The URL can be used to link to this page

10/09/2007 - Airport Relations CommissionAGENDA EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION MEETING EAGAN CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS TUESDAY, OCTOBER 9, 2007 7:00 P.M. I. ROLL CALL, AND AGENDA ADOPTION II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES III. VISITORS TO BE HEARD IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Communications Update B. MAC Monthly Reports — Eagan - Mendota Heights Corridor Analysis /Technical Advisory Report /17 -35 Departure Analysis Report V. NEW BUSINESS A. Dialogue with MAC Commissioner Bert McKasy B. 1998 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and 2003 Environmental Assessment (EA) on 2.5 Nautical Mile Department Procedure off Runway 17 -35 VI. STAFF / COMMISSION UPDATE A. Correspondence re: Night -Time Air Traffic B. September 4 Meeting with Eagan Pilots C. Update on the September 19 Legislative Public Hearing D. Business Week Article VII. ROUNDTABLE VIII. ADJOURNMENT Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities will be provided upon advance notice of at least 96 hours. If a notice of less than 96 hours is received, the City of Eagan will attempt to provide such aid. City of a TO: CHAIR THORKILDSON AND THE EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION FROM: DIANNE MILLER, ASSISTANT TO THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR DATE: OCTOBER 3, 2007 SUBJECT: AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION MEETING /TUESDAY, OCTOBER 9, 2007 The Eagan Airport Relations Commission will meet on Tuesday, October 9, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. in the Eagan City Council Chambers. In order that we have a quorum present, please contact Mary O'Brien at 651 -675-5005 if you are unable to attend this meeting. I. ROLL CALL AND ADOPTION OF AGENDA The agenda, as presented or modified, is in order for adoption by the Commission. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Th minutes of the August 14, 2007 Airport Relations Commission meeting are enclosed on pages through ?. 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 scheduled on the regular agenda. Items that will take more than ten minutes or that require specific action can be scheduled for a future agenda. IV. 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 Eaga7l Newsletter, stories aired on the City's local access cable channels, and inclusions in the ARC Notebook. Currently, the September 19 Legislative Public Hearing is airing on the City's cable access channels. If any of the Commissioners have suggestions for additional communication initiatives regarding airport issues, please voice those suggestions at this time. B. MAC Monthly Reports – Eagan /Mendota Heights Corridor Anal sis /Technical Advisory Report /17 -35 Departure Analysis Report – Enclosed on pages throughL is the August 2007 Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor Analysis. Enclosed on pa es through LLO is the August 2007 Technical Advisory Report. Enclosed on pages tluough`�) is the ugust 2007 Runway 17 Departure Analysis Report. The August reports are the most current reports available on the MAC website. It is the practice of the Commission to review the reports and discuss any significant deviations that may have occurred or any other noteworthy occurrences as reported in the analyses. V. NEW BUSINESS A. Dialogue with MAC Commissioner Bert McKasy – Commissioner Bert McKasy has generously agreed to attend the October 9 ARC to dialogue with the Commission about issues of joint concern with regard to MSP Airport. Eagan's legislative delegation has also been invited to attend the October 9 meeting given Commissioner McKasy's presence. The following discussion items were forwarded to Commissioner McKasy in advance of the meeting and are proposed for discussion. 1. Commissioner McKasy's background and how he became a Conlnnissioner on the MAC 2. State of the Airline Industry /Airports — thoughts about future expansion at MSP, capacity issues in the coming years and/or future, increased competition at MSP, additional international flights, etc. 3. Issues/Prgjects Commissioner McKasy sees facing MSP, in particular, in the coming years 4. Reaction/Advice regarding increased noise complaints in the community (particularly given increased use of Runway 17/35 since Spring 07) 5. Thoughts about the Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor —is the Corridor still a viable noise mitigation tool? 6. What are Commissioner McKasy's thoughts about the City's recent request for sole representation on the MAC? Without sole representation, is there merit in splitting Commissioner McKasy's into two districts? 7. As Eagan's representative, does Commissioner McKasy have a preferred method of how he and the community can dialogue about issues important to the City and to the MAC? B. 1998 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and 2003 Environmental Assessment (EA) on Departure Procedure off Runway 17 -35 – Per the request of the Commission at the July 10 ARC meeting, a copy of the 1998 Filial Enviromnental Impact Statement was obtained; however, due to the large size of the document and since it is unavailable in an electronic version, enclosed on pages � through/ is the introductory and executive summary sections of the document. Assistant to the City Administrator Miller will bring a hard copy of the document to the ARC meeting. Also, enclosed without page number (separate from packet) is the entire Final Assessment for the Implementation of a Departure Procedure off Runway 17. Much of the information contained in this EA is more up -to -date than the 1998 FEIS. Given that much of the October ARC meeting is proposed to be dedicated to dialogue with MAC Commissioner McKasy, perhaps the Commission can review the enclosed documents and determine if additional information is needed or if there are specific questions the ARC has that could be addressed at the November 13 ARC meeting. *21 VI. STAFF / COMMISSION REPORT A. Correspondence re: Night -Titre Air Traffic — Enclosed on pages throughl OP is a letter from the Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) to the Minneapolis Airport Air Traffic Control Tower Manager, Carl R.ydeen, requesting the FAA examine the feasibility of moving night -time air traffic from Runway 17 to Runway 12R. (Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor). Also enclosed on pages and is correspondence from Representative Sandra Masin to the FAA offering her support of the NOC's letter as well as a letter of support from MAC Commissioner Bert McKasy. Assistant to the City Administrator Miller can expand further on the discussion held at the September 19 NOC meeting regarding her request that night -time traffic on Runway 17 be moved to Runway 12R when capacity allows. B. September 4 Meeting with Eagan Pilots — On September 4, 2007, four Eagan residents, all of whom are current or retired pilots, met with Assistant to the City Administrator Miller, MAC Noise Manager Leqve, FAA Control Tower Manager R.ydeen and Northwest Chief Pilot Tim Beutell. Assistant to the City Administrator Miller can provide an update on the discussion held between all of the parties. C. Update on the September 19 Legislative Public Hearing — A public hearing was held on September 19, 2007 by the House Local Government and Metropolitan Affairs Committee and the House Transportation Working Group. The purpose of the hearing was to gather input from residents regarding the governance of the MAC and the affects of the airport on surrounding neighborhoods. Approximately 75 people were in attendance at the hearing, and inuch of the testimony received had to do with representation on the MAC as well as noise concerns from residents. Committee Chairwoman Hilstrom noted that the Eagan hearing would be first in a series of public hearings dedicated to the topic of MAC governance. A special thanks to ARC Commissioner Aljets for testifying at the hearing. D. Business Week Article — Enclosed on pages 0 through is an article that appeared in the September 10, 2007 Business Week Magazine regarding the state of the U.S. air travel system. VII. ROUND'T'ABLE Per the request of the Commission, this agenda item has been added so that Conunissioners have the opportunity to ask questions or make requests for future agenda items. VIII. 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 to the City Administrator IN MINUTES OF THE EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 14, 2007 A regular meeting of the Eagan Airport Relations Commission was held on Tuesday, August 14, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. Those present were Curtis Aljets, Steve Beseke, Tammy Mencel, Charles Thorkildson and Bret Walsh. Absent were Maggie Jensen and Jack Prentice. Also present was Assistant to the City Administrator Miller. AGENDA The agenda was amended to include New Business item B. Proposed Procedural Change to Runway Use; and Staff Report item D. Closure of Runway 12R. Upon motion by Thorkildson; seconded by Aljets, the agenda was approved as modified. All members voted in favor. ORGANIZATIONAL, BUSINESS Miller introduced the item stating Commissioner Jason Bonnett has resigned his position with the ARC due to accepting a new position in San Diego, California. The Commission recognized Commissioner Bonnett's contribution to the ARC. Miller stated that Alternate Maggie Jensen has agreed to serve the remainder of Commissioner Bonnett's term. She further stated since Mr. Bonnett served as the Vice Chair, that position would need to be filled until May of 2008. The floor was opened for nominations for the position of Vice Chair of the ARC. Thorkildson nominated Aljets to serve as Vice Chair to the ARC; Mencel seconded the nomination. All members voted in favor. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Beseke made a motion to approve the minutes of the July 10, 2007 regular meeting of the Eagan Airport Relations Commission as presented; Aljets seconded the motion. All members voted in favor. VISITORS TO BE HEARD There were no visitors to be heard. COMMUNICATIONS UPDATE Miller introduced the item stating it is the practice of the Airport Relations Commission to discuss any communication initiatives relative to airport noise each month including articles appearing in the Experience Eagan newsletter, stories aired on the City's local access cable channels and inclusions in the ARC Notebook. Miller stated there will be three airport related items in the next issue of Experience Eagan; 1.) City Council's recent communication with the MAC regarding the increased use of Runway 17/35 and the Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor compliance, 2.) an update on the MAC litigation, and 3.) a shadow box that will touch on the Public Hearing by the Legislative Working Committee that will take place in September at the Community Center. 41 Eagan Airport Relations Commission August 14, 2007 Page 2 of 3 The Commission suggested including letters to the MAC regarding the increased use of Runway 17 -35 and MAC's response be put on the City's website to be accessed by residents. MAC MONTHLY REPORTS -- EAGAN/MENDOTA HEIGHTS CORRIDOR ANALYSIS /TECHNICAL ADVISORY REPORT /17 -35 DEPARTIJRE ANALYSIS REPORT Miller introduced the item stating the enclosed June 2007 Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor Analysis, June 2007 Technical Advisory Report and the June 2007 Runway 17 Departure Analysis Report are the most current reports available on the MAC website. Miller noted the significant improvement in coiridor compliance. Thorkildson noted that Eagan had the greatest number of complaints. Aljets discussed complaint percentages for Eagan stating prior to January 2007, Eagan had 20 percent of the complaints; after January 2007, 30 percent; and during the month of July 2007, 41 percent. SOUTHERN TWIN CITIES ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS SURVEY UPDATE Miller introduced the item stating Angelique McDonald, Government Affairs Representative for the Southern Twin Cities Association of Realtors, is no long with the organization. Miller stated she has tabulated and compiled a summary of the 29 surveys she received from the STCAR. for Commission review and discussion. The Commission discussed the responses and comments made by realtors relative to airport noise in Eagan. Beseke made a motion to pass the summary results of the survey on to the City Council and ask if the City Council would like the survey run again in November; Mencel seconded the motion. All members voted in favor. LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING MAC GOVERNANCE AND THE EFFECTS OF THE AIRPORT ON SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS Miller introduced the item noting a Public Hearing will be held by the Local Government and Metropolitan Affairs and Transportation Working Group of the Legislature at 7:00 p.m. on September 19, 2007 at the Eagan Community Center, She stated the Public Hearing is intended as an avenue to gather input from residents regarding the governance of the MAC and the effects of the airport on surrounding communities. She further noted the Public Hearing will be advertised in the cities of Eagan, Burnsville, Mendota Heights and Minneapolis and that attendance is expected to be significant. Miller also stated the Public Hearing will be noticed in the City's newsletter. PROPOSED PROCEDURAL, CHANGE TO RUNWAY USE Miller introduced the item stating it has been suggested to divert operations from Runway 17 to Runway 12R for night -time operations, in accordance with the Runway Use System at MSP. She also stated this would be a public policy decision which would involve moving noise from one residential area to another less densely populated area. Miller suggested this recommendation be proposed to the City Council, and then to the NOC. The Commission discussed the proposed change, including the effect on Mendota Heights residents. Eagan Airport Relations Commission August 14, 2007 Page 3 of 3 Walsh made a motion to recommend that the City Council send a letter to the NOC asking that an item be added to the 2008 NOC Work Program to review shifting nighttime traffic from Runway 17 to Runway 12R, over the Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor. Aljets seconded the motion. All members voted in favor. TOUR OF THE FAA AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWER Miller stated a tour of the Air Traffic Control Tower has been scheduled for September 11, 2007 and will take the place of the regular September ARC meeting. The Commission agreed on a start time of 6:30 p.m. CITIES V. MAC LAWSUIT UPDATE Miller introduced the item giving background on the lawsuit between the cities of Minneapolis, Richfield and Eagan and the Metropolitan Aiiports Commission noting that a ruling by Judge Aldrich is expected by August 24, 2007. She further stated mediation was held between the Plaintiffs and the MAC earlier this month, however, no agreement was reached. Miller stated she will inform the Commission once she hears the result of the ruling. JULY 18, 2007 NOC MEETING Miller introduced the item noting two memos from Chad Leqve regarding aircraft fleet mix and runway use concerns raised by the City of Eagan. Miller and the Commission discussed her talking points from the July 18, 2007 NOC meeting expressing the City's concerns regarding use of Runway 17 -35, The Commission discussed the FEIS document and the fact that the cities of Minneapolis and Mendota Heights have contracts with the MAC. It was agreed that Miller would distribute to Commissioners either electronically or by link a copy of the FEIS document for their review. CLOSURE OF RUNWAY 12R Miller stated Runway 12R closed on Monday and will be closed for 2 months. She further stated Eagan could experience a decrease in noise during the construction period, but normal operations will resume in mid - October. ADJOURNMENT Upon motion by Aljets, seconded by Mencel, the meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m. All members voted in favor. DATE NO SECRETARY 3/1/2007 - 3/31 /2007 Eagan /Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport MSP Corridor ;emu -- : z4 - *This report is for informational ur oses only and cannot be used for enforcer, ent purposes. Metropolitan Airports Commission 3459 Carrier Jets Departed Runways 12L and 12R in August 2007 3209 (92.8 %) of those Operations Remained in the Corridor i• tdinneapilly Maplewood West Salnt Paul VdoudUt - ! n� ➢}aolghPa {. MSP _ SuulhSa r ®aul RlchfialII Sunfish Lalic Ni. mml • L ��-r 1 rtt 1 Il {Jn F ,1: Sslnl Paul Park Oloomington - Inver Grove Heights luau, rrw Fnse Eagan - ranuta.�wllaysa ' ev.rnnn ua4=. COIN110 Grove Einnsvllle - Apple valley - t� Rosalpounl 3459 Total 12L & 12R Carrier Departure Operations 3209 (92.8 %) Total 12L & 12R Carrier Departure Operations in the Corridor Monthly Eagan /Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis. Report Generated; 09/10/2007 14:43 Page 1 9 j ,Mulncapol� is I i f /� ualnt Pnul - klaplwood � � JlYddir I n 41ron:lbt eA Stinl Paul s mlmr�� "I. '5oulh Said- Insaul Rahfiel <• /l Sunfish Lake Newporl .KUY ( `Y! ✓`alai Paul Park .Slnaninglan '' Inver Greve Heights Ugpn - _ - FIStu;tbll YItI,F'.F CoUge Grove Burnsville Apple Valley 'Roaenipw ,.I •ii 3209 (92.8 %) Total 12L & 12R Carrier Departure Operations in the Corridor Monthly Eagan /Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis. Report Generated; 09/10/2007 14:43 Page 1 9 Metropolitan Airports Commission 108 (3.1 %) Runway 12L and 12R Carrier Jet Departure Operations were North of the 090° Corridor Boundary During August 2007 Of Those, 8( - jReturned to Corridor Before Reaching SE Border of Ft. Snelling State Park t41nre apaU `` \v I s__ ( i ,., Smil Jl��m Iy1S IYt len0ola 19hf }i i�� J.,.._ n 5c c - Pill i� ..... rJ�.l ry �q'k rolelLL• I t �li• �llilr olieyllr �� }�._l' LI Y� I -, ' t tlu jt) GIDYO .urn �� illn ��=:• I Minneapolis-St. Paul Penetration Gate Plot for North Corridor Gate 8/1/2007 00:00:00 - 8/31/2007 23:59:59 108 Tracks Crossed Gate: Left = 15 (13.9 %), Right = 93 (86.1 %) 6 Page 2 Monthly Eagan /Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis. Report Generated: 09/10/2007 14:43 1 Metropolitan Airports Commission 118 (3.4 %) Runway 12L and 12R Carrier Jet Departure Operations were South of the Corridor (South of 30L Localizer) During August 2007 Of Those, 1(—)Returned to Corridor Before Reaching SE Border of Ft. Snelling State Park .III_ Ir I ss� i� i,l •. ,._ __ �L^.— ,...,.f ahJula ..�. j jj �r I I I / ryIii �, /f�� ap I 5� �1 /jI1I {�} - v7 oWO4�j21 J// : °: .:I� J uK11 NN.r:.1 t� " la s ca 4Vesl Sa'113UP_auI ` WooAbu r II (fit i 1 I� 4 tl1_ I t i -,� Ii1Sf ! `�,Prinnd6la r '�!" �s,rfh San Paul . RiBhfiald II I no ` i in M `f tml Paid P.) ._ (3lenihhlpjUlt � "'- + ' .. I. r�lrr. i v ivt a mr_r.i i r�✓. fff� 1) s lnrl 0 Hrl[jhln J i . x'11.. i / II ....r t I �v SSlfTl rl .._. _ :. ..„ 1 Con. - 9urneYllle _ i s ... II r i A Monthly Eagan /Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis. Report Generated: 09 /10/200714:43 Page 3 1D Metropolitan Airports Commission 61 (1.8 %) Runway 12L and 12R Carrier Jet Departure Operations were 5° South of the Corridor (5° South of 30L Localizer) During August 2007 RIChfield t'to io ��1-- -�^ -•� s fi IM �k L mfsh L I S..v` , N putt - ..""-', t laf�` . „ 4...� -... i i r1 \ Paul.. - , ff \ - Grovo � r ✓ -�i. - f\pple Valhy Page 4 Monthly Eagan /Mendota Heights uepart ur e Uornaor Analysis. MeporE ueneratuu -. VI/ I V;GUUf I`F.°FJ Metropolitan Airports Commission Top 15 Runway 12L/12R Departure Destinations for August 2007 Airport City Heading #Ops Total Ops ORD CHICAGO (O'HARE) 1240 121 3.5% DTW DETROIT 1050 87 2.5% SEA SEATTLE 2780 85 2.5% ATL ATLANTA 1490 58 1.7% MEM MEMPHIS 1620 54 1.6% LAX LOS ANGELES 2380 47 1.4% DFW DALLAS/ FORT WORTH 1930 44 1.3% DEN DENVER 2370 41 1.2% FAR FARGO 3120 41 1.2% ANC ANCHORAGE 2920 38 1.1% YYZ TORONTO 950 38 1.1% LGA NEW YORK (LA GUARDIA) 105° 36 1% STL ST LOUIS 1600 35 1% SFO SAN FRANCISCO 2610 35 1% BOS BOSTON 970 34 1% Monthly Eagan /Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis. Report Generated: 09/1012007 14;43 Page 5 G/ — J 9 �( -- )$} 2( -� - - -- -`�, �- \ \ : �x . © §.«�ƒw\2 . ism �( Table of Contents for .August 2007 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 Top 15 Nighttime Operator's by Type 9 MSP Top 15 Nighttime Operator's Stage Mix 10 Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks 11 -14 MSP ANOMS Remote Monitoring Tower Site Locations Map 15 Time Above dB Threshold for Carrier Jet Arrival Related Noise Events 16 Time Above dB Threshold for Carrier Jet Departure Related Noise Events 17 Carrier Jet Arrival Related Noise Events 18 Carrier Jet Departure Related Noise Events 19 MSP Top Ten Aircraft Noise Events per RMT 20-32 Analysis of Daily and Monthly Aircraft Noise Events DNL 33 -35 A Product of the Metr7Tn Airports Commission ANCMS Program MSP Complaints by City August 2007 City Arrival Departure Other Number of Complaints Number of Complainants % of Totnl Complaints MINNEAPOLIS 90 195 193 162 39 310 989 214 IT9gI) EAGAN 34 157 142 965 14 344 1656 108 29.9 1"u SAI'N'T PAUL 52 48 5 23 2 38 168 88 3@6 APPLE VALi.BY 22 381 1 24 19 143 590 42 10 74,h BURNSVILLE 7 9 9 155 1 52 233 21 4.2% BL.00MINCi'1'ON 1 1 30 20 1 70 123 17 2.211, RIC'HFIEI -D 2 0 1 2 728 6 739 10 13.340 NIENDCITA HEIGHSS 0 0 10 427 0 0 437 7 L.AKEVILLE 4 11 1 2 1 4 23 6 OA% EDINA 0 0 1 1 0 7 9 4 0.24i, COON RAPIDS 4 0 0 t'1 0 0 4 4 0 IVo FARN11NCi'I'ON 0 0 0 11 0 17 28 3 0.54.0 INVER GROVE HE-.101-ITS 11 0 1 to 1 3 5 3 0. 1'!-;, MAPLEWOOD 2 0 0 0 0 l 3 3 011' %n EDEN PRAIRIE 1 0 441 0 0 67 509 3 9.21!•0 ROSE` ILLE ! 0 0 0 0 4 5 2 0.1'x0 SAINTLOUIS PARK 2 1 0 0 0 0 3 2 0.10 ROSENIOUNT .3 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0,1'.'•0 OSSEO 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 11 "•� CHANHASSfiN 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 (Ba PRIOR LAKE 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 Oe.O NIAHTOMEDI 0 1 0 0 0 0 l 1 0% GOLDEN VALLEY 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 (1'.'•n QuIER 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 2 0410 Total 1031 2627 1878 5536 544 Nature of MSP Complaints Complaint Total Early /Late 203 1.314 1':'sngine Run -up 3 43 Excessive Noise 1865 3532 Frequency 255 1657 Ground Noise 3 235 Helicopter 3 5 Low Flying 200 1741 Structural Disturbance 17 215 Other 3 62 Total 11356 Note: Shaded Columns represent MSP complaints filed via the Internet. Sum or Total of complaints may not equal 100% due to rounding- *As of-May, 2005, theMSp Compininis 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 Time of Day Time Total 0000 -0559 64 1 234 0600- 0659 38 1 171 0700 - 1159 379 1 883 1200 -1559 246 430 1600 -1959 524 714 2000 -2159 277 554 2200 -2259 252 466 2300 -2359 86 218 Total 5536 Complaints by Airport Airport Total MSP 5536 Ahlake 7 Anoka 15 Crystal 0 Flying Cloud 71 Lake: Elmo 0 St. Paul 0 M ISC. 0 Total 5629 Report Generated: 09 /10/2007 1 2 : 2 5 1 5 - - 1 - MSP International Airport Aviation Noise Complaints for August 2007 + ' '` Elk River f , , Fa'rs� Lake i Otsego `t, + >7 MsslstiPr10ivrs y Andover Hartz lake _. I _.Rq �ft!*VER ,�� EI Ca MARINE- i.fd(E o al ..... i �, n Lanover �Cham'vAnn Rapids Blaine�L"n`tt(ti l Hugo ' IIF I . I tT01 e iew r i .... '4reenfield Corcoran Map rave Brooklyn Park- -,, 'M��apds "btN �eiI�, 1 �y�l rth` }} _� rbi n' ills' rr�� ,v _ - -- - -"- _� r yn C rfew'13nr� iorr Re T� Ltake �, -� _ "�la might `'aiifii . di Stillwater _ hh r31ur"liia�rH•Lgh x�� 4t= Ile, z. Medina Cryst4�' r .. iepend n e Ply tYl Rbb'bt_s ale Lrt .I 0 oseville I I I' apte° Iden V4 y , "Ca like Elmo: r Qran°{tfA lu.- ,� J 1 S �rlt Lois P rk(� w nn�>3tA�' n; 4�: D ,. II,� i vf'fbp � ras, `I .. opku�e /� t Sh rew�a ,! A; 1 M1t - rt Saint Paull Wo- odb'ury Allan I Edrna , endA ? } 97 r , �t ry pn GhalShassen' .Eden SndPaui Park t Bloom gRry r Grove Ieil9tsl Chaska "!r,' C�ttage Grove L__ IVER It h9 NN JE$OTA J ., f .. Shako ep�e - °' MISSISS1 "RIVER -�_t - :° a j pr I F I e V: r r o f Rosemount NHIUFt"E Naga 111 iastirigs I Pnor r —e7s� ' F" J�r an Lakevill ,.,.a jj armgton Pr {argue Number of Complaints per Address a ASk 1 -6 7.21 22 -44 45 -79 80 -190 191 -328 329 - 507 508.714 -2- ' ) Report Generated: 09 /10/2007 12:25 Available Hours for Runway Use August 2007 (Source: FAA Runway Use Logs) I) All Hours �'`� l05 r � >r-- oKOrviis I�al�� +lilt v �i , Pn:F'it I \ •• s � -• -� '•... 4 � . ,,..tom nneapolis int Pa 5 it .. �p 57 �-; } 62 � .t: FORT j 1� .116 STl i E FARK ��..._ 15 Sp J Cr = - — -- ' � ..5 M�.� 1 MSP INGLAK tchfield {1 a 11ej ?t, .MSP,., 5 24 .✓✓ f/ l�, ks:_nsX f i. BI omi i Eagan (. VG hiFgG01NLAKC !r - TT fj' ......... ,; ifll OJ Nighttime Hours Vs 10:30pm to 6:00am kRl< nneapolis }1 0 M 5 0 int P4 I 62 "'—J FORT 57An`rE PARK ,MSP F t1.iNGLAXE }- iohfield - - ~� -. to E 6 W s (. + f�UN�CJ 116 LAKE !I omi 77 FAA Avera e Dailv Count Report Generated: 09/10/2007 12:25 C7 - 3 - August 2006 August 2007 Air Carrier 841 790 Commuter 398 401 General Aviation 101 51 Military 1 6 10 Total 1 1345 1252 Report Generated: 09/10/2007 12:25 C7 - 3 - All Operations Runway Use Report August 2007 JL__ 1,G.Jttllivro,(h 1" - IL 1l I('4AhF. t� r;� Rlneap6lis .$ °/ int f'a ( 5 5% L 1 6.0 } t Ie6 R. . � . i wF �nJUracE � is 93 l T o // 0. 1,; loom'p'jg4 5 t Cagan .. i . 77 UVE idEPDaN Ail`:N I `_11111 71 V11 [ILII EIf � �f RWY Arrival/ Departure Overflight Area Count Operations Percent Last Year Count Operations Last Year Percent 04 Arr So. Richfield /Bloomington 353 1.8% 5 0% 12L Arr So. Minneapolis /No. Richfield 3974 20.6% 5676 27.6% 12R Arr So. Minneapolis /No. Richfield 1667 8.6% 5662 27.5% 17 Arr So. Minneapolis 1383 7.2% 0 0% 22 Arr St, Paul /Highland Park 967 5% 2 0% 30L Arr Eagan /Mendota Heights 1506 7.8% 3277 15.9 %° 30R Arr Eagan /Mendota Heights 5463 28.3% 3694 17,9% 35 Arr Bloomington /Eagan 3973 20.6% 2266 11% Total Arrivals 19286 20582 04 Dep St. Paul /Highland Park 910 4.8% 18 0.1% 12L Dep Eagan /Mendota Heights 3691 19.3% 4931 24.1% 12R Dep Eagan /Mendota Heights 593 1 3.1% 3012 14,7% 17 Dep Bloomington /Eagan 4500 23.5% 4037 19.7% 22 Dep So, Richfield /Bloomington 146 0.8% 17 0.1% 30L Dep So. Minneapolis /No. Richfield 1752 9.2% 4145 20.3% 30R Dep So. Minneapolis /No. Richfield 3532 18,5% 4303 21% 35 Dep So. Minneapolis 4017 21% 0 0% Total Departures 19141 20463 Total Operations 38427 41045 1140te; JUM 01 muo %o 111dy I IUL Uqual IV-0 — N 1- 1-I11u• -4- Report Generated: 09/10/2007 12:25 Carrier Jet Operations Runway Use Report August 2007 .............. 1. ... 5 ® FII I'1':Ni.rnil �1�0 _: t� II II Jl�F'n3i1. j\ �mneapolis o L- .5 % $% F 1 ° { I, 7nir. P RI Ak ... -- u o I - � S F 111JU lAKF ' N)sP = c. MSP 9 0 01 o I '" u yYiUly UI.UO LAkE 1 looml'tflt Cagan �/ 1 1,¢ \N S( �J 1 L•1 Ilf 7� NI[nLll'L I� � j RWY Arrival/ Departure Overflight Area Count Operations Percent Last Year Count Operations Last Year Percent 04 Arr So. Richfield /Bloomington 299 1.9% 3 0% 12L Arr So. Minneapolis /No. Richfield 3333 20.9% 4675 27.6% 12R Arr So. Minneapolis /No. Richfield 1415 8.9% 4684 27.6% 17 Arr So. Minneapolis 1126 7.1% 0 0% 22 Arr St. Paul /Highland Park 803 5% 1 0% 30L Arr Eagan /Mendota Heights 1223 7.7% 2714 16% 30R Arr Eagan /Mendota Heights 4430 27.8 %° 3000 17.7% 35 Arr Bloomington /Eagan 3287 20.7% 1882 11.1% Total Arrivals 15916 16959 04 Dep St. Paul /Highland Park 756 4.8% 16 0.1% 121,. Dep Eagan /Mendota Heights 2923 18.4% 3944 23.3% 12R Dep Eagan /Mendota Heights 536 3.4% 2592 15.3% 17 Dep Bloomington /Eagan 3876 24.4% 3390 20 % 22 Dep So. Richfield /Bloomington 141 0.9% 17 0.1% 301- Dep So. Minneapolis /No. Richfield 1448 9.1% 3508 20.7% 30R Dep So. Minneapolis /No. Richfield 2852 18% 3490 20.6% 35 Dep So. Minneapolis 3353 211% 0 0% Total Departures 15885 16957 Total Operations 31801 33916 NOW; OVIII VI M.. %o'—y uVlOg— Ivu -iu uuv ,u:vu::u::,y. Report Generated: 09/1012007 12:25 1 O -5. August 2007 MSP Carrier Jet Fleet Composition Type FAR Part 36 Take - Off Noise Level Aircraft Description Stage Count Percent B742 110 Boeing 747 -200 3 9 0% DC10 103 McDonnell Douglas DC10 3 183 _ 0.6% 8744 101.6 Boeing 747•400 3 68 0.2% DC8Q 100.5 McDonnell Douglas DC8 Modified Stage 3 3 65 0,2% MD11 95,8 McDonnell Douglas MD 11 3 1 13 0% 8767 95.7 Boeing 767 -300 3 41 11% B762 95.7 Boeing 767-200 3 1 0% A330 95.6 Airbus Industries A330 3 357 1,1% B72Q 94,5 Boeing 727 Modified Stage 3 3 289 0.9% B777 943 Boeing 777.200 3 2 0 % A300 94 Airbus Industries A300 3 167 0.5% A310 92,9 Airbus Industries A310 3 42 0,1% B73Q 92.1 Boeing 737 Modified Stage 3 3 4 0% MD80 91.5 McDonnell Douglas MD80 3 963 1 3% B757 91.4 Boeing 757 3 3557 11.2% DC9Q 91 McDonnell Douglas DC9 Modified Stage 3 3 4689 14.7% B734 88.9 Boeing 737 -400 3 4 0% A320 87.8 Airbus Industries A320 3 4977 15.7% B738 87.7 Boeing 737 -800 3 1 1152 3.6% 8735 87.7 Boeing 737 -500 3 1 359 1,1% B733 87.5 Boeing 737 -300 3 711 2,2% A318 87.5 Airbus Industries A318 3 4 0% B737 87,5 Boeing 737 -700 3 317 1% A319 87.5 Airbus Industries A319 3 4433 13.9% E170 83.7 Embraer ERJ -170 3 339 1.1% E145 83.7 Embraer ERJ -145 3 1 598 1.9% B717 83 Boeing 717 -200 3 443 1.4% CRJ 82.7 Canadair Regional Jet 3 7591 23.9% E135 77.9 Embraer ERJ -135 3 419 1.3% J328 76.5 Fairchild Dornier 328 3 4 0% Totals 31801 Note: Sum of fleet mlx % may not equal tgo% due to rounding. Note: Stage III represent aircraft modified to meet all stage 111 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 per aircraft type during takeoff 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. - 6 - 0-v Report Generated: 09/10/2007 12:25 Count Current Percent Last Years Percent Stage II 0 0% 0% Stage III 5047 15,9% 17% Stage III Manufactured 26754 84.1% 1 83% Total Stage III 31801 Note: Stage III represent aircraft modified to meet all stage 111 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 per aircraft type during takeoff 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. - 6 - 0-v Report Generated: 09/10/2007 12:25 Nighttime All Operations 10:30 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. Runway Use Report August 2007 OEOMIG mneapolis � %c 1.3 °/ int Pali) I 7 } rtvlsP .� 2. T... ................ . 110 i MS'P SVF I IN°L(JCF - i ,r l 11 -0SP G 4% GI.Ah t 5� •3 .40o " ! ivuN,auslAkE x 4 loom'/2g ° Logan 77 �' 1XJG (r1EAUpN LAKE .�- (/ RWY Arrival/ Departure Overflight Area Count Operations Percent Last Year Count Operations Last Year Percent 04 Arr So. Richfield /Bloomington 35 2.3% 3 0.2% 12L Arr So. Minneapolis /No, Richfield 446 27.8% 304 21.1 °/O 12R Arr So. Minneapolis /No. Richfield 81 5.4% 397 27.6% 17 Arr So. Minneapolis 15 1% 0 0% 22 Arr St. Paul /Highland Park 0 0% 1 0.1% 301.. Arr Eagan /Mendota Heights 209 14% 433 30.1% 30R Arr Eagan /Mendota Heights 409 27.4% 288 20% 35 Arr Bloomington /Eagan 329 22% 12 0.8% Total Arrivals 1494 1438 04 Dep St. Paul /Highland Park 16 1.3% 2 0.2% 121.. Dep Eagan /Mendota Heights 359 29.8% 328 38.9% 12R Dep Eagan /Mendota Heights 13 1.1% 203 24.1% 17 Dep Bloomington /Eagan 285 23.7% 27 3.2% 22 Dep So. Richfield /Bloomington 5 0.4% 1 0.1% 30L Dep So. Minneapolis /No. Richfield 40 3.3% 124 14.7% 30R Dep So. Minneapolis /No. Richfield 345 28.7% 159 18.8% 35 Dep So. Minneapolis 140 11.6% 0 0% Total Departures 1203 844 Total Operations 2697 2282 note; otim O7 muJ %o may im ellual W V %0 uua to tuu(IuIItJ. Report Generated: 09 /10/2007 12:25 C 1 - 7 _ Nighttime Carrier Jet Operations 10:30 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. Runway Use Report August 2007 . ... ....... _I I..I 1..._ ............. ..ait;i Hk - 4 .; »M \ 5 ®- 4fi �JI: Hi.rtAl 4l -T N ICI F 1 t. PAR), �1 ;� o:COMIG � � - �• �� Ifff -� � mnoapolls `��' 1.30 Int PaLi KP 1 /IvISP 4 '� LII ichilold r °/ Is ivlsP /J/ 6 4% 4Up n, I i 2 %./ Y 9� 41 n tia .5°° °° J, � YaUN CLUO fAhE �. h; loom "iqt �E� r -Cagan ............ Tr ! IXien+EwavUVSE -.._' 1 LE51 7l L'IICYlI l I P l RwY Arrival/ Departure Overflight Area Count Operations Percent Last Year Count Operations Last Year Percent 04 Arr So. Richfield /Bloomington 28 2% 3 0.2% 12L Arr So. Minneapolis /No. Richfield 384 28% 282 21.7% 12R Arr So. Minneapolis /No. Richfield 79 5.8% 372 28.6% 17 Arr So. Minneapolis 14 1% 0 0% 22 Arr St. Paul /Highland Park 0 0% 0 0% 30L Arr Eagan /Mendota Heights 191 14% 380 29.2% 30R Arr Eagan /Mendota Heights 363 26.5% 253 19.5% 35 Arr Bloomington /Eagan 310 22.6% 10 0.8% Total Arrivals 1369 1300 04 Dep St. Paul /Highland Park 14 1.3% 1 0.1% 12L. Dep Eagan /Mendota Heights 306 28.7% 284 39.2% 12R Dep Eagan /Mendota Heights 10 0.9% 175 24.2% 17 Dep Bloomington /Eagan 263 24.7% 25 3.5% 22 Dep So. Richfield /Bloomington 5 0.5% 1 0.1% 30L Dep So. Minneapolis /No. Richfield 33 3.1% 100 13.8% 30R Dep So. Minneapolis /No. Richfield 306 28.7% 138 191% 35 Dep So. Minneapolis 128 12% 0 0% Total Departures 1065 724 Total Operations 2434 2024 NOW jUM OT NVO "/0 may IIUl eyudl 11N70 UUU W fuunamy. -8- a 0_� Report Generated: 09/10/2007 12:25 August 2007 Top 15 Actual Nighttime Jet Operators by Type 10:30 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. Total Nighttime Jet Operations by Hour Hour C_ ount 2230 772 2300 _ 658 2400 229 100 59 200 29 300 47 400 68 500 572 TOTAL 2434 Airline ID Stage Type Count American AAL 3 B738 29 American AAL 3 B757 2 American AAL 3 MD80 28 America West AWE 3 A319 4 America West AWE 3 A320 47 America West AWE 3 B733 2 Continental Express BTA 3 E145 71 DHL DIIL 3 B72Q 55 FedEx FDX 3 A300 12 FedEx FDX 3 A310 19 FedEx FDX 3 B72Q 3 FedEx _ FDX 3 DC10 47 FedEx FDX 3 MD11 3 Pinnacle FLG 3 CRJ 235 Kitty Hawk KHA 3 B733 42 Kitty Flawk KHA 3 B737 1 Mesaba MES 3 CRJ 49 Northwest NWA 3 A319 161 Northwest NWA 3 A320 260 Northwest NWA 3 A330 29 Northwest NWA 3 B757 310 Northwest NWA 3 DC9Q 327 Republic Airlines RPA 3 E170 49 Sun Country SCX 3 B738 180 Skywest Airlines SKW 3 CRJ 62 United UAL 3 A319 4 United UAL 3 B733 61 United UAL 3 B735 17 UPS UPS 3 A300 33 UPS UPS 3 B757 28 UPS UPS 3 DCBQ 35 US Airways USA 3 A319 60 TOTAL 2265 Note: The top 15 nighttime operators represent 93J% of the total nighttime carrier jet operations. Report Generated: 09/1012007 12:25 0,13 - 9 - 1200 1000 In O Boo w:. 42 W c9. CA 600 a. QA 6 400 200 O August 2007 Nighttime Fleet Stage Mix for Top 15 Airlines 10 :30 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. r-1 RAL AWE BTA DHL FDX FLG KHA MES NWH WH txuN arw -HI ura uan Alrli e� OManufactured Stage 3 ®Stage 3 CIStaEe 2 August 2007 Nighttime Fleet Stage Mix for Top 15 Airlines in-'An n m to R•nn am_ Airline Stage 2 Stage3 Manufactured Stage 3 Total AAL 0 0 59 59 AWE 0 0 53 53 BTA 0 0 71 71 DHL 0 55 0 55 FDX 0 3 81 84 FLG 0 0 235 235 KHA 0 0 43 43 MES 0 0 49 49 N WA 0 327 760 1087 RPA 0 0 49 49 SCX 0 0 180 180 SKW 0 0 62 62 UAL 0 0 82 82 UPS. 0 35 61 96 USA 0 0 1 60 60 Total 0 420 1 1845 2265 Note: UPS DC8Q and B727Q aircraft are re- engined with manufactured stage 3 engines. -10- R� Report Generated: 09/10/2007 12:25 Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks Carrier Jet Operations — August 2007 Aug 1 thru 8, 2007 — 4202 Carrier Jet Arrivals Aug 1 thru 8, 2007 — 4216 Carrier Jet Departures Aug 1 thru 8, 2007 — 348 Nighttime Carrier Jet Arrivals Aug 1 thru 8, 2007 —185 Nighttime Carrier Jet Departures 1- --'ny- i ea POI is �� {tVl dot • c ° �l t Itfield unt sh It¢, 4 i sine IN r�� . � �,�� Ap Y •van�v s g��, ttL1 P tk s f r Mi t eapo�i�1 1.4 II ri i \ ✓ � �!� �'� '1 � .t Saint oRt ��J_ . _ boa iSr i jeYjfidld ... ( MSP //, tom} t!nflsh L�Icn ' �� r�raunn;r�ancrr,lnicr t j� 1�,'� ✓,i l o6 Helghi i + CAI IU 1 f Savage .I :, �k ,-'I AP le Valley . y Rosemount . ...... e . ,�o Report Generated: 09/10/2007 12:25 013— - 11 - it Louis Park Ivtrniiea ohs '� t � ✓ = °'�i '' c Ii pest Saint Paul' A;ha Fr c1 w p f ! South So Richneld / 5tmnsh Lake 'i filon.'r�+ngPan' Inver Grove Heighl Sagan :' ^vl7d S•(fh: +ALLEY n4 T{, 'x0. LII 'ILF Burnsville' li .. - Savage ® rApple Valley Rosemount ; ,; C6at'e Aug 1 thru 8, 2007 — 348 Nighttime Carrier Jet Arrivals Aug 1 thru 8, 2007 —185 Nighttime Carrier Jet Departures 1- --'ny- i ea POI is �� {tVl dot • c ° �l t Itfield unt sh It¢, 4 i sine IN r�� . � �,�� Ap Y •van�v s g��, ttL1 P tk s f r Mi t eapo�i�1 1.4 II ri i \ ✓ � �!� �'� '1 � .t Saint oRt ��J_ . _ boa iSr i jeYjfidld ... ( MSP //, tom} t!nflsh L�Icn ' �� r�raunn;r�ancrr,lnicr t j� 1�,'� ✓,i l o6 Helghi i + CAI IU 1 f Savage .I :, �k ,-'I AP le Valley . y Rosemount . ...... e . ,�o Report Generated: 09/10/2007 12:25 013— - 11 - Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks Carrier Jet Operations -- August 2007 Aug 9 thru 16, 2007 — 4242 Carrier Jet Arrivals Aug 9 thru 16, 2007 — 4240 Carrier Jet Departures Aug 9 thru 16, 2007 — 356 Nighttime Carrier Jet Arrivals Aug 9 thru 16, 2007 — 269 Nighttime Carrier ,Jet Departures -12- 0�� Report Generated: 09110/2007 12:25 Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks Carrier Jet Operations — August 2007 Aug 17 thru 24, 2007 — 3892 Carrier Jet Arrivals Aug 17 thru 24, 2007 — 3868 Carrier Jet Departures Aug 17 thru 24, 2007 — 396 Nighttime Carrier Jet Arrivals Aug 17 thru 24, 2007 — 402 Nighttime Carrier Jet Departures I NU capolis Aw �eid r Iq k j jL :� L bt$ n `li ri bunt; Report Generated: 09/10/2007 12 :25 -13- Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks Carrier Jet Operations — August 2007 Aug 25 thru 31, 2007 — 3580 Carrier Jet Arrivals Aug 25 thru 31, 2007 — 3561 Carrier Jet Departures I Cnuis Park . Minneapoli Edina rs Richfield I M �p H L t Saint Paul ul t �le� I South 5a _ Sunfish I ake Aug 25 thru 31, 2007 — 269 Nighttime Carrier Jet Arrivals Aug 25 thru 31, 2007 — 209 Nighttime Carrier Jet Departures -14- ; F Report Generated: 09/1012007 12:25 MSP International Airport Remote Monitoring Tower (RMT) Site Locations I e _� .k�l Falum Hehts, r� f + Saint Lou Park' ` l lA1C�CALHGNIN.. µ "t trnneaj olis b' i aul 29 � SISSIPPI RI 3 II S t 10 4sy e West Saint Pa It g 12 �^ �,..' � .,._.,,/• 1 r� • to 2 outF� S a i n au IvISPt irhfleld # 13 5t nfish L I e ITL FfzR71LLIIiG: � t r - 24' .. ApTA RIVER, I e! Bloo ngt on �� ✓s San 22 - �2 .6LA�QfCDOG `3S - 35 ! ELACK!:003 LAKE rnsville Apple Valley Rosemount Remote Monitoring Tower Report Generated: 09/10/2007 12:25 h^ -15- Time Above dB Threshold for Arrival Related Noise Events August 2007 RMT ID City Address Time >= 65dB Time >= 80dB Time >= 90dB Time >= 100dB 1 Minneapolis Xerxes Ave, & 41st St, 13:50;41 00:02:05 00:00:00 00:00:00 2 Minneapolis Fremont Ave. & 43rd St, 19:56 :51 00:24:50 00:00:08 _ 00:00:00 3 Minneapolis West Elmwood St. & Belmont Ave. 09 :52:44 00:29;09 00:00 :07 00:00:00 4 Minneapolis Park Ave. & 48th St, 19:51:40 00:39:47 00 :00:13 00:00:00 5 Minneapolis 12th Ave. & 58th St. 12 :30:17 02 :15 :23 00 :01:18 00 :00:00 6 Minneapolis 25th Ave, & 57th St. 20:21:53 04:56 :07 00 :13:27 00:.00:07 7 Richfield Wentworth Ave, & 64th St, 00:10:25 00:00:06 00:00:00 00 :00:00 8 Minneapolis Longfellow Ave. & 43rd St, 02:52:02 00:00:27 00:00:00 00:.00:00 9 St, Paul Saratoga St. & Hartford Ave, 05 :08:56 00:30:24 00:00.11 00:00,00 10 St. Paul Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St. 04 :51:28 01:04:48 00:00:58 00:00:00 11 St. Paul Finn St, & Scheffer Ave. 00:11:42 00:00 :22 00:00:00 00:00:00 12 St. Paul Alton St, & Rockwood Ave. 00:00:51 00:00:00 00:00:00 00;00:00 13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mahican Court 00:10:19 00:00:00 00:00:00 00 :00:00 14 Eagan 1st St. & McKee St. 15:26:25 00:01:38 00 :00:00 00:00:00 15 Mendota Heights Cullon St. & Lexington Ave. 00:32:12 00 :00:03 00:00:00 00:00:00 16 Eagan Avalon Ave. & Vilas Lane 07:59 :20 00:22:15 00:00:00 00:00:00 17 Bloomington 84th St. & 4th Ave. 00 :02:39 00:00:19 00:00:00 00:00:00 18 Richfield 75th St. & 17th Ave. 01:48:32 00:00:53 00:00.00 00:00:00 19 Bloomington 16th Ave. & 84th St, 00:40:29 00:00:27 00 :00:00 00:00 :00 20 Richfield 75th St. & 3rd Ave. 00;01.30 00 :00:00 00:00:00 00:00 :00 21 Inver Grove Heights Barbara Ave. & 67th St. 00:12:29 00;00:00 00:00:00 00:00 :00 22 Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail 05:34:29 00 :00:00 00;00:00 00 :00:00 23 Mendota Heights End of Kenndon Ave, 01 :48:26 00:00 :27 00:00:00 00 :00:00 24 Eagan Chapel Ln. & Wren Ln. 14 :59:28 00 :02:30 00 :00:00 00:00 :00 25 Eagan Moonshine Park 1321 Jurdy Rd. 00:15:00 00:00:00 00 :00.00 00:00;00 26 Inver Grove Heights 6796 Arkansas Ave, W. 01 :21:37 00:00:04 00:00;00 00:00:00 27 Minneapolis Anthony School 5757 Irving Ave. S, 00:04:01 00;00:02 00:00:00 00:00:00 28 Richfield 6645 16th Ave. S. 01 :42;45 00 :00:45 00:00:00 00:00:00 29 Minneapolis Ericsson Elem, School 4315 31 st Ave. S. 00:06:25 00:00:00 00:00 :00 00 :00:00 30 Bloomington 8715 River Ridge Rd. 08 :41 :21 00:01:05 00:00;00 00:00;00 31 Bloomington 9501 12th Ave. S. 00:01 :36 00:00:03 00:00:00 00:00:00 32 Bloomington 10325 Pleasant Ave. S. 00:01:14 00 :00:00 00 :00:00 00:00:00 33 Burnsville North River Hills Park 00 :02:14 00;00;00 00:00:00 00:00:00 34 Burnsville Red Oak Park 00:06 :52 00:00:00 00:00:00 00 :00:00 35 Eagan 2100 Garnet Ln. 12:06:24 00 :00 :18 00:00:00 00;00:00 36 Apple Valley Briar Oaks & Scout Pond 18:1734 00.01:16 00 :00:00 00 :00:00 37 Eagan 4399 Woodgate Ln, N. 00:0512 00 :00:00 00:00;00 00:00:00 38 Eagan 3957 Turquoise Cir, 00:01:34 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 39 Eagan 3477 St, Charles Pl. 00:00:47 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 Total Time for Arrival Noise Events 201:50:24 10:55:33 00:16:22 00:00:07 -16- 30 Report Generated: 09/10/2007 12:25 Time Above Threshold dB for Departure Related Noise Events August 2007 RMT ID City Address Time >= 65dB Time >= 80dI3 Time >= 90dB Time >= 100dB 1 Minneapolis Xerxes Ave, & 41st St, 05:25:11 00:01:48 00 :00:00 00:00:.00 2 Minneapolis Fremont Ave. & 43rd St. 07:56:48 00 :08;21 00:00 :05 00:00:00 3 Minneapolis West Elmwood St. & Belmont Ave. 16:15:22 00 :32 :42 00:00:42 00 :00:00 4 Minneapolis Park Ave. & 48th St, 22 :37 :04 01 :08 :41 00:04;38 00:00.00 5 Minneapolis 12th Ave. & 58th St. 43:31:47 04:01:26 00:31:36 00:00:14 6 Minneapolis 25th Ave. & 57th St. 44 :50:25 06:54 :23 00:59 :22 00:01:49 7 Richfield Wentworth Ave. & 64th St, 10 :16:48 00:1915 00:00 :16 00:00:00 8 Minneapolis Longfellow Ave. & 43rd St. 15:42:03 00 :54 :47 00:02:08 00 :00:00 9 St. Paul Saratoga St. & Hartford Ave. 01 :14:11 00:05 :34 00 :00 :34 00:00:00 10 St, Paul Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St. 05:08:17 00:59:47 00 :11:30 00:00:93 11 SL Paul Finn St. & Scheffer Ave. 02;32;26 00 :11:18 00:01 :42 00:00:00 12 St. Paul Alton St, & Rockwood Ave. 00:42:06 00;04:18 00:00:21 00:00:00 13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Court 05 :53:02 00:01:25 00:00:00 00 :00:00 14 Eagan 1 st St. & McKee St. 13:25:31 00 :35 :52 00 :00:16 00:00:00 15 Mendota Heights Cullon St. & Lexington Ave. 10 :47:47 00:07 :15 00:00:08 00:00:.00 16 Eagan Avalon Ave. & Vilas Lane 10 :36 :25 00:48:25 00:06;12 00.00:00 17 Bloomington 84th St. & 4th Ave. 01 :04:39 00 :07:55 00:01:19 00:00 :00 18 Richfield 75th St. & 17th Ave. 19 :29:37 00:40:57 00:09:20 00:00;07 19 Bloomington 16th Ave. & 84th St. 10 :58 :41 00;15:26 00 :02 :04 00:00:01 20 Richfield 75th St. & 3rd Ave. 00 :49.49 00:02 :40 00:00 :12 00:00 :00 21 Inver Grove Heights Barbara Ave, & 67th St. 02:33:02 00:00:15 00:00:00 00 :00:00 22 Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail 02:31:47 00:00 :02 00 :00:00 00:00:00 23 Mendota Heights End of Kenndon Ave, 19 :59:57 01 :18;42 00:04:02 00 :00:00 24 Eagan Chapel Ln. & Wren Ln, 08:34:10 00:04 :46 00:00:00 00:00:00 25 Eagan Moonshine Park 1321 Jurdy Rd. 07:06:54 00:01:00 00 :00 :03 00:00:00 26 Inver Grove Heights 6796 Arkansas Ave. W. 05:15 :45 00 :01:46 00:00:00 00 :00 :00 27 Minneapolis Anthony School 5757 Irving Ave, S. 10:55:09 00:18:03 00:00:23 00:00 :00 28 Richfield 6645 16th Ave. S. 31:23:25 00:29:53 00:00:04 00:00:00 29 Minneapolis Ericsson Elem, School 4315 31 st Ave. S. 07:14 :03 00 :05:20 00:00:17 00;00:00 30 Bloomington 8715 River Ridge Rd, 20:59 :59 01:52:42 00:05:50 00:00:00 31 Bloomington 9501 12th Ave. S. 01:32:06 00:02:37 00 :00 :11 00;00:00 32 Bloomington 10325 Pleasant Ave. S. 00:40:10 00:00:08 00:00:00 00:00:00 33 Burnsville North River Hills Park 01:39:42 00 :00:24 00 :00:00 00:00:00 34 Burnsville Red Oak Park 00:32:51 00 :00:00 00 :00;00 00;00 :00 35 Eagan 2100 Garnet Ln. 03;03:12 00:01:35 00:00 :00 00;00:00 36 Apple Valley Briar Oaks & Scout Pond 01;15 :37 00 :00:09 00:00:00 00;00:00 37 Eagan 4399 Woodgate Ln. N. 02:20:01 00:01:49 00 :00:00 00:00 :00 38 Eagan 3957 Turquoise Cir, 03:42:59 00 :02;59 00:00:01 00 :00 :00 39 Eagan 3477 St, Charles PI. 05:15.43 00:06:07 00:00:04 00 :00 :00 Total Time for Departure Noise Events 385:54:31 22:30:32 02:23:20 00:02 :24 Report Generated: 09/10/2007 12:25 3 f -17- Arrival Related Noise Events August 2007 RMT ID City Address _ Arrival Events >= 65dB Arrival Events >= 80dB Arrival Events >= 90dB Arrival Events >_ 100d13 1 Minneapolis Xerxes Ave, & 41st St. 3253 39 0 0 2 Minneapolis Fremont Ave, & 43rd St. 3928 327 3 0 3 Minneapolis West Elmwood St. & Belmont Ave. 2009 399 2 0 4 Minneapolis Park Ave. & 48th St, 3958 554 2 0 5 Minneapolis 12th Ave, & 58th St. 2285 1410 30 0 6 Minneapolis 25th Ave. & 57th St. 4128 3608 393 2 7 Richfield Wentworth Ave. & 64th St. 39 1 0 0 8 Minneapolis Longfellow Ave. & 43rd St. 695 6 0 0 9 St. Paul Saratoga St, & Hartford Ave. 997 336 5 0 10 St. Paul Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St. 990 782 20 0 11 St. Paul Finn St. & Scheffer Ave, 28 3 0 0 12 St. Paul Alton St, & Rockwood Ave. 3 0 0 0 13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Court 30 0 0 0 14 Eagan 1st St, & McKee St, 3979 32 0 0 15 Mendota Heights Cullon St. & Lexington Ave. 139 1 0 0 16 Eagan Avalon Ave. & Vilas Lane 1673 287 0 0 17 Bloomington 84th St. & 4th Ave. 7 3 0 0 18 Richfield 75th St, & 17th Ave. 369 13 0 0 19 Bloomington 16th Ave. & 84th St. 140 8 0 0 20 Richfield 75th St. & 3rd Ave, 5 0 0 0 21 Inver Grove Heights Barbara Ave. & 67th St. 49 0 0 0 22 Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail 1533 0 0 0 23 Mendota Heights End of Kenndon Ave. 513 7 0 0 24 Eagan Chapel Ln. & Wren Ln. 3753 53 0 0 25 Eagan Moonshine Park 1321 Jurdy Rd. 59 0 0 0 26 Inver Grove Heights 6796 Arkansas Ave. W. 336 2 0 0 27 Minneapolis Anthony School 5757 Irving Ave. S. 19 1 0 0 28 Richfield 6645 16th Ave. S. 440 17 0 0 29 Minneapolis Ericsson Elem. School 4315 31st Ave. S. 17 0 0 0 30 Bloomington 8715 River Ridge Rd. 2202 9 0 0 31 Bloomington 9501 12th Ave. S. 7 2 0 0 32 Bloomington 10325 Pleasant Ave. S. 4 0 0 0 33 Burnsville North River Hills Park 10 0 0 0 34 Burnsville Red Oak Park 35 0 0 0 35 Eagan 2100 Garnet Ln. 2809 5 0 0 36 Apple Valley Briar Oaks & Scout Pond 3791 11 0 0 37 Eagan 4399 Woodgate Ln. N, 13 0 0 0 38 Eagan 3957 Turquoise Cir. 4 0 0 0 39 Eagan 3477 St, Charles PI. 4 0 0 0 Total Arrival Noise Events 44253 7916 455 2 -18- 8 q Report Generated: 09/10/2007 12:25 Departure Related Noise Events August 2007 RMT ID City Address Departure Events >= 65dB Departure Events >= 806113 Departure Events >= 90d6 Departure Events >_ 100dB 1 Minneapolis Xerxes Ave. & 41st St. 1047 17 0 0 2 Minneapolis Fremont Ave. & 43rd St. 1574 129 2 0 3 Minneapolis West Elmwood St. & Belmont Ave. 2971 279 10 0 4 Minneapolis Park Ave. & 48th St.. 4046 507 63 0 5 Minneapolis 12th Ave. & 58th St, 6422 1474 321 5 6 Minneapolis 25th Ave. & 57th St. 7156 2620 495 50 7 Richfield Wentworth Ave. & 64th St. 1820 160 4 0 8 Minneapolis Longfellow Ave. & 43rd St, 2667 376 27 0 9 St. Paul Saratoga St. & Hartford Ave. 219 41 5 0 10 St. Paul Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St. 768 304 93 4 11 St. Paul Finn St. & Scheffer Ave. 409 74 23 0 12 St. Paul Alton St. & Rockwood Ave. 101 23 4 0 13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Court 1246 28 0 0 14 Eagan 1st St. & McKee St. 2274 319 3 0 15 Mendota Heights Cullon St. & Lexington Ave. 2065 70 2 0 16 Eagan Avalon Ave. & Vilas Lane 1845 261 78 0 17 Bloomington 84th St. & 4th Ave. 161 42 10 0 18 Richfield 75th St. & 17th Ave, 3207 308 81 3 19 Bloomington 16th Ave. & 84th St, 2031 130 19 0 20 Richfield 75th St. & 3rd Ave, 130 17 2 0 21 Inver Grove Heights Barbara Ave. & 67th St. 538 3 0 0 22 Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail 417 2 0 0 23 Mendota Heights End of Kenndon Ave. 3148 515 56 0 24 Eagan Chapel Ln. & Wren Ln. 1487 83 0 0 25 Eagan Moonshine Park 1321 Jurdy Rd. 917 9 1 0 26 Inver Grove Heights 6796 Arkansas Ave. W. 1096 18 0 0 27 Minneapolis Anthony School 5757 Irving Ave. S. 2099 205 3 0 28 Richfield 6645 16th Ave. S. 4823 432 1 0 29 Minneapolis Ericsson Elem. School 4315 31 st Ave. S. 1388 44 4 0 30 Bloomington 8715 River Ridge Rd. 3450 694 91 0 31 Bloomington 9501 12th Ave. S. 309 20 3 0 32 Bloomington 10325 Pleasant Ave. S. 141 3 0 0 33 Burnsville North River Hills Park 348 6 0 0 34 Burnsville Red Oak Park 118 0 0 0 35 Eagan 2100 Garnet Ln. 577 25 0 0 36 Apple Valley Briar Oaks & Scout Pond 241 3 0 0 37 Eagan 4399 Woodgate Ln. N. 421 31 0 0 38 Eagan 3957 Turquoise Cir. 694 41 1 0 39 Eagan 3477 St. Charles PI. 1021 63 2 0 Total Departure Noise Events 65392 9376 1404 62 Report Generated: 09110/2007 12:25 33 -19- Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP August 2007 (RMT Site #1) Xerxes Ave. & 41st St., Minneapolis Date[Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Departure Runway Lmax(dB) 08/20/200714:22 NWA753 DC9Q A 12L 89.2 08/10/200717:30 NWA170 B757 A 12R 87.2 08/06/2007 21;30 NWA1749 DC9Q A 12R 86.1 08/17/2007 7:15 CC1706 B72Q D 35 85,6 08/30/2007 7:45 CC1706 B72Q D 30R 84.3 08/04/200715:05 DAL1662 MD80 A 12R 84.3 08/21/2007 9:35 AAL1557 MD80 A 12L 83.8 08/20/2007 9:37 TRS219 B737 A 12L 83.6 08/21/2007 8:44 MES3067 SF34 A 12L 83,3 08/2012007 9:42 FLG4704 CRJ A 12L 83.2 (RMT Site #2) Fremont Ave. & 43rd St., Minneapolis Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Departure Runway Lmax(dB) 08/20/200711:33 NWA221 8757 A 12L 94.8 08/30/200710:40 NWA454 DC9Q D 35 92.3 08/27/2007 20:58 NWA761 B757 A 12L 90.7 08117/2007 7:15 CC1706 B72Q D 35 90.6 08/18/200712 :07 NWA20 B744 A 12L 90.2 08/23/2007 20:53 DHL304 872Q D 35 88.6 08/18/200719 :47 CCP413 B72Q A 12L 88.3 08/0412007 20:06 NWA143 DC9Q A 12L 88.2 08/19/2007 22 :46 NWA759 DC9Q A 12L. 87.9 08/19/2007 22:11 NWA499 DC9Q A 12L 87 (RMT Site #3) West Elmwood St. & Belmont Ave., Minneapolis Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Departure Runway Lmax(dB) 08/09/2007 7:03 CCP400 B72Q D 30L 97.9 08/10/200717:31 NWA170 8757 A 12R 95.8 08/12/2007 21:12 NWA764 DC9Q D 30L 93.1 08/14/200710:48 NWA454 DC9Q D 35 91.8 08/25/200711:51 NWA452 DC9Q D 35 91.8 08/17/200716:03 NWA1494 DC9Q D 35 91.5 08/14/200714:32 NWA1430 DC9Q D 35 91.4 08/04/200718 :04 CCP413 B72Q A 12R 91.2 08/14/200719:50 NWA446 DC9Q D 35 91 08/01/200711:47 NWA452 DC9Q D 30L 91 -20- �� Report Generated: 09/10/2007 12 :25 Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP August 2007 (RMT Site#4) Park Ave. & 48th St., Minneapolis Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Departure Runway Lmax(dB) 08/22/2007 8:04 CCP412 B72Q D 30R 97.9 08/31/2007 9 :10 CCP404 B72Q D 35 97,6 08/22/2007 20:22 NWA1535 DC9Q D 35 96.3 08/2312007 20:53 DHL304 B72Q D 35 95.5 08/20/200711:34 NWA221 8757 A 12L 95.4 08/14/200716 :18 NWA1494 DC9Q D 35 95.3 08/24/200711:27 NWA1527 DC9Q D 35 95 08/14/200712 :32 NWA452 DC9Q D 35 94.9 08/28/200712 :00 NWA452 DC9Q D 35 94.5 08/16/200717 :45 NWA407 DC9Q D 35 94.4 (RMT Site #5) 12th Ave. & 58th St., Minneapolis Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Departure Runway Lmax(dB) 08/05/2007 22:06 CCP2680 B72Q D 30L 1023 08/12/2007 7:07 CCP400 B72Q D 30L 101.4 08/03/2007 8:09 CCP404 B72Q D 30L 100,8 08/02/2007 7:10 CCP400 B72Q D 30L 100.8 08/01/2007 7:38 CCP412 B72Q D 30L 100.4 08/07/2007 7:06 NWA456 D09Q D 30L 99.8 08/12/2007 21 :12 NWA764 DC9Q D 30L 99 08/09/2007 7:02 CCP400 B72Q D 30L 99 08/01/200713:56 NWA856 DC9Q D 30L 98.8 08/12/200718 :55 NWA446 DC9Q D 30L 983 (RMT Site #6) 25th Ave. & 57th St., Minneapolis Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Departure Runway Lmax(dB) 08/22/2007 8:03 CCP412 B72Q D 30R 106.4 08/24/2007 9:07 CCP404 B72Q D 30R 104.9 08/20/200711:35 NWA221 B757 A 12L. 104.5 08/30/2007 7:58 CCP400 B72Q D 30R 104.5 08/27/2007 20:59 NWA761 B757 A 12L 103.7 08/16/200719:55 CCP650 B72Q D 30R 103.3 08/22/2007 23:07 DHL197 B72Q D 30R 103.3 08/01/200713 :47 NWA1740 DC9Q D 30R 103.1 08/01/2007 7:15 NWA866 DC9Q D 30R 102:9 08/28/2007 23:08 DHL197 B72Q D 30R 102.4 Report Generated: 09/10/2007 12:25 �3 — -21- Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP August 2007 (RMT Site #7) Wentworth Ave. & 64th St., Richfield DateMme Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Departure Runway Lmax(dB) 08/12/2007 6 :59 NWA448 DC9Q D 30L 92.8 08/12/2007 10;34 NWA454 DC9Q D 301. 92.3 08/05/200719:21 NWA1172 DC9Q D 30L 91.6 08/111200719:17 NWA446 DC9Q D 30L 91.1 08/07/2007 21;51 NWA1723 DC9Q D 30L 89.5 08/02/2007 13:36 MAW 157 DC9Q D 30L 89.4 08/12/2007 7:07 CCP4Q0 B72Q D 30L. 89.1 08/01/200714:39 NWA1673 DC9Q D 30L 88.6 08/02/200717:28 NWA407 DC9Q D 30L 88.4 08!09!200711 ;41 NWA452 DC9Q D 30L 88.1 (RMT Site #8) Lonqfellow Ave. & 43rd St., Minneapolis Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Departure Runway Lmax(dB) 08/22/20071:08 NWA1175 DC9Q D 30R 96.1 08/28/2007 23 ;09 DHL197 B72Q D 30R 96 08/30/2007 20:42 DHL304 B72Q D 35 95.1 08/16/2007 23:38 CC1705 B72Q D 35 94.2 08/14/2007 22:44 DHL197 B72Q D 35 94.1 08/14/2007 20:50 DHI-304 B72Q D 35 93.9 08/22/200716:37 CCP2690 B72Q D 35 93.8 08/16/200710:29 NWA748 DC9Q D 35 93.6 08128/2007 21:18 DHL304 B72Q D 35 93.2 08/301200717:56 NWA758 DC9Q D 35 93.1 (RMT Site #9) Saratoga St. & Hartford Ave., St. Paul Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Departure Runway Lmax(dB) 08/26/2007 6 :56 CCP400 B72Q D 04 97.4 08/28/200715:29 NWA19 B744 D 04 95.7 08/20/2007 9 :12 CCP404 B72Q D 04 93.7 08/131200715 ;54 NWA751 DC9Q A 22 92.9 08/13/2007 20:18 NWA143 DC9Q A 22 91.8 08/1312007 21:22 NWA499 DC9Q A 22 91.6 08/18/200715:39 NWA19 B744 D 04 90.7 08/291200715:24 NWA19 B744 D 04 90.7 08/27/200711:04 NWA1491 DC9Q A 22 90.2 08111/2007 20 :56 KFS88 LJ25 A 22 90 -22- 3�) Report Generated: 09/10/2007 12:25 Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP August 2007 (RMT Site #10) Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St., St. Paul Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Departure Runway Lmax(dB) 08/26/2007 6:56 CCP400 B72Q D 04 105.7 08/25/2007 6:48 CCP412 B72Q D 04 105 08/20/2007 9:11 CCP404 B72Q D 04 100.8 08/28/200715:28 NWA19 B744 D 04 100.2 08/19/2007 7:04 CCP400 B72Q D 04 99.8 08/16/2007 7:01 CCP400 B72Q D 04 99.3 08/23/2007 20:00 NWA1535 DC9Q D 04 98.7 08123/200716 :05 NWA19 B744 D 04 98.6 08/21/2007 7:48 CC1706 B72Q D 04 98.6 08/29/200715:23 NWA19 8744 D 04 98.4 (RMT Site #11) Finn St. & Scheffer Ave., St. Paul Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Departure Runway Lmax(dB) 08/24/200716 :41 CCP650 B72Q D 04 96.8 08122/200717 :26 NWA136 DC9Q D 04 96.3 08/22/2007 7:33 NWA138 DC9Q D 04 95.4 08/24/200714:12 NWA744 DC9Q D 04 93.8 08/28/200716:29 NWA1176 DC9Q D 04 93.6 08/18/200716.35 NWA3 8744 D 04 93.4 08/16/2007 7:01 CCP400 B72Q D 04 93.4 08/21/200715:46 NWA19 B744 D 04 93.3 08/241200712:10 NWA750 DC9Q D 04 93.3 08/12/200717 :43 NWA19D B744 D 04 1 93.1 (RMT Site #12) Alton St. & Rockwood Ave., St. Paul Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Departure Runway Lmax(dB) 08/23/200711:39 NWA750 DC9Q D 04 94.6 08/23/200710:56 NWA1698 DC9Q D 04 92.7 08/14/2007 7 :12 NWA456 DC9Q D 04 92 08/19/2007 21:43 NWA1461 DC9Q D 04 90.4 08/20/200710:53 NWA454 DC9Q D 04 89.3 08/22/200712 :50 NWA452 DC9Q D 04 87,5• 08/30/2007 23:04 C01705 B72Q D 35 87.4 08/23/200714:08 NWA744 DC9Q D 04 87.2 08/2812007 20:35 NWA1535 DC9Q D 04 86.7 08/23/200711:38 NWA128 DC9Q D 04 86.4 Report Generated: 09/10/2007 12 :25 37 -23- Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP August 2007 (RMT Site #13) Southeast end of Mohican Court, Mendota Heights Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Departure Runway Lmax(dB) _ 08/151200710;19 AAL1125 MD80 D 12L 85.3 08/15/200710:25 NWA134 DC9Q D 12L 84.1 08/11/2007 11:34 NWA1707 D09Q D 12L 83.8 08/15/200714:23 NWA766 DC9Q D 12L 83.5 08/14/2007 8 :22 AAL2040 MD80 D 04 82.9 08/15/200719:08 NWA606 DC9Q D 12L 82.8 08126/200711:28 NWA1435 DC9Q D 12L 82.4 08/15/200711 :55 NWA128 DC9Q D 12L 82 08/21/2007 6 :46 DAL1706 MD80 D 12L 82 08/13/2007 19:17 NWA606 DC9Q D 12L 81.8 (RMT Site #14) 1 st St. & McKee St., Eagan Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Departure Runway Lmax(dB) 08/29/2007 22 :45 DHL197 B72Q D 12L 94.6 08/27/2007 9:11 CCP404 B72Q D 12L 92.2 08108/200717:.54 NWA758 DC9Q D 12R 90.2 08/27/200716 :18 DAL.1218 MD80 D 12L. 89.4 08/04/2007 9:35 CCP412 B72Q D 12R 89.2 08/10/2007 8:20 CCP404 B72Q D 12R 88.9 08/20/2007 4:11 CCP9412 B72Q D 12L 88.6 08/11/2007 9:17 CCP412 B72Q D 12R 88.4 08/08/2007 0:0B NWA445 DC9Q D 12L 88.3 08/15/200715 :19 CCP9600 B72Q D 12L 88 (RMT Site #15) Cullon St. & Lexington Ave., Mendota Heights Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Departure Runway Lmax(dB) 08/15/2007 9 :21 NWA126 DC9Q D 12L 92.8 08115/200714:23 NWA766 DC9Q D 12L 91.4 08/08/2007 21:20 NWA929N DC9Q D 12L 88.8 08/03/200714:53 NWA865 DC9Q D 121. 87.9 08/06/2007 22:08 NWA929 DC9Q D 12L 87.5 08/08/2007 20:40 NWA618 DC9Q D 12L 86.9 08/22/200712:45 AAL366 MD80 D 04 861 08/31/2007 22:04 NWA1727 DC9Q D 12L 86 08/27/2007 7:21 NWA1000 DC9Q D 12L 85.2 08/11/2007 714 NWA866 DC9Q D 12L 85.1 -24- Report Generated: 09/10/2007 12:25 Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP August 2007 (RMT Site #16) Avalon Ave. & Vilas Lane, Eagan Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Departure Runway Lmax(dB) 08/06/2007 8:29 CCP404 B72Q D 12R 98.1 08/10/2007 8:19 CCP404 B72Q D 12R 97.1 08/04/2007 9:35 CCP412 B72Q D 12R 96.9 08/05/2007 7:13 CCP400 B72Q D 12R 96.6 08/11/2007 9:17 CCP412 B72Q D 12R 95.9 08/14/2007 0:25 DHL197 B72Q D 12L 94.9 08/08/2007 7:47 CCP412 B72Q D 12R 94.9 08/06/200717:41 NWA458 DC9Q D 12R 94.6 08/06/200717:46 NWA1463 DC9Q D 12R 94.6 08/06/2007 7:24 NWA456 DC9Q D 12R 94.6 (RMT Site #17) 84th St. & 4th Ave., Bloomington Date /Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Departure Runway Lmax(dB) 08/15/2007 8:17 CCP412 B72Q D 22 97.6 .08/31/200717:07 CCP631 B72Q D 22. 96.9 _ 08/25/200715:42 NWA19 B744 D 22 95.3 08/13/2007 9:21 CCP404 B72Q D 22 94.6 08/13/200715:22 NWA19 B744 D 22 94.3 08/03/200715:22 NWA19 B744 D 22 93.7 08127/200712:16 NWA128 DC9Q D 22 93.1 08/15/200715:32 NWA19 B744 D 22 92.5 08/15/200716 :20 NWA132 DC9Q D 22 91.3 08/15/2007 23:07 NWA143 DC90 D 22 90.7 (RMT Site #18) 75th St. & 17th Ave., Richfield Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Departure Runway Lmax(dB) 08/27/200710:25 NWA134 DC9Q o D 22 101,2 08/31/200717;07 CCP631 672Q D 22 101.1 08/04/200717:55 NWA3 B744 D 22 100.7 08/26/200715 :30 NWA1176 DC9Q D 22 9916 08/15/2007 8:17 CCP412 B72Q D 22 99.6 08/27/200710:43 NWA454 DC9Q D 22 99.5 08/27/200712:16 NWA128 DC9Q D 22 99.2 08/26/200712:03 NWA452 DC9Q D 22 98.9 08/27/200715:22 NWA19 B744 D 22 98.8 08/02/200715:21 NWA19 B744 D 22 98.7 Report Generated: 09/10/2007 12:25 37 -25- Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP August 2007 (RMT Site #19) 16th Ave. & 84th St., Bloomington DatelTime Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Departure Runway Lmax(dB) 08/15/200716:22 NWA1494 DC9Q D 22 99.7 08/111200715:56 NWA3 B744 D 22 98.1 08/13/200710:36 NWA748 DC9Q D 22 96.1 08/23/2007 9:21 NWA126 DC9Q D 22 96 08/26/200715:31 NWA1176 DC9Q D 22 95 08/15/2007 22:34 NWA764 DC9Q D 22 941 08/13/200711 :51 NWA413 DC9Q D 22 94.4 08/15/200717 :40 NWA604 DC9Q D 22 93.9 08/13/200716:40 NWA502 DC9Q D 22 93.8 08/27/200715:30 NWA1176 DC9Q D 22 93.6 (RMT Site #20) 75th St. & 3rd Ave., Richfield Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Departure Runway Lmax(dB) 08/26/200715;32 NWA19 B744 D 22 92 08/22/200715:54 NWA19 B744 D 22 91.6 08/25/200719 :55 NWA1056 DC9Q D 22 88.9 08/31/20071.5:23 NWA19 B744 D 22 88.5 08/01/200715:22 NWA19 B744 D 22 88.1 08/02/200715:21 NWA19 B744 D 22 88 08/01/200719:26 NWA446 DC9Q D 30L 87 08/16/200716:38 AAL1591 MD80 D 22 85.1 08/22/200715 :41 NWA42 A330 D 22 84.8 08/01/200719:37 NWA1461 DC9Q D 30L 84.2 (RMT Site #21) Barbara Ave. & 67th St., Inver Grove Heights Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Departure Runway Lmax(dB) 08/08/200715:20 NWA807 B757 D 12R 85.7 08/24/2007 22 :57 NWA143 DC9Q D 12L 81.9 08/04/2007 9:29 NWA752 DC9Q D 12R 80.3 08/11/200715:09 NWA1746 DC9Q D 12L 79.6 08/11/200717:01 NWA1156 DC9Q D 12L 79,5 08/23/2007 21 :54 NWA1727 DC9Q D 12L 79.3 08/15/200714:15 AAL.1096 MD80 D 12L 79.3 08/04/2007 22:58 NWA759 DC9Q D 12L 79.2 08/15/200715 :07 AAL354 MD80 D 12L 79.1 08/10/2007 97-04 NWA1429 DC9Q D 12L 78.8 26- 1q,0 Report Generated: 09/10/2007 12:25 Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP August 2007 (RMT Site #22) Anne Marie Trail, Inver Grove Heights Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Departure Runway Lmax(dB) 08/26/200710:16 NWA134 DC9Q D 12L 80.3 08/03/200716:31 DAL1218 MD80 D 12R 80 08/11/200717:37 NWA502 DC9Q D 12R 79 08/13/200714:27 DAL1527 MD80 D 12L 79 08/11/200714:42 NWA1714 DC9Q D 12R 78.9 08/08/200716:14 DAL.1218 MD80 D 12R 78.9 08/08/200717:55 NWA758 DC9Q D 12R 78.7 08/02/2007 2:54 WW136 GLF3 D 12R 78.7 08/10/2007 6:58 1 80 D 12R 78.7 08/10/200717:11 NWA758 DC9Q D 12R 78.7 (RMT Site #23) End of Kenndon Ave., Mendota Heights Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Departure Runway Lmax(dB) 08/27/200713:42 NWA675 DC9Q D 12L 95.2 08/23/2007 23;01 DHL2050 B72Q D 121_ 94.7 08115/200713:37 NWA1732 DC9Q D 12L 94.5 08/15/200714:23 NWA766 DC9Q D 12L. 94.3 08/06/2007 22:08 NWA929 DC9Q D 12L 94.1 08/11/2007 7:14 NWA866 DC9Q D 12L 93.9 08/31/2007 22:04 NWA1727 DC9Q D 12L 93.8 08/08/2007 21:19 NWA929N DC9Q D 12L 93.7 08/15/200711:54 NWA128 DC9Q D 12L 93.4 08/21/200716:50 NWA926 DC9Q D 121. 93.2 (RMT Site #24) Chapel Ln. & Wren Ln., Eagan. Date /Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Departure Runway Lmax(dB) 08/11/2007 9:18 CCP412 B72Q D 12R 87.8 08/13/200714:26 DAL1527 MD80 D 12L.. 86.2 08/27/2007 6 :56 AA1 -1380 MD80 D 12L.. 84.7 08/31/2007 9:51 NWA741 B757 A 30R 84.7 08/15/2007 20 :58 DHL304 B72Q D 12L 84.3 08125/2007 5 :47 DAL1072 MD80 D 12L 84 '08/15/2007 22:15 FDX1106 B72Q D 12L 83.9 08/29/200719:49 NWA1462 DC9Q A 30R 83.9 08/27/200716:18 DAL1218 MD80 D 12L 83.8 08/28/200711:39 NWA116 A320 A 30R 83.6 Report Generated: 09 110/2007 12;25 -27- Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP August 2007 (RMT Site #25) Moonshine Park 1321 Jurdy Rd., Eagan Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Departure Runway Lmax(dB) 08/14/2007 0:25 DHL197 B72Q D 12L 90.7 08/14/2007 0 :05 NWA144 DC9Q D 12L 853 08/11/200715:57 NWA3 6744 D 22 84;5 08/14/2007 0:03 NWA1675 DC9Q D 12L 84.4 08/14/2007 0:16 UPS555 DC8Q D 12L 82.4 08/10/2007 7 :31 CC1706 B72Q D 17 82.1 08/06/200719:08 NWA446 DC9Q D 12R 80,9 08/06/200710:35 NWA454 DC9Q D 12R 80.8 08/1812007 20:13 NWA1748 DC9Q D 17 80 08/18/2007 21:31 NWA1675 DC9Q D 17 79.4 (RMT Site #26) 6796 Arkansas Ave. W., Inver Grove Heights Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Departure Runway Lmax(dB) 08/25/2007 2:37 KFS723 B72Q D 12L 85.2 08/23/2007 23:02 DHL2050 B72Q D 12L 84.8 08/21/200716:42 DAL1218 MD80 D 121. 84.1 08/23/2007 23:39 CC1705 B72Q D 121. 83.8 08/15/2007 22:54 DHL197 B72Q D 121. 83 08/24/2007 23:03 DHL197 B72Q D 12L 82.7 08126/2007 8:25 DAL983 MD80 D 12L 82.5 08/27/200714:47 KFS33 LJ25 D 12L 82.2 08/10/2007 8:37 DAL581 MD80 D 12L 81.6 08/04/200715 :26 NWA19 B744 D 12R 81.4 (RMT Site #27) Anthony School 5757 Irving Ave. S., Minneapolis Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Departure Runway Lmax(dB) 08/03/2007 8:10 CCP404 B72Q D 30L 94,7 08130/2007 7:59 CCP400 B72Q D 30R 94.4 08/17/2007 9:41 CCP404 B72Q D 30R 92.2 08/29/2007 7:50 CCP412 B72Q D 35 90 08/02/2007 7:11 CCP400 B72Q D 30L 89.8 08/30/200717:34 CCP9650 B72Q D 35 89.8 08/021200711:42 NWA452 D09Q D 30L 89.5 08/29/2007 3:48 CCP9600 B720 D 35 89.2 08/3012007 2204 FDX1106 B72Q D 35 88.3 08/2312007 22;18 FDX1106 B72Q D 35 88 -28- 1/ � Report Generated: 09 /1012007 12 :25 Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP August 2007 (RMT Site #28) 6645 16th Ave. S., Richfield Date /Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Departure Runway Lmax(dB) 08/111200719;46 NWA884 DC9Q D 30L 91.1 08/2112007 22:38 NWA1727 DC9Q D 35 88.9 08/17/200710:43' Unknown C414 D 35 88.6 08/28/2007 6:19 Unknown GLF2 D 17 87:7 08/18/2007 7:10 NWA456 DC9Q D 17 87.5 08/19/200715:45 NWA766 DC9Q D 17 86.9 08/30/200712:02 NWA498 DC9Q D 35 86.7 08/29/2007 7:02 AAL1380 MD80 D 35 86.6 08/08/2007 7:37 NWA138 DC9Q D 17 86.2 08/29/2007 7:15 NWA138 DC9Q D 35 86.1 (RMT Site #29) Ericsson Elem. School 4315 31st Ave. S., Minneapolis Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Departure Runway Lmax(dB) 08/22/2007 7:46 CC1706 B72Q D 04 94 08/22/2007 23:12 CC1705 B72Q D 30R 91.6 08/01/200719:28 NWA1056 DC9Q D 30R 91.1 08/16/2007 20 :48 DHL304 B72Q D 35 90.3 08128/2007 23:33 CC1705 B72Q D 30R 87.6 08/14/200713:33 NWA1732 DC9Q D 35 86.3 08/21/200717:03 NWA132 DC9Q D 35 86.1 08/28/200716:03 AAL354 MD80 D 04 85.4 08/29/200717:45 RAX101 LJ25 D 35 _ 85.4 08/16/200711:31 NWA128 DC9Q D 30R 84.7 (RMT Site #30) 8715 River Ridge Rd., Bloomington Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Departure Runway Lmax(dB) 08/19/200717:32 Unknown B72Q D 17 99.4 08/18/2007 20;07 NWA446 DC9Q D 17 95.9 08/19/200718:43 NWA407 DC9Q D 17 95.4 08/19/200714:48 NWA1050 DC9Q D 17 95.2 08/27/2007 7:47 NWA787 DC9Q D 17 94.5 08/19/200715:30 NWA1732 DC9Q D 17 94.2 08/20/2007 21:13 DHL304 B72Q D 17 94 08/19/200715:13 NWA1673 DC9Q D 17 93.8 08/18/200710:41 NWA1153 DC9Q D 17 93.7 08/20/200718:24 NWA1463 DC9Q D 17 93.5 Report Generated: 09/10/2007 12:25 -Z/.< -29- Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP August 2007 (RMT Site #31) 9501 12th Ave. S., Bloomington Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Departure Runway Lmax(dB) 08/041200717:56 NWA3 B744 D 22 912 08/10/200715 :18 NWA19 B744 D 22 91.1 08/28/2007 7:40 CC1706 B72Q D 17 90.1 08/15/200717:40 NWA604 DC9Q D 22 85.4 08/04/200711:11 AAL2006 MD80 D 17 84.4 08/1512007 18:06 NWA746 DC9Q D 22 84,1 _ 08/15/200717:22 NWA758 DC9Q D 22 84 08/27/200714:54 NWA766 DC9Q D 22 83.8 08/15/2007 7:09 NWA448 DC9Q D 22 815 08/15/2007 16:23 NWA1494 DC9Q D 22 813 (RMT Site #32) 10325 Pleasant Ave. S., Bloomington Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Departure Runway Lmax(dB) 08/04/200711:11 AAL2006 MD80 D 17 83 08/051200713:18 NWA1430 DC9Q D 30L. 81.1 08/07/2007 728 NWA138 DC9Q D 30L 80.5 08/07/2007 7:46 CC1706 B72Q D 17 79.8 08/01/2007 7:40 CCP412 B72Q D 301- 78.4 08/01/2007 7 :18 NWA456 DC9Q D 30L 77.6 08/06/200715:08 AAL1543 MD80 A 12R 77.6 08/01/200719:57 NWA1172 DC9Q D 30L 77.3 08/22/200716:07 NWA1176 DC9Q D 22 76.8 08/011200716:32 ABX1776 B767 D 17 76.6 (RMT Site #33) North River Hills Park, Burnsville Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Departure Runway Lmax(dB) 08/07/2007 9:21 AAL429 MD80 D 17 83.8 08/05/200712:44 AAL366 MD80 D 17 817 08/06/2007 9 :26 NWA1153 DC9Q D 17 81.8 08/11/2007 12:13 AAL2006 MD80 D 17 81.5 08/011200711:18 AAL2006 MD80 D 17 81.2 08/04/2007 22:01 NWA1537 DC9Q D 17 80.6 08/01/2007 9:17 AAL429 MD80 D 17 79.1 08/26/200712:04 NWA452 DC9Q D 22 78.9 08/19/200710:00 NWA1153 DC9Q D 17 78.6 08108/200716:27 NWA1205 DC9Q D 17 78.5 -30- IdI 1. Report Generated: 09/10/2007 12:25 Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP August 2007 (RMT Site #34) Red Oak Park, Burnsville Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Departure Runway Lmax(dB) 08/02/2007 23:34 CC1705 B72Q D 17 79.8 08/01/2007 7:00 AAL1380 MD80 D 17 79.1 08/18/200716:24 AAL1231 MD80 D 17 78.6 08/07/2007 9:21 AAL429 MD80 D 17 78.2 08/15/200716:22 NWA132 DC9Q D 22 78 08/03/200714;53 NWA1673 DC9Q D 17 77.9 08/18/2007 20 :28 NWA884 DC9Q D 17 77.6 08/01/200719 :36 NWA1651 A320 D 17 77 08/19/2007 23:11 NWA1675 DC9Q D 17 76.8 08/01/2007 9:21 NWA126 DC9Q D 17 76.7 (RMT Site #35) 2100 Garnet Ln., Eagan Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Departure Runway Lmax(dB) 08/0212007 23:34 CC1705 B72Q D 17 86.6 08/31/200712:04 NWA624 A320 A 35 85.4 08/08/2007 9:13 AAL429 MD80 D 17 84.8 08/01/2007 20:45 DHL304 B72Q D 17 84.4 08106/200716:13 AAL.1591 MD80 D 17 84.3 08/17/2007 4:12 DHL704 B72Q A 35 84.2 08/19/200716:04 NWA1714 DC9Q D 17 82.5 08/15/200717:41 NWA604 DC9Q D 22 81.7 08/04/2007 12:29 AAL.366 MD80 D 17 81.5 08/06/2007 9:12 AAL429 MD80 D 17 81.5 (RMT Site #36) Briar Oaks & Scout Pond, Apple Valley Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Departure Runway Lmax(dB) 08/22/200714:14 NWA218 B757 A 35 87.6 08/21 /200714:05 NWA804 B757 A 35 87.4 08/28/200714:27 FLG2885 CRJ A 35 86.4 08/14/2007 6:07 CC1706 672Q A 35 85.9 08/21/2007 12:19 CGRGE FA50 A 35 83 08/16/2007 21:49 CC1705 B72Q A 35 81,9 08/14/2007 5:33 FDX1407 DC10 A 35 81.8 08/01/2007 20:46 DHL304 B72Q D 17 81.6 08/28/2007 20:25 FDX729 DC10 A 35 81.4 08/01/2007 7 :36 NWA1428 I DC9Q D 17 81.4 Report Generated: 09110/2007 12:25 #S— -31 - Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP August 2007 (RMT Site #37) 4399 Woodgate Ln. N., Eagan Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival! Departure Runway Lmax(dB) 08/05/2007 915 AAL429 MD80 D 17 84 08/13/200718 :14 AAL422 MD80 D 17. 82.5 08/19/200714:49 NWA1050 DC9Q D 17 82.3 08/23/2007 9 :16 AAL429 MD80 D 17 82.2 08/10/2007 7:00 AAL1380 MD80 _ D 17 82.1 08/06/200714:52 NWA1673 DC9Q D 17 82 08/03/200712 :38 NWA1280 DC9Q D 17 81.9 08/0812007 7:03 AAL1380 MD80 D 17 81.7 08/18/200711 :09 CCP412 B72Q D 17 81.7 08/18/200713 :15 NWA1430 DC9Q D 17 81.7 (RMT Site #38) 3957 Turquoise Cir., Eagan Date /Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Departure Runway Lmax(dB) 08/19/200717 :32 Unknown B72Q D 17 90.5 08/14/2007 0:25 DHL197 B72Q D 12L 85 08/03/200716 :11 AAL1591 MD80 D 17 84.8 08/05/2007 9:16 AAL2040 MD80 D 17 84.4 08/08/2007 2113 CC1705 B72Q D 17 84 08/03/200715:06 AAL1231 MD80 D 17 83.7 08/08/200716:2'1 AAL1591 MD80 D 17 83.2 08/05/2007 9:14 AAL429 MD80 D 17 83 08/21/2007 7 :58 1 NWA586 B757 D 17 82.9 08/27/2007 9:09 1 AWE299 A320 D 12L 82.7 (RMT Site #39) 3477 St. Charles PI., Eagan Date /Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Departure Runway Lmax(dB) 08/14/2007 0:25 DHL197 B72Q D 12L 91.4 08/16/20070:10 CC1705 B72Q D 17 90.5 08/27/2007 22:52 DHL197 B72Q D 17 87.6 08/06/2007 22 :46 DHL197 B72Q D 17 87.5 08/20/2007 23 :26 CC1705 B72Q D 17 86.8 08/08/2007 6:40 CC1706 B72Q D 17 86.8 08/08/2007 20:56 DFiL304 B72Q D 17 86.7 08/31/2007 22:40 DHL197 B72Q D 17 86.3 08/10/2007 22:42 DHL197 B72Q D 17 86.1 08/06/200712:18 AAL366 MD80 D 17 85.6 August 2007 Remote Monitoring Tower Top Ten Summary The top ten noise events and the event ranges at each RMT for August 2007 were comprised of 90% departure operations. The predominant top ten aircraft type was the DC9Q with 44.4% of the highest Lmax events. August 2007 Technical Advisor Report Notes Unknown fields are due to unavailability of FAA flight track data, Missing FAA radar data for 0 days during the month of August 2007. -32- Report Generated: 09/10/2007 12:25 Analysis of Aircraft Noise Events DNL August 2007 Remote Monitoring Towers Date #1 #2 1 #3 #4 #5 1 #6 #7 1 #8 #9 #10 1 #11 #12 #13 #14 #15 08/01/2007 53.4 56.5 60.6 64.1 72.6 74.4 61.2 63.7 483 42.51 NA NA 43.5 61.9 45.5 08/02/2007 57.6 59.5 62.4 632 72.3 73.9 63.1 58.4 NA 34.3 NA NA 27.2 61.9 462 08/03/2007 57.6 60.4 65.2 63.7 72.4 73 60 58.6 NA 37.5 35.2 NA 47 611 51,6 08/04/2007 60.7 62.2 65,7 62.2 69,6 68.9 48.1 49.8 37.9 34.8 31.5 40.2 56.3 61.8 59.9' 08/05/2007 53.8 58.8 62.7 63.9 73.4 75.6 58.2 58.8 NA 40.4 NA 42 40.6 60.8 45.7 08/06/2007 59.3 62.7 64.2 63.2 69.1 69.4 33,6 48 NA NA NA NA 57,5 62.1 61.1 08/07/2007 56 56.5 61.8 65.9 72.8 74.6 63.5 59.3 24.4 40 NA 41.2 40.5 60.1 47.2 08/08/2007 59.4 63.2 65.9 64.2 69.7 70.9 44.2 45,7 40.3 55.1 46.6 38.4 53.2 63.8 58.2 08/09/2007 57.11 57 62.2 63.4 73.2 74.2 63.9 60.2 45.9 54.4 47 36.3 NA 59.7 40,1 08/10/2007 57.8 60.3 64.6 61.6 68.8 70.2 43.1 54.21 NA NA 35.2 29.7 56 61.7 59,1 08/11/2007 58.4 59.9 66 62.8 71.9 74.1 56.8 59.6 52,5 55.4 26.5 30.8 54.7 61.5 56.6 08/12/2007 53.1 55.8 61 62.8 73.3 74.1 64.8 59.9 29.4 50.9 51.51 NA 44.1 58.5 36.9 08/13/2007 53.7 56.7 61.6 56.3 65.9 63.6 44.5 54.9 62.8 64.6 51.1 35.3 50.7 65.2 59,5 08/14/2007 57 61.11 62 66.1 71.4 77.1 53.2 67.6 51.2 64.6 58.8 53 46.4 56.1 55.2 08/15/2007 56 63 150.5 64.6 52.3 69.8 37.1 54.1 61.7 65.4 31.9 40,8 57.1 66 62.3 08/16/2007 55.7 58.7 62.1 65.3 69.7 77.6 61.4 67.2 46.6 60.2 54.3 37.5 34.1 58.9 41,7 08/17/2007 54.2 59.6 61.2 64 66.6 j 73.5 54.8 62.2 55.6 59.7 56.6 50.2 52.7 62.8 60.2 08/18/2007 61.1 68 52,6 68 62 74 30.6 41.7 53.1 59.2 53 142.3 53.8 58.9 57.4 08/19/2007 62,7 68.5 54.1 68.3 64.6 74.4 32.2 NA 50.9 63 49.1 51.2 52.2 .582 54.2 08/20/2007 59.5 67.7 52.8 68.6 64.7 75.1 NA 40 154.4 64.5 51.2 50 46.2 59.8 51.1 08/21 /2007 60.6 65.3 62.5 68.1 68.7 74.2 47.4 65,2152A 67.1 60.5 44,6 52.7 54.9 51.4 08/22/2007 57.6 61.1 64.2 68.7 69.7 79.5 58.7 68.2 49.1 65.7 60 48.1 48.2 57.8 51.6 08/23/2007 54.6 57.3 59.8 61.1 64.1 66.2 51.6 57.4 53.9 68.7 56.5 60,6 57.9 61.7 60.6 08/24/2007 56.4 59.2 62.4 65.2 67.9 72.6 57.3 62.7 52.1 63.9 59.9 44.3 53.6 63.1 56,6 08/25/2007 56.3 56.4 59.8 62.1 66.1 713 56.7 60.8 55.2 71.7155.51 NA 53 58.4 52,9 08/26/2007 50.9 59.3 29.11 60 55.2 66.8 44.8 54 168.6 73.3' 51.5 33.7 56.8 61.1 61.9 08/27/2007 56.2 64.7 492 66 63.5 72.7 44.6 53.2 61.6 63.5 48.1 NA 53.8 62.2 57,2 08/28/2007 56.8 61.5 60.2 65.2 68.9 76.7 58.8 67.2 1 572 64.5 58.1 48,9 50.4 58.1 57.6 08/29/2007 52.8 57.2 63.8 65.2 69 71 59.3 63.5 56.7 57.6 50.3 40.4 55.7 66.1 57.9 08/30/2007 55.3 58 64.3 65.2 67.8 73.8 57.3 63.4 46.6 61.5 54.9 58.8 56.5 61.5 57.6 08/31/2007 54.4 59.6 59,4 618 64.2 72.3 515 61.6 59.1 61.3 32.2 NA 57.7 603 61.1 Mo.DNL 57.5 62.1 62.2 65 69.6 73.9 58 61.8 57.2 64.2 53.8 49.5 153.4 61.6 57.3 Report Generated: 09 /10/2007 12:25 "7 -33- Analysis of Aircraft Noise Events DNL August 2007 Remote Monitoring Towers Date #16 #17 #18 #19 #20 #21 #22 #23 #24 #25 1 #26 #27 #28 #29 08/01 /2007 66.2 55.9 59.6 55.7 58.1 41.3 57.4 50.4 60.5 45.5 46.6 56.8 57.1 56.3 08/02/2007 67.1 52.2 57.9 57.2 54 37.6 58,4 49.4 61.3 418 47.6 59,5 60 49.4 08/03/2007 66,9 54.6 59.6 56.8 42,3 45,7 56.6 57.6 59.2 48.6 48.5 58 56.1 49.5 08/04/2007 65.4 48.8 61.8 58.6 40.8 52.8 55.1 65.11 59 53.5 54.8 42.2 60.8 45.2 08/05/2007 65 45.4 57.2 55.1 42,8 39.8 54.1 55.3 59.2 45.5 46.6 58.6 55.7 49.3 08/06/2007 67.2 40.1 59.9 57.9 NA 53,9 53.1 68.3 57.8 53.3 55.6 33.4 60.7 NA 08/07/2007 63.1 48.5 55.9 50 44,1 30.1 56.4 54.2 59,8 35.1 42.9 57,6 58.9 52.2 08/08/2007 67.4 NA 162.2 59 NA 52,8 56.8 64.1 60.1 56.5 52.8 41.8 643 30.3 08/09/2007 64 44.2 48.2 49 47 42.1 55.5 51.2 58.9 45.2 53.6 58.2 58.9 57.3 08/10/2007 66.3 45.5 60.5 54 NA 53,1 56.1 65.6' 59 54 53.9 37.2 59 44.2 08/11/2007 65.3 NA 59,5 57.4 44.6 49,4 54.7 63.1 58.5 51.9 51.8 51 58.9 52 08/12/2007 63.9 NA 43.6 32.9 34.8 36.1 54.7 39 57.8 34 42,3 60.3 59.2 52.3 08/13/2007 63.5 57.7 65 61.1 43.9 44.4 55.5 67.1 61.1 52.3 54.1 25.1 58.3 52,4 08/14/200.7 66.1 45 158.8 50.4 26.4 45 47.6 61.8 55.2 62.2 47.6 61.5 61,3 59.9 08/15/2007 59.5 63.8 70.2 66.9 51.7 51,3 NA 70.7 63.7 51.6 59 34.1 56.8 33.8 08/16/2007 49,8 50.8 60.3 50.7 47.8 36,5 NA 50,8 57.7 38 48.3 61.5 59.4 59.7 08/17/2007 57.2 36.8 61.8 47.2 40 48.1 NA 68.4 61,3 34.3 56,1 60.3 60,1 55.5 08/18/2007 58.3 42.7 64 61.4 29,5 37 NA NA 55.1 57.1 54.5 NA 65.7 30.8 08/19/2007 56,6 33.5 64.8 62.1 31.6 47.,5 NA NA 54 56.8 51.9 NA 66.2 NA 08/20/2007 56.1 50.5 66.1 60.4 34.1 44,6 NA 43.9 56.3 56.5 48.6 NA 67.3 NA 08/21/2007 45.8 44.2 62.9 54.7 25.8 50.4 NA 57.3 53.4 51.2 51.8 55.2 65.4 56.9 08/22/2007 48.1 42.9 60.1 51.2 51.6 48.2 52 53.7 57.5 NA 51.2 61.2 61.7 63 08/23/2007 57.6 40,7 60.7 55.7 35.1 54.8 54.91 69 59.5 42.9 60.6 58.4 60.6 53.4 08/24/2007 58.5 48 61.8 51.3 43.5 55.4 56.4 67.1 61 44 59 60.4 60.8 53.9 08125/2007 52.3 55.1 60.7 49.4 49,5 47 51.1 62.3 57.2 NA 57,9 58.5 57.8 56.3 08/26/2007 57.1 51.4 67.1 62.8 51.9 50.1 52 68.5 57.8 54.8 56 36.8 59 40.9 08/27/2007 59.1 57.6 67.4 59.7 46.9 48,1 48.2 64.4 57.9 55.5 53.3 31.9 64.8 43,4 08/28/2007 50.8 36.9 59.2 53.4 48.1 45.4 52.1 60.5 56.7 50.9 51.8 55.6 62.2 60.6 08/29/2007 58.1 30.8 61.4 55.1 38.8 54 55.5 67.1 61.3 32.6 57,2 61.3 63.4 55 08/30/2007 58.2 33.9 62.5 48,9 51.7 54.9 56.2 67,8 59.3 39.3 56.9 62.9 61.9 58.4 08/31/2007 54.5 56.3 62.7 54,1 50.2 55.7 54.5 69.2 58..5 44.8 55.6 59.3 61.5154 Mo.DNL 62.9 53 62.8 58.1 48.3 50.4 54.8 64.8 59.1 52.8 54.5 57.6 61.9 55.1 -34- V Report Generated: 09110/2007 12:25 Analysis of Aircraft Noise Events DNL August 2007 Remote Monitoring Towers Date #30 #31 #32 #33 #34 1 #35 #36 #37 #38 #39 08/01/2007 63.3 55.7 51.5 51.7 49 55.1 52.4 44.6 413 NA 08/02/2007 62.6 42 41.2 46,7 49.3 58.8 57.9 40.7 42.1 43.1 08/03/2007 64.3 47.1 44.6 48.4 43.9 54.5 56.7 49.4 51.4 51.2 08/04/2007 66.8 54 48.1 52.1 44.3 50.4 44.4 49.4 53.3 56.1 08/05/2007 65.3 46 45.9 46,5 39 52.9 54 48.9 50.6 43.1 08/06/2007 68.6 52.1 37.6 51.3 46.2 49.9 46.8 51.7 54.1 60 08/07/2007 623 47.1 47.4 47 44.8 55.5 56.8 44.7 37 NA 08/08/2007.68.4 48.7 31.8 49.5 42 51.9 44.3 54.4 58.4 61.1 08/09/2007 56.7 43.2 2,6.4 45.9 34.6 55.1 58.4 32.5 38.5 42.7 08/10/2007 65.4 51.1 44.1 149.7 43.5 53.8 51.4 53.5 53.9 58.4 08111/2007 62.3 NA 40.5 47.5 NA 44.9 45 46.7 50.3 51.4 08/12/2007' 49.6 NA NA 25.7 NA NA 55.1 NA NA 27.9 08/13/2007 59.8 51.3 30.1 47.5 NA 55.7 55.8 47.9 49.4 52.3 08/14/2007 57.4 32.9 46.5 51.3 41.8 60.1 62.5 52.1 55.8 61.3 08/15/2007 66.1 54.7 42.3 j 40.4 44.4 54.3 45.4 54.3 54.2 53.4 08/16/2007 57.8 28.7 49.9 34.3 33.115-7.8.60.2 26.1 NA 58.6 08/17/2007 56.6 NA 353 36.5 40.9 58.8 60.2 47.61 NA 28.5 08/18/2007 69.5 51.8 46 46.8 44.5 53.9 50.1 49 153.4 57.7 08/19/2007 72.3 47.7 38.7 50.5 47.2 54.1 37.9 53.6 57.3 56.6 08/20/2007 69.7 44.4 31.9 44.4 40.7 53.3 47 51.5 56.2 61.8 08/21/2007 60.7 38.4 30.3 45.9 51 55.3 57.2 48 53.3 49.8 08/22/2007 56.3 38.2 38.1 41.2 35 57.5 60.6 NA NA NA 08/23/2007 60 41.1 33.1, 33.8 45.2 60 64.1 46.4 45.3 47.6 08/24/2007 58 NA 41.2 33.5 40.1 59.1 61.5 43.7 NA NA 08/25/2007 55.9 NA NA 27.2 45.9 57.4 60 34.8' 36.8 36.7 08/26/2007 61.7 48.4 30.7 43.5 41.3 52.6 54.1 52.7 55.9 50.8 08/27/2007 65.3 49.5 40.6 48.3 40.3 50.9 40.1 51.8 56.4 59.6 08/28/2007 63.1 49.6 28.7 40.7 29.6 58,6 61.5 46.3 50.7 54.3 08/29/2007 59 43 36.2 28.8 42.9 60.5 NA 28.3 08/30/2007 57 35 NA NA 37.8 59.4 NA NA 08/31/2007 62.7 46.4 NA 35 42.2 56.6 T55851.9 52,8 56.6 Mo.DNL 64.7 48.6 43.3 46.8 44.2 56.3 52.2 5514 Report Generated: 09/10/2007 12:25 4 ( -35- 8/1/2007 - 8/31/2007 Runway 17 Departure Analysis Report Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport U_ ISP F. 2*6 NN Tara I Mm *This report is for inZrrmen ational urposes only and cannot be used for cergient purposes. Will 3876 Carrier Jets Departed Runway 17 - 8/1/2007 - 8/31/2007 ............. - 11 1- 1-. o, � ", '' lip Tv T I a .cfyu; I Poll U Iil is w-11 ... . ... .. .... .6 Nautical Mile Tumpcjlnt'...,�... A ali 1! Ile - XF L"a Runway 17 Departure Overflight Grid Analysis Metropolitan Airports Commission Runway 17 Departure Analysis Report - 61412007-613112007. Report Generated: 0911012007,14:15 al �!;Q=Wmm ■ 1 II'' Metropolitan Airports Commission Runway 17 Departure Analysis Report - 61412007-613112007. Report Generated: 0911012007,14:15 al Runway 17 Carrier Jet Departure Operations - 8/1/2007-8/31/2007 3859 (99,6 %) West Bound Carrier Jet 17 (0.4 %) 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 Runway 17 2.5 NM Turn Point, This is 1.3% of Turn Point) and Runway 17 Eastbound Carrier Jet 1304 Westbound Departures Departure Operations Ipj j; F1H I IL I:I..IpI 1 ^ E.15 :D5, s, , l Ifl .72lstl @�I1 .1� r �T. t ' /�`]• s�l jay,- byrn�A d fJ I i(rport, Gate Plot ` efore2.61INIM Turn Point 7 23 59 59. /u),.Al,ght =.2(11.8 %) _ 0 �JU WnUth i the IJ ip i , )\ 1 rr5 � I I A IdSB- t u __ ❑ fq O O 1L ,!'r ,t O �I T. J• u.ix. ui : 5 Alrf,. .. •. - t� I 1 L t O Runway 17135 2.5 Nautical Mlle Tumpoint n S �❑ l�l.. JJ.�. of uur. ..rrr�''� CD InY fC uV1FVrahl \ _ It 1 O f 1 � O 1 Lt 4 i(rport, Gate Plot ` efore2.61INIM Turn Point 7 23 59 59. /u),.Al,ght =.2(11.8 %) _ 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0.0 - 0 2 .: - -::0 4 :0.6 .. -.0.8 :.1.0 . 1.2 I,), (Corridor End) letlon From Cente�:oP,Gate?(Mlles) ,. . iilabie, -,-6 t operation ls•not represented in above..graph. Metropolitan Airports Commission Runway 17 Departure Analysis Report - 81112007-813112007. Report Generated: 0911012007 14:15 -2- �r� Runway 17 Nighttime Carrier Jet Departure Operations - 8/1/2007 - 8/31/2007 NUtHEr I I_' \ \\ y` 4\ �.• `AOYt / I!r r'✓ �/ IS I FO flu l.+ltGlt .. :.�bl�lnnt,poll.� '� 1� �� fil,:�tl r' /'✓'�� .. I.r.� in u . � � ' r I West Saint- Fault MSPh�..MuncJtil�fj (. \ \�41bn �G��.. M91' n r�ichfl 11cl m i rv15J?. vunausurp ! I wuwcErJ ' 1\ mm-,.w 1., 1, I lifnn ligtall I• is 1 j +P °,Valley t —Rosin°- 1-61. r ' i 263 Nighttime Carrier Jet Departure Operations off of Runway 17 in 8/1/2007 - 8/31/2007 (10:30 p.m.- 6:00a.m.) 8 (3 %) West Bound Carrier Jet 20 (7.6 %) West Bound 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 Heading) Procedure) 1 (0.4 %) Carrier Jet Departures Turned 57 (21.7°/x) Remaining West Bound West Before Passing Over the Runway 17 2.5 NM Carrier ,let Departures Flew the Runway 17 Jet Turn Point Departure Procedure (Passing Over the 2.5 NM Turn Point), and with an enroute heading to the destination airport 177 (67.3°/x) Other Nighttime Carrier Jet Departure Operations Metropolitan Airports Commission Runway 17 Departure Analysis Report - 81112007-813112007. Report Generated: 0911012007 14: 15 - 3 - Remote Monitoring Tower (RMT) Site Locations rl �Ikltni IiC O 1 2 8 ' 29 `, !, g yr! trll;a 2h,.L; v, ,z i��_ --, O` , �_.� _ I �L._ . I�I . ..2- .•7 • I I r. �f .. ,3 a lnsp �,' • 1yt 5 �G l h \1 3, A"i � ` . I` F� rI. v Il4ft r,: tIhrohdn' N lr I uY l G. 1 3 S. .Jy\ ElI �', j )I.12 L60,,t sairLPIJ I ,z, j I u" 28 s t rl�nrlld 23 't tli(i5h I a!f Nc�✓upu 4 20 18 X13 i. f 1� { - �Y r JiJ;x�/�1� I.26 2� 17 19 t, II II,- ii ;. /K GG � � ,��11_ 2� {, _II t��t l_. ...... ,. } Ar I...I J `TnVc$�iyryrr Hulyhls J / ' ?5: 11 IT)l ton 22 �� ntl+n}po,Awverr' G� iitlifil 'A ��,.. _% � F; -r T � 1 .. -.�,C lu•Nr Irinea -. PPIe valley l: `"`: -. — P�.emoytlt -�..: `•: LEGEND Existing RNIT's Lm Runway ~ Metropolitan A i r p o r t s Commission Runway 17 Departure Analysis Report - 81112007- 813112007. Report Generated: 0911012007 14:15 - 4 - Analysis of Aircraft Noise Levels - DNL dBA 8/112007 - 8/31/2007 Date #30 #31 #32 #33 1 #34 #35 #36 #37 #38 #39 1 63,3 55.7 51,5 51.7 49 55.1 52.4 44.6 41.3 NA 2 62.6 42 41.2 46,7 49,3 58.8 57.9 40,7 42.1 43.1 3 64.3 47,1 44.6 48.4 43.9 54,5 56.7 49.4 51.4 51.2 4 66.8 54 48.1 52,1 44.3 50.4 44,4 49,4 53.3 56.1 5 65.3 46 45.9 46,5 39 52.9 54 48.9 50.6 43,1 6 68.6 52.1 37.6 51.3 46.2 49.9 46.8 51.7 54.1 60 7 62,3 47.1 47.4 47 44.8 55.5 56,8 44,7 37 NA 8 68.4 48.7 31.8 49.5 42 51,9 44.3 54.4 58.4 61.1 9 56,7 43,2 26.4 45.9 34.6 55.1 58,4 32.5 38.5 42,7 10 65,4 51,1 44.1 49.7 43.5 53.8 51A 53.5 53.9 58.4 11 62.3 NA 40.5 47.5 NA 44.9 45 46.7 50.3 51,4 12 49.6 NA NA 25.7 NA NA 55.1 NA NA 27.9 13 59.8 51.3 30.1 47.5 NA 55.7 55.8 47.9 49.4 52.3 14 57.4 32.9 46.5 51.3 41.8 60,1 62.5 52.1 55.8 61.3 15 66.1 547 42.3 40.4 44.4 54.3 45.4 54.3 54.2 53.4 16 57,8 28.7 49.9 34.3 33.1 57.8 60,2 26.1 NA 58,6 17 56,6 NA 1 353 36.5 40.9 58:8 60.2 47.6 NA 28.5 18 69,5 51,8 46 46,8 44.5 53,9 50.1 49 53.4 57.7 19 1 '72.3 477 38.7 50.5 47.2 54.1 37.9 53.6 57.3 56.6 20 69.7 44.4 31,9 44.4 40.7 513 47 51.5 56.2 61.8 21 60,7 38.4 30,3 45.9 51 55.3 57.2 48 53.3 49.8 22 56.3 38.2 . 38.1 41.2 35 57.5 60.6 NA NA NA 23 60 41.1 33.1 33.8 45.2 60 64.1 46,4 45:3 47.6 24 58 NA 41,2 33,5 40,1 59.1 61,5 43.7 NA NA 25 55,9 NA NA 27,2 45.9 57.4 60 34,8 36,8 36.7 26 61.7 48.4 30.7 43,5 41,3 52.6 54,1 52.7 55.9 50,8 27 65.3 49.5 40.6 48.3 40.3 50.9 40.1 51.8 56.4 59,6 28 63,1 49,6 28.7 40.7 29.6 58,6 61.5 46.3 50.7 54.3 29 59 43 36.2 28.8 42,9 60,5 62.5 NA NA 28,3 30 57 35 NA NA 37.8 59,4 61.8 36.8 NA NA 31 62.7 46,4 NA 35 42.2 56.6 58 51.9 52.8 56.6 Av. DNL 64,7 48.6 43.3 46.8 44.2 56.3 58.1 49.4 52.2 55.4 Metropolitan Airports Commission Runway 17 Departure Analysis Report - 81112007- 813112007. Report Generated: 0911012007 14:15 -5- Community Vs. Aircraft Noise Levels DNL dBA 8/1/2007 -8/31 /2007 RMT Community DNL Community DNL Aircraft DNL Aircraft DNL ORD 08/01/04.08/31/04 08/01/05- 08131/05 08/01/06- 08/31/06 8/1/2007 - 8/31/2007 30 57.9 61.6 62.4 64.7 31 59.1 63.4 45.9 48.6 32 57 60.1 45,1 43.3 33 55.9 60.2 50.7 46.8 34 57.3 59 453 44.2 35 60.7 61.4 52 56.3 36 61.2 62.8 52.4 58.1 37 63.4 64,2 47.9 49.4 38 59.1 61.8 48.8 52.2 39 60.3 61 47.8 55.4 Top 15 Runway 17 Departure Destination Report Airport City Heading (deg.) #Ops Percent of Total Ops ORD CHICAGO (O'HARE) 124° 198 5.1% DEN DENVER 237° 151 3.9% DFW DALLAS/ FORT WORTH 1930 132 3.4% MDW CHICAGO (MIDWAY) 124° 94 2.4% ATL ATLANTA 149° 81 2.1% STL ST LOUIS 160° 77 2% LAX LOS ANGELES 238° 57 1.5% MKE MILWAUKEE 114° 57 1.5% DTW DETROIT 105° 56 1.4% PHX PHOENIX 231° 56 1:4% LAS LAS VEGAS 2430 53 1.4% CLE CLEVELAND 109° 48 1.2% CL..T CHARLOTTE 133° 47 1.2% MCI KANSAS CITY 188° 45 1.2% MCO ORLANDO 151° 45 1.2% Metropolltan Airports Commission Runway 17 Departure Analysis f Report - 81112007-813112007. Report Generated: 0911012007 14:15 - 6 - DUAL TRACK AIRPORT PLANNING PROCESS TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA, MINNESOTA ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION COOPERATING AGENCIES MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, U.S. D.O.T. METROPOLITAN COUNCIL May 1998 This Final EIS addresses the environmental impacts associated with major airport development to provide the capacity, facilities and highway improvements for Minneapolis - Saint Paul International Airport in Hennepin County, Minnesota. This statement is submitted for review pursuant to the following public, law requirements: Section 102 (2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969; 49 U.S.G. section 40114, as amended by P.L. No. 103 -305 (August 23, 1994); 49 U.S.C. sections 47101 (a)(6), 47101 (h), and 47106 (b)(2); Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (recodified at 49 U.S.C., Subtitle I, Section 303, dated January 12, 1983), and Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4410. The Metropolitan Airports Commission is the lead agency for the state and the Federal Aviation Administration is the lead agency for the federal government, in the preparation of this joint statement. For additional information, contact: Mr. Nigel Finney Metropolitan Airports Commission 6040 - 28th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55450 Telephone: (612) 726.8187 Mr. Glen Orcutt Federal Aviation Administration 6020 - 28th Avenue South, Suite 102 Minneapolis, MN 55450 Telephone: (612) 7134354 Send comments on adequacy by June 15, 1998 to: Ms. Jenn Unruh Metropolitan Airports Commission 6040 - 28th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55450 67 Table of Contents Final EIS Cross- Reference To FAA Order 5050.4A ................................. ............................... TC -14 EXECUTIVESUMMARY .............................................................................. ............................... i I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... ............................... 1 -1 A. Overview ....................................................................................... ............................... 1 A.1 Document Purpose and Organization ............................................................ ............................... 1 A.2 Background and Lead Agency Contacts ........................................................ ............................... 2 B. Cooperating Agencies ...................................................................... ............................... 3 C. Related Environmental Documents and Actions .................................. ............................... 3 C.1 Further Studies to Develop the West Terminal ................................................ ............................... 3 C.2 Other Actions ............................................................................................ ............................... 3 D. Governmental Approvals ................................................................. ............................... 4 E. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Actions .................................... ............................... 4 E.1 Air Traffic ............................ ................................................................. ............................... 6 E.2 Airway Facilities ......................................................................................... ............................... 7 E.3 Airports ......................................................................................... ............................... . ....... 7 EAFlight Standards .......................................................................................... ............................... 7 E.5 Security .......... ....... ................................................................................................................... 8 F. Project History ................................................................................ ............................... 8 G. Implementation Schedule ............................................................... ............................... 11 II. PURPOSE AND NEED ................................................ ............................... ...........................11.1 A. Purpose ......................................................................................... ............................... 1 B. Need ............................................................................................. ............................... 2 C. Supporting I nformation .................................................................... ............................... 3 C.1 Airport Role ............................................................................................... ............................... 3 C.1.1 MSP's Role as a Connecting Hub Airport ................................................ ............................... 3 C.1.2 MSP's Role In The Local Economy ......................................................... ............................... 4 C.1.3 MSP's Role in the Air Transportation System ........................................... ............................... 4 C.2 Aviation Activity .............................................................. ............................... .......4 C.2.1 Activity Levels ..................................................................................... ............................... 4 C.2.2 Forecasts of Operations and Enplanements ............................................. ............................... 7 C.3 Airport Limitations .................................................................................... ............................... 12 C.3.1 Airfield ............................................................................................. ............................... 12 C.3.2 Passenger Terminals ... ............................... ..................................... ............................... 13 C.3.3 Surface Access .................................................................................. ............................... 13 C.3.4 Development Limitations ..................................................................... ............................... 13 Ill. ALTERNATIVES .... ............................... .............................................. ...I..................I...II1 -1 A. Alternatives ................................................................................... ............................... 1 B. Alternatives Under Consideration ...................................................... ............................... 1 B.1 MSP Alternative ......................................................................................... ............................... 1 B.1.1 MSP Alternative Process ....................................................................... ............................... 1 B.1.2 The MSP Alternative and the Project Goals .............................................. ............................... 2 B.2 No Action Alternative ................................................................................... ..............................4 B.2.1 The No Action Alternative and the Project Goals ...................................... ............................... 4 C. Alternatives Eliminated .................................................................... ............................... 7 CAMSP Alternatives Eliminated ........................................................................ ............................... 7 C.2 New Airport Alternative ............................................................................... ............................... 9 C.3 Other Alternatives Eliminated ........................................................................ ..............................9 D. Preferred Alternative /Proposed Action ............................................. ............................... 12 IV. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ............................................................... ............................... IV -1 Dual Track Final EIS TC1 15e V. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES .................................................... ............................... V -1 A. Air Quality ..................................................................................... ............................... 1 A.1 MSP Alternative.— ....... I .................................... I .... I ... ... 1. 1 ...... I ........................ .... I I ............... 6 A.1.1 Affected Environment —MSP Alternative ............................................... ............................... 6 A.1.2 Air Quality Impacts — MSP Alternative ................................................... ............................... 8 A.1.3 Mitigation Measures — MSP Alternative ............................................... ............................... 13 A.2 No Action Alternative ........ ............................... . ..... ........... ............. . ......... ... I .................. I... 14 A.2.1 Affected Environment —No Action Alternative ..................................... ............................... 14 A.2.2 Air Quality Impacts — No Action Alternative ......................................... ............................... 14 A.2.3 Mitigation Measures — No Action Alternative ........................................ ............................... 17 A.3 Summary of Air Quality Impacts.. ................................................................ ............................... 17 B. Archaeological Resources .............................................................. ............................... 21 B.1 MSP Alternative ....................................................................................... ............................... 21 B.1.1 Affected Environment — MSP Alternailve ............................................. ............................... 21 B.1.2 Archaeological Resource Impacts -- MSP Alternative (2010 and 2020) .... ............................... 22 B.1.3 Mitigation Measures — MSP Alternative ............ ............................... ............................... 22 B.2 No Action Alternative ................................................................................ ............................... 22 13.21 Affected Environment —No Action Alternative ...................................... ............................... 22 B.2.2 Archaeological Resource Impacts — No Action Alternative ...................... ................:.............. 22 B.2.3 Mitigation Measures — No Action Alternative ........................................ ............................... 22 B.3 Summary of Archaeological Resource Impacts ............................................. ............................... 22 C. Biotic Communities ....................................................................... ............................... 22 C.1 MSP Alternative ....................................................................................... ............................... 23 C.1.1 Affected Environment -- MSP Alternative ............................................. ............................... 23 C.1.2 Biotic Communities Impacts — MSP Alternative .................................... ............................... 24 C.1.3 Mitigation Measures — MSP Alternative ............................................... ............................... 25 C.2 No Action Alternative .......... :.................................................................................................... 25 C.2.1 Affected Environment —No Action Alternative ..................................... ............................... 25 C.2.2 Biotic Communities Impacts — No Action Alternative ............................. ............................... 25 C.3 Summary of Biotic Communities Impacts .... 25 D. Bird - Aircraft Hazards............ ................................................ ............................... 26 D.1 MSP Alternative ....................................................................................... ............................... 26 D.1.1 Affected Environment— MSP Alternative ............................................. ............................... 26 D.1.2 Bird - Aircraft Hazards — MSP Alternative ............................................... ............................... 31 D.1.3 Mitigation Measures — MSP Alternative ............................................... ............................... 32 D.2 No Action Alternative ............................................................................... ............................... 32 D,2.1 Affected Environment — No Action Alternative ..................................... ............................... 32 D,2,2 Bird - Aircraft Hazards Impacts — No Action Alternative ............................. .............................32 D.2.3 Mitigation Measures --- No Action Alternative ........................................ ............................... 33 D.3 Summary of Bird- Aircraft Impacts .............................................................. ............................... 33 E. Construction Impacts .................................................................... ............................... 33 F. Coastal Barriers ............................................................................. ............................... 35 G. Coastal Zone Management Program ................................................ ............................... 35 H. Endangered and Threatened Species ............................................... ............................... 35 H.1 MSP Alternative ....................................................................................... ............................... 35 H.1.1 Affected Environment — MSP Alternative ............................................. ............................... 35 H.1.2 Endangered and Threatened Species Impacts -- MSP Alternative ............ ............................... 36 H.1.3 Mitigation Measures — MSP Alternative ............................................... ............................... 37 H.2 No Action Alternative ................................................................................ ............................... 37 H.2.1 Affected Environment — No Action Alternative ..................................... ............................... 37 H.2.2 Endangered and Threatened Species impacts — No Action Alternative ..... ............................... 37 H.2,3 Mitigation Measures — No Action Alternative ........................................ ............................... 37 H.3 Summary of Endangered and Threatened Species Impacts ............................ ............................... 37 I. Economic ...................................................................................... ............................... 38 1.1 MSP Alternative ......................................................................................... ............................... 51 1.1.1 Economic Impacts — MSP Alternative ................................................... ............................... 51 r 1. 1.2 Mitigation Measures — MSP Alternative ................................................. ............................... 55 Dual Track Final EIS TC2 1.2 No Action Alternative .................................................................................. ...........................V•55 1.2.1 Economic Impacts — No Action Al ternative ............................................ ............................... 55 1.3 Summary of Economic Impacts ................................................................... ............................... 56 J. Energy Supply and Natural Resources .............................................. ............................... 58 J.1 MSP Alternative ........................................................................................ ............................... 58 J.1.1 Affected Environment —MSP Alternative ............................................. ............................... 58 J.1.2 Energy Supply and Natural Resources Impact— MSP Alternatives ........... ............................... 59 J.1.3 Mitigation Measures — MSP Alternative ................................................ ............................... 61 J.2 No Action Alternative ................................................................................ ............................... 61 J.2.1 Affected Environment — No Action Alternative ...................................... ............................... 61 J.2.2 Energy Supply and Natural Resources Impacts — No Action Alternative .... ............................... 61 J.2.3 Mitigation Measures — No Action Alternatives ....................................... ............................... 62 J.3 Summary of Energy Supply and Natural Resources Impacts ........................... ............................... 62 K. Farmland ..................................................................................... ............................... 63 L. Floodpl ains ................................................................................... ............................... 63 L.1 MSP and No Action Alternatives ................................................................. ............................... 63 L.1.1 Affected Environment -- MSP and No Action Alternatives ....................... ............................... 63 L.1.2 Floodplain Impacts — ..............................•............................................ ...........................;... 63 M. Historic /Architectural Resources ..................................................... ............................... 63 M.1 MSP Alternative ....................................................................................... ............................... 64 M.1.1 Affected Environment MSP Alternative ............................................ ............................... 64 M,1.2 Historic /Architectural Resources Impacts — MSP Alternative .................... .............................64 M.1.3 Mitigation Measures — MSP Alternative ............................................... ............................... 65 M.2 No Action Alternative ............................................................................... ............................... 65 M.2.1 Affected Environment — No Action Alternative .......:............................. ............................... 65 M.2.2 Historic /Architectural Resources Impacts -- No Action Alternative .......... ............................... 66 M.2.3 Mitigation Measures -- No Action Alternative ....................................... ............................... 66 M.3 Summary of Historic /Architectural Resources Impacts .................................. ............................... 66 N. Induced Socioeconomic I mpacts ..................................................... ............................... 67 N.1 MSP and No Action Alternatives ................................................................ ............................... 67 N.1.1 Affected Environment.: ...................................................................................................... 67 N.1.2 Induced Socioeconomic Impacts .......................................................... ............................... 67 N.1.3 Mitigation Measures ......................................................................... ............................... 68 O. Land Use I mpacts ...................... : ................................................................... .............. 68 0.1 MSP Alternative ....................................................................................... ............................... 68 0. 1.1 Affected Environment— MSP Alternative ............................................. ............................... 68 0.1.2 Land Use Impacts -- MSP Alternative ................................................. ............................... 68 0.1.3 Mitigation Measures - MSP Alternative ................................................. ............................... 70 0.2 No Action Alternative ............................................................................... ............................... 70 0.2,1 Affected Environment — No Action Alternative ....................................... .............................70 0.2.2 Land Use Impacts — No Action Alternative....... .................................... ............................... 70 0.2.3 Mitigation Measures — No Action Alternative ....................................... ............................... 71 0.3 Summary of Land Use Impacts .................................................................. ............................... 71 ALight Emissi ons ............................................................................. ............................... 71 P.1 MSP Alternative ........................................................................................ ............................... 72 P.1.1 Affected Environment — MSP Alternative ............................................. ............................... 72 P.1.2 Light Emission Impacts — MSP Alternative ............................................ ............................... 72 P.1.3 Mitigation Measures — MSP Alternative ....................................... ;....................................... 73 P.2 No Action Alternative ................................................................................ ............................... 73 P.2.1 Affected Environment —No Action Alternative ...................................... ............................... 73 P.2.2 Light Emission Impacts —No Action Alternative .................................... ............................... 73 P.2.3 Mitigation Measures — No Action Alternative ........................................ ............................... 73 P.3 Summary of Light Emission Impacts ............................................................ ............................... 73 0. Noi se ...................................................:...................................... ............................... 74 Q1, Aircraft Noise .......................................................................................... ............................... 74 Q1.1 MSP Alternative .................................................................................. ............................... 76 (21.1.1 Affected Environment — MSP Alternative ....................................... ............................... 76 Q.1.1.2 Noise Impacts — MSP Alternative ................................................. ............................... 76 (2.1.1.3 Mitigation Measures — MSP Alternative.. ...................................................................... B0 Dual Track Final EIS TC3 OO Q.1.2 No Action Alternative .......................................................................... ...........................V -82 Q.1.2.1 Affected Environment— No Action Alternative ............................... ............................... 82 Q.1.2.2 Noise Impacts - No Action Alternative ............................................ ............................... 83 0.13 Cumulative Noise Impacts of Runway 4 -22 Extension ............................ ............................... 86 0.1.4 Summary of Aircraft Noise Impacts ...................................................... ............................... 88 Q.2 Surface Transportation Noise Impacts ......................................................... ............................... 90 Q.2.1 2020 Methodology and Assumptions ................................................... ............................... 90 0,2.2 2020 Surface Noise Impacts, Mitigation and Summary ........................... ............................... 91 Q.2.3 2010 Surface Noise Impacts, Mitigation and Summary ........................... ............................... 91 R. Parks and Recreation ..................................................................... ............................... 93 R.1 MSP Alternative ....................................................................................... ............................... 93 R.1.1 Affected Environment — MSP Alternative ............................................. ............................... 93 R.1.2 Parks and Recreation Impacts — MSP Alternative .................................. ............................... 95 R.1.3 Mitigation Measures — MSP Alternative ............................................... ............................... 95 R.2 No Action Alternative ................................................................................ ............................... 95 R.2.1 Affected Environment — No Action Alternative ...................................... ............................... 95 R.2.2 Parks and Recreation Impacts — No Action Alternative ........................... ............................... 96 R.2.3 Mitigation Measures --- No Action Alternative ........................................ ............................... 96 R,3 Summary of Parks and Recreation Impacts .................................................. ............................... 96 S. Environmental Justice ................................................................... ............................... 97 S.1 MSP Alternative ....................................................................................... ............................... 9B S.2 No Action Alternative .............................................................................. ............................... 101 S,3 Summary of Environmental Justice Impacts ............................................... ............................... 103 T. Social ............................................................. ............................... ............................ 104 T.1 MSP Alternative ..................................................................................... ............................... 104 T.1.1 Affected Environment— MSP Alternative ........................................... ............................... 104 T.1.2 Social Impacts — MSP Alternative ................. .................................. ............................... 105 T.1.3 Mitigation Measures - -m MSP Alternative .............................................. ............................... 110 T.2 No Action Alternative .............................................................................. ............................... 111 T.2.1 Affected Environment — No Action Alternative ................................... ............................... ill T.2.2 Social Impacts — No Action Alternative ........................... ............ ............................... 112 a T.2.3 Mitigation Measures — No Action Alternative ...................................... ............................... 112 T.3 Summary of Social Impacts ...................................................................... ............................... 112 U. Section 4(fJ ................................................................................ ............................... 113 U.1 MSP Alternative ..................................................................................... ............................... 114 U.1.1 Affected Environment — MSP Alternative ........................................... ............................... 114 U.1.2 Section 4(f) Impacts — MSP Alternative ............................................. ............................... 115 U.1.3 Mitigation Measures — MSP Alternative ............................................. ............................... 118 U,2 No Action Alternative .............................................................................. ............................... 120 U.3 Summary of Section 4(f) Impacts ............................................................. ............................... 120 V, Solid Waste I mpacts ........................................ ............................... ............................ 127 V.1 MSP Alternative ..................................................................................... ............................... 121 V.1.1 Affected Environment — MSP Alternative... ....................................................................... 121 V.1.2 Solid Waste Impacts — MSP Alternative ............................................. ............................... 121 V.2 No Action Alternative .............................................................................. ............................... 122 V.2.1 Affected Environment...... ............................................................ ............................... 122 V.2.2 Solid Waste Impacts — No Action Alternative ..................................... ............................... 122 V,3 Summary of Solid Waste Impacts ............................................................. ............................... 122 W. Surface Transportation Access ..................................................... ............................... 722 W.1 MSP Alternative ....................................................... ... ............................. ............................ 122 W.1.1 Affected Environment — MSP and No Build Alternatives ...................... ............................... 122 W.1.2 MSP Alternative Surface Transportation Impacts ................................. ............................... 126 W.2 No Action Alternative ............................................................................. ............................... 134 W.3 Mitigation Measures — MSP and No Build Alternatives .............................. ............................... 139 W.4 Summary of Surface Transportation Access Impacts ................................. ............................... 140 W.4.1 Impacts on Travel Times to Airport .................................................... ............................... 140 W.4.2 Summary of Environmental Impacts of Highway Improvements ............ ............................... 141 Dual Track Final EIS TC4 (-0l X. Major Util ities .......................................................................... ............................... V -141 X.1 MSP Alternative ..................................................................................... ............................... 141 X.1.1 Affected Environment — MSP Alternative ............... ............................... ............................ 141 X.1.2 Major Utilities Impacts — MSP Alternative .......................................... ............................... 142 X.1 .3 Mitigation Measures — MSP Alternative ............................................. ............................... 142 X.2 No Action Alternative .............................................................................. ............................... 142 Y. Visual/ mpacts ................................................. ............................... ............................142 Y.1 MSP Alternative ..................................................................................... ............................... 142 Y.1.1 Affected Environment — MSP Alternative ........................................... ............................... 142 Y.1.2 Visual Impacts — MSP Alternative ..................................................... ............................... 143 Y.1.3 Mitigation Measures — MSP Alternative ............................................. ............................... 143 Y.2 No Action Alternative .............................................................................. ............................... 143 Y.2.1 Affected Environment. —No Action Alternative ................................... ............................... 143 Y.2.2 Visual Impacts — No Action Alternatives ............................................ ............................... 143 Y.2.3 Mitigation Measures — No Action Alternative ......... ............................... ............................ 143 Y.3 Summary of Visual Impacts ..................................................................... ............................... 143 Z. Wastewater ..................................................... ............................... ...........................144 Z.1 MSP and No Action Alternatives ............................................................... ............................... 144 Z.1.1 Affected Environment ....................................................................... ............................... 144 Z.1.2 Wastewater Impacts — MSP and No Action Alternatives ...................... ............................... 144 Z.1.3 Mitigation Measures — MSP Alternative .......................................... :................................ .. 146 Z.2 Summary of Wastewater Impacts ............................................................. ............................... 147 AA. Water Suppl y ............................................................................ ............................... 147 AA.1 MSP and No Action Alternatives .......................................................... ............................... 147 AA.1.1 Affected Environment — MSP and No Action Alternatives .................. ............................... 147 AA.1.2 Water Supply Imparts — MSP and No Action Alternatives ................. ............................... 147 AA. 1.3 Mitigation Measures — MSP Alternative ...................................... ............................... 150 AA.2 Summary of Water Supply Impacts ........................................................ ............................... 150 BB. Surface Water Quality ................................................................ ............................... 150 BB.1 MSP and No Action Alternatives ............................................................. ............................... 156 BB. 1.1 Affected Environment — MSP and No Action Alternatives .................. ............................... 156 BB. 1.2 Surface Water Quality Impacts — MSP and No Action Alternatives ...... ............................... 160 1313.1.3 Mitigation Measures — 2010 LTCP and No Action Alternatives ........... ............................... 167 1313,2 Summary of Surface Water Quality Impacts ............................................. ............................... 169 CC, Groundwater Qual ity .................................................................. ............................... 169 CCA Affected Environment — MSP and No Action Alternatives ........................ ............................... 169 CC.2 Groundwater Quality Imparts — MSP Alternative ..................................... ............................... 175 CC.3 Groundwater Quality Impacts — No Action Alternative ............................. ............................... 177 CC.4 Mitigation Measures — MSP and No Action Alternatives ........................... ............................... 179 CC.5 Summary of Groundwater Quality Impacts .............................................. ............................... 180 DD. Wetl ands ...................................................... ............................... ............................180 DDAMSP Alternative ....................................................... ............................... ............................ 180 DD.1 .1 Affected Environment — MSP Alternative ......................................... ............................... 180 DD.1.2 Wetland Impacts — MSP Alternative ................................................ ...........:.......I........... 181 DID, 1 .3 Mitigation Measures MSP Alternative ........................................... ............................... 183 DD.2 No Action Alternative ........................................................................... ............................... 164 DD.2.1 Affected Environment —No Action Alternative ................................. ............................... 184 DD.2.2 Wetland Impacts — No Action Alternative ........................................ ............................... 184 DD.2.3 Mitigation Measures — No Action Alternative ................................... ............................... 184 DD.3 Summary of Wetland Impacts ................................................................. ............................... 184 EE. Wild and Scenic Rivers ................................................................ ............................... 185 EE.1 MSP and No Action Alternative ............................................................... ............................... 185 EE. 1.1 Affected Environment — MSP Alternative .......................................... ............................... 185 EE.1.2 Wild and Scenic Rivers Impacts — MSP and No Action Alternatives ..... ............................... 185 EE.1.3 Mitigation Measures — MSP and No Action Alternatives ..................... ............................... 185 Dual Track Final EIS TC5 FF. Wildlife Refuges ..................................................................... ............................... V 985 FF.1 MSP Alternative ... ................................................................................. ............................... 186 FF.1.1 Affected Environment — MSPAlternative .............. ............................... ............................186 FF.1.2 Wildlife Refuge Impacts — MSP Alternative ....................................... ............................... 187 FF.1.3 Mitigation Measures — MSP Alternative ............................................ ............................... 188 FF.2 No Action Alternative ............................................ :............................................................... 188 FF.2.1 Affected Environment — No Action Alternative .................................. ............................... 188 FF.2.2 Wildlife Refuges Impacts —No Action Alternative .............................. ............................... 188 FF.2.3 Mitigation Measures — No Action Alternative ..................................... ............................... 188 FF.3 Summary of Wildlife Refuges Impacts ...................................................... ..... ;.I....................... 188 GG. Design, Art and Architectural Application ..................................... ............................... 189 GGAMSP Alternative ................................................................................... ............................... 189 GG.1.1 Affected Environment — MSP Alternative ......................................... ............................... 189 GG.1.2 Design, Art, and Architectural Application — MSP Alternative ............. ............................... 189 GG.1.3 Mitigation Measures — MSP Alternatives ......................................... ............................... 189 GG.2 No Action Alternative ........................................................................... ............................... 189 GG.2.1 Affected Environment — No Action Alternative ................................. ............................... 189 GG.2.2 Design, Art, and Architectural Impacts — No Action Alternative .......... ............................... 189 GG.2.3 Mitigation Measures — MSP Alternatives ......................................... ............................... 190 HH, Short -Term Uses and Long -Term Productivity and Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources .............................................................. ............................... 990 Vi. LIST OF PREPARERS ........................................................................ ............................... VI -1 VII. LIST OF AGENCIES, JURISDICTIONS, PRIVATE PARTIES AND DEPOSITORIES RECEIVING FINALEIS ...................................... :................................................................................... VII -1 VIII. PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT ................... . ........................................................ VIII -1 IX. LIST OF ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY ............................................... ............................... IX 71 I. X. INDEX .............................................................................................. ............................... X -1 APPENDIX A SUPPORTING INFORMA TION AND LISTS OF SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS AND TECHNICALREPORTS ............................................................................ ............................... A -1 A.1 AIR QUALITY DISCUSSION AND MODELING ASSUMPTIONS .......... ............................... A.2 STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE ...... ............................... A.3 NOISE CHARACTERISTICS, METRICS, COMPATIBLE LAND USE CRITERIA ...................... A.4 CANADA GOOSE POPULATIONS ON MOTHER LAKE .................................................... A.5 EFFECT OF AIRCRAFT OVERFLIGHTS ON BALD EAGLES ............................................... A.6 SUMMARY OF MIGRATORY BIRD SURVEYS ................................. ............................... A.7 BIOTREATMENT OF GLYCOL IN SOILS ......................................... ............................... A.8 HYDRAULIC AND NUTRIENT LOADING - MOTHER LAKE WATERSHED ........................... A.9 CBOD LOADING AND ATTENUATION ANALYSIS - MSP AND NO ACTION ALTERNATIVES............................................... . ....................... I............................. A.10 SURFACE WATER QUALITY MITIGATION MEASURES - MSP AND NO ACTION ALTERNATIVES...................................................................... ............................... A.11 POTENTIAL RESIDUAL GLYCOL- IMPACTED STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MEASURES.............................................. ............................... I ............................. A.12 NOISE ANALYSIS - MINNESOTA VALLEY NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ...................... A.13 AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY ............................... A.14 STATE OF MINNESOTA DUAL TRACK PLANNING PROCESS LEGISLATION .................. A.15 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR CORRESPONDENCE ................. ............................... Dual Track Final EIS TC6 413 APPENDIX B NOISE MITIGATION PLAN .................................................... ............................... B -1 APPENDIX C HISTORIC PRESERVA TION AGREEMENT ............................... ............................... C -1 APPENDIX D WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN .............................................. ............................... D -1 APPENDIX E WILDLIFE REFUGE MITI GATI ON ................. ............................... ............................E -1 APPENDIX F SURFACE TRANSPORTATION CONSENSUS DOCUMENT ............ ............................f -1 APPENDIX G MSP AIRSPACE NOISE SCREENING ANAL PSI S ...................... ............................... G -1 APPENDIX H SENSITIVITY OFIMPACT CATEGORIES TO MAC HIGH FORECAST ......................... H -1 APPENDIX I SUMMARY OF COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIS AND RESPONSES ... ............................... 1 -1 APPENDIXJ FIGURES ................................................................................ ............................J.1 APPENDIX K GOVERNOR'S AIR AND WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION ..... ............................... K -1 List of Tables Table 1 - Historic Passenaer Traffic - 1972 to 1996 ........................................ ...........................II -5 Table 2 - Historic Aircraft Operations - 1972 to 1996 .................................... ............................... 6 Table3 - Summary of Minneapolis Saint Paul Baseline Forecasts .................... ............................... 7 Table 4 - Hourly Distribution of Aircraft Arrivals, Departures and Operations .... ............................... 7 Table 5 - Comparison of Forecasts ............................................................ ............................... 10 Table6 - MAC High Forecast ................................................................... ............................... 10 Table A -1 - Air Quality Attainment Status by Pollutant ............................... ............................... V -2 TableA -2 - Screening Criteria for CO Microscale Analysis .............................. ............................... 4 Table A -3 - Simplified Screening Criteria for CO Microscale Analysis ............... ............................... 4 Table A -4 - Mobile 5a Carbon Monoxide Emissions for 2010 and 2020 ........... ............................... 5 Table A -5 - Factors for Adjusting 1996 Background to the Year 2020 ............. ............................... 8 Table A -6 - Background CO Concentrations within the Study Area .................. ............................... 8 Table A -7 - On- Airport Carbon Monoxide Emissions - MSP Alternative ............. ............................... 9 Table A -8 - On- Airport Sulfur Oxide Emissions - MSP Alternative .................... ............................... 9 Table A -9 - Peak Hour CO Concentrations from On- Airport Sources - MSP Alternative .................... 10 Table A -10 - Off - Airport Roadway CO Emissions - MSP Alternative ............... ............................... 10 Table A -1 1 - Intersection Meeting the Microscale Analysis Screening Criteria . ............................... 11 Table A -12 - Maximum Predicted CO Concentration at TH 55 and TH 62 - MSP 2020 . Concept Plan................................................................................................ ............................... 11 Table A -13 - Assumed Speeds and Emission Values for Interchange Analysis . ............................... 12 Table A -14 - TH 62 and TH 77 Interchange Predicted CO Concentrations - MSP 2020 Concept Plan................................................................................................ ............................... 12 Table A -15 - TH 77 and 66th Street Interchange Predicted CO Concentrations - MSP 2020 ConceptPlan . ............ ................... ..... ....................................... ... ..... . .......... ... .... I ......... ... 13 Table A-1 6 - On- Airport Carbon Monoxide Emissions - No Action Alternative . ............................... 14 Table A -17 - On- Airport Sulfur Oxide Emissions - No Action Alternative ......... ............................... 15 Table A -18 - Peak -Hour CO Concentrations From On- Airport Sources - No Action Alternative.......... 15 Table A -19 - 2020 Off- Airport Roadway CO Emissions - No Action Alternative .............................. 16 Table A -20 - Intersection Meeting the Microscale Analysis Screening Criteria . ............................... 16 Table A -21 - Maximum Predicted CO Concentrations at TH 55 and TH 62 - No Action Alternative....................................................................................... ............................... 16 Dual Track Final EIS TC7 �q Z� Table A -22 - Carbon Monoxide Emissions by Airport Alternative ................ ... ............................. V -17 Table A -23 - Sulfur Oxide Emissions by Airport Alternative .......................... ............................... 18 Table A -24 - Off - Airport Roadway CO Emissions by Airport Alternative ......... ............................... 19 Table A -25 - Maximum Peak Hour CO Concentrations from On- Airport Sources ............................. 19 Table A -26 - Maximum Predicted CO Concentrations at Critical Intersections . ............................... 20 Table A -27 - TH 62 and TH 77 Interchange Predicted CO Concentrations - MSP 2020 Concept Plan................................. ............................... ............................. ............................... 20 Table A -28 - TH 77 and 66th Street Interchange Predicted CO Concentrations - MSP 2020 ConceptPlan .................................................................................... ............................... 20 Table C -1 Summary of Impacts to Biotic Communities ............................... ............................... 25 Table D -1 Locations, Numbers and Types of Bird Strikes Reported at MSP, July 1990 to October1993 .................................................................................. ............................... 27 Table D -2 - Summary of Waterfowl Surveys Conducted by MVNWR Staff and EIS Study Team; Spring 1995 ...... ................................................................. ............................... 29 Table D -3 - Peak Waterfowl Populations within the MVNWR by Season; Source MVNWR AnnualNarratives ............................................................................. ............................... 30 Table D -4 - Waterfowl and Waterbird Use at MVNWR; Spring and Fall Migration Periods, 1987 -1991 for the Long Meadow Lake /Black Dog Area ........................ ............................... 31 Table D -5 - Summary of Monthly Aircraft Overflights of Bird Concentration Areas ......................... 33 Table H -1 - Summary of Endangered and Threatened Species Impacts ......................................... 37 Table 1 -1 - MSA Total Employment Trends, by County, 1970 - 1990 ............. ............................... 38 'Table 1 -2 - Employment by Industry Sector, Minneapolis /St. Paul MSA, 1972 & 1992 .................... 40 Table 1 -3 - Percent Change in County Employment by Industry Sector, Minneapolis /St. Paul MSA, 1972 1992 ........................................................................... ............................... 41 Table I -4 - MSA Population Trends, 1990 2020 ........................................ ............................... 42 Table 1 -5 - Seven County Employment Trends, 1990 - 2020 ........................ ............................... 43 Table 1 -6 - Recent & Projected per Capita Income, 13 County MSA, 1989 - 2000 .......................... 43 Table 1 -7 - Population of the Localized Impact Area ..................................... ............................... 44 Table 1 -8 - Median Household Income, Localized Impact Area, 1979 - 1989 ... ............................... 44 Table 1 -9 - Average Annual Employment by Industry Sector, Minneapolis & St. Paul, 1987 - 1993 ............................................................................................... ............................... 46 Table 1.10 - Employment by Industry Sector, Localized Impact Area, 1990 - 1994 ........................... 47 Table 1-11 - Population Forecast for Localized Impact Area ........................... ............................... 48 Table 1 -12 - Projected Households of Localized Impact Area ......................... ............................... 49 Table 1 -13 - Employment Forecast for Localized Impact Area ........................ ............................... 49 Table 1 -14 - Base Year Employment per Enplanement Ratios ......................... ............................... 51 Table 1 -15 - Airline Industry Annual Productivity Adjustments, 1989 - 2020 ... ............................... 51 Table 1 -16 - Adjusted Employment per Enplanement Ratios, 2000 to 2020 .... ............................... 51 Table 1 -17 - Forecast Enplanement Activity, Alternative MSP Development Scenarios, 2000 - 2020 .............................................................................................. ............................... . 52 Table 1 -18 - Direct and Indirect Employment Under MSP Alternative .............. ............................... 52 Table I -19 - Direct and Indirect Wages Under MSP Alternative ...................... ............................... 52 Table 1 -20 - Tax Capacity Impacts of MSP 2020 Concept Plan ..................... ............................... 53 Table 1 -21 - Tax Capacity Impacts of MSP 2010 LTCP ................................ ............................... 54 Table 1 -22 - Direct and Indirect Employment Under No Action Alternative ..... ............................... 55 Table 1 -23 - Direct and Indirect Wages Under No Action Alternative .............. ............................... 55 Table 1 -24 - Summary of Economic Impacts ............................................... ............................... 56 Table 1 -24 - Total Airport Development Costs - MSP 2020 Concept Plan Preliminary (1995 $)......... 57 Table J -1 Block Fuel Consumption - 2010 LTCP ........... : ..... . .... ... ............................................. 59 Table J -2 - Block Fuel Consumption 2020 Concept Plan ............................ ............................... 59 Table J -3 - Ground Delay Fuel Consumption - 2010 LTCP ............................ ............................... 59 Table J -4 - Ground Delay Fuel Consumption - 2020 Concept Plan ................. ............................... 60 Table J -5 - Aircraft and Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption - 2010 LTCP .......... ............................... 60 Table J -6 - Aircraft and Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption - 2020 Concept Plan .............................. 60 Table J -7 - Block Fuel Consumption - No Action Alternative ......................... ............................... 61 Dual Track Final EIS TCS Table J -8 - Ground Delay Fuel Consumption - No Action Alternative ........... ............................... V -61 Table J -9 - Aircraft and Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption - No Action Alternative .......................... 62 Table J -10 - Comparison of Total Energy Consumption by Airport Alternative . ............................... 62 Table N -1 - Metropolitan Council Forecasts - MSP and No Action Alternatives ............................... 67 Table Q -1 - Population and Dwellings Within Year 2005 DNL Contours - MSP Alternative ............... 77 Table Q -2 - Noise Sensitive Uses within Year 2005 DNL Contours - MSP Alternative ..................... 77 Table Q -3 - Noise Impacts at Select Noise Sensitive Locations Shown in Figure Q -5 - MSPAlternative ............................................................................... ............................... 79 Table Q -4 - Population and Dwellings Within Year 2005 DNL Contours - No Action Alternative ....... 83 Table Q -5 - Noise Sensitive Uses Within Year 2005 DNL Contours - No Action Alternative ............. 84 Table Q -6 - Noise Impacts at Select Noise Sensitive- Locations Shown in Figure Q -5 - No ActionAl ternative ............................................................................. ............................... 85 Table Q•7 - Cumulative Runway 4 -22 Extension 2005 Noise Impacts - MSP and No Action Alternatives..................................................................................... ............................... 87 Table Q-B - Summary Comparison of Noise Impacts - MSP and No Action Alternatives; .................. 88 Table Q -9 - Noise Impacts at Select Noise Sensitive Locations Shown in Figure Q -5 - Comparison Between MSP and No Action Alternatives .......................... ............................... 89 Table Q -10 - 1990 Residences Adversely Impacted by 2020 Traffic Noise from Selected Roadways Leading to Existing Airport Site ........................................... ............................... 91 Table Q -1 1 - Predicted Noise Levels on 18th Avenue Near 66th Street .......... ............................... 92 TableR -1 - Summary of Park and Recreation Area Impacts .......................... ............................... 97 Table S -1 - Residential Displacement -- Distribution of Low - Income Households - MSP 2020 ConceptPlan .................................................................................... ............................... 99 Table S -2 - Residential Displacement -- Distribution of Minority Households - MSP 2020 ConceptPlan .................................................................................... ............................... 99 Table S -3 - Residential Displacement -- Distribution of Low- Income Households - MSP 2010 LTCP............................................... . .............. . ..... . .... .... .. ...... .... ... . ........................... I .... Table S -4 - Residential Displacement -- Distribution of Minority Households - MSP 2010 LTCP .......100 . 99 Table S -5. - Distribution of Low - Income Households - MSP Alternative ............. ............................101 Table S -6 - Distribution of Minority Households - MSP Alternative ................... ............................101 Table S -7 - Residential Displacement -- Distribution of Low - Income Households - No Action Alternative.......................................................... ............................... ............................101 Table S -8 - Residential Displacement -- Distribution of Minority Households - No Action Alternative.......................................................... ............................... ............................102 Table S -9 - Distribution of Low Income Households in 1994 ........................... ............................102 Table S -10 - Distribution of Minority Households in 1994 .............................. ............................102 Table S -11 - Distribution of Low Income Households - No Action Alternative ... ............................103 Table S -12 - Distribution of Minority Households - No Action Alternative ......... ............................103 Table S -13 Summary of Residential Displacement Environmental Justice Impacts .........................103 Table S -14 Summary of Aircraft Noise Environmental Justice Impacts ............. ............................104 Table T -1 - Households Displaced by the MSP 2020 Concept Plan .................. ............................106 Table T -2 - Residents Displaced by the MSP 2020 Concept Plan... .............................................. 106 Table T -3 - Businesses Displaced by the MSP 2020 Concept Plan .................... ............................107 Table T -4 - Employees Displaced by the MSP 2020 Concept Plan ................... ............................107 Table T -5 - Households Displaced by the MSP 2010 LTCP ............................. ............................108 Table T -6 - Residents Displaced by the MSP 2010 LTCP .. ............................... ...........................108 Table T -7 - Businesses Displaced by the MSP 2010 LTCP .............................. ............................108 Table T -8 - Employees Displaced by the MSP 2010 LTCP .............................. ............................109 Table T -9 - Residential Relocation for the MSP 2020 Concept Plan ................. ............................109 Table T -10 - Residential Relocation for the MSP 2010 LTCP ........................... ............................109 Table T -1 1 - Business Relocation for the MSP 2020 Concept Plan ................ ..............................1 10 Table T -12 - Business Relocation for the MSP 2010 LTCP ............................ ..............................1 10 Table T -13 - Characteristics of Displaced Households - No Action Alternative . ..............................1 12 Table T -14 - Summary of Social Impacts ................................................... ..............................1 13 Dual Track Final EIS TC9 MAE Table U -1 - Summarizes the Numbers of Section 4(f) Properties that will be Used by Each Airport........................................................................................ ............................... V -120 Table W -1 - 1990 Travel Time to Airport Main Terminal from County Seats ..... ............................124 Table W -2 - Regional Population and Employees within Airport Service Areas in 1990 ...................12.5 Table W -3 - Year 2020 Traffic Volume Changes Under the MSP Alternative ..... ............................127 Table W -4 - Year 2020 . Travel Time to Main Terminal from County Seats - MSP Alternative .......... 128 Table W -5 - Year 2020 Regional Population, Households and Employees within Traveisheds of MSPAlternative .................................................. ............................... ............................129 Table W -6 - Year 2020 Potential Roadway Improvements Needed with No Action Alternative .......135 Table W -7 - Year 2020 Travel Time to Airport Main Terminal from County Seats -No Action Alternative..................... ............................... .. ............................... ............................135 Table W -8 - Year 2020 Regional Population and Employees within Travelsheds of No Action Alternative.......................................................... ............................... ............................136 Table W -9 - Year 2020 Traffic Volumes - MSP and No Action Alternatives ....... ...........................137 Table W -10 - Comparison of Year 2020 Forecast Levels of Service ................. ............................138 Table W -1 1 - Summary of Average Travel Times to Airport Main Terminal ....... ............................141 Table W -12 - Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts of Needed Highway Improvements ......141 TableY -1 Summary of Visual Impacts ........................ ............................... ............................144 Table Z -1 - 2020 Projected Municipal Wastewater - MSP Alternative .............. ............................145 Table Z -2 - 2020 Projected Municipal Wastewater - No Action Alternative ....... ............................146 Table AA -1 - 2020 Projected Water Usage - MSP Alternative ......................... ............................148 Table AA -2 - 2020 Projected Water Usage - No Action Alternative ................. ............................149 Table BB -1 - Five Highest CBODS Discharge Days (Airport Composite) for 1993/94 through 1996/67 Winters ................................................. ............................... ............................151 Table BB. -2 - Aircraft and Runway Deicing Chemicals Usage at MSP 1993/94 -- 1996/97 ..............152 Table BB -3 - Water Quality Classifications (Minnesota Rules, 1993, 1994) ........ ...........................157 Table 1313-4 - Minnesota River Water Quality Data - -Fort Snelling Station ............ ...........................159 Table BB -5 - Assumed Antecedent Pond Conditions for CBODS Spike Event - MSP and No ActionAlternatives ............................................... ............................... ...........................163 ; Table BB -6 - Composite Airport CBODS Loading on Extreme Case Day - MSP and No Action Alternatives( pounds) ............................................ ............................... ............................163 Table BB -7 - Aquatic Toxicity Information for Aircraft De /Anti -Icing Products .... ............................166 Table CC -1 - Location of Aviation Fueling Facilities /Operations Relative to Aquifer Sensitivity - MSPAlternative .................................................. ............................... ............................176 Table CC -2 - Location of Aviation Fueling Facilities /Operations Relative to Aquifer Sensitivity - NoAction Alternative ............................................ ............................... ...........................178 Table CC -3 - Summary of Potential for Groundwater Impacts .....................I... ............................180 Table DD -1 - Wetland Resources within the APE for the MSP Alternative .......... ...........................181 Table DD -2 - Wetland Impacts Associated with the MSP Alternative ............... ............................182 Table DD -3 - Wetland Mitigation Requirements Associated with the MSP 2010 LTCP ...................184 TableDD -4 Summary of Wetland Impacts ................... ............................... ............................184 Table A.1 -1 Intersection Screening Results (2020) .................................. ............................... A.1 -3 Table A.1 -2 Intersection Screening Results ( 2020) ........................................ ............................... 3 Table A.1 -3 Mobile 5A Input File for Off - Airport Motor Vehicle Emissions ........ ............................... 4 Table A.1 -4a MPCA 1990 8- County CO Emission Inventory Summary Table .... ............................... 5 Table A.1 -4b 'MPCA 1993 8- County CO Emission Inventory Summary Table .... ............................... 6 Table A.1 -5 Assumptions Used For On- Airport Source In The Edms Model ...... ............................... 7 Table A.1 -6 Assumed Average Annual Hourly Departures ( 2005) .................... ............................... 9 Table A.1 -7a Assumed Annual Departures ( 2020) ....................................... ............................... 10 Table A.1 -7b Assumed Year 2020 Hourly Departures (Annual /8760) ........... ............................... 11 Table A.1 -8a Assumed Average Annual Hourly Departures (2005) MSP Alternative ....................... 12 Table A.1 -8b Assumed Average Annual Hourly Departures by Aircraft and Runway (2020) ............ 12 Table A.1 -9 Assumed Time in Queue Delay by Alternative ........................... ............................... 13 Table A.1 -10 Assumed EDMS Input Data - Roadways and Parking ................ ...................... .......... 13 Dual Track Final EIS TC10 67 Table A.1 -11 Parking Input Data - EDMS Model .................................... ............................... A,1 -14 Table A.1 -12 Airport - Related Employment (1994) and Estimated Heating Requirements ................. 14 Table A.1 -13 Assumed 50 MMBTU Boiler Location ..................................... ............................... 15 Table A.1 -14 Assumed 50 MMBTU Boiler Coordinates ................................ ............................... 15 Table A.1 -15 Projected Peak Hour Operations MSP Alternative (2020) .......... ............................... 15 Table A.1 -16 Assumed Peak Hour Operations for EDMS Model MSP Alternative (2020) ................. 16 Table A.1 -17 Assumed on- Airport Roadway Traffic Volumes Peak Hour - ( 2020 ) ........................... 16 Table A.1 -18 Roadway Input Data - EDMS Model Peak Hour ( 2020) ........................................ :... 17 Table A,1 -19 Parking Input Data •- EDMS Model Peak Hour ( 2020) ................ ............................... 17 Table A.1 -20 Assumed Average Annual Hourly Departures No Action Alternative - 2005 ............... 18 Table A.1 -21 Assumed Average Annual Hourly Departures No Action Alternative - 2020 ............... 18 Table A.1 -22 Projected Peak Hour Operations No Action Alternative - 2020 .... ............................... 19 Table A.1 -23 Assumed Peak Hour Operations for EDMS Model No Action Alternative - 2020...,...... 19 Table A.1 -24 Estimation of Motor Vehicle Emissions at the TH 77 and 66th Street Interchange ...... 20 TableA,3 -1 - Common Sounds on the dBA Scale ................................... ............................... A.3 -4 Table A.3 -2 - Land Use Compatibility Criteria ............................................... ............................... 8 Table A.3 -3 - 2005 Projected Fleet Mix and Average Daily Arrivals - MSP Alternative ..................... 12 Table A.3 -4 - 2005 Projected Fleet Mix and Average Daily Departures - MSP Alternative ................ 13 Table A.3 -5 - 2005 Projected Fleet Mix and Average Daily Arrivals - No Action Alternative ............. 15 Table A.3 -6 - 2005 Projected Fleet Mix and Average Daily Departures - No Action Alternative ........ 16 Table A.3 -7 - Runway Use for MSP Alternative Average Annual Use ............. ............................... 17 Table A.3 -8 - Runway Use for No- Action Alternative Average Annual Use ........ :........................... 18 Table A.6 -1 - Summary of 1995 Spring Migration Survey ........................ ............................... A.6 -3 Table A.12 -1 - Average Daytime Leq in dBA ........................................ ............................... A.12 -4 TableA.12 -2 - Time Above 65 dBA ............................................................ ............................... 5 TableA.12 -3 - Peak Daytime SEL dBA ........................................................ ............................... 5 TableA.12 -4 - DNL Noise Levels ................................................................ ............................... 5 Table A.13 -1 Estimated Annual CO Emissions from Haul Truck Activity in 2003 ..................... A.13 -2 Table A.13 -2 Estimated Off- Airport CO Emissions from Construction Employee Travel ................... 2 Table A.13 -3 Annual Emissions by All Types of Construction Equipment ........ ............................... 3 Table A.13 -4 Construction Emissions based upon Sacramento Methodology ..... ............................... 4 Table A.13 -5 On- Airport Construction Activity Carbon Monoxide Emissions in 2003 ....................... 4 Table D.1 -1 - Wetland Mitigation Requirements - MSP 2010 LTCP ............ ............................... D.1.1 Table H -1 Comparison of MAC High Forecast with DEIS Forecast .................. ............................H -2 Table H -2 Summary of Impacts of MAC High Forecast ................................ ............................... 3 Table H.1 -1 - Assumed Operations and Delay ............................................... ............................... 5 Table H.1 -2 - On- Airport Carbon Monoxide Emissions (tons per year) .............. ............................... 5 Table H.1 -3 - On- Airport Sulfur Oxide Emissions (tons per year) ...................... ............................... 6 TableH.1 -4 - Assumed CO Background ( ppm) ... . .............. .. .... .... .......................... I ... I.................. 6 Table H.1 -5 - Average Daily Airport Traffic Volumes ..................................... ............................... 7 Table H.1 -6 - Approach PM Peak -Hour Traffic Volumes at TH 55 and TH 62 .... ............................... 7 Table H.1 -7 - Predicted CO Concentrations at TH 55 and TH 62 ..................... ............................... 7 Table 11.1 -8 - Assumptions Used for Sensitivity Analysis of ............................ ............................... 8 Table H -1.9 - Assumed Aircraft LTO Cycles by APU Class ............................. ............................... 8 Table H -1.10 - Adjustment Factors from No Action 2005 .............................. ............................... 9 Table H -1.11 EDMS Model Roadway Assumptions ...................................... ............................... 9 Table H.2 -1 a - MSP 2005 Fleet Mix And Average Daily Arrivals High Forecast .............................. 11 Table H.2 -1 b - MSP 2005 Fleet Mix And Average Daily Departures High Forecast ......................... 12 Table H.2 -3 - MSP Grid Point Analysis Using INM Version 4.11 .................... ............................... 13 Table 11.2 -4 - MSP Grid Point Analysis Using INM Version 5.01 .................... ............................... 14 Table H.2 -5 - Comparison of 2005 and 2020 DNL Contour Areas - High Forecast Scenario ............. 15 Table H.3 -1 Summary of Aircraft Noise Environmental Justice Impacts ........ ............................... 16 Table H.4 -1 CBODS Loading on Extreme Case Day - 2010 FEIS Forecast ..... ............................... 17 Table H.4 -2 CBOD5 Loading on Extreme Case Day - 2010 MAC High Forecast ............................. 18 Table H.4 -3 CBODS Loading on Extreme Case Day - 2020 MAC High Forecast ............................. 18 Dual Track Final EIS TC11 in List of Figures Figure # Title Executive I Summary ES -1 Location Map ES -2 MSP 2020 Concept Plan ES -3 MSP 2010 LTCP ES -4 No Action Alternative ES -5 New Airport Alternative Appendix A A.3 -1 Common Aircraft Noise Levels on the Decibel Scale A.3 -2 Community Reaction to Noise Levels Appendix G G -1 Terminal Airspace Study - Southeast Flow Existing G -2 Terminal Airspace Study - Southeast Flow Alt. 1 G -3 Terminal Airspace Study - Southeast Flow Alt. 2 G -4 Terminal Airspace Study - Southeast Flow Alt. 3 G -5 MSP Flight Tracks and Operations 2005 Base Case G -6 MSP Flight Tracks and Operations 2005 High Forecast Appendix H H -1 2005 DNL Contours - Baseline and High Forecast Scenarios H -2 2005 and 2020 DNL Contours - High Forecast Scenarios Appendix J 1 Location Map 2 No Action Alternative 2A Extension of Runway 4 -22 to 12,000 feet 3 1994 Average IFR Travel Time and Delay per Operation 4 Year 2020 Average IFR Travel Time and Delay per Operation - No Action Alternative 5 Average Annual Delays and Costs { 6 MSP 2020 Concept Plan 7 Year 2020 Average IFR Travel Time and Delay per Operation - MSP Alternative S MSP 20I0 LTCP 9 MSP Option 1 Eliminated 10 MSP Option 2 Eliminated I 1 MSP Option 3 Eliminated 12 MSP Option 4 Eliminated 13 MSP Option 5 Eliminated 14 New Airport Alternative Eliminated A -1 Carbon Monoxide Non Attainment Area A -2 CO, S02 and PM -10 Non Attainment Areas A -3 CO Monitor and Air Quality Receptor Sites for On- Airport Sources - MSP and No Action Alternatives A -4 CO Analysis Locations (Intersections) for Off- Airport Sources - MSP 2020 Concept Plan D -1 Potential Bird- Aircraft Hazard Areas - MSP and No Action Alternatives L -I Floodplains - MSP and No Action Alternatives M -1 Historic /Architectural Resources - MSP Alternative M -2 Historic /Architectural Resources - No Action Alternative 0-1 Existing Land Use at MSP 0-2 Future Land Use - MSP Alternative O_; Future Land Use - No Action Alternative Q -1 1994 DNL Noise Contours Q -2 2005 Flight Tracks - MSP Alternative Q -3 2005 DNL Noise Contours - MSP Alternative Q -3A 2005 DNL Noise Contours - MSP Alternative with Runway 4 -22 Extension I Dual Track Final EIS TC12 q Figure # - Title Q -4 2005 L,065 Noise Contours - MSP Alternative Q -5 Selected Noise Sensitive Receptor Locations - MSP and No Action Alternatives Q -6 Mitigation to be Completed through 1997 - MSP Alternative Q -7 Area of Mitigation in MSP Noise Mitigation Plan Q -8 2005 Flight Tracks - No Action Alternative Q -9 2005 DNL Noise Contours - No Action Alternative Q -9A 2005 DNL Noise Contours - No Action Alternative with Runway 4 -22 Extension Q -10 2005 L,o65 Noise Contours - No Action Alternative R -1 Park and Recreation Land - MSP and No Action Alternatives T -1 Residential/Commercial Areas Affected by 2020 Highway Improvements - MSP 2020 Concept Plan T -2 Residential/Commetcial Areas Affected by 2010 Highway Improvements - MSP 2010 LTC. T -3 Off - Airport Properties Displaced by North -South Runway RPZ - MSP Alternative T -4 Residential Properties To Be Acquired For Noise Mitigation - MSP Alternative T -5 Community Facilities - MSP Alternative T -6 Community Facilities - No Action Alternative W -1 1992 Daily Vehicular Traffic - MSP and No Action Alternatives W -2 2020 Daily Vehicular Traffic - MSP Alternative W -3 2020 Travel Times (PM Peak) - MSP Alternative W -4 2020 Travel Times (Off Peak) - MSP Alternative W -5 2020 Daily Vehicular Traffic - No Action Alternative W -6 2020 Travel Times (PM Peak) - No Action Alternative W -7 2020 Travel Times (Off Peak) - No Action Alternative W -8 2020 Highway Improvements - MSP and No Action Alternatives W -9 2010 Highway Improvements - MSP 2010 LTCP Z -1 Existing MSP Sanitary Sewer Layout AA -1 Existing MSP Watermain Layout BB -1 MSP Watershed Boundaries BB -2 Minnesota River Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations, Ft, Snelling Station CC -I Bedrock Topography and Relevant Data Points •• MSP and No Action Alternatives CC -2 Geologic Cross Section A -A' CC -3 Geologic Cross Section B -B' CC -4 Geologic Cross Section C -C' CC -5 Geologic Cross Section Locations CC -6 Bedrock Geology - MSP and No Action Alternatives CC -7 Surficial Unconsolidated Deposits CC -8 Generalized Groundwater Flow Direction - Perched Water Table CC -9 Generalized Groundwater Flow Direction - St, Peter Water Table Aquifer DD -I Wetlands - MSP and No Action Alternatives FF -1 2005 Overflights of Wildlife Refuge - MSP Alternative FF -2 2005 Overflights of Wildlife Refuge = No Action Alternative FF -3 MSP Alternative 2005 DNL Contours - Wildlife Refuge FF -4 No Action Alternative 2005 DNL Contours - Wildlife Refuge FF -5 Wildlife Refiige Ownership and Noise Monitoring Sites FF -6 Wildlife Recreation Areas Within 2005 MAC High Forecast DNL Contours Dual Track Final EIS TC13 7L) The format of this Final EIS does not follow the usual format of a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) EIS in the order of listing the impact categories in the Environmental Consequences section; the categories are listed alphabetically and additional categories are included. To assist federal reviewers, the following cross reference with FAA Order 5050.4A is presented. Cover Sheet Summary Table of Contents 79 Introduction Purpose of and Need for Action Alternatives including Proposed Action Affected Environment Environmental Consequences a. Noise b. Land Use C. Social Impacts d. Induced Socioeconomic Impacts e. Air Quality f. Water Quality g. DOT Act, Section 4(f) h. Historic, Architectural, Archaeological, and Cultural Resources i. Biotic Communities j. Endangered and Threatened Species of Flora and Fauna k. Wetlands 1. Floodplains m. Coastal Zone Management m. Coastal Barriers n. Wild and Scenic Rivers 90 o. Farmland p. Energy Supply &s Nat. Resources q. Light Emissions r. Solid Waste Impacts s. Construction Impacts t. Design, Art, and Architectural Application Adverse Impacts Which Cannot be Avoided Short Term Uses and Long Term Productivity, and Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources Environmental Justice (required by Executive Order) List of Preparers List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons to Whom Copies of the Statement are sent Public and Agency Involvement Figures Index Appendices 5050.4A FEIS FEIS Page Reference Section Page 79 Cover Sheet 79 i TC1 I I- I 80 II II -1 80 III III -1 81 IV and V throughout V 82 V.Q V -74 83 V.O V -67 83 V.T V -104 83 V.N V -68 84 V.A V -1 84 V.BB & V.CC V -169 & V -150 85 V.0 V -113 85 V.M,B V -63, V -21 86 V.0 V -22 87 V.H V -35 88 V.DD V -185 89 V.L V -63 89 V.G V -35 89 V.F V -35 V.EE V -185 90 V.K. V -63 90 V.J V -5 8 97 V.P V -71 91 V.V V -120 91 V.E V -35 91 V.GG V -189 92 Throughout 92 V.HH V -190 V'S V -97 92 V1. VI -1 92 VII, VIl -1 7 VIII. VIII -1 Appendix J 92 X. X -1 92 Appendix A'- K Dual Track Final EIS TC14 �71 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Dual Track Legislative Directive The 1989 Minnesota Legislature directed the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) and the Metropolitan Council (MC) to examine how best to meet the region's aviation needs 30 years into the future (the year 2020). The agencies were directed to undertake seven years of planning studies comparing expansion of the Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport (MSP) with construction of a new replacement airport. The development of MSP and the replacement airport were divided into two parts — a 20 -year comprehensive plan [the 2010 Long Term Comprehensive Plan (LTCP)] and a concept plan for an additional 10 years (the 2020 Concept Plan). The legislation is included in Appendix A.14. That seven -year process, known as the Dual Track Airport Planning Process, is complete. In March 1996 MAC and MC submitted a report to the legislature containing their recommendations on future major airport development. In April 1996 the legislature considered these recommendations and the comprehensive planning documents and their environmental effects mandated by the 1989 legislation, and selected the development of MSP as the preferred alternative. The legislature mandated implementation of the MSP 2010 LTCP, a phase of the MSP 2020 Concept Plan (see Appendix A.14), Proposed Action and Scope of Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) The proposed action is implementation of the MSP 2010 LTCP. It includes development of a new 8,000 -foot runway and related airfield and roadway modifications. This plan is recommended by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and MAC for federal environmental approval in this FEIS, and state determination of adequacy of this FEIS. As required by the 1989 Dual Track legislation, the 2020 Concept Plan is also evaluated in the FEIS. The 30 -year planning horizon used to develop the 2020 Concept Plan is well beyond the normal 10 -to -15 -year planning horizon required by FAA in project development. The 2020 Concept Plan is evaluated to the extent possible in order to disclose the potential long -term effects of the development of a new passenger terminal and related airfield and roadway facilities. Implementation of the new terminal and related airfield and roadway facilities will require approval by the Minnesota legislature and further environmental review and approval by MAC, FAA and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The FEIS contains the evaluation of the impacts on the environment of the MSP 2020 Concept Plan, the MSP 2010 LTCP and a no- action alternative. These alternatives have been studied by MAC, MC and FAA. Other development alternatives that have been considered, including a new replacement airport, are also described. The FEIS also contains comments on the Draft EIS and their responses, and the committed measures that will be implemented to mitigate adverse effects of the proposed action. A Section 4(f) Evaluation document was prepared by FAA and made available for comment on May 1, 1998. A summary of the document is presented in Section V.0 of this FEIS. The Purpose of the Document The purpose of this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and referenced documents is to disclose the environmental impacts of the proposed action and connected projects, provide measures to mitigate potential adverse effects, and serve as a decision- making tool in evaluating implementation of the proposed action. Also, the FEIS is to provide interested agencies and the public with the information they need to participate in the state and federal review of the proposed action. Dual Track Final EIS i —?:A The HIS discloses the effects of the MSP 2010 LTCP and the known effects of the MSP 2020 Concept Plan. The proposed new highway access in the MSP 2020 Concept Plan, noted above, is a feasible concept, but would require additional study and coordination by MAC and FAA with the Metropolitan Council, the Minnesota Department of Transportation and FHWA. This FEIS is both a state and federal document; it was prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Minnesota Environmental Review Program, and all portions apply to each unless stated otherwise in the text. Purpose and Need for the Project The purpose of the project is to provide for the efficient and economical movement of people and goods between the Twin Cities region and USA and international markets, and help promote the orderly growth and economic development of the region. The project must satisfy the air transportation needs of the region to the year 2010, and have a concept plan that could satisfy the air transportation needs of the region to the year 2020. During the mid- 1980s, an Airport Adequacy Study prepared by the Metropolitan Council indicated that, because of physical and environmental constraints, MSP may not be capable of expanding to the degree necessary to meet the region's long -term air transportation needs. MAC subsequently prepared forecasts of activity, developed the long -term comprehensive plan (LTCP) for MSP and utilized the FAA SIMMOD Model and manual techniques from the FAA Airport Capacity and Delay Manual to perform detailed analyses of capacity and delay. The proposed addition of new Runway 17 -35 was analyzed independently by MAC and a FAA Airport Capacity Design Team, consisting of FAA, the airport operator, and aviation industry groups, and reported in the FAA's Capacity Enhancement Plan for MSP completed In December 1993. Based on these studies and analyses, MAC and FAA have independently concluded that without substantial airfield, terminal, and access improvements, future growth in aviation activity at MSP will result in a significantly decreased level of service and increased user costs. Peak -hour demand will outstrip rapacity of the runway /taxiway system without major improvements. Airfield simulations using SIMMOD show that if no improvements are made by 2020, or by 2010 if recent growth rates continue, peak -hour departure queues for the south parallel runway could reach more than 25 aircraft. That would result in excessive delays and aircraft blocking access to the terminal, producing gridlock. Peak -hour (6:00 -7:00 p.m.) delays by the year 2020, or 2010 under recent growth rates, are estimated to average 15 minutes per aircraft during instrument conditions, with the highest delays in excess of one hour. At the levels cited by the Airport Capacity Design Team, ranging from 530,000 to 60b,000 annual operations, these savings would range from 21,000 to 44,000 hours per year -- which results in a $30 million to $63 million benefit per year. This projected increase in delays, decline in service and resulting increase in user costs threatens MSP's ability to provide good - quality air service and economic benefits to the region as a major connecting hub. MSP's role as a connecting hub is integral to the air service the airport provides the region. Further, MSP — the 14th busiest airport in the nation in 1995 for passenger enplanements is a major link in the nation's airspace structure. In addition to airport improvements, the 2010 and 2020 regional highway improvements identified in Section III would also be needed to provide adequate access to the airport. The impacts of these potential improvements are also addressed in this FEIS. Dual Track Final EIS _7� Alternatives Considered to Meet Project Purpose and Need When considering how to meet forecast demand for 2010 and 2020, a number of alternatives were analyzed. The following is a summary of the alternatives that have been considered: a No Action MSP Expansion ® New Airport • High -Speed Intercity Rail (between Twin Cities and Chicago) ® Remote Runway ® Supplemental Airport (use of MSP combined with other existing airports) Below is a brief description of the alternatives analyzed in this FEIS. The location of the MSP Expansion alternative is shown on Figure ES -1, which is attached to the Executive Summary. MSP Expansion— MSP Expansion consists of the MSP 2010 LTCP and the MSP 2020 Concept Plan. A new 8,000 -foot north -south runway would be added to the current three- runway airfield as part of the 2010 LTCP. Also included in the 2010 LTCP are dedicated deicing pads at runway ends, enhanced storm water detention basins, improvements to the Trunk Highway 77/66th Street interchange and relocation of the airport frontage road on the west and south sides of the airport. See Figure ES -3 for a schematic rendering and Figure 8 in Appendix J for a more detailed depiction of the 2010 LTCP. In addition to the new 8,000 -foot north -south runway and related facilities of the 2010 LTCP, the 2020 Concept Plan includes a new replacement terminal building on the west side of the airport with a connection to gates on the east side via an underground people mover. Other improvements include new highway access from Trunk Highways 62 and 77 to the new west side entrance to the terminal, and a parking /drop -off facility on the east side of the airport. See Figure ES -2 and Figure 6 (Appendix J). No Action -- This alternative consists of maintaining the existing airport facilities at MSP and the implementation of those committed projects with funding approved by the MAC in its current 1995- 1998 Capital Improvement Program. See Figure ES -4 and Figure 2 (Appendix J). It also includes increased use of the runway use system (RUS) that would redistribute aircraft operations and the related noise, by making greater use of Runway 4 -22: Alternatives that were eliminated from further analysis in the FEIS and the reasons for elimination are listed below, New Airport -- A new replacement airport was considered on a site of 14,100 acres east of Vermillion and south of Hastings in Dakota County, as shown on Figure ES -1. The airfield would consist of six runways: four parallel runways and two crosswind runways (see Figure ES -5). Main highway access would be from the north by a new eight -lane freeway to a centrally - located terminal. The following major 2020 impacts of this alternative were presented in the DEIS: • Average travel time to the terminal would be 20 minutes longer than to MSP • Over $511 million in needed off - airport highway improvements, compared to about $200 million for the MSP Alternative • Over 17,000 acres of farmland would be acquired due to site development, highway construction, power line relocation and induced development • Over 6,800 acres of wildlife habitat would be lost, compared to 360 acres for the MSP Alternative • The development cost would be over $2.2 billion more than the MSP Alternative • The new airport would entail greater financial risk than MSP 2020 Concept Plan for adjusting to changing demand, since most of the construction and land acquisition would have to occur in the early phases and development of MSP could be accomplished incrementally as needed.. Dual Track Final EIS iii Remote Runway -- Under this concept, terminal ticketing, baggage and support facilities would remain at MSP while new runways and gates would be constructed at a site in Dakota County, about 15 -25 miles away. The two sites would be linked by rail transit. A 1995 MAC study of this concept showed: There would be significant operational inefficiencies. Nowhere in the world does an airport have split landside /airside operations over 15 miles apart; that is because the staffing requirements would make air service for this type of configuration prohibitively expensive; A two - terminal system would inevitably evolve, with the public demanding ticketing, baggage and parking facilities at both sites, which would ultimately result in a full- service airport at the remote site. It would be very difficult to force passengers to take an intermediate form of transportation, such as a train. Local passengers want to be picked up or have a car available for immediate transport to their final destination, rather than having their trip prolonged by intermediate mode changes. In addition, certain basic amenities must be provided to passengers as they embark from airplanes. These amenities, such as food and rest facilities, require a passenger terminal, as would the required queuing and seating areas for transferring to a train; Costs would be slightly higher than the new airport alternative; and There would be adverse environmental impacts, including the need for a one -mile bridge over the environmentally - sensitive Minnesota River valley. The following alternatives do not satisfy the purpose and need for the project: High Speed Intercity Rail This alternative would include the construction of high -speed rail connecting Minneapolis and Chicago to divert passengers and operations from air service to rail service so that in 2010 and 2020 an additional runway and terminal facilities at MSP would not be needed. A 1991 Mn /DOT study of the implications of high -speed rail alternatives on air traffic showed: o High -speed rail service would not divert enough passengers and operations by 2010 and 2020 to preclude the need for additional runway and terminal facilities at MSP. Supplemental Airport Concept -- Under this concept, a component of MSP operations (general aviation, military, regional, cargo, international, and /or flights to major markets) would be diverted to another existing state airport. The intention would be to accommodate the remaining 2020 demand without having to develop new terminal and runway facilities at MSP. A 1993 MAC study evaluated the transfer of various aviation demand components from MSP to Rochester Municipal Airport (MSP Third Option, Scenarios). A 1995 study by Mn /DOT on the use of supplemental airports also addressed the feasibility of supplemental airports. A summary of findings follows: Diverting military operations, cargo activity, international operations or general aviation would not delay the need for new runway and terminal facilities at MSP. If regional air carrier traffic were transferred even to the nearest airport -- St. Paul Downtown Airport -- it would force nearly 6,500 regional air carrier passengers a day to travel across town to make their connecting flights at MSP, making MSP a very unattractive connecting hub for regional service. It would be extremely difficult legally to force air carriers to relocate regional service to another airport, and St. Paul Downtown has site constraints that preclude extensive development of this type. As with regional carrier service, transferring service to major markets such as Chicago to another state airport would force the passengers making connecting flights to travel long distances to MSP. In addition, originating and destination passengers would have long driving distances. Once again, it would be extremely difficult legally to force airlines to relocate service to major markets to another airport. Neither the MAC nor the FAA have the legal authority'to dictate to airlines the level and location of service that they can provide. Dual Track Final EIS Preferred Alternative /Proposed Action The expansion of MSP is the preferred alternative, as determined by MAC, MC and the Minnesota legislature (as discussed above). The preferred alternative consists of the 2010 LTCP and the 2020 Concept Plan . The preferred alternative of the FAA in the FEIS is the implementation of the 2010 LTCP -- which is the proposed action. In making this determination, FAA evaluated the environmental consequences of the 2010 LTCP with its economic and technical aspects, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The proposed action includes the following elements: ® new north -south runway (Runway 17/35) 8000 feet in length with associated taxiways and holding /deicing pad at the north end s new holding /deicing pads for Runways 12R, 30L and 30R o enhanced storm water detention basins ® expansion of Red, Gold and Green Concourses e new Green Concourse people mover ® new skyway connector between Gold and Green Concourses realignment and widening of airport frontage road between 66th Street and 34th Avenue South o reconstruction of TH 77/66th Street interchange relocation /construction of maintenance, aircraft hangar and air cargo facilities ® new apron pavement ® implementation of necessary air traffic control procedures a installation of necessary navigational and lighting aids Implementation of the proposed action may require modifications by FAA of the affected airspace; it also requires the approval by FAA of the Airport Layout Plan (ALP) and the use of federal airport - development funds and Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) revenues. Additional projects in the preferred alternative but outside of the 2010 proposed action include a replacement terminal on the west side of the airport, supporting highway improvements, and additional cargo and maintenance hangar development. Development beyond 2010 is subject to further environmental assessment and separate FAA and FHWA approvals. The preferred alternative is also the environmentally - preferred alternative because it satisfies the project purpose and need with less significant adverse effects to the environment, when considering the committed mitigation, than the No Action Alternative. The .preferred alternative will have less impact on air quality, surface water quality and energy consumption and a more beneficial impact on the economy than the No Action Alternative. Also, the No Action Alternative would not satisfy the purpose and need for the project (accommodate the air transportation needs to the year 2010 and have a plan for accommodating 2020 needs). See Section 111.13 for more detailed discussion. Environmental Evaluation The Alternative Environmental Review Process, approved in March 1992 by the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board for the Dual Track Airport Planning Process, requires the assessment of environmental impacts of the alternatives to the year 2020. The alternatives were examined for impacts in the identified environmental categories. Those categories are: Air quality, archaeological resources, biotic communities, bird- aircraft hazards, construction impacts, coastal barriers, coastal zone management program, endangered and threatened species, economic, energy supply and natural resources, farmland, floodplains, historic /architectural resources, induced socioeconomic impacts, land use, light emissions, noise, parks and recreation, environmental justice, social, Section 4(f), solid waste impacts, transportation access, major utilities, visual impacts, Dual Track Final EIS wastewater, water supply, surface water quality, groundwater quality, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, and wildlife refuges. Below is a summary highlighting some of the major findings. A matrix summarizing impacts of the alternatives follows on pages A to All. More detail on the impacts of the alternatives is found in Section V of the FEiS. • Natural Environment -- impacts of the MSP 2010 LTCP and 2020 Concept Plan and the No Action Alternative on the natural environment are not significant (endangered and threatened species, archaeological resources, biotic communities, floodplains, parks, recreation areas other than wildlife refuges, and wild and scenic rivers). • Economic -- The development cost to implement the MSP 2010 LTCP is $803 million and the MSP 2020 Concept Plan is $3.15 billion in 1995 dollars. The 2010 LTCP would involve land acquisition and removal of some off- airport commercial buildings, construction of a new north - south runway, relocation on airport property of airport facilities to accommodate the new runway, and minor road improvements. In addition to the 2010 improvements, the 2020 Concept Plan would involve the construction of a new west terminal and major roadway improvements. The 2010 LTCP would contribute approximately 9,600 jobs and $0.90 billion to the regional economy during construction, and the2020 Concept Plan would contribute approximately 32,540 jobs and F 1;' JD $3.06 billion. The capital cost of the No Action Alternative is $255 million for committed projects in the MAC 1995.1998 Capital Improvement Programs. ✓ ® Land Use — Existing and planned land uses in the state safety zones south of the proposed new north -south runway in the city of Bloomington are not consistent with current Mn /DOT airport zoning standards and the Metropolitan Council's Compatibility Guidelines for noise. Appropriate zoning regulations would be established for the affected areas, subject to Mn /DOT approval. The city of Bloomington would amend its comprehensive plan and zoning regulations to conform with the new regulations and Compatibility Guidelines. Minnesota law requires city comprehensive plans to be consistent with the Metropolitan Council's Metropolitan Airports System plan, and zoning regulations be consistent with the comprehensive plan and Mn /DOT safety rules. Noise -- In terms of noise levels of DNL 65 or greater: expanding MSP would expose 7,650 persons to these levels in the worst -case year (2005), compared to 7,350 for no action. In 1994, there were approximately 33,750 persons in the DNL 65 contour for MSP. The lower number of persons impacted by MSP in the future is attributable to the continued introduction of quieter aircraft. Any adverse effects of aircraft noise cannot be avoided through planning and design. V m Social -- MSP 2010 LTCP would displace 166 households and 73 businesses with over 2,891 employees. The MSP 2020 Concept Plan would displace 258 households and 82 businesses with over 2,896 employees. The No Action Alternative would not displace any businesses or employees; 76 households would be acquired as part of the Runway 4/22 noise mitigation program. These impacts are unavoidable. _e Historic -- The 2010 LTCP would demolish portions of the Original Wold- Chamberlain Terminal Historic District which is on the National Register of Historic Places. MSP 2020 Concept Plan would demolish the entire district. These impacts are unavoidable. The No Action Alternative would have no impacts. \14 o Water Quality -- MSP 2010 would discharge 7,900 lbs. of CBOD6 to the Minnesota River from deicing, compared to 9,200 lbs. for the No Action Alternative in 2010. The LTCP 2020 Concept Plan would discharge 8,200 lbs, compared to 9,200 lbs. for the No Action Alternative in 2020. Wildlife Refuge -- The` Bass Ponds environmental education area in the Minnesota Valley National ,,a °y.�:.. f Wildlife Refuge would be subjected to a DNL 71 dBA noise level by the MSP 2010 LTCP and 2020 Concept Plan in 2005 (the worst -case year), compared to DNL 45 for the No Action Alternative. The increased noise level would impair the ability of the Bass Ponds area to support environmental education and related wildlife recreation activities (birding, hiking, biking, hunting, canoeing, skiing) by the public. About 1,083 publicly -owned acres would be impaired. This adverse effect due to aircraft noise cannot be avoided through planning and design. iWetlands -- 32.96 acres of wetland would be filled by the MSP 2010 LTCP and 35 arses by the 2020 Concept Plan. This impact is unavoidable. Dual Track Final EIS Mitigation The following mitigation measures will be implemented if the proposed action (MSP 2010 LTCP) is implemented: Noise - MAC approved the following noise mitigation program on October 28, 1996. The program contains measures that may or may not be eligible for funding based on FAA policy or criteria, as stated in Appendix B. Insulation • the residential sound insulation program (SIP) for the area encompassed by the 1996 DNL 65 contour be completed on the currently approved schedule (Note: the current program is scheduled for completion in the year 2002) • the SIP be expanded after completion of the current program to incorporate the area encompassed by the 2005 DNL 60 -65 contour • the 2005 DNL 60 contour be based on the most accurate projection of traffic levels and use of appropriate ANOMS data • MAC and affected communities seek approval from FAA to develop neighborhood and "natural boundaries" that reflect current conditions at the outer edge of the expanded contour to the maximum extent possible • insulation of dwellings /buildings in the expanded SIP should be performed in the following order of priority: 1. single family homes after completion of the 1996 DNL 65 SIP on the approved current schedule 2. multifamily dwellings, nursing homes, and churches with regular weekday daycare /nursery school types of operations — in accordance with a schedule agreed upon by MAC and each affected city • the program be funded by a combination of Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) revenues, airline fees, internally generated funds and federal aid; to the extent that MAC cannot fund this expanded program in a reasonable period of time, support from the state of Minnesota will be sought; however, in no case should unreimbursed financial impacts fall on affected residents or their local governments • MAC commit to funding its community -based noise abatement program on an accelerated basis beyond its current level of $25.5 million annually • MAC should develop noise impact models which reflect the impact of ground level noise on residential properties; mitigation for low frequency noise should be developed after consultation with independent noise mitigation experts a completion of the program is contingent upon MAC maintaining a bond rating of at least A ® Subsequent to adoption of the Noise Mitigation Program, MAC has agreed to acquire 27 homes and 131 multifamily units in Bloomington Community Stabilization ® The Metropolitan Airports Commission should participate with affected communities to identify and quantify any impacts the airport may have on declining property values and /or other negative consequences on neighborhoods near the airport. To the extent that negative consequences can be quantified, a Working Group should prepare recommendations to MAC for consideration by the Minnesota Legislature. Community stabilization measures considered should include, but not be limited to, the measures described in the Metropolitan Council -MAC Community Protection Report. The measures include purchase and property value guarantees and housing replacement to complement the tax credit and revitalization area legislation adopted in 1996. A Working Group should be convened including representatives from MAC, Met Council, Northwest Airlines, affected communities and legislative staff. The Working Group should identify a program design, funding options, administrative responsibilities and Dual Track Final EIS _i eligibility area. The final legislative recommendation should be presented to MAC and other interested parties for endorsement and inclusion in 1997 legislative programs. In addition to the preceding mitigation, MAC is committed to perform the following study. Airport Operations The following be incorporated and evaluated in a Part 150 update: C Take action, as required by the 1996 Legislature, to prohibit use of Stage 2 aircraft after December 31, 1999. ® Modify the night hours to 10:30 p.m. - 6 :00 a.m. and limit activity during these hours to Stage 3 aircraft. o Develop a departure procedure for Runway 22 to direct aircraft over areas of commercial development and the Minnesota River Valley. a Seek cooperation from FAA to implement departure procedures as appropriate at each runway end. 0 Evaluate departure procedures in the Eagan- Mendota Heights corridor. a Work within the aviation industry to encourage further reductions in aircraft noise levels. a Negotiate the Stage 2 prohibition, noise abatement procedures, and expansion of night hours, incorporating appropriate penalties for non - compliance. ® The MAC noise monitoring system monitors will be increased in number to provide more coverage of actual impacts in the airport vicinity, in particular, areas affected by the north - south runway. Areas affected by the parallel runways, may have additional microphone locations to monitor continued and growing volumes of air traffic as the airport expands. This system should be used to corroborate the accuracy of the modeled contours for noise program eligibility. Furthermore, on October 213, 1996 MAC also adopted the following mitigation, which is associated with the proposed action. Runway Use ® Completion of the environmental process and construction of the North -South Runway should be expedited and completed as soon as possible. Progress should be measured against this schedule: a) commence construction — 1998 b) complete construction, open runway — 2003 a in the interim, Runway 4/22 should be used for noise mitigation purposes. This requires the following: a) Construction of associated taxiways; b) Mitigation program at the southwest end of Runway 4 -22 in the cities of Bloomington and Richfield as required in the Final Record of Decision (March 28, 1995). The acquisition portion of the mitigation will be initiated as soon as contracts for the associated taxiways are let and should be completed within a period of two years. Funds for the acquisition program will be in addition to those designated for the residential insulation program, consistent with the existing acquisition program. The insulation portion of the mitigation will be integrated with the current MAC program, starting as soon as contracts for construction of the associated taxiways are let, or the RUS is implemented, whichever occurs first. The insulation program will be implemented at the rate of at least 20% of the total homes as defined in the Runway 4 -22 mitigation program in each year until all of the single family and multiple family units within the 1996 DNL 65 contour are insulated. To the extent practical, MAC will identify funding and program administration options to minimize delay in completion of the current insulation program. Dual Track Final EIS 7 v" c) If the North -South Runway is completed before insulation of all eligible homes is completed, the insulation program for the area impacted by aircraft using Runway 4 -22 may be terminated. Completion of this program is contingent on MAC maintaining a bond rating of at least A. Archaeology and Historical /Architectural • appropriate documentation and recordation of the Original Wold- Chamberlain Terminal Historic District; items selected for removal be removed in a manner that minimizes damage. • develop and implement a treatment program for the Spruce Shadows Farm Historic District • archaeological data be excavated in accordance with the data recovery plan approved by the State Historic Preservation Officer. Surface Water Quality m MAC will consult with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency in the NPDES permitting process and will implement the required storm water control measures for the MSP 2010 LTCP specified in the NPDES permit. Wetlands ® Approximately 58.92 acres of replacement wetland will be provided. MAC is committed to providing the mitigation specified in the permits regulated by the U.S. Corps of Engineers (Section 404 of the Clean Water Act permit), the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (Protected Waters Permit) and the MAC (Wetland Conservation Act permit). Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge (MVNWR) ® Mitigation will consist of compensation to the US Department of the Interior by MAC. The amount and conditions of payment are currently being negotiated. This is an ongoing v, process and the agreed upon mitigation will be reported in the FAA Record of Derision. Unresolved Issues The proposed Runway 17- 35,when operational, could create low frequency noise and vibration at levels that could cause annoyance by residents in the eastern part of the city of Richfield. There are no standards or criteria for determining potential effects of low frequency noise and vibration on r. annoyance, and therefore no basis for determining what type of mitigation would be appropriate. MAC is committed to study this issue further, and work with Richfield and FAA to develop and implement a plan to address any adverse impacts that are identified. Details of the MVNWR mitigation plan are unresolved. These are discussed in the project's Section 4(f) Evaluation, a separate document that includes more information about the FAA's determinations concerning the refuge. Aviation Forecast Sensitivity Analysis A sensitivity analysis was performed to disclose the environmental impacts of the proposed action (MSP 2010 LTCP) that would occur from a forecast of operations and enplanements greater than the forecasts used in the DEIS that was prepared in 1995. The need for this analysis was based on the following: o the 1997 FAA 2010 forecast for MSP is significantly higher than the (1993) MAC forecast used in the DEIS (658,900 versus 499,900 operations; 22,879,600 versus 15,030,000 enplanements) ® traffic levels at MSP have been growing at rates greater than the DEIS forecast (e.g., 1996 actual operations exceed the DEIS forecast for the year 2005) Dual Track Final EIS �� The sensitivity analysis used the MAC High Forecast because it is representative of the 1997 FAA Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) and it has a forecast for 2020 whereas the FAA TAF only goes to 2010, as shown below. Based on the MAC High Forecast, no threshold of environmental significance was exceeded by the proposed action in 2010 (see Appendix H). It is therefore concluded that the analyses of environmental impacts in the FEIS are reasonably consistent with the environmental impacts presented in the DEIS. Public Involvement On April 1, 1992 the FAA and MAC announced their intent to prepare an environmental impact statement and initiated scoping by publishing a Notice of Intent in the April 1, 1992 Federal Register. MAC and FAA are jointly preparing this EIS, as MAC must comply with the Minnesota Environmental Review Program, Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4410 - 4410.7900, and FAA must comply with applicable federal law and regulations. The following scoping meetings were held with the general public and with federal, state, and local agencies: • Three joint public meetings were held on the First Phase Scoping Report, which described the EIS/Dual Track Airport Planning Process and issues/impacts to be addressed. On April 21, 1992, an informal meeting was held at the offices of the Metropolitan Airports Commission; 23 people attended and 14 spoke. On April 21, 1992 a meeting for the general public was held at Ramsey Junior High School in the city of Minneapolis; approximately 25 people attended and 4 spoke. On Aril 22, 1992 a meeting was held at the Rosemount High School in the city of Rosemount; approximately 150 people attended and 12 spoke. • Three joint public scoping meetings were held on the Second Phase Scoping Report. On June 26, 1995, a scoping hearing was held at the offices of the Metropolitan Airports Commission; approximately 20 people attended and 14 spoke. On June 27, 1995, a scoping hearing was held at Hastings Middle School, in the city of Hastings; approximately 86 people attended and 19 spoke. A scoping meeting for agency representatives was also held on June 27, 1995, at the offices of the Metropolitan Airports Commission; approximately 23 people attended and 6 spoke. Implementation Schedule Construction of the new north -south runway, planned maintenance, hangar, air cargo and roadway facilities for the proposed action (2010 LTCP) would commence in 1998 after completion of the environmental review process, and could be completed in 2003. Additional expansion of maintenance, hangar and air cargo facilities could occur beyond 2003 if conditions so warrant. Dual Track Final EIS z�! DEIS Forecast MAC High Forecast i FAA Forecast Year Enplanements Q iwations Enplanements Operations Enplanements IL, Operations 1996 14,386,000 f''5 i I i.. S (ACtuali .. : .. ... . ..... .......... . .... ....................... .......................................................... 2000 € 12,704,000 473,000 16,714,OZ70� ` 18,810,000 i 50,200 `: 75,000 16,096,100 1 1914.87,900 E 533,900 596,500 2005 13,895,000 484,800 2010 15,030,000 ; 499,900 1 20,828,000 603,800 1 22,879,600 •;` 658,900 2020 16.681,000 i 520,400 23,774,000 640,200 ; Not Available Not Available Based on the MAC High Forecast, no threshold of environmental significance was exceeded by the proposed action in 2010 (see Appendix H). It is therefore concluded that the analyses of environmental impacts in the FEIS are reasonably consistent with the environmental impacts presented in the DEIS. Public Involvement On April 1, 1992 the FAA and MAC announced their intent to prepare an environmental impact statement and initiated scoping by publishing a Notice of Intent in the April 1, 1992 Federal Register. MAC and FAA are jointly preparing this EIS, as MAC must comply with the Minnesota Environmental Review Program, Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4410 - 4410.7900, and FAA must comply with applicable federal law and regulations. The following scoping meetings were held with the general public and with federal, state, and local agencies: • Three joint public meetings were held on the First Phase Scoping Report, which described the EIS/Dual Track Airport Planning Process and issues/impacts to be addressed. On April 21, 1992, an informal meeting was held at the offices of the Metropolitan Airports Commission; 23 people attended and 14 spoke. On April 21, 1992 a meeting for the general public was held at Ramsey Junior High School in the city of Minneapolis; approximately 25 people attended and 4 spoke. On Aril 22, 1992 a meeting was held at the Rosemount High School in the city of Rosemount; approximately 150 people attended and 12 spoke. • Three joint public scoping meetings were held on the Second Phase Scoping Report. On June 26, 1995, a scoping hearing was held at the offices of the Metropolitan Airports Commission; approximately 20 people attended and 14 spoke. On June 27, 1995, a scoping hearing was held at Hastings Middle School, in the city of Hastings; approximately 86 people attended and 19 spoke. A scoping meeting for agency representatives was also held on June 27, 1995, at the offices of the Metropolitan Airports Commission; approximately 23 people attended and 6 spoke. Implementation Schedule Construction of the new north -south runway, planned maintenance, hangar, air cargo and roadway facilities for the proposed action (2010 LTCP) would commence in 1998 after completion of the environmental review process, and could be completed in 2003. Additional expansion of maintenance, hangar and air cargo facilities could occur beyond 2003 if conditions so warrant. Dual Track Final EIS z�! SUMMARY OF IMPACTS ALTERNATIVE CRITERION MSP _ NO ACTION. 2020 _ 1 2010 1 2010 i 2020 Air Quality........... .......... ...... ....... .. ..... ....... ...... 1. i Number of receptor sites near critical off - airport ' 0 0 0 0 roadway intersections over air quality I '• . �.. ....., ' ......standards. :..st ...................... 2. Number of receptor sites on airport perimeter i ........ 0 ....... 0 ....... ....... 0 ...,.... ......... ( 0 i over air ,quality standards. 3. Total on -air ort C0 emissions (tons), _ 5,060 4,638 5,617 5,617 4. ..1 Total off-airport access traffic CO emissions 1 10,200 10,500 10,50Q E 10,500 ..... ......... ........................i...... 1.(tons).. ................. i ...... i .... ............. .......... ................... ................... ............................... 5 1. Total airport SOx emissions (tons). ............. ............................... 1. 70,....... ..1..... ........ ..........161...,...,.i.....,.. 1.68.......... ., ..... ........ ... €........168...... Archaeotoyicai Resources .......................•......,.........................,......'s-It......................•.....,......... ............................... 6. :Number of known archaeological sites 0 i 0 0 ( 0 potentially eligible for the National Register that could be disturbed. BioticCommunities.......... ............................. ............................ � ... ..... ..... 7, Number of acres of wildlife habitat displaced. .......................................•.........................................,..................................,... 360 i 318 ....................�.......... ....... ....................................... i 0 ...... ............................... i 0 Bird- Aircraft Hazards 8. ; Number o *f monthly aircraft operations less than 4,940 } 4,745 I 2,910 i 2,910 feet over congregate. 1....................................... .1..500 ... ... .birds ......... ...................... ... ........... .........,...,.................... Economic............................................................. ............................... 9... Total jobs on airport. 16.609 1 16,041 16,041 I 16,071 10. 1 Total annual direct and indirect wages ; $1.05 ! $1,02 i $1,02 $1.02 .F generated by airport jobs. ................ ..........................�......... ........ ........................ .................... ...... billion ........ .... .,,,..billion . ..................... ,.,..billion i billion 1 1 • 1 Impact of construction i Jobs i 36,400 ; 9,600 3,100 3,100 Wages(billions) i $1.71 $0.45 I $0.14 $0,14 Economic Output(billions) I i......................................................... $3.42 i $0.90 i $0.29 j.,........................ $0.29 ............................... ......................+........................... .. 12. ` Estimated cost of alternative. $3,151 +........................,... $803 ......... '• $255 $255 .. million i million million ...million... 13. Percentage of tax capacity lost by affected 8.14% 6.09 % 0 0 municipalities/townships. _ municipalities. townships.... Total) .......................................!............. .I.............._,............, ............._...................... ............................... .. ............. ............................... Endangered and Threatened Species ............ .... .... .......... ................. .............................. .; ..... ,................................................... ......,....,,.,.............. 14. i Number of species on federal list of endangered 0 0 0 0 i and threatened species that would be �. `..ieo .argiZed• ;.. .. ......... ....... ....... .......J 15. Number of threatened or special concern 1 1 0 0 E species in Minnesota that would be disturbed, '•, (forster's (forster's ................. ............................... .....1... ... ...... .. tern) ........_.........tern) ............. ............................................ Energy Supply and Natural Resources . .. ........................... ............................... ..............,....... .. ........ .. _ ... ....... ... ... .............. ....... 16. Consumption of aircraft and vehicle fuel { 160 155 161 161 (millions of gallons ,per year). .... ...................... ......._ ....................... ,.....!............................ i _........................... ...,,............ ...... .. Farmland ................of ,.........,.. .....,,..,...._.,..,,"I'd-..,...........,..,...,..................,...,._.,........,..0....,......,._...........................................,.......... 17. Acres of farmland that would be lost. i 0 0 0 ..,..........,...,............. '• Dual Track Final EIS xi Qc_� SUMMARY OF IMPACTS CRITERION 18. Is there a potential to significantly increase existing flood flow elevations in adjacent 19. Number of historic/architectural properties/ districts on or eligible for National Register that would be demolished. of individual properties and historic districts on or eligible for the National Register or National Historic Landmarks that: would be incompatible with aircraft noise could be adverselv effected bv aircraft noise um 24. Number of municipalities required to make land use changes in comprehensive plan. 25. Number of persons residing in the year 2005 it DNL 65 + noise contours. 26, 1 Number of persons residing in the year 2005 DNL 60-65 noise contour. urn er of persons residing in the year 2005 Number of noise-sensitive land uses with noise Section 4(f) 29. i Number of Section 4(f) park and recreation I lands displaced. 30, Number of Section 4(f) park and recreation lands adversely impacted by.noise. er ection 4(f) wildlife refuge acres of environmental education and wildlife recreation activity adversely affected by noise and subject I to constructiv use. Social 33. 1 Number of households that could.ke.Atsp!�.ced.._ 34. Estimated number of businesses and employees that could be Employees ALTERNATIVE MSP NO ACTION 2020 2010 2010 2020 O O 7,650 ______ 22,030 ---------- 121,000 7,350 ............. ........... 27,690 --~—~—'-- 1OO,OOO 1,083 0 609 1 3B3 i 156 156 258 166 1 76 76 2,896 2,691 0 0 / Dual Track Final EIS xii F) SU MARY OF IMPACTS 41. Percentage of Metro Area population within 30- I minute travel time to main terminal: off-peak hours PM peak hour 42. Percentage of Metro Area population within 45- minute travel time to main terminal: off-peak hours PM peak hour ercentage of Metro Area population within 60- 1 minute travel time to main terminal: umber of lane-miles of off-site highway improvements required (e.g., adding 2 lanes for 3 miles is 6 lane-miles) wet[ I 45. 1 Number of wetland acres displaced 22 1 24 i 24 24 28 28 96.6 96,9 97.9 t 35.0 i 32,86 ! 0 | U 46. Number of monthly overflights less than 2,000 5,620 5,400 0 0 of environmental education and wildlife recreation 1,083 0 activity adversely affected by noise within DNL 60+ contour, Dual Track ina Ali 8> ALTERNATIVE CRITERION MSP NO ACTION 2020 2010 1 2010 2020 Environmental Justice Is there an adverse impact from noise or No No No No i relocation to low income households? 6. 1 Is there an adverse impact from noise or I No No No No relocation to minorltv households? Surface Water Qualitv 37, Estimated maximum daily CBOD5 discharge 1 8,200 1 7,900 9,200 9,200 from deicing (lbs,) 38. 1 Sensitivity of affected significant aquifer Low to Low to Low to Low to (Prairie du Chien/Jordan) to potential Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate otential for impacts to downgradlent Low 40. Average travel time to terminal for Metro Area residents (minutes): 41. Percentage of Metro Area population within 30- I minute travel time to main terminal: off-peak hours PM peak hour 42. Percentage of Metro Area population within 45- minute travel time to main terminal: off-peak hours PM peak hour ercentage of Metro Area population within 60- 1 minute travel time to main terminal: umber of lane-miles of off-site highway improvements required (e.g., adding 2 lanes for 3 miles is 6 lane-miles) wet[ I 45. 1 Number of wetland acres displaced 22 1 24 i 24 24 28 28 96.6 96,9 97.9 t 35.0 i 32,86 ! 0 | U 46. Number of monthly overflights less than 2,000 5,620 5,400 0 0 of environmental education and wildlife recreation 1,083 0 activity adversely affected by noise within DNL 60+ contour, Dual Track ina Ali 8> APPROVAL DECLARATION Submitted by Responsible federal Official: Glen Orcutt Date Program Manager Minneapolis Airports District Office After careful and thorough consideration of the facts contained herein, and following consideration of the views of those Federal agencies having jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to the environmental impacts described, the undersigned finds that the proposed Federal actions are consistent with existing national environmental policies and objectives as set forth in Section 101(a) of the National Environmental Policy Art of 1969. Larry adendorf Date Acting Manager, Airports Division Great Lakes Region Dual Track Final EIS xiv fps OMMIMPROM BRINIMMMOZ it P og • 0--110DO 2000 t SCALE IN FEET N MSP 2020 Concept Plan la;r . . . . . . . . . . . . r ............ g2 L7-4 lt:s= -'Zrt ty.: _Mn_ gx SPOW pt, 4 tnt' ilwr_ �O�ADZP %g� r g ;tW a3 i ip L F �r W D up -a 9 i* ...... -gin zO W� W --L RON- ; pgni�.- —Alm ALM, gZ 5;5 T_ g _t4l�Z�j �gg:mg `P C, !g M�mz gg: MIR W -WON-5; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . r O p + o a a° a o o, All P. f '!- g { i 7'I k"�Y I 7 31 �J _ I -i __________ Ri 2 f . + t - i t J nt 1 �hR pL15 0 5000 S 9f 3 N SCALE IN FEET z h da New Airport: Alternative !U [. Introduction A. overview A.1 Document Purpose and Organization The purpose of this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) is to analyze and discuss the issues, impacts and proposed mitigation measures of developing a new 8,000 -foot air carrier runway, as well as a conceptual long -term plan with a new passenger terminal, at the Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport (MSP). The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) of the U,S. Department of Transportation completed this HIS after the conclusion of the Dual Track Airport Planning Process, which is discussed further below and in Section II of this FEIS. This HIS evaluates a No Action Alternative (as a baseline for comparison of impacts) and two phases of the preferred MSP Expansion Alternative: (1) the 2010 Long -Term Comprehensive Plan (LTCP), involving development of the new runway and related actions linked with the plan's layout to provide greater airfield and airspace capacity; and, to a lesser degree, (2) the 2020 Concept Plan, which proposes development of a new passenger terminal on the northwest side of the airport and related improvements. The new runway and related items included in the 2010 LTCP constitute the proposed action for federal (FAA) review and approval, and for implementation by the MAC. The 2020 Concept. Plan is also evaluated in this document in order to disclose the potential long -term effects of building the new passenger terminal included in the 2020 Concept Plan, as well as related facilities (such as roadway improvements). Development of the new terminal would require that the MAC ,receive state legislative approval and that additional environmental reviews and approvals be completed based on updated information. It is also the intent of this FEIS process to satisfy the environmental review requirements for the surface transportation improvements included in the 2010 LTCP. This FEIS has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Minnesota Environmental Review Program, through the Alternative Environmental Review Process approved by the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (MEQB) on March 19, 1992, and in accordance with FAA Order 5050.4A issued October 8, 1985, and Order 1060.1D issued December 21, 1983, with subsequent changes. Compliance with these 'FAA orders allows the project to meet the procedural and substantive environmental requirements set forth by the Council on Environmental Quality in its regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA). This document Is both a state and federal FEIS, which shares the same text unless stated otherwise in the document. The FAA and MAC jointly prepared this FEIS, in accordance with the provisions of CEQ 1506.2 which directs federal agencies to cooperate with state and local agencies "to the fullest extent possible" to reduce duplication between NEPA and comparable state and local requirements. In such cases the federal agency and the state, or local agency, may be joint lead agencies and jointly share responsibility for preparing an EIS that satisfies both federal and state, or local, requirements, The FAA and MAC are cooperating under a Memorandum of Understanding in the preparation of this report. The FAA and MAC jointly prepared the First Phase Scoping Report in order to propose, and take public comment on, the process to be utilized for the Dual Track EIS. The detailed Dual Track Airport Planning Process mandated by the Minnesota legislation was performed by MAC and its consultants. FAA provided review, guidance, and advice throughout that process as a member of the Dual Track EIS Technical Advisory Committees and the State Advisory Council. Throughout this planning effort, FAA reviewed the methods and procedures used by MAC and its consultants in site selection and evaluation of alternatives through the AED process. The FAA assisted in the analysis of AED alternatives in various technical committees and through direct . consultation with MAC. FAA and MAC jointly prepared the First Phase Scoping Report, Second Phase Dual Track Final EIS -1 � 4 Scoping Report, the DEIS and this FEIS. FAA also retained a consultant to assist in the joint preparation of the DEIS and prepare the federal FEIS (the original process called for completion of the state FEIS prior to legislative action on the preferred alternative, and preparation of the federal FEIS following legislative action). This FEIS uses the same sections as the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), published in December 1995, for reporting purposes. However, it is revised to focus on development of the 2010 LTCP and to further evaluate the 2020 Concept Plan- -with comparisons to the No Action Alternative -- so as to disclose the impacts of implementing the new runway and to address mitigations. It includes several new appendices and presents additional impact analyses based on higher aviation activity forecasts (see Section II.C.2 and Appendix H). Unlike the DEIS, this document does not compare the expansion of MSP to a "New Airport Alternative." The New Airport Alternative, which was evaluated in the DEIS, is not considered a prudent option for the Twin Cities area, as explained in Section 111 and supported by other analyses and responses to comments in Appendix 1. Therefore, the New Airport Alternative did not warrant any further detailed analyses. A.2 Background and Lead Agency Contacts The issues, impacts and alternatives analyzed and discussed in the 1995 DEIS were delineated in the Second Phase Scoping Report, which was prepared jointly by FAA and MAC in accordance with the Alternative Review Process. Three joint public scoping meetings were held on the Second Phase Scoping Report. On Monday, June 26, 1995, a scoping hearing was held at the offices of the Metropolitan Airports Commission; approximately 20 people attended and 14 spoke. On Tuesday, June 27, 1995, a scoping hearing was held at Hastings Middle School, in the city of Hastings; approximately 86 people attended and 19 spoke. A scoping meeting for agency representatives was also held on Tuesday, June 27, 1995, at the offices of the Metropolitan Airports Commission; approximately 23 people attended and 6 spoke. The 30 -day comment period ended July 5, 1995, and 24 written comments were received. Responses to scoping comments were included in the Scoping Decision. The Scoping Decision was adopted by MAC on July 26, 1995, and utilized by MAC and FAA in preparing the DEIS. The DEIS was made available for review and comment on December 15, 1995. Two joint public hearings were held on the DEIS. On Wednesday, January 17, 1996, a public hearing was held at the Hastings High School in the city of Hastings; approximately 40 people attended and 14 spoke. On Thursday, January 18, 1996, a public hearing was held at Washburn High School in the city of Minneapolis; approximately 60 people attended and 22 spoke. The 60 -day comment period ended February 13, 1996, and 46 written comments were received. This FEIS is the most recent environmental document analyzing the potential imparts of the various airport development alternatives. The FEIS responds to the comments received on the DEIS and builds further upon the results of analyses included in the DEIS and a series of Alternative Environmental Documents (AEDs) produced in compliance with guidelines approved by the MEQB on March 19, 1992. The AEDs and the DEIS assessed the differential environmental impacts of options for both MSP and a replacement airport in Dakota County in sufficient detail to compare these options. Specifically, separate AEDs were prepared for the selection of a site in Dakota County for a replacement airport, for options in the development of a 2020 comprehensive plan for the Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport (MSP) and options for a 2020 comprehensive plan for the new airport site. Each AED was preceded by preparation of a scoping report discussing the options and issues proposed for analysis in the document. Subsequently, a scoping decision was made delineating the options and impacts to be studied in detail in each AED and, ultimately, in the DEIS. As noted above, this FEIS differs from the AEDs and the DEIS in that it does not include any further detailed analysis of a New Airport Alternative (for more information, see also Sections II and III — Purpose and Need and Alternatives). Dual Track Final EIS 1 -2 q By MEQB rules, MAC is the designated Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) for the Scoping Decision and the state requirements in the FEIS; FAA is responsible for the federal requirements in the FEIS. The lead agency contact persons are: Mr. Nigel Finney Metropolitan Airports Commission 6040 28th Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450 (612) 726 -8187 B. Cooperating Agencies Mr. Glen Orcutt Federal Aviation Administration 6020 28th Avenue South, Suite 102 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450 (612) 713 -4354 The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn /DOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) are cooperating agencies because the preferred alternative requires improvements to Mn /DOT highways that have received FHWA funding. The highway projects must be part of a Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) that conforms with the Minnesota air quality State Implementation Plan (SIP). The Wisconsin Department of Transportation has also been involved in the Dual Track Airport Planning Process. With the passage of the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, the FHWA is required to address the full range of possible strategies to provide surface transportation access to the preferred alternative. This analysis is usually done in the form of a Major Investment Study, which would address the efficiency and the environmental impacts of surface transportation alternatives. The Metropolitan Council (MC) is a cooperating agency because it has been involved in the Dual Track Process from the beginning, including coordination meetings with Mn /DOT, FHWA, FAA and MAC, MC designated the search area in Dakota County and established the long -range aviation goals for the alternatives. The Council also prepared parts of the DEIS and this FEIS (induced socioeconomic forecasts for the New Airport Alternative, some ground transportation forecasts for the New Airport Alternative, transportation access impacts, and land use). C. Related Environmental Documents and Actions C.1 Further Studies to Develop the West Terminal Continued long -term development of MSP to include the new west terminal or other significant elements beyond those in the 2010 LTCP would necessitate the preparation of subsequent environmental documents. Environmental reviews for the 2020 highway improvements shown in Figure W -8 would be prepared by Mn /DOT and the Federal Highway Administration (see also Appendix F). C.2 Other Actions The MAC is currently proceeding with plans to permanently extend Runway 4 -22 an additional 1,000 feet in order to optimize Northwest Airline's nonstop B -747 service to Hong Kong (one daily departure in the foreseeable future). This project also involves the temporary extension of Runway 12R -30L in order to accommodate the near -term phasing of the Runway 4 -22 reconstruction. These actions are separate from the actions proposed in this FEIS because the runway extensions will have independent utility compared to the FEIS purpose and need, which is related to the airport's long -term capacity in Dual Track Final EIS I -3 /'j 2 general. However, because the two runway extensions are reasonably foreseeable, the plan is analyzed in this FEIS. The MAC's noise analysis with the extensions completed and the Hong Kong service underway includes 10 long -haul international departures per day. Nine of these departures have been assumed to occur without the runway extension project completed and are incorporated into the FEIS noise analyses (assuming the highest future operational levels, as disclosed in Appendix H). The noise analysis shows that the largest change in noise impacts (year 2005) would 0.7 DNL between the DNL 60 and 65 contours, and no increase in the DNL 65+ contours. The FAA criteria state that further noise analysis only needs to be completed if an increase of 1.5 dBA is experienced at levels above DNL 65 over noise - sensitive uses, or if a 3 dBA or larger increase is experienced in the DNL 60 to 65 range over noise- sensitive uses. Because the permanent Runway 4/22 extension with the additional long -haul departures would not result in noise impacts exceeding the FAA thresholds, there are no significant cumulative noise effects expected from this action. The MAC's Draft Environmental Assessment (Draft EA) for the extensions, published in November 1997 also includes analyses of other environmental impact categories and recommends a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). The Draft EA also addressed the cumulative environmental impacts of the runway extension project with the 2010 LTCP. It concluded that there are no cumulative effects that exceed state and federal thresholds of significance resulting from this related action when it is added to the impacts of the proposed new runway evaluated in this FEIS. The MAC and the FAA will continue to evaluate cumulative effects as airport needs and actions evolve. However, the known near -term connected actions would not significantly alter the airfield and airspace utilization assumptions used in this FEIS for the 2010 LTCP. D. Governmental Approvals 'The list of currently known governmental permits and approvals required to implement the new runway and other aspects of the 2010 LTCP (the proposed action) is on the following page. If any other permits and approvals are necessary to implement the proposed action, these will be described in the project's Record of Decision. E. federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Actions There are a number of FAA actions necessary to the design, development, and establishment of airport improvements and air traffic control and flight operating procedures for use in conjunction with the expansion of MSP. All of the actions discussed below are linked to this FEIS and the subsequent federal Record of Decision (ROD), as these documents will provide for federal environmental approval. The specific items requiring FAA technical and environmental approval include the installation of various ground -based air navigation facilities located both on and off the airport site. In addition, recognizing that development of the proposed action will be accomplished over a period of years, within the limits of available appropriations in any particular fiscal year and subject to other demands for funds, the FAA would have the environmental approvals to make Federal grant -in -aid and passenger facility charges (PFC) funds available to MAC for eligible airport development projects. Without attempting to identify every such eligible project, the following kinds of development are among those which may be eligible for Federal grant-in-aid and PFC support: m land acquisition, construction of runways and taxiways, construction of aircraft apron areas, and on- airport roadways and passenger terminal ground access systems. Dual Track FinaJ,.EIS l -4 The following sections describe the responsibilities and required actions of the various FAA divisions that would be responsible for the implementation of this project. Unit of Government Type of Permit /Approval General: Minnesota Environmental Quality Board Determination of Final EIS Adequacy MSP Alternative: Airspace Approval, Airport Layout Plan Approval, Approval of Federal EIS including findings of fact and record of decision, Air Quality General Federal Aviation Administration Conformity Findings and Statements, Airport Improvement Plan (AIP) Grant Approval, Approval to Impose or Use Passenger Facility Charges _ (PFCs) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit (Corps Individual Permit) Federal Highway Administration Location and Design Approval and permits, Federal -Aid Roadways; Clean Air Act Certification of receipt of reasonable assurance to comply with state air Governor, State of Minnesota quality and water quality regulatory standards as required by FAA Order 5050.4A (See Appendix K of this FEIS) _ Environmental Assessments, Design Review and Approval, Federal and Minnesota Department of Transportation State -Aid Roadways, Approval of New Runway State Safety Zones' Zoning Regulations Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Water Appropriation Permit, Protected Waters Permit Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources Compliance with the Wetland Conservation Action of 1991; Com liance with the Metropolitan Watershed Management Act MAC NPDES Stormwater Permit; General NPDES Stormwater Permits Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Airport Tenants), NPDES General Construction Permits; 401 Water Quality Certification; Indirect Source Permit; Air Emission Facility Permits; Fugitive Dust Control Regulation Approval; Compliance with State Implementation Plan State Historic Preservation Officer Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Section 106 /Section 110 Review); Section 4(f) Review Long -Term Comprehensive Airport Plan Review; Annual Review of MAC Metropolitan Council Capital Improvement Program; Approval to changes in the Metropolitan Highway System; Industrial Discharge Permits; Air Quality Transportation Cohformity Richfield - Bloomington Watershed Management Drainage Design Review and Approval Organization. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District _ Drainage Design Review and Approval; Grading /Land Alteration Permits Lower Minnesota River Watershed District Drainage Design Review and Approval; Grading /Land Alteration Permits No Action Alternative: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit Minnesota Board of Water and Solis Compliance with Wetland Conservation Act of 1991 Resources NPDES Wastewater /Industrial Process Discharges Permit; NPDES Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Stormwater Permit; NPDES General Construction Permits; 401 Water Quality Certification; Indirect Source Permit; Air Emission Facility Permits; Fugitive Dust Control Regulation Approval; Compliance with State Implementation Plan Metropolitan Council Airport Comprehensive Plan Review; Approval to changes in the Metropolitan Highway System; Industrial Discharge Permits Dual Track Final EIS 1 -5 t5_ E.1 Air Traffic Air Traffic is responsible for the safe and expeditious flow of aircraft to and from the airport, This is accomplished by establishing airspace structure, air traffic control sectors, flight routes and air traffic control procedures. Development of the proposed action may require redesign of the terminal radar approach control (TRACON) airspace surrounding the MSP airport. It will require establishment of new air traffic control procedures and, therefore, modification of existing tower orders. The project will also require the expansion of the Class B Airspace surrounding MSP. Class B Airspace generally extends from the surface to an altitude of 10,000 feet above mean sea level (MSL) and may extend 30 or more miles from its center. The current MSP Class B Airspace extends from the surface to 8,000 feet and a 20- mile radius from its center. Independent of this project, MSP Air Traffic Control Tower has requested that their Class B airspace be expanded to include the airspace up to 10,000 feet MSL and a 30 -mile radius of the airport. This Class B airspace expansion was needed independent of this project to accommodate turns on the runway finals beyond 20 miles from the airport. FAA conducted a terminal airspace study for MSP in 1996 to identify airspace capacity around MSP and to evaluate impacts on airspace capacity that might result in accommodating a new north -south runway at MSP. The study found that changes could be made in the airspace to accommodate the new runway and identified additional airspace routings for arrivals to, and departures from, the runway. Because these new airspace routings will result in new overflights of residential areas, the FAA required an analysis of potential noise impacts of operations over 3,000 feet AGL (per FAA Notice 7210.360). That analysis is presented in Appendix G the impacts of operations below 3,000 feet AGL are addressed within the body and in other parts of this FEIS). The new alternative airspace routings are also shown in Appendix G as Figures G -2, G -3, and G4. The noise screening analysis was performed on the airspace alternatives using FAA screening criteria for both the 2005 "Baseline" and "High" forecasts of operations to determine if additional environmental analysis is needed (i.e., to assure that the proposed air traffic changes would not result in a 5- decibel or more increase in the overall Day Night Average Sound Level, DNL, of any residential area). The analysis showed that no additional environmental documentation would be needed, based on the FAA noise screening procedure. Table A.3 -7 (Runway Use for the MSP Alternative - Average Annual Use) shows the percentage of annual operations that are expected to occur in achieving operational goals for use of the new north - south runway, as well as the other runways at MSP. The new runway, Runway 17 -35, would predominantly operate to and from the south and is expected to be used for about one -third of the aircraft departures when the airfield is in a south flow configuration and for every sixth arrival when operating to the north. A very minimal amount of traffic would operate to and from the north, as indicated in Appendix A. These limited north operations on Runway 17 -35 would most likely only occur when dictated by weather, so as to support minimal airport capacity, when other runways are closed for maintenance or emergency situations, or when benefiting air cargo operations during periods of light daytime activity. FAA Air Traffic will establish the final procedures, consistent with the conditions set 'forth in this FEIS, for all runway ends and for airspace at MSP following the Record of Decision. In addition to assessing the effects of overflights in the immediate environs of MSP, Air Traffic is responsible for examining the integration of aircraft using the new north -south runway into the flight procedures and maneuvering of aircraft as they enter the terminal airspace and begin the initial phases of arrival and departure. As previously noted, the FAA has already conducted an analysis of the airspace structure's ability to support the new runway from as far as 45 miles from MSP and found Dual Track Final EIS 1 -6 % that changes could be made to accommodate the new runway and reduce average daily delays. This preliminary plan involves the addition of a new jet arrival fix in the airspace southeast of the airport, for a total of five arrival fixes in the MSP terminal airspace area. The results of this analysis are also referenced in Appendix G as Terminal Airspace Modifications, Therefore, in addition to the air traffic procedures described above, Air Traffic will be responsible for establishing and coordinating the addition of the planned fifth arrival fix with other FAA branches and the users before all of the airspace changes are implemented. E.2 Airway Facilities The Airway Facilities Division is responsible for the installation, operation and maintenance of aids to navigation required to support the proposed action. Development of the proposed action would include the establishment of new and relocated landing aids serving the airport and the new runway. Such facilities include communications equipment and radio aids to navigation such as a relocated very high frequency omni- directional range NOR) facility. In support of this proposed action, the FAA will design, install and operate a wide range of ground - based air traffic control and navigation facilities. Airway Facilities will support the installation of a precision instrument landing system (ILS) on Runway 35, and an approach lighting system that will consist of a medium - intensity approach lighting system with sequenced flashing lights (MALSR) and runway visual range (RVR) equipment. In conjunction with the establishment of IFR equipment, the location and installation of the outer and middle markers (generally marking course guidance and the decision height for aircraft approaches) will be needed on the approach end of the new runway. Precision approach path indicators (PAPI) systems will also need to be installed on the runway in both directions and runway end identifier lights (RE(L's) will be placed on the north end of the new runway. E.3 Airports The Airports Division is responsible for the technical and environmental approval of the airport layout plan (ALP), administration of Airport Improvement Program (AIP) development grants funding the project, approvals to impose or use Passenger Facility Charges (PFC) funds for similar purposes, and environmental approvals under NEPA. The ALP showing the new runway and other improvements described in this HIS was conditionally approved by the FAA on April 25, 1997. The ALP is conditioned on environmental approval of development in the 2010 LTCP and does not include approval of development in the 2020 Concept Plan. Development of the MSP Alternative will involve approval of the FEIS for the proposed project, approval of the airport layout plan (ALP), and administration of any grants -in -aid funds for approved airport development projects and approvals to use PFC's. E.4 Flight Standards The Flight Standards Division is responsible for ensuring the adequacy of flight procedures and operating methods in addition to setting certification criteria for air carriers, commercial operators, and airmen. Specific. Flight Standards actions implementing the proposed action would involve establishment of instrument approach and departure procedures for the new runway, and new or- revised instrument approach and departure procedures for existing runways. Flight standards is also assigned the responsibility and authority to approve airline operations under the provisions of FAR Part 121. Authorization of amended operating procedures may be required to permit airline operations on the new runway. Fight standards will also authorize the kinds the kinds of operations that can occur on the new runway and the types of aircraft that can use it. Dual Track Final EIS 1 -7 4? 7 E.5 Security The FAA's Aviation Security Division is responsible for ensuring the integrity of the airport perimeter and secured areas of the terminal and support facilities against intrusions of unauthorized persons and explosives or weapons. Security will provide input to the approval of the airport layout plan for the proposed action, During the master planning and design stages, Security reviewed the terminal, fencing, and access plans prepared by the airport sponsor. Security will ultimately approve the airport security plan, procedures and hardware for compliance with FAR Part 107 and particularly FAA Orders 107.13 and 107.14 relating to security of the air operations areas and the access control system. Use of the infield area for air cargo, and the service roads to these future facilities, will also require Security approvals. F. Project History In 1989, the Minnesota Legislature enacted the Metropolitan Airport Planning Act to determine whether the long -term air transportation needs of the metropolitan area and the state could best be met by enhancing capacity at MSP or by developing a replacement airport within the metropolitan area. Known as the Dual Track Airport Planning Process, the 1989 legislation (as amended) specified the following actions for both the MC and MAC during the 1989 -1996 planning period: ® AVIATION PLAN, By February 1, 1990, the Metropolitan Council shall amend its aviation plan to incorporate policies and strategies that will ensure a comprehensive, coordinated, continuing, thorough and timely investigation and evaluation of alternatives for major airport development in the metropolitan area for a prospective 30 -year period. The alternatives must include both airport improvements and enhancements of capacity that may be necessary at the existing airport (MSP) and the location and development of a new airport. AVIATION GOALS, By March 1, 1990, the Metropolitan Council, shall report to the legislature analyzing and making recommendations on long -range aviation goals for the major airport facility in the metropolitan area for a prospective 30 -year period, The report must address goals for safety, environmental impact, and services, including ground access and service levels to other states and countries and to nonmetropolitan areas of the state. In preparing the report, the Council shall consider regional growth patterns, economic development, economic impact, regional and statewide investment, and ground transportation. NEW AIRPORT; CONCEPTUAL DESIGN STUDY AND PLAN. By March 1, 1990, the Commission, in consultation with the Council, shall complete a study of facilities requirements, airport functioning, and conceptual design for a major new airport. By January 1, 1991, the Commission shall complete a conceptual design plan for a major new airport. The conceptual design study and plan must describe and satisfy air transportation needs for a prospective 30- year period and be consistent with the development guide of the Council. The conceptual design plan must include an analysis of estimated costs, potential financing methods and sources of public and private funding, and cost allocation issues and options. The Council shall use the design study and plan in selecting a search area. ® SEARCH AREA, By January 1, 1992, the Metropolitan Council, in consultation with the Commission, s'hall designate a search area for a major new airport. ® MSP PLAN. By January 1, 1992, the Commission shall adopt a long -term comprehensive plan (LTCP) for MSP International Airport at its existing location to satisfy the air transportation needs Dual Track Final EIS 1 -8 �J e for a 30 -year planning period, The plan must be updated at least every five years, and amended as necessary to reflect changes in trends and conditions, facilities requirements, development plans and schedules. MSP REUSE STUDY., By January 1, 1993, the Council shall report to the legislature on policies for the reuse of the existing major airport site should a new major airport be developed. NEW AIRPORT SITE SELECTION & COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, Within four years after the designation of the search area, MAC shall: • select a site for a new major airport within the search area, • prepare a comprehensive plan for the development of a new major airport at the selected site to satisfy the air transportation needs for a 30 -year period, and • prepare and submit for administrative review the environmental documents required for site acquisition. AIRPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT REPORT. Within 180 days following completion of the comprehensive plans for MSP and a new major airport., the Metropolitan Council and MAC shall report to the legislature on the long -range planning and development of major airport facilities in the metropolitan area. The report must Include recommendations of the agencies on major airport development for the 30 -year period and on acquiring a site for a new major airport, including financing. The report must be completed by July, 1996, The following actions have been taken since the 1989 legislation was enacted: 1. The Metropolitan Council amended its aviation plan in January, 1990 to include both airport improvements and enhancement of capacity at MSP and the location and development of a new major airport — as alternatives for major airport development in the metropolitan area for the next 30 years. The plan also included the aviation goals and policies to guide major airport development for the next 30 years. 2. The MEQB approved on October 18, 1990, an alternative environmental review process for selecting a search area. 3. The Commission completed the New Airport Conceptual Design Study and Plan in December, 1990. .4. The Council, in December 1991, after considering three potential search areas, designated the Dakota Search Area in Dakota County (Figure 1) as the location for the planning and development of a new major airport. 5. The Commission adopted a long -term comprehensive plan for MSP in November, 1991. The Commission submitted an alternative environmental review process for the Dual Track Airport Planning Process to the MEQB, which was approved on March 19, 1992. The alternative environmental review process called for the preparation of an Alternative Environmental Document (AED) for each stage of the development of the comprehensive plans for the two "tracks" (MSP and New Airport). The AEDs would assess the environmental impacts of the alternatives under consideration in sufficient detail to select the best , alternative. 7. The Council completed the MSP Reuse Study in December 1992, Dual Track Final EIS 1 -9 97 B. A First Phase Scoping Report describing the Dual Track Airport Planning -Process and Issues /impacts to be addressed was prepared and made available for public and agency review on March 30, 1992. Three public meetings were held in April 1992 for public and agency comment. Responses to substantive comments were published in March 1993, 9. The Scoping Document and Draft Scoping Derision Document for the selection of a new airport site were prepared by MAC and made available for public and agency review on March 1, 1993. A public scoping meeting was held March 18 and the Scoping Derision Document, including responses to comments, was adopted by the Commission on June 21, 1993,. 10. The Draft AED for the selection of a new airport site, including the identification of a preferred site, was reviewed by MAC on September 20, 1993, for public /agency review and comment. Three sites were evaluated in the Draft AED. A public hearing was held on November 18 and the Final AED was made available on February 28, 1994, for public /agency review and comment. The Commission determined the adequacy of the Final AED and selected Site 3 on March 21, 1994. 11. The Scoping Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) and Draft Scoping Decision Document for the update of the long -term comprehensive plan for MSP were prepared by MAC and made available for public and agency review on January 17, 1994. A public scoping meeting was held February 15 and the Scoping Decision Document was adopted by the Commission on March 21, 1994. 12. The Scoping EAW and Draft Scoping Decision Document for the development of a comprehensive plan at the New Airport Site 3 were prepared by MAC and made available for review and comment on April 25, 1994. A public scoping meeting was held May 12 and the Scoping Decision Document was adopted by the Commission on June 20, 1994. 13. The Draft AED for the selection of the MSP Long -Term Comprehensive Plan was reviewed by MAC on September 19, 1994 for public /agency review and comment. Six airport expansion layouts were evaluated in the Draft AED. A public hearing was held on October 26, 1994 and the Final AED was made available on January 30, 1995 for public /agency review and comment. The Commission determined the adequacy of the Final AED and selected Alternative 6 (see Section 111.6.1) on February 21, 1995. 14. The Draft AED for the selection of the New Airport Comprehensive Plan was reviewed by MAC on November 21, 1994 for public /agency review and comment. Three new airport layouts were evaluated in the Draft AED. A public hearing was. held on January 18, 1995 and the Final AED was made available on March 27, 1995 for public /agency review and comment. The Commission determined the adequacy of the Final AED and selected the New Airport Comprehensive Plan on April 18, 1995, 15. FAA and MAC prepared scoping documents for the Draft EIS (the Second Phase Scoping Report dated May 22, 1995) and held three public, hearings on this document in June 1995, The 30 -day comment period ended July 5, 1995, and a final Scoping Decision document was issued July 26, 1995. 16. FAA and MAC prepared the DRAFT EIS and held two public hearings in January 1996. The 60 -day comment period ended February 13, 1996, 17. MAC and MC prepared a joint Report to the Legislature in March 1996 with a recommendation to expand MSP. The report concluded that the aviation needs of the Dual Track Final EIS 1 -10 Mb metropolitan area can best be met by continued development of MSP, even under the highest of MAC's forecast range of operations. 18. In April 1996 the legislature considered the MAC and MC recommendations and the comprehensive planning documents and their environmental effects mandated by the 1989 legislation, and selected the development of MSP as the preferred alternative. The legislature mandated implementation of the MSP 2010 LTCP, a phase of the MSP 2020 Concept Plan. The April 1996 legislation also prohibits development of the new west terminal without further legislative approval, 19. A Section 4(fJ Evaluation document was prepared by FAA and made available for comment on May 1, 1998. Asummary of the document is presented in Section V.0 of this FEIS. G. Implementation Schedule Subject to completion of the environmental review process, construction of the new north -south runway, planned maintenance, hangar, air cargo and roadway facilities for the proposed action (2.010 LTCP) would commence in 1998 and could be completed In 2003. Additional expansion of maintenance, hangar and air cargo facilities could occur beyond 2003 if conditions so warrant. Dual Track Final EIS 1 -11 161 NOISE OVER September 19, 2007 • � 111 II 11 ,`lt�lf .3.; Qi;•ti.�l .�...1 �:IY1•EI •i li t, .� 1 1 -. !1 t111; !lt„ t •1 •I •� .. ,'iii "tl , Minneapolis Airport FAA ATCT Attn: Mr. Carl Rydeen Manager — MSP Air Traffic Control Tower 6311 34th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55450 RE: NIGHTTIME SOUTHEAST DEPARTURE HEADINGS OFF RUNWAY 17 DURING SOUTHEAST OPERATIONAL FLOWS AT MINNEAPOLIS /ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (MSP) Dear Mr. Rydeen, On August 22, 2007 Mayor Mike Maguire of Eagan sent a letter to our attention requesting that the Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) "examine the feasibility of moving more nighttime traffic from Runway 17 (particularly from the 120 degree heading) to Runway 12R when demand allows." (See Attachment 1). Recently, Eagan residents have reported increased nighttime overflights as a result of eastbound aircraft being departed off Runway 17 during southeast operational flows at Minneapolis /St, Paul International Airport (MSP), Given that the majority of these eastbound operations are given a departure heading of approximately 120 degrees, a question arises as to why these aircraft are not placed on Runway 12R and given an on- course runway heading into the Eagan \Mendota Heights Departure Corridor, which is the preferred option per the Runway Use System (RUS) at MSP during southeast operational flows. Table Ali Revised Runway Use ay:fem The revised RUS establishes the folbwinp runway use preferences: Departures 1 Runways 12L and 12R 2 Runway 17 3 Balanoed Use of Runway 4@2 4 Runways 30L and 3OR Arrivals 1 Runways 301. and 30R 2 Rulway35 3 Balanoed Use of Runway 4 22 4 Runways 12L and 12R aekJdirommJNd pndkertca • Skladeperettesererteftlerhnsrdws, ATOPrst aftb die fts uenawey, end thew edaae ne wprwisbntM nmW Bdenced use MwaV alATC wa pdgn use of Runway 4 or %may22whh egad DdedNfet'ndMd>slemaJlpurposeK h does nal man #W on a*W amber of Wcref fweeidlernnwayoperomw redotK wcheawind, wesYler, and s"W1 desTxteYen, wN debnnine ind election a Runway 4 Jr71, Seuca: HNTa srmNda By way of background, the RUS was approved for implementation as part of the environmental evaluation conducted in the July 2003 Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Implementation of a Departure Procedure off Runway 17 and the related Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) /Record of Decision (ROD) published by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on August 27, 2003. The EA is the most recently approved FAA National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) document related to the planned operation of MSP with Runway 17/35 operational. As detailed to the left, Table A -5 in the July 2003 EA outlines the desired runway selection priority for the purposes of reducing noise impact around MSP. Per the approved RUS, when MSP is in a southeast operational flow, during the nighttime hours of 10:30 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., use of Runways 12L and 12R for departure operations into the Eagan \Mendota Heights Departure Corridor should be the primary departure runway configuration. When capacity dictates, per the RUS, Runway 17 should be used as a secondary option to Runways 12L and 12R. Aoc� September 19, 2007 Mr. Rydeen Page 2 However, in July 2007 during southeast operational flows, 47.5% of the nighttime departure operations were on Runway 12L., 33.5% of nighttime departure operations were on Runway 17 and 19.0% of nighttime departure operations were on Runway 12R. (See Attachment 2). The use of Runway 17, with the corresponding lower departure numbers on Runway 12R, appears Inconsistent with the approved RUS at MSP during southeast operational flows. In the July 2003 EA an analysis was conducted to determine reasonable RUS implementation assumptions. Because capacity demand drives runway use at MSP, to adequately assess RUS implementation, low-, mid- and high - demand criteria need to be established for purposes of the analysis. As stated on page A-4 of the July 2003 EA: "ATC was consulted to determine appropriate cut -off limits for each demand period given traffic intersections and ATC workloads." Table A -3 below, which is included on page A-4 in the July 2003 EA, provides the 15- minute operational criteria defining each demand level. 'table A-3 Traft Demand Period Criteria auurce: n I U and HN I rs analysis. Based on the above traffic demand period criteria, in July 2007 the average daily number of operations per 15- minute segment establishes that the nighttime hours of 10:30 p.m. to 6 :00 a.m. at MSP were mid- to low- demand. As such, per the July 2003 EA, it Is anticipated that traffic levels allow for maximum flexibility and /or efficient selection of runways based on noise considerations consistent with the RUS, Attachment 2 provides a flight track map of July 2007 nighttime operations during southeast operational flows at MSP. As detailed earlier, Runway 17 was the second- highest used runway during the nighttime hours in July 2007 in this configuration. Of the total 134 departure operations off Runway 17, 80 (60 %) were eastbound (120 -, 140- and 155 - degree headings). All of the eastbound operations occurred in low— or mid— demand time periods. Of the 80 operations, 21 (26 %) occurred in a low- demand period or Just above the lowest level of the mid - demand operational criteria. 103 Traffic Demand Demand Period (Operations per 1"Inute RUS Status ,._. ment Low Less than 3 e raffic leve s a owfor maximum flexibility in runway selection and RUS implementation, including the use of unique procedures such as the Head -b-Head Procedure in the Corridor. MId Between $.5 an Traffic; eveis allow or efficient selection runways based on noise considerations, given requirements for runvvay crossings, capacity, etc,; moderate use of the RUS. High Greater than 15 The need 16 ma ntain operatbnal capacity does not allow ATC flexibility in runway selection; limited use of the RUS. auurce: n I U and HN I rs analysis. Based on the above traffic demand period criteria, in July 2007 the average daily number of operations per 15- minute segment establishes that the nighttime hours of 10:30 p.m. to 6 :00 a.m. at MSP were mid- to low- demand. As such, per the July 2003 EA, it Is anticipated that traffic levels allow for maximum flexibility and /or efficient selection of runways based on noise considerations consistent with the RUS, Attachment 2 provides a flight track map of July 2007 nighttime operations during southeast operational flows at MSP. As detailed earlier, Runway 17 was the second- highest used runway during the nighttime hours in July 2007 in this configuration. Of the total 134 departure operations off Runway 17, 80 (60 %) were eastbound (120 -, 140- and 155 - degree headings). All of the eastbound operations occurred in low— or mid— demand time periods. Of the 80 operations, 21 (26 %) occurred in a low- demand period or Just above the lowest level of the mid - demand operational criteria. 103 September 19, 2007 Mr. Rydeen Page 3 The above analysis, in the context of the July 2003 EA, related FONSI /ROD, and the approved RUS at MSP, supports Eagan's stated concerns and presents what seems to be a logical solution in the form of moving eastbound departure operations off of Runway 17 to Runway 12R into the Eagan /Mendota Heights Departure Corridor during the nighttime hours, consistent with the RUS. Request In consideration of the July 2003 EA, the related FONSI /ROD, the approved RUS at MSP, and the analysis provided in this letter, the NOC voted to request that FAA: Place eastbound departure operations (headings east of 170- degrees) during nighttime southeast operational flows at MSP, which are currently occurring on Runway 17, on Runway 12R consistent with the approved RUS. If It is FAA's determination that implementing the above request is not feasible, please explain the Agency's position in the context of the information (FAA's July 2003 EA, the related FONSNROD and the approved MSP RUS) and associated analysis contained in this letter. We are forwarding the above on behalf of the NOC and look forward to your response. As always, thank you for your consideration and attention to air traffic noise issues around MSP. Sincerely, Vem Wilcox NOC Co -Chair & City Council Member — City of Bloomington Ka lean Nelson NOC Co -Chair & Northwest Airlines Regional Director — Airline Affairs cc: MSP NOC Mr. Nigel Finney — Deputy Executive Director, Planning and Environment Mr. Tom Anderson — MAC General Counsel Mr. Roy Fuhrmann — Director of Environment Mr. Chuck Prock — FAA Great Lakes Region Legal Counsel Mr. Glen Orcutt — FAA Minneapolis ADO Ms. Annette Davis — FAA Great Lakes Region Environmental Specialist /Dq 401� �#tachme3nt 1 City of August 22, 2007 Mike Maguire MAYOR Mr. Vern Wilcox, NOC Co -Chair Ms, Kathleen Nelson, NOC Co -Chair 890011th Avenue South Northwest Airlines —Dept. A1135 Paul Bakken Bloomington, MN 55420 2700 Lone Oak Parkway Peggy Carlson Eagan, MN 55121 Cyndee Fields Dear Co- Chairs Wilcox and Nelson: Mog Tilley COUNM MIMOZAB On August 21, 2007, the Eagan City Council approved sending a formal request to the MSP Noise Oversight Committee QIOC) asking that they examine the feasibility of moving more Thomas Hodges nighttime traffic from Runway 17 (particularly from the 120 degree heading) to Runway C+ry ADw#mAwm 12R when demand allows for it. Sit�cl�;nl�. Tw Lm OAKTw Mike Maguire mw aril d Mayor Blrenpih and WOW6 in our aralrmmift. cc: Chad E. Logve, Manager – Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs & NOC Technical Advisor I� Over the past few months, Eagan residents have noticed an increasing number of early morning flights departing to the cast off of Runway 17 using the 120 degree heading. According to the Runway Use System for MSP Airport, the parallel runways, over the Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor are to be used as the preferred runways for nighttime MUNOM COMB operations due the more compatible land uses within the Corridor, The City of Eagan 3830 Rol knob Road respectfully requests that the NOC discuss this issue and facilitate communication with the FAA regarding the feasibility of using the 120 degree heading less during the nighttime Eagan, NIN 55122.1010 hours when the airport is operating in a southeast configuration (departures off of 17 and 851.5 0 phone 12R, and arrivals on. 12L), 8511.,875675., 5012 fart 651.454,805 TOO Both the Eagan Airport Relations Commission (ARC) and the Eagan City Council gave serious consideration to this request since the public policy issue at.hand is whether to move noise from one area of Eagan to another area of our community. While those Eagan MAIWMMMe FAMM residents who live near the Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor certainly would not be pleased 3501 Coachman Point with the addition of more nighttime noise, it is a sound public policy decision to concentrate Eagan, MN 55122 noise in the more compatible. commercial and industrial area of the City as opposed to 051,875.5300 phone sending planes over densely populated residential areas. 851.676.5360 lax The City of Eagan looks forward to hearing the outcome of the discussion regarding the use 551,454,8538TQQ of the 120 degree heading for nighttime operations, Please feel free to contact Dianne Miller, Assistant to the City Administrator, at 651/675 -5014 if you have any questions regarding the City's request. www.0"yof"gen.aom Sit�cl�;nl�. Tw Lm OAKTw Mike Maguire mw aril d Mayor Blrenpih and WOW6 in our aralrmmift. cc: Chad E. Logve, Manager – Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs & NOC Technical Advisor I� 3: 0 LL Cy 0 Q� o CL LL 4i w c'? E 0 CLP Z co �Q C4 75 n N aW E cfl .1 Sandra Masin State Representative District 38A Dakota County Burnsville and Eagan Minnesota House ®f Representatives COMMITTEES: VICE - CHAIR, TELECOMMUNICATIONS REGULATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE DIVISION TRANSPORTATION FINANCE DIVISION BIOSCIENCES AND EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES EDUCATION FINANCE AND ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS FINANCE DIVISION September 25, 2007 Minneapolis Airport FAA ATCT Attn: Mr. Carl Rydeen Manager — MSP Air Traffic Control Tower 6311 34th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55450 Dear Mr. Rydeen, I recently learned of the Eagan City Council's request to the MSP Noise Oversight Committee to examine the feasibility of changing nighttime runway traffic from Runway 17 to Runway 12R. I am in support .of the City Council's formal request. In addition I recently reviewed a letter, dated September 19, 2007, from the Noise Oversights Committee (NOC) at the Minneapolis/St. Paul international Airport (MSP) to your attention expressing aiTort noise concerns on behalf of residents in central Eagan. As detailed in the September 19 NOC letter, residents living in the central portion of the City of Eagan have been experiencing increased aircraft overflights during the nighttime hours at MSP. It appears that use of the FAA's previously approved and implemented Runway Use System (RUS) at MSP during the lower demand nighttime periods at MSP provides a workable solution. I am writing in support of the request analyzed and articulated by the NOC in their September 19, 2007 letter to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). J look forward to your efforts in this regard and anxiously await your response. Sincerely, Sandra Masin State Representative cc: Mitchell Kilian City of Eagan, Mike Maguire, Mayor City of Burnsville, Elizabeth Kautz, Mayor Metropolitan Airports Commission, Bert McKasy, Vice Chairman 1785 Carnelian Lane, Eagan, Minnesota 56122 ) 452 -3411 FAX: (851) 296-1478 Email: rep.sanera.masinenouse.mn AQ ems® LINDQUIST & VENNUM P. L.L.P. 4200 IDS CENTER IN DENVER: 80 SOUTH EIGHTH STREET 600 17TH STREET, SUITE 1800 SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402 -2274 DENVER, CO 60202.5441 TELEPHONE: 612-371-3211 TELEPHONE: 303-573-5900 FAX: 612- 371 -3207 FAX: 303. 573 -1956 ATTORNEYS AT LAW BERT J. MCKASY (612) 371 -2439 bmckasy @llndquist.com September 27, 2007 Mr. Carl Rydeen Manager, MSP Air Traffic Control Tower 6311 34t1i Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55450 Dear Mr. Rydeen: www.lindquist.com I have received a copy of the September 19, 2007 letter from the Minneapolis /St. Paul International Airport (MSP) Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) sent to your attention. I feel the background information and concerns expressed by the City of Eagan and the NOC are reasonable. The Runway Use System (RUS), which incorporates the operation of Runway 17/35 at MSP, was approved by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in August 2003. It appears that effective implementation of the RUS during reduced demand periods (nighttime) at MSP would solve the present issues raised by the City of Eagan and the NOC. Therefore, I ask that you ensure that the concerns and input from the City of Eagan and the NOC are considered in accordance with applicable FAA regulations and the associated environmental documentation that led to the approval of the RUS at MSP. Moreover, I would request that you ensure that the FAA operational practices off Runway 17 at MSP have been implemented, and are being conducted, consistent with the approved RUS. Thank you for your attention to this issue. Very trul urs, Bert PM'o 4 MAC Commission er BJM/bes cc: City of Eagan Mayor and Council Doc# 2441129 \1 1D9 OVERBOOKED PLANES ? CANCELLED FLIGHTS I RECORD LUGGAGE CLAIMS '7"r'vit� yr '' Io G�yt.' _ GARLO.. ;�: -;� J.. Wit; ;;: ._ c �v� .'„ f�.-�-* --� '9',T'x, •� � � �,��_y��5t- "��'s''� 'a {tea= �n?�ti- �'.r�'3rr� � _ r:`,c'%��4;2%t f�i��" �!cs:.,- `x.3!5 �r Tatir.'.�: =:S� �' "`'•fzt c:'�ts'3^,;1-s�_;,.:� F's z?x �tzr�;f�'- .s_��, ..ev � � � ... - .. AT THE ,. r a � � r . t � -.J-r^ r �;? ,'ii L,-Y' —✓`. -�`` EFI::"t-`- ��7, -_ - _ ?" t;�il° -:i�� ';� y? =��f� __ _ �:�e -. `:'•"-""......, __;.,rte, -�s' f - .,.�_.... Now r._:� - -. -:,emu, -, .._.'?. .,: .,�._. T -� :_. �:sr. :d. ._, �-v�,S.,.�_ • - ,y!}';..- - - ? G��s.�: �c --�_._ _ _ _ _ ��y`a . �•- �....: .f..,_; :r.:v�:.r.] _ _.�_c:- �.,._....r ra .s .:tx .- �l:aSNnl- .,.,a`r .vj::•'t"T�1!r .. I: - -:b> - - .v. ".-�� sni-f r:Y _ >::_�•�_._ „U..,�'..._::•��a. ...: -i -:: �v- .n.t1._, F.. .:.�:.r... •:. .try__..: kp„_ �;:V..� -- ::J� 4.�,m 'f`� >�TG `-+. =-_3. �- J,y:� N �: -Y..Io ___:2;_,::.:<: -..t �;__.. - ” - — - - - _ - — - „�:.Y.•:7 ..r4�, Y _.v ��': ^':� 't: ,'._ ��l:i- r�.'J'.. -: •:'�t`''i �-�. Y': 3'ir'I•^."t�. r_� 1-`�'' .:i- •-':i� _ _ - - —';vy C6x •�_ F� gi�� -i!3_ ui?', r�l. - [: +fr':�:{ == �L'= ..:rY:'ti} . =:�'::::..:5 ,T, ±_'°�,1 _ v�:"j :'T:" 3.�i:�.':•....:++� +�-aL - 1 a.Y: -+1 ..� .� - :G- 1 1 lu.�.cur vY.4+•� - How a failure of leadership led to the. summer from hell •* w i� t } r4� -r rS'y.•j } ii vl t :r-x c a .r r3 F SC' )cam J r i NN- 11 -r !! ^ ? F. sly -- /' - I Long lines, late flights, near collisions — everyone is unhappy with the state of the U.S. air travel system. Unfortunately, no one, especially not the FAA, seems able to do anyd- ing about it HEN MARION C. BLAKEY TOOK. over at the Federal Aviation Adminis- tration in 2002, she was determined to fix an air travel system battered by kA) terrorism, antiquated technology, and the ever - turbulent finances of the airline industry. Five years later, as she prepares to step down on Sept. 13, it's clear she failed. Almost everything about flying is worse than when she arrived. Greater are the risks, the passenger head- aches, and the costs in lost. productivity. Almost ev- eryone has a horror story about missed connections, lost baggage, and wasted hours on the tarmac. More than 909,000 flights were late through June of this year, twice the level of 2002. And if you think. the Summer from Hell is over, fasten your seat belt. The FAA predicts 1 billion passengers a year will take to the skies by 2015, a 36% increase from the cur- rent level. FAA officials say this year's Labor Day crunch could become an everyday flying fiasco within eight years, 46 1 BnsinessWeek I September 10, 2007 1 1 D costing America's economy $22 billion annually. There was a time not long ago when the head of the FAA would be the last person you'd expect to express public doubts about potential catastrophe. Today, Blakey is un- abashed about the rising risk of flying. There have been 339 incidents so far this year where planes got too close to each other or to objects on the ground, up from 297 in the same period last year. On Aug. 16 a pas- senger jet on the runway at Los Angeles Interna- tional Airport came within just 37 feet of another airliner —the eighth such incident this year at LAX alone. "While it is the safest form of transporta- tion," Blakey says, "deep in your heart you still know that [when you're] flying at 30,000 feet with no safety net you're counting on the system--a system that is at the breaking point." So why is it that we can put a man on the moon but can't fly him from Atlanta to Charlotte, N.C., without at least a two -hour delay? While Blakey bears some responsibility for the abysmal state of air travel, she follows a long line of FAA chiefs who failed to put much of a dent in the agency's to -do By Christopher Palmeri and Keith Epstein c 2 z 0 a 3 3 Vl x list. It's not a lack of money. Last year the FAA did not spend all of the money it was allocated. Nor is it a lack of knowhow. Existing technology could easily meet the demands created by the exploding number of fliers. Nor, for that matter, is it security concerns. Instead, it's a fundamental organiza- tional failure: Nobody is in charge. The various players in the system, including big airlines, small aircraft owners, labor unions, politicians, airplane manufacturers, and executives Blakey isn't the first tcl. st uggle as head of the agency- "The FAA as currently structured is their facilities need repair. The FAA says it needs new revenue sources to invest in new technologies. Congress says the FAA needs to manage the money it has better. And passengers blame everybody in sight, but aren't willing to spend a dime more on tickets. Often when Blakey meets with interest groups —the airline pilots' lobby, say, or an aircraft manufacturer —they give her a metallic airplane pin. Not the cheap kind friendly steward- esses once handed children, but a classier - looking piece of jewelry. Rather than risk offending anyone by seeming to take sides, she wears more than one at a time. As she made the rounds in Washington — last week., Blakey sported no fewer than three passenger jets and a pilotless drone on her crowded lapel. Each, fit- tingly enough, was flying in a different direction. "It's a f) holding pattern, she says, 99 only half - joking. In a couple impossible tC� run efficiently," of weeks she is going to hand t h own ins when she one former administrat ®r with their corporate jets, are locked in permanent warfare as they fight to protect their own interests. And the FAA, a weak agency that needs congressional approval for how it raises and spends money, seems incapable of breaking the gridlock. "The FAA as currently structured is impossible to run efficiently," says Langhorne M. Bond, administrator of the agency from 1977 to 1981. When no one's in charge, no one can be held accountable. Small aircraft. operators blame the big airlines for scheduling too many flights out of the major airports. The big carriers say the smaller operators aren't paying their share of what it takes to maintain the air traffic control system. The control- lers complain they are understaffed and underpaid, and that ou er p becomes the new chief of the Aerospace Industries Assn., yet another of the big lobby- ing groups with a stake in FAA decision - making. To see how these groups paralyze the FAA, consider the fate of some far - reaching reform proposals that would help solve the congestion problem. One of the big reasons flying is so miser- able is because airlines schedule more flights at desirable times than airports can handle —much as they sell seats to more passengers than their planes can hold. On a typical Tuesday morning in August at New York's John F. Kennedy International, the airport has enough P len ®f Marne _t® Go Around �Y . Everyone involved with the av "71system has high eVectations- and tittle witlirpnws to compromise. No wonder the system is a mess PASSENGERS N. All they want, say "1 fliers, is � 10. consistently safe, on -time, and comfortable flights at convenient times and at cheap�prices. And roasted peanuts. Yet they complain when flights are crowded, and bristle at paying more. And woe to the airline that withholds peanuts. R TM AIRLINES The carriers, � tL� unwilling to limit . E _- offerings, schedule more departures than airports can handle. This has boosted bottom lines, but created runway rage among customers. Airlines oppose flight restrictions that might ease congestion. 48 1 BusinessWeek I September 10. 2007 UNIONS Air traffic controllers ,_. complain of overwork, inadequate pay, and warn of facilities in disrepair. They say they are in favor of modernization —but not at their expense. SMALL PLANE OWNERS Many industry players contend that weekend flyers and business jet owners don't pay their Gulfstream- fueled fair share of air traffic costs. When FAA Administrator Blakey tried to get high- fliers to pony up more, they sought to torpedo the initiative in Congress. capacity for around 44 departures between 8 and g a.m. But airlines schedule 57, guaranteeing delays, even under perfect conditions. The carriers are well aware that their commitments to trav- elers are often impossible to keep, but they make them anyway because they like to give passengers what they want. And everyone prefers to fly in the morning or early everting so they can get in a day of work or play on the day they fly. "We don't schedule flights at one o'clock in the morning because people don't want to travel at that time," says Peter McDonald, chief operating officer of UAL Corp. But the consequence of giving customers an unrealistically -; CONGRESS " Politicians in � u ii 11 m Washingto IF n n are happy to bond with the flying public in bemoaning the air traffic mess; most just lack the stomach to do anything about it. Congress has been reluctant to limit flights and to close outdated facilities that provide local jobs. � COMMUNITY ' GROUPS People want the 1� - ? ` convenience of having an airport nearby but complain about aircraft noise. Local opponents regularly challenge airport expansions on environmental grounds, often leading to decades of project delay. i high number of flight options is that a weather delay at a key airport such as New York's LaGuardia, Chicago's O'Hare International, or Dallas -Fort Worth International can have a cascading effect on the entire system. "You can't physically get these airplanes out," says Barrett Byrnes, a controller at JFK, who says there was a 4 %zrmile long taxi line at the airport on the night of Aug. 22. "It just backs up into the next hour and gets worse and worse until you have a dysfunctional parldng'lot." One victim of this type of congestion is Richard P. Coorsh, vice- president for communications at the Federation of American Hospitals, His 8 p.m. flight from LaGuardia back LOCAL GOVERNMENTS Airport authorities, �d aware of shortages in runways and gate space, are unwilling or unable to spend the money to expand and risk public disapproval, Prodigious thumb - twiddling and study - launching, rather than actual building, often rules the day, y$ FAA The Federal Aviation Administration wants a system overhaul but is almost powerless to impose any big fix, The regulatory weakling has no borrowing authority. It can't compel changes in airline overscheduling and lacks clout to drive consensus throughout government and industry. September 10, 2007 1 BusinessWeek 149 t a W z U a d ti F home to Washington in early August stood on the tarmac for nearly four hours before departure, "My next trip to New York will be on Amtrak," says -- Coorsh, who used to be a regular on the air shuttle between the two cities. In the short term, the most effective way to solve the congestion problem would be for Congress �(.� to authorize auctioning off the right to fly into he overburdened airports —a move that would allow the FAA to limit the number of takeoffs. The rights could expire every few years, opening up the mar - air ket to competitors, while the money raised could pay for airport improvements. Underbidders could schedule more flights at smaller, less crowded air- ports or at off hours. "If we auctioned off the space at the 1.0 worst airports, it would go a long way towards fixing the national problem," says George Donohue, a former FAA official who now teaches engineering at George Mason University. But the airline industry, which is just now getting back on its feet after a horrible few years of losses, layoffs, bankrupt- cies, and restructurings, opposes the idea. Auctions would raise costs for the carriers, who have fought their way back to solvency by economizing on customer service. It is now considered unlikely that Congress, which took away the fed- eral bureaucratic authority over routes and pricing when it deregulated the airline industry in 1978, will consider the auc- tion proposal this year. "If you can't deal with scheduling," observes former Transportation Dept, inspector general Ken Mead, "you don't have as much authority as people think." The best way to relieve congestion over the long - term - -and to improve safety —is to rebuild the nation's air traffic control infrastructure. Pretty much everybody agrees that today's system would be more at home in the Smithsonian Institution than running the world's largest and busiest air traffic net- work. Indeed, the system is based on decades -old technology and relies on radar beacons and squawking flight controllers. Pilots fly FAA- determined routes that are based largely on where bonfires and electric beacons were built in the early days of aviation, the better to guide the air mail pilots of the 1920s as they crisscrossed the country, navigating by sight. uctioning takeoff slobs at the nation's busiest a rpor is would 1p ease congestion, but the lines, still reeling fi -om years of losses, balk at the increased cost IGITIZATION? The entire network runs on software known as jovial, so old there are only six programmers in the country who know how to write it. And incredible as it seems, family minivans with NavStar have more sophisticated location guidance than some aircraft. The FAA has been trvvina to shift to a satellite -based system, as well as better computer and au- tomated communications networks, since the 1980s. But this rational, not particularly controversial goal has been difficult to achieve because the agency has to please so many constituencies. Ask Charles Leader, a former McKinsey & Co. consultant. and aircraft. industry executive who heads the joint Planning & Development Office, a consortium of seven government offices, which is charged with designing what the FAA calls its Next Generation Air Transportation System ('NextGen). The new system would allow planes to fly straighter paths, closer together, even in bad weather, freeing 50 1 BusinessWeek I September 10, 2007 113 up space in the air and reducing work for the controllers. It's expected to cost upward of $44 billion —half paid by the government for facilities, half by airplane owners for gear in the planes. The catch: The current completion date is now estimated to be 2025. As a result, Leader talks not in years but in "epochs," The parties involved include the FAA, NASA, and the Transportation, Defense, Homeland Security, and Commerce Depts., along with the White House. "It's very OST IN ALL THE HAND- WRINGING over how to fix the U,S. skies is one simple fact: The technology already exists to make flying simpler, safer, and more efficient, It's already in use now at some airports. United Parcel Service and Fedex use state -of- the -art satellite navigation to guide planes to their big consolidation centers. Australia and China are also streaming past the U.S, with next,-generation flight- control systems. Planes in the air in the U.S, today rely on an archipelago of control centers, radar towers, and radio beacons that dot the continent, Once the aircraft are beyond the range of runway control towers, they are tracked by a series of facilities along their route. To locate a plane, radar dishes sweep the skies about every five seconds — though it can take 10 seconds or longer, Near airports, three such towers may be needed to get a precise fix on a single plane. To confirm critical details —the plane's identity, destination, position, and speed — controllers and pilots chatter back and forth. Today's system is reliable and safe. But it's imprecise, and radar towers are costly to build and maintain. The FAA's sweeping NextGen program would shutter at least one third of its 500 or so air traffic facilities while migrating to a better system, The cornerstone is called ADS -B, for automatic dependent surveillance - broadcast, which gives every plane its own digital brain and voice, Using GPS, the plane constantly transmits its position, speed, direction, and destination to other planes and ground control. The diagram to the right shows how this works. —Adam Aston �w 0 a w 0 0 y a H challenging," Leader says. "Not because anyone is against it. There are just so many agencies." HESS AGENCIES are battling over many key details. The new system would require a com- mon source for weather information, for exam- ple. The FAA is interested in national weather for the skies, of course. The U.S. Air Force has a similar interest but is thinking globally. The U.S. Navy is interested in oceanic weather. The National Weather Service must take into con- sideration all modes of transportation and people on the ground. The FAA wants to share the information the system generates, but for the military it becomes a strategic advantage, and so the armed services don't want some data made public. "We're not talking about moon shots and breakthrough science," Leader says. But "different users want different functions," The FAA can point to some tentative progress. By the end of August it was expected to announce a $1 billion contract to build one of the first stages of this new air traffic system, a series of ground facilities. Until the FAA can achieve consen- hi TODAY F 4 sus on other parts of the system, however, carriers are largely holding back on investing up to $600,000 per aircraft. It is not hard to understand their reluctance to pay' up for the new technology. After losing more than $43 billion between 2002 and 2005, the U.S. airline industry swung to a profit only last year, earning $3 billion. Paying for NextGen has proven so incendiary and difficult to manage, in fact, that it is likely to become one of the hottest topics when Congress returns in September. Much of the FAA's money now comes from the 7.5% tax on airline tickets. When airfares fell in the wake of the September 11 traffic slump, so did the system's revenues. Cyclical swings in the airline in- dustry have often buffeted agency finances, and rather than subject the agency to major turns in the marketplace, Blakey wanted a stable source of income for her long -term vision. The FAA administrator still views her solution —a formula that would charge every aircraft operator a variety of user fees —as a rational proposition. A small plane; after all, can require as much time from a controller as a jumbo jet; costs to users should be aligned with individual costs .of using the service. And small craft account for 16% of the system's oper- ating cost, while only paying 3 %, so it seemed only fair. With- out user fees, she argues, the agency simply can't afford the new air traffic. system. "This is not a free utility," she says. aircraft and control stations (very plane'. scans the skies for aircraft. are too close or whose flight paths may intersect. Updated each second,.the system gives pilots and controllers a 3D, God's -eye view of air.traffic, terrain, and even the weather: ® FASTER, STRAIGHTER, DENSER With enhanced awareness, planes can fly closer together. By reducing the distance between jets; more aircraft will fit into the, sky * lanes they follow today and more lanes can be' added.48S allows planes to fly* f0aighter reiiates, tao: From September 10, 2007 I BusinessWeek 151 i.. IRLINES cheered. After all, they consider their 97% burden unfair. But private aircraft owners re- volted. The Aircraft Own- ers & Pilots Assn. (AOPA) barnstormed newspaper offices and radio stations to drum up opposition to the FAA plan. The National Business Aviation Assn., mean- while, enlisted a wide range of players who depend on smaller planes, from rural airport authorities and air ambulance charities to hobbyists and corn growers. The average citizen, after all, might sympathize more with a farmer than a corporate flier. The result was an Alliance for Aviation Across America, which soon had enough money for its own ads. They popped up on CNN's screens at gates in airports all summer, the better to catch passengers at their most distressed. The ads accused the big airlines of being "hungry for another billion -dollar handout," and warned that user fees "would ground general aviation and cut off rural America." From Kansas to Kentucky, letters and e-mail messages flooded offices on Capitol Hill. Congress heard the message. Blakey now wishes she'd at least called the user fees by some'other name. "I really underestimated how difficult it would be to change the financial system of this agency," she tells AusinessWeek. Time is running out to resolve this dogfight. By law, the cur- GETTING WORSE 30 As more planes arrive late... 25 010-1 001 20 15 PERCENTAGE OF FLIGHTS 4 NOT ARRIVING ON TIME 0 '97 '99 '01 '03 '05 '07' ...airlines are losing more luggage... 7.5 (-- I`Tl -TT i ._ ._ 6.5 INCIDENTS PER 1,000. PASSENGERS 5.5 4.5 -- -- 4 0 '97 '99 '01 '03 '05 '07` ...and more passengers are getting bumped off overbooked flights 1.4 i-'T- r -T"T 12 - _INCIDENTS PER 1,000 PASSENGERS I` 1.0 0.8 0 i '97 '99 '01 - '03 '05 '07" •THROUGHJUNE30 Data: U.S. Dept of Transportation Air Travel Consumer. Repo 52 1 BusinessWeek I September 10, 2007 I rent method of taxing passenger tickets, which must be renewed every four years, expires on Sept, 30. If Congress fails to renew it, agree to user fees, or arrive at a compromise method of steering money to the FAA, the agency will be faced with a shortfall. Some members of Congress say they are unwilling to give Blakey the user fees she wants, especially when it isn't clear to them what the FAA intends to deliver in return. "The Administration says use need to implement the next generation system, but they haven't laid it out," says Representative Jerry R Costello (D- Ill.), chairman of the House mdation subcom- mittee. "They haven't even designed it, The FAA should show us exactly Farhat we're going to get: for our money." Of course, it's easier to criticize mistakes than to agree to remedies. In response to major service meltdovms such as the ones that afflicted American Airlines last Decem- ber and JetBlue Airways over Valentine's Day weekend, Congress has debated a pas- senger bill of rights that would, for example, require airlines to let passengers exit the plane if they're likely to be stuck for more than three hours on the ground. But the airlines are opposed to it, and the proposal is unlikely to go anywhere. While congressional representatives like to vin points aadth constituents by bashing the air travel system, they sometimes block the FAA's reform efforts because of old- fashioned lo- 0 0 x a u F cal- interest politics, Resistance can be so intense that Blakey —who has come to the conclusion that the FAA needs to close more than one -third of its 500 air traffic facilities around the coun- try —now views a special commission, like the one that decided which military bases to shutter, as the only way to overcome parochial politics and achieve efficiencies. Similar pressures complicate efforts to build new runways, another problem that contributes to congestion. Only one major U.S. airport, Denver International, has been built in the last 20 years, Existing airports do indeed sprout new runways, with help from some $3 billion in airport improvement funds doled out by the FAA each year. But many experts say there aren't enough, and the pace of construction isn't even keeping pace with the acceleration in traffic. "It's all about the runways," says Phil Boyer, president of the AOPA. "We've got plenty of sky." Building new runways typically involves a con- tentious battle between community groups over noise and air quality concerns —yet another example of government's paralysis in the face of countervailing pressures. If she could, Blakey says she'd redesign more than run- ways or air traffic control. She'd also redesign the FAA, giving it power to borrow money, to assess airlines fees for flights at peak hours, and to hold auctions on schedules. She'd have an independent commission to close unneeded facilities. All of this is hard to do, of course, in the real world. In one of her final trips as administrator, Blakey jetted to Los Angeles on Aug. 22, just five days after the airport's most recent collision. Posing in front of a school near an LAX flight path, Blakey announced a new round of federal dollars for soundproofing homes in the neighborhood and lobbied local authorities to redesign the runways at the airport. But rather than agreeing to a long- debated runway redesign, the local airport authority bowed to pressure from community activ- ists and voted to fund a study —the sixth —on remodeling ex- isting runways. Yet again, a step toward a more efficient and safe air traffic system seemed stuck at the gate. a -With Diane Brady and Brian Hindo in New Yorlc, and 111IichaeiArndt in Chicago ri-11 That Championshi season A Stacked- UpRunway ofDubious Drstinctcons a WORST NEW RECORD IN THE HISTORY OF AVIATION On -time performance hit all -time lows this year. 68% of flights arrived on time in June, 2007, down from 78% in June, 1998. WORST FLIGHT Atlantic Southeast flight 4104 had 24 scheduled departures in June at 7:38 p.m. from Atlanta to Chattanooga. It didn't leave on time even once —and the flight arrived an average of 2 hours and 23 minutes late. Given the 54- minute flight time, it would take an hour and 15 minutes less to drive. a WORST BAGGAGE HANDLERS In the first half of this year, American Eagle has flown about 9 million people and lost nearly 132,000 of their bags. for the regional carrier, that means that roughly every other flight, at least one bag will get lost. a WORST TIME TO FLY Evenings, specifically between 8 and 9. Over the past year, half of all flights in the U.S. set for departure during that hour were delayed. In New York, fully two - thirds of departures were delayed. 54 1 BusinessWeek I September 10, 2007 e WORST CARRIER Atlantic Southeast, a regional Delta- feeder based in Atlanta, Just 6411/o of its flights arrive on time, dead last among major carriers. (Hawaiian is the best, with 93% of flights on time. Aloha!) e WORST AIRPORT Chicago's O'Hare. So far this year only 64.3% of flights have departed on time from O'Hare, lowest among large airports, New York's JFK is a close second (65.8% on-time departures) and Newark (65.9%) runs third. a WORST HOMECOMING Passengers on Continental flight 1669 from Caracas to Newark got a rude welcome home earlier this ,year, The plane was diverted to Baltimore, where it sat on a runway for five hours. Passengers started banging on overhead bins in protest. They were finally allowed to leave the plane —but then were detained and questioned by police in a holding room for two hours, They did eventually make it back to Newark, about nine hours behind schedule. Data: U.S Transportation Dept (includes statistics through June 07) SusinessWeek 0 0 w z W z a N ��