Study Group Meetings

NCSG MEETING #7a

Final Meeting Notes

Date: November 7, 2002

Location: Fourth Presbyterian Church, 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

Dorn Crawford, former Study Group Chair

Jim DeLong, General Manager, Regional Airport Authority of Louisville and Jefferson County

Mary Rose Evans, Board of Directors, 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

John Sistarenik, former Study Group Chair

Tim Chilton, Study Group Chair

Lyndsay Tabler, Mo’ Better Marketing

Nadine van der Merwe, Mo’ Better Marketing

The meeting was called to order at 6:40 P.M. by Tim Chilton, Committee Chair and Beechmont neighborhood resident.

Chilton asked that everyone quickly review the notes from meeting 6A. The motion to accept the meeting notes was approved.

Since meeting #7, three of the committees met to discuss and prepare responses and comments regarding the implementation program for the Noise Study.

Donna Lawlor, Chair for the Sensitive Facilities Committee, was not able to attend. John Sistarenik, with the Old Louisville Neighborhood Council, spoke in her absence. Sistarenik explained that he planned to review what Leigh Fisher had accomplished with the information since meeting 6A and to make certain the information is complete.

Sistarenik reminded everyone that mitigation is the attempt to lessen the impact of noise in noncompatible areas.

Sistarenik presented the mitigation crosswalk and explained that the categories used by the Study Group were revised by Leigh Fisher Associates. The revised headings are Remedial, Compensatory, Preventive, and Program Management.

Sistarenik then moved on to the remedial measures intended to mitigate the noise. He explained that south of the airport, the focus will continue to be on voluntary relocation. The three main remedial measures in the south are:

1. Complete the current relocation program.

2. Incorporate newly eligible (DNL 65+) buyouts.

3. Promote compatible redevelopment via the Renaissance Zone.

North of the airport, focus is on remediation in place; buyout or relocation isn’t an option in this area. The four priorities north of the airport are:

1. Residential soundproofing in projected DNL 65 areas.

2. Institutional soundproofing in projected DNL 65.

3. Residential sales assistance, for those declining soundproofing.

4. Residential and institutional soundproofing in DNL 60, where projected exposure will increase more than 3 DB, subject to Federal eligibility and available funding.

Lateral to the airport, noise barriers would be established to counter ground noise. Proposed areas that would receive noise barriers are in the northern Louisville Avenue area, opposite the Beechmont neighborhood, and the southern I-65 area, opposite the Preston Park neighborhood.

Concerning compensatory measures, Sistarenik said the Study Group recommended obtaining avigation easements on residential properties primarily in conjunction with other associated measures, like insulation, sales assistance, or overlay zoning.

Sistarenik explained that preventive measures are meant to dissuade people from developing noncompatible uses in impacted areas. Under preventive measures the goal is to initiate the type of development that will not be impacted adversely by noise. The preventive measures are:

• Comprehensive planning

• Land-use zoning

• Subdivision regulations building code

• Disclosure ordinances

The management measures will:

• Use the airport noise office as a central collection and distribution point for mitigation policy and status information.

• Use the Relocation Working Group to provide lay oversight and advocacy of the mitigation program.

• Augment the Web site and information centers to incorporate and maintain mitigation policy and program information.

• Reinforce communications and liaison links with staff, local government agencies, brokers and developers, media, and the public.

Sistarenik said the next step is to evaluate the program. The evaluation measures are:

• Conduct and assess statistics on mitigation program execution.

• Develop and track legislative initiatives to implement land use measures.

• Process noise complaints and provide feedback on the mitigation program.

• Document and evaluate emerging technologies and measures for potential future application.

The evaluative measures reinforce the idea that this will be a continuing program once it is approved.

Sensitive facility #1 is the University of Louisville (U of L). The key issues concerning U of L are:

• Minimize classroom and research disruption

• Avoid undue impact on campus residents

• Respect adjoining neighborhoods

The targeted measures, which include a mixture of abatement and mitigation, are:

• Offset approach and departure path.

• Reverse flow during the arrival-dominated period (primarily in the mornings from 9:30 AM to 12:30 PM when most of the arrivals come in from the north and there are very few departures).

• Flight track management by capability.

• Extended flight corridors, waypoints

• supplemental metrics; peak levels, time above.

• Insulation assessment

• aggressive oversight, evaluation.

The continuing concerns are:

• "Lessons learned" for other sensitive facilities

• Details of implementation plan

• Careful oversight and refinement

• Documentation and ongoing communication with stakeholders

Sistarenik mentioned that the mitigation issues are essentially what was approved at meeting 6A and wanted to show everyone they are still a part of the plan.

One participant wanted to know how homeowners should know if their property fall within the +3 DB. Sistarenik said the mapping for the plan indicates where areas are going to rise or fall in terms of DNL. Anyone in 65 DNL automatically qualifies for abatement and mitigation.

The participant asked that, if his property fell within the 62 _ DNL, how he would know if he were qualified for the +3 DB, which would cause his property to be considered for mitigation. Sistarenik said that when the new plan goes into effect, if someone’s home falls within the 60 DNL or above, and that reflects a 3 DB increase from the previous level, then that person’s home qualifies for mitigation. If someone’s home currently is a 59 DNL and, as a result of this plan going into effect, increases to a 62, that would be a 3 DB increase, and above 60 DNL. However, the downside would be if a person’s home is located in the 61 DNL and it increases to a 62 DNL, it would not qualify as a 3 DB increase over 60.

Chilton next introduced Dorn Crawford, Chair for the Navigation Committee. Crawford presented the review from meeting 6 that outlined the program and the items to be completed.

Crawford listed the tasks from meeting 6 to be finished by the end of the Study. There were a number of items that needed to be accomplished to provide additional documentation and assessment of some of the specific measures, particularly in some of the design for implementation of the program once it is completed. Most of the tasks have been completed, but there are some assessments that will be addressed in the concluding phase of the study.

Crawford said they had worked hard to develop the changes and refinements and the additional development needed to make sure that approaches and departures at the airport were defined and controlled as closely as possible. Crawford said they had looked into areas such as flight-track management, and specifying noise abatement procedures for approaches and departures, and specifying criteria for airplanes to follow depending on what their capabilities are to make sure that they are flying as closely to prescribed paths as possible. These are all incorporated into the final program.

Crawford presented navigational capabilities, which list the basic elements for each of the major types of equipment the plan expects the aircraft to have in the Louisville fleet. An additional needed step involves applying those capabilities to those aircraft in the fleet so that performance can be monitored

Crawford then outlined the proposed data collection measure. Examples of such data are peak noise levels and "time above" assessed for the U of L campus. The process for collection data is:

• Choose ‘best’ metrics

• Design collection, accumulation scheme

• Apply to fleet

• Collect data with flight tracking

• Evaluate, provide feedback

Some of the management measures are already in place. The proposed management measures are as follows:

• Airport noise office

• Flight tracking/monitoring hardware

• Data management systems

• Modeling suite(s)

• Program implementation/feedback mechanisms

• Operators
• Managers
• Community

• Staff interface

• Research

Crawford moved on to ongoing research on emerging measures. He stated that this is a plan for documentation of items that are emerging, but aren’t currently ready for implementation. These will continue to be studied and added to the program as they become ready. For example, there are a couple of devices in approach procedures and noise dampening that the study is aware are under development and are being tested. If there is good documentation and good visibility, they can continue to be checked in the following phase, and ultimately implemented.

Emerging Measures

• Advanced on-board navigation suites

• Advanced ground control systems

• Engine technology

• Fleet-management patterns

• Document state of the art, trends, benchmarks

Crawford then gave a list of items given back at meeting 6A as the "way ahead." Some items have already taken place, but are still awaited.

• Develop remaining abatement measures

• Assess full abatement package; select mitigation measures

• Integrate program (presented at meeting 7)

• Cost assessment

• Implementation plan

• Documentation submittal/review/approval

• Implementation

• Refinement/update

Crawford then reviewed the specific noise abatement findings and recommendations. The Navigation committee met after Study Group Meeting #7, reviewed the package presented by the consultants, and evaluated it against the recommendations they developed and the Study Group adopted back in the spring.

First, Crawford reviewed the abatement crosswalk. In this crosswalk, the consultants developed a set of categories they thought would give a better window to the organizational elements the FAA uses to review and approve specific measures. For example, what the study Group named "structural measures," the consultants renamed "approach and departure procedures," because that is a phrase the FAA associates with a particular division in order to do its review and final action. The committee has reviewed this, and is content that everything the Study Group submitted still exists within the package we will submit to the FAA.

Crawford quickly reviewed the structural measures that will manage the airspace around Louisville to make the best use of the lowest-impact traffic corridors, as well as the means of arriving and departing from the airport that would overfly and impact the fewest people.

Structural Measures

• Offset path for approach to 17R, departure from 35L.

• Extended approach fixes and departure turn points for higher maneuvering altitudes.

• Optimized flight corridors following the river and major highways.

• Waypoints to guide traffic in corridors, rather than radar vectors.

• Navaids as required to define waypoints.

• Navigational standards for fleet.

• Runway extension for higher north departure on 35L; displaced south arrival threshold on 17R held pending cost/benefit analysis.

Crawford then explained that control measures are procedures the tower would implement to move the traffic around the airfield and align traffic on a runway in order to have the lowest impact on the community. A number of the measures are continuing from the existing program, such as the contraflow program, but are intended to be enhanced and to make the best use of the existing facilities.

Control Measures

• Prefer* south flow, except as provided below.

• From 0930-1230, prefer* north flow.

• For operation north of the airfield, prefer*runway 17R with offset for arrivals, 35L with offset for departures.

• Retain current operations south of the airfield (no runway preference*, diverge from 17R according to traffic and destination.

• Retain/enhance contraflow program.

• Minimize exceptions to contraflow.

*"prefer" means according to the same criteria used now for weather, runway conditions, and traffic load, recognizing that peak operations typically require both runways if available

The procedural measures refer to how the airplanes are flown. Pilots will be attentive to the type of approach and departure procedures they must use as they come and go from the airport, how they do run-ups when they have maintenance to perform, and the procedures that go on in the cockpit in conjunction with those who are running the airport. These measures did not line up with the FAA structures as well as the consultants thought they should, so some of the measures were migrated into other areas to ensure they received the proper attention from the FAA.

The procedural measures are:

• Publish standardized arrival and departure procedures.

• Provide for uniform descent at safe (3°) slope; discontinue current altitude exceptions.

• Grant visual approach clearance only after aircraft pass final approach fixes.

• Publish preferred noise abatement procedures in approach and departure plates.

• Prefer uniform descent procedures for arrivals.
• Prefer distant abatement procedures for departures.

• Continue current run-up restrictions.

Crawford moved on to the management measures. There was a lot of overlap in the management measures that were associated with the abatement and mitigation program.

Management Measures

• Establish airport noise office.
• Community noise forum to succeed Study Group (same construct.)
• Maintain Web site and information centers.
• Reinforce communications and liaison links with staff, carriers, controllers, government agencies, media, and public.
• Equip noise office with hardware and software for effective monitoring and evaluation.
• Develop real-time runway use decision aids, with common access for management, ATC, carriers, and community.

Crawford said evaluative measures are ways to do management. Evaluative measures are methods to use to make sure the Study is on track and working properly:

• Flight track monitoring system

• Sample noise monitoring

• Fleet lists for

• Program exceptions
• Navigational capability

• Data sets for various metrics

• In-house modeling

• Screen emerging technologies

Assessments

Some data are still being gathered and assessed. These are also factors that will continue to be studied even after the Study is over.

• Airfield capacity and delay

• Air-traffic control issues

• Aircraft operational and economic issues

• Cost analysis

• Financial feasibility

Crawford moved on to his last slide titled "A punch list." He explained that the items shown are things that need to be marked off the list before project completion. There are some items, like the capacity and delay issues, that will be ongoing. Crawford reiterated that the study doesn’t end with the package that will be sent to the FAA; it will have to be implemented and tracked to make sure it’s working.

One participant asked when the evaluations of the noise levels are being performed, whether there are any considerations given to future airplanes, or were the data going by what’s landing and taking off currently?

Crawford responded that the consultants have made a forecast for 2005. Even though it is 2002 the forecast is still supposed to go five years into the future. The consultants have revised the forecast to extend to 2007 based on more development, as well as September 11 and all subsequent events. All the details of the forecast have not been made available by the consultants at this time, but they have been incorporated into the models.

The participant asked that since the final program was being presented tonight and tomorrow night, should the data be made available?

Crawford said we have the general elements, the breakdown of elements by the type of aircraft, and the quantities of each type in the forecast. The specific information isn’t available at this time, but the forecast for big and small commercial airlines, regional jets, general aviation, and cargo that was shown at meeting #7 is available. Crawford said the detailed information will be important when we start implementation; knowing how closely the aircraft should be following flight tracks, for example.

Another participant mentioned that she didn’t hear any discussion on noise south of the airport or building where people are located.

Crawford said he didn’t intend to specifically mention north or the south. The program is intended to apply to the entire airport area. The only time north or south should have been mentioned was when Sistarenik mentioned the primary focus of mitigation measures for the north and the south.

One participant inquired about the mention of a runway extension update on the punch list.

Crawford said there is a study being conducted on the possibility of adding length to one of the runways to allow for longer-haul traffic. The goal is to take advantage of the extension for noise abatement purposes if it happens.

The participant wanted to know which runway was being studied; Crawford said it was the west runway.

The meeting was then turned back over to Chilton who spoke for the Rules Committee. The standing Rules Committee was charged by the Study Group to provide the vehicle for creating an ongoing committee that will work to see that this noise study is implemented and doesn’t have a negative impact. There were five people who attended the last Rules Committee meeting: Mary Rose Evans, RAA Board Member; Dorn Crawford, who served as the citizen board member; George Hudson, who lives on the other side of Edgewood, which is severely impacted by airport noise; Tom Chilton; and Bob Slattery, Noise Officer. The meeting was to exchange ideas and outline plans for the successor group.

The airport noise committee should:

• Ensure that the Noise Compatibility Study is fully implemented.

• Monitor and address all associated impacts and issues.

• Adopt a mission statement that addresses a vision focused on noise compatibility at Louisville International Airport. (This statement came from a discussion on whether Bowman Field issues should be included, but it was decided that the focus should be on the Part 150 Study.)

The objectives of the Rules Committee:

• Identify which stakeholders should be represented.

• Ensure that all stakeholders are adequately represented.

• Maintain a total number that is small enough to maximize effectiveness.

Chilton said that the findings of the Rules Committee are not final, but represent a template. He encourages input with the possibility to amend it and make it better.

Next, Chilton presented the recommended structure, which is a list of key stakeholders who should be on the committee.

1. RAA Noise Officer – This position is already funded and can help with the data collection.

2. Air Traffic Control – Anything the committee suggests will affect them and their workload.

3. Airport Affairs Committee – Represents all the carriers at the airport.

4. Kentucky Air National Guard – Key users of the airport.

5. General Aviation

6. University of Louisville – Preeminent sensitive facility in the area.

7. Louisville Metro Government – An appointee by the Mayor.

8. Regional Airport Authority Board Member – Will be a part of the funding.

9. Airport Neighbors’ Alliance (ANA) – One member of their choosing.

10. – 13. Four airport-area resident representatives.

Chilton said there was a discussion as to who would choose the four resident representatives. It was decided that the ANA, being the preeminent airport neighbors’ group, would provide the mechanism for choosing the four. The people who are chosen will be chosen based on three criteria: their ability to handle the issues; their dedication to the job; and where they live. The committee decided by consensus that they don’t want all four coming from the same area. They would like someone from the north-west, north-east, south-west, and south-east. In choosing resident representatives,

• The airport area should be divided into quadrants, with one representative named from each.

• The quadrants should be split north and south by the Watterson Expressway, and east and west by a line passing between the airport’s two parallel runways.

• As the acknowledged organization for airport neighbors’ concerns, ANA should provide the mechanism for filling these four seats.

• ANA should form a standing committee to identify a resident of each quadrant.
• Residents need not be members of ANA to serve on the airport noise committee.

Chilton said the Rules Committee recommends that decisions of the airport noise committee be made by consensus.

Chilton encouraged all those interested in joining the Rules Committee to do so, and get involved.

Chilton said the Rules Committee should continue work to:

• Organize the airport noise committee

• Propose a charter or bylaws

• Identify representatives of the stakeholders

• Call an initial meeting of the new group

Chilton encouraged questions from the group and asked that people leave their names and addresses so that they will be put on the record.

Jerry Clark

Clark mentioned that he wanted to make a statement. He mentioned that everyone seemed to do a good job with the Noise Study. Clark stated to Jim DeLong that the airport is using public money and that it is subject to open-records law and that people can sue the airport. Clark said he checked with Ben Chandler and people can sue each UPS pilot if they are awakened. Clark added that the airport uses Federal and taxpayers’ money. He has a written opinion that people can sue UPS pilots for waking people up at night if they cause someone to lose work. People can also sue the airport. Clark stated that if anyone wanted to see him after the meeting, he was starting a class-action lawsuit and would be glad to take names and numbers and give all the details.

Chilton announced that there would be a public hearing tomorrow night. At the hearing people will be given three minutes to say their piece. It will not be a question-and-answer hearing. People will be given the chance to study and get information, and then given the chance to speak about what they think.

Larry Owsley
University of Louisville

Owsley stated that at the last meeting held at Masterson’s a number of people expressed interest in the possibility of testing the new procedures and experience their effects under real conditions and not in modeled conditions. Owsley noted that the consultants had expressed that it was possible to conduct such tests. He wanted to know if the testing was still under consideration.

Chilton said there was significant discussion on the matter and his understanding was that some of the procedures, most notably keeping the planes on the tight tracks, would involve an instrument landing system (ILS) – a localizer. A localizer is very expensive, and the expense would prohibit spending that kind of money in order to conduct a test.

Bob Slattery spoke up and said that some of the procedures would require environmental impact assessments before they were implemented. A good time to test would be when the environmental impacts are conducted. The test can be done anytime, but it requires preparation. Some of the procedures cannot be conducted because it’s not possible to get funding for navigational equipment without it actually being approved, however, you can simulate the procedure by flying airplanes along certain paths.

Owsley wanted to confirm that Chilton and Slattery were saying that even without the expensive equipment it is possible to simulate the patterns under discussion without buying the expensive equipment.

Slattery said that they could fly certain airplanes (although they couldn’t say that every airplane had to do an offset approach to runway 17R), but they could work something out to where one or two airplanes a day could do an offset approach to 17R.

Owsley asked if this scenario could happen without purchasing the equipment. Slattery said yes.

Owlsley mentioned that at the last meeting at Masterson’s there was a question asked about the amount of money that would be available for soundproofing in the residential versus institutional areas. Owsley commented that his interest was on the institutional and the answer given was a million dollars per sensitive facility; he wanted to know if the amount given was an accurate summary of what was projected to be available.

Jim DeLong said he wasn’t sure. The FAA has a standard, and it says it will participate in financing in order to lower the noise level within a building. An assessment of a building must be made to determine what it would take to bring the noise level down to the federal standard. An architect would be called in to determine what type of action would be required to lower the noise. The reason DeLong said he wasn’t sure of the amount allocated per facility, was that it has to be determined which building is under consideration and how the building is being used. For example, if it is a classroom that is only used during the day, but is only adversely impacted at night, the FAA may conclude there is no need for soundproofing. On the other hand, if it is a dorm room or a classroom used during the day when airplanes adversely impact it, then the next step would be to assess the building; determine how to bring the noise level down to an acceptable level, and then calculate how much that might cost.

Owsley said he understood the general answer, but the University has 2.6 million square feet. Two-thirds of the Belknap Campus is under 60 DNL or above. They have nearly 500 thousand square feet under the 65. If U of L were compensated a million dollars, that equals to 40 cents a square foot which isn’t nearly enough. At five dollars a square foot that would be 10 million dollars. At ten dollars which is probably a reasonable amount, that’s 20 million dollars. He wanted to know if they were thinking compensation in this price range to address the issues. Owsley said he realized the priority to address the homeowners who need to be bought out and they should come first and that there are other facilities that needed soundproofing. However, Owsely said that the University is in the process of being asked to come to consensus on a proposal that they aren’t getting an answer on the magnitude of funding available to address the issues. Owsley said that he’s talking about two-thirds of the buildings on campus. He said that he shared the maps of the University with the airport. Owsley said their intention is not to take away from the concerns that other people have. They’re concerned because the University is a major institution in this community and its growth and development is important to the economic development of this community and they are being asked to buy into something without a clear understanding of how much money is available to address it. That is why he doesn’t think it is unreasonable to conduct a test until they can get answers on some of the fundamental issues. Owsley commented that these are not issues the University raised tonight for the first time; they raised the same questions in October 2001. The University wants to participate in the solution, but they must have better information on what the real possibilities are. They’re concerned and want to work through this with the entire community, but they’ve got to have a better understanding of what’s really going to happen once the program is implemented. He commented that the University went through this situation in 1992 and there was a discussion about soundproofing. They have yet to have the first dollar of soundproofing on their campus. Owsley stated that he wanted to go on record with his issues.

Chilton asked for other questions or comments. He said without any objection, the implementation program would be moved forward.

Slattery stated that the public hearing would be held tomorrow (November 8, 2002) from 4:00 to 7:00 PM at Masteron’s Restaurant in Atria A and B. Upon arriving at the hearing, Slattery said everyone will sign in and schedule a time to speak. There will be stations set up in Atrium B and people assigned to the stations to answer any questions someone may have. At the scheduled time, he instructed people to go to Atrium A to make their comments

One participant said she spoke to someone with the FAA and they said to make sure people go to the public hearing and let their voices be heard.

Chilton said they would accept comments in spoken or written form. The consultants will review every comment or question and they will be fully addressed and become a part of the package.

One participant asked that someone review what will be viewable at the public hearing.

Slattery said there would be four stations. The stations would have information on noise exposure maps, the abatement program, the mitigation program, and program management measures. He stated that the people at each station would be able to answer questions. Slattery stated that the people at the stations do not record the comments. Slattery emphasized that people needed to go to Atrium A to make sure their comments were recorded.

One participant asked if this was the last opportunity to give comments. Slattery answered yes.

Chilton said they felt that the public meeting was important for people to come in and say what they think. Chilton said he would be the mediator and will make sure everyone gets an opportunity to speak, and that the comments would be forwarded to the RAA and, hopefully, to the FAA.

Chilton asked that Mary Rose Evans, RAA Board Member, come forward to give a final appreciation. Chilton commented that they appreciated all the work everyone had put in and they hoped that the program worked out well for the community.

Evans said that this has been an unprecedented study. As far as they knew there has never been another study that had as much community and stakeholder input. Evans said the RAA staff should be thanked for putting in so much time and energy. She thanked the corporate interest, the airline affairs committee, UPS, the FBO and the Air National Guard, all of whom have put in time and energy. Evans also thanked the air traffic control people who work for the FAA, all the communities around the neighborhood, at least 20 different organized community groups, and the countless individuals who are residents who wanted to help the community. Everyone had their own interests but they tried to make it a community-wide effort. She said they also wanted to thank the University of Louisville, who put in a lot of time, as well as other sensitive facilities. The consultants put more time in than they first thought they would for a noise study, and they should be thanked. She thanked the countless individuals, government leaders, and politicians. She asked that everyone give themselves a round of applause because they had reached a milestone, were ready for the public hearing, and have a product ready for the public to make comments on. She commented that this was a tremendous effort that everyone should be proud of.

Motion to adjourn at 7:35.

Chilton thanked everyone for attending and asked that everyone attend the hearing tomorrow night to put their comments into the record.


				STUDY GROUP Meeting Notes
BACK to Meetings Notes				NCSG MEETING #7a Final Meeting Notes Date: November 7, 2002 Location: Fourth Presbyterian Church, 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 Dorn Crawford, former Study Group Chair Jim DeLong, General Manager, Regional Airport Authority of Louisville and Jefferson County Mary Rose Evans, Board of Directors, 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 John Sistarenik, former Study Group Chair Tim Chilton, Study Group Chair Lyndsay Tabler, Mo’ Better Marketing Nadine van der Merwe, Mo’ Better Marketing The meeting was called to order at 6:40 P.M. by Tim Chilton, Committee Chair and Beechmont neighborhood resident. Chilton asked that everyone quickly review the notes from meeting 6A. The motion to accept the meeting notes was approved. Since meeting #7, three of the committees met to discuss and prepare responses and comments regarding the implementation program for the Noise Study. Donna Lawlor, Chair for the Sensitive Facilities Committee, was not able to attend. John Sistarenik, with the Old Louisville Neighborhood Council, spoke in her absence. Sistarenik explained that he planned to review what Leigh Fisher had accomplished with the information since meeting 6A and to make certain the information is complete. Sistarenik reminded everyone that mitigation is the attempt to lessen the impact of noise in noncompatible areas. Sistarenik presented the mitigation crosswalk and explained that the categories used by the Study Group were revised by Leigh Fisher Associates. The revised headings are Remedial, Compensatory, Preventive, and Program Management. Sistarenik then moved on to the remedial measures intended to mitigate the noise. He explained that south of the airport, the focus will continue to be on voluntary relocation. The three main remedial measures in the south are: 1. Complete the current relocation program. 2. Incorporate newly eligible (DNL 65+) buyouts. 3. Promote compatible redevelopment via the Renaissance Zone. North of the airport, focus is on remediation in place; buyout or relocation isn’t an option in this area. The four priorities north of the airport are: 1. Residential soundproofing in projected DNL 65 areas. 2. Institutional soundproofing in projected DNL 65. 3. Residential sales assistance, for those declining soundproofing. 4. Residential and institutional soundproofing in DNL 60, where projected exposure will increase more than 3 DB, subject to Federal eligibility and available funding. Lateral to the airport, noise barriers would be established to counter ground noise. Proposed areas that would receive noise barriers are in the northern Louisville Avenue area, opposite the Beechmont neighborhood, and the southern I-65 area, opposite the Preston Park neighborhood. Concerning compensatory measures, Sistarenik said the Study Group recommended obtaining avigation easements on residential properties primarily in conjunction with other associated measures, like insulation, sales assistance, or overlay zoning. Sistarenik explained that preventive measures are meant to dissuade people from developing noncompatible uses in impacted areas. Under preventive measures the goal is to initiate the type of development that will not be impacted adversely by noise. The preventive measures are: • Comprehensive planning • Land-use zoning • Subdivision regulations building code • Disclosure ordinances The management measures will: • Use the airport noise office as a central collection and distribution point for mitigation policy and status information. • Use the Relocation Working Group to provide lay oversight and advocacy of the mitigation program. • Augment the Web site and information centers to incorporate and maintain mitigation policy and program information. • Reinforce communications and liaison links with staff, local government agencies, brokers and developers, media, and the public. Sistarenik said the next step is to evaluate the program. The evaluation measures are: • Conduct and assess statistics on mitigation program execution. • Develop and track legislative initiatives to implement land use measures. • Process noise complaints and provide feedback on the mitigation program. • Document and evaluate emerging technologies and measures for potential future application. The evaluative measures reinforce the idea that this will be a continuing program once it is approved. Sensitive facility #1 is the University of Louisville (U of L). The key issues concerning U of L are: • Minimize classroom and research disruption • Avoid undue impact on campus residents • Respect adjoining neighborhoods The targeted measures, which include a mixture of abatement and mitigation, are: • Offset approach and departure path. • Reverse flow during the arrival-dominated period (primarily in the mornings from 9:30 AM to 12:30 PM when most of the arrivals come in from the north and there are very few departures). • Flight track management by capability. • Extended flight corridors, waypoints • supplemental metrics; peak levels, time above. • Insulation assessment • aggressive oversight, evaluation. The continuing concerns are: • "Lessons learned" for other sensitive facilities • Details of implementation plan • Careful oversight and refinement • Documentation and ongoing communication with stakeholders Sistarenik mentioned that the mitigation issues are essentially what was approved at meeting 6A and wanted to show everyone they are still a part of the plan. One participant wanted to know how homeowners should know if their property fall within the +3 DB. Sistarenik said the mapping for the plan indicates where areas are going to rise or fall in terms of DNL. Anyone in 65 DNL automatically qualifies for abatement and mitigation. The participant asked that, if his property fell within the 62 _ DNL, how he would know if he were qualified for the +3 DB, which would cause his property to be considered for mitigation. Sistarenik said that when the new plan goes into effect, if someone’s home falls within the 60 DNL or above, and that reflects a 3 DB increase from the previous level, then that person’s home qualifies for mitigation. If someone’s home currently is a 59 DNL and, as a result of this plan going into effect, increases to a 62, that would be a 3 DB increase, and above 60 DNL. However, the downside would be if a person’s home is located in the 61 DNL and it increases to a 62 DNL, it would not qualify as a 3 DB increase over 60. Chilton next introduced Dorn Crawford, Chair for the Navigation Committee. Crawford presented the review from meeting 6 that outlined the program and the items to be completed. Crawford listed the tasks from meeting 6 to be finished by the end of the Study. There were a number of items that needed to be accomplished to provide additional documentation and assessment of some of the specific measures, particularly in some of the design for implementation of the program once it is completed. Most of the tasks have been completed, but there are some assessments that will be addressed in the concluding phase of the study. Crawford said they had worked hard to develop the changes and refinements and the additional development needed to make sure that approaches and departures at the airport were defined and controlled as closely as possible. Crawford said they had looked into areas such as flight-track management, and specifying noise abatement procedures for approaches and departures, and specifying criteria for airplanes to follow depending on what their capabilities are to make sure that they are flying as closely to prescribed paths as possible. These are all incorporated into the final program. Crawford presented navigational capabilities, which list the basic elements for each of the major types of equipment the plan expects the aircraft to have in the Louisville fleet. An additional needed step involves applying those capabilities to those aircraft in the fleet so that performance can be monitored Crawford then outlined the proposed data collection measure. Examples of such data are peak noise levels and "time above" assessed for the U of L campus. The process for collection data is: • Choose ‘best’ metrics • Design collection, accumulation scheme • Apply to fleet • Collect data with flight tracking • Evaluate, provide feedback Some of the management measures are already in place. The proposed management measures are as follows: • Airport noise office • Flight tracking/monitoring hardware • Data management systems • Modeling suite(s) • Program implementation/feedback mechanisms • Operators • Managers • Community • Staff interface • Research Crawford moved on to ongoing research on emerging measures. He stated that this is a plan for documentation of items that are emerging, but aren’t currently ready for implementation. These will continue to be studied and added to the program as they become ready. For example, there are a couple of devices in approach procedures and noise dampening that the study is aware are under development and are being tested. If there is good documentation and good visibility, they can continue to be checked in the following phase, and ultimately implemented. Emerging Measures • Advanced on-board navigation suites • Advanced ground control systems • Engine technology • Fleet-management patterns • Document state of the art, trends, benchmarks Crawford then gave a list of items given back at meeting 6A as the "way ahead." Some items have already taken place, but are still awaited. • Develop remaining abatement measures • Assess full abatement package; select mitigation measures • Integrate program (presented at meeting 7) • Cost assessment • Implementation plan • Documentation submittal/review/approval • Implementation • Refinement/update Crawford then reviewed the specific noise abatement findings and recommendations. The Navigation committee met after Study Group Meeting #7, reviewed the package presented by the consultants, and evaluated it against the recommendations they developed and the Study Group adopted back in the spring. First, Crawford reviewed the abatement crosswalk. In this crosswalk, the consultants developed a set of categories they thought would give a better window to the organizational elements the FAA uses to review and approve specific measures. For example, what the study Group named "structural measures," the consultants renamed "approach and departure procedures," because that is a phrase the FAA associates with a particular division in order to do its review and final action. The committee has reviewed this, and is content that everything the Study Group submitted still exists within the package we will submit to the FAA. Crawford quickly reviewed the structural measures that will manage the airspace around Louisville to make the best use of the lowest-impact traffic corridors, as well as the means of arriving and departing from the airport that would overfly and impact the fewest people. Structural Measures • Offset path for approach to 17R, departure from 35L. • Extended approach fixes and departure turn points for higher maneuvering altitudes. • Optimized flight corridors following the river and major highways. • Waypoints to guide traffic in corridors, rather than radar vectors. • Navaids as required to define waypoints. • Navigational standards for fleet. • Runway extension for higher north departure on 35L; displaced south arrival threshold on 17R held pending cost/benefit analysis. Crawford then explained that control measures are procedures the tower would implement to move the traffic around the airfield and align traffic on a runway in order to have the lowest impact on the community. A number of the measures are continuing from the existing program, such as the contraflow program, but are intended to be enhanced and to make the best use of the existing facilities. Control Measures • Prefer* south flow, except as provided below. • From 0930-1230, prefer* north flow. • For operation north of the airfield, preferrunway 17R with offset for arrivals, 35L with offset for departures. • Retain current operations south of the airfield (no runway preference, diverge from 17R according to traffic and destination. • Retain/enhance contraflow program. • Minimize exceptions to contraflow. "prefer" means according to the same criteria used now for weather, runway conditions, and traffic load, recognizing that peak operations typically require both runways if available The procedural measures* refer to how the airplanes are flown. Pilots will be attentive to the type of approach and departure procedures they must use as they come and go from the airport, how they do run-ups when they have maintenance to perform, and the procedures that go on in the cockpit in conjunction with those who are running the airport. These measures did not line up with the FAA structures as well as the consultants thought they should, so some of the measures were migrated into other areas to ensure they received the proper attention from the FAA. The procedural measures are: • Publish standardized arrival and departure procedures. • Provide for uniform descent at safe (3°) slope; discontinue current altitude exceptions. • Grant visual approach clearance only after aircraft pass final approach fixes. • Publish preferred noise abatement procedures in approach and departure plates. • Prefer uniform descent procedures for arrivals. • Prefer distant abatement procedures for departures. • Continue current run-up restrictions. Crawford moved on to the management measures. There was a lot of overlap in the management measures that were associated with the abatement and mitigation program. Management Measures • Establish airport noise office. • Community noise forum to succeed Study Group (same construct.) • Maintain Web site and information centers. • Reinforce communications and liaison links with staff, carriers, controllers, government agencies, media, and public. • Equip noise office with hardware and software for effective monitoring and evaluation. • Develop real-time runway use decision aids, with common access for management, ATC, carriers, and community. Crawford said evaluative measures are ways to do management. Evaluative measures are methods to use to make sure the Study is on track and working properly: • Flight track monitoring system • Sample noise monitoring • Fleet lists for • Program exceptions • Navigational capability • Data sets for various metrics • In-house modeling • Screen emerging technologies Assessments Some data are still being gathered and assessed. These are also factors that will continue to be studied even after the Study is over. • Airfield capacity and delay • Air-traffic control issues • Aircraft operational and economic issues • Cost analysis • Financial feasibility Crawford moved on to his last slide titled "A punch list." He explained that the items shown are things that need to be marked off the list before project completion. There are some items, like the capacity and delay issues, that will be ongoing. Crawford reiterated that the study doesn’t end with the package that will be sent to the FAA; it will have to be implemented and tracked to make sure it’s working. One participant asked when the evaluations of the noise levels are being performed, whether there are any considerations given to future airplanes, or were the data going by what’s landing and taking off currently? Crawford responded that the consultants have made a forecast for 2005. Even though it is 2002 the forecast is still supposed to go five years into the future. The consultants have revised the forecast to extend to 2007 based on more development, as well as September 11 and all subsequent events. All the details of the forecast have not been made available by the consultants at this time, but they have been incorporated into the models. The participant asked that since the final program was being presented tonight and tomorrow night, should the data be made available? Crawford said we have the general elements, the breakdown of elements by the type of aircraft, and the quantities of each type in the forecast. The specific information isn’t available at this time, but the forecast for big and small commercial airlines, regional jets, general aviation, and cargo that was shown at meeting #7 is available. Crawford said the detailed information will be important when we start implementation; knowing how closely the aircraft should be following flight tracks, for example. Another participant mentioned that she didn’t hear any discussion on noise south of the airport or building where people are located. Crawford said he didn’t intend to specifically mention north or the south. The program is intended to apply to the entire airport area. The only time north or south should have been mentioned was when Sistarenik mentioned the primary focus of mitigation measures for the north and the south. One participant inquired about the mention of a runway extension update on the punch list. Crawford said there is a study being conducted on the possibility of adding length to one of the runways to allow for longer-haul traffic. The goal is to take advantage of the extension for noise abatement purposes if it happens. The participant wanted to know which runway was being studied; Crawford said it was the west runway. The meeting was then turned back over to Chilton who spoke for the Rules Committee. The standing Rules Committee was charged by the Study Group to provide the vehicle for creating an ongoing committee that will work to see that this noise study is implemented and doesn’t have a negative impact. There were five people who attended the last Rules Committee meeting: Mary Rose Evans, RAA Board Member; Dorn Crawford, who served as the citizen board member; George Hudson, who lives on the other side of Edgewood, which is severely impacted by airport noise; Tom Chilton; and Bob Slattery, Noise Officer. The meeting was to exchange ideas and outline plans for the successor group. The airport noise committee should: • Ensure that the Noise Compatibility Study is fully implemented. • Monitor and address all associated impacts and issues. • Adopt a mission statement that addresses a vision focused on noise compatibility at Louisville International Airport. (This statement came from a discussion on whether Bowman Field issues should be included, but it was decided that the focus should be on the Part 150 Study.) The objectives of the Rules Committee: • Identify which stakeholders should be represented. • Ensure that all stakeholders are adequately represented. • Maintain a total number that is small enough to maximize effectiveness. Chilton said that the findings of the Rules Committee are not final, but represent a template. He encourages input with the possibility to amend it and make it better. Next, Chilton presented the recommended structure, which is a list of key stakeholders who should be on the committee. 1. RAA Noise Officer – This position is already funded and can help with the data collection. 2. Air Traffic Control – Anything the committee suggests will affect them and their workload. 3. Airport Affairs Committee – Represents all the carriers at the airport. 4. Kentucky Air National Guard – Key users of the airport. 5. General Aviation 6. University of Louisville – Preeminent sensitive facility in the area. 7. Louisville Metro Government – An appointee by the Mayor. 8. Regional Airport Authority Board Member – Will be a part of the funding. 9. Airport Neighbors’ Alliance (ANA) – One member of their choosing. 10. – 13. Four airport-area resident representatives. Chilton said there was a discussion as to who would choose the four resident representatives. It was decided that the ANA, being the preeminent airport neighbors’ group, would provide the mechanism for choosing the four. The people who are chosen will be chosen based on three criteria: their ability to handle the issues; their dedication to the job; and where they live. The committee decided by consensus that they don’t want all four coming from the same area. They would like someone from the north-west, north-east, south-west, and south-east. In choosing resident representatives, • The airport area should be divided into quadrants, with one representative named from each. • The quadrants should be split north and south by the Watterson Expressway, and east and west by a line passing between the airport’s two parallel runways. • As the acknowledged organization for airport neighbors’ concerns, ANA should provide the mechanism for filling these four seats. • ANA should form a standing committee to identify a resident of each quadrant. • Residents need not be members of ANA to serve on the airport noise committee. Chilton said the Rules Committee recommends that decisions of the airport noise committee be made by consensus. Chilton encouraged all those interested in joining the Rules Committee to do so, and get involved. Chilton said the Rules Committee should continue work to: • Organize the airport noise committee • Propose a charter or bylaws • Identify representatives of the stakeholders • Call an initial meeting of the new group Chilton encouraged questions from the group and asked that people leave their names and addresses so that they will be put on the record. Jerry Clark Clark mentioned that he wanted to make a statement. He mentioned that everyone seemed to do a good job with the Noise Study. Clark stated to Jim DeLong that the airport is using public money and that it is subject to open-records law and that people can sue the airport. Clark said he checked with Ben Chandler and people can sue each UPS pilot if they are awakened. Clark added that the airport uses Federal and taxpayers’ money. He has a written opinion that people can sue UPS pilots for waking people up at night if they cause someone to lose work. People can also sue the airport. Clark stated that if anyone wanted to see him after the meeting, he was starting a class-action lawsuit and would be glad to take names and numbers and give all the details. Chilton announced that there would be a public hearing tomorrow night. At the hearing people will be given three minutes to say their piece. It will not be a question-and-answer hearing. People will be given the chance to study and get information, and then given the chance to speak about what they think. Larry Owsley University of Louisville Owsley stated that at the last meeting held at Masterson’s a number of people expressed interest in the possibility of testing the new procedures and experience their effects under real conditions and not in modeled conditions. Owsley noted that the consultants had expressed that it was possible to conduct such tests. He wanted to know if the testing was still under consideration. Chilton said there was significant discussion on the matter and his understanding was that some of the procedures, most notably keeping the planes on the tight tracks, would involve an instrument landing system (ILS) – a localizer. A localizer is very expensive, and the expense would prohibit spending that kind of money in order to conduct a test. Bob Slattery spoke up and said that some of the procedures would require environmental impact assessments before they were implemented. A good time to test would be when the environmental impacts are conducted. The test can be done anytime, but it requires preparation. Some of the procedures cannot be conducted because it’s not possible to get funding for navigational equipment without it actually being approved, however, you can simulate the procedure by flying airplanes along certain paths. Owsley wanted to confirm that Chilton and Slattery were saying that even without the expensive equipment it is possible to simulate the patterns under discussion without buying the expensive equipment. Slattery said that they could fly certain airplanes (although they couldn’t say that every airplane had to do an offset approach to runway 17R), but they could work something out to where one or two airplanes a day could do an offset approach to 17R. Owsley asked if this scenario could happen without purchasing the equipment. Slattery said yes. Owlsley mentioned that at the last meeting at Masterson’s there was a question asked about the amount of money that would be available for soundproofing in the residential versus institutional areas. Owsley commented that his interest was on the institutional and the answer given was a million dollars per sensitive facility; he wanted to know if the amount given was an accurate summary of what was projected to be available. Jim DeLong said he wasn’t sure. The FAA has a standard, and it says it will participate in financing in order to lower the noise level within a building. An assessment of a building must be made to determine what it would take to bring the noise level down to the federal standard. An architect would be called in to determine what type of action would be required to lower the noise. The reason DeLong said he wasn’t sure of the amount allocated per facility, was that it has to be determined which building is under consideration and how the building is being used. For example, if it is a classroom that is only used during the day, but is only adversely impacted at night, the FAA may conclude there is no need for soundproofing. On the other hand, if it is a dorm room or a classroom used during the day when airplanes adversely impact it, then the next step would be to assess the building; determine how to bring the noise level down to an acceptable level, and then calculate how much that might cost. Owsley said he understood the general answer, but the University has 2.6 million square feet. Two-thirds of the Belknap Campus is under 60 DNL or above. They have nearly 500 thousand square feet under the 65. If U of L were compensated a million dollars, that equals to 40 cents a square foot which isn’t nearly enough. At five dollars a square foot that would be 10 million dollars. At ten dollars which is probably a reasonable amount, that’s 20 million dollars. He wanted to know if they were thinking compensation in this price range to address the issues. Owsley said he realized the priority to address the homeowners who need to be bought out and they should come first and that there are other facilities that needed soundproofing. However, Owsely said that the University is in the process of being asked to come to consensus on a proposal that they aren’t getting an answer on the magnitude of funding available to address the issues. Owsley said that he’s talking about two-thirds of the buildings on campus. He said that he shared the maps of the University with the airport. Owsley said their intention is not to take away from the concerns that other people have. They’re concerned because the University is a major institution in this community and its growth and development is important to the economic development of this community and they are being asked to buy into something without a clear understanding of how much money is available to address it. That is why he doesn’t think it is unreasonable to conduct a test until they can get answers on some of the fundamental issues. Owsley commented that these are not issues the University raised tonight for the first time; they raised the same questions in October 2001. The University wants to participate in the solution, but they must have better information on what the real possibilities are. They’re concerned and want to work through this with the entire community, but they’ve got to have a better understanding of what’s really going to happen once the program is implemented. He commented that the University went through this situation in 1992 and there was a discussion about soundproofing. They have yet to have the first dollar of soundproofing on their campus. Owsley stated that he wanted to go on record with his issues. Chilton asked for other questions or comments. He said without any objection, the implementation program would be moved forward. Slattery stated that the public hearing would be held tomorrow (November 8, 2002) from 4:00 to 7:00 PM at Masteron’s Restaurant in Atria A and B. Upon arriving at the hearing, Slattery said everyone will sign in and schedule a time to speak. There will be stations set up in Atrium B and people assigned to the stations to answer any questions someone may have. At the scheduled time, he instructed people to go to Atrium A to make their comments One participant said she spoke to someone with the FAA and they said to make sure people go to the public hearing and let their voices be heard. Chilton said they would accept comments in spoken or written form. The consultants will review every comment or question and they will be fully addressed and become a part of the package. One participant asked that someone review what will be viewable at the public hearing. Slattery said there would be four stations. The stations would have information on noise exposure maps, the abatement program, the mitigation program, and program management measures. He stated that the people at each station would be able to answer questions. Slattery stated that the people at the stations do not record the comments. Slattery emphasized that people needed to go to Atrium A to make sure their comments were recorded. One participant asked if this was the last opportunity to give comments. Slattery answered yes. Chilton said they felt that the public meeting was important for people to come in and say what they think. Chilton said he would be the mediator and will make sure everyone gets an opportunity to speak, and that the comments would be forwarded to the RAA and, hopefully, to the FAA. Chilton asked that Mary Rose Evans, RAA Board Member, come forward to give a final appreciation. Chilton commented that they appreciated all the work everyone had put in and they hoped that the program worked out well for the community. Evans said that this has been an unprecedented study. As far as they knew there has never been another study that had as much community and stakeholder input. Evans said the RAA staff should be thanked for putting in so much time and energy. She thanked the corporate interest, the airline affairs committee, UPS, the FBO and the Air National Guard, all of whom have put in time and energy. Evans also thanked the air traffic control people who work for the FAA, all the communities around the neighborhood, at least 20 different organized community groups, and the countless individuals who are residents who wanted to help the community. Everyone had their own interests but they tried to make it a community-wide effort. She said they also wanted to thank the University of Louisville, who put in a lot of time, as well as other sensitive facilities. The consultants put more time in than they first thought they would for a noise study, and they should be thanked. She thanked the countless individuals, government leaders, and politicians. She asked that everyone give themselves a round of applause because they had reached a milestone, were ready for the public hearing, and have a product ready for the public to make comments on. She commented that this was a tremendous effort that everyone should be proud of. Motion to adjourn at 7:35. Chilton thanked everyone for attending and asked that everyone attend the hearing tomorrow night to put their comments into the record.
				back to top