NCSG MEETING #1-PROJECT KICKOFF

Date: Friday, April 16, 1999
Location: Ramada Hotel Airport East, Louisville, Kentucky

Attendees: Following is a list of project participants in attendance at the Noise Compatibility Study Group (NCSG) meeting:

Jim DeLong,
Regional Airport Authority of Louisville and Jefferson County
Rande Swann,
Regional Airport Authority of Louisville and Jefferson County
Dorn Crawford, NCSG Chair
Eric Bernhardt, Leigh Fisher Associates
Bill Willkie, Leigh Fisher Associates
Wayne Bennett, HNTB Corporation
Richard Letty, KM Chng
Tom Tri, Skees Engineering, Inc.
Dan Bevarly, Mo' Better Marketing Communications
Pamela Schott, Mo' Better Marketing Communications
Marie Keister, Public Affairs Counselor

MEETING AGENDA
The agenda for Noise Compatibility Study Group (NCSG) Meeting #1 was distributed to all attendees at the opening of the meeting. A copy of this agenda is available on the Noise Compatibility Study Website (www.sdfnoisestudy.com) or at the following Project Information Centers: Louisville Free Public Library-Main Branch Louisville Free Public Library-Middletown Branch ("A" District Government Center) Jeffersonville Township Public Library "B" and "C" District Government Centers Regional Airport Authority of Louisville and Jefferson County

DISCUSSION SYNOPSIS-PRE-MEETING BRIEFING
A pre-meeting briefing for new NCSG members and members of the community unfamiliar with the Noise Compatibility Study was initiated at 6:30 p.m. Mr. Jim DeLong, General Manager of the Regional Airport Authority of Louisville and Jefferson County (RAA), initiated the briefing by providing background information on the Noise Compatibility Study (the Study). Mr. DeLong stated that the purpose of the Study is to mitigate the impact of aircraft noise on residents and businesses affected by Louisville International Airport (the Airport).

Mr. DeLong stated that the purpose of the Airport is to move passengers and cargo safely and efficiently. He explained that residents and businesses affected by the Airport are located within a 300-square-mile area surrounding the Airport. The intent of the Study is to arrive at a balanced solution to aircraft noise issues that recognizes the interests of all stakeholders. These stakeholders include neighborhoods businesses, aircraft operators, travelers, the RAA, FAA, and future generations.

Mr. DeLong described the framework for decision-making that will be used in reaching the Study's goals. This framework included the participation of NCSG members with technical advice provided by the Leigh Fisher Associates consultant team and the Coordinating Council. Mr. DeLong stated that the role of the RAA will be to help involved parties reach a balanced consensus. Mr. DeLong stated that it will be the NCSG's responsibility to:
(1) vocalize its members' interests,
(2) receive and review data supplied by the consultant team, and
(3) submit recommendations for RAA review and approval.

At this time, Mr. DeLong introduced Mr. Dorn Crawford, the designated Chair for NCSG Meeting #1.

Mr. Crawford opened the floor for questions related to the background information presented by Mr. DeLong. Comments generally focused on specific problems to be addressed in the study. A summary of these comments follows.

One participant asked if it would be possible to re-route planes from over his home to a flight path over Preston Highway, approximately 200 yards away. This participant also asked who is responsible for routing aircraft.

One participant asked whether or not aircraft would be required to have quieter engines. One participant stated concerns regarding aircraft noise and toxic substances/ air pollution emitted from jet engines. This participant inquired as to whether a medical professional would be included on the consulting team to address physical and psychological effects of aircraft noise on the community.

One participant raised concerns regarding
(1) the potential for an aircraft crashing into populated areas,
(2) UPS plans for expansion,
(3) the possibility of altering glide path angles for arriving aircraft, and
(4) the proposed duration of the Study.

Following discussions on each of these topics, Mr. Crawford emphasized that these concerns will be addressed during regular NCSG meetings in the upcoming months. He then suggested that at this time it would be best to conclude the pre-meeting briefing, take a ten-minute break, and then begin the NCSG Meeting.

DISCUSSION SYNOPSIS-NCSG MEETING #1
Mr. Jim DeLong formally opened the NCSG Meeting and immediately turned the floor over to the designated meeting Chair, Mr. Dorn Crawford.

Mr. Crawford briefly discussed his personal involvement with the Study and stated that the purpose of the NCSG was to revisit, revise, and reconstruct the 1993 FAA-approved Noise Compatibility Study. Mr. Crawford referred participants to the NCSG Charter (made available to all participants at the entrance of the meeting room) and summarized the goals and objectives of the NCSG. Mr. Crawford reminded NCSG members that information obtained at the meeting should be regarded as "homework" to be reviewed after the meeting.

Mr. Crawford introduced Mr. Bill Willkie of Leigh Fisher Associates who then introduced members of the consultant team (see Attendees), and described each member's role in the study. Mr. Willkie and Mr. Eric Bernhardt of Leigh Fisher Associates then presented background and technical information for NCSG members. The primary topics included the Part 150 process, an overview of aircraft noise, noise metrics, potential mission statements for the Study, and a summary of upcoming study efforts.

Mr. Richard Letty of KM Chng Environmental presented an overview on the noise monitoring program and selection of noise monitoring sites.

Mr. Dan Bevarly of Mo' Better Marketing Communications (MBMC) took the floor and stated MBMC's role in the Study, which is to encourage and facilitate public involvement and participation. Mr. Bevarly introduced Ms. Pamela Schott, an MBMC Account Executive, and stressed MBMC's availability to the public as a source of information and a repository for questions and comments. Mr. Bevarly cited MBMC's telephone number, the telephone number for the NCSG Information Line (502-583-5867), the Project Website address (www.sdfnoisestudy.com), and the location of four Project Information Centers.

After concluding the formal presentation, Mr. Willkie turned the meeting over to Mr. Crawford who opened the floor for questions from NCSG members.

One participant asked if it would be helpful to the Study if NCSG members kept logs of the frequency and duration of aircraft overflights in each neighborhood, weather conditions, and time of day.

Mr. Bevarly first addressed this question, stating that such a log may be useful to the Study and encouraged NCSG members to use the provided Comment Forms and the NCSG Information Line as a repository for such information. Mr. Willkie added that issues such as these will be addressed in the Study and that findings will be available on the Project Website.

One participant from Old Louisville stated that noise in her neighborhood was generated from several sources, including the interstate, police and fire sirens, as well as aircraft. This participant wanted to know if her neighborhood would be excluded from the Study due to these factors.

Mr. Letty responded that it is difficult to differentiate sources of noise at monitoring sites, but accurate data regarding aircraft noise could be obtained by comparing the monitoring data with actual data obtained from the FAA Airport Traffic Control Tower (ATCT). Mr. Letty concluded that data for the Study would focus on aircraft noise. Mr. Willkie added that these factors are the primary reason why NCSG members will be responsible for recommending 10 noise monitoring sites.

One participant asked a question regarding the availability of comment sheets.

Mr. Bevarly stated that comment sheets were provided at the entrance to the meeting room and would also be available at the four Information Centers. He encouraged participants to forward completed forms to MBMC for consideration and response.

One participant asked for clarification between a "public hearing" and the NCSG meetings.

Mr. Willkie responded by stating that a public hearing was required by Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 150, and would be held after the recommended Noise Compatibility Program (NCP) was developed. This hearing would be advertised and transcripts would be provided for public review. Mr. Willkie stated that NCSG meetings will be held to obtain input from study participants and develop recommendations, while the intent of the public hearing is to provide results and obtain comments on the Study.

One participant asked (1) if a computer model is a reliable source of information for the Study, and (2) if the collected noise monitoring data will be compared with the computer model results.

Mr. Bernhardt provided an overview of the FAA's Integrated Noise Model (INM), and stated that the model was a reliable source of data as well as a necessary tool to provide the FAA with information required to review the Study. Mr. Bernhardt affirmed that the noise monitoring data will be compared to the computer model results.

Several participants questioned the efficacy of spending only one 24-hour period gathering noise data at each of the 20 sites. These participants questioned if it would not be better to monitor each site for a longer period of time.

Mr. Letty replied that noise exposure contours generated using the INM are a required output of the Study and depict aircraft operations during an annual average day. Mr. Letty explained that the purpose of the noise monitoring program was to gather data to compare the predicted noise levels generated by the INM with actual samples of data obtained through the noise monitoring program. Mr. Letty added that a one-day sample of data at each site was sufficient. Mr. Willkie concurred with this statement and added that, based on his previous experience, 24-hours of actual noise monitoring data are sufficient to correlate actual data with the INM results.

Another participant stated that (1) a longer monitoring period would be more fair, (2) such a short monitoring duration seemed odd, and (3) the public knows that an "average" day of aircraft activity does not depict actual conditions.

Mr. Crawford was first to respond, stating everyone involved in the Study would have different needs and expectations. Mr. Willkie reiterated that a 24-hour monitoring period will provide sufficient results and added that cost considerations were a factor in determining the monitoring period.

One participant asked if it was necessary to consider weekdays versus weekends when trying to determine an "average" day.

Mr. Letty replied that the data input into the INM would take all aircraft operations during the year into consideration. Mr. Willkie added that noise metrics in addition to that required by the FAA would be obtained and presented in the Study.

One participant suggested that outcomes from such studies may be construed in any way and wondered if the public's best interests would truly be taken into consideration when recommendations are identified. This participant stated that the value of his land has been adversely affected by aircraft overflights and questioned whether he would be able to obtain the full value of the investment if the property were to be sold.

Mr. Willkie stated that identification of fair and balanced recommendations would be ensured through the public's participation in the NCSG. Mr. Crawford added that he is personally committed to making the Study process work and that the public is encouraged to join specific technical committees to provide input and ensure the success of the Study.

One participant questioned whether the proposed approach to the noise monitoring program was standard as compared to other Part 150 studies, and, if so, could the consultant team provide supporting documentation.

Mr. Willkie stated that he would try to obtain such documentation, but pointed out that many Part 150 studies are completed without actual noise monitoring data as it is not required under FAR Part 150.

One participant asked if it was possible to reconcile data collected in the noise monitoring program with that predicted by the noise model.

Mr. Willkie replied that, while annual average day conditions cannot be replicated during the monitoring period, correlating actual FAA radar data with the noise monitoring results is an accurate way of verifying INM assumptions.

One participant stated that most NCSG members are lay people who are experiencing aircraft noise problems and do not have the ability to comprehend or analyze technical issues. This participant challenged the consultant team to prepare information in a manner that is understandable to the layperson.

Mr. Crawford stated that the Leigh Fisher Associates Consultant Team was chosen because the selection committee was impressed with Leigh Fisher Associates' presentation, specifically in the manner which technical details were explained in lay terms. Mr. Willkie added that the Leigh Fisher Associates Consultant Team would work hard to ensure that results and technical information are provided to NCSG members' satisfaction. Mr. Willkie encouraged feedback in the future. Mr. Crawford added that the NCSG has been designed to ensure that the Study results and recommendations were fair. He explained the rotating chairmanship concept, reiterated the NCSG Charter, and asked that NCSG members sign up to serve on the various technical committees. The purpose of the NCSG meetings, he added, will be to provide the committees with specific technical information.

One participant questioned whether or not the consultant team would be performing low frequency noise tests.

Mr. Willkie stated that such tests are not modeled by INM, but will be monitored in some locations near the Airport. Mr. Letty agreed that the INM does not consider low frequency noise, but low frequency noise samples will be obtained through the noise monitoring program.

One participant questioned how much time the FAA will take to review NCSG findings and recommendations.

Mr. Willkie replied that by law, the RAA must submit both a Noise Exposure Map and the revised Noise Compatibility Program for FAA review. He stated that although the FAA has 180 days to review and approve the Noise Compatibility Program, there is no required time frame for FAA review of the accompanying Noise Exposure Map.

Another participant asked if it would be possible to earmark funds for projects that are recommended in the Noise Compatibility Program.

Mr. Willkie stated that FAA funds are spent in the year for which they have been appropriated. He reminded NCSG members that the Airport will compete with other airports for available funds. He concluded by stating that programs which are unique or provide high levels of benefit relative to cost may receive more favorable consideration from the FAA.

Returning to the issue of noise monitoring sites, one participant asked how far from the Airport the monitors would be placed.

Mr. Letty reiterated that the consultant team would locate 10 noise monitors based on the noise monitoring committees recommendations and an additional 10 monitors selected by the consultant team. He added that aircraft noise data is best distinguished from other noise sources the closer the monitoring site is to the Airport.

One participant inquired as to the location of the 65 DNL noise levels. Mr. Letty responded that, while the location of the 65 DNL will depend on the type of aircraft operating at the Airport, it typically falls two to three miles from the Airport.

One participant asked if it is possible to determine noise levels based on aircraft types. Mr. Letty replied yes, adding that the identification of noise levels for different aircraft types will be part of the noise monitoring program. Mr. Letty reiterated that the noise monitoring data will be compared to actual data received from the FAA ATCT.

A final question was raised as to how committees and consultant team members can identify flight paths. Mr. Crawford stated that the committees were designed to bring people who shared similar issues together for discussion and problem solving. Mr. Willkie assured NCSG members that flight track data will be made available for public review and will be presented during NCSG Meeting

#2. SELECTION OF FUTURE NCSG CHAIRS
At this point in the meeting, chairs for succeeding meetings were chosen by lot and a rotation was established for the conduct of the Study without prejudice. The following is a list of succeeding NCSG chairs:

NCSG Meeting #2 - Mr. Bill Simpson
NCSG Meeting #3 - Mr. Ron Scott
NCSG Meeting #4 - Col. Tom Marks
NCSG Meeting #5 - Mr. Michael Clancey
NCSG Meeting #6 - Mr. Larry Owsley
NCSG Meeting #7 - Mr. Tim Chilton

NCSG MEETING #2
The next NCSG Meeting was tentatively scheduled for late July 1999. It was stated that the consultant team would be collecting and analyzing data during May and June, and present additional technical information at the next meeting.

COMMITTEE MEETINGS
As the NCSG Meeting #1 adjourned, attendees were encouraged to gather at tables designated for each committee, to sign up, consider key topics, and look at immediate study requirements. Committees needing early meetings were encouraged to think about the tasks ahead and how best to organize for them.