The URL can be used to link to this page

03/10/2020 - Airport Relations CommissionAGENDA EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION MEETING EAGAN COMMUNITY CENTER OAKS BANQUET ROOM TUESDAY, MARCH 10, 2020 7:00 PM I.ROLL CALL AND ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA II.VISITORS TO BE HEARD III.APPROVAL OF MINUTES IV.PRESENTATIONS A.“FAA 101” BRIEFING B. PROCEDURE FOR FUEL JETTISONING V.OLD BUSINESS A. MAC MONTHLY REPORTS VI.NEW BUSINESS A. ANNUAL CONTOUR REPORT B.FAA RESPONSE TO EAGAN’S/NOC’S REQUESTED CHANGES C.FAA COMMUNITY OUTREACH FOR VOR-MON VII.STAFF/COMMISSIONER REPORT A. MAY TOUR FOR ARC B.COMMISSION TERMS AND APPOINTMENT PROCESS VIII.ROUNDTABLE IX.ADJOURNMENT 1 Memo To: The Airport Relations Commission From: Dianne Miller, Assistant City Administrator Date: March 5, 2020 Subject: March 10, 2020 ARC Meeting/Location: Eagan Community Center The Eagan Airport Relations Commission will meet on Tuesday, March 10 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.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. III.APPROVAL OF MINUTES Enclosed on pages 6 through 8 are the minutes of the January 14, 2020 ARC meeting. The minutes are in order for adoption by the commission. IV.PRESENTATIONS A.“FAA 101” Briefing - Per the 2019-2020 ARC Work Plan, Sean Fortier, Air Traffic Manager at MSP ATCT, will provide a presentation to the commission about how the FAA directs aircraft at MSP. Mr. Fortier is happy to respond to questions of the commission pertaining to how and why the FAA directs traffic at MSP. Mr. Fortier has 2 noted that he will not be speaking about the FAA’s recent response letter to the MAC about proposed operational changes at MSP. Those recommendations will soon be vetted by the NOC and likely studied by MAC staff. If further conversation is needed with the FAA as it relates to the recommendations of Eagan and the NOC, a separate conversation will be scheduled in the future with the appropriate FAA staff. B.Procedure for Fuel Jettisoning - At the January ARC meeting, a request was made by the commission to learn more about the FAA’s procedures pertaining to fuel jettisoning (fuel dumping). Mr. Fortier of the FAA offered the following statement: “Minneapolis Tower and Tracon Air Traffic Controllers handle fuel dumping on a case by case basis when a flight crew indicates that they have a need to do so. Generally, aircraft are dumping fuel due to an emergency reason. Minneapolis Tower and Tracon Air Traffic Controllers follow federal regulations that state that aircraft must be assigned an altitude at least 2000’ above the highest obstacle within 5 miles of the route being flown. When an aircraft is dumping fuel for emergency reasons, they will not be required to alter their route. If an aircraft were dumping fuel for non-emergency reasons, they would be directed away from population centers.” Enclosed on page 9 is a statement about fuel dumping from a Delta Chief Pilot. Mr. Fortier is prepared to respond to any questions of the Commission regarding the dumping of fuel. IV.OLD BUSINESS A.MAC Monthly Reports - Enclosed on pages 10 through 15 is the January 2020 monthly summary report 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 December reports are available online, but the monthly summary report for December was not yet available at the time the ARC packet was prepared. V.NEW BUSINESS A.Annual Contour Report - Enclosed on pages 16 through 107 is the 2019 Annual Noise Contour Report. Included in the report is a summary of the 16 Eagan homes that will eligible for noise mitigation in 2020 after three consecutive years of eligibility. The homes are all located in NE Eagan. B.FAA Response to Eagan’s/NOC’s Requested Changes - Enclosed on pages 108 through 111 is a letter from the FAA to the MAC. The letter speaks to the high-level overview completed by the FAA of the requests made last fall by Eagan through the NOC and MAC. The NOC will discuss the FAA’s response at their March 18 meeting. 3 IT is anticipated that the NOC will ask MAC staff to further evaluate and model the recommendations that were deemed by the FAA to have merit. MAC staff would likely come back to the NOC with their findings at the May 20 NOC meeting. Also enclosed, on pages 112 through 119, is a letter from Eagan resident, Ted Gladhill (on behalf of a group of residents), with questions to the MAC and FAA upon receiving the FAA’s response. The MAC is currently preparing a response to the questions. C.FAA Community Outreach for VOR-MON - Enclosed on pages 120 through 122 is a description of the VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Minimum Operational Network (MON) and a summary of the plans to replace the current technology with RNAV departure procedures. Brad Juffer of the MAC will attend the Commission meeting and is be available to respond to any questions from the ARC. The FAA is meeting with community representatives in April to seek feedback on the best way to provide community outreach regarding VOR-MON. The Commission is welcome to share their thoughts and recommendations on how the FAA can best communicate the proposed changes to the Eagan community. VI.STAFF / COMMISSIONER REPORT A.May tour for ARC - Per the request of the ARC and per the ARC workplan, the FAA has offered to provide a tour of the MSP air traffic control tower to the ARC at 5:30pm on May 12. More details will be forthcoming, including any restrictions in response to the COVID-19 virus. B.Commission Terms and Appointment Process - For those whose terms expire in 2020, your service on the ARC will run through April of this year. All Commissioners interested in continuing their service must reapply by Friday, March 20. Go to www.cityofeagan.com/commissions for more information on the application process. 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 4 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. 5 MINUTES OF THE EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION WORKSHOP JANUARY 14, 2019 A meeting of the Eagan Airport Relations Commission was held on Tuesday, January 14, 2020 at 7:00 p.m. Those present were Michael Johnson, Debra Dulligner, Theresa Hughes, Jeff Spartz, William Raker, Samuel Kunjummen, Joe Axmacher, and Assistant City Administrator Miller. Commissioner Girard was absent. AGENDA Commissioner Spartz moved, Commissioner Kunjummen seconded a motion to approve the agenda as amended. All members voted in favor. VISITORS TO BE HEARD There were no visitors to be heard. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Spartz moved, Commissioner Dulligner seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the September 10, 2019 Airport Relations Commission meeting. All members voted in favor. OLD BUSINESS MAC Monthly Reports The Commission discussed the MAC monthly report for the month of November 2019. Brad Juffer, MAC’s Manager of Community Relations was available for questions. Summary of MAC Action in Response to Eagan’s Request Assistant City Administrator Miller noted, last fall, upon reviewing the Runway 17 Departure Study completed by the MAC, and in conversations with residents, the Airport Relations Commission recommended the Council send correspondence to the FAA asking for procedural changes to reduce aircraft noise over the City of Eagan. In November, the NOC reviewed the ARC’s proposal in detail. With feedback from communities and airline representatives, the NOC ultimately forwarded four recommendations to the MAC. On December 5, Mayor Maguire addressed the MAC’s Planning, Development, and Environmental (PD&E) Committee to voice Eagan’s support for the NOC’s recommendations. The PD&E Committee unanimously recommended approval to the MAC Commission. Miller noted on December 16, the MAC Commission approved the NOC’s proposal that the FAA conduct a high-level evaluation of the feasibility and safety of the four NOC-approved requests that originated from the City of Eagan. The FAA is in receipt of the letters and will begin their evaluation. Brad Juffer, MAC’s Manager of Community Relations provided an overview of the actions that occurred over the past three months in response to Eagan’s letter, and was available for questions. Juffer noted the FAA has not offered a timeline as to when their review of Eagan’s requests will be complete. 6 NEW BUSINESS Delta Fleet Mix Update Chair Johnson noted Paul Borgstrom, Chief Pilot for Delta, was unable to attend tonight’s meeting. Mr. Borgstrom prepared a written update about Delta’s fleet mix that Johnson shared with Airport Relations Commission. Brad Juffer presented an update on Delta’s Fleet Mix. STAFF / COMMISSIONER REPORT 2019 Noise Oversight Committee Accomplishments and 2020 Work Plan Assistant City Administrator Miller noted on December 2, 2019, NOC Co-Chairs Miller and Jeff Hart presented to the MAC. The presentation spoke to the accomplishments and efforts of the NOC in 2019 and included the proposed 2020 NOC work plan. FAA Hosting CRO Open House in Eagan Assistant City Administrator Miller noted the FAA is hosting a Converging Runway Operations (CRO) Open House at the Eagan Community Center on February 11, 2020 from 1:00 – 8:00 p.m. The event is intended as an opportunity for residents to learn more about CRO and the categorical exclusion (CATEX) documentation. Residents are invited to attend the open house at any time as there is no formal presentation scheduled. Miller noted the FAA may postpone the meeting, and thus residents should stay tuned for any adjustment to the meeting date. Commission Terms and Appointment Process Assistant City Administrator noted for those whose terms expire in 2020, their service on the Airport Relations Commission will run through April of this year. Commissioners interested in continuing their service must reapply by Friday, March 20. Miller also noted Commissioner Raker did a great job interviewing the MAC Chair Rick King on the Access to Democracy Show which is on our local cable access channel. ROUNDTABLE Commissioner Raker noted he would like to add a topic for future review and discussion regarding the procedure guidelines for jettisoning fuel over or near MSP Airport. Assistant City Administrator Miller noted she will add it to a future ARC agenda. 7 ADJOURNMENT Upon motion by Commissioner Spartz, seconded by Commissioner Dulligner the meeting adjourned at 7:55 p.m. All members voted in favor. __________________________ _________________________________ Date Secretary 8 Fuel Dumping (nonspecific) 3-3-20, Paul Borgstrom, MSP Chief Pilot (Delta) Fuel dumping is typically accomplished for an aircraft which is in some sort of duress (i.e. airborne engine failure) and needs to land at the nearest suitable airport. The ability to lighten an aircraft helps ensure a safe arrival of the aircraft and its occupants. Aircraft are certified at specific weights and typically takeoff weight is greater than landing weight. On some long-haul aircraft, this difference can be significant. These aircraft often takeoff at near Max Takeoff Weight with the expectation of reducing their weight through fuel burn. When an emergency happens, aircraft often need to return to the departure airport in a timely fashion. Dumping fuel helps reduce weight and get closer to their structural landing limits helping to ensure a safe operation for those onboard. Delta Air Lines currently flies several types of aircraft that have this capability out of MSP. 9 JANUARY 2020 Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) Monthly Operations Summary Report 10 MSP COMPLAINTS JANUARY 2020 COMPLAINTS LOCATIONS MOST FREQUENT Total 12,341 Total 193 Hour 9:00 PM (11%) Operations per Complaint 2.5 New Locations 6 Average Complaints 64 Median Complaints 6 Day Thursday (2,603) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 4k 5k 6k 7k 8k 9k 10k 11k 12k 13k 14k 15k 16k 17k 18k 19k 20k 2018 2019 2020 COMPLAINT LOCATIONS TOP 5 CITIESEAGAN 3,571 Complaints 53 Locations MINNEAPOLIS 3,348 Complaints 62 Locations INVER GROVE HEIGHTS 1,436 Complaints 7 Locations MINNETONKA 1,097 Complaints 4 Locations RICHFIELD 820 Complaints 8 Locations Locations 1-3 4-5 6-10 11+ Leaflet 11 MSP OPERATIONS JANUARY 2020 31,332 Operations 2,170 Nighttime Operations (10:30 PM - 6:00 AM) 31,332 Year to Date Operations Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 24k 26k 28k 30k 32k 34k 36k 38k 2018 2019 2020Operations RUNWAY USE 12L 324012R 4155 30L 4584 30R 3511 35 182 Arrivals 12L 2035 12R97930L 4161 30R 3166 17 5319 Departures 0 % 5 % 10 % N E S W 1-5 MPH 5-10 MPH 10-15 MPH 15-20 MPH >20 MPH Calm or variable: 5.91% TOTAL RUS USAGE 53% NORTH FLOW SOUTH FLOW MIXED FLOW 39%46%9% CARRIER JET FLEET MIX 41% 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 CRJ2 CRJ9 E170 56% 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 B738 B739 A321 3% 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 B763 A330 MD11 TOP 3 BY CATEGORY12 MSP SOUND MONITORING JANUARY 2020 Time Above TA(x) 38 TA per operation s 65 334 24 TA h m 65 8 45 TA h m 80 51 TA s 90 0 TA s 100 Count Above N(x) 2.29 N per operation 65 71,798 N65 8,073 N80 24 N90 0 N100 COUNT ABOVE CARRIER JET CONTRIBUTION TIME ABOVE 24% 17,325 22% 74 22h m 68% 48,705 69% 231 49h m 5% 3,358 6% 18 53h 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 2124 27 30 33 36 39 4245 48 51 54 57 60 6366 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 13 MSP NOISE ABATEMENT JANUARY 2020 RUNWAY 17 DEPARTURE PROCEDURE (CARRIER JET) 5,044 Runway 17 Departures 99.5% Compliance Rate 10 Nighttime Departures EAGAN-MENDOTA HEIGHTS CORRIDOR PROCEDURE (CARRIER JET) 2,785 Departures 96.6% Compliance Rate 44 Departures North of the Corridor 50 Departures South of the Corridor CROSSING-IN-THE-CORRIDOR PROCEDURE (CARRIER JET) DAY (6AM - 11PM)NIGHT (11PM - 6AM) CROSSED 713 28% DID NOT CROSS 1,829 72% CROSSED 133 54.7% DID NOT CROSS 110 45.3% MSP RUNWAY USE SYSTEM (RUS) ARRIVAL RUS USAGE 53% TOTAL RUS USAGE 53% DEPARTURE RUS USAGE 53% 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 14 NOTE: RMT 23 was out of service beginning on 1/27/2020 until 1/29/2020. 15 Minneapolis St. Paul International Airport (MSP) 2019 Annual Noise Contour Report Comparison of the 2019 Actual and the 2007 Forecast Noise Contours February 2020 MAC Community Relations Office and HNTB Corporation 16 MSP 2019 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission I Table of Contents ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................. 1 ES.1 BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................................... 1 ES.2 AIRPORT NOISE LITIGATION AND CONSENT DECREE .............................................................. 1 ES.3 MSP 2020 IMPROVEMENTS EA/EAW ..................................................................................... 2 ES.4 THE AMENDED CONSENT DECREE ......................................................................................... 2 ES.5 2019 NOISE CONTOURS ......................................................................................................... 3 ES.6 AMENDED CONSENT DECREE PROGRAM ELIGIBILITY ............................................................. 3 ES.7 AMENDED CONSENT DECREE PROGRAM MITIGATION STATUS ............................................. 5 1.INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ................................................................................. 9 1.1 CORRECTIVE LAND USE EFFORTS TO ADDRESS AIRCRAFT NOISE ............................................ 9 1.2 2007 FORECAST CONTOUR .................................................................................................. 12 1.3 AIRCRAFT NOISE LITIGATION ............................................................................................... 14 1.4 NOISE MITIGATION SETTLEMENT AND ANNUAL NOISE CONTOUR ....................................... 14 1.5 FINAL MSP 2020 IMPROVEMENTS EA/EAW AND AMENDED CONSENT DECREE ................... 16 2.2019 ACTUAL NOISE CONTOUR ................................................................................... 19 2.1 DEVELOPMENT OF THE 2019 ACTUAL NOISE CONTOUR ...................................................... 19 2.1.1 Noise Modeling ................................................................................................................................. 19 2.1.2 2019 Aircraft Operations and Fleet Mix ............................................................................................ 20 2.1.3 2019 Runway Use .............................................................................................................................. 22 2.1.4 2019 Flight Tracks .............................................................................................................................. 25 2.1.5 Custom Departure Profiles ................................................................................................................ 25 2.1.6 2019 Atmospheric Conditions ........................................................................................................... 26 2.2 2019 MODELED VERSUS MEASURED DNL VALUES ............................................................... 27 2.3 2019 NOISE CONTOUR IMPACTS ......................................................................................... 29 3. COMPARISON OF THE 2019 ACTUAL AND THE 2007 FORECAST CONTOUR ......................... 32 3.1 COMPARISON OF NOISE CONTOUR INPUTS......................................................................... 32 3.1.1 Noise Model Considerations ............................................................................................................. 32 3.1.2 Aircraft Operations and Fleet Mix Comparison ................................................................................. 32 3.1.3 Runway Use Comparison ................................................................................................................... 33 3.1.4 Flight Track Considerations ............................................................................................................... 34 3.1.5 Atmospheric Conditions Comparison ................................................................................................ 34 17 MSP 2019 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission II 3.2 COMPARATIVE NOISE MODEL GRID POINT ANALYSIS .......................................................... 35 3.3 CONTOUR COMPARISON SUMMARY .................................................................................. 35 4. 2019 ANNUAL NOISE CONTOUR ......................................................................................... 37 4.1 2019 ACTUAL CONTOUR NOISE MITIGATION IMPACT ......................................................... 37 4.2 AMENDED CONSENT DECREE PROGRAM ELIGIBILITY ........................................................... 40 4.3 AMENDED CONSENT DECREE PROGRAM MITIGATION STATUS ........................................... 40 18 MSP 2019 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission 1 ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES.1 BACKGROUND Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP) has a long history of quantifying and mitigating noise impacts in a manner responsive to concerns raised by communities around the airport and consistent with federal policy. In 1992, the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) established the MSP Residential Noise Mitigation Program after initiating a 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 150 (Part 150) Study. The MSP Residential Noise Mitigation Program was among many noise abatement initiatives in the Part 150 Study. It provided sound insulation to single- family and multi-family residences and schools, and it also acquired residential properties within eligible noise contour areas. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)’s threshold standard for mitigation eligibility is 65-decibel Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL). The DNL metric is used to represent the total accumulation of all sound energy (decibels or dB) averaged out uniformly over a 24-hour period. From 1992 to 2006, the Residential Noise Mitigation Program was a large and visible part of the Part 150 program at MSP. Mitigation was conducted within the 65 dB DNL contour and included a combination of home improvements to windows and doors; installation of attic insulation; baffling of attic vents, mail slots and chimneys; and the addition of central air conditioning. By 2006, sound insulation had been provided to 7,846 single-family homes, 1,327 multi-family units and 19 schools. Additionally, 437 residential properties were acquired around MSP. The total cost of the program was approximately $386 million. In 1999 the MAC began its Part 150 Update, which included significant focus on the mitigation program. Concurrent to the Part 150 Update, the MAC was pursuing the Dual-Track Airport Planning Process, an effort that the State Legislature directed the MAC to undertake in 1989 and that concluded in 1998 with the Legislature’s vote that MSP would expand in its current location verses moving to a new location. As part of the Dual-Track process, the MAC was asked to propose an expansion of noise mitigation efforts beyond the federally-recognized threshold of 65 dB DNL if MSP were to stay in its current location. Through the Part 150 Update process, the MAC developed a mitigation package for homes located in the 60-64 dB DNL noise contour area. ES.2 AIRPORT NOISE LITIGATION AND CONSENT DECREE The cities located around MSP expressed dissatisfaction with the Part 150 Update associated with the expanded noise mitigation proposal. In early 2005, the Cities of Minneapolis, Eagan, and Richfield and the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority filed a lawsuit in Hennepin County District Court against the MAC. 19 MSP 2019 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission 2 In September 2005, plaintiffs seeking class action certification filed a separate action against the MAC alleging breach of contract claims associated with mitigation in the 60-64 dB DNL noise contours. In 2007, the MAC and the Cities of Minneapolis, Eagan, and Richfield and the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority entered into a Consent Decree that settled the litigation. Upon the completion of the 2007 Consent Decree noise mitigation program in 2014, more than 15,000 single-family homes and 3,303 multi-family units were provided noise mitigation around MSP. The total cost to implement mitigation under the 2007 Consent Decree was $95 million, raising the MAC’s expenditures related to its noise mitigation program efforts to over $480 million by the end of 2014. ES.3 MSP 2020 IMPROVEMENTS EA/EAW In January 2013, the MAC published the Final MSP 2020 Improvements Environmental Assessment/Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA/EAW), which reviewed the potential and cumulative environmental impacts of MSP terminal and landside developments needed through the year 2020. In response to new concerns expressed by MSP Noise Oversight Committee membership, a new noise mitigation plan was proposed in the EA/EAW leading to an amendment to the 2007 Consent Decree. ES.4 THE AMENDED CONSENT DECREE The first amendment to the 2007 Consent Decree was initiated in 2013 and established mitigation eligibility based on annual assessments of actual MSP aircraft activity rather than projections. To be eligible for noise mitigation, a home would need to be located for three consecutive years in a higher noise mitigation impact area when compared to the home’s status under the terms of the 2007 Consent Decree. The first of the three years must occur by 2020. The Full 5-decibel Reduction Package is offered to single-family homes meeting these criteria inside the actual 63 dB DNL noise contour while the Partial Noise Reduction Package is offered to single-family homes in the actual 60-62 dB DNL noise contours. A uniform Multi-Family Noise Reduction Package is offered to multi-family units within the actual 60 dB DNL noise contour. Homes will be mitigated in the year following their eligibility determination. The 2013 actual noise contour marked the first year in assessing this new mitigation program. A second amendment was made to the 2007 Consent Decree in 2017. This amendment allows the use of the Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT) to develop the actual noise contours each year, beginning with the 2016 actual noise contour. In 2015, AEDT replaced the Integrated Noise Model (INM) as the federally-approved computer model for determining and analyzing noise exposure and land use compatibility issues around airports in the United States. The second amendment also provided clarity on the Opt-Out Eligibility criteria. Specifically, single-family homes that previously opted out of the Partial Noise Reduction Package may participate in the Full 5-decibel Reduction Package, provided the home meets the eligibility requirements. 20 MSP 2019 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission 3 *As of January 13, 2020 ES.5 2019 NOISE CONTOURS The number of aircraft operations (takeoffs and landings) are one prominent factor in noise contour calculation. Actual aircraft operations have decreased significantly at MSP over the years, despite significant increases in passenger levels at MSP. This has occurred largely because airlines now fly larger planes with more seating and have increased seat occupancy rates (load factors). Based on the 406,073 total operations at MSP in 2019 (per FAA data) versus the 582,366 total forecasted operations at MSP in 2007, the actual 2019 60 dB DNL contour is approximately 29 percent smaller than the 2007 Forecast Contour and the 2019 65 dB DNL contour is approximately 39 percent smaller than the 2007 Forecast Contour. The predominant contraction in the contours from the 2007 forecast to the 2019 Actual Noise Contour scenario is driven largely by fleet mix changes, including a significant reduction in Hushkit Stage 3 aircraft operations, and a reduction of 483 average daily operations. Nonetheless, there are homes in areas that qualify for mitigation as outlined by the terms of the Consent Decree. There is a small area in Eagan where the 2019 Actual Contour extends beyond the 2007 Forecast Contour, where some homes are attaining eligibility for mitigation. Areas of the 2019 60 dB DNL contour that extend beyond the 2007 Forecast Contour in Minneapolis have already been included in the amended Consent Decree’s mitigation efforts between 2017 and 2020. Areas where the 2019 Actual Contour extends beyond the 2007 Forecast Contour can largely be attributed to nighttime runway use variances between what was forecasted for 2007 and what occurred in 2019, particularly an increase in nighttime arrival operations on Runway 12R. ES.6 AMENDED CONSENT DECREE PROGRAM ELIGIBILITY First-Year Candidate Eligibility Single-family: There are no single-family homes that achieved the first year of eligibility with the 2019 Actual Contour. Multi-family: There are no multi-family units that achieved the first year of eligibility with the 2019 Actual Contour. RESIDENTIAL NOISE MITIGATION PROGRAM •1992 -2006 •$385.6 Million ORIGINAL CONSENT DECREE •2007 -2014 •$95.1 Million AMENDED CONSENT DECREE •2017 -2024 •$16.2 Million* 21 MSP 2019 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission 4 Second-Year Candidate Eligibility Single-family: The 2019 Actual Contour shrunk under the arrival lobe of Runway 12R, resulting in all homes in Minneapolis that had previously achieved one year of eligibility not reaching a second year of eligibility. Multi-family: Similarly, the contraction of the contour northwest of Lake Harriet resulted in all multi-family units in Minneapolis that had previously achieved one year of eligibility not reaching a second year of eligibility. Third-Year Candidate Eligibility Single-family: All 16 single-family homes that had two years of eligibility as a result of the 2018 annual noise contour were in the 60 dB DNL in the 2019 annual noise contour and are now entered into the 2021 mitigation program. All of these homes are located on one block in Eagan and are eligible for the Partial Noise Reduction Package. The homes on this block were previously eligible for homeowner reimbursements during the original Consent Decree Program. In cases where homes have received previous reimbursement from the MAC, the value of those improvements will be deducted from the efforts required to increase the home mitigation relative to the actual noise level, per the amended Consent Decree. Homeowners of eligible properties will be notified in writing by the MAC. Multi-family: There are no multi-family units that achieved the third year of eligibility with the 2019 Actual Contour. The blocks already included in previous mitigation programs and the amended Consent Decree programs are shown in Figures ES-1, ES-2 and ES-3. Additionally, Figure ES-3 shows the block that met the third consecutive year of noise mitigation eligibility by virtue of the 2019 Actual Contour. 22 MSP 2019 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission 5 ES.7 AMENDED CONSENT DECREE PROGRAM MITIGATION STATUS 2017 Mitigation Program Single-family: In 2017 the MAC began the project to provide mitigation to 138 single-family homes that became eligible by virtue of the 2015 actual noise contour. As of January 13, 2020, 117 homes have been completed, 14 homes declined to participate while 7 homes were moved to the 2020 program as a result of homeowner actions. Multi-family: Two multi-family structures also were eligible to participate in the Multi-Family Mitigation Program in 2017. One property is completed, and one property declined to participate. The total cost for the 2017 Mitigation Program was $2,442,685. The 2017 Mitigation Program is now complete. 2018 Mitigation Program Single-family: In 2017, the MAC began the project to provide mitigation to 283 single-family homes that became eligible by virtue of the 2016 actual noise contour. As of January 13, 2020, 230 homes have been completed, 27 homes declined to participate while 23 homes were moved to the 2020 program. Multi-family: The 2018 Mitigation Program does not include any multi-family properties. The total cost for the 2018 Mitigation Program to date is $7,280,869. 2019 Mitigation Program Single-family: In 2018, the MAC began the project to provide mitigation to 429 single-family homes that became eligible by virtue of the 2017 actual noise contour. As of January 13, 2020, including the homes transitioned from the 2017 and 2018 programs, 214 homes have been completed, 159 homes are in the construction or pre-construction phase and 68 homes declined to participate. Multi-family: The 2019 Mitigation Program does not include any multi-family properties. The total cost for the 2019 Mitigation Program to date is $6,548,594. 2020 Mitigation Program Single-family: In 2019, the MAC began the project to provide mitigation to 243 single-family homes that became eligible by virtue of the 2018 actual noise contour (164 are eligible for the partial mitigation package and 79 are eligible for the full mitigation package). As of January 13, 2020, including the homes transitioned from the 2018 and 2019 programs, zero homes have been completed, 261 homes are in the construction or pre-construction phase and 4 homes declined to participate. Multi-family: The 2020 Mitigation Program does not include any multi-family properties. To date, there have not been any financial expenditures attributed to the 2020 Mitigation Program. 23 MSP 2019 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission 6 Figure ES-1: 2019 Contours and Mitigation Program Eligibility 24 MSP 2019 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission 7 Figure ES-2: 2019 Contours and Mitigation Program Eligibility – City of Minneapolis 25 MSP 2019 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission 8 Figure ES-3: 2019 Contours and Mitigation Program Eligibility – City of Eagan 26 MSP 2019 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission 9 1.INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND The issue of aircraft noise related to the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP) includes a long history of local efforts to quantify and mitigate noise impacts in a manner that is responsive to concerns raised by the communities around the airport and consistent with federal policy. The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) has led the way with these efforts in the conceptualization and implementation of many initiatives to reduce noise impacts to communities around MSP. One of the most notable of these initiatives has been the sound insulation program originally implemented under 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 150 (Part 150). Part 150 provides a framework for airport operators to develop a comprehensive noise plan for an airport in the form of a Noise Compatibility Program (NCP). An NCP is a key component of the Part 150 program and is comprised of two fundamental approaches to addressing noise impacts around an airport: (1) Land Use Measures, and (2) Noise Abatement (NA) Measures (operational measures to reduce noise). Another key component of Part 150 program planning is the development of a Noise Exposure Map (NEM). NEMs are commonly referred to as noise contours. The NEM, or noise contours, characterize noise in terms of Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL). This metric represents the total accumulation of all sound energy (decibels or dB) averaged out uniformly over a 24-hour period that factors an additional 10-decibel penalty for each noise occurring between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. The current federally established threshold for significant noise around an airport attributable to aircraft is 65 dB DNL. Forecast mitigated noise contours depict areas that may be eligible for Land Use Measures around an airport based on forecasted operations levels. Land Use Measures can include compatible land use plans, property acquisition, residential relocation, and sound mitigation (modifications to homes to insulate against sound protrusions). Development of a NEM includes a Base Case NEM and a five-year forecast NEM with and without noise abatement measures. Including noise abatement measures in NEM development is important because the way an airport is used by aircraft (i.e.: runway use, time of flight) and the way flight procedures (i.e.: power settings, flight paths) are executed have a direct effect on an airport’s noise impact. The MAC was one of the first airport sponsors to submit a Part 150 Study to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and did so for MSP in October 1987. The study’s NEM was accepted by the FAA in October 1989, and portions of the study’s NCP were approved in April 1990. The NEMs used forecast operations, not actual operations, which came into effect at MSP through the amended consent decree program in 2014. The NCP identified areas eligible for remedial land use measures including the soundproofing of residences, schools and other public buildings. A 1992 update to the NCP and NEM included a five-year forecast 65 dB DNL noise contour (1996 65dB DNL). This update established the MAC’s MSP Residential Noise Mitigation Program and marked the beginning of corrective mitigation measures within the 1996 65 dB DNL noise contour. 1.1 CORRECTIVE LAND USE EFFORTS TO ADDRESS AIRCRAFT NOISE From 1992 to 2006, the Residential Noise Mitigation Program was a large and visible part of the Part 150 program at MSP. The MAC designed the MSP Residential Noise Mitigation Program using FAA structural Noise Level Reduction (NLR) documentation. This included establishing product-specific Sound Transmission Class (STC) ratings and associated NLR goals, creative bidding practices, and cooperative 27 MSP 2019 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission 10 prioritization and funding efforts. Through innovative approaches to enhancing the program as new information and technologies became available, the MSP Residential Noise Mitigation Program quickly became a national model. NLR is a number rating that describes the difference between indoor and outdoor noise levels. The FAA uses this number to evaluate the effectiveness of noise mitigation measures. Per FAA guidelines, the objective of a noise mitigation program is to achieve a 5-dB reduction in interior noise with mitigation in place and reduce the average interior noise levels to a level below 45 dB. Testing and evaluation of single- family homes near MSP indicated that the majority of homes provided an average 30 dB of exterior to interior sound reduction or NLR with no mitigation efforts by the MAC, in most cases already achieving an interior noise level of 45 dB or below. This led the MAC to develop a “Full 5-decibel Reduction Package” for single-family homes within the 65 dB DNL and greater noise contours in order to meet FAA objectives. This package provided an average noise reduction level of 5 dB, ensuring a noticeable level of reduction. The Full 5-decibel Reduction Package offered a menu of mitigation measures that the MAC could install to achieve an average 5-dB noise reduction in an individual home. The menu of mitigation measure options included: treating or replacing windows and prime doors; installing or increasing attic insulation; baffling of attic vents, mail slots and chimneys; and the addition of central air-conditioning. The MAC determined which specific mitigation measures were necessary for a home after assessing the home’s existing condition. As a result of detailed and extensive project management and quality control, the program achieved an excellent record of homeowner satisfaction. Throughout the duration of the program, when homeowners were asked if the improvements were effective at reducing aircraft noise at least 95 percent responded yes. The MAC reached a significant accomplishment for its industry-leading aircraft noise mitigation program in 2006 when it completed the mitigation of 165 single-family homes in the 2007 forecast mitigated 65 dB DNL noise contour. This marked the completion of the mitigation program for all eligible and participating homes within the 1996 65 dB DNL and the 2007 65 dB DNL contours. In total over 7,800 single-family homes were mitigated around MSP. 28 MSP 2019 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission 11 Annual average mitigation costs per single-family home ranged from a low of $17,300 in 1994 to a high of $45,000 in 2001. The MAC spent a total of approximately $229.5 million on the single-family home mitigation program during the Residential Noise Mitigation Program’s 14-year lifespan (1992-2006). In addition to the single-family mitigation program, the MAC also mitigated multi-family units and schools, and engaged in property acquisition and relocation. The multi-family component of the Residential Noise Mitigation Program began in 2001 and was significantly smaller in both the number of structures mitigated and the associated costs. With completion of multi-family structures in the 1996 65 dB DNL noise contour, the MAC mitigated approximately 1,327 multi-family units at a total cost of approximately $11.1 million. There were no additional multi-family structures inside the 2007 Forecast Contour. All eligible and participating multi-family structures within the 2007 Forecast Contour were mitigated by 2006. Also, since 1981, the MAC has mitigated 19 schools located around MSP, which represents all the schools located within the 1996 65 dB DNL noise contour. In response to Minnesota State Legislature’s directives, the MAC also provided mitigation to certain schools located outside the 1996 65 dB DNL noise contour. The costs of insulating individual schools varied from $850,000 to $8 million. A total of approximately $52 million was spent on mitigating schools, marking the completion of the school mitigation efforts in 2006. In addition to the residential and school noise mitigation programs, the MAC implemented a residential property acquisition program in 2002 that removed areas of sensitive land uses, such as residential buildings, from noise impact areas. The intent of the residential acquisition program was to address impacted properties in the 1996 65 dB DNL noise contour, with the property owners and the city in which the respective property resided agreeing that acquisition was the desirable means of mitigating the homes. As a result, the MAC acquired approximately 437 residential properties. In total, the MAC expended approximately $93 million on the residential property acquisition program. The financial investment in the MSP Residential Noise Mitigation Program was among the largest in the nation for such programs. Table 1.1 provides a summary of activity completed and dollars spent between 1992 and 2006. 29 MSP 2019 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission 12 Table 1.1: Summary of Corrective Efforts (1992-2006) Corrective Action Number Total Cost (in millions) Single Family Residential 7,846 $229.5 Multi-Family Residential 1,327 $11.1 Schools 19 $52 Residential Property Acquisition 437 $93 Total -- $385.6 1.2 2007 FORECAST CONTOUR In late 1998, the MAC authorized an update to the Part 150 program at MSP. The update process began in 1999 with the development of noise contours, noise abatement and land use measures. The MAC published a draft Part 150 Update document in October 2000 and submitted the study, including a 2005 forecast NEM and revised NCP, to the FAA for review. In May 2002, after further consideration of the reduction in flight operations and uncertainties in the industry resulting from the events of September 11, 2001, the MAC withdrew the study to update the forecast and associated noise contours. The forecast update process began in February 2003. This effort focused on updating the Base Case year from a 2000 scenario to a 2002 scenario and updating the forecast year from 2005 to 2007. The purpose of the forecast update was to ensure that the noise contours considered the impacts of the events of September 11, 2001 and ongoing changes in the MSP aircraft fleet. In addition to updating the forecast, the MAC and the MSP Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) conducted a review of the Integrated Noise Model (INM) input methodology and data to ensure continued consensus with the contour development process. On November 17, 2003, the MAC approved the revised forecast and fleet mix numbers and INM input methodology and data for use in developing the 2002 Base Case and 2007 Forecast NEMs. In March 2004, the MAC revised the forecast to incorporate corrections in general aviation numbers and to reflect Northwest Airlines’ announcement that it would resume service of five aircraft that had been taken out of service previously. The 2004 Part 150 Update resulted in a comprehensive NCP recommendation. In addition to several land use measures around MSP, the NCP included operational noise abatement measures. These measures focused on aircraft operational procedures, runway use, departure and arrival flight tracks, voluntary operational agreements with the airlines, and provisions for further evaluation of technology. The MAC implemented these operational noise abatement measures (more information available at www.macnoise.com/our-neighbors/msp-noise-abatement-efforts). Based on the estimate of 582,366 total operations in the 2007 forecast mitigated scenario, approximately 7,234 acres are in the 65 dB DNL noise contour and approximately 15,708 acres are in the 60 dB DNL noise contour. All eligible and participating homes within the 2007 Forecast Contour have been mitigated. A depiction of the 2007 Forecast Contour is provided in Figure 1. 30 MSP 2019 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission 13 Figure 1: 2007 Forecast Contour 31 MSP 2019 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission 14 1.3 AIRCRAFT NOISE LITIGATION One of the largest discussion items in the 1999 Part 150 Update process focused on the mitigation program that the MAC would offer in the 60-64 dB DNL noise contour area. The FAA recognizes sensitive land uses, such as residential land uses eligible for noise mitigation under Part 150, but only within the 65 dB DNL noise contour or greater. However, as part of the Dual-Track Airport Planning Process (a process that examined moving MSP versus expanding it in its current location, undertaken at the direction of the Minnesota State Legislature), the MAC made a policy decision to provide some level of noise mitigation out to the 60 dB DNL noise contour area surrounding MSP. During the Dual-Track Airport Planning Process, an MSP Noise Mitigation Committee was developed and tasked with proposing a noise mitigation plan to be considered in conjunction with the expansion of MSP at its present location. The MSP Noise Mitigation Committee developed a final recommendation for the MAC to provide mitigation to the 60 dB DNL contour. In the 2004 Part 150 Update, the MAC’s recommendation for mitigation in the 60-64 dB DNL contours called for providing central air-conditioning to single-family homes that did not have it, with a possible homeowner co-pay based on the degree of noise impact. The MAC applied block-intersect methodology to the 2007 Forecast Contour to determine mitigation eligibility. With the block-intersect methodology, if any portion of a city block intersects the 60-64 dB DNL contour, all homes located on that city block would be eligible. The cities located around MSP expressed dissatisfaction with the MAC proposal, asserting that the MSP Noise Mitigation Committee had recommended that the Full 5-decibel Reduction Package be expanded to all properties in the 60-64 dB DNL noise contours. The MAC countered that the proposal provided mitigation to the 60-64 dB DNL noise contour area and that the MSP Noise Mitigation Committee’s recommendations did not specify the mitigation package that must be included. Additionally, the MAC clarified that, because homes in Minnesota have higher than the national average pre-existing noise reduction characteristics, the Full 5-decibel Reduction Package was not necessary outside the 65 dB DNL contour to achieve desired aircraft noise level reduction. In early 2005, the Cities of Minneapolis, Eagan, and Richfield and the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority filed suit in Hennepin County District Court claiming, among other things, the MAC violated environmental quality standards and the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act (MERA) by failing to provide the Full 5- decibel Reduction Package to single-family homes in the 60-64 dB DNL contours. In September 2005, plaintiffs seeking class action certification filed a separate action against the MAC alleging breach of contract claims associated with mitigation in the 60-64 dB DNL contours. In January 2007, Hennepin County District Judge Stephen Aldrich granted the cities partial summary judgment. The court found, among other things, that the MAC, by virtue of implementing the Full 5-decibel Reduction Package, created an environmental standard that the MAC violated by recommending different mitigation in the 64 to 60 DNL noise contour area. In February 2007, the court held a trial on the cities’ MERA and mandamus claims. Before the court entered final judgment post-trial, however, the parties negotiated a global settlement, a Consent Decree, resolving the cities’ case and the class action suit. 1.4 NOISE MITIGATION SETTLEMENT AND ANNUAL NOISE CONTOUR On October 19, 2007, Judge Stephen Aldrich approved a Consent Decree entered into by the MAC and the Cities of Minneapolis, Eagan, and Richfield and the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority that settled the 32 MSP 2019 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission 15 litigation. The Consent Decree provided that it became effective only if: (1) the FAA advised the MAC in writing by November 15, 2007 that the Decree was an appropriate use of airport revenue and was consistent with the MAC’s federal grant obligations; and (2) that the court approved a settlement in the class action case by January 17, 2008. Both conditions were ultimately met, and in 2008 the MAC began implementing single-family and multi-family mitigation out to the 2007 60 dB DNL noise contours and mitigation reimbursement funds out to the 2005 60 dB DNL noise contours, as the Consent Decree required. Under the Decree, mitigation activities would vary based on noise exposure. Homes with the highest aircraft noise exposure were eligible for more extensive mitigation than those with less aircraft noise exposure. The 2007 Consent Decree provided that approximately 457 homes in the 2007 63-64 dB DNL forecast noise contours were eligible to receive the Full 5-decibel Reduction Package, which was the same level of noise mitigation that the MAC provided in the 1996 65 dB DNL and greater contours. The 2007 63-64 dB DNL noise contour mitigation program was designed to achieve 5 dB of noise reduction on average, with mitigation measures that depended upon the home’s existing condition. These methods included central air-conditioning; exterior and storm window repair or replacement; prime door and storm door repair or replacement; wall and attic insulation installation; and/or baffling of roof vents and chimney treatment. As required by the Consent Decree, the MAC completed mitigation in the 2007 63-64 dB DNL noise contours by December 31, 2009. A total of 404 homes participated in the program. In addition, under the Decree, owners of the approximately 5,428 single-family homes in the 2007 60-62 dB DNL noise contours were eligible for one of two mitigation packages: 1) homes that did not have central air-conditioning as of September 1, 2007 would receive it and up to $4,000 (including installation costs) in other noise mitigation products and services they could choose from a menu provided by the MAC ; or 2)owners of homes that already had central air-conditioning installed as of September 1, 2007 or who chose not to receive central air-conditioning were eligible for up to $14,000 (including installation costs) in noise mitigation products and services they could choose from a menu provided by the MAC. The mitigation menu included acoustical modifications such as: exterior and storm window repair or replacement; prime door and storm door repair or replacement; wall and attic insulation installation; and/or baffling of roof vents and chimney treatment. These packages collectively became known as the Partial Noise Reduction Program. As required by the Consent Decree, the MAC completed the Partial Noise Reduction Program by December 1, 2012. A total of 5,055 homes participated in the program. According to the provisions in the Consent Decree, single-family homes in the 2007 63-64 dB DNL contours and in the 2007 60-62 dB DNL contours whose owners opted out of the previously- completed MAC Residential Noise Mitigation Program for the 1996 65 dB DNL noise contours and greater, but that had new owners on September 1, 2007, were eligible to “opt in” and receive noise mitigation. If the total cost to the MAC of the opt- in mitigation is less than $7 million, any remaining funds were used to reimburse owners of single-family homes between the 2005 mitigated 60 dB DNL contour and the 2007 Forecast Contour for purchase and installation of products included on a 33 MSP 2019 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission 16 menu provided by the MAC. The amount each homeowner received was determined by subtracting dollars spent for the opt-in program from the total $7 million budget, and then by dividing the remainder of funds among the total number of single-family homes within the 2005 60 dB DNL and 2007 60 dB DNL contours. This program became known as the Homeowner Reimbursement Program. In September 2014, the MAC completed the Homeowner Reimbursement Program for a total of 1,773 participating single- family homes. The MAC completed the Multi-Family Noise Reduction Package in 2010 by installing acoustical covers on air-conditioners or installing new air-conditioners in 1,976 dwelling units. All phases of the MSP Residential Noise Mitigation Program required under the original 2007 Consent Decree were completed by September 2014. The total cost to implement mitigation under the original Consent Decree was approximately $95 million, (which is inclusive of the $7 million for opt-in mitigation and single-family mitigation reimbursement). A summary of actions taken is provided in Table 1.2. Table 1.2: Summary of Corrective Efforts (2007-2014) Corrective Action Number Total Cost (in millions) Single Family Residential (full mitigation) 404 $11.2 Single Family Residential (partial mitigation) 5,055 $72.6 Single Family Residential (homeowner reimbursement) 1,773 $5.2 Multi-Family Residential 1,976 $6.1 Total $95.1 In addition to the MAC’s mitigation obligations, the Consent Decree releases legal claims that the cities and homeowners have against the MAC in exchange for the actions that the MAC would perform under the Decree. The releases cease to be effective for a certain location if the average annual aircraft noise level in DNL at that location is at or above DNL 60 dB and is at least 2 dB DNL higher than the Base Case DNL Noise Level. The Base Case DNL Noise Level is established by the actual DNL noise level at a location during the year the home in that location becomes eligible for noise mitigation under the Consent Decree. The Base Case DNL Noise Level for homes that are not eligible for mitigation under the amended Consent Decree is established using the 2007 forecast DNL level for that location. MAC staff and representatives from the Cities of Minneapolis, Eagan, and Richfield met in February 2008 to discuss and finalize the annual report format. This report is prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Consent Decree and the format agreed upon by the parties. The actual contour that the MAC must develop under Section 8.1(d) of the Consent Decree is relevant to the release provisions in Section 8.1 as well as the determination of mitigation eligibility as defined by an amendment to the Consent Decree, described in Chapter 4 of this report. 1.5 FINAL MSP 2020 IMPROVEMENTS EA/EAW AND AMENDED CONSENT DECREE In January 2013, the MAC published the Final MSP 2020 Improvements Environmental Assessment/Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA/EAW), which reviewed the potential and cumulative environmental impacts of MSP terminal and landside developments needed through the year 2020. 34 MSP 2019 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission 17 As is detailed in the EA/EAW, the FAA’s Finding of No Significant Impact/Record of Decision (FONSI/ROD), and summarized in the MAC’s related Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order, the Preferred Alternative scenario did not have the potential for significant environmental effects. The forecasted noise contours around MSP were driven by natural traffic growth that was anticipated to occur with or without implementation of the 2020 Improvements proposed in the EA/EAW. Despite this, many of the public comments on the EA/EAW focused on future noise mitigation efforts. The past noise mitigation activities surrounding MSP, the terms of the 2007 Consent Decree and local land use compatibility guidelines defined by the Metropolitan Council were factors in the public dialogue. Additionally, the anticipated completion of the Consent Decree Residential Noise Mitigation Program in 2014 raised community interest regarding the future of noise mitigation at MSP. In response, MAC staff, in consultation with the MSP NOC, began the process of developing a noise mitigation plan to be included in the EA/EAW. The noise mitigation plan they recommended based eligibility upon actual noise contours that the MAC would prepare for MSP on an annual basis and required that a home would need to be located for three consecutive years in a higher noise mitigation impact area when compared to the home’s status under the terms of the 2007 Consent Decree. The Final MSP 2020 Improvements EA/EAW detailed the following mitigation program elements: •Mitigation eligibility would be assessed annually based on the actual noise contours for the previous year. •The annual mitigation assessment would begin with the actual noise contour for the year in which the FAA FONSI/ROD for the EA/EAW was issued. •For a home to be considered eligible for mitigation it must be located within the actual 60 dB DNL noise contour, within a higher noise impact mitigation area when compared to its status relative to the original Consent Decree noise mitigation program, for a total of three consecutive years, with the first of the three years beginning no later than 2020. •The noise contour boundary would be based on the block-intersect methodology. •Homes would be mitigated in the year following their eligibility determination. On January 7, 2013, the FAA published the Final MSP 2020 Improvements EA/EAW and the Draft FONSI/ROD, which included the following position regarding the proposed noise mitigation program: “The FAA is reviewing MAC's proposal for noise mitigation of homes for consistency with the 1999 FAA Policy and Procedures concerning the use of airport revenue and other applicable policy guidance.” During the public comment period on the FAA’s Draft FONSI/ROD many communities submitted comments urging the FAA to approve the MAC’s revised noise mitigation proposal. On March 5, 2013, the FAA approved the FONSI/ROD for the Final MSP 2020 Improvements EA/EAW. Specifically, the FAA stated that noise mitigation would not be a condition of FAA approval of the MSP 2020 Improvements project because “[n]o areas of sensitive land uses would experience a 1.5 dB or greater increase in the 65 dB DNL noise contour when comparing the No Action Alternative for 2020 and 2025 with the Proposed Action for the respective years.” However, the FAA included a letter dated March 5, 2013, as an attachment to the FONSI/ROD that addresses the conditions under which airport revenue may be used for off-airport noise mitigation. In that letter, the FAA stated: 35 MSP 2019 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission 18 “As a matter of general principle mitigation measures imposed by a state court as part of a consent decree are eligible for use of airport revenue. Conceptually MAC could use airport revenues if it were to amend the 2007 consent decree to include the proposed mitigation.” Based on the FAA guidance, the MAC initiated discussions with the other parties to the Consent Decree (Cities of Minneapolis, Richfield and Eagan and the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority) to begin the amendment process. Additionally, at the March 20, 2013 NOC meeting, the Committee was updated on the progress of this issue and voted unanimously, supporting the following position: “NOC supports the noise mitigation program as detailed in the final EA/EAW in principal and supports follow-up negotiations between the parties to the Consent Decree to establish mutually agreeable terms for the modification of the Consent Decree consistent with the March 5 th FAA letter in Appendix D of the FONSI ROD, for consideration by the Court.” On July 31, 2013, the Cities of Minneapolis, Richfield and Eagan, and the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority and the MAC jointly filed the first amendment to the Consent Decree to Hennepin County Court. On September 25, 2013, Hennepin County Court Judge Ivy S. Bernardson approved the firs t amendment to the 2007 Consent Decree. The first amendment contains language that binds the MAC to provide noise mitigation services consistent with the noise mitigation terms described in the EA/EAW. The 2013 actual noise contours established the first year of candidate eligibility based on the criteria detailed in the EA/EAW. The Full 5-decibel Reduction Package is offered to single-family homes meeting the eligibility criteria inside the actual 63 dB DNL noise contour while the Partial Noise Reduction Package is offered to single-family homes in the actual 60-62 dB DNL noise contours. A uniform Multi-Family Noise Reduction Package is offered to multi-family units within the actual 60 dB DNL noise contour. Homes will be mitigated in the year following their eligibility determination. The 2013 actual contour marked the first year in assessing this amended mitigation program. In 2017 MAC began mitigating homes meeting the eligibility requirements. The program included 138 single-family homes and 88 multi-family units as part of the 2017 program, 283 single-family homes in the 2018 program, 429 single-family homes in the 2019 program, and 243 single-family homes in the 2020 program. As of January 2020, $16,272,148 has been spent on mitigating homes pursuant to the amended Consent Decree. In 2016, the Cities of Minneapolis, Richfield and Eagan, and the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority and the MAC drafted a second amendment to the 2007 Consent Decree. This amendment: 1) allows the use of the Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT) to run the actual noise contours each year (beginning with the 2016 actual noise contour; 2) provides clarity on the Opt-Out Eligibility criteria; and 3) provides a safeguard for homes that may fall out of consecutive year mitigation eligibility by virtue of a change in the model used to generate the noise contours. The clarification to the Opt-Out Eligibility criteria states: (1) homeowners who failed to participate in the reimbursement program are not considered “Opt-Outs” and may participate in future programs provided the home meets the eligibility requirements; and (2) single-family homes that previously opted out of the Partial Noise Reduction Package may participate in the Full 5-decibel Reduction Package provided the home meets the eligibility requirements. In November 2016, the parties to the Consent Decree signed the second amendment. In December 2016, the FAA responded that the second amendment “constitute a proper use of airport revenue” and “is consistent with MAC’s grant obligations.” On January 31, 2017 Judge Bernardson approved the second amendment to the 2007 Consent Decree. 36 MSP 2019 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission 19 2.2019 ACTUAL NOISE CONTOUR 2.1 DEVELOPMENT OF THE 2019 ACTUAL NOISE CONTOUR 2.1.1 Noise Modeling By March 1 of each year, the MAC is required to prepare actual noise contours reflecting the noise exposure from MSP aircraft operations that took place during the previous calendar year. The availability of federal or airport-generated funds for the purpose of noise mitigation is contingent upon the development of noise contours in a manner consistent with FAA requirements. One of these requirements is the use of the DNL noise assessment metric to determine and analyze aircraft noise exposure. The DNL metric is calculated by averaging cumulative sound levels over a 24-hour period. This average cumulative sound exposure includes a 10-decibel penalty to aircraft noise exposures occurring during the nighttime (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM) to account for relatively low nighttime ambient noise levels and because most people are asleep during these hours. In May 2015, AEDT version 2b was released by the FAA to replace a series of legacy tools, including INM, which was previously used for modeling noise pursuant to the terms of the Consent Decree. According to the FAA, there was overlap in functionality and underlying methodologies between AEDT and the legacy tools, however updates were made in AEDT that result in differences when comparing outputs from AEDT and the legacy tools. The updates related to noise modeling include: smaller flight segments to more accurately model aircraft noise levels for a larger number of aircraft positions and states along a flight path; a new standard (SAE-ARP-5534) for computing the effects of weather on noise; correcting misidentified aircraft engine mounted locations for three aircraft types; and moving from recursive grids to dynamic grids for noise contour generation. The most recent version of AEDT, version 3b, was released for use on September 24, 2019. This version was used to develop the 2019 Actual Contour. AEDT 3b was a major release that included new and substantial changes to aircraft performance modeling along with other new features, updates, and a series of bug fixes and usability improvements. AEDT 3b introduced the ability to select alternative weight and reduced thrust departure profiles. This new feature is considered non-standard and was not utilized in producing the 2019 Actual Contour. AEDT 3b also included an update to the aircraft fleet database to include data for four new aircraft and two updated aircraft. Those aircraft changes include: •Airbus A350-941 – New •Gulfstream G650 – New •Boeing 737 Max 8 – Update •Boeing 737-800 – Update •Two variants of the Airbus A320neo – New •Dassault Falcon 900EX – New Noise contours depict an annualized average day of aircraft noise impacts using model inputs, such as runway use, flight track use, aircraft fleet mix, aircraft performance and thrust settings, topography, and atmospheric conditions. Quantifying aircraft-specific noise characteristics in AEDT is accomplished using a comprehensive noise database that has been developed under 14 CFR Part 36. As part of the airworthiness certification process, aircraft manufacturers are required to subject aircraft to a battery of noise tests. Using federally adopted and endorsed algorithms, this aircraft-specific noise information is 37 MSP 2019 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission 20 used in the generation of DNL contours. Justification for such an approach is rooted in national standardization of noise quantification at airports. 2.1.2 2019 Aircraft Operations and Fleet Mix Most of the aircraft operations at MSP are conducted by airline companies. Thus, changes to operational levels will be impacted by airline decisions. For several years, airlines operating at MSP and nationwide have chosen to upgrade aircraft fleets, often choosing aircraft that can move more passengers with fewer operations. Additionally, airlines are choosing to operate aircraft with higher load factors. A load factor is a measure of how many of the seats of an aircraft are filled. Higher load factors and larger aircraft have resulted in fewer operations necessary to carry record amounts of passengers. For example, the actual 2019 operations level at MSP is below the operational level documented at the airport over 25 years ago, below the operational level forecasted for 2007, and below the 2018 level. Despite this, MSP set an all- time passenger record in 2019 with 38.4 million passengers, an increase of over 4 percent over 2018. The MAC used its Noise and Operations Monitoring System (MACNOMS) for the 2019 fleet mix data as well as the FAA’s Operations Network (OPSNET) total operations counts in the development of the actual 2019 noise contours. The MACNOMS total operations number was 0.5 percent lower than the operations number reported by OPSNET. To reconcile this difference, MACNOMS data was adjusted upward to equal the OPSNET number. In 2019, the total operations at MSP was 406,073 (per FAA data), an average of 1,112.5 daily flights. This represents a decrease of 0.2 percent from the 2018 annual operations level reported by the FAA. MACNOMS found that 89.2% of all operations occurred between 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM (day). The remaining share, 10.8%, occurred between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM (night). This total translates to 119.8 average daily nighttime operations. That figure is down slightly from the 120.3 average daily nighttime operations in 2018. Table 2.1: Summary of 2019 Average Daily Flight Operations Average Daily Flight Operations Day Night Total % of Total Operations Manufactured to be Stage 3+ 955.3 118.0 1,073.4 96.5% Hushkit Stage 3 Jets 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0% Microjet 0.7 0.0 0.7 0.1% Propeller 33.6 1.6 35.2 3.2% Helicopter 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0% Military 2.9 0.1 3.0 0.3% Total 992.7 119.8 1,112.5 100.0% % of Total Operations 89.2% 10.8% 100.0% Note: Totals may differ due to rounding. Source: MAC-provided MACNOMS data, HNTB 2020 38 MSP 2019 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission 21 The use of newer and quieter aircraft has continued. In 2019, there were 2,400 Airbus A320 NEO (New Engine Option) operations. These operations were split between aircraft with CFM International Leap engines flown by Frontier Airlines and Pratt and Whitney geared turbofan engines flown by Spirit Airlines. Additionally, a small number of Airbus A321 NEO operations were flown by Alaska Airlines and American Airlines in 2019. The most notable change to the fleet occurred in June as Delta Air Lines began revenue operations using the Airbus A220-100 aircraft at MSP. Delta took delivery of 28 of these aircraft between October 2018 and December 2019. Using those aircraft, Delta conducted nearly 1,200 operations in less than six months. According to Airbus, the noise footprint is up to four times smaller than other in-production aircraft, while fuel burn contributes 20% fewer CO2 and 50% fewer NOX emissions. The current version of AEDT does not have a noise profile for the Airbus A220, therefore a conservative approach was taken, consistent with FAA guidance, to substitute a Boeing 737-700 aircraft for the 2019 annual noise contour. All non-standard aircraft substitutions in AEDT were approved by the FAA Office of Energy and Environment. The other notable change to aircraft fleets at MSP that contributed to less noise in 2019 included the introduction of the Airbus A350- 941 into revenue service. Delta began using this wide body, twin aisle jet for service to Seoul, South Korea in October. In that short time, Delta conducted more than 100 operations in an aircraft type that Airbus reports was designed to be 25 percent more fuel efficient and 40 percent quieter than previous generations of aircraft. A summary of the 2019 fleet mix is provided in Table 2.1. A more detailed presentation of the 2019 aircraft fleet mix is provided in Appendix 1. 39 MSP 2019 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission 22 2.1.3 2019 Runway Use FAA’s control and coordination of runway use throughout the year for arrival and departure operations at MSP has a notable effect on the noise impact around the airport. The number of flights operating on each runway, also called runway use, is one of the factors behind t he numbers of people and dwellings impacted by noise. Historically, prior to the opening of Runway 17/35, arrival and departure operations at MSP occurred on the parallel runways (12L/30R and 12R/30L) in a manner that resulted in approximately 50 percent of the arrival and departure operations occurring to the northwest over South Minneapolis, and 50 percent to the southeast over Mendota Heights and Eagan. Because of the dense residential land uses to the northwest and the predominantly industrial/commercial land uses southeast of MSP, there was a concerted effort to focus departure operations over areas to the southeast as the preferred operational configuration. This tactic proved to affect fewer sensitive land uses and people from an aircraft noise perspective. The introduction of Runway 17/35 at MSP in 2005 provided another opportunity to route aircraft over an unpopulated area – the Minnesota River Valley. With use of the Runway 17 Departure Procedure, westbound departing aircraft are routed such that they avoid close-in residential areas southwest of Runway 17. Thus, use of Runway 17 for departing aircraft is the second preferred operational configuration (after Runways 12L and 12R) for noise reduction purposes. In 2013, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommended modifications to arrival and departure procedures for airports with Converging Runway Operations (CRO). CRO exists when the extended centerline of two runways intersect within one nautical mile of the departure ends of those runways. This situation poses a potential risk for aircraft converging at the intersection point. At MSP, this situation exists when aircraft are landing and departing in a northerly direction because the extended centerline of Runway 35 intersects within one mile of the extended centerlines for both Runways 30L and 30R. Since Runway 35 is used only for arrivals from the south, potential convergence of flight paths would occur only if an aircraft executes an aborted landing (“go around”) on its approach to Runway 35. Between 2013 and 2015, the FAA phased-in new safety requirements at United States airports identified by the NTSB. Beginning in July 2015, the FAA worked to introduce the requirements at MSP. At the end of 2015 and throughout 2016, the airport saw notable changes in runway use resulting from the added complexity for controllers when the airport was operating in a CRO condition (landing and departing in a northerly direction). In response, the MSP NOC unanimously passed a resolution requesting the FAA evaluate the current and future environmental and capacity impacts from the new CRO rules and to 40 MSP 2019 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission 23 communicate the findings back to the NOC. The MAC Board of Commissioners took unanimous action supporting the NOC resolution and forwarded it to the FAA. During 2017, the FAA made progress in designing and employing technological tools within its air traffic control system to revert closer to runway use patterns prior to the new CRO rules, regain some capacity loss, and reduce air traffic controller workload at MSP during CRO. In January 2017, the FAA began using two Arrival Departure Windows (ADWs) for each of the parallel runways. In order to use two ADWs at the same time, a thorough risk assessment and approval process was required. These windows help alternate flights departing from Runways 30L and 30R with flights arriving to Runway 35. Use of the two ADWs increased MSP’s northerly arrival rate from 64 to 75 aircraft per hour. In June 2017, the FAA implemented a Converging Runway Display Aid (CRDA), which aligns aircraft arriving to Runway 30L with aircraft arriving to Runway 35 to help air traffic controllers with sequencing departures to the northwest. The CRDA tool helps arrivals on Runway 35 line up with arrivals on Runway 30L to create a predictable departure gap for Runway 30L. This process has allowed the FAA to develop efficiency gains and increase arrival rates up to 84 aircraft per hour during three peak arrival demand periods throughout the day, which reduces arrival delays. Similarly, in August 2017 the FAA began flexing departure rates upward during peak departure demand periods by routing Runway 35 arrivals to either Runway 30L or Runway 30R, thus eliminating the dependency on ADWs for aircraft departing to the northwest. During 2018, the FAA continued the implementation of tools and agreements designed to standardize operating expectations within its air traffic control system. The three MSP air traffic control facilities – Tower (ATCT), Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON), and Minneapolis Center (ARTCC) – have similar interests in controlling air traffic but different constraints on their activity. To standardize the agreements regarding use of CRO, the facilities began to develop standard operating procedures between the three facilities that identified the variables necessary to commence CRO measures. 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 that 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 were incorporated into Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) by the ATCT, TRACON and ARTCC at MSP. Because the criteria for implementing CRO is demand-based, the times that 41 MSP 2019 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission 24 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. A summary of notable changes in runway use from 2018 to 2019 is provided below: •Runway 12L arrival usage dropped from 21.3 percent of all arrival activity in 2018 to 20.5 percent in 2019. •Runway 30L handled 28.7 percent of all arrivals in 2019 compared to only 25.9 percent in 2018. •Runway 35 arrival usage decreased to 2.5 percent in 2019 compared to 5.5 percent in 2018. •Runway 12R departure usage increased from 6.2 percent in 2018 to 7.5 percent in 2019. •Runway 17 departure usage decreased in 2019. This runway was used for 33.8 percent of all MSP departures in 2018 and 32.4 percent in 2019. A change in runway use between 2018 and 2019 is one of the variables that cause changes in the shape of the noise contours. Table 2.2 provides the average annual runway use distribution for 2019. 42 MSP 2019 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission 25 Table 2.2: Summary of 2019 Average Annual Runway Use Operation Runway Day Night Total Arrivals 4 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 12L 21.4% 13.7% 20.5% 12R 25.3% 25.9% 25.4% 17 0.0% 0.9% 0.1% 22 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 30L 27.7% 36.4% 28.7% 30R 23.4% 18.0% 22.8% 35 2.1% 5.2% 2.5% Departures 4 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 12L 14.5% 16.5% 14.7% 12R 5.5% 25.0% 7.5% 17 35.1% 8.2% 32.4% 22 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 30L 23.3% 31.0% 24.1% 30R 21.4% 19.0% 21.2% 35 0.0% 0.3% 0.1% Note: Total may not add up due to rounding. Helicopters are excluded. Source: MAC-provided MACNOMS Data, HNTB 2020 2.1.4 2019 Flight Tracks Modeled departure and arrival flight tracks were developed using actual flight track data. The model tracks used in the 2019 Actual Contour were identical to those used for the 2018 actual noise contour. Sub-tracks are added to each of the backbone arrival and departure model tracks. The distribution of operations among the backbone and sub-tracks in AEDT use a standard “bell curve” distribution, based on the number of sub-tracks developed. The same methodology used in previous MSP annual reports also was used to assign actual 2019 flight tracks to the modeled tracks. The correlation process employs a best-fit analysis of the actual flight track data based on linear trends. This approach provides the ability to match each actual flight track directly to the appropriate model track. Graphics of model flight tracks and the percent that each was used in 2019 are provided in Appendix 2. 2.1.5 Custom Departure Profiles Aircraft departures at MSP continue to be use the distant noise abatement departure procedure. Historically the noise modeling has utilized custom noise model input in the form of custom profiles for the loudest and most frequent aircraft types. The current set of custom profiles were developed in 2011 and 2014. With the release of AEDT and continued changes in the fleet mix, the percentage of aircraft that are modeled using a custom distant profile were updated. Based on the data prepared and modeled in the 2017 Annual Noise Contour, approximately 26% of all departures were assigned to a Delta-specific distant 43 MSP 2019 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission 26 procedure, 37% were assigned to a generic distant procedure, and approximately 37% were assigned to standard departure procedures. In 2018, the MAC contracted HNTB to identify and develop custom departure profiles for aircraft type and airline combinations that occurred at MSP that did not yet have custom profiles available. Custom profiles were developed and reviewed with chief pilots for aircraft operated by Delta Air Lines, UPS, and Spirit Airlines. A total of six aircraft with varying stage lengths were identified, resulting in a total of 21 custom profiles. Although it is not required for the preparation of the Annual Noise Contour, the MAC in conjunction with HNTB followed the established protocol (Guidance on Using the Aviation Environmental Design Tool to Conduct Environmental Modeling for FAA Actions Subject to NEPA), and submitted the updated profiles to the FAA Airport Planning and Environmental Division and the Office of Environment and Energy Noise Division requesting approval of the development and use of the distant procedures during future modeling projects. The FAA concurred with the updated custom profiles in September 2019. The use of departures with custom profiles decreased from 63 percent in 2017 to 61 percent in 2018. After incorporating these new 21 custom profiles into the portfolio, the use of departures with custom profiles increased to 74.4 percent in 2019. 2.1.6 2019 Atmospheric Conditions The weather data used in the 2019 Actual Contour were acquired from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center. As per FAA guidance, the following default weather parameters from the MSP weather station were applied: •Temperature – 45.0 degrees Fahrenheit •Dew point – 35.9 degrees Fahrenheit •Wind speed – 8.4 knots •Pressure – 985.4 Millibars •Relative humidity – 67.7 percent 44 MSP 2019 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission 27 2.2 2019 MODELED VERSUS MEASURED DNL VALUES As part of the 2019 Actual Contour evaluation, a comparison was conducted on the actual 2019 measured aircraft noise levels at the MAC’s 39 sound monitoring sites to the modeled DNL noise values from AEDT. The latitude and longitude coordinates for each sound monitoring site was used to calculate modeled DNL values in AEDT. Table 2.3 provides a comparison of the AEDT modeled DNL noise values and the actual measured aircraft DNLs at those locations in 2019. 45 MSP 2019 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission 28 Table 2.3: 2019 Measured vs. Modeled DNL Values Sound Monitoring Site 2019 Measured DNL (a) 2019 Modeled DNL Difference Absolute Difference 1 56.7 57.2 0.5 0.5 2 58.3 58.0 -0.3 0.3 3 62.6 63.3 0.7 0.7 4 59.2 59.5 0.3 0.3 5 67.4 67.9 0.5 0.5 6 67.3 65.8 -1.5 1.5 7 59.3 58.7 -0.6 0.6 8 55.5 55.6 0.1 0.1 9 34.7 42.7 8.0 8.0 10 36.7 49.2 12.5 12.5 11 33.9 44.4 10.5 10.5 12 33.6 47.4 13.8 13.8 13 53.7 55.1 1.4 1.4 14 60.3 61.1 0.8 0.8 15 55.8 55.9 0.1 0.1 16 64.4 63.7 -0.7 0.7 17 42.8 49.3 6.5 6.5 18 52.5 58.9 6.4 6.4 19 49.0 54.2 5.2 5.2 20 42.1 51.6 9.5 9.5 21 44.9 49.6 4.7 4.7 22 55.6 57.6 2.0 2.0 23 60.4 60.0 -0.4 0.4 24 58.9 59.8 0.9 0.9 25 49.8 52.7 2.9 2.9 26 51.3 54.6 3.3 3.3 27 53.2 55.6 2.4 2.4 28 54.8 61.4 6.6 6.6 29 52.3 53.2 0.9 0.9 30 60.2 59.9 -0.3 0.3 31 46.6 50.5 3.9 3.9 32 41.2 48.2 7.0 7.0 33 46.0 50.1 4.1 4.1 34 43.5 48.0 4.5 4.5 35 50.3 52.1 1.8 1.8 36 49.8 50.1 0.3 0.3 37 45.5 48.3 2.8 2.8 38 48.9 50.5 1.6 1.6 39 50.0 51.4 1.4 1.4 Average 3.4 Median 1.8 Notes: All units in dB DNL (a) Computed from daily DNLs Source: MAC sound monitoring data and HNTB, 2020 46 MSP 2019 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission 29 There is an inherent difference between modeled noise results and measured noise results. AEDT modeled data only reports on aircraft noise. It cannot replicate the various other sources of community noise that exist and contribute to ambient conditions. AEDT cannot replicate the exact operating characteristics of each aircraft that is input into the model. AEDT uses average weather conditions instead of actual weather conditions at the time of the flight. AEDT also uses conservative aircraft substitutions when new aircraft are not yet available in the model. Conversely, RMT measured data is highly impacted by community sound. The MACNOMS system must set thresholds for events to attempt to eliminate occurrences of community sound events being assigned to aircraft sound. While some of the data is evaluated by staff, most events are assumed to be aircraft if a flight track existed during the time of the event. The factors that may contribute to the difference include site terrain, building reflection, foliage and ground cover, ambient noise level as well as atmospheric conditions. There variables will impact the propagation of sound differently. The use of absolute values provides a perspective of total difference between the modeled values and the measured values. The average absolute difference between modeled and measured DNL is approximately 3.4 dB, compared with 3.3 dB in 2018, 3.1 dB in 2017 and 2.3 dB in 2016. The absolute median difference is 1.8 dB DNL compared with 2.4 dB DNL in 2018, 1.4 dB DNL in 2017 and 1.1 dB DNL in 2016; this indicates that the 2019 Actual Contour generated through modeling in AEDT are similar in absolute difference to actual measured noise levels. The absolute median difference is considered the most reliable indicator of correlation when considering the data variability across modeled and measured data. The small variation between actual measured aircraft noise levels and the AEDT modeled noise levels provides additional system verification that AEDT is providing an accurate assessment of the aircraft noise impacts. The larger variations between measured and modeled data occur at sites that have less events overall. When more data is available, that variance decreases. For example, there were 19 sites that had a modeled DNL at or above 55 dB. The average difference between the modeled DNL and measured DNL at those sites was only 1.3 dB. The median of the absolute difference was 0.6 dB at those sites. 2.3 2019 NOISE CONTOUR IMPACTS Based on the 406,073 total operations in 2019, 4,384.2 acres are in the 65 dB DNL noise contour (a decrease of nearly 60 acres, or 1.3 percent, from the 2018 actual noise contour) and approximately 11,082 acres are in the 60 dB DNL noise contour (a decrease of 241 acres, or 2.1 percent, from the 2018 actual noise contour). The decrease is due to the contribution of various factors, including a decrease in the number of total operations, a minor decrease in nighttime operations and an increase in operations flown by quieter aircraft. The changes in the noise contours are consistent with changes in day/night split, fleet mix, runway and flight track use. The overall size of the 65 dB and 60 dB DNL contours shrunk in 2019 compared to 2018. Specifically, reductions are visible along the Runway 12L and 12R arrival lobes over Minneapolis and the Runway 35 arrival lobe in Bloomington. Similarly, the Runway 17 departure lobe in Bloomington and Runway 12L departure lobe in Mendota Heights also contracted. The contours grew in Richfield and Minneapolis under the Runway 30L departure lobe and had a minor increase in Eagan along the Runway 30L and 30R arrival lobe. Finally, the contour grew on airport property in the area of the aircraft runup pad. 47 MSP 2019 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission 30 Table 2.5 contains the count of single-family (one to three units per structure) and multi-family (more than three units per structure) dwelling units in the 2019 Actual Contour. The counts are based on the block-intersect methodology where all structures on a block that located within or touched by the noise contour are counted. The spatial analysis was performed in Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM Zone 15). Table 2.4 Summary of 2019 Actual DNL Noise Contour Unit Counts City Dwelling Units Within dB DNL Interval Single Family Multi-Family 60-64 65-69 70-74 75+ Total 60-64 65-69 70-74 75+ Total Bloomington 16 1 - - 17 516 - - - 516 Eagan 338 15 - - 353 38 - - - 38 Mendota Heights 47 1 - - 48 - - - - - Minneapolis 7,671 1,512 - - 9,183 590 507 - - 1,097 Richfield 873 60 - - 933 383 - - - 383 All Cities 8,945 1,589 - - 10,534 1,527 507 - - 2,034 A total of 1,094 single-family residences and 88 multi-family units within the 60 dB DNL noise contour in the City of Minneapolis were previously entered into the 2017 – 2020 Mitigation Programs. An additional 16 single-family residences within the 60 dB DNL noise contour in the City of Eagan received mitigation eligibility for the 2021 Mitigation Program by virtue of the 2019 Actual Contour. All residential units within the 2019 actual 60 dB DNL noise contour have either received noise mitigation around MSP or are part of the 2017 – 2021 programs. A thorough evaluation of the 2019 Actual Contour and resulting changes to residential noise mitigation is provided in Chapter 4. A depiction of the 2019 Actual Contour is provided in Figure 2. 48 MSP 2019 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission 31 Figure 2: 2019 Actual Contour 49 MSP 2019 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission 32 3. COMPARISON OF THE 2019 ACTUAL AND THE 2007 FORECAST CONTOUR 3.1 COMPARISON OF NOISE CONTOUR INPUTS 3.1.1 Noise Model Considerations The 2019 Actual Contour was modeled in AEDT version 3b, which incorporates updates to flight segments, atmospheric computing standards, grids used for noise contour generation and other issues that carried over from the INM. The 2007 Forecast Contour was developed using INM Version 6.1. It is important to note that modeling modifications over time can change the size and shape of a noise contour. For example, a range of case study airports revealed that improvements to lateral attenuation adjustment algorithms and flight path segmentation in INM version 7.0 were found by the FAA to increase the size of a DNL contour for a range of case study airports between 3 and 10 percent over what previous versions of INM would have modeled. Additionally, some updates incorporated into AEDT, had the effect of reducing the 60 dB DNL noise contour by 0.6 percent at MSP compared to the latest version of INM. 3.1.2 Aircraft Operations and Fleet Mix Comparison The forecasted level of operations in the 2007 noise contour was 582,366 annual flights, an average of 1,595.9 flights per day. In 2019, the actual number of operations at MSP was 406,073, or 1,112.5 flights per day. This represents a reduction of 483.4 daily flights on average, or 30.2 percent from the 2007 forecast number. Nighttime operations decreased by 3.5 average daily flights from the 2007 forecast level to 2019 actual level. Table 3.1 provides a summary comparison of the 2019 actual and the 2007 forecast average daily operations. A more detailed comparison of the 2007 forecast fleet mix and the 2019 actual aircraft fleet mix is provided in Appendix 1. In general, many of the aircraft groups operating at MSP showed a reduction in the number of average daily operations from the 2007 forecasted level to the 2019 actual level. On average, there was 0.8 Hushkit Stage 3 Jet operations per day in 2019. This is down from the 2007 forecast average of 275 flights per day. Manufactured Stage 3+ average daily operations in 2019 were down by 83.1 flights per day from the 2007 forecast. The number of propeller-driven and military aircraft operations decreased 115.8 per day and 5.4 per day, respectively. 50 MSP 2019 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission 33 Table 3.1: Summary of 2019 and 2007 Average Daily Flight Operations Average Daily Flight Operations Day Night Total % of Total Operations 2019 Manufactured to be Stage 3+ 955.3 118.0 1073.4 96.5% Hushkit Stage 3 Jet 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0% Microjet 0.7 0.0 0.7 0.1% Propeller 33.6 1.6 35.2 3.2% Helicopter 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0% Military 2.9 0.1 3.0 0.3% Total 992.7 119.8 1112.5 100.0% % of Total Operations 89.2% 10.8% 100.0% 2007 Manufactured to be Stage 3+ 1071.5 85.0 1156.5 72.5% Hushkit Stage 3 Jet 253.3 21.7 275.0 17.2% Stage 2 Jets under 75,000 lbs 4.2 0.6 4.8 0.3% Propeller 143.0 16.0 159.0 10.0% Helicopter 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% Military 0.4 0.0 0.5 0.0% Total 1472.4 123.3 1595.9 100.0% % of Total Operations 92.3% 7.7% 100.0% Notes: Totals may differ due to rounding As of January 1, 2016, Stage 2 aircraft below 75,000 lbs are required to be compliant with Stage 3 noise regulations. Source: MAC-provided MACNOMS data, HNTB 2020 3.1.3 Runway Use Comparison Table 3.2 provides the runway use percentages for 2019 and a comparison to the 2007 forecast runway use percentages. A general evaluation of the runway use percentages in Table 3.2 shows that the use of Runways 12R and 30L for nighttime arrivals in 2019 is higher than what was forecasted in the 2007 noise contour; use of Runways 12L and 30R for arrivals was lower than the 2007 forecast. The use of Runway 35 for total arrivals was at 2.5 percent in 2019 compared to 16.5 percent during the 2007 forecast. In 2007, Runway 17 was forecasted to be used for 34.6 percent of all nighttime departures. In 2019, it was used for only 8.2 percent of nighttime departures. Lastly, the 2019 Runway 30L departure percentage was 8.3 percent higher at night and 18.2 percent higher during the day than the 2007 forecast. 51 MSP 2019 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission 34 Table 3.2: Summary of Average Annual Runway Use 2019, 2007 Operation Runway Day Night Total 2019 Actual 2007 Forecast 2019 Actual 2007 Forecast 2019 Actual 2007 Forecast Arrivals 4 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 3.8% 0.1% 0.3% 12L 21.4% 21.8% 13.7% 17.2% 20.5% 21.4% 12R 25.3% 14.7% 25.9% 12.4% 25.4% 14.5% 17 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 22 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 2.4% 0.0% 0.6% 30L 27.7% 21.1% 36.4% 25.1% 28.7% 21.4% 30R 23.4% 25.1% 18.0% 26.4% 22.8% 25.2% 35 2.1% 16.9% 5.2% 12.7% 2.5% 16.5% Departures 4 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% 0.4% 0.1% 0.2% 12L 14.5% 8.9% 16.5% 14.1% 14.7% 9.3% 12R 5.5% 15.9% 25.0% 18.3% 7.5% 16.1% 17 35.1% 37.2% 8.2% 34.6% 32.4% 37.0% 22 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 0.1% 30L 23.3% 15.0% 31.0% 12.8% 24.1% 14.8% 30R 21.4% 22.7% 19.0% 19.2% 21.2% 22.4% 35 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% Note: Total may not add up due to rounding. Source: MAC-provided MACNOMS data, HNTB 2020. Annual runway use for 2007 Forecast was obtained from the November 2004 Part 150 document. 3.1.4 Flight Track Considerations Modeled departure and arrival flight tracks were developed using actual flight track data from 2019. These flight tracks differ from those used to develop the 2007 Forecast Contour due to enhanced modeling methods and improved technologies. Sub-tracks were also added to each of the backbone tracks. Standard distribution in both INM and AEDT were used to distribute the flights to the sub-tracks. The same methodology as in previous annual reports was used to assign actual 201 9 flight tracks to the modeled tracks. The correlation process employs a best-fit analysis of the actual flight track data based on linear trends. This approach provides the ability to match each actual flight track directly to the appropriate model track. 3.1.5 Atmospheric Conditions Comparison The atmospheric condition inputs vary slightly between INM and AEDT. INM used pressure values in inches of Mercury, where standard atmospheric pressure is 29.92. AEDT takes pressure in millibars, where standard is 1013.25. AEDT takes an additional input value for dew point temperature in degrees Fahrenheit. As stated in Section 2.1.5, the weather data used in the 2019 Actual Contour were acquired from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center. As per FAA guidance, the following default weather parameters from the MSP weather station were applied: • Temperature – 45.0 degrees Fahrenheit • Dew point – 35.9 degrees Fahrenheit • Wind speed – 8.4 knots 52 MSP 2019 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission 35 • Pressure – 985.4 Millibars • Relative humidity – 67.7 percent The following annual average atmospheric conditions were used in the 2007 Forecast Contour: • Temperature – 47.7 degrees Fahrenheit • Wind speed – 5.3 knots • Pressure – 29.90 inches of Mercury • Relative humidity – 64.0 percent 3.2 COMPARATIVE NOISE MODEL GRID POINT ANALYSIS AEDT was used to calculate DNL values for the center points of each city block included in the mitigation programs outlined in the amended Consent Decree. Graphics showing the actual 201 9 DNL levels calculated for each block, Base Case DNL Noise Levels calculated for each block and the block-by-block difference in DNL levels between the Base Case and the 2019 Actual Contour are contained in Appendix 3. The Base Case DNL is established using the actual DNL noise level for that location during the year the home becomes eligible for noise mitigation under the amended Consent Decree. The Base Case DNL for homes that are not eligible for mitigation under the amended Consent Decree is established using the 2007 forecast DNL for that location. It is important to note that the 2007 forecast DNL was developed in INM Version 6.2a because this was the newest version of INM available to MAC staff to conduct the analysis in early 2008 when the MSP annual noise contour reporting efforts began. When comparing the DNL values generated for the MACNOMS sound monitoring sites with INM 6.1 in the November 2004 Part 150 Update document to the DNL generated for those same locations with INM 6.2a, the differences were insignificant. 3.3 CONTOUR COMPARISON SUMMARY In addition to modeling updates, other primary factors to consider when comparing the 2007 Forecast Contour to the 2019 Actual Contour are total operation numbers, fleet mix, nighttime operations, and runway use. The 2019 Actual Contour is smaller than the 2007 Forecast Contour by 4,627 acres (29 percent reduction) in the 60 dB DNL contour and by 2,850 acres (39 percent reduction) in the 65 dB DNL contour. As depicted in Figure 3, there is an area in Minneapolis and an area in Eagan where the 2019 Actual Contour extends beyond the 2007 Forecast Contour. The increase in these areas is primarily due to runway use differences between the 2007 forecast and 2019 actual use, particularly arrival operations on Runways 12R and 30L. All homes within the 2019 actual 65 dB DNL contour have received the 5-dB noise reduction mitigation package. Chapter 4 provides an analysis of mitigation eligibility relative to the 2019 Actual Contour consistent with the requirements of the amended Consent Decree. The predominant contraction in the contours from the 2007 Forecast to the 2019 Actual Contour scenarios is driven largely by fleet mix changes, including a significant reduction in Hushkit Stage 3 aircraft operations, and a reduction of 483.4 average daily operations. The extension of the 2019 Actual Contour beyond the 2007 Forecast Contour can largely be attributed to nighttime runway use variances between what was forecasted for 2007 and what occurred in 2019, particularly an increase in nighttime arrival operations on Runway 12R. 53 MSP 2019 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission 36 Figure 3: 2019 Actual and 2007 Forecast Contour Comparison 54 MSP 2019 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission 37 4. 2019 ANNUAL NOISE CONTOUR As discussed previously, the first amendment to the Consent Decree requires the MAC to determine eligibility for noise mitigation on an annual basis using actual noise contours, developed under Section 8.1(d) of the Consent Decree. This chapter provides detailed information about noise mitigation impacts from the 2019 Actual Contour at MSP. 4.1 2019 ACTUAL CONTOUR NOISE MITIGATION IMPACT Under the provisions of the first and second amendments to the Consent Decree, properties must meet certain criteria to be considered eligible for participation in the MAC noise mitigation program. First, as stated in the first amendment: “The community in which the home is located has adopted local land use controls and building performance standards applicable to the home for which mitigation is sought that prohibit new residential construction, unless the construction materials and practices are consistent with the local land use controls and heightened building performance standards for homes within the 60 dB DNL Contour within the community in which the home is located.” This criterion has been met by all of the incorporated cities contiguous to MSP. Second, as stated in the first amendment: “The home is located, for a period of three consecutive years, with the first of the three years beginning no later than calendar year 2020 (i) in the actual 60-64 dB DNL noise contour prepared by the MAC under Section 8.l(d) of this Consent Decree and (ii) within a higher noise impact mitigation area when compared to the Single-Family home's status under the noise mitigation programs for Single-Family homes provided in Sections 5.1 through 5.3 of this Consent Decree or when compared to the Multi- Family home's status under the noise mitigation programs for Multi-Family homes provided in Section 5 .4 of this Consent Decree. The noise contour boundary will be based on the block intersect methodology. The MAC will offer noise mitigation under Section IX of this Consent Decree to owners of eligible Single-Family homes and Multi-Family homes in the year following the MAC's determination that a Single-Family or Multi-Family home is eligible for noise mitigation under this Section.” Table 4.1 provides a summary of the number of single-family living units within the 2019 60 dB DNL noise contour, as well as changes in mitigation and the number of years of eligibility achieved by virtue of the 2019 Actual Contour. Table 4.2 provides the number of multi-family living units within the 2019 60 dB DNL noise contour, as well as changes in mitigation and the number of years of eligibility achieved by virtue of the 2019 Actual Contour. The spatial analysis was performed in Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM Zone 15). 55 MSP 2019 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission 38 Table 4.1: Summary of 2019 Actual Contour Single-Family Unit Counts Year of Eligibility City Mitigation DNL Contours 60-62 63-64 65-69 70-74 75+Total No Change in Eligibility Bloomington In 2019 Actual Contour 16 -1 -- 17 Entered the 2021 Mitigation Program Eagan In 2019 Actual 60 dB DNL previously between 2005 and 2007 60 dB DNL (Eligible for additional mitigation, less previous reimbursements) 16 - - - - 16 No Change in Eligibility Eagan In 2019 Actual Contour 262 60 15 -- 337 No Change in Eligibility Mendota Heights In 2019 Actual Contour 47 -1 -- 48 No Change in Eligibility Minneapolis In 2019 Actual Contour 5,505 2,166 1,512 -- 9,183 No Change in Eligibility Richfield In 2019 Actual Contour 645 228 60 933 Grand Total 6,491 2,454 1,589 -- 10,534 Notes: Block-Intersect Methodology; Multi-Family = 4 or more units; As a result of parcel information updated in July 2019, unit counts may differ from previous reports. Source: HNTB provided AEDT Contours, MAC analysis 2020 56 MSP 2019 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission 39 Table 4.2 Summary of 2019 Actual Contour Multi-Family Unit Counts Year of Eligibility City Mitigation DNL Contours 60-64 65-69 70-74 75+ Total No Change in Eligibility Bloomington In 2019 Actual Contour previously mitigated 516 - - - 516 No Change in Eligibility Eagan In 2019 Actual Contour previously mitigated 38 - - - 38 No Change in Eligibility Minneapolis In 2019 Actual Contour previously mitigated 590 507 - - 1,097 No Change in Eligibility Richfield In 2019 Actual Contour previously mitigated 383 - - - 383 Grand Total 1,527 507 - - 2,034 Notes: Block-intersect Methodology; Multi-Family = 4 or more units; As a result of parcel information updated in July 2019, unit counts may differ from previous reports. Source: HNTB provided AEDT Contours, MAC analysis 2020 57 MSP 2019 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission 40 4.2 AMENDED CONSENT DECREE PROGRAM ELIGIBILITY First-Year Candidate Eligibility Single-family: There are no single-family homes that achieved the first year of eligibility with the 2019 Actual Contour. Multi-family: There are no multi-family units that achieved the first year of eligibility with the 2019 Actual Contour. Second-Year Candidate Eligibility Single-family: The 2019 Actual Contour shrunk under the arrival lobe of Runway 12R, resulting in all homes in Minneapolis that had previously achieved one year of eligibility not reaching a second year of eligibility. Multi-family: Similarly, the contraction of the contour northwest of Lake Harriet resulted in all multi-family units in Minneapolis that had previously achieved one year of eligibility not reaching a second year of eligibility. Third-Year Candidate Eligibility Single-family: All 16 single-family homes that had two years of eligibility as a result of the 2018 annual noise contour were in the 60 dB DNL in the 2019 annual noise contour and are now entered into the 2021 mitigation program. All eligible homes are located on one block in Eagan within the Partial Noise Reduction Package. The homes on this block were previously eligible for homeowner reimbursements during the original Consent Decree Program. In cases where homes have received previous reimbursement from the MAC, the value of those improvements will be deducted from the efforts required to increase the home mitigation relative to the actual noise level, per the amended Consent Decree. These homes are now entered into the 2021 mitigation program. Homeowners of eligible properties will be notified by the MAC in writing. The blocks already included in previous mitigation programs and the amended Consent Decree programs are shown in Figures 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3. Additionally, Figure 4.3 shows the block that met the third consecutive year of noise mitigation eligibility by virtue of the 2019 Actual Contour. Multi-family: There are no multi-family units that achieved the third year of eligibility with the 2019 Actual Contour. 4.3 AMENDED CONSENT DECREE PROGRAM MITIGATION STATUS 2017 Mitigation Program Single-family: In 2017 the MAC began the project to provide mitigation to 138 single-family homes that became eligible by virtue of the 2015 actual noise contour. As of January 13, 2020, 117 homes have been completed, 14 homes declined to participate while 7 homes were moved to the 2020 program as a result of homeowner actions. Multi-family: Two multi-family structures were also eligible to participate in the Multi-Family Mitigation Program in 2017; one property is completed, and one property declined to participate. The total cost for the completed 2017 Mitigation Program was $2,442,685. 58 MSP 2019 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission 41 2018 Mitigation Program Single-family: In 2017, the MAC began the project to provide mitigation to 283 single-family homes that became eligible by virtue of the 2016 actual noise contour. As of January 13, 2020, 230 homes have been completed, 27 homes declined to participate while 23 homes were moved to the 2020 program. Multi-family: The 2018 Mitigation Program does not include any multi-family properties. The total cost for the 2018 Mitigation Program to date is $7,280,869. 2019 Mitigation Program Single-family: In 2018, the MAC began the project to provide mitigation to 429 single-family homes that became eligible by virtue of the 2017 actual noise contour. As of January 13, 2020, including the homes transitioned from the 2017 and 2018 programs, 214 homes have been completed, 159 homes are in the construction or pre-construction phase and 68 homes declined to participate. Multi-family: The 2019 Mitigation Program does not include any multi-family properties. The total cost for the 2019 Mitigation Program to date is $6,548,594. 2020 Mitigation Program Single-family: In 2019, the MAC began the project to provide mitigation to 243 single-family homes that became eligible by virtue of the 2018 actual noise contour (164 are eligible for the partial mitigation package and 79 are eligible for the full mitigation package). As of January 13, 2020, including the homes transitioned from the 2018 and 2019 programs, zero homes have been completed, 261 homes are in the construction or pre- construction phase and 4 homes declined to participate. Multi-family: The 2020 Mitigation Program does not include any multi-family properties. To date, there has not been any financial expenditures attributed to the 2020 Mitigation Program. 59 MSP 2019 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission 42 Figure 4.1: 2019 Contours and Mitigation Program Eligibility 60 MSP 2019 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission 43 Figure 4.2: 2019 Contours and Mitigation Program Eligibility – City of Minneapolis 61 MSP 2019 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission 44 Figure 4.3: 2019 Contours and Mitigation Program Eligibility – City of Eagan 62 Metropolitan Airports Commission MAC Community Relations Office and HNTB Corporation 6040 28th Avenue South • Minneapolis, MN 55450 macnoise.com 63 List of Appendices Appendix 1 Detailed Aircraft Fleet Mix Average Daily Operations Appendix 2 2019 Model Flight Track and Use Appendix 3 Noise Model Grid Point Maps 64 Appendix 1: Detailed Aircraft Fleet Mix Average Daily Operations Table Content Page Table A1-1 2019 Aircraft Fleet Mix Average Daily Operations A-3 Table A1-2 Comparison of 2007 Forecast Fleet Mix and 2019 Actual Fleet Mix Average Daily Operations A-8 65 MSP 2019 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission A-3 Table A1-1: 2019 Aircraft Fleet Mix Average Daily Operations Group Aircraft Code AEDT Aircraft (ANP) AEDT Aircraft Description 2019 Day 2019 Night 2019 Total Manufactured to be Stage 3+ A124 74720B Antonov An-124 Ruslan 0.0 0.0 0.0 A20N A320-271N Airbus A320NEO Series 0.0 0.0 0.1 A21N A321-232 Airbus A321 series 0.0 0.0 0.1 A306 A300-622R Airbus A300-600/622R 0.9 1.3 2.2 A319 A319-131 Airbus A319 series 64.5 5.0 69.5 A320 A320-211 Airbus A320 series 48.0 3.6 51.6 A320 A320-232 Airbus A320 series 19.8 6.1 25.8 A320 A320-271N Airbus A320 series 5.2 1.4 6.6 A321 A321-232 Airbus A321 series 59.3 9.4 68.7 A32N A321-232 Airbus A321NEO Series 0.0 0.0 0.0 A332 A330-343 Airbus A330-200 0.4 0.0 0.4 A333 A330-301 Airbus A330-300 4.1 0.3 4.4 A333 A330-343 Airbus A330-300 1.4 0.2 1.5 A346 A340-642 Airbus A340-600 0.0 0.0 0.0 A359 A350-941 Airbus A350-900 0.3 0.0 0.3 ASTR IA1125 IAI 1125 Astra 0.0 0.0 0.0 B38M 737MAX8 Boeing 737 MAX 8 0.2 0.1 0.2 B712 717200 Boeing 717-200 / Extended Range 77.3 4.2 81.4 B721 727QF Boeing 727-100 with Rolls-Royce TAY 650 Engine 0.0 0.0 0.0 B733 737300 Boeing 737-300 0.1 0.0 0.1 B733 7373B2 Boeing 737-300 0.1 0.0 0.1 B734 737400 Boeing 737-400 0.3 0.1 0.4 B735 737500 Boeing 737-500 0.0 0.0 0.0 B737 737700 Boeing 737-700 31.4 8.3 39.7 B738 737800 Boeing 737-800 93.8 24.2 118.0 B739 737800 Boeing 737-900 75.5 9.1 84.7 B744 747400 Boeing 747-400 0.2 0.1 0.4 B748 7478 Boeing 747-800 0.2 0.1 0.3 B74S 747SP Boeing 747SP 0.0 0.0 0.0 B752 757PW Boeing 757-200 28.5 7.0 35.6 B752 757RR Boeing 757-200 2.0 2.1 4.1 B753 757300 Boeing 757-300 13.2 0.8 14.0 B762 767CF6 Boeing 767-200 0.0 0.0 0.1 B762 767JT9 Boeing 767-200 0.0 0.0 0.0 B763 767300 Boeing 767-300 8.2 3.6 11.8 B764 767400 Boeing 767-400ER 0.5 0.3 0.8 B767 767CF6 Boeing 767 0.0 0.0 0.0 B772 777200 Boeing 777-200 5.3 0.1 5.4 B77L 777300 Boeing 777-200LR 0.1 0.0 0.1 B77W 7773ER Boeing 777-300ER 0.1 0.0 0.1 B788 7878R Boeing 787 Dreamliner (800 Model) 0.0 0.0 0.0 B789 7878R Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner 0.7 0.1 0.8 BCS1 737700 Airbus A220 Series 3.2 0.2 3.3 BE40 MU3001 Beechcraft Beechjet 400 0.5 0.0 0.5 C25A CNA500 Cessna CitationJet CJ2, 525A 0.1 0.0 0.1 C25B CNA500 Cessna CitationJet CJ3, 525B 0.4 0.0 0.4 C25C CNA525C Cessna CitationJet CJ4, 525C 0.2 0.0 0.2 C25M CNA500 Cessna CitationJet CJ1, 525 0.0 0.0 0.0 C32 757PW Boeing C-32 0.0 0.0 0.0 C500 CNA500 Cessna Citation I Twin Jet 0.0 0.0 0.0 C501 CNA500 Cessna Citation I Single Pilot Twin Jet 0.0 0.0 0.1 66 MSP 2019 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission A-4 Group Aircraft Code AEDT Aircraft (ANP) AEDT Aircraft Description 2019 Day 2019 Night 2019 Total Manufactured to be Stage 3+ C525 CNA500 Cessna CitationJet CJ1, 525 0.3 0.0 0.3 C550 CNA55B Cessna Citation 550 Citation II 0.2 0.0 0.2 C55B CNA55B Cessna Citation 550 Citation II 0.0 0.0 0.0 C560 CNA560E Cessna 560 Citation V, Ultra & Ultra Encore 0.4 0.0 0.5 C560 CNA560U Cessna 560 Citation V, Ultra & Ultra Encore 0.2 0.0 0.3 C56X CNA560XL Cessna 560XL Citation Excel 2.6 0.1 2.7 C650 CIT3 Cessna Citation III 0.2 0.0 0.3 C680 CNA680 Cessna 680 Citation Sovereign 2.7 0.1 2.8 C68A CNA680 Cessna Citation Latitude 1.4 0.0 1.4 C700 CNA680 Cessna Citation Longitude 0.0 0.0 0.0 C750 CNA750 Cessna 750 series/Citation X 1.5 0.1 1.6 CL30 CL600 Bombardier Challenger 300 2.6 0.3 2.9 CL35 CL600 Bombardier Challenger 350 2.1 0.1 2.2 CL60 CL601 Canadair Bombardier CL600/610 Challenger Twin Jet 1.2 0.1 1.2 CRJ2 CL600 Bombardier CRJ 200 Regional Jet 125.9 8.3 134.2 CRJ7 CRJ9-ER Bombardier CRJ 700 Regional Jet 37.4 2.7 40.1 CRJ9 CRJ9-ER Bombardier CRJ 900 Regional Jet 136.5 6.8 143.3 DC10 DC1010 McDonnell Douglas DC-10 0.0 0.0 0.0 DC10 DC1030 McDonnell Douglas DC-10 0.0 0.0 0.0 E135 EMB145 Embraer ERJ-135 0.3 0.0 0.4 E145 EMB145 Embraer ERJ-145 0.2 0.0 0.2 E170 EMB170 Embraer ERJ-170 11.0 1.2 12.2 E190 EMB190 Embraer ERJ-190-100 /-200 2.6 1.1 3.7 E35L EMB145 Embraer EMB-135 LR 0.1 0.0 0.1 E45X EMB145 Embraer EMB-145 EX (Extra Long Range) 0.2 0.0 0.2 E550 CNA55B Embraer EMB550 Phenom 300 0.3 0.0 0.3 E55P CNA55B Embraer EMB550 Phenom 300 1.2 0.1 1.2 E75L EMB175 Embraer ERJ-175 46.4 4.8 51.2 E75S EMB175 Embraer ERJ-175 11.0 2.0 13.0 F2TH CNA750 Dassault Falcon 2000 1.2 0.1 1.3 F900 FAL900EX Dassault Falcon 900 1.1 0.0 1.2 FA10 LEAR35 Dassault Falcon 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 FA50 FAL900EX Dassault Falcon 50 0.8 0.1 0.8 FA7X GIV Dassault Falcon 7X 0.2 0.0 0.2 FA8X GIV Dassault Falcon 8X 0.0 0.0 0.0 G150 IA1125 Gulfstream G150 0.2 0.0 0.2 G280 IA1125 Gulfstream G280 1.5 0.1 1.6 GA5C GV Gulfstream G500/600 0.0 0.0 0.0 GALX IA1125 IAI 1126 Astra Galaxy/Gulfstream 200 0.9 0.1 1.0 GL5T BD-700-1A11 Bombardier Global 5000 0.2 0.0 0.2 GLEX BD-700-1A10 Bombardier BD-700 Global Express 0.4 0.0 0.5 GLF4 GIV Gulfstream IV 1.2 0.1 1.4 GLF5 GV Gulfstream V 1.7 0.2 1.8 GLF6 G650ER Gulfstream VI / G650 0.2 0.0 0.2 H25B LEAR35 Hawker 800/800 XP/850 XP Twin Turbojet/Bae (Hawker- Siddeley) 125-800 1.0 0.1 1.1 H25C LEAR35 Hawker 1000 / Bae 125-1000 0.0 0.0 0.0 HA4T CNA750 Hawker Beechcraft 4000 Horizon (Horizon 1000) 0.1 0.0 0.1 HDJT CNA680 Honda Jet 0.0 0.0 0.0 HDJT MU3001 Honda Jet 0.0 0.0 0.0 J328 CNA750 Fairchild Dornier 328 Jet 0.0 0.0 0.0 LJ31 LEAR35 Learjet 31 Twin Jet 0.0 0.0 0.0 67 MSP 2019 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission A-5 Group Aircraft Code AEDT Aircraft (ANP) AEDT Aircraft Description 2019 Day 2019 Night 2019 Total Manufactured to be Stage 3+ LJ31 LEAR35 Learjet 31 Twin Jet 0.0 0.0 0.0 LJ35 LEAR35 Learjet 35 Twin Jet 0.4 0.0 0.4 LJ40 LEAR35 Learjet 40 Twin Jet 0.1 0.0 0.1 LJ45 LEAR35 Learjet 45 Twin Jet 0.7 0.0 0.8 LJ55 LEAR35 Learjet 55 Twin Jet 0.1 0.0 0.1 LJ60 CNA750 Learjet 60 Twin Jet 0.4 0.0 0.4 LJ70 LEAR35 Learjet 70 Twin Jet 0.0 0.0 0.0 LJ75 LEAR35 Learjet 75 Twin Jet 0.0 0.0 0.0 MD11 MD11GE McDonnell Douglas MD-11 (Mixed) 0.8 0.3 1.1 MD11 MD11PW McDonnell Douglas MD-11 (Mixed) 1.0 0.5 1.5 MD81 MD81 McDonnell Douglas MD-81 0.0 0.0 0.0 MD82 MD82 McDonnell Douglas MD-82 0.0 0.0 0.0 MD83 MD83 McDonnell Douglas MD-83 0.2 0.0 0.2 MD87 MD81 McDonnell Douglas MD-87 0.0 0.0 0.0 MD87 MD83 McDonnell Douglas MD-87 0.0 0.0 0.0 MD88 MD83 McDonnell Douglas MD-88 0.0 0.0 0.0 MD90 MD9028 McDonnell Douglas MD-90 6.4 0.3 6.7 PC24 CNA55B Pilatus PC-24 0.0 0.0 0.0 PRM1 CNA55B Raytheon 390 Premier 0.0 0.0 0.0 PRM1 MU3001 Raytheon 390 Premier 0.0 0.0 0.0 VC25 74720B Boeing VC-25 0.0 0.0 0.0 WW24 IA1125 IAI 1124 Westwind 0.0 0.0 0.0 Manufactured to be Stage 3+ Total 955.3 118.0 1073.4 Group Aircraft Code AEDT Aircraft (ANP) AEDT Aircraft Description 2019 Day 2019 Night 2019 Total Hushkit B722 727EM2 Boeing 727-200 0.0 0.0 0.0 B732 737N17 Boeing 737-200 Modified Stage 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 DC91 DC93LW McDonnell Douglas DC-9-10 with ABS3 Hushkit 0.0 0.0 0.0 FA20 FAL20 Dassault Falcon 20 Mystere 20 /200 0.1 0.0 0.1 GLF2 GII Gulfstream II 0.0 0.0 0.0 GLF3 GIIB Gulfstream III 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hushkit Total 0.2 0.0 0.2 Group Aircraft Code AEDT Aircraft (ANP) AEDT Aircraft Description 2019 Day 2019 Night 2019 Total Military A400 C130 Airbus A400M Altas 0.0 0.0 0.0 AN12 C130E Antonov An-12 Cub 0.0 0.0 0.0 C130 C130E Lockheed Martin C-130 2.8 0.1 2.9 C17 C17 Boeing C-17 Globemaster III 0.0 0.0 0.0 C17A C17 Boeing C-17 Globemaster III 0.0 0.0 0.0 C30J C130HP Lockheed Martin C-130J Super Hercules 0.0 0.0 0.0 F18S F-18 McDonnell Douglas (Boeing) F/A-18 Hornet 0.0 0.0 0.0 HAWK T-38A Raytheon Hawker 400 0.0 0.0 0.0 K35R KC135R Boeing C-135R Stratotanker 0.0 0.0 0.0 T38 T-38A Northrop T-38 Talon 0.0 0.0 0.0 Military Total 2.9 0.1 3.0 68 MSP 2019 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission A-6 Group Aircraft Code AEDT Aircraft (ANP) AEDT Aircraft Description 2019 Day 2019 Night 2019 Total Microjet C510 CNA510 Cessna Citation Mustang 0.0 0.0 0.0 E50P CNA510 Embraer EMB500 Phenom 100 0.1 0.0 0.1 E545 CNA510 Embraer Legacy 545 0.4 0.0 0.4 EA50 ECLIPSE500 Eclipse 500 VLJ 0.1 0.0 0.1 SF50 CNA510 Cirrus Vision SF50 0.0 0.0 0.0 Microjet Total 0.7 0.0 0.7 Group Aircraft Code AEDT Aircraft (ANP) AEDT Aircraft Description 2019 Day 2019 Night 2019 Total Piston AC95 DHC6 Rockwell / Gulfstream 695 Jetprop Commander 1000 0.0 0.0 0.0 AEST BEC58P Ted Smith Aerostar 600 /Aerostar Aircraft /Piper Aerostar 0.0 0.0 0.0 AT43 DHC8 Avions de Transport Régional ATR-43 1.1 0.2 1.4 AT72 HS748A Avions de Transport Régional ATR-72 0.0 0.0 0.0 B190 1900D Beechcraft 1900D 2.8 0.2 3.1 B350 DHC6 Beechcraft Super King Air 350/300B 0.4 0.0 0.4 BE10 DHC6 Beechcraft King Air 100 0.0 0.0 0.0 BE20 DHC6 Beechcraft Model 200 (Super) King Air 200 0.4 0.1 0.5 BE23 GASEPF Beechcraft Model 23 Musketeer 0.0 0.0 0.0 BE30 DHC6 Beechcraft Super King Air 300 0.3 0.0 0.4 BE35 GASEPV Beechcraft Model 35 Bonanza 0.0 0.0 0.0 BE36 GASEPV Beechcraft Model 36 Bonanza 0.0 0.0 0.0 BE58 BEC58P Beechcraft Model 58 Baron 0.0 0.0 0.0 BE65 BEC58P Beechcraft Model 65 Queen Air 5.9 0.3 6.2 BE80 BEC58P Beechcraft Model 80 Queen Air 0.7 0.1 0.7 BE99 DHC6 Beechcraft Airliner Model 99 3.3 0.1 3.5 BE9L DHC6 Beechcraft Model 90 King Air 0.2 0.0 0.2 BE9T CNA441 Beechcraft Super King Air F90 0.0 0.0 0.0 C172 CNA172 Cessna 172 Single Engine SEPF 0.0 0.0 0.0 C180 GASEPV Cessna 180 Skywagon 0.0 0.0 0.0 C182 CNA182 Cessna 182 Skylane 0.0 0.0 0.0 C185 CNA206 Cessna 185 Skywagon 0.0 0.0 0.0 C206 CNA206 Cessna 206 Stationair 0.0 0.0 0.0 C208 CNA208 Cessna 208 Caravan I 6.4 0.0 6.4 C240 GASEPV Cessna 240 TTx Model 0.0 0.0 0.0 C310 BEC58P Cessna 310 Twin Engine Piston aircraft 0.0 0.0 0.0 C340 BEC58P Cessna 340 Twin Piston MEVP 0.0 0.0 0.0 C402 BEC58P Cessna 402 Businessliner 0.0 0.0 0.0 C414 BEC58P Cessna 414 Chancellor MEVP 0.1 0.0 0.1 C421 BEC58P Cessna 421 Golden Eagle 0.0 0.0 0.0 C425 CNA441 Cessna 425 (Corsair/Conquest) 0.0 0.0 0.0 C441 CNA441 Cessna 441 (Conquest/Conquest2) 0.1 0.0 0.1 COL3 GASEPV Cessna 350 Corvallis/Lancair LC42 0.0 0.0 0.0 DH8A DHC8 de Havilland Canada Dash-8/DHC8-100/200/400 0.0 0.0 0.0 DH8A DHC830 de Havilland Canada Dash-8/DHC8-100/200/400 0.0 0.0 0.0 DHC6 DHC6 de Havilland Canada DHC-6 Twin Otter 0.0 0.0 0.0 DHC6 DHC6QP de Havilland Canada DHC-6 Twin Otter 0.0 0.0 0.0 E120 EMB120 Embraer EMB-120 Brasilia 0.0 0.0 0.0 M20P GASEPV Mooney Mark 20 Series 0.1 0.0 0.1 M600 CNA441 Piper M600 0.0 0.0 0.0 MU2 DHC6 Mitsubishi MU-2 Marquise / Solitaire 0.0 0.0 0.0 69 MSP 2019 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission A-7 Group Aircraft Code AEDT Aircraft (ANP) AEDT Aircraft Description 2019 Day 2019 Night 2019 Total Piston P180 DHC6 Piaggio P180 Avanti 0.0 0.0 0.0 P28A GASEPF Piper PA-28-140/150/160/180 Cherokee 0.0 0.0 0.0 P28A PA28 Piper PA-28-140/150/160/180 Cherokee 0.0 0.0 0.0 P28R GASEPF Piper PA-28R-180/200/201 Cherokee Arrow I/II/III 0.0 0.0 0.0 P32R GASEPV Piper PA-32R Lance/Saratoga 0.0 0.0 0.0 P46T CNA441 Piper PA-46-500TP Malibu Meridian 0.0 0.0 0.0 PA31 BEC58P Piper PA-31 Navajo 0.0 0.0 0.0 PA32 GASEPV Piper PA-32 Cherokee Six 0.0 0.0 0.0 PA46 GASEPV Piper PA-46 Malibu 0.0 0.0 0.0 PAY1 CNA441 Piper PA-31T-2 Cheyenne I/II 0.0 0.0 0.0 PAY2 CNA441 Piper PA-31T-2 Cheyenne I/II 0.0 0.0 0.0 PAY3 PA42 Piper PA-42 Cheyenne III/IV 0.0 0.0 0.0 PC12 CNA208 Pilatus PC-12 5.5 0.0 5.6 S22T COMSEP Cirrus SR22 Turbo 0.0 0.0 0.0 SB20 HS748A Saab 2000 0.0 0.0 0.0 SR20 COMSEP Cirrus SR20 0.0 0.0 0.0 SR22 COMSEP Cirrus SR22 0.2 0.0 0.2 SW4 DHC6 Swearingen Merlin IV /Fairchild Merlin IV 5.4 0.3 5.7 TBM7 CNA208 Socata TBM 700 0.0 0.0 0.0 TBM7 GASEPV Socata TBM 700 0.0 0.0 0.0 TBM8 CNA441 Socata TBM 850 Single Engine Turboprop 0.0 0.0 0.0 TBM9 CNA208 Daher TMB900 0.0 0.0 0.0 TEX2 CNA208 Beechcraft T-6 Texan II 0.0 0.0 0.0 Piston Total 33.6 1.6 35.2 Group Aircraft Code AEDT Aircraft (ANP) AEDT Aircraft Description 2019 Day 2019 Night 2019 Total Helicopter AS50 SA350D Eurocopter AS-350 0.0 0.0 0.0 B407 B407 Bell Helicopter 407 0.0 0.0 0.0 B412 S76 Bell Helicopter 412 Sentinel 0.0 0.0 0.0 B47G R44 Bell 47 0.0 0.0 0.0 EC12 SA341G Eurocopter EC-120 0.0 0.0 0.0 EC30 EC130 Eurocopter EC-130 0.0 0.0 0.0 R44 R44 Robinson R44 Clipper/Raven Helicopter 0.0 0.0 0.0 UH60 S70 Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk Helicopter 0.0 0.0 0.0 S76 S76 Sikorsky S-76 0.0 0.0 0.0 SA341G SA341G Aérospatiale Gazelle 0.0 0.0 0.0 Helicopter Total 0.1 0.0 0.1 Group 2019 Day 2019 Night 2019 Total Manufactured to be Stage 3+ 955.3 118.0 1073.4 Hushkit 0.2 0.0 0.2 Military 2.9 0.1 3.0 Microjet 0.7 0.0 0.7 Piston 33.6 1.6 35.2 Helicopter 0.1 0.0 0.1 Total 992.7 119.8 1,112.5 70 MSP 2019 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission A-8 Table A1-2: Comparison of 2007 Forecast Fleet Mix and 2019 Actual Fleet Mix Average Daily Operations Group Aircraft Type Day Night Total Difference 2007 Forecast 2019 Actual 2007 Forecast 2019 Actual 2007 Forecast 2019 Actual Helicopter B407 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 EC130 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 R44 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 S70 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 S76 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 SA341G 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 SA350D 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Helicopter Total 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 Group Aircraft Type Day Night Total Difference 2007 Forecast 2019 Actual 2007 Forecast 2019 Actual 2007 Forecast 2019 Actual Hushkit Stage 3 Jet 727EM2 8.0 0.0 6.4 0.0 14.4 0.0 (14.4) 737N17 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 DC93LW 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 DC9Q 245.3 0.0 15.3 0.0 260.6 0.0 (260.6) FAL20 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 GII 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hushkit Stage 3 Jet Total 253.3 0.1 21.7 0.0 275.0 0.2 (274.8) Group Aircraft Type Day Night Total Difference 2007 Forecast 2019 Actual 2007 Forecast 2019 Actual 2007 Forecast 2019 Actual Microjet CNA510 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.6 ECLIPSE500 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 Microjet Total 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.7 Group Aircraft Type Day Night Total Difference 2007 Forecast 2019 Actual 2007 Forecast 2019 Actual 2007 Forecast 2019 Actual Military C130 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C130E 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.1 0.0 2.9 2.9 C-130E 7.8 0.0 0.2 0.0 8.0 0.0 (8.0) C130HP 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C17 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 (0.1) F16GE 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 (0.1) F-18 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 KC135R 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T37 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 (0.1) T38 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 (0.1) T-38A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Military Total 8.2 2.9 0.2 0.1 8.4 3.0 (5.4) 71 MSP 2019 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission A-9 Group Aircraft Type Day Night Total Difference 2007 Forecast 2019 Actual 2007 Forecast 2019 Actual 2007 Forecast 2019 Actual Manufactured to be Stage 3+ 7478 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.3 717200 7.3 77.3 1.0 4.2 8.3 81.4 73.1 737300 48.2 0.1 3.5 0.0 51.7 0.1 (51.6) 737400 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.3 737500 5.7 0.0 0.5 0.0 6.2 0.0 (6.2) 737700 7.8 34.6 0.5 8.4 8.3 43.0 34.7 737800 65.5 169.3 12.6 33.3 78.1 202.6 124.5 737900 5.7 0.0 0.5 0.0 6.2 0.0 (6.2) 747400 1.9 0.2 0.2 0.1 2.1 0.4 (1.7) 757300 34.1 13.2 1.1 0.8 35.2 14.0 (21.2) 767200 1.2 0.0 0.5 0.0 1.7 0.0 (1.7) 767300 0.0 8.2 0.0 3.6 0.0 11.8 11.8 767400 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.8 0.8 777200 0.0 5.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 5.4 5.4 777300 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 727QF 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7373B2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 737MAX8 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.2 74720B 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 747SP 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 757PW 88.4 28.5 8.6 7.0 97.0 35.6 (61.4) 757RR 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 4.1 4.1 767CF6 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 767JT9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7773ER 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 7878R 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.8 A300-622R 4.8 0.9 4.2 1.3 9.0 2.2 (6.8) A310-304 1.4 0.0 1.3 0.0 2.7 0.0 (2.7) A318 5.7 0.0 0.5 0.0 6.2 0.0 (6.2) A319-131 149.1 64.5 3.9 5.0 153.0 69.5 (83.5) A320-211 173.4 48.0 16.5 3.6 189.9 51.6 (138.3) A320-232 0.0 19.8 0.0 6.1 0.0 25.8 25.8 A320-271N 0.0 5.3 0.0 1.4 0.0 6.7 6.7 A321-232 0.0 59.3 0.0 9.4 0.0 68.7 68.7 A330-301 6.2 4.1 0.0 0.3 6.2 4.4 (1.8) A330-343 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.2 0.0 2.0 2.0 A340-642 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 (2.1) A350-941 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 ASTR 2.3 0.0 0.2 0.0 2.5 0.0 (2.5) BAE146 74.3 0.0 2.2 0.0 76.5 0.0 (76.5) BD-700-1A10 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 BD-700-1A11 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 CIT3 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 CL600 0.0 130.6 0.0 8.7 0.0 139.3 139.3 CL601 264.1 1.2 14.7 0.1 278.8 1.2 (277.6) CNA500 1.4 0.9 0.1 0.1 1.5 0.9 (0.6) CNA525C 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 CNA55B 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.8 1.8 CNA560E 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 CNA560U 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 CNA560XL 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.1 0.0 2.7 2.7 CNA650 4.9 0.0 0.6 0.0 5.5 0.0 (5.5) 72 MSP 2019 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission A-10 Group Aircraft Type Day Night Total Difference 2007 Forecast 2019 Actual 2007 Forecast 2019 Actual 2007 Forecast 2019 Actual Manufactured to be Stage 3+ CNA750 4.6 3.2 0.3 0.2 4.9 3.4 (1.5) CRJ9-ER 0.0 173.8 0.0 9.5 0.0 183.4 183.4 DC1010 9.6 0.0 3.8 0.0 13.4 0.0 (13.4) DC1030 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 DC870 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 1.4 0.0 (1.4) EMB145 45.3 0.7 0.2 0.1 45.5 0.8 (44.7) EMB170 0.0 11.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 12.2 12.2 EMB175 0.0 57.4 0.0 6.9 0.0 64.3 64.3 EMB190 0.0 2.6 0.0 1.1 0.0 3.7 3.7 FAL20A 1.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 1.7 0.0 (1.7) FAL900EX 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.1 0.0 2.0 2.0 G650ER 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 GIV 2.6 1.4 0.2 0.1 2.8 1.5 (1.3) GV 0.8 1.7 0.1 0.2 0.9 1.9 1.0 IA1125 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.2 0.0 2.8 2.8 L101 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.8 0.0 (0.8) LEAR35 26.0 2.5 2.3 0.2 28.3 2.7 (25.6) MD11GE 0.3 0.8 0.4 0.3 0.7 1.1 0.4 MD11PW 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 1.5 1.5 MD81 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 (0.5) MD82 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 MD83 17.0 0.2 1.6 0.0 18.6 0.2 (18.4) MD9028 0.0 6.4 0.0 0.3 0.0 6.7 6.7 MU300 7.2 0.0 0.6 0.0 7.8 0.0 (7.8) MU3001 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.6 SBR2 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 (0.4) Manufactured to be Stage 3+ Total 1071.5 955.3 85.0 118.0 1156.5 1073.4 (83.1) Group Aircraft Type Day Night Total Difference 2007 Forecast 2019 Actual 2007 Forecast 2019 Actual 2007 Forecast 2019 Actual Stage 2 Jets under 75,000 lbs GIIB 2.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 2.3 0.0 (2.3) LEAR25 2.1 0.0 0.4 0.0 2.5 0.0 (2.5) Stage 2 Jets under 75,000 lbs Total 4.2 0.0 0.6 0.0 4.8 0.0 (4.8) 73 MSP 2019 Annual Noise Contour Report Metropolitan Airports Commission A-11 Group Aircraft Type Day Night Total Difference 2007 Forecast 2019 Actual 2007 Forecast 2019 Actual 2007 Forecast 2019 Actual Propeller 1900D 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.2 0.0 3.1 3.1 BEC58 14.3 0.0 4.7 0.0 19.0 0.0 (19.0) BEC58P 0.0 6.8 0.0 0.4 0.0 7.2 7.2 CNA172 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 CNA182 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 CNA206 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 CNA208 0.0 11.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.0 12.0 CNA441 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 COMSEP 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 DHC6 22.5 10.1 4.4 0.6 26.9 10.7 (16.2) DHC6QP 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 DHC8 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.4 1.4 DHC830 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 EMB120 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 FK27 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 (0.1) GASEPF 1.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 1.6 0.0 (1.6) GASEPV 3.7 0.2 0.5 0.0 4.2 0.3 (3.9) HS748A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 PA28 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 PA42 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 SF340 93.3 0.0 5.9 0.0 99.2 0.0 (99.2) Propeller Total 135.2 33.6 15.8 1.6 151.0 35.2 (115.8) Grand Total 1472.4 992.7 123.3 119.8 1595.7 1112.5 (483.2) 74 Appendix 2: 2019 Model Flight Tracks and Use Figure Content Page Figure 2.1 Runway 4 Arrivals A-13 Figure 2.2 Runway 12L Arrivals A-14 Figure 2.3 Runway 12R Arrivals A-15 Figure 2.4 Runway 17 Arrivals A-16 Figure 2.5 Runway 22 Arrivals A-17 Figure 2.6 Runway 30L Arrivals A-18 Figure 2.7 Runway 30R Arrivals A-19 Figure 2.8 Runway 35 Arrivals A-20 Figure 2.9 Runway 4 Departures A-21 Figure 2.10 Runway 12L Departures A-22 Figure 2.11 Runway 12R Departures A-23 Figure 2.12 Runway 17 Departures A-24 Figure 2.13 Runway 22 Departures A-25 Figure 2.14 Runway 30L Departures A-26 Figure 2.15 Runway 30R Departures A-27 Figure 2.16 Runway 35 Departures A-28 75 A-1376 A-1477 A-1578 A-1679 A-1780 A-1881 A-1982 A-2083 A-2184 A-2285 A-2386 A-2487 A-2588 A-2689 A-2790 A-2891 Appendix 3: Noise Model Grid Point Maps Figure Content Page Figure 3-1 to Figure 3-5 Decibel Levels from 2019 Actual Grid Point DNLs A-30 Figure 3-6 to Figure 3-10 Decibel Levels from Base Case Year Grid Point DNLs A-35 Figure 3-11 to Figure 3-15 Difference in dB Level Between Block Base Case Year and 2019 Actual Grid Point DNLs for Blocks Included in the Noise Mitigation Settlement A-40 92 A-3093 A-3194 A-32 95 A-3396 A-3497 A-3598 A-3699 A-37100 A-38 101 A-39 102 A-40 103 A-41104 A-42105 A-43106 A-44107 108 109 110 111 Eagan Residents’ Questions for MAC/FAA 2/23/2020 We have compiled questions from several concerned Eagan residents to pose to MAC representatives and the FAA General questions about the responses to the requested changes:  Can we start with a simple, maybe obvious assumption: Any operational changes that take into consideration the impact on the environment or the community will, by definition, reduce maximum efficiency. MSP has been ranked 1st (2017), 2nd (2019) and 3rd (2018) Globally for the past three years for on-time performance – that’s a remarkable achievement. That’s class- leading performance. MSP is also among the leaders in providing passenger amenities and the MAC long-term plan includes efforts to be class-leading in reducing carbon footprint. What if the MAC and FAA set their sites on becoming class-leading in responding to their community concerns and reducing their operational noise impact on their community? What if that goal became just as important or more important than being #1 for on-time performance? Couldn’t realizing that goal become a “win-win?”  You should consider your community as stakeholders – not just the airlines and airline passengers. Do you agree?  What was MSP's on-time performance ranking going back to before Runway 17 was opened? What changed in operations at MSP to give rise to these high rankings for the past three years? Would it seem reasonable for the residents of Eagan to say the FAA seems to have put all their effort and work into efficiency with little regard for the noise to Eagan residents?  The MAC and the FAA clearly care about safety! They say they aren’t willing to take short-cuts on safety. But they ARE willing to take short-cuts that affect Eagan residents’ quality of life in the name of efficiency. And you have shown that you are willing to ratchet it up year after year! Why do you believe this is acceptable?  Is it unreasonable to expect the FAA to provide detailed evidence in support of their rationale for rejecting a request? Can we expect that the FAA will provide detail about under what specific circumstances a proposal will cause potential interference with incoming flights or that it will cause some type of efficiency loss? And if that’s the case, exactly why is it the case and why can’t those conflicts be mitigated, rather than the proposal be rejected because of a current condition? Is the MAC willing to ask the FAA to respond to these tough questions? 112 South flow day  Referring to the Flight Tracker screen-shot above showing a typical current day’s operations with a vast majority of departures directed to R17: What did the FAA do prior to opening R17 in 2005, while managing to handle 20% more flights into and out of MSP than they do today? I agree the FAA/MAC/NOC should consider whether changes will redistribute flights to another community - but who was speaking up on behalf of Eagan, Burnsville and Apple Valley when the MAC planned and built runway 17 and when the FAA implemented a complete redistribution of flights from the existing runways to runway 17 and over the residents of Eagan, Burnsville and Apple Valley? The objections of Eagan City officials are well documented in the FEIS, yet the MAC and FAA’s plan was implemented without change. 113 North flow day  Referring to the Flight Tracker screen-shot above showing a north flow day, why do 60% of departures on a south flow need to use R17 for MSP to operate safely and efficiently? Again, prior to 2005, MSP operated safely and efficiently without R17 while handling 20% more flights. There are many days annually when the winds are from the NW or strong winds (over 10 MPH) are from the NE, and MSP operates safely and efficiently using only the parallel runways for both arrivals and departures. It appears unnecessary to use Runway 17 at all (let alone for 60% of departures on south flow days), based on these numbers. What is the real loss in efficiency when limited to the parallel runways only? If there was the ability to use Runway 17 for Westbound departures only, what would be the loss of efficiency and why? Please explain the necessity for the redistribution.  Why does the FAA (with the MAC’s blessing) continue to ignore the published and agreed-to MSP Prioritized Runway Use System (RUS) for directing flights over the most compatible land uses. River departure and parallels should carry a preferential selection component for Controllers. There is no reference to sharing the burden in this regard in Rebecca's letter. Operational simplicity seems to totally govern. ZMBRO - all or nothing, how about shifting when possible vs total operational convenience, only one button to push.  What was the process for changing the flight tracks over Minneapolis years ago? Who initiated the requests for change? How long was the process? What was MAC’s involvement in that process? Was the FAA open to the idea for changing the flight paths? Or did they resist similarly to their objections to these most recent requests for change?  MAC has 39 RMTs (Remote Monitoring Towers). What decisions are actually made based upon all the data collected from those monitors? Eagan has ranked 1st, 2nd, or 3rd in noise complaints for the past 7 years. How are these metrics used for decisions? Why hasn’t the MAC or anyone taken any initiative to help reduce the noise in Eagan? 114  Would the FAA object to sharing their calculations and detailed notes in a "peer review" by another outside independent Traffic Control Professional. Facts and the science should be completely transparent. FAA seems to control the logic of efficiency without supporting calculations/specific flight tracker experiences to illustrate their conclusions. Maybe another set of eyes would reach different conclusions.  FAA should provide copies of all documents reflecting the policies of assigning headings off Runway 17 from the date it went into operation until today. I should think such documents are available through FOIA if for any reason FAA declines to provide these documents in this context.  Based on previous appearances by Rebecca at ARC meetings (or what I could grab from recordings) it would be nice to know how much of the issues Eagan residents are currently dealing with are actually FAA mandates and how much are airline/pilot requests and/or controller decisions. I would love to get some concrete info about each player's (controller, airline, pilot) decision space when it comes to flight departure routing.  This is just one isolated example but I'm sure there are many more - On Friday Feb 21 two flights departed MSP at around 7:10am. One was going to Chicago, one was going to Seattle. The flight to Chicago departed 17 on heading 140ish, the flight to Seattle departed the 12s. Why on earth wouldn't you send the Chicago flight off the 12s and the Seattle flight off 17? This would have taken advantage of compatible land for both departures. I really struggle to understand how the decisions are made. Hearing them say "efficiency" and "safety" over and over again makes my head hurt.  I also would considering if we might want to ask about what the formal process is for FAA response to why individual flight tracks are taken by specific planes. From the conversation 2 months back at MAC session was clear to me that MAC is happy to hear questions but then follows rather non standard process of investigation (sometimes own Mac research, sometimes asking airline for controller input, sometimes other adhoc processes). All leaves things open to more subjectivity. Since the FAA is the one in control, I think it’s a reasonable question to ask the FAA what the official process is for investigation of specific flight paths. 115 Re: Adjustment Request #1 Good example of paths over our homes that then continued to either COULT or ZMBRO.  While the COULT and ZMBRO fixes have a "general" heading of 120 and 140 respectively, if the COULT flights are moved to Runways 12R or 12L, will this actually reduce the number of overflights in Eagan on a typical South flow day? And if so, by how much and by what headings specifically (A typical south flow day has around 350-380 flights departing from Runway 17 daily, with 200-250 of those flying over Eagan)?  More specifically, if the FAA agrees to direct departures destined for COULT to R12R/L, does that mean the residents can expect that 100-150 flights per day that were previously directed to COULT via R17 will now be directed to 12R/L, resulting in 100-150 fewer flights per day over Eagan? Or will there be some other reason those flights will be directed over Eagan , but no longer to COULT? Keep in mind that virtually every year in the last decade the number of departing flights from R17 has increased while the number of flights departing other runways (including the “preferential” parallels) has decreased.  I am really struggling to understand why ZMBRO cannot be moved to 12L and 12R when traffic congestion is not a concern, especially at midnight. Take for example a UPS freighter to Louisville. Seems natural to be on 12L, this of course with South flow winds. I do not see how efficiency at midnight could possibly be affected. Interfering with arrivals etc. ?? I believe many times during the day as well, no effect on efficiency. I think a minor compromise by FAA to entertain additional variations vs rote simplicity is warranted for ZMBRO departures. 116 Re: Adjustment Request #2: This is a typical South flow day: Does this look like they are fanning flights to the maximum extent possible? I see narrow lanes of freeway traffic 117 This is a typical North flow day: Much more fanning/variation  Why does the FAA claim they are varying departure headings to the “Maximum Extent Possible” already concerning flight traffic to the South, yet they can vary departures significantly more when using north flow?  I would argue that if the FAA was varying departure headings to the “Maximum Extent Possible” already, and if, as claimed, they always looked for opportunities to vary headings, we would not be experiencing the "rapid fire" departures over the same flight paths one after the other like we do. Their claim that they already vary the headings is simply false. Residents have recorded as many as 35 flights over their homes in as little as 45 minutes. Two examples: On September 17th, 2019, there were five aircraft that departed off Runway 17 in five minutes time [7:04am to 7:09am], one minute apart from each other, and all five took the 120 heading, while there were no other flights between them that departed from Runway 17. On October 10th, 2019, there were six aircraft that departed Runway 17 in seven minutes time [7:00am to 7:07am] one minute apart from each other, all six took the 140 heading, while there were no other flights between them that departed from Runway 17. Are these examples of varying the headings? 118 Re: Adjustment Request #3:  The FAA claims the "ATC assign an initial heading of 170 when feasible.” See graphic above: When do they do this? What percentage of aircraft departing from Runway 17 take the 170 heading during South Flow? How are they defining “when feasible?” Re: Adjustment Request #4:  Why does this need to be limited to only nighttime departures? What is the operational necessity for Westbound aircraft to use Runway 12R during daytime? Would it not be more efficient to use R17 for all westbound destinations when south flow is being used? What circumstances, specifically, warrant the use of 12 for westbound destinations?  In the circumstances above, if westbound aircraft do use Runway 12R, why can't they be directed to continue farther on runway heading before turning toward destination (gaining altitude before turning over residential areas)? Should the MAC and the residents be expected to accept the FAA’s response that “we don’t do that?” 119 VOR Minimum Operational Network (VOR MON) - February 11, 2020 VOR – what is it? • A VOR, or VHF Omnidirectional Range, is a ground-based aircraft navigation system that is being phased out as part of FAA’s continual upgrade of the nation’s navigation infrastructure • There are currently 900 VORs across the United States, which have been around since the 1950s • The MSP VOR is located near Highway 62 and 28th Avenue South and looks like a large metal circle on top of a cement cylinder VOR MON – what is it? • This is a project being initiated, planned and conducted by the FAA • The FAA aims to reduce the number of VORs by 1/3 to about 600 through a gradual reduction program called VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON) • The VOR MON program is divided into two phases and is currently in the first phase, which began in 2016 • To-date, the FAA has decommissioned 46 VORs with plans to decommission an additional 28 during the first phase, which will end at the end of 2020 • During the second phase (2021-2025), the FAA plans to decommission an additional 237 VORs, including the MSP VOR, scheduled to be decommissioned on September 8, 2022 • Other VORs in the area to be decommissioned during the second phase include: Flying Cloud (FCM), Nodine (ODI – near La Crosse) and Rochester (RST) • To select which VORs to decommission, the FAA’s criteria included: o Retaining VORs to support international oceanic routes and coverage above 5,000 feet above ground level within the continental United States o Retaining VORs so that aircraft can perform Instrument Landing System (ILS), Localizer (LOC) or VOR approaches to suitable airports within the United States o Retaining VORs required for military use • Flight procedures currently using VORs will be updated to use Area Navigation (RNAV) technology, which uses satellite-based rather than ground-based navigation Why reduce the number of VORs? • Air navigation systems have gone through several evolutions since the earliest days of flying, beginning with the first pilots following landmarks on the ground like roads, rivers and railroad tracks • Before VORs revolutionized the navigation system in the 1950s, pilots followed barrel bonfires, painted arrows and lighted beacons lighting their path • Much like navigating with cars, each evolution in navigating in the air used technology to boost reliability, timeliness and safety • Today, the network of VORs is aging, proving challenging and expensive for FAA to maintain and does not provide the most direct route for aircraft 120 What technology will replace the VORs that are being retired as part of the VOR MON Program? • New satellite-based RNAV departure procedures will be designed at MSP that will seek to replicate existing operations • The FAA’s preliminary analysis of the new RNAV departure procedures at MSP indicates that there should be little, if any, noticeable change to communities due to the RNAV departure procedures • At this point, the FAA is early in the process and has not begun to design new procedures at MSP • Arrivals: o The existing RNAV arrival procedures (Standard Terminal Arrival Routes, or STARs) will not be changed or impacted by the VOR MON program o There will be some changes to aircraft missed approach procedures as some currently rely on VORs • Departures: o The FAA is not proposing to develop RNAV departures off the ground at MSP o The RNAV departure procedures designed by the FAA in 2012 were never used and are no longer considered an option by the FAA due to the concerns the community expressed at the time • The FAA has committed to providing regular updates and coordination with the MAC, airport users, the NOC and the public How will this solution be different than the FAA’s proposal to develop RNAV departure procedures at MSP in 2012? • The FAA has stated it will seek to mimic the dispersion of today’s departures and the new RNAV departures will result in little, if any, noticeable change to the communities in the metropolitan area • Before the aircraft starts the RNAV departure procedure, the aircraft will takeoff and fly headings assigned by air traffic control (also known as vectors), as they do today • The FAA has stated that the headings assigned to departing aircraft will not change • According to the FAA, the actual start of the RNAV departure procedures will be 20-25 miles away from MSP • This application of RNAV technology is different than the FAA’s proposal in 2012 where the procedures were designed off each runway end and concentrated flights immediately after takeoff • Also different from 2012, the FAA is including the airport, community and other stakeholders earlier in the process to learn and seek to understand concerns at the outset of the process and use that input to help develop a community outreach plan • Moreover, the NOC’s RNAV Resolution and accompanying letter from former Airport Director/CEO, Jeff Hamiel, is on record with the FAA outlining the airport’s, airlines’ and the communities’ expectations for adequate communication and outreach for RNAV departure procedures 121 When did the MAC learn about this project at MSP? • In 2016 the FAA released a Federal Register notice, explaining the VOR MON program nationwide (www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/07/26/2016-17579/provision-of- navigation-services-for-the-next-generation-air-transportation-system- nextgen?utm_campaign=subscription+mailing+list&utm_medium=email&utm_source=federalre gister.gov) • The candidate list of airports included MSP, however the rulemaking explained that the list was tentative and “may be adjusted based on economic or other factors.” • As of June 21, 2016, the FAA made its determination for discontinuance for only 45 of the 308 candidate VORs (not including MSP) • While MAC staff had initial conversations with the FAA about the national VOR MON program in 2018 and 2019, the process to discontinue the MSP VOR, including preliminary schedule and the proposed solution for new RNAV departure procedures were first shared with the MAC in December 2019 What should you do as an interested neighbor or stakeholder? • Stay informed and involved by going to macnoise.com and signing up for E-News updates • Understand that the approach to developing RNAV departures is different than what occurred during 2011-2012 • Ask questions and know that the FAA is still early in the process of informing stakeholders and gathering information. They may not have the answers immediately; however, your questions and concerns are an important piece of the information they are gathering • There are helpful FAA resources for the VOR MON program: o Video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WOjg-RvRME o Webpage: www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/techops/navser vices/transition_programs/vormon/ 122