WATERBURY-OXFORD AIRPORT (OXC) AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE (AMPU) & FAR PART 150 NOISE STUDY Public Information Meeting (PIM) #2 November 29, 2006 6:30 p.m. Southbury Crowne Plaza Meeting Report ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Purpose: A Public Information Meeting was held to discuss and collect comments regarding the OXC Master Plan Update and FAR Part 150 Noise Study. Documentation of the Master Plan recommendations and Draft FAR Part 150 Noise Study impact assessment and mitigation alternatives were made available for public viewing prior to this meeting (November 8, 2006). Attendees: Name Affiliation Matthew Kelly ConnDOT - OXC Manager David Head ConnDOT - Bureau of Policy & Planning Kurt Walton ConnDOT - Bureau of Policy & Planning Diane Bray ConnDOT - Bureau of Policy & Planning Carmine Trotta ConnDOT - Bureau of Policy & Planning Bob Bruno ConnDOT - Bureau of Aviation & Ports Robert Ike ConnDOT - Office of Rights of Way John Silva FAA Paul McDonnell Clough Harbour & Associates LLP Michael Kotlow Clough Harbour & Associates LLP Rob Adams Landrum & Brown Ron Price QED Airport & Aviation Consultants Debbie Price Program Support Services Nearly 200 representatives of the general public attended, including several Advisory Committee (AC) members, local citizens, and the media (see attached sign-in sheets). Presentation: The meeting presentation is available online at www.oxcstudies.com/meetings. Please see the minutes from AC Meeting #5 for a summary of the presentation. This meeting also included a presentation by a Connecticut Department of Transportation (ConnDOT) Rights of Way Officer. The intent of this presentation was to inform residents that the option to purchase homes within the 65-70 DNL noise contour as a noise abatement measure would only be done as a voluntary program (eminent domain would not be considered). The acquisition would be 95% funded by the FAA and 5% funded by ConnDOT. Fair Market Value (FMV) and relocation assistance would be offered to homeowners. The FMV would be determined at the time of sale, and would consider a variety of factors (e.g., individual requirements & replacement housing costs in the local community). John Silva (FAA) mentioned that from his experience with past residential acquisition programs in New England, the impact of publicity and local news stories were negligible on the appraisal of FMV. Summary of Comments: Comment #1 – What is the Noise Study doing for Southbury? There are homes at higher elevations in Southbury that are exposed to similar noise levels as the homes closest to the Airport – the Southbury homes should be considered in the Noise Study evaluation. Response #1 – Although some of the "Candidate Alternatives" would reduce noise for homes in Southbury (e.g., nighttime preferred use of Runway 18), per federal criteria, the Noise Study must develop alternatives (and ultimately recommendations) that focus on reducing airport noise in the locations exposed to the highest airport noise levels. An alternative to route traffic to the east, away from Southbury (Alternative 1E), was identified based on previous comments by Southbury residents. However, the analysis identified that Alternative 1E would result in a greater number of homes exposed to significant noise levels than under the existing flight patterns. Although average noise levels in Southbury are substantially lower than in Middlebury and Oxford, as demonstrated by the Day-Night Average Noise Level (DNL) noise contours, locations in Southbury do experience high peak single-event aircraft noise levels (see Appendix B). The Airport has received noise complaints from residents in Southbury and other areas as far as four miles away. The Integrated Noise Model (INM) – the computer program that produces airport noise contours – does account for regional topography (by using topographic data files), but it does not account for localized acoustics or noise variations due to specific weather conditions. The airport elevation is 725 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). The majority of homes in Southbury are at locations below the airport elevation. However, there are some homes located at elevations above 800 feet AMSL. Comment #2 – The topography of the area produces echoes that magnify noise exposure. I insist that the "science of acoustics" be considered in the evaluation of noise exposure. Response #2 – As previously mentioned, the Noise Study must follow federal criteria when determining airport noise exposure. General topography is incorporated in the INM computer program, but localized acoustics and specific weather conditions are not. Although this may be somewhat limiting, the method ensures that the most critical areas are accounted for in the analysis. Comment #3 – I am a resident of Southbury. I know that the Triangle Hills neighborhood is exposed to much greater noise levels than anywhere else in the area. Those residents are what the Noise Study is about – we need to focus on providing solutions for them. Comment #4 – Several concerns regarding the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) were noted from Triangle Hills residents. Response #4 – The RPZ is a defined area beyond each runway end. For land use compatibility, noise, and safety reasons, the FAA considers homes to be an incompatible land use within RPZ. In portions of the RPZ that are controlled (i.e., owned) by an airport, homes and places of public assembly should be prohibited. In portions of RPZ that are not controlled by an airport, the land use standards have recommendation status. The FAA recommends that airports acquire the property within RPZ beyond Runway 18. At OXC, approximately 31 homes in Middlebury are located within the RPZ. These homes are also located with the 65 DNL contour. The Noise Study includes a "Candidate Alternative" to acquire these homes through voluntary means for land use compatibility and noise mitigation purposes. Comment #5 – How much money was allocated for the Noise Study? Why isn't there a noise complaint hotline monitored 24 hours a day? Why wasn’t noise monitoring conducted on an annual basis? Response #5 – The allocation for the Noise Study is approximately $300,000. Noise complaints can be logged at any time by calling the airport office at (203) 264-8010 (an answering machine is available when the office is closed). Noise monitoring on an annual basis was not included in the OXC Noise Study. Permanent noise monitoring systems have been installed at some large commercial airports. Such systems cost several million dollars to install and maintain. However, even at these commercial airports, noise studies are still required to use the INM computer program in order to forecast future noise conditions that are used to make study recommendations. It is worth noting that aircraft noise monitoring captures the noise from wind, street traffic, lawn mowers, construction equipment, etc. Thus, annualized noise monitoring can misrepresent the noise exposure from aircraft. The INM is a nationally and internationally accepted computer program that has been demonstrated to be accurate to within a few decibels in field testing. The FAA developed the INM for the sole purpose of evaluating airport noise exposure. Comment #6 – Why does the number of homes in the DNL noise contours decrease in year 2008? How can you determine noise exposure for a year that has not occurred? Are the DNL noise contours going to be updated to reflect actual year 2008 noise levels? Response #6 – The number of homes in the DNL noise contours decreases in 2008 for the following two reasons: 1. Because of the 2004 runway and runway safety area extension (used for takeoff only) on the south end of the runway in Oxford. The runway extension allows aircraft to begin takeoff 500 feet further from the homes in Middlebury, which results in aircraft being at slightly higher altitudes on departure. 2. The assumption that the number of operations by the noisiest jets (i.e., older Stage II jets) will continue to decrease. The production of Stage II jets ceased in 1985. The number of Stage II jet operations has been gradually decreasing as they are slowly retired from service. The year 2008 DNL noise contours were determined by the activity forecasts in the Airport Master Plan Update. Prior to the completion of the Noise Study, the contours will be updated to reflect the most recent annual activity data available. John Silva (FAA) explained that contour growth could occur after 2008. This would occur if total activity were to increase after the phase-out of most Stage II jet operations. Comment #7 – Why wasn’t Kissawaug Road considered in the Noise Study evaluation? Kissawaug Road is constantly shadowed by aircraft flyovers, and fuel oil and soot from aircraft is being deposited on homes. Why isn’t air quality considered in the Noise Study? Response #7 – Kissawaug Road and all locations were considered in the Noise Study. The study follows federal criteria when evaluating noise exposure, and focuses on alternatives to reduce noise exposure to the greatest number of impacted residents. Many of the Noise Abatement Alternatives address noise levels at and near Kissawaug Road (see Chapter 3). Upon initial evaluation, three of these alternatives were included as "Candidate Alternatives" for additional evaluation, including Alternatives 2A, 2B, and 3B. Air quality impacts are not evaluated in FAR Part 150 Noise Studies. Air quality was addressed in the 2003 Environmental Assessment (EA) for the extension of Runway 18-36 at OXC. The 2003 EA did not indicate that the Airport was a significant contributor to air pollution in the area. Comment #8 – How long is it going to be before the Noise Study is completed? When is the soonest that we can expect acquisition of our homes? What if we refuse to sell? Response #8 – It is anticipated that the Noise Study will be completed in 2007. Acquisition of homes could occur as early as 2008, following the completion of an implementation plan, and pending any funding delays. The acquisition would be completely voluntary (eminent domain would not be pursued). In other words, the homeowners would be entirely responsible for determining if they are interested in participating in the acquisition program. Comment #9 – What impact will the Foreign Trade Zone (FTZ) have on airport operations? Response #9 – At the last AC meeting, Herman Schuler (Director of the Oxford Economic Development Commission) explained that the FTZ is not related to the Airport, nor is it anticipated to use the Airport. The FTZ is not intended for international air cargo. The runway length at OXC is not sufficient, and cannot accommodate the large jet aircraft used by companies such as UPS, FedEx, etc. Comment #10 – Edward St. John (Middlebury First Selectman) stated that Oxford receives all of the Airport’s benefits, but Middlebury receives all of the Airport’s problems. In order to remove homes in Middlebury from the RPZ, he suggested that the northern portion of the runway be removed or that the runway be extended to the south into Oxford; and that that money included in the long-range plan be used for that purpose instead. Response #10 – The Airport Master Plan Update activities did consider the potential need and feasibility of runway modifications, but eliminated any runway alternations due to steep terrain and wetland areas. The existing runway was recommended to be maintained throughout the planning period. No changes or extensions to the runway were included. The terrain beyond the south end of the runway in Oxford slopes down sharply from an elevation of approximately 680 feet to 600 feet, and contains wetlands, floodplain, and park property controlled by the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (ConnDEP). Comment #11 – What hours do nighttime operations consist of? Response #11 – The INM defines nighttime hours as 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. All operations that occur during the night are assessed a 10 dB penalty in the DNL metric. As decibels are measured in a logarithmic scale, each nighttime operation is functionally counted as the equivalent of 10 daytime operations. General Comments – Much of the extended discussion was related to acquisition of homes in the Triangle Hills neighborhood. Based on the many comments, it was evident that there is no dominate view of the local residents. Several indicated a desire to stay in the neighborhood, due to its quality, character, and affordability. Conversely, other comments indicated an interest in being relocated as soon as possible for noise and/or safety reasons. Note: The Public Information Meeting (PIM) was an informal portion of the public outreach program. No stenographer was present nor was a meeting transcript prepared. However, the Noise Study will include a Public Hearing and associated comment period, after the full Noise Compatibility Plan is prepared. The Hearing will include a formal record of all verbal and written comments. Participants of November 29, 2006 PIM were requested to submit written comments on the meeting materials and draft reports by December 31, 2006. The meeting adjourned at approximately 11:00 p.m.