Loading...
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