Planning, Development and Environment Committee

Transcription

1 Page 1 of 76 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning, Development and Environment Committee FROM: Chad E. Leqve Director of Environment ( ) SUBJECT: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM A. Environmental Review DATE: November 21, Since Commission approval of the Preliminary Capital Improvement Program (CIP) on September 15,, the environmental review process has continued as scheduled. Documentation was prepared to meet legislative requirements prior to final action on the CIP. An Assessment of Environmental Effects (AOEE) for the Metropolitan Airports Commission Seven-Year Capital Improvement Program was prepared. This document examined the cumulative environmental effects of the projects in the seven-year CIP at each of the MAC s seven airports. On November 3,, at 7:00 pm, a public hearing to receive public testimony was held at the Metropolitan Airports Commission General Offices. The hearing was advertised in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, St. Paul Pioneer Press, and the EQB Monitor. The public record remained open until 5:00 P.M. on November 12,. During the public comment period seven oral comments and nine written comments were received. A proposed Hearing Officer s Report is included in this package for consideration and adoption by the Committee as the Hearing Officers. The report includes Findings of Fact and Recommendation for the AOEE. A copy of the transcript of the public hearing and written correspondence and responses to all of the comments are also attached. The CIP itself is firm only for Projects listed in the CIP for 2015 will be brought back to the Commission for award of contracts after plans and specifications are prepared and bids received. The 2016 project work scopes/costs will be developed further through additional studies and plans and specifications will be prepared for consideration in the 2016 CIP process. The 2017 project work scopes/costs will be developed further through additional studies, as well as by preparation of preliminary plans and specifications. Similarly, the projects listed in the CIP for all future years will be reviewed again when the CIP is prepared. COMMITTEE ACTION REQUESTED RECOMMEND TO THE FULL COMMISSION ADOPTION OF THE HEARING OFFICER S REPORT, THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING THE ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. FURTHER, THAT THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/CEO OR HIS DESIGNEE BE AUTHORIZED TO NOTIFY THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD AND THOSE ON ITS DISTRIBUTION LIST OF THE COMMISSION ACTION.

2 Page 2 of 76 HEARING OFFICER'S REPORT ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION SEVEN-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM A public hearing was held on Monday, November 3,, at the Metropolitan Airports Commission General Offices beginning at 7:00 p.m. The purpose of this public hearing was to receive public comments on the Assessment of Environmental Effects (AOEE) of all projects in the Metropolitan Airports Commission s Seven-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) from 2015 through This hearing was held pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section , which requires the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) to prepare an AOEE for all projects at each MAC airport in the Commission s seven-year CIP. The statute also requires the MAC to prepare an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) in accordance with the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) and the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (MEQB) rules implementing MEPA for projects in the CIP that meet the conditions prescribed in Minn. Stat , or that meet the requirements for a mandatory EAW in the MEQB rules. In addition, Minn. Stat requires the MAC to hold a public hearing on the AOEE before adopting the CIP. MAC prepared an AOEE for all projects in the proposed CIP, and that AOEE has been available for public review since October 13,. Representing the Commission at the hearing were Dan Boivin, MAC Commission Chair; Paul Rehkamp, Planning, Development & Environment (PD&E) Committee Chair; Pat Harris, PD&E Committee Vice Chair; Steve Cramer; Carl Crimmins; Don Monaco; Erica Prosser; Rick King, Management & Operations (M&O) Committee Chair; and MAC staff Jeff Hamiel, Executive Director and CEO; Dennis Probst, Executive Vice President; Pam Rasmussen, Deputy General Counsel; Gary Warren, Vice President Planning, Development & Environment; Jenn Felger, Secretary Planning, Development and Environment Committee; Roy Fuhrmann, Vice President Management & Operations; Chad Leqve, Director Environment; Bridget Rief, Director Airport Development; Dana Nelson, Assistant Manager Noise, Environment and Planning; Heather Leide, Senior Project Manager; Neil Ralston, Airport Planner. Following introductory statements presented by Chair Rehkamp, comments from the public were invited. Seven individuals commented at the public hearing. The hearing record remained open until 5:00 P.M. November 12,. A court stenographer prepared a transcript of the public hearing, which is provided in Appendix A.

3 Page 3 of 76 ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION SEVEN-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Background FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION In October, the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) completed an Assessment of Environmental Effects (AOEE) of all the projects included in the MAC s seven-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and plan. The MAC prepared the AOEE in compliance with the requirements of the Commission s enabling statute, Minn. Stat Concerning the AOEE, Minn. Stat , subdivision 1, states the following: "The commission shall prepare an assessment of the environmental effects of projects in the commission's seven-year capital improvement program and plan at each airport owned and operated by the commission. The assessment must examine the cumulative environmental effects at each airport of the projects at that airport, considered collectively. The commission need not prepare an assessment for an airport when the capital improvement program and plan for that airport has not changed from the one adopted the previous year or when the changes in the program and plan will have only trivial environmental effects." The statute also states that the commission shall prepare environmental assessment worksheets [for] those projects in the program for the airport that meet all of the following conditions: (1) the project is scheduled in the program for the succeeding calendar period; (2) the project is scheduled in the program for the expenditure of $5,000,000 or more at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport or $2,000,000 or more at any other airport and (3) the project involves (i) the construction of a new or expanded structure for handling passengers, cargo, vehicles, or aircraft; or (ii) the construction of a new or the extension of an existing runway or taxiway. Minn. Stat , subd. 2. In determining whether to prepare an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for each 2015 project in the CIP, the Commission also applied the criteria for mandatory EAWs specified in the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) rules implementing the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act (MEPA), Minn. R. ch The Commission circulated notice of the AOEE hearing consistent with EQB requirements. Availability of the AOEE was published in the October 13,, EQB Monitor. The notice stated that copies of the AOEE were available for public review at the MAC offices and were available for download on the MAC website at:

4 Page 4 of 76 The Commission also published notice of the public hearing for the AOEE in the Minneapolis Star Tribune and the St. Paul Pioneer Press on October 13,. The MAC held a public hearing on Monday, November 3,, at the Metropolitan Airports Commission General Offices beginning at 7:00 p.m. to receive comments on the AOEE. Seven individuals provided oral comments on the AOEE at the hearing. The hearing record remained open until 5:00 P.M. on November 12,. A transcript of the public hearing, written comments, and responses to the comments received on the AOEE are presented in Appendix A. FINDINGS OF FACT AOEE Airport Projects All projects related to the MSP 2010 Program and the Dual Track Airport Planning Process Final Environmental Impact Statement (Dual Track FEIS) have been completed. The Residential Noise Mitigation Program, implemented under the Dual Track FEIS and the settlement in City of Minneapolis, et al. v. Metropolitan Airports Commission, File No. 27- CV (Hennepin County District Court), and the subsequent First Amendment to the Consent Decree, is a measure designed to mitigate the impact of aircraft noise and does not require completion of an EAW or EIS. The CIP includes projects for Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP). These planned projects flow primarily from the MSP 2030 Long-Term Comprehensive Plan Update, which was finalized in July The following two CIP projects are scheduled in 2015 and meet the criteria in the Commission s enabling statute and the EQB rules that implement MEPA requiring an EAW: Terminal 1-Lindbergh Checkpoint Consolidation (CP1) and Terminal 2-Humphrey North Expansion Gates 11-13b. In September 2010 the MAC and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) began preparation of a joint Environmental Assessment (EA)/Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) under MEPA and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), known as the MSP 2020 Improvements EA/EAW. The projects analyzed in the MSP 2020 Improvements EA/EAW are those the MAC may implement at MSP through the year 2020 consistent with the MSP 2030 Long-Term Comprehensive Plan Update. The projects analyzed in the MSP 2020 Improvements EA/EAW include the Terminal 1- Lindbergh Checkpoint Consolidation (CP1) and Terminal 2-Humphrey North Expansion Gates 11-13b projects. In March 2013 the FAA determined that the EA was adequate under NEPA, and issued a Finding of No Significant Impact and Record of Decision for the projects discussed in the MSP 2020 Improvements EA/EAW. In April 2013 the MAC determined that the EAW was adequate under MEPA, and issued an Adequacy Determination and Negative Declaration on the need for an EIS for the projects discussed in the MSP 2020 Improvements EA/EAW. As such, all projects programmed in 2015 have been evaluated in a manner that complies with Minn. Stat and the EQB rules implementing MEPA, Minn. R. ch

5 Page 5 of 76 The AOEE also assesses the environmental effects for projects proposed for the Reliever Airports, including the Crystal, Lake Elmo, Anoka County-Blaine, Airlake, St. Paul Downtown and Flying Cloud Airports. However, there are no Reliever Airport projects programmed for 2015 meeting the criteria for an EAW in the Commission s enabling statute and the EQB rules implementing MEPA. RECOMMENDATION That the AOEE prepared for the seven-year CIP adequately assesses the cumulative environmental effects of the projects at MSP and at each Reliever Airport included in the CIP.

6 Page 6 of 76 APPENDIX A AOEE COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Public Hearing Transcript/Oral Comments at the Public Hearing South Metro Airport Action Council Ms. Karine Watne, Edina, MN Mr. James Frickton, Edina, MN Mr. Bill Miller, Minneapolis, MN Mr. Tim Kresse, Minneapolis, MN Mr. Steve Kittleson, Minneapolis, MN Mr. Bob Friedman, Minneapolis, MN s Received During the Comment Period The following party submitted written comments, which are attached: South Metro Airport Action Council AOEE Response to Comments Matrix A table containing responses to comments is attached.

7 Page 7 of 76

8 Page 8 of 76

9 Page 9 of 76

10 Page 10 of 76

11 Page 11 of 76 A B

12 Page 12 of 76 B (cont.) C D

13 Page 13 of 76 E F G

14 Page 14 of 76 G (cont.) H I

15 Page 15 of 76 I (cont.)

16 Page 16 of 76 J K

17 Page 17 of 76 K (cont.) L M

18 Page 18 of 76 N O P

19 Page 19 of 76 P (Cont.)

20 Page 20 of 76 Q

21 Page 21 of 76 R S

22 Page 22 of 76 T

23 Page 23 of 76 U

24 Page 24 of 76 U (cont.)

25 Page 25 of 76

26 Page 26 of 76 s sent from Jim Spensley, SMAAC 10/12/: From: mpds@visi.com [mailto:mpds@visi.com] Sent: Sunday, October 12, 8:28 AM To: Leide, Heather; mpds@visi.com Cc: Leqve, Chad; Hamiel, Jeffrey Subject: Re: AOEE notification letter Sorry for the errors in the message, corrected below. In my own defense, I m jet lagged, using a new tablet computer with a minimum keyboard, and I was riding in bus. Why a capital project is being proposed and what is gained by increasing noise and pollution, operating costs, or connecting services should be the point of the AOEE. Sent from Windows Mail From: mpds@visi.com Sent: Saturday, October 11, 6:54 PM To: Leide, Heather Cc: Leqve, Chad, MAC (Jeff Hamiel) V >SMAAC would like to identify the projects that have these purposes: To increase flight capacity; to improve ground safety; to improve use or comply with PBN SIDs or STARs; to mitigate noise or pollution; to reduce noise or pollution. THIS INFORMATION DOES NOT SEEM TO BE INCLUDED Jim Spensley Minneapolis sent from Jim Spensley, SMAAC 10/15/: From: "jim.spensley@gmail.com" <jim.spensley@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, October 15, at 10:36 AM To: "Leslie. Helen" <helenleslie@comcast.net>, Ron Lischeid <lischeid@msn.com>, "Steele, Matt" <mattaudio@gmail.com>, "John M. Quincy" <John.Quincy@ci.minneapolis.mn.us> Cc: Daniel Boivin <dboivin@seechangehealth.com>, Jeff Hamiel <Jeff.Hamiel@mspmac.org> Subject: Proposed Media Release. W Matt and I are proceeding to post the White Paper and release the attached public announcement to media shortly. Perhaps John can discuss the needs with Chair Boivin.

27 Page 27 of 76 I sent follow up messages to Director Hamel distinguishing the safety risk review and hearing topic from the AOEE topic which incorrectly assumes little change in noise and pollution due to more operations at peak hour rates. I have not shared the White Paper with Hamel because he has so far refused to discuss if and how the MAC deals with quantitative safety risks in planning and budgeting. We argue that MSP capacity already exceeds LTCP needs and that operations per hour or hours operating at 150+ ops/hr. Are extravagant and unnecessarily increase noise and pollution per flight. W (cont.) Or, as I have put it bluntly: What level of safety risk is acceptable? If current risks are acceptable, what is the purpose of the taxiway bridges and additional gates unneeded capacity or less risk through automations? If it is not acceptable, why not say so and plan differently? Sent from Windows Mail

28 Page 28 of 76 X Y Z AA

29 Page 29 of 76 AB AC AD AE

30 Page 30 of 76 Seven-page handout from Jim Spensley, SMACC distributed at the 11/3/ AOEE Public Hearing: AF AG

31 Page 31 of 76 AH AI AJ AK AL

32 Page 32 of 76 AM

33 Page 33 of 76 AN

34 Page 34 of 76 AO

35 Page 35 of 76 AP

36 Page 36 of 76 AQ AR AS AT

37 Page 37 of 76 sent from Jim Spensley, SMAAC 11/4/: From: Page 1 of 2 Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 11:24 PM To: Felger, Jenn Cc: MAC (Dan Boivin) Subject: CIP and AOEE Hearing Paul, Below i recreated a reply to Ms. Dornfeld in the Governor's office. This message is also about two staff messages that I believe are inappropriate. Our requests for a discussion of operational safety and FAA iniatives to maximize runway use through flight automation and new air trafic control developments as well as the impacts of noise and pollution resulting from the 2011 riutes changes Mr. Nelson's message claimed to represent the views or decisions of the Commission, but there is no public record I can find that the Commission has ever discussed the health studies or the safety risk management inquiries addressed in SMAAC correspondence to the Commssion. A staff letter suggesting that SMAAC and the general public lacked standing to comment in writing on the CIP and budget except at the December meeting. SMAAC may seem like a big rock in your shoe you do not wish to walk on, but it was dirty pool to close the AOEE Hearing and then have Chad and Jeff claim to have dealt meanifully with FAA about noise and pollution off the record. Note: After the Hearing was closed, MAC staff (Mr. Leqve and Director Hamiel spoke about PBN routes and changes in compliance with the runway use system. From an environmental review standpoint, the options being considered are operational alternatives with potentially different environmental imacts. PBN departures would maintain climb rates and progress along planned routes by constant power adjustments. The burn rate (increased power) would more than offset maintaining acceleration. The AOEE or an EAW is required by law, we believe, when there are alternatives for abating or managing noise and pollution. Director Hamiel also said that MSP management worried that PBN routes would increase noise along the several routes and reduce noise in other neighborhoods. my mind, this is a transparent exaggeration supporting the unnessarily high peak-hour hub use. Analogy: Falsely assumming we are cuttin the same-size pie, cutting larger slices for some neighborhoods and smaller slices for othe neighborhoods would be unfair. The falsity is that the noise pie is quite a bit larger and the smallest pieces then will have as much "sugar" as the even slices handed out now, and the larger slices more "sugar." Everybody gets the same or a larger dose. The AOEE or an EAW is required by law, we believe,when proposed changes in operations increase noise and emissions. Mr. Leqve spoke about getting the FAA to preferentially use easterly flow, mentioning the "runway-use system" that was assumed in the 1998 FEIS. He also mentioned the futility of ever reaching the goal: 1. The hub needs westerly flow and three arrival runways to prevent delays and can reduce runway use by deparures because of prevaling winds. As long as most flights are scheduled for a few peak hours, easterly departure must be less than 30% of all departures. The long-term trend has been more AU AV AW AX AY

38 Page 38 of 76 Page 2 of 2 flights at peak hours, but recent changes in airlines and airline schedules allowed slightly more off-peak use in compared to , seredipitously adding easterly departures. NOC's requests were honored by FAA without causing delays for the Sky Team hub flights, but not really changing FAA preferences.. The Commission should, we believe, assert the capacity limits as established in 1996 Law and the FEIS for MSP Expansion. AY (cont.) You will see this message in a supplemental AOEE testimony. It would be good public policy to discuss capacity vs. schedules vs. noise and pollution before making a determination. Jim Spensley, President SMAAC Commissioner Rehkamp is a good guy, and we have worked together over the years. Of all the Commissclose the AOEE Hearing and then have staff ioners appointed or re-appointed by Governor Pawlenty, his was the only appointment by Governor Dayton that we recommended. I appreciate very much that you spoke with him; however, he limited speakers to 5 minutes each (there were only 9 or so, and this stifled questions by the panel. He also limited the hearing to topics in the already-drafted AOEE report. To counter this, SMAAC distributed a written presentation, and I spoke briefly about safety and capacity. I invited the Commissioners to ask questions on the record -- or off-line in the next few days. If this happens, SMAAC will send supplementary testimony in question-answer form. The noise and air pollution problem is closely related to operations, particularly hub operations. Both noise and pollution are concentrated and more harmful at peak hours or high runway use rates. The big departure procedure changes in 2011 and 2012 significantly increased ground noise exposure and pollutants per cubic foot per flight compared to than the same rates in [As I advised the Governor through you, the production of noise and air pollutants is a function of the proximity and duration of operating large jet engines, That is the 'dose' per person per event-hour. The procedure changes increased both proximity and duration -- many more flights departing MSP turn quickly (exposing new neighborhoods and persons to higher dosage per flight. AZ BA The turns reduce the climb rate (increase proximity by being lower) and reduce acceleration (increase duration). Also see the note below. The MPCA, the Met Council, and Public Health should be aware of this, and intervene. The AOEE document is not a substitute for an EAW or EIS, but a cumulative report to the EQB and the Legislature about EAWs and EISs. BB

39 Page 39 of 76 sent from Jim Spensley, SMAAC 11/5/: From: Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 3:21 PM To: Felger, Jenn Subject: Re: CIP and AOEE Hearing Paul: You may want to look at You may want to call me as well for a private conversation. It is hard for us, as I.ve said before, to separate MAC policy from staff reports. In this case does the Commission truly believe that staff will research the comments and advise the Commission? Or will the Commissioners rely on a brief summary as was provided for the LTCP and EA's? BC. -- Jim Spensley sent from Jim Spensley, SMAAC 11/8/: From: mpds@visi.com [mpds@visi.com] Sent: Saturday, November 08, 5:09 PM To: Helen Leslie Subject: Re: Second CIP/AOEE letter Thanks. The letter parallels the messages to our Congressional delegation. I think the action is in Washington. The AOEE comments are designed to put pressure on the Commissioners and the Governor to think differently about their counsel-staff-airline advisers' recommendations. In an interesting development, the new MSP ATCT manager contact us after Carl Rydeen (I guess Carl is now her boss). Her message was pretty naive about what we know -- she said she'd never heard of (the acronym) for FAA development projects that FAA HQ gave NSTB as important to controller/pilot communications for arriving R35 traffic or managing separations. That may prove embarrassing for the FAA and lead to the changes we're hoping for... BD She also had no idea about departure profiles and the FAA announced program to combine two models so the INM can predict attained altitude by aircraft type and departure route. Hamiel told me that he had told the Commission that FAA and EPA had no intention of modifying the INM or changing the DNL 65 basis as a noise standard. FAA's actual position was reported in the NTSB letter of 22 May...which was sent to the Commssion in June. -- Jim Spensley Minneapolis

40 Page 40 of 76 sent from Jim Spensley, SMAAC 11/10/: From: Date: November 10, at 10:53:50 PM CST To: "Leqve, Chad" Cc: Scott Dibble Frank Hornstein "Steele, Matt" "Shafer, Yvonne" Ron Lischeid "Leslie. Helen" Subject: Supplemental AOEE Comments Reply-To: Mr. Leqve: The attached letter supplements the testimony of the South Metro Airport Action Council (SMAAC) regarding the AOEE report and Metropolitan Airports Commission plans for 2015 operations and Capital Improvements. We hope for a staff review that is worthy of the effort we have made to inform the Commission. We may be offering interpretations of facts, but our recommendations are not opinions. Providing the Commission, the Met Council, and the State government with pertinent facts in the hearing record and the staff AOEE recommendation is your job, not ours, but we are glad to help. BE The 2010 World Health Organization warning, the FICAN sponsored MIT Study, the NTSB 2012 warning, and the FAA acknowledged availability of an improved INM using 3D track data are examples. We remain available to discuss our comments and supply supporting evidence in the form of correspondence from, among others, the Chair of the NTSB, the USDOT Inspector General, and the FAA Administrator through Elizabeth L. Ray, VP for Mission Support Services, Air Traffic Organization. We believe a well-informed Commission would not trade off high costs, less safety, and more noise and pollution for the benefit of connecting passengers and without a service commitment from the hub airline. BF BG

41 Page 41 of 76 Letter sent from Jim Spensley, SMAAC 11/10/: BH BI BJ BK BL BM BN BO BP

42 Page 42 of 76 BQ BR BS BT BU BV BW BX BY

43 Page 43 of 76 BZ CA CB

44 Page 44 of 76 AOEE Responses to Oral and s Comments and Responses Commenter ID Subject Response A FAA Runway Use South Metro Airport Action Council (SMAAC), Oral Comment The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) did not adopt revised accelerated runway use procedures in The FAA Air Traffic Control Tower (ATC) returned to a more rigorous adherence to existing runway assignment procedures, due to a near-miss incident at MSP in Specifically, departing aircraft are being directed to the runway that aligns closest with destination and associated departure headings to minimize the need to cross operations in the air. The FAA has stated that there were no changes in air traffic procedures. Oral Comment B Safety Impacts During Peak Operation Hours When discussing MSP departure operations, it is important to note that a noise mitigation program has been developed to address homes located at DNL levels well below 60 DNL in the areas located under the primary aircraft departure tracks around MSP. ATC has the responsibility for the safe and efficient movement of air and ground traffic at MSP. Safety is ATC s first priority. All FAA rules and procedures at MSP are subject to a rigorous Safety Management System review by the FAA to ensure that safety is never compromised. According to the FAA Air Traffic Manager at MSP, increases in air traffic do not result in degradation of safety. Instead, ATC s standard operating procedure is to meter aircraft operations at a rate that ensures the system is able to safely handle the increased volume of air traffic. For example, aircraft departures might be subject to a temporary ground hold if there is insufficient capacity in the airspace for more aircraft on a specific route. Or, arriving aircraft may be directed to use a slower airspeed for sequencing to an arrival runway. Although ground holds or slower airspeeds may result in increased delay, FAA standard operating procedures for ensuring the safe separation and movement of aircraft still apply. FAA does not compromise safety in the name of providing increased hourly operational capacity. The level of operations throughout the day at MSP is

45 Page 45 of 76 driven by passenger demand. Aircraft flight tracking data show peak hour aircraft operations in August, when passenger demand is high, can be 25 percent greater than the peak hour operations in February when passenger demand is low. There are clear cyclical seasonal passenger demand patterns at MSP that affect the number of operations during the busiest hours. Nevertheless, hourly operations throughout the day are well below the operation levels forecast in the Dual-Track Airport Planning Process. Current updated annual operation forecast levels are also much lower than those forecast in the Dual Track Airport Planning Process. Current peak hour operations range from 90/hr to 115/hr. FAA representatives have indicated that, under ideal conditions, the airport can safely accommodate up to 30 arrivals and 30 departures per runway in an hour with reasonable levels of delay. The FAA Air Traffic Control Tower s acceptance rate during northwest flow configuration, under ideal conditions is 90 arrivals (30 arrivals on each of the three runways) and 60 departures (30 departures on each of the two runways). This level of traffic demand, however is not generally sustained for an hour. Typically traffic demand ebbs and flows throughout any given hour. MAC staff forwarded to ATC the SMAAC assertions that MSP is an unsafe airport that will become increasingly so with the implementation of proposed capital projects. ATC considered SMAAC s assertions and stated unequivocally that MSP is, and will continue to be, operated as a safe airport in compliance with all federal regulations. Oral Comment C Converging Arrival Operation Safety The operational inputs used for the noise analysis conducted in the MSP 2020 Improvements Environmental Assessment (EA)/Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) included the FAA s runways use practices detailed in the response to Comment A above. Since Runway 17/35 opened in October 2005, ATC has used an Arrival Distance Window (ADW). The purpose of the ADW is to maintain separation of Runway 35 arrival operations executing a go-around from Runway 30L departures. In July 2013 the National Transportation Safety Board

46 Page 46 of 76 (NTSB) published a safety recommendation related to converging runway operations. The recommendation pointed to aircraft proximity alerts that occurred at Charlotte-Douglas International, JFK, and McCarren International as examples of scenarios that warranted separation standards between an arriving aircraft that goes around and any combination of arriving or departing aircraft operating on runways where flight paths may intersect. As a result of the NTSB recommendation, FAA conducted a review of converging operations in the National Airspace System (NAS). As part of this review, FAA evaluated the ADW used at MSP and found it to comply with all FAA Safety Management System requirements. Oral Comment Oral Comment D E MSP Departure Operations Noise Complaints and Runway Use The FAA has confirmed that the converging operation scenario at MSP is safe and in compliance with federal regulations. ATC maintains that MSP is a safe airport and will remain safe into the future. Please see the responses to comments A, B, and C above. The MSP Air Traffic Control Tower immediately returned to a more rigorous adherence to existing runway assignment procedures after a near-miss incident in This action did not change where aircraft were turning upon departure, nor did it cause aircraft to fly over new areas. Please see the response to Comment A above. The FAA has sole authority for directing aircraft on the ground and in the air. These decisions are made solely upon standard air traffic control procedures (including several noise abatement procedures) and noise complaints are not considered when making these decisions. However, noise complaints are used in conjunction with operational data to corroborate specific events or identify possible trends. Various cities also use the complaints to gauge and assess the level of concern about airport noise in their communities. In addition, complaints provide insight for MAC Noise Program Office staff regarding any specific trends or irregularities that may need to be investigated or assessed. In response to community concerns, actions were taken

47 Page 47 of 76 to address complaints associated with the FAA s rigorous adherence to existing runway assignment procedures. On March 21, 2012, the MSP Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) recommended that northbound departures from Runway 30R at MSP be given vectored headings of 320, 340 and 360 by the FAA. These vectored headings allow ATC to obtain greater dispersal of departing flights over nearby Minneapolis residential areas located immediately to the north of the airport. The motion approved by the NOC is shown below: It was moved by Representative Petschel and seconded by Representative Bergman to approve the following request from the city of Minneapolis: Request that the MAC Planning, Development and Environment Committee endorse these action items: Move approximately 32 daily departure operations from a 360 heading to a 340 heading for those operations from runway 30R going to destinations such as Duluth, International Falls, Winnipeg, etc. Implement the use of three divergent headings (360, 340, 320 ) for northbound departure operations off of runway 30R. Continue adherence to the runway use system (RUS) at all times when traffic levels and prevailing winds allow. On April 2, 2012, the MAC Planning, Development and Environment Committee supported the request and on April 16, 2012, the MAC Full Commission voted in favor of advancing the request to the FAA. MAC Chairman Dan Boivin then sent a letter to FAA Assistant Air Traffic Manager, Carl Rydeen, on April 23, 2012, requesting that the FAA take the necessary actions to implement the above operational measures at MSP. The FAA agreed to implement the measures by August 1, At the July 17, 2013, NOC meeting, Minneapolis NOC Representative John Quincy requested that MAC staff report on the density, altitude, and dispersion of northbound departures from Runway 30R/30L. MAC Noise Program Office staff conducted an analysis and provided a report at the September 18, 2013, NOC meeting. The report is available in the September 18, 2013, Agenda Packet at:

48 Page 48 of 76 neighbors/noc-meetings. In summary, the analysis confirmed the use of the 320 -, and 360 -headings and the associated dispersion of Runway 30R departure operations. Overall, annual actual noise impacts from MSP have declined since 2008 due to fewer operations, changes in the fleet mix to quieter aircraft, and fewer nighttime flights by noisy aircraft. Oral Comment F Safety, Capacity and Noise Impacts Please also see the response to Comment F below. Please see the response to Comment B above. The MAC administers the most extensive noise mitigation program in the nation, if not the world. In 1992, the MAC commenced a 14 CFR Part 150 Sound Insulation Program, providing acoustical modifications for homes located in neighborhoods surrounding MSP that were subject to aircraft noise impacts in the area projected in the db DNL noise exposure map. A 65 db DNL noise exposure level is the federallyestablished threshold for mitigating aircraft noise impacts. Acoustical modifications under this program involved installing new or re-conditioned windows and doors, central air-conditioning, wall insulation and roofvent baffling, as determined by the construction design process at each home. The goal of the mitigation was to reduce interior noise levels by a minimum of five decibels in neighborhood areas affected by the highest aircraft noise impacts. This program was completed in As a result of a lawsuit settlement in 2007 known as the Consent Decree (October 19, 2007), the MAC began providing a Noise Mitigation Program to dwellings located within the 60 to 64 db DNL forecasted noise contours. Mitigation activities varied within this program based on the noise contour level; noise mitigation construction phases began in In 2013, construction phases of the residential noise mitigation program were completed and MAC settled all valid reimbursement claims by September 1,, marking completion of all required noise mitigation under the original 2007 Consent Decree. Since the early 1990s, the MAC has spent approximately

49 Page 49 of 76 $480 million on the residential noise mitigation program in the proximity of MSP, providing noise mitigation to over 15,000 single-family homes, over 3,000 multi-family homes, and 19 schools, as well as limited property acquisition. As a result of the extensive stakeholder engagement process conducted for the MSP 2020 Improvements Environmental Assessment/Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA/EAW) and subsequent to the FAA Finding of No Significant Impact/Record of Decision (FONSI/ROD) on the EA/EAW in early 2013, the cities of Minneapolis, Richfield, Eagan, the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority and the MAC jointly filed a First Amendment to the 2007 Consent Decree. The amendment contains language that binds the MAC to provide noise mitigation consistent with the noise mitigation terms described in the EA/EAW. The modified Residential Noise Mitigation Program was approved on September 25, 2013 by the Hennepin County District Court and is effective until December 31, The first year of eligibility began with the 2013 Annual Noise Contour. Under the First Amendment, eligibility of single-family and multi-family homes is determined based upon actual noise contours that are developed on an annual basis. A single-family or multi-family home will be considered eligible for mitigation under the noise mitigation program when the following criteria are met: (a) the community in which the home is located has adopted local land use controls and building performance standards that prohibit new residential construction or remodeling on the block in which the home is located, unless the construction or remodeling materials and practices are consistent with the noise impact levels and consistent with noise mitigation provided by this program, and (b) the home is located, for a period of three consecutive years (the first of the three years cannot be later than calendar year 2020) in the actual db DNL noise contour, and within a higher noise impact mitigation area when compared to the single-family home s status under the noise mitigation program prior to the amendment. MAC will provide noise mitigation to eligible properties in

50 Page 50 of 76 the year following the determination of eligibility. Singlefamily and multi-family homes that opted out of mitigation previously are not eligible to participate in the modified mitigation program. The 2013 Annual Noise Contour Report was completed by March 1,. A total of 119 single-family units previously located between the 2005 and db DNL noise contours, and therefore eligible for noise mitigation reimbursement under the 2007 Consent Decree, moved into a higher noise impact area in the actual 2013 noise contour. These properties meet the first year of eligibility for additional mitigation, less any reimbursement funds already paid to each individual property. Additionally, 18 single-family and 89 multifamily units previously outside the noise mitigation program area moved into a higher noise impact area in the actual 2013 noise contour. In all, a total of 226 singleand multi-family residential units met the first year of eligibility for noise mitigation under the First Amendment to the Consent Decree. Provided these 226 single- and multi-family residential units remain in higher noise impact areas in the and 2015 actual noise contours, MAC will provide the additional mitigation in The 2013 MSP Annual Noise Contour Analysis report contains the first-year eligibility noise contour map and specifics on the mitigation provided. The report can be found on the Internet at: G Health Effects of Aircraft Overflights With only one minor exception, noise mitigation has been provided to homes around MSP at levels well below 60 db DNL. Over 6,400 homes outside the 2013 actual 60 db DNL noise contour have received noise mitigation from the MAC under previous mitigation programs. Of those homes, 2,089 were mitigated to the 65 db DNL or greater. Moreover, the First Amendment to the 2007 Consent Decree provides for a noise mitigation strategy that will ensure noise impacts are addressed in a manner that considers any changes in the actual noise impact patterns around MSP. Please see the response to Comment E above. Some studies, primarily conducted in Europe, have

51 Page 51 of 76 Oral Comment examined the relationship between health effects and noise. Although many of the studies draw correlations between aircraft noise exposure and health effects, the science in this area remains undeveloped. The current body of studies is problematic and sometimes contradictory, as discussed in two leading literature reviews. The Partnership for Air Transportation Noise and Emission Reduction Project 19 Final Report (July 2010) entitled A Review of the Literature Related to Potential Health Effects of Aircraft Noise, summarized the flaws in existing studies that attempt to correlate aircraft noise exposure and health effects. According to the report: There are several potential problems that arise in health studies, e.g., unaccounted for confounding factors; removal of the impacts of certain factors which are known to be risk factors for cardiovascular disease but might also be outcomes of the noise exposure; inaccurate prediction of exposure to noise sources of interest; difficulties disambiguating impacts of total noise exposure versus exposure to a particular noise source of interest. In addition, adequate control of other factors like air quality, which may also be influenced by noise producing infrastructure, may pose challenges and increase the diversity of expertise needed for an effective study. Similarly, a 2008 report by the Airport Cooperative Research Program, entitled Synthesis 9, Effects of Aircraft Noise: Research Update on Selected Topics, found the following: In the 20-plus years since publication of the FAA s Aviation Noise Effects, considerable research, review of previous research with new thought, and new independent research, as well as collaborative efforts to identify health effects related to aviation noise, have been completed. Some studies have identified a potential correlation between aviation or road noise above certain noise thresholds, typically a day night average noise level (DNL) value of 70 dba, and increased hypertension; however, other studies contradict such findings. Occupational noise is also an intricate concern. Health effects on children, particularly those with decreased cognitive abilities, mental disturbances, or

52 Page 52 of 76 other psychological stressors, and studies of pregnancy and low infant birth weights, all indicate either little correlation or conflicting results of relationships between aviation noise and childhood psychiatric disorders, environmental factors, or low infant birth weights. Additionally, recent studies conclude that aviation noise does not pose a risk factor for child or teenage hearing loss. Because aviation and typical community noise levels near airports are not comparable to the occupational or recreational noise exposures associated with hearing loss, hearing impairment resulting from community aviation noise has not been identified. However, newer studies suggest there may be a potential relationship between aviation noise levels and hypertension or ischemic heart disease at noise levels as low as 50 dba Leq. Despite decades of research, including review of old data and multiple new research efforts, health effects of aviation noise continue to be complicated and the need for additional research is crucial to understanding. More recently, a December 2013 technical bullet published by the Department of Defense Noise Working Group (DNWG) entitled Non-Auditory Effects of Aircraft Noise, concludes that: Because the results of published studies of aircraft noise on human health are unclear, there is at the present time no sound scientific basis for concluding that aircraft noise has a negative non-auditory health impact. H Proposed CIP Operation and Safety Therefore, additional research is needed to understand the relationship between aviation noise and health before any conclusions can be made. The MAC continues to support research efforts by the FAA and others to evaluate the effects of aircraft noise and to examine alternate ways to quantify noise impacts. As an example, on March 19, 2012, the MAC sent letters to the Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) and the Partnership for Air Transportation Noise and Emission Reduction (PARTNER) offering MSP as a willing participant in ongoing studies of methods for understanding aircraft annoyance and sleep disturbance. Please see the response to Comment B above. Current aircraft operations, i.e. landings and take-offs at

53 Page 53 of 76 Oral Comment Considerations and FAA NextGen (PBN/RNAV) Implementation at MSP MSP, are equivalent to levels at which MSP operated safely in the early 1990s. Although aircraft operations have not increased materially since the early 1990s, passenger enplanements have been on a slow but steady increase. This is a direct result of airlines flying larger seat-capacity aircraft at unprecedented high load factors (seats occupied). The net result is more passengers flying on fewer aircraft, a trend that is expected to continue well into the future. The level of operations throughout the day at MSP is driven by passenger demand. Aircraft flight tracking data show peak hour aircraft operations in August, when passenger demand is high, can be 25 percent greater than the peak hour operations in February when passenger demand is low. There are clear cyclical seasonal passenger demand patterns at MSP that affect the number of operations during the busiest hours. Nevertheless, hourly operations throughout the day are well below the operation levels forecast in the Dual-Track Airport Planning Process. Current updated annual operation forecast levels are also much lower than those forecast in the Dual Track Airport Planning Process. Current peak hour operations range from 90/hr to 115/hr. FAA representatives have indicated that, under ideal conditions, the airport can safely accommodate up to 30 arrivals and 30 departures per runway in an hour with reasonable levels of delay. The FAA Air Traffic Control Tower s acceptance rate during northwest flow configuration, under ideal conditions is 90 arrivals (30 arrivals on each of the three runways) and 60 departures (30 departures on each of the two runways). This level of traffic demand, however is not generally sustained for an hour. Typically traffic demand ebbs and flows throughout any given hour. MAC staff forwarded to ATC the SMAAC assertions that MSP is an unsafe airport that will become increasingly so with the implementation of proposed capital projects. ATC considered SMAAC s assertions and stated unequivocally that MSP is, and will continue to be, operated as a safe airport in compliance with all federal regulations. The major capital projects contemplated in the MAC'S CIP are the result of a comprehensive FAA

54 Page 54 of 76 and MAC planning effort and an extensive environmental review process. (Additional coordination occurs with the FAA on proposed projects through the Airport Layout Plan approval process.) The CIP planning and environmental review processes included major stakeholder collaboration components, opportunities for public review and comment, and thorough MAC responses to public comments. There are no new runways or major airfield expansions planned. Rather, the development focuses on landside facilities and terminal modifications. These developments are planned in a manner that considers aircraft fleet mix and passenger load trends, with a focus on enhancing the passenger experience through safe and efficient airport facilities and related access to air transportation. MAC anticipates that the forecasted aircraft operations and passenger enplanements will occur at MSP regardless of the proposed developments. The projects in the CIP are designed to maintain and improve passenger service at the airport. Performance Based Navigation/Area Navigation (PBN/RNAV) is part of a national effort to modernize the national airspace system known as the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen). In November 2012, the MAC Full Commission passed the following action regarding PBN/RNAV implementation at MSP: The MAC supports implementation of the Area Navigation (RNAV) procedures as designed by the Federal Aviation Administration with the exception of RNAV departure procedures off Runways 30L and 30R at MSP. In February, the FAA completed a Safety Management Study to determine if the MAC-supported partial PBN/RNAV implementation is possible without jeopardizing safety. As a result of the Safety Management Study, the FAA determined that the RNAV arrivals may be implemented as proposed. However, FAA determined that the partial implementation of RNAV departures is not possible for safety reasons. The FAA plans to implement RNAV arrival procedures at MSP, incorporating Optimized Profile Descents, in the spring of The proposed RNAV departure procedures at

55 Page 55 of 76 MSP are not currently implemented and have been postponed indefinitely by the FAA. In response to the FAA Safety Management Study, the MSP Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) passed Resolution #01-, which supports RNAV arrival implementation, providing Optimized Profile Descents at MSP. (Available at The Resolution also states that prior to the commencement of any future RNAV departure design and implementation efforts at MSP, the FAA must present a case study of the successful implementation of RNAV at an airport with similar challenges to those existing at MSP. The case study should detail how the FAA s proposed design and implementation plan for MSP builds on the proven successes at the other similarly-situated airport. The Resolution further states that any consideration of RNAV departure procedures must be structured in a way that incorporates community outreach efforts, as was communicated to the FAA in a February 1, 2013, letter from MAC Executive Director/CEO, Jeff Hamiel. (Available at On March 17,, the MAC Full Commission took unanimous action supporting NOC Resolution #01- and communicated the above provisions to the FAA. Regarding environmental impact studies for PBN/RNAV procedures, on August 19,, the FAA published a Federal Register notice and request for public comment on the Implementation of Legislative Categorical Exclusion (CATEX) for Environmental Review of Performance Based Navigation Procedures (PBN). 79 Fed. Reg (Aug. 19, ). Specifically, the FAA was seeking comments on an approach to analyzing noise reductions on a per-flight basis. The comment period ended on October 20,. Id. The MSP NOC submitted a comment letter to the FAA on September 17,, focusing on fundamental underlying concerns with respect to the environmental review process. (Available at The letter goes on to detail the past experience of PBN/RNAV development at MSP and