2001-12-12 ARC Agenda PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIUHTS
December 12, 2001 -- Large Conference Room
Call to Order - 7:00 p.m.
2. Roll Call
Approval of November 14, 2001 Minutes
4. UnSnished and New Business:
a.
Mr. Kosel
and Mr.
Heide: Discussion of Rogers Lake East Issue
bI
Update on
Airport
Noise Video Progress
Acknowledge Receipt of Various Reports/Correspondence:
a. Letter from Michael A. Kosel, Rogers Lake East Airport Noise Reduction
Committee to Jeffrey Hamiel, Metropolitan Airports Commission, dated
November 20, 2001
b. Letter from Michael A. Kosel, Rogers Lake East Airport Noise Reduction
Committee to Roy Fuhrmann, Metropolitan Airports Commission, dated
November 28, 2001
c. Letter from Michael A. Kosel, Rogers Lake East Airport Noise Reduction
Committee to Jeffrey Hamiel, Metropolitan Airports Commission, dated
November 30, 2001
d. Metropolitan Airports Commission: September 2001 Minutes and
December 2001 Agenda
e. Eagan Airport Relations Commission Agenda for December 3, 2001
£ Airport Noise Reports
6. Other Comments or Concerns
Public Comments
8. Adjourn
Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 120 hours
in advance. If a notice of less than 120 hours is received, the City of Mendota Heights
will make every attempt to provide the aids. This may not, however, be possible on short
notice. Please contact City Administration at (651) 452-1850 with requests.
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AIRPORT RELATIONS COMM 3-1vN MINUTES
November 14, 2001
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission was held on
Wednesday, November 14, 2001, in the Large Conference Room at City Hall, 1101
Victoria Curve. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
The following Commissioners were present: Scott Beaty, Ellsworth Stein, Liz Petschel,
John Roszak, Gregg Fitzer and VernEdstrom. Staff present: City Administrator Carrie
Lindberg, Administrative Assistant Patrick C. Hollister and Recorder Bonita Sullivan. Ms.
Sullivan took the minutes..: r
Not Present_ Commissioner Joseph Leuman,
MINUTES
Chair Beaty stated that on page 3, sixth paragraph beginning with 'City Administrator
Lindberg stated', last sentence references 'involvement with the MAC', should read
MASAC.
Commissioner Petschel expressed her appreciation stating that the minutes were done
exceptionally well and thanked Ms. Sullivan for doing a good job in capturing the content
of the meeting.
Commissioner Edstrom moved to approve the October 10, 2001 minutes. Commissioner
Petschel seconded the motion.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
Presentation
None
Unfinished[New Business
A. Update on Airport Noise Video
Administrative Assistant Hollister stated that on October 29, 2001, he and Commissioner
Edstrom went with Dennis Raftery ofNDCTV to the airport to get live footage of the
airport and its operations for the airport noise video. He explained that they met with Roy
Fuhrman, Chad Leqve and Scott Scramstead of the Metropolitan Airport Commission
Commission Meeting- November 14, 2001
Mendom Heights Airport Rel=iom Commission
discussed the request to adjust the noise contours to include the neighborhood for
insulation eligibility. He referenced the handout provided to the Commission for their
review.
Chair Beaty stated that one item he has learned from this is that Mr. Heide has a good,
solid understanding of the issues and he was very impressed with how organized Mr.
Heide was for the meeting.
Commissioner Petschel asked about Mr. Heide's background and experience.
Administrative Assistant Hollister stated that they are not sure of his background and
agreed that he is very sharp and well organized.
Chair Beaty stated that the bottom line is that these individuals may have some legitimate
concerns regarding the methodology that the Airport is using to compile their information.
City Administrator Lindberg stated that she asked the Committee what their purpose is for
requesting placement of the ANOM and said she was told it was basically to prove that
the Airport data is wrong.
Administrative Assistant Hollister noted that Mr. Fuhrman and Mr. Legve stated that if is
not their methodology but that it is a methodology they are mandated to use by the FAA
He explained that they tried to convey that they are not the bad guys and the Committee
would not be able to win this issue due to the fact that it is a Federal agency.
Chair Beaty noted that one item they continued to ask is to move the ANOM meter into
their area and he does not think this is an unreasonable request._ He stated that it is
obvious that the Residents are having problems with the noise levels in their neighborhood
and the Metropolitan Airport Commission needs to try and resolve the problem.
Commissioner Petschel stated that McDougal did present this request to the Metropolitan
Airport Commission at the Part 150 Conference.
Commissioner Edstrom stated that one of the easiest outs would be to state that they have
agreed to add that block to the 160. Commissioner Roszak explained that it would then
become a Federal issue.
Commissioner Roszak asked if they could recommend to the City Council that the MCPA
be brought into the area to do testing. Chair Beaty stated that he wasn't sure if their
equipment or software would be compatible in measuring the same things the current
ANOM measures.
Commissioner Stein asked about the moving costs and if the City furnished the poles for
the meters. Administrative Assistant Hollister stated that he is not sure of the costs adding
that he didn't think the City furnished the poles for the meters.
Commission Meeting, November 14, 2001
Liendom Heights Airport Relations Commission
City Administrator Lindberg stated that the intent for inviting them to the next meeting
would be to clarify what their issues are in order for the Commission to be able to
determine what support could be provided and then determine the next step in the process.
Administrative Assistant Hollister asked Chair Beaty if the neighborhood got their meter
would it change things or reveal new information. Chair Beaty stated that he didn't think
that moving the ANOM meter would help noting that if they can find and prove that the
ANOM system is flawed this information could help many in the area.
Commissioner Roszak asked if one of the plans would be to get the politicians involved
and he agreed that the ANOM meters are not going to do much for them.
City Administrator Lindberg asked the Commissioners if they want to invite them to the
December 1T 2001 meeting. Administrative Assistant Hollister suggested waiting for the
January 2002 meeting.
Commissioner Petschel stated that she would like the group to provide their presentation
.. -. ,..
in writing prior to the meeting for Commission review.
City Administrator Lindberg stated that they would offer an invitation for them to present
at the next meeting and clarified the intent of the Commission. She stated that they would
also ask them to provide the Commission with a copy of their presentations for review
prior to the meeting.
Commissioner Edstrom clarified his understanding of the intent for Mr. Kosel and Mr.
Heide's presentations with the Commission. Chair Beaty clarified that Mr. Heide has more
than the noise concerns that could be presented.
City Administrator Lindberg stated that she would call Mr. Heide and explain that their
interest is in the information that was presented at the last meeting and the Commission
would like him to attend the next meeting to clarify the information.
The Commission agreed by consensus to extend an invitation to Mr. Heide and Ntr. Kosel
to attend the December 12, 2001 meeting.
Administrative Assistant Hollister reviewed the parallel issues and concerns conveyed by
both l�fr. Heide and Mr. Kosel. He explained that it is a chain process that determines
�vho gets the insulation. He stated that there are several points of attack noting it would be
Pod to receive a concise summary of their issues for Commission review to help
determine how they can cohesively go about providing support to them.
City Administrator Lindberg clarified that they would make it very clear to Mr. Kose1 that
the intent is to hear thew concerns clearly in order for them to determine the direction of
support the Commission could provide or suggest.
Commission Meeting -November 14, 2001
Mrndota Heights Airport Relations Commission
process and noted that it is a question as to when they should update the equipment and
data.
OTHER COMIVIENTS OR CONCERNS
Chair Beaty asked the Commission for comments.
Commissioner Rosz stated that they have discussed having a holiday gathering for
Commission members and spouses noting that he would like to host the gathering this
year. The Commission agreed by consensus that this would be a great idea.
City Administrator Lindberg asked if they would like to decide on a date. The group
decided on Saturday, December 15, 2001 at 6:00 p.m.
Chair Beaty asked if City Administrator Lindberg had everyone's email. Everyone
provided her with an update of his or her email addresses.
Chair Beaty stated if there was no further discussion he would move to adjourn. The
Commission had no further comments.
Chair adjourned by Executive Fiat.
AYES:
NAYS:
The meeting adjourned at 8:21 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Bonita Sullivan
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
December 6, 2001
TO: Airport Relations Commission
FROM: Patrick C. Hollister, Administrative Assistant
SUBJECT: Discussion
of Rogers
Lake
East Issue
With Mike
Kosel and
Guy
Heide
Discussion
At the request of Chair Beaty, Staff has invited Mr. Kosel and Mr. Heide to attend the
December 12, 2001 ARC meeting to discuss their issues with the MAC regarding noise
contours.
Action Required
Discuss the Rogers Lake East issues with Mr. Kosel and Mr. Heide.
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
December 6, 2001
TO: Airport Relations Commission
FROM: Patrick C. Hollister, Administrative Assistant
SUBJECT: Update on Airport Noise Video Progress
Discussion
Dennis Raftery of NDCTV reports that Dave Nimmer has now recorded the voice-over
for the video, and that he did an excellent job. Mr. Raftery is still optimistic that the
video can be completed by the end of this year. Rumors that the MAC would not allow
is to use the Part 150 video have proven to be false.
Staff will provide an additional update on video progress on Wednesday evening.
Action Required
This is an information item only.
November 20, 2001
Rogers Lake East Airport Noise
Reduction Committee
c/o Mr. Michael A. Kosel
889 Bluebill Drive
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
Phone: 651 �56-9512
Mr.
p'olitan Airports Commission
280' Avenue South
avolis, MN 55450
Dear Mr. Hamiel:
This letter will follow up on our brief discussion yesterday afrer the MAC Commission meeting.
On Tuesday, October 16, our Committee met with two representatives of the Metropolitan
Airports Commission (Roy Fuhrmann and Chad Leqve) in a good faith attempt to correct
mapping errors in MAC's 1996 Part 150 noise contour map. (This 1996 noise contour map
determined which homes qualified for MAC home insulation program.)
Regrettably, no progress was made at this October 16 meeting.
Our cause of action will therefore need to be pursued in another forum to obtain relief and
redress the injustice done to homeowners in Rogers Lake East. This letter will request
documents and responses that will determine future action by our Committee.
FIRST REQliEST
MAC's incorrect 1996 noise contour map was developed in 1992 (according to the presentation
made by your staff). We request a copy of the entire Part I50 submission made by iv1AC at that
time (presumably in 1992) which contained the false 1996 noise contour map.
BACKGROUND TO FIRST REQUEST
Buried in the current drafr 1-t CFR Purt 150 Update is an admission that the 1996 noise contour
map was wrongly drawn. The admission is made on page 3-27 where it discloses that humidiri
was not included in preparing the 1996 noise contour map (submitted in 1992). If humidiri had
been included, the 65 dB DNL contour would have increased by 13.1 %and the 60 dB DNL
contour increased by 17.6%. These are massive mapping errors!
Page Two
November 20, 2001
Rogers Lake East (our community) is located on the border of this wrongly drawn 1996 65 dB
DNL contour boundary. Due to this mapping error, homes in Rogers Lake East deserving of
insulation (due to being wrongly placed in the 60 dB DNL contour) were not insulated by MAC.
At the recent October lb meeting, your representatives refused to correct MAC's mapping error
in the 1996 65 dB DNL contour. In effect, your staff is refusing to insulate homes that should
have been included in the 1996 65 dB DNL contour if MAC had correctly drawn the map.
This mapping error raises serious questions. Presumably the error -ridden 1996 noise contour
map was the 5-year extrapolation or projection from a 1991 map (as required by FAA
regulations). It follows that if the 1996 map was wrong, then the 1991 map on which it was
based was also wrongly drawn.
The ANOMS system of noise monitors was installed in 1991 and became fully operational by
1993. Your submission in 1992 of the inaccurate 1996 noise contour map was concurrent with
the ANOMS startup. While ANOMS is not used to draw noise contour maps, it has been used to
validate these maps. This leads to the following questions:
1. Did the ANOIvfS system catch the mapping error and if so, when?
2. MAC has described the ANOMS system as "one of the most sophisticated in the world" (in
your letter to Senator Wiener of August 2, 2001). Thus the ANOMS system, if it were as
good as claimed, would have detected these major mapping errors, certainly by the year 1993
at the latest. When you and your staff detected the mapping errors, were Chairman Nichols
and the Board of Commissioners informed?
3. If the ANOMS system did NOT catch the mapping errors, when did NIAC first become
aware that the 1996 noise contour map was a false map and not "true and complete" as
required by FAA regulations (Pan 150, Subpart B, 150.21 [e])? Did you then promptly notify
Chairman Nichols and the Board of Commissioners?
4. Why was the public never informed that the 1996 noise contour map is false? Was this a
deliberate decision taken by you as Executive Director with the consent of the Board of
Commissioners and its Chairman? Is this not a failure to represent the public interest that
you and the Board are swom to uphold as fiduciaries of the public interest?
As you may be aware, US Code Section 1001 provides that the making of false statements or
covering up material facts in matters under the jurisdiction of the executive branch, subject that
person to being "fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both." (Section
1001 [a] [3])
Such a person must do so `knowingly.' A copy of the entire Part 150 submission (that contained
the false 1996 noise contour map) will contain the name of the MAC official who falsely swore
that the 1996 noise exposure map contained therein was `true and complete." It will also
Page Three
November 20, 2001
contain the proof submitted to validate what is now admittedly a false 1996 noise contour map.
Receipt of this requested document will provide guidance for future interrogatories/depositions.
SECOND REQUEST
We also request a complete copy of The Airline Operating Agreement dated January 1, 1999.
BACKGROUND TO SECOND REQUEST
Mr. Fuhrmann has famished our Committee Exhibit I from this document (which he refers to as
the "1999 lease agreement"). Nigel Finney in his February 27 memorandum to the Planning and
Environment Committee (labeled item 14) referred to this contract as the "Airline Operating
Agreement dated January 1, 1999." I do not know why Mr. Fuhrmann and Mr. Finney refer to
this contract with different titles.
Exhibit I of this contract (Page 6 of 21) commits the signers of the contract "to insulate houses
and schools within the DNL 65 and 1996 DNL 60 contours." Please note that the contract
explicitly commits the parties to insulate houses in the "1996 DNL 60 contours." Your 1996
map placed Rogers Lake East in the DNL 60 contour. Therefore, our homes should be insulated
per the wording of the contract's Exhibit I regardless of the merit and outcome of our claim that
we should have been placed in the DNL 65 contour if the 1996 map had been correctly drawn.
Inexplicably, MAC is not carrying out Exhibit I although, presumably, MAC also signed this
contract.
A copy of the entire Agreement is needed as other language in the Agreement could guide our
pleadings, determining the Court with jurisdiction and the appropriate law that applies to the
contract. The Agreement will also determine what standing our Committee has to enforce a
contract to which it is not a signatory.
We have placed our trust in the Metropolitan Airports Commission to represent the public
interest. As is stated on MAC's website: "The chairman and 14 commissioners meet monthly to
represent the interests of the community... " Suit may have to be brought against the
Metropolitan Airports Commission to remedy its failure to obtain performance of the contract as
fiduciaries of the public interest.
RECAPITULATION OF DOCUiviENT REQL�STS
The following rivo documents have been requested:
L The final Part 150 submission to the FAA that contained the inaccurate 1996 noise contour
map (we believe this to have occurred in 1992);
2. The complete Airline Operating Agreement dated January 1, 1999,
Page Four
November 20, 2001
The documentation can be mailed to the Committee at thea iesa shown above. If you call me
at 651-456-9512 or call Guy Heide, our Secretary, at 651-454-7440, we would stop by your
offices to pick up these documents.
If you object to furnishing the documentation, it is our belief that the release of this information
is covered by the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. If you refuse to supply the
requested documents, please supply the legal basis for your refusal.
CONCLUSION
As is evidenced in our past correspondence, Mr. Hamiel, our goal had been to resolve our
grievance privately by good faith negotiations with the MAC. Regrettably, your intransigence
has forced us to pursue a different venue, which will likely be expensive to both of us and may
also subject these issues to the glare of publicity.
Please know that this path was not of our own choosing but was forced upon us by your
intransigence.
Sincerely,
Michael A. Kesel
cc: MAC (Charles Nichols, chairman, alone with all 14 commissionzrs)
Rov Fuhrmann, Director of Environment, MAC
Chad Leqve, Manager —Aviation Noise &.Satellite Programs
Charles Ivlertensotto, Mayor of Mendota Heights
Cari Lindberg, Mendota Heights City Administrator
Scott Beaty, Mendota Heights Airport Relations Committee
Deanna L. Wiener, State Senator District 38
Wes Skoglund, Representative District 62B
John Brandl, Dean of the Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs
Representative James Oberstar, Ranking Democratic Member, House Transportation
& Infrastructure Committee from Minnesota's 8a` District
Cam.
� li,✓� l�atwww'�1 '
.lA
WN
Mr. Roy
politan Airports Commission
28a' Avenue South
:apolis, MN 55450
Dear Mr. Fuhrmann:
November 28, 2001
Rogers Lake East Airport Noise
Reduction Committee
c/o Mr. Michael A. Kosel
889 Bluebill Drive
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
Phone: 651-456-9512
On October 16 you and Mr. Chad Leqve from MAC met with our Committee. The
agenda for the meeting was based on our September 12 letter to MAC.
Pages 5 and 6 of that September 121etter documented major internal inconsistencies in
noise reports from MAC's ANOMS noise monitoring system.
The internal inconsistency (or anomaly) is that MAC's `noise' reports do not track with
the increase or decrease of airport `activity' in the Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor
(where our neighborhood is located). The inconsistencies are major, not minor.
NLY 1999 VS DULY 2000
For example, departures increased 87%from July 1999 to July 2000. An 87% increase
meant that departures in the Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor almost doubled (from
5,615 to 10,481, almost 5,000 additional departures in July 2000). The ANOMS reports
do not seem to detect this substantial increase.
In the October 16 meeting you did not dispute that the ANOMS reports did not pick up
tIle substantial increase in noise. But you did not agree with our conclusion that
something is wrong with the ANOMS system. As stated in your October 22 follow-up
letter to our Secretary, Guy Heide: "As we discussed last night, I do not share your belief
or skepticism concerning the accuracy of the RMTs or the INM."
YOUR EXPLANATION OF ANObIALIES
Your response was to explain the anomaly as being due to the introduction of quieter jets
(Stage 2 versus Stage 3 jets). This (if true) would explain how noise could go down or
stay the same while activity increased.
Page Two
November 28, 2001
Attached is a statistical study examining the plausibility of your explanation. Using the
data from your web site, a statistical analysis has been done with that data and with data
from a PowerPoint presentation made to our Committee. Please review the study.
Since you have attributed the noise reporting anomaly to quieter "jets", the analysis is
based on jet activity. Note that the reduction in noise due to the retirement of Stage 2
jets in these months is miniscule. Based on this study, quieter jets do not appear to
statistically explain the anomaly.
To provide an additional comparison, the study also compares July 1999 to July 2001.
Jet departures in the Eagan/Mendota Heights more than DOUBLED (from 3,959 to
9,454, almost 5,500 additional jet departures in July 200#rlAgain MAC's ANOMS
system does not seem to detect what is a truly massive increase in noise.
The increase from July 2000 to July 2001 is substantial (21% or 1,638 additional jet
departures) but the ten ANOMS monitors report the identical totals (627.8 versus 627.9).
It is as if the noise from the 1,638 additional departures never occurred.
Before proceeding further, in fairness an opportunity should be given you to justify your
position that quieter jets explain these anomalous noise reports generated by the ANOMS
system. We extend the courtesy to you to document and explain your statement to the
Committee.
CONCLUSION
Unless we hear a scientifically acceptable explanation, it would be ow intention to appear
at a future monthly meeting of the Metropolitan Airports Commission. A brief review of
the internally inconsistent ANOMS would then be presented to the Commission (similar
to what is in this letter). We would then request that the Commissioner exercise the
powers granted him by Minnesota Statute Chapter 360 (Airports and Aeronautics),
360.015 (Commissioner, powers and duties), subd. 11 (Investigation and hearing). That
statute gives the Commissioner power to hold investigations, inquiries and hearings with
subpoena power.
The public purpose behind this investigation would be to see if money spent on the
ANOMS noise monitoring system has been money well spent. In your letter to Senator
Wiener of August 2 you describe this as "one of the most sophisticated in the world." In
our opinion, Commissioners (who have approved the money for the ANOMS system)
and affected citizens should/will want to discover why ANOMS cannot pick up noise
from thousands of additional jet departures in month to month comparisons.
Page Three
November 28, 2001
Please respond as soon as possible. If you elect to refuse to respond, please advise us (a
phone call would be sufficient for that purpose) and we will proceed as outlined above.
Sincerely,
Michael A. Kosel
Attachments (2—Ex}ubits A & B)
cc: MAC (Chazles Nichols, chairman, along with all 14 commissioners)
Jeffrey Harniel, Executive Director, MAC
Chad Leqve, Manager —Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs
Charles Mertensotto, MASAC Chairman and Mayor of Mendota Heights
Cari Lindberg, Mendota Heights City Administrator
Scott Beaty, Mendota Heights Airport Relations Committee_
Deanna L. Wiener, State Senator District 38
Wes Skoglund, Representative District 62B
John Brandl, Dean of the Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs
Representative James Oberstar, Ranking Democratic Member, House Transportation
& Infrastructure Committee from Minnesota's 8t' District
Page I of 4
November 28, 2001
EXHIBIT A
Statistical Study of Anomalies in
Reports from 11MAC's ANOMS Network
for the Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor
Purpose: To prove or disprove the statement by Roy Fuhrmann, Director of
Environment, Metropolitan Airports Commission that dismissed these anomalies as due
to the introduction of quieter jets from one year to the neat. This statement by Mr.
Fuhrmann was made at a meeting on October 16 with the Rogers Lake East Airport
Noise Reduction Committee (a community in the Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor).
Nature of anomaly: ANOMS noise monitoring reports do not track with the
increase/decrease in airport activity. The statistical comparisons below are based on the
months of:
July 1999
July 2000
July 2001.
The study compares the reports from the entire subset of MAC noise monitors in the
Eagan/Mendota Heights corridor with the subset of reported jet activity levels in the
Corridor.
I. ANOivIS REPORT TOTALS FOR THE THREE MONTHS IN QUESTION
Monitor
#13
414
915
#16
#21
#22
#23
#24
925
926
July 1999 July 1999
Total DNL Aircraft DNL
62.0
58.4
67.2
65.7
63.9
60.8
65.9
63.7
62.4
54.2
61.5
57.3
70.7
70.0
65.5
62.3
N/A*
N/A*
N/A*
N/A*
July 2000
Aircraft Ldn dBA
60.1
67.4
62.1
70.3
56.3
59.1
70.2
64.3
58.5
59.5
July 2001
Aircraft Ldn dBA
61.3
66.9
63.0
69.7
57.3
59.1
70A
63.8
58.2
58.2
SUB TOTAL 519.1 492.4 627.8 627.9
*Less #25 R, #26........................................ (118.0) (116.4)
TOTALS 519.1 492.4 ** 509.8 51 L5
Page 2 of 4
November 28, 2001
* Monitors #25 and #26 did not operate in the Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor until 2000, therefore they
must be subtracted to make the totals comparable.
** In our letter to MAC dated September 12, 2001, discussing the anomaly, "Total DNL" was used for July
1999 when perhaps the "Aircraft DNL" total should have been used. For this analysis both "Aircraft
)NU and "Total DNL" will be used for the July 1999 noise reports. The question arises because after July
1999 there was a change in the format of noise monitor reports. This question does not arise between the
months of July 2000 and July 2001.
II. JET FLEET COMPOSITION FOR MONTHS Ii t QUESTION
July 1999 July 2000 July 2001
Stage II 3,500 (11.3%) 163 (0.5%) 163 (0.5%)
Stage III 271396 (88.7%) 31,748 (99.5%) 327549 (99.5%)
NOTE: The above totals are for the entire airport and not just the Eagan/Mendota
Heights Corridor. For purposes of this analysis, departures in the Eagan/Mendota
Heights Corridor are assumed to follow the same profile as the profile for the entire
airport.
III. NOISE GENERATION CALCULATIONS FOR THE EAGAN/1�IENDOTA
HEIGHTS CORRIDOR
Based on MAC's slide presentation for "Production Aircraft Noise Levels" the following
noise values have been assigned for Stage II and Stage III jet departures (see E,Yhibit B
for statistical basis for noise modeling):
EPNdB Range Midpoint of Range (Average)
Stage II 292-302 298 EPN dB/each departure
Stage III 255-275 265 EPN dB/each departure
July 1999 July 2000 July 2001
Total jet departures in
Eagan/Mendota Heights
Corridor: 3,959 7,816 9,454
Breakdown of above
departures by aircraft type:
Stage II departures 447 (11.3%) 39 (0.5%) 47 (0,5%)
Stage III departures 3,512 (88.7%) 7,777 (99.5%) 9,407 (99.5%)
Page 3 of 4
November 28, 2001
Converting departures to
EPNdB using standards
derived from MAC's chart:
Stage II @ 298 EPNdB/ea
Stage III @ 265 EPNdB/ea
TOTAL NOISE/MONTH
July 1999 July 2000 July 2001
133,206 11,622 14,006
930,680 2,0601905 2,492,855
1,063>886 2,072,527 2,506,861
NOTE: "Departures" have been considered in this analysis as it is agreed that they are
more significant noise events than "arrivals." If some contest this omission, there were
more jet "arrivals" in July of 2000 than in July of 1999 (8,268 in July 2000 versus 7,269
in July 1999) so the inclusion of "arrivals" would be additive to the July 2000 noise total
and compound the anomaly. The number of jet "arrivals" in July of 2001 versus July of
1999 is roughly the same (7,134 in July 2001 versus 7,269 in July 1999),
IV. ANALYSIS
From July 1999 to July 2000 departure noise increased by ...........................+95%
From July 1999 to July 2000 ANOMS noise monitors reported:
If we use the "Aircraft DNL", totals increased by.....I ............... 0.....0.....+ 3.5%
If we use the "Total DNL", totals decreased by...................4................. ( 1 . 8 % )
Analysis: while "noise" almost doubled, the ANOMS system in July 2000 reported
statistically similar report totals as in July 1999 (either a slight gain or a slight
reduction, statistically not that significant).
From July 1999 to July 2001 departure noise increased by'.. ............ +136%
From July 1999 to July 2001 ANOMS noise monitors reported:
If we use the "Aircraft DNL", totals increased.... I ..........
If we use the "Total DNL", totals decreased, .. * a 1 11. a.... a . a. , ". a'... , , '' P.... ... 6.. (L5%)
Analysis: while "noise" more than doubled in July 2001 versus July 1999, the
ANOMS system again reported statistically similar report totals in 2001 as in 1999
(either a slight gain or a slight reduction, statistically not that significant). The
report for July 2001 is virtually the identical report as July 2000, although
departures were significantly different in those two months.
From July 2000 to July 2001 departure noise increased by..............................+21
From July 2000 to July 2001 ANOMS 10 noise monitors reported ............... no change
Analysis: while "noise" increased significantly (+21%), the ANOMS system in July
2001 again does not detect the increase, but reports virtually identical totals!
Page 4 of 4
November 28, 2001
V. SUMMARY 8i RECOMMENDATION
1. Mr. Fuhrmann is correct that Stage II departures declined by about 400 from July
1999, to July 2000 and also July 2001, but this is a small portion of overall departures
and not statistically that significant. The attempt to dismiss the anomaly with this
statement is disproved by the above analysis. The massive increase in Stage III
departures in July 2000 and July 2001 dwarfs whatever minor noise reduction was
obtained retiring Stage II jets in the interim.
2. ANOMS noise reports do NOT correlate with activity in the Eagan/Mendota Heights
Corridor. The ANOMS system generated reports that appear to be
predetermined to meet certain acceptable parameters. Either the ANOMS reports
in July 1999 greatly overstated the noise levels, or the July 2000 and July 2001
ANOMS noise reports greatly understated the noise levels. Even July 2000 versus
July 2001 (wherein there was a 2 1 % increase in departure noise) is not reflected in
the ANOMS reports which are for all practical purposes identical!
3. One possible explanation for the anomaly is that there are "holes" in the ANOMS
network of noise monitors. The Rogers Lake East Airport Noise Reduction
Committee has made this case to MAC. The Chairman of MASAC, Charles
Mertensotto, has stated that there are "holes" in this network. However, Mr. Jeffrey
Hamiel (MAC's Executive Director) and Mr. Roy Fuhrmann (MAC's Director of
Environment) have denied that there are "holes" in the ANOMS network.
4. An investigation by objective experts in this Feld should be undertaken. These
experts should not have ties to the staff of the Metropolitan Airports Commission or
to any of their subcontractors. Chairman Nichols, or a committee of Commissioners,
should directly superintend the work of these experts to resolve these anomalies and
the question raised as to whether the money spent on the ANOMS system has
delivered what was promised and been wisely spent.
Page 1 of 1
November 28, 2001
Determining
Stage 2
versus tiYLaj; .Y
Aircraft Noise
Levels
Basing
Calcnla ions
on MAC's Chart
EXHIBIT B
Cu lative Noise Level - PNdB
N N N N N N N N W W '+••
O O fT O (n O (n N O N
N M
o
o m Ov
A O N
r
m c) y�
o cmi
9 •9 - �r
m �Ni o ,
� a n
9 t—+
N Ui
EPNdB RangeRanQe Mid�int
Stage 2 292-302 298
Stage 3 255-275 265
Note: The above midpoint or average has been fairly set, although it could be further refined if we had
proportions of the various aircraft involved making up the class. Such refinements though would only
involve some `tweaking' of the number (slightly higher or lower). The outcome of the study hinges on the
number of departures and tweaking the average will not overcome the outcome of the study.
November 30, 2001
Rogers Lake East Airport Noise
Reduction Committee
c/o Mr. Michael A. Kosel, Chairman
889 Bluebill Drive
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
Phone: 651-456-9512
Mr. Jeffrey
Airports Commission
Avenue South
is, MN 55450
Dear Mr. Hamiel:
Last Friday, November 16, our engineer met with your staff to begin an independent analysis of
noise contour maps in the current 14 CFR Part 150 Update. At that time, our engineer discussed
the following data request with Chad Leqve of your staff:
1. The input files used by HNTB Corporation for the INM analysis in the new Part 150 Update;
2. Along with an index describing which computer files go with the corresponding exhibits in
the new Part 150 Update.
Our engineer has processed similar requests for Federal government data and our Committee's
request is typical of such requests. CDs are the usual medium employed to fill these type of data
requests. We have a CD-ROM drive and furnishing this data on a CD will also work best in our
case.
While Mr. Legve was most courteous when talking with our engineer, there did not seem to be a
recognition on his part about the significance of our request. Our engineer did not want to argue
the point as it is his intention to work cooperatively with your staff. However, to date we have
not received the requested data and therefore we are unable to proceed.
1ViINNESOTA LAW
Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 (Data Practices) Section 13.03 (Access to government data) has
the following general provisions:
1. "All government data" is public (with some rare exceptions for privacy, etc.). The point we
would stress here is that "all" data is public, not just what an agency has released to the
public.
2. Requests are to be filled in a "prompt manner."
3. After furnishing data, the citizen has the right to be informed by the agency of its meaning.
4. Electronic information can be made available in an electronic medium (such as a CD).
Exhibit A (herewith) gives the specific citations.
Page Two
November 30, 2001
FAA Part 150 Regulations also refer to "interested parties" being given "the opportunity to
substantiate the results" of noise contour map methodology (see 14 CFR, Appendix A, Part B,
Sec. A150.103[a]). The ability of "interested parties" to confirm the results of a sponsor's noise
contour is one of the "key factors" in obtaining FAA approval in that regulation.
CONCLUSION
Our intention in writing this letter is not to upset anyone at the Metropolitan Airports
Commission. Our engineer does not want to be the source of controversy but he needs the data
to proceed with the project.
The purpose of this letter is to document our request for government data and ask for the prompt
release of that requested data, Mr. Hamiel. If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to
give us a call.
We do not live far from your offices and if your office would give us a call at 651-456-9512
someone from our Committee would be available to pick up the data from the receptionist at the
front desk. We look forward to a prompt response so that our work can proceed.
Sincerely,
Michael A. Kosel
Attachment (Exhibits A)
cc: MAC (Charles Nichols, chairman, along with all 14 commissioners)
Roy Fuhrmann, Director of Environment, MAC
Chad Leqve, Hanager—Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs, MAC
Charles Mertensotto, Mayor of Mendota Heights
Cari Lindberg, Mendota Heights City Administrator
Scott Beaty, Mendota Heights Airport Relations Committee
Deanna L. Wiener, State Senator District 38
Wes Skoglund, Representative District 62B
John Brandl, Dean of the Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs
Representative James Oberstar, Ranking Democratic Member, House Transportation
& Infrastructure Committee from Minnesota's 8 s District
Page l of 1
November 30. 2001
EXHIBIT A
ivIINNESOTA STATUTES 2001
Chapter 13
"Subdivision i. Public data.
All government data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by a state agency,
political subdivision, or statewide system shall be public unless classified by statute... The
responsible authority in every state agency, political subdivision and statewide system shall keep
records containing government data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily
accessible for convenient use....
"Subdivision 2. Procedures.
(a) The responsible authority... shall... insure that requests for government data are received and
complied with in an appropriate and prompt manner.
"Subdivision 3. Request for access to data.
(a) ... a person shall be permitted to inspect and copy public government data at reasonable times
and places, and, upon request, shall be informed of the data's meaning...
(b) ...In the case of data stored in electronic form... inspection includes remote access to the data
by the public and the ability to print copies of or download the data...
(e) The responsible authority of a state agency, statewide system, or political subdivision that
maintains public government data in a computer storage medium shall provide to any person
making a request under this section a copy of any public data contained in that medium in
electronic form..." (a CD is the usual medium for electronic data)
November 30, 2001
Rogers Lake East Airport Noise
Reduction Committee
c/o Mr. Michael A. Kesel, Chairman
839 Bluebill Drive
Mendota Heights, NIIQ 55120
Phone: 651 456-9512
Mr. John Hensel
Supervisor of Air, Waste & Transportation Units
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Road North
St. Paul, MN 551554194
Dear Mr. Hensel:
Thank you for your letter of November 21, which was recently received by our Committee. I
believe you and I met briefly on the evening of October 8, Mr. Hensel, when I dropped off our
original letter for Brian Timerson of your staff. This was during the strike. You were very
helpful given that situation and I look forward to meeting you again.
YOUR OFFER TO MEET
We accept your offer to meet and I will contact you on behalf of the Committee to establish an
appropriate time on Monday, December 3. An agenda for the meeting is attached herewith (see
Exhibit A). We would appreciate Mr. Timerson being in attendance.
FAA REGULATORY NIISSTATEMENTS
IN
YOUR LETTER OF NOVEMBER 21
As a supervisor in a state regulatory agency, you must appreciate the importance of correctly
stating what the law or the regulations are. There are some regulatory misunderstandings in your
letter that are often expressed by members of the staff of the Metropolitan Airports Commission
(MAC). The similarities are such that your letter could have been drafted by a member of the
MAC staff, as the letter makes the same regulatory misstatements.
FIRST NIISSTATE1bIENT
The letter states: "This method (INiV>) is the only way to calculate noise contours that is
acceptable by the FAA in the implementation of the FAA Part 150 sound insulation program."
(bold added)
That the above is an inaccurate and misleading characterization of the FAA regulations can be
seen from the following FAA regulatory excerpts:
1. From Part 150, Appendix A, Part B—Noise Exposure Map Development, Sec. A150.103 (a):
Page Two
November 30, 2001
"The airport operator shall acquire the aviation operations data necessary to develop noise
exposure contours using an FAA approved methodology or computer program, such as the
Integrated Noise Model (INM)..." (the clause then goes on to give the general parameters to
approve methodologies, other than INM, note that INM is not the only permissible
methodology) (bold added)
2. From Part 150, Appendix A, Part C—Mathematical Descriptions, Sec. AI50.1(b):
"(b) This appendix provides for the use of the FAA's Integrated Noise Mode (INM) or an FAA
approved equivalent, for developing standardized noise exposure maps and predicting noise
impacts...." (note again that INM is not the only acceptable methodology) (bold added)
3. From Part I50, Subpart B—Development of Noise Exposure Maps, Sec. 150.21(2) (b):
"Each map, and related documentation... must be developed and prepared in accordance with
appendix A of this part, or an FAA approved equivalent..." (this reference does not even
mention INM) (bold added)
Please note that the FAA does not accept only INM to the exclusion of other possible
methodologies. The FAA's regulatory purpose is to get a "true and complete" map and the
sponsor has the responsibility to create that map. (I direct your attention to Exhibit B, herewith,
which seems to detail that INM may have, its own problems.)
I had a similar discussion with Mr. Hamiel (MAC's Executive Director) on November 19. Mr.
Hamiel in that conversation incorrectly quoted the FAA as requiring '65 DNL contours drawn by
INM.' When I informed him that he was wrong, I am not sure he believed me. I will copy him
on this letter so Mr. Hamiel can read the actual FAA regulations, and if he still feels he is correct,
he can correct me. But anyone reading the FAA regulations can see that the FAA has not
dictated that only INM can be used to develop noise contour maps.
MAC staff has a tendency to blame the FAA when MAC staff is questioned. Their position
seems to be: `Don't blame me. Your problem is with the FAA.' However, it is unfair to blame
the FAA (who is never present to defend itself) for problems created locally —by either
advertence or inadvertence.
WHAT ROLE DOES L 1M PLAY THEN?
Perhaps the best analogy is that INM plays the role of what in legaUlegislative terms is called a
`safe harbor provision.'
When an agency such as the FAA promulgates a regulation (such as Part 150) they try to give the
affected parties guidance on meeting the regulation. INM plays this role. If a sponsor of a noise
contour map wishes, they can use INM and, if they use it correctly, they can have a reasonable
expectation that the noise contour map will be accepted. INM is a `safe harbor.'
Page Three
November 30, 2001
But the FAA does not mandate that IN DQ is the only way to get a noise contour map approved.
The statement in your letter that INM is "the only way" is a misstatement of the regulation.
Bear in mind that the FAA does not take authorship of a noise contour map and certify its
accuracy if the map's sponsor uses INM:
From Part 150, Subpart A —General Provisions, Sec. 150.5(d) Limitations of this part:
"(d) Acceptance of a noise exposure map does not constitute an FAA determination that any
specific parcel of land lies within a particular noise contour. Responsibility for interpretation of
the effects of noise contours upon subjacent land uses, including the relationship between noise
contours and specific properties, rests with the sponsor or with other state or local
government" (bold added)
When a sponsor (such as MAC) submits a noise contour map they are required to make the
following certification:
3. From Part 150, Subpart B—Development of Noise Exposure Maps, Sec. 150.21(2)(e):
"(e) Each map, or revised map, and description of consultation and opportunity for public
comment, submitted to the FAA, must be certified as true and complete under penalty of 18
U.S.C.1001."
As you may be aware, Mr. Hensel, US Code Section 1001 provides that the making of false
statements or covering up material facts in matters under the jurisdiction of the executive branch,
subject that person to being "fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both."
(Section 1001[a][3])
Thus if the MAC knew from its noise monitor reports that the noise contour map generated by
INM was false, they could NOT submit that map to the FAA. They could not because they knew
that the noise contour map was not "true and complete." Remember, MAC does not swear to the
FAA that they used INM (INM is not a requirement as shown earlier), MAC swears that the
noise contour map itself is "true and complete." To knowingly submit a false contour map (even
one prepared by INM) would be perjurious.
SECOND MISSTATEMENT
Your letter states that noise monitor reports are: "not relevant because the noise contours
used for the MSP Part 150 document do not use data obtained from the R114Ts." (bold added)
Contrary to the impression given by MAC, FAA regulations do not preclude basing noise
contour maps on noise monitor data, noise monitors are "relevant":
1. From Part 150, Appendix A, Part C—Mathematical Descriptions, Sec. A150.1(0):
Page Four
November 30, 2001
'(b) ... Noise monitoring may be utilized by airport operators for data acquisition and data
refinement... Whenever noise monitoring is used, under this part it should be accomplished in
accordance with See. A150.5 of this appendix." (bold added)
Just as INM is not required, noise monitors are not a requirement. But the inclusion of noise
monitor specifications in the FAA Part 150 Regulations is evidence of their utility in the Part 150
process and FAA's anticipation that noise monitor reports would/could be included in Part 150
submissions.
Your statement, Mr. Hensel, is inaccurate because MAC DID USE noise monitor data in their
Part 150 noise contour map submission and thus these monitor reports are legally
°`relevant " In their application to the FAA, MAC uses noise monitor reports to validate the
noise contour maps (see section 3.3 of their application). To the extent MAC noise monitors
understate aircraft noise, to that extent they are being used to mislead the FAA to approve
inaccurate, understated noise contour maps.
MAC staff tends to describe noise monitors as uninvolved in noise contour issues whenever the
accuracy of these reports is questioned. The impression is given: `MAC doesn't use these noise
reports, we use INM, so why question noise monitor reports.' But when citizens complain about
excessive noise, then MAC makes use of noise monitor reports. To the extent these reports are
understated, to that extent the citizens of the State of Minnesota are being misled.
I look forward to meeting with you and Mr. Timerson this coming Monday.
Sincerely,
Q5A
Guy Heide, ecretary
Attachments (2—Exhibits A & B)
cc: MAC (Charles Nichols, Chairman, along with all 14 commissioners)
Jeffrey Hamiel, Executive Director, MAC
Roy Fuhrmann, Director of Environment, MAC
Chad Leqve, Manager —Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs, MAC
Brian Timerson, Noise Program Coordinator Metro District, MPCA
Charles Mertensotto, Mayor of Mendota Heights
Cari Lindberg, Mendota Heights City Administrator
Scott Beaty, Mendota Heights Airport Relations Committee
Deanna L. Wiener, State Senator District 38
Wes Skoglund, Representative District 62B
John Brandl, Dean of the Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs
Representative James Oberstar, Ranking Democratic member, House Transportation
& Infrastructure Committee from Minnesota's 8ih District
Page I of 1
November 30, 2001
AGENDA
December 3, 2001 Meeting with NIPCA Staff
1. Mr. Timerson has stated: "An MPCA staff person accompanies MAC staff each time a RMT
is calibrated" (letter to Roy Fuhrmann letter of September 27).
• Does this program really exist at the MPCA?
• Who is the MPCA staff person who does these calibrations, is it Mr. Timerson?
• What is the frequency of these calibrations? In particular, how often would MPCA staff have checked Monitors
413 and #15 in the past 9 years since their installation.
• Recently the site of Monitor #13 was improved, was this done by Mr. Timerson (he refers to this in his letter of
September 27)
After our meeting, our Committee can visit MAC offices where apparently the records of MPCA calibration checks
are maintained/stored per your letter.
2. Your letter stresses the primacy of the FAA over MAC's operations.
• While MAC's management of the airport is subject to the FAA, is not MAC a public corporation created by the
Minnesota legislature and subject to the laws and regulations of this state?
• Does not Minnesota Rule 7030,0060 ("Measurement Methodology") apply to MAC as a state agency?
• Is MAC not subject to Minnesota regulatory law? Does MAC enjoy sovereign immunity from state
regulations?
3. Mr. Timerson completely misstated our Committee's position in his letter to the MAC (the
September 12 letter to Roy Fuhrmann).
• How did Mr. Timerson arrive at such a completely erroneous conclusion?
• Did Mr. Timerson have our letter to MAC of September 12 in his possession when he wrote his letter of
September 12 to Roy Fuhrmann?
4. Mr. Timerson should now correctly understand our technical concerns about understated
noise readings from Monitor #13 and #15.
• Does Mr. Timerson now share our concern over the accuracy of these noise readings?
• What did Mr. Timerson allude to when he stated in his letter of September 27: "the fact that its (trees, foliage)
contribution to ground attenuation can not be considered..." (see the penultimate paragraph is his letter.
5. We will leave with the MPCA a statistical study that questions the accuracy of the ANOMS
noise monitor system and any comments you might share on that study would be valued.
This study will just be left with you.
6. Our Committee is searching for several reference books cited by the FAA in the Part 150
Regulations and if these books are available from your agency, we would appreciate
consulting them. I will leave a list of these technical titles with you and this should take no
time during the meeting.
Page I of I
November 30, 2001
EXHIBIT B
Interested parties may wish to obtain this article which documents possible under -predictions by
the INM noise model
Noise Regulation Report Top Stories
November, 2001 Field Evidence Growing that Computer Model Under -Predicts Aircraft Noise
FAA's prediction tool, the integrated Noise Model (INM), could be under -estimating airport noise
contours, according to ongoing validation studies. The agency is working with researchers and the
Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) aircraft noise committee to update the 20-year old
methodology upon which INM is based, noise division manager Tom Connor told NRR.
INM is the widely -accepted computer model for establishing airport noise contours, and in this
country, for determining which neighborhoods are considered noise -impacted and which schools
and residences are eligible for federally -approved and funded sound insulation. If NM under -
predicts aircraft noise, then actual airport noise contours could be larger than...(... For the
complete article, email BPI Customer Service at custserv(iUpinews.con or call 800-274-6737
to order this back issue.)
Minneapolis -Saint Paul International Airport
6040 - 28th Avenue South • Minneapolis, MN 55450-2799
Phone (612) 726-8100
November 28, 2001
Cari Lindberg, Administrator
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 551184106
Dear Ms. Lindberg:
Enclosed you will find the minutes from the September 2001 Commission meeting at
which the preliminary 2002-2008 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) was approved for
environmental and community review.
Also enclosed is the agenda for the December meeting of the Planning and
Environment Committee. At the meeting, the Committee will make a recommendation
to the full Commission to approve a final version of the 2002-2008 CIP. Included with
the agenda are pertinent Committee memos regarding the CIP.
Sincer
Robert J. Vorpahl, P.E.
Program Development Engineer
Enclosures
RJV/Irk
cc: Nigel Finney, MAC
Denny Probst, MAC
The N[ercopoliran Airports Commission is an a(finnati�e action employer.
w m r�.mspai rportcom
Reliever :lrzports: AIftL\KE • ANOKA COI;NTY/6LAINE • C2YSte\L • FLYNG CLO[7D • LAKF. ELMO •SAINT PAUL DO�VN'COt\V
METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION
MINUTES OF REGULAR SCHEDULED MEETING
September 17, 2001
CALL TO ORDER
A regular scheduled meeting of the Metropolitan Airports Commission, having
been duly called, was held Monday, September 17, 2001 in the Lindbergh
Conference Room, Metropolitan Airports Commission General Offices. Chairman
Nichols called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. The following were in
attendance:
Commissioners D'AquilaI Erhart, Foley, Fortier, Gasper, Hale, Houle, Kahler,
Long, Mars, Rehkamp, Speer, Weske and Chairman Nichols
R. Rought, MN/DOT
M. Hill Smith, Metropolitan Council
L. Sorensen, Commission Secretary
J. W. Hamiel, Executive Director
T. W. Anderson, General Counsel
N. D. Finney, Deputy Executive Director— Planning and Environment
T. Anderson, Deputy Executive Director — Operations
D. Kautzer, Deputy Executive Director —Administrative Services
M. Mortensen, J. Unruh, S. Douma, T. Howell, J. Nelson, P. Hogan, M. Dorsey,
S. Juackson, G. Wennerstrom, J. Anderson, M. Ladd, D. Olson, M. Kilian,
R. Fuhrmann, C. Legve, B. Hoium, W. Wren, G. Warren, J. Edblom, J. Welna,
L. Hanson, M. Everson, S. Moss, R. Swing, S. Martenson, R. Hale, M. Spelig,
M. Snedker, M. Askerooth, B. Rindels, M. Dorsey, C. Olson, J. Mohammad,
J. Kosta, A. von Walter, J. Kedrowski, MAC Staff
M.Johnson
D. Leutt
Ross Kramer, E. Hyland, Messerli & Kramer
L. Oakes, WCCO-AM
D. Wyszynski, Dain Rauscher
R. Saunders, SMAAC
T. Coleman, Pioneer Press
R. Johnson, MBAA
S. Seelig
D. Leibock
R. Seelig
V. Starr, Anoka County Aviation Association
C. Selig
G. Heide, Rogers Lake Noise Reduction Committee
N. Anderson, KARE-TV
T. Sweeney, R. Furst, Star Tribune
J. Madison, Fox News
Commission Meeting
September 17, 2001
Page 5
B5 Request to Bid for Telephone Equipment and Services
B6 Request for Authorization to Negotiate New "F" Concourse
Infill Retail Agreements
B7 MN State Lottery Sales Lease Renewals
a) Lottery Booth Agreement with MN State Lottery
b) Non -Profit Organization Lottery Booth Lease with
Minnesota Public Airport Foundation
B8 Airport Emergency Plan Exercise at MSP
Planning and Environment Committee
A16 Preliminary 2002-2008 Capital Improvement Program
Commissioner Weske requested that this item be moved to the Discussion
portion of the agenda. He discussed the specific project, Building Area
Annex West at Anoka County -Blaine Airport, and stated his opinion that
this item should be removed from the Capital Improvement Program. It
was his opinion that the Commission should focus on the north and east
building areas. He also indicated opposition to mitigation of the wetland
affected by the west building area annex.
COMMISSIONER WESKE MOVED AND COMMISSIONER ERHART
SECONDED THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION:
THAT THE BUILDING AREA ANNEX —WEST AT ANOKA
COUNTY-BLAINE AIRPORT BE REMOVED FROM THE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
Commissioner Hale, Chairman of the Planning and Environment
Committee, indicated that this issue had been discussed at several
Committee meetings and that the amendment had failed in the Committee
and at the Commission meeting. He clarified that the Committee action
being considered requests preliminary authorization for staff to proceed
with the environmental review process for the projects. Upon preliminary
approval, Staff will continue to review the 2002-2003 projects to develop a
more concise list to recommend to the full Commission for
implementation.
THE AMENDMENT FAILED ON THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE:
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, December 4, 2001
1:00 P.M.
MAC General Offices
6040 28" Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN
AGENDA
CONSENT
FINAL PAYMENTS —MAC CONTRACTS
a. Lindbergh Terminal Sprinkler Modifications - 2000 (Todd Oetjens, Facilities
Architect)
b. Lindbergh Terminal CCTV System Modifications Phase 3 (Todd Oetjens,
Facilities Architect)
C. Lindbergh Terminal Curtain Wall Security (Robert J. Vorpahl, Program
Development Engineer)
d. MSP Airport Mail Center: Medium Voltage Switchgear (Robert J. Vorpahl,
Program Development Engineer)
e. West Terminal - 2001 Repairs - Roof Replacement (Robert J. Vorpahl, Program
Development Engineer)
f. House of Prayer Preschool - Noise Abatement (Robert J. Vorpahl, Program
Development Engineer)
g. Airlake Airport - North Parallel Taxiway Re -Alignment (Bridget Rief, Airside
Project Manager)
h. 2000-2001 Part 150 Sound Insulation Program (John Nelson — Part 150 Program
Manager)
SEMI-FINAL PAYMENTS —MAC CONTRACTS
a. Lindbergh Terminal Public Address System (Todd Oetjens, Facilities Architect)
3. BIDS RECEIVED —MAC CONTRACTS
a. Humphrey Terminal Parking Facility: Bid Package No. R4 - H-Ramp Finishes,
Skyway, Revenue Building and Systems (Myrene Biernat, Facilities Architect)
b. Part 150 Sound Insulation Program - November Bid Cycle (John Nelson, Part
150 Program Manager)
MEMORANDUM ITEM 10d
TO: Planning and Environment Committee
FROM: Nigel D. Finney, Deputy Executive Director — Planning & Environment (726-8187)
SUBJECT: 2002-2008 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
d. Program Approval
DATE: November 20, 2001
The preliminary 2002-2008 CIP as approved by the Commission in September 2001 for
environmental and community review contemplated expenditures for 2002 of approximately
$371 million for projects at MSP and the reliever airports. In the wake of the events of
September 11, 2001, and its impact on the airlines and subsequent reduction in MAC revenues,
staff brought to the committee in November a revised program for 2002. This revised program
deferred approximately $295 million leaving approximately $76 million in the CIP for the year
2002. The CIP spreadsheet showing the revised program that was presented in November is
attached for your information. Staff has further reviewed the revised 2002 CIP and is
recommending a proposed 2002 program totaling $76,200,000. In addition, a number of
projects that were to have been carried out in 2001 were also deferred. There were however,
several projects totaling $27,135,000 which were still proposed to be bid in 2001 which are
being recommended to be carried over into the 2002 CIP. Staff is therefore recommending a
year 2002 program totaling $103,335,000. A copy of the proposed 2002-2008 CIP spreadsheet
and project narratives for years 2002 and 2003 are attached for your review.
In the event the airline industry recovery is more rapid than expected and revenues recover
more quickly, staff will review individual projects and may recommend adjustments to the
program.
COMMITTEE ACTION REQUESTED
RECOMMEND TO THE FULL COMMISSION ADOPTION OF THE 2002-2008 CIP AS
MODIFIED; AUTHORIZE STAFF TO HAVE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS PREPARED AND
ADVERTISE FOR BIDS FOR THE 2002 PROJECTS; AUTHORIZE STAFF TO CONDUCT
FURTHER STUDIES AS APPROPRIATE AND DEVELOP PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR
THE 2003 PROJECTS, UTILIZING CONSULTANT SERVICES, TO REFINE THE PROJECTS
FOR INCLUSION IN THE FOLLOWING YEAR'S PROJECT CATEGORY; AUTHORIZE STAFF
TO CONDUCT STUDIES AND DEVELOP PRELIMINARY PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR
THE 2004 PROJECTS UTILIZING CONSULTANTS AS NECESSARY; AUTHORIZE STAFF TO
INITIATE APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION TO APPLY FOR FEDERAL, STATE AND PFC
FUNDING; RECOMMEND TO THE COMMISSION APPROVAL OF THE FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PLANS (2004-2008) AS A GUIDE TO THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL FOR
THEIR REVIEW, PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE METROPOLITAN
INVESTMENT FRAMEWORK GUIDELINES; AND AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
OR HIS DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS.
ITEM 12
TO: Planning and Environment Committee
FROM: Nigel D. Finney, Deputy Executive Director — Planning and Environment
(612-726-8187)
SUBJECT: 2002 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM REVISIONS
DATE: September 26, 2001
In the wake of the events of September 11, 2001, and its impact on the airlines and air
transportation, staff has carried out an evaluation of the 2002 Capital Improvement Program to
determine which projects could be deferred to a later date. This review is based on the facts that
aircraft and passenger activity will be significantly lower in 2002 than previously expected with
consequences for MAC of significantly reduced revenues (parking, concessions, auto rental, etc.)
and an airline industry that is unable to absorb substantial additional costs for either airfield or
terminal improvements. In addition, it is advisable to reduce or eliminate the need to sell bonds
in 2002 given the current state of the industry.
The following provides examples of impacts to MAC resulting from current conditions:
1. Parking revenues have decreased approximately 60-70%.
2. News and Gifts/Food and Beverage are estimated at a 30-40% reduction in revenue for
the 4w quarter.
3. Preliminary revenues for auto rental indicate a decrease of 30% in the 4" quarter.
4. Restricted (reduced activity at the reliever airports is expected to result in reduced
revenue of $200,000 - $400,000,
5. Overall revenue at year-end is projected to be down $10-12 million.
6. PFC's will be reduced this year by $10-12 million based on fewer passengers.
The CIP as presented to the Commission in September, 2001 for environmental and community
review contemplated expenditures for 2002 of approximately $371 million spread over a variety
of projects at MSP and the reliever airports. The staff review has focussed on funding sources for
these projects, with particular attention to those projects proposed to be funded from the
2000/2001 GARB issues, and projects without a defined revenue source. The results of this
review indicate that projects approximating $295 million, leaving a Capital Improvement Program
of approximately $76 million, should be deferred. In addition, a number of projects that were to
have been carried out in 2001 are also recommended for deferral. The proposed changes are
shown on the attached spreadsheet.
It is not the intent of staff to recommend elimination of these projects from the Capital
Improvement Program at this time, but to defer their implementation until a better sense of the
timing and extent of industry recovery is available. It is anticipated that the projects would be
further reviewed during the process for preparation of the 2003 Capital Improvement Program,
however if the industry recovery is more rapid that expected and revenues recover more quickly,
staff would review individual projects for earlier implementation.
f
o
N
�l
Z
W
W
a
a
U
0
0
o �
o g
3
g f
Z o o O o 0 0 0 0 0, o
W� o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 00
Hw� oo � o - v000 o -o v o
o � o 0
n. > U _ v o 0 0 _ _ �o
U� � �� to � N o �v ei rsa w �
� °' N u, �'
z �b �t,ob b�d�bo o� b o � bd� �R1
J W� O O T O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O yy p
Q� U N - O - - O O �n < 0 0 0 0 O O ST
F W W �� $ N O O O of O t0 O � � 0 00 V �
> O �D n m N h O O V' O ` .A
U � � N � _ J � _ �w w tR t9 � `» F9 � � � `� N � � r �� g
a a � d,
� o
2
N �
O Q
p T
N m �'
U � ' E � o _- a
LL
N o c o
p �E o a �� � m c �,
p U m
N E O m m pp� � W a N �
w � rn >. �� J m o o t N � c .-
U o v a c � aNi r N 'o a m � m� � m o
�O � m I@ o � c _ c c N p= m ml o 0 o w
C � d a d�� rn � _ ._. � LL� d w Q W m o �'�'., v m 3 m c ¢, rn
o� �o a >. rn a o s= o `,.° _- ° a o W c w o >, o o U_ v a o a
� = o o O �- `y LL - U N U ,V U. = J Z N `. W .O o y � y
0 � m x x x c a` m_ N d °' rn E W i'- `° o h n n Q h N U rn c m E '� u a¢
a ,- rn rn m x n � w m U m � ��" a '" v >, >. �, r >. >, p m �n �� ❑� a Q c c o ~
,�, u �� K K n m a� t� a� G Q Q r c c c c c c c o c m a I ', � r a � c c .`c_
'� I .o � -� � � N � = rv� � m � .� ��� O C K K K� K K fn 1= � N! c m 2 2��� m
U a. � z � �� �� o
O
N
Z
�
W
j
0
o
a00
N
U
d
d
F-
Z
Vj
W
�
F
W
W
<00
U
a
a
2E
0 0 0 0 O o 0 0 6 C5
0 0 0 C 0 0� 0 O
� CW f9 t9 iH (A 69 IA N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
d d o 0 0 0C o cr 0
o Q
f9 In f9 rK � N N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 o o n o
CT
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C C
cri
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ago
yp
0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- t VJ'
fl
O o O oto C�l
o 0 0 o
00
E m o
o - o O
a o
a T
d E
❑ A =
E y� 3 - -
= a rn c
U o = m
0 0 o m a y o_lea u D c m m W. a
a b a o 01 .� K rn o =_ - E .N E w w z w - �
N N J ` •N O ` N Cl N � (n `.
r ^' E E E ELU
t� _�2i Et
-_ C N y m T V O N C> O O N J <0 O_ y N N N 'O N N a af
a c p -' ¢ ¢ o❑❑ L w a v m K m
w w ¢ U to E n¢_ ¢¢ ¢` ¢ -' m m m
m m o' �O m N c c c c c !� - ¢ "� r m m m m d T T m o a v n y a c D sEE EEE >m o d 0 c c= a a a m c c 1O ? c U-
U 6. (n o m m m m m K K K Z` O o. m
Q Q U
J C
0
N
N
O
O
N
a
r
z
W
LU
LU
O
o
CC
CL
J
Q
r
a
U
a
r
Z
�
W
a
r¢
W
CD
O
a
p
0
v
U
�a.
a
d
r
z
o
w
o
o i
CCU
r
W
W
O
a
N
<00
o
mad
rn
=
cvi
a`
0
0
m
0
i0
o
n
to
�
v
�
0
0
0
0
0
ry
v
0
o
N
0
N
N
B
§
\ _ \\ / CT
0 .
�i &
\ \§ �§(6ui 66666 } \\\
$ \r �2
I !! ou 5 2 K
2 �f4(2 /j �)\: ! k
» ;� )/f!0§C.5 k�° § \)
( �ouXw 0 !`�a=,777 !
! l£l;ykl2{2f/:_ )« § $§{!
!k/{°)<!=al�LL !!E` ■ !§
§]!§;r/§\{f{/)\/G�§!:!)[§0 !k!!
;«!!!!!!/[[[m«.cy ! §§
;30!!!!!!�!»;!-,! !-�
_2\{[);!(k§ƒ
¥¥fr!§§(!(|§/!r`t ®
{§&[§aloe>l�2m,!l===zit0w 3$ t!£!
| |
C
E
0 0
a
L
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
o
0
0
o
c
o
c
o
w
w
n
w
w
w
CNA
0
0
0
0
o
d
o
d
o
0
0
0
0
0
o
c
c
c
o
c
0
o
o
w
o
w
o
p0p
mcNi
19
H
H
w
H
H
H
C j
00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
o
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0p
0
0
p
m
Y i
K
w
H
H
H
Lci
w
�n
w
0
0
0
0
en
o
00000�000��0000i��
000000
0
0
000000000
o
a
�
o
0
00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
00
0
0
0000000000o
a
00000000000
o -
CD
CD
6
0
0�
o
o
woo
w
0
w
H
H
W
w
w
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O 0 0 O O O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 00 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 00
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O _
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O 0 0 O 0 0 06 0 0
NY O O m 0 0 0 N 0� O h t00 O m w m c0'> O YOf O>
w w w in
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
w w w n N w
H
n
rn
c
Ea Of
d
0ca
0 o Q Ir
3 a` x x_ d H o
U C
c c o �' 2 c C Q 3 Q c m w
E �' - z H
c - a c 0 0 t m w m o
� E °- w w 0 '= c � m
o.WWW m - w c -- 0 "� E w- E c T E
9 N� ;� N' 3 v= m- o aci w
m 4 :fl i@ U v Ea E E E o c -� H N o c W o o m
a o� 'y-� c o r o aNN o 0 0 0 0 m a m m 8 E m c c4 0
L w C N= C 0 o� W U 0 0 >>>> y 0 J 0' c — W
¢ o ��_ WWWW3 W m y 3p.0 a'00a w;E(L aEiz� v mKnQ
cWE.Cmc=3m ¢a m N c d. � N mam
0 t a � (J 8 9 Ny �1 d 61r K N N N Ir X �3
'G= E d�c mo a a cQ= 4000 E TTm oWaW 0 o' T=
wmtW QU Fu2 €� a .N vtm c c cc E '^ F' E �' 0 WO E m m
rn v Q' rn m m m m d- Y c n L o o a c> � 3 3 _ 2 0 E U- W m 3 3 L
- d a El
U a v] o m m m' m a¢ O a c Q 2 a¢ K vJ
m'�Ma��r ��3 n as ¢ cr i
>
m
§§,6
&
&
6
--
6
6
6
d
6
I§i§
ƒ[!§
}§§ki#§
\
!
\
\\\\\\\}\}\\
\\I}
\
�
e
Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) 2002
2010 PROGRAM PROJECTS
2002
Runway 17/35 Program
24th Avenue Bridge $312009000
This project will provide for the construction of a bridge on 24th Avenue which will allow the frontage road
traffic to pass beneath and keep the traffic on 24th Avenue free flowing.
77th Street/24th Avenue Interchange/1494 Frontage Road $6,00%000
This project will provide for the construction of the first phase of the 77th Street/24th Avenue interchange
and roadway system and the frontage road along 1494 from 77th Street to the east.
Buildings Demolition -Air Cargo City $1,6001000
This project provides for the demolition of the Freight Forwarders facilities in the Air Cargo City development.
Other General Construction
This project category is for miscellaneous construction related activities
Runway 17/35 Intersection Site Preparation/Paving $18,500,000
This project provides for the site preparation and paving of the Runway 17135 and 4/22 intersection including
a section of Taxiway N.
Runway 17136 NAVAIDS $1,0001000
This project provides for FAA reimburseable equipment installation costs and other associated FAA costs.
Runwa�35 ALSF4Bridge $11000,000
This project provides for the construction of the bridge for the approach lighting system over 1494.
Wetland Mitigation $1,000,000
This project provides for the mitigation of wetlands impacted by the runway construction. The mitigation
involves the restoration of a wetland site on Sargeant's Lake,
Runway 4/22 Development Program
Runway 4/22 Property Acquisition $3,000,000
There will be a requirement to acquire property prior to proceeding with the reconstruction of Taxiway C
which is part of the Runway 4/22 reconstruction.
Runway 4/22 Reconstruction - Seq. 3
$1,000,000
This project provides for the reconstruction of the 2000 feet of Runway 4/22 and Taxiway C located
northeast of Runway 12L130R.
Runway 4/22 Road Relocation
$1,500,000
This project provides for the relocation
of the
Interbase (US Airforce - MANG) roadway to
maximize the
expansion of the Runway Safety Area
(RSA)
and Object Free area (OFA) associated with
Runway
Noise Mitigation Program
Printed 11/28/2001 3:06:17 PM Page 1
Lindbergh Terminal Interior Rehabilitation $500,000
An ongoing program to renovate the interior of the Lindbergh Terminal. The money originally allocated to
this program has been reduced from $4,400,000 to $500,000 due to the reduction in MAC revenues. Staff
will be re-evaluating the priority and cost of the projects originally recommended to be accomplished in 2002
Parking Structure Rehabilitation 5500,000
An ongoing program to maintain the integrity of the multi -level parking structures. Projects typically include
concrete repair, joint sealant replacement, expansion joint repairs, concrete sealing and lighting
improvements. The money originally allocated to this program has been reduced from $2,000,000 to
$500,000 due to the reduction in MAC revenues. Staff will be re-evaluating the priority and costs of the
projects originally recommended to be accomplished in 2002,
Terminal Miscellaneous Modifications $900,000
An ongoing program to update and remodel areas within the Terminal Facilities to keep abreast with
changing requirements. This may be a series of individual projects to meet the requirements of the various
tenants or may be consolidated into a single project when possible. This work is typically done by purchase
order as the projects are small in scope and cost. The money originally allocated to this program has been
reduced from $1,550,000 to $900,000 due to the reduction in MAC revenues and the scope of the projects
to be funded under this program has been expanded to include Sprinkler System Modifications, Terminal
Electrical Modifications and Terminal Mechanical Modifications. Staff will be re-evaluating the priority and
cost of the projects originally recommended to be accomplished in 2002 under these programs .
West Terminal Area Rehabilitation $100,000
An ongoing program to modify or remodel areas within the West Terminal Complex and Fire/Rescue facility
to meet the needs of the various tenants/general public/MAC departments utilizing the facilities. This year's
project will provide for tuck pointing repairs to the building exterior and miscellaneous improvements and
repairs at the Fire/Rescue facility.
Reliever Airport Program
Flying Cloud
Airfield Signage and Electrical Upgrades $100,000
This project provides for the first phase in the installation of signage on Runway 18136 and the installation of
a new beacon and windcone.
St. Paul
Security Fencing
$200,000
This project will provide for the installation of security fencing and gates around the airfield as required by
the FAA.
Reliever Airports Utility Extension Program
Airlake
Sanitary SewerlWatermain Install: N. Building Area $500,000
Airlake Airport is located on the south edge of the developed area of Lakeville. A study has been completed
evaluating alternatives for extending public utilities consisting of sanitary sewer and water main to the
Northeast and Southwest Building areas. This year's project will be the first phase in extending these
utilities to the Northeast Building Area.
Flvino Cloud
Printed 11/28l2001 3:06:18 PM Page 3
Lindbergh Terminal Security Modifications $1,0002000
This project provides for the installation of a security barrier between the public space at the south end of the
Lindbergh terminal ticketing and the sterile portion of the Concourse G as well as modifications to access
points to further enhance security.
Miscellaneous Electrical Mods 4115,000
An ongoing program to address electrical issues in the terminal facillities requiring attention due to age and
deterioration of the existing systems or modifications necessary for improved reliability. This project
includes replacement of panel boards, increasing electrical feeder capacty, increasing ventilation in two
electrical rooms and miscellaneous distribution system revisions.
Miscellaneous Mechanical Mods $700,000
An ongoing program to address mechanical issues in the terminal facillities requiring attention due to age
and deterioration of the existing systems or modifications necessary for improved reliability. This project
includes replacement of steam pressure valves, steam expansion joints and a section of domestic hot water
piping.
Part 150 Mods. -Dec. 2001
E2,400,000
An ongoing program to insulate residential houses within the certified 1996 DNL 65 noise contour. This
project will provide for the insulation of approximately 47 houses.
Regional Terminal Demolition
$1,500,000
This project provides for demolition of the existing Regional Terminal once the new facility is complete and
completion of modifications to the concourse which will allow for Gate CI to open.
Short Tenn Parking Escalator
$2,000,000
This project provides for the installation of new escalators from the second level of short term parking in the
Green Ramp to the Ground Transportation Center. The escalator equipment was purchased under a 2001
project.
Airlake
Watkins Pattern Building Demolition
$1zo,000
This project provides for the removal of the Watkins Pattem building which is within the runway protection
zone.
Printed 11/28/2001 3:06:18 PM Page 5
t� �� � '' �
Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) 2002
2010 PROGRAM PROJECTS
Runway Deicing/Holding Pad Program
12R Deicing /nolding_Pad E1890001000
This project will construct the airports deicing/holding pad on Runway 12R to allow for the efficient deicing of
aircraft and collection of glycol as well as for the holding of aircraft for operational reasons. This project will
also include the construction of Taxiway B between the deicing pad and Exit Taxiway B10.
12R DeicinglHoldinq_Pad -Buildings Demolition $1,250,000
This project will provide the demolition of the Navy hangar, office and motor pool and the MAC Paint,
Electric and Carpenters shops to provide the area needed to construct Taxiway B and the Runway 12R
deicing/holding pad.
12R Deicing/Holding Pad - Taxiway B Construction $1,9000000
This project provides for the construction of Taxiway B between Runway 4122 and Taxiway M. Also included
in this project is the removal of Taxiway T between Runway 4/22 and Taxiway M and the construction of
taxiway fillets east of Runway 4/22.
17/35 Program
77th Street/24th Avenue Interchange/1-494 Frontage Road $5,60Q000
This project will provide for the construction of the final phase of the 77th Street/24th Avenue interchange
and roadway system and the frontage road along 1-494 from 77th Street to the east.
Buildings Demolition -Runway Protection Zone
$9,700,000
This project provides for the demolition of buildings in the Runway Protection Zone including the McClay
VFW, Federal Express, BAX Global, the Amoco and Super America gas stations, and the Double Tree,
Sheraton and Exel hotels.
Buildings Demolition - Southwest Cargo Apron $5,500,000
This project provides for the demolition of buildings on the Southwest Cargo apron which are within the
Runway Protection Zone.
Ground Handler Fuel Facility
$300,000
This
project provides
for
the relocation of
an existing above ground fuel storage tank to create a new loading
rack
to supply diesel
and
unleaded fuel to
the tenants on the west side of the Runway 17135 development .
Infield Fueling Facilities
$3,600,000
This project provides for fueling facilities within the midfield development for aircraft fueling.
Lease Extinguishment
$6,100,000
In addition to the acquisition of property for the construction of Runway 17/35 and the Runway Protection
Zone (RPZ), there will be a requirement to buy out existing leases of some of the properties to be acquired.
MAC Equipment and Materials Storage Building $6,900,000
This project will provide for the construction of a facility which will serve as both an equipment storage faciliy
and a storage facility for sand, salt, and other deicing agents to used on Runway 17/35 and the adjacent
service roads.
Printed 11/26/2001 3:06:19 PM Page 6
Airside Bituminous Construction
$so01000
An ongoing program to construct or reconstruct bituminous pavements within the Air Operations Area.
Inspection of the overlays on Runways 12R/30L, 12U30R, Taxiway C and the tunnel service road will be
made in the spring of 2003 to determine whether or not a bituminous repair project is required.
Pavement Rehabilitation -Aprons
$6,000,000
An ongoing
program to replace sections of
concrete pavement
in the aircraft operational areas that have
deteriorated
to a point where maintenance
is no longer a viable
option.
Green Concourse Extension Program
Concourse C Concessions
$7s0,000
This project will provide for the development of additional concessions in Phase 2 of the Concourse C
project.
Lindbergh Terminal Rehab 8 Development Program
Commercial Roadwa�Bag Belt $1,000,000
There are currently discussions taking place on how to better utilize the east upper level roadway to alleviate
traffic congestion on the upper level roadway adjacent to the terminal. One issue which must be resolved is
the movement of baggage from the east roadway to the terminal bag make-up area. A project to provide the
required bag belt and sortation facility is being considered.
International Arrivals Facility
$500,000
This project provides for the replacement of the carpeting throughout the public areas of the International
Arrivals Facility,
Lindbergh Terminal Bag_Make-up Area Addition
$2,000,000
The bag make-up area in the Lindbergh Terminal is very congested. The addition of gates on Concourse C
will put additional pressure on these facilities. A study will be completed and a project to increase the bag
make-up space may commence in 2003.
Lindbergh Terminal Loading Dock Relocation $1,000,000
The existing loading dock behind the terminal is congested and is becoming a focus of FAA from a security
stand point. This project will relocate and expand the loading dock to a location outside of security.
West Mezzanine Finishes $19000,000
The new concession storefronts in the Lindbergh Terminal waiting area extend 15 feet beyond the line of the
existing West Mezzanine. A floor structure has been constructed over the extension with the concessions
project completed in 1998. This project will expand the West Mezzanine to provide additional area for
expanded office space.
Landside Rehabilitation 8 Repair Program
Building Exterior Rehabilitation
$t,s00,000
This is a continuation of the program to rehabilitate the exterior of the Lindbergh Terminal and other MAC
buildings including roofing and curtain wall systems. Projects will be evaluated in 2002 and will be
presented for approval when the CIP is updated for the 2003 construction season.
Printed 11/28/2001 3:06:19 PM Page 8
South Building Area Development $2,1009000
This project is the second phase in the program to develop a new South Building Area and partial parallel
taxiway. This year's project will provide for the installation of the pavements and taxiway lighting system.
Anoka
Building Area Development - East Annex (Roadway Relocation) $19300,000
This project provides for the relocation of Xylitemoth streets as the first phase in the construction of Lite East
Building Area. Construction of a berm and wetland mitigation are also included.
Building Area Development - West Annex $1,000,000
This project will provide for the construction of the West Building Area including sanitary sewer and water
main, accomodation of storm water drainage and all required wetland mitigation.
Pavement Rehabilitation $350,000
An ongoing program to rehabilitate aircraft operational areas (runways, taxiways, aprons) through
bituminous overlays, sealcoats, or in some instances, reconstruction, to restore the surfaces to a smooth,
even condition and improve overall operating conditions. This year's project will include the reconstruction
of the East Building Area taxiway and access road and crack repair and sealcoating of the East Building
Area taxilanes.
Runway 9/27 Extension/Widening $6,500,000
This project will provide for the widening and extension to 5000 feet of Runway 9/27 including all required
wetland mitigation.
Runway 9/27 MALSRIILS
$2,600,000
This project provides for the installation of the ILS and MALSR systems for the new 5000 foot runway
including all required wetland mitigation.
Runway 9/27 Parallel Taxiway/Extension
$1,000,000
This project
provides
for the extension of the parallel
taxiway to
Runway 9/27 to match the extension of the
runway.
Crystal
Pavement Rehabilitation $375,000
An ongoing program to rehabilitate aircraft operational areas (runways, taxiways, aprons) through
bituminous overlays, sealcoats, or in some instances, reconstruction, to restore the surfaces to a smooth,
even condition and improve overall operating conditions. This year's project includes the reconstruction of
the East Building area taxiway as well as miscellaneous crack sealing.
Runway 6U24R Reconstruction $850,000
This project provides for the reconstruction of Runway 6U24R.
Flying Cloud
Airfield Signaoe and Electrical Upgrades $800,000
This project provides for the final phase in the installation of signage on Runway 18/36 and the installation of
a new beacon and windcone.
Hangar/Building Removal $300,000
The extension of Runway 9R/27L requires a larger runway protection zone. This will require the removal of
twelve hangars on Mustang Lane.
Pavement Rehabilitation $100,000
An ongoing program to rehabilitate aircraft operational areas (runways, taxiways, aprons) through
bituminous overlays, sealcoats, or in some instances, reconstruction, to restore the surfaces to a smooth,
even condition and improve overall operating conditions. This year's project will provide for crack sealing
and seal coating of various airfield pavements to be determined.
Printed 11l28/2001 3:06:20 PM Page 10
Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Extensions
$200,000
This project will provide for miscellaneous sanitary sewer and water main lateral installations.
crvstai
Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Extensions
$200,000
This project provides for miscellaneous sanitary sewer and water main lateral installations.
Flving Cloud
Sanitar�Sewer and Watermain Extensions
$3,400,000
This project will
include phase two
in the installation of sanitary sewer and watermain
at the Flying Cloud
airport.
Miscellaneous Field 8 Runway
Apron/ GSE Lighting_Upgrade
$2,000,000
This project will provide for the upgrading of the pole and building mounted light fixtures that serve the apron
areas adjacent to the Lindbergh Terminal complex.
Miscellaneous Construction
$400,000
An ongoing program to consolidate various incidental items beyond the capabilities of the maintenance
personnel, projects too small to be accomplished independently, or to handle airside problems requiring
repair which come up unexpectedly.
Miscellaneous Landside Program
Central Alarm/ Monitoring/Fiber Optic Cable Installation
$3,000,000
This project will provide a visual paging system and a fire annuciation system in the Lindbergh Terminal.
MAC Cargo Buildings -Air Freight Facility
$4,000,000
In conjunction with the construction of Runwayl7/35, new building areas will be developed. The MAC will
construct two cargo buildings which will be leased out to airport tenants. This project will provide for the
construction of an air freight facility including all required aircraft apron and auto/truck parking areas to
accommodate non -anchor carrier cargo activity as well as for cargo operators who operate to and from MSP
on an infrequent basis..
Mesaba Hangar
$10,400,000
This project provides for the construction of a new maintenace hangar for Mesaba Airlines as part of the
Runway 17l35 development.
Overflow Ramp/Employee Parking Structure
$56,0003000
This project will
provide for the construction
of
the Overflow Ramp at the Humphrey Terminal which will
provide parking
for the Humphrey Terminal
as
well as overflow parking for the Lindbergh Terminal.
Sun Country Hangar
$12,700,000
This project will
provide for the
construction of a new
maintenance hangar and office for Sun Country
Airlines as part
of the Runway
17/35 development.
New Projects Program
Printed 11/28J2001 3:06:20 PM Pace 12
It
It
00
UJ
CL
LLIIf
MJ
If
M
o
�J
W
I
us
/
F
9
I
❑ c o t c o
v❑
J
—
c-1I
c❑cec❑
v 4
❑ a _ ❑ ❑ o
❑c ovllo
I
z
❑ci❑ vo ❑`c cu
M
v❑ cc
0
❑ e c ❑ e �`��
v
dii
,}
ovooe cc a❑eve❑v_ ❑,❑
o� ❑❑O
c y
+ ¢3
o ❑ o ..
I
rl
/�
❑
(
vc❑ �I v��.
cI!fII
+
•
❑
iv
�c�I
ica
❑
l Oa
I
I �I
Lr
v
❑
\
"omo
CCR
low
z
on o
�
coact a
❑cc❑c
icoc DOOME
V
\
-2
,
I
01
O❑c
1�❑0 0
N❑
Il
mM Y1
�❑
ve gggg
❑ il❑
❑ ❑
0
❑ ❑
CC ❑c5
❑ II
v o
❑
������
I❑ I
In ❑ O�0 I
<��
❑ lip
il❑ - ❑ I=v
o�oj❑ I❑ ❑i
p ❑ o
�
❑
OQjO i
60
° on ❑ ❑
❑ ❑
(�
❑ I ❑
o l l ❑ v
❑
❑
o
0 I❑ ❑ ❑
❑ v❑❑
/
i I
E
�r
�
c
0�
_
�^
op
W
1
p
0 W
`\
>
m uj
l
\
to
14
LU
�\
/ \�� j
O
0
a
zCC
MJ
UJ
/
is
y
W
F
Z
O
\
O
O
N
R'\
is
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION "
EAGAN, MINNESOTA
EAGAN CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDAY, DECEMBER 3, 2001
7:00 P.M.
I. ROL%, CALL At�'D ADOPTION vF AGENDA
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
III. VISITORS TO BE HEARD
IV. OLD BUSINESS
A. Noise Attorney
V. STAFF REPORT
A. Part 150 Update
B. MASAC Blue Ribbon Panel
co Joint Airport Zoning Board
D. Commission Appointments
E. MAC Update
VI. FUTURE MEETING AND AGENDA
A. Next ARC Commission Meeting
VII. ADJOURNMENT
Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities will be provided upon advance notice ofat least 96 hours. If a notice
afless than 96 hours is received, the City of Eagan will attempt to provide such aid.
�#iiiii Jill 1111111111111111111111111 11 1s
A weekly update on litigation, regulations, and technological developments
Volume 13, Number 41
Research
SWEDISH STUDY LINKS HYPERTENSION
WITH EXPOSURE TO AIRCRAFT NOISE
Exposure to airraft noise may be a risk factor for hypertension, which implies
that it also may be a risk factor for cardiovascular disease, a study of residents
around Stockholm's Arlanda Airport done by Swedish and British researchers
concluded.
The findings suggest that it might be important to consider exposure to maxi-
mum levels of aircraft noise, and not just energy -averaged levels, when looking at
the health effects of exposure to aircraft noise.
The study found that the prevalence of hypertension was higher among subjects
exposed to time -weighted energy averaged aircraft noise levels of at least 55 d3A
or maximum noise levels above 72 dBA occurring at least three times during the
average 24 hour period in one year.
Mats Rosenlund, Depar-nent of Environmental Health, Stockholm County, led
the research team Other researchers who participated in the study, which was
reported in the British journal Occupational & Environmental Medicine, were
from the Institute of Environmental Medicine at Stockholm's Karolinska Institute
and from the Department of Epidemiology and Public Health at Imperial College
School of Medicine in London.
(Continued on p. i ?3)
European Union
EU REPEALS HTJSHKIT RULE; ADOPTS
ICAO'S BALANCED APPROACH TO NOISE
As expected, the outcome of the recent meeting of the Assembly of the Inrema-
tional Civil Aviation Organization (1CA0) has paved the way for the Eurepea❑
Union to repeal its controversial rule barring the addition of hushkitted airnraf[ at
European airpons, ending a bitter dispute with the United States over the regula-
tion, which was due to take effect next April.
In March 2000, the United States took the rarely used step of lodging a formal
complaint with ICAO over the rule under the Chicago Convention of Aviation.
contending that it discriminated against airplanes manufactured in the Unir_d
States because it was based on engine by-pass ratio instead of noise emission.
ICAO did not role on the matter but a European court recently struck a blow :o
the regulation by finding tic use of engine by-pass ratio to be inappropriate.
On Nov. 29, the EO Commission announced that it had adopted a proposed
directive that would repea'. the hushkit rule and would embrace the new Stage
aircraft noise emission standard recently adopted by ICAO and the "balanced
approach" to co [roiling a ---craft noise endorsed by the ICAO Assembly, which
requires that strn_gent cos -'benefit analysis be done to support new airport noise
restrictions.
(Continued
or. p. 74)
November 30, 2001
In This Issue...
Research ...Anew study of
residents near Stockholm
Arlanda Airport concludes that
aircraft noise may be a risk
factor for hypertension and
cazdiovascular disease because
a higher prevalence of self -
reported physicians' diagnoses
of hypertension was found
among people exposed to
energy -averaged noise levels
of at least 55 dBA and
maximum noise levels above
72 dBA - p. 172
European Union ... The
EU adopts a directive repeal -
its controversial hushkit
non -addition rule and embrac-
ing ICAO's new Stage 4
standard and 'balanced ao-
proach' to controlling aircraft
noise - p. 172
Orlando Irtt'1... FAA
approves the Part 150 noise
compatibility program for
Orlando International and
accepts noise exposure maps
for Reno/Tahoe Int'l - p. 174
E1 Toro ... A California
appeals court clears the way to
place a ballot initiative before
Orange County voters on
whether to replace a planned
commercial airport at El Toro
witIt an urban park - p. 174
November 30.2001
17a
Part 150 Program
FAA APPROVES PROGRAM
FOR ORLANDO, RENO MAPS
On Nov. 27 the Federal Aviation Admiuist.ati on an-
nounced that it has approved the Noise Compatibility
Program for Orlando International Airport and has accepted
noise exposure maps for Renoi'fahoe International Airport.
All four elements of the Orlando Part i5O program were
approved, including:
Incorporating into land development codes of the
City of Orlando and Orange County, FL, the airport's
overlay zone, which recommends avoiding new residential
development in the 65 dB DNL contour and bans new
mobile home development there. It also requires builders to
provide adequate external -to -internal sound reduction in
new homes built in the 60 dB DNL contour and requires
that a waiver of claim be signed by residents of new homes
in the 60 contour and notification that homes are near the
airport be provided to new residents. his expected that
these land development code modifications also will be
adopted by Osceola County for the porion of its jurisdic-
tion that falls within the airport's overlay zone;
Providing sound insulation for existing homes in
the 65 dB DNL contour. Sound insulation will be provided
"only where feasible and cost effective" and in exchange
for an avigation easement to homeowners located within
the DNL 65+dB noise contour of the 2001 noise exposure
map. The sound insulation program will not extend to
mobile homes. It is expected that 30 homes will be sound
insulated and one elementary school;
Providing a voluntary residential property
acquisition program for homes in the 65 dB DNL contour,
including mobile homes. Any offers of acquisition would
be limited to those who acquired the resideroc property to
Oct. 1, 1998. The airport plans to buy the homes that are
sold, to sound insulate them, and to resell them with
avigation easements as a condition ofgurch_se;
Upgrading after five year the airport's current
noise monitoring system through the p^_rchase of Held
monitors or improvements to the system sofrvare and
hardware. The airport's current noise and operations -
monitoring system was installed by Br -el R Kjaer, accord-
ing to Vern Munroe, the airport's manager o: aviation
technical services.
Orlando International Airport does ne; has e a significant
noise problem, Munroe said, noting th;t oniv 210 people
reside in the airport's 65 dB DNL contour.
Most of the land south of the aitnort. to said, was not
residentially developed and the airport maxi -sized its
departures in that direction.
He credits that attention to flight pa�'^.s as t-^e reason the
airport is not facing a more significant noise Problem.
"Twenty years ago, the airport had 250 opetaions a month
and got over 1,000 noise complaints a wont:." he said.
"Now we have over 1.000 operations ;er rrl and
average only 3-4 noise complaints."
Also, the airport sends notices to residents as far out as the
55 dB DNL contour explaining that t:_eir property is in
proximity to that airport is they should expect aviation
activity on or near their property. The_: are also required to
sign a waiver of claim which basically- says they can't sue
for noise damages, according to Munroe. That waiver
conveys to new owners through the p-operty deed.
Reno Noise Maps
The FAA said that irhas determined that noise exposure
maps for 2000 and 2005 for Reno/Tahoe International
Airport were developed in accordance with federal proce-
dures.
For further information on the maps_ contact Elisha Novak,
an airport planner in the FAA's San Francisco District
Office; tel: (650) 876-2928.
Europe, from p. l72
E! Toro
APPEALS COURT RULING
PUTS PARK OPTION TO VOTE
A California Court of Appeals Nov._ 1 cleared the way to
place a ballot initiative before Crange County voters on
whether to replace a planned ce mmercial airport at the site
of the former El Toro Marine Base wig:a large urban park.
The ruling by the Court of Appeal fe- the Fourth Appel -
District in San Diego overtt.:rned e lower court ruling by
Judge James Gray of Newport Beach A hich found that the
title and summary of the ballot initian--re prepared by
Orange County counsel did not ndea=tely describe it and
therefore was false and misleading an- not impartial.
The appeals court rejected that argut-.ent, which had been
made in a lawsuit brought by Br1ce Nestande and Citizens
for Jobs and the Economy, who favor-.,ming El Toro into a
Airport Noise Report
A weekly update on lidgafion, regulations, and technological developments
Volume 137 Number 40
Oakland Int'I
AIRPORT, FAA OPPOSE PL.A`J TO LOCATE
CHURCH SCHOOL IN 65-70 DB DNL CONTOUR
The Port of Oakland and the Federal Aviation Administration recently told the
City of Alameda that they strongly oppose Mans to build a large private school
and church in a section of the city within the 65-70 dB DNL contour of Oakland
International Airport,
Chinese Christian Schools plans to build a 17-acre, S13.6 million campus,
serving 1,100 students from kindergarten t-rough high school, approximately
two miles from the airport's four runways.
In October, the Alameda County Land Use Commission voted 4-1 against the
project with Alameda Mayor Ralph Appezzaro, a member of the board, dissent-
ing. The Alameda City Council will consider the matter at some point in the
future.
The City Council's vote on the project wil'rest how serious it is about keeping
development around the airport compatible. In September, a three judge panel of
the California Court of Appeal ruled in favor of a lawsuit brought by the City of
Alameda and two community anti -noise groups challenging the planned $I.38
billion expansion plan for the airport on the _rounds that the state Environmental
{Continued on p. 169)
Noise Policy
AIRCRAFT NOISE REGULATION FALLS
SHORT OF WHAT IS NEEDED, CUTLER SAYS
The regulation of aircraft noise in the United States "has fallen far short of what
we need to achieve in order to increase airr an capacity," Eliot Cutler of the
Washington, D.C., law firm Akin Gump, tots participants at the 2001 Conference
on Noise Control Engineering held in Per and. Maine, Oct. 29-30.
"The federal government has ignored thc'.essons of other environmental
regulatory regimes that have worked reasc-.-bly well and instead has permitted an
industry to largely regulate itself— the oni,.-:naior pol luting industry in the
United States that still is allowed to do so, ,:utter said in prepared remarks.
The history of U-S. aircraft noise regulatk-. "runs against the grain of almost all
other environmental regulation enacted dccog the past 30 ,years," the attorney
said. The Noise Control Act of 1969 lodge-' regulatory authority in the Federal
Aviation Administration, rather than in the Environmental Protection Agency's
predecessor, he noted, adding that the onl} o;hcr major class of pollutants over
which the EPA has limited jurisdiction is r:ioactive emissions from nuclear
power plants.
The principle characteristics of U.S. airer_-.': roue policy, he said, are that (1) it is
regulated by the FAA, an agency oriented a the needs of the airlines; (2) it is
focused on only two of three critical dimec�tans (capacity and efficiency objec-
(Continued on p. 169)
November 237 2001
In This Issue...
Oakland ... T•ne Port of
Oakland and the FAA strongly
oppose siting a large private
church school complex in the
65-70 dB DNL contour of
Oakland Internarional - p. 168
Noise Policy . Attorney
Eliot Cutler contends that
aircraft noise policy in the
Un led States has 'fallen far
short' of what is needed and
proposes a new noise policy
basis at NOISE -CON - p. 168
Llinneapolis VIVO At the
request of m o commissioners,
the airports commission has
asked its planning and envi-
ronment conuninee to recon-
sider a decision to provide the
full sound insulation package
to homes in the 60 dB DN-L
noise contour - p_ 170
London Heathrow... The
British goverment announces
that it will cap the number of
flights at Heathrow airport at
4807000 and cor-sider stricter
controls on night flights as a
condition of app-oval of a new
fiftIt terminal - p. 170
Lambert -St. Loads Int'I...
The City of Brice=_eton and the
FAA settle e la« suit over
acquisition of la_d for expan-
sion of the airpo-z - p. 171
November 23, 2001
ogy-forme charter.
"Individaal airport proprietors should be given the
responsi'rility_ m consultation with the FAA and the EPA,
to set performance standards for each airport facility that
would establish the parameters of noise exposure that will
be permi::ed in the areas directly impacted by airport
operations " Ostler said -
Accepted perormance standards, he said, could preempt
any other local or state -based regulation of airport opera-
tions or expansion.
FAA, he said, should be required to participate more
directly ith airport proprietors in setting applicable
performance standards and to manage flight operations,
within acceptable safety parameters, in order to optimize
capacity and eniciency objectives and noise exposure
performance objectives.
"Airpe- proprietors, the FAA, and airport users would be
able to meet performance standards by implementing
various regulatory tools (curfews, flight track adjustments,
preferemial runway systems) in whatever combinations
would work in the settings of each individual airport but
airport proprieeors would not be able to restrict use of the
facility to particular classes of aircraft in the absence of a
showing :hat no other regulatory option would work."
1Ytinneapolis-St Paullni'1
MAC RECONSIDERING PLAN
TO ItiSULATE TO 60 CONTOUR
A proposal to reconsider a plan to extend the residential
sound insulation program at Minneapolis -St. Paul Interna-
tional Ai -.?on out to the 60 dB DNL noise contour, in light
of budge: pressures brought about by the downturn in
airline activity. has been referred to the planning and
environ-tent committee of the Metropolitan Airports
Commission (MAC), which operates the airport.
At a Nov. 19 commission meeting, two of the 15 airport
commiss'on members asked the full commission to recon-
sider its-=ecisien, made last August in an 8 to 7 vote, to
allocate �150 million to sound insulate 3,300 more homes
near the _npo within the 60-64 dB DNL noise contour
with the same package that was provided to about 6,300
homes i- the 65 dB DNL contour. That package included
air cond ionica, new windows and doors, attic insulation,
venilat_ n, and roof -vent baffles.
bIAC Commissioners William Erhart and Ben blcKasy
wanted `-.e commission to jettison that plan and substitute
it with :-gins w ithout going through the normal committee
approval process. However, the commission referred the
commis: `oners' proposal to the planning and ene ironment
committee as s-ate Rep. Wes Skoglund (DFL- Minneapolis)
urged t`.e MAC not to renege on the promise it made five
years ag � to provide the full insulation package.
Comrnisione.s Erhart and blcKasy want house -by -house
tesring cone it, the 60-64 dB DNL contour to determine
how mc:h ins_tation is needed rather than to install the full
17D
package. In that way, they hope to stretch funding and
a. oid political pressure to expand the budget beyond S 150
million, which might not be sufficient to insulate all homes
ci[hin the contour.
.- iia eihe plan approved earlier by the MAC, it would
tribute $80 million and the airlines serving the airport,
mainly Northwest Airlines, which hubs there, would
c: ntribute S70 million.
'.ISP is the only airport in the country to fund residential
nd insulation beyond the 65 dB DNL contour which the
Federal Aviation Administration considers the threshold of
residential compatibility.
L nndan Heathrow Intl
r`
The British government announced Nov. 20 that it will
crap the number of flights at London's Heathrow Interna-
r.onal Airport at 480,000 per year and will consider stricter
c: ntrols on night flights as a condition of approval of a fifth
terminal at the airport.
ne cap represents only a 4.3 percent increase from the
r_rtent 460,500 flights handled last year and was imposed
to addr`ss concerns about noise impact from communities
near the airport.
ne new terminal "will enable Heathrow to remain a
worId-class airport," said British Transport Secretary
Stephen Byers. "it will bring benefits to the British
e_onomy both locally and nationally. Byers said the
zvernment tried to strike a balance between environmental
and economic concerns.
he promise to consider further restricting night flights by
-'03 at the latest follows a ruling last month by the
P-ropean Court of Human Rights which found that the
e_7ent number of night flights violated the human rights of
residents living near the airport.
Runway Capacity
-he decision to approve the new terminal is expected io
srark a debate over where to add new ru mvay capacih: in
c_e southeast of England. The British Government plans to
r'case a policy paper next year outlining its preferred
se'.ution for providing more runway capacity for the next _ 0
:ears. The government must decide whether it wants to add
a Sird runway at Heathrow, which the airlines favor, or add
,_-way capacity elsewhere. Strong protests from communi-
,_es are expected no matter what course of action the
-.-ern ocat chooses.
-. spokesman for the Heathrow Association for Control of
>; -ise said they were disappointed with the government's
c. _ision but called the operations cap "a significant
: orv' for communities and predicted it would preclude
r-e addition of a new runway there.
ne pianning process for the new terminal at Heathrow is
longest is British history. Preliminary planning began in
Airport Noise 2z_ on
A +reekly update on
Volume 13, Number 39
regulations, and technolegical developments
Oakland Int'I
AGREEMENT PARTIALLY RESOLVES ISSUES
RAISED IN LAWSUIT OVER EXPANSION PLAN
.The Port of Oakland announced Nov. 14 that it has reached an agreement with
the City of Oakland and two community groups —the Citizens League for
Airport Safety and Serenity (CLASS), and Berkeley Keep lets over the Bay
Committee— that partially resolves controversial issues surrounding the expan-
sion of Oakland International Airport.
"This agreement allows the Port to proceed with very important projects at
Oakland Airport which will increase security for passengers and allow the Port to
comply with new Federal Aviation Administration security requirements," said
Port of Oakland Executive Director Tay Yoshitani. "Pending litigation still places
a significant cloud over many other components of our airport development
program and this does not resolve our differences. However, the agreement calls
for commencement of another round of discussions"
The litigation Yoshitani ref rred to was filed by the City of Alameda and the
two community groups challenging the S 1.33 billion expansion plan for the
airport. In September, a three judge panel of the California Court of Appeal
handed down a unanimous ruling sharply critical of the EIR done for the project
(Continued at p. 165)
Piedmont Int'I
FAA ISSUES FINAL EIS ON NEW RUNWAY
NEEDED FOR FEDEX HUB AT GREENSBORO
On Nov. 9, the Federal Aviation Administration issued its tong -delayed Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) on a third runway at Piedmont Interna-
tional Airport in Greensboro. NC, needed to accommodate development of a
S479 million regional carve sorting hub for FedEx.
The Triad Airport Authority has proposed construction of a 9,000-ft. runwav,
connecting taxiways, and associated navigational aids and roadwork to support a
new air cargo sorting and disribution facility at the airport.
The FEIS will be available for public comment for 30 days, until Dec. 16, and
the FAA expects to issue a Record of Decision giving final approval to the project
no sooner than 30 days after the review period closes. However, it is expected that
local groups opposed to the hub will file a lawsuit challenging the FEIS immedi-
ately after its approval -
The new runway would be placed parallel to the airport's main runway and
would allow FedEx to constrict a 5300 million sorting and distribution hub
between the runways at the ncnh end of the airport. Additional airport improve-
ments would cost S 170 million.
Between 2005, when the hub is expected to open, and 2009, FedEx plans to
(Continued at p. 166)
November 16, 2001
In This Issue...
Oakland ... The Port of
Oakland reaches an agreement
with the City of Alameda and
two community groups, who
won a recent lawsuit challeng-
stg the EIR on an expansion
project, that partially resolves
contentious issues - p. 164
Piedmont ... FAA issues its
loner delayed Final EIS on a
new runway at Piedmont
needed to accommodate a
FedEx cargo hub. Even with
additional noise analysis, the
EIS concludes there will not
oe much significant nighttime
noise impact - p. 164
San Francisco ... By a
tree -to -one margin, San
ancisco voters approve a
ballot measure giving them
pproval of the airport's plans
o add new runways into San
rancisco Bay - p. 166
The San Francisco Inter-
ational Airport/Community
o meltable says it must cut its
budget by 17 percent due to
c mimshed airport operating
revenues - p. 165
H ishkitted Aircraft'., 727s
`e being quickly phased out
of commercial operation in
=Rht of the downturn in air
el following Sept. 11. Most
ll end up as scrap - p. 167
November 16, 2001
A lone -standing work program item to use single event
noise metrics in evaluating the impacts of aircraft noise «il I
be folded into the Roundtable's new Fly Quiet Programx
which rates every airline at SFO for the quality of its Fleet.
the noise levels recorded on community noise monitors,
and adherence to the airport noise abatement procedures.
Single even measurements will receive greater emphasis by
establishing tougher criteria within the Fly Quiet Program.
The Roundtable decided to end testing of sound insula-
tion methods for homes subjected to backblast noise. A
report issued by the Wyle Acoustic Group in September
concluded that there are few methods of alleviating the
annoyance of backblast noise other than moving the noise
source farther away. The Roundtable said the report
coupled with the budget reduction "ended hopes that a
backblast test house might turn up new sound -attenuating
technology."
Tt•iad, from p. I64
operate 24 arrivals and departures during late night and
early morning hours. After that, it expects 63 landings and
departures nightly.
The cargo hub has been the topic of hot local debate since
it was proposed, with proponents contending it would ace as
a catalyst to attract other businesses to the area and oppo-
nents asserting that noise and air pollution would degrade
the re_gion's quality of life.
However, a turndown in the local economy, which is
based on the tobacco, textile, and furniture manufacturing
industries, has given new currency to the economic
arguments being made by proponents of the hub. That was
bome out in a recent Greensboro City Council election in
which every candidate who opposed the hub was soundl%p
defeated.
Additional Noise Analysis
The FAA did additional analysis of noise impacts in the
FEIS following the Environmental Protection Agency's
strong criticism of the draft document, which used only :::e
DNL noise metric and the 65 dB DNL contourto determine
signitcant impact.
The FEIS included two additional noise analyses. It
considered noise impact out to the 60 dB DNL noise
contour but only considered it significant if a 3 dB DNL or
greater increased occurred, following recent guidelines set
by the Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise
(FICAN). Increases in the 65 dB DNL contour are consid-
ered significant if they grow by 15 dB DNL or more.
Tire FEIS also includes SEL 100 contours for Boeing -27
and 737-300 airplanes and tied those contours to pote-:ial
sleep disruption based on an updated curves developed Sy
FICAN that incorporate recent sleep studies done in Dervcr
and London. Those studies, done with subjects sleeping in
their own homes, showed less sleep disruption from
nighttime aircraft noise than earlier research that had all
beer, done with subjects in laboratory settings.
166
Despite the additional noise analysis, the condo ions in
the FEIS remain essentially unchanged from the draft
document. It is expected that 262 homes would be sub' act
to significant noise impact. Most of the noise impact will
hit residents living on the airport's southwest side in
northern High Point, which is not densely develo; ed and
over which 95 percent of the FedEx arrivals and depart=cs
are expected to go. However, the residents that se=j mast
upset by the new runway would be located at its osier end
and would only get about 5 percent of the cargo o^erations
that would be forced to operate in that direction d'.e to
wind conditions. That would amount to cargo operetio_s
over their community about 13 nights per year, ac_ord[ng
to the FEIS.
Airport officials said they will do all they can to minimize
noise impact and will involve the community in develop-
ing a noise compatibility plan for the airport.
San Francisco Inf'1
BALLOT MEASURES GIVES
VOTERS RUNWAY APPROVAL
In what could prove to be a fatal blow to San FG]Cl«O
Iniemational Airport's plans to add new runways :nto San
Francisco Bay, environmentally -conscious San F. mcisro
voters approved by a margin of three -to -one a bal iot
measure Nov. 6 giving them approval over the preject-
The ballot measure amends the city's charter to requi_e
chat any city -sponsored project to fill in more than: 100
acres of the bay must be approved by San Francisco veners.
The airport project would require as many as 900 _ores of
the bay to be tilled for runway construction, the Irges. bay
fill since the 1930s.
The measure was endorsed by the Sierra Club, :Lc Geiden
g
Gate Audubon Society, and commercial fishin_-cups who
are concerned that juicing new runways far into 1. ba}-
could alter currents and harm wildlife.
This is a strong mandate for protecting San F. _- isco
Bay;' David Lewis, executive director of Save t`e Ba. _ an
e vironmental group based in Oakland, told the fan lose
Aleter ry News"People have a deep love for the'-::y. ? ight
now they don't trust the airport commission and ; icr =iry
officials to protect it. Voters want a voice. They _r_ sending
a message: Don't mess with our bay."
Before passage of the ballot measure, the fill-e--:_mbfr San
Francisco Airport Commission had final approc_: of c-.e
'o
project. Those commissioners were appointed•. San
Francisco Mayor Willie Brown, who is a strong --=-_po-�r of
thz new runways.
Brown and airport officials initially opposed t: = bal_�t
measure but endorsed it in the face of strong pu sue Dort.
Airport officials contend that the public will
approve the new runway project because the air_ c.-t has
offered to restore thousands of acres of salt pond :, x.aeaand
as a trade for the land it would have to take for ' f runr.. ays.
Air: --Neis_ Report
Airport
,, Noise
n . "J)Jrr,...,.dar> nin titivation. regulations, and technological developments
Naples
FAA SAYS BAN MEETS 161 RULES BUT
BEGINS GRANT VIOLATION INVESTIGATION
On Oct. 31, the Federal Aviation Administration finally acknowledged that the
ban on Stage 2 business jet operations approved by the City of Naples Airport
Authority at the end of last year complies with the agency's Part 161 regulations
on notice and approval of airport noise and access restrictions.
However, on the same day, the FAA also informed the airport authority that it
has begun a formal Part 16 investigation to determine whether the restriction
violates federal grant agreements, which could result in the loss of all federal
grant funds and pat tremendous pressure on the airport to rescind the ban, which
was recently upheld by a federal district court and is the first new noise res�c ctton
imposed by an airport since passage of the Airport Noise and Capacity .Act of
1990.
The Naples Airport Authority will meet on Nov. 15 to discuss how it should
respond to t',e FAA's action. If the airport authority refuses to rescind [he restric-
tion and the FAA determines it violates grant assurances and cuts grant funding,
the airport authority can appeal that agency decision to a federal appeals court for
review.
(Continued
or. p_ 16/)
Islip
TOWN DETMANDS FAA CLEARLY STATE
POSITION ON LEGALITY OF ORDINANCE
Although not stated directly, `put up or shut up' is the essence of the To}�� of
I slip response to a demand by the Fedemi Aviation Administration :hat i_e town
rescind an ordinaece imposing a S50,000 surcharge on late -night fli_g a at'_ono
Island Mto:A,thu= .Airport, which went into effect on Sept. 30.
Islip Town Attorney Vincent J. Messina, Jr., is the second official of a Nz-:: York
airport autcority to bristle at letters from FAA implying that local note or access
restrictions imay Violate federal law while omitting any clear, firm sta:eme -s that
they, in fact, do violate the law.
Such tac:cs have proven very effective for the FAA in getting airports to back
down frog *akin_ actions opposed by the agency because of the thre:a of icss of
federal fur.-;ng or, in the case of Westchester County Airport, the acr_al w-i r-
holding of an approval of an increase in a Passenger Facility Charge itho_: a
clear finding that the county had violated any federal law.
Westches er County Attorney Charlene M. Indelicato contends tha: he f_deral
statutes FAA has cited in letters to the county do not authorize the a.-ency
withhold federal funding before following regulatory procedures for -faking a
determination that either grant assurances or PFC rules have been vic%ated . 132
ANR, ls4).
In This Issue...
rm
Naples ... Apparently
deteined to force the Naples
Airport Authority to rescind its
first -ever ban on Stage 2
business jets, the FAA
reluctantly acknowledges that
the ban meets it's Part 161
rules but begins a formal Part
16 investigation to see whether
the ban violates federal grant
agreements. The FAA asserts
a novel legal theory limiting
airports' authority to impose
noise restrictions - p. 160
Islip ... The town's attorney
demands that the FAA make a
"clear, unequivocal determina-
tion" that a surcharge on night
flights violates federal law and
not just imply it does - p. 160
Minneapolis ... In a land-
slide victory, R.T. Rybak is
elected mayor of Minneapolis
and is believed to be the first
mayor of a large U.S. city to
emerge from the ranks of anti -
noise activism - p. 162
News Briefs ... Chicago
Mayor Richard Daley is
reported to be learning toward
giving up construction of a
south runway at O'Hare in
order to get Ill. Gov, George
Ryan's approval of his runwa.
reconfiguration project - p. 16_
(Contin:ad or. P. 163) _�
November 9, 2001
tial liability exposure for existing levels of noise generatcd
by aircraft using the airport. While a great deal of informa-
tion has been provided, it is not clear there is anoter
proprietary interest that would bring the Stage 2 ban within
the scope of the `proprietor exception" he %wrote.
Regarding Naples' use of the 60 dB DNL noise contour,
Bennett said the FAA's concerns are that the local land use
ordinances on which the airport relies to select contours "do
not appear to provide a reasonable basis fora restriction on
aircraft operations," and that residential development has
been, and continues to be, allowed by the City of Naples
and Collier County within the 60 dB DNL contour.
Bennett said the FAA also has concerns reeardina the
"reasonableness" of the Stage 2 ban "based on the NAA's
discussion and analysis of benefits and cost in the Part 161
study." These concerns include "(1) whether the NA.A's
conclusion that the ban has considerably less cost and
substantially greater reduction in impacted population, is
reasonable, in light of the costfbenefit analysis provided;
and (2) whether the NAA unreasonably eliminated sound
insulation as a viable alternative given the Collier County
ordinance allowing construction of sound-insulared
residential property within the DNL 60 dB contour"
The FAA also has concerns, Bennett wrote, regarding the
complaint data the airport used to support the Stage 2 ban
and "concerns that the N.AA failed to take into account, as
an element justifying the restriction for the purpose of
compliance with the grant assurances, the effects of
restricting non -jet Stage 2 aircraft" that are not certificated
as Stage 2 or 3 under federal Part 36 aircraft noise regula-
tions.
With regard to discrimination, Bennett said it appears that
the Naples' ban would allow noisier non -Singe designated
aircraft, such as the DC-3, to operate at Naples Airport while
restricting some less noisy Stage 2 aircraft, such as the
Sabreliner 75A, which is quieter on takeoff.
Islip, front p. I60
On Oct. 3, in a sternly worded letter filled c.ith citations
to federal taw, FAA Dzputy Associate Admi;tistrator for
Airports Paul L. Galls gave Islip Town Supe,. isor Peter
McGowan 10 days to respond to an agency request to
rescind the S50,000 night surcharge Islip has imposed on
the grounds that it "appears" to violate federal grant
agreements- and the requirements of FAA's 13rt 161 rules on
notice and approval of airport noise and access res:rictions.
But Islip Town Attorney Messina called FA.A's duff in an
Oct. 12 response to that letter. ". I must first state that,
while 1 am grateful for your courtesy in prop iding citation
to certain regulations and federal statutes, I am puzzled as
to their inclusion, since neither your lever o.-the letter of
Eastern Region counsel states anywhere therein that either
of you have examined the subject ordinance Lind. most
important, find same to be in violation of the provisions of
any federal, statute, rule, or regulation. or t1m.t the -own of
162
Islip has exceeded itsjurisdiction in adopcng the same."
"Accordingly." Messina wrote. --I respecsully request that
the appropriate agency official or crimloyee provide a
clear, unequivocal determination ofthe F.-\A's position on
this specific ordinance at your earliest possible
conve-
nience, since same would clearly weigh heavily in any
course of action upon which the Town ma,' embark."
Messina also corrected FAA's contcntioc
that the night
surcharge was added as an amendment to a
grandfathered
noise ordinance that applied lesser fines to
nighttime
aircraft operations that exceeded a certain
noise emission
level. "Rather, the town Board has enacted
an additional
ordinance which imposes a surcharge on Feghts
which
operate between certain hours," the aaorne.:
explained.
Minneapolis
NEW MAYOR ELECTED
FROM ANTI -NOISE RANKS
In a landslide victory, anti-noisz activist R.T. Rybak was
elected mayor of Minneapolis Nov-6 and is believed to be
the first mayor of a large U.S. city to emerge from the ranks
of community activism against airport noise.
An Internet consultant who has never held elective office,
Rybak beat two -term incumbent 1lsyor Sharon Sayles
Belton, the city's first female and first blackmayor, by a 30
point margin. the largest margin of victory by a challenger
over an incumbent mayor in a general election in the
history of Minneapolis.
Rybak served as the spokesman for Residents Opposed to
Airport Racket (ROAR), an organization foamed about three
years ago whose motto is "It's Loud. We Vote."
But instead of the in -your -face hostile stance adopted by
many anti -noise activists, Rybak, who appears to be a
natural politician with a buoyant and charismatic personal -
encouraged ROAR members to condor.: their protests in
a playful, non -confrontational manner. Several years ago,
ROAR held a "pajama party" to protest noise from night
flights at Minneapolis -St. Paul fmcraational Airport at
which several hundred members gathered a: the airport
dressed in elaborately stylized pajamas to -lake airport
ofticials and passengers aware of The night-ime noise
impact. More recently ROAR held a "swim suit party" to
express concernat a public hearing about:=e impact a
tunnel being constructed under the new r=%vay at the
airport would have on the water level of a eearby lake.
We really clowned it up with rubber ducts and funny
signs," said Dean Lindberg, a long -tine an:: -noise activist
and member of ROAR. The swim party in _ 999 caught the
eye of younger Democrats, he said, and the image of
communin ity activism turned "from beg w=aners to the cool
thing to do." "The important thine that R.-- recognized was
to make a point but to make it fun. ,A lot of noise groups
miss that point."
It is a strategy that has benefits, :he anti rise activist
explained. The pajama party and svim par-: demonstra-
Airport Noise Report