Aircraft Noise: A Toolkit for Managing Community Expectations (2009)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

During the more than 50 years since the introduction of passenger jet traffic into the American transportation system, the primary issue of controversy between airports and their neighbors has remained aircraft noise. Although other environmental concerns have arisen from time to time, the level of noise and frequency of operations over surrounding communities has remained a driving force in how airport operations are constrained and how the public perceives the impact of those operations on its quality of life. Eighteen years have passed since the publication of the FAA’s Community Involvement Manual (1) in 1990, and available technologies for communication with an airport’s stake- holders have increased exponentially. At that time the public had limited access to the inter- net, the world-wide web was little more than a theory with a development plan, and digital graphics software was not generally available to the masses. Consequently, many communi- cations techniques that required extensive editorial and printing capabilities 20 years ago may now be accomplished on a desktop computer with simple graphics software. Events that required weeks to arrange and provide notice about may now be announced via the media, email, and web postings and held within a few days. The advancements in speed and technol- ogy of the last two decades have provided airport managers greater flexibility in how to com- municate with the airports stakeholders and allow them to respond far more rapidly to public requests for information. While manufacturers were rapidly building new aircraft and devising engine retrofit methodologies to allow older aircraft to continue in service, local noise abatement efforts were focused largely on rerouting flights, adjusting runway use programs, and restricting hours of operation or types of aircraft allowed to operate, with secondary interests in the management of land to prevent the development of new incompatible uses. Subsequent to the publication of the Community Involvement Manual, Congress has required the phase out of older and louder aircraft from the air carrier fleet, the great majority of general aviation business jets now meet quieter noise criteria, and no new restrictions on access to domestic airports have been approved by the FAA. Hence, the FAA, in support of and supported by numerous aviation industry groups, have advocated a balanced approach to noise abatement and mitigations. In the United States, this balanced approach rests on three legs – noise reduction at the source, operational mitigation, and land use management to control incompatibilities. The European Union has adopted a balanced approach that adds a fourth leg to consider, as a last approach, the restriction of activity at the airport. The Airports Council International (ACI) has urged that the balanced approach be expanded to include “people issues”, meaning the inclusion of a public involvement program. This Guidebook is intended to assist airport managers incorporate these “people issues” into the planning process by providing guidance to the best practices of communication on aviation 1 C H A P T E R 1 Introduction and Guidebook Summary

noise issues that have been identified at domestic and international airports. This chapter intro- duces the airport manager to the Guidebook and how public engagement, as opposed to one-way communication techniques, can benefit all sizes of airports; posits that a culture shift toward building relationships is necessary; provides a list of six best practices that characterize an effec- tive communications program; and provides basic information about noise and its abatement to assist in responding to public inquiries. This document is intended for all airport managers who seek to better their relationships with surrounding communities. This Guidebook suggests tools useful to initiate a new or upgrade an existing program of communication with public and private stakeholders about noise issues. Purpose of the Guidebook This document is intended to be a guidebook designed for airport managers and sponsors to help them improve their communications with the public about issues related to aircraft noise exposure. Communications involves an “exchange” of messages, ideas or information. An exchange implies two-way activity and can be achieved through various means: speech, writing, graphics, electronic media, and even by tone of voice and body language. Airports may fail to effectively communicate with the stakeholders about aircraft noise if they use only “one-way” techniques. For improved communications, airports must proactively engage the public in a two-way flow of information. Engagement creates opportunities to deliver improved understanding. It establishes a more consistent framework for both airport staff and policy makers to make more informed decisions about important issues. It fosters enthusiasm and excitement about best planning practices, and involves the public in important policy considerations. Engagement improves communication by advancing the airport staff’s credibility and contributing to an atmosphere of trust. The pub- lic comes to feel as if they are part of the solution rather than being manipulated through a series of required procedural steps. As planners and managers engage a community, their capacities for brainstorming and knowledge are extended, and they grow as providers of public service. How to Use the Guidebook The intended audience of this Guidebook is managers of all sizes of airports. • For small airports staffed perhaps only by the airport manager, it provides ideas to consider and basic direction for a communications approach that can be successful immediately and also evolve as the airport grows. • For medium-sized airports, there is not only basic direction, but also suggestions on staffing and basic communication techniques. • For large airports, there are ideas for refinement of the basic approach, as well as ideas for improv- ing techniques or strategies that may already be in place. For every airport, the first three chapters provide the fundamentals of: • What techniques are identified as the best practices in airport communication, • Why building a relationship with the public can be beneficial to the airport as well as the public, and • What outcomes an airport should expect if it does build a good relationship with the surround- ing community. 2 Aircraft Noise: A Toolkit for Managing Community Expectations

Airports of different sizes can then explore, in Chapter 4, the strategies and techniques that are most appropriate to their size of airport. Chapter 5 reviews applicable literature and provides case studies of several airports and an university, each of which has encountered difficulties in communications with surrounding neighborhoods and has sought to change their approach to that interaction. Chapter 6 provides background material to the airport manager not thor- oughly versed in the complexities of noise issues to better enable him to respond to public ques- tioning. Chapters 7 through 9 describe approaches to the abatement mitigation and description of noise in terms useful to lay communications. The printed document concludes with a list of the reference material cited throughout the chapters. The accompanying Toolkit includes many examples of material that has been successfully used to communicate information about noise, as well as numerous guidance documents about noise and communications that have seldom been bought together in the same resource. Appendix A, included in the Toolkit, is an anno- tated bibliography of the many documents, websites, and regulatory guidance used in the devel- opment of this report. The Relationship Between Environmental Planning for Airports and General Community Response Factors Airports generate environmental impacts in a variety of different categories required to be reviewed by every environmental assess conducted under the guidelines set forth by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (2). Among these are water run-off issues raised by aircraft de-icing, air quality occasioned by greenhouse gas generation, energy concerns associated with the amount of fuel burn, and recycling/sustainability issues arising from large quantities of waste off-loaded from aircraft after each flight and from goods consumed in the terminal area. However, the environmental effect most commonly associated with air- ports during the last 60 years has been the noise emissions generated by the aircraft using the facility. For more than 40 years, the public has complained about how aircraft noise has impacted their lives. Through protest, complaint, litigation and political action, they have demanded that actions be taken to reduce the noise levels over their homes and places of work. The U.S. Congress instituted a program of systematic noise level reduction by mandating that new aircraft designs be able to meet maximum noise level limits to be certified for flight. This process was formally implemented by the FAA through the 14 CFR Part 36 (3) noise level requirements for three different types of aircraft, dependent on their size and date of design certification. Subsequently, 14 CFR Part 91 (4) operating requirements for aircraft were modified to require that all large jets designed before 1976 were to be phased out of the oper- ating fleet during the mid-1980s if they exceed the least restrictive set of noise level standards. Subsequently, as a result of congressional approval of the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 (5), large aircraft were required to conform to the most restrictive standard levels imposed by Part 36, resulting in the fleet now flown at domestic airports. European and some Asian airports are evaluating the imposition of even stricter noise level limits to further reduce noise at the source. It is important to understand that the public does not complain only about the total amount of noise to which it is exposed. It also is concerned about the number of flights that pass over, their individual noise levels, the time of day that they pass over, and their height or proximity to the viewer on the ground. The DNL metric was adopted by the FAA in 1979 as a result of the Avi- ation Safety and Noise Abatement Act (6) for environmental documentation. It was developed Introduction and Guidebook Summary 3

for the 1974 Levels Document by the EPA (7) and was based on transportation noise from all sources in urban settings. In 1992, the Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON) deter- mined that the DNL metric remained the best available predictor of community annoyance (8). The FAA’s selection of 65 DNL as the threshold of significance was based on consideration of the cost and feasibility of mitigating noise beyond that level. At that time, many older, louder air- craft remained in the operating fleet and contributed to large noise exposure patterns surround- ing the airport. While the elimination of older, louder large jet aircraft has led to the reduction of noise lev- els from individual sources by 20 or more decibels on average, since 1996 the number of pas- senger and cargo flights at domestic airports has increased by 40 percent through the end of 2007 (9). Consequently, the contours of equal noise exposure in Day Night Sound Level (DNL) surrounding airports have shrunk greatly from their size during the 1970s, but if the level of traffic continues to grow to meet increasing demand forecasts, the contour sizes may begin to enlarge from current levels. Unless a new technology is introduced that will result in another significant reduction of noise at the source and the product of that technology is then propagated throughout the operating fleet, noise exposure patterns around airports are likely to remain static or grow slightly. Since the establishment of the metric and the selection of 65 DNL as the threshold of signifi- cance occurred in the 1970s, the number of commercial flights by large aircraft in the United States has increased by more than 100 percent based on statistics published annually by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (9). At the same time, the cities of the United States have extensively grown through suburbanization and ex-urbanization. Many members of the public have questioned the continuing validity of the accepted metric as being representative of all the noise effects the neighbors of airports experience. Airports are concerned that areas recently relieved of significant noise levels will not open to incompatible development in the short-term while remaining at risk for the expansion of contours with the continuing growth of the airport. Airports seek a balance between airport noise abatement and the control of developing noise sen- sitive land uses. Under the policy guidance of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and FAA Order 1050.1E, Change 1 (10), environmental planning for airports is required to follow given procedures, processes, and use established criteria and thresholds of significance in determining the effects of various impact categories. Under current rules, the DNL is the established metric of choice, although planning over the past decade has opened to new met- rics that respond to the public demand that action be taken to evaluate and abate the num- ber of events it experiences, to mitigate the loudest of the single aircraft events, and to reduce the activity during the most sensitive periods of time. Such evaluations are currently deemed supplemental to the noise analyses, but are becoming more broadly accepted among airports and more widely known by the public within the airport environs. While thresholds of sig- nificance for any supplemental metric have not yet been determined, future research may be better able to determine more useful ways to define the environmental impacts of these addi- tional factors. Culture Shift Required A basic change required of many airport managers, before public involvement can fully suc- ceed, is one of culture. The culture must shift from an attitude of focus on information delivery (one-way communication) to focus on an engagement relationship (two-way communication). Until this problem is solved, further techniques and strategies are likely to fail. 4 Aircraft Noise: A Toolkit for Managing Community Expectations

Formal research on airport public involvement, research on other transportation modes, and research on other institutions that deal with the public all confirm that the “we vs. they” or “decide, announce, defend” (11, p. 3) approach has failed and must transition to strengthened two-way communications to have a better chance for long-term success. Interviews conducted for the preparation of this Guidebook with airport operators, users, and interest groups also support this position, but with less conviction on the part of airport operators. The literature review and case studies presented in Chapter 5 provide detail. Surveys show airports and community groups have different communications goals. • Most airports said that their goal was to educate. • Most non-airport groups said that their goals related to cooperation, communication, open discussion, and partnership. “An Assessment of Airport Community Involvement Efforts,” (12, p. 3) included in Literature Review (Chapter 5) states, Airports tend to conduct public outreach as though the only purpose were to educate the public about reality from the airport’s perspective, in an effort to persuade people to let the airport get on with its business. This attitude was confirmed by follow-up interviews to the initial on-line survey for this Com- munity Response to Aircraft Noise Study. Most airport noise officers stated during their interviews that their goal was to educate the public. In contrast, most non-airport interest groups stated some version of cooperation, communication or partnership as their goal. The 2005 Assessment paper also found that, Addressing problems between airports and communities will require changes in the attitudes and prac- tices by both airports and the communities that host them (12, p. 12). The second literature review reported in Chapter 5 was a TRB paper “State of the Practice: White Paper on Public Involvement,” (13) published in 2000. Relating to public involvement in transportation, the report stated that a challenge to practitioners was to remove institutional bar- riers by making a serious commitment “to include the public when making decisions and change their organizations and practices to reflect that commitment.” It also said that, For many organizations this will involve a dramatic culture change as agency employees from the top down adopt a new policy development and implementation paradigm (13). Universities, like other major institutions that must work with surrounding communities, also are learning the lessons of two-way communication. The third literature review detailed in Chapter 5 is “Crisis in the College/University Relationship with the Community: A Case Study.” Its abstract states, Crises can arise in relationships between colleges and universities and their surrounding communities especially when campuses need to grow. If these institutions have focused strictly on sending their mes- sages out rather than establishing two-way communication with important publics, they may suddenly find themselves embroiled in conflict and confronted with a crisis (14). Moving toward a culture of two-way communication is the foundation of all best practices, strategies, and techniques for the airport manager who wants to succeed in their relationship with the community about aircraft noise issues. The success in “engagement” communications on noise issues may pave the way to better relationships and dialogue leading to mutually ben- eficial resolutions to other disagreements as they arise. Introduction and Guidebook Summary 5

Best Practices in Achieving Effective Communications: 6 Keys Airport surveys, follow-up interviews, case studies, literature reviews, and professional experience were reviewed to identify the fundamental ideas that would help managers of air- ports of all sizes implement an effective noise communications approach. Managers may use these best practices to assess their own approach to communicating with the public about air- craft noise and determine where, or if, they could make changes that would improve public engagement. Build Trust Through “Good” Two-Way Communications Trust and respect are the keys to a long-term relationship between the airport and commu- nity groups. They require proactive involvement with the public and other interest groups using interactive techniques. Although the relationship may at times shift from collaborative to adver- sarial, efforts toward building trust and respect through engaged communications will ultimately result in an understanding of each parties position. A singular focus on educating the public will not build relationships, nor will it build trust. Put Senior Leadership Out Front When groups have something important at stake they look to an organization’s leader for clues on its approach and as the ultimate authority on decisions and conflict resolution. Airport staff, user representatives, and the public will look to the words and attitudes expressed by the senior airport management to guide their own attitudes and responses. The presence of airport upper level management brings other decision makers to the table, and can help in the resolu- tion of issues. Use Graphics to Illustrate the Message Advancements in computer software continue to allow visualization of real life and virtual “What If” scenarios. A picture is worth a thousand words – and animated pictures may be worth a million in effectively explaining the concepts of aircraft noise to a non-technical pub- lic. Audiences seem to better understand concepts conveyed through visual presentations, and factual data that illustrates issues through charts, graphs and video clips. With graphics, audiences tend to become more positively engaged with the presenter and the issues. Have a Transparent Process Public mistrust of the airport and its motives is at the foundation of most airport conflicts. Con- sistent openness and truthfulness, demonstrated by telling people what is known, as soon as it can be told, in a transparent planning process, builds lasting trust. Select Staff for Service-Oriented Attitude (People-Skills) An emerging realization, strongly supported by airports that have successful public commu- nications programs, is that a “public service attitude” and “people skills” are equally important to technical skills among noise staff members. Community interest groups strongly agree. Air- ports with no noise staff must work to see that all employees who might respond to noise con- cerns are sensitive to the public relations aspects of the issue. 6 Aircraft Noise: A Toolkit for Managing Community Expectations Communication needs to mean constructive involvement, not just a one-way thing. (LGB) Airport Survey Comments Regular attendance at the Roundtable or Forum by the Airport Director builds a cul- ture of the importance of noise abatement within the airport and encourages other important decision- makers like elected officials, tower repre- sentatives and users to attend. (SFO) Participation of the Airport Director and the FAA can be impor- tant at big public meetings because of their authority and expertise. People tend to believe them. (LGB) Highly visual approaches that are interesting and color- ful are successful in communications on the web and written materials. (SFO) Keep each other informed. Keep every- body in the loop. Be open as much as possi- ble; tell them things if at all possible. (Boston CAC)

Be Ahead with Communication The history of most airports is decades long – many over a half century. The last 50 years have been a time of major suburban growth. Airports that were built far from development now often find neighborhoods surrounding them and the public residing much closer than they once were. Airports are upgrading and adding facilities, adding or changing their service or basic mission, incorporating on-airport development, and expanding boundaries to meet aviation demand. All these efforts generate public interest and potentially have negative public reactions. Airports, no matter how small and seemingly stable, should develop a communica- tion strategy to engage the public that looks far into the future to assure that the airport will remain a part of that future. Best Metrics to Communicate the Characteristics of Noise Based on the interviews conducted with members of the public, airport noise officers and man- agers, and the experience of the authors, the public has great difficulty relating the aircraft noise that they can hear and identify to the way noise exposure is assessed and mapped at airports. Although the DNL metric integrates the noise generated by every single event, at its variable loud- ness, that affects a location, and adjusts the level of effect by the time of the day to provide, the metric is so complex that the public loses sight of its components. Based the findings of this study, the best practices for communicating noise event information to the public are: • The Day Night Sound Level (DNL) must be included among the metrics used by airports to communicate its noise exposure patterns to the public. Although it may not be well- understood, its regulatory basis makes it essential for publication and distribution of noise exposure patterns. In California, the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is an acceptable substitute. • The Sound Exposure Level (SEL) is an important tool to help convey the potential effect of aircraft noise on sleep disturbance and the disruption of learning. It also is used as the proper measure for determining exterior to interior attenuation levels for sound insulation programs. Although the SEL may be developed over any period of time, an evaluation of the SEL of single aircraft operations forms the basis of all compatibility computations of DNL. • The Number of Events Above (NA) a selected sound level threshold (in SEL or decibels) has been identified by many public correspondents as the most meaningful metric to understand the components of existing noise, and the comparison of differences between existing noise and alternative conditions. It responds directly to the events an individual hears and how loud those events are expected to be. • The Time Above (TA) a select sound level threshold of decibels appears to be best applied to assessment of ground noise, particularly when the majority of that noise occurs within a nar- row band of loudness. It also is a preferred metric for the investigation of the amount of time schools are exposed to noise levels in excess of the speech disturbance level which may inter- rupt the both the lecture and cognitive processes. Cumulative versus Single Event Noise Federal regulation requires that noise be reported in a cumulative daily average because the best correlates to annoyance. The public demands that noise be described as it is heard. Effectively using single event metrics to complement the required cumulative noise metric is critical to good communication about aircraft noise issues. Introduction and Guidebook Summary 7 Be open to the public. Give them what they want in terms of data, information. People do not want information controlled. Give it to them with no hesita- tion. If you do not give people the data they want then they get upset because it looks like you are hiding something. (SFO) Be honest, be truthful, give the public the facts and explain why. (VNY) It is taken for granted that staff must have or be able to acquire at least minimal technical skills to work at an airport on noise issues. A hard-learned lesson however, is that people-skills are at a similar level of impor- tance. (SDF) Staff should be very personable; able to go to the middle ground in dealing with the public; honest; diplo- matic; a good listener from the public’s per- spective (shouldn’t say that the public’s com- plaint or idea is ridicu- lous); able to deal with and provide informa- tion; very courteous, knowledgeable, fac- tual and accurate. (FLL) Think of the implica- tions of change long before change happens and be ready to address it (SDF)

Best Practices for Managing Noise Compatibility Issues In responding to public demand, airports consider a variety of techniques to seek higher levels of compatibility between the aircraft operations and the surrounding use of land. The measures that appear to be most effective in achieving the greatest level of compatibility are those that move large numbers of aircraft from areas of higher population density to areas of lower population density. Such measures may be achieved only with the cooperation of the users and the FAA’s Air Traffic Organization through the piloting and control of where aircraft fly. Other actions may be implemented directly by the airport without the participation of the FAA, but will require the cooperation of the users to succeed. The four best practices identified as abate- ment actions that accomplish this effect are: • Modify flight track locations to overfly corridors of compatibly used land, particularly at low altitude. In many cases this practice moves aircraft to greater distances from the noise source (the aircraft) to the receiver. Judicious design of the relocated flight track may contribute sub- stantially to the reduction of significant and moderate noise effects. • Establish voluntary runway use programs that maximize, weather and activity allowing, the use of compatible lands as the principal arrival and departure corridors to the airport. In many cases, aircraft are able to accept small tailwind or crosswind components during landing or takeoff that will allow use of more compatible flight corridors than would strict adherence to flight into the wind. • To abate aircraft noise on long standing communities located near the airport, the airports evaluated for this study frequently restricted run-up operations, particularly during the night- time hours. This action, although usually having little effect on DNL noise contours, responds to community complaints about ground noise impacts on sleep or other quality of life issues. • Numerous airports interviewed for this evaluation indicated that open and frequent commu- nication with their users was a critical component necessary to achieve the greatest benefits from their noise abatement programs. Several endorsed formal or informal pilot awareness programs and the belief that if pilots understand the issues of compatibility faced by the air- port and the things the pilot could do to manage the aircraft noise through flight techniques, then they would willingly participate. To implement such a “good neighbor” policy requires that the users understand the issues faced by the airport and the concerns expressed by the communities. These can be achieved through a variety of good communication techniques elaborated upon in the following chapters of this document and the associated Toolkit. A combination of techniques to manage aircraft noise and the use of land exposed to high levels of that noise is most effective, achieving a fair and balanced approach to noise compatibility. Of equal importance to the maintenance of a comprehensive program for compatible land use and the management of public expectations regarding aircraft noise are the actions that the air- port and the surrounding jurisdictions themselves may take to assure the improvement or continuation of compatible uses in the airport environs. Among the best practices identified as mitigation actions are: • Acquire property within significant noise level areas to 1) reduce the number of incompatible uses now present, or 2) to eliminate the risk of development in incompatible uses. • The sound insulation of noise sensitive property will mitigate the interior of the structure, but will not mitigate exterior activities. Such programs are typically limited to residences, churches, and schools within the highest noise levels at airports that cannot practicably acquire the areas of incompatible use. • Comprehensive community planning can be a significant contributor to the maintenance of compatible uses in the airport environs, so long as the planning process uses aircraft noise as 8 Aircraft Noise: A Toolkit for Managing Community Expectations A combination of techniques to manage aircraft noise and the use of land exposed to high levels of that noise is most effective, achieving a fair and balanced approach to noise compatibility.

a determinant of the acceptability of land for various uses. When the planning process is com- pleted without regard for aircraft noise patterns and issues, noise sensitive uses often develop in conflict with aircraft noise. • Noise overlay zoning is a tool that may be applied in the airport environs to assure the devel- opment of uses compatible with airport operations. It may restrict use to or allow develop- ment of commercial, industrial, and open space properties in high-noise areas and reserve areas of lower noise levels outside the patterns of significant loudness to uses that would be incompatible with aircraft operations. • The subdivision design and approval process is frequently the most useful tool available for the establishment of avigation (noise and/or overflight) easements, disclosure requirements and non-suit covenants that may be attached to the deed of property for each lot. These mea- sures are not panaceas in that they often do not change attitudes toward the airport, although they may reduce liability. • Collaboration between airport management and local land use planners in the review of pro- posed development may lead to the early detection of potential incompatibilities and their potential avoidance or mitigation by suggesting alternative designs or structural requirements to mitigate the noise exposure expected at the site. Reviews may be of individual requests for zoning change, requests for subdivision approval, or broader land use planning studies. Introduction and Guidebook Summary 9