Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
03/13/2012 - Airport Relations Commission
4 City of Eaftafl Neiuo TO: THE EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION FROM: DIANNE MILLER, ASSISTANT CITY ADMINISTRATOR DATE: MARCH 8, 2012 SUBJECT: AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION MEETING / TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 2012 The Eagan Airport Relations Commission will meet on Tuesday, March 13 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. To ensure a quorum is present, please contact Janet Bolger at 651/675 -5028 or jbolger @cityofeagan.com if you are unable to attend the meeting. I. ROLL CALL AND ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA The agenda, as presented or modified, is in order for adoption by the Commission. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the January 24, 2012 Airport Relations Commission meeting are enclosed on pages LI through 5 . These minutes, as presented or modified, are in order for adoption by the Commission. III. VISITORS TO BE HEARD The Eagan City Council and its Commissions set aside up to ten minutes at the beginning of public meetings to permit visitors to address items of interest that are not addressed on the regular agenda. Items that will take more than ten minutes or that require specific action can be scheduled for a future meeting agenda. V. OLD BUSINESS A. Communications Update — It is the practice of the Airport Relations Commission to discuss their communication initiatives each month, which include articles in the Experience Eagan Newsletter, as well as stories aired on the City's local access cable channels. The Commission is welcome at this time to make additional suggestions for communication initiatives regarding airport issues. B. MAC Monthly Reports — Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor Analysis/Technical Advisory Report /17 -35 Departure Analysis Report — Enclosed on pages UV throu h ' l is the January 2012 Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor Analysis. Enclosed on pages • Airport Relations Commission Meeting March 13, 2012 Page 2 through 51 is the January 2012 Technical Advisory Report. Enclosed on pages 5 2 thr r j i the January 2012 Runway 17 Departure Analysis Report. Enclosed on pages _ through 03 is the Crossing in the Corridor report for the month of January 2012. C. 2012 Open House at the Fire Safety Center —The ARC's 2012 open house will take place on March 15, 2012 from 6:30 -8:00 p.m. at the Eagan Fire Safety Center. Chad Leqve of the MAC has confirmed he will attend the meeting and speak on the MAC's behalf. An invitation has also been extended to Carl Rydeen of the FAA and Jon Nelson, Noise Program Coordinator at the MAC. Enclosed on page (pll is a map showing the neighborhoods to be invited to the open house at the ARC's request. There are approximately 550 households in the area. Enclosed on page G is the invitation that was sent to each household in mid - February. Per the direction of the Commission, an online survey was created to encourage those invited to the open house to respond to a survey about airport noise. As the commission requested in January, enclosed on pages 610 through 7 is a summary of the airport noise survey responses to date. In keeping with past practice, hard copies of the survey will again be provided at the open house for those wishing to fill them out at the meeting. Enclosed on page P77... is the proposed agenda for the open house. Enclosed on page73 is the proposed handout to be available, speaking to the role of the ARC in the City. The Commission is encouraged to discuss any final details /requests for the open house. D. May 8, 2012 Joint Meeting with the Mendota Heights' and Inver Grove Heights' Airport Relations Commissions —Per the ARC's 2011 -2012 Work Plan, a joint meeting has been scheduled on May 8 with the airport relations commissions from the cities of Mendota Heights and Inver Grove Heights. Both cities have confirmed their attendance at the meeting. As background, enclosed on pages '74 and 75 is the agenda that the City of Mendota Heights prepared for the November 18, 2009 joint meeting between the two cities. The 2009 meeting is the last time there has been a joint -City meeting. The ARC is welcomed to discuss agenda items, format, etc. for the joint meeting. VI. NEW BUSINESS A. MAC Annual Noise Contour Analysis — Enclosed on pages� l% through )38is the Annual Noise Contour Analysis, which compares the 2011 Actual Noise Contour and the 2007 Forecast Noise Contour. This report is required per the 2007 consent decree. The report is enclosed for the Commission's information. The report will be formally presented at the upcoming Noise Oversight Committee meeting on March 21. VII. STAFF / COMMISSIONER REPORT A. MAC Crash Exercise — Enclosed on page I sl is a flyer inviting ARC members to participate in the 2012 MAC tri- annual crash exercise on May 16, 2012. Commissioners interested in participating can either contact Ms. Ford directly, or contact Assistant City Administrator Miller. Airport Relations Commission Meeting March 13, 2012 Page 3 B. Invitation to March 19, 2012 MAC Meeting — Enclosed on page NO is an e -mail from MAC Chairman Dan Boivin to members of the Noise Oversight Committee (NOC), inviting the NOC and members of the public to attend an offsite MAC meeting to be held on March 19, 2012. C. OC Request of MAC re: effects from Aircraft Noise — Enclosed on pages 141 through ∎ 44 is a memo from Chad Leqve, MAC Manager — Environment and Planning, to the Planning, Development, and Environment Committee of the MAC. The memo summarizes a request of the NOC that the MAC send letters to the Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emissions Reduction (PARTNER) and Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) offering MSP Airport as a prospective research site for their respective study efforts related to the health impact of airport noise. VIII. ROUNDTABLE Per the request of the Commission, this agenda item has been added so that Commissioners have the opportunity to ask questions or make requests for future agenda items. IX. ADJOURNMENT Per the request of the Commission, the Eagan ARC meetings will go no later than 8:30 p.m. unless agreed upon by the Commission. Assistant City Administrator 3 MINUTES OF THE EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 24, 2012 A regular meeting of the Eagan Airport Relations Commission was held on Tuesday, January 24, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. Those present were Curtis Aljets, Steve Beseke, Luke Olson, Chuck Thorkildson and Carol Whisnant. Absent were Chad Stambaugh and Dan Johnson. Also present was Assistant City Administrator Miller. AGENDA Beseke made a motion to approve the agenda as presented. Aljets and Whisnant seconded the motion. All members voted in favor. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Aljets made a motion to approve the minutes of the November 29, 2011 regular meeting of the Eagan Airport Relations Commission. Beseke seconded the motion. All members voted in favor. VISITORS TO BE HEARD There were no visitors to be heard. COMMUNICATIONS UPDATE The Commission discussed the types of coverage they would have for the Town Hall Meeting. MAC MONTHLY REPORTS — EAGAN /MENDOTA HEIGHTS CORRIDOR ANALYSIS/TECHNICAL ADVISORY REPORT /17 -35 DEPARTURE ANALYSIS REPORT /CROSSING THE CORRIDOR REPORT Assistant City Administrator Miller introduced the item stating enclosed are the December 2011 Eagan /Mendota Heights Corridor Analysis Report, the December 2011Technical Advisory Report, the February 2011 Runway 17 Departure Analysis Report and December 2011 Crossing in the Corridor Report. Commission members commented that night flight operations had dropped off by 33% from the same time period last year. Commissioners requested Miller to look into why the overall drop of 650 flights. 2012 OPEN HOUSE AT THE FIRE SAFETY CENTER Assistant City Administrator Miller stated the Open House will be held at the Fire Safety Center, Thursday, March 15, 2012 at 6:30 pm. Invitations will go out at the end of February for residents located north of Yankee Doodle Road, which encompasses 550 households. The Commission discussed the format of the open house. It was agreed to update last year's survey to reflect questions regarding the mitigation program. Web base responses could be tallied prior to the open house so members could review the information at the March 13 ARC meeting. Miller noted that Chad Leqve of the MAC would be present at the open house to speak to issues of importance to the residents (operations, Corridor compliance, Cross in the Corridor procedure, RNAV, etc.) UPDATE ON RELEASE OF PERFORMANCE BASED NAVIGATION FLIGHT TRACKS Assistant City Administrator Miller stated that the Performance Based Navigation Flight Tracks still have not been released. Miller added that on January 18, 2012, Carl Rydeen FAA ATCT Manager, briefed the 4 : Eagan Airport Relations Commission January 24, 2012 Page 2 of 2 Noise Oversight Committee on the tracks developed to date. It was noted that Mr. Rydeen expects the revised flight tracks to be released in the March to May time, after all of the simulation work is completed. The Commission discussed the PBN process. MAY 8, 2012 JOINT MEETING WITH MENDOTA HEIGHTS' AND INVER GROVE HEIGHTS' AIRPORT COMMISSIONS Assistant City Administrator Miller commented that the meeting has been temporarily scheduled with the Airport Relations Commissions from the Cities of Mendota Heights and Inver Grove Heights for the evening of May 8, 2012. The Commission will know by March 13, 2012 and at that time members can discuss and define an agenda and issues. PRESENTATION BY N.O.I.S.E. TO NOISE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE Assistant City Administrator Miller provided and update on the presentation given by Dennis McGrann, Executive Director of N.O.I.S.E. to members of NOC with research done to date on the health impacts of airport noise. Under the Leadership of MIT, the study is looking at Medicare files across the country of people who live near an airport. Miller added that the NOC took action at their last meeting to recommend MAC send a letter to the P.A.R.T.N.E.R. group offering MSP as a prospective research site for study efforts related to the health impacts of airport noise. MSP 2020 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT SUMMARY Assistant City Administrator Miller summarized a memo from Chad Legve, MAC Manager — Noise, Environmental and Planning, noting there are no changes within Eagan to the forecasted 2020 or 2025 60- 65 DNL noise contours. Miller added that MAC is forecasting that no additional homes in Eagan will fall into the area currently receiving noise mitigation as a result of the proposed projects included in the 2020 plan. Miller added that a public input process will commence regarding the EA, and an open house to review the EA is scheduled for Tuesday, January 31, at the MAC office. ROUNDTABLE There were no additional items or comments. ADJOURNMENT Upon motion by Aljets, seconded by Beseke, the meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m. All members voted in favor. DATE SECRETARY 5 1/1/2012 - 1/31/2012 Eagan- Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport NSA' 4- Corridor Slt 35 rp i for iformati a purpose onl and This cannot eort b e used for enfo purposes Metropolitan Airports Commission 67 (2.7 %) Runway 12L and 12R Carrier Jet Departure Operations were north of the 090° Corridor Boundary during January 2012. Of those, 23 (-) returned to corridor before reaching SE border of Ft. Snelling State Park ,..A . i � r :, € ° 7 M GR.' 'i'' irrt af. ,, ty ' ® 4. i //= , (f J kr `` ire 1 ®p` 1 if,,,Itt..,,........._,:.„4:,..,,,,, „,,,,, Bloomi on a.. 3 ' - iChfie Id l'''' ,.. - _ - -4 ': '' I I: . , " lti■.111 --- - Algol. ...400 Al; L ,c ? I a s ue . „ ' Paul Park 1 „ ' In er Gr. _ Heights' g4--,J, •N.. agars ' t vo ` ; 1 GreyGt.ud.Islail Twp :-F; ''.,-",,, i , 1 i i ., -_,. . , ',, j, urnsville _ : , ,',,,, , ,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,... , att.,,,,,,... „j ,,,,:t r, : 1 ,,..!: ik ..„, ,,,,, pple Valley O "� . Rosemount � , b Minneapolis St. Paul Penetration Gate Plot for North Corridor Gate „ 1/1/2012 00:00:00 - 1/31/2012 23:59:59 j 67 Tracks Crossed Gate: Left = 26 (38.8 %), Right = 41 (61.2 %) 4 s ''� ,, H i s 4 'ri � 1 � �' - 0, £¢ t C S• \ j Qom ' �R - 4 t-'�� .•�..,t« x ,'no4 <a n.,. 's .u.. te e,. li rl,. ; �. ;150G • .'- *t 2 000 0 0. @" o- 0 0 boo so - 4..ii3O 200 L'S - 4..„(W -i0'* '0 0,5,,o ,i..00 41.30 2 . 7p a 4 r8 _ EndJ xr . = . I {Corridor Emil _ �,�'" qi . -0 t , s . -, •, a "y 3 atioa +o. tor of Gate (MoWor h s� � -ab baeea;atke•e 1titaaie ineoranatintl a a unavailable: oper•atieh la oat represented ab above ifebaie ` t i Page 2 Monthly Eagan /Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis. Report Generated: 02/10/2012 11:34 8 Metropolitan Airports Commission 32 (1.3 %) Runway 12L and 12R Carrier Jet Departure Operations were south of the Corridor (south of 30L Localizer) during January 2012. Of those, 10 (—) returned to Corridor before reaching SE border of Ft. Snelling State Park F 1 2 gaol ,}. .� a a & A t ,:' "---,,,., -'., \ .' - q1/ 1 ® " � y St P r ', , ® VNe s t 7 �, \ . odb� th St. ' 'a c, ` � �� ;.: � ..�: �unfifi 5 h Y 1 :— - . - ‘ i„ i i' • 7wi ' 4 111111111111106. 4 - ", ,„' —,-;!,:-.4.:,-,;.' ' ,'--,---' I rF, , 4•; t E '`, BIoom s ofY / ' s § _ L3tc' ATM, ; iE a ul Park. = ', `\ , ,,, '' '\.. r Gr:v Heights a,_ , G . risvIIIe ",,, ,- " ' \ t .'y ~"", ,� 4 PPIe V,I ,,,' ! , , \ ,,,,, \\\\ f , ::\ Minneapolis St. Paul Penetration Gate Plot for South Corridor Gate 1/1/2012 00:00:00 - 1/31/2012 23:59:59 32 Tracks Crossed Gate: Left = 19 (59.4 %), Right = 13 (40.6%) .�t ifs s 41. - t fi 4300 F , i .. 3 � y ... 3000'_ �£ �, ?t 1" -J0e ` O G .. 1.000 _ O 0 .,• QkE % zoo- 80 0 ''.,i 3 ^ 2 " O 0 0„ 4»1:30 • S.4@ : *Si. -- ( uijwi End, • '' - s : (Co d End) ., f' t'3a�ll 6rom •off Gaye 4t lILec'N e bcr .u�err aisitide i�,FOvnst #Oh S snaw is}aat i a F+N" ri l i ' t,' is - roL reaf+uNJ Yit gabs. .. � ' �` :; Monthly Eagan /Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis. Report Generated: 02/10/2012 11:34 Page 3 9 Metropolitan Airports Commission 1 (0 %) Runway 12L and 12R Carrier Jet Departure Operations were 5° south of the Corridor (5° south of 30L Localizer) during January 2012 W t aut „ �r � l I ,50e ®' - ''''''.1.'-':-.71'1'3 ® West St •Pa ' > ,�iV6odb h`� -t ..�^ 4 ' �'% * ' td Y�' nc ---,----'t-.°14--t0 St.'a I C - Richfield ` 1: 4 Sunf y , . " 1 port ' 1I fi.t1 -' i ,i ' p - 1 , 'Bloom" gton x k p. Si Paul Par H eights ',,,' , „«., ,' G ''--- "',.-- i , ,, ,, ; , ,,,, ,,, 1.,, ,„: ,, rey 9toud'lslandTwp. e k urnsville PPIe Valley Rosemount ' ; 1 #6,1`'. , ' i Minneapolis -St. Paul Penetration Gate Plot for 5° South Corridor Gate `: 1/1/2012 00:00: 00 - 1/31/2012 23:59:59 1 Tracks Crossed Gate: Left = 1 (100 %), Right = 0 (0 %) �A01 ` * y , ° ' I I s tt E 1 . •00 ° . z a1 `3009 ci. :"° x +C 2000 0 - 1_4 - •]..'2 -S_0 -.8 -0.6 '-0 9 -0:Z 0-0,!,, 0.2 +D 4 ,- "0 8 0 e 1.0 3. 2 a. 4 1.6 , 4....9 e 20 X1.8 -1.4 � -,A P' (Ca 70:4 end) - . , d'P4a1n - � avia t ao r+ Fro c ant a t of Gat® (M ''*Iia Oaaee litter!aiititutle inFa-aatiar+ 4S'asva+aai3ifnil. enat. 9rxretion ik •net repreebnted i�r abuur 7Cr'+. Page 4 Monthly Eagan /Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis. Report Generated: 02/10/2012 11:34 10 Metropolitan Airports Commission Top 15 Runway 12L/12R Departure Destinations for January 2012 Airport City H(deg )g #Ops Total Ops ORD CHICAGO (O'HARE) 124° 80 3.2% FAR FARGO 312° 61 2.5% MOT MINOT 304° 59 2.4% GFK GRAND FORKS 316° 57 2.3% BIS BISMARCK 291° 56 2.3% SEA SEATTLE 278° 55 2.2% CYWG WINNIPEG 330° 55 2.2% CYYZ TORONTO 95° 54 2.2% ATL ATLANTA 149° 47 1.9% DTW DETROIT 105° 46 1.9% DLH DULUTH 19° 43 1.7% LAX LOS ANGELES 238° 41 1.7% SLC SALT LAKE CITY 252° 39 1.6% RAP RAPID CITY 269° 38 1.5% DEN 1 DENVER 237° 38 1.5% Monthly Eagan /Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis. Report Generated: 02/10/2012 11:34 Page 5 1 I January 2012 Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) Tech Advisor Report .N s p O * kS( ; (u\ • ...)r Minneapolis -St. Paul International Air - " € , til,. ,,..„,,,,,,,, p �' u MtW 'u y c at a` 1 R m } E 17,; d � , a � F $ 6 • w .. ®mom .m m.e...._ .... p 4- C T e Nq RPO R�S 1 2...- Table of Contents for January 2012 Complaint Summary — 1 Noise Complaint Map 2 FAA Available Time for Runway Usage 3 MSP All Operations Runway Usage 4 MSP Carrier Jet Operations Runway Usage 5 MSP Carrier Jet Fleet Composition 6 MSP All Operations Nighttime Runway Usage 7 MSP Carrier Jet Operations Nighttime Runway Usage 8 MSP Scheduled Nighttime Operators 9 -11 MSP Top 15 Nighttime Operators by Type 12 MSP Top 15 Nighttime Operators Stage Mix 13 Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks 14 -17 MSP ANOMS Remote Monitoring Tower Site Locations Map 18 Time Above dB Threshold for Carrier Jet Arrival Related Noise Events 19 Time Above dB Threshold for Carrier Jet Departure Related Noise Events 20 Carrier Jet Arrival Related Noise Events 21 Carrier Jet Departure Related Noise Events 22 MSP Top Ten Aircraft Noise Events per RMT 23 -35 Analysis of Daily and Monthly Aircraft Noise Events DNL 36 -38 A Product of the MAC Aviation Noise and Satellite Program I onl MSP Complaints by City January 2012 Number of Number of % of Total City Arrival Departure Other Complaints Complainants Complaints EAGAN 1 2 3 769 5 60 840 16 38.4% MINNEAPOLIS 1 102 8 203 129 251 694 59 31.7% EDINA 0 1 0 293 0 27 321 3 14.7% MENDOTA 0 0 0 199 26 2 227 15 10.4% HEIGHTS INVER GROVE 0 0 0 9 0 13 22 2 1% HEIGHTS APPLE VALLEY 0 2 0 3 1 14 20 5 0.9% RICHFIELD 0 0 1 9 4 4 18 10 0.8% SAINT LOUIS PARK 0 12 0 0 0 0 12 2 0.5% BLOOMINGTON 0 0 0 2 2 7 11 10 0.5% LAKEVILLE 0 4 0 2 4 0 10 2 0.5% SAINT PAUL 0 0 0 4 0 3 7 3 0.3% BURNSVILLE 0 0 0 1 2 0 3 2 0.1% SAVAGE 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 I 0% LEXINGTON 0 0 0 0 0 I 1 1 0% PLYMOUTH 0 0 0 0 I 0 1 1 0% Total 125 1507 556 2188 132 Nature of MSP Complaints Time of Day Complaints by Airport Complaint Total Time Total Airport Total Early/Late 57 414 0000 -0559 5 35 MSP 2188 Engine Run -up 2 33 0600 -0659 30 91 Airlake 2 Excessive Noise 183 1808 0700 -1159 72 541 Anoka 36 Frequency 124 1420 1200 -1559 16 318 Crystal 0 Ground Noise 6 33 1600 -1959 37 594 Flying Cloud 235 Helicopter 0 7 2000 -2159 15 263 Lake Elmo 0 Low Flying 19 844 2200 -2259 11 133 St. Paul 8 Structural Disturbance 4 400 2300-2359 2 25 Misc. 0 Other 4 115 Total 5473 Total 2188 Total 2469 Note: Shaded Columns represent MSP complaints filed via the Internet. Sum of % Total of Complaints may not equal 100% due to rounding. 'As of May 2005, the MSP Complaints by City report includes multiple complaint descriptors per individual complaint. Therefore, the number of complaint descriptors may be more than the number of reported complaints. Report Generated: 02/10/2012 11:34 ILA" - 1 - MN International Airport Aviation • Noise Complaints for January 2012 il °I +1�ER?4 nok I go r '- " -1 Da \ A, ,, Hassan Tvvp C n Fap s Blade Hugo - �L no Lake i g i . $ , far- ; -""''" u . i i t - :_ «. -"�' t I , $ Corcoran 1Vlap1'e rove~ -- - Whi B T .. F ridle y Shoreviev� . Grant - - Broe _lyn�Ce , r - '.-7,--',',-, W e Beat La' Ce 1 Med �° Plymo th - ville ' Rose [ Maplewood# j • 1 ? .�....:_ i t 1" I I Lake Em ' " Oron `� ;,_.. k � in — t S MI , - - St ,Lou Par - ' t ul i • ? Wo odbury � - E o 1 =F w r"Chanhassen N giro \,............ Bloorrnng on y I Chaska ,: L I " , )CottageGrove E ,Shakopee ;Bur sv1I,I • RIVER w MISSISSIP arve ° Sava e' .5. , , ouis T . , 1 = g i °Ap Rosemount Ninf "n ger Tvvp, e iv! Prior L ,- - `., —i - = Vermillion Tvvp. akevi i Emp Tvvp : Spring Lake Tvvp. a Farmingtoi ' § E E , J Helena ,wp` Number of Complaints per Address • • • • • • • • 1-4 5 -12 13 -25 26-48 49 -85 86 -106 107 -312 31 -412 - 2 - 1 Report Generated: 02/10/2012 11:34 Available Hours for Runway Use Jan uary 2012 (S ource: FA Av l tion Systems Performance Metri Data) t. All Hour . � � M � p I ,. Paul _ -� . Iiti ��SI P J - E a '`.`r f" 0_4,, v .,,, , 11=t � � �.� .. "• ' } St "` , `i` � C ` r �? " :. 1 Richfie t �' 4 H 4''''''N''''''' -sc Blo ® ` ins° Eag n u �. Nighttim Hour t 1 0:30pm to 6:00am y , Y " M p olls 0 . P,aul '. i: t � Y1!S t IF' I�f,. t 114i 1 i f a� ,R s� �° a'' i 1-i 1 t� Ir Bloc? in® ° 3 E € e l'''''' w 9 � 7 g Report Generated: 02/10/2012 11:34 1 3 All Operations Runway U se Report January 2012 ti z cl a.1is � — Oa ': �, �aeh kFiAl�� . -at {�� ® ` °4 ' , \ ® 4� T i : i �� _ m ` � ' t! o t '.. " ( unorg., ` Richfield + AI �°„. �+ 4 i t [ ` a 4 s�^rw - I I. 4 ,x7J p ..-,-, .r F 1 -x Blomin. o Eag 1 .. i Arrival/ Count Last Year Last Year RWY Departure Overflight Area Operations Percent Count Percent 04 Arr So. Richfield /Bloomingto 1 0% 0 0% 12L Arr So. Minneapolis /No. Richfield 2103 12.8 2798 16% 12R Arr So. Minneapolis /No. Rich 2186 13.3% 2674 15.3% 17 Arr So. Minneapolis 0 0% _ 0 _ 0% 22 Arr St. Paul /Highland Park 3 0% _ 0 0% 30L Arr _ Eagan /Mendota Heights _ 3978 _ 24.2% 4181 23.9% 30R Arr Eagan /Mendota Heights 4687 28.5% 5054 28.9% 35 Arr Bloom ington /Eagan 1 0% 3507 21.3% 2784 15.9% Total Arrivals 16465 17491 Arrival/ Count Last Year Last Year RWY Departure _ Overflight Area Operations Percent Count _ Percent 04 _ Dep _ St. Pau /Highland Park _ 7 0% _ 12L _Dep _ Eagan /Mendota H 1607 9.8 % _ 1783 10.2% _ 12R _ Dep _ Eagan /Mendota Heights _ 1032 6.3% 1115 6.4% 17 Dep Bloomington /Eagan _ 2387 14.5% 3533 20.2% 22 Dep So. Richfield /Bloomington 2 0% 6 0% 30L Dep So. Minneapolis /No. Richfield 6191 37.7% 5479 31.3% 30R Dep So. Minneapolis /No. Richfield 5211 31.7% 5572 31.9% 35 Dep r So. Minneapolis 0 0% 0 0% Total Departures 16437 17489 Total Operations 32902 34980 Sum of RUS %may not equal 100% due to rounding. - 4 - Report Generated: 02/10/2012 11:34 Carrier Jet Operations Runway Use Report January 2012 r 12o1 :Paul 0 °! K ' s ir j ':4,''t Ir.,,,,N.. it © p E p n = i e Nom`" ®� • ff `'\ ' ®` A `1l - ©a " g (unorg. ` Richfield f�!.�. ```` a� N, • t • IeIcM m s 0 Blooming o � ;�4 S aga ,��� { T Arrival/ Count Last Year* Last Year RWY Departure Overflight Area Operations Percent Count Percent 04 Arr So. Richfield /Bloomington 0 0% 0 0% 12L Arr So. Minneapolis /No. Richfield 2025 13.2% 2540 16.3% 12R Arr So. Minneapolis /No. Richfield 2049 13.3% 2385 15.3% 17 Arr So. Minneapolis 0 0% 0 0% 22 Arr St. Paul /Highland Park 0 0% 0 0% 30L Arr Eagan /Mendota Heights 3527 22.9% 3664 23.5% 30R Arr Eagan /Mendota Heights 4537 29.5% 4599 29.5% 35 Arr Bloomington /Eagan 3243 21.1% 2427 15.5% Total Arrivals 15381 15615 Arrival/ Count Last Year* Last Year RWY Departure Overflight Area Operations Percent Count Percent 04 Dep St. Paul /Highland Park 0 0% 0 0% 12L Dep Eagan /Mendota Heights 1521 9.9% 1494 9.6% 12R Dep Eagan /Mendota Heights 958 6.2% 1031 6.6% 17 Dep Bloomington /Eagan 2271 14.8% 3274 21% 22 Dep So. Richfield /Bloomington 0 0% 6 0% 30L Dep So. Minneapolis /No. Richfield 5732 37.2% 5025 32.2% 30R Dep So. Minneapolis /No. Richfield 4912 31.9% 4796 30.7% 35 Dep So. Minneapolis 0 0% 0 0% Total Departures 15394 15626 Total Operations 30775 31241 `NOTE: Due to flight tracking data enhancements, the air carrier operations counts for Last Year included in this report have been updated to reflect revised aircraft type counts. Please refer to the interactive reports at www.macnoise.com for detailed information regarding aircraft types. Sum of RUS % may not equal 100% due to rounding. Report Generated: 02/10/2012 11:34 1 - 5 - January 2012 MSP Carrier Jet Fleet Composition FAR Part 36 Take - Type Off Noise Level' Aircraft Description Stage Count Percent DC10 101.8 McDonnell Douglas DC10 3 81 0.3% B744 101.6 Boeing 747 -400 3 2 0% DC9Q 98.1 McDonnell Douglas DC9 Modified Stage 3 3 246 0.8% B72Q 97.6 Boeing 727 Modified Stage 3 3 7 0% B777 96.2 Boeing 777 3 64 0.2% DC8Q 95.7 McDonnell Douglas DC8 Re- manufactured 3 42 0.1% A330 95.6 Airbus Industries A330 3 62 0.2% A310 92.9 Airbus Industries A310 3 2 0% MD11 92.8 McDonnell Douglas MD11 3 144 0.5% B767 92.1 Boeing 767 -200 3 270 0.9% A300 91.5 Airbus Industries A300 3 4 0% MD80 91.5 McDonnell Douglas MD80 3 932 3% B73Q 91.4 Boeing 737 Modified Stage 3 3 8 0% B757 91.4 Boeing 757 -200 3 1627 5.3% A321 89.8 Airbus Industries A321 3 131 0.4% B734 88.9 Boeing 737 -400 3 2 0% B738 88.6 Boeing 737 -800 3 1425 4.6% B739 88.4 Boeing 737 -900 3 6 0% A320 87.8 Airbus Industries A320 3 3270 10.6% B735 87.7 Boeing 737 -500 3 93 0.3% B733 87.5 Boeing 737 -300 3 416 1.4% A319 87.4 Airbus Industries A319 3 1522 4.9% E190 86.9 Embraer 190 3 78 0.3% B7377 85.9 Boeing 737 -700 3 995 3.2% CRJ9 84.6 Canadair Regional Jet CRJ -900 3 2258 7.3% MD90 84.2 McDonnell Douglas MD90 3 1485 4.8% A318 84.1 Airbus Industries A318 3 2 0% B717 84.1 Boeing 717 3 365 1.2% E145 83.7 Embraer 145 3 528 1.7% E170 83.7 Embraer 170 3 4978 16.2% CRJ7 83.2 Canadair Regional Jet CRJ -700 3 1051 3.4% CRJ1 79.8 Canadair Regional Jet CRJ -100 3 126 0.4% CRJ 79.8 Canadair Regional Jet CRJ 3 1 0% CRJ2 78.7 Canadair Regional Jet CRJ -200 3 8534 27.7% E135 77.9 Embraer 135 3 13 0% J328 76.5 Fairchild Dornier 328 3 5 0% - _ Totals 30775 Sum of fleet mix % may not equal 100% due to rounding. Current Last Year Count Percent Percent Stage 2 0 0% 0% Stage 3 261 0.8% 2.4% Stage 3 Manufactured 30514 99.2% 97.6% Total Stage 3 30775 _ NOTE 1: Stage 3 represent aircraft modified to meet all Stage 3 criteria as outlined in Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 36. This includes hushkit engines, engine retrofits or aircraft operational flight configurations. -The Provided Noise levels from FAR Part 36 are the loudest levels documented for the representative aircraft type during take -off measured in EPNL dBA (Effective Perceived Noise Level). -EPNL is the level of the time integral of the antilogarithm of one -tenth of tone - corrected perceived noise level of an aircraft flyover measured in A- weighted decibels. NOTE 2: Due to flight tracking data enhancements, the air carrier operations counts for Last Year included in this report have been updated to reflect revised aircraft type counts. Please refer to the interactive reports at www.macnoise.com for detailed information regarding aircraft types. - 6 - Report Generated: 02/10/2012 11:34 Nighttime All Operations 10:m. to 2 6:00 a.m. 30 p. Runway Use Rep r ort January 201 polis Pau s -7 i i Ri hf le ld ; r ' : " �°o. ; � . i r Vforkr II - - -i'''''!,!!: , ,, lel.i..:;. rele7;:,/ !,,,,,, g� ,_ BI " min o J* Ea• A f ,. ie '� s 'fir"' Arrival/ Count Last Year Last Year RWY Departure Overflight Area Operations Percent Count Percent 04 Arr So. Richfield /Bloom 0 0% 0 0% 12L Arr So. Minneapolis /No. Richfield 62 7.3% 139 14.2% 12R Arr So. Minneapolis /No. Richfield 203 23.9% 217 22.1% 17 Arr So. Minneapolis 0 0% 0 0% 22 Arr St. Paul /Highland Park 0 0% 0 0% 30L Arr Eagan /Mendota Heights 423 49.9% 323 32.9% 30R Arr Eagan /Mendota Heights 158 18.6% 296 30.1 35 Arr Bloomington /Eagan 2 0.2% 7 0.7% Total Arrivals 848 982 Year Arrival/ Count Last Year L RWY D e p arture Overflight Area Operations Percent C ount Percent 04 Dep St. Paul /Highlan Park 0 0% 1 0.2% 12L Dep Eagan /Mendota He ights 51 20.6% 1 49 27 . 1 % 12R Dep Eagan /Mendota Heights 69 27.9% 123 22.4% 17 Dep Bloomingt /Eagan 29 11.7% 14 2.5% 22 Dep So. Richfield / Blooming ton 0 0% 0 0% 30L Dep So. Minneapolis /No. Richfield 63 25.5% 145 26.4% 30R Dep So. Minneapolis /No. Richfield 35 14.2% 118 21.5% 35 Dep So. Minneapolis 0 0% 0 0% Total Departures 247 550 Total Operations 1095 1532 Sum of RUS % may not equal 100% due to rounding. 20 Report Generated: 02/10/2012 11:34 - 7 - Nighttime Carrier Jet Operations 10:30 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. Runway Use Report January 2012 , -,, ..ii ,--,-- ,, ,,,z , , ,, ,,,..:'-.:,- . ,. - . :.:. ,i,6146,z, 1 1... kkt., -' : L - mot, rA .Paul T' f ' s fit �. "°�<' i 4 .! v i.M. , Affie*-NtailkL. 21t*-I -',.. .' ,t IV. -. :4,', '. ,� g ( unorg. 1_ Richfield „ t!, .11;,,..,‘,"' �'° a ,; ,,>, W� ir. e- ,_t,L g Bre0min. o ::- k E A x rS Arrival/ Count Last Year* Last Year RWY Departure Overflight Area Operations Percent Count Percent 04 Arr So. Richfield /Bloomington 0 0% 0 0% 12L Arr So. Minneapolis /No. Richfield 60 7.6% 133 14.5% 12R _ Arr So. Minneapolis /No. Richfield 188 _ 23.9% 202 22% _ 17 Arr _ So. Minneapolis 0 0% 0 0% 22 Arr St. Paul /Highland Park 0 0% 0 0% _ 30L Arr _ Eagan /Mendota Heights 386 49% 304 33.1% 30R Arr Eagan /Mendota Heights _ 153 19.4% 273 _ 29.7% 35 Arr _ Bloomington /Eagan 0 0% 7 0.8% Total Arrivals 787 919 Arrival/ Count Last Year* Last Year RWY Departure _ Overflight Area Operations Percent Count Percent 04 _ Dep St. Paul /Highland Park _ 0 0% 0 0% 12L Dep _ Eagan /Mendota Heights _ 49 _22.2% 136 _ 27% 12R Dep _ Eagan /Mendota Heights _ 58 26.2% — 113 22.4% 17 Dep Bloomington /Eagan 27 12.2% 12 _ 2.4% 22 Dep So. Richfield /Bloomington 0 0% 0 0% 30L _ Dep So. Minneapolis /No. Richfield _ 52 23.5% 132 26.2% 30R _ Dep So. Minneapolis /No. Richfield _ 35 15.8% 111 I 22% 35 Dep _ So. Minneapolis 0 0% 0 0% Total Departures 221 504 Total Operations 1008 1423 *NOTE: Due to flight tracking data enhancements, the air carrier operations counts for Last Year included in this report have been updated to reflect revised aircraft type counts. Please refer to the interactive reports at www.macnoise.com for detailed information regarding aircraft types. Sum of RUS % may not equal 100% due to rounding. 8 - 2_1 Report Generated: 02/10/2012 11:34 February 2012 Nighttime Scheduled Carrier Jet Operations 10:30 p . m . to 6:00 a.m. 120 y % liv 100�� UPS 0 USA 514-150504i6;*4 7:45,155r +5'5:1 p �.. .- 1 5-a�.:.. 0 TRS it ` y 0 ONX 60 a si aa o 3 C� FFT '+- , 104 144 �:, f - - "fir" �``�t� W �� hix b 20 2 "r .. +Rs . ,`a.,aa a ice . ,' . �' , a Iri o u, o In o I C) o u� O in 0 1 o in o u) o I 1 o IC) o u� o u� o u� o un C) •V: o .--I C) v o ti C) v o .--I C) v o C) .r o 7 1 r, o ."1 c-� v o ti r� N N ["7 ['7 (`7 ['7 O O O O .--I a--1 .rl ci N N • c ". 4 N c.1 el 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I['� 0 0 N N N N N N O .5. a o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O T i m e February 2012 Nighttime Schedulrt Operations 10:30 p.m. to 6:00 ed a.m. Carier Manufactured Airline Stage 2 Stage3 Stage 3 Total Sun Country (SCX) 0 0 130 130 Delta (DAL) 0 0 108 108 UPS (UPS) 0 0 56 56 US Airways (USA) 0 0 51 Je 51 Fed Ex (FDX) 0 3 36 39 American (AAL) 0 0 25 25 Airtran (TRS) 0 0 23 23 Continental (COA) 0 0 13 13 Southwest (SWA) 0 0 0 8 8 United (UAL) 0 4 4 AIR ONIX (ONX) 0 0 4 4 4 Frontier Airlines (FFT) 0 0 4 Total 0 3 462 465 - 9 - Report Generated: 02/10/2012 11:34 22 February 2012 Nighttime Scheduled Carrier Jet Operations Flight Days of Time A/D Carrier Number Equipment Stage 3 Operation Routing 22:31 A AIR ONIX 752 A320 M Su ORD MSP 22:31 A United 752 A320 M Su ORD MSP 22:35 A American 513 B738 M ThFSSu MIA MSP 22:37 A Continental 4390 E145 M W EWR MSP 22:40 A Southwest 463 B733 M Su MCO MDW MSP 22:41 A Delta 2034 B753 M MTWThFSSu ATL MSP 22:43 A Airtran 869 B737 M Su _ ATL MSP 22:44 A Airtran 869 B737 M MTWThFS ATL MSP 22:46 A Frontier Airlines 108 A320 M ThFSu MCO DEN MSP 22:46 A Frontier Airlines 108 A319 M M MCO DEN MSP 22:50 A Sun Country 404 _ B737 M ThSu _ SAN MSP 22:57 A Sun Country 426 B737 M MF LAX MSP 22:58 A Delta 512 A320 M F MEX DTW MSP 22:58 A Delta 512 B738 M TSu MEX DTW MSP 22:58 A Delta 512 738 M M MEX DTW MSP 23:00 A Delta 512 MD90 M Th MEX DTW MSP 23:05 A Delta 5851 E175 M W DTW MSP 23:05 A Sun Country _ 246 B737 M ThSu JFK MSP 23:15 A Sun Country 732 B738 M S SXM SJU MSP 23:17 A Sun Country 604 6738 M MWThFSu PHX MSP 23:17 A Sun Country 604 B737 M TS PHX MSP 23:18 A Sun Country 418 B737 M Su PSP MSP 23:24 A United 463 A320 M F EWR ORD MSP 23:24 A AIR ONIX 463 A320 M F EWR ORD MSP 23:25 A Sun Country 384 B737 M TWSSu RSW MSP 23:25 A Sun Country 396 B737 M M SFO MSP 23:25 A American 1002 MD80 M ThFSu PSP DFW MSP 23:35 A American 1002 MD80 M S DFW MSP 23:35 A American 1284 MD80 M MTW SAT DFW MSP 23:35 A Southwest _ 561 _ B737 M MTWThF LAX PHX MSP 23:46 A Delta 1568 738 M MTWThFSSu LAX MSP 23:51 A Delta 300 MD90 M MTWThFSu ATL MSP 23:51 A Delta 300 MD80 M S ATL MSP 23:55 A Sun Country 396 B737 M _ F _ SFO MSP 23:55 A American 3731 CRJ M ThFSu ORD MSP 23:57 A US Airways 984 A319 M S CLT MSP 23:57 A US Airways 984 _ A320 M WThFSu CLT MSP 23:58 A Sun Country 106 _ B738 M MTWThFSSu LAS MSP 23:59 A US Airways 1055 A321 M MTWThFSSu SAN PHX MSP 00:04 A US Airways 55 A321 M W PHX MSP 00:05 A American 3731 CRJ M TWTh ORD MSP 00:15 A Sun Country 550 B738 M Su SJD MSP 00:25 A Sun Country 544 B738 M Su CUN MSP 00:30 A Delta 1682 A320 M MTThFSSu LAS MSP 00:40 A Sun Country 594 B737 M Su MZT MSP 03:49 A UPS 0556 B757 M T 04:20 A UPS 0556 B757 M TWThF — 04:29 A UPS 1464 B757 M T 04:29 A UPS 0558 B757 M TWThF 05:07 A Sun Country 430 B738 M M LAX MSP - 10 - 2_3 Report Generated: 02/10/2012 11:34 February 2012 Nighttime Scheduled Carrier Jet Operations Flight Days of Time A/D Carrier Number Equipment Stage 3 Operation Routing 05:10 A FedEx 1718 MD11 M ThFSSu 05:14 A UPS 0560 MD11 M TWThF 05:15 A Sun Country 398 B738 M M SFO MSP 05:19 A FedEx 2197 B72Q H ThSSu 05:25 D Delta 2129 B738 M MF MSP ATL 05:25 D Delta 2129 738 M TW MSP ATL 05:25 D Delta 1424 A319 M S MSP ATL 05:25 D Delta 2129 B757 M Th MSP ATL 05:25 D Delta 2129 MD90 M Su MSP ATL 05:35 D Continental 4698 E145 M MThF MSP EWR 05:39 A FedEx 1407 MD11 M MThFSSu 05:45 D Airtran 215 B717 M MTWThFS MSP MKE RSW 05:53 A UPS 0496 B757 M S Report Generated: 02/10/2012 11:34 - 11 - January 2012 Top 15 Actual Nighttime Jet Operators by Type 10:30 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. Airline ID Stage Type Count Airtran TRS 3 B717 22 Airtran TRS 3 B7377 30 America West AWE 3 A319 4 America West AWE 3 A320 19 America West AWE 3 A321 34 American AAL 3 B738 9 Total Nighttime Jet American AAL 3 MD80 31 Operations by Hour American Eagle EGF 3 CRJ7 24 _ Hour Count Atlantic Southeast ASQ 3 _ CRJ7 1 _ 2230 229 Atlantic Southeast ASQ 3 E145 21 _ 2300 337 Compass CPZ 3 E170 30 2400 113 Delta DAL 3 DC9Q _ 3 100 25 Delta DAL 3 B767 10 200 15 Delta DAL 3 MD80 14 300 7 Delta DAL 3 B757 27 400 53 Delta DAL 3 A319 27 500 228 Delta DAL 3 _MD90 40 _ TOTAL I 1008 Delta DAL 3 A320 81 Delta DAL 3 B738 89 FedEx FDX 3 A300 2 FedEx FDX 3 DC10 15 FedEx FDX 3 MD11 20 Frontier Airlines FFT 3 A320 19 Pinnacle FLG 3 CRJ9 27 Pinnacle FLG 3 CRJ2 66 Skywest Airlines SKW 3 CRJ9 1 Skywest Airlines SKW 3 CRJ2 17 Southwest SWA 3 B733 4 Southwest SWA 3 B7377 24 Sun Country SCX 3 B7377 64 Sun Country SCX 3 B738 130 UPS UPS 3 MD11 16 UPS UPS 3 B757 39 United UAL 3 B738 1 United UAL 3 A319 3 United UAL 3 B7377 3 United UAL _ 3 _ A320 11 TOTAL 978 Note: The top 15 nighttime operators represent 97% of the total nighttime carrier jet operations. - 12 - Report Generated: 02/10/2012 11:34 January 2012 Nig httime C arrier Jet O 6 - •00 g erations Mix for To 15 Airlines 1 140 £ v � ` „ 7 N� l»m z „€ ,i� s [ DAL ( FLG !: SCX 120 \ �� - yam a � 0 � �� er ®AWE : s s y M eV C 100 s � d P z : f ,� ,, q ._ ° ART a .s a ` ` _ 0 fDX a�a 80 �i i s ( CPz ® � t h SWA p ® s EGF o -�" t �€��c � � i � � ASQ � 60 F � 0 f ilL„.71=Iii fT r T s t ■■ r b �z SKW 20 �� _ to ? y A is '. f 0 a In o I() o In a I n o ICJ o I[l o IC] o IC7 o I['1 o LL7 a In a IC') o IC7 O o ICS o In C7 V O c-1 C) V O a-4 C7 tt O vi t` i V O .--I C7 rl O a--1 [' i O .--I C7 .--I M N N 0-) N N 0-) O O O O O O O O O O O O O '°' O O O O O O O O O O Tim January 2012 N ighttime C arrier Jet Fleet Stage Mix for Top Airlines 10:30 p. to 6:00 a.m. Manufactu 15 A Stag 2 Stage3 Stage 3 Total Delta (DA 0 3 288 291 Sun Co (SCX) 0 0 194 194 Pinnacle (FL 0 0 93 93 America West (AW 0 0 57 57 UP (UPS) 0 0 55 55 Airtran (TRS) 0 0 52 52 American (AAL) 0 0 40 40 Fed Ex (FDX) 0 0 37 37 Compass (CPZ) 0 0 30 30 Southwest (SWA) 0 0 28 28 Am Eagle (EGF) 0 0 24 24 Atlantic Southeast (ASQ) 0 0 22 22 Frontier Airlines (FFT) 0 0 19 19 United (UAL) 0 0 18 18 Skywest Airlines (SKW) 0 0 18 • 18 Other 0 5 25 30 Total 0 8 1000 1008 Report Generated: 02/10/2012 11:34 2i 13 Airport N oise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks Carrier Jet Operations - January 2012 et Arrivals Jan 1 thru 8, 2012 - 3984 Carrier J Jan 1 thru 8, 2012 - 4002 Carrier Jet Departures t , . ;ii..!' \ Iii C�1sr� . � , a 6 Jts ..,--'..'<- Depa 1,241.- ,, ,,,,,!-.,. ,..,,,-,, i t r l ,i + i ; ~ a ` ' m .... ' . , :, u � ° e ii r .s� �I ti::I.L J 3.1 k i& .e ► �Jfiq 7 , 1 �[�� I gto 1 £ ��� z A� � t- • / � � o ^ . k`? <� � a � age Ap Valley Roser o rat Jan 1 thru 8, 012 - 210 Nighttime Carrier Jet Arrivals Jan 1 thru 8, 2012 - 35 Nighttime Carrier Jet Departures r 'A; , " 77 '''4 ,-,, ' ' 'IF `.''. \ ''","`' ''s„ „ A `e i NIN a =a Ii t ,. '. a . , : Min "ea i, \`:. = , , ,.,,, . .„,,,,- 1:11111)te111111: '*''rl'I.141','Irfsr.'" :71"1::: wr . 9 ' ! ,. ' ilif *''' . .;,...4... '', ''''',';' ' ', , '1-:,,-.-.: -7.,.......—''' glilh f It 5 � � on ' �, � 1° \ �'`` �" � :.t Bl g ., '' ® � . ((,, , q ti ! di ,• ,., –. Eagan N. lay. 1-11, _-f''• J " ' . w 4 ::; 401 1�, Bu vjIle .+�_ �� - ps "t 7�� ,� ia, . �;1 ,`4 ' I Apple Valley Rosemoun' Wir - 11 ' z l'i 14 - Report Generated: 02/10/2012 11:34 Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks Carrier Jet Operations - Janua 2012 Jan 9 thru 16, 2012 - 3969 Carrier Jet Arrivals Jan 9 thru 16, 2012 - 3966 Ca Jet Departures ' 'P ; Ow: itial - .-,,,5,,,:.,,,,_,t, - - ' '''' -:;:,, , ,IM d '''' :ick, , ,..,_ - , gt 9a J tit '' SI F kl',• P. P e r _ ;4� iMAI t cam s` 9' �i<m idliCb��! e.= fx r ", `¢� �' ��' i a� ! + ``-ma=r, a ; a „ , � : I . /.► * fit . r B I t s 1 ®o r 3.a arrr ,. 06-.4w° t ct %16, ''''''''' -',',*; : AX 1 110 • , 4 A . JO . .., I rh i :''''Vft..;:A.1.:fe ® 4 • kAt t L .wVr,, ,� � v Milki ;0„,..,„4 Y . , B r!t ! 'e'.:: :f ' , � ' f �, + i . I 0 Or iA , 4i:4 , Uf n 1 �.: ��t , B I� y. t � .off 6. • �1�1�', � I" ®: BUY a r- arrr ¢ 3 rATIOT Jan 9 thru 16, 2012 - 201 Nighttime Carrier Jet Arrivals Jan 9 thru 16, 2012 - 51 Nighttime Carrier Jet Departures •••■:_�� ,. . , Milrf 2'.. '. N ' ', ms � M a. ®IB , .' . �ii ea 0011 l \\--':,, *� r...� > _ �ii ��d r•IR. - V N. "+, ms s : ' I �4'EI Fi RI•,-��z r i, ,,„...---,- . r 41 N.• 5r ®: on = ,° �' Bloom3i goon �s Aga /'�', } � K '�`.� ti g / / l t l .._ - ...� 14 f � � l r ' ,01 t� , Bu s i s� "* ,"� ** °—., r .0 . � v� � a 'ti i b t t + * • " ;, are s���_�a o u nt arm � � � ��� �.� _ � ;a�/ � p � A V al IeX � ' o sern , ter- �• _ie � ' � , eA. -�fI' ,� y,�. . . . + € - t1 '10-111"1"41001iiiriiirgti _11 11.0 via Report Generated: 02/10/2012 11:34 - 15 - Airport Noise and Operat Mon System Flight Tracks Carrier Jet Operations - January 2012 Jan 17 thru 24, 2012 - 3931 Carrier Jet Arrivals Jan 17 thru 24, 2012 - 3931 Carrier Jet Departures 1 . t ,� , ''''• ' 4� i C Vc,g '-~~7-1 - 4iiierilt4t4f$\n' - ' .; �' ► ;Nk. oNyz so545,:t4t--::,;* :a y � 4 1 4f !E I ' e S "� F kr €�� ' ! °+�.. „„4a art p 'ii� ti�e� 1a r sr�.a ► ® ®a — . FY /i � � as y f �. � ' sw j ` s €^ , C v ~ \� s .1 -4 6 4', - --, .� ..° ,, a + 's ii . ' G ' V . ��L � I �� � Xoo 1 o _ ° I: 1 Il�lff til : I� t d i ;, a �f � i r , ^ t. r y g ,9� F 111 ' _ star ��d " sI I > , � .�� � � � s: �ht � i��!' t lti "' � o $J I (to y � L I Apple a d3S Gn ` `1. 1,i ,0 °r d 9 /a� i 11th Jan 17 thru 24, 2012 - 204 Nighttime Carrier Jet Arrivals Jan 17 thru 24, 2012 - 91 Nighttime Carrier Jet Departures iii 1' v"-7.7'''''*-744,2‘1"-'4,, MI **,1/47-,:alitliiii -..-4F• '‘elgiL*4' . ' -6goo" liS 4 pe it ___,,..„,„:: ...apo 1 ,, I . fg, � � - � r. _ I f.� e R I `:E i i " - ,; I ir rI RN.'! �v. gl �m i ®tea • r — II; t` ► �', e • " e G � : r.rr i y� ; e 0 , "A10,9;...... •■•\,,,jr4r.,:' „, t„,ww got ir w on ' of s , Blo on � ■... i Egan ,�'k. ` . .;� . Eagan ��. t flu" ' �► ` � of F t a f .� * ,�� ffilli�r�, fit., Bu s lie r y. ..•,.w" ��,r�' �y / s a r" ---;'' -;',, f , ' : ' °.'- '`,':-` .::'-,.., .4t. ' i° ;. „��.,� , � t �,r� Ap�le�/alley, Rosemount Ila - 16 - 2-91 Report Generated: 02/10/2012 11:34 Airpo Noise and Operations Monitoring 20 4 2 95 System Flight Tracks Carr Je t Operations - January Jan 25 thru 31, 2012 - 3497 Carrier Jet Arrivals Jan 25 thru 31, 2012 Carrier J et Departures U . ��� i �``' '''''''''M:1-1;,,,,,:-...! � Manne ®It a -,tea s , - ,i:% ,ta :_" i Ji d�� °�'jt r 1 ' 1 �' } t� � g ��d��kft r+Y �" ,,,t. � i '" 2� ® "p 'tft f a� as "a'+" ' +. ' 1 1 9 } � P9 /i ` . '%''4� °'�i��:��: - Yat '.7,./.5.554,"-','-' ,�✓ � i I m e 1. . . f y . 4 ^fl]' i f 4 �► \ "� $„P fA' , i „'. e , ►ms `, P i 1 t �'� "� �y£ti c r P �. �i ;• e rr _ ► Me- � o . ei gh th Yi . a Ill' t 41 t � i r♦ `° a , t r y - t r � i ' • aR :.._, It . � S.„, ! I 7t� PL ' ��i , t�+6!' �w ° .rte E`�� ,1 ; ,�e rr t l .I'l':I I 5 � �� y� � ' �� �� // ,, *L`'S %a � .? , 1� II I)1 °r �i£�a c 5f ►�,� �NI� "_'. -- f/ v / y . f a . . A - 3 xu a .G �i '�� Gid' ( // yi.;• v, i�omin a� a � e` s '� t i ru � i ^^^ d . �� s�/ ,, i r svt�lI a °C '!� " { ` ; t . 7,1;%,.."' ;. . ipti l L i I ta 6r s V w Ros N = { 7, �� � J - +` i - i a g ,�k.. '� i s - ' _ ,� •„, rizaztoi1 ► *1.. C "w s 1 { � i p�gq!ai. :. fi .. «- �.,. � �a?saVa ' 'rare. t 1 _. t _. _. -, .-„,........ . i Jan 25 thru 31, 2012 - 172 Nighttime Carrier Jet Arrivals Jan 25 thru 31, 2012 - 44 Nightt Carrie Jet Departu /' in a li `'�. 'f °Min i i Vi - � Er •tom ♦ _ . ' -'2 .N '^aa 1 �� f:11 � •I��'I R1 • "`��`q�,►_ � £v. j �` h ., � IRF FI:�'� 4, ? ' , ®aa l ,. _ o i ► �o 1 °o. !% :' , -V e w 5ta °rg ., IT, ...` fi .rsr ,1----,,,,,, .,,,', ,h.......„,'....„,,,,,, ,...„,,,:„, ..„ "mu(' , s 9 E.ta ,2 ' ' . ,,asp -- -. + , ,�/o - t . ,. ! c .� m a� � ���.�� ���.._ � � � �� `� Bu nsville Q -:aw �* t � .► savage . I 4 16 � � � 9 . � - - � o �11 � _ ,; t - A ppi e Valley ,Rosemount 1►rr J i b m ow um" Report Genera 02/10/2012 11:34 - 17 - MSP International Airport Remote Monitoring Tower (RMT) Site Locations i:L ,.. , 1 ,,,.,, lai r, . 4; ,„,...,., . ,:..,...... 0 , i „ 1 0,„ ...,._..‘,,, i , (...„ ..:, ,,, ,,, 1:0 „ ,,, -.... :: i „,,,i,-, t , ,.1,. 1 ,, ailiiii '''' li Louis ' -ark St.. C ul Mi eapolis� _,„ " ' e A, mISSISSIPPI.RIVERg \\ ., Avilik . ' ) , Lilytlale , „ f, ' ' ' '.„ - ,, ,' , , est St. P. I ' - ' 0' t ' l 4 . 4 : t I i 3 . ' ' - - ,,,,, ..,., 0 erk , - - . @ 0 '' - w ' ' ' Y % , . tC) , - I ' / :P9 g 1VIINNESOTA RIME_ Bloomin tan , i:,..1, , ,,: , ,,:, - ,,,,,.- 4 ,' / ., Z 7 ' i ii - ,- , ,,, , '-' , 3, , r e i 1 ,• w , , ,:.,,,,, .,,.. , 1 , v,,, ,,, ., , ,...,. J.„,„ „„0,,...,,,,,,,,1 , , i.,, . , : „,...,..,,„, 1 , ,,,,,,,,....,,,, ,...„.. ,,, _ I ---. -1:.: , ....--. ..., ; t , : -,,,,,,,, ,,,, . , 1 .... ..,..,„,.,..,.„:„,„,. .,, _ , 0 ,;:., -- ,, , , mL. n £ B ti,rnsville , P.,,,.",,,,, Savage ; , A pple Valley R osemount Coates , ‘.._.., edit River Tvirp.. Lakeville Empire Twp. , 0 Remote Monitoring Tower - 18 - 3\ Report Generated: 02/10/2012 11:34 Time Above dB Threshold for Arrival Related Noise Events January 2012 RMT Time >= Time >= Time >= Time >_ ID City Address 65dB 80dB 90dB 100dB 1 Minneapolis Xerxes Ave. & 41st St. 06:04:45 00:00:01 00:00:00 00:00:00 2 Minneapolis Fremont Ave. & 43rd St. 08:28:06 00:01:35 00:00:00 00:00:00 3 Minneapolis West Elmwood St. & Belmont Ave. 10:43:59 00:10:33 00:00:00 00:00:00 4 Minneapolis Park Ave. & 48th St. 08:47:28 00:01:46 00:00:00 00:00:00 5 Minneapolis 12th Ave. & 58th St. 10:46:29 01:45:49 00:00:14 00:00:00 6 Minneapolis 25th Ave. & 57th St. 10:28:56 01:08:34 00:00:24 00:00:00 7 Richfield Wentworth Ave. & 64th St. 00:09:38 00:00:02 00:00:00 00:00:00 8 Minneapolis Longfellow Ave. & 43rd St. 00:11:15 00:00:01 00:00:00 00:00:00 9 St. Paul Saratoga St. & Hartford Ave. 00:00:13 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 10 St. Paul Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St. 00:00:46 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 11 St. Paul Finn St. & Scheffer Ave_ 00:00:10 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 12 St. Paul Alton St. & Rockwood Ave. 00:01:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Court 00:09:08 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 14 Eagan 1st St. & McKee St. 21:14:28 00:00:42 00:00:00 00:00:00 15 Mendota Heights Cullon St. & Lexington Ave. 00:29:19 00:00:05 00:00:00 00:00:00 16 Eagan Avalon Ave. & Vilas Ln. 19:54:58 00:27:32 00:00:05 00:00:00 17 Bloomington 84th St. & 4th Ave. 00:00:18 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 18 Richfield 75th St. & 17th Ave. 00:12:20 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 19 Bloomington 16th Ave. & 84th St. 00:15:19 00:00:07 00:00:00 00:00:00 20 Richfield 75th St. & 3rd Ave. 00:00:25 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 21 Inver Grove Heights Barbara Ave. & 67th St. 00:06:46 00:00:01 00:00:00 00:00:00 22 Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail 10:51:18 00:00:41 00:00:01 00:00:00 23 Mendota Heights End of Kenndon Ave. 02:07:11 00:00:38 00:00:00 00:00:00 24 Eagan Chapel Ln. & Wren Ln. 22:21:48 00:00:43 00:00:00 00:00:00 25 Eagan Moonshine Park 1321 Jurdy Rd. 01:02:50 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 26 Inver Grove Heights 6796 Arkansas Ave. W. 01:22:45 00:00:07 00:00:00 00:00:00 27 Minneapolis Anthony School 5757 Irving Ave. S. 00:01:54 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 28 Richfield 6645 16th Ave. S. 01:14:56 00:00:41 00:00:00 00:00:00 29 Minneapolis Ericsson Elem. School 4315 31st Ave. S. 00:00:15 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 30 Bloomington 8715 River Ridge Rd. 03:41:19 00:00:08 00:00:00 00:00:00 31 Bloomington 9501 12th Ave. S. 00:02:25 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 32 Bloomington 10325 Pleasant Ave. S. 00:02:06 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 33 Burnsville North River Hills Park 00:02:17 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 34 Burnsville Red Oak Park 00:07:24 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 35 Eagan 2100 Garnet Ln. 09:19:31 00:00:20 00:00:00 00:00:00 36 Apple Valley Briar Oaks & Scout Pond 13:53:24 00:00:15 00:00:00 00:00:00 37 Eagan 4399 Woodgate Ln. N. 00:02:55 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 38 Eagan 3957 Turquoise Cir. 00:00:24 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 39 Eagan 3477 St. Charles PI. 00:00:15 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 Total Time for Arrival Noise Events 164:20:43 03:40:21 00:00:44 00:00:00 *Note: These time values and levels are based upon 1- second leq levels. Report Generated: 02/10/2012 11:34 32. 19 Time Above Threshold dB for Departure Related Noise Events January 2012 RMT Time >= Time >= Time >= Time >_ ID City Address 65dB 80dB 90dB 100dB 1 Minneapolis Xerxes Ave. & 41st St. 02:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 2 Minneapolis Fremont Ave. & 43rd St. 03:16:16 00:00:03 00:00:00 00:00:00 3 Minneapolis West Elmwood St. & Belmont Ave. 07:55:45 00:03:18 00:00:00 00:00:00 4 Minneapolis Park Ave. & 48th St. 10:38:19 00:09:01 00:00:00 00:00:00 5 Minneapolis 12th Ave. & 58th St. 41:50:24 01:38:24 00:05:14 00:00:00 6 Minneapolis 25th Ave. & 57th St. 47:36:14 03:59:06 00:17:14 00:00:03 7 Richfield Wentworth Ave. & 64th St. 26:58:14 00:22:43 00:00:05 00:00:00 8 Minneapolis Longfellow Ave. & 43rd St. 13:18:56 00:21:28 00:00:03 00:00:00 9 St. Paul Saratoga St. & Hartford Ave. 00:05:08 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 10 St. Paul Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St. 00:06:22 00:00:13 00:00:00 00:00:00 11 St. Paul — Finn St. & Scheffer Ave. 00:07:30 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 12 St. Paul Alton St. & Rockwood Ave. 00:02:28 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Court 04:17:34 00:01:28 00:00:00 00:00:00 14 Eagan 1st St. & McKee St. 05:01:39 00:04:53 00:00:00 00:00:00 15 Mendota Heights _ Cullon St. & Lexington Ave. 05:51:19 _ 00:04:34 00:00:00 00:00:00 16 Eagan Avalon Ave. & Vilas Ln. 05:16:57 00:13:33 00:00:11 00:00:00 17 Bloomington 84th St. & 4th Ave. 00:04:36 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 18 Richfield 75th St. & 17th Ave. 00:20:30 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 19 Bloomington 16th Ave. & 84th St. 02:18:27 00:00:19 00:00:00 00:00:00 20 Richfield 75th St. & 3rd Ave. 00:24:30 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 21 Inver Grove Heights Barbara Ave. & 67th St. 00:53:17 00:00:05 00:00:00 00:00:00 22 Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail 00:58:43 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 23 Mendota Heights End of Kenndon Ave. 09:49:55 00:20:44 00:00:13 00:00:00 24 Eagan Chapel Ln. & Wren Ln. 03:29:54 00:01:08 00:00:00 00:00:00 25 Eagan Moonshine Park 1321 Jurdy Rd. 05:26:03 00:00:04 00:00:00 00:00:00 26 Inver Grove Heights 6796 Arkansas Ave. W. 02:18:39 00:00:29 00:00:00 00:00:00 27 Minneapolis Anthony School 5757 Irving Ave. S. 12:49:12 00:06:39 00:00:00 00:00:00 28 Richfield 6645 16th Ave. S. 14:58:52 00:03:48 00:00:03 00:00:00 29 Minneapolis Ericsson Elem. School 4315 31st Ave. S. 07:44:50 00:03:10 00:00:00 00:00:00 30 Bloomington 8715 River Ridge Rd. 09:39:26 00:11:35 00:00:01 00:00:00 31 Bloomington 9501 12th Ave. S. 00:49:13 00:00:01 00:00:00 00:00:00 32 Bloomington 10325 Pleasant Ave. S. 00:11:14 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 33 Burnsville North River Hills Park 00:54:21 00:00:05 00:00:00 00:00:00 34 Burnsville Red Oak Park 00:16:17 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 35 Eagan 2100 Garnet Ln. 01:45:35 00:00:22 00:00:00 00:00:00 36 Apple Valley _ Briar Oaks & Scout Pond 00:35:23 00:00:05 00:00:00 00:00:00 37 Eagan 4399 Woodgate Ln. N. 01:10:40 00:00:14 00:00:00 00:00:00 38 Eagan 3957 Turquoise Cir. 01:53:19 00:01:55 00:00:00 00:00:00 39 Eagan 3477 St. Charles Pl. 02:35:47 00:02:38 00:00:00 00:00:00 Total Time for Departure Noise Events 255:51:48 07:52:05 00:23:04 00:00:03 *Note: These time values and levels are based upon 1- second leq levels. 20 33 Report Generated: 02/10/2012 11:34 Arrival Related Noise Events January 2012 Arrival Arrival Arrival Arrival RMT Events >= Events >= Events >= Events >_ ID City Address 65dB 80dB 90dB 100dB 1 Minneapolis Xerxes Ave. & 41st St. 1755 1 0 0 2 Minneapolis Fremont Ave. & 43rd St. 1984 28 0 0 3 Minneapolis West Elmwood St. & Belmont Ave. 2197 171 0 0 4 Minneapolis Park Ave. & 48th St. 2094 35 0 0 5 Minneapolis 12th Ave. & 58th St. 2258 1515 7 0 6 Minneapolis 25th Ave. & 57th St. 2187 1311 14 0 7 Richfield Wentworth Ave. & 64th St. 51 3 0 0 8 Minneapolis Longfellow Ave. & 43rd St. 32 1 0 0 9 St. Paul Saratoga St. & Hartford Ave. 1 0 0 0 10 St. Paul Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St. 3 0 0 0 11 St. Paul Finn St. & Scheffer Ave. 1 0 0 0 12 St. Paul Alton St. & Rockwood Ave. 4 0 0 0 13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Court 36 0 0 0 14 Eagan 1st St. & McKee St. 5040 14 0 0 15 Mendota Heights Cullon St. & Lexington Ave. 113 2 0 0 16 Eagan Avalon Ave. & Vilas Ln. 4060 410 1 0 17 Bloomington 84th St. & 4th Ave. 2 0 0 0 18 Richfield 75th St. & 17th Ave. 56 0 0 0 19 Bloomington 16th Ave. & 84th St. 69 4 0 0 20 Richfield 75th St. & 3rd Ave. 2 0 0 0 21 Inver Grove Heights Barbara Ave. & 67th St. 29 1 0 0 22 Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail 2709 6 1 0 23 Mendota Heights End of Kenndon Ave. 567 11 0 0 24 Eagan Chapel Ln. & Wren Ln. 5143 20 0 0 25 Eagan Moonshine Park 1321 Jurdy Rd. 228 0 0 0 26 Inver Grove Heights 6796 Arkansas Ave. W. 352 4 0 0 27 Minneapolis Anthony School 5757 Irving Ave. S. 10 0 0 0 28 Richfield 6645 16th Ave. S. 252 19 0 0 29 Minneapolis Ericsson Elem. School 4315 31st Ave. S. 1 0 0 0 30 Bloomington 8715 River Ridge Rd. 1127 2 0 0 31 Bloomington 9501 12th Ave. S. 13 0 0 0 32 Bloomington 10325 Pleasant Ave. S. 12 0 0 0 33 Burnsville North River Hills Park 10 0 0 0 34 Burnsville Red Oak Park 42 0 0 0 35 Eagan 2100 Garnet Ln. 2369 6 0 0 36 Apple Valley Briar Oaks & Scout Pond 2868 4 0 0 37 Eagan 4399 Woodgate Ln. N. 11 0 0 0 38 Eagan 3957 Turquoise Cir. 3 0 0 0 39 Eagan 3477 St. Charles PI. 2 0 0 0 Total Arrival Noise Events 37693 3568 23 0 *Note: These counts are based upon Lmax. Report Generated: 02/10/2012 11:34 \. - 21 - Departure Related Noise Events January 2012 Departure Departure Departure Departure RMT Events >= Events >= Events >= Events >_ ID City Address 65dB 80dB 90dB 100dB 1 Minneapolis Xerxes Ave. & 41st St. 474 0 0 _ 0 2 Minneapolis Fremont Ave. & 43rd St. _ 693 1 0 0 3 Minneapolis West Elmwood St. & Belmont Ave. _ 1600 _ 38 0 0 4 Minneapolis Park Ave. & 48th St. 2024 _ 118 0 0 5 Minneapolis 12th Ave. & 58th St. 6564 _ 938 68 r 0 6 Minneapolis 25th Ave. & 57th St. _ 7796 2054 195 3 7 Richfield Wentworth Ave. & 64th St. 4512 215 4 _ 0 8 Minneapolis Longfellow Ave. & 43rd St. 2398 168 2 0 9 St. Paul _ Saratoga St. & Hartford Ave. 17 0 0 _ 0 10 St. Paul Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St. _ 13 _ 2 0 0 11 St. Paul Finn St. & Scheffer Ave. 22 0 0 0 12 St. Paul Alton St. & Rockwood Ave. 6 0 0 0 13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Court _ 921 _ 20 _ 0 0 14 Eagan 1st St. & McKee St. _ 968 52 0 0 15 Mendota Heights Cullon St. & Lexington Ave. 1174 66 0 0 16 Eagan Avalon Ave. & Vilas Ln. 940 125 3 0 17 Bloomington _ 84th St. & 4th Ave. _ 18 0 _ 0 0 18 Richfield 75th St. & 17th Ave. _ 80 0 _ 0 _ 0 19 Bloomington 16th Ave. & 84th St. 529 6 0 0 20 Richfield 75th St. & 3rd Ave. 101 0 0 _ 0 21 Inver Grove Heights Barbara Ave. & 67th St. _ 244 1 0 _ 0 22 Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail _ 250 0 _ 0 _ 0 23 Mendota Heights End of Kenndon Ave. 1759 243 5 0 24 Eagan Chapel Ln. & Wren Ln. 723 20 0 0 25 Eagan Moonshine Park 1321 Jurdy Rd. 782 2 0 0 26 Inver Grove Heights 6796 Arkansas Ave. W. 559 5 0 0 27 Minneapolis Anthony School 5757 Irving Ave. S. 2687 85 0 0 28 Richfield 6645 16th Ave. S. 3087 57 1 0 29 Minneapolis Ericsson Elem. School 4315 31st Ave. S. 1487 38 0 0 30 Bloomington 8715 River Ridge Rd. 1583 103 1 0 31 Bloomington 9501 12th Ave. S. 202 1 0 0 32 Bloomington 10325 Pleasant Ave. S. 52 0 0 0 33 Burnsville North River Hills Park 206 1 0 0 34 Burnsville Red Oak Park 67 0 0 0 35 Eagan 2100 Garnet Ln. 352 4 0 0 36 Apple Valley Briar Oaks & Scout Pond 132 1 0 0 37 Eagan 4399 Woodgate Ln. N. 263 5 0 0 38 Eagan 3957 Turquoise Cir. 396 17 0 0 39 Eagan 3477 St. Charles PI. 543 32 0 0 Total Departure Noise Events 46224 4418 279 3 *Note: These counts are based upon Lmax. - 22 Report Generated: 02/10/2012 11:34 Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP January 2012 (RMT Site #1) Xerxes Ave. & 41st St., Minneapolis Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Runway Lmax(dB) Departure 01/15/2012 13:58 DAL2219 MD80 A 12R 80.1 01/31/2012 13:31 DAL621 B777 D 30L 79.8 01/22/2012 13:54 DAL2219 MD80 A 12R 79 01/03/2012 10:55 DAL622 B777 A 12R 78.3 01/22/2012 20:26 DAL798 DC9Q A 12R 78.1 01/22/2012 7:20 DAL896 DC9Q A 12R 77.7 01/25/2012 14:26 VNR131 P180 A 12R 77.7 01/15/2012 16:14 DAL1763 MD80 A 12L 77.6 01/15/2012 16:06 DAL2275 DC9Q A 12R 77.6 01/10/2012 15:21 DAL258 A330 D 30L 77.5 . (RMT Site #2) Fremont Ave. & 43rd St., Minneapolis Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Runway Lmax(dB) Departure 01/21/2012 17:33 AAL1175 MD80 A 12L 84.8 01/25/2012 19:49 BMJ61 BE65 A 12R 84.3 01/25/2012 17:36 DAL964 DC9Q A 12L 83.7 01/25/201218:43 FDX728 MD11 A 12L 83.3 01/14/2012 17:29 DAL41 B767 A 12L 83.3 01/20/201212:29 VNR109 P180 A 12L 83 01/22/2012 19:08 DHL592 DC8Q A 12L 82.9 01/04/2012 21:35 Unknown UKN A 12L 82.1 01/21/2012 15:00 DAL2219 MD80 A 12L 82 01/15/201211:03 DAL622 B777 A 12L 82 (RMT Site #3) West Elmwood St. & Belmont Ave., Minneapolis Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Runway Lmax(dB) Departure 01/21/2012 20:53 DAL798 DC9Q A 12R 89.3 01/22/201213:54 DAL2219 MD80 A 12R 88.8 01/25/2012 12:44 AAL450 MD80 A 12R 88.1 01/21/2012 23:35 DAL300 MD80 A 12R 88 01/21/2012 20:33 DAL798 DC9Q A 12R 87.5 01/22/2012 15:31 N104HR B72Q A 12R 87.1 01/18/2012 8:18 DAL896 DC9Q A 12R 86.5 01/16/201211:55 DAL2115 MD80 D 30L 86.2 01/15/2012 16:08 DAL2275 DC9Q A 12R 86 01/25/2012 9:10 DAL896 DC9Q A 12R 85.9 Report Generated: 02/10/2012 11:34 3(0 - 23 Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP January 2012 (RMT Site#4) Park Ave. & 48th St., Minneapolis Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Runway Lmax(dB) Departure 01/12/2012 17:41 DAL887 DC9Q D 30L 89.8 01/28/2012 14:10 DAL883 DC9Q D 30L 89.1 01/13/2012 17:51 DAL887 _ DC9Q D 30R 88.2 01/29/2012 14:19 DAL883 DC9Q D 30L 86.9 01/26/2012 14:05 DAL883 DC9Q D 30R 86.8 01/26/2012 13:20 DAL1605 MD80 D 30R 86.2 01/13/2012 12:46 DAL1734 MD80 D 30R 86.2 01/17/2012 10:35 DAL2096 MD80 D 30R 85.9 01/13/2012 10:39 DAL2096 MD80 D 30R 85.8 01/16/201210:34 DAL818 MD80 D 30R 85.7 (RMT Site #5) 12th Ave. & 58th St., Minneapolis Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Runway Lmax(dB) Departure 01/16/2012 10:53 DAL2330 DC9Q D 30L 98.4 01/08/2012 11:07 DAL2330 DC9Q D 30L 98.1 01/11/2012 11:00 DAL2330 DC9Q D 30L 97.5 01/13/2012 11:08 DAL2330 DC9Q D 30L 96.8 01/26/2012 10:50 DAL2330 DC9Q D 30L 96.5 01/13/2012 14:32 DAL883 DC9Q D _ 30L _ 96.3 _ 01/06/2012 10:52 DAL2330 _ DC9Q D 30L 96.3 01/09/2012 11:06 DAL2330 DC9Q D 30L 96.1 01/12/2012 10:56 DAL2330 DC9Q D 30L 95 01/28/2012 14:10 DAL883 DC9Q D 30L 94.8 (RMT Site #6) 25th Ave. & 57th St., Minneapolis Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Runway Lmax(dB) Departure 01/08/2012 14:06 DAL883 DC9Q D 30R 100.4 01/10/2012 14:07 DAL883 DC9Q D 30R 100.1 _01/16/2012 14:05 _ DAL883 DC9Q D 30R 100.1 _ 01/27/2012 18:08 _ DAL887 _ DC9Q D — 30R _ 99.7 01/02/2012 17:34 DAL887 ____ DC9Q D 30R 99.7 01/09/2012 14:05 _ - DAL883 _ DC9Q D 30R 99.6 01/24/2012 14:11 DAL883 DC9Q D 30R 99.2 01/04/2012 14:14 DAL883 _ DC9Q D 30R 99.1 01/07/2012 14:02 DAL883 DC9Q D _ 30R 99 01/26/2012 14:05 - DAL883 DC9Q D 30R 98.9 • 24 - 31 Report Generated: 02/10/2012 11:34 Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP January 2012 (RMT Site #7) Wentworth Ave. & 64th St., Richfield Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Runway Lmax(dB) Departure 01/08/2012 13:20 DAL66A MD80 D 30L 91.6 01/13/2012 12:28 DAL66 MD80 D 30L 90.7 01/12/2012 11:56 DAL66 MD80 D 30L 90.6 01/19/2012 7:22 AAL1391 MD80 D 30L 90 01/07/2012 7:37 AAL1391 MD80 D 30L 89.4 01/07/2012 10:27 DAL1029 MD80 D 30L 89.3 01/08/2012 14:22 AAL1355 MD80 D 30L 88.9 01/23/2012 12:08 DAL66 MD80 D 30L 88.8 01/11/201211:54 DAL66 MD80 D 30L 88.5 01/06/2012 7:24 AAL1391 MD80 D 30L 88.2 (RMT Site #8) Longfellow Ave. & 43rd St., Minneapolis Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Runway Lmax(dB) Departure 01/24/2012 14:11 DAL883 DC9Q D 30R 91.7 01/11/201211:29 AAL2329 MD80 D 30R 90.2 01/19/2012 17:37 DAL2296 MD80 D 30R 89.3 01/04/2012 10:32 DAL818 MD80 D 30R 89.3 01/01/2012 10:29 DAL818 MD80 D 30R 89.1 01/26/2012 17:59 DAL1563 MD80 D 30R 88.4 01/17/2012 9:23 DAL1996 MD80 D 30R 88.4 01/08/2012 17:42 DAL887 MD80 D 30R 88.3 01/09/2012 15:40 DAL142 MD80 D 30R 88.2 01/10/201219:41 DAL2164 MD80 D 30R 88.2 (RMT Site #9) Saratoga St. & Hartford Ave., St. Paul Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Runway Lmax(dB) Departure 01/04/2012 7:01 BMJ59 BE65 D 04 75 01/04/2012 7:19 BMJ54 BE65 D 30R 74.4 01/31/2012 23:21 SWQ737 B734 D 30L 73.9 01/04/2012 7:27 BMJ48 BE65 D 04 73.2 01/17/2012 7:36 BMJ48 UKN D 04 73.1 01/10/2012 9:20 N1728R C185 D 04 73.1 01/26/2012 18:00 DAL1563 MD80 D 30R 72.9 01/25/2012 6:45 BMJ52 BE65 D 12R 72.1 01/25/2012 6:31 BMJ54 BE65 D 12R 71.9 01/25/2012 6:36 BMJ48 BE65 D 12R 71.5 Report Generated: 02/10/2012 11:34 - 25 - Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP January 2012 (RMT Site #10) Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St., St. Paul Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Runway Lmax(dB) Departure _ 01 /04/2012 7:26 BMJ48 BE65 D 04 85.9 01/11/2012 6:31 BMJ48 UKN D 04 81.2 01/04/2012 7:00 BMJ59 BE65 _ D _ 04 — 79.6 01/25/2012 6:31 BMJ54 BE65 D 12R _ 78.2 01/10/2012 9:19 N1728R C185 D 04 77.3 01/25/2012 6:36 BMJ48 _ BE65 D _ 12R 76.9 01/25/2012 6:38 BMJ62 BE65 D 12R _ 75.3 01/17/2012 7:35 BMJ48 UKN D 04 74.8 01/12/2012 13:54 Unknown UKN A 22 73.3 01/04/2012 7:19 BMJ54 BE65 D 30R 72.1 (RMT Site #11) Finn St. & Scheffer Ave., St. Paul Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Runway Lmax(dB) Departure 01/04/2012 7:19 BMJ54 BE65 D 30R 78.5 01/04/2012 7:26 BMJ48 BE65 D 04 _ 75.2 01/12/2012 21:30 TCF3537 E170 D 30R 74.9 01/11/2012 6:30 BMJ54 BE65 D 04 74.7 01/04/2012 7:33 BMJ70 UKN D 30R _ 73.6 01/25/2012 6:35 BMJ70 BE65 D 12L 73.6 01/25/2012 6:31 BMJ54 BE65 D 12R 72.3 _ 01/26/2012 18:00 _DAL1563 MD80 D 30R 72.2 01/25/2012 6:42 BMJ66 BE80 D 12R 72 01/07/2012 6:10 SCX113 B738 D 30L 72 (RMT Site #12) Alton St. & Rockwood Ave., St. Paul Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Runway Lmax(dB) Departure 01/03/2012 22:15 UAL455 A320 A 12L 78.7 01/25/2012 6:36 BMJ48 _ BE65 D 12R _ 76.9 01/04/2012 7:00 B MJ59 BE65 — D 04 76.2 01/25/2012 6:45 BMJ52 BE65 _ D _ 12R 74.1 _01/11/2012 6:32 B MJ48 UKN D 04 74 01/25/2012 6:42 B MJ66 BE80 D 12R 73.1 _01/05/2012 13:56 — Unknown UKN A _ 30R _ 70.5 _01/25/2012 6:31 B MJ54 BE65 D 12R 69.6 01/27/2012 16:27 D AL744 MD90 A 30R _ 68.5 01/20/2012 17:39 DAL2115 MD90 A 30R 68.3 26 39 Report Generated: 02/10/2012 11:34 Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP January 2012 (RMT Site #13) Southeast end of Mohican Court, Mendota Heights Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Runway Lmax(dB) Departure 01/22/2012 18:15 DAL2296 MD80 D 12L 85.1 01/27/2012 10:25 DAL818 MD80 D 12L 83.4 01/03/2012 10:28 DAL818 MD80 D 12L 83.3 01/25/2012 22:04 DAL41 MD80 D 12L 83.3 01/21/2012 10:30 DAL818 MD80 D 12L 83.3 01/22/2012 12:34 DAL1734 MD80 D 12L 83.2 01/14/2012 22:13 DAL759 A320 D 12L 82.5 01/30/2012 13:48 DAL2398 MD80 D 12L 82.4 01/14/2012 10:29 DAL818 MD80 D 12L 82.3 01/22/2012 10:28 DAL2096 MD80 D 12L 81.7 (RMT Site #14) 1st St. & McKee St., Eagan Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Runway Lmax(dB) Departure 01/06/2012 22:18 DAL2034 B757 A 30L 85.4 01/10/2012 23:09 N724YS B72Q D 12R 85.3 01/22/2012 14:34 AAL1355 MD80 D 12R 85.3 01/03/2012 22:04 UPS559 MD11 D 12R 85 01/03/2012 21:47 DAL570 MD80 D 12R 84.9 01/13/2012 11:22 DAL2319 MD80 A 30R 84.8 01/30/2012 7:19 DAL1996 MD80 D 12R 84.8 01/20/2012 8:31 AAL1391 MD80 D 12L 84.7 01/22/2012 8:38 AAL1125 MD80 D 12R 84.5 01/30/2012 7:17 DAL921 MD80 D _ 12R 84.3 (RMT Site #15) Culion St. & Lexington Ave., Mendota Heights Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Runway Lmax(dB) Departure 01/18/2012 10:19 DAL818 MD80 D 12L 89.7 01/03/2012 10:28 DAL818 MD80 D 12L 88.1 01/22/2012 10:37 DAL818 MD80 D 12L 86.8 01/15/2012 10:24 DAL818 MD80 D 12L 86 01/22/2012 13:35 DAL2398 MD80 D 12L 85.9 01/27/2012 10:25 DAL818 MD80 D 12L 85.9 01/22/2012 12:34 DAL1734 MD80 D 12L 85.3 01/22/2012 10:28 DAL2096 MD80 D 12L 84.9 01/30/2012 10:27 DAL818 MD80 D 12L 84.7 01/22/2012 18:15 DAL2296 MD80 D 12L 84 • Report Generated: 02/10/2012 11:34 I ,/) - 27 Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP January 2012 (RMT Site #16) Avalon Ave. & Vilas Ln., Eagan Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Runway Lmax(dB) Departure 01/26/2012 16:18 DAL2398 MD80 A 30L 94.1 01/20/2012 14:41 DAL883 DC9Q D 12R 91.4 01/22/2012 14:51 DAL883 DC9Q D 12R 91.3 01/03/2012 21:47 DAL570 MD80 D 12R 90.2 01/09/2012 22:07 N784NC DC9Q D 12R 89.7 .. 01/18/2012 14:17 DAL883 DC9Q _ D 12R 89.5 01/20/2012 12:50 DAL66 MD80 D 12R 89.2 01/04/2012 22:05 UPS559 MD11 D 12R 88.6 01/20/2012 12:23 DAL1734 MD80 D 12R 88.5 01/22/2012 12:20 DAL66 MD80 D 12R 88.5 (RMT Site #17) 84th St. & 4th Ave., Bloomington Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Runway Lmax(dB) Departure 01/06/2012 6:45 BMJ64 BE65 D 17 78.2 01/06/2012 6:19 DAL501 A320 D 30L 77.4 01/11/2012 6:39 BMJ64 BE65 D 17 75.7 01/06/2012 5:38 DAL2129 B738 D 30L 74.8 01/26/2012 6:37 BMJ64 BE65 D 17 72.4 01/30/2012 16:28 N531DB M2OP A 04 72.1 01/18/2012 17:09 FLG4334 CRJ2 D 30R 71.9 01/11/2012 6:26 DAL501 A320 D 30L 71.3 01/10/2012 12:49 TCF3491 E170 D 30R 69.5 01/19/2012 11:09 SKW4693 CRJ9 D 30L 68.3 (RMT Site #18) 75th St. & 17th Ave., Richfield Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Runway Lmax(dB) Departure 01/16/2012 8:23 SWA25 B7377 D 30L 79.1 _ 01/02/2012 8:50 _ N895BB _ CL30 D 30L 77.9 01/12/201216:19 FLG3336 CRJ2 A 35 76.7 01/12/2012 10:00 CPZ5782 E170 D 30L 76.7 01/07/2012 17:53 SKW4823 CRJ9 D 30L 76.5 01/06/2012 8:27 UAL227 A320 D 30R 76.4 01/25/2012 8:01 SWA382 B7377 D 17 75.8 01/11/201212:28 FLG3485 CRJ2 D 30L 75.4 01/26/2012 15:05 FLG3266 CRJ2 D 30L 75.4 01/25/2012 7:40 DAL1133 A319 D 17 75.1 • - 28 - (4--t Report Generated: 02/10/2012 11:34 Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP January 2012 (RMT Site #19) 16th Ave. & 84th St., Bloomington Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Runway Lmax(dB) Departure 01/11/2012 6:39 BMJ64 BE65 D 17 82.6 01/31/2012 6:42 BMJ64 BE65 D 17 82.5 01/03/2012 11:41 TRS872 B717 D 17 81.7 01/12/2012 18:23 DAL1067 A320 A 35 81.7 01/20/2012 7:45 N470MM B190 D 17 81.4 01/13/201218:11 DAL958 B738 A 35 81.3 01/26/2012 6:37 BMJ64 BE65 D 17 80.8 01/08/2012 15:15 SCX414 B7377 A 35 80.4 01/25/2012 18:52 DAL887 DC9Q D 17 80.1 01/16/2012 9:55 SKW4722 CRJ2 A 35 80 (RMT Site #20) 75th St. & 3rd Ave., Richfield Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Runway Lmax(dB) Departure 01/06/2012 6:19 DAL501 A320 D 30L 78.4 01/11/2012 8:13 COM3075 CRJ7 D 30L 77.6 01/16/2012 7:27 AAL1391 MD80 D 30L 77.4 01/06/2012 5:37 DAL2129 B738 D 30L 77.1 01/04/2012 7:14 DAL1851 MD90 D 30L 76.5 01/06/2012 7:12 CPZ5772 E170 D 30L 76.2 01/17/2012 7:00 DAL1981 A320 D 30L 76.2 01/01/2012 10:06 SWA1482 B733 D 30L 75.9 01/17/2012 14:04 AAL1355 MD80 D 30L 75.4 01/06/2012 19:56 DAL970 MD80 D 30L 75.3 (RMT Site #21) Barbara Ave. & 67th St., Inver Grove Heights Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Runway Lmax(dB) Departure 01/10/2012 23:12 N17773 B72Q D 12R 81 01/18/2012 15:38 SKW4738 CRJ2 A 30R 80.9 01/30/2012 13:48 DAL2398 MD80 D 12L 79.6 01/30/2012 10:28 DAL818 MD80 D 12L 79.5 01/22/2012 18:16 DAL2296 MD80 D 12L 78.1 01/20/2012 11:03 DAL881 A320 D 12R 77.9 01/10/2012 23:09 N724YS B72Q D 12R 77.7 01/19/2012 21:40 DAL8956 B767 D 12R 77.4 01/18/2012 5:19 N171DN B767 D 12R 77.1 01/15/2012 19:24 DAL264 B767 D 12R 77.1 Report Generated: 02/10/2012 11:34 ' 29 - Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP January 2012 (RMT Site #22) Anne Marie Trail, Inver Grove Heights Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Runway Lmax(dB) Departure 01/21/2012 5:43 DAL1014 A320 A 30L 90.9 01/31/2012 19:59 AAL1344 MD80 A 30L 87.8 01/23/2012 10:31 FLG3538 CRJ9 A 30R 87.7 01/23/2012 8:33 SKW4802 CRJ2 A 30L 87.1 01/29/2012 8:56 DAL340 MD80 A 30R 86.2 01/11/2012 14:09 _Unknown UKN A 30R 82.5 01/22/2012 14:52 DAL883 DC9Q D 12R 79.7 01/30/2012 11:29 AAL2329 MD80 D 12R 79.6 01/11/2012 16:00 DAL964 DC9Q A 30L 79.4 01/11/2012 19:04 FDX728 MD11 A 30L 78.8 (RMT Site #23) End of Kenndon Ave., Mendota Heights Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Runway Lmax(dB) Departure 01/27/2012 10:24 DAL818 MD80 D 12L 91.1 01/22/2012 18:18 DAL887 DC9Q D 12L 90.6 01/25/2012 22:03 DAL41 MD80 D 12L 90.3 01/21/2012 10:30 _ DAL818 MD80 D 12L 90.2 01/14/2012 10:28 DAL818 MD80 D 12L 90 01/21/2012 22:52 DAL2215 DC9Q D 12L 89.9 01/03/2012 10:28 DAL818 MD80 D _ 12L 89.8 01/30/2012 10:27 DAL818 MD80 D 12L 89.5 01/22/2012 12:34 DAL1734 MD80 D 12L 89.5 01/15/2012 10:24 DAL818 MD80 D 12L 89.4 (RMT Site #24) Chapel Ln. & Wren Ln., Eagan Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Runway Lmax(dB) Departure 01/20/2012 12:21 DAL2115 MD90 D 12R 88.5 01/13/2012 12:13 SWA3309 B7377 A 30L 86.5 01/19/2012 7:00 N470MM B190 A 30L 85.4 01/01/2012 7:52 CPZ5716 E170 A 30R 84.2 01/13/2012 7:27 SKW4496 CRJ2 A 30L 83.8 01/19/2012 22:10 DAL2215 DC9Q D 12R 83.3 01/08/2012 22:05 DAL2215 DC9Q D 12R 82.9 01/22/2012 8:38 _ AAL1125 _ MD80 D 12R 82.6 01/30/2012 7:18 DAL921 MD80 D 12R 82.3 01/03/2012 22:04 UPS559 MD11 D 12R 82.3 30 45 Report Generated: 02/10/2012 11:34 Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP January 2012 (RMT Site #25) Moonshine Park 1321 Jurdy Rd., Eagan Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Runway Lmax(dB) Departure 01/03/2012 14:22 DAL883 MD80 D 17 82.2 01/15/2012 18:01 AAL1235 MD80 D 17 81.3 01/19/2012 11:11 SKW4693 CRJ9 D 30L 79.1 01/18/2012 11:34 AAL2329 MD80 D 17 79.1 01/03/201215:15 DAL1151 DC9Q D 17 78.9 01/09/2012 7:29 CPZ5813 E170 A 30L 78.9 01/10/2012 21:24 DHL192 DC8Q D 17 78.8 01/03/2012 10:16 DAL1170 DC9Q D 17 78.3 01/03/2012 18:01 DAL1089 B757 D 12R 78.1 01/31/2012 12:55 CPZ5857 E170 A 30L 78 (RMT Site #26) 6796 Arkansas Ave. W., Inver Grove Heights Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Runway Lmax(dB) Departure 01/10/2012 23:11 N17773 B72Q D 12R 85.2 01/10/2012 23:09 N724YS B72Q D 12R 84.7 01/12/2012 9:46 FLG3372 CRJ2 A 30R 83.5 01/20/2012 11:03 DAL881 A320 D 12R 82 01/24/2012 22:18 DAL2232 A320 D 12L 81.1 01/23/2012 20:49 DAL2064 A319 A 30L 81 01/08/2012 22:07 DAL40 B767 D 12R 80.7 01/05/2012 12:12 CPZ5797 E170 A 30R 80.3 01/18/2012 17:47 CPZ5769 E170 A 30R 80.1 01/14/2012 22:04 DAL2215 DC9Q D 12L 79.9 (RMT Site #27) Anthony School 5757 Irving Ave. S., Minneapolis Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Runway Lmax(dB) Departure 01/09/2012 11:46 DAL66 MD80 D 30L 88.9 01/16/2012 11:45 DAL66 MD80 D 30L 88.3 01/13/2012 19:20 AAL375 MD80 D 30L 87.4 01/07/2012 14:00 AAL1355 MD80 D 30L 86.7 01/13/2012 8:52 AAL1125 MD80 D 30L 86.7 01/24/2012 14:44 DAL1781 MD80 D 30L 86.4 01/19/2012 18:09 N874RA GLF3 D 30L 86 01/23/2012 23:14 N104HR B72Q D 30R 85.8 01/10/2012 14:38 DAL1781 MD80 D 30L 85.7 01/05/2012 7:31 AAL1391 MD80 D 30L 85.4 Report Generated: 02/10/2012 11:34 ( I - 31 - Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP January 2012 (RMT Site #28) 6645 16th Ave. S., Richfield Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Runway Lmax(dB) Departure 01/17/201214:03 AAL1355 MD80 D 30L 91.4 01/06/2012 19:56 DAL970 MD80 D 30L 87.5 01/27/2012 22:06 DAL2215 DC9Q D _ 30L 87.4 01/17/2012 18:52 AAL375 MD80 D 30L 87.4 01/11/2012 10:56 N974AS MD80 D 30L 86.8 01/27/201218:59. AAL375 MD80 D 30L • 86 01/01/2012 14:08 DAL785 MD80 D 30L 85.2 01/11/2012 14:11 AAL1355 _ MD80 D 30L 85.1 01/01/2012 6:10 DAL2129 MD80 D 30L 85 01/23/2012 12:07 DAL66 MD80 D 30L 84.1 (RMT Site #29) Ericsson Elem. School 4315 31st Ave. S., Minneapolis Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Runway Lmax(dB) Departure 01/02/2012 7:19 DAL1996 MD80 D 30L 87.1 01/17/2012 7:38 DAL921 MD80 D 30R 86.6 01/08/2012 17:58 AAL1235 MD80 D 30R 85.8 01/19/2012 11:28 AAL2329 MD80 D 30R 85.7 01/11/2012 11:51 DAL1734 MD80 D 30R 85.7 01/06/2012 18:07 AAL1235 MD80 D 30R 85.5 01/31/2012 12:35 DAL1734 _ MD80 D 30R 85.2 — 01/06/201211:53 DAL1734 MD80 D 30R 84.7 01/11/2012 10:19 DAL2096 MD80 D 30R 83.9 _01/23/2012 10:46 _ DAL818 MD80 D 30R 83.9 (RMT Site #30) 8715 River Ridge Rd., Bloomington Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Runway Lmax(dB) Departure 01/18/2012 17:34 DAL789 MD80 D 17 90.1 01/14/2012 14:18 DAL883 DC9Q D 17 89.8 01/21/2012 10:41 DAL881 DC9Q D 17 89.4 01/04/2012 22:00 DAL2215 DC9Q D 17 88.5 01/14/201214:15 AAL1355 MD80 D 17 87.7 01/25/2012 7:26 DAL1474 MD80 D 17 87.6 01/25/2012 14:09 - AAL1355 MD80 D 17 86.8 01/14/2012 10:44 DAL1329 MD80 D 17 86.8 01/03/2012 15:45 DAL789 MD80 D 17 86.7 01/14/2012 8:47 AAL1125 MD80 D 17 86.6 • - 32 - (- Report Generated: 02/10/2012 11:34 Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP January 2012 (RMT Site #31) 9501 12th Ave. S., Bloomington Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Runway Lmax(dB) Departure 01/20/2012 12:17 SKW4648 CRJ9 D 17 80 01/03/2012 9:31 DAL1751 MD90 D 17 79.7 01/26/2012 6:42 FFT71 A320 D 17 78.7 01/22/2012 22:11 AAL1344 MD80 A 12R 78.7 01/03/2012 9:23 ASQ5481 CRJ7 D 17 77.3 01/03/2012 7:03 BMJ64 BE65 D 17 77.3 01/14/2012 7:36 FLG3314 CRJ9 D 17 76.8 01/03/2012 18:26 DAL1505 B738 D 17 76.1 01/10/2012 6:55 DAL2240 A320 D 17 75.9 01/25/2012 7:26 DAL1474 MD80 D 17 75.8 (RMT Site #32) 10325 Pleasant Ave. S., Bloomington Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Runway Lmax(dB) Departure 01/01/2012 10:44 DAL2330 DC9Q D 30L 75.6 01/26/2012 6:43 FFT71 A320 D 17 75.3 01/18/201217:11 SWA2853 B733 D 17 73.4 01/21/2012 6:42 FFT71 A320 D 17 72.9 01/15/2012 9:42 DAL1687 A320 D 17 72.8 01/18/2012 18:20 DAL1787 A320 D 17 72.7 01/21/2012 11:27 DAL2108 A320 D 17 72.4 01/15/201214:11 AAL1355 MD80 D 17 72.3 01/05/2012 10:56 DAL2330 DC9Q D 30L 72.2 01/21/2012 14:32 SWA712 B733 D 17 72 (RMT Site #33) North River Hills Park, Burnsville Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Runway Lmax(dB) Departure 01/30/2012 7:46 AAL1391 MD80 D 17 81.5 01/14/2012 14:16 AAL1355 MD80 D 17 78.2 01/04/2012 21:57 DAL1451 A320 D 17 77.9 01/18/2012 8:50 AAL1125 MD80 D 17 77.3 01/26/2012 22:01 DAL1451 A320 D 17 77.3 01/30/2012 8:51 AAL1125 MD80 D 17 77.2 01/18/2012 17:34 DAL789 MD80 D 17 77.1 01/30/201214:08 AAL1355 MD80 D 17 76.5 01/14/2012 8:48 AAL1125 MD80 D 17 76.3 01/30/2012 7:18 DAL2209 MD80 D 17 76.3 Report Generated: 02/10/2012 11:34 ' I / - 33 - Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP January 2012 (RMT Site #34) Red Oak Park, Burnsville Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Runway Lmax(dB) Departure 01/18/2012 17:35 DAL789 MD80 D 17 79 _ 01/04/2012 14:34 SCX572 B738 A 35 78.8 01/19/2012 7:53 FLG3929 CRJ2 A 35 78.8 01/30/2012 14:09 _ AAL1355 MD80 D 17 76.6 01/30/2012 19:51 BMJ61 BE65 A 35 75.6 01/04/2012 21:52 DAL2209 A320 D 17 75.4 01/30/2012 7:46 _ AAL1391 MD80 D 17 _ 74.9 01/11/2012 19:45 BMJ69 BE65 A 35 74.6 01/30/2012 11:28 DAL2134 A320 D _ 17 73.6 01/04/2012 6:28 SCX571 B738 D 17 73.5 (RMT Site #35) 2100 Garnet Ln., Eagan Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Runway Lmax(dB) Departure 01/26/2012 17:23 FLG3291 CRJ2 A 35 86.3 01/07/2012 17:48 FLG3551 CRJ2 A 35 86 _01/12/2012 17:12 _ UPS2560 MD11 A 35 85.5 01/14/2012 10:44 _ DAL1329 _ MD80 D 17 85 01/25/2012 7:27 DAL1474 MD80 D 17 82.3 _01/28/201213:57 ASQ5051 _ CRJ7 A 35 82.1 — 01/04/2012 6:42 DAL783 MD80 D 17 — 82.1 01/03/201215:46 _ DAL789 MD80 D – 17 80.2 01/11/2012 16:00 _ DAL2275 MD80 A — 35 80.2 01/12/2012 16:06 FLG4331 CRJ2 A 35 80.1 (RMT Site #36) Briar Oaks & Scout Pond, Apple Valley Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Runway Lmax(dB) Departure 01/04/2012 9:44 _ CPZ5709 _ E170 A 35 83.5 01/04/2012 6:43 _ DAL783 MD80 D 17 83.4 01/06/2012 13:26 AAY5061 MD80 A 35 81.6 01/27/2012 18:12 _ FDX728 MD11 A _ 35 81.1 01/11/2012 16:21 UPS2560 MD11 A 35 80.6 01/19/2012 20:32 _ Unknown UKN A _ 35 79.7 01/11/2012 15:59 DAL2275 MD80 A 35 79.5 01/16/201217:49 DAL2115 MD80 A 35 79.1 01/08/2012 13:53 DAL1444 A320 A 35 79 01/08/2012 15:33 SCX530 B738 A 35 78.8 - 34 - 41 Report Generated: 02/10/2012 11:34 Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP January 2012 (RMT Site #37) 4399 Woodgate Ln. N., Eagan Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Runway Lmax(dB) Departure 01/14/2012 16:10 DAL789 MD80 D 17 82.2 01/25/201211:50 DAL66 MD80 D 17 81.7 01/03/2012 15:46 DAL789 MD80 D 17 81.4 01/21/2012 8:45 AAL1125 MD80 D 17 80.5 01/15/2012 15:45 DAL789 MD80 D 17 80.4 01/03/2012 17:46 DAL1799 MD80 D 17 79.7 01/25/2012 10:59 DAL2330 DC9Q D 17 79.1 01/18/2012 13:26 DAL66 MD80 D 17 78.9 01/18/2012 11:00 DAL2330 DC9Q D 17 78.8 01/25/2012 15:47 DAL789 MD80 D 17 78.1 (RMT Site #38) 3957 Turquoise Cir., Eagan Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Runway Lmax(dB) Departure 01/30/2012 7:38 DAL2182 MD90 D 17 85.9 01/03/2012 17:46 DAL1799 MD80 D 17 84.6 01/03/2012 14:10 AAL1355 MD80 D 17 84.6 01/18/2012 13:26 DAL66 MD80 D 17 84.3 01/14/2012 16:10 DAL789 MD80 D 17 84.1 01/15/2012 15:45 DAL789 MD80 D 17 84.1 01/25/2012 15:46 DAL789 MD80 D 17 83.9 01/25/2012 7:32 AAL1391 MD80 D 17 83.6 01/30/201211:54 DAL66 MD80 D 17 83.5 01/20/2012 9:18 AAL1125 MD80 D 17 83.5 (RMT Site #39) 3477 St. Charles PI., Eagan Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Runway Lmax(dB) Departure 01/27/201211:18 DAL2096 MD80 D 17 86.4 01/30/2012 12:04 DAL1734 MD80 D 17 86.1 01/14/2012 10:58 DAL1764 MD80 D 17 86 01/03/2012 14:22 DAL883 MD80 D 17 85.1 01/14/201211:34 AAL2329 MD80 D 17 84.6 01/30/201210:18 DAL2096 MD80 D 17 84.1 01/15/201214:02 DAL1734 MD80 D 17 84 01/14/2012 18:06 DAL2296 MD80 D 17 83.8 01/03/2012 19:27 DAL1828 MD80 D 17 83.5 01/21/2012 11:52 DAL66 MD80 D 17 83.5 January 2012 Remote Monitoring Tower To Ten Summary The top ten noise events and the event ranges at each RMT for January 2012 were comprised of 79.5% departure operations. The predominant top ten aircraft type was the MD80 with 44.1 % of the highest Lmax events. January 2012 Technical Advisor Report Notes Unknown fields are due to unavailability of multilateration flight track data. • Report Generated: 02/10/2012 11:34 - 35 - Analysis of Aircraft Noise Events DNL January 2012 Remote Monitoring Towers Date #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 #11 #12 #13 #14 #15 01/01/2012 43.1 49 51.7 55.3 63 64 61.2 55.2 NA NA NA NA 38.2 58.4 NA 01/02/2012 48.7 48.9 56.9 54 65.3 65.8 59.9 54.6 NA NA NA NA 52.4 55.8 54.5 01/03/2012 54.4 57.1 62.7 58.3 66.8 64.6 40.1 39.6 NA NA NA 48.6 56.8 60.6 58.4 - 01/04/2012 49.8 49.7 56.8 55.3 64.7 66.6 59.4 57.6 40.1 46.1 41.3 35.3 53.8 61.9 53.3 01/05/2012 46.3 50 53 56.7 65.3 68.1 60.9 58.3 NA 27.7 27.4 29.9 34.7 59.8 46 01/06/2012 47.1 51.4 54.1 57.1 65.6 67.9 61.5 58.5 NA NA NA NA 33.9 60.2 39.7 01/07/2012 51.4 51.6 57.3 55.8 66.1 66.5 61 56.6 NA 25.7 41.3 NA 53.2 57.2 52.5 01/08/2012 53.5 53 58.9 56.3 66.5 67 59.5 57.7 NA NA NA NA 52.7 58.1 54.6 01/09/2012 52.9 53.5 59.7 56.6 67.5 67.4 59.9 57.6 NA NA NA NA 54.5 59.1 55.2 01/10/2012 48.9 50.8 57.7 55.8 65.5 67.2 57.7 57.6 30.6 37 32.1 NA 55.1 62.1 57.2 01/11/2012 45.5 50.7 54.4 56.6 64.9 67.1 61.7 59 42.6 52.2 46.8 44.9 27.5 59.8 38.6 01/12/2012 47 51.1 56.2 56.2 66.9 66.8 62.9 59.5 29.2 32.8 34 NA NA 58.4 26.9 01/13/2012 48.2 49.4 56.3 56.5 66.1 67.9 59.7 56.7 NA NA 28.5 NA 50.7 58.5 52.9 01/14/2012 54.8 57.6 60 57 64.9 63.2 49.7 47.1 28.7 NA NA NA 56.1 56.8 56.5 7) 56.1 58.5 62.4 58.5 66 64.1 39.2 49.2 NA NA NA NA 55.2 60.8 59.4 01/16/2012 49.4 52.9 57 57.9 67.2 68.5 63.7 58.3 NA NA NA NA 35.2 57.2 37.6 01/17/2012 46.1 50 52 55.3 63 65.6 60.3 56.6 35.9 36.7 30.4 NA NA 56.3 39.3 01/18/2012 50.2 55.4 58 57.6 64.2 65.9 54.9 53.8 NA NA 36.4 NA 51.2 59.9 56.3 - 01/19/2012 48 53.5 56.8 57.9 66.2 67.7 61.1 58 NA NA NA NA 51 60.1 48.8 01/20/2012 48.2 54.8 59.9 55.5 65.1 64.1 52.6 50.9 NA 31.7 NA 26.9 55.1 60.9 57.5 01/21/2012 55.3 56.3 63.2 56.1 66.6 63 49.6 43.8 NA NA NA 28.5 53.3 53.9 55.4 01/22/2012 54.8 58.8 63.7 59 67.3 65.8 50 44.1 NA NA NA NA 57.9 60.8 59.7 01/23/2012 50.7 52.6 58.3 58.6 65.8 70.6 62.2 57.2 NA NA NA NA NA 57.7 36.8 01/24/2012 51.9 54.8 58.2 57.1 64.8 66.7 56.7 56.7 NA NA NA NA 53.1 58 55.4 01/25/2012 55 58.6 63.3 58.4 66.6 64.2 45 NA 48.3 52.6 50.6 50.9 56.6 59.3 59.4 01/26/2012 54 55 60.9 58.3 66.8 67.7 60.7 58.7 33.4 NA 32.9 NA 51.4 59.5 51.8 01/27/2012 49.6 54.1 58.2 57.6 65 67.1 58.5 56 27.8 NA 30.2 29.4 49.4 58.5 52.8 01/28/2012 49.1 50.7 56.1 56.5 66 67.8 60.1 56.9 38.3 35.3 29.3 NA NA 56.5 27.5 01/29/2012 51.4 51.9 59.2 55.9 66.2 65.2 59.1 55.7 NA NA 41.3 NA 51.2 56.8 54.9 01/30/2012 55.8 59.8 61.2 59.5 65.8 67.1 53.4 52.9 NA NA NA NA 55.9 59.7 56.9 01/31/2012 50.1 51.5 56.4 57.6 64.8 67.3 59.9 57.7 44 32.5 40.7 NA 30.6 59.8 37.7 Mo.DNL 51.8 54.5 59.2 57.1 65.8 66.7 59.3 56.2 36.5 41.2 38.7 38.8 52.6 59.2 54.5 36 Report Generated: 02/10/2012 11:34 Analysis of Aircraft Noise Events DNL January 2012 Remote Monitoring Towers Date #16 #17 #18 #19 #20 #21 #22 #23 #24 #25 #26 #27 #28 #29 01/01/2012 63.5 NA 42.3 NA 44.8 NA 56.1 45.1 59.9 32.9 52 53.4 58.6 52.7 01/02/2012 61.1 NA 35.9 43.4 44.9 NA 51.5 59 56.4 30.4 40 53.7 54 51.6 01/03/2012 62.6 NA 36.1 48.3 NA 52.3 52 63 57.9 55.1 53.6 39.2 49.1 NA 01/04/2012 66.5 NA 35.6 51.2 35.5 42.5 56.1 59.6 61 51 52.2 53.5 54.2 52 01/05/2012 63.8 24.4 41 46.9 38.9 35.3 56.5 51.9 59.8 46.2 44.2 56.4 56.1 55.1 01/06/2012 64.4 51.7 43 51.8 51.1 31.5 57 45 60.5 41.6 41.8 55 57.8 55.9 01/07/2012 61.9 NA 38.9 37.1 36.4 47 54.3 58.2 58.4 45.9 49.5 56.4 54.9 51.8 01/08/2012 60.3 NA NA 49.6 32.9 44.6 53 59.4 57.3 42.8 52.4 56.1 53.2 51.9 01/09/2012 62.8 NA NA 35.4 31.1 43.2 54.5 60.2 58.6 48.1 47.8 57.5 53.3 52.3 01/10/2012 64.8 31.9 37.5 48.2 39.2 54.8 56.6 60.9 60.7 53.9 59.3 57.5 52 53.1 01/11/2012 64.6 49.1 48.6 55.5 46.5 NA 56.4 44.8 60.1 42.3 41.6 54.6 58.3 55.6 01/12/2012 63.8 NA 37.9 40.3 42.5 NA 56.6 38.7 59 35.7 42.1 57.2 59 55.8 01/13/2012 63.5 28.2 NA 38.7 32.4 41.3 54.2 57.9 59.3 46.3 48.3 56.5 53.7 49.1 01/14/2012 58.1 NA 34.8 51.1 31.1 49.6 47.5 61.8 54.6 47.2 54.2 46.2 47.4 38.5 01/15/2012 62.5 NA 42.3 49.5 NA 44.5 51.2 62.1 59.1 55.3 52.6 25.8 50.5 NA 01/16/2012 62.8 NA 42.8 38.6 39.7 34.4 53.4 34.7 57.3 29.7 39.3 56.4 57.6 52.6 01/17/2012 62.3 NA 34.8 30.8 40 26.7 52.8 46 56.8 NA 29.7 53.4 57.4 53 01/18/2012 63.5 28.3 35.3 48.2 30.6 46.3 54.1 58.5 57.9 52.6 53.4 50.7 54.6 47.5 01/19/2012 64.5 26.3 NA 43.4 26.7 49.9 53 58.3 59.2 42.9 52 55.1 53.1 54.8 01/20/2012 63.8 NA 36.4 45.4 NA 48.5 51.7 62.7 58.2 48.6 54.7 49.8 46.8 41.8 01/21/2012 58.1 NA 35.4 50.1 NA 42.9 58.3 62.3 52.4 50.5 50.1 48.2 51.1 36.5 01/22/2012 64.4 NA 45.1 42.5 NA 50.3 51.6 63.9 58.5 53.1 53.6 40 51.9 31.2 01/23/2012 62.7 NA 39.2 36.3 36.1 NA 55.4 47.7 58.4 37.7 43.1 60.1 58.9 54.2 01/24/2012 63.3 27.1 30.6 45.3 44.5 43.8 54.1 59.3 57.3 47.4 48.2 52.1 55.1 53.4 01/25/2012 61.4 28.5 43.8 52 32.1 47.5 49.2 63.6 56.3 55.7 55.6 34.2 52.8 40.4 01/26/2012 63.6 44.8 44.3 53.2 36.6 45.9 53.9 60 58.2 50.5 51.8 56.5 55.8 54.9 01/27/2012 63.9 36.3 45.5 48.4 45.6 41.3 54.1 57.3 58.5 49.7 47.6 52.8 60.9 52.1 01/28/2012 60.9 NA 27 33.7 38.2 NA 53.3 39.6 56.5 25.1 35.7 57 55.9 51.6 01/29/2012 59.6 NA NA NA NA 39 49.1 57.5 53.9 39.7 48 53.3 52.2 52 01/30/2012 61.6 31.7 32.2 48.7 31.2 50.4 52.6 61.9 56.6 52.2 57.6 50.5 51.7 46.8 01/31/2012 64.4 38.8 42 54.5 30.8 34.7 56.6 48.8 59.6 37.8 45.4 55.6 57.7 55.2 Mo.DNL 63.1 39.5 40.6 48.6 41 46.3 54.4 59.2 58.4 49.5 51.8 54.6 55.6 52.2 Report Generated: 02/10/2012 11:34 - 37 - Analysis of Aircraft Noise Events DNL January 2012 Remote Monitoring Towers Date #30 #31 #32 #33 #34 #35 #36 #37 #38 #39 01/01/2012 43.3 NA 33.4 NA NA 37.7 41.4 NA NA NA 01/02/2012 44.4 NA NA NA 25.7 47.5 51.5 27 NA NA 01/03/2012 58 45.1 31.8 45.5 37.8 46.3 42.2 48.2 52.2 52.8 01/04/2012 62.9 39.4 39.2 51.1 50 57.4 57 42.1 44 NA 01/05/2012 58.6 41.7 34.1 34.8 34.7 57.8 56.8 42.3 40.6 NA 01/06/2012 59.9 44.2 NA 41.9 NA 57.9 56.8 42.1 43.1 NA 01/07/2012 48.6 NA 40.3 39.1 31.6 50.4 52.7 40 41.8 44.3 01/08/2012 61.4 34 NA 43.2 29.3 56.5 54.9 47 47.6 NA 01/09/2012 48.2 NA NA NA 26.6 52.3 54.1 NA NA NA 01/10/2012 59.4 49.3 41.5 40.5 37.5 56.9 55.8 49.5 45.9 36.7 01/11/2012 62.9 47.1 46 48.2 48.2 56.5 56.8 NA NA NA 01/12/2012 46 NA NA NA 33.7 50.9 54.2 NA NA NA 01/13/2012 42.4 28.5 28.5 NA 33.2 47.4 51.6 35.4 NA NA 01/14/2012 61.3 51.6 37.2 44.5 37.4 52.1 47.7 48 52.3 52.4 01/15/2012 57.8 43.7 39.8 42.2 40.1 43.1 40.3 45.9 50.2 52.5 01/16/2012 47 NA NA 28.4 41.7 51.3 54.9 40.3 NA NA 01/17/2012 43.6 26.8 29.5 27.9 30.4 47.1 51.7 30.5 NA NA 01/18/2012 58.6 44.8 36.9 45.6 41.6 50.2 47.7 45.1 49.2 49.5 01/19/2012 45 32.6 26.3 NA 39.4 47.9 53 NA 25.8 NA 01/20/2012 54.2 44.8 34.2 40.6 41.3 44.2 47.5 44.1 48.2 47.3 01/21/2012 61.1 47.9 43.4 34.5 NA 53 47.7 47 50 51 01/22/2012 51.7 48.2 41.5 NA NA NA 30.8 NA NA NA 01/23/2012 40.9 NA NA NA 26.6 44.9 47.1 NA NA NA 01/24/2012 58.7 43.1 39.7 30.6 35.4 55 51.6 50.2 43.6 42.3 01/25/2012 60.2 45 33.7 44 30.3 48 44.2 48 50.8 53.7 01/26/2012 60.3 49 47.4 48 37.6 57.6 56.2 49 42.2 NA 01/27/2012 59.7 43.4 39.1 43 41.4 53.4 51.8 43 47.5 49 01/28/2012 43.4 NA 36.1 38.4 NA 49.2 51.5 42.4 NA NA 01/29/2012 40.2 NA NA NA 27.9 45.2 49.7 NA NA 30 01/30/2012 57.9 43.6 32.5 48 43.1 49.5 50.3 44.9 51.2 52.4 01/31/2012 60.6 42.3 42.1 39.7 NA 56.6 53.5 51 35.9 NA Mo.DNL 57.8 44 38.8 42.7 39.9 53.1 52.8 44.8 45.9 46.4 - 38 - Report Generated: 02/10/2012 11:34 51 1/1/2012 - 1/31/2012 Runway 17 Departure Analysi Report Minneapolis -St. Paul Internationa Airport MSS cle L i* cb ett 6 . noint . ` urn 0 This repo is for informati nal purposes only and canndt be used for enforcement purposs 52 2271 Carrier Jets Departed Runway 17 - 1/1/2012 - 1/31/2012 . s, st `� / r s f • ®' y 3 `. " 145: west . Pal a ;. 6 1 C 0 i s yR 5 i t j f a . ``rf' ZS em aou i. .. G2 ^� ZS; r' G t 5 ,,,���..�� " O ,, u St a Il [frnP1d ,,„..,,,, ,,,,,..„.„._ L $ � k� c c I / / , A '''' - Tu q • otn1 , 4/ BIrao f < g / ° J � S ri � , ese!-21-4,<40.1611::::/igti Wfiq'',%"X#::C" ,4P.'":#1:-?'',:4ii:Z:k';!"SISY,:z:\--i'0"?.r 1/24, ...;is,,,,-;,f,:;;:-. ,,,,,,r„.itektf.:4#4 koffi4Pt: v4M.g.: ,'',-trf.'*,:ii,:tZi';',..7..,5,,,,:,,zi,,,1-4.7,tekk,N.-r,,N, ik 444.0 4,,,,„9::' .,..i:, . - - , 90;r11.: gii NI i::A ,,;,4 ''\Nt,k.,„liVqtkk''k:,,V5P;kiL'''V:!:tt;,V^I'S'-''%;:Nl ,4;1- fi j Air ::: i ' :V: ..:-1 'ii 7:: 4.1k.igtk'T ,:- "i;i:°,fkr",'::::14.039.4XV„ItiNi.,10:4;/:„':::4i,' '+S g� N •F 1 : - ' it . 9n- , r te . „,,, el ,..,,..4,..t:.5.,...,,,,„,.::,,,,:o..s.:.,..,,,,,c;,..,.. 4 ' Runway 17 Departure Overflight Grid Analys 6 1 , , immits„,,,,1421: NI wirr tiritityr, Ali , we West Pat l iliti � �, �. .., ___ - „,„„,, .. 7_I I { „.. ......, ,, li, , /,�� : �. 1 rikuttarhiliwiatitI71111111-1 OM ' , I ri a ' FrOld \\''..:,'14airilakir4,.......__' 4 Italialliii .._- Ii -i.!!.,,, " [� 1 671 1 /��'''i'"i ����d �' , 1 .0.� , �: � ) i A kik �448 5.19'' �° 4 1 Ilar-r- imi I IK F1�� . r; ll !�� � �� . , 19 344 _� Ei : K �� � 1 ; e h \ 4 248 w , V' •98 30 •. 21,: Metropolitan Airports Commission Runway 17 Departure Analysis Report - 1/1/2012 - 1/31/2012. Report Generated: 02/10/2012 11:34 - 1 - 53 Runway 17 Carrier Jet Departure Operations - 1/1/2012-1/31/2012 2268 (99.9 %) Westbound Carrier Jet 3 (0.1%) Carrier Jet Departure Departure Operations flying the Runway 17 Jet Operations turned west before passing over the Departure Procedure (passing over the 2.5 NM turn Runway 17 2.5 NM turn point. This is 0.4% of 848 point) and Runway 17 eastbound Carrier Jet westbound departures Departure Operations J _ 4 A . 1 r ® i St Pau 5, gg MI ea - -. z � '°' 5 '� b, --..�- ® y , ® t , St Pa 1 J 1hfI eId - V." `../ to s � Sunfish x '' @ c tr 2 . i3Joomingtb� ' 4 $' ' ' �fN k y`5 Y" p .b . St � L � , - A � Lea . • y� 1 k � . 6'e 6- t g ,� ( w F 1q ;t� Minneapolis St. Paui tnte , ationai Airport Gate Piot Runway 17, Depa ure We Before 5NMTurn P oint '� ;113 012 00 00 00- 1/3112012 23:50 59, g 3Tr ac ks Crossed Gate yLeft =3(100%), Rlght=0(0%) O 1. 5 Q 1500 Z uJ Q '9,440 , .. - ,„ R. 6! �. 1360 1 1 0U ` 80 ; -.,40 -0.200 '; 4.00 : 0.20 ; 4 a -4U 0,`50+ ` '7:4).-8°.'''' 143., ' ... ' ( Ru n way End) .(Corridor End) Deviation Fr. C+enter,of (Miles} xtn casts where an' fitak :jinfor,sat$cn na is uvaildele, that `operatisn it tte represertet! in about graph.' I t \ Metropolitan Airports Commission Runway 17 Departure Analysis Report - 1/1/2012- 1/31/2012. Report Generated: 02/10/2012 11:34 - 2 - 5L Runway 17 Nighttime Carrier Jet Depa rture Operations - 1/1/2012 - 1/31/20 5 -___ st P -, a u Mi e , ©i i; ® ' F' ' , „® West st Pa ���' 1 r no outh5t 1 I ` a 'sunfish f - 1 '-- ' I ' i ' I ,„.....11117Te ,-, .77,1 --, ... -- '- - ', , li ' <= I Y' F 1 T , n • r'rl!Ing t nG. ," . „ ..«.. , .11117 i► s J yi i r .. F �- = 1 r. fix' *.. , „ -- tea "w, •r""^ r °g t .Ha 'ft. ' +' } E o :. Savage �.; pple Valley o- RoserYiount rnsville - .- z.^m. _ -. , raga .. .. „,. , , r.,,,,-,....4, E b _111._ 27 Nighttime Carrier Jet Departure Operations off of Runway 17 in 1/1/2012 - 1/1/2012 (10:30 p .m. - 6:00 a.m.) ti (0 %) Westbound Car r i er Jet (7.4 %) Westbound Carrier Jet Departures turned west between 2.5 and 3.0 NM Departures turned west after 3.0 NM from start of from start of takeoff and remained over the takeoff and remained over the Minnesota River Minnesota River Valley (trending with Runway 17 Valley (trending with Runway 17 River Departure River Departure Hea ding) Procedure) (0 %) Carrier Jet Departures turned (7.4 %) Remaining westbound Carrier west before passing over the Runway 17 2.5 NM Jet Departures flew the Runway 17 Jet Departure turn point Procedure (passing over the 2.5 NM turn point), and with an enroute heading to the destination airport 23 (85.2 %) Other Nighttime Carrier Jet Departure Operations Metropolitan Airports Commission Runway 17 Departure Analysis Report - 1/1/2012 - 1/31/2012. Report Generated: 02/10/2012 11:34 3 - 55 Remote Monitoring Tower (RMT) Site Locations ■ - . r i a op E I 40 � � � � � ' ,� " .. �a West St Pa � �r '; ei , e •' , ' t, ® oath St k. • f achfieYd� " V. �� - , ' ', ...:.,....." , .. ' . 1 ;. ' ' =. ......[.:;:e !.. 'e " . ''' 1 t . 1 . ,;!.': , r1. * .ki 0 1 ,„....„, --,,. it--.4,-- ii ..tt„,c.: .„.„,„..,,,,k,,,,,,, ,. „ii.,0,,, ..1....1i..r., ..: , :., „.„„,,,,„„,,,,,,„L..,,, ...,,,„„4 , ,::„ ,...„........ . ,s,..*.;:e. -.4.i.;f4C..0i1T -If PA. '7' -",-- ...;4',.'" '-' ----",-— 1 ', , ' , .4'..s � •; I: 4 ., f �� Y f j t � , , • (k „ffi to r v � . 1 } '' 'Y 0 ' � flrnsviiie Savge ... p PPIe Valley RoSerount LEGEND „ Existing RMT's 0 Runway 17 -35 RMTs Metropolitan Airports Commission Runway 17 Departure Analysis Report - 1/1/2012-1/31/2012. Report Generated: 02/10/2012 11:34 - 4 - �( r Analysis of Aircraft Noise Levels - DNL dBA 1/1/2012-1/31/2012 Date #30 #31 #32 #33 #34 #35 #36 #37 #38 #39 1 43.3 NA 33.4 NA NA 37.7 41.4 NA NA NA 2 44.4 NA NA NA 25.7 47.5 51.5 27 NA NA 3 58 45.1 31.8 45.5 37.8 46.3 42.2 48.2 52.2 52.8 4 62.9 39.4 39.2 51.1 50 57.4 57 42.1 44 NA 5 58.6 41.7 34.1 34.8 34.7 57.8 56.8 42.3 40.6 NA 6 59.9 44.2 NA 41.9 NA 57.9 56.8 42.1 43.1 NA 7 48.6 NA 40.3 39.1 31.6 50.4 52.7 40 41.8 44.3 8 61.4 34 NA 43.2 29.3 56.5 54.9 47 47.6 NA 9 48.2 NA NA NA 26.6 52.3 54.1 NA NA NA 10 59.4 49.3 41.5 40.5 37.5 56.9 55.8 49.5 45.9 36.7 11 62.9 47.1 46 48.2 48.2 56.5 56.8 NA NA NA 12 46 NA NA NA 33.7 50.9 54.2 NA NA NA 13 42.4 28.5 28.5 NA 33.2 47.4 51.6 35.4 NA NA 14 61.3 51.6 37.2 44.5 37.4 52.1 47.7 48 52.3 52.4 15 57.8 43.7 39.8 42.2 40.1 43.1 40.3 45.9 50.2 52.5 16 47 NA NA 28.4 41.7 51.3 54.9 40.3 NA NA 17 43.6 26.8 29.5 27.9 30.4 47.1 51.7 30.5 NA NA 18 58.6 44.8 36.9 45.6 41.6 50.2 47.7 45.1 49.2 49.5 19 45 32.6 26.3 NA 39.4 47.9 53 NA 25.8 NA 20 54.2 44.8 34.2 40.6 41.3 44.2 47.5 44.1 48.2 47.3 21 61.1 47.9 43.4 34.5 NA 53 47.7 47 50 51 22 51.7 48.2 41.5 NA NA NA 30.8 NA NA NA 23 40.9 NA NA NA 26.6 44.9 47.1 NA NA NA 24 58.7 43.1 39.7 30.6 35.4 55 51.6 50.2 43.6 42.3 25 60.2 45 33.7 44 30.3 48 44.2 48 50.8 53.7 26 60.3 49 47.4 48 37.6 57.6 56.2 49 42.2 NA 27 59.7 43.4 39.1 43 41.4 53.4 51.8 43 47.5 49 28 43.4 NA 36.1 38.4 NA 49.2 51.5 42.4 NA NA 29 40.2 NA NA NA 27.9 45.2 49.7 NA NA 30 30 57.9 43.6 32.5 48 43.1 49.5 50.3 44.9 51.2 52.4 31 60.6 42.3 42.1 39.7 NA 56.6 53.5 51 35.9 NA Av. DNL 57.8 44 38.8 42.7 39.9 53.1 52.8 44.8 45.9 46.4 Metropolitan Airports Commission Runway 17 Departure Analysis Report - 1/1/2012- 1/31/2012. Report Generated: 02/10/2012 11:34 - 5 - 57 Aircraft Noise Levels DNL dBA 1/1/2012- 1/31/2012 RMT Aircraft DNL Aircraft DNL Aircraft DNL Aircraft DNL 01/01/09 - 01/31/09 01/01/10 - 01/31/10 01/01/11 - 01/31/11 01/01/12 - 01/31/12 30 58.9 58.5 56.4 57.8 31 43.5 43.1 43.1 44 32 40.6 38.7 38 38.8 33 43.1 42.4 42.8 42.7 34 40.1 36.9 39.5 39.9 35 52.1 48.6 47.7 53.1 36 50.6 49.2 47.8 52.8 37 46.3 44.5 40 44.8 38 46.6 46.3 43 45.9 39 45.9 47.8 45.2 46.4 Top 15 Runway 17 Departure Destination Report Airport City Heading (deg.) #Ops Percent of Total Ops ORD CHICAGO (O'HARE) 124° 126 5.5% DEN DENVER 237° 120 5.3% ATL ATLANTA 149° 102 4.5% MDW CHICAGO (MIDWAY) 124° 100 4.4% PHX PHOENIX 231° 76 3.3% LGA NEW YORK (LA GUARDIA) 105° 63 2.8% IAH HOUSTON 185° 63 2.8% MKE MILWAUKEE 114° 63 2.8% DFW DALLAS/ FORT WORTH 193° 61 2.7% EWR NEW YORK 106° 54 2.4% STL ST LOUIS 160° 50 2.2% CVG CINCINNATI 127° 48 2.1% DTW DETROIT 105° 44 1.9% PHL PHILADELPHIA 111° 44 1.9% CLT CHARLOTTE 133° 40 1.8% Metropolitan Airports Commission Runway 17 Departure Analysis Report - 1/1/2012 - 1/31/2012. Report Generated: 02/10/2012 11:34 - 6 - 5E) January 2012 Crossing -in- the - Corridor Analysis Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport ,- i I a L i a t I ° j t yx M es ,r' [ rte 1 .�, This report is for informational purposes only and cannot be used for entorcement purposes 51 Commission Metropolitan Airports January 2012 Carrier Jet Departure Operations Runways 12 & 12R (23:00 - 06:00) 56 Carrier Jets Departed Runways 12L & 12R between the hours of 23:00 and 06:00 / , \ \ i 1 , --\ : , ,,,-;, -.,„-_.: n .. vi e fj A AV!'" € � 3 s Z i •t w, =' Y `w P W : ' ' --; \-,. S t'( ^.P �R } �' . .4 `v. - J oodbur _ i z t t y t . 49 Wes St Paul._ r a y ¥ F as n'<y- to - / r .,.. , ,.+ I f. � { � ,-- , i no #•, . StaUth St g • UI i , Richfield � 4'l . . . x a J g , Poi ,, • C ,, ® , ,. _ ' '' Sunfish i gg i p „ ,,.' . H .., I17"'..:','-.%':',Iv#:.:0,--:-": ' • BIOORiL a do . s - .._ 1. •_'_ / ', . p x 22 {`i a �`. _ , ��-. � - /4,14,,,./.,.,-... � x I z ` °� I �* e b 'tea .,`�a l�$� � � i r 7 _ 4 ,;:-...,,//,?,.. 6 7 ` I N ,.,';\,.,.,A,,', •. � ' v im^` v { t 3 4 '� E \-1-1-v---,:,.,,,,z,- `Q$�a , ; ti f t,,, P ../..:„ :., - s 1 � . � �- � a. � , �- t a ..f,, Ari ,Burns- + Ile 0 � \.,/ ',„ ,,,,, ;;,.,. J ggpp 'an a ws w a ` :;;;.-•(.::„.. , , 4 A m T�ossrr�ount Crossing -in -the Corridor Analysis. Report Generated: 02/10/2012 11:34 Page 1 Metropolitan Airports Commission January 2012 Carrier Jet Departure Operations Performing the Crossing Procedure off Runways 12L & 12R (23:00 - 06:00) 38 (68 %) Carrier Jets Crossed After Departing Runways 12L & 12R between the hours of 23:00 and 06:00 " __ ,,,,,,, ,N ,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,, ,, , _,,,,,,L,,,,,,,,,',,,,11,1\-, ''''if-,..... ---= + ----- % , '' ,- i7.,,,,, , ;, ,,,,,i,„",,,,,,,I. '',."-,,, ,,' .‘:' 7 -p , ,,s,„ ; - ! === g . Ma l ew ,F j i[ , \:;'''''*''':'':':'::1:ti \''''',./'' ""::,,,,,,,,.. ' 6';' 1,,,.\''''''::1} ',.., ,I ''''::'''.1- West St. P ,a9 . r _ .�° ., - � `tea.,, s � I � � '� SoUth St. UI 5'11' ' � nn "Richfield �, } � �, ,n, . ` a J q E �rt f ,� , Sun La t �_ a t Bloom - � u "mow 5 6� Eh ""' \ \ ',� ,. tPaul " " v @rGr., Hug " 9 ,` E s ' " r x ' �rloud�?andT s t - i 6 s� E9,. , , ., n a k a : Rosemount Apple V al l ey i' /:,-,- , -' i a .._„ Page 2 Crossing -in- the - Corridor Analysis. Report Generated: 02/10/2012 11:34 (I Metropolitan Airports Commission January 2012 Carrier Jet Departure Operations Performing the Crossing Procedure off Runways 12L & 12R (06:00 - 23:00) 640 (26 %) Carrier Jets Crossed After Departing Runways 12L & 12R between the hours 0— f 06:00 and 23:00 a ,,,auf,,,,,--aviniflowiAtit: .,, .� .,, ',"[:.3',%, ?' �. €,y 1 'sk'¢' � l .�3...,,,. l _ \ �_ l 5 ���4Y A ' � 9 �L � £ � "'. Y r i r: ® �r m z "r ®�' ''YY 3 r^' "�'� � r" P f � � t � F x � f Lichfield t \` , :f s, f s. g 1 a Y - y eta fib '� Yr, ` - „ ""rt.,, � +� iiitu3v t •L �� < "'".e �y �' .a. e` �. r f � a �'� -~ ” i Blo ; • 5} ff �� t� 6 & / � $ el J j 4 1 � 6 a ,,-,:; " '4-` ''er.7,' . ,,, :.:...:', if,',4--,. :,,,,,' i ; '0,, "AA , V- iy, , ,. ,,,,,',, A‘1,1,; i:',,,',,;Af.',Vie,'',,,,,V:"--. ,,' ,.u, r ga ': 1 , mitt«... 4 ,, ^.� , . +, ',,,;0'.},r;',' , Yf '` i ,� ' ,;Burn s ville f , k f �. 6 y 't , ..., " _a . Apple`VaHey / Fe,,, ...) SB _ 3 ,.,,'JAI-,.,,:, !• '€, € j 'y 'e % " s ,- ,.� $ :� "- Y 4 � W1 -s i o I Loh ‘;‘‘,.-2..--7,-..-:- ' ,- i f := 2 Y.r a i r { $ �, � Page 4 Crossing -in- the - Corridor Analysis. Report Generated: 02/10/2012 11:34 o L3 ik ,,,:NT.Iyillly N P 1.‘-'\‘ 4 1 11 9 ^- °y NORTHWEST PKWY, S ^.."" O'Neil : I , 1 w • Lake 055 i Srq yTt rF � 1 5.'" `' � � 9 j Ipl 7,4 FF h :.fF: ° 4 't- ti tle P,__�I_. r - to „R ` t alt i j Si 1 e c _ ril i } _ Lexington ..t//,,$)..0 .• a g a -LI 1 1 I F P11 Pork i S. P te , 3 IF i S �+,h ��A 8 t j t (LONE OAK RDJ vN 0 S A H NO 76 IIONE OAK ROI is C.aA.H.N0.26 At tE' 1' Post ........,. ' Office 1 ; r. C '-0 i ' u � y F £ot 551 21 ® ®1313 LL ' ' l' --. g .2 /0) 1 99 Bur Oaks ® � 1 �� I J t _ Pond Bur , ey D - Thresher t Fields � • Park � ,. �� 'PI- '''-,,-;/...; 1 o �opD -_ ®1® ®! �1 Fire Sta. o .. City f Airport Relations o [ _ ARC Single Family Homes Parks N Q ✓ �� =; NIIIIIF Commision (ARC) W _ _ w / City ROW Lakes w ���S Eagan w s 0 1111/AI �1 City {�q Cain J Private Centerline 1.000 z _ I 4 City of Cain 1 !Feet WI) , Airport Town ',LAM'' � - ttj )e7ij !!+ 1 �' . t ; Hall Mee J J ' ZI'_i' ��t1 �A � C�P A / °4 ii; � o in our rt � " Rela tions Commis members, and staff of the Metropo Air - %'x" ` <� !� % %(,�,;,,,r,�,,� , „1 .,r;� ports Commission to t�ik about '� a noise issues in your z ,+ , t ' r , t ,', r , i `.,: t It 1 ' ncighborhood and learn 0,',; T �" . r f about efforts underway 1 , r s tom1nit'r,ethenoise. , { 4 3 +�' city o f Qta t _ r J. T 'Aci �3.4, ,0 Yii -- 1f � VOA j iall ,. ,,, t i 1 0 2012 Airport Noise Survey e SurveyMonkey 1. Was your home eligible for the noise mitigation program provided by the Metropolitan Airports Commission as a result of the legal settlement reached in 2007 with the City of Eagan? Response Response Percent Count Yes, my home was eligible for mitigation or reimbursement of ( 50.0% 3 mitigation expenses No, my home was not eligible for mitigation -, m ( 50.0% 3 answered question 6 skipped question 0 1 of Jp 2. What level of mitigation did you receive from the Metropolitan Airports Commission? Response Response Percent Count I participated in Phase IIA (air 0.0% 0 conditioning + $4,000 in mitigation) I participated in Phase IIB (Approximately $14,000 in 0 anwom 33.3 /0 1 mitigation, but no air conditioning) I participated in the reimbursement program (for 33.3%o 1 eligible mitigation completed by a licensed contractor) My home was eligible for mitigation, but I chose not to participate in the 0.0% 0 program. My home was already mitigated o 33.3 /0 1 prior to 2007 Other (please specify) 0.0% 0 answered question 3 skipped question 3 2of6 (°1 3. When you find yourself bothered by aircraft noise, which of the following would you describe as your greatest concern? (check all that apply) Response Response Percent Count The number of flights over my home ..� 33.3% 2 Arrival operations IMIffilmml 16.7% 1 Departure operations ... -- 33.3% 2 Late evening /early morning awe 16.7% 1 operations Other (please specify) 33.3% 2 answered question 6 skipped question 0 4. Have you ever made a complaint to the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) via their telephone noise hotline or online complaint system (www.macnoise.com)? Response Response Percent Count yes IIIMINERNINIIIMIREEN 33.3% 2 no 66.7% 4 answered question 6 skipped question 0 3 of6 (05 5. When you filed a complaint with the MAC, which of the following did you specify in your complaint? Response Response Percent Count Early /Late operations 50.0% 1 Engine run -up 0.0% 0 Excessive noise -- 100.0% 2 Frequency of flights ( 100.0% 2 Ground Noise 0.0% 0 Helicopter noise 0.0% 0 Low flying aircraft 0.0% 0 Structural disturbance 0.0% 0 Other (please specify) 0.0% 0 answered question 2 skipped question 4 4 of6 14)q 6. The City and the Eagan Airports Relation Commission, an advisory commission to the City Council, always strive to find the best way to communicate with residents. What do you find is the most effective way for the City to communicate to residents regarding airport issues? Response Response Percent Count Community meetings _. _.. 50.0% 3 Newspaper 0.0% 0 City Newsletter articles 0.0% 0 Programming on local access cable o 16.7/0 1 television Direct mailings 66.7% 4 Other (please specify) 0.0% 0 answered question 6 skipped question 0 7. Are there any airport issues or topics in addition to noise that you believe the City or Airport Relations Commission should pursue? Or, are there specific topics you would like the Commission to focus upon at the meeting on March 15? Response Count 2 answered question 2 skipped question 4 5 of 6 • Page 4, Q1. When you find yourself bothered by aircraft noise, which of the following would you describe as your greatest concern? (check all that apply) 1 when the noise is so loud it scares my children, even when the windows are shut Feb 27, 2012 5:19 AM 2 Ongoing loud noise that disturbs me greatly Feb 19, 2012 9:37 AM Page 8, Q1. Are there any airport issues or topics in addition to noise that you believe the City or Airport Relations Commission should pursue? Or, are there specific topics you would like the Commission to focus upon at the meeting on March 15? 1 The 2007 reimbursement did not include "Multi- family housing" Under their Feb 27, 2012 5:36 AM definition, 4 households under 1 physical roof. I believe it should be amended to any household that is individually owned or at least homesteaded. I own my town home, as do my other 4 neighbors connected under one roof as well as the other 37 in our area. All of our windows are from the 1970's and do little for the airport noise. It has gotten increasingly louder and more frequent since the majority purchased our homes between 2002 -2006. We cannot afford a home equity loan to replace them due to the dramatic drop in home value, partly due to the increase in airport noise, mostly due to the economy. When I wrote a letter in 2007 regarding the fact that the "Multi- Family Housing" should not include individually homesteaded properties, I was told that the judge was in a hurry and didn't receive enough letters to want to delay the airport. Currently, as with the majority of my neighbors, we owe more than the property is worth, yet can't afford new windows. I understand not wanting to include commercial properties, however I truly believe that it should be amended to include individually owned properties no matter if they are detached or semi detached, or under one roof. 2 No, just divert the planes from over our houses. Feb 18, 2012 3:08 PM 6of6 Eagan Airport Relations Commission Town Hall Meeting Thursday, March 15, 2012 6:30 -8 p.m. Eagan Fire Safety Center 1. Welcome and Introductions —Chuck Thorkildson, Eagan Airport Relations Commission Chair a. Purpose and Mission of the ARC b. Introduction of ARC Members c. 2012 ARC Work Plan 2. Present Summary of MSP Operations over NE Eagan —Chad Leqve, Metropolitan Airports Commission 3. Noise Mitigation Efforts —Chad Legve, Metropolitan Airports Commission a. Advances in Performance Based Navigation (Crossing in the Corridor) b. Noise Mitigation Program Summary c. Efforts of the Noise Oversight Committee 4. Citizen Question & Answer Forum —All • Meet Your Eagan Airport Relations Commission (ARC) What is the role of the Commission? Since 1988, the eight- member ARC has been serving as an advisory board to the City Council on the issues of aircraft noise and airport policies that impact or have the potential to impact the community. All members are Eagan residents who volunteer their time to serve the community. Who are the current ARC members? Chuck Thorkildson, Chair Carol Whisnant Steve Beseke, Vice Chair Chad Stambaugh Curtis Aljets Luke Olson Dan Johnson When does the Commission have their meetings? Meetings are held the 2 " Tuesday of every other month (odd months) at 7:OOp.m. at Eagan City Hall (2012 meetings will be held in January, March May, July, September, and November). All meetings can be viewed on cable channel 16 or on a ww w.cityofeagan.com. How can 1 contact the Commission? You have several options. First, you can contact the ARC staff liaison, Dianne Miller, Assistant City Administrator, at 6511675 -5014 or dmiller @cityofeagan.com. Another option is to e-mail the Commission at ARC @cityofeagan.com. Or, you can come to any of the ARC meetings and speak under Visitors to be Heard. What kind of work does the ARC do each year? Examples of ARC projects over the past year include: • Recommendations to the City Council on communication with the FAA regarding nighttime operations and the need for greater "fanning• of flights • Review monthly reports from the MAC, including noise complaints from residents • Make formal comments on the MAC's proposed 2030 Long Term Comprehensive Plan and forecasted noise contours • Hold at least one town hall meeting in a neighborhood directly impacted by airport noise • Receive regular updates from the MAC on new technologies being considered to mitigate noise • Meet with Eagan's legislative delegation to discuss airport issues facing Eagan • Participated in emergency management exercises involving MSP Airport and the City �3 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION AGENDA Wednesday, November 18, 2009 — City Council Chambers * ** JOINT MEETING WITH EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION * ** A). Call to Order - 7:00 p.m. B). Introductions C). Approval of the Minutes from the Oct. 14, 2009 Airport Relations Commission Meeting. D). Unfinished and New Business 1. Update from November NOC meeting 2. Plan of Action 3. Community Outreach Efforts 4. MAC Outreach Efforts 5. Metro Cities Legislative Policies 5 -H Airport Noise Mitigation 6. Sharing Community Concerns 7. Updates for Introduction Book E). Acknowledge Receipt of Various Reports /Correspondence: 1. September 2009 NOC Technical Advisor's Report 2. September 2009 Eagan/Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis 3. September 18, 2009 Airport Noise Report 4. September 25, 2009 Airport Noise Report 5. October 2, 2009 Airport Noise Report 6. October 9, 2009 Airport Noise Report 7. October 16, 2009 Airport Noise Report 8. October 23, 2009 Airport Noise Report 9. October 30, 2009 Airport Noise Report 10. November 4, 2009 Airport Noise Report F). Other Commissioner Comments or Concerns G). Upcoming Meetings • NOC Meeting 11 -18 -09 1:00 p.m. • Planning Commission Meeting 11 -24 -09 7:00 p.m. • City Council Meeting 12 -01 -09 7:00 p.m. • City Council Meeting 12 -15 -09 7:00 p.m. • MAC (Full Commission) Meeting 12 -21 -09 1:00 p.m. H). Public Comments • I). Adiourn Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 120 hours in advance. If a notice of less than 120 hours is received, the City of Mendota Heights will make every attempt to provide the aids. This may not, however, be possible on short notice. Please contact City Administration at (651) 452 -1850 with requests. • • 1 '-15 } I f Metropolitan Airports Commiss ak �� Annual Noise Contour Analys , _ , „,,,.,...,_ .. , .. _ . , _.,., _ . ,,,,.„,„ „.... . ._ ,. , l ,.. , . . .... ,..,: l' ' i; , '''' ' :".. ' ' ' ' ' Y t t .„.... 'i � x � � � . � °mil 5 �b ' cij �t e _ � � � _.. ,, „,,,,.., cr —_ -- , - 1 • Actt a , No ese C , o.ntour a n d s d - - - ' ' ' t 'f . ,..„,-,,,,,,,,,. i _ < ,_,.., � � " R theO f �° -_,-,,,,,,..., , ,. '-':r il „,,, .:;',:. , _ ^-, -''''a , ''' - '''s. - - -"*"-'---..,,,,,,,... J cs b \ t .., le't w 1. �° ? � d h^ q ” '4°w ry Ct = g h € ' ., did - ' ,,„ \I; ,..,,,, ,\,,. ,.,,, , 1 . r _ '41::;1*'-';'' r` �' It � b .: t - x r f.--...1,4.3._ .` °, �f111111 1�10�I St P 1II I It� I Il 1tIOI1 ,,,- -, lt, . , ,_ � ' � are" � � � r" .,,,, !,,, . fr....4"-A\ ...,. 5 � m $" g, Jam"^ °H W r g ; f [R J � i d / 's f t � 6`k : if F r : � P r ep�ared by the M AC . A anon No and:SateIli te�Pr; og ram s O ff i ce 40! , - a F e bruary �2 0 12: r h Table of Contents List of Tables List of Figures ili Chapter 1: Background 1 1.1 Corrective Land Use Efforts at MSP to Address Airport Noise 1 1.2 2007 Forecast Mitigated Noise Contour 3 1.3 Airport Noise Litigation 4 1.4 Noise Mitigation Settlement and Annual Noise Contour Analysis 5 Chapter 2: 2011 Actual Noise Contour 7 2.1 2011 Actual Noise Contour Development 7 2.1.1 Integrated Noise Model 7 2.1.2 2011 Aircraft Operations and Fleet Mix 7 2.1.3 2011 Runway Use 11 2.1.4 2011 Flight Tracks 12 2.1.5 2011 Atmospheric Conditions 13 2.2 2011 Modeled Versus Measured DNL Levels 13 2.3 2011 Noise Contour Impacts 14 Chapter 3: Comparison of the 2011 Actual Noise Contour and the 2007 Forecast Noise Contour 15 3.1 Comparison of 2011 Actual and 2007 Forecast Noise Contour Inputs 15 3.1.1 Integrated Noise Model Considerations 15 3.1.2 Aircraft Operations and Fleet Mix Comparison 15 3.1.3 Runway Use Comparison 20 3.1.4 Flight Track Considerations 22 3.1.5 Atmospheric Conditions Comparison 22 3.2 Comparative Integrated Noise Model Grid Point Analysis 22 3.3 Contour Comparison Summary 23 1 List of Tables Table 1.1: Summary of 2007 Forecast Mitigated DNL Noise Contour Single and Multi - Family Unit Counts 4 Table 2.1: Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport 2011 Total Operations Number 8 Table 2.2: Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport 2011 Aircraft Fleet Mix and Average Daily Operations 9 Table 2.3: Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport 2011 Runway Use 12 Table 2.4: Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport 2011 Measured Versus Modeled INM DNL Values at ANOMS RMT Locations 13 Table 2.5: Summary of 2011 Actual DNL Noise Contour Single and Multi - Family Unit Counts 14 Table 3.1: Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport 2007 Forecast Mitigated vs. 2011 Actual Annual Total Operations Summary 15 Table 3.2: Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Comparision of 2007 Mitigated Forecast Fleet Mix and 2011 Actual Fleet Mix 16 Table 3.3: Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport 2011 Actual and 2007 Mitigated Forecast Runway Use Comparision 21 1I 6P List of Figures Figure 1.1: 2007 Forecast Mitigated Contours Following Page 4 Figure 2.1: 2011 INM Tracks — Runway 30L Departures Overall Use Percentage Following Page 12 Figure 2.2: 2011 INM Tracks — Runway 30R Departures Overall Use Percentage Following Page 12 Figure 2.3: 2011 INM Tracks — Runway 04 Departures Overall Use Percentage Following Page 12 Figure 2.4: 2011 INM Tracks — Runway 12L Departures Overall Use Percentage Following Page 12 Figure 2.5: 2011 INM Tracks — Runway 12R Departures Overall Use Percentage Following Page 12 Figure 2.6: 2011 INM Tracks — Runway 22 Departures Overall Use Percentage Following Page 12 Figure 2.7: 2011 INM Tracks — Runway 17 Departures Overall Use Percentage Following Page 12 Figure 2.8: 2011 INM Tracks — Runway 35 Departures Overall Use Percentage Following Page 12 Figure 2.9: 2011 INM Tracks — Runway 12R Arrivals Overall Use Percentage Following Page 12 Figure 2.10: 2011 INM Tracks — Runway 12L Arrivals Overall Use Percentage Following Page 12 Figure 2.11: 2011 INM Tracks — Runway 22 Arrivals Overall Use Percentage Following Page 12 Figure 2.12: 2011 INM Tracks — Runway 30R Arrivals Overall Use Percentage Following Page 12 Figure 2.13: 2011 INM Tracks — Runway 30L Arrivals Overall Use Percentage Following Page 12 Figure 2.14: 2011 INM Tracks — Runway 04 Arrivals Overall Use Percentage Following Page 12 Figure 2.15: 2011 INM Tracks — Runway 35 Arrivals Overall Use Percentage Following Page 12 Figure 2.16: 2011 INM Tracks — Runway 17 Amvals Overall Use Percentage Following Page 12 Figure 2.17: 2011 Actual Contours Following Page 14 Figure 2.18: 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011 Actual Noise Contours Following Page 14 Figure 3.1: Decibel Levels from 2011 Actual Grid Point DNLs Following Page 22 Figure 3.2: Decibel Levels from 2011 Actual Grid Point DNLs City of Minneapolis Following Page 22 Figure 3.3: Decibel Levels from 2011 Actual Grid Point DNLs City of Richfield Following Page 22 Figure 3.4: Decibel Levels from 2011 Actual Grid Point DNLs West Eagan, Bloomington Following Page 22 Figure 3.5: Decibel Levels from 2011 Actual Grid Point DNLs East Eagan, Inver Grove Heights, Mendota Heights Following Page 22 01 Figure 3.6: Decibel Levels from 2007 Forecast Mitigated Grid Point DNLs Following Page 22 Figure 3.7: Decibel Levels from 2007 Forecast Mitigated Grid Point DNLs City of Minneapolis Following Page 22 Figure 3.9: Decibel Levels from 2007 Forecast Mitigated Grid Point DNLs City of Richfield Following Page 22 Figure 3.9: Decibel Levels from 2007 Forecast Mitigated Grid Point DNLs West Eagan, Bloomington Following Page 22 Figure 3.10: Decibel Levels from 2007 Forecast Mitigated Grid Point DNLs East Eagan, Inver Grove Heights, Mendota Heights Following Page 22 Figure 3.11: Difference in dB Level Between 2007 Forecast Mitigated and 2010 Actual Grid Point DNLs for Blocks Included in Noise Mitigation Settlement Following Page 23 Figure 3.12: Difference in dB Level Between 2007 Forecast Mitigated and 2011 Actual Grid Point DNLs for Blocks Included in Noise Mitigation Settlement City of Minneapolis Following Page 23 Figure 3.13: Difference in dB Level Between 2007 Forecast Mitigated and 2011 Actual Grid Point DNLs for Blocks Included in Noise Mitigation Settlement City of Richfield Following Page 23 Figure 3.14: Difference in dB Level Between 2007 Forecast Mitigated and 2011 Actual Grid Point DNLs for Blocks Included in Noise Mitigation Settlement West Eagan and Bloomington Following Page 23 Figure 3.15: Difference in dB Level Between 2007 Forecast Mitigated and 2011 Actual Grid Point DNLs for Blocks Included in Noise Mitigation Settlement East Eagan, Inver Grove Heights, Mendota Heights Following Page 23 Figure 3.16: 2007 Forecast Mitigated Contours and 2011 Actual Contours Following Page 23 • N Chapter Background The issue of noise at Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport (MSP) includes a long history of local efforts to quantify and mitigate noise impacts in a manner responsive to concems raised by the communities around the airport and consistent with federal policy. These efforts have resulted in the conceptualization and implementation of many initiatives to reduce noise impacts around MSP. One of the most notable of these initiatives has been the sound insulation program implemented under 14 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) Part 150. Part 150 provides a framework for airport operators to develop a comprehensive noise plan for an airport in the form of a Noise Compatibility Program (NCP). A Part 150 NCP is comprised of two fundamental approaches to addressing noise impacts around an airport: (1) Land Use Measures, and (2) Noise Abatement Measures (operational measures to reduce noise). A key component of Part 150 program planning is the development of a base case Noise Exposure Map (NEM) and a five -year forecast NEM without (unmitigated forecast scenario) and with (forecast mitigated scenario) the recommended operational noise abatement measures. Including operational noise abatement measures is important, because the manner in which an airport is operated and how aircraft procedures are executed have a direct effect on an airport's noise impact. NEMs are commonly referred to as noise contours. Forecast mitigated noise contours depict the areas that may be eligible for Land Use Measures (compatible land use plans, property acquisition, residential relocation, and sound mitigation) around an airport. Recognizing the need for increased infrastructure and the emerging importance of noise issues as operations at MSP increased, the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) submitted its first MSP Part 150 Study to the Federal Aviation Administration (FM) in October 1987. NEMs were accepted by the FAA in October 1989, and portions of the NCP were approved in April 1990. The NCP included Corrective Land Use Measures which called for the soundproofing of residences, schools and other public buildings. A 1992 update to the NCP and NEM marked the beginning of corrective mitigation measures in the forecast 1996 NEM 65 and greater Day -Night Average Sound Level (DNL) noise contours. 1.1 Corrective Land Use Efforts at MSP to Address Airport Noise Since 1992, the residential noise mitigation program has been a large and visible part of the Part 150 program at MSP. The MAC designed the MSP residential noise mitigation program using FM structural Noise Level Reduction (NLR) documentation to establish product - specific Sound Transmission Class (STC) ratings and associated NLR goals, creative bidding practices, and cooperative prioritization and funding efforts. Through innovative approaches to continually enhancing the program as new information and technologies became available, the MSP residential noise mitigation program quickly became a national model. Because testing and evaluation of single - family homes near MSP indicated that the majority of such homes provided an average 30 dB of outside - to-inside sound attenuation, the MAC developed a so-called "5 dB package" for single - family homes within the 65 DNL and greater noise contours. This package provided an average exterior- to-interior noise reduction level of 5 dB, ensuring a noticeable level of reduction designed to meet the FAA's target of a 45 DNL interior 1 �� I noise level in each home.' The 5 dB package offered a menu of mitigation measures that the MAC might install to achieve an average of a 5 dB noise reduction and meet the 45 DNL interior noise level in an individual home. The menu of mitigation measures included: windows; prime doors; attic insulation; baffling of attic vents, mail slots and chimneys; and the addition of central air - conditioning. The MAC determined which specific mitigation measures were necessary for a particular 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. Since 1997, when homeowners were asked if the improvements were effective at reducing aircraft noise, an average 97 percent responded yes. When asked if the modifications improved interior home comfort, an average of 95 percent responded yes. In 2003, when homeowners were asked if they were satisfied with the overall program product quality, 100 percent answered yes. In 2004, the MAC awarded the final bids for the remaining unmitigated homes in the 1996 65 DNL noise contour. In early 2006, the MAC completed the mitigation of an additional 165 single - family homes in the 2007 forecast mitigated 65 DNL noise contour. A significant milestone at MSP, this also represented a significant accomplishment for an industry- leading airport noise mitigation program. The program resulted in the mitigation of over 7,800 single - family homes in communities around MSP. The financial investment in the MSP Residential Sound Insulation Program was among the largest in the nation for such programs. Throughout the 14 -year project (1992 -2006) several variables had an impact on the project's annual financial profile. Year - to-year variations in housing stock and material costs caused fluctuations in the unit, or house -per- house, costs. This, combined with variations in annual budgets as a result of challenges such as the terrorist attacks of 9/11, resulted in a fluctuating rate of annual home completions. 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 its 14 -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 residential noise mitigation program started in 2001, and was significantly smaller in both the number of structures mitigated and the associated costs. With completion of multi - family structures in the 1996 65 DNL noise contour, the MAC mitigated approximately 1,327 multi - family units at a total cost of approximately $11.1 million. Also, since 1981, the MAC has mitigated 18 schools located around MSP. This total represents all of the schools located within the 65 DNL noise contour. In response to the legislature's directives, the MAC also provided mitigation to certain schools located outside the 1996 65 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 the school sound insulation program. In addition to the residential and school noise mitigation programs, the MAC also implemented a residential property acquisition program that facilitated the relocation of sensitive land uses, such as residential buildings, in noise impact areas. The intent of the residential acquisition program was to address impacted properties in the 1996 65 DNL noise contour where the property owners and the city in which the respective property resided agreed that acquisition was the desirable means of FAA, "Guidelines for the Sound Insulation of Residences Exposed to Aircraft Operations, "October 1992, pg. 3-18. 2 8� I mitigating the homes. As a result, the MAC acquired approximately 437 residential properties. In total, the MAC expended approximately $93.0 million on the residential property acquisition program. 1.2 2007 Forecast Mitigated Noise Contour In late 1998, the MAC authorized an update to the Part 150 program at MSP. The update process began in 1999 with the development of noise contours and 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 events of 9/11, 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 base case, and updating the forecast year from 2005 to 2007. The purpose of the forecast update was to ensure that the noise contours considered the events of 9/11 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 Integrated Noise Model (INM) input methodology and data to ensure continued consensus with the previous contour (i.e., November 2001) development process. On November 17, 2003, the MAC approved the revised forecast and fleet mix numbers and INM input methodology and data for use in developing the 2002 and 2007 NEMs. In March 2004, the MAC revised the forecast to incorporate certain corrections in general aviation numbers and to reflect Northwest Airline's announcement that it would resume service of five RJ85 aircraft that had previously been taken out of service. The 2004 Part 150 Update resulted in a comprehensive Noise Compatibility Program (NCP) recommendation. In addition to several land use measures around MSP, the NCP included provisions for a number of operational Noise Abatement (NA) Measures. The aircraft and airport operational noise abatement initiatives in the 2004 Part 150 Update focused on aircraft operation procedures, runway use, departure and arrival flight tracks, voluntary operational agreements with the airlines, and provisions for further evaluation of technology. As a result of the extensive analyses and review included in the 2004 MSP Part 150 Update, the Part 150 Update's NCP included 17 NA Measures. The MAC has implemented 12 of the 17 NA Measures. Of the remaining five measures, two are modifications of existing NCP measures that the MAC recommended as part of the 1993 Part 150 Update and three are new measures. The MAC has implemented the operational noise NA Measures outlined in the November 2004 Part 150 Update NCP that are reflected in the 2007 forecast mitigated noise contour included in the 2004 MSP Part 150 Update. Based on the estimate of 582,366 total operations in the 2007 forecast mitigated scenario, approximately 7,234.4 acres are in the 65 DNL noise contour and approximately 15,708.3 acres are in the 60 DNL noise contour. Table 1.1 contains the count of single - family (one to three units per structure) and multi - family (more than three units per structure) dwelling units within the 2007 forecast mitigated noise contours. The counts are based on the block intersect methodology, where all structures on a block that is within or touched by the noise contour are counted. 3 Table 1.1 MINNEAPOLISST.PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT Summary of 2007 Forecast Mitigated DNL Noise Contour Single Family and Multi- Family Unit Counts (Block Intersect Implementation Method, Completed Retied All Units Completed Prior to 2/14/2012) Dwelling Units Within DNL (dB) Interval City Count Single Family Multi- Family 60-64 65-69 70-74 75+ Total 6064 65-69 70-74 75+ Total Minneapolis Completed 6598 3078 504 - 10180 851 27 466 - 1344 Additional* 833 - - - 833 544 - - - 544 Total 7431 3078 504 - 11013 1395 27 466 - 1888 Bloomington Completed 131 109 40 - 280 256 447 618 - 1321 Additional' 17 - - - 17 132 - - - 132 Total 148 109 40 - 297 388 447 618 - 1453 Richfield Completed 1043 296 - - 1339 359 14 - - 373 Additional* 91 - - - 91 150 - - - 150 Total 1134 296 - - 1430 509 14 - - 523 Eagan Completed 556 22 - - 578 - - - - - Additional* 46 - - - 46 86 - - - 86 Total 602 22 - - 624 86 - - - 86 Mendota Heights Completed 93 4 - - 97 - - - - - Additional' - - - - - - - - - - Total 93 4 - - 97 - - - - - All Gties Completed 8421 3509 544 - 12474 2378 488 1084 - 3038 Additional* 987 - - - 987 912 - - - 912 Total 9408 3509 544 - 13461 2378 488 1084 - 3950 •AddMono, counts Include units in the current program that declined mitigation or were determined to be lnelegable for participation. As a result of new updated parcel information that the MAC obtained from MetroGIS on October 31, 2007, the unit counts in Table 1.1 differ from previous figures published for the 2007 forecast mitigated noise contours in the November 2004 Part 150 Update Document. A depiction of the 2007 forecast mitigated noise contours are provided in Figure 1.1. 1.3 Airport Noise Litigation One of the largest discussion items in the Part 150 Update process that began in 1999 focused on the mitigation program that the MAC would offer in the 64 to 60 DNL noise contour area. The FAA recognizes sensitive land uses, such as residential land uses, within the 65 and greater DNL noise contours that are impacted by aircraft noise as eligible for noise mitigation under Part 150. However, as part of the Dual -Track Airport Planning Process the MAC made a policy decision to provide some level of noise mitigation out to the 60 DNL noise contour at MSP. During the Dual- Track Airport Planning Process, the MSP Noise Mitigation Committee was tasked with developing a noise mitigation plan to be considered in conjunction with the expansion of MSP at its present location. Throughout the entire Part 150 Update process, the intent of the MSP Noise Mitigation Committee's recommendation regarding mitigation outside the 65 DNL contour was a topic of detailed discussion and debate. During the course of the Part 150 Update process the MAC formulated a number of mitigation proposals, culminating in a final MAC position on mitigation outside the 65 DNL contour. In the November 2004 Part 150 Update, the MAC's recommendation for mitigation in the 64 to 60 DNL contours called for providing central air - conditioning to single - family homes that did not have it, with a homeowner co -pay based on the degree of noise impact. The MAC based eligibility for the mitigation proposal on the 2007 forecast mitigated noise contour using the block intersect methodology. The cities located around MSP expressed dissatisfaction with the MAC proposal, asserting that the MSP Noise Mitigation Committee recommended that the 5 dB package was to be expanded to all properties in the 64 to 60 DNL noise contours. The MAC countered that the MSP Noise Mitigation Committee recommendations did not specify the mitigation package elements to be offered in the 64 to 60 DNL noise contour area and that, 4 °E3-1 : • nod �51saM ''''': :.::'...:-.':- ' :„: I ,....:::.--' ''' --:--,',.. - ,,, ‘ 7'.!..:.:,",;,;-. :,,„,. .... ,..• '''. ::: „„,,,,,,... ajo7 145975 s1y6�a}{ anolg lanu� - IA i o� j r 2 LL z } , C ;,c. " lJ o s - C VCT 7_, m ° 2 m o - Noi1 } — LL e �. a-+ to ®� - LL O 0 ff' 3 • t 1. . .., �- 8' � ,' I : , 0 e �. 7' : _ 4� r _ A s s { k 13.: e f f® g • � L. x• 8 F 3 , " � c a ``- w 'o 1: � w � b a lAll'Ale � 3 -u E � � 1 tell �A Po° .J Jp 40,6, 0 , ..'''''.• , ' "aF .. , • . " ' F x 1 - t c. � �� r O mar 0 E _ tJN 1 y 0 ---- �d C - - 131031N ii V - N O x 0 c v - t "!ad • because homes in Minnesota have higher than the national average pre- existing noise attenuation characteristics, the full 5 dB package was not necessary outside the 65 DNL contour. In early 2005, the Cities of Minneapolis, Eagan, and Richfield filed suit in Hennepin County District Court claiming the MAC violated a contract and the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act (MERA) by failing to provide a 5 dB package to single - family homes in the 64 to 60 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 64 to 60 DNL contours. In January 2007, Hennepin County District Judge Stephen Aldrich granted the cities partial summary judgment. The court found that the MAC, by virtue of implementing the 5 dB 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' contract claim. Before the court entered final judgment post -trial, however, the parties negotiated a global settlement resolving the cities' case and the class action suit. 1.4 Noise Mitigation Settlement and Annual Noise Contour Analysis On October 19, 2007, Judge Stephen Aldrich approved a Consent Decree entered into by the MAC and the cities of Minneapolis, Eagan, and Richfield that settled the cities' litigation. The Consent Decree provided that it became effective only if (1) the FAA advised the MAC in 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 of these conditions were satisfied, and the MAC is implementing single - family and multi- family mitigation out to the 2007 60 DNL and 2005 60 DNL noise contours as the Consent Decree requires. Under the Decree, mitigation activities will vary based on noise contour. Homes in the most noise - impacted contours are eligible for more extensive mitigation than those in less impacted areas. The Decree provides that approximately 453 homes in the 2007 64 to 63 DNL noise contours are eligible to receive the same level of noise mitigation that the MAC provided in the 1996 65 DNL and greater contours. The 2007 64 to 63 DNL noise contour mitigation program is designed to achieve five decibels of noise reduction on average, with mitigation measures that may include the following, depending upon the home's existing condition: central air-conditioning; exterior and storm window repair or replacement; prime door and storm door repair or replacement; wall and attic insulation; baffling of roof vents and chimney treatment The Decree requires that the MAC complete construction of mitigation in the 2007 64 and 63 DNL noise contours by December 31, 2009. This task was completed. In addition, under the Decree, owners of the approximately 5,428 single - family homes in the 2007 62 to 60 DNL noise contours will be eligible for one of two mitigation packages: 1) an estimated 2,852 homes that did not have central air - conditioning as of September 1, 2007 will 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 choose not to receive central air - conditioning will be 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 mitigation menu includes upgrades such as: exterior and storm window repair or replacement; prime door and storm door repair or replacement; wall and attic insulation; and baffling of roof vents and chimney treatment. The Decree requires that the MAC complete construction of mitigation in the 2007 62 to 60 DNL contours by December 1, 2012. 5 • °(#a Single- family homes in the 2007 64 and 63 DNL contours and in the 2007 62 to 60 DNL contours whose earlier owners opted out of the previously completed MAC noise mitigation program for the 1996 65 and greater DNL contours but that had new owners on September 1, 2007 are eligible to "opt in" and receive noise mitigation. If the total cost to the MAC of the opt -in mitigation is Tess than $7 million, any remaining funds will be used to reimburse owners of single - family homes between the 2005 mitigated 60 DNL contour and the 2007 forecast mitigated 60 DNL contour for purchase and installation of products included on a menu provided by the MAC. The amount each homeowner receives will be determined by subtracting dollars spent for the opt -in program from the total $7 million budget, and then dividing the remainder among the total number of single - family homes within the 2005 60 DNL and 2007 60 DNL contours. The MAC has begun to issue reimbursements and will complete them by July 31, 2014. The total cost of the "opt -in" mitigation and the 2005 mitigated 60 DNL contour reimbursement mitigation program is capped at $7 million. The MAC began implementing the Noise Mitigation Program in October 2007 following the terms and conditions of the Consent Decree that settled the noise mitigation lawsuit. As of February of 2012, the MAC has completed noise mitigation for all of the single - family homes in the 2007 63-64 DNL contours. (400 homes participated in the program.) In addition, the MAC has completed 4,443 homes in the 2007 60-62 DNL and has another 625 homes in the design and construction phases at present. A total of 989 homes have been provided reimbursements for approved noise mitigation enhancements in the 2007 60 DNL to 2005 60 DNL contour area. With regard to the multi-family noise mitigation program, the MAC has installed acoustical covers on the air conditioners in 1,646 living units and completed the installation of new air-conditioning units in 219 living units marking completion of that program in 2009. The total cost to implement mitigation under the Consent Decree is uncertain until the program is complete, but it could cost as much as $130 million. 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 will perform under the Decree. (Consent Decree Section 8.1, p. 38.) The releases cease to be effective for a certain locations if the average annual aircraft noise level in DNL at that location is at or above DNL 60 and is at least two decibels in DNL higher than the DNL level for that location in the 2007 mitigated noise contours. The MAC determines future DNL values by using the FAA's Integrated Noise Model and actual MSP operations data to generate a noise contour reflecting noise conditions at MSP for the prior calendar year. (Consent Decree Section 8.1(d), pp. 38 -39.) The MAC must develop a noise contour reflecting noise conditions for the prior calendar year by March 1 of each year. The MAC has prepared this report to satisfy Section 8.1(d) of the Consent Decree. The actual contour that the MAC must develop under Section 8.1(d) of the Consent Decree is relevant only to the release provisions in Section 8.1. The Consent Decree requires the MAC to use only the 2007 forecast mitigated DNL contours and the 2005 forecast DNL mitigated contours for mitigation purposes. MAC staff and representatives from the cities of Minneapolis, Eagan, and Richfield met on February 11 and 20, 2008 to discuss and finalize the annual report format. 6 1. • Chapter 2 2011 Actual Noise Contour As discussed previously, Section 8.1(d) of the Consent Decree requires the MAC by March 1 of each year to prepare an actual noise contour reflecting the noise conditions around MSP for the prior calendar year. This chapter provides detailed information regarding the 2011 actual noise contour at MSP. 2.1 2011 Actual Noise Contour Development 21.1 Integrated Noise Model The FAA - established mechanism for quantifying airport DNL noise impacts is the Integrated Noise Model (INM). The availability of federal or airport- generated funds for the purpose of noise mitigation efforts such as sound insulation is contingent upon the development of a Noise Exposure Map (DNL noise contours) in a manner that is consistent with the federal criteria (i.e., INM and DNL). The INM is used to assess the noise impact of aircraft operations. The INM uses input files consisting of information relative to runway use, flight track use, aircraft fleet mix, aircraft performance and thrust settings, topography information, and atmospheric conditions to generate a Noise Exposure Map. The computer model generates contours, typically represented in five DNL increments, that depict an annualized average day of aircraft noise impacts. The DNL contours generated are the focal point of any noise mitigation measure proposed in a Part 150 program. Quantifying aircraft- specific noise characteristics in INM is accomplished through the use of a comprehensive noise database that has been developed under the auspices of Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 36. As part of the airworthiness certification process, aircraft manufacturers are required to subject aircraft to a battery of noise tests. Through the use of federally adopted and endorsed algorithms, this aircraft-specific noise information is used in the generation of INM DNL contours. Justification for such an approach is rooted in national standardization of noise quantification at airports. The FAA Office of Environment and Energy (AEE -100) developed the INM. Since 1978, the INM has been the FAA's standard tool for determining the predicted noise impact in the vicinity of airports. The INM is designed to estimate long -term average effects using average annual input conditions. The MAC used INM Version 7.0b to develop the 2011 actual noise contour. 2.1.2 2011 Aircraft Operations and Fleet Mix The past 11 years have presented many challenges to the aviation industry. From a local perspective, operational levels and the aircraft fleet mix at MSP have been subject to lingering effects from the events of 9/11, high fuel prices, a.flurry of bankruptcy filings by several legacy airlines including Northwest Airlines, an economic recession and overall market forces that appear to be favoring consolidation, as indicated by Delta Air Lines' acquisition of Northwest Airlines in 2008. These developments have had profound effects on airline and airport operations. For example, the actual 2011 operational level at MSP is below the operational level documented at the airport over 16 years ago. 7 • eff5' The MAC derived total MSP operations numbers for this study from MAC Noise and Operations Monitoring System (MACNOMS) data. The MACNOMS total operations number was 3.0 percent lower than the FM Air Traffic Activity Data System (ATADS) number. To rectify the numbers, the MAC adjusted the MACNOMS data upward to equal the total 2011 FM ATADS number. Table 2.1 provides the total number of 2011 aircraft operations at MSP by operational category. The 2011 total Table 2.1 operations number of MINNEAPOLIS -ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 435,076 is down 2011 Total Operations Numbers slightly from the 2010 Number of number of 435,583 Operations Category Operations* (0.1 percent decrease). Scheduled Passenger Air 396,002 Carrier (a) In addition to the Cargo 12,203 reduction in overall Charter 161 operations at MSP, GA 23,786 the aircraft fleet mix at Military 2,924 MSP is continuing to TOTAL 435,076 change. Considering Notes: the multi-faceted (a) Includes both air carrier and regional carrier operations nature of the * Based on actual year -to -date 2011 MACNOMS data adjusted variables that are to match FM ATADS data (to account for unavailable presently impacting MACNOMS operations data). the ' operational downtum at MSP, forecasting long -term operational implications is complex. All signs, however, in the near -term seem to point to a fundamental change in the nature of airline operations at MSP, especially in the type of aircraft flown by all airlines and in particular by Delta Air Lines. Specifically, operations by older aircraft such as the DC9 and B727 that have been "hushkitted" to meet the Stage 3 noise standard are decreasing. Following the events of 9/11, the number of monthly Stage 3 hushkit operations dropped off significantly at MSP and has never retumed to pre -9/11 levels. The number of monthly Stage 3 hushkit operations dropped to 9,450 in September 2001 and have continued to drop. Stage 3 hushkit operations dropped to a low of 270 total monthly operations in October 2011. At the same time that older hushkit aircraft operations are declining, the use of newer and quieter manufactured Stage 3 aircraft is on the rise. The best examples at MSP of the increasing use of newer aircraft are the Airbus A320/319, Airbus 330, Regional Jets (CARJ -200 and EMB -170), Boeing B757- 200/300, and Boeing B737- 700/800. These aircraft are replacing older hushkitted Stage 3 aircraft such as the DC9 and B727. When comparing the DC9 hushkitted aircraft to the CRJ -200 regional jet, 43 CRJ operations would be required to generate the same noise impact as one DC9 operation. The CRJ -200 aircraft represents newer technology engine noise emission levels. Table 2.2 provides a breakdown of the 2011 aircraft fleet mix at MSP. The average daily number of hushkitted aircraft operations was down in 2011 to 21.9 from 64.7 in 2010. In 2011, the average daily number of total nighttime operations was 106.8, up from the 93.4 average daily nighttime operations in 2010. Overall, the 2011 total average daily operations number of 1191.8 is down slightly by 0.1 percent from the 1,193.1 average daily operations in 2010. 8 Table 2.2 MINNEAPOLIS -ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 2011 Aircraft Fleet Mix Average Daily Operations Group Aircraft Type Day Night Total Manufactured/Re - A300 -622R 0.1 0.1 0.2 engined Stage 3 Jet A300B4 -203 0.0 0.0 0.0 A310 -304 0.0 0.0 0.0 A319 -131 69.8 4.7 74.5 A320 -211 85.0 10.7 95.7 A321 -232 3.2 1.3 4.5 A330 4.4 0.2 4.6 B717 -200 11.9 2.0 13.9 B737-300 12.9 1.3 14.1 B737 -400 0.2 0.1 0.3 B737 -500 2.2 0.6 2.8 B737-700 23.0 6.3 29.3 B737-800 38.8 13.6 52.5 B747-200 0.0 0.0 0.1 B747-400 1.7 0.0 1.7 B757-200 45.7 8.5 54.2 B757 -300 17.5 1.4 18.9 B767-200 0.6 0.0 0.6 B767 -300 4.0 0.8 4.9 B767 -400 1.4 0.6 2.0 B777 -200 0.3 0.0 0.4 B777-300 0.0 0.0 0.0 BEC400 1.5 0.1 1.6 CARJ /CL601 378.5 22.7 401.2 CL600 0.9 0.1 1.0 CNA500 0.2 0.0 0.2 CNA501 0.1 0.0 0.1 CNA525 0.9 0.0 0.9 CNA550 0.6 0.1 0.7 CNA560 5.5 0.4 5.9 CNA650 3.0 0.3 3.3 CNA750 5.8 0.5 6.3 DC10 3.4 1.8 5.2 DC820 0.0 0.0 0.0 DC860 0.0 0.0 0.0 DC87 1.1 1.2 2.3 EMB135 0.3 0.0 0.3 EMB145 19.3 2.9 22.2 EMB170 147.7 7.7 155.4 EMB190 2.6 0.2 2.7 F10062 0.0 0.0 0.0 GLF5 0.7 0.1 0.8 GLFIV 1.4 0.1 1.5 HS125 3.7 0.2 3.9 IA1124 0.0 0.0 0.0 IA1125 0.3 0.0 0.3 LEAR31 0.3 0.0 0.3 LEAR35 2.5 0.3 2.9 qC) LEAR45 1.7 0.1 1.7 LEAR55 0.1 0.0 0.1 LEAR60 0.8 0.1 0.9 MD11GE 1.3 1.4 2.7 M D81 33.7 2.0 35.7 MD9025 56.0 3.3 59.3 M U300 0.0 0.0 0.0 SABR65 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 996.6 97.8 1094.6 Hushkit 727Q 0.3 0.4 0.7 Stage 3 Jet 737Q 0.1 0.0 0.1 DC9Q 20.4 0.7 21.1 Total 20.8 1.1 21.9 Microjet CNA510 0.1 0.0 0.2 Total 0.1 0.0 0.2 Stage 2 FAL10 0.1 0.0 0.1 Less than FAL200 0.6 0.8 1.4 75,000 lb. MTOW FAL20A 0.8 0.1 0.9 GM 1.4 0.1 1.5 Gill 0.1 0.0 0.1 LEAR24 0.0 0.0 0.0 LEAR25 0.0 0.0 0.0 SABR75 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 3.0 1.0 4.0 Propeller ATR42 1.0 0.4 1.4 BAEJ41 0.0 0.0 0.0 BEC100 0.0 0.0 0.0 BEC190 4.6 0.3 4.9 BEC200 1.0 0.1 1.2 BEC24 0.0 0.0 0.0 BEC300 0.3 0.0 0.3 BEC30B 0.2 0.0 0.2 BEC33 0.2 0.0 0.2 BEC55 0.0 0.0 0.0 BEC58 0.2 0.0 0.3 BEC60 0.0 0.0 0.0 BEC65 6.4 1.8 8.2 BEC76 0.0 0.0 0.0 BEC80 1.6 0.3 1.9 BEC90 0.5 0.2 0.8 BEC99 2.6 0.6 3.2 CNA150 0.0 0.0 0.0 CNA170 0.0 0.0 0.0 CNA172 0.1 0.0 0.1 CNA177 0.0 0.0 0.0 CNA180 0.0 0.0 0.0 CNA182 0.0 0.0 0.0 CNA185 0.0 0.0 0.0 CNA206 0.1 0.0 0.1 CNA208 0.9 0.1 1.0 CNA210 0.0 0.0 0.0 CNA310 0.1 0.1 0.2 CNA340 0.1 0.0 0.1 CNA402 0.7 0.0 0.8 CNA404 0.0 0.0 0.0 CNA414 0.2 0.0 0.2 cif . • CNA421 0.1 0.0 0.1 CNA425 0.0 0.0 0.0 CNA441 0.2 0.0 0.2 DO328 0.1 0.0 0.1 EMB110 0.0 0.0 0.0 GASEPF 0.3 0.0 0.3 GASEPV 0.2 0.0 0.2 GULF1 0.2 0.0 0.2 M20J 0.2 0.0 0.3 MU2 0.0 0.0 0.0 PA22 0.0 0.0 0.0 PA23AZ 0.0 0.0 0.0 PA24 0.0 0.0 0.0 PA28 0.0 0.0 0.0 PA31 0.5 0.1 0.6 PA32 0.1 0.0 0.1 PA34 0.2 0.0 0.2 PA42 0.0 0.0 0.0 PA44 0.0 0.0 0.0 PA46 0.1 0.0 0.1 PA60 0.0 0.0 0.0 RWCM69 0.0 0.0 0.0 SAMER3 0.1 0.0 0.1 SAMER4 3.0 0.6 3.6 SF340 37.6 2.3 39.9 Total 63.7 6.9 71.1 Helicopter B206L 0.0 0.0 0.0 EC130 0.0 0.0 0.0 R22 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 0.0 0.0 0.0 Military Jet C130 0.0 0.0 0.0 T -38A 0.0 0.0 0.0 • Total 0.0 0.0 0.0 (Total Operations 1084.2 106.8 1191.8 2.1.3 2011 Runway Use FAA control of runway use throughout the year for arrival and departure operations at MSP has a notable effect on the noise impact around the airport. The number of people and dwellings impacted by noise is a direct result of the number of operations on a given runway and the land uses off the end of the runway. Historically, prior to the opening of Runway 17/35, arrival and departure operations occurred on the parallel runways at MSP (12U30R and 12R/30L) in a manner that resulted in approximately 50 percent of the arrival and departure operations occurring to the northwest over South Minneapolis and 50 percent to the southeast over Mendota Heights and Eagan. As a result of the dense residential land uses to the northwest and the predominantly industrial/commercial land uses to the southeast of MSP, focusing arrival and departure operations to the southeast has long been the preferred configuration from a noise reduction perspective. 11 q 1 - Table 2.3 Since the introduction of Runway MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 17/35 at MSP in 2005, another opportunity exists to route aircraft 2011 Runway Use over an unpopulated area - the Minnesota River Valley. With use of Op Type - Runway - Day 1 Night - Total the Runway 17 Departure Arrivals 4 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% Procedure, westbound departure 12L 19.1% 16.8% 18.9% operations off Runway 17 are routed 12R 18.2% 24.9% 18.8% such that they avoid close -in 17 0.3% 0.1% 0.3% 22 0.3% 0.2% 0.3% residential areas southwest of the 30L 18 5% 31.9% 19.7% new runway. Thus, use of Runway 30R 23.6% 23.7% 23.6% 17 for departure operations is the 35 19.8% 23% 18.4% second preferred operational Total 100.0 %1 100.0% 100.0% configuration (after Runways 12L Departures 4 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% and 12R) for noise reduction 12L 12.1% 21.6% 13.0% purposes. 12R 5.2% 22.8% 6.9% 17 23.7% 15.6% 22.9% Table 2.3 provides the runway use 22 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 30L 29.9% 21.3% 29 percentages for 2011. From 2010 to 30R 28.8% 18.4% 27.8% 2011 arrival operations percentages 35 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% decreased on Runways 12R, 12L, Total 100.0 %l 100.0% 100.0% 22, and 35 and increased on Overall 4 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% Runways 4, 30R, 30L, and 17. The 12L 15.6% 19.4% 16.0% most notable change in arrival 12R 11.7% 23.8% 12.8% 17 11.9% 8.3% 11.6% runway use from 2010 to 2011 was 22 o.2% o.2% 0.2% a 1.4 percent increase in Runway 30L 24.2% 26.3% 24.4% 30R arrival operations. The most 30R 26.2% 20.9% 25.7% notable change in arrival runway use 35 10.0% 1.1% 9.2% during the nighttime hours was on Total 100.0 %1 100.0% 100.0% Runway 30L, where operations Note: Total may not add up to 100% due to rounding. decreased from 36.4 percent in 2010 to 31.9 percent in 2011. Departure SOURCES: MACNOMS data was used to calculate runway use for operations decreased on Runways 2011' 12R, 30R, and 22 (Runway 35 2010 and 2011 departure percentages were identical) and increased on Runways 4, 12L, 17, and 30L from 2010 to 2011. The most notable change in departure runway use from 2010 to 2011 was a 3.8 percent reduction in Runway 30R departure operations. The most notable change in departure runway use during the nighttime hours was on Runway 12L, where operations increased from 17.4 percent in 2010 to 21.6 percent in 2011. 21.4 2011 Flight Tracks • In large part, the INM flight tracks used to develop the 2011 actual noise contour are identical to those used for the 2010 actual noise contour. The tracks are also consistent with those used previously to develop the 2007 forecast mitigated noise contour, with the exception of Runways 17, 35, and 4 departure tracks. The MAC updated the INM departure tracks to conform to actual radar flight track data for Runway 17 and the use of Runways 35 and 4 during the 2009 reconstruction of Runway 12L130R. Figures 2.1 to 2.16 provide the INM departure and arrival flight track and use information that the MAC used to develop the 2011 actual noise contour. 12 6)3 • l 2011 INM Tracks- Runway 30L Departures 01,,,,..... Overall Use Percentage ( •_ I aP, Figure 2.1 ao o '= o dd -t...., ''� it o //i lh I l - / / r 7 r r ■ il 0 .2, E g� 03 z .. — a_._ 1111.1.0.......Holliiiiiimp,............1114 ( 0 , 9 .x. 111111111111111111111%111 S■i411111,4%014 ------- , I- I: I"..- oorrig/i..—Iliiii...'-",,,771v,-,,- . ' -1 .„ %--, _ J i1js± L. l- ' \ irl I t 1 _c°' 1 r i_____ 1-) ; - 7.- 44 iv/-1 i ' 1 I i „_.1 l 1 r ' ( t r 1 i 5 f 1 2 A l .r a Note Thethickness of the INM trocla 1 1 I I as displayed on thts map is a funNon ( Miles of ovemBusepercentage a qL 2011 INM Tracks - Runway 30R Departures Overall Use Percentage `O `` Figure 2.2 1 '- , 0 0 -, 9 _•" 0- 0 MY 94 l r t So 0 ° p z � 1 0.4% .,�, '® _ , J ,, __. ,‘ ! ' \ 1 s k"id - \ " i , ' ' , _II ' ....•,,- 1 ...........s..,...0.-..------"`-.1._,,..— 1 - 7 :: ' ' ' ' ' '''.•r 4 ,1 ' _I ______I 6g6 i 1 -' ® `. _. .� l , n mow,. 1 1 . flnf:h i. 4 ,,,,,_,, .,„,. ,a ..... , , . ., , , .,,,,, r__A , . _ _ 1 _ - , ., , . 1 __.,.. _ , j ,, 1 a g 1 2 ' o I.3 °. i .. i • 4 0 U3 1 - ::::2:: . , ry o• h'atc thickness of the MM t�cla 1 f O' � asdS don thh a ,R 1 i 1 if'ovnaEuse peroen 7s mge fution es Mil p � j L. J n ti 1 .. ♦ f �? . -'� ...._...„r,, _ — },� .T -.. mo w..._ —.. r O 1 1 I- 2 _'✓ it ra , , 1 q, _ a tb 1 1' v�o o a —__ _ ��.- -_— - 4 a I' _ - 111 I •�z o J i d i - ; t■ { 1 HF . 1 r '. .„ j -_ J • f 1 1,.. L. , r , '' k'‘t, � � ' f .,,,. r 1 y 1 1 • vl Y --I f F s n. f t j CI DI (0. f f - T u M I. �7- � - -- w N J.-N. - f ❑ 1 1 ' -- - - - - -- -- 1.. --- - -- r f it Vf — LL l 777 0 - ,.. � 1 C N "' 1 z rte-! 1 2011 INM ks - Ru 12L p art u re o f ° o o v Trac Use Pnway ercentage De 0 erall * ** * * = Figure 2.4 is • - -_r - �m -� — Tai O —i / R till 1 K – * !—=-3 k 1 0 , i-----, 1 . , r. 1 i 1 ` X 0 1 it sw :-- - , I - 1 0 � � o °b o iffij �? -1 ` 1 0-0 17 �� 01 r-'1$00-111-1,----4,0110101/01111101010°,0* '1 �3%r, /io /i �i#5 j / A �� � 1� ® / N 1 „. tlict' ' -, " \ ' - _ __ _11 7,..4/"..,'*''''''':N„, , -----: °�� yi` ®�_ 1.a ®r� �.. � �S°6 0.906 y . i ill .6.- i • o o' I I —1____LF.-- : Or ! w I .. ° >; olo I 0 0 7%i''' °°�°° ! • �O ° NuK e 0 1 2 ( 1 o a p Az. - as disp on t ha mop ?s a fu f�' I • O T l il n p O O O . N N °� _ .. ._. __. _..... .- v -' a a c v a o� m o eti �v '� gip, ti 0 1 r',. i 1 °S° 0 o`0 � 0(0 � 0 1 rIfii oo 0•443/0 O''' 1 i tir' l .. ,00.1.- ,4 _ C-1[1. so � i 32.60/07. p• �, , .. ®�` e.. 0ssal0 a0 / 1�� ® 0 1 f ,•�, / ,r• '� /; I / i . Liu i 0.00, 1 r v I 1 _ r I '� ®©` 0.0% 0 .i %0.3 4.: VI CU L cv al cu cc N H O ° S'-0_, .4- ..i_:. , o — 1 c A 2011 INMTracks - Runway 22 Departures Overall Use Percentage Figure 2.6 l i.,4 t, i I < , 1 • � 3 ^ i '.:, .:: ,. ,,,. ,,: ,'• .' ___--- !, i I r 3 t ` — ' f < I rj r ,,,.. 7 e..---. _- .,� - I ! 4 T.T ' J _ ,., , ,..._.......... :.:.. , •., , .. . ..:.:::.. ,........,. , "....".. •_ ,•:•• •, ••••..,.•., ..„,......„ „. _....... , ..' i. .,......,....... .,.. . , ....„... . ,........., ... , ..„,.. . ..•,... . .,.. . : . .... ...„. ,,,::,,, ::, •._.• ...::_...„ .... .. ......... , ,..... •. ..,.......... .„..........„ ,,, .. • ''„ .,...,...,„..... ,:.,.., .,..,. —.-r1"-- 1 - t :•. -•: T \ - .......1,;:,4, . k e' -,,,, , • - N%— ., Rs .,...::,....",..,..i.:,,,.....'„,„..,,,,,„,,,,,,..,.."..._,,,.:,,, r ,,, .,, ,,,,,,,,..2.'„:.-••----......:,,...-____-- .:::....:,.:,,,...likiiiii......_~%,....____:°44M1111111111111111111,,, r : .. ...:, _..,/•,, .,:,,,, ..,,,:,,,,- ,,,,,,,,:,:...: ,..,.,„:.:,: , , . L v v ,,,) ...:,,..,,::::......,. .,:.:,..:.,.:::::,:.:..,, ........ . 1 .......:,:.: . ..../: .• ... • J , .,;:.,., , , , .:,...,,,.,,,,,..,,..,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,•,...: ,,.._. .• ,,,,, „...,................, ...,........„9„.„:„....,.„.:,..,..•_ /-.■.. 1 ' .'-'' • '” ' '''' • ' r , - . ' . - — - i.....,,,_- - I ! ' ' j II - -- - - - - - -- , h a t u r r' j j f I �, • 8 • j I h�aP ! � , — o -- = - ofovera 7- -- .r- .� - 4 " i ° Note: The thickness of [h INM t o cks s I -- s r 1 a sdrsplayedon this map • a rrt ion 1 Miles 1 l usep • Cage a i o o 0 ° ` Z...- 1 2 o a d t a a �Q o ? n O` ! W M M Cu a. O Crl tV to a O\ c) . v G Lt o a prod h h 1—I a o 95 1 ' o '- ... 60 ,. g .. \ off • I s Ll ice'' \--- r 5 �- - -- - -- i i \- Ili 8. 1 kr Vii *� s' — , s' µ o. tr9 1 i 1 i \..\\L \\IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIhk.1\.. S , I 96I'? 4.:' C t n as 06 1 L . . + S E i C _ p8 CO CO i rn ns '' N DC vai -- — , - -- �_, cn d U L .\ ° � O o �� 0 O }- O * ,s ° p a 0' i ry i �• 1, v r� i ICO j Y . t q "- j ;1:,,... : I V J O V o ' � � 1 .�'a ;; I 2 a v ( � y F m Y G In L 1 V C m.l _ y r -ti r ," F- G 1 _ : - . em u. 2 h' m r k w '"' 1 1O% zo fr -- .- t W° 4 . i A �' I= ..0-z x ,; * - 4 i 1 I I ,i: , z:: 1 L 1 , , _ -----'' - ----'' . ..,7 ,, -t,- 1 1 ' , 1 O c o ° p �' za - � j � rti C. `�� I 00 CU GI i0 � 1 - -� I � a., N Z C V 'i� J .. o- 0 i 1 i� 11 f � Q 7 i , ' r z a Q r4 p$ � - ,,,,,,. ' ',..4 d i f ? v i t t RS 713 % L0 % L'o Z 961.0 o a N /f ii / / — ' - - rte �� i °� LJ --- , rka° !I ° e fl- /''' tif'. iS 0 C3• i N oO ''s. //i/i/1/1//1/44 ° r2 O 0 / g �°_.. et J r--1 -----\ ------_-_--- ri _J,.___..., , , i - - - - - •``,�� r 1 1 , -J 1(7)_ ns D1 ' k �O � � a F ac C O • , .' ,,'''' . . 1 , ':' ,. . -, : ,- '.'r't....%, 7 d `' E -S.' o cc a) s Z ra L 96f"s ': 0 /// \ 0 ': ..' '.." ,,,,,,.. , / / ,Y., ', . , ... , ,....,,,,,, ,., , ,,, ,..., • , .,n, W, , ,, ,,,..1 , .:,: : ',.'''.' .-.;:,,,, ."* : '..`,"'"'''',Z.' - ''' . 4ir' .:":„ 1' 0 ti I 1: , -°1 ` ). i , ''''' _.....: ''. ,,, . 0 , , -' -,,,.,."'' r , •••••••• If 1 - .-' ' .,,:,.,.,, r g 1 r 6 . .... „. _ „.. :. „ ,,,e, .,. .,, .,srt..irs . ''1.*c;' '''''''' '''''''' ''''''..,,.-1:'''....- 9 � r o t � c)t(/ ...,,,,,::,,, , .,.., ,,,, , . , , ... . , ., 1.1r 1 oo vJ Li t — r - O O t-, z C � of . 2 c v y •-•=1 C o I o £ a N � 61 4 C I ; Y C ` O O d �� O - - r —_ F- a O O' II; Z O 1 C � L "] v c r..51-'"-' 1 \ \-1 1 j i ______________._..._._.[°' _ ,,_,- I- \ _......., t \ ,_ . , f 1 , i , I f , L-- r-- i i _ , i ,p.,,.. 1 k. ) , ,, , i ... j r _ i j \\ 1 i _ , i , _, .,, . .,,,-...„ r' ' I i 6 rzt m ■ i �J -'° r,� j L j ; L r • N N :r cc 2 f H t.r^ v _ u - ,N t- a z o 1 o I nc- V 3 a ., Z a o `, ° a . el ati �'� O o E a e y ; J u p a r v ° i � Q ig m Y �^ Q !N - ' - '''' . .. .-":„...:;;:::!: : L.. -,.' .L:::.: i: : I -'' :I' f ''''''. .'" L ' 1 ' ,.... f 1. ry' if .,..:.,,,..,,,, . , .'' ,......, -.0 .- r. s,,,,,::,,, , ,, ,, _____L__ i ..,:' 0 7 . i '' .,,, * i fl r b ��' ! - r � cz O bi .. ii/r, , L L . . ,, , „,..,' ' � Y o p O o A 0 10`° J_ o ,, 3 ti i t' " ,. ////t/ oo • , 1 , . • ,•<., - ---- , ' , ' , ', • - -- --. //f. , ...4- .- 1� ! ,„ . / I . '' . // . - - , ,.• , ::-.., , ' -I), • ., // • ' ' '''' 1 ' ' .. ::, ,_..,,,..,:::, ,, ...'".1.,•',',:•:'.'''''',.:,''''''..S.*1::','11,',,''',i.....,i.,.:1..... '... l i / . . vl ` it 12 N a s CC N ` .: . , . i v1 � , r M1 iL N • . / I = �T�z`� -� oar 7 d ` o � 2 a a .... h0 ' 1 +��`o�P w ••- 0. m �� P, : O' n 0 4 d v 0 • • wed m o z v ti a © : y g,r o V, ei- a j I o / . 4 n% • I — * � — -- , f o o3 �ro �� r i ,._ 1 111 0 0 �. v. ... s_ _______ o„.. 1 o o o0 s / O 0 ° oho ti I o � .1-..\ i o o 1 00 a , /0// ///,,,, �;Lo \o l /f� irr/r/ 1 1. Tcs / 1 %L CO % L'p 113 Cl/ u C CI) N % l'0 ilk ___, \._ < ,/, N L 3' � t ��.____" I(1r-)1CQ i i i ro �� �.i' � `� s �' 2011 INM Tracks - Runway 35 Arrivals ,:- � ' I Overall Use Ure Percentage L eJ f 1 I r � 0 ' - 0 ' ' ' \ '- - " \\ ,, ,,,,, , „. , ., \ \%, ' o 3 ° O• o a o o o o o 0 1 Q 0 b 1 0° I I $ I i \\\\ I — — - ' 1 a r 1 .: 6 r' ? in i 3 - r - — 1 - 1 1 i , r • Nose The thickness of the INM backs 0 OS 1 2 1:56.....' "Z- o�� as displayed on this map is a ful¢tion I Miffs s °�" o 4' '...° of overall use percentage I ("1 a.. e , Q • v I 7 ft ,.. -,, . _---, iw\ k _ / 4` .,,,.....,---7.:-,--•-- h O _ z. �- Z a 1 - \\\ i '` * 1, \ \\, 1 ° s 1 r i H O y 0 rcv i i 1_ LT —_ — V r N i LL L t i Z O — � , i I .n .. • o r r %. i -- O _ o rNi 1 cy I F 2011 INM ks Arrivals ! oo°!O N I Overall Trac Use Per cent - Runway age 17 Q ., -1 .� _ T — ____�..��,�. o � ( Figure 2.16 i , - ___i rte+ `• f ' ., ,.. t 1 n 1` L- . r w .- v I �_—� � J L i i =.ss m. . .� L_ f i I s 4 � ti / . : 7 � .. " Y / `,, r ,;,. ! s Plate )be ryes the I tyuc - t � ; t ti 1':a 0 OS 1 Z - - , - s� y, �' A P I f afi7 d L 1 t 1 '' -1 'f� /�`O.'a*� ~' . r j o/ovemll use rrenmge ;` 1. Miles t � /� I 1 la 2.1.5 2011 Atmospheric Conditions The MAC gathered atmospheric data for the 2011 actual noise contour from the National Weather Service (NWS). The MAC used the NWS's 2011 annual average temperature of 49.1 degrees Fahrenheit and 2011 average annual wind speed of 7.8 Kts. in the INM modeling process. The MAC also used a 2011 average annual pressure of 29.96 inches and a 2011 annual average relative humidity of 63.8 percent. 2.2 2011 Modeled Versus Measured DNL Levels As part of the 2011 actual noise contour development process, the MAC conducted a correlation analysis comparing the INM -developed 2011 DNL noise contours to actual measured aircraft noise levels at the 39 MAC Noise and Operations Monitoring System (MACNOMS) Remote Monitoring Towers (RMTs) around MSP in 2011. The MAC conducted an INM grid point analysis to determine the model's predicted 2011 DNL noise levels at each of the RMT locations (determined in the 1NM by the latitude and longitude coordinates of each RMT). Table 2.4 provides a comparison of the INM grid point analysis at each MACNOMS RMT site, based on the 2011 actual noise contour as produced with the INM, and the actual MACNOMS monitored aircraft DNLs at those locations in 2011. Table 2.4 MNNEAPOLISST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT The average absolute difference between the 2011 Measured vs. Modeled INM DNL Values at ANOMS RMT Locations 9 Ddfe renre (Modeled modeled and measured DNLs was 1.6 dB (the 2011 Annual 2011 minus Measured) RMT Site Measured DNL (a) Modeled DNL Sign Absolute 2010 average absolute difference was 1.7 dB). 1 55.2 55.8 0.6 0.6 The median difference was 1.3 dB (the 2010 2 56.0 57.0 -1.0 1.0 3 61.8 62.0 0.2 0.2 median difference was 1.1 dB). The MACNOMS 4 60.5 60.3 -0.2 0.2 5 68.0 67.8 -0.2 0.2 RMTs, on average, reported slightly higher DNL 6 69.8 666 -3.2 3.2 levels than the INM model generated. The MAC 9 591 55.9 -3.2 32 believes that this is due in part to the inclusive o o� 98 04 1 0.4 a roach MAC staff has taken in tunin 11 43.9 44.2 0.3 0.3 PP 9 12 38.7 46.8 8.1 8.1 MACNOMS noise- to-track matching parameters. 13 525 54' 1.8 1.6 9 P 14 56.9 59.7 0.8 0.8 This conservative approach, along with the 15 55.3 55.4 0.1 0.1 16 63.2 622 -1.0 1.0 increasing number of quieter jets operating at the 17 46.4 47.3 0.9 0.9 18 56.2 57.2 1.0 1.0 airport, results in increased instances of 19 51.7 52.5 0.8 0.8 20 45.2 48.8 3.6 3.6 community-driven noise events being attributed to 21 46.9 49.9 3.0 3.0 uieter aircraft o eratin at further distances from 22 54.4 55.7 1.3 1.3 q p g za 59.7 59.7 0.0 0.0 the monitoring location. The use of absolute 24 58.1 58.6 0.5 0.5 9 25 50.5 54.0 3.5 3.5 values provides a perspective of total difference 26 51.9 51.1 -0.8 0.8 27 56.7 55.4 -1.3 1.3 between the INM modeled values and the 28 58.0 59.5 1.5 1.5 29 54.0 52.1 -1.9 1.9 measured DNL values provided by MACNOMS in 30 61.3 59.2 -21 2.1 31 47.0 48.6 1.6 1.6 2011. The median is considered the most reliable 32 427 46.0 33 3.3 33 46.9 48.8 1.9 1.9 indicator of correlation when considering the data 34 44.4 47.7 3.3 3.3 variability across modeled and monitored data. 35 53.2 53.4 0.2 0.2 36 53.9 52.4 -1.5 1.5 37 46.2 47.6 1.4 1.4 38 49.1 49.5 0.4 0.4 Overall, the small variation between the actual 39 51.6 50.9 -07 _ 0.7 Average 1.6 MACNOMS monitored aircraft noise levels and Median 1.3 the INM modeled noise levels provides additional AllunOs in dB DNL external system verification that the INM is ( a ) compNedfromdaily DNLs SOURCE MAC RMi d t providing an accurate assessment of the aircraft 13 110 noise impacts around MSP. 2.3 2011 Noise Contour Impacts Based on the 435,076 total operations in 2011, approximately 3,892.2 acres are in the 65 DNL noise contour (a reduction of 102.4 acres from the 2010 actual noise contour) and approximately 9,310.9 acres are in the 60 DNL noise contour (a reduction of 16.8 acres from the 2010 actual noise contour). 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 2011 actual noise contours. The MAC based the counts on the block intersect methodology where all structures on a block that are within or touched by the noise contour are counted. Table2.6 MNNEAPOLIS- ST.PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT Summary 012011 Actual DNL Noise Contour Single FamIly and Matl- Family Urit Courts (Block Intersect Implementation Method. Completed ReflectAll Unis Completed Prior to 211412012) Dwelling Units within DNL (dB) Interval City Count Single Family Multl- Famlty 6064 6549 7044 75t Total 6044 6549 70-74 T5+ Total Minneapolis Completed 5616 1525 - - 7141 2913 474 - - 772 Additional* 363 - - - 363 211 - - - 211 Total 5979 1525 - - 7504 509 474 - - 983 Bloomington Completed 79 2 - - 81 447 618 - - 1065 Additional' - - - - - - - - - T0t31 79 2 - - 81 447 618 - - 1065 Richfield Completed 602 43 - - 645 32 - - - 32 Additional' 22 - - - 22 37 - - 37 Total 624 43 - - 667 69 - - - 69 Eagan Completed 148 1 - - 149 - - - Additi onal• - - - - - - - Total 148 1 - - 149 - - - - - Mendota Heights Completed 54 1 - 55 - - - - Addltlonal• - - - - - - Total 54 1 - - 55 - - - - - All Cities Completed 6499 1572 - - 8071 777 1092 - - 1869 Additional' 385 - - - 385 248 - - - 248 Total 6884 1572 - - 8456 .1025 1092 - - 2117 "Additional mums frith de uretsin the current pmarorn that deckard mitigation or were determined tobemdfgable forportiripotion. The 2011 count of residential units within the actual 60 DNL noise contour that have not received noise mitigation around MSP is 633, a reduction of 53.4 percent from the total of 1,359 based on the 2010 actual noise contours. There are no unmitigated homes in the 2011 actual 65 DNL noise contour around MSP. All homes within the 2011 actual 60+ DNL contours will be mitigated by 2014 by virtue of the noise litigation Consent Decree. This significant reduction is due in large part to a 66.2 percent reduction in hushkitted aircraft operations from 2010 to 2011. A depiction of the 2011 actual noise contour is provided in Figure 2.17. The 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011 actual noise contours are provided in Figure 2.18. The 2011 actual 65 DNL noise contour is 2.6 percent smaller than the 2010 actual 65 DNL noise contour and the 2011 actual 60 DNL noise contour is 0.2 percent smaller than the 2010 actual 60 DNL noise contour. 14 s if1 „..... . .„ .. ” ;. Sd 1 „, . • .... ... ! . .... - . . ... • .. . --:,::- ;--,,--,:, 1 ," , . ..... : .... .. r ...,.,::::.. N.11 . . „,. ..,,, ' "".','"',',' .s.,,,,,, ....',..!,:-,•::::,:. ,,,,,, -'',•':'. 1,1 : .',..,:: t ' 0 „„:.:. ,,, -..,..;.'::.:.„11:-..„„,„--, --:---" 't rl _ ------ - ,Z .,•// „,t,,,„- 1, .-,..,.:::„.,, co 0 - - ": „.....„.., .„,„„ ... .,... , .„ •:,..H-471,i7OVM, ---•••'''''.'::: .. ..g1141•14 :::::.:..............•:,-..........„}..1-... ...:1;:11:..' I ,' :..• A ,%0 • 0 - ...,„ „ .. . . :„. .. , # ,..011 • , , • .. 0 ::•,: ..... , ...... _.._. ..,....,,,,...... ,,. . . . . :: . . , „.„ ....„,„ .. ..... . . ... , _ . „ ... .. . : .. „... ... „ . . 1 , •• • I • :, I ' i ,, : ,: I / . • .. / ,.. N vl .. , ,:: ....„,„.„„ -.---:3!,i.•,-,A7.,'„.,,, , , . , • ,_ 1 ,r,:r-cer'th:o.,„.--.,4,..,'..1,.. -,,zirg,t,:-,:iill.„ .• , , , i, , ;II .. • ------- ,t-,.f., i,...:,,„.„....,:,,,. ..,,,,-,.-- ..,:\.... ..;: / ?:[ • . . . ,.„...._„..-.,,,L,4,-,---7':•--.7:------ 0 : ° co ri..:11111r:::!!t4'-',,,, 0 2 „,,,, ,.. „ „ - ----- ::, 4- 2 1 •• r ::; -1:-...: :: - i'l.:,,.,. ,,,,, •! C AE.:1,-,•,:,-1111,'.iigli':.`:1',,„ .. ,... N9.4. , ..?!...p7., : iw-5:: . 4 , 7„- , ,.. , ,,...4..(,..., . - 4 ,,--, r\I ' .- 0 a) 7 .S11:;,11:4111E11111!111111111.11:,.:4:\ -''''' V-V ------ -------77::.1171:11- '-: - ' '•-••••••• ---'-g'..'•:-.---4'fi-,!-:,::,-41111111110:11::--::,-,...... \,1 , f p: ,, , ,, . - , ,, . -- t.! --- !Eilili,: , ,:::":1-'': :: :::aiii-: • ,.„,--: 1:-.',11 - , .... o al --,---:.,4:1 .0:F.::: , . : ::: ,-, A[5 , ,,sliklit , ..--„,, - ,-: : :. 7c,..\ ..,*.t1.,,,,,m.,:,,,. , .4b.. ,,,, , ,, m.,„: , :.• -,-, ,-.. -t • I -,,,,,, , • 5....,.:..R.,,,,,,,„.:11-..,..,..., III ,— 03 i-7-. • , n _ '-'91111,!';i1,„:,1::-,I,K11.1'.-iiii!!!-.:- H i ... kg. 11 :' ,,, ,:' , -:),-, () Oi'N'.:.•':,.'i'''.-- .---',.''',1:'''''''''''''---,:-:- r„ , ,. ; 1 II 2:„4:c 0 •..-.. N _ = ...,,,,,,,,T,J,-„,,,,..:•„:.:..,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,:i.,,,::,,, !,„., , N-: .„,, ,• ._,' [-„,„.1 .. 4 , i, .,.- .„....., • . „„„.. „ - u r- < . - .::-•:- ' 1'. 1.::: ., ,-- • ,:,-••••=:- C' ,f ''',,,,,. :,1 '..,•.:•••,i;.. ,.: — 0 ( .1 — 1 " - L. , ,,,,,,,Iiitx::,;,4111:111:lilicfax,:....: .,,,. -40 ii c) . Ir f 4 eh ' Ir.i-,',-ik..::11:111:1111ININE Vgi2 - - -, gs: ---:::-:...-c*'•,,, • , -,,,,,,,,,47-,' - i'. , .', , ' --, - . 0 ,., IIP:11; 11 ,....,. lk..1211111:1111111111111111i11111'iP.111.•!7'-a-''40'"1:-*.'10;11F'.1,,:ill'iRl!'". ' 't 4:21: : , .gln::::; , , '. .:::::::: ' 7.:- .i.u.,,i,: .:,::.,- ,..0.:: „:„;.,,:,,..,„:„-:„ _ 111 iiiiiVIWAI.2: .J-r .. , *j.; "SO,' - ;' , .' 1:- ' : : : ; : 1- 1- t 11:-.:.-jliii,,,- ....._ . 11 ..... :.,.._ ::: ... _.: _ /„.„ .„, ,,, . - _ .„....:„.„ ,._ . . . , .,,.. 741.1fiagi:3::: ,.14:-P:' . ,.., .9'n11 ,-, , , P")'' ' ' , ..„. *:,,...4. ,V .,-:`-..":',-- -'''''':''':: : t""' :: r..r4 --.--.:'*: :::-::: 4'1- -.:',•.:::-::-,;RIEe':.:4';''.4,,:'::::::,,,,!:::1::M::::.::!:',:1:2'-':'":1,',.;; :,,,,,,,........ , _ _ : ., :.,1 c,,O. 444: 1 '-,:':: ,:.:...., ; . ,1 .:,::::,,,,'' „,,.,,,,,,,,,...:,,, ...,:.i.g.,,i71..,...kl.:::,44,,,g,g,:„.1... :.:.:-A 6.: 8 , „-.:• .;i..i.11111',..-.::' ,.,:iiiii§,Al•IgAII.E4,4,--.::14:1:-;-.V.SAIIiii.11.11111:;,:INii:P'J.!n!k.'„„,., ,..„. ,. ,.,... 1A31) :.::••r - :.f - .: : .' . ,.... ,,,1"::-.,.:::,-i,::i:'•-;•RP] ..' .--,:•- ,-..--'4';':!..,--7-i.:7-1:::-!:.E.:-..:::gosize.1-3T,::111E-11,-.-,E:li-:::::::::::::::,,,,-:::„------ _ „„ .,.. . i , 1, ..,,. .1: $ g .....„,:d11V111110.,:gg:::.:::::.,--,:',:g::::::-:-.::::',-:,...---..,::.10.':J" ,,...::-.:-.'::-."--: -.--"" t-::::'• :::::::,:-.- :''(:1;::''''Ilt.--A 'N. . :4 iii._.„,,,,,g,-1.1,7-4.i.:!::::01-1!111J11:1:111:imoilm"":-.,:::::::::o:::!:imikild11,11::::,,. ..,,„:::::pIi:ak-,::::I::41-S---4:4-i0:;-:.g.::--;:i'-i---..---.-''.-.1::::::11":41:-P:'-',-.:::•-'--"--:----' ,':,, . ..,,,g3- !„,-: f,' '.... ' :Ei , .1-.F- '--'-'''''',-.-,i..-',.:.1:11:11E-111:E11111::-..,.:1111i::::--,1:1111-ivac.NiniNi,.„,., !!!!;-,'::::,;',„;,,,geltnE-:? /1.4e,F::::::!::!1:1-111 iti 2 Afl...a1P:/:,,.;".4-----,•4„-:`'',',,,,,4'. :,',',"":i-1,1"':,:-:,'7,:i--1-["-"i '''''' ' '''''',:,-: '-'-',1:-:',-;:-"'-'1,-:-A--- :es'''''N-r-':':-::::::::-.'"-::::',::-,':'0,"tc:111':-'1:41fill3::::' 77,Agri:71.14': killi,c)11'1:k:' 1. \ ,•:-, ..•-/ .,/:.,,::,iii:::-: if!,..-:ril.::,.,":...,:Sc-'-.::::,:-,.1,,:rt.V-4:‘ - --', -::-.---- ,::„..:s ,,01;;;? ,, -;:::::,,..:. ..!.. 1„:.,,,„kiii.lf[..,,,,,,„.„, _....,,A,::,.,:„.iro-,.,.:',u,i.v ;:,.'...,,..,.,,-411.::::-.:7:'-:-----;----.1.-:::::::.,7::::::,:lkiL,'::-::„]:,•.: 1 1. ''''"' - ': .- :....,4Vi.:,t ..•7*-;-.-.„7.7...7„..ii:N1,,i,:- `.... - - - . , - - , ngE:!:,,::,;:,, ..,--- . ,,',1,,-.y.--:::,.,,,Iigil!TI',:ii.!: „.......„..;77--..,.,.:::::::.,.:4,4.,;:,-.4--„E....;,... ...y•, r., , p.,11111N E. 4 / , r • i::, ' .: - ' ,1 :iii i, - - ,' *- i ' 41# ')..'.g:::, jitl''::'i.'47:.:1S;::' ---':i.f.:,':-.I::'::: o. ''.. -----"•- •••••••*;-...,■:,!:':ih,.,:::':'....--Ii42%--.4.6]':<;r110-'':11---'''''''''',...:C...'-'---E'''',---. .„. -,,,,illi4: f / • „:: :,:-., .,..„..:' . . 4111% t''- „ 0 i JP!*...11L4N - '4."-:-' ' 1.:X': .- . i''' s'N. : ilt.9140 .. 1 :.,1,4,0.,•••••s-,-;.:4.,:::-..:- .-..:*-1.7.::::%.,".....,;-:-=.,s..-.,:... ..-...,:::T..-::::.,=.....:. c - -,4. -,!,-- :'' - , , . .-]',..:.,: - „"4. , , ,:,.,::,•:, . -, ,s-:-...., ::::::: il , , =--' r "0-..i: r -..1".., d ...-.:...-:;.-1.:t-.-,--:::-,::..t.".1'.'•':':-...-..:-.--iigif.41,..-::-:--.-:;. -lf,':: .,..12: ..1.':- ... c . 1.,', 11 o 1 ' , s , „ o:," ---- . . ::..P.Ii:;;.*:r''''''" . 4T'' # I 0 .:„,---- , :r.!...!!!.;,:..! :,.:5!-.r:111:ifjp ,:, .....!,..t - i 1:. / i, ta,,,,,-.::::::,].)::,:,•::::: ' . : ■-.,--, r"A--: ,s.. 1 o Ed „I: • '• H'r • A ..7...,,/.1,,° • .:. --...,.. --. u .P,',1:411:01 • i:'•• , .• ' •••••,,,11'..F.:.0 4.04 i - '------,,......,,....,.......„=,,,,,,,,...,,,,,,........=............,....... .k:F..44'.."..,::„•,:::.v..,-. ; , il. • ::,,,,„.. " - - - [ • :i •,,,,,,,'"XWd'''=1 . .4 ,4,,.17:7.-;%7::';'. :::'V':,;I"--; .:.1;:,-:'.i.:',..,:-..:;..', -1 E 1 :,:':'::,..,: .... --,.-_,.=•••yr-.."'''''...1!., „ • '': '''-' ...... -,,,,4-, :.. -, :::; , '.7,::',".:Lt:s:". - 5::F.f:::: . :LE: t - '-'-'. .., :: ,........... ; 1,, 1 . ,_ ., : ... , , ... 1 1:;. ......: , ,-;•,,,..' - 5....c, 4 -,.::::i;• -!..'•:i0 '---] ,,,, ::, 2'" .;11:::',';','''''': '■.,.' ...„7-,„-,•-•:" li, 0 .. ,, -...,:. l 0., - •:• - 3 - / Ir- .,, ---,, ,.... a 1 ii:,,,;::-.:.,r..H...,:g,.--,• ,:.-..::",•,,,,',..01',..4,0v.,11-,-iillikr,:if,,,i1 ,. ---,._••••••••••.„„„,,,...,::::„..„:„.„.„-„,:z.,,- .,: - --,- „..:,....._,:„.....„,........... (y ..,. . . I f , ,, .:•...„..,....:..„,:::- Chapter 3 Comparison of the 2011 Actual Noise Contour and the 2007 Forecast Noise Contour This chapter provides a detailed comparative analysis of the 2011 actual and 2007 forecast mitigated noise contours, focusing on the significant noise modeling variables and noise impacts at MSP. 3.1 Comparison of 2011 Actual and 2007 Forecast Noise Contour Inputs 3.1.1 Integrated Noise Model Considerations To develop the actual 2011 contour the MAC used Integrated Noise Model (INM) Version 7.0b, which incorporates new lateral attenuation capabilities and updates to noise and performance data for commercial aircraft, updates to substitution aircraft data, and corrections to minor software issues. The MAC developed the 2007 forecast mitigated contour using INM Version 6.1. When comparing the 2007 forecast mitigated noise contour to the 2011 actual noise contour, the MAC notes that the new lateral attenuation capabilities that were incorporated into the previous 7.0 INM update have the effect of increasing the size of the 2011 actual noise contour by as much as 3 -10 percent over what INM 6.1 would have modeled. 3.1.2 Aircraft Operations and Fleet Mix Comparison Table 3.1 provides a comparison of total MSP operations by operational category used in the 2007 forecast mitigated noise contour and the 2011 actual noise contour. Table 3.1 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 2007 Mitigated Forecast vs. 2011 Actual Component 2011 Actual* 1 2007 Forecasted Scheduled Passenger Air Carrier (a) 396,002 523,472 Cargo 12,203 21,158 Charter 161 5,766 GA 23,786 28,846 Military 2,924 3,124 TOTAL 435,076 582,366 Notes: (a) Includes both air carrier and regional carrier operations * Based on actual year -to -date 2011 MACNOMS data adjusted to match FAA ATADS data (to account for unavailable MACNOMS operations data). 15 l l�} As is indicated in Table 3.1, the 2011 actual total MSP operations number of 435,076 represents a 25.3 percent reduction from the 2007 forecast mitigated total operations number of 582,366. Scheduled passenger air carrier and cargo operations accounted for the majority of the reduction. However, it is notable that charter operations are 97.2 percent below the 2007 forecast mitigated number. Table 3.2 provides a comparison of the 2007 forecast mitigated noise contour fleet mix and the 2011 actual noise contour fleet mix. An assessment of average daily operations per aircraft type with daytime and nighttime operation statistics is provided. Table 3.2 MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT Comparison of 2007 Ntigated Forecast Fleet Mx and 2011 Actual Fleet Mx Average Daily Operations Day Night Total Difference 2007 2011 2007 2011 2007 2011 Forecast Group Aircraft Type Forecast Actual Forecast Actual Forecast Actual and Actual Manufactured/Re- engined Stage 3 Jet A300 -622R 4.8 0.1 4.2 0.1 9.1 0.2 8.9 A300B4203 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 A310 -304 1.4 0.0 1.3 0.0 2.7 0.0 2.7 A318 5.7 0.0 0.5 0.0 6.2 0.0 6.2 A319 -131 149.1 69.8 3.9 4.7 153.0 74.5 78.5 A320 -211 173.4 85.0 16.5 10.7 189.9 95.7 94.2 A321 -232 0.0 3.2 0.0 1.3 0.0 4.5 -4.5 A330 6.2 4.4 0.0 0.2 6.2 4.6 1.6 A340 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 2.1 ASTR 2.3 0.0 0.2 0.0 2.5 0.0 2.5 B717-200 7.3 11.9 1.0 2.0 8.3 13.9 -5.6 B737- 300 48.2 12.9 3.5 1.3 51.7 14.1 37.6 5737 -400 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 -0.2 5737 -500 5.7 2.2 0.5 0.6 6.2 2.8 3.4 5737 -700 7.8 23.0 0.5 6.3 8.3 29.3 -21.0 B737 -800 65.5 38.8 12.6 13.6 78.1 52.5 25.6 B737 -900 5.7 0.0 0.5 0.0 6.2 0.0 6.2 B747 -100 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 B747 -200 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 -0.1 B747 -400 1.9 1.7 0.2 0.0 2.1 1.7 0.4 B757-200 88.4 45.7 8.6 8.5 97.1 54.2 42.9 B757 -300 34.1 17.5 1.1 1.4 35.1 18.9 16.2 B767 -200 1.2 0.6 0.5 0.0 1.7 0.6 1.1 B767 -300 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 4.9 -4.9 B767-400 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.6 0.0 2.0 -2.0 B777 -200 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 -0.4 B777 -300 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 BA46 74.3 0.0 2.2 0.0 76.5 0.0 76.5 BEC400 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.6 -1.6 16 115 .. C500 1.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.4 0.0 1.4 C650 4.9 0.0 0.6 0.0 5.5 0.0 5.5 C750 4.6 0.0 0.3 0.0 4.9 0.0 4.9 CARJ/CL601 264.1 378.5 14.7 22.7 278.8 401.2 -122.4 CL600 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.0 -1.0 CNA500 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 -0.2 CNA501 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 -0.1 CNA525 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 -0.9 CNA550 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.7 -0.7 CNA551 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 CNA560 0.0 5.5 0.0 0.4 0.0 5.9 -5.9 CNA650 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 3.3 -3.3 CNA750 0.0 5.8 0.0 0.5 0.0 6.3 -6.3 DC10 9.6 3.4 3.8 1.8 13.4 5.2 8.2 DC820 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 DC860 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 DC87 0.0 1.1 1.4 1.2 1.4 2.3 -0.9 E145 45.3 0.0 0.2 0.0 45.5 0.0 45.5 EMB135 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 -0.3 EMB145 0.0 19.3 0.0 2.9 0.0 22.2 -22.2 EMB170 0.0 147.7 0.0 7.7 0.0 155.4 -155.4 EMB190 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.2 0.0 2.7 -2.7 F10062 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GLF4 2.6 0.0 0.2 0.0 2.8 0.0 2.8 GLF5 0.8 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.9 0.8 0.1 GLFIV 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.5 -1.5 HS125 0.0 3.7 0.0 0.2 0.0 3.9 -3.9 IA1124 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 IA1125 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 -0.3 L101 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 LEAR31 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 D.3 -0.3 LEAR35 26.0 2.5 2.3 0.3 28.4 2.9 25.5 LEAR45 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.7 -1.7 LEAR55 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 -0.1 LEAR60 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.9 -0.9 MD11GE 0.3 1.3 0.4 1.4 0.7 2.7 -2.0 MD81 0.5 33.7 0.0 2.0 0.6 35.7 -35.1 MD83 17.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 18.6 0.0 18.6 MD9025 0.0 56.0 0.0 3.3 0.0 59.3 -59.3 M U300 7.2 0.0 0.6 0.0 7.8 . 0.0 7.8 SABR65 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 SBR2 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.4 Total 1070.5 996.6 84.3 97.8 1155.0 10946 60.4 17 11CO Hushkit 727Q 8.0 0.3 6.4 0.4 14.4 0.7 13.7 Stage 3 Jet 737Q 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 -0.1 BAC111 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 DC9Q 245.3 20.4 15.3 0.7 260.5 21.1 239.4 Total 253.3 20.8 21.7 1.1 274.9 21.9 253.0 Microjet CNA510 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 -0.2 Total 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 -0.2 Stage 2 FAL10 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 -0.1 Less than FAL200 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.8 0.0 1.4 -1.4 75,000 lb. MTOW FAL20A 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.1 1.7 0.9 0.8 Gil 2.1 1.4 0.2 0.1 2.3 1.5 0.8 GIII 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 -0.1 LEAR24 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 LEAR25 2.1 0.0 0.4 0.0 2.5 0.0 2.5 SABR75 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 5.2 3.0 1.3 1.0 6.5 4.0 2.5 Propeller A748 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ATR42 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 1.4 -1.4 BAEJ41 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 BEC100 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 BEC190 0.0 4.6 0.0 0.3 0.0 4.9 -4.9 BEC200 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.2 -1.2 BEC23 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 BEC24 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 BEC300 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 -0.3 BEC30B 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 • 0.2 -0.2 BEC33 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 -0.2 BEC55 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 BEC58 14.3 0.2 4.7 0.0 19.0 0.3 18.7 BEC60 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 BEC65 0.0 6.4 0.0 1.8 0.0 8.2 -8.2 BEC76 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 BECSO 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.3 0.0 1.9 -1.9 BEC90 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.8 -0.8 BEC95 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 BEC99 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.6 0.0 3.2 -3.2 BL26 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 CNA150 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 CNA170 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 CNA172 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 -0.1 CNA177 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 CNA180 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 CNA182 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18 ill . CNA185 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 CNA205 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 CNA206 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 -0.1 CNA208 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.0 -1.0 CNA210 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 CNA303 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 CNA310 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 -0.2 CNA320 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 CNA337 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 CNA340 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 -0.1 CNA401 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 CNA402 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 -0.8 CNA404 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 CNA414 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 -0.2 CNA421 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 -0.1 CNA425 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 CNA441 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 -0.2 DHC6 22.5 0.0 4.4 0.0 26.8 0.0 26.8 DHC8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 D0328 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 -0.1 EMB110 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 FK27 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 GASEPF 1.3 0.3 0.3 0.0 1.6 0.3 1.3 GASEPV 3.7 0.2 0.5 0.0 4.3 0.2 4.1 GULF1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 -0.2 M20J 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 -0.3 MU2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 PA22 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 PA23AZ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 PA24 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 PA28 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 PA31 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.6 -0.6 PA32 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 -0.1 PA34 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 -0.2 PA42 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 PA44 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 PA46 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 -0.1 PA60 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 RVVCM69 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 SAMER2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 SAMER3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 . 0.0 0.1 -0.1 SAMER4 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 3.6 -3.6 SD330 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19 SF340 93.3 37.6 5.9 2.3 99.2 39.9 59.3 Total 135.2 63.7 15.8 6.9 151.0 71.1 79.9 Helicopter A109 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 B206L 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 B212 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 B222 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 EC130 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 R22 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 S70 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Military Jet C130 7.8 0.0 0.2 0.0 8.0 0.0 8.0 C17 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 C5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 C9A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 F-18 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 F16GE 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 F5E 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 KC135 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T -38A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T34 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T37 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 T38 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 U21 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 8.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 8.5 0.0 8.5 Total Operations _ 1472.4 1084.2 123.3 106.8 1595.9 1191.8 404.1 In general, many of the aircraft types operating at MSP showed a reduction in the number of average daily operations from the 2007 forecast mitigated to the 2011 actual operations statistics. Manufactured Stage 3 aircraft average daily operations in the 2011 actual statistics were down 5.2 percent from the 2007 forecast mitigated number. The hushkitted Stage 3 average daily operations in the 2011 actual statistics were down 92.0 percent from the 2007 forecast mitigated number. In total, the 2011 actual average daily number of operations was 1,191.8, which is a 25.3 percent reduction from the 2007 forecast mitigated of 1,595.5 operations. Nighttime operations decreased by 16.5 average daily operations from the 2007 forecast mitigated to the 2011 actual operations statistics. 3.1.3 Runway Use Comparison Table 3.3 provides a comparison of the 2007 forecast mitigated noise contour and the 2011 actual noise contour runway use percentages. 20 lt d .: Table 3.3 MINNEAPOLISST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 2011 Actual and 2007 Mitigated Forecast Runway use Comparison Day Night Total 2007 2011 2007 2011 2007 2011 Op Type Runway Fcst. Actual Fcst. Actual Fcst. Actual Arrivals 4 0.0% 0.1% 3.8% 0.1% 0.3% 0.1% 12L 21.8% 19.1% 17.2% 16.8% 21.4% 18.9% 12R 14.7% 18.2% 12.4% 24.9% 14.5% 18.8% 17 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.3% 22 0.5% 0.3% 2.4% 0.2% 0.6% 0.3% 30L 21.1% 18.5% 25.1% 31.9% 21.4% 19.7% 30R 25.1% 23.6% 26.4% 23.7% 25.2% 23.6% 35 16.9% 19.8% 12.7% 2.3% 16.5% 18.4% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Departures 4 0.2% 0.2% 0.4% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 12L 8.9% 12.1% 14.1% 21.6% 9.3% 13.0% 12R 15.9% 5.2% 18.3% 22.8% 16.1% 6.9% 17 37.2% 23.7% 34.6% 15.6% 37.0% 22.9% 22 0.1% 0.1% 0.8% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 30L 15.0% 29.9% 12.8% 21.3% 14.8% 29.1% 30R 22.7% 28.8% 19.2% 18.4% 22.4% 27.8% 35 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Overall 4 0.1% 0.9% 2.1% 0.9% 0.3% 0.9% 12L 15.3% 11.6% 15.6% 12.9% 15.4% 11.7% 12R 15.3% 13.7% 15.3% 23.5% 15.3% 14.6% 17 18.6% 12.0% 171% 7.6% 18.5% 11.6% 22 0.3% 1.4% 1.6% 0.3% 0.4% 1.3% 30L 18.0% 24.3% 19.0% 30.6% 18.1% 24.9% 30R 23.9% 23.6% 22.8% 22.4% 23.8% 23.5% 35 8.4% 12.5% 6.4% 1.7% 8.3% 11.5% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Note: Runway use for 2007 forecast reflects Part 150 mitigated 2007 runway use. Totals may not add up to 100% due to rounding. SOURCES: MACNOMS data was used to calculate runway use for 2011 Actual. Runway use for 2007 forecast was obtained from the November 2004 Part 150 document. A general evaluation of the runway use percentages in Table 3.3 indicates that use of Runway 17 for departure operations is well below the percentage use numbers forecasted in the 2007 mitigated scenario. The departure percentage on Runways 30L and 30R are notably higher, and the departure percentages on Runway 12R are notably lower, than what was forecasted in the 2007 forecast mitigated scenario. The nighttime departure percentage on Runway 17 is significantly lower, and the Runways 30L and 12L nighttime departure percentages are significantly higher, than the levels forecasted in the 2007 forecast mitigated scenario. The 2011 total arrival percentages correlated fairly well with the 2007 forecast mitigated scenario. However, nighttime arrival percentages on Runways 12R and 30L are significantly higher, and significantly lower on Runway 35, than the levels forecasted in the 2007 forecast mitigated scenario. 21 riL0 3.1.4 Flight Track Considerations As detailed in Section 2.1.4, the INM flight tracks the MAC used to develop the 2011 actual noise contour are identical to those used for the 2010 actual noise contour. The tracks are also consistent with those used previously to develop the 2007 forecast mitigated noise contour, with the exception of Runways 17, 35, and 4 departure tracks. The MAC updated the INM departure tracks to conform to actual radar flight track data for Runway 17 and the use of Runways 35 and 4 during the 2009 reconstruction of Runway 12U30R. The MAC used the same analysis methodologies for developing the 2011 INM flight track operation statistics as in the previous annual reports. The radar -to-INM flight track correlation process that the MAC used to develop the 2011 actual noise contour employs a best -fit analysis of the radar flight track data based on linear trends. This approach provides the ability to directly match each radar flight track to the appropriate INM track. This approach provides the ability to interpret similarities along a track analyzing all INM tracks as core tracks. The most notable changes in the contours from the 2007 forecast mitigated to the 2011 actual noise contour scenarios is a significant reduction of the Runway 30R northbound departure heading lobe in the noise contour, a slight extension of the contour arrival lobe on Runway 12R and a significant reduction in the Runway 12L arrival lobe. The reduction in the Runway 30R northbound departure heading lobe is primarily a result of a reduced number of operations from the 2007 forecast. The slightly larger arrival lobe on Runway 12R is a function of higher nighttime arrival operations on that runway, while the significant reduction in the Runway 12L arrival lobe in the contour is a result of lower arrival operations on that runway. 3.1.5 Atmospheric Corxiitions Comparison The MAC used an average annual temperature of 47.7 degrees Fahrenheit and an average annual wind speed of 5.3 Kts. in the 2007 forecast mitigated INM contour modeling process. The MAC also used an average annual pressure of 29.90 inches and an annual average relative humidity of 64 percent. As stated in Section 2.1.5, for the 2011 actual noise contour the MAC used a 2011 annual average temperature of 49.1 degrees Fahrenheit and a 2011 average annual wind speed of 7.8 Kts. in the INM modeling process. In addition, the MAC used a 2011 average annual pressure of 29.96 inches and a 2011 annual average relative humidity of 63.8 percent 3.2 Comparative Integrated Noise Model Grid Point Analysis The MAC used the INM to conduct a grid point analysis based on the 2007 forecast mitigated noise contour and 2011 actual noise contour INM input files. The MAC used INM Version 6.2a for the 2007 forecast mitigated noise contour grid point analysis because this was the oldest version of INM available to MAC staff to conduct the analysis in early 2008 when the annual noise contour report process began at MSP. When comparing the DNL values generated for the MACNOMS RMT locations with INM 6.1 in the November 2004 Part 150 Update Document to the levels generated for those same locations with INM 6.2a, the differences were insignificant. The MAC generated DNL values for the center points of each city block included in the mitigation programs outlined in the Consent Decree. Figures 3.1 to 3.5 depict the 2011 actual grid point analysis area and the DNL levels calculated for each block by city. Figures 3.6 to 3.10 depict the 2007 forecast mitigated grid point analysis area and the DNL levels calculated for each block by 22 121 n_n t il in�_• . , �� ‘‘i 1_na -a ® =t I hulfig litiii� -__ ® > 0, mi*u� lusn- n Inii. -�_ H _ l'''' N n ■ ■ ■ C � .1.11111111. r " v B N a Z ° i i� ini� �1� �L 3 .....1. ' 7 7 Z a / ;;! � �� - 11111 fin , scjigi * ft) A .... . 1 ; ,-, * k ........ ® ,y'tl 1 antis- A vid • i 11111 I PA . Rji ,vi A. = 11111► 1 'z _ .r i� A; ,. ,. ; {/ 11a < 1 1 r - �_ ti Ilk z - iv y -r _ _ �. [I ,,,,-„,„,...„„4„.1........ 11( ' ' - 1 f II111 • . 1 la nu 11 " ' � , � • � � � a j1 _ ill � . � ►� " l', t �(1 , B . . __ �1 r W l ® " 1!111111 11 r t-' _ �■1 Il !111 �i( 1 � ~- .- -- i � � ' �. f 11 � � Ir s..._,, ° . ? y I� i 1 y! „,11 , 1,v , v ..11°Iij -• ' 11!!!11 1 , i . 111 x11111 _ I�. . '— N ... t , r 1 ■ I ra '� F e L � !t___ i_ _it___i s — __ , ;. 11 �, < w - , � � Zit/ ai I N. 1 ._ - -- j is __ �,. s .� k __7 �_ �, a �> +4 lir j {{ a My l �M - r _ � ��r " r rte!' �' ~ `ti` O` �' L . � ..... s7 -� „,,_., , - _ t_ i d �� i . i• __ i - - - -- - A =NM mewl �__- a- - - - - a att- ittt•att�t vz - -_ cc "MM.”' i __ i ttli _ _ __ L C ftt�_ _ nAl m� v . _ ttt - itte i ll♦ ttt� _-_ e - ,r a �'� I.' ■. �_ttt- tt_ C ` gm ■s ( p i O its =__ — __ - -- _--�� ....."--° _— i _ , ♦ - i - - -- - - -- --- ttt - ttt� - -a V P'1 9 ___a - >•__ _ttt - mot- __ _ a_ _sttt- tilt.__ tti■ Q v s -- - , n 3. I - - - - - - -- -fit Ck e- =IL.' 19 _nom II E___ ,- x_, ___� . - — __ _ - SS ir �___ _ _ ' ___ a_—_ aim � i ..... `�- o �__— _ —r� __ s -� � _� " �____�__ lilt ►• a ii�__ � _� — _ +. as . __ —__— _ ill s _ i � _ -. t" •III am � "� " � _ - _� ♦ � � - + a _ = t _ �� __ a . _ _mil I ■__ = =- a __ �� hong VON.. MEN atom •11 I7� i u - -� ._ .-..- - --,_.. A...... •'_ /C09� 965 °'-"- ... - ........» -.. - t '� Gm 1 co ma I 523 Sga r GE) 13M Otl m I I I 4C3 II I sm smI cca 11a oia) t311: 03:I till //�� co) co) GR ��gg;;��:�1 NOI9 NIWOOlg a BES BES els) Cim Ei� 0 ; " L ES /p er �cm , , Hltl I �' Wit OS3 L9 9'09 �' H10t Hitt lOfll3 1 in -, --- %t ----��-- 09YD(H9 . Sllavvnlo7l IIIIII Na � ��� pPKt N31 ' au) r ate, BSr� ill) III' ma `... NOINI9? paE z'Q ON - ,. ;c SN3:A?1S a res is i I IBS z 193f HlUOMlN3M' of _J J GM 0:3 p � 1 A8 lB 9i d 0 1NYSYTd :' o ONYa9— i 9'85 _ L LL�� 9 m 131aaYH n _ ' [ . a�S , "'L 3f1 b9� , � v � � s /::; s U c;-- `^ 9 , s � o� - 9a nBS9nY- - 3IYONAI- 9 0 � � 3npa H9I8014 N > 1,. 9 > ep S' El 441.t° 3by, 1NYAaE— 0 u S ' - XYilO�- � Fl 41 SLS �' pOO4 1NOdll6 J ` Ov N05631 v .... IN " i 0649:1ID" - f(f Q I ' I /1J Y .1 _ .....,:it ‹).--- ,...... 1 „,,... IA „ Z 01 C 0 ` O a ail Y •0 o a -C3 .a7.. j -- , x '695 574..,E , IbtrLi ,..,./' i '6 c I lipo 4 'r 0 c Q L r+1 4:_c), t is o-, ,,,� s 0,, 1,,,I,L...1: Lri IP , 58.6 .n i • , I P 4O F / . \ 7, Lij ri t , Y t G1 a1 v ors . A ; Q fir 1 ; L M ° ,, �_ I a i • i f __._ ,_,...., �' AMA smn 9` � L ss 4u�q"g =. - j - w �3 ■ _ 1111 1 m t ci r�5 2.6....5...o9 L 65 --...—•-----73— v 1 ,_ .J � ''9ss N e � ` 'ter- Z ( � J' .. , . ,.. .. ,.„,.. IL:'-'-: -g, , ® . y O C, a al . , ., p ■ !itc'IL: ' , ... .::, . .. : ........ .. ,..,.... ... .... ,,,, - . . , m cu II Iv o M � r anzeii. , O " al 4 N s s� �1� fr ■1 i[ r , ' -, „,, 4....9., . ,:...,:,.,,:,...,,, lig ..-.,_ ..--"'''','. '.„ ."::- ;.: , :Ii, z.,,, ‘i \ . 47:it,: ,,,, 1.,, , _ , .. . I L : ,.. \t,. ) , — 7 .. ‘1 s , 4; Crl '6.-: - -: . ul l� r u igi,:i. ,. 1: ii,, ,.„' • �' 1111 f ', ' 11 I. Tu cu 411 1 ,. l'.';,....„-. ''''7 ..•"-**`%. ''' ' -.',.;:','''''' .',' ':" :. " 1 ' " ' . ...- - - ' I/ ! ■ �=r7 I1 ■n' c- 41 a III �; . = cs ,.... „ ,. 1 as so _mom ®® ... i' . .- .... -,, g-. ...- ' .,,.-,: -,,, . ' i-... , L. , !,. %.,,,,, - 4-14,,,---,;),4:-,::,:=Tr. r I ariox e� . v im `� . e i t :f ,,,,,;„,„7„„,,,,,,.,,,,,, _,,,,,,,,,„:,:ii..;,,...,..,:s .:.:-...■._ I __ ;,:-.,-:::',--_-_,,,,..._,- i:::.„,,,,,,:.,,,,,2.:-. :-,;',::,.----''.- 1�1e 1 \ Ems _ —� -- =ate— r — • ■ _ - _ - c - a ih:� ...• E 1 �� N...., .....,.• t �. 1�' . _ ... _. . _. .. -: . . -. -:. _ ._ ., .,..o t _ l �a _ __ - - _ -�__ _ -� i ■.ter �■ __ _ _ . .......... ' : e � • -� ,.� - - � -- - ' — �� ■ a m ■ - - =: ' ' :' gy .4 .- : = C , = .T %_- i A 1 ■____ ___ - - i � _ � ■ - - - - I 3 't � - -- - -� — _ � ii i _ . �.�,__ ,..� _ =■ i _ -- :.+ — c_ .: '..t- ..,.� .: — _ ; . � ■ � � • NMI . - -_--- — - - - 1 �`1j . . 1 � -- _-- - � +^, � __ �,' 'rte . ii _ ._ _ _ r x _ _ w•� i I ofo +.• 1.1..„„.• .44.- 4:10.1-1.1-01.1.1.•-.1- ? m' - .1.,' - ,0,',1,,p)..„ - ,,,t, -V LA '''.;;`:,,,,,, — ,. 10 0. \ , v .:6 111111111111111/1111/11111111111111. (1 — / - - - ---_ i t i . f A Mil `� w n t �- -� - -1� r . , b � : g a \J M_ ill IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII j.-- - - -�-- A�l- -- r 0 ,`:°"-- ...-' tre. 4 4 S 1111 - -�� ,, ,.'., , 'Hi a 4a9 t— ( t II • C m IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII fll Sy zz9 L- U ' s' AMIN imam � � 1 l 2 C '& -� MINN a 9'65 (_� 1 0 0 �� -� Le � a se � - �3 1 o s — I. �= Lm� 1 ' 1 l 1 �� £6Ss 865 11Vii t(��t � l ' Q —� x £ 65 b 1 SStr�� 11 �� 11 � Q�'r� ®t1 � r e� ^ an y to -- 10-±1- r� it co; o 1 o w EZ9 top lam) li ®-1 0'89 1 CO S ' 0' 669 T1, as ` , J , L t i v L '[ 0v9! imam irc) rL9t ISE - 06 5 565 t.� tLyy lC9 f65 8' S6 4Z E L'£9 � 4'09 � O b9 ',. ... _._ �. O'65p 965 , Z09 �`1 `^z f � ��, f 989 0'L9 " • Lam E i{ _ � ,' s9 _g E `Og91 I - _ X065 '[ � -' -' � J �L � ,., � w�.� C B S t 09 i �l /� ���" ® f±D� 01� ' CZ i..E7�'i?_l {im ; 0 '09 } 1. � 1 ��L"`° [-BED-71101 re9 1_� �_�� r r'49 - 't• { i .. �` I�illL gg ` I �1�? - II c49 r I { . � �� LL9��, � � ,,, � , l � � �. � ��.� 9'a' imxiiiti, 7�i i �— o49 t.49 �3an 7 � � i " 89 c EL9 ��l M1 7F�L B orb 1 763) Lt9 . .:4'09, 42- -1 / a; :tt } r2 u� �� E - .79 • 66 - 09 l i :I 1r 1L�LC# ! ' "'�°1� •• { b59 /� ' 09 R9 9fi — - c�v` U l i an;1 ��1 11 r L —[Ir 1 I�Gm �o�� bb r , rte �i X11 lr�l �u�� t6 — .. W '1 - 1Lc� -11 ll cID l Tt f#�� "' 1 1 re:-,1 I ! i 6'B 0'6S 809 4Z9 £09 -.• `O �- i 6;£9 . E49 g49 �i ' ,' .q E65 r1.9 _ g._�.9� 44, 5'59 � �D't9' L09 r.,... L'65t1� #_1; _ZZ9 ��9j. _ { S Z9 r!) 9'99-141W �'�,+ ' : j 409 / F95 - OCCI FAbil 8'09 I , to 'I,..„..,____.,, , - - - - ' L'8S 5;09 ) - m.3A t r. 1 Ir� 6 t9 � _;i 6591 8i9 0'Z9 �(�'D ' _ �, � X37 M l 65 " 6'"'_ tl 1�_ 009 t L j f'RS/ W' 8 CF� 5 � a� I � 009 'f l C�'1 - ^O � , - ry cc 4 i : g09 N : \ \ 0� 0'65 g p ,,., 9 85 E'09 E 65 t e i t , 0'09 ! �' ` p� L't9i � i 0'09 065 X909 L4+W 0 "'r � F `" 7 7\y.. (_ �1. 9 .Q 9 I� �' 0 '_�. 465 ,, �. y . 1 S k '(. _ - -'• L J 01 g ` �p g 665: L L 09 g m 0 "65 :, e:— L.� ' 6'09 809 ( �� ' �� 4.85 . 8LLfi5 I L65; 9909 , 965 C85 0 : • ' ' ro, r �ff 5' M I °' t ,1..• J� - - -- :ill_ 0 . � ;ry m r C65 L65 & - 765 ; —g£6S ;KW ' ' , m -- =: _...:.... t;5 £65' 565 609 S'09 .�°'.. 665 :..�. 0'651 5,B 65 8'09 6 sc 1 � ' ' L'65 19 SE55 Y1890 { 009 9'09 1 1. -� a o�F g,'S65 � -r i �'t� � � q . b� , M - Nil /I■E l 65 -., .� L 6S ` r - _______I '0 } L65_ }} -- L C .. 1 965 5'85 ' ry 6S �� �� , ,:a , 65i — t ., ,�o-. . — • .• ' : . , , ,, :: '-,•,' ,....,..,,..'-'' .........,._ ..„............. _ . ....„. _...... .. 1 .......... ---- ----- IlVe3D II..M. @ . ,.... :. II] ' 1 •'140:1],';.:,:t. co.'Zi,..igt..511t. I . 2, 111]111': . . . . . -: . • - . ,.. ..„ ez ., I ' , ' • • MI ELM ttrp:§5 8 RU 19 ,,... --2,3::::... p -,,4% fr,.!i;4 ,,,,,;}; -,,,,,,,.: ::1::-,-, a . -- - - -, i . •-.:1:'!::-_- .!: 8 0 8 ':-: 8 8 ,,„. ,i,. -.,,,,,,„.,,,,,, v.:. , ;-,T...tr. ,...^: ........,.., . . , ... %......., :?. ,;,14,:it.!,.,': '...:-.' 4 ,.,: ,.. :::::,.. ::. 5 , ,. -,- '''•"' - --- •••••,,•••: ::: • 1: '. ... I . • - :::••'..-E.''..Ei!" ; i ' • ' '• "— ' 8 8 0 :: i 0 : ,,,.1:4;Eis:;,,,,,ii,,.,.;,1 NiCi;:•.1'1^;.!*: . ,.....,,,, ,.......„. .....„..1111“— 4, 06 . --- ,.. RiSt la Ig :::::::::; 4., ,;;;;; ; . .: : ; , ;„::::,1! . .. :i ' , ; .; ' ., j, c.....,,,tak ::o.i.:1 , ,I, d ::••:' -,.:, cc ••.. • 9 ... is u 8 8 :::'• NOLDNIIN100 - -..., ,... • ..,..:, • ,:::". •.',,,,,, ' •:..,."..:. . ..... 18 8 0 0 : g .,:it :".,:!::::.•!,:::. i L::?"::::,.::: ,,:,_.:,",,. :::.,,.. ..::.• :,. i ::::, :,:: .. ,...... ...,,, . , . I B 8 88 • , , . . . . ' • " • . ' - ' • ' ' „ . . 1 4TH ---,•\,""..... , . , . ......: . . „,. .- . 1-, . ;?:4C,Y,1:: h • ..-- ..,. ■ , '...' . •• . . t• ; , fa „.,,.,. „ .. ! 8 8 .. 8 :' 8 E:lk:,::•! ••:•,•:::i::: Rif I . ..., , 4 ] 8 8 o 1 : Hill 8 8 „.. . .,.... „.......„. . ............. . - I - '------- .,„ . I . OD •-: - .:::!., ' : ,. . . . ''IIIIP:qllPF:g: • ::', : !IIIII: 1 :: 11 ''' ,.t : 1`,'=;',If: &^; ifl'i•. N HIM. „,..... ,i::. :::,] R --- .ill ) r, i. .. . .i,:2... ,: 4;1, i . . :: :. .. : ,i • '.:•.::•: :::: ...:•::.::::::::: :::::.:::::::::, -,,•,..„,,, . ':: ' -•::-. .... ..::::::. ..:::::?..:,,,„.„,,,, I ,•'•,•-: .• • .:' , :::.,::':,:-;.•:.4:::: , ] ••, :'.',•• ,,,::: ::, • :•:::,;,,..::: ::: itiF, I .. ,' OD-aRD- -snavvnioa - . r= ONV'!)140i , . : ' . :!:',.• . '''':':::::..:. "I ri : •b,.„,___,... • -: • • .....__ 53 , :a . ,,,,,,,,,.,..„ ,..., ' i MIMI . . 2 . .... .. . .. ,'” :•.. :, • , I.: , ::: k:: • - ' \: ..... : 1: 'Ik...•'.'...t ,•,, ' .'' HIP ..... . , . ... .• . ,.. • • ii''': ' a .NaLMID „, , .,. ; ''' ••■.- , - . , ....,..: :. 11 1 " 1111MI on :.• el • •• : 0I1E .. . ....„, , 1; :„..... ..,.. . 8 --CNC .. • .... o , , „.... „...... ,,,..,....,,,,,. : •'•- ......,.... _,..-,......,,.. ,::.. ..„, ca. •,• r ,,..., .... . 8 8 2 1 I I ... - - ..., . Z I 1 uiglt I: .... [ • , ali , . _......: ., L..: , • , • ,. „„ . . ..............„,...,„.,.... ____ .... _............,..,.......„..__...,„......„. .. ...... ....•.:::::::::, 1 ••:•:: ••• • :.. ••••-:,:::: rr: z ••••:,' ',. 1121 ohm KAI I . ' : . 8 8 II F_ . I . 8 0 w :(..A ::„.:11::, 8 asil EgIn ,..... ... ... „ • I _ .. .... ............ „ .._... „ ....... .. ........,„ . .„.":„..: • - ••-•:•:.• • • •:::::•:: ..••••:••:::„ HIBOMIN3M. „ . . , ..„ . ....... ........ ___,...., ......... .„ ... . ....... .... - - ... --.....:::. . ,::::.: i.....;;'.'•':::-,,.• .'.:"; :.:•3.::: ...........„.........„ , .... .... , . . 10119S91Id , 1 a +-• 0 7: ::::: rd. 1 ,....., ...........„, _ = INV51: • .. , .• , — I .:: •'''''....:.•.. ' -CI , _..... .........„, ,,„, „,......., .. . .....„. CINY90—, ; ;•;,:- ;• - • :.. - +a , • • ••• . ' fl3 CO E 3 5 .1.3121UVH - -C3 x0 i .; • - ,--, ,,,,, :: !. 7-7 ci) vsoox:gf: ra u r ii .— GA 8011-N u CC W s' .....,.„,„••,.... •, CD '.- .. • 0,..: . ; r**:,, a' , i .::::: : :.: '.: ':•-:.:!: i.:, , :. • 140:: ... • ,' ,','::. Fi319014 Sil . ,, -44==li ' ;::';'::•::.' J • ' ' •••• ' .. •:-• ...... ' „..::',.... OAK 0 0 cri ': — .0 -: •::::::. '•::•,:.---•:".• •• '" ' • • :' . • • ::.:•:. ::::•.>•••• . ::..:!' . 1:' . ::•:.'.:::: , ! ,, •::::::.:•..GROVE IIII INVA.119 i I ''''. 0,— ., El-:: , ' . 3rd-; • : .•.:.(•::: ' ' .,'''':'::2:::','-'1rf:4.11:i.:4:;',I'll'''.:;,:",::;,•;151:1".'K...ii:H::':.:::'• •,-.. I ' -rfi ET •:., ,,,.•:,=<::,,,,,, , ,,,,,.. • :• ..• ( . . - ,,,;:,:,:::.:,,, i ,.::::::,..e:,;,,::::,.:',,,,,,,:,r,::::,-,?::::„.•,..,,i-,-,,,,,,:,I,0:7,„,,,,,,,:::,,,:s,::::.:••::,.:„:.: XVlOD E t .:,., t , ;L - ' ....!.' •-,.:, • • ,. .,-,.: • .• • • •:•: ..,,,,. ,•-j,•' ,0:•;.:••••-:• /. ::::tf 4 :401‘0 ,- ,0•;•:::ii••: , ;:.•... ::;E'. 0 r .• • ;.,- 1 ri IN :,,...„. , ::,-,. -,-.z. -:,., , •:•:,,,::::::.:.,... ...,.....: :,......,,,,,,..:,...,:„....„.,: : .:::::.!........ 421 :F,,:, : •::::::.: .::;.. -,::.,..::::: 4., : Goo,,,,, :: •••,.,'.,,,,,.,•••:,- :::.:,...:,:., '-''',:::,:,:':•:.::. • ':•- •:::::::::::. C/d0G 4- ' . • :''''' ',. .:,'• -1 ' ' '' • ' .,"•:".:••••[.......' •„", .:::.:„",„;.;",";•:'„,,,,....::::.,]:H..„,:. VI i .. • ,,, •...:•... •„. :' • :•• ' 6 y 711 ,INOV43IE --I . '''';:". .00Z4.1. - X - . • r—N0913013 > 1 • .. . '''',., '''''...iiiiI9f6 \ .„,';'•.'''',.:::.:4•i':'''''.',4r.-.1,411.';'':!!!..iiii1::::::Tir:;.:1•::'-j;!:7:.::.:' i@ : _ ...:,:,,;., ''' _:..„-::, '-'' '''...- ' • • •:•', - - ,, • •=i, 14 , . • ,•:' .•.::..•—• - a - i ,-:::::,,,,,,,.., • •,:.• •-.• •,::••::' ,,:,. .::- :•::•.••:•:..:,--,,::::!:,.•::.• ) 8 .. . . • " • •-• • - ---' • • • - - - - a) ,--, .'•;" 7 ;: , : ,„::: . : ....: : ::.;::: : ::::,,:;,•._. , , , .y.-•'-' - - __ . . I . . _ ,.....,„ .........,,,, ,, . - ,.; 1 n tO9 '.. ,g:.'.• 7,1 * - " , -'•'*z.,.'4::,, 0 ..... , • I A , .,.., ti 1....._,,,,,,,, . . , :„,..:_ . , ..„, .. ,. .. ,.„..,...„,,.,,_ . ., -1_ :..,....,.........:‘:::,:,,,,...::::, WO : ,.. ... . ..! 3 ,: t*:.. ,,, IIIP C C ITA-fITM I 01 d 0 tx, ..,,, -1:3 cy, .„ ., ...., „,..,. I) 3 rc, alit , . , . .-r3 - .. . ' 4PjliMI 2 c - . ,, ....: . , (13 01 4) = 14.11 E , . ... ', 0 Li i;i:::. C;i? ''. ' - . . , , ,.. _ 0 t:.?.. .`r,s-• '',..-:.'• , S -3 1 o ppip . 4 Tir t i d ip o i i ,..”- : E `c V o l i , . NM L „ firm' - cu ..............„......._ -71) ..7......,............_ . c .., ., ., . . „. 1 - 0 .,. ), ‘ , , , •., . ' ..., ., , • - , --„... an .... 7 S ' — ... ........,.„,, , . . ...-- . , - ..., ,..., . :.....,,,., ,........„... ...„.. ,. ..,......„..._ . .. ..,, -,.......... ......... . \ , r.,.. 1 12 _____- Shit ,.. . -- ‘, .,,. ,.. .. , . ,_, 1,, • :,-,•,':.' ::-. ---'.... ' , \ ,,, .....,„ .. . '''' -., . , .. . , ....., . . .. ... .„.....„. 1 . ,, i_J i7_E 6„....,01.,1i:,,,,,.,, ,, 7, .8.:,,,, ,. r.,..,..q.. .1:1.!1,E.:::.„ ' 1,;,,, ‘ -,.., -:'-----......... .. .,..t --(( j .., , . . .., , . .littm.._— - , • c„ ,...•= ,,,- . , , ;•.,,,, , s N's, . .. ,,.. . „.. ., . . . . mil ( . ,,,,...:.,.,..„.„„:, ,..., :—INIII. ........ .. nss / ..:1:T 11111 II , ./ 1,.. Milli . . , m aim lk, 11,0 ...*,....::,:;:.::...... .....:, ., . milmoill ,,,, , .., . ... . . , I. a — al ........ .,. . all ' . .. . . ,..‘ . , • - I 11111 -- , E mimmil MB ,..,, -c2. ..... •• I r \ II S .',.• ..' •••••••••••,---- -.-..'• .., , .....,-. ..,,. % , - . z.".. :c I " ...„ . e s.m. „..... n.. ,..,.., '-:. .,,, .....,...... ,,.., ... : , -• ,.. „ .,,,,.. ,„ ,.. , .,.... , „ . , .. .,. ......„..„ .,,. ..„..„.,„. „ , : :•: - — ,,. c (I) :4.••••:".: 4 -It .i..-4„ ::„..,.. 3 1 a_ cu „••••',;•:.,-., q-' v. ... > .,., „..- .: . ,,,,....... a 0 r) ... ., .„, , •....... , 4 -:-• . , ,...„, 4 13'= .....-1 ki ,E:: ,";,;.:37.,,:z ''Za',. .. ' f---rt,,f 9' -•=.;'14.. 0 0 ..„.. ,,:,,,,, - 0 a) ,, , ,,, _., .......... iv > ....„....... , ,, . , 4-, c -..,:., Arm . ,. .....------ : .C3'4i;',11-V7-4,,-------1:' ra _ — 'Nil C4 - CS ,•,`4,;',1,3' j';'';'.4.:',': . :,,,,z.,-. ::''. , x 01, Is.6s ti. 4:.:?,1i.;;, .,. „.._. ........- .........,... .: .4-. c .. ,,,,,,. .........., .,, .,....., ,. ,:. ,,...fir.,''! ;:f:.5.4111•1:',:::40,44ici , o :: 1/3 0 ••., „,,,, 4-• 4. ..-' ..a.) .., .., ._ ../...., „„..„ (•■• 7 OF CV -'.." Cr/ do: 8 • , 'u - ... ...,... _ ........„...., . . .. .... . ........ 'pli.- — -- -.-' - - - - ci, 2,- viEli ..... ,.,„,,,,„ 0 -.- , ,.., ;,. . 7-7 ''''' . ''''' fa LT. •;:;;;;:::: "311% ., '-'''' ''''' .i,' a L'i . : .:•- IT , ° ir ,:,,, ,../ 7 .. . ::!,:.:',:::' ::::::i. . , -:;;::::::::',: r,i'„, ::: / , ... ,. . . , - - - - - • ' - \ :'': '''''''' -: . .":, ...- ' ,: E 2 -- .... ,..... : :11..... .., . . , , . ., ... .. . ...._ .. 0 . , „„ .. .. . , .. , A,,, :, , oi,,,,----------Th.„ ,...., z • ,,, it) --- "i i ),, ... .,,,,,' , , .•,;',,,...,„- ' , -, Wig. r . , , . a) m / ,..„,,,, ,,, ,,,-,„..,,, ,,•,..., , ,/ .,, ..: , ,.....,-- > , ' 'j ' — 1 Ii.0 cu , ., • ..., ...-- ...... „... ...„„....., _,.....,.„:„..: , ..„- • i'•_, --1 - 0 vl • . ,.,.. • g3 1 _ra . --1 :3 .• "0 - . 4- ' ... ..„ ai u .,. 2 ,-. - 0 II .... • - ___,......._. . ••:,:•.:-:-• C) ,, :.s ..•;;ZO T !) i „: . .., , i', ,....,...„„, ,..: :•,.. • • :-.:•-•••,'„7.::::"•--,','"7---lhl ...-.. • • g:ii . . .. -2:-.,...:-..:.,..:- „.,,..,.:.,..,:::,.- 13;.„:0::.:Irk,"'-,'%,.,..„„:, ill .;,. ;:':2'' in . ' ,:''',0:7;:::',.-'::'-?::';;;',.i'....:' i 4 :,P .., ... - f 4,- *?< , ::-.„ , ' , ''..z'' " '. '',,,,,,.:.,,.;;::: )i.. ------ „:„„.. „„ . „... ,,,„. ,,,:„ t ,:.::,„ ,... .,.., .,..,, ....... ,,...,.., :, ,:::.......„.„01,,,tp,;.:7::: :„......::„.:.. ,,,::: ,.„..,.,„:„,:,,,,,,,,,,,..: , ..,...... ",„.„...:.„.„„„.„‘„,:„..._ „:„.„:„..,,,,,:........,„ ......„.. ,,, , . ., ,.,, :.,, ' 'II ,. ,.• . _.--------=1, • ------ ----- - ' — ' F ' All ., .••,,, • _,. , Am tr,,,.,:t...,A..„„,!:0 "" ----Tt.:::,--::-•-,„.---:„.;;;,,, --...---1„: ----i:T....r. ,4%;---,,-,---;•,,,,„,•,.,,,, r ,.., . •• '!'• 0 ., 1.1111111raMMI' ' •ii:P"'''' , P ,,„ •q•A la ',.. ',, :,,1•1 ,I. ,,,' :", "' IQ t a a ,:,,, g - . , ]4...•:::4 u .• -' ... • ----::., . •-: :,-.:,',-- :,: -----:,:,..--". .. ,..,.. ..,..„ „., ,...a. I ,,,,,,,,,;.,-,,,,„, 4_,„ 7 \ i rsi!''',"'4 1: ',"; - : ,','.;-'''', 2 :: : '";,:;- - ::. ' 'T'ir,,..i•ka;'.'''''7:::.,,xtg.---.;,,..",. \ ..,,,, , 1 ' - ',,,' ', •.; ",,:.; '`,-1-•`;,•,,°.A''AO,',,,,;",,t . a+ ,, - • - .... Flirs::',:: - -' , , , 3;:ji:; , A•,. - , - :J - :,i: , -,::: ,, , , , , ,:-.. - ., , , , ,,- , 4 sit:,:-,, ... ' - - ::--A . - .., r :,'„,`;',::,,,7-:;,-; ::::,:;::::!:.,-.:;;;-;,,",-1.:7-.";,,-;:::',,,•,;141,.A. ,,,,,,, 11,,, ',!i, _.: ::: '''''''''-' ,,: • - 4.. , JI ,., ..,:i 11110P :: .....,............„.„...., ,„. ..... .............„.„.„,„ . ..........,„.. ........... ,.,. .,.. ,.......,,....„.., „ . ......_ ,,. ..,, . .. ..,...., .... .,,...,..„ . .. ..., , .. .,,it,..,.;:,:i..••#.mv„,,:,0,,,,,,#:0,.,,,,, ,,,,, ...,.. ,,ii: \ ----,,,'•• , . , i-::.:,,:, 1--------7:, ,, , ,- .„44-tAN''' '• ..,' .--- „ . iial 1. :::zy .,,, g.tumt:..... f --........ 1., ._...... _...-- .• ..„., J „....„,,,_—„,.... 1 0 —... .::::..0„::::.,,,,,r37:4,-„'''117--\ ,,. •----,....„ --- ...... - --- --- r...''''''''''''''''::'''''''''l ... ti,,,,,,,,,,,------- ,,:... ..... ................,,.„....„..-........... ..........---- ,., ...,:m . ft,sV • - • • - *,,, :.,. „., . • ,,„„,„..,... r 2 taiIVAAnZiT1 ':::.,:::,.:,•: ' I ,>ca, -.„„,,,,, - --0.,.. ., .,,,,,,,„, „:„.„,„, , .. .., : ,,, .• ,:,---,,•: e. ,- ; - 'd1 , 1', , ,,, , ,c , ..- - .,,- „ g git0 4170 i .: ---- --,--, : Ej IY:ii'*, ,4 P.0-2,•7,:,,`,m1AV , • .. • - , „,.. . - - , . . , . . e .,• ,,',,•A•,!i•,!:::',,,,,,:. !'., i 1 ]]'', •,,,t,„,,:i,,7:::.:,,, , • 1 :.: ,•:::::,,,,.;!!:',!,,,,,,,,„'--% ' ,,,,,,,', • „T,:;', ,,,,I.,,,:::::: : ,,, „.__,. .„. , .:': ''',',', , ',,,,,4::::::::-.: •, ,J.0,1:-.:,,,,,IF::::4F,',:::: ::::::',:',1::.,:di ,",,,,::',17.1 '''i''''': '76S,Wfial ',..:44.10„' 1 :,,,,,,,.:.„..,„,,,,,#,..,:,...,„„:„,,,,.„,.,.,,,,,,,.,...,„„:,,,.'.„:„:::::::::::::#!:„1,s,:::,,,,,„#.4,,..,,,,,,,,":„„i„.:,„:„.....,,..„„.,,,,,,„.:„.„,,,,,,..,:„...„1„,,:,,.,,,,,,.:14;,.:#,:.,::::::::::::!::,,....,#,::::::::_,:o::::::,,::.,:„,„,r,,,,,,,,,,,...,,...„„i64,71f4tiiit:' '■ .4 .. :::.,:.,...,,,, ',„:.:„.",:, ..... ,.. ..„, , ,,„,,,,,..... ..,..,.....,........., „.,. ...: . ..._... 1 i / ,,_........., 1----1 city. Figures 3.11 to 3.15 depict the difference in DNL levels, on a block -by -block basis, between the 2007 forecast mitigated noise contours and the 2011 actual noise contours. 3.3 Contour Comparison Summary The 2011 actual noise contour is smaller than the 2007 forecast mitigated contour by 6,397.5 acres 140.7 percent reduction) in the 60 DNL contour and by 3,342.2 acres (46.2 percent reduction) in the 65 DNL contour. As depicted in Figure 3.16, there is a small area in South Minneapolis where the 2011 actual noise contours extend beyond the 2007 forecast mitigated noise contours. However, there is an overall decrease of 2,961 residential units in the 65 DNL contour and 3,877 residential units in the 60 to 64 DNL noise contours around MSP when comparing the 2007 forecast mitigated contour with the 2011 actual contour that the MAC developed under the requirements of the Consent Decree. The small area where the 2011 actual noise contour extends beyond the 2007 forecast mitigated noise contour can largely be attributed to runway use variances between what was forecasted and what was occurring in 2011. The reduction in the Runway 30R northbound departure heading lobe is primarily a result of a reduced number of operations from the 2007 forecast. The slightly larger arrival lobe on Runway 12R is a function of higher nighttime arrival operations on that runway, while the significant reduction in the Runway 12L arrival lobe in the contour is a result of lower arrival operations on that runway. In summary, in addition to INM model enhancements, the primary factors to consider when comparing the 2007 forecast mitigated noise contours to the 2010 actual noise contours are total operation numbers, fleet mix, nighttime operations, and runway use. • 2 As discussed in Section 3.1.1, it is also important to note that the new lateral attenuation capabilities incorporated into INM 7.0 increased the size of the 2010 actual noise contour by as much as 3-10 percent over the INM version 6.1 that the MAC used to develop the 2007 forecast mitigated noise contour. 23 ?Q__ i ' 1 ++ N � f , t iti ■ o i JO Wipit....... 1 . rrn. N •� 114,11"1/40P1 �� Z m a� . i —� f tip �� A 1 -. . . -:.•,.. �x 1 • . ,, , , ,, 41/4 " m ill ' ' 2.,.., 2,--.. , 41 , 1p . .-.., w I\ ' ' ' ' . ..,.. ... , 0, . _ u ...... . ...:. . ii . _2 _o_. • . , ,. , ..,...,.. ...::,-- :..... :.,•• '','''"C --,-- s - 1 II E) 133 n — ''� , . J ... llllllllL 111111 11111 >: — '�.,� - °—. �, ° 11 fi:1e� .■u el Iwo � !'' �., R ......... . 2==...:, s— — s ?' ®r R i ' a L ' �� '..::„,,. . . -2:2,, A-... , ••• i - - - - - ti ` _ . ' .....,:,,,:,,, . -7 r - ! r `J� \5 4 �J • o - ... i t kr f����� �f t P w. . in s l e. � 2, s :_.......... ;-.....„,-„,,,-.,,;..:,...,.. -,,,,,Tka.tia,:.,:,........=„grA...., -....„„., -- -- . - -® 11 \R. ' • �,i "- - - - - -- t —i —Bites iss— ; - -L � S - - -- =282,.. ' la1 .� �� . �m1: �s—s —i llllll� illlll — s � i . �.� 7 - - - S-: 7 ` �1�ti i l � it 1.1"1".1 n si � . t ® --.4'' ..DV O, sss - ., i. .....7...................•••••...—.... - -i —a - -� i j - - -- , t� . t �a^ .— i gi — — - - -- — gm - 4 li -- - �� i - - -- BCE -- r s i a i ■ � �� - - - -- _ i - -' -- . — ' ---ii ; i -- iss s amass �5 ®— . — s— s s — ' r::::,,,..,,,,,, . i ' —s — i s ��i �\ _ si— s -� �. isss F) { — - -<i - - -5 + - ' .. � -- -i 3 i — ., . �..d f. °.w. .mm.:. ° .. J� . 1 1 R + l �i = j ai � i � el —� i -- ". s < � - L s —l- �i� si— J ammo �r1.-- .. -- — mil....,"'. ... '�\ Disc- � Irani '( y � - i � �� Wiall �� � �— ' � _. ssi �' s E E "" J is iiiviii_ j...L _ii, a : : .. is a= . . ,. , . , ,:,.., ....._ . , a.: m . 1 s if �j E "- -�.�i s— -' I — aa- - -- - - - - '711 - �� s =� �'1 1 ' 1111111110 elnitIMI ..- .�. .� i W _ sul Ai slocaliamilll am. : w _ ...... ow =mime 1 1 ii � n-�� 122 - ' . - 4.,-.:.e.-:,•-k-I'I'''''e•!2;,,,`,,I,-,',.. ,...•-,--;,-,.„?..„--,,,, , •' - .„ : , : - • .....p:i,,,,,,,.:„.-,,,,,,,' , : ‘•At :4-16 `,..;-„:,'-, , - _ ., ., , ,, ,, , '•••• - -------.....„-0,,,...,... .-,,......-- ''''''' -------------- - - -, _ ................. ...„••••••••••,•• ....... . L. -•-\\\ , '' , . „ ,/ . , — !!, - - - ! , • ,:, ■ 8,,,,33.D...„, ' N,- • ' !-A,VT.,,,X!...X.n ''!! •• to .,.... 44, . 6..• - - • ' -,77.7",,, 7„ • „...._ 1,4„. , --• ' ■ • - CEO ' 6) V.,,,,w74.- - -;IN•• A ,:,.,t-, , •-• rti:ii. ,,,,,,iy,N, ii:.:.:•-.I.,,,,, )4'` 4titi,7,-;k:i.:"4 ''''''"---- 1' ' 'X • ' . M ---. TI:zrz.,_,..:1=kK ,,,,::..9r,4,.:,"" ' -rigr.41*K.X_ . - , . . „ I' -- N 0 4. a-41 :- , - -*p,,, , -001 , . .. M;:i i -...;- :::' mim'':. . -..-;,., ,- ; war-7 4. + 14 9 l 31 N •• • '•-•-•'•••• i 1' • L'it.,771,,,,,ar, ,4(.4 4,15-41,::: , ..„ __.- .x, 14„, :. 4'" i• 12 P . . ,.. ! 4'44144. ' '''' 15,11;PM 19NM0010 ! !,.....„,ir,T..-•:4..0 RileAS . . .,., N° , 1.1.11!!! 0° v: - ,..... ,. :.. ... .. ., . . , ""--, .. `.• ,,,,.. ,.. . . _ ... . . , . . . , . k , . ,17:- W.F .1/4:,eitipt 4 r 1-ttg i-u. -....\... Hist \ . . , , . :. 'C - 1/4 \ . §..... i \ - .N._\ - ,... s.N.Nislzir‘ magar.7715 ., 14! kNN-.0 [2,- I . x■I .:(rl-tir''''',,31 \ ,,,,/ 1-11.n. 1.41 1i.. 4 I ! ! i ' , . \ ,‘• H1.01 .. . S ' I ' .! i S'\....:‘,.:\N7S:SX:c!Wil'-- •-:,!:.;!! :';.:::!!!!,7!!!!:!!;,!!!!'r-124,7r,,,At-7i:Y.'j N." \NS:7' :::::"•;, • ' •• ,_ ,..,:.... ,',.,,. .:+,r; - •• • :',1" - , • i :113! '''''''" .:: .• :,,--',''' .,,,:-. ';;L:LA 'i ',•:''''' &law r 1 ''''• • -: .• ! • .. ' ' -': :-: ..-::41ww ,•r..., I ion93 • 091/31HDi EOLUMBUS' 1 ! .., 1 -- , ,•-•„, ,. ,::: , ,. ,,,,•,,,.,,,,,',,,,,:.::::::„.,,,* . .,..., . .. ,, ........,- ,•,, : .i: :: • ,,,,::::::, , ' „ A- :••,, :•:::::!-, .[. •.• -,,,- ' • ,...•_••••: n '',-- ' 1 - -- • ...- !.: re• I S - VZ ______:::....,„,..,____....._....... • - _ . . , . ,, , , _-..., . ..,.„, ..:- .1. .:;':':,:t„,7.A11, .. - ...-..-.,- . •-•••••-•-••••••••- . - - ' I '' - .::: . :'' . - ••!' - 1 „, : „ 7 „.... , , : .,.„,, 0 7." H14 I '!' ''' I. . :. !;7..__1,01;nri;i!..!!!',:::::, '4 7. 1,,,,, ' , ; 1!! k i li i7.-fils•-..-!,7, , ,., !!!!! . !!! ! ! , .i .,!, 1 „ NOINID y4 ..,,, , ,, ::::„23!! 1 4 1 ' , • . c!!,,,,l',' ''..,Pikle!'qi..',%.7:-1, x , '•:' -04''''tli gt,iTVV,I, ... rzi . P.--,.z---P .:'. ; I, :-')-&:.1:„,1,-7,,,,,,';‘:,,, . t; tvlid 11 '.-1 ,I,...m7.3p,....-1,ANT, ! ...,, .! ”! i !,;!.P'!'''.!!,*.I.:.7-2V "`"!!" !:•*!.. , F.11",..M” :! !,'" ... ",!! ! ' !A.5';',?A>. - e ,, 1 , g,,,.2,:541,1r1..wi: ,..,,,,,,,,„,....... 71. Tx:por i i.,,,,,, :: : : ,„.., 44 4.,..4,,g, .• . ,_„, ... g. , 4 ' 2.i petlfba. , ..4, - ,„„,,, v.4 , 1 • :,(4--ilikk,L;(7.6;a4,.. -A,',.e,,,,,..,,,r.,,1 ,,,,-0.,,r...,°,71,1 ....„..„.... -, ,,_ ...... , .. •, ;, filc ' <>"--- fs__ i l - cs 4., .. •.'•.-'. TIMV.141011 14,--,zqi-11.4.1 - . .. - 1::,,:witb,..;., i:::, , . . . . .. ck!!.71:! '!i::!!:!,:!' 1 01 C 1' 61 Et.,!:::: P W 48 E 2 a) :n81-"Frnd INv5 7 i ,.: : : cu 6 4:'... .::.-„,.,., *5.4 „.._.. 1 1- -c3 4-, E ,,-,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,:,,,,, • "---, .....i:F:::: Nvuo] ':::•::::' V ..1 ti' il RS ak • . ' r " Er 1-, i'Ailf,161;Ita: : !.. ,, . . , , _ ,f. 0) l .: !!!.' '.61::,•L'1" ' ]: '", U !, !!' W 0 --- 1.31212IVH 4 4 11 61 ., , _ .',..,„ vo 1 ... . . „, , .. - !-- ! ..,;:,,,';:i. r...,::: ::r,,'.''',' ''''''... 1.:-.','. • . ,,_,. . .'Irc:; - !-' .... . m ub-rs0 , .- Q " --77! ---3a) i 1; CO 0 - a 2 4= •,•:,,, 7 ( •= n , -C 7 et .0 u rel I ! i: , ,; :!';',, .!,!",!•f;;.,•:":".:;',. ::...', ,;(•••... :,-...,::::.::::.:.',. - ..41voroa 1 LL 21 -c, i , ••;:i -.,..i•-, -• ' 1, •: , '•:•' - '.fi ,':'•",, ',,,,.::,,,, •,':ii;i-,:.:',::: -Nnss9nd ip 1 ,,', .:.,,.-:. !!!! :!! ',''!!!!! ::'' ! ..' !!!!! :! ':!.! ! HDI8(FIV - Z 0 Crl ID iz ... ,...., , „ ' -::::::' . ' „:::::', ,.:::,::::, ;!, 3A071D in 4., , c ?, 75_ ;-- ..' .,,,..,:,,,,,:,..:2*-.:1..rs.E.„4...,,,,,,;::::::.::::....::::::...i:.:3,, NVO JAVAN a) < ao -cs _ - CIJ 0 xvnop W ■-- -0 9, 0 1 ' 1! - .','; ' ' .,,„.'..,.', ,, 3 k '.1C. ' . ' : . : :: ' • ..: .::::'''',.;',"114:iii:•::',.1 .`,'":1!.ii4414'.: > 0 = aJ , , , ,... . __I u ( „., . . . „ . . "0 C - . , „ , , ..,, ,, . , -"coo/ INOdne- .: • .. ' - • •• - ,- ••:••....•-•-rt-;; , •qtkr-. „ :,'!; -0 co . . . .. . , .., ... . , ' -) .: _:';.:, ' :.:::::- ;.• .'- ,., '''' ,1,, '.. , . -:- ' . ' - 4, C . . , , W — u • cC1 , -,,, ,,..... , .... . - - -----7.17-1'..:::-.,:.,.... ' .. :..: '' •.:,,i','-''..:r4<`,,,'''''n':*':,!,' •• . „.::::. :-.''''''''''. QJ 0 ---- ..._ . :',..., -... L_ 4_ . . , , . . KnoswnH- S . . „ OW1119 . / ---3110 HS•351N1 . -SWV1 ,. . . t 1 1 = 1 :, Z. . DNIA81 G - c. . .z 4/1 '''' / r` - 1 f L i , ■A ell Spillip _ i P tW , L 1 iit‘\11L .... 1 4 z glir c _,- es , \ ___„----- .‘ ..\., ,, , 1 .......,,,,,.. 1 ,..._:, ... , ,. , ' ,424 _ vp.,,e ,,, pl \ 1:1 v ,, \ 11•111111 , N ii - j i r ' ) 1., , , - 7 L ' N9- T8 1,,:. - / } d `P✓ F n' ''' ill j _...,.... � 9 _ _ 1 E 3 v `d ! a) +.+ �� 1 _ 11 _ _ ' ..--"7" ..--"7" ..--"7" u Z to J D I H : li LA o '' z 0„ i l7 °; n; F c mm a,— - •- t T c L o 1 ME MIN � � > v m � � aJ N N Via, U E MI m t../ Y _ Y V J a o -- ' e u c L - !' Z 4 ./.: , ..,„. , • : i :, , „ , :,,,, - .. ,. , , _ ) • ,-,..- . .,, - 0 -.::• - ,::.:',,'-'- CD Is . .. _. ..., cci 4 -c ,.,:„ ,,.:;:,' , „ . .„ , ,.... .., ... „_. D.„,:.., „.:. „,..„..., ,a) a FT, ..- i'igP.: i ..... ..._ , .,. , ,.. ........ .. c = : , --:ir ., cu cu lett E ,,,,!.!:.' „.:,...., ., N , 1 ....„--- 73 Ti (:, '0!!4: 1_ *lig,.#,r-;j ;: ri'". 611 11 „. . . . .. ) a) 4-'el, 0) ( ''' i!4 _ '''. t4 In 65 Q,9 Pfl ,.:.,.. 0 .,, „., ... „ -:I- , ---: -- - :H u ra a z c c,- 4 4 o- --- ,,p7-., 14024.,,, ,,...,,,,, ,,,. ai mAtT7;sc;: 0.1 ,,,,:•:,, - ,-- •,,,,,, ---,, .. 5 p ., !TiMiti! , ,:: 0 a c m -- ;IF4' -- _ ---14 '.• . wii• n...r.tiet.--,' ZI..0 " 44 ;,- ii. -• .e, .....„, ....... ti:,,''i: ..iii,. z ik6. i ■ : t 'i-. M% , ' NO li,A;ZriatigtH.7'4rZlplii,gax:,7004;'',t;': til N -r: 0. , ..c rn -0„,, '•'-iiiiar -,"!i.:01-r-.?-; ftt .- aj V C L9 in T:P FE 4"- ' ' ai _ . - , 4, gp 40■10% -,' 40. .11:0,4 1 1 04 ANORMI. : :.:: - , ' ., ::• a) fa z a) a Lt,,;:?„4:.-4,1)!,:.: 1Nolim 4 1, , ,, , VAM:,::-:::- ,.: _ Z iz F t j c +1=, a E ,IIKA'0,-.77.4 ::::: ..,75.1:p,,nnt,,,r,4•"::4!::-::::::::::2•Y::::: ::::::::::" -:: - ' <1,1 < •— 0 0 - .—..: .■:•.:,..--, .,;', _ CO - 0 -0 0 All ' - ,-- _ ,— cji c A .-- - 13 11.) '.,'-' ..„,,,, „....„,..... - , iii.•;.•.,.,.,,,,,....„., _. u th- ,-, • ' r -0 c co c _ fi3 / ' 4114q,,cir, ,,,,,, - 0 ra tri C - •:::11. / .... _. . : ........:„ , . T . ... - C '"' 1 : -.:,-, ,. _ ,4,, ''' ,,,.--,,. ... ,. , ....,, „ . . ....... .. ..,..,,, . , „: ...„: .„.._ ,,,,! :,,,,: ,- -:,,- --,,. ,- ...... , , „_ .. . , _ „... ._ U - ... . , , . .. ,.. . ... .. . . .„.„ , 0 4 - CIJ — 0 fill t b,..-------- 81 , 4. 19",!.,4„1; y! p:::::- ,,.,„, ,,,,0110:,:., t,...,..:n ...........,.. ,....,„ ., ... .... ,..., . .. > cp_ i / 1,:1...\ 4izir:, ,,,, „.,... ,.........., „...„:„....„..„,, „..„...:...„... „...i A Zu 4- Li g r :111 vipor__,,,„„:„„:„„:„.,..„.„„,,....„,..r._711 ... .,.. :,.... „,:,,,,.:„.,,.•,,,,,,., „.„:„... .,, .... 0 ...._,,...•1 : ..... . ..- ,..„....„,:....:.„ :,........„, „,„,,, ... „. .. i ... : _....... . . . . . Li_ ... . .... ”, ' ... „. ,.„. --\r- ... : I : .. , i .,.... i:t„, t.,0 ..„,.. ..' . ... ,.. y Ity •.,;•i:eo, 1 „: ::::,::,:.:::::-: ...'.!:', ,‘.tawetitiotss, ---- \ .21 • - :.:k.,,,,z::::::::::::%.'",o: .•:1 i — ... • , ;,,:i,-*t.;:::„.2::,:•-...,:-,• ::: . „,„„,,,„:,„outmfgtmik ) :•, v :..,, ftiliaNgwomp .1 1:: : , : . . .:,:' • ....14: . .. . . . . . . .. . .. ..... . . . . . .. l'' ^-ti.''''''''''''''''-'-tiiiiiiii,4-,,i7,77:"'".7.'.717:77-7-,:-717.7.Z;,i7.1itte,lbZi.7.,:777:!«77-14,'7,:i'''',ii.,-„,..116,-,.#7ft.,' •• , **** ----- ------ _ ...” . .. \ i--..y------700&Ri4Aililaq4e.'j4V1P'44gtig „I-.-of - - N (0 ,, ... .. I .... ,:—r i--tt,,,q•tqxum•g;:::'g•A•4N-m.Ewmio : , ,l,„ 1 iitAkt,,i1i4a4.''..4i."Piti'iM14.i.a'Ar'''atit •-- - ''''''''. '''It4titiettatit4,4iq;03,04;tgitt t ,,,4'.. .,,,, .4.§:cii,,-,,ji,,,A,3•41-..i'i4;,' ilips.0q. -- i• iiii' ..... , .. Inv 1 E.fl 1 !:m 1 . 1 1 i „ ._ ... 1,-------$;:.-•,,, ,:: 1.:.! gip -,••,,,,,!-,.:,.::„.., -1 I ,. _.■ .....,,... , ', Y ,,,,,,,:::•,:::: ::::, • ,-„,,, .„;: .•,.. ''''':',,, 0 ,. .„ . ........_ ... :. ...... .......,:: . , . • i ii. ; VN ' . „,„.„..,, ....... .. ... .,.„..._ . .... .,..........,.._,•--......-„., .......... \,;.„-::„.......- ; , .. _ .. . „ ,. .::...... .., . ........,..,,,... ., ..:. .... , . . " — , p I "I - r ...;::,.. ........ I , ....:::•,-N, . • :. -: NR ,..„„ ..„,,,,,.. ........ : ... ,.... -- • .•:,.. ' 7 -- ---- ' it iiii4;'T!'"'"''''''''7 I ri]! eatrtMrZ•5':.:;KA4Sttl, : ' : . , ,- : , - . rjtrii4.1;41:::P: I ':::11 Itt,40'.'1:111Y1::!14V--- -- - \ '01 ,!..,,T•t7.!:'i!',::.: ;1,,ii.,,,,,,„,.2 ', 6/>3 , ''. ,„:k::„:: -,,•:itwAti,:ititm::,1,,,,,s,:::,: a _,._.. ..... • „....._:::,::::::,:„„:„....„,:„::,....:,..,:„,:::::,:::::,, 110 -1,:i:',:lri'-',1113iiggigligP,21:111AiRill:11!1.1diliii[illlii.',:::::MAWititiali:4iiillINEiliin:,:iiiIMPIIII',IIIIIIIIIEIN13EMIIRri:liFilgal,!!-':::14.. :---::.-,7 ' .ji l',... A . 7 • .,,::::-.. -.,-,,,,.::::"-s,„:::,,,,,,,,,,,,„::-:::::::-:.:.,,,,,-:::„:,,,,,,,.::::::,„„,,,,,,,,,,,,,,-,,, -,.,:s::,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.-:., :,...,::::::,,,,,,,, ,...:,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,-.:::-,.. :::::.,,-. -- :.:,,,,,,,:.:.:..:,,:. ::::-: • ' ( / 1 -- , ' '' - ''''''"'" -:::::::::—:...s..•„., ,,:„..:„„.:,..:::,,,,,.., ','-,--:::,k,,,,q':::N-',WAZ!.9.:!J:,,::,::!:',Nii,,V''',''''''---':':,,'Hr,,-' -'.]:::.• :..:-. ' - - I '..- 7 ..::..:.........:::::::::::: :....„.:,.... . . ., ,,,„,..„,_ - 1 ii 1 P. 0 LL o N l. / ,i C5 lk if i ..ttk ... Jr ,,, / t. ......... , fr o | / r ) f � � ANAI f I I 1. / : , 11 \ - Volunteers Needed for Role Players and Crash V "ta, a A e 'a' d1 A ,,.t a edi ` ' e s ce den b�jn a" .' z .y¥ ,,, '-a 4 't i it , ASH EXERCISE c , , . ... ,7 , , , N , ,.. .,, , t ,/, �' :.E,', a `d; `F ., mss " . .,- 4i, f F , ,' F *p ,0. "�' .4 n i A � ,,, r�* " . z f x:� ... r , ', .k . , k z� "Alit AA '' ii:w 1,..*y.' MCP a 7� 7i ti p z j r rm "a i I. ° , 's k � ' r a t ..z ''s . v S A M '+;A-t . t r f +' a? F ^� 9�A.: xk� � + `, .� , 4 .i ntp �.e aTm fi` R ? #a F : s? ",! a " u . ,f G �, Er r I'0,,',V'-'4.1.'4,'%:, x 4 Wu i z ��W i`. ko `G':. � � ,& # , " �` k w� ' p � a . � � ` � � r�r , � � , � �. � a , ` G� � �! , la� y � y ,� � € � rr �. � r� � {' a te, a �;3,ty* ,r ',S'i x ., i' c. y j. � flt x � ,; �r ^5 , ..� ' '�'ff ?c�z � � E n Sg .,a.. , � ` "� >x � Y�C� u " +� � r» . �vx ¢� � s �� � �, � i ^^ 4 !! ? �, .� i u +� z �,. " al '� ' ��. ` � �10 .. i y. "'y,�°fz' `�"� ,Y. n i v �a a '+` A,t{ b i9 '3. ,,. -.. r - .Wrk�l� '� 3 I �; + . »� . 1�'. ° .; �' n� �B '7 E S. e'xi' ,, .b i :y,�, "Y`^ e :?. ., �y>d� ' �' r z� #� a��P`� -•'._ sy� ,.� ti�i,`'�ir � ! . ' ;k rw � ' � t� a t�p „prn�+� ��4 I � , e,'� i� �3 ? P „ .� s �s . . x,.ai' r ; -.'1' ine m ,.l e es I da 3:1 .: Mi r �. s . . ° + �I G w � .. m 't � ici o n , '2 Ctrl - ; ual ex -.. z ; Ii rt rF k a : a; . ,rim { r ;F •m kar ,,,,t.,144,7.:? ' Y y4 � Y I ary i fl �' '� ` s 4 r �i+ �' p ol me 1 Z � d F i t uf , h � $ ;' .„,.' ki � ” .1, ' „4,C. � � r : , ,,�r' ° +9 �`ta ti� � ��� r p� d . 6�K� � �I � �"� Na � � : ".c" � �- �'"'�"' �, �� ° 6 �' r a�t &�g��+��^.. 'M"��i�'r . .. , , . ; i: - � i ' � e :, : • :; ¢:x a� � i nti r k:w x .'n y ^',�� F sa �'T�rsMr , � "., � , a C `� - "' `a.*ynl �� �z� � "° " +�^ r �, r � y � a. 4 Fa ir d ,w , . �„ " ems k ,,; .3 i i ' ' T M R a 4 k � " i ' "" p i�3 � � n v ,K , ^� �T1 rr , ` .,�+. a ' � `` r Y "} ,h- " '4 �: { n :h +,t A raj r x h k� s N � a m �; r . ,� x � � � 1,1' �p8 ��� � " . kT # '' �� "r �. �� � a , P_. ,w � �, t r Fr�'�, :,�� , d ',a ' C- X� ,� " } Nzuz t,, + I r apyr y F r n z.� . ' � 1 � ,' a S ra gei,'�'r ,ii 14 ; 4 +� b x r �3 `." 4 +. rA bt , ..,: ,,,,, may : Tirr °and Locat Tolle Determined Contact O Tanis Ford of the Airport Police Department Tanis.Ford @mspmac.org y X (612 467 -0707 .Y _ _ _ _ Dianne Miller From: Boivin, Dan [Dan.Boivin @mspmac.org] lent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 3:07 PM to: Brian.Ruppert@delta.com; jeffrey.hart@delta.com; william.e.underwood @delta.com; Cyndee Fields; jkbergman @frontiernet.net; john.quincy @minneapolismn.gov; tomfitz99 @aol.com; VFWilcox@AOL.com; djdocherty @fedex.com; Dianne Miller; esiriusp @comcast.net; karen.erazo @suncountry.com; tonyfoster27 @gmail.com Cc: Legve, Chad; Fuhrmann, Roy Subject: MAC Full Commission Meeting March 19th in South Minneapolis Dear MSP Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) Representatives, As Chair of the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) I place a high priority on ensuring that the MAC, as a public agency, conducts its business in a transparent and collaborative way. In keeping with this goal, the MAC will be holding its March 19, 2012 Full Commission meeting in the evening at 7:00 p.m. at the Hale Community School gymnasium in South Minneapolis (1220 East 54th Street, Minneapolis, MN 55417) ( Council Member's Quincy's 11th Ward) . There will be two items on our meeting agenda that would not be possible without the evaluations and leadership the NOC has provided — the MAC Noise Program Website and the MAC letters to the PARTNER and the ACRP on health effects from aircraft noise. I am writing to personally invite you to the meeting. Your work on the NOC is a critical element in the MAC's efforts to ensure that an appropriate level of collaboration is occurring on an issue that is important to the communities around MSP. In closing, I would like to thank you for your continued dedication and work on the NOC. I hope to see jou on March 19 Dan Boivin Chairman MAC 1 1140 MEMORANDUM ITEM TO: Planning, Development and Environment Committee FROM: Chad E. Leqve, Manager — Noise, Environment and Planning (725.6326) SUBJECT: NOISE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE (NOC) REQUEST RELATED TO POSSIBLE EFFECTS FROM AIRCRAAFT NOISE DATE: February 24, 2012 At the July 20, 2011 Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) meeting Mr. Jim Spensley, President of the South Metro Airport Action Council (SMAAC), addressed the Committee regarding possible health effects related to aircraft noise. In response to Mr. Spensley's comments, NOC Representative John Quincy and Co-Chair Vern Wilcox agreed to contact the National Organization to Ensure a Sound - Controlled Environment ( N.O.I.S.E.) to gather information on what efforts are underway at other U.S. airports on this topic. As part of this effort Co -Chair Wilcox and NOC Representative Qunicy extended an invitation to Mr. Dennis McGrann, Executive Director of N.O.I.S.E., to provide a presentation on this topic to interested NOC members. On January 17, 2012 at Richfield City Hall at 12:00 P.M. the NOC Community Representatives received a briefing from Mr. Dennis McGrann, N.O.I.S.E. Executive Director, on the status of the topic of aircraft noise health effects from a national perspective. Mr. McGrann also attend the January 18, 2012 NOC meeting and updated the Committee on this topic. In summary, Mr. McGrann's message focused on health effect studies conducted in Europe, and the lack of technical studies on the topic of health effects from aircraft noise in the United States. He encouraged the NOC to engage in ongoing efforts by the Partnership for AiR_ Transportation Noise and Emissions Reduction (PARTNER) and the Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP). By way of background, PARTNER is a leading aviation cooperative research organization, and an - FAA/NASA/Transport Canada - sponsored Center of Excellence. PARTNER research fosters advances in altemative fuels, emissions, noise, operations, aircraft technologies, and science and decision - making for the betterment of mobility, economy, national security, and the environment. The organization's operational headquarters is at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The ACRP is sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and managed by the National Academies, through its Transportation Research Board (TRB). ACRP began work in 2006 and is an industry- driven applied research program that develops near -term, practical solutions to problems faced by airport operators. Research topics are selected by an independent governing board appointed by the U.S. Secretary of Transportation that includes individuals from airports, universities, FAA, and the aviation industry. Mr. McGrann indicated that the PARTNER has studies planned to evaluate noise exposure response in the context of both annoyance and sleep disturbance, as well as to evaluate aviation - related noise effects on the elderly. Additionally, he pointed out that the ACRP is presently conducting research on the methods for understanding aircraft noise annoyance and sleep disturbance. It was suggested that a letter from the MAC to the PARTNER and the ACRP indicating support for their efforts and to offer Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport (MSP) as a prospective research site for their study efforts would be an effective way for the communities and airport to engage in the effort to develop a better understanding in the U.S. of elements related to the possible health effects from aircraft noise. 1LU In consideration of this dialogue, at the January 18, 2012 NOC meeting the Committee took unanimous action to forward a request to the MAC Planning, Development and Environment Committee that the MAC send a letter to the PARTNER and the ACRP indicating support for their efforts and to offer Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport (MSP) as a prospective research site for their study efforts. Attached for Commission approval are draft letters to both the PARTNER and the ACRP as requested by the NOC. COMMITTEE ACTION REQUESTED RECOMMEND TO THE FULL COMMISSION APPROVAL OF THE ATTACHED LETTERS FOR SIGNATURE BY CHAIR BOIVIN AND CONVEYANCE TO THE PARTNER AND THE ACRP. 40 I ,\7 Date William T.G. Litant Communications Director, MIT Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics Massachusetts Institute of Technology 37 -395, 77 Massachusetts Ave. Cambridge, MA 02139 Dear Mr. Litant, As I am sure you are aware there is a long history of efforts at Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport (MSP) related to addressing noise impacts from aircraft operations. As Chair of the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) the owner and operator of MSP, I am keenly aware of the challenges airport noise continues to present to the aviation industry and the related concems communities around our airport continue to express. With the above in mind, I am writing you to express the MAC's support for the ongoing activities of the Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emissions Reduction (PARTNER). The unbiased, factually sound and peer reviewed studies conducted by PARTNER are critical to successfully addressing the complex elements related to aircraft noise impacts. Recently members of the community around MSP have raised concerns with the possible health effects from aircraft noise. Responding to these concems in a detailed manner is very difficult given the small amount of research that has been conducted in the United States on this topic. As such, I would like you to know that the MAC is fully supportive of the use of MSP as a candidate location for any future PARTNER studies related to this topic. Specifically, your upcoming studies of noise exposure response in the context of both annoyance and sleep disturbance, as well as the aviation related noise effects on the elderly seem especially relevant to the topic of interest around MSP. Again thank you for your continued work and your consideration of MSP for future PARTNER studies. Sincerely, Daniel Boivin Chairman Metropolitan Airports Commission I05 41 • Date Joseph D. Navarrete Senior Program Officer Airport Cooperative Research Program 500 Fifth St. NW Washington, DC 20001 Mr. Navarrete, As I am sure you are aware there is a long history of efforts at Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport (MSP) related to addressing noise impacts from aircraft operations. As Chair of the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) the owner and operator of MSP, I am keenly aware of the challenges airport noise continues to present to the aviation industry and the related concems communities around our airport continue to express. With the above in mind, I am writing you to express the MAC's support for the ongoing activities of the Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP). The unbiased, factually sound and peer reviewed studies conducted by ACRP are critical to successfully addressing the complex elements related to aircraft noise impacts. Recently members of the community around MSP have raised concems with the possible health effects from aircraft noise. Responding to these concerns in a detailed manner is very difficult given the small amount of research that has been conducted in the United States on this topic. As such, I would like you to know that the MAC is fully supportive of the use of MSP as a candidate location for any future ACRP studies related to this topic. Specifically, your ongoing research on the methods for understanding aircraft noise annoyance and sleep disturbance seems especially relevant to the topic of interest around MSP. Again thank you for your continued work and your consideration of MSP for future ACRP studies. Sincerely, Daniel Boivin Chairman Metropolitan Airports Commission I `� 43