John Glenn
Columbus International airport

Marie Keister: Welcome, everyone. My name is Marie Keister and I’m with Engage Public Affairs and Murphy-Epson and I will be helping to moderate this evening. We’re going to give a few more minutes for people to log in. But you are in the right place. If you want to hear about the Part 150 noise compatibility study for the John Glenn International Airport and the meeting will begin very soon.

So while you’re waiting. I’m going to give you some logistics instructions in just a little bit. But while we wait for a couple more people to log in. I’ll just note at the bottom of your screen that you have a Q and A box so while you are all muted today, you can write your question or your comments and then we’ll be asking our panelists to respond. So I’ll be watching those and we will be able to respond to those both in writing in and also verbally as well.

Okay, it’s 5:02 so just introducing myself again. I am Marie Keister and I’m part of the Project Team and with me today is number of folks. 

We have Justin Anderson, who is the Project Manager with Columbus Regional Airport Authority. We have Chris Sandfoss who you’re going to hear from in just a little bit. He’s the Project Manager for Landrum & Brown. He is also accompanied by Rob Adams with Landrum & Brown, and Gaby Elizondo. And so this is the group of folks, including Mark Kelby and Nick Hoffman, who are behind the scenes, who are here to support us and be able to answer any questions or comments you might have. So thank you so much for coming. 

So you are here for the Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study and to kick us off, Justin Anderson will take it away.

Justin Anderson: Awesome, thanks. Marie and good evening, everybody. Like Marie said, my name is Justin Anderson. I’m the Project Manager here at the Columbus Regional Airport Authority for the Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program Study.

I really hope everyone is staying safe and healthy through these times. And before we begin, I truly just want to send out a big thank you for taking the time to join us tonight. I know we’re all busy and I really want to thank you for hopping on and seeing what’s happening at the Airport and what we’re doing with our noise management service. 

Typically these meetings would be held in a large room where the project team would be standing next to boards containing information from the project and the public would be able to walk around and ask questions about the project, face-to-face, but given our current restrictions, in an effort to mitigate the congregation of a large amount of people we opted to go virtual with this public information meeting. 

Although we are in this virtual setting today. I do want the participants to feel free to ask questions and participate as much as possible through the Zoom’s common functions which we will get into here shortly on how to do so.

So what are we doing here tonight. Well, this Project Team, which consists of the Columbus Regional Airport Authority, Landrum & Brown, which is an aviation planning consulting firm based out of Cincinnati, and also Murphy Epson in which is where Marie Keister is part of based here in Columbus, we are going to provide an update on the Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program study that is currently ongoing here at John Glenn Columbus International Airport. 

Chris will be taking a deeper dive into what this study entails. But the goal for tonight is just to introduce the public to what this study is, provide the history of noise management at the Airport and discuss our current and future noise exposure here at John Glenn. 

Here at the Columbus Regional Airport Authority, one of our core values is to be a trusted community partner and we really want to be sure we live up to that during this project. 

Again, I urge you to participate. If you have any questions or comments during this presentation, I hope you find tonight informational as you continue our efforts to determine the noise exposure at John Glenn.

And all of today’s material and a recording of the presentation can be found on the project’s website starting sometime next week after we have time to review the transcript; although links to the project website will be found on the last page of this presentation. With that, I’ll hand it back over to Marie to go over some media logistics.

Marie Keister: Thank you so much, Justin. And so you do have both a chat and a Q and A function on your screen. We’d like to direct you to the Q and A function which is on the bottom. And you open the window and you type your question in there. Rob Adams who you see on the screen is standing by to respond to those questions and so please use the Q and A function, not the chat function, however, I’ll be monitoring both of those. Just in case. And I already have a couple questions that have come in on the chat box those questions by the way, they’re not as related to the noise study. So we’ll hold those questions till the end and focus on the noise study first. 

The other thing I want to make note of is that this is being recorded so as Justin said it will be posted later. But we wanted you to be aware of that. 

Our timeframe is from five to seven tonight. But if we get done sooner then will still be standing by, even if the bulk of the presentation is over. So with that, I will turn it over to Chris.

Chris Sandfoss: Thank you, Marie. So just a quick overview of our Agenda for tonight (see Slide #3), we’ve covered the meeting resources and the method for submitting questions and comments to the Q and A function next Justin will discuss the value of the John Columbus international Airport or CMH going by the three digit airport code; and some of the current highlights and things happening at CMH. 

And then I’ll get into the discussion of the noise compatibility study process; and the history of noise compatibility planning at CMH; and some of the data collection; for this ongoing study, as well as the, the draft noise exposure contours for the existing and future five year outlook conditions that have been developed for this study and are under review at this point. 

And then we’ll talk a little bit about some of the program management measures that are already in place at CMH; and talk about the next steps going forward for updating that that plan and finalizing and re approving that plan going forward. 

So with that, I’ll turn things back over to Justin to talk about some of the activities and recent things happening at CMH. 

Justin Anderson: Thanks, Chris. So where are currently? Before we dive into the Part 150, I do want to highlight some notable statistics at CMH (see Slide #4). 2019 was our busiest year ever handling over 8.6 million annual passengers, we were on a very similar trend. This year prior to the pandemic. 

Pre pandemic, we were providing air service to about 247 destinations over an average of 160 daily departures. 

These numbers here at CMH and across the nation have significantly dropped in the spring, and we are now serving around 36 destinations with an average of 61 daily departures. Although we are about 56% down in traffic from last year, averaging around 4,000 departing passengers a day. 

We remain above the national average, which is about 71% down at other airports nationwide. 

From an economic perspective CMH continues to be a major supporter to this local community based on our most recent economic impact study, we have generated roughly 33,360 jobs in the community; had about $1.7 billion in annual payroll and $5.3 billion in total economic impact. The Airport Authority has and always will strive to be a valuable asset to the community. 

From a development standpoint, we are in the middle of two major construction currently in our midfield area projects (see Slide #5), one being the 2,500-space consolidated a rental car facility which will house all of our rental car companies and rental car storage. This project has resulted in close to 1,600 construction jobs and is expected to open to the public and the third quarter of 2021. 

Additionally, we have the Residence Inn that’s being constructed in the midfield area which will provide an additional lounging option for guests traveling to or from the Airport. The 122-guest suite hotel will open this fall. 

And then, of course, with the pandemic, we are doing the best we can here at CRAA to make passengers feel comfortable enough to not only travel but use our facility when doing so (see Slide #6). 

We have been recently awarded the star accreditation for facility safety and cleanliness by GBAC, which is the Global Biorisk Advisory Council. 

Due to our extensive extra efforts on keeping our facility clean and sanitized we have in the first facility which we are very proud of in Columbus, to receive this award. We’re also taking the standard measures of social distancing through the terminal offering complimentary face masks and installing PPE vending machines. We really want to show that when you’re ready to fly again we are ready to have you. 

Now I’m going to turn it back to Chris. So we can start talking about noise and get into the Part 150 study.

Chris Sandfoss: Okay, so the first thing I’m going to talk about is just what is a Part 150 study (see Slide #7) and why are we conducting a Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study. Now, some of you might remember the last time the Part 150 study was conducted at CMH was back in in 2007. 

But I’ll give a little bit more background for those of you that are less familiar with this process. So Part 150 refers to 14 CFR Part 150 of the Code of Federal Regulations, where the process and requirements for a noise compatibility study for an airport are laid out. 

So we’ll use that term Part 150 quite a bit. And so, you know, it comes from the Code of Federal Regulations. 

A Part 150 Study is a process to identify airport noise and land use compatibility impacts through a planning process and it makes an airport eligible for certain funding for certain mitigation measures. Now the funding is not necessarily guaranteed. The funding is only contingent upon the availability of local match and federal grant access through the program. 

Some of the elements of a Part 150 Study (see Slide #8) include the preparation of noise exposure maps or NEMs and these are the official maps, once approved become the official maps showing the noise patterns around the airport; and they’re prepared for an existing condition and a future a condition that looks five years out based on a forecast of aviation activity. 

One of the other components of a Part 150 study is a noise compatibility program or NCP which includes recommendations for reducing, minimizing, or mitigating aircraft noise impacts upon noise sensitive land uses. 

An NCP is typically broken down into three main categories of measures noise abatement measures which address aircraft noise at the source, land use measures which address mitigating impacts upon the land uses or preventing introduction of new incompatible land uses in certain areas; and program management or implementation measures that assist with the operation and implementation and the day to day conduct of the actual measures. 

And then one of the final elements is a public involvement process to gain public comment and input on the study; and this event tonight represents one of the steps in that public involvement process for this study. 

Just a quick diagram that shows kind of the steps that we follow when conducting a Part 150 noise compatibility study (see Slide #9), and the steps are laid out for us in the regulations that that describe and guide us through the process that we must follow when conducting this study. 

The study I should mention it is a voluntary study. Airports are not required to undertake a Part 150 study but airports like here at CMH have chosen to conduct the study and have a long history of conducting as such as this at CMH but again it is a voluntary process. The Airport Authority has decided to undertake and has continued to undertake for several decades. 

So this current study we’re right about in the middle of the study. We began this study late last fall with an initiation process that that included data collection and preparation of the forecast for the five year future noise contour. It included a noise monitoring program where we measured noise levels in the field. And then began to prepare the existing noise exposure contour and the future noise exposure contour. Now we’re at the phase where we’ve reviewed the contours, the land use impacts and the current measures that were approved for the last study in 2007 and we’re reviewing those measures and making recommendations for moving forward with existing measures and identifying potential new measures for inclusion in the study going forward. 

So once that process is done. The measures that are recommended for inclusion after they go through this public review process and other stakeholder review will be packaged up into a draft Noise Compatibility Program that will be presented once again in an event, It’ll likely be another online event like this, depending on whether or not we can have an in person meeting, that is yet to be seen if that will likely occur, towards the end of this year, where a draft study and document will be published for review and a public hearing will be held to take comment on the draft study prior to it being submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration with request for review and approval.

So I talked a little bit about the history of noise compatibility planning at CMH (see Slide #10). And as Justin mentioned, it is a core goal to be proactively planning for the noise compatibility around the airport. The original study under the Port 150 regulation was conducted at CMH in 1987 and since then the Airport Authority has periodically updated the study in 1993, 1999, 2001, and then most recently in 2007. That 2007 study was conducted concurrently with the Environmental Impact Statement or EIS that analyzed the potential impacts for relocating the south runway. Back in 2007 or prior to 2007 there were plans to relocate that south runway to provide additional space between the runways and additional efficiency on the airfield. 

That runway relocation was finalized and opened in late 2013. That runway was relocated approximately 700 feet further south from its original location so that Part 150 study in 2007 and EIS looked at the noise and other impacts of relocating that runway. 

Some of the other measures that have been implemented over the course of the Part 150 noise compatibility studies (see Slide #11). since it was first started in 1987 at CMH include the residential sound insulation program. The Airport Authority, since that program has been implemented provided sound insulation packages to nearly 800 homes around the Airport. 

There were an additional 35 homes that were identified for acquisition because they were in an area that was impacted by the relocation of South runway; and those homes relocated and relocation assistance was provided to the residents. 

The Airport Authority also operates their flight tracking and noise measurement system called their WebTrak system, which includes 16 permanent noise monitors that measure noise levels around the airport, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. 

And there is a web component to that system where anyone can log on to the system and view the noise levels and see aircraft in basically real time as they fly to and from the Airport and see what the noise levels are of those aircraft as they overfly those 16 permanent noise monitors. 

The system also records the data and has the ability to correlate the noise data to radar data and that data can be researched if there’s ever a question or complaint about particular aircraft activity. The staff at the Airport Authority can research that and provide a response as to what caused the noise event or other information about that activity and the Airport Authority has dedicated staff to do that. 

And this is part of the Airport Authority’s proactive effort to be a good neighbor and respond to community concerns about noise and land use issues and also provide relevant information for decision makers for land use planning and future development around the Airport. 

So the next few slides will just provide a little bit of background information about aircraft noise; what it means, what the experience is for people that live around the airport. This chart shows an example of some common indoor and outdoor sound levels in comparison to typical aircraft departures (see Slide #12), and as you can see at the top of the chart, one of the loudest events is a Boeing 747 takeoff. And now, Boeing 747s rarely operate at CMH, there are a few that may still operate at Rickenbacker as cargo aircraft but passenger airlines in the US phased those out as the for newer aircraft that are more efficient from a fuel burn standpoint. Some of the more common aircraft that you see at CMH are the Airbus A320 and Boeing 737-700 that are a little bit quieter than, than the 747 and maybe about as loud as a lawn mower, or a large diesel truck, or heavy urban traffic, and even maybe as loud as a blender or a vacuum cleaner that would be in use in in someone’s home. So this is just to give a little bit of perspective about just how loud aircraft are on departure, as measured just two miles from the end of a runway. 

And this graphic shows a comparison of some of the typical and historic aircraft events or aircraft types that have operated at CMH. It shows an example of eight different aircraft types and the noise footprint that would be modeled by the computer noise model that is used to predict noise levels around an airport (see Slide #13). The graphics of these aircraft include an Embraer 145, a CRJ700 or 900, an Embraer 175, an Airbus A320, a Boeing 737-700 or 800 a Boeing 767, and an MD88. These all show the noise footprints from those aircraft types as if you’re looking over top of the aircraft landing on the runway. So it would be an approach from the left-hand side of your screen and then a departure to the right-hand side of your screen. As you as you can see, for the most part, these aircraft get louder and louder is as you look down the list and some of the louder aircraft shown on this list are the Boeing 767-300 and the McDonnell Douglas MD-88. Those have been phased out of commercial fleets at CMH to no longer operate and they have been replaced with some of the quieter aircraft newer and quieter aircraft like the CRJ700 and the Embraer 175. And that’s important when we get to looking at the noise exposure contours and comparing those back to noise exposure contours that were developed for previous studies will see that the reduction in noise from the phase out of some of these older louder aircraft has had an effect of reducing the size of the current contours at CMH.

So we’ll talk a lot about the noise metrics and methodology for measuring and analyzing noise at the airport and one of the most important topics is the noise metric that is actually used for discussing noise impacts and generating the noise contours that will show here in a bit. And the metric that is used per federal requirement is called the Day-Night Average Sound Level or DNL (see Slide #14). So we’ll talk about DNL that’s an acronym that you’ll probably hear a lot throughout this study, but basically the DNL metric is the average noise level over a 24-hour period. So it basically takes all the noise from aircraft events, you’ll have all the all the peaks when the events occur and then all the valleys when there is no aircraft event and it’s averaged out over a 24-hour period. And typically for a noise study such as this, the DNL will represent an average-annual day. So all the aircraft activity over a 12-month period divided by 365 to get an average-annual day. 

Now with the DNL there is an additional 10 decibel penalty that’s applied to aircraft events or noise events that occur at night or between the hours of 10:00pm, and 6:59 am. That is to account for the additional annoyance of noise levels at night when people are home and generally sleeping. So because the decibel scale is logarithmic a penalty of 10 decibels is like counting an aircraft event as if it occurred 10 times. 

As I mentioned, the DNL is the required metric to use for federal noise studies and it is the metric that the Federal Aviation Administration requires as well as other Federal agencies that recognize it as the preferred metric for federal noise and environmental studies, including the EPA and the US Department of Housing and Urban Development. 

So the graphic in this slide just shows kind of a simple view of how the DNL metric is calculated. So you take all the noise levels of all the aircraft events that occur during that 24-hour period. You apply the nighttime penalty to any nighttime events after 10:00pm up through 6:59am and it’s mathematically averaged over that 24-hour period to determine the actual DNL level of for a location or for an area. 

So noise compatibility study also looks at land use and determines whether or not certain land uses are compatible with different levels of aircraft noise and based on the regulations contained in 14 CFR Part 150. This graphic shows a rough summary of the land use compatibility for different land uses or different land use types within different noise levels now based on federal guidelines that are that are currently in place (see Slide #15). 65 DNL is the limit at which certain noise sensitive land uses are considered potentially incompatible without certain treatments or testing. All and uses under Part 150 guidelines are considered compatible with noise levels below 65 DNL. Certain residential uses would start to become incompatible with levels above 65 DNL without sound insulation. So a lot of residences can be sound insulated to reduce interior noise levels to below acceptable levels, per the federal guidelines; although mobile homes cannot be effectively sound insulated so mobile homes are considered incompatible at levels above 65 DNL and then most other permanent residences would be considered incompatible at noise levels above 75 DNL.

Some other types of land uses also have noise compatibility guidelines under the Part 150 regulations. Most recreational uses are compatible up to 75 DNL. Although outdoor amphitheaters or music shells would be considered incompatible at levels above 65 DNL. 

Some institutional uses or noise-sensitive public facilities such as schools, places of worship, other educational facilities, or medical facilities like hospitals and nursing homes would start to be considered incompatible levels at 65 DNL unless the construction of those facilities reduced interior noise levels to acceptable levels, which is generally around 45 decibels. And then, commercial and industrial and agriculture uses are typically compatible with noise levels above, up to and including 75 DNL with the exception that certain office uses where the public may congregate or public use would be considered or recommended to have some sound insulation or sounded attenuation within those areas that the public are received; and then any residential uses associated with a farm like a farm house would fall under the residential use category and would also be recommended to be a sound attenuated at or above 65 DNL. 

So next, I’ll talk a little bit about the methodology and process for generating the noise exposure contours that we’ll show here tonight. 

And the contours are generated using the computer noise model that’s approved by the federal government and it’s the, the current computer model is the FAA Airport Environmental Design Tool or the AEDT (see Slide #16). There’s a great deal of data and input that goes into the AEDT model to generate a set of computer generated noise contours for an airport and that’s the process that we’ve been conducting for the past several months. When this study began with collecting that data and input it into the noise model to prepare the noise contours following the guidance and requirements for generating those contours that are set forth by the FAA. So we look at a lot of data sources and collect data from a lot of various sources for input into the computer model, including airport layout, radar data that shows the aircraft in flight and flight tracks and aircraft types. 

We look at data from the Official Airline Guide that provides data on commercial airline schedules that gives a lot of information about flight activity and the scheduled aircraft operations at CMH, as well as data from the FAA airport traffic control tower or a ATCT that provides an account of aircraft operations by aircraft type, time of day and the runway end that was used to and from the airport. So all that data is input into the computer model and the computer model the AEDT includes a database of over 5000 aircraft and it includes a very robust database of the performance of those aircraft in flight upon departure and arrival to an airport. So the data is plugged into the model and the model basically simulates how those aircraft fly and the noise levels that would be audible along the flight path of those aircraft to and from the airport and it outputs the set of computer noise contours as well as other information, tabular reports, and other data that are useful in in describing the noise conditions around the airport. 

Some of the specific data collection for CMH which included the actual runway layout (see Slide #17), and this is a graphic that shows the runway layout and airfield at CMH. For those of you that aren’t familiar with how the airport is laid out there two parallel runways that run in an east-west direction and they’re labeled based on the compass heading, if you assume that 360 degrees is due north then 90 degrees would be due east, 180 degrees would be to South, and 270 degrees would be to the west. So the runways are labeled in 10-degree increments. 

So the runways at CMH are labeled 10 and 28, meaning there are approximately 100 degrees and 280 degrees, so almost not quite exactly east to west. And then the two runways are designated with an L and R for left and right. So at CMH you have runway 10 left / 28 right, is the runway on the north side and then you have runway 10 / right 28 left on the south side with the terminal in the midfield area in the middle. So if you’re traveling to CMH from I-670 you get off on International Gateway and drive toward the terminal, you’d be in the midfield area and the two runways would be to your left and right, and this is the area that that Justin mentioned some of the new development is ongoing, including the consolidated rental car facility and the residence in right there in the midfield. Just, just a little bit west of the existing terminal.

So some of the other data we collect includes a lot of data on aircraft operations. And this is just a very high level summary of the number of aircraft operations that occurred during our baseline data collection period that will represent the existing noise exposure contour for conditions based on actual operating levels between September 2018 through August 2019 (see Slide #18). And it’s important to note that time period predates the slow down due to the COVID-19 pandemic so we thought it was important to continue using that data that was prior to the slowdown rather than using newer data that would show lower operating levels and thus lower noise levels. So this is a conservative approach to show noise conditions prior to the pandemic. So during that time period for our 2020 existing conditions, a total of 130,499 operations occurred at CMH. And for an average annual day when divided by 365 that results in approximately 370 average-annual day operations. So that would be the, the total input, the total number of operations that would be input into the computer model for the existing baseline noise exposure contour. And then we further break that down by the number of aircraft types by category and other factors like the time of day to apply the DNL penalty for aircraft operations that occur between 10:00pm and 6:59am; and other factors like runway use and flight tracks which I’ll show some graphics that show those conditions as well. 

So this is just a high level, but we break down the actual aircraft operations by actual aircraft types, the number 737-700, the number of a A-320s, so it gets it gets very detailed and once the actual document is published later this year, there’ll be plenty of tables that show the actual detailed inputs into the noise exposure contour. 

A similar effort is undertaken for the future noise exposure contour, although it’s based on a forecast of aviation activity that was prepared for this study and looks five years out into the future to the year 2025 (see Slide #19). And that forecast takes into account trends at the Airport, as well as economic conditions in the region and nationwide. 

And similar to the existing contour the forecast was prepared for future conditions prior to the Outbreak. Therefore, it’s, it’s probably an over count of activity that may occur as we’ve seen aircraft activity has been reduced at CMH and around the country and it’s likely to grow steadily, you know, once the outbreak is over but maybe a little bit lower conditions or operations may not reach the levels that we forecast, you know, five, five months ago to occur in 2025 but we decided to use this this forecast just to be conservative and overstate the noise, rather than understate the noise. Based on this forecast, it was expected that 150,140 total annual operations would occur in 2025 and when divided by 365 that equals approximately 411 average annual day operations. So, that that is the input number of operations that goes into the production of the future baseline noise exposure contour for 2025 conditions and then it’s also broken down based on the forecast by aircraft type and other factors. 

So we also looked at runway use which primarily comes from the radar data. And it’s also based on radar data that shows actual flight operations and the runway that the aircraft landed to or took off from that baseline period of September 2018 through August 2019. And during that time period, the airport operated in one of two configurations either east flow or west flow. West Flow (see Slide #20), meaning the aircraft landed from the east denoted by the, the green arrows on this map and then departed to the west noted by the blue arrows on this map. The airport operated in that configuration approximately 76 to 77% of the time in the baseline period. And that’s further broken down by the percent of time each individual runway was used. So, of that 77% of departures in West flow, 38% used the North runway or departed off of runway 28 right, and approximately 39% departed off of 28 left You see a similar split of arrivals to runway 28 right and left 35% of aircraft landed on 28 right and 41% of aircraft landed on runway 28 left.

And conversely, when the airport is in East Flow (see Slide #21), meaning the aircraft are arriving from the west side of CMH and then departing to the west, which occurs approximately 23 to 24% of the time you’ll see the breakdown or split of departures and arrivals to and from runways 10 left and 10 right. 

And it’s important to note that the direction of flow is primarily dictated by the wind patterns at CMH and in the Columbus region and the winds primarily come from the west and since aircraft need to take off into the wind to generate lift for departure, that’s why the West flow configuration is used more often than the East flow configuration to maximize the benefits of the winds coming from the west so aircraft, get the most lift and get better efficiency upon departure. 

So we also looked at actual flight tracks to see where aircraft were flying to and from upon approach and departure at CMH and this graphic shows a typical snapshot of aircraft flight tracks landing in West Flow (see Slide #22). So, the green lines on the map show arrivals landing to runways 28 right and 28 left and then the blue line show departures from runways 28 right and 28 left in West flow. And we review this radar data and then input data into the computer noise model to represent these flight tracks. So we have wide coverage around the area and can actually model aircraft as they fly to and from the airport according to the density along each of these flight tracks. You see the flight tracks are very dense in the straight out pattern from the two runways and then you have various aircraft that are turned sometimes a little bit early, but for the most part they aircraft primarily maintain a straight out course for several miles to and from the runway ends at CMH. 

You see a similar pattern, albeit a little bit less dense pattern, in East Flow because East flow operations occur less often (see Slide #23). But you see the straight in approaches depicted by the green lines on the map from the west side heading eastward to land on runways 10 left and 10 right and then to departures into the East direction from runways 10 left and 10 right at CMH. 

So we also conducted a noise monitoring or noise measurement program as part of this study and this this program was intended to verify the input data into the noise model to confirm that it was representing actual local conditions at CMH (see Slide #24). I mentioned that the AEDT or the Aviation Environmental Design Tool includes a database of aircraft performance and noise for thousands of aircraft that are in use around the country and the input data into the model was verified to confirm that the actual single event noise levels that are predicted by the model that are modeled in the AEDT were accurate and reflected true real life conditions at CMH. So this noise measurement program was conducted during the week of November 11th. So again, it was, it was prior to the slow down from the COVID-19 Pandemic. The program included conducting noise measurements at approximately 30 sites around CMH for about an hour at each site (see Slide #25). And this graphic shows the different locations, using the, the green dots on the map show the different locations from which aircraft noise measurements were taken around the airport on a short-term basis. And it also shows the location of the 16 permanent noise monitoring terminals around CMH depicted by the purple triangles. So as I mentioned, as part of the Airport’s WebTrak system they maintain that system of 16 permanent noise monitors that record aircraft noise levels 365 days a year 24 hours a day continuously and provide that data that airport staff can review and research. And just a quick note if you count up the monitors or if you look at the numbers, they’re numbered one through 12 and then 15 through 18, but noise monitors number 13 and 14 are at Rickenbacker International Airport. So there’s 16 Noise monitors at CMH, but the numbering goes up to 18.

Justin Anderson: Hey Chris, just real quick on this map. The short term noise monitors were placed strategically. We did also consider the location of where we were receiving a lot of noise complaints and we wanted to make sure that we captured those complaints by placing a monitor in or near that area. We also wanted to place these monitors next to land uses that are noise-sensitive, such as residential, daycares, or schools. We wanted to place these monitors next to those facilities as well to see what type of noise exposure they were experiencing.

Chris Sandfoss: Yes, thank you, thank you, Justin. And as you see, we, we tried to map out a wide range of locations and get a wide dispersion of data collection and the, the land use is shown or generalized land uses shown as part of the base to this map and the light yellow color represents single family residential and you have multi family residential in the orange and kind of ochre colors and then other uses, industrial and commercial represented by the purple and red color so we definitely try to focus on some of the residential areas and some of the other noise sensitive uses. So why you don’t see a lot of dots in the more heavily commercial and industrial areas. 

So just a quick summary of results from that noise monitoring program (see Slide #26), some of the louder aircraft that were recorded at any of the sites included the Boeing 737-800 and 900 and the Embraer 175 which was expected because those are two of the most common aircraft at CMH. 

And as mentioned before, a lot of the older louder aircraft have almost been completely phased out of commercial fleets at CMH. The average number of aircraft events that was recorded and observed at each site for the short-term noise measurement program. Staff were on site and operated the equipment, the entire time we were out there. So we were able to observe what was going on and match up what was being recorded by the field noise measurement equipment we could actually match that to what we were seeing in the field and then further match that to the radar data. So the average number of operations or overflights that was observed and recorded at each site was approximately 11 1/2 or somewhere between 11 and 12 events per site. And some events were combined with community noise events such as traffic and dogs barking or other community and non-aircraft events and those events were taken into consideration when comparing the recorded noise levels to the noise model’s calculation of single events by aircraft type and the results of that comparison showed that the measure data that was collected by the 30 short term sites and the 16 permanent noise monitors around CMH was consistent with the aircraft noise profiles in the Aviation Environmental Design Tool Model that is used to predict or generate the noise contours and that was important to confirm that the noise model is actually accurately predicting or was consistent with actual noise levels around the Airport. 

So the next couple of slides will show the results of the noise contour modeling and the existing and future baseline noise contours that are still draft contours at this at this phase that have been generated for this study and will be submitted to the FAA to request review for approval. 

This exhibit shows the Existing 2020 Noise Exposure Contour based on the baseline period through late 2019 prior to the COVID-19 slow down (see Slide #27). The noise contour using the DNL metric is depicted by the solid and dotted blue lines on the map over top of the land use base map. The solid lines represent the 65, 70, and 70 DNL noise contours and remember 65 DNL is the level at which noise sensitive land uses are considered incompatible with aircraft noise. The 60 DNL is depicted using the dotted blue line, and it’s shown here for planning purposes; although, below 65 DNL all uses are considered compatible. So the 60 DNL doesn’t show that land uses are incompatible per Part 150 regulations, but it’s just shown as a planning tool and for informational purposes, to show where the noise levels may be a marginal impact outside the 65 DNL, but does not show land uses that would be considered significantly impacted per Part 150 guidelines. 

So we also do a count of the number of land uses that are noise sensitive within the (Existing 2020) Noise Contour within the different levels (see Slide #28). The 65 to 70, the 70 to 75, and 75 plus DNL noise contours and as you can see on this chart. There’s zero noise sensitive land uses within the 65 DNL of the existing noise exposure contour and that does represent a reduction from the number of noise-sensitive land uses including residences and other noise sensitive facilities that were in the contour for the 2007 study due to the reduction in some of the older louder aircraft that used to operate at CMH back in the mid-2000s. 

So this graphic shows the noise contour the Baseline Noise Contour for the Future 2025 Conditions using the purple line so similar to the existing contour (see Slide #29), this shows with the solid purple line, the, 65, 70, and 75 DNL for future 2025 conditions and then the dotted line shows the 60 DNL contour that shown for informational and planning purposes for future conditions overlaid over the same land use base map the contour also shows areas in the bright yellow outline that had been previously in sound insulated through the previous Airport Authority’s residential sound insulation program. And as you can see that the sound insulation program boundary extended well beyond the 65 DNL contour for both existing and future conditions because as you’ll see on one of the next slides, the noise contours that that program was previously based on where a lot larger than they are for this study due to the phase out of older louder aircraft that have occurred at CMH. 

So, similar to the existing baseline contour we prepared a chart of land use impacts within the Future 2025 Contour and there are a total of two housing units that would be located within the 65 DNL of the future contour (see Slide #30), both on the east side of the airport, one of which was previously offered sound insulation and the owner of that house didn’t respond or declined the offer. And then the other home is a newer home that was built after the previous contour was published, and would be expected to already attenuate sound based on newer construction techniques and would be considered ineligible for future sound insulation. There’s also one daycare facility that was identified within the future noise exposure contour. 

So this graphic shows a comparison of the Existing and Future 2025 Baseline Noise Exposure Contours (see Slide #31). It shows the 60 DNL with the dotted blue and purple lines and the 65 DNL using the solid lines and as you can see and would expect the future noise exposure contour would grow slightly compared to the existing contour due to the forecasted increase in aircraft operations that were forecast to occur by the year 2025. 

And in comparison, this graphic shows the Existing (2020) Noise Exposure Contour compared to the Future (2012) Baseline Noise Exposure Contour that was prepared for the last Part 150 study in 2007 that was generated for a forecast condition expected to occur in 2012 (see Slide #32), and that’s depicted using the dotted and solid black lines on the map. And as you can see the 65 DNL of that contour was much larger than the noise exposure contour for our existing conditions for this study, and again, that is primarily due to the phase out of older louder aircraft that used to operate at CMH since the airlines have replaced some of those aircraft with newer, quieter aircraft. In addition, there’s been some upgauging of aircraft at CMH where an airline that may have flown three operations of 50 seat jet maybe that’s been replaced by one operation of a 150 seat jet to accommodate the same number of passengers with less operations, which also has an effect of reducing noise levels. 

Justin Anderson: On this slide it’s important to note that the 2012 65 DNL noise contour encompassed 5.2 square miles while the 2020 65 DNL noise contour encompassed 2.7 square miles. So our noise contours are shrinking, almost by half, due to the reasons that Chris has stated. 

Marie Keister: Yeah, and I wanted to jump in because there have been some comments and questions about how noise affects certain locations in certain neighborhoods and so forth and Rob has been responding to those questions. And so I’m not going to recap them all right here, except to say that this map is going to be available online. And so you can study it in more detail if you like after the public meeting. And later on, everybody. I will recap verbally what those questions have been so everybody can hear that. But I, I’ll do that later. 

Chris Sandfoss: Thank you. So the next couple of slides do zoom in to some of the areas to the east and west of the airport, just to show kind of a close up look of the noise contours extending out from each of the four runways. And so this this particular slide shows the noise contour the existing and future baseline noise exposure contours of 65 DNL to the northeast of Columbus or around the area of the intersection of 270; and you can see the noise contour the future, 65 DNL, barely extends out beyond I-270 near where the Techcenter drive overpass is at I-270 (see Slide #33).

This map shows the southeast area of the contour a little bit south on I-270 (see Slide #34). The contour extends a little bit further than the interstate primarily over commercial and industrial areas, but this is the area where there are two residences that have been identified that would be within the future 65 DNL for the future 2025 conditions near the intersection, or just south of the intersection Taylor Station Road and Claycraft Road. 

And then as we zoom in to the west side of the Airport (see Slide #35). This shows the northwest side near the area of Drake Road and Cassidy Avenue and as you can see the noise contour primarily remains over airport property depicted by the gray color on the map and just extends out over some of the commercial areas just west of the airport along the I-670 corridor (see Slide #36). 

And then a little bit further south on the southwest side, you can see the contour extends almost to 670 to the west of runway 10 right / 28 left and just north of the neighborhood around 13th and 12th Avenue just east of Cassidy Avenue (see Slide #37). 

So again, these maps will be online so that people can get a better look at them. So now we’ll talk a little bit about the next steps of the study and the process to update the noise compatibility program or NCP and now that we’ve generated the noise exposure maps and identified land use impacts or the lack of land use impacts within the 65, the next step is to identify the noise compatibility program measures that are recommended for carrying forward with through the study. The first step was to identify the existing measures that were developed for the previous studies and were approved or included in the, in the last NCP update in 2007, identify any measures that are recommended for continuation or any measures that have been completed and are no longer necessary and withdrawn, or any other modifications to the program. 

So we talked a little bit about noise compatibility program measures and the different types of measures and measures basically fall into four main categories or three categories with a couple of subcategories (see Slide #38). So you have noise abatement measures which include measures that address aircraft noise at the source; either measures that that affect aircraft operations or effect airport facilities such as preferential runway use, adjustment to flight track, adjustments to departure profiles and a lot of these measures are already in place at CMH and so we reviewed the effectiveness of those measures to determine if there are any changes warranted to those measures. 

The next types of measures are land use measures and those generally fallen in two subcategories: corrective land use measures, which are sometimes referred to as remedial measures, which fix or correct existing land use incompatibilities. Example of that include property acquisition or sound insulation and as, as mentioned the Airport Authority has previously sound insulated nearly 800 homes around the Airport since the their residential sound insulation program began and also approximately 35 homes were acquired and the residents were relocated based on federal guidelines due to the relocation of the South runway that was completed in 2013. 

Other land use measures include preventative measures which do just that they their intended to prevent the development of new incompatible uses around the Airport in areas where noise levels are elevated and examples of those measures include compatible use zoning, noise attenuation standards for building codes so new uses already reduced interior sound levels to below acceptable levels so new uses aren’t incompatible with the noise levels around the Airport. And then the other type of measure that can be included in an NCP are the program management or implementation measures that just provide assistance to the Airport Authority with the management and implementation and monitoring of the program and provide elements for public outreach coordination and assistance in responding to requests and complaints from the public about the noise program and noise conditions at the airport. So those are our basic types of noise compatibility program measures that that are under review.

The final or not final, but the draft noise compatibility program that includes all the recommended measures from the previous study that are recommended for carrying forward in this study plus any new measures will be packaged up into a document that will be available for public review likely later this year. And we’re accepting public comments on the measures, any, any recommendations that we should look at during this study at this meeting tonight and through the rest of the year until those measures are published for additional public review sometime later this year. So the next steps in this process as I mentioned, we’re accepting public comments on the conduct of the study and any recommendations that this study should look at for inclusion in the draft NCP that will be presented for final review and approval later this year (see Slide #39). 

We will likely have a public hearing to accept comments. Once that study is published likely early on in the winter or late in 2020. 

Depending on social distancing requirements, it’s yet to be known if we’ll be able to have an in-person meeting or if there’ll be another online event like this where we can present information and gather public comments in a virtual online meeting and also accept comments by email and other means. 

Marie Keister: So Chris, I want to, I want to give your voice a break a little bit and we’ve had a number of comments and questions so before we wrap up on additional information on how to submit and so forth, I’m going to read these questions that have been posted and ask them to share them I think they’ve been just great comments from the public who are listening in and we sure appreciate your participation. 

So there’s been a number of comments about people living in specific locations specific communities. And Dave asked questions about how do I register a noise complaint or is there a noise reducing strategy specific to my high level. Can you give some responses? 

Rob Adams: So the Airport has a noise hotline that we can provide you that information. There’s also the WebTrak system, which is a great tool that I posted the website address for that in the Q and A box to several requests. The WebTrak allows anyone to go online and review the flight tracks of specific aircraft, you can look at very specific time periods. You can see where you live in relationship to those aircraft, you can understand the altitude of the aircraft as well so you can you can get a lot of information. I think about what’s happening through that, as well as the airports systems that they use for this for reporting noise and other information on their website and in terms of the programs that have been put in place. 

This idea of Part 150 planning at the airport is not new, they’ve been conducting Part 150s for nearly 20 years, or maybe even over 20 years at this point and through that time there’s been several different types of measures that have been put in place that Chris has gone through all of those are designed to help reduce noise or to help mitigate the impact of noise from aircraft. 

So I know there was a lot of questions about what types of programs are being put in place and I think as we move through the study will be able to answer those questions a little more directly but know that there are several of those programs in place today and we’re evaluating those as we speak, but we don’t have any conclusions, we’re just testing. 

Marie Keister: Another question was about flight tracks potentially changing. In the last couple years there’s one community that feels like they’ve seen more traffic over their homes in the last two years than they did before. Is there anything that is changed significantly in the operation the last two years that could account for that.

Justin Anderson: From an operational standpoint, our operations have gradually increased over the past couple of years. Operationally, the FAA dictates how the aircraft are going to arrive into and depart the Airport. As Chris mentioned earlier, the weather dictates the what direction aircraft will depart or arrive. Aircraft perform better taking off and landing into the wind. Once aircraft depart they are directed to designated corridors in the sky that are defined by the FAA. And then the same thing when arriving. They have corridors identified in the procedures that they will be flying into the Airport until they reach their assigned runway. Those haven’t changed here at CMH in some time. We are working with the FAA Air Traffic Office right now on implementing what they call RNAV or RPN routes. Those routes are planned to be implemented in April 2021 and we went out to the public in the fall of 2017 to advise the public of these changes. A note on that though, those impacts won’t be noticed from residences or businesses within a five to six nautical mile radius of the Airport.

Marie Keister: And then one last question and then Chris will continue. Somebody wants to know what the status of the parking garages. So I’m not sure if Justin, you can answer that. 

Justin Anderson: Yeah, I can. I can take care of that. So I’m assuming they’re talking about the consolidated rental car facility which is currently under construction. We’re looking to open in the third quarter of 2021. So it is well underway. We are excited about that. And we’re going to be able to relocate the rental cars out to that new facility and we are going to be able to offer more parking space in our existing garage. 

Marie Keister: Thanks, Justin. OK. Back to you, Chris. 

Chris Sandfoss: Okay, so just wanted to go over the next steps and process to submit comments if you haven’t submitted a comment tonight and think of something later on there’s still time to get comments to us to be included as we consider updates to the Noise Compatibility Program. So if you are unable to submit a comment tonight. You can still go online to the website there and through there you can just submit a comment using the online form and that will be emailed directly to the Project Team (see Slide #40). 

Or you can even send comments in through the mail to my office address listed there. We’ll accept written comments through the mail or emailed comments. We ask that you submit any comments, based on the presentations tonight by October 2 just to keep our study on schedule. And so that we can include and address those comments and consider those comments when we publish the actual draft noise compatibility study document and draft noise compatibility program later this year. 

I think Marie mentioned that copy of the presentation and recording will be available on the website. So if you go to the website at airportprojects.net/CMH-part150 there’s a page for the public meetings and there’s a copy of the web, the presentation there as well as there will be a link to the recording of this presentation once that recording is available. so please get any additional comments to us by the beginning of October. If you have any and then look for information about a future event that will likely coincide with the publication of the draft Part 150 study document and NCP that will likely occur towards the end of this year and that will coincide with a another public meeting and public hearing to accept official comments on that plan. Once it is published for public review and comment and then once that Draft Part 150 study is published, and comments are received and addressed a final Part 150 study would be submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration likely in early 2021 with a request for review and approval of the updated plan. And once that plan is reviewed and approved by the FAA, It is anticipated though they’ll accept the noise exposure contours after their review and those noise exposure contours will be become the official noise exposure maps for the Airport. 

So with that, unless we have any other questions we’re willing to stick around to see if there’s any other any other questions come through, but just want to thank everyone for listening in and participating and providing their input on our study. 

Marie Keister: So there are just a couple more questions. So here’s another opportunity to jump in on that. Somebody asked: There used to be a restriction on night flights in Columbus and what happened to that if that was the case, this person really does not like overnight flight and would like to know. What restrictions might have been in the past. 

Chris Sandfoss: I can answer that. 

There is no prohibition on nighttime flights and that’s per federal policy, the Airport must remain open 24 hours a day. You may hear about restrictions at other airports, particularly there’s few airports in California and possibly one on Long Island in New York that have restrictions on nighttime flights, they basically have a curfew and those were grandfathered in before the federal government passed the law restricting those kind of nighttime curfews and it was a it was a federal law that was enacted as a trade off that that law also implemented the phase out requirement of some of the, the very old, the very loudest aircraft it phased out are required hush kitting of some of the 727s and DC9s that used to fly in the mid-90s and early 2000s. So right now, there’s no restrictions on nighttime flights at CMH the airlines are that’s up to their scheduling preference and when people want to fly. 

Marie Keister: Justin, did you want to make a comment on that as well, or do you want me to go on to the next question. 

Justin Anderson: Chris, you did a great job answering that I was just going to add on, you know, we do have in our current Noise Compatibility Program. We do have some recommended measures that pertain to preferential runaway use like Chris mentioned, but, you know, pilots they have the right to ask for operational need to use a runway and if it’s going to improve the safety of the flight, usually the tower will give that preference to the pilot. So even if even if, if the measure is identified to use a certain runway, but a pilot needs to use the other one way for an operational need he’ll be granted that right so that there may be some nights flights or some early departures in the morning that have occurred because of that operational need from pilots. 

Marie Keister: Thanks, Justin.  

Chris Sandfoss: And I’ll mention that the DNL metric that’s used for the study does apply that that penalty to nighttime flights because you know we’re aware of that and the federal agencies that developed the methodology were aware that nighttime flights are more disruptive so that penalty it’s applied to nighttime flights when we prepare the noise contour so that that is also taken into account. 

Justin Anderson: Thank you. 

Marie Keister: And then there’s this question. Not as much about the noise wanting to know the status of short term and long-term parking. So Justin the question is a little vague, but can you figure out.

Justin Anderson: I’m going to assume that you are talking about the status of our parking lots. Right now, given the pandemic, our passenger numbers have been down as, as you’ve probably seen in the news and that’s across the nation at all airports. So we have also closed some of our parking lots due to the lower numbers. Our Red Lot remains open as a long-term lot but our Blue Lot that has closed, but our short-term parking garage is also open as well. 

Marie Keister: So there are a couple more questions about the map and the noise contour. And so, you know, some people have some very specific questions based on where they live. What I would suggest is that well, Rob. I’m going to call on you. What would you suggest I think your responses obviously, we’re going to relay every one of your comments to Justin and the Airport Team. We will be responding to these questions, not only through the transcript but the meeting summary will also address the questions as well. Rob, Do you want to add anything to that. 

Rob Adams: No, I mean I think just for the audience listening there’s several comments about the experience that people are having at their homes, and I’ll just sort of paraphrase. There’s flights that are disruptive there there’s you know that increase that recently, though, you know, those kinds of comments and then questions about why they hear a lot of aircraft at their house, but they’re not inside the 65 DNL level, Why is that? So I think we can generally respond to those Marie as you suggested, and we certainly take that information as we are finalizing the noise contours and making sure that we’re looking at all of the areas that people live. So, you know, we really want to focus on those areas, in particular, so that we’re not missing anything. So, we appreciate the comments and we will try to respond as best we can individually, but that would be in later summary. 

Marie Keister: Thank you. So really the content portion of the presentation this evening is completed and so we are still here, we’re willing to answer questions. So I’m going back to the open question box to see what we haven’t tackled yet. And by the way, there are some of you who are providing personal private information. And so we’re going to respond to you, independently, so that we don’t transmit your private information to everybody. And so we will, we are capturing those comments. The other thing is in the chat box, we have listed those links where you’ll be able to find the this presentation and also provide additional comment until October 2nd. 

All right, let’s see here. Here’s a new question. I understand what the day-night level contour does, but is there a peak there have been times when military aircraft have completely crushed the volume. 

Justin Anderson: Chris, I can take, I can take a stab at this one. So we do have times when we do have a non-standard operation that the airport, you know, some especially with military aircraft and they will come into they’ll come into CMH to refuel or to drop troops off and they’ll fly the C130s or C17s. We have fighter jets to especially when there’s an air show up in Cleveland, sometimes the Blue Angels like to stop by and fuel up at our FBO and then go to Cleveland, and those are extremely loud. 

We do get noise complaints for those, but we do identify those as non-standard or unusual operations. We also have back in June, we had the gypsy mosquito spray, an aircraft that goes around the State of Ohio and that generates a lot of noise complaints, because it also is an aircraft that flies low and It just goes through the city and in a pattern that may not be ordinary for the average person who looks up. So there are some times when we do have unusual operations at the airport, that’s just that sometimes are louder than the normal aircraft. 

Chris, you want to get into how does, how does, how does that impact the DNL? 

Chris Sandfoss: Yes, so since the DNL is an average. It doesn’t mean that If you’re outside of 65 DNL, let’s say you live at 64 DNL, it doesn’t mean that aircraft events won’t exceed 64 decibels on a peak reading. 

The DNL is a combined function of the loudness of the events and the number of events. So if you, if you look at, consider like a line graph, you’ll have peaks on the graph. And you’ll have valleys on the graph, And then you’ll draw a line across, you know, straight line across the average to get your average. So that’s your average but you have peaks that are above the average and then you’ll have low points that are below the average so there, there would be some levels above 65 dB outside the 65 DNL contour because the DNL is both a function of the loudness of each event and the number of events.

Marie Keister: I’m going to shift to a noise abatement question that Rob already answered online. But let’s cover it again. Is there a noise abatement on takeoff. 

Rob Adams: Yes. So Marie since I answered it online, I’ll go ahead and answer it again there is as part of the Airport’s and Noise Compatibility Program that they’ve developed over the years, there are a number of things that that they have put in place to address aircraft noise, some of which are the noise abatement procedures. So there are flight procedures that dictate where aircraft will fly so that so they fly primarily runway heading, but then they have other options where they can fly. 

And turn off of the end of the runway. But those locations had been selected to try to be as in the least populated areas as it can be. 

There’s also the runway use program that again, as was discussed; I think earlier during the early morning in particular and overnight trying to limit the use of the northern runway. There’s also an east-west runway flow which is you know which direction they’re departing, there are some preferences on that as well. So there are some things that are currently in the program to reduce noise that we would call noise abatement. There’s some other on the ground facilities that help to reduce noise. There’s barriers that that have been constructed for aircraft that are testing their engines while they’re on the ground to help reduce the noise in the communities nearby. So there definitely are some things that have been done and you know we’ll continue to look to see if those are still relevant. And if there needs to be additional ones through the study.

Marie Keister: I think really we’ve covered the bulk of the questions and we had received some emails in advance, but they are very close to what we’ve already heard one comment we got was have the flight paths then relaxed over the last year and I think you already covered this Justin that you’re working with the FAA on some of these things, but it goes on to say commercial jets have been cutting the path short mostly upon take off but also over our subdivision. So again, I think it comes back to what kind of changing patterns, you’re seeing. And if you would just respond to that question again. 

Justin Anderson: Yeah, so it’s a pattern. A lot of the procedures that aircraft and pilots have to fly are dictated by the FAA and air traffic control. It is our job as the Airport to help make those procedures as safe as possible. And that’s at the Airport as well as in the community too. So as part of this planning and as part of our overall effort of being a good neighbor. We work with our local cities and counties to help with development efforts to ensure land use is as compatible as possible to minimize noise impacting the surrounding community. From an operational standpoint, our procedures haven’t changed in some time. Air traffic control may vector aircraft in times of convective weather or if pilots request to improve the safety or operation of the flight. In this case we don’t have too much flexibility on revising these procedures. 

Marie Keister: Great. Well, I don’t see any new questions that we haven’t already tackled either verbally or online and we’ve recap the themes that have come to us through the Q and A box; although a new question just popped up. So let me just look at that. Looking at the 2012 report, was any work done or picking up and starting again. So I’m not sure I entirely understand that question. Maybe you do Rob or Justin. 

Justin Anderson: Yeah, I can. So if we’re talking about construction, since we did the last noise study and we did the environmental impact study for the relocation of runway when 10 right to 28 left was relocated the FAA put in our Record of Decision for that Environmental Impact Study that we would conduct a Part 150 noise study. So before we did that, before we did the Part 150 noise study, we decided to also rehabilitate the pavement our North runway, 10 left / 28 right, the one that sits near Gahanna. 

So the FAA allowed us to wait until both runways were done with all the construction work before we did this Part 150 noise study. And that’s where we are today. So we did the runway rehabilitation for runway 10 / left 28 right which finished up in 2016, so both of our runways are in good shape. so now we are studying the noise from our new our new layout. . We have done taxiways and we’ve redone payment on taxiways and aprons and those are projects that really aren’t obvious to the average passengers, but we have done a lot of construction on pavement. So I’m hoping that answers that question. There was a reason why there was a gap between the 2007 study and this study. 

Marie Keister: Great. 

Justin Anderson: Great looks like that answer the question. 

Marie Keister: Yeah, thank you. Melanie who’s asking great questions. We appreciate all these questions. Well, you know, I just watching that Q and A box to see if any other questions pop up. 

If you have had your questions answered by all means, you know you’re welcome to stick around till seven but you’re also welcome to adjourn too. Either one is fine with us. Alright, let me look at another question. I think I think Melanie can keep us hopping with more questions so far away, Melanie, you got us till seven o’clock. So go for it. Now we’ll just challenge her to see how quickly she can type. 

And maybe just to read it reiterate, you know, Justin’s your guy, everybody. He is going to be doing a lot of the follow up on some of the specific questions that have come up and the website that posted on this slide that you see right now if you have, if you won’t have any comment or if you want to set up a phone call. 

Justin Anderson: Feel free to make a comment. We do have a comment section on this project website and those emails come straight to Chris and myself, and we will set something up with you to discuss, you know, if you want to discuss your property. Specifically, or if you want to discuss an overall scenario, the Airport or operational procedure. We’d be happy to do so. So if you if you think it’d be easier to do that. So there’s one means of getting a hold of us through that project website. Another one is from the FlyColumbus.com on our website. Our noise hotline is on that website and we monitor that all the time. So feel free to submit a noise complaint through that and then we can get in touch with you. 

Marie Keister: Chris, how are you doing? we’ve given you a little bit of a break on your voice. Now, but do you have anything to add, based on some of the questions. 

Chris Sandfoss: I don’t have anything else to add, it looks like we’ve got another comment about a specific location. 

Justin Anderson: Yeah, it looks like, Hey Chris, can you know, can you go back to the slide where that’s by Ohio Dominican University out on the northwest. 

Chris Sandfoss: This slide shows Ohio Dominican (see Slide #37). I think that’s their property in the blue color just west of Airport Drive anything blue on the map is institutional. I think that’s the eastern-most part of their campus. The contour in that direction the 65 DNL doesn’t extend beyond Airport Drive. I can show the 60 DNL not zoomed in but so, so basically the Ohio Dominican campus is just above the I-670 highway shield on this map (see Slide #35). So it would be, it would likely be within the or is within the 60 DNL, but outside the 65 DNL. 

Marie Keister: And how far or close to Sunbury and Airport Drive. Answer that question. 

Justin Anderson: Sunbury and Airport Drive those, those roads aren’t located on the map. So I’m looking on Google Earth right now and seeing if I can give you a better answer. 

Chris Sandfoss: I think this is Sunbury if you can see the blue annotations and then this I think is Airport Drive. So this is the area that I think the commenter is asking about approximately, but we’ll have these maps will be on online and with some better, when the when the study is produced will have a lot more road labels. And people will have the ability to zoom in closer. We’re kind of limited on how many labels we can show on this and still be able to see what’s underneath. 

Justin Anderson: Yeah, and that’s why if we were if we were in face to face right now we would have a board that we had planned it didn’t show a lot of the road label so we hope, hopefully we can get that that opportunity to do a face-to-face. At one point in our public hearing. But yeah, Chris. These will be online to help out and you can zoom in to your preference. 

Marie Keister: Rob are there any other question I haven’t reiterated.

Rob Adams: No, I think you I think you’ve pulled out the ones that seem to be representative.

Justin Anderson: All right, for those of you who are still on. We thank you for joining us tonight. Like, we’re going to be here until 7:00 but we thank you we look forward to working with you guys as we continue as we proceed with this study. 

Chris Sandfoss: I did see one question that we got by email. A couple days ago, I don’t see the person that sent the email but it was asking about minimum altitude. And so I’ll answer. Similar to the flight procedures and location of flight. The, the altitudes are part of the procedures and they’re designed by FAA to maintain clearance from the ground as well as separation from other aircraft in flight. So yeah, those, those altitudes are going to vary by location distance from the airport in and slightly vary by, particularly on departure. They vary depending on the climb rate of the aircraft some aircraft can climate slightly quicker rate, but depending on the procedure, they’re flying there’s basically a window that they’re trying to hit so they maintain the correct a vertical spacing depending on the procedure that they’re flying. 

Marie Keister: We received a nice comment thanking us for the meeting. I won’t necessarily help their specific noise issue, but they appreciate understanding the research that goes in behind us. So thank you for that comment. 

And if you have any other observations about this webinar virtual meeting. We’d love to hear it. You know, I think we’re all learning virtual meetings and so forth. So would love to just get your impressions of that as well. 

So we still have some people hanging in there and we appreciate the thank you’ s. By the way, and if any of those who are still on with us or can think of a question or a comment. We’d love to see it. 

Think I just got another one. Oh thank you no technical issues, noticed with zoom during the meeting. Appreciate that. We all triple checked our sound before we got on board this evening. 

Justin Anderson: So I see here that if you guys are on, any questions that we can answer please feel free to comment. 

Marie Keister: Comment. So years ago there was a study done in the Brentnell area and Teakwood residents got doors and windows. I’ve been looking at where they’re supposed to be equipment to test the levels. I think noise levels and have not found one very close to me as indicated, who can show me where this equipment is as it may have been there, years ago, but today it is not. 

So I think the question is where are the locations of those noise monitors and is there one in the Brentnell Teakwood area. 

Justin Anderson: Chris, would you be able to go back to that map that you had on the monitoring locations (see Slide #25).

Chris Sandfoss: Yeah, I’m wondering if they’re talking about the permanent monitors or the actual testing equipment that’s used to test the interior levels to see if it meets the interior sound attenuation requirements, because that’s pretty specific equipment. That was a pretty extensive eligibility testing that would have been done prior to the program implementation. 

Justin Anderson: So looks like I’m looking at remember up by number four of the permanent monitors. And looks like that’s something the Brentnell Avenue area. That would probably be your closest one. And then we also had some short-term monitors as well. Number six, and 13 looks like those are up there for a couple of days as well. But yeah, if you’re referring to what Chris was describing then I imagine I’m not sure. 

Chris Sandfoss: There’s a two-step process for determining eligibility and the first step is the land use within the 65 DNL But then there’s, there’s the additional into your testing and the prior programming implementation. Usually I a sample of residences are tested to see if they already reduce noise below that the 45 DNL interior level, and if not, where should the treatments be applied to the home to improve the performance of the attenuation of that the home for that they use similar equipment to what we use for the field noise monitoring program, but we actually will set up a speaker that will blast pink noise at the house or the residence and you’ll test outside and inside to see what the difference is before the sound insulation and then after the sound insulation to see if it achieved what it was intended to achieve. 

Marie Keister: Actually she’s located very close to 17th and Joyce Avenue, so I think your answers have been helpful, but she may want to know, you know, if somebody could direct her, specifically, you know, and show her about equipment that might be helpful. 

Justin Anderson: Yeah, we can we can give you the exact location of that permanent terminal.

Marie Keister: Right now there’s a chance there’s somebody that just joined us. And if that’s the case, I just wanted to let you know that we’ve actually completed the full-blown presentation, which is also available online. And now we’re answering questions and if you go to the Q and A box please, we encourage you to write your question or your comment down so we can really get to what issue is of concern to you. And then also, if you look at the answered questions, you’ll see the other questions that have been asked this evening. All of this information will be transcribed and posted online. It may be a few days before we can make sure you know and the transcript is done automatically through the technology, you have to go and clean it up because sometimes the technology misinterprets words. So we have to get that done. But then everything will be available online. The presentation is actually online now.

Just another comment that the planes do seem to be too close. So we appreciate your comment. 

So we have about seven minutes left, so please let us know if you have any other questions and comments. 

Chris Sandfoss: And I’ll go back to the slide that shows how you can submit comments (see Slide #40) after tonight. 

Marie Keister: Perfect. 

Yeah, so this is now your last chance you have until October 2 so if you’re the type of person that really wants to study the slides and see what additional questions or comments you might have. We encourage you to do that. We encourage you to share this information with your friends. They are welcome to go online as well. And I think by next week we’ll have the recorded version on there as well. 

So we just have maybe another 60 seconds if you want to post a question; we might have time to just answer. One last one. 

Alright, so not seeing any final questions. I think I just want to thank all of our panelists, Justin. Thank you, too, for giving direct instructions on how to get ahold of you as well. And Chris and Rob and mark and Nick behind the scenes and Gaby. So thank you very much, everybody. Have a great evening. 

Justin Anderson: Thank you guys very much. 

Note: This transcript has been edited for clarity.