Loading...
12/08/1987 - Airport Relations Commission M E E T I N G N O T I C E The Eagan Airport Relations Committee will hold a Regular Meeting beginning at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, December 8, 1987 in Conference Rooms A & B at Eagan City Hall 3830 Pilot Knob Road, Eagan, Minnesota Packet information will be distributed to Committee members. For more information about this meeting, please call Jon Hohenstein at 454 -8100. AGENDA AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMITTEE EAGAN, MINNESOTA EAGAN MUNICIPAL CENTER CONFERENCE ROOMS A & B TUESDAY DECEMBER 8, 1987 7:00 P.M. I. ROLL CALL AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES II. ADOPTION OF AGENDA III. STAFF REPORT A. City Council Action McKee Addition Noise Issue B. Chamber of Commerce - Airport Adequacy Position IV. OLD BUSINESS A. MAC Eagan - Mendota Heights Corridor Study V. NEW BUSINESS A. Potential Preferential Runway System Modification VI. OTHER BUSINESS VII. DISTRIBUTION VIII. ADJOURNMENT MEMO TO: CHAIRMAN GUSTIN AND ALL MEMBERS OF THE AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMITTEE FROM: JON HOHENSTEIN, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT DATE: DECEMBER 2, 1987 SUBJECT: AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING FOR TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1987 A meeting of the Eagan Airport Relations Committee will be held on Tuesday, December 8, 1987 at 7:00 p.m. It is essential that you contact Jon Hohenstein at 454 -8100 to indicate whether you can attend this meeting or not. In recent months, members have become increasingly lax in informing staff of their attendance, resulting in an absence of quorums when key items are before the group. I. ROLL C ALL AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES / Enclosed on pages you (p you will find minutes of the Airport Relations Committee meeting of November 10, 1987. These minutes, subject to any change, require approval by the Committee. II. ADOPTION OF AGENDA The agenda, as presented or with modifications, requires adoption by the Committee. III. STAFF REPORT A. City Council Action on McKee Addition Noise Issue- - Enclosed on page 7 you will find a copy of the correspondence prepared by City Administrator Hedges to Metropolitan Airport Commission concerning the McKee Addition. The correspondence reflects the action of the Commission at its November 17 meeting. Staff will provide an oral report on the Council meeting on Tuesday evening. B. Chamber of Commerce - Airport Adequacy Position- - The Chamber of Commerce continues to work on development of an airport adequacy study position statement. Staff has held one meeting and several conversations with Chamber representatives. It appears that the Chamber statement will address three major issues: • 1. Relocation of the airport and the context of the noise issue, 2. Direct and indirect economic impacts of the relocation, and 3. Possible impact of technology on the adequacy of the current site. No further information is available on this item at this time. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. MAC Eagan - Mendota Heights Corridor Study -- Enclosed on pages 2cy- 9 you will find information pertinent to the Eagan- Mendota Heights Corridor Study. The two noise contours found on page constitute the options available to the cities of Eagan an Mendota Heights. You will note the principle difference between the contours as a result of the assumptions for flight track separations during simultaneous departure conditions. As color coding is not possible for the packet, please presume that the northerly of the two contours relates to alternative number 3 while the southerly relates to alternative number 2 assumptions. Staff will discuss the relative impacts of the contours on the two cities at Tuesday evenings meeting. Following the discussion, the Committee should define criteria of choice and formulate a recommendation for the City Council and its consideration of this matter. Due to the change to a new Council in January, it will not be possible to bring this issue jointly before the two City Councils prior to sometime early in 1988. Therefore, the Commission action may involve some delay before it can be processed through to the Airport's commission. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To recommend a position to the City Council on the results of the Eagan /Mendota Heights Corrdidor Study and to direct correspondence to the MAC indicating that joint consideration cannot occur before early 1988. V. NEW BUSINESS A. Potential Preferential Runway System Modification- - Enclosed on page i you will find minutes of the operations committee meeting o MASAC concerning possible changes in the preferential runway system. These changes are a result of discussions by a brainstorming group and the Kramer distribution meetings which bring into question the systematic standards which practically eliminate traffic over St. Paul- Highland Park while concentrating it on the parallel runways when it may or may not be necessary. The alternatives being considered are: 1) Maintaining the current preferential runway system, 2) re- clarifying the current preferential runway system, and 3) design- ing a new runway utilization system for greater distributional equity. The Commission may wish to discuss these items and consider action on either the PRS modifications or the Kramer proposal. For additional information on this matter, please refer to your October packet. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To direct staff action concerning potential preferential runway system modifications. VI. OTHER BUSINESS VII. DISTRIBUTION A. SMAAC Meeting- - Enclosed on page l --you will find a notice of a SMAAC meeting on Thursday, December 10 for your review. B. Valsan Correspondence- - Enclosed on pages k3°E /c( you will find correspondence from the Valsan Company which is currently engaged in developing retrofit alternatives for Boeing 727 aircraft. VIII. ADJOURNMENT The meeting will adjourn at or about 9:00 p.m. ►N` A inistrative Assistant cc: City Administrator Hedges City Attorney Hauge City Planner Runkle _ Subject to Approval MINUTES OF THE AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING Eagan, Minnesota November 10, 1987 A regular meeting of the Eagan Airport Relations Committee Meeting was held on Tuesday, November 10, 1987 at 7:00 p.m. Present were Chairman John Gustin, Dustin Mirick, Carol Dozois, Tom Baker and Carolyn Braun. Absent was Joe Harrison. Also present was Jon Hohenstein, Administrative Assistant. INTRODUCTION Chairman Gustin introduced the Committee to the audience consisting of a number of McKee Addition residents present to discuss aircraft noise in their neighborhood. He stated that the Committee was an advisory body to the City Council in the area of airport related issues. He stated that the Committee is not directly related to the Metropolitan Airports Commission. MINUTES Upon motion by Baker, seconded by Mirick, all members voting in favor, the minutes of the September 8, 1987 Airport Relations Committee meeting were approved. AGENDA Upon review and by acclamation the agenda was approved. MC KEE ADDITION NOISE CONCERNS Chairman Gustin invited comments from the audience and indicated that the Committee would attempt to answer questions raised by the neighbors and would forward their comments to the City Council for its consideration. Debbie Garvey indicated that she and her neighbors do not want to — sell their homes but also would avoid additional investments in the property if it is going to be bought out. Ted Plante stated that he has noticed a sizable increase in traffic since deregulation but does not feel that bandaid approaches such as sound insulation or quiet rooms make sense. He stated that if the City could not change the noise generator that a total buy out of the neighborhood is more reasonable than bandaid approaches but not much more reasonable. Certain neighborhood residents asked how a buy o t would be structured because they understood that the Mendota Heights / Park buy out t involved condemnation and the purchase of homes at discount prices. The Committee responded that no program is currently in place so the details of how one would be structured are not available. 4 Rose Buntjer raised questions concerning the corridor and flight tracks within it. Hohenstein described the flight tracks used in the corridor before deregulation and those currently used as a result of higher traffic levels and safety separations. He stated that the unfortunate consequence of the McKee Addition lying within the commercial /industrial area was that traffic using the corridor for sound absorption also impacted a noise sensitive area. Ted Plante asked how the area had become commercial /industrial since zoning maps still show it as residential property. Hohenstein explained that the Comprehensive Guide process has designated the area commercial /industrial in a long term sense. He said that means that it makes the most sense, given surrounding land uses that the area ultimately be commercial, but that does not mean that there are any implementation plans to bring that about. Plante asked if there was any discussion of a second airport. Mirick responded by describing a proposal prepared by John Richter, a South Minneapolis activist. He said that under the Richter proposal, the University of Minnesota site in Rosemount would be purchased along with residential development rights in several directions and that a large new airport could be built there. Plante asked if such a site wouldn't affect southern Eagan. Mirick responded that the configuration described in the proposal would not but that it would be possible to route trafffic in such a fashion to impact all communities surrounding the Rosemount site. Hohenstein pointed out that the proposal is merely a discussion concept raised by South Minneapolis residents and that it did not have endorsement of any official planning or decision making bodies. Mirick also described the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council and how it maintains information on complaints lodged from various areas around the airport. He indicated that South Minneapolis does not believe that northern Dakota County has a noise problem due to complaint levels. He said that while operational considerations prevent a change in the location of impacts, telephone and written complaints will certainly indicate the severity of the problem. Chair Gustin also indicated that if individuals are bothered they should use the noise complaint numbers. Hohenstein provided the numbers to the group. Hohenstein stated that the greatest benefit would come from the introduction of stage three aircraft into the airline fleets. He stated that this would occur naturally over the next 15 years and could only be accelerated through some federal action. Steve Rosenthal asked if it would help to write to the congressional delegation. The Committee indicated that that would help and that it would reinforce correspondence which the Committee has been forwarding to those individuals. Residents asked how they could be kept informed of Airport Relations Committee and other airport related meetings. Staff offered to place them on the mailing list for the local committee and inform them of the standard dates for regional group meetings. Buntjer asked what the Committee would be able to take to the Council. Gustin responded that it would report the facts presented at the meeting to the extent possible and ask direction of the City Council. Upon motion by Baker, seconded by Braun, all members voting in favor, staff was directed to prepare a memo to the City Council for consideration as an • informative item on its November 17 agenda which would indicate the level of concern coming from the McKee Addition, recommend correspondence to the Metropolitan Airports Commission reiterating the need for left turn procedures during off -peak traffic, indicate that the neighborhood is concerned about the noise situation but is generally not interested in buy outs or condemnation and requests Council action. Upon conclusion of the motion, Chair Gustin invited interested residents to apply to the City for consideration as members of the Airport Relations Committee. Mirick stated that the residents who were present were obviously those most interested in the issue and that they should consider getting together to discuss their options. Chair Gustin stated that if the neighborhood wished to have a meeting, City facilities and staff or Airport Relations Committee members could be present to provide information and support. OTHER BUSINESS All other business was continued to a future agenda for consideration. NEXT MEETING The next meeting will be held on Tuesday, December 8, 1987. ADJOURNMENT Upon motion by Mirick, seconded by Gustin, all members voting in favor, the meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m. JH Date Chairperson Secretary per+ z .!:;,-ii F s... ,I.,..,,,,,- 1 „grz,,,,,, cots oF ec an 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD, PO. BOX 21199 EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55121 BEA BLOM9uISi PHONE: (612) 454 -8100 MOjOf THOMAS EGAN November 23, 1987 JAMES A. SMITH VIC ELLISON THEODORE WACHTER JEFF HAMIEL Council Members THOMAS HEDGES METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION City Administrator 6040 28TH AVENUE SOUTH EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE MINNEAPOLIS MN 55450 City Clerk ,.. McKee Addition Noise Alternatives Dear Mr. Hamiel: In official action taken at its November 17 meeting, the Eagan City Council directed staff to explore alternatives for the McKee Addition, a noise impacted neighborhood in the Eagan- Mendota Heights Corridor. The City and the Commisssion have long been aware of the noise situation in this area, but had not pursued specific action because of the corridor philosophy and a relatively low level of public response. In October, however, residents of the neighborhood prepared a petition and presented it to the City's Airport Relations Committee asking that the noise be reduced or that options for the area be considered. The Committee forwarded the petition with findings to the City Council. The Council reiterated the need to avoid all noise sensitive areas in and around the corridor when off -peak traffic levels permit. It further directed staff to explore what, if any, corrective land -use measures the MAC would consider to the McKee Addition. This does not constitute a commitment on the part of the City to engage in a corrective program, but a willingness to discuss alternatives. The neighborhood itself has mixed feelings about corrective alternatives and no commitments have been made. We realize that the McKee Addition lies outside of the contour eligible for corrective action under the Part. 150 Study. Therefore, any proposal for this area would require a special allocation of funds from a source or sources to be defined. The City intends merely to define the alternatives more fully, including the mechanics of the alternatives with as much detail as possible. Please contact myself or my office to discuss this matter further. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Sine rely, Thomas L. Hed:es City Administrator cc: Walter Rockenstein, MASAC TLH /JDH /jeh THE LONE OAK TREE. ..THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR / COMMUNITY / itit":30t16 . orta pea MAC `ir/ �'•✓ P. O. BOX 11700 • TWIN CITY AIRPORT • MINNESOTA 55111 OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR • PHONE (612) 726 - 1892 10 -5 -87 To: John Hohenstein, City of Eagan Kevin Frazell, City of Mendota Heights From: Steve Vecchi Enclosed are the results of the LDN 65,70,75 contours generated by HNTB that were based on the following assumptions agreed at the September 23,1987 meeting: 11L,R DEPARTURES SIMULTANEOUS (65 %) NON- SIMULTANEOUS (35 %) Alternative #2 11R - 115 11R - 110 11L - 100 11L - 115 Alternative #3 11R - 110 11R - 110 11L - 095 11L - 115 NOTE: As you may recall, the Operations Committee decided to deal with the LDN contours for the two alternatives (65% simultaneous dep. & 35% non - simultaneous dep.) rather than consider a L1065 contour, which only deals with peak, 100% simultaneous departures. I would appreciate if you could bring the completed population estimates that correspond to alternatives #1 & #2 to the next scheduled meeting, Tuesday October 20, 1987 at 10:00 am. If you have any questions, please give me a call. OFFICE" LOCATION - -CO-10 28th AVE. SO. —WEST TERMINAL AREA—MINNEAPOLIS-SAINT PAUL. INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT • st, OJO+•3::... r+ w nY bYw• ♦ '.. � ... .R �.. ea wwu = •a b•, ' a M - as to.. = I II = = Q i i J = CC �.,,� 1 iii i ii .4 : ,p,. ... - Al t.f o il illef A 4 ' ., .q. e r ° ---) it ,- -..: 9 /OP ti O y '' WI ° i 0S los: ty- I.. JP ....''''''''s \ .................3 Ta . li 'a W .... le 1 ag W4r . ral , . , . -:- N \ '\ --. ' „.„ e was % A. 1 . 4„ , ow," ...... yill NOile . ` 7 5 / 111 4 ' ) .N,. 1 i 1 - \ \ °11111111 . 1.9 , , , „ , . , W ' 6 w /iiih .14 , „ ... ,,,, 1, tI ::,,,_,...,..._ ......... .,.. , \\....), - ----...1•._. jilifiP lieu ,.. ,, • Imo ,,.. .,t, 1 w i , , Ilile IAN t' itit � � � � � , --\ �, mo t IO i . . til _ � II��% i - ° =i jl a 1 a am \ 1 q a uoev !, v.,, ? Iiiiii 1,,, ; -ft ..„,..,......... miwk ) No Va 70n, o wa., - �i ifs ' Q \ ` ®� 5 ,,, *jW4 . fi.w. , /2 lialia, 4 , , c itoi r r . - ■\ � � • _Laig . f j :h .... ,,,,.,.. ,,.__ ,_. / 411VIMI, m J 11*, * .., Ar t � / _ ulosauu��y - �O 1 a ........._ ,o,.,... .., .. MI a 1 1:0 - ' 74 * . .. . 4 /, t, am__ 1 8 l a: . 0 1 O o 0 r r j .-- j ,utia,9 ,:, \. \ , ,,. :Ft 3 ) , - ■ % O l F Z ° I ° 44,ado,d „od,.v o �; _. NIBTI 0/ . _ • 9'a �_ d. . ,, ... \ !, CITY OF EAGAN OVERFLIGHT IMPACT ALTERNATIVES Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Homes Comp Guided 17 11 Residential Homes Comp Guided 120 115 Commmercial 137 126 Ib Date: October 14, 1987 To: MASAC Operations Committee From: Captain Niel B. Atkinson Subject: Departure NAVAIDS I have been asked to comment on the use of aircraft departure NAVAIDS as they relate to noise abatement proposals being studied by the Operations Committee of MASAC. Three types of NAVAIDS are in use today; ADF - limited accuracy VOR - more accurate ILS - most accurate The use of any of the above as part of a departure procedure would require a turn shortly after take off to intercept a bearing from the NAVAID or a course in the case of an ILS. This would have to be accomplished during a period of high cockpit workload at a time when the pilots' primary concern 0 must be aircraft performance. The pilot is certainly capable of following ground based navigational signals, however it would seem unlikely that precise ground tracking capabilities would be probable given the close proximity to the airport of the noise sensitive area in the Eagan /Mendota Heights Corridor. AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION =1 MINNEAPOLIS FIELD OFFICE Suite 275— Dupont Center, 9801 Dupont Avenue South, Bloomington, MN 55431 (612) 884 -4344 SCHEDULE WITH SAFETY •. -C,t r AFFILIATED WITH AFL•CIO /// Operations Committee 2 Meeting Thursday, November 19, 1987 The meeting was called to order by Charles Hanebuth at 5:00 p.m. and the following individuals were in attendance: Niel Atkinson Bob Cavill Bruce Wagoner Bob Collette Jan Del Calzo Walt Hellman Rick Weiderhorn Bob Johnson Larry Shaughnessy Evan Futterman Brian Ryks Dave Kelso - Steve Vecchi Steve Cramer Scott Bunin Don Priebe A packet of material which contained information from the MAC Brainstorming group and Steve Cramer's Ad Hoc group was handed to all committee members. Steve Vecchi summarized the history of the Preferential Runway System (PRS), the purpose of the brainstorming group, and the necessity of having a recan- mendaticn to MASAC within six months. He began the discussion by reviewing the various options outlined which included: (1) maintaining the current PRS system; (2) reclarifying the current PRS system; and (3) designing a new Runway Utilization System for more distributional equity. Since questions remain regarding the overall capacity of the airport, hourly capacity and runway configurations, the committee requested that Evan Futterman present a more detailed report on the hourly capacity of the current (airspace - approved) MSP runway configurations that utilize the diagonal runway (4/22): Arrive Depart 04 11L/R 29L/R 22 04 04 22 22 The next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, December 17, 1987 at 5:00 p.m. The meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m. /1 • • IP 1 Notlf!.When! Two Twin Cities residents have proposed the purchase of land for the future construction of a new airport. The recommended site would have six new runways and retain part of the existing airport for a passenger terminal and other functions. Does this sound good to you? Come hear more about their plan. The proponents of the plan are Jim Serrin, University of Minnesota Mathematics Professor and John Richter, Minneapolis businessman. Both are founders and members of MASAC (Metropolitan Airports Sound Abatement Council), and both are also SMAAC members. WHEN Thursday, December 10, 1987 7:30 PM WHERE: Diamond Lake Lutheran Church 5760 Portland Avenue, Minneapolis * * * A Noise Complaint Number ' 726 -9411 . P� iT !f ` 'L. .., -a_�� { i_, - j + t A '�. -..,," r 1i,'+�y.? . Sponsored by: r C.�" v_. s- tc`...�- ..3�:'d 'k' ykS$ ". ° .. • . ,, _.._.. . . �_ SMAAC Enrollment /Renewal Form Send this form and your membership fee to: SMAAC, 5116 Columbus Ave. So., Mpls., MN 55417. With increasing budget constraints, we encourage all families to contribute $10 per household. Membership categories: ; t 4 _General ($5.00) _Supporting ($10.00) '` . Contributing ($25.00) Name Phone Address • „ Zip Are you willing to volunteer time to SMAAC? Yes No South Metro Airport Action Council If you have a specific area of interest, please check: Membership a " ' Budget /Fundraising a_ Publicity�j'' Programs w —" ` Publications _ Political Action — Watchdog = Outreach • _ Legal f ,, t For more information about SMAAC, call 823 -0694 • _- — = vALSAN PARTNERS One Horatio Street, Jackson Square, New York, NY 10014 Marketing Office: (212) 807 -6622 Telex: 825379 VALSAN UF 99 Washington Street, Norwalk, CT 06854 SITA: NYCVRCR Fax: (212) 242 -6405 (203) 866 -6051 Telex: 6714726 DALAV UW A Delaware Limited Partnership Fax: (203) 855 -0362 Seattle Office: 1400 112th Avenue S.E., Suite 100 November 16, 1987 Bellevue, WA 98004 Telex: 825379 VALSAN UF SITA: NYCVRCR Mr. John Hoenstein Administrativw Assistant City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan MN 55122 File:NIP1116 Dear Mr. Hoenstein, Valsan is developing a modification of the Boeing 727 aircraft which significantly reduces its noise levels at take off and landing. Valsan will replace the B -727's two outboard engines with the same high bypass engine that powers the MD -80, and will quiet the center engine with an acoustic mixer. Certification is expected in the spring of next year. Test flights of the modified aircraft have established that as re- engined by Valsan, all weight and engine combinations of the B -727 will meet Stage 3 noise limits. In fact, virtually all combinations will meet Stage 3 without any of the allowable acoustic trade -offs. These conclusions have been confirmed by BBN Laboratories and other leading acoustic experts in a recent report. With B -727's accounting for nearly one -half of the daily departures in the United States, Valsan believes that its program is an important part of the solution to the growing aircraft nciise problem. Valsan would be pleased to furnish you with a copy of the noise test report upon request. We have also enclosed a recent article from The New York Times about our modification. Regards, • Walter H. Johnson l3 ` El)e New jork VI .Lgi WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 1987 P dvances Agis Salpukas Rebuilding bring this fleet into compliance. "Something has to be done," said which also reduces the noise level. • The inner and outer walls of the Robert E. Wagenfeld , the president case around the fan, as well as the Planes to Cut of privately held Valsan Inc., which` tailpipe, are lined with sound- absorb- hopes to retrofit 727's, the three -en- ing structures. gine workhorse of airline fleets. "You To modify the center engine, which Airport Noise can't just push these airplanes off the is built into the 727's tail section, Val, cliff." san proposes to install a Pratt & Whit - Boeing halted production of the 727 ney forced air mixer, a device that in 1984. About 1,750 of them remain in mixes the airflow from the fan with A DRIVE by the Federal Aviation service, including 400 that could the hotter air from the turbine. That Administration to impose more easily fly into the next century if a mixing lowers the temperature and stringent noise abatement rules way could be found to meet the new the speed of the gas leaving the final at airports is causing the airlines con- noise standards. nozzle. The resulting improvement in cern about the future usefulness of 70 Airline executives point out that the uniformity of the temperature of percent of the nation's air fleet. more than 1,500 DC -3's built before the air at the exit reduces the noise. The jet aircraft threatened by the 1946 are still flying; ironically, those proposed noise regulations include propeller- driven planes meet stage 3 Valsan tested its concept last 4,500 Boeing 727's and 737 100's and noise standards. March on a flight from Greenville; 200's, as well as McDonnell Douglas • S.C., to Los Angeles on a modified 727 DC -9's. Overly noisy jet aircraft would be owned by Sterling Airways. The noise While industry executives doubt sold overseas, where noise standards levels indicated that a modified 727 - that the standards would force the are generally not as strict. However, 200 would meet the Stage 3 standards: immediate removal of such planes, growing concerns about noise in Valsan hopes the Federal Aviation pressure for action has been growing. P g g• some overseas markets and the sheer Administration will duplicate and • size of the stage 2 fleet would force certify that result by May. The standards represent the third the airlines to unload the planes at Valsan calculates that the new en= P pro- base of the noise abatement gives and retrofit together will im- fire -sale prices. gram that began in 1976. The stand Moving aircraft from a stage 2 prove fuel efficiency by 15 per - ards classify aircraft by so- called ranking to stage 3 presents a more cent, increasing the e 727's 727's r range to stages — according to their noisiness difficult technical challenge than 1,800 miles from an average of 1,500 on takeoff, climb and descent. moving them from stage 1 to stage 2, miles The first phase required airlines to which typically could be achieved by Valsan has 85 orders and options upgrade or retire their noisiest, or for the modification from such air - Pg installing $2 million stage 1, aircraft by 1985. The rule af- Hers known as hush ki ts. s. million muf- lines as Texas Air and Electra Avia -• tion Ltd. Mr. Wagenfeld has also met fected such older planes as the Boe- Some companies, such as the Aero- g ing 707 and the McDonnell DC -8. nautic Development Corporation, are with representatives of Delta, USAir, Allan McArtor, the chief of the Fed- working on hush kits to meet stage 3 Pan American World Airways and. eral Aviation Administration, h Federal Express. standards on DC-8 aircraft. Other proposed establishing a schedule that planes, however, need new engines to The outlook for the DC -9 is hazier. would require the gradual retirement McDonnell Douglas is talking with a eq g meet the standard. of the stage 2 aircraft. No date has yet group of investors interested in re -• Valsan's approach to the 727 is to trofitting set for stage 3 compliance. PP g the aircraft with a new ver- Most major airlines have already replace two of the JT8D engines, sion of the Rolls -Royce Tay 650 en- ordered new planes that offer greater made by Pratt & Whitney, with more gine, but there is no expectation that fuel efficiency and other improve- advanced JT8D -217 engines, which a design can be proven and certified ments while also meeting the new power the McDonnell Douglas MD -80. before 1991. noise standards. The third engine would be kept in There is no program at this point to However, since most of the aircraft P1'" hut ,,,n4.f:o.f affected by the new standards have many years of flying life left, the car riers have also shown interest it small group of companies th• seeking to find economical v Reducing N to in 727 , ;' w a E Z I MEMO TO: CHAIRMAN GUSTIN AND ALL MEMBERS OF THE AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMITTEE FROM: JON HOHENSTEIN, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT DATE: OCTOBER 7, 1987 SUBJECT: AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING FOR WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1987 A meeting of the Eagan Airport Relations Committee will be held on Wednesday, October 14, 1987 at 7 :00 p.m. Please note the special date for this meeting. It has been rescheduled from its usual evening as a result of a conflict with a joint City Council meeting. Please contact Jon Hohenstein at 454 -8100 if you are unable to attend Wednesday's meeting. I. ROLL CALL AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES Enclosed on pages - S you will find minutes of the Airport Relations Committee meeting of September 8, 1987. These minutes, subject to any change, require approval by the Committee. II. ADOPTION OF AGENDA The agenda, as presented or with modifications, requires adoption by the Committee. III. STAFF REPORT MAC Eagan - Mendota Heights Corridor Study -- Enclosed on pages /Qyou will find information pertinent to the Eagan - Mendota Heights Corridor Study. The documents contained herein are the most recent contours prepared for the study alternatives. You will note that the principal difference between the contours is a result of the assumptions for flight track separation during simultaneous departure conditions. As color coding is not possible for the packet, please presume that the northerly of the two contours relates to alternative #3, while the southerly relates to alternative #2 assumptions. Staff will be reviewing the relationship of the contours to the Metropolitan Council policy contours as well as reviewing the affected populations within the two communities. A number of options have been discussed through the course of the study and staff will present information on all available discussions at the meeting on Tuesday evening. In addition, the cities of Eagan and Mendota Heights will attempt to work together to develop an acceptable alternative from the two currently being studied. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To provide staff direction for discussions with the City of Mendota Heights. B. Working Group on Airport Noise /Airport Capacity -- Enclosed on page /7 you will find an article from "Airports International" magazine concerning a working group on airport noise /airport capacity. Jeff Hamiel of the Metropolitan Airports Commission was a member of the group which recommended major changes within the airline industry and the environment surrounding airports. The recommendations have generally received a negative response due to their intention to limit the legal alternatives available to noise impacted residents. In brief, the plan would call for agreements on the part of the airlines to accelerate fleet conversion such that all Stage II aircraft would be phased out of the fleet in three year increments beginning in 1994. The plan would include a 1987 production cut off for all Stage II aircraft and in 1989 a registration cut off for the same aircraft. It was further recommended that federal incentives be utilized to accelerate the fleet change over by the year 2000. In exchange for these agreements, the group proposes that the airports cease the implementation of all new noise abatement rules and that noise affected populations be prohibited from suing for damages for aircraft noise. It is the latter matter of the severe limitation of future rights in the face of an uncertain noise environment which has drawn the most criticism to date. Staff will be available to respond to questions on this matter at the meeting. No action is required on this item at this time. C. Legal Opinion - Nuisance Complaint -- Enclosed on pages/2-/J' you will find correspondence from the City Attorney concerning the airport noise complaint of Roger Sperling. As you know, Mr. Sperling has pursued the matter of a nuisance complaint through his City citation for an appropriate party at the airport under the theory that airport noise from jet traffic may fall within the City's police power. Debra Schmidt of Attorney Hauge's office has reviewed the pertinent case law and concludes that such a case is not within the police power of a municipality but that that does not diminish the individual's right to pursue a civil nuisance case as has been done in south Minneapolis under the auspices of Richard Gun. Staff will respond to questions in this regard at the meeting. No action is required on this matter at this time. P ferential Runway System Working Group -- Enclosed on pages ( a - you will find information pertinent to the preferential runway system brainstorming group. The group considered alternatives to the current preferential runway system to make greater use of the crosswind runway both with and without the extension of Runway 4/22. It was concluded that by optomizing alternatives to the preferential runway system traffic on the parallel runways would actually decrease slightly while increasing over the Bloomington /Richfield and St. Paul - Highland Park areas. While numerous alternatives were discussed, the FAA G2 pointed out that it is permitted to have no more than five departure configurations within its flight rules and that specific alternatives need to be defined for use. The group's conclusions have been forwarded to the MASAC Operations Committee for further review. Staff will keep the committee abreast of developments in the area as they occur. No action is required on this matter at this time. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Runway Utilization Committee -- Enclosed on pagescRYsVyou will find information pertinent to Steve Cramer's committee on runway use. The general concept has been to develop target ranges for all traffic operating at Minneapolis -St. Paul National Airport by runway end. The purpose would be to increase the use of the crosswind runways while setting caps or target ranges on the amount of runway use in any given direction. Under this scenario, the corridor would receive roughly the same if not slightly less traffic as it receives at the present time and better compliance with an acceptable Eagan - Mendota Heights Corridor definition is presumed. Staff has been participating with the Cramer group over the past several months and has been generally supportive of the concept of greater distributional equity provided no additional adverse effects are presumed for the City of Eagan. In this regard, Member Mirick has expressed concern that the institution of a Cedar Avenue turn component for Runway 22 will increase the impact on southwestern Eagan. When considering this issue, it should be noted that a Cedar Avenue departure may tend to affect that area regardless of whether percentages are defined for the area or not. Therefore, it may be necessary to more completely define all the issues for the City of Eagan before making recommendation on this matter. To date, staff has defined the issues of this matter to be as follows: 1. Whether the 52 - 55% target range is acceptable and reasonable for the Eagan - Mendota Heights Corridor. 2. Whether extension of Runway 4/22 implies a need to modify these percentages. 3. Whether the Cedar Avenue turn will impact the community differently under this proposal as opposed to the present preferential runway system configurations. 4. Other issues as defined by committee members. This matter has been referred to the Operations Committee together with the Preferential Runway System Working Group report for joint consideration. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To provide staff direction on the Runway Utilization Committee recommendations. 3 V. NEW BUSINESS A. McKee Addition Noise Concerns - -Staff has been contacted by residents of the McKee Addition concerning aircraft noise impacts in that neighborhood. In late September, staff assisted a neighborhood resident in the preparation of a petition regarding the area. After considerable discussion, the residents indicated that they would review the items discussed and contact City staff further with their conclusions. Generally, staff indicated that efforts were being made to mitigate noise impacts on the community, but that the McKee Addition's location within the corridor area made it difficult, if not impossible, to reduce noise impacts to the neighborhood without adversely affecting other residential neighborhoods. Staff will address questions in this regard at the meeting on Tuesday evening. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To provide staff direction with regard to noise concerns raised by residents of the McKee Addition. B. Chamber of Commerce - Airport Adequacy Position - -The Eagan Chamber of Commerce has contacted City staff for assistance in the preparation of a position on the adequacy of Minneapolis /St. Paul International Airport. The concerns of the group illustrate a matter previously discussed by the Committee concerning the balance which Eagan represents between its business interests and the residential community. The small business leaders from around Eagan have a keen sense of the relationship of Eagan's dependence on the International Airport for its international climate. Therefore, airport relocation represents a significant challenge to them. Staff will continue to work with the Chamber in the development of its position. In addition, the committee or representatives of the committee may wish to meet with Chamber representatives to discuss mutual issues in this regard. No action is required on this matter at this time. VI. OTHER BUSINESS A. National Organization to Ins re a Sound Controlled Environment--Enclosed on pages30 -q is information pertinent to N.O.I.S.E. as requested by the Committee at its last meeting. The information provided represents a cross section of that available in the file. B. Citizens League Airport Committee -- Enclosed on pages you will find information from member Mirick pertinent to the September 18, 1987 Citizens League Airport Committee meeting. The information pertains to a presentation by Minneapolis residents Jim Serrin and John Richter concerning a possible airport relocation scenario. Mr. Serrin and Mr. Richter have identified the University of Minnesota Rosemount Research Center as an undeveloped location capable of absorbing additional air I traffic and aircraft noise. The remote location would serve as a supplement to rather than a replacement for the current airport and it would be connected with the current location by a high speed rail link utilizing Soo Line right -of -way through Rosemount, Inver Grove Heights and Eagan. If time permits, discussion may be had in this matter at the meeting on Tuesday. VII. DISTRIBUTION VIII. ADJOURNMENT The meeting will adjourn at or about 8 :30 p.m. The next regularly scheduled meeting of the Airport Relations Committee will be Tuesday, November 10, 1987. I Administrative Assistant cc: City Administrator Hedges City Attorney Hauge City Planner Runkle JDH /jeh � HAUGE, EIDE & KELLER, P.A. ��'�� U PAUL H. HAUGE ,2 orneys al , ((7� aw KEVIN W EIDE TOWN CENTRE PROFESSIONAL BLDG., SUITE 200 DAVID G KELLER 1260 YANKEE DOODLE ROAD LORI M BELLIN EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55123 DEBRA E SCHMIDT THOMAS P. LOWE (612) 456 -9000 September 24, 1987 Mr. Thomas Hedges Eagan City Administrator 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55121 RE: Airport Noise Complaint of Mr. Roger Sperling Dear Mr. Hedges: This opinion is in response to the continuing problem of aircraft noise adversely affecting the residents of the City of Eagan. QUESTION May the City of Eagan file a criminal complaint under the Public Nuisance Statute, M.S.A. §609.74 (1), for excessive noise caused by jet traffic in and out of the Minneapolis /St. Paul International Airport. ANSWER After reviewing relevant case law on the issue of airport noise and the public nuisance statute itself, in my opinion the City cannot prosecute. LEGAL ANALYSIS CASE LAW The major case in this area is City of Burbank v Lockheed Air Terminal, 93 S.Ct. 1854 (1973), 411 U.S. 624, 36 L.Ed. 2d 547. In Burbank, the City Council of Burbank, California, adopted an ordinance which made it unlawful for a so- called pure -jet aircraft to take off from the Hollywood- Burbank Airport between 11:00 p.m. of one day and 7:00 a.m. the next day, and making it unlawful for the operator of that aircraft to allow any such aircraft to take off from that airport during such periods. This Ordinance only affected one regularly scheduled flight during the whole week. Action was brought by the owner and operator of the airport and an interstate air carrier against the City and certain of its officers, for judgment declaring the City Ordinance invalid. The State Court /;1 Mr. Thomas Hedges September 24, 1987 Page 2 entered judgment in favor of the airport operator and the City appealed. The United States Court of Appeals affirmed the lower Court and the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals. The basic rule set down in the Burbank case is that the Noise Control Act of 1972, along with the Federal Aviation Act, granted the FAA in conjunction with the EPA, full control over aircraft noise, pre - ` empting state and local control. There was some discussion in the case of the Commerce Clause, which is another major concern, but the whole decision revolved around federal pre- exemption of any state or local control over airport noise. "Control of noise is, of course, deep seated in the police power of the states. Yet, the pervasive control vested in the EPA and in FAA under the 1972 Act, seems to us to leave no room for local curfews or other local controls." Burbank, at 1862. Interestingly enough, the Court does make an exception for local regulation of aircraft noise by a proprietor of the airport, be it a City or other entity. The issue has not yet been determined on how far a proprietor can regulate, but in the present situation, that would involve MAC and not the City of Eagan. Several cases have followed on the same issue with the Courts ruling that local attempts to control the noise of over - flying jets is pre- empted by federal regulations concerning planes in flight. In British Airways Board v The Port Authority of New York, 558 F.2d 75 (1977), the United States Court of Appeals ruled that local proprietors can adopt noise regulations, as long as they are reasonable, non- arbitrary and non - discriminatory. Again, the key word here is 'local proprietor', which does not include the City of Eagan. This case involved the right of Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to ban the Concord from landing at JFK Airport. The Court states: "It is understandable that the numerous localities in the vicinity of major airports cannot be permitted an independent role in controlling the noise of passing aircraft. The likelihood of multiple, inconsistent rules would be a dagger pointed at the heart of commerce - and the rule applied might come literally to depend on which way the wind was blowing. The task of protecting the local population from airport noise has, accordingly, fallen to the agency, usually of local government, charged with operating the airport." British Airways Board at 83. Mr. Thomas Hedges September 24, 1987 Page 3 STATUTE Minnesota Statute §609.74(1) states as follows: "Whoever by an act or failure to perform a legal duty intentionally does any of the following is guilty of maintaining a public nuisance, which is a misdemeanor: (1) Maintains or permits a condition which unreasonably annoys, injures or endangers the safety, health, morals, comfort or repose of any considerable number of the members of the public; . . ." To convict anyone under the Public Nuisance Statute, it would be required that we show the act done involved criminal intent, and that it unreasonably annoyed or endangered the safety, health, comfort or repose of any considerable number of the members of public. In the Advisory Committee comment to the Public Nuisance Statute, the following is found: "There is probably a place for the crime of public nuisance, but it is believed it should be restricted to those instances which come within the purposes of the criminal law. This will require (1) some criminal intent, and (2) limitation of the statute to such specific terms as the nature of the problem permits." It would appear to be impossible to prove criminal intent on the part of a pilot, air traffic controller, the FAA, or anyone involved with the MAC in either ordering or allowing low flying aircraft to go over residential areas of Eagan. The "unreasonable" requirement may or may not be met, but would involve a balancing of the public good served by the aircraft and interstate commerce, balanced against any proven damages to individuals subject to the noise. A requirement that the act unreasonably endangers the safety, health, morals, comfort, or repose of any considerable number of the public would require documentation of actual noise levels (which could be done) or medical complaints directly arising from the aircraft noise. While there may be numerous residents affected within the City of Eagan, it would be a question to be decided by a Judge or jury whether or not that number was sufficient to involve the "public ". Another major hurdle to prosecuting this matter would be determining who was the appropriate defendant, the pilot, air traffic controller on duty, the FAA or the MAC. CONCLUSION I think it is very significant that I was unable to find any reported cases at any level where a governmental entity has IL( Mr. Thomas Hedges September 24, 1987 Page 4 attempted to prosecute criminally on complaints concerning excessive aircraft noise. In the alternative, the case law does not appear to cut off the right of any individual to sue for civil damages under a private nuisance theory and /or under an inverse condemnation theory. There may be legislation in effect in other states which would effect individual's rights and each case would depend upon particular facts and location of the parties involved. However, reviewing the case law and the Minnesota Public Nuisance Statute as written, it appears to me that the City may not proceed under any criminal statute. If you have any questions concerning this, please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, HAUGE, EIDE & KELLER, P.A. Debra E. Schmidt DES:ras cc: Jon Hohenstein Jay Berthe 1/ ULTIMATE OBJECTIVE MAG MA SAG TD SEARCH FoR sTUOY 4 AnoPT THE HEST POSSIBLE METhtop OF DISTRIBUTING A IRCnAFT NWIsE AT MsP THAT BEST MEETS - AIRPORT COMMUNITY ENV►RoNM i1At, CONCERNS — 1987 my 't AFFC. VoO MES PAA }4oVRLY CAPACITY DEMANDS WEATIIEJZ /kV/NO RESTRICTIONS G/M /TAT /oNs — OPERA'T1oNAL Co iC& /S FAA AiAC, q/Rl/NEs) • • gRAINSTRM 6gou 7(0. 1 g rzaINSTo>zMlu& Group - P. R.5 • - NEW RunlwAY U7/L /zArloN SYSTEM 1 orhAu I7.AT 1 PRESENTATIoIJ OF Nose DIS7iZ18uT) M PDSS/BILITJE5 (Wfo R1=coMNENoArioN) 1 M ASAL E:OcY ( MAsA& Q PEiZATIONS Co MM ITTEE 1 '\ MA C Fut.', coM M 155) 0 0 J /7 BRAINSTORMING PANEL MAC Commissioner Virginia Johnson MAC Commissioner Jan Del Calzo Captain Robert Cavill ( MASAC) Scott Bunin (MASAC) Captain Niel Atkinson (ALFA) Dave Kelso (MPCA) Doug Powers (FAA) Dick Petersen (FAA) Bruce Wagoner (FAA) Bob Collette (FAA) Nigel Finney (MAC Staff) Walt Hellman (MAC Staff) Steve Vecchi (MAC Staff) MINNEAPOLIS -ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT Methods of Distributing Noise 1. Current PRS System 2. Reclarification of Current PRS System 3. Distributional Equity (All Communities Equal) 4. Distribution by Hourly Rotation 5. Distribution Based on Community Population CONTROLLING FACTS: - Parallels must be used for 13 of 17 daytime hours due to demand levels. - Equal runway capacity is not available in all four directions. .T_ /ST. PAUL INTERNATICNAL AIRPaR'T Wind Coverage and Hourly Capacities for Various Runway Configurations Approximate Hourly Approximate Hourly Capacity Capacity With 4/22 with Existing Airfield Extension in Place Wind With Without With Without Configuration Coverage * "Hold Short ' "Hold Short" "Hold Hold Short , � "Hold Hold Short CURRENT: Straight 29 50.4% 120 120 120 120 Straight 11 45.6% 120 120 120 120 Straight 04 44.2% 66 66 66 66 Straight 22 51.6% 66 66 66 66 Land 29s/Depart 22 27.2% 80 60 100 75 -90 Land 4/Depart lls 21.1% 90 60 90 80 NEW: , Land 29s /Depart 4 26.0% 90 60 90 50 Land 22/Depart lls 28.1% 66 66 66 66 Land 11L, 4/ Depart 11R 21.1% 90 65 90 65 Land 29L, 22/ 80 65 Depart 29R 27.2% 80 65 Land lls/Depart 22 28.1% 60 60 90 90 * Assuming a maximum 20 knot crosswind, no tailwind, per FAA Tower Order. Calm winds included in all configurations. c: icy ; ,{_,L .';.-_ (- �-c.., ,,,- ( i k _ 1,_ ', _ � k L- Source: HNTB and MSP ATCI' Analysis Revised 8/5/87 ao MINNEAPOLIS -ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT Potential Groupings of Runway Operating Configurations Configurations Areas of Impact With Extension of Without Extension Off Runway 4 -22 Runway 4 -22 in Place of Runway 4 -22 Richfield, Land 29L +R; Depart 22 Land 29L +R; Depart 22 Bloomington 04; 11L +04; Depart 11R Land 04; 11L +04; Depart + 1 Land 11R Land 11L +R; Depart 22 St. Paul Land 22; Depart 11L +R Land 22; Depart 11L +R Land 29L +R; Depart 04 \ \ l�l �. d Cc. �_ ` W...ti.L �. l- '-,t' �t �� � L C, .�) - ! /JP Y V_. :.L L:-I.- 11 MSP ATCT FIGURE 14. INTERSECTING RUNWAY DIAGRAMS AND TABLES, A h ' �_ _ _ _ _ 2100 feet 4 \ '! J r 1 `fi J J r / 1 / r ����`����� 6000 feet 1 1 / / �������� 3200 feet I / / /� r ♦ 4300 feet hi . ������� • •. J f / ■ � ��` •• ••••••• /J ■ / // / 1 "������� 6200 feet / / /; — �������� / / /� / / / 2 800 feet 6600 feet ��`"`\\\`\\ ,' .. • / , .......„...Q., %/ / 1 / Group 1. STOL aircraft. 1/ Group 2. Small piston- powered single or twin - engine airplanes and twin- engine turboprops of 12,500 I lbs. or less maximum landing weight. Group 3. All large two- engine piston - powered airplanes I except CV34, CV44 and all large two r turboprop- powered airplanes except CV58 and 1� G159. Group 1 Group 4. All large four - engine pistown- powered airplanes :41,•; ••. =.': . • exc DC7, 7B, 7C & L164. Large two- engine •• •• turbojet- powered airplanes such as BA -11, DC9, • = G ro up 2 • �� -Y 8727's. Large two and four - engine piston and Group 3 turboprop- powered airplanes such as CV34, CV44, G159, L188, V170 and VI80. ' Group 4 Group 5. Large four- engine piston - powered airplanes such as DC7, DC7B, DC7C and L164. All large three - Group 5 not permitted. engine (except 3727's) and four- engine turbojet- Runway lengths are in- powered airplanes. adequate. 6;.4? a i 0 6 g ■111P gC ■,J( i is I r- co crl ,1 / /14\e• ifs # \............N. 1 411 76.e \ o - A.) o m qr z 0 e% Cl; ir = • ee Il k (-4 1 i C; r4 - aim zwPaz 1 . ,,3 • O i r C` • C+ co Z i J---- 1 li o 0 \..... 114 2.6.e. 0 1 � y L' c O _ ir O e+ v; V O lib 1 * g 41 i' •asy zap>> a 4/ / - O )FFICE OF CITY COUNCIL .- ....... 0.............-.C@EI II 0 [IR X07 CITY HALL MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55415 PHONE 348 -2211 11a O _ike2 STEVE CRAMER COUNCIL MEMBER ELEVENTH WARD August 7, 1987 To: Ad Hoc Committe on MSP Runway Use From: Steve Cramer I hope it wasn't presumptious of me to give our group a name: At the last meeting it was suggested I attempt to summarize our discussions to date. This was viewed as a step toward a proposed position regarding runway use to be presented to our respective policy bodies and, ultimately,. to MAC. The group came together with a shared understanding of three key points. 1. Overall noise reduction is the first and over - riding priority for noise - affected communities. Support for the proposed noise budget is strong in the event • voluntary agreements provide insufficient relief. -- 2. The current distribution of air traffic at MSP has become inequitable. Increasing flight levels has concentrated operations on the parallel runway and decreased operations on the crosswind runway. While a straight arithmetic division of traffic between runway ends is infeasible, it is possible to more fairly direct traffic around the airport. 3. Important questions remain unanswered about the 4/22 extension as proposed by MAC. The project is a volatile issue and potentially divisive. A better way to approach runway use is to reach agreement on a desired outcome measured by % of operations off various runway ends. Once an agreement is reached, MAC and FAA officials can determine whether and how the goals can be met. The 4/22 project may be needed to make the agreement work, but at that point it would-fa a means to an agreed -upon end. - ,,.. �r r._ — ,;vc;C ♦Iii a .� --. � _ c;S Air Traffic Distribution around MSP International 9/17/87 MASAC Community Representatives Problem - concentration of air traffic - breakdown of PRS - 4/22 Proposal - process to develop runway use concept Runway Use Plan Concept Discussion RECENT HISTORY OF AIR TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION Average daily operations Month /Year for that month 7/79 508 8/81 664 8/86 1145 5/87 998 1990/2000 (projections) % of all date operations % of all 7/79 3.5 8/81 .75 date operations 8/86 .5 7/79 30.5 5/87 1 1990/2000 1 8/81 44 8/86 58 5/87 41 iy90 /2000 45.5 %ofall date operations 7/79 31.5 8/81 39.75 % of all 8/86 35.25 date operations 5/87 52 1990/2000 52.5 7/79 34.5 8/81 15.5 8/86 6.25 5/87 6 1990/2000 1 ;,2 /7 5 - 15 - 25 - 55 PLAN' % of all operations 5 25 55 15 TARGET RANGE OPTIONS of all operations Option 1 5 -8 Option 2 11 -12 Option 1 25 -28 Option 2 23 -24 52 -55 Option 1 12 -15 Option 2 11 -12 CONSIDERATIONS IN DEVELOPING A RUNWAY USE PLAN - Goals for Air Traffic Distribution - Enforcement Program - actual counts of aircraft - accounting for impact of weather /wind on runway use - computer system to aid FAA in achieving desired distribution - sanctions for non - compliance - Maintenance of Eagan /Mendota Heights corridor - Flight tracks off runway ends - Take - off /Landing distribution - Defined Airport Capacity (upon which runway use plan is based) - FAA Role