The URL can be used to link to this page

2001-02-14 ARC Agenda PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS AII2PORT RELATIONS COMMISSION AGENDA February 14, 2001 —Large Conference Room Call to Order - 7:00 p.m. Roll Call Approval of January 10, 2001 Minutes Unfinished and New Business: "s\ Continued Revision of Airport Noise Video Script Rescheduling of March 14, 2001 Airport Relations Commission Meeting (Information): New ARC Commissioner Vern Edstrom� Aclmowledee Receipt of Various Reports/Correspondence: a. January 2001 MASAC Operations Committee Meeting Cancellation Notice b. January 23, 2001 MASAC Meeting Cancellation Notice c. February 9, 2001 MASAC Operations Committee Meeting Cancellation Notice d. Aviation Policy Plan Task Force Agenda for January 17, 2001 e. Letter from Hoflinan Homes, Inc. Regarding Augusta Shores Airport Notification, dated January 19, 2001 f. Letter from John Nelson regarding Part 150 Program, dated January 26, 2001 g. News Articles from Chad Leqve, MAC ANOMS Coordinator h. TAC Aviation Committee Meeting Agenda dated January 31, 2001 i. 2000 MASAC Year in Review and Current MASAC Status dated February 2, 2001 j. MAC Notice of Planning and Environment Committee Meeting dated February 13, 2001 k. Eagan Airport Relations. Commission Agenda for February 13, 2001 i. Articles Submitted by Commissioner Stein m. Airport Noise Reports 6. Other Comments or Concerns Adjourn Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least ]20 hoivs 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 February 13,2001 TO: Airport Relations Commission FROM: Patrick C. Hollister, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT: Continue Work on Air Noise Issues Video Script Discussion At the January 10, 2001 meeting of the Airports Relations Commission, the Commission reviewed the draft scripts provided by Chair Beaty and Commissioners Roszak, Leuman, Petschel and Stein covering various sections of the airport noise issues video. The Commissioners agreed to e-mail their scripts to Ms. Lindberg in order that Mr. Hollister can combine them and maintain the draft script on his computer. Attached is the combined script which I now have on my computer hard drive. Action Required Review the attached script and continue revision of the Airport Noise Issues Video. AIRPORT NOISE ISSUES VIDEO SCRIPT History The Minneapolis/St. Paul International Ai>ort has experienced substantial growth in the last fifteen years, now ranking ab�thirte nth among the busiest commercial airports in the United States. Landings and//takeoffs rose from approximately 373,000 in 1985 to p� �465,454 in 1995. Projections for the year 2000 called for 480&ndings and takeoffs. � 5 Projections for the year 2005 estimate 1575.3 average daily flight operations which when annualized total 574,984, -�c 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/Saint Paul International Airport were being considered under the aver -"dual track" planning process. This included the power to construct a new runway if the Metropolitan Airports Commission determined that it was appropriate and reasonable after public hearings. r In 1996, the Minnesota Legislature ended the "dual track" planning process by expressly prohibiting the Metropolitan Airport Commission from e,*A" 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/Saint Paul international airport. At f lbame time; the Legislature mandated that the Commission expend significant stuns of money for insulation and air-conditioning of residences, schools, and other publicly owned buildings where there is demonstrated need r 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. Constriction of the new runway has begun with completion scheduled id in The Metropolitan Airports Commission provided this figiue of existing and future airport facilities. North is the top of the figure. The airport i� located west of and adjacent to the City of Mendota Heights. As you look at this figure, please note the two y� parallel runways designated 12L-30R and 12R-30L. Aircraft departing to the east or arriving from the east utilize these runways and fly over residences and other facilities �s^' within the City of Mendota heights. This figure also shows the new runway that is aligned nearly north and south and located on the. west edge of the airport with the designation 17-35. This is the nimvay now under construction and scheduled for completion in the year 2003. The capacity of the airport While the transition to Stage 3 is a necessary step in the right direction, it's important to point out that it will not sohe all our aircraft noise problems - All thin,_s considered, we have seen great progress in recent years. HUtt'eN er looking into the future, the elimination of hush kitted aircraft and the step into Stage 4 would reduce noise levels even further. Plight Tracks Every time a plane takes off from an airport runway, its departure from the end of that runNNa} is a carefully orchestrated event. AS aircraft leave the runivay they follow predetermined paths that are called "flight tracks ]t's easier to understand this concept if you can visualize the end of the runwa} as the hub of a wheel and the flight tracks as the spikes 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 runway like a Chinese fan. In the Cit ofN endota Heights the flight tracks spread over an area roughly bounde#6i.Hi�� ll0 on the north and 91 and ;SE on the south.:As aircraft flw repeatedh through"the flight tracks in this area, it becomes relatively easy to identify the air corridor and where the greatest concentration of air noise will occur. Choice of rumcay and flight track can be determined by a number of factors. One of the most significant determinants is the prevailing wind. Optimal aircraft performance on takeoffs occurs when planes depart into the )hind. For that reason, during the »intertime when prevailing winds tend to be out of the north, the ma,jorih of departures trill occur over 1linineapolis. During warm »N eather months, when the n inds come out of the south, more departures twill occur over Mendota Heights and Eagan. With tvnrm weather also comes the chance of thunderstorms and severe weather. These factors nmly also feed into the choice of runway and l�heyrthe airport beeomes evtremeh busy, both parallel rum)lics receive nta,vimLint A use. Planes take off siniultaneouslNfrom the ends of both runts ays using pre- assigned (light tracks. T his is called simultaneous departures. For safett reasons. the aircraft need to be separated by 1 :; degrees of airspace. This makes the use of flight h-ncicz even mare imperatit V. It's important to note that everN. y pl ane that arrives at or depart, front the irport has its flight track monitored as well as the aircraft noise it gcnerates. Sophisticated this tracking and listening devices make this possible. 1=arn month !A-7) C ill I '' e tIt ;�,�� U (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. �rvt, rr,,� �other aspect of the Runway Use System' yste 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 6:00 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. (11) 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 equitable 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 Eetrnsel Co U_. (13) The Commission advises the City Counsel on matters pertaining to airport noise and 1, operations. This is accomplished by monitoring proposed airport Hiles, procedures and c 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. V AV (14) Members also address non -noise related issues arising from increased operations and expansion at NISP. Tl-6includq land use 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: (19) Graphic or video footage showing how head to head operations took and then X it out (no head to head). (MAC may have this or make our own using NDC 18) (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 NDC 18) (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 NDC 18 to film footage) (24) Graphic of Dual track Plan that had the.) parallel runway as an alternative. (On file in NIH 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) Organizations � 4 No matter Ni hat the issues are brought up by the viation industry the prime consideration by the FAA (Federal Aviation Authority) is ahsays safety of the system. The FAA is the ultimate authority on all aN intion matters,,:r-�„ 1 1tShEr �ou.n-tne; have their _oiy_n respects x a; »yieT. 2t#1c1.I}tll tit the FAA is the most respected of its type tcor khride. :mother major focus of the FAA is the promotion of especially commercial ;roartit. This nran.N tj444+ is ' 44e F e-e h)t tt leir Ina or purpose of aviation s nets Vn ex imp!e is the scr e s jack asset�ibh in the tail lane that eing use bn s i ttuoik a] airC att 1114o.r7els, but is le'Y(I as on series on oaircr. ft, ssibh le Lt! to desk uetton as hen ,the r/ ` F y ti� - asserobl cracked. Aon', the gaesti for the Fr1.1 n� do they r o and all tAis aireratt inim/ediatich or do thec let them �' un �er it more liberal repair police of sQN eral years' 1picture of ninn on tosser- too ta111. An interesting comment nn tiae nuihoritc is or:a nr:ui stnndino at the top of the'Mendota Heights hater lamer lNo!rhl make that structrin'e too inll and therefore illegal under the FAA's safety rules of lii;,iit. T he �1.-1i' ur lleitropolihm :Airports Coiauuissiun is the �uti ernin!) hoihof a.uthorih for all actii itics of the airport, achich include bonding authorih:, pmrulL n]! caaasfi��(p�,i s+rr snr! >rnss nion'ing anti seaver cicanin� . R h Part 150 Into the Future On August 22, 2000 MASAC approved the following sound mitigation priorities (in order of priority) as part of the Part 150 Update: Complete the sound insulation of single-family and duplex homes within the 1996 DNL 65 and greater noise contours 2. Complete the sound insulation ofmulti-family residential structures within the 1996 DNL 65 and greater noise contours in conjunction with priority 3 and then sequencing to 4 below upon FAA approval of the Part 150 Update document. 3. Complete the sound insulation of single-family and duplex homes that fall within the 2005 DNL 65 and greater DNL noise contours 4. Complete the sound insulation of eligible single-family and duplex homes that fall within the 2005 DNL 60 to DNL 64 noise contours 5. Complete the sound insulation ofmulti-family residential structures within the 2005 DNL 65 and greater DNL noise contours in conjunction wi ty 3 above upon FAA approval of the Part 150 Update document 177 ?< 6. Complete the sound insulation of multi -family residential structures within the 2005. .�.� DNL 60 to DNL 64 noise contours �N 7. Complete the sound insulation of nursing homes and churches with regular weekday daycare/nursery school programs within the 2005 DNL 60 contour. �,`, , Formal submission of this document to the FAA has been delayed by the withdrawal of the \� airlines from MASAC. Mayor Mertensotto has appointed a blue-ribbon panel that is working to, bring the airlines back into the MASAC framework. Until that time, the airport will continue to °;% operate under the existing Part 150 Program. Corridor The Eagan -Mendota Heights Corridor (the Corridor) is an area that contains the Minnesota River and commercial and industrial land immediately east of MSP. The Corridor has the lowest density residential population of any area surrounding MSP. The goal of the Corridor Procedure is to concentrate aircraft overflights over more compatible land use (non-residential), as compared to other areas around MSP. Various adjustments and refinements to the corridor have occurred over the past 30 years. The Preferential Runway System, established in 1969, affirmed the use of the Corridor as the first priority for overflights. Corridor procedures were defined and implemented in 1974, and the existing Corridor Procedures were essentially established in the mid- 1980s. The PRS was replaced by the RUS in 1991. Runway Use System The Runway Use System is intended to place aircraft and departures into the Eagan -Mendota Heights Corridor to the maximum extent possible. The next priority is to maximize the use of the crosswind runway 94-22) in an effort to reduce traffic from the parallel runways (11L-29R and 11 R-29L) to and from the northwest during light traffic hours. The proposed extension of Runway 4-22 will increase the number of hours the RUS can be used: from a current average of three hours per day to as many as nine hours per day, depending on wind conditions. The RUS consists of the following daytime and nighttime use priorities: Daytime Hours (0600-2300) When operations require the use of the parallel runways, a configuration should be selected that will place the majority of traffic in the Eagan -Mendota Heights Corridor when feasible. • When feasible, maximize the use of Runway 4-22 and balance the use at both ends. Utilize Runway 4-22 in conjunction with the Eagan -Mendota Heights Corridor as much as possible. Nighttime Hours (2300-0600) • Maximize use of the Eagan -Mendota Heights Corridor (head -to -head) when feasible. • If 4-22 is required, use in a balanced manner. The increased use of Runway 4-22 was not achieved, due to prolonged local issues regarding proposed runway use and the subsequent need to update the Runway 22 Extension FEIS. For the 200 Part 150 Update, this measure will be modified with an updated RUS that includes Runway 17-35. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO February 1352001 TO: Airport Relations Commission FROM: Patrick C. Hollister, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT: Rescheduling of the Wednesday, March 14, 2001 Airport Relations Commission Meeting Discussion The Airport Relations Commission regularly meets on the second Wednesday of every month. Unfortunately, neither Cari Lindberg nor Patrick Hollister will be available on Wednesday, March 14, 2001 to staff the meeting. The Commission should either reschedule or cancel their March meeting. Please bring your calendars to the February 14 meeting to determine if a substitute date can be found. Staff will inform the Council of the Commission's decision regarding the March 2001 meeting. Action Required Either reschedule or cancel the March 14, 2001 Airport Relations Commission meetine. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO February li, 2001 TO: Airport Relations Commission FROM: Patrick C. Hollister, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT: New Airport Relations Commissioner Vern Edstrom Discussion The City Council, at their regular meeting on February 6, 2000, appointed Vern Edstrom and re -appointed John Roszak to the Airport Relations Commission. (Please see attached materials.) Neither Commissioner will be present at the February 14, 2001 Commission meeting. The Commission may congratulate both of them appropriately at the nest Commission meeting when they are in attendance. Action Required This is an information item only. Mayor Charles Mertensotto 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 December 27, 2000 Dear Mayor Mertensotto, I am writing in reference to the open position on the Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission. I am a 31 year resident of Mendota Heights and my background includes a B.A. degree (St. Thomas College, 1962), retired USAF (7 years active, 13 years MN ANG), and 30 years in the electronics/computer industry. I retired as Director of Purchasing for Seagate Technology, Twin Cities Disc Drive Operations, in 1998. I am interested in serving the city in a volunteer capacity, and believe that my Air Force/flying background might serve Mendota Heights best on the Airport Relations Commission. I would, of course, need to understand more about the function of the Commission. Thank you for your consideration, and I look forward to hearing from you. Best egards, Vern Edstrom 637 Marie Avenue Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Tel.: 651/454-4639 E-mail: edstromEOMSN.COM RATWIK, ROSZAK & MALONEY, P.A. Attome%s at Law Paul C. Ratwik John M. Roszak Patricia A. Ma(onev* Terrence J. Foy* Stephen G. Andersen** Scott T. Anderson Kevin J. Rupp Jay T. Squires* 1 Ann R. Goerinv Nancy E. Blumstein* Sara J. Ruff Joseph J.Langel Michael J. Waldspurger* Ntavor Charles Ylertensotto Citv of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights. MN 55118 RE: ARC Reappointment Dear Mayor Mertensotto: 300 Peavev Building 730 Second Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 (612)339-0060 Fax(612)339-0033 www.ranviklaw.com January 9, 2001 MarEater A. Skelton Amv E. Mace Erin K. Munson Anne C. Becker Holly Lindquist Thomas * :Also admitted in Wisconsin *' Ciyil Trial Specialist Certified by the Minnesota State Bar Association Real Property Law Specialist Certified by the Minnesota State Bar Association On March 4, 1998, the City Council first appointed me to the Airport Relations Commission to complete an unexpired term that ran through January ) I, 2001. Please consider this letter my request to be reappointed for another term to the Airport Relations Commission. As you know, dealing with airport issues has a certain "learning curve". As I approach my third anniversary of service on the Commission, I believe I understand the issues, the terminology, the various jurisdictions that control the airport, and the role of the Airport Relations Commission. With the departure of Kevin Batchelder and the "learning curve" for the new City Administrator, my experience on the Commission should assist in maintaining continuity and stability. The current membership of the Commission has worked very well together. yVe have made timely submissions of recommendations for the City's "Airport Noise Plan Of Action" to the City Council. prepared a brochure for Citv residents, and are presently working on material for a video to be aired over the Northern Dakota Countv Community Television channel. I believe that I have made valuable contributions to the work of the Commission. and I would appreciate the opportunity to continue to be of service to my community through the work of the Commission. City o� ...,.., 1Vie�dota eights February 7, 2001 Mr Vern Edstrom 637 Marie Avenue Mendota Heights MN 55118 Dear Mr. Edstrom: On February 6, 2001 the Mendota Heights City Council voted unanimously to appoint you to the Airport Relations Commission. Your appointment is for athree-year term, which runs through January 31, 2004. The Airport Relations Commission meets on the second Wednesday of each month at 7:00 p.m. Therefore, your first meeting will be February 14, 2001. Patrick Hollister and the City staff put together a packet of information for each Airport Relations Commissioner meeting describing each Airport issue. This packet is either sent to you or hand delivered to your home on the Friday preceding the Wednesday evening meeting for you to prepare for the meeting. We are very pleased that you will be able to join the Airport Relations Commission. Should you have any questions prior to the meeting, please do not hesitate to contact Patrick Hollister or me. Sincerely, CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS � . Cari Lindberg City Administrator KLB:IIs cc: Patrick Hollister, Administrative Assistant 17 01 Victoria Cunt • �fenduta llci,hts, Dl\ 55ll�� _ (6s1) as�asso • r_t� s,�-s�so Mendota- • cotyA February 7, 2001 Mr. John Roszak 1235 Culligan Lane Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Dear Mr. Roszak: This is to advise you that the City Council, in action taken on Tuesday, February 6, 2001, reappointed you to a three-year term on the Airport Relations Commission. This new term will be effective from February 1, 2001 through January 31, 2003. Thank you for patience with the reappointment process. Your input and dedication on addressing airport issues affecting our community is greatly appreciated. We look forward to your continued contributions in the coming years. Sincerely, CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Cad Lindberg City Administrator fll01 Victoria Cun'e •Mendota Heights, bt\ • 5511S (651) 4�2-1550 • F.�3 i�2-S9 ; 0 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 10, 2001 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission was held on Wednesday, January 10, 2001, in the Large Conference Room at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Scott Beaty and Commissioners Joe Leuman, John Roszak, Liz Petschel, George May, and Ellsworth Stein. Commissioner Gregg Fitzer was excused from the meeting. Staff present were City Administrator Cari Lindberg and Administrative Assistant Patrick C. Hollister. Mr. Hollister took the minutes. INTRODUCTION AND WELCOME TO CITY ADMINISTRATOR Mr. Hollister introduced City Administrator Cari Lindberg to the Commission. The Commission welcomed Ms. Lindberg to the City of Mendota Heights, MINUTES Commissioner Roszak moved to approve the December 13, 2000 Minutes with revisions. Commissioner May seconded the motion. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 AIRPORT NOISE VIDEO The Commission reviewed the draft scripts provided by Chair Beaty and Commissioners Roszak, Leuman, Petschel and Stein covering various sections of the video. The Commissioners agreed to e-mail their scripts to Ms. Lindberg in order that Mr. Hollister can combine them and maintain the draft script on his computer. Mr. Hollister reported that he had talked to Brown Institute about the possibility of one of their broadcasting students providing the voice-over for the air noise video. Mr. Hollister said that an instructor from the broadcasting department, Mr. Kevin Conner, had told him that many students at the Institute would probably be happy to provide the voice-over for free since it would both enhance their resume and help to fulfill the Institute's own internship requirement for its students. 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, 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 UARY 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 Loeffeiholz, NWA Dick Saunders, Minneapolis Pending, Bloomington Roy Fuhrmann, MAC cc: Patrick Hollister, Mendota Heights Charles Curry, ALPA Will Eginton, IGH Jennifer Sayre, MNA 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 an Orcutt, FAA Mark Ryan, MAC Joe Harris, MAC Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC] 6040 28th Avenue South • Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450 • (612) 726-8441 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 METROPOLITAN AIRCRAFT SOUND ABATEMENT COUNCIL THE JANUARY 23I 2001 MASAC MEETING HAS BEEN CANCELLED Please refer to the enclosed memos for further information.* *If you prefer not to receive further MASAC-related notices, please contact Melissa Scovronski at 612-726-8141 or at mscovron(a�mspmac.orq. I CAC MEMORANDUM MASAC TO: MASAC FROM: Chad Leqve, MASAC Technical Advisor SUBJECT: Cancellation of January 23, 2001 MASAC Meeting DATE: January 12, 2001 At the November 28, 2000 MASAC meeting Mr. Jeff Hamiel, MAC Executive Director, addressed the remaining MASAC members with respect to the airline resignation letter dated October 31, 2000. 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 drafting process, the non-use of proxy votes in the evaluation of possible improvements to the Ground Run -Up Pad and comments developed for the draft 2000 FAA Aviation Noise Abatement Policy. Mr. Hamiel explained the importance of airline involvement with MASAC and the critical nature of the situation relative to the future vitality of MASAC and the success of Council initiatives. As a result, Mr. Hamiel proposed the formation of a Blue Ribbon Panel comprised of three airline and three community representatives with a third party facilitator. The intent of the Panel is to reestablish a dialogue between the airlines and communities and resolve the MASAC operational issues resulting in reestablishment of airline participation. Chairman Mertensotto appointed the following members to sit on the Panel: Barret Lane —Minneapolis Jamie Verbrugge —Eagan Jill Smith — Mendota Heights It was determined at the November 28 MASAC meeting that until this matter is resolved, MASAC cannot conduct business. Therefore, any MASAC or MASAC related committee meetings will be cancelled, pending the outcome of the Panel's deliberations. Since the November 28, 2000 MASAC meeting, MAC Executive Staff has met with the airlines in an effort to establish the airline representatives on the Blue Ribbon Panel. At this point, airline representatives have not yet been established. As a result, the Blue 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. MASAC MEMORANDUM MASAC TO: MASAC FROM: Chad Leqve, MASAC Technical Advisor SUBJECT: Formation of a Runway 17-35 Remote Noise Monitoring Tower (RMT) Location Taskforce DATE: January 12, 2001 In 1998 MASAC began the process of locating additional Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System (ANOMS) Remote noise Monitoring Towers (RMTs). The location process was predicated on the provisions outlined in the MSP Noise Mitigation Program, which called for the evaluation of possible locations affected by the parallel runways (to monitor continued growing volumes of air traffic). The result was the addition of five new RMT locations raising the total number of permanent monitoring sites to 29. The intent was to increase the noise monitoring coverage of the system relative to the existing runway geometry and aircraft operations at the airport. Furthermore, the MSP Noise Mitigation Program called for the addition of new monitors in areas that will be affected by the future operation of Runway 17-35. The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) made a commitment to install the new monitors one year prior to the runway opening. Realizing the importance of this initiative MASAC intended on including this project as part of the 2001 WSAC Goals and Objectives. Unfortunately, due to the present state of MASAC, the final 2001 MASAC Goals and Objectives have not been ratified and all MASAC and MASAC related committee meetings have been cancelled pending the outcome of the Blue Ribbon Panel's deliberations. Traditionally, projects such as the location of new monitors relative to Runway 17-35 would have been conducted by MASAC. However, due to the current situation this is not possible at this time. As a result, MAC staff is forming a Runway 17-35 Remote Noise Monitoring Tower (RMT) Location Taskforce in an effort to ensure that the commitment to have the sites operational one year prior to the runway opening is upheld. Letters are being sent to future impacted communities south of the airport including Bloomington, Burnsville, Apple Valley and Eagan requesting the appointment of a representative from the respective communities to the Taskforce. Individuals wishing to be included on the mailing list for the Taskforce need to contact Melissa Scovronski by phone at 612-726-8141 or via a -mail at mscovron@mspmac.org. If you have any questions or comments regarding this topic, please contact me at 612- 725-6328. 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, 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 FEBRUARY 9, 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 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 Lawell, Apple Valley Tom Hansen, Burnsville Jan DelCalzo, 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 AVIATION POLICY PLAN UPDATE 2000-2020 January 17, 2001 8:30 to 10:30 a.m. Council Chambers Metropolitan Council Offices Mears Park Centre 230 East Fifth Street St. Paul, MN 55101 AGENDA 1. Call to Order —Review Minutes of November 29, 2000 Meeting (encl.) 2. Review of MSP International Airport Draft Forecast Evaluation Paper (encl.) 3. Review of General Aviation Draft Forecasts (encl.) 4. Review of Revised Issue Paper on Land Use Compatibility for Noise (handout) an acceptable risk? The FAA has a collision risk model using an objective criterion of less - than 1 accident per ten million operations. Under that criterion the new runway at MSP would be acceptable. Another model, used in the United Kingdom, was examined for risk criteria. They looked at "fatalities" instead of "accidents"; thus the FAA is more liberal in its view of safety. At the Intermediate and Minor airports the analysis indicated that approximately 90% of all general aviation aircraft accidents were on -airport. Application of the state zones indicates about 1,794 acres that would need to be acquired since development is prohibited. Is the risk of an accident in the MnDOT safety zones sufficient to prohibit otherwise compatible development and redevelopment to occur in these zones? Rather than incurring these costs it was suggested that this property could be developed/redeveloped with compatible land uses; such use, would be consistent with the regional Blueprint where land close -in should be developed rather than fostering additional development sprawl. It was commented on that using the word "severe" hazard in several of the conclusion statements (see items 7, 13 and 19) was too much of a value judgement and should be revised to reflect more on the height and/or communication hazard of development in the safety zones. Concern was raised that size of MSP and its operations has increased considerably since 1945 enactment of the 2-mile zoning criteria and why are runway zones going to only 7,000' in length. Comment was made that just because a city doesn't implement the zoning that MAC or MnDOT can zone — important for MAC and state to enforce safety zoning. The basic recommendation was that the issue paper be submitted to the Council for review and transmittal to the commissioner of MnDOT for his consideration on revisions to the MnDOT rules on zoning standards (which are currently under review) as they apply to the Metropolitan Area. 4. State Zoning: Mike Louis of MnDOT Office of Aeronautics commented that it was appropriate for the Council to identify the issues and bring them to public attention. He indicated that the intent of the process is for all governmental units [FAA, MnDOT, Council, MAC, and Communities] to provide a reasonable level of safety. Aeronautics is working with the MAC to establish a schedule for implementing zoning around its airports, and the ball is in MAC's court. Potential amendments to the zoning are allowed under the rules and regulations, but only after a zoning district is established and ordinance is in -place. Zoning is not in -place at MAC airports, including the new runway at MSP. It was pointed out that the issue paper is based upon history of accidents and this is a statistical shortcoming. An accident rate is not the primary reason for making changes to the rules and regulations; the future is difficult to predict — there is a need for other criteria. Twin Cities is very fortunate not to have had a major accident at MSP. Mr. Louis presented a conceptual perspective on what the intention was of the zoning. Pre-1926 essentially no rules on aviation operation. In 1926 Air Commerce Act passed since aircraft operators couldn't get loans or insurance for aviation business development. The Act was based upon a "seaport" model of partnership relationship. Airspace, aircraft, airmen, air-traffic and control of airports were left to the cities. Current organizational structure and responsibilities puts most of these activities under federal regulation, except for airports. Airports are under local responsibility and involves assurances between the FAA and an airport owner concerning airport development. It was further indicated that today's partnership is similar to a bridge truss in that all the parts of the design have to work together to maintain the span. Airport zoning is one of many variables 2 vIINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL REGIONAL AVATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE Review and Evaluation of MSP Forecasts 1. Introduction The Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport (MSP) Long -Term Comprehensive Plan (LTCP) forecasts are reviewed in this section. The process by which the forecasts were developed are first described, followed by description of the forecasts. The main part of the section contains an analysis of how the forecast has performed since it was prepared, and provides explanations for any deviations in actual aviation activity from forecast aviation activity. The section concludes with a discussion of major current and potential trends that may affect traffic in the future, and a discussion of forecast accuracy. 2. Forecast Background The LTCP was part of a Dual Track Planning Process that has involved two forecasting efforts. The original forecasts were completed in 1990, using 1988 as a base year. They were revised in 1993 to address changes in the industry -- such as major financial difficulties among the airlines and the increasingly important role of regional carriers -- and in the local and national economies which ultimately drive aviation demand. The revised forecasts were used for both the LTCP Update and the New Airport Comprehensive Plan. Using a common set of methodologies and assumptions ensured that the plans would be directly comparable. The forecasts are presented in greater detail in the Long -Term Comprehensive Plan. Volume 6: Revised Activity Forecasts and the Technical Appendix to Volume 6. In order to ensure that the revised forecasts are optimal from both predictive and planning standpoints, forecast workshops were convened in 1992 and 1993 by the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) and the Metropolitan Council (MC). Four Expert Panel Sessions were convened. The first three were conducted in the Fall of 1992 to discuss forecast methodologies, aviation industry assumptions, and socioeconomic trends. The final session was convened in the Spring of 1993 to review the work accomplished to date and to develop a consensus on the final assumptions and methodologies used in the updated forecasts. In addition to the expert panel sessions, a public hearing or seeping session was conducted early in the process on October 20, 1992, to solicit comments and recommendations from the general public. The forecast was presented before the MAC in July 1993 and the forecast report was published in December 1993. Since that time the forecast has been used to guide facility planning at MSP, and to estimate the impacts in the Environmental Impact Statement for the new north -south rumvay. Table 1 shows 2020 activity levels for twelve alternative scenarios and their impacts on total passenger enplanements and aircraft operations were initially examined. In addition, three "combination scenarios" comprised of two or more scenarios were developed. The two scenarios which represented the highest and lowest activity cases have been used to test the flexibility of the alternative airport concepts for the LTCP and since then. The effects of these scenarios on annual passenger enplanements and originations are presented in Figures 4 and 5. One of the scenarios, Combination 2 was a combination of optimistic scenarios set within a context of rapid economic growth. It assumed that high regional and national growth would increase national passenger activity, requiring MSP to accommodate more of the Chicago connecting overflow, and enabling Northwest to profitably maintain its current connecting percentage (Scenario 7). It was assumed that turboprop activity would be relatively lower than under the base case (Scenario 10) because (1) short -haul markets would have more activity and require larger aircraft, (2) Northwest Airlines would be better able to afford the jet aircraft to serve these markets, and (3) high income people or more sensitive to time savings and amenities, and are therefore more likely to choose jets over turboprops. It was also anticipated that part of the reason for high economic growth would be an increasingly globalized economy with reduced trade and bilateral restrictions. These factors, combined with congestion at other gateways, would encourage non-stop international service from MSP (Scenario 11). In the years following publication of the base case forecast, it became clear that economic and aviation industry trends were more closely following the Combination 2 (high) forecast assumptions than the base case forecast assumptions. Consequently, in more recent years it has been increasingly used for facility and environmental planning and has essentially become the de facto base case forecast. Since the Combination 2 forecast is currently being used for planning at MSP, that is the forecast that will be evaluated in the following subsection. 4. Evaluation of Forecast The performance of the Combination Z LTCP forecast relative to actual activity, will be evaluated in this subsection. Emphasis will first be placed on the key forecast inputs; and whether they have tracked as had been assumed. Next the air carrier, regional carrier, international carrier, and non-scheduled carrier forecasts will be assessed. An evaluation of the air cargo, general aviation, and military forecasts will follow. 4.1 Key Inputs As discussed earlier, the aviation forecasts were dependent on projections of socioeconomic and air service variables. Tables 2 through 5 show the the projections used in the LTCP forecast, actual numbers subsequent to the LTCP forecast, and the most recent Metropolitan Council projections where available for population, employment, income. and air carrier vield. 5 Table 17 compares actual and projected international air carrier aircraft size. The LTCP forecast projected that average aircraft size would decline as mid -size widebody jets such as the DC-10 and MD -I I increasingly supplemented or replaced the Boeing 747 aircraft. This transition has occurred more rapidly than expected, so in 1999 the average aircraft size was 7.6 percent lower than projected. Table 18 shows the actual and projected international air carrier aircraft operations. The actual load factor has remained roughly constant as had been projected, so the higher than projected passenger levels, combined with the lower than projected average aircraft size, has translated to actual international aircraft operations that were 18.8 percent higher than projected for 1999. 4.5 Non -Scheduled Forecasts Table 19 presents the Combination 2 forecast of non-scheduled passenger enplanements, and compares it with actual activity. Through 1999, actual enplanements have roughly paralleled the forecast, although there have been significant year-to-year fluctuations. However, since Sun Country Airlines has converted from a non-scheduled carrier to a primarily scheduled carrier, it is anticipated that future non-scheduled enplanements will be significantly lower than the LTCP projection. Table 20 compares actual and projected non-scheduled aircraft operations. The number of operations had grown faster than projected because Sun Country had been increasing the percentage of Boeing 727 aircraft and reducing the percentage of DC-10 aircraft, thereby reducing the average aircraft size. Again, because of Sun Country's transition to a scheduled carrier, it is anticipated that the number of non-scheduled aircraft operations will be significantly reduced in the future. 4.6 Air Cargo Forecasts Table 21 presents actual and projected air freight tonnage at MSP. As shown, actual levels initially paralleled the forecast but by 1999 had fallen to approximately 20 percent below the forecast levels. Recently, cargo operations have been limited because of the lack of ramp space and other ground facilities. Additional cargo facilities will be added in 2003, and at that time it is anticipated that cargo activity will increase significantly. Table 22 presents actual and projected all -cargo operations at MSP. As a result of consolidation among the all -cargo carriers and increased load factors, ail -cargo aircraft operations have grown less rapidly than air freight tonnage. Again, once additional cargo facilities come on line in 2003, it is expected that all -cargo operations will increase substantially. 4.7 General Aviation Forecasts Table 23 compares actual and projected general aviation operations. Actual operations have roughly paralleled the forecast levels although there have been signiticant year-to- • Limits of Yield Vanagement — Increases in passenger demand have been in part fueled by reductions in real fares which have been made possible by increases in load factor. The airlines have been able to increase load factors by using increasingly sophisticated reservations and yield management systems. National load factors have leveled off in the past two years and there is question as to how much further they can rise in the future. If the airlines are no longer able to increase load factors, opportunities for reducing fares will be limited. • National Airspace System — Again, it is critical that the national airspace infrastructure be improved to keep pace with demand. If that does not happen, aircraft flights will be rationed, either indirectly by increased costs or directly by government intervention. Passenger demand will no longer grow as fast as the economy and the average aircraft size will probably be larger than would occur in an unconstrained case. • Capacity at Other Airports —Many airports serving major metropolitan areas, such as New York, Chicago and Los Angeles are approaching the point at which physical expansion is no longer possible. The resultant capacity limits will restrict the growth in flights from MSP to those points, and will result in larger aircraft to accommodate passenger demand or higher fares to exploit passenger demand. • Potential Advances in Aviation Technology- Potential long term advances in commercial aviation technology include super jumbos (1000 passengers or more), hypersonic aircraft, spaceplanes, and Short Takeoff and Landing (STOL) aircraft. Specialized aircraft such as spaceplanes would likely have to operate at remote locations because of environmental and noise factors and would not affect MSP. STOL aircraft would have option of operating at other metropolitan airports such as St. Paul and could offer metropolitan passengers a greater range of alternatives. • Alternate Transportation Modes —High speed or maw lev trains are a potential alternative transportation mode in the long-term. There are significant technological, financial and right-of-way issues that need to be solved before high-speed rail/mag- lev becomes viable in the U.S. and it would probably become established on the East and Nest Coasts prior to Twin Cities. If a high speed rail or mag-lev system becomes established, however, it could compete with airlines on many short -haul and medium - haul routes, as is the case in Europe. • Changing.-Ittittrdes Totivcrrds Travel —Much air travel is discretionary and therefore subject to non -economic factors. It is conceivable that. because of the perceived increased "hassle" factor involved in air travel, a large segment of the population may choose to spend their discretionary money closer to home, at activities that do not require air travel. Likewise, improved teleconferencing technology may convince businesses that travel budgets would be better spend elsewhere. Should these circumstances come about, passenger demand would no longer keep pace with the econom%. 13 Table 3 REGIONAL AVIATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE Comparison of Actual and Projected Minneapolis -St. Paul (a) Metropolitan Employment Met Total LTCP Council Percentage Year Employment Projection Projection (b) Difference 1990 11679,270 11679,270 19679,270 0.0 % 1991 1,684,134 1,719,000 (c) 11684,134 2.1 % 1992 1,711,306 11759,000 (c) 1,711,306 2.8% 1993 11749,394 1,799,000 (c) 11749,394 2.8% 1994 11806,266 1,839,000 (c) 1,806,266 1.8% 1995 11863,666 11878,000 (c) 11863,666 0.8% 1996 11902,974 119181000 (c) 11902,974 0.8% 1997 11946,084 1,958,000 (c) 11930s800 (c) 0.6% 1998 11998,653 11998,000 (c) 1,958,700 (c) 0.0% 1999 2,038,000 (c) 1,986.500 (c) 2000 21077,500 21014,400 2005 21180,400 21137,000 (c) 2010 21281,400 25259,600 2015 21318,200 2,322,800 (c) 2020 29351,200 2,385,900 M C o 30 - - . E 2.5 - -- -- c E 2.0 - - O 0 1.5 tL 1.0 -- - - C_..- 0 0.5 O Year Actual —Revised Met Council LTCP (a) Combination 2 High Forecast. (b) Met Council Seven -County Growth Rates applied to Eleven -county base. (c) Interpolated. Sources: US DOT Origin -Destination Survey, LTCP Volume 6 Revised Activity Forecasts: Technical Appendix, and HNTB analysis. Table 7 REGIONAL AVIATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE Comparison of Actual and Projected MSP (a) Average Domestic Air Carrier Connecting Percentage Year Actual Projected Percentage Difference 1992 52.0% 52.0 % 0.0 % 1993 51.3/° 52.1% (b) 1.5% 1994 52.90/6 52.1 % (b) -1.4% 1995 52.4% 52.2% (b) -0.5% 1996 51.3% 52.2% (b) 1.8% 1997 48.2 % 52.3% (b) 8.3 % 1998 48.9% 52.3% (b) 7.0% 1999 49.4 /° 52.3% (b) 5.9 % 2000 52.4 % 2005 52.4°� 2010 52.4 % 2015 52.4 % 2020 52.4 m i, 1 70/ d 50 j 50% I- 40%._. m 30%- c ; U 10 % 0 0 ai ai � ai o 0 0 Year —Actual —Projected (a) Combination 2 High Forecast. (b)Interpolated. Sources: US DOT Origin -Destination Survey, LTCP Volume 6 Revised Activity Forecasts: Technical Appendix, and HNT6 analysis. Table 11 REGIONAL AVIATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE Comparison of Actual and Projected MSP (a) Domestic Air Carrier Aircraft Operations Percentage Year Actual Projected Difference 1992 242,670 242,670 0.0 1993 2580374 257,000 (b) -0.5 % 1994 264,519 271,000 (b) 2.5% 1995 281,334 285,000 (b) 13 1996 295,776 299,000 (b) 1.1 1997 294,220 313,000 (b) 6.4 1998 278,828 327,000 (b) 17.3 1999 314,883 341,000 (b) 8.3% 2000 355,000 2005 3739000 2010 394,000 2015 405,000 2020 418,800 0 400 - 350 _ c 300 l_-__._.--- 0 +� 250 ca a 200- O 150- R 100 { --- 50 Q - - 0 0 ai rn 0 0 coi cc'i o Year --Actual —Projected (a) Combination 2 High Forecast. (b) Interpolated. Sources: US DOT Origin -Destination Survey, LTCP Volume 6 Revised Activity Forecasts: Technical - Appendix, and HNTB analysis. Table 15 REGIONAL AVIATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE Comparison of Actual and Projected MSP (a) Domestic Regional Carrier Aircraft Operations Total Total Percentage Year Regional Turboprop (b) Projected Difference 1992 85,926 85,926 85,926 0.0% 1993 108,237 107,897 88,000 (c) -18.4% 1994 115,164 114,070 90,000 (c) -21.1 1995 106,763 104,652 92,000 (c) -12.1% 1996 105,926 101,191 94,000 (c) -7.1 1997 102,038 92,000 96,000 (c) 4.3% 1998 90,421 75,150 98,000 (c) 30.4% 1999 109,017 87,140 100,000 (c) 14.8% 2000 102,200 2005 104,400 2010 10600 2015 106,400 2020 105,800 N 140 ip o_ w 120- C O 100 R n 80 O a)60 i m 40 i m20 :..__ .._ - _._. - --. __ ...._---------- ----.-.. c 0 m _ . N N V N O O O O m QOi m m O ry O N N Year —Total Regional —Projected - Turboprop (a) Combination 2 High Forecast. (b) Share of turboprop operations estimated based on share of scheduled operations. (c) Interpolated. Sources: US DOT Origin -Destination Survey, LTCP Volume 6 Revised Activity Forecasts: Technical Appendix, and HNT6 analysis. - REGIONAL AVIATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE Comparison of Actual and Projected MSP (a) Total Non -Scheduled Enplanements Percentage Year Actual Projected Difference 1992 419,060 419,060 0.0 1993 350,918 448,000 (b) 27.7 1994 457,715 476,000 (b) 4.0% 1995 501,792 505,000 (b) 0.6% 1996 481,532 533,000 (b) 10.7% 1997 465,628 562,000 (b) 20.7% 1998 635,290 590,000 (b) -7.1 1999 650,350 619,000 (b) -4.8% 2000 647,000 2005 726,000 2010 803,000 2015 830,000 2020 856,000 0.9 y 08 — - 0.7 m a 0.6 II C N 1I- W o 0.5 - -..- 0.4-- ---- --- _. _ -. ---- 0.3 0.2 U 0.1 C O Year —Actual —Projected (a) Combination 2 High Forecast. (b)Interpolated, Sources: US DOT Origin -Destination Survey, LTCP Volume 6 Revised Activity Forecasts: Technical Appendix, and HNTB analysis. Table 23 - REGIONAL AVIATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE Comparison of Actual and Projected MSP (a) General Aviation Aircraft Operations Percentage Year Actual Projected Difference 1992 605929 %929 0.0 % 1993 49,216 59,800 (b) 21.5% 1994 50,898 58,700 (b) 15.3% 1995 49,769 57,700 (b) 15.9% 1996 491786 56,600 (b) 13.7% 1997 64,209 55,500 (b) -13.6% 1998 79,757 54,400 (b) -31.8 % 1999 49,256 53,300 (b) 8.2% 2000 52,200 2005 50,600 2010 48,600 2015 47,800 2020 46,600 I i 90 _ 0 8070 0 - --- ------ c 60 Q 50 — 40 _ CM 0 30 20 10 _. ... Q -M Year —Actual — Projected (a) Combination 2 High Forecast. (b) Interpolated. Sources: US LTCP Volume 6 Revised Activity Forecasts: Technical DOT Origin -Destination Survey, Appendix, and HNTS analysis. Table 27 REGIONAL AVIATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE Forecast Evaluation LTCP Combination 2 Forecast and Terminal Area Forecast Total Enplanements Total Operations Percent Percent Year (a) Actual Projected Difference Actual Projected Difference LTCP Combination 2 Forecast (b) 1992 10,680,487 10,680,487 0.0% 418,474 418,474 0.0% 1993 11,022,476 115435,000 3.7% 439,990 434,900 -1.2% 1994 11,531,945 12*189,000 5.7% 454,723 451,400 -0.7% 1995 12,664,255 12,943,000 2.2% 465,354 467,900 0.5% 1996 132621,639 13,6971000 0.6% 485,480 484,300 -0.2% 1997 14,3351640 14,451,000 0.8% 491,273 500,800 1.9% 1998 14,620,642 15,2061000 4.0% 483,013 517,300 7.1% 1999 16,457,039 15,960,000 -3.0% 510,421 533,700 4.6% Average Difference (c) 2.9% 2.3% 1993 Terminal Area Forecast(d) 1992 10,603,921 10,6031900 0.0% 404,243 404,000 -0.1 % 1993 10,883*656 115611,000 6.7% 442,341 442,DOO -0.1% 1994 11,370,792 12,0911000 6.3% 454,441 4570000 0.6% 1995 12,301,110 12,580,000 2.3% 466,916 472,000 1.1% 1996 13,295,380 13,067,400 -1.7% 483,570 487,800 0.9% 1997 13,992,446 13,554,800 -3.1% 488,448 503,600 3.1% 1998 14,255,027 14,042,200 -1.5% 481,220 519,400 7.9% 1999 15A221494 14,529,600 -5.8% 505,064 535,200 6.0% Average Difference (c) 3.9% 2.8% (a) Fiscal year for Terminal Area Forecast. (b) Tables 25 and 26. (c) Average of absolute values of differences. (d) FAA, Terminal Area Forecasts: FY 1993-2010. Sources: US DOT Origin -Destination Survey, LTCP Volume 6 Revised Activity Forecasts: Technical Appendix, and HNTB analysis. d f \ \ \ j _ \\ \�  `7\ � �) ) ,! / � ` .. J Telephone (612) 894-9807 F= (612) 394-9873 January 19, 2001 Mayor Charles itifertensotto City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, TvI l 55118 HOFFMLLN HOMES, INC. 2214 East 117th Street Burnsville, MN 53337 RE: AUGUSTA SHORES AIRPORT NOTIFICATION Dear Mayor Mertensotto: CO:ti�'R4CTOR ,= 9284 Pursuant to your rzquest I am providing this letter outlining Hoffman Homes, Inc. practice in regard to the airport disclosures that are provided to current prospective purchaser and those disclosures that apply to future purchasers at the Augusta Shores development. At the first meeting. or at the first request for mailed information, Hoffman Homes, Inc. provides current prospective purchasers with a brief airport disclosure. See Attachment 1. 2. At a follow• up meeting where substantial interest is expressed, Hoffman Homes, Inc. provides current prospective purchasers with a substantial airport disclosure and obtains a signed acknowledgement of receipt. See Attachment 2. Under Minnesota condominium/townhouse sales statutes, prospective purchasers are required to receive a Disclosure Booklet. Hoffman Homes, Inc includes an airs disclosure identical to Attachment 2 in the Disclosure Booklet. Upon any resale the next buyer, and all future buyers, must receive a Disclosure Booklet. All cure err acd fixture prospective purchasers have a 10 day right of rescission of the purchase agreement after receipt of the Disclosure Booklet. Prospective purchasers mug1 Si.n a receiot indicating that the Disclosure Booklet has been received. An Airport Notice will be filed within the nest 20 days on the property notifying all cUri ent and futurz purchasers of potential airpor noise. See Attachment Dake.a Countv Abstract will be recording these documents, in addition to other documents. This document is included in the Disclosure Booklet. ta'c.N,YEt �k 1 TzleDhone (612) 394-9807 Fax (612) 894-9373 I IOFFbt4N IIOlviEs, INC. 2214 East 117th Street Burnsville, XfN55337 NOTICE RE: AIRPORT NOISE Dated April 27, 2000 CONTRICTOR= 9234 Hoffman Homes, Inc. provides this Notice of airport noise to all prospective purchasers of a new home from Hoffman Homes, Inc. in the Augusta Shores development. 1). The Augusta Shores development is located near ivlinneapolis-St. Paul Intenational Airport. 2) The Augustz Shores development is located within noise zones as established and amended from time to time by one or more of the following governmental entities: the Federal Aviation Administration, the State of Minnesota, the Metropolitan Council, the ;Metropolitan Airports Commission, and/or the City of Mendota Heights. 3) Hoffman Homes,_ Inc. utilizes certain construction materials and techniques for acoustic protection that meets or exceeds the City of !Mendota Heismts building requirements in such noise zones. 4) If a prospective purchaser of a home in Augusta Shores development desires mere information the prospective purchaser should contact any or all of the above governmental agencies regarding the airport noise zones and the Augusta Shores development. 5 ) Please see our salespersons for additional information. Amore complete disclosure will be available prior to entering into a purchase agreement. NOTICE RE: AIRPORT NOISE Hoffman Homes, Inc. provides this Notice of airport noise to all prospective purchasers of a new home from Hoff -man Homes, Inc. in the Augusta Shores development. 1). The Augusta Shores development is located near Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport. (See Exhibit A) 2) The Augusta Shores development is located within noise zones as established and amended from time to time by one or more of the following governmental entities: the Federal Aviation Administration, the State of Minnesota, the Metropolitan Council, the Metropolitan Airports Commission, and/or the City of Mendota Heights. (See Exhibit B) 3) Hoffnuw Homes, Inc. utilizes certain construction materials and techniques for acoustic protection that meets or exceeds the City of Mendota Heights building requirements in such noise zones. 4) If a prospective purchaser of a home in Augusta Shores development desires more information the prospective purchaser should contact any or all of the above governmental agencies regarding the airport noise zones and the Augusta Shores development. 5) The attached Exhibit C will be filed on all lots in the Augusta Shores development providing airport noise information to future purchasers. 6) See attached Exhibit D as to additional information on the process followed by Hoffman Homes, Inc. for the Augusta Shores development to comply with the City of Mendota Heights noise acoustic protection ordinance. 7) Exhibit E — City of Mendota Heights Ordinance No. 232, referred to as "Ordinance for Aircraft Noise Attenuation". Hoffman Homes, Inc. 2214 East 117`b Stree# Burnsville, MN 55337 612-394-9307 Dated April 27, 2000 F. o 3 STATE OF M NNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF ) tom. -- HOFFiVIAN foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 2000, by ° the HOMES, INC., a corporation organized under the , on behalf of the corporation. THIS INSTRUiti1ENT WAS DRAFTED BY: Notary Public LARKIN, HOFF1i fAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd. 1500 Norwest Financial Center 7900 Xerxes Avenue South Bloomington, Minnesota 55431 (612) 835-3800 0553269.01 2. day oi _ of ]aws of the State of • Exhibit D-1 -Copy of letter dated 1/28/99 from Dean J. Dovous of DJR Architecture, Inc. • Exhibit D-2 - Construction review letter dated 5/18/99 from David Braslau Associates, Inc. • Preliminary Plat approval by the City of Mendota Heights May 4, 1999. • Approval by the Metropolitan Council of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to residential November 17, 1999. • Final Plat approval by the City of Mendota Heights April 18, 2000. • Hoffman Homes, Inc. construction materials and techniques that meet or exceed the acoustic house protection of the City of Mendota Heights building requirements, including: • Brick and stucco siding • High performance windows • Entry storm door • Baffled roof vents • Direct vent furnace • Direct vent or electric water heater • Direct vent fireplace • Upgraded fiberglass shingles • Main floor double sheet rock ceiling • All windows and exterior doors thoroughly chalked • All penetrations of exterior envelope thoroughly chalked Additional information is available upon request. 1 GI S 5tn a Vraec s.e. • eA:ica 22 • minneepone, mn S5414 telept:one:612�' 31-4571 • fex:612ti?31-4572 18 May 1999 Patrick Homan Hoffman Homes, Inc. 2214 East 117th St, Burnsville, MN 55337 ��r"�ie_ecs�cc�a RE: Augusta Shores Townhouse Development Compliance with Aircraft Noise Attenuation Guidelines Deis Mr. Homan_ T have reviewed the following information provided by DJR Architects, Inc: • Acoustical report dated 22 April 1999 covering the proposed townhouse construction for Augusta Shores Townhouse Development in Dakota County, Minnesota • Site plan showing individual homesite locations within the development • Architectural plans with elevations, floor plans, wail and roof sections The acoustical report and calculations a*e consistent with those nwmmended in the current version of the Builders Guide issued by the Twin Cities Metropolitan Council. The report ar d. architectural plans demonstrate that the townhouse construction, as proposed, will exceed the required Noise Reduction CNR) 25 dBA requirement for homes located between the DNL 65 and DNL 70 contour. Consistency of the project with the Land Use Compatibility Guidelines for Aircraft Noise is still under review by the Metropolitan Council. That issue is not addressed by this certification of the acoustical design and performance of the proposed townhomes. Questions related to consistency of the project with the Land Use Compatibility Guidelines should be addressed to Chauncey Case of the Metropolitan Council. Please let me know if you have any questions concerning our review. Thank you. Sincerely, David Braslau President cc: peter Coyle Chauncey Cam.. SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 232 ORDINANCE FOR AIRCRAFT NOISE ATTENUATION An Ordinance promoting the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, requiring compliance with noise reduction standards and building construction. The City Council of 'tine Ciiy of Ment9 Heights has determined that the following summary of the above -referenced ordinance (the "Ordinance") clearly Informs the public of the intent 'and effect of the Ordinance, and shall be published in lien cf publishing the entire text of the Ordinance. The City of Mendota Heights hsa determined that aircraft noise impacts development in certain areas of the City, that such aircraft noise is beyond the authority of* the City to control and that proper construction methods may attenuate aircraft noise inside the structures in a manner necessary to promote and preserve the health, safety and welfare ' of the citizens of Mendota heights. Section 7 of the Ordinance establishes four aircraft noise zones, which are delineated on , the diagram hereinafter set forth- and incorporated in the Ordinance. 1 Section 8 provides that all constntizetion or reconstruction requiring a bnilaing permit and locsted within an aircraft noise zone shall meet or exceed the noise compatibility tables set forth in the Ordinance. The applicant must emonstrate compliance with the provisions of the Ordinance prior to issuance wt.)f the. permit. Section 10 of the Ordinance provides that any person applying for a building or occupancy permit must include with the application the plans and specifications for the work describing the building, bolding materials, heating and ventilation systems and providing "Sound Transmission Class" .(as that term is defined in the .Ordinance) ratings for exterior roof/ceilings, walls, widows and doors, 4 Certain minimum standards for mechanical ventilation systems, ceiling exterior windows and door frames, chimney closing devices on fireplaces, ventilation ducts, weather stripping and penetrations through exterior walls by pipes, ducts, conduits and etc., are set forth.in Section 10 of the Ordinance. 'Section 10 further provides that the City shall have 30 days to approve or reject the plans and specifications, but shall be required to approve the plans if. the plans meet or exceed the applicable requirements. Section 10 also provides that no construction small occur prior to the approval of the appropriate plans and specifications bq the Citq: Section ll provides that the .City shall have the right to perform inspections in order to determine compliance with the approved plans. The City may order corrective action, or in lieu thereof, the building owner may submit a test report based upon field tests showing compliance with the requirements. "eciion 5 of. the Ordnance provides that the aircraft noise zones shall overlay _ e established zoning districts, and that all territory within any aircraft nei�c 11D ATTENUATION, Sound attenuation means the reduction in sound level rich occurs between the source and receiver. catD T,unx, Sound leak means an opening in a structure through which sound pass. Sound leaks are often extremely small holes or cracks. In general, an air leak is a sound leas. SOUND LEVEI, Sound level means the level of sound pressure measured with a sound level meter and one of its weighting (frequency) networks. When A - weighting is used, the sound level is expressed as dBA. nTrattiMISSION CLASS (STC), Sound transmission class means a single - for a wall w for describing the degree of sound transmission loss specifies STCr the more attenuation partition or other building element. The higher the the building element will afford. SECTION Be cone and gifect the zoning districts Noise Zones established by this Ordinance shall overlay thee, zoning that t � established by Ordinance No. 401, adopted April 3 one or more of theTM el of lanii lying in an overla zone shall established zonen districts. y a� also lie on overlay zone shall be subject to the re Territory within a given applicable ordinances and r f the City established by the other overlay zone, all uses regulations of the City. Within each adopted mar the underlying zoning 111 be � �d in accordance with the regulations uiiding wit is first obtained and provided appropriate that the_ appropriate desi?na as inconsistent on the' No isePCompatibil�her t at no use tached he o as Orc._nance applies to �all incorporated herein, shall fie permittede phis building requiring a bu l ction and any reconstructed portion of a Ordinance except remodeling or r�ehaabtl itat* ofan PYithe ffecte iat residential a. of this building, building or the construction of an appurtenance to an exist=g residential SECTION 6. l'rereouisites io Issuance of Building or Oc_eub�ncv ernit ?eft y application for a City of Mendota Heights building or cccurancy ompliance withnQo land located in an Aircraft Noise Zone must de3onstrate cFi permit. e provisions of this Ordinance prior to the issuance of 1SCTION 7. Establishment of Zones The following Aircraft Noise Zones are herebyestablished as he Zoning Ordinance of the City of Mendota Heights. Pa of Aircraft Noise Zone I Aircraft Noise Zone II Aircraft Noise Zone III Aircraft Noise Zone !WV 'ie boundaries of the qAj . craft Noise zones are -as delineated o the diacram '':lashed hereto as Appendix P_ and incorporated herein. OISE COMPATIBILITY TABLE 1 Noise Reduction bevel in dBA Reouired to Meet Standards For Use IN NEW DEPEI pr= pM Md.TOR REDEVEJAFIS (The Noise Reduction Level numbers specify for each type of land use the amount of interior sound level reduction necessary for the use to be compatible in the applicable Aircraft Noise Zone). ZPSTD IISE TYPE residential AIRCRAFT NOISE ZONE I�e[j(80-i-) (75-80) (70-75) (65-7Qy Single/multiplex-with individual entrance SNCO I<<ultiplex/apartment with shared entrance 1 INCO .Mobile Home INCO Educational and edical ,,chools, churches, hospitals, nursing homes i _Cu7' oral . Enter',oairment Recreational Office. Commercial Retail ITTCO 35 35 Ixco 35 ii7C0 INCO 30 30 INCO 25 30 25 INCO 25 INCO -25 25 20 25 CNST Services ransportation-passenger facilities 35 30 25 CNST ranslent bodging INCO 30 25 20 -ther medical, health & educational services 35 30 25 CNST :the." services 35 30 2 CNST "ndustrial. Communication Utility 25 CNST CNST CNST 7ric111tural nd Water Area, 'esource hxtraction CNST CNST C27ST These uses do not permit "in the wall" air-conditioning units in Zones I, I=, and ITT CN-S T {�T-CALHt�.,JT �j (Reserved for County Auditor or Treasurer for certification) NOTICE (reserved for recording data) Pursuant to the requirements of the City of Mendota Heights, this Notice is being placed uon certain real property located in the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota and legally p described in Exhibit A attached (the "Property") by HOFFN4AN HOMES, INC., a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Nviinnesota ("Owner"), the owner of the Property. 1.) The Property is located near Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport. 2.) Some or all of the individual lots that comprise the Property (the "Lots") may be located within the noise zones established and amended by one or more of the following eovernmental entities: the Federal Aviation Administration, the State of iMinnesota, the Airports Commission, and/or the City of N4endota Ndetropolitan Council, the Metropolitan Heights, and their respective successors in authority. J.) Prospective owners of the Lots may deem it necessary to contact anv or -r.: of those governmental agencies regarding the airport noise zones/issues that may affect the [ HOFFiVlAN HOiviES, INC. Date: zv a.- �J —� 2001 By: C"L.�� `, \`. `•` (Print Name) Its:9t- Exhibit A Legal Description of the ProoertY Lots 1 thru 20, inclusive, Block 1, Augusta Shores Lots I thru 18, inclusive, Block 2, Auwsta Shores Outlot A, Augusta Shores Outlot B. Augusta Shores Outlot C, Augusta Shores According to the the recorded plat thereof Dakota County, Ivfinnesota Ramurdahle toile \ �i«.DOC METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS CONEVIISSION Minneapolis -Saint Paul International Airport 6040 - 28th Avenue South • Minneapolis, N(PI 55450-2799 f Phone (612) 726-8100 • Fax (612) 726-5296 " Cart Lindberga City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Dear Ms. Lindberg: January 26, 2001 The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) Part 150 Sound Insulation Program is entering the final eighteen months of implementation within the certified 1996 DNL65 Noise Contour. Certified by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in 1991, the 1996 DNL65 Noise Exposure Map is the currently approved noise contour that defines eligibility in the MAC Part 150 Program However, as you know, the MAC is in the process of completing a Part 150 Program update requesting approval from the FAA to expand the current program area (2005 DNL60 Noise Contour). This update will be based on forecasted 2005 airport configuration and use, airline fleet mix, airspace use and proposed noise reduction measures. It is important to know that if a new contour is certified and approved by the FAA, the current boundaries of the program area may change, and homeowners may lose their eligibility to participate. MAC wants to be sure households that declined the original invitation to participate in the program, or started the process but then put their project on hold, are afforded another opportunity to take advantage of the program. Over the next several weeks, MAC will mail letters of final invitation to approximately 450 households in the communities of Eagan, Mendota Heights, Minneapolis, and Richfield. Enclosed for your information are samples of the letters, as well as a list of Mendota Heights homeowners to whom the letter will be mailed. We anticipate mailing the letters starting February 5, 2001. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at 612-726-8li3 or Mary Raasch, Center for Energy and Environment, at 612-725-6251. Sincerely; John Nelson FAR Part 150 Program Manager Metropolitan Airports Commission The \Ictrnpnlinm Airp,rs Cemn�•i>.ion is er, nEirnati ve a. [Inn ��:, I„cer. �,,.,,.mspai rpor,.a,•n I:.I'i��. er .\irE�.r..: .�,I:: L:\�E • .-\\O!�."\ COLS\Tl"; GL:\I\F. • CRl"`;T�1_ • FI17\(: CI.0 L�D • L:\:�E EI.\ICl • $.-\!�T f'_a� [. I`i�'.�: \'iC,`.� \" METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMNIISSION > r,=^' Minneapolis -Saint Paul International Airport . 6040 - 28th Avenue South • Minneapolis. NIN 55450-2199 }- Phone (612) 726-8100 • Fax (612) 726-5296 ' Y H Letter 1 Mailed to Homeowners Who Were Invited to Orientation - Did Not Attend or Did Not Sian Up Dear Homeawner: The purpose of this letter is notify you that the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) Part 150 Sound Insulation Program is entering the final eighteen months of implementation within the certified 1996 DNL 65 noise contour. Certified by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in 1991, the 1996 DNL 65 Noise Exposure Map is the currently approved noise contour that defines eligibility in the MAC Part 150 Program. However, you may be aware that MAC is in the process of completing a Part 150 Program update requesting approval from the FAA to expand the current program area (2005 )NL 60 noise contour). This update will be based on forecasted 2005 airport configuration and use, airline fleet mix, airspace use and proposed noise reduction measures. It is important to know that if a new contour is certified and approved by the FAA, the boundaries of the program area may change, and you may lose your eligibility to participate. Our records show that some time ago the MAC sent you (or the previous homeowner) a written invitation to participate in the program, which was declined. The MAC would like to extend a final invitation to you to resume participation. Please respond no later than <<30 days_from mail. date>> by completing and mailing the enclosed postage -paid "Final Invitation RSVP" postcard. If you are interested in the program, staff from MAC's consultant, the Center for Energy and Environment (CEE) will contact you within the next few months to initiate the process. If MAC does not receive your RSVP by <<30 days from mail date>>, MAC can not guarantee your future participation in the program. Please be advised that program participation is voluntary. If you have questions regarding the Sound Insulation Program, Mary Raasch -CEE Manager of Homeowner/Community Affairs, can be reached by e-mail at mraasch�.mncee.org or by phone at 612-725-6251. Sincerely, John Nelson Part 150 Program Manager Metropolitan Airports Commission „a,..mspairport.m::, R,lie,�er.-\ir„�; n, :1!:_-\lE •?.\C,n?COI:�-il'/BLAI\E•CRl'ST.�L•FLl'i\"G CLOL'U•L:1:<EF.UIO•S:\7\-iP:\�_C��'.`: �.-i0:`:V METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMiVIISSION cY 0 I � .r o Dear Homeowner: Minneapolis -Saint Paul International Airport 6040 - 23th Avenue Sou[h • Minneapolis, MN 55450-2799 Phone (612) 726-8100 • Fax (612) 726-5296 Letter 3 Mailed to Homeowners Who Are Remodeling or Maldng Repairs The purpose of this letter is notify you that the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) Part 150 Sound Insulation Program is entering the final eighteen months of implementation within the certified 1996 DNL 65 noise contour. Certified by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in 1991, the 1996 DNL 65 Noise Exposure Map is the currently approved noise contour that defines eligibility in the MAC Part 150 Program. However, you may be aware that MAC is in the process of completing a Part 150 Program update requesting approval from the FAA to expand the current program area (2005 )NL 60 noise contour). This update will be based on forecasted 2005 airport configuration and use, airline fleet mix, airspace use and proposed noise reduction measures. It is important to know that if a new contour is certified and approved by the FAA, the boundaries of the program area may change, and you may lose your eligibility to participate. Our records show that your project is in ctive status" pending the completion of remodeag/repair work you had scheduled to be performed on your home. If you are interested in receiving sound insulation modifications, the MAC would like to extend a final invitation to you to resume participation. Please respond no later than <<30 days from inail date>> by completing and mailing the enclosed postage -paid "Final Invitation RSVP" postcard. If you are interested in the program, staff from MAC's consultant, the Center for Energy and Environment (CEE) will contact you within the next few months to discuss the best way to resume the process. After <<30 days from mail date>>, MAC cannot guarantee your future participation in the program. Please be advised that program participation is voluntary. If you have questions regarding the Sound Insulation Program, Mary Raasch -CEE Manager of Homeowner/Community Affairs can be reached by a -mail at mraasch amncee.oro or by phone at 612-725-6251. Sincerely, 7ohn Nelson Part I50 Pro�am Manager Metropolitan Airports Commission The �te:ropoti;an Aim, orts Commission is an atlirma;ice action empWyer. .� r�+..mspairpo:ccom R:li�.�er :\:: r.�r;:. .-\iS'.��E •:\\OK.�. COf: E.-i1'/61_�IVE •CRYS7.-1L •FLYI\G CCOUD •L.-\�E F.C\IO •S.-\I\"T p:\L'L [\'�1�.\"(04t �' cno " Zoom s c cz ^� mWZm m a cr yAoa � - Z = Z -n - m o�� m C Lon m D m m in o ;o z�, >om cn O z C ` c G ? m T ZO C N m Z 0 V h.,,.. v O m NT> NnO mmmDD y rz ,e. cn N 0 C y z�0M > mil" z c z P z 'i m 3 D�� ZT' DIn O ,� t~jn o �70Z� > o m C y � � ;u o 'D �' +a o�oz y r r ( L r D U1 CA A .� �< < 3 ~ o r V 3 m z O } z Z m o m�3mm v o OrnmDO m OAm r m Z < MEMORANDUM MAC Department of Environment DATE: January 29, 2001 TO: Whom It May Concern FROM: Chad Leqve, MAC ANOMS Coordinator SUBJECT: Articles Regarding the New Stage 4 Noise Standard and the European Position Enclosed are two articles from the Januazy 1, 2001 edition of Aviation Week and Space Technology magazine. The articles provide information on the review and development process associated with the new Stage 4 aircraft noise certification standard and the European's position on the topic. In addition, an excerpt from the Volume 13, Number 2 edition of the Airport Noise Report (dated January 19, 2001) is provided. The article includes information on the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)- Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection's (CAPE) deliberations and the resultant proposed new Stage 4 noise standard. Please refer to the attached azticles for further information. Attachments ,Airport Noise Report A weekly update on litigation, regulations, and technological developments Volume 13, Number 2 ICAO CAEP AGREES ON NEW STAGE 4 STANDARD; COULD NOT AGREE ON STAGE 3 PHASE OUT The Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP) of the Interna- tional Civil Aviation Organization has agreed on a new "Stage 4" aircraft noise certification standard that is only 10 dB below the current Stage 3 standard and can be met by almost all aircraft currently in production. The committee was unable to reachh-agreement at its meeting in Montreal Jan. 8- l7 on the most contentious issue before it: whether to recommend the phase out of hushkitted and other aircraft that only marginally meet the Stage 3 standard. While the airlines and aviation manufacturing companies called the meeting a success, airports view it as an abject failure that will impede efforts to expand airport capacity. "After eight days of meetings in Montreal, CAEP has failed to achieve a new noise initiative that adequately protects airport communities in North America - and around the world," the Airports Council International —North America (ACI- NA) said. Most significantly, it continued, the CAEP deliberations "produced no decision on reasonable operating restrictions on the oldest, noisiest aircraft currently flying in North America. Because of this failure, airports throughout North America will continue to struggle to develop crucially needed capacity in the face of intense public and political opposition to aircraft noise." `Too Little, Too Late' "The CAEP meeting produced too little, too late and failed to provide noise relief to communities around airports and to reduce opposition to much -needed airport infrastructure improvements," said ACI-NA President David Z. Plavin. The collective position of world airports represented by ACI at CAEP called for the adoption of an increased stringency standard for new aircraft of 14 dB quieter than the 30-year-old standard it will replace, he said. The new standard requires airplanes to be only 10 dB quieter. "This would not even reflect the more substan- tial noise reductions being achieved by aircraft coming off the production It today," Plavin said, "and the proposed new certification standard, if approved by the [ICAO Council in Junel, will not even become effective until [Jan. 112006. The 10 dB lower than Stage 3 standard recommended by CAEP represents the sum of the noise reduction at three measurement points (under the takeoff, under he arrival, and alongside the runway) and could be met by a reduction of as little as two or three decibels — or less — at one or two of the three measuring points, ACI-NA explained. "At a given measuring point, that is a margin imperceptible to the average person," Plavin said. The noise around North American airports, he continued, "is dominated by the oldest and noisiest airplanes in the fleet." An ACI-NA analysis indicated that roughly 20 percent of the U.S. fleet (mostly hushkitted airplanes) are responsible for 60 percent of the noise. An analysis done for CAEP "confirmed a dramatic (Continued on p. 6) January 19, 2001 In This Issue... CAEP Meeting ...Airports aze calling the recent meeting of the International Civil Aviation Organization's Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP) a failure because the committee agreed to a tighter "Stage 4" aircraft noise certification standard that most current production airplanes can already meet and took no action on the question of whether to require the phase out of hushkitted Stage 3 airplanes - p. 5 News Briefs ... Garvey chief of staff to replace Erickson as head of FAA Office of Environ- ment and Energy ... Louisville Int'1 appoints its first full-time noise officer ... A new position of community relations director is announced by Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) ... LAWA releases Draft EIS/EIR on Draft Master Plan ... Cincin- nati Int'1, Cheyenne Airport propose to use PFCs for noise mitigation ... Draft EIS released on proposed improvements at Atlanta Hartsfield In'l, including extension of fifth runway ... FAA approves modifications to Sarasota noise program, update to Cincinnati program - p. 6 CHAPTER 4 NOISE DEBATE The Book on Noise Reaches Chapter 4 DAVID BOND/WASHINGTON The stakes are high for airlines, airports, manufacturers and governments as they try to hammer out the right cost/benefit compromise hat is the link between lions of dollars in cranspov aircraft purchases and po- tential retirements, a ma- jor policy conflict douding trade relations between the U.S, and Europe, and —ar- guably —the ability of commercial avia- tion to keep growing as projected during the first few decades of the 21sr century? It is noise. Noise affects how aircraft are designed and how airlines use them. It is the focus of intense political opposition to airport growth and even status -quo op- erations. And the debate on what to do next about noise will come to a head this year before the International Civil Avia- ion Organization, beginning next week as ICAO technical experts meet in Mon - real to develop recommendations (see box, right). The experts, comprising the Commit- tee on Aviation Environmental Prorec- rion (CAEP), are required to balance en- vironmental benefits, technical feasibility and economic reasonableness as they search for consensus on what is being called a Chapter 4 noise regime. But con- sensus will challenge ICAO's talent for compromise, because views in the avia- n community are strongly held and vary dramatically. Whatever emerges as Chapter 4 is likely to rest manufacturers ngenuity and airlines' financial resilience. MANUFACTURERS AND U.S. airlines would require little more noise reduction than designers already have achieved, and they oppose phasing out any current aircraft, even the ones chat barely comply with Chapter 3. They say greater stringency — he degree of redction—is feasible for many types of aircraft but would pose big problems for the mainstay of airline fleers, he single -aisle, 116-186-seat aircraft used most in shore -haul markets. And they ar- gue chat a phaseout would cause economic hardship for airlines chat husIrkined or re- engined aircraft during the 1990s in or- der to comply with Chapter 3. By contrast, noise activists and the air- port community want subscanrial srrin- ChaXW 4 Timeline In a Jan. 8-17 meeting in Mon- treal, the 18-member Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection of the International Civil Aviation Organization will develop recom- mendations on new noise standards, and on whether and how to phase ouI aircraft that do not satisfy the an stdards. In May, the 33-member ICAO Council will act on the recom- mended standards. In September, the full ICAO As- sembly, 185 nations strong, will take up the question of phasing out the noisiest aircraft in current fleets, genry, in some cases beyond what de- signers are confident they can achieve, and phaseours that would retire as much ur 8 AVLaTION �a'JEEK 6SPACE TEC}iNOLOGY/JkWARY 112001 �4viado tiow.cam/awn CHAPTER 4 NOISE DEBATE Impact of Stringency on Aircraft in Production dB, reduction Cumulative noise Level of confidence from Chapter 3 Aircraft affected Engine reduction required in dB. in technical solution 8 A321-211 CFM56-58/P 0.2 High 8 A321-211 CFM56-5B/2P CA High 11 AS0064-605R CF6-80C2A5F 0.7 - High 11 A320-211 CFM56-5A1 1.7 High 11 A320-212 C.n156-5A3 0.7 High 11 A321-112 CFM56-5B2/P 0.1 High it A321-211 CFi156-5831P 3.2 Medium 11 A321-211 CFM56-583/2P 3.4 Medium 11 737-800 CFM56"-7B 0.3 High 11 737-900 CFM56-78 0.3 High 11 767-300/300ER PW4062(FB2B) 1.9 Medium 14 A300B4-605R CF6-80C2A5F 3.7 Not achievable 14 A300E4-622R PW4158 Ph3 2.6 Low 14 A310-304 CF66-8CC2A2 2.6 Not achievable 14 A310-308 CF5-BCC2A8 1.2 Low 14 A310-324 P114152 1.9 Medium 14 A310-325 PW41566A 1.1 Medium 14 A319-113 CFM56-5A4 0.2 High 14 A320-211 CFM56-5A1 4.7 Not achievable 14 A320-212 CFM56-5A3 3.7 Low 14 A320-214 CFM56-5B4 0.3 High 14 A321-111 CFM56-581/P 2.5 Medium 14 A321-111 C:&156-581/2P 3, Medium 14 A321-112 CFM56-5B2/P 3.1 Medium 14 A321-211 CFM56-583/P 6.2 Not achievable 14 A321-211 CF-M56-5B3/2P 6.4 Not achievable 14 A321-231 V2533-A5 1.5 Not evaluated 14 A330-202 CF6-80E1A4 0.3 Not evaluated 14 A330-223 PW4168A 0.8 Not evaluated 14 A330-323 PW4168A 0.8 Not evaluated 14 717-200 BR715-58 0.3 Not evaluated 14 737-300 WMW FAP CFM56-3B-2,3C-1 0.9 High 14 737-400 W/HW FAP CFM56-3-B7,3B-2,3C-I 2.8 Medium 14 737-500 WMW FAP CFM56-3-B113B-2,3C-1 0.8 High 14 737-700 CFM56-7B 1.9 Low 14 737-800 CFM56-76 3.3 Low 14 737-900 CFM56"-7B 3.3 Low 14 757-200 PW2037 2.8 Medium 14 757-200 PT12040 1.6 Medium 14 767-3001300ER PW4062(FB2B) 4.9 Medium 14 767vCC/300ER CF66-80C2S7F 0.9 Law 14 767-300/300ER BB211-524G 1.3 Not Evaluated 14 767-300i300ER AB211-524H 12 Low 14 767-400 CF6-80C2B8F 1.8 Low 14 747-400 RB211-524H2 W/D. CB 2.6 Low 14 747-400 CF6-80C2B1 F WNI MOD 2.0 Low Level of confidence Consequence on in technical solution Interp relation production Tine Not achievable Not technically feasible Stopped Low Too high technical Stooped risk to launch development or modification Medium Compliance not guaranteeable On hold High Development of Recertification, modification, modification envisaged retrofit if required Development of growth version impossible Source: Aerospace Industries Assn. the dawn of Chanter 3, 6-7 million pzople in the U.S. lived within 6� DNL contours. Now, there are abour 500,000. This happened even as pas- senger volume more than doubled, top- ping 600 million. Further improvement is in the off - in the U.S. regardless of what C 1EP does, Meenan said. Estimates vary with scenarios, but the/ show re- ductions in the 65 DNL population around U.S. airports through 2020 � 50 AVIATION WfiI: B. SPACE TECHNOLOGYIJANUIRY 1, 2001 ate>d6 V6w.c6m/awsc CHAPTER 4 N015E DEBATE Impact of Phaseout on Current Fleet (as of June 2000) Aircraft type Engine type Total fail Ulf. fail Hit, pass 8 fail 11 pass 11 fail 14 pass 14d8. i07 All 79 79 79 717-200 BR715A1-30 10 10 727-100 JTBD 134 134 134 727-100 TAYMK.651-54 51 510 727-100F All 79 79 79 727-200 JTBD 580 580 580 727-200A JT813-2 36 36 36 727-200F JTBD 259 259 259 737-200C JTBD 779 779 T79 737-20OF JTBD 9 9 9 737-300 CFM56-3 11037 364 498 120 55 737-300F CFM56-3 31 28 2 1 737-400 CFM56-3 472 359 19 94 737-500 CFM56-3 383 211 103 63 6 737.600/700/800 CFM566-7 410 256 154 747-100 All 57 56 57 747-200 All 206 187 206 747-200F All 121 119 121 747-300 All 65 58 65 747-400/D All 466 65 311 90 747-400F All - 36 28 8 747SP All 16 12 16 747SR/F All 14 2 14 757-200 All 791 217 574 757-200F All 80 36 44 767-200/ER All 220 16 74 34 70 42 . 767-300/ER All 498 13 13 120 42 323 767-300ERF All 33 33 777-200/ER All 227 227 777-300 All 31 31 A30062 All 28 13 28 A30064 All 94 57 61 17 16 A300R All 242 43 47 195 A310-200 All 41 32 5 4 A310-200F All 38 33 5 A310-300 All 137 57 80 A319-100 All 204 19 19 166 A320-200 All 779 348 237 194 A321-100 All 85 16 26 43 A321-200 All 59 32 27 A330-200 All 52 31 21 A330-300/300X All 77 8 69 A340-3/3X CFM56-5C 161 Avro RJ LF507-1H 133 133 BAC-111 SPEYMK 57 57 57 BAe-146 ALF5027 197 197 CRJ100/200 CF34-3 343 343 DC-10 CF6 240 86 234 6 DC-10-40/40F JT9D 40 32 40 DC-8 JD3D 134 134 134 DC-8-70 CF056-2C1 101 101 DC-9 JTBD 626 626 626 DO328 P'?/306B 11 11 ERJ-135/145 E3007A 190 190 F-28-0 TAYMK.650-15 309 309 F28-1/23/4 SPEYMK555-15 142 142 142 L-1011 RB211 88 83 MD-10F CF6-6D 1 1 1 41D-11 All 185 174. 11 MD-80 JT8D-2 11163 2 671 482 MD-90-30 V2528-D5 107 107 Total 13,264 31611 51575 21109 11932 3,648 Note: The tail5dB.', tail BdB.'and "pass NoO."categories are cumulative totals. The two pass -/ail" categories are partial totals. To calculate the cumulative total for these hvo categories add the total for the category to the "fail SoB." total. Source: Aerospace Industries Assn. 52 AVIATION \PEEK & SPACE TECHtiOLOGY/J.1;WARY i, 2001 �_arivua \ow.com/awsc CHAPTER 4 NOISE DEBATE ongoing ICAO CAEP work on a new in- ternational noise standard and rules for transition, and two, to avoid unilateral ac- tion by the U.S. against the EU hushkit regulation. The EU said it was willing to suspend the application of the regulation on recenifrcated aircraft if the U.S. would agree to those objectives. JESSEN SAID EUROPEANS have been en- couraged by conclusions and observations in a noise abatement reporr, produced by the Airports Council Intemational-North America, and a recent U.S. General Ac- counting Office report on airport envi- ronments. Both reports agreewith the EC's evaluation of the noise problem, one that will not go away, said jessen, unless action is taken. The ACI report found that mar- ginally compliant Chapter 3 aircraft rep- resented 25% of U.S. flights and produced 60% of the noise. In the U.S., Northwest Airlines oper- ates 175 DC-9s modified under a com- prehensive maintenance and engineer- ing rehabilitation program, which meets standards set out by U.S. and ICAO Chapter 3 regulations. The EU regula- tion banning such aircraft would pre- vent Northwest from selling them to any- one contemplating operations in Europe. The counselor believes Europe's anti - noise position in some quarters has been misunderstood. Despite the EU's preemptive move to ban hushkirs in Europe, "we've always pre standard," the counselor said. "We were frustrated with the inactivity and the in- sensitivity to our own particular noise con- cerns. Europe is densely populated. Up to 15% of the public is affected by noise." While the Green Parry has been iden- tified closely with the anti -noise position, the view that the EU should take action against hushkitted aircraft was widely shared by EU member states, jessen said. The EU took preliminary action in late 1999 to ban hushkined U.S. aircraft, which had not operated in EU countries previously (AW6sTJan.1, 2000) p. 30). The ban prompted the U.S. to file a com- plaint at ICAO under Article 84 of the Chicago Convention, alleging that the ban was discriminatory against U.S. aircraft and engines. Since thar initial skuntislt, the EU ques- tioned whether ICAO was the proper ven- ue for the U.S. complaint. Last Novem- ber, the ICAO Council ruled that the Article 84 complaint fell within ICAO's jurisdiction. In a 58-page response to the Council last month, the EU member stares still argued that the disagreement with the U.S. was a policy dispute, not appropri- ate under Article 84, The dispute can be rendered moor, in any case, according to EU sources, if the CAEP committee and ICAO make progress toward a noise so - The Northwest Airlines flees aF DC-9s, which meet Chapter 3 standards, could be threat 1 ened by a global hushlutban. lution that "will produce a satisfactory re- sult for all concerned." The U.S. believes the hushkit dispute has strong implications for the Chapter 4 rule at ICAO, scheduled to be tak- en this year. Since the EU went beyond Chapter 3 unilaterally by adopting the hushkit ban, a concern for representatives oEU.S. industry is whether the EU can be trusted to respect a Chapter 4 ruling once it is enacted. THE DISPUTE HAS NOT as yet reached the stage of negotiations under the purview of ICAO. Council President Assad Ko- taite has been appointed to serve as facil- itator to conduct negotiations with the U.S. and the EU. Talks are expected to be- gin after Ko[aite meets with both parties Sep this month. He is scheduled to report to the ICAO Council in the May - June session, the same session that will consider the stringency of Chapter 4. If negotiations fail, the issue could be taken up by the ICAO Assembly session in September. If the U.S. is upheld; the EU would be given a reasonable time to implement a remedy. If it fails to imple- ment that remedy —an unlikely event m any case —the EU member nations could be denied their right to vote at ICAO- One idea circulating that could end up on the Chapter 4 negotiating table would allow regional flexibiliry to comply with noise rules within an ICAO framework. Both the U.S. and EC representatives are cir- cumspect about that possibility. 54 AVLaTION \vEEK & SPACE TECHNOLOGY/J.4WARY 1, 2001 NOTICE OF A MEETING OF THE TAC - AVIATION COMMITTEE January 31, 2001 10:00 a.m. Conference Room 5A Metro Council Offices 230 East 5`h Street St, Paul, MN 55101 (Please Use 5's Street Entrance &Sign -In) • Summary of 2000 Activities • Review of 2001 Aviation Planning Activities • Review of MAC 2001 — 2007 Capital Improvement Program • Other Business (Handout) (Enclosure) (Enclosure/Action) k m R 4 0 q k \ \ 3 \ \ S a e \ ® a o .e J \ & \ \ \ \ \ 7 § j \ \ \ e METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION *t6� Minneapolis -Saint Paul International Airpo .W6040 - 28th Avenue South • Minneapolis, MN 55450-2799or Phone (612) 726-8100 • Fax (612) 726-5296 January 10, 2001 Mr. Ted Mondale, Chair Metropolitan Council Mears Park Centre 230 East Fifth Street St. Paul, MN 55101 RE: Metropolitan Airports Commission 2001 Capital Improvement Program Dear Mr. Mondale: The Metropolitan Airports Commission, at its meeting on December 18, 2000, approved the Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) to be accomplished on its airport system in 2001 along with a 2002 Capital Improvement Program. The 2001 projects have been approved for implementation. The 2002 projects have been approved for further study and development of plans and specifications for implementation in the following year. Staff has also been authorized to conduct studies and develop preliminary plans and specifications for year 2003 projects. The documentation necessary to encumber Federal funding for eligible projects will be initiated in conjunction with the development of the preliminary and final plans. The Metropolitan Council considered and took action on the Commission's 2000-2001 Capital Improvement Projects and Program in March 2000. Submitted herewith for similar review are our 2001 Capital Improvement Projects and 2002 Capital Improvement Program. A copy of each year's program, which includes a short narrative of each project, is included. The relationship of the 2001=2002 projects to a five-year plan is indicated on our five-year Capital Improvement Plan (2003-2007) which is also enclosed for your information. Also included with this year's CIP transmittal is a memo from the MAC's Director of Finance on how the Capital Improvement Program will be funded. We would appreciate a timely review of this material by the Metropolitan Council in order that your comments can be incorporated into our applications for Federal Aid. In your letter approving the 2000 CIP, you indicated that there were four concerns raised during the review of the 2000 CIP. These issues included the following: MSP Noise Mitigation —Low-frequency Noise Mitigation The MAC has completed a study of the low -frequency noise impacts in surrounding communities and included the findings in the Part 150 2005 Update that will be submitted to the FAA. Funding levels and mitigation measures are under review and will be addressed in the future. �. oo JAN I I .uCi The Metropolitan Airports Commission is an affirmative action employer. i w .mspairportxom ' -1 Rrliavar AirrnrtcAIRi AKF • ANnKA r'nf I IRi AWP a CPVqTAI • c1 VTNTC. CT no fn • i AVT M Xnn • cA Mw nAr.t F J W �Lug Q>00 Ufa Z Z N W a�w QOO Oaa 2 N O U L 07 0 a O O N O O O O O O O O O pCq O O O r O O O ID N O O � W 19 fA O O 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 o 0 0 0 0 O O N O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 g � cn vi o 0 o ui o� o 0 0 m o M o> O rn 06 w to ry rz w wN w w �» 16M � f9 O w :a a m W o � � N a U o y a 0 m ? m 2 0 y w LL 2 i .- y< -' L° rn t a o 0 o m o E: m �' m m o y a v m a 2 L U 'o K �i K w "'�� U .� U- c 0 o g m v a a N W U N y y m U U U t c c c � O ) ( / @ / #%2 g \)§ / I! /§§ <00 § j( o(� / (E ! �: {) §% ° a 2 2 \\f\{\\\} I.� —§o _ m: (! §2\/f{{L �i\ {}\/\E§ mi \\ )� \ tE< -P cc Cc 0" }\}}� 00 m) � /m � � �( d Lo d N \ \ j § e § i_( )Lu z! ® _ 2 00 EEcc e} �! § k-/ _ 00'�j0 M 7ra { \ �\\km 0 ALu \) (k3� ) )0< {\\{ƒ \{{{{\\\�\kit f _; ,��j/f;fflg;w/))2/ § k2 )) � k w\[ FL \) @ () w I !I« /\ i )! \} � � §] \co / k \ \ � \ !0 ! «2 § j-6 0o w (\ cm § 0 d)m)§£ e «\f\ 0 \\}(} \ ;!�{r,#! 2a�§=!! _ /}; «))CLccW ®!£!t«:«« ] 0 !;/!®021 0 0LuLu Q ! 2 )10 PROGRAM PROJECTS Year 2001 Runway Deicing/Holding Pad Program 12R Deicing/Holding Pad 516,500,000 This project will construct the airport's deicing/holding pad on Runway 12R to allow for the efficient deicing of aircraft and collection of glycol as well as for the holding of aircraft for operational reasons. This project will also include the construction of Taxiway B between the deicing pad and Exit Taxiway 1310. 12R Deicing/Holding Pad -Buildings Demolition $1,250,000 This project will provide the demolition of the Navy hangar, offce and motor pool and the MAC Paint, Electric and Carpenter's shops to provide the area needed to construct Taxiway B and the Runway 12R deicing/holding pad. 30R Deicing/Holding Pad $19,500,000 This roject provides for the construction of the airport's deicing/holding pad on Runway 30R pto allow for the efficient deicing of aircraft and collection of glycol as well as for the holding of aircraft for operational reasons. This project will also include the construction of an adjacent snow storage/melting area, blast fences, screen walls adjacent to Highway 5 and the Inbound Roadway and a Ground Service Equipment (GSE) facility. Runway 17135 Program 66th Street Interchange -Phase 2 $3,950,000 This project provides for the construction of the final phase of the 66th Street interchange. Airfield Lighting Control Center $3,7501000 This project provides for the airfield lighting control center which will house the electrical controls for the Runway 17/35 runway and taxiway lights. Buildings Demolition $362,500 This project provides for the demolition of the Airport Medical Clinic and the McClay VFW. infield Service Road $7,800,000 This project will construct the public service road from Longfellow Avenue east to the infield development area. infield Site Preparation $1,400,000 This project provides for the site preparation including grading and utility construction for the infield area bounded by the infield apron, infield service road and Runway 4/22. Lease Extinguishment $4,400,000 In addition to the acquisition of property for the construction of Runway 17135 and the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ), there will be a requirement to buy out existing leases of some of the properties to be acquired. Longfellow Avenue Landscaping $1,800,000 This project provides for the landscaping of Longfellow Avenue from 66th Street to 77th Street MAC Glycol Facilities $5,000,000 This project provides for the construction of the pond system used to store the glycol impacted storm water collected during the deicing season from the storm sewers on the ramp areas. Other General Construction $404,000 This project category is for miscellaneous construction related activities. Pdnted 01/10/2001 12:31:06 PM Page 1 Remote Monitoring Unit Installation $500,000 This project will provide for the installation of additional Remote Monitoring Towers (RMTs) to monitor the noise environment associated with the new north/south Runway 17/35, Residential Sound Insulation (Inside 65 DNL) $34,0001000 An ongoing program to insulate residential houses within the certified 1996 DNL 65 noise contour. Residential Sound Insulation -Multi-Family (Inside 65 DNL) $2,500,000 This is the first phase in a program to insulate multi -family dwellings within the certified 1996 DNL 65 noise contour. This project will be a pilot project which will establish the procedures to be followed in future projects. School Noise Abatement Projects $2,000,000 This project will provide for noise insulation to Visitation school in Minneapolis. Ventilation Testing/Remediation of Past Homes $1,000,000 This is a continuation of the program to remediate problems associated with indoor air quality in houses which were insulated in the period from June 1992 to April 1997, Airfield Rehabilitation Program Airside Bituminous Construction $500,000 An ongoing program to construct or reconstruct bituminous pavements within the Air Operations Area. Inspection of the overlays on Runways 12R/30L, 12LJ30R, Taxiway C and the tunnel service road will be made in the spring of 2002 to determine whether or not a bituminous repair project is required. Environmental Remediation Program Stormwater Collection/Detention Ponds $8,000,000 A new National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is expected to require additional storm water storage in order to control discharge of settleable solids to the Minnesota River. This project will construct a new larger earthen dam and concrete spillway in the ravine near the Highway 5 embankment to provide the required storage. Supplemental Environmental Projects $300,000 The Baytown Township Groundwater Contamination Site extends from east of the city of Lake Elmo through Baytown Township to the St Croix River, and is approximately bounded on the north by State Highway 5 and 40th Street and on the south by 30th Street The site includes the Lake Elmo Airport. Groundwater of the Prairie du Chien and Jordan aquifers is affected by a release of the volatile organic compound, trichlorcethene (TCE) within the Baytown Township Groundwater Contamination site. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) believes that the release has occurred at the Lake Elmo Airport. The MAC has worked with the MPCA to conduct investigations and response actions at the Baytown Township Groundwater Contamination Site, and in so doing has agreed to terms under a Consent Order that requires the MAC to implement a Supplemental Environmental Project. (SEP). The three projects proposed to satisfy the SEP provisions of the Consent Order are: 1. Enlargement of an infiltration basin at Flying Cloud Airport. 2. Participation in the planned Water Quality Improvement project for Lake Nokomis in South Minneapolis. 3. Contribution to the Metro Greenways Project in Washington County. Public Parking/Auto Rental Expansion Program Pdnted 01/10/2001 12:31:07 PM Page 3 Lindbergh Terminal Toilet Additions $1,500,000 There are no toilet facilities within the ticketing area of the Lindbergh Terminal which has been a source of complaints from the traveling public. A project to add toilet facilities to the ticketing area will therefore be completed. Security Camera Installation $500,000 This is a continuation of the security program to provide for the installation of CCTV cameras throughout the terminal complex. This project will install cameras in various locations in the terminal and on the concourses to enhance FAA security and public safety. These cameras will monitor and record events in areas that currently do not have CCTV coverage. Terminal Blast gation-Curtainwall Security Enhancement $900,000 The FAA has requested that the MAC review enhancing the safety of the curtainwall at the terminal. A report prepared by the FAA recommends that all glass at the terminal be treated to prevent scattering in the event of an explosion. This process was recently completed at Dallas -Fort Worth Airport where interior and exterior safety glass surfaces were covered with plastic treatments that adhere to glass to prevent scattering under an explosive force. This project would provide this type of treatment to the glass surfaces in the Lindbergh Terminal adjacent to the upper and lower roadways. Study is needed to determine whether this would be effective; what areas are affected; should the area extend beyond the main terminal curtainwall. This project will also include the replacement of existing waste receptacles with new blast resistant trash containers for all public, non -sterile areas of the terminal building. Application of this window treatment, if justified, will proceed in two phases. Phase I application includes the Lindbergh Terminal glass surfaces adjacent to the upper and lower roadway and the Green and Gold Concourse glass surfaces adjacent to the roadway. Phase II will include the glass surfaces of the two skyways connecting the Green and Gold parking ramps to the Lindbergh Terminal, Terminal Elevator Modifications This project will provide for the installation of an elevator to serve the Com/Ops Center as well as modify existing elevators/escalators to meet the current codes as required by the State elevator inspector. Tug Drive Floor Replacement $2,000,000 This project is the third and final phase in the replacement of the concrete floor in the tug drive area which has deteriorated due to water from melting snow being brought in by the tugs. West Mezzanine Finishes $1,000,000 The new concession storefronts in the Lindbergh Terminal waiting area extend 15 feet beyond the line of the existing West Meaanine. A floor structure has been constructed over the extension with the concessions project completed in 1998. This project will expand the West Mezzanine to provide additional area for expanded office space. Humphrey Terminal Development Program Ground Services Equipment Building $1,200,000 This project will provide for the construction of a building to house the equipment used for ground services at the Humphrey Terminal. Humphrey Terminal Concessions 52,000,000 This project wilt provide for the buildout of the concessions in the Humphrey Terminal. Landside Rehabilitation 8 Repair Program Landside Bituminous Construction 5400,000 An ongoing program to reconstruct the airports bituminous roadways and parking lots. This year's projects will include the rehabilitation and expansion of the parking lot at the General Office, Printed O4/10/2001 12:31:07 PM Page 5 Obstruction Removal $1,300,000 This project provides for the removal of the Watkins Pattern building which is within the runway protection zone. Pavement Rehabilitation $1,230,000 An ongoing program to rehabilitate aircraft operational areas (runways, taxiways, aprons) through bituminous overlays, sealcoats, or in some instances, reconstruction, to restore the surfaces to a smooth, even condition and improve overall operating conditions. This years project will include the mill and overlay of Runway 12/30 and crack sealing in the North Building Area. South Building Area Development $2,100,000 This project is the second phase in the program to develop a new South Building Area and partial parallel taxiway. This years project will provide for the installation of the pavements and taxiway lighting system. Anoka Airfield Signage/YVindcone Replacement $1,250,000 This roject provides for the installation of taxiway signage and a new windcone and psegmented circle as well as the rehabilitation of the beacon and the furnishing of a backup ganerator for airfield lighting and MAC facilities. Pavement Rehabilitation $1,300,000 An ongoing program to rehabilitate aircraft operational areas (runways, taxiways, aprons) through bituminous overlays, sealcoats, or in some instances, reconstruction, to restore the surfaces to a smooth, even condition and improve overall operating conditions. This years project will include the reconstruction of Runway 18/36 and the pavement rehabilitation of the Runway 18/36 parallel taxiway and the south crossover taxiway. Crystal Pavement Rehabilitation $500,000 An ongoing program to rehabilitate aircraft operational areas (runways, taxiways, aprons) through bituminous overlays, sealcoats, or in some instances, reconstruction, to restore the surfaces to a smooth, even condition and improve overall operating conditions. This years project includes the pavement reconditioning of the Runway 14R/32L parallel taxiway. Security Fence Installation $150,000 The existing security fence in the wetland area on the northeast side of the airport will be replaced with 12- foot high fence to prevent deer incursions on the airport. Flying Cloud Land Acquisition $5,600,000 This project will provide for the acquisition of several parcels of land adjacent to the Flying Cloud airport. One parcel is located east and south of the Runway 27L approach zone and seven parcels are located on the northwestern comer of the approach zone west of Eden Prairie Road. Pavement Rehabilitation $75,000 An ongoing program to rehabilitate aircraft operational areas (runways, taxiways, aprons) through bituminous overlays, sealcoats, or in some instances, reconstruction, to restore the surfaces to a smooth, even condition and improve overall operating conditions. This years project will provide for the crack sealing and seal coating of the north parallel taxiway and connectors. Lake Elmo Pavement Rehabilitation $1,600,000 An ongoing project to rehabilitate aircraft operational areas (runways, taxiways, aprons) through bituminous overlays, sealcoats, or in some instances, reconstruction, to restore the surfaces to a smooth, even condition and improve overall operating conditions. This years project includes the mill and overlay of Runway 4/22, reconstruction of the north side taxiway and rehabilitation or replacement of the airfield beacon. St. Paul Printed 01/10/2001 12:31:08 PM Page 7 Apron/ GSE Lighting Upgrade $21000,000 This project will provide for the upgrading of the pole and building mounted light fixtures that serve the apron areas adjacent to the Lindbergh Terminal complex. Miscellaneous Construction $4000000 An ongoing program to consolidate various incidental items beyond the capabilities of the maintenance personnel, projects too small to be accomplished independently, or to handle airside problems requiring repair which come up unexpectedly. Secured Area Access Control System Field Gate Installation $4007000 This project provides for adding two new electronically controlled field security gates and the rehabilitation of the existing airfield security access gates as required. Utility Modifications $1,100,000 This project provides for the slip lining of the 24 inch sanitary sewer between the Inbound/Outbound roadway and Highway 55, Miscellaneous Landside Program Central Alarm/ Monitoring/Fiber Optic Cable Installation $12,700,000 This project is a continuation of the program to provide for the installation of the MUFIDS and BIDS systems, an ADA required visual paging system, a terminal complex fire annunciation system and a fully integrated central alarm monitoring system including all required fiber optic cable for the operation of the systems. East Airport Water Main Loop $150,000 This project will complete the multi -phase program to loop the watermain main on the east side of the airport to ensure that water pressure and service demands can be met. This phase will provide for the final connections to the existing water main system and includes the installation of an 18-inch main under the Runway 30R deicing pad to the existing 18-inch main at the south side of the 30R blast pad. EconoLot/Employee Parking Structure $160,000,000 The construction of the southeast segment of Taxiway W will impact approximately 300 parking spaces in the employee lot on Post Road. There is also a need to expand the EconoLot to serve the proposed Humphrey facility as well as provide additional public parking for the Lindbergh Terminal. A new parking structure to serve both needs located at the south end of the EconoLot site. The facility will be sized to accommodate approximately 1800 employee spaces and 8200 public spaces. This project will also provide for the demolition of the existing Humphrey Terminal and for the upgrading/construction of the road system providing access to the Humphrey Terminal as well as the new parking structure. Lindbergh Terminal Emergency Power Modifications $950,000 This project will revise the existing Lindbergh Terminal 480v emergency power distribution as a continuation of revisions to the Terminal Complex emergency power system. The Emergency Generator Project installed and revised the 4160v emergency distribution system to the Main Terminal. This project work will revise and expand the sub -distribution within the Main Terminal, Red Concourse and Blue Concourse to allow for future additional elevator loads and to further separate the generator loads to Life Safety and Equipment branches. New Projects Program 34th Avenue Reconstruction 55,400,000 This project provides for the reconstruction of 34th Avenue from 72nd Street to I-494 in conjunction with the construction of the LRT tracks. Buildings Demolition -Bureau of Mines $200,000 As part of the purchase of the Bureau of Mines property, The MAC agreed to demolish the buildings on site to return the property to a more natural condition. This project will be the first phase in the demolition process. Printed 01/10/2001 12:31:08 PM Page 9 N H V LU M2 O N H V W 903 cc a 0 2 ami LL LL TM O O N 2010 PROGRAM PROJECTS Year 2002 Runway Deicing/Holding Pad Program 12R Deicing/Holding Pad -Taxiway B Construction $1,700,000 This project provides for the construction of Taxiway B between Runway 4122 and Taxiway M. Also included in this project is the removal of Taxiway T between Runway 4/22 and Taxiway M and the construction of taxiway fillets east of Runway 4/22, Runway 17I35 Program 24th Avenue Bridge $3,307,000 This project will provid l allow the frontage e for the consUuction of a bridge on 24th Avenue which wilroad traffic to pass beneath and keep the traffic on 24th Avenue free flowing. 77th Street/24th Avenue Interchange $6,375,000 This roject will provide for the construction of the 77th Street/24th Avenue interchange and r poadway system. Buildings Demolition $8,123,500 This project provides for the demolition of the Freight Forwarders facilities, the MAC glycol facilities, Federal Express, UPS and Bax Global. I-494 frontage Road $5,175,000 This project will provide for the construction of the frontage road along I-494 from 77th Street to the east. Infield Fueling Facilities $2,850,000 This project provides for fueling facilities within the midfield development for aircraft fueling. Infield Site Preparation $1,400,000 This project provides for the site preparation including grading and utility construction for the infield area bounded by the infield apron, infield service road and Runway 4122. Lease Extinguishment $2,300,000 In addition to the acquisition of property for the construction of Runway 17/35 and the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ), there will be a requirement to buy out existing leases of some of the properties to be acquired. MAC Equipment and Materials Storage Building $6,8859000 This project will provide for the construction of a facility which will serve as both an equipment storage faciliy and a storaage facility for sand, salt, and other deicing agents to used on Runway 17/35 and the adjacent service roads. MAC Glycol Facilities $1,500,000 This project provides for the construction of the pond system used to store the glycol impacted storm water collected during the deicing season from the storm sewers on the ramp areas. MAC South Fueling Facility $564,000 To provide fuel to all the equipment operaring on and adjacent to Runway 17/35, this project will construct a new fueling facility on the airport service road near the MAC equipment/materials storage facility. Other General Construction $404,000 This project category is for miscellaneous construction related activities. Printed 01/10/2001 12:31:09 PM Page 11 Concourse C Phase 1 Concessions 51,250,000 This project will provide for the development of concessions in Phase 2 of the Concourse C project. Concourse C Apron Expansion 52,900,000 This project includes the final of four phases of the apron construction associated with the expansion of the Concourse C. Lindbergh Terminal Rehab 8 Development Program Commercial Roadway Bag Belt $110007000 There are currently discussions taking place on how to better utilize the east upper level roadway to alleviate traffic congestion on the upper level roadway adjacent to the terminal. One issue which must be resolved is the movement of baggage from the east roadway to the terminal bag make-up area. A project to provide the required bag belt and sortation facility is being considered. International Arrivals Facility Expansion 52,000,000 The success of the International Arrivals Facility (IAF) has prompted the Federal Government to add additional staff to the IAF facility on the Gold Concourse. There is therefore a need for additional office space and facility expansion to house the staff. In addition, it is proposed to modify the secondary inspections area by installing new Agriculture and Customs inspection counters and modifying the passenger pick up area located on the baggage claim level by adding additional seating and signage. The success of the IAF facility has also prompted a request for a study of how to expand the capacity of the entire facility to handle additional 747 aircraft simultaneously. Lindbergh Terminal Bag Make-up Area Addition $2,000,000 The bag make-up area in the Lindbergh Terminal is very congested. The addition of gates on the Green Concourse will put additional pressure on these facilities. A study will be completed and a project to increase the bag make-up space will commence in 2001. Lindbergh Terminal Loading Dock Relocation $1,000,000 The existing loading dock behind the terminal is congested and is becoming a focus of FAA from a security stand point. This project will relocate and expand the loading dock to a location outside of security. Lindbergh Terminal North Addition $4,5001000 This project will provide for the development of the concessions in the North Terminal addition. Landside Rehabititation &Repair Program Landside Bituminous Construction 5400,000 An ongoing program to reconstruct the airports bituminous roadways and parking lots. Projects will be evaluated in 2001 and presented for approval when the CIP is updated for the 2002 construction season. Lindbergh Terminal Interior Rehabilitation $1,000,000 An ongoing program to renovate the interior of the Lindbergh Terminal. This project will include the upgrading of the bag claim area corridor flooring, ceiling and toilet facilities. Parking Structure Rehabilitation $1,000,000 An ongoing program to maintain the integrity of the multi -level parking structures. Projects typically include concrete repair, joint sealant replacement, expansion joint repairs, concrete sealingand lighting improvements. This years project will provide for upgrading the lighting system on the seventh level of the Green and Gold ramps to provide light levels equal to those on the new Red and Blue ramps. Printed 01/10/2001 12:31:09 PM Page 13 Runway 9127 ExtensionlWidening $6,000,000 This project will provide for the widening and extension to 5000 feet of Runway 9/27 including all required wetland mitigation. Runway 9/27 MALSR/ILS $2,300,000 This project provides for the installation of the ILS and MALSR systems for the nw 5000 foot runway. Runway 9/27 Parallel Taxiway,Extension $1,000,000 This project provides for the extension of the parallel taxiway to Runway 9/27 to match the extension of the runway. Crystal Runway 61J241R Reconstruction $860,000 This project provides for the reconstruction of Runway 6U24R. Flying Cloud Airfield Signage and Electrical Upgrades $11000,000 This project provides for installation of signage on Runway 18/36 and the installation of a new beacon and windcone. Pavement Rehabilitation $100,000 An ongoing program to rehabilitate aircraft operational areas (runways, taxiways, aprons) through bituminous overlays, sealcoats, or in some instances, reconstruction, to restore the surfaces to a smooth, even condition and improve overall operating conditions. This year's project will provide for crack sealing and seal coating of various airfield pavements to be determined. Runway 18136 Reconstruction $750,000 This project provides for the reconstruction of Runway 18/36 from the Runway 9R/27L taxiway to the 36 end of the runway. Rwy 9R/27L Reconstruction/Extension 8 Rwy 9L127R Extension $109500,000 This project provides for the reconstruction of Runway 9R/27L and the extension of Runways 9R/27L and 91J27R. The project includes pavement construction and reconstruction, VOR and MALSR light relocations, glideslope rerplacement and signage changes to reflect the renumbering of the runways to 10/28, A backup generator for airfield lighting and for MAC facilities will also be provided. South Building Area Development $4,900,000 This project will provide for the first phase in the construction of the new South Building Area and will include grading and utility installation. Lake Elmo East Building Area Development $3,500,000 This project involves the site development of the new East Building Area including grading, demolition of abandoned buildings and all earthwork associated with the new taxiways, taxilanes and roadway access. St. Paul MAC Building Modifications $100,000 An ongoing program to provide for facility modifications to ensure continued efficient operation of buildings or modifications necessary to meet the requirements of the various tenants. Pavement Rehabilitation $21150,000 An ongoing program to rehabilitate aircraft operational areas (runways, taxiways, aprons) through bituminous overlays, sealcoats, or in some instances, reconstruction, to restore the surfaces to a smooth, even condition and improve overall operating conditions. This year's project will include the rehabilitation of Runway 9/27 and the reconstruction of the blast pad. Miscellaneous Field 8 Runway Printed 01/10/2001 12:31:10 PM Page 15 r. 0 °.rop o eo ❑�_ cr n �&2 al3zzz� H v W F.. O� �O a� za O 0O � J Z z V >M J a L- O N f N H V W O wm a N 0 0 N H u 1�IETROPOLITAN AIRPORTS CONIMISSION Minneapolis -Saint Paul International Airport 6040 - 23th Avenue South • Nfinneapolis. MN 55450-2799 Phone (612) 736-5100 • Fax (612) 726-5196 December 22, 2000 Chauncey Case Metropolitan Council Mears Park Center St. Paul, MN 55101 RE: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION MAC CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, 2001-2007 Dear Mr. Case: 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 commentors 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 Officers Report. The Commission recommendation was that no further environmental review is warranted at this time. cerely, 1 Weffr . Hamiel Executive Director Irk Enclosure ,v.,..mspa irpnrt_cnm a.•!�,.�•. ��rn,.r�. .vr,: a1r • :��::� a,r�� ns� ��t � crti�rAi • ri vier. � i r,i n . i .��r- ri Mtn . �.vcr r_a -• COMMITTEE ACTION REQUESTED RECOMMEND TO THE FULL COMMISSION THE ADOPTION OF THE HEARING OFFICER'S REPORT, INCLUDING THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING THE ASSESSMENTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED 2001-2007 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET FOR THE NEW PARKING STRUCTURE, FURTHER, THAT THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OR HIS DESIGNEE BE AUTHORIZED TO NOTIFY THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD AND THOSE ON ITS DISTRIBUTION LIST OF THE COMMISSION ACTION. ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION'S 2001-2007 SEVEN YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVENEENT PLAN AND ECONOLOT/EMPLOYEE PARKING STRUCTURE EAW AT TBE MINNEAPOLIS/ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMIMENDATION Background In October 2000, the Metropolitan Airports Commission completed an Assessment of the Environmental Effects (AOEE) of all the projects at MSP that are included in the MAC's seven year 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 prepare an assessment of the environmental effects of projects m the commission's seven-year 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 for 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 environmental 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 calendar 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 hearing 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 Star 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 EconoUt/Employee Parking Structure project adequately assesses the cumulative environmental effects of the projects at MSP and each reliever airport included in the CIP. �: ra«yi �snrH Rar�_000.a« Addomblik Minnesota Pollution Control Agency r Noveccc 9, 3tW0 F � C`J=7 V =p Nov 13 Z900 Mr. NiCl=itmcY Me_vPaGa°Aicpans c�M on 6W-23m A�eSaudJiNfo •,,< OE=lli 1' EXEC. C{tc' R.: Envicoamotat As<vsaeat W c?-..d:ea (=a0.0 for die F.c�aloUa�piaYcs ?arca4 Sc =uc ➢nr Mr. Firme/: 7lrank You fro the aapa^,^+ry to C=nn zu oa me?.AW f c prapoacd to,000.=2=-, 6 ;cvd p+rr= 3 tc :cauc east the HuMPiucy Ie:miaaL Tac Mionesas=?ol]a.^maGam! <anr✓I . and rcnawed dte EAW for this=ga We`_avc � fan'i.4 cars far. d rapam<in ,t&rW=i3li,t the D=d far an Emvu� L=P&= snrGi(E: 5:' IndJrvCt Soars=?==di er <iccs4i r"raPds, As yard in the EAW, mindirc Soacc?r�c(II')icacdfor G—C1 n,-'dfoim^...?'. ._ amhr ofpzi�t sa,'.. --' the pa'-; m•�ta.�.F„IA• A. The firm of SRF Consulting Grcup, Inc. will be Submitting an application for an IS? for this project either this month or in December. This will be done on behalf of the MAC. I Srm. Smpac. Hued rm the p = La aviia voter . L`s _= rhaild br<e U as �. Thr msy ,mcndr dns faIl7 +a,t..<... aII ntmGc� a-�e mspacr a',z� ra �t rsom Ni pmJ tzmc l=ov= as 34th Aron trsait ZIC-a the gapmd L'Chr7a3T-"^r(L-4�xu;=� B. 8. The proposed parking ramp will increase spezific:ilYvvwould 15=2 discsaiw of ray'Vucued tcMc gy,= :tmt$am aaa traffic on 34th Avenue. The improvements to ,tints_ -scans oa 34th Avc from 10& Sa- m I- 94, 7=c o the 34th Av U=11-494 "`mot' 34th Avenue proposed as part of this project _T^a rat dds tr..Jnc �lysia:e e� or=7= s(tr cmolen®of d=prcic u are needed to accommodate the increase in �yc sftr the Wc=m6 aL = mdis zescc traffic generated by the proposed parking ram. An operational analysis study was done to determine what improvements to 34th Avenue wouId be necessary to maintain acceptable operations on 341h Avenue through year 2020. Traffic operations and air quality will be studied for one year after completion of the project lyear 2004) and year 2005 (which represents one year after construction of LRT). All intersections along 3411h 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 B in year 2004, but construction of the LR7 and consequent preempting of its signal cause operations to fall to LOS D. This deterioration in operations is primarily caused bl the affect of LRT signal preemption on the heavy southbound 34th left turn to eastbound 1 494 movement. LRT preemption of the signals along 340 Avenue also precludes coordination of the signals along 34th Avenue, thereby causing slightly lower levels of service at other intersections. Mr. ifige! =;ram.-� Page 2 Lssdy, tEc &.w imald Fca-ncc sd ^°_sc_vicn of cc ra-st Sysc>c" helo in reducing the a .x of single ec�=m t yt�mcic trm:; in and :he ±.oje=sit, if yaa have say quasi= ibou::he hC-CA•a •'m — On tFi = ,c rt ssr T=H%7 wlys *=;c cvn=bfary Eofaaaa ms Lyu (el) 297-23511 lhak you kztbc dppmlzary m review c�.is Ftojc_ Tnis s lead atdt't•-• muses a<c�c.-a m ISCCA=11 rerievag tk BAN and is vu'• ia�fa cczsid _ by the MAC, the scrdaabie =oyes-c ; unit, m deeding whose as MS abeuld be FgteE on, the peojoc-It doe=mt cocun:te sap=.sl by the MPCA of arty or s11 a:cep of @e Fmj=f= the; -Faso of y .ding nr funned Fe= : =*a) by the MPCk We have ac_-^-¢? m i'de dry and emmlt widL inte�ed Frsn og-Safi on identify the baC•A ?p�st ay be:c-n-gym Adaido al cdemeR errs uesz far mfmmum maybe aub=acd is t= fetate m ad - - =r6& ir s �twi indic t-ve?n�ei of such x Ultitc y, it is the tenp�sibmty of the P jr rapdaa m sue= day tcaud pe=irr � m caddy With day cenaiaite pcdndt S drioaz . E. Several Metro Transit routes including Route 7, Route 444 and Route 442 serve the 34th Avenue corridor. These routes connect to the Mali 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 Mali of America, F. ( F. Comment noted. 'we look fcraaszmsed.iag.:r_tcoosa;avx�---�onie=a'»'.u++e7.s a::_^tl of the � G. G. Arecord of decision will fx sent, which will dr�cm on theme for so MS. Ifyou nzVC=y q=tim =c=::-=z; rna•-e,ie„- of this akW, Ptas< include responses to comments received on the continent s u (651) 296-47e i- EA W. Siacady, CO�Lt&u- Barbara Coad PLrac P�c,�i OPeaddea and?lacing Scram i.ico Dir_st BC, cn; Grcge Downing, F✓Yi% .-rl Quality Beard Nissy tzn Lyta,MPC'4 Ponder srd?Iarmiag Ltivissad, Ccccmiry and Ate-wida Pmgr==s S:, Pam - en„<r_ O.Voift�xa: CNILI Nanr<ata Hannan - WOlnu, v...,..-ry -vv Gomv:y `-Ta<:+r. p.nw an rw, �av�»_.mv.-k•mau.rngc..e ay—�a..M,a � RV..CCIVED 12NeyoLv!oc0 Nov 1 d20M C ; iint tz=cm�et P:osnm file AitF an Develcpment Mcsopolina tiapatc G - 6040 23th Avoca Sou[h T W�cdjj,'sl?i 11410 A. Thc MAC ofTers the following to addres your tour -I part question: Parking demand and accumulation models were developed for the airport as part oCa parking study that included extensive data collection and analysis over Ut period of one year. The current level of transit tsse by air passengers to ana from the airport is less than one peroent. Thc pmjcctcd 2020 level of transit use by air passengers to and from the airport is one percenL This increase in transit usage is a=buted to the proposed LRT line and other known improvcmcnts to transit serving the airport. Based on ridership data provided by MetroTransi[ on routes serving the airport, the current Ievc] of tenser use by airport employee is less than five percent With the installation of the proposed LRT line and other known imomvements to transit serving the airport, transit usage by airport employees can expect m increase to between eight and 10 percent by 2020. Reducing the size of the proposed nrrrp would have negligible impact on transit usage. A reduction in raj size would increase short term, curbside, and taxi mode split. Currently a significant shortage of parking occurs during pnk months at the airport- Latent demand created 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 mode split to shift back to a more steady state. Krin,esota Depa: t^trit of Nacurz Raourrt =u.r aw Ic L`, :C00 Ps+t.T Fse�4m rs;': etc: I. V r ._�nreto�c_rr= Lrj— l-Y fc ?vi �ljcu Alrq= C�inica 04AC) Z',L K•'• (, r�--sr _Go vo hiiccnxL•-,SaivcPaul f>•t—..acioail Aupv^. ""G/z . 60da:P Avcuc s4ucl ...-.. yfiaap ai ld_f S:4Sa A- MAC Cspinl IaF. .�eac °9p'+-"r:Sal-:OOi I.sc =arE , =col F...0 L:cr ?1c Vara:l: TLeC � atofYrraal iLc:ear_zt�Yt<i)Kt mie.+d is Anzs�em cfE vssm=s:ol E2== q, e=%,AC lipid Imgnvone P:vpaC :00t•:Cdf. Curaaiyada isy ern tha oft>u P°ja dlaI Ci in Uz reron mval" de+n¢-.nI sow^*+rimdlrco. i;a-..s, aoAram of tz i3= is cnr,;. J in al z.•----- Give: Ca caM—y `utUz =minded mina Vic.'' C-anray me znczmce 1ho" a1s :.-.ivsa= ,,h= MC.de.dwz_ aodia cdz=d a+ Ae was aaa CYfr� C upa-mina a °lam- - n..,: you rrr drz'acarmairy m rv-rin. mis ---• P:ra:. cr az m my :a+l do Sill laj>asoa af�y sn'S a»La ea _2:c(iel):°5-3'-iL yaa lux aoc'aw raS�rni , LStaKi-xol ChZi :nfcr�dne: 531-J6-e:^, �, A. The issue of dewatering far 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 l.iesch Associates to MAC dated November 22, 2000 which follows this comment letter. 8. 8. The Hearing Officer's report will be made available via normal distribution procedures anc at MAC's General Offices which are located at MSP. See Response G for MPCA letter dated November 9, 2000, `u Oinan %.cyuncll Realon. Flcnnln4 for the Futur Environmental SerL4,4 's M:. Nigel Fmncy Direcsr, Pluming and Fnwwme:at Mecopolian Airpmtt Cammuaon 604020 Av South Mirmeapolu, Mhmesnta 35450 inmexpo •St Paul inten+aoonai Atrpor. Aaunxnmst n!7 •irwuwhul Effers- MecopalitanAirportCormottaimt's Scvrn-Ynr CaPtwl lmpru m iPlan 2001-1001 Dear Mr. Firmly: Mcaupolitan Council mff wnduc:ed a ray of the usessmmt oCaMmmno:nd effau (ACE) CQ OW Se Year Capital )mpro. =( Plan (CIP) 2001.2007 to daumine how adequLuy sod acmcamly itaddresses r :owj a The Mowing u+mmmts addtua catacem suffbd with trans in ee AChb. The KeTopolitan Airports ('amnnaairNl (MAC) u required by Manrsou Sawtea 1933, Chapter 664 to eonduct>n AOEE fnrprajema in the Commuusnn'a seven ye:r Capid tmpovmunt Anp- .. (2001-''<0011 fir a,rparu included m to system. Thu yrar, sn uussment has bem srce pm;=Zd for pmjam at the Mianeapaihs•SC Pau)inmrrutmtul Anpat(MSP)- not prepared far St Pad Downtown, klying Clwd, Crysml Awka Cwnty • Rtam4 C-slm Elmo. and Aidake airports Sate the MAC chummedthat the had ady wwn tVaaral dfata. bad not changed from to ptr icus year ^ tizD.Mer Alrporss Council sub disapee with the as Vow that the Pn"Ja as all dha "have airp«rs `Mill rvult is only triy(al mvhomnmd <fl'au, or had not duntltd firm the prraimn year. At a 'n;m oo the ACES should address the env %aiitai en :a of the following pmiets ifLnvirnnmaul Assessmct Worksheen (EA W 31 haw out ahedy boon pnParr k Antake • Crusmad Runway Dcvc!aPm t; Anaka-Duslding Ary De iopme^.t NonhwvC Aooka • luinway 9r11 EctcuimWideatss� Flying C1wd-Runny 0RR7I. Rrcotsst/lamnsron and Rwy 9L127R cztcsion; Plying Cloud -South Building Arv-a D6 alupmnC takc ilmv ):sUt Euildmg ARS DcelopmmC!�hln10-Run ny IN32drulr nuun � MAcha: bvdge� money a, AtriakC Anoka, Cry,nak wl r-,ymg clnatl r r sanitry aaw� aM watea:sin fnadladrn. It a our un.'vxl.Mling ihu the fsy,tal. Anlakc, and Plying Owd MJeeu ll +DIPt yet eommc�u 1, l,ut that thu Anvka pngect hu b._ m and n nev eorali ou. B. Council snff conned the MAC f r matigatmY the hookup oC a iakuy rew+.n at chest relieve auparu. This action will likely Prom=t and attproye quality of both surface wate and gsouad water in the victnity of the airpura. ago paatflnlsrt se raw. nv,nr.n, asini-�w+ U•nn Mmiun r.. r+u.,,na roT,rz:snw airp incl A. The transmittal memo regarding the fact that an AOEE was net prepared for the reliever orts 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 ): normally accomplished through environmental assessments. As in the past the Metropolitan Council is normally a full participant. B. Comment noted A metr V Wcrkinq f( oinan uouncii Region. F!cnninq for the Future Eytvironmental Services Nwmhc l5. 2aU0 Mr. Nigel Fvsnry pirctar, Pisrmistg asid Fsvironmcct Mctropolitan. Airpons Commisnun 6040 28a Averure South M npolis. Minnann 55450 RE: Seoaotat/ E,aPluy�x h-kag Sweaue t mm�mrncl Aoavm,.rl wurk:he:t Drs Mr, Hurter+ Metropolitan Council Environments] ServiriuIf haw mmPle:td, their review ofibe Scumlot1 &•eployea Pr]dng Stmctoro Envuua,,o nil nascsohmr Workshed(UAW). The review has idendflad several concerns, which se addressed in the fnllow,ng canonato: Bern Ila Water Qaaliry- 4hirti ce Water XrrnnJ— Compartiw of Xunoff total projes aTo iz 61.7 sees; undo eisting canmtisms the m7pcwus area is 467 ae-es (75.7v/a), and smda Proposed wndidons is 4U eves (75.9*A). I her wnmdy u Pukmg Cm 2,759 vehicles on the situ the pnpased praleC will raraase toe puking ca =nY to 10,000. la sdditim. du projcrc vnll necatisate ;fie rcaastrucdmi aF04' Aaat4a srasth 4s a dfvidrd nudwsy with ohamelized left and right turn lam and two northbcurA and tote scuthbound tl%,Mgh lanes The cevtc median will tic rti_-hxtaviced to accaromatuc h&-nil eatift (Itcn 22 TM The EAW mta that based ce the wall &LEeranoc in imperv,wa mass eetweea me runoff and proposed amdirii= the project will not d=in11Y slre•, the qumtitY ar quality of "stair ftam the site. Cqums7 staff dicgsr with c4is sntanvsi. Tho fiicesed traffic both a<dm t% w pad=9 structure sod m 04' Avarua will hkrlY Tout, m cle-sad levels ofdM purioc. s avaciasd with aWnmobile traffic, particularity suspcaded whods, meub, and peuulvan Produce A major shersaming of the haw is that it does ant include any mfuraatun an the Predicted pallunm rnnoval erSieiesy, of the reegnal padintt sysrem proposed by the MAC, ax rcquced by Section 1 Ea of the SAW. ll u imPovibic Csz m to dc_^mme whedrr ate P"R'h"d dsaudoo basins iriT! provide adequate uraunct Cur statmwate from the site. We c,ananaruj the proposed Ponds are riad to provide rcmonl of ciencic inchcued by NMa IPladonwile thhm RMOI(I"ai<nm) suadarih, and are finvl with oil ad grease sepuuen t skimmcs. Item ldb. Water Qurury-Su;rure Water tOrnnQ-1deuWnriun ar ruuns mdrmrviag bodfer I �qJ Stntmwarc runoff hnrn the silt c ,uly dnuu ro rwo separate acjL=uaa sysm"ns, both of which B. rue undesired for the I00-yei smrnt event. The EAw isdiates dui d> MAC F P¢puad so overall regional poodiey Pbn where the runafr from dx P"Jev site would be oared at a tars darndan pond southcsst of Fos: Sgelliny Nuimal Ccmecy. Council amfThavr not ses else MAC srgioatl posding Putt, and feei tier those puniuns of the plan relevant w the treatmnt of -Ja eaelaltt_3trc- SL rut t9nnma3lnr-t.4r (QII W11Wd ..,oar-n.�^.,• rs am.ttaa ^om':saTsa A. Details of the MAC regional ponding system mentioned in the EAW are presented in a report titled Preliminary Design of Retention Pond for 1- 494 Watershed at Fort Snelling National Cemetery Dated August 1999, by Liesch Companies. The ponding system is designed to remove approximately 80% of total suspended solids. B. Comment noted. The ptan will be forwarded to MET Council staff once completed. 1 2 3 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2S 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 HOFFART'd & WF.P?�EN, INC. PHONE (952) 432-4240 * FAX (952) 432-7787 d � 1 i 2 3 4 i 5 6 I 7 8 f 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 'i 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 chances 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 Ouality 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 * F.�X (952) 432-7787 L 6 1 Environmental Effects for the 2001-2007 Capital 2 Improvement Program and the Environmental 3 Assessment Worksheet will remain open until 5 p.m. 4 on Wednesday, November 15, 2000. All comments 5 should be directed to Ms. Jennifer Unruh, 6 Metropolitan Airports Commission, 6040 28th Avenue 7 South, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450. 8 Final action on the Capital Improvement 9 Program is expected at the December 18th meeting of 10 the Metropolitan Airports Commission. 11 This hearing is now concluded. 12 (Public Hearing concluded at 1:32 p.m.) 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 HOFFARTH & WHALEN, ZNC. PHONE (952) 432-4240 * FAX (952) 432-7787 r 6Ludlow Advertising, t 9801 Dupont41 Client Copy Card CSent METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION (MAC05) Publication ST. PAUL PIONEER PRESS # Of Returns F1 Cosi/Lesd CosVClose Acct Exec Bekki Johnson Ad No. 1160046 Space Cost 5 758.40 ReylTtle PUBLIC NOTICEJENVIRONEMTAL REVIEW PROCES. Invoice 112636 Date 1012Y2000 Worksbeei No. 1060515 Fle No. 0010-M-262 PUBLlC NOTiCB �omments concen,in the Capital Im rovement .•oLI+ a.,y '�gr� Assessments and the F.AW can be given at r �. t i Public Hearing to be held on Monday, November * '; Z000 at 1:00 p.m. in Room 304o, Mezzanine Level, z indbergh Terminal, Minneapolis -St Paul ;t r ntemational Airport, or in writing to the CIP File, ; fetropolitan Airports Commission, 6040.28t1, !verve South, Minneapolis, MN 55•L�O. The comment mod ends on Wednesday, November 15, 2C00. +ro.T' LLkudlow Advertising, Inc 9801 Dupont Avenue South, Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55431 0 Client Copy Card Client METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION (MAC05) Publication STAR TRIBUNE N Of Returns Lj CosULead L... Cost/Close Acct Exec Bekki Johnson Ad No, 1160044 Space Cost S 1.514.48 Key/Title PUBLIC NOTICE/ENVIRONEMTAL REVIEW PROCES Invoice 113560 Date 11/13/2000 W orksheet No. 1060515 File No. 0010-M-262 pueuc N©ncE APPENDIX C MAILING LIST ark E. Bemhardson, City Manager y of Bloomington _1: est Old Shakopee Road omington, MN 55431 cyce Rhyan, Deputy Director iy of Minneapolis Planning Dept. "0 South Fifth Street ?com 210 Minneapolis, MN 55415A385 3rian Sweeney, Director of PED .ity of St. Paul 1.5 West Fourth Street 3'. Paul, MN 55102-1634 :ardon Hughes, Manager ty of Edina s0' *Nest 50th Street :din.. MN 55424-1330 3emard Weitemen, Clerk of Liiydale ,55 Sibley Memorial Highway iiydale, MN 5511&1709 ohn Willis, Administrator ;ity of Inver Grove Heights 150 Barbara Avenue rver Grave Heights, MN 55077-3410 pick Saunders oath Metro Airport Action Council 610 Clinton Avenue South .O. Box 19118 fin- 9polis, MN 55419 Jim Danielson, Administrator City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55120 Samantha Orduno, Cifij Manager City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423-2598 Glenda D. Splotta, Administrator City of Sunfish Lake 369 Salem Church Road Sunfish Lake, MN 5511 &4720 Greg Konat, City Manager City of Bumsville 100 Civic Center Parkway Bumsviile, MN 55337 Joan Olin, Clerk City of Mendota P.O. Box 688 Mendota, MN 55150-0688 Chauncey Case Metropolitan Council Mears Park Center 230 East Fifth Street St. Paul, MN 55101 Lance Staricha Eagan Noise Abatement Councl 3895 Newtown Court Eagan, MN 55123 ;r,i Hedges, City Administrator '.;y of Eagan 30 Pilot Know Road 'agar -BAN 55122 Michael McCauley, City Manager City of Brooklyn..Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 MASAC MEMORANDUM MASAC TO: MASAC Members FROM: Chad Leqve, MASAC Technical Advisor SUBJECT: 2000 MASAC Year in Review and Current MASAC Status DATE: February 2, 2001 At the February 13, 2001 MAC Planning &Environment Committee meeting the 2000 MASAC Year in Review will be presented. A copy of the 2000 MASAC Year in Review is enclosed for your review. The document provides a comprehensive summary of MASAC activities and accomplishments throughout the year 2000, in addition to the current status of the Council. In addition, since the November 28, 2000 MASAC meeting, MAC Executive Director, Jeff Hamiel has met with the airlines in an effort to establish the airline representatives on the Blue Ribbon Panel. Recently, the airlines have stated they will not be appointing representatives to the Blue Ribbon Panel. Although the airlines have stated they will not participate on the Panel, MAC staff remains committed to resolving this issue. Discussions are ongoing in an effort to reestablish a dialogue between the airlines and communities and determine whether an organizational structure could be developed to address the various concerns. Future meeting status and updates on the future of MASAC will be provided as information becomes available. The January 26, 2001 Volume 13, Number 3 edition of the Airport Noise Report contained an article on the user resignations from MASAC. A copy of the article is attached for your review. If you have any questions or comments regarding this topic, please contact me at 612- 725-6328. Attachments A irport Noise Report A weekly update on litigation, regulations, and technological developments Volume 13, Number 3 Minneapolis -St. Paul Int'1 AIRLINES QUIT ADVISORY COMMITTEE; CONTEND IT IS NO LONGER BALANCED The future of one of the oldest and most lauded airporVcommunity advisory committees in the country is in doubt following the resignation of 10 of the 1 1 airline members of the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC), which makes recommendations to the Minneapolis -St. Paul Metropoli- tan Airports Commission (MAC) on noise mitigation issues. The MAC does not recognize MASAC recommendations as legitimate unless a quorum of seven community and seven industry representatives endorses them. That quorum cannot be achieved with the resignation of the airlines. MASAC "has become a community advocacy group and no longer provides a viable framework for a thorough and balanced review of technically complex issues with significant legal, environmental, and economic implications for communities and the industry," officials of Northwest Airlines, Airborne Express, DHL, Mesaba, TWA, United, UPS, USAir, Delta, FedEx, as well as the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), asserted in a resignation letter sent last October to MAC Chairman Charles Nichols and MAC Executive Director Jeff Hamiel. The airlines said that their letter "in no way should be interpreted as a lessening (Continued on p. 10) Stage 4 Noise Standard ACI-NA DATA SHOW WHAT AIRCRAFT WILL, WILL NOT MEET STAGE 4 STANDARD Most commercial aircraft in operation today will be able to meet the new "Stage 4" aircraft noise certification standard recommended in mid -January by the International Civil Aviation Organization's Committee on Aviation Environmen- tal Protection (CAEP), according to data developed by the Airports Council International — North America (ACI-NA). The airport trade group called the recent CAEP meeting a failure because the stringency increase that was recommended for a Stage 4 standard was only a cumulative of 10 dB below the current Stage 3 standard, rather than the -14 dB cumulative reduction ACI-NA had sought and because CAEP was unable to reach agreement on the issue of whether airplanes within 5 dB of the Stage 3 standard should be phased out of operation. ACI-NA estimated that airplanes that are only within 5 dB of the Stage 3 standards (mostly hushkitted aircraft) account for only about one quarter of all flights in the United States but produce about 60 percent of the fleet noise. Replacing the noisiest of the Stage 3 aircraft with newer, quieter airplane models would reduce noise levels around airports by 42 percent, the trade group esti- mated. (Continued on p. 10) January 26,2001 In This Issue... Minneapolis ...Ten of the 11 airline members of the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council resign, complaining that the commu- nity/industry advisory com- mittee has become a commu- nity advocacy group - p. 9 Stage 4 Standard ... A table developed by ACI-NA shows that most airplanes can already meet the tighter standard recom- mended by CAEP; executive director of NOISE predicts communities will seek more congressional intervention on noise issues - p. 9 Reno -Tahoe Intl ... USPS sorting hub will not be relocated to Reno due to merger with FedEx on express mail - p. 1 I INM ... The FAA releases an new upgrade to the latest ver- sion the agency's Integrated Noise Model - p. I I Chicago O'Hare ... Noise Compatibility Commission announces that 21 schools are selected for 2001 school sound insulation program - p. I I Conferences ... A keynote address by the former governor of Virginia will highlight the 16th annual Airport Noise Symposium - p. 12 Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council Continuing the Exploration of New and Innovative Ways to Address Airport Noise Issues at the Minneapol&St. Paul International Airport A Report Prepared for MAC Commissioners By Chad E. Legve, MASAC Technical Advisor January 30, 2001 Tableof Figures. . ME a No ON a 0 an A X a a No 0 K ff K 0 a M N K a 2 *A 9 a 0 a a 0 x M M M N 9 MR a K IV Introduction..................................................................v SECTION 1: Efforts to Implement New Technology...................... DevelopmenUlmplementation of Internet Noise Complaint Form .................. Completion of a GRE Feasibility Study and Resultant Determination............................................2 Ground Run -Up Enclosure (GRE) Study Background.........................................................................2 GRE Feasibility Study Findings and MASAC Determination...............................................................2 Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport GPS Technology Study................................................4 MSPGPS Study Background. w.11 1.1 .... 0111 ..... 40 ... 0.4*4 .... 41, .... 1. .................... 604&4 ... & ........ ........... 646%*..4.4 ........ 4 MSP GPS Technology Study Findings and MASAC Determination..................................................4 SECTION 2: MASAC and the MSP Part 150 Update ......................6 Background on MASAC and the 2000 MSP Part 150 Update............................................................6 Overview of the Part 150 Update Document........................................................................................7 MASAC Development of Noise Mitigation Measures.. ............... ......... ............................... 7 Noise Abatement Departure Profiles....................................................................................................9 RunwayUse System...........................................................................................................................11 Runway 17 Departure Flight Tracks...............................................................................................4...13 River Departure and Arrival Procedures.............................................................................................15 Low -Demand Flight Tracks... ...... "I ........ 4 ........ 4 ............. 4,4 ....... .04 ............ %..v ....... .......................... 17 Provisions for On -Going Evaluations of Global Positioning Systems (GPS) Technology...,., ...... ...i 9 Voluntary Reduction of Nighttime Hushkit Operations.......................................................................19 Measures to Encourage Use of Manufactured Stage 3 Aircraft..................................................4.....20 NoiseManagement Program...............................................................................................4..............20 MASAC Development of Land Use Measures...................................................................................21 MASAC Recommended Land Use Measures...................................................................................21 MASAC Development of Mitigation Implementation Policy Provisions", 1111111111...*.q .. wo ww4a &poll", 111122 ContourBoundary Definition...............................................................................................................22 Single -Family and Multi -Family Sound Mitigation Priorities ............ ..................... ........... W.,........ ........ 23 MASAC-Sponsored Public Workshops and Public Hearings........................................................24 SECTION 7: Status of MASAC.......................................................41 MASAC Airline Resignations.." ........ 4*&4&4 ............... ............ I ..... %q%41 BlueRibbon Panel...............................................................................................................................41 APENDICIESa Appendix A 2000 MSP Aircraft and Noise Summary Report Appendix B MASAC Response Letter to the Draft 2000 FAA Aviation Noise Abatement Policy Appendix C MSP Year 2000 Stage 2 Operations Report Appendix D Report on MAC Aviation Noise and Satellite Program's Aircraft Operations and Noise Impact Reporting Capabilities Appendix E First Through Fourth Quarter 2000 MASAC News Newsletters Figure 1.1: Internet Noise Complaint Form.......................................................... 1 Figure 2.1: Close -In vs. Distant NADP Impacts Within the 2005 Unmitigated Contour................................................................10 Figure 2.2: MSP Runway Configuration and Runway UseTerminology................................................................................13 Figure 2.3: Runway 17 Departure Tracks with a 2.5 Nautical MileDME Turn Point..........................................................................15 Figure 2.4: Low -Demand Flight Tracks...............................................................18 Figure 2.5: Current MSP Sound Insulation Contour Boundary Definition............................................................................................. 22 ro The year 2000 brought significant change, achievement and future organizational challenges for the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC). Several new epresentatives were appointed on behalf of various member cities and airport user organizations. Longtime Northwest Airlines MASAC member and MASAC Operations Committee chairman, Mark Semen, was replaced by Mary Loeffelholz and Kevin Batchelder, longtime Mendota Heights alternate representative, was replaced as a result of accepting a new job opportunity out of state. John Nelson, who served as a City of Bloomington alternate MASAC member and the interim MASAC Operations Committee chairman (following Mark Salmen's departure), left the Council and the city after nearly 20 years. In addition, the cities of Sunfish Lake, Burnsville and Richfield all appointed new epresentatives to the Council. Furthermore, Chairman Mertensotto appointed Jennifer Sayre, Northwest Airlines representative, as MASAC's Second Vice Chair. Throughout the year MASAC remained committed to the Council's ongoing mission to address Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport (MSP) noise related issues, topics and concerns. The Council continued its efforts to address airport noise by supporting, endorsing and participating in various airport noise information and abatement initiatives. Over the course of the year several guest speakers provided first-hand information on MSP airport expansion, and local and national airport noise issues and policies. Additional briefing topics covered the future of airport noise and operations monitoring technologies and information on noise and airspace analytical capabilities as part of ongoing ANOMS research and development. MASAC also focused efforts on the implementation of new technologies, enhancement of technical information reporting, airport noise and operations related studies and analyses, ncreased communications efforts and the MSP Part 150 Update process. MASAC, the MASAC Operations Committee and the MASAC Communications Advisory Board devoted a significant amount of time and resources to the MSP Part 150 Update process throughout the year. The Council's efforts resulted in a Part 150 Update document, which includes updated Noise Exposure Maps (NEMs) and an updated Noise Compatibility Program (NCP) that outlines 17 noise mitigation measures and 10 land use measures. As part of the NCP, proposed provisions include providing sound mitigation to dwellings between the 2005 60 and 64 DNL contours and recommendations for mitigating ow -frequency noise in communities immediately adjacent to the airport. Of more immediate concern is the current status of MASAC. In a letter dated October 31, 2000, ten member user representatives resigned from the Council. The users cited concerns that MASAC had become an unbalanced community advocacy group and that the Council's process and procedures were no longer adequate. An eleventh user member resigned at a later date citing similar concerns. The Council's inability to conduct business (per its bylaw stipulations on balanced representation) as a result of the esignations, makes resolution of this issue paramount relative to the future existence and viability of MASAC and MASAC-related initiatives. Therefore, a Blue Ribbon Panel has been proposed consisting of three community and three user representatives with a third - parry facilitator. The intent of the Panel is to reestablish a dialogue between the airlines and communities and determine whether an organizational structure could be developed R The use of technology to address airport noise issues has become a hallmark of the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC). In 2000 the Council continued is endorsement of using technology to help address airport noise issues. MASAC provided increased support for Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) staff's development of interactive Internet applications. MASAC also completed a Global Positioning System (GPS) technology study in an effort to research possible ways to utilize Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport's (MSP) Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS) ground station. The study was conducted relative to the future implementation and enhancement of the noise abatement procedures outlined in the MSP Part 150 Update. In addition, the Council completed a Ground Run -Up Enclosure (GRE) Feasibility Study in an effort to evaluate the existing run-up pad at MSP and new engine run-up noise attenuating technologies that could reduce noise resulting from operations in the MSP run- up area. Through these activities in 2000, MASAC continued its commitment to optimize noise reduction possibilities and to provide information communication capabilities through new and existing technologies. At the December 1999 MASAC Executive Committee meeting the MSP noise complaint submission process was reviewed in response to a Council request to improve the process. The Committee reviewed Seattle Tacoma's newly implemented fax -based airport noise complaint capability. At the meeting, staff reviewed the possibility of implementing a noise complaint form that could be used via the Internet and allow residents to log noise complaints on the MAC Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs Web site. Following the discussion, the Executive Committee endorsed the development of an Internet noise complaint form. Thus, at the January 7, 2000 MASAC Operations Committee meeting MAC staff demonstrated a beta version of the Internet Noise Complaint Form. Staff then ncorporated the comments received at the Operations Committee meeting into the design and functionality of the application. At the January 25, 2000 MASAC meeting the Internet Complaint Form was unveiled. Slight modifications were proposed and the form was approved for implementation on the MAC Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs Web site effective February 1, 2000. The new application allows residents to file noise complaints via the www.macaysat.org Web site. The process consists of a noise complaint entry form that the user completes \finneapolWSL Paul International Airport . rva Nuke Cempr+WK Form :ram Figure 1.1: Internet Noise Compleint form Increase the height of the west wall of the existing GRP • Cost: $1 M or $50,025 per dB (= cost divided by the total number of decibels reduced in all communities) Would provide a 6dB reduction in Richfield and Bloomington and would keep existing conditions at all other communities. • Cost: $2.SM or $82,781 per d8 • Would provide an oub reduction in Richfield, a 6dB reduction in Bloomington, reduce to ambient levels in Eagan and Mendota Heights and keep existing conditions in Minneapolis and St. Paul. Build new GRE across from existing GRP • Cost: $5M or $113,378 per dB Would provide a reduction in noise levels to ambient in all communities except Bloomington. Convert the existing GRP to a GRE • Cost: $BM or $156,862 per dB Would provide a reduction in noise levels to ambient in all communities except Bloomington. The consultant's recommendation contained within the final GRE Feasibility Report was to construct a new GRE across from the existing GRP at a cost of $5 million. Following significant discussion between the Committee members of the above options, the staff's recommendation was considered. The recommendation supported the extension of the GRP's west wall. The justification for such action was grounded in the noise attenuation benefits gained, in addition to the safety and operational benefit (particularity relevant to aircraft with high number two engines) a higher west wall would provide. Furthermore, the added operational flexibility could help ensure run -ups, in the future, occur in compatible areas to the greatest extent possible in light of the discontinuation of the Runway 4-22 run- up location as a result of the new north/south runway. After two failed motions, one to construct a new GRE across from the existing facility and the other to extend the west wall of the existing GRE, a motion on the topic was approved. The Committee passed a motion, on a voice vote, to forward the final Ground Run -Up Enclosure Feasibility Study to the full MASAC body with the recommendation that no modifications be conducted on the current Ground Run -Up Pad. Following the approved motion a fourth motion was made to present the final Ground Run - Up Enclosure Feasibility Study and the recommendation of denial as an information item only to the full MASAC with no action requested. The motion failed on a voice vote. Following the meeting, per the Committee's direction, letters were sent to all users of the current Ground Run -Up Pad requesting adherence to the MSP Run -Up Field Rule. At the April 25, 2000 MASAC meeting the final Ground Run -Up Enclosure Feasibility Study was presented in the same format as the previous Operations Committee briefing with the addition of the Operations Committee recommendation that no modifications be made to the current Ground Run -Up Pad. The presentation also covered the airlines' Specific topics covered included the possible noise benefits of GPS-guided operations and the difference between planned and unwanted flight track dispersion. Following review of the GIPS study, MASAC endorsed the Operations Committee's recommendation that the Part 150 Update include the exploration of GPS/FMS technology to evaluate existing and proposed departure and arrival procedures as a future noise mitigation measure. The MASAC Operations Committee addressed the vast majority of the in-depth analyses associated with the final MASAC Part 150 Update recommendations. The MASAC Operations Committee serves as an advisory committee to the full MASAC. The focus of this group is in-depth exploration of technical issues, typically more than members of the full MASAC body would address. This allows the MASAC Operations Committee members to concentrate heavily on the operational initiatives of the Council's charter. The MASAC chairman appoints the MASAC Operations Committee chairman and the membership is comprised of equal public and airline representation. Overview of the Part 150 Update Document The Update process yielded new noise mitigation initiatives and validated existing procedures at MSP. Using technological advancements, MAC has increased modeling accuracy and is attempting to extend noise insulation boundaries beyond present federal guidelines as recommended as part of the 1996 MSP Noise Mitigation Program. The Part 150 Update has resulted in updated Noise Exposure Maps (NEM) and a comprehensive Noise Compatibility Program (NCP). The NCP includes provisions for operational noise mitigation and land use measures (including sound mitigation). The aircraft and airport operational noise mitigation initiatives focus on: • Aircraft Operational Procedures • Runway Use • Departure and Arrival Flight Tracks Voluntary Operationa! Agreements With the Airlines • Provisions for Further Evaluation of Technology The land use noise mitigation initiatives focus on: • Preventative Land Use Measures (efforts to prevent the introduction of incompatible land uses around the airport) Corrective Land Use Measures (efforts to correct existing incompatible land uses around the airport) The following information provides further description of MASAC's Part 150 Update efforts n 2000 and the resultant measures that were carried forward from the 1992 MSP Part 150 NCP, measures that were carried forward with slight modifications and new measures. The 2000 MSP Part 150 Update document represents a culmination of extensive input and evaluation on behalf of MASAC, the Runway 17-35 City Group, MAC and MAC's consultant, HNTB. Program development as it relates to a Part 150 program at an airport s a significant task. The evaluation and foresight required to ensure program success into the future is paramount. As a result of the extensive analyses and review conducted throughout 2000 by the involved parties, 17 noise mitigation measures are included in the Part 150 Update document. The following information summarizes the noise mitigation measures including those that were unchanged from the previous Part 150 program, new measures and existing Part 150 measures that were modified slightly for inclusion in the update. NA-1. Metropolitan Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) - MASAC should continue to be the official vehicle for addressing airport noise at MSP. (No change from the current program) NA-2. Noise Management Program - This new measure requires MAC, in association with MASAC, to consider incentives and disincentives to reduce the impact of aviation noise in areas surrounding MSP. NA-3. Voluntary Nighttime Limits on Flights - This measure proved effective to reduce nighttime flights of Stage 2 aircraft. This measure is modified to reflect the revised MSP nighttime hours of 10:30 p.m. to 6:00 a.m., and to ask airlines to reduce the use of hushkit aircraft during the nighttime. NA-4. Nighttime Powerbacks -All airlines at MSP have agreed to eliminate "powerbacks" during nighttime hours. All nighttime flights will "push bacw' from the gate with an aircraft tug. (No change from the current program) NA-5. Engine Run -Up Field Rule - All airlines are required to conduct maintenance run -ups at a designated run-up pad, and comply with the MSP Run -Up Field Rule. This measure is modified from the current NCP to reflect the new field rule, issued in February 1999. NA-6. Training Restriction -The major carriers at MSP have agreed not to conduct training operations at MSP. (No change from the current program) NA-7. Operating Procedures - Airlines operating at MSP have agreed to comply with airport operating procedures. This measure is modified from the current NCP to reflect the use of the Distant Noise Abatement Departure Profile (NADP) on all runway ends. NA-8. Measures to Encourage Use of Manufactured Stage 3 Aircraft - The previous NCP established the Noise Surcharge/Differential Landing Fee to recover some of the costs of noise monitoring and mitigation measures from the airlines; this measures revises the program and requires MAC to develop and implement measures to encourage aircraft operators to use manufactured Stage 3 aircraft. NA-9. Runway Use System (RUS) - This measure prioritizes noise -sensitive runway selection. This measure is modified from the current NCP to include Runway 17-35 in the runway selection prioritization. NA-10. Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System (ANOMS) - ANOMS continues to be a vital tool for collecting operational data on aircraft movements. (No change from the current program) NA-11. Noise Abatement Sensitivity Training - MAC works with the airlines and ATC to encourage awareness of noise issues and to help increase • figure 2.t: Close -In vs. Distant NADP Impacts within tl�e 2005 Unmitigated Contour When an airport operator selects a departure profile, air carriers are required to implement the selected NADP for use on the specified runways. In parallel runway situations, such as the case at MSP, the same procedure must be used when departing in the same direction off the parallel runways. MASAC Recommendation for Noise Abatement Departure Profiles One of the major aircraft operational procedures providing substantial is reduction as ncluded in the Part 150 Update, is the implementation of the Distant Noise Abatement Departure Profile for all runways at MSP. On April 143 2000 the MASAC Operations Committee reviewed the history of Noise Abatement Departure Profiles and reviewed possible alternatives to be included in the Part 150 Update document. A recommendation was forwarded to the full MASAC endorsing the use of the Distant NADP off all runways at MSP. At the May 23, 2000 MASAC meeting NADPs were discussed, in addition to the MASAC Operations Committee recommendation, both as informational items. On June 27, 2000 MASAC reviewed the Operations Committee's recommendation once again and approved the incorporation of the proposal in the Part 150 Update document. This action represents an endorsement of the Distant Departure Profile procedure, which is already in use on Runways 12L, 12R, 22 and 04. Additionally, the proposed use of the Distant Departure Profile off Runway 17 is consistent with the procedures modeled in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared for the development of that runway. The esulting change is over the South Minneapolis area where currently the Close -In Departure Profile is used. This recommendation reduces the number of residents mpacted within the 2005 60+ DNL Unmitigated Contour by approximately 9,80C residents. iL implementation of the RUS could occur. During periods of medium (between 15 and 60 operations per hour) and low (14 or less operations per hour) traffic demands, an RUS for the express purpose of noise reduction could be implemented to a higher degree. MASAC Proposed Runway Use System The MASAC Operations Committee reviewed various RUS options for implementation during low, medium and high operational periods at MSP. On March 24, 2000 the MASAC Operations Committee discussed several RUS alternatives, the factors affecting runway use and the existing and projected runway use at MSP. Following the review, the Operations Committee approved the consultant's recommendation to use the assumptions in the Dual Track Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for runway use. The Committee action also included a recommendation that the RUS be based on a 24-hour period and required the consultant to report back to the Committee if, in the course of more study, an option is discovered that reduces the noise impact to a greater degree. A similar discussion occurred at the April 25, 2000 MASAC meeting, no action was taken. At the May 12, 2000 Operations Committee meeting the consultants reviewed a new methodology for determining runway use predicated upon low, mid and high traffic demand time periods. The Operations Committee approved the consultant's new recommendation and forwarded the topic to MASAC. The Council reviewed the proposal on May 23, 2000 and approved the final RUS recommendation for inclusion in the Part 150 document at the June 27, 2000 MASAC meeting. The result of MASAC's decision was the development and endorsement of an RUS that could be implemented during the low and medium operational time periods at MSP. Use of the capacity -driven RUS outlined in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) would be during high -demand periods. The RUS to be considered as part of the Part 150 Update NCP is as follows Deoartures (In order of priority) 1. Runways 12L and 12R (into Eagan -Mendota Heights Corridor) 2. Runway 17 3. Balanced use of Runway 4-22 4. Runway 30L and 30R Arrivals (In order of priority) 1. Runways 30L and 30R (over the Eagan -Mendota Heights Corridor) 2. Runway 35 3. Balanced use of Runway 4-22 4. Runways 12L and 12R 12 • Reduce noise impacts within the 2005 60+ DNL contour • Avoid increased overflights of other communities Maintain runway capacity • Ensure feasible implementation by FAA/Air Traffic Control • Provide positive guidance to aircraft so they can reasonably follow desired flight tracks • Allow for possible future transition to Flight Management System (FMS)/Global Positioning System (GPS) navigation With the above goals as the cornerstone of the evaluation efforts, several options were discussed. The options included varying departure -track fan concentrations ranging from a 60° fan (headings from 1400 to 2000) to a full 1900 fan (headings from 0950 to 285°). These various scenarios also included the proposed elimination of EIS -modeled tracks, in some cases, to accommodate the various departure fan ranges. As a result of the extensive analyses conducted in 2000 by MASAC and the MASAC Operations Committee and the Runway 17-35 City Group, a proposal was developed that addressed the areas west and east of runway heading (170°) uniquely relative to the existing land uses on either side of runway heading. MASAC Recommendation for Runway 17 Departure Flight Tracks The Runway 17 departure flight tracks measure was one of the most extensively reviewed noise abatement measures throughout the Part 150 Update process. The MASAC Operations Committee review process spanned April through August 2000 and included six Operations Committee meetings. MASAC reviewed the topic and associated items and issues at the May, June and August 2000 Council meetings. In addition, the Runway 17-35 City Group (comprised of representatives from the cities of Bloomington, Burnsville, Eagan and Apple Valley) also reviewed the topic in detail and provided input into the process. After considering all possible options and the input received from the communities involved, the MASAC Operations Committee forwarded a recommendation to the full MASAC at the August 11, 2000 Operations Committee meeting. On August 22, 2000 MASAC approved the Operations Committee's recommendation for inclusion as a mitigation measure in the Part 150 Update document. The resulting MASAC Runway 17 departure flight tracks measure recommends that operations which have initial departure headings east of runway heading (headings ranging from 95° to 1700) should initiate their turns as soon as possible when departing Runway 17. This recommendation was made due to the fact that there is no one flight path considered `better' than another when departing to the southeast over the existing esidentially developed areas beyond the Minnesota River. This is consistent with the EIS documentation for Runway 17, When conducting the same evaluation for departure headings west of runway centerline (headings from 170° to 285°) two main considerations arose: (1) Heavily residential developed areas exist west of runway heading almost immediately off the runway end and (2) the Minnesota River Valley south of the airport offers an area where departure operations could overfly at higher altitudes in an effort to reduce residential overflight mpacts close -in to the airport. 14 MASAC Recommended River Departure and Arrival Flight Tracks The development and review of Runway 17 river departure procedures occurred in andem with the Runway 17 departure tracks consideration and analysis. In addition, on October 24, 2000 MASAC reviewed and approved a Runway 35 river visual approach procedure measure for inclusion in the Part 150 Update document. As a result of the mentioned analyses, two Runway 17 river depa lure procedures and a Runway 35 river arrival procedure were incorporated into the Part 150 Update. The three procedures include a published river departure procedure, a river heading departure flight track and a visual river approach procedure. Runway 17 -Published River Departure Procedure This procedure would be implemented via a published departure procedure for Runway 17. It is intended to route Runway 17 departure operations over the Minnesota River Valley, avoiding residential areas. The procedure would direct aircraft to fly astraight-out heading of 1700 until reaching a turn point located three nautical miles from the start of takeoff roll. At that point, the aircraft would turn to a heading of 2450 to overfly the river. This procedure is intended for aircraft departing to the south and west of the airport. Because of the capacity impact this procedure poses during mid and high traffic demand times periods at the airport, this procedure would most likely only be used during low - demand time periods. This would equate to typical procedural use between the hours of 12:15 a.m. and 5:30 a.m. Runwav 17 -River Heading Deoarture Flight Track This procedure designates the 2300 heading as a river heading, when used in conjunction with the 2.5 nautical mile turn departure fan off Runway 17. The 230° heading (Track L) routes aircraft over the river valley. Because this procedure is not a published procedure, and not part of a flight plan, the heading can be assigned by the Air Traffic Control Tower as part of the takeoff clearance. This would allow for the procedure to be used at any time when the FAA personnel in the Air Traffic Control Tower can work it into the traffic flow. This procedure is intended for aircraft departing to the south and west of the airport. Runwav 35 —River Visual Aooroach Procedure This procedure considers a visual river approach to Runway 35 that routes arriving aircraft over the river valley. The purpose of this procedure is to reduce aircraft arrival overflights of residential areas. Airerait using this procedure would approach from the southwest, flying a 65' heading over the river. As the aircraft nears the airport, it would turn on to final approach and align with Runway 35. Several issues need to be resolved prior to implementation of this procedure, including airspace design and Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) concurrence and flight testing. iL st[�• .r. t Y c � � uw`�'` L ' • } A µ'am R� _ lid 4¢� �y ti �•��- •� Trt^`T i` F t s i�4 fix. x � ram.;.._•+.-��..� •'"�� Y Wit' + aS afif" �� ti "� � t; . 1 tip a+- OV rcr S k� J WMB • Figure 2.4: Low -Demand Flight Tracks Runway 12L and 12R • Continue use of the Crossing in the Corridor procedure. • Investigate use of future technology to optimize flight track location and further minimize the impacted population. Runway 30L and 30R • Continue the existing procedure of dispersing departure traffic away from the runway centerline flight track to avoid concentrating both arrival and departure traffic on the same flight track. • Investigate a DP that overflies Trunk Highway 62. Runwavl7 • Disperse departure traffic away from the centerline flight track to avoid concentrating arrival and departure traffic. • Eastbound departures use a 950 heading • Southbound departures use a 160° heading • Westbound departures use a 1850 heading • River departure procedure and a river heading departure for use by westbound and southbound departures Development of some of the above DPs will require the use of precision navigation technologies such as FMS/GPS. In an effort to implement the above procedures, coordination with the FAA will be paramount in determining the feasibility and implementation options with respect to the proposed DP per runway. The evaluation of new navigation technologies was conducted as part of a GPS technology study. The assessment considered the integration of GPS-related applications and technologies at MSP as an element of the Part 150 Update Noise Compatibility Program (NCP) recommendations. fiF7 a.m. The agreement would further state that, if an operation must occur during this timeframe, the aircraft used should be the quieter (non-hushkitted) manufactured Stage 3 aircraft. Exceptions would apply to operations that occur during the nighttime hours because of emergencies, mechanical problems, Air Traffic Control delays and weather. Measures to Encourage Use of Manufactured Stage 3 Aircraft Background Through the many analyses that were conducted throughout the part 150 Update process, substantial insight was gained relative to the causes of noise impact at MSP. As a result of the mentioned analyses, it is evident that the amount of noise energy that is produced is directly related to the type of aircraft used at the airport. Analysis of aircraft operations at MSP projected for 2005 indicate that noise impacts associated with aircraft operations could be reduced by over thirty percent if all nighttime operations were conducted by manufactured Stage 3 aircraft. Additionally, the noise impacts could be reduced by approximately fifty percent if all aircraft operations at MSP were conducted using manufactured Stage 3 aircraft. MASAC Recommendation for Measures to Encourage Use of Manufactured Stage 3 Aircraft Realizing the affect aircraft type has on the noise exposure at MSP, on September 26, 2000 MASAC investigated measures to encourage the use of aircraft that produce less noise and result in lower noise impact on surrounding communities. The result was approval of a measure that requires MAC to develop and implement measures to encourage operators to use manufactured Stage 3 aircraft (quietest aircraft types among the Stage 3 fleet). The purpose of this measure is to increase the use of manufactured Stage 3 aircraft at MSP. Successful implementation of this measure will reduce the noise impacts associated with the operation of the loudest aircraft at MSP. Noise Management Program Background Noise impact is not gone -dimensional issue. Several variables can affect the amount of noise impact communities receive from aircraft operations. In an effort to address all of the possible noise impacts at MSP, MASAC reviewed options that would help address the multiple causes of noise impact at MSP. MASAC Recommendation for a Noise Management Program On September 26, 2000 MASAC approved a noise management program measure in theory. Following that meeting, MASAC approved a specific noise management program measure on September 29, 2000. The result of MASAC's deliberations was the development of a measure outlining general criteria for the establishment of a Noise Management Program. The measure requires MAC, in association with MASAC, to consider incentives and disincentives to reduce the impact of aviation noise in communities surrounding MSP. The Noise Management Program would consist of voluntary incentives or disincentives to promote the reduction of noise impacts. These 20 LU-6. Acquire developed property in incompatible use: Review the possible practical application of this measure as part of the program in coordination with other mitigation measures. LU-7. Property purchase guarantee: Develop this program in coordination with other mitigation measures. LU-8. Sound mitigation program: Provide sound mitigation in coordination with other operational mitigation measures (out to the 60 DNL contour). LU-9. Creation of sound buffers/barriers: Use of sound barrier walls and/or berms and natural landscaping to reduce aircraft noise for communities surrounding MSP. LU-10. Low frequency noise mitigation: Control aircraft noise -induced rattling of building elements and furnishings and increase low -frequency sound level reduction inherent of building structure. Additionally, MASAC requested modification to the Metropolitan Council's Aviation Policy Plan and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines to reflect language that designates the DNL 60 as the land use planning standard for all corrective and/or preventative Part 150 measures. With Met Council's endorsement, land use planning language would be consistent for all communities within the Part 150 Program land use and impact areas. Corrtour Boundary Definition Background Once Part 150 contours are developed, boundaries outlining the extent of the mitigation area should be assessed relative to homes located at the contour edge. Parcels wholly contained within the approved contour are eligible for sound mitigation. But, parcels that are bisected by or just missed by the line need to be evaluated for inclusion with input from the communities, airport users, the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Through input from surrounding communities and approval by the FAA, the MAC has nplemented a contour boundary definition scheme that assesses sound mitigation eligibility on a block, rather than parcel, level. The current program insulates all homes on a given block that is contained within or is touched by the 1996 65 DNL contour. Figure 2.5 provides a graphic depiction of the contour boundary definition presently used. The 2000 Part 150 Update will once again address the issue of contour boundary definition relative to the new contour. Because the Part 150 update proposes that • Figure 2.5: Current MSP Sound Insulation Contour Boundary Definition 22 After considerable review and consideration of all possible options, keeping in mind FAA concerns, MASAC approved the following sound mitigation priorities (in order of priority) as part of the Part 150 Update: 1. Complete the sound insulation of single-family and duplex homes within the 1996 DNL 65 and greater noise contours 2A. Complete the sound insulation of multi -family residential structures within the 1996 DNL 65 and greater noise contours in conjunction with priority 2B and then sequencing to 2C below upon FAA approval of the Part 150 Update document 2B. Complete the sound insulation of single-family and duplex homes that fall within the 2005 DNL 65 and greater DNL noise contours 2C. Complete the sound insulation of eligible single-family and duplex homes that fall within the 2005 DNL 60 to DNL 64 noise contours 3. Complete the sound insulation of multi -family residential structures within the 2005 DNL 65 and greater DNL noise contours in conjunction with priority 2C above upon FAA approval of the Part 150 Update document 4. Complete the sound insulation of multi -family residential structures within the 2005 DNL 60 to DNL 64 noise contours 5. Complete the sound insulation of nursing homes and churches with regular weekday daycare/nursery school programs within the 2005 DNL 60 contour The above priority takes into account FAA input, as well as considerations for the smooth transition from our existing Part 150 noise mitigation program to the expanded noise mitigation program as outlined in the Part 150 Update. As part of the Part 150 Update process, MASAC sponsored three sets of public meetings. The first se es of public workshops, held in September 1999, provided info oration on the need for an update, the Part 150 process and contour modeling. The second round of workshops, held the end of November — beginning of December 1999, focused on the 2005 forecasts, past Part 150 program recommendations and various preliminary aircraft and airport noise reduction recommendations. The third series of workshops were held on May 22-25, 2000. These workshops focused on MASAC's role in the Part 150 Update process and impacted communities' and MASAC's recommended mitigation strategies for the Part 150 Update (including the sound insulation program). A total of 2,462 people attended the three sets of public workshops. The Part 150 Update process requires adequate public involvement as part of the document's preparation. As such, in add'Rion to the above mentioned workshops, MASAC sponsored a series of public workshops/ public hearings on the Draft Part 150 Update following the publication of the document on October 6, 2000 for public comment. A total of 541 people attended the workshops/public hearings, held November 8 and 9, 2000, at the Thunderbird Hotel in Bloomington. 24 Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) Aviation Noise Program staff continued their effort to provide informative and educational briefings to the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) in 2000. Through MAC Aviation Noise Program staff briefings and guest speakers, topics covered included information on the Governors Airport Community Stabilization Funding Taskforce Report, Part 150 Update -related topics, current local and national noise issues, MSP construction projects in 2000 and the Draft 2000 Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Noise Abatement Policy. The combination of these briefings provided a lot of information on timely topics related to national and local airport and noise related issues. At the December 10, 1999 MASAC Operations Committee meeting, members requested a briefing on the Governors Airport Community Stabilization Funding Taskforce Report. The Taskforce was created by the 1999 Minnesota Legislature with the mission to identify appropriate federal, state and community funding sources for mitigation projects associated with Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport (MSP) expansion. At the Febmary 11, 2000 MASAC Operations Committee meeting, Mr. Louis Jambois, Director of Community Rnance from the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development, provided a briefing of the report that was submitted to the Legislature on January 15, 2000, The briefing highlighted why the Department of Trade and Economic Development was chosen to head up the Taskforce and who was on the Taskforce. The first meeting of the Taskforce was held July 293 1999 with recommendations required to the Minnesota Legislature by January 15, 2000. Nine meetings were held altogether. The Taskforce strove for balance. Mr. Jambois briefed that there were essentially three parties involved -the airport, the community and the state government. He said all three parties worked together to find common ground. Mr. Jambois reviewed the 13 principal findings of the Taskforce. • MSP airport provides a significant economic benefit to the State of Minnesota, its residents and businesses • Keeping the airport at its present location saved state taxpayers approximately S2 billion in capital costs • The expansion of MSP will create additional noise -related negative impacts on residential and commercial areas • The MAC has committed to insulate homes out to the 60 DNL contour at a very sign ricant cost • The estimated cost of unfunded noise mitigation activities is roughly $155 million • MAC is not capable of providing all necessary funding for noise mitigation 26 • Original Package options (5 dB Package) o Continue to include air-conditioning o Continue to include air-conditioning with a dollar cap (homeowners have the option to pay the difference or not have air-conditioning included) o Use original package but do not include air-conditioning • Revised package options (reduce the STC and ANLR goals of the doors and windows) o Provide air-conditioning with the new package o Provide air-conditioning with a new package with a dollar cap (homeowners have the option to pay the difference or not have air- conditioning included) o Provide new package without air-conditioning • Air-conditioning only package Fu thermore, at the July 28, 2000 MASAC Operations Committee additional discussion focused on package options between the 2005 60 and 64 DNL contours. Mr. Vecchi discussed three possible options including providing the same insulation package provided in the current program with no air-conditioning, providing air-conditioning only or a possible avigation easement cash payment. At both the MASAC and MASAC Operations Committee levels, the information regarding a possible mitigation package between the 2005 60 and 64 DNL contours was presented as an informational item only. The determination of a suitable package was considered the esponsibility of MAC. SIMMOD Demonstration SIMMOD is the FAA's Airport and Airspace Simulation Model. SIMMOD is a fast -time computer simulation model that is designated to "play out airport and airspace operations within the computer and calculate the real -world results that would occur for a user -defined scenario. The program tracks individual operations throughout an airport/airspace environment and detects potential aircraft separation and operation violations, and than simulates the required air traffic control corrections required to address the problems. Prior to the April 14, 2000 MASAC Operations Committee meeting a SIMMOD demonstration was conducted. Representatives from HNTB demonstrated a simulation of the traffic flows and airport capacity from the Dual Track Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) with the addition of Runway 17-35. This demonstration provided first- hand information relative to forecasted traffic demands and the future operation of the airport. This information contributed to an insightful approach to Part 150 Update -related topics such as consideration of a Runway Use System. Low -Frequency Noise Policy Committee Update Briefings Throughout the year MASAC was updated on the progress of the Low -Frequency Noise Policy Committee's deliberations. The Council was acutely aware of the significance of the Policy Committees findings due to the ultimate incorporation of the findings into the Part 150 Update document. At the August 22, 2000 MASAC meeting a review of the Low -Frequency Noise Policy Committee Report was provided. The review highlighted the Low -Frequency Noise Policy Committee's meeting on August 10, 2000 and the provisions approved as part of the Low - Frequency Noise Policy Committee Report. i3F3 Mr. Hamiel's presentation provided members with a wealth of information on the espective topics, as well as interesting perspectives on the MAC's position on the various ssues. The Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airpo t (MSP) 2010 Plan is well unite way. This comprehensive capital improvement plan includes infrastructure development and renovation throughout all facets of the airport environment including both the airside and landside areas. The comprehensive MSP 2010 Plan is intended to accommodate the regional air travel demands through the year 2010. The scope and magnitude of this initiative requires year-round construction efforts to ensure the associated projects are carried forward consistent with established schedules. As a result, several construction projects occurred at MSP during 2000. In an effort to inform MASAC members of the various major projects in 2000, Gary Warren, MAC Director of Airside Development, briefed the Council at the July 25, 2000 MASAC meeting on construction projects in 2000. Mr. Warren's presentation focused on the following projects: • North -South runway • West cargo apron • 66' Street interchange — phase 1 • Pavement reconstruction • Green Concourse apron expansion • North side storm sewer • Runway reconstruction • Temorary extension to the south parallel prunway and taxiway • Runway 12R deicing pad • South side storm sewer • Storm sewer ponds • Humphrey Terminal hydrant fueling system • Light rail line tunnel The information provided by Mr. Warren gave the Council insight into possible upcoming operational changes at the airport due to construction, in addition to changes in the character of MSP airport infrastructure. Policy Background In 1976 the Department of Transportation (DOT) published its Aviation Noise Abatement Policy. At the time, approximately six to seven million people resided in areas of significant noise impact (DNL 65 contours) around U.S. airports. The Policy provided a means of addressing airport noise impacts around the country. The principles and associated egislative and regulatory initiatives provided significant noise reduction around our 30 AASAC Response to the Policy In an effort to ensure MASAC response (consistent with the Council charter) to the policy, the topic was included on the August 22, 2000 MASAC agenda. In addition to a memo on the topic, a draft response letter was distributed to the membership a week prior to the meeting for review and comment. The draft letter was distributed to provide a starting point for discussion, in addition to a response framework for Council review and ratification in an effort to ensure compliance with the published August 28, 2000 response deadline. Shortly following the mailing for the August 22, 2000 MASAC meeting the comment deadline for the Policy was extended by the FAA to October 23, 2000. At the August 22, 2000 MASAC meeting the policy was reviewed in detail and the draft letter was discussed. The airlines raised concerns with some of the points included in the draft response. As a result, the topic was tabled until the September 26, 2000 MASAC meeting to allow for additional review of possible comments to the policy. The initial points contained in the draft letter were as follows: 1. Anew Stage 4 noise level standard should be developed, which maximizes the noise reduction capabilities of available and future aircraft engine technologies. 2. As part of the new Stage 4 noise level criteria, Part 1061 should be updated or a new policy should be developed to address the timely retirement of Stage 3 hushkitted aircraft and a reasonable phase -out plan for existing manufactured Stage 3 aircraft. 3. Realizing that the single event noise energy produced by Stage 2 aircraft under 75,000 pounds can be equal to or greater than many Stage 3 aircraft above 75,000 pounds, a timely phase -out schedule for Stage 2 aircraft under 75,000 pounds should be established. In addition, the future transition schedule to a Stage 4 aircraft fleet should apply to aircraft under 75,000 pounds as well. 4. The FAA -recognized noise impact area of 65 DNL for purposes of corrective and preventative land use measures should be expanded to the 60 DNL area realizing that noise impacts extend beyond the 65 DNL contour line at our nation's airports. 5. Future policy regarding land use compatibility planning should be considered in concert with new airspace use flexibilities provided by the GPS technology and surrogate capabilities such as free flight and precision variable geometry approach and departure procedures. 6. Federal Noise Compatibility Program (NCP) funding initiatives should address noise compatibility efforts out to the 60 DNL contour at our nation's airports. 7. Realizing the possible noise reduction benefits GPS can offer in the airport environment, the FAA should develop mandatary airborne avionics compatibility timetables, ensuring the noise reduction benefits that could be received as a result of on -board GPS coupled Flight Management Systems (FMS) and Auto Flight Guidance Systems (AFGS). 8. Future airspace redesign requirements should take into account the capabilities of new navigational technologies such as GPS to ensure procedural implementation 32 After considerable discussion by the community members of the Council considering both community discussion and the concerns identified in the airlines' letters, points number two, three, four, six and seven were removed from the draft letter. In addition, point number one was modified to include the word reasonable relative to the nature of a new Stage 4 standard. The letter that was submitted to the FAA is contained in Appendix B. In 1999 MASAC decided to focus Council effo is primarily on the Part 150 Update and put other major initiatives on hold until late 2000. One such initiative was the revision of the Technical Advisor's Report. The MASAC Technical Advisor's Report is a monthly publication produced by MAC staff via the Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System (ANOMS) providing information on airport/aircraft operations and the magnitude of the resultant noise impacts. The intent was to improve the document so as to enhance the effectiveness of information communication, interpretability and understanding. MASAC began the process of revising the Technical Advisors Report in 2000. The efforts taken included an introduction to Lochard, the new ANOMS provider, and a review of the MAC Noise Office reporting and analyses capabilities. Currently, the effort to revise the MASAC Technical Advisor's Report is ongoing. Background on Lochard In February 2000, the Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System (ANOMS) technology was transferred from Harris Miller Miller & Hansen (HMMH) to Lochard, based n Victoria, Australia. To ensure the long-term viability of ANOMS for their clients, HMMH felt it was in the best interest of ANOMS users and the ANOMS technology to enter into negotiations with Lochard for transfer of the technology. HMMH feels this agreement ensures that ANOMS advancements made to date will continue into the future, along with continuing quality support for all ANOMS users. Lochard specializes in the development and design of airport noise and environmental monitoring/management products. The company provides a wide range of products ncluding software and instrumentation to many airports around the world. The focus of the products provided by Lochard include: • Aiding airports in the management of environmental monitoring programs • Assisting airports with planning airport expansion • Providing airports with the capabilities to enhance their public relations programs Lochard provides an aircraft operations and noise monitoring system similar to ANOMS called GEMS (Global Environment Management System), which provides similar analytical functions. It is anticipated that Lochard will continue their aggressive oroduct development toward a next generation aircraft operations and noise monitoring system that will incorporate the strong suits of both GEMS and ANOMS, into a new and analytically superior product. The resultant capabilities of these research and development initiatives are significant in the 35 In 2000, MASAC continued its analysis and evaluation of airport noise and operations related topics. Efforts focused on the evaluation of the Stage 2 aircraft phase out effective January 1, 2000 and airspace and operational analysis associated with the Part 150 Update process and future noise impacts of Runway 17-35. The end of 1999 represented the elimination of the operation of civil, subsonic Stage 2 jets (in excess of 75,000 lbs.) to and from airports located in the contiguous United States. The nitiative was required as part of the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 and was codified in 49 USC 47521-47533. Because of the importance of this milestone, a report of Stage 2 operations at MSP was presented at the January 25, 2000 MASAC meeting. The report provided information on federal and local Stage 2 phase -out initiatives, ramifications of non-compliance, an update on United States fleet compliance and a review of MSP operations for the first week of January 2000. The report found that MSP aircraft operations were fully compliant with the mandatory phase -out requirements. As a result, MASAC sent letters to all carrers operating at MSP thanking them for their financial investment in the phase -out of Stage 2 aircraft. Please refer to Appendix C for the MSP Year 2000 Stage 2 Operations Report. Throughout the year the MASAC Operations Committee conducted various airspace and operational analyses related to the Part 150 Update initiative and the future operation of Runway 17-35. Two major analyses focused on airspace departure destination gates and future Runway 35 aircraft arrival impacts. Departure Destination Gate Analysis At the March 10, 2000 MASAC Operations Committee meeting a request was made to conduct a departure gate analysis assessing operations relative to the various departure headings, as outlined by Cindy Greene (FAA), and respective destinations as they relate to Integrated Noise Model (INM) flight track use percentages for the purpose of contour generation. The analysis which was conducted by staff utilizing ANOMS spatial gate analysis functionality, focused on February 2000 carrier jet departure data and considered only those departure operations tagged with destination airport information as provided by ANOMS data post -processing functionality. 37 Burnsville North, south, east and west gates were constructed to simulate Burnsville's boundaries. These gates were placed at the same distance and angle to Runway 12R as the city will be from the end of the new north/south runway. Arrivals on Runway 35 will affect the extreme no theast corner of Burnsville where altitudes will be approximately 1,000 feet above ground level relative to the analysis findings. Depending on how the parallel runways are being used for arrivals, Burnsville will also experience some downwind arrival traffic. This traffic would be from either the east or west of the city. Traffic entering the south boundary would be beginning to line up for final approach and would be at an altitude of 4,000 to 6,000 feet above ground level relative to the analysis findings. ADole Valley A north and south gate were constructed to simulate Apple Valley's north and south boundaries. The gates were placed at the same distance and angle to Runway 12R as the city will be from the end of the new north/south runway. The analysis shows that arriving aircraft will enter the city's south boundary to the east of fs centerline at an average altitude of approximately 2000 to 4000 feet AGL. The average altitude of these aircraft at the northern boundary will be approximately 2000 feet relative to the analysis findings. Eagan West, northwest and south gates were constructed to simulate Eagan's boundaries. The gates were placed at the same distance and angle to Runway 12R as the city will be from the end of the new north/south runway. The average altitude of arriving aircraft entering Eagan's south boundary would be approximately 2000 feet AGL relative to the analysis findings. The analysis shows that arriving aircraft will enter Eagan's south boundary to the west of is centerline and proceed along the western edge of the city. Arriving aircraft will then depart the citys northwest boundary at an altitude of approximately 1000 feet AGL. Overall the analysis provided good information relative to the future impacts of arrival operations on Runway 35 and a realistic picture of overflights for communities south of MSP relative to the future operation of the runway. 39 MASAC remained committed to enhancing communication efforts throughout 2000. The MASAC Communications Advisory Board published four quarterly newsletters (MASAC News) and the availability of information via the Internet was enhanced, namely relative to nformation pertaining to the MASAC News and the Part 150 Update. In June 1999 MASAC established the MASAC Communications Advisory Board (CAB). Beginning the first quarter of 2000, the MASAC CAB began publishing the quarterly MASAC News newsletter. Throughout the year the MASAC CAB published several articles on MASAC Part 150 Update initiatives, providing a chronological documentation of the Council's efforts and the Part 150 Update process. The MASAC CAB met nine times in 2000. Efforts focused on establishing topics for newsletters and reviewing and finalizing newsletter content and graphics. In addition, the CAB developed an input form providing a means for input into the newsletter development process. MASAC News The MASAC CAB published first, second, third and fourth quarter editions of the MASAC News newsletter in 2000, The focus of the newsletters centered on the Part 150 Update and other Council and noise related topics and initiatives. Editions of the MASAC News can be found in Appendix E of this document or on the Intemet at www.macaysat.org/MASAC/newsltr_table.html. MAC staff continued development of the MAC Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs Web site w th input from MASAC. A Pa t 150 Update page was developed that provides access to the information provided at all the public workshops, MASAC presentations, the Draft 2000 Part 150 Update document, and a summary Part 150 Update document. In addition, a new page was developed providing access to the various editions of the MASAC News newsletter. Due to the resignation of eleven user representatives from MASAC, all Council meetings and associated Committee meetings are cancelled. At the November 28, 2000 MASAC meeting Mr. Jeff Hamiel, MAC Executive Director, addressed the remaining MASAC members with respect to the user resignation letter dated October 31, 2000. The signatories to the letter 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. The letter read, "...MASAC has become a community advocacy group and no longer provides a viable framework for a thorough and balanced review of technically complex issues with significant legal, environmental and economic implications for communities and the industry." Specific topics cited included the Part 150 Update drafting process, the non-use of proxy votes in the evaluation of possible improvements to the Ground Run -Up Pad and comments developed for the Draft 2000 FAA Aviation Noise Abatement Policy. An eleventh member, Delta Airlines, resigned at a later date citing similar concerns. Blue Ribbon Pane! At the November 28, 2000 MASAC meeting Mr. Hamiel explained the importance of user nvolvement with MASAC and the critical nature of the situation relative to the future viability of MASAC and the success of Council initiatives. As a result, Mr. Hamiel proposed the formation of a Blue Ribbon Panel comprised of three airline and three community epresentatives with a third -party facilitator. The intent of the Panel is to reestablish a dialogue between the airlines and communities and determine whether an organizational structure could be developed to address the user concerns. Chairman Mertensotto appointed the following community (public) members to sit on the Panel: Barret Lane —Minneapolis Jamie Verbrugge —Eagan Jill Smith — Mendota Heights It was determined at the November 28, 2000 MASAC meeting that, until this matter is resolved, MASAC cannot conduct business. Therefore, any MASAC or MASAC related committee meetings are cancelled, pending the outcome of the Panel's deliberations. Since the November 28, 2000 MASAC meeting, Mr. Hamiel has had discussions with the airlines in an effort to establish airline representation on the Blue Ribbon Panel. At this time, airline representatives have not been appointed. As a result, the Blue Ribbon Panel has not convened. 41 2000 MSP Aircraft Operations and Noise Summary Report i op 20 MSP Airport Operators for 2000 Airline Type of Operation Total Count Average Daily Operations Percentage of MSP Airport Operators Northwest Airlines Major 243:068 672.0 1 52.70% Mesaba Regional 1 103,306 285.6 1 22.4°0 United Airlines Major 1 13,219 36.5 2.90,0 Sun Country Airlines Major 1 12,625 34.9 2.7% Americam Airlines Major ( 11,367 31A 2.5% Delta Airlines Major 8,132 22.5 1.8% Bemidji Regional /Cargo 6,611 18.3 1.400 Trans World Airlines Major 6,256 17.3 1.400 US Airways Major 5,303 14.7 1.1% Continental Airlines Major 5,251 14.5 1.1°0 Vanguard Airlines Major ( 4,129 11 A ( 0.9% Com Air Regional ( 3,086 8.5 0.7% Great Lakes Aviation Regional 2,978 8.2 0.6% America West Major 2,978 8.2 0.600 Ryan Cargo 2,659 7.4 ( 0.6% Federal Express ( Cargo 2,423 6.7 0..5 Continental Express Cargo 2,206 6.1 0.500 Air Canada Major 2,008 5.6 0.4% United Parcel Service Cargo ( 1,867 5.2 0.4% American Trans Air Charter 15733 4.8 0.4% Totals 4417205 1,219.8 95.6% Note: Missing ANOMS Data for 3.6 days due to FAA 2000 MSP Runway Usage Summary of All Operations Total Operations Count by Runway Average Daily Total Operations Count by Runway �imunmmnom ►� t �m�mm �■®®®®�R� mnmm mm■■m �m� mi°mmu + •nun :� 11i�oG�`�e' - ® ®v�� mi mui n�® IF, IF onuiim I�i � '�at umm i F4 � at IF Runway Arrival/ Departure IOverflight Area Count of All Operations Average DaiIF ly Operations Percent 4 Arr So. Richfield/Bloomington ( 1,383 3.8 0.6% 12L Arr So. Minneapolis/No. Richfield 54,417 150A 22.1% 12R Arr So. Minneapolis/No. Richfield 54,374 150.3 22.1 22 Arr St. Paul/Highland Park 1,026 2.8 0.4% 30L Arr Eagan/Mendota Heights 68,495 189.3 27.9% 30R Arr Eagan/Mendota Heights 66,229 183.1 26.9% Total Arrivals 245,924 679.7 100.0% 4 Dep St. PauUHighland Park 599 ( 1.7 0.2% 12L Dep Eagan/Mendota Heights 53,641 148.3 22.2 12R Dep Eagan/Mendota Heights ( 57,108 157.9 23.6% 22 Dep So. Richfield/Bloomington 3,673 10.2 1.5% 30L Dep So. Minneapolis/No. Richfield 1 64,524 178.4 ( 26.6% 30R Dep So. Minneapolis/No. Richfield 1 62,623 173.1 25.9% Total Departures 242,168 669.E ( 100.0% Total Operations 488,092 1349.3 Note: Missing ANOMS Data for 3.6 days due to FAA 2000 MSP Nighttime Runway Usage Summary of All Operations (10:30 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.) Total Nighttime Operations Count Average Daily Nighttime by Runway Operations Count by Runway HIMI ll/MM O Yl Ifl1�InIn1111flfl1�a� IL alln .� _ �E tea_ IN 6 ,�► Runway Arrival] Departure Overflight Area Count of All Nighttime Operations Average Daily Night Operations Percent 4 Arr So. Richfield/Bloomington 628 1.7 4.3 12L Arr So. Minneapolis/No. Richfield 11744 ( 4.8 11.8% 12R Arr So, Minneapolis/No. Richfield 2,507 6.9 17.0% 22 Arr St. Paul/Highland Park 381 1.1 2.6% 30L Arr ( Eagan/Mendota Heights 5,722 15.8 38.8% 30R Arr Eagan/Mendota Heights 33767 1 10.4 25.5% Total Nighttime Arrivals ( 14,749 I 40.7 100.0% 4 Dep St. Paul/Highland Park 163 0.5 1.2% 12L Dep Eagan/Mendota Heights 3,004 8.3 23.0 12R Dep Eagan/Mendota Heights 35294 9.1 25.2% 22 Dep So. Richfield/Bloomington 1 534 1.5 4.1 30L Dep So. Minneapolis/No. Richfield 31052 8A 23.4% 30R Dep So, Minneapolis/No. Richfield 3,020 ( 8.3 23.1 Total Nighttime Departures 13,067 36.1 100.0% Total Nighttime Operations ( 27,816 j 76.9 _ Note: Missing ANOMS Data for 3.6 days due to FAA Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System itip For;' -� 1 c �z j I uI IF tit�'.R a r IF Ill`JI`j-Y+h-Th t, "" o t, lip r r /'l k it I '-1—ri-`r,---2 -9 c-r`-��--t-',_� IN F tit III I Ei IF, / y / �� a 9 lip,�I�T �' Fn H--it ,-=i'O ; tom. 52, IIrr NJ 1 rJ 1J T1 51 I`I L,f-j/^\\ 1 '�^n IF IFF Ne IF to! Out LLLI 9III F iIt AY V1 FFINN nIF `4. a�0 J ui1lr r r�_4? ��FrF a �"J-- I. luull�l t .� r ,J r _ 1 --�- 1 —i fllldlllL ri' 11 v - I. � plip �. _ _Q -aL II II N fIFFY -�Q� F. IFFIL, -� 77 � I t o a fill'--� o Flip - TIFF I I � I I IF ./` of .�. a F-FIFJ Ill il�i ° .'"�t�r- "'JF -- IIII� 4 IIF _ ,��fppp (3�.`�"=�-v�� t� r (' �� •li' y .�a-L r o, >�i �, ,it �T- '_: �.'u :Ic '� o ! �D�C ��rrr I �� } `,fir\ 1p- pippit It Fillip I' I t J:" Le,nend Remote Monitoring Tower Remote Monitoring Towers (RMTs) Located in St. Paul Monthly Average Aircraft DNL Jan'95 - Dec'00 85 80 75 70 65 Q m a 60 55 50 45 40 m Note: no ANOMS data avaimblelor Juna'958 April'96. no data from RMT12 for July '9510 January'96 due to construction accident —RMT 9 RMT 10 flMT 77 �RMT 72 Remote Monitoring Towers (RMTs) Located in Mendota Heights Monthly Average Aircraft DNL Jan'95 - Dec'00 65 80 75 70 --- _--._ _...--_-_._-----------..-.... -- IV 65 m a 60 50 45 40 m z m z 2 M n to z z p, z 9 Note: no ANOMS data available [Or June '956 April '96 —RMT 13 — RMT 15 RMT 23 Remote Monitoring Towers Monthly Average (RMTs) Aircraft Located DNL Jan in Inver Grove '95 - Dec '00 Heights 85 80 75 70 65 m 60 55 50 45 40 _ f y z -. f y z U) z_ In z Note: no ANOMS data available for Jobe'95 8 April'96 —RMT 21 —RMT 22 RMT 26 MASAC Response Letter to the Drafi 2000 FAA Aviation Noise Abatement Policy Chairman: 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 September 29, 2000 Federal Aviation Administration Office of the Chief Council Attention: Rules Docket (AGC-200) Docket Number [30109] 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591 To whom it may concern: The Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (M.ASAC) is an organization comprised of equal community, airline and airport representation. MASAC continually strives to find new and innovative ways to address airport noise issues around Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport (MSP). Through cooperative decision making and insightful proposals, MASAC has a long list of noise reducing success in which both the communities and the airlines played an active role. MASAC is well aware of the tremendous role national policy plays in the successful implementation of noise abatement initiatives on a local level. Consistent with that realization, MASAC encourages the highest degree of thought and consideration on behalf of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) when issues such as national noise abatement policy revision are discussed. There is no doubt that since the 1976 Department of Transportation Noise Abatement Policy, significant noise reduction accomplishments have been achieved at our nation's airports. The national policy, legislation and regulation to this point have provided procedures, funding and a framework for Noise Compatibility Program development and implementation at our nation's airports. These efforts and accomplishments are not inconsequential, yet significant advancements in airport noise reduction is possible through responsible policy development that considers cooperative approaches to noise abatement solutions, new technologies and the general public's expectations. ?.her review of the FAA's Aviation Noise Abatement Policy 2000 document published in the Federal Register on July l4, 2000, MASAC has several comments for your consideration as patt of your policy review. I am submitting the following comments on behalf of MASAC relative to the FAA's Aviation Noise .Abatement Policy 2000 review: ♦ .4 new reasonable Stage 4 noise level standard should be developed, which maximizes the noise reduction capabilities of available and future aircraft engine technologies. ♦ Future policy regarding land use compatibility planning should be considered in concert with neW airspace use flexibilities provided by the GPS technology and surrogate capabilities such as free flight and precision variable geometry approach and departure procedures. ♦ Future airspace redesign requirements should take into account the capabilities of new navigational technologies such as GPS to ensure procedural implementation and environmental MSP Year 2000 Stage 2 Operations Report LIETROPOLIfAN AIRCRAFT SOUND ABA IEMENI COUNCIL MSP YEAR 2000 STAGE 2 OPERATIONS REPORT A SUNI�IARY OF FEDERAL AND LOCAL NITIATIVES AND THE RESULTANT PHASE OUT OF STAGE 2 OPERATIONS AT AISP Presented to 1��IAS_�C By Chad E. Legve January D. 2000 LISP YEAR 2000 STAGE 2 OPERATIONS REPORT A SU-MMARY OF FEDERAL AND LOCAL INITIATIVES AND THE RESULTANT PHASE -OUT OF STAGE 2 OPERATIONS AT MSP BACKGROLND The topic of a rport noise is, and con rues to be, a point of perpe ual concern Eor communi es and airport proprietors both locally and nationally. lvlinneapolis/St. Paul International Airport (MSP) is not unique in the fact that airport noise issues strain the relationship between the aviation community and the residents living in close proximity to the airport. Since the dawn of the jet age airports have realized a heightened involvement in airport noise issues. The pursuit of a port noise reducing n a vex at our rat on's a ports has reached an all une high. In addition to a multitude of Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 130 programs (Part 150 is a Federal Aviation Administration program providing airports with the means of implementing a noise abatement strategy at an airport in addition to providing access to aviation generated funds for the purpose of noise mitigation programs, such as sound insulation programs) in place at airports around the country, several airports have experienced public pressure to restrict, curtail or modify the use of airports in an effort to reduce noise in and around the airport environment. "Phe 1990s represented a transition in the methodologies and proposed strategies for addressing the airport noise issue. The prevalence of increased technologcal advances in the areas of aircraft engines, airport facilities and navigational systems provided new possible alternatives to the traditional airport noise abatement methodology. In the area of aircraft engines, a new philosophy was immerging centered around addressing the source (aircraft engines) of the noise event. Stage 3 aircraft engine technology was becoming an industry standard for new aircraft in the early to mid 1990s. The stage designation of an aircraft refers to the noise wh ch a speafic engme on a specific airframe generates. Stage 3 aircraft are those aircraft employing some type of noise reducing technology or design. In contrast, Stage 2 aircraft are typically older aircraft and are louder than Stage 3 aircraft. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has determined that roughly five Stage 3 operations cumulatively equal the noise level of one Stage 2 aircraft. These noise level requirements and applicable aircraft stage designations are determined in accordance \with section 361(f), Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, and Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular 36-3G. The staging of a specific aircraft is predicated on three variables under FAR Part 36. The number of engines, maximum takeoff weight and the noise level generated are the criteria that provide aircraft stage determination under FAR Part 36. For civil aircraft in excess of 75,000 pounds maximum certificated weight, it is a requirement that the aircraft manufacturer have the aircraft staged under the provisions of FAR Part 36 prior to die aircraft receiving an approved Air Worthiness Cerciucate from the FAA. Under the "phase -out" scenario, the carrier's base level was determined by the number of Stage 2 airplanes listed on that carrier's U.S. operations specificarions on any one day chosen during the period January 1, 1990 through July 1, 1991, adjusted for any returned or transferred airplanes permitted by regulation. Alternatively, a r carriers also had the op on to meet the "phase- n" schedule by add ng Stage 3 aircraft, which required minimum percentages of Stage 3 airplanes in each fleet as follows: Not lzss than» percent of he ca r er's fleet on and after January 1, 1995 Not less than 6� percent of the carrier's fleet on and after January 13 1997 Not less than 7 3 percent of the carrier's fleet on and after January 1, 1999 Carriers could select either schedule for compliance at each of the deadlines. It4ost carriers worked under the guidelines of the "phase -in" schedule while progressing towards the 2000 Stage 2 phase -out. Stage 3 fleet compliance was achieved one of hvo ways. Air cazriers either replaced Stage 2 airplanes with newer Stage 3 aircraft or they retrofitted/hush kitted Stage 2 engines to meet the Stage 3 criteria set forth in FAR Part 36. In addition to the phase -out of Stage 2 aircraft, ANCA necessitated the consideration of reasonable airport noise and access restrictions. In order to balance the costs incurred by air carriers by converting to all Stage 3 fleets, Part 161 was developed imposing substantial limitations on any new noise and access restrictions that airport operators may place on those fleets. WAIVERS AND EXCEPTIONS FAR Part 91 also included provisions for waivers from both the interim and final compliance dea dl nes. The P. s Office of Env ronment and Energy reported that no waiver apphcauons were proposed or approved as ofDecember 31, 1999 relative to the January1, 2000 deadline. FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT AND NONCOMPLIANCE CONSEQUENCES The F_A.1's Flight Standards Office is the enforcing entity for the year 2000 Stage 2 phase -out. Any Stage 2 aircraft that operates without a special flight authorization will be considered in violation of the law. The operator may be subject to civil penalties (including a fine of up to $11,000 per flight) or other remedial actions, including cease and desist orders. LOCAL STAGE 2 AIRCRAFT PHASE -OUT INITIATIVES In 1996 the 1�Iinnesota State Legislature passed a law (Ivfinnesota Statute Section 473.608, subdivision 24) requiring the bfetropolitan Airports Commission (bL1C) to prohibit the operation of aircraft which are greater than 73,000 pounds and do not meet the Stage 3 noise levels after December 31, 1999. As a result, the MAC enacted Ordinance No. 90 effective January- 1, 2000. The ntent of the Ordinance was to promote and conserve the public safety, health, peace, convenience and welfare by ensuring that the Stage 2 phase -out, as set forth in the intent of the ANCA provisions, occurs at MST. 3 January 1— 73 2000 Aircraft Operations Stage 2 & 3 Summary Count Percent Stage II 0 0.0 % j StageIII ( �14� 48.6,o Stage III Manufactured j 3313 j 51.440 Total Stage III 6470 100.0% 1 SUMi`fARY OF MSP STAGE 2 PI -LASE -OUT COMPLLANCE During the First seven dais of January- 2000 there were 6470 carrier jet operations at DISP. Ot [hose operations 100 percent were Stage 3 operations. The elimination of Stage 2 operations at MSP and on a national basis is a significant achievement. \\'ith initiatives such as the Stage 2 phase -out requirement and other noise reduction methods, the impact of aircraft noise on people has been reduced. In 1975, «idi approvtnately 250 million people flying, about 75 million people were affected by aircraft noise at the 65 DNL level. In the year 20003 it is projected that more than 600 million people «ill be flying and only the same amount will be affected by similar noise levels. In addition, the F_1 is work working with airline s, aircraft and engine manufactures, as well as the Internarional Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to develop quieter Stage 4 aircraft engines. Relative to information provided herein, as a result of ZvL�C staff research and data provided be bL1C's ANODIS, MSP and the operators which use the facility- are meeting all provisions set forth on federal and local levels pursuant to the year 2000 Stage 2 phase out. *Note: MAC s ANOMS by letter of a reement with the FAA was used to provide operational summary information and cannot be used as an enforcement tool. Report on MAC Aviation Noise and Satellite Program's Aircraft Operations and Noise Impact Reporting Capabilities MAC Aviation Noise and Satellite Program's Aircraft Operation and Noise Impact Reporting Capabilities By Chad E. Legve, MASAC Technical Advisor October 16, 2000 The analysis, reporting and information distribution functions of the AlAk. Aviation Noise and Satellite Program are accomplished via three technologies. The Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System (ANOMS), Geographical Information System (GIS) and the Internet provide the analytical prowess and information dissemination capabilities that have become the cornerstone of the Aviation Noise and Satellite Program mission. The following paragraphs provide general information about the mentioned technologies and the informational and analytical capabilities they provide. Airport Noise and OUeratiorrs Monitoring Svstenz (.9NOb1S) One of the lames[, most complex installations of its kind in the United States, the Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport (MSP) Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System (ANOMS) has become a central element of a sophisticated, evolving noise and airspace management program. ANOMS at MSP provides an objective tool for the purpose of assessing airport and airspace utilization and the resultant impacts. The system became operational in 1993 providing a level of noise and airspace management capabilities previously unavailable. Since that time ANOMS has proven to be a critical component of the Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs analytical missions. ANOMS has become the focal point for data acquisition and dissemination for airspace and noise issues. ANOMS utilizes two main data sets including flight track and noise information. In addition to a central ANOMS computer, the system is comprised of two peripheral system components used to gather the mentioned data sets. An Optical Disc Reader (ODR), consisting of a computer and disc reader, is located in the MSP Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT). Via a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the FAA, the ODR is used to acquire flight track information from the FAA's ARTS 3A radar system. In addition to the ODR, a system of 29 Remote Noise Monitoring Towers (RrMTs) are located in communities surrounding MSP. Each RMT consists of a permanent pole with an attached enclosure housing a noise analyzer, modem and microphone. The RDTTs provide noise data 24 hours a day, all days of the year. The noise data is downloaded and imported into the ANOMS central computer once a day. Once the data is imported into the central ANOMS computer, post -processing programs are run, which provide additional levels of information with respect to the data gathered. Via these processes flight tracks are correlated to noise events that occurred at the various RMTs, noise summary information is calculated, operation information is tied to the appropriate flight track and runway and flight track correlation is accomplished. ANOMS also provides functionality that allows user -defined special flight track and noise analyses, including flight track sate analysis, corridor analysis and Point of Closest Approach (PCA) analytical functions. analysis provides the altitude, distance and slant range distance of the point of closest proximity along a flight track to the location of interest. (Note: all of the above mentioned track analysis data is tied to the aircraft operational information. This allows data queries for operational information. spatial flight track information and noise information that can incorporate aircraft operation, spatial and noise criteria as part of the data query. This functionality is a product of the relational database that is inherent in ANONIS.) Geoaraplzical Lzformation St�stenr (GIS) Geographical Information Systems (GIS) represent the pinnacle of geographic and spatial analytical functionality. GIS is a powerful mapping and spatial analysis tool consisting of hardware and software. The software provides a high degree of mapping capability coupled with spatial analysis functions incorporating tabular data (typically referred to as attribute data) that can be tied to geographical features as part of a map layer. The ability of a GIS to import multiple map layers and geo-reference the various layers to the same coordinate system provides unlimited flexibility in comparatively analyzing various geographical objects. In addition, when attribute data is tied to the various geographical objects, robust analysis can be conducted incorporating both geographical location and attribute information associated with the geographic features. This functionality, in conjunction with three-dimensional spatial analysis capabilities and customized application development, provides the highest degree of spatial analysis available. In the early 1990s the MAC Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs procured a GIS. Since that time the program has evolved into a superior spatial analysis asset. The GIS has been an integral part of implementing and managing the Part 150 Program at MSP. Over the years MAC staff has compiled significant amounts of map data from surround counties and communities. In addition, through consultation with a contractor, MAC has integrated a module to import flight tracks into GIS, facilitating higher degrees of flight track mapping capabilities. The ability to import flight track data into GIS, in concert with all of the available map layers including the wealth of data provided by the counties and cities around MSP, provides enhanced flight track mapping and analysis. The flight track mapping and flight track spatial analysis, relative to other geographic features GIS offers, is considerable. GIS provides a host of capabilities for reporting consideration. The following information summarizes the capabilities offered. I. YIapping ♦ Flight Trucks —Detailed flight track mapping with various other map layers ♦ Noise Complaints — Detailed complaint address matching and complaint concentration information public through interactive Internet query capabilities. The mentioned efforts led to the development of the Interactive ANOMS Aircraft Operation and Noise Information Modules page(www.macaysat.org/ANOMS/anoms_internet.htrni). This page is available via a link from the ANOMS page as part of the MAC Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs Web site. The page provides access to multiple query modules. The following information summarizes the ANOMS functionality and resultant nteractive reports and information available on the MAC Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs Web site. 1. Aircraft Fleet Mir Information ♦ Aircraft Tppe Count —This query module provides carrier jet aircraft images and count of operations at MSP. 2. Interactive RunFvay Use Query modules ♦ All Operations — This query module provides runway use numbers and percentages for all operations relative to the user's submitted date range - ,"a - 1' - Jets —This query module provides runway use numbers and percentages for carrier jet operations relative to the user's submitted date range. ♦ All Operations Nighttime — This query module provides runway use numbers and percentages for all operations during the nighttime hours (2230-0600) relative to the user's submitted date range. ♦ Nighttime Carrier Jets — This query module provides runway use numbers and percentages for carrier jet operations during the nighttime hours (2230- 0600) relative to the user's submitted date range. e Operations By Runway — This query module provides runway use numbers and percentages for all operations on a single runway relative to the user's submitted date range and runway. 3. Interactive Noise Query Modules ♦ Aircraft Noise Event Summary — of noise events, logarithmically averaged L,,,,a, L 9 and SEL levels and the average event duration for a user -submitted timeframe, aircraft type and RMT location. ♦ Noise Events — This query module provides the number of aircraft generated noise events Greater than 65, K 90 and 100 dBA per Remote Monitoring Tower (RMT) relative to the user's submitted date ranee and arrival or departure selection. ♦ Top Ten Events — This query module provides the top ten aircraft noise events at each RMT location relative to the user's submitted date range and RVIT number. First Through Fourth Quarter 2000 MASAC News Newsletters A Newsletter From fetropolitau_ Aireraft.Souad Abatement Coua equencyNoise ..2 1 nt ; 150 Program Being pdated...... .....:.2 [AC. "AddsFive Noise tonitormg:Tow `€rs.......3 irpo I (Noise Ld'armat5on A Newsletter From he Metrapolitan Aircraft. Sound Abatement Couuci ►I I M-1 c- !THE INSIDE: dicy Committee Studies low equenry Noise .......:_ . 2 ut. 150.=,Pmgram Being IC Adds ` Five Noise [ooitoringTowers, _.....3 irport Noise Information MASAC MEMBERS Chairman Charles Mertensotto (Mendota Heights) First Vice Chairman John Nelson (Bloomington) MASAC Operations Committee Chairman and Second Vice Chairman Mark Salmen (NWA) Airborne Express Brian Bates ALPA Ron Johnson City of Bloomington Petrona Lee Vern Wilcox City of Burnsville Vacant City of Eagan Jamie Verbrugge Lance Staricha City of Inver Grove Heights Charles Eginton City of Mendota Heights Jill Smith Kevin Batchelder City of Minneapolis Barrett Lane Dean Lindberg Joe Lee Glenn Strand Sandra Colvin Roy Mike Cramer City of Richfield Kristal Stokes Mark Hinds City of St. Louis Park Robert Andrews City of St. Paul John Halla City of Sunfish Lake Cynthia Putz-Yang Delta Airlines Inc. Larry Goehring DHL Airways Brian Simonson Federal Express John Schussler MAC Staff Roy Fuhrmann MBA.A Robert P. Johnson Mesaba Northwest Airlink Phil Burke Northwest Airlines Jennifer Sayre Steve Holme Nancy Stoudt St. Paul Chamber of Commerce Rolf Middleton Sun Country Airlines Gordon Graves T. J. Horsager United Airlines Inc. Vacant United Parcel Service Michael Geyer U.S. Airways Inc. Larry Yandle MASAC ADVISORS Metropolitan Airports Commission Chad Leqve Metropolitan Airports Commission Commissioner Alton Gasper Federal Aviation Administration Ron Glaub Air Transportation Association MN Air National Guard U.S. Air Force Reserve Cindy Greene Paul McGraw Major Roy J. Shetka Captain David J. Gerken SCHEDULE OF MASAC AND OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MEETINGS FOR YEAR 2000 January 7 Operations Committee January 25 MASAC February I l Operations Committee February 22 MASAC March 10 Operations Committee March 28 MASAC April 14 Operations Committee April 25 MASAC May 23 MASAC June 9 Operations Committee June 27 MASAC July 14 Operations Committee ]uiy 25 MASAC August 11 Operations Committee August 22 MASAC September 8 Operations Committee September 26 MASAC October 13 Operations Committee October 24 MASAC November 10 Operations Committee November 28 MASAC December 8 Operations Committee For further information please contact the N1.4S4C secretary, Melissa Scovronski phone 61 Z-726-8141 or email mscovron �msomac. orb A Newsletter From e Metropolitan rcraft Sound Abatement CouuciL dV, 2 h nwzZ v d Gnats and �ingFaaais sway use . ........4 None CoMp6inrFann5 Norices andl®dss..5 L A Newsletter Front The Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council -`---Noise Contour Boundaries from page 1 The Part 150 update will once again address the issue of contour boundary defini- tion relative to the new contour. Because the Part 150 update proposes that homes beyond the FAA -recognized 65 DNL be insulated; MASAC, the MAC and surrounding communities are working together to develop a contour boundary plan acceptable to the FAA. If the MAC and communities propose contour boundaries that are coo aggressive, the FAA may disapprove the Pan 150 Noise Exposure Map - potentially delaying or even halting the MAC's ability to insulate homes between the 2005 60 DNL to 65 DNL contours. With that in mind, the MAC plans to use the block inclusion method with potential natural boundary (rivers, parks, etc.) considerations, as well. lvLAC's proposed boundary area submission to the FAA is only preliminary. The ability for MAC to determine any given home's participation status cannot be fully determined until after the FAA Neighborhood blocks are selected for sound insulation, relative [o Ine curteot Part t50 program 68 0Nl contour. it the contour line touches a block the entire block is insulated. approves this Part 150 update. However, MAC plans to develop a procedure for homeowners to determine if they fall within the proposed 65 or 60 DNL contour boundary by entering their address on MAC's websire after the FAAs approval of the Part 150 updare document. Meeting Notices and Agendas Community involvement in airport noise issues is critical to ensuring programs and policies are effective and efficient. The Part 150 update process and MASAC meetings are good examples of opportunities for community involvement. The last series of public workshops for the Part 150 update will be held on May 22 - 25, 2000. Additionally, a public hearing on the draft document will be held in summer 2000. A postcard providing information on these meetings will be mailed cc residents who have attended past workshops or have requested to be on the mailing list. The Part 150 update meeting time, dates and locations will also be available on the websire at www.macaysat.org1PART_150_UPDATE and published in many local newspapers. Monthly MASAC meetings provide an opportunity for public involvement in ongoing airport noise initiatives. MASAC meets the fourth Tuesday of every month at 730 P.M. at the Metropolitan Airports Commission General Offices, 6040 28th Avenue South, in Minneapolis. For more information on MASAC meeting daces and times, or to be included on the Part 150 update mailing list, please contact Melissa Scovronski, MASAC secretary at 612-726-81411 or visit the MASAC homepage at wvw.macaysac.org/MASAC. AC=wloise omplaint and nformation iotfine and nternet Noise Complaint Form N1AC's noise complaint and information hodine (612-726-9411) enables residents co register their aircraft noise complaints. The phone line is staffed from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. After hours, residents can leave a complaint on the recording system. The line also provides options for callers to receive information on current weather at the airport and construction information. In addition to the hotline, a noise complaint may be filed on the Internet. MASAC endorsed the development of the aircraft noise complaint form to pro- ; vide a convenient and user-friendly way for residents to log aircraft noise com- plaints via the Internet. The aircraft noise complaint form is available at wvnv.macaysa[.org/MASAC/complainr_f orm.hrml. The aircraft noise complaints are mapped and reported to NLASAC at each monthly meeting. annneapone/SL Paul international Mtr OM ,._...� . r-- : The aircraft noise complaint form is available on the www.macaysaLorg wehsite. Proposed Mitigation Measures for the MSP Part 150 Update The MAC is identifying new noise miti- gation initiatives and is validating exist- ing procedures as it updates the Part 150 program at the Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport (MSP). Using new technology, the MAC is increasing noise modeling accuracy and attempting to extend noise insulation boundaries beyond present federal guidelines. As a result, the MSP Part 150 Update is prov- ing to be a precedent -setting initiative. As the Part 150 Update continues, a comprehensive noise compatibility pro- gram is being developed. The noise com- patibility program includes provisions for operational noise mitigation and land use measures (including sound insulation). The aircraft and airport operational noise mitigation initiatives include: • Noise Abatement Departure Profiles (NADP): distant NADP procedure oft all runways at MSP that removes approximately 9,800 people from the 60+ DNL contour. • Runway Use System: runway use configurations that help reduce noise impacts during low, medium and high traffic volume periods. Mitigation Measures continued on page 4 rWIELMAM mitigation MeasuresAr ederal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 150 is a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) program that makes aviation -generated revenues available for airport noise reduction initiatives. The Part 150 process provides airport operators with the procedures, standards and methodology governing the development, submission and review of airport noise exposure maps (typically referred to as contours) and airport noise compatibility programs. The manner in which an airport and aircraft are operated have a direct effect on the noise impact around an L airport. As a result, operational procedures in a noise compatibility program can have a direct effect on the shape and size of the noise contours. The resulting noise contours then define the areas eligible for sound insulation. While the Part 150 program is most often associated with sound insulation (usually the most significant portion of a Part 150 program), there are many other components. C A noise compatibility program can contain a multitude of noise compatibility measures. These measures typically focus on airport or aircraft operational noise mitigation measures, land use measures and other noise reduction initiatives. Part 150 operational initiatives usually include mitigation measures such as: • Aircraft Departure and Arrival Procedures • Runway Use Selection • Flight Track Usage • Airport Use Considerations - which can include aircraft type -specific provisions or time of aircraft operation considerations Par[ 150 land use initiatives usually include mitigation measures such as: • Preventative land Use Measures- efforts to prevent the introduction of incompatible land uses, where applicable, around the airport • Corrective Land Use Measurer- efforts to correct existing incompatible land uses around the airport Other mitigation measures not directly related to operational procedures or land use measures, which focus on reducing or quantifying noise around an airport, can include: • Airport Improvements Helping to Reduce Noise - including new noise - reducing or measuring technologies The FAA evaluates a noise compatibility program based on several different criteria, including the burden on interstate or foreign commerce, reduction of existing non -compatible land uses and prevention of additional non -compatible land uses. Additionally, the FAA reviews the use of new or modified flight procedures to control the operation of aircraft for the purposes of noise mitigation. The FAA comprehensively explores the objectives of the program and any measures used to achieve the noise mitigation goals. Through this process, the FAA accepts or rejects any or all of the mitigation measures outlined in the program. MASAC News Valume'I, 3rtl Quarter 2 0 0 0 A Newsletter From The Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council Boeing 717-200sa Quieter, More Efficient Aircraft Now Operating at MSP New Boeing 717-200 aircraft, representing the next -generation in quieter aircraft technology, have begun regular operations at the Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport (MSP). The Boeing 717-200, the newest airliner in the 100-seat class, features significantly lower noise levels than any other aircraft in its class, as well as lower fuel consumption and reduced exhaust emissions. On March 2, 2000, Trans World Airlines (TWA) flight 130 from St. Louis, Mo. arrived at MSP, The flight represented the first Boeing 717-200 revenue flight for TWA and the first 717-200 operation at MSP. Since that time, TWA has used the new aircraft for one arrival and departure per day, on average. Eventually, TWA plans to replace its entire DC-9 fleet with the new 717-200 aircraft. Another airline, AirTran Airways, uses the Boeing 717-200 aircraft on all of its flights at MSP. AirTran began serving MSP on June 10, 2000, with four daily non-stop flights between MSP and Chicago's Midway Airport. Trans World Airlines 717-200. MASAC's Role in Part 150 Mitigation Measure Implementation When the MAC and Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) complete their work on the Part 150 Update, they will submit it to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for approval. After approval, MASAC will help implement the noise reduction measures, as contained in the Part 150 Update document. MASAC will help with any additional evaluations or communications necessary to initiate the mitigation measures as outlined in the Part 150 Update. MASAC is uniquely qualified for this task because of its varied composition of community, airline and airport representatives. The public is welcome to attend MASAC meetings, held on the fourth Tuesday of every month. For additional information, please call Melissa Scovronski, MASAC secretary, at 612-726-8141, or visit the MASAC Web site at www.macaysat.oro. MAC and FAA Receive Award for ANOMS Program The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recently received the Governors Commendation Award at the "Partnership Minnesota conference. The conference was held at the University of Minnesota in late April. The intent of Partnership Minnesota is to promote enhanced cooperation among : federal, state and local government agen- t ties, to provide better service to the citi- : zeus of the state. The award recognized adata-sharing agreement between the MAC and the This data sharing agreement allows : the MAC to use FAA flight track data for MAC's Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System (ANOMS) program. Since the early 1990s, the FAA has allowed the MAC to use its flight track data collected at the MSP air traffic : control tower. The MAC uses this flight track data in its .4NOMS program for airspace, aircraft operations and noise analyses. In addition, a variety of applications providing aircraft operations : information to the public are available on Che Internet at wryVw. macavSdLOrH as part of the ANOMS program. Part, 31� 1 I • /. Update Hearing Dates Set The Part 150 Update process encourages public involvement as part of the document preparation. In an effort to ensure such involvement occurs, IMASAC is sponsoring a public hearing on the Draft Part 150 Update document. Public hearings have been scheduled for two dates: November 8 and November 9, 2000, both at the Thunderbird Hotel, 2201 78th Street East in Bloomington, Minn. A public workshop will be held each day from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. with the public hearing beginning at 7:00 p.m. Both written and verbal comments will be taken at the hearing. Written comments will also be accepted until 5:00 p.m. on November 15, 2000. To obtain a copy of the Draft Part ISO Update document or an executive summary of the document, please call 612-726-8141. It is also available for review at local libraries and city halls. : Blears C®mplet1W" During the past several months there have been significant advance- ments in the development of various noise mitigation measures to be included in the Noise Compatibility Program (NCP) as part of the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP) Part 150 Update document. The Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) has been reviewing several noise mitigation initiatives as part of the document preparation. Specifically, five additional initiatives have been reviewed by MASAC and approved for inclusion in the Draft MSP Part 150 Update document. These Part 150-related measures include: voluntary nighttime operations agreements with the airlines, provisions for further evaluation of Global Positioning System (GPS) technology, contour boundary definitions, sound insulation priorities for single-family and multi -family dwellings and Runway 17 departure flight tracks. The following information provides an overview of each of the mentioned MSP Part 150 mitigation -related initiatives. Voluntary Nighttime Agreements with Airlines Throughout the Part ISO Update process, the MAC and the MAC's consultant have worked closely with airlines operating at MSP to compile accurate fleet mix information for the development of the 2005 Noise Exposure Maps (contours). As part of this process, extensive evaluations were conducted with regard to the potential reduction of nighttime operations at MSP. Several options were evaluated from the perspective of all parties involved. The result of this cooperative effort was approval and endorsement, by MASAC, of a proposed voluntary nighttime agreement with airlines operating at MSP. The agreement would state that, to the greatest extent possible, airlines operating at MSP should not schedule operations in the nighttime hours between 10:30 p.m- and 6:00 a.m. The pro- posal would further state that, if an operation must occur during this timeframe, the air- craft used should be a quieter manufactured (non-hushkitted) Stage 3 aircraft. Special exceptions would apply to operations that occur in the nighttime hours because of emergencies, mechanical problems, Air Traffic Control delays and weather. Part 150 Nears Completion continued on page 2 MASAC New s wslerrer From The hletropoliran Aircraft Sound Abatement Council 4M"AA to Revise olslmd' Abatement PolicY In 1976, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) published the Aviation Noise Abatement Policy, a document that outlined some of the first steps toward reducing the impact of aviation noise. Now, because of changing transportation demands, public environ- mental expectations and the availability of new technologies, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is conducting a review of that 1976 policy. The result will be a new document that more accurately reflects today's aviation noise reduction capabilities. Much has changed in the 24 years that have passed since the last aviation oise policy was created. In 1976, approximately six to seven million people resided in areas of significant noise impact (DNL 65 contours) around U.S. airports. Today, the FAA estimates that around 500,000 Americans are exposed to significant aircraft noise levels around U.S. airports, a substantial reduction from 1976 figures. Part of this reduction is the result of the 1976 aviation noise abatement policy that established a framework for noise abatement initiatives including the first pilot programs for up to 25 airport noise control plans. Since that time, the FAA has issued more than $2.6 billion in Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grants and established the Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) program that provides airport proprietors with revenue collection authority at commercial use airports which has allocated in excess of $1.6 billion to noise mitigation efforts around the United States. Although significant strides have been taken in the country's efforts to reduce aviation noise, Che FAA and airports around the nation continue to investigate ways to increase the effectiveness of aviation noise reduction policies. The FANS proposed policy docu- ment takes the major points contained in the 1976 Aviation Noise Abatement Policy and incorporates consideration for new developments. The draft policy: • summarizes current conditions affecting aviation and sets forth goals, policies and strategies for addressing them; • outlines the foundations and methodologies for assessing aviation noise and promoting research and development in aircraft noise reduction technology and noise abatement procedures; and • promotes compatible land use measures in noise impacted areas. polity docu- As part of the draft ment, the FANS year 2000 aviation noise abatement goals are. • Continue to reduce aircraft noise at the source. • Use new technologies to reduce noise impacts. • Bring existing land use into compatibility within levels of significant noise exposure around airports and prevent the development of new non - compatible uses in these areas. • Design prospective air traffic routes and procedures to minimize aviation noise impacts in areas beyond legal jurisdiction of airport proprietors, consistent with local consensus in addition to the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace. • Provide special consideration to locations in national parks and other federally -managed areas with unique noise sensitivities. • Enable strong financial support for mitigation projects and noise compatibility planning. Copies of the revised document are C available online at www.access.gpo.gov/ su_docs/fedreg/a000714c.html. To access [he document, scroll down to the "Federal Aviation Administration" see - on and look for the document titled "Aviation Noise Abatement Policy; revi- Sion; comment request." Sections one [ through five cover: 1. Introduction 2. Goals and Policies 3. Authorities and Responsibilities - Legal Framework 4. Assessing Aviation Noise 5. Source Noise Reduction The document was published in the July 14, 2000 edition of the Federal Register. Comments on the document must be received on or before October 23, 2000. Comments should be mailed in triplicate to: Federal Aviation Administration Office of the Chief Council Attention: Rules Docket (AGC-200) Docket Number [301091 800 Independence .Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591 A copy of MASAC's comments to the policy can be received by calling 612-726-8141. MASAC N e w s 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, February 13, 2001 1:00 p.m. Room 3040 Mezzanine Level Lindbergh Terminal, Wold-Chamberlain Field AGENDA PUBLIC HEARINGS LAND ACQUISITION — MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT a. Army Reserve Property b. Minneapolis Park Board Property c. Department of Veterans Affairs 2. PROPERTY ACQUISITION — AIRLAKE AIRPORT CONSENT 3. FINAL PAYMENTS —MAC CONTRACTS a. Automated People Mover Tunnel (Finishes) (Dennis Kowalke, Landside Project Manager) b. Lindbergh Terminal 1999 Mechanical Modifications (Todd Oetjens, Facilities Architect) C. Tug Door Replacement (Todd Oetjens, Facilities Architect) d. Tug Drive Floor Rehabilitation Phase II (Todd Oetjens, Facilities Architect) e. 2000 Utility Modifications (Pat Mosites, Airside Project Manager) f. Parking Expansion: Core Enclosure/Finishes, QTA, Ramp Stair Enclosure (Dennis Kowalke, Landside Project Manager) g. Parking/RAC Expansion: NWA Replacement Ramp (Joseph Shortreed, Landside Project Manager) h. 62°d Street Relocation/Deicing Operations Center Site Work (Robert Vorpahl, Program Development Engineer) i. 1999 Landside Bituminous Construction (Joseph Shortreed, Landside Project Manager) j. Parking Structure Rehabilitation 2000 (Robert Vorpahl, Program Development Engineer) k. 1999 Runway 17-35 Storm Sewer (Gary G. Warren, Director— Airside Development) DISCUSSION 13. PROJECT BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS Dennis Probst, Director - Landside Development 14. LRT UPDATE Nigel D. Finney, Deputy Executive Director — Planning and Environment 15, 2001 CONSTRUCTION SEASON PREVIEW Dennis Probst, Director—Landside Development Gary G. Warren, Director—Airside Development 16, RUNWAY 17-35 DEVELOPMENT — TAXIWAYS W-Y AND Y-3 TUNNELS Gary G. Warren, Director—Airside Development 17. MASAC ACTIVITIES a. Year in Review b. Status Update — Blue Ribbon Panel Chad Leqve, ANOMS Coordinator Jeffrey Hamiel, Executive Director 18. CAEP STAGE 4 NOISE STANDARD RECOMMENDATION Chad Leqve, ANOMS Coordinator AGENDA REGULAR MEETING EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION EAGAN, MINNESOTA EAGAN CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2001 7:00 P.M. I. ROLL CALL, OATHS OF OFFICE AND ADOPTION OF AGENDA II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES III. ELECTION OF OFFICERS IV. VISITORS TO BE HEARD V. NEW BUSINESS A. New Commission Orientation B. Goal Setting Session C. City Council Goals VI. STAFF REPORT A. MASAC Update B. Legislative Update C. ANOMS VII. FUTURE MEETING AND AGENDA A. Next Commission Meeting — 7:00 p.m. Tuesday, March 13, 2001 VIiI. ADJOURNMENT Auxiliary aids for persons xith disabilities will be provided upon advance notice of at least 96 hours. Ifa notice of less than 96 hours is received, the City ofEagan will attempt to provide such aid I IF _ ot, a J t MIA - Fr%i -�: \ - IT F�FFFqF IF IF «. 7 - s+a+..�". r..... may_-..,-)^". yvFF t- ` i{ r g�. c ter• _'�� - t� -S e �x }S� rJ= F1 .! l 1t= RAMON Loar�/WASHINGTON DC Atary Gtoace/BRUSSELS THE LATE&VATIO2vAL Civil Ayiadon Organisation's technical advison• group has failed to reach a consensus on phasing - out the Chapter 3 aircraft noise standard, seen as key to determin- ing the shelf -life of controversial aircraft making the Chapter 3 grade only through hushkitang. ICAO's Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CEP), meeting in 1\tontreal, recommended a new Chapter 4 standard IOdB below current its, effecvve from I January 3006. But in failing to reach agreement on a mechanism for moving to the new standard, C.SEP has done nothing to defuse the Cebu Pack defers ^pans to renew fleet �HILIPPLVES DOSIESTIC tamer Cebu Pacific Air has deferred plans to replace its 12 1bfcDonnell Douglas DC-9-30s with Boeing 717s due to the weak- ness ofthe national economy. The airline has also put back plans to introduce inrernationa] senices, although it says it is negotiating for traffic rights to some Asian cities. Cebu Pacific has been eyeing key destinations in the region, including Singapore, \falaysia, Indonesia, Guam, Thailand and Taiwan. Cebu Pacific last year signed a letter ofintentfor 10 i I is, with five options. "ii`e hate asked for a deferral until things get better. Hopefully this will be revived if there is some recovery;" says vice- president corporate planning and exTemal affairs Peggy Vera. Vera sa}'s that exchange rates are a critical factor, as the aircraft will have to be paid for in dollars, while low traffic is also a problem. She adds that if the programme is revived, it will probabhinvoh'e -e^wet firm orders The carrier is o understood m be considering larger, secondhand?vID-SOs. Plan: still call for 1? aircraft by ?OOi:.� European Union (EL) row over hvshkitred aircraft ICAO confirms that CAEP con- sidered "the question of operating restrictions on Chapter 3 amcrafr", but adds that "no final conclusion was reached". Having been unable find common ground on the phase -out issue, CAEP elected "to leave policy issues [o the ICAO Council and Assembly". Sti(I before ICAO is the US GovernmenPs complaint against the European Commission (EC) over anti -noise regulations adopt- ed bythe latter. The regulations effectively freeze at Curren[ levek the number of hushkitted aircraft able ro serve EU airports, barring the 2,000 or so Chapter 2 aircraft already hushkitted oravailable forhushldt- tingwhich might otherwise be able to fly inro Europe after being made Chapter 3 compliant Had C.4EP agreed transitional rules, the EC mrghc have been prepared to drop the disputed regulations. Brussels sources say the USA is pushing for Chapter 3 phase -out arrangements to be negotiated pott-by-airport, an approach said to be "completelyunacceptable"to the EC. ICAO president Assad Kotaite will now try to break the logjam, with meetings this week with EC Transport Commissioner Loyola de Palarioand subsequenc- ly with US offiaak. De Palacio is, however, pleased with CAEP's Chapter 4 recom- mendatioq describing is as "an inreresting step forward, with which we are happy". CAEP's approach to noise mitigation would effectvely spread the bur- den —including aircraft operating resaictions, improved land use planning and convol, and wider application of noise abatement operating procedures. More strin- gent noise limits were recom- mended forhelicoprers. The IOdB noise reduction, ad- vocated for civil transports (with procedures for re -certification of existing aircraft m meet the new standard)was essentiallya compro- mise. The LiS Government and industry had proposed an SdB cut, keeping mar,"irtally compliant Chapter 3 aircraft in service to the end of their useful lives, while oth- ers had batted a 1-IdB option, claimingiavould enmmage devel- opmentofnewtechnologies. ❑ UK edges towards JSF, but awaiis Bush support The LXni!1 share in3SFselertian betv:een Boeingar+d (kft) Lorkbeed rYlaran THE UK HAS taken the first formal step towards partici- pating in the full-scale develop- ment phase of the Joint Sa-ike Fighter QSF), but is waiting for the incoming Bush Administration co reaffirm ti5 support for the pro- gramme before committing its S'_.OS billion funding. London's signature on the mem- orandum ofundersranding (1bIoL� w-as needed for it to play a role in the final selection of either the Boeing or Lockheed �tardn craft, aprocess due to start in Februarv. It provides a framework for the LAIC to join the engineering and manufacturing development phase due to start in September. It is uncertain how high apriori- ryJSF will command from a new Republican administration intent on fundingballistic missile defence and modernising the US bomber fleet "W'e recognise rhata number of key decisions remain to be taken about the JSF programme," says Baroness Symons, UK defence procurement minister. The �ioUal(owsanypardcipant to pull out of the programme with 90 days' notice and each parmer will have to cover their own cosy arising from a withdrawal. ii'7tile the document spells out that termination he done on the most "eronomical and equitable basis', Syvnons concedes that costs are "not recoverable". Terms of the \IoU reveal a development cost target of S2i.7 billion and a ceiling of 528.3 lion:The LTC'sshare isaround S %, sGghdv less than the 10 % original- ly envisioned. The LTC will spend another £600 million (5337 lion) "integrating the JSF into the LTC armed forces", says Symons, and around £10 bilhon over the Gfe of the programme w 2040. The agreement gives London 1 i da}s from fmal selection to quit the programme, if the chosen aircraft does not meetLTCrequirements or the ongoing acquisition strategy study conducted by independent consultantRand indicates a "nega- tive impatt on LTC participation in the programme". R'•hile the LTi has stated its pref- erence forJSF as areplacement for its B.�E Systems Hamer GR7 and Sea HamerE�, it has not selected between the shoe take -off vertical landing or the L'S \ayv's longer - ranee carrier versions, says Capt Simon Henle, ISF UIC project manager. This will hinoe on what type of aircrak carrier the L'K decides nextvear to build. �J `4= FLIGhIT INTERNATIONAL 23 - 29 January 2001 u X N CI O; N O sl U PEE- T � G U = O O U C N '> r_ o O O . r. O U O U T U r U O U N O U O C C O G-C 0 Ml Z O NU7 G', > W: JI ar Yya> O U 0 N' O W 0 0 O N 1 _ Y 1 c_ _ o �. - 2 c�i-.mc m cf6i. ZD'. o 7 O cJ ON 5 — � ry Oo coo �� Oo zo �n- V N _ti r "� o clq —_ � �_ �_ � c o to •- � ^ � .; � .. J o U O- N TO '� ^ � CJ .0 Ct - U o r c o _ c o X U .... v .c3 — r •J O V T T10-4 T v 3•�.c cn c �c �'- ON dft o o �.> p r U a �ow c z 3 - s _toT o•^ 3 >_ c • N = _ o o �.� o c o o r M El / / / / 3 y I A weekly update on litigation, regulations, and technological developments Volnine 13,Nurn er1 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. Olean 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'1 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 deeoly 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 [heir 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 [he 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) Jana ary 5, 2001 In This Issue... Naples ...The National Business Aviation Associa- tion challenges the fast 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 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. V Although not about the Part 161 rules, the lawsuit opens them to court review for the first time since their adoption in 1991 -p. I 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 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- ment of S212 million - p. 3 __ A weekly update on litigation, regulations, and technological developments Volume 13, Number 2 ICAO CAEP AGREES ON NEW STAGE 4 STANDARD; COULD NOT AGREE ON STAGE 3 PHASE OUT The Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP) of the Interna- tional Civil Aviation Organization has agreed on a new "Stage 4" aircraft noise certification standard that is only 10 dB below the current Stage 3 standard and can be met by almost all aircraft currently in production. The committee was unable to reach agreement at its meeting in Montreal Jan. 8- 17 on the most contentious issue before it: whether to recommend the phase out of hushkitted and other aircraft that only marginally meet the Stage 3 standard. While the airlines and aviation manufacturing companies called the meeting a success, airports view it as an abject failure that will impede efforts to expand airport capacity. "After eight days of meetings in Montreal, CAEP has failed to achieve a new noise initiative that adequately protects airport communities in North America and around the world," the Airports Council International — North America (ACI- NA) said. Most significantly, it continued, the CAEP deliberations "produced no decision on reasonable operating restrictions on the oldest, noisiest aircraft currently flying in North America. Because of this failure, airports throughout North America will continue to struggle to develop crucially needed capacity in the face of intense public and political opposition to aircraft noise." `Too Little, Too Late' "The CAEP meeting produced too little, too late and failed to provide noise relief to communities around airports and to reduce opposition tomuch-needed airport infrastructure improvements," said ACI-NA President David Z. Plavin. The collective position of world airports represented by ACI at CAEP called for the adoption of an increased stringency standard for new aircraft of 14 dB quieter than the 30-year-old standard it will replace, he said. The new standard requires airplanes to be only 10 dB quieter. "This would not even reflect the more substan- tial noise reductions being achieved by aircraft coming off the production line today," Plavin said. "and the proposed new certification standard, if approved by the [ICAO Council in June], will not even become effective until [Jan. 1 1 3006. The 10 dB lower than Stage 3 standard recommended by CAEP represents the sum of the noise reduction at three measurement points (under the takeoff. under the arrival, and alongside the runway) and could be met by a reduction of as little as two or three decibels — or less — at one or two of the three measuring points. ACI-NA explained. "At a given measuring point, that is a margin imperceptible to the average person," Plavin said. The noise around North American airports, he continued, "is dominated by the oldest and noisiest airplanes in the fleet." An ACI-NA analysis indicated that roughly 20 percent of the U.S. fleet (mostly hushkitted airplanes) are responsible for 60 percent of the noise. An analysis done for CAEP "confirmed a dramatic (Continued on p. 6) January 1912001 In This Issue... CAEP Meeting ...Airports are calling the recent meeting of the International Civil Aviation Organization's Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP) a failure because the committee agreed to a tighter "Stage 4" aircraft noise certification standard that most current production airplanes can already meet and took no action on the question of whether to require the phase out of hushkitted Stage 3 airplanes - p. 5 News Briefs ... Garvey chief of staff to replace Erickson as head of FAA Office of Environ ment and Energy ... Louisville Int'1 appoints its first full-time noise officer ... A new position of community relations director is announced by Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) ... LAWA releases Draft EISIEIR on Draft Master Plan ... Cincin- nati Intl, Cheyenne Airport propose to use PFCs for noise nvtigation ... Draft EIS released on proposed improvements at Atlanta Hartsfield In'1, including extension of fifth runway ... FAA approves modifications to Sarasota noise program, update to Cincinnati program - p. 6 2001 several years, an FAA spokesman said Prior to that he was head of the FAA directorate in the United Kingdom, The FAA plans to formally announce the change in late Febru- ary. Noise Officer at Louisville The Regional Airport Authority of Louisvillc and Jefferson County announced that it has appointed its first full-time airport noise officer for both Louisville Interna- tional Airport and Bowman Field. "The Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study Group recom- mended that the Airport Authority create a full-time position dedicated as a noise officer, even prior to complet- ing its current noise study," Airport General Manager Jim DeLong, said. "The airport board accelerated action on this recommendation, rather than waiting for all recommenda- tions to be submitted, due to the airport's sensitivity and commitment to decrease aircraft noise in nearby neighbor- hoods." Robert H. Slattery, who recently retired from the Navy and has 20 years of experience in compliance and enforcement of aviation and Occupational Safety and Health Administra- tion (OSHA) regulations, will fill the new noise officer position. He is scheduled to complete a bachelor of science degree in aviation management from Southern Illinois University in May. His previous positions include aircraft mechanic, quality assurance, safety training, operating procedures standard- ization, maintenance, and material control, the airport authority noted. Slattery was interviewed and recommended by a commit- tee comprised of Mary Rose Evans of the Airports Neigh- bors Alliance, Peter Livermore of United Parcel Service, Bob Brown, the airport' Director of Engineering, Runde Swann, the airport's Director of Public Relations and Interim Noise Officer. and Brian Ryks of St. Cloud, Minne- apolis, Airport. LAVA Community Relations Director Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) announced that it has appointed Barbara Yamamoto as LAWA Community Relations Director, a position newly created to strengthen the agency's commitment to issues of concern to communi- ties adjacent to LAWA's four airports: Los Angeles Interna- tional, Ontario International. Van Nuys, and Palmdale Regional. "Yamamoto is responsible for developing and implement- ing cohesive, department -wide community relations programs designed to enhance two-way communications with neighbors about the four airports' extensive efforts in managing and mitigating the impacts airport operations have on neighboring communities," LAWA explained. Yamamoto also will direct the LAX Community Relations Division. She has 15 years'.of progressively responsible positions managing communications programs at Los Angeles' two other proprietary agencies, the Port of Los Angeles and the Department of Water and Power," LAWA said. "Barbara's tremendous record at the Port of Los Angeles and DWP provides her with a phenomenal springboard toward enhancing communications and relations with the airports' many important constituencies." said Lydia H. Kennard. LAWA executive director. "We are extremely happy to have someone with Barbara's energy and experi- ence lead our community relations team." Yamamoto earned a master of arts degree in journalism/ public relations from the University of Southern California in I986, and a bachelor of arts degree in sociology from the University of California at Los Angeles in 1984. Atlanta Hartsfield Draft EIS The FAA announced on Jan. 10 that the public has until Feb. 26 to comment on a Draft Environmental Impact Statement and a Draft General Conformity Analysis for proposed airside and landside improvements at Atlanta Hartsfield International Airport, including a proposal to extend the already environmentally -approved 6,000 foot fiftIt runway by 3,000 feet, to shift it approximately 1,900 fzet to the east, and to make it full service rather than restricted to arrivals by commuter aircraft only. The DEIS concludes that there would a noise impact from the runway changes but it would not be significant, an FAA spokesperson told ANR. For further information, contact Donna M. Meyer, an environmental program specialist in the FAA's Atlanta Airports District Office; tel: (404) 305-7150. Cincinnati PFC for Noise Comments must be received by Feb. 20 on an application to impose a S3 Passenger Facility charge (PFC) at Cincin- nati/Northern Kentucky International Airport for several projects, including implementing measures approved in the a 1999 update to the airport's Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Program. The airport seeks to impose the PFC between July I, 2001 and March 1, 2002, to collect a total revenue of S223 million. For further information. contact Jerry 0. Bowers. program manager in the FAA's Memphis Airports District Office; tel: (901)544-3495,ext. 21. Comment must be submitted in triplicate to FAA. Mem- phis Airports District Office.3385 Airways blvd., Suite 302, Memphis TN 38116-384L Chevenne PFC for Noise The public has until Feb. 9 to submit comments on an application by the Cheyenne (WY) Airport to impose a 54.50 PFC between Jan. I, 2007, and 'May 1, 2012 to collect a total revenue of S407,728 for several project. including land acquisition for noise mitigation. Comments must be sent in triplicate to Alan E. 1V iechmann, Manager, FAA Denver Airports District Office, Airport Noise Report A weekly update on litigation, regulations, and technological developments Volume 13, Number 3 Minneapolis -St. Paul Int'1 AIRLINES QUIT ADVISORY COMMITTEE; CONTEND IT IS NO LONGER BALANCED The future of one of the oldest and most lauded airport/community advisory committees in the country is in doubt following the resignation of 10 of the 11 airline members of the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC), which makes recommendations to the Nfinneapolis-St. Paul Metropoli- tan Airports Commission (MAC) on noise mitigation issues. The MAC does not recognize MASAC recommendations as legitimate unless a quorum of seven community and seven industry representatives endorses them. That quorum cannot be achieved with the resignation of the airlines. MASAC "has become a community advocacy group and no longer provides a viable framework for a thorough and balanced review of technically complex issues with significant legal, environmental, and economic implications for communities and the industry," officials of Northwest Airlines, Airborne Express, DHL, Mesaba, TWA, United, UPS, USAir, Delta, FedEx, as well as the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), asserted in a resignation letter sent last October to MAC Chairman Charles Nichols and MAC Executive Director Jeff Hamiel. The airlines said that their letter "in no way should be interpreted as a lessening (Continued on p. ]0) Stave 4 Noise Standard ACI-NA DATA SHOW WHAT AIRCRAFT WILL, WILL NOT MEET STAGE 4 STANDARD Most commercial aircraft in operation today will be able to meet the new "Stage 4" aircraft noise certification standard recommended in mid -January by the International Civil Aviation Organization's Committee on Aviation Environmen- tal Protection (CAEP), according to data developed by the Airports Council International —North America (ACI-NA). The airport trade group called the recent CAEP meeting a failure because the stringency increase that was recommended for a Stage 4 standard was only a cumulative of 10 dB below the current Stage 3 standard, rather than the -14 dB cumulative reduction ACI-NA had sought and because CAEP was unable to reach agreement on the issue of whether airplanes within 5 dB of the Stage 3 standard should be phased out of operation. ACI-NA estimated that airplanes that are only within 5 dB of the Stage 3 standards (mostly hushkitted aircraft) account for only about one quarter of all flights in the United States but produce about 60 percent of the fleet noise. Replacing the noisiest of the Stage 3 aircraft with newer, quieter airplane models would reduce noise levels around airports by 42 percent, the trade group esti- mated. (Continued on p. 70) January269?001 In This Is3Lou**. Minneapolis ...Ten of the 11 airline members of the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council resign, complaining that the commu- nity/industry advisory com- mittee has become a commu- nity advocacy group - p. 9 Stage 4 Standard ... A table developed by ACI-NA shows that most airplanes can already meet the tighter standard recom- mended by CAEP; executive director of NOISE predicts communities will seek more congressional intervention on noise issues - P. 9 Reno -Tahoe Int'1... USPS sorting hub will not be relocated to Reno due to merger with FedEx on express mail - p. 11 ItV11/1... The FAA releases an new upgrade to the latest ver- sion the agency's Integrated Noise Model - p. 11 Chicago O'Hare ... Noise Compatibility Commission announces that 21 schools are selected for 2001 school sound insulation program - p. 11 Conferences ... A keynote address by the former governor of Virainia will highliaht the 16th annual Airport Noise Symposium - p. 12 January 26, 2001 11 so they went to Congress," McGrann said. The funding prohibition is in effect for only one year but it is unprec- edented, he stressed, and its sends a clear message. This goes back to what Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN) said at a recent hearing on the problems associated with trying to expand airport capacity. McGrann told ANR. Oberstar said that until airports and operators take quality of life issues into consideration and let communities have input on expansion projects, we will continue to have gridlock at airports. "Kenner is a perfect example of his prophetic words. If communities don't get a seat at the table, they will go to Congress. Kenner is a precursor of what is going to happen in the future." McGrann said that NOISE, which is an affiliate of the National League of Cities, had the largest turnout in its history at the recent NLC meeting in Boston. Well over 150-200 city council members attended the standing -room - only meeting, he said. The Louisiana officials responsible for the funding ban were there and were treated like "conquering heros," McGrann said. "Communities have been fighting this war forever and now have finally won one." The high turnout at the NLC meeting is a reflection oI what the constituents of these city council members are telling them, he said. ANR was unable to contact Erickson or any of the aviation industry officials attending his briefing on CARP for their comments on the meeting. Reno -Tahoe Izzt'1 USPS MERGER WITH FEDEX VIEANS NO HUB RELOCATION The U.S. Postal Service will not relocate its western sorting hub to Reno -Tahoe International Airport because of its merger with FedEx for the delivery of USPS overnight express mail, the Airport Authority of Washoe County announced Jan. 23. The announcement comes as good news to communities in the Reno airport that had expressed concern about the increase in nighttime noise levels that the hub would have caused and the fact that the cargo carrier selected by USPS o move the mail would have used hushkitted aircraft. "This was strictly a business decision on the part of the USPS," said Krys T. Bart, executive director of the airport authority. "In fact. it is our understanding at this time that the USPS will eventually dismantle all of its air delivery hubs across the United States." Bart said she anticipates "that FedEx will eventually pick up the extra load at Reno and provide newer generation and quieter aircraft." The hub, she said, "would have made a considerable impact on our economy. Our focus is to continue to make this airport into an enterprise the commu- nity can be proud of by attracting new air service, cargo and passenger alike." "E-commerce is driving an air cargo boom," Bart said, .and distribution is now driving the decision for companies on where to locate. Expedited transportation is crucial." INNI FAA RELEASES UPGRADED VERSION OF INM 6.0, 6.OA The Federal Aviation in nistrationjust released an upgrade to the latest version of its Integrated Noise Model (INM), which is used to estimate aircraft noise impact. The new upgrade, INM 6.Ob improves Versions 6.0 and 6.Oa. It is available for free at the FAA's web site: www aee ha faa.gov. According to an announcement by the acoustical consult - firm Harris Miller Miller & Hanson, Inc., the new versions contains: New noise and performance data for the Airbus 330, Boeing 737-700, Cessna 550, Cessna 172R, Cessna 206H,and Cessna T206H; Changes in substitution for the Boeing 717 and 717ER (these should now use the F10062); Program modifications to include automatic updates for the new aircraft database types and modifica- tions to the File/Export as D%F function; and Several fixes for software bugs causing confusion over whether an aircraft was in the database or substitution code. HMMH plans to conduct its next training course on the INM on May 16-1 S at its Burlington, MA, office. It plans to conduct its next course on Noise Office Management on May 14-15. Further information on these courses can be obtained at the HMMH web site at www_hmmh.com/inm.html. Chicago O'Hare bzt'l 21 SCHOOLS SELECTED FOR INSULATION PROGRAM The O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission's Schoot Sound Insulation Committee announced Jan. 10 that it has selected 21 schools to be included in the 2001 school sound insulation program. The schools were selected based on several criteria including proximity to the airport. Eligibility for future sound insulation funding is based on actual noise monitor - at the schools-. Meetings with officials of the 21 selected schools will be scheduled and monitoring will begin shortly thereafter, weather permitting, the commission said. Some 14 of the schools were monitored previously but will be tested again for jet noise levels. The commission noted that being placed on the sound insulation list and having noise monitoring done are important first steps in securing funding for sound insula- tion work, they are not guarantees that funding will be available. That determination will be made later this year by the City of Chicago. Airport Noisz Report A weekly update on litigation, regulations, and technological developments Volume 13, Number 4 Capacity BUSH ADMINISTRATION INTENDS TO SPEED NEW RUNWAY CONSTRUCTION In an effort to ease airport congestion and delay, the Bush Administration plans to expedite construction of additional runways at major U.S. airports by stream- lining the environmental review process. The change in policy reportedly was made after the Federal Aviation Adminis- tration concluded that the addition of new runways offers a quicker fix to the delay problem than modernizing the air traffic control system. The new policy is certain to concern community and environmental groups and could have significant implications for airport expansion battles around the country. The policy change also has congressional support. Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) is considering legislation that would limit lawsuits over new runways and airports, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) plans to introduce legislation that would impose time limits on environmental reviews, and Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), the new chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, said he is likely to introduce legislation addressing the capacity issue. "Adding new runways is one of the most rapid ways to increase capacity but the (Continued on p. li) Special Report THE AIRPORT NOISE PARADOX: DNL DROPS WHILE PROBLEM GROWS [be this special report, John C. Freitag, P.E., ANR Editorial Advisory Board member and director, Charles M. Salter Associates, San Francisco, discusses the paradox that arises when viewing the airport noise issue from a 20-year perspective and what is needed to resolve it. His report is especially timely in light of an upcoming public session on fire value of supplemental airport noise metrics which ivill be hosted by the Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise (FICAN) in San Diego on Feb. 23.1 The Day -Night Average Sound Level (DNL) noise metric was adopted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 1974 as the standard measure for all types of community noise impact and soon was accepted by the Federal Aviation Administration as the airport noise exposure standard. At most commercial airports in the United States, noise impact, as measured by DNL, has been continuously decreasing for the past 20 years; the largest DNL noise exposure contours usually occurred around 1930. And the number of people estimated to be living within the 65 dB DNL and higher airport noise contours, considered non -compatible for residential use under federal land use guidelines, has been reduced from 5.1 million in 1980 to 800.000 in 1999. (Continued on p. 1=) February 2,2001 In This Isa bug* * 0 Airport Capacity ...The Bush Administration an- nounces that it plans to streamline the environmental review process for new runway projects in order to expedite runway development at congested U.S. airports. The airlines want the new administration to speed up modernization of the air traffic control system and to hire 1,000 additional air traffic controllers. Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta says that speeding up runway construc- tion does not mean that concems for the environment wilI be set aside - p. 13 Special Report ... ANR Editorial Advisory Board Member John C. Freytag considers why airport noise problems have increased over the past 20 years despite ever - decreasing airport noise levels, as measured by DNL. He urges a reexamination of the DNL noise metric used by the FAA as its standard measure for determining noise impact. Such action is needed to reestablish the credibility of airports and the technical com- munity with the public, he says. February 2. 2001 15 reduction between 1930 and 2000, the ASDS noise impact in some areas would have gone from significant to zero; in other areas, however, the increase is more nearly linear with the volume of aircraft activity thereby producing an increase in ASDS noise impact between 1930 and 2000. The United Kingdom's "Noise and Number Index" (NNI) is computed by averaging the maximum single event noise levels (in terms of the more complex "Perceived Noise Leve 1, FNL , descriptor) and adding an accentuated correction forthevolume of events. This accentuated correction for the volume of aircraft operations would likely result in an assessment of increased noise impact for most airports in the U. S. between 1980 and 2000. If the U. S. were to seriously consider a new standard to supplement or replace DNL, it also would be a good time to also investigate a new single event descriptor. The A - weighted network, used for measuring DNL, was proposed by Bell Laboratories in the early 19307s as a single spectral adjustment to allow for affordable incorporation into sound level meters at the time. Candidate replacement descriptors include "Effective Perceived Noise Level" (EPNL), used in the U. S. and internationally for aircraft noise certification; or one of the "loudness" descriptors used for sound quality assessment, as implemented in national and international standards (e.g. ANSI S3.4, ISO 226 or ISO 532). These more complex descriptors may not be measured with conventional sound level meters, although hand-held devices costing about $6,000 may now directly measure such descriptors. With new published research results from the proposed social surveys, the move from DNL to any new noise metric could most easily be facilitated by the acceptance of reasonable supplemental analyses allowed (but not yet widely accepted) by the FAA in future airport noise assessments. Will Reestablish Credibility with Public The move to new and established supplemental airport noise metrics is important to reestablish the credibility of the technical community, and that of the airports, with the public. Otherwise we will continue to predict ever-improv- ine airport noise environments, to imply that this continu- ing improvement does not warrant significant acceleration of aircraft noise emission technology, and to fail to techni- cally justify why newly un-impacted areas should not be reclaimed for new residential development. While no descriptor may achieve perfection in correlating the physical noise environment with subjective community response, we should at least be able to credibly determine whether the noise environment is improving or not. It is time to move ahead with research to develop new noise metrics that correlate more closely with community response to airport noise, whether that response be solely from unbiased annoyance or also incorporates current community attitudes and tactics regarding airport noise. Capacity, from p. 13 process now takes too lone;' up to 10 years, Secretary of Transportation Norma Mineta told aviation industry officials and businessmen attending an Aviation Summit sponsored by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Washing- ton, DC, Feb. 1-2. Some worry that speeding the approval of runway construction will mean setting aside concern for environ- mental issues but that need not have to be the case because we will make sure [the reviews] are done," Mineta said in a luncheon address. State and federal environmental reviews of runway projects should be done in concert, rather than sequentially, he said. The three principle parties in the effort to increase capacity are the airlines, the airports, and the air traffic controllers, said Mineta. "They are the sun, moon, and stars of the air transport system and they are out of alignment." Contend - that "everyone has to come to the table committed to solving the problem," Mineta said "it does no good for one or two to blame the other; there is enough blame to go around." Regarding funding for airport improvement projects, Nlineta said he has just met with Mitch Daniels, the new head of the Office of Management and Budget, to tell him thaIt the fiscal 2002 budget is "woefully short" in terms of what is needed for airport expansion funding. The Aviation investment and Reform Act for the 215' Century (AIR 21) authorizes a fiscal 2002 funding level of $13.4 billion for airport development projects. Mineta did not say what funding level OMB is considering. Carefully Orchestrated Effort Announcement of the new policy initiative was carefully orchestrated. A story outlining the administration's policy change appeared in the Los Angeles Times on Feb. 1, coinciding with the opening of the Chamber of Commerce's Aviation Summit. fhe L.A. Times story announced the legislative initiatives on the Hill as well as FAA's plans to form three special teams to help expedite new runway construction at San Francisco, Cincinnati, and Dulles International Airports. Additional FAA staff also will be assigned to assist with the lengthening of a runway at Los Angeles International Airport. The FAA also plans to "publish ahow-to manual of success stories to help local governments reach compro- mises with environmental and community groups." according to the Times story. Catherine M. Lang, the FAA's head of airport planning, told the paper that the agency does not intend to short- change environmental laws. "We have to reduce the delays in trying to bring new runways on line while still maintain- ing a balanced and protective view of the environment." she told the Times. That message was echoed by many of the speakers at the Chamber's Aviation Summit. But how the FAA will streamline the environmental review Airpan Noise Rzport A weekly update on litigation, regulations, and technological developments Volume 13, Number 5 Cleveland Hopkins Int'1 CLEVELAND, BROOK PARK MAYORS STRIKE DEAL ON AIRPORT EXPANSION Ending nine years of litigation and negotiations, the mayors of Cleveland and Brook Park, Ohio, announced Feb. 6 that they have struck a deal that will allow Cleveland Hopkins International Airport to add new runways while bolstering the economy of Brook Park. The deal announced by Cleveland M ayor Michael R. White and Brook Park Mayor Thomas J. Coyne was negotiated in secret and must still be approved by both city councils. That approval is not certain. Brook Park City Council members were upset that Mayor Coyne had kept them in the dark about the deal, which gives Cleveland the right to buy 300 homes currently in Brook Park that would be in the path of a planned new runway. And Cleveland Councilman Michael Dolan, head of the Aviation Committee, questioned where the city would get the $30 million needed to buy those homes. However, Dolan also said that the deal sounds like a "win -win" situation that would benefit both cities. The deal already has upset officials of the western Cuyahoga County suburbs, (Continued on p. ]8) Los Angeles Int'Z LAVA, INGLEWOOD SIGN AGREEMENT ON NOISE REDUCTION, AIR QUALITY, JOBS Officials of Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) and the City of Inglewood, CA, signed awide-ranging cooperative agreement on Feb. 6 intended to reduce aircraft noise and air pollution over the city and to help match Inglewood residents to jobs at Los Angeles International Airport. "We want to be a good neighbor to the geographic area most impacted by aircraft operations at LAX," said John J. Agoglia, president of the Los Angeles Board of Airport Commissioners. He called the agreement "an historic action that resulted from months of positive discussions with the leaders of Inglewood." The agreement, said Inglewood Mayor Roosevelt Dora, "is the first step in an ongoing process that should address three of the airport issues that are of most concern to our residents — air quality, aircraft noise, and jobs." The mayor added that he is looking forward to working more closely with LAWA to address the range of issues included in the agreement. LAWA Executive Director Lydia H. Kennard said the agreement is part of LA W A's Airport Community Improvement Program. "Our commitment to the residents of the City of Inglewood is sound public policy and shows responsive- ness to the people most heavily impacted by operations at LAX." Major components of the agreement include: (Continued on p. 13) February 9, 2001 In This Issue... Cleveland ...The mayors of Cleveland and Brook Park cut a deal that would allow Cleveland Hopkins Interna- tional Airport to expand by providing the land needed to add another new runway while improving Brook Park's tax base - p. 17 Los Angeles ...An agree- ment is reached between officials of Los Angeles and Inglewood aimed at reducing noise and air pollution near Los Angeles International Airport and helping residents get jobs there - p. 17 Naples ... Airport authority comnrissioners defer enforce- ment of first -ever ban on Stage 2 aircraft under 75,000 lb.; seek written agreement with FAA on what is needed to supplement Part 161 study - p. 18 Air Space Redesign ... FAA holding public hearings on four concepts for redesigning air- space in New York metropoli- tan area - p. 19 News Briefs ... O'Hare Noise Compatibility Commission documents its status as leader in funding residential and school sound insulation programs; PFC approved for sound insulation at Milwaukee - p. 20 2001 19 within the 65 dB DNL contour. The National Business Aviation Association , which immediately challenged the ban, contends that the 60 dB DNL contour can be used as the basis for land use planning around airport but not for noise restrictions. FAA Letter In a Jan. 30 letter to Naples, Paul L. Galls, FAA's deputy associate administrator for airports, said that in adopting the final Part 161 rule, the FAA revised the definition of the airport noise study area to permit the applicant airport operator the same flexibility as that provided under the agency's Part 150 airport noise compatibility planning process. Therefore, he said, "while the airport operator may select the contours used to define the airport noise study area, extension of the airport noise study area outside the DNL 65 dB contour must bejustified by `reasonable circum- stances.' "A showing of reasonable circumstances would include evidence of liability and other reasons of an airport proprietor for selecting an airport noise study area that deviates from Federal guidelines," Galls said, inferring that, if Naples — and other airports — cannot show the potential for liability, they cannot use the 60 dB DNL contour as their noise study area. Galls said that Naples should be able to meet this require- ment by providing information to support a statement by the airport's attorney that the selection of the 60 dB DNL contour was based on a "reasonable assessment of potential liability." Grant Assurances Regarding grant assurances, Galls said, "it is only fair to tell you that our substantive considerations to date are not favorably inclined to find it reasonable to address the particular circumstances at Naples between the DNL 60 and 65 dB noise contours with a total ban on a class of user (i.e. Stage 2 aircraft operators)." Galis noted that the new chairman of Naples Airport Authority said at a Jan. 18 meeting with FAA officials that he "does not want to proceed further down the Part 161 path without a decision on whether the ban is permissible from the grant compliance perspective." "The FAA does not want that either," Galis said, and will be providing additional information on grant assurance determinations by late February. The ban on Stage 2 business and corporatejets at Naples is being closely watched because it is the first noise restriction imposed by a U.S. airport since passage of the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990.It is also the first noise or access restriction to be imposed under the FAA's largely undefined Part 161 process. Air Space FOUR CONCEPTS PROPOSED FOR NY/NJ AIRSPACE REDESIGN On Feb. 7, the Federal Aviation Administration held the first of about 30 public hearings it plans on four broad concepts it recently unveiled for redesigning the airspace over the New York City metropolitan area, which also will affect airports and residents in New Jersey, Delaware, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania. FAA Administrator Jane Garvey decided to begin a redesign of the entire national airspace in the New York City metropolitan area, the most complex airspace in the country, where congestion often begins and then moves through the rest of the airport system. Four of the U.S. airports that have the greatest delay problems are located in the FAA's Eastern region. LaGuardia has the worst delay in the country, followed by Newark. The four airspace redesign concepts under consideration by FAA are: (1) To direct all departing aircraft to the east over the Atlantic Ocean regardless of their destination and then turn them back over land, if needed, at a higher altitude where they will have less noise impact. This concept was devel- oped by the New Jersey Coalition Against Aircraft Noise (NICAAN) years ago but the FAA has steadfastly, until this point, refused to give it a live test. It would increase fuel costs for the airlines, one of the main reasons they have opposed it; (2) To impose a "four corners" plan under which four arrival areas would be tightly segregated from departure corridors. This could potentially reduce noise impact by allowing arriving aircraft to be held higher longer and departing aircraft to gain altitude more quickly. The FAA imposed a similar "four post" plan at Seattle -Tacoma International Airport in the 1990s and it caused widespread noise complaints; (3) Trying to tweak the existing air traffic design to make it morn efficient; (d) To form a hybrid plan by combining the best compo- nents of the first three concepts. The primary goals of the airspace redesign, said an FAA spokeswoman, are to increase efficiency and to improve safety, with the understanding that noise impact will be mitigated where possible. At a Feb. 7 public hearing on the four concepts, the first held by the FAA, representatives of NICAAN and its sister organization, New Jersey Citizens for Environmental Research, expressed opposition to the four corners concept, contending that it would open up new areas of New Jersey to aircraft noise impact. Fearing that the FAA has already decided to go with the four post plan, PamelaBarsam-Brown, head of NJCAAN, said the concept includes no noise mitigation and urged New Jersey residents to contact their state legislatures to support the ocean routing concept. Airport Noise Repon