05/14/2019 - Airport Relations CommissionAIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION WORKSHOP
TUESDAY
MAY 14, 2019
6:30-7:00 P.M.
BIRTHDAY PARTY ROOM—1ST FLOOR, EAGAN COMMUNITY CENTER
AGENDA
I.ROLL CALL AND ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
II.ORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS
III.APPROVAL OF MINUTES
IV.REVIEW PROPOSED SCOPE OF THE NOC’S RUNWAY 17 DEPARTURE STUDY
V.STAFF/COMMISSIONER REPORT
A.MOBILE NOISE MONITORING UPDATE
B.2018 ANNUAL NOISE CONTOUR REPORT
C.2018 ANNUAL MSP FLEET MIX AND NIGHTTIME OPERATIONS REPORT
D.LETTER TO CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION
E.MSP LONG TERM PLAN STAKEHOLDER ADVISORY PANEL
VI.OTHER BUSINESS
VII.ADJOURNMENT
1
Memo
To: The Airport Relations Commission
From: Dianne Miller, Assistant City Administrator
Date: May 9 , 2019
Subject: May 14 , 2019 ARC Workshop/Location: Eagan Community Center
The Eagan Airport Relations Commission will meet on Tuesday, May 14, from 6:30-
7:00pm in the Birthday Party Room on the lower level of the Eagan Community Center.
The workshop is taking place at the ECC because of construction at City Hall. The
workshop will take place for the 30 minutes prior to the regular ARC meeting, which will
take place across the hall in the Oaks Banquet Room. The workshop will not be televised.
Please contact Executive Assistant Cheryl Stevenson at (651) 675-5005 or
cstevenson@cityofeagan.com if you are unable to attend the meeting.
I.ROLL CALL AND ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
The agenda, as presented or modified, is for adoption by the Commission.
III.APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Enclosed on pages 5 through 8 are the minutes of the January 8, 2019 and March 19,
2019 ARC meetings for formal consideration.
III.REVIEW PROPOSED SCOPE OF THE NOC’S RUNWAY 17 DEPARTURE STUDY
Bradley Juffer, MAC Manager of Community Relations, will be in attendance to provide
an overview of the Runway 17 Departure Study being prepared for the review of the
Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) on Tuesday, May 15. The commission will recall the
study idea originated at a NOC Listening Session and was recommended by the ARC
during the annual NOC work plan discussion. Enclosed on page 9 is the proposed
scope of the study, which was prepared with input from residents at a scoping meeting
held on the evening of April 18. Mr. Juffer will be in attendance to
2
May 14, 2019 ARC Workshop
Page 2
review the scope of the study and answer any questions of the Commission. The
results of the study will be presented at the July ARC and NOC meetings.
IV.STAFF / COMMISSIONER REPORT
A.Mobile Noise Monitoring Update—Per the request of the ARC and approval of the
NOC, the MAC is currently conducting mobile noise monitoring at two sites in
Eagan: Mueller Farm Park (adjacent to Woodland Elementary) and Thomas Lake
Park (the monitor is technically located within Evergreen Park but is better known as
Thomas Lake Park given their contiguous nature). The monitoring is scheduled to
take place from May 1-15.
The goals identified for the mobile monitoring are:
1.Determine if gaps in the RMT coverage area currently exist in the City of Eagan.
2.Determine if two of the RMT closest to Interstate 35-E are properly located to
best monitor aircraft noise given the ambient freeway noise.
The study purpose is to collect quality recordings and measurements of aircraft
noise events associated with MSP Airport that occur in the City of Eagan, in
accordance with established Mobile Sound Monitoring Guidelines. The objective of
the study is to compare data collected from the mobile equipment with data being
collected at the RMTs 25 and 37.
MAC staff will provide a summary of the results to the ARC and community at the
July 9 ARC meeting.
B.2018 Annual Noise Contour Report—Enclosed on pages 10 through 97 is the
2018 MSP Annual Noise Contour Report, comparing the 2018 actual contours to the
2007 forecast noise contours. This report was presented at the January NOC
meeting.
C.2018 Annual MSP Fleet Mix and Nighttime Operations Report—Enclosed on
pages 98 through 115 is the 2018 Annual MSP Fleet Mix and Nighttime Operations
Report. This report was presented at the January NOC meeting.
D.Letter to Congressional Delegation—Enclosed on pages 116 through 118 is the
letter that was sent to Congresswoman Craig, which raised concerns with the
changes and impacts of Converging Runway Operations. The letter was drafted at
the suggestion of the ARC, and includes several federal issues impacting the City of
Eagan. A similar letter was sent to Senators Klobuchar and Smith.
E.MSP Long Term Plan Stakeholder Advisory Panel—The MAC has established a
Stakeholder Advisory Panel which will be involved in the process of the MAC
adopting their long-term comprehensive plan. The first meeting of the panel has
3
been scheduled in June to introduce the MSP Airport Long-Term Plan team,
process, and timeline. The panel members will be asked to share their perspectives
on the key issues facing MSP over the next 20 years. Assistant City Administrator
will serve on the panel and will seek input from the ARC throughout the panel
process.
V.OTHER BUSINESS
VI.ADJOURNMENT
Immediately following the workshop, the Commission will join the Mendota Heights ARC
for a joint meeting, at which MAC Executive Director, Brian Ryks, will provide a State of
the Airport update.
/s/Dianne E. Miller_______
Assistant City Administrator
ARC Purpose: To advise and make recommendations to the City Council on issues of
aircraft noise and airport policies that impact or have the potential to impact the community.
ARC Mission: The Airport Relations Commission (ARC) recognizes the burden of aircraft
noise is balanced by the economic benefits of being a neighbor to MSP Airport. The ARC,
under the direction of the City Council, will work in partnership with the Metropolitan Airports
Commission (MAC), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and the residents of Eagan
to make recommendations on reducing the burden of aircraft noise in Eagan without
jeopardizing safety.
4
MINUTES OF THE EAGAN
AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION MEETING
JANUARY 8, 2019
A meeting of the Eagan Airport Relations Commission was held on Tuesday, January 8, 2019 at 7:00 p.m.
Those present were Charles Thorkildson, Michael Johnson, Debra Dulligner, Jeff Spartz, Theresa Hughes,
Philippe Girard, Joseph Axmacher and Assistant City Administrator Miller. Dan Johnson was absent.
AGENDA
Commissioner Johnson moved, Commissioner Axmacher seconded a motion to approve the agenda as
presented. All members voted in favor.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Johnson moved, Commissioner Spartz seconded a motion to approve the minutes of
November 13, 2018. All members voted in favor.
VISITORS TO BE HEARD
There were no visitors to be heard.
PRESENTATIONS
Ken Cox, Larson Davis
Assistant City Administrator Miller introduced Ken Cox of Larson Davis, an electrical engineer with more
than 30 years’ experience designing and managing products used in the worker safety and acoustic
measurement industries. Mr. Cox gave a presentation and spoke to the science behind how noise is
perceived.
OLD BUSINESS
MAC Monthly Reports
Assistant City Administrator Miller noted the printout of the MAC monthly reports for November 2018
were provided. The December reports were provided electronically as they were posted after the packet
was provided to commissioners.
The Commission discussed the monthly reports.
Dana Nelson, Manager of the MAC Strategy & Strategy & Stakeholder Engagement Division, responded
to questions from the Commission.
NEW BUSINESS
Review Mobile Noise Monitor Proposed Locations
Assistant City Administrator Miller noted the outline of the 2019 Eagan Mobile Monitoring Study was
provided. The two sites proposed as locations for the mobile monitors are Thomas Lake Park and
5
Mueller Farm Park. The data collection is proposed to take place May 1-15, 2019 (two consecutive
weeks).
Ms. Nelson gave a presentation and spoke to why they are suggesting these two parks as the locations
of choice.
Commissioners dialogued with Ms. Nelson about the proposed study.
Ted Gladhill, 1153 Blue Heron Court, asked several questions regarding the mobile monitors.
Susan Kunelius, 1238 Morning Dove Court, asked about the location of the mobile monitor at Mueller
Farm Park mobile monitor. She suggested O’Leary Park as a possible location.
Barb Webb, 3893 Denmark Avenue, asked about moving the mobile monitors to different locations after
two weeks to collect more data.
After further discussion, Commissioner Johnson moved, Commissioner Axmacher seconded a motion to
stay with Mueller Farm Park and Thomas Lake as the mobile monitor locations. All members voted in
favor. There was consensus that O’Leary Park should be a backup site should Mueller Farm Park not be
viable.
Commissioner Johnson moved, Commissioner Spartz seconded a motion to continue the ARC meeting
for additional 15 minutes. All members voted in favor.
STAFF / COMMISSIONER REPORT
2018 Noise Oversight Committee Accomplishments
Assistant City Administrator Miller noted a summary of the 2018 accomplishments and 2019 Work Plan
of the MSP Noise Oversight Commission (NOC) were provided. Per Eagan’s request, an item was added
to the 2019 NOC Work Plan to conduct a Runway 17 analysis to evaluate departure operations and
heading trends. Miller noted the analysis will include a review of nighttime operations.
MAC’s Stakeholder Engagement Plan for the MSP 2040 Long Term Comprehensive Plan
Assistant City Administrator Miller noted the MAC plans to embark on their 2040 Long Term
Comprehensive Plan (LTCP). Provided in the packet is the approach the MAC will take to engage the
community in that process.
Converging Runway Operations (CRO) Update
Assistant City Administrator Miller noted at the most recent NOC meeting, Sean Fortier, FAA District
Manager, provided an update on CRO. It was noted that the FAA is working on a long-term strategy to
mitigate CRO within the MSP footprint. The FAA will be determining the appropriate environmental
review that will be needed after any adjustments are made.
6
Continuation of November ARC Meeting Conversation
Assistant City Administrator Miller noted at the request of the Commission, a continuation of
conversation from the November ARC meeting pertaining to community engagement be held. There
were several Commissioners not in attendance in November to offer their thoughts on how the
Commission, in accordance with the ARC Mission, can best work together with the community on efforts
to reduce aircraft noise. The Commission discussed their desire for ongoing engagement with residents.
Wall Street Journal Article
Assistant City Administrator Miller noted a Wall Street Journal article speaking to a new study that is
evaluating the impact on aircraft noise if planes depart at slower speeds. Miller shared the observations
of Dana Nelson, MAC Manager, pertaining to the study underway and the role the MAC has played in
provided flight track data for the study.
Community Connections
Assistant City Administrator Miller noted the City is hosting Community Connections on Saturday, March
2 from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. at the Eagan Community Center. The event is marketed towards new residents
as an opportunity to learn about programs and services in the City. The Commission agreed they wanted
to participate.
Assistant City Administrator Miller reminded the Commission the FAA tour will be scheduled in March,
per the work plan. Miller noted the City is currently accepting application to serve on one of the four
City Advisory commissions and Eagan-Inver Grove Heights Watershed Management Organization.
Applications are being accepted through March 21, 2019. All incumbents whose terms are expiring must
reapply.
ROUNDTABLE
There were no roundtable items.
ADJOURNMENT
Upon motion by Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Axmacher the meeting adjourned
at 8:52 p.m. All members voted in favor.
__________________________ _________________________________
Date Secretary
7
MINUTES OF THE EAGAN
AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION MEETING
MARCH 19, 2019
The Eagan Airport Relations Commission met on March 19, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. at the FAA Center located
at 512 Division Street in Farmington. Those present were Charles Thorkildson, Jeff Spartz, Joseph
Axmacher, Debra Dulligner, Michael Johnson and Assistant City Administrator Miller. Dan Johnson and
Philippe Girard were not able to attend.
TOUR OF FAA CENTER AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWER
Kurt Mara, Tower Manager, provided a tour of the FAA Air Traffic Control Center to the Commission.
ADJOURNMENT
Upon motion by Johnson, seconded by Spartz, the meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. All members voted
in favor.
__________________________ _________________________________
Date Secretary
8
Runway 17 Departure Study Scope
Objective: Working collaboratively with neighbors and communities south of the airport,
the MAC will identify concerns related to Runway 17 Departures and compile a report
that will identify operational necessities of Runway 17, highlight trends in the use of the
runway and identify changes experienced post-CRO.
Report Outline
1.Executive Summary
2.Pre-CRO day vs. Post-CRO day
a.How has a typical South Flow day changed?
i.Daily peak hour trends
ii.Past departure peaks and current departure peaks
iii.Build a typical day for Runway 17 departures pre-CRO and
compare it to a day post-CRO
b.Successive Days in a South Flow
3.Flight frequency
a.Analyze 15 minutes segments and produce metrics highlighting the
frequency of flights departing Runway 17. Compare pre-CRO to post-CRO
4. Headings
a.Very few primary headings used
i.Compare IFR vs VFR
b.Headings in a Mixed Flow A vs. South Flow
c.Provide data on aircraft destination by heading
d.Highlight the use of headings by time of day
5.Noise Model Data
a.Develop Count Above 65 dB density graphics for Runway 17 departures
pre-CRO and post-CRO
6.Land Use
a.Provide an overhead graphic of land use for areas that underlie typical
Runway 17 departure paths. Categorize land uses as compatible or non-
compatible
7. Runway 17 EA
a.Compare and contrast assumptions made in the Runway 17 Departure
Headings EA to 2018
9
Minneapolis St. Paul International Airport (MSP)
2018 Annual Noise Contour Report
Comparison of the 2018 Actual and the 2007 Forecast Noise Contours
February 2018
MAC Noise Program Office and HNTB Corporation
10
MSP 2018 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
I
Table of Contents
ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................. 1
ES.1 BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................................... 1
ES.2 AIRPORT NOISE LITIGATION AND CONSENT DECREE .............................................................. 1
ES.3 MSP 2020 IMPROVEMENTS EA/EAW ..................................................................................... 2
ES.4 THE AMENDED CONSENT DECREE ......................................................................................... 2
ES.5 2018 NOISE CONTOUR .......................................................................................................... 3
ES.6 AMENDED CONSENT DECREE PROGRAM ELIGIBILITY ............................................................. 3
ES.7 AMENDED CONSENT DECREE PROGRAM MITIGATION STATUS ............................................. 4
1.INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ................................................................................. 9
1.1 CORRECTIVE LAND USE EFFORTS TO ADDRESS AIRCRAFT NOISE ............................................ 9
1.2 2007 FORECAST MITIGATED NOISE CONTOUR ..................................................................... 11
1.3 AIRCRAFT NOISE LITIGATION ............................................................................................... 13
1.4 NOISE MITIGATION SETTLEMENT AND ANNUAL NOISE CONTOUR ....................................... 13
1.5 FINAL MSP 2020 IMPROVEMENTS EA/EAW AND AMENDED CONSENT DECREE ................... 15
2.2018 ACTUAL NOISE CONTOURS .................................................................................. 18
2.1 DEVELOPMENT OF THE 2018 ACTUAL NOISE CONTOURS ..................................................... 18
2.1.1 Noise Modeling ................................................................................................................................. 18
2.1.2 2018 Aircraft Operations and Fleet Mix ............................................................................................ 19
2.1.3 2018 Runway Use .............................................................................................................................. 20
2.1.4 2018 Flight Tracks .............................................................................................................................. 22
2.1.5 2018 Atmospheric Conditions ........................................................................................................... 22
2.2 2018 MODELED VERSUS MEASURED DNL VALUES ............................................................... 23
2.3 2018 NOISE CONTOUR IMPACTS ......................................................................................... 25
3. COMPARISON OF THE 2018 ACTUAL AND THE 2007 FORECAST NOISE CONTOURS ............. 28
3.1 COMPARISON OF NOISE CONTOUR INPUTS......................................................................... 28
3.1.1 Noise Model Considerations ............................................................................................................. 28
3.1.2 Aircraft Operations and Fleet Mix Comparison ................................................................................. 28
3.1.3 Runway Use Comparison ................................................................................................................... 29
3.1.4 Flight Track Considerations ............................................................................................................... 30
3.1.5 Atmospheric Conditions Comparison ................................................................................................ 30
3.2 COMPARATIVE NOISE MODEL GRID POINT ANALYSIS .......................................................... 31
11
MSP 2018 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
II
3.3 CONTOUR COMPARISON SUMMARY .................................................................................. 31
4. 2018 ANNUAL NOISE CONTOUR AND THE AMENDED CONSENT DECREE ............................ 34
4.1 FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE NOISE MITIGATION CONSENT DECREE ..................................... 34
4.2 SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE CONSENT DECREE ............................................................... 34
4.3 2018 ACTUAL CONTOUR NOISE MITIGATION IMPACT ......................................................... 35
4.4 AMENDED CONSENT DECREE PROGRAM ELIGIBILITY ........................................................... 38
4.5 AMENDED CONSENT DECREE PROGRAM MITIGATION STATUS ........................................... 39
12
MSP 2018 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
1
ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ES.1 BACKGROUND
The issue of aircraft noise at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP) includes a long
history of local efforts to quantify and mitigate noise impacts in a manner responsive to concerns
raised by communities around the airport and consistent with federal policy. In 1992, the
Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) embarked on a 14 CFR Part 150 Program at MSP
(Program), which included a noise mitigation program for single-family and multi-family
residences and schools, as well as property acquisition and relocation based on mitigation
eligibility defined by the 1996 forecast 65 decibel Day-Night Average Sound Level (dB DNL) noise
contour. When the original Part 150 Program was completed in 2006, noise mitigation had been
provided to 7,846 single-family homes, 1,327 multi-family units and 19 schools. Additionally, 437
residential properties were acquired around MSP as part of the program. The total cost of the
program was approximately $385.6 million.
In 1999 the MAC began an update to its Program and published a draft Part 150 Update document
in October 2000, which included a 2005 forecast noise contour. In May 2002, after further
consideration of the effects of September 11, 2001, the MAC withdrew the draft Part 150 Update
to ensure the operational impacts and MSP fleet mix changes were considered in the noise
contours.
One of the largest discussion items in the Part 150 Update process focused on the mitigation
program. Expansion of noise mitigation efforts beyond the federally-recognized level of 65 dB
DNL was outlined as part of the Dual-Track Airport Planning Process (a process directed by the
State Legislature that began in 1989 and concluded in 1998 that examined moving MSP versus
expanding it in its current location). Through the Part 150 Update, the MAC detailed a specific
mitigation package to be offered to homes located in the 60-64 dB DNL noise contour area, which
proposed providing central air conditioning to single-family homes that did not have it, with a
homeowner co-pay based on the degree of noise impact.
ES.2 AIRPORT NOISE LITIGATION AND CONSENT DECREE
The cities located around MSP expressed dissatisfaction with the Part 150 Update associated
with the expanded noise mitigation proposal in the context of the Dual-Track Airport Planning
Process discussions. Contention grew and in early 2005, the Cities of Minneapolis, Eagan, and
Richfield and the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority filed a lawsuit in Hennepin County District
Court against the MAC on the grounds that the MAC violated environmental quality standards
and the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act by failing to provide a Full 5-decibel Noise Reduction
Package (as was provided in the 1996 65 dB DNL noise contour) to single-family homes in the
60-64 dB DNL noise contour areas. In September 2005, plaintiffs seeking class action certification
filed a separate action against the MAC alleging breach of contract claims associated with
mitigation in the 60-64 dB DNL noise contours.
In 2007, the MAC and the Cities of Minneapolis, Eagan, and Richfield and the Minneapolis Public
Housing Authority entered into a Consent Decree that settled the litigation. The 2007 Consent
Decree provided the Full 5-decibel Reduction Package to single-family homes within the 2007
forecast 63 dB DNL noise contour and a Partial Noise Reduction Package to single-family homes
located in the 2007 forecast 60-62 dB DNL noise contours. A Homeowner Reimbursement
13
MSP 2018 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
2
Program was also offered to single-family homes located in areas between the 2005 forecast 60
dB DNL noise contour and the 2007 forecast 60 dB DNL noise contour. Multi-family structures
within the 2007 forecast 60 dB DNL noise contour were offered a uniform Multi-Family Reduction
Package.
Upon the completion of the 2007 Consent Decree noise mitigation program in 2014, more than
15,000 single-family homes and 3,303 multi-family units were provided noise mitigation around
MSP. The total cost to implement mitigation under the 2007 Consent Decree was $95 million,
raising the MAC’s expenditures related to its noise mitigation program efforts to over $482 million.
ES.3 MSP 2020 IMPROVEMENTS EA/EAW
In January 2013, the MAC published the Final MSP 2020 Improvements Environmental
Assessment/Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA/EAW), which reviewed the potential and
cumulative environmental impacts of MSP terminal and landside developments needed through
the year 2020. In response to new concerns expressed by MSP Noise Oversight Committee
membership, a new noise mitigation plan was proposed in the EA/EAW leading to an amendment
to the 2007 Consent Decree.
ES.4 THE AMENDED CONSENT DECREE
The first amendment to the 2007 Consent Decree was initiated in 2013 and establishes
Residential Noise Mitigation Program eligibility based on annual assessments of actual MSP
aircraft activity rather than projections. To be eligible, a home must be located within the actual
60 dB DNL noise contour and exposed to a higher noise mitigation eligibility area when compared
to the previous noise mitigation program area for three consecutive years. The first of the three
years must occur by 2020. The Full 5-decibel Reduction Package is offered to single-family
homes meeting these criteria inside the actual 63 dB DNL noise contour while the Partial Noise
Reduction Package is offered to single-family homes in the actual 60-62 dB DNL noise contours.
A uniform Multi-Family Noise Reduction Package is offered to multi-family units within the actual
60 dB DNL noise contour. Homes will be mitigated in the year following their eligibility
determination. The 2013 actual noise contour marked the first year in assessing this new
mitigation program.
A second amendment was made to the 2007 Consent Decree in 2017. This amendment allows
the use of the Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT) to develop the actual noise contours
each year, beginning with the 2016 actual noise contour. In 2015, AEDT replaced the Integrated
Noise Model (INM) as the federally-approved computer model for determining and analyzing
noise exposure and land use compatibility issues around airports in the United States. The second
amendment also provided clarity on the Opt-Out Eligibility criteria. Specifically, single-family
homes that previously opted out of the Partial Noise Reduction Package may participate in the
Full 5-decibel Reduction Package, provided the home meets the eligibility requirements.
14
MSP 2018 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
3
ES.5 2018 NOISE CONTOUR
Based on the 406,913 1 total operations at MSP in 2018, the actual 60 dB DNL contour is
approximately 28 percent smaller than the 2007 forecast contour and the 65 dB DNL contour is
approximately 39 percent smaller than the 2007 forecast contour. The predominant contraction in
the contours from the 2007 forecast to the 2018 actual noise contour scenario is driven largely by
a reduction in total aircraft operations by 30.1 percent, 274.2 fewer average daily flights in Hushkit
Stage 3 aircraft, and a daily average of 3.0 fewer flights during the nighttime. However, there
continues to be a small area in Minneapolis and Eagan where the 2018 actual noise contours
extend beyond the 2007 forecast noise contours establishing First, Second, and Third year
Candidate Eligibility under the terms of the amended Consent Decree. This expansion of noise
impacts can largely be attributed to nighttime runway use variances between what was forecasted
for 2007 and what occurred in 2018, particularly an increase of the nighttime arrival operations on
Runway 12R.
ES.6 AMENDED CONSENT DECREE PROGRAM ELIGIBILITY
First-Year Candidate Eligibility
There are 313 single-family homes that achieved the first year of eligibility with the 2018 actual
noise contour. All 313 homes are in Minneapolis. Of these, 216 homes are in the Partial Noise
Reduction Package. All 216 of these homes were previously outside the mitigation program area.
The 2018 actual noise contour includes 97 single-family homes within the first year of eligibility
for the Full 5-decibel Reduction Package. Additionally, there are 525 multi-family units in the 2018
noise contour that achieved the first year of eligibility. If these 313 single-family homes and 525
multi-family units remain in a higher noise impact area compared to the previous noise mitigation
program for two more consecutive years, they will be eligible for mitigation in 2022.
Second-Year Candidate Eligibility
The 2018 actual contour shrunk near both the arrival and departure lobes of Runway 30L,
resulting in some homes in Minneapolis, Eagan and Inver Grove Heights not reaching a second
consecutive year of eligibility. Of the 63 homes that met the first year of candidate eligibility in the
2017 actual noise contour, 16 achieved a second consecutive year of candidate eligibility with the
2018 actual noise contour. All 16 single-family homes are located on one block in Eagan within
the Partial Noise Reduction Package. The homes on this block were previously eligible for
homeowner reimbursements during the Original Consent Decree Program. If these 16 single-
family homes remain in a higher noise impact area in the 2019 actual noise contour compared to
the previous noise mitigation program, they will be eligible for mitigation in 2021.
There are no multi-family units within the second year of eligibility.
1 Based on airport operations counts documented by the Federal Aviation Administration Opsnet for MSP in 2018.
15
MSP 2018 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
4
Third-Year Candidate Eligibility
There were 243 single-family homes that met the Second-Year Candidate Eligibility in the 2017
Annual Noise Contour Report analysis. All 243 homes are located within the third -year eligibility
area and are eligible to participate in the mitigation program in 2020.
Of the 243 single-family homes that meet the Third-year Candidate Eligibility, a total of 164 single-
family homes are eligible for the Partial Noise Reduction Package. Of these homes, 140
previously were located outside the eligibility area, and 24 previously were eligible for homeowner
reimbursements. These single-family homes are eligible to participate in the 2020 mitigation
program to receive one of two mitigation options, as detailed in Section 9.5(b) of the first
amendment to the 2007 Consent Decree. The remaining 79 single-family homes are eligible for
the Full 5-decibel Reduction Package. Four of the homeowners of these 79 homes previously
opted out of the Partial Noise Reduction Package. There are no multi-family units that meet the
criteria for Third-Year Candidate Eligibility. All homes eligible for the 2020 mitigation program are
located in Minneapolis.
Homeowners of eligible properties will be notified by the MAC in writing by mid-2019. In cases
where homes have received previous reimbursement from the MAC, the value of those
improvements will be deducted from the efforts required to increase the home mitigation relative
to the actual noise level, per the amended Consent Decree. In cases where homes received
previous improvements from the MAC, those efforts will not be duplicated in the design of future
mitigation activity.
The blocks meeting the first, second and third consecutive year(s) of noise mitigation eligibility by
virtue of the 2018 actual noise contours are shown in Figures ES-1, ES-2 and ES-3.
ES.7 AMENDED CONSENT DECREE PROGRAM MITIGATION STATUS
2017 Mitigation Program
In 2017 the MAC began the project to provide mitigation to 138 single-family homes that became
eligible by virtue of the 2015 actual noise contour. As of February 4, 2019, 116 homes have been
completed, 1 home is in the construction or pre-construction phase, 15 homes declined to
participate while 6 homes were moved to the 2019 program as a result of homeowner actions.
Two multi-family structures were also eligible to participate in the Multi-Family Mitigation Program
in 2017; one property is completed, and one property declined to participate. The total cost f or
the 2017 Mitigation Program to date is $2,409,317.
2018 Mitigation Program
In 2017 the MAC began the project to provide mitigation to 283 single-family homes that became
eligible by virtue of the 2016 actual noise contour. As of February 4, 2019, 167 homes have been
completed, 65 homes are in the construction or pre-construction phase, 27 homes declined to
participate while 24 homes were moved to the 2019 program. The 2018 Mitigation Program does
not include any multi-family properties. The total cost for the 2018 Mitigation Program to date is
$4,847,480.
16
MSP 2018 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
5
2019 Mitigation Program
In 2018 the MAC began the project to provide mitigation to 429 single-family homes that became
eligible by virtue of the 2017 actual noise contour. As of February 4, 2019, including the homes
transitioned from the 2017 and 2018 programs, 10 homes have been completed, 410 homes are
in the construction or pre-construction phase and 39 homes declined to participate. The 2019
Mitigation Program does not include any multi-family properties. The total cost for the 2019
Mitigation Program to date is $251,952.
17
MSP 2018 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
6
Figure ES-1: 2018 Contours and Mitigation Program Eligibility
18
MSP 2018 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
7
Figure ES-2: 2018 Contours and Mitigation Program Eligibility – City of Minneapolis
19
MSP 2018 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
8
Figure ES-3: 2018 Contours and Mitigation Program Eligibility – City of Eagan
20
MSP 2018 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
9
1.INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The issue of aircraft noise at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP) includes a long
history of local efforts to quantify and mitigate noise impacts in a manner responsive to concerns
raised by the communities around the airport and consistent with federal policy. The Metropolitan
Airports Commission (MAC) has led the way with these efforts in the conceptualization and
implementation of many initiatives to reduce noise impacts around MSP. One of the most notable
of these initiatives has been the sound insulation program originally implemented under 14 Code
of Federal Regulations Part 150 (Part 150).
Part 150 provides a framework for airport operators to develop a compreh ensive noise plan for
an airport in the form of a Noise Compatibility Program (NCP). An NCP is comprised of two
fundamental approaches to addressing noise impacts around an airport: (1) Land Use Measures,
and (2) Noise Abatement (NA) Measures (operational measures to reduce noise). A key
component of Part 150 program planning is the development of a Base Case Noise Exposure
Map (NEM) and a five-year forecast NEM without (unmitigated forecast scenario) and with
(forecast mitigated scenario) the recommended operational noise abatement measures. Including
operational noise abatement measures is important because the way an airport is operated, and
the way aircraft procedures are executed have a direct effect on an airport’s noise impact.
NEMs are commonly referred to as noise contours. Forecast mitigated noise contours depict the
areas that may be eligible for Land Use Measures (compatible land use plans, property
acquisition, residential relocation, and sound mitigation) around an airport.
Recognizing the need for increased infrastructure and the emerging importance of noise issues
as operations at MSP increased, the MAC submitted its first MSP Part 150 Study to the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) in October 1987. NEMs were accepted by the FAA in October 1989,
and portions of the NCP were approved in April 1990. The NCP included Corrective Land Use
Measures which called for the soundproofing of residences, schools and other public buildings. A
1992 update to the NCP and NEM marked the beginning of corrective mitigation measures within
the forecast 1996 NEM 65 dB Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) noise contours.
1.1 CORRECTIVE LAND USE EFFORTS TO ADDRESS AIRCRAFT NOISE
From 1992 to 2006, the Residential Noise Mitigation Program was a large and visible part of the
Part 150 program at MSP. The MAC designed the MSP Residential Noise Mitigation Program
using FAA structural Noise Level Reduction (NLR) documentation to establish product -specific
Sound Transmission Class (STC) ratings and associated NLR goals, creat ive bidding practices,
and cooperative prioritization and funding efforts. Through innovative approaches to enhancing
the program as new information and technologies became available, the MSP Residential Noise
Mitigation Program quickly became a national model.
Because testing and evaluation of single-family homes near MSP indicated that the majority of
such homes provided an average 30 dB of exterior to interior sound attenuation, the MAC
developed a “Full 5-decibel Reduction Package” for single-family homes within the 65 dB DNL
and greater noise contours. This package provided an average exterior-to-interior noise reduction
level of 5 dB, ensuring a noticeable level of reduction designed to meet the FAA’s target of a 45
dB DNL interior noise level in each home. The Full 5-decibel Reduction Package offered a menu
of mitigation measures that the MAC might install to achieve an average 5 dB noise reduction and
meet the 45 dB DNL interior noise level in an individual home. The menu of mitigation measures
21
MSP 2018 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
10
included: windows; prime doors; attic insulation; baffling of attic vents, mail slots and chimneys;
and the addition of central air-conditioning. The MAC determined which specific mitigation
measures were necessary for a particular home after assessing the home’s existing condition.
As a result of detailed and extensive project management and quality control, the program
achieved an excellent record of homeowner satisfaction. Throughout the duration of the program,
when homeowners were asked if the improvements were effective at reducing aircraft noise, at
least 95 percent responded yes. When asked if the modifications improved interior home comfort,
at least 95 percent responded yes.
In 2004, the MAC awarded the final bids for the remaining unmitigated homes in t he 1996 65 dB
DNL noise contour. In early 2006, the MAC completed the mitigation of an additional 165 single-
family homes in the 2007 forecast mitigated 65 dB DNL noise contour. With the completion of the
165 single-family homes, all eligible and participating homes within the 2007 forecast mitigated
65 dB DNL contour have been mitigated. This represented a significant accomplishment for an
industry-leading aircraft noise mitigation program. The program resulted in the mitigation of over
7,800 single-family homes in communities around MSP.
The financial investment in the MSP Residential Noise Mitigation Program was among the largest
in the nation for such programs. Throughout the 14-year project (1992-2006) several variables
had an impact on the project’s annual financial profile. Year-to-year variations in housing stock
and material costs caused fluctuations in the unit, or per-house, costs. This, combined with
variations in annual budgets as a result of challenges such as the terrorist attacks of September
11, 2001, resulted in a fluctuating rate of annual home completions.
Annual average mitigation costs per single-family home ranged from a low of $17,300 in 1994 to
a high of $45,000 in 2001. The MAC spent a total of approximately $229.5 million on the single-
family home mitigation program during its 14-year lifespan.
In addition to the single-family mitigation program, the MAC also mitigated multi-family units and
schools, and engaged in property acquisition and relocation. The multi-family component of the
Residential Noise Mitigation Program began in 2001 and was significantly smaller in both the
number of structures mitigated and the associated costs. With completion of multi-family
structures in the 1996 65 dB DNL noise contour, the MAC mitigated approximately 1,327 multi-
family units at a total cost of approximately $11.1 million. There were no additional multi-family
structures inside the 2007 forecast mitigated 65 dB DNL noise contour. All eligible and
participating multi-family structures within the 2007 forecast mitigated 65 dB DNL noise contour
have been mitigated.
Also, since 1981, the MAC has mitigated 19 schools located around MSP. This total represents
all of the schools located within the 1996 65 dB DNL noise contour. In response to the Minnesota
State Legislature’s directives, the MAC also provided mitigation to certain schools located outside
the 1996 65 dB DNL noise contour. The costs of insulating individual schools varied from
$850,000 to $8 million. A total of approximately $52 million was spent on the school sound
insulation program.
In addition to the residential and school noise mitigation programs, the MAC implemented a
residential property acquisition program that facilitated the relocation of sensitive land uses, such
as residential buildings, in noise impact areas. The intent of the residential acquisition program
was to address impacted properties in the 1996 65 dB DNL noise contour, with the property
owners and the city in which the respective property resided agreeing that acquisition was the
22
MSP 2018 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
11
desirable means of mitigating the homes. As a result, the MAC acquired approximately 437
residential properties. In total, the MAC expended approximately $93 million on the residential
property acquisition program.
1.2 2007 FORECAST MITIGATED NOISE CONTOUR
In late 1998, the MAC authorized an update to the Part 150 program at MSP. The update process
began in 1999 with the development of noise contours and noise abatement and land use
measures. The MAC published a draft Part 150 Update document in October 2000 and submitted
the study, including a 2005 forecast NEM and revised NCP, to the FAA for review. In May 2002,
after further consideration of the events of September 11, 2001, the MAC withdrew the study to
update the forecast and associated noise contours.
The forecast update process began in February 2003. This effort focused on updating the Base
Case year from a 2000 scenario to a 2002 Base Case and updating the forecast year from 2005
to 2007. The purpose of the forecast update was to ensure that the noise contours considered
the impacts of the events of September 11, 2001 and ongoing changes in the MSP aircraft fleet.
In addition to updating the forecast, the MAC and the MSP Noise Oversight Committee (NOC)
conducted a review of the Integrated Noise Model (INM) input methodology and data to ensure
continued consensus with the previous contour (i.e., November 2001) development process.
On November 17, 2003, the MAC approved the revised forecast and fleet mix numbers and INM
input methodology and data for use in developing the 2002 and 2007 NEMs. In March 2004, the
MAC revised the forecast to incorporate certain corrections in general aviation numbers and to
reflect Northwest Airlines’ announcement that it would resume service of five aircraft that had
been taken out of service previously.
The 2004 Part 150 Update resulted in a comprehensive NCP recommendation. In addition to
several land use measures around MSP, the NCP included provisions for a number of operational
NA measures. The aircraft and airport operational noise abatement initiatives in the 2004 Part
150 Update focused on aircraft operational procedures, runway use, departure and arrival flight
tracks, voluntary operational agreements with the airlines, and provisions for further evaluation of
technology. The MAC has implemented the operational NA Measures outlined in the November
2004 Part 150 Update NCP that are reflected in the 2007 forecast mitigated noise contour
included in the 2004 MSP Part 150 Update.
Based on the estimate of 582,366 total operations in the 2007 forecast mitigated scenario,
approximately 7,234.4 acres are in the 65 dB DNL noise contour and approximately 15,708.3
acres are in the 60 dB DNL noise contour. Since 2014 all eligible and participating homes within
the 2007 forecast mitigated 60 dB DNL noise contour have been mitigated. A depiction of the
2007 forecast noise contours is provided in Figure 1.
23
MSP 2018 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
12
Figure 1: 2007 Forecast Noise Contour
24
MSP 2018 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
13
1.3 AIRCRAFT NOISE LITIGATION
One of the largest discussion items in the Part 150 Update process that began in 1999 focused
on the mitigation program that the MAC would offer in the 60-64 dB DNL noise contour area. The
FAA recognizes sensitive land uses, such as residential land uses eligible for noise mitigation
under Part 150, only within the 65 dB DNL noise contour or greater. However, as part of the Dual-
Track Airport Planning Process (a process that examined moving MSP versus expanding it in its
current location, undertaken at the direction of the Minnesota State Legislature), the MAC made
a policy decision to provide some level of noise mitigation out to the 60 dB DNL noise contour
area surrounding MSP. During the Dual-Track Airport Planning Process, an MSP Noise Mitigation
Committee was developed and tasked with proposing a noise mitigation plan to be considered in
conjunction with the expansion of MSP at its present location.
Throughout the Part 150 Update process, the intent of the MSP Noise Mitigation Committee’s
recommendation regarding mitigation outside the 65 dB DNL contour was a topic of detailed
discussion and debate. During the course of the Part 150 Update process the MAC formulated a
number of mitigation proposals, culminating in a final MAC position on mitigation outside the 65
dB DNL contour. In the November 2004 Part 150 Update, the MAC’s recommendation for
mitigation in the 60-64 dB DNL contours called for providing central air-conditioning to single-
family homes that did not have it, with a homeowner co-pay based on the degree of noise impact.
The MAC based eligibility for the mitigation proposal on the 2007 forecast mitigated noise contour
using the block-intersect methodology. The cities located around MSP expressed dissatisfaction
with the MAC proposal, asserting that the MSP Noise Mitigation Committee recommended that
the Full 5-decibel Reduction Package was to be expanded to all properties in the 60-64 dB DNL
noise contours. The MAC countered that the MSP Noise Mitigation Committee’s
recommendations did not specify the mitigation package elements to be offered in the 60-64dB
DNL noise contour area and that, because homes in Minnesota have higher than the national
average pre-existing noise attenuation characteristics, the Full 5-decibel Reduction Package was
not necessary outside the 65 dB DNL contour.
In early 2005, the Cities of Minneapolis, Eagan, and Richfield and the Minneapolis Public Housing
Authority filed suit in Hennepin County District Court claiming, among other things, the MAC
violated environmental quality standards and the Minnesota Environmental Ri ghts Act (MERA)
by failing to provide the Full 5-decibel Reduction Package to single-family homes in the 60-64 dB
DNL contours. In September 2005, plaintiffs seeking class action certification filed a separate
action against the MAC alleging breach of contract claims associated with mitigation in the 60-64
dB DNL contours. In January 2007, Hennepin County District Judge Stephen Aldrich granted the
cities partial summary judgment. The court found, among other things, that the MAC, by virtue of
implementing the Full 5-decibel Reduction Package, created an environmental standard that the
MAC violated by recommending different mitigation in the 64 to 60 DNL noise contour area. In
February 2007, the court held a trial on the cities’ MERA and mandamus claims. Before the court
entered final judgment post-trial, however, the parties negotiated a global settlement resolving
the cities’ case and the class action suit.
1.4 NOISE MITIGATION SETTLEMENT AND ANNUAL NOISE CONTOUR
On October 19, 2007, Judge Stephen Aldrich approved a Consent Decree entered into by the
MAC and the Cities of Minneapolis, Eagan, and Richfield and the Minneapolis Public Housing
Authority that settled the litigation. The Consent Decree provided that it became effective only if:
25
MSP 2018 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
14
(1) the FAA advised the MAC in writing by November 15, 2007 that the Decree was an appropriate
use of airport revenue and was consistent with the MAC’s federal grant obligation s; and (2) that
the court approved a settlement in the class action case by January 17, 2008. Both of these
conditions were satisfied, and in 2008 the MAC began implementing single-family and multi-family
mitigation out to the 2007 60 dB DNL noise contours and mitigation reimbursement funds out to
the 2005 60 dB DNL noise contours, as the Consent Decree required. Under the Decree,
mitigation activities would vary based on noise exposure. Homes with the highest noise exposure
were eligible for more extensive mitigation than those with less noise exposure.
The 2007 Consent Decree provided that approximately 457 homes in the 2007 63-64 dB DNL
forecast noise contours were eligible to receive the Full 5-decibel Reduction Package, which was
the same level of noise mitigation that the MAC provided in the 1996 65 dB DNL and greater
contours. The 2007 63-64 dB DNL noise contour mitigation program was designed to achieve five
dB of noise reduction on average, with mitigation measures that might include the following,
depending upon the home’s existing condition: central air-conditioning; exterior and storm window
repair or replacement; prime door and storm door repair or replacement; wall and attic insulation;
baffling of roof vents and chimney treatment. As required by the Consent Decree, the MAC
completed construction of mitigation in the 2007 63-64 dB DNL noise contours by December 31,
2009. A total of 404 homes participated in the program.
In addition, under the Decree, owners of the approximately 5,428 single-family homes in the 2007
60-62 dB DNL noise contours were eligible for one of two mitigation packages: 1) homes that did
not have central air-conditioning as of September 1, 2007 would receive it and up to $4,000
(including installation costs) in other noise mitigation products and services they could choose
from a menu provided by the MAC; or 2) owners of homes that already had central air-conditioning
installed as of September 1, 2007 or who chose not to receive central air-conditioning were eligible
for up to $14,000 (including installation costs) in noise mitigation products and services they could
choose from a menu provided by the MAC. The mitigation menu included acoustical modifications
such as: exterior and storm window repair or replacement; prime door and storm door repair or
replacement; wall and attic insulation; and baffling of roof vents and chimney treatment. These
packages collectively became known as the Partial Noise Reduction Program. As required by the
Consent Decree, the MAC completed the Partial Noise Reduction Program by December 1, 2012.
A total of 5,055 homes participated in the program.
According to the provisions in the Consent Decree, single -family homes in the 2007 63-64 dB
DNL contours and in the 2007 60-62 dB DNL contours whose earlier owners opted out of the
previously-completed MAC noise mitigation program for the 1996 65 dB DNL noise contours and
greater, but that had new owners on September 1, 2007, were eligible to “opt in” and receive
noise mitigation. If the total cost to the MAC of the opt-in mitigation is less than $7 million, any
remaining funds were used to reimburse owners of single-family homes between the 2005
mitigated 60 dB DNL contour and the 2007 forecast mitigated 60 dB DNL contour for purchase
and installation of products included on a menu provided by the MAC. The amount each
homeowner received was determined by subtracting dollars spent for the opt-in program from the
total $7 million budget, and then by dividing the remainder of funds among the total number of
single-family homes within the 2005 60 dB DNL and 2007 dB 60 DNL contours. This program
became known as the Homeowner Reimbursement Program.
In September 2014, the MAC completed the Homeowner Reimbursement Program for a total of
1,773 participating single-family homes between the 2005 mitigated 60 dB DNL contour and the
26
MSP 2018 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
15
2007 forecast mitigated 60 dB DNL contour. The total cost of the “opt-in” mitigation and the 2005
mitigated 60 dB DNL contour reimbursement mitigation program was capped at $7 million.
The MAC completed the Multi-Family Noise Reduction Package in 2010 by installing acoustical
covers on air-conditioners or installing new air-conditioners in 1,976 dwelling units.
All of the phases of the Residential Noise Mitigation Program required under the original Consent
Decree were completed by September 2014. The total cost to implement mitigation under the
original Consent Decree was approximately $95 million, (which is inclusive of the $7 million for
opt-in mitigation and single-family mitigation reimbursement).
In addition to the MAC’s mitigation obligations, the Consent Decree releases legal claims that the
cities and homeowners have against the MAC in exchange for the actions that the MAC would
perform under the Decree. The releases cease to be effective for a certain location if the average
annual aircraft noise level in DNL at that location is at or above DNL 60 dB and is at least 2 dB
DNL higher than the Base Case DNL Noise Level.
The Base Case DNL Noise Level is established by the actual DNL noise level at a location during
the year the home in that location becomes eligible for noise mitigation under the amended
Consent Decree. The Base Case DNL Noise Level for homes that are not eligible for mitigation
under the amended Consent Decree is established using the 2007 forecast DNL level for that
location.
The MAC determines DNL values by using the FAA’s AEDT noise modeling software and actual
MSP operations data to generate a noise contour reflecting noise conditions associated with MSP
activity for the prior calendar year. The MSP noise contour must be published by March 1 of each
year. The MAC has prepared this report to satisfy Section 8.1(d) of the Consent Decree.
MAC staff and representatives from the Cities of Minneapolis, Eagan, and Richfield met on
February 11 and 20, 2008 to discuss and finalize the annual report format. The actual contour
that the MAC must develop under Section 8.1(d) of the Consent Decree is relevant to the release
provisions in Section 8.1 as well as the determination of mitigation eligibility as defined by an
amendment to the Consent Decree, described in Chapter 4 of this report.
1.5 FINAL MSP 2020 IMPROVEMENTS EA/EAW AND AMENDED CONSENT
DECREE
In January 2013, the MAC published the Final MSP 2020 Improvements Environmental
Assessment/Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA/EAW), which reviewed the potential and
cumulative environmental impacts of MSP terminal and landside developments needed through
the year 2020.
As is detailed in the EA/EAW, the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Finding of No
Significant Impact/Record of Decision (FONSI/ROD), and summarized in the MAC’s related
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order, the Preferred Alternative scenario does not
have the potential for significant environmental effects. The forecasted noise contours around
MSP are driven by natural traffic growth that is anticipated to occur with or without implementation
of the 2020 Improvements.
However, given past noise mitigation activities surrounding MSP, the terms of the 2007 Consent
Decree in City of Minneapolis, et. al. v. Metropolitan Airports Commission, and local land use
27
MSP 2018 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
16
compatibility guidelines defined by the Metropolitan Council, many of the public comments on the
EA/EAW focused on future noise mitigation efforts. Additionally, the anticipated completion of the
Consent Decree Residential Noise Mitigation Program in 2014 raised community interest
regarding the future of noise mitigation at MSP.
In response, MAC staff, in consultation with the MSP NOC, began the process of developing a
noise mitigation plan to be included in the EA/EAW. The resulting recommended noise mitigation
program established that eligibility be based upon actual noise contours that the MAC would
prepare for MSP on an annual basis. To be eligible for noise mitigation, a home would need to be
located for three consecutive years in a higher noise mitigation impact area when compared to
the home’s status under the terms of the 2007 Consent Decree.
The Final MSP 2020 Improvements EA/EAW detailed the following mitigation program elements:
•Mitigation eligibility would be assessed annually based on the actual noise contours for
the previous year.
•The annual mitigation assessment would begin with the actual noise contour for the year
in which the FAA FONSI/ROD for the EA/EAW was issued.
•For a home to be considered eligible for mitigation it must be located within the actual 60
dB DNL noise contour, within a higher noise impact mitigation area when compared to its
status relative to the original Consent Decree noise mitigation program, for a total of three
consecutive years, with the first of the three years beginning no later than 2020.
•The noise contour boundary would be based on the block intersect methodology.
•Homes would be mitigated in the year following their eligibility determination.
On January 7, 2013, the FAA published the Final MSP 2020 Improvements EA/EAW and the
Draft FONSI/ROD, which included the following position regarding the proposed noise mitigation
program:
“The FAA is reviewing MAC's proposal for noise mitigation of homes for consistency with
the 1999 FAA Policy and Procedures concerning the use of airport revenue and other
applicable policy guidance.”
During the public comment period on the FAA’s Draft FONSI/ROD many communities submitted
comments urging the FAA to approve the MAC’s revised noise mitigation proposal.
On March 5, 2013, the FAA approved the FONSI/ROD for the Final MSP 2020 Improvements
EA/EAW. Specifically, the FAA stated that noise mitigation would not be a condition of FAA
approval of the MSP 2020 Improvements project because “[n]o areas of sensitive land uses would
experience a 1.5 dB or greater increase in the 65 dB DNL noise contour when comparing the No
Action Alternative for 2020 and 2025 with the Proposed Action for the respective years.” However,
the FAA included a letter dated March 5, 2013, as an attachment to the FONSI/ROD that
addresses the conditions under which airport revenue may be used for off-airport noise mitigation.
In that letter, the FAA stated:
“As a matter of general principle mitigation measures imposed by a state court as part of
a consent decree are eligible for use of airport revenue. Conceptually MAC could use
airport revenues if it were to amend the 2007 consent decree to include the proposed
mitigation.”
28
MSP 2018 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
17
Based on the FAA guidance, the MAC initiated discussions with the other parties to the Consent
Decree (Cities of Minneapolis, Richfield and Eagan and the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority)
to begin the amendment process. Additionally, at the March 20, 2013 , NOC meeting, the
Committee was updated on the progress of this issue and voted unanimously, supporting the
following position:
“NOC supports the noise mitigation program as detailed in the final EA/EAW in principal
and supports follow-up negotiations between the parties to the Consent Decree to
establish mutually agreeable terms for the modification of the Consent Decree consistent
with the March 5th FAA letter in Appendix D of the FONSI ROD, for consideration by the
Court.”
The first amendment to the 2007 Consent Decree was initiated in 2014 with the 2013 actual noise
contours establishing the first year of candidate eligibility based on the criteria detailed in the Final
MSP 2020 Improvements EA/EAW. The Full 5-decibel Reduction Package is offered to single-
family homes meeting the eligibility criteria inside the actual 63 dB DNL noise contour while the
Partial Noise Reduction Package is offered to single-family homes in the actual 60-62 dB DNL
noise contours. A uniform Multi-Family Noise Reduction Package is offered to multi-family units
within the actual 60 dB DNL noise contour. Homes will be mitigated in the year following their
eligibility determination. The 2013 actual contour marked the first year in assessing this amended
mitigation program.
In 2017 MAC began construction on homes meeting the eligibility requirements, which includes
138 single-family homes and 88 multi-family units as part of the 2017 program, 283 single-family
homes in the 2018 program, and 429 single-family homes in the 2019 program. As of February
2019, $7,508,750 has been spent on mitigating homes pursuant to the amended Consent Decree.
A second amendment was made to the 2007 Consent Decree in 2017. This amendment allows
the use of the new federally approved noise model, the Aviation Environmental Design Tool
(AEDT) to run the actual noise contours each year, beginning with the 2016 actual noise contour.
The second amendment also provides clarity on two points with regard to the Opt-Out Eligibility
criteria: (1) homeowners who failed to participate in the reimbursement program are not
considered “Opt-Outs” and may participate in future programs provided the home meets the
eligibility requirements; and (2) single-family homes that previously opted out of the Partial Noise
Reduction Package may participate in the Full 5-decibel Reduction Package provided the home
meets the eligibility requirements.
29
MSP 2018 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
18
2.2018 ACTUAL NOISE CONTOURS
2.1 DEVELOPMENT OF THE 2018 ACTUAL NOISE CONTOURS
2.1.1 Noise Modeling
By March 1 of each year, the MAC is required to prepare actual noise contours reflecting the noise
exposure from MSP aircraft operations that took place during the previous calendar year. The
availability of federal or airport-generated funds for the purpose of noise mitigation is contingent
upon the development of noise contours in a manner consistent with FAA requirements. One of
these requirements is the use of the DNL noise assessment metric to determine and analyze
aircraft noise exposure. The DNL metric is calculated by averaging cumulative sound levels over
a 24-hour period. This average cumulative sound exposure includes a 10-decibel penalty to sound
exposures occurring during the nighttime (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM) to account for relatively low
nighttime ambient noise levels and because most people are asleep during these hours.
In 2015, the FAA began evaluating its methods for measuring aircraft noise. According to the
FAA, the results of the evaluation will be used to determine whether an update to policies
regarding the DNL metric is warranted, along with the parameters under which a home is eligible
to receive funding for mitigation. The FAA has not made any updates to these policies at the time
this report was developed.
The most recent version of AEDT, version 2d, was used to develop the 2018 actual noise
contours. In May 2015, AEDT version 2b was released by the FAA to replace a series of legacy
tools, including the INM, which was previously used for modeling noise pursuant to the terms of
the Consent Decree. According to the FAA, there is overlap in functionality and underlying
methodologies between AEDT and the legacy tools, however updates were made in AEDT that
result in differences when comparing outputs from AEDT and the legacy tools. The updates
related to noise modeling include: smaller flight segments to more accurately model aircraft noise
levels for a larger number of aircraft positions and states along a flight path; a new standard (SAE-
ARP-5534) for computing the effects of weather on noise; correcting misidentified aircraft engine
mounted locations for three aircraft types; and moving from recursive grids to dynamic grids for
noise contour generation. The AEDT version 2d release included new features, updates, and a
series of bug fixes and usability improvements. Upgrades include dynamic grid support for time-
based noise metrics, track dispersion enhancements, updates to the study database and fleet
database that include new noise profiles for the Boeing 737 MAX8, Bombardier Global Express
5000, Bombardier Global Express 6000, and Gulfstream G650 aircraft types.
Noise contours depict an annualized average day of aircraft noise impacts using model inputs,
such as runway use, flight track use, aircraft fleet mix, aircraft performance and thrust settings,
topography, and atmospheric conditions. Quantifying aircraft-specific noise characteristics in
AEDT is accomplished through the use of a comprehensive noise database that has been
developed under 14 CFR Part 36. As part of the airworthiness certification process, aircraft
manufacturers are required to subject aircraft to a battery of noise tests. Through the use of
federally adopted and endorsed algorithms, this aircraft-specific noise information is used in the
generation of DNL contours. Justification for such an approach is rooted in national
standardization of noise quantification at airports.
30
MSP 2018 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
19
2.1.2 2018 Aircraft Operations and Fleet Mix
The past 18 years have presented many challenges to the aviation industry. From a local
perspective, operational levels and the aircraft fleet mix at MSP have been affected by the terrorist
attacks on September 11, 2001, high fuel prices, bankruptcy filings by several legacy airlines
(notably the former Northwest Airlines), and economic recession. Additionally, overall market
forces appear to be favoring consolidation of major airlines through acquisitions and mergers,
such as Delta Air Lines’ acquisition of Northwest Airlines in 2008, followed by United Airlines’
acquisition of Continental Airlines in 2012, the merger of American Airlines and US Airways in
2013 and the merger of Southwest Airlines and AirTran in 2014. These developments have had
an effect on airline and aircraft operations. For example, the actual 2018 operations level at MSP
is still below the operational level documented at the airport over 25 years ago.
The MAC used its Noise and Operations Monitoring System (MACNOMS) for the 2018 fleet mix
data used in the assessment. The MACNOMS total operations number was 0.4 percent lower
than the operations number reported in the FAA’s Operations Network (OPSNET). To rectify the
numbers, MACNOMS data was adjusted upward to equal the OPSNET number. In 2018, the total
operations at MSP was 406,9132, an average of 1,114.8 daily flights. This represents a decrease
of 2.1 percent from the 2017 annual operations level reported by the FAA. A summary of the 2018
fleet mix is provided in Table 2.1. A more detailed presentation of the 2018 aircraft fleet mix is
provided in Appendix 1.
Table 2.1: Summary of 2018 Average Daily Flight Operations
Average Daily Flight Operations Day Night Total % of Total
Operations Manufactured to be Stage 3+ 953.3 117.4 1,070.8 96.1%
Hushkit Stage 3 Jets 0.3 0.5 0.8 0.1%
Microjet 0.6 0.0 0.6 0.1%
Propeller 38.3 2.3 40.5 3.6%
Helicopter 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0%
Military 1.9 0.0 2.0 0.2%
Total 994.5 120.3 1,114.8 100.00%
% of Total Operations 89.2% 10.8% 100.00%
Note: Totals may differ due to rounding.
Source: MAC-provided MACNOMS data, HNTB 2019
In 2018, the average daily number of total nighttime operations was 120.3, up slightly from 119.7
in 2017. The use of newer and quieter aircraft is on the rise. In 2018, there were 1,400 Airbus
A320neo (“new engine option”) operations, which according to Airbus are 50 percent quieter than
the current engine option. The current version of AEDT does not have a noise profile for the
A320neo, therefore a conservative approach was taken, consistent with FAA guidance, to input
2 Based on airport operations counts documented by the Federal Aviation Administration Opsnet for MSP in 2018.
31
MSP 2018 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
20
the current engine option for the 2018 annual noise contour. All nonstandard aircraft substitutions
in AEDT were approved by the FAA Office of Energy and Environment.
There were other notable changes to aircraft fleets at MSP that contributed to less noise in 2018.
For example, 283 operations in the Boeing 737 MAX8, which Boeing says are 40 percent quieter
than today’s B737. Meanwhile use of older and louder aircraft is declining. The MD-80s saw an
88 percent drop in operations at MSP in 2018 as Delta Airlines discontinued scheduling MD-80
operations at MSP; American Airlines also reduced the number of flights using that group of
aircraft.
2.1.3 2018 Runway Use
FAA control and coordination of runway use throughout the year for arrival and departure
operations at MSP has a notable effect on the noise impact around the airport. The number of
people and dwellings impacted by noise is a direct result of the number of operations using any
given runway, and the land uses off the end of the runway as well as the areas underlying the
flight paths that aircraft follow to get to and from the airport.
Historically, prior to the opening of Runway 17/35, arrival and departure operations at MSP
occurred on the parallel runways (12L/30R and 12R/30L) in a manner that resulted in
approximately 50 percent of the arrival and departure operations occurring to the northwest over
South Minneapolis, and 50 percent to the southeast over Mendota Heights and Eagan. Because
of the dense residential land uses to the northwest and the predominant ly industrial/commercial
land uses southeast of MSP, there was a concerted effort to focus departure operations over
areas to the southeast as the preferred operational configuration. This tactic proved to affect fewer
sensitive land uses and people from an aircraft noise perspective.
The introduction of Runway 17/35 at MSP in 2005 provided another opportunity to route aircraft
over an unpopulated area – the Minnesota River Valley. With use of the Runway 17 Departure
Procedure, westbound departing aircraft are routed such that they avoid close-in residential areas
southwest of Runway 17. Thus, use of Runway 17 for departing aircraft is the second preferred
operational configuration (after Runways 12L and 12R) for noise reduction purposes.
In 2013, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommended modifications to arrival
and departure procedures for airports with Converging Runway Operations (CRO). CRO exists
when the extended centerline of two runways intersect within one nautical mile of the two runway
departure ends. This situation poses a potential risk for aircraft converging at the intersection
point. At MSP, the extended centerline of Runway 35 intersects within one mile of the extended
centerlines for both Runways 30L and 30R. Since Runway 35 is used only for arrivals from the
south, potential convergence of flight paths would occur only if an aircraft executes an aborted
landing (“go around”) on its approach to Runway 35.
The FAA used a phase-in approach to introduce new safety requirements at United States airports
identified by the NTSB. Beginning in July 2015, the FAA worked to introduce the requirements at
MSP. At the end of 2015 and throughout 2016, the airport saw notable changes in runway use
resulting from increased southerly winds plus the added complexity for controllers when the
airport was in a CRO condition (landing and departing in a northerly direction). In response, the
MSP NOC unanimously passed a resolution requesting the FAA evaluate the current and future
environmental and capacity impacts from the new CRO rules and to communicate the findings
back to the NOC. The MAC Board of Commissioners took unanimous action supporting the NOC
resolution and forwarded it to the FAA.
32
MSP 2018 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
21
During 2017, the FAA made progress in designing and employing technological tools within its air
traffic control system to revert changes in runway use, regain some capacity loss, and reduce air
traffic controller work load at MSP during CRO. In January 2017, the FAA began using two Arrival
Departure Windows (ADWs) for each of the parallel runways. In order to use two ADWs at the
same time, a thorough risk assessment and approval process was required. These windows help
alternate flights departing from Runways 30L and 30R with flights arriving to Runway 35. Use of
the two ADWs increased MSP’s northerly arrival rate from 64 to 75 aircraft per hour.
In June 2017, the FAA implemented a Converging Runway Display Aid (CRDA), which aligns
aircraft arriving to Runway 30L with Runway 35 to offer efficiency gains in sequencing departures
to the northwest. The CRDA tool helps arrivals on Runway 35 line up with arrivals on Runway
30L to create a predictable departure gap for Runway 30L. This has allowed the FAA to flex arrival
rates up to 84 aircraft per hour during three peak arrival demand periods throughout the day which
reduces arrival delays. Similarly, in August 2017 the FAA began flexing departure rates upward
during peak departure demand periods by routing Runway 35 arrivals to either parallel runway
(30L or 30R), thus eliminating the dependency on ADWs for aircraft departing to the northwest.
During 2018, the FAA continued the implementation of tools and agreements designed to
standardize operating expectations within its air traffic control system. The three MSP air traffic
control facilities – Tower, Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON), and Minneapolis Center
–have similar interests in controlling air traffic but different constraints on their activity. To
standardize the agreements regarding use of CRO, the facilities began to develop standard
operating procedures between the three facilities that identify the variables necessary to
commence CRO measures. The standard operating procedure agreement between the facilities
is expected to be finalized in 2019.
A summary of notable changes in runway use from 2017 to 2018 is provided below. Areas where
the 2018 actual noise contour extended beyond the 2017 noise contour are within previously
mitigated neighborhoods, except for the Runway 12R arrival lobe near Lake Harriet in
Minneapolis. Chapter 4 details the Residential Noise Mitigation eligibility impacts in this area.
•Runways 30L and 30R were utilized less frequently in 2018 than in 2017, whereas
Runways 12L and 12R were utilized more frequently in 2018 than in 2017. Runways 30L
and 30R accounted for 47.2 percent of arrivals in 2018—down from 50.5 percent of arrivals
in 2017. In 2018, 44.7 percent of all departures were on Runways 30L and 30R, a
reduction from the 50.1 percent usage in 2017. Runways 12L and 12R handled 47.1
percent of all arrivals in 2018 compared to 43.0 percent in 2017. For departures, Runways
12L and 12R accounted for 20.9 percent of all departures in 2018, up from 18.7 percent
in 2017.
•Runway 17 was utilized more frequently for departures in 2018 compared to 2017, and
Runway 35 was utilized less frequently for arrivals in 2018 as compared to 2017. Data
show 33.8 percent of departures in 2018 used Runway 17 compared to 31.0 percent in
2017. Only 5.5 percent of arrivals were routed to Runway 35 in 2018, down from 6.4
percent in 2017.
Changes in runway use between 2017 and 2018 are the primary cause of changes in the shape
of the noise contours. Table 2.2 provides the average annual runway use distribution for 2018.
33
MSP 2018 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
22
Table 2.2: Summary of 2018 Average Annual Runway Use
Operation Runway Day Night Total
Arrivals 4 0.0% 0.3% 0.1%
12L 22.2% 14.2% 21.3%
12R 25.6% 27.5% 25.8%
17 0.0% 0.6% 0.1%
22 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
30L 24.8% 34.7% 25.9%
30R 21.9% 16.6% 21.3%
35 5.4% 6.1% 5.5%
Departures 4 0.5% 1.0% 0.5%
12L 14.2% 18.6% 14.7%
12R 4.1% 24.9% 6.2%
17 36.3% 11.7% 33.8%
22 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
30L 23.2% 25.0% 23.4%
30R 21.6% 18.5% 21.3%
35 0.0% 0.2% 0.0%
Note: Total may not add up due to rounding. Helicopters are excluded.
Source: MAC-provided MACNOMS Data, HNTB 2019
2.1.4 2018 Flight Tracks
Modeled departure and arrival flight tracks were developed using actual flight track data. The
model tracks used in the 2018 actual noise contour were identical to those used for the 2017
actual noise contour. Sub-tracks are added to each of the backbone arrival and departure model
tracks. The distribution of operations among the backbone and sub-tracks in AEDT use a standard
“bell curve” distribution, based on the number of sub-tracks developed. The methodology in AEDT
is consistent with the way INM distributed operations on sub-tracks in the modeling process.
The same methodology used in previous MSP annual reports also was used to assign actual
2018 flight tracks to the modeled tracks. The correlation process employs a best-fit analysis of
the actual flight track data based on linear trends. This approach provides the ability to match
each actual flight track directly to the appropriate model track.
Graphics of model flight tracks and the percent that each was used in 2018 are provided in
Appendix 2.
2.1.5 2018 Atmospheric Conditions
The weather data used in the 2018 actual noise contour were acquired from the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center. As per FAA guidance,
the following default weather parameters from the MSP weather station were applied:
•Temperature – 45.0 degrees Fahrenheit
•Dew point – 35.9 degrees Fahrenheit
•Wind speed – 8.4 knots
34
MSP 2018 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
23
•Pressure – 985.4 Millibars
•Relative humidity – 67.7 percent
2.2 2018 MODELED VERSUS MEASURED DNL VALUES
As part of the 2018 actual noise contour evaluation, a comparison was conducted on the actual
2018 measured aircraft noise levels at the MAC’s 39 sound monitoring sites to the modeled DNL
noise values from AEDT. The latitude and longitude coordinates for each sound monitoring site
was used to calculate modeled DNL values in AEDT.
Table 2.3 provides a comparison of the AEDT modeled DNL noise values and the actual
measured aircraft DNLs at those locations in 2018.
35
MSP 2018 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
24
Table 2.3: 2018 Measured vs. Modeled DNL Values
Sound
Monitoring
Site
2018
Measured
DNL (a)
2018
Modeled
DNL
Difference Absolute
Difference
1 55.9 57.6 1.7 1.7
2 58.1 58.2 0.1 0.1
3 62.6 63.6 1.0 1.0
4 59.2 59.7 0.5 0.5
5 67.5 68.2 0.7 0.7
6 67.1 66.0 -1.1 1.1
7 58.8 58.1 -0.7 0.7
8 55.3 55.6 0.3 0.3
9 36.9 43.5 6.6 6.6
10 44.1 50.2 6.1 6.1
11 38.3 45.1 6.8 6.8
12 39.2 47.7 8.5 8.5
13 53.9 55.3 1.4 1.4
14 59.8 61.2 1.4 1.4
15 55.7 55.9 0.2 0.2
16 64.0 63.6 -0.4 0.4
17 44.0 49.7 5.7 5.7
18 52.4 58.9 6.5 6.5
19 48.0 54.5 6.5 6.5
20 40.8 51.3 10.5 10.5
21 44.5 50.1 5.6 5.6
22 54.9 57.6 2.7 2.7
23 60.6 60.2 -0.4 0.4
24 58.1 59.9 1.8 1.8
25 50.0 52.8 2.8 2.8
26 51.0 54.8 3.8 3.8
27 52.1 55.3 3.2 3.2
28 54.9 61.1 6.2 6.2
29 51.5 53.1 1.6 1.6
30 60.6 60.6 0.0 0.0
31 46.1 50.9 4.8 4.8
32 40.4 48.2 7.8 7.8
33 46.0 50.6 4.6 4.6
34 42.8 48.5 5.7 5.7
35 50.8 53.2 2.4 2.4
36 50.8 51.4 0.6 0.6
37 46.0 48.8 2.8 2.8
38 49.1 50.9 1.8 1.8
39 49.9 51.6 1.7 1.7
Average 3.3
Median 2.4
Notes:
All units in dB DNL
(a) Computed from daily DNLs
Source: MAC sound monitoring data and HNTB, 2019
36
MSP 2018 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
25
There is an inherent difference between modeled noise results and measured noise results. AEDT
modeled data only reports on aircraft noise. It cannot replicate the various other sources of
community noise that exist and contribute to ambient conditions. AEDT cannot replicate the exact
operating characteristics of each aircraft that is input into the model. AEDT uses average weather
conditions instead of actual weather conditions at the time of the flight. AEDT also uses
conservative aircraft substitutions when new aircraft are not yet available in the model.
Conversely, RMT measured data is highly impacted by community sound. The MACNOMS
system must set thresholds for events to attempt to eliminate occurrences of community sound
events being assigned to aircraft noise. While some of the data is evaluated by staff, most events
are assumed to be aircraft if a flight track existed during the time of the event. The factors that
may contribute to the difference include site terrain, building reflection, foliage and ground cover,
ambient noise level as well as atmospheric conditions. There variables will impact the propagation
of sound differently.
The use of absolute values provides a perspective of total difference between the modeled values
and the measured values. The average absolute difference between modeled and measured
DNLs is approximately 3.3 dB, compared with 3.1 dB in 2017, 2.3 dB in 2016 and 2.1 dB in 2015.
The absolute median difference is 2.4 dB DNL compared with 1.4 dB DNL in 2017, 1.1 dB DNL
in 2016 and 1.4 dB DNL in 2015; this indicates that the 2018 actual noise contours generated
through modeling in AEDT are similar in absolute difference to actual measured noise levels. The
absolute median difference is considered the most reliable indicator of correlation when
considering the data variability across modeled and measured data.
The larger variations between measured and modeled data occur at sites that have less events
overall. When more data is available, that variance begins to decrease. For example, sites 3, 5,
6, 14, 16, 23 and 30 all had a modeled DNL above 60 dB. The average difference between the
modeled DNL and measured DNL at those sites was only 0.2 dB. The median of the absolute
difference was 0.7 dB at those sites. The small variation between actual measured aircraft noise
levels and the AEDT modeled noise levels provides additional system verification that A EDT is
providing an accurate assessment of the aircraft noise impacts at or above 60 dB DNL.
2.3 2018 NOISE CONTOUR IMPACTS
Based on the 406,913 total operations in 2018, 4,444 acres are in the 65 dB DNL noise contour
(a decrease of 25 acres, or 0.6 percent, from the 2017 actual noise contour) and approximately
11,323 acres are in the 60 dB DNL noise contour (a decrease of 137 acres, or 1.2 percent, from
the 2017 actual noise contour). The decrease is due to the contribution of various factors, but the
primary cause is the decrease in the number of total operations.
The changes in the noise contours are consistent with changes in day/night split, runway and
flight track use. While the total size of the 65 dB and 60 dB DNL contours contract overall in 2018,
there are geographic areas of the contour that extend beyond the 2017 noise contour area. To
the northwest, the 60 dB DNL arrival lobe along Runway 12R extends across Lake Harriet yet the
contour becomes narrower closer to the runways in 2018.
Table 2.5 contains the count of single-family (one to three units per structure) and multi-family
(more than three units per structure) dwelling units in the 2018 actual noise contours. The counts
are based on the block intersect methodology where all structures on a block that located within
or touched by the noise contour are counted. The spatial analysis was performed in Universal
Transverse Mercator (UTM Zone 15).
37
MSP 2018 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
26
Table 2.5 Summary of 2018 Actual DNL Noise Contour Unit Counts
City
Dwelling Units Within dB DNL Interval
Single Family Multi-Family
60-64 65-69 70-74 75+ Total 60-64 65-69 70-74 75+ Total
Bloomington Completed 70 1 71 522 522
Additional 0 0
Total 70 1 0 0 71 522 0 0 0 522
Eagan Completed 325 15 340 38 38
Additional 16 16 0
Total 341 15 0 0 356 38 0 0 0 38
Inver Grove
Heights
Completed 0 0
Additional 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mendota
Heights
Completed 48 1 49 0
Additional 0 0
Total 48 1 0 0 49 0 0 0 0 0
Minneapolis Completed 7,805 1,535 9,340 600 507 1,107
Additional 313 313 525 525
Total 8,118 1,535 0 0 9,653 1,125 507 0 0 1,632
Richfield Completed 800 21 821 256 256
Additional 0 0
Total 800 21 0 0 821 256 0 0 0 256
All Cities Completed 9,048 1,573 0 0 10,621 1,416 507 0 0 1,923
Additional 329 0 0 0 329 525 0 0 0 525
Total 9,377 1,573 0 0 10,950 1,941 507 0 0 2,448
Notes: Block intersect methodology; Multi-family units = 4 or more units; As a result of parcel information updated in July 2018, unit counts
may differ from previous reports. Completed counts include residences that are eligible for the 2017-2020 Mitigation Programs.
Source: HNTB provided AEDT contours, MAC analysis, 2019
A total of 851 single-family residences and 88 multi-family units within the 60 dB DNL noise
contour in the City of Minneapolis were entered into the 2017 – 2019 Mitigation Programs. An
additional 243 single-family residences within the 60 dB DNL noise contour in the City of
Minneapolis received mitigation eligibility for the 2020 Mitigation Program by virtue of the 2018
actual noise contour. The 2018 count of residential units within the actual 60 dB DNL noise
contour that have not received noise mitigation around MSP and are not part of the 2017 – 2020
programs is 329.
A thorough evaluation of the 2018 actual noise contour and resulting changes to residential noise
mitigation is provided in Chapter 4. A depiction of the 2018 actual noise contour is provided in
Figure 2.
38
MSP 2018 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
27
Figure 2: 2018 Actual Noise Contours
39
MSP 2018 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
28
3. COMPARISON OF THE 2018 ACTUAL AND THE 2007 FORECAST
NOISE CONTOURS
3.1 COMPARISON OF NOISE CONTOUR INPUTS
3.1.1 Noise Model Considerations
The 2018 actual noise contour was modeled in AEDT version 2d, which incorporates updates to
flight segments, atmospheric computing standards, grids used for noise contour generation and
other issues that carried over from the INM. The AEDT 2d release includes new features, updates,
and a series of bug fixes and usability improvements. Updates include dynamic grid support for
time-based noise metrics, track dispersion enhancements, updates to the study database and
fleet database, including new noise profiles for the Boeing 737 MAX8, Bombardier Global Express
5000, Bombardier Global Express 6000, and Gulfstream G650. The 2007 forecast noise contour
was developed using INM Version 6.1.
It is important to note that modeling modifications over time can change the size and shape of a
noise contour. For example, a range of case study airports revealed that improvements to lateral
attenuation adjustment algorithms and flight path segmentation in INM version 7.0 were found by
the FAA to increase the size of a DNL contour for a range of case study airports between 3 and
10 percent over what previous versions of INM would have modeled. Additionally, some updates
incorporated into AEDT, had the effect of reducing the 60 dB DNL noise contour by 0.6 percent
at MSP compared to the latest version of INM.
3.1.2 Aircraft Operations and Fleet Mix Comparison
The forecasted level of operations in the 2007 noise contour was 582,366 annual flights, an
average of 1,595.9 flights per day. In 2018, the actual number of operations at MSP was 406,913,
or 1,114.8 flights per day. This represents a 30.1 percent reduction from the 2007 forecast
number. Nighttime operations decreased by 3 average daily flights from the 2007 forecast level
to 2018 actual level. Table 3.1 provides a summary comparison of the 2018 actual and the 2007
forecast average daily operations. A more detailed comparison of the 2007 forecast fleet mix and
the 2018 actual aircraft fleet mix is provided in Appendix 1.
In general, many of the aircraft groups operating at MSP showed a reduction in the number of
average daily operations from the 2007 forecasted level to the 2018 actual level. On average,
there was 0.8 Hushkit Stage 3 Jet operations per day in 2018. This is down from the 2007 forecast
average of 275 flights per day. Manufactured Stage 3+ average daily operations in 2018 were
down by 85.7 flights per day from the 2007 forecast. The number of propeller-driven and military
aircraft operations decreased 110.5 per day and 6.4 per day, respectively.
40
MSP 2018 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
29
Table 3.1: Summary of 2018 and 2007 Average Daily Flight Operations
Average Daily Flight
Operations Day Night Total
% of Total
Operations
2018
Manufactured to be Stage 3+ 953.4 117.4 1070.8 96.1%
Hushkit Stage 3 Jet 0.3 0.5 0.8 0.1%
Microjet 0.6 0.0 0.6 0.1%
Propeller 38.3 2.3 40.5 3.6%
Helicopter 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0%
Military 1.9 0.0 2.0 0.2%
Total 994.5 120.3 1114.8 100.0%
% of Total Operations 89.2% 10.8% 100.0%
2007
Manufactured to be Stage 3+ 1071.5 21.7 1156.5 72.5%
Hushkit Stage 3 Jet 253.3 0.0 275.0 17.2%
Retrofitted Stage 2 Jet 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0%
Stage 2 Jets under 75,000 lbs 4.2 0.0 4.8 0.3%
Microjet 0.0 15.8 0.0 0.0%
Propeller 135.2 0.0 151.0 9.5%
Helicopter 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0%
Military 8.2 21.7 8.4 0.5%
Total 1472.4 123.3 1595.9 100.0%
% of Total Operations 92.3% 7.7% 100.0%
Notes:
Totals may differ due to rounding
As of January 1, 2016, Stage 2 aircraft below 75,000 lbs are required to be compliant with
Stage 3 noise regulations.
Source: MAC-provided MACNOMS data, HNTB 2019
3.1.3 Runway Use Comparison
Table 3.2 provides the runway use percentages for 2018 and a comparison to the 2007 forecast
runway use percentages. A general evaluation of the runway use percentages in Table 3.2 shows
that the use of Runways 12R and 30L for nighttime arrivals in 2018 is higher than what was
forecasted in the 2007 noise contour; use of Runways 12L and 30R was lower than the 2007
forecast.
The use of Runway 35 for total arrivals was at 5.5 percent in 2018 compared to 16.5 percent
during the 2007 forecast.
In 2007, Runway 17 was forecasted to be used for 34.6 percent of all nighttime departures. In
2018, it was used for only 11.7 percent of nighttime departures.
Lastly, the 2018 Runway 30L departure percentage was 8.2 percent higher at night and 12.2
percent higher during the day than the 2007 forecast.
41
MSP 2018 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
30
Table 3.2: Summary of Average Annual Runway Use 2018, 2007
Operation Runway
Day Night Total
2018
Actual
2007
Forecast
2018
Actual
2007
Forecast
2018
Actual
2007
Forecast
Arrivals 4 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 3.8% 0.1% 0.3%
12L 22.2% 21.8% 14.2% 17.2% 21.3% 21.4%
12R 25.6% 14.7% 27.5% 12.4% 25.8% 14.5%
17 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%
22 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 2.4% 0.0% 0.6%
30L 24.8% 21.1% 34.7% 25.1% 25.9% 21.4%
30R 21.9% 25.1% 16.6% 26.4% 21.3% 25.2%
35 5.4% 16.9% 6.1% 12.7% 5.5% 16.5%
Departures 4 0.5% 0.2% 1.0% 0.4% 0.5% 0.2%
12L 14.2% 8.9% 18.6% 14.1% 14.7% 9.3%
12R 4.1% 15.9% 24.9% 18.3% 6.2% 16.1%
17 36.3% 37.2% 11.7% 34.6% 33.8% 37.0%
22 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 0.1%
30L 23.2% 15.0% 25.0% 12.8% 23.4% 14.8%
30R 21.6% 22.7% 18.5% 19.2% 21.3% 22.4%
35 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Note: Total may not add up due to rounding.
Source: MAC-provided MACNOMS data, HNTB 2019. Annual runway use for 2007 Forecast was obtained from the November 2004
Part 150 document.
3.1.4 Flight Track Considerations
Modeled departure and arrival flight tracks were developed using actual flight track data from
2018. These flight tracks differ from those used to develop the 2007 forecast noise contour due
to enhanced modeling methods and improved technologies. Sub-tracks were also added to each
of the backbone tracks. Standard distribution in both INM and AEDT were used to distribute the
flights to the sub-tracks.
The same methodology as in previous annual reports was used to assign actual 201 8 flight tracks
to the modeled tracks. The correlation process employs a best-fit analysis of the actual flight track
data based on linear trends. This approach provides the ability to match each actual flight track
directly to the appropriate model track.
3.1.5 Atmospheric Conditions Comparison
The atmospheric condition inputs vary slightly between INM and AEDT. INM uses pressure values
in inches of Mercury, where standard atmospheric pressure is 29.92. AEDT takes pressure in
millibars, where standard is 1013.25. AEDT takes an additional input value for dew point
temperature in degrees Fahrenheit. As stated in Section 2.1.5, the weather data used in the 2018
actual noise contour were acquired from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) National Climatic Data Center. As per FAA guidance, the following default weather
parameters from the MSP weather station were applied:
•Temperature – 45.0 degrees Fahrenheit
•Dew point – 35.9 degrees Fahrenheit
42
MSP 2018 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
31
•Wind speed – 8.4 knots
•Pressure – 985.4 Millibars
•Relative humidity – 67.7 percent
The following annual average atmospheric conditions were used in the 2007 forecast noise
contour:
•Temperature – 47.7 degrees Fahrenheit
•Wind speed – 5.3 knots
•Pressure – 29.90 inches of Mercury
•Relative humidity – 64.0 percent
3.2 COMPARATIVE NOISE MODEL GRID POINT ANALYSIS
AEDT was used to calculate DNL values for the center points of each city block included in the
mitigation programs outlined in the amended Consent Decree. Graphics showing the actual 2018
DNL levels calculated for each block, Base Case DNL Noise Levels calculated for each block and
the block-by-block difference in DNL levels between the Base Case and the 2018 actual noise
contours are contained in Appendix 3.
The Base Case DNL is established using the actual DNL noise level for that location during the
year the home becomes eligible for noise mitigation under the am ended Consent Decree. The
Base Case DNL for homes that are not eligible for mitigation under the amended Consent Decree
is established using the 2007 forecast DNL for that location.
It is important to note that the 2007 forecast DNL was developed in INM Version 6.2a because
this was the oldest version of INM available to MAC staff to conduct the analysis in early 2008
when the MSP annual noise contour reporting efforts began. When comparing the DNL values
generated for the MACNOMS sound monitoring sites with INM 6.1 in the November 2004 Part
150 Update document to the DNL generated for those same locations with INM 6.2a, the
differences were insignificant.
3.3 CONTOUR COMPARISON SUMMARY
The 2018 actual noise contour is smaller than the 2007 forecast mitigated contour by 4,385 acres
(28 percent reduction) in the 60 dB DNL contour and by 2,790 acres (39 percent reduction) in the
65 dB DNL contour. As depicted in Figure 3, there is an area in Minneapolis and an area in Eagan
where the 2018 actual noise contours extend beyond the 2007 forecast noise contours. The
increase in these areas is primarily due to runway use in 2018, particularly arrival operations on
Runways 12R and 30L. All homes within the 2018 actual 65 dB DNL contour have received the 5
dB noise reduction mitigation package. Chapter 4 provides an analysis of mitigation eligibility
relative to the 2018 actual contour consistent with the requirements of the amended Consent
Decree.
The predominant contraction in the contours from the 2007 forecast to the 2018 actual noise
contour scenarios is driven largely by fleet mix changes, including a significant reduction in
Hushkit Stage 3 aircraft operations, and a reduction of 481.8 average daily operations. The
extension of the 2018 actual noise contour beyond the 2007 forecast mitigated noise contour can
largely be attributed to nighttime runway use variances between what was forecasted for 2007
43
MSP 2018 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
32
and what occurred in 2018, particularly an increase in nighttime arrival operations on Runway
12R.
In summary, in addition to modeling changes and updates, the primary factors to consider when
comparing the 2007 forecast mitigated noise contours to the 2018 actual noise contours are total
operation numbers, fleet mix, nighttime operations, and runway use.
44
MSP 2018 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
33
Figure 3: 2018 Actual and 2007 Forecast Noise Contour Comparison
45
MSP 2018 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
34
4. 2018 ANNUAL NOISE CONTOUR AND THE AMENDED CONSENT
DECREE
4.1 FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE NOISE MITIGATION CONSENT DECREE
As discussed previously, the first amendment to the Consent Decree requires the MAC to
determine eligibility for noise mitigation on an annual basis using actual noise contours, developed
under Section 8.1(d) of the Consent Decree. This chapter provides detailed information about
noise mitigation impacts from the 2018 actual noise contour at MSP.
On July 31, 2013, the Cities of Minneapolis, Richfield and Eagan, and the Minneapolis Public
Housing Authority and the MAC jointly filed the first amendment to the Consent Decree to
Hennepin County Court. On September 25, 2013, Hennepin County Court Judge Ivy S.
Bernardson approved the first amendment to the 2007 Consent Decree. The first amendment
contains language that binds the MAC to provide noise mitigation services consistent with the
noise mitigation terms described in the Final MSP 2020 Improvements Environmental
Assessment/Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA/EAW).
In 2014 the Annual Noise Contour Report format was updated in consultation and agreement with
the parties to the Consent Decree to address the mitigation progra m requirements detailed in the
first amendment. The report was updated to provide maps analyzing changes that occur in noise
mitigation eligibility as compared to the 2007 Consent Decree, and associated trends relative to
consecutive yearly impacts.
4.2 SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE CONSENT DECREE
In 2016, the Cities of Minneapolis, Richfield and Eagan, and the Minneapolis Public Housing
Authority and the MAC began drafting a second amendment to the 2007 consent decree. This
amendment: 1) allows the use of the Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT) to run the actual
noise contours each year; 2) provides clarity on the Opt-Out Eligibility criteria; and 3) provides a
safeguard for homes that may fall out of consecutive year mitigation eligibility by virtue of a change
in the model used to generate the noise contours. By November 2016, the parties to the Consent
Decree signed the second amendment. On December 23, 2016, the FAA sent a letter to MAC
Executive Director/CEO declaring the provisions included in the drafted second amendment
“constitute a proper use of airport revenue” and “is consistent with MAC’s grant obligations.” On
January 31, 2017 Judge Bernardson approved the second amendment to the 2007 Consent
Decree.
Due to the increase in total in operations in 2016 as well as the increase in nighttime operations,
there were no blocks that failed to qualify for a second or third consecutive year of mitigation
eligibility in the 2016 actual noise contour. Therefore, there was no need to run the 2016 actual
contour inputs in the INM version 7.0d to determine whether these blocks would have advanced
in consecutive year eligibility in the INM-generated 2016 actual noise contour, as stipulated in
agreement with the parties to the Consent Decree.
46
MSP 2018 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
35
4.3 2018 ACTUAL CONTOUR NOISE MITIGATION IMPACT
Under the provisions of the first and second amendments to the Consent Decree, properties must
meet certain criteria to be considered eligible for participation in the MAC noise mitigation
program.
First, as stated in the first amendment:
“The community in which the home is located has adopted local land use controls
and building performance standards applicable to the home for which mitigation
is sought that prohibit new residential construction, unless the construction
materials and practices are consistent with the local land use controls and
heightened building performance standards for homes within the 60 dB DNL
Contour within the community in which the home is located.”
This criterion has been met by all of the communities contiguous to MSP.
Second, as stated in the first amendment:
“The home is located, for a period of three consecutive years, with the first of
the three years beginning no later than calendar year 2020 (i) in the actual 60-
64 dB DNL noise contour prepared by the MAC under Section 8.l(d) of this
Consent Decree and (ii) within a higher noise impact mitigation area when
compared to the Single-Family home's status under the noise mitigation
programs for Single-Family homes provided in Sections 5.1 through 5.3 of this
Consent Decree or when compared to the Multi- Family home's status under
the noise mitigation programs for Multi-Family homes provided in Section 5 .4 of
this Consent Decree. The noise contour boundary will be based on the block
intersect methodology. The MAC will offer noise mitigation under Section IX of
this Consent Decree to owners of eligible Single-Family homes and Multi-Family
homes in the year following the MAC's determination that a Single-Family or
Multi-Family home is eligible for noise mitigation under this Section.”
Table 4.1 provides a summary of the number of single-family living units within the 2018 60 dB
DNL noise contour, as well as changes in mitigation and the number of years of eligibility achieved
by virtue of the 2018 actual noise contour.
Table 4.2 provides the number of multi-family living units within the 2018 60 dB DNL noise
contour, as well as changes in mitigation and the number of years of eligibility achieved by virtue
of the 2018 actual noise contour. The spatial analysis was performed in Universal Transverse
Mercator (UTM Zone 15).
47
MSP 2018 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
36
Table 4.1: Summary of 2018 Actual Noise Contour Single-Family Unit Counts
Year of Eligibility City Mitigation
DNL Contours
60-62 63-64 65-69 70-74 75+ Total
No Change in Eligibility Bloomington In 2018 Actual Contours previously mitigated 63 7 1 -- 71
2 Eagan In 2018 Actual 60 dB DNL previously between 2005 and 2007 60 dB DNL
(Eligible for additional mitigation, less previous reimbursements after 3 consecutive years) 16 -- -- 16
No Change in Eligibility Eagan In 2018 Actual Contours previously mitigated 262 63 15 -- 340
No Change in Eligibility Mendota
Heights In 2018 Actual Contours previously mitigated 48 -1 -- 49
1 Minneapolis
In 2018 Actual 60 dB DNL previously outside 2005 and 2007 60 dB DNL
(Eligible for mitigation after 3 consecutive years) 216 -- -- 216
In 2018 Actual 63 dB DNL previously outside 2005 and 2007 60 dB DNL
(Eligible for the "five decibel package" after 3 consecutive years) -97 -- -97
Entered the 2020
Mitigation Program Minneapolis
In 2018 Actual 60 dB DNL previously outside 2005 and 2007 60 dB DNL
(Eligible for mitigation) 140 -- -- 140
In 2018 Actual 60 dB DNL previously between 2005 and 2007 60 dB DNL
(Eligible for additional mitigation, less previous reimbursements) 24 -- -- 24
In 2018 Actual 63 dB DNL previously in 2007 60-62 dB DNL
(Eligible for the "five decibel package") -79 -- -79
Entered the 2019
Mitigation Program Minneapolis
In 2018 Actual 60 dB DNL previously outside 2005 and 2007 60 dB DNL
(Eligible for mitigation) 177 -- -- 177
In 2018 Actual 60 dB DNL previously between 2005 and 2007 60 dB DNL
(Eligible for additional mitigation, less previous reimbursements) 72 -- -- 72
In 2018 Actual 63 dB DNL previously in 2007 60-62 dB DNL
(Eligible for the "five decibel package") -180 -- -180
No Change in Eligibility Minneapolis In 2018 Actual Contours previously mitigated 5,070 2,063 1,535 -- 8,668
No Change in Eligibility Richfield In 2018 Actual Contours previously mitigated 563 237 21 821
Grand Total 6,651 2,726 1,573 -- 10,950
Notes: Block Intersect Methodology; Multi-Family = 4 or more units; As a result of parcel information updated in July 2018, unit counts may differ from previous reports.
Source: HNTB provided AEDT Contours, MAC analysis 2019
48
MSP 2018 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
37
Table 4.2 Summary of 2018 Actual Noise Contour Multi-Family Unit Counts
Year of Eligibility City Mitigation DNL Contours
60-64 65-69 70-74 75+ Total
No Change in Eligibility Bloomington In 2018 Actual Contours previously mitigated 522 - - - 522
No Change in Eligibility Eagan In 2018 Actual Contours previously mitigated 38 - - - 38
No Change in Eligibility Minneapolis In 2018 Actual Contours previously mitigated 600 507 - - 1,107
1 Minneapolis
In 2018 Actual 60 dB DNL previously outside 2005 and 2007
60 dB DNL
(Eligible for mitigation after 3 consecutive years)
525 - - - 525
No Change in Eligibility Richfield In 2018 Actual Contours previously mitigated 256 - - - 256
Grand Total 1,941 507 - - 2,448
Notes: Block Intersect Methodology; Multi-Family = 4 or more units; As a result of parcel information updated in July 2018, unit counts may differ from previous reports.
Source: HNTB provided AEDT Contours, MAC analysis 2019
49
MSP 2018 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
38
4.4 AMENDED CONSENT DECREE PROGRAM ELIGIBILITY
First-Year Candidate Eligibility
There are 313 single-family homes that achieved the first year of eligibility with the 2018 actual
noise contour. All 313 homes are in Minneapolis. Of these, 216 homes are in the Partial Noise
Reduction Package. All 216 of these homes were previously outside the mitigation program area.
The 2018 actual noise contour includes 97 single-family homes within the first year of eligibility
for the Full 5-decibel Reduction Package. Additionally, there are 525 multi-family units in the 2018
noise contour that achieved the first year of eligibility. If these 313 single-family homes and 525
multi-family units remain in a higher noise impact area compared to the previous noise mitigation
program for two more consecutive years, they will be eligible for mitigation in 2022.
Second-Year Candidate Eligibility
The 2018 actual contour shrunk near both the arrival and departure lobes of Runway 30L,
resulting in some homes in Minneapolis, Eagan and Inver Grove Heights not reaching a second
consecutive year of eligibility. Of the 63 homes that met the first year of candidate eligibility in the
2017 actual noise contour, 16 achieved a second consecutive year of candidate eligibility with the
2018 actual noise contour. All 16 single-family homes are located on one block in Eagan within
the Partial Noise Reduction Package. The homes on this block were previously eligible for
homeowner reimbursements during the Original Consent Decree Program. If these 16 single-
family homes remain in a higher noise impact area in the 2019 actual noise contour compared to
the previous noise mitigation program, they will be eligible for mitigation in 2021.
There are no multi-family units within the second year of eligibility.
Third-Year Candidate Eligibility
There were 243 single-family homes that met the Second-Year Candidate Eligibility in the 2017
Annual Noise Contour Report analysis. All 243 homes are located within the third -year eligibility
area and are eligible to participate in the mitigation program in 2020.
Of the 243 single-family homes that meet the Third-year Candidate Eligibility, a total of 164 single-
family homes are eligible for the Partial Noise Reduction Package. Of these homes, 140
previously were located outside the eligibility area, and 24 previously were eligible for homeowner
reimbursements. These single-family homes are eligible to participate in the 2020 mitigation
program to receive one of two mitigation options, as detailed in Section 9.5(b) of the first
amendment to the 2007 Consent Decree. The remaining 79 single-family homes are eligible for
the Full 5-decibel Reduction Package. Four of the homeowners of these 79 homes previously
opted out of the Partial Noise Reduction Package. There are no multi-family units that meet the
criteria for Third-Year Candidate Eligibility. All homes eligible for the 2020 mitigation program are
located in Minneapolis.
Homeowners of eligible properties will be notified by the MAC in writing by mid-2019. In cases
where homes have received previous reimbursement from the MAC, the value of those
improvements will be deducted from the efforts required to increase the home mitigation relative
to the actual noise level, per the amended Consent Decree. In cases where homes received
previous improvements from the MAC, those efforts will not be duplicated in the design of future
mitigation activity.
50
MSP 2018 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
39
The blocks meeting the first, second and third consecutive year(s) of noise mitigation eligibility by
virtue of the 2018 actual noise contours are shown in Figures 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3.
4.5 AMENDED CONSENT DECREE PROGRAM MITIGATION STATUS
2017 Mitigation Program
In 2017 the MAC began the project to provide mitigation to 138 single-family homes that became
eligible by virtue of the 2015 actual noise contour. As of February 4, 2019, 116 homes have been
completed, 1 home is in the construction or pre-construction phase, 15 homes declined to
participate while 6 homes were moved to the 2019 program as a result of homeowner actions.
Two multi-family structures were also eligible to participate in the Multi-Family Mitigation Program
in 2017; one property is completed, and one property declined to participate. The total cost f or
the 2017 Mitigation Program to date is $2,409,317.
2018 Mitigation Program
In 2017 the MAC began the project to provide mitigation to 283 single-family homes that became
eligible by virtue of the 2016 actual noise contour. As of February 4, 2019, 167 homes have been
completed, 65 homes are in the construction or pre-construction phase, 27 homes declined to
participate while 24 homes were moved to the 2019 program. The 2018 Mitigation Program does
not include any multi-family properties. The total cost for the 2018 Mitigation Program to date is
$4,847,480.
2019 Mitigation Program
In 2018 the MAC began the project to provide mitigation to 429 single-family homes that became
eligible by virtue of the 2017 actual noise contour. As of February 4, 2019, including the homes
transitioned from the 2017 and 2018 programs, 10 homes have been completed, 410 homes are
in the construction or pre-construction phase and 39 homes declined to participate. The 2019
Mitigation Program does not include any multi-family properties. The total cost for the 2019
Mitigation Program to date is $251,952.
51
MSP 2018 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
40
Figure 4.1: 2018 Contours and Mitigation Program Eligibility
52
MSP 2018 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
41
Figure 4.2: 2018 Contours and Mitigation Program Eligibility – City of Minneapolis
53
MSP 2018 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
42
Figure 4.3: 2018 Contours and Mitigation Program Eligibility – City of Eagan
54
MSP 2018 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
A-1
List of Appendices
Appendix 1 Detailed Aircraft Fleet Mix Average Daily Operations
Appendix 2 2018 Model Flight Track and Use
Appendix 3 Noise Model Grid Point Maps
55
MSP 2018 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
A-2
Appendix 1: Detailed Aircraft Fleet Mix Average Daily Operations
Table Content Page
Table A1-1 2018 Aircraft Fleet Mix Average Daily Operations A-3
Table A1-2 Comparison of 2007 Forecast Fleet Mix and 2018 Actual Fleet Mix
Average Daily Operations
A-7
56
MSP 2018 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
A-3
Table A1-1: 2018 Aircraft Fleet Mix Average Daily Operations
Group Aircraft
Code
AEDT Aircraft
(ANP) AEDT Aircraft Description 2018
Day
2018
Night
2018
Total Manufactured to be Stage 3+ A124 74720B Antonov An-124 Russlan 0.0 0.0 0.0
A306 A300-622R Airbus A300-600/622R 0.6 0.9 1.5
A306 A300B4-203 Airbus A300-600/622R 0.0 0.0 0.0
A310 A310-304 Airbus A310 Series 0.0 0.0 0.0
A319 A319-131 Airbus A319 series 60.4 5.8 66.1
A320 A320-211 Airbus A320 series 42.6 3.5 46.0
A320 A320-211 Boeing 717-200 / Extended Range 0.0 - 0.0
A320 A320-232 Airbus A320 series 16.6 5.4 22.0
A320 A320-251N Airbus A320-NEO 2.6 0.4 3.1
A320 A320-271N Airbus A320-NEO 0.6 0.2 0.8
A321 A321-232 Airbus A321 series 17.8 4.6 22.4
A332 A330-301 Airbus A330-200 0.4 0.0 0.4
A332 A330-343 Airbus A330-200 0.2 0.1 0.3
A333 A330-301 Airbus A330-300 4.9 0.7 5.6
A333 A330-343 Airbus A330-300 1.0 0.1 1.1
A343 A340-211 Airbus A340-300 0.4 0.0 0.5
A359 A330-343 Airbus A350-900 0.0 0.0 0.0
ASTR IA1125 IAI 1125 Astra 0.0 - 0.0
B38M 7378MAX Boeing 737 MAX 8 0.7 0.1 0.8
B712 717200 Boeing 717-200 / Extended Range 56.9 3.8 60.8
B733 737300 Boeing 737-300 0.1 0.0 0.1
B734 737400 Boeing 737-400 0.4 0.1 0.5
B735 737500 Boeing 737-500 0.0 0.0 0.0
B737 737700 Boeing 737-700 37.2 11.0 48.2
B738 737800 Boeing 737-800 82.7 22.1 104.9
B739 737800 Boeing 737-900 66.9 10.5 77.4
B744 747400 Boeing 747-400 0.1 0.1 0.2
B748 7478 Boeing 747-800 0.0 0.0 0.0
B752 757PW Boeing 757-200 35.0 8.5 43.5
B752 757RR Boeing 757-200 3.6 2.1 5.7
B753 757300 Boeing 757-300 12.6 1.2 13.8
B762 767CF6 Boeing 767-200 0.1 0.0 0.1
B762 767JT9 Boeing 767-200 0.2 0.1 0.3
B763 767300 Boeing 767-300 5.8 2.4 8.2
B764 767400 Boeing 767-400ER 0.1 0.0 0.1
B772 777200 Boeing 777-200 3.7 0.1 3.8
B77L 777300 Boeing 777-200LR 0.4 0.0 0.4
B77W 7773ER Boeing 777-300ER 0.0 - 0.0
B788 7878R Boeing 787 Dreamliner (800 Model) 0.0 0.0 0.0
B789 7878R Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner 0.3 0.1 0.4
BE40 MU3001 Beechcraft Beechjet 400 0.5 0.0 0.6
C25A CNA500 Cessna CitationJet CJ2, 525A 0.2 0.0 0.2
C25B CNA500 Cessna CitationJet CJ3, 525B 0.4 0.0 0.4
C25C CNA525C Cessna CitationJet CJ4, 525C 0.1 0.0 0.1
C25M CNA500 Cessna CitationJet CJ1, 525 0.0 - 0.0
C500 CNA500 Cessna Citation I Twin Jet 0.0 0.0 0.0
C501 CNA500 Cessna Citation I Single Pilot Twin Jet 0.0 - 0.0
C525 CNA500 Cessna CitationJet CJ1, 525 0.2 0.0 0.2
C550 CNA55B Cessna Citation 550 Citation II 0.2 0.0 0.3
C551 CNA55B Cessna Citation II Single Pilot (SP) 0.0 - 0.0
C560 CNA560E Cessna 560 Citation V, Ultra & Ultra Encore 0.4 0.0 0.5
C560 CNA560U Cessna 560 Citation V, Ultra & Ultra Encore 0.3 0.0 0.4
C560 CNA560XL Cessna 560 Citation V, Ultra & Ultra Encore 0.1 0.0 0.1
C56X CNA560XL Cessna 560XL Citation Excel 3.0 0.2 3.2
C650 CIT3 Cessna Citation III 0.3 0.0 0.3
C680 CNA680 Cessna 680 Citation Sovereign 2.9 0.1 3.0
C68A CNA680 Cessna Citation Latitude 1.0 0.0 1.1
C700 CNA680 Cessna 680 Citation Sovereign 0.0 - 0.0
C750 CNA750 Cessna 750 series/Citation X 2.7 0.2 2.9
CL30 CL600 Bombardier Challenger 300 3.4 0.3 3.7
CL35 CL600 Bombardier Challenger 350 1.8 0.1 1.9
CL60 CL600 Canadair Bombardier CL600/610 Challenger Twin Jet 0.1 0.0 0.1
57
MSP 2018 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
A-4
Group Aircraft
Code
AEDT Aircraft
(ANP) AEDT Aircraft Description 2018
Day
2018
Night
2018
Total Manufactured to be Stage 3+ CRJ1 CL600 Bombardier CRJ-100 0.0 - 0.0
CRJ2 CL600 Canadair CRJ 200 Regional Jet 140.2 8.5 148.6
CRJ7 CRJ9-ER Canadair CRJ 700 Regional Jet 69.2 3.7 72.8
CRJ9 CRJ9-ER Canadair CRJ 900 Regional Jet 128.3 6.4 134.7
DC10 DC1010 McDonnell Douglas DC-10 1.4 0.6 2.0
DC10 DC1030 McDonnell Douglas DC-10 0.4 0.2 0.5
E135 EMB145 Embraer ERJ-135 0.3 0.0 0.3
E145 EMB145 Embraer ERJ-145 0.1 0.0 0.1
E170 EMB170 Embraer ERJ-170 6.9 1.1 8.0
E190 EMB190 Embraer ERJ-190-100 /-200 2.6 0.2 2.8
E35L EMB145 Embraer EMB135 LR 0.1 0.0 0.1
E45X EMB145 Embraer EMB-145 EX (Extra Long Range) 0.1 0.0 0.1
E550 CNA55B Embraer EMB550 Phenom 300 0.2 - 0.2
E55P CNA55B Embraer EMB550 Phenom 300 1.1 0.1 1.2
E75L EMB175 Embraer ERJ-175 33.6 4.0 37.6
E75S EMB175 Embraer ERJ-175 9.3 2.2 11.5
F2TH CNA750 Dassault Falcon 2000 1.3 0.1 1.4
F900 CNA750 Dassault Falcon 900 1.1 0.1 1.2
FA10 LEAR35 Dassault Falcon 10 0.0 - 0.0
FA50 CNA750 Dassault Falcon 50 1.1 0.1 1.1
FA7X CNA750 Dassault Falcon 7X 0.1 0.0 0.1
FA7X GIV Dassault Falcon 7X 0.1 0.0 0.1
FA8X GIV Gulfstream IV 0.0 - 0.0
G150 IA1125 Gulfstream G150 0.2 0.0 0.3
G280 IA1125 Gulfstream G280 0.3 0.0 0.3
GALX CNA750 IAI 1126 Astra Galaxy/Gulfstream 200 1.0 0.1 1.1
GL5T BD-700-1A11 Bombardier Global 5000 BD-700 0.2 0.0 0.2
GLEX BD-700-1A10 Bombardier BD-700 Global Express 0.4 0.0 0.4
GLF4 GIV Gulfstream IV 1.3 0.1 1.4
GLF5 GV Gulfstream V 1.6 0.3 1.8
GLF6 G650 Gulfstream VI / G650 0.0 0.0 0.0
GLF6 G650ER Gulfstream VI / G650 0.1 0.0 0.1
GLF7 GV Gulfstream V 0.0 - 0.0
H25B LEAR35 Hawker 800/800 XP/850 XP Twin Turbojet 1.0 0.1 1.1
H25C LEAR35 Hawker 1000 / Bae 125-1000 0.0 0.0 0.1
HA4T CNA750 Hawker Beechcraft 4000 Horizon (Horizon 1000) 0.1 0.0 0.1
HAWK MU3001 Raytheon Hawker 400 0.0 - 0.0
HDJT CNA680 Honda Jet 0.0 - 0.0
J328 CNA750 Fairchild Dornier 328 Jet 0.0 0.0 0.1
LJ31 LEAR35 Learjet 31 Twin Jet 0.1 0.0 0.1
LJ35 LEAR35 Learjet 35 Twin Jet 0.4 0.0 0.4
LJ40 LEAR35 Learjet 40 Twin Jet 0.1 0.0 0.1
LJ45 LEAR35 Learjet 45 Twin Jet 1.0 0.0 1.0
LJ55 LEAR35 Learjet 55 Twin Jet 0.1 0.0 0.1
LJ60 LEAR35 Learjet 60 Twin Jet 0.4 0.0 0.4
LJ70 LEAR35 Learjet 70 Twin Jet 0.1 0.0 0.1
MD11 MD11GE McDonnell Douglas MD-11 (Mixed) 1.2 0.5 1.8
MD11 MD11PW McDonnell Douglas MD-11 (Mixed) 1.3 0.5 1.8
MD81 MD81 McDonnell Douglas MD-81 0.0 0.0 0.0
MD82 MD82 McDonnell Douglas MD-82 0.5 0.0 0.6
MD83 MD83 McDonnell Douglas MD-83 2.0 0.1 2.1
MD88 MD83 McDonnell Douglas MD-88 0.3 0.1 0.4
MD90 MD9025 McDonnell Douglas MD-90 14.0 0.6 14.6
MD90 MD9028 McDonnell Douglas MD-90 54.1 2.2 56.3
PRM1 CNA55B Raytheon 390 Premier 0.1 0.0 0.1
SBR1 SABR80 North American Sabreliner 0.0 - 0.0
SJ30 CNA55B Embraer EMB550 Phenom 300 0.0 0.0 0.0
WW24 IA1125 IAI 1124 Westwind 0.0 - 0.0
Manufactured to be Stage 3+ Total 953.4 117.4 1,070.8
58
MSP 2018 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
A-5
Group Aircraft
Code
AEDT Aircraft
(ANP) AEDT Aircraft Description 2018
Day
2018
Night
2018
Total
Microjet
E50P CNA510 Embraer EMB500 Phenom 100 0.1 0.0 0.1
E545 CNA510 Embraer Legacy 545 0.3 0.0 0.4
EA50 ECLIPSE500 Eclipse 500 VLJ 0.1 - 0.1
SF50 ECLIPSE500 Eclipse 500 VLJ 0.0 - 0.0
Microjet Total 0.6 0.0 0.6 Hushkit Stage 3 Jet B722 727EM2 Boeing 727-200 0.0 0.0 0.0
B732 737N17 Boeing 737-200 Modified Stage 3 0.0 - 0.0
DC91 DC93LW McDonnell Douglas DC-9-10 with ABS3 Hushkit 0.0 0.0 0.0
DC93 DC93LW McDonnell Douglas DC-9-30 with ABS3 Hushkit 0.0 0.0 0.0
FA20 FAL20 Dassault Falcon 20 Mystere 20 /200 0.1 0.5 0.6
GLF3 GIIB Gulfstream III 0.1 0.0 0.1
Hushkit Stage 3 Jet Total 0.3 0.5 0.8 Military A400 C-130E Airbus A400M Altas 0.0 - 0.0
AN12 C130 Antonov An-12 Cub 0.0 - 0.0
C130 C130E Lockheed Martin C-130 1.8 0.0 1.8
C17 C17 Boeing C-17 Globemaster III 0.0 0.0 0.0
C30J C130HP Lockheed Martin C-130J Super Hercules 0.1 - 0.1
F18 F-18 McDonnell Douglas (Boeing) F/A-18 Hornet 0.0 - 0.0
F18S F-18 McDonnell Douglas (Boeing) F/A-18 Hornet 0.0 - 0.0
K35R KC-135 Boeing C-135R Stratotanker 0.0 - 0.0
T38 T-38A Northrop T-38 Talon 0.0 - 0.0
T38C T-38A Northrop T-38 Talon 0.0 - 0.0
Military Total 1.9 0.0 2.0 Propeller AC50 BEC58P Rockwell Aero Commander 500 0.0 0.0 0.0
AC90 DHC6 Rockwell Turbo Commander 690 0.0 0.0 0.0
AC95 CNA441 Rockwell / Gulfstream 695 Jetprop Commander 1000 0.0 - 0.0
AEST BEC58P Ted Smith Aerostar 600 /Piper Aerostar 0.0 0.0 0.0
AT43 DHC8 Avions de Transport Régional ATR-43 1.3 0.1 1.4
AT72 DHC830 Avions de Transport Régional ATR-72 0.0 0.0 0.0
B190 1900D Beechcraft 1900D 3.3 0.4 3.7
B350 DHC6 Beechcraft Super King Air 350/300B 0.5 0.0 0.5
BE10 DHC6 Beechcraft King Air 100 0.0 - 0.0
BE20 DHC6 Beechcraft Model 200 (Super) King Air 200 0.4 0.1 0.5
BE30 DHC6 Beechcraft Super King Air 300 0.3 0.0 0.3
BE33 GASEPV Beechcraft Model 33 Debonair/Bonanza 0.0 - 0.0
BE36 CNA208 Beechcraft Model 36 Bonanza 0.0 - 0.0
BE55 BEC58P Beechcraft Model 58 Baron 0.0 - 0.0
BE58 BEC58P Beechcraft Model 58 Baron 0.0 0.0 0.1
BE65 BEC58P Beechcraft Model 65 Queen Air 5.8 0.4 6.2
BE80 BEC58P Beechcraft Model 80 Queen Air 3.2 0.2 3.4
BE99 DHC6 Beechcraft Airliner Model 99 5.0 0.3 5.4
BE9L DHC6 Beechcraft Model 90 King Air 0.3 0.0 0.3
C172 CNA172 Cessna 172 Single Engine SEPF 0.0 0.0 0.0
C182 CNA182 Cessna 182 Skylane 0.0 - 0.0
C206 CNA206 Cessna 206 Stationair 0.0 - 0.0
C208 CNA208 Cessna 208 Caravan I 6.4 0.0 6.4
C210 GASEPV Cessna 210 Centurion 0.0 0.0 0.0
C310 BEC58P Cessna 310 Twin Engine Piston aircraft 0.0 0.0 0.0
C335 BEC58P Cessna 335 Twin Piston MEVP 0.0 - 0.0
C340 BEC58P Cessna 340 Twin Piston MEVP 0.0 - 0.0
C402 BEC58P Cessna 402 Businessliner 0.0 0.0 0.0
C414 BEC58P Cessna 414 Chancellor MEVP 0.1 - 0.1
C421 BEC58P Cessna 421 Golden Eagle 0.0 0.0 0.0
C425 CNA441 Cessna 425 (Corsair/Conquest) 0.0 - 0.0
C441 CNA441 Cessna 441 (Conquest/Conquest2) 0.1 0.0 0.1
C77R GASEPV Cessna 177RG Cardinal 0.0 - 0.0
COL4 GASEPV Cessna 400 Corvallis/Lancair LC41/Columbia 400 0.0 - 0.0
CORS GASEPV Mooney Mark 20 Series 0.0 - 0.0
COUR GASEPV Helio U-10 Super Courier (Piston-single) 0.0 0.0 0.0
CVLT CVR580 Convair CV-580/-600/-640 0.0 - 0.0
DHC6 DHC6 de Havilland Canada DHC-6 Twin Otter 0.0 - 0.0
E120 EMB120 Embraer EMB-120 Brasilia 0.0 0.0 0.1
59
MSP 2018 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
A-6
Group Aircraft
Code
AEDT Aircraft
(ANP) AEDT Aircraft Description 2018
Day
2018
Night
2018
Total Propeller LEG2 GASEPV Lancair Legacy 2000 (Piston-single) 0.0 - 0.0
M20P GASEPV Mooney Mark 20 Series 0.0 0.0 0.1
M600 CNA441 Beechcraft Model 90 King Air 0.0 - 0.0
MU2 DHC6 Mitsubishi MU-2 Marquise / Solitaire 0.0 - 0.0
P180 DHC6 Piaggio P180 Avanti 0.1 0.0 0.1
P210 GASEPV Cessna P210 Centurion (Pressurized) 0.0 - 0.0
P28A GASEPF Piper PA-28-140/150/160/180 Cherokee 0.0 0.0 0.0
P28R GASEPF Piper PA-28R-180/200/201 Cherokee Arrow I/II/III 0.0 - 0.0
P46T CNA441 Piper PA-46-500TP Malibu Meridian 0.0 - 0.0
PA31 BEC58P Piper PA-31 Navajo 0.1 - 0.1
PA32 GASEPV Piper PA-32 Cherokee Six 0.0 0.0 0.0
PA34 BEC58P Piper PA-34 Seneca 0.0 - 0.0
PA46 GASEPV Piper PA-46 Malibu 0.0 0.0 0.0
PAT4 CNA441 Piper PA-31T-2 Cheyenne I/II 0.0 - 0.0
PAY1 CNA441 Piper PA-31T-2 Cheyenne I/II 0.0 - 0.0
PAY2 CNA441 Piper PA-31T-2 Cheyenne I/II 0.0 - 0.0
PC12 CNA208 Pilatus PC-12 5.3 0.1 5.4
RV4 GASEPF Van's Aircraft RV-4 0.0 - 0.0
S22T COMSEP Cirrus SR22 Turbo 0.0 0.0 0.0
SB20 HS748A Saab 2000 0.0 - 0.0
SH36 SD330 Shorts 360 0.0 0.0 0.0
SR22 COMSEP Cirrus SR22 0.2 0.0 0.2
SW3 DHC6 Swearingen Merlin III /Fairchild Merlin III 0.0 0.0 0.0
SW4 DHC6 Swearingen Merlin IV /Fairchild Merlin IV 5.2 0.4 5.5
T6 GASEPV Beechcraft T-6 Texan II 0.0 - 0.0
TBM7 GASEPV Socata TBM 700 0.0 - 0.0
TBM8 CNA441 Socata TBM 850 Single Engine Turboprop 0.0 0.0 0.0
TBM9 CNA208 Daher TMB900 0.0 - 0.0
TEX2 GASEPV Beechcraft T-6 Texan II 0.0 0.0 0.0
Propeller Total 38.3 2.3 40.5 Helicopter AS50 SA350D Eurocopter AS-350 0.0 - 0.0
B407 B407 Bell Helicopter 407 0.0 -0.0
B412 S76 Bell Helicopter 412 Sentinel 0.0 -0.0
B429 B429 Bell Helicopter 429 0.0 -0.0
HELO SA350D Unidentifiable Helicopter 0.0 -0.0
R44 R44 Robinson R44 Clipper/Raven Helicopter 0.0 -0.0
UH60 S70 Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk Helicopter 0.0 -0.0
Helicopter Total 0.1 - 0.1
Grand Total 994.5 120.3 1,114.8
Notes: Totals may differ due to rounding
Source: MAC-provided AEDT input data, HNTB 2019.
60
MSP 2018 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
A-7
Table A1-2: Comparison of 2007 Forecast Fleet Mix and 2018 Actual Fleet Mix
Average Daily Operations
Group Aircraft Type
Day Night Total
Difference 2007
Forecast
2018
Actual
2007
Forecast
2018
Actual
2007
Forecast
2018
Actual Manufactured to be Stage 3+ 7478 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
717200 7.3 56.9 1.0 3.8 8.3 60.8 52.5
737300 48.2 0.1 3.5 0.0 51.7 0.1 (51.6)
737400 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.4
737500 5.7 0.0 0.5 0.0 6.2 0.0 (6.2)
737700 7.8 37.2 0.5 11.0 8.3 48.2 39.9
737800 65.5 149.7 12.6 32.6 78.1 182.3 104.2
737900 5.7 0.0 0.5 0.0 6.2 0.0 (6.2)
747400 1.9 0.1 0.2 0.1 2.1 0.2 (1.9)
757300 34.1 12.6 1.1 1.2 35.2 13.8 (21.4)
767200 1.2 0.0 0.5 0.0 1.7 0.0 (1.7)
767300 0.0 5.8 0.0 2.4 0.0 8.2 8.2
767400 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1
777200 0.0 3.7 0.0 0.1 0.0 3.8 3.8
777300 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4
7378MAX 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.8
74720B 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
757PW 88.4 35.0 8.6 8.5 97.0 43.5 (53.5)
757RR 0.0 3.6 0.0 2.1 0.0 5.7 5.7
767CF6 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1
767JT9 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.3
7773ER 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
7878R 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.4
A300-622R 4.8 0.6 4.2 0.9 9.0 1.5 (7.5)
A300B4-203 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
A310-304 1.4 0.0 1.3 0.0 2.7 0.0 (2.7)
A318 5.7 0.0 0.5 0.0 6.2 0.0 (6.2)
A319-131 149.1 60.4 3.9 5.8 153.0 66.1 (86.9)
A320-211 173.4 42.6 16.5 3.5 189.9 46.0 (143.9)
A320-232 0.0 16.6 0.0 5.4 0.0 22.0 22.0
A320-251N 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.4 0.0 3.1 3.1
A320-271N 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.8 0.8
A321-232 0.0 17.8 0.0 4.6 0.0 22.4 22.4
A330-301 6.2 5.3 0.0 0.7 6.2 6.0 (0.2)
A330-343 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.5 1.5
A340-211 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5
A340-642 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 (2.1)
ASTR 2.3 0.0 0.2 0.0 2.5 0.0 (2.5)
BAE146 74.3 0.0 2.2 0.0 76.5 0.0 (76.5)
BD-700-1A10 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4
BD-700-1A11 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2
CIT3 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3
CL600 0.0 145.4 0.0 8.9 0.0 154.2 154.2
CL601 264.1 1.2 14.7 0.1 278.8 1.3 (277.5)
CNA500 1.4 0.8 0.1 0.0 1.5 0.8 (0.7)
CNA525C 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1
CNA55B 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.7 1.7
CNA560E 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5
CNA560U 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4
CNA560XL 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 3.3 3.3
CNA650 4.9 0.0 0.6 0.0 5.5 0.0 (5.5)
CNA680 0.0 3.9 0.0 0.2 0.0 4.1 4.1
CNA750 4.6 7.5 0.3 0.5 4.9 8.0 3.1
CRJ9-ER 0.0 197.5 0.0 10.1 0.0 207.6 207.6
DC1010 9.6 1.4 3.8 0.6 13.4 2.0 (11.4)
DC1030 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.5
DC870 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 1.4 0.0 (1.4)
EMB145 45.3 0.6 0.2 0.1 45.5 0.6 (44.9)
EMB170 0.0 6.9 0.0 1.1 0.0 8.0 8.0
61
MSP 2018 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
A-8
Group Aircraft Type
Day Night Total
Difference 2007
Forecast
2018
Actual
2007
Forecast
2018
Actual
2007
Forecast
2018
Actual Manufactured to be Stage 3+ EMB175 0.0 42.9 0.0 6.3 0.0 49.1 49.1
EMB190 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.2 0.0 2.8 2.8
FAL20A 1.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 1.7 0.0 (1.7)
G650 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
G650ER 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1
GIV 2.6 1.4 0.2 0.1 2.8 1.5 (1.3)
GV 0.8 1.6 0.1 0.3 0.9 1.8 0.9
IA1125 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.7
L101 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.8 0.0 (0.8)
LEAR35 26.0 3.1 2.3 0.2 28.3 3.3 (25.0)
MD11GE 0.3 1.2 0.4 0.5 0.7 1.8 1.1
MD11PW 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.5 0.0 1.8 1.8
MD81 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 (0.5)
MD82 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.6
MD83 17.0 2.4 1.6 0.1 18.6 2.5 (16.1)
MD9025 0.0 14.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 14.6 14.6
MD9028 0.0 54.1 0.0 2.2 0.0 56.3 56.3
MU300 7.2 0.0 0.6 0.0 7.8 0.0 (7.8)
MU3001 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.6
SABR80 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
SBR2 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 (0.4)
Manufactured to be Stage 3+ Total 1,071.5 953.4 85.0 117.4 1,156.5 1,070.8 (85.7)
Microjet CNA510 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5
ECLIPSE500 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1
Microjet Total 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.6
Hushkit Stage 3
Jet
727EM2 8.0 0.0 6.4 0.0 14.4 0.0 (14.4)
737N17 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
DC93LW 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
DC9Q 245.3 0.0 15.3 0.0 260.6 0.0 (260.6)
FAL20 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.6 0.6
GIIB 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1
Hushkit Stage 3 Jet Total 253.3 0.3 21.7 0.5 275.0 0.8 (274.3)
Military
C130 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
C130E 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 1.8
C-130E 7.8 0.0 0.2 0.0 8.0 0.0 (8.0)
C130HP 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1
C17 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
C5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 (0.1)
F16GE 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 (0.1)
F-18 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
KC-135 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
T37 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 (0.1)
T38 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 (0.1)
T-38A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Military Total 8.2 1.9 0.2 0.0 8.4 2.0 (6.4)
62
MSP 2018 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
A-9
Group Aircraft Type
Day Night Total
Difference 2007
Forecast
2018
Actual
2007
Forecast
2018
Actual
2007
Forecast
2018
Actual
Propeller
1900D 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.4 0.0 3.7 3.7
BEC58 14.3 0.0 4.7 0.0 19.0 0.0 (19.0)
BEC58P 0.0 9.4 0.0 0.6 0.0 10.1 10.1
CNA172 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
CNA182 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
CNA206 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
CNA208 0.0 11.7 0.0 0.1 0.0 11.8 11.8
CNA441 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2
COMSEP 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2
CVR580 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
DHC6 22.5 11.8 4.4 0.9 26.9 12.7 (14.2)
DHC8 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.4 1.4
DHC830 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
EMB120 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1
FK27 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 (0.1)
GASEPF 1.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 1.6 0.0 (1.6)
GASEPV 3.7 0.2 0.5 0.0 4.2 0.2 (4.0)
HS748A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
SD330 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
SF340 93.3 0.0 5.9 0.0 99.2 0.0 (99.2)
Propeller Total 135.2 38.3 15.8 2.3 151.0 40.5 (110.5)
Stage 2 Jets under
75,000 lbs
GIIB 2.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 2.3 0.0 (2.3)
LEAR25 2.1 0.0 0.4 0.0 2.5 0.0 (2.5)
Stage 2 Jets under 75,000 lbs Total 4.2 0.0 0.6 0.0 4.8 0.0 (4.7)
Grand Total 1,472.4 994.5 123.3 120.3 1,595.9 1,114.8 (481.1)
Notes: Totals may differ due to rounding
Source: MAC-provided AEDT input data, HNTB 2019.
63
MSP 2018 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
A-10
Appendix 2: 2018 Model Flight Tracks and Use
Figure Content Page
Figure 2.1 Runway 4 Arrivals A-11
Figure 2.2 Runway 12L Arrivals A-12
Figure 2.3 Runway 12R Arrivals 2-13
Figure 2.4 Runway 17 Arrivals 2-14
Figure 2.5 Runway 22 Arrivals 2-15
Figure 2.6 Runway 30L Arrivals 2-16
Figure 2.7 Runway 30R Arrivals 2-17
Figure 2.8 Runway 35 Arrivals 2-18
Figure 2.9 Runway 4 Departures 2-19
Figure 2.10 Runway 12L Departures 2-20
Figure 2.11 Runway 12R Departures 2-21
Figure 2.12 Runway 17 Departures 2-22
Figure 2.13 Runway 22 Departures 2-23
Figure 2.14 Runway 30L Departures 2-24
Figure 2.15 Runway 30R Departures 2-25
Figure 2.16 Runway 35 Departures 2-26
64
A-11
65
A-12
66
A-13
67
A-14
68
A-15
69
A-16
70
A-17
71
A-18
72
A-19
73
A-20
74
A-21
75
A-22
76
A-23
77
A-24
78
A-25
79
A-26
80
MSP 2018 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission
A-27
Appendix 3: Noise Model Grid Point Maps
Figure Content Page
Figure 3-1 to
Figure 3-5 Decibel Levels from 2018 Actual Grid Point DNLs A-28
Figure 3-6 to
Figure 3-10 Decibel Levels from Base Case Year Grid Point DNLs A-33
Figure 3-11 to
Figure 3-15
Difference in dB Level Between Block Base Case Year and 2018
Actual Grid Point DNLs for Blocks Included in the Noise Mitigation
Settlement
A-38
81
A-28
82
A-29
83
A-30
84
A-31
85
A-32
86
A-33
87
A-34
88
A-35
89
A-36
90
A-37
91
A-38
92
A-39 93
A-40
94
A-41
95
A-42
96
Metropolitan Airports Commission
MAC Noise Program Office and HNTB Corporation
6040 28th Avenue South • Minneapolis, MN 55450
macnoise.com
97
METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION
6040 28TH AVENUE SOUTH, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55450
WWW.MACNOISE.COM
2018 ANNUAL MSP FLEET MIX AND
NIGHTTIME OPERATIONS REPORT
JANUARY 2019
NOISE PROGRAM OFFICE
98
2018 ANNUAL MSP FLEET MIX AND NIGHTTIME OPERATIONS REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MSP FLEET MIX REPORT
Monthly Carrier Jet Counts by Type 2
Widebody Jet Activity 3
Narrowbody Jet Activity 4
Regional Jet Activity 5
Average Seats per Flight 6
Average Enplaned Passengers per Flight 6
MSP Carrier Jet Usage with Cumulative Certificated Noise Levels 7
Average Altitude for Aircraft Arriving to MSP by Category 8
Average Altitude for Aircraft Departing from MSP by Category 9
MSP NIGHTTIME OPERATIONS REPORT
Average Daily Nighttime Operations 10
Nighttime Operations by Runway 11
Nighttime Operations by Runway Map 12
Nighttime Operations by Airline 13
Nighttime Operations by Aircraft 14
Nighttime Operations by Origin and Destination 15
Nighttime Operations by Hour 16
Scheduled Versus Actual Operations 17
99
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
JAN-14MAR-14MAY-14JUL-14SEP-14NOV-14JAN-15MAR-15MAY-15JUL-15SEP-15NOV-15JAN-16MAR-16MAY-16JUL-16SEP-16NOV-16JAN-17MAR-17MAY-17JUL-17SEP-17NOV-17JAN-18MAR-18MAY-18JUL-18SEP-18NOV-18MSP OPERATIONSTHOUSANDSMONTHLY CARRIER JET COUNTS BY TYPE
NARROWBODY WIDEBODY REGIONAL JET
HUSHKIT BY YEAR: 2014 -37, 2015 -26, 2016 -48, 2017 -26, 2018 -32
100
WIDEBODY JET ACTIVITY WIDEBODY TYPE 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
A124 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
A225 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
A300 0.07% 0.07% 0.03% 0.03% 0.15%
A310 0.01% 0.02% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
A330 0.69% 0.73% 0.68% 0.80% 0.72%
A340 0.05% 0.07% 0.06% 0.07% 0.04%
A350 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
A380 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
B742 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
B744 0.08% 0.03% 0.01% 0.01% 0.02%
B748 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
B762 0.14% 0.14% 0.14% 0.15% 0.04%
B763 0.84% 0.74% 0.90% 0.50% 0.79%
B764 0.21% 0.22% 0.24% 0.01% 0.01%
B767 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
B777 0.10% 0.17% 0.18% 0.38% 0.40%
B7878 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.01% 0.04%
DC10 0.19% 0.24% 0.13% 0.27% 0.24%
MD11 0.55% 0.51% 0.61% 0.46% 0.34%
TOTAL 2.92% 2.95% 2.98% 2.70% 2.81%
101
NARROWBODY JET ACTIVITY NARROWBODY TYPE 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
A319 7.53% 7.89% 7.20% 6.74% 6.38%
A320 9.63% 9.04% 9.90% 7.10% 6.56%
A320neo 0.00% 0.00% 0.03% 0.24% 0.37%
A321 0.72% 0.84% 0.46% 0.53% 2.16%
B717 0.59% 1.49% 2.36% 5.25% 5.86%
B72Q 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
B733 0.76% 0.86% 0.67% 0.35% 0.01%
B734 0.04% 0.03% 0.03% 0.03% 0.05%
B735 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
B7377 5.03% 4.84% 4.84% 5.04% 4.65%
B738 5.63% 6.78% 7.82% 9.77% 10.12%
B739 0.78% 2.81% 3.78% 5.04% 7.47%
B38M 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.08%
B73Q 0.00% 0.00% 0.01% 0.00% 0.00%
B757 6.49% 6.40% 5.81% 5.90% 6.08%
DC8Q 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
DC9Q 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
MD80 3.72% 3.52% 3.59% 2.47% 0.29%
MD90 6.80% 8.27% 7.62% 8.84% 6.85%
TOTAL 47.72% 52.77% 54.11% 57.31% 56.95%
102
REGIONAL JET ACTIVITY REGIONAL JET TYPE 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
BA46 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
CRJ 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
CRJ1 0.10% 0.00% 0.13% 0.06% 0.00%
CRJ2 21.24% 17.24% 17.16% 16.18% 14.35%
CRJ7 4.24% 3.40% 2.75% 4.83% 7.03%
CRJ9 11.00% 14.73% 13.72% 11.31% 13.00%
E135 0.01% 0.02% 0.04% 0.03% 0.03%
E145 1.85% 1.24% 0.21% 0.06% 0.03%
E170 10.64% 7.39% 8.68% 7.05% 5.52%
E175 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
E190 0.23% 0.25% 0.20% 0.47% 0.27%
J328 0.03% 0.02% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01%
TOTAL 49.35% 44.29% 42.90% 39.99% 40.24%
103
115.7 117.2 119.6
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
AVERAGE SEATS PER FLIGHT
2016 2017 2018
SOURCE: OAG
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
2016 90.1 93.3 100.1 95.3 97.2 101.8 101.1 99.4 96.7 97.6 94.2 93.3
2017 89.1 92.8 100.1 96.2 96.1 101.3 101.8 100.9 97.0 98.4 96.5 94.2
2018 92.8 97.4 101.4 96.0 97.8 103.0 103.8 103.9 97.4 99.6
80
85
90
95
100
105 AVERAGE ENPLANED PASSENGERS PER FLIGHT
SOURCE:MSP MONTHLY OPERATIONS REPORTS
NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER 2018 DATA WERE UNAVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF THIS REPORT
104
CRJ2CRJ7CRJ9E135E145E170E190A319A320A320neoA321B38MB717B733B734B735B7377B738B739B757MD80MD90A300A330A340A350B744B748B762B763B764B777B7878DC10MD1114.3%7.0%13.0%0.0%0.0%5.5%0.3%6.4%6.6%0.4%2.2%0.1%5.9%0.0%0.0%0.0%4.7%10.1%7.5%6.1%0.3%6.8%0.1%0.7%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.8%0.0%0.4%0.0%0.2%0.3%-40
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
CUMULATIVE CERTIFICATED NOISE LEVEL BELOW STAGE 3 (EPNdB)Regional Jet Narrow Body Wide Body
SOURCE:USAGE DATA: MACNOMS; NOISE CERTIFICATION DATA: EUROPEAN AVIATION SAFETY AGENCY
CUMULATIVE CERTIFICATED NOISE LEVELS REPRESENTED AS A RANGE TO ACCOUNT FOR MULTIPLE CERTIFICATION VARIABLES (WEIGHT,
MODEL, ENGINE TYPE, AIRFRAME CONFIGURATION, ETC)
CUMULATIVE CERTIFICATED NOISE LEVEL RANGE
2018 MSP CARRIER JET USAGE WITH CUMULATIVE CERTIFICATED NOISE LEVELS
STAGE 3
STAGE 4
STAGE 5
105
MEASUREMENT GATE IS FIVE NAUTICAL MILES FROM THE THRESHOLD OF THE ARRIVAL RUNWAY
0
250
500
750
1,000
1,250
1,500
1,750
2,000
JAN-14MAR-14MAY-14JUL-14SEP-14NOV-14JAN-15MAR-15MAY-15JUL-15SEP-15NOV-15JAN-16MAR-16MAY-16JUL-16SEP-16NOV-16JAN-17MAR-17MAY-17JUL-17SEP-17NOV-17JAN-18MAR-18MAY-18JUL-18SEP-18NOV-18FEET ABOVE MSP FIELD ELEVATIONAVERAGE ALTITUDE FOR AIRCRAFT ARRIVING TO MSP
NARROWBODY REGIONAL JET WIDEBODY
106
MEASUREMENT GATE IS A N ARC FIVE NAUTICAL MILES FROM THE START OF TAKEOFF ROLL
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
JAN-14MAR-14MAY-14JUL-14SEP-14NOV-14JAN-15MAR-15MAY-15JUL-15SEP-15NOV-15JAN-16MAR-16MAY-16JUL-16SEP-16NOV-16JAN-17MAR-17MAY-17JUL-17SEP-17NOV-17JAN-18MAR-18MAY-18JUL-18SEP-18NOV-18FEET ABOVE MSP FIELD ELEVATIONAVERAGE ALTITUDE FOR AIRCRAFT DEPARTING FROM MSP
NARROWBODY REGIONAL JET WIDEBODY
107
57
45
48
43
46
51
59
69
66
70
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018AVERAGE DAILY OPERATIONSAVERAGE DAILY NIGHTTIME OPERATIONS
(10:30 PM -6:00 AM)
108
NIGHTTIME OPERATIONS BY RUNWAY
(10:30 PM – 6:00 AM)
2018 3-YEAR HISTORICAL AVERAGE
RWY
ARR
/
DEP
OVERFLIGHT AREA TOTAL
NIGHT OPS
AVERAGE
DAILY
NIGHT OPS
% TOTAL
NIGHT OPS
AVERAGE
DAILY
NIGHT OPS
%
04 ARR SO. RICHFIELD/BLOOMINGTON 67 0.2 0.4% 8 0.0 0.0%
12L ARR SO. MINNEAPOLIS/NO. RICHFIELD 2,465 6.8 13.5% 2,646 7.2 15.2%
12R ARR SO. MINNEAPOLIS/NO. RICHFIELD 5,114 14.0 28.0% 5,057 13.8 29.0%
17 ARR SO. MINNEAPOLIS 134 0.4 0.7% 2 0.0 0.0%
22 ARR ST. PAUL/HIGHLAND PARK 0 0.0 0.0% 37 0.1 0.2%
30L ARR EAGAN/MENDOTA HEIGHTS 6,591 18.1 36.0% 6,444 17.6 36.9%
30R ARR EAGAN/MENDOTA HEIGHTS 2,772 7.6 15.2% 2,928 8.0 16.8%
35 ARR BLOOMINGTON/EAGAN 1,151 3.2 6.3% 334 0.9 1.9%
TOTAL NIGHTTIME ARRIVALS 18,294 50.3 17,456 47.6
04 DEP ST. PAUL/HIGHLAND PARK 151 0.4 2.1% 16 0.0 0.3%
12L DEP EAGAN/MENDOTA HEIGHTS 1,149 3.1 16.0% 1,097 3.0 17.9%
12R DEP EAGAN/MENDOTA HEIGHTS 1,938 5.3 27.0% 1,760 4.8 28.7%
17 DEP BLOOMINGTON/EAGAN 676 1.9 9.4% 498 1.4 8.1%
22 DEP SO. RICHFIELD/BLOOMINGTON 0 0.0 0.0% 12 0.0 0.2%
30L DEP SO. MINNEAPOLIS/NO. RICHFIELD 1,937 5.3 27.0% 1,651 4.5 27.0%
30R DEP SO. MINNEAPOLIS/NO. RICHFIELD 1,294 3.5 18.0% 1,086 3.0 17.7%
35 DEP SO. MINNEAPOLIS 38 0.1 0.5% 5 0.0 0.1%
TOTAL NIGHTTIME DEPARTURES 7,183 19.6 6,125 16.7
TOTAL NIGHTTIME OPERATIONS 25,477 69.9 23,581 64.3
109
NIGHTTIME OPERATIONS BY RUNWAY MAP
110
NIGHTTIME OPERATIONS BY AIRLINE
(TOP 15 BY COUNT)2018 AIRLINE ID COUNT
PERCENT OF AIRLINE
OPERATIONS
OCCURRING AT NIGHT
PERCENT OF
CONTRIBUTION TO
NIGHT TIME TOTAL
DELTA DAL 6,933 4.80% 29.20%
SUN COUNTRY SCX 3,679 19.00% 15.49%
SKYWEST AIRLINES SKW 2,523 2.50% 10.63%
SOUTHWEST SWA 2,188 13.50% 9.21%
AMERICAN AAL 1,796 12.70% 7.56%
SPIRIT NKS 1,256 15.00% 5.29%
UNITED UAL 1,080 14.90% 4.55%
REPUBLIC AIRLINES RPA 1,028 10.20% 4.33%
UPS UPS 984 32.20% 4.14%
FEDEX FDX 726 23.60% 3.06%
ATLAS AIR (USA) GTI 356 63.70% 1.50%
ALASKA ASA 324 22.60% 1.36%
ENDEAVOR AIR EDV 308 1.20% 1.30%
JETBLUE AIRWAYS JBU 287 20.60% 1.21%
GULF & CARIBBEAN CARGO TSU 276 94.20% 1.16% 2017 AIRLINE ID COUNT
PERCENT OF AIRLINE
OPERATIONS
OCCURRING AT NIGHT
PERCENT OF
CONTRIBUTION TO
NIGHT TIME TOTAL
DELTA DAL 5,896 4.10% 26.08%
SUN COUNTRY SCX 3,735 17.80% 16.52%
AMERICAN AAL 2,417 14.10% 10.69%
SOUTHWEST SWA 2,234 12.70% 9.88%
SKYWEST AIRLINES SKW 1,888 2.40% 8.35%
UNITED UAL 1,248 14.40% 5.52%
SPIRIT NKS 1,239 13.50% 5.48%
UPS UPS 874 31.90% 3.87%
REPUBLIC AIRLINES RPA 721 8.40% 3.19%
FEDEX FDX 635 23.90% 2.81%
ENDEAVOR AIR EDV 491 1.30% 2.17%
FRONTIER AIRLINES FFT 420 18.40% 1.86%
MESA AIRLINES ASH 323 9.10% 1.43%
ALASKA ASA 298 19.20% 1.32%
COMPASS CPZ 188 1.90% 0.83%
*AIRLINE OPERATIONS OCCURRING AT NIGHT REPRSENTS THE PERCENTAGE OF RESPECTIVE AIRLINE SCHEDULE THAT OCCURS
AT NIGHT
*CONTRIBUTION TO TOTAL IS RESPECTIVE AIRLINE CONTRIBUTIONS TO OVERALL MSP NIGHT OPERATIONS
111
2018 N IGHTTIME OPERATIONS BY AIRCRAFT
(TOP 15 BY COUNT)
AIRCRAFT
CODE DESCRIPTION COUNT NOISE LEVEL
CERTIFICATION
(EPNdB BELOW STAGE 3)
B738 BOEING 737-800 5,439 11.3 - 17.1
B757 BOEING 757-200 2,911 11.1 - 22.1
B7377 BOEING 737-700 2,471 11.6 - 19.8
B739 BOEING 737-900 2,354 10.9 - 16.1
A320 AIRBUS INDUSTRIES A320 2,158 12.1 - 21.2
E170 EMBRAER 170 1,505 9.2 - 16.8
CRJ2 CANADAIR REGIONAL JET CRJ-200 1,354 26.5 - 30.6
A319 AIRBUS INDUSTRIES A319 1,065 12.9 - 22.2
A321 AIRBUS INDUSTRIES A321 984 6.4 - 17
CRJ9 CANADAIR REGIONAL JET CRJ-900 914 14.5 - 17.6
CRJ7 CANADAIR REGIONAL JET CRJ-700 699 14.5 - 17.6
B763 BOEING 767-300 681 4.4 - 22.6
B717 BOEING 717 498 19.2 - 23
MD90 MCDONNELL DOUGLAS MD90 465 23.4 - 27.2
MD11 MCDONNELL DOUGLAS MD11 280 12.8 - 17.9
NOISE CERTIFICATION DATA SOURCE: EUROPEAN AVIATION SAFETY AGENCY
CUMULATIVE CERTIFICATED NOISE LEVELS REPRESENTED AS A RANGE BELOW STAGE 3 NOISE LEVELS TO ACCOUNT FOR
MULTIPLE CERTIFICATION VARIABLES (WEIGHT, MODEL, ENGINE TYPE, AIRFRAME CONFIGURATION, ETC)
112
2018 N IGHTTIME OPERATIONS BY ORIGIN AND DESTINATION
(TOP 15 BY COUNT)
AIRPORT
CODE ORIGIN AIRPORT COUNT
LAS LAS VEGAS 1,258
LAX LOS ANGELES 1,115
PHX PHOENIX 1,109
SEA SEATTLE 997
SFO SAN FRANCISCO 937
DEN DENVER 895
ATL ATLANTA 809
ORD CHICAGO (O'HARE) 735
SDF LOUISVILLE 470
MEM MEMPHIS 455
BOS BOSTON 433
DFW DALLAS/ FORT WORTH 426
MDW CHICAGO (MIDWAY) 386
PANC TED STAVENS ANCHORAGE INTERNATIONAL 363
SLC SALT LAKE CITY 331
AIRPORT
CODE DESTINATION AIRPORT COUNT
ATL ATLANTA 441
ORD CHICAGO (O'HARE) 399
PHX PHOENIX 320
DEN DENVER 315
TVF THEIF RIVER FALLS REGIONAL 219
CLT CHARLOTTE 212
IAH HOUSTON 194
FAR FARGO 172
MDW CHICAGO (MIDWAY) 169
LAS LAS VEGAS 167
MSN MADISON 161
YWG WINNIPEG 160
FLL FT. LAUDERDALE 158
MKE MILWAUKEE 154
GFK GRAND FORKS 152
113
NIGHTTIME OPERATIONS BY HOUR
2,692
913
407 610
1,617
6,686
5,112
7,440
2018
0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00
4:00 5:00 22:30 23:00
2,419
760 369 414
1,430
6,764
4,495
6,930
3-YEAR HISTORICAL
AVERAGE
0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00
4:00 5:00 22:30 23:00
114
SCHEDULED VERSUS ACTUAL OPERATIONS
GENERAL AVIATION AND CHARTER AIRCRAFT OPERATORS DO NOT REPORT SCHEDULED OPERATIONS
4.1
0.6 0.1 0.5
2.3
15.4
7.7
18.5
DAILY SCHEDULED NIGHT
OPERATIONS
0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00
4:00 5:00 22:30 23:00
7.4
2.5
1.1 2
4.4
18.3
14.0
20.4
DAILY ACTUAL NIGHT
OPERATIONS
0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00
4:00 5:00 22:30 23:00
115
116
117
118