Loading...
02/13/1986 - Airport Relations Commission • AIRPORT NOISE MEETING THURSDAY FEBRUARY 13, 1986 7:00 P.M. EAGAN MUNICIPAL CENTER BUILDING I. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS & LEGISLATIVE REVIEW - REPRESENTATIVE ART SEABERG II. REVIEW GOVERNORS TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS - EAGAN MAYOR BEA BLOMQUIST III. QUESTIONS & GENERAL REMARKS IV. OTHER BUSINESS V. ADJOURNMENT HANDOUTS - Airport Noise Articles /Special Edition by Current Newspapers dated 2/10/86 - " Perpich will disregard plan from noise panel" article dated 2/12/86, Minneapolis Star & Tribune - Task Force report to Governor Perpich VVC1 b C016."- ices 401 444s pete-131-4. o titaz- 4 4 ��� Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building l i, Seventh and Robert Streets :: St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 \---\ �. ieleanone (6 12) 29 1•6359 • January 27, 1986 • The Honorable Rudy Perpich 130 State Capitol St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 Dear Governor Perpich: Enclosed is the report of the Task Force on Airport Noise that you established in October, 1985. This interagency group examined. the problem of aircraft noise in the communities surrounding Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport and evaluated potential solutions to this problem at the federal, state, and local level. A program of solutions which was adopted unanimously is recommended to you in the report. I would like to emphasize the key recommendation of the report, which is that the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) negotiate a phased compliance schedule to reduce airport noise. Many of the other recommendations could be implemented as elements of this compliance schedule. Since the Task Force adopted its report on January 9 two events have occured that are related to aircraft noise. The hearing - examiner has issued a report on the proposed new MPCA noise regulations that delays their implementation. (rte This ruling does not change my perspective that MPCA and MAC should begin negotiations since MPCA does have existing noise regulations in effect. In addition, on January 23, Northwest Orient Airlines announced the acquisition of Republic Airlines. This may offer the potential for noise relief due to less competition, but again, does not negate the need for negotiations between MAC and MPCA to go forward. The new Northwest should be involved in attenuation of aircraft noise. I would urge you to request the executive directors of the Metropolitan Airports Commission and the Minnesota Pollution Control '' - Agency to ''•', - aeGic „cl begin negotiations on this compliance schedule and report back to you by June 1 on their progress. Z/3 6. • Governor Rudy Perpich January 27, 1986 Page 2 The members of the task force, who are listed in Appendix A of the report, represented state and metropolitan agencies, stage legislators, local units of government and citizens of the area. Through their interest and cooperation we were able to complete this report in an expeditious manner. It is my belief that the problem of airport noise can be alleviated through a continued cooperative effort by all the agencies involved to implement these recommendations. Sincerely, &I ' S-A-k. i' (a./ Sandra S. Gardebring Chair, Governor's Task Force on Airport Noise - SSG /dpf . enclosure rt# • 1 .1 REPORT OF THE GOVERNOR'S TASK FORCE ON AIRPORT NOISE Adopted January 9, 1986 • . l Introduction Over the past two decades, the communities surrounding the Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport (MSP) have been seriously impacted by noise generated by the aircraft using the airport. In the past few years, the problem has become acute. This is principally because of increased aircraft operations resulting from Congress' decision in 1978 to deregulate the airline industry. At the time of deregulation, there were 9 airlines annually flying about 11 million passengers in and out of the airport. That was done with about 220,000 landings and takeoffs. Today, there are 34 airlines flying the same number of passengers; however, the landings and takeoffs have increased to 370,000. Many of the airlines operating at MSP are using older aircraft that are very noisy. One measure of the seriousness of the problem is the dramatic increase in citizen complaints. In July 1985, there were 1,252 complaints as contrasted with 823 in July of the prior year. Finding effective solutions to this problem is complicated by the fragmentation of authority over aircraft and airport operations at the federal, state, regional and local levels. In October, 1985 Governor Perpich authorized this interagency task force chaired by Sandra Gardebring of the Metropolitan Council. Members, who are listed in Appendix A, included representatives of the Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), State Planning Agency, legislators, Department of Transportation and Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) as well as local units of government and citizens of the area. The specific charge of the task force was to evaluate potential solutions available at both the federal and state level to the problem of aircraft noise at Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport and to recommend specific proposals to the Governor for both short- and long -term solutions to the problems of airport noise. The task force met eight times between October, 1985 and January, 1986. Perspectives on the problem were presented by MAC, MPCA, the Metropolitan Council, the airline industry, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), state legislators and other interested groups such as the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) and South Metropolitan Airports Action Council (SMAAC). A presentation was heard on the legal constraints and fragmentation of authority between various levels of government. Since airport noise is a problem in many metropolitan areas around the country, solutions being tried in other cities were also examined. A list of 49 possible solutions were prepared and examined by the task force. This list was pared to the options presented in this paper. Emphasis was placed on controlling operations and noise levels rather than adding capacity to the airport. The basic premises of the Task Force in evaluating the range of solutions to the airport noise problem were as follows: 1. Short -term noise reduction should be the primary goal of the Task Force. 2. Initiatives offering long -term relief are equally important and should be recommended, but are no longer sufficient in light of the current problem. _ • 3. Legal questions should be considered, but should not be determinative of the recommended course of action. 1/ • 1 • 4. Noise abatement is a multi - jurisdictional responsibility. 5. Noise reduction in one neighborhood should not be accomplished at the expense of another. Assuming short -term noise reduction as a primary goal the task force did not consider construction of a new airport. A new airport has not been sited in the United States since the late 60's. Further, with the passage of the National Environmental Protection Act in the early 70's, the possibility of such a siting would at the very least be a long -term solution to the problem if it could be done at all. While not completely ruling out this option, it was felt that the task force's best efforts should be directed elsewhere. Background Much work has already been done on the issue of airport noise by several agencies and groups. In 1969 the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) was created as an advisory group by MAC. This was the country's first l successful attempt at bringing together industry representatives, citizens and the airport operator to develop noise abatement strategies. These strategies included creation of a preferential runway system to channel traffic over the Minnesota River and an industrial - commercial area of Eagan, voluntary nighttime restrictio flights, and reduction of noise from engine runups. These were significant steps which contained airport noise at a tolerable level for several years. However, there has been a dramatic increase in airline traffic into the Twin Cities since the airline industry was deregulated in 1978. The traffic levels have substantially increased the duration of noise in affected areas and have decreased the amount of time the preferential runway system can be used. Deregulation has also allowed new carriers to enter the marketplace, often by purchasing used aircraft to avoid the substantial investments required for new planes. Prior to 1978 the used aircraft market in the U.S. was relatively inactive; now, however, retirement of an older, noisier airplane by one carrier does not often remove the plane from the national fleet. During the of 1985 aircraft noise reached crisis proportions. A record number of complaints was received by the airport and citizens organizations, notably the South Metropolitan Airports Action Council (SMAAC) renewed their efforts to curtail noise. In addition to the work of this task force there are currently some special local efforts to deal with the problem. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency held public hearings on November 19 and 20 on proposed noise rules which would restrict the amount of noise emanating from aircraft using the airport. MAC is currently completing a voluntary Part 150 Study which has been underway for 2 years. The Federal Aviation Regulation Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Program prescribes the procedures and methodology for preparation of airport noise exposure maps and an airport noise compatibility program. Several of the recommendations in this report are also contained in the Part 150 Study, such as a noise budget, differential landing fees and a night curfew. The Part 150 Study will also seek to establish the environmental capacity of MSP. Defining the airports environmental capacity will help shape the implementation of, and provide a legal basis for, many of the recommendations which follow. 2-7 2 MAC Chairman, Ray Glumack, has proposed a 16 -point program for dealing with the noise, some of which are included in this report. Task Force Recommendations The following recommendations are organized in sections according to the time frame of their noise improvement. Within each section there is no implied priority for individual strategies; they are all intended for implementation as a package. Immediate action on the recommendations in Sections 2 -3 is needed even though actual noise reduction will occur at a later date. Recommendation 2 of Section 2, to work out a phased compliance schedule between MAC and MPCA to result in the reduction of airport noise, should be highlighted. This is a key recommendation since many of the other recommendations can be implemented as elements of this compliance schedule. These negotiations should begin immediately with a report made to the Governor by June 1 on their progress. This task force should also be re- convened to review this progress. For each recommendation, the agencies with primary jurisdiction and secondary responsibility are identified as well as a suggested procedure for carrying out the recommendation. SECTION 1 - TARGET: OPEN WINDOW SEASON 1. Noise Budget -- Using the Logan Airport (Boston) Model, begin immediately to determine aggregate noise level in 1984 and issue an order to the airlines not to exceed this level. Airlines would be free to decide within this budget which planes to use and when (within 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. time frame). However, all would be bound bran allocated ceiling based on 1984 noise levels. After this initial single season rollback, ceilings would be structured in succeeding years to allow noise improvements each year. Primary Agency -- Metropolitan Airports Commission ' , " );1 " 1; Secondary Agency - Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Compliance Procedure -- MAC would establish the noise level and begin meetings with the 34 airlines to inform them of the ceiling and to discuss appropriate mechanisms to stay within the noise budget. The compliance schedule would also be negotiated with the airlines. Potential sanctions include loss of terminal space, loss of gates, others. MPCA could make implementation of a noise budget part of a compliance schedule to meet its standards (see Section 2, Strategy 2). 2. Limitations on corporate and private general aviation operations at Minneapolis -St. Paul (MSP) International Airport. No new facilities for general aviation (such as corporate hangars) would be approved at MSP and incentives would be provided for non - essential users of MSP to move to satellite airports. General aviation planes are relatively quiet. However, since the Preferential Runway System is dependent on the total number of aircraft operations and because even environmentally sound aircraft contribute to that total, they can have the effect of limiting the use of the Preferential Runway System. Combinin this recommendation with other ��0 attempts to limit noisy commercial flights, such as the noise budget, should insure that reducing general aviation flights does not merely open space for more commercial flights. A program of legal limitations at MSP and incentives to move to other airports could be implemented. Current efforts such as the installation of an instrument landing system at Airlake Airport and upgrading of St. Paul Downtown Airport are continuing and should show results soon. Further development of all reliever airports should continue into the future. A minimum landing fee at MSP, regardless of weight, could be imposed immediately as an incentive to land elsewhere. MAC should actively advertise and promote general aviation use of its other airports. Primary Agency -- Metropolitan Airports Commission Secondary Agency -- Metropolitan Council, Legislature Compliance Procedure -- Policy decision to disapprove a request for new facilities at MSP would be made at the Commission level; Metro Council Policy Plan encourages development of reliever airports. The Council also oversees airport development through reviews of EIS's, master plans and MAC's capital improvement budget. This also may fall under proposed legislation to restrict expansion of airport. MAC would be responsible for creatin ncentives for general aviation to move to satellite airports. 3. Ban all training flights by ordinance, to take effect next summer when Airlake instrumentation is complete. Primary Agency -- Metropolitan Airports Commission Compliance Procedure -- MAC would adopt, ordinance. 4. Strict enforcement of noise abatement operation procedures and noise sensitivity training for pilots and air traffic controllers. Primary Agencies -- Metropolitan Airports Commission, FAA, Congress Secondary Agency y g y -- Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Compliance Procedure -- the Metropolitan Airports Commission would become more proactive and begin immediate meetings with the airlines and FAA, employer of the controllers, to determine appropriate compliance methods. 5. MAC should establish an aggressive 24 hour noise monitoring program at the airport to become more proactive on the noise issue. Primary Agency -- Metropolitan Airports Commission Secondary Agency -- Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Compliance Procedure - MAC should act immediately to establish 24 hour monitoring by people, not_machines, for compliance- with noise abatement procedures. People could quickly respond and point out problems to the control tower for correction. - z1f 4 • - 6. Differential landing fees based on noise level of individual aircraft, with lower fees for quieter planes. ' Primary Agency -- Metropolitan Airports Commission Secondary Agency -- Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Legislature (noise tax) Compliance Procedure -- MAC would begin immediately to develop a process to significantly increase landing fees for noisier aircraft. Fees for major carriers could be increased in 1989 when contracts expire, although the contracts may not be binding if a nuisance or pollutant is created allowing the fee structure to be changed sooner. Monies derived from this procedure could be dedicated to noise abatement activities. Fees have to be high enough to be a significant disincentive for noisier planes to use the airport. An alternative method would be setting a "noise tax" for take- offs and landings. 7. Additional nighttime restrictions (11 p.m. to 6 a.m. weekdays, 8 a.m. weekends) on all but Stage III aircraft.* There is currently a voluntary nighttime restriction honored by the airlines which keeps flights at a low level. However, there is a possibility the number of flights may grow, especially among general aviation such as cargo and charter flights. 1D Primary Agency -- Metropolitan Airports Commission • Secondary Agency -- Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Compliance Procedure -- Immediate MAC action to set policy ban based on FAA Part 36 regulations which certify the sound levels of various planes. 8. Limit expansion of MSP facilities until noise abatement program is adopted. Primary Agency -- Minnesota Legislature. Rep. Ken Nelson and Sen. Mike Freeman are introducing bills which would limit expansion of MSP facilities unless such projects are consistent with noise abatement goals. Secondary Agencies -- Metropolitan Airports Commission, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (as part of a compliance procedure) Compliance Procedure -- If the Legislature does not limit expansion, MAC could voluntarily refuse to expand the airport. SECTION 2: MEDIUM RANGE RECOMMENDATIONS (2 -5 YEARS) 1. Prepare for litigation involving the FAA with regard to the airport operator's authority to regulate the number of flights at MSP based on environmental capacity considerations. Primary Agencies -- Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Metropolitan Airports Commission, or other agency with standing. Compliance Procedure -- Research is currently being conducted on relevant legal issues. _ *See Appendix B for definition of aircraft stages. ZZO 2. Work out a phased compliance schedule between MAC and MPCA to result in the reduction of airport noise. This may incorporate noise reduction techniques such as differential landing fees, noise budgets or land use compatibility guidelines. Primary Agencies -- Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Metropolitan Airports Commission Secondary Agency -- Metropolitan Council Compliance Procedure -- Work on this agreement should begin immediately, with the agencies reporting to the Governor and this task force by June 1 on their progress. 3. Accelerate development of reliever airports to better serve general aviation. Improvements to St. Paul Downtown and Airlake are almost completed but ongoing improvements and amenities to the other airports will be needed to divert further traffic from MSP. Primary Agency -- Metropolitan Airports Commission Secondary Agencies -- Metropolitan Council and possibly state Legislature for change in current law regarding reliever airport improvement. Compliance Procedure -- Metropolitan Council should provide direction in its Aviation Policy Plan. The draft plan recommends an additional minor airport in western Hennepin County. MAC should continue improvements to other airports. 4. Add an instrument landing system (ILS) to Runway 11L to allow better utilization and more precise higher approaches to this runway. Responsible Agencies -- Federal Aviation Administration, Metropolitan Airports Commission f Compliance Procedure -- At the request of Congressman Martin Sabo funding for this improvement is included in the current transportation bill. 5. The Part 150 study currently being undertaken by MAC (with FAA, airline and local government participation) should be completed. This study is looking at the environmental capacity of the airport and will identify ways to curtail noise. Upon completion of this study, MAC will be eligible for federal funds to assist in a noise abatement program. • Primary Agency -- Metropolitan Airports Commission Secondary Agency -- Federal Aviation Administration Compliance Procedure -- This study should be completed as soon as possible and submitted to the FAA. The study includes several options, some of which are recommended by this task force; however, the task force has not reviewed or endorsed the complete study. 6. Adopt ban on further manufacture of Stage II aircraft and the import of new or used Stage II planes from other countries.* *See Appendix B for definition of aircraft stages. 1: 6 • Primary Agencies -- Federal Aviation Administration, Congress Compliance Procedure -- Continued lobbying, possibly congressional action. 7. Adopt a ban on any further extension of the Stage I operating cutoff date of January 1, 1988.* Primary Agencies -- Congress, FAA Compliance Procedure -- Continued lobbying, possibly Congressional action. Locally, MAC has adopted an ordinance cutting off use of MSP Airport by most Stage I aircraft already and will ban all remaining Stage I aircraft after January 1, 1988. 8. Adoption and enforcement of Metropolitan Council's Land Use Compatibility Guidelines by all affected municipalities to prevent development of vacant land into noise sensitive uses. Primary Agencies -- Municipalities, Metropolitan Council Compliance Procedure -- Those municipalities which have not incorporated these guidelines into their comprehensive plans and zoning should do so _ - Council should enforce Metropolitan Land Ianiti' c . Airport and FAA must maintain flight patterns upon which these land uses are based. 9. Coordinated soundproofing plan where sound insulation is provided to schools and public buildings, and to homes on a voluntary basis, with full cost (depending on building location) provided by MAC or another designated agency. Primary Agency -- Metropolitan Airports Commission Compliance Procedure -- MAC and Minneapolis should complete pilot insulation program as soon as possible and MAC should institute a continuing comprehensive plan of insulation in all affected municipalities funded through a differential landing fee, jet fuel tax or other sources. This insulation plan should be based on the F.A.R. Part 150 Study now being prepared. SECTION 3: POST - 1990 1. A ban on operation of Stage II aircraft should be adopted to be implemented by 1995. Primary Agency -- Federal Aviation Administration, Congress Compliance Procedure -- Continued lobbying by members of Task Force, possible Congressional action. *See Appendix B for definition of aircraft stages. 2Z7— 7 • SECTION 4: OTHER POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS Solutions identified in this section have been discussed by the Task Force and are passed forward without specific recommendation or endorsement. Some are actions already underway; others have not been endorsed by the Task Force due to a lack of information on their noise benefits. It is possible they should be considered after further information becomes available. 1. Implement extension of Runway 4/22. Completion of the environmental impact statement for this extension would provide the information needed to fully assess its potential for noise abatement and its economic impact. 2. Installation of a Microwave Landing System will allow curved and variable approach paths, as well as varied glide slopes. Actual benefit to noise levels requires further study. 3. Implementation of long -term comprehensive airport plans at all system airports by 1990. 4. Limited acquisition of homes in highest noise areas, preferably on a voluntary basis, by MAC or another agency, possibly with money from a Noise _ Abatement Trust Fund established with differential landing fees. 5. Tax reduction plan for houses impacted by aircraft noise. This has implications of selling airlines a license to make noise. The money that would be needed to reduce taxes may be better spent on actual reduction of noise. 6. Stricter compliance with Eagan departure corridor and three -mile turn rule would obtain maximum acoustical benefits from runway 11L and 11R. This is an operating procedure (part of the "preferential runway system ") which previously had great benefits by concentrating aircraft approaches and departures over an industrial /commercial area of Eagan, rather than residential areas which surround the airport in most other directions. However, with increased traffic in recent years, these procedures decrease the amount of time runways 11L and 11R can be used, and increase the amount of traffic departing over South Minneapolis, where planes can turn and be fanned out sooner than three miles. 7. MAC has passed, and is promoting among others, a resolution favoring limited re- regulation of the aviation industry to control noise (i.e., limiting the number of flights between two points); Minneapolis has also passed a similar resolution. NOISE1 • 2z3 8 Appendix A IMPORT NOT SE TA= FORCE MEMBERS • Sandra S. Gardebring, Chair Mr. Raymond Giumack Metrocolitan Council Metropolitan Airports Comm. 300 Metro Square Building Rm. 301 Terminal Building St. Paul, Mn. 55101 St. Paul, Mn. 55111 • 291 -6452 726 -1892 Rec. Wesley Skoglund Sen. Michaei Freeman 507 State Office Bldg. 303 State Capitol St. Paul, Mn. 55155 5t. Paul, Mn. 55755 721 -1515 h 869 -1114 h 296 -4330 0 2 - o Cr. Larry Foots Mr. Tom Katitcwski Mn. 0ecart..tent of Transportation Executive Director Transcortation Buiiding Mn. Pollution Control Agency St. Paul, Mn. 55755 1935 W County Road B2 296 -3000 Roseville, Mn. 77113 • 296 -7373 • Mr. Rick JeIlinger 5157 - 13th Avenue Scutt' Mr. Joe Sizer Minneacolis, Mn. 55 Mn. State Planning Agency 824 -1509 100 Caci-cal Scuare Building St. Paul, Mn. 55 Mr. Steve Cramer • 297 -2997 307 City Hall Minneacolis, Mn. 55 Mr. Don Cederholm 348 -2211 o 6214 - 5th Avenue South Richfield, Mn. 55 Ms. Sue McCloskey 866 -9185 387 Macalester Stret "z St. Paul, Mn. 55105 Mr. Leon Cock 944 -5710 5016 - 13th Avenue Scutt, Minneacolis, Mn. 55 Mayor Bea 8lcmcuist 332 -2195 0 City of Eagan 823 -2692 h 3830 Pilot Knob Road P. 0. Box 21199 Mr. Burton Josecn (aiternate) Eagan, MN 55121 Metrcco l i tan Airports Comm. 454 - 8100 Rm. 301 Terminal Building St. Paul, Mn. G5111 • • • Z 9 Appendix B Definition of Terms Stage I, II, III - The FAA Part 36 regulation defines three generations of commercial jet aircraft according to design noise levels. The oldest, noisiest jets such as are referred to as Stage I. Boeing 707 and McDonnell Douglas DC -8. • Stage II aircraft are slightly less noisy planes whose designs were approved after 1969. These include 747's, DC -10's, and other planes re- . designed to comply with these regulations such as newer 727's, and DC -9's. The newest jets, Stage III, are those complying with the latest-FAA design standards. These include 757's, 767's, 737 -300's A -300 Airbus and DC -9 super 80's, which produce half the noise of a Stage II plane. Preferential Runway System (PRS) The Preferential Runway System is a system of runway use at Minneapolis /St. Paul International Airport (MSP) designed to reduce aircraft noise over the most densely populated areas near the airport. The program orginated in May, 1968. In recent years, it has only been used for a limited number of hours per day due to the large increase in the number of aircraft operations at MSP. The map and explanation below are from MASAC's Airport Fact Sheet 102. The Runway System at the Minneapolis /St. Paul International Airport MINNEAPOLIS ST. PAUL MISSISSIPPI RIVER -9ltl 22 11R ✓ �:� RICHFIELD 4 MENDOTA MSP TERMINAL f` � 1494 29L �j 360' MINNESOTA RIVER 290° 4 0° BLOOMINGTON Under the Preferential Runway System the following 270. 90. NOTE: Airport rumeays are normally runways f teer and tint ; my numbered according to compass EAGAN TAKEOFF LANDING ° 110 headings LANDING 220 ill and R 29L and R led 22 1 29L and R 11L and R 4 22 The runway system at the Minneapolis /St. the PRS is not being used. planes arriving on 111 Paul International Airport is comprised or six and 11R fly over areas of South Minneapolis. Run - separate runways. 11L and 11R and 29L and 29R ways 29L and 29R run southeast to northwest. are called a parallel system. This refers to their Under the PRS. arriving planes are directed to use relative parallel positions. Runways 4 and 22, these runways. This way planes approach Min- which run at an angie to the other runways. are neapolis/ St. Paul International Airport over the positioned this way to allow for changing wind open areas to the southeast. When the PRS is not direction. Each runway can be used for both in effect. planes departing on 29L and 29R tly over takeoffs and landings, yet. in an attempt to max- noise sensitive areas or South Minneapolis. Run - imize noise relief. the PRS designates each run- way 4. running from southwest to northeast. is way a priority function; i.e. either takeoff or land- commonly used for arriving aircraft. Approaching ing. For example. the map shows that runways 11L planes fly over areas or Richfield and Bloom - and 1IR run from the northwest to the southeast. ington. It is seldom used for departing aircraft. When the PRS is in effect. priority is given_ these in contrast, runway 22 is used for departing pianes 22 5' runways for departing planes. This takes them (taking the aircraft towards the southwest) and over areas to the southeast or the airport. When seldom used for arriving planes. n i irY� t4= i� Normil L,. - - . Session 9 86 ' P • ' •' � + « • -�- Minneapolis Star and Tribune - - --- ' =- -�-- �------ -•-=.• erpichVill . 4B Wed., Fab 12 1986 f," T 1.16h . .----....."--..Z vs d ,? a Awn. cw•az rr• L ast35rm+a a I I tf ArfF pla from l 4 Co ntinued from page 1Bf k l - 1 ; I- II if - _ 1 y t:"-,. '. I • r'' . y -rte rro i' � +r •t no i S e panel f P!1r; tly upo n ! us some : Session 86 th this," i . By Laurie Blake + ;" Ario said. ' t • ` `° ` < ,.,:s debring said. s'• 3 *`" �' a: _ f Staff Writers � t , * - .. � ,; Rep. Wes Skoglund, DFL- Minneapo ' Hamiel said the airport is planning Gov. Rudy Perpich has decided to lis, and a task force member, also three remedies to help reduce noise I ignore the recommendations of his ` criticized Perpich's decision. "'#!' - this summer. implement more strip - j • special Task Force on Airport Noise r; - i � `,11 i ' • gent restrictions on night use of the and give the Metropolitan Airports o` That's absolutely horrible He is airport, direct all training flights to - Commission another chance to im- ?' selling out south Minneapolis, Rich - other airports and repeat noise- sensi- A prove the airport noise problem, ac- w field and Bloomington if that is true. ` tivity seminars for pilots and airline cording to Sandra Gardebnng, head if it's true it boils my blood," Skog 'controllers ` o■ ;0 ,, ", -, a -.' ` of the task force. ,: ,:- . •_ lund Said. ' x .._. ti, . EFy r . �.. , < 0o +0 z ro� : � + ), Y -1' :'ri at In the longer term, t he ort com rp Perpich did not accept the task "The first thing the governor' ought mission has a 17 -point plan for im - i force's- primary recommendation 0, to do is throw almost all of the com- ' proving the noise problem, including that the Minnesota Pollution Control ' - missioners off the board. The envi- - an extension of Runway 4 -22 to allow Agency (MPCA) ,take a supervisory __ ronmental problem grew with all of.. for more evenly distributed airport rA role in working with the airports r ttiem there and none of them did traffic, and a study of the noise ceil- commission to reduce jet noise over 'anything about it until literally thou ing concept endorsed by. the task the communities surrounding Minn e- , = sands of people decided to say — force, Hamiel said Jo apolis -St. Paul International Airport, . Skoglund said .c y '_t�f : •` :' ' ' Gardebrin said Tuesday. tom.., . � � » _ . � ' �:, < 1 , ; ; vI ' Perpich appointed the special task Perpich believes the airports com - r • S�en. Mike Freeman, DFL- Richfield, force in October following a record - Per Per l c believes a task force member, said he is breaking summer of resident com - awareness mission a of ll demonst and reduce a' new � that the governor made plaints about airport noise and grow- n should be permitted to try le reduce uP his mind on the task force recom- ing citizen dissatisfaction with the - to mendations before meeting with oth- commission's action on the problem. f - noise without the pressure of the x` er task force members. He and Skog ;` ' - :. +.,,-. MPCA, she said., ` . y . � . , m ,, S f ' > 6.,0-41;4 . lund have a meeting scheduled with The governor asked the task force to _ 3 r Perpich Tuesday. - review options for reducing noise The governor's office referred all r questions on the task force report to j 4' '" - ..,.., -"`� - - R - • . and report back to him with recom qu ono Gar also force reprt chairwoman , Jeff H amiel, executive director of mendations for short-term and long- Gar i eMetropolitan Co c i., ; the airports commission, said: "The term noise improvements. In Janu- s-, oli s ,, +: -IN lir message is clear. Gov. Perpich ex ' ary, the task force delivered a list of d pects the airport commission to pro- 17 ways to reduce noise. The president of the South Metro .:. . Geed aggressively in taking any ac , :: i+ • - - '' a. Airprrts Action Council, the anti - i tions we can to deal with this serious The strongest recommendation was noise citizens group, criticized Per pick. Frank Arlo said airport offs- . 0 problem. We will do so." :� s ` _ to immediately place a cap on over - cials have proven in the past that .t° - i ?` <.. •iK an noise (at its 1984 level, to start they cannot control noise -1. t Gardebring said Perpich wants the with) and order airlines to observe- `? airports commission to submit a de- this ceiling by either limiting flights 4 ' ' tA tailed report by May 1 on how it will or using quieter planes. It said the "I think the governor, by taking this': ' p roceed on the noise problem. "He MPCA should work with the airports kind of stance, is saying at this point ►'' has asked me to impress upon them commission to establish this noise the political process really refuses to the fact that he is expecting a real ceiling and to set a schedule for. deal with a very serious economic and environmental issue. The people demonstration of commitment," Gar achieving ti`s , - ..3 €. ! s ,s i z Y, ' , + u 4- in ,our area would have hoped we _.._` . «, ..;, ' , +^ Y . 4, S',- r ..- ol _ M -- • - -- -, • ;:',044,. ' Noise continued on page 4l3 ; >.