3 I provides a cost
On October 26, 1996, MAC
1. The residential
1996 DNL 65 c
2. The program
incorporate the area
3. The 2005 60 DNL i
traffic levels and use
4. MAC and affected
neighborhood and'r
outer edge of the ezt
5. Prioritization of
homes upon con
on the following i
noise exposure
each affected -:di
regular weekday
proposed Sound Insulation Program.
following Sound Insulation program:
gram for the area encompassed by the
on the currently approved schedule;
after
completion
of
the current. ram to
prog
ssed
by the 2005
60
DNL;
be based on the most accurate projection of
ate ANOMS data;
wnities seek approval from FAA to develop
boundaries' that reflect current conditions at the
contour to the maximum extent possible;
ded program should be to initiate single-family
the currently approved schedule, and begin work
ale dwellings/buildings, beginning with the highest
accordance with a schedule agreed upon with
amily dwellings, nursing homes, churches with
ursery school types of operations;
6. The program be funde'ct; by a combination of PFC revenues, airline fees,
internally generated furids, and federal aid, with estimated total and annual
costs as summarized: low; to the extent that MAC cannot fund this
expanded program';in a asonable period of time, support from the State of
Minnesota should _be sought. in no case should unreimbursed financial
impacts fall on affected �rsidents or their local governments.
7. The Metropolitan Airports Commission commit to funding its community
based noise abateinen' program on an accelerated basis beyond its current
level of $25.5 million arirtlaally.
8. MAC should deve
level noise on re
should be devel<
experts.
9. Completion of th
maintaining a bor
4. COMMUNITY STABILIZZ
The 1996 Legislature enacted.twl
areas around MSP. These pro,
credit program and for the establi
The Mitigation Committee has re
document prepared by MAC, Me
i Committee has recognized the
following recommendations:
}
impact models which reflect the impact of ground
properties. Mitigation for low frequency noise
consultation with independent noise mitigation
insulation program is contingent upon the MAC
of at (east A.
its related to effarts at community stabilization in the
ivofve the establishment of areas eligible for a tax
of housing replacement districts.
information previously developed and provided in a
�n Coundi, and the communities around MSP. Tne
ante of these measures and has forwarded the
Since program inception in 1991, ITM has developed an experienced administrative team responsible
for overall program management. This team contains a broad range of expertise that oversees every
element of the program including administration, construction, community/homeowner relations and
product research and development. The team includes the following:
• Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
- Part 150 Program guidelines - Part 150 Program policies
• Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC)
- Manager, Administradon/Policies% Homeowner Orientation
- Manager, Construction/Construction Policies - Acoustical quality control noise monitoring
• Center for Energy and Environment (CEE)
- Administration - Construction Management
- Community and Homeowner Relations - Product Research and Development
- Acoustical Designs - Ventilation Design and Testing
• Approved General Contractors, Sub -Contractors and Suppliers
Noise
enters a home
by the infiltration
of air through'
doors, windows, walls and the roof. The Sound
Insulation
Program can treat each of these
paths to reduce the amount of noise entering a home. Based on
FAA program
goals, MAC
and CEE staff will
develop
a unique
acoustic design for each home that attempts to
achieve a 5-decibel reduction. This unique design will be based on a home's pre-exisiuig conditions and
e Brent from a neighbor's.
Noise entering living areas through walls and the roof is reduced by baffling roof vents, installing tight-
fitting chimney dampers and providing insulation. Insulation can be added to wall cavities, attics and
crawlspaces where sufficient insulation is not already present. Tight -sealing, acousfically-rated storm
windows and storm doors are the primary means of reducing the amount of noise entering the house
through windows and doors.
Since the average untreated home in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area "absorbs" approximately 27
decibels of exterior noise, a home insulated in the Part 150 Program would, most likely, provide an
additional 5 decibels of reduction (32 decibels in total). An added 5-decibel reduction is approximately
equal to doubling the distance of the aircraft from the home's roof.
_!_'t ��S ��._�%rn�•_.1� _�.: J 1 ACC '.. _._.d tJ 'k5 r�S._._�._... L�.1� �-1�_.
—.
NewsLibrary Document Delivery Page 1 of 2
HEADLINE: AIRPORT PANEL OKS NOISE
INSULATION FOR HOMES//EXPANSION
PLAN COVERS MORE HOMES, NEW A_RFA:
IS SENT TO F TRLAT JRE _
Tuesday, October 29, 1996
Section: Metro
Edition: Metro Final
Page: 3B Don Ahem, Staff Writer
TEXT: An additiona15,000 homes surrounding the Twin Cities airport may
be soundproofed under a proposal the Metropolitan Airports Commission
recommended to the Legislature on Monday.
The noise -mitigation program, at about $20,000 per home plus airport
taxiway construction, could add $197 million to a $215 million home
insulation program already in progress that aims to insulate up to 9,000
homes by the year 2001. The expanded insulation program would make life
more bearable for people living in azeas just beyond the current insulation
limits -but after the current program is finished in five yeazs.
That would raise the amount of money MAC spends on various sound -
mitigation measures to a total of $412 million, and the number of homes that
have been or will be soundproofed to about 14,000 when all phases of the
program aze finished in 2005. Buildings being insulated now are in an azea
defined as 65 DNL (day -night level) or higher. That is a level detertnined by
a formula that indicates a 24-hour average noise intensity. Most azeas in the
65 DNL have low-level flyovers by airplanes landing or taking off.
new area is 60 DNL, less nois but
mmen ation would extend noise in
over the Minnesota Ktver Vallev m
t ne
proposat
a
rovea unammousi
b the air ons c sston was
eveloped by a task force mandated by the state Legislature
last spring when
t authorized expansion of the existing airport at its current site. The task
'orce includes mayors of Minneapolis St. Paul Richfield.
Bloomington,
3urnsville,
Eagan, Mendota Heights, and Inver Grove Heights; members of
olitan Sound Abatement Council. Metronolitan
Council,
an ort west Atrhne
The legislation requires the commission to spend millions of dollars more on
sound insulation because of the airport's expansion, suggesting but not
requiring inclusion of the 60 DNL areas.
NewsLibrary Document Delivery
Page 2 of 2
MAC Commissioner Steve Cramer, chairman of the task force, called the
plan an "affordable, realistic sound blueprint" that would be finished by
2005, shortly after a new runway is built which will constitute the major part
of airport expansion.
One of the more controversial aspects of the recommendation is expenditure
of $29 million for taxiways to serve the existing newly extended crosswind
runway in Bloomington. That city is opposing extensive use of that runway
for noise mitigation purposes or anything beyond what it is being used for
now, occasional takeoffs of heavily loaded overseas flights. But Minneapolis
leaders aze urging that runway also be used to reroute some of the many
hundreds of airplanes a day that fly over southern portions of that city. That
issue is being negotiated between the various cities and agencies that have
differing viewpoints in an effort to stave off litigation.
for both phases of the noise mitigation proeram is expected to come
a combination of passenger ticket charges, airline fees, other
ues. and federal aid. The recommendation approved Mondav
The recommendation also calls for work to begin on a new north -south
runway, aheady approved by the Legislature as part of airport expansion, in
1998 with completion by 2003.
All content m 1996 ST. PAUL PIONEER PRESS and may no[ be republished without
permission.
All archives are stored on a SAVE (tm) newspaper library system from MediaStream Inc., a
Knight-Ridderinc. company.
F,e.ii�.�T�n�rn�r,a..,�r;�..�..,oi�nri,.�,,,.,<„+oi�nnAi;.,P,,, hr,,, n�zizni�nni
so=
mm
UWL
ZF%
05/02/2001 16:33 FAX 6126732305 MAYOR'S OFFICE R1 L0002/003
Office of the Mayor
"90 South 5th Street - Room 331
_nneapolis MN 55415-1393
Sharon ay es Belton
Mayor
Office (612) 673-2100
Fax 673-2305
TTY 673-3187
May 2, 2001
The 1-Tonorable Senator Lawzence Pogemiller
235 Capital
75 Constitution Avenue
St, Paul, Minnesota 55155-1606
The Honorable Representative Ron Abrams
209 State Office Building
100 Constitution Avenue
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-1606
'dear Senator Pogemiller and Representative Abrams:
irt�eapolis
ci(y of lakes
We are writing you as Mayors ofnoise impacted communities adjacent to the Minneapolis -St. Paul
International Airport. More than 35 million travelers use the airport each year and that number is projected to
rise to 40 million people by 2010. Today, there are more than 1,400 flights per day and that number
continues to grow.
�finneapolis-St. Paul International Airport is the State of Minnesota's passport to the world and an important
economic engine that powers iVliilnesota's growth. Not only does it provide substantial direct economic
benefits, but it is also a key link for the state in an increasingly global economy. Research shows that the
Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport brings $6.2 billion annually into the state economy.
While the airport obviously has many positive benefits for the zegion and state, it's proximity to Minneapolis
and our inner ring suburbs results in significant disruption of our resident's quality of life due to high levels
of airplane noise.
The 1996 decision by the State Legislature to keep the airport in its current location and expand operations
meant that thousands of residents living near the airport would be forced to contend with escalating airplane
noise. The only immediate relief that can be offered to the families living in impacted areas is the complete
5-decibel noise insulation package to the 60 DNL.
Money to complete the 5-decibel noise insulation program
to the 60 DNL is
expected to .come from several
socuces, including passenger ticket
charges, airline
fees, other airport revenues and federal aid.
vw5v cf.minne__=pohs.mn.us
Afllrmathra Action Employer
05i02/2001 16:33 F1i 6126732305 )IAYOR S OFFICE R11 U 001i003
Ron Thaniel, MPA
Policy Aide
350 South Sth Street - Aoom 331, City Ha
Minneapolis, MN 5541r.1393
City of minnespolla www'ci.minneepolis.mn.us
- Mayor oNke (612) 673�3537
tax 673,2305
pager 608-1561
Fax
try 673,3167
6•m9il ron NaruelOtim Meepe u mn as
To: Mayor Wiustead-952-563-8754 From Ran Thaniel5/2101
Mayor Kau¢ — 952-890-3787
Mayor Awada — 952.681.4612
Mayor Kirsch— 612-861-9749
Mayor Atkins — 651-450-2502
Mayor Mertensotro — 651-452-8940
Roger Hale — 612-349-2760
Rc Letter to legisLtttue CC: Fill Bamhar.
x Cfrgrnt x For Revicw x Please Co¢unent x Please Repty
❑ Plo�c Rccycic
Pierse review the attached letter to Senator Pogemt7la and Represenhfive Abrams and provide it;edback to rue by
Friday, bfay 4, 2001. Thank you.
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE
Roger Hale, Chair
Alton Gasper, Vice Chair
William Erhart
Coral Houle
Dick Long
Bert McKasy
Paul Weske
METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION
NOTICE OF REGULAR MEETING
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE
Tuesday, May 8, 2001
1:00 p.m.
Room 3040, Mezzanine Level
Lindbergh Terminal, Wold-Chamberlain Field
AGENDA
CONSENT
1. FINAL PAYMENTS — MAC CONTRACTS
a. Runway 12R-30L Reconstruction (Segment 1) (Gary G. Warren, Director —
Airside Development)
b. Runway 12R-30L Reconstruction (Segment 3) (Gary G. Warren, Director —
Airside Development)
c. Airfield Lighting Computer Control System (Bridget Rief, Airside Project
Manager)
d. 1999 Runway 17-35 Site Preparation (Allen Dye, Airside Project Manager)
e. 2000 Pavement Rehabilitation and Drainage Modifications — Crystal Airport
(Bridget Rief, Airside Project Manager)
f. 2000 Part 150 Sound Insulation Program (John Nelson, Manager.— Part 150
Program)
2. SEMI-FINAL PAYMENTS —MAC CONTRACTS
a. New HHH Terminal, Bid Package #33 Building Shell, Systems &Public Space
Build -Out Mechanical (Myrene Biernat, Facilities Architect)
b. New HHH Terminal, Bid Package #3, Building Shell, Systems & Public Space
Build -Out Electrical (Myrene Biernat, Facilities Architect)
3. BIDS RECEIVED — MAC CONTRACTS
a. Lindbergh Terminal Exterior Renovations Curtainwall Replacement (Robert
Vorpahl, Program Development Engineer)
b. West Terminal — 2001 Repairs: Window Replacement (Robert Vorpahl, Program
Development Engineer)
C. West Terminal — 2001 Repairs: Roof Replacement (Robert Vorpahl, Program
Development Engineer)
d. Runway 17-35 Trunk Storm Sewer Phase 2 — 341h Avenue to Water Quality
Ponds (Gary G. Warren, Director— Airside Development)
15. AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER INTO A COOPERATIVE CONSTRUCTION -
AGREEMENT WITH MnDOT FOR PHASE II WORK ON THE TRUNK HIGHWAY
77/66T" STREET INTERCHANGE
Gary G. Warren, Director—Airside Development
DISCUSSION
16. PROJECT BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS
Gary G. Warren, Director—Airside Development
Dennis Probst, Director— Landside Development
17. PART
150
SOUND
INSULATION
PROGRAM
— 64-60
DNL
CONTOUR
Nigel D. Finney, Deputy Executive
Director —Planning
and
Environment
18. FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT —ORDINANCE 51 BACKGROUND
Gary Schmidt, Director— Reliever Airports
19. ST. PAUL DOWNTOWN AIRPORT— FLOOD UPDATE
Gary G. Warren, Director—Airside Development
CD
ol 0G o c p m o o o
0
O CID
JC' - coo .
rn
O U r
VJ �, cam„- m - c c<
N
V
G
Z
O
H
3
S
F
N
G
C
��
_ �_ c c
>�
- i c 3 .� c
F r f\ b N Y Nt b W D` P M ,O V' � � _ "O > G C
� ,O °� D\ � O? N N � Q b CO P O� a0 �/1 U y G.
y o N N �O N �O .- 1� � V P Q� N i� O � : �y .
—L, � H b e� N N O W 'n � N c M� N V r -O '�
� `O E N N N N ,. � C
® �'� - E C �_ E v �-
�V% Q A� b m rn o N rn v .n �o ��. m c� oC � _ E _v
. •® o =o u w m. m w co a. o, o. � � ow rn -o. rn o.. o _ u
.'� C 1- °` a\- °�. R Q\ T Ol U fT D•- CL O4 ._G1 °� C\ � � _ C•.a,
iN € x {' � � � � c
!fit .--'. ccC C � � Y '� � �:, ( .-C � .L -� C C �'
C � is �"�� � � -'.
Id1 _ c',v-°'" � c ��.:. o..c a � E'„ v� 0 3 ac c ��x o c £�.,� �-mac E o.,c .-�.y-
i cn c a -' •r ° '' E a '° c � � o �.� E o $ � :y s x • �� ° > �b � tD U
O -. O M .0 C-.p C x C ",C O O- C
®�_ -c.�o E.>_E EF '.-o oAjo��o o�-c a.v� _E c d `o ° c �c`� 1:_o c b'!c o E �.
Q m a�, �� c v o ;1 �� > � v. C b� H- Q >b o a r a E c '� a� ' �i -- v� 3 �?.c L❑ ��;
#, -� a u- c �,o•= ❑ a cx ❑ ��.3 3'0 �.� c > �:_� � ° °-- c c � � a � °�H3 a cnro,
-':�i ',z .. ",=.�c' E o- c. u a. �' c ❑ m- o cv o �-, 1r � >. -m _c v
N,=.Q� ..p " n.y c E �.j x a''°..'"oo �E o-° x °v,N .n.c:'. o-U:_ ..� >; c
#i -:� o .°"' 3 � ° fl. c-� �'� a'c.N o _o.Y . "6 . .- � .3 c o:E.
.i� s�� 3 > z a❑ 0 3 �_ E❑ o ff o L � '�N c o a. F _: o v 3 J � v c.L 'cr :❑ "` 3 �-
3 "� c n. Ic �° s o 3 c v v� r� F °o c o o v� 0 ;.� c .°o � c c E �_
o-'� o -C ��> c� E c ,y o o c N �v „'o o '..ems 3 3: � �2 3 b� Cl
� '� o-o � �� E- - � �'b -- � c o���� 0 7 � � o c :a ❑ � v z t .-�'"' i v--�.9 F v o;.
�+'�" �..c „ �-16s a � - _, a. :a .L > ti .,E �.3 E,,o _cq .,� /--.'_'q c 3. -c
�.>'�^�^''".:o.�.c o-c .. ,-E-,.�._c. cao�vvro.� .n � .�.o � �.� -:a,. 3.v-
W .a. 'D -� G o '• y " " v Ll C C - o � >. - C �"� ocA - � � V ,.. 1 L .`
•® � �. 3t� `?, .'^" E.O .v- �X O E1> v C �'3."=. C..0 .yv _.O C O CL: �._
y�®� _.-�.: m O Y O � �' v, O L• L"-" _^.. E ` EO 4 j "O G O ti, ; � -o : �', �� .ty G 'V -:
•�-• • H F G� r G� �O ° F 3� O _w � E N -; � O C R v .O K `.^. '�r � O
Ba ° N_ ' o � E a� � � 3� E M o. d u o c c� G ° o. E o � -� U 0 3 0 0� '-
' .� '� E ti c r. y � � c c _-. c. �E .y �. � � � � _ q c `_' � C y � � o 3 .v'. o co � •o c
l�-� �Ec��o�.�,>,..��-cIU.oCr.��E'a °off Goa C�vD�.cE-o o.c
�� pp �y�a O � O � �u Q U O Y O K E �.. � O .. C �' v] v� cD 'O -a
6�.�Fdl 'c U..3 c o E cam ° n.� c c Er F.c°or � o G, �� ... co'coU .E - -T''-' c c c E
q® �.s'� o ._ .. c� "� .. � r. s � ti c.0 iC c a r°'.n. c G r O •� � y c o v �:
�;�.. - J � c G � c 'a o E" c E ,-. `H° v E t, W :� c .c o � � y � � — ..
o
^_ L O °; u C C
L a � u _
® td C u — 7. y v O .'p, tJ.A .- C I _ _ C C — C — qNi � r _
G — C j O = .J � � `D v � ��- a ..•
�� �—_ J— G O C u V-� � ov- � G C M1 — 0= J C_ _ C _ O C
_ _ O j `- —
� � -_ c c c c F � c_ G c c c c. -
A weekly update on litigation, regulations, and technological developments
Volume 13,Number 12
Legislation
HOUSE BILL SEEKS SHORT-TERM REMEDY
TO AIRPORT CONGESTION, DELAY PROBLEM
The Republican and Democratic leadership of the House Transportation
Committee introduced legislation April that is designed to provide some short-
[erm solutions to the growing problem of airport congestion and delay.
"Our bipartisan legislation is a modest, short-term remedy to this problem,"
Committee Chairman Don Young (R-Alaska) said in introducing the measure,
"The Airline Delay Reduction Act," (HR 1407),
"Under our bill, the airlines would be permitted to meet and discuss their
schedules with a view to reducing delays. The airlines could agree to eliminate a
certain number of duplicative flights in order to reduce congestion and delays. Or
the airlines could simply adjust their schedules to reduce the peaks. For example,
one airline agrees to move some of its 7:00 flights to 7:45 if the other airline
agrees to move some of its 7:00 flights to 7:15."
Young said the approach was tried in the mid-1930s with some success.
To ensure that the limited anti-trust immunity to the airlines would not be
abused, the bill would require the Secretary of Transportation to approve any
airline meetings and any agreements that came out of them to ensure they were in
the public interest. The meetings would be open to the public and would be
attended by DOT officials. The bill would prohibit any discussion of airfares,
rates, charges, or in-flight services. The airlines also would be barred from
discussing the pairing of city schedules.
The authority in the bill would expire on Sept.30, 2003.
The long -tern solution to the congestion and delay problem is to increase
airport capacity and modernize the air traffic control system, Young said, but
stressed that those goals cannot be accomplished in the next year or two. His
legislation would provide immediate relief.
Young said that congestion pricing or peak -hour pricing, under which higher
landing fees would be imposed at congested airports or during peak hours of
operation, is an idea the committee may pursue. However, he added that, on its
face, the idea of peak -hour pricing appears to be detrimental to passengers from
smaller communities and smaller airlines who would be less likely to be able to
pay higher landing fees.
Infrastructure Only Part of Answer
Rep. Lames L. Oberstar (D-MN), the ranking member of the House Transportation
Committee, said at an April ?committee hearing on the airport congestion issue
that building new airport infrastructure is an important part of the answer but
stressed that "it cannot be the only answer." The reality, he said, "is that new
development will come too slowly for it to solve the problem by itself, given the
adverse effects of highway or airport construction in urban areas on the environ-
ment and our quality of life."
(Continued on P. 47)
April 6, 2001
In This Issite.. 6
Legislation ...The leader-
ship of the House Transporta-
tion Committee introduces
legislation intended to provide
short-term solutions to the
airport delay problem by
granting the airlines limited
anti-trust immunity to discuss
their schedules. The ranking
committee member stresses
that runway projects are local
decisions - p. 46
Part 150 Program ... The
FAA approves noise compat-
ibility programs for Port Colum-
bus International Airport and
Dillingham Airfield - p. 47
News Briefs ... San Jose
International sets up a court
showdown with Oracle CEO
over its weight -based nightime
operations curfew ... Contract
awarded for soundproofing
modifications on 56 condo units
near LAX ... FAA approves
Burbank's application to collect
$73.7 million in PFCs, $66.7
miIlion of which is aimed at
acoustical treatment ... House
bill would provide funding for
research quantifying relationshi
between school constriction
and physical characteristics,
such as noise I. Former DOT
official joins ACI-NA to help
develop policy - p. 43
?001
as
and the purchase of property.
The program measures approved include maintaining the
noise management office, public involvement program, and
the noise and flight track monitoring system installed in
1999, updating noise contours, and establishing a land use
compatibility task force.
The first Part 150 program for the airport was submitted to
he FAA in 1985 and approved in 1987.
For further information on the current program, contact
Mary Jagiello in FAA's Great Lakes Region office; tel:
(734)487-7296.
Dillingham Program
On April 27 the FAA announced that it had approved seven
of the eight proposed program measures for Dillingham
Airfield, including sound attenuation of impacted resi-
dences, using comprehensive planning and zoning,
acquiring aviation easements, acquiring development
rights, reviewing and modifying subdivision regulations,
and use of tax incentives.
Seeking cooperation from pilots to fly over open spaces
and the ocean to mitigate noise was approved by the FAA
only as a voluntary measure.
Disapproved pending submission of additional informa-
tion was a measure to use land banking to mitigate noise.
For further information on the program, contact David J.
Welhouse, an airport planner in the FAA's Honolulu
Airports District Office; tel: (808) 541-1243.
Izz Brief ...
RPF for Part 150 Study
Cincinnati Municipal — Lunken Airport has issued a
Request for Proposals seel'ing contractors to conduct a FAA
Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Study at the airport.
Interested parties should contact Bob Wessel, Lunken
Airport; tel: (513) 352-6340.
LAY Soundproofing Contract
The Los Angeles Board of Airport Commissioners
awarded a contract not -to -exceed 5556,749 on April 3 to
F.H. Paschen/S.N. Nielsen, Inic, of Santa Fe Springs for
soundproofing modifications on 56 condominium units in
threes condominium complexes near Los Angeles Interna-
tional Airport.
This contract brines the total number of homes completed
or in the process of soundproofing construction to 12796.
The residences are outfitted with dual -panes windows,
solid -core doors, alit insulation, and other necessary
soundproofing improvements.
The noise mitigation program includes 9,000 residences
in the Los Angeles communities of Westchester, Playa del
Rey.
and South Los
Angeles with
a recorded community
Noise Equivalency
Level (CNEL)
of 65 dB or higher.
Burbank PFC Approved
The Burbank -Glendale -Pasadena Airport Authority
announced April 5 that the FAA has approved its applica-
tion to continue collecting a Passenger Facility Charge
(PFC) of S3 per departing passenger over an I I -year period
to fund a major portion of the airport's home and school
sound insulation program as well as to reimburse the
authority for a number of improvements made to the airport
in recent years.
The FAA's Western -Pacific Region office issued the
approval on April 2 authorizing the airport to collect a total
of $73.7 million, with more than $66 million dedicated to
acoustical treatment.
The
importance of this passenger facility charge is that
we now know the money will be there for Burbank Airport
to greatly accelerate its noise insulation program from past
levels" said Executive Director Dios Marrero. "We hope to
reach 300 home a year and spend $10 million a year until
the task is complete."
Of the 573.7 million total, $66.7 million is aimed at the
acoustical treatment program, which contains over 3,100
homes and eight schools. The authority has set a policy of
insulating all eligible homes and schools by 2015, at a total
cost of approximately $130 million. Additional discretion -
grants from the federal government's Aviation Trust
Fund are expected to round out necessary funding.
To date, the airport authority has secured approximately
$25 million in federal funds and has provided over S5
miIlion from its own funds for the effort that would com-
plete insulation of four schools and 469 single-family
homes.
Funding for School Research
Rep. Mark all (D-CO) introduced legislation March 20
to establish a competitive, merit -based research program at
the National Science Foundation to quantify the relation-
ship between the physical characteristics of elementary and
secondary schools and student academic achievement in
those schools.
The bill (HR 1130) would provide 52 million for each of
fiscal years 2002. 2003, and 2004 to funds awards for
research projects that focus on the quantification of the
effects on student educational achievement of lighting,
noise (although it does not specify aircraft noise), tempera-
ture and ventilation, general upkeep, and other characteris-
tics of the physical environment of school classrooms.
Hli INIH Noise Courses
The acoustical consulting Firm Harri> Miller Miller
Hanson, Inc. (HVIMH) will offer its Noise Office Manage-
ment training course May 14-15 at its B urlington, M A,
office. The course is designed to provide a solid back-
ground in topics that airport noise professionals work with
Airport Noise Repo«
A weekly update on litigation, regulations, and technological developments
Volume 13, Number 14
Capacity
FAA BENCHMARK CAPACITY REPORT
FINDS SERIOUS DELAY AT EIGHT AIRPORTS
New York's LaGuarda Airport led the list of eight airports determined to be
experiencing significant passenger delays in a long-awaited Federal Aviation
Administration report defining capacity benchmarks for 31 of the nation's busiest
airports.
The report, which was presented by FAA Administrator Jane Garvey to the
House Aviation Subcommittee at an April25 hearing, is intended to serve as a
starting point for public policy discussions on the shortage of airport capacity at
the busiest U.S. airports.
The FAA's report shows that, at a few of the top 30 airports, airline schedules
exceed optimum capacity levels in good weather for several hours a day. At about
half of the top 30 airports, airline schedules exceed the reduced capacity levels
that occur in bad weather for two to eight hours a day. LaGuardia was a special
case where airline schedules exceeded both optimum and reduced -rate capacity
for most of the day.
"Unfortunately, this Airport Capacity Benchmarks report confirms our worst
suspicions and acknowledges what most air travelers have experienced," said
(Coruinued ai p. 55)
Ocemza Naval Station
HOMEOWNERS FILE CLASS ACTION SUIT
OVER NOISE FROM NAVY F-IS JET FIGHTERS
Nine property owners in Virginia Beach and Chesapeake, VA, filed a class action
lawsuit against the federal government on April claiming that noise from 156
Navy fighterjets moved to Oceana Air Station from Florida in 1998 has caused a
taking of their property.
If successful, the lawsuit potentially could involve many millions of dollars in
damage payments to over 20,000 homeowners surrounding the Navy base.
Since 1952, the Federal Aviation Administration, through its Airport Noise
Compatibility Program, has spent over S2.7 billion to reduce noise impact near
commercial airports. However, the military maintains that it is not required to
provide residential sound insulation or other measures to civilians to mitigate the
impact of noise from itsjet aircraft.
The lawsuit (Carole and Robert Tesovuide et at v. the United States of America)
alleges that the Navy's action in moving the FlA-I8 jets from Florida to Occana
violated the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution by' destroyed or substantially
interfered" with the homeowners' use and value of their property without provid-
ing just compensation.
Virginia Beach attorney Jack E. Ferrebee, who represents the property owners in
the lawsuit, contends that, although property values in areas around the Navv
(Continued on
April 272001
,
In This Issue...
Capacity ...FAA releases
its loner awaited report defin-
ing capacity benchmarks for
31 of the nation's busiest
airports. It shows that delays
at seven of the top airports
will become even worse over
the next 10 years - p. 54
Virginia Beach ... A class
action lawsuit is filed by prop -
owners who allege that
noise from Navy jet fighters
moved to Oceana Air Base in
1998 is so loud it has caused a
taking of their property. The
lawsuit potentially could incluc
over 20,000 homeowners near
the base - p. 54
Denver ... The Colorado
Court of Appeals rules that
Denver must pay Adams
County and four cities $5.3
million for violations of noise
levels set in an 1988 intergov-
ernmental agreement - p. 56
Phoenix ... Tempe hires an
attorney to determine if flight
procedures agreed to by Phoe-
nix and the FAA in 1994 have
been violated since the opening
of a new runway last fall - p. 56
Parks ... FAA seeks com-
ment on 1*NPRN1 4 setting altitude
for defininv conunercial air tour
operations over parks - p. 57
April 27, 2001
J6
estimated in environmental documents that 35,000 resi-
dences could be within the 65 dB DNL contour, he told
ANR.
Navy documents obtained by the attorney through the
discovery process included a Navy estimate of S1.2 billion
to sound insulate the 35.000 homes within the 65 dB DNL
contour, Ferrebee said. The Navy anticipated that the
lawsuit would be filed, he said, but it would not have
looked good politically in the environmental review
process to admit it could be so costly to move the planes to
Oceana. The Navy could ask Congress for money in its
appropriation to provide sound insulation but has decided
not to do so, he said. "Now, if we succeed in winning
damages," he said, the money will come out the Department
of Justice's pocket because Congress requires DOJ to
provide compensation in inverse condemnation suits.
The federal government's response to the lawsuit is due in
mid -to late June. Justice Department officials did not
respond immediately to a request for comment on the
litigation.
Denver Intl
DENVER
MUST
PAY $�.4 MILLION
FOR
NOISE
LIMIT
VIOLATIONS
The Colorado Court of Appeals ruled in late Ntarch that
the City of Denver must pay S4 million plus S 1.3 million in
interest to Adams County, CO, and the cities of Aurora,
Brighton, Commerce City, and Thornton for violations of
noise levels set in a binding intergovernmental agreement
that paved the way for the development of Denver Interna-
tional Airport.
The City of Denver has asked the state Court of Appeals
to rehear the case and is expected to appeal the ruling to the
Colorado Supreme Court, said Mark Davis of the Denver
law firm Wood, Ris & Humes, which represents Adams
County. Denver is trying to delay the payment, Davis said,
but speculated that the appellate ruling would not be
overturned. "It is very clear that the agreement was vio-
lated," he told ANR.
Both the trial court and the appeals court rejected
Denver's claim that the 1998 intergovernmental agreement
it signed with Adams County is unenforceable. Adams
County residents agreed to allow Denver to annex 44
square miles for the new airport site only after the agree-
ment had been negotiated. The county argued that Denver
should not now he allowed to walk away from the contract
it entered.
Under the contract. Denver must pay Adams County
S500,000 for each violation of agreed upon noise levels at
101 grid points around the airport. Computer modeling data
are used to estimate the noise levels.
Estimated noise levels exceeded agreed upon levels at 57
of the 101 grid points during the first year the airport was
open, which ended in February 1996, By February 1997.
noise levels were brought down below agreed upon limits at
50 points, leaving seven grid points still higher than
allowed. Those seven violations formed the basis for the
aw suit.
On the heels of the favorable appeals court ruling, Adams
County and the four cities near the airport filed a second
lawsuit over the noise violations at Denver International.
The second suit seeks S13 million for26 violations that
ozcurred in the two-year period of 1993 and 1999.
Airport officials consider most of the noise problems at
Denver International to be caused by aircraft hushkitted to
meet Stage 3 noise standards, which are not as quiet as the
newly -manufactured Stage 3 aircraft. The results of a 90-day
test, under which hushkitted aircraft were rerouting farther
to the north and south before turning west to try to reduce
their noise impact, have not yet been released.
Another factor contributing to the noise problem is that
the sixth runway has not been built yet. The noise impact
estimates were based on the airport operating with a sixth
runway and with different flight paths than currently in use.
The Federal Aviation Administration announced in early
April that it had awarded an $I 1.7 million grant to Denver
for construction of the St50 million runway, which, at
16,000 feet, will be the airport's longest.
Davis said the a preliminary study done by the airport on
the sixth runway, which was among documents submitted
to the court, shows that the new runway will make the noise
problem worse.
Airport officials were not immediately available for
comment.
Phoenix Sky Harbor hrt'1
TEMPE HIRES LAWYER
TO STUDY FLIGHT PATHS
The City of Tempe, AZ, has hired California aviation
attorney Barbara Lichman to represent it in a brewing
dispute over past and proposed flight path changes at
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport.
Tempe has asked the attorney to study whether an
Intergovernmental Agreement on Noise Mitigation Flight
Procedures signed by the two cities in 1994 has been
violated. The agreement ended Tempe's legal battle to
block construction of a new third runway at the airport.
Lichman will analyze whether flight path changes made
since the opening of the new third runway last October
violate the procedures set in the agreement. She also will
look at FAA's controversial Northwest 2000 air route
revision plan, under which arrival and departure paths to
the airport will be reversed.
A Tempe citizens aviation advisory group approved hiring
the legal counsel on April 10 and urged the city to consider
going back to court if necessary to enforce the terms of the
agreement.
The Federal Aviation Administrations Western -Pacific
Region acknowledged the agreement in an amendment to
Airport Noise Fzport
Airport Noise Report
A weekly update on litigation, regulations, and technological developments
Volume 13, Number IS
Minneapolis-Sl. Paul bzt'Z
MAC CONSIDERING EXTENT OF INSULATION
TO PROVIDE FOR HOMES IN 60-64 CONTOUR
when the Minnesota Legislature and Gov. Arne Carlson decided in 1996 to
expand the Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport at its current site, close to
both cities, rather than to build a new airport in a less congested area farther away,
the Metropolitan Airport Commission (MAC) pledged to extend its residential
sound insulation program to the 60 dB DNL noise contour, bringing over 10,000
more homes into the program.
That put the MAC in a very exclusive club. The City of Cleveland is the only
other major airport proprietor that has extended its residential sound insulation
program beyond the 65 dB DNL contour defined in federal land use guidelines as
the point beyond which homes are incompatible with airports.
But now the MAC is in the process of deciding how much sound insulation it
can afford to insulate the 10,040 homes that are expected to be located between
the 60-64 dB DNL noise contour of MSP International after a new north -south
runway opens in late 2003. The homes are located mostly in Minneapolis but also
in the cities of Richfield, Eagan, and Bloomington, MN.
The MAC is expected to make a decision on what has become a contentious
(Continued on
p.59)
Dallas Love Field
CITY APPROVAL OF MASTER PLAN ENDS
YEARS OF CONTROVERSY OVER GROWTH
The Dallas City Council unanimously approved a master plan for Dallas Love
Field on April I I ending over 25 years of controversy over the in -town commer-
cial and general aviation airport and charting a course for the airport's future that
is agreed upon by the city, community leaders, and airport users.
The master plan sets a demand -driven maximum configuration of 32 gates at the
airport to accommodate 334,000 flight operations per year with commercial air
carrier operations limited to 183,000 operations per year. Currently there are 29
gates at Love Field.''-2 of which are available for use. There were 256,790
operations during 2000, with 105.024 commercial operations.
The plan must be approved by the Federal Aviation Administration before it can
be implemented.
Substantial changes will be made to the airport under the master plan. More than
S 100 million could eventually spent to upgrade terminal and parking facilities
and for roadway improvements. No new runways are planned, however.
"It's an incredible achievement" for the City Council to agree unanimously on
the plan and for the communities around the airport to support it, Terry Mitchell,
assistant director of aviation for the City of Dallas, the airport proprietor, told
(Continued on p. 59)
NI ay 4, 2001
In This Issue...
Minneapolis ... The MAC
is in the process of deciding
how much sound insulation it
can afford to provide to
homes in the 60-64 dB DNL
noise contour - p. 58
Love Field ... The Dallas
City Council approves a master
plan for airport growth that city,
airport users, and communities
all agree on - p. 58
Burbank ... A ballot measure
that would require caps and
curfews at airport is legally
flawed and could have severe
legal ramifications, Burbank
city attorneys says - p. 60
San Francisco I. San
Francisco drops its opposition to
state bill that would give San
Mateo County more authority to
manage environmental impacts
of proposed project to add
runways into bay - p. 60
News Briefs ... FAA ap-
proves noise maps for Orlando
Intemational ... Mark up of
House bill to reduce airport
delay to be done in May ..,
Government of Mexico issues
regulations requiring phase out
of Stage 2 planes over 75,000
Ib. by end of 2004 ... Arizona
law aimed at keeping schools
away from military bases - p. 61
4, 2001
60
never been an issue. NI iichell said. even in discussions
about the master plan.
The airport has a mandatory curfew on engine run -ups and
uses preferential runways and noise mitigation departure
procedures. The master plan advisory committee has
developed a long list of noise mitigation measures that
could be considered in the future, if needed, Mitchell said,
but declined to specify what is being considered. It's just
brainstorming at this point, he said.
Burbank
CITY ATTORNEY SAYS
BALLOT MEASURE FLAWED
A ballot measure set for vote on Oct. 9 that would require
caps and curfews at Burbank Airport as a condition of city
approval of the airport's acquisition of land for anew
terminal is legally flawed and could have severe legal
ramifications for the city, critics contend.
A citizens group called Restore Our Airport Rights
(ROAR) recently gathered over 10,000 signatures on a
petition calling for the ballot measure, which also would
require two-thirds voter approval for a new terminal and
preparation of an environmental impact report and an
airport master plan.
Burbank City Attorney Dennis Barlow released a
memorandum on April 16 concluding that so many of the
provisions of the ballot initiative appear to violate state law
that it might not be able to pass a severability test, under
which the court can let stand those provisions of an
initiative it considers to be legal.
The ballot initiative violates California election law
because it requires a two-thirds voter approval for a new
airport terminal, whereas such super -majorities are only
reserved for taxes and bond issues under state law, Barlow
said.
Further, California law does not delegate to voters
administrative acts, such as the approval process for
expanding a publicly owned airport, he said.
The ballot measure also appears to be unlawfully vague,
he said, because it appears to require that an environmental
impact report be prepared on existing operations at the
airport, which would be in conflict with state law, and it
never defines the term "master plan."
Howard Rothenbach, chairman of ROAR and a former
member of the Burbank City Council, accused opponents of
the ballot measure of trying to scare the public.
The Burbank -Glendale -Pasadena Airport Authority, which
is in the process of conducting a federal Part 161 cost/
benefit study in an effort to impose caps and a curfew at the
airport, has taken no official position on the ballot initia-
tive on the grounds that it is a matter between the city and
the voters.
But Airport Commissioner Charlie Lombardo is speaking
out forcefully against the initiative on his own behalf.
"The ROAR initiative would not allow Burbank to
approve any land acquisition until conditions were met.
sucIt as a curfew and cap on flights, Lombardo said in a
letter to the Los Angeles Times, published April 19.
"Those measures can only be granted by the FAA% after a
federal Part 161 study, currently underway, is approved. To
put it simply. Burbank cannot consider caps and curfews in
its deliberations on land matters. If the Burbank Airport
Authority submits a request to the city of Burbank under
the PLC [Public Utility Code] process and is denied due to
the ROAR initiative being in effect, the PUC case could be
challenged in federal court."
Smz Francisco Int'1
SAN
MATED
SEEKING
CLOUT
IN
RUNWAY REVIEW
On April I4, San Francisco dropped its opposition to a
state bill that would give San Mateo County more authority
over a proposed multi -billion project to build new runways
at San Francisco International Airport two miles into San
Franciso Bay.
Although San Francisco is the proprietor of the airport, it is
located in San Mateo County, whose residents are most
affected by the airport's environmental impacts.
The proposed bill (SB 244) by state Sen. Jackie Speier (D-
San Nlateo) would grant San Mateo County more authority
to manage the environmental impacts of the runway project
and would give the public more time to comment on the
airport's expansion
In exchange for San Francisco's support of the legislation,
San Nlateo County agreed to drop its appeal to the state
attorney general to grant it the same powers the bill would
provide.
"We've had the ability to cajole and to jawbone, but this
may give us a little more force of law to advance our
interests as those runway proposals come forward," Gene
Mullin, a South San Francisco council member and
chairman of the Airport Community Roundtable told the
San Jose Mercury News in a story reported April 25.
"Its' an important first step in a very long process,' San
Mateo Supervisor Mark Church told the paper. "What's
essential is that we have a full understanding of the airport
expansion project ... The airport is located in San Mateo
County and San Mateo County will be heard on this
project."
Church wants the county to form a subcommittee to
monitor the runway project, which is expected to cost up to
S3.5 billion and is now not expected to meet the 2001
target date for beginning of construction.
An spokeswoman for the airport said it has made every
effort to be honest with county officials and has provided
briefings on the runway project to county supervisors.
mayors of cities within the county, and others.
Airport Noise Report