2001-01-10 ARC Agenda PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION AGENDA
January 10, 2001 --Large Conference Room
Call to Order - 7:00 p.m.
Roll Call
Welcome to City Administrator Cari Lindberg
Approval of December 13, 2000 Minutes Zo`%
Unfinished and New Business:
Airport Noise Video Workshop Follow -Up
Third Parallel Runway Contract
Acknowled¢e Receipt of Various Reports/Correspondence:
a. Letter from MASAC 'Blue Ribbon Panel" dated December I L 2000
b. December 2000 Planning and Environment Committee Minutes
c. MAC CIP Environmental Review Process
d. MAC Planning and Environment Committee January 2001 Agenda
e. Aviation Policy Plan Task Force Meeting Schedule
f. Meeting Alert: 2001 Legislative Issues
g. Airport Noise Reports
Other Comments or Concerns
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
MEMO
January 8, 2001
TO: Airport Relations Commission
FROM: Patrick C. Hollister, Administrative Assistant
SUBJECT: Welcome to City Administrator Cari Lindberg!
Discussion
It is my pleasure to introduce to you the new City Administrator for the City of Mendota
Heights, Can Lindberg. Cari officially began her duties on January 2, 2001, and attended
her first Council meeting on January 4. Can comes to us from her previous position as
City Administrator/Clerk for the City of Saint Joseph, Minnesota. (Please see attached
resume.)
Can is in the process of getting to know all of us here at the City, and will be visiting
each of the Advisory Commissions this month. She is looking forward to meeting with
all of you on January 10.
Action Required
Welcome Cari to the City of Mendota Heights!
Carine Elizabeth Schmidt
Po aoz I7s
St. Joseph, Ml'i 56375
612.242.9a93
�-�: CariS9ocVaoi.com
EDUCATION
1994 to 1996 Hnrnline University School oCLaw - St Paul, rLlinnesora - Jars Doctorate - Dece-= oer 1996
'St:deatBaz 4ssociadon-Cotnmuaications oatccand_Seae.ary 1--". - L96
'Delta "I -Hera Phi Law Fretcrniry
1996 to 1999 Eatnline Ut:iversity Graduate School - Master of Ar5 in Public Adminisu don -
'Mastcr's T"nesis: "i tew Urbanism: Creat>nQ the Livable Comtncniry"
'Public policy analysis prepazed for the Minnesoh Sherri s Association and
submitted for publication:"Analysss/ImplicatioasofRcducin�taeA�cof:.dolt
Criminal ResponsioIIiry to Agc 16 or 17 in Minnesota-"
1989 to 1994 University of Colorado -Boulder, Caiorada - BA in Political Scicncc
PUBLIC SECTORE:�ERIEtiCE
Au�ttst 1999 to City of St Joseph - St Jose°h. Mfru:eT°ta -Ciry Adminstrator/Clerk -
Preseat LJndr. the dirr_tion of the Mayor and Ciry Cotmctl, position ove_sc_•s the day to �y
ooe2tions of the Ciry and imDlcments overall progt�*^< and policies of Ciry Council-
Postion sme.-vises all City departments (police, public works„finance, community
development and fire) with a staSof 16 full time employees. Position oversees a 51-5 r,illion
budser and is res�onsiole for the Ciry's Capital Improvements Plan.
i�farch 1998 to City of Mounds i-iew -Mounds View, Mfnnesota - Asststant to the Ciry A�„•;•,:� <tor -
Auaust 1999 Untie: the direction of City Admimu�tor, prondes asstsEanc_ to tmplemeating overall
_ proems and policies of City Cotmcil. Acts as human resotac-s director, developins
licies, ob descriptions, contract an,,,,n,�� non znd
aid izzmlemeating personnel po 1
pa. �cipating in labor negotiations wttn union and non -union employees. Coors=_tes and
tic,=nist�:s municipal elections, licensing, telecommunications, Ciry Boards_�d
Com.�issions, employr_ compensation plan and crag testing prog;zr^:. Coorcrates
budget for Aaminis5adon departmenS zs weII zs other speciaLed zssiattmeats as directed by
tae Ciry Administrator and the City Council.
P u�ust 1997 to Cin of Golden Valley -Golden Yalley, Minnesota -Sur,-ace W titer Manage went Acvisory
Decer,.ber 1995 Co-�tairee Coordinator -Under [ne duecdon of state salute, organize and coorcrtate a
ci:=ens ad�lsory commirtee to address policies and objec3ves relating to sv-.-zc� �: zte- i�sces
water utility, maintenance of nucient and seei^e�t -:_.
i.n Golden Valley, including: 4
e =;ciency of stormwater pones, imnrovtn=Pollutant efiecdveaess, erosion ze s�`-=��rt
concol, w•etlanes, Rood contol, public education, statutory compliance, and f�_= .al
canabilides of ine community
December 1997 City of St Louis Park- Se Louis Park, h-linnes°[a -Comma^=ry Development Lte-^ -
to April 199S � linde: the direcdoa of the Community Devdopmeat Director, provided z<sist_..ce ��r�.
ve Ph Home Remodeling Fa_, ��fi^� esota
' Compreheas: �-n, -
fiousine Rehabilitation progratn,
>: prope-y t: z classiticarion study, �amt "'Tt�= for public horsing assis-a, ce p-o_�rz-=,
renal sntdy, znc vz:-ious reports for submussion to the City Coca:il.
0
CC:�^ic2 (2)
March 1997 to City of St Louis Park - St. Louis Park, Minnesota -Intern to the City bfznzge: -
December 1997 under St. Louis Park City Manager (pot). 45,000), perform a variety of assigtvmens
including: legal research and analysis of issues impacting City-wide operations;
development and drafring of RFQ's for City EDA, Housing Aurhoriry and Envirocmental
counsel; pariciparion in budget preparation; labor negodations; preparation of agenda repots
and presentations to Council; assistance and development of emplovec compensation plan;
assistance in contract writing between the City and non-profit organizations; participation in
City wide strategic planning process; preparation of annual report and assis-4.nce in a variety
of armini«five tasks relating to general City wide opetzrioas.
January 1996 Hennepin County Attorney's Office - Minneapolis, Minnesota - Law Clerk - Position
to March 1997 included extensive legal res=ch and writing in special lirigadon and criminal appeals
divisions, including writing apneBate briefs, internal memoranda, sentencing briefs and
replies to habeas corpus petitions for felony of-enscs in Hennepin County.
Mery 1995 Office of Administrative Hearinas - Minneapolis, Minnesota - Judicial Law Clerk to January 1996 Law clerk for two administrative law judges in the Workers' Compensation Division.
Position included extensive writing of memoranda, stipulations, findings and orders for the
court, review of medical records, and research of personal injury and related legal issues.
OTHER WORK E�ERIEtiCE
December 1993 University of Colorado Housing Department -Boulder, Colorado - Adminisuadve
to Jane 1994 Assistant I - Responsible for administrative duties involved in residence halls
(tiroccssing of housing department memoran(la, discipline cases, weekly events,
student faculty relations, student advising and assistance). Responsible for giving toes and
information about the University of Colorado,
December1992 University of Colorado Housing Department - Boulder, Colorado - Resident Advisor -
to June 1993 Supervised residence hall involving the academic and emotional support, discipline and
sec rity of 400 students. Position required counseling students on issues including
substance abuse, interpersonal conflicts, medical emergencies, -and academic pe fornrance.
Responsible for maintaining a positive, non-disc,-itninatory Irving envtronmcnt, as well as
producing and conducting monthly educational, cultural and rnt-"rtatnment prograt s.
OTHER EXPERIENCE / TRAIlV-ING
Fall 1997 Mediafion in the Public Sector/Public Dispute Resoturian
Fall 1997 Tocsmtasters Club
Spring 1997 inventing OurcomeMeasurement
Summer 1998 A Workplace Accident and Injury Reduction (AWAIR) Program
Fall 1998 ICMA Comparative Performance Measurement Training
Fall 1998 Grant Proposals and Funding Sources
Spring 1999 Ciry Attorney Update
Spring 1999 FEMA Integrated Emergency Management Training- Emmttsburg, Marylcrd
Sprirfg 2000 Ciry Arorney Update
PROFESSIONAL vLF17BERSHIPS / AFFLLL4TIONS
1993 Association of Metropolitan Municipalities (AIvLTvi] -Housing and Economic Dwclopr..ent Cossr:tee
1995 nneso Associ Mat on of urban Management Assistants (MAUlvf °-)/ Boa d Member At Large (1999)
199S Int�.marional Personnel Manaocfs Association (IPMA) -Member
1999 Minnesota Cle 'sand Finance Officer's Association - Member
References availaoie upon request
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AIRPORT RELATIONS CONLVLiSSION NHNUTES
DECEMBER 13, 2000
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission was held on
Wednesday, December 13, 2000, 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: Chair Scott Beaty and Commissioners
Gregg Fitzer, Joe Leuman, and John Roszak. Commissioner Ellsworth Stein arrived late.
Administrative Assistant Patrick C. Hollister took the minutes. Also in attendance were
three residents of the Rogers Lake East neighborhood, Mr. Jerry Nelson, Mr. Mike Cosel,
and Mr. Clark Wicklund.
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Beaty called the meeting to order.
Chair Beaty announced that three members of a neighborhood group in the East Rogers
Lake neighborhood were present at the meeting. Chair Beaty said that the neighborhood J
group is concerned that the air noise situation is getting worse in the Rogers Lake
neighborhood and that the entire neighborhood should be eligible for sound insulation. A\p
Chair Beaty said that he sympathized with their situation, but -Hitt -the -neighborhood is ✓ c;, - " '
tvlendota-H�s3--`: * a*^" stt-noisewas-the-Furlonameighburh-oodw eie
Commissioner Roszak moved approval of the November 8, 2000 minutes.
Commissioner Fitzer seconded the motion.
AYES: 4
NAYS: 0
AIRPORT NOISE VIDEO NYORKSHOP FOLLOtiV-Lip
Chair Beaty said that since there were guests at tonight's meeting, their issues would be
discussed first, although he wished to provide them with a brief explanation of the
Airport Noise Video project. Chair Beaty said that the goal of the video was to provide
some history and some facts about the air noise situation. Chair Beaty said that the goal
of the video was to educate our constituents and neighboring communities about air noise
contours were determined by the sound monitors 913 and # 15, and that the Rogers Lake
neighborhood wanted a sound meter in their immediate area. Mr. Cosel said that the air
noise situation has definitely gotten worse because someone like Mr. Samuelson would
not have moved to Rogers Lake if it was a high noise area in 1975.
Chair Beatty said that the Airports Relations Commission was concerned about the
number of flights over Mendota Heights.
Mr. Cosel said that his neighborhood's first priority was to get the airplanes to fly
somewhere else, and that the second priority was to get insulation for all the homes in the
neighborhood. Mr. Cosel said that the flight track maps for the new runway show the
planes diverging after 2.5 miles off of the runway. Mr. Cosel said that the planes should
fly straight at least five or six miles before diverging. Mr. Cosel added that the planes }
should take off of the two parallel runways at 15 degrees.
�i
Chair Beaty said that the y(ain problem is capacity at the airport. Chair Beaty said that L �J yr .
the planes could not tak-e-offdegrees from the south parallel because of the tower \P q "�
order. Chair Beaty said that the City is asking the airport to at least keep the planes south v y
of the water tower.
Ntr. Wicklund said that economics must take priority over community concerns.
NIr. Cosel said that the ANOMS system does not provide accurate information and that
airport officials should visit his house to hear the noise.
v`
Chair Beaty said that the 65 DNL is a weighted average and that it does not mean that the ��r; �
noise is never higher than 65 decibels. Chair Beaty said that the City has achieved some �r�
minor improvements in the air noise situation, such as the eki�ration of v man
operations during nighttime hours. Chair Beaty asked Mr. Cosel what the Airports
Relations Commissions o- Q eA & u
Mr. Cosell said that he would like to have an ANOMS meter in the Rogers Lake
neighborhood on Bluebill Drive.
,J
Chair Beaty said that it s_
sh�altld be possible to obtain one through MASAC. Chair Beaty
said that the City could make a formal request to MASAC for an ANOMS meter for the
Rogers Lake neighborhood. — ow
Mr. Cosel said that his neighborhood group had also spoken with Planning Commission
Chair Ult•tn Duggan about the possibility of having Saint Thomas students perform a
study of air noise in Mendota Heights.
[Commissioner Stein arrived at this point.]
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
January 3, 2000
TO: Airport Relations Commission
FROM: Patrick C. Hollister, Administrative Assistant
SUBJECT: Follow-up to December 2, 2000 Video Workshop
Discussion
The Airport Relations Commission held a video production workshop on Saturday,
December 2 to outline the content of the Airport Noise Issues Video. Our facilitator Mr.
Sebastian then provided us with the attached content outline for the video based upon our
input to him at the workshop.
At the regular meeting on December 13, 2000, the Commission reviewed the results from
the workshop and made the following script -writing assignments for various parts of the
video:
Commissioner Roszak:
Commissioners Leuman and Fitzer:
Commissioner Petschel:
Chair Beaty:
Mr. Hollister:
Commissioner Nlay:
Commissioner Ellsworth:
History
Fleet Composition
Flight Tracks a
Advocacy
Part 150 into the Future,
Runway Use System, Corridor
Call to Action, Credits ✓
Organizations ov'
Chair Beaty asked each Commissioner to bring a draft to the nett meeting. Please bring
whatever you have for your own sections) to the meeting on January 10
Action Required
Staff will make copies of whatever material individual Commissioners bring to the
meeting. The Commission should then review these materials and comment on how they
could be enhanced. We will then continue this discussion at the February meeting.
` From: David T. Sebastian To: Patrick Hcilister Gat_. 11/19/00 Time: 6:48:38 PM Page 2,
City of Mendota Heights
Airport Relations Committee
Video Concepting Meeting
Annotated Agenda
Saturday, December 2, 2000
8:00 am — 12:00 pm
Council Chambers, City Hall
Topic Timing
General introduction
Discuss and agree on the goal for this meeting
Discuss and agree on general framework elements of
the video concept
Review, augment; select and categorize video content
Discuss and agree to nest steps
8:30 — 9:30
9:30 — 11:30
11:30 — 12:00
s'j?000 -Dalid T. 3e�s Dart. ?.11 Right; P.ese:tied. Pa e 1 Of %
From: David T. Sebastian To: Patnc:<"oilis:er Ga:=_: 1 VlSiGG Time: 6.43.38 Pro Page 4
Tone of Video
• Overall, the tone should be positive and suggest that things have and will continue to
improve over time. The audience should get the sense that, while airport noise is not a
desirable thing, with mitigation and continued support for the Mendota Heights agenda
airport -related noise can be effectively managed, making Mendota Heights great assets that
much more valuable. V
• Factual content should be presented in a clear, matter-of-fact tone emphasizing clarity over
advocacy of a particular interpretation of the facts.
• When interpretation and advocacy are called for, the case should be made with appropriate
vigor tempered by clear evidence of respect/acknowledgement of other points of view. (The
"fairness" of our position must emphasized.)
Are there changes to the above that rove should consider? Are there other issues oftone rove
should consider? What are they? Can we all agree to the above (as amended or appended by
our discussion)?
iVleasurement of Success
h the end, we will judge the success of the video through the following measurements:
• Number of viewers
• Number of callers
• Number of applicants
Are there any other measures rove should consider?
i\Iiscellaneous Considerations and Priorities
• Video should be very visual with pictures, footage of airplanes, diagrams and animation
• Consider using humor selectively
• Consider using a professional narrator (seek possible pro bono)
• Overall, keep things positive
Any other general considerations or priorities?
T20G0
-David
T.
Se':��m,
?yi
Ri�h[s
R252^:2d.
Pag�9
3
of
�
/
�
��
-
���
ap°
��w
,«ate
���
� ƒ�
���
��m
¥� �
� ��
�&�
2 �
. �
�:�
� # <
��d
��A
=��
��#
� ��
��%
\°� �
�� ±
<� 4:
:
/�
3
,
,
�
�
,
_
�
.
�
� � �
� � <
���
\
2
�.� .
�§2
�
..
.�
&�� !
��Q
=�f
� � %
���
, �`�
\��
f
��:
��y
� ��
� ��
���
/��\
\� �
� �
� � �
��w
�
��/
�� 2
�� /
\
m
s
\
\
\
\\
ƒ
}{
\
/
(
/
�
6
to
\
to
C13
zs
{[.\
•2({-
e
§.[§I
@aw
-
-
-
-y§MW
•!§.«
_
/[3d
\\=£<xwo
\_\����
\\
/\\/..Zƒ....
&6\
3
X
x
o
o_
/
-=
':
X
>
/
/
J
w
!
_
z
K
>
;
\
�
\
\
\
-
/%
\ZZ
}
k
-
\\
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
NIEiVIO
January a, 2000
TO: Airport Relations Commission
FROM: Patrick C. Hollister, Administrative Assistant
SUBJECT: Third Parallel Runway Contract
Discussion
The Mayor has requested that the Airport Relations Commission examine this document
once again before he acts upon it.
Action Required
Provide input to the Mayor regarding the revision of the third parallel runway contract.
CONTRACT PERTAINING TO LEMITS
ON CONSTRUCTION OF A
THIRD PARALLEL RUNtiVAY
_ 1• Recitals.
l • The Minnesota Legislature, at its 1996 Session, has enacted Laws of Minnesota,
Chapter 464, Art. 3, Sec. 10 (hereinafter "the Runway Statute"), which amends
Minnesota Statutes 1994, Sec. 473.603 to require the Metropolitan Airports Commission
(hereinafter "the Commission" or MAC") to enter into certain contracts `with each
affected city that provides the corporation [MACj may not construct a third parallel
runway at the Minneapolis -St. Paul international airport without the affected city's
approval."
2 The Runway Statute defines "affected city" as being any city that would
experience an increase in the area located within the 60 Ldn noise contour as a result of
operations using a third parallel runway constructed at the Minneapolis -St. Paul
International Airport (hereinafter "the Airport").
3• The Commission has determined that the City of Mendota Heights (hereinafter
"the City') is an affected city within the meaning of the Runway Statute,
4• The Commission and the City have met and negotiated in good faith concerning
the terms and conditions of the contract required by the Runway Statute,
at an agreement (hereinafter "the Agreement") which band have arrived
oth parties desire to set forth in
writing.
II. Definitions.
1 • The term "third parallel runway" shall mean any runway used for the arrival or
departure of air traffic at the Airport constructed to the north and generally parallel to the
existing parallel runways known as 30L/12R and 30R/12L (based on the geographic
location of the parallel runways at the time of execution of this Agreement). "Generally
parallel", for purposes herein, shall include any runway that is constructed to the north
and/or east of the existing parallel runways knows as 30L/12R and 30R/12L and that has
a centerline within sixty (60) compass degrees of the centerline of the existing parallel
runways at their present location.
1. The term "construct" shall mean physical construction and actions preliminar✓ to
cons ruction, including land acquisition necessary for construction, inclusion of funds for
construction in the capital improvement program budget or solicitation of bids for
Perform, of physical construction provided that the terra shall not include planning
activity. The term "construct" shall not include land acquisitions by the Commission so
long as the acquisition of any property to the north of and generally parallel to the
existing parallel runways includes as a restrictive covenant in the deed of convevancc that
the acquired land shall not be used for nunva;i purposes during the period for which this
b) it shall not institute, be a party to, financially contribute to or in any other
manner support any legislation or legal proceedings (whether judicial,
administrative or other) which have as a goal or effect the delay or prevention of
construction of the above -described North South Runway, including without
limitation, proceedings asserting rights under environmental laws or regulations_
4. It is intended by the Commission and the City that, during the period for which
the Agreement is effective, the affected property owners shall have third party
beneficiary rights to enforce the provisions of this Agreement in the event that a state law
changes, supercedes or invalidates this Agreement or if a state law authorizes or enables
the Commission to construct a third parallel runway without approval of the City. It is
further agreed that this right of enforcement shall include the right to seek specific
enforcement and injunctive relief. Said third party beneficiary rights shall cease upon the
expiration of this Agreement or its termination pursuant to paragraph 111.1 of this
Agreement.
5, The Final Record of Decision, Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport, Dual
Track Planning Process, New Runway 17/35 and Airport Layout Plan Approval
(September 1998) includes the following language on page 56:
Consistent with FAA commitments made to the City of Minneapolis, MSP control
tower personnel will utilize Runway 17/35 in accordance with the conditions set
forth in the Dual Track Airport Planning Process FEIS, Appendix A, page A.3-17.
Therefore, tower personnel will utilize Runway 17/35 so that the runway is not
used for departures to the north and arrivals to the south, except under the
following limited circumstances, described on page A.3-17 of the FEIS: (1) safety
reasons; (2) weather conditions; or (3) temporary runway closures due to snow
removal, due to construction, or due to other activities at the airport.
Subject to the above operational requirements, the Commission agrees that Run -way
17/35 the North South Runway, should be operated in a manner designed to maximize
the airfield capacity of the Airport, while reducing noise in the Cities of Mendota Heights
and Mi-meapolis and equitably distributing noise throughout the metropolitan area.
6. This agreement constitutes the entire understanding of the parties hereto and shall
not be subject to any alteration, supplement or repeal except as agreed to in wr ling. This
Agreement shall be binding upon the parties and their successors and assigns.
7. This ?.areement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of any other
affec:ed cits which, by formal action, approves its terms and notifies the Commission of
said appro�, ai, nrovided that such affected city gives such notice to the Commission on or
before July 1, 1997. Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent the Commission and
affected cities other than the City from reaching a separate agreemet with separate
n
terms.
Dated:.4u�us: , �000 METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS CO�ISIISSION
CONTRACT PERTAINIING TO LINUTS
ON CONSTRUCTION OF A
THIRD PARALLEL RUNWAY"
I. Recitals.
1. Tne Minnesota Le isiature, at its 1996 Session, has enacted Laws of Minnesota,
Chapter 464, Art. 3, Sec. 10 (hereinafter "the Runway Statute"), which amends
Minnesota Statutes 1994, Sec. 473.608 to require the Metropolitan Airports Commission
(hereinafter "the Commission" or MAC") to enter into certain contracts `with each
affected -city that provides the corporation fMACI may not construct a third parallel
nmxvav at the titinneanolis-St. Paul international airport without the affected city's
apnroval."
2. The Runway Statute defines "affected city" as being any city that would
experience an increase in the area located within the 60 Ldn noise contour as a result of
operations using a third parallel runway constructed at the Minneapolis -St. Paul
International Airport (hereinafter "the Airport").
3. The Commission has determined that the City of Mendota Heights (hereinafter
"the Ciry") is an affected city within the meaning of the Runway Statute.
4. The Commission and the City have met and negotiated in good faith concerning
the terms and conditions of the contract required by the Runway Statute, and have arrived
at an agreement (hereinafter "the Agreement") which both parties desire to set forth in
writing.
II. Definitions.
1. The tetlrl "third parallel runway" shall mean any runway used for the amval or
departurz of air trafnc at the Airport constructed to the noand generally parallel to the
existing parallel runways known as _' 1=111 I ', c id 291R ".1L.3()L' 12R and +0R'I' L (based
on the geographic location of the parallel runways at the time of execution of this
Agreement). "Generally parallel", for purposes herein. shall include any ninway that is
constructed to the north and'or east of the existing om allzl runa-ays know as 301.`12R
and 30'Zz 12L and that has a centerline within si.Vv (60) compass deg=rces of the centerling
ofthe existing parallel rumvays at their present location.
2. The term "construct" shall mean physical construction and actions preliminary to
cons ruction, including land acquisition necessary for construction, inclusion of funds for
construction in the capital improvement program budget or solicitation of bids for
per fornarce of physical construction provided that the term shall not include planning
activiiy. The term "construct" shall not include land acquisitions by the Commission
_' =o lnn:> , the acguisitio!; of any p mercy t the north of anti gene- llv
pa ;1L i to the e <istin = onratl ' ,Ivs inclu d, s as a restrictive covenant in the deed of
conveyance that the acquired land shall not be used for runway purposes during the
the implementation of which is directed by Laws of Minnesota 1996, Ch. 4643 Art. 3,
Subd. 24. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the City agrees:
a) its approval of this Agreement constitutes a deciaration of the City
endorsing the construction of the above -described North South Runway; and
b) it shall not institute, be a party to, financially contribute to or in any other
manner support any legislation or legal proceedings (whether judicial,
administrative or other) which have as a goal or effect the delay or prevention of
construction of the above -described North South Runway, including without
limitation, proceedings asserting rights under environmental laws or regulations.
4. It is intended by the Commission and the City that, during the period for which
the Agreement is effective, the affected property owners shall have third party
beneficiary rights to enforce the provisions of this Agreement in the event that a state law
changes, supercedes or invalidates this Agreement or if a state law authorizes or enables
the Commission to construct a third parallel runway without approval of the City. It is
further agreed that this right of enforcement shall include the right to seek specific
enforcement and injunctive relief. Said third party beneficiary rights shall cease upon the
expiration of this Agreement or its termination pursuant to paragraph III.1 of this
Agreement_
S. The Final Record of Decision. Minneaoolis-St. Paul International Airport Dual
Track Planning Process- New Runway 17135 and Aimort Layout Plan Anoroval
Seotember 1998) includes the following language on page 56:
Consistent with F.-1.A commitments made to the City of Minneapolis. MSP control
tower oersonnel will utilize Runwav 1 7,3d in accordance with the conditions set
forth in the Dual Track Airport Planning Process FE1S. Appendix A, page A.3-17.
Therefore, towprpersonncl will utilize Rumvav 17i3; so that the nmwav is not
us.'d for departures to the north and arinvals to the south. except under the
following limited circumstances. described on oa=e A3-17 of the FEIS: (1) safer:
reasons: (2) weather conditions: or (3) temoorary runway closures due to snow
removal. due to construction. or due to other activities at the airport.
Subject to the above operational reouirements, the Commission agees that Rum_av
.the \oi �It South Runway. should be operated in a manner designed to pia in;i e
he air field capacity oFthe Aimort. while reducing noise in the Cities of %lendota Heights
and %1;nneapolis and equitably dis.ributiue noise throughout the metropolitan area.
6. This as Bement constitutes the entire understanding of the parties hereto and shall
not be subject to anv alteration, supplement or repeal except as agreed to in ��T tins. This
Agreement shall be binding upon the parties and their successors and assigns.
7. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of any other
affected city which, by formal action, approves its terms and notifies the Co=ission of
said approval, orovided that such affected city gives such notice to the Commission on or
before July 1, 1997. Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent the Commission and
December 11, 2000
^.ity of Minneapolis Mr, Jeff Hamiel
Executive Director
City council Metropolitan Airports Commission
Barret W.S. Lane 6040 28th Avenue South
Council Member, Thirteenth Ward Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450
350 SouN Sfh Street -Room 307
Minneapolis MN 55415-1383
VIA FAX AND U.S. MAIL
Office (612) 673-2213
Fax 673-3940 Re: "Blue Ribbon" Panel
TTY 673-2157
Dear Mr. Hamiel:
In response to your request to form a Blue Ribbon Panel,
MASAC Chairman Charles Mertensoto appointed us to
represent the metropolitan communities. We understand that
the MSP air carriers indicated their willingness to appoint
another three representatives. You also proposed that a
neutral be appointed to facilitate the discussions.
As you explained at the last MASAC meeting; the
Panel's proposed task was to consider the issues that the MSP
air carriers raised in their October 31, 2000 letter of resignation
to MASAC. We all shared the hope that the panel would serve
as a forum for discussing the air carriers' concerns and
bringing resolution to the issues.
It is unfortunate that the meeting scheduled for
December 8, 2000 was canceled. However, we understand that
adequate time is needed to select representatives. We continue
to support the Blue Ribbon process and remain ready and
willing to meet with the air carriers. We will make our
schedules available to you and your staff for a future meeting.
We anticipate that the air carriers will select their
representatives soon. Thereafter, we understand a neutral
would be selected and their role defined in this process. We
believe that the process would be best served by a person who is
perceived to be fair and knowledgeable. We recommend that
the MAC staff develop a list of three prospective neutrals and
aHow each side to strike one. We understand that Mr. Walter
Rockenstein has already been identified as a potential neutral.
Assuming he is willing and available, we would support
including Mr. Rockenstein on the strike list. While we think
this process would be a fair and balanced, our participation on
the Panel is not contingent on following this recommendation.
www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us
Affirmative Action Employer
Minneapolis -Saint Paul International Airport
6040 - 28th Avenue South • Minneapolis, MN 55450-2799
Phone (612) 726-8100 • Fax (612) 726-5296
December 15, 2000
Jim Danielson, Administrator
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
Dear Mr. Danielson:
Enclosed you will find the minutes from the December 2000 meeting of the Planning and
Environment Committee at which a recommendation was made to the full Commission to adopt
the 2001-2007 Capital Improvement Program.
The full Commission is scheduled to meet on December 18, 2000, to act on this
recommendation. A copy of the full Commission agenda is also enclosed for your information.
Since�ly, �
Robert J. Vorpahl, P.E.
Program Development Engineer
RJV/Irk
Enclosures
The Dletropolitan Airports Commission is an afhrmative action employee.
www.mspairportcom
Relie�er Airports: AIRLAKE • ANOKA COUNTY/BLA[NF. • CKYSTAL •FLYING CLOUD •LAKE ELNIO •SAINT PACT_ DO\� \TO\\'N
Planning & Environment Committee
December 5, 2000
Page 11
19, MAC needs additional remote noise monitors for ANOMS in Mendota Heights
and the airport south area (for runway 17/35).
20. The proportion of new traffic operations to the south is unfair and damaging.
21. Include mitigation for Low Frequency Noise.
22, Change program insulation criteria to include existing homes within commercial
zoningibuildings,
23, Airport should be moved.
24, Support was expressed for acquisition of homes within noise contours.
25, DNL noise contours only show average impact; noise mitigation should be based
on relative or maximum noise levels.
26, Support was expressed for development of a Stage 4 noise standard.
27. MAC should ban all flights between 10:30 p.m. and 6:30 a.m.
The consultants and staff are developing responses to both oral and written comments.
Complete responses to all comments will be provided with the mailing for the January
2001 Committee meeting.
This was an informational item only and no Committee action was requested.
A10. MASAC ORGANIZATIONAL ISSUES — CF 1756
On October 31, 2000 a letter of resignation was received from ten MASAC airline
member representatives. The letter signatures included Airborne Express, DHL
Worldwide Express, Federal Express, Mesaba, Northwest Airlines, Trans World Airlines,
United Airlines, United Parcel Service, US Airways and the Airline Pilots Association.
Concerns focused on the MASAC process and procedures. Specific topics cited
included the Part 150 Update process, inability to use proxy votes and comments
developed for the draft FAA Aviation Noise Abatement Policy 2000.
A panel is being established to review the future role of MASAC. Three community
representatives and three user representatives will be invited to participate in this effort.
Staff will keep the Committee informed of the outcome of these discussions.
This was an informational item only and no Committee action was requested.
A11. 2001-2007 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM — CF 1757
a. Environmental Review
Nigel Finney, Deputy Executive Director —Planning and Environment, reported
that since the Commission approval of the Preliminary 2001-2007 Capital
Improvement Program, on September 13, 2000, the environmental review
process has continued as scheduled.
On November 6, 20003 a public hearing to receive public testimony was held as
part of the Planning & Environment Committee meeting in Room 3040 of the
Lindbergh Terminal. Though the hearing was advertised in the Minneapolis Star
Tribune, St. Paul Pioneer Press and EQB Monitor, there were no commentors at
the meeting. The public record remained open until 5:00 p.m. on November 15,
2000. Five letters were received providing comments on the CIP.
Planning & Environment Committee
December 5, 2000
Page 15
IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER LONG, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MCKASY,
TO RECOMMEND TO THE FULL COMMISSION ADOPTION OF THE 2001-2007 CIP AS
MODIFIED; AUTHORIZE STAFF TO HAVE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS PREPARED AND
ADVERTISE FOR BIDS FOR THE 2001 PROJECTS; AUTHORIZE STAFF TO CONDUCT
FURTHER STUDIES AS APPROPRIATE AND DEVELOP PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
FOR THE 2002 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 2003 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 (2003-2007) 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, THE MOTION CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE.
e. Project Labor Aoreements
Nigel Finney, Deputy Executive- Director —Planning and Environment, reported
that as part of the 2000 CIP approval process, staff recommended to the
Commission and the Commission approved the use of Project Labor Agreements
for a selected number of projects. A Project Labor Agreement in the public
sector conditions the award of a contract on the agreement of the prime
contractor and its subcontractors to hire all union labor, in return for agreement
from labor unions not to strike or engage in other job activities. Such agreements
are common in the private sector, where the uncertainty, delay and potential
increased costs associated with a work stoppage are often sufficient to justify
their use on major construction projects.
Staff is again recommending to use Project Labor Agreements on certain MAC
projects where the impact of a work stoppage could significantly impact use of
the airport by the traveling public or airport users. This would arise in situations
where the project is time critical, where a project is expected to be phased over
several years, or where a project is physically located in an area where a work
stoppage could substantially disrupt other significant construction projects or
ongoing airport activities.
Staff has reviewed the 2001 CIP and recommends that the following projects be
approved for the utilization of Project Labor Agreements:
1. Visitation School Noise Abatement Project
2. Runway 17/35 Program
a. Trunk Storm Sewer — Phase 2
b. Trunk Storm Sewer — Phase 3
c. Trunk Storm Sewer — Phase 4
3. 30R Deicing/Holding Pad
4. EconoLot/Employee Parking Structure
REGULAR SCHEDULED MEETING
MONDAY$ DECEMBER 18, 2000 -1:00 P.M.
METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION
Room 3040 — Mezzanine — Lindbergh Terminal Building
AGENDA
CONSENTITEMS
(Consent Items can be brought down to Discussion)
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a - Regular Scheduled Commission Meeting - November 20, 2000
LEASE ACTIONS
a - Recommendation Re: Airport Leases
ACCOUNTS
a - Approval of Bills, Expenses, Payrolls, Transfers of Funds, etc.
Planning and Environment Committee
Al Final Payments - MAC Contracts
a) 1999=2000 Part 150 Sound Insulation Program
A2 Bids Received - MAC Contracts
a) Lindbergh Terminal Electrical Modifications - 2000
b) Lindbergh Terminal Mechanical Modifications - 2000
c) Service Center Fit -Up and Retail Merchandising Units
d) Clara Barton School - Noise Abatement
e) Part 150 Sound Insulation Program
A3 Review of Upcoming Construction Project Bids
A4 October 2000 Activity Report for Metro Office Park
A5 Change Management Policy and Project Status Report
A6 Hearing Officers ReportlFindings, Conclusions and Order - Flying Cloud Airport
Land Acquisition
A7 Flying Cloud Airport Property Acquisition
A8 Request for Authority to Hold Public Hearing - St. Paul Downtown Long Tenn
Comprehensive Plan Update
A9 Part 150 Update - Public Hearing Report
A10 MASAC Organizational Issues
All 2001-2007 Capital Improvement Program
Al2 LRT Update
A13 Public Appearances
Management and Operations Committee
61 DISCUSSION ITEM -Bids Received for Purchase of Capital Equipment
B2 Bids Received for Purchase, Microbolmeter Thermal Imager & Accessories
B3 MSP Liquor License Renewals for 2001
B4 DISCUSSION ITEM - Review of Prosecution Services and Authorization to Increase
Related Fees
85 2001 General Adjustment to MAC Compensation Plan
B6 Authorization to Issue RFP for Management of Wireless Services
B7 Proposed Joint -Use Public Safety Training Facility
Ba Discussion Regarding NWA and MASAC Initiative
B9 December 18 and January 16 Special M&O Meetings
Finance Committee
Cl Reports
<t Minneapolis -Saint Paul International Airport
F+ t 6040 - 28th Avenue South • Minneapolis, MN 55450-2799
m Phone (612) 726-8100 • Fax (612) 726-5296
r tN
F
0
t coa
December 22, 2000
Jim Danielson, Administrator
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
RE: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION
MAC CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, 2001-2007
Dear Mr. Danielson:
On December 18, 2000, the Metropolitan Airports Commission concluded that, based upon the
Assessment of Environmental Effects (AOEE) prepared for the Seven -Year Capital
Improvement Program for Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport, potential for adverse
effects as a result of the projects has been adequately identified. In addition to the AOEE which
was prepared for MSP, an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) was prepared which
discussed the construction of a new parking structure to serve patrons of the NEW Humphrey
Terminal and to provide replacement parking for the EconoLot and the employee parking lot on
Post Road. Furthermore, the effects of the projects have been addressed by other projects that
have been included in the CIP and will serve as appropriate mitigative measures.
The Metropolitan Airports Commission held a public hearing on November 6, 2000, regarding
these projects. There were no commenters at the hearing. The public record remained open
until 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, November 15, 2000, Five letters were received to the record.
Enclosed is the "Hearing Officer's Report" along with the "Findings of Fact, Conclusions and
Recommendation' and a copy of the comment letters and responses which are included in
Appendix A to the Hearing Officer's Report. The Commission recommendation was that no
further environmental review is warranted at this time.
Sirtegrely, ,
IV
Jeffre j W. Hamiel
Executive Director
Irk
Enclosure
The �tetropalitan Airports Commission is an affirmative action employer.
www.mspairport.com
Reliever Airports: AIRLAKE • ANOKA COUNTY/BLAINE > CRYSTAL ^FLYING CLOUD > LAKG ELMO •SAINT PAUL DOIVNTOwN
• ' • �
TO: Planning and Environment Committee
ITEM 11 a
FROM: Nigel D. Finney, Deputy Executive Director —Planning &Environment (726-8187)
SUBJECT: 2001-2007 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
a. Environmental Review
DATE: November21,2000
Since the Commission approval of the Preliminary 2001-2007 Capital Improvement Program, on
September 18, 2000, the environmental review process has continued as scheduled.
On November 6, 2000, a public hearing to receive public testimony was held as part of the
Planning &Environment Committee meeting in Room 3040 of the Lindbergh Terminal. Though
the hearing was advertised in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, St Paul Pioneer Press and EQB
Monitor, there were no commentors at the meeting. The public record remained open until 5:00
p.m. on November 15, 2000. Five letters were received providing comments on the CIP.
One document was prepared to meet the requirements of the legislation prior to final action on
the CIP. The document was an Assessment of Environmental Effects (AOEE) for Minneapolis -
St. Paul International Airport (MSP). Assessments for St. Paul Downtown, Flying Cloud, Crystal,
Anoka County -Blaine, Lake Elmo and Airlake Airports were not prepared since the Capital
Improvement Program and Plan has not changed from the previous year or the changes have
only trivial environmental effects. In addition to the AOEE which was prepared for MSP, an
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) was prepared which discussed the construction of
a new parking structure to serve patrons of the new Humphrey Terminal and to provide
replacement parking for the EconoLot and the employee parking lot on Post Road.
A proposed "Hearing Officer's Report" is included in this package for adoption by the Committee
as hearing officers. The report includes the Findings of Fact and Recommendation for the MSP
AOEE and the EAW for the proposed parking structure. A copy of the letters received, as well as
responses, a copy of the transcript of the Public Hearing and a copy of the mailing list is also
included.
Specific project comments will be addressed as part of the appropriate project specific
environmental processes.
As you are aware, the CIP itself is only "firm" for the first year of the program. The projects listed
in the CIP for 2001 will be brought back to the Commission for award of contracts after plans and
specifications have been prepared and bids have been received. The 2002 project work
scopes/costs will be developed further through additional studies and plans and specifications
will be prepared for consideration in the 2002 CIP process. The 2003 project work scopes/costs
will be developed further through additional studies and preparation of preliminary plans and
specifications. Likewise, the projects listed in the CIP for all other years will be reviewed again
through this same process each year when the CIP is revised.
HEARING OFFICER'S REPORT
ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
OF THE METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION'S
2001.2007 SEVEN YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
AND ECONOLOT/EMPLOYEE PARKING STRUCTURE EAW
AT THE MINNEAPOLIS/ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
On Monday, November 6, 2000 at 1:15 p.m, a public hearing was held in Room 3040 of the
Lindbergh Terminal at the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport (MSP), Minneapolis,
Minnesota. The purpose of this public hearing was to receive statements and/or testimonials
regarding the Assessment of Environmental Effects of the Metropolitan Airports Commission's
Seven -Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for MSP 2001-2007 and the Environmental
Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposed EconoLot/Employee Parking Structure.
The hearing was held in response to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes 1988, Chapter 664.
This statute requires that the MAC conduct an evaluation of the cumulative environmental effects
of all projects in the Commission's Capital Improvement Plan for it's seven airports and EQB
Rule 4410.4300, Subp.15B.
Projects at Airlake, Anoka County -Blaine, Crystal, Flying Cloud, Lake Elmo and St. Paul
Downtown Airports either have been presented in prior reports or whose environmental effects
are unknown at this time because the project is on hold. Therefore, no AOEE or EAW
documents were prepared for CIP projects planned at any of these reliever airports to MSP.
Present at the hearing were Commissioners Roger Hale, Alton Gasper, Paul Weske, Dick Long
and Bert McKasy. Also present were Nigel Finney, Deputy Executive Director, Planning and
Environment, Tom Anderson, Counsel, and other MAC staff members as well as Larry Dallam
and Duane Decker of HNTB Corporation, consultants to the Commission.
Following introductory statements presented by P&E Committee Chairman Hale of the
Metropolitan Airports Commission's Planning and Environment Committee, comments from the
public were invited. No comments were presented at the hearing. The hearing record remained
open until November 15, 2000. Five (5) letters were received. These letters and responses to
comments raised in each are included in Appendix A. A court stenographer prepared a transcript
of the public hearing. The transcript of the public hearing is attached.
ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
OF THE METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION'S
2001-2007 SEVEN YEAR CAPITAL IlVIPROVEMENT PLAN
AND ECONOLOT/EMPLOYEE PARHING STRUCTURE EAW
AT THE bIINNEAPOLIS/ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION
In October 2000, the Metropolitan Airports Commission completed an Assessment of the
Envirotunental Effects (AOEE) of all the projects at MSP that aze included in the MAC's seven
yeaz capital improvement program and plan. The AOEE was prepared in response to the
requirements of Minnesota Statutes 1988, Chapter 664.
Concerning the Assessment of Environmental Effects, the Statutes state the following:
"The commission shall prepaze an assessment of the environmental effects of projects in the
commission's seven-yeaz capital improvement program and plan at each airport owned and
operated by the commission. The assessment must examine the cumulative environmental effects
at each airport of the projects at that airport, considered collectively. The commission need not
prepare an assessment for an airport when the capital improvement program and plan far that
airport has not changed from the one adopted the previous year or when the changes in the
program and plan will have only trivial environmental effects."
The law also states that the "commission shall prepare envirotunental assessment
worksheets...(for) those projects in the program for the airport that meet all of the following
conditions: (1) the project is scheduled in the program for the succeeding calendaz period; (2) the
project is scheduled in the program for the expenditure of $5,000,000 or more at Minneapolis -St.
Paul International Airport... and (3) the project involves (i) the construction of a new or
expanded structure for handling passengers, cargo, vehicles, or aircraft; or (ii) the construction
of a new or the extension of an existing runway or taxiway." One such CIP project, the
EconoLot/Employee Parking Structure, did require the preparation of an Environmental
Assessment Worksheet (EAW). This documents was also made part of the agenda for this public
heazing
Notice of the combined AOEE and EAW public hearing was circulated consistent with
Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) requirements. Availability of the AOEE was
published in the October 16, 2000 EQB Monitor and copies of the report have been available for
public review at the Metropolitan Airports Commission offices. It was also published in the
Minneapolis Staz Tribune and St. Paul Pioneer Press on October 16, 2000. The Public Hearing
was held on Monday, November 6, 2000. No public statements were presented at the hearing.
The record was kept open through November 15, 2000, and Five (5) letters were received.
Responses to the comments raised in each of these letters have been included in Appendix A.
-1-
Recommendation
The Commission finds that the Assessment of Environmental Effects prepared for the MAC
2001-2007 Seven Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and the EAW for the
EconoLot/Employee Parking Structure project adequately assesses the cumulative environmental
effects of the projects at MSP and each reliever airport included in the CIP.
m:/docs/17657/HROFFLOOO.dac
-3-
LETTERS AND RESPONSES
dbMinnesota Pollution Control Agency
r
November 9, 200.0 R<^ :.FIlf _o
Nov ? 3 N00
Mr. Nigel Fimmey DEFU iy EXEC. 044�'
Me"PoliciaAirportsCommission
6040 —211h Aveaue Sent
lsiieaeaoulia,MN 55450
RE: iromneau A=nneat yyedaluot (F'kVn for the Econolat/Employee pa s C SQ•,caue
£ v
Dear Mr. Fumel:
T Wrdc You for the oppormni l a cammcac on the E11V for the proposed 10,000-mar-, 6-1
evei parting
strucmm near the Humoiuey IeminaL Toe Mionesola Polluriaa Conn[ AC^—cI (,%CCA')'
newel the F.a.W for orolcc We have the fallowing cone cis for your cansie--arioa
relpowe is dercmining the ad for anEavisooar�rzl Impacr Satmrlt () for C;epraoosed profec=
Indirect Sarver Permit r.c(e7cood'sc_';'
As Fated in the EAWc , on lndirSearle Penult (IST) is need for t= Project zim nrsfo1 rn'S?.
number of pasI . spares e-.ceds the parxag seaeo throhold teq�cmot
I
A. A. The firm of SRF Consulting Group, Inc. will
be Submitting an application for an ISP for this
project either this month or in December. This
will be done on behalf of the MAC.
i Traffic iapaets.
Bud as doer projc:cd mfLc volume, the EAW should have provided a mote deniietraffic crude
that rally addresses all sigzuf' scant za.£` a 1*oPro� �?�tr! a:esnit rsom else Prot -- .
traffic imnac¢ an 34th Avenue mulling zem thcprapoed light Ball Transit R-ttT7 afisnmeat. B. B. The proposed parking ramp will increase
.inoajiy, we would lire a discussion or any aasocatd traffic imoars mn:iting`�am tumaovemr-es traffic on 34th Avenue. The improvements to
aresr_Sons on 34th Avenue from 70th Sirct in1.494, including die 34th Avca Z�9a m� TSanC= 34th Avenue proposed as part of this project
Alsow we me coned the the =Meomlysis be conducted for one year after completion ofdre preico:m are needed to accommodate the increase in
well as one year after the opreinq dfrAT in dais sglu - traffic generated by the proposed parking ramp.
An operational analysis study was done to
determine what improvements to 34th Avenue
wouId be necessary to maintain acceptable
operations on 34th Avenue through year 2020.
Traffic operations and air quality will be studied
for one year after completion of the protect
lyear 2004) and year 2005 (which represents
one year after construction of LRT).
All intersections along 34th Avenue will operate
at LOS C or better through year 2005 (with
exception of the South 1-494 ramp at 34th
Avenue). This latter intersection operates at
LOS 8 in year 2004, but construction of the
LRT and consequent preempting of its signal
cause operations to fall to LOS D. This
deterioration in operations is primarily caused b,
the affect of LRT signal preemption on the
heavy southbound 34th left turn to eastbound 1
494 movement. LRT preemption of the signals
along W Avenue also precludes coordination
of the signals along 34th Avenue, thereby
causing slightly lower levels of service at other
intersections.
htr. Nigei Ficey
Page 2
Ludy, the EAW ahouid prorde soe< aisaastion ante t-aasi: ryr W and t 2T u sidgader, msrs t E.
helo in zedueiag the numbs, of ainele eecueaaey vecic!e tiox m and'ee:t<projr sit. ,
ifyau have arty qucsdrns about to hf�G's eamse-a on rh< traffic aed air ova3iry amlYsis, pimae
eantx; Mazy Eof@aan Lynn at (tii7) 297-2331.
Thwk you fordae appatnmiry m review this pmjc. Tids mtamezt late atdturs nnaecs of cancan m
MPG mffmviewing the EAW and is suEmindfor cansid=sdon by the h(AC, the xcpaosble
gavcacpl niC is deciding whche an ELq should bepte2arcd an the pmjr_�'k dee nut comdma
aop:aval by the MPG of eny or all clot¢ of Se projm;Im the itupau ofprlding cr Cuwre penis
acdn(a) by the MPC� pie have ,�� to i'�^tify and eowtdt nItkh intcested program saff m
idc�dfy the MPGpemia rut may be:<quitc. APP:Cenat commc-¢ar se.;uri¢for intonaadno
tnyh<auhmi[td is the Cuture m ad¢s sar_ific issu s Ltd to the deve!comet of au 4 pemit(a). F.
Uldmate!y, it is the teaponsiouity ofthc pmjec, propose m see=e any rcuixed pe.]ia and m comaly
with >! :equiai¢ pe:>ri[ cmdidons.
E. Several Metro Transit routes including Route
7, Route 444 and Route 442 serve the 34th
Avenue corridor. These routes connect to the
Mall of America, and the cities of Minneapolis,
Burnsville and Apple Valley. Transfers to other
routes serve most other areas of the metro
area. Construction of the LRT through the
corridor will provide an additional mode of
transit to downtown Minneapolis, the Airport
and the Mall of America.
F. Comment noted.
Wcleok fotwacd to ttcaivingwrttn rcpatummcur enmmca etb EaW,uweEluazcasd ofthc' G. G. Arecord of decision will be sent, which will
dr_smt en thencdf an ES. Ifyou Eaveary queadamcmtce-_iug our:eriew ofthis EiW, please include responses to comments received on the
<onnc; me at (tSi)29d-S7p3. EAW.
Fy't.Lka�a �ort�'�..
Harhan Conc
Plums P•incpal
Opeadons and Planning 3ccdon
Meso Dis¢ict
BCgs
cc. Gregg Downing, EariconmeGt Quality Board
Mary HofL. Lvoa, bfPCa, Pours and Planing Divisiuq Comeuniry and Area -wide Pwgr]rrs
a2G _alaye�te 5c. N.; Si, Pwl, Mpl53IE_�a;ad; (651J 25E•o]CO (VPiuj; (E_Il 2]s�5]:2 (Ti'(l
S;. PaW Bninerd pe4eil'laka: pWum Mankam •Marshall flae4vcter Willmar; w.w
Eival <Pyatvrvry=nrPlgar•PMua an �aP Paaarcrelrinq at laa:taaX llaa.r2m p,Parnrycaa OY'�afuma1 n. ��
FF.CEIVED
12 Hov=ba 2000 Nov I tlogo
Capitol Improvement Program file Airport Development
Maacpoliran Aispom Cantmissioe
6040 28thAvecae Sarah
}i_—aryaolis, IvOT 55450
DearMAC:
I am wddeg m wtemwr an rite Culled improvemeetPmgnm aed the EAW focdre pmpmed
Per'sng suteaas• FirstZwam m ay dutI era vey pleased that the MAC
am Eetot/F pl1Yr ,tic,. ofaaI.AT Pme ii= dowemwabameapolism
has commincdm patdcPadng inter "",rucea will bring Rearbaeafitsmdte airport eadadtc
lye airport and re
m the mall. I think tb:s prof
faabe served by tlti:LRT line. Dna afthe broetiaw0l bet C w people
'otdousa
Who richer wrodc at the airport a past duo jlt as apP �effielee ay wamaruw widsIR'I,
automobile. Iaha take the bus, which is lem appealio8
wheal fly into or out of bf.SP.
Consequently I am worried that the MAC's Ideas m coodm+e m expand dw parking eap+ary
at MSP will reduce the pet[- nl late of public Mouth, :nIke !'Met' Bowdldyoudetemina tyac
you went so add 7,200 sp• to d a eamsiva patkdng'aiready attha airport by building
1 WO
spas ramp uesrdte ldumPhreY2eaniaat7 Whatis The cae tlevd of'fuhi'y omvr rag by
exnicym and cavele4 What do you esdmare m be the fimme level a pubic
employees and traveles7 Do youkmevr haw muck[ troasituse weld beiaav-+aed ifyoureduc i
the sin of the prap=d ramp?
p.IA. The MAC offers the following to address your Iour-
part question:
Parking demand and accumulation models were
developed for the airport as pari of a parking study that
included extensive data collection and analysis over tht
period of one year.
The current level of transit use by air passengers to anc
from the airport is less than one percent. The projector
2020 level of transit use by air passengers to and from
the airport is one percent. This increase in transit usag
is attributed to the proposed LRT line and other knows
improvements to transit serving the airport.
Based on ridership data provided by MetroTmnsit on
routes serving the airport, the current level of transit
use by airport employees is less than five percent.
W ith the installation of the proposed LRT line and
other known improvements to transit serving the
airport, transit usage by airport employees can expect
to increase to between eight and 10 percent by 2020.
Reducing the size of the proposed ramp would have
negligible impact on transit usage. A reduction in ramp
sire would increase short term, curbside, and taxi mode
split. Currently a significant shortage of parking occurs
during peak months at the airport. Intent demand
cttaled by this shortage has shifted to other passenger
modes (i.e, short term, curbside and taxi). With the
proposed increase in supply, this latent demand for
parking will be reduced, thereby causing the passenger
erode split to shift back to a more steady state.
Minnesota Deoanmeslt of Nztuai Resource s14
%raveCl:-: L`. 2000 R?bnleitmtgc:amnl9. DoVLec•.vr-,eSalaeiiuonmtPwtlEin>:6•..-frudo7
McootiaAirports Car�iuion 0"Ci
mlAirpot�,22"11
t4r
�-r �
GNo v,
�G 6W 211• A, a" Saudi ......
Mimeapc" MY::450
A= MAC GpinlEn}'+uve=entProRsm;D01-200i
Aslz =%ofj3rvao==WVE ew=
Dmr Mr. Va �3tL
23e De,.a._ ntaf:tac IRereurss(DhR)Lss cnvievnd de AssesmencefE rum=e�rat Ef'<s':er A.
the MAC Gnid Impvove,.vrPrn�m 200t-2001. Our mdymmnr-tip In ears tjnt lone of the
projects d6c Czi in the tepon involve dewat=:nZier mceaful i>yt>llarim. Fimvcve5 m medoa of
L*e ilme is onnine'_ is ml <...lac Gives the =nnv=rf tint bw nrr%;=dcd tome 7upe3d
d3Muarn:, me=c=attuoshculd uImt.l..c ce a•_c IMC.devdepd.,mdie cz;%J=x on the
ilwc ua ltme�on efupomio31nn1� -
y,an[ Yau �r rbe appommiry m tu-tisv this alle>:xet P:aw cry w on coy :�1 da rtL^:an. ;
Bill 7oluuan af=Y tt3IIocv be wc,•^-' ec(Ll) 7°6.3'_"°. i! Ym�xte wcdam mgedmS tGv ktr•
•tnama:w.B.leam, saperviaot
EaJvofja "mined Bw4etrScfot
�cc afMan+S^^mt tied 73.dy.a `.�s
C Rafnl= vrue«
Can Clvlstraasan
IaeOse'saald
Russ Patallaa. OSFWZ
Ian l.+ncn. EQE
cmtma400t
34u-1'i�ooxwm
C2.'ti Gtraradoc SSj:.96-0`� 1.eS3.U3 J6 T.':: f!'.-2965abt • ldrn-dlz�9:s
Yna Y Ws Ci-.mq .�,ma :A rme,m�..r
TGTGl P. at
A. The issue of dewatering for the successful
implementation of several projects related to
the larger project to construct the new north -
south Runway 17-35 at MSP has been
addressed in separate documents. See letter
from Liesch Associates to MAC dated
November 22, 2000 which follows this
comment letter.
The Hearing Officer's report will be made
available via normal distribution procedures ant
at MAC's General Offices which are located at
MSP. See Response G for MPCA letter dated
November 9. 2000,
ouran %,ounces
7vclnn. Planning for the Future
Environmental Services
November Is, 2000
Mr. Ni8c1 Fiancy
Director, Planning and Environment
Metropolitan Airports Commission
6040 28" Avenue South
Minneapolis, Mirmoora 35450
RE: MiemeapolisSt. Yaui in[emanonal NIpaR Aasusamunt utFnviPlan2001 2007
Metopulian Airpon CotmnusiMl,%Seven-ytar Capital lrninvu coon Plan 2001-200T
Dear Mr. Finney:
Mea¢politan Council staff conducted a review of the assessment olwnranmaltnd effects
(AOEE) far the Seven-year Capital improvement Plan (CIP) 2001.2007 to determine how
adequately and accurately it addresses reypanal cuoco fts The following cammenu address
eoriccm stxKbad with gems in the AOhk
The Metropolitan Airpons Commission (MAC) Is required by Wornata Staates 1988, Chapter
664 to conduct an AOEE forpmjeeu in the Commostinn's seven year Capital improvement
Program (2001.2007) furwrpuns included in Its system. This year, an sssersment has been
prepared for pmjecu at the Mim ap¢hsSt. Paul Intemanoml Altport (MSP). Assersmmts were
not prepared for St. Paul Downtown, Flying Cloud, Crystals Anoka County • 11laine, Labe Elmo.
and Airlake airports met the MAC determined that the Capnul improvement Program and Platt
bad not changed $um the previous year orthe changes had only trivial emv[ruamerul cfr"Ls.
stelieva Airports
Council stiff disagtee wide the assessment that the ptajeets at all the reitever airports will mutt in
only trivial environmental effects, or had not changed from the pmviuua year. At a reinmaum, The
AOEE should address the mvaumnental eficcla ofthe following prnjecti. ifpnvirnnmental
Assessment Warksheen (YAWS) bavc nut already born prcpararb Alriake - Caossvnad Runway
➢evelapment: Anoka -Building Area Development Northwest! Anolm - Runway 9/27
Estrnsion/Widening; Flying Cloud -Runway 9=71. ltmanst/litanseon and Rwy 9Ln7R
esuension;rying Cloud- South Building An+Dcvclupmnt; I uku pimp East Euiidirg Aso
Developr¢enC lake Elmo -Rahway 14112 enrutrucitun.
The MAC hoe budgeted munuy :u Aeriakc, Anoka, Crystal, and Flying Cinud tar sanitary sewer
and watertmin insWlatlun. R a our eotdaslarnling that Ih<r:ryaml, Artiake, and Plying Claud
projects have not yet cummarccd, hul that the Anapngaet has hepun and a near uoTopludo¢I 8.
Council staff commend the MAC fur hoduoting the hookup of sanitary sewers at these mlhe At
airports. This action will likely protect and improve quality of boot wrl]cc water, mid ground
water in the ncmity of the airpurts.
7]O
WtFrlth at+st
aL liul.
Mennr-�,Ix b'olrn-In'lll (M1fi 111Nla.imll
I�++M11.r1A'i
'r¢0/'fIy129.37ea
w Y.rri9aM�I++I�,�
incl
A. The transmittal memo regarding the Tact
that an AOEE was not prepared for the reliever
airports stated that some of the projects
uded in the proposed CIP were dependent
on further study - some of the projects at
Airlake, Anoka County -Blaine, Flying Cloud and
Lake Elmo fit that need. This additional study i
normally accomplished through environmental
assessments. As in the past the Metropolitan
Council is normally a full participant.
B. Comment noted
0111an t.;ouncu
Eftvironmental Services
November I5, 2000
Mr. Nigel Finney
Director, Planning and Environment
Metropolitar. Airport Catnmtarur.
6040 286 Avenue South -
Minnnpalu.Minnnnda 5545D
RE: Ecunolot/ Empluycc Parking Structure Envimnmenni Atacwmrnl Wurksheet
Dear Mr. Flatter.
Mereepolitsn Council anvirenmcotal Se tees staffhave completed their review of the Ecuooloe/
Employ=Parking Stmcwm Envimrrmanrl Assessment Wnrkthcd(FAW). Thereviewhas
identified several eoneema, which we addressed in the rolinwing comments:
Lem 18a. Wooer Quality -surlaee Water Run g- Cuutpansun of Runoff
Total project am is 6L7 acres; under existing conditions the impmtous use is 46.7 sees
(75.7%), and reader proposed wnditiom is 46.A oerct (75.9°/v). ! hs:r etuready is puking for
2,789 vehicles an the site, the proposed Proled will rum= dtc parking nrcutry to 10.000. In
addition, the project "It neceuiute the reconstruction of 341 Avenue Snuth Its a divided
roadway wilt ohanneiimd left andright turn lanes and rwo northbound and three soutubotmd
through laces. The Beata mcdian will be ncm>.taunird to accommodate hght-rail traffic (Item
22, T Vie). .
The EAW rouse that hued on the scroll differ== in onperviuus areas between the cxistme and A. A. Details of the MAC regional ponding system
,proposed condidom, the pmjcct will not dmitically alter the quaoliry air quality ofmnaff from the mentioned in the EAW are presented in a report
site. Council staffd'imgac with thissisteoci, The increased traffic both at the new padding titled Preliminary Design of Retention Pond for I-
stivenue and an 30 Avenue will likely rusult inelevated levels ofthaae pullutonts aveclated rY 9
with autamoblie traffic, penieularly auspeaded solids, meats. and pctrulnsm products. Amajar 494 Watershed at Fort Snelling National
shortcoming of the EAW is that it don not include any mfutmatran un the predicted pollutant Cemetery Dated August 1999, by Liesch
removal efficiency of the regional punding system proposed by the MAC, as required by Section Companies. The ponding system is designed to
18a of the EAW. Il is impossible fur us to dctermene whether the pmpt sal doscvtian basins will remove approximately 8O% of total suspended
provide adequate tmauneal for stutmwxter thin the site. We n•Wmmund the proposed ponds are solids,
sized to provide removal efficiencies indicated by NURP (Nationwide tirhan RunofTPtogram)
standards, and are fitful with ail and grease sepvnrora I skimmers.
Lem /8b. R'arer Quahry-SurJure WuhaNunn((-fdaui(r:mina air routes and receiving budin•
for runad
stermwaterrunoff from the Rile cunxndy drauu to twn sepaoOc cultecnan systems, both of which B. R, Comment noted. The plan will be forwarded
are undersized for the 100•yeac smrm event. The EAW indicates that the MAC bile prepared an to MET Council staff once completed.
overall regional ponding plan where the runoff from the project site would bu trcatcd at a large
detention pond southcut ufpvn Snelling National Cemetery. CounidstafThavc not seen the
MAC rcgiuwrl ponding plan, and feel that Ihoau pvniuns of the plan televnnt w the nutmeat of
2t0 uvatnai Stnr
54 huL Mlnnrxia iiln l.i f3n (roll Wa•IWS
h'aa aU2i16U
aZaa759
,anw.e a,r. wwaa.rww'
2
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
1
23
24
25
P <.
The Metropolitan Airports Commission, Planning and
Environment Committee Public Hearing, 2001-2007 Capital
Improvements Program: Assessments of Environmental
Effects and Environmental Assessment Worksheet, held on
the 6th day of November 2000, commencing at 1:27 p.m.,
at Room 3040, Mezzanine Level, Lindbergh Terminal,
Wold-Chamberlain Field, before Tracy A. Schmitz, a
Registered Professional Reporter and Notary Public.
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Roger Hale, Chair
Alton Gasper, vice Chair
Thomas W. Anderson, General Counsel
Paul Weske
Nigel Finney
Jean Unruh
Dick Long
Bert McKasy
HOFFARTH & WHALEN, INC.
PHONE (952) 432-4240 * FAX (952) 432-7787
1
2
3
4
i
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
i
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Assessments of environmental effects for
the St. Paul Downtown, Flying Cloud, Crystal, Anoka
County -Blaine, Lake Elmo, and Airlake Airports were
not prepared since the Capital Improvement Program
has not changed from previous years. The changes
have only trivial environmental effects or effects
unknown at this time.
Notice of this public hearing was published on
October 16, 2000 in the Minneapolis Star Tribune
and in the Environmental Quality Board Monitor.
At this time I am passing notices of
publication to the court reporter for inclusion in
the record.
A number of projects included in the CIP for
2001 to 2007 are on -going from previous years or
they have been previously analyzed for their
environmental impacts. The remaining projects are
included in the MSP 2010 Long -Term Plan that was
subject of the Dual Track Airport Planning Process
Final EIS.
The assessment of environmental effects for
Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport examines
the cumulative environmental effects of all capital
improvement projects for the period 2001 through
2007. Many of the projects are repair or•
HOFFARTH & WHALEN, INC.
PHONE (952) 432-4240 * FAX (952) 432-7787
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
+� 24
25
I
6
Environmental Effects for the 2001-2007 Capital
Improvement Program and the Environmental
Assessment Worksheet will remain open until 5 p.m.
on Wednesday, November 15, 2000. All comments
should be directed to Ms. Jennifer Unruh,
Metropolitan Airports Commission, 6040 28th Avenue
South, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450.
Final action on the Capital Improvement
Program is expected at the December 18th meeting of
the Metropolitan Airports Commission.
This hearing is now concluded.
(Public Hearing concluded at 1:32 p.m.)
HOFFARTH & WHALEN, INC.
PHONE (952) 432-4240 * FAX (952) 432-7787
Ludlow Advertising, Inc
9801 Dupont Avenue South, Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55431
Client Copy Card
Client METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION
(MAC05)
Publication ST. PAUL PIONEER PRESS
# Of Returns F1 Cost/I.ead Cost/Close
Acct Exec Bekki Johnson
Ad No. 1160046 Space Cost $ 759,40
Key/Title PUBLIC NOTICE/ENVIRONEMTAL REVIEW PROCES•
Invoice 112636 Date 10/23/2000
Worksheet No. 1060515 File No. 0010-M-262
PUBLlC NOTICE
ENVIItONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS .
hM ROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION
MAC CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTAND PROGRAM, 2001-2007
DNIRONT4I(EM'AL ASSESSMENT WORYSHEEP FOR THE
ECONOLOT/EMPLOYEE PARTING STRUC LTRE AT MSP
In accordance with'the requirements of Minnesota Statutes 1988, Chapter
664, the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) is regcued to conduct
an Assessment of Environmental Effects for projects in the Commission's
sever; -year Capital Improvement Program
stem (21x11-2t70� for airports
included in its system
Cw g for St. Paul DowntownFl
oying Cloud, Crystal, Anoka
tY Cake' Elm , Airlake airports did not need to be
prepared since the Capital Imged from the provement Programandand Plan has not
Previous etrivial
nvnuonmenta) effects. A copy of the . orear the
of Environmental Effects
relating to construction projects on Minneapolis-SL Paul International
Airport is available on request to Bob vorpa}tT, MAC.
An Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) has also been preaced
for the construction of a new parking structure to serve patrons of the new
Humphrey Terminal (which replaces the existing Tilim and to replace the
EconoLot/Employee parking spaces lost due to construction of the
rePlacement terminal.
Comments concerning the Cappital Improvement *�Cr
e�°` s'''tiProgram Assessments and the OW can be given at
r Public Hearing to be held on Monday, November
i, 2000 at I:00 pp.m. in Room 3040, Mezzanine Level,
indbergh Terminal, Minneapolis -St. Paul a
nternational Airport, or in writing to the CIP File, °
Metropolitan Airports Commission, 6040.28th ;enue South, Minneapolis, MN 55450. The comment
period ends on Wednesday, November 15, 2000.
LtLudlow Advertising, Inc
9801 Dupont Avenue South, Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55431
Client
Publication
Client Copy Card
METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION
(MAC05)
STAR TRIBUNE
# Of Returns L.J Cost/Lead L...J Cost/Close
Acct Exec Bekki Johnson
Ad No. 1160044 Space Cost $ 1,514,48
Key/Title PUBLIC NOTICE/ENVIRONEMTAL REVIEW PROCES.
Invoice 113560 Date 11/13/2000
Worksheet No. 1060515 File No. 0010-M-262
Run Date 10/16/2000
PUBLIC NOTICE
ENVtRONMENTALREVIEW PROCESS
METROPOLITAN AMPORTSCOMMISSION
MAC CAPITAL IMPROVEhMINT PROGRAM; 2001-2007
.AND
ENVIRONM DTrALASSES.SMENT WORKSHEET FOR THE
ECONOLOT/EL WYEEPARKINGSTRUCTUREATMSP
]n accordance with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes 1988, Chapter
664, the MetibpohtanAirpoits Commission (MAC) is ired to conduct
an Assessment of Environmental Effects for p m the Commission s
seven-year Capital Improvement Program 2001-2007) for airports_
included in its system.
Assessments for St. Paul Downtown, Flying Cloud, Crystal; Anoka
County -Blaine; Lake Elmo and Airlake airports did not need to be
.prepar+ed since- the Capital Improvement Program and Plan has not
changed from. the previous year or the changes have only trivial
environmental effects. A copy of the -Assessment of Environmental Effects
relating to construction projects on Minneapolis -St. Paul .International
Airport is available on request to Bob Vorpahl; MAC.
An Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) has also been prepared
for the construction of a new parking structure to serve patrons of the new
Humphrey Terminal (which replaces the existing HIiF4 and to replace the
Econotot/Employee parking spaces lost due to construction of the
replacement terminal.
APPENDIX C
MAILING LIST
ENY1100MENTAL QUALITT 40ARD EnvvonmentalReview Program
EAW Distribution List
Updated September 2000
Approximately 25 copies are needed for distribution. For further information about this list,
contact the EQB at 6514964253 (metropolitan area) or 1-800-657-3794 (outside metropolitan area).
STATE AGENCIES Minnesota Pollntioa Coatrnl REGIONAL
Environmental Quality Board Agency (3 copies) Metropolitan Council
(1 copy) Beth Lockwood, Supervisor
(i copy if the project is in the
Metro
Distort/ MPCA
Environmental Review Program MOperations and Planning Unit seven -county metropolitan area)
300 Centennial Office Building Metro DLinda Milashius, Referrals
658 Cedar St. 520 Lafayette Rd Mears Park Centre
St. Paul, MN 55155 St. Paul MN 55155 230 E. Fifth St.
Board of Water and Soil St. Paul, MN 55101
Resources (1 copy) LIBRARIES
Jim Haertel Environmental Conservation Also distribute copies to:
One W. Water St. Library (2 copies) ■ Project proposer
Suite 200 Minneapolis Public Library ■ Local unit of government
St. Paul, MN 55107 300 Nicollet Mall corresponding to project
Department of Agriculture Minneapolis, MN 55401 jurisdiction, such as the county
placmma and zoning office,
(1 copy) Legislative Reference Library township, watershed district, soil
Becky Balk (2 copies) and water conservation districts,
90 W. Plato Blvd, Carol lackburn water management organizations
St. Paul, MN 55107 645 State Office Building ;
StPaul, MN 55155 ■ Regional Development
.
partment of Health (I copy) Commission, where applicable (see
,vironmental Health Division attached lists and map)
Policy, Planning and Analysis Unit FEDERAL ■ Regional Development library
aul, MN $5101 E. Seventh Place, Suite 230
Ste PaU.S. Army Corp of Engineers for the region in which the project
St. (I copy) site falls (see attached lists and
Department of Commerce Char Hanger map)
0 copy) Regulatory Functions Branch ■ Representatives of petitioners if
Marya Wbite Army Corps of Engineers Center the review was initiated by a
200 Metro Square Building 190 Fifth St. E, citizens petition
121 E. Seventh Place 'St. Paul, MN 55101-1638 ■ Any other person who has
St. Paul, MN 55101 U.S. Environmental Protection submitted a written request for
Department of Natural Agency (I copy) notification
Resources (3 copies) William D. Franz
Thomas W. Balcom Chief of Environmental Review PRESS RELEASE
Environmental Review Unit 71 W. Jackson Blvd, to
press release must be provided
500 Lafayette Road Chicago, IL 60604-3590 A A least one newspaper of ended
St. Paul MN 55155 4010 eral
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service circulation in the project area
Department of Transportation (I copy) . within five working days of EAW
(3 copies) Twin Cities Field Office E.S. distribution. The release must
Gerald Larson 4101 E. 90th Ste include the name, location and a
395 John Ireland Blvd, MS 620 Bloomington, MN 55425-1665 brief description of the project;
Si. Paul, MN 55155 locaticu(s) where the EAW can be
Minnesota Historical Society reviewed; the comment period
0 copy) deadline (call the EQB if
State Historical Preservation Office unknown
). and to whom comments
15 Kellogg Blvd. W. should be submitted
t. Paul, MN 55102
Roger Fraser, Manager
City of Blaine
91 Central Avenue NE
Blaine, MN 55434
Curt Boganey, City Manager
City of Brooklyn Park
5200-85th Avenue North
Brooklyn Park, MN 55443
Chris Enger, City Manager
City of Eden Prairie
8080 Mitchell Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Robert Erickson, City Administrator
City of Lakeville
20195 Holyoke Avenue
Lr ville, MN 55044
Douglas S. Reeder, City Administrator
City of South St. Paul
125 Third Avenue North
South St. Paul, MN 55119
Cheryl Schindeldecker, Town Board Chair
Eureka Township
26600 Ipava Avenue West
Lakeville, MN 55044
Kathleen Miller, City Administrator
City of Mounds View
2401 Highway 10
Mounds View, MN 55112
Michael McCauley, City Manager
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
Ann Norris, City Manager
City of Crystal
4141 North Douglas Drive
Crystal, MN 55422
Mary Kuefffner, City Administrator
City of Lake Elmo
3800 Laverne Avenue North
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
Mike Delmont, City Coordinator
City of Lexington
4175 Lovell Road
Suite 140
Lexington, MN 55014
Ron Fredkove, Superintendent
Baytown Township
4220 Osgood Avenue North
Stillwater, MN 55082
Jon McPherson, Town Board
West Lakeland Township
2398 Stagecoach Trail North
Stillwater, MN 55106
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE
Roger Hale, Chair
Alton Gasper, Vice Chair
Coral Houle
Dick Long
Bert McKasy
Georgiann Stenerson
Paul Weske
METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION
NOTICE OF REGULAR RESCHEDULED MEETING
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE
Tuesday, January 9, 2001
1:00 p.m.
Room 3040, Mezzanine Level
Lindbergh Terminal, Wold-Chamberlain Field
AGENDA
CONSENT
1. FINAL PAYMENTS — MAC CONTRACTS
a. Airfield Lighting Computer Control System - Phase II (Bridget Rief, Airside
Project Manager)
b. Automated People Mover Station Flooring (Todd Oetjens, Facilities Architect)
c. Northwest Drive and Employee Parking Lot at Post Road (Joseph Shortreed,
Landside Project Manager)
d. Lower Level Roadway Lighting
Im
e. Green/Gold Parking Ramp Lighting Upgrades (Robert Vorpahl, Program
Development Engineer)
f. 1999-2000 Part 150 Sound Insulation Program (Joseph Shortreed, Landside
Project Manager)
2. SEMI-FINAL PAYMENTS —MAC CONTRACTS
a. Airfield Lighting Computer Control System (Bridget Rief, Airside Project
Manager)
b. 34T" Avenue Sanitary Sewer Relocation (Myrene Biernat, Facilities Architect)
3. BIDS RECEIVED —MAC CONTRACTS
a. Humphrey Terminal Fuel Hydrant System (Gary G. Warren, Director —Airside
Development)
b. Part 150 Sound Insulation Program — December Bid Cycle (Joseph Shortreed,
Landside Project Manager)
4. REVIEW OF UPCOMING CONSTRUCTION PROJECT BIDS
Robert Vorpahl, Program Development Engineer
NOVEMBER 2000 ACTIVITY REPORT FOR METRO OFFICE PARK
Eric L. Johnson, Manager— Commercial Management &Airline Affairs
Metropolitan Council
Working for the f�egion, Planning for the Future
REMINDER!
REVISED
AVIATION POLICY PLAN TASK FORCE
MEETING SCHEDULE
• MEETING OF DECEMBER 13, 2000 CANCELLED
• NEXT MEETINGS SCHEDULED FOR:
- JANUARY 17, 2001
- FEBRUARY 14, 2001
- MARCH 14, 2001
All meetings 8:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. Council Offices -Chambers
230
East
FiRh
Street
St.
Paul.
Minnesota
55101-1626
(651)
602-1000
Fax 602-1550
TDD/TI'Y
291-0904
Mclro
Info
Line
602-1888
01-03-01 10:43am From-KENNEDY & GRAVEN +6123379310 T-741 P.02/02 F-003
MEETING ALERT
Where: Richfield City Council Chambers (6700 Portland Avenue)
When: January 9, 2U01 from 9:Op —11:pU a.m.
Subject: 2U01 Legislative Issues
II you have any quzstiuns regarding this meztin�, pleasz contact John Chui at (612) 337-
9208. Thank you.
lac-n7uss.•1 2
hcias-qoo
01-03-01 10:43am From-KENNEDY & GRAVEN +6123379310 T-741 P.01/02 H03
MEMORANDUM
'I`�• Swnan[haOrduno(6l?/861-97a9)
City of Richfield
Yam Dmytrenko (6121861.9749)
City of Richfield
Dave Dombrowski (6121794-4406)
Metmpolitsn An -ports Corrumss,on
ken lscnbag (6511602-1358)
Mctropvhtan Council
Phil Riv=esa (612/879-1629)
Metropolltwt Courlc7{
William Barnhart (6121673-3250)
Cary or Minneapohs
Mark. Beruh=dson (612/948-8754)
City or Bloonungton
Joe Bdguoh (651/296-7030)
Office of Governor V entora
Tom Hanson (612/895*4404)
City of Burnsville
Jnrnc: Vcrbruggc (651/681-4612)
City of F.ag4
Bob Hubar(612/713.4364)
FAA Drsmcr Ofrico
Leine Jarobols (6511296-5287)
Department of Tr4de and Economic Developrrtcat
Norman Foster (6511296-8685)
Depanrnem of t3nance
1Cevrn Bawtielae (651/452-8940)
C4ty of Mendota Heigprs
FROM: lnhn Choi �,!�� rit"`
DATE: January 3, 2001
RE: Airpor[ Lzgislalive Group Mt:eling
Airport Noise Report
A weekly update on litigation, regulations, and technological developments
Volume 12, Number 43
Memphis Intl
SETTLEMENT ENDS AIRPORT'S EFFORTS
TO MITIGATE NOISE AT FEDEX MAIN HUB
A lone plaintiff challenging the $22 mon settlement of a landmark class
action lawsuit over noise at Memphis International ,Airport has stepped aside, .
clearing the way for 12,441 eligible parties.who,own Property. near the airport to
begin receiving their share of the pot.
Under the terms of the settlement, the Memphis -Shelby County Airport Author-
ity will receive avigation easements in exchange for payments to property owners
ranging from $325 to $4,200, depending on the length of ownership of property
and whether it is being used as a primary residence. • _. r:c�lc;: -. •. -
The parcels of property covered in the settlement -include -all homes in the
airport's 65 dB DNL contour and in some areas of lesser impact -beyond that -
contour. The airport already has purchased 1,400 homes in the 75 dB DNL
contour.
In essence, the settlement allows the airport authoritytd'�purbhase-aviaation
easements at a relatively low price for all the homes in the:65 dB,DNL,contour. It
includes no requirement for the airport to sound insulate those homes, which are
located near an airport that is the primary hub for FedEx and has about 300
takeoffs and landings each night. - -
(Continued on p. 179)
Legislation
ROTHMAN TO REINTRODUCE LEGISLATION
BARRING STAGE 2 PLANES UNDER 75000 LB.
In a effort to close what he calls a loophole. in the Airport Noise -and Capacity
Act of 1990 (ANCA), Rep. Steven R. Rothman (D-NJ) plans to reintroduce in the
upcoming session of Congress legislation that would prohibit the operation of all
Stage 2 airplanes under 75,000 lb. in 20 urban areas around the country that have
the worst aircraft noise impact. - - - -
While ANCA required the phase out of all Stage 2 airplanes weighting over
75,000 lb. by the end of 1999, the legislation included rimuch requirement for
lighter Stage 2 jets used mainly as corporate and regional jet aircraft.
Rothman's legislation is significant because it appears to obviate, through
legislative fiat, the need for airports in the 20 urban areas in the country with the
greatest noise impact from having to go through the FAA's Part 161 process to
restrict operation of Stage 2 aircraft under 75,000 lb.
The FAA's Part 161 Regulations on Notice and.Commenton Airport Noiseand
Access Restrictions require airports to conduct cost/benefit.analyses and consider
non-restrictive measures before imposing bans on aircraft operations,
Rothman's original bill, the Aircraft Noise Reduction Act of 1999,.had 24 co-
sponsors when it was introduced in the 106th Congress but is expected to pick up
December 159 2000
In This Issue...
Memphis ...The way is
finally cleared for the Mem-
phis -Shelby County Airport
Authority to begin distributing
payments in the $22 million
settlement of a noise class
action lawsuit. The airport
I
it has no more money for
noise mitigation efforts at the
cazgo hub - p. 178
Legislation ...Rep. Steven
Rothman (D-NJ) plans to
reintroduce legislation that
would ban Stage 2 aircraft
under 75,000 lb. in 20 urban
azeas with the worst aircraft
noise impact - p. 178
Albuquerque ... City to ask
FAA to approve departure
procedure barring turns over
more populated areas - p. 180
Denver ... DIA to begin 90-
day test under which hushkitted
aircraft, which appear to be
causing violations of noise level
limits set in agreement paving
way for new airport, will be
rerouted away from densely
populated areas - p. 180
Los Angeles ... Draft master
plan guiding development of
Los Angeles International
Airport to be released Jan. 18
and made available for unprec-
edented 180-day public com-
ment period - p. 180
-s'(Continued an p. ll9)
December 15, 2000
Other airports with heavy corporate jet traffic are waiting
to see how FAA responds to Naples' action before deciding
whether to follow suit.
Albuquerque IM
AIRPORT TO ASK FAA
FOR BAN ON NORTH TURNS
The City of Albuquerque is expected soon to ask [fie
Federal Aviation Administration to approve a departure
procedure requiring all commercial airplanes taking off
from Albuquerque International Sunport's east -west
Runway 8 to turn south on takeoff to avoid more populated
areas to the north.
Currently such a ban on north turns for Runway 8
departures is in effect from 9 p.m. to 7 a.m. A report by
California -based W adell Engineering Corp., released at the
end of November, analyzed flight tracks from Runway 8,
one of the airport's two main runways, and recommended
that the ban on north turns be extended to 24 hours.
W adell recommended that the city submit a letter to the
FAA seeking approval for such action. That letter has not
yet been sent, according to Maggie Santiago, spokeswoman
for the airport. The letter must first be approved by the City
Council and that has not yet occurred, she said.
Santiago said that Albuquerque Mayor Jim -Baca is
pushing very hard for this change in departure procedure
and has made aircraft noise mitigation one of his top
priorities. He moved aggressively to get a noise monitoring
system installed at the airport and will pay for it with city
funds. Santiago said the airport is almost ready to announce
the contractor it has selected to install a noise monitoring
system, which it hopes will be up and running by this
spring.
She said the airport also has hired its first noise abatement
officer, Steven Picoux, currently with the New Orleans
International Airport noise office, who will begin his duties
at Albuquerque on ]an. 15, 2001.
Last January, Mayor Baca hired Wardell Engineering on
the advice of an attorney representing the Airport Neigh-
bors Alliance. Residents near the airport were not satisfied
with the Part 150 airport noise compatibility program that
was being developed by the airport and hired their own
attorney to assemble a team of experts to devise a noise
abatement program for the airport.
Mayor Baca backed the community group, temporarily
halted further development of the Part 150 program, and
hired W adell to determine whether aircraft departing to the
east can be turned south on a regularbasis to avoid overfly-
ing more populated areas. Earlier, Mayor Baca had recom-
mended such a procedure to the Federal Aviation Adminis-
tration but the agency said it could not be done.
The mayor also supported the community group's position
that a permanent noise monitoring system needed to be
installed at the airport rather than the seasonal noise
monitoring proposed in the draft Part 150 program.
180
Denver Int'1
-DAY TEST WILL REROUTE
HUSHKITTED STAGE 3 AIRCRAFT
In January 2001, Denver International Airport wilt begin a
90-day test under which hushkitted Stage 3 aircraft will be
rerouted on departure to flight paths directing them away
from the most densely -populated areas of the metropolitan
Denver area.
United and Frontier airlines agreed to conduct the test
h city aviation officials because of the sharp increase in
aircraft noise violations west of the airport, the Denver Post
reported. A preliminary review of aircraft noise data from
DIA's fifth year of operation, which ended on Feb. 29,
indicates that the number of violations of the airport's noise
regulations almost doubled from the previous year, accord -
to the Post.
Prior to the opening of the new airport in 1995, Adams
County and the City of Denver negotiated an Intergovern-
mental Agreement designed to avoid the noise problems
that Stapleton International Airport had caused for commu-
nities near it. The agreement convinced Adams County
.voters to allow Denver to annex more than 40 square miles
of the county for the new airport.
The agreement includes noise level limits at 101 arid
pointsin the communities near the airport in Adams
County. It requires Denver, the proprietor of DIA, to pay
$500,000 per violation of these noise levels. In October
1999, ajudge ruled that the City of Denver must pay Adams
County $4 million for noise level violations that occurred
during DIA's first year of operation. Denver's appeal of that
ruling is still pending.
Prior to the Dec. 31, 1999, date by which all Stage 2
airplanes had to be phased out of operation in the United
States, DIA had required Stage 2 aircraft to follow special
departure procedures taking them far to the north (as far as
Wyoming) or to the south of the airport before turning west
in an effort to avoid flying over communities, especially
those in the mountains to the west of Denver.
However, that procedure was dropped after the Stage 2
phaseout date allowing aircraft hushkitted to meet Stage 3
standards to follow normal departure procedures once
again. It is these hushkitted airplanes that appear to be
causing an increase in violations of the noise level limits
set in the Intergovernmental Agreement.
Los Angeles Intl
DRAFT MASTER PLAN
RELEASE SET FOR JANUARY
A comprehensive draft master plan that would guide
future development of Los Angeles International Airport
wilI be released Jan, t8, 2001, and will be available for
public review for an unprecedented 180 days, Los Angeles
1Vorld Airports (LAW A) officials announced.
Airport Noise Report
A weekly update on liti,,ation, regulations, and technological developments
Volume 12, Number 44
San Francisco Intl
ROUNDTABLE TO TEST SOUND INSULATION
FOR LOW4REQUENCY BACKBLAST NOISE
The San Francisco International Airport/Community Roundtable recently
approved a six-month work program that includes fast -tracking the implementa-
tion of a backblast noise test project.
Funds have been committed to acquire a representative residential property in
the area behind the primary airport takeoff runway. Following a request for
proposal and bid process, contractors will be given various rooms in the home in
which to test insulation and other hardware retrofitting approaches aimed at
reducing interior low -frequency noise caused by jets taking off.
The Roundtable said this unique project is intended to produce the prototype
approach to reducing the rumbling and low vibrations that can set windows and
china rattling.
The work program also has an item to collect information that would expand the
airport's and the Federal Aviation Administration's noise insulation program as it
applies to pre-schools and public schools.
The airport has committed S 120 million to retrofit residences in its noise impact
area with double -pane windows, solid core doors, weatherproofing, and caulking
to reduce interior noise.
(Continued on p. 139)
ICAO
EUROPEANS ASK ICAO TO DISMISS
U.S. COMPLAINT OVER HUSHKIT RULE
The
European Union (EU) has asked the Council of the International Civi]
Aviation Organization (ICAO) to dismiss a formal complaint filed by the United
States against a controversial EU regulation barring the addition of hushkitted
aircraft to European airports.
The dispute with the United States is "a policy disagreement which is not
appropriate for dispute settlement" under Article 84 of the Chicago Convention
on aviation, the EU asserted in its response to the U.S. action, which was filed on
December 1.
Last March, the United States took the unprecedented step of filing a formal
request with ICAO under Article 84 to resolve the dispute over the EU hushkit
rule, putting in jeopardy the EU members' voting rights in the international
aviation regulatory body (12. ANR, 39).
In its complaints to ICAO, called a Memorial, the United States contended that
the EU hushkit rule "will have a profoundly disruptive and discriminatory effect
on the orderly development and operation of international civil aviation."
The United States asserted that the EU hushkit regulation unfairly target U.S.
airlines and violates the Chicago Convention and its annexes, which require that
(Continued on P. 134)
December 2?9 2000
In This Issue...
San Francisco ...The SFO
AirpordCommunity Round-
table plans to acquire a house
behind the main takeoff
runway in which insulation to
address low -frequency
backblast noise and rattle will
be tested - p. 182
Hushkits ...The EU asks
A ICO to dismiss a U.S. com-
plaint challenging rule barring
addition of hushkitted aircraft at
European airports - p. 182
Hawaii ... FAA announces
approval of noise mitigation
program for Lanai Airport,
noise maps for Hilo - p. 183
Burbank ... FAA approves
25 of 28 proposed measures in
noise mitigation program for
Burbank Airport. Phaseout of
all Stage 2 jets and imposition
of mandatory nighttime curfew
sapproved" pending Part 161
submission - p. 183
Florida ... FAA announces
approval of noise exposure
maps for Tampa International, ..
Naples Municipal - p. 184 .
FAA expected to respond to
Naples ban on Stage 2 jets
under 75,000 lb. by end of next
week.
Cleveland ... FAA awards
5148.4 million grant for new
runway construction - p. 184
December 22, 2000
184
Update Noise exposure maps and Noise Compat-
ibility Program;
- Expand noise monitoring system;
Enhance airport authority's geographic informa-
tion system; and
- Maintain log of nighttime runway use and
operations by aircraft type.
Further information can be obtained from Brian
Armstrong, and airport planner in the FAA's Western -
Pacific Region; tel: (310) 725-3614; P.O. Box 92007,
Worldway Postal Center, Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007.
Part I50 Program
FAA APPROVES NOISE MAPS
FOR NAPLES, TAMPA AIRPORTS
The noise exposure map submitted by Hillsborough
County Aviation Authority depicting existing conditions at
Tampa International Airport meets federal requirements, the
Federal Aviation Administration announced Dec. 21.
Further information on the map can be obtained from
Tommy J. Pickering in the FAA's Orlando Airports District
Office; tel: (407) 643-6533, ext. 29.
The FAA announced Dec. 20 that the revised noise
exposure maps submitted by the Naples Airport Authority
for Naples Municipal Airport under the provisions of the
Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979 are in
compliance with applicable requirements.
Additional information on the Naples' maps can be
obtained from Tommy J. Pickering at the telephone number
listed above.
CZeveland Hopkins Int'Z
DOT ANNOUNCES FUNDING
FOR NEW CLEVELAND RUNWAY
U.S. Transportation Secretary Rodney E. Slater announced
Dec. 2I the grant of 5143.4 million to construct a new
runway at Cleveland -Hopkins International Airport.
"This new runway will provide additional capacity and
more efficient operations that will help strengthen
Cleveland's economy, increase growth, and improve service
for travelers," Slater said.
The grant will support the construction of a replacement
parallel runway intended to reduce operational delays and
increase airport capacity. The new runway will serve as the
airport's primary landing runway. The project includes
measures to mitigate the runway's impact on wetlands and
streams.
"We are thrilled with today's great news." said Cleveland
Mayor Michael R. White. "This federal grant does two
significant things: it allows us to go to the bond market to
complete additional financing for the new runway expan-
sion project and assists us in the overall 51.4 billion short -
and long-term expansion program. We are truly grateful for
Secretary Slater and the federal government's lone -term
commitment to the City of Cleveland."
San Francisco, from p. I S2
The present program finances residential noise insulation;
the new item would gather information on schools with an
eye toward bringing them into the program.
Also on the program is expansion and replacement of the
airport's noise monitoring system, review of various
landing and approach procedures, establishment of a "fly
quiet" program at SFO and reduction of single -event noise.
Griffin Steps Down
On Dec. 3, Roundtable Chair Mary Griffin, a charter
member of the organization, ended her tenure as the fourth
chairperson of the nearly 20 year -old organization, which is
considered a model for other airports and communities to
emulate.
The Roundtable is a voluntary organization working to
mitigate the impacts of airport noise on neighboring
communities. Voting members are drawn from elected
representatives of IS cities and two counties surrounding
the airport. Griffin represents the County of San Mateo;
however term, limits will end her service on the county
Board of Supervisors in January 2001, at which time a new
board representative to the Roundtable will be chosen.
In an emotional farewell to the Roundtable, Griffin said
her tenure had been exciting. Listing some of the group's
accomplishments over the last few years, she said. "none of
this happened because of me — it's because of the efforts of
the airport, the staff, the FAA, the airlines, and others who
made it possible."
"I hope the cooperation that has marked this group's
deliberations never changes ... we have always had that.
W e have had our disagreements but it has never been
personalized ... we have to work together by keeping
respect for one another."
ICf10, from p. 182
noise certification standards be non-discriminatory and
performance -based.
In its response to the U.S. claim, called a Counter -
Memorial, the EU said the U.S. position has no merit.
The economic impact of the [hushkii] Regulation is felt
primarily by EU operators and the allegations of the U.S.
that its economic interests are unduly affected are unsub-
stantiated." the EU told ICAO. "If such economic effects
exist, they are the consequence of the fleet structure in the
U.S. and of the fact that the purpose of the Regulation is to
reduce the noise and other environmental damage caused
by recertificated aircraft. The [EU] cannot be held respon-
sible for the fact that the U.S. has produced so many
(hushkitted] aircraft."
Regarding the U.S. position that the Eli rule violates
Articles 1 I and 15 of the Convention, the EU responded
Airport Noise Report
A weekly update on litigation, regulations, and technological developments
Volume 1?,Nurn ber 45, 46
AIP Noise Grants
FEDERAL GRANT AWARDS TO AIRPORTS
FOR NOISE PROJECTS TOTALS $299 BILLION
Since 1982, the federal government has given U.S. airports $2.92 billion in
Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grants to plan and implement projects related
to aircraft noise mitigation, according to data provided by the agency.
In past years, because of limitations in the way FAA generates computer data,
ANR has only been able to provide specific funding amounts by airport for noise -
related planning grants. This year, for the first time, ANR is providing data, by
airport, which represents the total of both planning and implementation grants.
These totals were compiled by ANR based on AIP noise -related grant data
provided by the FAA for the years 1982, when funding began for the agency's
Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Program, through 2000.
The AIP grant data provided here represents only one of two federal funding
sources available to airport proprietors to fund noise mitigation projects. The
other funding source is revenue from Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs). In June,
ANR reported that S 1.6 billion (7 percent) of the total $25.4 billion in PFCs that
the FAA has approved for collection by airports through the next 49 years is
being designated for noise mitigation purposes (12, ANR, 76).
Both the AIP grant data provided here and the PFC data reported earlier should
be considered to get a more complete picture of what an individual airport has
and plans to devote to noise mitigation efforts.
Over $252 Million to Atlanta
The data provided by FAA show that three airports have receivzd ovzr S 100
million in noise -related AIP grants since 1932: Atlanta Hartsfield International
leads the pack at $252.1 million, followed by Lambert St. Louis International
($159.2 million) and Seattle -Tacoma International (S140.3 million).
Some 13 airports have received between $50 million and S100 million in AIP
grants over the past 19 years for planning and implementing airport noise
projects: Los Angeles International (S95.3 million), Minneapolis -St. Paul
International ($90.6 million), Boston Logan International (S39 million), Mem-
phis International (S37.6 million), Las Vegas McCarran International (S76.1
million), Phoenix Sky Harbor International (S72.2 million), Chicago O'Hare
International (S63.7 million), San Jose International (S60.3 million), Indianapolis
International (S59.8 million), Charlotte International (S56.7 million). Des Moines
International (S5 L1 million), Cleveland Hopkins International (S51.1 million).
and Palm Beach International (S50.4 million).
Some nine airports have received grants, since 1992. totaling between S40
million and $30 million: Baltimore -Washington International (S49.9 million),
Louisville Standiford Field (S46 million), T.F. Green State Airport (S44.4 mil-
lion), Nashville International (S42.6 million), Detroit Metropolitan(S42.6
million), New Orleans International (S40.3 million). Baton Rouge (S40.7 million).
San Francisco International (S40.7 million), and Colorado Springs \I unicipal
(S40 million).
December 2Y7 2000
In This ISa L&V * & .
AIP Gra1:t Data ...This
special double end -of -year
issue of ANR provides data
on the total federal Airport
Improvement Program (AIP)
grant funding that airports
have received for both plan-
ning and implementing
projects aimed at the mitiga-
tion of aircraft noise.
The FAA data show that
274 airports have received
noise -related AIP grants
totaling $2.92 billion since the
agency began making funds
available through its Part 150
Airport Noise Compatibility
Program in 1982-
Atlanta's Hartsfield Intema-
tional Airport has received, by
far, the greatest amount of
noise -related AIP grant
funding ($252.1 million),
followed by Lambert -St.
Louis International ($159 2
miIlion) and Seattle -Tacoma
International (S1403 million)
but li additional airports have
received between $50-$100
miIlion in noise -related grant
funding.
Following is a table show -
the total amount each
airport has received for
planning and implementation
of noise mitigation projects.
December 29, 2000
lss
MRY Monterey Peninsula $7,0235467
OAK Metropolitan Oakland International $720,885
ONT Ontario International $29,4153679
OXR Oxnard $193,386
PAO Palo Alto Airport of Santa Clara $85,230
PSP Palm Springs Municipal $14,716,372
RAL Riverside Municipal $157,500
RDD Redding Municipal $120,538
RHV Reid-Hillview of Santa Clara County $151,200
SAN Lindbergh Field — San Diego International $20,6871578
SBA Santa Barbara Municipal $3,902,092
SCK Stockton Metropolitan $480,510
SFO San Francisco International $401739,072
SJC San Jose International $60,3402489
SMF Sacramento Metropolitan $2,555,705
SMO Santa Monico Municipal $346,500
SMX Santa Maria Public $45,882
SNA John Wayne Airport (Orange County) $81367,368
TVL South Lake Tahoe $100,000
VYN Van Nuys $275,000
Colorado
APA Centennial Airport (Denver) $599,900
COS Colorado Springs Municipal $40,0602900
PUB Pueblo Memorial $140,265
STAP Stapleton International (closed) $698,120
Saipan
GSN Saipan International $261,000
Connecticut
BDL Bradley International (Windsor Locks) $366,525
BDR Igor I. Sikorsky Memorial (Bridgeport) $206,400
DXR Danbury Municipal $1342605
GON Groton -New London $1293390
HFD Hartford Brainard $132,679
Florida
APF Naples Municipal $3,115,438
BCT Boca Raton Public $327,000
DAB Daytona Beach $1043318
EYW Key West International $572,744
FLL Ft. Lauderdale -Hollywood International $42,636,612
FPR St, Lucie County International (Ft. Pierce) $133,700
FXE Fort Lauderdale Executive $609,650
GNV Gainsville Regional $1,3512972
ISM Kissimmee Municipal $81,000
Airport Noise Report
190
Illinois
ALN St, Louis Regional (Alton, St. Louis) $32704,794
BMI Bloomington -Normal $52604,438
CMI University of Illinois — Willard Airport $1333369
DEC Decatur $358,242
MDW Chicago Midway $31,2132444
ORD Chicago O'Hare International $63,7491475
PIA Greater Peoria $22714,657
PWK Palwaukee $1943513
RFD Greater Rockford $2,140,752
SPI Capital Airport (Springfield) $2,8083936
STA State of Illinois block grant $18,178,094
UGN Waukegan Regional $152,539
Indiana
114 Eagle Creek Airpark $193,728
HUF Hulman Regional (Terre Haute) $1,4312402
IND Indianapolis International $59,884,575
Kentucky
CVG Greater Cincinnati International $4990052411
LEX Blue Grass Field (Lexington) $1,3401143
SDF Standiford Field (Louisville) $46,050,000
Louisiana
AEX Alexandria International $176,000
BTR Baton Rouge Municipal $40,777,993
HUM Houma-Terrabonne $41,715
LCH Lake Charles Regional $1,016,173
LFT Lafayette Regional $90,000
MLU Monroe Regional $54,000
MSY New Orleans International — Moisant $40,8033613
SHV Shreveport Regional $17,467,537
Massachusetts
ACK Nantucket Memorial $197,221
BAF Barnes Municipal (Westfield) $1,4451344
BED Hanscom Field $58,958
BOS Boston Logan International $89,036,040
CEF Westover Air Force Base (Joint Use) $159,129
HYA Barnstable Municipal (Hyannis) $287,651
MVY Martha's Vineyard Airport $1243200
ORH Worcester Municipal $147,619
OWD Norwood Memorial $127,800
Maryland
BWI Baltimore -Washington International $49,9327426
Airport Noise Report
192
Nebraska
OMA Eppley Airfield (Omaha) $3,408,653
New Hampshire
ASH Boire Field (Nashua) $109,484
LEB Lebanon Municipal $1,4829307
MHT Manchester Municipal $18,9512190
PSM Pease International Tradeport $1,142,801
New Jersey
ACY Atlantic City International $200,000
EWR Newark International $30,913,831
TEB Teterboro $341,531
New Mexico
24N Jicarilla Apache Nation $40,500
ABQ Albuquerque International $1,522,412
FMN Four Corners Regional $1533981
ROW Roswell Industrial Air Center $317500
Nevada
4SD Reno/Stead $292,500
LAS Las Vegas McCarran International $762127,226
RNO Reno -Tahoe International $37,372,110
VGT North Las Vegas Air Terminal $31,000
New York
ALB Albany County $8,649,263
BUF Greater Buffalo International $310,500
FRG Republic Airport (Farmingdale) $432,270
HPN Westchester County $1,154,439
ISP Long Island — MacArthur $6,675,263
JFK John F. Kennedy International $29,1722704
LGA LaGuardia $20,6513088
PLB Clinton County $652790
SWF Stewart International $3009000
SYR Syracuse — Hancock International $20,9992665
Ohio
CAK Akron -Canton Regional $2,133,585
CLE Cleveland -Hopkins International $511159,201
CMH Port Columbus International $17,3131641
DAY James M. Cox Dayton International $11,860,487
LCK Rickenbacker Airport (Columbus) $7,506,576
LPR Lorain County Regional $131,380
MFD Mansfield-Lahm Municipal $883134
OSU Ohio State University (Columbus) $92,751
Airport
Noise Report
194
BSM Austin -Bergstrom International $12381,554
DAL Dallas Love Field $2,108,210
DFW Dallas -Ft. Worth International $21;750,910
FTW Ft, Worth Meacham $4,858,318
GKY Arlington Municipal $9,000
HRL Rio Grande Valley International $1,107,999
LRD Laredo International $8,476,753
MAF Midland Regional $2983292
RBD Redbird $210,000
SAT San Antonio International $9,812,952
Utah
SLC Salt Lake City International $5,754,748
Virginia
DCA Reagan National $336,700
HEF Manassas Regional $22097,267
OFF Norfolk International $526,020
ROA Roanoke Municipal $888,230
Washington
BFI Boeing Field -King County Int'I $341,570
BLI Bellingham International $11,3883330
CLM William Fairchild International $28,062
PAE Snohomish County/Paine Field $211,534
PSC Tri-Cities Airport (Pasco) $54,000
SEA Seattle -Tacoma International $1402342,202
YKM Yakima Air Terminal $27,620
Wisconsin
ENW
GRB
MKE
MSN
OSH
CPR
CYS
JAC
Total
Kenosha Regional $81,892
Austin OLraubel Int'I (Green Bay) $140,582
Gen. Mitchell International (Milwaukee) $30,500,950
Dane County Regional (Madison) $16,195,746
Wittman Field (Oshkosh) $108,107
Wyoming
Natrona County Int'I (Casper)
Cheyenne Airport
Jackson Hole Airport
$909,976
$5,366,146
41,61
$2,921,435,168
A irpan Noise Report
1996 Overall MSP Runway Use -Average Annual Use,
NI I
of of n A fia , .>_
.. IF
i (IMIN I P ��i,UIo1�
FrF tl� !II SI of
A'�itli�tI nNo
i, Fit ti.�r��t t -
IF 23R/4 r,;, lit 9, , 0% ,� a L.l
Ill 22% �a% ; � g t FIFF, 6
- , ,C FIo. .,. ..
aft Fit,t �f.,
23%ixa �'za, v 0
*.,
26%
F IF26% ~I
LL
4i•r,
°-.;
1 °/ 4 °It
It; It ILL
JQ1��i `tiny J/ r 26% _
fl .ter, (4 ., �,�x.-...
(4) As you can see the area to the SE of the airport annually receives (26%)
of the departures and (26%) of the arrivals. Compare this to the Minneapolis
side of approximately (23%) of the departures and arrivals and one begins to
get the picture that operations are not fair. Now take a look at the departures
and arrivals over St. Paul and Bloomington. Bloomington receives (3%) of
the departures and only (1 %) of the arrivals while St. Paul is less than (1 %)
for both departures and arrivals. Does this look fair to you?
Now let's look at another aspect of the Runway Use System that is unfair to
the people of Mendota Heights and other communities to the SE of the
airport. (5) Believe it or not the RUS instructs that: Whenever possible -
meaning weather conditions permit - that aircraft will depart MSP using the
Corridor departing to the SE. (6) To further make our point, the RUS
instructs that operations at night be conducted in the Corridor whenever
conditions allow. (7) To make matters even more unfair the RUS further
instructs that "Head to Head" operations be conducted within the corridor
during the nighttime hours of (8) 10:30 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. to further protect
the communities to the south, west and north of the airport. (9) What this
means is that they are departing and landing within the Corridor at the same
time!
(10) Now some of you may be thinking that the percentage difference seen
on this graphic is not that great between the NW (Minneapolis) and SE
(Eagan -Mendota Heights Corridor) for departures and arrivals. (1 1) We
must point out that when calculating the approximate number of overflights
between these percentages we are talking about over 15,000 flights per year
and a significant number of these overflights are at night!
Is this an eduitable distribution of aircraft? We don't think so!
THE ARC and PLAN PRIORITIES
(12) The Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission is a seven person
advisory commission appointed by the Mendota Heights City Counsel.
(13) The Commission advises the City Counsel on matters pertaining to
airport noise and operations. This is accomplished by monitoring proposed
airport rules, procedures and programs which impact air noise levels within
Mendota heights. The Commission makes regular recommendations to the
City Counsel on strategies that will mitigate air noise exposure.
(14) Members also address non -noise related issues arising from increased
operations and expansion at MSP. This includes land uses and airport related
economic development in communities adjacent to the airport.
(15) The commission annually develops and revises its goals and objectives
to help prioritize its efforts to mitigate noise in the community. To this end,
the Commission has defined the following issues as important priorities:
I . (16) Equity of the current runway use system.
2. (17) Sound insulation for homes adversely affected by aircraft noise.
3. Aircraft take -off noise reduction through alternative departure techniques
(18) (GPS -uses satellite technology to fly planes through unpopulated
areas, (19) elimination of head to head operations, (20) fly planes down
the center of the Corridor whenever possible)
4. (21) The accelerated conversion from hushkitted aircraft to the much
quieter manufactured Stage III and Stage IV aircraft.
5. (22) The reduction of aircraft operations during the nighttime hours.
6. (23) Define and ensure proper use of the established corridor.
7. (24) Ensure that no new runways will be built that will increase air traffic
over any portion of Mendota Heights.
8. (25) Monitor the expansion plans and activities MSP Airport.
9. Support other reasonable efforts to reduce the noise generated by airport
operations; i.e. (26) ground run-up enclosures, (27) sound barriers, (28)
reduced thrust by departing aircraft, (29 & 30) expansion of noise
monitoring technology.
VIDEO/STILL PICTURES/AUDIO IMAGES
(1) Graphic of RUS planes tracking. (obtain from MAC)
(2) Graphic of Mendota Heights Corridor. (obtain from MAC of documents
we have)
(3) See picture (3)for example (I would suggest we find a more current
graphic)
(4) Video with someone manually showing or pointing to these numbers and
runways. (NDC 18)
(5) Graphic that portrays the stated RUS priorities for the tower order. (on
file and create)
(6) Highlight the RUS nighttime operation tower order. (on file and create)
(7) Highlight RUS tower order for head to head operations. (on file or create
graphic or obtain from MAC)
(8) Graphic of I0:30 p.m. to 6:30 a.m. voluntary nighttime hours. (create of
obtain from MAC)
(9) Graphic of how head to head operations are carried out in the Corridor.
(obtain from MAC)
(10) Go back to graphic (3).
(1 1) Graphic of total operations with calculations showing what 3%
difference results in using real numbers - approximately 15,000
operations annually. (create)
(12) Photo or video of ARC meeting. (NDC18)
(13) Brief footage of ARC presentation to City Council. (tape on file)
(14) Video of new runway construction and other airport construction
projects. (obtain from MAC of NDC 18)
(15) Still picture of Plan of Action, (NDC18 or MH staff)
(16) Graphic showing all runways being used. (not sure how to do this -
any ideas?)
(17) Video footage of home insulation project. (obtain from MAC)
(18) Graphic or video footage showing how GPS works. (obtain from
MAC)
(19) Graphic or video footage showing how head to head operations look
and then X it out (no head to head). (MAC may have this or make our
own using NDC18)
(20) Graphic of plane tracking down the center of the Corridor. (obtain
from MAC)
(21) Video with sound of 727 departing and then same with A320
departing. (obtain from MAC or create with NDC18)
(22) Video of people peacefully sleeping with windows open. (create with
NDC 18)
(23) Video footage showing airplane photograph of industrial area with
some pointing out where planes could fly to avoid residential areas.
MH photo using NDC18 to film footage)
(24) Graphic of Dual track Plan that had the 3`d parallel runway as an
alternative. (on file in MH office)
(25) Still photo of Part 150 book and still photo of budget of proposed
expansion plans for MSP to 2010. (on file in MH office)
(26) Video footage of run-up enclosure. (obtain from MAC)
(27) Video footage of a sound barrier. (obtain from MAC)
(28) Video footage of plane taking off away from camera with noise
(obtain from MAC)
(29) Still Picture of ANOMS monitor
(30) Graphic of map showing where the monitors are located (obtain from
MAC of from MH file)
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC)
6040 28th Avenue South • Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450 • (612) 726-8141
Chairperson: Mayor Charles Mertensotto
Past Chairs: Robert P. Johnson, 1995A999
Scott Bunin, 1990-1995
Walter Rockenstein, II, 1982-1990
Jan Del Calzo, 1979-1982
Stanley W. Olson, 1969-1979
Technical
Advisor: Chad Leqve
MEETING NOTICE
MASAC OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
THE JANVARY 2001 MASAC
OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING
MEMBER DISTRIBUTION
Chairman Charles Mertensotto
Bob Johnson, MBAR
Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan
rton Johnson, ALFA
Brian Bates, Airborne
Mary Loeffelhoiz, NWA
Dick Saunders, Minneapolis
Pending, Bloomington
Roy Fuhrmann, MAC
cc: Patrick Hollister, Mendota Heights
Charles Curry, ALPA
Will Eginton, IGH
Jennifer Sayre, NWA
Pam Dmytrenko, Richfield
Tom Laweil, Apple Valley
Tom Hansen, Burnsville
Jan DelCalzo, Minneapolis
Glenn Strand, Minneapolis
Advisory:
Chad Leqve, MAC
Ron Glaub, FAA
Cindy Greene, FAA
Keith Thompson, FAA
Jason Giesen, MAC
Shane VanderVoort, MAC
Glen Orcutt, FAA
Mark Ryan, MAC
Joe Harris, MAC
Ribbon Panel has not convened
to date. Discussions are
ongoing in
an effort to establish
the airline representatives and an
associated meeting date
for the Blue
Ribbon Panel.
As a result, the January 12, 2001 MASAC Operations Committee meeting is
cancelled. Future meeting status and updates on the Panel's deliberations will be
provided as appropriate.
Additionally, at the November 28, 2000 MASAC meeting discussion focused on the
status and direction of the Part 150 Update document in relation to the state of MASAC.
The measures outlined as part of the proposed Noise Compatibility Program (NCP) have
been reviewed by MASAC. Thus, the next step is submission of the Draft Part 150
Update document to the MAC Planning and Environment Committee for review and
action. At the February 6, 2001 MAC Planning and Environment Committee meeting, the
Part 150 Update document is scheduled for presentation to the Committee for their
consideration.
If you have any questions or comments regarding this topic, please contact me at 612-
725-6328,
Airport Noise Report
A weekly update on litigation, regulations, and technological developments
Volume 13, Number 1
Naples
NBAA CHALLENGES FIRST RESTRICTION
TO BAN STAGE 2 AIRCRAFT UNDER 75,000 LB.
On Dec. 28, 2000, the National Business Aviation Association (NBAA) filed a
lawsuit in federal court in Ft. Myers, FL, challenging the first ban imposed by a
U.S. airport on Stage 2 aircraft under 75,000 lb., which went into effect at Naples
Municipal Airport on Jan. 1.
NBAA alleged that the Naples' ban is unconstitutional and asked the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida to impose an injunction against
its enforcement.
The complaint alleges that, by adopting the Stage 2 ban, Naples has (1) violated
the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution by enacting a regulation regarding the
use of navigable airspace that is unreasonable, arbitrary, and discriminatory and
(2) violated the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, by enacting an unreason-
able and arbitrary localized noise regime that is unduly burdensome to interstate
commerce.
"We regret that we have to resort to the courts," NBAA President John W. Olcott
said in a prepared statement, "but the Naples Airport Authority has left us with no
alternative."
"The injury the ban will work on our members, on the community, and on our
national air transportation system is obvious," he said, "while any reduction in
(Continued
on p. 2)
Cleveland Hopkins Int'Z
OLMSTED FALLS CHALLENGES APPROVAL
OF HOPKINS RUNWAY EXPANSION PROJECT
The City of Olmsted Falls, OH, filed suit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit on Dec. 29, 2000, challenging [he Federal Aviation
Administration's approval of the $1.4 billion proposed runway expansion project
at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport.
Ulmsted Mayor Robert Blomquist said in a prepared statement that he was
deeply concerned "that the project had been approved without proper consider-
ation and disclosure of its severe and adverse impacts, not only on surrounding
communities, but on the northern Ohio region as a whole."
"Because of the court deadline for filing this challenge, and because the FAA
has, to date, failed to address our concerns, we have no choice but to ask the court
[o enforce the rights of all citizens of northeast Ohio, and we did so today on their
behalf."
The mayor said that the decision to challenge FAA's approval of the project
came after numerous requests by the city that the agency reconsider its decision,
after lengthy consideration by the City Council, and after consultation with the
city's legal counsel, Barbara E. Liebman of the Irvine, CA, law firm Chevalier,
Allen & Liebman.
(Continued on p. 3)
January 5, 2001
In This Issue...
Naples ... The National
Business Aviation Associa-
tion challenges the first noise
rule in the country to be
imposed in a decade and the
first to ban the operation of
Stage 2 aircraft under 75,000
lb., which went into effect at
Naples Airport on Jan. 1.
FAA provides support to
the lawsuit by writing a letter
to Naples reiterating its
contention that the restriction
appears to violate the agency's
Part 161 rules.
Although not about the Part
161 rules, the lawsuit opens
them to court review for the
first time since their adoption
in 1991 - P. 1
Cleveland... The City of
Olmsted Falls files suit in
federal appeals court challeng-
ing the FAA's approval of the
proposed runway expansion
project at Cleveland Hopkins
International Airport - p. 1
Chicago D'Hare ... A survey
conducted by the O'Hare Noise
Compatibility Commission
shows that the school sound
insulation program it oversees is
the most extensive in the coun-
try. Some 94 schools are being
insulated with a funding com-
mitment of $242 million - p. 3
January 5,2001
use to give our authority the best information possible for
them to make a judgment" on the appropriateness of the
Stage 2 ban, including single event data, he said.
Other Airport Ready to Follow
The Naplesrestriction is being closely watched because it
is the first noise rule in the country to be enacted since
passage of ANCA and other airports are poised to impose
similar bans on Stage 2 businessjets if the Naples'restric-
tion is upheld.
Naples' action also is significant because it marks the first
time an airport has imposed a new noise restriction in
defiance of FAA assertions that it does comply with the
agency's Part 161 regulations.
The Part 161 regulations have frustrated the efforts of other
airports to impose noise and access restrictions for nearly a
decade and the question of how FAA interprets the regula-
tions, although not directly addressed in the NBAA lawsuit,
will most likely be brought before the court. In that respect,
he lawsuit may put FAA's interpretation of how airports
must comply with Part 161 at risk.
For instance, the agency has interpreted the Part 161 rules
as requiring Naples to repeat the extensive and expensive
I80-day notification process it went through initially to
announce the proposed restriction and seek public com-
ment on it on the grounds that the initial notice failed to
include adequate cost/benefit analysis of non-restrictive
alternatives. Naples provided additional information to the
FAA on non-restrictive alternatives (it is unclear whether
FAA considers that information sufficient) but contends
that the Part 161 process does not require it to repeat the
six-month notice and comment process.
The NBAA lawsuit opens that difference of opinion to
court review and interpretation. It also provides an avenue
for Naples to have the court consider the question of what
constitutes an adequate cost/benefit analysis under Part
161. NBAA contends that Naples' analysis was deficient.
Almost 1,200 Stage 2 aircraft under 75,000lb. are on the
U.S. Registry, some one-third of which are operated by
NBAA corporate members. Only about 2.36 operations per
day at Naples (about 0.7 percent of the average daily total)
are with Stage 2 jets but Naples banned them on the
grounds that they are the aircraft causing, by far, the most
noise complaints.
While ANCA required the phaseout of Stage 2 aircraft
over 75,000 lb. by the end of 1999, it included no similar
requirement for Stage 2 aircraft under 75,000lb.
Cleveland, from p. 1
In comments on the Final Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIS) on the project, Lichman focused mainly on air
quality issues and the baseline number of operations used
to assess the project's impact.
She contended that Cleveland tried to minimize the
environmental impacts of the project by inflating the
natural growth in operations that would occur by 2006
when the project is expected to be done and which would
serve as the baseline from which to assess the project's
impacts. The city also was inconsistent in the baseline
operational figures it used in the master plan, FEIS, and
Record of Decision, she said. Landrum & Brown, the city's
consultant, assumed a 4.8 percent natural growth in
operations at Hopkins by 2006 but that cannot be substanti-
ated in the documentation, she told ANR.
Lichman contended in comments on the FEIS that the air
quality impacts of the project will exceed the general
conformity de minimis thresholds. Moreover, the FEIS air
quality analysis completely ignores the potential impact of
the Environmental Protection Agency's Ozone Transport
Rule, which further reduces the de minimis threshold for
Nox (oxides of nitrogen), she said, noting that the project
cannot be approved or funded pursuant to the Clean Air Act
until a General Conformity Determination is completed,
properly circulated for review, and a determination of
compliance made.
Reuben Sheperd, Director of the Department of Port
Control for the City of Cleveland, told ANR that the city is
waiting for a brief to be filed with the appeals court before
commenting on the merits of the case. He defended the
baseline operational data used in the FEIS noting that it
as developed by national experts," the consulting firm
Landrum & Brown, over a six -to -eight year time frame.
The airport currently has 387,000 operations per year and
projected in the FEIS that this could increase, through
natural growth, to 504,000 by 2006 when the runway
project is expected to be completed. Sheperd said the city
has done extensive work on air quality issues, including
working with the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency.
Addressing air quality issues will be an ongoing process
and mitigation will be done if needed.
He said he was confident that the city could support its
position that the noise impacts of the project would be
minimal.
O'Hare International
SCHOOL SOUND INSULATION
AT O'HARE IS MOST EXTENSIVE
The O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission announced
Jan. 5 [hat a survey i[ conducted confirmed that the School
Sound Insulation Program around Chicago O'Hare Interna-
tional Airport which it oversees is the most extensive in the
nation.
A survey of similar programs around the country showed
that the O'Hare program has resulted in more schools
insulated and more money spent than elsewhere in the
country, according to the Commission.
Some 94 schools around O'Hare are being insulated at an
average cost of $3.5 million each, more than twice the
national average, according to the Commission's survey.
O'Hare has committed $242 million to date for its school,
insulation program.
Airport Noise Report
AHtPORT NOISE ISSUES VIDEO
History
By John M. Roszak
January 11, 2001
The Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport has experienced substantial growth
in the last fifteen years, now ranking about thirteenth among the busiest commercial
airports in the United States. Landings and takeoffs rose from approximately 373,000 in
1985 to 465,454 in 1995. Projections for the year 2000 called for 480,000 landings and
takeoffs. Projections for the year 2005 estimate 1575.3 average daily flight operations
which when annualized total 574,984.
As the airport grew in the late 1980's and early 1990's, the Metropolitan Airports
Commission, created by the Minnesota Legislature in 1943 to manage area airports,
considered the option of developing a totally new airport. Ultimately, a location in
southern Dakota County was being considered. Simultaneously, improvements to the
existing Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport were being considered under the so-
called "dual track" planning process. This included the power to construct a new runway
if the Metropolitan Airport's Commission determined that it was appropriate and
reasonable after public hearings.
In 1996, the Minnesota Legislature ended the "dual track" planning process by
expressly prohibiting the Metropolitan Airport Commission from exercising powers for
the purpose of future construction of a major new airport. Further, the Legislature
mandated the implementation of a long-term comprehensive plan for the existing
Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport. At the same time, the Legislature mandated
that the Commission expend significant sums of money for insulation and air.
conditioning of residences, schools, and other publicly owned buildings where there is
demonstrated need because of aircraft noise.
As a result of this legislation, the existing international airport will be the only
major airport in the Metropolitan area to meet the air traffic needs of the region to the
year 2020 and beyond. Construction on the new runway has begun with completion
scheduled in 2003.
The Metropolitan Airports Commission provided this figure of existing and future
airport facilities. North is the top of the figure. The airport generally is located west of
m adjacent to the City of Mendota Heights. As you look at this figure, please note the
two parallel runways designated 12L.30R and12R-30L. Aircraft departing to the east or
FLIGHT TRACKS
Every time a plane takes off from an airport runway, its departure from the end of that
runway is a carefully orchestrated event. As aircraft leave the runway they follow
predetermined paths that are called "flight tracks."
It's easier to understand this concept if you can visualize the end of the runway as the hub
of a wheel and the flight tracks as the spokes radiating out from that hub. Each airport
runway has its own set of flight tracks or "spokes", and pilots are assigned one of these
tracks as they prepare for departure on their particular runway. Each flight track is
identified by a "degree" reading like the points of a compass. Using another analogy, the
flight tracks spread out from the end of the runway like a Chinese fan.
In the city of Mendota Heights these flight tracks spread over an area roughly bounded
by Hwy 110 on the north and 494 and 35E on the south. As aircraft fly repeatedly
through the flight tracks in this area, it becomes relatively easy to identify the air corridor
and where the greatest concentration of aircraft noise will occur.
Choice of runway and flight track can be determined by a number of factors. One of the
most significant determinants is the prevailing winds. Optimal aircraft performance on
take offs occurs when planes depart into the wind. For that reason, during the wintertime
when prevailing winds tend to be out of the north, the majority of departures will occur
over Minneapolis. During warm weather months, when the winds tend to come out of the
south, more departures will occur over Mendota Heights and Eagan. With warm weather
also comes the chance of thunderstorms and severe weather. These factors may also feed
into the choice of runway and flight track.
When the airport becomes extremely busy, both parallel runways receive maximum use.
Planes take off simultaneously from the ends of both runways using pre -assigned flight
tracks. This is callehead to hea��perations. For safety reasons, the aircraft need to be
separated by 15 degtees of airsp e. This makes the use of flight tracks even more
imperative. \VL" 001
It's important to note that every plane that arrives at or departs from the airport has its
flight track monitored as well as the aircraft noise it generates. Sophisticated tracking
and listening devices make this possible. Each month MASAC makes this information
available so that aircraft performance and adherence to assigned flight tracks can be
evaluated. The cumulative effect of all this technical information is the ability to identify
what is called the DNL contour. DNL is an abbreviation for day and night-time landings.
It really refers to the sum total of every aircraft event that occurs over a particular
community and the noise it generates. The airport defines daytime as lam to 1 1pm and
night-time as I Ipm to lam. When every flight operation and the noise it generates is
grouped cumulatively, flight and noise patterns can be visualized for each community
adjacent to the airport. These patterns or contours reflect the sound decibel levels that
(ok
__�
Script
Fleet Composition of Jet aircraft at Minneapolis / St Paul airport consist of stage 3 hush
kitted and manufacture jet aircraft.
The difference you ask?
Stage 3 Hush Kit Aircraft are older aircraft that are retrofit to meet the new stage 3 noise
levels.
Photos of stage 3 hush lotted aircraft/
Stage 3 manufactured aircraft, are newer planes with new technology. They use larger
and more powerful engines. These larger aircraft with more powerful engines have lower
noise levels than Stage 3 husk kit.
Photos of manufactured/
While the transition to Stage 3 is a necessary step in the right direction, it's important to
point out that it will not solve all our aircraft noise problems.
All things considered, we have seen great progress in recent years. However
looking into the future, the elimination of hush kitted aircraft and the step into Stage 4
would reduce noise levels even further.
Airport Noise Report
A weekly update on litigation, regulations, and technological developments
Volume 13, Number I January 5, 2001
Naples
NBAA CHALLENGES FIRST RESTRICTION
TO BAN STAGE 2 AIRCRAFT UNDER 75,000 LB.
On Dec. 28, 2000, the National Business Aviation Association (NBAA) filed a
lawsuit in federal court in Ft. Myers, FL, challenging the first ban imposed by a
U.S. airport on Stage 2 aircraft under 75,000 lb., which went into effect at Naples
Municipal Airport on Jan. 1.
NBAA alleged that the Naples' ban is unconstitutional and asked the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida to impose an injunction against
its enforcement. -
The complaint alleges that, by adopting the Stage 2 ban, Naples has (1) violated
the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution by enacting a regulation regarding the
use of navigable airspace that is unreasonable, arbitrary, and discriminatory and
(2) violated the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, by enacting an unreason-
able and arbitrary localized noise regime that is unduly burdensome to interstate
commerce.
"We regret that we have to resort to the courts," NBAA President John W . Olcott
said in a prepared statement, "but the Naples Airport Authority has left us with no
alternative."
"The injury the ban will work on our members, on the community, and on our
national air transportation system is obvious," he said, "while any reduction in
(Continued on p. 2)
Cleveland Hopkins Int'Z
OLMSTED FALLS CHALLENGES APPROVAL
OF HOPKINS RUNWAY EXPANSION PROJECT
The City of Olmsted Falls, OH, filed suit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit on Dec. 29, 2000, challenging [he Federa] Aviation
Administration's approval of the $1.4 billion proposed runway expansion project
at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport.
Ulmsted Mayor Robert Blomquist said in a prepared statement that he was
deeply concerned "that the project had been approved without proper consider-
ation and disclosure of its severe and adverse impacts, not only on surrounding
communities, but on the northern Ohio region as a whole."
"Because of the court deadline for filing this challenge, and because the FAA
has, to date, failed to address our concerns, we have no choice but to ask the court
to enforce the rights of all citizens of northeast Ohio, and we did so today on their
behalf."
The mayor said that the decision to challenge FAA's approval of the project
came after numerous requests by the city that the agency reconsider its decision,
after lengthy consideration by the City Council, and after consultation with the
city's legal counsel, Barbara E. Lichman of the Irvine, CA, law firm Chevalier,
Allen & Lichman.
(Continued on p. 3)
In This Issue...
Naples ...The National
Business Aviation Associa-
rion challenges the first noise
rule in the country to be
imposed in a decade and the
first to ban the operation of
Stage 2 aircraft under 75,000
lb., which went into effect at
Naples Airport on Jan. 1.
FAA provides support to
the lawsuit by writing a letter
to Naples reiterating its
contention that the restriction
appears to violate the agency's
Part 161 rules.
Although not about the Part
161 rules, the lawsuit opens
them to court review for the
fast time since their adoption
in 1991 - P. 1
Cleveland I. The City of
Olmsted Falls files suit in
federal appeals court challeng-
ing the FAA's approval of the
proposed runway expansion
project at Cleveland Hopkins
I itemational Airport - p. 1
Chicago O'Hare ... A survey
conducted by the O'Hare Noise
Compatibility Commission
shows that the school sound
insulation program it oversees is
the most extensive in the coun-
try. Some 94 schools are being
insulated with a funding com-
mitment of $242 million - . 3
2001
3
use to give our authority the best information possible for
them to make a judgment" on the appropriateness of the
Stage 2 ban, including single event data, he said.
Other Airport Ready to Follow
The Naplesrestriction is being closely watched because it
is the first noise rule in the country to be enacted since
passage of ANCA and other airports are poised to impose
similar bans on Stage 2 business jets if the Naples'restric-
[ion is upheld.
Naples' action also is significant because it marks the first
time an airport has imposed a new noise restriction in
defiance of FAA assertions that it does comply with the
agency's Part 161 regulations.
The Part 161 regulations have frustrated the efforts of other
airports to impose noise and access restrictions for nearly a
decade and the question of how FAA interprets the regula-
tions, although not directly addressed in the NBAA lawsuit,
will most likely be brought before the court. In that respect,
the lawsuit may put FAA's interpretation of how airports
must comply with Part 161 at risk.
For instance, the agency has interpreted the Part 161 rules
as requiring Naples to repeat the extensive and expensive
180-day notification process it went through initially to
announce the proposed restriction and seek public com-
ment on it on the grounds that the initial notice failed to
include adequate cost/benefit analysis of non-restrictive
alternatives. Naples provided additional information to the
FAA on non-restrictive alternatives (it is unclear whether
FAA considers that information sufficient) but contends
that the Part 161 process does not require it to repeat the
six-month notice and comment process.
The NBAA lawsuit opens that difference of opinion to
court review and interpretation. It also provides an avenue
for Naples to have the court consider the question of what
constitutes an adequate cost/benefit analysis under Part
161. NBAA contends that Naples' analysis was deficient.
Almost 1,200 Stage 2 aircraft under 75,000lb. are on the
U.S. Registry, some one-third of which are operated by
NBAA corporate members. Only about 2.36 operations per
day at Naples (about 0.7 percent of the average daily total)
are with Stage 2 jets but Naples banned them on the
grounds that they are the aircraft causing, by far, the most
noise complaints.
While ANCA required the phaseout of Stage 2 aircraft
over 75,000lb. by the end of 1999, it included no similar
requirement for Stage 2 aircraft under 75,000In.
Cleveland, from p. I
In comments on the Final Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIS) on the project, Lichman focused mainly on air
quality issues and the baseline number of operations used
to assess the project's impact.
She contended that Cleveland tried to minimize the
environmental impacts of the project by inflating the
natural growth in operations that would occur by 2006
when the project is expected to be done and which would
serve as the baseline from which to assess the project's
impacts. The city also was inconsistent in the baseline
operational figures it used in the master plan, FEIS, and
Record of Decision, she said. Landrum & Brown, the city's
consultant, assumed a 4.8 percent natural growth in
operations at Hopkins by 2006 but that cannot be substanti-
ated in the documentation, she told ANR.
Lichman contended in comments on the FEIS that the air
quality impacts of the project will exceed the general
conformity de minimis thresholds. Moreover, the FEIS air
quality analysis completely ignores the potential impact of
[he Environmental Protection Agency's Ozone Transport
Rule, which further reduces the de minimis threshold for
Nox (oxides of nitrogen), she said, noting that the project
cannot be approved or funded pursuant to the Clean Air Act
until a General Conformity Determination is completed,
properly circulated for review, and a determination of
compliance made.
Reuben Sheperd, Director of the Department of Port
Control for the City of Cleveland, told ANR that the city is
waiting for a brief to be filed with the appeals court before
commenting on the merits of the case. He defended the
baseline operational data used in the FEIS noting that it
as developed by national experts," the consulting firm
m Landru& Brown, over a six -to -eight year time frame.
The airport currently has 387,000 operations per year and
projected in the FEIS that this could increase, through
natural growth, to 504,000 by 2006 when the runway
project is expected to be completed. Sheperd said the city
has done extensive work on air quality issues, including
working with the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency.
Addressing air quality issues will be an ongoing process
and mitigation will be done if needed.
He said he was confident that the city could support its
position that the noise impacts of the project would be
minimal.
O'Hare International
SCHOOL SOUND INSULATION
AT O'JUL ARE IS MOST EXTENSIVE
The O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission announced
Jan. 5 that a survey it conducted confirmed that the School
Sound Insulation Program around Chicago O'Hare Interna-
tional Airport which it oversees is the most extensive in the
nation.
A survey of similar programs around the country showed
[hat the O'Hare program has resulted in more schools
insulated and more money spent than elsewhere in the
country, according to the Commission.
Some 94 schools around O'Hare are being insulated at an
average cost of $3.5 million each, more than twice the
national average, according to the Commission's survey.
O'Hare has committed $242 million to date for its school
insulation program.
Airport Noise Report
Script
Fleet Composition of Jet aircraft at Minneapolis / St Paul airport consist of stage 3 hush
kitted and manufacture jet aircraft.
The difference you ask?
Stage 3 Hush Kit Aircraft are older aircraft that are retrofit to meet the new stage 3 noise
levels.
Photos of stage 3 hush lotted aircraft/
Stage 3 manufactured aircraft, are newer planes with new technology. They use larger
and more powerful engines. These larger aircraft with more powerful engines have lower
noise levels than Stage 3 husk kit.
Photos of manufactured/
While the transition to Stage 3 is a necessary step in the right direction, it's important to
point out that it will not solve all our aircraft noise problems.
All things considered, we have seen great progress in recent years. However
looking into the fixture, the elimination of hush kitted aircraft and the step into Stage 4
would reduce noise levels even further,
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC)
6040 28th Avenue South • Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450 • (642) 726-8141
Chairperson:
Mayor Charles Mertensotto
Past Chairs:
Robert P. Johnson, 1995-1999
Scott Bunin, 1990-1995
Walter Rockenstein, II, 1982-1990
Jan Del Calzo, 1979-1982
Stanley W. Olson, 1969-1979
Technical
Advisor:
Chad Leqve
MEETING NOTICE
MASAC OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
THE JAN VARY 2001 MASAC
OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING
HAS BEEN CANCELLED
MEMBER DISTRIBUTION
Chairman Charles Mertensotto
Bob Johnson, MBAA
Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan
Ron Johnson, ALPA
Brian Bates, Airborne
Mary Loeffelholz, NWA
Dick Saunders, Minneapolis
Pending, Bloomington
Roy Fuhrmann, MAC
cc: Patrick Hollister, Mendota Heights
Charles Curry, ALPA
Will Eginton, IGH
Jennifer Sayre, NWA
Pam Dmytrenko, Richfield
Tom Lawell, Apple Valley
Tom Hansen, Burnsville
Jan DelCalzo, Minneapolis
Glenn Strand, Minneapolis
Advisory:
Chad Leqve, MAC
Ron Glaub, FAA
Cindy Greene, FAA
Keith Thompson, FAA
Jason Giesen, MAC
Shane VanderVoort, MAC
Gien Orcutt, FAA
Mark Ryan, MAC
Joe Harris, MAC
Ribbon Panel has not convened to date. Discussions are ongoing in an effort to establish
the airline representatives and an associated meeting date for the Blue Ribbon Panel.
As a result, the January 12, 2001 MASAC Operations Committee meeting is
cancelled. Future meeting status and updates on the Panel's deliberations will be
provided as appropriate.
Additionally, at the November 28, 2000 MASAC meeting discussion Focused on the
status and direction of the Part 150 Update document in relation to the state of MASAC.
The measures outlined as part of the proposed Noise Compatibility Program (NCP) have
been reviewed by MASAC. Thus, the next step is submission of the Draft Part 150
Update document to the MAC Planning and Environment Committee for review and
action. At the February 6, 2001 MAC Planning and Environment Committee meeting, the
Part 150 Update document is scheduled for presentation to the Committee for their
consideration.
If you have
any questions
or comments regarding
this topic, please contact me at 612-
725-6328.
Airport Noise Report
A weekly update on litigation, regulations, and technological developments
Volume 13, Number 1
Naples
NBAA CHALLENGES FIRST RESTRICTION
TO BAN STAGE 2 AIRCRAFT UNDER 75,000 LB.
On Dec. 28, 2000, the National BusinessAviation Association (NBAA) filed a
lawsuit in federal court in Ft. Myers, FL, challenging the first ban imposed by a
U.S. airport on Stage 2 aircraft under 75,000 lb., which went into effect at Naples
Municipal Airport on Jan 1.
NBAA alleged that the Naples' ban is unconstitutional and asked the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida to impose an injunction against
its enforcement.
The complaint alleges that, by adopting the Stage 2 ban, Naples has (1) violated
the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution by enacting a regulation regarding the
use of navigable airspace that is unreasonable, arbitrary, and discriminatory and
(2) violated the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, by enacting an unreason-
able and arbitrary localized noise regime that is unduly burdensome to interstate
commerce.
"We regret that we have to resort to the courts," NBAA President John W. Olcott
said in a prepared statement, "but the Naples Airport Authority has left us with no
alternative."
"The injury the ban will work on our members, on the community, and on our
national air transportation system is obvious," he said, "while any reduction in
(Continued on p. 2)
Cleveland Hopkins Intl
OLMSTED FALLS CHALLENGES APPROVAL
OF HOPKINS RUNWAY EXPANSION PROJECT
The City of Olmsted Falls, OH, filed suit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit on Dec. 29, 2000, challenging the Federal Aviation
Administration's approval of the $1.4 billion proposed runway expansion project
at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport.
Ulmsted Mayor Robert Blomquist said in a prepared statement that he was
deeply concerned "that the project had been approved without proper consider-
ation and disclosure of its severe and adverse impacts, not only on surrounding
communities, but on the northern Ohio region as a whole."
"Because of the court deadline for filing this challenge, and because the FAA
has, to date, failed to address our concerns, we have no choice but to ask the court
to enforce the rights of all citizens of northeast Ohio, and we did so today on their
behalf."
The mayor said that the decision to challenge FAA's approval of the project
came after numerous requests by the city that the agency reconsider its decision,
after lengthy consideration by the City Council, and after consultation with the
city's legal counsel, Barbara E. Liebman of the Irvine, CA, law firm Chevalier,
Allen & Lichman.
(Continued on p. 3)
January 5, 2001
In This Issue...
Naples ... The National
Business Aviation Associa-
tion challenges the first noise
rule in the country to be
imposed in a decade and the
fast to ban the operation of
Stage 2 aircraft under 75,000
lb., which went into effect at
Naples Airport on Jan. 1.
FAA provides support to
the lawsuit by writing a letter
to Naples reiterating its
contention that the restriction
appears to violate the agency's
Part 161 rules.
Although not about the Part
161 rules, the lawsuit opens
them to court review for the
first time since their adoption
in 1991 - P. 1
Cleveland ... The City of
Ohnsted Falls files suit in
federal appeals court challeng-
ing the FAA's approval of the
proposed runway expansion
project at Cleveland Hopkins
International Airport - p. I
Chicago D'Hare ... A survey
conducted by the O'Hare Noise
Compatibility Commission
shows that the school sound
insulation program it oversees is
the most extensive in the coun-
try. Some 94 schools are being
insulated with a funding com-
mitment of $242 million - p. 3_
2001
3
use to give our authority the best information possible for
them to make a judgment" on the appropriateness of the
Stage 2 ban, including single event data, he said.
Other Airport Ready to Follow
The Naplesrestriction is being closely watched because it
is the first noise rule in the country to be enacted since
passage of ANCA and other airports are poised to impose
similar bans on Stage 2 business jets if the Naples'restric-
tion is upheld.
Naples' action also is significant because it marks the first
time an airport has imposed a new noise restriction in
defiance of FAA assertions that it does comply with the
agency's Part 161 regulations.
The.Part 161 regulations have frustrated the efforts of other
airports to impose noise and access restrictions for nearly a
decade and the question of how FAA interprets the regula-
tions, although not directly addressed in the NBAA lawsuit,
will most likely be brought before the court. In that respect,
the lawsuit may put FAA's interpretation of how airports
must comply with Part 161 at risk.
For instance, the agency has interpreted the Part 161 rules
as requiring Naples to repeat the extensive and expensive
180-day notification process it went through initially to
announce the proposed restriction and seek public com-
ment on it on the grounds that the initial notice failed to
include adequate cost/benefit analysis of non-restrictive
alternatives. Naples provided additional information to the
FAA on non-restrictive alternatives (it is unclear whether
FAA considers that information sufficient) but contends
that the Part 161 process does not require it to repeat the
six-month notice and comment process.
The NBAA lawsuit opens that difference of opinion to
court review and interpretation. It also provides an avenue
for Naples to have the court consider the question of what
constitutes an adequate cost/benefit analysis under Part
161. NBAA contends that Naples' analysis was deficient.
Almost 1,200 Stage 2 aircraft under 75,000 lb. are on the
U.S. Registry, some one-third of which are operated by
NBAA corporate members. Only about 2.36 operations per
day at Naples (about 0.7 percent of the average daily total)
are with Stage 2 jets butNaples banned them on the
grounds that they are the aircraft causing, by far, the most
noise complaints.
While ANCA required the phaseout of Stage 2 aircraft
over 75,000lb. by the end of 1999, it included no similar
requirement for Stage 2 aircraft under 75,000lb.
Cleveland, from p. I
In comments on the Final Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIS) on the project, Lichman focused mainly on air
quality issues and the baseline number of operations used
[o assess the project's impact.
She contended that Cleveland tried to minimize the
environmental impacts of the project by inflating the
natural growth in operations that would occur by 2006
when the project is expected to be done and which would
serve as the baseline from which to assess the project's
impacts. The city also was inconsistent in the baseline
operational figures it used in the master plan, FEIS, and
Record of Decision, she said. Landrum & Brown, the city's
consultant, assumed a 4.8 percent natural growth in
operations at Hopkins by 2006 but that cannot be substanti-
ated in the documentation, she told ANR.
Lichman contended in comments on the FEIS that the air
quality impacts of the project will exceed the general
conformity de minimis thresholds. Moreover, the FEIS air
quality analysis completely ignores the potential impact of
[he Environmental Protection Agency's Ozone Transport
Rule, which further reduces the de minimis threshold for
Nox (oxides of nitrogen), she said, noting that the project
cannot be approved or funded pursuant to the Clean Air Act
until a General Conformity Determination is completed,
properly circulated for review, and a determination of
compliance made.
Reuben Sheperd, Director of the Department of Port
Control for the City of Cleveland, told ANR that the city is
waiting for a brief to be filed with the appeals court before
commenting on the merits of the case. He defended the
baseline operational data used in the FEIS noting that it
as developed by national experts," the consulting firm
Landrum & Brown, over a six -to -eight year time frame.
The airport currently has 387,000 operations per year and
projected in the FEIS that this could increase, through
natural growth, to 504,000 by 2006 when the runway
project is expected to be completed. Sheperd said the city
has done extensive work on air quality issues, including
working with the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency.
Addressing air quality issues will be an ongoing process
and mitigation will be done if needed.
- He said he was confident that the city could support its
position that the noise impacts of the project would be
minimal.
O'Hare International
SCHOOL SOUND INSULATION
AT O'HARE IS MOST EXTENSIVE
The O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission announced
Jan. 5 that a survey it conducted confirmed that the School
Sound Insulation Program around Chicago O'Hare Interna-
tional Airport which it oversees is the most extensive in the
nation.
A survey of similar programs around the country showed
[hat the O'Hare program has resulted in more schools
insulated and more money spent than elsewhere in the
country, according to the Commission.
Some 94 schools around O'Hare are being insulated at an
average cost of $3.5 million each, more than twice the
national average, according to the Commission's survey.
O'Hare has committed $242 million to date for its school
insulation program.
Airport Noise Report
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASACj
6040 28th Avenue South • Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450 • (642) 726-8141
Chairperson: Mayor Charles Mertensotto
Past Chairs: Robert P. Johnson, 1995-1999
Scott Bunin, 1990-1995
Walter Rockenstein, II, 1982-1990
Jan Del Calzo, 1979-1982
Stanley W. Olson, 1969-1979
Technical
Advisor: Chad Leqve
MEETING NOTICE
MASAC OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
TH E JAN VARY 2001 MASAC
OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING
MEMBER DISTRIBUTION
Chairman Charles Mertensotto
Bob Johnson, MBAA
Jamie Verbrugge, Eagan
Ron Johnson, ALPA
Brian Bates, Airborne
Mary Loeffelholz, NWA
Dick Saunders, Minneapolis
Pending, Bloomington
Roy Fuhrmann, MAC
cc: Patrick Hollister, Mendota Heights
Charles Curry, ALPA
Will Eginton, IGH
Jennifer Sayre, NWA
Pam Dmytrenko, Richfield
Tom Lawell, Apple Valley
Tom Hansen, Burnsville
Jan DelCaizo, Minneapolis
Glenn Strand, Minneapolis
Advisory:
Chad Legve, MAC
Ron Glaub, FAA
Cindy Greene, FAA
Keith Thompson, FAA
Jason Giesen, MAC
Shane VanderVoort, MAC
Glen Orcutt, FAA
Mark Ryan, MAC
Joe Harris, MAC
Ribbon Panel has not convened to date. Discussions are ongoing in an effort to establish
the airline representatives and an associated meeting date for the Blue Ribbon Panel.
As a result, the January 12, 2001 MASAC Operations Committee meeting is
cancelled. Future meeting status and updates on the Panel's deliberations will be
provided as appropriate.
Additionally, at the November 28, 2000 MASAC meeting discussion focused on the
status and direction of the Part 150 Update document in relation to the state of MASAC.
The measures outlined as part of the proposed Noise Compatibility Program (NCP) have
been reviewed by MASAC. Thus, the next step is submission of the Draft Part 150
Update document to the MAC Planning and Environment Committee for review and
action. At the February 6, 2001 MAC Planning and Environment Committee meeting, the
Part 150 Update document is scheduled for presentation to the Committee for their
consideration.
If you have
any questions
or comments regazding
this topic,
please contact me at 612-
725-6328.