Loading...
03/08/2016 - Airport Relations CommissionAGENDA EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION EAGAN MUNICIPAL CENTER EAGAN ROOM TUESDAY, MARCH 8, 2016 7:00 PM I. ROLL CALL AND AGENDA ADOPTION II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES III. VISITORS TO BE HEARD IV. OLD BUSINESS A. MAC Monthly Reports B. Debrief on January 14, 2016 Airport Town Hall Meeting V. NEW BUSINESS A. Next Generation Air Transportation System Update (Next Gen) B. 2015 Annual Noise Contour Analysis C. Economic Impact of MSP VI. STAFF/COMMISSIONER REPORT A. 2016-2017 Advisory Commission Applications VII. ROUNDTABLE VIII. ADJOURNMENT City of Eaaall Remo TO: EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION FROM: DIANNE MILLER, ASSISTANT CITY ADMINISTRATOR DATE: MARCH 3, 2016 SUBJECT: AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION MEETING/ TUESDAY, MARCH 8, 2016 The Eagan Airport Relations Commission will meet on Tuesday, March 8 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. To ensure a quorum is present, please contact Executive Assistant Cheryl Stevenson at (651) 675-5005 or cstevenson@cityofeagan.com if you are unable to attend the meeting. I. ROLL CALL AND ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA The agenda, as presented or modified, is in order for adoption by the Commission. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the November 10, 2015 are enclosed on pages 5 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 addressed on the regular agenda. Items that will take more than ten minutes or that require specific action can be scheduled for a future meeting agenda. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. MAC Monthly Reports — Enclosed are the following January 2016 MAC reports: • Technical Advisor's Report (pages 1 through 1,5a ) • Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor Analysis (pages 53through S ) • Runway 17 Departure Analysis Report (pages !j9through (p6) • 2016 Crossing -in -the -Corridor Analysis (pages (do through` ) • Runway Use System Report (a NEW report) (paged% throught) The January reports are the most current reports available on the MAC website. To access the reports electronically, go to http://www.macnoise.com/tools-reports/monthly-operations- reports. B. Debrief on January 14, 2016 Airport Town Hall Meeting—The ARC held a town hall meeting on Thursday, January 14, 2015. There were six residents in attendance, along with members of the ARC and representative of Delta, MAC, and FAA. The Commission is encouraged to discuss the format of the town hall meeting and any reactions or changes the Commission may want to consider for future meetings. The video produced for the town hall meeting has been playing on the City's website and cable television. V. NEW BUSINESS A. Next Generation Air Transportation System Update (Next Gen)—Per the 2015-2016 work plan, Commission member Dan Johnson has offered to provide an update on the Next Gen aviation initiatives underway. No formal action is required. The item is informational. B. 2015 Annual Noise Contour Analysis—Enclosed on pages CIS through is the 2015 Annual Noise Contour Analysis, comparing the 2015 actual noise contour with the 2007 forecasted noise contour. This annual analysis is developed by the MAC in compliance with the terms of the Consent Decree that was approved October 19, 2007, settling noise litigation at MSP. The noise program that resulted from the legal settlement has now been complete. An amendment to the consent decree was made in 2013 stating a home can qualify for mitigation if the annual actual noise contour report shows a home falls within the 60-64DNL for three consecutive years and did not previously receive mitigation. The level of mitigation provided would be consistent with the mitigation offered under the original consent decree. Per the 2015 report, there are homes in Minneapolis that are now located in the 60-64 DNL contours and thus have qualified for the first, or in some cases, second of three years necessary before mitigation would be provided. There are no homes in Eagan that meet the eligibility criteria for consideration of additional mitigation. The annual noise contour analysis will be discussed at the March 16, 2016 Noise Oversight Committee (NOC). The Commission is encouraged to ask questions or provide feedback on the analysis in advance of the NOC meeting. a C. Economic Impact of MSP—Per the 2015-2016 ARC Work Plan, the Commission asked to discuss the economic impacts of MSP Airport. The Commission has heard previously from the Executive Director of the Dakota County Regional Chamber and the Executive Director of the Eagan Convention and Visitors' Bureau about the economic benefits of the airport to the City of Eagan and surrounding region. In response to a request for information on the economics of the airport, the Metropolitan Airports Commission ?) (MAC) provided the economic impact study enclosed on pages VA and 5 The study can also be viewed online at http://www.metroairports.org/documents/MSP-Economic- Impact-Study-2012-FINAL-REPORT march2.aspx. The MAC has also prepared two short videos that speak to the economic impact of the airport on our region. Those videos will be shown at the ARC meeting. VI. STAFF / COMMISSIONER REPORT A. 2016-2017 Advisory Commission Applications—The City is currently accepting applications to serve on one of four City advisory commissions. Applications are being accepted through Friday, March 18, 2016. All incumbents whose terms are expiring must reapply. VII. ROUNDTABLE Per the request of the Commission, this agenda item has been added so that Commissioners have the opportunity to ask questions or make requests for future agenda items. 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. /s/Dianne E. Miller Assistant City Administrator 4 MINUTES OF THE EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 10, 2015 A meeting of the Eagan Airport Relations Commission was held on Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. Those present were Charles Thorkildson, Carol Whisnant, Scott Johnson, Dan Johnson, Thomas McCauley, Jeff Spartz, and Assistant City Administrator Miller. Jim Waldhauser and Matthew Henderson were unable to be in attendance. The meeting was called to order by Chair Thorkildson. AGENDA Assistant City Administrator Miller noted under New Business Item A. Next Generation Air Transportation System Update, Commissioner Johnson requested it be postponed to the March 8, 2016 ARC meeting. Miller also noted two updates under Staff/Commissioner Report, with regard to the Fleet Mix at MSP and Converging Runway Operations. Commissioner Johnson moved, Commissioner Spartz seconded a motion to approve the agenda as presented. All members voted in favor. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Whisnant moved, Commissioner Johnson seconded a motion to approve the minutes from the September 8, 2015 meeting. All members voted in favor. There were no visitors to be heard. VISITORS TO BE HEARD PRESENTATION Assistant City Administrator Miller introduced Ray Brown from Delta Airlines, who joined the Commission via telephone to speak on the topic of airplane performance, noise adjustments to engines, etc. Miller noted Mr. Brown is the Manager of Advanced Development in Delta's Aircraft Performance and Engineering Department. The Commission and Mr. Brown discussed airplane performance, noise adjustments to engines and several other items. NEW BUSINESS Town Hall Meeting Planning / Thursday, January 14, 2016 Assistant City Administrator Miller noted the town hall meeting has been scheduled for Thursday, January 14, 2016 from 7-8:30 p.m. at the Eagan Community Center. The Commission is invited to talk about the format they would like to use for the town hall meeting, along with any specific topics to be covered, speakers to be invited, and avenues to communicate with the public about the event. Commissioner Spartz suggested having a short educational component. Commissioner Johnson agreed and noted he liked last year's format that included representatives from the MAC, FAA, and Delta. He suggested possibly including a representative from Sun Country to attend this year's meeting. Johnson noted maybe we could kick off the meeting with an informational session. There was consensus to do Airport Relations Commission Minutes November 10, 2015 Page 2 video interviews in advance of the meeting and show them as part of the introduction. Johnson suggested adding a short analysis on the weather component. Miller noted the City will issue a press release, put information on the City's website, and include a promotion about the event in the January City newsletter. STAFF/COMMISSIONER REPORT 2015-2016 ARC Work Pian Assistant City Administrator Miller noted the enclosed work plan was approved by the City Council at the October 13th meeting. Fleet Mix at MSP Assistant City Administrator Miller distributed the 2015 fleet mix report from the MAC< which summarizes annual carrier jet percentages by type from 2010 -YTD 2015. Converging Runway Operations Assistant City Administrator Miller distributed a memo from the MAC with regard to MSP Converging Runway Operations (CRO) on Runway 35. Miller noted that the FAA has determined that prevailing south winds have not provided opportunity to evaluate the CRO procedures thoroughly, and as such has extended its evaluation period another 120 days, ending February 24, 2016. There were no roundtable items. ROUNDTABLE ADJOURNMENT Upon motion by Whisnant, seconded by Thorkildson, the meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. All members voted in favor. Date Secretary January 2016 Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) Technical Advisor's Report r. IGHT colq U 0 Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Table of Contents for January 2016 Complaint Summary 1 Noise Complaint Map 2 FAA Available Time for Runway Usage 3 MSP All Operations Runway Usage 4 MSP Carrier Jet Operations Runway Usage 5 MSP Carrier Jet Fleet Composition 6 MSP All Operations Nighttime Runway Usage 7 MSP Carrier Jet Operations Nighttime Runway Usage 8 MSP Scheduled Nighttime Operators 9 13 MSP Top 15 Nighttime Operators by Type 14 MSP Top 15 Nighttime Operators Stage Mix 15 Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks 16-19 MSP Remote Monitoring Tower Site Locations Map 20 Time Above dB Threshold for Carrier Jet Arrival Related Noise Events 21 Time Above dB Threshold for Carrier Jet Departure Related Noise Events 22 Carrier Jet Arrival Related Noise Events 23 Carrier Jet Departure Related Noise Events 24 MSP Top Ten Aircraft Noise Events per RMT 25-37 Analysis of Daily and Monthly Aircraft Noise Events DNL 38-44 A Product of the MAC Noise Program Office MSP Complaints by City January 2016 City Complaint Art ival Departure 68 Other Number of Complaints Number of Complainants % of Total Complaints EAGAN 0 4883 11 1 4414 1056 9 220 498 1575 29 28.4% MINNEAPOLIS 1 Structural Disturbance 213 1 Other 620 21 Total 581 1437 128 25.9% RICHFIELD 0 0 29 473 192 9 703 10 12.7% GOLDEN VALLEY 0 0 0 0 0 473 473 1 8.5% BLOOMINGTON 0 0 0 271 6 64 34I 26 6.1% :MINNETONKA 1 11 0 0 3 314 329 12 5.9% EDINA 0 2 0 190 22 20 234 16 4.2% MENDOTA HIEIGHrfS 0 0 0 46 24 99 169 13 3% SA [NT LOUIS PARK 0 114 0 0 12 15 141 21 2.5% APPLE VALLEY 0 0 0 44 1 24 69 5 1.2% SAINT PAUL 0 0 0 1 2 15 18 14 0.3% BURNSVILLE 0 0 0 14 3 0 17 2 0.3% EDEN PRAIRIE 0 7 0 1 1 0 9 3 0.2% SAVAGE 0 0 0 4 0 1 5 1 0.1% MOUNDS VIEW 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 1 0.1% SUNFISH[ LAKE 0 0 0 3 0 1 4 2 0.1% LAKEVILLE 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 1 0.1% SAINT ANTHONY 0 0 0 2 0 1 3 1 0.1% CHANHASSEN 0 2 0 1 0 0 3 2 0.1% PLYMOUTH 0 1 0 0 1 1 3 3 0.1% INVER GROVE HEIGHTS 0 0 0 2 1 0 3 2 0.1% WEST SAINT PAUL 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 1 0% ROSEMOUNT 0 0 0 0 0 1 l 1 0% Total 363 2764 2420 5547 295 Nature of MSP Complaints Complaint Total Early/Late 68 1222 Engine Run-up 0 648 Excessive Noise 205 4883 Frequency 178 4414 Ground Noise 7 220 Helicopter 0 15 Low Flying 31. 2948 Structural Disturbance 3 1842 Other 3 677 Total 17364 Note: Shaded Columns represent MSP complaints filed via the Internet. Sum of% Total of Complaints may not equal 100% due to rounding. *As of May 2005, the MSP Complaints by City report includes multiple complaint descriptors per individual complaint. Therefore, the number of complaint descriptors may be more than the number of reported complaints. Time of Day Time Total 0000-0559 58 248 0600-0659 29 207 0700-1159 168 1321 1200-1559 9 714 1600-1959 31 1274 2000-2159 23 925 2200-2259 8 480 2300-2359 5 47 Total 5547 Complaints by Airport Airport Total MSP 5547 Airlake 0 Anoka 159 Crystal 0 Plying Cloud 79 Lake Elmo 31 St. Paul 24 Mise. 0 Total 5840 Report Generated: 02/10/2016 08:28 sok -1- MSP International Airport Aviation Noise Complaints for January 2016 Number of Complainants (Households) per grid square h 0 Labels show % of total monthly complaints Complainant locations not shown on map: 1 from Mounds View (5 complaints), 2 from Chanhassen (3 complaints) -2- k0 Report Generated: 02/10/2016 08:28 Available Hours for Runway Use January 2016 (Source: FAA Aviation Systems Performance Metrics Data) St. Paul Iv ISSISSIPPIiRNER Nighttime Hours 10:30pm to 6:OOam MISSISSIPPIW • F2, -,5 -=•,7 - Report _-_; NG MEADOW L•A4KE Report Generated: 02/10/2016 08:28 1\ -3- All Operations Runway Use Report January 2016 RWY Arrival/ Departure Overflight Area Count Operations Percent Last Year Count Last Year Percent 04 Arr So. Richfield/Bloomington 0 0% 1 0% 12L Arr So, Minneapolis/No. Richfield 3188 20.2% 2912 18.6% 12R Arr So, Minneapolis/No. Richfield 3548 22.4% 3202 20.4% 17 Arr So. Minneapolis 0 0% 0 0% 22 Arr St. Paul/Highland Park 0 0% 1 0% 30L Arr Eagan/Mendota Heights 3830 24.2% 3425 21.8% 30R Arr Eagan/Mendota Heights 3518 22.3% 3640 23.2% 35 Arr Bloomington/Eagan 1724 10.9% 2505 16% Total Arrivals 15808 15686 RWY Arrival/ Departure Overflight Area Count Operations Percent Last Year Count Last Year Percent 04 Dep St. Paul/Highland Park 0 0% 3 0% 12L Dep Eagan/Mendota Heights 1872 11.9% 1915 12.2% 12R Dep Eagan/Mendota Heights 949 6% 1038 6,6% 17 Dep Bloomington/Eagan 4468 28.3% 4364 27.8% 22 Dep So, Richfield/Bloomington 3 0% 4 0% 30L Dep So. Minneapolis/No. Richfield 4898 31% 4873 31,1% 30R Dep So. Minneapolis/No. Richfield 3599 22.8% 3488 22.2% 35 Dep So. Minneapolis 0 0% 0 0% Total Departures 15789 15685 Total Operations 31597 31371 Su n of RUS % inay no equal 100% due to rounding. -4- Report Generated: 02/10/2016 08:28 Carrier Jet Operations Runway Use Report January 2016 RWY Arrival/ Departure Overflight Area Count Operations Percent Last Year Count Last Year Percent 04 Arr So. Richfield/Bloomington 0 0% 0 0% 12L Arr So, Minneapolis/No. Richfield 2987 20.4% 2767 18.9% 12R Arr So. Minneapolis/No. Richfield 3241 22.1% 2895 19.8% 17 Arr So. Minneapolis 0 0% 0 0% 22 Arr St. Paul/Highland Park 0 0% 1 0% 30L Arr Eagan/Mendota Heights 3462 23.6% 3096 21.2% 30R Arr Eagan/Mendota Heights 3351 22.8% 3545 24.2% 35 Arr Bloomington/Eagan 1629 11.1% 2327 15.9% Total Arrivals 14670 14631 RWY Arrival/ Departure Overflight Area Count Operations Percent Last Year Count Last Year Percent 04 Dep St. Paul/Highland Park 0 0% 0 0% 12L Dep Eagan/Mendota Heights 1639 1l.2% 1777 12.2% 12R Dep Eagan/Mendota Heights 873 6% 906 6.2% 17 Dep Bloomington/Eagan 4204 28.7% 4116 28.2% 22 Dep So. Richfield/Bloomington 0 0% 0 0% 30L Dep So. Minneapolis/No. Richfield 4579 31.3% 4522 30.9% 30R Dep So. Minneapolis/No. Richfield 3357 22.9% 3296 22.5% 35 Dep So. Minneapolis 0 0% 0 0% Total Departures 14652 14617 Total Operations 29322 29248 um of RUJ "/o may not equal I W% Clue to rounuil6. Report Generated: 02/10/2016 08:28 -5- January 2016 MSP Carrier Jet Fleet Composition Type FAR Part 36 Take - Off Noise Level' Aircraft Description Stage Count Percent DC10 101.8 McDonnell Douglas DC10 3 36 0.1% B744 101.6 Boeing 747-400 3 4 0% 8763 95.7 Boeing 767-300 3 399 1.4% A330 95.6 Airbus Industries A330 3 258 0.9% MD11 92.8 McDonnell Douglas MD11 3 185 0.6% B762 92.1 Boeing767-200 3 43 0.1% MD80 91.5 McDonnell Douglas MD80 3 968 3.3% A300 91.5 Airbus Industries A300 3 4 0% 13757 91.4 Boeing 757-200 3 1375 4.7% B764 91.2 Boeing 767-400 3 60 0.2% A321 89,8 Airbus industries A321 3 193 0.7% B734 88.9 Boeing 737-400 3 19 0.1% B738 88.6 Boeing 737-800 3 2480 8.5% B739 88.4 Boeing 737-900 3 621 2.1% A320 87.8 Airbus Industries A320 3 3284 11.2% 13733 87.5 Boeing 737-300 3 189 0.6% A319 87.4 Airbus Industries A319 3 1745 6% E190 86.9 Embraer 190 3 121 0,4% B7377 85.9 Boeing 737-700 3 1281 4.4% E170 84.6 Embraer 170 3 2097 7.2% CRJ9 84.6 Canadair Regional Jet CRJ-900 3 4176 14.2% MD90 84,2 McDonnell Douglas MD90 3 2275 7.8% B717 84.1 Boeing 717 3 493 1.7% E145 83.7 Embraer 145 3 171 0.6% CR.17 83.2 Canadair Regional Jet CRJ-700 3 1358 4.6% CRJ1 79.8 Canadair Regional Jet CRJ-100 3 2 0%- CRJ2 78.7 Canadair Regional Jet CRJ-200 3 5469 18.7% 13135 77.9 Embraer 135 3 16 0.1% Totals 29322 Sum of fleet unix % may not equal 100% due to rounding. NOTE 1: Stage 3 represent aircraft modified to meet all Stage 3 criteria as outlined in Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 36. This includes hushkit engines, engine retrofits or aircraft operational flight configurations. -The Provided Noise levels from FAR Part 36 are the loudest levels documented for the representative aircraft type during take -off measured in EPNL dBA (Effective Perceived Noise Level). -EPNL is the level of the time integral of the antilogarithm of one-tenth of tone -corrected perceived noise level of an aircraft flyover measured in A -weighted decibels. NOTE 2: Due to flight tracking data enhancements, the air carrier operations counts for Last Year included in this report have been updated to reflect revised aircraft type counts. Please refer to the interactive reports at www.macnoise.com for detailed information regarding aircraft types. -6- iLi Report Generated: 02/10/2016 08:28 Count Current Percent Last Year Percent' Stage 2 0 0% 0% Stage 3 0 0% 0% Stage 3 Manufactured 29322 100% 100% Total Stage 3 29322 NOTE 1: Stage 3 represent aircraft modified to meet all Stage 3 criteria as outlined in Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 36. This includes hushkit engines, engine retrofits or aircraft operational flight configurations. -The Provided Noise levels from FAR Part 36 are the loudest levels documented for the representative aircraft type during take -off measured in EPNL dBA (Effective Perceived Noise Level). -EPNL is the level of the time integral of the antilogarithm of one-tenth of tone -corrected perceived noise level of an aircraft flyover measured in A -weighted decibels. NOTE 2: Due to flight tracking data enhancements, the air carrier operations counts for Last Year included in this report have been updated to reflect revised aircraft type counts. Please refer to the interactive reports at www.macnoise.com for detailed information regarding aircraft types. -6- iLi Report Generated: 02/10/2016 08:28 Nighttime All Operations 10:30 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. Runway Use Report January 2016 RWY Arrival/ Departure Overflight Area Count Operations Percent Last Year Count Last Year Percent 04 Arr So. Richfield/Bloomington 0 0% 0 0% 12L Arr So. Minneapolis/No. Richfield 176 13.7% 119 10.3% 12R Arr So. Minneapolis/No. Richfield 244 19% 266 23.1% 17 Arr So. Minneapolis 0 0% 0 0% 22 Arr St. Paul/Highland Park 0 0% 0 0% 30L Arr Eagan/Mendota Heights 637 49.7% 537 46.7% 30R Arr Eagan/Mendota Heights 223 17.4% 203 17.6% 35 Arr Bloomington/Eagan 1 0.1% 26 2.3% Total Arrivals 1281 1151 RWY Arrival/ Departure Overflight Area Count Operations Percent Last Year Count Last Year Percent 04 Dep St. Paul/Highland Park 0 0% 0 0% 12L Dep Eagan/Mendota Heights 74 12.5% 45 12.5% 12R Dep Eagan/Mendota Heights 143 24.2% 105 29.2% 17 Dep Bloomington/Eagan 42 7.1% 50 13.9% 22 Dep So. Richfield/Bloomington 0 0% 1 0.3% 30L Dep So. Minneapolis/No. Richfield 197 33,4% 119 33.1% 30R Dep So. Minneapolis/No. Richfield 134 22.7% 40 11.1% 35 Dep So. Minneapolis 0 0% 0 0% Total Departures 590 360 Total Operations 1871 1511 Su n of RUS % may not equal 100% due to rounding, Report Generated: 02/10/2016 08:28 -7- Nighttime Carrier Jet Operations 10:30 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. Runway Use Report January 2016 RWY Arrival/ Departure Overflight Area Count Operations Percent Last Year Count Last Year Percent 04 Arr So. Richfield/Bloomington 0 0% 0 0% 12L Arr So. Minneapolis/No. Richfield 165 13.5% 116 10.6% 12R Arr So. Minneapolis/No. Richfield 235 19.3% 254 23.1% 17 Arr So. Minneapolis 0 0% 0 0% 22 Arr St. Paul/Highland Park 0 0% 0 0% 30L Arr Eagan/Mendota Heights 602 49.3% 509 46.3% 30R Arr Eagan/Mendota Heights 217 17.8% 194 17.7% 35 Arr Bloomington/Eagan 1 0.1% 26 2.4% Total Arrivals 1220 1099 RWY Arrival/ Departure Overflight Area Count Operations Percent Last Year Count Last Year Percent 04 Dep St. Paul/Highland Park 0 0% 0 0% 12L Dep Eagan/Mendota Heights 73 13.1% 43 12.6% 12R Dep Eagan/Mendota Heights 137 24.5% 99 29% 17 Dep Bloomington/Eagan 41 7.3% 46 13.5% 22 Dep So. Richfield/Bloomington 0 0% 0 0% 30L Dep So. Minneapolis/No. Richfield 174 31.1% 114 33.4% 30R Dep So. Minneapolis/No. Richfield 134 24% 39 11.4% 35 Dep So. Minneapolis 0 0% 0 0% Total Departures 559 341 Total Operations 1779 1440 Sum of RUS % may not equal 100% due to rounding. -8- 10 Report Generated: 02/10/2016 08:28 220 200 180 cn 160 4 144 u`a Q 120 100 cu 80 Z 60 40 20 0 February 2016 Nighttime Scheduled Carrier Jet Operations 10:30 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. o LC) o In C. In c. tri C. LC> o to o ir, o IC) C. LC) o in o Ir a �C} o ira €> ori ff LL , c, v o l C) cr o c o t r -,- o CO :r o cr o C r o C) v .. .. . .. .. . .. . . CW hJ C7 {ry CJ 07 0 4 0 0 +r-1 rl rl C> C^J N — N M C? M C7 ct cY cY C. IC} — C. C. CV CV CV CV N N C. G. O C. C. O {} {? O {} O Q Q C? C3 t3 t? 4 C. C. O C. C. Q Time February 2016 Nighttime Scheduled Carrier Jet Operations 10:30 b.m. to 6:00 a.m. AAL scx OAL SWA EUI plus UAL UPS FFT ';. FOX Cil ASA... Airline Stage 2 Stage 3 Manufactured Stage 3 Total American (AAL) 0 0 283 283 Sun Country (SCX) 0 0 230 230 Delta (DAL) 0 0 140 140 Southwest (SWA) 0 0 120 120 Spirit (NKS) 0 0 113 113 United (UAL) 0 0 102 102 UPS (UPS) 0 0 60 60 Frontier Airlines (F.FT) 0 0 52 52 Fedex (FDX) 0 0 36 36 Alaska (ASA) 0 0 28 28 Total 0 0 1164 1164 Report Generated: 02/10/2016 08:28 1'1 - 9 - February 2016 Nighttime Scheduled Carrier Jet Operations Time A/D Carrier Flight Number Equipment Stage 3 Days of Operation Routing 22:30 A Southwest 566 B737 M MTWThF FLL ATL MSP 22:30 A Southwest 566 B737 M Su FLL ATL MSP 22:35 A United 3326 E170 M WThFSu EWRMSP 22:42 A Sun Country 106 B738 M W LAS MSP 22:45 A Sun Country 732 B737 M S SXM MSP 22:45 A Southwest 1870 B737 M Su TUS DEN MSP 22:51 A United 6359 E170 M T SFO MSP 22:51 A United 5315 E170 M MTWThF SFO MSP 22:53 A Delta 652 B753 M Su ATL MSP 22:55 A Sun Country 404 B737 M MF SAN MSP 22:55 A Southwest 3987 B737 M S HOU PHX MSP 22:56 A Delta 1067 B757 M Su ATL MSP 22:57 A Delta 1067 MD90 M MTWThFSu ATL MSP 22:57 A Delta 652 B763 M MThF ATL MSP 22:58 A American 239 B738 M MTWThFSSu DFW MSP 22:59 A Delta 505 B757 M S SXM MSP 22:59 A Sun Country 608 B738 M MWThF PHX MSP 22:59 A Sun Country 608 B737 M S PHX MSP 23:00 A Southwest 2239 738 M MTWThFSu i -IOU MDW MSP 23:00 A Delta 505 B757 M S SXM MSP 23:00 D Sun Country 781 B738 M Su MSP SJU 23:00 A Southwest 2451 B737 M S MCO ATL MSP 23:00 A Southwest 2564 738 M Su MDW MSP 23:01 A United 6359 E170 M W SFO MSP 23:01 A United 669 A320 M T SMF DEN MSP 23:01 A Spirit 428 A320 M MTWThFSSu TPA MSP 23:05 A United 669 A319 M MWF SMP DEN MSP 23:06 A United 669 A320 M T SMF DEN MSP 23:09 A Sun Country 248 B737 M TThSu JFK MSP 23:09 A Sun Country 254 B737 M ThSu BOS MSP 23:10 A Sun Country 396 B737 M MW SFO MSP 23:11 A United 6359 E170 M. T SFO MSP 23:14 A Sun Country 346 B738 M MFSSu MCO MSP 23:14 A United 669 A320 M S DEN MSP 23:14 A United 669 A320 M MTThF SMF DEN MSP 23:15 A United 669 B738 M MW SMF DEN MSP 23:16 A Sun Country 426 B737 M MW LAX MSP 23:16 A Sun Country 426 B738 M M LAX MSP 23:18 A United 669 A319 M Su SMF DEN MSP 23:18 A United 669 A320 M T SMF DEN MSP 23:20 A Sun Country 582 B738 M FS CUN MSP 23:21 A United 669 A320 M. F SMF DEN MSP 23:21 A United 6359 E170 M MThF SFO MSP 23:24 A American 1226 MD80 M MTWThFSSu ORD MSP 23:27 A American 1621 B738 M. MTWThFSu LGA MIA MSP 23:27 A Sun Country 106 B738 M Th LAS MSP 23:27 A American 1621 B738 M S MIA MSP 23:28 A United 5315 E170 M M SFO MSP 23:30 A Southwest 2347 B737 M Su SFO DEN MSP 23:30 A Southwest 3671 B737 M MTWThF SFO DEN MSP -10- Report Generated: 02/10/2016 08:28 February 2016 Nighttime Scheduled Carrier Jet Operations Time A/D Carrier Flight Number Equipment Stage 3 Days of Operation Routing 23:31 A United 5315 E170 M Su SFO MSP 23:37 A Delta 2049 A319 M Su SLC MSP 23:39 A Sun Country 370 B737 M T TPA MSP 23:39 A Sun Country 370 B738 M ThSu TPA MSP 23:39 A American 1226 MD80 M MTWThFSu ORD MSP 23:40 A Sun Country 236 B737 M MTWThFSu DCA MSP 23:40 A Delta 2049 A320 M MT WF SLC MSP 23:44 A Delta 1974 B739 M TW LAX MSP 23:46 A United 5593 E170 M Th LAX MSP 23:48 A United 5593 E170 M MTWThFSSu LAX MSP 23:49 A Sun Country 388 B738 M ThSSu RSW MSP 23:49 A Delta 1974 B739 M MThFSu LAX MSP 23:49 A United 5593 E170 M. MTWThF PHX LAX MSP 23:54 A Delta 1889 B739 M MTWThF SLC MSP 23:54 A Delta 1889 738 M Su SLC MSP 23:55 A Delta 1451 B738 M S ATL MSP 23:55 A Frontier Airlines 330 A319 M M DEN MSP 23:55 A Delta 2287 738 M. Su ATL MSP 23:56 A Delta 1451 B752 M S ATL MSP 23:56 A Delta 1889 B757 M Su SLC MSP 23:56 A Delta 1974 B739 M F LAX MSP 23:56 A Frontier Airlines 332 A320 M MT DEN MSP 23:57 A American 2027 A320 M S SLC Pi -IX MSP 23:57 A American 1262 B738 M MTWThFSSu SEA PI -IX MSP 23:57 A Delta 2287 B763 M Th ATL MSP 23:57 A American 2027 A320 M T SNA PHX MSP 23:57 A Delta 2287 738 M MTWThF ATL MSP 23:57 A Delta 1451 738 M. MTWThFSu ATL MSP 23:57 A American 2027 A321 M MWTh PDX PHX MSP 23:58 A Sun Country 618 B738 M MW PSP MSP 23:58 A Sun Country 618 B737 M FS PSP MSP 23:59 A Sun Country 608 B738 M Su PHX MSP 23:59 A United 5593 E170 M F LAX MSP 00:04 A Frontier Airlines 332 A319 M MTWThFSSu DEN MSP 00:04 A Frontier Airlines 332 A320 M MTWThFSSu DEN MSP 00:07 A American 2039 A320 M Su SJU CLT MSP 00:07 A American 2039 A321 M M FLL CLT MSP 00:07 A American 2039 A321 M TWThFS LAX CLT MSP 00:15 D Spirit 597 A320 M MTWThFSSu MSP FLL 00:15 A Sun Country 548 B738 M Su SJD MSP 00:20 A Sun Country 540 B738 M MS PVR. MSP 00:20 A Sun Country 540 B737 M Su PVR MSP 00:28 A Frontier Airlines 332 A319 M F DEN MSP 00:30 A Sun Country 596 B738 M. SSu MZT MSP 00:35 A Spirit 596 A320 M MTWThFSSu FLL MSP 00:36 A Spirit 596 A320 M MTWThFSSu FLL MSP 00:45 A Sun Country 544 B738 M MSSu CUN MSP 03:29 A UPS 1460 B757 M S 03:36 A UPS 554 B757 M TF 03:48 A UPS 556 B757 M T Report Generated: 02/10/2016 08:28 - 11 - February 2016 Nighttime Scheduled Carrier Jet Operations Time A/D Carrier Flight Number Equipment Stage 3 Days of Operation Routing 04:19 A UPS 556 B757 M TWThF 04:25 A Fedex 8364 FA20 TWThF 04:31 A UPS 558 B757 M TWThF 05:00 A Sun Countiy 110 B738 M MTFSSu LAS MSP 05:00 D American 1041 MD80 M MTWThFSSu MSP ORD 05:00 D American 852 A320 M Su MSP CLT NAS 05:00 D American 2274 B738 M MTWThFSSu MSP DFW 05:00 D American 455 A321 M S MSP PHX SLC 05:01 A American 2111 A320 M F PHX MSP 05:05 D United 5859 CRJ M MTWThFS MSP IAH 05:05 D American 1832 A321 M MTWThF MSP CLT EWR 05:05 D American 1832 A319 M MTWThF MSP CLT EWR 05:05 D American 581 A319 M Th MSP PHX 05:05 D American 1107 B738 M MTWThFSSu MSP PHX LAS 05:05 D American 1982 A321 M S MSP CLT BOS 05:05 D United 5246 CRJ M MThFSSu MSP IAH 05:05 D American 455 A320 M MTWThSu MSP PI -IX SLC 05:06 A Sun Country 430 B738 M MS LAX MSP 05:07 A Alaska 28 B737 M MTWThFSSu SEA MSP 05:08 A UPS 560 MD11 M TWThF 05:09 A Alaska 28 B737 M MTWThFSSu SEA MSP 05:12 A Fedex 1718 MD11 M TWThF 05:19 A American 1969 A321 M S PHX MSP 05:19 A American 476 A321 M F PHX MSP 05:19 A American 476 A320 M MTS PHX MSP 05:19 A American 879 A321 M MTWThF MSP CLT PLS 05:19 A American 476 A319 M Su PHX MSP 05:25 D Delta 1991 B753 M S MSP ATL 05:25 A Sun Country 398 B738 M MFS SFO MSP 05:25 A Delta 1457 B739 M M PHX MSP 05:25 D Delta 1991 B757 M M.TWThFSu MSP ATL 05:25 D Delta 1991 MD90 M Su MSP ATL 05:25 A Delta 1457 B763 M S PHX MSP 05:25 D American 1041 MD80 M S MSP ORD 05:25 D Delta 1991 B752 M Th MSP ATL 05:25 D Delta 1991 A320 M Su MSP ATL 05:27 A Delta 1457 B753 M F PHX MSP 05:27 A Delta 1457 B763 M MTWThF PHX MSP 05:30 D American 309 B738 M MTWThFSSu MSP MIA 05:30 D Frontier Airlines 333 A319 M MTWThFSSu MSP DEN 05:30 D Frontier Airlines 333 A320 M MTWThFSSu MSP DEN 05:30 D Sun Country 563 B738 M SSu MSP CUN 05:31 A United 240 B739 M M SFO MSP 05:37 A Fedex 1407 MD11 M TWThFS 05:40 A Spirit 612 A320 M. MTWThFSSu LAS MSP ORD 05:45 A Spirit 612 A320 M MTWThFSSu LAS MSP ORD 05:45 D Southwest 2745 B737 M MTWThF MSP ATL 05:47 A Delta 1550 B753 M M SFO MSP 05:47 A Delta 2440 738 M S SEA MSP 05:50 A Delta 2440 B738 M MTWThF SEA MSP - 12 - Report Generated: 02/10/2016 08:28 February 2016 i ighttime Scheduled Carrier Jet Operations Time A/D Carrier Flight Number Equipment Stage 3 Days of Operation Routing 05:50 A Delta 1704 A320 M MTWThF LAS MSP 05:50 D United 520 B739 M M MSP ORD MSY 05:50 D Unitecl 520 B738 M Th MSP ORD MSY 05:50 D United 520 B738 M MTThF MSP ORD MSY 05:50 A Delta 1550 MD90 M MT SFO MSP 05:50 D United 520 13739 M W MSP ORD 05:50 D Southwest 2897 B737 M MTWThF MSP MDW MCI 05:50 A Delta 1704 A319 M W LAS MSP 05:50 A Delta 1704 B757 M T LAS MSP 05:52 A UPS 496 B757 Ivl S 05:56 A Delta 1450 B763 M. S LAS MSP 05:57 A Delta 1450 B752 M W LAS MSP 05:58 A Delta 1450 B763 M MTWThF LAS MSP 05:58 A Delta 1450 B739 M F LAS MSP Report Generated: 02/10/2016 08:28 9,` - 13 - January 2016 Top 15 Actual Nighttime Jet Operators by Type 10:30 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. Total Nighttime Jet Operations by Hour Hour Count 2230 400 2300 488 2400 180 100 53 200 18 300 13 400 98 500 529 TOTAL 1779 Airline ID Stage Type Count Aero Dynamics DYN 3 E145 5 Alaska ASA 3 B738 1 Alaska ASA 3 B739 30 American AAL 3 E190 1 American AAL 3 A319 22 American AAL 3 A321 53 American AAL 3 M.D80 56 American AAL 3 A320 60 American AAL 3 B738 108 Atlantic Southeast ASQ 3 E145 1 Atlantic Southeast ASQ 3 CRJ7 15 Delta DAL 3 A330 2 Delta DAL 3 MD80 6 Delta DAL 3 B717 8 Delta DAL 3 B739 21 Delta DAL 3 MD90 40 Delta DAL 3 B763 41 Delta DAL 3 A319 42 Delta DAL 3 B738 50 Delta DAL 3 A320 58 Delta DAL 3 B757 87 Endeavor Air FLG 3 CRJ2 25 Endeavor Air FLG 3 CRJ9 60 Fedex FDX 3 MD11 28 Frontier Airlines FFT 3 A319 2 Frontier Airlines FFT 3 A320 51 Republic Airlines RPA 3 E170 10 Skywest Airlines SKW 3 CRJ7 34 Skywest Airlines SKW 3 CRJ9 38 Skywest Airlines S.KW 3 E170 55 Skywest Airlines SKW 3 CRJ2 104 Southwest SWA 3 B733 10 Southwest SWA 3 B738 32 Southwest SWA 3 B7377 61 Spirit NKS 3 A320 133 Sun Country SCX 3 B7377 66 Sun Country SCX 3 B738 225 United UAL 3 B739 1 United UAL 3 B738 1 United UAL 3 B7377 6 United UAL 3 A320 13 United UAL 3 A319 15 UPS UPS 3 A300 2 UPS UPS 3 MD11 17 UPS UPS 3 B757 50 TOTAL 1746 -14- Report Generated: 02/10/2016 08:28 Number of Operations 260 240 220 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 January 2016 Nighttime Carrier Jet Operations Mix for Top 15 Airlines 10:30 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. c, o -i N N M M N N N N N N M Q 4 Q 0 O a M 0 0 O 0 c0i O Time 4 LC) O a o 0 I[7 O IC) O IC) O IC} 0 IC7 0 IC7 si M t. O rl C•7 0 M d- V i Ii i LL J 0 Ii i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 January 2016 Nighttime Carrier Jet Fleet Stage Mix for Top 15 Airlines 10:30 p.m. to 6: Airline Stage 2 Stage 3 Manufactured Stage 3 Total Delta (DAL) 0 0 355 355 American (AAL) 0 0 300 300 Sun Country (SCX) 0 0 291 291 Skywest Airlines (SKW) 0 0 231 231 Spirit (NKS) 0 0 133 133 Southwest (SWA) 0 0 103 103 Endeavor Air (FLG) 0 0 85 85 UPS (UPS) 0 0 69 69 Frontier Airlines (FFT) 0 0 53 53 United (UAL) 0 0 36 36 Alaska (ASA) 0 0 31 31 Fedex (FDX) 0 0 28 28 Atlantic Southeast (ASQ) 0 0 16 16 Republic Airlines (RPA) 0 0 10 10 Aero Dynamics (DYN) 0 0 5 5 Other 0 0 33 33 Total 0 0 1779 1779 -15- Report Generated: 02/10/2016 08:28 Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks Carrier Jet Operations - January 2016 Jan 1 thru 8, 2016 - 3885 Carrier Jet Arrivals Jan 1 thru 8, 2016 - 3883 Carrier Jet Departures Average Daily Operations a ti� by y^ 99 ry©5P (010 �p� h �ry�e h�Ox Jan 1 thru 8, 2016 - 340 Nighttime* Carrier Jet Arrivals Jan 1 thru 8, 2016 - 178 Nighttime* Carrier Jet Departures F = hMin9eapoiis P1a. IS SI ,PI RIVER *NOTE: Nighttime is 10:30 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. Report Generated: 02/10/2016 08:28 - 16 - Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks Carrier Jet Operations - January 2016 Jan 9 thru 16, 2016 - 3742 Carrier Jet Arrivals Jan 9 thru 16, 2016 - 3728 Carrier Jet Departures Average Daily Operations h ^b '� .4>'0 e Jan 9 thru 16, 2016 - 306 Nighttime* Carrier Jet Arrivals Jan 9 thru 16, 2016 - 136 Nighttime* Carrier Jet Departures eapolis 1 SISSIPPI RIVER *NOTE: Nighttime is 10:30 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. -17- R6- Report Generated: 02/10/2016 08:28 Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks Carrier Jet Operations - January 2016 Jan 17 thru 24, 2016 - 3693 Carrier Jet Arrivals Jan 17 thru 24, 2016 - 3687 Carrier Jet Departures Average Daily Operations 111111.11 y �O y0 4,q 1 �tjq. .`l�' ^O qx Jan 17 thru 24, 2016 - 304 Nighttime* Carrier Jet Arrivals Jan 17 thru 24, 2016 - 127 Nighttime* Carrier Jet Departures eapolis P / MISSISSIPPI RIVER •Vii..,,-`�S_ Blooming' LONG ME' •oOWLAKE/ ,Vfwr►rrx,�..- + „NNIc roy ". ...1., OUr:1 d * -....1,.,r4761,„, " i!° 3r.r^-w415 a-aat\i��' 1 %moi`." -0014104, :��' 40. *NOTE: Nighttime is 10:30 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. Report Generated: 02/10/2016 08:28 - 18 - Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks Carrier Jet Operations - January 2016 Jan 25 thru 31, 2016 - 3350 Carrier Jet Arrivals Jan 25 thru 31, 2016 - 3354 Carrier Jet Departures Average Daily Operations 17,t MINN b Jan 25 thru 31, 2016 - 270 Nighttime* Carrier Jet Arrivals Jan 25 thru 31, 2016 - 118 Nighttime* Carrier Jet Departures 'Minneapoll's �;Y @ ISSIS t. ISI SIPPI RIVER *NOTE: Nighttime is 10:30 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. - 19 - Report Generated: 02/10/2016 08:28 MSP International Airport Remote Monitoring Tower (RMT) Site Locations Remote Monitoring Tower Note: The following pages contain noise data representative of real-time recordings from the Remote Monitoring Towers. Occasional data losses occur as a result of short-term equipment malfunctions and routine maintenance. Report Generated: 02/10/2016 08:28 - 20 - Time Above dB Threshold for Arrival Related Noise Events January 2016 RMT ID City Address Time >= 65dB Time >= 80dB Time >= 90dB Time >= 100dB 1 Minneapolis Xerxes Ave. & 41st St. 08:00:40 00:00:15 00:00:00 00:00:00 2 Minneapolis Fremont Ave. & 43rd St. 11:53:48 00:02:56 00:00:02 00:00:00 3 Minneapolis West Elmwood St. & Belmont Ave. 16:06:54 00:14:38 00:00:17 00:00:00 4 Minneapolis Park Ave. & 48th St. 12:18:11 00:03:29 00:00:00 00:00:00 5 Minneapolis 12th Ave. & 58th St. 16:22:02 02:25:38 00:00:22 00:00:00 6 Minneapolis 25th Ave. & 57th St. 14:17:28 01:54:44 00:00:34 00:00:00 7 Richfield Wentworth Ave. & 64th St, 00:10:32 00:00:07 00:00:00 00:00:00 8 Minneapolis Longfellow Ave. & 43rd St, 00:02:00 00:00:05 00:00:00 00:00:00 9 St. Paul Saratoga St. & Hartford Ave. 00:00:17 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 10 St. Paul Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St. 00:01:22 00:00:03 00:00:00 00:00:00 11 St. Paul Finn St. & Scheffer Ave. 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 12 St. Paul Alton St. & Rockwood Ave. 00:00:35 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Court 00:01:59 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 14 Eagan 1st St. & McKee St. 11:36:17 00:00:11 00:00:00 00:00:00 15 Mendota Heights Cullon St. & Lexington Ave. 00:04:47 00:00:05 00:00:00 00:00:00 16 Eagan Avalon Ave. & Vilas Ln. 16:52:59 00:23:12 00:00:13 00:00:00 17 Bloomington 84th St. & 4th Ave. 00:00:09 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 18 Richfield 75th St. & 17th Ave. 00:40:04 00:00:04 00:00:00 00:00:00 19 Bloomington 16th Ave. & 84th St. 00:00:44 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 20 Richfield 75th St. & 3rd Ave. 00:00:39 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 21 Inver Grove Heights Barbara Ave. & 67th St. 00:02:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 22 Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail 05:45:45 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 23 Mendota Heights End of Kenndon Ave. 00:27:40 00:00:28 00:00:00 00:00:00 24 Eagan Chapel Ln, & Wren Ln. 12:22:45 00:00:06 00:00:00 00:00:00 25 Eagan Moonshine Park 1321 Jurdy Rd. 00:07:41 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 26 Inver Grove Heights 6796 Arkansas Ave. W. 00:09:52 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 27 Minneapolis Anthony School 5757 Irving Ave. S. 00:11:20 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 28 Richfield 6645 16th Ave. S. 00:54:56 00:00:09 00:00:00 00:00:00 29 Minneapolis Ericsson Elem. School 4315 31st Ave. S. 00:00:13 00:00:01 00:00:00 00:00:00 30 Bloomington 8715 River Ridge Rd. 01:01:38 00:00:08 00:00:00 00:00:00 31 Bloomington 9501 12th Ave. S. 00:00:15 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 32 Bloomington 10325 Pleasant Ave. S. 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 33 Burnsville North River Hills Park 00:00:20 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 34 Burnsville Red Oak Park 00:00:22 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 35 Eagan 2100 Garnet Ln, 01:34:48 00:00:01 00:00:00 00:00:00 36 Apple Valley Briar Oaks & Scout Pond 04:47:51 00:00:03 00:00:00 00:00:00 37 Eagan 4399 Woodgate Ln. N. 00:00:23 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 38 Eagan 3957 Turquoise Cir. 00:00:16 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 39 Eagan 3477 St. Charles PI. 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 Total Time for Arrival Noise Events 135:59:32 05:06:23 00:01:28 00:00:00 *Note: These time values and levels are based upon 1 -second leq levels. -21 - o6\ Report Generated: 02/10/2016 08:28 Time Above Threshold dB for Departure Related Noise Events January 2016 RMT ID City Address Time >= 65dB Time >= 80dB Time >= 90dB Time >= 100dB 1 Minneapolis Xerxes Ave. & 41st St. 01:52:15 00:00:06 00:00:00 00:00:00 2 Minneapolis Fremont Ave. & 43rd St. 02:11:12 00:01:12 00:00:00 00:00:00 3 Minneapolis West Elmwood St. & Belmont Ave. 04:51:11 00:02:51 00:00:00 00:00:00 4 Minneapolis Park Ave. & 48th St. 05:26:37 00:04:48 00:00:01 00:00:00 5 Minneapolis 12th Ave. & 58th St. 28:09:34 01:07:22 00:00:57 00:00:00 6 Minneapolis 25th Ave, & 57th St. 28:44:17 02:05:34 00:04:14 00:00:00 7 Richfield Wentworth Ave. & 64th St. 20:36:00 00:27:51 00:00:02 00:00:00 8 Minneapolis Longfellow Ave. & 43rd St. 05:19:35 00:06:01 00:00:05 00:00:00 9 St. Paul Saratoga St. & Hartford Ave. 00:02:27 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 10 St. Paul Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St. 00:00:56 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 11 St. Paul Finn St, & Scheffer Ave. 00:00:36 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 12 St. Paul Alton St. & Rockwood Ave. 00:04:21 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Court 03:46:41 00:00:56 00:00:00 00:00:00 14 Eagan 1st St. & McKee St. 04:42:14 00:05:13 00:00:00 00:00:00 15 Mendota Heights Cullon St. & Lexington Ave. 04:57:01 00:03:02 00:00:00 00:00:00 16 Eagan Avalon Ave. & Vilas Ln. 04:51:36 00:12:26 00:00:03 00:00:00 17 Bloomington 84th St. & 4th Ave. 00:07:54 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 18 Richfield 75th St. & 17th Ave. 09:09:08 00:03:58 00:00:00 00:00:00 19 Bloomington 16th Ave. & 84th St. 03:34:33 00:00:20 00:00:00 00:00:00 20 Richfield 75th St. & 3rd Ave. 00:18:05 00:00:25 00:00:00 00:00:00 21 Inver Grove Heights Barbara Ave. & 67th St. 00:36:32 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 22 Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail 00:43:51 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 23 Mendota Heights End of Kenndon Ave. 10:07:25 00:17:56 00:00:14 00:00:00 24 Eagan Chapel Ln. & Wren Ln. 02:58:53 00:00:59 00:00:00 00:00:00 25 Eagan Moonshine Park 1321 Jurdy Rd. 04:40:38 00:00:19 00:00:00 00:00:00 26 Inver Grove Heights 6796 Arkansas Ave. W. 01:43:36 00:00:08 00:00:00 00:00:00 27 Minneapolis Anthony School 5757 Irving Ave. S. 07:22:54 00:03:44 00:00:00 00:00:00 28 Richfield 6645 16th Ave. S. 13:01:53 00:07:59 00:00:00 00:00:00 29 Minneapolis Ericsson Elem. School 4315 31st Ave. S, 03:59:41 00:02:32 00:00:00 00:00:00 30 Bloomington 8715 River Ridge Rd. 17:42:04 00:17:57 00:00:07 00:00:00 31 Bloomington 9501 12th Ave. S. 01:24:10 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 32 Bloomington 10325 Pleasant Ave. S. 00:08:38 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 33 Burnsville North River Hills Park 01:34:38 00:00:20 00:00:00 00:00:00 34 Burnsville Red Oak Park 00:28:13 00:00:01 00:00:00 00:00:00 35 Eagan 2100 Garnet Ln. 01:36:06 00:00:32 00:00:00 00:00:00 36 Apple Valley Briar Oaks & Scout Pond 00:14:06 00:00:00 00:00:00 00:00:00 37 Eagan 4399 Woodgate Ln. N. 01:37:26 00:00:13 00:00:00 00:00:00 38 Eagan 3957 Turquoise Cir. 03:19:41 00:02:16 00:00:00 00:00:00 39 Eagan 3477 St. Charles Pl. 04:16:29 00:02:25 00:00:00 00:00:00 Total Time for Departure Noise Events 206:23:07 05:19:26 00:05:43 00:00:00 *Note: These time values and levels are based upon 1 -second leg levels. Report Generated: 02/10/2016 08:28 - 22 - Arrival Related Noise Events January 2016 RMT ID City Address Arrival Events >= 65dB Arrival Events >= 80dB Arrival Events >= 90dB Arrival Events >= 100dB 1 Minneapolis Xerxes Ave. & 41st St. 2095 4 0 0 2 Minneapolis Fremont Ave. & 43rd St. 3023 60 1 0 3 Minneapolis West Elmwood St. & Belmont Ave. 3502 231 3 0 4 Minneapolis Park Ave. & 48th St. 3114 61 0 0 5 Minneapolis 12th Ave. & 58th St. 3622 2332 11 0 6 Minneapolis 25th Ave. & 57th St. 3266 2359 27 0 7 Richfield Wentworth Ave. & 64th St. 51 2 0 0 8 Minneapolis Longfellow Ave. & 43rd St. 8 1 0 0 9 St. Paul Saratoga St. & Hartford Ave. 1 0 0 0 10 St. Paul Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St. 5 1 0 0 11 St. Paul Finn St. & Scheffer Ave. 0 0 0 0 12 St. Paul Alton St. & Rockwood Ave. 3 0 0 0 13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Court 7 0 0 0 14 Eagan 1st St, & McKee St. 2682 3 0 0 15 Mendota Heights Cullon St. & Lexington Ave. 21 2 0 0 16 Eagan Avalon Ave. & Vilas Ln. 3751 390 3 0 17 Bloomington 84th St. & 4th Ave. 1 0 0 0 18 Richfield 75th St. & 17th Ave. 171 2 0 0 19 Bloomington 16th Ave. & 84th St. 4 0 0 0 20 Richfield 75th St. & 3rd Ave. 2 0 0 0 21 Inver Grove Heights Barbara Ave. & 67th St. 9 0 0 0 22 Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail 1437 0 0 0 23 Mendota Heights End of Kenndon Ave. 112 5 0 0 24 Eagan Chapel Ln. & Wren Ln. 3018 3 0 0 25 Eagan Moonshine Park 1321 Jurdy Rd. 37 0 0 0 26 Inver Grove Heights 6796 Arkansas Ave. W. 42 0 0 0 27 Minneapolis Anthony School 5757 Irving Ave. S. 36 0 0 0 28 Richfield 6645 16th Ave. S. 229 3 0 0 29 Minneapolis Ericsson Elem. School 4315 31st Ave. S. 1 1 0 0 30 Bloomington 8715 River Ridge Rd. 272 2 0 0 31 Bloomington 9501 12th Ave. S. 1 0 0 0 32 Bloomington 10325 Pleasant Ave. S. 0 0 0 0 33 Burnsville North River Hills Park 1 0 0 0 34 Burnsville Red Oak Park 2 0 0 0 35 Eagan 2100 Garnet Ln. 419 1 0 0 36 Apple Valley Briar Oaks & Scout Pond 1132 1 0 0 37 Eagan 4399 Woodgate Ln. N. 2 0 0 0 38 Eagan 3957 Turquoise Cir. 1 0 0 0 39 Eagan 3477 St. Charles Pl. 0 0 0 0 Total Arrival Noise Events 32080 5464 45 0 *Note: These counts are based upon Lmax. - 23 - Report Generated: 02/10/2016 08:28 Departure Related Noise Events January 2016 RMT ID City Address Departure Events >= 65dB Departure Events >= 80dB Departure Events >= 90dB Departure Events >= 100dB 1 Minneapolis Xerxes Ave. & 41st St. 427 5 0 0 2 Minneapolis Fremont Ave. & 43rd St, 486 13 0 0 3 Minneapolis West Elmwood St. & Belmont Ave. 948 38 0 0 4 Minneapolis Park Ave. & 48th St. 1012 59 1 0 5 Minneapolis 12th Ave. & 58th St. 4660 706 21 0 6 Minneapolis 25th Ave. & 57th St. 5123 1274 62 0 7 Richfield Wentworth Ave. & 64th St. 3602 265 1 0 8 Minneapolis Longfellow Ave. & 43rd St. 999 46 2 0 9 St. Paul Saratoga St. & Hartford Ave. 9 0 0 0 10 St. Paul Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St. 4 0 0 0 11 St. Paul Finn St. & Scheffer Ave. 3 0 0 0 12 St. Paul Alton St. & Rockwood Ave. 12 0 0 0 13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Court 806 14 0 0 14 Eagan 1st St. & McKee St. 888 55 0 0 15 Mendota Heights Cullon St. & Lexington Ave. 1005 43 0 0 16 Eagan Avalon Ave. & Vilas Ln. 822 137 1 0 17 Bloomington 84th St. & 4th Ave. 28 0 0 0 18 Richfield 75th St. & 17th Ave. 2038 57 0 0 19 Bloomington 16th Ave. & 84th St. 722 13 0 0 20 Richfield 75th St. & 3rd Ave. 62 4 0 0 21 Inver Grove Heights Barbara Ave. & 67th St. 150 0 0 0 22 Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail 181 0 0 0 23 Mendota Heights End of Kenndon Ave. 1814 205 5 0 24 Eagan Chapel Ln. & Wren Ln. 617 17 0 0 25 Eagan Moonshine Park 1321 Jurdy Rd. 637 4 0 0 26 Inver Grove Heights 6796 Arkansas Ave. W. 406 2 0 0 27 Minneapolis Anthony School 5757 Irving Ave. S. 1420 48 0 0 28 Richfield 6645 16th Ave. S. 2566 128 0 0 29 Minneapolis Ericsson Elem. School 4315 31st Ave. S. 753 25 0 0 30 Bloomington 8715 River Ridge Rd. 2906 169 2 0 31 Bloomington 9501 12th Ave. S. 292 0 0 0 32 Bloomington 10325 Pleasant Ave, S. 31 0 0 0 33 Burnsville North River Hills Park 363 5 0 0 34 Burnsville Red Oak Park 110 1 0 0 35 Eagan 2100 Garnet Ln. 334 8 0 0 36 Apple Valley Briar Oaks & Scout Pond 57 0 0 0 37 Eagan 4399 Woodgate Ln. N. 318 5 0 0 38 Eagan 3957 Turquoise Cir. 681 28 0 0 39 Eagan 3477 St. Charles PI. 905 34 0 0 Total Departure Noise Events 38197 3408 95 0 *Note: These counts are based upon Lmax. Report Generated: 02/10/2016 08:28 - 24 - Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP January 2016 (RMT Site#1) Xerxes Ave. & 41st St., Minneapolis Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Departure Runway Lmax(dB) 01/14/2016 19:17 DAL2074 B757 A 12R 83.6 01/23/2016 18:06 SKW4789 CRJ2 A 12L 82 01/06/2016 10:12 BMJ43 BE65 A 12R 81.4 01/14/2016 11:45 DAL2116 B757 A 12R 81.3 01/13/2016 15:27 DAL160 A330 D 30L 80.4 01/25/2016 20:47 DAL1660 MD80 D 30R 80.4 01/15/2016 12:00 DAL2221 B738 D 30L 80.4 01/15/2016 6:49 BMJ62 BE65 D 30R 80.1 01/13/2016 18:49 DAL2150 MD80 D 30R 80 01/26/2016 20:54 DAL1660 MD80 D 30R 79.7 (RMT Site#2) Fremont Ave. & 43rd St., Minneapolis Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrivall Departure Runway Lmax(dB) 01/29/2016 18:18 N46RF DHC6 A 12L 92.6 01/25/2016 20:47 DAL1660 MD80 D 30R 84.7 01/13/2016 18:49 DAL2150 MD80 D 30R 84.6 01/29/2016 11:39 Unknown UKN A 12L 83.8 01/29/2016 16:04 DAL726 MD80 A 12L 83 01/27/2016 20:34 DAL1660 MD80 D 30R 82.9 01/20/2016 13:34 Unknown UKN A 12L 82.7 01/04/2016 13:46 Unknown UKN A 12L 82.6 01/26/2016 20:54 DAL1660 MD80 D 30R 82.4 01/04/2016 10:55 DAL2793 MD80 A 12L 82.4 (RMT Site#3) West Elmwood St. & Belmont Ave., Minneapolis Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrivall Departure Runway Lmax(dB) 01/14/2016 11:46 DAL2116 B757 A 12R 96.3 01/14/2016 19:18 DAL2074 B757 A 12R 95.3 01/11/2016 10:01 DAL784 B757 A 12R 92 01/05/2016 9:25 AAL2532 MD80 A 12R 87.3 01/06/2016 18:24 FDX715 MD11 A 12R 86.8 01/15/2016 7:52 DAL1464 MD80 D 30R 86.3 01/29/2016 13:17 AAL2578 MD80 A 12R 86.3 01/06/2016 5:28 FDX1407 MD11 A 12R 86.1 01/03/2016 12:06 DAL1975 MD80 D 30L 86.1 01/06/2016 10:12 BMJ43 BE65 A 12R 85.8 - 25 - Report Generated: 02/10/2016 08:28 Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP January 2016 (RMT Site#4) Park Ave. & 48th St., Minneapolis Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Departure Runway Lmax(dB) 01/13/2016 18:48 DAL2150 MD80 D 30R 90 01/29/2016 18:19 N46RF DHC6 A 12L 89.3 01/28/2016 20:33 DAL1660 MD80 D 30R 88.2 01/15/2016 23:09 DAL1660 MD80 D 30R 88 01/31/2016 20:32 DAL1660 MD80 D 30R 87 01/25/2016 20:47 DAL1660 MD80 D 30R 86.9 01/26/2016 20:53 DAL1660 MD80 D 30R 86.9 01/10/2016 20:27 DAL1660 MD80 D 30R 86.8 01/21/2016 20:47 DAL1660 MD80 D 30R 86,6 01/18/2016 21:14 DAL1660 MD80 D 30R 86.4 (RMT Site#5) 12th Ave. & 58th St., Minneapolis Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Departure Runway Lmax(dB) 01/06/2016 18:24 FDX715 MD11 A 12R 94.6 01/03/2016 12:06 DAL1975 MD80 D 30L 93.8 01/08/2016 11:43 DAL1975 MD80 D 30L 92 01/11/2016 10:02 DAL784 B757 A 12R 91.8 01/14/2016 19:19 DAL2074 B757 A 12R 91.6 01/08/2016 12:22 DAL615 A330 D 30L 91.5 01/04/2016 5:49 AAL1310 MD80 D 30L 91.5 01/31/2016 15:12 DAL907 MD80 D 30L 91.4 01/31/2016 12:08 AAL2224 MD80 D 30L 91.3 01/31/2016 11:53 AAL2532 MD80 D 30L 91.3 (RMT Site#6) 25th Ave. & 57th St., Minneapolis Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Departure Runway Lmax(dB) 01/31/2016 15:12 DAL1877 MD80 D 30R 97 01/13/2016 18:48 DAL2150 MD80 D 30R 96.9 01/15/2016 10:13 DAL818 MD80 D 30R 96.3 01/15/2016 15:16 DAL1877 MD80 D 30R 95.4 01/25/2016 15:49 DAL1877 MD80 D 30R 95.4 01/15/2016 17:45 DAL1997 MD80 D 30R 95.4 01/22/2016 7:56 DAL1464 MD80 D 30R 95.3 01/03/2016 13:17 DAL1496 MD80 D 30R 95,1 01/04/2016 19:44 BMJ65 BE80 A 12L 94.9 01/28/2016 20:33 DAL1660 MD80 D 30R 94.7 Report Generated: 02/10/2016 08:28 BLF - 26 - Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP January 2016 (RMT Site#7) Wentworth Ave. & 64th St., Richfield Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Departure Runway Lmax(dB) 01/26/2016 10:49 DAL1154 MD80 D 30L 91.9 01/22/2016 11:51 DAL1975 MD80 D 30L 89.9 01/08/2016 13:47 DAL2624 MD80 D 30L 89.8 01/26/2016 11:41 DAL1975 MD80 D 30L 89.2 01/15/2016 13:25 AAL2224 MD80 D 30L 89.2 01/08/2016 7:25 AAL1395 MD80 D 30L 89 01/17/2016 7:12 AAL1395 MD80 D 30L 89 01/28/2016 11:31 DAL1975 MD80 D 30L 88.8 01/08/2016 16:43 AAL1020 MD80 D 30L 88.8 01/15/2016 7:10 AAL1395 MD80 D 30L 88.8 (RMT Site#8) Longfellow Ave. & 43rd St., Minneapolis Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Departure Runway Lmax(dB) 01/25/2016 15:49 DAL1877 MD80 D 30R 91.7 01/22/2016 11:06 DAL726 MD80 D 30R 90 01/09/2016 9:37 DAL2837 MD80 D 30R 88.8 01/15/2016 10:27 DAL726 MD80 D 30R 88.8 01/17/2016 12:16 DAL2227 MD80 D 30L 88.7 01/08/2016 16:40 DAL1877 MD80 D 30R 88.4 01/19/2016 7:34 DAL1464 MD80 D 30R 88 01/03/2016 6:59 DAL557 MD80 D 30R 87.9 01/25/2016 20:52 DAL2336 MD80 D 30R 87.9 01/03/2016 18:13 DAL1357 MD80 D 30R 87.4 (RMT Site#9) Saratoga St. & Hartford Ave., St. Paul Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Departure Runway Lmax(dB) 01/29/2016 7:01 BMJ62 BE65 D 12L 78.6 01/29/2016 7:13 BMJ70 BE65 D 12L 78.5 01/29/2016 7:15 BMJ66 BE80 D 12L 75.8 01/27/2016 8:04 1R08572 C208 D 12L 73.7 01/29/2016 6:56 BMJ81 BE65 D 12L 73.7 01/08/2016 20:37 DAL1668 B739 A 30R 73.2 01/14/2016 19:43 DAL710 A319 D 12L 72.4 01/16/2016 7:37 BMJ48 BE65 D 30L 70.5 01/05/2016 9:49 BMJ48 BE80 D 12R 69.4 01/06/2016 7:44 BMJ37 BE65 D 12L 68.9 -27- 35 Report Generated: 02/10/2016 08:28 Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP January 2016 (RMT Site#10) Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St, St. Paul Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Departure Runway Lmax(dB) 01/13/2016 17:00 Unknown CL60 A 30L 82.5 01/23/2016 9:21 1R08572 C208 D 12L 76.3 01/08/2016 20:36 DAL1668 B739 A 30R 75.3 01/16/2016 7:36 BMJ48 BE65 D 30L 73.9 01/22/2016 15:42 N233NC UKN D 12L 72.2 01/28/2016 14:53 Unknown UKN D 30R 69.5 01/12/2016 13:40 Unknown UKN A 30R 68.4 01/11/2016 18:14 DAL2205 B717 A 30R 68.4 (RMT Site#11) Finn St. & Scheffer Ave., St. Paul Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Departure Runway Lmax(dB) 01/28/2016 6:47 BMJ48 BE65 D 30R 71.9 01/22/2016 15:43 N233NC UKN D 12L 69.5 01/09/2016 9:16 RPA4449 E170 D 30R 69.1 (RMT Site#12) Alton St. & Rockwood Ave., St. Paul Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Departure Runway Lmax(dB) 01/29/2016 6:49 BMJ48 BE65 D 12L 79.6 01/29/2016 7:00 BMJ62 BE65 D 12L 79.1 01/29/2016 7:13 BMJ70 BE65 0 12L 76.7 01/29/2016 7:14 BMJ66 BE80 D 12L 75.1 01/27/2016 8:04 1R08572 C208 D 12L 74.3 01/29/2016 7:08 BMJ54 BE80 D 12L 73.3 01/08/2016 20:36 DAL1668 B739 A 30R 73.2 01/05/2016 9:49 BMJ48 BE80 D 12R 72.1 01/11/2016 10:25 DAL2555 MD90 A 12R 72 01/14/2016 19:43 DAL710 A319 D 12L 70.1 Report Generated: 02/10/2016 08:28 5T - 28 - Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP January 2016 (RMT Site#13) Southeast end of Mohican Court, Mendota Heights Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Departure Runway Lmax(dB) 01/23/2016 9:37 DAL2837 MD80 D 12L 88.3 01/30/2016 15:41 DAL2588 MD80 D 12L 85.2 01/29/2016 20:36 DAL1660 MD80 D 12L 84.5 01/20/2016 7:29 AAL1961 A321 D 12R 84.2 01/05/2016 20:50 DAL1660 MD80 D 12R 82.8 01/23/2016 15:20 DAL160 A330 D 12R 82.6 01/05/2016 11:49 DAL1664 B763 D 12R 82.5 01/19/2016 20:24 DAL1660 MD80 D 12L 82 01/20/2016 7:46 DAL1464 MD80 D 12L 81 01/05/2016 22:18 DAL1631 B738 D 12R 80.8 (RMT Site#14) 1st St. & McKee St., Eagan Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Departure Runway Lmax(dB) 01/30/2016 5:19 AAL1041 MD80 D 12R 88.4 01/05/2016 6:44 AAL1395 MD80 D 12R 87.5 01/25/2016 13:53 DAL2624 MD80 D 12L 87.2 01/23/2016 11:20 Unknown UKN D 12R 87.2 01/05/2016 5:33 DAL1991 MD80 D 12R 87.1 01/30/2016 12:09 AAL2224 MD80 D 12R 86.5 01/26/2016 8:05 DAL958 A320 A 30R 86.4 01/04/2016 7:12 DAL557 MD80 D 12L 86.3 01/30/2016 11:47 DAL615 A330 D 12R 85.3 01/05/2016 5:10 AAL1041 MD80 D 12L 85.1 (RMT Site#15) Cullon St. & Lexington Ave., Mendota Heights Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Departure Runway Lmax(dB) 01/30/2016 9:27 DAL2837 MD80 D 12L 88.9 01/29/2016 20:36 DAL1660 MD80 D 12L 87.9 01/07/2016 20:36 DAL1660 MD80 D 12L 86.2 01/06/2016 21:13 DAL1660 MD80 D 12L 85.8 01/20/2016 7:46 DAL1464 MD80 D 12L 85.8 01/23/2016 9:37 DAL2837 MD80 D 12L 85.7 01/30/2016 15:41 DAL2588 MD80 D 12L 85.6 01/20/2016 8:02 BMJ48 BE65 D 12L 84.9 01/14/2016 20:27 DAL1660 MD80 D 12L 83.5 01/30/2016 7:25 BMJ48 8E65 D 12L 82.4 -29- 3� Report Generated: 02/10/2016 08:28 Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP January 2016 (RMT Site#16) Avalon Ave. & Vilas Ln., Eagan Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Departure Runway Lmax(dB) 01/20/2016 6:56 SWA2240 B733 D 12R 95 01/04/2016 5:58 DAL2440 B757 A 30L 94.2 01/09/2016 9:44 DAL1490 B757 A 30L 94.1 01/08/2016 21:15 DAL8874 A330 A 30L 90.9 01/05/2016 14:08 DAL1712 MD80 D 12R 88.6 01/06/2016 6:57 AAL1395 MD80 D 12R 88.6 01/13/2016 7:02 AAL1395 MD80 D 12R 88.6 01/21/2016 6:54 AAL1395 MD80 D 12R 88.1 01/11/2016 14:35 DAL86 MD80 D 12R 88 01/14/2016 18:00 DAL994 MD80 D 12R 88 (RMT Site#17) 84th St. & 4th Ave., Bloomington Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Departure Runway Lmax(dB) 01/11/2016 5:21 AAL1041 MD80 D 30L 79.1 01/02/2016 11:36 DAL2322 MD80 D 30L 77.6 01/21/2016 5:25 AAL1041 MD80 D 30L 77.1 01/12/2016 19:26 AAL1261 MD80 D 30R 74.8 01/31/2016 6:46 AAL1395 MD80 D 30R 74.7 01/02/2016 9:44 DAL1076 B763 D 30L 74 01/25/2016 22:40 UPS559 MD11 D 30L 73.9 01/02/2016 8:53 DAL379 B757 D 30L 73.3 01/08/2016 11:20 NKS319 A320 D 30R 73.2 01/31/2016 22:28 DKT1324 SW4 D 17 73.1 (RMT Site#18) 75th St. & 17th Ave., Richfield Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Departure Runway Lmax(dB) 01/29/2016 17:49 DAL2253 MD80 D 17 85.6 01/14/2016 7:28 DAL1464 MD80 D 17 85.5 01/06/2016 15:24 DAL2232 MD80 D 17 85.3 01/20/2016 10:52 DAL726 MD80 D 17 84.7 01/06/2016 13:10 DAL1894 MD80 D 17 84.6 01/29/2016 10:31 DAL726 MD80 D 17 84.5 01/06/2016 13:38 DAL2624 MD80 D 17 84.5 01/27/2016 10:31 DAL726 MD80 D 17 84.5 01/20/2016 13:33 DAL2624 MD80 D 17 84.4 01/29/2016 14:15 DAL9936 MD80 D 17 84.3 Report Generated: 02/10/2016 08:28 3g - 30 - Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP January 2016 (RMT Site#19) 16th Ave. & 84th St., Bloomi Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type v Arrival/ Departure Runway Lmax(dB) 01/20/2016 7:55 BMJ25 BE80 D 17 82.5 01/14/2016 15:20 DAL1877 MD80 D 17 81.8 01/14/2016 11:35 DAL1975 MD80 D 17 81.6 01/13/2016 13:36 DAL1712 MD80 D 17 81.5 01/25/2016 9:23 DAL515 B763 D 17 81.1 01/25/2016 10:12 AAL1405 MD80 D 17 80.8 01/23/2016 12:23 AAL2224 MD80 D 17 80.6 01/04/2016 10:31 DAL726 MD80 D 17 80.5 01/29/2016 17:49 DAL2253 MD80 D 17 80.5 01/14/2016 13:35 DAL1944 MD80 D 17 80.5 (RMT Site#20) 75th St. & 3rd Ave., Richfield Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Departure Runway Lmax(dB) 01/21/2016 5:24 AAL1041 MD80 D 30L 84.7 01/11/2016 5:21 AAL1041 MD80 D 30L 83.4 01/31/2016 6:46 AAL1395 MD80 D 30R 82.1 01/02/2016 11:35 DAL2322 MD80 D 30L 81.6 01/02/2016 9:44 DAL1076 B763 D 30L 79,3 01/25/2016 22:40 UPS559 MD11 D 30L 79.1 01/12/2016 19:26 AAL1261 MD80 D 30R 79 01/08/2016 7:59 AAL438 A320 D 30L 78.7 01/12/2016 7:09 SCX515 B738 0 30L 78 01/22/2016 8:03 SCX555 B7377 D 30L 77.9 e#21 Barbara Ave. & 67th St., Inver Grove Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Departure v Runway Lmax(dB) 01/27/2016 11:51 DAL1664 B763 D 12R 79.7 01/06/2016 20:29 DAL162 A330 D 12R 78.3 01/05/2016 20:50 DAL1660 MD80 D 12R 78.2 01/20/2016 8:03 BMJ48 BE65 D 12L 77.3 01/20/2016 12:08 DAL615 A330 D 12R 76.9 01/13/2016 12:15 DAL615 A330 D 12R 76.4 01/29/2016 20:31 DAL12 B764 D 12R 76.3 01/24/201612:17 DAL1664 B763 D 12R 76 01/30/2016 15:25 DAL160 A330 D 12R 75.8 01/25/2016 10:43 DAL726 MD80 D 12L 75.8 -31 - so Report Generated: 02/10/2016 08:28 Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP January 2016 (RMT Site#22) Anne Marie Trail, Inver Grove Heights Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Departure Runway Lmax(dB) 01/23/2016 11:20 Unknown UKN D 12R 78.9 01/07/2016 18:01 DAL171 A330 D 12R 78.9 01/15/2016 10:04 FLG4158 CRJ9 A 30L 78.4 01/28/2016 20:47 DAL2390 MD80 A 30R 78 01/14/2016 18:01 DAL994 MD80 D 12R 77.6 01/05/2016 14:09 DAL1712 MD80 D 12R 77.6 01/27/2016 17:18 FDX798 DC10 A 30L 77.5 01/07/2016 11:40 DAL1975 MD80 D 12L 77.4 01/04/2016 7:12 DAL557 MD80 D 12L 77.1 01/29/2016 7:40 DAL664 A320 D 12R 76.8 (RMT Site#23) End of Kenndon Ave., Mendota Heights Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Departure Runway Lmax(dB) 01/23/2016 9:37 DAL2837 MD80 D 12L 93.2 01/30/2016 15:41 DAL2588 MD80 D 12L 91 01/24/2016 20:46 DAL1660 MD80 D 12L 90.9 01/29/2016 20:36 DAL1660 MD80 D 12L 90.3 01/30/2016 9:27 DAL2837 MD80 D 12L 90 01/25/2016 10:42 DAL726 MD80 D 12L 89.5 01/07/2016 7:37 DAL1332 MD80 D 12L 89.4 01/05/2016 5:09 AAL1041 MD80 D 12L 89.4 01/12/2016 21:03 Unknown UKN A 30R 89.3 01/20/2016 7:46 DAL1464 MD80 D 12L 88.9 (RMT S'te#24) Chapel Ln. & Wren Ln., Eagan Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Departure Runway Lmax(dB) 01/23/2016 11:20 Unknown UKN D 12R 83.5 01/05/2016 14:08 DAL1712 MD80 D 12R 83.1 01/27/2016 12:11 DAL7A MD80 A 30L 82.9 01/04/2016 7:12 DAL557 MD80 D 12L 82.8 01/30/2016 5:20 AAL1041 MD80 D 12R 82.1 01/30/2016 12:09 AAL2224 MD80 D 12R 81.8 01/06/2016 6:58 AAL1395 MD80 D 12R 81.6 01/29/2016 6:55 AAL1395 MD80 D 12R 81.5 01/07/2016 11:40 DAL1975 MD80 D 12L 81.3 01/13/2016 11:59 DAL1975 MD80 D 12L 81.3 Report Generated: 02/10/2016 08:28 40 - 32 - Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP January 2016 (RMT Site#25) Moonshine Park 1321 Jurdy Rd., Eagan Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Departure Runway Lmax(dB) 01/07/2016 10:57 AAL2532 MD80 D 12R 84.4 01/05/2016 15:38 DAL1877 MD80 D 17 81.5 01/29/2016 17:50 DAL2253 MD80 D 17 81.2 01/07/2016 14:37 WAL616 MD80 D 17 80.4 01/20/2016 10:46 DAL780 A320 D 17 77,9 01/30/2016 11:46 DAL615 A330 D 12R 77.7 01/05/2016 14:08 DAL1712 MD80 D 12R 77.6 01/26/2016 6:42 FDX1407 MD11 A 30L 77.4 01/06/2016 6:57 AAL1395 MD80 D 12R 77.2 01/05/2016 9:21 DAL2354 A320 D 17 76.9 (RMT Site#26) 6796 Arkansas Ave. W., Inver Grove Heights Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Departure Runway Lmax(dB) 01/30/2016 7:19 DAL1996 MD80 D 12L 83.9 01/29/2016 16:33 Unknown UKN D 12L 80.5 01/23/2016 6:53 AAL1395 MD80 D 12R 79.7 01/05/2016 20:50 DAL1660 MD80 D 12R 79.2 01/23/2016 11:44 DAL869 MD80 D 12L 79.1 01/30/2016 11:50 DAL1664 B763 D 12R 78.6 01/06/2016 5:13 AAL1041 MD80 D 12L 78.6 01/31/2016 12:46 DAL2459 A320 A 30R 78.4 01/27/2016 11:51 DAL1664 B763 D 12R 78.3 01/30/2016 11:47 DAL615 A330 D 12R 78.3 (RMT S'te#27) Anthony School 5757 Irving Ave. S., Minneapolis Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Departure Runway Lmax(dB) 01/31/2016 14:35 AAL2578 MD80 D 30L 87.9 01/15/2016 13:41 DAL2624 MD80 D 30L 87 01/04/2016 5:50 AAL1310 MD80 D 30L 86.9 01/08/2016 11:43 DAL1975 MD80 D 30L 85.4 01/31/2016 15:12 DAL907 MD80 D 30L 85.3 01/22/2016 6:44 AAL1395 MD80 D 30L 84.8 01/28/2016 16:06 AAL1020 MD80 D 30R 84.6 01/22/2016 11:15 AAL2532 MD80 D 30R 84.4 01/28/2016 11:31 DAL1975 MD80 D 30L 84.1 01/28/2016 17:49 DAL2648 MD80 D 30L 83.9 -33- L{` Report Generated: 02/10/2016 08:28 Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP January 2016 (RMT Site#28) 6645 16th Ave. S., Richfield Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Departure Runway Lmax(dB) 01/28/2016 9:40 AAL1405 MD80 D 30L 89.1 01/11/2016 7:26 DAL1632 B738 D 17 88.3 01/26/2016 12:27 AAL2224 MD80 D 30L 86.9 01/14/2016 19:29 AAL1261 MD80 D 17 86.4 01/27/2016 17:51 DAL2648 MD80 D 30L 85.3 01/07/2016 7:11 AAL1395 MD80 D 17 85.1 01/16/2016 6:51 AAL1395 MD80 D 30L 85 01/06/2016 11:41 DAL1975 MD80 D 17 85 01/26/2016 5:13 AAL1041 MD80 D 30R 84.9 01/06/2016 17:24 DAL1877 MD80 D 17 84.9 (RMT Site#29) Ericsson Elem. School 4315 31st Ave. S., Minneapolis Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Departure Runway Lmax(dB) 01/03/2016 10:40 DAL658 MD80 D 30R 86.7 01/10/2016 10:54 DAL726 MD80 D 30R 86.4 01/28/2016 15:19 DAL1877 MD80 D 30R 84,4 01/12/2016 15:35 DAL1877 MD80 D 30R 84.2 01/28/2016 10:32 DAL726 MD80 D 30R 84.2 01/02/2016 18:15 DAL1357 MD80 D 30R 83.9 01/27/2016 19:57 DAL1101 MD80 D 30R 83.4 01/12/2016 7:47 DAL1464 MD80 D 30R 83.4 01/18/2016 16:17 DAL9856 MD80 0 30R 83.3 01/18/2016 7:33 DAL1464 MD80 D 30R 83.3 (RMT S'te#30) 8715 River Ridge Rd., Bloomington Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Departure Runway Lmax(dB) 01/13/2016 15:20 DAL1877 MD80 D 17 91.7 01/13/2016 15:49 AAL2578 MD80 D 17 91.6 01/25/2016 7:01 AAL1395 MD80 D 17 88,9 01/11/2016 10:29 AAL2532 MD80 D 17 88.9 01/11/2016 15:25 AAL2423 MD80 D 17 88.8 01/27/2016 13:29 DAL2624 MD80 D 17 88 01/07/2016 16:28 AAL1020 MD80 0 17 87.9 01/24/2016 16:09 AAL1020 MD80 D 17 87,9 01/21/2016 10:55 AAL2532 MD80 D 17 87.8 01/07/2016 13:39 AAL1210 MD80 D 17 87.7 Report Generated: 02/10/2016 08:28 - 34 - Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP January 2016 (RMT Site#31) 9501 12th Ave. S., Bloomington Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Departure Runway Lmax(dB) 01/24/2016 12:10 AAL2532 MD80 D 17 79.6 01/23/2016 15:49 DAL806 MD80 D 17 77.8 01/02/2016 11:36 DAL2322 MD80 D 30L 77.8 01/13/2016 20:21 DAL871 A320 D 17 77.4 01/29/2016 10:33 AAL2532 MD80 D 17 77.2 01/27/2016 7:10 AAL1395 MD80 D 17 77,2 01/06/2016 10:39 AAL2532 MD80 D 17 76.5 01/13/2016 15:18 DAL959 A320 D 17 75.9 01/29/2016 10:39 DAL330 A320 D 17 75.6 01/29/2016 7:03 BMJ64 BE80 D 17 75,6 (RMT Site#32) 10325 Pleasant Ave. S., Bloomington Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Departure Runway Lmax(dB) 01/19/2016 12:07 DAL2308 A320 D 17 78.9 01/25/2016 19:48 AAL1261 MD80 D 30L 75,5 01/20/2016 7:56 BMJ25 BE80 D 17 74.4 01/05/2016 10:28 SCX423 B7377 D 17 74.2 01/25/2016 22:41 UPS559 MD11 D 30L 73.1 01/13/2016 15:19 DAL959 A320 D 17 73 01/24/2016 12:11 AAL2532 MD80 D 17 73 01/13/2016 20:21 DAL871 A320 D 17 72.9 01/23/2016 8:23 BMJ64 BE65 D 17 72.8 01/13/2016 20:08 DAL2436 A319 D 17 71.7 (RMT S'te#33) North River Hills Park, Burnsville Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Departure Runway Lmax(dB) 01/13/2016 15:50 AAL2578 MD80 D 17 82.5 01/07/2016 7:13 AAL1395 MD80 D 17 81.8 01/13/2016 19:29 AAL1261 MD80 D 17 81 01/27/2016 13:30 DAL2624 MD80 D 17 81 01/07/2016 13:40 AAL1210 MD80 D 17 81 01/13/2016 11:05 AAL2532 MD80 D 17 79.6 01/02/2016 7:25 AAL1395 MD80 D 17 79.5 01/14/2016 10:38 AAL2532 MD80 D 17 79 01/21/2016 10:56 AAL2532 MD80 D 17 78.3 01/13/2016 15:21 DAL1877 MD80 D 17 78.2 - 35 - Report Generated: 02/10/2016 08:28 Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP January 2016 (RMT Site#34) Red Oak Park, Burn Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Departure Runway Lmax(dB) 01/27/2016 14:41 AAL2578 MD80 D 17 80.8 01/13/2016 15:21 DAL1877 MD80 D 17 79 01/13/2016 15:50 AAL2578 MD80 D 17 78.4 01/30/2016 13:43 DAL2149 MD80 D 17 78.3 01/02/2016 7:57 DAL1122 MD80 D 17 77.3 01/02/2016 6:53 AAL1041 MD80 D 17 76.5 01/27/2016 16:06 AAL1020 MD80 D 17 76.4 01/13/2016 19:29 AAL1261 MD80 D 17 76.4 01/27/2016 7:54 SKW5164 E170 D 17 75.9 01/27/2016 13:30 DAL2624 MD80 D 17 75.8 (RMT Site#35) 2100 Garnet Ln. Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Departure Runway Lmax(dB) 01/02/2016 11:45 DAL1975 MD80 D 17 83.3 01/24/2016 13:12 DAL1975 MD80 D 17 82.5 01/11/2016 16:47 AAL1020 MD80 D 17 82.3 01/24/2016 16:10 AAL1020 MD80 D 17 81.8 01/27/2016 10:38 AAL2532 MD80 D 17 81.7 01/02/2016 5:53 AAL1310 MD80 D 17 81.6 01/27/2016 16:05 AAL1020 MD80 D 17 81 01/07/2016 16:28 AAL1020 MD80 D 17 80.8 01/16/2016 14:30 DAL755 MD80 A 35 80.6 01/01/2016 11:41 DAL1975 MD80 D 17 79.9 e Briar Oaks & Scout Pon Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Departure Runway Lmax(dB) 01/17/2016 10:47 AAL2532 MD80 A 35 81.4 01/12/2016 16:36 Unknown UKN A 35 78.1 01/02/2016 11:45 DAL1975 MD80 D 17 77,5 01/02/2016 10:30 DAL2245 MD80 D 17 77.3 01/28/2016 11:34 DAL1516 B763 A 35 77.3 01/10/201612:06 DAL2116 B757 A 35 77.2 01/27/2016 18:52 FDX715 MD11 A 35 77 01/26/2016 18:11 FDX715 MD11 A 35 76.9 01/01/2016 11:42 DAL1975 MD80 D 17 76.3 01/12/2016 20:08 FDX715 MD11 A 35 76 Report Generated: 02/10/2016 08:28 - 36 - Top Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events for MSP January 2016 (RMT Site#37) 4399 Woodgate Ln. N., Eagan Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Departure Runway Lmax(dB) 01/13/2016 12:19 AAL2224 MD80 D 17 82.7 01/07/2016 18:00 DAL2648 MD80 D 17 81.8 01/14/2016 9:40 AAL1405 MD80 D 17 81.6 01/22/2016 13:43 DAL2624 MD80 D 17 80 01/14/2016 11:36 DAL1975 MD80 D 17 80 01/24/2016 12:33 AAL2224 MD80 D 17 79.9 01/14/2016 12:20 AAL2224 MD80 D 17 79.8 01/22/2016 15:32 AAL2578 MD80 D 17 79.7 01/13/2016 10:33 AAL1405 MD80 D 17 79.5 01/06/2016 9:40 AAL1405 MD80 D 17 79 (RMT Site#38) 3957 Turquoise Cir., Eagan Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Departure Runway Lmax(dB) 01/14/2016 11:36 DAL1975 MD80 D 17 85.8 01/22/201616:12 AAL1020 MD80 D 17 84.5 01/07/2016 17:59 DAL2648 MD80 D 17 84.4 01/13/2016 12:19 AAL2224 MD80 D 17 83.9 01/04/2016 12:01 DAL1734 MD80 D 17 83.6 01/14/2016 9:39 AAL1405 MD80 D 17 83.4 01/22/2016 13:42 DAL2624 MD80 D 17 83.4 01/30/2016 14:34 AAL2578 MD80 D 17 83.2 01/07/2016 19:33 AAL1261 MD80 D 17 82.9 01/04/2016 11:37 DAL1975 MD80 D 17 82.7 (RMT Site#39) 3477 St. Charles PI., Eagan Date/Time Flight Number Aircraft Type Arrival/ Departure Runway Lmax(dB) 01/30/2016 12:00 DAL86 MD80 D 17 85 01/29/2016 11:34 DAL1975 MD80 D 17 85 01/29/2016 15:55 DAL1877 MD80 D 17 84.9 01/14/2016 13:36 DAL1944 MD80 D 17 84.4 01/04/2016 13:20 DAL1496 MD80 D 17 83.9 01/27/2016 10:32 DAL726 MD80 D 17 83.8 01/24/2016 17:49 DAL1877 MD80 D 17 83.8 01/07/2016 13:32 DAL2624 MD80 D 17 83.1 01/30/2016 11:51 DAL869 MD80 D 17 83.1 01/30/2016 15:37 DAL2232 MD80 D 17 83 January 2016 Remote Monitoring Tower Top Ten Summary The top ten noise events and the event ranges at each RMT for January 2016 were comprised of 87.1 % departure operations. The predominant top ten aircraft type was the MD80 with 67.7% of the highest Lmax events. January 2016 Technical Advisor Report Notes Unknown fields are due to unavailability of multilateration flight track data. -37- H5 Report Generated: 02/10/2016 08:28 Analysis of Aircraft Noise Events DNL January 2016 Remote Monitoring Towers Date #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 #11 #12 #13 #14 #15 01/01/16 47.3 48.1 53.8 52.7 64.6 63.8 61.7 51,4 NA NA NA NA NA 55.3 NA 01/02/16 46.4 47.5 55.3 52.7 62.9 65.3 59.8 55.2 NA NA NA NA NA 58.1 31 01/03/16 50.2 50.5 59.1 57 67.8 68.5 63.2 58.3 NA NA NA NA NA 58 30.1 01/04/16 54.1 59.4 62.2 59.9 67.3 66.5 55.8 44.6 NA NA NA NA 51.3 58.4 55.4 01/05/16 58.3 62.6 63.4 62.3 66.7 68.2 38.8 NA 28.2 NA NA 31.3 56.4 63.5 56.8 01/06/16 57.4 60 64.8 60.1 67.9 66.2 44.5 41.8 29.6 NA NA NA 55 61.8 57.9 01/07/16 57.3 60.1 65.3 60.1 69.1 66.3 42.1 NA NA NA NA 31.8 54.1 60.7 57.2 01/08/16 48.3 51.1 57.4 55.9 66.7 67.7 64.5 56.5 33,1 37.3 NA 32.6 NA 59 NA 01/09/16 42.3 42.6 51.9 49.9 64.5 61.8 60.9 52.4 NA NA 29.1 NA NA 53.5 NA 01/10/16 45 48.3 52 54.2 63.7 64.9 60.6 51.8 NA NA NA NA 26.3 51.5 NA 01/11/16 46.9 53.6 57,8 55.4 63.5 64.5 57.6 49.3 NA 27.4 NA 30 46.9 54.6 46.8 01/12/16 41 45.8 50.8 52.5 63.5 63.8 61.2 52.9 NA 28.1 NA 26.6 35.9 53.8 43.6 01/13/16 55.2 57.6 61.4 58.4 65.3 66 52.8 50.9 NA 38.5 NA NA 49.3 58.7 52 01/14/16 54.9 59.3 63.9 59.5 67.4 66.8 52.8 50.1 32.7 NA NA 28.9 52.9 60.9 55.3 01/15/16 52.2 54.3 57.7 59.1 66.2 67.9 64.2 56.3 NA NA NA NA NA 57.5 NA 01/16/16 42 43.9 49.4 49.6 62.9 62.4 60.7 51 30.1 32.9 NA NA NA 53.7 NA 01/17/16 44.3 47.9 49.1 52.7 62 63.7 62.1 52.5 NA NA NA NA NA 54.9 NA 01/18/16 44.4 48.9 52.4 54.5 64.7 65.8 62.8 53.6 NA NA NA NA NA 52.9 33.5 01/19/16 48.7 56.8 59.3 58.5 65.3 66.9 54.3 49.9 NA NA NA NA 50.7 55.9 51.7 01/20/16 54.7 59.3 63.5 59 66.7 65.4 35.4 29.6 NA NA NA NA 53.6 59.5 55.9 01/21/16 49.1 54.9 57 57.6 64.1 65.9 60.4 53.4 NA NA NA NA 42.5 58.6 52.8 01/22/16 52.4 56.1 60.1 57 66.8 66.2 63.1 53.7 NA 31 28.9 NA 50.6 57.4 53.1 01/23/16 54.3 56 63.3 56.2 66.8 62.5 30.3 NA NA 34.2 NA NA 52.2 59.2 52.5 01/24/16 55.3 58.9 63.3 59.5 66.8 65.4 32 NA NA NA NA NA 51.6 59,8 51.7 01/25/16 52.9 56.1 61.4 57.3 66.3 66.7 61.3 56.4 NA NA NA NA 45.7 60 46 01/26/16 48 49.7 53.9 54.9 64.3 66 63 53.7 NA NA NA NA NA 58.7 30.5 01/27/16 49.2 53.4 55.4 56.6 61.7 65.7 57.8 55.1 30.8 NA NA 32.1 50.8 60.1 54 01/28/16 47.1 51.6 56.6 57.1 66.7 68 64.1 56 NA 27.7 41.5 NA NA 59,1 NA 01/29/16 57.1 59.5 64.3 59.1 68 65.1 43.4 NA 45.4 NA NA 50.7 58.1 60.2 59.7 01/30/16 54.1 55.2 61.6 55.7 64.8 62.3 51.5 46.8 NA NA NA NA 51.3 63 53,7 01/31/16 50.8 52.4 56 57.5 65.7 67.4 62.5 56.3 NA NA NA NA NA 58.3 29.5 Mo.DNL 52.7 56.2 60.4 57.5 65.9 66 60.1 52.8 31.4 28.2 27.1 36.1 50.1 58.9 52.3 Report Generated: 02/10/2016 08:28 - 38 - Analysis of Aircraft Noise Events DNL January 2016 Remote Monitoring Towers Date #16 #17 #18 #19 #20 #21 #22 #23 #24 #25 #26 #27 #28 #29 01/01/16 61.8 29.1 37.5 39.4 38.7 27.8 50 38.7 55.3 NA 34.1 54.7 54.4 48.2 01/02/16 65.2 43.4 52.1 50.1 45.7 NA 53.3 41.5 58.2 29.9 44.1 53.9 55 55.5 01/03/16 64.8 NA 28.1 NA 40.2 NA 54.3 35.8 58 28 33.1 58.5 57.8 53.7 01/04/16 65.5 NA 55.3 50.3 NA 44.8 52 59.2 56.8 52 47.3 58 54.7 NA 01/05/16 62.1 NA 55.8 50 NA 46.3 49.2 63.2 58.2 55.2 55.2 32,8 52.8 NA 01/06/16 63.5 27 56.3 51.1 NA 47.4 49.1 63.3 58.4 53.1 56 37.4 55.1 NA 01/07/16 62.9 NA 56.2 50.6 NA 42.5 49.9 61.6 58 52 49.8 39.4 56.9 NA 01/08/16 64.5 32.7 39.3 35.8 37.1 NA 54.5 47.3 58.9 34.3 30.3 57.3 58.5 54.9 01/09/16 63.3 30.1 NA NA 38.4 NA 48.6 28.3 54.9 NA NA 54.9 54.5 49.9 01/10/16 62 NA NA NA 35.4 27.8 49.4 NA 52.6 NA 29 54 52.7 51.3 01/11/16 62.2 50.4 53.2 48.3 54.1 38.3 48.3 54.1 54.2 42.4 42 45.9 57.1 47 01/12/16 63.3 35.8 43.6 NA 41.2 29.2 50.2 49.6 54.6 35.4 41.6 53 53.8 52.6 01/13/16 61.5 34.6 52.4 48.1 32.8 47.5 49.2 59 56.5 46.2 53.1 46.2 50.7 44.5 01/14/16 64.1 NA 56.1 51.4 34.7 45.2 50.4 60.4 58.4 57.4 51.7 51.9 58 NA 01/15/16 64.4 NA 42.6 30.8 34.1 NA 53.9 36.5 57.5 36.3 37.5 58.1 56.9 52.3 01/16/16 63.7 31.8 32.8 NA 43.3 NA 49.5 NA 53.8 NA 29.7 50.4 57.2 46.7 01/17/16 64.6 NA 34.1 NA NA NA 51.8 NA 55.9 NA 33.9 49.2 54.7 50.8 01/18/16 62.4 NA 40.6 NA 33 31.4 50.1 38.9 53.8 NA 36.6 53.7 57 52 01/19/16 61.2 NA 51.7 43 41 37.5 50 57.6 54.2 46.1 44.9 53 51.3 45.2 01/20/16 63.4 NA 54.9 49.8 NA 43.5 45.6 61.6 55 46 52.5 39 53.4 NA 01/21/16 65.5 48.6 54.5 49.5 53.9 NA 53.8 54 58.2 45.7 33.8 52.8 56 47.8 01/22/16 63.1 NA 49.8 44.7 34.4 33.6 51.8 58.4 56.1 49.5 42,3 57 53.8 47.7 01/23/16 57.8 NA 52.7 47.2 NA 40.6 47.3 61.3 54.5 43.8 54.2 29.6 47.2 NA 01/24/16 62.5 NA 54.1 49.2 NA 43.8 49 60.2 56 48.4 51.8 32.7 52 NA 01/25/16 64.1 42.5 51.9 48.3 48.6 37.7 52.3 55.6 57.8 41.1 41.8 50.3 58.2 50.4 01/26/16 64.6 NA 41.9 NA 45.9 30.1 53.8 35.9 58.6 46.5 NA 55.1 59 53.1 01/27/16 64.2 NA 54 50 37.8 39.5 55 58.3 59.8 53.9 48.9 48.3 54.8 52.4 01/28/16 64.2 30.3 37.4 31.4 41 NA 55.4 44 59.5 34.9 40.9 58.7 58.6 55.5 01/29/16 62.5 NA 57.6 52.2 NA 50.7 52.2 64.6 58.3 55.4 53.6 39.2 54.6 NA 01/30/16 62.7 NA 52.7 47.9 NA 45 54.9 58.7 59.8 44.9 56.4 47 48.3 43.2 01/31/16 64 46.9 50.8 51 52.9 39.5 55.6 42.7 59 29 41.2 57 55.9 54.5 Mo.DNL 63.5 39.6 52.2 47.5 44.9 41.9 52.1 57.9 57.2 49 49.5 53.7 55.7 50.2 -39- 41 Report Generated: 02/10/2016 08:28 Analysis of Aircraft Noise Events DNL January 2016 Remote Monitoring Towers Date #30 #31 #32 #33 #34 #35 #36 #37 #38 #39 01/01/16 52.5 NA 29.7 38.6 38.3 46.8 49.2 NA NA NA 01/02/16 62.1 45.6 26.9 47.8 47.6 56.6 53.1 37.3 29.2 NA 01/03/16 43.6 NA NA NA NA 46.6 51.7 NA NA NA 01/04/16 59.9 44.6 33.9 45.4 36.3 43.1 29 46 51 53.7 01/05/16 58.7 44 31.1 42.9 35.6 43.5 NA 41.7 48.6 52.7 01/06/16 59.8 45.7 28.7 44.6 33.4 44.2 NA 47.4 51.7 53 01/07/16 60.6 40.3 NA 49.9 39.1 47.1 29.7 48.4 52.8 51.3 01/08/16 NA 33.3 NA NA NA NA 42 39.2 NA NA 01/09/16 37.5 43.7 NA NA NA 37.5 44.9 NA NA NA 01/10/16 43 NA NA NA 37.9 43.9 49.7 NA NA NA 01/11/16 61 47.3 NA 43.5 33.3 51.4 41.6 51 53.2 50.3 01/12/16 45.6 30.6 NA NA 30.7 42.6 48.2 NA NA NA 01/13/16 59.9 46.8 41 49.7 46.9 45.6 45.4 47.3 49.9 49.6 01/14/16 60.6 42.2 NA 44.2 35.1 47.9 36.3 49.7 53.2 52.5 01/15/16 43.1 NA NA NA NA 44.4 48.8 NA NA NA 01/16/16 38.8 NA NA NA NA 41.6 47 NA NA NA 01/17/16 41.8 NA NA NA NA 42.4 49.5 NA NA NA 01/18/16 44.6 NA NA NA NA 42.3 48.8 NA NA NA 01/19/16 59.9 46.9 42.4 39.5 36.8 43.4 44.4 42 46.4 47.9 01/20/16 57.9 41.7 36.5 41.9 34.7 38.5 27.3 36.9 46.6 51.3 01/21/16 59.9 44.6 NA 43.7 NA 32.2 NA 34.5 45.2 43.9 01/22/16 56.3 43.1 NA 36.9 NA 43.3 45.4 46.3 51 47.7 01/23/16 57.7 45.9 32.4 39 NA 40.2 NA 45.6 48.6 48.9 01/24/16 59.8 46.5 32.6 42.4 35.9 47.8 NA 48 50.9 50.2 01/25/16 58.1 40.1 42.8 NA 30.6 38.8 NA 44.2 48.4 47.3 01/26/16 45.2 NA NA NA NA 45.4 49.9 NA NA NA 01/27/16 61.8 49.1 43.2 49 47.4 54.5 49.2 43.7 46.5 49 01/28/16 46.2 NA NA NA NA 48.4 52.8 NA NA NA 01/29/16 60.9 47.6 NA 49.3 NA 46.8 NA 49.7 53.2 54.6 01/30/16 57.9 38.9 NA 47.7 40 44.5 NA 46.6 50.7 52.3 01/31/16 62.3 44.3 41.3 46.8 40.9 55.6 53.1 48 42.8 NA Mo.DNL 58 43.3 35 43.9 38.8 48.1 47.2 44.5 48 48.5 Report Generated: 02/10/2016 08:28 - 40 - 80 72 64 56 48 Minneapolis 12L/30R RMT 2 RMT 4 RMT 6 RMT 8 RMT 29 40 Jan 11 Jul 11 Jan 12 Jul 12 Jan 13 Jul 13 Jan 14 Jul 14 Jan 15 Jul 15 Jan 16 80 72 84 56 48 Minneapolis 12R/30L RMT 1 RMT 3 RMT 5 RMT 27 40 Jan 11 Jul 11 Jan 12 Jul 12 Jan 13 Jul 13 Jan 14 Jul 14 Jan 15 Jul 15 Jan 16 75 60 45 30 15 Richfield RMT 7 RMT 18 RMT 20 RMT 28 0 Jan 11 Jul 11 Jan 12 Jul 12 Jan 13 Jul 13 Jan 14 Jul 14 Jan 15 Jul 15 Jan 16 -41 - Report Generated: 02/10/2016 08:28 75 60 45 30 15 St. Paul RMT 9 RMT 10 RMT 11 RMT 12 0 Jan 11 Jul 11 Jan 12 Jul 12 Jan 13 Jul 13 Jan 14 Jul 14 Jan 15 Jul 15J an 16 65 60 55 50 45 Mendota Heights RMT13--RMT 15 RMT 23 40 Jan 11 Jul 11 Jan 12 Jul 12 Jan 13 Jul 13 Jan 14 Jul 14 Jan 15 Jul 15 Jan 16 75 60 45 30 15 Bloomington RMT 17 RMT 19 RMT 30 RMT 31 - RMT 32 0 Jan 11 Jul 11 Jan 12 Jul 12 Jan 13 Jul 13 Jan 14 Jul 14 Jan 15 Jul 15 Jan 16 Report Generated: 02/10/2016 08:28 50 - 42 - 60 54 48 42 36 Burnsville RMT 33 RNIT 34 30 Jan 11 Jul 11 Jan 12 Jul 12 Jan 13 Jul 13 Jan 14 Jul 14 Jan 15 Jul 15 Jan 16 65 60 50 45 Apple Valley RMT 36 40 Jan 11 Jul 11 Jan 12 Jul 12 Jan 13 Jul 13 Jan 14 Jul 14 Jan 15 Jul 15 Jan 16 70 63 56 49 42 Inver Grove Heights RMT 21 RMT 22 RMT 26 Jan 11 Jul 11 Jan 12 Jul 12 Jan 13 Jul 13 Jan 14 Jul 14 an 15 Jul 15 Jan 16 -43- 51 Report Generated: 02/10/2016 08:28 80 72 64 56 48 Eagan 12/30 RMT 14 RMT 16 RMT 24 RMT 25 40 Jan 11 Jul 11 Jan 12 Jul 12 Jan 13 Jul 13 Jan 14 Jul 14 Jan 15 Jul 15 Jan 16 70 63 56 49 42 Eagan 17/35 RMT 35 RMT 37 - RMT 38 RMT 39 35 Jan 11 Jul 11 Jan 12 Jul 12 Jan 13 Jul 13 Jan 14 Jul 14 Jan 15 Jul 15 Jan 16 January 2016 DNL Values per RMT 70 05 • 80 55 50 • 45 • 40 35 30 25 20 8 18 7 30 4 2 27 5 3 14 23 24 28 8 18 29 15 22 20 39 38 38 37 31 17 25 35 10 20 33 21 34 32 10 12 9 11 Report Generated: 02/10/2016 08:28 - 44 - 1/1/2016 - 1/31/2016 Eagan -Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport This report is for informational purposes only and cannot be used for enforcement purposes Metropolitan Airports Commission 2512 Carrier Jets Departed Runways 12L and 12R in January 2016 2459 (97.9%) of those operations remained in the Corridor 2512 Total 12L & 12R Carrier Departure Operations 2459 (97.9%) Total 12L & 12R Carrier Departure Operations in the Corridor Monthly Eagan -Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis. Report Generated: 02/10/2016 08:29 Page 1 51+ Minneapolis St. Paul Penetration Gate Plot for In Corridor Gate 1/1/2016 00:00:00 - 1/31/2016 23:59:59 2459 Tracks Crossed Gate: Left = 1347 (54.8%), Right = 1112 (45.2%) Q fid_ cases t t yi >x�"G< t '� b ✓+S -f£ 1 4 J`�Z "iS � 1 $� frt.h' ' a 1 aQ . Q }'�40 o H�' s 6013 4. a "'". `� via -ti'% r " Gante ate saw ere` 121 a infor Odor. 'mss une ilo a o:erat on is;no re 'en0ed i bo 0 a .2 - S Monthly Eagan -Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis. Report Generated: 02/10/2016 08:29 Page 1 51+ Metropolitan Airports Commission 30 (1.2%) Runway 12L and 12R Carrier Jet Departure Operations were north of the 090° Corridor Boundary during January 2016. Of those, 0 (—) returned to corridor before reaching SE border of Ft. Snelling State Park Minneapolis -St. Paul Penetration Gate Plot for North Corridor Gate 1/1/2016 00:00:00 - 1/31/2016 23:59:59 30 Tracks Crossed Gate: Left = 3 (10%), Right = 27 (90%) Page 2 Monthly Eagan -Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis. Report Generated: 02/10/2016 08:29 Metropolitan Airports Commission 23 (0.9%) Runway 12L and 12R Carrier Jet Departure Operations were south of the Corridor (south of 30L Localizer) during January 2016. Of those, 0 (—) returned to Corridor before reaching SE border of Ft. Snel ing State Park Mendota,Hei d hts Minneapolis -St. Paul Penetration Gate Plot for South Corridor Gate 1/1/2016 00:00:00 - 1/31/2016 23:59:59 23 Tracks Crossed Gate: Left = 21 (91.3%), Right = 2 (8.7%) .,f 1 _ ffgTfiU dn, i�� 4vai9 a41C,�nottre. _enABsl <fri n6oa Monthly Eagan -Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis. Report Generated: 02/10/2016 08:29 Page 3 5(0 Metropolitan Airports Commission 3 (0.1 %) Runway 12L and 12R Carrier Jet Departure Operations were 5° south of the Corridor (5° south of 30L Localizer) during January 2016 Minneapolis -St. Paul Penetration Gate Plot for 5° South Corridor Gate 1/1/2016 00:00:00 - 1/31/2016 23:59:59 3 Tracks Crossed Gate: Left = 3 (100%), Right = 0 (0%) Page 4 Monthly Eagan -Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis. Report Generated: 02/10/2016 08:29 Metropolitan Airports Commission Top 15 Runway 12L/12R Departure Destinations for January 2016 Airport City Heading (deg.) #O s p Percent of Total Ops SEA SEATTLE 278° 105 4.2% FAR FARGO 312° 80 3.2% GFK GRAND FORKS 316° 74 2.9% BOS BOSTON 97° 72 2.9% YYZ TORONTO 95° 70 2.8% MOT MINOT 304° 64 2.5% BIS BISMARCK 291° 63 2.5% ORD CHICAGO (O'HARE) 124° 59 2.3% YWG WINNIPEG 330° 57 2.3% DLH DULUTH 19° 55 2.2% SLC SALT LAKE CITY 252° 53 2.1% SFO SAN FRANCISCO 251° 50 2% ATL ATLANTA 149° 48 1.9% RAP RAPID CITY 269° 46 1.8% LAS LAS VEGAS 243° 43 1.7% Monthly Eagan -Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Analysis. Report Generated: 02/10/2016 08:29 Page 5 ° 1/1/2016 - 1/31/2016 Runway 17 Departure Analysis Report Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport { P Li 36 - T , b hk Frk- { 1x1 3 .- tt is This report is for informati nal purposes only and cannot be used for enforcement purposes ° 4204 Carrier Jets Departed Runway 17 - 1/1/2016 - 1/31/2016 Runway 17 Departure Overflight Grid Analysis Metropolitan Airports Commission Runway 17 Departure Analysis Report - 1/1/2016-1/31/2016. Report Generated: 02/10/2016 08:29 - 1 - (-o0 Runway 17 Carrier Jet Departure Operations - 1/1/2016-1/31/2016 4199 (99.9%) Westbound Carrier Jet Departure Operations flying the Runway 17 Jet Departure Procedure (passing over the 2.5 NM turn point) and Runway 17 eastbound Carrier Jet Departure Operations 5 (0.1%) Carrier Jet Departure Operations turned west before passing over the Runway 17 2.5 NM turn point. This is 0.3% of 1701 westbound departures Ar`'otG 7e,FriT • here�altitipdg ipfo mat opnis,`na. Runway,E' 4 dq at flAg s) ofe a ibn;jsgt om:`ee Metropolitan Airports Commission Runway 17 Departure Analysis Report - 1/1/2016-1/31/2016. Report Generated: 02/10/2016 08:29 - 2 - l Q Runway 17 Nighttime Carrier Jet Departure Operations - 1/1/2016 - 1/31/2016 41 Nighttime Carrier Jet Departure Operations off of Runway 17 in 1/1/2016 - 1/31/2016 (10:30 p.m. - 6:00 a.m.) 0 (0%) Westbound Carrier Jet Departures turned west between 2.5 and 3.0 NM from start of takeoff and remained over the Minnesota River Valley (trending with Runway 17 River Departure Heading) 0,23 14 (34.1%) Westbound Carrier Jet Departures turned west after 3.0 NM from start of takeoff and remained over the Minnesota River Valley (trending with Runway 17 River Departure Procedure) 0 (0%) Carrier Jet Departures turned west before passing over the Runway 17 2.5 NM turn point 10 (24.4%) Remaining westbound Carrier Jet Departures flew the Runway 17 Jet Departure Procedure (passing over the 2.5 NM turn point), and with an enroute heading to the destination airport ' 17 (41.5%) Other Nighttime Carrier Jet Departure Operations Metropolitan Airports Commission Runway 17 Departure Analysis Report - 1/1/2016-1/31/2016. Report Generated: 02/10/2016 08:29 - 3 - [0 - Remote Monitoring Tower (RMT) Site Locations E IVES T VALLEYNATL` t DLI REF REs LEGEND Exist in RMT's: Runway 1 TRMT's Note: The following pages contain noise data representative of real-time recordings from the Remote Monitoring Towers. Occasional data losses occur as a result of short-term equipment malfunctions and routine maintenance. Metropolitan Airports Commission Runway 17 Departure Analysis Report - 1/1/2016-1/31/2016. Report Generated: 02/10/2016 08:29 - 4 - Analysis of Aircraft Noise Levels - DNL dBA 1/1/2016-1/31/2016 Date #30 #31 #32 #33 #34 #35 #36 #37 #38 #39 01/01 52.5 NA 29.7 38.6 38.3 46.8 49.2 NA NA NA 01/02 62.1 45.6 26.9 47.8 47.6 56,6 53.1 37,3 29.2 NA 01/03 43.6 NA NA NA NA 46.6 51.7 NA NA NA 01/04 59.9 44.6 33.9 45.4 36.3 43.1 29 46 51 53.7 01/05 58.7 44 31.1 42.9 35.6 43.5 NA 41.7 48.6 52.7 01/06 59.8 45.7 28.7 44.6 33.4 44.2 NA 47.4 51.7 53 01/07 60.6 40.3 NA 49.9 39.1 47.1 29.7 48.4 52.8 51.3 01/08 NA 33.3 NA NA NA NA 42 39.2 NA NA 01/09 37.5 43.7 NA NA NA 37.5 44.9 NA NA NA 01/10 43 NA NA NA 37.9 43.9 49.7 NA NA NA 01/11 61 47.3 NA 43.5 33.3 51.4 41.6 51 53.2 50.3 01/12 45.6 30.6 NA NA 30.7 42.6 48.2 NA NA NA 01/13 59.9 46.8 41 49.7 46.9 45.6 45.4 47.3 49.9 49.6 01/14 60.6 42.2 NA 44.2 35.1 47.9 36.3 49.7 53.2 52.5 01/15 43.1 NA NA NA NA 44.4 48.8 NA NA NA 01/16 38.8 NA NA NA NA 41.6 47 NA NA NA 01/17 41.8 NA NA NA NA 42.4 49.5 NA NA NA 01/18 44.6 NA NA NA NA 42.3 48.8 NA NA NA 01/19 59.9 46.9 42.4 39.5 36.8 43.4 44.4 42 46.4 47.9 01/20 57.9 41.7 36.5 41.9 34.7 38.5 27.3 36.9 46.6 51.3 01/21 59.9 44.6 NA 43,7 NA 32.2 NA 34.5 45.2 43.9 01/22 56.3 43.1 NA 36.9 NA 43.3 45.4 46,3 51 47.7 01/23 57.7 45.9 32.4 39 NA 40.2 NA 45.6 48.6 48.9 01/24 59.8 46.5 32.6 42.4 35.9 47.8 NA 48 50.9 50.2 01/25 58.1 40.1 42.8 NA 30.6 38.8 NA 44.2 48.4 47.3 01/26 45.2 NA NA NA NA 45.4 49.9 NA NA NA 01/27 61.8 49.1 43.2 49 47.4 54.5 49.2 43.7 46.5 49 01/28 46.2 NA NA NA NA 48.4 52.8 NA NA NA 01/29 60.9 47.6 NA 49.3 NA 46.8 NA 49.7 53.2 54.6 01/30 57.9 38.9 NA 47.7 40 44.5 NA 46.6 50.7 52.3 01/31 62.3 44.3 41.3 46.8 40.9 55.6 53.1 48 42.8 NA Mo.DNL 58 43.3 35 43.9 38.8 48.1 47.2 44.5 48 48.5 Metropolitan Airports Commission Runway 17 Departure Analysis Report - 1/1/2016-1/31/2016. Report Generated: 02/10/2016 08:29 - 5 - Aircraft Noise Levels DNL dBA January 2013 to 2016 RMT Aircraft DNL Aircraft DNL Aircraft DNL Aircraft DNL ORD 2013 2014 2015 2016 30 56.7 54.9 60.7 58 31 40.9 40.7 46.4 43.3 32 36 35.6 40.3 35 33 41.8 38.2 47.1 43.9 34 37.5 34.4 44.1 38.8 35 52.4 47.6 53.1 48.1 36 50.2 49.7 51.7 47.2 37 43.1 37.1 45.6 44.5 38 45.1 40.2 47.3 48 39 46.8 44.2 46.3 48.5 Note: Due to adjustments in data processing, historical values may vary slightly from previous reports. Top 15 Runway 17 Departure Destination Report Airport City Heading (deg.) #Ops Percent of Total Ops ORD CHICAGO (O'HARE) 124° 290 6.9% PHX PHOENIX 231° 187 4.4% DEN DENVER 237° 184 4.4% MDW CHICAGO (MIDWAY) 124° 171 4.1% DFW DALLAS/FORT WORTH 193° 166 3.9% ATL ATLANTA 149° 162 3.9% IAH HOUSTON 185° 118 2.8% LAX LOS ANGELES 238° 114 2.7% MCO ORLANDO 151° 105 2.5% EWR NEWARK 106° 101 2.4% MCI KANSAS CITY 188° 94 2.2% RSW FORT MYERS 154° 93 2.2% LAS LAS VEGAS 243° 89 2.1% CLT CHARLOTTE 133° 86 2% DTW DETROIT 105° 84 2% Metropolitan Airports Commission Runway 17 Departure Analysis Report - 1/1/2016-1/31/2016. Report Generated: 02/10/2016 08:29 - 6 - ( S January 2016 Crossing -in -the -Corridor Analysis Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport This report is for informational purposes only and cannot be used for enforcement purposes LAP Metropolitan Airports Commission January 2016 Carrier Jet Departure Operations Runways 12L & 12R (23:00 - 06:00) 124 Carrier Jets Departed Runways 12L & 12R between the hours of 23:00 and 06:00 Crossing -in -the -Corridor Analysis. Report Generated: 02/10/2016 08:29 Page 1 11 Metropolitan Airports Commission January 2016 Carrier Jet Departure Operations Performing the Crossing Procedure off Runways 12L & 12R (23:00 - 06:00) 43 (35%) Carrier Jets Crossed After Departing Runways 12L & 12R between the hours of 23:00 and 06:00 Page 2 Crossing -in -the -Corridor Analysis. Report Generated: 02/10/2016 08:29 Metropolitan Airports Commission January 2016 Carrier Jet Departure Operations Runways 12L & 12R (06:00 - 23:00) 2388 Carrier Jets Departed Runways 12L & 12R between the hours of 06:00 and 23:00 Crossing -in -the -Corridor Analysis. Report Generated: 02/10/2016 08:29 Page 3 LO Metropolitan Airports Commission January 2016 Carrier Jet Departure Operations Performing the Crossing Procedure off Runways 12L & 12R (06:00 - 23:00) 814 (34%) Carrier Jets Crossed After Departing Runways 12L & 12R between the hours of 06:00 and 23:00 Page 4 Crossing -in -the -Corridor Analysis. Report Generated: 02/10/2016 08:29 go qH AIR Oft Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Monthly Runway Use System Report January 2016 ronment nvlDepartment, Metropolitan Airports Commission 6040 28th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55450 MetroAirports.org This report is for informational purposes only and cannot be used for enforcement purposes rl Runway Use System Report - January 2016 Selecting which runways to use for aircraft departures and arrivals at Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport (MSP) is a complex task. Decisions about airport configuration and runway use at MSP are made carefully on a continuous basis by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Air Traffic Control (ATC). ATC takes into consideration numerous factors, including: safety, efficiency, wind direction and wind speed (on the surface and aloft), air traffic demand, aircraft weight, the number of inbound and scheduled outbound aircraft, noise abatement, and many other variables when selecting an airport configuration. At MSP the most frequently used runways are the parallel runways, Runway 12R -30L and Runway 12L -30R. These runways are used every day unless construction or unusual meteorological conditions do not allow their use. Runway 17 is used for departures in a southerly direction. Runway 35 is used for arrivals from the south. Runway 4-22 is used for arrivals and/or departures of heavy aircraft that require longer runway distances for landings or takeoffs. The Runway Use System (RUS) prioritizes arrival and departure runways to promote flight activity over less - populated residential areas as much as possible. Figure A— MSP Airport Layout and Runway Use System Arrivals (red): 1 • 1st Priority: Runways 30L and 30R 2 - 2nd Priority: Runway 35 3 - 3rd Priority: Balanced Use of Runway 4-22 4 4t Priority: Runways 121. and 12R Departures (green): 1 - lst Priority: Runways 12Land 12R 2.2nd Priority: Runway 17 3 - 3rd Priority: Balanced Use of Runway 4-22 4 - 4th Priority: Runways 30L and 30R 2 Departure Prioritization (see green arrows depicted on Figure A): 1. Runways 12L and 12R (parallel runways) are the first priority for departures since aircraft overfly industrial use areas to the southeast immediately after takeoff from MSP. These runways are used when wind speed and direction promote a south flow at MSP. In addition, there are times when these runways are used if winds are light enough, regardless of the wind direction, and when airspace demand is light enough to allow discretion in runway configuration. 2. Runway 17 is used for departures to the south to augment the flow of air traffic using the parallel runways, and when wind speed and direction promote a south flow at MSP. 3. Balanced Use of Runway 4-22 occurs when strong northeasterly or southwesterly winds (crosswinds) prevent use of the parallel runways, or when an aircraft requires a longer runway for takeoff. 4. Runways 30L and 30R (parallel runways) are the lowest priority for departures since aircraft consequently take off to the northwest over densely -populated residential areas. These runways are used during heavy air traffic demand periods and when wind conditions and other factors do not allow use of Runways 12L and 12R. Arrival Prioritization (see red arrows depicted on Figure A): 1. Runways 30L and 30R (parallel runways) are the first priority for arrivals since aircraft approach MSP from the southeast over industrial use areas. These runways are used when flight factors promote a north flow at MSP and during heavy air traffic demand periods. 2. Runway 35 is used for arrivals from the south when wind speed and direction promote a north flow at MSP and during peak air traffic periods to augment the use of the parallel runways. 3. Balanced Use of Runway 4-22 occurs when strong northeasterly or southwesterly crosswinds prevent use of the parallel runways, or when an aircraft requires a longer runway for landing. 4. Runways 12L and 12R are the lowest priority for arrivals from the northwest since aircraft approach MSP over densely -populated residential areas. These runways are used when wind speed and direction promote a south flow at MSP. Five primary airport runway configuration options exist at MSP: north -flow, south -flow, opposite -direction, and two mixed flows. A north -flow configuration offers three runways for arriving aircraft, which makes it the most efficient, due to the airspace requirements of arriving aircraft. During a north -flow configuration (N) aircraft arrivals are on Runways 30L, 30R and 35 and departures are on Runways 30L and 30R, as shown in Figure B. There are times when the wind characteristics do not allow for arrivals on Runway 35 during a north -flow configuration. This results in all arrivals and departures on Runways 30L and 30R. For the purposes of this report, this configuration is denoted as straight north -flow (N*), as shown in Figure C. Minneapolis Richfield Figure B — North -Flow (N) Figure C — Straight North -Flow (N*) 3 q5 During a south -flow configuration aircraft arrivals are on Runways 12L and 12R and departures are on Runways 12L, 12R and 17, as shown in Figure D. Conversely to the north -flow configuration, the south -flow configuration (S) offers three departure runways. There are times when the wind characteristics do not allow for departures on Runway 17 during a south -flow configuration. This results in all aircraft arrivals and departures on Runways 12L and 12R. For the purposes of this report, this configuration is denoted as straight south -flow (S*), as shown in Figure E. Figure D — South -Flow (S) Mlnnespolis St. Paul Richfield Mendota Heights Eagan Figure E — Straight South -Flow (S*) As part of the RUS, head-to-head, or opposite -direction operations (0), are sometimes conducted to the southeast of MSP. This configuration, shown in Figure F, utilizes the most preferred arrival and departure runways according to the RUS; however, it requires at least 15 miles of separation between arrival and departure operations and can be used only during low aircraft traffic demand periods with light winds present. Figure F — Opposite Direction (0) Mendota 4 According to the FAA, mixed -flow configurations that maximize the RUS are most feasible during nighttime and during transitions into, and out of, high aircraft traffic demand periods. These transitions typically occur between 6:00 a.m. and 7:30 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. and 10:30 p.m. One example of a mixed flow configuration (MA) is where aircraft arrive on Runways 30L and 30R and depart on Runway 17 with reduced departure operations on Runways 30L and 30R, as shown in Figure G. In another mixed flow configuration (MB) aircraft arrivals occur on Runway 35 with departures on Runways 12L and 12R, as shown in Figure H. Figure G — Mixed Flow A (MA) Figure H — Mixed Flow B (MB) A summary of runway use for January 2016 is provided in Table 1 for total operations, nighttime operations, and the morning transition and evening transition periods; these transition periods provide the greatest opportunity for ATC to utilize the most beneficial aspects of the RUS for noise mitigation when wind conditions and other factors allow. 5 Figure 1— Airport Layout Arrivals on 12U0oparturos on 30R Arrivals on 22/Departures an 4 over Richfield and Minneapolis a over St. Paul Arrivals on 12R/Departures on 301. over RIahlleld and Minneapolis Arrivals on 30R/Departures on 121. ovor Eagan and Mendota Heights Arrivals on 4/Departures on 22 over Bloomington Arrivals on 35/Departures on 17 over Bloomington and Eagan Arrivals on 30UDepartures on 12R over Eagan and Mendota Heights Table 1 — Summary of Runway Use: January 2016 RWY Arrival/ Departure Total Operations Count Nighttime Count (10:30 p.m. -6:00 a.m.) Morning Transition Count (6:00 a.m. 7:30 a.m.) Evening Transition Count (9:00 p.m. -10:30 p.m.) Total Operations Percent Nighttime Percent (10:30 p.m. - 6:00 a.m.) Morning Transition Percent (6:00 a.m. - 7:30 a.m.) Evening Transition Percent (9:00 p.m. - 10:30 p.m.) „Arrivals ;, , n =Y 0 %{ On ": ` 0 ; 0X00% . , 9 00%E.,,. 0 00% v T6,90% 12L Arrivals 3,188 176 106 87 20.17% 1.11% 0.67% 0.55% s ror, ACClvals �,? ?.,,r ys3`548,r.. t,,. X244 fa` 53 } 4 F` 1}9<fig»s ° 22144. /0. , 5 ' Y ;'14%sfi. '- 03(%{#4. . y 0194% ... 17 Arrivals 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0,00% 0.00% 0.00% .:.2. lysis?, s 0,l °,P, p % . `.. 5 «dpi 30L Arrivals 3,830 637 69 259 24.23% 4.03% 0.44% 1,64% B. r £ P S'r - k Arrivals .:k:, ,t ,�t c a 1 7 3,i8 ... < f.: �, ,1, J ' 223 `� ,� Y ff,1? <I. x 1 . r} �+' � 176..„ 51x i�t`� 0 P 22 25/o f t , '} ° �i 1 410 r 0 0 X40 901�fa a s ° 111/ 35 Arrivals 1,724 1 4 42 10.91% 0.01% 0.03% 0.27% Total-Month`ly`Arrlvals ; 15,808 " a ,1,281 = 374 3 713 100100%p '8510% „, 2 37% 4 51% 4 Departures 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0,00% 0.00% 0.00% 12L .. ' ✓ epartur.-,,,1,872- 74 rd ,=•1t. - r or 0 , 40 trv o %,a f x 12R Departures 949 143 214 125 6.01% 0.91% 1,36% 0,79% 17 • 4..Departures 4,468 * 42 276 "r 45 rr $ 30% 027°l°{ a ?t7' % 0, % 22 Departures 3 0 0 0 0.02% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 30L , 5 Departures' a , ' r'f'4 898 '1 ',197 391 283 X31.02% ;, 3f 25%4 ' 48% 1r79% 30R Departures 3,599 134 175 228 22.79% 0.85% 1.11% 1.44% 3.5 .., ^ ' :Departures'.. 5 `S O j,,,..,..`; , 0 ,',N) ..„" 1091005y f 5,; 0tb0(o a 4 ;0/O ' ' 0 0090 Total Monthly Departures 15,789 590 1,184 779 100.00% 3.74% 7.50% 4.93% Total Monthly Operations- 31,597 ''A,871- .1,558 - +1'1,492 • 6 co The purpose of the RUS is to establish priorities of arrival and departure runways to promote flights over less - populated areas. According to the RUS, the arrival runway priorities are Runways 30L, 30R and 35 and the departure runway priorities are Runways 12R, 12L and 17. A monthly summary of the activity on the RUS high- priority runways is provided in Table 2. Table 2 — Use of RUS High -Priority Runways: January 2016 The appendix contains an hourly breakout of airport operations, airport runway configuration changes, surface winds and winds aloft information by day. Airport traffic demand levels, surface winds and winds aloft are the greatest determining factors in runway configuration at MSP. When the traffic demand and wind conditions are not determining factors, ATC has more discretion in determining the runway configuration and, therefore, a greater opportunity to utilize the RUS. In addition to the significant issues of airport traffic demand levels and wind conditions, there are a number of variables that may affect the runway configuration. These include, among others: aircraft separation minimums, runway conditions and closures, meteorological conditions, visibility, navigational equipment maintenance, aircraft emergencies, pilot requests, aircraft weight and performance characteristics and aircraft de-icing activity. The individual and cumulative synergistic effects of these variables add significant complexity to the airport runway use configuration at MSP at any given time. 7 11 Count Percent Use of RUS High -Priority Runways 16,361 51.78% J Z l 11 __ Arrivals 3OL, 30R, 35 �°e r 9,0 2 ttf 28 71% 41 Departures 12L, 12R, 17 7,289 23.07% aJ Monthly Oeratlor?s ����37,597,�� 10000% The appendix contains an hourly breakout of airport operations, airport runway configuration changes, surface winds and winds aloft information by day. Airport traffic demand levels, surface winds and winds aloft are the greatest determining factors in runway configuration at MSP. When the traffic demand and wind conditions are not determining factors, ATC has more discretion in determining the runway configuration and, therefore, a greater opportunity to utilize the RUS. In addition to the significant issues of airport traffic demand levels and wind conditions, there are a number of variables that may affect the runway configuration. These include, among others: aircraft separation minimums, runway conditions and closures, meteorological conditions, visibility, navigational equipment maintenance, aircraft emergencies, pilot requests, aircraft weight and performance characteristics and aircraft de-icing activity. The individual and cumulative synergistic effects of these variables add significant complexity to the airport runway use configuration at MSP at any given time. 7 11 Appendix Hourly Breakout of Airport Operations and Weather by Day January 2016 8 rlb Saturday, January 02 2016 Friday, January 01 2016 Runway Configuration Labels k -J Runway Configuration _¥ aad s ,_w 0 ( CO » art011 aad suoirmoda _,k(�« spume awl A(,W spulm riq CO 2 ; R § , nogar W V m ,n R y4, K Aye * 010 0 CO ) co ( 0 0 0 • Monday, January 04 2016 Sunday, January 03 2016 Runway Configuration Labels Runway Configuration , a L o a) ▪ 0) a 2 E 4 V) . . lk.., = •c 4-, 2 (n. .V., ...., th 8 0 0 Ili ..v u _ LI I/ 4 0. Q *0 •c ta. al 0 ,a) Irj ? co Cri r,;, el . i'••3 4" 113 g .c t o .§ ..Q 2 .,, • • c .c co it) .• 42 n i: ol Z 22 tc c o a) u 2X u_ ri.z z ii c a (1) .c p, .c v) D r ft..' ,• •Ffi o „, "0 . 0 •c7) a.) ,..t_ a L a 4g 9 HI @ (.9 Vl d (r1 0;n ii...) .0/ MI 41 -8 iTo_ Lt' t t f (tj U 0 — z 'n .2 .0 CO 2 g ITz c , • ..,., til ‹ e ;,. n LT. 13 ,§ 2)< u_ t c n ck: z • o 0 arioq JEW stionpaa(10 o LO 0 ID 0 0 .411 V) ,- °i (Cq (t(im) spulm (Japp n s 0 LO 0 0 0 .g.-+ nog Sq ((Iw) sptlint aouplis O LO 0 Ln o J nog Ng (1am) lio/V $1111141 11 L. o 0 0 0 0 • ..,11 anal' (Crf (Ow) VolV 6PWM 0 '41 0 0 ednesday, January 06 2016 Tuesday, January 05 2016 \ ] Runway Configuration Runway Configuration Labels 0 0 CV 0 0 0 tLit arum s,m6 _i dad sccontmadO co co MI 0 LO LO 0 _,Ac g spcipvc _gAr;�w spuim Bt & / uata�w Sq sPulA4 0 00 0 0 CO CO 0 0 01 w 0 30 00 LO 0 in 0 CO _iA(4i w Aye m Friday, January 08 2016 Thursday, January 07 2016 Runway Configuration Labels w J Runway Configuration u a U N ✓ 3 C O "1)) ro rDm v� CC W 5 � g 0 O 1z0'' AI !(0 NN 0 0 0CO ,enoq ,+ad suolWJado 0 O CO 0 0 anoq uad suopo.wdo N ▪ 0 0 w 0 0 N 0 10 0 0 III 0 ti 0 uI <r m m w m .moll cq (richt) spulM aanfJns N W 0 N 0 CO anoq Cq (gdut) spu1M aaqms 8 a, .moq riq (gldlu) 1)o1V spu!M W CO 10 .moil Ng (Out) HDTV spulnl Sunday, January 10 2016 Saturday, January 09 2016 Runway Configuration Labels 0 0 0 0 0 CO N 00 _I aaci u _w _¥ dad stionrAtadO i# / I 11 11 11 1 1 I � I| | ( I| 1 0 0 1 0 ,0 0 0 co e; R=° 2; R a` _ ig(Om) p*eQe _,Ac w Fpulm .1 nog % (Ow) Ay$ 4 n to anal' rfq (Ow Aye m 0 00 1 { 0 o\ 0 0 Tuesday, January 12 2016 Monday, January 11 2016 § \ Runway Configuration Runway Configuration Labels .1 as _w ) § 0 _, j otionawdo _,ate w spupvt anal( ANam) spuini Bq. _,A(ticitW Aye & ,w,@c A Aye » 0 0CO44 0 0 0 0 0 OD mg • co \ 0 Thursday, January 14 2016 ednesday, January 13 2016 Runway Configuration Labels o o 0 0 anoll tad Suopa.tado o N 0 cots 0 .tnoq .tad Suolao.tado o d, m -I0 snarl tfq (ydtu) SPUwM aapjans z I; 1/ p 1 0 N 0 0 0 O) 0 0 0 m m 0 0 m tV 00 m - o 1 nog rSq (glut) Jolt/ Spul;14 1 II II 11' I I I' IQ 0 d. 0 tV 0 rn ti 0 0 m 00 m w v ro 0 on m- o tnot' Rq (ydtu) Spulm aauftns tnoy rcq (gdul) 3/01V Spu1M 0 Saturday, January 16 2016 Friday, January 15 2016 Runway Configuration Labels Runway Configuration Labels (0 N 0 0 0 anoy dad suopuaadq • N 0 0 0cp anoy aad sao,auaadp zi 0 1Cl O 0) O 0 W 0 t1-1 O (0 w m .-In snot{ fq (ydtu) &paw oaoJans (p W (`7 ti anoy Sq (yclw) sptgm aauJans anoy Aq (ydut) JoIV sPulM (0 0 O O allot, Nry (Ow) 7/01V sPi'IA4 c0v 0 00 rn ▪ 0 0 t b 0 0m 0 N O N 0 0 O) 0 0 0 0 m Monday, January 18 2016 Sunday, January 17 2016 Runway Configuration Labels Runway Configuration Labels O UO LL T„ L N � C t°n5 0 3 •.'6" * � C 0 b . U N S a A@b o 0 to p N [° C N 0] p N • 112 LL LL b Zo b eci Q 4 1F z z p O LLLtoX > L •' C 2 L � � 7 G C U1 j U rn= � C L V) 'N U � N C 61 O . oU _ N 0. O .. W -0 top ( ro v m c m L LL b C � o X o4 z� b t pj ro g m� N¢ bi LL o O 0 U D X a LL L C c 2 2 o 0 0 • IN CO CI N CO d ti 0 CO t0 z•• 0_ N 0 0 dnoq dad suonuaado O 0 N 0 10 0 .D d M K. 01 0 0 0 0 cc) oir d ahoy dad diol. wdo dnoy Sq (yaw) spulnt oaoldns ro a m N 0 dnoy 6q (ydtu) 0puJM ooDjan9 01 0 GO d M ti .1noq Ng (gam) Vo1V Spu419 N ti 0 0 0 N O N co w inw m in ,rnoy Sri (gdur) 110117 0P0)M O 0 0 0 0 0 0 • d 0 0 m Wednesday, January 20 2016 Tuesday, January 19 2016 Runway Configuration Labels $ \ Runway Configuration , s «ed° _, suontuado o _,%( g spuytt ) { } \ a _,Ac W palm aapj.3 e8 co } I / \ co - 0 CO I Jnort W AyS + 0 0 \ Aye m Friday, January 22 2016 Thursday, January 21 2016 Runway Configuration Labels ] ) Runway Configuration , !I Off aaci mado _, dod $ &ado G ; 0 0 _,ac spupi _J&r m Aye m � h CY 0 0 0 0 0 0 g 01 0 t° •mm@(Eidkw spulm atoll Ng' c « k¥S w 0 co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 co Sunday, January 24 2016 Saturday, January 23 2016 Runway Configuration Labels N a J Runway Configuration o 0 OD ti O 0 o CO d' anvil ,rad suollaaadp 0 0 0 0 0 SC) ▪ N rp V ,uwy aarl suolaaaadp 0 w CO - - 0 annq rtq (gdru) spulM anDJans ✓ N N noq rf'q (rldcu) spul4 a0PJans It) coo d CO 10 v 0 anog Ng (gdut) Vold sP10M N 0 O 0) 0 00 m 10 0 co O coo V CO LO anvil Ng (gdiu) i/o1V spuIAl Tuesday, January 26 2016 Monday, January 25 2016 0 0 Td L N o C J L � • • -11 Ot . � C .0) — • o y C u o. 0 '5' •a O L 0 yLL u tco mm 2• CC • in¢ 4' b � _ X LL 0 Q u 0 0 to N CO 0 0 ..mot' tad suollu.aadp N CO 0 0 snot( .aad suo',7u.tado - I1 II 0 N O CA • d M .�-i O 0 b (0 10O ,tnot( A'q (gdtu) spu(nt aon,Jtns 0 d CO LA" .tnog fc1(t(dtu) spu(nt aou/.ms .t nog rf'q (Ow) 7101V spu914 O 0 rn 0 0CO 0 0m s'H C 10 0 Cc) ,a not{ Ng (t(duq 41o1V sptijN Thursday, January 28 2016 dnesday, January 27 2016 Runway Configuration Labels Runway Configuration Labels .1O avd F _w 0 inoti g *mQ9 o to in _,Ar w 5w=me G ; R o J&( W VRy spulm o to in _laA4�w Ay4 w 0 ,711 co } 0 ) co Saturday, January 30 2016 Friday, January 29 2016 Runway Configuration Labels Runway Configuration Labels 0 0 0 0 0 _( aad stionvaoclo _,At « pmrm6 LO 0 ID 0 anoq w m=m6 c3 CO ; G t zqR(iichW VoiV$PuM1 _,ar w Aye w Sunday, January 31 2016 Runway Configuration Labels 0 CI CO _, aacl suormaacla , noti& c « spuint aaolans 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _,Ac m Avp« Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport (MSP) Annual Noise Contour Analysis Comparison of the 2015 Actual Noise Contour and the 2007F©recast Noise Contour MAC Noise Program Office and HNTB Corporation 0\ 5' [This page is left blank intentionally] Table of Contents Executive Summary Background Airport Noise Litigation and the Consent Decree MSP 2020 Improvements EA/EAW II First Amendment to the 2007 Consent Decree II Noise Mitigation Eligibility Status under the First Amendment to the 2007 Consent Decree II 1 Background 1 1.1 Corrective Land Use Efforts at MSP to Address Airport Noise 1 1.2 2007 Forecast Mitigated Noise Contour 3 1.3 Airport Noise Litigation 6 1.4 Noise Mitigation Settlement and Annual Noise Contour Analysis 7 1.5 Final MSP 2020 Improvements Environmental Assessment/Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA/EAW) 8 2 2015 Actual Noise Contour 11 2.1 2015 Actual Noise Contour Development 11 2.1.1 Noise Modeling 11 2,1.2 2015 Aircraft Operations and Fleet Mix 12 2.1.3 2015 Runway Use 18 2.1.4 2015 Flight Tracks 19 2.1.5 2015 Atmospheric Conditions 19 2.2 2015 Modeled Versus Measured DNL Levels 36 2.3 2015 Noise Contour Impacts 37 3 Comparison of the 2015 Actual Noise Contour and the 2007 Forecast Noise Contour 40 3.1 Comparison of 2015 Actual and 2007 Forecast Noise Contour Inputs 40 3.1.1 Noise Model Considerations 40 3.1.2 Aircraft Operations and Fleet Mix Comparison 40 3.1.3 Runway Use Comparison 46 3.1.4 Flight Track Considerations 48 3.1.5 Atmospheric Conditions Comparison 48 3.2 Comparative Noise Model Grid Point Analysis 48 3.3 Contour Comparison Summary 49 4 2015 Actual Noise Contour and the First Amendment to the Consent Decree 66 4.1 First Amendment to the Noise Mitigation Consent Decree 66 4.2 2015 Actual Contour Noise Mitigation Impact 66 List of Tables Table 2.1: 2015 Total Operations 12 Table 2.2: 2015 Aircraft Fleet Mix Average Daily Operations 13 Table 2.3: 2015 Runway Use 18 Table 2.4: 2015 Measured vs. Modeled INM DNL Values at RMT Locations 36 Table 2.5: Summary of 2015 Actual DNL Noise Contour Single -Family and Multi -Family Unit Counts 37 Table 3.1: Comparison of 2007 Forecast Mitigated and 2015 Actual Total Operations 40 Table 3.2: Comparison of 2007 Forecast Mitigated Fleet Mix and 2015 Actual Fleet Mix 41 Table 3.3: Comparison of 2007 Forecast Mitigated and 2015 Actual Runway Use 47 Table 4.1: Summary of 2015 Actual DNL Noise Contour Single -Family Unit Counts by Block 68 Table 4.2: Summary of 2015 Actual DNL Noise Contour Multi -Family Unit Counts by Block 69 List of Figures Figure ES -1: 2015 Actual Contours with First Amendment Mitigation V Figure ES -2: 2015 Actual Contours with Consecutive Years of Mitigation Eligibility City of Minneapolis VI Figure 1.1: 2007 Forecast Mitigated Contours 5 Figure 2.1: 2015 INM Tracks — Runway 30L Departures Overall Use Percentage 20 Figure 2.2: 2015 INM Tracks — Runway 30R Departures Overall Use Percentage 21 Figure 2.3: 2015 INM Tracks — Runway 4 Departures Overall Use Percentage 22 Figure 2.4: 2015 INM Tracks — Runway 12L Departures Overall Use Percentage 23 Figure 2.5: 2015 INM Tracks — Runway 12R Departures Overall Use Percentage 24 Figure 2.6: 20151NM Tracks — Runway 22 Departures Overall Use Percentage 25 Figure 2.7: 2015 INM Tracks — Runway 17 Departures Overall Use Percentage 26 Figure 2.8: 2015 INM Tracks — Runway 35 Departures Overall Use Percentage 27 Figure 2.9: 2015 INM Tracks — Runway 12R Arrivals Overall Use Percentage 28 Figure 2.10: 2015 INM Tracks — Runway 12L Arrivals Overall Use Percentage 29 Figure 2.11: 20151NM Tracks — Runway 22 Arrivals Overall Use Percentage 30 Figure 2.12: 2015 INM Tracks — Runway 30R Arrivals Overall Use Percentage 31 Figure 2.13: 2015 INM Tracks — Runway 30L Arrivals Overall Use Percentage 32 Figure 2.14: 2015 INM Tracks — Runway 35 Arrivals Overall Use Percentage 33 Figure 2.15: 2015 INM Tracks — Runway 4 Arrivals Overall Use Percentage 34 Figure 2.16: 2015 INM Tracks — Runway 17 Arrivals Overall Use Percentage 35 Figure 2.17: 2015 Actual Contours 38 Figure 2.18: 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 Actual Contours 39 Figure 3.1: Decibel Levels from 2015 Actual Grid Point DNLs 50 Figure 3.2: Decibel Levels from 2015 Actual Grid Point DNLs City of Minneapolis 51 Figure 3.3: Decibel Levels from 2015 Actual Grid Point DNLs City of Richfield 52 Figure 3.4: Decibel Levels from 2015 Actual Grid Point DNLs Cities of Bloomington and Eagan 53 Figure 3.5: Decibel Levels from 2015 Actual Grid Point DNLs Cities of Eagan, Mendota Heights and Inver Grove Heights 54 Figure 3.6: Decibel Levels from 2007 Forecast Mitigated Grid Point DNLs 55 Figure 3.7: Decibel Levels from 2007 Forecast Mitigated Grid Point DNLs City of Minneapolis 56 Figure 3.8: Decibel Levels from 2007 Forecast Mitigated Grid Point DNLs City of Richfield 57 Figure 3.9: Decibel Levels from 2007 Forecast Mitigated Grid Point DNLs Cities of Bloomington and Eagan 58 Figure 3.10: Decibel Levels from 2007 Forecast Mitigated Grid Point DNLs Cities of Eagan, Mendota Heights and Inver Grove Heights 59 qq Figure 3.11: Difference in dB Level Between 2007 Forecast Mitigated and 2015 Actual Grid Point DNLs for Blocks Included in Noise Mitigation Settlement 60 Figure 3.12: Difference in dB Level Between 2007 Forecast Mitigated and 2015 Actual Grid Point DNLs for Blocks Included in Noise Mitigation Settlement City of Minneapolis 61 Figure 3.13: Difference in dB Level Between 2007 Forecast Mitigated and 2015 Actual Grid Point DNLs for Blocks Included in Noise Mitigation Settlement City of Richfield 62 Figure 3.14: Difference in dB Level Between 2007 Forecast Mitigated and 2015 Actual Grid Point DNLs for Blocks Included in Noise Mitigation Settlement Cities of Bloomington and Eagan 63 Figure 3.15: Difference in dB Level Between 2007 Forecast Mitigated and 2015 Actual Grid Point DNLs for Blocks Included in Noise Mitigation Settlement Cities of Eagan, Mendota Heights and Inver Grove Heights 64 Figure 3.16: 2015 Actual Contours and 2007 Forecast Mitigated Contours 65 Figure 4.1: 2015 Actual Contours with First Amendment Mitigation 71 Figure 4.2: 2015 Actual Contours with Consecutive Years of Mitigation Eligibility City of Minneapolis 72 \ 00 Executive Summay Background The issue of noise at Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport (MSP) includes a long history of local efforts to quantify and mitigate noise impacts in a manner responsive to concerns raised by the communities around the airport and consistent with federal policy. In 1992, the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) embarked on a 14 CFR Part 150 Program at MSP, which included a noise mitigation program for single-family and multi -family residences and schools, as well as property acquisition and relocation based on mitigation eligibility defined by the 1996 forecast 65 Day -Night Average Sound Level (DNL) noise contour. When the original Part 150 Program was completed in 2006, noise mitigation had been provided to over 7,800 single-family homes, 1,327 multi -family units, 18 schools and 437 residential properties were acquired around MSP at a cost of approximately $385.6 million. In 1999 the MAC began an update to the Part 150 Program at MSP. The resulting program used 2007 forecast operations to produce a 2007 forecast noise contour (a 2005 forecast noise contour was also developed as part of this process but was ultimately not used due to the length of the planning process and associated changes in forecasting variables). One of the largest discussion items in the Part 150 Update process focused on the mitigation program the MAC would offer in the 2007 64 to 60 DNL noise contour area. Expansion of noise mitigation efforts beyond the federally -recognized level of 65 DNL was outlined as part of the Dual -Track Airport Planning Process (a process begun in 1989 and concluded in 1998 that examined moving MSP versus expanding it in its current location, undertaken at the direction of the Minnesota State Legislature). Through the Part 150 Update, the MAC detailed a specific mitigation package to be offered in the 64 to 60 DNL noise contour area, proposing central air-conditioning to single- family homes that did not have it, with a homeowner co -pay based on the degree of noise impact. Airport Noise Litigation and the Consent Decree The cities located around MSP expressed dissatisfaction with the Part 150 Update 64 to 60 DNL noise mitigation proposal in the context of the Dual -Track Airport Planning Process discussions. In early 2005, the Cities of Minneapolis, Eagan, and Richfield and the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority filed suit in Hennepin County District Court against the MAC on the grounds that the MAC violated environmental quality standards and the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act by failing to provide a 5 -decibel noise reduction package (as was provided in the 1996 65 DNL noise contour) to single-family homes in the 64 to 60 DNL contours. In September 2005, plaintiffs seeking class action certification filed a separate action against the MAC alleging breach of contract claims associated with mitigation in the 64 to 60 DNL contours. In 2007, the MAC and the Cities of Minneapolis, Eagan, and Richfield and the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority entered into a Consent Decree that settled the cities and class action litigation. The 2007 IUk Consent Decree provided the 5 -decibel noise mitigation package to single-family homes in the 2007 forecast 63+ DNL noise contours and lesser noise mitigation package options to single family -homes located in the 2007 forecast 63 to 60 DNL noise contours, with a noise mitigation reimbursement option for single-family homes located between the forecast 2007 and 2005 60 DNL noise contours. Multi -family structures were offered a uniform package in the 2007 forecast 60+ DNL noise contours. All phases of the 2007 Consent Decree noise mitigation program have been completed at a cost of approximately $95 million. Completion of the 2007 Consent Decree increased the total number of single- family homes that have received noise mitigation around MSP to over 15,000, and multi -family units to 3,303. The total cost of the MAC's noise mitigation programs to date is over $480 million. MSP 2020 Improvements EA/EAW In January 2013, the MAC published the Final MSP 2020 Improvements Environmental Assessment/Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA/EAW), which reviewed the potential and cumulative environmental impacts of MSP terminal and landside developments needed through the year 2020. A new noise mitigation plan was proposed in the EA/EAW leading to an amendment to the 2007 Consent Decree. First Amendment to the 2007 Consent Decree The First Amendment to the 2007 Consent Decree establishes noise mitigation eligibility based on actual noise contours that the MAC prepares for MSP on an annual basis. For a home to be considered eligible for mitigation it must be located in the actual 60+ DNL noise contour, within a higher noise impact mitigation eligibility area when compared to its status relative to the 2007 Consent Decree noise mitigation program, for a total of three consecutive years, with the first of the three years beginning no Tater than 2020. The noise contour boundary is based on the block intersect methodology. Homes will be mitigated in the year following their eligibility determination. The First Amendment mitigation program eligibility assessment began with the 2013 actual noise contour. In 2014, an additional chapter was added to the 2013 Annual Noise Contour Analysis to assess the mitigation area and eligibility per the amended 2007 Consent Decree. This report marks the third consecutive year of noise mitigation eligibility analysis under the terms of the First Amendment to the 2007 Consent Decree. Noise Mitigation Eligibility Status under the First Amendment to the 2007 Consent Decree Based on the 404,374 total operations at MSP in 2015, the actual 60 DNL contour is approximately 37.8 percent smaller than the 2007 forecast contour and the 65 DNL contour is approximately 46.3 percent smaller than the 2007 forecast contour. The predominant contraction in the contours from the 2007 forecast to the 2015 actual noise contour scenario is driven largely by fleet mix changes, including over a 99.9 percent reduction in Modified — "Hushkit" — Stage 3 aircraft operations and a 30.6 percent reduction in total aircraft operations. However, there is a small area in South Minneapolis where the 2015 actual noise contours extend beyond the 2007 forecast noise contours establishing first, second, and third year impacts in certain residential areas above their noise mitigation eligibility impact levels under the terms O- of the 2007 Consent Decree. This expansion of noise impacts can largely be attributed to nighttime runway use variances between what was forecasted for 2007 and what actually occurred in 2015, particularly an increase of the nighttime arrival operations on Runway 12R. This same trend existed in 2013 and 2014. In the third year of actual noise contour mapping, as established by the terms of the First Amendment to the 2007 Consent Decree, there are a total of 483 single-family homes that meet the first-year eligibility criteria of the three consecutive year higher noise impact mitigation eligibility requirement. Of the 483 single-family homes, 72 were previously eligible for the homeowner reimbursement noise mitigation program (located between the 2007 and 2005 forecast 60 DNL contours) and another 177 homes were outside the program, under the terms of the 2007 Consent Decree. These homes are now within the 2015 actual 60-62 DNL noise contour. If these homes remain within the actual 60-62 DNL noise contour for three consecutive years, they will be eligible for one of two mitigation options, as detailed in Section 9.5(b) of the First Amendment to the 2007 Consent Decree. Additionally, there are 234 single-family homes previously in the 60-62 DNL contour under the terms of the 2007 Consent Decree that meet the first year eligibility criteria of the three consecutive year higher noise impact mitigation eligibility requirement within the 63 DNL contour. If these homes remain within the actual 63+ DNL noise contour for three consecutive years, they will be eligible for mitigation upgrades necessary to achieve the 5 -decibel noise reduction package. All single-family and multi -family units that met the first year of the higher noise impact mitigation eligibility requirement by virtue of the 2014 actual noise contour achieved a second consecutive year of increased noise impact with the 2015 actual noise contour. There are a total of 285 single-family homes that meet the second consecutive year of higher noise impact. Of the 285 single-family homes, 39 homes were previously eligible for the homeowner reimbursement noise mitigation program (located between the 2007 and 2005 forecast 60 DNL contours) and another 126 homes were previously outside the program and are now within the 2015 60-62 DNL noise contour. If these single-family homes remain within the 60-62 DNL actual noise contour for another year, they will be eligible for one of two mitigation options, as detailed in Section 9.5(b) of the First Amendment to the 2007 Consent Decree. Additionally, there are 120 single-family homes previously in the 60-62 DNL contour under the terms of the 2007 Consent Decree that meet the second year of eligibility within the 63 DNL contour. If these homes remain within the actual 63+ DNL noise contour for three consecutive years, they will be eligible for mitigation upgrades necessary to achieve the 5 -decibel noise reduction package. All single-family and multi -family units that met the second year of the higher noise impact mitigation eligibility requirement by virtue of the 2014 actual noise contour achieved a third year of consecutive increased noise impact with the 2015 actual noise contour. There are a total of 137 single-family homes and 88 multi -family units that meet the third consecutive year of higher noise impact. Of the 137 single- family homes, 119 homes were previously eligible for the homeowner reimbursement noise mitigation program (located between the 2007 and 2005 forecast 60 DNL contours) and another 18 homes were previously outside the program and are now within the 2015 60-62 DNL noise contour. These single-family homes are eligible for one of two mitigation options, as detailed in Section 9.5(b) of the First Amendment to the 2007 Consent Decree. Additionally, there are 88 multi -family units which were not included in the 2007 Consent Decree noise mitigation program that are located within the 2015 actual 60-64 DNL contours establishing their third consecutive year at a higher noise impact mitigation eligibility level. These ui multi -family units are eligible for the Multi -Family Home Mitigation Package as defined in Section 9.6 of the First Amendment to the Consent Decree. Beginning in 2017, the MAC will offer additional mitigation, based on previous mitigation performed, to single-family homes and multi -family units achieving their third and final year of eligibility by virtue of the 2015 actual noise contour. In cases where homes have received previous reimbursements or mitigation from the MAC, those improvements will be deducted from the efforts required to increase the home mitigation relative to the actual noise level, per the amended Consent Decree. The blocks meeting the first, second and third consecutive year(s) of higher noise impact mitigation eligibility requirement for increased noise mitigation from the MAC are shown in Figures ES -1 and ES -2. IV koy tO3 t©(0 Chapter 1 Background The issue of noise at Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport (MSP) includes a long history of local efforts to quantify and mitigate noise impacts in a manner responsive to concerns raised by the communities around the airport and consistent with federal policy. These efforts have resulted in the conceptualization and implementation of many initiatives to reduce noise impacts around MSP. One of the most notable of these initiatives has been the sound insulation program originally implemented under 14 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) Part 150. Part 150 provides a framework for airport operators to develop a comprehensive noise plan for an airport in the form of a Noise Compatibility Program (NCP). A Part 150 NCP is comprised of two fundamental approaches to addressing noise impacts around an airport: (1) Land Use Measures, and (2) Noise Abatement Measures (operational measures to reduce noise). A key component of Part 150 program planning is the development of a base case Noise Exposure Map (NEM) and a five-year forecast NEM without (unmitigated forecast scenario) and with (forecast mitigated scenario) the recommended operational noise abatement measures. Including operational noise abatement measures is important because how an airport is operated and how aircraft procedures are executed have a direct effect on an airport's noise impact. NEMs are commonly referred to as noise contours. Forecast mitigated noise contours depict the areas that may be eligible for Land Use Measures (compatible land use plans, property acquisition, residential relocation, and sound mitigation) around an airport. Recognizing the need for increased infrastructure and the emerging importance of noise issues as operations at MSP increased, the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) submitted its first MSP Part 150 Study to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in October 1987. NEMs were accepted by the FAA in October 1989, and portions of the NCP were approved in April 1990. The NCP included Corrective Land Use Measures which called for the soundproofing of residences, schools and other public buildings. A 1992 update to the NCP and NEM marked the beginning of corrective mitigation measures in the forecast 1996 NEM 65 and greater Day -Night Average Sound Level (DNL) noise contours. 1.1 Corrective Land Use Efforts at MSP to Address Airport Noise From 1992 to 2006, the residential noise mitigation program was a large and visible part of the Part 150 program at MSP. The MAC designed the MSP residential noise mitigation program using FAA structural Noise Level Reduction (NLR) documentation to establish product -specific Sound Transmission Class (STC) ratings and associated NLR goals, creative bidding practices, and cooperative prioritization and funding efforts. Through innovative approaches to enhancing the program as new information and technologies became available, the MSP residential noise mitigation program quickly became a national model. 1 of Because testing and evaluation of single-family homes near MSP indicated that the majority of such homes provided an average 30 decibels (dB) of exterior to interior sound attenuation, the MAC developed a "5 dB package" for single-family homes within the 65 DNL and greater noise contours. This package provided an average exterior -to -interior noise reduction level of 5 dB, ensuring a noticeable level of reduction designed to meet the FAA's target of a 45 DNL interior noise level in each home.' The 5 dB package offered a menu of mitigation measures that the MAC might install to achieve an average 5 dB noise reduction and meet the 45 DNL interior noise level in an individual home. The menu of mitigation measures included: windows; prime doors; attic insulation; baffling of attic vents, mail slots and chimneys; and the addition of central air-conditioning. The MAC determined which specific mitigation measures were necessary for a particular home after assessing the home's existing condition. As a result of detailed and extensive project management and quality control, the program achieved an excellent record of homeowner satisfaction. Throughout the duration of the program, when homeowners were asked if the improvements were effective at reducing aircraft noise, at least 95 percent responded yes. When asked if the modifications improved interior home comfort, at least 95 percent responded yes. In 2004, the MAC awarded the final bids for the remaining unmitigated homes in the 1996 65 DNL noise contour. In early 2006, the MAC completed the mitigation of an additional 165 single-family homes in the 2007 forecast mitigated 65 DNL noise contour. With the completion of the 165 single-family homes, all eligible and participating homes within the 2007 forecast mitigated 65 DNL contour have been mitigated. This represented a significant accomplishment for an industry-leading airport noise mitigation program. The program resulted in the mitigation of over 7,800 single-family homes in communities around MSP. The financial investment in the MSP Residential Sound Insulation Program was among the largest in the nation for such programs. Throughout the 14 -year project (1992-2006) several variables had an impact on the project's annual financial profile. Year-to-year variations in housing stock and material costs caused fluctuations in the unit, or per -house, costs. This, combined with variations in annual budgets as a result of challenges such as the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, resulted in a fluctuating rate of annual home completions. Annual average mitigation costs per single-family home ranged from a low of $17,300 in 1994 to a high of $45,000 in 2001. The MAC spent a total of approximately $229.5 million on the single-family home mitigation program during its 14 -year lifespan. In addition to the single-family mitigation program, the MAC also mitigated multi -family units and schools, and engaged in property acquisition and relocation. The multi -family component of the residential noise mitigation program began in 2001, and was significantly smaller in both the number of structures mitigated and the associated costs. With completion of multi -family structures in the 1996 65 DNL noise contour, the MAC mitigated approximately 1,327 multi -family units at a total cost of approximately $11.1 million. There were no additional multi -family structures inside the 2007 forecast mitigated 65 DNL noise ' FAA, "Guidelines for the Sound Insulation of Residences Exposed to Aircraft Operations,"July 1993. 2 IVO contour. All eligible and participating multi -family structures within the 2007 forecast mitigated 65 DNL noise contour have been mitigated. Also, since 1981, the MAC has mitigated 18 schools located around MSP. This total represents all of the schools located within the 1996 65 DNL noise contour. In response to Minnesota State Legislature's directives, the MAC also provided mitigation to certain schools located outside the 1996 65 DNL noise contour. The costs of insulating individual schools varied from $850,000 to $8 million. A total of approximately $52 million was spent on the school sound insulation program. In addition to the residential and school noise mitigation programs, the MAC implemented a residential property acquisition program that facilitated the relocation of sensitive land uses, such as residential buildings, in noise impact areas. The intent of the residential acquisition program was to address impacted properties in the 1996 65 DNL noise contour, with the property owners and the city in which the respective property resided agreeing that acquisition was the desirable means of mitigating the homes. As a result, the MAC acquired approximately 437 residential properties. In total, the MAC expended approximately $93.0 million on the residential property acquisition program. 1.2 2007 Forecast Mitigated Noise Contour In late 1998, the MAC authorized an update to the Part 150 program at MSP. The update process began in 1999 with the development of noise contours and noise abatement and land use measures. The MAC published a draft Part 150 Update document in October 2000 and submitted the study, including a 2005 forecast NEM and revised NCP, to the FAA for review. In May 2002, after further consideration of the events of September 11, 2001, the MAC withdrew the study to update the forecast and associated noise contours. The forecast update process began in February 2003. This effort focused on updating the base case year from a 2000 scenario to a 2002 base case, and updating the forecast year from 2005 to 2007. The purpose of the forecast update was to ensure that the noise contours considered the impacts of the events of September 11, 2001 and ongoing changes in the MSP aircraft fleet. In addition to updating the forecast, the MAC and the MSP Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) conducted a review of the Integrated Noise Model (INM) input methodology and data to ensure continued consensus with the previous contour (i.e., November 2001) development process. On November 17, 2003, the MAC approved the revised forecast and fleet mix numbers and INM input methodology and data for use in developing the 2002 and 2007 NEMs. In March 2004, the MAC revised the forecast to incorporate certain corrections in general aviation numbers and to reflect Northwest Airlines' announcement that it would resume service of five RJ85 aircraft that had been taken out of service previously. The 2004 Part 150 Update resulted in a comprehensive Noise Compatibility Program (NCP) recommendation. In addition to several land use measures around MSP, the NCP included provisions for a number of operational Noise Abatement (NA) Measures. The aircraft and airport operational noise abatement initiatives in the 2004 Part 150 Update focused on aircraft operation procedures, runway use, 3 departure and arrival flight tracks, voluntary operational agreements with the airlines, and provisions for further evaluation of technology. The MAC has implemented the operational NA Measures outlined in the November 2004 Part 150 Update NCP that are reflected in the 2007 forecast mitigated noise contour included in the 2004 MSP Part 150 Update. Based on the estimate of 582,366 total operations in the 2007 forecast mitigated scenario, approximately 7,234.4 acres are in the 65 DNL noise contour and approximately 15,708.3 acres are in the 60 DNL noise contour. Since 2014 all eligible and participating homes within the 2007 forecast mitigated 60 DNL noise contour have been mitigated. A depiction of the 2007 forecast mitigated noise contours are provided in Figure 1.1. 4 �1� 1.3 Airport Noise Litigation One of the largest discussion items in the Part 150 Update process that began in 1999 focused on the mitigation program that the MAC would offer in the 64 to 60 DNL noise contour area. The FAA recognizes sensitive land uses, such as residential land uses eligible for noise mitigation under Part 150, only within the 65 and greater DNL noise contours. However, as part of the Dual -Track Airport Planning Process (a process that examined moving MSP versus expanding it in its current location, undertaken at the direction of the Minnesota State Legislature), the MAC made a policy decision to provide some level of noise mitigation out to the 60 DNL noise contour at MSP. During the Dual -Track Airport Planning Process, an MSP Noise Mitigation Committee was developed and tasked with proposing a noise mitigation plan to be considered in conjunction with the expansion of MSP at its present location. Throughout the Part 150 Update process, the intent of the MSP Noise Mitigation Committee's recommendation regarding mitigation outside the 65 DNL contour was a topic of detailed discussion and debate. During the course of the Part 150 Update process the MAC formulated a number of mitigation proposals, culminating in a final MAC position on mitigation outside the 65 DNL contour. In the November 2004 Part 150 Update, the MAC's recommendation for mitigation in the 64 to 60 DNL contours called for providing central air-conditioning to single-family homes that did not have it, with a homeowner co -pay based on the degree of noise impact. The MAC based eligibility for the mitigation proposal on the 2007 forecast mitigated noise contour using the block intersect methodology. The cities located around MSP expressed dissatisfaction with the MAC proposal, asserting that the MSP Noise Mitigation Committee recommended that the 5 dB package was to be expanded to all properties in the 64 to 60 DNL noise contours. The MAC countered that the MSP Noise Mitigation Committee's recommendations did not specify the mitigation package elements to be offered in the 64 to 60 DNL noise contour area and that, because homes in Minnesota have higher than the national average pre-existing noise attenuation characteristics, the full 5 dB package was not necessary outside the 65 DNL contour. In early 2005, the Cities of Minneapolis, Eagan, and Richfield and the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority filed suit in Hennepin County District Court claiming, among other things, the MAC violated environmental quality standards and the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act (MERA) by failing to provide a 5 d0 package to single-family homes in the 64 to 60 DNL contours. In September 2005, plaintiffs seeking class action certification filed a separate action against the MAC alleging breach of contract claims associated with mitigation in the 64 to 60 DNL contours. In January 2007, Hennepin County District Judge Stephen Aldrich granted the cities partial summary judgment. The court found, among other things, that the MAC, by virtue of implementing the 5 dB package, created an environmental standard that the MAC violated by recommending different mitigation in the 64 to 60 DNL noise contour area. In February 2007, the court held a trial on the cities' MERA and mandamus claims. Before the court entered final judgment post -trial, however, the parties negotiated a global settlement resolving the cities' case and the class action suit. 6 1A Noise Mitigation Settlement and Annual Noise Contour Analysis On October 19, 2007, Judge Stephen Aldrich approved a Consent Decree entered into by the MAC and the Cities of Minneapolis, Eagan, and Richfield and the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority that settled the cities' litigation. The Consent Decree provided that it became effective only if: (1) the FAA advised the MAC in writing by November 15, 2007 that the Decree was an appropriate use of airport revenue and was consistent with the MAC's federal grant obligations; and (2) that the court approved a settlement in the class action case by January 17, 2008. Both of these conditions were satisfied, and in 2008 the MAC began implementing single-family and multi -family mitigation out to the 2007 60 DNL noise contours and mitigation reimbursement funds out to the 2005 60 DNL noise contours, as the Consent Decree required. Under the Decree, mitigation activities would vary based on noise contour. Homes in the most noise - impacted contours were eligible for more extensive mitigation than those in Tess -impacted areas. The 2007 Consent Decree provided that approximately 457 homes in the 2007 64 to 63 DNL forecast noise contours were eligible to receive the same level of noise mitigation that the MAC provided in the 1996 65 DNL and greater contours. The 2007 64 to 63 DNL noise contour mitigation program was designed to achieve 5 dB of noise reduction on average, with mitigation measures that might include the following, depending upon the home's existing condition: central air-conditioning; exterior and storm window repair or replacement; prime door and storm door repair or replacement; wall and attic insulation; baffling of roof vents and chimney treatment. As required by the Consent Decree, the MAC completed construction of mitigation in the 2007 64 and 63 DNL noise contours by December 31, 2009. A total of 404 homes participated in the program. In addition, under the Decree, owners of the approximately 5,428 single-family homes in the 2007 62 to 60 DNL noise contours were eligible for one of two mitigation packages: 1) homes that did not have central air-conditioning as of September 1, 2007 would receive it and up to $4,000 (including installation costs) in other noise mitigation products and services they could choose from a menu provided by the MAC; or 2) owners of homes that already had central air-conditioning installed as of September 1, 2007 or who chose not to receive central air-conditioning were eligible for up to $14,000 (including installation costs) in noise mitigation products and services they could choose from a menu provided by the MAC. The mitigation menu included acoustical modifications such as: exterior and storm window repair or replacement; prime door and storm door repair or replacement; wall and attic insulation; and baffling of roof vents and chimney treatment. As required by the Consent Decree, the MAC completed construction of mitigation in the 2007 62 to 60 DNL contours by December 1, 2012. A total of 5,055 homes participated in the program. According to the provisions in the Consent Decree, single-family homes in the 2007 64 and 63 DNL contours and in the 2007 62 to 60 DNL contours whose earlier owners opted out of the previously - completed MAC noise mitigation program for the 1996 65 and greater DNL contours, but that had new owners on September 1, 2007, were eligible to "opt in" and receive noise mitigation. If the total cost to the MAC of the opt -in mitigation is less than $7 million, any remaining funds were used to reimburse owners of single-family homes between the 2005 mitigated 60 DNL contour and the 2007 forecast mitigated 60 DNL contour for purchase and installation of products included on a menu provided by the MAC. The amount each homeowner received was determined by subtracting dollars spent for the opt -in program from the total $7 million budget, and then by dividing the remainder of funds among the total number of single-family homes within the 2005 60 DNL and 2007 60 DNL contours. t1� In September 2014, the MAC completed reimbursement claim payments for approved noise mitigation enhancements for a total of 1,773 single-family homes between the 2005 mitigated 60 DNL contour and the 2007 forecast mitigated 60 DNL contour. The total cost of the "opt -in" mitigation and the 2005 mitigated 60 DNL contour reimbursement mitigation program was capped at $7 million. With regard to the multi -family noise mitigation program, the MAC installed acoustical covers on the air - conditioners or completed the installation of new air-conditioning units in 1,976 living units marking completion of that program in 2010. The total cost to implement mitigation under the original Consent Decree was approximately $95 million, (which is inclusive of the $7 million for opt -in mitigation and single-family mitigation reimbursement). With the final MAC payments in September 2014 for noise mitigation reimbursements, all of the phases of the noise mitigation program required under the original Consent Decree have been completed. In addition to the MAC's mitigation obligations, the Consent Decree releases legal claims that the cities and homeowners have against the MAC in exchange for the actions that the MAC would perform under the Decree. (Consent Decree Section 8.1, p. 38). The releases cease to be effective for a certain location if the average annual aircraft noise level in DNL at that location is at or above DNL 60 and is at least 2 dB in DNL higher than the DNL level for that location in the 2007 mitigated noise contours. The MAC determines future DNL values by using the FAA's noise modeling software and actual MSP operations data to generate a noise contour reflecting noise conditions at MSP for the prior calendar year. (Consent Decree Section 8.1(d), pp. 38-39.) The MAC must develop a noise contour reflecting noise conditions for the prior calendar year by March 1 of each year. The MAC has prepared this report to satisfy Section 8.1(d) of the Consent Decree. MAC staff and representatives from the Cities of Minneapolis, Eagan, and Richfield met on February 11 and 20, 2008 to discuss and finalize the annual report format. The actual contour that the MAC must develop under Section 8.1(d) of the Consent Decree is relevant to the release provisions in Section 8.1 as well as the determination of mitigation eligibility as defined by an amendment to the Consent Decree, described in Chapter 4 of this report. 1.5 Final MSP 2020 Improvements Environmental Assessment/Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA/EAW) In January 2013, the MAC published the Final MSP 2020 Improvements Environmental Assessment/Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA/EAW), which reviewed the potential and cumulative environmental impacts of MSP terminal and landside developments needed through the year 2020. Of the several development alternatives examined, Alternative 2 -Airlines Relocate was determined to be the Preferred Alternative. This alternative outlined improvements needed to 2020, presuming that the non-SkyTeam airlines currently located in Terminal 1 -Lindbergh are relocated to Terminal 2 - Humphrey. SkyTeam is an alliance of 20 member airlines, including Delta Air Lines. As is detailed in the EA/EAW, the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Finding of No Significant Impact/Record of Decision (FONSI/ROD) and summarized in the MAC's related Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order, the Preferred Alternative scenario does not have the potential for significant environmental effects. The forecasted noise contours around MSP are driven by natural traffic growth that is anticipated to occur with or without implementation of the 2020 Improvements. 8 However, given past noise mitigation activities surrounding MSP, the terms of the 2007 Consent Decree in City of Minneapolis, et. al. v. Metropolitan Airports Commission, and local land use compatibility guidelines defined by the Metropolitan Council, many of the public comments on the EA/EAW focused on future noise mitigation efforts. Additionally, the anticipated completion of the Consent Decree noise mitigation program in 2014 raised community interest regarding the future of noise mitigation at MSP. In response, MAC staff, in consultation with the MSP Noise Oversight Committee (NOC), began the process of developing a noise mitigation plan to be included in the EA/EAW. The resulting recommended noise mitigation program established that noise mitigation program eligibility be based upon actual noise contours that the MAC would prepare for MSP on an annual basis. To be eligible for noise mitigation, a home would need to be located for three consecutive years in a higher noise mitigation impact area when compared to the home's status under the terms of the 2007 Consent Decree. The Final MSP 2020 Improvements EA/EAW detailed the following mitigation program elements: • Mitigation eligibility would be assessed annually based on the actual noise contours for the previous year. • The annual mitigation assessment would begin with the actual noise contour for the year in which the FAA FONSI/ROD for the EA/EAW was issued. • For a home to be considered eligible for mitigation it must be located in the actual 60+ DNL noise contour, within a higher noise impact mitigation area when compared to its status relative to the original Consent Decree noise mitigation program, for a total of three consecutive years, with the first of the three years beginning no later than 2020. • The noise contour boundary would be based on the block intersect methodology. • Homes would be mitigated in the year following their eligibility determination. On January 7, 2013, the FAA published the Final MSP 2020 Improvements EA/EAW and the Draft Finding of No Significant Impact/Record of Decision (FONSI/ROD), which included the following position regarding the proposed noise mitigation program: "The FAA is reviewing MAC's proposal for noise mitigation of homes for consistency with the 1999 FAA Policy and Procedures concerning the use of airport revenue and other applicable policy guidance." During the public comment period on the FAA's Draft FONSI/ROD many communities submitted comments urging the FAA to approve the MAC's revised noise mitigation proposal. On March 5, 2013, the FAA approved the FONSI/ROD for the Final MSP 2020 Improvements EA/EAW. Specifically, on page 15 of the approved FONSI/ROD, the FAA stated that noise mitigation would not be a condition of FAA approval of the MSP 2020 Improvements project because "[n]o areas of sensitive land uses would experience a 1.5 dB or greater increase in the 65 DNL noise contour when comparing the No Action Alternative for 2020 and 2025 with the Proposed Action [Preferred Alternative — Airlines Relocate scenario] for the respective years." However, the FAA included a letter dated March 5, 2013, as Attachment D to the FONSI/ROD that addresses the conditions under which airport revenue may be used for off -airport noise mitigation. In that letter, the FAA stated: 9 1\5 "As a matter of general principle mitigation measures imposed by a state court as part of a consent decree are eligible for use of airport revenue. Conceptually MAC could use airport revenues if it were to amend the 2007 consent decree to include the proposed mitigation." Based on the FAA guidance, the MAC initiated discussions with the other parties to the Consent Decree (Cities of Minneapolis, Richfield and Eagan and the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority) to begin the amendment process. Additionally, at the March 20, 2013, NOC meeting, the Committee was updated on the progress of this issue and voted unanimously, supporting the following position: "NOC supports the noise mitigation program as detailed in the final EA/EAW in principal and supports follow-up negotiations between the parties to the Consent Decree to establish mutually agreeable terms for the modification of the Consent Decree consistent with the March 5th FAA letter in Appendix D of the FONSI ROD, for consideration by the Court." This report was updated to provide maps analyzing changes that occur in noise mitigation eligibility as compared to the 2007 Consent Decree, and associated trends relative to consecutive yearly impacts. This information is detailed in Chapter 4. 10 \Q Chapter 2015 Actual Noise Contour As discussed previously, Section 8.1(d) of the Consent Decree requires the MAC to prepare, by March 1 of each year, an actual noise contour reflecting the noise conditions around MSP for the prior calendar year. This chapter provides detailed information on the 2015 actual noise contour at MSP. 2.1 2015 Actual Noise Contour Development 2.1.1 Noise Modeling The availability of federal or airport -generated funds for the purpose of noise mitigation efforts is contingent upon the development of a Noise Exposure Map (noise contours) in a manner consistent with federal criteria. The FAA currently requires use of the Day -Night Average Sound Level (DNL) metric to determine and analyze noise exposure and aid in the determination of aircraft noise and land use compatibility issues around United States airports. The DNL metric is calculated by cumulatively averaging sound levels over a 24-hour period. This average cumulative sound exposure includes the application of a 10 -decibel penalty to sound exposures occurring during the nighttime (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM). The night sound exposures are increased by 10 decibels to account for relatively low nighttime ambient noise levels and because most people are asleep during these hours. The most recent version of the FAA's Integrated Noise Model (INM), version 7.0d, was used to develop the 2015 Actual Noise Contours. The INM uses input files consisting of information regarding runway use, flight track use, aircraft fleet mix, aircraft performance and thrust settings, topography information, and atmospheric conditions to generate noise contours depicting an annualized average day of aircraft noise impacts. Quantifying aircraft -specific noise characteristics in INM is accomplished through the use of a comprehensive noise database that has been developed under the auspices of Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 36. As part of the airworthiness certification process, aircraft manufacturers are required to subject aircraft to a battery of noise tests. Through the use of federally adopted and endorsed algorithms, this aircraft -specific noise information is used in the generation of DNL contours. Justification for such an approach is rooted in national standardization of noise quantification at airports. The modeled DNL contours are the focal point of any noise mitigation measures and residential parcel eligibility described in the terms of the Consent Decree. In May 2015, the FAA released the Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT), version 2b, for use in preparing all environmental review documents and Part 150 studies in place of INM going forward. AEDT is a software system that models aircraft performance in time and space to estimate not only noise, using the same algorithms as INM, but also fuel consumption, emissions, and air quality. Upon the release of AEDT, the MAC contracted with HNTB Corporation, an aviation consulting group. The MAC has requested HNTB Corporation, which has national noise modeling expertise and past noise modeling experience at MSP, to compare, quantify, and explain any noise contour variations noted between those generated by INM versus AEDT. 11 `\1 As a result of this comparison, the MAC and HNTB raised concerns regarding the accuracy of the AEDT version 2b model. These concerns were formally communicated to the FAA for consideration. The FAA has not yet responded to these concerns. As a result, to ensure completion of the Annual Noise report by the court-ordered deadline of March 1, 2016, the MAC was left with no choice other than using INM, version 7.0d, to calculate the 2015 actual noise contours. This decision has been supported by all parties to the Consent Decree. It is anticipated that at such time as the FAA addresses the concerns expressed by the MAC and other users concerning the integrity of the AEDT modeling, the MAC will commence using AEDT for all future noise contour and environmental analysis as the FAA now requires. This will become increasingly more important in subsequent years, as INM, version 7.0d will become increasingly out of date and unable to incorporate state of the art modeling techniques. We believe that FAA will require AEDT modeling before the MAC is able to use airport revenue for any noise mitigation determined eligible under the Consent Decree. 2.102 2015 Aircraft Operations and Fret Mix The past 15 years have presented many challenges to the aviation industry. From a local perspective, operational levels and the aircraft fleet mix at MSP have been subject to effects from the events of September 11, 2001, high fuel prices, a flurry of bankruptcy filings by several legacy airlines including the former Northwest Airlines, and an economic recession. Additionally, overall market forces appear to be favoring consolidation, as indicated by major airline acquisitions and mergers, beginning with Delta Air Lines' acquisition of Northwest Airlines in 2008, followed by United Airlines' acquisition of Continental Airlines in 2012, the merger of American Airlines and US Airways in 2013 and the merger of Southwest Airlines and AirTran in 2014. These developments have had profound effects on airline and airport operations. For example, the actual 2015 operational level at MSP is below the operational level documented at the airport over 23 years ago. The MAC derived MSP operations numbers for this study from the MAC's Noise and Operations Monitoring System (MACNOMS) data. The MACNOMS total operations number was 0.5 percent lower than the FAA Operations Network (OPSNET) number. To rectify the numbers, the MAC adjusted the MACNOMS data upward to equal the total 2015 FAA OPSNET number. Table 2.1 provides the total number of 2015 aircraft operations at MSP by operational category. The 2015 total operations number of 404,374 is down from the 2014 number of 411,760 (1.8 percent decrease). Table 2.1 MINNEAPOLIS -ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 2015 Tota Operations Operations Category Number of Operations* Scheduled Passenger Air Carrier (a) 367,778 Cargo 12,789 Charter 80 GA (b) 20,898 Military 2,829 TOTAL 404,374 Notes: (a) Includes both air carrier and regional carrier operations (b) Includes both GA and non-scheduled air taxi operations * Based on actual 2015 MACNOMS data adjusted to match FAA ATADS data (to account for unavailable MACNOMS operations data). Considering the multi -faceted nature of the variables that are presently impacting the operational level at MSP, forecasting Tong -term operational implications is complex. All signs, however, in the near-term seem to point to a fundamental change in the nature of airline operations at MSP, especially in the type 12 of aircraft flown by all airlines and in particular by Delta Air Lines. The use of larger aircraft and the elimination of DC -9 operations by Delta Air Lines in January 2014 are examples. The use of newer and quieter aircraft is on the rise. Some examples at MSP of these newer aircraft are the Airbus A320/319, CRJ-900 Regional Jets, McDonnell Douglas MD-90 and Boeing B737-700/800/900. When comparing the DC9 hushkitted aircraft to the Airbus A319, 15 A319 operations would be required to generate the same noise energy as one DC9 operation. The Airbus A319 aircraft represents newer technology engine noise emission levels compared to the DC9 aircraft. Table 2.2 provides a breakdown of the 2015 aircraft fleet mix at MSP. The average daily number of Modified ("hushkitted") Stage 3 aircraft operations was down in 2015 to 0.07 from 0.10 in 2014. In 2015, the average daily number of total nighttime operations was 106.7, up from the 95.3 average daily nighttime operations in 2014. Overall, the 2015 total average daily operations number of 1,107.8 is down by 1.8 percent from the 1,128.1 average daily operations in 2014. Table 2.2 MINNEAPOLIS -ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 2015 Aircraft Fleet Mix Average Daily Operations Group Aircraft Type Day Night Total Manufactured/Re-engined Stage 3 Jet 7478 0.0 0.0 0.0 717200 14.6 0.6 15.3 737300 7.2 1.6 8.8 737400 0.2 0.1 0.3 737700 39.9 9.8 49.7 737800 52.8 16.9 69.7 737900 24,7 4.2 28.9 747400 0.2 0.1 0.3 74720B 0.0 0.0 0,0 757300 14.4 0.9 15.3 757PW 39.2 7.0 46.2 757RR 2.4 1.9 4.3 767300 6.2 1.4 7.7 767400 1.7 0.5 2.3 767CF6 0.6 0.0 0.7 767JT9 0.8 0.0 0.8 777200 1.7 0.0 1.7 7773ER 0.0 0.0 0.0 A300 -622R 0.6 0.2 0.8 A310-304 0.1 0.1 0.2 A319-131 75.1 6.1 81.1 A320-232 82.3 10.6 92,9 A321-232 5.6 3.0 8.6 A330-301 0.0 0.0 0.0 A330-343 7.2 0.3 7.5 A340-211 0.7 0.0 0.7 AN124 0.0 0.0 0.0 BD100 4.2 0.4 4.6 13 Table 2.2 MINNEAPOLIS -ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 2015 Aircraft Fleet Mix Average Daily Operations Group Aircraft Type Day Night Total Manufactured/Re-engined Stage 3 Jet BD700 0.3 0.0 0.3 (Cont'd) BEC400 0.9 0.0 0.9 CL601 1.7 0.1 1.8 CLREGJ 169.1 8.2 177.3 CNA500 0.3 0.0 0.3 CNA501 0.1 0.0 0.1 CNA525C 0.6 0.0 0,7 CNA550 0.1 0.0 0.1 CNA55B 0.4 0.1 0.5 CNA560E 1.3 0.1 1,4 CNA560U 0.3 0.0 0.3 CNA560XL 3.1 0.2 3.4 CNA650 0.5 0.0 0.6 CNA680 1.7 0.1 1.8 CNA750 3.5 0.3 3.7 CRJ701 32.2 2.7 34.9 CRJ900 143.6 7.8 151.4 D328J 0.2 0.0 0,2 DC1010 1.9 0.6 2.5 EMB135 0.2 0.0 0.2 EMB145 7.3 0.1 7.4 EMB14L 5.2 0.2 5.4 EMB170 71.1 4.8 75.9 EMB190 2.6 0.0 2.6 F10062 0.1 0.0 0.1 FAL10 0.0 0.0 0.0 FAL20A 1.2 0.0 1.3 FAL50 0.9 0.1 1.0 FAL900 1.0 0.1 1.2 G150 0.2 0.0 0.2 G200 1.5 0.2 1.7 GIV 1.5 0.1 1.7 GV 1.6 0.2 1.9 HK4000 0.1 0.0 0.1 HS125 0.0 0.0 0.0 HS1258 2.5 0.1 2.6 IA1124 0.0 0.0 0.1 IA1125 0.1 0.0 0.1 LEAR31 0.1 0.0 0.1 LEAR35 0.7 0.1 0.8 LEAR45 2.8 0.2 3.0 LEAR55 0.1 0.0 0,1 LEAR60 0.4 0.0 0.5 MD11GE 1.5 1.3 2.8 14 Table 2.2 MINNEAPOLIS -ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 2015 Aircraft Fleet Mix Average Daily Operations Group Aircraft Type Day Night Manufactured/Re-engined Stage 3 Jet (Cont'd) MD11PW 1,4 1.0 M D80 0.0 0.0 MD81 0.0 0.0 M D82 6.7 1.4 M D83 7.0 1.6 M D88 18.6 0.9 MD9025 36,4 1.8 MD9028 45.0 1.8 MU300 0.0 0.0 R390 0.2 0.0 Total 962.6 .102:2 Modified ("hushkitted") Stage 3 Jet 727EM2 0.0 0.0 737N17 0.0 0.0 DC93LW 0.0 0.0 DC9Q7 0.0 0.0 Total 2.5 0.0 0.0 8.1 8.5 19.5 38.2 46.8 0.0 0.2 1 064 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ata! 0.0 0>i Microjet CNA510 0.5 0.1 0./ 0.7 0.1 ECLIPSE500 0.1 0.0 Total .6 0.1 Stage 2 Less than 75,000 Ib. MTOW 2 FAL20 0.7 1.5 Gil 0.0 0.0 GULF3 0.0 0.0 LEAR24 0.0 0.0 SABR80 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 0.8 .5^ Propeller 1900D 13.0 0.7 AC50 0.0 0.0 AC95 0.0 0.0 ATR42 1.3 0.2 BAEJ41 0.0 0.0 BEC100 0.0 0.0 BEC200 0.8 0.1 BEC300 0.5 0.0 BEC3OB 0.2 0.0 BEC33 0.0 0.0 BEC58 0.1 0.0 BEC65 5.9 0.8 BEC80 1.7 0.1 BEC90 0.4 0.0 BEC99 3,7 0.3 BEC9F 0.0 0.0 2.3 13.7 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.1 6.7 1.9 0.5 4.1 0.0 2 As of January 1, 2016, all Stage 2 aircraft types are required to meet Stage 3 noise standards. 15 Table 2.2 MINNEAPOLIS -ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 2015 Aircraft Fleet Mix Average Daily Operations Group Aircraft Type Day Night Total Propeller (Cont'd) BECM35 0.1 0.0 0.1 CNA172 0.1 0.0 0,1 CNA180 0.0 0.0 0.0 CNA182 0.0 0.0 0.0 CNA206 0.0 0.0 0.0 CNA208 1.0 0.0 1.0 CNA210 0,0 0.0 0.0 CNA303 0.0 0.0 0.0 CNA310 0.1 0.0 0.1 CNA340 0.0 0.0 0.0 CNA402 0.0 0.0 0.0 CNA404 0.0 0.0 0.0 CNA414 0.1 0.0 0.1 CNA421 0.1 0.0 0.2 CNA425 0.0 0.0 0.0 CNA441 0.1 0.0 0.1 DA42 0.0 0.0 0.0 DHC6 0.0 0.0 0.0 DHC8 0.0 0.0 0.0 DHC830 0.0 0.0 0.0 D0328 0.0 0.0 0.0 EMB110 0.0 0.0 0.0 EMB120 0.0 0.0 0.0 GASEPV 0.0 0.0 0,0 M20J 0.2 0.0 0.2 MU2 0.0 0.0 0.0 P180 0.0 0.0 0.0 PA23AZ 0.0 0.0 0.0 PA24 0.0 0.0 0.0 PA28 0.0 0.0 0.0 PA28AR 0.0 0.0 0.0 PA28DK 0.0 0.0 0.0 PA31 0,1 0.0 0,1 PA31T 0.1 0.0 0.1 PA32LA 0.0 0.0 0.0 PA32SG 0.0 0.0 0.0 PA34 0.1 0.0 0.1 PA42 0,0 0.0 0.0 PA46 0.1 0.0 0,1 PA60 0.0 0.0 0.0 PC12 0.3 0.0 0,3 RWCM69 0.0 0.0 0,0 SAAB20 0,0 0.0 0.0 SAMER3 0.0 0.0 0.0 16 1 �� Table 2.2 MINNEAPOLIS -ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 2015 Aircraft Fleet Mix Average Daily Operations Group Aircraft Type Day Night Propeller (Cont'd) SAMER4 4.0 0.3 SR22 0.4 0,0 STBM7 0.0 0.0 TED600 0.1 0.0 Total 35.5 2.8 Helicopter B429 0.0 0.0 Total 4,3 0.4 0.0 0,1 38.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.1 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 R22 0.0 0.0 S76 0.0 0.0 SA355F 0.0 0.0 Total 0.1 0.0 Military C -130E 1.4 0.0 C17 0.0 0.0 F-18 0.0 0.0 KC -135 0.0 0.0 T33A 0.0 0.0 T -38A 0.0 0.0 T6 0.0 0.0 Total 1.5 0.1. Grand Total 1;001.1 1067 1,6 1,107.8 Notes: Total may differ due to rounding Source: MAC -provided INM Input Data, HNTB 2016 17 l�� 2.1.3 2015 Runway Use FAA control of runway use throughout the year for arrival and departure operations at MSP has a notable effect on the noise impact around the airport. The number of people and dwellings impacted by noise is a direct result of the number of operations on a given runway and the land uses off the end of the runway. Historically, prior to the opening of Runway 17/35, arrival and departure operations occurred on the parallel runways at MSP (12L/30R and 12R/30L) in a manner that resulted in approximately 50 percent of the arrival and departure operations occurring to the northwest over South Minneapolis and 50 percent to the southeast over Mendota Heights and Eagan. As a result of the dense residential land uses to the northwest and the predominantly industrial/commercial land uses to the southeast of MSP, focusing departure operations to the southeast has long been the preferred operational configuration from a noise reduction perspective. Since the introduction of Runway 17/35 at MSP in 2005, another opportunity exists to route aircraft over an unpopulated area - the Minnesota River Arrival Valley. With use of the Runway 17 Departure Procedure, westbound departure operations are routed such that they avoid close -in residential areas southwest of Runway 17. Thus, use of Runway 17 for departure operations is the second preferred operational configuration (after Runways 12L and 12R) for noise reduction purposes. Table 2.3 MINNEAPOLIS -ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 2015 Runway Use Operation Runway Day Night Table 2.3 provides the runway use percentages for 2015. From 2014 to 2015 arrival operation percentages decreased on Runways 30L, 30R and 35 and increased on Runways 12L and 12R. There were little to no changes in the arrival operation percentages on Runways 4, 17 and 22. Notable changes in total arrival runway use from 2014 to 2015 include a 5.0 percent increase (from 20.4 percent to 25.4 percent) in Runway 12R arrival operations and a 5.8 percent decrease (from 17.2 percent to 11.4 percent) in Runway 35 arrival operations. Notable changes in arrival runway use during the nighttime hours include a decrease in 4 0.0% 0.1% 12L 23.0% 18.3% 12R 25.0% 28.4% 17 0.1% 0.0% 22 0.1% 0.4% 30L 18.9% 31.3% 30R 20.3% 20.2% 35 12.6% 1.3% . Total 0.0% 22.5% 25.4% 0.0% 0.1% 20.2% 20.3% 11.4% Total;:, 100.0%: 100.0% Departure 4 0.1% 0.3% 12L 15.6% 20.0% 12R 5.4% 29.0% 17 31.4% 11.9% 22 0.0% 0.2% 30L 25.9% 22.1% 30R 21.5% 16.4% 35 0.0% 0.1% Total 100.0%: 100.0%' Overall 4 0.1% 0.2% 12L 19.3% 19.1% 12R 15.1% 28.7% 17 15.9% 5.3% 22 0.1% 0.3% 30L 22.4% 27.2% 30R 20.9% 18.5% 35 6.2% 0.8% otal 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.1% 15.9% 7.4% 29.8% 0.1% 25.6% 21.1% 0.0% 100:0% 0.1% 19.2% 16.4% 14.9% 0.1% 22.9% 20.7% 5.7% 100.0%: Runway 30L from 35.5 percent in 2014 to 31.3 Note: Total may not add up due to rounding. percent in 2015 and an increase in Runway 12L Source: MAC -provided lNM Input Data, HNTB 2016. from 19.0 percent in 2014 to 22.5 percent in 2015. Departure operations increased on Runways 12L, 12R and 17 and decreased on Runways 30L and 30R from 2014 to 2015. There were little to no changes in 18 departure operation percentages on Runways 4, 22 and 35. Notable changes in total departure runway use from 2014 to 2015 include a 6.3 percent increase (from 23.4 percent to 29.8 percent) in Runway 17 departure operations and a 7.2 percent decrease (from 32.8 percent to 25.6 percent) in Runway 30L departure operations. Notable changes in departure runway use during the nighttime hours include a decrease in Runway 30L from 27.8 percent in 2014 to 22.1 percent in 2015 and an increase in Runway 12L from 14.4 percent in 2014 to 20.0 percent in 2015. 2.1.4 2015 Flight Tracks The INM departure and arrival flight track locations used to develop the 2015 actual noise contour were identical to those used for the 2014 actual noise contour. These flight tracks differ from those used to develop the 2007 forecast mitigated noise contour due to enhanced modeling methods and improved technologies. Sub -tracks were also added to each of the backbone tracks. The INM's standard distribution was used in distributing the flights to the sub -tracks. The same methodology as in previous annual reports was used to assign 2015 radar data to the INM flight tracks. The radar-to-INM flight track correlation process employs a best -fit analysis of the radar flight track data based on linear trends. This approach provides the ability to match each radar flight track directly to the appropriate INM track. Figures 2.1 to 2.16 provide the updated backbone INM departure and arrival flight track and the use information used to develop the 2015 actual noise contour. 2.1.5 2015 Atmospheric Conditions The MAC gathered atmospheric data for the 2015 actual noise contour from the Minnesota State Climatology Office. The 2015 annual average temperature of 48.6 degrees Fahrenheit and 2015 average annual wind speed of 8.3 knots were used in the INM modeling process. The 2015 average annual pressure of 30.01 inches of Mercury and a 2015 annual average relative humidity of 63.3 percent were also used. 19 2015 INM Tracks - Runway 30L Departures', Overall Use Percentage Figure 2.1 INM Track Use Percentage PERCENT <1% -- - - VA- 3% •'3%° 5%n ▪ 5% - 15% • 15%-25% 20 l 2015 IN Tracks - Runway 30R Departure Overall Use Percentage Figure 2.2 INM Track Use Percen PERCENT <1% 1%» 3°6 3%-5% • •• • •• • • ••5%0-7% 7% - 10% 21 pn 2015 INM Tracks - Runway 12L Departures Overall Use Percentage Figure 2.4 INM Track Use Percentage PERCENT _ <1% 1%-3%a 3% - 5% 5% - 7% •17%0 10% 23 a 2015 IN M Tracks - Runway 12R Departures Overall Use Percentage Figure 2.5 lNM Track U PERCENT - 1%a-3% 3%-5% 5%-7% imenablial 7% - 10% 24 30 2015 INM Tracks - Runway 22 Departures Overall Use Percentage Figure 2M INM Track Use Percentage PERCENT 25 X31 `,D, Az, r'S t 3t� ‘3r1 \�B 2015 INM Tracks - Runway 35 Arrivals Overall Use Percentage Figure 2.94 INM Track Use Percentage PERCENT — 2% 10.3% 84.7% 33 k \MD INM Tracks - Runway 17 Arrivals Overall Use Percentage Figure 2.16 INM Track Use P PERCENT • 62% 42.9% ■w 54,1% 35 \4 1 2.2 2015 Modeled Versus Measured DNL Levels As part of the 2015 actual noise contour development process, an analysis was conducted by the MAC to compare the INM-developed 2015 DNL noise contours to actual measured aircraft noise levels at the 39 MAC Noise and Operations Monitoring System (MACNOMS) Remote Monitoring Towers (RMTs) around MSP. An INM grid point analysis determined the model's predicted 2015 DNL noise levels at each of the RMT locations (determined in the INM by the latitude and longitude coordinates of each RMT). Table 2.4 provides a comparison of the INM grid point analysis at each MACNOMS RMT site, based on the 2015 actual noise contour as produced with the INM, and the actual MACNOMS monitored aircraft DNLs at those locations in 2015. The average absolute difference between the modeled and measured DNLs was 2.1 dB (the 2014 average absolute difference was 2.2 dB). The median difference was 1.4 dB (the 2014 median difference was 1.5 dB). There were 16 MACNOMS RMTs that reported slightly higher DNL levels than the INM model generated. The MAC believes that this is due in part to the inclusive approach MAC staff has taken in tuning MACNOMS noise -to -track matching parameters. This conservative approach, along with the increasing number of quieter jets operating at the airport, results in increased instances of community -driven noise events being attributed to quieter aircraft operating at further distances from the monitoring location. The use of absolute values provides a perspective of total difference between the INM modeled values and the measured DNL values provided by MACNOMS in 2015. The median is considered the most reliable indicator of correlation when considering the data variability across modeled and monitored data. Overall, the small variation between the actual MACNOMS monitored aircraft noise levels and the INM modeled noise levels provides additional external system verification that the INM is providing an accurate assessment of the actual aircraft noise impacts around MSP. 36 Table 2.4 MINNEAPOLIS -ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 2015 Measured vs. Modeled INM DNL Values at RMT Locations RMT Site 2015 2015 Annual Modeled Measured DNL (a) DNL Difference (Modeled minus Measured) Sign Absolute 1 56.2 57.0 0.8 0.8 2 58.8 58.0 -0.8 0.8 3 63.1 63.4 0.3 0.3 4 59.9 60.6 0.7 0.7 5 68.1 68.2 0.1 0.1 6 67.8 65.5 -2.3 2.3 7 59.8 57.5 -2.3 2.3 8 55.1 54.2 -0.9 0.9 9 44.9 44.6 -0.3 0.3 10 47.4 49.6 2.2 2.2 11 36.4 43.5 7.1 7.1 12 36.5 46.3 9.8 9.8 13 54.0 53.8 -0.2 0.2 14 60.9 60.2 -0.7 0.7 15 55.9 54.5 -1.4 1.4 16 64.1 62.8 -1.3 1.3 17 41.3 47.5 6.2 6.2 18 53.5 58.2 4.7 4.7 19 49.6 52.9 3.3 3.3 20 42.6 49.4 6.8 6.8 21 46.2 48.7 2.5 2.5 22 55.0 56.4 1.4 1.4 23 60.8 59.2 -1.6 1.6 24 59.1 59.0 -0.1 0.1 25 51.4 53.8 2.4 2.4 26 52.9 51.5 -1.4 1.4 27 55.2 55.0 -0.2 0.2 28 55.9 59.7 3.8 3.8 29 51.2 51.4 0.2 0.2 30 61.0 59.8 -1.2 1.2 31 46.6 49.6 3.0 3.0 32 41.7 47.1 5.4 5.4 33 47.3 49.4 2.1 2.1 34 44.7 47.6 2.9 2.9 35 52.3 52.5 0.2 0.2 36 51.8 50.7 -1.1 1.1 37 46.7 47.9 1.2 1.2 38 50.1 49.9 -0.2 0.2 39 50.4 50.8 0.4 0.4 Average 2.1 Median 1.4 Notes: All units in dB DNL (a) computed from daily DNLs SOURCE: MAC RMT data and HNTB INM, 2016 2.3 2015 Noise Contour Impacts Based on the 404,374 total operations in 2015, approximately 3,883 acres are in the 65 DNL noise contour (an increase of 404 acres, or 11.6 percent, from the 2014 actual noise contour) and approximately 9,772 acres are in the 60 DNL noise contour (an increase of 1,014 acres, or 11.6 percent, from the 2014 actual noise contour). Table 2.5 contains the count of single-family (one to three units per structure) and multi- family (more than three units per structure) dwelling units in the 2015 actual noise contours. The MAC based the counts on the block intersect methodology where all structures on a block that are within or touched by the noise contour are counted. Table 2.5 MINNEAPOLIS-ST.PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT Summary of 2015 Actual DNL Noise Contour Single Family and Multi -Family Unit Counts (Block Intersect Implementation Method, Completed Reflect All Units Completed prior to 2( City Count Dwelling Units Within DNL (dB) Interval Single Family Multi -Family 60-64 65-69 70-74 75+ Total 60-64 65-69 70-74 75+ Total Minneapolis Completed Additional 5970 905 1385 - - - - - 7355 905 508 89 427 - - - - - 935 89 Total 6875 1385 - - 8260 597 427 - - 1024 Bloomington Completed Additional 16 - 1 - - - - - 17 - 511 - - - - - - - 511 - Total 16 1 - - 17 511 - - - 511 Richfield Completed Additional 550 - - - - - - - 550 - 66 - - - - - - - 66 - Total 550 - - - 550 66 - - - 66 Eagan Completed Additional 196 - - - - - - - 196 - - - - - - - - - - - Total 196 - - - 196- - - - - Mendota Heights Completed Additional 13 - 1 - - - - - 14 - - - - - - - - - - - Total 13 1 - - 14 - - - - - All Cities Completed Additional Total 6745 905 7650 1387 - - - - - 1387 - - 8132 905 9037 1085 89 1174 427 - - - - - 427 - - 1512 89 1601 *Units that declined mitigation or were determined to be ineligible for participation in the current program are not included in the table. Source: HNTB provided INM contours, MAC analysis, 2016 The 2015 count of residential units within the actual 60 DNL noise contour that have not received noise mitigation around MSP is 994, an increase from the 391 based on the 2014 actual noise contours. The increase is due, in large part, to an increase in nighttime operations in 2015, particularly nighttime arrival operations on Runway 12R. All homes within the 2015 actual 65 DNL contour have received the 5 dB noise reduction mitigation package. A depiction of the 2015 actual noise contour is provided in Figure 2.17. The actual noise contours from 2007-2015 are provided in Figure 2.18. 37 T `L1_L \4E Chapter 3 Comparison of' the 2015 Actual Noise Contour and the 2007 Forecast Noise Contour This chapter provides a detailed comparative analysis of the 2015 actual and 2007 forecast mitigated noise contours, focusing on the primary noise modeling variables and noise impacts at MSP. 3.1 Comparison of 2015 Actual and 2007 Forecast Noise Contour Inputs 3.1.1 Noise Model Considerations To develop the actual 2015 contour, HNTB used Integrated Noise Model (INM) Version 7.0d, which incorporates lateral attenuation capabilities and updates to noise and performance data for commercial aircraft, updates to substitution aircraft data, and corrections to minor software issues. HNTB developed the 2007 forecast mitigated contour using INM Version 6.1. It is important to note that changes to the model over time can change the size and shape of a noise contour. For example, the improvements to lateral attenuation adjustment algorithms and flight path segmentation in INM 7.0 (versus those used in version 6.1) were found by the FAA to increase the size of a DNL contour for a range of case study airports between 3 and 10 percent over what previous versions of INM would have modeled. 3.1.2 Aircraft Operations and Fleet Mix Comparison Table 3.1 provides a comparison of total MSP operations by operational category used in the 2007 forecast mitigated noise contour and the 2015 actual noise contour. As indicated in Table 3.1, the 2015 actual total MSP operations number of 404,374 represents a 30.6 percent reduction from the 2007 forecast mitigated total operations number of 582,366. Scheduled passenger air carrier, cargo and general aviation operations accounted for the majority of the reduction. However, it is notable that charter operations were 98.6 percent below the 2007 forecast mitigated number. Table 3.1 MINNEAPOLIS -ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT Comparison of 2007 Forecast Mitigated and 2015 Actual Total Operations Operations Category 2015 Actual* 2007 Forecasted Scheduled Passenger Air Carrier (a) 367,778 523,472 Cargo 12,789 21,158 Charter 80 5,766 General Aviation (b) 20,898 28,846 Military 2,829 3,124 TOTAL 404,374 582,366 Notes: (a) Includes both air carrier and regional carrier operations (b) Includes both GA and non-scheduled air taxi operations * Based on actual 2015 MACNOMS data adjusted to match FAA ATADS data (to account for unavailable MACNOMS operations data). 40 Table 3.2 provides a comparison of the 2007 forecast mitigated noise contour fleet mix and the 2015 actual noise contour fleet mix'. An assessment of average daily operations per aircraft type with daytime and nighttime operation statistics is provided. Table 3.2 MINNEAPOLIS -ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT Comparison of 2007 Forecast Mitigated Fleet Mix and 2015 Actual Fleet Mix Average Daily Operations Group Aircraft Type Day Night Total Difference Forecast and Actual 2007 Forecast 2015 Actual 2007 Forecast 2015 Actual 2007 Forecast 2015 Actual Manufactured/ Re -engined Stage 3 Jet 7478 - 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 717200 7.3 14.6 1.0 0.6 8.3 15.3 7.0 737300 48.2 7.2 3.5 1.6 51.7 8.8 -42.9 737400 0.1 0.2 - 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.2 737500 5.7 - 0.5 - 6.2 - -6.2 737700 7.8 39.9 0.5 9.8 8,3 49.7 41.4 737800 65.5 52.8 12.6 16.9 78.1 69.7 -8.4 737900 5.7 24,7 0.5 4.2 6.2 28.9 22.7 747400 1.9 0.2 0.2 0.1 2.1 0.3 -1,8 74720B - 0.0 -- - 0.0 0.0 757300 34.1 14.4 1.1 0.9 35.1 15.3 -19.8 757PW 88.4 39,2 8.6 7.0 97.1 46.2 -50.9 757RR - 2.4 - 1.9 - 4.3 4.3 767200 1.2 - 0.5 - 1.7 - -1.7 767300 - 6.2 - 1.4 - 7.7 7.7 767400 - 1.7 - 0.5 - 2.3 2.3 767CF6 - 0.6 - 0.0 - 0.7 0.7 767JT9 - 0.8 - 0.0 - 0.8 0.8 777200 - 1.7 - 0.0 - 1.7 1.7 7773ER - 0.0 -- - 0.0 0.0 A300 -622R 4.8 0.6 4.2 0.2 9.1 0.8 -8.3 A310-304 1.4 0.1 1.3 0.1 2.7 0.2 -2.5 A318 5.7 - 0.5 - 6.2 - -6.2 A319-131 149.1 75,1 3.9 6.1 153.0 81.1 -71,9 A320-211 173.4 - 16,5 - 189.9 - -189.9 A320-232 - 82,3 - 10.6 - 92.9 92.9 A321-232 - 5.6 - 3.0 - 8.6 8.6 A330-301 6,2 0.0 -- 6.2 0.0 -6.2 A330-343 - 7.2 - 0.3 - 7.5 7.5 A340 2.1 - -- 2.1 - -2.1 A340-211 - 0.7 - - 0.7 0.7 AN124 - 0.0 -- - 0.0 0.0 ASTR 2.3 - 0.2 - 2.5 - -2.5 BA46 74.3 - 2.2 - 76.5 - -76.5 Some INM aircraft types were not available at the time of the preparation of the 2007 forecast noise contour. 41 Table 3.2 MINNEAPOLIS -ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT Comparison of 2007 Forecast Mitigated Fleet Mix and 2015 Actual Fleet Mix Average Daily Operations Group Day Night Total Difference Forecast and Actual Aircraft Type 2007 Forecast 2015 Actual 2007 Forecast 2015 Actual 2007 Forecast 2015 Actual Manufactured/ Re -engined Stage 3 Jet (Cont'd) BD100 - 4.2 - 0.4 - 4.6 4.6 BD700 - 0.3 - 0.0 - 0.3 0.3 BEC400 - 0,9 - 0.0 - 0.9 0.9 CL600 - - -- - 0.0 CL601 264.1 1.7 14.7 0.1 278.8 1.8 -277.0 CLREGJ - 169.1 - 8.2 - 177.3 177.3 CNA500 1.4 0.3 0.1 0.0 1.4 0.3 -1.1 CNA501 - 0.1 - 0.0 - 0.1 0.1 CNA525 - - -- - - 0.0 CNA525C - 0.6 - 0.0 - 0.7. 0.7 CNA550 - 0.1 - 0.0 - 0.1 0.1 CNA551 - - -- - - 0.0 CNA55B - 0.4 - 0.1 - 0.5 0.5 CNA560 - - -- - - 0.0 CNA560E - 1.3 - 0.1 - 1.4 1.4 CNA560U - 0.3 - 0.0 - 0.3 0.3 CNA560XL - 3.1 - 0.2 - 3.4 3.4 CNA650 4.9 0.5 0.6 0.0 5.5 0.6 -4.9 CNA680 - 1.7 - 0.1 - 1.9 1.9 CNA750 4.6 3.5 0.3 0.3 4.9 3.7 -1.2 CRJ701 - 32.2 - 2.7 - 34.9 34.9 CRJ900 - 143.6 - 7.8 - 151.4 151.4 D328J - 0.2 - 0.0 - 0.2 0.2 DC1010 9.6 1.9 3.8 0.6 13.4 2.5 -10.9 DC820 - - -- - - 0.0 DC860 - - -- - - 0.0 DC870 - - 1.4 - 1.4 - -1.4 EMB135 - 0.2 - 0.0 - 0.2 0.2 EMB145 45.3 7.3 0.2 0.1 45.5 7.4 -38.1 EMB14L - 5.2 - 0.2 - 5.4 5.4 EMB170 - 71,1 - 4.8 - 75.9 75.9 EMB190 - 2.6 - 0.0 - 2.6 2.6 F10062 - 0.1 - 0.0 - 0.1 0.1 FAL10 - 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 FAL200 - - -- - - 0.0 FAL20A 1.0 1,2 0.7 0.0 1.7 1.3 -0.4 FAL50 - 0.9 - 0.1 - 1.0 1.0 FAL900 - 1.0 - 0.1 - 1,2 1.2 G150 - 0.2 - 0.0 - 0.2 0.2 G200 - 1.5 - 0.2 - 1.7 1.7 GIV 2.6 1.5 0.2 0.1 2.8 1.7 -1.1 42 Table 3.2 MINNEAPOLIS -ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT Comparison of 2007 Forecast Mitigated Fleet Mix and 2015 Actual Fleet Mix Average Daily Operations Difference Aircraft 2007 2015 2007 2015 2007 2015 Forecast Group Type Forecast Actual Forecast Actual Forecast Actual and Actual Manufactured/ GV 0.8 1.6 0.1 0.2 0.9 1.9 1.0 Re -engined HK4000 - 0.1 - 0.1 0.1 Stage 3 Jet HS125 - 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 (Cont'd) HS1258 - 2.5 - 0.1 2.6 2.6 Day Night Total IA1124 0.0 0.0 0.1 IA1125 0,1 0.1 L101 0.6 0.2 0,8 LEAR31 0.1 0.0 0.1 LEAR35 26.0 0.7 2.3 0.1 28.4 0.8 LEAR45 2.8. 0.2 3.0 LEAR55 0.1 0.0 0.1 LEAR60 0.4 0.0 0.5 MD11GE 0.3 1.5 0.4 1.3 0.7 2.8 MD11PW 1.4 1.0 2.5 M D80 0.0 0.0 MD81 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 MD82 6.7 1.4 8.1 M D83 17.0 7.0 1.6 1.6 18.6 8.5 MD88 18.6 0.9 19.5 MD9025 36.4 1.8 38.2 MD9028 45.0 1.8 46.8 MU300 7.2 0.0 0.6 7.8 0.0 R390 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 - 0.8 0.1 -27.6 3.0 0.1 0.5 2.1 2.5 0.0 -0.6 8.1 -10.1 19.5 38.2 46.8 - 7.8 0.2 SBR2 0.4 0.4 Total 1,071.5 962.6 85.0 102.2 1,156.7: 1,064.8 - 0.4 =91.9 Modified 727EM2 8.0 6.4 0.0 14.4 0.0 -14.4 ("hushkitted") 737N17 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 Stage 3 Jet DC93LW 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 -260.5 0.0 -274.8 ....... ...... Microjet CNA510 - 0.5 0.1 0.7 0.7 0.1 DC9Q 245.3 15.3 260,5 DC9Q7 0,0 0.0 Total 253.3 0.. 21.7 274.9.; 01 ECLIPSE500 0.1 0.1 Total 0.1 0.7 0.7 Stage 2 Less FAL20 0.7 - 1.5 2.3 2.3 than 75,000 Ib. Gil 2.1 0.0 0.2 2.3 0.0 -2,3 MTOW4 GULF3 - 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 LEAR24 0.0 0.0 4 As of January 1, 2016, all Stage 2 aircraft types are required to meet Stage 3 noise standards. 43 Table 3.2 MINNEAPOLIS -ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT Comparison of 2007 Forecast Mitigated Fleet Mix and 2015 Actual Fleet Mix Average D Group Aircraft Type Day Night Total Difference Forecast and Actual 2007 Forecast 2015 Actual 2007 Forecast 2015 Actual 2007 Forecast 2015 Actual Stage 2 Less than 75,000 Ib. MTOW (Cont'd) LEAR25 2.1 - 0.4 - 2.5 - -2.5 SABR80 - 0.0 - - - 0.0 0.0 = Total 4.2 0.8. 0.6 _ 15 48 2.3 -2.5 Propeller 1900D - 13.0 - 0.7 - 13.7 13.7 AC50 - - - 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 AC95 - 0.0 - - - 0.0 0.0 ATR42 - 1.3 - 0.2 - 1.4 1.4 BAEJ41 - 0.0 - - - 0.0 0.0 BEC100 - 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 BEC200 - 0,8 - 0.1 - 0.9 0.9 BEC300 - 0.5 - 0.0 - 0.5 0.5 BEC3OB - 0.2 - 0.0 - 0.2 0.2 BEC33 - 0.0 - - - 0.0 0.0 BEC58 14.3 0.1 4.7 0.0 19.0 0.1 -18.9 BEC65 - 5.9 - 0.8 - 6.7 6.7 BEC80 - 1.7 - 0.1 - 1.9 1.9 BEC90 - 0.4 - 0.0 - 0.5 0.5 BEC99 - 3.7 - 0.3 - 4.1 4.1 BEC9F - 0.0 - - - 0.0 0.0 BECM35 - 0.1 - - - 0.1 0.1 CNA172 - 0.1 - 0.0 - 0.1 0.1 CNA180 - 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 CNA182 - 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 CNA206 - 0.0 - - - 0.0 0.0 CNA208 - 1.0 - 0.0 - 1.0 1.0 CNA210 - 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 CNA303 - 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 CNA310 - 0.1 - 0.0 - 0.1 0.1 CNA340 - 0.0 - - - 0.0 0.0 CNA402 - 0.0 - - - 0.0 0.0 CNA404 - 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 CNA414 - 0.1 - 0.0 - 0.1 0.1 CNA421 - 0.1 - 0.0 - 0.2 0.2 CNA425 - 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 CNA441 - 0.1 - 0.0 - 0.1 0.1 DA42 - 0.0 - - - 0.0 0.0 DHC6 22.5 0.0 4.4 - 26.8 0.0 -26.8 DHC8 - 0.0 - - - 0.0 0.0 DHC830 - 0.0 - - - 0.0 0.0 D0328 - 0.0 - - - 0.0 0.0 EMB110 - 0,0 - - - 0.0 0.0 44 50 Table 3.2 MINNEAPOLIS -ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT Comparison of 2007 Forecast Mitigated Fleet Mix and 2015 Actual Fleet Mix Average Daily Operations Difference Aircraft 2007 2015 2007 2015 2007 2015 Forecast Group Type Forecast Actual Forecast Actual Forecast Actual and Actual Propeller EMB120 - 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 (Cont'd) FK27 0.1 - 0.1 - -0.1 Day Night Total GASEPF 1.3 0.3 1.6 GASEPV 3.7 0.0 0.5 4.3 0.0 M201 0.2 0.0 0.2 MU2 0.0 0.0 0.0 P180 0.0 0.0 PA23AZ 0.0 0.0 0.0 PA24 0.0 0.0 PA28 0.0 0.0 PA28AR 0.0 0.0 0.0 PA28DK 0.0 0.0 PA31 0.1 0.0 0.1 PA31T 0.1 0.1 PA32LA 0.0 0.0 PA32SG 0.0 0.0 PA34 0.1 0.0 0.1 PA42 0.0 0.0 PA46 0.1 0.1 PA60 0.0 0.0 PC12 0.3 0.0 0.3 RWCM69 0.0 0.0 0.0 SA227 0.0 0.0 SAAB20 0.0 0.0 -1.6 -4.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 SAM ER3 0.0 0.0 0.0 SAMER4 4.0 0.3 4.3 SF340 93.3 5.9 99.2 SR22 0.4 0.0 0.4 STBM7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.3 -99.2 0.4 0.0 TED600 0.1 0.0 0.1 Total 135.2 .35.5 5 8 151.0 383;: Helicopter B429 0.0 0.0 R22 0.0 0.0 S76 0.0 0.0 SA355F 0.0 0.0 Total 0.1 Military C -130E 7.8 1.4 0.2 0.0 8.0 1.5 C17 0.0 0.1 0.0 C5 0.1 0.1 F16GE 0.1 0.1 F-18 0.0 0.0 0.1 -112:7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 -6.5 -0.1 -0,1 -0.1 0.0 45 15' Table 3.2 MINNEAPOLIS -ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT Comparison of 2007 Forecast Mitigated Fleet Mix and 2015 Actual Fleet Mix Average Daily Operations Difference Forecast and Actual Group Military (Cont'd) Aircraft Type Day Night Total 2007 2015 Forecast Actual 2007 2015 Forecast Actual 2007 2015 Forecast Actual KC -135 0.0 0.0 T33A 0.0 0.0 T37 0.1 0.1 T38 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 - 0.1 - 0.1 0.0 0.0 -6.9 -488.1 T -38A 0.0 0.0 0,0 T6 0.0 0.0 0,0 Total 8.2 1.5 0.2 1 Grand Total 1,4,72.4 1,001.1 1i 7 8.5 16 1,595.9 1,107.8 Notes: Total may differ due to rounding Source: MAC -provided INM Input Data, HNTB 2016. Average Daily Operations for 2007 Forecast were obtained from the November 2004 Part 150 document. In general, many of the aircraft groups operating at MSP showed a reduction in the number of average daily operations from the 2007 forecast mitigated to the 2015 actual operations statistics. Manufactured or re -engined Stage 3 average daily operations in the 2015 actual statistics were down 7.9 percent from the 2007 forecast. The Modified ("hushkitted") Stage 3 average daily operations in the 2015 actual statistics were down over 99.9 percent from the 2007 forecast number. In total, the 2015 actual average daily number of operations was 1,107.8, which is a 30.6 percent reduction from the 2007 forecast number of 1,595.9 operations. Nighttime operations decreased by 16.6 average daily operations from the 2007 Forecast to the 2015 actual operations statistics. 3.1.3 Runway Use Comparison Table 3.3 provides a comparison of the 2007 forecast mitigated noise contour and the 2015 actual noise contour runway use percentages. 46 Table 3.3 MINNEAPOLIS -ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT Comparison of 2007 Forecast Mitigated and 2015 Actual Runway Use Operation Arrivals Runway Day Night 2007 2015 Forecast Actual 2007 2015 Forecast Actual To 2007 Forecast al 4 12L 12R 17 22 30L 30R 35 0.0% 0.0% 3.8% 0.1% 0.3% 21.8% 23.0% 17.2% 18.3% 21.4% 14.7% 25.0% 12.4% 28.4% 14.5% 0,0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.1% 2.4% 0.4% 0.6% 21.1% 18.9% 25.1% 31.3% 21.4% 25.1% 20.3% 26.4% 20.2% 25.2% 2015 Actual 0.0% 22.5% 25.4% 0.0% 0.1% 20.2% 20.3% 16,9% 12.6% 12.7% 1.3% 16.5% Total 100'- .0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Departures 4 12L 12R 17 22 30L 30R 35 0.2% 0.1% 0.4% 0.3% 0.2% 8.9% 15.6% 14.1% 20.0% 9.3% 15,9% 5.4% 18.3% 29.0% 16.1% 37.2% 31.4% 34.6% 11.9% 37.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.8% 0.2% 0.1% 15.0% 25.9% 12.8% 22,1% 14.8% 22.7% 21.5% 19.2% 16,4% 22.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% Total 100 0,6,- 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 11.4% 100.0% 0.1% 15.9% 7.4% 29.8% 0.1% 25.6% 21.1% 0.0% 100.0% 0 1% -. 19.2% 16.4% 14.9% 0.1% 22.9% 20.7% 5.7% 100 0% Overall 4 12L 12R 17 22 30L 30R 35 0.1% 0.1% 2.1% 0.2% 0.3% 15.3% 19.3% 15.6% 19.1% 15.4% 15.3% 15.1% 15.3% 28.7% 15,3% 18.6% 15.9% 17.1% 5.3% 18.5% 0.3% 0.1% 1.6% 0.3% 0.4% 18,0% 22.4% 19.0% 27.2% 18.1% 23,9% 20.9% 22.8% 18.5% 23.8% 8.4% 6.2% 6.4% 0.8% 8,3% it 100.:0%•, 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Note: Total may not add up due to rounding. Source: MAC -provided INM Input Data, HNTB 2016. A general evaluation of the runway use percentages in Table 3.3 indicates that total and nighttime use of Runway 17 for departure operations in 2015 was well below those forecasted in the 2007 mitigated scenario. The departure percentages on Runways 30L and 12L were notably higher than the 2007 forecast mitigated scenario. The total departure percentage on Runway 12R was below the 2007 forecast mitigated scenario, while the nighttime percentage on this runway was higher than the 2007 forecast mitigated scenario. Total and nighttime use of Runway 12R for arrival operations in 2015 was notably higher than what was forecasted in the 2007 forecast mitigated scenario. The arrival percentages on Runways 30R and 35 were notably lower in total use and nighttime use as compared to the 2007 forecast mitigated scenario. 47 3.1.4 Flight Track Considerations The INM departure flight track locations used to develop the 2015 actual noise contour were identical to those used for the 2014 actual noise contour. These flight tracks differ from those used to develop the 2007 forecast mitigated noise contour due to enhanced modeling methods and improved technologies. Sub -tracks were also added to each of the backbone tracks. The INM's standard distribution was used in distributing the flights to the sub -tracks. The same methodology as in previous annual reports was used to assign 2015 radar data with the INM flight tracks. The radar-to-INM flight track correlation process employs a best -fit analysis of the radar flight track data based on linear trends. This approach provides the ability to match each radar flight track directly to the appropriate INM track. 3.1.5 Atmospheric Conditions Comparison The MAC used an average annual temperature of 47.7 degrees Fahrenheit and an average annual wind speed of 5.3 knots in the 2007 forecast mitigated INM contour modeling process. The MAC also used an average annual pressure of 29.90 inches and an annual average relative humidity of 64 percent. As stated in Section 2.1.5, the 2015 actual noise contour used a 2015 annual average temperature of 48.6 degrees Fahrenheit and a 2015 average annual wind speed of 8.3 knots in the INM modeling process. In addition, a 2015 average annual pressure of 30.01 inches of Mercury and a 2015 annual average relative humidity of 63.3 percent were used. 3.2 Comparative Noise Model Grid Point Analysis The INM was used to conduct a grid point analysis based on the 2007 forecast mitigated noise contour and 2015 actual noise contour INM input files. The MAC used INM Version 6.2a for the 2007 forecast mitigated noise contour grid point analysis because this was the oldest version of INM available to MAC staff to conduct the analysis in early 2008 when the annual noise contour report process began at MSP. When comparing the DNL values generated for the MACNOMS RMT locations with INM 6.1 in the November 2004 Part 150 Update document to the levels generated for those same locations with INM 6.2a, the differences were insignificant. The INM was used to calculate DNL values for the center points of each city block included in the mitigation programs outlined in the Consent Decree. Figures 3.1 to 3.5 depict the 2015 actual grid point analysis area and the DNL levels calculated for each block by city. Figures 3.6 to 3.10 depict the 2007 forecast mitigated grid point analysis area and the DNL levels calculated for each block by city. Figures 3.11 to 3.15 depict the difference in DNL levels, on a block -by -block basis, between the 2007 forecast mitigated noise contours and the 2015 actual noise contours. 48 154 3.3 Contour Comparison Summary The 2015 actual noise contour is smaller than the 2007 forecast mitigated contour by 5,936 acres (37.8 percent reduction) in the 60 DNL contour and by 3,352 acres (46.3 percent reduction) in the 65 DNL contour. As depicted in Figure 3.16, there is a small area in South Minneapolis where the 2015 actual noise contours extend beyond the 2007 forecast mitigated noise contours. Chapter 4 provides an analysis of mitigation eligibility relative to the 2015 actual contour consistent with the requirements of the First Amendment to the Consent Decree. There is an overall decrease of 3,811 residential units in the 65 DNL contour and 1,740 residential units in the 60 to 64 DNL noise contours around MSP when comparing the 2007 forecast mitigated contour with the 2015 actual contour that was developed under the requirements of the Consent Decree. The predominant contraction in the contours from the 2007 forecast mitigated to the 2015 actual noise contour scenarios is driven largely by fleet mix changes (including a significant reduction in Modified ("hushkitted") Stage 3 aircraft operations), and a significant reduction of total annual operations, including a reduction of 16.6 average daily nighttime operations. The extension of the 2015 actual noise contour beyond the 2007 forecast mitigated noise contour can largely be attributed to nighttime runway use variances between what was forecasted for 2007 and what occurred in 2015, particularly an increase in nighttime arrival operations on Runway 12R. In summary, in addition to INM modeling enhancements, the primary factors to consider when comparing the 2007 forecast mitigated noise contours to the 2015 actual noise contours are total operation numbers, fleet mix, nighttime operations, and runway use. 49 15'D Isco ZL5�9 8;L5y£ 65 s' 0.91 4991' KO 1; E 1965r 616 89 Z`09' 6SL9 )99 6591 69 ttz 9 tis v 99 £p85 s 69 $ r Y t>S = 55s $ 5$€ 9991 18911669 £5 Zt'5 8'09 Zx8 9 51 EZ109] 9 979 .09'48-19s1 ;599'£9 £6 Lat999fi'8 SSS19§Z98 95 965 [g 9 f!] 8 ] L9 195 p 4e4 ' •BS: 8699 L t91LLZ91 Lf9 699 a9 09 - 19116;a9 9E2£9 9'99 E'l9vi', Z96t£9 658�r 6Y9L [Bt��" 9'9 1 [lL69'. 9'S9A9E9C ' rZ�b9 E8 ZipzolizoltrA £9 P E9 LiZ9 $ Z9 5t�E9 S Z55jt55. 2:,-99,- 1195 (991 rP L9. Z 89: £j65' h. 8 3fiV 8 199t 4'L9 £5891 nh,69r 1 95 t! 192 E:89; 9,691 8' 19 Y99 t649Akigg Z S5. r9.99...9•9f ratio Ulm .[Lit9i [r':£ ilsLS ,9 L9 =6'19 9 12i29i 9199- (S'0 49129 :i1_ 23.0.9. �•" 5`19 tr(59 'LtL 09j 8109 66SJK-9 E091% zvs z9 5 $ z91 tit -9],A 09 ] 819 99 1; E"£9 9 MP 1i9�1 [LgF91 'StSF 9 k09 L ZJ Z%18] 1.6' £ i9t£9 'sZ9 Z19' 8 85 9 9 RL?9 L [fi179 gig 9tKJj;'S 69 Z ft SF9)t 6, £9 y R7, L9] z�o9 65 R !E py6tZ9 19 R 65't 985;=9 G 19[89]tL£9 tz9{91L9; L0.91 er5 £Ria C8df9]i E It�%9` L�t9 9169 9119 6 Z6 1,199 L.69, 9'69 - a i199NI 9 09 KW �y nrogrjS ]yh9, [609,Lb9]170 09rZg€39 _ Z 6s [9109] z 65 8F8, 9'L9 96, [9j09J.•" 9199,49 ZBSA 092 9M, L85=,• 1i69 AQ9.3 :5.69 cu AP Oat. y 6S h6 6S 169 C£859°69 i96518r 5i85� i �i 9$5 9i¢9 265 9118M 0 69 985 :£ 85] C$19916 ;Z9 EOM S64ii69E 5389 ib 6LZ9"1 I 1043":610§1 R,Z41[8149.1[91.t<. 69 `13 65 b09 £xt9 �"9rZ9 �.. S 3QV1hVh�a �„ 1 L9 .'��rZ9 �EYZ9 �.. •- TKO Wei L�tr'""19 164 Lj9 MUD LT(t'97 921.9 [[8119 t101 ���ta vsc‘ l(o0 t {"S (Lt. Sj#iI�Eo £;65 4'6 N09 1 O�19 65 6 f 99 B`ssavtr? 4 ¢'6:E9 a x s' tbS M Y$lt79 l9. 6s£azl9� t'64 1:0:7 L i9 8` l5 1 n 09 5i4Vt9 aj t09 5$9 Gly 9l9 j 609o+z�.t-��zarv', 0'bs s09 1 V65 t no tas ton zo9 $ !51 099as€ S of GS 8'FS� 6S i641=�a6375 65�a�L 6S 65��4'93 �F65� ffi 6S 9851 65 695 �L0?-,;) InterVISTAS AVIATION TRANSPORTATION TOURISM Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Economic Impact Study Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Economic Impact Study i Executive Summary The Metropolitan Airports Commission engaged Inter VISTAS Consulting LLC (Inter VISTAS) to conduct an economic impact study to account for the operations of the Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport (MSP) as of June 2012,1 The purpose of this study is to document the economic contribution of the airport, its airlines and their partner businesses to the community and the greater Minneapolis -St. Paul area. Airports make substantial contributions to regional economies. They facilitate the movement of people, goods, and services throughout the nation and the world, allowing the economy to operate more efficiently. As the head of the Federal Aviation Administration's Air Traffic Organization noted, "In today's ever-changing and innovative world, aviation provides a vital link to economic opportunities at home and abroad. In the wake of global economic and financial uncertainties, runways have become the new main streets for cities and towns to get down to business and soar once more." 2 Aviation is also critical for local and regional tourism. Air transportation is a major means of bringing in tourists and their related spending on food, hotel, entertainment, and other items. Airports are also centers of significant economic activity themselves, as the locus of activity directly associated with passenger and cargo air travel. Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport enables domestic and international travel for local residents and visitors to the region. Through its cargo operations, MSP facilitates the trade and movement of time -sensitive products. As a center for employment in the region, MSP is also the origin of secondary spending and economic effects. These various economic impacts are described below. Economic Impact Defined Economic impact is a measure of the spending and employment associated with a sector of the economy, a specific project, or a change in government policy or regulation. Economic impact is most commonly measured in several ways, including; 1. Employment- person years (expressed in terms of "full time equivalents," or FTEs) of employment generated,3 Because many jobs may be only part-time or seasonal, the number of jobs is greater than the number of person years of employment. 2. Earnings — includes wages, salaries, and benefits associated with employment tied to the airport. 1 Employment, earning (wage), GDP and economic output impacts are based on 2012 operations. Taxation impacts are based on the 2011 calendar year and are estimated separately, as are the sales tax impacts of visitor spending. See Section 7 of the full report for complete details tax impacts. 2 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, The Economic Impact of Civil Aviation on the U.S. Economy, August 2011, Washington, D.C. 3 One person year is equivalent to 1,800 hours of work. Person years are the same as FTEs. March 75, 2073 lntorVISIAS Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Economic Impact Study ii 3. Economic output - the dollar value of industrial output produced. Sometimes referred to as "economic activity," it reflects the spending (e.g., capital improvement plus revenue) by firms, organizations and individuals. In the case of organizations that do not generate revenue (e.g., government -provided air traffic control services), annual operating expenses are counted. 4. Value-added or Gross Domestic Product (GDP) - a measure of the money value of final goods and services produced as a result of economic activity. This measure is net of the value of intermediate goods and services used up to produce the final goods and services. The three major components of economic impact are classified as direct, indirect and induced impacts. These classifications are used as a base for the estimation of total economic impact of an airport. Each of these three components requires different tools of analysis. Employment impact analysis determines the economic impact in terms of jobs created and salaries and wages paid out. In the case of the airport, the direct, indirect, induced and total number of person years of employment created at the airport is examined to produce a snapshot of airport operations. ■ Direct aviation sector impacts account for the economic activity of the target sector itself. Direct employment impacts are measured by counting those individuals who work in a particular sector of the economy. In the case of an airport, all of those people who work in an aviation -related capacity either on-site or off-site would be considered direct employment (e.g. customer service, airline crew based at Minneapolis -St. Paul, ground handling, cleaning maintenance and airport staff members, etc.). ■ Indirect impacts are the "downstream" impacts that result because of the direct impacts. For an airport, indirect impacts are the consequence of economic activities of the off-site firms that serve airport users. Indirect employment includes the portion of employment in supplier industries which are dependent on sales to the air transport sector. An example would be food wholesalers that supply food for catering on flights. ■ Induced impacts are economic impacts created by the spending of wages, salaries and profits earned in the course of the direct and indirect economic activities. Induced employment is employment generated from expenditures by individuals employed indirectly or directly, For instance, if an airline maintenance firm employee decides to re -model his/her home, this would result in additional (induced) employment hours in the general economy. The home renovation project would support hours of induced employment in the construction industry, the construction materials industry, etc. ■ Direct visitor spending impacts from visitors to a region that arrive and depart via the airport, rather than by other means, is considered a relevant economic impact. This includes spending on lodging, meals, entertainment, car rentals and retail. Direct employment associated with those industries is this counted as part of the economic impacts of the airport. ■ Total impacts are the sum of direct, indirect and induced effects. March 15, 2073 I tervism Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Economic Impact Study Figure ES -1 summarizes the various elements that account for the economic impact of an airport. Figure ES -1: Economic Impact Overview - Airports • Airline Oporations • Airport Tenants Air Traffic Control • Customs & Security • Airport Operations Operatloi • Conces$I • Other Impacts associated with down•stroam suppliers 1 C Industries senger mding in Region: Lodging Meals Recreation Car Rentals Other The focus of this study is on the economic impact of MSP on the Minneapolis -St. Paul regional economy and not the entire state of Minnesota. The core of that region is the seven counties of Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott and Washington. This is the area where most of the economic activity directly associated with the airport's operations is located and where the vast majority of employees reside. Thus, this report captures the economic effect of those who work at any of the firms or organizations surveyed, even if they live in outlying counties. However, it does not capture the economic effects associated with employees of airlines working in outlying communities (e.g., Duluth or Hibbing), even if they work for Delta Air Lines, the principal tenant at MSP. Similarly, the report does capture the impact of visitor spending to the extent that it occurs in the metropolitan area, but not any spending that occurred elsewhere in the state. Methodology. Inter VISTAS conducted this study during the summer and early fall of 2012. To calculate the direct effects, the study team surveyed all employers associated with economic activity at MSP (e.g., airlines, government agencies and ground handling firms) to determine the total number of individuals employed in directly -related occupations, as well as the total amount of earnings (wages) paid to those individuals, This included firms located both on-site at the airport and those located off-site. Inter VISTAS estimated the indirect and induced effects using economic multipliers that are derived from models produced by the U,S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) on how U.S. and regional economies operate. To derive estimates of the economic impact of domestic and international visitor spending in the region, Inter VISTAS commissioned an in -terminal survey of passengers at MSP. This survey was conducted in the summer of 2012, The estimates associated with each group of visitors are statistically reliable at a 95% confidence interval. These estimates were then applied to the 2012 MSP passenger traffic figures to deduce the total impact of visitor spending in the region. See Section 2 for a more detailed description of the study's methodology. March 75, 2073 tntelVIS:TAS Wq Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Economic Impact Study iv Total Economic Impacts of Ongoing Operations at MSP In total, ongoing operations at MSP generated an estimated 74,800 jobs, $2.9 billion in earnings, $5.6 billion in GDP, and $9.9 billion in economic output. Including multiplier impacts, MSP operations and visitor spending generated over 74,800 jobs (66,300 person years of employment), close to $2.9 billion in earnings, $5.6 billion in GDP and approximately $9.9 billion in economic output. (Unless otherwise specified, all dollar figures cited are expressed in 2012 dollars.) The total direct impacts of MSP alone amount to over 44,300 jobs (equivalent to 39,200 person years of employment), $1.7 billion in earnings, generating close to $3.1 billion in GDP and approximately $5.6 billion in economic output. Total impacts are calculated by adding together the direct operations impacts, direct spending impacts, indirect impacts and induced impacts, The total economic impacts of ongoing operations at MSP on the regional economy are summarized in Table ES -1. Table ES -1; Summary of Total Ongoing Economic Impacts of MSP in the Metropolitan Area Type of Impact Employment Jobs (Jobs) Employment Person Years ( ) Earnings ($ Billions) GDP ($ Billions) Economic Output ($ Billions) Direct Impacts MSP Operations 19,800 17,500 1.2 2.0 3.7 Visitor Spending 24,500 21,700 0.5 1.1 1.9 Total Direct Impacts 44,300 39,200 L7 3.1 5.6 Indirect* 13,400 11,900 0.6 1.2 2.1 Induced* 17,100 15,200 0.6 1.3 2.2 Grand Total Impacts 74,800 66,300 2.9 5.6 9.9 Note: * To avoid possibly double -counting impacts, these figures show only the indirect and induced impacts associated with ongoing MSP airport operations and do not include any indirect and induced impacts estimates from visitor spending. The indirect and induced effects of visitor spending include spending on aviation, which are already measured in the multiplier impacts of the airport. Consequently, the grand total impacts shown are conservative. Further explanation is provided in Section 6.5 of the full report. March 15, 2073 1.zxtcrVl"STAS 1 lib Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Economic Impact Study v Direct Economic Impacts of MSP Operations Direct economic impact measures the employment and economic impact directly associated with the airport. This includes employment from organizations such as airlines, ground handling, airport operations, airport concessionaires, and air traffic control firms. Direct economic impacts are calculated based on employment data provided by employers. Ongoing operations at MSP generated 19,800 direct jobs, $1.2 billion in direct earnings, and $3.7 billion in direct economic output. The direct impacts of ongoing operations at MSP included: ■ 19,800 direct jobs in the Minneapolis -St. Paul region, representing 17,500 direct person years of employment. The direct economic impact of this employment on the regional economy is: o $1.2 billion in earnings, o $2.0 billion in gross domestic product (GDP); o $3.7 billion in economic output. The employment survey administered to employees at MSP and related businesses also revealed some interesting characteristics: ■ 97% of jobs at MSP and related businesses are permanent (non -seasonal) and 89% of these are full-time jobs. ■ Employees at MSP and other businesses linked to the airport earned over $1.2 billion in earnings, yielding an average annual wage of approximately $66,270 per person year of employment. ■ Contract employees and firms providing services to MSP and related firms contributed close to 700 additional jobs, based on survey results. Table ES -2 summarizes the residency of employees directly associated with MSP. Over half of the 19,800 employees directly associated with the operations of the airport live in Hennepin and Ramsey counties. Roughly 34% of the total direct employees are residents of St, Paul and Minneapolis (19% in St, Paul and 15% in Minneapolis). Additionally, roughly 20% of the employees associated with the airport reside in Dakota County. Overall, the seven -county region is home to roughly 90% of the total employees associated with the airport, March 15, 2073 InterVXSTAS 1� 4 Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Economic Impact Study vi Table ES -2: Residency of Direct Employees at MSP Jurisdiction Direct Jobs Percent of Direct Jobs Hennepin County 6,500 33% (City of Minneapolis only) (2,900) (15%) Ramsey County 4,700 24% (City of St. Paul only) (3,800) (19%) Dakota County 4,000 20% Washington County 1,200 6% Scott County 700 3% Anoka County 600 3% Carver County 200 1 % Other Minnesota* 1,500 8% Other U.S.** 400 2% Total Employment 19,800 100% Source: Survey of employers by Inter VISTAS. Notes: * "Other Minnesota" includes employees who reside in other cities and counties outside the seven -county region highlighted in the table. ** "Other U.S." includes employees whose work is directly related to MSP, but who reside in Wisconsin. Direct Economic Impact of Visitor Spending Spending by visitors to the region also contributes substantially to the economic impact attributable to the airport, albeit less directly. The economic impact of visitor spending depends on the amount the visitors spend, the length of stay, and the different categories of spending — mostly in the hospitality sector. Spending on hotels, restaurants, retail, and entertainment support jobs and further spending in the region. Spending by visitors arriving via MSP amounted to $1.9 billion and generated 24,500 direct jobs, $0.5 billion in direct earnings and $1.1 billion in GDP. March 75, 2073 fnterVISIAS Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Economic Impact Study vii International visitors tend to spend more than domestic visitors and also tend to stay longer. The in -terminal survey of travelers conducted revealed that domestic visitors spent roughly $425 per trip and stayed 2 nights on average. The same survey revealed that international visitors spent approximately $720 per trip and stayed 5 nights on average. Using data obtained from the in - terminal survey and passenger traffic statistics at MSP, it is estimated that the total spending of visitors arriving via MSP is $1.9 billion per annum, The U.S, BEA's employment impact multipliers are used to estimate the direct employment generated by each dollar of visitor spending, as well as earnings and GDP. This study found that the direct visitor spending impacts of MSP on the region in 2012 included: ■ 24,500 direct jobs in the Minneapolis -St. Paul region, representing 21,700 direct person years of employment. The direct economic impact of this employment on the regional economy is: o $0.5 billion in earnings, and o $1.1 billion in gross domestic product (GDP). The survey was not able to distinguish any separate amount that these visitors may have also spent elsewhere in Minnesota outside the metropolitan region. Consequently, these estimates should also be considered conservative in terms of the potential total economic impact of visitors. Indirect and Induced Economic Impacts Indirect and induced impacts are those stimulated by the direct employment and activities at the airport (e.g., businesses that supply goods and services to the airport and spending by airport employees). These impacts are estimated using economic multipliers that are derived from intricate models of how the U.S. and regional economies operate. This study found that the indirect and induced impacts of ongoing operations at MSP in 2012 included: Ongoing operations at MSP generated 30,500 indirect and induced jobs, $1.2 billion in indirect and induced earnings, and $4.3 billion in indirect and induced economic output in 2012. 30,500 jobs in the Minneapolis -St. Paul region, representing 27,100 person years of employment. The indirect and induced economic impact of this employment on the regional economy is: o $1.2 billion in earnings o $2,5 billion in gross domestic product (GDP), and o $4.3 billion in economic output. March 15, 2073 tnterV S:fAS Minneapolis -St, Paul International Airport Economic Impact Study viii As noted under Table ES -1, to avoid possible double -counting, this study excluded any consideration of possible indirect and induced effects of visitor spending, Those effects are confounded with the multiplier impacts of the airport. Industries that supply and provide services to the tourism industry (which generates indirect impacts) include airlines. Similarly, the expenditures by individuals involved in the tourism industry (which generates the induced impacts) include the expenditures of airline employees. Consequently, our estimates of the total indirect and induced effects associated with the airport's operations should be considered conservative, Economic Impacts of Capital Expenditures at MSP in 2012 There are also economic impacts associated with the airport's capital expenditures. Using economic multipliers, the economic impacts of the airport's capital expenditures in 2012 were estimated. The economic effects of an airport's capital development are considered separate from an airport's ongoing operations because the capital spending can vary significantly over time on a project -by -project basis. According to the Metropolitan Airports Commission, in MSP's capital expenditures in 2012 generated 730 direct jobs and $30 million in direct earnings. 2012, MSP spent approximately $100 million dollars in capital expenditures, The spending generated 730 direct jobs and $30 million in direct earnings. The total economic impact of the airport's 2012 capital expenditures is summarized in Table ES -3, March 75, 2073 I terVXS7AS Minneapolis -St, Paul International Airport Economic Impact Study ix Table ES -3: Total Economic Impact of MSP's Capital Expenditures in 2012 Type of Impact Employment (Jobs) Jobs Employment Person Years ( ) Earnings ($Millions ) GDP ($ Millions) Economic Output ($ Millions) Direct 730 650 30 50 100 Indirect 340 300 20 30 60 Induced 470 420 20 30 60 Total Impacts 1,540 1,370 70 110 220 Combined Economic Impacts of MSP Operations, Visitor Spending and Capital Expenditures in 2012 Table ES -4 provides a summary of all the economic impacts associated with the MSP operations, visitor spending and capital spending in 2012. Table ES -4: Combined Economic Impacts of MSP Operations, Visitor Spending & Capital Expenditures in 2012 Type of Impact Employment Jobs (Jobs) Employment Person Years ( ) Earnings ($ Billions) GDP ($ Billions) Economic Output ($ Billions) Total Direct Impacts 45,030 39,850 1.73 3.15 5.70 Total Indirect Impacts 13,740 12,200 0.62 1.23 2.16 Total Induced Impacts 17,570 15,620 0.62 1.33 2.26 Grand Total Impacts 76,340 67,670 2.97 5.71 10.12 March 75, 2073 i tergSms Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Economic Impact Study x Significant Tax Contributions Ongoing economic activity at the airport contributes significant tax revenues to public authorities in the region. ■ In 2011, total tax contributions from MSP - related employment to all levels of government were close to $611 million,4 (See Figure ES -2) Ongoing operations at MSP generated $611 million in government tax revenues. o The federal government was the largest recipient of tax revenue, receiving just over $358 million (59% of total tax revenue). o The government of the State of Minnesota received close to $243 million in tax revenue (40% of total tax revenue). o Local governments (the counties in the metro area and various area cities) collected roughly $10 million in tax revenue (1 % of total tax revenue), Approximately 27% of taxes were paid by air travelers, while 73% of taxes were paid by MSP employers and their employees. Figure ES -2: Estimated Annual Tax Revenues to Each Level of Government 4 Tax impacts are estimated separately from economic impacts, as the tax revenues generated by airport operations are different from the economic output of the airport. Tax impacts estimate income and payroll taxes and sales taxes on visitor spending, while economic output measures the spending of firms and individuals. Tax impacts are based on the 2011 calendar year. March 15, 2013 Intervis7 S V-1 LA Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Economic Impact Study A Contents ExecutiveSummary........................................................................ i Introduction........................................................................ 1 1.1 Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport .................................... 1 1.2 Industry and Economy............................................................ 5 1.3 What is Economic Impact?....................................................... 6 2 Methodology....................................................................... 9 2.1 Overview 9 2.2 ........................................................................... Estimating Current Economic Impact .......................................... 9 2.3 Surveying Direct Employment ................................................... 9 2.4 Inferring Employment...........................................................10 2.5 Estimating Indirect and Induced Impacts with Economic Multipliers ....11 2.6 Study Time Frame...............................................................11 2.7 Jobs versus Person Years of Employment....................................11 2.8 In -Terminal Survey of Travelers...............................................12 3 Direct Economic Impacts.......................................................13 3.1 Introduction.......................................................................13 3.2 Jobs and Person Years...........................................................13 3.3 Earnings............................................................................13 3.4 Full-time versus Part -Time, Seasonal and Contract Employment ........ 13 3.5 Direct Jobs by Type of Employer..............................................14 3.6 Residency of Direct Employees................................................15 4 Indirect and Induced Employment and Earnings ..........................17 4.1 Introduction.......................................................................17 4.2 Indirect Employment............................................................17 4.3 Induced Employment............................................................17 4.4 Total Employment and Earnings...............................................17 5 Other Economic Impacts........................................................19 5.1 Introduction.......................................................................19 5.2 Gross Domestic Product and Economic Output..............................19 6 Visitor Spending Impacts.......................................................21 6.1 Introduction....................................................................... 21 6.2 Visitor Spending Analysis........................................................ 21 6.3 Average Visitor Expenditure by Category .................................... 23 6.4 Direct Economic Impact of Visitor Spending.................................24 6.5 Indirect and Induced Visitor Spending Impacts..............................24 7 Tax Impacts.......................................................................25 7.1 Introduction....................................................................... 25 7.2 Taxes by Level of Government ................................................. 26 7.3 Summary of Tax Contributions.................................................27 March 15, 2013 TnterV STAS Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Economic Impact Study A 8 Capital Expenditures............................................................ 29 8.1 Economic Impact of Capital Expenditures at MSP in 2012 ................. 29 9 Summary of Economic Impact Results.......................................31 AppendixA: Employment Survey ..................................................... 35 Appendix B: Calculation of Ground Transportation Impacts ....................37 Appendix C: Total Jobs and Person Years, Airport Operations Only ..........38 Appendix D: Inferred Employment...................................................39 Appendix E: Multipliers.................................................................40 Appendix F: Contract Employment...................................................42 Appendix G: Visitor Spending Analysis..............................................43 Appendix H: Tax Revenues Attributable to Employers and Employees ....... 46 Appendix I: Tax Revenues Attributable to Airport Users ........................ 51 AppendixJ: Glossary of Terms ........................................................ 57 March 75, 2073 In.terV1S2"AS Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Economic Impact Study — FINAL REPORT 1 1 Introduction The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) engaged Inter VISTAS Consulting LLC (Inter VISTAS) to conduct an economic impact study of the Minneapolis -St, Paul International Airport (MSP), Airports make substantial contributions to regional economies. Airports facilitate the movement of people, goods, and services throughout the nation and the world, allowing the economy to operate more efficiently. As the head of the Federal Aviation Administration's Air Traffic Organization noted, "In today's ever-changing and innovative world, aviation provides a vital link to economic opportunities at home and abroad. In the wake of global economic and financial uncertainties, runways have become the new main streets for cities and towns to get down to business and soar once more."5 Aviation is a critical driver of local and regional tourism. Air transportation is a major means of bringing in tourists who spend money on food, lodging, retail, entertainment, and other items. Airports are also centers of significant economic activity themselves, as the location of activity directly associated with passenger and cargo air travel, MSP contributes directly to the state and national Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and to employment in the Minneapolis -St. Paul region through its business and commercial activities and operations. More importantly, it also acts as an economic catalyst, facilitating the growth of regional businesses and industrial sectors. MSP enables domestic and international travel for local residents and visitors to the region. Through its cargo operations, MSP facilitatesthe trade and movement of time -sensitive products. The economic contribution of the airport to the community is termed its economic impact. This study examines the various aspects of that economic impact on the region's economy, 1.1 Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport The Metropolitan Airports Commission operates one of the largest aviation systems in the United States, consisting of the Minneapolis -St, Paul International Airport and six reliever airports in the metropolitan area, See Figure 1-1 for a map of all the Metropolitan Airports Commission's airport locations in the Minneapolis -St, Paul (Twin Cities) metropolitan area. This official metropolitan statistical area includes 11 counties in Minnesota and two in Wisconsin. The core metropolitan area includes seven counties surrounding the Twin Cities; Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott, and Washington. 5 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, The Economic impact of Civi/Aviation on the U.S. Economy, August 2011, Washington, D.C, March 15, 2073 TntorVISIAS Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Economic Impact Study — FINAL REPORT 2 Figure 1-1: MAC Airports in the Seven -County Metropolitan Area b drt'r= t MkW Source: Metropolitan Airports Commission, 2011 Annual Report to the Legislature MSP is the primary commercial service airport in Minnesota, MSP generates revenues from airport users, aviation grants, bonds, and passenger facility charges. MSP does not receive an appropriation from the State of Minnesota's General Fund, nor has it levied local property taxes since 1969.6 In 1996, the Minnesota Legislature directed MSP to implement the 2010 Long -Term Comprehensive Plan. Since then, MSP carried out $3.2 billion in airport improvements at the present airport site. Virtually every aspect of MSP was transformed, with a major expansion of the Terminal 1 -Lindbergh, a new Terminal 2 -Humphrey, a new fourth runway, expanded roadways and parking, two automated airport trams, and development of a metropolitan light rail system connecting both MSP terminals to the Mall of America and downtown Minneapolis. In 2012, MSP served 33.2 million passengers and accommodated over 425,000 landings and takeoffs. MSP was the 12th busiest airfield in the U.S. and ranked 15th in North America for number of travelers annually. According to MSP forecasts, total enplaned passengers are expected to 6 Metropolitan Airports Commission, 2077 Annual Report to the Legislature, p, 7, March 15, 2073 IrlterVISTA; yy MV QAKOTA " b drt'r= t MkW Source: Metropolitan Airports Commission, 2011 Annual Report to the Legislature MSP is the primary commercial service airport in Minnesota, MSP generates revenues from airport users, aviation grants, bonds, and passenger facility charges. MSP does not receive an appropriation from the State of Minnesota's General Fund, nor has it levied local property taxes since 1969.6 In 1996, the Minnesota Legislature directed MSP to implement the 2010 Long -Term Comprehensive Plan. Since then, MSP carried out $3.2 billion in airport improvements at the present airport site. Virtually every aspect of MSP was transformed, with a major expansion of the Terminal 1 -Lindbergh, a new Terminal 2 -Humphrey, a new fourth runway, expanded roadways and parking, two automated airport trams, and development of a metropolitan light rail system connecting both MSP terminals to the Mall of America and downtown Minneapolis. In 2012, MSP served 33.2 million passengers and accommodated over 425,000 landings and takeoffs. MSP was the 12th busiest airfield in the U.S. and ranked 15th in North America for number of travelers annually. According to MSP forecasts, total enplaned passengers are expected to 6 Metropolitan Airports Commission, 2077 Annual Report to the Legislature, p, 7, March 15, 2073 IrlterVISTA; Minneapolis -St, Paul International Airport Economic Impact Study — FINAL REPORT 3 increase by more than 73%, while total aircraft operations (landings and takeoffs) are expected to grow by 40% by the year 2030,7 Continued airport improvements will be required in order to manage forecasted aircraft circulation, MSP's airfield is approximately 3,400 acres in size and consists of two parallel runways, one north - south runway and one crosswind runway (four runways total). MSP has two terminals: Terminal 1 - Lindbergh and Terminal 2 -Humphrey, Figure 1-2 shows the change in passenger traffic at MSP from 2001 to 2012. Passenger totals include all revenue and non -revenue passengers that used traditional major air carrier services, regional air carriers or charter companies, A total of 33.2 million passengers arrived at and departed from MSP in 2012, which represents a minor increase over the 2011 level but a 12% decrease from the peak passenger volume level of 37.6 million in 2005. Figure 1-2: Total Passenger Traffic at MSP, 2001 - 2012 Source: Metropolitan Airport Commission, Year End Statistics Reports (2001-2012). Note: Total air passenger traffic includes all enplaned & deplaned passengers, as well as both revenue & non -revenue passengers. Figure 1-3 shows the change in total aircraft operations (landings and takeoffs) at MSP. On average, roughly a half -million aircraft operations occur at MSP every year. In 2012, MSP handled over 425,000 operations. Most occur during daytime hours; however, to accommodate cargo business and flight schedule changes, some overnight operations are necessary. 7 2030 MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan March 75, 2073 ``'� Intern s AS V 1� F Minneapolis -St, Paul International Airport Economic Impact Study — FINAL REPORT 4 Figure 1-3: Total Aircraft Operations at MSP, 2001 - 2012 Source: Metropolitan Airports Commission, Year End Statistics Reports (2001-2012). Note: Aircraft operations include all takeoffs & landings at MSP. In July 2012, total direct non-stop scheduled services to MSP included over 429,000 seats per week (a traditional industry measure of capacity), These scheduled services included direct non- stop flights from MSP to 138 U.S. cities, 8 Canadian cities and 4 European cities, Since 2005, the capacity of total scheduled services at MSP decreased by 19%, Table 1-1 shows the change in available non-stop seat capacity from July 2005 to July 2012, Similar weeks in July were chosen for comparison purposes, as July is a popular month for seasonal travel at MSP, Table 1-1: Direct Non-stop Scheduled Flights Arriving at MSP — July 2005 vs. July 2012 Country Weekly Seat Capacity 2005 Weekly Seat Capacity 2012 % Change US 495,164 402,606 -19% Canada 22,792 14,606 -36% Netherlands 5,670 5,257 -7% Japan 4,030 1,887 -53% United Kingdom 1,890 1,722 -9% France N/A 1,701 N/A Iceland 1,323 1,281 -3% Mexico 310 N/A N/A Grand Total 531,179 429,060 -19% Source: Official Airline Guide (OAG) based on services for the weeks of 11 July 2005 and 9 July 2012, March 15, 2013 ZntcrVISIAS Minneapolis -St, Paul International Airport Economic Impact Study — FINAL REPORT 5 Delta Air Lines (Delta) is the largest air carrier at MSP. In 2012, Delta and its regional partners operated roughly 470 flights per day from MSP to more than 118 destinations worldwide,$ Including those associated with its regional partners, Delta's market share of MSP passengers in 2012 was over 76%. Figure 1-4 shows the 2012 MSP revenue passenger market share by airline. Figure 1-4: MSP Revenue Passenger Market Share by Airline, 2012 Source: Metropolitan Airports Commission Year End Statistic Reports — 2012 1.2 Industry and Economy ■ Delta Air Lines (75,5%) to United / Continental (4.3%) • Southwest (3.9%) ■ Sun Country (3.8%) rA US Airways (3.7%) faAmerican Airlines (3,2%) AlrTran (1.7%) e Frontier (1.2%) 0Alaska Airlines (0.5%) r Spirit (0.7%) Air Canada Jazz (0.2%) Great Lakes (0.2%) loelandair (0.1 %) The Minneapolis -St. Paul metropolitan area is the most populous urban area in the state of Minnesota. The area is often referred to as the "Twin Cities" for its two largest cities, Minneapolis, with the largest population, and St. Paul, the state capital. The Minneapolis -St. Paul metropolitan area refers to the seven -county area, which is under the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Council.9 8 Data pulled for Delta Air Lines from OAG for a single day (9 July 2012), 9 The U.S. Census Bureau defines the Minneapolis -St, Paul -Bloomington Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) as a region that includes 11 counties in Minnesota and two in neighboring Wisconsin; this MSA had a recorded population of 3.3 million in 2010. This report will focus on impacts to the seven -county area entirely within Minnesota. That being said, any reference to U.S, Bureau of Economic Analysis data in this section will encompass the larger Minneapolis -St. Paul -Bloomington MSA. March 75, 2073 TntorVlS7A S Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Economic Impact Study — FINAL REPORT 6 The Twin Cities region grew by 208,000 people and 96,000 households between 2000 and 2010. The population of the seven -county Minneapolis -St. Paul area sits at approximately 2.9 million,10 while the larger 11 -county Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) of Minneapolis -St, Paul -Bloomington has a population of roughly 3.3 million." Roughly 54% of Minnesotans (5.3 million) live in the seven -county region.12 The Twin Cities population is well educated, with 38% of adults holding bachelor's degrees. The Twin Cities' population is the fifth most educated among the 25 largest MSAs, Located in the heart of the metropolitan area, the University of Minnesota is ranked among the nation's top 20 public universities,13 Average income per resident was $47,000 in 2010, which represents an average annual income increase of 2.5% per year from 2000 to 2010. In addition, the Twin Cities ranks second among the largest MSAs for middle income households, with 43% of households reporting an income between $40,000 and $99,000.14 The Minneapolis -St. Paul region has a strong, diversified economy. The Twin Cities has the nation's 13th largest metropolitan economy, with a reported Gross Metro Product of nearly $2.0 billion (in 2010).15 Of the 20 Fortune 500 companies located in Minnesota, 19 are headquartered in the Minneapolis -St, Paul region.16 1.3 What is Economic Impact? Economic impact is a measure of the spending and employment associated with a sector of the economy, a specific project, or a change in government policy or regulation. Economic impact is most commonly measured in several ways, including; 1. Employment— both jobs and full-time equivalent (FTE) employment generated. Because many jobs may be only part-time or seasonal, the number of jobs is greater than the number of person years of employment, 2. Earnings — includes wages, salaries, and benefits associated with employment tied to the airport. 3. Economic output - the dollar value of industrial output produced, Sometimes referred to as "economic activity," it reflects the spending (i.e,, capital improvement plus revenue) by firms, organizations and individuals. In the case of organizations that do not generate revenue (e.g., government -provided air traffic control services), annual operating expenses are counted. 10 Metropolitan Council, 2072 Region/Economic Indicators- 2010 U.S. Census 11 U.S, Census Bureau - Annual Estimates of the Population of Metropolitan and Metropolitan Statistical Areas April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2011 12 U,S. Census Bureau, State & County Quick Facts, 2010, Q U.S. Census Bureau, State & County Quick Facts, 2010, 14 U.S. Census Bureau, State & County Quick Facts, 2010, 15 Metropolitan Council, 2012 Regional Economic Indicators — Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Accounts 16 Metropolitan Council, 2012 Regional Economic Indicators — Fortune Magazine March 75, 2073 I terVISIAS Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Economic Impact Study — FINAL REPORT 7 4. Value-added or Gross Domestic Product (GDP) -a measure of the money value of final goods and services produced as a result of economic activity, This measure is net of the value of intermediate goods and services used up to produce the final goods and services. The three major components of economic impact are classified as direct, indirect and induced impacts. These classifications are used as a base for the estimation of total economic impact of an airport. Each of these three components requires different tools of analysis. Employment impact analysis determines the economic impact in terms of jobs created and salaries and wages paid out. In the case of the airport, the direct, indirect, induced and total number of person years of employment created at the airport is examined to produce a snapshot of airport operations. ■ Direct aviation sector impacts account for the economic activity of the target sector itself. Direct employment impacts are measured by counting those individuals who work in a particular sector of the economy. In the case of an airport, all of those people who work in an aviation -related capacity either on-site or off-site would be considered direct employment (e.g, customer service, airline crew based at Minneapolis -St. Paul, ground handling, cleaning, maintenance and airport staff members, etc.). ■ Indirect impacts are those that result because of the direct impacts. For an airport, indirect impacts are the consequence of economic activities of the off-site firms that serve airport users. Indirect employment includes the portion of employment in supplier industries which are dependent on sales to the air transport sector. An example would be food wholesalers that supply food for catering on flights. ■ Induced impacts are economic impacts created by the spending of wages, salaries and profits earned in the course of the direct and indirect economic activities. Induced employment is employment generated from expenditures by individuals employed indirectly or directly. For instance, if an airline maintenance firm employee decides to re -model his/her home, this would result in additional (induced) employment hours in the general economy. The home renovation project would support hours of induced employment in the construction industry, the construction materials industry, etc. Induced impact is often called the household -spending effect. ■ Direct visitor spending impacts from visitors to a region that arrive and depart via the airport, rather than by other means, is considered a relevant economic impact. This includes visitor spending on lodging, meals, entertainment, transportation and retail. The direct employment associated with these categories of spending are counted as part of the economic impact of the airport. ■ Total impacts are the sum of direct, indirect and induced effects. Figure 1-5 illustrates the various elements that account for the economic impact of an airport, March 75, 2073 Intezin'S:XAS Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Economic Impact Study — FINAL REPORT g Figure 1-5: Economic Impact Overview - Airports • Airline Operations • Airport Tenants Air Traffic Control • Customs & Seaurit ., igy{ -!1 I�lj � -�� Impacts associated with dowmstroain suppliers AirportOporauonsIi�tS C dtS. Industries • Operationseneral lion Operations • Concessions Othe • r Ottxt Ro•spending of earnings by employees and businesses Passenger SpendIrKj In Region: • lodging • hWals Recreation Car Rentals Other March 75, 2073 IntorVIST S Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Economic Impact Study — FINAL REPORT g 2.1 Overview Inter VISTAS conducted this economic impact study during the summer and early fall of 2012. The study is based on employment data collected from survey respondents up to June 2012. To calculate the direct employment impacts, the study team surveyed all the employers associated with the operation of MSP (e.g., airlines, ground handling firms, caterers, etc.) in order to determine the number of individuals employed in directly related occupations, as well as the amount of wages paid out to those individuals. The firms surveyed as part of this study are located both on the airport site (on-site) and off the airport site (off-site). The employment survey was used to classify the total employment and average wages paid out by business type. In turn, this data was used to calculate the associated tax impacts (government revenue) generated by the airport's operations. Inter VISTAS estimated the indirect and induced effects using economic multipliers derived from models of how the U,S. and regional economies operate. Inter VISTAS utilizes a proprietary model in order to conduct multiplier analysis and estimate indirect and induced impacts. To derive estimates of the impact of non -local domestic and international visitors arriving and departing from MSP, Inter VISTAS commissioned an on-site in -terminal survey during the summer of 2012. Wherever possible, the results of this study were validated and measured against recognized and reliable external sources. 2.2 Estimating Current Economic Impact Direct employment related to ongoing operations at MSP is measured first. Employment figures are generally more understandable by the public than more abstract measures, such as economic output or GDP. Employment figures also have the advantage of being a more accurate measure, both because firms are more likely to provide data on employment rather than information on revenues, earnings and other monetary amounts, and because there is less chance of double counting economic activity. For example, revenues reported by an air carrier would double count revenues received by caterers. The caterer's revenue is an expense for the airline. The study team then assessed the indirect and induced (or "multiplier") employment supported by MSP's operations, as well as economic activity in terms of economic output and GDP using U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis multipliers. The tax revenues generated annually by operations at MSP are also estimated, 2.3 Surveying Direct Employment Employment attributable to ongoing MSP operations was measured by surveying 209 tenants and related businesses economically linked to the airport. The surveyed firms include on-site airport tenants (e.g. airlines), off-site firms associated with airport operations (e.g., courier companies) and hotels in the surrounding region. Specifics of the survey methodology are contained in the Appendices, including a description of the sampling techniques in Appendix A. Telephone and March 75, 2073 IntorVIRAS Minneapolis -St, Paul International Airport Economic Impact Study — FINAL REPORT 10 email follow-ups were conducted to increase the response rate. In total, 80% of the businesses and organizations contacted responded to the survey, representing nearly 80% of total person years of employment covered by the survey, A summary is provided in Figure 2-1. In total, 71 survey responses were received from MSP on-site tenants, which amount to an 83% response rate for this employment category. Appendix A shows a breakdown of survey responses by firm type, The employment information for ground transportation firms was collected and analyzed in a slightly different manner than the other employment types. Ground transportation firms include taxi, shuttle, limo and private vehicle service providers that operate to and from MSP. An employment estimate for associated ground transportation firms was calculated based on data collected by the Metropolitan Airports Commission and provided to Inter VISTAS. See Appendix B for a description of how the employment impacts for ground transportation firms were determined. Figure 2-1: Response Rate (Employers and Person Years) Survey Response Total PY of Employment Covered by Survey Respondents 11 Responding 0 Non -Responding 2.4 Inferring Employment For non -responding firms, employment was conservatively estimated using a proven and accepted methodology. This methodology includes referencing the survey results of similar firms or using credible external sources like the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. There may be firms that were not surveyed because it was not known that they existed. An estimate of employment for these non -surveyed firms was not provided because there was no basis for an assessment. If there were any omissions, it is expected that the volume of missed employment would be minimal (See Appendix C and Appendix D). March 15, 2013 InterVXSTAS Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Economic Impact Study — FINAL REPORT 11 2.5 Estimating Indirect and Induced Impacts with Economic Multipliers Measurement of indirect and induced economic activity is difficult. While it may be possible to conduct a survey of downstream employers, the survey would need to cover thousands of firms in order to completely cover indirect employment. For induced employment, the entire economy would need to be scrutinized. In addition to the time and financial resources needed to conduct such surveys, the quality of responses would be suspect. As an alternative to costly and inaccurate surveys, indirect and induced effects are typically measured using economic multipliers, Multipliers are derived from models of the general economy. They come in a variety of forms and differ greatly in definition and application, I nterV/STAS purchased the multipliers used for this study from U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). Those multipliers are based on BEA's most recent Regional Input -Output Modeling System (RIMS II). RIMS II is based on a highly detailed accounting of national and regional economic structures or relationships, The model tracks how the goods and services produced by industry are used by other industries and final users. RIMS II adjusts these national relationships to account for regional supply conditions. The specific multipliers selected for this study effectively model the economy of the seven -county core metro area -- Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott and Washington counties, This region — rather than other potential geographic areas, such as the entire State of Minnesota -- was selected based on the concentration of airport- and airline -related employers in the area, the economic relationship among those firms and organizations, and the residency of the vast majority of employees, In addition, the use of multiplier analysis is limited by a number of factors, these being; ■ the accuracy of the structure and parameters of the underlying model; ■ the level of unemployment in the economy; ■ the assumption of constant returns to scale in production; ■ the assumption that the economy's structure is static over time; and ■ the assumption that there are no displacement effects. Appendix E includes additional information on the selection of these specific multipliers. 2.6 Study Time Frame The employment survey was conducted between July and September 2012 and the results reflect employment as of June 2012. 2.7 Jobs versus Person Years of Employment Traditionally, one measures employment by the number of jobs. However, when part-time and/or seasonal workers are used, this can be a misleading measure resulting in an overstatement of economic impact. Whenever possible, employment impacts are measured both in terms of the March 75, 2073 ] TnterVIS7AS Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Economic Impact Study — FINAL REPORT 12 number of jobs and the number of full-time equivalent jobs or person years of employment.17 In our model, we convert hours worked by part-time and/or seasonal employees into person years. 2.8 In -Terminal Survey of Travelers Using the survey, the non -local visitors in the sample were classified as domestic or international and business or leisure travelers, The spending estimates were then applied to the 2012 MSP passenger traffic data, in order to determine the economic impact of non -local visitor spending on the regional economy surrounding MSP, The spending estimates per category of non -local visitors are statistically reliable to a 95% confidence interval. 17 One person year is equivalent to 1,800 hours of work, Person years are the same as FTEs. March 15, 2073 111terVISTAS Minneapolis -St, Paul International Airport Economic Impact Study — FINAL REPORT 13 3 Direct Economic Impacts 3.1 Introduction This section describes the total employment, in both jobs and person years (or FTEs), and estimated payroll attributable to employers directly related to ongoing operations at MSP. This section also reports employment due to ongoing operations at MSP in more detail. Jobs are broken down by: ■ Full-time versus part-time and seasonal employment; and ■ Employment by trade, 3.2 Jobs and Person Years MSP supports: 19,800 direct jobs 17,500 direct person years of employment • $1.2 billion in direct earnings Direct employment related to ongoing operations at MSP amounts to 19,800 jobs, After adjusting for part-time and seasonal employment, the 19,800 jobs equate to 17,500 person years of employment. 18 3.3 Earnings Employees at MSP and related firms receive approximately $1.2 billion in earnings, yielding an average of $66,270 per person year of employment. Employment figures are summarized in Table 3-1 for wages, as well as jobs and person years. Table 3-1: Direct Employment and Earnings at MSP Type of Impact Employment Employment Earnings (Jobs) (Person Years) ($ Billions) Direct Employment 19,800 17,500 1.2 3.4 Full-time versus Part -Time, Seasonal and Contract Employment A total of 19,800 direct jobs are attributable to MSP operations and other airport -related businesses in 2012. Of these jobs, 17,200 jobs (or 87%) are derived from on-site firms located at the airport; the remaining 2,600 jobs (13%) are derived from off-site firms with a certain percentage of operations tied to the airport. Approximately 97% of the 19,800 jobs are permanent jobs, and 89% 18 Of this total (17,500 person years), 3,500 person years (20% of total direct employment) was inferred for firms that did not respond to the survey, See Appendix D for details. wommm March 75, 2073 lritorV1SMS `V Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Economic Impact Study— FINAL REPORT 14 of these permanent jobs are full-time positions. This demonstrates that MSP and its related businesses are a source of stable, year-round employment. The breakdown of MSP direct jobs and person years by full-time and part-time positions is presented in Figure 3-1. Figure 3-1: Full -Time Versus Part -Time Permanent Employment Based on information provided by our survey of employers, seasonal employment represented only 3% of jobs and 1% of person -year employment. Some employers contract out services to individuals and other firms. An estimated 700 jobs, equivalent to 500 person years of employment, are from contract individuals and/or firms. See Appendix F for further details on how contract employment was calculated. 3.5 Direct Jobs by Type of Employer MSP is a source of employment for individuals with a broad range of skills, Most businesses require a combination of management, clerical and trades employees. The various job types associated with MSP can be categorized into the following sectors; ■ Airline and Aircraft -Servicing encompasses not only on-site airline employees (e,g, ticket agents, pilots, etc.), but also the fixed based operators that support airline operations at MSP (e.g. aircraft ground handlers, fueling companies, aircraft maintenance providers, etc.). These firms can be located either on-site or off-site. ■ Airport Support Services includes the employment that supports the operation of the airport itself, This category consists of firms with employees located on-site at the airport (e.g., retail concessionaires, security service providers, airline catering companies, airport management, etc.), ■ Freight Transportation Services include all those employees involved in the business of cargo transportation. This category includes courier companies, cargo airlines, freight forwarders, trucking companies and cargo agents. 7-777 75, 2073 InterwSIAS Minneapolis -St, Paul International Airport Economic Impact Study - FINAL REPORT 15 ■ Passenger Ground Transportation Services includes employment associated with car rental companies, taxi operators and non -taxi operators (e.g., shuttles and limos) that operate to and from MSP. ■ Otheremployers include construction and consulting companies that provide ongoing services to MSP, as well as large and small hotels in the region that accommodate visitors to the region and airline staff staying over. Airline positions account for 48% of MSP's direct employment base with nearly 9,600 jobs. Airline and aircraft -servicing positions combined account for 56% of total direct employment (11,100 jobs). Nearly 4,600 direct jobs (23%) attributed to operations at MSP are airport support positions (e.g., MSP employers and related businesses at the airport). Approximately 2,100 individuals are employed by passenger ground transportation companies servicing the airport (11 % of direct employment). An estimated 6% (close to 1,200 jobs) of the 19,800 total direct jobs are in the freight transportation services sector. Accommodations providers make up 4% (700 jobs), while construction and consulting firms account for the remaining 1 % of direct jobs associated with MSP (roughly 100 jobs). Figure 3-2 summarizes the number of direct jobs by category associated with operations at MSP. Figure 3-2: Direct Jobs at MSP, by Category of Employer Car Rentals Hotels Caterering Limos/BusesNans Freight Airlines/Trucking/Forwarders Security/Skycap Building Maintenance Parking Construction/Consulting N 700 a 700 500 400 400 200 100 100 100 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 3.6 Residency of Direct Employees Surveys from and interviews with airport commission staff and employers associated with the airport (e.g., retail concessionaires, caterers and airlines) confirmed that the majority of the employees associated with MSP reside in the surrounding seven -county region. Hennepin and Ramsey County are home to the largest percentage of employees, due to the large proportion that reside in the Twin Cities. Of the 4,700 employees who reside in Ramsey County, 3,800 live in St. Paul. Furthermore, of the 6,500 employees who live in Hennepin County, roughly March 15, 2073 tt InterVXSTAS Jobs Passenger Airlines 9,600 Airport Concessions1,900 Government (e.g. FAA, TSA, MAC) 1,800 Fixed Base Operators 1,500 Taxis 1,000 Couriers 800 Car Rentals Hotels Caterering Limos/BusesNans Freight Airlines/Trucking/Forwarders Security/Skycap Building Maintenance Parking Construction/Consulting N 700 a 700 500 400 400 200 100 100 100 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 3.6 Residency of Direct Employees Surveys from and interviews with airport commission staff and employers associated with the airport (e.g., retail concessionaires, caterers and airlines) confirmed that the majority of the employees associated with MSP reside in the surrounding seven -county region. Hennepin and Ramsey County are home to the largest percentage of employees, due to the large proportion that reside in the Twin Cities. Of the 4,700 employees who reside in Ramsey County, 3,800 live in St. Paul. Furthermore, of the 6,500 employees who live in Hennepin County, roughly March 15, 2073 tt InterVXSTAS Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Economic Impact Study — FINAL REPORT 16 2,900 live in Minneapolis. Additionally, roughly 20% of the employees associated with the airport reside in Dakota County. Overall, the seven -county region is home to roughly 90% of the total employees associated with the airport. Table 3-2 outlines the residency distribution of employees directly associated with MSP. Table 3-2: Residency of Direct Employees at MSP Jurisdiction Direct Jobs Percent of Direct Jobs Hennepin County 6,500 33% (City of Minneapolis only) (2,900) (15%) Ramsey County 4,700 24% (City of St, Paul only) (3,800) (19%) Dakota County 4,000 20% Washington County 1,200 6% Scott County 700 3% Anoka County 600 3% Carver County 200 1 % Other Minnesota* 1,500 8% Other U.S.** 400 2% Total Employment 19,800 100% Source: Survey of employers by Inter VISTAS. Notes: * "Other Minnesota" includes employees who reside in other cities and counties outside the seven -county region highlighted in the table. ** "Other U.S." includes employees whose work is directly related to MSP, but who reside in Wisconsin, March 15, 2013 InterV S7AS Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Economic Impact Study — FINAL REPORT 17 4.1 Introduction The previous section summarizes how direct employment relates to ongoing operations at MSP. These direct employment results were both measured and presented in great detail. However, the employment impact of the airport does not end there; other sectors of the economy are dependent on these employers' businesses. indirect employment is generated by suppliers to the airport. Additionally, when direct (and indirect) employees spend their earnings, they also generate further economic effects. These employment effects are referred to as induced employment. Total employment effects are the sum of direct, indirect, and induced effects. 4.2 Indirect Employment Indirect employment is employment in industries that supply or provide services to this industry. Based on MSP indirect employment: an analysis of the results of our survey of employers . 11, 900 person years and the application of the regional economic multipliers, we estimate that the total indirect person . $0.6 billion in earnings years of employment related to MSP's operations equaled 11,900. That is, 11,900 person years of employment are indirectly generated in industries that supply the businesses of MSP. Economic earnings associated with the total indirect employment are estimated to be $0,6 billion per annum. 4.3 Induced Employment Induced employment is created because of MSP induced employment: expenditures by individuals employed both directly and indirectly by the airport's businesses. It is the • 15,200 person years demand for goods and services generated by wage earnings from economic activity at the airport. ■ $0.6 billion in earnings Induced employment attributable to MSP is estimated at 15,200 person years.19 Induced employment is estimated to generate over $0,6 billion per annum in earnings. 4.4 Total Employment and Earnings Table 4-1 summarizes the direct, indirect, induced and total employment attributable to ongoing operations at MSP and the metropolitan area, The total impact of ongoing MSP airport operations including induced and indirect effects generated 50,300 jobs (equivalent to 44,600 person years of employment). Including multiplier effects, operations at MSP generated $2A billion in earnings. 19 U.S. Bureau of Statistics has recommended some ratios of induced to direct plus indirect impacts which are used here. March 75, 2073 (, 1nterVI,57AS Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Economic Impact Study— FINAL REPORT 18 Table 4-1: Direct and Total Ongoing Economic Impacts of Airport Operations at MSP Type of Impact Employment (Jobs) Employment (Person Years) Earnings ($ Billions) Direct Impacts 19,800 17,500 1.2 Indirect Impacts 13,400 11,900 0.6 Induced Impacts 17,100 15,200 0.6 Grand Total Impacts 50,300 44,600 2.4 March 55, 2073 j I11terVISTAS c\_"1 Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Economic Impact Study — FINAL REPORT 19 5.1 Introduction Previous sections of the report focus on the employment impacts of airport operations at MSP. This section touches on the broader economic impacts of MSP measured in dollar values. The two most common measures of economic contribution (in addition to employment) are gross domestic product (GDP) and economic output. Economic output roughly corresponds to the gross revenues of goods or services produced by an economic sector, while GDP measures only value- addedrevenues. As such, GDP removes the revenues to suppliers of intermediate goods and services and I ' Id th f 1 AA GDP: value-added in industrial output, net of intermediate UH y inc u es a revenues rom va ue-a e production. Alternatively, economic output adds all revenues at each stage of production together as a measure of total production in the economy. In service industries and the public sector, economic output is often simplified to equate to total wages paid. To estimate economic output for a sector, one might add up the gross revenues of the various firms in that sector. However, to find GDP for a sector, care must be taken to avoid double - counting. The revenues of one firm providing a service to another are not incremental GDP. For example, in the automobile sector, one cannot add the value (gross revenue) of a finished auto to the value of the tires. The tires are already included in the value of the automobile. One approach to measuring economic output and value-added GDP is to ask firms in a survey to provide information on their gross revenues, payments to suppliers, etc. However, there are several problems with the approach. First, it is much too expensive, Second, the double counting problem makes this approach impractical. An alternative is to infer economic output and GDP for an economic sector using economic multipliers, The U.S. BEA produces economic multipliers for both U.S. states and regional counties. Using these economic multipliers is both more cost effective and more accurate than obtaining the data from surveys. This method is the approach adopted here.20 5.2 Gross Domestic Product and Economic Output As noted earlier in Section 3, the direct employment from ongoing MSP airport operations generated $2.0 billion in direct GDP and $3,7 billion in direct economic output. Including multiplier 20 Inter VISTAS purchased the 2010 multipliers from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), the most recent available. These multipliers are specific to the seven -county region. The multipliers for the seven -county region were used as opposed to multipliers for the entire State of Minnesota, as the air transportation industry is concentrated in the metropolitan area. Refer to Appendix F for a more detailed explanation. March 15, 2073 ffitorWSI S Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Economic Impact Study — FINAL REPORT 20 effects, operations at MSP are supporting $4.5 billion total (direct, indirect and induced) GDP and $8.0 billion in economic output. Table 5-1 summarizes the economic output and GDP impacts related to ongoing airport operations for MSP. Table 5-1: Direct and Total Ongoing Economic Impacts of Airport Operations at MSP Type of Impact GDP ($ Billions) Economic Output ($ Billions) Direct Impacts 2.0 3.7 Indirect Impacts 1.2 2.1 Induced Impacts 1.3 2.2 Total Impacts 4.5 8.0 March 75, 2073 fntorVI$TA.S Minneapolis -St, Paul International Airport Economic Impact Study — FINAL REPORT 21 6.1 Introduction MSP is the primary gateway to the Minneapolis -St. Paul region and millions of visiting passengers arrive and depart from the airport annually. The monetary spending of these non -local air travelers contribute substantially to both local and regional economies. The direct economic impacts of visitors arriving via MSP are outlined in this section. Visitor spending on hotels, restaurants, retail, transportation and entertainment help sustain jobs in the region and promote further spending. 6.2 Visitor Spending Analysis Spending by visitors arriving via MSP amounted to $1.9 billion and generated 24,500 direct jobs, $0.5 billion in direct earnings and $1.1 billion in GDP. To estimate the economic impact of domestic and international visitor spending in the region, Inter VISTAS commissioned an in -terminal survey of passengers at MSP. This in -terminal passenger survey was conducted in the summer of 2012. The in -terminal survey results were analyzed in order to determine the average expenditure per non -local visitor category. The survey — which produced estimates statistically reliable at a 95% confidence interval — obtained information on the length of stay and amount spent by different categories of travelers; ■ domestic passengers whose primary purpose of traveling was leisure, ■ domestic passengers whose primary purpose of traveling was business, ■ international passengers whose primary purpose of traveling was leisure, and ■ international passengers whose primary purpose of traveling was business. Spending was further analyzed in terms of different spending categories (e.g., accommodations, meals, ground transportation/rental cars, retail). See Appendix G for further detail on the survey methodology and analysis conducted, Table 6-1 summarizes the trip characteristics of visitors based on the in -terminal survey. March 15, 2073 1 (� Tntermm Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Economic Impact Study — FINAL REPORT 22 Table 6-1: Trip Characteristics of Non -Local Visitors to MSP Category of Visitor Average (Median) Night Stay Average (Median) Expenditure per Visitor ($) Average (Median) Expenditure per Visitor per Night ($) Domestic Business 2 450 225 Leisure 4 378 94 Domestic Total 2 425 213 International Business 3 650 217 Leisure 7 401 57 International Total 5 720 144 Source: In -terminal visitor spending survey conducted in summer 2012. Note: Outliers in the survey data were mitigated through the use of median values, as opposed to the mean (average) values. International visitors tended to spend more than domestic visitors and tended to stay longer. Domestic visitors spent roughly $425 per trip and stayed 2 nights on average, On the other hand, international visitors spent approximately $720 per trip and stayed 5 nights on average. The estimate of average (median) expenditure per visitor was then applied to the 2012 MSP passenger traffic figures, to estimate total visitor spending. Approximately 4.2 million of the 33.2 million total passengers that came through MSP in 2012 can be classified as non -local visitors to the region based on U.S, DOT data. See Appendix G for information on how the number of non - local visitors was determined. Using data obtained from the in -terminal survey and passenger traffic statistics at MSP, it is estimated that the total spending of visitors arriving via MSP is $1.9 billion per annum. Table 6-2 outlines the non -local visitor passenger breakdown for MSP in 2012. As elsewhere in this study, we believe these figures to be somewhat conservative. The survey asked visitors to report the amount that they spent in the Minneapolis -St. Paul area, To the extent that visitors also spent money elsewhere in the state but outside of the immediate metropolitan area, the effects of that spending are not captured. March 75, 2073 y fntcrV1,57A$ Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Economic Impact Study — FINAL REPORT 23 Table 6-2: Trip Characteristics of Non -Local Visitors to MSP Category of Visitor Number of Visitors (Millions) Average (Median) Expenditure per Visitor ($) Total Expenditure ($ Billions) Domestic 3.8 425 1.6 International 0.4 720 0.3 Total* 4.2 454 1.9 Note*; Total average (median) expenditure per visitor is calculated by dividing the total non -local visitor expenditure amount (sum of domestic and international total visitor spending) by the total number of non -local visitors that passed through MSP in 2012. Outliers in the survey data were mitigated through the use of median values, as opposed to the mean (average) values, 6.3 Average Visitor Expenditure by Category By applying the average visitor spending data from the in -terminal survey to the non -local visitor traffic total, the study team determined that the non -local visitor spending of those who traveled through MSP amounted to roughly $1.9 billion a year. The average non -local visitor expenditure per year is broken out by spending category in Table 6-3. Table 6-3: Average Non -Local Visitor Expenditure per Year by Spending Category Spending Category Average Expenditure ($ Millions) Percentage of Total* Lodging 480 25% Gifts & Souvenirs 450 24% Food & Beverage 370 20% Transportation 260 14% Entertainment 190 10% Other 150 8% Total A verage Expenditure 1,900 100% Note: * Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding. March 75, 2073 ff terV"S`1' Ds Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Economic Impact Study — FINAL REPORT 24 6.4 Direct Economic Impact of Visitor Spending The U.S. BEA's employment impact multipliers are used to estimate the direct employment generated by each dollar of visitor spending, as well as earnings and GDP. Based on multiplier analysis, the direct visitor spending impacts of MSP in 2012 included 24,500 direct jobs in the Minneapolis -St. Paul region, representing 21,700 direct person years of employment. The direct economic impacts of non -local visitors who used air travel through MSP and spent money in the region are summarized in Table 6-4. Table 6-4: Direct Annual Visitor Spending Impacts of Ongoing Operations at MSP Type of Impact Employment Employment Earnings GDP Economic Output Jobs (Jobs) Person Years ( ) ($ Billions) ($ Billions) ($ Billions) Direct Impacts 24,500 21,700 0.5 1.1 1,9 6.5 Indirect and Induced Visitor Spending Impacts The indirect visitor spending impacts are based on employment generated in industries that supply and provide services to the tourism industry, and the induced impacts of visitor spending are based on employment generated from the expenditures of individuals employed directly or indirectly by the tourism industry, The indirect and induced visitor spending impacts are not estimated in this study because these would include the aviation -related impacts, which have already been accounted for, When measuring the economic impacts of airport operations, the multiplier effects of visitor spending will actually contain impacts in aviation, which has already been measured as a direct effect of the airport. As well, the indirect and induced effects of visitor spending include some of the indirect and induced effects of aviation. As a result, this study does not estimate indirect and induced impacts generated from visitor spending (which include impacts of other supplier industries) to avoid double -counting. This methodology has been applied to ensure the estimates cannot be classified as inflated or misleading. To ensure the credibility of this study, the estimates reported are conservative, March 75, 2073 fntcrVCS7AS Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Economic Impact Study — FINAL REPORT 25 7.1 Introduction The ongoing operation of MSP and associated economic activity in the region generates a significant amount of tax revenue for the federal, state and local levels of governments. Tax impacts are estimated separately from economic impacts, as the tax revenues generated by airport operations are different from the economic output of the airport. Tax impacts estimate income and payroll taxes and sales taxes on visitor spending, while economic output measures the spending of firms and individuals. This section summarizes that contribution, including the sales tax revenue generated from the spending of non -local visitors who travel to the region via MSP. There are three main sources of government tax revenue. These sources are classified based on the party making the tax payment; ■ Taxes paid by employers and employees. These taxes are paid by employers and/or employees related to the airport. This tax category includes income taxes, payroll taxes (e.g,, social security contributions and Medicare) and unemployment insurance premiums paid out by airport employers and/or employees. This group also includes property taxes paid by airport tenants and sales tax paid by airline employers for crew member hotel accommodations. These taxes contribute largely to federal and state government streams; however, contributions are made to local county and city level governments as well. See Appendix H for details on how the value of this source of tax revenue was determined. Taxes paid by passengers. Passengers arriving and departing from MSP contribute to government revenue streams largely through the payment of state and local sales tax. For instance, passengers at the airport itself are subject to sales tax when making parking, retail, and auto rental purchases, Furthermore, non -local visitors to the region are subject to sales tax when making lodging, retail, transportation, entertainment and other types of purchases. See Appendix I for details on how the value of this source of tax revenue was determined, Airfare taxes and fees. Passengers traveling through MSP also contribute to the federal government (e.g., into the Airport & Airway Trust Fund) through the taxes and fees applied to airfare. While an important impact worth noting in this section, this source of federal government revenue differs from the others; therefore, the figures are reported separately in all tables and descriptions. See Appendix I for more detail on the calculation of airfare taxes and fees. For each of the three tax revenue sources, taxes paid to the federal, state and local levels of government are identified separately.21 The purpose of this section is to present the government tax revenue contribution resulting from economic activity that can be attributed directly to MSP, As with all economic impact studies, a 21 For the most part, this study estimates (some tax envelopes were measured directly, e.g,, tenant property taxes) taxes paid from information on the passengers, employers and employees at the airports. In a few situations, such as the corporate income tax paid by employers, an approximate method was used to estimate taxes paid. In every case conservative methods were used. No major tax has been excluded. March 15, 2073 Inger" SIAS Minneapolis -St, Paul International Airport Economic Impact Study— FINAL REPORT 26 conceptual decision has to be made on how broad a definition of economic activityshould be used in measuring economic impacts. For this study, a relatively narrow definition of the economic activity that contributes to tax impacts has been utilized, The following tax impacts have not been included; Taxes associated with indirect or induced employment (i.e,, multiplier effects). Excise or import taxes on cargo. ■ Taxes paid by airport users outside of the airport, It would be too complex to broaden the scope of the tax base in this analysis to include taxes generated by indirect and induced employment. The level of detail collected on direct employment from the employment survey administered by Inter VISTAS is critical to the tax impact analysis; however similar information is not available for the indirect and induced employment. Estimating the tax impacts associated with indirect and induced employment would be a complex process, requiring speculation about the general economy and resulting in averages that would not necessarily be accurate. Therefore, the tax impact analysis in this report is limited to revenues generated from direct employment associated with MSP and visitor spending of those who travel to the region via MSP. 7.2 Taxes by Level of Government Ongoing economic activity at MSP generates tax revenue for all levels of government. In 2011, total tax contributions from MSP - related employment to all levels of government were close to $611 million.22 See Figure 7-1 for a breakdown of tax impacts by level of government. ■ The federal government was the largest recipient of tax revenue, receiving just over $358 million (59% of total estimated tax revenue). ■ The Minnesota State government received close to $243 million in tax revenue (40% of total tax revenue), • Th I I Ongoing operations at MSP and tourism spending generated $611 million per annum in government tax revenue in 2011. U oca governments (the seven counties and various cities) collected the remaining $10 million in tax revenue (1 % of total tax revenue). 22 Taxation impacts are based on calendar year 2011, except for taxes paid by passengers which are based on 2012 passenger traffic volumes from MSP's 2012 Passenger Traffic and Operations Statistics Reports. March 75, 2073 InterVI AS Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Economic Impact Study — FINAL REPORT 27 Figure 7-1: Estimated Annual Tax Revenues to Each Level of Government 7.3 Summary of Tax Contributions A complete summary of tax contributions by MSP passengers and employers is provided in Figure 7-2. Below are some highlights from the comprehensive tax contributions table. ■ Approximately 27% of taxes were paid by air travelers, while 73% of taxes were paid by airport associated employers and employees, ■ Airport tenants paid over $4 million in property taxes to the local government in 2011. ■ In addition, passengers traveling through MSP contributed over $461 million in airfare fees and taxes to various federal agencies, including the Airport and Airway Trust Fund and the Department of Homeland Security. Figure 7-3 provides a breakdown of the airfare taxes and fees generated by operations at MSP, See Appendix H and Appendix I for details on how the tax contributions of employers/employees and passengers were calculated. March 75, 2073 I ter'V1SIAS CPO Minneapolis -St, Paul International Airport Economic Impact Study — FINAL REPORT 28 Figure 7-2: Summary of Tax Contributions by MSP Passengers and Businesses, 2011 Note: Values may not add up due to rounding. Paid by Employers or Employe a Paid by Passengers Amount Tax Amount Personal Income Tax Tax $ millions 29 Medicare - Employer 17 v 17 Social Security - Employer U. Social Security - Employee 49 Unemployment Insurance Total 0 358 International Flights Sales Tax on Airport Concessions 11 ILL Sales Tax on Airport Parking 5 Sales Tax on Airport Auto Rentals 12 Sales Tax on Accomodations 2 Visitor Sales Tax on Lodging 33 +' Visitor Sales Tax on Transportation Services 18 yVisitor Sales Tax on Food 26 Visitor Sales Tax on Retail 31 Visitor Sales Tax on Entertainment 13 Visitor Sales Tax on Other Expenditures 10 Total 160 Sales Tax on Airport Concessions 1 Sales Tax on Airport Parking 1 Sales Tax on Airport Auto Rentals 2 9 Sales Tax on Accomodations 2 Total 6 ITotall 1 166 Note: Values may not add up due to rounding. Paid by Employers or Employe a 70 Amount Tax $ millions Personal Income Tax 174 Corporate Income Tax 29 Medicare - Employer 17 Medicare - Employee 17 Social Security - Employer 72 Social Security - Employee 49 Unemployment Insurance 1 Total 358 Personal Income Tax 70 Corporate Income Tax 5 Unemployment Insurance 8 Total 83 Domestic Flights Property Tax 4 Total 4 446 All Gov'ts Amount $ millions 358 243 10 611 Figure 7-3: Summary of Airfare Taxes and Fees Generated from MSP Operations, 2011 Note: Values may not add up due to rounding. March 75, 2073 TnterVISTAS Paid by Passengers Amount Airfare Taxes & Fees $millions Domestic Flights FAA -related 310 DHS -related 39 PFCs 70 International Flights FAA -related 17 ILL DHS -related 21 PFCs 5 Total 461 Note: Values may not add up due to rounding. March 75, 2073 TnterVISTAS Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Economic Impact Study — FINAL REPORT 29 8.1 Economic Impact of Capital Expenditures at MSP in 2012 In addition to the employment and other economic impacts of ongoing operations from the MSP business community, there are also economic impacts associated with the airport's capital expenditures, The capital expenditures include spending on construction, equipment, and raw and finished materials, all of which support employment, GDP, economic output and taxes. The MAC 2012-2016 Strategic Plan outlined several MSP - focused initiatives, including service enhancements, facility MSP's capital expenditures in 2012 generated 730 direct jobs and $30 million in direct earnings. improvements and arts & culture offerings geared towards making MSP the airport of choice for travelers, Notable improvements completed in 2011 include: expanded security checkpoints, increased retail opportunities, and improved accessibility throughout both MSP passenger terminals. The MAC recently updated the 2030 MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan (LTCP), The plan outlines the facility improvements that will be required to accommodate current and forecasted aircraft operations and passenger traffic at MSP, Based on the forecast analysis, the airfield capacity at MSP is adequate to sustain aircraft operations until 2030. The only planned modifications to the airfield are taxiway improvements to facilitate future airfield circulation. Instead, the updated LTCP plan focuses on improvements to passenger facilities, including enhancements to the arrival curb, passenger processing facilities, parking and international arrival facilities at Terminal 1, gate capacity at Terminal 2, and overall terminal environment upgrades. According to the MAC, MSP spent approximately $100 million dollars in capital expenditures during 2012. Using economic multipliers, the economic impacts of the airport's capital expenditures in 2012 were estimated. This generated 730 direct jobs, earning $30 million in direct earnings. The total economic impact of the airport's 2012 capital expenditures is summarized in Table 8-1. March 15, 2013 I nterV6TAS C°��10 Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Economic Impact Study — FINAL REPORT 30 Table 8-1: Total Economic Impact of MSP's Capital Expenditures in 2012 Type of Impact yp P act Employment (Jobs) Employment (Person Years Earnings ($ Millions) GDP ($Millions) Economic Output p ($ Millions) Direct 730 650 30 50 100 Indirect 340 300 20 30 60 Induced 470 420 20 30 60 Total Impacts 1,540 1,370 70 110 220 March 15, 2073 IntcrVIS7AS Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Economic Impact Study — FINAL REPORT 31 In total, ongoing operations at MSP generated an estimated 74,800 direct jobs, $2.9 billion in earnings, $5.6 billion in GDP, and $9.9 billion in economic output. Including multiplier impacts, MSP operations and visitor spending generated over 74,800 jobs (66,300 person years of employment), close to $2.9 billion in earnings, $5,6 billion in GDP and approximately $9.9 billion in economic output. The total direct impacts of MSP alone amount to over 44,300 jobs (equivalent to 39,200 person years of employment), $1.7 billion in earnings, generating close to $3.1 billion in GDP and approximately $5.6 billion in economic output. Total impacts are calculated by adding together the direct operations impacts, direct spending impacts, indirect impacts and induced impacts. The total economic impacts of ongoing operations at MSP in the seven -county region of Minnesota are summarized in Table 9-1. Table 9-1: Summary of Total Ongoing Economic Impacts of MSP Type of Impact Employment Jobs (Jobs) Employment (Person Years) Earnings ($ Billions) GDP ($ Billions) Economic Output ($ Billions) Direct Impacts MSP Operations 19,800 17,500 1.2 2.0 3.7 Visitor Spending 24,500 21,700 0.5 1.1 1.9 Total Direct Impacts 44,300 39,200 1.7 3.1 5.6 Indirect* 13,400 11,900 0.6 1.2 2.1 Induced* 17,100 15,200 0.6 1.3 2.2 Grand Total Impacts 74,800 66,300 2.9 5.6 9.9 Note: * To avoid possibly double -counting impacts, these figures show only the indirect and induced impacts associated with ongoing MSP airport operations and do not include any indirect and induced impacts from visitor spending. The indirect and induced effects of visitor spending contain impacts of aviation, which are already measured in the multiplier impacts of the airport. Industries that supply and provide services to the tourism industry (which generates the indirect impacts) would include airlines. Similarly, the expenditures by individuals involved in the tourism industry (which generates the induced impacts) would include the expenditures of airline employees. As these impacts are difficult to separate out from the total indirect and induced impacts of the entire tourism industry, indirect and induced visitor spending impacts (which include impacts of other supplier industries) are not estimated in this study in order to mitigate double -counting of impacts. Consequently, the grand total impacts shown should be considered conservative. Further explanation is provided in Section 6.5 of the full report. March 75, 2073 IntorV.IS7AS Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Economic Impact Study — FINAL REPORT 32 MSP's capital expenditures in 2012 generated 730 direct jobs and $30 million in direct earnings. There are also economic impacts associated with the airport's capital expenditures. Using economic multipliers, the economic impact of the airport's capital expenditures in 2012 were estimated, According to the Metropolitan Airports Commission, in 2012, MSP spent approximately $100 million dollars in capital expenditures. That spending generated 730 direct jobs and $30 million in direct earnings. The total economic impact of the airport's 2012 capital expenditures is summarized in Table 9-2, Table 9-2: Total Economic Impact of MSP`s Capital Expenditures in 2012 on the Seven - County Region in Minnesota Type of Impact yp p act Employment Jobs (Jobs) Employment (Person Years) Earnings ($Millions) GDP ($ Millions) Economic Output ($ Millions) Direct 730 650 30 50 100 Indirect 340 300 20 30 60 Induced 470 420 20 30 60 Total Impacts 1,540 1,370 70 110 2207 Combined economic impacts of MSP operations, visitor spending and capital expenditures in 2012 generated 745,030 direct jobs and $1.73 billion in direct earnings. I able 9-3 provides a summary of all the economic impacts associated with the MSP operations, visitor spending and capital spending in 2012. March 75, 2073 Inte1VISTrAS C) D6 Minneapolis -St, Paul International Airport Economic Impact Study — FINAL REPORT 33 Table 9-3: Combined Economic Impacts of MSP Operations, Visitor Spending & Capital Expenditures in 2012 Type of Impact Employment (Jobs) ) Employment (Person Years) Earnings ($ Billions) GDP ($ Billions) Economic Output Billions) Total Direct Impacts 45,030 39,850 1,73 3.15 5.70 Total Indirect Impacts 13,740 12,200 0.62 1.23 2,16 Total Induced Impacts 17,570 15,620 0.62 1.33 2,26 Krand:Total Impacts 76,340 67,670 2.97 5.71 10.12 Ongoing operations at MSP and tourism spending generated $611 million per annum in government tax revenue. Ongoing economic activity at the airport contributes significant tax revenues to public authorities in the region. ■ In 2011, total tax contributions from MSP -related employment to all levels of government exceeded $611 million (See Figure 9-1);23 o The federal government was the largest recipient of tax revenue, receiving just over $358 million (59% of total estimated tax revenue). o The State of Minnesota government received close to $243 million in tax revenue (40% of total tax revenue), o The local government (the seven counties and various area cities) collected roughly $10 million in tax revenue (1% of total tax revenue), ■ Approximately 27% of taxes were paid by air travelers, while 73% of taxes were paid by employers and their employees. 23 Tax impacts are estimated separately from economic impacts, as the tax revenues generated by airport operations are different from the economic output of the airport, Tax impacts estimate income and payroll taxes and sales taxes on visitor spending, while economic output measures the spending of firms and individuals. March 75, 2073 IntcrVIS7AS Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Economic Impact Study — FINAL REPORT 34 Figure 9-1: Estimated Annual Tax Revenues to Each Level of Government March 75, 2073 InterVISYAS `0 Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Economic Impact Study — FINAL REPORT 35 Appendix A: Employment Survey Identification of the Survey Population A total of 209 firms received employment surveys for the MSP economic impact study. These firms included airport tenants, off-site firms and hotels directly related to or dependent on the airport, The Metropolitan Airports Commission provided a list of on-site airport tenants, while Inter VISTAS identified off-site employers and hotels closely tied to airport operations using phone and online directories. Table A-1: Total Number of Firms Surveyed Type of Employer Number of Firms Surveyed Number of Responding Firms Response Rate On -Site at MSP Employers 86 71 83% Off -Site Employers (excluding ground transportation firms) 66 49 74% Hotels 57 48 84% Total 209 168 80% Questionnaire Design The basic questionnaire was designed to obtain information and to be as clear and easy to understand as possible for respondent firms. The survey was provided to employers at the airport. Three other surveys were developed for off-site employers, hotel employment and ground transportation employment, The basic questionnaire provided to airport tenants contained questions in the following areas: General Information ■ Name of firm, address ■ Contact person's name and title ■ Phone and fax numbers • Email and website address • Type of business Total Employment Numbers • Total employees (as o0une 2072) • Total payroll excluding benefits ■ Number of on-site employees March 75, 2073 l teri[Sw Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Economic Impact Study — FINAL REPORT 36 ■ Number of off-site employees Part-time and Full-time Employment ■ Full-time permanent employees ■ Part-time permanent employees ■ Full-time seasonal employees ■ Part-time seasonal employees ■ Average hours and weeks for part-time and seasonal employees Employment by Trade ■ A selection of job trades was provided to categorize employment Outsourcinq and Contracting Out ■ Number of individuals on contract ■ Number and names of firms on contract Conducting the Survey The survey was mailed out electronically by Inter VISTAS Consulting. Following the initial electronic mail -out of the surveys and throughout the following weeks, non -responding firms were contacted by telephone to follow up on the completion of the survey. Firms were encouraged to return the survey and new copies were offered if the originals were lost, The replacement surveys were emailed once again. Some survey responses were collected via a telephone interview with firms. March 75, 2073 t I terVIS`X"AlS 4 Minneapolis -St, Paul International Airport Economic Impact Study — FINAL REPORT 37 Appendix B: Calculation of Ground Transportation Impacts The employment information for ground transportation firms was collected and analyzed in a slightly different manner than the other employment types. Ground transportation firms include taxi, shuttle and limousine service providers that operate to and from MSP. An employment estimate for associated ground transportation firms was calculated based on information collected by the MAC and provided to Inter VISTAS, MAC Landside Operations provided comprehensive information for all vehicle types, including taxis, buses, limousines, regional/hotel/off-site parking shuttles and private (i.e., corporate) vehicles. The information provided included: ■ Average number of trips to and from MSP per year (round-trip) ■ Average number of driver hours per trip (round-trip) ■ Number of drivers involved in transporting passengers to and from MSP (estimate based on the number of actively permitted vehicles servicing MSP) ■ Estimated cost per departure The data provided by the MAC covers "MSP permitted" vehicles only. According to MAC staff, approximately another 5% of firms offer ground transportation services as "non -permitted" operators. Total jobs and total person years figures for both MSP permitted and non -permitted taxis and non - taxi operators were calculated based on the data provided to Inter VISTAS by the MAC. To calculate the person years of employment associated with ground transportation, the number of trips per year for each transportation category was multiplied by the average driver hours per trip. That figure was then converted into equivalent person years of employment. An estimated 1,300 jobs (equivalent to 630 person years) are associated with ground transportation operations at MSP. March 75, 2073 Iia erV1"S7AS CD t Minneapolis -St, Paul International Airport Economic Impact Study — FINAL REPORT 38 Appendix C: Summary of Total Jobs and Person Years, Airport Operations Only Table C-1: Total Jobs and Person Years, Airport Operations Only Employment Source Jobs Person Years Surveyed employment' 15,200 13,500 Inferred employment for non- 3,900 3,500 respondents2 Contract employment3 700 500 Total 19,800 17,500 1 Appendix A 2 Appendix D 3 Appendix F March 15, 2073 ZnterVISI 5 Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Economic Impact Study — FINAL REPORT 39 Appendix D: Inferred Employment Because not all airport employers responded to our requests for information in the survey, we statistically inferred some employment data to replace that which otherwise would be missing, This allows us to estimate the total amount and type of employment, which provides the basis for other estimates of economic impact, In general, Inter VISTAS approach bases these inferred estimates on information provided by responding firms for each business type and validated against information from other publicly available sources of data, This approach is conservative in that we assumed that the non- responding firms are smaller than responding firms. The employment data in this report was compiled from a combination of two sources: 1. Employment reported by employers on surveys submitted to Inter VISTAS 2. Employment inferred for employers who did not provide a survey response. Inferred employment was based on employment information from those firms in each business type that did respond to the survey. The mean employment of respondents in each business type was calculated, excluding outliers, and then conservatively adjusted downwards, For instance, those firms with especially large employment levels were excluded from the "mean without outliers" to obtain conservative results. This "adjusted mean" employment for each business type was then applied to those firms who did not respond to the survey, March 15, 2013 InterVIST"AS Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Economic Impact Study — FINAL REPORT 40 Appendix E: Multipliers Comparison of Seven -County and Minnesota State Multipliers A key consideration in economic impact analysis concerns the geographical area that is most appropriate for study, and which economic multipliers are most appropriate. In this study, we considered using multipliers for the entire State of Minnesota and those for the seven -county region surrounding MSP. That area includes the seven counties of Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott, and Washington. Our economic impact model is based conceptually on the model created by the U.S. government to measure changes in economic activity. The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis's Regional Input - Output Modeling System (RIMS II) is a tool used by investors, planners, and elected officials to objectively assess the potential economic impacts of various projects. This model produces multipliers that are used in economic impact studies to estimate the total impact of a project on a region. This model is built upon extensive in-depth studies of how the economy functions: relationships between industries that supply intermediate inputs that form the basis for regional and national output, between suppliers and consumers, between labor and capital. The choice of which geographic area to be analyzed is extremely important. As BEA points out: "The choice of the region depends on the purpose of the study and the questions being asked. The region should be large enough to capture the interdependencies between a group of related industries but small enough that the results are still economically significant—for example, a new manufacturing plant may have a large effect on economic activity in a county but a negligible effect on economic activity in the state.... [T]he region should encompass where workers will spend most of their earnings. One of the biggest mistakes made ... is to use a region that is much larger than the region where workers will actually spend their earnings.... Core -based statistical areas, such as the U.S, Office of Management and Budget's metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), often serve as good choices for a region because they consist of areas with close economic ties.1124 We selected the seven -county region because it is the urban core of the metropolitan area and the home of the vast majority of employees who work at the airport or with related firms and organizations, We examined the impact of changes in operations at MSP on both the region and on the state as a whole, and used economic multipliers for both areas. In reviewing the multipliers for the State of Minnesota and against those for the seven counties surrounding MSP, the multipliers for the state are lower than that for the seven -county region for some industries, including the aviation industry. 24 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, RIMS II: An Essential Tool for Regional Developers and Planners, p. 3-3, revised November 2012, March 15, 2073 fnterVlS`XAS Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Economic Impact Study — FINAL REPORT 41 This implies that commercial aviation operations generate fewer jobs statewide than they do for the seven -county region. This occurs because these industries are highly concentrated in the seven - county region. The state multipliers take into consideration all other counties (which have less inputs for these industries) and take an average of all other regions. State multipliers are not additive; thus, the total economic impact of the airport is not necessarily larger simply because a larger geographic area is considered. Therefore, it is expected that the air transportation industry has higher multipliers for the seven -county region surrounding MSP than for the State of Minnesota, as the industry is concentrated in the metropolitan area. Table E-1: Summary of Total Ongoing Economic Impacts of MSP in the Seven -County Region in Minnesota, Using Seven -County Multipliers Type of Impact Employment (Jobs) Employment (Person Years) Earnings ($ Billions) GDP ($ Billions) Economic Output ($ Billions) Direct Impacts MSP Operations 19,800 17,500 1.2 2.0 3.7 Visitor Spending 24,500 21,700 0.5 1.1 1.9 Total Direct Impacts 44,300 1.7 3.1 5.6 Indirect* 13,400 S39,20O 0. 6 1.2 2.1 Induced* 17,100 15,200 0.6 13 2.2 Grand Total Impacts 74,800 66,300 2.9 5.6 9.9 March 15, 2073 I terVISTAS Minneapolis -St, Paul International Airport Economic Impact Study — FINAL REPORT 42 Appendix F: Contract Employment Some firms contract out services that they do not have expertise in providing or when there are cost advantages to doing so. For example, many airport firms contract out janitorial, elevator and maintenance services. The employment survey asked firms to identify whether they contracted out some of their work, and to estimate the number of annual hours involved. Contract work was separated into two distinct categories in the employment survey: 1) individual "employees" paid through a contract, rather than via payroll, and, 2) contracting out services to other firms. The employment results for individuals on contract were derived by counting the number of individual positions for the number of. jobs and dividing the total hours of employment by 1,800 to estimate person years. The employment results for firms on contract were derived by dividing the total hours of employment by 1,800 to estimate person years. There were approximately 700 jobs (equivalent to 500 person years of contract employment) supplied by firms doing work for MSP firms and contract employees working for firms at MSP. These included janitorial, snow removal, maintenance and security services, March 75, 2073 IntorV S7AS Minneapolis -St, Paul International Airport Economic Impact Study — FINAL REPORT 43 Appendix G: Visitor Spending Analysis Visitor Spending Survey To estimate the economic impact of domestic and international visitor spending in the region, Inter VISTAS commissioned an in -terminal survey of passengers at MSP. This in -terminal passenger survey was conducted in the summer of 2012, In total, over 1,500 enplaned (boarding) passengers provided survey responses,25 The survey included passenger profiling questions on trip purpose (business or leisure), country of origin (domestic or international), length of stay, party size and expenditure levels for various categories.26 The spending estimates for each visitor profile are statistically reliable at a 95% confidence interval. The in -terminal survey data was used to determine the average expenditure per non -local visitor category (e,g., domestic and international). Table G-1 summarizes the characteristics of visitors based on analysis of the in -terminal survey results, Table G-1: Trip Characteristics of Non -Local Visitors to MSP Category of Visitor Average (Median) Night Stay Average (Median) Expenditure per Visitor ($) Average (Median) Expenditure per Visitor per Night ($) Domestic Business 2 450 225 Leisure 4 378 94 Domestic Total 2 425 213 International Business 3 650 217 Leisure 7 401 57 International Total KIM— KA A 5 720 144 IVIUUICIH va ues were uZjcu w wnfroi for oumers. Respondents were asked to classify themselves as Domestic or International travelers and Business or Leisure travelers. The survey company obtained an equal number of survey responses from each of the four categories of travelers. 26 The surveyors collected data from only non -connecting passengers departing MSP at the end of their stay in the area. 26 The survey spending categories include; hotels, ground transportation, food, retail, attractions and other. March 75, 2073 \ InterVISIAS Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Economic Impact Study — FINAL REPORT 44 Estimating the Number of Non -Local Visitors In 2012, approximately 33.2 million passengers enplaned and deplaned at MSP. Table G-2 shows the passenger movements used in this study, Table G-2: Passenger Movements at MSP in 2012 Source Enplaned & Deplaned Passengers Percent Connecting Domestic 30,947,195 39% International* 21223,765 8% Total 33,170,960 Daily Average 90,879 Note:* International inrlurlaG tranc_hnrHnr nnecannore Source: Passenger stats are from the MSP 2012 Year -End Operations Report. From this data and other industry sources, we developed estimates of the volume of passengers whose trip originated at another domestic or international airport. Knowing the proportions of passengers that connect at an airport allows conclusions about those that do not connect — those whose trip origins or destinations were MSP (so-called "local' or "O&D" traffic). Using data from the U,S. DOT and other industry sources, we calculated estimates of the total number of domestic and international passengers for whom MSP was the destination. These are the visitors to the area. We calculated that in 2012, there were 3,8 million domestic visitors to the area that arrived through the airport, and 0.4 million international visitors to the area that arrived via MSP, In total, an estimated 4.2 million visitors came through MSP in 2012, This non -local visitor passenger figure was used to determine the total economic impact of visitor spending in the region, Final Results The estimate of average expenditure per visitor was then applied to MSP passenger traffic figures to estimate the total impact of visitor spending in the region. The combination of passenger spending profiles (from the in -terminal passenger survey) and the calculation of non -local visitors were used to develop the estimate of total visitor spending for 2012, The final results are provided in Table G-3, March 75, 2073 triterVISms Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Economic Impact Study — FINAL REPORT 45 Table G-3: Trip Characteristics of Non -Local Visitors to MSP Category of Visitor Number of Visitors (Millions) Average (Median) Expenditure per Visitor ($) Total Expenditure ($ Billions) Domestic 3.8 425 1.6 International 0,4 720 0,3 Total* 4.2 454 1,9 IMOLe . Vld! dVeIaye expenuiture per visitor is caicuiated by dividing the total non -local visitor expenditure amount (sum of domestic and international total visitor spending) by the total number of non -local visitors that passed through MSP in 2012, March 15, 2073 11 terVIS`XAS Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Economic Impact Study — FINAL REPORT 46 Appendix H: Tax Revenues Attributable to Airport Employers and Employees Introduction Tax liabilities associated with airport employers, including payroll taxes and unemployment insurance deductions, are key sources of revenues for local, state, and federal governments. This appendix summarizes the assumptions made to estimate tax revenues generated from MSP employers, This section also outlines the approach used to estimate employer and employee tax contributions at the local, state and federal government level. The tax analysis process posed conceptual questions about how much tax revenue, if any, from a certain source can or should be attributed to firms serving MSP. Employment at MSP The majority of the tax calculations in this report are based on the direct employment and total earnings. The total direct employment, in person years, used for the tax calculations is roughly 17,500 person years. Person years inputs for each employer type (e.g. taxi driver, customs agent, etc.) are taken directly from the employment survey results. Personal Income Tax (Federal and State) Employees who work for employers tied to MSP are taxed on their income and as a result, contribute to federal and state tax revenues. Estimation Method and Results The tax paid by a group of employees depends on the income distribution of those employees. Employers did not provide us with that information. Rather, we used the average annual income per employee (per employer type) as the basis for calculating personal income tax contributions. Federal and state income tax rates vary significantly depending on how the filer classifies themselves: ■ Single filer • Married, filing jointly ■ Married, filing separately ■ Head of a household To ensure the accuracy of the income tax calculations, external research was conducted to determine the proportion of income tax filers that fall under each of the filing categories.27 We used 27 According to IRS data on national returns received in 2009 (Table 1.6: All Returns, 2009), 45% are single filers, 39% are married - filing jointly, 15% file as head of a household and only 2% are married (filing separately). March 15, 2073 1nterW,5TAS Minneapolis -St, Paul International Airport Economic Impact Study — FINAL REPORT 47 data from the U.S. Census Bureau to estimate the proportion of the Minnesota population that may file as single, married or head of a household.28 These proportions were then applied to the total person year and earnings data for MSP employers. We made simplifying assumptions about the deductions and exemptions that tax filers would claim, These included the application of the earned income tax credit, the application of standard deductions as opposed to itemized deductions, and the number of dependents. For applicable Minnesota taxes, we assumed that no State Credits or State Deductions were applied. Corporate Income Tax (Federal and State) Corporate income tax is imposed at the federal level on all entities treated as corporations. The corporate tax rate varies by the type and size of company, as well as by jurisdiction,29 Corporate income tax is based on net taxable income. Some transactions are not taxable, and certain credits and deductions are applicable. Government agencies are not subject to corporate income tax, nor are public authorities, including the MAC.3o Estimation Method and Results Calculating corporate income tax liability is very difficult. It requires knowledge of the total tax base and the proportion of the tax attributable to the states. Therefore, an approximate method has been used to calculate corporate income tax associated with operations at MSP, This method involves determining the total federal and state corporate income tax collections and dividing these values by the total federal and state employment numbers for 2011,31 The resulting figures are the average corporate income tax collected per employee (federal and state separately). The estimates for 2011 are outlined below: ■ Federal corporate income tax collected per employee was $1,837 ■ State corporate income tax collected per employee was $331 Using the 15,800 of taxable person years of employment associated with MSP,32 we estimated corporate income tax paid per associated employers. This assumes that all companies pay corporate income tax at an average rate per employee, 28 U,S. Census Bureau — Quick Facts on Minnesota — Minnesota Households by Type, Based on this data, roughly 51% of Minnesota residents would qualify as married filers, 35% would qualify as single filers and 14% would qualify as head of a household. 29 According to information from the IRS, the marginal federal corporate income tax rates fall between 15-35%, 30 As a public authority, the MAC does not pay corporate income tax; however, it pays applicable sales tax on any and all purchases. 31 The total federal corporate income tax collections value was taken from the IRS2011 Tax Statistics. The total national employment total was obtained from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, The total Minnesota state corporate income tax collections value was obtained from the Minnesota Revenue Agency website. Data on total Minnesota state employment was from the Positively Minnesota; Department of Employment and Economic Development website. 32 The taxable person years of employment associated with MSP in this case is 17,500 person years. This number was calculated by subtracting the 1,700 person years of employment associated with federal government agencies (e.g,, FAA) and the MAC from the 17,500 total direct person years of employment related to the airport. March 15, 2073 1nterT S7AS Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Economic Impact Study — FINAL REPORT 48 Based on this assumption, MSP -related employers paid close to $29 million in federal corporate income tax and $5 million in state corporate income tax. Unemployment Insurance Unemployment Insurance (UI) is a federal -state program jointly financed through federal and state employer payroll taxes. The Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) authorizes the IRS to collect a federal employer tax to fund state workforce agencies. In 2011, U.S. employers paid federal UI premiums equal to 6.0% of earnings up to a maximum taxable wage base of $7,000 per calendar year.33 Employers who pay the state UI tax in a timely manner receive an off -set credit of up to 5.4%, regardless of the tax rate paid to the state. As a result, the FUTA tax rate for employers in states not subject to a FUTA credit reduction is generally 0.6% (6.0% — 5.4% = 0.6%). This reduced rate results in a maximum FUTA tax of $42 per employee per year (0.6% of $7,000 = $42).34 In Minnesota, UI is paid for by employers; individual employees do not contribute to UI premiums. The Minnesota UI tax is a percentage of taxable wages up to a cap of $27,000 (taxable wage base). The Minnesota UI tax rate could range from 2.41% to 8.9%, depending on employer's industry and "experience rating," An experience rating is calculated for each employer by dividing 125% of the benefits paid to an employer's former employees during the experience rating period by the total taxable payroll reported for the same period.35 High experience rating industries are those that have historically had a high amount of unemployment (e.g., construction and manufacturing). Employers with a high experience rating are allocated a higher UI tax rate than those with a lower experience rating. Estimation Method and Results To calculate the MSP -related federal UI premiums paid, we made the following assumptions; 1) all related employers paid state taxes in a timely manner and were therefore able to take advantage of the 5.4% off -set credit and 2) the rate from the second half of the 2011 calendar year (6.0% from June 30, 12011 onwards) was used for the calculation. Based on these assumptions, MSP employers pay the maximum of $42 per employee per year. The estimated federal UI payment for MSP employers was about $735,000 in 2011. Calculating the UI premiums paid by MSP employers to the state government is a more difficult process, as this requires determining the unique experience rating and total taxable wages of each employer. Because this level of information is not available, we made assumptions to determine an average experience rating that can be applied. In 2011, roughly $1.8 billion in unemployment benefits were paid to over 297,000 Minnesota residents and total wages equate to $124.6 billion.36 Based on this information, we calculated an average experience rating of 1,8%. We then applied 33 The 0.2% FUTA surtax expired on June 30, 2011. As a result, FUTA taxes for the 2011 calendar year were calculated using two rates: 6,2% of taxable wages paid through June 30, 2011 and 6.0% of taxable wages paid after June 30, 2011. 34 Rates and wage base information taken from the website of the United States Department of Labor: Employment & Training Administration. 35 Calculation of experience rating is taken from the Unemployment Minnesota official website, 36 Data taken from the Positively Minnesota: Department of Employment and Economic Development website. March 75, 2073 InterV SFAS Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Economic Impact Study — FINAL REPORT 49 this average UI rate to total employee wages up to $27,000 per year, Based on this calculation, the estimated UI premium payment to the state as a result of MSP operations was over $8 million in 2011. Social Security Social Security is funded largely through dedicated payroll taxes. The Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) imposes a Social Security withholding tax equal 6,2% for employers and 4.2% for employees of the gross wage amount, up to but no exceeding the Social Security Wage Base of $106,800.37 In 2011, employee contributions were 4.2% of pensionable earnings. The maximum annual employee contribution amount is $4,486: Estimation Methods and Results The employee contribution rate is applied to average payroll for MSP employees who are earning less than $106,800 a year, Similarly, the employer contribution rate is also applied to the same average payroll figure. The estimated employer contribution is almost $72 million and the estimated employee contribution is roughly $49 million. In total, MSP related employers and employees contribute close to $121 million in federal Social Security payments. Medicare Medicare is a separate payroll tax that is paid at the federal level by both employees and employers. The separate Medicare payroll tax rate of 1.45% for employees and 1.45% for employers is applied to the maximum payroll contribution (no limit).38 Estimation Method and Results The calculation of Medicare payments associated with MSP employers and employees is determined by using the Medicare employee and employer rate outlined above, and applying this rate to the average salary per employer type. This Medicare rate is then applied to the applicable person years of employment associated with each employer type at MSP, Based on the calculations, MSP employers and employees contributed close to $17 million each respectively in federal Medicare tax payments, totaling close to $34 million. Property Taxes Local governments levy property taxes to help them finance local services. The MAC is not subject to personal Minnesota property taxes for MSP, However, MSP commercial tenants are subject to various levels of property tax payable to the Hennepin County government. According to the Hennepin County Taxpayer Services Department and the Hennepin County 37 OASI and SSI Program and Rates for 2011; taken from the official website of the U.S. Social Security Administration, 38 OAST and SSI Program and Rates for 2011; taken from the official website of the U.S. Social Security Administration. March 15, 2013 1nterV ST S Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Economic Impact Study — FINAL REPORT 50 Assessor's Office, MSP tenants paid collective property tax amount of over $4 million in 2011, based on 2010 property assessment values, March 75, 2073 InterVIS`X'AS Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Economic Impact Study — FINAL REPORT 51 Appendix "' Attributable �. Airport - Introduction Sales tax liabilities associated with airport users are an important source of state and local government revenue, This appendix describes the assumptions made when calculating the estimated tax revenues generated from MSP airport users (passengers). State and Local Sales Tax The definition of retail sales and what goods and services are taxable vary among different states and jurisdictions, Sales taxes, including those imposed by local governments, are generally administered at the state level, States imposing sales tax require retail sellers to collect tax from customers, file returns, and remit the tax to the state. In Minnesota, there are up to three levels of sales tax that can be applied to the purchase of goods and services; state, county and city. The combined tax rate is dependent on where the purchase is made within Minnesota and the type of purchase that is made, The Minnesota state tax rate of 6,875% remains constant for most retail purchases that are subject to state sales tax. However, local taxes (county and city) are applied to retail sales made and taxable services provided within the specific local taxing area in question, A local tax applies to the same items that are taxed by the Minnesota state, Many counties and cities within Minnesota apply their own sales levies to the purchase of goods and services. In addition, special local sales taxes can be applied to and for various items, including lodging, restaurants, liquor and entertainment, depending on the rules and regulations of the jurisdiction. Tax on Airport Concessions As travelers pass through the airport, they have the opportunity to purchase various items from airport tenants. These tenants sell everything from food and beverage to passenger services (e.g., shoe shining). Passengers are charged a sales tax for all goods or services purchased on the airport site that are subject to the state sales tax, Estimation Method and Results Most purchases made within the airport are subject to a sales tax of 7,775%, Table J-1 provides a breakdown of the applicable sales taxes charged for goods and services purchased at the airport, March 15, 2073 InterVISIAS Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Economic Impact Study — FINAL REPORT 52 Table J-1: Applicable Sales Tax at MSP in 2011 Sales Tax Tax Rate Minnesota State Sales Tax 6,875% Hennepin County Sales Tax 0.15% Transit Improvement Tax* 0,25% City of Minneapolis Sales Tax 0,50% Total Applicable Sales Tax 7.775% Source: All sales tax rates taken from the Minnesota Department of Revenue. Note: *The transit improvement tax is a county -level sales/use tax. Hennepin is one of five participating counties in the transit tax program. This tax is separate and in addition to the county sales taxes that already exist. Based on the information provided by the airport authority, total airport concession revenues were over $161 million in 2011. Tax on these expenditures is estimated to total over $12 million, with $11 million in state and over $1 million in local tax revenues, Tax on Parking and Car Rentals MSP has on-site parking facilities that generate millions of dollars in revenue every year, When individuals purchase parking at the airport, applicable sales taxes are levied. In addition, many passengers pay to rent cars once they arrive at the airport; sales tax applies in these instances as well. Parking and car rental purchases are directly related to the operations of MSP, and therefore, the sales tax revenue generated for the state or local governments are assessed. Estimation Method and Results The same tax structure that applies to airport concessions shown above also applies to airport parking and car rentals purchases made at the airport. Based on the information provided by the airport authority, total airport parking revenues were over $66 million39 and total auto rental revenues were roughly $173 million.40 Sales tax on parking revenues equate to over $5 million, with over $4 million in state and almost $1 million in local sales tax collected. Sales tax on auto rentals equate to over $13 million, with almost $12 million in state and over $1 million in local sales tax collected. Tax on Accommodation Costs for Crew Members and Certain Passengers Airline crew members who have arrived at MSP often need to stay near the airport before taking off on their next scheduled flight. In addition, in cases of occasional flight cancellations, some travelers 39 Gross parking revenues taken from the 2011 Metropolitan Airports Commission Comprehensive Financial Report, 40 Auto rental gross revenue amount provided by the Metropolitan Airports Commission, March 75, 2073 TntorVIS` s Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Economic Impact Study — FINAL REPORT 53 need to spend the night in a nearby hotel. Passengers with early morning flights may also sometimes arrive the day before and spend the night at a nearby hotel. These activities lead to expenditures by airport users on hotels around the airport site, Various levels of sales tax are applied to these expenditures, which thereby contribute government revenues streams, Estimation Method and Results The Minnesota sales tax rate of 6,875% applies to all accommodation expenditures within the state. In addition, many cities in Minnesota, including Minneapolis and St. Paul, apply additional lodging and/or entertainment taxes on top of the standard sales tax rate, to accommodation expenditures. To ensure the accuracy of this tax analysis, the combined local sales tax rate for each of the hotels surveyed in our study was determined (based on the exact location of each of the hotels), Table J-2 provides an example of the accommodation tax breakdown of a hotel located in Bloomington. Table J-2: Hotel Tax Applicable in Bloomington, MN Sales Tax Tax Rate Minnesota State Sales Tax 6,875% Hennepin County Sales Tax 0.15% Transit Improvement Tax* 0,25% City of Bloomington Lodging Tax 7.00% Total Applicable Sales Tax 14.28% According to Smith Travel Research, the average occupancy rate in the Twin Cities region was 66% in 2011 and the average daily room rate in the Twin Cities region was roughly $95 in 2011. To estimate the total accommodation costs of these crew members and connecting passengers, the average daily room rate was applied to the estimated total crew layover nights and passenger nights determined from the survey of hotels. In the end, the sales tax revenue generated from crew layover nights amounted to $0,4 million ($0.2 million for state and $0.2 million for local governments) and the sales tax revenue generated from connecting passengers amounted to $4 million ($2 million for state and $2 million for local governments). Tax on Visitor Spending Visitors spend money on a variety of goods and services during their time spent in the region. Due to the associated sales tax applied on goods and services, non -local visitor spending generates a significant amount of state and local tax revenue, Estimation Method and Results Non -local visitors that travel through MSP spent an estimated $1,9 billion annually in 2012. This value is based on the visitor spending analysis outlined in Section 6 of the full report, March 75, 2013 fin, IntexVXS7AS Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Economic Impact Study — FINAL REPORT 54 As it is not possible to determine where visitors are spending their money when visiting Minnesota, a conservative sales tax rate was used, The Minnesota sales tax rate of 6.875% was the only rate applied to the visitor spending totals. The Lodging (Accommodation) tax calculation does not account for local level lodging/entertainment taxes that may be applied. This differs from the connecting passenger and crew member tax calculation process, which included all applicable sales and lodging taxes. Table J-3 provides a breakdown of the applicable state sales taxes associated with each category of visitor spending. Table J-3: Sales Tax Generated from Non -Local Visitor Spending via MSP Spending Category Sales Tax ($Millions) Lodging 33 Gifts & Souvenirs 31 Food & Beverage 25 EE Transportation Services 18 Entertainment 13 Other 10 Total Tax Revenue 130 Taxes and Fees Paid by Passengers Passengers traveling through MSP pay a number of federal taxes and fees that offset the cost of providing federal air traffic services and security services, In general, these taxes, fees, and charges provide funds to the FAA's Airport and Airway Trust Fund, the Department of Homeland Security (including the Transportation Security Administration and Customs and Border Protection). In this way, MSP operations help to fund the federal agencies that ensure the successful operation of the larger airport system in the U.S.41 In addition, passengers at MSP pay a "Passenger Facility Charge" (PFC) that offsets the cost of airport infrastructure. These PFCs are used to fund FAA -approved projects that enhance safety, security, or capacity; reduce noise; or increase air carrier competition at U.S. airports. Taxes and fees are applied on top of the base domestic and international airfare paid by travelers, These fees are collected from passengers by airlines, but are then funneled to the applicable federal agencies. 41 The federal government also levies certain fees that do not apply directly to passengers, These include the cargo waybill tax and the U.S. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) aircraft fee. We did not estimate the total collections associated with these charges. March 15, 2073 interVismS Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Economic Impact Study — FINAL REPORT 55 For domestic airfare, fees and taxes are charged every time a passenger departs from a U.S, airport, regardless of whether they are a connecting or non -connecting passenger. Table J-4 provides an overview of the taxes and fees applied to domestic airfare paid by passengers departing from MSP. Table J-4: Taxes & Fees Applied to Domestic Airfare from MSP, 2011 Name of Tax 1 Fee 2011 Rate Description Passenger Ticket Tax 7.50% U,S. government ad valorem tax on base airfare. Flight Segment Fee $3.70 U.S. government fee applied per flight segment (single landing and take -off). September 11th Security Fee $2.50 U.S, government assessed fee per U.S. enplanement to offset cost of security. Passenger Facility Charge $4.50 Charge levied by local airport authority, Source: Delta Air Lines For international airfare, applicable U.S. fees and taxes are charged both when a passenger leaves the U.S. for an international destination, and when a passenger returns to the U.S. from an international destination. The international specific taxes and fees apply only to non -connecting passengers who are using the federal Customs and Immigration facilities when landing at a U.S. airport. The September 11th security fee is applied to all passengers who depart from a U.S. airport to any destination, domestic or international. Table J-5 provides an overview of the taxes and fees applied to international airfare. PFCs are applied by the local airport authority. March 75, 2073 TntcrV1,S7AS Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Economic Impact Study — FINAL REPORT 56 Table J-5: Taxes & Fees Applied to International Air Service to/from MSP, 2011 Name of Tax / Fee 2011 Rate Description U.S. International $16.30 U.S. government tax applied to international flights Departure/Arrival Tax arriving in or departing from the U,S, U,S, Immigration & $7.00 U.S. government fee charged to returning Naturalization Fee passengers. U.S. Customs User Fee $5.50 U.S. government fee charged to returning passengers. U.S. Animal and Plant Health $5.00 U,S, government fee charged to returning Inspection Service Fee passengers, September 11th Security Fee $2.50 U.S. government fee assessed fee per U.S. enplanement, Passenger Facility Charge $4.50 Charge levied by local airport authority, Source: Delta Air Lines. Estimation Method and Results To determine the airfare taxes and fees generated from MSP's operations, several methodological steps were taken to ensure that only the taxes and fees related to MSP were accounted for. The steps are outlined below: 1. Determined the number of domestic and international enplaned and deplaned passengers traveling through MSP in 2012. This passenger traffic information is available on the MSP website. 2. The average one-way base airfare from MSP was sourced from Diio. These base fares do not include any taxes and fees, According to Diio, the average one-way domestic airfare from MSP was $218 and the average one-way international airfare from MSP was $487 in 2011. These values were used as the basis for estimating the average international and domestic airfare revenues from MSP in 2011. Based on the calculations, $3A billion in domestic airfare revenue and $500 million in international airfare was generated from MSP operations in 2011, 3, Applied the international and domestic airfare taxes and fees outlined in Table J-4 and Table J-5 to the 2012 passenger traffic and airfare revenue totals in order to estimate the total funds generated for the federal agencies. Based on the application of the methodology described above, domestic airfare from MSP generated roughly $419 million in funds for the federal agencies, while international airfare from MSP generated roughly $42 million in funds for the federal agencies, In total, over $461 million in fees and taxes were collected as a result of MSP airport operations, March 15, 2073 TnterVXS7AS Minneapolis -St, Paul International Airport Economic Impact Study — FINAL REPORT 57 Appendix J: Glossary of Terms Contract Work: Any work which is done for a company by an individual who is not on the payroll or work done for a company by another company. Generally speaking, firms will contract out work in areas in which they do not have expertise or when there are cost advantages to doing so. Direct Employment. Direct employment is employment that can be directly attributable to the operations in an industry, firm, etc. It is literally a head count of those people who work in a sector of the economy. In the case of the airport, all of those people who work in an aviation related capacity would be considered direct employment. Economic Activity. (also Output, Production) The end product of transforming inputs into goods. The end product does not necessarily have to be a tangible good (for example, knowledge), nor does it have to create utility (for example, pollution). Or, more generally, the process of transforming the factors of production into goods and services desired for consumption. Economic Output: (also Economic Activity, Production) The end product of transforming inputs into goods, The end product does not necessarily have to be a tangible good (for example, knowledge), nor does it have to create utility (for example, pollution). Or, more generally, it is defined as the process of transforming the factors of production into goods and services desired for consumption. Employment Impact. Employment impact analysis determines the economic impact of employment in terms of jobs created and salaries and wages paid out. In the case of the airport, the direct, indirect, induced and total number of jobs or person years created at the airport is examined to produce a snapshot of airport operations. Full Time Equivalent (FTE): (also Person Year) One full time equivalent (FTE) year of employment is equivalent to the number of hours that an individual would work on a full time basis for one year. In this study we have calculated one full time equivalent year to be equivalent to 1,800 hours. Full time equivalent years are useful because part time and seasonal workers do not account for one full time job.42 Gross Domestic Product: (GDP, also value-added) A measure of the money value of final goods and services produced as a result of economic activity in the nation. This measure is net of the value of intermediate goods and services used up to produce the final goods and services. Ground Transportation: Ground Transportation at the airport includes any vehicles which transport passengers from the airport to the cities or from the cities to the airport. This would include taxicab service, limousine service and hotel van service. Valet services as well as skycaps are included in this category. Indirect Employment: Indirect employment is employment which results because of direct employment. For the airport, it would include that portion of employment in supplier industries which are dependent on sales to the air transport sector. In some cases, contract work would be considered indirect employment. 42 The Dictionary of Modem Economics, David W, Pearce, General Editor, The MIT Press, Cambridge Mass.,1984 March 15, 2013 InterVISTAS Nfi N Minneapolis -St, Paul International Airport Economic Impact Study — FINAL REPORT 58 Induced Employment: Induced employment is employment created because of expenditures by direct and indirect employees. Multiplier Analysis: Analysis using economic multipliers in which indirect and induced economic impacts is quantified. Essentially, a multiplier number is applied to the "directly traceable economic impact" to produce indirect and total effects (see Multiplier.) Multiplier.• Economic multipliers are used to infer indirect and induced effects from a particular sector of the economy. They come in a variety of forms and differ in definition and application, A multiplier is a number which would be multiplied by direct effects in order to calculate indirect or induced effects. In the case of the airport, as in many other cases, multipliers can lead to illusory results, and thus must be used with great care, Passenger Facility Charge (PFC): A charge levied on enplaning passengers by the airport authority to help with funding capital improvements at the airport and mitigate noise impacts, The charge is sometimes referred to as a Passenger Facility Fee. Seasonality: Seasonality results when the supply and demand for a good is directly related to the season in which is consumed. For example, ski resorts experience changes in net income as a result of seasonality. Airports and airport services also experience seasonality as a result of vacation times for families (typically during the summer) and/or temperatures abroad (typically at Christmas time). As a result of seasonality in demand for flights, some air carriers increase frequency of flights to certain areas during the busy season. Tenant A firm which pays a lease to a leasing company or to the airport authority directly. Value -Added: (also GDP) A measure of the money value of final goods and services produced as a result of economic activity in the nation. This measure is net of the value of intermediate goods and services used up to produce the final goods and service March 75, 2073 XnterVISTA.S InterVISTAS AVIATION TRANSPORTATION TOURISM Prepared by Inter V/STAS Consulting LLC 7200 Wisconsin Ave, Suite 1103 Bethesda, MD 20814 Telephone; 301-941-1400 Facsimile; 301-941-1402 www.intervistas.com