The URL can be used to link to this page

06-01-88 agenda• CITY OF RICHFIELD MONDAY, JUNE 1, 1998 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS AGENDA CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL i. 7:00-7:30 P.M. ANNUAL MEETING WITH HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION II. 7:30-7:45 P.M. STATUS REPORT ON WATERSHED BOUNDARY CHANGE MOVING RICHFIELD LAKE SUBWATERSHED FROM MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT TO RICHFIELD BLOOMINGTON WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 27 • III. 7:45-8:00 P.M. DISCUSSION OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS FOR 6901 BLOCK OF PENN AVENUE STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 28 IV. 8:00-8:30 P.M. PROGRESS REPORT FROM MAINTENANCE FACILITY TASK FORCE STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 29 V 8:30-9:00 P.M. DISCUSSION OF STATUS OF AIRPORT RELATED ITEMS STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 30 VI. 9:00-9:30 P.M. DISCUSSION OF AIRPORT MITIGATION PROPOSAL STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 31 9:30 P.M. ADJOURNMENT AUXILIARY AIDS FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES ARE AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST. REQUESTS MUST BE MADE AT LEAST 96 HOURS IN ADVANCE TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR AT 861-9702. • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Study Session Letter No. 31 Agenda June 1, 1998 Issue Statement: Discussion of Airport Mitigation Proposal. Background: The City Council asked the Planning Commission to develop the land use component of the airport mitigation strategy. The Planning Commission spent several sessions learning about the impacts of low-frequency noise from the proposed north-south runway and preparing a redevelopment concept in response to those impacts. The Planning Commission process included the following steps: • November -- held informational meeting on low frequency noise and airport mitigation. • December -- met with Steve Pflaum to review the legal issues relating to the mitigation strategy. • January -- reviewed a draft redevelopment concept; discussed development of a communications strategy. • February -- reviewed data for the draft redevelopment concept. • March -- met with Vivian Hart and Julianne Manship, community organizers, to discuss public education, input, and facilitation process. • April -- hosted, attended, and participated in team meetings, community meetings and open house for Richfield residents and property owners. • May 12, 1998 -- study session -- reviewed draft mitigation proposal and discussed citizen comments. • May 26, 1998 -- regular meeting -- held a public meeting and voted 8-0 to recommend adoption of the Airport Mitigation Proposal. The proposed redevelopment concept utilizes the goals and objectives laid out in the Comprehensive Plan. The existing Comprehensive Plan recommends the following concepts for the Cedar Avenue corridor: • develop office, office warehouse, regional and community commercial along Cedar Avenue; • extend the commercial area one full block to 18th Avenue; • reroute Cedar Avenue to 18th Avenue south of 66th Street; • develop the west side of 18th Avenue with high density single family attached housing to serve as a transition between the commercial and single family residential areas; • develop the area near Washington Park with high density multiple housing; and • develop an Edinborough-type development, with mixed use office, residential and indoor recreational facilities, in Washington Park and preserve a portion of the outdoor facilities at Washington Park. These concepts are used and expanded in the mitigation proposal as follows: • develop commercial uses to 17th Avenue, north of Diagonal Boulevard, and to 18th Avenue, south of Diagonal Boulevard; • reroute the main north-south arterial to 17th Avenue, north of Diagonal Boulevard, . and to 18th Avenue, south of Diagonal Boulevard; • develop one-and-a-half blocks of high density single family attached housing to the west of the arterial road to serve as a transition between commercial and single family residential areas; • develop high density multiple housing near Washington Park and near 66th Street, between 17th and Bloomington Avenues; • develop replacement park land by expanding Taft Park and developing park land at 68th Street and at 73rd Street, adjacent to Centennial School; and • provide sound insulation to single family homes two blocks to the west of the redevelopment area. Recommended Motion: This item is for discussion purposes only. The City Council will be asked to accept a Planning Commission recommendation to adopt the Airport Mitigation Proposal at the regular meeting on June 8, 1998. At some point, the City Council should direct the Planning Commission to prepare an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan, based on the Airport Mitigation Proposal. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The proposed north-south runway at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport will produce significant noise, traffic, economic and other impacts in Richfield that need to be mitigated. 2. The Airport Mitigation Proposal is a proactive means to address the significant impacts of the north-south runway on the Richfield community. 3. The redevelopment portion of the mitigation proposal is based on the goals and objectives in the City's Comprehensive Plan. 4. Several community meetings were held to inform residents and property owners about the impacts of the runway and the proposed mitigation proposal. Alternative Recommendation: Return the Airport Mitigation Proposal to the Planning Commission for further study. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item is for discussion purposes only. Formal action on this item is scheduled for the regular City Council meeting on Monday, June 8, 1998. Respectfully submitted, ~~ ~, ~~ Jam ~' D. Prosser City anager JDP:cak A MITIGATION PROPOSAL FOR THE IMPACTS TO RICHFIELD STAKEHOLDERS RESULTING FROM DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATION OF A NEW NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY (17/35) FOR THE MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT S1TE TWIN CITIES, MN Prepared For The City of Richfield, MN I~ JMS Communications Communications On The Basis of Information and Analysis Provided By Dr. Stanford Fidell Wafter E. Giifrilan Airports Noise Airports Planning and Operations Brauer 8~ Associates, Ltd. Dr. Geoffrey Gosling Parks and Recreation Facilities Aviation Systems Planning City of Richfield HRA Westwood Professional Services Housing/Redevelopment/Relocation Transportation and Traffic ~J Prepared By The Brauer Group, Inc. project managers Richfield Community Services Public Works and Public Safety Steven Pflaum, Attorney at Law Legal DRAFT (d)05/27/98 A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTHSOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT A MITIGATION CONCEPT REPORT for a proposed NEW NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY for The Minneapolis-St. Paul Jnternational Airport Site TABLE OF CONTENTS PART SUBJECT PAGE PART ONE Executive Summary .....................One-1 to ONE-12 PART TWO Identification of Stakeholders....TWO-1 to TWO 4 PART THREE Definition of Impacts........THREE-1 to THREE-11 PART FOUR Mitigation Proposals ..............FOUR-1 to FOUR-7 PART FIVE Implementation Process...........FIVE -1 to FIVE-6 ADDENDA Supporting Documentation A. BBN Report No. 8196 B. BBN Report No. 8211 C. City of Richfield Comprehensive Plan Data ORAF T (d) 5/27/98 • PART ONE.....EXECiJT1VE SUMMARY of A MITiGAT10N CONCEPT FOR THE IMPACTS TO RICHFIELD STAKEHOLDERS RESULTING FROM DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATION OF A NEW NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY (17/35) FOR THE MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT SITE TWIN CITIES, MN TABLE QF CONTENTS SECTION NO. SUBJECT PAGE NO. 1.0 Overview ONE-2 1.1 Supporting Detail ONE-5 1.2 Identification of Affected Populations and Other Stakeholders ONE-5 1.3 Identification and Definition of Impacts to be Mitigated ONE-7 1.4 Mitigation Proposals ONE-9 1.5 Implementation Process ONE-11 1.6 Exhibits....Noise Impacted Areas in Richfield ONE-13 1. Summary from BBN Report No. 8196 2. Summary from BBN Report No. 8211 3. Noise Impacted Areas in Richfield...and Existing Land Uses 4. Redevelopment Area...Existing Population 5. Redevelopment Area...Existing Market Values 6. A Redevelopment Concept 7. Option -Six Plan For MSP Site Development (EIS) DRAFT(d) 05/27/98 A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTHSOUTi-I RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 1.0 Overview This report contains the City of Richfield's concept for mitigating the impacts that would be produced try the proposed north-south runway at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport ("MSP"). Notwithstanding the significant noise, traffic, economic, and other impacts that the runway would produce in Richfield--impacts far greater than those that would be experienced in any other community-Richfield does not oppose improvement of the MSP site. However, Richfield believes that the project must include a comprehensive mitigation plan that reduces negative impacts to the fullest extent possible. This report outlines an effective concept for achieving that objective. The draft Environmental Impact Statement for the runway project released in late 1996 (the "DE1S") failed to address important potential impacts, such as low frequency aircraft noise, and consequently failed to propose any mitigation for those impacts. Richfield was therefore forced to analyze impacts overlooked in the DEIS and to formulate appropriate mitigation measures. Richfield retained the Brauer Group, Inc., a planning firm with more than thirty years of planning experience in Richfield, to serve as project manager of the mitigation effort. To support the Brauer Group's expertise in mitigation of "traditional" land use, traffic, and economic impacts, Richfield hired BBN Technologies, an intemationaily respected acoustical engineering firm, to analyze whether the new runway would create significant noise impacts in Richfield. BBN focused its attention on low frequency runway sideline noise from aircraft on or near the ground, such as that produced by aircraft while taxiing, taking off, employing thrust reversers on landing, or undergoing engine maintenance run-ups. Such low frequency noise is experienced as low rumbling and/or vibration which can last far longer than noise produced by an aircraft overflight. Recent years have witnessed increased concern about low frequency noise at airports across the United States, including San Francisco International Airport, Boston's Logan International Airport, and Baltimore-Washington International Airport. In its initial report (Summary appended as EXHIBIT 1, and the full report as Appendix A), BBN concluded that the new north-south runway would increase low frequency noise in a large portion of eastern Richfield and that such sideline noise could not be effectively mitigated by either a noise berm parallel to the runway or traditional residential soundproofing measures. Specifically, BBN found that: • Aircraft operations on the proposed runway would "substantially elevate [low frequency noise levels) up to about a mile from the runway...." DRAFT(d) 5127198 PART ONE.....EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGE ONE- 2 A MITfGATION CDNC>=P7 FOR A NEW NORTH~SOUTii RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL. AIRPORT • "Levels of low frequency noise ez~osure similar to those that wit! be created in eastern Richfield by [the new runway] have given rise to noise complaints in communities near other airports." • An acoustic barrier (noise wall or berm) of sufficient size to provide appreciable low frequency noise reduction for eastern Richfield is unlikely to be cost- effective. (Appendix A at page 3.) Having learned that the new runway would increase (ow frequency noise levels in eastern Richfield, the challenge then became to determine the area that would be exposed to significant low frequency noise impacts. Consistent with applicable state and federal environmental laws, Richfield believes that the extent of significant impacts should define the extent of needed mitigation. On the basis of a second study performed by BBN (Summary is EXHIBIT 2 and full report is Appendix B) which measured the degree of community annoyance associated with !ow frequency noise--- the same consideration underlying the PAA's 65 DNL standard for defining significant "traditional" airport noise impacts---Richfield defined an area of significant impact within a low frequency noise /eve! of 75 dB. The "Noise Impacted Areas in Richfield" (EXHIBIT 3 OF Part One) corresponds with the 75 dB low frequency noise contour. 1.0.1 Conclusions and Proposals in the Mitigation Concept ..............as reflected by the land use plan depicted in EXH1BlT 6, Richfield's Proposed Redevelopment Concept as part of the total mitigation propose! includes the following elements: a. Redevelopment of the portion of Richfield subjected to significant noise impacts from the new runway with the twin goals of (~) replacing largely residential land uses with development compatible with the noise produced by the runway, and (2) minimizing the resulting population loss. To that end, Richfield's redevelopment concept would replace existing land uses with high- and iow- density office and commercial uses in the eastern portion of the redevelopment area, and with high-density, noise-resistant residential uses in the remaining portion of the redevelopment area east of Bloomington Avenue (further away from the new runway). b. All structures in the remaining area within the 75d8 low frequency noise contour would be sound insulated under the current residential soundproofing program specifications, and would receive additional low frequency noise mitigation work including more resistant windows and doors, special suspended ceilings, vibration reducing fasteners for wall-hung objects, dampening materials for treatment of dishes and other objects in closets, cupboards, and shelves., and minor structural improvements that will significantly dampen vibrations and DRAFT(d) 5127/98 PART ONE.....EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGE ONE- 3 A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTHSOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT noise. All homes in the two-block wide "transition area" beyond the 75dB line will receive dampening materials for wall-hung objects, and treatments for all closets, cupboards, and shelves. c. Relocation of the approximately 2,000 residents and 35 businesses that would be displaced by the redevelopment concept. d. To reduce social impacts (particularly on schools), programs that retain most current residents and businesses', with new developments that are designed and priced for current residents and businesses, and by incentive programs that encourage residents outside the redevelopment area to buy townhouses and make their homes available first to those displaced in the redevelopment area. e. Replacement of the Rich Acres and New Ford Town parks and related facilities (if it is determined that the loss of those facilities is consistent with state and federal law), including the expansion of the Ft. Snelling Golf Course into an 18- hole facility and the provision of a replacement site for the community gardens, bluebird restoration project, and the archery range. f. Improvements to E66th, Portland, Twelfth, Bloomington, and Nicollet Avenues, to accommoda#e diverted overflow freeway. traffic, and "traffic calming" devices that will discourage further diversions though adjacent residential areas. The transportation mitigation should also include provisions for improved transit access to the airport, including access to light rail transit. g. A 200-foot wide "greenbelt" of mixed trees and prairie grasses would be provided over the full length of the MAC site adjacent to TH77. The greenbelt would include berms and fences where needed to minimize off-airport intrusion of landing lights from ground operations by aircraft, and plantings that will support the current bluebird restoration .project on the golf course site. h. Increased freeway vehicle traffrc noise would be mitigated with the best available technology (BAT) for aesthetically pleasing and ecologically responsible sound barriers, landscaping, parks, and trails, over the complete length of TH62 and TH77 in Richfield. Groundwater. quality impacts would be mitigated by appropriate wellhead protection or closure improvements to wells that would be abandoned. MAC property adjacent to Richfield in Taft Park would be annexed into Richfield, and MAC will not acquire any more property in Richfield. • DRAFT(d) 5127198 PART ONE.....EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGE ONE- 4 A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTH~SOUTH RUNWAY A7 THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT k. Construction impacts would be mitigated by equally distributing construction traffic to all four access points on the MAC site, and by completing improvements to access routes prior to construction. In particular, improvements to the E66th Street/TH77 interchange and construction of the E77th Street tunnel and ramps would be completed before airport construction begins. !. Full funding of the redevelopment project, including replacement of taxes, fees, and other revenues lost to the city of Richfield and the Richfield School District, would be provided over the foil term of the redevelopment project. 1.Q.2 Implementation Process........would be planned, designed, and managed by the City of Richfield. It is estimated that planning and design activities would require nine to eighteen months. Actual redevelopment work would require six to ten years. Total cost of the implementation process over the assumed .ten-year life of the project would be at least $358,500,000 in 1998 dollars for the broad conceptual plan outlined in this report using zero base TIF funding. The specific plan adopted by the City may cost more or less. This represents less than sixteen percent of the estimated $1.7 billion cost of the north-south runway project. '~.~ $UpportlnC,) Detail ................ for mitigation of each of the impacts of the proposed new runway 17135 (the "north-south" runway) and related presented in a brief, statement format as follows: development is 1.1.1 TERMINOLOGY AND CATEGORIES.........of impacts and mitigation proposals in this report refer to specifiic items (and alphabetical designations) that are used in the DEIS. Those that are omitted are acceptable or not applicable. 1.1.2 IN RICHFIELD.... environmental consequences and impacts are compounded and quite disproportional to impacts on any other community, while mitigation options and choices are few, complicated, and not easily understood by the affected residents, institutions, and businesses.. 7.2 identification of Affected Institutions, Populations, and Other Stakeholders............incluae affected institutions, facilities, residential owners and renters, and businesses that are not identified in the DEIS, but as stakeholders must be important participants in an equitable, fair, and successful mitigation process. Organizations and their representatives, and individuals that are stakeholders are identified as follows: 1.2.1 THE CITY OF RICHFIELD....... represented by its City Council, Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA), Planning and Community Services Commissions. DRAFT{d) 5127/98 PART ONE.....EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGE ONE- S A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTHSOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 1.2.2 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 280.........represented by its Board, staff and parent-student organizations. 1.2.3 MT. CALVARY PRIVATE SCHOOL .............represented by its Soard, staff, and parent-student organization. 1.2.4 MT. CALVARY 8~ RICHFIELD EVANGELICAL FREE CHURCHES...presented by their Church Boards and staff. 1.2.5 THIRTY FIVE (35) BUSINESSES .............represented by owners, managers or ..employees.. 1.2.6 SIX HUNDRED FOUR (604) SINGLE FAMILY HOUSEHOLDS..........wil( represent themselves.. 1.2.7 FOUR HUNDRED (400) RENTAL MULTIPLE DWELLINGS with SIX HUNDRED FORTY ONE (641) TENANTS.......will be represented by owners, property managers, and tenant representatives. 1.2.8 ABOUT 10,040 USERS OF EXISTING PARKS, GOLF COURSES, and ATHLETIC FACILITIES .......will be represented by the Richfield Community Services Commission and designated representatives of each of the specific recreation and athletic groups that are affected.. 1.2.9 FOUR {4) FRANCHISE INFRASTRUCTURE ORGANIZATIONS...........(electric power, gas service, telephone, and cable tv) will be represented by employees and /managers. 1.2.10 NATURAL SYSTEMS .......................of wetland and upland plant (urban forest) communities will be represented in the process by the Community Services Commission and designated representatives of affected arboreal groups. 1.2.11 CUSTOMERS AND VISITORS......... affected or impacted by the development include non-resident customers of the businesses and visitors to residents in the affected area, will be represented by residents and business owners or managers. 1.2.12 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ~ PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF NEIGHBORHOODS........... will be represented by across-section of the resident population, the HRA, Planning Commission, City Council, and special Task Groups designated by the Council with the advice and assistance of special consultants l~ I DRAFT(d) 5!27198 i PART ONE.....EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGE ONE- 6 • • A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AlRPOR7 1 ntification and Definition of Im acts to be Miti ated.... '1.3 de P 9 IN The DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT for the MSP expansion project lists "Environmental Consequences" under 33 headings (A through GG), and describes the affected environment, the impacts, and mitigation measures proposed under each heading. This report modifies, or expands on those impacts, and adds new categories as follows: 1.3.1 A. AIR QUALITY........must be expanded to include impacts from aircraft engine exhaust while on the ground to residents and businesses nearest to the new runway. 1.3.2 C. BIOTiC COMMUNITIES..........must be expanded to recognize the loss of the urban forest in New Ford Town, Rich Acres, and the proposed redevelopment area , as well as the upland habitat in the existing golf courses and parks that are lost. 1.3.3 E. CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS...........must recognize the disproportionate impacts on Richfield transportation and traffic if traffic and highway upgrades are not completed prior to construction. • 1.34 L. ECONOMIC........impacts must recognize the disproportionate economic impacts on Richfield under airport related development, golf course revenues, tax capacity, population, and student losses. 1,3,4 N. INDUCED SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS............must be expanded to consider the disproportionate socio-economic impacts on the smallest neighboring city, that will lose population, and the only one that must convert large areas of fine residential neighborhoods into non-residentia( uses. 1.3,5 O. LAND USE............conversions of 1,000 residential units to compatible non- residential uses within the low-frequency noise impacted area must be added to the impacts to be mitigated. 1.3.6 P. LIGHT EMISSIONS.........must be expanded to include consideration of he impacts of powerful landing lights on aircraft while taxiing in the air cargo area near the west property line along Cedar Avenue. 1.3,7 S. NOISE.......... impacts, including those frequency impacts defined in BBN Report No. 8196, must be included in the effects to be mitigated. See EXy)BIT 3, Existing Land Uses Within the Low Frequency Noise Impacted Area, that delineates the boundaries of the impacted area. DRAFT(d) 5!27/98 PART ONE.....EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGE ONE- 7 A MIT1GA710N CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTHSOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 1.3.8 R. PARKS AND RECREATION..........areas within the DNL65 contours should include Washington Park, -and the low-frequency noise APE must include Christian Park in addition to those listed in the DEIS. Replacements for the Goff Courses, Baseball Fields, Community Gardens, and Archery Range should be included in mitigation funding consistent with State and Federal laws and rules. 1.3.9 T. SOCIAL IMPACTS............from displacement of 1,000 residential units and 35 businesses in Richfield must be recognized as substantially more impact than on any other city, and the basis for community support funding. 1.3.10 U. SECTION 4(f) IMPACTS...........should include replacement of the New Ford Town. Rich Acres Parks acquired under appropriate State and Federal law requirements. 1.3.11 W. TRANSPORTATION ACCESS.........wiil have negative impacts on access to TH77 for Richfield residents and businesses, and increased traffic on the freeways will result in additional traffic diversions to local Richfield streets. The DEIS must also include improved transit access to and from the City. 1.3.12 Y VISUAL IMPACTS ..............of converting golf course and open space amenities into paving and large buildings must be considered and mitigated. • 1.3.13 BB SURFACE WATER QUALITY..........must confirm that the Richfield Storm Water Plan is not compromised by the additional runoff from airport development and loss of storage areas for City flows. 1.3.14CC GROUNDWATER QUALITY.........shoufd include proposals for wellhead protection of acquifers that supply Richfield wells from future contamination. 1.3.15GG DESIGN, ART, AND ARCHITECTURE..........must recognize that the very large air cargo structures that will replace the golf course do have substantial negative impact and need to be mitigated. 1.3.1611 OTHER IMPACTS NOT INCLUDED IN THE DEIS.........that should be included are: a. Long-Term Fiscal Impacts on the City and School District......should be recognized and identified. b. City Boundaries ........should be modified to consider trades of MAC acquisitions within the City for current and future MAC (ands outside of the primary airport site. c. The Legal Process ........for an effective mitigation program should be negotiated. DRAFT(d) 5127198 PART ONE.....EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGE ONE- S A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTHSOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 1.4 Mitigation Proposals 1.4.1 A. AIR QUALITY........in neighborhoods adjacent to the new runway must be monitored and reported regularly to residents and the City, and. should be controlled as much as possible by limiting the number of aircraft queued for runway 17/35 and cargo areas, and other measures that may be developed. 1.4.2 C. BIOTIC COMMUNITIES......... that are replaced by pavements and structures on the MAC site. must be mitigated by providing a 200-foot wide "greenbelt" of mixed trees and prairie grasses over the full length of the MAC site adjacent to TH77, and the mitigation activity must fund replacements for mature trees lost in the redevelopment area as well.. The current bluebird restoration project can be supported in this greenbelt area as well. 1.4.3 E. CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS........in addition to measures outlined in the DE11S, must be mitigated by completing improvements to access routes prior to construction, and directing construction traffic to be distributed over all four MAC access points. 1.4.4 I. ECONOMIC........impacts on Richfield (the smallest neighbor with the most economic losses) must be mitigated through complete fiscal support of the redevelopment project, replacement of tax, fees, and other revenues lost to the City and the School District, on-going funding of community organization and participation activities, and Purchase Value Guarantee programs for all residents east of Portland Avenue. (See 1.5, for cost estimates} 1.4.5 N. INDUCED SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS........can be affected by MAC policies that support redevelopment of the noise impacted area or Richfield, and financial support of activities that encourage residents and businesses to remain in Richfield to reduce negative impacts. (See Implementation for cost estimates) 1.4.6 O. LAND USE .............proposed for the primary noise impacted area of Richfield (See EXHIBIT 6) should be approved by MAC and fully funded for redevelopment by the City. MAC must not acquire any more property or property rights within the city of Richfield. (See 1.5, Implementation for cost estimates). 1.4.7 P. LIGHT EIVIISSIONS.........from aircraft moving on the ground in the air cargo area adjacent to TH77 should be mitigated by construction of berms and fences in the "green belt" area, and by restriction of the use of landing lights in this area from 9:OOpm to 6:OOam. DRAFT(d) 5/27/98 PART ONE.....EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGE ONE- 9 A M171GAT10N CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTHSOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 1.4.8 Q. NOISE..........mitigation activities must extend structural protection beyond the DNL60 limits for alJ runways, to include all of the areas within low frequency 75dB, or A90 (BBN Report 8196) area limits and atwo-block "transition zone" delineated by EXHIBIT 3, Noise impacted Areas in Richfield. Structural 1.4.9 protection must include replacement of doors and windows and other actions that will. specifically reduce the impacts of low frequency sound and related vibrations. MAC must accept the redevelopment concept (See EXHIBIT 6) and provide for ail required financing. (See 1.5, Implementation for cost estimates). a) Surface Access Transportation Noise ..................should be mitigated with the best available technology (BAT) for aesthetic and ecologically responsible sound barriers, landscaping, parks and trails. b) Operation of Aircraft Engines in the Air Cargo Area......must be limited to Gam to 9pm, and will be moved by towing at other times. c) Fund an Independent Study of the Long-Term Health Effects of Aircraft Noise.........in the noise impacted area of Richfield. 1.4.9 R. PARKS AND RECREATION..........impacts must be mitigated by approval of Richfield proposals for replacement of the Rich Acres and New Ford Town Parks land, amenities, and improvements, provision of a replacement site for the full community gardens and archery range (on other vacant MSP land), relocation assistance and expedition of land acquisitions and exchanges that will result in replacement of the ball fields, and expansion of the Ft. Snelling Golf Course into an 18-hole facility, and full funding of all of these activities (See 1.5, implementation, for cost estimates). 1.4.10 T. SOCIAL IMPACTS.........must be mitigated with full funding of relocation of all 2.000+l- residents (owners and tenants) and 35+/- businesses that are displaced in the relocation concept (See EXHIBIT 6) with related highway transportation improvements, funding of community organization including effective and timely MAC response to requests and related interaction activities with the City and ail residents substantially affected by the MSP project and the resulting redevelopment activities, and Purchase Value Guarantees for all residents east of Portland Avenue within Richfield. (See 1.5, for cost estimates). 1.4.11 U. SECTION 4(f) lMPACTS............should include New Ford Town and Rich Acres Parks covered under R. PARKS AND RECREATION, above.. 1.4.12 W. TRANSPORTATION ACCESS.........mitigation must include improvements to the E66th Street/TH77 interchange and construction of the E77th Street tunnel and ramps before the proposed air cargo area is operational, but . should be done to better accommodate construction traffic as well (See 1.4.3). • DRAFT(d) 5127/98 PART ONE.....EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGE ONE- 1O A MIT1GATlON CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTH~OUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNAT1oNAL AIRPORT Overflow traffic that will be diverted from the freeways to city streets (E66th, Portland, Twelfth, Bloomington (60`~ to 63`d), and Nicollet Avenues) will require improvements and upgrading those streets, and traffiic "calming" improvements to discourage further diversions through adjacent residential areas. Provision must also be made to provide improved transit access (including LRT) to and from Richfield. (See 1.5, Implementation for cost estimates.) 1.4.13 Y. VISUAL 1MPACTS .............of the conversion from golf course and residential area to vast paved areas and large buildings must be mitigated by development of a 200-foot wide "green belt" described under 1.4.2, above, and enhanced architectural treatments for building facades facing west (See .1.4.16, below).. 1.4.14 BB. SURFACE WATER QUALITY.........must meet all requirements of .the Richfield surface water management plan. 1.4.15 CC. GROUNDWATER QUALITY...........must include appropriate wellhead protection or closure improvements to the existing wells that will be abandoned in order to protect the aquifer that serves the Richr""field water system. 1.4.16 GG. DESIGN, ART, ARCHITECTURE..........must provide the "green belt" area previously described as a buffer, as well as enhanced architectural treatment of facades of the air cargo buildings that will be in full view from many multiple residential units Less than 1,000 feet to the west. 1.4.17 I1. OTHER IMPACTS NOT INCLUDED tN THE DEIS...........as follows: a. Long-Term Fiscal Impacts ..............on the City and the School District should be mitigated by compensation equal to the tax, fee, grants, and other revenues lost because of all of the impacts of this airport project. (See 1.5, Implementation for cost estimates). b. City Boundaries...........shouid be revised to exclude New Ford Town and Rich Acres, and should be expanded to include ail of MAC property in and adjacent to the City (Taft Park area). c. The Legal Status and Process......required for effective implementation of the approved mitigation plan must be adopted by both the City and MAC. 1.5 Implementation Process 1.5.1 ADOPTION OF A COMPREHENSIVE MITIGATION PLAN ................must first be accomplished by CITY, and the funding mechanism adopted by MAC, through formal resolutions. The PLAN must include full funding, staffing, allowance for outside consulting commitments, stakeholder involvement, a communications program, a time line, in order to survive periodic changes in DRAFT(d) 5127/98 PART ONE.....EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGE ONE- 11 A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTHSOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT Council Members , Commissioners, and staff, as well as continuous changes in the affected participants and "public interest" groups that weave in and out of all redevelopment projects. 1.5.2 MANAGEMENT OF THE PLAN...........will be assigned to staff or consultants as appropriate, by the. City. The Mitigation Project Manager (MPM} will work under the direction of the City Manager or his designated staff. The City Manager will coordinate and communicate regularly with MAC through the Executive Director. 1.5.3 STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION IN MITIGATION ACTIONS........wiil include frequent and consistent information provided promptly to "hot line" callers, and frequent, scheduled, disseminated by newsletter, direct mail, media releases, presentations to neighborhood gatherings, informed feedback through response cards and calls, random sample telephone interviews, interactive public forums, and the continuing involvement of various stakeholder representatives through specifiic neighborhood and/or project task groups. a. Plan Provisions to Encourage Retention of Current Residents and Businesses.........must be part of the basic approach, and will include financial incentives, priority access to existing or new construction, financial assistance for remodeling or expanding existing structures outside of the redevelopment area (East of Portland Avenue), and other forms of transitional and long-term assistance that will encourage current residents and businesses to stay in Richfield. b. Participation...........is critical to the success of the mitigation program. Unless stakeholders are part of the process, and have a substantial part (not simply input} in the solutions, the situation will be dominated by disorder and conflict, to the detriment of the community and the MSP project. 1.5.4 AN ESTIMATED TIME UNE ..............target dates will be related to the airport facility final design and funding. A preliminary estimate would be nine to eighteen months for planning and design, two to three years for soundproofing, and five to ten years for actual redevelopment acquisition, relocation, and new construction. 1.5.5 MITIGATION FUNDING TO BE PROVIDED BY THE PROJECT....... is estimated to be $358,500,000 (in 1998 dollars) over the lifie of the entire project (10 years), although some specific projects may continue beyond that time, Future Legislative approval of special T!F or other funding sources or mechanisms may substantially affect this cost. 1.5.6 REVIEW THE PROJECT AND THE MANAGEMENT PROCESS ANNUALLY.........in order to evaluate the effectiveness, responsiveness, timeliness, appropriateness, and impacts on affected participants, consistency DRAFT(d) 5127/98 PART ONE.....EXECUT(VE SUMMARY PAGE ONE- 12 A MfTfGATiON CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTHSOUTH RUNWAY AT 7HE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT with Comprehensive Plan provisions, update all provisions, and make changes required to improve the delivery system and the project. The City and MAC must also update all legal, financial, legislative, and management criteria and constraints on an annual basis . 1.6 EXHIBITS .........included in PART ONE...EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, include the following: EXHIBIT 1. Summary of BBN Report Number 8196, An Analysis of Anticipated Low Frequency Aircraft Noise Due to Operation of a Proposed North-South Runway at MSP 14 May 1997 EXH161T 2. Summary of BBN Report Number 8211, Field Study of the Annoyance of Low Frequency Runway Sideline Noise, 9 October ~ 997 EXHlB1T 3. Noise Impacted Areas .....Existing land Uses C, EXHIBIT 4. Noise (mpacfed Areas......Existing Population EXHIBIT 5. Noise (mpacfed Areas......Existing Market Values EXHIBIT 6. The Proposed Redevelopment Concept EXHIBIT 7. MAC Option Six Plan for MSP Site Development CiRAFT(d) 5127198 PART ONE.....EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGE ONE- 1$ • • EXHIBIT 1 An Analysis of Anticipated Low Frequency Aircraft . Noise in Richfield Due to Operation of a Proposed North-South Runway at MSP May 14,1997 Executive Summary The Study In 1997, the City of Richfield hired Dr. Sanford Fidell of BNN Systems of Canoga, California, to examine the low frequency noise impacts on eastern portions of the community from aircraft ground operations on a new North-South Runway. Low frequency aircraft ground noise is the rumbling noise made by aircraft on the ground. It is made by aircraft prior to brake release, during take-off roll, when applying reverse thrust upon landing, when taxiing to or from runways, or when running up engines for maintenance or other reasons. Sometimes it is audible in homes, sometimes it is not. It also causes rattling of windows and objects within homes..Neighborhoods in the Los Angeles, San Francisco and Boston • areas aze also struggling with low frequency noise impacts. Low frequency noise is a challenging concern for communities to deal with because of the inability to use traditional noise assessment methods to measure it and traditional mitigation tools to lessen impacts. The problem is that standards aircraft noise metrics, contouring methods, and interpretive criteria used for regulatory purposes are measured in A-weighted units. Noise measurements expressed in A-weighted units are most heavily influenced by high frequency sound in the vicinity of 1 kHz (about two octaves above middle-C on the piano) but are highly insensitive to low frequency sound. Conventional acoustic treatments aze much more effective with reducing high frequency noise produced by aircraft overflights than with low frequency aircraft ground noise. Conventional acoustic treatment may not yield a sufficient improvement in low frequency transmission to prevent residents from noticing low frequency aircraft noise in their homes. Furthermore, conventional acoustic insulation measures do not necessarily prevent the production of indoor rattling noises in homes. The field measurements made by BNN were undertaken to establish current low frequency noise levels and to permit estimation of future low frequency noise levels in • parts of Richfield neaz the proposed North-South Runway. Summary of Findings • Aircraft operations on a proposed North-South Runway at MSP will substantially elevate ambient noise levels in one-third octave bands below 100 Hz in areas of Richfield up to about a mile from the runway, by 20 dB or more under some conditions. • This increase in low frequency noise levels is not apparent in the (A-weighted) aircraft noise exposure contours produced by the FAA's Integrated Noise Model. • Levels of low frequency noise exposure similaz to those that will be created in eastern Richfield by operations on proposed Runway 17/35 have given rise to noise complaints in communities neaz other airports. • An acoustic barrier parallel to the proposed runway of dimensions adequate to provide appreciable low frequency noise reduction for much of eastern Richfield is unlikely to be cost-effective. • Low frequency noise produced by jet aircraft operations on the proposed North-South runway will be of sufficient level to create audible rattling noises inside residences in a lazge azea of Richfield, including some residences with conventional "acoustic insulation" treatments. • Areas of Richfield that will be ex osed to low fre uenc noise from aircraft • P q y operations on the proposed North-South runway at levels sufficient to induce rattling noises inside homes extend farther westward from MSP than the 60 dB DNL contour. • EXHIBIT 2 Field Study of the Annoyance • of Lew Frequency Runway Sideline Noise October 14,1997 Executive Summary The Study The City of Richfield was interested in gaining a better understand of the potential noise impacts of the proposed North-South Runway oz} homes in the eastern portions of Richfield. The City asked airport noise consultant Sandy Fidell of BNN Technologies of Canoga Park, California, to conduct a field study of the annoyance of low frequency runway sideline noise. Prior field measurements of the low frequency noise produced by aircraft operations on an existing runway at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP) indicated that aircraft operations on the proposed new runway would produce rumbling sounds in a large area of eastern Richfield. The rumbling sounds would have characteristically longer • onset and offset times than those of aircraft flyovers. Low frequency sideline noise from the proposed runway would also be capable of producing perceptible vibration and second emissions such as rattling in homes in areas of Richfield as many as a dozen blocks to the west of the new runway. However, the likely extent of the annoyance associated with such vibration and rattle could not be directly determined from the acoustic measurements. This study developed information about the annoyance of low frequency aircraft sideline noise through direct questioning of residents of a community located the same proximity to a runway as Richfield will be to the North-South Runway. A total of 644 residents living in El Segundo, California, between 1,000 and 5,000 feet to the side of Runway 25R at Los Angeles International Airport were interviewed. The residents completed a brief telephone interview about neighborhood living conditions in general and aircraft noise in particular. Three sets of simultaneous acoustic measurements were made at subsets of seven points in the interviewing area to quantify typical outdoor low frequency noise levels created by individual aircraft operations. Outdoor low frequency aircraft noise levels in the interviewing area varied over a 20 decibel range, from 70 decibels to about 90 decibels. • Summary of Findings They study found that 46 percent of the 384 El Segundo respondents living at addresses with 80 decibels or less of outdoor low frequency aircraft noise noticed aircraft-induced vibration or rattle in their homes; that 29 percent of all such respondents were annoyed by such vibration or rattle in some degree, and that 14 percent of all such respondents were highly annoyed by such vibration or rattle. Other findings were: • Neazly 40 percent of El Segundo respondents who lived in areas with low frequency noise levels of 70 decibels or less noticed indoor rattle or vibration. • Even at low frequency outdoor noise levels 20 decibels higher, only about half of all respondents noticed vibration or rattle in their homes. • The percentages of respondents who were annoyed in some degree by rattle increased by about half (from 24 percent to 37 percent) over this 20 decibel range. • The percentage of respondents who were highly annoyed by vibration or rattle quadrupled (from 4 percent to 20 percent) over the same 20 decibel range. • Roughly the same percent of survey respondents in El Segundo were highly annoyed • by indoor vibration or rattle at a low frequency noise level of 80 decibel as the Federal Interagency Committee on Aircraft Noise considers a threshold for regulatory and policy action in the cast of long-term, A-weighted noise exposure. It follows from these observations that: • The range of outdoor low frequency noise levels from 70 to 90 decibels encompasses the range over which indoor vibration and rattle grow from a minor to a major concern. • Plausible cases can be made for defining a threshold of significant impact of low frequency aircraft noise in Richfield in the range of 80 to 85 decibels. About 10.6 percent of the residents of Richfield in the azea west of the proposed runway may be expected to be highly annoyed by low frequency aircraft noise at a level of 80 decibels, while 16.2 percent may be expected to be annoyed at a level of 85 decibels. The Federal Interagency Committee on Aircraft Noise determined that the de facto threshold of noise impact as a standazd policy for noise insulation purposes was 12.3 percent of residents -- 65 Ldn (decibels). Therefore, significantly more residents of • eastern Richfield will be highly annoyed at the 85 decibel level than the Federal . Interagency Committee on Aircraft Noise considers appropriate on a national policy basis. Locally elected officials might take at face value FAA's state position in Part 150 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, that nationwide land use compatibility guidelines " are not intended to substitute federally determined land uses for those determined to be appropriate by local authorities in response to locally determined needs and value..." By endorsing acoustic insulation for homes exposed to aircraft noise from MSP operations at levels as low as Ldn 60 (decibels) the Minnesota Legislature has expressly rejected the Federal Interagency Committee on Aircraft Noise's land use guidance recommendations, and implicitly decided that the prevalence of aircraft noise annoyance should not exceed 6.5 percent of the population. If similar reasoning were applied to the cast of high annoyance from low frequency noise in Richfield, the threshold of impact would be 75 decibels. • • v • EXHIBIT 3 NOISE IMPACTED AREAS IN RICHFIELD Existing Land Uses and Areas • • ~~i Cb 4'1'^ ~~ ~~~ ~~, F~~, ~_ ~ ~ ~;.'.r' ~' ~~~~' ~~ ~_ ~'~ ~ r-- 1 ICL ~. ~ Ty ._.~ _ ,N 'om` s _ ~-.-. " ~ ~, ~. rT7 ~ ~,+- ~ ~.-; ' tom ' ..!Y~' ,- Tai ~ '~J I--..f_. -~.r ~. _J ~ ~--' `~~'T~ ~---! !!~~''~~^^ ~tu~ Sr~ J = J ~ ~ ~ O) Z Q N N N fA 83RD ST. 84TH ST. 65tH ST. 86TH ST. 67TH ST. 88TH ST. 89TH ST. 70TH ST 71ST ST. 72ND ST. 73RD ST. 74TH ST. 75TH ST. Primary Area :.:Land 7r)se _ ',- `f~ Parcels ...Axes Aerenpe Apartment i 32 ~ 680469.249: 15.62 Church ~ 1'; 10484.247 i 0.24 (Commercial 61 ' 932431.898. 21.41: Duplex' 29j 282011.180 6.47;' Parl k ! 6~ 836412.656 ! quasi-PUblic~ 1 ~ 52651.709 1.211 Residential i 892 , 7848215.984 I 180.17 Sehoo~ 1 ~ 2 60123.119! 1.38 Vacant 2 ~ 28053.501 ~ 0.64 Apartment Units =401 Redevelopment Area .1,iclilsa~.' -E~:aKt1s - A~eea "'7COS4eaga' ~:. Apartment 32 680469.249 15.62, Church 1.1 10489.247 0.24 I COmme rcial 48 789568.690 18.13 Duplex 29 i 282011.180 ~ 6.47 Park 6 836412.656 19.20 Residential ~ 546 4953359.545 ~ 113.71 School ~ 2 j 60123.119 1.38 Vacant j 1 ; 21399.932 0.49 Apartment Units =401 Comprehensive Plan '~].iHtl 036 - ~# ~ Baarel ~ ' Area ::JtG11'6a9a •. (Apartment 30 l 66 5893.633 15.29 Commeraal ~ 47 762862.633 17.51 jDUplex 29 282011.180 I Park 5 378729.307 6.69 Residential 228 2089105.537 I 47.96 jVacant 11 21399.932 0.49 Apartment Units =387 Transition Area L6Rtf trec 'f katael ~ ILna- `ACCN9e Apartment 1 13936.638 0.32 Church I lj 98711.609 1.12 Commercial 10 199980.182 3.33 Duplex 4 50514.669 1.16 I Park 1 976995.721 10.99 Residential 409; 3616760.663 83.03 School 1 290714.3231 5.53 76TH ST. N 77TH ST. 500 0 500 1000 Feet 78TH ST. ~ Apartment Units = 10 April 8, 1998 'fS~Sxx~ Q EXHIBIT 4 NOISE IMPACTED AREAS IN RICHFIELD Existing Resident and School Populations DEVELOPMENT AREA - Existin Conditions vs. Proposed Redevelo ment Conce t LAND USE AREA ac Conce t Units u Conce t Total Po ulation Conce t School Population Conce t Single Family 113.7 547 1258 179 Single Family High Density 6.5 50.5 58 404 122 848 20 81 Multi-Family Medium Density (25 u/ac) 15.6 401 641 1155 122 17 Multi-Family High Density (50 u/ac) 16.5 825 Regional Commercial/Office 18.2• 48.8 High Density Office 18.2 Low Density Office 34.7 Neighborhood Commercial 1.3 Parks 19.2 24.3 Streets 60.6 18.5 Other 5.06 5.5 vacant, schools, churches, uasi- ublic TOTAL 220.7 218.3 1006 1229 2021 2003 321 98 • Includes all commercial uses PRIMARY AREA LAND USE AREA (ac) Units u) Total Population School Population ngle Family 180.2 893 2054 377 Single Family High Density 6.5 58 122 11 Multi-Family Medium Density 15.6 401 641 40 Multi-Family High Density Regional Commercial/Office 21.4• High Density Office Low Density Office Neighborhood Commercial Parks 29.7 Streets 47.4 Other 6.42 (vacant, schools, churches, quasi-public) TOTAL 285.8 1352 2817 428 • Includes all commercial uses Page 1 4/30/98 • • • EXHIBIT 5 NOISE IMPACTED AREAS IN .RICHFIELD Existing Market Value of Properties Z ~ 0 w Z Q J ~ d' LL L S 2 S {S- g F2F F2 F= ~ Z = 2 F- 0 ~ ~ ~ In m i0 ~ tD U 0 r ~ N N Primary Area 63RD ST Laaii ~lae ! F+a ca13 • Harket:'Yaiue Apartment ' 32 9436000 64TH ST I Church 1 i 0 iCommercial 61 16308300 'Duplex 29 2673000 i I Park j 6 0 65TH ST I Quasi-Public 1 ~~ 0 iResidential 692 ! 73277100 I School ', 2 ~i 0 66TH ST ~ ~ I i Vacant 2 97000 Redevelopment Area 67TH ST ` . 1F ge.rroels "39~Yks= Yaiuc; _. Taati tiaa !Apartment 32 ! 9438000, 68TH ST ': Church 1 ' 0 I Commercial 46 i 19959100 'Duplex ~~ 29'~. 2873000 69TH ST ' :Park ~ 6 ; 0 I i (Residential 546 46987000 school ~ 2 0 I 70TH ST ; j Vacant 1 . 78000 i 7,sT sT. Comp Plan Area Land tlee !P"Parcc3s Market Value 72ND ST. i Apartment 30 I 8594000 I Commercial ~ 47 I 19814100 j '; Duplex j 29 ~ 2873000 j 73RD ST. .Park S j O i Residential '; 228 ~ 19433900 j Vacant ~ 1 ~ 78000 ~ 74TH ST. N 75TH ST. ~~ 500 0 500 1000 Feet 76TH ST. ~~~ 77TH sT. Febnaary 4, 1998 :-a ~ ~- --~f--' ~ ~_~ `'! ~~~~~~~ ~_~~~~~ ^~~~~ ~~_ ~~$~~ ~_~_~~_ ~'~'~~T~ =~~` 3u -~- w EXHIBIT 6 Z 0 0 M ~ o m NOISE IMPACTED AREAS IN RICHFIELD A Proposed Q W o z m ~ m U O ~ o concept ~~~ 1-494 Redevelopment Concept ~z N N 4~ ~~ LAND USE AREA (ac) UNITS Single Family High Density 50.5 a04 Multi-Family High Density (50 u/ac)16.5 825 Regional CommerciaUOffice 4g.g High Density Office 18.2 Low Density Office 34.7 Neighborhood Commercial 1.3 Parks 24.3 Streets 18.5 Other (vacant, schools, 5.5 churches, quasi-public) TOTAL 218.3 1229 TOTAL POP'N 848 1155 2003 SCHOOL MARKET POP'N VALUE 81 54.5 17 41.3 61.0 22.8 34.7 1.3 97 215.5 (in 00 68TH ST 69TH ST 70TH ST 71ST ST. 72ND ST. 73RD ST. 74TH ST. 75TH ST. 76TH ST. 77TH ST. 78TH ST. J February 3, 1998 ~ Realigned Roadway M ~ Redevelopment Boundary Parkway PROPOSED LAND USES ® Church Neighborhood Commercial ® High Density Office High Density Office/Regional Commercial ® Low Density Office ® Park High Density Mulfiple Residential High Density Single Famiy Residential liflfff~ School 500 0 500 Feet 0 PART TWO.....IDENTIFICATION OF STAKEHOLDERS OF A MITIGATION PROPOSAL FOR THE IMPACTS TO RICHFIELD STAKEHOLDERS RESULTING FROM DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATION OF A NEW NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY (17/35) FOR THE MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT SITE TWIN CITIES, MN TABLE OF CONTENTS PART TWO.....IDENTIFICATION OF STAKEHOLDERS NO. SUBJECT PAGE NO. 2.1 Overview TWO-2 2.2 Stakeholders 2.2.1 The City of Richfield TWO-2 2.2.2 Independent School District 280 TWO-2 2.2.3 Private Schools TWO-2 2.2.4 Churches TWO-2 2.2.5 Businesses TWO-2 2.2.6 Single Family Dwellings TWO-3 2.2.7 Multiple Dwellings TWO-3 2.2.8 Parks, Golf Courses and Athletic Fields TWO-3 2.2.9 Franchise Infrastructure Companies TWO-3 2.2.10 Natural Systems TWO-3 2.2.11 Others TW0-4 2.2.12 Socio-Economic and Physical Character TWO-4 2.3 Summary and Conclusions TWO-4 r 05/13/98 A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT • 2.1 OVERVIEW ....Affected Institutions .........:and facilities, residential owners and renters, and businesses are not identified in the EIS, but as stakeholders must be important participants in an equitable and successful mitigation process. Organizations and their representatives, and individuals that are stakeholders are identified in the following paragraphs. 2.2 STAKEHOLDERS AND REPRESENTATIVES 2.2.1 The City Of Richfield....... participates in the process represented by the City Manager and staff designated from time to time as necessary. The City Council makes all decisions and approves all agreements, with review and recommendations from The Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA), Planning Commission, and Community Services Commission. 2.2.2 Independent School District 280.........participates in the process represented by the Superintendent and designated staff. The Board of Education makes all decisions with consultation and review by staff, consultants, and parent/ student/teacher organizations. 2.2.3 Mt. Calvary Church and School ............participates in the process represented by its Pastor/Principal and designated staff. The Church/School Board makes i all decisions in consultation with staff, consultants, parents, students, teachers, `~ and the congregation. 2.2.4 Richfield Evangelical Free Church ............participates in the process represented by its Pastor and designated staff. The Church Board will make all decisions in consultation with the congregation. 2.2.5 THIRTY IVE +/- BUSINESSES .............participate in the process represented by owners or managers. Most decisions will be made by local owners with consultations with partners or shareholders, but sdme decisions may need to be made by officers of a parent corporation located outside of the City or state. Current businesses that appear to be removed or are substantially impacted by highway improvements and noise include (complete roster found in Addenda F): a) Motel Six b) American Family Insurance Appraisal Center c) Richfield Liquor Store d) AMOCO Service Station e) Opticians f) Barber Shop g) Limo Service h) Pet Hospital (65??) DRAFT 5113/98 PART TWO....IDENTIFICATION OF STAKEHOLDERS PAGE TWO- 2 A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT i) Offices (2+!-) j) Brisson Stucco k) Ryan Construction Office I) Annual Color m) Offices (4+/- businesses) n) Auto Body o) Warehouse (6424) p) Warehouse q) Smith 8~ Nelson Auto Service r) Affordable Car Rental s) Casper Printers t) .Richfield Vehicle Impound Lot u) Auto Repair v) Diamond-Vogle Paint w) Hagen Floor Covering x) Pet Hospital (63??) y) Larson Roofing and Sheet Metal z) Casper Printer 2.2.6 OVER ONE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED FIFTY (1,350) SINGLE AND DOUBLE HOMES....... in the primary impact and 2-block transition areas will participate in the process and will make decisions themselves. The owners of the single and twin homes are listed in a roster found in Addenda E. 2.2.7 TWENTY SIX (26) MULTIPLE DWELLING STRUCTURES with UP TO FOUR HUNDRED TEN (410+/-) UNITS.......will be represented by building owners or property managers who will in most cases make all decisions, and also renters who will participate in the process as affected individuals. The owners and resident representatives of multiple units are listed in Addenda E: 2.2.8 UP TO 6,,000 USERS OF PARKS, GOLF COURSES, and ATHLETIC FACILITIES ........will be represented by the Community Services Commission, that will recommend actions for decisions by the City Council. Representatives of the larger user groups may also participate in the process. 2.2.9 FOUR 4 FRANCHISE INFRASTRUCTURE ORGANIZATIONS.(electric power, gas service, telephone, and cable TV) ............participate in the process represented by designated staff, and decisions by appropriate officials. 2.2.10 NATURAL SYSTEMS .......................will be represented by City staff and representatives from the Community Services Commission. Decisions will be made by the City Council after review by the Community Services Commission. DRAFT 5113/98 PART TWO....IDENTIFICATION OF STAKEHOLDERS PAGE TWO- 3 A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 2.2.11 OTHERS .............such as regular visitors to residents and customers of affected businesses -will be represented by residents and the business owners or managers. 2.2.12 FUTURE SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF THE COMMUNITY ........... will be represented by City Staff and representatives from the Planning and Community Services Commissions and HRA. Decisions will be made by the City Council -and HRA. 2.3 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .............begin with the obvious conclusion that managing and accomplishing a project that affects the lives and livelihoods of thousands of people and dozens of businesses and institutions will not be easy, simple, or quick. The process must permit and encourage meaningful, consistent, and persistent participation in the activities and decisions, not mere in ut. It is equally clear that unless these stakeholders are a part of the process, and have a substantial part in the solutions, the situation will be dominated by disorder and conflict, to the detriment of the community and the MSP project. Both the City and MAC must accomplish the project with the stakeholders, or be faced with reactions and resistance to what is being done to them and the chaos that results. DRAFT 5/13/98 PART TWO....IDENTIFICATION OF STAKEHOLDERS PAGE TWO- 4 PART THREE..IDENTIFICATION & DEFINITION OF IMPACTS TABLE OF CONTENTS PART SUBJECT PAGE ----------------- 3.1 Overview .. 3-3 3.2 Specific Additional Impacts And Consequences 3.2.1 A..Air Quality 3-3 3.2.2 B..Archaeological Resources 3-3 3.2.3 C..Biotic Communities 3-3 3.2.4 D..Bird-Aircraft Hazards 3-5 3.2.5 E..Construction Impacts 3-3 3.2.6 F..Coastal Barriers 3-3 3.2.7 G..Coastal Zone Management 3-3 3.2.8 H..Endangered and Threatened Species 3.4 3.2.9 (...Economic 3-4 3.2.10 J..Energy and Natural Resources 3-5 3.2.11 K..Farmland 3-5 3.2.12 L..Floodplains 3.5 3.2.13 M..Historic/Architectural Resources 3-5 3.2.14 N...Induced Socioeconomic Impacts 3-5 • 3.2.15 O..Land Use 3-5 3.2.16 P..Light Emissions 3-6 3.2.17 Q..Noise 3-6 3.2.18 R..Parks and Recreation 3-7 3.2.19 S..Site Preservation 3-8 3.2.20 T..Social 3-8 3.2.21 U..Section 4(f) Lands 3-9 3.2.22 V..Solid Waste 3-9 3.2.23 W..Transportation Access 3-9 3.2.24 X..Major Utilities 3-10 3.2.25 Y..Visuallmpacts 3-10 3.2.26 Z..Wastewater 3-10 3-2.27 AA..Water Supply 3-10 3.2.28 BB..Surface Water Quality 3-10 3.2.29 CC..Groundwater Quality 3-10 3-2.30 DD..Wetlands 3-11 3.3.31 EE..Wild and Scenic Rivers 3-11 3.3.32 FF..Wildlife Refuges 3-11 3.3.33 GG..Design/Art/architecture 3-11 3.3.34 Other Impacts Not Covered in the DEIS 3-11 • 05/15/98 A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PART THREE.....IDENTIFICATION AND DEFINITION OF IMPACTS 3.1 OVERVIEW ................ of the impacts and consequences of the project as defined in the DEIS indicates practically no adverse affects on the City of Richfield and its residents, while a more studied view shows very clearly that the impacts and consequences are extensive, pervasive, persistent, and completely disproportional to any other community affected by the project. Effective and responsive mitigation of these impacts will be more important to the affected residents, businesses, institutions, the School District, and the City, than any aspect of the expanded airport project itself. 3.1.1 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES........are listed in the DEIS under 33 major categories that will result from the expansion of MSP under OPTION 6. In order to be consistent, impacts and mitigation proposals in this document use the same descriptors and titles found in DEIS. The DEIS found: a) Outside of Richfield ......about a third of those 33 impacts are not applicable to the City. Mitigation was found to be "not feasible" or "not available" for two categories (Birds and .Endangered Species), and another seven impacts involved mitigation activities on the MSP site only (Surface Water, Ground Water, Wetlands, Energy Consumption, Solid Wastes, Mother Lake, and Design/Art/Architecture). b) Future Negotiation .........was the answer to eight impacts to be "worked out . with appropriate agencies" as the project evolves (Archeological, Construction, Historical, Land Use, Lighting, Noise, . Social, and Induced Socio-Economic) under vague guidelines outlined in the DEIS. The "agencies" and the specific issues to be worked out are not clearly identified. c) "No Mitigation" .........was the conclusion for nearly half of the categories (14), In the DEIS. Six of those (Coastal Barriers,.Coastal Zones, Farmland, Floodplains, Future New Airport Site Preservation, and Wild and Scenic Rivers), clearly do not apply to the MSP site and would therefore require no mitigation, but the other nine (Air Quality, Parks, Public Lands (4f), Transportation Access, Utilities, Visual Impacts, Wastewater Systems, Water Supply Systems, and Noise), involve significant impacts that need a mitigation proposal. 3.1.2 IMPACTS AND CONSEQUENCES............not covered, found to be insignificant, or rejected in the DEIS must be considered in light of the completely disproportionate burdens inflicted only on Richfield. This part of the report identifies and defines additional impacts and consequences to Richfield under each of the headings, and adds some additional categories not considered in the DEIS based on extensive testing and research by the consulting firm BBN, and a more accurate analysis from the perspective of the community most affected by the project. • DRAFT 5/15/98 PART THREE...IDENTIFICATION AND DEFINITION OF IMPACTS PAGE THREE- 2 A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 3.2 ADDITIONAL IMPACTS ........not covered in the DEI are identified and S described under each heading found in the DEIS as follows: 3.2.1 A...AIR QUALITY...........consequences are covered in the DEIS except for the problem of odor from jet engine exhaust on the ground. These very strong, "petroleum" or "exhaust" odors are quite evident in the New Ford Town area that is even farther from the 12R runway stacking and take-off area as the homes and businesses west of Cedar Avenue will be from the same stacking and take- off area on the proposed 17/35 runway. This issue must be addressed with testing and monitoring, and appropriate mitigation measures must be applied to this important impact. {See also 3.2.5, E..CONSTRUCTION) 3.2.2 B...ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES.........are covered in the DEIS. 3.2.3 G...BIOTIC COMMUNITIES ................described in the DEIS do not include the loss of the urban forest area in New Ford Town and Rich Acres neighborhoods, the Golf Courses, and the residential areas west of Cedar Avenue that will require complete redevelopment. These areas represent a rather significant (over 600 acres) area of habitat for birds and a variety of small critters that provide habitat as well as visual benefits to the whole community and should be replaced or mitigated in some form. A clear example of an impact that applies only to Richfield. 3.2.4 D....BIRD-AIRCRAFT HAZARDS............are covered in the DEIS. 3.2.5 E...CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS .................wil! fall disproportionately on Richfield because of the fact that the major construction project is the new runway 17/35, immediately adjacent to the city over its full length. This part of the MSP site is the most likely location for batch plants and materials storage for the runway and other work on the buildings, and the TH77-66th Street access will be the primary access for construction traffic. Air quality control during construction will be particularly important to Richfield residents inasmuch as they will be nearest to the construction activities. Extra- ordinary efforts to reduce and control dust, exhaust, and other emissions from construction activities, materials storage and handling, materials processing, and particularly from demolition must be required. Construction operations time of day and night requirements of Richfield must be met. 3.2.6 F...COASTAL BARRIERS.......do not apply to this project. 3.2.7 G...COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT.........does not apply to this project. • DRAFT 5/15/98 PART THREE...IDENTIFICATION AND DEFINITION OF IMPACTS PAGE THREE- 3 A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTHSOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 3.2.8 H...ENDANGERED and THREATENED SPECIES......are not a factor in the City. 3.2.9 1...ECONOMIC..........,consequences and impacts on Richfield will be more significant and disproportional because Richfield is much smaller in every aspect (area, population, housing, employment, commercial services, tax base, etc.) than the other three neighboring cities, and more pervasive because the new runway impacts large abutting areas of the City over its full length and for the full duration of take-off and landings rather than over a narrow flight path during much shorter overflight periods. Every takeoff, and every landing on the new runway will impact people in Richfield, unlike overflight noise that is distributed widely as each plane takes a somewhat different departure or approach path. A fair and objective analysis must acknowledge this significant disproportionallity and include mitigation proposals that will be appropriate to the circumstances. Some specific economic impacts that must recognize this difference include: a) AIRPORT RELATED DEVELOPMENT.............policies and practices of MAC toward on and off-site airport related development will have significant impact on the population, employment, tax capacity and revenues, and suitability of residential uses......in other words, the very viability of Richfield A disproportionate effort must be made in Richfield first to minimize, and also to effectively mitigate the impacts of these related economic consequences. b) RICH ACRES GOLF COURSES.........provide asignificant economic return to the City that is used to support other recreational activities, as well as a ll sma revenue to MAC. This is a consequence that must be recognized as a factor that MAC land acquisition policies and plans can mitigate by assisting and supporting the City in finding and developing replacement facilities on an expanded MSP site or adjacent lands, and providing funding to cover relocation expenses as with other displaced businesses on the site. c) TAX CAPACITY LOSS..........from acquisition of taxable properties must be recognized as an impact that can and must be mitigated through MAC plans, policies, and funding in support of development of non-planeside, airport- related, compatible uses in redeveloped area of Richfield as a first choice in recognition of the disproportionate impact on the City.. d) POPULATION LOSS ......................must be recognized as a most serious and disproportionate impact to the viability of the entire community of Richfield. Population loss in the proposed redevelopment area, in addition to that already experienced in New Ford Town and Rich acres represents at least ten times that of any other affected community. e) STUDENT LOSS ............represents avery serious threat to the viability of the School District since students generate state-aid revenues and other benefits for the school district that are even more important that the real ' estate tax revenues. A loss of up to 240 students in the redevelopment area in addition to the 170 from New Ford Town, requires closing of at least one elementary school, and increased overhead costs for secondary schools. DRAFT 5!15/98 PART THREE...IDENTIFICATION AND DEFINITION OF IMPACTS PAGE THREE- 4 A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY AT 7HE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 3.2.10 J..ENERGY SUPPLY and NATURAL RESOURCES....are covered in the DElS. 3.2,11 K..FARMLAND .................there are no farmlands involved in the MSP site. 3.2.12 L..FLOODPLAINS.........there is no fioodplain encroachment or modifications. 3.2.13 M..HISTORIC/ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES ..............no significant historic or architectural resources are at risk in Richfield. 3.2.14 N..INDUCED SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS .................are also discussed under 3.2.9, .ECONOMIC IMPACTS, above, and the economic aspects of the impacts of noise (particularly low frequency noise) are also discussed under 3.2.17 Q..NOISE. However, the social consequences that result from conversion of a substantial portion of east Richfield from a largely single family residential community into a multiple and largely non-residential complex, will have both short and long term social and economic consequences that must be recognized, defined, and become basic considerations for the design and management of the mitigation plan Over six percent (6%) of the population of Richfield have already been, or will be displaced and another six percent (6%) will be substantially impacted by sideline noise due to the construction of, and operations on new runway 17/35. None of the other affected communities will sustain this level of disruption in either absolute numbers or as a fraction of total population. The project must recognize and assume responsibility for mitigation of the impacts and consequences of this substantial and disproportionate disruption to the basic community social fabric and economic base. 3.2.15 O..LAND USE..........in the most severely noise and air quality. impacted area of Richfield west of TH 77 must be substantially converted to non-residential and new noise resistant residential uses prior to opening the new runway 17/35. Recent tests and surveys funded by Richfield have shown that the extent of the unacceptable impacts (moderate to severely annoyed) is considerably larger than that which is shown as the affected area in the DEIS. About 1,000 single and multiple residential units are affected to an extent that requires conversion from residential to more noise tolerant residential and non-residential structures. While the DEIS explains that MAC and the Metropolitan Council are "working ......to develop a set of mitigation measures" in all of the communities surrounding MSP, the DEIS must. recognize, that the low frequency noise impacts of runway 17/35 development on Richfield require redevelopment that must be funded by the project. A definition of the primary impact area, and the proposed redevelopment area, are shown in EXHIBIT 3 in PART ONE of this document DRAFT 5/15/98 PART THREE...IDENTIFICATION AND DEFINITION OF IMPACTS PAGE THREE- 5 A MITIGATION CONCEPt FOR A NEW NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT a) AIRPORT RELATED (RE)DEVELOPMENT........as previously discussed under 3.10.1 (..ECONOMIC, points out that MAC policies, plans, and funding can provide a primary stimulus for quality, economically viable, new developments in the noise affected redevelopment area. b) "FUTURE" WEST TERMINAL ...............presents adilemma for Richfield land use planners in that the new terminal and second access will likely support more regional commercial (hotels, restaurants, etc.) demand in the area around the TH77 and West 66th Street interchange than would be the case if anew terminal is never constructed. This question needs to be clarified between MAC and the Legislature so that Richfield can plan for appropriate related future redevelopment, including LRT access to Richfield. c) RESIDENTIAL DENSITY..........in the redeveloped area must be as high as possible in order to replace the population lost from New Ford Town, Rich Acres, and from the noise impacted area from runway 17/35. New residential structures must be larger scale buildings with special design and materials that dampen low frequency sound transmission, and resist the related vibrations, and must be concentrated in the farthest reaches of the redevelopment area to blend in with existing housing and stay as far away from the noise source as possible. (See Exhibit 3) 3.2.16 P..LIGHT EMISSIONS ................discussed in the DEIS do not include the impact of landing lights from aircraft moving on the ground in areas very close to TH77. These very. powerful lights will intrude into the Richfield neighborhoods west of TH77, and must be restricted by operating regulations, or effectively mitigated. 3.2.17 Q..NOISE (AIRCRAFT AND SURFACE TRANSPORTATION)............represents the greatest consequence with the most intense impacts on a very large portion of the City of Richfield. Because the DEIS and a special study by consultants found no significant impacts without actual field measurements and analysis, the City retained BBN Systems to measure low frequency aircraft noise levels along existing runways, and project those results on the areas of Richfield that will be affected by this noise. (See Addenda A and B of this report) A summary of the results obtained follows: a) STANDARD MEASUREMENTS ...............for the MAC studies are all based on A-weighted measures that do not accurately reflect low frequency noise and induced vibrations (secondary emissions). Without any documented field measurement, the DEIS concluded that "Low frequency noise and vibration levels ....would be well below the levels which would cause structural damage to buildings or health risk to residents in the neighboring areas of Richfield". That conclusion may be half correct, but it is callous and clearly unresponsive to the real and substantial needs and concerns of the affected residents, and does not recognize the extensive, and disproportionate impacts of low frequency noise on Richfield. DRAFT 5!15/98 PART THREE...IDENTIFICATION AND DEFINITION OF IMPACTS PAGE THREE- G A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT >~' b) SPECIAL MEASUREMENTS ...............authorized and paid for by the City of Richfield, conducted and reported by BBN Systems in May of 1997 (copy of the report dated 14 May 1997 included as ADDENDA A to this report), show that low frequency noise and secondary emissions will be substantially more severe than what is shown or can be interpreted from the standard results reported in the DEIS. Low frequency noise impacts are being recognized and mitigated in several airport projects in the US and must be recognized and mitigated here as well c) STANDARD ABATEMENT AND MITIGATION PROCEDURES .............. outlined in the DEIS including PART 150 sound insulation and structural improvements, and the construction of berms or other acoustical barriers on the MSP site included as mitigation recommendations in the DEIS will be ineffective for abatement or mitigation of low frequency noise. d) FIELD STUDY OF ANNOYANCE FROM LOW FREQUENCY NOISE...... was authorized and paid for by the City of Richfield, and conducted and reported by the firm BBN Systems in October, 1997 (See copy of report dated 9 October 1997 as ADDENDA B to this report). The study was a structured telephone interview of residents in a neighborhood of EI Segundo between 000 and 5,000 feet from the centerline of an operating runway of Los 1 , Angeles International Airport (LAX), a situation similar to the proposed 17/35 at MSP. Study results found that 21 % of residents were "highly annoyed°, and 29% were "very" or "extremely" annoyed at 80 dB levels of low frequency d FAA t th h b an e a ove w noise (LDN 65 dB, A-weighted). This level is well a the courts have considered to be consequential and subject to mitigation activity, and must be recognized. e) THE IMPACTED AREA...:........described in BBN Figure 3 (ADDENDA B) and Richfield EXHIBIT 6 (PART ONE), is a geographical representation of the area that will have highly annoyed residents as a result of low frequency noise and secondary emissions impacts from runway 17/35, and must be mitigated in an effective manner. f) SURFACE TRANSPORTATION NOISE IMPACTS...........are described adequately and proposed to be mitigated properly in the DEIS. 3.2.18 R..PARKS AND RECREATION ..................consequences to Richfield are all the direct result of selection of OPTION SIX, and result in a loss of nearly one-third of the total park space of the City, 100% loss of City golf courses, 100% loss of the community gardens, and over 50% loss of softball and baseball fields. None of the other adjacent communities faces any park loss, much less loss of this magnitude. The DEIS fails to consider the magnitude or the disproportionality of these losses to the City if Richfield in finding no impact and no mitigation required. Specific consequences and impacts in the DEIS should include: • DRAFT 5/15/98 PART THREE...IDENTIFICATION AND DEFINITION OF IMPACTS PAGE THREE- T A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTHSOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT a) PARKS AND FACILITIES WITHIN THE AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECT (APE) .............listed in the DEIS include Taft, Rich Acres Golf Courses. East Softball and Baseball Fields, the Community Gardens, and the Archery Range. To that list should be added Washington Park that is clearly within the DNL-65 noise contour (from 4/22), and Christian Park should be added based on the BBN study which shows low frequency noise levels from 17/35 (80d6 equal to the DNL-65) cover a portion of that park as well. b) TWO NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS ..................(New Ford Town and Rich Acres Parks) are clearly publicly owned parks under Section 4(f), -and the loss must be recognized and mitigated in some form. c) COMMUNITY GARDENS.AND ARCHERY RANGE .......................cannot be replaced in any public site within the City for a variety of reasons, must be recognized as unique to the MAC site, worked into some of the unused spaces in the Long-Term Comprehensive Plan for the MSP site, and costs of relocation included in the project costs.. d) RICH ACRES GOLF COURSES AND DRIVING RANGE...........is lost because of the 17/35 runway option selected by MAC, and regardless of the land lease contract arrangements, MAC should recognize the substantial, disproportional, and inequitable impact on the Richfield parks, open space, and recreational system by supporting and actively assisting the City in relocation funding for developing replacement golf facilities. e) DISPROPORTIONATE IMPACTS ......................from substantial loss of parks and recreational facilities fall only on the City of Richfield, and are clearly out of proportion when compared to all of the other adjoining communities, and should, therefore, be acknowledged and mitigated. 3.2.19 S..FUTURE AIRPORT SITE PRESERVATION............does not apply. 3.2.20 T..SOCIAL IMPACTS ................are another example of the disproportionate impacts and continuing burdens of this project on Richfield. a) COMMUNITY INSTITUTIONS ...................Rich Acres golf courses are one of only two businesses existing on the present airport site that are being terminated. The DEIS points out that relocation assistance will be available to the Airport Medical Clinic business relocation, so it quite logically follows that assistance must also be available to the Rich Acres Golf Courses relocation. There are several other medical clinics, but only one golf course in Richfield, or for that matter, in this portion of the metro area. This is another example of -the disproportionate impact of this project on Richfield, and certainly requires extraordinary (and disproportional) mitigation. b) HOUSEHOLDS DISPLACED.........should include the 410 removed from New Ford Town and Rich Acres. While the DEIS says that there is no connection, the fact that the actual runway construction goes directly through New Ford Town (NFT) and lies within a few hundred feet of Rich Acres (RA) makes it DRAFT 5/15/98 PART THREE...IDENTIFICATION AND DEFINITION OF IMPACTS PAGE THREE- S A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTHSOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT quite clear that OPTION SIX could not be built without removal of all of these homes In NFT and RA. The DEIS says 390 of the 444 households displaced are in Richfield. Add to that those over 1,000 households west of TH 77 that are within the low frequency noise redevelopment area, and the total Richfield households lost is 1,390 out of 1,444, or 96% of households displaced by this proiect are in Richfield. That is certainly disproportional and must be considered as a significant social impact to the community without comparison in any other adjacent city.. c) BUSINESS DISPLACEMENT ....................is equally disproportionate in that 20 out of 28 (off-site) businesses that will be displaced (DEIS numbers) are located in Richfield. The other displaced businesses are in Bloomington, and while they are larger businesses, they represent a much smaller proportion of that city's business base. Again, the disproportionate nature of this impact should be taken into account when responding to the mitigation requests of the City. d) "WORK WITH "APPROPRIATE...AGENCIES".............should include the state Department of Economic Security as suggested in the DEIS, but common sense (as well as common courtesy) requires that the first contact and clear understanding must be with the City of Richfield where all of the impacts and consequences are disproportionately larger than on any other of the affected communities.. Recognition is a first step to reconciliation. 3.2.21 U..SECTION 4(f) IMPACTS .............lists should include Rich Acres and New Ford Town Parks since both are City owned property and were fully utilized for park and recreation purposes. Washington Park should also be listed as falling within the designated noise impact area, and as a result of the BBN work, a portion of Christian Park also falls within that noise boundary. All of these impacts should be recognized and mitigation provided. 3.2.22 V..SOLID WASTE IMPACTS............covered in the DEIS do not affect Richfield. 3.2.23 W..TRANSPORTATION ACCESS...........described in the DEIS fails to mention existing airport traffic access from TH 77 to the MSP site from the 66th Street interchange and the impact of the improvements to this interchange that are required. While it is not the major airport access point today, it will become much more important as the primary access to the major construction site and the enlarged cargo and service area of the MSP site when the runway 17/35 development is completed. a) TH 77-66TH STREET INTERCHANGE............has a major impact on Richfield. Sixteen (out of 30 in the area) businesses will be removed to construct this interchange (another example of disproportionate impacts), and there is no doubt that the level of service for Richfield traffic will be DRAFT 5/15/98 PART THREE...IDENTIFICATION AND DEFINITION OF IMPACTS PAGE THREE- 9 A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT lowered as a result of the increased airport (truck cargo) traffic. This interchange improvement should be completed before runway construction begins, or certainly, before the new cargo area is operational. b) TH 62 ADDITIONAL LANES..................will also impact Richfield homes and require taking of a portion Of the Veterans Park site and should be mitigated. c) TRAFFIC DIVERSION TO LOCAL STREETS .............will be a serious impact only in Richfield, particularly on 66th and 77th Streets as far west as Lyndale, for overflow passenger traffic that departs to or arrives from the west (most of the traffic), and for the truck traffic from the air cargo facilities along runway 17/35. Analysis (and common sense experience) shows that traffic will by-pass` clogged freeways by using local streets for alternative access or escape. The project must include provision for active and effective measures to accommodate .additional traffic on local collector streets and for keeping it out of residential areas. 3.2.24 X..MAJOR UTILITIES .............the power line relocation does not affect Richfield. 3.2.25 Y..VISUAL IMPACTS ...............that result from the conversion of the NFT and RA residential areas and GOIf Courses to large airport warehouse buildings and pavement are not considered to be significant in the DEIS, Richfield residents that have a view of this part of the airport site will experience substantial denigration of what is now an excellent view of trees, turf, and open space. Mitigation of the view.from the west must be included in the project. 3.2.26 Z..WASTEWATER ................will have no significant impact on sewer service, capacity, metropolitan wastewater allocations, or alterations of service charges to the City of Richfield according to the DEIS. This must be the case. 3.2.27 AA..WATER SUPPLY.........for the City of Richfield will benefit indirectly from. the conversion to Minneapolis water from on-site production wells that draw from the same acquifers that supply Richfield municipal wells. No impacts need to be mitigated. 3.2.28 BB..SURFACE WATER QUALITY ..............impacts are entirely contained within the MSP site with one outfall to the Minnesota River so that none of the MSP site runoff goes through Richfield, or impacts Richfield storm drainage systems except for provision for storage in the Mother Lakes complex. The project must recognize and mitigate .any loss of storage and modifications to the Richfield storm drainage plan that are required due to the loss of this storage area. 3.2.29 CC..GROUNDWATER QUALITY IMPACTS............must be monitored until the existing wells are capped and plugged, so that they do not become the conduit for surface contaminants to enter the Richfield wells aquifer. DRAFT 5/15/98 PART THREE...IDENTIFICATION AND DEFINITION OF IMPACTS PAGE THREE-'I O A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTHSOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 3.2.30 DD..WETLANDS ..................impacts are all on the MSP site itself. 3.2.31 EE..WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ..............do not apply to the MSP site. 3.2.32 FF..WILDLIFE REFUGES ...............the wildlife refuge impacts are covered. 3.2.33 GG..DESIGN, ART and ARCHITECTURE ..............conclusions of the DEIS that the air cargo buildings proposed to replace the golf course ..."do not represent a substantial change from the existing visual conditions and will not disrupt the natural environment or aesthetic integrity" .............are certainly inaccurate, if not completely misleading. The golf courses are a positive, cultivated open space, visual amenity, while the air cargo buildings will be a very negative visual intrusion. The impact of these large buildings, much closer to the highway and existing residential areas than any of the existing large structures now on the MSP site , certainly require effective mitigation. 3.2.34 HH..SHORT and LONG TERM COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES...........are covered in the DEIS 3.2.35 OTHER CONSEQUENCES AND IMPACTS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE DEIS..........as specific areas of concern. While some legal aspects are mentioned in the discussion under a few of the specific areas, the legal status and relationships of MAC and Richfield, and the legal processes involved in implementation of mitigation activities should be recognized and defined, particularly in regard to the implementation of short and long-term mitigation programs, and the specifics of funding. 1. Lecal Relationships .............between MAC, the City of Richfield, and the affected parties and entities should be defined, understood, and agreed upon as a basis for implementation and funding of a comprehensive, and effective Mitigation Plan as outlined in this report. 2. City Boundaries.......... for New Ford Town and Rich Acres should be removed and traded for equal or greater areas of MSP properties that could be incorporated into the City of Richfield. 3. The Le4al Process ....................for implementation of the Mitigation Plan including scope, authorities, responsibilities, accountability, funding, and related matters should be defined, understood, and adopted by MAC and the City, so that the arrangement can be clearly communicated to, and understood by, all affected individuals and entities. 4. The _Fiscal Consequences .............and impacts on the public (City and School District) treasury, anew expenditure pattern to support a very different mix of uses and occupants, and the fiscal basis for financing redevelopment and loss of revenues during the transition, must be • recognized, defined, and funded as part of the cost of the runway project. DRAFT 5/15/98 PART THREE...IDENTIFICATION AND DEFINITION OF IMPACTS PAGE THREE-11 PART FOUR.....MITIGATION PROPOSALS TABLE OF CONTENTS. SECTION NO. SUBJECT PAGE 4.1 Overview .. 4-2 4.2 Mitigation Proposals 4.2.1 A..Air Quality 4-2 4.2.2 B..Archaeological Resources 4-2 4.2.3 C..Biotic Communities 4-2 4.2.4 D..Bird-Aircraft Hazards 4-2 4.2.5 E..Construction Impacts 4-2 4.2.6 F..Coastal Barriers 4-3 4.2.7 G..Coastal Zone Management 4-3 4.2.8 H..Endangered and Threatened Species 4.3 4.2.9 (...Economic 4-3 4.2.10 J..Energy and Natural Resources 4-4 4.2.11 K..Farmland 4-4 4.2.12 L..Floodplains ~ 4.4 4.2.13 M..Historic/Architectural Resources 4-4 4.2.14 N...Induced Socioeconomic Impacts 4-4 4.2.15 O..Land Use 4-4 4.2.16 P..Light Emissions 4-5 4.2.17 Q..Noise 4-5 4.2.18 R..Parks and Recreation 4-6 4.2.19 S..Site Preservation 4-6 4.2.20 T..Social 4-6 4.2.21 U..Section 4(f) Lands 4-7 4.2.22 V..Solid Waste 4-7 4.2.23 W..Transportation Access 4-7 4.2.24X..Major Utilities 4-7 4.2.25 Y..Visual Impacts ~ 4-7 4.2.26 Z..Wastewater 4-8 4-2.27 AA.. Water Supply 4-8 4.2.28 BB..Surface Water Quality 4-8 4.2.29 CC..Groundwater Quality 4-8 4-2.30 DD..Wetlands 4-8 4.2.31 EE..Wild and Scenic Rivers 4-8 4.2.32 FF..Wildlife Refuges 4-8 4.2.33 GG..Design/Art/chitecture 4-8 4.2.34 HH..Short & Long Term Resources 4-8 4.2.35 ...Other Impacts Not Covered in the DEIS 4-8 05/17/98 A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 4.1 OVERVIEW .:..............the consequences and .impacts defined and described in the previous part of this report require mitigation. This Part presents, in outline form, a brief description of mitigation measures for each of the subject areas included in the DEIS. These are "proposals", or "Concepts" and do not represent a "plan", since a specific "plan" for mitigation must be negotiated, prepared and adopted by both entities 4.2 MITIGATION PROPOSALS .............in addition to those outlined in the DEIS are outlined under each of the major headings defined in the DEIS as follows: 4.2.1 A...AIR QUALITY...........all five "possible" mitigation measures and all four construction mitigation proposals listed in the DEIS, should be adopted and be required. In addition, the problem of odor from jet engine exhaust on the ground must be mitigated through operational policies that limit lengthy waiting on the taxiway, threshold ramp, and air cargo area, and other policies that will reduce the concentration of exhaust fumes from aircraft on the ground. Air quality monitoring stations should be set up in the affected Richfield neighborhoods, and regular reports of current conditions and mitigation measures in place should be provided to the City and residents on a regular basis. (See comments under 3.6, E..CONSTRUCTION as well) 4.2.2 B...ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES.........are are covered in the DEIS. 4.2.3 C...BIOTIC COMMUNITIES .......:........the loss of the urban forest area in New Ford Town, Rich Acres, and -the Golf Courses should be mitigated in part by providing a substantial (200 foot) "greenbelt" along the full length of the MSP site from Mother Lake to 1494. This space should include berms high enough to block lights .from vehicles and taxiing aircraft, dense, mixed conifers and deciduous trees and prairie grass ground cover. The trees should be selected for cover, nesting, and feeding benefits for small birds (including continuation of the Bluebird project) and mammals, but will not be attractive to geese and other large waterfowl. Funding should be provided to plant large trees and shrubs in the public spaces in the redevelopment project . 4.2.4 D....BIRD-AIRCRAFT HAZARDS...:........should be reduced by discouraging geese and other large waterfowl from nesting and grazing on the MSP site, and not by altering the flight distribution patterns that produce disproportional impacts on Richfield residents. 4.2.5 E...CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS .................willfsll disproportionately on Richfield and policies must be adopted and enforced by MAC for construction operations DRAFT 5/17/98 PART FOUR.......MITIGATION PROPOSALS PAGE FOUR - 2 A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT to distribute traffic, storage and processing of materials, and other activities appropriately between several access points rather than directing all of the traffic and activity to use the TH 77 - W 66th Street access point. Both the 66TH Street interchange improvements and the 77th Street tunnel under TH77 should be completed before runway construction begins, but must be completed before air cargo facilities are developed. 4.2.6 F....COASTAL BARRIERS.......Act does not apply to this project. • • 4.2.7 G...COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT.........Act does not apply to this project. 4.2.8 H...ENDANGERED and THREATENED SPECIES.........not required.. 4.2.9 I...ECONOMIC...........consequences and impacts on Richfield will be more significant and disproportional because Richfield is much smaller in every aspect of economics. The DEIS must acknowledge this significant disproportionallity and include mitigation proposals that will be fair and appropriate to the circumstances including: a) AIRPORT RELATED DEVELOPMENT .............policies and practices of MAC toward on and off-site airport related development must be formulated and implemented to have significant positive impact on the population, employment, tax capacity and revenues. A disproportionate .effort must be made in Richfield first to minimize, and second to effectively mitigate, the impacts of the economic consequences through encouragement of appropriate, airport related development in parts of the redevelopment area shown on EXHIBIT 6, and through long-term support of economic activity in Richfield. b) RICH ACRES GOLF COURSES.........elimination represents economic loss to the City as well as MAC, which should be mitigated by land acquisition policies and plans that aid and support the City in finding and developing replacement facilities on or nearby the expanded MSP site. c) TAX CAPACITY LOSS ................from acgrisition of taxable properties should be mitigated by payments to the City and School District for revenues lost during redevelopment. d) POPULATION LOSS........particularly of school-age children can, and must be mitigated through MAC funding to support and encourage development of new housing that is noise resistive and attractive to residents in the airport related redevelopment area of Richfield. Encouraging "empty nest" owners to move to new townhouse or multiple housing so as to make their single family home available for updating and upgrading to retain displaced families must also be supported by subsidies for acquisition and upgrading those homes. Extra effort should be made to retain and attract new school age children. DRAFT 5/17/98 PART FOUR.......MITIGATION PROPOSALS PAGE FOUR - 3 A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTHSOUTH RUNWAY AT TWE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 4.2.10 J..ENERGY SUPPLY and NATURAL RESOURCES........affect MSP only. 4.2.11 K..FARMLAND .................no farmland is involved in the MSP site. 4.2.12 L..FLOODPLAINS.......not required for the MSP site. 4.2.13 M..HISTORIC/ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES ............................there are no significant historic or architectural resources at risk in Richfield. 4.2.14 N..INDUCED SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS .......................economic mitigation is discussed under 4..10 (..ECONOMIC IMPACTS, above, and mitigation of the noise (particularly low frequency noise) is.discussed under 4.18 Q..NOISE, in following paragraphs. In addition, the social consequences must be mitigated first by much improved and effective communications with the City, affected institutions, residents and businesses. MAC must also fund Richfield programs that reinforce the social fabric through community and neighborhood organizations, existing City loan and grant programs for maintaining and upgrading remaining housing stock outside of the redevelopment area, and extraordinary communications with residents and businesses in and adjacent to the redeveloped area during an extended transition and redevelopment period (at least 10 years). EXHIBITS 3, 4, and 5 indicate the extent of population, students, and market value impacts in the noise affected area, and EXHIBIT 6 includes projected resident and school populations as well. as potential market value for tax base for a redevelopment concept for comparative purposes. 4.2.15 O..LAND USE ................acquisition "write-downs", planning, management and operations costs for the redevelopment of the area impacted by low frequency noise must be funded by the MSP project in recognition of the unique and unfortunate location of the new runway with its- disproportionate impacts on Richfield. Funding should begin with the investment required to prepare a specific redevelopment plan that will define the scope and nature of the. project, estimated time line, and costs, include acquisition and relocation expenses, new development land cost write-downs, allowances for extraordinary noise abatement construction costs, and administrative costs for the complete project. EXHIBIT 6 is a graphic depiction of a proposed land use redevelopment for the noise impacted area following the same principles that supported the City Comprehensive Plan update completed in 1997. Non-residential land uses that housed in large structures are proposed on the land nearest the MSP site in order to provide a buffer for residential areas to the west. New housing would be high density multiple dwellings primarily for seniors, and single family attached (townhomes) constructed with extraordinary noise abatement materials • DRAFT 5/17!98 PART FOUR.......MITIGATION PROPOSALS PAGE FOUR - 4 A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTH,SOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT and designs. Some additional open space and .recreational facilities are provided in an attempt to build a town home complex that will retain or attract families with school-age children a) ...AIRPORT RELATED (RE)DEVELOPMENT............activities and uses generated by MSP development that are consistent with the redevelopment plan adopted, should be encouraged to locate in the redevelopment area through MAC policies, plans, and incentives. b) ..."FUTURE" WEST TERMINAL ...............should be included in the 2010 MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan, so as to eliminate the uncertainty and support development of high value and high quality regional commercial projects as depicted in the redevelopment concept (EXHIBIT 6). The LTCP should also include provision for an extension of the LRT system to Richfield and/or connections to bus feeder lines. c) ...RESIDENTIAL DENSITY ...................programs and policies must be adopted, funded by the MSP project, and effectively managed by Richfield in order to develop higher densities that can replace lost population in structures that minimize the noise impacts. Effective efforts including financial incentives will be necessary to open and upgrade many single family homes outside of the noise impacted area to retain displaced families, and attract new families with school-age children. Neither the City nor the School District can afford to lose any more population than has w already been lost through acquisition of New Ford Town and Rich Acres. 4.2.16 P..LIGHT EMISSIONS ................from aircraft moving on the ground in areas very close to TH77 must be mitigated with berms, walls, and plant materials in the buffer strip along the full length of the air cargo area adjacent to TH 77. 4.2.17 Q..NOISE (AIRCRAFT AND SURFACE TRANSPORTATION)..........represents the greatest consequence with the most intense impacts on a very large portion of the City of Richfield. Mitigation should include all of the thirteen abatement measures, and all eleven land use planning measures listed in the DEIS, and in addition: a) STANDARD MEASUREMENTS ...............must be modified so that they accurately reflect low frequency noise and induced vibrations (secondary emissions) as well as primary (high frequency) noise. b) SPECIAL MEASUREMENTS ..............conducted and reported by the firm of BBN Systems in May of 1997 (copy of the report dated 14 May 1997 included as ADDENDA A), should be accepted as the defined area for aircraft noise mitigation activities as new FAA and MAC standards. c) EXTRAORDINARY MITIGATION PROCEDURES ..............over and above the standards outlined in the DEIS including PART 150 sound insulation and structural improvements, and the construction of berms or other acoustical barriers included as mitigation recommendations in the DEIS should be DRAFT 5/17/98 PART FOUR.......MITIGATION PROPOSALS PAGE FOUR - S A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT authorized in view of the extraordinary nature of the impacts (low frequency noise), and the disproportionate impacts that will be experienced in the complete primary and buffer zones Richfield (See EXHIBIT 3). d) FIELD STUDY OF ANNOYANCE FROM LOW FREQUENCY NOISE...... should be used as the basis for defining the impacted area to be mitigated as outlined in the BBN Systems report (See copy of report dated 9 October 1997 in the ADDENDA B, and summary as EXHIBIT 3 in Part One). e) THE IMPACTED AREA............described in BBN Figure 3 represents the noise impacted area, and EXHIBIT 3 (Part One) of this report delineates the primary and secondary noise impacted (mitigation) areas, EXHIBIT 6 (Part One) of this report is a graphical representation of the area that must be redeveloped with compatible land uses, funded by the MSP project. f) SURFACE TRANSPORTATION NOISE IMPACTS..........mitigation should include all measures described in the DEIS. 4.2.18 R..PARKS AND RECREATION ..................impacts and losses to Richfield are all the direct result of selection of OPTION SIX, and must be mitigated as a part of the MSP expansion project. Specific mitigation should include: a) PARKS AND FACILITIES WITHIN THE AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECT (APE) ............should include Washington Park that is clearly within the DNL-65 noise contour (from 4/22), and Christian Park, based on the BBN . study which shows low frequency noise levels from 17/35 (80d6 equal to the DNL-65) cover a portion of that park as well. Cost of all redesign and redevelopment required to mitigate increased noise intrusion should be funded by the MSP project: b) TWO NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS ..................(New Ford Town and Rich Acres Parks) are publicly owned parks, and the loss must be mitigated by payment in full for the fair value of the 6.8 acres. c) COMMUNITY GARDENS ...................must be mitigated by permitting development on other unused and available sites owned or controlled by MAC in recognition of the disproportionate impacts on Richfield. d) DISPROPORTIONATE IMPACTS ......................from substantial loss of parks and recreational facilities o~ on the City of Richfield are clearly out of proportion when compared to all of .the other adjoining communities, and should be disproportionately mitigated through assistance in finding land and funding acquisition and development of replacement sites and facilities for the golf courses and athletic fields lost to the MSP expansion project. 4.2.19 S..FUTURE AIRPORT SITE PRESERVATION..........does not apply. 4.2.20 T..SOCIAL IMPACTS ................are another example of the disproportionate burdens of this project on Richfield and should be mitigated. • DRAFT 5/17/98 PART FOUR.......MITIGATION PROPOSALS PAGE FOUR - G A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTHSOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT a COMMUNITY INSTITUTI N .. O S ......................... Rlch Acres golf courses should be provided full relocation assistance allowed for displaced businesses under the Uniform Relocation Act, to the extent permitted by State and federal laws and rules. b) HOUSEHOLDS DISPLACED.........should receive all of the relocation assistance required by law, as well as special assistance for families with school -age children to find housing in the community outside of the actual redevelopment area but still within the school district. c) BUSINESS DISPLACEMENT ....................should receive all of the relocation assistance required by law as well as special assistance in finding locations within the redevelopment area or other sites within the community. d) "WORK WITH "APPROPRIATE...AGENCIES" .............should include the state Department of Economic Security as suggested in the DEIS, but the contact should be made together with the City of Richfield. MAC must recognize the disproportionate impacts on Richfield and begin to work more effectively with the City in the redevelopment project and in everyday, normal operations. 4.2.21 U..SECTION 4(f) IMPACTS .............identification and mitigation efforts should include Rich Acres and New Ford Town Parks, together with Washington Park and a portion of Christian Park that falls within that noise impacted area. 4.2.22 V..SOLID WASTE IMPACTS............are covered in the DEIS. 4.2.23 W..TRANSPORTATlON ACCESS...........mitigation must also include upgrading the TH77/66TH Street interchange and constructing the 77th Street tunnel connection under and ramps to TH77 .prior to operation of the enlarged air cargo facilities, and should be done before construction begins. a) TH 77 AND EAST 66TH STREET INTERCHANGE............requires major mitigation for businesses removed, and the cost of all improvements required to maintain the existing level of service for Richfield traffic. This improvement should be completed before runway construction begins, but must be completed before the expanded air cargo operations begin. b) TH 62 ADDITIONAL LANES...........mitigation is provided in the DEIS. c) TRAFFIC DIVERSION TO LOCAL STREETS .............must be mitigated by including the cost of upgrades and improvements to local streets, particularly 66th and 77th Streets, and north-south collectors Bloomington, 12th, Portland, Nicollet, and Lyndale Avenues. Funds should also be provided to cover costs of "traffic calming" means and devices that are required to discourage diversion of traffic through residential streets. 4.2.24 X..MAJOR UTILITIES......power line relocation does not affect Richfield. DRAFT 5/17198 PART FOUR.......MlTIGATION PROPOSALS PAGE FOUR - 7 A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTHSOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 4.2.25 Y..VISUAL IMPACTS ...............from the conversion of the golf course and open space to runways and cargo buildings must be mitigated by construction of a 200 foot wide (minimum) "green strip" with berms, prairie grass and trees over the full length of the MSP site along TH 77. 4.2.26 Z..WASTEWATER..........will not impact on the City of Richfield. 4.2.27 AA..WATER SUPPLY.........No impacts on Richfield. 4.2.28 BB..SURFACE WATER QUALITY........no impacts in Richfield. 4.2.29 CC..GROUNDWATER QUALITY IMPACTS...........the DEIS should outline proposed methods to protect the groundwater sources used by Richfield, and clearly accept all future responsibility for remediation that may be required as a result of contamination from operations on the MSP site. 4.2.30 DD..WETLANDS .................no impacts to mitigate in Richfield. 4.2.31 EE..WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ..............not applicable. 4.2.32 FF..WILDLIFE REFUGES ............ ...none in Richfield. 4.2.33 GG..DESIGN, ART and ARCHITECTURE ..............construction of the runway, taxiway, and air cargo buildings along TH 77 require mitigation in the form of a development of the "green strip" described above, and must include fully informing the City of building proposals, and responding to reasonable requests for site design, architectural., and operational conditions that the City may request. 4.2.34 HH..SHORT and LONG TERM COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES........... mitigation requirements in the DEIS are acceptable. , 4.2.35 OTHER CONSEQUENCES AND IMPACTS NOT INCLUDED IN THE DEIS a) LEGAL AND FISCAL CONSEQUENCES..........are not included in the DEIS as specific areas of concern but require mitigation as follows: 1. Legal Relationships .............between MAC, the City of Richfield, and the affected parties and entities must be outlined, understood, and agreed upon as a basis for implementation of a coordinated, comprehensive, and effective Mitigation Plan including redevelopment. 2. Citv Boundaries.......... for New Ford Town and Rich Acres should be traded with other MAC property that could be developed, or compensated DRAFT 5N7/98 PART FOUR.......MITIGATION PROPOSALS PAGE FOUR - 8 A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTHSOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ~" to the extent of the 28.6 acres of street row acquired by MAC. 3. The Le4al Process ....................for implementation of the Mitigation Plan including .scope, authorities, responsibilities, funding, accountability, and related matters should be defined, understood, and adopted by MAC and the City, so that the arrangement can be clearly communicated to and understood by all affected individuals and entities. 4. The Fiscal Consequences .............and impacts on the public (City and Schoo( District) treasury, due to substantial changes in sources and nature of revenues, anew expenditure pattern to support a very different mix of uses and citizens, and the fiscal basis for financing redevelopment and loss of revenues during the transition, must be recognized, defined, and mitigated in full. L7 • DRAFT SN7/98 PART FOUR.......MITIGATION PROPOSALS PAGE FOUR - 9 • PART FIVE...IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS OF A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR THE IMPACTS TO RiCHFiELD STAKEHOLDERS RESULTING FROM DEVELOPMENT AND .OPERATION OF A NEW NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY (17I35~ FOR THE MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT SITE TWIN CITIES, MN Prepared For The City of Richfield, MN TABLE OF CONTENTS PART N0. SUBJECT PAGE PART FIVE Implementation Process 5.1 Overview FIVE - 2 5.2 Adoption of a Mitigation Plan FIVE - 2 5.3 Legai Basis FIVE - 2 5.3.1 Independent Project 5.3.2 Funding Basis 5.4 Management of the Plan FIVE - 2 5.5 Stakeholder Participation FIVE - 3 5.5.1 Stakeholders 5.5.2 Participation Process 5,6 . An Estimated Time Line FIVE - 4 5,7 Estimated Mitigation Funding FIVE - 4 • 5.8 Estimated Annual Budget FIVE - 5 5.9 Annual Review. FIVE - 6 D RAFT(d) 05/27/98 A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTHSOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PART FIVE.....MITIGATION IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS 5.9 OVERVIEW ......................of what may well be the most important aspect of a successful mitigation program, the implementation. Effective, active, and consistent participation by those affected is essential to accomplishment of the physical objectives of the mitigation project. 5.2 ADOPTION OF.A COMPREHENSIVE MIT1GATlON PLAN ................by the City, and approval of the funding mechanism and funds by MAC must first be accomplished by forma! actions of the City and MAC. The City will provide a complete PLAN including effective staffing, provision of office space and equipment; a projected time line and performance goals, .and a schedule of funding requirements from MAC, by formal resolutions. 5.3 THE LEGAL........process must be complete and appropriate to the requirements of both the City and MAC, as well as any specific Legislative requirements for the approved redevelopment activities. 5.3.1 INDEPENDENT PROJECT .................for redevelopment must be set apart from the actual .airport construction project as well as from the day-to-day operations of both the City and MAC, in order to effectively complete the • mitigation activities, and to maintain credibility with the affected. stakeholders, The mitigation Plan must be seen as an undertaking worthy of its own specific identity, responsibility and authority, rather than an insignificant adjunct to the huge airport construction project, or simply short-term extra duty for City staff. The City may consider contracting with a private sector development entity (or entities if the project is divided into geographical or functional units) for planning, management, and construction of the redevelopment portion of the overall project.. 5.3.2 FUNDING BASiS ...............from ail available sources for both MAC and the City should be effectively applied in order to generate as much as possible of the investment capital and management costs from the development project itself. The City and MAC will likely need to cooperate in asking the Minnesota Legislature for special funding and management authority for this unique situation. 5.4 MANAGEMENT OF THE PLAN...........should be directed by a Mitigation Project Manager (MPM) hired or retained by the City, The MPM will employ staff and retain consultants, utilize City and MAC staff when appropriate and applicable, direct and coordinate the work of the redevelopment contractors, and will prepare a budget document for adoption by the City and review by MAC each year. The MPM will be responsible to, and work under the direction of the City DRAFT(d) 5127198 PART FIVE...IMPLEMENTATION PAGE FIVE- 2 A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTHSOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT Manager or designated staff. The City Manager will coordinate and communicate with MAC through its Executive Director, and will make presentations to both groups and to the public on a regular basis. . 5,5 STAKEHOLDER PARTiClPATiON iN MITIGATION ACTIONS........must include frequent, timely, and consistent information provided promptly through a 24- hour °hot Line", and frequent, scheduled dissemination of information and news by newsletter, direct mail, media releases, presentations to neighborhood groups, signage, hand-outs, etc.. Feedback, input, and critiques from the affected individuals and groups should be provided through forums, focus groups, telephone and in-person interviews, etc., on a continuous basis throughout the project.- Meaningful participation will most likely prove to be the primary means available to help preserve the solid community character that exists in the affected area today. 5.5.1 STAKEHOLDERS ................include at least three distinct groups, each of which view the project and the process quite differently because of different risks, and the nature of involvement over time. While all will need to know the same basic information and have the same opportunities to participate in the process, each group will have differing concems and needs that must be recognized and met. These groups can be defined as follows: a) The Disoiaced............stakeholders are the first group, and are the easiest to identify and communicate with because they are within the boundary of the redevelopment area itself,. They are involved in the project until they are displaced, and most will not have any long-term involvement unless they move to a new location in the redevelopment project or to a home in the neighborhood that is made available to them. Every effort should be made to retain current owners, businesses, and tenants, particularly families with school-age children, through finding and swapping available housing in the adjacent neighborhoods, and through financial incentives to help them improve or acquire new properties in the redevelopment area.. b) AbuttinQ........stakehoiders are the second group because their property is on the outside of the redevelopment boundary line and are most directly affected by the actual redevelopment activity and the future structures and uses. Abutting properties, like the displaced, can be exactly determined by their property description, and, unlike the displaced group, are most concerned with the long term aspects of the project since they will remain through redevelopment. c) 8ordering........stakeholders are the third and largest group. They are those that will remain where they are today beginning one lot or so beyond the boundaries of the redevelopment area, and extending to a not so easy to determine outer limit. concems may be views, traffic, non-residential land uses, occupant demographics, etc., most important of which are the long DRAFTtdj 5!27/98 PART FIVE...IMPLEMENTATION PAGE FIVE- 3 A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTH~SOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT term aspects of the project. Stakeholders should share in the definition of this area early in the process. Ultimately, any who believe that they are in the affected area, and are actively involved, will be included. d) Neighborhood.........stakeholders are those that live or work anywhere east of Portland Avenue and want to be actively involved. e) Community .................stakeholders wilt come from outside of the geographic areas defined above, and will include representatives of community groups (Chamber of Commerce or Service Clubs), quasi-public institutions (churches..clubs), public institutions (Conservation or Watershed District) as well as individual residents and business people.. 5.5.2 THE PARTICIPATION PROCESS .............must include clear, adequate, and complete information so that the stakeholders can make informed judgments and decisions. The process must also be flexible and open to changes in both substance and form that come from the participants. The managers, leaders, and moderators used in the process should be experienced, objective, and without a vested interest in any outcome. 5.6 AN ESTIMATED TIME LINE ...............begins with negotiations, adoption, funding, and designation of management of the PLAN, and will continue until the last mitigation activity has been accomplished. Specific TARGET DATES will be related t0 the airport facility final design, negotiated mitigation parameters, funding commitments, construction. and operating schedules, and other factors, most of which are not yet evident. A preliminary outline based upon the recommendations in this report is as follows: Negotiate the Mitigation Plan Joint Powers Agreement 3 to 5 months Approve The Agreement and select the MPM 2 to 3 months Initial Stakeholder )nformation and Communication 3 to 4 months Complete Investigations, Surveys, and Designs 5 to 6 months Public and Stakeholder Review of Preliminary PLAN 2 to 3 months Complete Final PLAN, do Funding, Bids and Contracts 9 to 18 months Demolition, Construction, Relocation 5 to 10 years Periodic Feedback Forums: and Surveys quarterly Project Management Review & Evaluation annually .Project Completion Review and Evaluation 3 to 4 months 5.6 MITIGATION FUNDING TO BE PROVIDED FOR THE PROJECT ......is based on the following considerations and assumptions: 5.6.1 Project Life..........is assumed to be ten (10) years. 5.6.2 No Allowance .......for inflation (1998 figures). 5.6.3 Specific Development Plan.......must be prepared and specific cost estimates may be more or less than estimates in this conceptual proposal. 5.6.4 Zero Base TIF Funding......is expected to be available for the project. DRAFT(d) 5!27/98 PART FIVE...IMPLEMENTATION PAGE FIVE- 4 A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTH~OUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 5.7 ESTIMATED MlTtATION FUNDING REflUtREMENTS.......are as follows: ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION OF MITIGATION ACTION ESTIMATED COST 1.4.1 Air Quality Monitoring 8~ Management $ 3,000,000 1.4.2 Biotic Communities 1,500,000 1.4.3 .Construction Impacts .40,000,000 1.4.4 Economic Impacts 14,000.000 1.4.5 Induced Socio-Economic Impacts 14,000,000 1.4.6 Land Use (Redevelopment Only) 110,000,000 1.4.7 Light Emissions (Included under 1.4.2, above) 1.4.8 Noise Treatment for 740 homes 56,500,000 1.4.8a Health Impacts of Noise Study (20 years) 10,000,000 1.4.8b Highway Noise Mitigation (Included under 1.4.4, above) 1.4.9 Parks And Recreation 12,000,000 1.4.10 Social Impacts 36,000,000 1.4.11 Section 4(f) Parks (2) 2,500,000 1.4.12 Transportation {In addition to 1.4.3, above) 33,500,000 1.4.13 Visual Impacts (Included under 1.4.2, above) 1.4.14 Surface Water Quality 500,000 1.4.15 1.4.16 Groundwater Quality Design, Art, Architecture 500,000 6.000,000 1.4.17 Other lmpacts.....Fiscal; Impacts 16,000,000 Administration See Detail in 5.8, below 2,500,000 ESTIMATED TEN-YEAR MITIGATION COSTS $ 358,500,000 5.8 ESTIMATED ANNUAL MANAGEMENT COSTS... .........are based on the scale and magnitude of the project concept outlined in this report as follows: a) Professional and Support Staff (Estimated Annual Cost Range) Project Manager ...............:............................:... $ 45,000 to $ 55,000 Assistant Project Manager ................................ 30,000 to 35,000 Administrative ................................................... 25,000 to 32,000 Professional Staff (or consultants) ..................... 35,000 to 40,000 Technical Staff (or consultants) ........................ 25,000 to 30,000 b) Office Space and Equipment Office Space, Equipment, 8~ Furnishings ......... 10,500 to 13,000 Personnel Field Equipment (Rental) .................. 3,500 to 5,000 c) Communications Expenses Telephone .......................................................... 3,000 to 3,500 Internet .............................................................. 1, 000 to 1, 500 g ....................... Teleconferencin ......................... 11,000 to 13,000 Postage, Messenger, Express .......................... 2,000 to 3,000 DRAFT(d) 5!27!98 PART FiVE...IMPLEMENTATION PAGE FIVE- 5 A MITIGATION CONCEPT FOR A NEW NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY AT THE MSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT d) Travel, Mileage, and Other Auto Mileage and Travel ....................................... 3,000 to Other Expenses .................................................... 2, 000 to e) Management Consultant and Government Support Services Management and Legal Services ......................... 30,000 to Government Support Goods and Services........... 9, 000 to Estimated Total Annual Cost For Project Management $235,000 to 4, 000 4, 000 40, 000 12, 000 $273, 500 Estimated Total Project Management Cost (10yrs)...........$ 2,350,000 to $ 2,910,000 5.7 REVIEIIV THE PROJECT AND MANAGEMENT PROCESS ANNUALLY.........in order to evaluate effectiveness, responsiveness, timeliness, appropriateness, and to review ail legal, financial and legislative criteria and constraints. a) The MPM will prepare an annual report that details the activities of the past year, specifically describes the status of each subproject, and outlines the proposed action plan for the next year. b) The action plan will be developed with participation of the staKeholders. c) The action plan wilt be reviewed, amended, revised, and approved by the City and financial elements confirmed and adopted by MAC. d) The Richfield Planning Commission will use this project review process as a basis for recommending amendments to the Comprehensive Plan for review and adoption by the City Council. • DRAFT(d) 5127198 PART FiVE...IMPLEMENTATiON PAGE FIVE- 6 • • • EXHIBIT 3 NOISE IMPACTED AREAS IN RICHFIELD Existing Land Uses and Areas w Z a ~ z o = o z a Z _~ 0 0 _ O ~- r ~- u ~ ~ Z S S ~ Y ~ U O t- H H !_- h=- _ _ = Q - Z Q' J F~ h- O Q Q O S J O N t7 Y ~ m (O t• a) U ~ N t'7 U V N d O ~. U U W ~ r .- •- ~ ~ ~ ~ • n. ~tFNsz.fk'N~F~~' +i ~ C ' ~ ~' ,.,~ e 3't I ~~ a ~ ~ ~_ i wry ~ =r~ + ~ .a ~~~ r r ~ ~: ~ ~ bbnn~ ~ ~µ $~ . rC~ ~~k9 ~. `!.~ it ~_~®~~~ ®~~-- v ..,.. ~ r.'::ar~3e3- ~ . :,:. ~ ~ ~ ~--~ T ~, ~~~~ ti"` T ~"~ ~, T ~~ ~~ ~~~.~-5 ~~y ~~~ ~~~_~ c~ ~ ~~~~ t=c. ~~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~ ~ ~L~~~CL7~~ it ~ `~I , ~ _ f.~, ~~rs~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~Y~~~~~~ ~~ ~' ® 1-494 N 500 0 500 1000 Feet ~~~I ~~ 1~~ C q ~ :~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ 63RD ST. 64TH ST. 65TH ST. 66TH ST. 67TH ST. 68TH ST. 69TH ST. 70TH ST n 7~ST ST. 72ND ST. 73RD ST. 74TH ST. 75TH ST. 76TH ST. 77TH ST. 78TH ST. fafL4lilOn BOUfIf}ary Primary Area 8anday (approx 75 EBa) • •Redevdagnerrt Ba++CaY Camp Fan Bountlary ® Carmerdal Apartment Dupmc Reekbrroal Giasi~A~lk: ®~~ - Ctarth VacaK Park wdK ~~ no«un.e u.er ~ got Comprehensive Plan Aprmrant uis sQ.rmranc u,r • ~o May 28, 1998 • CJ t • EXHIBIT 5 NOISE IMPACTED AREAS IN RICHFIELD Existing Market Value of Properties Z °_ Q J ~ u- _ I- H H H O F F- F W O rn O (n Z r r r .~- ~ LO ~ r ~ U J .-- N N N n Primary Area 63RD ST Land.IIse "° ~ Parcels -~Market;Vaiue rr Apartment ~ 32 ; 9438000 B4-~{ ST ; Chuzch ~ 1 ! 0 Commercial j 61 ' 16308300 ~ :Duplex 29 ~ _ 2873000 Park I 6 ~ 0 65TH ST Quasi-Publicf 1 0 I Residential i 892 ' 73277100 j School ~ 2 i 0I 66TH ST vacant ! 2 ', 97000 I s7TH sr 66TH ST 69TH ST 70TH ST 71ST ST. 72ND ST. 73RD ST. 74TH ST. 75TH ST. 76TH ST. 500 77TH ST. Redevelopment Area Land?~Use' `l~~°:`.#-~-Parceis i' ==Maz'ket~;Valuea Apartment j 32 i 9439000 I Church I 1 i 0 Commercial ( 48 14959100 Duplex ~ 29' 2873000 Park ~ 6 . 0 Residential 546 ' 46487000 I School I 2 ~ 0 Vacant i 1 ' 78000 j Comp Plan Area Land bse = '~>Parcels `:`Markei~'9alne` Apartment 30 8594000 Commercial 47 19814100 ~DUplex 29 2873000 Park 5 0 Residential 228 19433900 vacant 1 78000 Source: 1996 Hennepin County Property Value Data N 0 500 1000 Feet February 4, 1998 r.--. ~ y ~~' wi,~d i -1 G ~ ~jp' `-`_ ~~ u~ ~-i- `~ ~C T ~ ' T~L^~ ~~~~ ~ ~~ ~~ J ~; ~~ -r, T' . F-l~ ... • • t • EXHIBIT 6 NOISE IMPACTED AREAS IN RICHFIELD A Proposed Redevelopment Concept o ~ w o Z a x x z ~ z x x o z x z ~ o F- f- ~ o ~- r F- ~ ~ r J ~ ~ ~ U OJ ~ N ~ N m N N ~~ r~ ~i-iI "1 --~ 63R0~ r= CJ _t~-a~ ~~ ~~~~ - ;~~ ~~~ ssTN ST, ~, --_~; =~~:- =~:~. ;T;~~L -` ~ ~=-, r ~ ~~.~~ =~~""` i -= ~ = i ~=, ~~- :~_ ____ ,~;,~-- = ~ ___. ~~_ ~~~~~ - .~ ~ ~ _"~'= " T ~,a ~ ~--;-- ,~; ;~. ~:~ ~~ - _ ~ i~ -. - I-494 Proposed Concept 77TH ST. 78TH ST. 500 0 500 Feet February 3, 1998 • ADDENDA C Comprehensive Pian o ~ Cedar Avenue Corridor d O ~ c~o n a~o ~ Z ~ I=- ~ Z ¢ ~ C'n ~- r r (~ 0 ~ N N N f7) N ~~ ~"-_. ^ @~ ~%'I 1~~11 ~~ ~~ ^n 62ND ST. 63RD ST. 64TH ST. 65TH ST. 66TH ST. s7TH sr. 68TH ST 69TH ST. ~~/Comp Plan Boundary COMP PLAN DESIGNATION 0 Community Commercial ® Community Commercial/Office Neighborhood Commercial Regional Commercial/Office ® Office Quasi-Public/Utility SF Residential -High Density ® Multi-Residerttiai -High Density Park 70TH ST . Comg Plan.. #~ Parcels ~ :~-A~eat""~ ' Acxeage•,=w ~~ -_- _- 71 ST ST. r` 2 ® ~ ~.-: 72ND ST. 73RD ST. C«Merrial sr,oa 74TH ST. 75TH ST. 76TH ST. C-C 26 282347.793 j 6.48; I C-C/0 9 80064.448 i 1.84 C-N 7 94083.070 j 2.16 C-R/O ! 86! 899939.731 20.661 0 83 1075009.498 j 24.68 PK l 113171.461 ~ 2.601 QP-U 3~ 128415.653 ~ 2.95 R-SFH 88 i 806663.198 i 18.52 ~ RMH 35 624702.970 14.34' D ~^I~v 77T" ST. 500 0 500 10001500 Feet 1-494 78TH ST. .J January 21, 1998 -~J • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Study Session Letter No. 30 Agenda June 1, 1998 Issue Statement: Status of airport related issues. Background: Recent developments regarding airport issues include the following: • Runway 4-22 The City of Richfield continues to wait for the dates of oral arguments regarding litigation of Runway 4-22. An appellate judge will listen to testimony by the FAA, MAC and City of Richfield before making a decision on the suit. • Closing of Standish Avenue The closing of Standish Avenue has been delayed until July. While it is anticipated that this closing will cause a hardship for many commuters, staff won't truly understand the numbers impacted until people start calling into City Hall after the road is closed. The City has written a letter to Nigel Finney stating that, "The City's position in expanding the airport calls for a system of frontage roads that enable traffic to enter and leave the airport property at several locations to disperse traffic and to avoid congestion • at any one entrance." The letter concluded by urging the MAC to consider providing a new frontage road soon that would connect 66th Street to 28th Avenue. (See attachment] • Proposed Runway 17-35 Jim Prosser, Dawn Weitzel and Charlie LeFevere met with MAC staff Jeff Hamiel, Nigel Finney and Tom Anderson on May 5. It appeared that MAC was unaware of Richfield's concerns about the impacts of low frequency noise and vibration. Jeff Hamiel stated the Richfield should be "pleasantly surprised" in how noise impacts will be covered in the EIS. On May 15, the EIS was formally submitted to various agencies for review. The City now needs to comment on it before June 15. Steve Pflaum, Sandy Fidell, Chuck Dayton, Lisa Raduenz, Katherine Hahne, George Watson, Allan Klugman, Charlie LeFevere, Mike Eastling, Bruce Palmborg, Don Brauer, and Geoffrey Gosling have been given copies of the EIS to review. The EIS reports that ground level noise from the runway is likely to be less than that of traffic noise on Cedar (this statement is based on testing on a A-weighted scale, whereas low frequency noise impact needs to be based on a C-weighted scale). On May 20, Prosser, Weitzel, and Charlie LeFevere once again met with MAC staff Hamiel, Finney and Tom Anderson. A copy of Richfield's draft mitigation proposal was given to the group at this time with the understanding that Planning Commission and Council had not yet approved it. Hamiel stated that the MAC felt like "the goose who lay the golden egg" because everyone (i.e. Minnesota Valley Wildlife Refuge and Richfield) was coming forward fora "handout." He also stated that the federal government was reducing available funds that the MAC could use for construction. The meeting was concluded with the understanding that the attorneys would develop a Memorandum of Agreement that would make MAC responsible for funding mitigation of noise impacts of a new runway. The Environmental Quality Board held their regular meeting on May 21. Nigel Finney addressed the EQB by stating "four facts" that John Himle proclaimed at the special P&E meeting. Finney was asked if it was not the responsibility of the MAC to develop a mitigation plan, to which he stated that it should not be left to the MAC to redevelop communities. Rod Sando, Chair of the EQB, told Finney that he understood how economically important it was to build the new runway, and stated that the MAC had difficult issues that needed to be addressed with Richfield. Airport Mitigation Concept Meetings • April 1: First team meeting, team discussing leadership roles and active participation. • April 4: Second team meeting, educational and resident input session. Approximately 28 residents attended the second "team meeting" in further development of a mitigation plan. The team is an active group of residents. Weitzel and Brauer made an "educational presentation," residents asked many . questions and then commented on the mitigation concept. • April 14: First community meeting, same information as team meeting • April 15: Second community meeting • April 18: Open house • Apri121: Third community meeting • April 28: Planning Commission meeting to discuss and review results of mitigation concept process • May 2: Informational table and representatives at Public Works Open House • May 7: Special meeting with businesses and apartment owners in the impacted area • May 12: Planning Commission Study Session to discuss public comments and change the mitigation concept if needed • May 13: MAC's Planning and Environment Committee held a special meeting with Richfield residents. Mayor Kirsch, Sue Sandahl, Russ Susag, Dan Linnihan, Pam Dmytrenko, and Don Brauer presented Richfield's issues to the Committee. John Himle of the P&E Committee stated that the MAC was "willing and eager" to negotiate with the city to find a plan that worked for Richfield and the MAC. • May 26: Planning Commission finalizes the mitigation concept • June 1: City Council Study Session to discuss the mitigation concept • June 8: Council to possibly take formal action on the mitigation plan In addition, Jim Prosser, Dawn Weitzel, Pam Dmytrenko and Bill Kilian met with high school teachers and (hundreds of) students to discuss issues in relation to MAC's expansion plans. Many teachers incorporated the potential of negative outcomes of a new runway into their curriculums. Some even set the study of the runway addition as a graduation requirement. Richfield CARE Team The City of Richfield could not have received the attention of the MAC, state agencies, and media without the help of hundreds of residents coming to our community meetings. In particular, a core group of community activists have held on strong to the belief that by working together Richfield can remain a vital, thriving city. The group of 12 very active residents (doing the work of 30) are called the CARE Team. CARE stands for Caring Citizens Concerned About Richfield Environment and Team stands for Together Everyone Achieves More. The team is open to everyone and it has four short-term objectives: 1) Raise awareness of low frequency noise and its impacts; 2) Establish that low frequency noise is a legitimate problem; 3) Support a mitigation plan; and, 4) Follow the MAC-dictated time line to success. The long-term objective of CARE is to preserve the Richfield community. The group sets a regular meeting agenda, and will be doing work in the areas of: w • CARE Team newsletter • Redevelopment review • RASG meetings • Candidate forum • Communication network • Information dissemination • Media relations • Citizen speakers Audrey Duffee, a Richfield resident, can answer any questions in relation to the CARE Team. She can be reached at 866-9765. • MASAC Meeting Runup and Ground Noise Study Review At the April 28 MASAC meeting Jeff Hamiel advised the group to formally analyze nighttime noise levels at the airport. He stated that the analysis should include a comparison of ground noise taking place on the airport as well as the noise heard in the communities. As a result of this request, noise monitorinc,~took place for a period of 11- 24 hour periods, and interviews were conducted with various carriers about nighttime activities. Roy Furhmann, MAC staff, indicates that this is not a study of low frequency noise but rather a study to determine the ground and runup noise sources and their associated monitored impacts. The final report is due out in July. Alton "Joe" Gasper, Minneapolis' MAC Commissioner, encouraged MASAC at the May 26 meeting to "break new ground" and study the issue of low frequency noise. • New Ford Town and Rich Acres Acquisition Out of 63 apartment units, 45 tenants have been vacated. W.D. Schock will be seeking bids this week for demolition of the buildings. Demolition will take place August 1 through October 1. W.D. Schock states that it is not vandalism that has caused the broken windows in the buildings, damage is due to the Richfield SWAT Team's practice and training sessions. Recommended Motion: Discuss current airport issues. Basis of Recommendation: It is important for the Council to provide direction to staff regarding airport concerns. Alternative Recommendation: Defer discussion to another date. Discussion/Decision Mode: This matter will be discussed at the Study Session of June 1, 1998. Respectfully submitted, Jame .Prosser City Manager JDP:cak • J • May 15, 1998 Public Works Department 6700 Portland Avenue • Richfield, Minnesota 55423-2599 City Manager Mayor James D. Prosser Martin J. Kirsch Council Susan Rosenberg Kristal Stokes Michael Sandahl Russ Susag Mr. Nige! Finney Deputy Executive Director Metropolitan Airports Commission 6040 28th Avenue South Minneapolis; MN 55450 Subject: Closing of Standish Avenue Dear Mr. Finney: Several residents have called to complain about the closing of Standish Avenue. Residents are concerned about the loss of a bikeway and roadway connection between 66th Street and 28th Avenue. It is important to recognize the importance of reliever routes for the regional highway network. Standish Avenue traditionally has carried over 4,000 cars per day. Standish Avenue enabled motorists to travel between south Minneapolis and Richfield even when the regional highways were congested. Standish Avenue also provided an important bike route. By closing Standish Avenue, this alternate route will be eliminated. The City's position in expanding the airport calls for a system of frontage roads that enable traffic to enter and leave the airport property at several locations to disperse traffic and to avoid congestion at any one entrance. We urge you to consider providing a new frontage road soon that will connect 66th Street to 28th Avenue. rely, D. Prosser anager JDP:tff Copy: David Gepner, Richfield Planning Commissioner Richfield City Council Members Congressman James Oberstar The Urban Hometown Telephone (612) 861-9700 •Fax (612) 861-9749 An Equal Opportunity Employer THE METROPOLITAN`AIRCRAFT SOUND ABATEMENT COUNCIL MONTHLY PACKAGE FOR THE MAY 26,1998 MASAC MEETING INCLUDES: ^ .Agenda for the May 26,.19.,98 MASAC meeting ^ :Minutes of the Apri128, 1998 MASAC meeting ^ Copies of MASAC correspondence not included below .Blank Information Request.Form ^ Technical Advisor's Reports cover memo ^ NWA Fleet-Mix Information Sheet and cover memo ^ Air Traffic Control Airspace Briefing cover memo ^ Additional Remote Monitoring Tower Locations cover memo ^ Minutes of the May 8, 1998 MASAC Operations meeting with attachments and cover memos 0 ..Monthly Part 150 Update 0 Air Traffic Airspace Briefing Package ^ Technical Advisor's Reports for June 1997 through April 1998 • AGENDA METROPOLITAN AIRCRAFT SOUND ABATEMENT • General Meeting May 26, 1998 7:30 p.m. to 9:15 p.m. 6040 28th Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 1. Call to Order, Roll Call 2. Approval of Minutes of Meeting April 28, 1998 3. Introduction of Invited Guests Receipt of Communications '} Consent Item: Letters of Appreciation to past members 4. Technical Advisor's Runway System Utilization Reports and Complaint Summaries -May 1997 through Present 5. NWA's Fleet Mix Information Item 6. Air Traffic Airspace Briefing -Cindy Greene 7. RMT Site Analysis Briefing -Roy Fuhrmann 8. Operations Committee Report '} Committee Work Plan Calendar - 1998 9. Report of the MAC Commission Meeting 10. Persons Wishing to Address the Council 11. Other Items Not on the Agenda 12. Adjournment Next Meeting: June 23, 1998 MINUTES METROPOLITAN AIRCRAFT SOUND ABATEMENT COUNCIL GENERAL MEETING Apri128, 1998 7:30 p.m. 6040 28th Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota Call to Order. Roll Call The meeting was called to order by Chairman Bob Johnson at 7:30 p.m. and the secretary was asked to call the roll. The following members were in attendance. Bob Johnson MBAR Mark Salmen NWA Jennifer Sayre NWA Steve Holme NWA Dick Keinz MAC Brian Bates Airborne St. Paul Chamber of Commerce Rolf Middleton Steve Minn Minneapolis Glenn Strand Dean Lindberg Minneapolis Minneapolis Neil Clark Minneapolis Dick Saunders Minneapolis Sandra Colvin Roy Minneapolis Mike Cramer Minneapolis Tom Hueg St.-Paul Kristal Stokes Richfield Dawn Weitzel Richfield Duane Hudson Bloomington Jon Hohenstein Eagan Lance Staricha Eagan Ed Porter Burnsville Dale Hammons Inver Grove Heights Kevin Batchelder Mendota Heights Jill Smith Mendota Heights Manny Camilon St. Louis Park Sunfish Lake Glenda Spiotta Advisors Roy Fuhrmann MAC Chad Leqve MAC Cindy Greene FAA Ron Glaub FAA-NWA-CMO • Visitors 2. Approval of Minutes The minutes of the March 31, 1998 meeting were approved as distributed. Joe Lee reminded staff that letters of appreciation need to be sent to the previous Minneapolis members. 3. Introduction of invited guests Receipt of Communications There were no invited guests. A letter was received from the City of Eagan, which indicated support of the "Minneapolis Straight-out Procedure" for inclusion in the Environmental Assessment (EA) package staff will be forwarding to the FAA. A facsimile was received from the Minneapolis City Council Inter Governmental Agency (IGA) committee indicating that Mr. Mike Cramer had been appointed as a representative for Minneapolis. Consent Items KEVIN BATCHEDLER, MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MOVED AND JON HOHENSTEIN, EAGAN, SECONDED TO APPROVE THE INFORMATION REQUEST FORM AND THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS. THE VOTE WAS UNANIMOUS. MOTION CARRIED. 4. Technical Advisor's Runway System Utilization Report and Complaint Summary Roy Fuhrmann, MASAC Technical Advisor, noted the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) had been signed by the FAA, allowing staff to import ARTS data into ANOMS. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, gave a brief overview of the March 1998 Technical Advisor's Report. Mr. Fuhrmann said since members had not had time to review the report thoroughly it and the rest of the back reports would be discussed in detail at the next meeting. The following points were made: There was a slight increase in operations and complaints over March of 1997. The purpose of comparing current data to the same month a year earlier rather than to last month is to adjust for seasonality. There is an increase in the number of operations between 10:30 and 11:00 largely due to the change in nighttime reporting hours. Northwest has also modified their departure banks to accommodate traffic flow during the reconstruction of the south parallel runway. Jennifer Sayre, Northwest, has indicated that the last departure bank is now beginning at around 10:20 p.m. rather than at 10:00 p.m., which will increase the number of flights normally occurring between 10:30 and 11:00 until the reconstruction is complete. 2 - Dawn Weitzel, Richfield, said she had received 80 airport-related noise complaints at her office. Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, said staff had not been able to correlate the ground noise complaints with activity on the field. He noted that run ups are prohibited between 12 a.m. and 5 a.m. and that the run-up logs from the operations departments showed there had not been any during this time frame. Mr. Fuhrmann said, though, that run ups were allowed during the 10:30 p.m. to 12 a.m. time period. Ms. Weitzel said the City of Richfield would like to request staff monitor for ground noise. Mr. Fuhrmann said it could be possible that the residents are experiencing a difference in noise due to the shift in where aircraft are taking off on the south parallel runway. - Joe Lee, Minneapolis, asked staff to determine how many additional night flights occurred during the 10:30 to 11:00 timeframe due to both the reconstruction of the south parallel (spreading out of flights) and the change in nighttime reporting hours. - Steve Minn, Minneapolis, asked if the reconstruction plans for the south parallel runway had included a provision to allow flights to occur later in the evening in order to limit congestion during the day. Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor, explained that the reconstruction plans had been completed before the designated nighttime hours were changed from 11:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. He also said airlines were not prohibited from operating after 10:30, but that the Voluntary Nighttime Agreement with most of the commercial airlines requested they not schedule passenger flights past 10:30 p.m. and, if it was necessary, that they use only Stage III airplanes. - Ed Porter, Burnsville, asked staff to eliminate the water areas on the complaint map. Minneapolis Straight Out Anal siy s Request for Community Support Chairman Johnson thanked the City of Eagan for submitting a letter to MASAC in support of the Minneapolis Straight-out Procedure and said it would be included in the EA report package to the FAA. Chairman Johnson also asked the representatives of Minneapolis if the council could expect a letter from the City of Minneapolis. Steve Minn, Minneapolis, said a letter of support would be forthcoming within the next two weeks. Operations Committee Appointments Chairman Johnson announced his appointments to the Operations Committee. The only change in the committee was the appointing of Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, to replace Jim Serrin. Noise Contour Generation and DNL Development (HNTB) Evan Futterman, HNTB, gave a presentation on DNL and Noise Contour Development. - DNL is a noise metric that represents the accumulation of all the noise over the course of a single day with a given noise level. - The model reflects the fact that people are more annoyed with noise at night so it gives night flights a l Odb penalty (DNL is calculated using 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. for the night hours). - DNL can be expressed in many ways, but airports typically express them in noise contours. - DNL is a national standard adopted by most federal agencies and continues to be used and endorsed. For instance the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency identified DNL as the most appropriate means of evaluating airport noise. - Most differences in opinion over DNL do not involve the way it is calculated but what level is considered annoying. • - The noise modeling software that calculates airport noise has changed a lot over the years. The Integrated Noise Model (INM) program is at version 5. - The FAA selected the 65 DNL threshold based on the Schultz curve, which is based on surveys of residents surrounding airports, to identify compatible and non-compatible land use areas around an airport in regards to annoyance levels. This is not to suggest that people are not annoyed at lower levels of noise. - Sound insulation is encouraged in residential areas that are presently in the 65 DNL curve. - In 1992 the MAC defined the 65 DNL 1996 predicted noise contour and identified non-compatible land use around MSP. The contour was then submitted to the FAA for approval in order to begin the Part 150 Residential Sound Insulation Program using federal monies. - New noise is as much of a problem as a lot of noise. (Ex: The newly built Denver International Airport was built in an area outside any residential areas but because people who have never experienced airport noise are now experiencing it they have more noise complaints than MSP.) - Noise is logarithmic. Every 10-decibel increase doubles the amount of noise a person hears. - An all Stage III fleet will change noise levels and the noise contours considerably. - When aircraft noise events exceed conversational levels, they become disruptive. How are .DNL noise contours developed at MSP and other airports? - The model tries to consider atl operational data available - Initial contours were generated using best guesses from FAA personnel, pilots, MAC, airlines, etc. regarding current and future operations. - A lot has changed since then. There is a higher level of refinement in the model because actual information is available using ANOMS. - The inputs to the model are.: - Aircraft Operations - Fleet mix (Stage II vs. Stage III) - Day/Night Split (10-decibel penalty after 10:00 p.m.) - Runway Use (runway ends) - Flight Tracks - Profiles - The fleet mix is critical to the outcome of the noise exposure. The number of people living under the 65 DNL contour decreased from 45,000 people in the mid-1980's to a projected 10,000 in 2005 because of the fleet mix change. - The 60 DNL contour adds about 60,000 people to the contour. - ANOMS data cannot predict the future. - When the actual 1996 contour was developed using ANOMS data, it showed runway 04/22 was not being used as was predicted in 1992. - Monthly DNL levels should not be compared to yearly DNL's. - The FAA requires airports to develop new contours every 5 to 10 years. There was discussion about the possible reasons for Denver airport's high number of complaints. It was noted that airports could not correlate complaints with actual operations. But, airport operational changes are the best indicators of changes in the number of noise complaints. Two contours have been developed for Minneapolis for 2005. One has the baseline of 2-3% growth a year and the other is for the high forecast of 4% per year. i Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights, asked if the 2005 contour includes the number of hushkitted aircraft that will be operating out of MSP in the future. Mr. Futterman said that it did. Jon Hohenstein, Eagan, asked if the Schultz curve would be re-addressed after there is an all Stage III fleet. Mr. Futterman said that FICAN had done the most recent analysis and found that the Schultz curve was still valid. He said that it may be possible that once the Stage II aircraft are no longer being used, that people's levels of annoyance will change. Dawn Weitzel, Richfield, asked if the "C" weighted noise levels could be addressed within the Schultz curve. Mr. Futterman said that there were no federal criteria to measure low frequency noise. He said that aircraft manufacturers have made aircraft quieter by moving the threshold of noise from high to low frequency levels. Mr. Futterman said low frequency noise has not been treated as a separate noise category but has been included in aircraft noise levels as a whole. Steve Minn, Minneapolis, asked if the INM was accepted as the industry standard. Mr. Futterman said that the FAA and the EPA have identified the INM as the appropriate way to model noise. He said contours can be compared with monitored noise levels, but the FAA shies away from using monitored noise data in contour generation because there are so many variables. Glenn Strand, Minneapolis, asked how the FAA-approved 1996 DNL contour currently being used for the Part 150 Residential Sound Insulation Program compares with the 1996 actual contour. Mr. Futterman said the two contours were very different. He said it was mainly because runway 04/22 is not being used in the manner in which it was believed it would be. He said in 1992 it was predicted that by 1996, 19% of the traffic would be using runway 04/22. Yet, it is currently being used for only 2% of the traffic. Mr. Strand said he was concerned with the insulation program using such an outdated contour. Mr. Futterman said those residents that are in both the 1996 and the 2005 contour would be given priority over those who are in neither and that those residents in the 1996 contour will be insulated before anyone in the new contour is. Jill Smith, Mendota Heights, asked why the Metropolitan Council's noise contour was considerably larger than the MAC's for future planning. Mr. Futterman said he was aware of the Met Council's noise contour map from the 1970's that was based on the worst case scenario but thought their newest map was based on the MAC's process. Ms. Smith said their most recent was the map she was speaking of. Mr. Futterman said he had no knowledge of a different map but that someone could investigate it. 8. JeffHamiel. MAC Executive Director Mr. Hamiel advised MASAC to formally analyze nighttime noise levels at the airport. He said an analysis should include a comparison of ambient noise on the airfield and ambient noise.in the communities, since what is heard on the airfield can be different than what is heard in the communities. He cautioned members, as well, to perform the necessary work and make the necessary recommendations within a relatively short time period in order for MASAC to be of help to both the MAC and the communities. • 5 2. Mr. Hamiel also discussed the summer runway construction schedule. He noted that the south parallel runway had been almost completely demolished. He said the work was going extremely weal from a . construction point of view and the contractor was ahead of schedule and on budget. He noted that the relatively dry weather had been instrumental in the construction process, as well as in allowing pilots to take off and land on the 6,000-ft runway. He said the airlines and their pilots, as well as FAA traffic control personnel, deserved a "pat on the back" for adjusting to the changes. He said community members have also been very understandable to the temporary changes in operations and deserve an equal amount of praise for their efforts. Mr. Hamiel also discussed the Apri120, 1998 Commission meeting at which there were approximately 45-50 Richfield residents in attendance. He said the residents came. to the meeting in order to address the Commission regarding airport noise. He said the Chairman moved the "public comment" time up on the agenda but limited the residents' time to speak . He said Commissioner Himle suggested the residents address the P&E Committee at its May meeting in order to be able to discuss their concerns at more length and with the appropriate committee. Mr. Hamiel said because the residents felt they had not been given adequate time to speak, some left the meeting angry. He said he also left the meeting in order to speak with some of them. Mr. Hamiel said MAC was expecting an increase in complaints from Richfield residents due to the fact that the city of Richfield hired a consultant to increase residents' awareness ofairport-related issues. Steve Minn, Minneapolis, asked Mr. Hamiel to explain how the budget appropriations process at the MAC worked so that monies could be allocated as quickly as possible for acquiring additional Remote Monitoring Towers (RMTs). Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said the Aviation Noise Program's 1998 budget did not include monies for additional RMTs. He said the additional RMTs would cost approximately $300,000 to $400,000. He said the Operations Committee is planning to discuss the issue at its May 8, 1998 meeting with the intention of bringing a recommendation to the full MASAC body in May. He said the plan is to begin the process of putting. out a Request for Qualifications and Proposals (RFQ and RFP) in late fall with construction beginning early next spring. He said this would give staff the time to include the necessary monies in the 1999 CIP budget. Mr. Hamiel said it would be best to take the time necessary to prepare for their installation, rather than try for installation this year. Dawn Weitzel, Richfield, thanked Mr. Hamiel for encouraging MASAC to study the nighttime noise issue at the airport. She said she also wanted to clarify that she had informed the Commission secretary and the P&E Committee secretary of the fact that a number of residents would be attending the Corrunission meeting and were planning to speak. She said Nigel Finney had been contacted by both Richfield's consultant and herself, and that voice mail messages were left for Commissioner Himle well in advance of the meeting. She said the residents wanted to have their comments heard before the EIS on the north/south runway was issued. She also said the residents were planning to attend the P&E meeting in May. It was noted that the final north/south runway EIS draft was due in May and the Record of Decision would be issued in July. Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, noted that the Executive Committee of the Airport Task Force had made the decision to encourage the MAC to revert back to an 11:00 start time for nighttime hours. He said he wanted to know what Mr. Hamiel thought of that proposal. Mr. Hamiel said that although the airport was 6 a 24-hour a day, 7 day a week operation, environmental concerns should be addressed, especially when new cargo operations are being considered. He said the MAC still supported the 10:30 p.m. time. 9. MASAC Audit -Discussion and Prioritization Chairman Johnson said if there were no questions or comments about the MASAC goals and objectives, he would forward them to the Operations Committee for prioritization and implementation. There was no additional discussion. 10. Operations Committee Report Mark Sahnen reviewed the minutes of the Operations Committee's April 17, 1998 meeting. He reported that the committee had reviewed and discussed staffs analysis of possible locations for additional RMT sites and said a full briefing would be given at the next MASAC meeting. Steve Minn, Minneapolis, asked staff to review the locations of the additional RMT sites. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, briefly described staffs analysis for determining possible RMT locations and gave the general locations of the proposed sites. He reminded members that the existing 24 sites already capture 100% of the noise events. He said the goal of the analysis was to increase the number of flights that intersected more than one RMT "buffer zone." 11. Report of the MAC Commission Meeting Chairman Johnson reported the Commission voted at its last meeting to approve Ameritech as the long distance provider for the terminal building. The Commission also discussed the proposed people mover . that would take passengers from the terminal building to the remote rental car company area. 12. Persons Wishing to Address the Council Mike Sullivan of Eagan asked staff if the operation of the RMT sites and the ANOMS system had changed over time. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said that how the acquisition of ARTS data from the Tower has changed. He said staff has continually tried to eliminate any possible errors that could occur in order to receive the most accurate data, including performing field checks. Mr. Sullivan asked whether the FAA required airports to submit a new Part 150 contour whenever operations at an airport change significantly. Mr. Fuhrmann noted that the ANOMS data collected from the RMT sites was not used in the INM model to generate the contour. He explained that when the current contour was generated there was no ANOMS system and the airport had to rely on less accurate information. He said the FAA's ARTS data, through the use of ANOMS, now provides accurate data that can be fed into the INM model. Mr. Sullivan asked if he could obtain information on the parameters that are used to generate the contours in the INM model. Evan Futterman, HNTB, said he would be happy to work through Mr. Fuhrmann's office to provide that information. Mr. Sullivan also asked staff when the parallel runway headings had been changed. Mr. Fuhrmann said they were changed in September of 1997 to reflect the shift in magnetic variation. 13. Other Items Not on the Agenda Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, passed out information on chat lines that would be operating the next day due to it being "Noise Awareness Day." Chad Leqve, MAC, noted that the flight tracks for the month of March 1998 were now available on the . Environment Department's Web Site at www.maCavsat.org. He said the information would be updated as soon as new information becomes available. 14. Adjournment Chairman Johnson adjourned the meeting at 9:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted. Melissa Scovronski, MASAC Secretary • • g METROPOLITAN AIRCRAFT SOUND ~ ABATEMENT COUNCIL MEMORANDUM nznsAc TO: MASAC Members FROM: -Chad Leqve, ANOMS Coordinator SUBJECT: Technical Advisor's Reports DATE: May 18, 1998 On Friday, Apri124, 1998 the MAC Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs received the approved Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). As a result the March 1998 Technical Advisor's report was presented at the April, 1998 MASAC meeting. Included in your packet you will find the remaining reports spanning June, 1997 to April, 1998 (June `97, July `97, August `97, September `97, October `97, November `97, December `97, January `98, February `98, April `98). Accompanying each Technical advisor's report is the appropriate corridor analysis for that particular month. I hope these reports will prove helpful and insightful in your quantification and understanding of operations at the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport for the past eleven months. Please review the reports and if you have any question contact myself at 725-6328 or Shane VanderVoort at 725-6329. • • METROPOLITAN AIRCRAFT SOUND ~ ABATEMENT COUNCIL MEMORANDUM Ma;snc TO: MASAC FROM: Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor SUB.jECT: Northwest Airlines Fleet Mix Information DATE: May 18, 1998 During the March MASAC meeting, a discussion occurred about the composition of Northwest Airline's fleet mix. As a follow-up to this request for information, Jennifer Sayer, Director of State Affairs and Airport Access for Northwest Airlines, has provided a handout listing their fleet mix composition. Northwest Airlines has met all past Federal Stage II phaseout requirements and is committed to meeting the upcoming phaseout requirements. This is an informational item only. No action is required. U ~~ V 0 ~~~? "V ti '~ w~ 0 a~ O A~ W t~ -~ a~ L_ ~_ 3 C t~ Q O U C Z O m a ~ Q N cp ~p cp t V m o o' M ` e ~~it`OoDtAc~ ch0~0',~ oC'7NN0 O~ ~o a` ~„~~C')4Q'c-tp ! 1 GC~r~ ~ r-N ~ to Q~~ O V ~ c~ i~ v e' is ~ i m t ~t ~ •-1 N v ~~vQ~ I I CO 1 ~-~ IIN cc~ Nm~~ oo a cc c~ c~ °D N ~ ~ ~ o 0 ~~pp o • ~ F! chi ~ N N' ~ o f~• c*~ Q to c*> a, rn ~ ~ _ ~~ y - odaoo~ - oooo~ ~c+~.v N O O~ T ~`r ~ N ~Y~ri ~ p m m m~ti~j~tic°v°'c°mrnrnUUcn ~9~NUUOU~ ~~~ ~~~a~~~~~g~~oo ~~oo~o ~~ __ N v x a~ co r C C -_- ~~ ~i~ ~ O ~~ ~ m Q a~ Z ~ v ~ m a~ ~ o in V r` Q7~ `'~ .O O d ~ C ~ .~ as r U ~ •y (~ ~ N ~ m c D METROPOLITAN AIRCRAFT SDUND ~ ABATEMENT COUNCIL MEMORANDUM MASAc TO: MASAC FROM: Roy Fuhtmann, Technical Advisor SUBJECT: Air Traffic Control Airspace Briefing DATE: Apri120, 1998 As part of the continuing effort to provide educational topics to the existing and recently appointed MASAC members MAC staff has coordinated a presentation by Cindy Greene, MSP ATCT Support Manager concerning the airspace at MSP. Ms. Greene has prepazed the Minneapolis Air Traffic Control Tower Airspace and Procedures Information packet included with your packet as a reference for the upcoming discussion. If you have any questions about MSP's airspace and how traffic is handled at MSP, please present them during this presentation. This is an informational item only. No action is required. • • METROPOLITAN AIRCRAFT SOUND ~ ABATEMENT COUNCIL MEMORANDUM nznsac TO: MASAC FROM: Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor SUBJECT: Additional Remote Monitoring Tower Locations DATE: May 18, 1998 At the April 17, and May 8, 1998, MASAC Operations Committee meetings, MAC staff briefed the Operations Committee on proposed locations for the placement of additional Remote Monitoring Towers (RMT) as identified in the Noise Mitigation Program report of November 1996. Of significant importance when siting these additional RMT locations is the fact that the existing noise monitoring coverage area for each RMT is, on average, three to four times lazger than the RMT buffer area that will be established during this analysis. The development of a buffer azea is only of importance as a tool to establish a minimum boundary area criteria when considering new RMT locations. These bu,,~`er areas are not an indication of the limit of a noise monitoring influence area. A complete outline of the procedure will be discussed using the following basic methodology: 1. Use a two mile buffer around the Year 2005 DNL 60 contour, to incorporate the vast majority of existing RMT sites and focus on the areas most likely to be impacted by MSP operations. 2. Analyze the landuse within each community to locate the site to provide coverage in azeas that are predominately residential use. 3. Overlay aircraft overflight data from one week out of each quarter to resolve seasonality differences and attempt to locate the RMT in an area most beneficial to monitor existing and future aircraft jet operations. 4. Determine the number of RMT buffer azeas that each flight track penetrates. This analysis is used to minimize the number of flight tracks that do not go through the defined RMT buffer areas. Assumptions for Additional RMTs 5. Coverage azea for each RMT is equal to or greater than the distance to the next closest RMT. 6. Locating additional RMTs closer than the current next closest RMT will not increase accuracy or noise monitoring integrity. 7. The existing RMT noise monitoring coverage azea is significantly larger than the distance to the next closest RMT. Determination of RMT siting buffer azea 8. Given the above assumptions, the size of the RMT buffer area was deternuned by using the mean distance from one RMT to the next closest RMT which is 6208.6 feet. 9. One half of the mean distance is 3104.3 feet, which is used to create a buffer azea radius since each RMT would cover at least one half of the distance to the next RMT. 10. With the above RMT buffer size, 71% of the existing twenty four RMT locations are within one standard deviation of the mean. 11. Additionally, 92% of the existing twenty four RMT locations aze within two standard deviations of the mean. The original siting methodology used the following criteria: 12. Must be located within 100 feet of electrical power 13. Must be located on public property 14. Located to monitor the majority of operations at MSP. This process was refined multiple times to account for both arrival and departure operations. The arrival paths as well as proposed and existing departure paths were considered during the siting of the original 24 sites. Proposed Action for May 26, 1998 At the May 8, 1998, MASAC Operations Committee meeting, the committee passed, by unanimous vote, the motion to accept Staff's RMT siting analysis and to recommend to MASAC to use a systems approach (to maximize the number of flight tracks through RMT buffer areas) as the criteria for locating five (5) additional RMT sites, (25-29), as outlined in the analysis. MASAC's Operations Committee recommends that the full body accept the siting analysis as outlined in the above analysis. • Page 5 MINUTES MASAC OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MAY 8, 1998 The meeting was held at the Metropolitan Airports Commission West Terminal Building North Star Conference Room, and called to order at 10:05 a.m: The following members were in attendance: Members: Mark Salmen, Chairman -NWA Bob Johnson -MBAR John Nelson -Bloomington Kevin Batchelder -Mendota Heights Lance Staricha -Eagan Dick Kevz -MAC Ron Johnson - ALPA Advisory: Roy Fuhrmann -MAC Chad Leqve -MAC Kay Hatlestad -MAC Ron Glaub -FAA NWA CMO Cindy Greene -FAA Visitors: Jan DelCalzo AGENDA RMT SITE LOCATION ANALYSIS Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said staff narrowed down the possible areas for the proposed additional 5 RMT sites and provided maps of these areas. He noted that in Minneapolis and Richfield the RMT buffer zones were located in residential areas. The RMTs to the southeast in Mendota Heights and Eagan, on the other hand, were located in non- residential areas. After showing possible alternative residential sites for these RMTs, he said the committee would need to decide whether these sites should be located to capture the maximum number of flights (as was done for the initial analysis) or in a nearby residential area. He said moving the RMT sites to residential areas would increase the number of flights passing through only one RMT buffer zone. • Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights, said he felt if the system was to be expanded, the S locations of the RMT sites should serve the system rather than particular neighborhoods. Lance Staricha, Eagan, asked why additional RMT sites were now being considered when in the past additional sites have been considered unnecessary. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said new sites -were now being considered because of the decision by the legislature not to move the airport and the MSP Noise Mitigation Committee's recommendation to expand the noise monitoring system. He said additional RMT sites will also be added to monitor operations associated with the north/south runway. John Nelson, Bloomington, said he had problems justifying the expenditure for an RMT that would be placed in a commercial/industrial/vacant area, rather than a residential area. He also noted that the current RMT sites already serve the system. Mr. Nelson said he wanted to be sure that the additional RMT sites for the North/South runway were not forgotten and illustrated where these RMT sites might be located. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, noted it may be possible if proposed site #25 were moved to the east in line with site #24 and proposed site #26, they could maximize both the numbers of flight tracks running through the buffer zones and serve residential areas, as well. It was noted that there were areas of the maps in Eagan and Mendota Heights that did not show newly developed residential areas and that there would most likely be a lot of residential construction within the next 5 years. Dick Saunders, Minneapolis, said he felt a systems approach to siting the RMTs would be best. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, noted each city would have the final decision, within a 5 to 10 block area, as to the exact location of their additional RMT sites. John Nelson, Bloomington, asked Dick Keiz, MAC, and Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, if their budget for 1999 included the cost of the additional RMT sites. Dick and Roy said an estimated cost is included in the 1999 CIP submittal and that it would be included in the budget process this summer. Mr. Nelson said he felt that if mobile monitoring capabilities were still being considered for monitoring noise in specific neighborhoods he could support a systems approach to siting the locations of the RMTs. He said he wanted to be sure that MASAC was being sensitive and responsive to the residents of the cities. Lance Staricha, Eagan, said there could be a problem with "selling" proposed RMT site #25, but that if mobile monitoring were available, he could justify voting for the proposed sites. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, said staff is able to do remote monitoring but that there is a problem with the software being able to correlate flight tracks with the remote monitoring locations as is currently done with the ANOMS system. 2 r~ JOHN NELSON, BLOOMINGTON, MOVED AND DICK SAUNDERS, MINNEAPOLIS, SECONDED, TO ACCEPT STAFF'S RMT SITING ANALYSIS AND TO RECOMMEND TO MASAC THAT, USING A SYSTEMS APPROACH, 5 ADDITIONAL RMT SITES (25-29) SHOULD BE ADDED TO THE ANOMS SYSTEM WITHIN THE LOCATIONS OUTLINED IN THE ANALYSIS. THE VOTE WAS UNANIMOUS. MOTION CARRIED. NON-SIMULTANEOUS CORRIDOR DEPARTURE ANALYSIS Chad Leqve, MAC, .reviewed the "Scope of Analysis: Crossing in the Corridor Procedure" document. He said staff would need to know what logs the FAA could provide. Cindy Greene, FAA, said that although the ARTS Data can provide information about when the procedure is being used, it does not provide information about why the procedure isn't used. She said the controllers are the only ones who can provide this information. She noted there are many variables affecting when the procedure will or will not be used. She said some of the variables include: ~ How far out an incoming aircraft is during head-to-head operations. '~- The weather conditions. ~- The type of aircraft departing. ~ If the aircraft can see each other. . ~ If the controller can see both aircraft. ~ The destination of the departing aircraft. ~ And more. Ms. Greene said air traffic was not willing to begin tracking departures in regards to the reasons a controller decides not to use the crossing procedure. She said it would be laborious and was not a standard requirement for the controllers. Kevin Batchelder, Mendota Heights, said it was not the intent of the city to second-guess the controllers' decisions but to find out when the procedure is happening and if it is providing any relief. There was a discussion regarding when the procedure can be used. Cindy Greene, FAA, said the procedure can be used (with many variables) when there is one local controller, but it is only possible during non-simultaneous conditions (when there is one local controller, there's only one aircraft ready to depart and when there is no aircraft inbound). A lengthy discussion ensued regarding how staff could analyze the use of the procedure using ARTS data, yet eliminate the need for the controllers to keep a log of the reasons why the procedure was not used. It was decided the proposed analysis should be changed as follows: • 3 1. The hours of study will be between 23:00 and 06:00 weekdays to ensure there is only one local controller on duty during the hours of analysis, which is a prerequisite for being able to use the procedure. 2. Staff and the FAA will provide a list of variables describing the conditions affecting when the procedure can and cannot be used for a better understanding of how often. the right conditions occur. 3. The period of study will be a 6-month period prior to the start of the present construction season and a 6-month period after construction completion because of the changes in , the operations at the airport during this time. 4. The analysis will not include information from the tower on why the procedure is not used for specific departures. JOHN NELSON, MOVED, AND KEVIN BATCHEDLER, SECONDED, TO ACCEPT THE PROPOSED ANALYSIS WITH THE AMENDMENTS TO BE PERFORMED FOR TWO 6- MONTH PERIODS, ONE COMMENCING SEPTEMBER 1998 AND THE OTHER OCTOBER 1997 THROUGH MARCH 1998 FOR THE HOURS OF 23:00 TO 06:00. THE VOTE WAS UNANIMOUS. MOTION CARRIED. It was agreed to postpone the start of the analysis until. September 1998. FORMALIZE THE OPERATIONS COMMITTEE'S WORK PLAN FOR 1998 After much discussion and debate, the Operations Committee approved the attached work plan outline for 1998. Cindy Greene, FAA, suggested that an orientation session be given regarding the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process. This item was added to the list of Operations Committee objectives for 1998, as well. Roy Fuhrmann, MAC, also added the run up and ground noise study to the work plan: Mr. Fuhrmann also said that staff had been working on a MASAC handbook and would like to have the opportunity at various MASAC meetings to brief each topic separately. Robert Johnson, MBAA, suggested MASAC review the MASAC Assessment in order to determine what has been accomplished, what is being worked on and what needs to be done. JOHN NELSON, BLOOMINGTON, MOVED AND DICK SAUNDERS, MINNEAPOLIS, SECONDED, TO APPROVE THE REVISED OPERATIONS COMMITTEE OBJECTIVES TIMELINE FOR 1998. THE VOTE WAS. UNANIMOUS. MOTION CARRIED. CORRESPONDENCE • L` • 4 A letter was received from the chairman of the Twin Cities Airports Task Force in regards to the designated nighttime hours at MSP (see attachment). After a brief discussion, it was decided that the Committee would send a letter in response to the chairman, and that the committee would revisit the topic in October. ROBERT JOHNSON, MBAR, MOVED AND KEVIN BATCHELDER, MENDOTA HEIGHTS, SECONDED TO DIRECT STAFF TO RESPOND 1N A LETTER TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE TWIN CITIES AIRPORTS TASK FORCE INFORMING HIM THAT THE MASAC OPERATIONS COMMITTEE WAS IN RECEIPT OF HIS LETTER AND WOULD BE ANALYZING THE 10:30 P.M. TO 11:00 P.M. TIME FRAME AT ITS OCTOBER 1998 MEETING. THE VOTE WAS UNANIMOUS. MOTION CARRIED. OTHER Cindy Greene, FAA, handed out copies of the Minneapolis Air Traffic Control Tower Airspace and Procedures Information package, which will be briefed at the May 1998 MASAC meeting and asked for comments or suggestions. Chairman Salmen said he thought a map depicting a larger area surrounding MSP would be beneficial in showing how MSP relates to other areas of the US. Ron Glaub, FAA, briefed the committee on the concerns the air traffic controllers had with the change in the NADPs, which had been brought to the committee's attention at the previous meeting. After reviewing the technical differences between the distant and close-in departure procedures, he said, basically, that the controllers had gotten used to the original departure profile and were giving headings based on an aircraft's anticipated altitude. He said the controllers felt the new profile was a safety concern because it altered the time at which aircraft reach a certain altitude. He said now that the controllers have worked with the new profile for a while, they are feeling more comfortable with it and no longer feel it is a safety concern. The meeting was adjourned at 1:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Melissa Scovronski Committee Secretary • 5 .-- - - --_ ~-. =. _ - - -- - _ - _ o .__ -- I - - - - - - - --- ... .....::a ~ a :S• .... ---o_ ` ~ - - -- . - - - = O -- ~~ . -- _ _ _. O -~ :.. . - _. •• , .. .. _ -- - - _ ~ - __- -- o ~ --- _- - - _. - ---- - -_--. _ - _ - eesEee - - C.~ _ ~ .. -- ... . .:::,. .... .:.:::: ..:::. :: ~::. . ... ..:::€'s _ -- .. ....... .... .:.. _. J :::.. ....... .... OQ _` Q - _ - ::~~ ~ o: ~ ~ - - ::::: - - P: - - ~::.:: - - .. ::::- _. - :~tH~: ~:: - o - ' _ _ - - _ - - - .i. .. ..... :~- .. ..... ::~ - ~-. - _ ~" ` '~~~• '=mss ~~Yaf+t~.: - _ __ - _ ..~:::.e = -- - - - .:.. _ _ - -_- - _ - _ - _ ic~: ~3i: - =c _ _ -- ---~t_- ---- - - -_ ::. _. ..... ::: ... ._': ._ ... ... .. ...... ~J _.... _- ............... -. _-- -- - ~ _- _. :_ _ _ . . ~ _ - ::::: - _ .x ~ . - - _ =--- _ - :.. - _-o- -- - ~~ - - - Q -_ _ _ ~ _ _ -- _ -- . - ~ _ o - _. -= o _: _ _. _, -_. 8 - ~ --- - ~ ~ = ° = -- - Q d -_ - - ~ - ~ - ---_ - ~ - o ._ ~. o (A H m ~~Fo--'.~'' Li ~ C m vcrk:?"x+~~" a ~ ~ ~ try -,,,,.;,~~~ 0 '~` ~`` r a• _ O W LA c~ G T G `~' O a s ~ ~ % ~ Q ~~ ~ m m= E m- a,Ewm=a m~ o »LL~ ~ ~ j~ ~ ~LL ~ a1 ~b5°ti cab soma-Em o~~~o~o~~~~ zw~mU ~a»a ~ry' 1 o fr,T `~ ~J- O `~ _ : r~,a ~- 'J-. ~ q ~ .s '~~6~" 7 R{LL~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ r zv~~rnt~.a»a s: --- -- _.._ ..-- -s one arvea~- - -- _. and ~iaadH --- - --- - ----- -~n~ s~iaae GARRELD AVE- --- ~- - ----- -~ ALDRICH-AVE S -.- _. n.- -_~ ---- N- ---- ----.. _ ~ ~ - _ -- v~ - 0 N.-_ ~- ~__. _--. m _ --~ ----- 0 ~__ ~3 „a., .~~~~wM~ia - .__ - _y-.._ .._ . s-and ~t~3ssna _ _ ~ - - _ ~ ati arv~a3awna--_ ~..-------- - - ----__. -. -- ~ S 3At/ Nf/QIa3HS ----- - Z N --S-3nb-~bWOHl--- --- -_ ----- S 3nb~ SdWOHl - `° -- - ® ~ o m ,~+ -°' ~ o m a Q ~.~ c m O + E O lQ 16 U aoE mm- aa. . m 7GSW~~iQ ~f- Q !L m- m-"' w ot~ c olf m $ QO E h ~ ~ cc~i~.o~`o~ m~ ~ Z tn tAU_Q» d lL ~ _:; Ln Ln~ ~.v _;~~~ _ - 'ti < . , ~ --- - S 3Ad Hl6l---- - S 3hd Hl6l d ~baS~-----_ _ . __ --- - ---- _-- -- --- .. - .. - -- --- S L-- - _ - -S- 3AN-H18 L- --- ~ - ~ - -- w~ -- - --- - - p -- - --- - -- - --- -- l l (I I I I (I I I I I I I I I l u l l l I l ~ t. W1LLll ~ -_ _ .. v~bO, w ~ _ ~ - - -- o _ --- Z - - - -- ---- -- - -- _ _ -- _-.._ -- - - ~_ _ ® - -- -- E L -- - _ _ _ ___ _ I _--- --- ~ ®__ -- ----~~ - - -- - - -- - S 3 L L-- - - ,;. -- --~ - - --- -w- _ I~IIIIIII _ ~ _ ®~® --- -- - o- - - -- - - - - .__ _.. ..N - - ~ I I I I I I I '' ' LLL.J1j.~; ally W t/1 r11111J_LD E- T ---- Ad Hii~ _ ---- ------- _ _- -- - - - -3/1d NO1Nil~- -- ----- - - -- ---~.._ - -- --- -- ---. ..---...-- ----- -- - ------ --- - ---o---- z N Z------- --- ---- ---- - --- - S ~/!b!-0NZ-- ~--- t/~ ~ - ': - • • - -- --- -- -- -- S 3AtJ aNZti._ __ - ----S 3Ab aNZti------- - --- ..._... .__ w S 3/1t/1SLt~--- - ---- - - _.--- - ~ -- - -w ---- v~ F- ---_..- ~ -- F=.. - --- - - ~ -~ --- - - --- -- _ S-and H10~ --- ~® H ----S3Ab-Hlfi£- --- -. ~ v _ _ _ _ --- -- --- - - ---N-- _ _ _~~ __ _ ~. > L71 -- --Q-- ----- - '_ . _ _..~ - ~ y- - 2TfH~-AVE ~ ' "~~ -- L: "`~"'~ hH HJ.L-Z-- - ~ "~S- 3n`d-H-19Z-- -- ~ d SSW ~~~N - ~ ° ~'~" . .~ o r c m - wry:.>. ~Eroamo'-° oat m p~ '~,. ..r~s.. ea m a- ~ m ~ con ~ .; ~. • r • • 1~~IASAC OPERATIONS C011~IMITTEE MEMORANDUM ~ MASAc TO: MASAC Operations Committee FROM: Roy Fuhnmann, Technical Advisor SUB,jECT: Runup and Ground Noise Study Review DATE: May 1, 1998 At the April 28, 1998 MASAC meeting, MAC Executive Director, Jeff Hamiel requested MASAC to study the potential impacts of runup and ground noise issues at the MSP airport. As part of the discussion, the City of Richfield has also requested additional information in a effort to try and quantify the reason for increased complaints from their local community concerning this same issue. Staff will provide an overview of the proposed study and receive comments from the Operations Committee on the scope of the monitoring project. • 1~ZASAC OPERATIONS C01~~IMITTEE w MEMORANDUM MASAC TO: MASAC Operations Committee FROM: Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor SUBJECT: Runup and Ground Noise Study Review DATE: May 8, 1998 The Metropolitan Airports Commission uses many methods to minimize the effects aircraft operations have on neighboring residents surrounding the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. One of these methods is the use of an airport Field Rule that establishes procedures for aircraft engine run-ups. These procedures were developed in 1976 to address the increasing frequency of maintenance run-ups and the importance of these operations, relative to the overall noise environment at MSP. Occasionally, these guidelines need to be reevaluated to modify or verify the effectiveness of the established procedures. The scope of this work will include five basic elements: Monitoring and Data collection; Contour generation; Data analysis; Evaluation of existing procedures; and Recommendations. The goal of this study is to determine the ground and runup noise sources and their associated monitored impacts. Monitoring and Data collection ~ Monitor operations in the maintenance run-up azea of selected aircraft at various locations in the airport operations area during both daytime and nighttime hours. ~ Monitor areas adjacent to Runway 04 when and where engine run-up activities are conducted. ~ Monitor azeas adjacent to the airport in the nearest residential area to the runup pad, while monitoring the same aircraft activities on the airport. ~3- Identify potential ground noise impacts, such as taxiing aircraft, APU, GPU, engine stazt, start of takeoff roll and reverse thrust activities. Contour Generation ~ Development of individual run-up noise contours in dBA for 727-200, 727-200H, DC9-30, DC9-30H, DC 10, B757 and A320. Data Analysis ~ Analysis of the data to determine the effect of conducting aircraft maintenance run- ups with varying headings. ~3- Produce graphs, tables and charts that support and summarize the monitored data Evaluation of existing procedures ~ Evaluation of various aircraft headings and the promulgation of noise throushout the monitoring locations. y Airline Survey of Maintenance Requirements ~ Conduct a survey with aircraft operators that routinely use the run-up pad to deter- mine maintenance run-up requirements, including when, why, where and how long the run-ups are required. ~ Determine the impact various restrictions may have on overall airport operations. Recommendations ~ Provide recommendations and options for revising the Engine run-up procedures that will minimize the effect of aircraft noise in neighboring communities while meeting the engine run-up requirements of the airlines. Evaluation of the above procedures will enable a complete analysis of the most effective and operationally efficient methods to conduct engine run-ups while minimizing the noise impact on the surrounding communities. y Initial monitoring activity, data collection, nighttime run-up log evaluation and coordination activities with the airline maintenance personnel and MAC operations department can be accomplished by our office. Contour generation, data analysis, evaluation and recommendations may best be served by external consultants for objectivity purposes. Page I1 1~~IASAC OPERATIONS C011~IMITTEE L` MEMORANDUM TO: MASAC Operations Committee FROM: Chad Leqve, ANOMS Coordinator SUBJECT: Crossing in the Comdor Analysis DATE: May 1, 1998 MASAC On March 17, 1998 a letter was forwarded to Bob Johnson from the city of Mendota Heights requesting specific airspace analysis relative to the crossing in the corridor procedure. Inquiries were made regarding time available to preform the crossing procedure and execution of the procedure during the potential time periods. When assessing the feasibility of such analysis several variables must be considered. At the May 8, 1998 Operations Committee Meeting a comprehensive scope will be presented outlining the resources, methods and cooperation necessary to complete the analysis. There are four main premises the analysis must address. Below is a break down of the topics and associated issues: Target Time Periods ! Time period of interest includes the weekday hours of 22:00 - 06:00 and weekends. FAA Feasibility t Asses the existence of one local controller on duty. Operational Availability t Evaluate existence of non-simultaneous operations. ~ Evaluate Head-to-Head operational impacts. Occurrence of the Crossing Procedure ~ Establish when crossing in the corridor has occurred. Addressing the above topics through the planned analysis will facilitate a thorough quantification of the existing crossing in the corridor usage as well as the possible catalysts for non-usage. • • • Section 1: A Scope of Analysis: Crossing in the Corridor Procedure Since its conception, the crossing in the corridor procedure was anticipated to consolidate • as many operations as possible in the center of the Eagan -Mendota Heights Departure Corridor. Although superficially the procedure seems logical and relatively straight forward, several variabilities must be considered when assessing the use or non-use of the procedure. A request has been forwarded from the city of Mendota Heights to analyze the usage of the crossing procedure. The following scope outlines the topics relevant to the analysis that must be addressed to thoroughly asses the use of the procedure. Each topic(s) is explained and a due course of action is then proposed to attain the information necessary to complete the analysis. 1.1 Target Time Periods The first critical step in the analysis is selecting the time periods available to conduct the analysis. In an effort to attain some historical input data, six months prior to the start date of the analysis should be used. More specifically, within that data sample the following periods should be assessed (which is incompliance with the feasibility factors): '~ Weekday hours of 22:00 -06:00. '}' Twenry four hour weekend days. Using the above time periods will provide a good data sample and ensure reasonableness relative to feasibility and thoroughness. • A Scope of Analysis: Crossing in the Corridor Procedure 1.2 FAA Feasibility The implementation of operational procedures in the terminal azea aze dependent on the ability of the local FAA to perform the procedure in a safe compliant manner with respect to the existing environment and staff requirements. Due to the nature of the crossing procedure, it is imperative that there is only one local controller on duty in the tower. This ensures that the same individual is monitoring the operations off both pazallel runways, thus eliminating the controller to controller communication function. When and only when this scenario exists, the crossing procedure is possible. Due to the criticalness of one local controller to the crossing procedure, it is imperative to have record of these time periods. Coordination will be made with Cindy Greene (local FAA) in an effort to log the one local controller time periods. This log will then be incorporated into the analysis to help quantify available time for the use of the crossing procedure. 1.3 Operational Availability The airspace environment is another factor when using the crossing procedure. Two operational issues which effect the use of the crossing procedure are: • '~ Non-simultaneous operations. '~ Head-to-head operations. It is necessary to establish when these operations exist to further analyze the possibility of using the crossing procedure. Non-simultaneous operations must exist in order to use the crossing procedure. An assumption will be made that any time one local controller is on duty, non-simultaneous operations may be performed. Head-to-head operations can be an operational impediment to performing the crossing procedure, thus we will retrieve head- to-head operational time periods from the tower logs as part of the base line for establishing study criteria. Incorporating the assessment of these two operational issues will further quantify the feasibility of using the crossing procedure relative to operational availability. Occurrence of the Crossing Procedure 1.4 Occurrence of the Crossing Procedure Va ANOMS it will be determined when the crossing procedure occurs. Using a gate structure in ANOMS, corridor compliant operations performing the crossing procedure will be analyzed. Below is a diagram of the gate structures which will be used: Exclusion Gate: Gate: ~ Gate: Using the above gate structure will yield operations which crossed in the corridor allowing track displays, counts and percentage of operations to be generated. 1.~ Summary By assessing the time periods available to perform the crossing procedure from the FAA side and operational side it will legitimize the possibility of performing the procedure. Being able to correlate when the procedure actually occurs with respect to the time available will provide answers and possible reasons for the use and or non-use of the procedure. A report will be generated analyzing when the crossing in the corridor procedure is performed and when the various variables allow for the procedure to be performed, thus summarizing the correlation between the two. • 3 April 22, 1998 Mr. Robert Johnson Chairman, MASAC c/o MinneapolisiSt. Paul International Airports Commission 6040 28~' Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55450 Dear Mr. Johnson: At the April 17, 1998 Bvard Meeting of the Twin Cities Airports Task Force, a citizens and business group supporting air service development at MSP, it was agreed that 1, as Chairman of the task force, write a letter expressing our concern over any further extension of the voluntary night-time curfew. Although it was recognized that MASAC has not made a recommendation to do so, moving the beginning time of the voluntary night-time curfew from 10:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. was one of the subjects for MASAC to consider for 1998 as presented to the Planing and Environmental Committee on April 14, 1998. The Task Force respectfully urges MASAC to not support any further extension of the voluntary curfew for the following reasons: l . Studies have shown that the economy of the region served by MSP is to a significant extent dependent upon adequate passenger and cargo air transportation at MSP 2. MAC is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to maintain and expand the ability of MSP to be one of the key U.S. domestic hubs and international gateways to adequately meet the needs of the traveling public and businesses that depend upon frequent service to appropriate destinations at a competitive cost, in order to support the local economy. ~. By decreasing the hours in the day when aircraft can be scheduled to depart and arrive, capacity of the airport becomes artificially limited, which could interfere with its ability to handle existing or future flights. a. Jobs, personal income, economic growth and dollars contributed to state and local tax coffers will suffer if airport capacity falls below its ability to meet required needs. 5. Millions of dollars have also been spent to mitigate noise-by insulating homes in noise-impacted areas, and airlines, by law, are spending millions of dollars to make their fleets 100 percent stage 3 by the turn of the century. • •, ,,,, ~- • . 6. The rationale from the public's point of view to change the curfew limit to 10:00 p.m. seems weak; since most residential occupants stay up at least long enough to listen to the 10:00 p.m. news, which usually signs off at 1035_ p.R-• In addition, the board adopted a motion to investigate how many flights, domestic and international, were eliminated by moving the curfew from 11:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m., and whether this has had a detrimental effect on needed passenger and cargo service at MSP. The Task Force will survey its members to determine if they have experienced any detrimental effects. Perhaps the aviation members of MASAC could do the same. Thank you for giving consideration to this matter. The Task Force would welcome you or any delegation from MASAC to attend our monthly meeting on the 3`d Friday of each month 8:30 a.m. in the General Offices of the MAC to discuss this matter. Sincer ly ..c~J Irving Stern Chairm cc: MAC Commissioners Jeffrey W. Hamiel, MAC Executive Director Proposed 1998 MASAC .Objectives • • _ _ ~. - ected:Dat .. ~_ com hs _ .. u~remen ~ January 16 Operations Committee Part 150 Contour Generation Discussion Goals & Objectives for 1998 January 27 MASAC Minneapolis Straight-Out Departure Procedure Destination Study Update Monitoring Request Forms February 20 Operations Committee Runway Construction Briefing DNL Contour Generation March 2 MASAC Receive MSP Construction Briefing(G. Warren) Presentation of MASAC Audit (D. Kistel, PSB) Mazch 20 Operations Committee Complete Monitoring & Info. Request form Initial Evaluation of Additional RMT Sitings Request for Community Support for Mpls Mazch 31 MASAC Straight-out Procedure MASAC Audit Discussion/Suggestions April 17 Operations Committee RMT Site Location Analysis Non-simultaneous Corridor Departure Analysis April 28 MASAC DNL Presentation by HNTB Jeff Hamiel Update on MAC Perspectives RMT Site Location Analysis May 8 Operations Committee Non-simultaneous Corridor Departure Analysis MASAC Work Plan May 26 MASAC RMT Site Location Presentation ATC Airspace Presentation Construction Update June 12 Operations Committee Run-Up Monitoring Update Final MASAC RMT Analysis Update June 23 MASAC Orientation Topics Construction Update July 10 Operations Committee MASAC Handbook (Draft) EIS Procedure Brief July 23 MASAC EIS Procedure Briefing August 14 Operations Committee Construction Update Review of NADP Procedures August 25 MASAC MSP Tower Tour MASAC MTG in FAA Conference Room Investigate GPS Landing System Use for Noise September 11 Operations Committee Alleviation Non-simultaneous Corridor Departure Analysis September 22 MASAC Stage III Compliance Review Review of Night-time Hours October 9 Operations Committee (2200-2230, and 2230-2300) RMT Location Project Review/Process Update October 27 MASAC Orientation Topics November 13 Operations Committee Focus Activities for Upcoming Year December 1 MASAC Part 150 Progress Review December 11 I Operations Committee I Establish Calendar for 1999 • ~~ 0 N et ~n Q~ r W '~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ o ~~ ~ N ~ ~ y y ~ ~ ~ as :~~~~ ~~ °~~~ G ~~Q~ ~do~ ~ ~ ~ +~1 ~ N ~ O m A o ~~ ,~ °' ~ ~ a ~ .~ G9 Q ~• ~ ~ U ~~ ~~~~ a~ ~.~y~ o ~ ~ ~' a ` U s ~ ~ ~N td O na .~ v ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~N~~ ~ ~ >~ Cf1 •y ~ oA t~ d w ~ o R ~, ~/ d o ~ ~° w ~ ~o V1 00 ~t n O ~ O O p O oQ° ~ a; ~~. f~~ c- `s' ~~~~~ Q ~~~~~ ~ a ~~~~~ °'` o°°~'°y'S .o v' x x ~„ ~,, o~ ~ ~, N ~^ ~, N `° a 0 ~H Gp OQ to ~p ~, .p a~ N ~~¢~~ ~, ~~ ~ ~ W U a H ~ `~ W a ~ 4 ~ '* Z'i ~ ~ U • 1 Air Traffic Control Terms and Definitions Listed below are some common air traffic control terms and their definitions. These may be helpful in understanding the briefing on Minneapolis air traffic procedures presented to MASAC on May 26, 1998. They may also sen•e as a useful reference for further discuss-ions on air traffic procedures. They are not in alphabetical order but arranged in order from broad terms to specific items. ,Prepared by: Cindy Greene, Minneapolis Tower Support Manager. Air Traffic Control Options: There are three unique air traff c control job descriptions within the FAA. Controllers specialize in one option and usually spend their entire career in that option. The three options are: Enroute Controllers: Working in Air Route Traffic Control Centers, these controllers are responsible for separating and directing aircraft through large areas of airspace while they transit from one airport to another. The airspace covers hundreds of miles and usually covers many states. There are 26 "centers" throughout the United States. One such center, called Minneapolis Center, is located in Farmington. This center has jurisdiction over aircraft transiting through or landing at airports in North and South Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa and Wisconsin. Terminal Controllers: These controllers are always located at an airport. Their job pertains to all air traffic control activities associated with landing and departing aircraft. They may be working in a tower cab (the glass top of a tower), or in a radar room, also kno«n as a TRACON (Terminal Radar Approach Control). Terminal controllers can be located at busy airports such as Minneapolis, which has both totiver cab operations and TRACON operations; or at a smaller airport such as Flying Cloud or St. Paul that only have tower cab operations. At most of the busy airports, a controller specializes in either radar operations (TRACON), or in tower cab operations. The airspace and procedures specific to tower cab and TRACON operations will be explained later. Flight Service Controllers: Working in Automated Flight Service Stations throughout the country, these controllers do not actually separate airplanes. The}' are responsible for providing weather briefings to aircraft, coordinating search and rescue efforts, and ensuring system equipment outages are passed to pilots and other air traffic facilities. Princeton is the Automated Flight Service Station that provides services to the Minneapolis area. National Airspace System (NAS): The term that is used to encompass all of the US airspace, equipment, navigational aids, airports, procedures and regulations, and human resources. Delegated Airspace: Throughout the National Airspace System, air traffic control responsibility for all of the controlled airspace within the United States has been divided, and then further divided until it has been delegated down to an individual air traffic control position in either the enroute or terminal control option. This is much like cutting a pie into pieces or breaking up a puzzle. It is divided "horizontally" defined by miles, and also '`vertically" in altitudes of thousands of feet. Airspace is never shared between controllers, although there may be airspace that is delegated above or below other airspace. • Separation Standards: Within each controller's designated airspace they are responsible for separating aircraft by "separation standards" set forth in national air traffic regulations. These standards ~~ary according to such things as whether an aircraft is in "center airspace'' or "terminal airspace"; or if the aircraft is Landing or taking off; if the weather is cloudy or clear; or even what type aircraft is involved. The separation that is required between aircraft is usually achieved by two methods: 1) ensuring aircraft remain specified miles apart if at the same altitude, or 2) ensuring that they will be specified altitudes apart if at the same geographic location. For these reasons, air traffic control separation has commonl}~ been termed as "three dimensional". Radar Vector: A radar vector is the instruction given by a controller to either get an aircraft to it's destination or to separate it from another aircraft. It is known as a "heading" that an aircraft is instructed to fly. The heading given is based off the 360 degrees of a compass. An example being: If an aircraft is heading west and a controller instructs the aircraft to "turn right heading 360", that aircraft would make a right hand turn and would then be heading due north. Flight Plan: A request by a pilot or aircraft operator (airlines) for entrance into the National Airspace _ System. The request includes such things as: where an aircraft is departing from, destination, requested altitude, airspeed, and aircraft information for search and rescue: Flight plans are filed either by pilots through Automated Flight Service Stations or by aircraft operators through computers directly linked to FAA computers at centers. . Flight Progress Strips: A 1 inch by 8 inch strip of paper generated by a center's flight data computer that contains specific information on a flight necessary to provide air traffic services. These strips are de~•eloped from pertinent information obtained from an aircraft's flight plan. They are a paper trail that follows an aircraft from one air traffic position to another. They are generated from the FAA computer prior to the aircraft reaching each air traffic controller's delegated airspace in which the aircraft will pass through. Radar Data Block: A computer generated radar "tag" that is associated with each individual radar target for an .aircraft. This tag contains 2 or 3 lines of information that tell a controller the callsign (or flight number) of the radar target, the altitude and the type aircraft. It may also contain a brief message about flight information such as the aircraft's destination. The radar data block is fixed onto the radar target of an aircraft within one mile after its departure and follows the radar target from controller to controller and from facility to facility, throughout the National Airspace System. -The radar data block is the normal method in which a controller "hands off' or releases control of an aircraft to the next air traffic controller who's airspace the aircraft will enter next. It is also used for ANOMS data. STAR (Standard Terminal Arrival Route): A published set of procedures that a pilot flies when coming into a major airport. The STAR begins at the boundary of the TRACON's delegated airspace and continues to a point close to the airport at which time a controller begins issuing radar vectors. Minneapolis Airport has 4 STARS coming from the Northwest, East, South, and Southwest. All jets and high performance propeller driven aircraft come in on these STARS. 3. Published Instrument Approach: A set of published procedures, along tivith airborne and ground navigational equipment, that guide an aircraft to the runway after a controller releases them from radar vectors. There are many instrument approaches utilizing different types of ground navigational equipment. At Minneapolis an ILS (Instrument Landing System) instrument approach is utilized for all of the runways. This is currently the most accurate instrument approach that is widely used throughout the National Airspace System. SID (Standard Instrument Departure): A published set of procedures and instructions that an aircraft follows when departing certain airports. These procedures can either be requested by a pilot through his flight plan, or assigned by an air traffic controller. Minneapolis airport currently has 2 SIDS and is evaluating the possible use of ~ others. ****************************~*************~***********~~~~~**~x~~~*~~~~~~******~:***** Minneapolis Air Traffic Control Operating Positions: Tower Cab: Local Controller (Tower Controller): Is responsible for directing aircraft that are landing, • taking off, or operating in the air within 5 miles of the airport. Minneapolis utilizes two local controllers during periods of busy traffic, one for the north side of the airport and one for the south side. Ground Controller: Is responsible for vehicle movements and aircraft movements on the ground. Directs aircraft to and from the runway. Minneapolis utilizes two ground controllers during periods of busy traffic, one for the north side of the airport and one for the south side. Flight Data/Clearance Delivery: Is responsible for maintaining and issuing aircraft flight plan information and special instructions prior to aircraft leaving the gate. This position is also responsible for ensuring all weather is accurate and issued to the pilot. Gatehold Controller: This position is utilized only during very busy times. They are responsible for regulating the amount of aircraft that are released to taxi out to the runway for departure. This position prevents long lines of aircraft waiting to depart. Cab Coordinator: Coordinates any special operations or instructions between the tower cab and the TRACON. Coordinates between the two local controllers when they are both in operation. C~ TRaCON: 4. Feeder Controller: Directs aircraft arriving Minneapolis that are transiting along the 4 STARS. Is responsible for aircraft 40 miles from the airport as they enter Minneapolis TRACON delegated airspace until they are close to the airport. Minneapolis utilizes both a north and a south feeder controller. Arrival Controller: Takes responsibilit<~ for arriving aircraft from the.feeder controller. The arrival controller directs the aircraft using radar vectors to a point straight out from the landing runway at which point the aircraft continues to the runway following the published instrument approach procedures. At Minneapolis, aircraft usually are cleared for the instrument approach 15-25 miles from touchdown. Minneapolis utilizes both north and south arrival controllers when traffic is busy. Departure Controller: Is responsible for directing aircraft that depart Minneapolis airport to a point 40 miles from the airport. The departure controller utilizes radar vectors and SIDs to get the aircraft headed towards its destination. Minneapolis utilizes. both a north and south departure controller w-hen departure traffic is busy. Satellite Controller: Provides arrival and departure radar services to aircraft that are operating - to and from other airports within 40 miles of Minneapolis. These airports include Flying Cloud, St. Paul, Anoka County and Cn~stal. There are three satellite controllers during periods of busy traffic. . The TRACON also has several coordinator positions and a flight data/clearance delivery position. • r • • Minneapolis Approach Control Terminal Airspace 12L/R (40 mile radius from Minneapolis Airport Northwest Fix from the ground to 17,000 feet) (OLLEE) n C.. - ,~1 ~ _ Canada. T. \' • Alaska Jan ~ ~o • ' • ~a 4 _. ~. ~' „~ Saa Francisco, en• Seattle • ~ ~ \\ \ ~ \ f \ \\ .. ~ l' \ _ _ _. \~t --~ ----- ~ c- 3 --~- --~ \. ~, \\ \ sw C \\ ~ '\\ s • 0 DO \\ \ 69 ~ y • `~ \ \\ `% \\ \ 69] • 1 ] ;~;T.~ ~a -~• • d J \\ --.._ ~ f X91 1 / / ^ ` 7 ' `~ / • / ~~ • ~ ~ • Southwest Fix 1' o • • i -< '- -~ • Los Angela, Denver Minneapolis Center Airspace 0 ~..~,o.~.:~ ~t•S]']3.7~• rJ'1]'S0.1' ]•E wrs+a pan ~' ` ' ~~~~ ro • a ~ ~ ]s sr+ ~K 0 [9"16 ~ • • . KaOaaa Ciy • Tesas • - r • .~ ,~ South Fix (CANEN) Northeast Fix (71NINZ) . • ~ • -. ~ T 1 ~ •\ ACC, II Washington DC ~~,,,,,~ New York k` \ h ~ -- ----o u ~ cv Pennsylcaaia, . Charlotte y~ Memphis Florida Disgnw for briefing piapoees only. sot w xale. Minneapolis Center Airspace • :J s Minneapolis Approach Control Terminal Airspace 30L/R Northwest Fix (40 mile radius from Minneapolis Airport (C)L[EE) from the ground to 17,000 feet} A H . ~ •• ~ Canada, ~ ~\ X Alaska , San Francisco, • Y Seattle ~ n ~ :R r ~ ' \ . • b-' • r , . ~ T 9I r ~ \ 1 1 Minneapolis Center Airspace ~ /. BOStnn, Green say ~` 4- - - - ~ - - - - - ~~ ~ ~_ _ ~ `~ . • Northeast Fix . ` - c~ ' o oc ~ ~~I wt 6 ~ !`~~1~tr~v1C A T ~ ~ -~ . x •. • ssw ~ ~ . (TWINn J sw ~ ~ R -~ y ~ • ~~ r ~~. Y\ ~i ~• ./ ~ ~ `\ 2 ~ .L - -~ 10Y ~`~ / r n ~1ct-G~` ~` t _ _ • ~ ~ ~~~V~ . `~ Was6in~ton DC ' • • / ~ •rr ~ '. ~`~ New York .~ • ~ Southwest Fix to ~ ~ • ~ (SEANE) ~ ~` ~ ~~~ Q SPA ~ \ \~ ^ ~ \ ~ ~ r I ~ ~ ^` \ \~ Los Angela, am • • ~ ~ ~`.~ `. Denver n Ors ~ ~ ~ ~~~ \. sta _ .~ `~ ~ i r 0 s ~ ~MG ~ /}ti h~ ` . • ~ U I Pennsylvania, • t~ ~ s C6arlofte ` ' • 1 • Kansaa City • Te=a! n Diinneapolis Center Airspace ' ~ , r ; I • I Memphis • Florida South Fix (CANEN) rsr runwu art t~'S7'75.]e• !7'17'50.1' 7'E rrrsx a,n YINNEAPCI.tS-ST. AAUI R:T1, MV. ASR-9 50 NN Vi0E0 uAP Rx't5 301.-3CR Dtigrmn fOt briefing pt¢posw only, not w scale. • MINNEAPOLIS ATCT ** Runway Selection ** **Noise Abatement ** **Midnight Operations** RUNWAY SELECTION. • FAA Order 8400.9, National Safety & Operational Criteria for Runway Use Program. • Parallel runway selection based on, but not limited to: * wind * weather * traffic conditions * determined by the OSIC/Tower Supervisor/CIC. • Vector arriving aircraft at 4,000 ft. MSL or higher until intercepting the glidepath unless a particular situation dictates otherwise. • Landing over Highland or South Minneapolis: Noise sensitive area ATIS Message. - • When on the parallels, select a configuration that will place the majority of traffic over Eagan/Mendota Heights corridor when operationally feasible. • Use of Runway 4 or 22 in a balanced manner and in conjunction with the Mendota Heights/Eagan noise corridor as much as feasible. Note: "Balanced manner" means that Runways 4 and 22 should be used with equal priority. This priority does not guarantee equal numbers of aircraft operations will occur at each runway end. • Cross runway operations not required: * visibility is less than one mile -and/or- * the Supervisor/Tower CIC determines traffic volume and complexity are such that safety and service would be derogated by the use of a cross runway. • No circling approach by turbojet aircraft. • Helicopters requesting approaches use the same noise abatement procedures as aircraft. • ~IENDOTA HEIGHTS/EAGAIV' PROCEDtiRES. De artures on Runways 12R and 12L. P Whenever possible, under non-simultaneous departure conditions: Aircraft departing Runway 12R will be assigned a heading to maintain an approximate ground track of 10~° magnetic, and; • Aircraft departing Runway 12L will be assigned a heading to maintain a ground track along the extended centerline, approximately 118° magnetic. When diverging separation is in use, it shall be based upon the following criteria: • Runway 12R - a heading between 090° and 105° or a track on or north of the 30L localizer. Runway 12L -between 090° and/or a heading which will track on or north of the 30L localizer. • Proceed on the assigned heading until at least 3 miles from the departure end of the runway, then assigned on-course headings as soon as practical after the 3-mile point. • Arrivals and departures on Runways 30L and 34R. • Aircraft south of Runway 30L localizer arriving on 30L and 30R shall be vectored to at least a 4-mile final. When issuing a visual approach clearance to these arrivals, the pilot shall also be advised to make at least a 4-mile final. For example: "Cleared visual approach Rirrnvay 30L, make at least a 4-mile final for noise abatement. " • Local Control shall instruct all turbojet aircraft departing Runway 30L, that will make a left turn, to maintain runway heading. Local Control shall issue assigned heading after the departure is beyond the .departure end of 30L and prior to transfer of communications. Aircraft departing 30L and 30R making right turns shall be instructed to remain on runway, heading until leaving 1,500 ft. MSL (2,000 ft. when weather is below 1000-7) before turning to assigned heading. F~~1 ~J Aircraft departing on Runway 22 and making a right turn shall: • Be instructed to remain on runway heading until leaving 1,500 ft. MSL. • Not be issued a heading greater than 350° until past the 30R localizes course. • Aircraft departing Runway 4 shall be issued headings that avoid overflying the Veterans' Administration Hospital as much as possible. • Intersection Departures -Turbojets only. Controllers shall ensure that intersection takeoffs, for turbojet aircraft, are not initiated when the departure path is over a noise sensitive area; i.e., departing Runway 4, 30L and 30R. QUIET HOURS PROCEDURES. During quiet hours' (10:30 p.m. unti16:00 a.m.), maximize the use of the Mendota Heights/ Eagan corridor as much as feasible by departing Runways 12L and 12R, and landing Runways 3 OL and 3 OR. • If Runway 4/22 usage is required, give equal priority to either end. • Quiet hour procedures shall also be applied to all aircraft with noise characteristics similar to a BE-18 or DC-3. • Departures with noise characteristics may be issued a heading to remain over the river basin until leaving 3,000 ft. or higher before proceeding on course. MIDNIGHT OPERATIONS. Opposite direction operations. • Opposite direction operations will be utilized when wind and weather permit as per FAA Order 8400.9 and local runway use and noise abatement procedures. • Tower will ensure that all noise sensitive departures will remain within the noise corridor. If Tower anticipates more than a 15 minute total delay or 5 minute delay at the runway for departure aircraft, coordinate with TRACON as necessary for possible change to the preferred cross runway operation. Interesting Facts or Useless Information About Minneapolis AiY Traffic • There are 88 air traffic controllers working at Minneapolis Tower: 56 Tyacon and 32 Tower Cab. •- There are 14 supervisors, and 1 S administrative support personnel. • Minneapolis Tower Cab is the 13th busiest in the coacntry. • Minneapolis TRACON is 10th busiest in the coz~ntry. • The Tower Cab provides air traffic service to approximately 1600 aircraft - each week day. • The TRACONprovides air traffic service to approximately 2000 aircraft each week day. i April, 1998 MASAC Technical Advisor's Report ,~ Minneapolis / St. Paul International Airport MONTHLY MEETING - Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council Chairman: ..._..... Robert P. Johusoa l5cc Chairman: Tbomas Hneg Tcchnical Advisor: ~ ~~ Secrcwrv: McLLsa Scovronski Airborne Erprcss: Brian Bates Air Transport Association: Peal McGraw AlPA: Roo Johasoo city of &oomingtan: Petroaa I.ee _ Vern Wlko: city ojBumsvillc. Ed dbrter Cirv of Fggan: Jon Hohen4eia Mace Starkha Cirv of Inver Grove HriRhn: Dale Hammoas City of Madera Hcights: JIB Smith Kevin Batchelder City of Minneapdis: Dena [Jadherg Skve Mim Joe I.ee Glean Stroad Saudra CoWfa Rq Mike Cramer Cirv of Richfield: Krlstal Stokes Dawn Welael Cin r~St. Loris Park: Robert Adrcws cin of St. Pad: Thomas H. Hueg cin ref Sunfish take: Glenda Spbtta Lklw Air[Goes /nr.: ,Larry Goehrlog ONL Airw•avs: Brian Simoasoa Federal Erprcss: Dan DeBord F~Jrral biatim Adminisrratim: Bruce Wagoner Cfady Greene MACSwg Dkk Kelaz MBAA: Robert P. Johnson Mrwlw Nnnhrrv Airlink: Phil Burke Mrrrt,pnl,wn Airports Carnmissim: Cammlalouer Alton Gasper MN Ao National Guard: Moor Roy J• Shetka Northwest Aidincx' !Nark Salmeu JeaaUer Sayte Steve Hohne Naaey Stoudl St. Paul Chronbrr nfCnmmrrcc Rdt MMNktoa Sun Cntrntn• Airlines: (:otdoo Graves Unard Airlines lnr.: Kevla Black United Parrrl Srrvicc~ MBce (:ever US. Air Fi,rcr Rrsrne: Caplaia David J. Gerken Metropolitan Airports Commission Declaration of Purposes 1.) Promote public welfaze and national security; serve public interest, convenience, and necessity; promote air navigation and transportation, international, national, state, and local, in and through this state; promote the efficient, safe, and economical handling of air commerce; assure the inclusion of this state in national and international programs of air transportation; and to those ends to develop the full potentialities of the metropolitan area in this state as an aviation center, and to correlate that azea with all aviation facilities in the entire state so as to provide for the most economical and effective use of aeronautic facilities and services in that area; 2.) Assure the residents of the metropolitan area of the minimum environmental impact from air navigation and transportation, and to that end provide for noise abatement, control of airport area land.use,-and other protective measures; and 3.) Promote the overall goals of the state's environmental policies and minimize the public's exposure to noise and safety hazazds around airports. Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council Statement of Purpose This corporation was formed in furtherance of the general welfare of the communities adjoining Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport - Wold-Chamberlain Field, a public airport in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, through the alleviation of the problems created by the sound of aircraft using the airport; through study and evaluation on a continuing basis of the problem and of suggestion for the alleviation of the same; through initiation, coordination and promotion of reasonable and effective procedures, control and regulations, consistent with the safe operation of the airport and of aircraft using the same; and through dissemination of information to the affected communities, their affected residents, and the users of the airport respecting the problem of aircraft noise nuisance and in respect to suggestions made and actions initiated and taken to alleviate the problem. Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council Representation The membership shall include representatives appointed by agencies, corporations, associations and governmental bodies which by reason of their statutory authority and responsibility or control over the airport, or by reason of their status as airport users, have a direct interest in the operation of the airport. Such members will be called User Representatives and Public Representatives, provided that the User Representatives and Public Representatives shall at all times be equal in number. The Airport 24-hour Noise Hotline is 726-9411. Complaints to the hotline do not result in changes in Airport activity, but provide a public sounding board and airport information outlet. The hotline is staffed during business hours, Monday -Friday. This report is prepared and printed in house by Chad l.egve, ANOMS Coordinator Shane VanderVoort, ANOMS Technician Questions or comments may be directed to: MAC -Aviation Noise Programs Minneapolis / St. Paul International Airport 6040 28th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55450 Tel: (612) 725-6331, Fax: (612) 725-6310 ANSP Home Page: http://www.macavsat.org • Metropolitan Airports Commission Aviation Noise Programs ~ ,Contents • • Operations -and Complaint Summary. 1 .................................. -All Aircraft Summar ti O .......................................1 ............ y ons pera .................................. e il Fleet Mix Percenta MSP A ....................................... l ................ g pr Airport April Complaint Summary ............................................... .......................................1 April Operations Summary -Airport Directors Office ................. .......................................1 Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport Complaint Summary 2 Complaint Summ b Ci ............................. ~` Y ~' ........................... ....:..................:....:..:.......2 .-Available Time for Runway Use 3 ............................................ orts -All Hours Re r Lo w T .......................................3 ........ p g o e Tower Log Reports -Nighttime Hours .........:...................:........... .......................................3 All Operations 4 Runway Use Report April 1998 .................................................... .......................................4 Carrier Jet Operations 5 Runway Use. Report April 1998 ................................................... ........................................5 Nighttime -All Operations 6 Runway Use Report April 1998 ................................................... ........................................6 Nighttime Carrier Jet Operations 7 , Runway Use Report April 1998 ................................................... ..................:.....................7 Carrier Jet Operations by Type 8 Aircraft Identifier and Description Table 9 Runway Use -Day/Night Periods -All Operations 10 Daytime Hours ............................................................................. ......................................10 Community Overflight Analysis 11 Carrier Jet Operations -All Hours .............................................. ..............:........................11 Carrier Jet Operations -Nighttime (10:30 pm - 6 am) ............... ........:..............................11 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Remote Monitoring Site Locations l2 Carrier Jet Arrival Related Noise Events l3 Count of Arrival Aircraft Noise Events for Each RMT .....................................................13 Carrier Jet Departure Related Noise Events 14 Count of Departure Aircraft Noise Events for Each RMT ................................................14 Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events Identified I S Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events Identi ied l6 Ten -Loudest Aircraft Noise Events -Identified 17 Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events Identified l8 Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events Identified 19 Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events Identified 20 Flight Track Base Map 21 Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks 22 Carrier Jet Operations -April 1998 ...................................................................................22 Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks 23 Carver Jet Operations -April 1998 ...................................................................................23 Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks 24 Carrier Jet Operations -April 1998 .................................................................................. 24 Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks 25 Carver Jet Operations -April 1998 ......:...................................................................:....... 25 Analysis of Aircraft Noise Events -Aircraft Ldn dB(A) 26 Analysis of Aircraft Noise Events -Aircraft Ldp dB(A) 27 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Metropolitan Airports Commission Operations and Complaint Summary Apri11998 • Operations Summary -All Aircraft ,. Runway Arrival ~ °1o Use ~' ~ Departure' ,.:; % Use 04 432 2.3% 215 1.1% 22 265 1.4% 5018 26.7% 12 8601 44.8% 6866 36.6% 30 9881 51.5% 6692 35.6% MSP April Fleet Mix Percentage Stage Scheduled :Scheduled ~ ~ ,~ ANOMS ANOMS ; , . - - 1997 ~ .~.: _ - -998 Gaunt 1997 t Coant 1998 .Stage 2 42.1% 31.6% 44.8% 41.5% Stage 3 57.9% 68.4% 55.2% 58.5% Airport April Complaint Summary ~J :,.Airport . ; ;199'1 . rr h - ', ~ "1998 . ; MSP 977 1019 Airlake 0 0 Anoka 1 6 Crystal 1 0 Flying Cloud 1 6 Lake Elmo 0 0 St. Paul 2 4 Misc. 2 0 TOTAL 984. 1035 April Operations Summary -FAA Airport Traffic Record 1997 _ ~ _ ~ ~-~ - ~ 1.998 Air Carrier 867 855 Commuter 315 329 G.A. 171 183 Military 10 10 TOTAL -:1363=_ 1377 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 1 Metropolitan Airports Commission Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport Complaint Summary Apri11998 Complaint Summary by City -. City >:-~ _ .o: Arrival -:_ ..:Departure _ ~-.~T~tal ,..: Percentage Apple Valley 1 0 1 0.1% Arden Hills 0 2 2 0.2% Bloomington 9 70 79 8.1% Burnsville 15 51 66 6.8% Eagan 31 66 97 9.9% Eden Prairie 2 7 9 0.9% Edina 1 4 5 0.5% Inver Grove Heights 12 24 36 3.7% Maple Grove 13 15 28 2.9% Mendota 0 1 1 0.1 % Mendota Heights 18 79 97 9.9% Minneapolis 130 189 319 32.7% Plymouth 1 1 2 0.2% Richfield 21 91 112 11.5% South St. Paul 3 1 4 0.4% St. Louis Park 5 0 5 0.5% St. ~ Paul 69 25 94 9.6% Sunfish Lake 1 19 20 2.0% Total':" - . 332 645 ~ ; _. 977:.:-;: P009b Time of Day Nature of Complaint Time ~ Total ~ Nature of Complaint Total 00:00 - 05:59 73 Excessive Noise 837 06:00 -06:59 39 Early/Late 128 07:00 - 11:59 208 Low Flying 6 12:00 - 15:59 184 Structural Disturbance 5 16:00 - 19:59 160 Helicopter 0 20:00 - 21:59 126 Ground Noise 41 22:00 - 22:59 140 Engine Run-up 1 23:00 - 23:59 89 Frequency 1 Total 1019 Total 1019 CJ Page 2 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs n U • 20% 1% 38% n ~. ,~ 22 Metropolitan Airports Commission Available Time for Runway Use Tower Log Reports -April 1998 Ail Hours --_0% 04 5% 35% S% 04 9% 19% 56% 45% Nighttime Hours 0% 1% RrL~ z 22 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs 70% 73% Page 3 Metropolitan Airports Commission All Operations Runway Use Report April Runway ArrivaV Departure Count ~ Percentage April 1997 Count ;April 1997 Percentage 04 A 432 2.3% 250 1.5% 12L A 4912 25.6% 2905 17.5% 12R A 3689 19.2% 3041 18.3% 22 A 265 1.4% 261 1.6% 30L A 4664 24.3% 5524 33.2% 30R A 5217 27.2% 4633 27.9% Total Arr. 19179 ~ 100% ~~ -16614 ' 100% 04 D 215 1.1% 97 0.6% 12L D 4500 24.0% 2794 17.8% 12R D 2366 12.6% 3241' 20.7% 22 D 5018 26.7% 810 ~ 5.2% 30L D 1827 9.7% 4815 30.7% 30R D 4865 25.9% 3910 ~ 25.0% Total Dep. 18791 100% '>15667.: 100% • Note: ARTS data missing for 0.2 days. . Page 4 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Metropolitan Airports Commission • • Carrier Jet Operations Runway Use Report Apri~98 Runwa Y ArrivaU - Departure Count Percen ~e April 1997 'Count Apri11997 Percentage 04 A 270 2.1 % 125 1.2% 12L A 3838 29.5% 1855 18.0% 12R A 2088 16.1% 1797 17.4% 22 A 213 1.6% 125 1.2% 30L A 2554 19.6% 3342 32.4% 30R A 4038 31.1% 3076 29.8% Total Arr. :13001 100% ~ ~ ~ 10320... _ 100% 04 D 147 1.2% 17 0.2% 12L D 3356 26.1 % 1732 17.6% 12R D 1335 10.4% 2064 21.0% 22 D 3613 28.1 % ~ 516 5.2% 30L D 1023 8.0% 3001 30.5% 30R D 3364 26.2% ~ 2506 25.5% Total Dep. 12838 =; 100% 9836 `100% NQt~: ARTS data missing for 0.2 days. Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 5 Metropolitan Airports Commission Nighttime -All Operations Runway Use Report April 1998 3.7% • Runway ~= ArrivaU ,Departure ~~; Count Percentage April 1997 Count April1997 Percentage 04 A 167 15.2% 94 12.2% 12L A 250 22.8% 20 2.6% 12R A 52 4.7% 64 8.3% 22 A 93 8.5% 92 11.9% 30L A 165 15.1 % 398 51.6% 30R A 370 33.7% 103 13.4% Total Arr. 1097 ~ 100% '771 - 100% ,' 04 D 56 3.7% 12 3.6% 12L D 467 31.1% 59 17.5% 12R D 212 14.2% 128 37.9% 22 D 380 25.3% 67 19.9% 30L D 97 6.5% 62 18.4% 30R D 288 19.2% 9 2.7% Total Dep. 1500 100% ,,:337 " :100% = , Page 6 Note: ARTS data missing for 0.2 days. Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs CJ Metropolitan Airports Commission Nighttime Carrier .Jet Operations Runway Use Report April 1998 • 3.3% Runway ~~ArrivaV Departure T.. Count Percentage ~ April 997 Count -Apri11997: Percentage 04 A 149 16.1 % 49 9.6% 12L A 227 24.6% 9 1.8% 12R A 34 3.7% 34 6.7% 22 A 85 9.2% 59 11.6% 30L A 104 11.3% 284 55.8% 30R A 324 35.1% 74 14.5% Total Arr. 923 ' ~ ~ 100% ~`' 509 100% 04 D 34 3.3% 1 0.7% 12L D 370 35.6% 30 19.7% 12R D 86 8.3% 61 40.1% 22 D 257 24.7% 43 28.3% 30L D 57 5.4% 12 7.9% 30R D 236 22.7% 5 3.3% Total Dep. 1040 100% 152 100% Note: ARTS data missing for 0.2 days. . Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 7 Metropolitan Airports Commission Carrier Jet Operations by 'I~pe - April 1998 _: B777 0 0.0% B727H 270 1.1% B73B 755 2.9% B74A 131 0.5% B74B 58 0.2% B757 2747 10.6% B767 86 0.3% BA46 1024 4.0% CARD 233 0.9% FA 10 0 0.0% DC 10 989 3.8% DC8 0 0.0% DC9H 3566 13.8% A300 80 0.3% A310 34 0.1% A320 2498 9.7% F100 1195 4.6% L101 47 0.2% MD 11 4 0.0% MD80 1290 5.0% H25B 99 0.4% H25C 18 0.1% BA 11 1 0.0% B727 2433 9.4% B73A 1562 6.1% DC8 183 0.7% DC9 6536 25.3% F28 0 0.0% Total 25839. ; :;100% Note: ARTS data missing for 0.2 days. 58.5 % Stage III f_~ 41.5 % Stage II • Page 8 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Metropolitan Airports Commission Aircraft Identifier and. DescriptionTable • yA"~ ' ' Airc><'aft Description Ideahfier ,. , BOEING 727 B727 BOEING 727 - HUSH KTT B727H BOEING 737 - 300/400/500 B73B BOEING 737 -100/200 B73A BOEING 747 - 100/200!300 B74A BOEING 747 - 400 B74B BOEING 757 B757 BOEING 767 B767 BOEING 777 B777 BRITISH AEROSPACE 125 - 1000 H25C BRITISH AEROSPACE 125 - 7001800 H25B BRITISH AEROSPACE 111 BA11 BRITISH AEROSPACE 146 BA46 CANADAIR 650 CARD FA 10 FALCON 10 MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC 10 DC 10 MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC8, DC8 70 -SERIES RE (ALL SERIES) p,Cg MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC9 DC9 MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC9 HUSH KTT DC9H AIRBUS INDUSTRIES A300 A300 AIRBUS INDUSTRIES A310 A310 AIRBUS INDUSTRIES A320 A320 F 100 FOKKER 100 FOKKER F27 (PROP) F27 FOKKER F28 F28 LOCKHEED TRISTAR L1011 L101 MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC 11 MD 11 MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC9 80-SERIES MD80 SWEARINGEN ME'I`ROLINER 3 SW3 SWEARINGEN METROLINER 4 SW4 SF34 SAAB 340 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 9 Metropolitan Airports Commission Runway Use - Day/Night .Periods -All Operations Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport April 1998 Daytime Hours Runway Name Departures Day Percentage Use Arrivals Day Percentage Use ,Total Day 04 159 0.9% 265 1.5% 424 12L 4033 23.3% 4662 25.8% 8695 . 12R 2154 12.5% 3637 20.1% 5791. 22 4638 26.8% 172 0.9% '~ 48I0- °'~ 30L 1730 10.0% 4499. 24.9% '' ~~6229 ' 30R 4577 26.5% ~ 4847 26.8% ~~..9424 ..Total .17291 :r '100%'~ ,; '.1$082 `~ ~,'~100%,~ ' '' 35373 Nighttime Hours Runway Name Departures Night Percentage Use Arrivals Night Percentage Use Total Night 04 56 3.7% 167 15.2% °223 12L 467 31.1% 250 22.8% 717 12R 212 14.2% 52 4.7% 264 '' 22 380 25.3% 93 8.5% 473 30L 97 6.5% 165 15.1% '' 262 30R 288 19.2% 370 33.7% 658 Total -- 1500 100% = ~ 1097 -. 100% 2597 Note: ARTS data missing for 0.2 days. u Page 10 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Metropolitan Airports Commission Community Overflight Analysis Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport April 1998 . Carrier Jet Operations -All Hours ~ Number Number Total Percent ...Number of Overt t Area ~ Arrivals Departures Carrier Jet Carrier Jet . Operations . Operations Operations . per 24 Hours Over So. Minneapolis/ 5926 4387 10313 39.9% 346.1 No. Richfield Over So. Richfield/ 270 3613 3883 15.0% 130.3 Bloomington Over St. Paul - 213 147 360 1.4% 12.1 Highland Park Over Eagan/ 6592 4691 11283 43.7% 378.6 Mendota Heights Total '25839 100% 867.1 Carrier Jet Operations -Nighttime (10:30pm - 6 am) Number Number Total `Percent Number of OverOight Area Arrivals Departures Carrier Jet " Carrier Jet - Operations Operations Operations per 24 Hours Over So. Minneapolis/ 261 293 554 28.2% 18.6 No. Richfield Over So. Richfield/ 149 257 406 20.7% 13.6 Bloomington Over St. Paul - 85 34 119 6.1% 4.0 Highland Park Over Eagan/ 428 456 884 45.0% 29.7 Mendota Heights Total _ 1963 -" 100% 65.9 Note: ARTS data missing for 0.2 days. • Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 11 Metropolitan Airports Commission Remote Monitoring Site Locations Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System <~ _; `` ° Fsy1` • F #g' F #9 . ~~2 O F 11 • FS#4 • • . FS#3 • F 10 O • • FS//6 FS#1 FS • FS#7 as • ;ld Fs 18 / ~I • ~ •FS# 19 • FS#17 10000 f q FS# 3 • J~ • FS# 13 D I ~ D Fs#z1 F #16• •F 14 • Inver Gr ve Heights • FS 4 Eagan F # `~ a ~o a ~~ ~ a ~-~ • • Page l2 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Metropolitan Airports Commission Carrier. Jet Arrival ,Related Noise Events April 1998 Count of Arrival Aircraft Noise Events for Each RMT ~_ RMT ID _ --- . City pproanmate Street Location Events >65dB _ ..... _. Events >80dB Events >90dB Events >100dB 1 Minneapolis Xerxes Avenue & 41st Street 3117 72 2 0 2 Minneapolis Fremont Avenue & 43rd Street 3314 610 13 0 3 Minneapolis W Elmwood Street & Belmont Avenue 1785 632 30 0 4 Minneapolis Oakland Avenue & 49th Street 3470 1123 16 0 5 Minneapolis 12th Avenue & 58th Street 2187 1056 70 0 6 Minneapolis 25th Avenue & 57thStreet 3670 2855 752 1 7 Richfield Wentworth Avenue & 64th Street 13 1 0 0 8 Minneapolis Longfellow Avenue & 43rd Street 15 0 0 0 9 St. Paul Saratoga Street & Hartford Avenue 197 126 9 0 10 5t. Paul Itasca Avenue & Bowdoin Street 201 184 59 1 11 St. Paul Finn Street & Scheffer Avenue 51 3 0 0 12 St. Paul Alton Street & Rockwood Avenue 12 4 0 0 13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Court 52 1 0 0 14 Eagan First Street & McKee Street 4862 68 1 0 15 Mendota Heights Cullen Street & Lexington Avenue 196 28 3 0 16 Eagan Avalon Avenue & Vilas Lane 2309 1097 27 0 17 Bloomington 84th Street & 4th Avenue 233 128 4 0 18 Richfield 75th Street & 17th Avenue 244 94 0 0 19 Bloomington 16th Avenue & 84th Street 66 1 0 0 20 Richfield 75th Street & 3rd Avenue 16 0 0 0 21 Inver Grove Heights Barbara Avenue & 67th Street 196 1 0 0 22 Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail 1646 5 0 0 23 Mendota Heights End of Kenndon Avenue 1320 10 1 0 24 Eagan Chapel Lane & Wren Lane 4318 80 0 0 Note: ARTS data missing for 0.2 days. • Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 13 Metropolitan Airports Commission Carrier Jet Departure Related Noise Events - April 1998. f De arture Aircraft Noise Events for Each RMT Count o p RMT ID City Approximate Street Location Events _ ~65dB Events ~gpdB Events >90dB Events >100dB 1 Minneapolis Xerxes Avenue & 41st Street 757 269 11 0 2 Minneapolis Fremont Avenue & 43rd Street 886 415 .34 0 3 Minneapolis W Elmwood Street & Belmont Avenue 1036 535 79 0 4 Minneapolis Oakland Avenue & 49th Street 1712 831 120 3 5 Minneapolis 12th Avenue & 58th Street 3210 1363 306 2S 6 Minneapolis 25th Avenue & 57th Street 3670 2995 1606 300 7 Richfield Wentworth Avenue & 64th Street 1414 648 68 1 8 Minneapolis Longfellow Avenue & 43rd Street 1529 589 50 0 9 St. Paul Saratoga Street & Hartford Avenue 80 31 8 0 10 St. Paul . Itasca Avenue & Bowdoin Street. 127 102 56 7 11 St. Paul Finn Street & Scheffer Avenue 116 61 20 2 12 St. Paul Alton- Street & Rockwood Avenue 43 19 1 0 13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Court 2208 574 2 i 0 14 Eagan First Street & McKee Street 2151 853 103 3 IS Mendota Heights Cullen Street & Lexington Avenue 1638 346 25 0 16 .Eagan Avalon Avenue & Vilas Lane 1262 604 123 5 17 Bloomington 84th Street & 4th Avenue 2394 984 206 9 18 Richfield 75th Street & 17th Avenue 3540 3154 1834 233 19 Bloomington 16th Avenue & 84th Street 3422 2030 717 46 20 Richfield 75th Street &3rd Avenue 477 .122 25 1 21 Inver. Grove Heights Barbara Avenue & 67th Street 1046 285 1 0 22 Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail 990 156 3 0 23 Mendota Heights End of Kenndon Avenue 3297 1723 530 52 24 Eagan Chapel Lane & Wren Lane 1875 511 13 0 Note: ARTS data missing for 0.2 days. r~ L~ • Page 14 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs • • Metropolitan Airports Commission Ten Loudest. Aircraft Noise Events Identified RMT #1: Xerxes Ave. & 41st St. RMT #2: Fremont Ave. & 43rd St. Minneapolis ~~ ,~ ~ A/C Type , -.Max Level A/D 98/04/12 20:18:53 DC9 92.1 A 98/04/16 09:29:36 B727 92.0 D 98/04/02 20:38:01 B727 92.0 D 98/04/0211:18:14 DC9 91.8 D 98/04/1511:49:29 B727 91.5 D 98/04/1815:48:09. B727 91.2 D 98/04/0219:46:47 B727 91.1 D 98/04/1411:28:32 B727 90.7 D 98/04/0214:37:29 B727 90.5 D 98/04/07 20:56:58 B727 90.5 D ItMT #3: W. Elmwood St. & Belmont Ave. Minneapolis ~~ nme A/C Type Max Level A/D 98/04/1515:05:38 B727 99.5 D 98/04/0710:54:39 DC9 98.8 A 98/04/08 22:14:51 B727 98.8 D 98/04/0210:45:14 B727 98.3 D 98/04/07 07:54:47 DC9 98.1 A 98/04/09 09:43:51 B727 97.8 D 98/04/14 21:53:34 B727 97.8 D 98/04/1511:48:49 B727 97.2 D 98/04/0214:13:07 B727 96.5 D 98/04/09 15:18:15 B727 96.4 • . D Minneapolis Date Time A/C ~~ Max Level A/D 98/04/1011:52:41 B727 97.7 D 98/04/02 20:37:47 B727 96.9 D 98/04/14 22:22:50 B727 96.9 D 98/04/1812:46:17 B727 96.8 D 98/04/1815:47:48 B727 96.8 D 98/04/07 20:56:40 B727 95.3 D 98/04/02 09:47:18 B727 94.9 D 98/04/2012:03:56 B727 94.6 D 98/04/1712:09:04 A320 94.4 A 98/04/1609:29:15 B727 94.0 D RMT #4: Oakland Ave. & 49th St. Minneapolis Date Time` 1 ~ ~ A/D 98/04/19 21:52:54 B727 100.7 D 98/04/1812:45:55 B727 100.5 D 98/04/13 21:49:24 B727 100.2 D 98/04/2012:03:27 B727 99.1 D 98/04/2016:12:47 B727 99.0 D 98/04/2011:29:07 B727 98.9 D 98/04/2313:24:22 B727 98.7 D 98/04/2315:07:27 DC9 98.6 D 98/04/0109:28:07 B727 98.5 D 98/04/1615:07:17 B727 98.0 D Note: ARTS data missing for.0.2 days. Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs - , ~ Page 15 Metropolitan Airports Commission Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events Identified RMT #5:.12th Ave. & 58th St. Minneapolis Date Time ~ •.~ A/D 98/04/09 08:21:32 B727 105.4 D 98/04/0112:23:33 B727 104.8 D 98/04/1811:57:48 B727 104.6 D 98/04/1519:25:25 B727 104.3 D 98/04/0816:19:37 B727 103.9 D 98/04/1410:06:35 B727 103.7 D 98/04/1510:16:34 B727 102.8 D 98/04/02 08:10:56 DC9 102.4 D 98/04/02 09:02:52 B727 102.2 D 98/04/0120:59:54 B727 101.9 D RMT #6: 25th Ave. & 57th St. Minneapolis " Date TSme ,~~ ~ Level A/D 98/04/19 21:50:25 B727 109.9 D 98/04/0107:44:09 B727 109.8 D 98/0410115:49:06 B727 109.2 D 98/04/1811:36:39 B727 109.2 D 98/04/17 -18:53:06 B727 109.1 D 98/04/1812:45:25 B727 108.8 D 98/04/10 22:55:52 DC9 108.8 D 98/04/0917:36:59 DC9 108.6 D 98/04/1514:32:19 B727 108.5 D 98/04/0110:01:57 B727 108.3 D • RMT #7: Wentworth Ave. & 64th St. Richfield Date Time ~~ Level A/D 98/04/02 20:54:15 B727 100.2 D 98/04/02 07:41:33 B727 98.9 D 98/04/02 20:40:18 B727 98.6 D 98/04/1611:37:38 B727 98.6 D 98/04/0116:22:05 B727 98.1 D 98/04/02 21:59:14 LR25 97.6 D 98/04/02 06: l 1:43 B727 97.5 D 98/04/0910:07:33 B727 96.9 D 98/04/0218:38:59 B727 •96.7 D 98/04/2310:07:47 B727 96.5 D RMT #8: Longfellow Ave. & 43rd St. Minneapolis Date ~ . A/C TYPe Max Level A/D 98/04/1516:24:42 B727 98.9 D 98/04/1615:48:00 B727 97.3 D 98/04/1015:35:16 B727 95.9 D 98/04/1519:23:52 B727 95.9 D 98/04/0819:02:19 B727 95.8 D 98/04/ 15 10:12:21 DC9 95.8 D 98/04/30 07:48:30 B727 .95.5 D 98/04/0115:49:43 B727 95.2 D 98/04/0107:56:52 B727 94.8 D 98/04/1418:58:01 B727 94.4 D • Note: ARTS data missing for 0.2 days. Page 16 AviationYNoise & Satellite Programs r: Metropolitan Airports Commission • • C] Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events Identified RMT #9: Saratoga St. & Hartford Ave. RMT #10: Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St. St. Paul Date Time A/C Type. Maa .Level ~ A/D 98/04/0715:08:41 B74A 97.2 D 98/04/0112:.12:24 B74A 96.3 D 98/04/1515:20:04 B74A 96.3 D 98/04/2013:51:50 B74A 95.2 D 98/04/1217:15:04 B727 94.6 A 98/04/0812:17:54 B74A 94.0 D 98/04/2515:17:22 B74A 93.2 D 98/04/1214:31:44 B727 92.6 A 98/04/18 01:48:59 B727 92.5 A 98/04/15 20:26:55 DC 10 92.1 D RMT #11: Finn St. & Scheffer Ave. St. Paul Date Time A/C Type Maz Level A/D 98/04/0819:33:30 B727 102.1 D 98/04/0213:23:14 B74A 100.5 D 98/04/0919:27:40 B727 98.4 D 98/04/1513:14:41 B74A 98.3 D 98/04/2517:35:06 B74A 98.1 D 98/04/2015:20:07 B74A 98.0 D 98/04/1615:16:53 B74A 97.7 D 98/04/17 05:05:17 B727 97.2 D 98/04/0915:15:14 B74A 96.4 D 98/04/1415:19:44 B74A 96.2 D St. Paul --~.. Date, Time .:Type ~~ A/D 98/04/0115:21:14 B74A 105.1 D 98/04/2512:00:51 B727 104.1 D 98/04/12 17:17:18 B727 103.9 A 98/04/0112:11:59 B74A 102.8 D 98/04/2615:18:03 B74A 101.8 D 98/04/0313:14:01 B74A 100.9 D 98/04/14 15:19:28 B74A 100.9 D 98/04/0715:08:13 B74A 100.7 D 98/04/1515:19:37 B74A 99.7 D 98/04/2515:16:54 B74A 98.8 D RMT #12: Alton St. & Rockwood Ave. St. Paul Date Time A/C .:Type Maz Level A/D 98/04/08 09:37:56 B727 94.7 D 98/04/24 21:08:30 B727 88.9 A 98/04/20 06:14:18 B727 88.1 D 98/04/20 04:42:29 B727 87.6 D 98/04/2615:27:26 DC9 87.0 D 98/04/1512:47:36 MD88 86.9 D 98/04/26 21:06:01 B73A 86.7 A 98/04/17 00:16:40 B727 86.4 D 98/04/08 08:11:40 MD80 85.9 A 98/04/15 07:08:05 B727 84.6 D Note: ARTS data missing for 0.2 days. Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 17 Metropolitan Airports Commission Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events Identified I:tMT #13: Southeast End of Mohican Court Mendota Heights Date Time - `~C Type - ~ Level A/D 98/04/1919:28:14 B727 97.6 D 98/04/0612:07:00 B727 97.3 D 98/04/04 20:27:03 B727 95.6 D 98/04/1222:12:22 B727 95.5 D 98/04/0619:38:37 B727 95.4 D 98/04/04 09:42:10 B727 94.8 D 98/04/1913:23:35 B727 94.8 D 98/04/03 07:42:48 B727 94.5 D 98/04/1109:52:32 B727 94.2 D 98/04/15 08:23:21 B727 93.6 D Eagan Date Time A/C Type Max Level A/D .. 98/04/0311:05:46 B727 101.7 D 98/04/1212:36:59 B727 100.9 D 98/04/24 15:12:13 B727 ' 100.6 D 98/04/24 05:03:16 B727 98.6 D • 98/04/07 15:44:16 B727 98.3 D 98/04/1107:05:22 B727 98.3 D 98/04/0311:42:48 B727 97.3 D 98/04/0710:11:37 B727 97.2 D 98/04/08 07:10:34 B727 97.0 D 98/04/03 06:45:11 B727 96.8 D • • RMT #15: Cullon St. & Lexington Ave. Mendota Heights Date Time `~C 'lope . Max . Level A/D 98/04/2514:37:03 B727 96.6 D 98/04/19.19:19:58 B727 96.4 D 98/04/0100:04:42 B727 96.3 A 98/04/1909:41:09 B727 95.9 D 98/04/0106:12:25 B727 95.5 A 98/04/0107:08:38 DC9 95.2 A 98/04/04 20:16:38 B727 94.4 D 98/04/2511:58:27 B727 94.4 D 98/04/1217:27:37 B757 94.1 D 98/04/1919:27:57 B727 94.1 D Eagan Date Time A/C . Type .,Max Level 98/04/0616:13:06 B727 105.1 D 98/04/08 07:36:17 B727 102.8 D 98/04/2411:29:45 B727 101.5 D 98/04/0619:17:18 B727 101.4 D 98/04/2615:17:35 B727 100.2 D 98/04/15 07:29:45 B727 99.9 D 98/04/26 06:13:10 B727 99.8 D 98/04/06 20:06:29 B727 99.8 D 98/04/20 23:00:11 B727 99.7 D 98/04/20 07:06:25 B727 99.6 D Note: ARTS data missing for 0.2 days. RMT #14: 1st 5t. & McKee St. RMT #16: Avalon Ave. & alas Lane • Page 18 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Metropolitan Airports Commission Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events Identified • • RMT #17: 84th St. & 4th Ave. Bloomington - Date Time` A!C . Type , Maz Level A/D 98/04/06 22:57:44 B727 102.3 D 98/04/2419:32:06 B727 102.2 D 98/04/0615:05:42 B727 102.1 D 98/04/1111:57:18 B727 101.9 D 98/04/19 08:59:22 B727 101.9 D 98/04/1415:00:02 B727 100.5 D 98/04/1919:22:44 B727 100.3 D 98/04/2210:06:55 B727 100.3 D 98/04/19 20:08:41 B727 100.2 D 98/04/24 21:25:16 B727 99.9 D RMT #19: 16th Ave. & 84th St. Bloomington Date Time. A1C 75rpe Maz . Level ' A/D 98/04/2911:18:41 B727 106.1 D 98/04/1319:01:58 B727 103.0 D 98/04/1113:46:35 B727 102.9 D 98/04/2810:54:04 B727 102.9 D 98/04/2212:25:55 B727 102.7 D 98/04/13 07:31:47 B727 102.3 D 98/04/1913:49:03 B727 102.2 D 98/04/2019:11:14 B727 102.0 D 98/04/1711:35:03 B727 101.8 D 98/04/ l9 22:53:39 DC9 101.8 D RMT #18: 75th St. & 17th Ave. .Richfield _ Date Time :Max Level A/D 98/04/1019:20:25 B727 107.3 D 98/04/24 22:10:29 B727 107.2 D 98/04/12 08:34:05 B727 ~ 106:8 D 98/04/1911:46:55 B727 106.4 D - 98/04/12 19:20:37 B727 106.2 D 98/04/2513:40:20 B727 105.9 D 98/04/12 20:09:38 B727 105.8 D 98/04/25 21:25:25 B727 105.6 D 98/04/1813:30:02 B727 105.6 D 98/04/1019:34:26 B727 105.5 D RMT #20: 75th St. & 3rd Ave. Richfield Date Time `~ Type Maz -Level A/D 98/04/1419:29:10 B727 101.7 D 98/04/1019:34:48 B727 100.0 D 98/04/1809:56:00 B727 98.0 D 98/04/3018:48:31 B727 97.6 D 98/04/2312:13:16 B727 97.2. D 98/04/1012:26:33 B727 97.1 D 98/04/1818:52:15 B727 96.8 D 98/04/1019:37:21 B727 96.4 D 98/04/2312:11:38 DC9 95.9 D 98/04/3012:23:00 DC9 95.8 D Note: ARTS data missing for 0.2 days. Aviation Noise & Satellite. Programs Page 19 Metropolitan Airports Commission Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events Identified RMT #21: Barbara Ave. & 67th St Inver Grove Heights Date Time Tyler Max Level A/D 98/04/15 08:59:30 B727 92.6 D 98/04/1212:05:40 B727 90.0 D 98/04/15 08:24:03 B727 90.0 D 98/04/1210:11:01 B727 89.9 D 98/04/0811:52:00 B727 89.6 D 98/04/0313:11:56 DC9 89.4 D 98/04/1219:29:43 B727 89.3 D 98/04/16 05:16:37 B727 89.3 D 98/04/0113:18:52 DC9 89.1 D 98/04/1919:28:54 B727 89.0 D Inver Grove Heights Date Time A/C Type :. Maa Level A/D 98/04/1910:01:15 B727 90.7 D 98/04/0314:07:58 B727 90.6 D "98/04/0313:16:07 B727 90.3 D 98/04/15 07:30:55 B727 89.9 D 98/04/1808:37:42 B727 89.2 D 98/04/17 05:07:59 B727 88.0 D 98/04/0319:04:27 B727 87.9 D 98/04/04 21:59:55 B727 87.4 D 98/04/2612:52:38 B737 87.3 D 98/04/18 07:15:51 B727 87.2 D RMT #22: Anne Marie Trail • 1tMT #23: End of Kenndon Ave. Mendota Heights Date Time ~~ Level A/D 98/04/0612:06:28 B727 106.6 D 98/04/06 09:4b:21 B727 105.9 D 98/04/0619:38:08 B727 105.6 D 98/04/1919:27:46 B727 105.0 D 98/04/1919:19:44 B727 104.6 D 98/04/2617:48:25 B727 104.2 D 98/04/0711:45:51 B727 104.1 D 98/04/15 08:22:52 B727 103.8 D 98/04/04 20:16:35 B727 103.7 D 98/04/13 08:59:19 B727 103.6 D RMT #24: Chapel Ln. & Wren Ln. Eagan Date Time AJC Type ~ Max , Level ; - '~ 98/04/2415:12:32 B727 96.1 D 98/04/1919:58:23 DC9 93.6 D 98/04/03 06:45:31 B727 92.0 D 98/04/0314:07:28 B727 91.8 D 98/04/07 09:15:31 B727 91.8 D 98/04/0417:44:09 B727 91.5 D 98/04/18 08:37:11 B727 91.3 D 98/04/08 07:10:55 B727 91.3 D 98/04/10 05:18:25 B727 91.1 D 98/04/0415:17:44 B727 91.0 D Note: ARTS data missing for 0.2 days. • Page 20 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs f Metropolitan Airports Commission } Flight hack Base Map Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System • • Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 21 Metropolitan Airports Commission Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring Systems Flight 1~acks Carrier Jet Operations - Apri11998 April 1 to 8,1998 Page 22 3565 Carrier Jet Arrivals April l to 8,1998 Nighttime 238 Carrier Jet Nighttime Arrivals 0 e b 3511 Carrier Jet Departures 203 Carrier Jet Nighttime Departures Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs • • - Metropolitan Airports Commission Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring Systems Flight 1~acks Carrier Jet Operations - Apri11998 Apri19 to 16,1998 • 3497 Carrier Jet Arrivals Apri19 to 16,1998 Nighttime 0 o C~ a fl 0 o 282 Carrier Jet Nighttime Arrivals 3456 Carrier Jet Departures 311 Carrier Jet Nighttime Departures Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs. .. Page 23 ., Metropolitan Airports Commission Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks Carrier Jet Operations -April 1998 Apri117 to 24,1998 3422 Carrier Jet Arrivals 3390 Carrier Jet Departures Apri117 to 24,1998 Nighttime 0 0 241 Carrier Jet Nighttime Arrivals 305 Carrier Jet Nighttime Departures • • Page 24 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Metropolitan Airports Commission Airport Noise .and Operations Monitoring System Flight Tracks Carrier Jet Operations - Apri11998 Apri125 to 30,1998 Apri125 to 30,1998 Nighttime ~~ o ~, o a i• 2517 Carrier Jet Arrivals 162 Carrier Jet Nighttime Arrivals 2481 Carrier Jet Departures 221 Carrier Jet Nighttime Departures Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 25 Metropolitan Airports Commission Analysis of Aircraft Noise Events -Aircraft Ldn dB(A) f Apri101 to Apri131,1998 Noise Monitor Locations Date #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #b _ _ #7 _ #~$ .. #9 #10 #11 #12 1 61.9 63.6 65.6 69.6 76.5 71.7 70.9 69.2 56.3 63.8 55.5 55.2 2 63.3 65.3 70.7 72.0 79.1 71.4 73.7 69.4 50.5 63:4 59.7 55.5 3 50.2 56.5 63.1 58.1 69.6 69.5 60.7 53.8 48.9 59.1 56.8 51.2 4 49.7 59.4 .62.0 59.2 68.5 * 55.1 56.4 46.3 55.4 49.6 49.3 $ 63.2 58.7 66.3 62.4 67.3. 68.6 62.3 61.8 54.6 62.1 58.3 52.0 61.5 66.9 65.2 67.6 70.2 75.9 57.3 57.4. 41.1 58.8 52.9 53.0 '7 64.7 69.7 68.1 70.8 72.9 77.7 66.9 65.8 58.9 63.9. 57.0 53.3 $ 64.2 65.3 * 68.7 74.3 70.7 69.0 67:5 60.3 68.0 63.7 59.1 9 60.6 62.0 68.9 70.5 76.0 72.1 70.0 67.4 62.8 65.6 61.5 53.4 TO 60.5 .65.5 66.6 70.7 69.7 72.4 64.9 67.9 51.5 63.6 56.0 64.3 ' 11 59.7 65.4 58.9 67.7 63.1 74.1 56.4 * 61.6 66.6 57.9 55.9 12 61.8 68.0 62.4 70.0 66.9 * 50..1 56.2 68.1 63.6 58.4 58.8 13 62.1 64.6 63.2 67.4 68.6 * 61.2 65.8 64.1 68.1 52.3 56.2 14 62.1 67.0 64.0 70.0 71.3 80.6 65.6 67.2 53.2 61.0 61.0 55.9 15 62.4 65.1 67.0 68.8 73.2 79.7. 67.1 66.4 61.0 65.2 61.6 59.2 16 61.0 62.0 65.6 68.0 75.5 80.7 72.0 67.8 60.1 65.3 58.5 55.0 1'7 59.4 62.6 * 69.2 66.2 79.4 58.5 64.6 53.7 69.7 64.6 62.4 18 59.5 64.2 58.4 66.9 67.0 77.4 61.5 61.2. 64.3 66.3 55.7 59.5 19 60.4 65.8 .58.2 67.7. 67.6 74.8 5.1.7 60.8 57.1 62.8 56.1 55.0 20 60.6 65.3 63.0' 68.3 70.1 78.5 64.8 62.1 57.3 67.9 60.6 61.7 21 60.7 62.1 63.3 66.5 66.5 77.5. 61.2 65.0 55 3 62.6 52.4 .57.9 22 62.7 65.2 * 69.0 70.6 81.0 70.6 66.2 45.4 60.9 55.2 54.0 23 58.6 6.1.6 58.4 65.4 63.8. 76.3 60.3 63.8 64.4 69.2 56.5 57.4 24 59.7 64.2 61.7 66.7 66.8 75.5 57.7 62.3 59.2 64.7 .53.1 56.6 25 62. L 68.1 61.6 68.6 67.0 74.6 55.5 60.0 57.6 65.8 59.5 52.1 2G 62.5 66.6 62.0 66.8 67.1 73.9 56.1 59.0 .52.6 62.7 54.0 56.4 27 55.9 61.7 61.6 63.3 66.8 70.6 59.6 60.4 49.1 55.6 51.9 50.5 28 56.4 62.4. 60.2 64.4 .63.9 .71,3. * 43.0 49.2 55.2 55.1 53.6 29 58.2 63.5 60.4 64.4 65.1 71.7 49.2 57.0 52.7 59.5 * 53.9 30 60.9 63.2 .62.3 67.9 63.8 79.9 * 67.4 47.6 52.3 * 60.0 Mo. Ldn 60.9 64.4 64.7 68.1 71.3 76.9 65.7 64.6 59.5 65.5 58.2 .57.4 • Note: ARTS data missing for 0.2 days. , Page 26 Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs * Less then twenh•-four hounr o/'data ava!!nhle Metropolitan Airports Commission Analysis of Aircraft Noise Events -Aircraft Ldn dB(A) Apri101 to Apri131,1998 Nais~ 1Vlonitor Locations • Date #13 #14 ` ' #15 #16 #17 #18 ` #19 #20 #21 #22 #23 #?.4 1 55.6 66.0 65.9 65.9 63.9 70.7 66.7 57.6 54.8 61.7 67.4 65.3 2 55.2 62.0 * * 54.0 62.5 * 54.4 42.2 60.7 67.8 61.4 3 65.1 73.0 67.5 70.0 42.8 62.3 51.4 53.3 63.5 64.8 74.4 69.0 4 65.0 72.0 * 68.2 50.5 57.4 48.0 42.8 62.8. 62.9 75.1 68.5- 5 65.3 62.1 58.2 65.8 64.1 65.8 58.9 63.2 62.1 57.6 70.1 62.4 6 68.1 66.9 * * 66.8 78.3 73.9 59.4 64.1 61.5 76.5 64.8 '7 65.7 71.3 66.0 71.3 59.8 69.2 62.8 59.2 63.9 62.9 73.7 .67.5 $ 58.7 69.4 61.8 69.4 67.4 67.6 55.5 59.1 58.1 59.8 68.7 65.4 9 58.1 63.1 51.8 64.7 55.5 62.3 52.2 56.0 50.6 53.1 61.5 61.5 10 55.0 67.3. 56.5 66.1 71.7 78.7 70.9 66.2 59.0 57.8 66.4 65.4 11 63.8 69.2 59.4 66.6 66.9 76.0 71.3 57.6 * 64.5 72.5 65.7 12 67.9 68.0 61.6 67.3 66.3 77.9 71.3 60.7 63.5 61.4 76.9 64.5 13 61.8 64.7 * 67.4 69.1 79.1 77.3 64.9 58.9 57.4 72.5 63.1 14 51.0 67.0 54.1 67.5 69.5 78.3 74.3 64.0 53.1 59.3 59.6 63.3 15 63.3 70.3 * * 66.5 65.6 56.8 49.8 62.2 62.5 72.4 67.6 16 49.3 64.2 53.1 * 63.7 69.8 59.2 59.4 60.4 57.2 61.4 62.9 1'7 56.9 67.5 57.6 70.6 72.3 79.3 74.6 61.7 57.2 61.1 60.9 64.8 1$ 60.7 65.1 65.3 65.3 72.2 81.4 77.2 66.2 56.9 59.9 70.5 63.2 19 66.2 70.2 69.6 69.6 71.0 80.2 75.7 60.9 63.5 61.8 76.8 66.3 20 64.3 71.1 65.6 71.5 68.0 76.9 73.7 59.5 63.3 60.8 73.1 67.0 21 53.0 60.8 60.2 65.8 68.9 77.1 73.0 61.8 54.1 53.1 58.1 59.6 22 45.8 60.3 56.5 65.7 70.0 76.8 72.2 60.8 47.5 52.2 56.5 59.7 23 42.2 61.5 55.9 65.9 69.3 78.6 75.0 62.1 44.4 54.3 63.0 60.7 24 64.0 70.1 64.2 69.6 72.7 81.0 73.7 * 62.0 59.8 72.8 65.0 25 65.0 68.5 67.3 68.9 65.6 74.7 68.0 56.5 61.6 60.4 75.2 64.9 26 62.2 69.7 64.4 72.0 65.5 76.0 71.0 56.4 59.8 61.4 72.7 66.4 27 60.5 68.5 62.5 68.0 67.7 77.1 71.6 65.9 58.4 59.2 71.2 65.4 28 62.1 66.9 64.5 65.5 67.9 77.8 72.3 62.8 60.6 60.2 72.4 64.5 29 65.3 67.9 65.1 66.9 66.6 77.8 74.8 * 63.2 61.3 74.2 65.0 30 47.3 66.0 52.5 64.7 73.5 80.1 75.5 63.4 49.6 57.7. 57.6 62.5 Mo. Ldn 62.6 68.2 64.7 68.3 68.4 76.9 72.2 61.2 60.3 60.5 72.0 65.0 Note: ARTS data missing for 0.2 days. Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Page 27 * Less than ncenh•-four hours nfdcua arar(ah(P • s CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Study Session Letter No. 29 • Agenda June 1, 1998 Issue Statement• Progress report from the Maintenance Facility Task Force. Background: The Maintenance Facility Task Force (Community Services Commission representatives Rick Jabs and Brian McGlinn, Planning Commission representatives Dave Gepner and Dan Linnehan, and At-Large representatives Ed Sorenson and Nancy Stiller) has met three times. The chair of the Task Force, Dave Gepner, and members of the Task Force will present a progress report before presenting options at an upcoming public meeting. The Task Force has accepted a Maintenance Facility Program Space Needs Report, reviewed sites and identified three areas of the City as possible sites. The public meeting is planned for late June or early July. Recommended Motion: No action is required at this time. However, Council should provide comments on site selection and design which may be helpful to the Task Force in carrying out its assigned responsibilities. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The Council discussed the concept of the Site Selection Task Force at the March 1998 Study Session and established the Task Force at the March 9, 1998 Council meeting. 2. The Task Force has held three meetings. Information about the Task Force meetings, responsibilities and progress to date has been included in Your City publications, in the Project Status Report, in the Status and Information report, on the cable television Bulletin Board and in the Richfield Sun/Current. The Task Force will soon host City- wide meetings for input to the process of site selection and design for a new maintenance facility. Alternative Recommendation: Request the Task Force to amend the proposed time frame for citizen input and the making of a recommendation to the City Council. • City Manager JDP:ds Discussion/Decision Mode: The item is scheduled for discussion at the June 1 Study Session. The Task Force will provide the City Council with a progress report. Respectful submitted, Jame D. Prosser • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Study Session Letter No. 2s Agenda June 1, 1998 Issue Statement: Consideration of development proposals for the 6901 block of Penn Avenue. Background: In 1997 the City began to purchase, on a voluntary basis, homes along the 6901 block of Penn Avenue. The homes had experienced ongoing, seasonal flooding problems. Of the seven impacted homes, five have now been acquired. Recently, the City Council authorized staff to use condemnation if necessary to purchase these two properties. Both the condemnation action and negotiations are underway simultaneously. Once the property has been cleared, a stormwater retention pond will be constructed on the site. Preliminary estimates indicate that the pond will not consume the entire site and that some areas will be left over for redevelopment. The Comprehensive Plan envisions townhomes in this area. The remaining land might support eight to twelve townhomes depending on unit style and design. On April 7, staff hosted an open house for neighbors to review the pond concept and comment on potential development. Eighty-three notices were mailed to adjacent property owners; ten households attended. Some of the comments from those attending included: • The common, rear lot line is an ongoing concern because of unkempt vegetation. This must be addressed. • Likes the idea of townhomes to block view of Penn Avenue but doesn't want to look at water. Rear lot line needs good landscaping. • Likes townhomes as a barrier to noise and view of Penn Avenue, but is concerned about the child safety and the pond. • Would rather see single family detached homes. Staff recently met with several townhome builders and invited them to submit concept proposals for the Penn Avenue property. Two proposals were received. A brief description of each proposal is attached along with a summary of each proposal. Recommended Motion: Discuss the proposals and provide staff with evaluative comments which will then be used by staff in discussions with the developers. Basis of Recommendation: • 1. The City has acquired the first five properties and will, either through negotiation or condemnation, acquire the remaining two properties. 2. There will be residual land available after the pond is built. 3. Replacement townhomes are appropriate at this location. Alternative Recommendation: Seek other proposals. Discussion/Decision Mode: Comments from the HRA and City Council will be reviewed with the developers. Eventually the proposals will be presented to the neighborhood. Subsequently, the HRA and City Council will be requested to select a developer. It is staffs opinion that both of these proposals would need further refinement before being presented to the neighborhood. Respectfully submitted, James .Prosser City Manager JDP:ds C u Development Proposals for 6901 Block of Penn Avenue Developer Richfield State Agency Alan Chazin Homes Number of Units 12 8 Size One Story: 1100 square feet Two Story: 2000 square feet 1600 square feet Stories Mix of one and two Two Number of Bedrooms One Story: 1-2 Two Story: 1-3 2-3 Garage Spaces One per unit (12) Two per unit (16) Surface Spaces 1/2 per unit (6) 1 per unit (8) Unit Price One Story: $100,000 Two Story: $140,000 $175,000 Offering price for land To be determined $80,000 • /2tCNf~~ ~~ ~iyC~ !~G HRA ~ City of Richfield 1. CONCEPT Definition: Atelier. a studio, workshop. Core Concepts for the Proiect: To provide a unique suburban housing type, `loft living in :the suburbs'. Provide Richfield with an alternative housing type to complement existing and proposed developments. Intended market. professional singles and couples whose life style includes, either primary or secondary, need for large open space; without the need to radically remodel an existing structure. Users: craftspeople, book artists, artists, photography-studio, jewelry artist, poet, interior designer, electronic architect, home office environment, collectors, composers, painters, graphic designer, sculptor. It is not intended as a commercial space which would require customers coming to the site. ,. HRA & City of Richfield 1. CONCEPT (continued) Provide basic structure in which useNowner could provide investment to finish as desired without great cost or impact upon structure. Buy unit with utility core only, no interior walls. Take advantage of unique site conditions to create a total environment, blending exterior and interior. The pond becomes a design element for the site. Can become HI-Tech housing with introduction of hi-tech materials at r interior while maintaining exterior appearance consistent with Richfield environment. r ~~ L • ~ HRA & City of Richfield - 2. EXPECTATIONS a). Propose to build 12 total units with detached parking. Units clustered in two groups of 6: 2-two story units and 4 one story units per cluster. The developer would be prepared to utilize the firm of Maxfield Research to assess the potential demand for this neo-surburban housing concept. The research project would identify a potential draw area for this concept and quantify the demand and target markets based on an assessment of 'lifestyle' demographics. b). Type of Occupancy: Ownership with potential Owner installed upgrades after purchase. Possible through site design to have 50% rental on one-half and 50% ownership on the other half. c). Unit mix: Total of 4 -two story units of 2,000 gross square feet each and 8 single units of 1,100 gross square feet each. 3~~ • 2 detached cluster garages of 6 vehicles each with visitor on site parking. ,r .r :. HRA & City of Richfield ~f ~ 6 2. EXPECTATIONS (continued) :, d). Estimated cost if Owner purchased: ~ $140,000 for double units. $100,000 per single units -- e). The cost per unit of land to be determined by the contribution of r the City towards the development of the storm run-off pond. At the time of this proposal, a clear understanding of financial responsibility ' towards the solution to the ponding issue is not clear. The Developer is eager to negotiate with the City a feasible financial cost sharing which will enable the project to proceed with the unit cost as stated above. f). Starting date of project plan development and market research to begin immediatEly upon City approval of concept and designating Richfield State Agency the developer of record for this site. • . ..~: . ~ µ I ~ ~ :I ~ ;~ ~ ~ ,; -~~. ~; ~ .J 4 ,. ~ ~ , „ :r . ,, _ .~ ~ t :+ ~ -;,; . J J ~ .r . Y ~ _~ ~ ,.~ + -- .. I t + J ~, _: ~~b . ~, '~ °_. ~~;; jam.; _~ ~ GIST t°~'"`~'~~- :~~,~=:- 5-~~~+ ` Cr'1-~ ooh' ~'~`~~i .~ ~~ ~~~~ ~A' -'~ v~~s ~.F f~ ~ ~~ ~~ C : ~~ 4~ :. ~~r J .~•~- •s r-;n ~o ~ x ~~~`~ ... ~' _~~ ~.' s w-'" + ..~"! rye e..In'~'~' J~t :.~ ~ !, ~---`` -- .~w Kr r• ~~ ~ ;• 't .f .~r t.- sr .~ {. +~ ... -. .._.,. F ~W ....~ ,` ts-.:- .per, ~! -`~' ~3~TL S ~P ~ ~~~,~ mil! 7 7 7 ~~ ,! 7 ' .^/ I 7 7 ~^ A 1 2 `t I ~ i ~ i ~+ r •. ~ .-• G .~' ._--~ ..~%' ~s1 y± ~F ~ ~f ;~ ,'` ;.~~ ° - _ •; .n~~ e t^„1si ., }~ ~e f t 1~ _~-- - ~, _-- _ .~; .µ . .•,ta r ~~. ~ ~~ ~ r . vt1~~ p~r.`'1 f ~~ ~~,~ t s . °°~ r~ p~~ • y ~~ _;~ 1i ..a_ .~~ :J-` ~!'~ ~~....~,+._*•'~'~ ~' ~~•'~/ GyrR~'V f!~ R!E S Penn Avenue Townhomes ~~9 PROTECT DE~CRiPTION The 6900 Block of Penn Avenue South comprises approximately 46,900 squaze feet of land bounded by the single family homes of Oliver Avenue to the east, Penn Avenue to the west, and 69th & 70th street north and south respectively. The site is proposed as a homeownership townhome project. Given the configuration of the site we would propose two groups of townhomes covering the north and south portion of the site with our two (2) acre feet of pond storage located between the two building pads. The units would be 2/3 story wood frame with a maintenance free exterior as shown on project examples of brick, stone, vinyl and aluminum. They would be two (2) or three (3) bedroom units and be 1600 +/- square feet and proposed sale prices would be around $175,000 +/-per unit. The units have appealed to a diverse and wide market. Empty nesters, families and professionals of all ages have found these units to be highly desirable. (Note: Plans similaz in design Regency Park, Manhattan on Grand Townhomes or St. Anthony Townhomes.) The azchitectural design will incorporate design elements that are consistent with urban designs and blend well with the surrounding area. Each townhome will be built with the gazage being tucked under in the reaz minimizing a sea of garage doors so evident in suburban projects. the buildings will be 75% brick and totally "maintenance free." they aze split entry and designed with a crawl sp~cce on grade to minimize living areas below grade completely. Sixteen (2:1) covered pazking spaces aze provided with an additional eight (8) surface spaces. Our unit type raises the first floor approximately three (3) feet above street level. This effect should be both aesthetically pleasing and provide additional privacy, security and street separation to residents and enhance views. Site access and building configuration was chosen both for efficiency and economy. We have provided two curb cuts off of Penn Avenue leading to the tuck under garage with each unit and the surface guest parking provided. Private fenced courtyards are provided for each townhome. We aze using the existing site depression for our ponding collection. Penn Avenue Townhomes ~ ~5~ We would propose to acquire the site at a price of $80,000.00 for the rawland. We have assumed the site is free of any environmental contamination and would require that any costs of environmental restoration would be borne by the City of Richfield. In addition any and all costs associated with the storage pond and permanent pumping of water would be borne by the city as well. We have added a site feature to the proposal of a pedestrian bridge /.gazebo and enclosure for the pumping equipment. We are proposing the cost of this improvement be part of City of Richfield expense for solving the water and pumping problem. On this item, some discussion would be needed to coordinate responsibilities on this aspect of the project with our construction. It should be pointed out that upon selection we would be able to proceed on this project immediately. 3~9 i~ • Ur •t.~, ~Uti~ltrO ~E;: R..., 1 .: ~ ~ ` ~, , .~~ 3.. ~ ,em Do~61r G.r.s. Dcn ,.~ - ~a / . 1 ';i ~ ~ O • .... ~•. .... ~~ i ~ B.t6 ~. Fer~r ;. .~ D.... KitcLse iiiiiiiti H .11 ~~ I..ivins Ro OF.milr Room Di em r Q • ^ ---------~ "~::w: n:.:- W.Ik-le ~ U U Cle.rt : D.... ' ~~ ~ /\ B.dr.e~ ~.<.^v ® 1 S~.ir H.II T6rae~D.e ~~. °~,~.'~~.` ® B.dreeiu Bath ~ .4^~::•:J^:xl~ Oet ~ Badrne~n a ; _ ,i O i~~•:t?-•:a C T w. ?4~^t ~~ ~ 0 ~~ }( YLLLLYf 'Ati'Ti~ i.1'+. ~ ~ U•~ii...~'aY.i•:1TU1::.'u:.~'+:, /:r:'. .:rd~~..ya.l~'~isr a::..'•tia~:':t:. ,~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Study Session Letter No. 2~ Agenda June 1, 1998 Issue Statement: Status report on the watershed boundary change moving the Richfield Lake subwatershed from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) to the Richfield Bloomington Watershed Management Organization (RBWMO). Background: At the December 2, 1996 City Council Study Session staff outlined several possible boundary changes that should be considered as a result of directing the water from Richfield Lake subwatershed to Wood Lake via a new pipe outlet under 66th Street and from Wood Lake to the Minnesota River via the new 77th Street storm system. Following the Study Session, the City Councils of Richfield and Bloomington meeting as the Richfield Bloomington Watershed Management Organization directed staff to negotiate with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District regarding respective roles and responsibilities for surface water management for the Richfield Lake, Grass Lake, and Legion Lake subwatershed. A team of City engineering and legal staff along with the City's stormwater consultant reviewed existing City and watershed roles as expressed in state statute and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District rules and comprehensive plan. It was during this review that the City staff team discovered that MCWD rules and proposed changes to their comprehensive plans were in variance with the City's understanding of state statute. It was the challenges from the City of Richfield joined by other cities in the MCWD that led to a contested case hearing at the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources and to resolutions by Richfield and 16 other cities of the MCWD challenging the approach used by MCWD. The cities were concerned about the legal role of the MCWD as it relates to cities. A Steering Committee of Cities of the MCWD not only prepared draft resolutions but solicited and nominated candidates for appointment to the Board of Managers of the MCWD. Two of three County appointments made this spring to the Board of Managers of the MCWD were for new candidates supported by the objecting cities. With the City's concerns about the role of the MCWD resolved for now, the City is back to addressing the proper location for the boundary between the RBWMO and the MCWD. The attached map shows subwatersheds including: 1. Grass Lake 2. Richfield Lake 3. Augsburg Pond 4. Legion Lake The first two subwatersheds have had their outlets redirected from the MCWD to the RBWMO. The third will be redirected with a project in the Capital Improvement Program and so is being addressed at this time. The fourth is in the MCWD and continues to drain to Minnehaha Creek. Legion Lake was included in a recent MCWD study of water quality in Lake Hiawatha and Lake Nokomis. Attached is a letter from MCWD requesting negotiations on the change. City staff, Charles LeFevere from the City Attorney's office, and Pete Willenbring, the City's stormwater consultant, will be available for discussion. Recommended Motion: No action is required at this time. Council is asked to join in the discussion related to the watershed boundary change moving the Richfield Lake subwatershed from the MCWD to the RBWMO. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Council has previously discussed several possible boundary changes that should be considered as a result of directing the water from Richfield Lake subwatershed to Wood Lake via a new pipe outlet under 66th Street and from Wood Lake to the Minnesota River via the new 77th Street storm system. 2. City's concerns about the role of the MCWD and MCWD rules and proposed changes to their comprehensive plans are resolved for now and are currently in accordance with the City's understanding of state statute. 3. The City continues to feel a need to address the proper location for the boundary between the RBWMO and the MCWD related to four subwatersheds: • Grass Lake • Richfield Lake • Augsburg Pond • Legion Lake 4. The MCWD has contacted the City about proposed watershed boundary changes. The letter included several questions the MCWD felt should be addressed. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Do not pursue any boundary change(s). 2. Continue discussion of any proposed boundary change at a special RBWMO meeting. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item is scheduled for the June 1, 1998 Richfield City Council Study Session. Respectfully submitted, Ja D. Prosser City Hager JDP:cak • • Gray Freshwater Center Hwys.15 & 19, Navarre Mail: 2500 Shadywood Road Excelsior, MN 55331-9578 Phone: (612} 471-0590 Fax: (612) 471-0682 Email: admin ~ minnehahacreek.org Web Site: www. minnehahacreek, org ., Board of Managers Pamela G.Blixt James Calkins Lance Fisher Monica Gross Thomas W. LaBounty Thomas Maple, Jr. Malcolm Reid District Office: Diane P. Lynch District Administrator • l~linnehafra ['r~t~ef; - ; y~'~ter~hed 11i~[rirt Improving Quality of LY/ater, Quality of Life May 6, 1998 Mr. James Prosser, City Manager City of Richfield 6700 Portland Ave South Richfield, MN 55423 !n ~, ~, I I MA Q r 199 ~l i; I~ L u ~' gY Re: Watershed District Boundary Changes Dear Mr. Prosser: Last month, Mr. Peter Willenbring of WSB & Associates, Inc acting as your city's consulting engineer informally met with our District Engineer, Michael Panzer and our Project Coordinator, Peter Cangialosi. Mr. Willenbring described several proposed watershed boundary changes the city would like. The changes are related to several subwatersheds within and adjacent to Richfield and also within Minneapolis. They include Augsburg Pond, Richfield Lake, Grass Lake, and Legion Lake. The issue of watershed boundary changes is of great interest and concern to us and we, therefore, feel that discussions fully exploring this issue be conducted among ourselves and the Cities of Richfield and Minneapolis. Questions to be addressed include, but would not be limited to: • Desires of various communities to remain in or be assigned to another watershed, • The flow of water within each watershed, • Water quality, • Past, current, and future plans to re-rout the flow of water from one sub- watershed to another, • Stormwater management • Flood/erosion control, • Lake restoration/wetland management, and • Timing. Printed on recycled paper containing at least 30°h post consumer waste. ~~~ Mr. James Prosser, City Manager City of Richfield Such discussions can be conducted at either staff level or at the level of elected and appointed officials. Initially, we would suggest commencing discussions at the staff level and deferring to policymakers at appropriate points. Please call me at 935-8143 or Diane Lynch, our District Administrator, at 471- 6284 at your convenience so we can begin organizing this process. We will contact City of Minneapolis officials for their input. We look forward to discussing this issue further with you and/or your staff. Sincerely, MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT Pamela Blixt President, Board of Managers C: Dore Mead, City of Minneapolis Jodi Polzin, City of Minneapolis Michael Eastling, City of Richfield Peter Willenbring, WSB & Associates, Inc. Michael Panzer, Wenck Associates, Inc Diane Lynch, MCWD 2 r ~_ - - - - ! i ~- j ~ \\\ ~~ ~~ ~' cT~~ I L~,'. ~ I -- ~ XER~r'; ' ~1 ~} AVE ~'a'N~;n ; ~, AstiF~, tr, ~~ ~_ ~~~ . `~~ ; « ! ~ hrA~, + I IJft'J ,i'd%. I~R~ - ,, _ ~ f ~ ~~ ~ ~~_ - CIR Y ~ ~ n - ~ - .- 1....,.. .~. _~ z -- ~ 1 _ .. '/]N:.FNTj ~ - ~~ i ~~ ~ r^ •'~ tiIIv;E~JI AV't. ~, UP TON ~ ~ ~ co , c `t ~ I ~~ ~.r r ~ n ~ „a. AVE. S. ~ ~_ IJPTON ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~--'-- ~ ~ -E~'~ ----#-~ z ~~, o, m ,.n THOMAS • ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ' ~ ! .._..~ ~ ~-- ~,, 1 .-_ ro a THOMAS °AVE. ~ =+_ SHERI DAN ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ is ~ i ~ ;" ~~ - ~ .. o ®)a HERI DAN 7AVE. ~ CiR. S. ~- ~ h,t__- .i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ F ;~ ~ ', ~'~"~ - _ .~~ ' ~ RUSSELL AVE. S. Rt +I I `~~~ ~ ~ ~ RU55ELL , , ,; i .,, ~ ~ _... f~~'~ ~ m A- I ~~ ~ ?„~.:; `~',):_IEEN AVE. 5. ~ C ~} I -{ i ` = PENN 7 _~ _ _ _~ . _ _.~ ~ v T ~ N ~._._-_? _.. ___ ~~ i '. AVE. 5. ~ i , o ~ OLIVER ~ --- --~ ~ O ~.i i W _ ~~ ~ F+-1 ~ ~ ~ i ° ~.: ff. S, U NEWTON r + I ~ ;+ T I I a' //! }, { `.. ~ t. t r S MORGAN l ~ ~I j © ~ j ~~ -- n ~ ~ ~ r~r ri - ~- v ~ //'~~~ ~-~ 1 ~' Rte? / 1 ` ~- i .. .~ - ~ -- _ ~ __ ~_ ~-t _... ..._.__ _.. ~ ~ l 1.k..~t. S .._r~r _ ~ ._~.r;k ~ - .:~~ t f ~ti. ~ ,C~[.~ ~. ~ ~ i t~ 1 ~ ` .. 1'f. ~~ .a- i o } ~'~ ~ ~ '..t }~ y Y Ab r , ~ , ,~ ~ -,. t t -yi ~ f ~ ~, r--~, 1-- ~_ i, , i ,/ -. ~R'. Art ~ r r S 1 ~ Y! ' ~a n f i '~ ,~ ~ 4 ~` ."L i ~RI~~F' 1_ t~<' -y ~ h r ~ -! i ~ D -1'~i~ [ r I r~ I I~ _.... ._...__ ._- -.-- ...r I I 1 -- ~.,a'~~i 'E, ~ i ..~ ~~ - ~i -.<t F ~~ ~ -^ R t__fi --.t., ~~ .. ~~ ._._.. :~.:_r!~' ~~ ~ i~- ~ "^''7 ~: ~ ~ _ ~~I r ~~i HAR R: Jl ~ (J I ~r ~~ ~v, Ill L ,, ~ F i. ~ @ F.. I > I F ~ fjr '. ~ ~ ~ l ~1 ~iz i I GRAND i I _ , J r.. ~[- `y~„ nh~''rw ., ,r _.h' ~ ~ t" *t ~ ~ .' I s + PLEA SI •" ~ ~ ;rkta- ~ NiJRTH ~,-~+h7 -~?y„I,!- +~ --{ ~~ 1I' ,r:~ Yr' ~K {i .r ~E:. -~ ~~~1 -~-7 N, ~ ~. ~ , , ~ ~ WENT WORTHS D~~ d i"" _ ~r ~ ~ Br.Ai~ ~ Dot L ~ h'Q (/~ I `y c ~-- P' Ay 71~f t h' r _ _`"i s BLAIS DELL ~. .___ t- ~ - I T ~-77~~ F y J ~ i rlI l.Ci i _ , ~ lJ..~ m ~ : fr r tr rr ~,i'y P ~ t~ ` 1 ' ~- - ---~_~..._____~-_-_- ~ ~T._ ~ ~ __ _ ~- .._ w_- ___ ___---- -il 1~ -fir- - --, I _. _ i _-..... ~ f ~ ~ _ 5 E A LNS _. -__i ___~ ~ . A ~-~._E _ ..._ _._ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~j ~ ~ ~ vENS ~ A I end ~ ~ ~ 1 _ ; Ord r e ..~.__~~_ Fr -_:.._'r ~~ i _ ~'i 2.. ~ --- Z"~..ZZI ~ _ ~..,~//3rd !', E. ;z z AVE. ~~ ~„ 1"1 If ~ }~ -- --.I __.:_~_~ 4._.__-_ ° l.~ _._~.._ -__~_ ~_ ./'\ o~ __ ~" r_S in ~ CL IN TON ~r y1 , I ~---- ! l^Ih~ C"v._._- i ~ ~. L___ ~. ~;, n v E,~~1l1F L1NT ,N AVE. m r -- ~~~ 4tfiT _ 1 ~ i I I f i vi i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~I ~ - __ AVE. S. N ~ th ~ ~ ~-_____--_ -~~_ -- ~__~ - -- -- - _ I /c. ' r ~ I r r. ~ r kTL aP ~ i A~r ~.__ z r ~ '-.__ ___..- . __._ ~,1~ ~ AVE. 5. ;-a . I E" - r , I~ f ~ ~ F LAND AVE. :' U :s. I LAV"~ ~ ~ I T-~~ ^~ OAK LAiVD ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~~ i .~ _ glrf- ~ N r' ~ A N i {_ ~ ., _ a i _ .F"'~ . j I+ ('T'~ '~ l `•~' PARK •"' AVF • -1t - - -"~ >' ~ m '~ CCU ~ "?y;il5 i,, ~ ~. t pir s ° ~'~ 7 ~ ~ ~~ ~ °' ~ T ~~ ~ i i L ~ J ;._. _ _ __.; ~ m ~.~.V G~ `~^'/+i i COLUM, BJS AVE, ~k< _ _-_._ _~ ? ~ { - ~ ,_ AGO n. n ,' c t i ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~~ H ~ > ~ v, c~ cn ti ~_ 7 .__.___}- t __..._ ~- ~ ~ ~.~ - , -- ; ~ ~ ~ I -, c~ co r H] r / Ir' ~ ~ __.. ~ C ~~ -- ~tL~ r-{' i '~hrr , ~ a N, ' -- T 7 7 ~~ 10tH a AvE. '= 1 I ~ I ~' a ~ - _ r' ~ 1- ___ _..•.~ - 1 i 1O 11th 7 ~}•-~ _ a i AVE. (_ .. .__.-i-- -? a--!' i-1-- -- - ._._-_ ~ ,. c° i 12th AVE. 5 _-~---- ~ _, 1 n tith ~ i .'~~- -- _~ _ 1._..__ ~.-__ r -- i -_i.__ 1 ~.. 13th AVE, r~ S V1 N V1 ~ ~ ~ Ld~h p E. M I ~ ! - ~ ~ ~ 14th AVE. ° '~ a '~ '~ y ~~ '~ ~ I ~., ~ _-~--~ I 1 ~ ~ V~~ ISth AVE. o ~, ~i