03.19.2025 ARC Meeting Packet
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
March 19, 2025 at 6:00 PM
Mendota Heights City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights
1. Call to Order
2. Election of Officers
a. Election of Officers - Chair and Vice Chair
3. Consent Agenda
a. Approve Minutes from the September 18, 2024 Meeting
b. Approve Minutes from the November 20, 2024 Meeting
c. Acknowledge Airport Operational Statistical Reports
i. Complaint Information
ii. Runway Use Information
iii. Noise Monitor Information
4. Public Comments
5. Business
a. ARC 2025 Work Plan
6. Information and Correspondence
a. 2024 Acutal Noise Contour Report (MSP)
7. Announcements and Commissioner Comments
8. Adjourn
Alternate formats or auxiliary aids are available to individuals with disabilities upon request.
Please contact city hall at 651-452-1850 or cityhall@mendotaheightsmn.gov.
Page 1 of 105
Page 2 of 105
2.a
Airport Relations Commission
MEETING DATE: March 19, 2025
TO: Airport Relations Commission
FROM: Cheryl Jacobson, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Election of Officers - Chair and Vice Chair
BACKGROUND:
At its meeting on March 19, the ARC should elect a Chair and Vice Chair. The Chair and Vice
Chair take office immediately following their election and hold office until their successors are
elected and assume office.
The current Chair is Gina Norling and the current Vice Chair is Arvind Sharma.
ATTACHMENTS:
None
Page 3 of 105
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION MINUTES
September 18, 2024
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission was held on
Wednesday, September 18, 2024 at Mendota Heights City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve.
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Norling called the meeting to order at 6:00 pm.
Commissioners present: Norling, Sharma, Sloan, Dunn, Hamiel, Bobbitt, Neuharth.
Staff present: City Administrator Jacobson and Administrative Coordinator Desmond.
2. CONSENT AGENDA
a. Approve Minutes from the May 15, 2024 Meeting
b. Acknowledge Airport Operational Statistics Reports
1. Complaint Information
2. Runway Use Information
3. Noise Monitor Information
Chair Norling approved the consent agenda.
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Rob Meyer, 1399 Clement St, had questions about why airplanes are flying over his area so
much and why they were turning the directions they were turning. He also was wondering
about the 12L Total Operations spreadsheet and the 0% operations for July- August 2024 and if
it would skew the data. He asked if the commission could make a chart without the no flight
time. He then questioned where the August complaint number for Mendota Heights came
from.
City Administrator Jacobson explained that the numbers were from the complaints submitted
to the MAC Noise Office.
He then asked if the committee could do anything about the flight patterns and how much they
fly over the area. Commissioner Dunn explained that if the City receives more complaints than
normal, the commission could make a comment to the airport to see if anything can be done.
Dennis Anderson, 2336 Lemay Shores Drive, had questions about the Eagan Mendota Heights
corridor and how long it is. The commissioners answered his question. He suggested to
mitigate the noise that the airplanes should go the full three miles and then turn. In addition,
sharing that the airplanes have been turning sharply before they are supposed to.
Page 4 of 105
Commissioner Bobbit stated how the turning was established years ago and that is the way it
has always been. Commissioner Sharma stated that they are supposed to turn at 62 and
Delaware Avenue.
Commissioner Hamiel then explained that it is more about when the airplane gets to a certain
altitude, then after it gets to that altitude, it can make a turn rather than getting to a specific
area and it has been in the agreement for the last 40 years.
Chair Norling commented that she didn’t like how the Eagan Mendota Heights Corridor is
named because it makes it seem like it is more industrial, but it is also residential. Michelle
Ross from MAC explained that they do try to take the residential and industrial areas into
account and consider the noise abatement best practices and weather.
Scott Norling, 1280 Lakeview Ave, had comments about the FAA RNAV public meeting and
that the flights should be more dispersed using the 90 and 120 heading more since the noise
from the airplanes flying over his area are no longer just an annoyance.
Michelle Ross from MAC stated that air traffic control gives the pilots the direction, and they
do try to disperse the flights as much as they can depending on the flight traffic, weather and
the flights destination.
4. BUSINESS
a. MSP Airport Update
City Administrator Jacobson stated that runway 12L is planned to reopen on September 21
and flight patterns are expected to go back to normal.
City Administrator Jacobson stated that FAA closed the RNAV 30-day public comment period
on September 15.
City Administrator Jacobson stated that if the body has a request for the NOC Workplan the
commission needs to put something together. Chair Norling agreed to write a draft of the
requests and work with City Administrator Jacobson on it.
Commissioner Bobbitt asked if the Commission should hold a special meeting to discuss and
approve the request. City Administrator Jacobson stated that once the draft is completed, she
will send it to the commissioners to get their input and a special meeting is not needed.
5. INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
Chair Norling received two emails from citizens regarding the noise increase around Dodd
Road and questions about the corridor.
6. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Chair Norling stated that the FAA RNAV public meeting wasn’t fully helpful and that the FAA
didn’t answer questions or comments made during the presentation. She also added that it
didn’t have a lot of public engagement.
Commissioner Bobbitt thanked City Administrator Jacobson for all of the dedication and work
she has done for the city.
Page 5 of 105
7. ADJOURN
Motion by Bobbit and second by Dunn to adjourn the meeting.
Motion carried 7-0.
Chair Norling adjourned the meeting at 7:20pm.
Page 6 of 105
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
MINUTES OF THE JOINT MEETING OF THE
CITIES OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS AND EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSIONS
November 20, 2024
A joint meeting of the Eagan and Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commissions was held
on Tuesday, November 20 at 6:30 p.m. at the Eagan Municipal Center.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. INTRODUCTIONS
Members of the Eagan Airport Relations Commission and Mendota Heights Airport
Relations Commission introduced themselves. Staff present included Mendota
Heights City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson and Eagan Assistant City Administrator
Sarah Alig.
Also present were Michele Ross and Brian Ryks of the MAC.
3. VISITORS TO BE HEARD
No one from the public wished to be heard.
4. GUEST PRESENTATIONS
a. State of the Airport
Brian Ryks, CEO of the Metropolitan Airports Commission, shared an overview of
the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP) and the MAC, highlighting the
importance of the MAC’s system of airports to the region and the state.
5. UPDATES ON CURRENT EFFORTS
Airport Commission members from both cities discussed current events, including
last summer’s runway construction and the unexpected change in airplane noise in
Mendota Heights.
6. OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business presented.
7. ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned 7:45 pm.
Page 7 of 105
Complaints by Location—By Month
(2024, 2025)
Location = Complainants
2024 Mpls Eagan Edina MH Blmgtn
January 68 34 9 4 5
February 66 43 9 7 6
March 66 39 11 9 4
April 75 30 10 9 7
May 96 44 9 12 9
June 131 76 11 19 19
July 82 83 9 16 13
August 92 70 16 30 17
September 141 77 7 18 21
October 89 44 16 10 9
November 65 34 9 8 8
December 52 34 8 5 6
2025 Mpls Eagan Edina MH Blmgtn
January 47 22 8 5 3
February 37 17 4 1 2
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Percent of All Departures by Location –By Month
(2024,2025)
2024 Mpls
30R
Eagan
12R
Edina
30L
MH
12L
Blmgtn
17
January 23% 4% 32% 9% 32%
February 20% 7% 26% 11% 36%
March 20% 8% 33% 11% 29%
April 21% 9% 29% 13% 28%
May 19% 9% 17% 18% 35%
June 1% 25% 32% 1% 40%
July 0% 40% 17% 0% 43%
August 0% 44% 18% 0% 37%
September 6% 15% 13% 4% 62%
October 19% 4% 21% 13% 42%
November 22% 4% 29% 12% 33%
December 20% 5% 26% 12% 38%
2025 Mpls 30R Eagan 12R Edina 30L MH 12L Blmgtn 17
January 32% 1% 43% 3% 21%
February 23% 2% 26% 7% 39%
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Page 8 of 105
68
34
9 4 5
47
22
8 5 3
23%
4%
32%
9%
32%32%
1%
43%
3%
21%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Mpls Eagan Edina MH Blmgtn
January Complaints by Location and Departures by Location
Complaints 2024 Complaints 2025 %Departures 2024 %Departures 2025
January Complaints January Night Departures
2023 2024 2025 2023 2024 2025
Minneapolis (30R) 1,183 1,669 1,780 86 75 114
Eagan (12R) 1,214 1,998 888 89 88 34
Edina (30L) 168 311 299 240 204 156
Mendota Heights (12L) 150 78 46 42 32 16
Bloomington (17) 26 33 12 42 39 26
Total 2,741 4,089 3,025 499 438 346
Page 9 of 105
66
43
9 7 6
37
17
4 1 2
20%
7%
26%
11%
36%
23%
2%
26%
7%
39%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Mpls Eagan Edina MH Blmgtn
February Complaints by Location and Departures by Location
Complaints 2024 Complaints 2025 %Departures 2024 %Departures 2025
February Complaints February Night Departures
2023 2024 2025 2023 2024 2025
Minneapolis (30R) 1,056 2,239 454 58 51 17
Eagan (12R) 1,944 2,325 393 81 119 14
Edina (30L) 178 189 7 156 140 37
Mendota Heights (12L) 157 251 1 63 21 5
Bloomington (17) 52 20 8 23 36 25
Total 3,387 5,024 863 381 367 98
Page 10 of 105
Data used for UCL calculation Chart Notes: Above normal incidences of downward southerly flow winds during
January 2009 through December 2013 the 2nd and 3rd quarters of 2023.
Mean: 12.4 Runways 12L/30R and 4/22 closed from 6/3/24 to 9/21/24 for construction
St Dev: 3.06
UCL: 18.4
6.1%
10.9%
18.40%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%Percent OperationsMonth
12L Total Operations
Operations Mean UCL
Mean: Rolling 24/mo
Page 11 of 105
Data used for UCL calculation Chart Notes:
January 2009 through December 2013 Runways 12L/30R and 4/22 closed from 6/3/24 to 9/21/24 for construction
Mean: 19.5
St Dev: 7
UCL: 33.5
16.1%
13.7%
Mean: Rolling 24/mo
3.6%
11.5%
33.50%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%Percentage OperationsMonth
12L Night Operations
Operations Mean UCL
Page 12 of 105
Data used for UCL calculation Chart Notes:
January 2009 through December 2013 Runways 12L/30R and 4/22 closed from 6/3/24 to 9/21/24 for construction
Mean: 7.7
St Dev: 2.96
UCL: 13.4
2.1%
10.9%
13.40%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%Percent OperationsMonth
12R Total Operations
Operations Mean UCL
Mean: Rolling 24/mo
Page 13 of 105
Data used for UCL calculation Chart Notes:
January 2009 through December 2013 Runways 12L/30R and 4/22 closed from 6/3/24 to 9/21/24 for construction
Mean: 28.9
St Dev: 8.82
UCL: 46.5
12.9%
28.5%
46.50%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%Percent OperationsMonth
12R Night Operations
Operations Mean UCL
Mean: Rolling 24/mo
Page 14 of 105
Data used for UCL calculation Chart Notes:
January 2009 through December 2013 Runways 12L/30R and 4/22 closed from 6/3/24 to 9/21/24 for construction
Mean: 2.2
St Dev: 0.98
UCL: 4.2
2.2%
1.5%
4.20%
0%
1%
1%
2%
2%
3%
3%
4%
4%
5%
5%Percent OperationsMonth
Departures North of Corridor
Operations Mean UCL
Mean: Rolling 24/mo
Page 15 of 105
5.a
Airport Relations Commission
MEETING DATE: March 19, 2025
TO: Airport Relations Commission
FROM: Cheryl Jacobson, City Administrator
SUBJECT: ARC 2025 Work Plan
BACKGROUND:
The Mendota Heights Airports Relations Commission advises the City Council on matters
relating to airport noise and operations at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. The
commission monitors proposed rules, procedures, and programs that impact air noise within
the city and makes recommendations regarding strategies to mitigate the city's air noise
exposure.
The Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission has developed an annual work plan for a
number of years.
The commission is asked to review and discuss the proposed 2025 work plan and recommend
updates or new action items for inclusion.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. 2025 ARC Workplan DRAFT
Page 16 of 105
Revised: 3/2024
City of Mendota Heights
Airport Relations Commission
2025-2026 Work Plan (DRAFT)
Priority: Mitigate the city’s air noise exposure
1. Advocate for modified takeoff procedures and corridor compliance, as needed.
2. Advocate for specific noise control measures through operational changes and advanced
technology.
3. Advocate for the equitable distribution of aircraft traffic and a more equitable runway use
system.
Priority: Inform and engage Mendota Heights’ residents regarding airport related issues
1. Include airport related information in city communications and social media channels.
2. Attend city events, when invited, to share information about MSP Airport.
3. Host a NOC Listening Session.
Priority: Monitor airport operations and trends and advocate for the Mendota Heights
community
1. Respond, as needed, to FAA RNAV procedure implementation outcomes.
2. Work collaboratively with other communities on mutual concerns regarding airport
development and operations.
3. Continue to collect and review MSP operations and complaint data.
Page 17 of 105
Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP)
2024 Annual Noise Contour Report
Comparison of the 2024 Actual and the 2007 Forecast Noise Contours
February 2025
MAC Community Relations Office and HNTB Corporation
Page 18 of 105
MSP 2024 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
I
Table of Contents
ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................. 1
ES.1 MSP AIRPORT NOISE MITIGATION PROGRAM ......................................................................1
ES.2 1992-2006 PROGRAM ..........................................................................................................1
ES.3 2007-2014 PROGRAM ..........................................................................................................2
ES.4 2017-2024 PROGRAM ..........................................................................................................2
ES.5 2017-2024 PROGRAM MITIGATION STATUS .........................................................................3
ES.6 2025-2032 PROGRAM ..........................................................................................................3
ES.7 2024 NOISE CONTOURS .......................................................................................................3
ES.8 2025-2032 PROGRAM ELIGIBILITY ........................................................................................3
1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ............................................................................ 8
1.1 1992-2006 PROGRAM ..........................................................................................................9
1.2 2007 FORECAST CONTOUR ................................................................................................ 11
1.3 AIRCRAFT NOISE LITIGATION ............................................................................................. 13
1.4 NOISE MITIGATION SETTLEMENT AND ANNUAL NOISE CONTOUR (2007 -2014 PROGRAM) .. 13
1.5 FINAL MSP 2020 IMPROVEMENTS EA/EAW AND 2017-2024 PROGRAM .............................. 15
1.6 2025-2032 PROGRAM ........................................................................................................ 18
2. 2024 ACTUAL CONTOUR ............................................................................................ 18
2.1 DEVELOPMENT OF THE 2024 ACTUAL CONTOUR ................................................................ 18
2.1.1 Noise Modeling ................................................................................................................................. 18
2.1.2 2024 Aircraft Operations and Fleet Mix ............................................................................................ 19
2.1.3 2024 Runway Use .............................................................................................................................. 21
2.1.4 2024 Flight Tracks .............................................................................................................................. 24
2.1.5 Custom Departure Profiles ................................................................................................................ 24
2.1.6 2024 Atmospheric Conditions ........................................................................................................... 25
2.2 2024 MODELED VERSUS MEASURED DNL VALUES .............................................................. 26
2.3 2024 NOISE CONTOUR IMPACTS ........................................................................................ 28
3. COMPARISON OF THE 2024 ACTUAL AND THE 2007 FORECAST CONTOUR ......................... 30
3.1 COMPARISON OF NOISE CONTOUR INPUTS ........................................................................ 30
3.1.1 Noise Model Considerations ............................................................................................................. 30
3.1.2 Aircraft Operations and Fleet Mix Comparison ................................................................................. 30
3.1.3 Runway Use Comparison ................................................................................................................... 31
3.1.4 Flight Track Considerations ............................................................................................................... 32
Page 19 of 105
MSP 2024 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
II
3.1.5 Atmospheric Conditions Comparison ................................................................................................ 32
3.2 COMPARATIVE NOISE MODEL GRID POINT ANALYSIS ......................................................... 33
3.3 CONTOUR COMPARISON SUMMARY ................................................................................. 33
4. 2024 ANNUAL NOISE CONTOUR ....................................................................................... 35
4.1 2024 ACTUAL CONTOUR NOISE MITIGATION IMPACT ......................................................... 35
4.3 2017-2024 PROGRAM MITIGATION STATUS ....................................................................... 38
4.4 2025-2032 PROGRAM ELIGIBILITY ...................................................................................... 38
Page 20 of 105
MSP 2024 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
1
ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ES.1 MSP AIRPORT NOISE MITIGATION PROGRAM
Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP) has a long history of quantifying and mitigating noise
impacts in a manner responsive to concerns raised by communities around the airport and consistent with
federal policy.
In 1992, the Metropolitan Airports Commission
(MAC) established the MSP Airport Noise
Mitigation Program after conducting a Noise
Compatibility Program (NCP) study under Title 14
Code of Federal Regulations Part 150 (Part 150
Study). Since established, the MSP Airport Noise
Mitigation Program has provided sound
insulation to single-family residences, multi-
family residences, schools, and acquired
residential properties within eligible noise
contour areas.
The Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) noise threshold of residential land use compatibility is the 65
decibel (dB) Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL). The DNL metric is based on cumulative noise exposure
over a 24-hours period, with a 10 dB penalty applied to nighttime noise (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) to account for
increased sensitivity to noise during sleeping hours.
ES.2 1992-2006 PROGRAM
The 1992-2006 Noise Mitigation Program (1992-2006 Program)1 was a large and visible part of the MSP
Part 150 Study. Mitigation was conducted within the 65 dB DNL contour and included a combination of
improvements to windows and doors; adding attic insulation; baffling of attic vents, mail slots and
chimneys; and installing central air-conditioning. By 2006, sound insulation had been provided to 7,846
single-family homes, 1,327 multi-family units and 19 schools. Additionally, 437 residential properties were
acquired in the highest aircraft noise impacted areas around MSP. The total cost of the program was
approximately $386 million.
The Dual-Track Airport Planning Process (Dual-Track Process), an effort that the Minnesota Legislature
directed the MAC to undertake in 1989, concluded in 1998 with the Legislature voting that MSP would
expand in its current location versus moving to a new location. As part of the Dual-Track Process, the MAC
was asked to propose an expansion of noise mitigation efforts beyond the federally recognized standard
threshold of 65 dB DNL if MSP were to stay in its current location. In 1999, the MAC began a Part 150
Update to respond to this request, which included significant focus on the mitigation program. Through
the Part 150 Update process, the MAC developed a mitigation package for homes located in the 60-64 dB
DNL noise contour area.
1 The 1992-2006 Noise Mitigation Program was formerly referred to as the Part 150 Program.
Page 21 of 105
MSP 2024 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
2
ES.3 2007-2014 PROGRAM
The cities located around MSP expressed dissatisfaction with the Part 150 Update associated with the
expanded noise mitigation proposal for homes in the 60-64 dB DNL noise contour area. In early 2005, the
Cities of Minneapolis, Eagan, and Richfield and the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority filed a lawsuit in
Hennepin County District Court against the MAC. In September 2005, plaintiffs seeking class action
certification filed a separate action against the MAC alleging breach of contract claims associated with
mitigation in the 60-64 dB DNL noise contours.
In 2007, the Cities of Minneapolis, Eagan, and Richfield, the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority and the
MAC entered into a Consent Decree that settled the litigation. The terms in the Consent Decree specified
multiple levels of sound insulation for homes within a fixed boundary of projected aircraft noise exposure
around MSP and established the 2007-2014 Noise Mitigation Program (2007-2014 Program)2. The 2007
Forecast Contour served as the fixed boundary to determine mitigation eligibility.
Upon the completion of the 2007-2014 Program in 2014, more than 15,000 single-family homes and 3,300
multi-family units around MSP were provided noise mitigation. The cost to implement all mitigation under
the 2007-2014 Program was $95 million, raising MAC’s total expenditures related to its noise mitigation
program efforts to more than $480 million by the end of 2014.
ES.4 2017-2024 PROGRAM
The 2007 Consent Decree was first amended in 2013 in response to concerns expressed by the MSP Noise
Oversight Committee (NOC) over the MSP 2020 Improvements Environmental Assessment/Environmental
Assessment Worksheet. This amendment created the 2017-2024 Noise Mitigation Program (2017-2024
Program)3 which established mitigation eligibility based on annual assessments of actual MSP aircraft
activity, henceforth referenced “Actual Contour”, rather than forecasted projections. To be eligible for
noise mitigation, a home needed to be located for three consecutive years in an area with a higher aircraft
noise level compared to the level under the terms of the 2007-2014 Program. The first of the three years
had to occur by 2020. The Full 5-decibel Reduction Package was offered to single-family homes meeting
these criteria inside the 63 dB DNL Actual Contour, while the Partial Noise Reduction Package was offered
to single-family homes in the 60-62 dB DNL Actual Contour. A uniform Multi-Family Noise Reduction
Package was offered to multi-family units within the actual 60 dB DNL noise contour. Homes were
mitigated in the year following their eligibility determination. The 2017-2024 Program continued to use
the 2007 Forecast Contour as a baseline to measure areas of noise contour growth for mitigation
eligibility.
The 2007 Consent Decree was amended again in 2017. This amendment allowed for the use of the
Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT) to develop the actual noise contours each year, beginning with
the 2016 Actual Contour. In 2015, AEDT replaced the Integrated Noise Model (INM) as the federally
approved computer model for determining and analyzing noise exposure and land use compatibility issues
around airports in the United States. The second amendment also provided clarity on the Opt-Out
Eligibility criteria of the 2017-2024 Program. Specifically, single-family homes that previously opted out of
2 The 2007-2014 Noise Mitigation Program was formerly referred to as the Consent Decree Program.
3 The 2017-2024 Noise Mitigation Program was formerly referred to as the Amended Consent Decree Program.
Page 22 of 105
MSP 2024 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
3
the Partial Noise Reduction Package could participate in the Full 5-decibel Reduction Package, provided
the home met the eligibility requirements.
ES.5 2017-2024 PROGRAM MITIGATION STATUS
In 2017, the MAC began mitigating homes meeting the eligibility requirements of the 2017-2024 Program.
The program included 138 single-family homes and 88 multi-family units as part of the 2017 program year,
283 single-family homes in the 2018 program year, 429 single-family homes in the 2019 program year,
243 single-family homes in the 2020 program year, and 16 single-family homes in the 2021 program year.
As of January 2025, $33,200,158 has been spent on mitigating homes pursuant to the 2017-2024 Program.
2020 was the final year that homes could become eligible under the terms of the 2017-2024 Program. The
homes determined eligible under the terms of the 2017-2024 Program must have opted-in by the end of
2024 to receive mitigation. Eligible homes were notified in writing that their deadline to participate was
at the end of 2024.
ES.6 2025-2032 PROGRAM
In 2022, a third amendment was made to the 2007 Consent Decree that established the 2025-2032 Noise
Mitigation Program (2025-2032 Program). This program will provide eligibility criteria and aircraft noise
relief packages for the 2025-2032 Program, consistent with the terms of the 2017-2024 Program. Figure
ES-1 provides a program history overview.
ES.7 2024 NOISE CONTOURS
The number of aircraft operations (takeoffs and landings) is a prominent factor in noise contour
calculation. Although total MSP aircraft operations in 2024 remained significantly below the pre-pandemic
2019 number of 406,073, they increased to 342,254 aircraft operations in 2024 versus 323,945 in 2023.
There was an increase in aircraft noise exposure from flight activity at MSP in 2024 compared to 2023.
The 2025-2032 Program requires the use of the 2007 Forecast Contour as a baseline to measure potential
areas of growth, consistent with previous programs. Therefore, this report compares the 2024 Actual
Contour with the 2007 Forecast Contour.
Because the total number of operations at MSP in 2024 (342,254) was fewer than the number forecasted
in 2007 (582,366), the 2024 60 dB DNL Actual Contour is approximately 31 percent smaller than the 2007
Forecast Contour, and the 2024 65 dB DNL Actual Contour is approximately 43 percent smaller than the
2007 Forecast Contour. The contraction of the contours from the 2007 Forecast to the 2024 Actual
Contour is driven by the reduction in aircraft operations due to airlines operating larger aircraft and by
the advancements in noise reduction technology on modern aircraft. There were 661 fewer average
operations per day in 2024 compared to what was forecasted for 2024 in 2007.
ES.8 2025-2032 PROGRAM ELIGIBILITY
There are 196 single-family and 5 multi-family homes that achieved the first year of eligibility as a result
of the 2024 Actual Contour as outlined by the terms of the 2025-2032 Program. Of those homes, 29 single-
family are located outside of previously mitigated areas. An additional 20 single-family homes are located
Page 23 of 105
MSP 2024 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
4
within previously mitigated areas and within the 60 DNL contour. The remaining 147 single-family homes
and 5 multi-family homes were previously mitigated under the Partial Noise Reduction Package and have
moved into the 63 DNL contour.
Additionally, there are 332 single-family and 542 multi-family homes that achieved the second year of
eligibility as a result of the 2024 Actual Contour as outlined by the terms of the 2025 -2032 Program. Of
those homes, 235 single-family and 542 multi-family homes are located outside of previously mitigated
areas. The remaining 97 single-family homes were previously mitigated under the Partial Noise Reduction
Package and have moved into the 63 DNL contour.
If these homes remain in a higher noise impact area compared to previous noise mitigation programs for
three consecutive years, they will become eligible to receive mitigation in the 2025-2032 Program.
Figures ES-2 and ES-3 illustrate the 2024 Actual Contour and mitigation program eligibility.
Page 24 of 105
MSP 2024 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
5
Figure ES-1: Mitigation Program History
Page 25 of 105
MSP 2024 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
6
Figure ES-2: 2024 Contours and Mitigation Program Eligibility
Page 26 of 105
MSP 2024 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
7
Figure ES-3: 2024 Contours and Mitigation Program Eligibility – City of Minneapolis and City of Richfield
Page 27 of 105
MSP 2024 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
8
1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The issue of aircraft noise related to the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP) includes a long
history of local efforts to quantify and mitigate noise impacts in a manner that is responsive to concerns
raised by the communities around the airport and consistent with federal policy. The Metropolitan
Airports Commission (MAC) has led the way in the conceptualization and implementation of many
initiatives to reduce noise impacts to communities around MSP. One of the most notable of these
initiatives has been the sound insulation program originally implemented under Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations Part 150 (Part 150).
Part 150 provides a framework for airport operators to develop a comprehensive plan for managing
aircraft noise impacts in the form of a Noise Compatibility Program (NCP). An NCP is a key component of
the Part 150 process and is comprised of two fundamental approaches to addressing noise impacts around
an airport: (1) Land Use Measures, and (2) Noise Abatement (NA) Measures (operational measures to
reduce noise).
Another key component of the Part 150 process is the development of a Noise Exposure Map (NEM).
NEMs are commonly referred to as noise contours. The NEM characterizes aircraft noise in terms of Day-
Night Average Sound Level (DNL). This metric represents the total accumulation of all sound energy
(decibels or dB) averaged uniformly over a 24-hour period and factors an additional 10-decibel penalty
for each aircraft noise event occurring between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. The current federally established
threshold for significant aircraft noise is 65 dB DNL. Forecast mitigated noise contours depict areas that
may be eligible for Land Use Measures around an airport based on forecasted aircraft operations levels.
Land Use Measures can include compatible land use plans, property acquisition, residential relocation,
and sound mitigation (modifications to homes to insulate against sound intrusions).
Development of an NEM typically includes a Base Case NEM and a five-year forecast NEM, with and
without noise abatement measures. Including noise abatement measures in NEM development is
important because the way an airport is used by aircraft (i.e.: runway use, time of flight, etc.) and the way
flight procedures (i.e., power settings, flight paths, etc.) are executed have a direct effect on an airport’s
noise contour.
The MAC was one of the first airport sponsors to submit a Part 150 Study to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) and did so for MSP in October 1987. The study’s NEM was accepted by the FAA in
October 1989, and portions of the study’s NCP were approved in April 1990. The five-year forecast NEMs
with and without noise abatement measures used forecasted operations, not actual operations. Note that
beginning in 2013, the MAC began modeling MSP noise contours on an annual basis using actual
operations, described in Section 1.4 below. The 1990 NCP identified areas eligible for remedial land use
measures including the soundproofing of residences, schools and other public buildings.
A 1992 update to the NCP and NEM included a five-year forecast 65 dB DNL noise contour (1996 65 dB
DNL). This update established the MAC’s MSP Airport Noise Mitigation Program and marked the beginning
of corrective mitigation measures within the 1996 65 dB DNL noise contour.
Page 28 of 105
MSP 2024 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
9
1.1 1992-2006 PROGRAM
The 1992-2006 Airport Noise Mitigation Program (1992-2006 Program)4 was a large and visible part of the
MSP Part 150 Study. The MAC designed the 1992-2006 Program using FAA structural Noise Level
Reduction (NLR) documentation. This included establishing product-specific Sound Transmission Class
(STC) ratings and associated NLR goals, creative bidding practices, and cooperative prioritization and
funding efforts. Through innovative approaches to enhancing the program as new information and
technologies became available, the MSP Airport Noise Mitigation Program quickly became a national
model for aircraft noise mitigation.
NLR is a number rating that describes the difference between indoor and outdoor noise levels. The FAA
uses this number to evaluate the effectiveness of sound mitigation measures. Per FAA guidelines, the
objective of a noise mitigation program is to achieve a 5-dB reduction in interior noise with mitigation
measures in place, and to reduce the average interior noise levels to a level below 45 dB. Testing and
evaluation of single-family homes near MSP indicated that most homes provided an average 30 dB of
exterior to interior sound reduction, or NLR, with no mitigation efforts by the MAC, in most cases already
achieving an interior noise level of 45 dB or below. This led the MAC to develop a Full 5-decibel Reduction
Package for single-family homes within the 65 dB DNL and greater noise contours to meet FAA objectives.
This package provided an average noise reduction level of 5 dB, ensuring a noticeable level of reduction.
The Full 5-decibel Reduction Package offered a menu of sound insulation measures that the MAC could
install to achieve an average 5-dB noise reduction in an individual home. The options included treating or
replacing windows and prime doors; installing or increasing attic insulation; baffling attic vents, mail slots
and chimneys; and adding central air-conditioning. The MAC determined which specific measures were
necessary for a home after assessing the home’s existing condition.
As a result of detailed and extensive project management and quality control, the program achieved an
excellent record of homeowner satisfaction. Throughout the duration of the program, when homeowners
4 The 1992-2006 Airport Noise Mitigation Program was formerly referred to as the Part 150 Program.
Page 29 of 105
MSP 2024 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
10
were asked if the improvements were effective at reducing aircraft noise at least 95 percent responded
yes.
The MAC reached a significant accomplishment for its industry-leading aircraft noise mitigation program
in 2006, when it completed the mitigation of 165 single-family homes in the 2007 forecast 65 dB DNL
noise contour. This marked the completion of the mitigation program for all eligible and participating
homes within the 1996 65 dB DNL and the 2007 65 dB DNL contours. In total, more than 7,800 single-
family homes were mitigated around MSP.
Annual average mitigation costs per single-family home
ranged from a low of $17,300 in 1994 to a high of
$45,000 in 2001. The MAC spent a total of
approximately $229.5 million on the single-family home
mitigation program during the 1992-2006 Program’s 15-
year lifespan.
In addition to the single-family mitigation program, the
MAC also mitigated multi-family units and schools, and
engaged in property acquisition and relocation. The
multi-family component of the 1996-2006 Program
began in 2001 and was significantly smaller in both the
number of structures mitigated and the associated
costs. With the completion of multi-family structures in
the 1996 65 dB DNL noise contour, the MAC mitigated
approximately 1,327 multi-family units at a total cost of
approximately $11.1 million. There were no additional
multi-family structures inside the 2007 Forecast
Contour. All eligible and participating multi-family
structures within the 2007 Forecast Contour were
mitigated by 2006.
Also, since 1981, the MAC has mitigated 19 schools
located around MSP, which represents all the schools
located within the 1996 65 dB DNL noise contour. In
response to the Minnesota Legislature’s directives, the MAC also provided mitigation to certain schools
located outside the 1996 65 dB DNL noise contour. The costs of insulating individual schools varied from
$850,000 to $8 million. A total of approximately $52 million was spent on mitigating schools, marking the
completion of the school mitigation efforts in 2006.
In addition to the residential and school noise mitigation programs, the MAC implemented a residential
property acquisition program in 2002 that removed structures such as residential buildings from aircraft
noise impact areas. The intent of the residential acquisition program was to address impacted properties
in the 1996 65 dB DNL noise contour. The MAC worked with the property owners and the city in which
the respective property resided, agreeing that acquisition was the desirable means of mitigating the
homes. As a result, the MAC acquired approximately 437 residential properties. In total, the MAC spent
approximately $93 million on the residential property acquisition program. The financial investment in
the 1996-2006 Program was among the largest in the nation for such programs. Table 1.1 provides a
summary of activity completed and dollars spent between 1992 and 2006.
Page 30 of 105
MSP 2024 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
11
Table 1.1: 1992-2006 Program Summary
Corrective Action Number Total Cost
(in millions)
Single-Family Residential 7,846 $229.5
Multi-Family Residential 1,327 $11.1
Schools 19 $52
Residential Property Acquisition 437 $93
Total -- $385.6
1.2 2007 FORECAST CONTOUR
In late 1998, the MAC authorized an update to the MSP Part 150 Study to respond to the Dual-Track
Process request to propose an expansion of noise mitigation efforts beyond the federally recognized
standard threshold of 65 dB DNL if MSP were to stay in its current location. The update process began in
1999 with the development of noise contours, noise abatement and land use measures. The MAC
published a draft Part 150 Update document in October 2000 and submitted the study, including a 2005
forecast NEM and revised NCP, to the FAA for review. In May 2002, after further consideration of the
reduction in flight operations and uncertainties in the aviation industry resulting from the events of
September 11, 2001, the MAC withdrew the study to update the forecast and associated noise contours.
The forecast update process began in February 2003. This effort focused on updating the Base Case year
from a 2000 scenario to a 2002 scenario and updating the forecast year from 2005 to 2007. The purpose
of the forecast update was to ensure that the noise contours considered the impacts of the events of
September 11, 2001, and ongoing changes in the MSP aircraft fleet. In addition to updating the forecast,
the MAC and the MSP Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) conducted a review of the FAA-approved noise
model input methodology and data to ensure continued consensus with the contour development
process.
On November 17, 2003, the MAC approved the revised forecast and fleet mix numbers and noise model
input methodology and data for use in developing the 2002 Base Case and 2007 Forecast NEMs. In March
2004, the MAC revised the forecast to incorporate corrections in general aviation numbers and to reflect
Northwest Airlines’ announcement that it would resume service of five aircraft that had been taken out
of service previously.
The 2004 Part 150 Update resulted in a comprehensive NCP recommendation. In addition to several land
use measures around MSP, the NCP included operational noise abatement measures. These measures
focused on aircraft operational procedures, runway use, departure and arrival flight tracks, voluntary
operational agreements with the airlines, and provisions for further evaluation of technology. The MAC
implemented these operational noise abatement measures (more information is available at
https://metroairports.org/msp-noise-abatement-efforts).
Based on the estimate of 582,366 total operations in the 2007 forecast scenario with noise abatement
measures in place, approximately 7,234 acres were in the 65 dB DNL noise contour and approximately
15,708 acres were in the 60 dB DNL noise contour. All eligible and participating homes within the 2007
Forecast Contour have been mitigated. A depiction of the 2007 Forecast Contour is provided in Figure 1.
Page 31 of 105
MSP 2024 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
12
Figure 1: 2007 Forecast Contour
Page 32 of 105
MSP 2024 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
13
1.3 AIRCRAFT NOISE LITIGATION
One of the largest discussion items in the Part 150 Update process focused on the mitigation program
that the MAC would offer in the 60-64 dB DNL noise contour area. The FAA recognizes sensitive land uses,
such as residential land uses eligible for noise mitigation under Part 150, but only within the 65 dB DNL
noise contour or greater. However, as part of the Dual-Track Process, the MAC made a policy decision to
provide some level of noise mitigation out to the 60 dB DNL noise contour area surrounding MSP. During
the Dual-Track Process, an MSP Noise Mitigation Committee was developed and tasked with proposing a
noise mitigation plan to be considered in conjunction with the expansion of MSP at its present location.
The MSP Noise Mitigation Committee developed a final recommendation for the MAC to provide
mitigation to the 60 dB DNL contour.
In the 2004 Part 150 Update, the MAC’s recommendation for mitigation in the 60-64 dB DNL contours
called for providing central air-conditioning to single-family homes that did not have it, with a possible
homeowner co-pay based on the degree of noise impact. The MAC applied block-intersect methodology
to the 2007 Forecast Contour to determine mitigation eligibility. With the block-intersect methodology, if
any portion of a city block intersects the 60-64 dB DNL contour, all homes located on that city block would
be eligible.
The cities located around MSP expressed dissatisfaction with the MAC proposal, asserting that the MSP
Noise Mitigation Committee had recommended that the Full 5-decibel Reduction Package be expanded
to all properties in the 60-64 dB DNL noise contours. The MAC countered that the proposal provided
mitigation to the 60-64 dB DNL noise contour area and that the MSP Noise Mitigation Committee’s
recommendations did not specify the mitigation package that must be included. Additionally, the MAC
clarified that, because homes in Minnesota have higher than the national average pre-existing noise
reduction characteristics, the Full 5-decibel Reduction Package was not necessary outside the 65 dB DNL
contour to achieve desired aircraft noise level reduction.
In early 2005, the Cities of Minneapolis, Eagan, and Richfield and the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority
filed suit in Hennepin County District Court claiming, among other things, that the MAC violated
environmental quality standards and the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act (MERA) by failing to provide
the Full 5-decibel Reduction Package to single-family homes in the 60-64 dB DNL contours. In September
2005, plaintiffs seeking class action certification filed a separate action against the MAC, alleging breach
of contract claims associated with mitigation in the 60-64 dB DNL contours. In January 2007, Hennepin
County District Judge Stephen Aldrich granted the cities a partial summary judgment. The court found,
among other things, that the MAC, by virtue of implementing the Full 5-decibel Reduction Package,
created an environmental standard that the MAC violated by recommending different mitigation in the
64 to 60 DNL noise contour area. In February 2007, the court held a trial on the cities’ MERA and
mandamus claims. However, before the court entered final judgment post-trial, the parties negotiated a
global settlement, a Consent Decree, resolving the cities’ case and the class action suit.
1.4 NOISE MITIGATION SETTLEMENT AND ANNUAL NOISE CONTOUR (2007-2014
PROGRAM)
On October 19, 2007, Judge Stephen Aldrich approved a Consent Decree entered into by the MAC and the
Cities of Minneapolis, Eagan, and Richfield and the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority that settled the
litigation. The Consent Decree provided that it became effective only if: (1) the FAA advised the MAC in
Page 33 of 105
MSP 2024 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
14
writing by November 15, 2007 that the Decree was an appropriate use of airport revenue and was
consistent with the MAC’s federal grant obligations; and (2) that the court approved a settlement in the
class action case by January 17, 2008. Both conditions were ultimately met, and in 2008 the MAC began
implementing the 2007-2014 Airport Noise Mitigation Program (2007-2014 Program)5, providing single-
family and multi-family mitigation out to the 2007 Forecast 60 dB DNL noise contours, and mitigation
reimbursement funds out to the 2005 Forecast 60 dB DNL noise contours, as the Consent Decree required.
Mitigation activities of the 2007-2014 Program varied based on aircraft noise exposure. Homes with the
highest aircraft noise exposure were eligible for more extensive mitigation than those with less aircraft
noise exposure.
The 2007-2014 Program provided that approximately 457 homes in the 2007 63-64 dB DNL Forecast noise
contours were eligible to receive the Full 5-decibel Reduction Package, which was the same level of noise
mitigation that the MAC provided in the 1992-2006 Program. The 2007 63-64 dB DNL noise contour
mitigation program was designed to achieve 5 dB of noise reduction on average, with mitigation measures
that depended upon the home’s existing condition. These methods included central air-conditioning;
exterior and storm window repair or replacement; prime door and storm door repair or replacement; wall
and attic insulation installation; and/or baffling of roof vents and chimney treatment. As required by the
Consent Decree, the MAC completed mitigation in the 2007 63-64 dB DNL noise contours by December
31, 2009. A total of 404 homes participated in the program.
In addition, under the Decree, owners of the approximately 5,428 single-family homes in the 2007 60-62
dB DNL noise contours were eligible for one of two sound insulation packages: 1) homes that did not have
central air-conditioning as of September 1, 2007 would receive it
and up to $4,000 (including installation costs) in other noise
mitigation products and services they could choose from a menu
provided by the MAC; or 2) owners of homes that already had
central air-conditioning installed as of September 1, 2007 or who
chose not to receive central air-conditioning were eligible for up
to $14,000 (including installation costs) in noise mitigation
products and services they could choose from a menu provided
by the MAC. The menu of options included acoustical
modifications such as: exterior and storm window repair or
replacement; prime door and storm door repair or replacement;
wall and attic insulation installation; and/or baffling of roof vents
and chimney treatment. These packages collectively became
known as the Partial Noise Reduction Program. As required by
the Consent Decree, the MAC completed the Partial Noise
Reduction Program by December 1, 2012. A total of 5,055 homes
participated in the program.
According to the provisions in the Consent Decree, single-family homes that met the eligibility for the
2007-2014 Program whose owners opted out of the previously-completed 1992-2006 Program, but had
new owners on September 1, 2007, were eligible to opt in and receive noise mitigation. If the total cost
to the MAC of the opt-in mitigation was less than $7 million, any remaining funds were used to reimburse
5 The 2007-2014 Airport Noise Mitigation Program was formerly referred to as the Consent Decree Program.
Page 34 of 105
MSP 2024 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
15
owners of single-family homes between the 2005 Forecast 60 dB DNL contour and the 2007 Forecast
Contour for purchase and installation of products included on a menu provided by the MAC. The amount
each homeowner received was determined by subtracting dollars spent for the opt-in program from the
total $7 million budget, and then by dividing the remainder of funds among the total number of single-
family homes within the 2005 60 dB DNL and 2007 60 dB DNL contours. This program became known as
the Homeowner Reimbursement Program. In September 2014, the MAC completed the Homeowner
Reimbursement Program for a total of 1,773 participating single-family homes.
The MAC completed the Multi-Family Noise Reduction Package in 2010 by installing acoustical covers on
air conditioners or installing new air conditioners in 1,976 dwelling units.
All phases of the 2007-2014 Program required under the original 2007 Consent Decree were completed
by September 2014. The total cost to implement mitigation under the 2007-2014 Program was
approximately $95 million (which is inclusive of the $7 million for opt-in mitigation and single-family
mitigation reimbursement). A summary of actions taken is provided in Table 1.2.
Table 1.2: 2007-2014 Program Summary
Corrective Action Number Total Cost
(in millions)
Single-Family Residential (Full Five-decibel Reduction Package) 404 $11.2
Single-Family Residential (Partial Noise Reduction Package) 5,055 $72.6
Single-Family Residential (Homeowner Reimbursement) 1,773 $5.2
Multi-Family Residential (Noise Reduction Package) 1,976 $6.1
Total
$95.1
In addition to the MAC’s mitigation obligations, the Consent Decree releases legal claims that the cities
and homeowners have against the MAC in exchange for the actions that the MAC would perform as
directed by the Consent Decree. The releases cease to be effective for a certain location if the average
annual aircraft noise level in DNL at that location is at or above 60 dB DNL and is at least 2 dB DNL higher
than the Base Case DNL Noise Level.
The Base Case DNL Noise Level is established by the actual DNL noise level the year a home becomes
eligible for noise mitigation under the Consent Decree. The Base Case DNL Noise Level for homes that are
not eligible for mitigation under the Consent Decree is established using the 2007 Forecast Contour.
MAC staff and representatives from the Cities of Minneapolis, Eagan, and Richfield met in February 2008
to discuss and finalize the annual report format. This report is prepared in accordance with the
requirements of the Consent Decree and the format agreed upon by the parties. The actual contour that
the MAC must develop under Section 8.1(d) of the Consent Decree is relevant to the release provisions in
Section 8.1 as well as the determination of mitigation eligibility as defined by an amendment to the
Consent Decree, described in Chapter 4 of this report.
1.5 FINAL MSP 2020 IMPROVEMENTS EA/EAW AND 2017-2024 PROGRAM
In January 2013, the MAC published the Final MSP 2020 Improvements Environmental
Assessment/Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA/EAW), which reviewed the potential and
cumulative environmental impacts of MSP terminal and landside developments needed through 2020.
Page 35 of 105
MSP 2024 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
16
As is detailed in the EA/EAW, the FAA’s Finding of No Significant Impact/Record of Decision (FONSI/ROD),
and summarized in the MAC’s related Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order, the Preferred
Alternative scenario did not have the potential for significant environmental effects. The forecasted noise
contours around MSP were driven by natural traffic growth that was anticipated to occur with or without
implementation of the 2020 Improvements proposed in the EA/EAW.
Despite this, many of the public comments on the EA/EAW focused on future noise mitigation efforts. The
past noise mitigation activities surrounding MSP, the terms of the 2007 Consent Decree and local land use
compatibility guidelines defined by the Metropolitan Council were factors in the public dialogue.
Additionally, the anticipated completion of the 2007-2014 Program raised community interest regarding
the future of noise mitigation at MSP.
In response, the MAC, in consultation with the MSP NOC, began the process of developing a noise
mitigation plan to be included in the EA/EAW. The noise mitigation plan they recommended based
eligibility upon actual noise contours that the MAC would prepare for MSP on an annual basis and required
that a home would need to be located for three consecutive years in a higher noise mitigation impact area
when compared to the home’s status under the terms of the 2007-2014 Program.
The Final MSP 2020 Improvements EA/EAW detailed the following mitigation program elements:
• Mitigation eligibility would be assessed annually based on the actual noise contours for the
previous year.
• The annual mitigation assessment would begin with the actual noise contour for the year in which
the FAA FONSI/ROD for the EA/EAW was issued.
• For a home to be considered eligible for mitigation it must be located within the actual 60 dB DNL
noise contour, within a higher noise impact mitigation area when compared to its status relative
to the 2007-2014 Program, for a total of three consecutive years, with the first of the three years
beginning no later than 2020.
• The noise contour boundary would be based on the block-intersect methodology.
• Homes would be mitigated in the year following their eligibility determination.
On January 7, 2013, the FAA published the Final MSP 2020 Improvements EA/EAW and the Draft
FONSI/ROD, which included the following position regarding the proposed noise mitigation program:
“The FAA is reviewing MAC's proposal for noise mitigation of homes for consistency with the 1999
FAA Policy and Procedures concerning the use of airport revenue and other applicable policy
guidance.”
During the public comment period on the FAA’s Draft FONSI/ROD many communities submitted
comments urging the FAA to approve the MAC’s revised noise mitigation proposal.
On March 5, 2013, the FAA approved the FONSI/ROD for the Final MSP 2020 Improvements EA/EAW.
Specifically, the FAA stated that noise mitigation would not be a condition of FAA approval of the MSP
2020 Improvements project because “[n]o areas of sensitive land uses would experience a 1.5 dB or
greater increase in the 65 dB DNL noise contour when comparing the No Action Alternative for 2020 and
2025 with the Proposed Action for the respective years.” However, the FAA included a letter dated March
5, 2013, as an attachment to the FONSI/ROD that addresses the conditions under which airport revenue
may be used for off-airport noise mitigation. In that letter, the FAA stated:
Page 36 of 105
MSP 2024 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
17
“As a matter of general principle mitigation measures imposed by a state court as part of a consent
decree are eligible for use of airport revenue. Conceptually MAC could use airport revenues if it
were to amend the 2007 consent decree to include the proposed mitigation.”
Based on the FAA guidance, the MAC initiated discussions with the other parties to the Consent Decree
(Cities of Minneapolis, Richfield and Eagan and the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority) to begin the
amendment process. Additionally, at the March 20, 2013 NOC meeting, the Committee was updated on
the progress of this issue and voted unanimously, supporting the following position:
“NOC supports the noise mitigation program as detailed in the final EA/EAW in principle and
supports follow-up negotiations between the parties to the Consent Decree to establish mutually-
agreeable terms for the modification of the Consent Decree consistent with the 5 March 2013 FAA
letter in Appendix D of the FONSI/ROD for consideration by the Court.”
On July 31, 2013, the Cities of Minneapolis, Richfield and Eagan, the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority
and the MAC jointly filed the first amendment to the Consent Decree to Hennepin County Court. On
September 25, 2013, Hennepin County Court Judge Ivy S. Bernardson approved the first amendment to
the 2007 Consent Decree. The first amendment contains language that binds the MAC to provide noise
mitigation services consistent with the noise mitigation terms described in the EA/EAW and established
the 2017-2024 Airport Noise Mitigation Program (2017-2024 Program)6.
The 2013 Actual Contours established the first year of candidate eligibility based on the criteria detailed
in the EA/EAW. The Full 5-decibel Reduction Package was offered to single-family homes meeting the
eligibility criteria inside the actual 63 dB DNL noise contour while the Partial Noise Reduction Package was
offered to single-family homes in the actual 60-62 dB DNL noise contours. A uniform Multi-Family Noise
Reduction Package was offered to multi-family units within the actual 60 dB DNL noise contour. Homes
were mitigated in the year following their eligibility determination. The 2013 Actual Contour marked the
first year in assessing the amended mitigation program.
In 2017, the MAC began mitigating homes meeting the eligibility requirements of the 2017-2024 Program.
The program included 138 single-family homes and 88 multi-family units as part of the 2017 program, 283
single-family homes in the 2018 program, 429 single-family homes in the 2019 program, 243 single-family
homes in the 2020 program, and 16 single-family homes in the 2021 program. As of January 2024,
$33,028,926 has been spent on mitigating homes pursuant to the 2017-2024 Program.
In 2016, the Cities of Minneapolis, Richfield and Eagan, the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority and the
MAC drafted a second amendment to the 2007 Consent Decree. This amendment: 1) allows the use of
the Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT) to run the actual noise contours each year (beginning with
the 2016 Actual Contour; 2) provides clarity on the Opt-Out Eligibility criteria; and 3) provides a safeguard
for homes that may fall out of consecutive year mitigation eligibility by virtue of a change in the model
used to generate the noise contours. The clarification to the Opt-Out Eligibility criteria states: (1)
homeowners who failed to participate in the reimbursement program are not considered “Opt-Outs” and
may participate in future programs provided the home meets the eligibility requirements; and (2) single-
family homes that previously opted out of the Partial Noise Reduction Package may participate in the Full
5-decibel Reduction Package provided the home meets the eligibility requirements.
6 The 2017-2024 Airport Noise Mitigation Program was formerly referred to as the Amended Consent Decree Program.
Page 37 of 105
MSP 2024 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
18
In November 2016, the parties to the Consent Decree signed the second amendment. In December 2016,
the FAA responded that the second amendment “constitute a proper use of airport revenue” and “is
consistent with the MAC’s grant obligations.” On January 31, 2017, Judge Bernardson approved the
second amendment to the 2007 Consent Decree.
1.6 2025-2032 PROGRAM
The 2017-2024 Program will expire on December 31, 2024. For a home to be eligible for the program it
must achieve its first year of eligibility no later than 2020. The MSP 2020 Annual Noise Contour did not
qualify any new homes as directed by the first amendment. Consequently, all homes that will be mitigated
under the 2017-2024 Program have been identified and invited to participate.
In July 2021, the NOC voted to support the continuation of the noise mitigation program in a manner
consistent with the provisions of the Consent Decree and the 2017-2024 Program and requested that the
MAC explore the continuation of the program with the parties of the Consent Decree. The MAC then
brought this request from the NOC forward to the MAC Board. The MAC Board voted to support the NOC’s
request and directed staff to explore continuing the program for future consideration by the Consent
Decree parties.
Following that direction, the parties to the Consent Decree met to discuss the framework for a possible
third amendment to the Consent Decree. The parties subsequently agreed to language to establish a third
amendment to the Consent Decree that provides eligibility criteria and noise relief packages consistent
with the 2017-2024 Program through 2032. The third amendment was signed by the parties in December
2021. In January 2022, the FAA responded that the third amendment “constitute[s] a proper use of airport
revenue” and “is consistent with MAC’s grant obligations.” On April 18, 2022, Fourth Judicial District Court
Judge, Bridget Sullivan approved the third amendment to the 2007 Consent Decree, establishing the 2025-
2032 Airport Noise Mitigation Program (2025-2032 Program). The MAC’s airport noise mitigation program
is the most expansive program in the country and represents the most direct form of tangible relief to
neighbors most affected by aircraft noise from MSP air traffic.
2. 2024 ACTUAL CONTOUR
2.1 DEVELOPMENT OF THE 2024 ACTUAL CONTOUR
2.1.1 Noise Modeling
According to the amended Consent Decree, the MAC is required to prepare actual noise contours
reflecting the noise exposure from MSP aircraft operations during the previous calendar year by March 1
of each year. The availability of federal or airport-generated funds for the purpose of noise mitigation is
contingent upon the development of noise contours in a manner consistent with FAA requirements. One
of these requirements is the use of the DNL noise assessment metric to determine and analyze aircraft
noise exposure. The DNL metric is calculated by averaging cumulative sound levels over a 24-hour period.
This average cumulative sound exposure includes a 10-decibel penalty to aircraft noise exposures
occurring during the nighttime (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM) to account for relatively low nighttime ambient
noise levels and because most people are asleep during these hours.
In May 2015, AEDT version 2b was released by the FAA to replace a series of legacy tools. According to
the FAA, there was overlap in functionality and underlying methodologies between AEDT and the legacy
tools, however updates were made in AEDT that result in differences when comparing outputs from AEDT
Page 38 of 105
MSP 2024 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
19
and the legacy tools. The updates related to noise modeling include smaller flight segments to more
accurately model aircraft noise levels for a larger number of aircraft positions and states along a flight
path; a new standard (SAE-ARP-5534) for computing the effects of weather on noise; correcting
misidentified aircraft engine mounted locations for three aircraft types; and moving from recursive grids
to dynamic grids for noise contour generation. Since issuance of AEDT version 2b, FAA has released new
versions of AEDT that incorporate various model updates.
The most recent version of AEDT, version 3g was used to develop the 2024 Actual Contour. AEDT 3g,
released for use on August 28, 2024, updated the historical airport weather database with the most recent
10-year average (2014 through 2023) recorded at the Integrated Surface Database (ISD) from the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). AEDT 3g also included an update to the aircraft fleet
database to include data for a new aircraft models, the Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II, and the
profiles of the SC300C (Schweizer S300) and 747400RN (Boeing 747-400 Reduced Noise with Pratt &
Whitney PW4062A with the addition of Noise Reduction Inlet) were updated.
Noise contours depict an annualized average day of aircraft noise impacts using model inputs, such as
runway use, flight track use, aircraft fleet mix, aircraft performance and thrust settings, topography, and
atmospheric conditions. Quantifying aircraft-specific noise characteristics in AEDT is accomplished using
a comprehensive noise database that has been developed under 14 CFR Part 36. As part of the
airworthiness certification process, aircraft manufacturers are required to subject aircraft to a battery of
noise tests. Using federally adopted and endorsed algorithms, this aircraft-specific noise information is
used in the generation of DNL contours. Justification for such an approach is rooted in national
standardization of noise quantification at airports.
2.1.2 2024 Aircraft Operations and Fleet Mix
Most aircraft operations at MSP are conducted by passenger airlines. Thus, changes in operation numbers
are impacted by airline decisions. For several years, airlines operating at MSP and nationwide frequently
chose to increase passenger capacity when upgrading aircraft. The result was they were able to
accommodate the same number of passengers with fewer flights. Prior to the pandemic, MSP experienced
ten consecutive years of total passenger growth, reaching a record 39 million passengers in 2019, while
being below the operational level forecasted for 2007.
MSP passenger traffic totaled 37.2 million in 2024, marking a 6.9% increase over 2023. It’s the fourth
straight year of growth and pulls the airport within 6.2% of its annual passenger total record of 39.5 million
set in 2019.
The MAC used its Noise and Operations Monitoring System (MACNOMS) for the 2024 fleet mix data as
well as the FAA’s Operations Network (OPSNET) total operations counts in the development of the 2024
Actual Noise Contour. The MACNOMS total operations number was 1.0 percent lower than the operations
number reported by OPSNET. To reconcile this difference, MACNOMS data was adjusted upward to equal
the OPSNET number. In 2024, there were 342,254 (per FAA data) total operations at MSP, an average of
935.1 daily flights—a 5.6 percent increase compared to 2023, but still 15.7 percent below 2019 levels. Of
those, 88.5 percent occurred between the DNL-defined daytime hours of 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM. The
remaining 11.5 percent occurred at night between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM resulting in 107.5
average daily nighttime operations. This figure is up from the 104.8 average daily nighttime operations
that occurred in 2023 but remains below the 119.8 average daily nighttime operations that occurred in
Page 39 of 105
MSP 2024 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
20
2019. A summary of the 2024 fleet mix is provided in Table 2.1. A more detailed presentation of the 2024
aircraft fleet mix is provided in Appendix 1.
Table 2.1: Summary of 2024 Average Daily Flight Operations
Average Daily Flight Operations Day Night Total % of Total
Operations
Manufactured to be Stage 3 620.8 83.6 704.4 75.3%
Manufactured to be Stage 4 73.3 11.6 84.9 9.1%
Manufactured to be Stage 5 111.0 11.2 122.2 13.1%
Propeller 20.1 1.1 21.2 2.3%
Military 2.3 0.1 2.4 0.3%
Helicopter 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0%
Total 827.6 107.5 935.1 100.0%
% of Total Operations 88.5% 11.5% 100.0%
Note: Totals may differ due to rounding.
Source: MAC-provided MACNOMS data, HNTB 2025
Smaller regional jets, such as the CRJ 900 and the CRJ 200, were the most flown aircraft at MSP from 2004
to 2021. In 2024, the most flown passenger aircraft at MSP became the Boeing B737-800, a narrowbody
jet. The Boeing 737-900 was the second most flown aircraft, followed by the Embraer E170, which ranked
third in number of operations. The next two most flown aircraft types were the Airbus A321 and A320.
These five aircraft types accounted for about 55% of all operations at MSP in 2024.
Page 40 of 105
MSP 2024 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
21
2.1.3 2024 Runway Use
The FAA’s control and coordination of runway use throughout the year for arrival and departure
operations at MSP has a notable effect on the distribution of aircraft noise around the airport. The number
of flights operating on each runway, also called runway use, is one of the factors that influences the
number of people and dwellings impacted by aircraft noise.
Prior to 2005, when Runway 17/35 opened, arrival and departure operations at MSP occurred on the
parallel runways (12L/30R and 12R/30L) in a manner that resulted in approximately 50 percent of the
arrival and departure operations occurring to the northwest over the neighborhoods that make up south
Minneapolis, and 50 percent to the southeast over the cities of Mendota Heights and Eagan. Because of
the dense residential land uses to the northwest and the predominantly industrial/commercial land uses
southeast of MSP, the FAA made a
concerted effort to focus departure
operations over areas to the southeast
as the preferred operational
configuration. This tactic was effective
for ensuring as few people as possible
were affected by aircraft noise from
MSP operations.
Runway 17/35 opened at MSP in
October 2005, and provided the FAA
with new runway use options. The use
of the runways has changed over time
as a natural result of weather and
operational variables.
One noise abatement procedure in
place at MSP is the Runway Use
System (RUS). The RUS prioritizes
arrival and departure runways to promote flight activity over less-populated residential areas as much as
possible.
The RUS was updated in 2005 to coincide with the opening of Runway 17/35. For departures, Runways
12L and 12R are the first priority (Priority 1) since aircraft are directed over non-residential (industrial use)
areas to the southeast immediately after takeoff. Runway 17 is the second priority (Priority 2) departure
runway and is used for departures to the south to augment the flow of air traffic using the parallel
runways. The Minnesota River Valley and commercial land uses in Bloomington provide another
opportunity to route aircraft over an unpopulated area. There are, however, residential areas to the
south, impacted by Runway 17 departures turning eastbound after crossing the Minnesota River.
A summary of notable changes in runway use percentages between 2023 to 2024 is provided in Table 2.2
below. During the summer of 2024, runway reconstruction and other airfield improvements were
completed on Runways 12L/30R and 4/22 and associated taxiways to facilitate the safe movement of
aircraft traffic. To facilitate the construction activities, Runway 12L/30R and Runway 4/22 were closed
from June 3, 2024 through September 21, 2024. As a result, there was a corresponding increase in the use
of Runway 35 for arrivals and Runway 12R and Runway 17 for departures.
Page 41 of 105
MSP 2024 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
22
Figure 2.1 on the next page shows the runway layout at MSP. Table 2.3 provides the average annual
runway use distribution in 2024.
Table 2.2: Average Annual Runway Use Comparison
Operation Runway 2023 2024 Difference
Arrivals
4 0.1% 0.0% (0.1%)
12L 19.0% 11.7% (7.4%)
12R 30.9% 32.3% 1.4%
17 0.1% 0.5% 0.4%
22 0.2% 0.1% (0.1%)
30L 30.3% 26.9% (3.5%)
30R 18.3% 14.0% (4.3%)
35 1.1% 14.6% 13.5%
Departures
4 0.2% 0.0% (0.2%)
12L 14.2% 8.4% (5.8%)
12R 8.2% 15.1% 6.9%
17 35.5% 38.2% 2.6%
22 0.3% 0.2% (0.1%)
30L 22.6% 24.1% 1.4%
30R 18.8% 13.8% (5.0%)
35 0.1% 0.2% 0.1%
Note: Total may not add up due to rounding. Helicopters are excluded. (X.X%) indicates
reduction in use.
Source: MAC-provided MACNOMS Data, HNTB 2025
Page 42 of 105
MSP 2024 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
23
Figure 2.1: MSP Runway Layout
Page 43 of 105
MSP 2024 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
24
Table 2.3: Summary of 2024 Average Annual Runway Use
Operation Runway Day Night Total
Arrivals
4 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
12L 12.4% 6.3% 11.7%
12R 31.9% 35.0% 32.3%
17 0.4% 1.4% 0.5%
22 0.1% 0.0% 0.1%
30L 25.8% 34.2% 26.9%
30R 14.7% 9.1% 14.0%
35 14.6% 14.0% 14.6%
Departures
4 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
12L 8.5% 8.1% 8.4%
12R 14.0% 24.9% 15.1%
17 39.2% 29.0% 38.2%
22 0.2% 0.0% 0.2%
30L 23.9% 25.7% 24.1%
30R 14.2% 10.4% 13.8%
35 0.0% 1.8% 0.2%
Note: Total may not add up due to rounding. Helicopters are excluded.
Source: MAC-provided MACNOMS Data, HNTB 2025
2.1.4 2024 Flight Tracks
Modeled departure and arrival flight tracks were developed using actual flight track data. The model
tracks used in the 2024 Actual Contour were identical to those used for the 2023 Actual Contour. Sub-
tracks are added to each of the backbone arrival and departure model tracks. The distribution of
operations among the backbone and sub-tracks in AEDT use a standard “bell curve” distribution, based
on the number of sub-tracks developed.
The same methodology used in previous MSP annual reports was also used to assign actual 2024 flight
tracks to the modeled tracks. The correlation process employs a best-fit analysis of the actual flight track
data based on linear trends. This approach provides the ability to match each actual flight track directly
to the appropriate model track.
Graphics of model flight tracks and the percent that each was used in 2024 are provided in Appendix 2.
2.1.5 Custom Departure Profiles
Aircraft departures at MSP continue to use the distant noise abatement departure procedure. Historically,
the noise modeling has utilized custom noise model input in the form of custom profiles for the loudest
and most frequent aircraft types. The current set of custom profiles were developed in 2011 and updated
in 2014 and 2018.
The use of departures with custom profiles decreased from 63 percent in 2017 to 61 percent in 2018.
After new custom profiles were added in 2018, the use of departures with custom profiles increased to
74 percent in 2019. In 2024, 64 percent of departures were modeled using custom profiles.
Page 44 of 105
MSP 2024 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
25
2.1.6 2024 Atmospheric Conditions
With the release of AEDT 3g, the weather data in the AEDT airport database has been updated. This
default data that is used for noise and emissions inventory calculations now reflects average weather for
the most recently available 10-year period, 2014 through 2023. The weather station identifiers associated
with airports were also updated as needed (due to station closures/additions for the revised data time
span).
• Temperature – 46.5 degrees Fahrenheit
• Dew point – 36.3 degrees Fahrenheit
• Wind speed – 8.1 knots
• Pressure – 984.5 Millibars
• Relative humidity – 67.5 percent
Page 45 of 105
MSP 2024 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
26
2.2 2024 MODELED VERSUS MEASURED DNL VALUES
As part of the 2024 Actual Contour evaluation, a comparison was conducted on the actual 2024 measured
aircraft noise levels at the MAC’s 39 sound monitoring sites to the modeled DNL noise values from AEDT.
The latitude and longitude coordinates for each sound monitoring site was used to calculate modeled DNL
values in AEDT.
Table 2.4 provides a comparison of the AEDT modeled DNL noise
values and the actual measured aircraft DNLs at those locations in
2024.
There is an inherent difference between modeled noise results and
measured noise results. AEDT modeled data only reports on aircraft
noise. It cannot replicate the various other sources of community
noise that exist and contribute to ambient conditions. AEDT cannot
replicate the exact operating characteristics of each aircraft that is
input into the model. AEDT uses average weather conditions instead
of actual weather conditions at the time of the flight. AEDT also uses
conservative aircraft substitutions when new aircraft are not yet
available in the model. Conversely, RMT measured data is highly
impacted by community sound. The MACNOMS system must set
thresholds for events to attempt to eliminate occurrences of
community sound events being assigned to aircraft sound. While
some of the data is evaluated by staff, most events are assumed to
be aircraft if a flight track existed during the time of the event. The
factors that may contribute to the difference include site terrain,
building reflection, foliage and ground cover, ambient noise level as
well as atmospheric conditions. These variables will impact the
propagation of sound differently.
The use of absolute values provides a perspective of total difference
between the modeled values and the measured values. The average absolute difference between
modeled and measured DNL is approximately 3.0 dB compared with 3.0 dB in 2023, 3.1 dB in 2022, 3.9 dB
in 2021, 4.8 dB in 2020, and 3.4 dB in 2019. The absolute median difference is 2.2 dB DNL compared with
2.2 dB DNL in 2023, 1.8 dB DNL in 2022, 2.3 dB DNL in 2021, 3.4 dB DNL in 2020, and 1.8 dB DNL in 2019.
The absolute median difference is considered the most reliable indicator of correlation when considering
the data variability across modeled and measured data.
The large variations between measured and modeled data occur at sites that have fewer events overall.
When more data is available, that variance decreases. For example, there were 18 sites that had a
modeled DNL at or above 55 dB. The average difference between the modeled DNL and measured DNL at
those sites was only 1.4 dB. The median of the absolute difference was 0.6 dB at those sites. The remaining
21 sites had a modeled DNL of 55 dB or below. The average difference between the modeled DNL and
measured DNL at those sites was 4.3 dB. The median of the absolute difference was 3.2 dB at those sites.
There is a larger variation between the measured and modeled DNL at these sites due to fewer aircraft
operations throughout the year, resulting in fewer measured aircraft events.
Page 46 of 105
MSP 2024 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
27
Table 2.4: 2024 Measured vs. Modeled DNL Values
Sound
Monitoring
Site
2024
Measured
DNL (a)
2024
Modeled
DNL
Difference Absolute
Difference
1
56.8
57.4
0.6 0.6
2
56.3
56.5
0.2 0.2
3
63.6
63.9
0.3 0.3
4
57.8
58.3
0.5 0.5
5
68.5
68.3
-0.2 0.2
6
65
63.9
-1.1 1.1
7
58.4
57.7
-0.7 0.7
8
53.9
53.9
0.0 0.0
9
40.5
42.9
2.4 2.4
10
43.6
49.0
5.4 5.4
11
35.3
43.8
8.5 8.5
12
34
46.8
12.8 12.8
13
54.7
54.6
-0.1 0.1
14
60.3
60.3
0.0 0.0
15
54.7
55.2
0.5 0.5
16
64.4
63.2
-1.2 1.2
17
40.1
49.8
9.7 9.7
18
55
60.1
5.1 5.1
19
51.7
55.9
4.2 4.2
20
41.1
51.6
10.5 10.5
21
43.9
48.5
4.6 4.6
22
56.1
57.1
1.0 1.0
23
59.2
58.6
-0.6 0.6
24
58.8
59.0
0.2 0.2
25
51.5
53.8
2.3 2.3
26
49.5
53.1
3.6 3.6
27
53
55.2
2.2 2.2
28
54.6
61.7
7.1 7.1
29
49.8
51.4
1.6 1.6
30
62.2
62.0
-0.2 0.2
31
47.8
51.9
4.1 4.1
32
43.4
49.0
5.6 5.6
33
48.4
51.6
3.2 3.2
34
45.3
49.2
3.9 3.9
35
51.8
54.9
3.1 3.1
36
52
54.2
2.2 2.2
37
46.9
49.7
2.8 2.8
38
50.8
52.4
1.6 1.6
39
52
53.7
1.7 1.7
Average
3.0
Median 2.2
Notes:
All units in dB DNL
(a) Computed from daily DNLs
Source: MAC sound monitoring data, 2024 and HNTB, 2025
Page 47 of 105
MSP 2024 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
28
2.3 2024 NOISE CONTOUR IMPACTS
The 2024 Actual Noise Contours increased in size compared to the 2023 Actual Noise Contours. The 2024
Actual 65 dB DNL Contour encompasses 4,130 acres. This represents an increase of about 106 acres, or
2.6 percent, from the 2023 Actual Contour. The 2024 Actual 60 dB DNL Contour encompasses
approximately 10,877 acres, an increase of 319 acres, or 3 percent, from the 2023 Actual Contour.
The contours expanded along most arrival and departure lobes (the shape of the contours that extend
out from the runways) around the airport. The most substantial increase occurred on the south parallel
runway lobe, expanding past Lake Harriet to the north of the airport and into the Minnesota River Corridor
to the south of the airport.
Table 2.5 contains the count of single-family (one to three units per structure) and multi-family (more
than three units per structure) dwelling units in the 2024 Actual Contour. The counts are based on the
block-intersect methodology where all structures on a block located within or touched by the noise
contour are counted.
Table 2.5 Summary of 2024 Actual DNL Noise Contour Unit Counts
City
Dwelling Units Within dB DNL Interval
Single-Family Multi-Family
60-64 65-69 70-74 75+ Total 60-64 65-69 70-74 75+ Total
Bloomington 165 39 - - 204 2,158 403 - - 2,561
Eagan 245 - - - 245 50 - - - 50
Fort Snelling - - - - - - 215 - - 215
Mendota Heights 2 - - - 2 - - - - -
Minneapolis 6,618 1,281 - - 7,899 1,444 39 - - 1,483
Richfield 865 78 - - 943 571 16 - - 587
All Cities 7,895 1,398 - - 9,293 4,223 673 - - 4,896
Note: The spatial analysis was performed in Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM Zone 15).
There are 29 single-family residences within the 60 dB DNL noise contour in the City of Minneapolis and
20 single-family residences within the City of Richfield that achieved first year eligibility for the 2025-2032
Program. An additional 147 single-family residences within the 63 dB DNL noise contour in the City of
Minneapolis achieved first year eligibility for the 2025-2032 Program.
Additionally, there are 235 single-family and 542 multi-family homes within the 60 dB DNL noise contour
in the City of Minneapolis that achieved the second year of eligibility for the 2025-2032 Program. An
additional 97 single-family residences within the 63 dB DNL noise contour in the City of Minneapolis
achieved second year eligibility for the 2025-2032 Program.
Further evaluation and description of the 2024 Actual Contour and the residential noise mitigation is
provided in Chapter 4. A depiction of the 2024 Actual Contour is provided in Figure 2.2.
Page 48 of 105
MSP 2024 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
29
Figure 2.2: 2024 Actual Contour
Page 49 of 105
MSP 2024 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
30
3. COMPARISON OF THE 2024 ACTUAL AND THE 2007 FORECAST CONTOUR
3.1 COMPARISON OF NOISE CONTOUR INPUTS
3.1.1 Noise Model Considerations
The 2024 Actual Contour was modeled in AEDT version 3g, which incorporates updates to flight segments,
atmospheric computing standards, grids used for noise contour generation and other issues that carried
over from the FAA’s legacy model, the Integrated Noise Model (INM). The 2007 Forecast Contour was
developed using INM Version 6.2a, which was the newest version available at the time.
It is important to note that modeling modifications over time can change the size and shape of a noise
contour. For example, a range of case studies revealed that improvements to lateral attenuation
adjustment algorithms and flight path segmentation in INM version 7.0 were found by the FAA to increase
the size of a DNL contour for a range of between 3 and 10 percent over what previous versions of INM
would have modeled. Additionally, some updates incorporated into AEDT, had the effect of reducing the
60 dB DNL noise contour by 0.6 percent at MSP compared to the latest version of INM.
3.1.2 Aircraft Operations and Fleet Mix Comparison
The forecasted level of operations in the 2007 Noise Contour was 582,366 annual flights, an average of
1,595.5 flights per day. In 2024, the actual number of operations at MSP was 342,254, or 935.1 flights per
day. This represents a reduction of 660.4 daily flights on average, or 41 percent fewer flights than the
2007 forecast number. Nighttime operations decreased by 15.7 average daily flights from the 2007
forecast level to 2024 actual level. Table 3.1 provides a summary comparison of the 2024 actual and the
2007 forecast average daily operations. A more detailed comparison of the 2007 forecast fleet mix and
the 2024 actual aircraft fleet mix is provided in Appendix 1.
In general, many of the aircraft groups operating at MSP showed a reduction in the number of average
daily operations from the 2007 forecasted level to the 2024 actual level. There were minimal Hushkit
Stage 3 Jet operation at MSP in 2024. This is down from the 2007 forecast average of 275 Hushkit Stage 3
flights per day. Manufactured Stage 3+ average daily operations in 2024 were down by 246 flights per day
from the 2007 forecast. The number of propeller-driven operations decreased 130 flights per day while
the number of military aircraft operations decreased slightly by 6 flights per day.
Page 50 of 105
MSP 2024 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
31
Table 3.1: Summary of 2024 and 2007 Average Daily Flight Operations
Average Daily Flight Operations Day Night Total
% of Total
Operations
2024
Manufactured to be Stage 3+
804.1
106.4
910.5
97.4%
Hushkit Stage 3 Jets
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0%
Microjet
0.9
0.0
1.0
0.1%
Propeller
20.1
1.1
21.2
2.3%
Helicopter
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0%
Military
2.3
0.1
2.4
0.3%
Total
827.6
107.5
935.1
100.0%
% of Total Operations
88.5%
11.5%
100.0%
2007
Manufactured to be Stage 3+ 1,071.5 85.0 1,156.5 72.5%
Hushkit Stage 3 Jet 253.3 21.7 275.0 17.2%
Stage 2 Jets under 75,000 lbs 4.2 0.6 4.8 0.3%
Propeller 135.0 15.8 150.8 9.4%
Helicopter 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%
Military 8.3 0.3 8.6 0.5%
Total 1,472.2 123.3 1,595.5 100.0%
% of Total Operations 92.3% 7.7% 100.0%
Notes:
Totals may differ due to rounding
As of January 1, 2016, Stage 2 aircraft below 75,000 lbs are required to be compliant with Stage 3 noise regulations.
Source: MAC-provided MACNOMS data, HNTB 2025
3.1.3 Runway Use Comparison
Table 3.2 provides the runway use percentages for 2024, and a comparison to the 2007 forecast runway
use percentages. A general evaluation of the runway use percentages in Table 3.2 shows that the
percentage of operations that used Runway 12R and Runway 30L for arrivals and Runway 17 and Runway
30L for departures in 2024 is higher than what was forecasted in the 2007 noise contour. Conversely, the
use of Runway 12L for total arrivals was 11.7 percent in 2024 compared to 21.4 percent during the 2007
forecast.
Page 51 of 105
MSP 2024 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
32
Table 3.2: Summary of Average Annual Runway Use in 2024 and 2007
Operation
Runway
Day Night Total
2024
Actual
2007
Forecast
2024
Actual
2007
Forecast
2024
Actual
2007
Forecast
Arrivals
4 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.8% 0.0% 0.3%
12L 12.4% 21.8% 6.3% 17.2% 11.7% 21.4%
12R 31.9% 14.7% 35.0% 12.4% 32.3% 14.5%
17 0.4% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0%
22 0.1% 0.5% 0.0% 2.4% 0.1% 0.6%
30L 25.8% 21.1% 34.2% 25.1% 26.9% 21.4%
30R 14.7% 25.1% 9.1% 26.4% 14.0% 25.2%
35 14.6% 16.9% 14.0% 12.7% 14.6% 16.5%
Departures
4 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.2%
12L 8.5% 8.9% 8.1% 14.1% 8.4% 9.3%
12R 14.0% 15.9% 24.9% 18.3% 15.1% 16.1%
17 39.2% 37.2% 29.0% 34.6% 38.2% 37.0%
22 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.8% 0.2% 0.1%
30L 23.9% 15.0% 25.7% 12.8% 24.1% 14.8%
30R 14.2% 22.7% 10.4% 19.2% 13.8% 22.4%
35 0.0% 0.0% 1.8% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0%
Note: Total may not add up due to rounding.
Source: MAC-provided MACNOMS data, HNTB 2025. Annual runway use for 2007 Forecast was obtained from the November 2004 Part 150
document.
3.1.4 Flight Track Considerations
Modeled departure and arrival flight tracks were developed using actual flight track data from 2024. These
flight tracks differ from those used to develop the 2007 Forecast Contour due to enhanced modeling
methods and improved technologies. Sub-tracks were also added to each of the backbone tracks.
Standard distribution in both INM and AEDT were used to distribute the flights to the sub-tracks.
The same methodology as in previous annual reports was used to assign actual 2024 flight tracks to the
modeled tracks. The correlation process employs a best-fit analysis of the actual flight track data based
on linear trends. This approach provides the ability to match each actual flight track directly to the
appropriate model track.
3.1.5 Atmospheric Conditions Comparison
The atmospheric condition inputs vary slightly between INM and AEDT. INM used pressure values in inches
of mercury, where standard atmospheric pressure is 29.92. AEDT takes pressure in millibars, where
standard is 1,013.25. AEDT takes an additional input value for dew point temperature in degrees
Fahrenheit. As stated in Section 2.1.5, the weather data in the AEDT airport database has been updated.
This default data that is used for noise and emissions inventory calculations now reflects average weather
for the most recently available 10-year period, 2014 through 2023. The weather station identifiers
associated with airports were also updated as needed (due to station closures/additions for the revised
data time span).
• Temperature – 46.5 degrees Fahrenheit
Page 52 of 105
MSP 2024 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
33
• Dew point – 36.3 degrees Fahrenheit
• Wind speed – 8.1 knots
• Pressure – 984.5 Millibars
• Relative humidity – 67.5 percent
The following annual average atmospheric conditions were used in the 2007 Forecast Contour:
• Temperature – 47.7 degrees Fahrenheit
• Wind speed – 5.3 knots
• Pressure – 29.90 inches of Mercury
• Relative humidity – 64.0 percent
3.2 COMPARATIVE NOISE MODEL GRID POINT ANALYSIS
AEDT was used to calculate DNL values for the center points of each city block included in the mitigation
programs outlined in the amended Consent Decree. Graphics showing the actual 2024 DNL levels
calculated for each block, Base Case DNL Noise Levels calculated for each block, and the block-by-block
difference in DNL levels between the Base Case and the 2024 Actual Contour are contained in Appendix
3.
The Base Case DNL is established using the actual DNL noise level for that location during the year the
home becomes eligible for noise mitigation under the amended Consent Decree. The Base Case DNL for
homes that are not eligible for mitigation under the amended Consent Decree is established using the
2007 forecast DNL for that location.
It is important to note that the 2007 forecast DNL was developed in INM Version 6.1 because this was the
newest version of INM available at the time. The differences were insignificant when comparing the DNL
values generated for the MACNOMS sound monitoring sites with INM 6.1 in the November 2004 Part 150
Update document to the DNL generated for those same locations with INM 6.2a.
3.3 CONTOUR COMPARISON SUMMARY
In addition to modeling updates, other primary factors to consider when comparing the 2007 Forecast
Contour to the 2024 Actual Contour are total operation numbers, fleet mix, nighttime operations, and
runway use. The 2024 Actual Contour is smaller than the 2007 Forecast Contour by 4,831 acres, a 31
percent reduction in the 60 dB DNL contour. The 2024 Actual Contour is smaller than the 2007 Forecast
Contour by 3,105 acres, a 43 percent reduction in the 65 dB DNL contour.
The contraction in the contours from the 2007 Forecast to the 2024 Actual Contour scenarios is driven
primarily by the reduction in total aircraft operations, and secondarily by the reduction of Hush-kit
aircraft. There were 660 fewer average operations per day in 2024 compared to the 2007 Forecast. There
were 275 fewer Hush-kit operations per day in 2024 compared to the 2007 Forecast.
Page 53 of 105
MSP 2024 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
34
Figure 3: 2024 Actual and 2007 Forecast Contour Comparison
Page 54 of 105
MSP 2024 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
35
4. 2024 ANNUAL NOISE CONTOUR
As discussed previously, the amended Consent Decree requires the MAC to determine eligibility for noise
mitigation on an annual basis using actual noise contours, developed under Section 8.1(d) of the Consent
Decree. This chapter provides detailed information about noise mitigation impacts from the 2024 Actual
Contour at MSP.
4.1 2024 ACTUAL CONTOUR NOISE MITIGATION IMPACT
Under the provisions of the amended Consent Decree, properties must meet certain criteria to be
considered eligible for participation in the MAC noise mitigation program.
First, as stated in the first and third amendments:
The community in which the home is located has adopted local land use controls and building
performance standards applicable to the home for which mitigation is sought that prohibit
new residential construction, unless the construction materials and practices are consistent with
the local land use controls and heightened building performance standards for homes within the
60 dB DNL Contour within the community in which the home is located.
This criterion has been met by all incorporated cities contiguous to MSP.
Second, as stated in the third amendment:
The home is located, for a period of three consecutive years, with the first of the three years
beginning no later than calendar year 2028 (i) in the actual 60-64 dB DNL noise contour
prepared by the MAC under Section 8.l(d) of this Consent Decree and (ii) within a higher noise
impact mitigation area when compared to the Single-Family home's status under the noise
mitigation programs for Single-Family homes provided in Sections 5.1 through 5.3 of this
Consent Decree or when compared to the Multi- Family home's status under the noise
mitigation programs for Multi-Family homes provided in Section 5 .4 and 9.6 of this Consent
Decree. The noise contour boundary will be based on the block intersect methodology. The
MAC will offer noise mitigation under Section X of this Consent Decree to owners of eligible
Single-Family homes and Multi-Family homes in the year following the MAC's determination that
a Single-Family or Multi-Family home is eligible for noise mitigation under this Section.
Table 4.1 provides a summary of the number of single-family living units within the 2024 60 dB DNL noise
contour. Table 4.2 provides the number of multi-family living units within the 2024 60 dB DNL noise
contour. The spatial analysis was performed in Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM Zone 15).
Page 55 of 105
MSP 2024 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
36
Table 4.1: Summary of 2024 Actual Contour Single-Family Unit Counts
Year of Eligibility City Mitigation
DNL Contours
60-62 63-64 65-69 70-74 75+ Total
No Change in Eligibility Bloomington In 2024 Actual Contour Previously Mitigated or Not Eligible for Mitigation 119 46 39 - - 204
No Change in Eligibility Eagan In 2024 Actual Contour Previously Mitigated or Not Eligible for Mitigation 186 59 - - - 245
No Change in Eligibility Fort Snelling In 2024 Actual Contour Previously Mitigated or Not Eligible for Mitigation - - - - - -
No Change in Eligibility Mendota Heights In 2024 Actual Contour Previously Mitigated or Not Eligible for Mitigation 1 1 - - - 2
No Change in Eligibility Minneapolis In 2024 Actual Contour Previously Mitigated or Not Eligible for Mitigation 4,287 1,823 1,281 - - 7,391
1 Minneapolis In 2024 60 dB DNL Actual Contour Previously Outside 2005 and 2007 60 dB DNL
(Eligible for mitigation after 3 consecutive years) 29 - - - - 29
1 Minneapolis In 2024 63 dB DNL Actual Contour Previously In 2007 60-62 dB DNL
(Eligible for 5-Decibel Reduction Package after 3 consecutive years) - 147 - - - 147
2 Minneapolis In 2024 60 dB DNL Actual Contour Previously Outside 2005 and 2007 60 dB DNL
(Eligible for mitigation after 3 consecutive years) 235 - - - - 235
2 Minneapolis In 2024 63 dB DNL Actual Contour Previously In 2007 60-62 dB DNL
(Eligible for 5-Decibel Reduction Package after 3 consecutive years) - 97 - - - 97
No Change in Eligibility Richfield In 2024 Actual Contour Previously Mitigated or Not Eligible for Mitigation 636 209 78 - - 923
1 Richfield In 2024 60 db DNL Actual Contour Previously Between 2005 and 2007 60 db DNL
(Eligible for mitigation after 3 consecutive years) 20 - - - - 20
Grand Total 5,493 2,382 1,398 - - 9,273
Notes: Block-Intersect Methodology; Single-Family = 3 or fewer units; County parcel information as of October 2024; Unit counts may differ from previous reports.
Source: HNTB provided AEDT Contours, MAC analysis 2025
Page 56 of 105
MSP 2024 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
37
Table 4.2 Summary of 2024 Actual Contour Multi-Family Unit Counts
Year of Eligibility City Mitigation
DNL Contours
60-62 63-64 65-69 70-74 75+ Total
No Change in Eligibility Bloomington In 2024 Actual Contour Previously Mitigated or Not Eligible for Mitigation - 1,923 403 - - 2,326
No Change in Eligibility Eagan In 2024 Actual Contour Previously Mitigated or Not Eligible for Mitigation - 50 - - - 50
No Change in Eligibility Fort Snelling In 2024 Actual Contour Previously Mitigated or Not Eligible for Mitigation - - 215 - - 215
No Change in Eligibility Mendota Heights In 2024 Actual Contour Previously Mitigated or Not Eligible for Mitigation - - - - - -
No Change in Eligibility Minneapolis In 2024 Actual Contour Previously Mitigated or Not Eligible for Mitigation 186 711 39 - - 936
1 Minneapolis In 2024 63 db DNL Actual Contour Previously In 2007 60-62 db DNL
(Eligible for 5-Decibel Reduction Package after 3 consecutive years) - 5 - - - 5
2 Minneapolis In 2024 60 dB DNL Actual Contour Previously Outside 2005 and 2007 60 dB DNL
(Eligible for mitigation after 3 consecutive years) 542 - - - - 542
No Change in Eligibility Richfield In 2024 Actual Contour Previously Mitigated or Not Eligible for Mitigation 447 124 16 - - 542
Grand Total 1,175 2,813 673 - - 4,661
Notes: Block-Intersect Methodology; Multi-Family = 4 or more units; County parcel information as of October 2024; Unit counts may differ from previous reports.
Source: HNTB provided AEDT Contours, MAC analysis 2025
Page 57 of 105
MSP 2024 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
38
4.3 2017-2024 PROGRAM MITIGATION STATUS
In 2017, the MAC began mitigating homes meeting the eligibility requirements of the 2017-2024 Program.
The program included 138 single-family homes and 88 multi-family units as part of the 2017 program year,
283 single-family homes in the 2018 program year, 429 single-family homes in the 2019 program year,
243 single-family homes in the 2020 program year, and 16 single-family homes in the 2021 program year.
As of January 2025, $33,200,158 has been spent on mitigating homes pursuant to the 2017-2024 Program.
2020 was the final year that homes could become eligible under the terms of the 2017-2024 Program. The
homes determined eligible under the terms of the 2017-2024 Program must have opted-in by the end of
2024 to receive mitigation. Eligible homes were notified in writing that their deadline to participate was
at the end of 2024.
4.4 2025-2032 PROGRAM ELIGIBILITY
There are 196 single-family and 5 multi-family homes that achieved the first year of eligibility as a result
of the 2024 Actual Contour as outlined by the terms of the 2025-2032 Program. Of those homes, 29 single-
family are located outside of previously mitigated areas. An additional 20 single-family homes are located
within previously mitigated areas and within the 60 DNL contour. The remaining 147 single-family homes
and 5 multi-family homes were previously mitigated under the Partial Noise Reduction Package and have
moved into the 63 DNL contour.
Additionally, there are 332 single-family and 542 multi-family homes that achieved the second year of
eligibility as a result of the 2024 Actual Contour as outlined by the terms of the 2025-2032 Program. Of
those homes, 235 single-family and 542 multi-family homes are located outside of previously mitigated
areas. The remaining 97 single-family homes were previously mitigated under the Partial Noise Reduction
Package and have moved into the 63 DNL contour.
If these homes remain in a higher noise impact area compared to previous programs for three consecutive
years, they will become eligible to receive mitigation in the 2025-2032 Program.
Figures 4.1 and 4.2 illustrate the 2024 Actual Contour and mitigation program eligibility.
Page 58 of 105
MSP 2024 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
39
Figure 4.1: 2024 Contours and Mitigation Program Eligibility
Page 59 of 105
MSP 2024 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
40
Figure 4.2: 2024 Contours and Mitigation Program Eligibility – City of Minneapolis and City of Richfield
Page 60 of 105
Metropolitan Airports Commission
MAC Community Relations Office and HNTB Corporation
6040 28th Avenue South · Minneapolis, MN 55450
metroairports.org
Page 61 of 105
MSP 2024 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
A-1
List of Appendices
Appendix 1 Detailed Aircraft Fleet Mix Average Daily Operations
Appendix 2 2024 Model Flight Track and Use
Appendix 3 Noise Model Grid Point Maps
Page 62 of 105
MSP 2024 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
A-2
Appendix 1: Detailed Aircraft Fleet Mix Average Daily Operations
Table Content Page
Table A1-1 2024 Aircraft Fleet Mix Average Daily Operations A-3
Table A1-2 Comparison of 2007 Forecast Fleet Mix and 2024 Actual Fleet Mix
Average Daily Operations
A-8
Page 63 of 105
MSP 2024 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
A-3
Table A1-1: 2024 Aircraft Fleet Mix Average Daily Operations
Group Aircraft Code AEDT Aircraft (ANP)AEDT Aircraft Description 2024 Day 2024
Night
2024
Total
A306 A300-622R Airbus A300-600/622R 1.7 1.0 2.7
A30B A300B4-203 Airbus A300B4-600 Series 0.1 -0.1
A321 A321-232 Airbus A321 series 68.2 10.0 78.2
A343 A340-211 Airbus A340-300 Series 0.0 -0.0
A346 A340-642 Airbus A340-600 Series 0.0 0.0 0.0
AN12 74720B Antonov An-12 Cub 0.0 -0.0
ASTR IA1125 IAI 1125 Astra 0.0 0.0 0.0
B712 717200 Boeing 717-200 / Extended Range 50.3 2.8 53.1
B733 737300 Boeing 737-300 0.0 0.0 0.0
B734 737400 Boeing 737-400 0.1 0.1 0.2
B735 737500 Boeing 737-500 0.0 -0.0
B737 737700 Boeing 737-700 15.9 2.6 18.6
B738 737800 Boeing 737-800 108.7 33.2 141.8
B739 737800 Boeing 737-900 112.9 14.2 127.1
B744 747400 Boeing 747-400 0.2 0.1 0.3
B752 757PW Boeing 757-200 5.3 1.6 6.9
B752 757RR Boeing 757-200 1.0 0.8 1.8
B753 757300 Boeing 757-300 9.7 2.1 11.8
B762 767CF6 Boeing 767-200 0.5 0.2 0.7
B762 767JT9 Boeing 767-200 0.3 0.1 0.4
B764 767400 Boeing 767-400ER 0.0 0.0 0.0
B772 777200 Boeing 777-200 1.0 0.0 1.0
B77W 7773ER Boeing 777-300ER 0.0 -0.0
BE40 MU3001 Beechcraft Beechjet 400 0.6 0.0 0.6
C17 C17 Boeing C-17 Globemaster III 0.0 -0.0
C25A CNA525C Cessna CitationJet CJ2, 525A 0.1 0.0 0.2
C25B CNA525C Cessna CitationJet CJ3, 525B 0.8 0.1 0.9
C25C CNA525C Cessna CitationJet CJ4, 525C 0.2 0.0 0.2
C25M CNA525C Cessna CitationJet/M2 0.1 0.0 0.1
C501 CNA500 Cessna Citation I Single Pilot Twin Jet 0.0 -0.0
C510 CNA510 Cessna Citation Mustang 0.0 -0.0
C525 CNA525C Cessna CitationJet CJ1, 525 0.1 0.0 0.1
C550 CNA55B Cessna Citation 550 Citation II 0.2 0.0 0.2
C55B CNA55B Cessna Citation 550 Citation II Bravo 0.0 -0.0
C560 CNA560U Cessna 560 Citation V, Ultra & Ultra Encore 0.5 0.1 0.6
C56X CNA560XL Cessna 560XL Citation Excel 1.7 0.1 1.8
C650 CIT3 Cessna Citation III 0.1 -0.1
C680 CNA680 Cessna 680 Citation Sovereign 1.3 0.1 1.4
C68A CNA680 Cessna Citation Latitude 3.3 0.2 3.5
C700 CNA680 Cessna Citation Longitude 1.1 0.1 1.2
C750 CNA750 Cessna 750 series/Citation X 0.7 0.0 0.8
CL30 CL600 Bombardier Challenger 300 1.9 0.1 2.0
CL35 CL600 Bombardier Challenger 350 2.8 0.1 3.0
CL41 CL600 Bombardier CRJ 400 Regional Jet 0.0 -0.0
CL60 CL600 Canadair Bombardier CL600/610 Challenger Twin Jet 1.3 0.1 1.4 Jet - Noise Stage 3Page 64 of 105
MSP 2024 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
A-4
Group Aircraft Code AEDT Aircraft (ANP)AEDT Aircraft Description 2024 Day 2024
Night
2024
Total
CRJ1 CL600 Bombardier CRJ-100 0.0 -0.0
CRJ2 CL600 Bombardier CRJ 200 Regional Jet 1.1 1.1 2.2
CRJ7 CRJ9-ER Bombardier CRJ 700 Regional Jet 32.5 0.9 33.4
CRJ9 CRJ9-ER Bombardier CRJ 900 Regional Jet 71.2 2.1 73.3
DC91 DC910 McDonnell Douglas DC-9-10 with ABS3 Hushkit 0.0 -0.0
D328 CNA750 Dornier Do-328 1.0 -1.0
E135 EMB145 Embraer ERJ-135 0.4 0.0 0.4
E145 EMB145 Embraer ERJ-145 2.8 0.0 2.8
E170 EMB170 Embraer ERJ-170 4.0 0.0 4.0
E175 EMB175 Embraer ERJ-175 4.2 0.1 4.2
E190 EMB190 Embraer ERJ-190-100 /-200 1.1 0.0 1.2
E35L EMB145 Embraer EMB-135 LR 0.1 0.0 0.1
E45X EMB145 Embraer EMB-145 EX (Extra Long Range)0.2 -0.2
E75L EMB175 Embraer ERJ-175-LR 90.7 7.3 98.0
E75S EMB175 Embraer ERJ-175 (Short Wing)7.6 0.8 8.4
F2TH CNA750 Dassault Falcon 2000 1.0 0.1 1.1
F900 FAL900EX Dassault Falcon 900 1.2 0.0 1.2
FA10 727EM2 Dassault Falcon 10 0.0 0.0 0.0
FA20 FAL20 Dassault Falcon 20 Mystere 20 /200 0.0 0.0 0.0
FA50 FAL900EX Dassault Falcon 50 0.3 0.0 0.3
G150 IA1125 Gulfstream G150 0.0 0.0 0.0
G450 GIV Gulfstream IV 0.0 0.0 0.0
GALX CL600 Gulfstream G200 0.3 0.0 0.3
GL5T BD-700-1A11 Bombardier Global 5000 BD-700 0.2 0.0 0.2
GL7T BD-700-1A10 Bombardier Global 7500 BD-700 0.1 -0.1
GLEX BD-700-1A10 Bombardier BD-700 Global Express 0.4 0.1 0.4
GLF4 GIV Gulfstream IV 0.8 0.1 0.9
GLF5 GV Gulfstream V 0.9 0.1 1.0
H25A LEAR35 Hawker Siddeley HS-125 0.0 -0.0
H25B LEAR35 Hawker 800/800 XP/850 XP Twin Turbojet/Bae 125-800 0.5 0.1 0.6
H25C LEAR35 Hawker 1000 / Bae 125-1000 0.1 -0.1
HA4T CNA750 Hawker Beechcraft 4000 Horizon (Horizon 1000)0.0 -0.0
HDJT CNA510 Honda Jet 0.1 -0.1
J328 CNA750 Fairchild Dornier 328 Jet 1.5 -1.5
LJ31 LEAR35 Learjet 31 Twin Jet 0.0 -0.0
LJ35 LEAR35 Learjet 35 Twin Jet 0.2 0.0 0.2
LJ40 LEAR35 Learjet 40 Twin Jet 0.0 0.0 0.0
LJ45 LEAR35 Learjet 45 Twin Jet 0.9 0.0 0.9
LJ55 LEAR35 Learjet 55 Twin Jet 0.0 0.0 0.0
LJ60 LEAR35 Learjet 60 Twin Jet 0.3 0.0 0.3
MD11 MD11GE McDonnell Douglas MD-11 (Mixed)1.3 0.6 1.9
MD11 MD11PW McDonnell Douglas MD-11 (Mixed)0.9 0.5 1.3
MU30 MU3001 Mitsubishi MU-300 Diamond 0.0 -0.0
P8 737800 Boeing P-8 Poseidon 0.0 -0.0
PRM1 CNA55B Raytheon 390 Premier 0.0 -0.0
WW24 IA1125 IAI 1124 Westwind 0.0 -0.0
620.8 83.6 704.4 Jet - Noise Stage 3 TotalJet - Noise Stage 3Page 65 of 105
MSP 2024 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
A-5
Group Aircraft Code AEDT Aircraft (ANP)AEDT Aircraft Description 2024 Day 2024
Night
2024
Total
A319 A319-131 Airbus A319 series 42.7 5.0 47.6
A332 A330-301 Airbus A330-200 1.1 0.0 1.2
A332 A330-343 Airbus A330-200 1.2 0.0 1.3
A333 A330-301 Airbus A330-300 3.9 0.3 4.2
A333 A330-343 Airbus A330-300 0.5 0.0 0.5
B38M 7378MAX Boeing 737 MAX 8 11.4 3.2 14.7
B39M 7378MAX Boeing 737 MAX 9 2.3 0.6 2.8
B748 7478 Boeing 747-800 0.0 0.1 0.1
B763 767300 Boeing 767-300 0.0 -0.0
B763 767300 Boeing 767-300 2.0 1.0 3.0
B763 7673ER Boeing 767-300 2.5 1.1 3.6
B77L 777300 Boeing 777-200LR 0.0 0.0 0.0
B789 7879 Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner 1.0 0.0 1.0
B78X 7879 Boeing 787-10 Dreamliner 0.0 0.0 0.0
E50P CNA510 Embraer EMB500 Phenom 100 0.0 0.0 0.0
E545 CNA510 Embraer Legacy 545 0.6 0.0 0.7
E550 CNA55B Embraer EMB550 Phenom 300 0.2 0.0 0.2
E55P CNA55B Embraer EMB550 Phenom 300 2.5 0.1 2.6
EA50 ECLIPSE500 Eclipse 500 VLJ 0.1 0.0 0.1
FA7X GIV Dassault Falcon 7X 0.2 0.0 0.2
GLF6 G650ER Gulfstream VI / G650 0.7 0.1 0.8
PC24 CNA55B Pilatus PC-24 0.1 -0.1
SF50 ECLIPSE500 Cirrus Vision SF50 0.1 0.0 0.1
320 A320-211 Airbus A320 series 0.0 -0.0
73.3 11.6 84.9
A20N A320-270N Airbus A320NEO Series 5.1 1.1 6.2
A20N A320-272N Airbus A320NEO Series 0.0 -0.0
A21N A321-232 Airbus A321NEO Series 7.5 2.0 9.6
A223 737700 Airbus A220-300 0.1 0.0 0.1
A320 A320-211 Airbus A320 series 58.9 5.3 64.3
A320 A320-232 Airbus A320 series 7.5 1.7 9.1
A339 A330-343 Airbus A330-900 5.7 0.1 5.9
A359 A350-941 Airbus A350-900 2.8 0.0 2.8
A35K A350-941 Airbus A350-1000 0.0 -0.0
BCS1 737700 Airbus A220-100 10.5 0.3 10.8
BCS3 737700 Airbus A220-300 10.2 0.4 10.6
G280 CL601 Gulfstream G280 1.8 0.1 1.9
GA5C GV Gulfstream G500/600 0.3 0.0 0.3
GA6C GV Gulfstream G600 0.5 0.0 0.5
111.0 11.2 122.2
C130 C130 Lockheed Martin C-130 1.1 0.0 1.1
C130 C130E Lockheed Martin C-130 1.1 0.0 1.1
C30J C130E Lockheed Martin C-130J Super Hercules 0.0 -0.0
F18S F18EF McDonnell Douglas (Boeing) F/A-18 Hornet 0.0 -0.0
K35R KC135R Boeing C-135R Stratotanker 0.0 -0.0
T38 T-38A Northrop T-38 Talon 0.1 -0.1
2.3 0.1 2.4 Jet - Noise Stage 4Jet - Noise Stage 4 Total
Jet - Noise Stage 5Jet - Noise Stage 5 Total
MilitaryMilitary Total
Page 66 of 105
MSP 2024 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
A-6
Group Aircraft Code AEDT Aircraft (ANP)AEDT Aircraft Description 2024 Day 2024
Night
2024
Total
AT43 DHC8 Avions de Transport Régional ATR-43 1.3 0.1 1.4
AT72 DHC830 Avions de Transport Régional ATR-72 0.0 0.0 0.0
AT73 DHC830 Avions de Transport Régional ATR-72 0.0 0.0 0.0
B190 1900D Beechcraft 1900D 2.1 0.0 2.1
B300 DHC6 Beechcraft Super King Air 300 0.0 -0.0
B350 DHC6 Beechcraft Super King Air 350/300B 0.2 0.0 0.2
BE10 DHC6 Beechcraft King Air 100 0.0 -0.0
BE20 DHC6 Beechcraft Model 200 (Super) King Air 200 0.3 0.0 0.4
BE30 DHC6 Beechcraft Super King Air 300 0.4 0.1 0.5
BE36 GASEPV Beechcraft Model 36 Bonanza 0.0 0.0 0.1
BE58 BEC58P Beechcraft Model 58 Baron 0.1 0.0 0.1
BE60 BEC58P Beechcraft Model 60 Duke 0.0 -0.0
BE65 BEC58P Beechcraft Model 65 Queen Air 3.5 0.2 3.7
BE80 BEC58P Beechcraft Model 80 Queen Air 0.0 0.0 0.1
BE95 BEC58P Beechcraft Model 95 Travel Air 0.0 -0.0
BE99 DHC6 Beechcraft Airliner Model 99 3.7 0.2 3.9
BE9L DHC6 Beechcraft Model 90 King Air 0.2 0.0 0.2
BE9T DHC6 Beechcraft Super King Air F90 0.0 -0.0
C172 CNA172 Cessna 172 Single Engine SEPF 0.0 0.0 0.1
C180 CNA182 Cessna 180 Skywagon 0.0 -0.0
C182 CNA182 Cessna 182 Skylane 0.0 -0.0
C185 CNA182 Cessna 185 Skywagon 0.0 -0.0
C208 CNA208 Cessna 208 Caravan I 0.0 -0.0
C310 BEC58P Cessna 310 Twin Engine Piston aircraft 0.0 0.0 0.0
C340 BEC58P Cessna 340 Twin Piston MEVP 0.0 0.0 0.0
C414 BEC58P Cessna 414 Chancellor MEVP 0.0 0.0 0.0
C421 BEC58P Cessna 421 Golden Eagle 0.0 -0.0
C425 CNA441 Cessna 425 (Corsair/Conquest)0.0 -0.0
C441 CNA441 Cessna 441 (Conquest/Conquest2)0.0 0.0 0.1
C82R CNA182 Cessna 182 R 0.0 -0.0
C82S CNA182 Cessna 182 Skylane -0.0 0.0
COL4 GASEPV Cessna 400 Corvallis/Lancair LC41/Columbia 400 0.0 -0.0
DH8D DHC8 de Havilland Canada Dash-8/DHC8-100/200/400 1.3 -1.3
E120 EMB120 Embraer Bandeirante 110 0.0 -0.0
EPIC CNA208 Epic Aircraft LT Dynasty 0.0 -0.0
HUSK CNA172 Christen /Aviat Husky Pup A-1 0.0 -0.0
M20P GASEPV Mooney Mark 20 Series 0.0 0.0 0.0
P180 DHC6 Piaggio P180 Avanti 0.0 -0.0
P210 GASEPV Cessna P210 Centurion (Pressurized)0.0 -0.0
P28A GASEPF Piper PA-28-140/150/160/180 Cherokee 0.0 0.0 0.0
P28B GASEPF Piper PA-28-201T/235/236 Cherokee Pathfinder/Dakota 0.0 0.0 0.0
P28R GASEPF Piper PA-28R-180/200/201 Cherokee Arrow I/II/III 0.0 0.0 0.0
P28T GASEPF Piper PA-28R-180/200/201 Cherokee Arrow I/II/III 0.0 -0.0
P32R GASEPV Piper PA-32R Lance/Saratoga 0.0 0.0 0.0
P46T CNA441 Piper PA-46-500TP Malibu Meridian 0.0 -0.0
P46T GASEPV Piper PA-46-500TP Malibu Meridian 0.0 -0.0
PA11 GASEPF Cub Crafters CC-11 Carbon Cub/ Sport Cub 0.0 -0.0
PA20 CNA172 Piper PA-20 Pacer 0.0 0.0 0.0
PA23 BEC58P Piper PA-23-150/160/235 Apache PA-23-250 Aztec 0.0 -0.0 PropellerPage 67 of 105
MSP 2024 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
A-7
Group 2024 Day 2024 Night 2024 Total
Manufactured to be Stage 3 620.8 83.6 704.4
Manufactured to be Stage 4 73.3 11.6 84.9
Manufactured to be Stage 5 111.0 11.2 122.2
Propeller 20.1 1.1 21.2
Military 2.3 0.1 2.4
Helicopter 0.1 0.0 0.1
Total 827.6 107.5 935.1
Group Aircraft Code AEDT Aircraft (ANP)AEDT Aircraft Description 2024 Day 2024
Night
2024
Total
PA24 GASEPV Piper PA-24 Comanche 0.0 -0.0
PA28 PA28 Piper PA-28-151 Cherokee Warrior 0.0 -0.0
PA31 BEC58P Piper PA-31 Navajo 0.0 0.0 0.0
PA32 GASEPV Piper PA-32 Cherokee Six 0.0 -0.0
PA34 BEC58P Piper PA-34 Seneca 0.0 -0.0
PA44 PA30 Piper PA-44 Seminole -0.0 0.0
PA46 GASEPV Piper PA-46 Malibu 0.0 -0.0
PAY2 CNA441 Piper PA-31T-2 Cheyenne I/II 0.0 0.0 0.0
PC12 CNA208 Pilatus PC-12 0.6 0.0 0.6
RV9 GASEPV Van's Aircraft RV-9 0.0 -0.0
S22T COMSEP Cirrus SR22 Turbo 0.1 0.0 0.1
SB20 HS748A Saab 2000 0.1 0.0 0.1
SR20 COMSEP Cirrus SR20 0.0 -0.0
SR22 COMSEP Cirrus SR22 0.1 0.0 0.1
SW4 DHC6 Swearingen Merlin IV /Fairchild Merlin IV 5.4 0.2 5.6
T206 CNA20T Cessna 206 Stationair Turbo 0.0 -0.0
T6 GASEPV Beechcraft T-6 Texan 0.0 -0.0
TBM7 CNA208 Socata TBM 700 0.1 0.0 0.1
TBM8 CNA208 Socata TBM 850 Single Engine Turboprop 0.0 -0.0
TBM9 CNA208 Daher TMB900 0.0 -0.0
TEX2 CNA208 Beechcraft T-6 Texan II 0.1 0.0 0.1
20.1 1.1 21.2
B407 B407 Bell Helicopter 407 0.0 -0.0
B429 B429 Bell Helicopter 429 0.0 0.0 0.0
EC20 SA341G Eurocopter EC-120 0.0 -0.0
EC35 EC130 Eurocopter EC-135 COM & MIL 0.0 0.0 0.0
EC45 B429 Eurocopter EC-145 0.0 0.0 0.0
H269 H500D Schweizer 269 0.0 -0.0
H47 CH47D Chinook 114/234 Helicopter 0.0 -0.0
H60 S70 Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk Helicopter 0.0 -0.0
R44 R44 Robinson R44 Clipper/Raven Helicopter 0.0 -0.0
0.1 0.0 0.1
827.6 107.5 935.1
Propeller TotalPropeller
HelicopterHelicopter Total
Grand Total
Notes: Totals may differ due to rounding.
Source: MAC-Provided AEDT input data, HNTB 2025.
Page 68 of 105
MSP 2024 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
A-8
Table A1-2: Comparison of 2007 Forecast Fleet Mix & 2024 Actual Fleet Mix Average Daily Operations
2007
Forecast 2024 Actual 2007
Forecast
2024
Actual
2007
Forecast
2024
Actual
B429 - 0.02 - 0.02 - 0.04 0.04
SA341G - 0.01 - - - 0.01 0.01
H500D - 0.00 - - - 0.00 0.00
R44 - 0.01 - - - 0.01 0.01
S70 - 0.02 - - - 0.02 0.02
B407 - 0.00 - - - 0.00 0.00
EC130 - 0.00 - 0.01 - 0.01 0.01
CH47D - 0.00 - - - 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.06 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.08 0.08
2007
Forecast 2024 Actual 2007
Forecast
2024
Actual
2007
Forecast
2024
Actual
DC9Q 245.30 0.01 15.30 - 260.50 0.01 (260.49)
727EM2 8.00 0.01 6.40 0.01 14.40 0.02 (14.38)
FAL20 - 0.02 - 0.00 - 0.03 0.03
253.30 0.04 21.70 0.01 274.90 0.05 (274.85)
2007
Forecast 2024 Actual 2007
Forecast
2024
Actual
2007
Forecast
2024
Actual
C130 - 1.08 - 0.03 - 1.11 1.11
C130E - 1.13 - 0.03 - 1.16 1.16
C17 - 0.04 - - 0.10 0.04 (0.06)
F18EF - 0.01 - - - 0.01 0.01
KC135R - 0.02 - - - 0.02 0.02
T-38A - 0.07 - - - 0.07 0.07
C-130E 7.80 - 0.20 - 8.00 - (8.00)
C5 0.10 - - - 0.10 - (0.10)
F16GE 0.10 - - - 0.10 - (0.10)
T37 0.10 - - - 0.10 - (0.10)
T38 0.10 - - - 0.10 - (0.10)
8.20 2.35 0.20 0.06 8.50 2.40 (6.10)
DifferenceGroupAircraft Type
Day Night Total
Helicopter Total
Group Aircraft Type
Day Total
Difference
Hushkit Stage 3 JetHelicopter Total
Group Aircraft Type
Day Night Total
Difference
Night
MilitaryMilitary Total
Page 69 of 105
MSP 2024 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
A-9
2007
Forecast 2024 Actual 2007
Forecast
2024
Actual
2007
Forecast
2024
Actual
7478 - 0.04 - 0.06 - 0.10 0.10
7879 - 1.01 - 0.01 - 1.02 1.02
717200 7.30 50.32 1.00 2.77 8.30 53.09 44.79
737300 48.20 0.03 3.50 0.01 51.70 0.03 (51.67)
737400 0.10 0.13 - 0.07 0.10 0.20 0.10
737500 5.70 0.01 0.50 - 6.20 0.01 (6.19)
737700 7.80 36.81 0.50 3.30 8.30 40.10 31.80
737800 65.50 221.57 12.60 47.34 78.10 268.91 190.81
737900 5.70 - 0.50 - 6.20 - (6.20)
747400 1.90 0.20 0.20 0.15 2.10 0.35 (1.75)
757300 34.10 9.69 1.10 2.11 35.10 11.80 (23.30)
767200 1.20 - 0.50 - 1.70 - (1.70)
767300 - 2.00 - 1.00 - 3.01 3.01
767400 - 0.04 - 0.01 - 0.05 0.05
777200 - 0.98 - 0.01 - 0.99 0.99
777300 - 0.01 - 0.01 - 0.01 0.01
7378MAX - 13.68 - 3.82 - 17.50 17.50
7379MAX - - - - - - -
737N17 - - - - - - -
74720B - 0.01 - - - 0.01 0.01
757PW 88.40 5.29 8.60 1.60 97.10 6.89 (90.21)
757RR - 1.05 - 0.79 - 1.84 1.84
7673ER - 2.53 - 1.08 - 3.62 3.62
767CF6 - 0.51 - 0.23 - 0.74 0.74
767JT9 - 0.32 - 0.09 - 0.41 0.41
7773ER - 0.01 - - - 0.01 0.01
7878R - - - - - - -
A300-622R 4.80 1.74 4.20 0.99 9.10 2.73 (6.37)
A300B4-203 - 0.06 - - - 0.06 0.06
A310-304 1.40 - 1.30 - 2.70 - (2.70)
A318 5.70 - 0.50 - 6.20 - (6.20)
A319-131 149.10 42.69 3.90 4.96 153.00 47.64 (105.36)
A320-211 173.40 58.95 16.50 5.32 189.90 64.27 (125.63)
A320-232 - 7.48 - 1.66 - 9.14 9.14
A320-270N - 5.08 - 1.13 - 6.21 6.21
A320-271N - - - - - - -
A320-272N - 0.01 - - - 0.01 0.01
A321-232 - 75.72 - 12.01 - 87.73 87.73
A330-301 6.20 5.08 - 0.35 6.20 5.42 (0.78)
A330-343 - 7.46 - 0.21 - 7.66 7.66
A340 2.10 - - - 2.10 - (2.10)
Group Aircraft Type
Day Total
Difference
Night
Manufactured to be Stage 3+Page 70 of 105
MSP 2024 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
A-10
2007
Forecast 2024 Actual 2007
Forecast
2024
Actual
2007
Forecast
2024
Actual
A340-211 - 0.01 - - - 0.01 0.01
A340-642 - 0.01 - 0.01 - 0.01 0.01
A350-941 - 2.79 - 0.05 - 2.83 2.83
ASTR 2.30 - 0.20 - 2.50 - (2.50)
BA46 74.30 - 2.20 - 76.50 - (76.50)
BD-700-1A10 - 0.44 - 0.06 - 0.50 0.50
BD-700-1A11 - 0.19 - 0.01 - 0.20 0.20
BEC400 - - - - - - -
CIT3 - 0.09 - - - 0.09 0.09
CL600 - 7.30 - 1.52 - 8.83 8.83
CL601 264.10 1.75 14.70 0.13 278.80 1.88 (276.92)
CNA500 1.40 0.01 0.10 - 1.40 0.01 (1.39)
CNA525C - 1.35 - 0.10 - 1.45 1.45
CNA55B - 3.00 - 0.12 - 3.12 3.12
CNA560E - - - - - - -
CNA560U - 0.53 - 0.06 - 0.59 0.59
CNA560XL - 1.66 - 0.10 - 1.77 1.77
CNA650 4.90 - 0.60 - 5.50 - (5.50)
CNA680 - 5.72 - 0.30 - 6.01 6.01
CNA750 4.60 4.20 0.30 0.12 4.90 4.32 (0.58)
CRJ9-ER - 103.75 - 2.98 - 106.73 106.73
DC1010 9.60 - 3.80 - 13.40 - (13.40)
DC870 - - 1.40 - 1.40 - (1.40)
DC93LW - - - - - - -
EMB145 45.30 3.41 0.20 0.02 45.50 3.43 (42.07)
EMB170 - 3.95 - 0.02 - 3.97 3.97
EMB175 - 102.49 - 8.14 - 110.64 110.64
EMB190 - 1.13 - 0.03 - 1.16 1.16
FAL20A 1.00 - 0.70 - 1.70 - (1.70)
FAL900EX - 1.47 - 0.04 - 1.51 1.51
G650ER - 0.73 - 0.07 - 0.81 0.81
GIV 2.60 1.02 0.20 0.08 2.80 1.10 (1.70)
GV 0.80 1.72 0.10 0.12 0.90 1.83 0.93
IA1125 - 0.07 - 0.01 - 0.08 0.08
L101 0.60 - 0.20 - 0.80 - (0.80)
Group Aircraft Type
Day Night Total
Difference
Manufactured to be Stage 3+Page 71 of 105
MSP 2024 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
A-11
2007
Forecast 2024 Actual 2007
Forecast
2024
Actual
2007
Forecast
2024
Actual
LEAR35 26.00 2.04 2.30 0.17 28.40 2.20 (26.20)
MD11GE 0.30 1.33 0.40 0.58 0.70 1.91 1.21
MD11PW - 0.85 - 0.45 - 1.31 1.31
MD81 0.50 - - - 0.60 - (0.60)
MD83 17.00 - 1.60 - 18.60 - (18.60)
MU300 7.20 - 0.60 - 7.80 - (7.80)
MU3001 - 0.59 - 0.02 - 0.60 0.60
SBR2 0.40 - - - 0.40 - (0.40)
1,071.5 804.1 85.0 106.4 1,156.5 910.5 (246.0)
1,468.20 827.57 122.70 107.55 1,590.90 935.12 (655.78)
DifferenceGroupAircraft Type
Day Night Total
Manufactured to be Stage 3+ Total
Grand TotalManufactured to be Stage 3+Notes: Totals may differ due to rounding.
Source: MAC-Provided AEDT input data, HNTB 2025.
Page 72 of 105
MSP 2024 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
A-12
Appendix 2: 2024 Model Flight Tracks and Use
Figure Content Page
Figure 2.1 Runway 4 Arrivals A-13
Figure 2.2 Runway 12L Arrivals A-14
Figure 2.3 Runway 12R Arrivals A-15
Figure 2.4 Runway 17 Arrivals A-16
Figure 2.5 Runway 22 Arrivals A-17
Figure 2.6 Runway 30L Arrivals A-18
Figure 2.7 Runway 30R Arrivals A-19
Figure 2.8 Runway 35 Arrivals A-20
Figure 2.9 Runway 4 Departures A-21
Figure 2.10 Runway 12L Departures A-22
Figure 2.11 Runway 12R Departures A-23
Figure 2.12 Runway 17 Departures A-24
Figure 2.13 Runway 22 Departures A-25
Figure 2.14 Runway 30L Departures A-26
Figure 2.15 Runway 30R Departures A-27
Figure 2.16 Runway 35 Departures A-28
Page 73 of 105
Lake
innetonka
Chaska
ver
Minnesota
dan
Valley
National
Wildlife
Refuge
Lower
Lake
Chanhassen
2024 AEDT TRACKS -ARRIVAL RUNWAY 4
Overall Use Percentage
Minnetonka
Eden
Prairie
Figure 2.1
St. Louis
Park
Edina
Shakopee
Burnsville
Apple
Valley
Lakeville
Helena
AEDT Track Use Percentage
--<5%--10% -20% -30% -50%
--5% -10% -20% -30% ->50%
Elko New
Market
Mendota
Heights
Eagan
Rose
Farmington
0 0.75 1.5 3
Miles
A-13
Page 74 of 105
A-14
Page 75 of 105
A-15
Page 76 of 105
2024 AEDT TRACKS -ARRIVAL RUNWAY 17
Overall Use Percentage
Figure 2.4
Anoka
Lino Lakes
HENNEPl'-1
Maple
Grove
Minnetonka
Eden
Prairie
Champlin
Brooklyn
Park
Crysta
St. Louis
Park
Edina
Fridley
Richfield
-=r Bloomington
AEDT Track Use Percentage
--<5%--10% -20% -30% -50%
--5% -10% -20% -30% ->50%
Circle Pines
Lexington
Mendota
Heights
Eagan
Centerville ,
Vadnais
Heights
RAM.:,�Y
Maplewood
St Paul
Inver Grove
Heights
0 0.75 1.5
Miles
A-16
Page 77 of 105
A-17
Page 78 of 105
A-18
Page 79 of 105
A-19
Page 80 of 105
A-20
Page 81 of 105
A-21
Page 82 of 105
A-22
Page 83 of 105
A-22
Page 84 of 105
A-24
Page 85 of 105
A-25
Page 86 of 105
A-26
Page 87 of 105
A-27
Page 88 of 105
A-28
Page 89 of 105
MSP 2024 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
A-29
Appendix 3: Noise Model Grid Point Maps
Figure Content Page
Figure 3-1 to
Figure 3-5 Decibel Levels from 2024 Actual Grid Point DNLs A-30
Figure 3-6 to
Figure 3-10 Decibel Levels from Base Case Year Grid Point DNLs A-35
Figure 3-11 to
Figure 3-15
Difference in dB Level Between Block Base Case Year and 2024 Actual Grid
Point DNLs for Blocks Included in the Noise Mitigation Settlement A-40
Page 90 of 105
A-30
DECIBEL LEVELS FROM 2024 ACTUAL GRID POINT DNL
FIGURE 3.1
Page 91 of 105
� \' n % 0 3 J's-"CJ '� ro V � 6'o ::i-'6's """CJ ;;; 6:s' < "..>. o" 0 C (fl """CJ 0 co 3
0
0
0
w
½ 0 01;;;: W--. :, (J1 ..0)0);;;: :I>- a, NX (0 ••
I� (8
�-�'" Se=:_�
56�0, ;[I�� /7(;:-J<.ri O .U'l 56_!9.BJ �--..J ._• 00 � � g]Lb,N I � -� 5722:J ; 01.�-3
��'ii7
[ � ,7� �'v'-) '.e [j� I Im
C,�=f�l-I s,22�0;;:j I I sl 21 jl 5763l g8s , LJ� Is1 31jIs116J[W 1m� 5812 �5 E3Il57.87j�j :Ls�� Q�Jl 582 6 j s �_ 7<l s79 8Kii:":z s [<f,J� 5:�158 54!� �l}[j]� IL�]� i'.'.i� ll58.83j=s===;;;;; =a"' 58'881158.9611 115914 1 59 .. � 58 45 Lg; 59.08 Is117ll5783I • c,'Lo@,-___ I 5948�I� 6,..0 .... , ...... """ 15728!157 95!� a, -· @II�� o9g�_ --uo uu_,,-@r_�=-U l�825lefil0 �Ls99,.1�:�-��
�;�� 1,0-. b_a•il=::i� 9 __�-cn2ffil 59 8� �l§})I8o) IS.'S]&'S.'J / to� 1 ���w / dcs.sJ i;:s.'S)� i;ssJ s: &SSI !S..'S111SS.1I �� m -o -o 3 �lSS}[SSJ&SSJ�l'SS.'llSSZii;ssJ[§'§:
js1.66 Jls1A6I Isn2J1s149J �ll'®?l!1VJk62J1j1m1�'94I Is1.81IIsn8J1s141I _<.,o MailA /col I58.25!157.91jI5785!157 37! l58.13!15802j l}IT]l5717j Is814 Ils813Ils8 14IIs1 87JIJffi ��ls82211s8 26IIsns I1}IT] ��I58.35!158 .31 j [57.59! �mi� 1158 32! I 57 34! ��ls863 lls82 3lls1011 w���l 58 .72ll5 80 8 Jl 5 6 65 J .1�l58.69jl=:]�J58 74 Jl57.83j
� \1 591 3Jl5853!157.12j Eil�l s 8.31 H s6.79J IT1lIs9 1111s199!� :§7 ]159 03!157.63 ! 65ll58 84 il sTIJ wIs1.01I �['@] �1 5661 1
g � 0 �1 &S.:SltSS'.:H.SS1���t60t4rra c.. � �l'SS.'lcs.sl&SSl&S.'S! LSSJi;ssJ , .... , .... , .... , .... �JSSl &S), I lS.S.'l i;:ssJ &SSI &S."l lSSl � lSS.'l CSS1 . '"'C]fL}[J I 5621 I "--l%Jf&1 �i;:s,:siissri =� ISS:'i i;:s:'Sl�..,L.>.� � �,569 3lls621j
61 38 1?. :-69
���&s11Sl _ � &'S.'SI LSSJ�&.s.'Sl � � � w[}01s624I [6Sl&'S.'SMS�::s �CSSJ,B=l -,ISS.1 &S'Si(SSYISS:'ICSSl &S.1 f' s1_04 Hs6.31I ,--rs.'S.1lSSI!�� --•i;:s,:si � �&'S.'SI lSSl '-!,7 ��Jls6 4s J1s6 02 1 .�� &s�r --!rs.s.1 � �\'SS.'l &'S"SI 5'�Is669Jl s627I &'S,"ll ' \:•' I� �&S'SJ rss.'ils7-97I \5689Jl5638Jl5591' --�(S"Sl I \'. •� ,,., \ "1 �15 809 1 \56.84Jl56.32Ji 55.8! �ISSJ ___ I / '1\ _ _,I . ,, ,, I � �ISS:'I �OO.,Jl55 .57) ,r All!!!ffi I - � -
I ,=rn-,,., / �ll 55 8 5 I [55.33 1154 .87 1 ,---all----; il'SliSSJl;sJ / -,&'Jcs:sJ &_1 I
s:
iSl� � � ISS.'l� I -��&'S.'SI�:��[SSJ� I l\llSSI �� I [;SSI�
� C r-'<-- c:, C '<--:3 "' ;;;-
--I iss1i������ 1&_1 1 I LSSJ iS..'S:'SI �� � :ISi� � IS..'S:'SI CSSl &.s.'Sl�l'SS.'llSSJ �� � � ISJ.O [;SSj [SSjLSSJ�&'S.'Si �� � � I / iSS1 �&S'Si&'S:'SllS.Sl l55461l� � �---LSSJ�Iss .1s11�
I
/
I s6 32IIss s4I ls4 81j
[sl&s."l��'" � ... ��1 5 6381 '.:; t,; g; bJ�IIss 941
��
::i: o· r� Q Q"" ..., "' ::,-c
159 541 1/59 52[ DECIBEL LEVELS FROM 2024 ACTUAL GRID POINT DNL FIGURE 3.2 - City of MinneapolisA-31Page 92 of 105
DECIBEL LEVELS FROM 2024 ACTUAL GRID POINT DNL
FIGURE 3.3 - City of Richfield
A-32
Page 93 of 105
DECIBEL LEVELS FROM 2024 ACTUAL GRID POINT DNL
FIGURE 3.4 - Cities of Bloomington and Eagan
A-33
Page 94 of 105
DECIBEL LEVELS FROM 2024 ACTUAL GRID POINT DNL
FIGURE 3.5 - Cities of Eagan, Mendota Heights and Inver Grove Heights
A-34
Page 95 of 105
DECIBEL LEVELS FROM BASE YEAR GRID POINT DNL
FIGURE 3.6
A-35
Page 96 of 105
DECIBEL LEVELS FROM BASE YEAR GRID POINT DNL
FIGURE 3.7 - City of Minneapolis
A-36
Page 97 of 105
DECIBEL LEVELS FROM BASE YEAR GRID POINT DNL
FIGURE 3.8 - City of Richfield
A-37
Page 98 of 105
�I �LJ �I Fort Snelling - - -- - - - - - ---.- - - - - - - - - - -"-:..J - - - - - _I_ - - - - - - - - - - --V--------------------- - -, -_ State ear.k ________ _
Bloomington
Min:
56.1 L_ _ __._ __ ....__ ....
I /
b"' "><--f<o� <o<:::5<o"> <o<--5 "� ,,,,"�
Max:
64.1
� Completed in Previous Program
Black Dog Lake
/,
ii
(j� ,e,'> -�
i''v-
Black Dog Lake
e:r·<"""
i\� I , I
Long Meadow Lake
,...------_,.,.,...,.
/
\
\ I
/,
�
/
/
/
I
/
Fort Snelling State Park Pond
I
Cun Club Lake
0 0.1 0.3
Blackhawk Lake
0.6
Miles
DECIBEL LEVELS FROM BASE YEAR GRID POINT DNL
FIGURE 3.9 - Cities of Bloomington and Eagan
A-38
Page 99 of 105
DECIBEL LEVELS FROM BASE YEAR GRID POINT DNL
FIGURE 3.10 - Cities of Eagan, Mendota Heights and Inver Grove Heights
A-39
Page 100 of 105
DIFFERENCE IN BASE CASE AND 2023 ACTUAL GRID POINT DNL
FIGURE 3.11
A-40
Page 101 of 105
DIFFERENCE IN BASE CASE AND 2023 ACTUAL GRID POINT DNL
FIGURE 3.12 - City of Minneapolis
A-41
Page 102 of 105
DIFFERENCE IN BASE CASE AND 2023 ACTUAL GRID POINT DNL
FIGURE 3.13 - City of Richfield
A-42
Page 103 of 105
DIFFERENCE IN BASE CASE AND 2023 ACTUAL GRID POINT DNL
FIGURE 3.14 - Cities of Bloomington and Eagan
A-43
Page 104 of 105
DIFFERENCE IN BASE CASE AND 2023 ACTUAL GRID POINT DNL
FIGURE 3.15- Cities of Eagan, Mendota Heights and Inver Grove Heights
A-44
Page 105 of 105