Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport (MSP) Noise ... · 3/16/2011 · Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport (MSP) Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) Meeting Agenda March

Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport (MSP) Noise Oversight Committee (NOC)

Meeting Agenda March 16, 2011

1:30 P.M. Lindbergh Conference Room MAC General Office Building

6040 28th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55450

(Vern Wilcox, Bloomington City Council Member & NOC Co-Chair, will be the acting Chairperson for the meeting)

*Note: 1:00 to 1:30 – Committee Agenda Review Session (NOC members only in the Coleman Conference Room)

1. 1:30 to 1:45 – Public Comment Period

2. 1:45 to 1:50 – Review and Approval of January 19, 2011 NOC

Meeting Minutes 3. 1:50 to 1:55 – Review of Operations Report Summary

4. 1:55 to 2:10 – Finalization of Performance Based Navigation

(PBN) Procedure Design Noise Criteria for Procedure Development/Implementation at MSP

5. 2:10 to 2:30 – 2010 Actual Noise Contour Analysis

6. 2:30 to 2:35 – MSP 2020 Development Environmental

Assessment Update

7. 2:35 to 2:50 – Annual Scheduled Nighttime Operations Assessment

8. 2:50 to 3:00 – Inver Grove Heights Letter to FAA

9. 3:00 to 3:05 – First Quarter 2011 Public Input Meeting Comments

10. 3:05 – Adjourn

MEMORANDUM TO: MSP Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) FROM: Chad E. Leqve, Manager – Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs SUBJECT: FINALIZATION OF PERFORMANCE BASED NAVIGATION

(PBN) PROCEDURE DESIGN NOISE CRITERIA FOR PROCEDURE DEVELOPMENT/IMPLEMENTATION AT MSP

DATE: February 25, 2011 At the last Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) meeting on January 19, 2011 discussion began on the development of Performance Based Navigation (PBN) procedure design noise criteria for procedure development and implementation at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP). As was detailed at the January 19th NOC meeting, on November 30, 2010 the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP) Performance Based Navigation (PBN) integration effort began with a three-day kickoff meeting. At the kickoff meeting staff emphasized the importance of making noise considerations part of the PBN procedure development effort. Staff informed the group that the NOC would be providing general criteria that should be considered in the PBN development effort at MSP. Below is the draft list of procedure design noise criteria that was reviewed at the January 19th NOC meeting. Specifically, it was discussed that the NOC’s criteria could state that this process should:

Provide a noise contour analysis using the MSP 2010 actual noise contour data and analyzing the effects of the procedures on the noise contours at MSP.

Provide a public information program to inform the public. Reduce the number of sensitive land use overflights. (This could be done

through increased Eagan-Mendota Heights Departure Corridor compliance, maximizing the concentration of westbound Runway 17 departures directly over the Minnesota River Valley, noise-sensitive departure tracks for operations east of runway heading off Runway 17, and focusing operations to the northwest over major road corridors, where possible.)

Reduce aircraft arrival noise. Maximize use of RNAV noise tracks as part of the Runway Use System.

(An example would be, during southeast operational flows, focusing easterly bound departure operations on Runways 12L and 12R on Corridor Compliant RNAV tracks, while focusing south and west bound departures on Runway 17 on the River RNAV track).

ITEM 4

At the March 16, 2011 NOC meeting Committee members should come prepared to offer any additional ideas and approve final criteria to be forwarded to the FAA for consideration in the procedure development/implementation process. COMMITTEE ACTION Approve a list of RNAV/RNP procedure design noise criteria to be communicated in writing by the NOC Co-Chairs to the FAA.

MEMORANDUM TO: MSP Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) FROM: Chad E. Leqve, Manager – Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs SUBJECT: 2010 ACTUAL NOISE CONTOUR ANALYSIS DATE: February 25, 2011

On October 19, 2007, Judge Stephen Aldrich approved a Consent Decree entered into by the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) and the cities of Minneapolis, Eagan, and Richfield that settled the cities’ litigation. The Consent Decree provided that it became effective only if: (1) the Federal Aviation Administration (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) the court approved a settlement in the class action case by January 17, 2008. Both of these conditions have been satisfied, and the MAC is implementing single-family and multi-family mitigation out to the 2007 60 DNL and 2005 60 DNL noise contours as the Consent Decree requires. Under the Decree, mitigation activities will vary based on noise contour. Homes in the most noise-impacted contours are eligible for more extensive mitigation than those in less impacted areas. 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 will perform under the Decree. (Consent Decree Section 8.1, p. 38.) 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 and is at least two decibels in DNL higher than the DNL level for that location in the 2007 mitigated noise contours. The MAC determines future DNL values by using the FAA’s Integrated Noise Model and actual MSP operations data to generate a noise contour reflecting noise conditions at MSP for the prior calendar year. (Consent Decree Section 8.1(d), pp. 38-39.) The MAC must develop a noise contour reflecting noise conditions for the prior calendar year by March 1 of each year. The MAC has prepared this report to satisfy Section 8.1(d) of the Consent Decree. The actual contour that the MAC must develop under Section 8.1(d) of the Consent Decree is relevant only to the release provisions in Section 8.1. The Consent Decree requires the MAC to use only the 2007 forecast mitigated DNL contours and the 2005 forecast DNL mitigated contours for mitigation purposes. A copy of the final 2010 Annual Noise Contour Analysis report is attached to this memorandum. At the March 16, 2011 NOC meeting staff will provide a briefing on the report.

ITEM 5

Metropolitan Airports Commission

Annual Noise Contour Analysis

I

Table of Contents

List of Tables................................................................................................................ii

List of Figures .............................................................................................................iii

Chapter 1: Background...............................................................................................1 1.1 Corrective Land Use Efforts at MSP to Address Airport Noise ............................................... 1 1.2 2007 Forecast Mitigated Noise Contour....................................................................................... 3 1.3 Airport Noise Litigation................................................................................................................... 4 1.4 Noise Mitigation Settlement and Annual Noise Contour Analysis.......................................... 5

Chapter 2: 2010 Actual Noise Contour......................................................................7 2.1 2010 Actual Noise Contour Development.................................................................................... 7

2.1.1 Integrated Noise Model................................................................................................................ 7 2.1.2 2010 Aircraft Operations and Fleet Mix ...................................................................................... 7 2.1.3 2010 Runway Use...................................................................................................................... 12 2.1.4 2010 Flight Tracks...................................................................................................................... 13 2.1.5 2010 Atmospheric Conditions ................................................................................................... 13

2.2 2010 Modeled Versus Measured DNL Levels............................................................................ 14 2.3 2010 Noise Contour Impacts........................................................................................................ 15

Chapter 3: Comparison of the 2010 Actual Noise Contour and the 2007 Forecast Noise Contour ........................................................................16

3.1 Comparison of 2010 Actual and 2007 Forecast Noise Contour Inputs ................................ 16 3.1.1 Integrated Noise Model Considerations.................................................................................... 16 3.1.2 Aircraft Operations and Fleet Mix Comparison ........................................................................ 16 3.1.3 Runway Use Comparison.......................................................................................................... 21 3.1.4 Flight Track Considerations....................................................................................................... 22 3.1.5 Atmospheric Conditions Comparison ....................................................................................... 23

3.2 Comparative Integrated Noise Model Grid Point Analysis ..................................................... 23 3.3 Contour Comparison Summary.................................................................................................. 24

II

List of Tables

Table 1.1: Summary of 2007 Forecast Mitigated DNL Noise Contour Single and Multi-Family Unit Counts........................................................................................................ 4

Table 2.1: Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport 2010 Total Operations Number ........................ 8

Table 2.2: Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport 2010 Aircraft Fleet Mix and Average Daily Operations..................................................................................................................... 9

Table 2.3: Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport 2010 Runway Use........................................... 13

Table 2.4: Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport 2010 Measured Versus Modeled INM DNL Values at ANOMS RMT Locations..................................................................... 14

Table 2.5: Summary of 2010 Actual DNL Noise Contour Single and Multi-Family Unit Counts ....... 15

Table 3.1: Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport 2007 Forecast Mitigated vs. 2010 Actual Annual Total Operations Summary ......................................................................... 16

Table 3.2: Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport Comparision of 2007 Mitigated Forecast Fleet Mix and 2010 Actual Fleet Mix ................................................................... 18

Table 3.3: Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport 2010 Actual and 2007 Mitigated Forecast Runway Use Comparision ................................................................................... 22

III

List of Figures

Figure 1.1: 2007 Forecast Mitigated Contours .............................................................Following Page 4

Figure 2.1: 2010 INM Tracks – Runway 30L Departures Overall Use Percentage ................................................................................................ Following Page 13

Figure 2.2: 2010 INM Tracks – Runway 30R Departures Overall Use Percentage ................................................................................................ Following Page 13

Figure 2.3: 2010 INM Tracks – Runway 04 Departures Overall Use Percentage ................................................................................................ Following Page 13

Figure 2.4: 2010 INM Tracks – Runway 12L Departures Overall Use Percentage ................................................................................................ Following Page 13

Figure 2.5: 2010 INM Tracks – Runway 12R Departures Overall Use Percentage ................................................................................................ Following Page 13




Figure 2.9: 2010 INM Tracks – Runway 12R Arrivals Overall Use Percentage...... Following Page 13

Figure 2.10: 2010 INM Tracks – Runway 12L Arrivals Overall Use Percentage .... Following Page 13

Figure 2.11: 2010 INM Tracks – Runway 22 Arrivals Overall Use Percentage ...... Following Page 13

Figure 2.12: 2010 INM Tracks – Runway 30R Arrivals Overall Use Percentage.... Following Page 13

Figure 2.13: 2010 INM Tracks – Runway 30L Arrivals Overall Use Percentage .... Following Page 13




Figure 2.17: 2010 Actual Contours ............................................................................ Following Page 15

Figure 2.18: 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 Actual Noise Contours ........................... Following Page 15

Figure 3.1: Decibel Levels from 2010 Actual Grid Point DNLs................................. Following Page 23

Figure 3.2: Decibel Levels from 2010 Actual Grid Point DNLs City of Minneapolis.................................................................................... Following Page 23

Figure 3.3: Decibel Levels from 2010 Actual Grid Point DNLs City of Richfield ..... Following Page 23

Figure 3.4: Decibel Levels from 2010 Actual Grid Point DNLs West Eagan, Bloomington............................................................................................... Following Page 23

Figure 3.5: Decibel Levels from 2010 Actual Grid Point DNLs East Eagan, Inver Grove Heights, Mendota Heights.................................................... Following Page 23

IV

Figure 3.6: Decibel Levels from 2007 Forecast Mitigated Grid Point DNLs ............ Following Page 23

Figure 3.7: Decibel Levels from 2007 Forecast Mitigated Grid Point DNLs City of Minneapolis.................................................................................... Following Page 23

Figure 3.9: Decibel Levels from 2007 Forecast Mitigated Grid Point DNLs City of Richfield ......................................................................................... Following Page 23

Figure 3.9: Decibel Levels from 2007 Forecast Mitigated Grid Point DNLs West Eagan, Bloomington........................................................................ Following Page 23

Figure 3.10: Decibel Levels from 2007 Forecast Mitigated Grid Point DNLs East Eagan, Inver Grove Heights, Mendota Heights .............................. Following Page 23

Figure 3.11: Difference in dB Level Between 2007 Forecast Mitigated and 2010 Actual Grid Point DNLs for Blocks Included in Noise Mitigation Settlement................................................................................. Following Page 24

Figure 3.12: Difference in dB Level Between 2007 Forecast Mitigated and 2010 Actual Grid Point DNLs for Blocks Included in Noise Mitigation Settlement City of Minneapolis................................................ Following Page 24

Figure 3.13: Difference in dB Level Between 2007 Forecast Mitigated and 2010 Actual Grid Point DNLs for Blocks Included in Noise Mitigation Settlement City of Richfield...................................................... Following Page 24

Figure 3.14: Difference in dB Level Between 2007 Forecast Mitigated and 2010 Actual Grid Point DNLs for Blocks Included in Noise Mitigation Settlement West Eagan and Bloomington.............................. Following Page 24

Figure 3.15: Difference in dB Level Between 2007 Forecast Mitigated and 2010 Actual Grid Point DNLs for Blocks Included in Noise Mitigation Settlement East Eagan, Inver Grove Heights, Mendota Heights ....................................................................................... Following Page 24

Figure 3.16: 2007 Forecast Mitigated Contours and 2010 Actual Contours............ Following Page 24

1

Chapter

1 Background

The issue of noise at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP) includes a long history of local efforts to quantify and mitigate noise impacts in a manner responsive to concerns raised by the communities around the airport and consistent with federal policy. These efforts have resulted in the conceptualization and implementation of many initiatives to reduce noise impacts around MSP. One of the most notable of these initiatives has been the sound insulation program implemented under 14 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) 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). A Part 150 NCP is comprised of two fundamental approaches to addressing noise impacts around an airport: (1) Land Use Measures, and (2) Noise Abatement Measures (operational measures to reduce noise). A key component of Part 150 program planning is the development of a base case Noise Exposure Map (NEM) and a five-year forecast NEM without (unmitigated forecast scenario) and with (forecast mitigated scenario) the recommended operational noise abatement measures. Including operational noise abatement measures is important, because the manner in which an airport is operated and how aircraft procedures are executed have a direct effect on an airport’s noise impact. NEMs are commonly referred to as noise contours. Forecast mitigated noise contours depict the areas that may be eligible for Land Use Measures (compatible land use plans, property acquisition, residential relocation, and sound mitigation) around an airport.

Recognizing the need for increased infrastructure and the emerging importance of noise issues as operations at MSP increased, the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) submitted its first MSP Part 150 Study to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in October 1987. NEMs were accepted by the FAA in October 1989, and portions of the NCP were approved in April 1990. The NCP included Corrective Land Use Measures which called for the soundproofing of residences, schools and other public buildings. A 1992 update to the NCP and NEM marked the beginning of corrective mitigation measures in the forecast 1996 NEM 65 and greater Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) noise contours.

1.1 Corrective Land Use Efforts at MSP to Address Airport Noise

Since 1992, the residential noise mitigation program has been a large and visible part of the Part 150 program at MSP. The MAC designed the MSP residential noise mitigation program using FAA structural Noise Level Reduction (NLR) documentation to establish product-specific Sound Transmission Class (STC) ratings and associated NLR goals, creative bidding practices, and cooperative prioritization and funding efforts. Through innovative approaches to continually enhancing the program as new information and technologies became available, the MSP residential noise mitigation program quickly became a national model.

Because testing and evaluation of single-family homes near MSP indicated that the majority of such homes provided an average 30 dB of outside-to-inside sound attenuation, the MAC developed a so-called “5 dB package” for single-family homes within the 65 DNL and greater noise contours. This package provided an average exterior-to-interior noise reduction level of 5 dB, ensuring a noticeable level of reduction designed to meet the FAA’s target of a 45 DNL interior

2

noise level in each home.1 The 5 dB package offered a menu of mitigation measures that the MAC might install to achieve an average of a 5 dB noise reduction and meet the 45 DNL interior noise level in an individual home. The menu of mitigation measures included: windows; prime doors; attic insulation; baffling of attic vents, mail slots and chimneys; and the addition of central air-conditioning. The MAC determined which specific mitigation measures were necessary for a particular home after assessing the home’s existing condition.

As a result of detailed and extensive project management and quality control, the program achieved an excellent record of homeowner satisfaction. Since 1997, when homeowners were asked if the improvements were effective at reducing aircraft noise, an average 97 percent responded yes. When asked if the modifications improved interior home comfort, an average of 95 percent responded yes. In 2003, when homeowners were asked if they were satisfied with the overall program product quality, 100 percent answered yes.

In 2004, the MAC awarded the final bids for the remaining unmitigated homes in the 1996 65 DNL noise contour. In early 2006, the MAC completed the mitigation of an additional 165 single-family homes in the 2007 forecast mitigated 65 DNL noise contour. A significant milestone at MSP, this also represented a significant accomplishment for an industry-leading airport noise mitigation program. The program resulted in the mitigation of over 7,800 single-family homes in communities around MSP.

The financial investment in the MSP Residential Sound Insulation Program was among the largest in the nation for such programs. Throughout the 14-year project (1992-2006) several variables had an impact on the project’s annual financial profile. Year-to-year variations in housing stock and material costs caused fluctuations in the unit, or house-per-house, costs. This, combined with variations in annual budgets as a result of challenges such as the terrorist attacks of 9/11, resulted in a fluctuating rate of annual home completions.

Annual average mitigation costs per single-family home ranged from a low of $17,300 in 1994 to a high of $45,000 in 2001. The MAC spent a total of approximately $229.5 million on the single-family home mitigation program during its 14-year lifespan.

In addition to the single-family mitigation program, the MAC also mitigated multi-family units and schools, and engaged in property acquisition and relocation. The multi-family component of the residential noise mitigation program started 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 DNL noise contour, the MAC mitigated approximately 1,327 multi-family units at a total cost of approximately $11.1 million.

Also, since 1981, the MAC has mitigated 18 schools located around MSP. This total represents all of the schools located within the 65 DNL noise contour. In response to the legislature’s directives, the MAC also provided mitigation to certain schools located outside the 1996 65 DNL noise contour. The costs of insulating individual schools varied from $850,000 to $8 million. A total of approximately $52 million was spent on the school sound insulation program.

In addition to the residential and school noise mitigation programs, the MAC also implemented a residential property acquisition program that facilitated the relocation of sensitive land uses, such as residential buildings, in noise impact areas. The intent of the residential acquisition program was to address impacted properties in the 1996 65 DNL noise contour where the property owners and the city in which the respective property resided agreed that acquisition was the desirable means of

1 FAA, “Guidelines for the Sound Insulation of Residences Exposed to Aircraft Operations,” October 1992, pg. 3-18.

3

mitigating the homes. As a result, the MAC acquired approximately 437 residential properties. In total, the MAC expended approximately $93.0 million on the residential property acquisition program.

1.2 2007 Forecast Mitigated Noise Contour

In late 1998, the MAC authorized an update to the Part 150 program at MSP. The update process began in 1999 with the development of noise contours and noise abatement and land use measures. The MAC published a draft Part 150 Update document in October 2000 and submitted the study, including a 2005 forecast NEM and revised NCP, to the FAA for review. In May 2002, after further consideration of the events of 9/11, the MAC withdrew the study to update the forecast and associated noise contours.

The forecast update process began in February 2003. This effort focused on updating the base case year from a 2000 scenario to a 2002 base case, and updating the forecast year from 2005 to 2007. The purpose of the forecast update was to ensure that the noise contours considered the events of 9/11 and ongoing changes in the MSP aircraft fleet. In addition to updating the forecast, the MAC and the MSP Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) conducted a review of the Integrated Noise Model (INM) input methodology and data to ensure continued consensus with the previous contour (i.e., November 2001) development process.

On November 17, 2003, the MAC approved the revised forecast and fleet mix numbers and INM input methodology and data for use in developing the 2002 and 2007 NEMs. In March 2004, the MAC revised the forecast to incorporate certain corrections in general aviation numbers and to reflect Northwest Airline’s announcement that it would resume service of five RJ85 aircraft that had previously been taken out of service.

The 2004 Part 150 Update resulted in a comprehensive Noise Compatibility Program (NCP) recommendation. In addition to several land use measures around MSP, the NCP included provisions for a number of operational Noise Abatement (NA) Measures. The aircraft and airport operational noise abatement initiatives in the 2004 Part 150 Update focused on aircraft operation procedures, runway use, departure and arrival flight tracks, voluntary operational agreements with the airlines, and provisions for further evaluation of technology.

As a result of the extensive analyses and review included in the 2004 MSP Part 150 Update, the Part 150 Update’s NCP included 17 NA Measures. The MAC has implemented 12 of the 17 NA Measures. Of the remaining five measures, two are modifications of existing NCP measures that the MAC recommended as part of the 1993 Part 150 Update and three are new measures.

The MAC has implemented the operational noise NA Measures outlined in the November 2004 Part 150 Update NCP that are reflected in the 2007 forecast mitigated noise contour included in the 2004 MSP Part 150 Update. Given that the MAC has implemented the operational NA measures that result in the shape and size of the 2007 forecast mitigated noise contour, consistent with the Dual-Track Airport Planning Process Final Environmental Impact Statement, and that the 2007 forecast mitigated assumptions are conservative when compared with existing operations and fleet mix figures, the 2007 forecast contours are a reasonable estimate of future noise impacts at MSP. Moreover, recent operations forecast in the MSP Long-Term Comprehensive Plan (LTCP) Update indicate that the 2007 forecasted level of operations will not occur until after 2019.

4

Based on the estimate of 582,366 total operations in the 2007 forecast mitigated scenario, approximately 7,234.4 acres are in the 65 DNL noise contour and approximately 15,708.3 acres are in the 60 DNL noise contour. Table 1.1 contains the count of single-family (one to three units per structure) and multi-family (more than three units per structure) dwelling units within the 2007 forecast mitigated noise contours. The counts are based on the block intersect methodology, where all structures on a block that is within or touched by the noise contour are counted.

As a result of new updated parcel information that the MAC obtained from MetroGIS on October 31, 2007, the unit counts in Table 1.1 differ from previous figures published for the 2007 forecast mitigated noise contours in the November 2004 Part 150 Update Document. A depiction of the 2007 forecast mitigated noise contours is provided in Figure 1.1.

1.3 Airport Noise Litigation

One of the largest discussion items in the Part 150 Update process that began in 1999 focused on the mitigation program that the MAC would offer in the 64 to 60 DNL noise contour area. The FAA recognizes sensitive land uses, such as residential land uses, within the 65 and greater DNL noise contours that are impacted by aircraft noise as eligible for noise mitigation under Part 150. However, as part of the Dual-Track Airport Planning Process the MAC made a policy decision to provide some level of noise mitigation out to the 60 DNL noise contour at MSP. During the Dual- Track Airport Planning Process, the MSP Noise Mitigation Committee was tasked with developing a noise mitigation plan to be considered in conjunction with the expansion of MSP at its present location.

Throughout the entire Part 150 Update process, the intent of the MSP Noise Mitigation Committee’s recommendation regarding mitigation outside the 65 DNL contour was a topic of detailed discussion and debate. During the course of the Part 150 Update process the MAC formulated a number of mitigation proposals, culminating in a final MAC position on mitigation outside the 65 DNL contour. In the November 2004 Part 150 Update, the MAC’s recommendation for mitigation in the 64 to 60 DNL contours called for providing central air-conditioning to single-family homes that did not have it, with a homeowner co-pay based on the degree of noise impact. The MAC based eligibility for the mitigation proposal on the 2007 forecast mitigated noise contour using the block intersect methodology. The cities located around MSP expressed dissatisfaction

60 DNL

65 DNL

70 DNL

35W

62

121

77

51

35E

110

494

5

149

13

55

Minneapolis

Sun

fish

La

ke

St. Paul

Richfield

MendotaHeights

Mendota

Lilydale

Eagan

Burnsville

Bloomington

2007 Forecast Mit igated Con tours

0 1 20.5Miles

Figure 1.1

5

with the MAC proposal, asserting that the MSP Noise Mitigation Committee recommended that the 5 dB package was to be expanded to all properties in the 64 to 60 DNL noise contours. The MAC countered that the MSP Noise Mitigation Committee recommendations did not specify the mitigation package elements to be offered in the 64 to 60 DNL noise contour area and that, because homes in Minnesota have higher than the national average pre-existing noise attenuation characteristics, the full 5 dB package was not necessary outside the 65 DNL contour.

In early 2005, the Cities of Minneapolis, Eagan, and Richfield filed suit in Hennepin County District Court claiming the MAC violated the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act (MERA) by failing to provide a 5 dB package to single-family homes in the 64 to 60 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 64 to 60 DNL contours. In January 2007, Hennepin County District Judge Stephen Aldrich granted the cities partial summary judgment on Count II of the cities’ complaint. The court found that the MAC, by virtue of implementing the 5 dB 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’ claims. Before the court entered final judgment post-trial, however, the parties negotiated a global settlement resolving the cities’ case and the class action suit.

1.4 Noise Mitigation Settlement and Annual Noise Contour Analysis

On October 19, 2007, Judge Stephen Aldrich approved a Consent Decree entered into by the MAC and the cities of Minneapolis, Eagan, and Richfield that settled the cities’ 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 of these conditions were satisfied, and the MAC is implementing single-family and multi-family mitigation out to the 2007 60 DNL and 2005 60 DNL noise contours as the Consent Decree requires. Under the Decree, mitigation activities will vary based on noise contour. Homes in the most noise-impacted contours are eligible for more extensive mitigation than those in less impacted areas.

The Decree provides that approximately 433 homes in the 2007 64 to 63 DNL noise contours are eligible to receive the same level of noise mitigation that the MAC provided in the 1996 65 DNL and greater contours. The 2007 64 to 63 DNL noise contour mitigation program is designed to achieve five decibels of noise reduction on average, with mitigation measures that may include the following, depending upon the home’s existing condition: central air-conditioning; exterior and storm window repair or replacement; prime door and storm door repair or replacement; wall and attic insulation; baffling of roof vents and chimney treatment. The Decree requires that the MAC complete construction of mitigation in the 2007 64 and 63 DNL noise contours by December 31, 2009. This task was completed.

In addition, under the Decree, owners of the approximately 5,394 single-family homes in the 2007 62 to 60 DNL noise contours will be eligible for one of two mitigation packages: 1) an estimated 2,852 homes that did not have central air-conditioning as of September 1, 2007 will 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 choose not to receive central air-conditioning will be 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

6

includes upgrades such as: exterior and storm window repair or replacement; prime door and storm door repair or replacement; wall and attic insulation; and baffling of roof vents and chimney treatment. The Decree requires that the MAC complete construction of mitigation in the 2007 62 to 60 DNL contours by December 1, 2012.

Single-family homes in the 2007 64 and 63 DNL contours and in the 2007 62 to 60 DNL contours whose earlier owners opted out of the previously completed MAC noise mitigation program for the 1996 65 and greater DNL contours but that had new owners on September 1, 2007 are 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 will be used to reimburse owners of single-family homes between the 2005 mitigated 60 DNL contour and the 2007 forecast mitigated 60 DNL contour for purchase and installation of products included on a menu provided by the MAC. The amount each homeowner receives will be determined by subtracting dollars spent for the opt-in program from the total $7 million budget, and then dividing the remainder among the total number of single-family homes within the 2005 60 DNL and 2007 60 DNL contours. The MAC has begun to issue reimbursements and will complete them by July 31, 2014. The total cost of the “opt-in” mitigation and the 2005 mitigated 60 DNL contour reimbursement mitigation program is capped at $7 million.

The MAC began implementing the Noise Mitigation Program in October 2007 following the terms and conditions of the Consent Decree that settled the noise mitigation lawsuit.

As of February of 2011, the MAC has completed noise mitigation for all of the single-family homes in the 2007 63-64 DNL contours. (400 homes participated in the program.) In addition, the MAC has completed 2,698 homes in the 2007 60-62 DNL and has another 922 homes in the design and construction phases at present. A total of 650 homes have been provided reimbursements for approved noise mitigation enhancements in the 2007 60 DNL to 2005 60 DNL contour area. With regard to the multi-family noise mitigation program, the MAC has installed acoustical covers on the air conditioners in 1,724 living units and will complete the installation of new air-conditioning units in 255 living units in 2010.

The total cost to implement mitigation under the Consent Decree is uncertain until the program is complete, but it could cost as much as $130 million.

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 will perform under the Decree. (Consent Decree Section 8.1, p. 38.) 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 and is at least two decibels in DNL higher than the DNL level for that location in the 2007 mitigated noise contours. The MAC determines future DNL values by using the FAA’s Integrated Noise Model and actual MSP operations data to generate a noise contour reflecting noise conditions at MSP for the prior calendar year. (Consent Decree Section 8.1(d), pp. 38-39.) The MAC must develop a noise contour reflecting noise conditions for the prior calendar year by March 1 of each year. The MAC has prepared this report to satisfy Section 8.1(d) of the Consent Decree. The actual contour that the MAC must develop under Section 8.1(d) of the Consent Decree is relevant only to the release provisions in Section 8.1. The Consent Decree requires the MAC to use only the 2007 forecast mitigated DNL contours and the 2005 forecast DNL mitigated contours for mitigation purposes. MAC staff and representatives from the cities of Minneapolis, Eagan, and Richfield met on February 11 and 20, 2008 to discuss and finalize the annual report format.

7

Chapter

2 2010 Actual Noise Contour

As discussed previously, Section 8.1(d) of the Consent Decree requires the MAC by March 1 of each year to prepare an actual noise contour reflecting the noise conditions around MSP for the prior calendar year. This chapter provides detailed information regarding the 2010 actual noise contour at MSP.

2.1 2010 Actual Noise Contour Development

2.1.1 Integrated Noise Model

The FAA-established mechanism for quantifying airport DNL noise impacts is the Integrated Noise Model (INM). The availability of federal or airport-generated funds for the purpose of noise mitigation efforts such as sound insulation is contingent upon the development of a Noise Exposure Map (DNL noise contours) in a manner that is consistent with the federal criteria (i.e., INM and DNL). The INM is used to assess the noise impact of aircraft operations. The INM uses input files consisting of information relative to runway use, flight track use, aircraft fleet mix, aircraft performance and thrust settings, topography information, and atmospheric conditions to generate a Noise Exposure Map. The computer model generates contours, typically represented in five DNL increments, that depict an annualized average day of aircraft noise impacts. The DNL contours generated are the focal point of any noise mitigation measure proposed in a Part 150 program.

Quantifying aircraft-specific noise characteristics in INM is accomplished through the use of a comprehensive noise database that has been developed under the auspices of Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 36. As part of the airworthiness certification process, aircraft manufacturers are required to subject aircraft to a battery of noise tests. Through the use of federally adopted and endorsed algorithms, this aircraft-specific noise information is used in the generation of INM DNL contours. Justification for such an approach is rooted in national standardization of noise quantification at airports. The FAA Office of Environment and Energy (AEE-100) developed the INM. Since 1978, the INM has been the FAA's standard tool for determining the predicted noise impact in the vicinity of airports. The INM is designed to estimate long-term average effects using average annual input conditions. The MAC used INM Version 7.0b, which is the latest version of the model, to develop the 2010 actual noise contour.

2.1.2 2010 Aircraft Operations and Fleet Mix

The past 10 years have presented many challenges to the aviation industry. From a local perspective, operational levels and the aircraft fleet mix at MSP have been subject to lingering effects from the events of 9/11, high fuel prices, a flurry of bankruptcy filings by several legacy airlines including Northwest Airlines, an economic recession and overall market forces that appear to be favoring consolidation, as indicated by Delta Air Lines’ acquisition of Northwest Airlines in 2008. These developments have had profound effects on airline and airport operations. For example, the actual 2010 operational level at MSP is below the operational level documented at the airport over 15 years ago.

8

The MAC derived total MSP operations numbers for this study from MAC Noise and Operations Monitoring System (MACNOMS) data. The MACNOMS total operations number was 0.8 percent lower than the FAA Air Traffic Activity Data System (ATADS) number. To rectify the numbers, the MAC adjusted the MACNOMS data upward to equal the total 2010 FAA ATADS number. Table 2.1 provides the total number of 2010 aircraft operations at MSP by operational category.

The 2010 total operations number of 435,583 is up slightly from the 2009 number of 432,604 (0.6 percent increase).

In addition to the reduction in overall operations at MSP, the aircraft fleet mix at MSP is continuing to change. Considering the multi-faceted nature of the variables that are presently impacting the operational downturn at MSP, it is difficult to forecast long-term operational implications. All signs, however, seem to point to a fundamental change in the nature of airline operations at MSP, especially in the type of aircraft flown by all airlines and in particular by Delta Air Lines. Specifically, operations by older aircraft such as the DC9 and B727 that have been “hushkitted” to meet the Stage 3 noise standard are decreasing. Following the events of 9/11, the number of monthly Stage 3 hushkit operations dropped off significantly at MSP and has never returned to pre-9/11 levels. The number of monthly Stage 3 hushkit operations dropped to 9,450 in September 2001 and have continued to drop. Stage 3 hushkit operations dropped to a low of 837 total monthly operations in December 2010. At the same time that older hushkit aircraft operations are declining, the use of newer and quieter manufactured Stage 3 aircraft is on the rise. The best examples at MSP of the increasing use of newer aircraft are the Airbus A320/319, Airbus 330, Regional Jets (CARJ-200 and EMB-170), Boeing B757-200/300, and Boeing B737-700/800. These aircraft are replacing older hushkitted Stage 3 aircraft such as the DC10, DC9, and B727.

When comparing the DC9 hushkitted aircraft to the CRJ-200 regional jet, 43 CRJ operations would be required to generate the same noise impact as one DC9 operation. The CRJ-200 aircraft represents newer technology engine noise emission levels.

Table 2.2 provides a breakdown of the 2010 aircraft fleet mix at MSP. The average daily number of hushkitted aircraft operations was down in 2010 to 64.6 from 92.8 in 2009. In 2010, the average daily number of total nighttime operations was 93.4, down from the 108.1 average daily nighttime operations in 2009. Overall, the 2010 total average daily operations number of 1,190.9 is up slightly by 0.5 percent from the 1,184.7 average daily operations in 2009.

9

10

11

12

2.1.3 2010 Runway Use

FAA control of runway use throughout the year for arrival and departure operations at MSP has a notable effect on the noise impact around the airport. The number of people and dwellings impacted by noise is a direct result of the number of operations on a given runway and the land uses off the end of the runway.

Historically, prior to the opening of Runway 17/35, arrival and departure operations occurred on the parallel runways at MSP (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. As a result of the dense residential land uses to the northwest and the predominantly industrial/commercial land uses to the southeast of MSP, focusing arrival and departure operations to the southeast has long been the preferred configuration from a noise reduction perspective.

13

Since the introduction of Runway 17/35 at MSP in 2005, another opportunity exists to route aircraft over an unpopulated area – the Minnesota River Valley. With use of the Runway 17 Departure Procedure, westbound departure operations off Runway 17 are routed such that they avoid close-

in residential areas southwest of the new runway. Thus, use of Runway 17 for departure operations is the second preferred operational configuration (after Runways 12L and 12R) for noise reduction purposes.

Table 2.3 provides the runway use percentages for 2010. From 2009 to 2010 arrival operations percentages decreased on Runways 30L, 17, 22, and 35 (Runway 4 2009 and 2010 arrival percentages were identical) and increased on Runways 30R, 12R, and 12L. The most notable change in arrival runway use from 2009 to 2010 was a 5.1 percent increase in Runway 12L arrival operations. The most notable change in arrival runway use during the nighttime hours was also on Runway 12L, where operations increased from 11.2 percent in 2009 to 14.0 percent in 2010. Departure operations decreased on Runways 4, 30L, and 12R (Runway 35 2009 and 2010 departure percentages were identical) and increased on Runways 12L, 17, 22 and 30R from 2009 to 2010. The most notable change in departure runway use from 2009 to 2010 was a 5.6 percent reduction in Runway 12R departure operations. The most notable change in departure runway use during the nighttime hours was on Runway 12L, where operations increased from 14.4 percent in 2009 to 17.4 percent in 2010.

2.1.4 2010 Flight Tracks

In large part, the INM flight tracks used to develop the 2010 actual noise contour are identical to those used for the 2009 actual noise contour. The tracks are also consistent with those used previously to develop the 2007 forecast mitigated noise contour, with the exception of Runways 17, 35, and 4 departure tracks. The MAC updated the INM departure tracks to conform to actual radar flight track data for Runway 17 and the use of Runways 35 and 4 during the 2009 reconstruction of Runway 12L/30R.

Figures 2.1 to 2.16 provide the INM departure and arrival flight track and use information that the MAC used to develop the 2010 actual noise contour.

2.1.5 2010 Atmospheric Conditions

The MAC gathered atmospheric data for the 2010 actual noise contour from the National Weather Service (NWS) and the Minnesota State Climatologist’s Office. The MAC used the NWS’s 2010

0.8%0 .3%

0.

2%0

.2%

0.6%

3.1%

7.3%

22.7%

22.1

%

0.5%

0.9%

8.8%

3.2%

1.6%

1.3%

1.8%

1.3%

0.6%

1.9%

0.3%0 .1%

0.0 3

%0.

%1.

1%0.

3%

0.7%

0.5%0. 3%

0.7%

1.1%

0.5%1.6%

1.1%

0.9%

0.3%

0.7%

1.1%

2.7%

0.2%

0.4%

1.0%

1.9%

3.0%

694

35

35E

94

494

394

0 2.5 51.25

Miles

Note: The thickness of the INM tracksas displayed on this map is a function

of overall use percentage

2010 INM Tracks - Runway 30L DeparturesOverall Use Percentage

Figure 2.1

1.9%

2.0% 3.0%

3.8% 3.9

%

3.0% 1.6

%

0.8% 0.3%.

2.5% 7.1%

4.8%2.

6%

9.0%

5.1%4.5%

2.7%

1.1%

1.1%

0.8%

0.9%

0.7%

8.7%

2 .1%

0.8%1.1%

2.5%

8.4%

0.7%

4.1%

3.0%1.1%1.4%0.8%

0.8%

0.5%

494

694

35

35E

35W

94

394

0 2 41

Miles



2010 INM Tracks - Runway 30R DeparturesOverall Use Percentage

Figure 2.2

1.7%

5.2%

7.0%

12.8%6.4

%

1.2%

15.7%

0.0%

17.4

%

1.2%

0.6% 1.2%4.1% 1.7%3.5%

9.9

%

1.2

%

2.9

%

0.6%5.8%

694

35

35E

35W

94

494

394

0 6 123

MilesNote: The thickness of the INM tracksas displayed on this map is a function


2010 INM Tracks - Runway 04 DeparturesOverall Use Percentage

Figure 2.3

6.4%

3.1%

1.0%

6.3%

1.9%

2.8%2.5%

0.1%

7.4%

5.9%

0.3%

1.5%

4.8%

0.1%

0.%

0.2%

2.2%1.9%

1.0%

0.2%0.6%0.1%

0.3%

0.1%0.1%0.0%

2.4% 0.6%0.8%0.4%

0.1%0.1%0.3%

0.1%

0.3%

0.1%

0.1%0.0%0.1%0.2%

0.1%

0.6%0.2%0 .1%

0. 2%0.0%

0.1%0.

%

0.1%

4.5%

0.3%

1.1%

0.3%

3.2%

1.2%

2.8%

6.9%

5.6%

1.9% 0.9%

1.0%0.3%

0.5%

1.6%

0.5%

4.6%

1.3%

2.6%

1.0%

694

35

35E

35W

94

494

394

0 2 41

Miles



2010 INM Tracks - Runway 12L DeparturesOverall Use Percentage

Figure 2.4

0.5%1.4%

4.2%1.7%

0.2%

0.4%1.6%

0.1%0.5%

0.1%0.2%

0.2%

0.1%0.2%

2.8%

4.4%

2.8%

0.1%

0.2%

0.1%

1.0%0.7%

0.1%

0.1%0.0%

0.1%

0.0%0.1%

0.4%

0.

1%

0.4%0.3%

2.7%

0.4%

6.7% 2.6%

0.4%0.1%

0.4%0. %

0.7%1.2%

6.4%0.4%

2.1%

0.3%

1.3%

3.0%

4.8%

2.3%

.0 1%6.1%

2.2%

0.5%

0.4%

1.2%

0.3%

4.8%

3.2%4.1%

4.1%

6.0%

6.0%

94

35

35E

35W

494

694

0 4 82



2010 INM Tracks - Runway 12R DeparturesOverall Use Percentage

Figure 2.5

3.9%

1.1%

8.1%

6.6%

2 .4%

9.3%

7.4%3.9%

3.8%4.3%

14.0%

8.0%

2.7%

1.9%

4.6%

0.5%

5.3%

0.9%

0.4%0.4%

1.0%1.3%2.0%

2.7%

1.4%

1.9%694

35

494

35E

35W

94

394

0 2 41

Miles




Figure 2.6

0.2%

0.1%

0.0%

0.1%

0.0%

0.0%

0.3%

4.1%

0.0%

0.1%

0.3%

0.3%

0.6%0.9%

2.6% 4.5%

2.0%

0.4%

0.3%

5.7%

0.6%

4.0%

3.8%5.0

%

3.0%

3.7%

2.0%

3.6%

3.7%

4.6%

6.4%

2.0%

4.2%

2.1%

2.5%

5.8%

0.8%

2.6%

2.1%

3.7%6.4%

4.3%

0.1%

0.1%

35

35E

35W

94

494

694394

0 5 102.5

Miles


Figure 2.7



0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

7.7%

0.0%

0.0%0.0%

15.4%

7.7%

0.0%

0.0%

7.7%

0.0%0.0%

15.4%

0.0%

0.0%

7.7%

38.5%0.0%

694

35E

35W

94

394

494

0 4 82




Figure 2.8

0.0%

0.2%

0.1%

0.1%

0.1%

0.3%

1.1%58.4%25.2%

0.7%

4.8%

0.7%

2.2%

0.6%

1.6%

0.1%

0.1%

0.4%

0.9%

0.1%

0.1%

0.4%

0.6%

0.0%

0.3%

0.2%0.3%

0.2%

0.3%

35W

494

394

94

0 2 41



2010 INM Tracks - Runway 12R ArrivalsOverall Use Percentage

Figure 2.9

0.5%

0.0%

0.4%

0.0%

0.9%

0.0%

5.8%59.3%10.3%

3.8%

0.6%

3.8%

0.3%

4.5%

0.3%

0.3%

0.0%

3.1%

0.2%

0.1%

0.0%

2.8%

0.2%

0.2%

0.0%

1.4%

0.1%

1.0%

0.1%

494

35W

94

394

0 2 41



2010 INM Tracks - Runway 12L ArrivalsOverall Use Percentage

Figure 2.10

0.1%

0.0%

0.0%

0.4%0.1%

0.0%

20.9%

76.4% 1.5%

0.3%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.1%

0.0%

694

35E

94

494

35W

394

0 2 41

Miles



2010 INM Tracks - Runway 22 ArrivalsOverall Use Percentage

Figure 2.11

0.2%

0.0%

0.2%

0.0%

1.2%

0.0%

34.6%9.6%0.1%

11.5%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

7.7%

9.6%0.8%

7.0%

0.5%

4.1%

0.8%

3.4%

0.6%

2.8%

0.1%

0.2%

0.5%

1.6%

0.0%

0.0%

0.3%

1.2%

0.0%

0.0%

0.2%

0.5%

0.1%

0.5%

494

35E

0 2 41

Miles



2010 INM Tracks - Runway 30R ArrivalsOverall Use Percentage

Figure 2.12

0.0%

0.1%

0.0%

0.1%

0.2%

0.1%

31.1%31.7%0.5%

0.0%

1.3%

2.1%

0.0%

11.4%

2.7%3.2%

1.6%

2.0%

0.9%

2.4%

0.8%

2.1%

0.5%

0.2%

0.1%

1.5%

0.4%

0.0%

0.0%

1.0%

0.3%

0.2%

0.1%

0.4%

0.2%

0.2%

0.2%

35E

494

0 2 41

Miles



2010 INM Tracks - Runway 30L ArrivalsOverall Use Percentage

Figure 2.13

0.0

%0.0

%

0.1

%

0.0

%

2.3

%

0.1

%

59

.1%

34

.1%

0.2

%

0.1%

1.7

%

0.1%

0.6

%0.0%

0.2%

0.0%

0.3

%

0.1%

0.0%

0.1%

0.3

%

0.3%

0.0%

0.0%

0.1

%

0.0%

0.1

%

35W494

35

35E

0 1 20.5

Miles




Figure 2.14

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

4.0%

0.0%

4.0%8.0%

56.0%

20.0%4.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

4.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

35

494

35E35W

0 2 41

Miles




Figure 2.15

0.8%0.0% 0.0%0.0%

0.8%

0.0% 12.3%79.5%

0.8%

2.5%

0.8%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.8%

0.0%

1.6%

0.0%

0.0%

35W

35E

694

94

394

0 1 20.5

Miles




Figure 2.16

14

annual average temperature of 49.9 degrees Fahrenheit and 2010 average annual wind speed of 8.2 Kts. in the INM modeling process. The MAC also used a 2010 average annual pressure of 29.98 inches and a 2010 annual average relative humidity of 63.9 percent, as reported by the Minnesota State Climatologist’s Office.

2.2 2010 Modeled Versus Measured DNL Levels

As part of the 2010 actual noise contour development process, the MAC conducted a correlation analysis comparing the INM-developed 2010 DNL noise contours to actual measured aircraft noise levels at the 39 MAC Noise and Operations Monitoring System (MACNOMS) Remote Monitoring Towers (RMTs) around MSP in 2010. The MAC conducted an INM grid point analysis to determine the model’s predicted 2010 DNL noise levels at each of the RMT locations (determined in the INM by the latitude and longitude coordinates of each RMT).

Table 2.4 provides a comparison of the INM grid point analysis at each MACNOMS RMT site, based on the 2010 actual noise contour as produced with the INM, and the actual MACNOMS monitored aircraft DNLs at those locations in 2010.

The average absolute difference between the modeled and measured DNLs was 1.8 dB (the 2009 average absolute difference was 1.3 dB). The median difference was 1.1 dB (the 2009 median difference was 1.0 dB). The MACNOMS RMTs, on average, reported slightly higher DNL levels than the INM model generated. The MAC believes that this is due in part to the inclusive approach MAC staff has taken in tuning MACNOMS noise-to-track matching parameters. This conservative approach, along with the increasing number of quieter jets operating at the airport, results in increased instances of community-driven noise events being attributed to quieter aircraft operating at further distances from the monitoring location. The use of absolute values provides a perspective of total difference between the INM modeled values and the measured DNL values provided by MACNOMS in 2010. The median is considered the most reliable indicator of correlation when considering the data variability across modeled and monitored data.

Overall, the small variation between the actual MACNOMS monitored aircraft noise levels and the INM modeled noise levels provides additional external system verification that the INM is providing an accurate assessment of the aircraft noise impacts around MSP.

15

2.3 2010 Noise Contour Impacts

Based on the 435,583 total operations in 2010, approximately 3972.2 acres are in the 65 DNL noise contour (a reduction of 800.0 acres from the 2009 actual noise contour) and approximately 9,276.7 acres are in the 60 DNL noise contour (a reduction of 1,641.9 acres from the 2009 actual noise contour). 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 2010 actual noise contours. The MAC based the counts on the block intersect methodology where all structures on a block that are within or touched by the noise contour are counted.

The 2010 count of residential units within the actual 60 DNL noise contour that have not received noise mitigation around MSP is 1,359, a reduction of 60.8 percent from the total of 3,464 based on the 2009 actual noise contours. There are no unmitigated homes in the 2010 actual 65 DNL noise contour around MSP. All homes within the 2010 actual 60+ DNL contours will be mitigated by 2014 by virtue of the noise litigation Consent Decree. This significant reduction is due in large part to a 30.4 percent reduction in hushkitted aircraft operations and a 13.6 percent reduction in nighttime operations from 2009 to 2010.

A depiction of the 2010 actual noise contour is provided in Figure 2.17.

The 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 actual noise contours are provided in Figure 2.18. The 2010 actual 65 DNL noise contour is 16.8 percent smaller than the 2009 actual 65 DNL noise contour and the 2010 actual 60 DNL noise contour is 15.0 percent smaller than the 2009 actual 60 DNL noise contour.

LILY

DA

LE

WATER

35W

62

77

MIN

NEH

AH

A

FORD

35E

110

494

5

PIL

OT

KN

OB

13

WA

CH

TLER

WENTWORTH

149

EDG

CU

MB

E

CLE

VEL

AN

D

46TH

51

50TH

YANKEE DOODLE

98TH

PO

RTL

AN

D

PAR

K

66TH

SAIN

T PAU

L

LYN

DA

LE

OLD

SHAKO

PEE

VIC

TOR

IA

LONE OAK

NIC

OLL

ET

CE

DA

R

LEX

ING

TON

121

55

Minneapolis

St. Paul

RichfieldMendotaHeights

Mendota

Lilydale

EaganBloomington

2010 Actual Contours

0 1 20.5Miles

Figure 2.17

65 DNL

60 DNL

70 DNL

70 DNL

65 DNL

60 DNL

LILY

DA

LE

WATER

35W

YANKEE DOODLE

70TH

62

77

MIN

NEH

AHA

WENTWORTH

CED

AR

FORD

55

35E

PARK

110

494

LONE OAK

5

PEN

N

PILO

T KN

OB

13

WA

CHTL

ER

149

BAFFIN

EDG

CUM

BE

46TH

51

50TH

ARG

ENTA

CLEV

ELA

ND

98TH

PORT

LAN

D

66TH

SAINT PAUL

LYN

DA

LE

OLD SHAKOPEE

VICTORIA

NIC

OLL

ET

RANDOLPH

DEL

AWA

RE

LEXI

NG

TON

121

42ND

Minneapolis

Sunf

ish L

ake

St. Paul

Richfield

MendotaHeights

Mendota

Lilydale

Eagan

Burnsville

Bloomington

0 1 20.5Miles

Figure 2.18

2010, 2009, 2008 & 2007

Actual Contours

16

Chapter

3 Comparison of the 2010 Actual Noise Contour and

the 2007 Forecast Noise Contour

This chapter provides a detailed comparative analysis of the 2010 actual and 2007 forecast mitigated noise contours, focusing on the significant noise modeling variables and noise impacts at MSP.

3.1 Comparison of 2010 Actual and 2007 Forecast Noise Contour Inputs

3.1.1 Integrated Noise Model Considerations

To develop the actual 2010 contour the MAC used Integrated Noise Model (INM) Version 7.0b, which is the latest version of the model available for use incorporating new lateral attenuation capabilities and updates to noise and performance data for commercial aircraft, updates to substitution aircraft data, and corrections to minor software issues. The MAC developed the 2007 forecast mitigated contour using INM Version 6.1. When comparing the 2007 forecast mitigated noise contour to the 2010 actual noise contour, the MAC notes that the new lateral attenuation capabilities that were incorporated into the previous 7.0 INM update have the effect of increasing the size of the 2010 actual noise contour by as much as 3-10 percent over what INM 6.1 would have modeled.

3.1.2 Aircraft Operations and Fleet Mix Comparison

Table 3.1 provides a comparison of total MSP operations by operational category used in the 2007 forecast mitigated noise contour and the 2010 actual noise contour.

17

As is indicated in Table 3.1, the 2010 actual total MSP operations number of 435,583 represents a 25.2 percent reduction from the 2007 forecast mitigated total operations number of 582,366. Scheduled passenger air carrier and cargo operations accounted for the majority of the reduction. However, it is notable that charter operations are 98.2 percent below the 2007 forecast mitigated number.

Table 3.2 provides a comparison of the 2007 forecast mitigated noise contour fleet mix and the 2010 actual noise contour fleet mix. An assessment of average daily operations per aircraft type with daytime and nighttime operation statistics is provided.

18

19

20

21

In general, many of the aircraft types operating at MSP showed a reduction in the number of average daily operations from the 2007 forecast mitigated to the 2010 actual operations statistics. Manufactured Stage 3 aircraft average daily operations in the 2010 actual statistics were down 11.8 percent from the 2007 forecast mitigated number. The hushkitted Stage 3 average daily operations in the 2010 actual statistics were down 76.5 percent from the 2007 forecast mitigated number.

In total, the 2010 actual average daily number of operations was 1,190.9, which is a 25.4 percent reduction from the 2007 forecast mitigated of 1,595.5 operations. Nighttime operations decreased by 29.9 average daily operations from the 2007 forecast mitigated to the 2010 actual operations statistics.

3.1.3 Runway Use Comparison

Table 3.3 provides a comparison of the 2007 forecast mitigated noise contour and the 2010 actual noise contour runway use percentages.

22

A general evaluation of the runway use percentages in Table 3.3 indicates that use of Runway 17 for departure operations is well below the percentage use numbers forecasted in the 2007 mitigated scenario. The departure percentage on Runways 30L and 30R are notably higher, and the departure percentages on Runway 12R are notably lower, than what was forecasted in the 2007 forecast mitigated scenario. The nighttime departure percentage on Runway 17 is significantly lower, and the Runways 30L and 12R nighttime departure percentages are significantly higher, than the levels forecasted in the 2007 forecast mitigated scenario. The 2010 total arrival percentages correlated fairly well with the 2007 forecast mitigated scenario. However, nighttime arrival percentages on Runways 12R and 30L are significantly higher, and significantly lower on Runway 35, than the levels forecasted in the 2007 forecast mitigated scenario.

3.1.4 Flight Track Considerations

As detailed in Section 2.1.4, the INM flight tracks the MAC used to develop the 2010 actual noise contour are identical to those used for the 2009 actual noise contour. The tracks are also consistent with those used previously to develop the 2007 forecast mitigated noise contour, with

23

the exception of Runways 17, 35, and 4 departure tracks. The MAC updated the INM departure tracks to conform to actual radar flight track data for Runway 17 and the use of Runways 35 and 4 during the 2009 reconstruction of Runway 12L/30R.

The MAC used new technologies and analysis methodologies for developing INM flight track operation statistics, and then used that INM flight track information in developing the 2010 actual noise contour. As was the case with the 2002 and 2006 actual noise contours at MSP, the MAC correlated radar flight track data to INM core flight tracks by using a geographic gate analysis. Once correlated to the core track, INM distributes operations to sub-tracks by a distribution percentage. The radar-to-INM flight track correlation process that the MAC used to develop the 2010 actual noise contour employs a best-fit analysis of the radar flight track data based on linear trends. This approach provides the ability to directly match each radar flight track to the appropriate INM track. The enhanced ability to interpret similarities along a track, rather than solely at a gate location, provides the ability to analyze all INM tracks as core tracks.

The most notable changes in the contours from the 2007 forecast mitigated to the 2010 actual noise contour scenarios are a slight northwesterly shift, and a significant reduction, of the Runway 30R northbound departure heading lobe in the noise contour, a slight extension of the contour arrival lobe on Runway 12R and a significant reduction in the Runway 12L arrival lobe. The northwest shift and reduction in the Runway 30R northbound departure heading lobe are primarily a result of the refined INM flight track analysis conducted as part of the 2010 actual noise contour development and reduced departure usage of the northbound heading. The slightly larger arrival lobe on Runway 12R is a function of higher nighttime arrival operations on that runway, while the significant reduction in the Runway 12L arrival lobe in the contour is a result of lower arrival operations on that runway.

3.1.5 Atmospheric Conditions Comparison

The MAC used an average annual temperature of 47.7 degrees Fahrenheit and an average annual wind speed of 5.3 Kts. in the 2007 forecast mitigated INM contour modeling process. The MAC also used an average annual pressure of 29.90 inches and an annual average relative humidity of 64 percent. As stated in Section 2.1.5, for the 2010 actual noise contour the MAC used a 2010 annual average temperature of 49.9 degrees Fahrenheit and a 2010 average annual wind speed of 8.2 Kts. in the INM modeling process. In addition, the MAC used a 2010 average annual pressure of 29.98 inches and a 2010 annual average relative humidity of 63.9 percent.

3.2 Comparative Integrated Noise Model Grid Point Analysis

The MAC used the INM to conduct a grid point analysis based on the 2007 forecast mitigated noise contour and 2010 actual noise contour INM input files. The MAC used INM Version 6.2a for the 2007 forecast mitigated noise contour grid point analysis because this was the oldest version of INM available to MAC staff to conduct the analysis in early 2008 when the annual noise contour report process began at MSP. When comparing the DNL values generated for the MACNOMS RMT locations with INM 6.1 in the November 2004 Part 150 Update Document to the levels generated for those same locations with INM 6.2a, the differences were insignificant.

The MAC generated DNL values for the center points of each city block included in the mitigation programs outlined in the Consent Decree. Figures 3.1 to 3.5 depict the 2010 actual grid point analysis area and the DNL levels calculated for each block by city. Figures 3.6 to 3.10 depict the 2007 forecast mitigated grid point analysis area and the DNL levels calculated for each block by

35W

62

77

110

35E494

5

51

3

149

121

55

13

Minneapolis

West St.Paul

SunfishLake

St. Paul

Richfield

MendotaHeights

Mendota

Lilydale

InverGrove

HeightsEagan

Burnsville

Bloomington

Decibel Levels from 2010 Actual Grid Point DNLs

<55 55-60

60-65

65-70

max: 69.2min: 50.4

Figure 3.1

35W

77

62

121

55

66.4

65.9

64.6

64

65.36565.265

.4

6666.7

63.9

63.7

63.6

63.6 63

.763.5

62.7

62.5

62.4

62.4

62.4

62.4

61.3

61.6

62.2

61.9

6463.6

63.1

62.4

61.461

61.8

62.3

62.8

63.1 63

.1

62.9

62.5

62.3 61.8

61.3

61.6

61.962

.162

.2

61.1 60.6 60

.3

60.2

60.1

61.2

60.1

61.1

61.1

60.2

60.3 60

.461

.2

61.2

60.4

59.6

59.6

59.6

58.958.9

58.4

58.5

58.7 58

.7

58.1

58.1

58.7

58.2

58.3

58.3

58.2

57.6

57.7

57.7

57.1

57.2

58.3

58.1

64.2

67.2

66.9

65.4

64.8

64.1

63.7

64.4

64.9

6667

.364

.6

6765

.264

.564

63.463

.263

.764

64.5

66.2

64.5

63.9

63.6

63.3

6363

.363

.563.1

6362

.7

62.5

62.6

62.8

62.3

61.4

62.3

61.8

62.2

61.8

61.5

61.2

61.5

61.2

60.960

.760

.9

60.2

60

59.8 60

.4

60.2

59.3

59.7

59.859

.6

59.459

.1

5959

.2

59.5

59.7

606059 65

.8

65.3

62.6

61.2

60.7

61.1

61.961

.560

.660

.461

.26363

.561

.360

.360

.16160

.559

.860

.261

.564

.164.5

6260

.259

.559

.559

.960

.660.2

59.6

58.9

59.6

58.7

6461

.1

59.7

62.1

6463.7

62.6

60.2

63.263

62.4

60.8

60.3

59.2

62.5

61.9

60.7

62

62.3

61.7

61.2

59.9

59.258

.6

59.1

59.8

60.4

60.9

61.2

59.2

59

58.1

585857

.8

58.7

58.8 59

.2

59.7

60 60.2

60.2

60 59.8

61 61

59.8

59.4

59 58.9

58.3

58.2

58.2

58.2

58.3

58.4

58.6

58.9

59.2

59.4

59.6

59.6

59.5

57.6 58.4

60.9

59.8

57.3

57.3

57.4

57.6

57.8

58.158

.5

58.7

5958.9

58.7

58.45857

.6

57.257

56.6

56.8

57.1

57.8

58.1

58.3

58.5

58.4

58.2

57.8

57.5

57.256

.9

56.5

56.9

57.2

57.5

57.7

57.7

57.757

.6

57.3

57.1

57.1

56.9

56.6

56.2

63.659

58.2

58.5

68.7

67.7

59.759.362.3

62.5 64.7

60

59.658

.8

61.761.161.6

67.158.8

61

58.9

67.7

65.5

64.9

64.5

64.3

60.2

59.3

62.661

.4

57.2

59.6

59.8

57.5

59.358

.9

56.860.6

57.558.459.6

57.7 56.962.3

59.1

62.5

61.7

56.9

56.3 55

.8

61.4 60

.2

60.6

60.3

55

58.8

54.5

60.361

.3

61.561

.4 60.5

58.5

58.2

59 58.3

59.1 58.5

58

59.9

60.9

60.7

60.4

59.8

60.3

60.7

56.4

57.3

54.7

55.2

54.255

.7

60.1

60.2

60 58.8

59.3

57.3 58 58.8

56.8

57.1

57.1

57.1

58

57.7

57.2

57.2

56.7

61

57.6

60.2

58

57.9

57.7

57.2

56.9

54

54.1

54.655

54.4

54.9

55.455

.9

56.5

59.5

58.9

58.4

57.8

56.9

57.5

58.1

58.8

59.4

60.1

60.8

57.8

58.4

59

59.7

57.5

58.3

5959.7

60.5

61.3

62.2

63.1

55.3

55.856

.3

56.8

57.3

59.2 55.556.3

56.8

57.3

57.8

58.4

58.5

60.2

65.6

6464

59.1

60.9

59.7

61.6

63.3

67.4

67

58.8

60.4

62.2

62.8

6159

.4

58.5

59.9

61.5

62.1

59.1

60.5

59.6

62.7

6163

.161

.560

.1

60.6

62.3

62.1

63.5

63.9

66.3

65.465

.6

64.5

64.1

66 63.9

63.4

64.4

65.1

66.8

64.8

66.5

68.5

66.2

69.2

68.9

67.8

67.367

.766

.2

66.9

66.265.9

65.7

65.4

65.7

6766.2

65.3

65.1

65.6

64.9

65.7

65.6

6564

.8

65.2 65

.9

65.7

66.2

65.2

65

64.5


<55 55-60

60-65

65-70

Figure 3.2City of Minneapolis

LON

GFE

LLO

W

4TH

CLIN

TON

3RD

18TH

OA

KG

ROVE

ELLI

OT

62ND

17TH

RICHFIELD

35W

CHIC

AG

O

COLUMBUS

78TH

OA

KLA

ND

63RD

PARK

LAKE

SH

ORE

5TH

GA

RFIE

LD

HA

RRIE

T

PLEA

SAN

T

GRA

ND

BRYA

NT

10TH

WEN

TWO

RTH

AUG

SBU

RG

PILL

SBU

RY

13TH

14TH 15

TH

12TH

11TH

EMER

SON

COLF

AX

BLA

ISD

ELL

DU

PON

T

ALD

RICH

STEV

ENS

BLO

OM

ING

TON

2ND

1ST

GIR

ARD

HU

MBO

LDT

61ST

MARKET

CED

AR

77FERN

MERIDIAN

CARGO

RAE

DIAGONAL

77TH ST WFRONTAGE

APPLE

19TH

77TH ST EFRONTAGE

MILDRED

70TH

68TH

64TH

74TH

65TH

69TH

73RD

76TH

71ST

72ND

77TH

75TH

67TH

GRA

HM

WOODLAKE

64 1/2

WO

OD

LAKE

73 1/2

FREM

ON

T

62

66TH

BOB

LYN

WO

OD

494

16TH

121

LYN

DA

LE

58.8

57.3

57.9

57.857

.7

57.6

57.8 57.9 58.2

5958.6

59

53.552.3

54.9

53.9

53.2

57.456

.353.9

55.454

.6

57.3

56.3

55.4

54.6

57.1

56.1

54.9

57

5656

.2 57

56.8

56.6

57.757

.2

58.858

.2

57.657

.1

59.6

60.759

.558.858

.3

60.2

57.857

.457.1

59.1 59

.6

60.2

58.7

57.156

.9

60.956

.7

57.9

57.6

57.3

56.556

.4

56.3

56.856.3 56.7

63.556

.9

56.7

62.5

61.7

6159.3

57.4

57.6

57.7 57

.9

57.857

.6

57.5 5857

.8

57.7

62.5

64.1

63.2

65.2

59.7

58.2

58.2

6261.5

61.160

.8

60.6

65.464

.6

58.2

58.157.9

58.4

58.5

58.5

58.3

6462.6

62.2 63

.5

63

61.9

58.4 59.158

58.7

58.9

59.2

58.3 63

59.7 60

.2

60

62.8

60.459

.5

63.4

63.9

58

57.6

56.9

57.9

57.4

57.3

58.3

59.6 60 60

.5

65.4

64.8

64.3


<55 55-60

60-65

65-70

Figure 3.3City of Richfield

77

35W

494

35E

13

54.6

58.9

65.2

66

60.1

59.3

57.9 58.8

52.9

52

51.8

52.8

52.1

56.1

52.7

52.3

54.2 55.3 56.5

5655.2

54.5

53

.9

55.1

58.4

57.255.4

54.2

57.5

53.7 54

.654

.1

53.9

54

.4

54.7

52.4

51

.6

51.3

50.4

54.8

52.7

61.4

55.1

54.8

55.9


<55 55-60

60-65

65-70

Figure 3.4

Cities of Bloomington and Eagan

110

35E

13

55494

149

57.7

62

.2

55.1

56.2

62.1

61.5

56

57.5

53.1

60.6

62.7

61.259.9

60

56.656

.456.1

54.7

60

.1

59.6

59

.7

57.7

58.656.356.3

61.9

59.6

62.9

56.7

61.259.9

57.1

60.4

60.4

59.75

7.7

55.965

.3

55

59.6

53

.8

54

.2

58

.1

54.5

56

.9

56.8

59.3

57

57.6

58

57.6

58.8

58.2

59

57.4

57.1

57

.1

58.1

57.9

58

57.7

58

58.6

57.5

57.4

57.459

59

58.4

57.4

57.457

.9

56.9

57

.6

58.7

58.2

55

.7

60

58.5

57

.8

58.8

55

.9

54.4

55

.6

54.3

54.3

59.2

58.9

57

.2

58.6

57

58

.6 58 57

.1

58

60.9


<55 55-60

60-65

65-70

Figure 3.5

Eagan, Mendota Heights and Inver Grove Heights

35W

121

77

110

35E494

5

3

149

51

55

13

Decibel Levels from 2007 Forecast Mitigated Grid Point DNLs

<5555-60

60-6565-70

70+

Figure 3.6

min : 56.1 max : 72.3

121

35W

7762

55

62.9

59.0

59.0

58.7

59.0

61.4

58.7

62.3

58.8

58.6

58.4

58.8

58.6

59.3

59.3

59.9

60.4

59.0

59.7

60.4

61.1

59.2

62.2

61.4

60.6

59.9

58.8

59.4

60.1

60.8

61.6

62.5

63.4

60.3

60.6

61.1

61.7

59.4

60.1

60.9

61.8

62.7

63.8

64.9

66.0

59.6

60.3

61.0

61.7

62.3

63.8 58.960.3

61.1

61.8

62.5

63.1

61.4

63.1

69.0

67.2

67.4

62.2

64.1

63.2

65.0

66.8

70.569.9

62.5

64.0

65.9

66.7

64.8

63.3

62.8

64.0

65.5

66.1

63.5

64.6

64.0

66.5

65.2

66.8

65.6

64.5

64.8

66.0

65.9

67.1

67.2

69.4 68.5

68.7

67.667.3

69.1 67.7

67.2

68.0

68.4

70.2

68.3

70.0

72.0

69.8

72.3

72.0

71.0

70.5

70.7

69.2

70.0

69.168.568.0

68.0

68.5

70.0

69.2

68.3

67.5

67.4

66.9

67.167.2

67.1

67.5

67.3 67.8

67.4

67.8

67.1

67.2

66.8

67.7

67.3

66.2

66.1

66.566.2

66.2

66.466

.767

.165

.065

.0

65.1

65.2

65.7

65.4

65.064.7

64.3

64.1

63.9

63.7

63.2

64.0

65.064.5

67.066.5

66.0

65.3

64.0

63.3

64.1

64.9

65.5

65.9

65.9

65.7

65.5

65.4 64.8

64.1

64.2

64.4

64.5

64.4

63.3 62.7

62.4

62.4

62.4

64.0

62.5

63.8

63.9

62.6

62.8

62.9

63.9

64.0

63.1

62.3

62.0

61.760.3

60.2

59.4

59.6

60.0 60

.159

.159

.3

60.2

59.6

59.9

60.2

60.4

60.1

59.8

59.6

59.5

59.3

59.559.4

65.1

67.4

67.5

66.9

66.8

66.4

66.2

66.5

66.5

66.9

67.5

65.3

67.2

66.3

66.1

66.1

65.965.6

65.8

65.8

65.8

66.5

65.1

65.3

65.4

65.5

65.3

65.1

64.864

.464

.765

.064

.664

.363

.963

.562

.563

.864

.064

.163

.663

.663

.263

.262

.962

.862

.562

.5

61.9

61.7

61.2 61

.961

.6

60.1

60.7

60.6

60.4

60.159

.759

.559

.760

.060

.360

.660

.4

59.3

65.9

65.6

63.7

62.7

62.6

63.4

64.2

63.7

62.7

62.1

62.4

63.7

63.9

62.2

61.7

62.1

63.1

62.6

61.7

61.3

62.2

64.1

64.3

62.4

61.1

61.1

61.5

61.9

62.662.3

61.6

60.461.7

60.4

63.5

61.3

60.4

61.9

63.5

63.2

62.2

60.6

62.762

.3

62.0

61.0

60.4

59.8

61.761.3

60.4

61.361.561.2

60.5

59.3

58.7

58.2

58.5

59.1

59.7

60.2

60.6

59.3

59.358.9

59.5

60.0

59.7

60.6

60.9

61.4

61.8

62.2

62.4

62.4

62.0

61.7

63.0

63.1

61.7

61.3 60

.760

.459

.3

59.3

59.4

59.6

59.9

60.1

60.5

60.8

61.2

61.5

61.7

61.8

61.6

59.7 60.6

60.1

59.1

58.4

58.7

59.0

59.3

59.7

60.1

60.5

60.9

61.2

61.2

61.0

60.7

60.2

59.8

59.3

58.9

58.3

58.7

59.1

59.9

60.3

60.6

60.7

60.7

60.4

60.1

59.7

59.2

58.8

58.6

59.0

59.4

59.7

59.9

60.0

59.9

59.7

59.3

59.1

59.1

58.9

58.7

58.4

66.758.8

59.2

59.8

72.2

70.8

61.460.964.7

65.166.9

61.4

60.959.8

63.262.462.9

68.259.5

62.159.4 68.1

66.9

66.7

67.066.7

61.2

59.6

65.5

61.9

59.2

60.0

59.9

59.8

59.4

59.0

59.260.460.561.859

.4

61.1 59.861.7

58.9

61.761.1

60.4

59.6

58.8

60.9

60.2

59.9

60.3

58.459.9

58.1

60.260

.860

.960.8 60.2

59.5

60.0

59.6

59.359.5 59.2 59.3

59.1

60.2

60.0

59.6

59.5

59.8

60.0

61.6

59.1 59.8

60.5

59.1

61.0

59.4

59.4

59.3

58.8

58.9 59.3 60.1 61.1

58.5

58.9

59.0

58.8


<5555-60

60-6565-70

70+

City of MinneapolisFigure 3.7

LON

GFE

LLO

W

OA

KG

ROVE

11THEL

LIO

T

17TH

OA

KLAN

D

13TH

35W

CHIC

AG

O

COLUMBUSPARK

78TH

63RD

LAKE

SH

ORE

5TH

GA

RFIE

LD 4TH

HA

RRIE

T

PLEA

SAN

T

CLIN

TON

GRA

ND

BRYA

NT

12TH

10TH

WEN

TWO

RTH

AUG

SBU

RG

BLO

OM

ING

TON

EMER

SON

COLF

AX

BLA

ISD

ELL

DU

PON

T

ALD

RICH

PILL

SBU

RY

STEV

ENS

2ND

1ST

GIR

ARD

HU

MBO

LDT

16TH

61ST

MARKET

CED

AR

77FERN

MERIDIAN

CARGO

RAE

15TH

DIAGONAL

77TH ST WFRONTAGE

19TH

62ND

77TH ST EFRONTAGE

70TH

64TH

68TH

74TH

65TH

69TH

73RD

76TH

71ST

72ND

75TH

67TH

WOODLAKE

77TH

73 1/2

FREM

ON

T

LYN

DAL

E

3RD

66TH

BOB

LYN

WO

OD

14TH

494

121

60.4

60.058.9

60.5

59.1

62.2

60.6

62.0 62.462.9

67.667.166.7

60.6

59.3

59.759.559.459.3

59.3 59.559.8 61.060.3 61.2

58.356.4

59.558.157.1

62.160.7

57.659.6

58.5

61.260.058.958.0

60.5

59.4

58.0

60.159.0

58.9

59.9

59.5

59.2 60.8

59.9

62.261.160.259.6 63.3

64.5

62.5

61.560.8

63.7

60.259.759.3

61.5 62.1 62.961.0

59.459.264.0

59.0 60.259.9

59.658.958.858.6

59.158.4

59.067.0

59.259.1 65.6

64.4

63.661.7

59.559.660.0 60.2

60.159.859.6 60.4

60.059.9

65.2 67.266.0

68.6

62.360.760.6

64.564.063.763.3

63.2

68.267.260.260.059.8

60.5

60.760.660.3

66.665.164.8 66.065.5

64.5

60.1 61.159.6 60.4 60.861.5

59.965.6

62.0

62.662.3

65.4

63.061.7

65.9 66.3


<5555-60

60-6565-70

70+

City of RichfieldFigure 3.8

35E

77

494

13

62.0

63.6

71.1

72.2

68.3

67.766.367.2

60.5

59.6

59.2

60.3

59.3

64.559.5

59.4

61.3 62.9 64.6

63.662.461.4

60.7

62.0

66.464.862.2

59.7

64.6

58.9

60.059.2

58.6 59.3

59.557.056

.656.8

56.1

59.457.8

69.3

59.0

59.6

59.0

60.0

60.3

60.760.563.6

63.5

61.9

62.860.960.9

65.2

62.8


<5555-60

60-6565-70

70+

Cities of Bloomington and EaganFigure 3.9

110

35E

13

55494

149

62.2

58

.1

58.4

63.7 58.4

58.8

58.7

59.0

59.1

59.159.2

60.0

60.4

59.1

60.0

59.6

59.1

59.3

59.3

59.5

59.459.5

59.3

59.6

59.9

59.3

59.3

59.560.4

60.2

60.0

59.7

59.659.9

59.9

60.3

60.2

61.5

61.0

61.0

60.1

59.0

60.0

60.4

60.2

59.259.1

60.360.0 5

9.5

60.0

60.0

64.0

59.3

60.5

63.7

63.360.4

61.6

57.7

62.864.2

63.2 62.460.9

60.760.5

59.2 63.663.3

63.5

61.9

62.860.960.9

65.2

64.6

58.863.7

62.362.8

62.8

62.8

58.9

68.4

63.7

63.9

60.1

59.663.9

63.965.7

65.1

64.8

62.4

62.9


<55

55-60

60-65

65-70

70+


Figure 3.10

24

city. Figures 3.11 to 3.15 depict the difference in DNL levels, on a block-by-block basis, between the 2007 forecast mitigated noise contours and the 2010 actual noise contours.

3.3 Contour Comparison Summary

The 2010 actual noise contour is smaller than the 2007 forecast mitigated contour by 6,431.6 acres (40.9 percent reduction) in the 60 DNL contour and by 3,262.2 acres (45.1 percent reduction) in the 65 DNL contour. As depicted in Figure 3.16, there is a small area in South Minneapolis where the 2010 actual noise contours extend beyond the 2007 forecast mitigated noise contours. However, there is an overall decrease of 2,627 residential units in the 65 DNL contour and 4,062 residential units in the 60 to 64 DNL noise contours around MSP when comparing the 2007 forecast mitigated contour with the 2010 actual contour that the MAC developed under the requirements of the Consent Decree.2

The small area where the 2010 actual noise contour extends beyond the 2007 forecast mitigated noise contour can largely be attributed to runway use variances between what was forecasted and what was occurring in 2010. Additionally, as detailed in Section 3.1.4, new technologies and analysis methodologies for developing INM flight track operation statistics were used in the development of the 2010 actual noise contour.

The northwest shift and reduction in the Runway 30R northbound departure heading lobe is primarily a result of the refined INM flight track analysis conducted as part of the 2010 actual noise contour development and reduced departure usage of the northbound heading off Runway 30R. The slightly larger arrival lobe on Runway 12R is a function of higher nighttime arrival operations on that runway, while the significant reduction in the Runway 12L arrival lobe in the contour is a result of lower arrival operations on that runway.

In summary, in addition to modeling enhancements, the primary factors to consider when comparing the 2007 forecast mitigated noise contours to the 2010 actual noise contours are total operation numbers, fleet mix, nighttime operations, and runway use.

2 As discussed in Section 3.1.1, it is also important to note that the new lateral attenuation capabilities incorporated into INM 7.0 increased the size of the 2010 actual noise contour by as much as 3-10 percent over the INM version 6.1 that the MAC used to develop the 2007 forecast mitigated noise contour.

35W

62

77

110

35E494

5

51

3

149

121

55

13

Difference in dB Level Between 2007 Forecasted Mitigatedand 2010 Actual Grid Point DNLs

for Blocks Included in Noise Mitigation Settlement

-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1-0.0

1 00.0

1

Figure 3.11

Completed in 1996 Program

min : -7.6 max : 0.8

35W

77

62

121

55

-2.4-2.1-1.4-1.3

-1.0-1.1

-1.3

-1.4

-1.0 -1.2

-1.5

-1.4 -1.6-1.9

-2.2

-2.5-2.1

-1.9

-2.4-2.1

-1.2-1.3

-2.2

-1.9-1.8

-2.1-2.0

-1.7-1.7

-1.9-1.8

-1.6

-1.7

-1.7

-1.4-1.5-1.4

-0.8-1.0

-0.8

-0.8-0.7

-0.6

-0.5-0.5 -0.5

-0.6

-0.6

-0.4-0.3

-1.9-1.7-1.4

-2.0-1.9

-1.1-0.9

-1.6

-2.0 -2.0

-2.0

-1.5

-2.1

-1.7-0.7

-0.4

0.4

-0.2

-0.1

-0.6

0.80.6

0.3

0.70.80.50.70.60.50.4

0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6

-0.1-0.3-0.8

-1.5

-2.0

-1.9

-1.9

-2.1 -2.2-2.1 -2.2

-2.2-1.7 -1.5

-1.0-1.1

-1.2

-1.4-1.6-1.7

-1.9

-1.9-2.0-2.1-2.1

-2.2-2.1-2.1 -2.2

0.8

0.7

-1.1-1.4-1.6-1.7

-1.9-2.0

-2.0

-2.2-2.2-2.3

-2.3-2.3-2.2-2.2-2.1

-1.9

-1.7-1.9-2.0-2.1-2.2-2.3-2.2-2.3-2.2

-2.3-2.2

-2.0-1.9

-2.1-2.1-2.2-2.2-2.2-2.3-2.2-2.1-2.0

-2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.1-2.2

0.2

-1.0

-1.3 -1.7-1.6

-1.4-1.3-1.0

-1.5-1.3-1.3-0.7

-1.1-0.5

-1.0

-0.3-0.4

-0.1-0.1-0.1

0.20.2

-2.90.60.2

0.8

0.6 -3.3

-3.0

0.50.0

0.70.0

-3.4-1.1

-3.60.10.50.60.6

0.3

-1.0-1.8

-0.6 -1.0

-0.4-0.7 -1.3

0.8 0.70.7

0.80.3

0.50.7

-1.8-5.1-5.3 -4.9

-5.30.7 0.8 0.70.00.4

-2.0 -2.1 -2.3

-1.7 -1.8

-1.9-1.7

-1.3

-1.8-1.5

-2.3

-1.1

-0.8-0.7-0.7

-1.6

-1.7

-5.3

-5.2-5.3

-5.4

-4.6-4.8-5.0

-2.7

-4.3

-3.4-4.0



-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1-0.0

1 00.0

1

City of MinneapolisFigure 3.12


LON

GFE

LLO

W

OA

KG

ROVE

11THEL

LIO

T

17TH

13TH

35W

CHIC

AG

O

COLUMBUS

78TH

OA

KLA

ND

63RD

PARK

LAKE

SH

ORE

5TH

GA

RFIE

LD 4TH

HA

RRIE

T

PLEA

SAN

T

CLIN

TON

GRA

ND

BRYA

NT

12TH

10TH

WEN

TWO

RTH

AUG

SBU

RG

BLO

OM

ING

TON

EMER

SON

COLF

AX

BLA

ISD

ELL

DU

PON

T

ALD

RICH

PILL

SBU

RY

STEV

ENS

2ND

1ST

GIR

ARD

HU

MBO

LDT

16TH

61ST

MARKET

CED

AR

77FERN

MERIDIAN

CARGO

RAE

15TH

DIAGONAL

77TH ST WFRONTAGE

19TH

77TH ST EFRONTAGE

62ND

70TH

64TH

68TH

74TH

65TH

69TH

73RD

76TH

71ST

72ND

77TH

75TH

67TH

WOODLAKE

73 1/2

FREM

ON

T

62

3RD

66TH

BOB

LYN

WO

OD

14TH

494

121

LYN

DA

LE

-1.8

-2.0

-1.8-1.7-1.7-1.7

-1.5 -1.6-1.6 -2.0-1.7

-2.2

-4.8-4.1

-3.9

-3.7-3.9

-3.4

-3.1

-3.1-3.0

-2.7

-2.9

-2.7

-2.6

-3.1-2.7

-3.4

-2.9-2.6-2.5 -3.7

-3.0-2.7-2.5

-3.5-2.4-2.3

-2.2

-2.4

-2.5-2.7-2.3-2.3-2.3-2.3 -2.3-2.3-2.3

-2.4

-2.4-2.3

-2.3

-2.1 -2.3-2.3-2.4

-2.1-2.0

-2.3-2.3-2.3-2.2-2.1

-2.4-2.2-2.2

-2.5

-2.4

-2.0-1.9-1.9 -2.1 -2.2-2.1

-2.0

-1.7-2.0-1.6

-1.7 -1.9

-2.3

-1.6-2.3 -2.4

-2.3

-2.6

-2.2

-2.4

-2.4-2.0-2.6

-1.7

-4.9

-2.3



-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1-0.0

1 00.0

1

City of RichfieldFigure 3.13


77

35W

494

35E

13

-7.4

-7.6

-7.6

-7.4

-7.5

-7.2

-6.8

-7.1

-7.1 -7.6

-7.6-7.2-6.9

-6.8

-6.9-6.8

-5.5

-5.4

-4.7

-4.9

-4.8-4.6-5

.0

-5.7

-4.6-5.1

-3.9

-4.8

-4.4



-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1-0.0

1 00.0

1

Cities of Bloomington and Eagan

Figure 3.14


110

35E

13

55494

149

-2.3-4.2

-4.3

-4.4 -4.1

-4.6

-4.3-4.4

-4.5

-4.6-4.6

-2.1-2.4

-4.3

-4.2

-2.2

-2.3-2.2

-2.4

-2.4

-1.5

-1.2-1.4

-1.7

-2.2

-2.2

-1.4

-1.5-1.5

-1.6

-1.6

-1.3

-1.8

-1.9

-2.1-1.4

-1.2

-1.6

-2.3

-2.2-2.0

-2.3

-1.6

-2.0

-1.5

-2.5

-3.2

-4.2

-4.6

-4.4

-4.5

-4.4

-1.2-1.3

-2.0

-2.1

-1.7-2.0 -2

.4

-2.0



-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1-0.0

1 00.0

1


Figure 3.15


70 DNL

65 DNL

60 DNL

WATER

LILY

DA

LE

35W

YANKEE DOODLE

70TH

62

WENTWORTH

FORD

77

LEX

ING

TON

35E

110

494 5

PEN

N

13

WA

CH

TLER

51

149

BAFFIN

EDG

CU

MB

E

46TH

50TH

AR

GEN

TA

CLE

VEL

AN

D

98TH

PAR

K

PO

RTL

AN

D

66TH

SAIN

T PAU

L

LYN

DA

LE

OLD SHAKOPEE

VIC

TOR

IA

LONE OAK

NIC

OLL

ET

CE

DA

R

DEL

AW

AR

E

121

PIL

OT

KN

OB

55

Minneapolis

Sun

fish

La

ke

St. Paul

Richfield

MendotaHeights

Mendota

Lilydale

Eagan

Burnsville

Bloomington

2010 Actual Contours

and2007 Forecast Mit igated Con tours

0 1 20.5Miles

Figure 3.16

MEMORANDUM TO: MSP Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) FROM: Chad E. Leqve, Manager – Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs SUBJECT: MSP 2020 DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL

ASSESSMENT (EA) UPDATE DATE: February 25, 2011 At the March 16, 2011 Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) meeting staff will provide a brief update on the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport (MSP) 2020 Environmental Assessment (EA) progress, including preliminary plans for future NOC briefings and public involvement.

ITEM 6

MEMORANDUM TO: MSP Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) FROM: Chad E. Leqve, Manager – Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs SUBJECT: ANNUAL SCHEDULED NIGHTTIME OPERATIONS

ASSESSMENT DATE: February 25, 2011 Per the 2011 NOC Work Plan, staff has prepared the attached annual Scheduled Nighttime Operations Assessment comparing 2008, 2009, and 2010. This report is prepared annually to analyze trends in scheduled nighttime operations at Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport (MSP). MAC staff will provide a briefing of the attached analysis at the March 16, 2011 NOC meeting.

ITEM 7

Annual MSP Nighttime Operations Assessment2009 - 2010

Metropolitan Airports CommissionAviation Noise & Satellite Programs

February 2011

58.0

41.9

47.8

53.2

65.3

67.9

73.2 72.6

56.4

44.7

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Average Daily Nighttime Operations 10:30pm - 6:00am

123.1

98.9

106.7

116.3

127.1127.2

131.5

127.1

107.8

94.5

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Average Daily INM Nighttime Operations 10 pm - 7 am

Average Daily 2007 Forecast

Note: Sum of RUS % may not equal 100% due to rounding, sum of average RUS breakdown may not equal total due to rounding.

MSP Nighttime Runway Usage Summary of All Operations

10:30 pm to 6:00 am

2010 2009

2010 2009

RWY Arr/Dep Overflight Area Count of all Night Ops

Average Daily Night Ops

Percent Count of all Night Ops


Percent

4 Arr So. Richfield/Bloomington 8 0.0 0.1% 21 0.1 0.2%

17 Arr So. Minneapolis 1 0.0 0.0% 47 0.1 0.4%

22 Arr St. Paul/Highland Park 117 0.3 0.9% 15 0.0 0.1%

35 Arr Bloomington/Eagan 153 0.4 1.2% 410 1.1 3.1%

12L Arr So. Minneapolis/No. Richfield 1649 4.5 13.2% 1351 3.7 10.1%

12R Arr So. Minneapolis/No. Richfield 3190 8.7 25.6% 3454 9.5 25.7%

30L Arr Eagan/Mendota Heights 4776 13.1 38.3% 5490 15.0 40.9%

30R Arr Eagan/Mendota Heights 2585 7.1 20.7% 2629 7.2 19.6%

Total Nighttime Arrivals 12479 34.2 100.0% 13417 36.7 100.0%

4 Dep St. Paul/Highland Park 4 0.0 0.1% 138 0.4 1.9% 17 Dep Bloomington/Eagan 339 0.9 8.8% 536 1.5 7.5%

22 Dep So. Richfield/Bloomington 54 0.1 1.4% 10 0.0 0.1%

35 Dep So. Minneapolis 3 0.0 0.1% 2 0.0 0.0%

12L Dep Eagan/Mendota Heights 712 2.0 18.5% 1349 3.7 18.8%

12R Dep Eagan/Mendota Heights 1240 3.4 32.3% 1402 3.8 19.6%

30L Dep So. Minneapolis/No. Richfield 866 2.4 22.6% 1518 4.2 21.2%

30R Dep So. Minneapolis/No. Richfield 624 1.7 16.2% 2213 6.1 30.9%

Total Nighttime Departures 3842 10.5 100.0% 7168 19.7 100.0%

Total Nighttime Operations 16321 44.7 20585 56.4

MSP Runway Use Average Daily Ops Diagram MSP Runway Use Percentage Diagram

MSP Nighttime Runway Usage Summary of Carrier Jet Operations

10:30 pm to 6:00 am

2010 2009



2010 2009

RWY Arr/Dep Overflight Area Count of Carrier

Night Ops


Percent Count of Carrier

Night Ops


Percent

4 Arr So. Richfield/Bloomington 6 0.0 0.1% 21 0.1 0.2% 17 Arr So. Minneapolis 0 0.0 0.0% 42 0.1 0.3%

22 Arr St. Paul/Highland Park 82 0.2 0.7% 13 0.0 0.1% 35 Arr Bloomington/Eagan 120 0.3 1.1% 325 0.9 2.6%

12L Arr So. Minneapolis/No. Richfield 1507 4.1 13.6% 1274 3.5 10.3%

12R Arr So. Minneapolis/No. Richfield 2852 7.8 25.8% 3193 8.7 25.8% 30L Arr Eagan/Mendota Heights 4169 11.4 37.6% 5079 13.9 41.0% 30R Arr Eagan/Mendota Heights 2339 6.4 21.1% 2451 6.7 19.8%

Total Nighttime Carrier Jet Arrivals 11075 30.3 100.0% 12398 34.0 100.0%

4 Dep St. Paul/Highland Park 1 0.0 0.0% 109 0.3 1.8%

17 Dep Bloomington/Eagan 300 0.8 9.2% 466 1.3 7.5% 22 Dep So. Richfield/Bloomington 47 0.1 1.5% 7 0.0 0.1% 35 Dep So. Minneapolis 1 0.0 0.0% 1 0.0 0.0%

12L Dep Eagan/Mendota Heights 616 1.7 19.0% 1207 3.3 19.5% 12R Dep Eagan/Mendota Heights 1023 2.8 31.5% 1123 3.1 18.2%

30L Dep So. Minneapolis/No. Richfield 713 2.0 21.9% 1254 3.4 20.3% 30R Dep So. Minneapolis/No. Richfield 549 1.5 16.9% 2012 5.5 32.6%

Total Nighttime Carrier Jet Departures 3250 8.9 100.0% 6179 16.9 100.0%

Total Nighttime Carrier Jet Operations 14325 39.2 18577 50.9


MSP Nighttime Runway Usage Summary of All Operations

INM Nighttime Hours : 10:00 pm to 7:00 am

2010 2009


2010 2009

RWY Arr/Dep Overflight Area Count of INM

Night Ops

Average Daily Night

Ops Percent

Count of INM Night Ops

Average Daily Night

Ops Percent

4 Arr So. Richfield/Bloomington 16 0.0 0.1% 21 0.1 0.1% 17 Arr So. Minneapolis 1 0.0 0.0% 230 0.6 1.3%

22 Arr St. Paul/Highland Park 152 0.4 0.9% 90 0.2 0.5% 35 Arr Bloomington/Eagan 316 0.9 1.8% 673 1.8 3.7% 12L Arr So. Minneapolis/No. Richfield 2496 6.8 14.0% 2065 5.7 11.2%

12R Arr So. Minneapolis/No. Richfield 4431 12.1 24.8% 4490 12.3 24.4% 30L Arr Eagan/Mendota Heights 6509 17.8 36.4% 6933 19.0 37.7% 30R Arr Eagan/Mendota Heights 3959 10.8 22.1% 3897 10.7 21.2%

Total INM Nighttime Arrivals 17880 49.0 100.0% 18399 50.4 100.0%

4 Dep St. Paul/Highland Park 22 0.1 0.1% 341 0.9 1.6%

17 Dep Bloomington/Eagan 2356 6.5 14.2% 2769 7.6 13.2% 22 Dep So. Richfield/Bloomington 100 0.3 0.6% 18 0.0 0.1% 35 Dep So. Minneapolis 3 0.0 0.0% 11 0.0 0.1%

12L Dep Eagan/Mendota Heights 2882 7.9 17.4% 3017 8.3 14.4% 12R Dep Eagan/Mendota Heights 4224 11.6 25.4% 4745 13.0 22.7%

30L Dep So. Minneapolis/No. Richfield 3716 10.2 22.4% 5086 13.9 24.3% 30R Dep So. Minneapolis/No. Richfield 3297 9.0 19.9% 4915 13.5 23.5%

Total INM Nighttime Departures 16600 45.5 100.0% 20902 57.3 100.0%

Total INM Nighttime Operations 34480 94.5 39301 107.7

2009 Top 15 Actual Nighttime Carrier Jet Operators by Type 10:30 pm to 6:00 am

Total Nighttime Carrier Jet Operations by Hour

2009

Note: The top 15 nighttime operators represent 94.5% of total nighttime carrier jet operations in 2009

Note: The top 15 nighttime operators represent 89.9% of total nighttime carrier jet operations in 2010

2010 Top 15 Actual Nighttime Carrier Jet Operators by Type 10:30 pm to 6:00 am

Total Nighttime Carrier Jet Operations by Hour

2010

Airline ID Stage Type Count Air Transport Intl ATN 3 DC8Q 398

America West AWE 3 A319 18 America West AWE 3 A320 366 America West AWE 3 A321 298 America West AWE 3 B733 1 America West AWE 3 E190 1

American AAL 3 B738 248 American AAL 3 B777 2 American AAL 3 MD80 333 Compass CPZ 3 E170 419

Continental Exp. BTA 3 E145 460 Delta DAL 3 A319 442 Delta DAL 3 A320 1294 Delta DAL 3 A330 102 Delta DAL 3 B7377 3 Delta DAL 3 B738 386 Delta DAL 3 B744 2 Delta DAL 3 B757 1141 Delta DAL 3 B767 60 Delta DAL 3 CRJ 3 Delta DAL 3 DC9Q 185 Delta DAL 3 E170 6 Delta DAL 3 MD80 204 Delta DAL 3 MD90 451

FedEx FDX 3 A300 10 FedEx FDX 3 A310 3 FedEx FDX 3 B72Q 136 FedEx FDX 3 DC10 337 FedEx FDX 3 MD11 102

Mesaba MES 3 CRJ 526 Pinnacle FLG 3 CRJ 513

Republic Airlines RPA 3 E170 454 Republic Airlines RPA 3 E190 7 Skywest Airlines SKW 3 CRJ 389

Southwest SWA 3 B733 86 Southwest SWA 3 B735 24 Southwest SWA 3 B7377 294

Sun Country SCX 3 A321 1 Sun Country SCX 3 B733 2 Sun Country SCX 3 B734 1 Sun Country SCX 3 B7377 478 Sun Country SCX 3 B738 1392 Sun Country SCX 3 MD80 1

UPS UPS 3 A300 7 UPS UPS 3 B744 1 UPS UPS 3 B757 486 UPS UPS 3 B767 1 UPS UPS 3 MD11 194

United UAL 3 A319 222 United UAL 3 A320 387 United UAL 3 B757 1 United UAL 3 B767 2 Total 12880

Hour Total

2230 3026 2300 4923 0000 1410 0100 362 0200 158 0300 114 0400 628 0500 3704

Total 14325

Airline ID Stage Type Count

Airtran TRS 3 B717 116 Airtran TRS 3 B7377 175

America West AWE 3 A319 46



America West AWE 3 E190 3

American AAL 3 B738 217

American AAL 3 B757 2

American AAL 3 MD80 500

Compass CPZ 3 E170 806 Continental Exp. BTA 3 E145 719

Delta DAL 3 B7377 28



Delta DAL 3 B767 5

Delta DAL 3 MD80 246

Delta DAL 3 MD90 37

FedEx FDX 3 A300 13

FedEx FDX 3 A310 80

FedEx FDX 3 B72Q 33 FedEx FDX 3 DC10 284

FedEx FDX 3 MD11 156

Frontier Airlines FFT 3 A318 35



Mesaba MES 3 CRJ 2326

Northwest NWA 3 A319 717

Northwest NWA 3 A320 2069

Northwest NWA 3 A330 279 Northwest NWA 3 B742 102

Northwest NWA 3 B744 5



Northwest NWA 3 DC9Q 1245

Pinnacle FLG 3 CRJ 1083

Republic Airlines RPA 3 E170 375

Republic Airlines RPA 3 E190 1

Sun Country SCX 3 B7377 278

Sun Country SCX 3 B738 1532 UPS UPS 3 A300 110

UPS UPS 3 B757 328

UPS UPS 3 B767 1

UPS UPS 3 DC8Q 82

UPS UPS 3 MD11 195

United UAL 3 A319 64

United UAL 3 A320 93

United UAL 3 B733 235

United UAL 3 B735 42 United UAL 3 B7377 1

United UAL 3 B757 1

Total 17553

Hour Total

2230 5494 2300 5142 0000 1404 0100 389 0200 162 0300 150 0400 604 0500 5232

Total 18577

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

AAL

ATN

AWE

BTA

CPZ D

ALFDX

FLG

MES

RPA

SCX

SKW

SWA

UAL

UPS

Stage 3 Stage 3 Manufactured

Airline Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 3 Manufactured Total

AAL 0 0 583 583 ATN 0 0 398 398 AWE 0 0 684 684 BTA 0 0 460 460 CPZ 0 0 419 419 DAL 0 185 4094 4279 FDX 0 136 452 588 FLG 0 0 513 513 MES 0 0 526 526 RPA 0 0 461 461 SCX 0 0 1875 1875 SKW 0 0 389 389 SWA 0 0 404 404 UAL 0 0 612 612 UPS 0 0 689 689 Total 0 321 12559 12880

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

AAL

AWE

BTA

CPZ

DAL

FDX

FFT

FLG

MES

NWA

RPA

SCX

TRS

UAL

UPS

Stage 3 Stage 3 Manufactured


AAL 0 0 719 719 AWE 0 0 660 660 BTA 0 0 719 719 CPZ 0 0 806 806 DAL 0 0 780 780 FDX 0 33 533 566 FFT 0 0 270 270 FLG 0 0 1083 1083 MES 0 0 2326 2326 NWA 0 1245 4750 5995 RPA 0 0 376 376 SCX 0 0 1810 1810 TRS 0 0 291 291 UAL 0 0 436 436 UPS 0 0 716 716 Total 0 1278 16275 17553

Nighttime Fleet Stage Mix for Top 15 Airlines - 2009 10:30 pm - 6:00 am

Nighttime Fleet Stage Mix for Top 15 Airlines - 2010 10:30 pm - 6:00 am

AA

L

AW

E

BT

A

CP

Z

DA

L

FD

X

FF

T

FLG

ME

S

NW

A

RP

A

SC

X

TR

S

UA

L

UP

S

AA

L

AT

N

AW

E

BT

A

CP

Z

DA

L

FD

X

FLG

ME

S

RP

A

SC

X

SK

W

SW

A

UA

L

UP

S

2230 : 20.3%

2300 : 32.1%0000 : 10.2%

0100 : 3.7%

0200 : 1.8%0300 : 2.2%

0400 : 4.5%

0500 : 25%2230 : 29.8%

2300 : 26.8%0000 : 7.9%

0100 : 2.6%0200 : 1.5%

0300 : 1.5%

0400 : 3.3%

0500 : 26.7%

5.9

11.9

3.4

1.10.6 0.8

1.7

8.8

3.12.5

1.20.5 0.2 0.2 0.3

2.4

4.8

11.6

3.6

1.1 0.8 0.71.7

12.512.0

3.5

0.90.3 0.1 0.1 0.2

2.6

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

2230 2300 0000 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500

Hour

2010 Arrivals 2010 Departures 2009 Arrivals 2009 Departures

Note: Sum of average RUS breakdown may not equal total due to rounding.

Average Daily MSP Nighttime Operations

Breakdown of 2010 Average Daily MSP Nighttime Operations

Breakdown of 2009 Average Daily MSP Nighttime Operations

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

900020

:00:

0020

:15:

0020

:30:

0020

:45:

0021

:00:

0021

:15:

0021

:30:

0021

:45:

0022

:00:

0022

:15:

0022

:30:

0022

:45:

0023

:00:

0023

:15:

0023

:30:

0023

:45:

000:

00:0

00:

15:0

00:

30:0

00:

45:0

01:

00:0

01:

15:0

01:

45:0

02:

00:0

02:

15:0

03:

00:0

03:

15:0

03:

30:0

03:

45:0

04:

00:0

04:

15:0

04:

30:0

04:

45:0

05:

00:0

05:

15:0

05:

30:0

05:

45:0

0

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

20:00:00

20:15:00

20:30:00

20:45:00

21:00:00

21:15:00

21:30:00

21:45:00

22:00:00

22:5:00

22:30:00

22:45:00

23:00:00

23:15:00

23:30:00

23:45:00

0:00:00

0:15:00

0:30:00

0:45:00

1:00:00

1:15:00

3:00:00

3:30:00

3:45:00

4:00:00

4:15:00

4:30:00

4:45:00

5:00:00

5:15:00

5:30:00

5:45:00

2010 Nighttime Scheduled Carrier Jet Operations 2009 Nighttime Scheduled Carrier Jet Operations


Northwest (NWA) 0 330 2931 3261 Sun Country (SCX) 0 0 1068 1068

UPS (UPS) 0 0 691 691 American (AAL) 0 0 675 675

Continental (COA) 0 0 559 559 FedEx (FDX) 0 29 528 557

US Airways (USA) 0 0 522 522 Delta (DAL) 0 0 501 501

Midwest Airlines (MEP) 0 0 440 440 United (UAL) 0 0 270 270 BAX (78W) 0 246 0 246

Frontier Airlines (FFT) 0 0 219 219 Airtran (TRS) 0 0 196 196

Southwest (SWA) 0 0 87 87 Kitty Hawk (KHA) 0 10 36 46 Korean Air (KAL) 0 0 31 31

Total 0 615 8754 9369

38,423 Total Scheduled Operations Between

8:00 pm and 10:30 pm

8,734 Total Scheduled Operations During Nighttime Hours - 10:30 pm to 6:00 am

30,406 Total Scheduled Operations Between

8:00 pm and 10:30 pm

9,369 Total Scheduled Operations During Nighttime Hours - 10:30 pm to 6:00 am

Source: Official Airline Guide (OAG), UPS and FDX reporting


Delta (DAL) 0 29 1960 1989 Sun Country (SCX) 0 0 1339 1339

UPS (UPS) 0 0 705 705 Northwest (NWA) 0 43 645 688 American (AAL) 0 0 681 681

US Airways (USA) 0 0 625 625 FedEx (FDX) 0 106 456 562 United (UAL) 0 0 478 478

Midwest Airlines (MEP) 0 0 428 428 Frontier Airlines (FFT) 0 0 395 395

Continental (COA) 0 0 393 393 Southwest (SWA) 0 0 212 212

Airtran (TRS) 0 0 208 208 America West (AWE) 0 0 93 93

Kitty Hawk (KHA) 0 0 45 45 BAX (78W) 0 44 0 44

Total 0 222 8663 8885

20:0

0:00

20

:15:

00

20:3

0:00

20

:45:

00

21:0

0:00

21

:15:

00

21:3

0:00

21

:45:

00

22:0

0:00

22

:15:

00

22:3

0:00

22

:45:

00

23:0

0:00

23

:15:

00

23:3

0:00

23

:45:

00

0:00

:00

0:15

:00

0:30

:00

0:45

:00

1:00

:00

1:15

:00

3:00

:00

3:30

:00

3:45

:00

4:00

:00

4:15

:00

4:30

:00

4:45

:00

5:00

:00

5:15

:00

5:30

:00

5:45

:00

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000S

ched

uled

Act

ual

Sch

edul

ed

Act

ual

Sch

edul

ed

Act

ual

Sch

edul

ed

Act

ual

Sch

edul

ed

Act

ual

Sch

edul

ed

Act

ual

Sch

edul

ed

Act

ual

Sch

edul

ed

Act

ual

22:30 23:00 00:00 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00

78W AAL AWE COA DAL FDX FFT KHA MEP

NWA SCX SWA TRS UAL UPS USA Other

2010 Nighttime Scheduled Vs Actual Carrier Jet Operations 10:30 pm - 6:00 am

Airline Scheduled

Stage 2 Actual Stage 2

Scheduled Stage 3

Actual Stage 3 Scheduled

Manufactured Stage 3

Actual Manufactured

Stage 3

Scheduled Total

Actual Total

Delta (DAL) 0 0 29 185 1960 4094 1989 4279

Sun Country (SCX) 0 0 0 0 1339 1875 1339 1875

UPS (UPS) 0 0 0 0 705 689 705 689

America West (AWE) 0 0 0 0 93 684 93 684

United (UAL) 0 0 0 0 478 612 478 612

FedEx (FDX) 0 0 106 136 456 452 562 588

American (AAL) 0 0 0 0 681 583 681 583

Southwest (SWA) 0 0 0 0 212 404 212 404

Northwest (NWA) 0 0 43 28 645 239 688 267

Airtran (TRS) 0 0 0 0 208 250 208 250

Frontier Airlines (FFT) 0 0 0 0 395 217 395 217

Continental (COA) 0 0 0 0 393 61 393 61

BAX (78W) 0 0 44 0 0 0 44 0

Kitty Hawk (KHA) 0 0 0 0 45 0 45 0

Midwest Airlines (MEP) 0 0 0 0 428 0 428 0

US Airways (USA) 0 0 0 0 625 0 625 0

Other 0 0 0 39 0 3777 0 3816

0 0 222 388 8663 13937 8885 14325

Airlines in the ‘Other’ category do not report schedules to OAG or to the MAC

2009 Nighttime Scheduled Vs Actual Carrier Jet Operations 10:30 pm - 6:00 am

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000S

ched

uled

Act

ual

Sch

edul

ed

Act

ual

Sch

edul

ed

Act

ual

Sch

edul

ed

Act

ual

Sch

edul

ed

Act

ual

Sch

edul

ed

Act

ual

Sch

edul

ed

Act

ual

Sch

edul

ed

Act

ual

22:30 23:00 00:00 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00

78W AAL COA DAL FDX FFT KAL KHA MEP

NWA SCX SWA TRS UAL UPS USA Other

Airline Scheduled

Stage 2 Actual Stage 2

Scheduled Stage 3

Actual Stage 3 Scheduled

Manufactured Stage 3

Actual Manufactured

Stage 3

Scheduled Total

Actual Total

Northwest (NWA) 0 0 330 1245 2931 4750 3261 5995 Sun Country (SCX) 0 0 0 0 1068 1810 1068 1810

Delta (DAL) 0 0 0 0 501 780 501 780 American (AAL) 0 0 0 0 675 719 675 719

UPS (UPS) 0 0 0 0 691 716 691 716 FedEx (FDX) 0 0 29 33 528 533 557 566 United (UAL) 0 0 0 0 270 436 270 436 Airtran (TRS) 0 0 0 0 196 291 196 291

Frontier Airlines (FFT) 0 0 0 0 219 270 219 270 Southwest (SWA) 0 0 0 0 87 158 87 158 Continental (COA) 0 0 0 0 559 47 559 47

BAX (78W) 0 0 246 0 0 0 246 0 Korean Air (KAL) 0 0 0 0 31 0 31 0 Kitty Hawk (KHA) 0 0 10 0 36 0 46 0

Midwest Airlines (MEP) 0 0 0 0 440 0 440 0 US Airways (USA) 0 0 0 0 522 0 522 0

Other 0 0 0 204 0 6585 0 6789

0 0 615 1482 8754 17095 9369 18577

Airlines in the ‘Other’ category do not report schedules to OAG or to the MAC

MEMORANDUM TO: MSP Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) FROM: Chad E. Leqve, Manager – Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs SUBJECT: INVER GROVE HEIGHTS LETTER TO FAA DATE: February 25, 2011 At the November 17, 2010 Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) meeting Ms. Janelle Teppen, representing the City of Inver Grove Heights, informed the Committee that the City had prepared a letter to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requesting that the FAA implement a three-mile turn for aircraft departing off of Runways 12L and 12R that do not have destination headings requiring overflight of Inver Grove Heights. It was suggested that this discussion be added to a future NOC agenda. The November 12, 2010 letter from Mayor George Tourville, Inver Grove Heights, to Mr. Carl Rydeen, FAA MSP Tower Manager, and Mr. Rydeen’s December 1, 2010 response to Mayor Tourville are attached to this memorandum. In summary, a mandatory three-mile turn is not practical to implement safely. At the March 16, 2011 NOC meeting this topic will be discussed.

ITEM 8

MEMORANDUM TO: MSP Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) FROM: Chad E. Leqve, Manager – Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs SUBJECT: FIRST QUARTER 2011 PUBLIC INPUT MEETING

COMMENTS DATE: February 25, 2011 One of the elements of the Metropolitan Airports Commission’s (MAC) approved framework for the MSP Airport Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) requires MAC staff to conduct quarterly public input meetings. The intent is to ensure residents’ concerns are considered as part of the ongoing effort by the MAC and the NOC to address noise issues around MSP. This memorandum provides a summary of the comments received at the most recent public input meeting. The NOC may also review these topics as possible future action items if the members so desire. On January 25, 2011 MAC Aviation Noise and Satellite Program staff conducted the first quarter 2011 public input meeting; nine people attended the meeting and one individual made comments. MAC staff responded to questions at the meeting and is also providing a written response to the questions. The comments and associated responses can be found on the MAC Noise Program’s website accessible on the Internet at www.macnoise.com when they are completed. In summary, questions related to the possible noise mitigation of the school associated with Trinity Lone Oak Lutheran Church at 2950 Highway 55 in Eagan. The concerns focused on the mitigation of homes in the vicinity of the school while the school is receiving no mitigation. The noise mitigation eligibility process was questioned with a request to know who the MAC Commissioner is representing the area where Trinity Lone Oak Lutheran Church is located. The church feels that it continues to be impacted by aircraft noise, that it was promised mitigation, and as such, feels that noise mitigation should be provided. The next quarterly public input meeting is planned for April 26, 2011.

ITEM 9

Documents

Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport (MSP) Noise ... · 3/16/2011 · Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport (MSP) Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) Meeting Agenda March