HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/13/1995 - Airport Relations Commission• AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION
EAGAN,MINNESOTA
MULTI-PURPOSE ROOM
BLACK HAWK MIDDLE SCHOOL
June 13, 1995
7:00 P.M.
I. ROLL CALL AND ADOPTION OF AGENDA
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
III. OLD BUSINESS
A. Dual Track Airport Planning Process
IV. NEW BUSINESS
A. Operations Impacts - North and East Eagan
V. COMMITTEE REPORTS
A. Current Operations Committee
• B. Long Term Planning Committee
VI. STAFF REPORT
A. Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor
B. Runway 4/22 Extension - Richfield Litigation
C. Part 150 Program Update
D. MASAC Meeting of May 23, 1995
E. Northern Dakota County Airport Relations Coalition
VII VISITORS TO BE HEARD
VIII. INFORMATIVE
IX. FUTURE AGENDA
A. SMAAC Common Issues
B. Alternative Departure Profiles
C. Metropolitan Council Mitigation Principles
X. NEXT COMMISSION MEETING - Thursday, July 13, 1995
CURRENT OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE - Monday, June 19, 1995
LONG TERM PLANNING SUBCOMMITTEE - Thursday, June 22, 1995
NEXT MASAC MEETING - Tuesday, June 25, 1995
41
XI. ADJOURNMENT
MEMO TO: CHAIR TODD AND ALL MEMBERS OF THE EAGAN AIRPORT
RELATIONS COMMISSION
FROM: ASSISTANT TO THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR HOHENSTEIN
DATE: JUNE 89 1995
SUBJECT. AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 13, 1995
A regular meeting of the Eagan Airport Relations Commission will be held on Tuesday,
June 13, 1995 at 7:00 p.m.., at the Blackhawk Middle School Multi -Purpose Room. Please
contact Jon Hohenstein at 681-4603, if you will be unable to attend this meeting.
I. ROLL CALL AND ADOPTION OF AGENDA
The agenda, as presented or modified, is in order for adoption by the commission.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The mm'ytrs of the Ma 9, 1995 Airport Relations Commission meeting, are enclosed on
pages through for your review. These minutes, as presented or modified, are
in order for approval y the commission.
0 III. OLD BUSINESS
A. Dual Track Airport Planning Process --Please remember to bring your three-ring binders
for this business item. Enclosed you will find several insertions for your binders. The first
is a matrix which was developed by the Future Planning Subcommittee for use in comparing
the alternatives for the Dual Track Study. This should be placed in a convenient location
for your use throughout the study process, preferably, prior to the tab for Part I in your
binder. The second item enclosed is marked II -28 and represents comparisons developed
for presentation to the Minnesota Valley Exchange Club. Also enclosed is a memo and
articles concerning the Denver and Dallas -Fort Worth Airports relative to construction time.
These items are number 1I-29 through 1I-35. The commission is encouraged to discuss the
next steps in reviewing the alternatives with respect to the matrix. It would also be
appropriate to formally adopt the matrix, as presented or modified.
Also enclosed without page number is a copy of the Second Phase Scoping Report for the
Dual Track process. Notebooks will be distributed at the commission meeting for this
document. This document parallels many of the criteria in the matrix prepared by the
Future Planning Subcommittee. In addition, it has a good summary of the process
remaining with respect to Dual Track Decisions. Because this document summarizes a
substantial number of the issues raised by the commission, staff would encourage the
commission to give special attention to it.
0
You will note that comments with respect to this document are due no later than July 5. •
While the commission may wish to address other issues within the document, the
commission may wish to make a specific comment with respect to W. Alternatives, as the
scoping report does not contemplate the land banking alternative currently being discussed
by the commission. At a minimum, staff would recommend that a comment be forwarded
to the FAA and MAC in this regard. The commission should note that because this is a
scoping document for the environmental process, it does not analyze criteria such as
economic issues with which the commission is also concerned. Please note that a small
number of the graphics in the report are in color. The City does not have color
reproduction capabilities. Hopefully, these few graphics will not limit the commission's
ability to view significant issues presented.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: 1) To adopt the matrix recommended
by the Future Planning Subcommittee for use in the commission's Dual Track decision
making process and 2) to recommend comments to the City Council with respect to the
Second Phase Scoping Report and for the need for the EIS to consider a land banking
alternative.
IV. NEW BUSINESS
A. Operations Impact - North and East Eagan—Enclosed on pages � through,
is a staff memorandum covering this issue. Staff is in receipt of a substantial number of
complaints from both the northern and eastern portion of the City. The commission has
previously recommended certain action with respect to this issue. The memorandum
outlines potential additional steps the commission may wish to take.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To recommend Council action on
additional aircraft noise abatement activities relative to northern and eastern Eagan.
V. COMMITTEE REPORTS
A. Current Operations Committee—The Current Operations Committee met on Wednesday,
May 17 at 5:30 p.m. Lance Staricha and Pat Todd of the committee were present, together
with Mike Padden and Bob Mayer. The committee discussed several of the alternatives
outlined above in the New Business item. In addition, the history of aircraft operations at
the airport and the development of the preferential runway system and corridor systems
were discussed. Members of the committee may wish to comment further on the activities
at the meeting.
B. Long -Term Planning Committee—The Long -Term Planning Committee met on Thursday,
May 18. Mike Schlax, Lois Monson, John White and Steve Soderling were present. The
committee developed the decision matrix distributed as part of the Old Business item above.
Any member of the committee wishing to make further comments with respect to this item
may do so at Tuesday's meeting.
0 VI. STAFF REPORT
A. Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor—A substantial amount of information relative to the
corridor will be discussed in the New Business item above. In addition to that, you will find
enclosed on page correspondence from the City of Mendota Heights relative to an
off-peak crossing procedure during the most recent corridor deliberation several years ago.
The commission may wish to comment on this item given the substantial amount of
deviation from the corridor to the south or request that the procedure be tested prior to
implementation.
B. Runway 4/22.Extension-Richfield Litigation --Enclosed on pages through _3zis
an airport noise report article relative to the Richfield lawsuit. Staff has not had an
opportunity to pursue this matter further and will be presenting the commissions
recommendation to the City Council at its meeting on June 20.
C. Part 150 Program Update --Part 150 improvements are continuing throughout the eligible
area in Eagan. Staff has begun to receive calls concerning program eligibility for 1996 due
to aircraft noise impacts.
D. MASAC Meeting of May 23, 1995 --Enclosed on pagethrough.�is the agenda
of the MASAC meeting together with excerpts from the Technical -Advisor's Report,
corridor gate penetration analysis and complaint and operations graphics. Mayor Egan was
• present at the MASAC meeting, together with Mike Schlax and staff. Mike Jordan and
Mike Padden both spoke on behalf of residents of eastern Eagan neighborhoods.
Additional comments may be offered at Tuesday's meeting relative to the MASAC meeting.
n
E. Northern Dakota County Airport Relations Coalition—The coalition reviewed comments
received by the cities on the alternative departure profile correspondence and a copy of the
letters being circulated for signature at this time. The next meeting of the group will be on
Wednesday, June 21 at 7:30 am., in the Eagan Police Facility Conference Room.
VII. VISITORS TO BE HEARD
Any visitors wishing to address items not on the agenda may do so at this time.
VIII. INFORMATIVE
Enclosed on pages L through W/ is the most recent SMAC Newsletter. The
commission maintains a membership in SMAC to keep track of the organization's activities.
Also enclosed on pages&—through g]j are copies of articles from the May 8 and 9 Star
Tribune relative to airport noise complaints and the Part 150 program.
3
IX. FUTURE AGENDA 0
Any commission member wishing to suggest agenda items for future meetings should do so
at this time.
X. NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of various groups is included on the agenda. Please note the change in
day for the July Airport Relations Commission meeting. This rescheduling was necessary
in order to accommodate the rescheduling of the City Council meeting.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
The commission will adjourn no later than 9:00 p.m., unless the meeting is extended by a
majority vote the members present to complete business pending before the group.
WZA
JDH/jeh
E
0
Subiect to Approval
MINUTES OF THE
EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION
May 9, 1995
A regular meeting of the Eagan Airport Relations Commission was held on Tuesday, May
9. 1995 at 7:00 p.m. Present were Pat Todd, Mike Schiax, Jonathan White, Steve Soderling, Lance Stadcha
and Lois Monson. Absent were Jane Vanderpool and Bob Cooper. Also present was Assistant to the City
Administrator Hohenstein.
AGENDA
Upon motion by Schlax, seconded by Sodeding, all members voting In favor, the agenda
was approved as presented.
MINUTES
Upon motion by Schlax, seconded by Monson, with all members voting In favor, the minutes
of the April 11, 1995 meeting were approved as presented.
is A. Dual Track Airport Planning Process—
n
LJ
OLD BUSINESS
Hohenstein stated that the Long Term Planning subcommittee met for the first time on April
24, 1995. The subcommittee intends to focus on preparing a matrix of options and criteria to begin forming
recommendations to the City Council. The subcommittee has identified expansion, relocation, remote
runway and land banking as four possible outcomes to be considered. They also Identified criteria such as
Impacts on the environment, transportation, economic development and land use. Hohenstein asked the
commission to review these areas and to refer to the fold out pages in the back of section II to aid them
In preparing the matrbx. Schlax suggested that the commission may wart to go through the matrix and
decide what's good or bad for Eagan. He stated that he would like Input for the subcommittee to review
and then bring back to the commission.
Hohensteln displayed a map depicting the new airport location. He stated that it Is. helpful
to compare the distance from the runway end to Eagan as it Is now and how it would be with a new airport.
He also described a map showing population densities in the southern metro area.
Schlax asked what the density map was dated. Hohenstein responded that it was based
on the last census taken in 1990. Schlax stated that one of the foremost problems in dealing with the MAC
Is that they still consider Fagan a rural area and the population density In Eagan has changed considerably
since 1990.
Hohenstein stated that he would like the commission to come up with other alternatives not
Identified for the matrix. He commented that there may be items specific to the Eagan area which may not
be identified in the regional document.
s
Airport Relations Commission Minutes
May 9, 1995/Page 2
B. Runway 4/22 Extension - Richfield Litigation—
Hohenstein referred to notes pertaining to the Richfield lawsuit on pages 13 and 14. He
Informed the commission that to be a full partner in this lawsuit would cost between $80,000 to $125,000.
And this would be Just a start, It would Increase from there. He stated that Richfield is suing to mediate the
issue of redistribution of noise from the southwest
Hohenstein reviewed the MASAC meeting of April 25. He said that Cindy Green, an FAA
Procedures Specialist, discussed the use of the cross wind runway H one of the parallel runways were down
and with the parallel runways operating. He said that she Indicated that when 11R/29L Is under
reconstruction, flights will arrive on Runway 29R and will depart on Runway 22 Independently. She also
Indicated that when the parallels are In use, the runway extension will permit Runway 22 to be dependent
only on Runway 29L/11R. Ms. Green described a scenarlo in which combined arrivals and departures
would occur on the north parallel runway while arrivals only occurred on the south parallel and departures
on Runway 22. There was an implication that this procedure could Increase capacity and the assumption
was that this would not be the case. Hohensteln stated that it appears that with 50 arrivals and departures
on the north parallel combined with 30 arrivals on the south parallel and 40 departures on the cross wind
runway will total 120 operations. Currently, the airport capacity on full parallel operations is 100 - 105
operations per hour which means that the FAA does anticipate expanded capacity, which is contrary to the
assumptions In the environmental Impact statemenL Ms. Green also commented that the 180 degree
heading is currently being used and, N this is the case, it is a change from operating standards In the mid -
1980's when the 180 degree heading should not be used from the cross wind runway. Since these
procedures are contrary to the environmental Impact statement, the commission needs to review and •
comment on these Issues.
There was discussion concerning the Richfleld lawsuit and, upon motion by Starlcha,
seconded by Sodeding, the commission will recommend to the City Council to continue to explore Eagan
participating In the Richfield lawsuit. After further discussion it was agreed that the recommendation would
Include the following points: 1) that Eagan shares the opposition to redistribution of noise, 2) Eagan
supports no Increase In capacity, 3) while the commission does not recommend funding at this time, the
City Council should remain ready to consider the option of appropriating funds for this purpose, and 4) If
there is a temporary redistribution of noise, procedures should be followed which avoid sending more traffic
over southern and eastern Eagan. All members voted in favor.
There was further discussion concerning the lawsuit and whether Eagan should be a silent
partner or Invest a sum of money to participate. There was general agreement that participation In the
lawsuit be definitely considered, along with a sum of money, yet to be determined, and that this should be
the recommendation to the City Council.
Staricha stated that he sees the following points as the main Issues the commission Is in
agreement about:
1. Opposition to permanent redistribution of air traffic
2. There should be no Increase in capacity
3. Continue discussing lawsuit with Richfield - agree on amount of money Eagan is
willing to spend to participate In the lawsuit
4. The corridor should be heightened and lengthened
5. That southern and western flights depart at a 180 degree or more westerly heading •
from Runway 4/22 and that all easterly and northern flights use Runway 29L/11 R
Airport Relations Commission Minutes
May 9, 1995/Page 3
Hohensteln said that by stating Interest in participation In the lawsuit, with the possibility of
contributing money, puts Eagan In a good negotiating stance. He added that staff will look at ways that
Eagan can support Richfield.
Upon motion by Monson, seconded by Sodeding, Visitors to be Heard was placed next on
the agenda, all members voted in favor.
VISITORS TO BE HEARD
Bob Mayer of 3949 Avon Court, stated that he has been a resident of Eagan for 20 years
and that there has been a significant increase In the noise recently. He emphasized that he would like to
see aircraft at a particular altitude at a certain point and would like to see changes made in the early
morning and late evening traffic. He stated that he would like suggestions from the commission as to what
they can do to make these changes. He also mentioned that he felt Eagan was not represented by the
MAC.
Hohensteln responded that technically Eagan Is represented but that the MAC is a highly
political body and that terms do come up Intermittently. He told Mr. Mayer that it is also Important to stay
In contact with the commission and attend MAC meetings. He stated that it's Important to be as vocal as
possible and that those who are more vocal get results but that it is a slow process.
Mr. Mayer stated that he would like to be notified of meetings. Hohensteln stated that there
Is Information on cable about upcoming meetings and that the Airport Relations Commission meetings are
• rebroadcast. He also stated that there are articles in the city-wide newsletter about the airport. He stated
that the neighborhoods affected by noise need to participate If they want to see any changes.
0
Schlax stated that according to the ANOMS figures, Mr. Mayees neighborhood is receiving
approximately 20 overflights per day and that this does not agree with what Is actually occurring. Mr. Mayer
responded that it's actually more like 20 planes per hour flying over their neighborhood and that more than
100 planes a day fly directly over his area.
Mike and Michelle Padden of 3908 Stonebridge Drive, stated that they felt the corridor is
not long enough and that when it was set up Eagan was not as densely populated as it is today. They feel
that it needs to extend farther out than the three mile point. Hohensteln stated that the corridor procedure
was originally set up in the 1970's. He continued that he is not sure of the reasoning for the three mile
corridor but believes it is related to the agricultural areas at that time.
Mr. Padden commented that Eagan has more complaints than Minneapolis and since Fagan
Is less populated, there is a more serious problem. He continued that M the corridor were extended it would
result in air traffic turning out over a less populated area. He feels that while this will affect residents In other
parts of Eagan, it would take some of the impact off of his neighborhood and he is in favor of it Schlax
commented that it Is Important to look at the greater good and realize that impacting other neighborhoods
Is not desirable.
. Todd stated that with the ANOMS equipment it's possible to investigate the use of fanning
and compare it to ANOMS data. Hohensteln said that typically the 65 DNL is used to show the Impact when
using fanning analysis. He continued that the commission may wish to suggest expansion of the ANOMS
monitoring systems.
Airport Relations Commission Minutes
May 9, 1995/Page 4 •
Mike Padden commented that on the weekend of April 29 and 30, there were overnights one
after the other and the next weekend, May 6 and 7, it was relatively quiet. They asked if there is a reason
for such a difference. Hohenstein commented that he was not aware of any significant changes on those
particular weekends. He stated that he has seen planes turning and banking sharply when heading south
or west He also said that the tower gives the direction to tum first
Upon motion by Soderling, seconded by Monson, the commission directed staff to request
that ANOMS monitors are placed in various locations In Eagan. All members voted In favor.
Upon motion by Sodeding, seconded by Schlax, the commission directed staff to review
the ANOMS data for the weekends of April 29 - 30 and May 6 - 7, to determine whether there was a cause
for the difference In overflights over the Hills of Stonebridge neighborhoods. All members voted in favor.
Monson asked Hohensteln how long it would take before the commisison receives the
requested ANOMS data. Hohenstein responded that It could take three to four months as ft, needs to be
processed through MASAC.
Upon motion by Schtax, seconded by Staricha, the meeting was continued beyond 9:00
p.m. All members voted in favor.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
A. Current Operations Committee— •
Hohenstein Informed the commission that the Current Operations Committee met on April
18 and considered two major topics which were how to approach the committee's work and how to make
procedures such as the corridor more concrete and consistent with current development. The committee
would like to meet with the FAA, airline and pilots to discuss options such as faster climb, better heading
compliance and lengthening the corridor. The committee indicated that some improvements should be
considered In part, even If everything that Is desired cannot be achieved. The committee will arrange to tour
the airport and tower at the earliest opportunity. The next Current Operations Committee meeting will be
on Wednesday, May 17 at 5:30 p.m.
B. Long Tenn Planning Committee—
Hohenstein Informed the commission that the Long Term Planning Committee met on April
26. The Issues the committee will be considering in the future are the dual track planning process, the
economic Impact of a potential airport move, what to do regarding the 65 DNL contour, Stage III compliance
and alternate noise relief measures in addition to the Part 150 program. As was mentioned earlier, the
committee will be developing a matrix that will Include pros and cons of moving the airport, expanding the
airport at its current site and building a remote landing sfte/landbanking. The next meeting of the Long Term
Planning Committee will be on Thursday, May 18 at 7:00 p.m.
STAFF REPORT
A. Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor Report—
Hohenstein reviewed the March corridor compliance report noting that 10.7% of all
operations southeast of the airport were south the corridor. He also stated that the statistics do not show
the total Impact to eastern Eagan.
Airport Relations Commission Minutes
• May 9, 1995/Page 5
B. Part 150 Program Update—
Hohenstein Informed the commission of the indictment of several noise abatement
contractors for price fixing. He stated that the MAC moved quickly on this and handled the situation. The
largest delay will be two months and they will continue using the remaining contractors for the remaining
homes.
C. MASAC Meeting of April 25, 1995—
Hohensteln provided Information to the commission regarding the MASAC meeting of April
25, 1995. He stated that Eagan accounted for 31% of all noise complaints in the month of March, the
highest number of any city around the airport.
D: Northern Dakota County Airport Relations Coalition—
Hohenstein stated that he and Chair Todd met with the Northern Dakota County Airport
Relations Coalition and put together the following recommendation to their City Councils. The five cities
unanimously requested that Northwest define the existing noise abatement departure procedure as the
close -in procedure and that a distant procedure permitting greater climb before power reduction be
developed which will benefit communities such as ours throughout the United States.
Hohenstein stated that the group Is a very positive communication tool and that there will
• be Joint decisions made through this group.
ADJOURNMENT
Upon motion by Monson, seconded by Soderiing, the meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
JEH
Date Chairperson
Secretary
49�
—�Y =09cul
TO: CHAIR TODD AND AIRPORT RELATIONS
MEMO •
MEMBERS
FROM: ASSISTANT TO THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR HOHENSTEIN
DATE: JUNE 8, 1995
SUBJECT: AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS IMPACTS - NORTH AND EAST EAGAN
[-M..=..=107771'm
�
Over the past year, staff and the MASAC complaint line have noticed a substantial
increase in complaints from Eagan residents, particularly those in eastern Eagan. More
recently, there has been an increase in calls from northern Eagan as well. As you know,
the eastern Eagan neighborhoods are concerned about the location, frequency and
altitude of southbound and westbound aircraft as they leave the corridor to their •
destinations. Many of these residents indicate that aircraft are tracking closer to their
neighborhoods than they did a year or more ago. Historically and now, northern Eagan
neighborhoods are concerned about aircraft operating south of the corridor.
Open window season has worsened both of these situations. In addition, the recent
storms in the area have resulted in more scattering of aircraft to avoid storm cells. The
tower is supposed to return to standard procedures when the cell has moved five to ten
nautical miles from the airport. It appears to some residents as If the tower is slow to
return to standard procedures after storms have passed. It also appears to some
residents that operations on weekends are less compliant with the corridor than during
weekdays.
In the past, the City has participated in a number of noise abatement initiative including
the formation and reinforcement of the corridor which is intended to concentrate the worst
of the operational impacts over noise compatible land uses protected by the City. The
two aspects of corridor procedures which bear on residents is compliance in the initial
three miles and where an aircraft leaves the corridor for its destination.
Recent Actions
Recently, the City and Commission have taken a variety of actions relative to aircraft noise
impacts. Last year, the City was successful in requesting monthly corridor compliance
reports which have quantify the extent of the corridor problem. While compliance since
• the reports began is marginally better than before, it still averages about twenty percent
of departures on the south parallel or ten percent•of operations southeast of the airport.
The City has stressed the need to improve compliance still further, but it may be
appropriate to reiterate the concern frequently.
Cl
0
The City is also cooperating with other cities in northern Dakota County regarding
common airport issues. The first issue on which a position has been taken is alternative
departure profiles in which the communities are asking Northwest to test steeper angle
departure procedures as a means of better utilizing the corridor.
At its last meeting, the Commission took formal action to request additional ANOMS
monitors for Eagan neighborhoods to help quantify the noise impacts in areas outside the
corridor. This recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council at its meeting of
June 20. At its last meeting, the Commission directed staff to request tracking reports
and operations analysis for several weekends in which traffic concentrations varied from
acceptable to non -acceptable.
The Commission has discussed but may wish to take action on several potential actions
which affect the noise environment for Eagan residents. Requesting action does not
insure results, but the City in cooperation with the neighborhoods may bring additional
pressure for some improvements. If any of the items require closer review, they may be
referred to the appropriate Committee for recommendations.
Nighttime Restrictions- - The MASAC Operations
preparing recommendations on several aspects
alternatives under discussion are listed below a
memorandum which is attached.
4/22 Standard Instrument Departure (SID)
Shoulder Hours
Voluntary Nighttime Restrictions
Committee is analysing and
of nighttime operations. The
nd are discussed in the MAC
2. Strict Enforcement of 105' Heading during Nighttime - The City may wish to
encourage strict compliance with the off-peak heading of 105 degrees during the
11:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. time frame. This could be done through strict application
of the current tower order or through the establishment of a SID. Use of the
appropriate heading may be sufficient to keep aircraft north and east of most
Eagan neighborhoods or it may be necessary to push for an extension of the
corridor procedures during this period. The City may have success with this
approach because of the 4/22 SID if an acceptable flight track can be identified.
As a part of this exercise, it would be useful to encourage the MAC to consider
housing concentration maps in the development of flight tracks.
3. Modification or Extension of Corridor - Some residents of eastern Eagan have •
asked that the corridor be extended by one or two miles to better protect
downrange neighborhoods. There is considerable opposition to this proposal from
the FAA and the cities of Inver Grove Heights and Mendota Heights. These cities
perceive that their noise impacts are worsened by the presence of the corridor.
This is despite the fact that recorded noise levels in these communities are
dramatically lower than in Eagan neighborhoods, that deviations from the corridor
already affect Eagan more than those cities due to south and westbound
operations and that most aircraft affecting those cities would continue to do so
whether the corridor procedures were in place or not.
One potential modification would be to allow limited fanning, perhaps nothing south
of 140 degrees for the second three miles. This would start aircraft toward
southbound and west bound departures but place more of them over more
sparsely populated areas.
Minneapolis -St. Paul will be among the first airports with the geographic positioning
satellite (GPS) capability. As fleets implement this technology, it may be possible
to reduce corridor procedures to a SID base on GPS locations which are much
more precise.
It may also be possible to, pursue a waiver from the fifteen degree separation rule
to better contain operations in the corridor. This is more of a possibility when GPS •
is in use.
The City may wish to put this matter back on the table though to reinforce the fact
that the current corridor procedures need Improvement due to serious impacts to
neighborhoods all along it. This will not be an easy position to make progress on,
but that may not be sufficient reason to not pursue ft.
As noted above, even If full time modifications to the corridor are not successful,
nighttime restrictions or improvements, nighttime improvements could at least
improve the sleeping environment for some neighborhoods.
4. Dismantle Corridor and Fan Traffic - Traditionally the City has opposed this
alternative as counter to the land use compatibility work that has been done to date
and because it would appear that the increase in noise impacts in neighborhoods
closest to the airport would more than offset any reductions in concentration in
downrange neighborhoods. About the only area which would receive less traffic
under fanning is the commercial industrial corridor. The Current Operations
Committee may wish to revisit the Corridor task force analyses with respect to this
Rem to determine whether there is any merit in considering the alternative.
5. Dismantle RUS and Push for Distributional Equity - The City may take the position
that the failure of operations southeast of the airport to avoid noise sensitive areas
suggests a need to end RUS priorities and force operations into the wind. As with
l �
some of the issues above, this will be strongly resisted, but it underscores the MAC
• and FAA position that aircraft should be directed where there are the fewest people.
6. MAC and MASAC Representation Residents have recognized a disparity the
Commission has notice before, namely the underrepresentation of the City of
Eagan on MAC and MASAC. Eagan is the fourth largest city in MASAC and
receives approximately one-half of all traffic and yet it has only one MASAC
representative, the same number as the smallest city, Sunfish Lake, and the most
distant cities, St. Louis Park and Inver Grove Heights. Eagan's MAC district has
not been represented by an Eagan resident in staff's memory.
7. Seek Modifications of Federal Aircraft Noise Act (ANCA) for Nighttime Operations -
This is among the least likely of the alternatives due to the bargain struck between
Congress and the airlines. The law essentially strips local airport proprietors of the
authority to impose new restrictions on aircraft which would tend to discriminate
between Stage II and Stage III planes. In lieu of such modifications, the City could
request more aggressive conversion of operations through the MAC's voluntary
nighttime agreements.
B. Other - The Commission or public may identify. additional options to improve the
measurement or reduction of impact from operations.
Assi t to the City Administrator
•
l3
Cl
An Introduction:
Nighttime Noise Issues
MASAC Operations Committee, April 1995
MAC Aviation Noise Program
0
Met op titan Airports Common
6010 28th Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450
0
•
•
Standard Instrument Departures
(SIDS)
l�
Runway 22 Standard Instrument Departure (SID). •
In April. 1990, the City of Burnsville requested MAC -to permanently implement a
Standard tttetntment Departure (SID) Procedure for Runway 22, when feasible, to
help alleviate aircraft departure noise for Bloomington and Burnsville. The proposed
SID procedure would shift departing Runway 22 aircraft over the Minnesota River
corridor, thus avoiding high density residential areas in south Bloomington and
Burnsville.
The Operations Committee of MASAC was designated by. MAC to begin the review
process for the feasibility of a Runway 22 SID permanent implementation. The
Committee's review resulted in a unanimous approval of a preferred second heading
Of 2450(M), and recommendation of the Runway 22 Standard Instrument Departure
procedure to the MASAC full body.
The group reviewed minutes of the 26 September 1991 meeting detailing specific
concerns raised regarding the tested procedures. The simpler of the two tested
alternatives, requiring a turn as soon as safe and practical to a 1800(M) heading, was
deemed the best alternative.
Various heading alternatives were discussed including second turns to 2300(M),
2400(M), 2450(M), and 2500(x. The 2300(NO heading was tested in Right
simulators and in actual flight, and the MASAC Operations Committee previously
expressed interest in exploring benefits of other heading possibilities. Graphic •
representations of the beadings and associated 75 dBA 727.200 single event contours
were discussed. Advantages of the "early" 1800(M) tum coupled with the 2450(M)
second turn included removing residences from the single event contour in Richfield
and Bloomington, and containing most of the impact in the Minnesota River Valley.
A discussion of associated environmental issues followed including review of the
environmental evaluation process, and a list of potential environmental assessment
topics. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) explicitly requests evaluation of
delay issues, and the Airline Pilots Association (ALFA) requests investigation of bird
strike potential and application of weather minimums at 3000 ft. ceilings and
visibilities of 5 miles (3000 & 5).
The MASAC Operations Committee unanimously approved recommending the
following 22 SID procedure to the MASAC full body:
As soon as practical after departure, tura left to a 1W(M) heading. At 3
DME Brom the MSP VORTAC, turn right to a 245°(M) heading, thence
veetors on course.
Use of the 22 SID was envisioned as often as possible as long as any additional delay
caused by use of the procedure was avoided. Unconstrained, mandatory use of the SID .
while on runway 22 is not the intent Therefore, the SM should be used only when no
additional delay will result from its use.
With respect to the above statement of avoiding delay, the 22 SID should be used for •
all aircraft, as long as delay is not incurred because of mixing jet aircraft and
• turboprop aircraft However. if use by dissimilar aircraft types generates delay, the
MAC is most interested in applying the procedure to jet aircmft, thereby reducing the
greatest possible amount of noise.
The MAC is assisting the Federal Aviation Administration in conducting the
environmental evaluation proem for the SID in conjunction with the Runway 22
extension project
Included in the SID en immmewal evaluations will be noise analysis of the proposed
1800 (W turn followed by the right tam to 2430 (l), and a base case assuming
tatrreot, tan -SID departure operations from runway 22. Analysis of impact on the bird
seoctuar)& and potential for bird strike arc also be addressed. This proposal was
determined by the FAA to require an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) and thus, bas
DOW been l000rporated into the Draft ES preparation for the runway 4.22 extension,
scheduled for completion in January 1994.
0
•
Altemative B .
n
r b
aQ
i
sir
ar ar
Figure 2-3
departures per hour. This is the maximum
capacity using Runway 4-22 under the RUS.
Total use of Runway 422 could increase
up to a maximum of 8 hours per day in 1996,
depending upon wind conditions. This
alternative is currently the one preferred by
the MAC.
This set of flight headings would direct
more departing aimraR along and east of
Cedar Avenue. The areas affected comain a
mix of residential and commercial uses.
Alternative B
As shown in Figure 2-3, this alternative
has four departure headings. It is the Curtest
system for Runway 22. These headings are
200°, 2200, 290°, and 3500. Under this
alternative, the hourly capacity of Runway
22 departures would be the same as in
Runway 4-22 Extension EIS
Runway 22 Standard Inatramont DOW= (SID)
Figure 2-4
Alternative A. Maximum use of Runway
4-22 under the RUS could be up to 8 hours
per day in 1996.
Runway 22 SID
The Standard Instrument Departure (SID)
procedure would direct aircraft departing
Runway 22 to fly a heading of 180° to the
east of Cedar Aveme.' At 3 nautical miles
(DMR) from the Minneapolis Saint -Paul
International Airport (MSP) VORTAC, a
radio navigation aid located on the airport,
aircraft would tarn tight to a heading of 245°
to overfly the Minnesota River valley (see
Figure 2-4).
n
�J
i
0
Itis procedure would direct an -craft over
less populated areas. Since the procedure
provides only one departure heading, use of
this I PPF Ine would be limned to periods of
relatively low traffic vohnne. See Appendbt
C. Section C.2 for a•detailed desc ription of
operational assumptions.
The Runway 22 SID was evaluated in
combination with the No Build and preferred
alternatives. FAA analysis of operational
constraints indicates that use of the SID is
not feasible from an at traf5a control
perspective.
Alternatives consist of combinations of
runway threshold location and flight heading
• management subahernatives. Characteristics
of the various runway threshold and flight
beading subalternatives, in conjunction with
the 'Build" alternatives, are rimmarized
below:
Lalling Threshold Locations
Runway 422 Extension EIS
Flight Headings
Alternative A 1650, 180°, 200°, 2200,
290% 350°
Alternative B 2000, 2200, 2900, 3500
Runway 22 SID 1800 (initial)
The proposed action is Alternative IA:
exteusion of Runway 422 by 2,750 feet to
the smdm t; displacement of the Runway 4
landing threshold by 1,550 fat: and flight
headings of 1650, 180°, 2000, 2200, 290° and
350°.
2.2 ALTERNATIVES
CONSIDERED BUT
Other alternatives identified were
considered dating the Federal and State
scoping processes. In addition, the initial
DEIS and the WETS considered several
additional alternatives, as indicated below.
Upon further study, these were found to be.
impractical or unfeasible, and so were
eliminated from further study.
Bra= 22 22.1 Runway 4 Landing
Alternatives 1 & 2 1,000 ft. from end of Threshold Locations
paveMem The following runway threshold
location) alternatives to the 2,750 -foot southwest
Rim= 4 encosion of Runway 4 previously considered
in the initial DES, as modified by the
Alternative 1 1,550 ft. displacement SDEIS. have been dismissed from further
Alternative 2 2,750 ft. displacement study as a result of public comments or
operational concerns.
laitial Alternative 1
• Titus alternative proposed to displace the
Runway 4 threshold the full 2,750 feet of the
alternatives shown below indicates that an
additional 138 homes will require mitigation
under the No Build alternative.
me scenario Mftodoo Areas worbeepe
4-22 BuW south Rkhfchi.
Miupoon Bloomhusmn 1,122 homes
4.22 No Build North RiahfieW.
Minpooa (Part Mi meapolis 1,2if0 homes
150)
Consideration of Noise Abatement
Measures
The corrective measures described above
are restricted to areas within the DNL 65
noise contours, in accordance with the
MAC's FAR Part 150 eligibility criteria.
The sponsor has decided to evaluate
mitigation options addressing noise sensitive
areas between DNL 60 and 65. Therefore,
noise abatement measures having the
potential to address areas experiencing noise
levels between DNL 60 and 65 were
considered. Noise abatement measures must
be consistent with the purpose and need for
the proposed action, must be operationally
feasible, and must provide noise benefits to
areas impacted by the proposed action. The
following summary evaluates the potential
for wise abatement measures to mitigate the
noise impacts of the proposed action.
Runway Use Programs. The proposed
action will enhance conformance to the
MAC's established Runway Use System
(RUS), which has been part of the MAC's
noise compatibility program for many years
(see Appendix A). Redaction in use of
Runway 4-22 to reduce impacts associated
with its use would not be consistent with the
purpose of the proposed action.
Runway 4-22 Extension EIS
Flight Track Management. The
concept of flight track management was
extensively investigated through
consideration of the Runway 22 Standard
Instrument Departure (SID). This SID
would have directed aircraft to fly over less
populated areas to minimize the increase in
noise levels associated with increased use of
Runway 22 for departures. While this
procedure slightly reduced noise levels
associated with the proposed action (see
Section 4.2.2), FAA Aur Traffic Control
determined that the procedure was infeasible
due to the limited number of departures
which could be accommodated (see the
discussion of the Runway 22 SID in Section
2.1.3). Accordingly, this option is not
proposed as mitigation for the proposed
action.
Noise Abatement Arrival and
Departure Procedures. Recently, the FAA
published Advisory Circular 91-53A, Noise
Abatement Departure Procedures,
recommending two noise abatement takeoff
profiles; one to minimize impacts on close -in
noise sensitive areas, and one for more
distant noise sensitive areas. The dominant
carrier at MSP, Northwest Airlines, has a
tong -stapling noise abatement departure
procedure which is similar to the FAA
recommended close -in procedure. In
addition, the adopted Part 150 Noise
Compatibility Program for MSP recommends
continued sensitivity training sessions with
aircraft operators on noise abatement policies
and procedures. Additional measures are not
required.
Use Restrictions. Limiting use of
Runway 4-22 by time of day or by type of
aircraft would be inconsistent with the
•
•
0
0
Nighttime Operations
and
Shoulder Hour Considerations
•
Scheduled and "Un -scheduled" Operations
The above table represents operations between 9:45 PM and 7:15 AM. over a "typical' night in
September 1994. The "ANOMS" column represents actual flights occurring over a single
September night between 9:45 P.M and 7:15 AM The "HHH & Schedule" column represents
OAG Scheduled activity plus Hubert H. Humphrey Terminal proposed activity for 1994 and
1995. The HHH Proposed Activity was merged with OAG data. and no "duplication" of flights is
represented. The data include all operations - prop and jet.
aa-
0
L�
E
dr
r
19W
2145-2159
10
6
11
22002214
10
10
I1
2215-2229-
3
9
4
22302244
9
7
10
2245-2259
3
3
4
2300.2314
4
3
6
2315.2329
3
1
4
23302344
1
1
2
2345-2359
1
2
2
0000-0014
3
0
4
0015-0029
0
0
1
0030MU
0
0
1
0045-0059
0
0
1
OI0001I4
0
0
1
0115-0129
0
0
1
0130,0144
1
1
2
0145-0159
1
2
2
0200-M14
0
4
1
0215-0229
0
3
1
The above table represents operations between 9:45 PM and 7:15 AM. over a "typical' night in
September 1994. The "ANOMS" column represents actual flights occurring over a single
September night between 9:45 P.M and 7:15 AM The "HHH & Schedule" column represents
OAG Scheduled activity plus Hubert H. Humphrey Terminal proposed activity for 1994 and
1995. The HHH Proposed Activity was merged with OAG data. and no "duplication" of flights is
represented. The data include all operations - prop and jet.
aa-
0
L�
E
...... s
SCbeduk ,
021002"
0
1
1
0245-=9
0
1
1
0300-0314
1
1
2
0315-0329
0
0
1
0330.03"
0
0
1
0345-0359
0
2
1
04000414
0
2
1
0415-0429
1
3
2
0430.0444
1
2
2
0445-0459
0
1
1
0500-0514
0
2
1
0515.0529
2
1
3
0530-05"
0
1
1
0545-0559
3
4
4
06000614
9
14
11
0615-0629
4
14
5
0630.0644
16
21
17
0645.0654 1
26 1
14
27
0700-0714
19 1
21 1
22
'noxi
` l 2.1
131 `1
174
The above table represents operations between 9:45 PM and 7:15 AM. over a "typical' night in
September 1994. The "ANOMS" column represents actual flights occurring over a single
September night between 9:45 P.M and 7:15 AM The "HHH & Schedule" column represents
OAG Scheduled activity plus Hubert H. Humphrey Terminal proposed activity for 1994 and
1995. The HHH Proposed Activity was merged with OAG data. and no "duplication" of flights is
represented. The data include all operations - prop and jet.
aa-
0
L�
E
2230-224
22x3.223
2300-231
2313-232
2330.23a
2343.233
0000.001
0013.002
0030.00d
0045-003
0100-011
olls•olz
0130.014
ous•ols
_ 0200.021
0213.022
0230-02
ous-oxs
0300.031
03!3.032
0330.03d
0343.033
0400-041
0413-042
0430.0x4
0443-043
OS00-031
osls•osz
os3o•osa
osas-oss
0600.061
o61s-a6x
0630.064
0645.065
0700.071
11
C�
2145-2M2200•221
2215-222
_
■
O
vo.
V
w
C
�
H
a
■
z
a
i
Op
�
�y
O
C
H
2230-224
22x3.223
2300-231
2313-232
2330.23a
2343.233
0000.001
0013.002
0030.00d
0045-003
0100-011
olls•olz
0130.014
ous•ols
_ 0200.021
0213.022
0230-02
ous-oxs
0300.031
03!3.032
0330.03d
0343.033
0400-041
0413-042
0430.0x4
0443-043
OS00-031
osls•osz
os3o•osa
osas-oss
0600.061
o61s-a6x
0630.064
0645.065
0700.071
11
C�
"Shoulder" and Night Hours
zs
zo
is MENEM
io
s
0
N �r
N fV
Departures Arrivals
IMMEME, ir■■w i� n w
il I mpnm�n ii mmi nn ii
i
25
20
15
is
NIGHTTIME CARRIER JET OPERATIONS PER NIGHT
0
Jan 19% Mar 1994 May 1994 Jul 1994 Sep 19% Nov 19% Jan 1995
Feb 19% Apr 19% Jan 19% Aug 1"4 Oei 19% Dec 1994 Feb 1995
M So. MinneapoWN8. Rieb&M 0 So. RicblfeldA3Womh"n ■ S4 PmdfHtgbiand Path ® Eat MWCndota Heigbls
•
Voluntary Nighttime
Restrictions
•
•
W -W
Voluntary Nighttime Agreements.
•
C�
On March 13, 1993. the Metropolitan Airports Commission directed staff to execute
the necessary documents to implement previously negotiated "Voluntary Airline
Agreements to Eliminate Stage 2 Operations at MSP During the Nighttime Period".
7Le perseverance of the all -cargo carriers. coupled with actions of MAC staff resulted
in a volumary 11 P.M. to 6 A.M. Stage 3 -only agreement rather than as ordinance.
MAC staff continue to believe that cooperative, volumary partnerships can result in
the same meaningful noise reductions attainatil through the more protracted
regulatory process. Clearly, cooperation by the airlines is an absolute necessity.
Background
On January 17, 1991, the Stage 3 Utilization- Working Group recommended to
MASAC and MAC a freeze on Stage 2 operations between 11:00 P.M. and 6:00 A.M. at
tben-current (Fail 1990) levels. The timing of the institution of the Airport Noise and
Capacity Act of 1990 (ANCA) cast a logistic ambiguity on airport authority,
procedures for instituting local rule making extensiveness of the federal Stage 2
phaseout policy, etc. MAC's Stage 2 nighttime ban moved forward as a draft
ordinance, in spite of significant controversy, with the public hearing on the proposed
ordinance delayed until more than a month and half after the final rule was due to be
released.
Because of the controversy surrounding a mandatory Stage 2 ban. and the difficulties
being experienced at both Los Angeles and New York over similar mandatory noise
rule tests of ANCA, the comment period fix the proposed Stage 2 Nighttime
Ordinance remained open well into 1992, and paved the way for exploration of
implementing the proposed ordinance as a voluntary measure. By late 1992, six all -
cargo and charter carriers had signed voluntary agreements to By only Stage 3 aircraft
between 11 P.M. and 6 A.M. at MSP beginning in 1993. Northwest Airlines had also
agreed to Stage 3 -only between 11 PM and 6 A.K. through a separate instrument•, loan
covenants and agreements with MAC.
By March, 1993. the necessary paperwork was signed by both the Airport and
carriers, and the agreement started with second quarter 1993 reports. Actual ANOMS
data would be used to determine carriers' compliance with the mghtrime agreements
in conjunction with a quarterly activity report supplied by the carrier to avoid
confusion over Stage 2 airframes retrofitted to meet Stage 3 noise standards.
The table on the following page is the 4th Quarter 1994 report of compliance with the
agreemem. Information in the body of the table represent the airport's counting of
operations. after allowances were made for retrofitted Stage 2 aircraft. In the
Exception Notes below the table, information specific to each carrier is included. Part
of the agreement was to provide explanations when compliance with Stage 3 -only was
not possible In the interest of completeness, when discrepancies between carrier -
reported activity and airport -counted activity exist, both sets of data are included for
wmparison.
Stage 2 NighNime Voluntary Agreement ». 4th Quarter 1994 Report •
Exception Notes:
Airborne Express 1 Stage 2 DC -93 ave utilized only an omasions when Stege 3 DC -95 were unavailable
Old sysaem eapadU' re PUW that the wand Asrbome Nightly Sight to MSP utilize
thaw aircraft.
Federal Express S Unexplained Stage 2.17.
Ryan International t NNe Ops SL 3 Ops SL 2 Ops Nice Ops %SL 2 %SL 2 Total Nite Ops
309 302 7 2% 1%
As reporad by Ryan International. Umrplaiad Stage 2 - 37.
Sun Country • Wde OPS SL 3Ops SL20PI Nde Ops %SL 2 %SL 2 Total Nite Ops
186 1 66 35% Sun Country's performance if empry'yerry" Sights am considered to meet Stage 3 noise
criteria Of the teauiniM Sage 2 Night Ops, reasons for Sage 2 use: Weather Delay - 4,
PAyINd Restrictions -14, Maintenance Delay - 4, Aircraft Swap/Sage 3 Not Available/
Lang Route- 31, Stage 3 used for Miliary - 3. Uasplained Stege 2 -10.
UPS N Unexplained Stege 2.1.
With the program in its infancy, compliance is clearly not perfect However, thanks to
an open dialogue between the MAC end the six participating nighttime carriers,
nighttime Stage 3 usage at is 63%; higher than it would otherwise be if no agreements
were in farce. Howeva. MAC desires significantly better compliance levels than
those indicated in the above table. One way to Achieve greater compliance is to extend
this agreement to all carriers operating at MSP at night. This goal is part of the new
Noise Management Methodology, to be negotiated during 1994 and 1995. With
Stage 3only agreements applied to all nighttime carriers at MSP, discrimination
against participating carriers is elimiaemd, and compliance efforts will be far more
productive. Ultimately, Stage 3 nighttime usage will i^c^ea, reducing impact on
surrounding neighborhoods through a combination of Voluntary Stage 2 Nighttime
Agreements and Runway Use System operating procedures, packaged under the
negotiating umbrella of the new Noise Management Methodology.
lJ
o
,!�//,C•Ulx�l���y,�f
/_fes fr�raw�„ ,.,�,
Tl��yy
�
r�f/F'S i/�C,ai
3,5� -: 4 ..
�.
g
i {NF .. s%moi. u�/,'�i%4'./�
r�`fii,19
i'/.[z,�...�.9./ /6u
.S . :.'�
Qi
.i� u.
/� A •'r/
Exception Notes:
Airborne Express 1 Stage 2 DC -93 ave utilized only an omasions when Stege 3 DC -95 were unavailable
Old sysaem eapadU' re PUW that the wand Asrbome Nightly Sight to MSP utilize
thaw aircraft.
Federal Express S Unexplained Stage 2.17.
Ryan International t NNe Ops SL 3 Ops SL 2 Ops Nice Ops %SL 2 %SL 2 Total Nite Ops
309 302 7 2% 1%
As reporad by Ryan International. Umrplaiad Stage 2 - 37.
Sun Country • Wde OPS SL 3Ops SL20PI Nde Ops %SL 2 %SL 2 Total Nite Ops
186 1 66 35% Sun Country's performance if empry'yerry" Sights am considered to meet Stage 3 noise
criteria Of the teauiniM Sage 2 Night Ops, reasons for Sage 2 use: Weather Delay - 4,
PAyINd Restrictions -14, Maintenance Delay - 4, Aircraft Swap/Sage 3 Not Available/
Lang Route- 31, Stage 3 used for Miliary - 3. Uasplained Stege 2 -10.
UPS N Unexplained Stege 2.1.
With the program in its infancy, compliance is clearly not perfect However, thanks to
an open dialogue between the MAC end the six participating nighttime carriers,
nighttime Stage 3 usage at is 63%; higher than it would otherwise be if no agreements
were in farce. Howeva. MAC desires significantly better compliance levels than
those indicated in the above table. One way to Achieve greater compliance is to extend
this agreement to all carriers operating at MSP at night. This goal is part of the new
Noise Management Methodology, to be negotiated during 1994 and 1995. With
Stage 3only agreements applied to all nighttime carriers at MSP, discrimination
against participating carriers is elimiaemd, and compliance efforts will be far more
productive. Ultimately, Stage 3 nighttime usage will i^c^ea, reducing impact on
surrounding neighborhoods through a combination of Voluntary Stage 2 Nighttime
Agreements and Runway Use System operating procedures, packaged under the
negotiating umbrella of the new Noise Management Methodology.
lJ
u
0
R US Considerations
and
Crosswind Runway Usage
a�
TO: Jeff Hamiel, Executive Director
FROM: John Foggia, Manager, Aviation Noise Program
SUBJECT: (Excerpt from) South Metro Airport Action Council (SMAAC)Requested
Information
DATE: 23 June 1994
(Excerpt) ...
A number of requests for information and questions regarding crosswind runway use have
surfaced. Most recently, wind data and its effect on Runway 04/22 utilization have been
requested. Basically, the question asked is: How often could the crosswind runway be used?
Though the question is straightforward enough, researching and answering it is fairly
complicated. Fortunately, the Aviation Noise Program has compiled hourly weather data at MSP
for a number of years. Wind rose information is not the way to answer the question. Wind rose
date represent annual distributions of wind direction versus wind speed at a particularairport site.
The graphs do not take into account daily (or hourly) variations in wind speed and direction.
Unfortunately, it is the hourly to daily variations in wind that determine active runway selection.
Wind rose data is for planning purposes only, and for applications with time periods greater than a
year.
Because Aviation Noise Program staff have entered actual hourly weather observations into a
large database, I was able to analyze actual wind conditions for nearly a four-year period.
Analysis is still tricky, because very specific questions must be asked, and the large-scale database
manipulated accordingly.
As you well know, wind is only one of a number of parameters considered when selecting active
runways. During daytime hours, air traffic volume is an overriding factor, but wind speeds greater
than 8 kts do dictate the flow direction; i.e. whether the airport operates to the northwest or to the
southeast. Because traffic volumes at MSP are low over night, and most of the requests for
information regarding crosswind runway use are targeting the night hours, most of my analysis
focuses on the 11 P.M. to 6 A.M. time frame. Daring these hours, traffic volume does not dictate
runway selection, but rather, the Runway Use System (RUS) agreements prioritize runway
selection, along with wind considerations. Naturally, other conditions impact night operations -
runway closures for maintenance and repair, for instance. However, the nighttime hours, more
than any other time period at MSP, allow for the combination of wind and preferential runway
selection.
We began collecting weather data for computer entry on 10 September 1990. Between September
1990 and May 1994, 23,377 hourly weather observations have been collected, representing 7290
of all the possible record hourly observations. During the nighttime hours (23001. to 06001.) 8,645
hours were entered by Aviation Noise program staff, representing 92% of the possible 9,442
hourly observations between 10 September 1990 and 18 May 1994. This large sample provides
excellent representation of wind conditions at MSP.
30
U
Table 1: AO Hours Wind -Only Runway Assignments
si` isa
Hotna .
�:�i ifR�
Runway 04
pM���
9%
Runway ll
1050
12%
Runway 04
2439
10%
Runway 11
3513
15%
Runway 22
3193
14%
Runway 29
4355
19%
Any Runway
9877
42%
Total Hours
23377
Hours Since 10 Sep 90
32372
% Hous Sampled
72%
• Table 2: Nighttime Hours Wind -Only Runway Assignments
1lmtway ,:;
Hotna .
S orTab l
aiouts
Runway 04
798
9%
Runway ll
1050
12%
Runway 22
896
10%
Runway 29
1236
14%
Any Runway
4665
54%
Total Hours
8645
Hours Since 10 Sep 90
9442
% Hours Sampled
92%
'Nighttime hours arc 2300, to 0600E (11 eat. to 6 A.M.)
Tables 1 and 2 above represent the runway assignment if wind were the only factor. According to
• the Air Traffic Controllers Handbook, wind speeds less than 8 kts allow any runway to be selected
as active. With wind speeds above 8 kts, wind must be considered when selecting operational
direction. Interestingly, 42% of the hourly weather observations recorded wind speeds of 7 kts or
less, and during nighttime hours, 54% of the observations had wind speeds of 7 kts or less. In
other words, more than half the time during nighttime hours, wind is not a factor in determining
active runway.
Wind -favored runway assignments in the above tables combine the highest headwind component
and lowest crosswind component to determine the most "favorable' conditions. These tables do
not address how often the airport could operate on the crosswind runway.
To determine how often the airport could have aircraft operating on the crosswind runway, we
must establish a few assumptions. Under certain conditions of weather, aircraft loading, and
critical field length, jet aircraft can accept tailwind components of 7 to 10 kts. However,
depending on final approach speeds, a 10 kt tailwind can increase ground roll 10% to 20% on
takeoff, and up to 30% on landing rollout. Additionally, most jet aircraft can operate with a 25 kt
crosswind component. For the purposes of maintaining a safety margin, and reflecting the most
conservative runway selection, Tables 6 and 7 assume that any tailwind component precludes
selection of that runway for use. Also, three crosswind conditions are displayed - 17 kt, 20 kt, and
25 kt crosswind components on Runways 04 and 22. Table 6 shows the number of nighttime
hours that Runway 04 had a tailwind component, and runway 22 had crosswind components of
greater than 17 kis, greater than 20 kts, and greater than 25 kts. Table 7 illustrates the number of
nighttime hours with a tailwind component for Runway 22, and crosswind components on
Runway 04.
The last wind condition of interest is when no tailwind component is present on either Runway 04
or Runway 22, and the crosswind component is greater than 17 kts, 20 kts, and 25 kts, on both
runways. Table 8 provides of a breakdown of these conditions.
On each of the following tables, the number of hours (and percentage of nighttime hours) for
winds 7 kts or less are displayed. This represents the wind condition where any runway could be
selected.
Table 3: Nighttime Hours with Runway 22 Crosswind Component as Indicated
�..u�s a.ww+swu a iwuae
e-.. .
-Hours .
Runway 04 Tailwind and Runway 66 0.8%
22 Crosswind > 17 kts
Runway 04 Tailwind and Runway 34 0.4%
22 Crosswind > 20 kts
Runway 04 Tailwind and Runway 8 0.196
22 Crosswind > 25 kts
Hours with 7 kts or less 4665 54.0%
Hours with 8 kts or greater 3980 46.017.
Total Hours 8645
'Nighttime hours are 2300L to 0600L 01 P.M. to 6 A.M.)
•
0
Table 4: Nighttime Hours with Runway 04 Crosswind Component as Indicated
Runway 22 Tailwind and Runway 79 0.9%
04 Crosswind > 17 kts
Runway 22 Tailwind and Runway 45 0.590
04 Crosswind > 20 kts
Runway 22 Tailwind and Runway 12 0.1%
04 Crosswind > 25 kts
Hours with 7 kts or less 4665 54.(90
Hours with 8 lets or greaterF-81,
980 46.090
Total Hours 645
aNrghnime hours are 2300L to 0600L (11 P.M. m 6 A.M.)
Table 5: Nighttime Hours with Runways 04 & 22 Crosswind Components as Indicated
*W Cor�itron
# Hours
% of Total
` Bourn
Runway 22 Crosswind > 17 kts &
Runway 04 Crosswind > 17 kts
35
0.490
Runway 22 Crosswind > 20 kts &
Runway 04 Crosswind > 20 kts
27
0.3%
Runway 22 Crosswind> 25 kts &
Runway 04 Crosswind > 25 kts
10
0.1%
Hours with 7 kts or less 4665 54.0%
Hours with 8 kts or greater 3980 46.090
Total Hours 8645
0Ifthubw hours are 23ML to 0600L (11 P.M. to 6 A.M.)
L
Tables 6, 7, and 8 allow an explicit counting of specific wind conditions relative to MSP's
crosswind runway. If 25 kts is determined to be the limiting crosswind component for selecting a
runway as active (and no tailwind component is acceptable), then three conditions exist where the
crosswind runway cannot be used - a tailwind on Runway 04, and a crosswind component on
Runway 22 greater than 25 kts (8 hours), a tailwind on Runway 22, and a crosswind component
on Runway 04 greater than 25 kts (12 hours), and a crosswind component on both Runways 04
and 22 greater than 25 kts (10 hours). Out of 8,645 nighttime hourly weather observations
recorded, wind precluded choosing the crosswind runway a total of 30 hours. In other words, with
wind as the only factor, MSP's crosswind runway could be used during nighttime hours 99,6% of
the time. If 20 kts is chosen as a limiting crosswind component (and no tailwind component is
acceptable), then Runway 04/22 could be used 98.8% of the nighttime hours. Similarly, allowing
17 kts of crosswind component or less, and no tailwinds, the crosswind runway could be selected
as active 97.9% of the hours between 11 Pat. and 6 Abu.
Again, nighttime runway use is often impacted by conditions other than wind and weather.
Runway closures for maintenance, repair, reconstruction, snow removal, FOD, etc., can preclude
use of the crosswind runway and one of the parallel runways a considerable number of hours.
However, the wind analysis allows the conclusion that, assuming all runways are available for
use, virtually all operations at night could be conducted using head -co-head operations in the
Eagan -Mendota Heights Corridor, and the crosswind runway. That is, with the crosswind runway
fully available for use (i.e. 04/22 not NOTAMed down, and St. Paul Downtown Class D Airspace
not protected during non -tower operations), from 2300L to 0600L, departures on Runways
29L&R and, and arrivals to Runways 11L8cR could be could be discouraged, with aircraft
operating head-to-head in the corridor and on the crosswind runway when tailwinds preclude use •
of the head-to-head procedure. This action would strengthen existing provisions of the RUS.
1-1
City of
..... Mendota Heights �
May 5, 1995
Mr. John Foggia
Metropolitan Airports Commission
6040 28th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55450
Dear John:
Over the course of the past several years you and I have had
periodic conversations regarding the implementation status of the
non_ simultaneous departure procedure approved by the MAC in January
1993. The slow progress in getting this procedure implemented has
been particularly frustrating to our City, as you know. In a
recent conversation you indicated that the reason for the delay was
that Mr. Nigel Finney had not yet formally approved the hiring of
HNTB to conduct the necessary environmental review work.
On Wednesday, May 3, 1995 I spoke in person with Mr. Finney
who indicated he has now formally given that approval and that the
work is now authorized. This being the case, we are extremely
anxious to have this process proceed as quickly as possible.
Please let me know the schedule of the proposed work and the .
tentative date we may expect to have the already MAC approved
procedure implemented. Of. course, we would like to be included in
the meetings MAC has with HNTB relative to the environmental review
process of this procedure. Please let me know when the first
meeting on this subject is scheduled.
Now that the ball is rolling, we look forward to the rapid
implementation of the procedure, and thank you in advance for your
assistance in seeing this' matter through to its successful
conclusion.
Sincerely,
CITY OF_ MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Tom Lawell
City Administrator
cc: Jeff Hamiel
Nigel Finney
v Jon Hohenstein
1101 Victoria Curve -Mendota eights, MN • 55118 452.1850
n
•
Airport Noise Report
A biweekly update on litigation, regulations, and technological developments
Volume 7, Number 9 May 3, 1995
Minneapolis/St. Paullnt'l
RICHFIELD CHALLENGES FINAL EIS
ON MINNEAPOLIS RUNWAY EXTENSION
The City of Richfield, MN, filed a lawsuit April 27 challenging the adequacy of
the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed extension of Runway
4/22 at Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport.
The lawsuit, filed in the Fourth District Court against the Metropolitan Airports
Commission (MAC), the Minnesota Department of Transportation, and Commis-
sioner of Transportation James N. Denn, alleges violations of the Minnesota
Environmental Rights Act, the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act, and MAC's
enabling statute.
The litigation was triggered by the March 29 release of the Federal Aviation
Administration's Record of Decision which granted partial approval for the project
to move forward. MnDOT simultaneously released the Adequacy Determination
providing the state approvals. The project's stated objectives are a longer runway
to increase operational flexibility when the south parallel runway is reconstructed,
• and a proposed redistribution of noise to provide relief for residents in south
Minneapolis and northeast Richfield.
At the heart of Richfield's concerns is the project's objective of noise redistribu-
(Continued on p. 66)
Seattle -Tacoma Int'l
EXPERT PANEL TELLS PORT TO DEFINE
NOISE REDUCTION GOALS FOR SEA -TAC
An Expert Arbitration Panel, set up to monitor the effectiveness of the Port of
Seattle's noise mitigation program, told Port officials at a May 5 public hearing to
clearly define their noise reduction goals for communities near Seattle -Tacoma
International Airport, expressing disappointment that it has not already done so.
"Let's set the bar before you jump, not after," said Boston aviation attorney Scott
Lewis, chairman of the three-member expert panel, which was established by a
1993 resolution of the General Assembly of the Puget Sound Regional Council
(PSRC) to verify that the Port's noise mitigation program will produce a reduction
in "measurable on -the -ground noise" by 1996, when a decision on whether to build
a third runway at Sea -Tac must be made. The panel's approval of the Port's noise
reduction gains at Sea -Tac is needed for the third runway to be built.
The panel rejected the Port's original method for validating progress in reducing
noise around Sea -Tac, which relied solely on a reduction in levels of the noise
metric DNL (average day -night sound level). In its revised noise methodology,
submitted to the panel April 4, the Port agreed to supplement DNL with other
• metrics, including statistical noise levels, Time Above specified dBA levels, and
Sound Exposure level (SF.L), and to provide data on aircraft types and operations.
The Port also agreed to add six additional noise monitoring sites beyond the 65 dB
(Crn ifinterl on p. 68)
Copyright 0 1995 by Airport Noise Report. Ashbum. Va. 22011
In This Issue...
Minneapolis ... The City
of Richfield files suit in
federal district court chal-
lenging the adequacy of the
Final EIS for the proposed
extension of Runway 4/22 at
Minneapolis/St. Paul Interna-
tional Airport. At the heart of
the city's concerns is the
project's objective of redis-
tributing noise - p. 65
Seattle ... An expert
arbitration panel orders the
Port of Seattle to define its
noise reduction goals for
communities around Sea -Tac
Panel to issue order soon on
whether feasble alternatives
to new runway exist - p. 65
PTCs... FAA data show
that 46 airports are using
$782.2 million in PFCs — 9
percent of total PFCs ap-
proved — for noise mitigation
projects - p. 66; table p. 69
Survey... The Natural
Resources Defence Council
sends a questionnaire to 125
top airports seeking informa-
tion on environmental,
transportation issues - p. 67
O'Hare ... SOC rejects
Chicago's offer of $160
million per year for 10 years
for noise projects; calls it
buy -off of suburbs - p. 67
66
MSP Inl'4 from p. 65
tion, according to attorneys Steven Pflaum of McDermott,
Will & Emery in Chicago and Charles Dayton of Leonard.
Street and Deinard in Minneapolis, who ritpresent the city.
The noise redistribution would be accomplished by adding
7,000 people to the federally designated noise corridor, they
noted in a press release. They said the EIS notes that
approximately 4,000 residents would experience minor
reductions in noise impact, but said the EIS does not
disclose how long this reduction would last or whether it
would have occurred even without the runway extension.
Included in the complaint are numerous issues that the
City of Richfield has raised to the Airports Commission
since the first Draft EIS was released in October 1991. In
the nearly four years since. MAC and MnDOT have not
provided conclusive answers, the attorneys asserted. Among
Richfield's greatest concerns are:
• The EIS does not provide comparative information
regarding projected noise impacts beyond 1996. "We do not
know what to tell residents to expect three, five, or 10 years
down the road, as far as noise is concerned," said Jim
Prosser, Richfield's city manager. Prosser questioned
whether that was an efficient use of public funds. "Runway
4/22 is restricted in operations only five years after it is
extended because an increasing volume of flights will not
permit cross traffic. $30 million will likely have been spent
for. no reason," he said.
• The EIS also fails to analyze all feasible and prudent
alternatives, described in the complaint as the "heart of an
EIS." MAC and MnDOT have refused to recognize single -
objective alternatives, such as analyzing the extension for
operational flexibility only without the objective of noise
redistribution, the attorneys said.
Richfield has asked that MAC separate the noise redistri-
bution portion of the project. Richfield officials have
indicated that they would not challenge the project if its
purpose were limited to runway extension for long-haul
domestic and international flights and for operational
flexibility during the reconstruction of the south parallel
runway.
. 'The redistribution portion of this project just doesn't
make sense," Richfield Mayor Martin Kirsch said. "When
this project was first introduced over 15 years ago, we were
told that our residents in north Richfield and in south
Minneapolis would receive 10-12 hours of noise relief with
a project cost of about $10 million. Now, we find out that,
on average, residents will experience some relief for only an
hour -and -a -half to two hours a day and the project cost has
climbed to over $55 million."
The cost to mitigate this new expansion of airport noise is
estimated by Richfield and Bloomington to exceed $80
million. MAC intends to spend $30 million for sound
insulation and some acquisition of newly impacted areas,
but has not yet identified the funding source. That is why
the FAA has only granted conditional approval to noise
redistribution, the attorneys said. According to the Record
Noise
of Decision. MAC may not proceed until proving the
agency can secure funding for mitigation without federal
assistance. Recent congressional action reducing federal
support to airports is making it more likely that federal
funding to support mitigation will not be forthcoming, they
speculated.
Despite the fact that Richfield has commenced legal
action, City Manager Jim Prosser said (hat efforts will
continue to seek a settlement of the dispute. "We've asked
FAA. MnDOT, the Environmental Quality Board, and the
Metropolitan Airports Commission to enter into mediation
so that we could avoid the action we've taken. Unfortu-
nately, they've all turned us down so far. However, we're
still hopeful that we can reach a settlement on this matter."
Mayor Kirsch echoed that sentiment, saying, "This is an
unfortunate last resort. We have a good working relationship
with MAC and have tried to work this out, but the bottom
line is we have to protect the interests of our residents. And
the 4/22 EIS has not provided the required legal information
for us to do that."
PFCs
NINE PERCENT OF PFCs
DEVOTED TO NOISE PROJECTS
Some 46 airports — almost equally divided between small,
medium, and large hubs, and non -hub airports — are using
Passenger Facility Charge revenue to support noise mitiga-
tion projects, according to Federal Aviation Administration
data on the program.
It shows that about 9 percent — or $782.2 million — of the
total $11.2 billion in PFCs approved by the agency for
collection by airports are designated for noise mitigation
purposes.
The $11.2 billion PFC total does not include the $2.3
billion recently approved for the new Denver International
Airport. If that were included, it would reduce the percent-
age being earmarked for noise projects to about 7 percent.
Large hub airports using PFCs for noise projects include
O'Hare International, Minneapolis -St. Paul International,
Lambert -St. Louis International, Las Vegas McCarran
International, Salt Lake City International, Detroit Metro-
politan, Greater Cincinnati International, Los Angeles
International, Seattle -Tacoma International, and Boston
Logan International.
Medium hubs using PFCs for noise mitigation purposes
include Burbank. Ft. Lauderdale, Palm Beach International,
Indianapolis International, Cleveland Hopkins Imernational,
Port Columbus International, Milwaukee's Gen. Mitchell
International, Chicago Midway, Oakland International. San
Jose International, Ft. Myers' Southwest Florida Regional.
and Reno Cannon International.
In its recordkeeping of PPC projects, the FAA sutxlivides
noise projects into six different categories. Following is the
total amount approved by the FAA for each category:
• $422.2 million for land acquisition;
Airport Noise Repan
2
•
•
MAY 23, 1995 l
7:30 p.m. to 9:15 p.m.
Of Qadr,'
Min each Avenue South e ,1 _. s1J,j IX 1 a sttc
Minneapolis, Minnesota 1lq1 �i�'
Call to Order, Roll Call
•
Approval of 1l1ioutes of Meeting April 25, 1995 t
� �•--Y/ _ aa
Introduction of Invited Guests I
Receipt of Communications C� 'r 1
Operations Committee Update W!07 N,
Voluntary Nighttime Restriction .
1
Technical Advisor's Runway System Utilization Report and Complaint Summary
Persons Wishing to Address the Council
Other Items Not on the Agenda
9. Adjournment
Neat
June 27, 199 ,
ALC COD" ,
•
E
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Operations and Complaint Summary
April 1995
Operations Summary - All Aircraft
MSP April Fleet Mix Percentage
Airport April Complaint Summary
April Operations Summary - Airport Directors Office
Aviation Noise Programs q/
Page 1
Wixopditmi Airpom Comrnissi®
Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport Complaint Summary
April 1"5 •
Complaint Summary by City
Tune of Day Nature of Complaint
4T
00:00 - 05:59
t
RN
22 Excessive Noise
682
81,
22 EarlyAAte
Apple Valley
1
12
13
1.80/0
Bloomington
2
5
7
1.09/0
Burnsville
1
23
24
3.3%
Eagan
27
227
254
34.8%
Edina
1
6
7
1.01YO
Falcon Heights
1
0
1
0.1%
Golden Valley
1
0
1
0.1%
laver Grove Heights
7
112
119
16.3%
Mendota Heights
7
50
57
j 7.8%
Minneapolis
63
132
195
26.7%
Minnetonka
0
1
1
0.1%
N. St. Paul
0
1
1
0.1%
Richfield
8
22
30
4.1%
S. St. Paw
1
8
9 1
1.2%
St. Louis Park
0
1
1
0.1%
St. Paul
5
6
11
1.5%
Tune of Day Nature of Complaint
4T
00:00 - 05:59
t
RN
22 Excessive Noise
682
06:00 - 06:59
22 EarlyAAte
37
07:00 - 11:59
212 Low Flying
4
12:00 - 15:59
87 Structural Disturbance
3
16:00 - 19:59
141 Helicopter
0
20:00 - 21:59
191 Ground Noise
12
22:00 - 22:59
52 Engine Run-up
2
23:00 - 23:59
18 Frequency
5
r-7
IM
1f a -
Paw 2 Avia6m NnLw Prrornmc
0
0
?&=pditan Airports Commission
E
0
Page 4
All Operations
Runway Use Report April
Aviation Noise Progams q,3
1
Wtrowlitaa Airports. comm.L�cmon
Carrier jet Operations
Runway Use Report April 19
04
A
431
4.1%
222 -T
2.2%
IIL
A
2283
21.6%
2066
20.5%
IIR
A
2397
22.7%
2276
22.696'
22
A
48
0.5%
127
1.3%
29L
A 1
2801
1 26.5%
3010
30.090
29R
A 1
2601
1 24.6%
2348
23490 1
0
0
04
D
•
0
0.0%
17
0.2%
IIL
D
2461
23.9%
2222
23.4%
IIR
D
3066
29.8%
2400
25.3%
22
D
377
3.7%
703
7.4%
29L
D
2372
23.1%
2206
23.3%
29R
D
2005
19.5%
1938
20.4%
Iflog
AA&dm Nda Aog�m Page 5
Metropolitan Airports Commission
n
L
0
1
Nighttime - All Operations
Runway Use Report April 12P!
04
A
82
13.8%
65
10.2%
11L
A
20
3.4%
19
3.00!6
11R
A
31
5.2%
43
6.8%
22
A
7
1.1%
27
4.2%
29L
A
336
56.6%
388
61.096'
29R
A
118
19.9%
94
14.8%
04
11L
11R
22
29L
29R
D
11
4.3%
9
3.4%
D
49
19.2%
68
25.9%
D
129
50.6%
130
49.4%
D
24
9.4%
22
8.4016
D
30
11.8%
20
7.69/o
D
12
4.7%
1 14
5.3%
Page 6 Aviation Norse
Mevopoli= Airports Commission
Carrier Jet Operations by Type
April 1995
PAP 8 Madan, Noise Programs
0
43.5% Stage III
56.5% Stage H
•
n
U
B727H
162
0.8%
DC9H
1229
5.9%
B707
0
0.0%
B73314/5
1109
5.3%
B747
157
0.8%
B74F
1
0.0%
B757
1524
7.3%
B767
0
0.0%
DA10
10
0.0%
DC10
858
4.1%
DC87
120
0.6'10
EA32
1893
9.1%
FK10
721
3.5%
L1011
123
0.6%
MD11
12
0.1%
MD80
1127
5.490
BA10
8
0.09'0
BAII
1
0.0%
B727
3565
17.1%
B737
517
2.5%
DC8
73
0.4%
DC86
27
0.1%
DC9
7554
36.2%
FK28
51
0.2%
PAP 8 Madan, Noise Programs
0
43.5% Stage III
56.5% Stage H
•
n
U
Metropolitan Airports Commission
L
•
11
Runway Use - Day/Night Periods - All Operations
Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport April 1995
Daytime Hours
Nighttime Hours
47
Page 10 Aviation Noise Programs
Metropolitan Airports Ca®missioa
Remote Monitoring Site Locations
Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System
Irl
FSO
ID
10000 f
FSO4
FSO3
O
FS
FSO7
FGY7n
.FSO19 .
FSO17
0 F 11
r •F 10
3�
r d/
•FSA13
f
O16• •F 4
Inver
EQ^ • FS
8I1
� 8 O
Page 12 Aviation Noise
4
Q
FSO21
Heights
LA
•
•
Metropolitan Aumu Commission
Carrier Jet Arrival Related Noise Events
April 1995
• Count of Arrival Aircraft Noise Events for Each RMT
21Ks'�
a
_ 'g o3,b'^ 2'ALrteTwt �K(yaZ. i'.{
�7
�+n'
Mttmespous
? A2F Y f`y.� AL ted'.
y ><lnlete�,ncalloa�
A
Xerses Avenue & 41st Street
E>fitiSvtis
1210
_.F
ZIR
60
Ev�artts
l
2
:..
Events"
1
0
2
Minneapolis
Fremont Avenue & Ord Sonet
1170
87
4
0
3
Minneapolis
W Elmwood Street & Belmont Avenue
1930
237
11
0
4
Minneapolis
Oakland Avenue & 4% Street
1630
579
52
0
5
Minneapolis
12th Avenue & 58th Strut
2450
1190
583
3
6
Mmereapolis
25th Avenue & 57th Street
2600
1886
971
6 .
7
Rit h field
Wentworth Ave & 64th Street
580
56
6
0
8
Minneapolis
Longfellow Avenue & Ord Street
321
29
3
0
9
St. Paul
Saratoga Sbeet & Hartford Avenue
47
17
6
0
10
St. Paul
Itasca Avenue & Bowdom Stroet
59
23
7
0
11
St. Paul
Finn Sweet & Sehetfer Avenue
28
12
1
0
12
Sc Peal
Alton Street & Ro*wood Avenue
43
18
3
0
13
Mendota Heights
Southeast and of Mohican Corot
108
23
9
0
14
Eagan
First Sweet & McKee Street
2760
267
20
0
15
Mendota Heights
Gallen Sweet & L Angton Avenue
1481
143
7
0
16
Eagan
Avalon Avenue & Yilas Lace
2790
1708
63
1
17
Bloomington
84th Street & 4th Avenue
150
53
8
0
18
Richfield
75th Street& 17th Avenue
340
91
14
2
19
Bloomington
16th Avenue & 84th Street
170
7A0
18
0
20
RirLSeld
75th Sueet & 3rd Avenue
630
8
3
0
21
Inver Cave Heights
Barbara Avenue & 67th Smit
340
28
0
0
22
Inver Cave Heights
Anne Marie Trail
1297
26
1
0
23
Mendota Heights
Fad of Sendon Avenue
1674
87
24
5
Eagan
Chapel Lae & Wten Lane
1535
97
8
0
E
Aviation N ' Page 13
Meavpolitan Airports Commission
Carrier Jet Departure Related Noise Events
April 1"5
Count of Departure Aircraft Noise Events for Each RMT 0
•
M
Pap 14 Aviation Noise Programs
. ............ 1-11 o1.. ....
,
M.. W IN
mn.
aa
6
_J9 "I
EYentB
MO.
I
Minneapolis
Xerxes Avenue & 41st Sweet
399
77
1
0
2
Minneapolis
Fremont Avenue & 43rd Sum
260
98
9
0
3
V=Wapolis
W Elmwood Sum & Belmont Avenue
1020
358
1 25
1
4
Minneapolis
Oakland Avenue & 49th Stmt
1260
610
81
12
5
Minneapolis
12th Avenue & 58th Sum
2443
1380
711
151
6
Mionevolis
25th Avenue & 57th Sum
2897
1703
690
284
7
Richfield
Wentworth Ave & 64th Saw
1173
1 468
91
4
8
hfitmeaPolis
Imoellow Avenue & Ord Street
788
321
38
1
9
St. Paul
Sm=p Strut & Hartford Avenue
45
18
0
0
10
St. Pad
Itasca Avenue & Bowdoin Saw
38
19
0
0
11
St. Paul
Finn Saw & Scheffe Avenue
46
16
2
0
12
St. Paul
Alton Street & Rockwood Avenue
59
23
1
-
13
Mendota Heights
Southeast end of Mohican Court
842
218
14
0
14
Eagan
Fust Street & McKee Street
2610
320
76
0
15
Mendota Heights
Cullen Saw & Lexington Avenue
2056
833
75
2
16
Eagan
Avalon Avenue & Vilas Lame
2771
1766
276
11
17
Bloomington
84th Street & 4th Avenue
260
41
13
1
18
Richfield
75th Saw & 17th Avenue
603
167
88
14
19
Bloomington
16th Avenue & 84th Street
319
134
37 1
4
20
Richfield
75th Sam & 3rd Avenue
356
46
11
1
21
hvet Came Boom
Barbara Avenue & 67th Sava
796
99
5
0
22
hm Grove Heights
Anne Marie Trail
1179
148
3
0
23
Mendota Heights
End of Hendon Avenue
3309
1260
647
76
24
Eagan
QW1 Lane & Wren Lane
830
173 1
13 1
0
•
M
Pap 14 Aviation Noise Programs
Metropolitan Airports Cam=si(a
Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events Identified
RMT #13: Southeast Fred of Mohican Court RMT #14: 19 St. & McKee St.
Mendota Heights Eagan
•
6
B727
101.4
D
04MI9517:07:20
B727
94.8
D
04/1519514:48:17
B727
94.6
D
0410M 9:38:20
B727
94.3
D
04/08195 7:55:42
B737
94.3
D
04/121958:11:03
B727
93.0
D
0412819518:55:47
B727
92.7
D
04/1819512:0538
B727
925
D
04)07/9517:26:27
B727
92.0
D
04105/9514:40:33
B727
91.9
D
04)07/9514:41:05
B727
91.8
D
RMT #15: Cullon St. & Lexington Ave.
Mendota Heights
04/12/95 8:10:41
B727
101.4
D
OWNS 17:18:22
B727
100.8
D
0410819513:10:35
B727
995
D
044/5195 8:16:40
B727
97A
D
048019518:15:01
B727
96.6
D
04/18/05 7:39:55
B727
965
D
0410219514:46:00
B727
95.9
D
04/1519514:4739
B727
95.7
D
04/12195 6:09:31
B727
94.9
D
04102/95 5:52:30
B727
94.8
D
a FMW
13a6e'iStae �� �
'14OR
,wp`
04/18/95 18:03:04
B727
97.3
D
04/0719517:51:13
B727
97.1
D
04/15/95 15:18:22
B727
97.0
D
04/13195 18:10:07
B737
96.8
D
0411819517:06:01
B727
96.7
D
04/05195 7:25:14
B727
96.6
D
04/1819516:20:52
B727
96.2
D
04/18/9518:32:01
DC995.8
100.8 -
D
04107/9518:39:56
B727
95.7
AD
4/2
0819512:37:26
B737
95.5
RMT #16: Avalon Ave. & Viias Lane
ta
04/1819517:11:58
B727
102.7
D
04/08195 7:4934
B727
101.9
D
0410719515:38:53
B727
101.6
D
04/18195 7:45:09
B727
101A
D
04/18195 9:41:58
B727
101.1
D
04/08/9513:13:55
B727
100.9
D
04/1519516:37:34
B727
100.9
D
04/08/95 9.29:41
B727
100.8 -
D
04/12J95 8:01:24
B727
100.4
D
044/519517:02:06
B727
100.3
D
S/
Page 18 Aviation Naise Progems
W=pob= Aupons Commission
Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events Identified
0
RMT 421: Barbara Ave. & 67th St"
laver Grove Heights
RMT #22: Anne Marie Trail
Inver Grove Heights
t F
s �A%Lr
�'t8x
rr
04/!0/95 2151:20
B727
91.7
D
04/10/95 9:21:53
B727
915
D
04MM 14:41:14
B727
91.1
D
0001% M-53:26
B727
90.8
D
04/08/951322:27
B727
90.6
D
04106/951956:48
B727
90.0
D
04/1419518:48:04
B727
89.9
D
040195 7:56:27
B727
89.8
D
040M M27:25
B727
89.7
D
0410219510:05:19
DC9
875
D
RMT #22: Anne Marie Trail
Inver Grove Heights
t F
s �A%Lr
�'t8x
rr
i/� •iYi �n
'�
"7ylre
Level ,
A)D
04/1/0/9518:14:51
B727
104.3
D
04/18/9519:45:11
DC9
91.9
A
04/15/9515:39:39
B727
90.6
D
04/07/9511:31:15
B727
90.4
D
04/08/9514:56:00
B727
90.2
D
04/3019514:55:35
B727
89.9
D
04/02195 9:39:19
B727
89.7
D
04/1419514:53:02
B727
89.6
D
04/20/9514:43:41
B727
89.6
D
0410619519:54:31
B727
89.5
D
04/1019518:21:58
B727
89.3
D
•
RMT #23: End of Kenndon Ave.
Mendota Heights
RMT #24: Chapel Ln. & Wren Ln.
Eagan
�
Level
rr
04108/9513:10.26
B727
104.5
D
04/1/0/9518:14:51
B727
104.3
D
04109/9511:27:30
B727
104.1
D
04/12195 7:47:22
B727
103.9
D
04/10/9517:02:48
B727
103.7
D
04/1819517:2105
DC9
103.6
D
04/08/9511:41:17
B727
1035
D
04/10/951214:00
B727
103.5
D
04/12195 735:28
B727
103.2
D
04107)95 9-37:51
B727
103.1
D
RMT #24: Chapel Ln. & Wren Ln.
Eagan
�
Level
04/0519513:48:32
B727
99.5
D
04/27/9514:44:56
B727
98.9
A
04/3019510:13:59
DC9
98.8
D
04/27/9519:00:46
B737
98.2
A
04/3019510:49:16
DC9
97.7
A
04/05/9513:43:24
B727
97.2
D
04/05/9513:51:50
FK10
96.9
D
04/A% 11:23:43
DC9
96.7
D
04/2819514:34:31
DC9
%.6
D
04/!019510:41:24
B727
96.5
D
Pep 20 AvWm Noise Progems
C�raii
'��1UPu
S � -
All
.n
�i� -.�_
_'�►��.
�\
Com_
1 w"
1
pg
Af
UFA
�li
� n
UPI
_ via-. •p. :F�lop.
A�
11
W"pohmn Aupam Cmmmsica
Analysis of Aircraft Noise Events - Aircraft Ldn dB(A)
April 01 to April 30,1995
Noise Monitor Locations
AOR
1
59.7
61.0
68.4
685
76.8
80.9
69.4
62A
47.6
57.8
53.1
1 59.1
2
60.4
62A
.64.1
66.7
0.3
72.1
67.9
593
50.1
593
46.3
53.7
3
59.3
61.1
612
64.3
73.0
79.3
67.1
62A
492
602
46.8
55.8
4
58.6
58.3
61.8
65.2
71.1
773
64.8
623
552
53.1
50.1
54.5
5
61.2
61.0
68.1
66.2
73.1
77.0
59A
61.6
51.4
58.1
60A
58.8
6
583
•
65.8
66.1
•
78.0
66.8
63.0
45.0
533
41.4
56.6
7
60.5
•
68A
663
71A
72.3
579
64.1
483
612
575
54.5
8
58.7
•
65.2
62A
64.2
MA
593
44.0
45.5
43.0
453
40.8
9
54.1
•
61.8
60.1
702
67.9
55.4
1 43.8
40.7
47.8
44.5
47.6
10
61.0
63.3
65.9
65.5
74.6
71.8
60.7
1 56.1
51.6
51.1
44.0
59.3
11
64.7
•
71.0
65.9
773
715
63.5
58A
519
61.6
56.1
55.8
12
62.0
•
67.1
679
76.0
80.1
67.6
62.6
52.1
1 60.3
545
57.0
13
59.0
1 56.0
63.0
651
782
792
1 67.1
63.9
47.9
58.2
47.9
61.0
14
59.9
625
673
65A
72.7
72.1
60.6
56.5
44.8
583
54.7
46.1
15
60.1
63.0
68.6
649
66.7
71A
59.3
62.0
441
55.7
47-5
50.9
16
57.1
58.7
63A
65.5
•
75.7
63.5
573
42.6
54A
45.7
48.3
17
58.5
59.3
659
65.9
•
79.1
67.0
603
48.8
48.1
47.2
53.6
18
63.5
65A
69.9
67.5
75.7
782
70.0
62.7
54.9
56.0
59.0
55.3
19
60.8
613
652
68.3
76.5
79.8
67.5
632
48.5
47.7
42.4
74.7
20
63.7
65.0
68.0
66.3
•
73.3
59.9
59.5
50.7
57.0
56.0
69.6
21
59.2
61.9
68.2
70.7
78.9
81.5
68.2
643
48.1
53.6
463
54.3
22
37.5
57.8
639
64.6
75.7
78.0
68.1
61A
48.1
493
499
47.8
23
57.1
59.8
62.8 j
66.5 j
74.8
78.1
64.5
60.7
48.8
51.2
43.6
45.1
24
58.3
59.0
62.0
68.4
763
79.5
71.5
63.6
513
62.0
52.1
56.3
25 1
61.2 1
58.7
63.2
653
74.1
693
70.2
59A
493
54.7
51A
61.1
26
593
60.1
623
67.9
71.8
70.1
62A
61.0
45.8
60.0
44.7 1
59.3
27
583
59.7
62.8
66.1
75.8
79.2
67.6
64A
46.6
47.9
56.7
51.8
28
56.8
59.1
63.1
65.8
733
74.2
68.1
57.0
49.9
54A
49.6
56A
29
M.5
59.7
62.7
61.1
68-8
68-9
54.8
55.3
55.6
58.6
46.5
42.7
1 30 1
55.5
57.4
62.5
60.6
68A
67.7
51.6
T
51.1
48.6
47.1
432
44.3
Mo. Ldn 1
60.1
�60.4
66.1
66.3
73A
77A
66A
61.6
542
579
53A
62A
0 Lou #Wn twe"-fmr hm of data a AW,
Pap 24 Aviatim Noise Progmm 5�
ldetropofi= Airports Commlszi(m
Analysis of Aircraft Noise Events - Aircraft Ldn dB(A)
April 01 to April 30,1995
Noise Monitor Locations ff
• Less MOR twenry-fmr have ofdm a IaNe
Avistim Noise Pr wmns Page 25
1
57.4
72.9
59.7
68.6
672
755
71A
60.0
34A
603
62.7
63.8
2
501
62.7
643
673
63.1
68.1
57.6
573
53.1
62.1
69.3
65.4
3
542
64.4
57.6
69.1
69.2
74.6
72.1
57.6
44.9
569
632
63.1
4
44.5
673
52.6
68.8
57.1
719
65.5
63.2
48.7
1 56.7
56.6
62.0
5
63.3
64.6
66.5
71.4
1 63.4
719
703
55.0
60.7
64.8
72.2
73.7
6
58.4
66.7
61.2
71.6
64.1
69.3
69.1
60.1
59.6
62.0
71.8
66.8
7
66.1
68.6
68.3
74.8
61.8
62.6
0
51.3
62.7
65.7
75.0
69.5
8
63.9
72.7
66.1
752
64.6
63.8
0
1 55.0
633
65.9
75.3
69.9
9
623
60.8
65.8
71.0
68.1
67.1
49.3
51.9
60.4
625
73.5
66.0
10
653
661
67.5
73.9
1 68.1
66.9
55.2
55.8
63.8
62.8
75.1
68.5
11
62.5
67.7
66.4
72.5
63.2
65.2
48.8
62.2
59.6
61.6
74.7
66.5
12
65.7
•
W
71.6
613
71.0
68.0
645
60.4
63.7
75.5
67.6
13
44.6
63.1
56.5
70.0
63.1
73.3
725
59.2
46.1
59.6
62.3
63.7
14
65.2
1 63.3
66.6
70.5
64.7
65.0
45.8
58.6
62.8
64.4
72.5
1 66.7
15
65.8
61.7
67.4
71.3
60.6
62.1
42.6
50.9
•
62.4
72.7
66.4
16
595
64.5
62.7
69.8
61A
67.3
53.4
562
55.0
WIT
71.8
64.2
17
602
65.0
62.0
71.6
61.8
69.5
73.0
54.9
61.3
62.9
70.6
65.8
18
62.6
65.2
66.1
73.6
593
65.2
55.0
F
60.4
59.3
64A
73.6
67.2
19
59.1
62.7
613
69.0
63.1
693
70.5
57.6
55.9
63A
69.3
64.7
20
65.2
67.1
67.9
73.5
663
64.9
52.0
56.1
62.3
64A
74.8
0.9
21
44.8 1
605
533
68.1
593
673
66.9
57.0
49.6
58A
59.9
63.6
22
46.0
61.8
53.3
70.0
62.5
71.6
72.8
563
53.9 1
59.6
58.2
64.0
23
55.0
56.7
57.8
65.8
59.9
70.4
653
56.7
54.8
57.0
65.7
61.8
24
57.0
62.1
59.9
69.2
623
613
50.6
54.5
56.7
61.8
695
64.7
25
•
63.3
55.8
66.8
673
63.7 1
63.1
53.1
593
62.2
64.1
63.1
26
•
62.8
58.7
703
59.8
70.0
543
613
61A
63A
70.8
66.9
27
58.6
62.0
59A
67.6
63.6
67.7
58.7
56.8
549
60.0
67.6
65.7
28
62.8
65.4
64.8
72A
63.2
69.0
60.6
59.5
615
64A
73.2
68A
29
635
65.0
64.3
72.0
55.2
55.8
53.0
49.6
63.1
64A
73.7
68A
30
64.1
63.7
65.4
712
66.5
64.5
645
49.4
494
9
62.3
635
75.0
67.3
Mo. Ldn
625
65.7
170
711
=8
70
=3
=1
62.9
723
=8
• Less MOR twenry-fmr have ofdm a IaNe
Avistim Noise Pr wmns Page 25
1poep opl-�
,Sol
xN;!
Merropditaa Airports C®mission 1.
Proposed North Boundary Corridor Gate Penetration Analysis
Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport
April 1995
0.3% (16) Carrier Jet Departures North of Proposed 0950 (M)
Corridor Policy Boundary
5—f
Page 2 Aviation Noise Programs
lu
W]
0
0
Metropolitan Aupotts Commissim
Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport
April 1995
552 ... Total 11L and 11R Carrier Jet Departures
Ld ... Carrier Jet Departures (0.3 qo )
North of Proposed 0951, (M) Corridor Policy Boundary
0
0
0
M
-6
16 TRACKS CROSSED P -GATE
LEFT COUNT=1 (6.2%) RIGHT COUNT=15 (93.8%)
W"1jLvP�
w
DEVIATION FROM CENTER OF GATE ((t)
sy
Aviafim Noise Pmgrems Page 3
�/ /���;/:%lL
� %�/�♦
�__ �.
ice; ,_:� ;�'.�j.."r
�-
i% ,i i_�i
�;::
\
1 �� v
� � �
�`
�����,
�4• _
�1�
11
•
0
W ropolitm Aupom Commissim
Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport
April 1995
5, 22... Total 11L and 11•R Carrier Jet Departures
&U ... Carrier Jet Departures (10.6%
South of Corridor (South of 29L Localizer)
584 TRACKS CROSSED P -GATE
o LEFT COUNT=11 (1.97) RIGHT COUNT=513 (98.17.)
0
0
�n
0
o
.
o
O
�•: J
-------------
:4 .
Q
i
di 36•
• .• ••
to• •
O
i
••
O
;
-----------------------------------
N
O
C
O
-6000 -4000 -2000 0 2000 4000 6000
DEVIATION F R 0 M CENTER OF GATE (ft)
Aviation Noise Progms
Page 5
Mecopoli= Akpmu Commission
Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport
April 1995
552 ... Total 11L and 11R Carrier Jet Departures
z... Carrier Jet Departures - Early Tmrnout (0.1 %
(South Side Before Three Miles)
7 TRACKS CROSSED P -GATE
LEFT COUNT=6 (85.7%) RJGHT COUNT=1 (14.3%)
0
0
0
0 -•------•------•----------- ----------------------------------------•----------
0
------------------
0
:-----••----------•--------=-------------------------- ------------•-------------
0
o
-------------------------
W
D �
_ O
O........................... ----------------------- .__ ...........................
0
------------------
0
0
0
N
0
O
O
-10000 -5000 O 5000 10000
DEVIATION F R 0 M CENTER OF GATE (ft)
Pap 6 Aviedm Noise Aog®s
3,000
2,500
2,000
Vv
1,500
1,000
onthly-Complaint Summary
100
80
60
40
P Arrivals -All Operations
111
Over
31 Over Fagan/Mendota Heights
Ove
r Minneapolis
Over Bloomington
r St. Paul
100 r I
80
60
40
Departures -All Operations
I§0Over Fagan/Mendota Heights
Over Minneapolis
Over Bloomington
Over St. Paul
ICarrierSP Jet Arrivals
100
80
60
40
194 Sep 94,,.,NDY-94.: �: Jan. IWO
Over Eagan/Mendota Heights
Minneapolis
>�v Bloomington
Over St. Paul
SP Carri
Jet Departures
Over
r Eagan/Mendota
encota Heights
VOver Minneapolis
Over Bloomington
Over St. Paul
100
so
60
40
MOP:, MSP Nighttime Arrivals -:
KS �kd
= ,s �k Ex¢€ Alivoperations
- --- - ------
loo
80
40
MSP Nighttime Departures
perations
Over
Eagan/Mendota Heights
Over Minneapolis
Over Bloomington
Over St. Paul ...
wai-95
Apr 9S
. .. .. .....
. .. .. .......
........ ..
IMM
.........
..... ..... .
0 0 0
InONo
O
Nighttimey CarrierJet Arrivals
100
80
60
40
Over Eagan/Mendota Heights
Over Minneapolis
Over Bloomington
St. Paul
ighttime
100
80
60
40
rrier Jet Departures
7ap-9S
rOver
Over Eagan/Mendota Heights
r Minneapolis
omington
vert.au
MINUTES
• MASAC OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
MAY 12, 1995
•
0
The meeting was held at the Metropolitan Airports Commission General Office Boardroom, and
called to order by Chairman Mark Salmen at 9:10 a.m.
The following members were in attendance:
Mark Salmen, NWA - Chairman
Craig Wruck, St. Paul
John Nelson, Bloomington
Dick Keinz, MAC
Tom Lawell, Mendota Heights
Mayor Tom Egan, Eagan
Advaso :
John Foggia, Technical Advisor
Cindy Green, FAA
AGENDA
NIGHTTIME NOISE ISSUES
Chairman Salmen called attention to the order in which to deal with the nighttime noise issues as
stated by John Nelson, Bloomington, in the minutes of the last meeting. It was agreed to continue
in the following order:
1.
Nighttime SID
2.
4/22 Nighttime Use
3.
RUS Practices
4.
Shoulder Hours
In regard to the New Noise Management Methodology (NNMM), John Nelson referenced (from the
committee's study package) a statement taken from the Voluntary Nighttime Agreement
'background" text: "MAC desires significantly better compliance levels than those indicated in the
above table (Stage 2 Nighttime Voluntary Agreement - Operations 4th Quarter 1994 Report). One
way to achieve greater compliance is to extend the Voluntary Nighttime Agreement to all carriers
operating at MSP at night" John Nelson. moved. and Dick Keinz. seconded. that when the
verbiage be included. A vote was taken and the motion carried. This would be an extension of
the existing voluntary agreements that we have with all of the cargo carriers plus Sun Country
Airlines, to all the carriers at MSP .... it is a part of the NNMM, so there is no point in further debate
over the issue. The MASAC full body will be informed that it was moved, seconded, and approved
that officially Stage 2 nighttime restrictions that are similar to the voluntary nighttime restrictions
already in place are incorporated into the NNMM to be discussed at the June PBE. John Foggia •
will emphasize these items to Jeff. Hernial, Nigel Finney and Tom Anderson.
Nighttime restrictions will be removed from Operations Committee discussion of issues since it will
be incorporated into the NNMM.
RUNWAY 22 NIGHTTIME STANDARD INSTRUMENT PROCEDURE (SID)
Chairman Salmon opened discussion. Based on the EIS and FAA analysis, what will be
accomplished by implementing a nighttime SID. He requested that members focus on.what
improvements will be made with this procedure in place.
John Foggia reviewed the history and background of a Runway 22 SID. The proposed procedure
would shift departing Runway 22 aircraft over the Minnesota River corridor to avoid high-density
residential areas in both south Bloomington and Burnsville. The proposed 22 SID procedure is:
As soon as practical after departure, tum left to a 180'(M) heading.
At 3 DME from the MSP VORTAC, turn right to a 245' (M) heading,
thence vectors on course.
A lengthy discussion followed Mr. Foggia's briefing as follows: (in order communicated)
• During high traffic volume periods, the SID procedure can cause delay of aircraft on
queuing taxiways. The FAA is trying to ensure safe separation of aircraft, expedite
operations, and minimize delay. Because traffic is light at night, consideration of a
nighttime SID may be worthwhile. •
There are DNR concerns.
The City of Savage would raise concerns if the 245' heading on a straight line continues
over that community.
Noise will not be eliminated, but a SID will help relieve noise over certain high-density
residential areas (Richfield, Bloomington, Burnsville)
The Runway 4/22 extension does not interfere with the SID - all SID departures leave from
the same point. A similar SID was addressed in the EIS of the 4/22 extension.
The operational capacity, safety capacity, fuel economics, bird strikes, and airspace
structure will all be analyzed and.taken into consideration
The SID helps balance air traffic and improves noise equity between communities.
The intent of a nighttime SID is to be used when conditions allow.
Chairman Salmon quoted the following: "Included in the SID environmental evaluations will be
noise analysis of the proposed 180' (M) tum followed by the right tum to 245' (M), and a base case
assuming current, non -SID departure operations from Runway 22. Analysis of impact on the bird
sanctuary, and potential for bird strike are also to be addressed. This proposal was determined by
the FAA to require an EIS and thus, has now been incorporated into the Draft EIS preparation for
2
the Runway 4/22 extension." He then requested that a record search be done, and to obtain a
copy of the FAA Form (26 items) used as an environmental check list prior to implementation of
a new procedure. Further needs include completion of environmental studies and how to
implement the tower order.
Cindy Green, FAA, added the following steps needed for approval of a SID: (1) MAC proposal to
FAA for implementation, (2) Draft tower order, (3) Region and Union comments, (4) Controller
breifs, (5) Implementation. Ms. Green also questioned the expected improvement or outcome of
Implementing a nighttime SID. In her opinion as controller who has worked the nighttime shift, the
only operations over South Minneapolis are at the tail end or beginning of the 11 p.m. - 6 a.m.
"switch" in operations to or from the Eagan -Mendota Heights Corridor. Those are the only
operations which may be assigned over South Minneapolis and those few would not be prevented
by the proposed nighttime SID. John Foggia explained that those were not the operations the SID
addresses; it is really aimed at the single events that depart Runway 29LIR well into the nighttime
hours. He will produce a listing of operations over South Minneapolis during the 12: a.m. - 5 a.m.
period for 1994 by time and aircraft type for the committee.
The committee determined the following steps to move forward on the proposed Nighttime Runway
22 SID.
1. Establish environmental issues already completed
2. Get a copy of the FAA 26 -item checklist
3. Contact HNTB on environmental issues
10 4. Determine departure end point verbiage with tower staff
0
5. Examine ALPA's concerns and investigate. Report back to this
group. (Bird strikes, 3000' ceilings)
6. MAC staff will evaluate and report wind and operations data from
12:00 p.m. midnight to 5:00 a.m. This will answer ATC's questions
on how often the SID will be used and the intent.
MAC staff will create a well-defined SID proposal - format to include
FAA requirements to be presented at the next meeting.
Chairman Salmon relayed that this group will concentrate on the SID, put out a quality product, and
then move on to the remaining 1995 MASAC goals and objectives using the scheduled due dates
as an outline only.
The next Operations Committee meeting was scheduled for June 7, 1995, 1:30 p.m.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:05 a.m.
Respectfully submitted:
Jean Deighton
Committee Secretary
Stage II Nighttime Agreement ... 01 Quarter 1994 Report
Overnight
Carrier
NightIII
Ops
Stage
Ops
Stage
II
Ops
Night Ops
Percent
Stage II
Percent Stage II
Of Total
Night Ops
Airborne Expressf
49
44
5
10%
1.0%
Emery Worldwide
0
11
11
0%
0.0%
Federal Express§
247
2311
17
7%
2.0%
Ryan hriernalionalt
294
257
37
13%
4.0%
Sun Country*
187
94
93
50%
111.11%
United Parcel Service #
66
65
1
2%
0.0%
Total
843
6911
153
N/A
17%n
1�1,3 Exception Notes:
Airborne Express f Stage 11 UC-9s/UC-8s were utilized only on occasions when Stage III UC-9s/UC-8s were unavailable
and system capacity required that the second Airborne nightly flight to MSP utilize these aircraft.
Federal Express § Unexplained Stage 11-17.
Ryan International t 309 302 7 2%: 1.U%
As reported by Ryan International. Unexplained Stage If - 37.
Sun Country *1 187. 121 66 35% 7%n
Sun Country's performance if empty "ferry" flights are considered to meet Stage 111 noise criteria.
Of the remaining Stage 11 Night Ops, reasons for Stage l l use: Weather Delay -4, Payload Restrictions 14:
Maintenance Delay - 4, Aircraft wap, Stage III not available/long route -31,
Stage 111 used for Military - 3, IWplained Stage II - 10. i
S # Unexplained Stage 11- 1.
R4 II Nighttime Agreemeit... 2nd Quarter 1993 Rep%rt
I Exception Notes:
\SII Airborne Express
V
Federal Express
Ryan International
Sun Country
t Stage II DC -9s were utilized only on occasions when Stage III DC -9s were unavailable
and system capacity required that the second Airborne nightly flight to MSP utilize these aircraft.
ttEffective July (1993), Airborne Ops has scheduled a single Stage III DC -8 to replace the
two DC -9 flights which served MSP.
§ Unexplained Stage 11- 9.
$ See attached letter.
' :242 199: 43 18%
Sun Country's performance it empty "rerry" flights are considered to meet Stage III noise criteria.
Or the remaining Stage II Night Ops, reasons for Stage II use: Weather Delay - 8,
Maintenance Delay - 2, Aircraft Swap - 4, Stage 111 not available - 18, Unexplained Stage 11- 11.
* SMAAC NEWSLETTER
SOUTH Mrmo AntpoRT AcrION COUNCIL 8228118 May,1995
Minneapolis Airport Actions
A Minneapolis task force has been formed
to look at airport options and how they
affect the city of Minneapolis. Mayor
Sharon Sayles -Belton worked hard to
ensure that the task force contained
representation from south Minneapolis.
Among members of the task force from
south Minneapolis is SMAAC board
member Bowdee Wittenbwg. Other
members include Hugh Schilling, former
chair of the Metropolitan Airports
Commission Schilling was fired from the
MAC by Goaenwr Arne Carlson for his
support for a new airport.
In our last newsletter, we alluded to a list
of actions the city of Minneapolis could
take on behalf of their residential
neighborhoods. We have received a
number of inquiries about our "secret plan",
so here it is:
1. Hire Tom Goodman as legal counsel to
explore further actions the city might take
to reduce the burdens of airport noise on
city residents.
2 Prepare data on noise effects on
property values that could be used in a
court of law. Make that data available to
residents, along with counseling on how to
file an inverse condemnation suit The city
should aide homeowners in their battle.
3. Put pressure on the MAC to begin
insulation of all homes in the 65 Ldn noise
contours.
4. Establish a noise commission, and work
in conjunction with Eagan, Mendota
Heights, and Inver Grove Heights to
pressure the MAC to shift traffic to the 4-22
Organize a withdrawal from MASAC
MASAC works to the detriment of these
communities.
5. The mayor and Hennepin County
Commissioner should hold a joint news
conference to protest the effects of noise
pollution on city neighborhoods.
r�
u
L
z
6. The city should oppose expansion of the
current airport and support plans to
relocate the airport in an area that will
accommodate all the future traffic growth
that is necessary to sustain economic
development The city should actively
explore the so-called third track option,
which involves putting the runways at the
Rosemount site, linked to the present
facility by high speed rail.
Dual Track Process
Decision time is one year away, but the
overwhelming sentiment in the state seems
to be opposed to building a new airport
Northwest Airlines is adamantly opposed
not only to relocating the airport, but even
• to expanding the present one. Northwest
even opposes the Metropolitan Airports
Commissions plans to build a new terminal
building, for example.
Many people in the state worry that
Northwest might leave. Indeed, there is
nothing to prevent the airline from picking
up stakes. But the fact is that MSP is
Northwest's most profitable hub, and there
is little inducement for them to move.
There is tremendous opposition to a
new airport in Minnesota. The start-up
problems with the Denver International
Airport are being cited as reasons not to
expand or move the present airport Traffic
continues to grow, and the Metropolitan
Airports Commission continues to promote
growth of operations at the airport But any
attempt to move it, or even to expand it,
• will be met with strong opposition
SMAAC NEWSLETTER •
Letters
.tom
our
Members
One of our members wrote in with some
good questions that are on everybody's
mind. Here they are, and our answers:
1. Do calls to the noise complaint line make any
difference?
Probably not The MAC records the
calls, and keeps records, but does not
modify airport operations in any way. But
when complaints drop, the MAC uses that
as "evidence" that it is solving the noise
problem.. Most of the MACs "noise
mitigation" is. just that: noise.
2. It appears that the pties of Richfield and
Bloomington have a greater say in hmv the noise
is distributed, even though the number of .
households affected is signif cantly higher in
south Minneapolis. Is this a valid observation,
and if so, why?
The cities of Richfield and
Bloomington have been far more active
politically on the noise issue than
Minneapolis. Richfield, for example, is
filing a suit against the MAC to prevent
them from using an extended 422 to
redistribute noise. Also, the City of
Richfield has been pushing for years to
promote a third parallel runway over
Minneapolis, rather than the preferred
MAC alternative of a North-South runway.
• SMAAC NEWSLETTER
The Metropolitan Aircraft Sound
Abatement Council (MASAC) is controlled
by the airline industry and by com-
munities least affected by noise. That
includes Richfield and Bloomington.
MASAC now works mainly to preserve the
status quo and generally opposes any
measures that would bring relief to south
Minneapolis.
3. Should I give up and seR my home before it
gets worse?
Everyone has to make his own
decision on this matter. Many people have
left the area because of the noise (including
all past and present SMAAC presidents
except Frank Ario). On the other hand,
everyone is affected differently, and many
are willing to live with the noise because
they like the neighborhoods. No one buys a
house in the area not knowing about the
airport, yet houses keep selling. One thing
that preserves the community in the face of
airport noise is the extensive park system:
Minnehaha creek, Nokomis, Harriet,
Diamond Lake, Hiawatha, etc. In addition,
the homes in the area are some of the finest
in the metropolitan area.
Any real estate agent can tell you
that many people refuse to consider the
area because of the noise, and that in turn
holds down property values. Though
SMAAC has so far failed to win its cases in
court, the fad remains that the MAC is
guilty of illegal taking of property, in
violation of the 5th amendment of the U.S.
Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court is
beginning to look more favorably on
property rights cases, especially in view of
Federal regulations regarding wetlands.
3• 10
Someday perhaps a successful suit
will be launched, and area residents will
receive some compensation for their losses;
although it will require a transformation of
our court system to one that upholds
environmental law, as well as property
rights.
The choice is yours; but an objective
assessment of the situation says that relief
from noise will be a constant battle, and a
new airport faces strong political oppo-
sition from many sources in the state.
Annual Spring Meeting
Diamond Lake Lutheran Church
5760 Portiand Ave.
Wednesday, June 71h, 1995
7.30 p.m.
Steve Cramer,
former 11 th Ward Camd7 Member
Minneapolis representative on the
Metropolitan Airports Commission.
Election of New Board Members
Nominees
Frank Ario Neil Clark
Dave Fischer Edmond Gram
Dean Lindberg C.G. Mamer
Eileen Scully Loren Simer
•
•
0
0
ZZISS NW 'ue6e3
peoy gouty 40M 0686
ue6e3 to A4!C)
96 UIGISU8140H uor
ELLV'I X1 M9
mN�H^HF'S.�
8118-ZZS ZI9
Ling -NW SI'IOdv3NMw
'OS Sl18Wf170J 9115
OWWS
SMAAC ENROLLMENT -RENEWAL FORM
sad tx SMAAC
5116 COLUMBUS SO.
MDWEAPOLiS, MN. 55417
— General (SIS) — Supporftg (125) — Ceahibatiog (S50)
MY ZIP
Please check if ym are wHo" to rape an a SMAAC eommutee
• The number on the mailing label of your newskaer indicates the laaY year of paid up membership.
Please renew your membership today ifyou are not
SMAAC is a citizen's group and your participation is vi IJ es provide the funds to inform
elected leaders in the government, the SMAAC membership, and, the general public on airport matters.
Residents
a•f
giving up :N
battle with
u.
jet noise°
Solution's price �3
'is too great' u
Fhat If two art*In looking at she •ry
rte M eeg6ksehand CUOU to lith .
o4pn1 rose. � m
By Laos* Bake - '„•
sertwrim
p.
In the summer of 1989, when Gluy`r
Arithmetic moved into his hour uflf i'
D`
a Bight path in Muth Minne tab"'
RL the neighbodmd w'la up In Rud'"•
a6ouljetnobe. "`n
"!hese were people coming to your,
door talkingabout it," he Midi -:t
'There were signs up an all the MkP't
pass (lien wart sent throughout they!
Zen;yhFit
orhaad nelli.g you to ell rad '
oompain abothen t e and give{'•l
the numof the air traRe 't•
affim AdvyOncghe ryes ulso a awpomipP
e� on lid to
adtthe the
Bat the Heiden late the sail Fllglrt
numbers men. And Anderson's dmr11
bell isn't rinpng anymom. "1 haven't n
heard anythtn&- he set& "The only ' F
wry I ram about it pow is by min it g'
the papar"
The cilium battle against noise them'r
Minneapolis -St. Paul International'
Airport. ons one of the stmpat
ywnmu
initiatives In the ane, ik',
"1 think people art very disromeped'';I
They've ban righting i1 a long time," •'
aid David Smunger, president of the'•.
South Metro Airport Acorn Council It
rt
(SMAAC).
SMAAC was formed in 1984 after if
brume clear that airline dereguatlaqry��
would erne mom jet mise than any
one lid ionepnet, thundersn8 ovveef(l"
The takes, parks and bones rd ooulti,"
Minneapolis ..
Noise cautioned an pay JB
Noise/ Residents testified before
,any public body that would listen
With ehoW 1,070 dun -paying mem-
ber in w nlostactive yeR, the•poup
'took on the Metropolitan Alrpona
Commission (MAGI, the Federal
'Aviation Administration and NoM
Imed Airline
Residents placed thousands
ectithe oefyphone
,ales ltwop'o'h lyMellecoove O'ty Coomrl
members. Welter Rockens,rin and
Serve Cramer, to take
Mhtenpolis City Ha .their ease to
'There's been a lot of
activity and a lot of
good programs, but
when you stand back
and say, 'What's the
noise environment
like?' I think it's
worse."
That lack of eympelhy won appunnt
in the two Iqy anbacb that serious•
It, deflated the entincise action.
Fan. SMACC was deleted in coin
17M
when it tried to prove dam•
ge from
rathe now in the form of
reduced property velar
In 1989 a Hennepin County District
Conn nary, whtdn was, not allowed to
her roar. spent Ins than three
hour in deliberation before conclud-
ing that home values were poi dimio-
Wad by the noise.
low 10 yin ago, it's now pain to
shany of the people who fought the
Modest that mix is an Ito -
'Yu can't mix an Mn Oat's
agoing
o solve 'he problem beux it
vmM ream shouting down the ale-
wed or cutting flights In half." Crer
nay laid. "The solution to the mix
woblem is essentially not achievable
uuaax the price of the solution in
he eyes of the van majority of poo-
* is ton gr®L"
�bmfi* Icmndy, managal M noise
Onme t for Mlnneson Polio-
Ion Control Agency, Was,
Slmlpathy fR residents under the
Right paths always has weverd
among people who don't It" In the
affected =borhoda. Although
they res themselves n people with
concerns about their homes an
neighborhoods, residents often, heves
been labeled to whiners who should
move ur complainers who should
have expected noise when they
ration. After that, many purple threw
in the towel.
"A lot of people viewed that in the
tate rifon," lawn said. "They mo•
ogn®d that the political apparatus
doesn't have the will to do anything
about it. sending hour the governor
on down."
Tlo Twin fialea elryM la Wye,
Nen neer. loon mlae eanpWme ms
dorm. Some grasp* tater dra NpM
sey d tan bewua dro
nosvee. but because 'vee
B*enhope Oral dry.
sdp lead ro any change.
919xW9s
noise complalnla In 0
28
WATT
5.961
fenny SMAAC members
to study, due next yen
un the airport shouts
believe
r• will e
be moved
But Northwest Airlines oppaws
building a new airport. an0 Gov.
Arae Carlson has hinted that he cod.
siden it ton costly.
Thinking about the pm 10 n df
activism. Ario concluded: ee
it our best shot, but it t circ
people who ams the daiet sin.
Whoever they are and whenever tht7
bought a house under a flight path.
Council Member Steve
live, at this point an prevailing."
they testifed before ,nY pablie body
nt would linea bow the
Cromer
Then in 1994 oma the court Doting
about mise
I
In" oil Ihelr �Kp, their phone
deou of south Minneapolis six yen
that fully sant the hope of the
mtinaix spices
pbnverlatanM and Ilse cydoyment of
"Short of moving the airport or dor
m
belped make may neighborhoods
their back yards
hg it,11 oma down ta what are youo
SMAAC had Demand up with Mime,
r
with the coiner 'L
to dyou
"II
sets
athe eytWkly
But 10 yeas less, despite programs
tthink are ruching the point
to ppne e w of
to spread the noise around, limit
where you've got this noise and
life to Minnupolia Using noise
eight Ome phts, sou prour hoand
you've gm m pat it somewhem"
Findings, their lawyer deram ted
murk inn. thousands of residents
that noise from airport uaffnc me.
Ui0 me living with disruptive eoix,
Seeing this writing on the ell, an but
timely exceeds note mise pollution
and flight numbers am up by about
one M the pan presidents of SMAAC
limits The activists Nought they
250 day.
have moved out of south Minneapo-
were finally going to nail MAC
no to gin away from the not=
wrhert's been a int of activity and a
But the Minnesota Supreme Court
W of good programs, but who you
"I always called it the dirty little
mind that state limits ane preempted
t fund back and say. What's the mise
caret about why people =0 -
by federal regulation of air
environment li eT 1 think it's.
said Mike Larson. a past S=C
commerm
bore," aid Gama, now the city's
president and board member who
Madre on the airports com•
moved to Mionnmka two ynnepo.
Had they won, antincise groups 1
pt ales.
If these win hope, people wantd
might have round some leverage to I
stay.-
central the growth of traffic at the I
Hard in it might hove been to swn-
airport and perhaps to forte in talo -
low 10 yin ago, it's now pain to
shany of the people who fought the
Modest that mix is an Ito -
'Yu can't mix an Mn Oat's
agoing
o solve 'he problem beux it
vmM ream shouting down the ale-
wed or cutting flights In half." Crer
nay laid. "The solution to the mix
woblem is essentially not achievable
uuaax the price of the solution in
he eyes of the van majority of poo-
* is ton gr®L"
�bmfi* Icmndy, managal M noise
Onme t for Mlnneson Polio-
Ion Control Agency, Was,
Slmlpathy fR residents under the
Right paths always has weverd
among people who don't It" In the
affected =borhoda. Although
they res themselves n people with
concerns about their homes an
neighborhoods, residents often, heves
been labeled to whiners who should
move ur complainers who should
have expected noise when they
ration. After that, many purple threw
in the towel.
"A lot of people viewed that in the
tate rifon," lawn said. "They mo•
ogn®d that the political apparatus
doesn't have the will to do anything
about it. sending hour the governor
on down."
Tlo Twin fialea elryM la Wye,
Nen neer. loon mlae eanpWme ms
dorm. Some grasp* tater dra NpM
sey d tan bewua dro
nosvee. but because 'vee
B*enhope Oral dry.
sdp lead ro any change.
919xW9s
noise complalnla In 0
28
WATT
5.961
fenny SMAAC members
to study, due next yen
un the airport shouts
believe
r• will e
be moved
But Northwest Airlines oppaws
building a new airport. an0 Gov.
Arae Carlson has hinted that he cod.
siden it ton costly.
Thinking about the pm 10 n df
activism. Ario concluded: ee
it our best shot, but it t circ
people who ams the daiet sin.
Whoever they are and whenever tht7
bought a house under a flight path.
The govemm's opinion an the nota
live, at this point an prevailing."
hue became important in the resi.
"I have Ione had the falink now for
N
deou of south Minneapolis six yen
Taesdey: How amdirm,noy has
a number of yeas at the red
et M
Mede
ago when the MAC and Metropolitan
m
belped make may neighborhoods
sure ... just doesn't appreciate what
Council began a study of Mhetha the
orae Drabs.
an intrusion the corn .s, said
Twin Citin could hese mat its future
Fronk Ado. a ramrod washbum High
sirpon needs by "pending the exist.
School teacher and the on lyy SMAAC
Ing aispon w Wildmg a new one.
president m remain in his tlty home.
01qS
•
So- :roofing muffles
ori airport noise protest
. .-#Aahyrebidents report things are quieter_
twomm- _ 'diaml nha sfferbsf d thahmtdrmaddMwfi gbnmaft*Airhh �
You
777
Noise/'FAA
is paying
for most
of the work
Ikon g.ga IB
And otsm the f160 million program
n mmpN:te, filen stBl wi0 ba
fhoutmds of homes gflkQLd th the
nahe pro an not dlgrblt for the
ImudprooMg.
dome tie tligihlt Ihhey 611 Imide
the ooive Ynatprim" o oud ad by
the Federal Avnnbn Admimstntioq
"Mch is;ff;y; � about 80 percent
of the tn®ey for tLa wet
''1TcyKotsy soodprneflngfora
moulthere fora tacky, cock the naive
hi oro thane fore couple mile," stick
Lorain Slma, a bngume south
Mltsnespolia munoise eLtivieL'"IIMe
people in the w n8
sound fed .7%11itamal
bltf. but the people one block
Witter don't see it in very rad. -
Mums.
Moving the airport is the a* naive
solution endorsed by Eimer and the
tat of Use member of the South
Mttro Airport Asim Council
ISMAACk which has organized
madena ova the pass 10 years to
fight Was. Spending millions of
dollen m soundproofing in make It
-Mier to live matt to the airport ilea
not promote thin agenda..
em the taospxU for moving the
C vi0 oro nukean
sbponare sti0 sods oY. The
MA
ipommeadsum an whether to build
: ne" WW
astpandthetaistiog
onemW JinuIY 1996.
.. In the marstiJ Ewthe purple
who tie eligible for the
turdpaolttgderJde apimt rho
"sok. Mat eI==
only too {hick m have,
fiat homefmprovememL
'It w s ppfl "hat Iheydid.^ rod
Moir O'Hem. who Ova in limn 8700
olock of lyth Av. S. in Bloomington
'They did about 25 grand worth of
•alt on my home"
mosom-find storm widows, wall
and emir insulation replacement o
corm doors or primary outside
Jonam baffling of all veru and
:himneys and the installation of
:ental or conditioning. The MAC
my even pot in a new furnsce. as
lid in O'Han's house. if it's
+pessary to instal the air
'odini n ng.
'we're the only airport in the
:ounlry that's doing mr
':mAammne." Vrtehi said. "Rut if
B"andJosuenthg halmioamr8t Mkurpoft obuht0 tsarb0m Man wllprtb90mWahpprl noW
you tie going acoustically
mprawm.yw Fm dramatic. the change war
not to mate iucotiddramatic.ly dmetia
tRmmn"
The soudpoaofing is designed to
red= indoor mix levels by 5
dmhdL whirh is the equivalents of
doubling the distance of an airplane
from a hone. The imprownici may
not be that high ifa home is alndy
well insulated. Veorhl viii.
"Now that we have the neer
insulation and the window it's just
unbelievable." she std. "If they
mine directly over the house. von
an harjust kind of a nimble but
nothing like it war before. I would
MY it's a W percent dilTcnece."
/lea ih..ah...:A. "I. �. n.-v.n
Iamie B a 's home ht tba 5800
Moriof/2d Av.S.m MinoepoW
"as Ovd Vmb new doors. ne"
dden, wa0 iomletlm and a taw
Mewed ®std & omdiuonip.
"Began the odea inOWliM wa
done, the "holt ldn
Iuld Wake
and plate tad Y"rv.aMn't alk nn
the plame.
wom- yon omMn7 owA a 7 y
of my bot Brown ofd. "I work out
of my home, and 1 m • IN of phone
tae
the pbanerdWhammna
Bot nat every ho®o"ner halt been
baupy vim* Ne program. es0eoa0Y
Wosa tvhpm vok era done in the
est yin. Some was pm ure
with tbairtmuma. Somce vnt
ee
tapetting a more signifiam drops in
the mise
"Aa 6r ns the quality of my home. .
it's 10 great dope but it's an quota
Wan it erns befog." said Lamy Smith;
whoa boreiathe6200 of
I Sth M. S. in Itith old Vas
Washing in Noveriber. "Wbm 1 W
hen. len still hor of the surpluses.
They still wake an, up at 6 o dock in
the mordng."
But the MAC fid hommwner
approve, of the program has grown
since the wand year. when it began
to nquin coullntro s in bid far week
house by home and in permit
homeo"nets to streets and dm
three contractor in bid on their
home
last winter the MAC supped
selecting bursa by lottery and
instead put eligible homes into block.
by -block priority for s ludpmoofing
baud on the seventy of noise
MINUTES OF THE
EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS
June 13, 1995
A regular meeting of the Eagan Airport Relations Commission was held on Tuesday, June
13, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. Present were Pat Todd, Mike Schlax, Jonathan White, Steve Soderling, Lance
Stadcha, Lois Monson, Jane Vanderpool and Bob Cooper. Also present was Assistant to the City
Administrator Hohenstein:
AGENDA
Hohensteln suggested that New Business be heard before Old Business on the agenda.
Upon motion by Schlax, seconded by Cooper, all members voting In favor, the agenda was approved as
amended.
MINUTES
Hohenstein Informed the commission that the actions taken at the last meeting were not
heard by the Council but will be at the June 20 City Council meeting. Upon motion by Cooper, seconded
by Monson, with all members voting In favor, the minutes of the May 9, 1995 meeting were approved as
presented.
NEW BUSINESS
A. Operations Impacts - North and East—
Hohenstein reviewed the memo on pages 10 through 13 of the packet. He Informed the
commission that at the last several meetings eastern Eagan residents have contacted the commission and
those residents, Mike Padden and Bob Mayer are in attendance at this meeting. Hohenstein stated that
there have been continuing complaints from the northern parts of the City relative to operations impacts
related to operations southeast of the airport. With the wanner weather complaints have Increased. Input
from the Airport Relations Commission has affected noise abatement but has not stopped it.
Hohenstein stated that staff has outlined a number of alternatives to review in the memo
He suggested some of the points may need to be referred back to the subcommittees and others to the
Council. The commission discussed each Rom fisted.
Number one concerns nighttime restrictions. This Involves a 422 standard Instrument
departure which would direct the aircraft to fly down the River Valley about 6 12 miles from runway end.
Other options would be shoulder hours and voluntary nighttime restrictions.
Number two concerns enforcement of the 105 degree heading at night. This would Involve
discussion of population density and possibly a longer distance than 3 miles because of the standard
Instrument departure being developed around 422.
Number three discusses modification or extension of the corridor which is something the
MAC and FAA will not consider. There has also been discussion of extension of the corridor along
centerline but the response has been that this would cause air traffic congestion. Another option would
Airport Relations Commission Minutes
June 13, 1995/Page 2
be to modified fanning at the three mile point, allowing less congestion but allowing tracking north of the
neighborhoods affected. Soderfing asked the reason for the congestion, are the planes actually catching
up to each other? Hohenstein responded that We easier for the tower to spread traffic than to keep them
in a constrained area. Schlax stated that the handing off of aircraft from the tower to departure control to
center and this happens quickly. Hohensteln stated that the Minneapolis -St Paul Airport will be the first
airport to have geographic positioning satellite capability which will give an opportunity for more controlled
operations.
Number four involves dismantling the corridor and fanning of aircraft southeast of the airport
which the City does not support. It would not dramatically reduce Impact anywhere in the City but would
Increase Impacts in other areas of the City.
Number five would Involve dismantling of the runway use system and a push for
distributional equity. It would still Involve directing traffic where there are the least number of people.
Number six Involves MAC and MASAC representation. Eagan has one representative
who Is located outside of the City. It would be necessary to pursue action legislatively to change this
situation.
Number seven would be to seek modifications of Federal Aircraft Noise Act for nighttime
operations. This would Involve bringing about Stage III aircraft in advance of current deadlines. This would
be difficult to pursue because it Is a limitation that affects the decisions MAC would make with respect to
Stage II aircraft.
The question Is where does the commission want to focus Its energy and what should be
discussed in the subcommittees or that they want directed to the City Council.
Monson asked if #1 was basicaly taken care of. Hohenstein responded that this Is being
discussed by the Operations Committee and is in the process. Vanderpoel asked if It would be appropriate
to send a letter suggesting that it be sped up. Hohenstein responded that that could be done to support
the activity. The standard Instrument departure they are discussing is worth following.
Schlax asked if MASAC always goes with the 45 degree heading. Hohenstein stated that
the departure with be a part of the SIDS. This procedure would be utilized for late night operations when
traffic can't be accommodated on parallels.
Schlax commented about the 29 situation and why not deal with the 4122 specifically. Is
there a plan to do a 11 nighttime SID? Hohenstein responded that at the present time this wasn't discussed.
This would be something to consider.
Todd asked for any additions to the Est that the commission might be interested in pursuing.
Schlax stated that afiemate means should be considered. One way would be to buy off those noise
affected residents with state credits, local property tax relief or grants from the MAC. We really need to
get creative in this area. Hohenstein responded that the Met Council is coordinating a group meeting
regarding land use tools available if the airport stays where it is. He continued that from a strategic
standpoint those suggestions should be considered.
Monson asked If Richfield's position should be discussed and expansion of our position.
Hohenstein responded that this has already been discussed and they're looking at additional things.
Airport Relations Commission Minutes
June 13, 1995/Page 3
Soderling asked about departure profiles. Hohenstein replied the commission has taken a position and
should be added to the Ist as an action item.
VISITORS TO BE HEARD
Mike Padden of 3908 Stonebridge Drive asked If anything had been done about the
request for flight data on the weekends mentioned at a previous commission meeting. Hohenstein replied
that he has requested that Information from MAC.
Mr. Padden asked If he could request from MAC how the flight paths of each plane are
determined. How the control Is handed off from the tower. At what point Is the decision made and what
Is the chain of command? Who Is making those decisions? He says they see patterns happening
everyday. Hohenstein stated that staff can answer some of the questions and MAC can answer others.
Mr. Padden asked what affect the winds have on aircraft. They see planes take off with the
wind and If they prefer to take off Into the wind, why do they take off with It. He asked what concerns are
there with the rapid descent of aircraft. He asked what altitude do they come in at and how soon do they
leave the ground. He proposes planes take off at a more rapid ascent. He would like the air traffic to fan
out at the end of the three-mile corridor. He would like to see late night flights go out to five miles before
turning and the airport to utilize one runway in the evening so they stay in the center of the corridor. He
asked why Eagan Is the preferred runway? Hohenstein responded that what he Is observing are planes
taking off head to head. The reason aircraft are focussed to the southeast at all times is because the
corridor is where the least number of people are located. There's no addressing those neighbors down
range from the corridor, consequently, the result is the late night noise.
Mr. Padden stated that statistics show that Eagan has the highest levels of complaints and
we are still the preferred runway. Its obvious the corridor isn't working. Sodering commented that without
the corridor they would still be sending planes all over the Eagan area because of the River Valley.
Hohenstein stated that the Issue Is density and there are always two aspects to the corridor
- land use and operational - three mile departure and four mile arrival is needed for traffic in the area. All
of these are affecting neighborhoods and causing more impact.
Mr. Padden stated that the population map is not up to date and, consequently, the
numbers are not accurate. He would like to see it updated or a comparison done for 1990 and 1995.
Hohenstein responded that the most recent good data is the 1990 census. The concern about the map is
that they were showing densities based on ranges of population. The lowest range was 0 to 50 and next
one was 50 - 2,500. Urban areas in Eagan were showing the same density as rural Inver Grove Heights
areas. It's not reasonable to say a density of 50 should show up the same as a density of 2,500. The
federal census Is what gives us the numbers.
Mr. Padden requested a detailed map of Eagan only with ANOMS (fight tracking data to
see where planes are flying. He asked Hohenstein how accurate the ANOMS system is. Hohenstein
stated that ANOMS uses a combination of geographic positioning and radar, so the tracks are very accurate
within a few hundred feet of what is shown.
Mr. Padden commented that the would still like the mobile noise monitoring system in place
and he would like to be trained, If necessary, to use the monitors. He would Ike to see the Runway 4/22
traffic distribution analyzed. He would like more information on the expansion of Runway 4122. How long
Airport Relations Commission Minutes
June 13, 1995/Page 4
would it be under construction and when? Hohenstein responded that the Runway 422 expansion has
cleared the environmentals and is being held up by the Richfield litigation. If Richfield Is not successful in
holding up the expansion, construction will start at end of 1995 and take one construction season. After
the runway is completed they will be able to shift part of the traffic on Runway 22. Low traffic period would
be higher traffic volume than today. They could go up to 80 operations rather than the 60 today.
Mr. Padden asked If they are planning to shut down 22L for refurbishing. Hohenstein stated
that right now 11 R/291- reconstruction will Include replacement of 12 Inches to 18 Inches of concrete by
1997 or 1998. It depends on when 22 becomes available. The reconstruction will not add any capacity,
the runway will be the same length but have a better quality surface. Mr. Padden stated that right now
they're saying there will be no impact - that there will be the same amount of flights.
Hohenstein stated that it Is capacity driven and they describe circumstances under which
they'll use parallels but trying to translate that into specific operations doesn't work well. Nothing about the
runway extension changes the priority for the southeast side of the airport. The cross wind runway won't
make It better and may make things worse in other parts of the City.
Bob Mayer of 3949 Avon Court, stated that he talked to Deanna Wiener and she will be
meeting with Pawlenty, City Council members and Airport Relations Commission members. The meeting
will be set up at a time agreed to by all members. The meeting will discuss the flights over Eagan. Senator
Wiener will look at legislation for changes.
Mr. Mayer stated that he has noticed a shift in air traffic. He commented that Northwest
Airlines has purchased DC -9's and MASAC is denying ft. He asked how reliable MASAC is and he stated
he resents being treated like a child and Had to by MASAC. A letter of clarification should be written by
Foggia on this situation to the City of Eagan and its residents. Hohenstein stated that this is something
that's best brought up at MASAC.
Leo Amundson of 1470 Highview commented that he has worked for many years to
preserve the corridor. He stated that he noticed planes frying out of the corridor and would like to know how
to keep them within the corridor. Hohenstein stated that the commission could recommend to the Council
again that they are in favor of use of the corridor and how Important that is. Schlax commented that he
has observed that it is routinely done that planes are flying south of the corridor by 10% or more.
o'
Todd stated that the commission performed a three month study comparing 1994 to 1995
for corridor compliance and that there was some improvement. Schlax commented that that is not much
improvement when 500 flights are still frying over. Hohenstein stated that they were looking at the south
parallel only. Eventually they combined the numbers for the north and south parallels. Fundamental
problems are that areas are at thresholds where percentages won't make that much difference because
of the high level of impact.
Schlax commented that at the MASAC meeting Foggia said that the data was skewed and
that its hard to change the perception that Eagan still consists of farmland.
Monson stated that at the MASAC meeting she sees people saying they won't give up and
then they do. It's very Important that people stick with it and continue to complain because it will get their
attention.
Airport Relations Commission Minutes
June 13, 1995/12age 5
Hohenstein stated that MAC has Indicated they don't want a policy based on complaints
but they do seem to form policy on the absence of complaints. It's Important to call the complaint tines
although R's not necessarily going to change policy, it's clearly a situation where they need to hear those
complaints. Northwest does continue to purchase DC -9's and they are required,to bring them Into Phase
III compliance. They will be retiring the 72Ts in the next five years.
Todd stated that one of the first items for consideration is reiteration of corridor compliance.
Hohenstein stated that there are three ways of reiterating this Issue. The first is to reiterate It with the
requirement that the airport comply with the corridor by a direct resolution or correspondence. He stated
that each of the items in the memo should be voted on and sent to the Current Operations Committee, send
to the Council or do nothing.
Monson motioned send to. the City Council reiteration of the commission's corridor
compliance position and recommend that number 4 on page 12 be referred back to the committee, second
was made by Soderfing.
Cooper recommended that numbers 1 - 5 go to the Current Operations Committee.
Soderling moved that number 1 (Nighttime Restrictions) should go to Current Operations
Committee, Stadcha seconded the motion. All members voted in favor.
Upon motion by Soderling regarding #2 was to reiterate strict enforcement of 105 degree
heading to the City Council and that establishment of an SID be referred to the Current Operations
Committee, second was made by Schlax. All members voted In favor.
After further discussion, Cooper stated that all of number 2 should be addressed by the
Current Operations Committee.
Hohenstein rephrased the motion to state that the 105 degree heading be enforced either
through standard procedures or standard instrument departure with the understanding that a SID will be
developed and that would be done in conjunction with the Current Operations Committee, all members
voted in favor.
Number 3 (Modification or Extension of Corridor) - A motion was made by Schlax to refer
it to the Current Operations Committee, second was made by Soderling. All members voted in favor.
Number 4 (Dismantle Corridor and Fan Traffic) - A motion was made by Monson to refer
this Rem to the Current Operations Committee, second was made by Cooper. All members voted in favor.
Number 5 (Dismantle RUS and Push for Distributional Equity) - A motion was made by
Cooper to send this to the Current Operations Committee, second was made by Soderling. All members
voted In favor.
Number 6 (MAC and MASAC Representation) - A motion was made by Soderling and
seconded by Stadcha to refer this Rem to the City Council. All members voted in favor.
Number 7 (Seek Modification of Federal Aircraft Noise Act) - Schlax moved not to take
action on this Rem, seconded by Soderling. All members voted in favor.
Airport Relations Commission Minutes
June 13, 1995/Page 6
Todd asked Hohenstein to respond to citizen questions from those present tonight. He
commented that he will copy and distribute these questions to the commission. He will provide responses
to the neighbors In writing of the things he can answer and the remainder he will discuss with the MAC.
Stadcha asked Hohenstein If he included the idea of tax credits. Hohenstein replied that
this is being discussed by the Metropolitan Council should the airport remain where it is.
OLD BUSINESS
A. Dual Track Airport Planning Process—
Hohenstein distributed an article to the commission. He suggested that the Advisory
Planning Commission and Economic Development Commission be included In the discussion. He
recommended holding off on discussion until a later date. He stated that he would like the commission to
move forward to adopting matrix recommended and then recommend comments of the scoping report.
Monson motioned to adopt the matrix, seconded by Vanderpoel. Schlax stated that they may take time to
go over as it is more of a draft. Cooper asked what the matrbx is. Hohenstein replied that it is a decision
making tool and will fist all options that affect Eagan. All members voted in favor of the motion.
Schlax suggested that the commission members fill out the matrix and then discuss ft.
Hohensteln suggested members of the Long Term Planning Committee discuss the matrix and bring ft back
to the commission.
White stated that the commission hasn't developed a rating system and would like Input
on that also. Schlax suggested using # 1- 5, with 5 being the best and 1 being the worst.
Hohenstein stated that land banking was one of the aitematives to be considered in the EIS
and that needed to be voted on. Upon motion by Schlax, seconded by Cooper, the commission will
recommend to the MAC staff to consider land banking as an option.
Schlax asked Hohenstein If the MAC meetings will be available to the public. Hohensteln
stated they are very thorough about notifying papers of meetings.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
A. Current Operations Committee—
The next meeting of the Current Operations Committee Is Monday, June 19, 1995.
B. Long Term Planning Committee -
22,1995.
The next meeting of the Long Tenn Planning Committee Is scheduled for Thursday, June
STAFF REPORT
Hohenstein commended the commission members and neighbors for the work they are
doing. He continued that ft Is a long, frustrating process and he appreciates the work they are doing.
Airport Relations Commission Minutes
June 13, 1995/Page 7
Schlaz stated that at the MASAC meeting they discussed the alternative departure
procedures. Foggia responded that they have given the date to a consulting firm. They are trying to
analyze the best procedure and all the ramifications of lt. Soderling said they still have two choices and he
would like to come up with something that makes more sense.
Todd asked about the status on the recommendation of an alternate take -off procedure.
Hohenstein responded that a letter will be signed by the Mayor and mailed as soon as possible.
ADJOURNMENT
Upon motion by Cooper, seconded by Vanderpoel, the meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
JEH
Date Chairperson
Secretary
Patch T/
Transfer Patch
MINUTES OF THE
EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS
June 13, 1995
A regular meeting of the Eagan Airport Relations Commission was held on Tuesday, June
13, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. Present were Pat Todd, Mike Schlax, Jonathan White, Steve Soderling, Lance
Stadcha, Lois Monson, Jane Vanderpool and Bob Cooper. Also present was Assistant to the City
Administrator Hohenstein:
AGENDA
Hohensteln suggested that New Business be heard before Old Business on the agenda.
Upon motion by Schlax, seconded by Cooper, all members voting In favor, the agenda was approved as
amended.
MINUTES
Hohenstein Informed the commission that the actions taken at the last meeting were not
heard by the Council but will be at the June 20 City Council meeting. Upon motion by Cooper, seconded
by Monson, with all members voting In favor, the minutes of the May 9, 1995 meeting were approved as
presented.
NEW BUSINESS
A. Operations Impacts - North and East—
Hohenstein reviewed the memo on pages 10 through 13 of the packet. He Informed the
commission that at the last several meetings eastern Eagan residents have contacted the commission and
those residents, Mike Padden and Bob Mayer are in attendance at this meeting. Hohenstein stated that
there have been continuing complaints from the northern parts of the City relative to operations impacts
related to operations southeast of the airport. With the wanner weather complaints have Increased. Input
from the Airport Relations Commission has affected noise abatement but has not stopped it.
Hohenstein stated that staff has outlined a number of alternatives to review in the memo
He suggested some of the points may need to be referred back to the subcommittees and others to the
Council. The commission discussed each Rom fisted.
Number one concerns nighttime restrictions. This Involves a 422 standard Instrument
departure which would direct the aircraft to fly down the River Valley about 6 12 miles from runway end.
Other options would be shoulder hours and voluntary nighttime restrictions.
Number two concerns enforcement of the 105 degree heading at night. This would Involve
discussion of population density and possibly a longer distance than 3 miles because of the standard
Instrument departure being developed around 422.
Number three discusses modification or extension of the corridor which is something the
MAC and FAA will not consider. There has also been discussion of extension of the corridor along
centerline but the response has been that this would cause air traffic congestion. Another option would
Airport Relations Commission Minutes
June 13, 1995/Page 2
be to modified fanning at the three mile point, allowing less congestion but allowing tracking north of the
neighborhoods affected. Soderfing asked the reason for the congestion, are the planes actually catching
up to each other? Hohenstein responded that We easier for the tower to spread traffic than to keep them
in a constrained area. Schlax stated that the handing off of aircraft from the tower to departure control to
center and this happens quickly. Hohensteln stated that the Minneapolis -St Paul Airport will be the first
airport to have geographic positioning satellite capability which will give an opportunity for more controlled
operations.
Number four involves dismantling the corridor and fanning of aircraft southeast of the airport
which the City does not support. It would not dramatically reduce Impact anywhere in the City but would
Increase Impacts in other areas of the City.
Number five would Involve dismantling of the runway use system and a push for
distributional equity. It would still Involve directing traffic where there are the least number of people.
Number six Involves MAC and MASAC representation. Eagan has one representative
who Is located outside of the City. It would be necessary to pursue action legislatively to change this
situation.
Number seven would be to seek modifications of Federal Aircraft Noise Act for nighttime
operations. This would Involve bringing about Stage III aircraft in advance of current deadlines. This would
be difficult to pursue because it Is a limitation that affects the decisions MAC would make with respect to
Stage II aircraft.
The question Is where does the commission want to focus Its energy and what should be
discussed in the subcommittees or that they want directed to the City Council.
Monson asked if #1 was basicaly taken care of. Hohenstein responded that this Is being
discussed by the Operations Committee and is in the process. Vanderpoel asked if It would be appropriate
to send a letter suggesting that it be sped up. Hohenstein responded that that could be done to support
the activity. The standard Instrument departure they are discussing is worth following.
Schlax asked if MASAC always goes with the 45 degree heading. Hohenstein stated that
the departure with be a part of the SIDS. This procedure would be utilized for late night operations when
traffic can't be accommodated on parallels.
Schlax commented about the 29 situation and why not deal with the 4122 specifically. Is
there a plan to do a 11 nighttime SID? Hohenstein responded that at the present time this wasn't discussed.
This would be something to consider.
Todd asked for any additions to the Est that the commission might be interested in pursuing.
Schlax stated that afiemate means should be considered. One way would be to buy off those noise
affected residents with state credits, local property tax relief or grants from the MAC. We really need to
get creative in this area. Hohenstein responded that the Met Council is coordinating a group meeting
regarding land use tools available if the airport stays where it is. He continued that from a strategic
standpoint those suggestions should be considered.
Monson asked If Richfield's position should be discussed and expansion of our position.
Hohenstein responded that this has already been discussed and they're looking at additional things.
Airport Relations Commission Minutes
June 13, 1995/Page 3
Soderling asked about departure profiles. Hohenstein replied the commission has taken a position and
should be added to the Ist as an action item.
VISITORS TO BE HEARD
Mike Padden of 3908 Stonebridge Drive asked If anything had been done about the
request for flight data on the weekends mentioned at a previous commission meeting. Hohenstein replied
that he has requested that Information from MAC.
Mr. Padden asked If he could request from MAC how the flight paths of each plane are
determined. How the control Is handed off from the tower. At what point Is the decision made and what
Is the chain of command? Who Is making those decisions? He says they see patterns happening
everyday. Hohenstein stated that staff can answer some of the questions and MAC can answer others.
Mr. Padden asked what affect the winds have on aircraft. They see planes take off with the
wind and If they prefer to take off Into the wind, why do they take off with It. He asked what concerns are
there with the rapid descent of aircraft. He asked what altitude do they come in at and how soon do they
leave the ground. He proposes planes take off at a more rapid ascent. He would like the air traffic to fan
out at the end of the three-mile corridor. He would like to see late night flights go out to five miles before
turning and the airport to utilize one runway in the evening so they stay in the center of the corridor. He
asked why Eagan Is the preferred runway? Hohenstein responded that what he Is observing are planes
taking off head to head. The reason aircraft are focussed to the southeast at all times is because the
corridor is where the least number of people are located. There's no addressing those neighbors down
range from the corridor, consequently, the result is the late night noise.
Mr. Padden stated that statistics show that Eagan has the highest levels of complaints and
we are still the preferred runway. Its obvious the corridor isn't working. Sodering commented that without
the corridor they would still be sending planes all over the Eagan area because of the River Valley.
Hohenstein stated that the Issue Is density and there are always two aspects to the corridor
- land use and operational - three mile departure and four mile arrival is needed for traffic in the area. All
of these are affecting neighborhoods and causing more impact.
Mr. Padden stated that the population map is not up to date and, consequently, the
numbers are not accurate. He would like to see it updated or a comparison done for 1990 and 1995.
Hohenstein responded that the most recent good data is the 1990 census. The concern about the map is
that they were showing densities based on ranges of population. The lowest range was 0 to 50 and next
one was 50 - 2,500. Urban areas in Eagan were showing the same density as rural Inver Grove Heights
areas. It's not reasonable to say a density of 50 should show up the same as a density of 2,500. The
federal census Is what gives us the numbers.
Mr. Padden requested a detailed map of Eagan only with ANOMS (fight tracking data to
see where planes are flying. He asked Hohenstein how accurate the ANOMS system is. Hohenstein
stated that ANOMS uses a combination of geographic positioning and radar, so the tracks are very accurate
within a few hundred feet of what is shown.
Mr. Padden commented that the would still like the mobile noise monitoring system in place
and he would like to be trained, If necessary, to use the monitors. He would Ike to see the Runway 4/22
traffic distribution analyzed. He would like more information on the expansion of Runway 4122. How long
Airport Relations Commission Minutes
June 13, 1995/Page 4
would it be under construction and when? Hohenstein responded that the Runway 422 expansion has
cleared the environmentals and is being held up by the Richfield litigation. If Richfield Is not successful in
holding up the expansion, construction will start at end of 1995 and take one construction season. After
the runway is completed they will be able to shift part of the traffic on Runway 22. Low traffic period would
be higher traffic volume than today. They could go up to 80 operations rather than the 60 today.
Mr. Padden asked If they are planning to shut down 22L for refurbishing. Hohenstein stated
that right now 11 R/291- reconstruction will Include replacement of 12 Inches to 18 Inches of concrete by
1997 or 1998. It depends on when 22 becomes available. The reconstruction will not add any capacity,
the runway will be the same length but have a better quality surface. Mr. Padden stated that right now
they're saying there will be no impact - that there will be the same amount of flights.
Hohenstein stated that it Is capacity driven and they describe circumstances under which
they'll use parallels but trying to translate that into specific operations doesn't work well. Nothing about the
runway extension changes the priority for the southeast side of the airport. The cross wind runway won't
make It better and may make things worse in other parts of the City.
Bob Mayer of 3949 Avon Court, stated that he talked to Deanna Wiener and she will be
meeting with Pawlenty, City Council members and Airport Relations Commission members. The meeting
will be set up at a time agreed to by all members. The meeting will discuss the flights over Eagan. Senator
Wiener will look at legislation for changes.
Mr. Mayer stated that he has noticed a shift in air traffic. He commented that Northwest
Airlines has purchased DC -9's and MASAC is denying ft. He asked how reliable MASAC is and he stated
he resents being treated like a child and Had to by MASAC. A letter of clarification should be written by
Foggia on this situation to the City of Eagan and its residents. Hohenstein stated that this is something
that's best brought up at MASAC.
Leo Amundson of 1470 Highview commented that he has worked for many years to
preserve the corridor. He stated that he noticed planes frying out of the corridor and would like to know how
to keep them within the corridor. Hohenstein stated that the commission could recommend to the Council
again that they are in favor of use of the corridor and how Important that is. Schlax commented that he
has observed that it is routinely done that planes are flying south of the corridor by 10% or more.
o'
Todd stated that the commission performed a three month study comparing 1994 to 1995
for corridor compliance and that there was some improvement. Schlax commented that that is not much
improvement when 500 flights are still frying over. Hohenstein stated that they were looking at the south
parallel only. Eventually they combined the numbers for the north and south parallels. Fundamental
problems are that areas are at thresholds where percentages won't make that much difference because
of the high level of impact.
Schlax commented that at the MASAC meeting Foggia said that the data was skewed and
that its hard to change the perception that Eagan still consists of farmland.
Monson stated that at the MASAC meeting she sees people saying they won't give up and
then they do. It's very Important that people stick with it and continue to complain because it will get their
attention.
Airport Relations Commission Minutes
June 13, 1995/12age 5
Hohenstein stated that MAC has Indicated they don't want a policy based on complaints
but they do seem to form policy on the absence of complaints. It's Important to call the complaint tines
although R's not necessarily going to change policy, it's clearly a situation where they need to hear those
complaints. Northwest does continue to purchase DC -9's and they are required,to bring them Into Phase
III compliance. They will be retiring the 72Ts in the next five years.
Todd stated that one of the first items for consideration is reiteration of corridor compliance.
Hohenstein stated that there are three ways of reiterating this Issue. The first is to reiterate It with the
requirement that the airport comply with the corridor by a direct resolution or correspondence. He stated
that each of the items in the memo should be voted on and sent to the Current Operations Committee, send
to the Council or do nothing.
Monson motioned send to. the City Council reiteration of the commission's corridor
compliance position and recommend that number 4 on page 12 be referred back to the committee, second
was made by Soderfing.
Cooper recommended that numbers 1 - 5 go to the Current Operations Committee.
Soderling moved that number 1 (Nighttime Restrictions) should go to Current Operations
Committee, Stadcha seconded the motion. All members voted in favor.
Upon motion by Soderling regarding #2 was to reiterate strict enforcement of 105 degree
heading to the City Council and that establishment of an SID be referred to the Current Operations
Committee, second was made by Schlax. All members voted In favor.
After further discussion, Cooper stated that all of number 2 should be addressed by the
Current Operations Committee.
Hohenstein rephrased the motion to state that the 105 degree heading be enforced either
through standard procedures or standard instrument departure with the understanding that a SID will be
developed and that would be done in conjunction with the Current Operations Committee, all members
voted in favor.
Number 3 (Modification or Extension of Corridor) - A motion was made by Schlax to refer
it to the Current Operations Committee, second was made by Soderling. All members voted in favor.
Number 4 (Dismantle Corridor and Fan Traffic) - A motion was made by Monson to refer
this Rem to the Current Operations Committee, second was made by Cooper. All members voted in favor.
Number 5 (Dismantle RUS and Push for Distributional Equity) - A motion was made by
Cooper to send this to the Current Operations Committee, second was made by Soderling. All members
voted In favor.
Number 6 (MAC and MASAC Representation) - A motion was made by Soderling and
seconded by Stadcha to refer this Rem to the City Council. All members voted in favor.
Number 7 (Seek Modification of Federal Aircraft Noise Act) - Schlax moved not to take
action on this Rem, seconded by Soderling. All members voted in favor.
Airport Relations Commission Minutes
June 13, 1995/Page 6
Todd asked Hohenstein to respond to citizen questions from those present tonight. He
commented that he will copy and distribute these questions to the commission. He will provide responses
to the neighbors In writing of the things he can answer and the remainder he will discuss with the MAC.
Stadcha asked Hohenstein If he included the idea of tax credits. Hohenstein replied that
this is being discussed by the Metropolitan Council should the airport remain where it is.
OLD BUSINESS
A. Dual Track Airport Planning Process—
Hohenstein distributed an article to the commission. He suggested that the Advisory
Planning Commission and Economic Development Commission be included In the discussion. He
recommended holding off on discussion until a later date. He stated that he would like the commission to
move forward to adopting matrix recommended and then recommend comments of the scoping report.
Monson motioned to adopt the matrix, seconded by Vanderpoel. Schlax stated that they may take time to
go over as it is more of a draft. Cooper asked what the matrbx is. Hohenstein replied that it is a decision
making tool and will fist all options that affect Eagan. All members voted in favor of the motion.
Schlax suggested that the commission members fill out the matrix and then discuss ft.
Hohensteln suggested members of the Long Term Planning Committee discuss the matrix and bring ft back
to the commission.
White stated that the commission hasn't developed a rating system and would like Input
on that also. Schlax suggested using # 1- 5, with 5 being the best and 1 being the worst.
Hohenstein stated that land banking was one of the aitematives to be considered in the EIS
and that needed to be voted on. Upon motion by Schlax, seconded by Cooper, the commission will
recommend to the MAC staff to consider land banking as an option.
Schlax asked Hohenstein If the MAC meetings will be available to the public. Hohensteln
stated they are very thorough about notifying papers of meetings.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
A. Current Operations Committee—
The next meeting of the Current Operations Committee Is Monday, June 19, 1995.
B. Long Term Planning Committee -
22,1995.
The next meeting of the Long Tenn Planning Committee Is scheduled for Thursday, June
STAFF REPORT
Hohenstein commended the commission members and neighbors for the work they are
doing. He continued that ft Is a long, frustrating process and he appreciates the work they are doing.
Airport Relations Commission Minutes
June 13, 1995/Page 7
Schlaz stated that at the MASAC meeting they discussed the alternative departure
procedures. Foggia responded that they have given the date to a consulting firm. They are trying to
analyze the best procedure and all the ramifications of lt. Soderling said they still have two choices and he
would like to come up with something that makes more sense.
Todd asked about the status on the recommendation of an alternate take -off procedure.
Hohenstein responded that a letter will be signed by the Mayor and mailed as soon as possible.
ADJOURNMENT
Upon motion by Cooper, seconded by Vanderpoel, the meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
JEH
Date Chairperson
Secretary