Familiar Fuel Dust Residue Identifies Communities with Airports


Teterboro, in New Jersey, is one of the nation's busiest General Aviation airports. Eleven of its nighboring communities complained of health impacts from jet fumes. In 2000 the communities considered doing an environmental impact study to assess residue from airplane fuel falling on lawns, cars, pools, and buildings. The actions of the community prompted a group of business people to lobby for Teterboro Airport. That group maintains the airport helps boost the state's economy. This is a national fight, it exists all across the nation, business interests against community quality-of-life interests. The communities involved were eventually informed by public health groups that only the FAA could conduct this kind of study. The response from community members was one of dismay and helplessness.
.Lisa Goodnight, Staff Writer. The Record. Bergen County, N.J.: Nov 30, 2000. pg. L.01


Exposing Airports' Poison Circles
by Sharon Ruth Skolnick
Earth Island Journal
Winter 2000-2001. Vol. 15, No. 4.

The poison circle from a single runway can extend six miles from its hub and run 20 miles downwind. The cancer rate for people living on the perimeter of Chicago's O'Hare airport is 70 percent higher than the rate for the average Chicagoan, according to CAW. A University of Illinois School of Public Medicine study estimates that pollution from O'Hare's seven runways could be affecting the health of five million individuals.

Dioxins from spilled jet fuel, di-ethelyne glycol from de-icing fluids, leaked engine oil and dissolved jet exhaust particulates commonly flood the tarmac and seep into the ground, streams, and creeks bordering O'Hare. The run-off ultimately flows into the Des Planes River, endangering the health of downstream communities.

A 1993 EPA health risk assessment concluded that aircraft engines areresponsible for approximately 10.5 percent of the cancer cases within a 16-square-mile area surrounding Chicago's Midway airport. The National Resources Defense Council warns that "the same conclusion might apply to people living immediately adjacent to airports all over the country."

The Santa Monica Airport is the oldest community airport in Los Angeles County and the busiest single-runway airport in the nation. In August 1995, the Los Angeles Unified School District asked the FAA to determine the airport's health impacts on the students and staff of nearby schools. The study determined that hydrocarbons and carbon dioxide far exceeded the National Ambient Air Quality Standard, and that maximum cancer risks were 23 times greater than the Federal Clean Air Act's "acceptable risk criterion" of one-in-a million.

Full Text at:

http://www.shhair.org/Articles/PoisonCircle.html


Flying Off Course
Environmental Impacts of America's Airports

http://www.nrdc.org/air/transportation/foc/aairexsu.asp
a. Airports are significant sources of ground-level VOC and NOx emissions. Locally, an airport's arriving and departing planes can create as much, if not more, ground-level VOCs and NOx as many of its largest industrial neighbors.

b. Airports are not regulated in the same manner as other significant air pollution sources. Neither airports nor airlines are held accountable for the aggregate impacts of their ground-level aircraft emissions. State and local regulators remain nearly powerless to address the problem in meaningful ways, while other major industrial sources are accordingly forced to compensate on airports' behalf as states scramble to meet mandatory emissions reductions deadlines. The number of commercial flights (which burn the most fuel and cause the most pollution per operation) meanwhile grows higher and higher each year.

c. A1993 EPA-sponsored study of toxic emissions at Chicago's Midway Airport (a much smaller airport than Chicago's O'Hare, with about 3 million enplanements per year, compared with O'Hare's 30 million) suggests that toxic air pollution from aircraft deserves more attention. The study, conducted in response to community concerns, evaluated cancer risks attributable to all air pollution sources in southwestern Chicago. It indicated that Midway's arriving and departing planes constitute a considerable source of particulate matter as well as toxic compounds such as benzene, 1,3-butadiene, and formaldehyde, releasing far more of these pollutants than other industrial pollution sources within the 16-square mile study area. In fact, few of all of Chicago's industrial sources release as much benzene or formaldehyde as Midway Airport. Nevertheless, airports are exempt from the federal law that requires other toxic sources to report their toxic emissions totals (the Toxic Release Inventory, or TRI)

.
Talk Trans/Zero Expansion Note: Flying Cloud Airport is the closest airport to MSP at a distance of less than 20 miles.


NRDC Recommendations
1. Treat airport-generated emissions in the same manner as emissions from other large sources and include them in state air pollution plans. Although airplane emissions at airports are comparable to those from industrial sources, they escape inclusion in State Implementation Plans (or SIPs), the EPA's principal means of achieving cleaner air in nonattainment areas. As states scramble to meet mandatory emissions reductions deadlines, other major industrial sources are forced to compensate for this omission. Allowing states to include control strategies for ground-level aircraft emissions in their SIPs would help them meet air quality goals.

2. Minimize aircraft engine use while idling and taxiing. VOC emissions (both toxic and non-toxic) at airports would be significantly reduced if all airlines instructed their pilots to shut down as many engines as possible during the idle and taxi period. This simple procedure would decrease emissions, as well as fuel costs. The FAA should issue an Advisory Circular on reduced-engine idling and taxiing, encouraging airlines to employ the practice as often as possible.

3. Adopt more stringent NOx standards. Ground-level NOx emissions from aircraft can be curbed by tightening engine emissions standards. The UN-affiliated International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) tightened NOx standards by 20% on January 1, 1996 and is currently considering tightening the standard an addition 16%. The European Union is supporting the tighter NOx standard. However, the new standard is unlikely to be approved without U.S. support, which has, to date, been withheld. The United States needs to join its European counterparts in actively supporting the additional tightening of this standard. Regardless of ICAO's ultimate decision, the United States should adopt the proposed standard as its own.

4. Address toxic aircraft emissions. EPA should carry out a nationwide investigation and risk assessment of aircraft emissions. If findings similar to its southwest Chicago study are reached elsewhere, then airports should be placed on EPA's list of major hazardous pollution sources. Whatever the outcome, airports -- just as similarly-sized toxic air pollution sources -- should be required to report their toxic emissions to the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI).

5. Investigate differential landing fees. Until local authorities can implement SIP control strategies for aircraft, they can address the problem of aircraft pollution indirectly. Airports can establish a revenue-neutral set of differential landing fees to encourage airlines to use their least-polluting planes.

6. Discourage auxiliary power unit use. Jets parked at airport gates often use generators (auxiliary power units or APUs) to power their electrical and climate control systems. Both emissions and fuel consumption could be reduced if planes shut off their APUs and relied on airport-provided power and air to the fullest extent possible. Southern California's airports are already electrifying their gates; airports in other nonattainment areas should follow their lead.

7. Convert airport vehicle fleets and ground service equipment to alternative fuels. Alternative-fuels programs already exist at many airports. Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), for example, operates 14 liquid national gas (LNG) buses, and is ordering more. Boston's Logan Airport is converting its vehicles from diesel to natural gas and electric power. Centrally fueled and maintained airport-based fleets are excellent niches for alternative fuel vehicles; states and airports should create incentives for or require their conversion.

8. Encourage mass transit. Private vehicles at airports can produce as much VOC and NOx as planes. Our survey shows that the overwhelming majority of airline passengers reach the airport in their own cars. Airport emissions totals could be considerably reduced if these people left their cars at home; mass transit use to and from airports should be promoted and developed at every opportunity.

 Zero Expansion Position Statement

Original Position and Objectives

1. Get the city of Eden Prairie to hire an expert lawyer to see what options are available to them in order to fight the expansion.
2. Get the city to hold informational meetings with testimony from the public and other concerned and knowledgeable parties.
3. Get the City to form a commission to look at the airport issue and achieve a compromise with MAC in order to retain the protections in Ordinance 51.
4. Get the City to file a law-suit against MAC.
5. Get the City to include an airport question in a city survey. (Which rated fourth in importance as a serious issue facing the community.)
6. Get the City and MAC to include Zero Expansion in negotiations.

• All of these goals or objectives were achieved except filing a law-suit against MAC and participating in negotiations.
  
  
• The city signed the Final Agreement with MAC, in 2002, which contained protections for the community. For this they had to give up their opposition to the expansion. The alternative for the city if they did not negotiate with MAC is that Ordinance 51 would be overturned and MAC would expand the airport without a new agreement containing some restrictions and protections.
  
  
• The new agreement gives the city the legal standing to file a law-suit if MAC does not uphold any part of the agreement. But there may be less support on city staff, council (Jan Mosman not to run again) and from our local representatives to initiate any action against MAC. This is where we need our local representatives to be on our side.

New Information Leads to Renewed Opposition

• In the past several years changes in FAA rules and new information have enforced Zero Expansion’s view that the rationale to expand was based on a false premise and outdated and erroneous projections.
  1. Pavement Based Weight Restrictions have been changed by new FAA rules.
  The new agreement is based on a 60,000lb pavement weight restriction. Because that change would impact the agreement negatively, the city wrote MAC a letter asking them to uphold the weight based pavement restriction.
  
  
• GAO and FAA have stated that GA does not contribute to delays at major hubs and can not reduce capacity by deterring flights. This being MAC’s rationale and mandate from the Met Council (which should be legislatively changed by our local representatives and Met Council mandate) for expanding FCM.
  
  Opposition from AOPA to increase rates and charges; Opposition from NWA to expand airport.
  1. The AOPA wants the airport to expand, but they don’t want their members to pay for it. They want the public to. The AOPA came out at a Reliever Airport meeting in April of 2004 stating NOT TO EXPAND FCM because the cost would make rates increases out-of-sight. Though you won’t find this on their web site or get them to admit they said it.
  2. NWA opposes the expansion and has come out and filed a legal case locally against MAC over Ordinance 87, in regard to rates and charges and a revenue diversion complaint with the FAA over some portions of the Final Agreement with the City involving land and money exchanges.
  3. In a report given at the April, 2004 MAC meeting, NWA outlined their objections and a course for MAC to take, which included giving back $34M to the MSP construction fund and no expansion at FCM.
  
  Support From the EP Chamber of Commerce, NATA
  4. The Eden Prairie Chamber of Commerce has supported the expansion from day one and met with MAC without the city’s knowledge in the beginning of the negotiations. They continue to support and lobby for the expansion without the knowledge of the public, whose interests, and input have been eliminated completely.
  5. NATA has recently lobbied the Governor, the City, MAC, the Chamber and met with Republican legislators in order to expedite a funding process that would eliminate NWA’s ability to stop the project.
  
  Privatization of Air Traffic Control Towers ( Congress puts on hold for a year)
  6. FCM most likely failed a cost benefit analysis for an ATC tower in 2002-3. Around 69 GA airports had their federally controlled ATC chopped by the White House. This is attributable to less traffic, fewer operations. Privatized towers are not considered to be as safe.
  7. Security at GA airports is lax. Charters and fractional operations make it difficult to monitor use. GA airports sell their numerous facilities and lack of waiting lines and security hassles to business travelers. Yet there is virtually no security at GA airports.
  
  Specific changes that alter the agreement between MAC and the City
  
  1. New FAA Weight based pavement strength rule could overturn MAC agreement to uphold a 60,000lb restriction, as part of the Final Agreement.
  2. Operational Forecast and Runway Use not documented
  3. Two different noise models were used to determine noise impacts making it impossible to ascertain real noise impacts.
  4. Twenty foot berm eliminated to screen neighbors from hangars removed from plan.
  5. Evaluation of existing wastewater systems not evaluated for potential impacts.
  6. Inaccurate information on underground storage which could result in groundwater contamination.
  7. Air quality impacts are up and exceed the 100 tones/yr of CO emissions based on Proposed Action.
  8. FAA forecasts for 2010 indicate that MAC’s projections are 49% higher than the FAA.
  9. Off-site alternatives never given consideration by MAC. (As NWA proposes.)
  10. MAC revised its operational figures for less overflights in potential bird strike areas. The result will be more overflights over populated areas.
  11. The cumulative costs of the expansion are now $82.9M compared to $49.7M in the Draft EIS and $60.5M in the Supplemental EIS.
  12. The Benefit Cost Ratio is 1.7 Including EP impacts it’s 1.46 Adding in the no action plan alternative it’s 1.29. This compares to 1.01 in the EIS. These ratios do not take into account the purchase of a safety zone west of the airport.
  13. Flights will shift over more populated areas due to the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge signing off on MAC’s revised overflight analysis.
  
  
  Who we are really fighting against NOT JUST MAC BUT Pro Aviation Lobbies NATA, AOPA
  
  AOPA has 400,000 members (including several members of Congress).
  
  In 2003 AOPA spent about $9,200,000 on "representation and communication"
  (They are not representing the residents of the communities that these airports are in), but they are lobbying local representatives, in addition to almost $16 million on its magazine and other publications.
  
  AOPA maintains an office in Washington, D.C. Its lobbyists and officers
  frequently visit members of Congress, the FAA, the TSA, Homeland Security,
  the White House, and other officials eager to tap into the votes of
  400,000 (largely white male) votes.
  
  AOPA actively engages in disinformation on the character of general
  aviation, perpetrating the myth that single-owner small planes used
  largely for self-gratification ("the $100 burger") represent a "vital economic
  driver for communities nationwide" (AOPA Pilot, May 2004, page 64).
  
  While AOPA fights "tirelessly" (its own word) against temporary flight
  restrictions resulting from the Sept. 11, 2001 attack, it is not fighting
  for *mandatory* and effective security requirements at general aviation
  airports.
  
  Note: the AOPA fights against any mandatory controls or restrictions of any kind.
  
  
  Current Position
  
  1. Continue to fight the expansion.
  2. Seek better representation from local leaders.
  3. Hold meetings and conduct lit drops in order to inform the public.
  4. Continue to research airport issues and get our representatives to lobby the Met Council to overhaul the 50yr old mandate, mission and philosophy, of reliever airports.
  
  

Flying Cloud – Economic Highlight or Burden?

In an Eden Prairie News article of August 26, Pat MulQueeny, Eden Prairie Chamber of Commerce President, referred to a recent study by MAC indicating Flying Cloud contributes $90 million to the local economy. Unfortunately, the Star Tribune repeated this inaccurate information in a September 15 article called "Not everyone on board for Flying Cloud expansion" by Ben Steverman.

The most recent publication showing the $90 million figure, "The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Expansion of Flying Cloud Airport" (FEIS) was released in August. However, that $90 million is from a 1998-MET Council study called "The Economic Impact of General Aviation in the Twin Cities". Since 1998, Flying Cloud operations have declined 22% from 198,000 to 155,000 with a similar decline in its economic impact. At best, Flying Cloud’s contribution to the metro area tops out at $70 million – not to Eden Prairie – but to the entire metro area.

If you look at the 1998 study and take out the assumptions, estimations, secondary impacts, the FAA’s "multiplier effect" and the 22% decline, the current impact of Flying Cloud is closer to $40 million – most of it outside of Eden Prairie. The Met Councils 1998 study also failed to mention any of Flying Cloud’s annual subsidies, currently about $500,000 a year.

MAC subsidizes Flying Cloud’s depreciation and interest costs. A 1997 report by the consulting firm, Airport Business Solutions, reported "MAC has chosen to leave ground rents and fuel flowage fees unchanged for the past 35+ years, despite significant growth trends in the cost of operating airports". MAC has not significantly increased rates since then and the public continues to subsidize Flying Cloud through revenues generated at MSP.

For contrast, Flying Cloud’s current economic impact of $40 million compares poorly with Eden Prairie’s School Districts expenditures in 2003 - which were about $75 million – that is expenditures – not economic impact. If we converted the school districts spending to impact using the FAA’s methods, the economic impact of the School District would be at least $130 million.

Flying Cloud is increasingly becoming an economic burden. It’s situated on 750 prime acres in southern Eden Prairie, yet contributes less than an estimated $400,000 in property taxes to the city and school district. We have housing developments in Eden Prairie that contribute more to the financial health of the city.

In the last 20 years, MAC took 280 acres from the City of Eden Prairie’s tax base for the proposed expansion. What that costs the City comes from a 2001 document entitled "Potential Lost Revenues 280 Acre MAC Acquisition". That report shows a loss to the city of $127 million in fees and taxes from potential homes and businesses over the next 99 years. What it doesn’t calculate is the rest of the economic impact of 500 homes and over a million square feet of business and industry. What does your family spend a year in Eden Prairie? Multiply it by 500. What would a 10,000 square foot business spend in Eden Prairie? Multiply that by 100. $30 to $40 million in lost economic activity per year seems a reasonable estimation.

Airports negatively impact the property values of surrounding residential areas due to air and noise pollution. The larger the airport is, the bigger the negative impact on residential property values. The airport may contribute some positives to the entire metro area, but the negatives all stay in Eden Prairie.

It doesn’t make sense spending $84 million to expand Flying Cloud runways so jets 2 to 3 times the size of the ones currently using the airport can wake us up in the morning. The city and residents have never supported the expansion. Most of the tenants at Flying Cloud don’t support the expansion. More objectively, the finances and projections don’t support the expansion. To think that MAC could expand it anyway –and it can – in spite of all logical arguments against it - is very frustrating.

Flying Cloud today may be an asset to Eden Prairie – that is debatable. Flying Cloud with a 4,000 and a 5,000-foot runway will not be an asset to our community.

By Mark Michelson

Incentives beyond economic value: the selling of an airport expansion

By Zero Expansion Members
Mark Michelson
Vicki Pellar Price

Because we are a community and live within an amalgam of residential, business, and recreational opportunities at our finger-tips, we need and depend on each other. The positive contributions businesses confer on a community are immense: crucial services and amenities like hospitals, senior centers, day care, diverse living options and open spaces make a community livable and attractive to everyone.
There are of course different kinds of businesses. Most private businesses get loans and tax credits, but would default and eventually have to declare bankruptcy if they didn’t have the necessary cash flow to sustain themselves. Other businesses or governmental services literally survive through subsidies in the form of taxation and through protectionism. Public services such as different forms of transportation, highways and airports, receive governmental funding as well as subsidies, which includes public subsidies.
Those applying for Federal Funding for transportation infrastructure must provide projections and analysis of future use in order to qualify for funding from the government, or other like agencies. MAC, Metropolitan Airports Commission, had to provide an EIS, Environmental Impact Study, which is supposed to include likely impacts involving noise, pollution and traffic, as well as an analysis of projected use, need and costs.
The FAA, Federal Aviation Administration, recently determined that MAC’s projections for future use at FCM, Flying Cloud Airport in Eden Prairie, were 49% more than what the FAA deems to be an actual/ accurate projection of use. Maybe this is because MAC’s projections were based on 1987 forecasts that were completed in 1992. What this means is the expansion is based on inaccurate, over inflated projections/need. Since FCM operations have trended downward 4.4% each year since 1998, the entire proposal to expand comes across more and more as the pet project of a few local companies and aviation interests.
What we also know is NATA, the National Aviation Transportation Association, the national voice for business aviation, met here in the Twin Cities with MAC, the Eden Prairie Chamber of Commerce, and Republican legislators in mid-July. NATA attended what was described on their web site as a "town meeting" hosted by a local aviation company in Eden Prairie for regional aviation business leaders; the town was not invited. Their purpose was to lobby for more CIP (Capital Investment Plan) funding for the FCM expansion. That’s because NWA, Northwest Airlines, who opposes the expansion on the basis of inaccurate projections and fiscal improprieties, has placed some serious deterrents in MAC’s way, which could obstruct MAC’s ability to receive federal funding for the FCM expansion. NWA’s opposition has legs, so special interest groups, like NATA are crawling out-of-the woodwork to make an expansion happen despite the city’s and residents’ opposition, despite the incontrovertible facts against it.

The question every ticket-buyer and airport neighbor should ask, why are we spending $84M+ (this figure has gone from $40M back in the early 90's all the way up to the current $84M that was taken out of figures we received through the FOIA process from the city) to expand a small airport like FCM when the projected use was inflated, when the number of operations has decreased annually since 1998 and when security, the high price of oil, and the volatility of the industry make any aviation related investment, at best, fiscally incautious– especially when there are less expensive alternatives in close proximity, like two 5,000 ft runways, one at MSP and one at St Paul Holman Field?

Why foot the bill for someone else’s business at the cost of someone else’s peace and quiet? Ultimately the costs for an expansion and the subsequent operations would be picked up, in part, by multitudes of ticket buyers and homeowners, while only a small number of airport owners/users would make a net gain over the human quality-of-life interests of a large portion of the population of Eden Prairie and its neighbors.

For the Eden Prairie Chamber of Commerce though it’s business as usual: their priorities are not always compatible with residents. The Chamber recently asked the city to come out as a stronger advocate for the expansion. When the process first started and the city was against the expansion, the Chamber met with MAC in support of the expansion, which was unknown to the city at the time. This didn’t exactly enamor the city; it didn’t exactly build trust in the Chamber. And now, the Chamber’s intent to continue to push for the expansion is still completely at odds with the city, the council, and community residents, who fought to oppose it. The city signed the agreement with MAC to get protections for the community and in order to do that MAC required them to withdraw their opposition to the expansion. The city has never, at any time, supported the expansion. When surveyed, residents ranked the airport issue one of the most serious facing our community; and when asked to participate at public meetings, they brought the house down with their objections.

And NATA’s interests are for one purpose only, to foster business aviation. They’re performing just like any other lobby group for aviation; their credo is absolutely no restrictions on access, or Federal monies spent. NATA wants more money spent on FCM, no matter that FCM’s operations are increasingly down-trending each year, while operation and maintenance costs at FCM soar and security costs at small airports really haven’t been adequately addressed by the MAC. When it comes to business subsidies, aviation industry users continue to expect and depend on special tax breaks for airplane ownership, while it’s taxpayers who subsidize the airports they use through user fees, ticket prices, concessions, and taxes.

The EP Chamber of Commerce, seemingly ignorant of the inequities concerning projections of use, or the economical alternatives available right now, is proactively endorsing the expansion as an economic boon to our community. But, the relievers have shown a dependence on subsidies and their overall economic performance falls way short in comparison to other GA, General Aviation, airports nationally, so the boon is as hypothetical and hyped as the projections to qualify the project for funding.

Surely the Chamber is aware that MAC has considered hiring outside management to run the relievers, as well as pursue an ongoing process to reexamine the current system, which is far from self-sustaining. All this reconfiguring of a non-performing system won’t come at a small price: expansion costs one price tag, but making the relievers self-sustaining will cost much more. As is, MAC can’t even get airport users, or their membership organization, the AOPA, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, to warm up to rate hikes.

Many of you may feel the prospect of an airport expansion has loomed overhead for way too long! And we couldn’t agree with you more. Unfortunately this is how things get done in government: if they want something, and it fails on the first couple tries, they find a way to sneak it by you when you’re not looking, or you’ve given up.

Our belief from day one is not to give up; our belief is that this expansion was not only unnecessary, but its need was falsely projected. If you didn’t believe us when we said months ago that the expansion wasn’t a done deal, believe us now and call or email your Council Members, Mayor, City Manager, MAC and state legislators and tell them again what you’ve told them thousands of times already—no expansion.



Zero Expansion is a politically diverse resident’s group in Eden Prairie dedicated to public awareness on local airport issues related to Flying Cloud Airport.

MAC has never admitted nor accounted for decreased property values in Eden Prairie that will result when operations at Flying Cloud significantly increase. There is countless research on this subject matter, and many folks have submitted such information to MAC in comment periods. The fact that MAC ignores known research on property devaluation is incredulous. Is MAC being recklessly ignorant or deceptive when it ignores property devaluation? The following is a sample of that research.

Several studies show that property values are negatively impacted by aircraft to an amount of at least 0.5% for every decibel above average noise. See Bragdon, Clifford R. (1989), "Control of airport- and aircraft-related noise in the United States," Transportation Research Record; Nelson, John P. (1980), "Airports and property values: a survey of recent evidence," Journal of Transport Economics and Policy; Tomkins, J., et al. (1998) "Noise versus access: the impact of an airport in an urban property market," Urban Studies; Knack, Ruth Eckdish and Jim Schwab (1996) "Learning to live with airports," Planning; Mieszkowski, Peter and Arthur M. Safer, (1978), "An estimate of the effects on airport noise on property values," Journal of Urban Economics; McDonald, John F. and Clifford I. Osuji (1995), "The effect of anticipated transportation improvement on residential land values," Regional Science and Urban Economics; O'Byrne, Patricia Habuda, et al. (1995), "Housing values, Census estimates, disequilibrium, and the environmental cost of airport noise: a case study of Atlanta," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management; Harvey, Milton E., et al. (1979), "Cognition of a hazardous environment: reactions to Buffalo airport noise," Economic Geography.

In 1994, FAA itself commissioned Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc. to study property devaluation as a result of aircraft noise. It created a report "The Effect of Airport Noise on Housing Values: A Summary Report." The study found that the effect of noise on prices was highest in moderately priced and expensive neighborhoods. For two moderately priced neighborhoods north of LAX, the study found "an average 18.6 percent higher property value in the quiet neighborhood, or 1.33 percent per dB of additional quiet."

A 1996 study found that the expansion of the Seattle-Tacoma Airport would cost nearby cities $500 million in property values. The study found that "all other things remaining equal, the value of a house and lot increases by about 3.4% for every quarter of a mile the house is farther away from being directly under a flight track."

In 1997, Randall Bell, MAI, Certified General Real Estate Appraiser, Licensed Real Estate Broker and instructor for the Appraisal Institute examined 190 sales near the LAX, John Wayne, and Ontario airports. He found a diminution in value due to airports averaging 27.4%.

What kind of community do you want to live in? I used to live in South Minneapolis where jet aircraft noise was so loud that you couldn't talk on the phone or have a conversation if the windows were open. We moved to suburban Eden Prairie where we could live in a quiet, safe neighborhood. It was a trade off, living in Minneapolis where you could walk to restaurants and shopping and be minutes from downtown and MSP, but had loud aviation noise, or enjoying the quiet outdoors in Eden Prairie where you have to drive everywhere.

Mark Michelson's FEIS Response to MAC

September 16, 2004

Ms Bridget Rief
Metropolitan Airports Commission


RE: Written comments on the FEIS

MAC's FEIS, Final Environmental Impact Statement, fails to adequately answer the questions in regard to loss of property values. As far as I can read in the Summary of Comments on Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS and Responses, the only answer given to any question about property values is General Response number 8 on page 3 of the Summary of Comments. General Response number 8 is an answer to one question from a property owner who thought they would have to sell their home for below the purchase value. General Response 8 asserts (one) that homes will not lose so much value that valuations will fall below purchase prices, and (two) figuring out loss in value is too complex for the FAA and MAC. That neatly sidesteps the issue, but it doesn’t answer the questions raised over the past 20 years in regard to loss of property value.

Flying Cloud Airport is surrounded by homes valued at from $250,000 to the multi-millions. Eden Prairie is a community of homes where values increase on a daily basis. People who purchased homes in Eden Prairie 5 years ago have seen their values double. A home purchase in Eden Prairie is an investment where people expect a payback. Answering the "Loss in Property Value" question by saying "In Minnesota it has been shown that MSP aircraft noise has not reduced property values below the purchase price" simply begs the question. In a time of rapidly increasing values, the fact that a home near an airport doesn’t increase in value as quickly as a similar home situated far enough away from an airport to not experience the noise and pollution associated with aircraft, means that home has lost value.

The issue is not if loss of value in the vicinity of an airport happens. Anecdotal evidence and several studies (the studies have all been brought to the attention of MAC in the last 20 years), prove that without a doubt it happens. The issue is: what is MAC going to do about it? MAC’s stated intent is to waken Flying Cloud from its General Aviation slumber by injecting it with a new 5,000-foot runway. MAC wants jets that are 2 to 3 times the size of the current jets to make Flying Cloud their home. Aviation loves longer runways. It means more aircraft, more business and best of all, the people who don’t pay enough rent to keep Flying Cloud solvent will get a reduction in their aircraft insurance rates because the runways are 5,000 feet long.

What does it mean to homeowners? If MAC’s plan is successful, homeowners within three miles of the airport will experience a radical increase in aircraft noise, air pollution and light pollution (the expanded airport will have a terrific lighting system). These are not items that tend to increase the value of a home.

MAC is forging ahead with their plan as if it makes no difference whatsoever that if their plan works there will be a direct, cause and effect loss in property value in Eden Prairie. That doesn’t mean that people won’t be able to sell their homes or that they’ll have to sell them for less than they purchased them. It means they’ll lose value. A home near a busy, noisy, polluting airport will be valued less than a home outside of the airport’s influence. What is MAC going to do about that? How is MAC going to address that question?

MAC is intentionally and knowingly creating a situation where, if MAC is right, thousands of homeowners will lose value in their homes – and we are not talking about tarpaper shacks – we’re talking about expensive homes, very expensive homes.

To say that the problem is too complex for them to evaluate is ridiculous. These are the same people who brought us the DNL 65 and other sound measurements. They can project sound measurements using a computer simulation but they can’t evaluate the loss of property value in the vicinity of an airport? The truth is they don’t want to acknowledge the problem. Once they accept that there is a causal relationship between airport proximity and loss in residential value, a new precedent will be established and they will be responsible for that loss in value. In Minnesota, even a partial loss in value due to another parties actions can be claimed.

Are MAC and the State of Minnesota really ready for the problems that this expansion is sure to cause? There are probably several billions worth of real estate that a Flying Cloud expansion will impact and a lot of unhappy homeowners. Changing the status quo at the Flying Cloud Airport in order to attract more and bigger aircraft that will directly impact the value of those residential properties in the vicinity of the airport is not a good idea.

The FEIS has failed to adequately address the issue of "loss of residential property values". This issue has been brought to MAC’s attention in a large variety of questions over the past 20 years and General Response 8 does not answer the question adequately.


Mark Michelson
Eden Prairie, MN 55347

Noise Center
League For The Hard of Hearing

Airport and Aircraft Noise

http://www.lhh.org/noise/airports/index.htm

Airport Noise Fact Sheet
Cornell Study Finds Airport Noise Harms Children
Study Finds Airport Noise Affects Health
Links To Noise Organizations Focused on Airport Issues
The Right Price for Air Travel Campaign's Action Day

EPA Six Common Air Pollutants
Ozone
Particulate Matter
Sulphur Dioxide
Lead
Carbon Dioxide
Nitrogen Dioxide

The Clean Air Act established two types of National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

"Primary" standards are designed to establish limits to protect public health, including the health of "sensitive" populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly.
"Secondary" standards set limits to protect public welfare, including protection against decreased visibility and damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings.

Health and Particulate Matter

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/naaqsfin/pmhealth.html

Impacts To Children:

• The average adult breathes 13,000 liters of air per day; children breathe 50 percent more air per pound of body weight than adults.
  
  
• Because children's respiratory systems are still developing, they are more susceptible to environmental threats than healthy adults.
  
• Exposure to fine particles is associated with increased frequency of childhood illnesses, which are of concern both in the short run, and for the future development of healthy lungs in the affected children.
  
  

Fine particles are also associated with increased respiratory symptoms and reduced lung function in children, including symptoms such as aggravated coughing and difficulty or pain in breathing. These can result in school absences and limitations in normal childhood activities.

Impacts To Asthmatics and Asthmatic Children:

• More and more people are being diagnosed with asthma every year. Fourteen Americans die every day from asthma, a rate three times greater than just 20 years ago. Children make up 25 percent of the population, but comprise 40 percent of all asthma cases.
  
• Breathing fine particles, alone or in combination with other pollutants, can aggravate asthma, causing greater use of medication and resulting in more medical treatment and hospital visits

.
Background: What is Particulate Matter and What are "Fine" Particles?

• Particulate matter originates from a variety of sources, including diesel trucks, power plants, wood stoves and industrial processes. The chemical and physical composition of these various particles varies widely. While individual particles cannot be seen with the naked eye, collectively they can appear as black soot, dust clouds, or grey hazes.
  
  
• Those particles that are less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter are known as "fine" particles; those larger than 2.5 micrometers are known as "coarse" particles. Fine particles result from fuel combustion (from motor vehicles, power generation, industrial facilities), residential fireplaces and wood stoves. Fine particles can be formed in the atmosphere from gases such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and volatile organic compounds. Coarse particles are generally emitted from sources such as vehicles traveling on unpaved roads, materials handling, and crushing and grinding operations, and windblown dust.
  
  
• EPA is also maintaining a national air quality standard focused on small particles less than 10 micrometers in diameter (known as "PM10") to protect against coarse particle effects. Ten micrometers are about one-seventh the diameter of a human hair.
  
  
• Before 1987, EPA's standards regulated larger particles (so called "total suspended particulates"), including those larger than 10 micrometers. By 1987, research had shown that the particles of greatest health concern were those equal to or less than 10 micrometers that can penetrate into sensitive regions of the respiratory tract. At that time EPA and states took action to monitor and regulate particulate matter 10 micrometers and smaller.
  
  

In the years since the previous standard was enacted, hundreds of significant new scientific studies have been published on the health effects of particulate matter. Recent health effects studies suggest those adverse public health effects, such as premature deaths and increased morbidity in children and other sensitive populations have been associated with exposure to particle levels well below those allowed by the current standard.

TRI Reporting-
Toxic Release Inventory-
http://www.epa.gov/tri/

What is TRI?
The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) is a publicly available EPA database that contains information on toxic chemical releases and other waste management activities reported annually by certain covered industry groups as well as federal facilities. This inventory was established under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA) and expanded by the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990. (more on "What Is TRI" and TRI Program Fact Sheet).

There is no TRI reporting data on MSP, or reliever airports for transportation related toxics on the EPA’s Chemical reporting database.

There is a request to the EPA to require airports to do so dated back in 1998.
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-TRI/1998/February/Day-10/tri3316.htm

Department of Public Safety- Steve Tomlyanovich-651-297-7372MN
Regarding Toxic Release Inventory for Airports-Steve says airports do not release their toxic release inventory like other industries. NWA does report their TRI.
http://www.dps.state.mn.us/