Meeting Notes
Proposed Noise Exposure Map and Noise Compatibility Program
Date: October 17, 2002
Location: Masterson’s Restaurant, Louisville, KY
Attendees: Following is a list of project participants in attendance at the Noise Compatibility Study Group meeting:
J. Michael Brown, Chairman, Board of Directors, Regional Airport Authority of Louisville and Jefferson County
Mary Rose Evans, RAA Board member and President, ANA
Tim Chilton, Study Group Chair
Dorn Crawford, Former Study Group Chair
Jim DeLong, General Manager, Regional Airport Authority of Louisville and Jefferson County
Bob Slattery, Noise Officer, Regional Airport Authority of Louisville and Jefferson County
Rande Swann, Public Relations Director, Regional Airport Authority of Louisville and Jefferson County
Bill Willkie, Leigh Fisher Associates
Lyndsay Tabler, Mo’ Better Marketing
Discussion Synopsis – Study Group Meeting #7
The meeting was called to order at 6:40 PM by Tim Chilton, Study Group Chair. Chilton explained that the meeting’s purpose was to present the Study Group’s recommendations. Chilton gave a breakdown of the agenda and informed the participants that Meeting 7A was scheduled for November 7, 2002.
Clinton then acknowledged some of the guests including Mary Rose Evans, Regional Airport Authority board member; Dorn Crawford; Representative Jim Wayne; and a representative from Delores Delahanty’s office. He then introduced Bill Willkie of Leigh Fisher Associates who presented consultant findings and recommendations to the Study Group. The presentation included the schedule update, noise exposure maps, noise compatibility programs, implementation requirements, benefits and costs, and steps to be taken.
The schedule update illustrated that the Study Group has nearly completed the study update process and that there are only a few steps left, including the Public Hearing, tentatively scheduled for November 8, 2002, and the documentation submission to the FAA. Willkie explained that the documentation would be based on the findings of meeting #7 and the public hearing; he stated that all documentation would be processed through the RAA.
Willkie referred to the Noise Exposure Maps (NEM) and explained that they illustrated how the noise program would benefit the community. He continued, and referred to the 2002 NEM, which represents the noise effects of current airport operations. Willkie again explained the Federal government’s regulations regarding DNL levels, and that they consider an average of 65 DNL as a significant level of exposure. Willkie mentioned that the two major effects of the program were to move traffic from the north to a largely industrial corridor, and to continue and enhance contraflow to increase the amount of time that aircraft operate to and from the south.
Wilkie then showed the 2007 NEM and explained that it reflects the operational changes of the airport suggested by the Noise Compatibility Study Group. He commented that in the 2002 NEM the contours indicate only a small change (because the amount of traffic did not decrease), but the airplanes would be quieter. Wilkie then referred to a graph that represented the NEM for the future and explained why the contours would be getting smaller over the next few years. He explained that the economics of aircraft operation have changed since the study started in 1998: there was an increase in cargo aircraft operations, but the increase in jet activities has actually stabilized the graph, due to improvements in aircraft mechanics and the development of quieter engines.
Willkie summarized the proposed NEM and pointed out that the overall benefit of the proposed program would have a significant impact on the amount of people affected by the noise in DNL 65 without affecting communities in other areas. The population in DNL 65 would decrease from a current number of 3,153 to 1,269; the amount of housing units would decrease from 1,432 to 552; and the number of noise sensitive facilities would decrease from 5 to 3. The program also has a significant impact in the areas that experience DNL 60-65.
Willkie then referred to graphs that demonstrated the future projection of noise for the airport with its current program compared to the noise projection with the proposed program. The current program demonstrated the anticipated growth in the population affected by the airport noise due to effects of industry growth if no changes occurred. The proposed program dramatically decreased the total population affected by DNL 65+ especially in the northeast quadrant of the airport. The proposed program also decreased the population affected by DNL 60-65. Willkie said they studied the effects of the program in other areas to ensure that they didn’t create "pop-out" problem areas due to the movement in air traffic.
Willkie then presented the Noise Compatibility Program. He explained that the Program included noise abatement measures, noise mitigation measures, and a program management plan. The noise abatement measures relate to the changes in the airport’s operation and the noise mitigation measures include remedial, preventive, and compensatory measures.
Noise Abatement (NA) Measures
• Air traffic control
• NA – 1
Maintain south flow runway preference during the daytime which will also incorporate a preference in landing in the north and taking off in the south.
• NA – 2.
Reverse east-west runway preference during day- and nighttime with a preference in the west runway.
• NA – 3
North flow runway preference in the morning, to reduce the noise over sensitive facilities like the University of Louisville.
• NA – 4
Southbound divergence by destination.
• NA – 5
Maintain contraflow.
• NA – 6
Reduce exceptions to contraflow.
• Approach and departure procedures.
• NA -7
Offset arrival/departure runway 17R-35L to emphasize the compatible corridor off the west runway.
• NA – 8
Arrival/Departure tracks for large aircraft.
• NA – 9
FMS/GPS tracks for turbojet and military aircraft.
• NA – 10
FMS/GPS tracks for large turboprop.
• NA – 11
Higher maneuvering altitudes, and an extended approach to limit the low flying of large aircraft and encourage aircraft to use the full approach corridors earlier on.
• NA – 12
Standard Instrument Departure (SIDs) to improve guidance for aircraft and air traffic controllers
• NA – 13
Standard Terminal Arrival Routes (STARs) to improve guidance for aircraft and air traffic controllers.
• NA – 14
Extension of Noise Abatement tracks.
• NA – 15
Elimination of early descents on approaches to reduce the noise over surrounding neighborhoods by reducing the amount of low flying aircraft.
• Operator Procedures
• NA – 16
Distant Noise Abatement Departure procedure benefits mostly the area with in 2 to 5 miles of the airport.
• Airport Policies and Regulations
• NA – 17
Engine run-up restricted to specified locations and times
• NA – 18
Limit use of north runway extensions to aircraft needing full runway length and use south extension for aircraft departures to the north.
Willkie commented that all of the above measures were largely responsible for the changes in the noise environment shown in the future noise contours.
One of the participants asked if the daytime departures would increase noise exposure to the University of Louisville. Willkie responded that there was actually a small reduction in noise during that time due to the fact that arrivals cause more noise than departures and there is a decrease in landings over that period.
Another participant had a question about the noise corridor and commented that on the 2005 NEM it looked as if the noise levels were increasing instead of decreasing. Willkie assured her that the noise levels were decreasing and that the handouts of the maps were a little confusing, as they did not translate very clearly into black and white. (The contours in question represented existing conditions rather than the proposed alternative.)
Willkie then referred to tables that illustrated the primary benefits of the abatement measures, and whether they were measurable or contributing but not quantifiable. The air traffic control measures, which included NA – 1 to 6, resulted in measurable noise reduction, except for NA – 3 which generated a slight benefit. The approach and departure measures (NA – 7 to 15) also resulted in measurable noise reduction within the DNL 60 contours, with the exception of NA – 15, would contribute to noise reduction in areas beyond the noise contours. Both operating procedures, NA – 16 and airport policies and regulations measures, NA 17 and 18, were noted as contributing but not quantifiable.
Willkie then explained and gave examples of the noise mitigation measures in their different categories including remedial measures, preventive measures, and compensatory measures.
Remedial measures included:
• M – 1
Current voluntary acquisition programs should continue.
• M – 2
Expanded voluntary acquisition programs to be formulated.
• M – 3
Residential insulation in DNL 65+ areas, which is also the measure of choice for preserving the integrity of stable neighborhoods.
• M – 4
Institutional insulation in DNL 65+.
• M – 5
Residential Sales Assistance in DNL 65+ area; this measure will assist homeowners who feel they need to relocate.
• M – 6
A noise barrier in the Beechmont neighborhood.
• M – 7
A noise barrier in the Preston Park neighborhood.
• M – 8
Residential insulation in DNL 60-65, +3dB.
• M – 9
Institutional insulation in DNL 60-65, +3dB.
Another participant wanted to know who determined where acquisition or soundproofing would be used in a specific area and whether the homeowners would have a choice. Willkie answered that the study would have to determine what measure to use before submitting a request to the FAA. The FAA won’t allow two measures like acquisition and soundproofing to be used in the same area because they would be counter-productive.
Willkie then discussed preventive measures, and mentioned that these measures needed to be initiated by local jurisdictions. These measures included:
• M –10
Compatible land-use planning
• M –11
Conventional zoning
• M –12
Subdivision regulation
• M – 13
Redevelopment programs
• M – 14
Overlay zoning
• M – 15
Building code revisions
One participant stated that she thought it was unfair that current home owners in the area would be forced to disclose the levels of noise if they wanted to sell their homes. She added that a lot of the current homeowners didn’t have that information when they bought their homes and she fears that they won’t be able to get market value for their homes. Willkie explained that sales assistance would help these people to sell their homes but that it was important to let prospective buyers know about the noise levels to prevent this matter from happening in the future.
Another participant asked questions regarding the expansion of the noise barriers and where they could be used. Willkie said that the study was only considering the above measures at this time.
Willkie then mentioned compensatory measures and explained that these measures did not reduce the noise levels; they just offered financial benefits as compensation for the noise. These measures included:
• M – 16
Avigation easements in DNL 65+
• M – 17
Avigation easements in DNL 60-65, +3dB
Willkie then referred to a table that demonstrated the primary benefits of the mitigation measures. He commented that M – 1 and M-2 removed non-compatible developments from the noise areas; M – 3 and 4, and M – 6 to 9, reduced the interior noise levels; and that M – 16 and 17 were alternatives to insulation and sales assistance.
Willkie then referred to a table that indicated the primary effects of the mitigation measures. He explained that remedial measures M – 6 and 7 reduced aircraft ground noise. The primary effects of preventive measures are as follow:
• M – 10
Compatible land use had effects on prevention and disclosures.
• M – 11
Zoning effects were prevention.
• M – 12
Subdivision regulations included the disclosure statements of noise for new developments.
• M – 13
Redevelopment program promoted compatible land use and the possible renaissance areas.
• M – 14
Overlay zoning affected disclosures and insulation.
• M – 15
Building code affected the insulation of new developments.
One participant wanted to know who was going to pay for the noise-reduction measures such as insulation and new windows. Willkie answered that, if such measures were approved, federal or Authority funds would be used to pay eligible costs for those who qualify to receive mitigation.
There were some questions about mitigation in the DNL 60-65 area. Willkie explained that the federal government had only funded measures within the DNL 65+ areas. He also noted that airport sponsors may mitigate for lower noise levels, but in most cases sponsors adhered to federal noise compatibility guidelines.
Willkie then explained the program management measures that included:
• PM –1
Noise compatibility staff such as Bob Slattery as a continuation of the study.
• PM – 2
Noise management program and committee that would continuously monitor the process; this would create an opportunity to tweak the program and to ensure its success.
• PM – 3
Extension of noise abatement tracks to continue work.
• PM – 4
Noise-sampling equipment to continuously monitor the program.
• PM –5
Additional flight-tracking systems.
• PM – 6
Required Navigational Performance (RNP) standards to improve the navigational standards of aircrafts.
• PM – 7
Exceptions for light propeller aircraft as a benchmark for the study.
• PM – 8
Public information programs to keep the community informed about the program and progress.
• PM – 9
Web site.
Bob Slattery then gave the Web site address (www.sdfnoisestudy.com) to the participants.
Willkie then went over the implementation requirements of the program and referred to elements such as the general requirements for abatement, mitigation, and program management.
The general implementation requirements for the abatement measure included the following steps:
• A formal proposal to the RAA Board in November 2002.
• RAA submits study report to FAA.
• The FAA (ADO) would review and approve proposal within 180 days of the NEM acceptance.
• RAA will coordinate with the FAA (ADO) immediately to initiate the Noise Environmental Prevention Act (NEPA) if required.
• The RAA will immediately coordinate with users as necessary.
• NEPA documentation (6 – 18 months from the initiation) would be required for some measures,; portions of the program might be initiated as a test prior to NEPA study.
• FAA (Air Traffic/Flt Stds) develops implementation procedures as required (e.g. approaches, SIDs, STARs, tower order revisions) upon the completion of the necessary NEPA process.
• FAA may provide funding for capital improvements upon completion of necessary NEPA process.
Willkie then referred to a table that indicated actions required by authorities to implement abatement measures. The table indicated that under Air Traffic Control (ATC) measures NA – 2 and 3 are required actions from the FAA, ATCT, and NEPA, as well as NA – 6, which required action from the FAA and ATC as these measures suggest change to the current airport operations.
Approach-and-departure procedural measures, such as NA 7 – 8, required approval from the FAA, ACT, NEPA, and funding. NA 9 – 10 and NA 12-14 required actions from the FAA, ATCT, and NEPA. Additionally, NA -11 and 15 only required actions from the FAA and ATCT. He added that under airport policies and regulations, measure NA – 18 would require action from the FAA.
One participant wanted to know if some of the measures could be implemented as test models before the FAA approves the final plan. Willkie responded that it was possible.
Willkie explained the general implementation requirements for the mitigation measures, which included the following steps:
• RAA formally adopts a plan in November 2002.
• FAA (ADO) approves within 180 day of NEM acceptance.
• RAA coordinates immediately with local government as required.
• RAA coordinates immediately with affected communities.
• FAA may provide funding for mitigation projects upon NCP approval.
Willkie then explained the general implementation requirement for the management measures, which included the following steps:
• RAA formally adopts a plan in November 2002.
• FAA (ADO) approves and grants funds to be requested within 180 days of NEM acceptance.
• RAA implements plan immediately after RAA adoption, if federal funds are to be used FAA must have approved the proposed measure.
Willkie then discussed the costs and benefits of the program and indicated that the benefits of the abatement and mitigation measures were:
• Abatement DNL 65
Removed 2,575 residents, 1,222 dwelling units, and 27 acres of vacant residential zoning from DNL 65
• Abatement DNL 60-65
Removed 2,903 residents, 1,475 dwelling units, and 66 acres of vacant residential zoning from DNL 60-65
• Mitigation DNL 65
Assisted up to 566 dwelling units and address 108 acres of vacant residential zoning from DNL 65
• Mitigation DNL 60-65
Assisted up to 800 dwelling units and address 924 acres of vacant residential zoning from DNL 60-65
Willkie added that additional benefits of the program included:
• The reduction of single-event noise levels in nearby communities due to noise barriers.
• Future residents are enabled to make informed decisions regarding locating near the airport.
• Compatible development in the airport environment would be encouraged.
One participant made a suggestion that the second recommendation of the abatement measures should be removed due to possible pending litigation. She added that she thought it was unfair and sounded like blackmail to the current homeowners who have already purchased homes without knowing the noise impact and were told they just had to deal with the current situation.
Willkie commented that the meeting was not a decision-making meeting and that her comment should be made at the next meeting 7A, which would be a decision-making meeting.
Willkie then discussed the cost of mitigation measures, which included the following:
• Capital cost of approximately $47 million, which covers primarily the costs of both residential and institutional sound insulation.
• RAA administrative program management included in capital costs.
• Community/landowner costs associated with development regulations
• Local government administrative costs for special studies, procedural revisions, and land use planning
Willkie added that 10% of dwelling units were assumed to be mitigated through sales-assistance programs; $1 million could be assumed per institution for insulation; and that in most cases the preferred program was insulation.
One participant disagreed that insulation would not be the case in her neighborhood.
Willkie then spoke about steps to be taken in the program. He said that the next Meeting 7A was scheduled for November 7, 2002, at Fourth Presbyterian Church and that it would be followed by the public hearing that was tentatively scheduled for November 8, 2002, at Masterson’s Restaurant.
Willkie commented that the public hearing would have a different format from the usual meetings and that there would be various stations set up where participants would have the opportunity to submit written or verbal comments. He added that the purpose of the public hearing was to comment on the NEM and NCP and that the participants’ comments would be reflected in the documentation to be submitted to the FAA.
Willkie then stated that the study recommendations for the NEM and the NCP would be submitted to the RAA to approve and adopt by November 20, 2002. The Part 150-documentation will then be submitted to the FAA when complete. Willkie explained that the NEM and NCP documentation would go though the following process:
• FAA reviews and accepts NEM.
• FAA reviews and issues record of approval for NCP within 180 days of NEM acceptance.
• Individual measures may be:
• Approved
• Disapproved
• Deferred pending additional information
• Flight procedure review not limited to 180 days
• Approval makes measures eligible for federal grant assistance, but does not commit FAA to fund.
Chilton added that there was a strong sentiment among people in the Noise Study Group that suggested it would not be a good idea to throw all the measures at the FAA without efforts to continue the strides made during the study. Participants suggested that they would like to see a noise compatibilities forum or group formed from the Study Group that would monitor the progress that the airport is making and to make sure the study didn’t make significant mistakes. Chilton mentioned that he was currently the chair of the Rules Committee, and that they were going to meet within that week to start planning what such a group would look like. Currently they were envisioning something similar to the Study Group that would represent different stakeholders.
Willkie then concluded the presentation and opened the floor for questions from the participants.
One participant referred to additional administrative costs regarding the FAA and RAA for environmental process and program management. She wanted to know if the consultants were going to stay involved in the process in the future. Willkie answered that the decision would come from the committee that follows this Study Group. He mentioned that the consultants would be involved on a case-to- case basis depending on the level of expertise needed and whether there were any technical issues that needed to be addressed.
One participant wanted to know how the easements were determined. Willkie responded that aviation easements were usually 1% to 3% of the value of the home. He stated the FAA policy that the value of easements reflect the impact of the easement itself, rather than the impact of noise on property values.
One participant asked if a test could be done to determine the impact of the aircraft operation on the west runway. She added that they should use noise monitors to determine the noise levels during the day and night times to ensure that the tests are accurate. She stated her concern about extending the west runway and felt that it would increase the noise in the west, northwest, and southwest, and that it would affect homes that previously weren’t in DNL 65+ areas. She then stated that she was concerned that they were creating a balloon effect, and it was merely moving noise from one area to another.
One participant wanted to know what would happen if some of the people in a neighborhood decided on easements and others wanted insulation. Would the people who wanted the insulation get the insulation? Willkie answered that it would not be a problem; measures like sales assessment, insulation, and easements could be used together. He added that the only time it would be a problem would be if they were planning to combine a program that would propose acquisition of an entire area, along with another measure. The participant also wanted to clarify whether the individual homeowners made the decision as to what measure they want to use, or did the decision depend on what a particular neighborhood or area wanted. Willkie answered that the homeowners could decide what measures they wanted.
One participant mentioned that she had never been notified of the upcoming meetings.
Slattery asked participants to check their address and to make sure that they are written clearly on the sign-in sheets to ensure that everybody got notified about the upcoming meetings.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:44 PM.