07/09/2019 - Airport Relations CommissionAGENDA
EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION MEETING
EAGAN COMMUNITY CENTER
OAKS BANQUET ROOM
TUESDAY, JULY 9, 2019
7:00PM
I.ROLL CALL AND ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
II.ORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS AND INTRODUCTIONS
III.VISITORS TO BE HEARD
IV.APPROVAL OF MINUTES
V.OLD BUSINESS
A. MAC MONTHLY REPORTS
VI.PRESENTATIONS
A. MAC RUNWAY 17 DEPARTURE STUDY
B.MAC MOBILE NOISE MONITOR FINDINGS
VII.NEW BUSINESS
A. CONVERGING RUNWAY OPERATIONS (CRO) UPDATE
VIII.STAFF/COMMISSIONER REPORT
A. 2003 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMET EXCERPTS
IX.ROUNDTABLE
X.ADJOURNMENT
1
Memo
To: The Airport Relations Commission
From: Dianne Miller, Assistant City Administrator
Date: July 2 , 2019
Subject: July 9 , 2019 ARC Meeting/Location: Eagan Community Center
The Eagan Airport Relations Commission will meet on Tuesday, July 9 at 7 p.m. at the
Eagan Community Center (ECC) in the Oaks Banquet Room. The meeting is taking place
at the ECC because of construction at City Hall. The meeting will 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.
II.ORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS AND INTRODUCTIONS
This past May, the City Council made their appointments to the City’s advisory
commissions. Commissioners Hughes, Dullinger, and Axmacher were reappointed to the
ARC for 2-year terms. Bill Raker was newly appointed to a 2-year term, and Sam
Kunjummen was appointed to the 1-year alternate position. The Commission is welcome
to introduce themselves.
The Commission is also asked to appoint a Chair and Vice Chair of the ARC to serve
through April 2020. A commission member may make a motion to nominate someone (or
him/herself) to serve as the Chair, followed by a second motion to nominate a Vice Chair.
III.VISITORS TO BE HEARD
The Eagan City Council and its Commissions set aside up to ten minutes at the
beginning of public meetings to permit visitors to address items of interest that are not
addressed on the regular agenda. Items that will take more than ten minutes or that
require specific action can be scheduled for a future meeting agenda.
2
IV.APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Enclosed on pages 5 through 6 are the minutes of the May 14, 2019 ARC workshop
and the joint meeting with the Mendota Heights’ ARC. Both sets of minutes are in
order for adoption by the commission.
V.OLD BUSINESS
A.MAC Monthly Reports – Enclosed on pages 7 through 12 is the monthly summary
report for the month of May 2018 from the Metropolitan Airport Commission (MAC).
The MAC has combined several of their reports into one document, intended to be
more user friendly to those less familiar with aircraft operations. To view the more
detailed data pertaining to runway usage, complaints, sound monitoring, and noise
abatement go to: https://www.macenvironment.org/reports/. The data on the reports is
best viewed online as the website is interactive. The June reports are available online,
but the monthly summary report for June was not yet available at the time the ARC
packet was prepared.
VI.PRESENTATIONS
A.MAC Runway 17 Departure Study—Bradley Juffer, MAC Manager of Community
Relations, will be in attendance to provide a report of the Runway 17 Departure Study
prepared at the request of the Noise Oversight Committee (NOC). 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. The scope of the study was
prepared with input from Eagan residents and the ARC. Enclosed on pages 13 through
81 is the draft, final report that Mr. Juffer will present.
B.MAC Mobile Noise Monitor Findings— Per the request of the ARC and approval of
the NOC, the MAC conducted 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 occurred May 1-15, 2019.
The goals identified for the mobile monitoring were to:
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 was 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 was to
3
compare data collected from the mobile equipment with data being collected at the
RMTs 25 and 37.
Bradley Juffer, MAC Manager of Community Relations, will be in attendance to share
the findings of the mobile noise monitoring study, see pages 82-107.
VII.NEW BUSINESS
A.Converging Runway Operations (CRO) Update—Rebecca MacPherson, FAA
Regional Administrator for the Great Lakes Region, provided an update on Converging
Runway Operations (CRO) at the May NOC meeting. At the request of Assistant City
Administrator (and NOC Co-chair) Miller, Ms. MacPherson has provided a written
summary of her comments, which are enclosed on page 108-109. Also enclosed on
pages 110-111 is a public statement issued by the MAC in June addressing the FAA’s
update on CRO.
VIII.STAFF / COMMISSIONER REPORT
A.2003 Environmental Assessment Excerpts—Eagan resident Ted Gladhill
requested that the enclosed excerpts on pages 112-146 of the “2003 Environmental
Assessment for the Implementation of a Departure Procedure off of Runway 17” be
shared with the ARC. The data is provided as context in the conversation currently
underway regarding the impact on Runway 17 from CRO.
IX.ROUNDTABLE
Per the request of the Commission, this agenda item has been added so that
Commissioners can ask questions or make requests for future agenda items.
X.ADJOURNMENT
Per the request of the Commission, the Eagan ARC meetings will go no later than 8:30
p.m. unless agreed upon by the Commission.
/s/Dianne E. Miller_______
Assistant City Administrator
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
MAY 14, 2019
A joint meeting of the Eagan and Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commissions was held on Tuesday,
May 14, 2019 at 7:00 p.m. Those present from the Eagan ARC were Michael Johnson, Debra Dulligner,
Theresa Hughes, Joseph Axmacher, and Assistant City Administrator Miller. Jeff Spartz and Philippe
Girard were absent.
Mendota Heights Attendance: David Sloan, Sally Lorberbaum, William Dunn, Gina Norling, James
Neuharth, Kevin Byrnes, Arvid Sharma and Mark McNeill, Administrator.
The meeting was called to order by Interim Chair Johnson.
AGENDA
Commissioner Hughes moved, Commissioner Spartz seconded a motion to approve the agenda as
presented. All members voted in favor.
PRESENTATIONS
Brian Ryks, MAC Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer
State of the Airport
MAC Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer Brian Ryks gave a presentation on the State of the
Airport.
UPDATES ON CURRENT EFFORTS BY THE COMMISSIONS
Assistant City Administrator Miller noted the MAC is currently conducting mobile noise monitoring at
two sites in Eagan: Mueller Farm Park and Thomas Lake Park. The goals will determine if gaps in the
Remote Monitoring Tower (RMT) coverage area currently exists and determine if two of the RMT closes
to Interstate 35-E are properly located to best monitor aircraft noise given the ambient freeway noise.
The objective of the study is to compare data collected from the mobile equipment with data being
collected at RMTs 25 and 37.
Miller also noted at the ARC workshop, Bradley Juffer, MAC Manager of Community Relations, provided
an overview of the Runway 17 Departure Study being prepared for the review of the Noise Oversight
Committee.
Mendota Heights Commissioner Norling spoke about the proposed 12L departures noise abatement,
and Commissioners Neuharth and Byrnes spoke on the turbo prop noise impact.
There was no other business. Interim Chair Johnson thanked the members of the Mendota Heights
Commission for attending the meeting.
VISITORS TO BE HEARD
Ted Gladhill, Eagan resident, raised questions about air traffic patterns. Bradley Juffer, MAC Manager of
Community Relations responded to the questions. Rebecca MacPherson, Great Lakes Region Regional
FAA Administrator, also responded to the questions.
5
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURNMENT
Upon motion by Axmacher, seconded by Dulligner, the meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. All members
voted in favor.
__________________________ _________________________________
Date Secretary
6
MAY 2019
Noise Oversight Committee (NOC)
Monthly Operations Summary Report
7
MSP COMPLAINTS MAY 2019
COMPLAINTS LOCATIONS MOST FREQUENT
Total
17,745
Total
311
Hour
8:00 PM (11%)
Operations per Complaint
1.9
New Locations
21
Average Complaints
57
Median Complaints
4
Day
Tuesday (2,909)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
6k
7k
8k
9k
10k
11k
12k
13k
14k
15k
16k
17k
18k
2017 2018 2019
COMPLAINT LOCATIONS
TOP 5 CITIESMINNEAPOLIS
8,668
Complaints
136
Locations
EAGAN
3,354
Complaints
53
Locations
INVER GROVE
HEIGHTS
2,071
Complaints
6
Locations
RICHFIELD
888
Complaints
17
Locations
MINNETONKA
548
Complaints
7
Locations
Locations
1-3
4-5
6-10
11+
Leaflet
8
MSP OPERATIONS MAY 2019
33,998
Operations
2,377
Nighttime Operations
(10:30 PM - 6:00 AM)
160,965
Year to Date Operations
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
24k
26k
28k
30k
32k
34k
36k
38k
2017 2018 2019Operations
RUNWAY USE
12L
437512R
5249
30L
3744
30R
3134
35
484
OTHER
3
Arrivals
12L
3258
12R
1886
30L
319530R
2940
17
5723
OTHER
Departures
0 %2 %4 %6 %8 %10 %
N
E
S
W
1-5 MPH
5-10 MPH
10-15 MPH
15-20 MPH
>20 MPH
Calm or variable: 14.39%
TOTAL RUS USAGE
53.6%
NORTH FLOW SOUTH FLOW MIXED FLOW
27%54%12%
CARRIER JET FLEET MIX
40%
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
CRJ9
CRJ2
E170
57%
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
B738
A320
B739
3%
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
B763
A330
B777
TOP 3 BY CATEGORY9
MSP SOUND MONITORING MAY 2019
Time Above
TA(x)
52
TA per operation
s
65
495 41
TA
h m
65
19 45
TA
h m
80
7 9
TA
m s
90
0
TA
s
100
Count Above
N(x)
2.83
N per operation
65
96,264
N65
15,681
N80
177
N90
0
N100
COUNT ABOVE CARRIER JET CONTRIBUTION TIME ABOVE
27%
25,866
25%
121 40h m
64%
61,960
66%
326 48h m
5%
4,584
6%
29 36h m
AIRCRAFT DNL BY SITE
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39
30
33
36
39
42
45
48
51
54
57
60
63
66
69
Three Year Monthly Average Current Month
1 2
3
4
5 6
7
8 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1617
18
19
20
21
22
23
2425
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
DNL
Above Three Year Monthly Average
Below Three Year Monthly Average
Leaflet
10
MSP NOISE ABATEMENT MAY 2019
RUNWAY 17 DEPARTURE PROCEDURE (CARRIER JET)
5,386
Runway 17 Departures
99.8%
Compliance Rate
23
Nighttime Departures
EAGAN-MENDOTA HEIGHTS CORRIDOR PROCEDURE (CARRIER JET)
4,730
Departures
86.6%
Compliance Rate
41
Departures North of the
Corridor
595
Departures South of the
Corridor
CROSSING-IN-THE-CORRIDOR PROCEDURE (CARRIER JET)
DAY (6AM - 11PM)NIGHT (11PM - 6AM)
CROSSED
1,518
33.2%
DID NOT
CROSS
3,055
66.8%
CROSSED
49
31.2%
DID NOT
CROSS
108
68.8%
MSP RUNWAY USE SYSTEM (RUS)
ARRIVAL RUS USAGE
43%
TOTAL RUS USAGE
53.6%
DEPARTURE RUS USAGE
64%
Operations
31-100
101-500
501-1,000
1,001-2,000
2001+
Leaflet
Operations
31-100
101-500
501-1,000
1,001-2,000
2001+
Leaflet
11
NOTE: The following Remote Monitoring Towers were out of service during May 2019: RMT5 (5/4-5/6), RMT 31 (5/29-5/30), RMT 14 (5/29-5/30), and
RMT 22 (5/26, 5/30-5/31)
12
Community Relations Office
RUNWAY 17 DEPARTURE OPERATIONS REPORT
July 2019
Metropolitan Airports Commission
6040 28th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55450
metroairports.org
13
RUNWAY 17 DEPARTURE OPERATIONS REPORT
Table of Contents
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................... iii
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 1
1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 3
2. Background ............................................................................................................................................... 5
3. Pre-CRO day vs. Post-CRO day .................................................................................................................. 9
4. Flight Frequency ...................................................................................................................................... 15
5. Runway 17 Departure Headings ............................................................................................................. 19
6. AEDT Noise Model Data .......................................................................................................................... 27
7. Land Use .................................................................................................................................................. 31
8. Runway 17 Departure Procedure Environmental Assessment ............................................................... 36
9. Runway 17 Departure Altitude ............................................................................................................... 42
Appendix A .................................................................................................................................................. 48
Appendix B .................................................................................................................................................. 49
Appendix C .................................................................................................................................................. 50
Appendix D .................................................................................................................................................. 51
Appendix E .................................................................................................................................................. 62
Appendix F .................................................................................................................................................. 64
14
L IST OF F IGURES
Figure 1 - Air Transportation Entities ............................................................................................................ 3
Figure 2 - Runway 17 Departures by Year..................................................................................................... 8
Figure 3 - Average Annual Day .................................................................................................................... 11
Figure 4 - Peak Hour Departure Operations ............................................................................................... 12
Figure 5 - MSP South Flow Days.................................................................................................................. 13
Figure 6 - Departure Runway Distribution .................................................................................................. 14
Figure 7 - Runway 17 15-Minute South Flow Departure Usage ................................................................. 17
Figure 8 - Runway 17 15-Minute Mixed Flow Departure Usage ................................................................. 18
Figure 9 - Runway 17 Modeled Departure Tracks ...................................................................................... 21
Figure 10 - Runway 17 Departure Modeled Tracks by Heading ................................................................. 22
Figure 11 - Runway 17 Departure Heading Use .......................................................................................... 23
Figure 12 - Top 5 Destinations by Heading ................................................................................................. 24
Figure 13 - 2014 Heading-Use by Time ....................................................................................................... 25
Figure 14 - 2018 Heading-Use by Time ....................................................................................................... 26
Figure 15 - 2014 Runway 17 Departure Events Above 65 dB ..................................................................... 29
Figure 16 - 2018 Runway 17 Departure Events Above 65 dB ..................................................................... 30
Figure 17 - Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Parcel Data ....................................................................... 33
Figure 18 - Parcel Data south of MSP ......................................................................................................... 34
Figure 19 - Parcel Data with 2018 Runway 17 Departure Density ............................................................. 35
Figure 20 - Runway 17 Distance Measurement Rings ................................................................................ 43
Figure 21 - 2014 and 2018 Annual MSP Wind Rose .................................................................................... 44
Figure 22 - Average RJ Departure Altitude ................................................................................................. 45
Figure 23 - Average Narrowbody Departure Altitude ................................................................................ 46
15
E XECUTIVE S UMMARY
During MSP Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) Listening Sessions in 2018, residents shared concerns about
the use of Runway 17 for aircraft departing Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP). In response,
the NOC included an item in the 2019 Work Plan to study the use of Runway 17 in a manner that investigated
the concerns raised by the residents. MAC staff worked in partnership with the residents, the Eagan Airport
Relations Commission and the NOC to develop a scope and objective for the study. In addition to creating
the scope, these groups worked together to establish the following statement of purpose for the study:
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 after FAA implemented new
rules to address Converging Runway Operations.
Prior to construction of Runway 17-35, a significant amount of environmental study took place through the
Federal Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the MSP Dual Track Airport Planning Process and
subsequent Runway 17 Departure Procedure Environmental Assessment (EA) completed in 2003. The
studies projected that 37.1% of daytime departures and 34.6% of nighttime departures in 2005 would use
Runway 17 after the runway’s opening, for a total runway use of 36.7%. Which means the runway was
projected to be used for most departing flights, superseding Runways 12L and 12R combined by over 10
percentage points. Runway 17 was constructed to be used to the south as a departure-only runway. After
opening in 2005, actual use of this runway for departures remained below 25% every year until new rules
regarding Converging Runway Operations (CRO) were implemented.
Acting on a safety recommendation from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), in 2014 the FAA
established separation standards for converging runway operations (CRO) on non-intersecting runways at
airports nationwide. In 2015, the FAA determined the CRO mitigations it had developed for MSP were
insufficient to meet these new standards. New air traffic tactics were required to adhere to the new CRO
separation standards. While CRO does not directly impact Runway 17 departures, an indirect result is
decreased use of a North Flow configuration at MSP (favoring departures off Runways 30L, 30R and 35) due
to complexities introduced by CRO. This decreased use of North Flow inversely increased the use of South
Flow (favoring departures off Runways 12L, 12R and 17), thus increasing departures from Runway 17, over
Bloomington and parts of Eagan.
In 2016, 2017 and 2018—the three full years since CRO standards were implemented—the use of Runway
17 for departures increased to 33.3%, 31.0% and 33.7%, respectively. While there were increases in the
percentage use of the runway compared to recent years, actual operational counts and percentages remain
below those forecast in the 2003 EA. The EA forecasted 574,984 daily operations at MSP with 36.7% of all
departures on Runway 17, resulting in 105,510 departures on that runway. In 2018, MSP had 406,913 total
operations and 68,565, or 33.7%, departed from Runway 17.
This study investigates a number of operational trends identified by the community as points of concern.
For comparison purposes, aircraft activity in 2014 was used to evaluate trends prior to the CRO standards,
and 2018 was used to evaluate operational variations after CRO standards were implemented.
16
While the use of Runway 17 has increased post-CRO, the study finds that specific operational characteristics
of the runway have not changed significantly. The frequency of flights during short periods of time (15-
minute intervals) has not increased. The Runway 17 flight path (or heading) distribution has varied little
after 2015. The study determines that there is a larger volume of air traffic on each heading; however,
aircraft are not using new headings compared to the headings used before the new CRO standards. The
study also finds the altitudes of aircraft departing Runway 17 decreased in 2018 compared to 2014. This
variation is not a result of CRO, but rather a change in weather conditions, particularly warmer
temperatures in 2018 with less headwind to help aircraft climb.
When evaluating the combination of runways used, the study finds that the FAA has increased the use of
a mixed configuration at MSP. This configuration occurs when aircraft are arriving on Runways 30L and
30R and departing from Runway 17 and, to a lesser extent, Runways 30L and 30R. Although this
configuration adds to the number of Runway 17 departures, it has a net benefit to residents living in
central Eagan because it reduces the number of departures flying eastbound over the middle of the city.
Instead, aircraft are instructed to fly straight out from the runway to remain separated from arrivals to
Runways 30L and 30R using adjacent airspace. The land use in areas straight-out from the runway are
more compatible with aircraft noise than areas of central Eagan.
Finally, the study further compares operations, aircraft types and headings in 2018 with what was projected
in the 2003 EA. More total operations and louder aircraft in the EA produced a much larger noise exposure
area than what is actually experienced today. The EA acknowledged that variances in runway and flight
track use will occur due to weather, safety and aircraft interactions. The MAC’s current practice is to
evaluate operational changes on an annual basis through the MSP Annual Noise Contour Report. This
report includes actual annual noise contours, which are used to determine residential noise mitigation
eligibility. Even with the increase in Runway 17 departures experienced in 2016, 2017, and 2018, the
actual annual noise contours from these years do not extend south of the Minnesota River, nor do they
extend beyond the MAC’s previous residential noise mitigation program area in the area of Runway 17
departure activity.
17
1.I NTRODUCTION
The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) is a public corporation governed by a board of commissioners
that reports to the Governor of Minnesota and the Minnesota State Legislature. The MAC is charged with
managing a system of seven airports within the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area, including
Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP). In addition to the MAC, other air transportation entities
play critical roles in the successful operation of an airport. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
regulates all aircraft activity. At MSP, the FAA’s Air Traffic Control (ATC) is solely responsible for directing
aircraft on the ground and in the air. ATC’s highest priority is the safe and efficient movement of air traffic.
Air transportation companies, such as airlines, provide transportation services for people and products.
Figure 1 - Air Transportation Entities below outlines the primary air transportation units responsible for
the successful operation of MSP.
Figure 1 - Air Transportation Entities
The MAC has designated the Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) as its primary advisory body regarding
aircraft noise issues associated with flight operations at MSP. Based on feedback provided from members
of the public who attended quarterly Listening Sessions in 2018, the NOC directed MAC staff to conduct an
analysis of MSP Runway 17 departure activity over cities to the south of the airport. A graphic of the MSP
runway layout is provided in Appendix B. Residents of communities south of MSP, the Eagan Airport
Relations Commission, and MAC staff collaboratively designed the objective and scope of this analysis to
ensure the components would effectively incorporate observations and noise concerns from residents of
these communities. The study objective is provided below, and the final scope developed in conjunction
with the residents is provided in Appendix A.
Airlines
•Transport people and products domestically and internationally
•Determine number of flights, aircraft types and flight times based on customer travel preferences
Federal Aviation Administration
•Regulates airports
•Regulates airlines
•Operates Air Traffic Control (ATC) facilities
Metropolitan Airports Commission
•Owns and operates MSP and six reliever airports
•Provides a facility for airlines to conduct air commerce activities
•Does not determine where aircraft fly, runway use, or flight procedures
18
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.
19
2. B ACKGROUND
In 1989, the Minnesota Legislature enacted the Metropolitan Airport Planning Act. This act provided the
basis of determining whether the long-term air transportation needs of the Twin Cities metropolitan area
and the State could best be met by enhancing capacity at MSP, or by developing a replacement air carrier
airport elsewhere within the metropolitan area. In what came to be known as the “Dual Track Airport
Planning Process,” the legislation directed the MAC, in conjunction with the public and with cooperating
federal, State, and local agencies, to complete a series of studies and documents which would evaluate
long-range aviation alternatives to fulfill the aviation needs in the Twin Cities area for a 30-year period.
The Dual Track Airport Planning Process Report to the Legislature: Summary was submitted to the
Minnesota Legislature on March 18, 1996. In April of 1996, legislation was passed that stopped further
study of a new airport and directed MAC to implement the Long-term Comprehensive Plan (LTCP) for
MSP.
The MSP LTCP included construction of a new runway on the west side of the airport. The FAA’s Final
Record of Decision on the Federal Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for Minneapolis-St. Paul
International Airport Dual-Track Airport Planning Process New Runway 17/35 and Airport Layout Plan
Approval was completed in September of 1998. Runway 17-35 construction was completed in October
2005. This runway provided an opportunity to route aircraft over an unpopulated area – the Minnesota
River Valley.
During construction of the runway, an Environmental Assessment (EA) was conducted to fulfill federal
requirements for the environmental review of potential aircraft departure procedures designed for
Runway 17 and to establish a noise abatement departure procedure for westbound departure operations
to be routed such that they avoid close-in residential areas southwest of the runway. This document
projected that 37.1% of daytime departures and 34.6% of nighttime departures in 2005 would use Runway
17 after the runway’s opening. The combined final use percentage for Runway 17 projected by the EA was
36.7%, which totals 105,510 annual operations. This percentage is the highest for departure operations,
superseding Runways 12L and 12R combined by over 10 percentage points. Runway 17 was projected to
be used the highest amount because it was constructed to be used to the south as a departure-only
runway. That is, when aircraft are departing Runway 17, aircraft are not simultaneously arriving on the
runway, as they are on Runways 12L and 12R. This allows successive aircraft departures from the runway
without waiting to sequence arriving aircraft between departures. The same is true for the runway used
in the opposite direction. When Runway 35 is being used, it becomes an arrival-only runway, without
departures to the north over Minneapolis.
In practice, the runway has never been used to the 36.7% that was predicted in the EA. In all years prior
to 2015, the highest percent usage occurred in 2007 when just under 58,000 departures used Runway 17.
This total represents just under 26% of all departures that year. Figure 2 - Runway 17 Departures by Year
displays the total departures from MSP, the total departures from Runway 17 and the percent use by year,
beginning in 2005 when the runway was operational.
20
As shown in Appendix C, Runway 17 is used during two primary airport configurations: (1) South Flow –
where aircraft are departing from Runways 12L, 12R and 17 and arriving on Runways 12L and 12R; and (2)
Mixed Flow A – where aircraft are departing from Runway 17 along with a smaller number of departures
on Runways 30L and 30R, with aircraft arriving to Runways 30L and 30R.
The MSP Runway Use System (RUS) prioritizes arrival and departure runways to promote flight activity
over less-populated residential areas as much as possible. During a South Flow, the Priority 1 departure
runways (12L and 12R) are used for aircraft taking off. The Priority 2 departure runway (17) is also being
used, typically to a greater extent than the first priority runways since Runway 17 does not have
simultaneous arrival operations. In a South Flow, however, the lowest priority arrival runways (12L and
12R) are used for all aircraft arriving to MSP.
The RUS is maximized in Mixed Flow A, where the Priority 1 arrival runways (30L and 30R) are used for
arrivals, while the Priority 2 departure runway (17) is used for the majority of departures. The last priority
departure runways (30L and 30R) are used to a lesser extent for aircraft taking off. An additional benefit
in this configuration is the aircraft departing from Runway 17 do not turn left over residential areas of
Eagan because they need to stay separated from the inbound aircraft arriving to Runways 30L and 30R.
Thus, the departures are flying over more compatible land uses for a longer period of time.
In 2014 the FAA, acting on a safety recommendation from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB),
amended Order 7110.65 (Air Traffic Control) to establish separation standards for non-intersecting
converging runway operations (CRO) at airports nationwide. The FAA defines non-intersecting converging
runway operations when the extended centerline of two runways intersect within one nautical mile of the
two runway departure ends, posing a potential risk if a landing aircraft on one runway discontinues its
approach and goes around concurrent with a simultaneous departure from the other runway, and neither
aircraft diverges from its initial flight path. The FAA’s first priority is the safe movement of air traffic.
On July 24, 2015, the FAA determined that the Runways 30L and 35 Converging Runway mitigations in place
at MSP, as documented in a Safety Risk Management Document, were not sufficient to meet the standards
of the Converging Runway requirement. A temporary suspension was put in place for arrivals to MSP
Runway 35. On August 28, 2015, the FAA began allowing arrivals to Runway 35 using an approved separation
technique to comply with the new Converging Runway requirements, which uses an Arrival-Departure
Window (ADW) off the approach end of Runway 35 to effectively alternate Runway 30L departures with
Runway 35 arrivals.
In January 2016, in addition to Runway 30L, the FAA determined that the new Converging Runway standards
apply to MSP Runway 30R, and implementation of a second ADW off the approach end of Runway 35 was
required.
While CRO does not directly impact Runway 17 departures, an indirect result of CRO is decreased use of a
North Flow configuration at MSP, due to complexities introduced by CRO. This decreased use of North Flow
inversely increased the use of South Flow, thus increasing departures from Runway 17. In 2016, 2017 and
2018—the three full years since CRO standards were implemented—the use of Runway 17 for departures
increased to 33.3%, 31.0% and 33.7% respectively.
21
While the Runway 17 departure levels in all three of these years were still below the use projected during
the planning process, the communities below departure flights paths for Runway 17 noticed an increase and
began to seek information from the MAC and the NOC.
22
Figure 2 - Runway 17 Departures by Year
42,189
232,850
223,464 221,150
212,734 215,241 214,330 210,468 215,155
204,533 201,038 205,301 206,667 202,501
6,825
36,166
57,838 56,006
38,557
45,690 49,097 52,161 49,482 47,885
59,625
68,329 63,985 68,306
16.2%
15.5%
25.9%25.3%
18.1%
21.2%22.9%24.8%23.0%23.4%
29.7%
33.3%31.0%33.7%
PROJECTED RUNWAY USE
105,510
-
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018MSP DEPARTURESMSP RUNWAY 17 DEPARTURES BY YEAR
TOTAL MSP DEPARTURES R17 DEPARTURES
23
3. P RE-CRO DAY VS. P OST-CRO DAY
The Converging Runway Operation (CRO) requirements put in place at MSP have changed runway use
decisions. Additionally, MSP has experienced other runway use changes since July 2015 that are not the
direct result of CRO requirements. Weather, special events and airfield maintenance all impact the
operational flow of air traffic daily. Airline schedules and changing fleet characteristics affect runway use
monthly and annually. It is important to note that these inherent operational impacts occur independent of
CRO.
The overall use of Runway 17 post-CRO is a fundamental concern raised by residents. The study scope
includes an assessment into how a typical day in a South Flow has changed. Specifically, the community
wanted the study to (1) investigate daily peak hour trends; (2) investigate current and historic departure
peaks; and (3) build a typical day for Runway 17 departure operations in a South Flow pre-CRO and
compare it to a day post-CRO. The following paragraphs describe this assessment.
In 2014, there were 93 days where Runway 17 was used for at least half the hours in the day while the
airport was in a South Flow. In 2018, that level rose to 134 days. To further examine this, Figure 3 - Average
Annual Day shows the average number of Runway 17 departures during each hour when the airport was in
a South Flow during 2014 compared to 2018. As shown, Runway 17 was used very little between 23:00 and
5:00. In 2014, the average daily total for departures between these hours was 0.9. The average daily total
rose slightly to 1.1 in 2018.
Throughout the remainder of the day, peaks and valleys are prevalent, which are driven by airline scheduling
trends. The first peak of the day in both years occurred in the 7:00 hour followed by the first valley in the
8:00 hour. After 8:00, differences occur between the two years.
In 2018, higher peaks are generally surrounded by valleys, indicating a rush of departure activity in a more
condensed period of time, surrounded by respite periods. In 2014, the peaks are not as high and the activity
is often spread over two to three hours. For example, during the 9:00-11:00 period, the average in 2014
stays high for all three hours, averaging 81 departures during the three hours. During 2018, the three hours
had 84 average annual departures, however they were more condensed into the 9:00 hour. This trend is
also visible in the 13:00-15:00 period when 2014 had 79 average departures, evenly spread in those three
hours and 2018 had 78 average departures, primarily occurring in the 13:00 and 15:00 hours with a slight
respite period in the middle.
Depictions of average days are informative, but averages can be misleading. Figure 4 - Peak Hour Departure
Operations depicts the highest number of Runway 17 departures that occurred on any given hour during
2014 and 2018. In general, the peaks and valleys are like the averages. The 0:00 – 2:00 hours were all higher
than expected with Super Bowl traffic departing MSP on Monday, February 5, 2018.
As noted earlier, CRO impacted the use of runways at MSP. The community requesting this study is
specifically interested in the total days spend in a South Flow. It is common that community concern
increases as the consecutive days spent in one flow increases. Figure 5 - MSP South Flow Days compares
both of those metrics from 2014 to 2018.
24
The data in Figure 3 shows the number of days in which 12 or more hours were spent in South Flow; the
data in Figure 5 shows the number of days in which six or more hours were spent in South Flow. In 2014
there were 147 days with at least six hours of South Flow activity. In 2018, that jumped to 180. June and
September of 2018 both had more than 20 days during the month with at least six hours of South Flow. In
addition to more days with South Flow operations, there were higher successive days in 2018. March, June
and September all had a period of more than 10 days in a row with at least six hours of South Flow
operations. The highest such month in 2014 was June with seven consecutive days. In short, during 2018 the
airport was configured in a South Flow more often and stayed there longer as compared to 2014.
It is also important to know how the individual runways are used in airport configurations when Runway 17
is active. Figure 6 - Departure Runway Distribution lays out the distribution in 2014 and 2018 in South Flow
and Mixed Flow A. These percentages do not reflect the annual percent use of departures. They are only
including the time the airport was configured in a South Flow or a Mixed Flow A, respectively. When MSP
was configured in a South Flow in 2014, 59% of all departures used Runway 17. That percentage increased
to 63% in 2018. More traffic was shifted away from the parallel runways. The MSP Runway Use System (RUS)
prioritizes Runways 12L and 12R above Runway 17 for departures. This change decreased the use of the
highest priority runways. In the Mixed Flow A configuration, 42% of all departures used Runway 17 in 2014.
That use increased to 47% in 2018. The use of Runway 30R for departures also increased between 2014 and
2018 while the use of Runway 30L dropped from 24% to 14%. This change improved the use of the Runway
Use System as Runway 17 departures are prioritized above departures from Runways 30L and 30R.
25
Figure 3 - Average Annual Day
0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00
2014 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.8 3.2 23.2 8.2 26.8 29.7 24.6 7.5 26.5 25.4 27.0 14.8 24.0 14.6 25.1 21.4 1.4 0.1 0.0
2018 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.5 4.0 24.5 10.4 33.3 28.5 22.3 13.3 27.4 18.3 32.4 14.4 18.3 22.5 12.2 30.4 8.6 1.4 0.5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
RUNWAY 17 DEPARTURESAVERAGE ANNUAL DAY
SOUTH FLOW
26
Figure 4 - Peak Hour Departure Operations
0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00
2014 2 1 1 1 6 14 30 49 21 40 45 38 23 36 39 40 49 41 31 45 56 31 7 3
2018 32 9 3 3 2 11 25 44 38 55 48 39 27 41 34 47 29 31 39 24 49 32 28 28
*SUPER BOWL
*SUPER BOWL
*SUPER BOWL
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
RUNWAY 17 DEPARTURESPEAK HOUR DEPARTURE OPERATIONS
27
Figure 5 - MSP South Flow Days
J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D
2014 2018
TOTAL DAYS 6 5 13 12 15 19 11 17 15 9 10 15 8 11 16 12 19 23 13 15 20 11 14 18
SUCCESSIVE DAYS 2 2 4 3 4 7 5 6 6 4 3 6 2 2 11 4 6 13 3 4 11 4 3 4
0
5
10
15
20
25
DAYSMSP SOUTH FLOW DAYS
*Days were counted when South Flow was used at least 6 hours or more
28
Figure 6 - Departure Runway Distribution
RWY 17
59%
RWY 12L
32%
RWY
12R
9%
2014 SOUTH FLOW
RWY 17
63%
RWY 12L
29%
RWY 12R
7%
2018 SOUTH FLOW
RWY 17
42%
RWY 30L
24%
RWY 30R
33%
2014 MIXED A
RWY 17
47%
RWY 30L
14%
RWY 30R
39%
2018 MIXED A
29
4 . F LIGHT F REQUENCY
The use of Runway 17 has increased from 2014 to 2018, as described in Section 2. The number of days in
the year and hours in the day when Runway 17 was chosen for departing aircraft increased during that
time. One common experience communicated by residents was that the frequency of flights in short
periods of time has changed.
The following analysis contains data for all of 2014 and 2018. The MAC stores runway-use data provided
by the FAA Aviation System Performance Metrics (ASPM) data, categorized in 15-minute segments. This
data was used to effectively assess change in frequency of flights in short periods of time. Periods of South
Flow, when Runways 12L, 12R and 17 are being used for departures, were isolated from periods when
Mixed Flow A was active. In Mixed Flow A, Runway 30L, 30R and 17 are utilized for departure. Overall,
instances of South Flow were higher in 2018 than in 2014. To investigate whether the flight frequency
within the 15-minute segments has changed, this analysis counts the number of Runway 17 departures
during all 15-minute segments in 2014 and compares them to 2018. Figure 7 - Runway 17 15-Minute
South Flow Departure Usage displays the percent of time Runway 17 departures occurred at various
levels of frequency (i.e. the number of Runway 17 departures per 15-minutes was 0, 1-2, 3-4, 5-6, etc.).
It is important to note that although Runway 17 may be included in the FAA’s ASPM data, indicating the
runway is available for departure, it may not necessarily be used. Overnight hours are the most frequent
occurrence of this situation. Often Runway 17 is available for use with no actual departures from the
runway. For example, the Runway Use System prioritizes a departure on Runway 12L or 12R before a
departure on Runway 17; therefore, Runways 12L and 12R will be considered before a departure on
Runway 17. Figure 7 - Runway 17 15-Minute South Flow Departure Usage visually displays this as well,
showing the highest percentages of 15-minute segments where Runway 17 was available for use, did not
have any departures on that runway. While there are many instances when Runway 17 is available, 38%
of the time in 2018 it was not used during any given 15-minute block. Figure 7 shows that these situations
dropped between 2014 and 2018.
Figure 7 also shows that the decrease of 15-minute blocks when the runway is available but not used was
offset by increases in the blocks when 3-4 departures occurred, 5-6 departures occurred, and 7-8
departures occurred. These groups increased between 0.6% and 2.6%. The number of times when nine or
more departures operated from Runway 17 in a 15-minute block during 2018 was equal to or below what
was observed in 2014. The occurrences of 15-minute blocks when MSP was configured in South Flow and
Runway 17 had at least one departure increased from 2014 to 2018; however, the average number of
aircraft departing within any given 15-minutes period dropped from 2014 to 2018. In these situations, the
average departures per 15-minutes was 5.96 in 2014 falling to 5.74 in 2018. In short, flights were not
departing more frequently in short (15-minute) periods of time in 2018; there were simply more 15-
minute segments spent in South Flow with Runway 17 departures.
Figure 8 - Runway 17 15-Minute Mixed Flow Departure Usage isolates the same information for the
Mixed Flow A configuration. Occurrences of Mixed Flow A available for use are much lower than South
Flow. Between 2014 and 2018, the occurrences of Mixed Flow A increased. Much of that increase occurred
during the 00:00 – 05:00 hours. The RUS stipulates that Mixed Flow A would be prioritized above North
30
Flow as arrivals would use the Priority 1 runways and departures would use the Priority 2 runway. In 2018,
the number of 15-minute segments the runway was available for use but not actually used increased
nearly four times from 2014. From a percentage basis, 23.6% of the time that Runway 17 was available it
was not used in 2014. That increased to 39% in 2018. The distribution of frequency in Mixed Flow A
decreased between 2014 and 2018 in the 1-2, 3-4, 5-6 and 11-12 groups. There was an increase in the 7-
8, and 13-14 group.
There were no occurrences of more than 16 departures in a 15-minute segment in 2014 or 2018. This is
likely due to flight path constraints placed on departing aircraft from Runway 17 in this configuration. The
Runway 17 departure airspace is reduced to allow adequate space for the aircraft arriving to Runways 30L
and 30R; therefore, fewer heading options exist off Runway 17. The average departures per 15-minutes
in Mixed Flow A was 3.67 in 2014, increasing to 4.34 in 2018.
31
Figure 7 - Runway 17 15-Minute South Flow Departure Usage
0 1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 11-12 13-14 15-16 17-18 19-20
2014 41.8%13.4%12.3%10.0%7.5%5.8%4.5%2.9%1.2%0.4%0.1%
2018 38.0%13.5%14.9%11.4%8.1%5.7%4.5%2.8%1.0%0.1%0.0%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%OCCURRENCES OF TIME SGEMENTS WITH TOTAL RUNWAY 17 DPEARTURESRUNWAY 17 15-MINUTE DEPARTURE USE
SOUTH FLOW
SOURCE: FAA ASPM DATA
32
Figure 8 - Runway 17 15-Minute Mixed Flow Departure Usage
0 1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 11-12 13-14 15-16
2014 23.6%33.8%19.0%12.1%6.0%3.1%2.1%0.2%0.1%
2018 39.2%19.6%16.3%12.0%7.2%3.2%1.9%0.5%0.1%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%OCCURRENCES OF TIME SGEMENTS WITH TOTAL RUNWAY 17 DPEARTURESRUNWAY 17 15-MINUTE DEPARTURE USE
MIXED FLOW A
SOURCE: FAA ASPM DATA
33
5 . R UNWAY 17 D EPARTURE H EADINGS
In both primary runway-use configurations when Runway 17 is used, the runway serves aircraft departing
to destinations that are generally west, southwest, south, and southeast of MSP. This covers a broad range
of geographic locales. To accommodate that traffic, FAA Air Traffic Control (ATC) assigns a broad range of
headings from 095° to 285°. While there is a range available to ATC, the FAA uses primary headings for
departure. These headings are chosen after considering numerous criteria including the aircraft’s
destination, routing, aircraft type, weather conditions, other air traffic and airport configuration. Since
using primary headings improves consistency, repeatability and safety. The residents who helped create
the scope for this study expressed that while departures are fanned, the use of primary headings leads to
periods with multiple overflights in specific areas of the community.
For the purpose of modeling aircraft noise, the Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT) uses model
tracks; however, the actual flight paths would be distributed along these tracks. Aircraft were assigned a
modeled track and then dispersed off the base track using a standard distribution method within the
model. The industry and the MAC continue to use this method during the development of aircraft noise
exposure contours. Figure 9 - Runway 17 Modeled Departure Tracks below shows the location of the
different tracks for Runway 17 departures. These tracks were developed using actual flight data and
continue to be evaluated on an annual basis. Actual flights can be assigned to a modeled track using a
best fit approach. These same tracks in Figure 9 are categorized by general headings in Figure 10 - Runway
17 Departure Modeled Tracks by Heading.
The result of this process is encapsulated in Figure 11 - Runway 17 Departure Heading Use. The figure
shows variation in departure heading usage and also shows that the departure headings used today are
the same headings that have been issued since the opening of Runway 17 in 2005. Focusing on 2014 and
2018 annual heading usages does not show any new headings as a result of CRO. The most common tracks
flown by aircraft departing Runway 17 are the tracks categorized by a 210° heading. This use has been
above 25% of all Runway 17 departures every year, increasing to 35% in 2014 before falling back down to
33% in 2018. This flight track is directed over the Minnesota River Valley and dramatically reduces
instances of aircraft overflight impacts immediately south of the Minnesota River Valley in Northeast
Burnsville.
The second most common tracks used in 2018 are labeled as 140°. The use of these tracks has slowly
increased over time, peaking at 22% in 2014 before ending 2018 with 21% of all Runway 17 departures.
The early years of Runway 17 use had pronounced variability in some of the headings utilized. The tracks
labeled as 120° were used less than 15% in late 2005 and less than 10% in 2006. This use quickly jumped
in 2007 to 19%, increasing to its peak use in 2012 at 23%. Since 2012, the use of the 120° tracks has fallen
down to 17% in 2018. Conversely, the 185° heading tracks were used for 17% of all departures in 2006
before dropping under 5% until 2015. This heading has increased every year since 2014 and finished 2018
at 9% of all Runway 17 departures.
Figure 11 represents all aircraft types in all weather conditions in all airport configurations. The use of
these tracks changes considerably when specific variables are considered. Data and density maps for
34
carrier jet departures under different variables are presented in Appendix D. In the Mixed Flow A
configuration, arrivals to Runways 30L and 30R need to be separated from Runway 17 departures. To
accomplish this, aircraft that would typically be assigned a heading east of 170° are assigned runway
heading, 170°, and their east bound turn is delayed until after the departing traffic is separated from the
arrival traffic. In this configuration, Runway 17 departures flew the tracks categorized at 170° or higher
97% of the time. This has the effect of reducing the number of aircraft overflights in residential areas of
central Eagan.
The aircraft destination and associated routing are important determinants to the heading assigned to a
departure. Destination is determined by the aircraft operator. At MSP, airlines determine the schedule of
aircraft operations, and the frequency of flights to their chosen destinations. How quickly the airlines
change the schedule would be contingent on their responsiveness to market demand. Figure 12 - Top 5
Destinations by Heading displays the top five destinations that airlines fly to after departing from Runway
17, based on the heading flown after departure.
Because airline scheduling decisions vary throughout the day, headings that favor certain regions of the
country may be more prevalent during certain hours of the day. Figure 13 - 2014 Heading-Use by Time
and Figure 14 - 2018 Heading-Use by Time provide the utilization of headings by hours of the day in 2014
and 2018. These charts only determine how heading-use fluctuates during the day; it does not account
for total volume of departures during these hours.
In 2018, the 210° heading saw peak usage in the 11:00, 14:00 and 19:00 hours. This is a slight change from
2014 when the peaks occurred at 9:00, 11:00, 14:00 and 18:00. The 170° heading saw its biggest use in
the overnight hours. Runway 17 is not used frequently during these hours, but when it is used, it is typically
used in Mixed Flow A. The use was a reduction from 2014 when the 170° was used for 46% of all
departures between 22:00 and 06:00.
35
Figure 9 - Runway 17 Modeled Departure Tracks
36
Figure 10 - Runway 17 Departure Modeled Tracks by Heading
37
Figure 11 - Runway 17 Departure Heading Use
38
2018 Destination Rank
Heading 1 2 3 4 5
120° New York - LaGuardia Washington - Reagan Detroit New York - JFK Philadelphia
140° Chicago – O’Hare Atlanta Chicago - Midway New York - Newark Orlando
155° Chicago – O’Hare Chicago - Midway St. Louis Atlanta Memphis
170° Chicago – O’Hare Chicago - Midway Atlanta St. Louis New York - Newark
185° Chicago – O’Hare Chicago - Midway Atlanta Dallas - Ft. Worth Denver
210° Denver Phoenix Dallas - Ft. Worth Houston - Intercontinental Las Vegas
2014 Destination Rank
Heading 1 2 3 4 5
120° Milwaukee Detroit Philadelphia Madison New York - LaGuardia
140° Chicago – O’Hare Chicago - Midway Atlanta New York - Newark Indianapolis
155° Chicago – O’Hare Chicago - Midway St. Louis Atlanta Memphis
170° Chicago – O’Hare Atlanta Chicago - Midway Charlotte St. Louis
185° Denver Chicago – O’Hare Dallas - Ft. Worth Phoenix Houston - Intercontinental
210° Denver Dallas - Ft. Worth Phoenix Houston - Intercontinental Los Angeles
Figure 12 - Top 5 Destinations by Heading
39
Figure 13 - 2014 Heading-Use by Time
40
Figure 14 - 2018 Heading-Use by Time
41
6 . AEDT N OISE M ODEL D ATA
The Federal Aviation Administration Office of Environment and Energy (FAA-AEE) recognizes that the
environmental consequences stemming from the operation of commercial aviation – primarily noise,
emissions, and fuel consumption – are highly interdependent and occur simultaneously throughout all
phases of flight. The Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT) is a software system that is designed to
model aviation related operations in space and time to compute noise, emissions, and fuel consumption.
AEDT evaluates noise and emissions impacts from aircraft operations using data inputs such as runway-
use, flight tracks, aircraft fleet mix, aircraft performance and thrust settings, topography information, and
atmospheric conditions to generate noise contours depicting an annualized average day of aircraft noise
impacts. Quantifying aircraft-specific noise characteristics in AEDT is accomplished by employing a
comprehensive aircraft noise database developed under the auspices of Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR)
Part 36. As part of the airworthiness certification process, aircraft manufacturers are required to subject
aircraft to a battery of noise tests that document takeoff, sideline, and approach noise levels.
AEDT is the federally prescribed model required to develop the annual Day-Night Average Sound Level
(DNL) contour, which is the basis for the MSP Annual Noise Contour Report and related noise mitigation
program. While the focus on traditional AEDT modeling efforts is typically DNL contour, the software has
the capability to produce alternate noise metrics.
The MAC maintains a system of 39 Remote Monitoring Towers (RMT). These RMTs are permanently
installed and operate 24-hours per day in neighborhoods near MSP, to capture sounds from aircraft as
they approach the airport or depart from the airport. Each RMT site consists of laboratory-quality noise
monitoring equipment that includes a noise analyzer, a preamplifier and a measurement microphone.
This equipment undergoes annual calibration and certification by an independent accredited laboratory.
The analyzer in each RMT monitors noise levels continuously, utilizing slow response with A-weighting as
directed by the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 150). The analyzer is set to detect an event when
the sound pressure level (SPL) reaches 65 dBA and records an event when the SPL remains at or above 63
dBA for at least eight seconds. These measured noise events are downloaded daily and correlated with
flight tracks to determine whether the noise source was an aircraft event or a community event.
The MAC system of 39 RMTs is one of the most extensive aircraft noise monitoring systems in the world.
The data collected provides important information about sound levels and aircraft activity in the areas
where the monitors exist. To augment the permanent system, AEDT can be used to determine the
modeled events at specific points around MSP that are not covered by an RMT.
MAC’s Noise and Operations Monitoring System (MACNOMS) data for aircraft operations including
aircraft type, aircraft track, aircraft altitude and operation time were input into the AEDT software for
modeling. AEDT allows for multiple noise metrics to be used. In this evaluation, the number of noise
events above 65 dBA (also referred to as “count above 65”) was used to coincide with the MAC RMTs.
Using a dense grid system, the model output displays how many times aircraft caused the sound pressure
to rise above 65 dBA at various points throughout the community. To make the results applicable to this
analysis, actual aircraft departures from Runway 17 over the course of the entire year in 2014 and in 2018
were modeled.
42
The MACNOMS total operations number is marginally lower than the operations number reported in the
FAA’s Operations Network (OPSNET). Additionally, MACNOMS does not contain necessary attributes for
every aircraft that operated at MSP. Operations by unknown aircraft types were discarded as it would not
be possible to model aircraft noise from an unknown type. In 2014 and 2018, there were .1% and .2% of
operations with incomplete attributes respectively. To rectify the disparity between the MACNOMS data
and FAA reported operations, the total data count was adjusted upwards by 1.2% for 2018 and 2.4% for
2014 to reflect the total reported by the FAA. After this adjustment was applied, the total departures
modeled from Runway 17 in 2018 was 68,577 while the total number of departures modeled for 2014
was 48,273.
The results of the AEDT models are displayed in Figure 15 - 2014 Runway 17 Departure Events Above 65
dB and Figure 16 - 2018 Runway 17 Departure Events Above 65 dB. Given the more than 20,000
departure increase of aircraft using Runway 17 between 2014 and 2018, it is not surprising that the
modeled events also increased in specific areas. Areas of eastern Bloomington and northwestern Eagan
saw modeled events increase by more than 10,000 events. The modeled locations in eastern Richfield,
eastern Bloomington, northeastern Burnsville, and western and central Eagan near I-35E and Pilot Knob
had increased between 5,000 and 10,000 events.
Modeled sites in southern Savage, southwestern Burnsville, southeastern Apple Valley, far southeastern
Eagan, northern Eagan, central and southern Inver Grove Heights all returned fewer modeled events in
2018 than in 2014.
43
Figure 15 - 2014 Runway 17 Departure Events Above 65 dB
44
Figure 16 - 2018 Runway 17 Departure Events Above 65 dB
45
7 . L AND U SE
One of the elements in the study scope was to investigate land use for areas that underlie typical Runway
17 departure paths to better understand which areas are compatible with aircraft operations at specific
noise levels.
FAA regulations Part 150 – Airport Noise Compatibility Planning delineates compatible land uses from
non-compatible land uses. Part 150 does that through the following two definitions:
“Compatible land use means the use of land that is identified under this part as normally
compatible with the outdoor noise environment (or an adequately attenuated noise level
reduction for any indoor activities involved) at the location because the yearly day-night
average sound level is at or below that identified for that or similar use under appendix A
(Table 1) of this part.
Noncompatible land use means the use of land that is identified under this part as
normally not compatible with the outdoor noise environment (or an adequately
attenuated noise reduction level for the indoor activities involved at the location) because
the yearly day-night average sound level is above that identified for that or similar use
under appendix A (Table 1) of this part.”
The referenced Table 1 for Part 150, included for reference in this document in Appendix E, lists the land
uses and associated Noise Level Reduction (NLR) recommended by the FAA for land uses within certain
DNL levels. The Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) is the total accumulation of all sound energy spread
uniformly over a 24-hour period. The DNL calculation applies a 10-decibel penalty on aircraft operations
between 10:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. Examples of land uses above 65 dB DNL that would be considered
noncompatible by this part include residential, mobile home parks, transient lodging, schools, outdoor
music shells and amphitheaters. Hospitals, nursing homes and churches within the 65 dB DNL are
considered generally compatible but the outdoor to indoor NLR of 25 dB should be achieved through
incorporations of noise attenuation into the design and construction of the structure.
MetroGIS updates parcel data on a quarterly basis. The data is available via the Minnesota Geospatial
Commons website. Parcel and associated land use data are supplied from the county where the parcel
resides. Parcel data from April 2019 was acquired from the seven-county Minneapolis-St. Paul metro area
and labeled as compatible or noncompatible using the criteria from FAR Part 150.
Figure 17 - Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Parcel Data provides a regional view of the land uses
surrounding MSP. Figure 18 - Parcel Data south of MSP gives a closer view of the area South of MSP that
are typically overflown by MSP Runway 17 Departures. Figure 19 - Parcel Data with 2018 Runway 17
Departure Density lays the 2018 Runway 17 Departure density data over the land use area to illustrate
the land uses south of the airport that see the highest density of departures from Runway 17. The land
use north and west of the airport are less compatible with aircraft overflights. The commercial area south
of the airport and the Minnesota River to the south and west of MSP allows for more overflights with
compatible land use. Additionally, areas southeast of MSP in Mendota Heights and Eagan have been zoned
46
to be more compatible with aircraft overflights. Because of these known land uses, numerous noise
abatement procedures have been established to leverage these conditions. The Runway Use System
prioritized runways that direct aircraft towards these areas. The 215° Departure Heading was designed to
keep aircraft over the river. The Eagan-Mendota Heights Corridor procedure was also designed to contain
aircraft over commercial and industrial land uses.
47
Figure 17 - Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Parcel Data
48
Figure 18 - Parcel Data south of MSP
49
Figure 19 - Parcel Data with 2018 Runway 17 Departure Density
50
8 . R UNWAY 17 D EPARTURE P ROCEDURE E NVIRONMENTAL A SSESSMENT
As discussed in Section 2, the construction of Runway 17 was the culmination of decades of planning by
the MAC and extensive public involvement. This planning effort was done at the direction of the
Minnesota Legislature to determine the long-term suitability of the airport’s location. During the Dual-
Track planning process, the Minnesota Legislature passed legislation that kept MSP in its current location
rather than relocate it. Planning for MSP’s future in its current location, the MAC began implementation
of the 2010 Plan to ensure the facility provided an efficient and safe airport to meet forecasted air travel
demands. One of the most visible components of the 2010 Plan was the construction of Runway 17-35.
The Record of Decision on the Environmental Impact Statement that evaluated the 2010 Plan included
consideration of future noise abatement procedures off of Runway 17. The Environmental Assessment for
the Implementation of a Departure Procedure off of Runway 17 (EA) was conducted and completed in
2003 as Runway 17-35 was being constructed.
The EA contains the following text in Section 3.2:
The Proposed Action is to direct aircraft that have initial departure headings east of
runway heading (headings ranging from 95° to 170°) to initiate their turns as soon as
possible when departing Runway 17. This recommendation was made due to the fact that
there is no one flight path considered “better” than another when departing to the
southeast over the existing residentially developed areas. This is consistent with the FEIS
documentation for Runway 17.
When conducting the same evaluation for departure headings west of runway centerline
(headings from 170° to 285°) two main considerations arose: (1) Heavily residential
developed areas exist west of runway heading almost immediately off the runway end
and (2) the Minnesota River Valley south of the airport offers an area where departure
operations could overfly at higher altitudes in an effort to reduce residential overflight
impacts close-in to the airport.
A delayed turn point off runway heading (170°) for westbound jet departures offers a
solution that not only reduces the number of residents within the 65 and 60 DNL
contours, but is also feasible for implementation according to the FAA’s airspace
management and safety criteria.
As a result of evaluations and comprehensive input as part of the 2000 MSP Part 150
Update process, the recommended Runway 17 departure tracks include departure turns,
when able, for departures east of 170° to 95° and a 2.5 Nautical Mile (from the start of
takeoff) Turn Point, as determined by Distance Measuring Equipment (DME), at which
time jet departure operations would turn from runway heading (170°) to westbound
departure headings between 171° and 285°.
This EA was completed prior to the opening of Runway 17-35. Assumptions were made to effectively
conduct an evaluation of the airport operations prior to opening of the runway. Table 8-1 below shows
the average daily operations that were projected in the 2003 EA. At the time, the airport was projected
51
to have a total of 1,5735.3 operations each day in 2005. Of those, 261.8 average daily operations were
projected to be in Hushkit Stage 3 Jets, with 29.3 occurring at night. Hushkit Stage 3 Jets are older, louder
aircraft such as the DC9 and B727 that have been “hushkitted” to meet the Stage 3 noise standard.
Table 8-1 – EA Average Daily Operations
Aircraft Type Day Night Total
Manufactured to be Stage 3 924.7 137.6 1062.3
Hushkit Stage 3 232.5 29.3 261.8
Propeller 205.1 46.1 251.2
Total 1362.3 213.0 1575.3
Source: Environmental Assessment for the Implementation of a Departure Procedure off of Runway 17
Table A-1
Other assumptions in the 2003 EA were based on the number of flights operating on each runway. Table
8-2 below shows the projected runway use after Runway 17/35 opened in 2005.
Table 8-2 – Revised RUS Forecast 2005 Average Annual Runway Use
Runway Arrival Departure
Day Night Total Day Night Total
4 0.1% 3.8% 0.5% 0.2% 0.4% 0.2%
22 0.5% 2.5% 0.7% 0.1% 0.8% 0.3%
12L 21.7% 17.8% 21.2% 9.5% 12.5% 9.9%
12R 14.6% 12.0% 14.3% 15.9% 18.6% 16.2%
30L 21.1% 24.2% 21.5% 14.8% 13.2% 14.5%
30R 25.5% 26.0% 25.5% 22.4% 19.9% 22.1%
17 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 37.1% 34.6% 36.7%
35 16.6% 13.7% 16.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Source: Environmental Assessment for the Implementation of a Departure Procedure off of Runway 17
Table A-6
Tables 8-3 and 8-4 below details the average daily operations and runway use in 2018.
Table 8-3 – 2018 Average Daily Operations
Aircraft Type 2018 Day 2018 Night 2018 Total
Manufactured to be Stage 3 953.3 117.4 1070.8
Hushkit Stage 3 0.3 0.5 0.8
Propeller 38.3 2.3 40.5
Helicopter 0.1 0.0 0.1
Military 1.9 0.0 2.0
Total 994.5 120.3 1,114.8
Source: MACNOMS
52
Table 8-4 – 2018 Annual Runway Use
Runway Arrival Departure
Day Night Total Day Night Total
4 0.0% 0.3% 0.1% 0.5% 1.0% 0.5%
22 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
12L 22.2% 14.2% 21.3% 14.2% 18.6% 14.7%
12R 25.6% 27.5% 25.8% 4.1% 24.9% 6.2%
30L 24.8% 34.7% 25.9% 23.2% 25.0% 23.4%
30R 21.9% 16.6% 21.3% 21.6% 18.5% 21.3%
17 0.0% 0.6% 0.1% 36.3% 11.7% 33.8%
35 5.4% 6.1% 5.5% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Source: MACNOMS
The following tables provide the change from the 2003 EA assumptions to actual conditions in 2018. As
shown in Table 8-5, the EA forecasted far more operations in 2005 than occurred in 2018. From an average
day standpoint, there were 461.1 fewer operations in 2018 than were forecast for 2005. This equates to
an annual reduction of over 168,000 operations. Additionally, there were far fewer propeller and Hushkit
Stage 3 operations in 2018 than were forecasted in the EA. There were 261.8 Hushkit operations forecast
and 2018 had less than one per day. Additionally, 251.2 propeller operations were expected in 2005,
however MSP experienced only 41 per day in 2018.
Table 8-5 – EA vs. 2018 Average Daily Operations
Aircraft Type
Average Daily Operations
Day Night Total Difference
between EA and
2018
2018 EA 2018 EA 2018 EA
Manufactured to
be Stage 3
953.3 924.7 117.4 137.6 1070.8 1062.3 8.5
Hushkit Stage 3 0.3 232.5 0.5 29.3 0.8 261.8 -261
Propeller 38.3 205.1 2.3 46.1 40.5 251.2 -210.7
Helicopter 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1
Military 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0
Total 994.5 1362.3 120.3 213.0 1,114.8 1575.3 -461.1
Runway-use also varied in 2018 from what was forecast for 2005, detailed in Table 8-6 and 8-7 below. The
biggest differences in arrivals occurred on Runways 12R and 35. Runway 12R arrivals were forecast to be
14% in 2005 and were closer to 26% in 2018. Arrivals to Runway 35 were expected at 16% but were
actually below 6%. For departures, the south parallel, Runway 12R-30L, saw the biggest differences.
Runway 12R was expected to handle 16% of the departures but only took 6% in 2018. Runway 30L
departures were expected to be just above 14% but actually were over 23% in 2018.
53
Table 8-6 – EA vs. 2018 Runway Use Percentages
Runway Arrival Departure
2018 EA Change 2018 EA Change
4 0.1% 0.5% -0.4% 0.5% 0.2% 0.3%
22 0.0% 0.7% -0.7% 0.0% 0.3% -0.3%
12L 21.3% 21.2% 0.1% 14.7% 9.9% 4.8%
12R 25.8% 14.3% 11.5% 6.2% 16.2% -10.0%
30L 25.9% 21.5% 4.4% 23.4% 14.5% 8.9%
30R 21.3% 25.5% -4.2% 21.3% 22.1% -0.8%
17 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 33.8% 36.7% -2.9%
35 5.5% 16.2% -10.7% 0.0% 0.1% -0.1%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0%
The change in percentage use of the runway does not fully capture the magnitude of the operational
change. In 2003 when the EA was published, it was expected that there would be 574,985 operations at
MSP when the runway opened in 2005. In 2018, there were only 406,913. Using the runway use
percentages in Tables 8-2 and 8-5 in combination with the daily operations number from Tables 8-1 and
8-4 allows for the comparison of the actual change in operations from what was forecast in the EA to what
occurred in 2018 in Table 8-9.
54
Table 8-7 – Runway Use Total Annual Operations Forecast EA Runway Use Runway Arrival Departure
Day Night Total Day Night Total
4 249 1,477 1,437 497 155 575
22 1,243 972 2,012 249 311 862
12L 53,950 6,919 60,948 23,619 4,859 28,462
12R 36,298 4,665 41,111 39,531 7,230 46,574
30L 52,459 9,407 61,811 36,796 5,131 41,686
30R 63,398 10,107 73,311 55,691 7,736 63,536
17 249 39 287 92,238 13,450 105,510
35 41,271 5,326 46,574 249 39 287
Total 248,620 38,873 287,492 248,620 38,873 287,492
2018 Actual Runway Use Runway
Arrival Departure
2018 Day 2018
Night
2018
Total
2018
Day
2018
Night
2018
Total
4 0 66 203 907 220 1,017
22 0 0 0 0 0 0
12L 40,292 3,118 43,336 25,772 4,084 29,908
12R 46,463 6,038 52,492 7,441 5,467 12,614
30L 45,011 7,618 52,695 42,107 5,489 47,609
30R 39,748 3,644 43,336 39,203 4,062 43,336
17 0 132 203 65,883 2,569 68,768
35 9,801 1,339 11,190 0 44 0
Total 181,496 21,955 203,457 181,496 21,955 203,457
Difference Runway Arrival Departure
Day Night Total Day Night Total
4 -249 -1,411 -1,234 410 64 442
22 -1,243 -972 -2,012 -249 -311 -862
12L -13,658 -3,802 -17,612 2,154 -775 1,446
12R 10,165 1,373 11,380 -32,089 -1,764 -33,959
30L -7,448 -1,789 -9,116 5,311 358 5,922
30R -23,650 -6,462 -29,974 -16,488 -3,674 -20,200
17 -249 93 -84 -26,355 -10,881 -36,741
35 -31,470 -3,986 -35,384 -249 5 -287
Total -67,124 -16,918 -84,036 -67,124 -16,918 -84,036
For purposes of modeling noise exposure and noise contour development, specific departure tracks
must be developed and modeled. Although the headings assigned by the FAA are in 5-degree
55
increments from 095-degrees to 285-dgrees, the noise modeling in the EA only allowed backbone flight
tracks representing specific headings to be evaluated.
Comparisons of a grouping of headings during 2018 and what was evaluated in the 2003 EA is shown
below in Table 8-10. Some headings were grouped for comparison purposes. The headings of 105° or
less were expected for 10% of all Runway 17 departure tracks but were flown by less than 1% of tracks
in 2018. Headings 120° and 140° in 2018, saw an increase of 32% from the anticipated tracks in the EA.
Headings between 170° and 200° were 34% below the assumptions in 2018. A similar amount of
increase was seen in the 210° tracks. Usage on tracks in 2018 over 220° were 22% below what was
forecast in the EA.
Table 8-8 – Flight Track Use Percentages
Track Heading 2018 EA Change
<105° 0.4% 10.1% -9.7%
120° 16.8% 0.0% 16.8%
140° 20.7% 5.1% 15.6%
155°-160° 12.5% 12.0% 0.5%
170° 5.4% 17.3% -11.9%
185°-200° 8.8% 30.8% -22.0%
210° 32.7% 0.0% 32.7%
>220° 2.9% 24.7% -21.8%
The assumptions from the 2003 EA were made with sound judgement based on current operations at
MSP. The assumptions in the previous tables were to be representative of conditions in 2005 when
Runway 17-35 opened. The EA notes that the runway and flight track use results derived in the analysis
are not absolutes. Variances will occur due to weather and safety, aircraft interactions. In the 15 years
that have passed since the EA was completed numerous changes have occurred, not the least of which
include the opening of Runway 17-35 and the actual use of the pavement for departures and how the
departures interact with surrounding air traffic. On an annual basis, the MAC develops noise contour maps
to assess the noise exposure from actual operations occurring the previous year. This allows variations in
aircraft operations, fleet mix, runway use and flight track use to be consistently evaluated and considered
for residential noise mitigation eligibility. Even with the increase in Runway 17 departures experienced in
2018 and the variation in flight track use presented above, the 2018 60 DNL noise contour does not extend
south of the Minnesota River, nor does it extend beyond the MAC’s residential noise mitigation program
area.
56
9 .R UNWAY 17 D EPARTURE A LTITUDE
Departure procedures are an important part of any discussion related to aircraft overflights. Because
sound pressure travels as a wave, the distance away from a sound source is important. For aircraft
overflights, that is a combination of lateral distance—i.e. distance along the ground—as well as altitude
or distance above the ground. The Inverse-Square Law can be used a general rule of thumb in this instance.
This axiom states that sound pressure will decrease by 50% as the distance away from a sound source
doubles. Due to the logarithmic scale for sound, that equates to a six-decibel reduction for every doubling
of distance. Because sound waves are impacted by atmospheric and physical environment conditions,
measured values may not fully conform to this rule. To reduce the sound of aircraft, the flight track could
be moved away from the receiver or the aircraft could be higher. Unfortunately, the laws of physics do
not always allow for aircraft to be higher.
To conduct a reasonable comparison between aircraft departures before 2015 and departures after 2015
the study identified average departure altitudes at multiple measurement points along a track. Concentric
rings centered on the start of takeoff roll from Runway 17 every mile between two miles and ten miles
were used as measurement gates. Figure 20 - Runway 17 Distance Measurement Rings illustrates the
location of those rings. The altitude of 44,795 carrier jet departures from 2014 and 63,454 carrier jet
departures from 2018 at each gate were recorded and analyzed.
Weather conditions were also analyzed for 2014 and 2018, because altitude is dependent on temperature
and wind conditions. Departure altitudes are more impacted by temperature and wind than arrival
altitudes. As temperatures rise, altitudes will be lower. Similarly, strong headwinds will increase lift for
departures, resulting in higher altitudes. The average temperature at MSP in 2014 was 43.1° Fahrenheit.
That temperature increased in 2018 to an average of 46.6° Fahrenheit. Wind roses are presented in Figure
21 - 2014 and 2018 Annual MSP Wind Rose. During 2014, strong headwinds (over 10 mph out of a
direction between 080° and 260°) occurred 20% of the time. During 2018, this was 18% of the time. Based
solely on the warmer temperatures and weaker headwinds, it would be expected that average departure
altitudes from Runway 17 would be lower in 2018 than 2014.
Figure 22 - Average RJ Departure Altitude and Figure 23 - Average Narrowbody Departure Altitude
display the result of the comparison. Based on wind and temperature, the expectation that altitudes
would be lower is realized. The small gap between the two years also is more pronounced as the aircraft
continued away from MSP. For Regional Jets, the degree of altitude variation ranges from 41 feet to 199
feet, increasing as the aircraft travel further from the runway. The change also is noticeably pronounced
in the narrowbody class of jet more than in the regional jet class. The difference in altitude from 2014 to
2018 is only 34 feet at two miles increasing to 462 feet at ten miles. Average altitudes for the top three
most used aircraft types departing from Runway 17 in 2018 (Canadair Regional Jet 900, Boeing 737-800
and Canadair Regional Jet 200) are displayed in Appendix F.
57
Figure 20 - Runway 17 Distance Measurement Rings
58
Figure 21 - 2014 and 2018 Annual MSP Wind Rose
59
Figure 22 - Average RJ Departure Altitude
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10ALTITUDE ABOVE MSP (FT)DISTANCE FROM RUNWAY 17 THRESHOLD (STATUTE MILES)
AVERAGE RUNWAY 17 DEPARTURE ALTITUDE
REGIONAL JETS
2014 2018
60
Figure 23 - Average Narrowbody Departure Altitude
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10ALTITUDE ABOVE MSP (FT)DISTANCE FROM RUNWAY 17 THRESHOLD (STATUTE MILES)
AVERAGE RUNWAY 17 DEPARTURE ALTITUDE
NARROWBODY JETS
2014 2018
61
APPENDIX
Appendix A – Runway 17 Departure Scope…………………………………………………………………………………… 48
Appendix B – Runway Diagram…………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 49
Appendix C – Airport Configurations……………………………………………………………………………………………..50
Appendix D – Runway 17 Departure Heading Usage…………………………………………………………………….. 51
Appendix E – FAR Part 150 Table 1………………………………………………………………………………………………..62
Appendix F – Average Runway 17 Departure Altitude……………………………………………………………………64
62
A PPENDIX A
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
c. Examine departure runway distribution during 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
ii. Evaluate 105° and 170° departure headings
b. Headings in 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
8. Runway 17 Departure Altitude
63
A PPENDIX B
Runway Diagram
64
A PPENDIX C
Airport Configurations
North Flow Straight North Flow
South Flow Straight South Flow
Mixed Flow A Mixed Flow B
65
A PPENDIX D
Runway 17 Departure Heading Usage
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
A PPENDIX E
FAR Part 150 Table 1—Land Use Compatibility* With Yearly Day-Night Average Sound Levels
Land use
Yearly day-night average sound level (Ldn) in decibels
Below 65 65-70 70-75 75-80 80-85 Over 85
RESIDENTIAL
Residential, other than mobile homes and
transient lodgings
Y N(1) N(1) N N N
Mobile home parks Y N N N N N
Transient lodgings Y N(1) N(1) N(1) N N
PUBLIC USE
Schools Y N(1) N(1) N N N
Hospitals and nursing homes Y 25 30 N N N
Churches, auditoriums, and concert halls Y 25 30 N N N
Governmental services Y Y 25 30 N N
Transportation Y Y Y(2) Y(3) Y(4) Y(4)
Parking Y Y Y(2) Y(3) Y(4) N
COMMERCIAL USE
Offices, business and professional Y Y 25 30 N N
Wholesale and retail—building materials,
hardware and farm equipment
Y Y Y(2) Y(3) Y(4) N
Retail trade—general Y Y 25 30 N N
Utilities Y Y Y(2) Y(3) Y(4) N
Communication Y Y 25 30 N N
MANUFACTURING AND PRODUCTION
Manufacturing, general Y Y Y(2) Y(3) Y(4) N
Photographic and optical Y Y 25 30 N N
Agriculture (except livestock) and forestry Y Y(6) Y(7) Y(8) Y(8) Y(8)
Livestock farming and breeding Y Y(6) Y(7) N N N
Mining and fishing, resource production and
extraction
Y Y Y Y Y Y
RECREATIONAL
Outdoor sports arenas and spectator sports Y Y(5) Y(5) N N N
Outdoor music shells, amphitheaters Y N N N N N
77
Nature exhibits and zoos Y Y N N N N
Amusements, parks, resorts and camps Y Y Y N N N
Golf courses, riding stables and water recreation Y Y 25 30 N N
Numbers in parentheses refer to notes.
*The designations contained in this table do not constitute a Federal determination that any use of
land covered by the program is acceptable or unacceptable under Federal, State, or local law. The
responsibility for determining the acceptable and permissible land uses and the relationship between
specific properties and specific noise contours rests with the local authorities. FAA determinations under
part 150 are not intended to substitute federally determined land uses for those determined to be
appropriate by local authorities in response to locally determined needs and values in achieving noise
compatible land uses.
KEY TO TABLE 1
•SLUCM = Standard Land Use Coding Manual.
•Y (Yes) = Land Use and related structures compatible without restrictions.
•N (No) = Land Use and related structures are not compatible and should be prohibited.
•NLR = Noise Level Reduction (outdoor to indoor) to be achieved through incorporation of noise
attenuation into the design and construction of the structure.
•25, 30, or 35 = Land use and related structures generally compatible; measures to achieve NLR of
25, 30, or 35 dB must be incorporated into design and construction of structure.
NOTES FOR TABLE 1
1.Where the community determines that residential or school uses must be allowed, measures to
achieve outdoor to indoor Noise Level Reduction (NLR) of at least 25 dB and 30 dB should be
incorporated into building codes and be considered in individual approvals. Normal residential
construction can be expected to provide a NLR of 20 dB, thus, the reduction requirements are
often stated as 5, 10 or 15 dB over standard construction and normally assume mechanical
ventilation and closed windows year round. However, the use of NLR criteria will not eliminate
outdoor noise problems.
2.Measures to achieve NLR 25 dB must be incorporated into the design and construction of portions
of these buildings where the public is received, office areas, noise sensitive areas or where the
normal noise level is low.
3.Measures to achieve NLR of 30 dB must be incorporated into the design and construction of
portions of these buildings where the public is received, office areas, noise sensitive areas or
where the normal noise level is low.
4.Measures to achieve NLR 35 dB must be incorporated into the design and construction of portions
of these buildings where the public is received, office areas, noise sensitive areas or where the
normal level is low.
5.Land use compatible provided special sound reinforcement systems are installed.
6.Residential buildings require an NLR of 25.
7.Residential buildings require an NLR of 30.
8.Residential buildings not permitted.
78
A PPENDIX F
Average Runway 17 Departure Altitude
79
80
81
EAGAN MOBILE NOISE MONITORING REPORT
July 2019
Metropolitan Airports Commission
6040 28th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55450
MetroAirports.org
Community Relations Office
82
Contents
1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1
2 Parameters & Methodology ................................................................................................................. 3
Purpose ......................................................................................................................................... 3
Study Period .................................................................................................................................. 3
Monitoring Locations .................................................................................................................... 3
Equipment and Instrumentation .................................................................................................. 5
Measurement Parameters ............................................................................................................ 5
Aircraft-Event Correlation ............................................................................................................. 6
3 Discussion / Summary of Findings ........................................................................................................ 7
DNL ................................................................................................................................................ 7
Eagan Coverage Assessment ......................................................................................................... 8
Evaluation of Measurement Sites Next to the I-35E ..................................................................... 9
4 Appendix ............................................................................................................................................. 12
Aircraft Operations ..................................................................................................................... 12
Sound Events ............................................................................................................................... 16
Uncorrelated Aircraft Events ...................................................................................................... 21
DNL .............................................................................................................................................. 22
Weather ...................................................................................................................................... 24
83
1 INTRODUCTION
A request for mobile noise monitoring was made in 2018 by the Eagan Airport Relations Commission
(ARC), and approved by the Minneapolis – St. Paul International Airport (MSP) Noise Oversight Committee
(NOC), to evaluate the quality of aircraft noise events currently being collected by the Metropolitan
Airports Commission (MAC) at two of its permanent sound monitoring locations in the City of Eagan.
Since 1992, the MAC has operated one of the most sophisticated and comprehensive computerized
aircraft noise and flight track data collection and processing systems of its kind. The MAC Noise and
Operations Monitoring System (MACNOMS) is a tool to help MAC staff analyze aircraft noise impacts
around MSP and provide public access to flight tracking and detailed aircraft noise data. MAC staff can
make informed decisions about aircraft noise and operations impacts and assess specific operations in a
timely way. Community members can access near real-time flight operations information and can review
detailed historical information at their convenience.
MACNOMS' data collection, processing and analysis and reporting tools are made up of customized
software programs and instruments that provide system flexibility to conduct detailed analyses and
reporting of aircraft operations and associated noise. The system does this by fusing aircraft flight tracks,
aircraft operator information, noise measurements from sound monitoring stations, geographic
information, and information on other variables that influence aircraft operations.
The sound data collection is conducted through an array of 39 permanently installed sound monitoring
stations that operate continuously. Several MACNOMS sound monitoring sites are located within the City
of Eagan; these sites are numbered as 14, 16, 24, 25, 35, 37, 38 and 39. It’s important to note that the
data recorded at the MACNOMS sound monitoring sites are not used in determining residential noise
mitigation eligibility, nor are they used in the development of airport noise contours. These activities are
strictly regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which requires the use of a modeling
software.
The MAC’s first installation of permanent sound monitors included 24 sites located primarily off the ends
of the parallel runways and the crosswind runway, Runway 4/22. In 1998, the Metropolitan Sound
Abatement Council (MASAC) focused on increasing the noise monitoring coverage predicated on existing
runway geometry and associated operational patterns. The analysis resulted in the addition of five new
monitoring towers, bringing the total to 29. The last augmentation of the noise monitoring system
occurred in 2001 with the installation of ten additional locations south of the airport to measure noise
levels on Runway 17/35. Citing the permanent sound monitoring stations all required a thorough and
objective process. MASAC established the location of the five additional sites in 1998 using requirements
that were established as part of the initial system installation, in addition to further data consideration
and the utilization of increased spatial analysis capabilities. The additional ten locations were established
through a Runway 17-35 Remote Noise Monitoring Tower Location Task Force. The Task Force applied
requirements consistent with previous installations in addition to more robust Geographical Information
System (GIS) data. These sites and the cylindrical areas of influence were sent to each respective city for
the exact location and area of influence determination.
84
The Eagan ARC communicated concerns related to the coverage area and whether enough aircraft noise
is being captured by the MACNOMS sound monitoring sites installed in Eagan. Another concern is related
to the quality and accuracy of aircraft sound data collected by MACNOMS sites 25 and 37 because of their
proximity to the I-35E freeway.
The concerns expressed by the ARC formulate the objectives of this study, as follows:
1. The MAC will evaluate sound data collected in Eagan and determine if gaps exist in the MACNOMS
site coverage area within in the City of Eagan, and
2. determine if MACNOMS sites 25 and 37 properly capture aircraft sound levels given the ambient
freeway noise being generated by 1-35E.
85
2 PARAMETERS & METHODOLOGY
PURPOSE
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
objectives of the study are to determine if gaps exist within the City of Eagan and to compare data
collected from the mobile equipment with data being collected at the RMTs 25 and 37.
STUDY PERIOD
By mutual agreement with the Eagan ARC, the study period extended for two consecutive weeks. Mobile
sound monitors were deployed on May 1st, 2019 and retrieved on May 16th, 2019. The official two-week
data collection period started at 12:00 A.M. on Thursday May 2nd and concluded at 11:59:59 P.M.
Wednesday May 15th.
MONITORING LOCATIONS
MAC Community Relations staff, in collaboration with the Eagan ARC, identified two locations for
temporary placement of the mobile sound monitoring equipment. These sites are labeled 72 and 73 to
86
distinguish these sites from the MACNOMS sites. After consideration of various site location, the Eagan
ARC approved use of Mueller Farm Park and Evergreen Park, which both met the following criteria:
• The sites were able to be secured
• The sites were located on public land, owned by the City (parks, easements, out-lots, etc.)
• The sites were located appropriate distances from known sources of community noises, such as
major roadways, active construction, crowd assembly areas, railroad tracks, etc.
• The City and the MAC agreed that the sites were reasonable and adequate to obtain the necessary
data to meet the project objectives
The following are the details for the mobile sound monitoring data collection sites, labeled 72 and 73:
Site #72 – Mueller Farm Park
The Mueller Farm Park site was located along east side of the park along Wescott Hills Dr, north of a
walking path.
This location was chosen due to its position in a low-activity area while still on public property, and its
proximity to MSP flight activity.
87
Site #73 – Evergreen Park
Evergreen Park abuts Thomas Lake Park to the North. The monitoring location was along Lodgepole Ct.
This location is directly east of site 37 and located in a low-activity area near while still on public property,
and its proximity to MSP flight activity.
EQUIPMENT AND INSTRUMENTATION
A secured weatherproof enclosure was used at each mobile monitoring site to contain the measurement
and recording devices. The instrumentation is manufactured by Larson Davis and consists of a laboratory
quality sound level analyzer (831A class/type 1 instrument), preamplifier (PRM831), and microphone
(377B02). The preamplifier and microphone were housed within environmental protection coverings to
allow sound measurements during adverse weather elements. The components used at these sites is the
same equipment that is used at the permanent sound-monitoring locations.
The instruments are certified annually, and each site was calibrated at the start of the study. During the
study period, inspections were performed throughout the study at both sites to verify instruments were
operating and within tolerances, and to inspect for tampering and damage. A final calibration check was
performed at the end of the study and found to be within tolerances.
MEASUREMENT PARAMETERS
The sound monitoring instrumentation was configured to monitor sound continuously utilizing slow
response with A-weighting, as directed by 14 CFR Part 150 and consistent with the MACNOMS data
collection. Under this configuration, the analyzer uses a sound pressure level - time trigger (when the A-
weighted sound pressure level exceeds 65dB for a minimum period of eight seconds) to identify and
document sound events. A two-second continuation period is used to extend the sound event if the sound
88
below the threshold level. These parameters are consistent with the configurations employed at the
permanent sites.
The measurement parameters used by the sound monitoring instrumentation only account for sound
level and therefore both aircraft and community events will be documented. Additionally, aircraft do not
have to fly directly over a measurement site to be recorded.
AIRCRAFT-EVENT CORRELATION
This study employed a process for correlating mobile site sound data with MSP flight track data; the same
process is used for correlating MACNOMS sound data with MSP flights. The process uses both temporal
(time) and spatial components to match a sound event with an aircraft overflight. The majority of sites in
Eagan include a cylindrical area of influence with a radius of 2,500 meters and a ceiling of 1,830 meters.
Permanent sites in Eagan also include a time window of at least one minute around an event. Mobile sites
72 and 73 used those same dimensions of the study. Sound events that could not be correlated were
classified as “community” events.
89
3 DISCUSSION / SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
This report presents both sound measurement and aircraft operations data collected between May 2nd
through May 15th, 2019. The objectives of the study are to evaluate the coverage of the MACNOMS array
within the City of Eagan and determine to what degree MACNOMS sites 25 and 37 are affected by their
unique proximity to I-35E.
While this study was requested by the Eagan ARC and approved by the NOC in 2018, the study was
intentionally delayed until May 2019 to increase the likelihood that South Flow configurations would be
prevalent at MSP. In a South flow, aircraft use Runways 12L, 12R and 17 for departures while Runways
12L and 12R are used for arrivals. This provides the most ideal configuration to conduct monitoring for
the purpose of this study. Section 4.1 provides further data on specific runway use. For the 14 days of the
study, a South Flow was utilized for 37.5% of the time. Additionally, 50 hours, or 16.6%, of all hours were
in a Straight South Flow. In a Straight South Flow, Runways 12L and 12R are used for arrival and departure
and the use of Runway 17 for departure is discontinued. The combined 54.1% provided a reasonable
amount of opportunity to collect sound data for the study.
Sites 72 and 73 both proved to be conducive locations for measuring aircraft sounds because of the
regularity of MSP flight activity over the area and limited levels of community noises. There were 477
sound events (383 aircraft correlated) recorded at Site 72, and 466 events (300 aircraft correlated) were
recorded at Site 73. The estimated average background sound level (utilizing the statistical LA90 method)
was 50.4 dBA for Site 72 and 45.5 dBA for Site 73. At both sites, the loudest measured sound events were
identified as community-based (e.g. lawn mowers, fireworks, motorcycle, people, etc.).
Section 4.5 shows a summary of the temperature and reported wind speeds during the two-week study
period. Moderate temperatures from 35° - 76° were experienced throughout the study period.
Additionally, precipitation was recorded during six days of the study. A wind rose depicting all reported
winds for the study period is also included in section 4.5.
DNL
The Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) metric is an average of noise exposure, or dose metric, of the
total accumulation of all sound energy spread uniformly over a 24-hour period. The DNL calculation
applies a 10-decibel penalty on aircraft operations between 10:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. Aircraft DNL reflects
noise exposure associated with aircraft noise events only, while community DNL reflects noise exposure
for all other noises.
The Federal Aviation Administration Office of Environment and Energy (FAA-AEE) recognizes that the
environmental consequences stemming from the operation of commercial aviation – primarily noise,
emissions, and fuel consumption – are highly interdependent and occur simultaneously throughout all
phases of flight. The Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT) is a software system that is designed to
model aviation related operations in space and time to compute noise, emissions, and fuel consumption.
90
AEDT is the federally prescribed model required to develop the annual DNL contour, which is the basis for
the MSP Annual Noise Contour Report and related noise mitigation program. While the focus on
traditional AEDT modeling efforts is typically a DNL contour, the software has the capability to produce
alternate noise metrics.
The MAC’s system of 39 RMTs is one of the most extensive aircraft noise monitoring systems in the world.
The data collected provides important information about sound levels and aircraft activity in the areas
where the monitors exist. To augment the permanent system, AEDT can be used to determine the
modeled events at specific points around MSP that are not covered by an RMT.
Aircraft noise is generally considered by the FAA to be significant when levels reach DNL 65 or greater,
(average measure of 365 days). An annual aircraft DNL at or above 65 dB is considered by the FAA to be
incompatible with residential areas and other noise sensitive land uses.
The measured daily aircraft DNL is shown in section 4.4 while the measured and calculated average DNL
for the two-week study period is shown below.
14-Day Study Period 72 - Mueller Farm Park 73 - Evergreen Park
Measured DNL 47.5 46.6
AEDT Modeled DNL 51.2 49.5
Aircraft flying over Sites 72 and 73 are typically flying at higher altitudes than when they fly over the
MACNOMS sites 25 and 37. This is because Sites 72 and 73 are located further away from MSP than Sites
25 and 37 and aircraft typically continue their climb as they travel away from the airport. The increased
distance and altitude has several effects. First, it can reduce the measured DNL due to physical constraints
of meeting the parameters of the event detection trigger, which causes a reduced measured DNL level.
Secondly, a greater difference emerges between the measured vs. modeled DNL levels. This occurs
because modeled DNL is capable of projecting all aircraft into its calculation whereas the measured DNL
can only include measured and correlated aircraft sounds that do not compete with community noises.
EAGAN COVERAGE ASSESSMENT
Aircraft sound events were recorded during the study period at all eight MACNOMS sites located within
the City of Eagan and the mobile equipment at the study sites 72 and 73. The study sites performed well
with the MACNOMS sites in Eagan. 98.5% of all correlated events recorded at the study sites were also
recorded and correlated at a permanent site in Eagan. Of the combined 683 identified aircraft events, only
10 aircraft were not recorded at the MACNOMS sites within Eagan. Site 72 had a 100% correlation while
Site 73 had a 97.4% correlation. See section 4.3 for more details.
While the 10 aircraft sound events identified by the study area and not identified within the MACNOMS
Eagan sites are statically small, there are several reasons why they occur. When approaching the 65dBA
– 8 second threshold, other small variables like aircraft state including, power settings, the angle of attack
in relation to the sound monitor, direction and positioning, and the distance between the aircraft and the
sound monitor as well as tolerances of measurement instrumentation all have impact on whether an
event is detectable and identifiable using the sound event parameters.
91
9,871 aircraft events from 4,709 aircraft were captured by the MACNOMS permanent sound monitors
within Eagan. Of those aircraft operations, 4,054 or 86% of the operations triggering events at one of the
permanent sites did not trigger an event at one of the mobile sites. This can be due to several factors but
is largely due to the flight track of the operation and the three dimensional distance between the aircraft
and the site.
The primary directive of the MACNOMS system is to measure aircraft noise to provide actual noise data
at sites within the community. With a 98.5% study-to-permanent event correlation along with measured
and modeled DNL below the 60 DNL contour, the study data suggests additional monitoring within the
City is not required.
EVALUATION OF MEASUREMENT SITES NEXT TO THE I-35E
MACNOMS sites 25 and 37 are in close proximity to I-35E freeway and often record sounds of vehicles
that are louder than aircraft that overfly the area. The following table contains performance measures
that compare data from sites 25 and 37 to the other MACNOMS sites located within the City of Eagan and
the mobile sites 72 and 73.
Site
Total
Sound Events
Aircraft
Events
Aircraft
Event
Correlation
Ratio
Average
Event
Duration
(seconds)
Primary Runway(s) and Flight
Activity
14 3,065 2,570 0.84 18.3 30L ARRIVALS
16 2,974 2,370 0.80 19.8 30L ARRIVALS
24 2,925 2,382 0.81 17.5 30L ARRIVALS
25 1,646 469 0.28 56.1 12R, 17 DEPARTURES
35 598 476 0.80 16.9 35 ARRIVALS, 17 DEPARTURES
37 1,481 297 0.20 46.9 17 DEPARTURES
38 896 635 0.71 19.2 17 DEPARTURES
39 894 672 0.75 18.9 17 DEPARTURES
72 477 300 0.63 30.3 12R, 17 DEPARTURES
73 466 383 0.82 16.6 17 DEPARTURES
The table above compares data collected and correlated to aircraft activity at sound monitoring sites in
the City of Eagan. It is not realistic to capture a sound event at each of the monitoring sites because of
operating characteristics of aircraft, flight paths, environmental conditions, and other community sounds;
however, the goal of the MAC’s sound monitoring efforts is to capture as much quality sound data as
possible given situational conditions. The number of sound events documented for the monitoring sites
in Eagan during the study period is higher than the number of aircraft events because there are many
non-aircraft sounds that fit the measurement parameters and consequently are recorded. Site 14
recorded the highest number of Total Sound Events and Aircraft Events. Site 73 recorded the lowest
number of Total Sound Events, but Site 37 recorded the lowest number of Aircraft Events. These numbers
by themselves are not as meaningful as the Aircraft Event Correlation Ratio.
92
The Aircraft Event Correlation Ratio describes the overall correlation rate between the number of
measured sound events with those sound events that are correlated with aircraft activity. This metric
summarizes how many sound events were associated with aircraft activity. A higher ratio means more
aircraft were correlated with measured sounds than a lower ratio. The highest Correlation Ratio occurred
at Site 14, and the lowest ratio occurred at Site 37.
The Average Event Duration helps to reveal how community sounds may be affecting the measures of
aircraft sounds. Sites with longer community events that are occurring while aircraft are flying overhead
may be preventing the site from capturing the aircraft activity sounds, particularly if the community event
is louder than the aircraft event. This situation is known to occur on very windy days, or when lawn
mowing takes place, or birds are singing near a monitoring site. Extended periods of vehicle traffic also
contribute to sound events with extended durations. During the study period, Sites 25 and 37 recorded
sound events with the highest average durations due to the unique proximity of these sites to the 1-35E
freeway.
While sites 25 and 37 do record far more community events than other permanent sites, the ambient
environmental sound generated by the freeway is not negatively impacting their ability to collect aircraft
noise data. Given the distance of aircraft from the sites, the probability that an aircraft creates an event
at sites 25 and 37 are consistent with other permanent sites in Eagan. The following tables highlights this
relationship. In the first table, Runway 12R departures for June 2018 through June 2019 are evaluated at
the four permanent sites and one mobile site that typically record traffic from this runway. Candidate
Departures represent any flight that flew within the cylindrical area of influence (radius of 2,500 meters
and a ceiling of 1,830 meters) for that site while Valid Correlated Events are the number of events at that
site. In this instance Site 25 records far fewer candidate operations than other sites in Eagan. The reason,
however, is not due to the freeway, but instead due to its proximity to typical Runway 12R departure
tracks. The average distance between the site and the tracks of 1,615 meters is almost double the average
distance at site 16, which has a much better correlation rate. Site 72 recorded a lower rate of events than
any of the permanent sites.
RMT CANDIDATE
DEPARTURES
VALID CORRELATED
EVENTS
RATE AVERAGE 3D
DISTANCE (meters)
14 14,693 10,815 74% 921
16 14,852 12,202 82% 815
24 13,405 7,124 53% 1,124
25 11,829 4,027 34% 1,615
72* 306 68 22% 1,157
*Mobile Sites only include data from 5/2/2019 – 5/15/2019
93
The same data was analyzed for departures from Runway 17.
RMT CANDIDATE
DEPARTURES
VALID CORRELATED
EVENTS
RATE AVERAGE 3D
DISTANCE (meters)
25 14,199 5,419 38% 1,597
35 30,478 7,389 24% 1,129
37 14,529 5,468 38% 1,260
38 24,561 11,199 46% 1,017
39 29,010 13,209 46% 915
72* 663 224 34% 1,225
73* 1,042 368 35% 1,103
*Mobile Sites only include data from 5/2/2019 – 5/15/2019
These sites show the same relationship between distance and correlation rate. Sites 25 and 37 have a
lower rate than sites 38 and 39 but the distance between the tracks and the sites are further away. Sites
25 and 37 correlate at a higher rate than Site 25 despite being farther from the tracks. Sites 72 and 73 also
had lower event rates than all of the permanent sites except Site 35. Because Sites 25 and 37 have
correlation rates similar to other sites under Runway 17 departures, the data does not support a change
to the location of the permanent monitoring sites.
The location of all sites is impacted by normal community activities. Each site within the MAC system
records events with sound sources that are not aircraft related. The MAC has a robust system in place to
determine whether the sound source of events is community generated or aircraft related. As discussed
in Section 2.6, the MAC uses an automated system to correlate events to known MSP aircraft traffic using
spatial and temporal data. Additionally, MAC staff reviews events and related attributes monthly to
improve this matching process. Recently, the MAC developed a noise event classification system using a
convolutional neural network which is generally referred to as machine learning to further determine the
likelihood that a noise event was created by an aircraft or by a community source. Because we believe
this to be the first of its kind, the MAC is seeking protection from the United States Patent and Trademark
Office. These current protocols and process enhancements reduce the impact that all community events,
including road noise from I-35E, have on the data produced at the permanent sites.
94
4 APPENDIX
AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS
MSP Runway Use
Runway Operation Count Percent Operation Count Percent
4 Arr 0 0.0% Dep 0 0.0%
12L Arr 1,995 25.9% Dep 1,309 17.0%
12R Arr 2,264 29.4% Dep 637 8.3%
17 Arr 0 0.0% Dep 2,945 38.3%
22 Arr 0 0.0% Dep 1 0.0%
30L Arr 1,695 22.0% Dep 1,439 18.7%
30R Arr 1,451 18.9% Dep 1,356 17.6%
35 Arr 284 3.7% Dep 2 0.0%
Total 7,689 100% Total 7,689 100%
95
Airport Configuration (# of Hours by Day)
Day Mixed
A
Mixed
B
North Straight
North
Opposite South Straight
South
Unusual Total
2-May 14 2 1 3 1 21
3-May 2 1 3 14 2 22
4-May 9 2 1 4 7 23
5-May 2 17 3 22
6-May 3 11 3 2 2 21
7-May 1 2 13 2 18
8-May 6 18 24
9-May 5 14 2 21
10-May 8 4 8 3 23
11-May 2 14 6 22
12-May 1 15 3 19
13-May 3 16 2 21
14-May 17 5 22
15-May 1 1 4 1 12 3 22
Total 34 3 17 60 23 113 50 1 301
HOURS WITHOUT DATA MAY INCLUDE HOURS DURING CONFIGURATION TRANSITION OR HOURS WITHOUT OPERATIONS
96
Density Maps
97
Fleet Composition - Top 10
Category Aircraft Type Operations
Regional Jet Canadair CRJ-900 2,098
Regional Jet Canadair CRJ-200 2,009
Narrowbody Boeing 737-800 1,682
Narrowbody Airbus A320 1,419
Narrowbody Boeing 737-900 1,137
Narrowbody Boeing 717-200 1,108
Narrowbody Airbus A321 1,092
Narrowbody Airbus A319 1,056
Regional Jet Embraer E-175 858
Narrowbody Boeing 737-700 653
98
SOUND EVENTS
Summary of Measured Events
Date
72 - Mueller Park 73 - Evergreen Park
Aircraft Community (total) Aircraft Community (total)
5/2/2019 1 17 18 - 1 1
5/3/2019 32 6 38 62 1 63
5/4/2019 5 6 11 20 2 22
- - - - 1 1
5/6/2019 4 5 9 8 8 16
5/7/2019 14 5 19 40 1 41
5/8/2019 34 3 37 13 6 19
5/9/2019 - 1 1 - 3 3
5/10/2019 1 4 5 - 2 2
5/11/2019 36 2 38 28 11 39
5/12/2019 45 1 46 55 1 56
5/13/2019 55 2 57 70 12 82
5/14/2019 52 17 69 43 43
5/15/2019 21 108 129 44 34 78
Grand Total 300 177 477 383 83 466
Total Aircraft Events 683
Total Community Events 260
Total Events 943
Measured Sound Events – Category Breakdown
63%
37%
MUELLER FARM
PARK
aircraft community
82%
18%
EVERGREEN
PARK
aircraft community
99
Aircraft Count Above - N(level)
Mueller Farm Park – Count Above (Aircraft)
N(n) N65 N80 N90 N100
5/2/2019 1 - - -
5/3/2019 32 - - -
5/4/2019 5 - - -
5/5/2019 - - - -
5/6/2019 4 - - -
5/7/2019 14 - - -
5/8/2019 34 1 - -
5/9/2019 - - - -
5/10/2019 1 - - -
5/11/2019 36 - - -
5/12/2019 45 - - -
5/13/2019 55 - - -
5/14/2019 52 - - -
5/15/2019 21 - - -
Total 300 1 - -
Evergreen Park – Count Above (Aircraft)
N(n) N65 N80 N90 N100
5/2/2019 - - - -
5/3/2019 62 - - -
5/4/2019 20 - - -
5/5/2019 - - - -
5/6/2019 8 - - -
5/7/2019 40 - - -
5/8/2019 13 - - -
5/9/2019 - - - -
5/10/2019 - - - -
5/11/2019 28 - - -
5/12/2019 55 - - -
5/13/2019 70 - - -
5/14/2019 43 - - -
5/15/2019 44 - - -
Total 383 - - -
Aircraft Time Above – TA(level)
Mueller Farm Park – Time Above (Aircraft)
TA(n) TA65 TA80 TA90 TA100
5/2/2019 9 - - -
5/3/2019 439 - - -
5/4/2019 63 - - -
5/5/2019 - - - -
5/6/2019 44 - - -
5/7/2019 145 - - -
5/8/2019 452 - - -
5/9/2019 - - - -
5/10/2019 18 - - -
5/11/2019 500 - - -
5/12/2019 593 - - -
5/13/2019 748 - - -
5/14/2019 696 - - -
5/15/2019 332 - - -
Total 4039 - - -
Evergreen Park – Time Above (Aircraft)
TA(n) TA65 TA80 TA90 TA100
5/2/2019 - - - -
5/3/2019 943 - - -
5/4/2019 290 - - -
5/5/2019 - - - -
5/6/2019 93 - - -
5/7/2019 526 - - -
5/8/2019 169 - - -
5/9/2019 - - - -
5/10/2019 - - - -
5/11/2019 459 - - -
5/12/2019 792 - - -
5/13/2019 1042 - - -
5/14/2019 586 - - -
5/15/2019 612 - - -
Total 5512 - - -
100
Aircraft Count by Hour
LAsel vs Hour
0
10
20
30
40
50
0 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
AIRCRAFT SOUND EVENTS BY HOUR
72
73
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
0 5 10 15 20 25
MUELLER FARM PARK
aircraft
community
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
0 5 10 15 20 25
EVERGREEN PARK
aircraft
community
101
Top 10 Aircraft Events - Mueller Park
Date/Time
Flight
Number Aircraft Operation Runway
LAmax
(dB)
Duration
(seconds)
Distance
(ft)
5/8/2019 18:21 DAL884 A321 D 12R 80.1 16 2488
5/3/2019 9:22 DAL375 A321 D 12R 78.3 18 2209
5/8/2019 18:30 DAL928 A321 D 12R 77.4 17 2769
5/14/2019 18:25 DAL1505 B739 D 12R 77.1 19 2488
5/13/2019 11:28 DAL1981 B739 D 12R 76.9 20 2580
5/8/2019 11:59 DAL1543 B753 D 12R 76.6 18 4231
5/8/2019 14:53 DAL696 A321 D 12R 76.3 14 3319
5/3/2019 15:44 DAL968 A321 D 17 76.2 15 2770
5/12/2019 13:03 DAL2376 A321 D 17 76 14 3138
5/13/2019 13:12 DAL2548 A321 D 12R 76 17 2526
Top 10 Aircraft Events - Evergreen Park
Date/Time
Flight
Number Aircraft Operation Runway LAmax
(dB) Duration
(seconds) Distance
(ft)
5/11/2019 7:50 FDX420 MD11 D 17 77.7 27 3568
5/3/2019 9:19 DAL515 B739 D 17 76.6 21 2802
5/7/2019 8:24 UPS2557 B744 D 17 76.2 24 3189
5/14/2019 21:49 UPS559 MD11 D 17 76.1 22 4194
5/12/2019 9:22 DAL550 A320 D 17 76 21 3206
5/12/2019 9:26 DAL1504 A321 D 17 76 22 3663
5/3/2019 11:37 DAL1557 A320 D 17 76 21 2908
5/13/2019 16:51 DAL307 B752 D 17 75.9 21 3868
5/3/2019 13:04 DAL2560 B739 D 17 75.8 18 3767
5/4/2019 9:07 DAL1936 A319 D 17 75.7 21 3331
102
Measured vs. Modeled Aircraft Sound Events
Site
Modeled
Events
Measured
Events (+/-)
14 2,898 2,570 (328)
16 2,467 2,370 (97)
24 2,352 2,382 30
25 274 469 195
35 635 476 (159)
37 345 297 (48)
38 717 635 (82)
39 850 672 (178)
72 - Mueller Farm Park 300 300 -
73 - Evergreen Park 519 383 (136)
103
UNCORRELATED AIRCRAFT EVENTS
Aircraft events at study sites not seen at permeant sites located in Eagan
unknown factors (1.5% of total)
Site Date/Time LAmax Operation Aircraft Runway Factor
Evergreen Park 5/3/19 13:14:44 69.2 DEP CRJ9 17 No Events
Evergreen Park 5/3/19 13:17:24 69.1 DEP CRJ9 17 No Events
Evergreen Park 5/4/19 9:04:52 68.6 DEP CRJ9 17 No Events
Evergreen Park 5/4/19 10:07:44 68.6 DEP CRJ9 17 No Events
Evergreen Park 5/4/19 10:23:56 70.7 DEP B712 17 No Events
Evergreen Park 5/7/19 20:50:55 69 DEP CRJ7 17 No Events
Evergreen Park 5/11/19 20:38:40 70.1 DEP CRJ9 17 No Events
Evergreen Park 5/12/19 16:57:19 68.9 DEP CRJ9 17 No Events
Evergreen Park 5/13/19 19:19:19 67.8 DEP CRJ9 17 No Events
Evergreen Park 5/13/19 20:24:41 67.3 DEP E75L 17 No Events
Aircraft events at study sites not seen at permanent sites located in Eagan
due to known factors (1%)
Site Date/Time LAmax Operation Aircraft Runway Factor
Mueller Farm Park 5/2/19 14:46:01 70.4 ARR C208 30L Flight Track
Evergreen Park 5/7/19 14:26:49 70.3 DEP B712 17 Missing Flight Track
Evergreen Park 5/13/19 10:09:49 75 DEP A319 17 Combined Event
Evergreen Park 5/13/19 13:19:02 69.1 DEP A319 17 Combined Event
Evergreen Park 5/13/19 14:48:16 73.2 DEP E170 17 Combined Event
Mueller Farm Park 5/13/19 15:53:02 73.2 DEP A321 17 Combined Event
Evergreen Park 5/15/19 13:28:13 69.1 DEP E75L 17 Combined Event
104
DNL
Measured DNL by Date
Measured DNL by Date
Date Evergreen Park Mueller Farm Park
5/2/2019 - 28.84
5/3/2019 51.07 50.21
5/4/2019 44.94 36.95
5/5/2019 - -
5/6/2019 39.57 42.47
5/7/2019 47.17 45.22
5/8/2019 43.68 47.75
5/9/2019 - -
5/10/2019 - 31.04
5/11/2019 46.46 49.85
5/12/2019 49.98 50.51
5/13/2019 51.26 52.85
5/14/2019 47.73 49.95
5/15/2019 47.33 47.87
Average 49.49 46.56
105
Measured vs. Modeled Aircraft DNL
Site
Modeled
ADNL
Measured
ADNL (+/-)
14 60.22 60.99 -0.77
16 62.01 63.22 -1.21
24 58.78 58.88 -0.10
25 52.58 50.57 2.01
35 52.67 51.19 1.48
37 48.89 47.47 1.42
38 51.06 50.36 0.70
39 52.12 51.81 0.31
72 - Mueller Farm Park 51.17 47.48 3.69
73 - Evergreen Park 49.49 46.56 2.93
106
WEATHER
Daily Observation – NOAA MSP Station
Date Day
Low
(f)
High
(f)
Rain
(in)
Wind
(mph)
5/2/2019 1 41 57 - 13
5/3/2019 2 35 62 0.15 17
5/4/2019 3 45 71 - 16
5/5/2019 4 49 64 - 20
5/6/2019 5 47 59 - 17
5/7/2019 6 40 63 - 15
5/8/2019 7 36 55 1.45 28
5/9/2019 8 35 54 0.02 25
5/10/2019 9 38 61 - 14
5/11/2019 10 42 65 0.01 22
5/12/2019 11 43 62 - 13
5/13/2019 12 40 67 - 13
5/14/2019 13 48 73 0.04 14
5/15/2019 14 54 76 0.12 13
107
Converging Runway Operations
At Minneapolis St. Paul International Airport
July 1, 2019
Background
On January 27, 2006, a near midair collision occurred at the Las Vegas-McCarran International
Airport when a landing Airbus executed a “go around”, as directed by the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) Air Traffic Control (ATC), to avoid a conflict with another aircraft that
was crossing the runway in front of it. The go around took the Airbus directly into the flight path
of a Boeing 757 that had just taken off from a crossing runway. While the two aircraft did not
collide, the subsequent investigation by the National Traffic Safety Administration (NTSB)
revealed that the near collision due to converging runway operations (CRO) was not an isolated
incident. The NTSB conducted a broader investigation of existing ATC procedures, and in July
2013, the NTSB made a safety recommendation to the FAA urging a change to existing
procedures and standards covering these types of events in ATC’s rulebook (FAA Order
7110.65), which it determined were inadequate..
In January and July 2014, the FAA issued changes to the ATC rulebook establishing new
separation standards and procedures where airport geometry presents the possibility of CRO, to
ensure that a landing aircraft executing a last minute go-around does not conflict with a departing
aircraft climbing away from a non-intersecting, but converging runway. As part of the new CRO
mitigation requirements, the FAA identified a limited number of tools that could assist in
developing local procedures to meet the new requirements.
In December 2015, the NTSB accepted the FAA’s actions and closed the safety recommendation
as acceptable.
CRO at Minneapolis St. Paul International Airport
Minneapolis St. Paul International Airport (MSP) has a runway geometry that creates a risk of
collision due to CRO under certain conditions: i.e., when the prevailing winds are from a
northerly direction, favoring takeoffs and landings on runway 30 Right (30R) and/or runway 30
Left (30L), and landings on runway 35. (Generally, aircraft depart into the wind because it
allows pilots to achieve a higher altitude in less time and with less speed, and aircraft land into
the wind since it allows for a shorter stopping distance and a reduced speed upon landing.)
Absent mitigation, this configuration presents a risk of a mid-air collision due to CRO. Prior to
the ATC rulebook changes, aircraft departing runway 30R and/or runway 30L could conflict
with an airplane needing to go around from an aborted approach while trying to land on runway
35.The FAA implements CRO procedures at MSP only when runway 35 is used for arrivals and
the prevailing winds are from the North.
One of the new mitigation tools specified by the changes to the ATC rulebook when there is a
risk of a CRO-related collision is use of the Arrival/Departure Window (ADW). This tool uses
radar to show an aircraft’s position relative to a software generated “window” or box displayed
108
on the air traffic control screen at the extended final centerline of a runway. At MSP, Air Traffic
tower controllers use the ADW displayed for runway 35 to determine when a departing aircraft
can start its takeoff roll from runway 30L and/or runway 30R. An aircraft cannot start its takeoff
roll on runway 30L and/or 30R when an aircraft is inside the runway 35 ADW. A takeoff roll
can begin after the aircraft landing on runway 35 has exited the ADW.
While the CRO process has worked well from a safety perspective, it has adversely effected
efficiency of the MSP runways 30L, 30R and 35 configuration at the higher traffic levels. Prior
to FAA implementation of CRO mitigations, runway 30R and runway 35 configuration was the
most efficient for MSP when the winds were from the North. Under those conditions, the FAA
was able to achieve landing rates of 75-90 aircraft per hour. Since implementation of CRO
requirements in 2014, the efficiency of the runway landings using the runways 30L, 30R and 35
configuration at MSP has decreased to 75-84 aircraft per hour. This is because of the increased
spacing between aircraft required to meet the constraints of the ADW. This increased separation
has also led to ATC distributing additional arrival traffic that would have landed on runway 35
prior to the CRO mitigations to runway 30L and runway 30R.
The FAA has worked with the MAC to identify possible mitigations that would improve the
landing efficiency rates while ensuring the safety of the airspace around MSP. We believe we
have achieved optimal utilization given the existing state of technology. In January 2019, the
FAA completed a 180-day testing period of a new standardized process to support demand-based
CRO. Under the new process, MSP air traffic will only use runway 35 for arrivals (and
implement the CRO mitigations) when demand at the airport justifies the use of the runway.
Currently there are three, well-defined arrival/departure “banks” at MSP when traffic demand is
at its highest points (Monday through Friday at 7AM, 4PM and 6PM), when such a need has
been demonstrated.
The results of the 180-day test have been incorporated into Standard Operating Procedure (SOP)
in all three of the MSP District ATC facilities (ATCT, TRACON and ARTCC) that control air
traffic into and out of the MSP airport. Because the criteria for implementing CRO is demand-
based, the times that CRO may be implemented under the SOP can shift as arrival/departure
banks shift. Likewise, new periods of CRO may be implemented as demand requires. Many
internal processes and controls are in place to ensure that the new CRO mitigation process
supports safety, real demand, and arrival and departure efficiency.
The FAA is in the process of evaluating the appropriate level of environmental review to assess
and disclose potential adverse impacts of changes in runway use because of the implementation
of CRO procedures at MSP. The agency hopes to provide the MSP Noise Oversight Committee
(NOC) with an update at the September 2019 NOC meeting.
109
110
111
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Final Environmental Assessment and Finding
of No Significant Impact (FONSI) / Record of
Decision (ROD)
112
F-30
113
F-31
X
114
F-32
Y
Z
115
F-33
AA
116
F-34
BB
CC
117
F-35
DD
EE
FF
GG
118
F-36
HH
II
119
F-37
JJ
KK
LL
120
F-38
MM
NN
121
F-39
OO
122
F-40
PP
QQ
123
F-41
Commenter ID Subject Summary of Comments on EA Response
Mr. Jamie
Verbrugge,
Assistant City
Administrator – City
of Eagan
A Lacking Options Specific to the four points on the slide
Mr. Leqve showed regarding the
screening according to population
impact, noise redistribution, aircraft
over-flight, and feasibility, I find the
options that were presented in the
Environmental Assessment lacking in
that there was no option that showed
a limited flight demand. That has
been repeatedly requested from the
City of Eagan. I was a participant on
the south City Working Group. I
understand that process. I disagreed
with it then, I disagree with it now.
The process of establishing viable
alternatives for noise reducing
departure procedures off of Runway
17 was a significant element of the
work conducted on the development
of the 2000 Part 150 Update Noise
Compatibility Program (NCP). The
Runway 17-35 City Working Group,
comprised of representatives from the
cities of Bloomington, Burnsville,
Eagan and Apple Valley was the
primary review agent in the process of
establishing an appropriate departure
procedure and evaluated several
options. All of the options evaluated
by the Runway 17-35 City Working
Group included significant input from
local FAA to ensure feasibility relative
to runway safety, capacity and ATC
implementation feasibility.
Considering these elements, in
concert with the overall goal of
reducing noise close into the airport,
the group established the options that
were evaluated in this EA.
The tragic events of September 11,
2001, have led to increased security
and reduced activity at MSP and
other airports nationwide. Although
the construction of Runway 17-35
was proposed and planned prior to
Sept ember 11, 2001, the runway
would still meet important needs at
MSP as evaluated in the May 1998
EIS and approved in the September
1998 ROD for the planned expansion
projects at MSP. Operations at the top
ten airports in the United States are
down 5.4% for January through
August of 2002 as compared to the
same period in 2001.30 Although
MSP, with hubbing operations by
Northwest Airlines, is up by 2.4% in
January through December 2002 as
compared to the same time period in
2001. 31 Although this growth may not
represent the rate of growth that may
have been experienced without the
events of September 11, the degree
of capacity demands still remains an
issue at the reduced rate of growth.
In the past, aviation activity has
30 ACI-NA data.
31 MAC Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System (ANOMS) data.
124
F-42
undergone significant, although
temporary, reductions in response to
economic downturns or security
events such as the Persian Gulf War,
but recovered in the long term.
Considering this, the concept of
predicating the operation of a runway
on reduced operation numbers at
MSP would be unsubstantiated and
inconsistent with long-term trends.
The intent of building Runway 17-35
at Minneapolis -St. Paul International
airport is to add approximately 25%
additional capacity. Developing
strategies to curtail operations on the
runway prior to its opening or make
runway operational assumptions that
the demand will not require full
utilization of the runway is counter to
the rationale for expending public
money for the development of the
new runway.
B Removal of Track A The City of Eagan has repeatedly
requested that Flight Track A be
removed from operation, and our
reasons, I think, are sound.
The process of establishing a runway
departure operation scheme different
than what was outlined in the FEIS for
Runway 17-35 included several
mutually agreed (communities -
including Eagan, FAA and airlines)
upon considerations. As part of the
discussions by the Runway 17-35 City
Working Group, it was determined
that the geographical features south
of MSP (Minnesota River Valley)
provided a unique opportunity for
aircraft departing to destinations west
of runway heading relative to the
Minnesota River Valley and its
orientation with the departure end of
Runway 17. Conversely, aircraft
departing east of runway heading
would be overflying predominantly
non-resident ial areas in the City of
Bloomington immediately after
departure and proceed to overfly the
Minnesota River Valley in a
perpendicular manner before
proceeding over the City of Eagan.
The City of Eagan’s border with the
Minnesota River Valley consists of
homogenous residential
development. As such, there is not
one place that is better than another
to concentrate aircraft over-flights.
Therefore, the group’s approach was
to maintain all of the FEIS flight tracks
for departure operations east of
125
F-43
runway heading to avoid
concentrating flights over any one
residential area. The elimination of
flight track A would cause Track H to
experience increased usage posing
increased noise impacts, above the
FEIS assumptions, for the residents of
Eagan living in the vicinity of Track H.
As a result elimination of Track A was
not pursued.
C Use of 65 dB DNL By simply using the high-noise area
of 65 DNL or 60 DNL, we are limiting
the understanding of what impact
noise has on communities.
The use of the 65 dB DNL contour as
the primary determinate for
quantifying airport noise impacts is
predicated on a history of federal
analysis on noise dose and response.
The 60 dB DNL is considered, as
well, to further ensure adequate noise
impact assessment. Furthermore, the
EA also depicts noise impacts using
the Sound Exposure Level (SEL)
metric.
The FAA has endorsed the use of the
Day -Night Average Sound Level
(DNL) metric as the appropriate
metric for quantifying noise impacts
around airports. The endorsement of
DNL as an appropriat e metric for
quantifying impact is shared by the
Department of Defense (DoD) and
the Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD). DNL has
been extensively evaluated over the
years by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), FAA and the Federal
Interagency Committee On Noise
(FICON). A federally recognized
mechanism for quantifying DNL
airport noise impacts is the Integrated
Noise Model (INM).
The Integrated Noise Model (INM) is
used to specifically assess the noise
impact of aircraft operations. INM
utilizes input files consisting of
information relative to runway use,
flight track use, aircraft fleet mix,
aircraft performance/thrust settings,
topography information and
atmospheric conditions to generate a
Noise Exposure Map (NEM).
The computer model generates
contours (typically represented in five
DNL increments) that depict an
annualized average day of aircraft
noise impacts. The DNL contours
126
F-44
generated are the focal point of
assessing noise impacts around
airports. The method for quantifying
airc raft -specific noise characteristics
in INM is accomplished through the
use of a comprehensive noise
database, which has been developed
under the requirements of Federal
Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 36. As
part of the airworthiness certification
process, aircraft manufacturers are
required to subject the aircraft to a
battery of noise tests. Through the
use of federally adopted and
endorsed algorithms this aircraft -
specific noise information is utilized in
the generation of INM DNL contours.
Justifications for such an approach
are rooted in national standardization
of noise quantification at our nation’s
airports and a significant amount of
federal research.
D Noise Redistribution The new runway at MSP is going to
redistribute noise, which immediately
violates the screening criteria for this
operational procedure, because the
noise that is being redistributed is
being dumped on the city of Eagan.
It is true that the introduction of the
new runway at MSP will shift aircraft
over-flight from MSP to new
residential areas. This was reviewed
and addressed in the FEIS and the
September 23, 1998 Record of
Decision (ROD) that facilitated the
construction of the runway. However,
for the purpose of this EA, noise
redistribution is evaluated relative to a
base consist ing of the departure flight
tracks outlined in the FEIS. When
evaluating the proposed procedures
from the FEIS baseline, they meet the
noise redistribution criteria.
E Mitigation Eligibility Nearly 50 percent, one out of every
two flights in and out of this airport,
will fly over the city of Eagan when
that new runway is operational, and
yet we have no identified single-family
residential areas within the noise-
impact area considered to be eligible
for soundproofing by the Federal
Aviation Administration off the new
runway. And yet all of those folks will
be experiencing new noise that hasn't
been experienced in the past.
The FAA has established the 65 dB
DNL as the threshold for significant
noise. Neither the 65 dB nor 60 dB
DNL contours extend to residential
areas within the City of Eagan south
of MSP. Areas within the City of
Eagan located outside of the 65 and
60 dB DNL contours will not be
eligible for mitigation. The Dual-Track
FEIS did not provide for mitigation
outside of the mentioned noise
contours.
See response to Comment C.
F Criteria for Noise
Redistribution
I would challenge that having one
community absorb one out of every
two flights at this airport meets the
criteria of noise redistribution.
See response to Comments B and D.
G Modification of Only
West -Bound Tracks
Several times during the presentation,
Mr. Leqve mentioned concerns
As part of the review process for
Runway 17-35, the Environmental
127
F-45
specifically about over-flights of Apple
Valley and Burnsville, which I find
ironic, since Apple Valley is beyond
Eagan, yet Eagan wasn't mentioned.
At points off the end of that runway,
residents are two miles off the end of
the runway. The nearest point in
Apple Valley is approximately seven.
So I'm left wondering why it is that five
of ten flight tracks off of one runway
can be distributed over one
community, and yet we concern
ourselves with only the westward
departures.
Impact Statement (EIS) and Record
of Decision (ROD) stated that noise
abatement measures could evaluate
departure tracks off Runway 17 in an
effort to avoid populated areas in
close proximity to MSP, specifically in
the City of Bloomington. Thus, the
Runway 17-35 City Working Group
investigated departure flight track
options off Runway 17 throughout the
2000 MSP Part 150 Update process.
The EIS contained a series of
proposed flight tracks off Runway 17,
which included tracks “A” through “G”
and provided a 190o fan from a 95o
departure heading clockwise to a 285o
departure heading. Using these tracks
as a starting point, the group began
an evaluation of possible flight track
options off Runway 17. Throughout
the process, an effort was made to
consider procedures to ensure that
aircraft of varying performance
capabilities could avoid populated
areas as much as possible while en-
route to their destinations utilizing
non-sensitive land use areas for
aircraft over-flights.
The goals relative to the Runway 17
departure flight track analysis were as
follows:
· Reduce noise impacts
within the 60 DNL contour
· Avoid increased over-
flights (relative to the
approved FEIS flight
tracks) of other
communities
· Maintain runway capacity
· Ensure feasible
implementation by FAA/Air
Traffic Control (ATC)
· Provide positive guidance
to aircraft so they can
reasonably follow desired
flight tracks
· Allow for possible future
transition to Flight
Management System
(FMS) /Global Positioning
System (GPS) navigation.
With the above goals as the
cornerstone of the evaluation efforts,
128
F-46
several options were discussed. The
evaluations included possible
departure track fanning
concentrations, as well as various
aircraft operational procedures.
After significant review, a
recommendation was made by the
Runway 17-35 City Working Group,
and later supported by MASAC, that
operations that have initial departure
headings east of runway heading
(headings from 170o to 95o), over the
City of Eagan, would initiate their
turns as soon as possible when
departing from Runway 17. This
determination was made because
there is no one flight path considered
“better” than another when departing
to the southeast over the existing
residentially developed areas of
Eagan. (This is consistent with the
EIS documentation for Runway 17.)
When conducting the same
evaluation for departure headings
west of runway centerline (headings
from 170o to 285o), two main
considerations arose: (1) Heavily
residential developed areas exist west
of runway heading almost
immediately off the runway and (2)
the Minnesota River Valley south of
the airport offers an area where
departure operations could overfly in
an effort to reduce residential over-
flight impacts close-in to the airport.
As a result of the deliberations, a
delayed turn point off runway heading
(170o) for westbound jet departures
offered a solution that reduced the
number of residents within the 2005
Contour while meeting all of the
goals/criteria for the new procedure.
As a result of evaluations and
comprehensive input from the
Runway 17-35 City Working Group,
which included Eagan, the
recommended Runway 17 departure
tracks include departure turns as soon
as possible for departures east of
170o to 95o and a 2.5 nautical mile
turn point (from start of takeoff roll) as
determined by Distance Measuring
Equipment (DME) for westbound
departures. At this point, jet departure
operations would turn from runway o
129
F-47
heading (170o) to westbound
departure headings between 170o
and 285o.
H Review of Noise
Impact
The opportunity that I think was
missed by the Airports Commission,
as I stated, was to challenge the
assumptions in reviewing how noise
impact is reviewed. There are impacts
that go beyond 65 DNL and 60 DNL.
There are impacts that go beyond
whether a home should be
soundproofed or not.
See response to Comments C and D.
I Flights Over Eagan With this new runway, the
Metropolitan Airports Commission
has paid over $20 million to mitigate
the impact on the birds and the
critters in the Minnesota River Valley,
and yet we're going to dump one out
of every two flights on the city of
Eagan with no mitigation whatsoever.
I find that ironic.
The residential areas in Eagan are
located beyond the 2005 65 dB and
60 dB DNL contours south of MSP.
As such, per 14 CFR Part 150
guidelines they do not meet the
impact criteria for noise mitigation in
the form of residential sound
insulation.
J Phased
Implementation of
Runway 17
First of all, we think that a phased
integration of Runway 17 through the
runway -use system should be
implemented. The justification for a
new runway is its ability to increase
capacity at an airport, and the
runway -use system should therefore
provide -- at Runway 17-35 should
only be used as capacity dictates and
therefore only maximized in its use
when it must be operational by
reaching the originally projected high
forecast levels.
Operational delay considerations and
demand drive the construc tion of new
runways, not a restricted nature of
operating them once they are built.
Considering the recovery of
operations following September 11,
2001 at MSP to-date, the future traffic
demands at MSP as outlined in the
Dual Track Planning Process FEIS
still apply and is anticipated to require
the full utilization of Runway 17-35
once it is available. The same
demand and operation delay
considerations in the FEIS apply
today.
K Monitoring Flight
Track Use
I further suggest that constant
monitoring should be utilized to verify
the accuracy of runway flight track
use modeling. Technical reports from
the Airports Commission should detail
on a monthly basis the periods of time
when conditions were appropriate to
use the runway -use system and
compare that to how often the
runway -use system is used.
The MAC has agreed to pursue a
high degree of operation and noise
information dissemination to the
public. Through continued
development of reports, analyses,
Internet reporting capabilities on the
MAC Noise Programs website
(www.macnoise.com), continued
quarterly public noise input meetings,
MAC staff support to the MSP Noise
Oversight Committee (NOC), and the
quarterly MSP News newsletter,
information will continue to be made
readily available to the general public
regarding the use of MSP and the
new runway.
L RUS and the Use of
the Corridor
The Eagan-Mendota Heights corridor
remains the most friendly area, if such
a word can be used, for overhead
aircraft noise. Failure to utilize the
runway -use system prioritizing in this
The use of the Eagan – Mendota
Heights Corridor remains the highest
priority in the Runway Use System.
Although, as in the past, the use of
the Corridor in the RUS is not
130
F-48
area undermines all the previous
efforts of land planning by the City of
Eagan.
exclusive.
M RUS Use and
Public Notification
If the actual runway -use system
deviates from available runway -use
system periods, MAC and the FAA
should be required to immediately
schedule a public hearing to explain
to the surrounding communiti es the
extent to which affected persons can
expect operational standards will be
adhered to.
Runway use depends on many
factors including wind, weather
conditions, and aircraft operational
capabilities. The review and
communication of runway use
information will be conducted via the
MSP NOC and the quarterly noise
public input meetings.
N Public Meeting on
Flight Track Use
Within 13 months of the opening of
Runway 17-35, the Airports
Commission should hold a public
meeting to detail use percentages for
each flight track off Runway 17 in the
first 12 months of operation on a
monthly basis and an aggregate.
This information will be periodically
included as part of the quarterly noise
public input meetings.
O Reevaluation when
Flight Track Use
Deviations Occur
Recognizing again the computer
modeling of various inputs is the
primary basis for generating those
percentages, any significant deviation
of those percentages, which is a
number that can be agreed upon in
the surrounding communities, should
immediately trigger a re-opening of
the environmental review with an eye
towards adjusting the 60 dB DNL
contour to reflect actual conditions.
The City of Eagan can propose such
evaluation and discussion via the
city’s membership on the MSP NOC.
P Non-Operating
Alternative to
Reduce Delay
The City of Eagan recognizes the
stressor of delay on airport capacity.
To the extent the delay is not
significantly reduced by the inclusion
of Runway 17, the Airports
Commission should vigorously
pursue non-operating alternatives to
reducing delay.
The intent of constructing Runway 17-
35 was to address the delay issues at
MSP. The new runway adds
approximately 25% capacity to the
facility. Per legislative mandate the
MAC is responsible for developing
and promoting aviation activities in the
metropolitan area. As such, non-
operating alternatives are contrary to
the MAC goal of providing adequate
facilities, and access to them, for
airport tenants.
Q Slot Allocations Slot allocations to minimize over-
scheduling at peak periods by airport
users should be considered by the
Airports Commission and the FAA,
and similarly congestion pricing
should occur as market solutions for
the aforementioned over-scheduling
alternative that the MAC and the FAA
should investigate.
See response to comment P.
Mr. Kenneth A.
Westlake, Chief
Environmental
Planning and
Evaluation Branch
Office of Strategic
R Noise Reduction
Goal
After conducting our review, EPA has
concluded that the project’s goal of
reducing the population within 2005
60 and 65 dB DNL noise contours
while minimizing noise exposure to
communities outside of the 60 dB
Comment noted.
131
F-49
Environmental
Analysis - EPA
DNL contour will be obtained by the
proposed action.
S Mitigation in the 65
dB DNL
It appears that all the appropriate
residential properties within the 65
DNL contour have been identified for
the necessary noise mitigation, as
required by FAA regulations and
policy, including 11 residential
dwellings that will experience an
increase in noise under the proposed
action.
Ten residential dwellings are
approved for acquisition; the
remaining two dwellings are on a
farmstead that will be offered noise
mitigation through the MSP Part 150
Residential Sound Insulation
Program. Efforts to negotiate
acquisition of this property were
unsuccessful as part of the mitigation
efforts throughout the development of
the prior Final EIS.
Mr. Brian Timerson,
Noise Program
Coordinator - MPCA
T Noise Reduction
Goal
While the operation of an additional
runway is logistically complicated, the
MPCA believe s that the
recommended 2.5 Nautical Mile Turn
Point Procedure with a River
Departure Procedure and River
Heading Flight Track minimizes the
noise exposure to the surrounding
residential land uses.
Comment noted.
U 2000 MSP Part 150
Update
Regarding the 2000 MSP Part 150
update, the MPCA noise program
agrees that it is appropriate to
withdraw the part 150 update and
resubmit it with updated information in
light of the changes incurred by the
aviation industry. Although it is not
ideal, for comparative purposes, the
MPCA believes it is appropriate to
use the 2000 Base Case and 2005
forecast contour to analyze aircraft
noise for departures off the Runway
17.
Comment noted.
V Screening Process The MPCA supports the basis of the
screening analysis procedure and
believes it was an effective method to
organize and quantify the four
evaluation criteria of population
impact, noise redistribution, aircraft
over-flights, and feasibility. The
evaluation criteria equitably defined
the concerns that the MPCA has
rec ognized to be of significant
annoyance to citizens who live near
airports. The MPCA supports the
use of River Departure Procedure
and the River Departure Heading 2.5
NM turn-point procedure that
minimizes the noise exposure to
areas in the City of Bloomington that
will be exposed to noise levels they
were not previously exposed to
significant amounts of aircraft. The
utilization of the river corridor for
departure aircraft activity is very
Comment noted.
132
F-50
effective in minimizing the exposure
of aircraft noise to residential areas.
W Evaluation Process The MPCA commends the MAC’s
cooperative work with the FAA
regarding the creation and
deployment of the River Departure
Procedure and the River Departure
Heading. The entire process of
equitable distribut ion of aircraft noise
is a difficult task that is unlikely to
please all parties involved. The
MPCA believes that choosing a noise
descriptor such as the 65 DNL noise
contour, and using relevant,
quantifiable, evaluation criteria and
basing the recommended alternative
on these parameters is fair and
effective. Considering the limited
variables available to minimize noise
from aircraft activity the MAC has
done an excellent job utilizing these
parameters to develop a departure
plan that has significant nois e
minimizing characteristics.
Comment noted.
Mr. M Thomas
Lawell, City
Administrator – City
of Apple Valley
X Noise Reduction
Goal
Based on this noise evaluation
presented in the EA, the City of Apple
Valley supports the adoption of the
revised Runway 17 departure
procedure described as
Environmental Assessment
Alternative E. This alternative appears
to best utilize the less developed
portions of the Minnesota River area
for departing aircraft operations, and
thereby lessens the impact on more
developed areas. It also has the
potential benefit of lessoning the
impact on the Minnesota Zoo, which
is concerned about noise impacts on
their animal collection. Common
sense should prevail and aircraft
departing Runway 17 Should take
every opportunity possible to overfly
the less developed areas made
possible by the Minnesota River
corridor.
Comment noted.
Y Approach Paths The City of Apple Valley wishes to
take this opportunity to urge the
Metropolitan Airports Commission to
reevaluate the “straight -in approach”
path assumption. If use of the
Minnesota River corridor makes
sense for departing aircraft, the same
corridor makes equal sense when
accommodating aircraft arrivals.
As part of the consideration for
reducing noise impacts on Runway
17-35, arrival aircraft flows to Runway
35 have been considered, as well.
This has been documented and
outlined in elements of the 2000 MSP
Part 150 Update NCP. Although not
part of this proposal, implementation
of such measures will require
additional review, coordination,
navigational technology and FAA
ATC implementation research.
133
F-51
ATC implementation research.
Z Approach via the
River Corridor
Figure A-3 clearly indicates that
intercepts of the final approach
course can and will occur in a fashion
that will overfly the Minnesota River
corridor. We commend the MAC for
acknowledging the practicality of
these approach paths, and request
that a greater portion of aircraft
arriving Runway 35 be assigned to
intercept the approach course via the
Minnesota River corridor. At your
earliest convenience, we would
request an opportunity to meet with
you to discuss how such a revision in
the Runway 35 arrival flight tracks
may be accomplished.
See response to comment Y. MAC
staff is willing to discuss this topic with
the City of Apple Valley.
Mr. Larry Lee,
Director of
Community
Development – City
of Bloomington
AA Support for the
Departure
Procedure as
Outlined in the EA
I have reviewed the Environmental
Assessment for the departure
procedure for aircraft departing on
MSP Runway 17. I found the
procedures evaluated in the EA to be
consistent with those developed
during the 2005 Part 150 update
(currently being revised as the 2007
Part 150 update). The departure
procedures were primarily developed
at the City of Bloomington’s request in
order to mitigate noise impacts on
residential areas in the City of
Bloomington. The City continues to
value and to support the departure
procedures as described in the
Environmental Assessment.
Comment noted.
Mr. Gerald S. Duffy,
Legal Counsel to
Owners of Spruce
Shadows Farms
BB Deficient Analysis The draft EA is significantly deficient
in its analysis of the environmental
impact on our client’s property.
Additional analysis of the Spruce
Shadows Farms property has been
added in sections 5.2.2, 6.1.2.4 and
6.6 of this EA.
CC Spruce S hadows
Farms Property
To suggest that the 75 dB DNL noise
levels are compatible with the use of
this property as contemplated by the
landowner is a serious deficiency in
the analysis conducted for the draft
EA. The property currently has
several residential housing units on it
with its principal use as agricultural.
However, this property has for some
time been proposed for development
as mixed use residential and
commercial in accordance with the
City of Bloomington’s comprehensive
guide plan and current zoning. It is
absurd to suggest that a large piece
of property such as this which is
adjacent to some of the most
expensive development property in
the seven-county metropolitan area
This EA assesses the impacts of the
proposed departure procedures off
Runway 17 on the existing land uses
in the environment south of MSP.
FAA Order 1050.1D does not outline
a farmstead land use as a sensitive
land use within the 65 dB DNL
contour. Nevertheless, additional
analysis of the proposed use of the
farm property has been added in
sections 5.2.2, 6.1.2.4 and 6.6 of this
EA. As part of the Dual Track
Planning Process effort and the
associated FEIS, a Historic
Preservation Agreement was
established between the FAA,
Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation, Minnesota State
Preservation Officer and the MAC.
134
F-52
should be analyzed as “agricultural”
for noise mitigation which will take
place in the future.
Preservation Officer and the MAC.
The agreement commits MAC to the
development of a treatment plan for
the Spruce Shadows Farms Historic
District, which has a farmstead land
use. The plan will include a schedule
for completing the treatment. MAC will
develop and implement the plan in
consultation with the property owner,
the SHPO and the FAA. The plan will
be submitted to the SHPO for their
concurrence, prior to implementation.
The 1996 Dual Track Legislation
required the MAC to form a
committee to develop a noise
mitigation plan for MSP based on
future airport development. As part of
the MSP Noise Mitigation Committee
discussions, the City of Bloomington
recommended that the MAC acquire
certain residential properties that
would be in high DNL noise zones
associated with activity on Runway
17-35. The City of Bloomington
communicated with its residents in the
high impact areas to establish the
form of mitigation (insulation or
acquisition) desired by the
home/landowners and then presented
a request to MAC.
The City of Bloomington, as a result of
a number of comments made over
time by the owners of the Spruce
Shadows Farms, was aware that the
owner’s did not want the structures on
the property insulated and did not
want to sell the property. Other
property owners around the farm
opted for acquisition. As a result, the
City of Bloomington requested that
MAC acquire a total of 30 single-
family units and 131 multi-family units
within the 2005 65 dB DNL contour
consistent with the requests the city
received from its residents. With
respect to the Spruce Shadows
Farms property, the city specifically
requested that the Spruce Shadows
Farms property not be acquired due
to the high probability of the owners’
redevelopment of the property and
the ultimate removal of the dwellings.
The city also acknowledged that the
dwellings would most likely be eligible
for sound insulation under the MSP
135
F-53
Part 150 program. MAC remains
committed to the mitigation outlined in
the FEIS and to honoring the requests
thus far made from the city.
In June 2001, the Spruce Shadows
Farms property owner proposed the
construction of a mixed-use
office/residential development on the
property. The proposed development
poses significant issues with the new
Runway 17-35 relative to required
obstruction criteria off the end of the
runway.
The cities surrounding MSP, including
the City of Bloomington, have agreed
to several preventative and corrective
land use measures as outlined in the
existing 14 CFR Part 150 NCP.
These provisions include several
items including the establishment of
zoning for compatible development
around the airport, application of
zoning performance standards and
revised building codes in airport noise
impact areas.
The future development of the Spruce
Shadows Farms property should be
subject to the criteria stipulated by the
city and the MSP Zoning Ordinance.
The Joint Airport Zoning Board
(JAZB) recently reconvened to
develop airspace (height) and land
use safety regulations associated with
the alignment of the new Runway 17-
35 at MSP. Both the proposed
airspace and safety zones affect the
Spruce Shadows Farms Property.
The entire property is currently
proposed for inclusion in State Safety
Zone B. Properties in State Safety
Zone B have several development
criteria as established by the state
standards. Each use shall be on a site
whose area shall not be less than
three acres. Each use shall not
create, attract, or bring together a si te
population that would exceed 15
times that of the site acreage. Each
site shall have no more than one
building plot upon which any number
of structures may be erected. A
building plot shall be a single, uniform,
and non-contrived area, whose shape
136
F-54
is uncomplicated and whose area
shall not exceed established minimum
ratios with respect to total site area.32
Currently, the City of Bloomington has
put a moratorium on the approval of
any development (including the
Spruce Shadows Farms Property) in
the airport south area pending final
action by the JAZB.
DD Acquisition Program There is no truth to the statement that
the landowner has not expressed an
interest in participating in the
acquisition program. It is deceptive
and fraudulent to make the
irresponsible statement that the
landowner has not expressed an
interest in the program. The
landowner has objected vehemently
in writing to the proposed
condemnation of landowners both
east and west of the subject property
while ignoring our client’s property.
MAC has avoided any discussion with
the landowner because MAC does
not want to have to pay the current
fair market value for this property.
The landowner has, on numerous
occasions, attempted to enter into
discussions with MAC over
acquisition of this property which will
be totally devalued by the
implementation of the departure
procedure off Runway 17.
Furthermore, MAC has been actively
working behind the scene to prevent
the landowner’s development plan
from being approved by the City of
Bloomington.
Through discussions with the City of
Bloomington the MAC has been
unable to locate any documentation of
written letters that confirm the
landowners’ objections, nor has the
MAC been directly contacted by the
landowners to discuss property
acquisition. Therefore, the facts
support the statement in the Draft EA
that the landowner has not expressed
an interest in participating in the
acquisition program. The facts
emphatically do not support Mr.
Gerald F. Duffy’s accusations that
information in the Draft EA was
untruthful, deceptive and fraudulent.
First, the owners of Spruce Shadows
Farms have repeatedly said “no” to
acquisition of the property. As noted
in Response CC above, the City of
Bloomington has communicated often
over the past few years with the
owners of Spruce Shadows Farms
(then known as the Kelley Farm) on
the subject of noise mitigation through
insulation or acquisition. The owners
have consistently advised the City of
Bloomington that they did not want
the buildings insulated and did not
want the property acquired.
Accordingly, the City of Bloomington
did not include the Spruce Shadows
Farms property in its formal request to
MAC for acquisition of properties
related to new Runway 17-35, citing
the high probability that the owners
would develop the property and
remove the dwellings.
Second, the public record
demonstrates that the owners of
Spruce Shadows Farms have not
sought acquisition of their property.
32 Minnesota Rule 8800.2400 Airport Zoning Standards, Sub Part 6, provision C.
137
F-55
On April 3, 2001, MAC’s Planning and
Environment Committee held a public
hearing on the City of Bloomington’s
requested property acquisitions and
MAC’s intent to authorize such
acquisitions. Mr. Gerald Duffy
appeared before the Committee as
legal counsel for the landowner and
asked to clarify MAC’s intentions with
regard to the 59 acre Kelley Farm
property (now Spruce Shadows
Farms). Mr. Duffy then asked for a
statement from MAC “that, in fact, the
acquisition we’re talking about today
does not include that 59 acres.” Mr.
Nigel Finney responded on behalf of
MAC stating, “The area that Mr. Duffy
has identified is not included in this
current acquisition.” Mr. Duffy
responded “Thank you very much.”
and sat down. Mr. Duffy did not
object to the acquisition of the
landowners to the east and west of
Spruce Shadows Farms, nor did he
ask that MAC acquire the Spruce
Shadows Farms property.
Third, no evidence supports the
assertion that, “The landowner has,
on numerous occasions, attempted to
enter into discussions with MAC over
acquisition of this property.” Gerald S.
Duffy having had many opportunities ,
including professional
correspondence to MAC, public
meetings, the written record and his
oral testimony, has never requested
acquisition of Spruce Shadows
Farms. And as far as MAC can
determine, no written correspondence
has been sent to MAC requesting
acquisition of this property by the
Spruce Shadows Farms owners or its
counsel. No MAC staff members
recall any attempts by the owners or
their counsel to enter into discussions
with MAC concerning acquisition of
Spruce Shadows Farms. The
unanimous silence on this issue
confirms the statement in the Draft
EA. (In a letter dated October 2,
2002, commenting on the Public
Comment And Hearing Draft,
September 4, 2002, Minneapolis-St.
Paul International Airport (Wold-
Chamberlain Field) Zoning Ordinance
Amendment, counsel for Spruce
138
F-56
Shadows Farms did characterize
MAC’s decision to acquire residential
property east and west of Spruce
Shadows Farms without acquiring the
Farms property as “wholly capricious
and arbitrary.” But nowhere in this
letter did counsel request that MAC
acquire Spruce Shadows Farms.)
The owners of Spruce Shadows
Farms have filed a proposed
development plan for the property
with the City of Bloomington and are
engaged in litigation with the city over
the plan. The allegation that Spruce
Shadows Farms will be totally
devalued by implementation of the
departure procedure off
Runway 17-35 is conclusory and
without foundation. Further, the
allegation is not supported by the
existing property value trends within
the airport south area or by
de velopment efforts taking place
around the Spruce Shadows Farms
property.
Finally, MAC has not been working
behind the scenes with the City of
Bloomington regarding the
development of properties south of
MSP.
EE ANOMS Monitoring
Coverage
Additionally, the discussion in the
draft EA regarding current and
possible future Airport Noise and
Operations Monitoring Systems (or
ANOMS) coverage illustrates the
failure of MAC to consider the noise
impact upon our client’s property.
The figure at Appendix B shows that
there are no existing Remote
Monitoring Towers (RMTs) anywhere
in the vicinity of the property nor are
any even planned. It is clear that the
property has been, at best,
deliberately ignored in this noise
assessment.
The data collected by ANOMS noise
monitors was not used in the
development of noise contours
because it would have been of no
use. Runway 17/35 has not yet been
constructed and has no operations to
or from it. Therefore, ANOMS data
could not have been used to depict
present day or future noise impacts
resulting from the operation of
Runway 17/35.
The Runway 17-35 RMT Location
Taskforce was the responsible body
for locating the noise monitors relative
to Runway 17-35 operations. The City
of Bloomington was a member of the
taskforce. The taskforce considered
the future impacts of the new runway
in optimizing the location of the noise
monitors south of MSP.
The MAC ultimately approves or
rejects the location of noise monitors.
Any requests for the installation of
139
F-57
noise monitors at new sites should be
made to MAC.
The location of the new noise
monitors does provide monitoring
coverage of the Spruce Shadows
Farms property.
FF Consideration of the
Spruce Shadows
Farms Property
The stated purpose of the draft EA is
to discuss and implement noise
abatement departure procedures on
Runway 17, avoiding populated areas
to the south and west of the airport.
Runway 17-35’s closest “neighbor” to
the south has been ignored and must
be included in the final EA if the
document is to serve its stated
purposed under FAA regulations
relating to environmental review of
potential aircraft departure
procedures as outlined in FAA Order
1050.1D.
The EA considers all existing
sensitive land uses south of the
airport. Additional analysis of the
proposed use of the Spruce Shadows
Farms property has been added in
sections 5.2.2, 6.1.2.4 and 6.6. The
property is considered as part of the
Historic Preservation Agreement in
the FEIS. The MAC remains
committed to addressing the
mitigation of the Spruce Shadows
Farms Historic District property in the
manner outlined in the FEIS.
GG Mitigation Steps To adequately address the noise
mitigation requirements imposed
upon the MAC for the environmental
degradation of our client’s property
once Runway 17 is in operation, the
draft EA must analyze what mitigation
steps MAC must take to ameliorate
the noise impacts upon this property
as developed for both residential and
commercial uses. Any analysis that
ignores the developed use of this
property is simply defective, if not
deliberately aimed at abusing the
environmental assessment process.
The concept of property devaluation is
not supported by the existing trends
within the airport south area and other
development efforts taking place
around the Spruce Shadows Farms
property.
The existing structures on the
property will be provided noise
insulation via the Part 150 Residential
Sound Insulation Program at MSP in
a form consistent with the landowners’
input and the review and approval of
the SHPO.
Mayor Patricia
Awada – City of
Eagan
HH Elimination of Flight
Track A
The City of Eagan continues to
strenuously object to the wide area
fanning associated with the proposed
action, Alternative E and all of the
other alternatives considered.
Recognizing that the draft EA is
intended to identify the environmental
impacts of alternatives related to a
number of departure procedures, the
City remains adamant that an
alternative showing elimination of
Flight Track A should have been
considered as part of the analysis.
As we have stated for the record on
many occasions, the existence of
Flight Track A creates complete
community saturation over the
residents, businesses, and open
spaces of Eagan. By including that
flight track, the Metropolitan Airports
Commission (MAC) and the Federal
See response to comments B and E.
140
F-58
Aviat ion Administration (FAA) have
left no safe harbor in our community
from the harmful and annoying
impacts of aircraft noise. Rather,
Eagan will have effectively become
the dumping ground for aircraft
operations at MSP with nearly 50% of
all operations at t his airport traversing
over and through our boundaries. It is
wholly unacceptable then that the
FAA/ MAC analysis of departure
procedures for Runway 17 should do
nothing to take into account our
community’s concerns.
II Use of DNL
Contours
The basis for the unduly narrow FAA/
MAC analysis of departure
procedures for Runway 17 is
apparently the application of an
outdated and restrictive FAA theorem
that the 60 dB DNL contour is the
sole arbiter of noise impacts. There i s
no consideration of total community
impact as measured in the frequency,
saturation and relative distance from
the airport of aircraft operations.
Indeed, that the City has requested
an operating procedure (elimination of
Flight Track A) that would only
marginally impact its own residents
with no adverse impact to other
communities has been given only
cursory and perfunctory review.
See response to comment C.
JJ Non-
accommodating
Nature of the EA
The fact is that the environmental
review process needs to be more
accommodating to specific concerns
of communities. This is an issue that
goes far beyond this draft EA in the
manner in which the FAA allows for
public input.
The EA process associated with noise
abatement departure procedures for
Runway 17 has surpassed the
requirements of FAA Order 1050.1D,
Policies and Procedures for
Considering Environmental Impacts,
FAA Order 5050.4A, Airport
Environmental Handbook, and
Council on Environmental Quality
regulations for implementation of the
National Environmental Policy Act.
Two public meetings (May 21, 2002
and June 13, 2002) and one public
hearing (December 3, 2002) were
held to provide for public involvement.
Moreover, the EA process provided
for public input through a public
comment period, which extended
from October 25 to December 17,
2002, following publication of the draft
EA. Notwithstanding the
aforementioned opportunities for
public participation and input, the
Runway 17-35 City Working Group
and the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound
141
F-59
Abatement Council (MASAC), both of
which included representation from
the City of Eagan, provided for
additional substantive public
participation with regard to Runway
17 departure procedures.
KK Outdated Noise
Contours
The draft EA circulated by MAC for
the implementation of the proposed
departure procedures for Runway 17
is also flawed because it relies on
outdated noise exposure maps
(NEMs) in conducting its noise
analysis. As the EA itself
acknowledges, its noise analysis is
based on the NEMs used in the Part
150 document that MAC submitted to
the FAA in November 2001. The EA
relies on those outdated noise
projections despite the fact that MAC
has formally withdrawn its November
2001 Part 150 proposal for the
express purpose of updating its
NEMs.
In an attempt to just ify this reliance on
outdated information, the EA claims
that: (1) its analysis is acceptable
because it conveys the “worst -case”
noise scenario; and (2) it is necessary
to move ahead now based on the
outdated NEMs so that the proposed
departure procedures can be in place
when Runway 17 opens. See EA at
5. Neither of these reasons is
compelling.
The EA’s “worst-case” noise scenario
claim is not and cannot be supported
by any quantitative analysis. In fact,
because the revised NEMs are
apparently not yet available, it is
impossible to say with any certainty
how they will compare to the outdated
NEMs relied on in the EA. Without
such a quantitative assessment, it is
not accurate to claim that the EA
analyzes the “worst-case” noise
scenario.
The claim that the EA must go
forward before the NEMs are revised
is similarly flawed. According to the
EA, the new noise information will
likely be available by the end of
second-quarter 2003 and the Runway
17 is not scheduled to open until
substantially later (November 2004).
The EA’s projection of future
operational levels for 2005 was made
prior to the events of September 11,
2001. This coupled with the fact that
airlines are accelerating the retirement
of their older aircraft due to
operational efficiency considerations
post 9/11 (including Northwest
Airlines), means the 2005 noise
contours do represent the maximum
noise impact scenario relative to
environmental noise impacts within
the first several years of the runway’s
opening (late December 2005). It is
important to note that the total 2005
operations forecast number of
575,000 in this EA represents only a
2.9% increase over the 2002 Terminal
Area Forecast (TAF) number of
558,883 for 2005.
Due to scrutiny and concerns
expressed with the implementation of
a long-term, multi-million dollar
mitigation program using contours
that did not consider the events of
9/11, MAC withdrew the Part 150
document to update the contours.
For the purpose of evaluating impacts
in this EA, the 2005 contours are used
to err on the side of healthy air travel
growth and flexibility in airline fleet mix
planning in the computation of future
impacts off Runway 17.
It is possible to say that the geometry
and nature of the noise contours to
the south of MSP in 2007 will not
change dramatically from the 2005
contours analyzed in this EA. The
updated 2007 contours will most likely
not reach the city boundary of Eagan
to the south and east of MSP.
Considering the above information
and the nature of INM contour
generation and output, analysis of the
2005 contour is appropriate in this EA.
In an effort to ensure the greatest
degree of consideration to
142
F-60
See EA at 5. The EA provides no
reason why the environmental
assessment of the proposed
departure procedures for Runway 17
could not be delayed until after the
critical new noise information
becomes available.
environmental noise impacts from
Runway 17 following the opening of
the runway, there is no reason to hold
up the environmental review process
for the proposed procedures
predicated on c ontour scenarios other
than the 2005 contour in this EA.
Completion of this EA will provide
future noise mitigation relief.
LL EA Analyzes Only
One Element of the
Part 150
Submission
The EA is also notable and flawed
because it carves out one element of
MAC’s larger Part 150 submission --
the proposed departure procedures
for Runway 17 -- for separate and
early consideration. This is improper
“segmentation” and “piecemealing”
under the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA). See 40 C.F.R.
1502.4. Bec ause the proposed
departure procedures for Runway 17
and the other components of MAC’s
Part 150 proposal are inextricably
linked, they must be analyzed in a
comprehensive and unified fashion.
For the foregoing reasons, the draft
EA should be withdrawn and revised
to reflect the more recent noise
projections now being developed. It
should also be revised to include a
complete analysis of the alternative of
eliminating Flight Track A.
The concept of developing a noise
reducing departure procedure dates
back to the FEIS and ROD covering
the construction of Runway 17-35. In
the ROD, the FAA committed to
considering noise reducing departure
procedures for the new runway. MAC
is seeking implementation of those
procedures from the FAA through this
EA. The EA seek s implementation of
the 2.5 nm turn point procedure
incorporating a published river DP
and river heading track. The intent of
such a procedure is to reduce noise
impacts in close proximity to the
departure end of Runway 17.
Due to the preexisting commitments,
this procedure would have been
researched and pursued for
implementation via an EA regardless
of the status of an updated Part 150
NCP at MSP. The preexisting
conditions associated with this effort
necessitate the ability on behalf of the
MAC to pursue implementation of a
procedure in an accelerated and
uncoupled fashion relative to other
items in the future proposed Part 150
Update NCP. The unapproved status
of the MSP Part 150 Update NCP
further complicates pursuing a
number of its elements for
implementation in the form of an EA
and further jeopardizes the timely
implementation of a necessary
procedure prior to the opening of the
runway.
It is important to note that, as
committed to in the November 2001
version of the Updated Part 150 NCP,
a process will be initiated immediately
following NCP approval to implement
all other elements of the NCP that
require an EA. That evaluation will
include the outcome of this EA.
143
F-61
This EA covers implementation of four
of the six elements within the MSP
Part 150 Update NCP that require
environmental assessment for
implementation. The EA evaluates
these measures in the maximum
noise impact scenario. The Low-
Demand Flight Tracks and Runway
35 – River Visual Approach
Procedure will be reviewed following
their approval in the NCP and further
coordination with communities and
the FAA.
Because issues regarding the
practicability of these measures need
to be resolved, they are not ripe for
consideration. As such, they are not
evaluated in this EA. Any necessary
environmental review will be
conducted at a later date. The
environmental review for any further
proposed noise abatement
procedures will include the cumulative
impacts of the procedures discussed
in this EA.
See response to comment B on the
removal of flight track A.
MM Reporting Aircraft
Operations
The City of Eagan strongly
recommends that MAC improve its
public reporting and accounting of
aircraft operations and noise impacts.
The EA’s analysis of proposed
operation of Runway 17-35, as well
as the use of exist ing runways at the
airport is predicated almost
exclusively on computer modeling. It
is in the best interests of all involved if
constant monitoring of operations at
MSP is performed to test those
modeling assumptions. The Runway
Use System (RUS) that prioritizes
operating within the largely
commercial-industrial Eagan-
Mendota Heights Corridor must be
strictly enforced as an application
where and when it is feasible.
See responses to comments K and L.
NN Proposed MAC
Actions
MAC should commit to the following
actions:
· Phased integration of
Runway 17 through the RUS
should be implemented. The
justification for a new runway
is its ability to increase
capacity at the airport. The
RUS should therefore
See responses to comments J, K, M,
N and O.
144
F-62
provide that Runway 17-35
should only be used as
capacity dictates and,
therefore only maximized in
its use when MSP operations
reach originally projected
high-forecast levels.
· Constant monitoring should
be utilized to verify the
accuracy of runway and flight
track use modeling.
Technical reports from MAC
should detail on a monthly
basis the periods of time
when conditions were
appropriate to use the RUS
and compare that to how
often the RUS was used.
The Eagan-Mendota Heights
Corridor remains the most
“friendly” area for overhead
aircraft noise and failing to
utilize the RUS prioritizing
this area undermines all
previous efforts at land
planning by the City of
Eagan.
· If actual RUS use deviates
from available RUS periods,
MAC and FAA should be
required to immediately
schedule a public hearing to
explain to surrounding
communities the extent to
which affected persons can
expect operational standards
be adhered.
· Within 13 months of the
opening of Runway 17-35,
MAC should hold a public
meeting to detail use
percentages for each flight
track off of Runway 17 in the
first 12 months of operation
on a monthly basis and in
aggregate. Recognizing
again that computer
modeling of various inputs is
the primary basis for
generating those
percentages, any significant
deviation of those
percentages (a number to be
agreed upon with
surrounding communities)
should immediately trigger a
reopening of the
145
F-63
environmental review with an
eye toward adjusting the 60
dB DNL contour to reflect
actual conditions.
Subsequent analysis of this
type should then be done on
an annual basis.
OO Non-Operating
Alternatives to
Reduce Delay
The City of Eagan recognizes the
stressor of delay on airport capacity.
To the extent that delay is not
significantly reduced by inclusion of
Runway 17, MAC should vi gorously
pursue non-operating alternatives to
reduce delay. Slot allocations to
minimize over-scheduling of peak
periods by airport users should be
considered by MAC and FAA.
Similarly, congestion pricing to
encourage market solutions for the
aforementioned over-scheduling is an
alternative that MAC and FAA should
investigate.
See response to comment P.
June and Jerry
Thompson
4124 Oakbrooke
Trl.
Eagan, MN 55122
PP Number of Flights
Over Eagan
We have two main concerns we
would like you to address. First the
aircraft load on this runway and the
number of planes turning into Eagan.
We will see planes every two minutes
going over homes.
We Built to enjoy the peace and quite
of Eagan and paid for this when we
bought. I feel that we will have an
exodus of homeowners and a real
drop off of new homebuyers.
What can be done? Spread the load
into other cities south of the river.
Give assurances that MAC will work
hard to help solve this problem. MAC
has a noise reduction program that
should be formalized and a flyer
printed to advise Eagan homeowners
how you will help reduce noise.
Throughout the process of
investigating a departure procedure
for Runway 17, MAC has remained
committed to reducing noise impacts
where geographical features allow
and spreading impact over residential
areas as opposed to concentrating it
on any one residential area where no
other options exist relative to more
compatible land uses. Maintaining all
flight tracks over the City of Eagan,
and not focusing impact on any one
area of the city , will achieve this.
Cities south of the river have agreed
to a delayed turn point off runway
heading to prevent overflights in
residential areas directly off the end of
the runway.
Extensive information regarding MAC
noise program efforts can be found on
the Internet at www.macnoise.com.
QQ Map Request Please send me maps of the latest
plans for our area on the turn off over
Eagan. If you have copies of the
noise reduction help offered present
homeowners I would appreciate this.
The Maps will be provided.
146