0001
 1             THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY AIRPORT
 2                  ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
 3                        -  -  -  -  -
 4                 ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
 5                        -  -  -  -  -
 6        Proceedings before Board Members Bo Zhang, Melissa
 7   Krygier, Chris Mulholand, David Elder, Deral Carson,
 8   Johnny Schmidt, and Paul Hammersmith, at the Carriage
 9   Place Recreation Center, 4900 Sawmill Road,
10   Multipurpose Room, Columbus, Ohio, on Thursday,
11   October 14, 2004, at 3:03 p.m.
12                        -  -  -  -  -
13   
14   
15   
16   
17   
18   
19   
20   
21   
22   
23   
24   
0002
 1   PRESENT:
 2        David Zoll, City of Worthington
          Ernest Gubry, FAA
 3        Dennis Hughes, City of Worthington
          Lue Briggs, Worthington City Council
 4        Cheryl Chandler, Citizen
          Doug Hammon, OSU Airport
 5        Clint Morrow, Wyle Laboratories
          William W. Albee, Wyle Laboratories
 6        Jason Whitten, DLZ
          Wes Butch, DLZ
 7        Mary Jo Cusack, Mayor of Village of Riverlea
 8   
 9   
10   
11   
12   
13   
14   
15   
16   
17   
18   
19   
20   
21   
22   
23   
24   
0003
 1                          - - - - -
 2                    P R O C E E D I N G S
 3                          - - - - -
 4             MR. HAMMON:  Okay.  I think we'll try to get
 5   started now.  I would like to thank everybody for
 6   coming.  This is the meeting -- the advisory committee
 7   meeting for the Environmental Assessment for the
 8   airport.  And what I'd like to do is go over a
 9   little --
10             MS. CUSACK:  Mr. Chairman, before we start,
11   could we have everybody introduce themselves.
12             MR. HAMMON:  Well, yeah.  I was going to have
13   everybody do that.  We can do that first, if you want.
14             Around the Advisory Committee table?  Why
15   don't you start, Mary Jo.
16             MS. CUSACK:  Mary Jo Cusack, Mayor of the
17   Village of Riverlea.
18             MR. HUGHES:  Dennis Hughes, consultant for
19   the City of Worthington.
20             MR. ZOLL:  David Zoll, Attorney, City of
21   Worthington.
22             MS. BRIGGS:  Lue Briggs, President Pro Tem of
23   Worthington City Council, and I'm going to replace Lou
24   Goorey.  He's out of town and he's the president.
0004
 1             MR. GUBRY:  Ernest Gubry, with the FAA.
 2             MR. HAMMON:  Doug Hammon, with the airport.
 3             MR. WHITTEN:  Jason Whitten, DLZ.
 4             MR. BUTCH:  I'm Wes Butch, from DLZ.
 5             MR. MORROW:  I'm Clint Morrow, with Wyle
 6   Laboratories.
 7             MR. ALBEE:  Bill Albee, with Wyle
 8   Laboratories.
 9             MR. ZHANG:  I'm Bo Zhang, with OSU Physical
10   Consultants.
11             MS. KRYGIER:  I'm Melissa Krygier.  I'm with
12   the OSU College of Food, Agricultural, and
13   Environmental Sciences.
14             MR. MULHOLAND:  I'm Chris Mulholand.  I'm
15   with OSU College of Engineering.
16             MR. ELDER:  I'm Dave Elder.  I work for the
17   City of Worthington.
18             MR. CARSON:  I'm Deral Carson, from Midwest
19   Air Traffic Control, Ohio State University Air Traffic
20   Control Tower.
21             MR. SCHMIDT:  I'm Johnny Schmidt, member of
22   the Northwest Civic Association.
23             MR. HAMMON:  Thank you.
24             The purpose of this meeting today is similar
0005
 1   to the last advisory committee meetings we've had, all
 2   of them for this project, is to discuss the technical
 3   aspects of the environmental assessment.  And looking
 4   at the preliminary results from the Draft EA report
 5   that we do have and that we had the results posted for
 6   some time now for everybody to look at.  Hopefully, we
 7   can get some good comments back, some good feedback,
 8   and also, like I say, some good technical discussion.
 9             To see where we are in the process so far, we
10   did start this process back in January of '03 at the
11   time we held our first advisory committee meeting and a
12   public workshop at the time really to introduce the
13   whole environmental assessment process, the NEPA
14   requirements, things like that.  We've gone through in
15   '03 reforming some data analysis, continued into '04
16   when we really had hit the noise study in more detail.
17   If you remember back in January of '04, we had another
18   advisory committee and another public workshop where we
19   outlined the process that we were using to do the noise
20   analysis.  That's when we would Wyle Labs on board to
21   assist DLZ in their work.
22             Since that time, we have done the data -- the
23   noise data collection, have performed a data analysis
24   which came to the preliminary results that we're going
0006
 1   to discuss today, and where we stand today is in the
 2   highlighted box there that we have the internal draft
 3   report.  We do -- we will be discussing that today in
 4   this meeting.  We will be presenting those ideas to the
 5   public tonight, get them -- get their input, let them
 6   see where we stand in the process, and also to see
 7   where we go from here through the end of the process.
 8             What it will include after this is a formal
 9   public review period.  That's a 30-day period.  We're
10   shooting for -- we don't know.  It's all based on the
11   FAA's schedule of review.  Hopefully, in November, that
12   will start, take us into probably December when we can
13   have a formal public hearing.  Like I say, that time is
14   not set in stone because it's all based on the FAA's
15   review and when they tell us that that is released for
16   the public review period.
17             After that, once we get through the public
18   review period, get the comments in from the public,
19   then we will be working with the College of
20   Engineering, the university administration, and trying
21   to take that to the OSU Board of Trustees, and then
22   ultimately to the FAA.  So this is going to be a
23   process well after this committee and the public has
24   had the chance to give their input and to make comments
0007
 1   on everything we've done today.
 2             Some of the items -- you can go to the next
 3   slide.  Some of the items for this meeting -- if you
 4   can see here, we have six items, a pretty fairly
 5   extensive meeting that we're going to be going through,
 6   a lot of data we will be talking about.  So we kind of
 7   want to keep -- keep things moving, keep it
 8   streamlined.
 9             First, just to let everybody in this
10   committee know, we really want to focus on the -- the
11   ideas that we're discussing today, the data.  We know
12   there's comments out there.  We do want to get that
13   feedback and we do want to discuss these.  We will have
14   a time at the end for additional comments and feedback.
15   If there is anything we missed, please bring it up
16   because we do want to hit all the items that you guys
17   have.
18             Also, because this is an advisory committee
19   meeting, unlike the last one we had in June where we
20   did not have a public meeting to go along with it that
21   evening, we're restricting the comments this time to
22   the advisory committee.  We will be hearing public
23   comments and feedback this evening, so we kind of want
24   to keep the discussions of this meeting to the advisory
0008
 1   committee, get the comments, and then we can take --
 2   take that to the meeting tonight.
 3             With the meeting tonight, there will be
 4   presentations by the university, there will be stations
 5   for the public to look at, get some information before
 6   they hear the formal presentation, and then to give
 7   comments and feedback.  The presentation will also
 8   include some of the comments we hear today; however, we
 9   can work them in and let people know, here are some
10   items that were raised today that we will be looking at
11   one way or another.  So we will try to include some of
12   the discussion of this meeting as best as we can at
13   tonight's meeting.
14             So from there, I'd like to hand it off to
15   Wes.  But before I do that, if any of the advisory
16   committee members would like to attend the meeting
17   tonight, we know it's going to be one right after the
18   other.  We probably won't have a chance to go anywhere.
19   We will be bringing over box lunches.  So any of you
20   that do want something before -- between this and the
21   next meeting, let me know in the next few minutes.
22             If I can have a head count, hold your hand
23   up.  Okay.  Okay.  Thanks.
24             MR. BUTCH:  I just want to add a couple
0009
 1   things to what Doug said before we get into talking
 2   about the information on today's agenda.
 3             Like the previous advisory committee
 4   meetings, we would very much like to have interaction
 5   as we go through the presentation.  So if we are
 6   talking about a particular topic and you have questions
 7   or concerns, let's stop right there and talk about what
 8   those are and not hold all of those until the end.  So
 9   the topics that we're going to talk about today are
10   listed up here.  The first thing that we're going to
11   talk about is the purpose and the need for the project.
12   Then we're going to talk about the alternatives that
13   were looked at, in other words, what other options are
14   there out there besides lengthening the north runway.
15   We'll talk about the existing social, economic, and
16   environmental conditions that are present in the
17   project area.  We want to present -- and I think
18   this -- this bullet right here is really the focus of
19   most of what we're going to talk about today.
20             You know, our preliminary assessment of the
21   impacts that would be caused by the near term
22   improvements, the runway extension on the north, and
23   the hangars on the south side, and then wrap up with a
24   schedule update and any additional comments or feedback
0010
 1   that you have that we didn't talk about during the
 2   session.
 3             I want to give you some background for you to
 4   consider that's relevant to what we're going to talk
 5   about later on as we go through the presentation.  As
 6   you know, we're preparing environmental assessments.
 7   DLZ and Wyle, the consultant teams, prepared this for
 8   use by OSU and FAA.  We want to make sure that
 9   everybody understands what is the purpose of an EA.  In
10   other words, why is it done and what are we trying to
11   accomplish.  An environmental assessment is done --
12   this is a federally required documentation.  It's done
13   when the significance of the impacts that would be
14   caused by a project are uncertain, and the term
15   significance, you'll see, has quotes around it here
16   because there are specific definitions.  And we'll talk
17   more about that, about what -- what is the definition
18   of significance.
19             An environmental assessment evaluates the
20   likely impacts of the project.  It discloses this
21   information to the public and to other government
22   agencies.  It's a method to use to solicit public input
23   and agency comments, other government agencies.  It's
24   used by FAA then as a decision-making tool, and it
0011
 1   helps to have compliance with relevant laws and
 2   regulations like the Clean Water Act, the Clear Air
 3   Act, other laws and regulations that are out there.
 4   And ultimately, the EA, if it were to be moved forward,
 5   is approved by the federal agency, in this case, the
 6   FAA.
 7             A little bit more background that we want to
 8   talk about.  The law that requires an EA to be made is
 9   the National Environmental Policy Act.  The acronym is
10   NEPA for that.  There are specific requirements in that
11   law and the supporting regulations that intimate that
12   law.  And the FAA has two orders which help to give
13   guidance to implement that law, and that's these two
14   orders right here.  There's other environmental laws as
15   well that need to be addressed.  Like I mentioned, the
16   Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, National Historic
17   Preservation Act are some of those.
18             An EA -- based on the FAA orders, an EA
19   typically has about 20-plus different categories that
20   we look at, things such as wetlands, noise,
21   floodplains, if there's any relocations caused by a
22   project.  Those are examples of what you need to look
23   at.  And the process that's typically gone through for
24   each of those categories -- and we'll talk about this
0012
 1   for the categories here.  First of all, typically, we
 2   collect information and coordinate with the stake
 3   holders who may have information related to a specific
 4   topic.  So that's kind of initially collecting some
 5   data.  From that, we can assess what are the existing
 6   conditions that are out there in our project area right
 7   now, and then we can look at the impacts of the
 8   project.  And if there are negative impacts, we can
 9   look at what are some mitigation measures that could be
10   used to reduce the effect or seriousness of those --
11   those impacts.  So that's kind of some background to
12   help set the stage for what we're going to talk about
13   on the rest of these slides so you know where we're
14   coming from when we're presenting this information.
15             One of the questions that's come up at
16   previous meetings is what's the purpose for this
17   project, why the runway lengthening.  So this is the
18   information that we've worked up, that we're including
19   in the internal draft of the EA as to what is the
20   purpose for the project.  The first bullet that you see
21   up here is the main purpose for the runway extension,
22   and this is that FAA designates what's called the
23   critical aircraft, and that means the aircraft that
24   represents the largest group of aircraft operating at
0013
 1   OSU airport with 500 or more annual operations.
 2   That's -- takeoffs and landings are operations.  So at
 3   this particular airport, the Gulfstream V is the
 4   representative critical aircraft.
 5             So the purpose then of lengthening the runway
 6   is to accommodate that critical aircraft and the user
 7   needs by meeting FAA's recommended runway length for
 8   that particular aircraft.  The way that is looked at in
 9   order to figure out how long doe that run way need to
10   be, FAA has an advisory circular that's used for runway
11   length for airport design, and there's some software
12   that goes along with that.  And if you use the
13   calculation to accommodate 75 percent of these critical
14   aircraft at 90 percent of their useful fuel load, what
15   this tells you is that you need a runway length of
16   6,470 feet based on the FAA Advisory Circular.
17             Now, in that particular location, really only
18   a 6,000 foot runway can be fit into the north runway.
19   So that is the preferred option for the runway
20   lengthening that we're looking at is this 6,000 foot.
21   Now, what's really important regarding what I just
22   explained is that the runway extension does not change
23   the critical aircraft.  In other words, this length
24   runway going from a 5,000-foot primary runway, which is
0014
 1   there now on the south runway, to a 6,000-foot primary
 2   runway on the north does not change the critical
 3   aircraft or draw larger aircraft.  It doesn't kick you
 4   into another family of aircraft as your critical
 5   aircraft.  What it does is it better accommodates this
 6   particular critical aircraft, the Gulfstream V by
 7   allowing you to be at -- accommodating 75 percent of
 8   those craft with a 90 percent useful fuel load.  So the
 9   whole key is what was noted up here was to meet the
10   needs of the existing users in a better manner than
11   what is being done right now.  So the purpose is not to
12   accommodate or increase the number of planes coming in
13   or to accommodate larger planes.
14             MR. HUGHES:  I had a couple questions.  On
15   the Gulfstream V, you pick that as your -- I guess your
16   critical airplane and you say that it is approximately
17   2,900.  We have no way of knowing.  Also, the
18   Gulfstream V, being the critical airplane is larger
19   than your normal draw.  It's one of the larger
20   categories.  So that's kind of a double-edged sword.
21   They are the larger.  Also, those operations are now
22   being denied, the Gulfstream V.
23             MR. BUTCH:  Tell me again.  I didn't hear
24   you.
0015
 1             MR. HUGHES:  The Gulfstream V cannot land
 2   here at all now.
 3             MR. BUTCH:  What, Doug?
 4             MR. CARSON:  Actually, I can probably answer
 5   that.
 6             No.  They're not being denied, the difference
 7   being --
 8             MR. HUGHES:  I'm sorry.  It is a fact that
 9   the runway is not long enough.  It's not that you guys
10   aren't clearing the way.
11             MR. CARSON:  Right, the biggest factor being
12   a 5,000-foot runway versus 6,000-foot runway.  Yes,
13   it's only an extra 1,000 feet; however, when those
14   aircraft land, they have to use nearly -- well, let's
15   just say a really high-powered setting in order to get
16   the thrust reversers to effectively stop the aircraft.
17   If you have a 6,000-foot long runway, that nails two
18   things.  That aircraft will land with less power into
19   the thrust reversers because you have a longer rollout,
20   and that extra 1,0000 feet is tremendously different.
21   The second element is when the rolling conditions are
22   not dry, that increases rollout performance for any
23   aircraft.  That also complicates the matter to the
24   point where this aircraft may or may not decide to come
0016
 1   into the airport if the runway is wet or, say, snow
 2   covered.  A 6,000-foot long runway, that could still
 3   use less thrust reverser power to get the job done.
 4             MR. HUGHES:  Okay.  Stepping back a little
 5   bit, the advisory circular is just guidance, as you
 6   said.  It's not mandatory.
 7             MR. BUTCH:  I think that's true.  Ernie, is
 8   that your opinion, FAA's opinion?
 9             MR. GUBRY:  I would agree a little bit on
10   that.  Where are we headed on the discussion?  Maybe I
11   can.
12             MR. HUGHES:  Well, it's just -- no.  It's
13   just -- I just wanted to make that clear that -- set it
14   in everybody's mind that we've got to do this or
15   they're going to shut us down type --
16             MR. BUTCH:  We're not -- we not trying to --
17             MR. HUGHES:  Yeah, right.  I just wanted to
18   clarify that, that it's just guidance.
19             MR. ZOLL:  Let me pick up on that.
20             MR. HUGHES:  Also, along with the critical
21   aircraft information that the runway was wet, you would
22   actually need 7,000 feet.
23             MR. BUTCH:  7,000 feet is based on?
24             MR. HUGHES:  The 90 percent aircraft usage,
0017
 1   90 percent load.
 2             MR. BUTCH:  You're saying that.
 3             MR. HUGHES:  No.  That's what I believe was
 4   in your draft master plan.
 5             MR. BUTCH:  Oh, in the master plan.  I'm not
 6   intimately familiar with the master plan --
 7             MR. HUGHES:  Okay, okay.
 8             MR. BUTCH:  -- enough to know what we needed
 9   for this but not all the details.
10             MR. HUGHES:  Yeah.  So we get 6,400, we get
11   7,000, so we can keep chasing our tail, I guess, so to
12   speak, where maybe 10,000 feet's not enough and,
13   basically, the runway length is the critical portion
14   primarily on takeoff.  So if you cut those operations
15   in half, we'll say 1,500 as a ballpark figure, and
16   then -- and we're getting down to possibly, that means
17   four takeoffs a day, you're going to lengthen -- or
18   spend X number of dollars purportedly to date possibly
19   that are currently landing there?
20             MR. BUTCH:  I'm not understanding fully
21   what --
22             MR. ZOLL:  Let me --
23             MR. BUTCH:  Is it a question, or I mean.
24             MR. ZOLL:  It's a comment.  I think his
0018
 1   comment is that it doesn't seem to be a need.
 2             MR. BUTCH:  Oh, okay.  Okay.
 3             MR. ZOLL:  Okay?
 4             MR. BUTCH:  All right.
 5             MR. ZOLL:  And on that point, are there any
 6   Gulfstream V's currently based at the airport?
 7             MR. CARSON:  Based at the airport?
 8             MR. ZOLL:  Yes, sir.
 9             MR. CARSON:  I don't believe there is.
10             MR. ZOLL:  And so I guess I question, if
11   there aren't any bases there, why you're extending
12   runway to accommodate them if, in fact, your extension
13   will still not meet the FAA criteria.  I think that's
14   the point that Dennis was making that -- that the
15   proposed extension doesn't even meet the FAA
16   guidelines.  The guidelines, as I understand the way
17   it's presented, would require at least 6,470 feet and
18   your extension's going to be short of that.
19             MR. GUBRY:  Well, let me take a crack at this
20   one for a second here.  You know, we're getting this
21   document.  We're reviewing it.  I think the next draft
22   of the document that comes up that goes out to the
23   public will clarify a little bit on the runway length
24   needs the requirements versus what's desirable versus
0019
 1   what you can fit at the site.  The other thing to keep
 2   in mind is it's up to the pilot to decide whether he
 3   can safely make that landing or not, given the wind,
 4   the weather, the runway length, his weight of his
 5   aircraft.  So it isn't -- an advisory circular gives
 6   general guidance.  It's up to the pilot though who's
 7   flying that aircraft to make the final decision whether
 8   to take off or land at this airport or go elsewhere or
 9   do we offload some weight to make it a safe operation
10   to take off or land.
11             So in that respect, you know -- in our
12   initial review, we saw a couple of needs where we're
13   going to suggest -- make some suggestions on
14   clarification, purpose, and need.
15             MR. ZOLL:  The only other comment I had on
16   purpose and need was I think I saw the dean here of
17   engineering.  You know, when this was presented at Ohio
18   State University Board, before this committee saw it,
19   which is another issue that I have, but -- it was said
20   that this was -- the purpose and need was education,
21   and I don't see that in your document.  And it seems to
22   me that if -- if you're going to take the position that
23   this is the purpose and need, then the dean ought to go
24   back to the committee and say, I made a mistake, it's
0020
 1   really not -- doesn't have anything to do with
 2   education.
 3             The purpose and need here is -- are these
 4   other criteria, which Doug told me that the main
 5   purpose when we first got involved in this over a year
 6   ago was so that jets could fly nonstop to Europe.  And
 7   so if that's the issue, let's talk about the issue and
 8   let's not be confusing the public with comments about
 9   how a few extra Gulfstream V operations is going to
10   help educate students at Ohio State University, because
11   I think that's just -- not only upsets people, but it's
12   misleading.
13             MR. HAMMON:  No.  I think the dean has
14   made -- discussed the issue of how the airport fits
15   into the academic mission of the -- not only the
16   Department of Aviation, the College of Engineering,
17   he's made that case.  I mean, we back that -- that
18   program.  So that's -- that's where that fits in.  When
19   we look at the aircraft itself, we know that there are
20   no Gulf V's.  But as it says up there, the Gulf V is
21   the representative of the critical aircraft.
22             Within that group includes, based on industry
23   standards and FAA criteria, a Falcon 2000 that is based
24   at the airport, a Citation X that is based at the
0021
 1   airport, a Hawker 800 that's based at the airport.  So
 2   these -- these aircraft are based there.  They're not
 3   ones that come in on occasion.  They use it if they
 4   need to.  These are ones that are there and that are
 5   the ones operating regularly in and out of the airport.
 6   So the Gulf V is that -- representative of that group.
 7   So it's the way that the criteria is laid out as to how
 8   you identify all -- all those aircraft in that group.
 9             MR. BUTCH:  Okay.  Additional purposes for
10   the project.  To accommodate the existing demand for
11   hangar space.  There's approximately 100 users right
12   now on the waiting list that would like to have hangar
13   space at OSU, and so that -- as you know -- we've
14   talked about before 50 hangars on the south side
15   development area are proposed as part of this, and that
16   is based on existing demand that's already there.  The
17   third purpose for the project is to improve navigation
18   for the new primary runway.  In other words, an
19   instrument landing system is the main component there.
20   And then the fourth bullet that you see up here, the
21   fourth purpose, is to minimize the potential for
22   incursions onto the new primary runway from crosswind
23   runways and taxiways, in other words, make sure planes
24   aren't straying from crosswind runways onto the primary
0022
 1   runways.  And to that end, one of the things that's
 2   also proposed as part of this is to eliminate one of
 3   the crosswind runways.
 4             Okay.  The next question that comes up, the
 5   next part of information that is typically included in
 6   an environmental assessment is what are the
 7   alternatives that were looked at.  In other words, what
 8   other options were reviewed when the master plan was
 9   reviewed, when the master plan was prepared, or when
10   other studies have been done.  So what we've got here
11   is a list of these alternatives, and we want to take
12   you through and briefly describe what are they and then
13   give an explanation as to why they were eliminated from
14   further consideration.
15             So the first alternative that you see here is
16   the extension of runway 9 Right/27 Left, in other
17   words, the southern runway that's currently the
18   5,000-foot primary runway.  And that would include
19   extending that by 1,000 feet to get up to about 6,000
20   feet.  The reason that that was eliminated is by
21   extending the southern runway, looking at approximately
22   40 acres of purchase of new property and rough count of
23   132 homes -- so, definitely, that has a lot of negative
24   impacts to the surrounding community.
0023
 1             Alternative 2 listed here is the no-build
 2   alternative.  In other words, we considered the option
 3   of don't do any capital improvements at the airport.
 4   And why was that eliminated?  And that was because it
 5   doesn't meet the purpose of need for the project that
 6   we just described on the previous slide.
 7             MR. HUGHES:  On the capital improvement, that
 8   includes the T-hangars --
 9             MR. BUTCH:  Right.
10             MR. HUGHES:  -- and everything to the south
11   side.
12             MR. BUTCH:  Yeah, exactly.  The no-build is
13   no hangars, no extension, nothing.  It would just be
14   normal differences.
15             MR. HUGHES:  Yes.
16             MR. BUTCH:  Alternative 3 is the option of
17   build an airport at a new location, a brand new
18   airport.  And the reasons that that was eliminated was
19   that the existing airport is conveniently located to
20   serve the population centers in Franklin County is the
21   first reason --
22             MR. ZOLL:  Wes, before you leave this slide
23   real quick, on alternate 2 --
24             MR. BUTCH:  Yeah.
0024
 1             MR. ZOLL:  -- I think the point Dennis was
 2   making, and which I want to make sure you understand,
 3   is that there's three parts of this project basically.
 4   There's the ILS --
 5             MR. BUTCH:  Yeah.
 6             MR. ZOLL:  -- there's the T-hangars, and
 7   there's a runway extension.  I don't think it's fair to
 8   reject the no-build alternative -- well, maybe there
 9   ought to be another alternative that involves the
10   construction of the T-hangars and putting ILS on runway
11   9 Right/27 Left?
12             MR. BUTCH:  That's a good point, yeah.
13             MR. HAMMON:  The ILS is on 9 Right/27 Left.
14             MR. BUTCH:  The current --
15             MR. ZOLL:  Oh, you already have an ILS?
16             MR. HAMMON:  Yes.
17             MR. ZOLL:  But you just want another one?
18   I'm sorry.  I misunderstood.
19             MR. HUGHES:  It's the 9 Right only, isn't it?
20             MR. HAMMON:  Yeah.  It's a 9 Right, so they
21   shoot the ending B coming into 27 Left.
22             MR. HUGHES:  So you could put an ILS into 27
23   Left.
24             MR. ZOLL:  What I meant was 27 Left.  As
0025
 1   you're coming in from the east going west.
 2             MR. HAMMON:  There was -- that came, what,
 3   about 20 -- I don't remember -- 20 years ago probably
 4   where the community was -- helped involve -- helped set
 5   that, and the problem was there was a lot of train
 6   issues, the location, the dropoff to the east.  There
 7   were a lot of reasons they could not fit it in to the
 8   27 Left.
 9             MR. ZOLL:  Well, I think you ought to address
10   it if you're going to do a thorough EA.  If you're
11   going to do a thorough EA, you ought to lay that out.
12   It's been previously looked at and rejected.
13             MR. BUTCH:  Moving the ILS?  Is that what
14   you're saying?
15             MR. HAMMON:  Well, why it was never placed in
16   27 Left.
17             MR. ZOLL:  No, not moving it.  Using --
18             MR. HAMMON:  I think that's a good idea.  We
19   can --
20             MR. ZOLL:  Well, I don't -- I don't -- maybe
21   I'm not communicating.
22             MR. HUGHES:  What was the -- what was the
23   reason that --
24             MR. HAMMON:  If I understand correctly from
0026
 1   talking to the previous administration, community
 2   representatives that were on the committee that looked
 3   at the siting of that, it was a lot of the train issues
 4   around the airport, especially out to the east, the
 5   distance between the end of the runway and where Godown
 6   Road is versus the distance between the end of the
 7   runway and Sawmill.  You have a much longer distance.
 8   You have the necessary distance to put the approach
 9   lighting system in so it's not over in the
10   neighborhoods and it's not impacting with the
11   surrounding community.
12             MR. HUGHES:  So it was mainly the approach
13   lighting system that kind of shot it down.
14             MS. BRIGGS:  Could I ask when -- what
15   committee and when was that done.
16             MR. HAMMON:  That -- I'd have to look at --
17   look back at it and I can check with a few people.
18   That was many years ago.
19             MS. BRIGGS:  Many years ago?
20             MR. HAMMON:  Yeah.
21             MR. CARSON:  If I may add, that ILS only
22   serves runway 9 Right.
23             MR. HAMMON:  Exactly.
24             MR. CARSON:  It doesn't serve 27 Left.
0027
 1   What's the significance of that?  The significance is
 2   when the weather goes so low and the air gets really
 3   heavy and thick, then it forces the airport and the
 4   control tower to start running all operations off of
 5   runway 9.  That puts all the noise right over the
 6   Worthington area anywhere to the north and northeast,
 7   whereas if we had a 27 Right ILS, then we could
 8   actually change that whole scenario and it would really
 9   help out communities quite a bit in the flying
10   community.
11             MR. HUGHES:  What's the difference -- or
12   distance between the runways?
13             MR. CARSON:  I'm sorry now?
14             MR. HUGHES:  What's the distance between the
15   runways?
16             MR. CARSON:  I'm not exactly sure.  I want to
17   stay 2,500 feet.
18             MR. HUGHES:  So you could not run
19   simultaneous opposite direction craft.
20             MR. CARSON:  Yes, we can.
21             MR. HUGHES:  You can at 2,500?
22             MR. CARSON:  Yes.
23             MR. HUGHES:  On an instrument of.
24             MR. CARSON:  You mean what will --
0028
 1             MR. HUGHES:  ILS approach.
 2             MR. CARSON:  I don't see why would we ever do
 3   that.
 4             MR. HUGHES:  ILS approach.
 5             MR. CARSON:  That would be inefficient and
 6   unreasonable.
 7             MR. HUGHES:  And that's kind of what I'm
 8   trying to ask.
 9             When you have to use the ILS for runway 9
10   Right --
11             MR. CARSON:  Okay.
12             MR. HUGHES:  -- that's where the ducks are
13   walking.
14             MR. CARSON:  Exactly.
15             MR. HUGHES:  And that happens what, 10
16   percent of the year or 8 percent.
17             MR. CARSON:  It depends on the time of year.
18   Right now it's high.  I mean, we're having a good
19   weather period right now, but this time of year, very
20   high.  And regardless of the way the wind is blowing,
21   which aircraft have to land into the wind, it forces us
22   to use that system.  Now, if they get down low enough
23   where they break out and the winds are just too high,
24   which is a common scenario, this aircraft now has to
0029
 1   circle the airport out over the communities and the
 2   land.  And at that point, the jet's going to be
 3   configured very dirty --
 4             MR. HUGHES:  An ILS to 9 Right, you're having
 5   them circle the 27?
 6             MR. ZOLL:  So what you're saying is that --
 7   that you're doing 9 S to arrive, you're bringing them
 8   below minimums on 9 Right on the ILS, and then once
 9   they break out, you're letting them land on 27?
10             MR. CARSON:  There's a minimum set up
11   specifically for circling and approaches.  If the
12   weather meets those minimums, yes, we can circle that
13   aircraft to land.  And, in fact, we might have to do
14   that, we won't have a choice, because the wind
15   direction, whichever way that wind is borrowing, it's
16   unsafe to land that aircraft with a tailwind.  It has
17   to land into the wind; so, therefore, our hands are
18   tied.  We have to circle the airport right over the
19   community.  The guy's running a lot of power trying to
20   get back around.  They're making a lot of noise.  If we
21   had an ILS to runway 27 right, which is the only
22   alternative for 27's, then that aircraft could just --
23   it would be like a car coasting down a gentle hill, a
24   lot less noise, right into the runway --
0030
 1             MR. HUGHES:  Do you agree that you couldn't
 2   do an ILS on 27 Left?
 3             MR. CARSON:  Well, that's not my call.  The
 4   FAA has specific stringent standards that they lay out
 5   geographically and hats all fall into place.
 6             MR. HUGHES:  Right.
 7             MR. ZOLL:  How many times do you divert to
 8   Port Columbus?
 9             MR. CARSON:  I wouldn't know because those
10   numbers are hard to track.  That aircraft might come to
11   the airport and get 60 miles out, he's working with
12   Port Columbus approach control, and he might make that
13   decision then.  I wouldn't even know that aircraft was
14   coming.  I don't get that kind of notification, so --
15             MR. HUGHES:  You don't get any flight
16   progress --
17             MR. CARSON:  No.  We're not automated -- we
18   get information off of the --
19             MR. HUGHES:  You just get the --
20             MR. CARSON:  -- the scope that we have up
21   there, the radar scope.  However, that information that
22   I get is too soon too late.  All I know is the aircraft
23   that are actually -- have made a determination once
24   they've worked with approach control to land.
0031
 1             MR. HUGHES:  So you just put scratch pad
 2   data --
 3             MR. CARSON:  Exactly.
 4             MR. ZOLL:  What's the -- what radar feeder do
 5   you get for Columbus?  For what distance?
 6             MR. CARSON:  Well, we can reach out to 60
 7   miles; however, it's not -- what that scope up there is
 8   designed for us to use, we're looking 13 miles --
 9             MR. ZOLL:  Okay.
10             MR. CARSON:  -- basically is what we --
11             MR. HUGHES:  The ILS to 9 Right was
12   originally sited to 9 Right because of the weather --
13   the prominent weather conditions in use for that
14   runway.
15             MR. CARSON:  That's before us.  We've only
16   been here eight years, so --
17             MR. HAMMON:  I'm just going off of what I've
18   been hearing and talking to those that were involved in
19   putting that in.
20             MR. BUTCH:  So I think what we can take from
21   the discussion point you made is that you'd like to see
22   consideration of another alternative, which was first
23   hangars only.  That was the first one we said.  And
24   then secondly, is it feasible that there could be an
0032
 1   ILS on 27 Left.
 2             MR. ZOLL:  Yes, sir.
 3             MR. BUTCH:  So still talking about a new
 4   airport at a new location, very high construction cost
 5   and negative impact's very high in siting new airports.
 6   So that's why that option was eliminated.
 7             What we're calling Alternative 4 here
 8   involves expanding other existing airports.  The
 9   question is could you accommodate this demand someplace
10   else and where there's already an airport.  So some of
11   the options that are within a reasonable distance of
12   the airport are usually typically considered to be a
13   half-hour driving time.  Columbus Southwest, Union
14   County, and Madison County airports, all of these
15   airports don't have ILS.  The runway lengths of
16   facilities that are there cannot accommodate the
17   aircraft volumes or types that are used at OSU.  And
18   also -- so the cost for upgrading those to get them to
19   the same level of service is very high.  And that's why
20   those locations were not considered further.
21             Columbus Bolton Field, for the same reasons
22   as noted above relevant to Bolton, and then also that
23   this is a residential area not identified on -- on
24   plans for business growth and surrounded by residential
0033
 1   development where there's some potential for land use
 2   conflicts.
 3             MR. HUGHES:  Looking at the Bolton master
 4   plan, they've conducted their environmental study as
 5   well as the Part 150, published a master plan in 2002
 6   that kind of says, we took all these into consideration
 7   but we still can provide for corporate jet hangars, a
 8   corporate terminal, and we also have a demand for
 9   T-hangars, which we can construct on airport property.
10   So it's, I guess, a little contradictory to what's
11   here.
12             MR. HAMMON:  If I can answer that question,
13   because I did serve on the Bolton Field Advisory
14   Committee through the Regional Airport Authority.  And
15   at the time, one of the issues they looked at was
16   moving that airport toward a corporate nature facility,
17   and the comment from the City of Columbus at least was
18   that they do not see any corporate growth in that side
19   of Columbus so that they don't really anticipate the
20   demand down in that -- that area, which, yes, the
21   Airport Authority indicated that there is potential to
22   have -- have a hangar or some hangars on the field to
23   serve them.  But even they agreed at the time their
24   future was not to move that airport in the corporate
0034
 1   nature.  It was still going to be the smaller piston,
 2   single, multi-engine aircraft.
 3             MR. HUGHES:  Oh, that really is going to
 4   enhance it, yeah.
 5             MR. BUTCH:  It's a matter of degrees.
 6             MR. HUGHES:  It was still going to be a
 7   reliever airport for business jets, general aviation.
 8             MR. BUTCH:  Right.
 9             MR. HUGHES:  Yeah.
10             MR. BUTCH:  Delaware Municipal Airport to the
11   north.  Similar to the airports we've talked about, the
12   runway length and facilities can't accommodate the
13   volumes and the types of aircraft that are currently at
14   OSU.  The user demand is focused in the Columbus area
15   at OSU airport, and this is indicated by the waiting
16   list for hangars.  In other words, the waiting list --
17   the people aren't signing up and filling up everything
18   in Delaware and making a long waiting list in Delaware
19   because the demand isn't there.  The demand is here at
20   this location.  The cost for upgrading Delaware is very
21   high.  And also, there has been some local citizen
22   opposition.  When Delaware has talked about potentially
23   extending their runways, they've had some letters from
24   local citizens who are concerned about that there as
0035
 1   well.  So Delaware, for these reasons, was not
 2   considered.
 3             MR. ZOLL:  A question about Delaware.  What's
 4   the current runway length and do they have an ILS?
 5             MR. GUBRY:  5,000 feet, no ILS.
 6             MR. ZOLL:  Second question about Delaware.
 7   You say that it cannot accommodate volumes.  As I
 8   read -- and we'll get into this a little later, I
 9   hope -- you're projecting that after five years, only
10   an additional 400 planes, 400 operations from the
11   extension of the runway.  So I guess my -- my point is
12   that -- the only -- you're saying it can't accommodate
13   an additional 400 operations in five years?
14             MR. BUTCH:  No, that's not what we're saying.
15             MR. ZOLL:  Okay.
16             MR. BUTCH:  If you look at everything that's
17   here now and all the facilities needed to support
18   everything that goes on right now, including 450 more
19   from the extension, that they don't have what it takes
20   to accommodate.
21             MR. ZOLL:  I'm sorry.  You're right, Wes.
22   450.
23             And that's the reason why I think it's
24   important to have an additional alternative laid out
0036
 1   which does not include the extension where you could
 2   put your additional hangars in but still, for the
 3   runway extensions, look at Delaware.
 4             MR. HUGHES:  It's kind of spelled out in your
 5   draft master plan under demand and capacity where I
 6   think you can even increase the demand by 50 percent
 7   and still only take up a third of the capacity, I mean
 8   here at OSU.
 9             MR. HAMMON:  Which is why this project was
10   never based on the future increases in traffic.  It's
11   based on what we have there today, the aircraft using
12   the airport today.  You've just supported exactly what
13   we have been saying from the beginning of this project.
14   It's to better accommodate those people using the
15   airport today.
16             MR. BUTCH:  Port Columbus and Rickenbacker.
17   Again, user demand is focused at OSU, and the
18   individual companies are currently waiting at OSU on
19   their waiting list rather than going out and relocating
20   to either one of these two airports even though they
21   have facilities there that accommodate it.  So, you
22   know, again, it's not realistic to accommodate the
23   demand for hangar space by just saying, oh, they can go
24   to, you know, OSU -- or, excuse me, Port Columbus or
0037
 1   Rickenbacker.  They're not.
 2             MR. ZOLL:  I guess that's the one that seems
 3   to me the most unreasonable to reject.  They've got
 4   full existing instrument facilities.  It's easily
 5   within the 300 -- or 30-minute driving distance, and
 6   they certainly have the capacity.  There's no question
 7   about the capacity.  So it would seem to me that the
 8   only objective basis for that -- rejection of that is
 9   the waiting list.
10             We've asked for a copy of the waiting list in
11   our Freedom of Information Act request.  We've still
12   never seen it.  Again, I would renew my request that
13   all of our Freedom of Information Act requests be
14   provided promptly and specifically with regard to this
15   waiting list if this is the only thing that you're
16   hanging your hat on with regard to your position of
17   rejecting Port Columbus.
18             MS. BRIGGS:  I have a question.  As I
19   understand it, you have the demand here, because as you
20   said, and before Bolton, economically, they're going to
21   be developing the north, northwest, not in that area;
22   is that correct?
23             MR. BUTCH:  I'm going to defer to Doug on
24   that one.  He's much more knowledgeable than I am.
0038
 1             MR. HAMMON:  In talking with the surrounding
 2   communities, that's -- your community even itself has
 3   identified us as a server of your community.  We've
 4   talked to the other surrounding areas.  They look at
 5   us.  They don't identify Bolton as the general aviation
 6   facility.
 7             MS. BRIGGS:  Or Columbus.  I'm talking about
 8   Columbus.
 9             MR. HAMMON:  Columbus, Dublin, Worthington,
10   Hilliard.  I think they all fit into the same category.
11   That the growth of the whole area is northwest.  And
12   everybody has kind of identified our facility as the
13   general aviation facility that serves that surrounding
14   community.
15             MS. BRIGGS:  Because it's closer to them?
16             MR. HAMMON:  When the cities are using that
17   or when the corporations are looking at it, I have to
18   assume that, yes, that is because it's -- it allows
19   them better access to the sites that they're looking
20   at, that they're occupying.
21             MS. BRIGGS:  Is there a cost differential
22   between what it would cost them to do this in Columbus
23   Airport -- Port Columbus and OSU?
24             MR. HAMMON:  Between Port Columbus and OSU?
0039
 1   And I'd have to get the FAA's input on this too.  But I
 2   don't know if -- if they really like to start sending
 3   our traffic over and mixing it with the air carrier
 4   traffic.  We are identified as a reliever to Port
 5   Columbus.  A reliever system is set up to take the
 6   smaller general aviation traffic away from the air
 7   carriers.  Less conflicts, better safety.
 8             Also, I mean, if you look at Port Columbus,
 9   they made a conscious effort of six or more years ago
10   where they extended their north runway from the 6,000
11   to 8,000, turning it from a corporate facility into an
12   airline runway, into a commercial airline runway.  So
13   they're really looking at that airport as being the
14   airline facility for this region.
15             MS. BRIGGS:  But they're really not
16   interested in having corporate jets?
17             MR. HAMMON:  No.  That has not been their
18   future.  Even Rickenbacker, if you look at them over
19   the last few years, they built a passenger terminal,
20   they've been moving toward the passenger traffic, not
21   the general aviation, not the corporate aviation
22   traffic.  So you get the conflicts there, and that's
23   why we -- that's why OSU is set up as that reliever
24   airport.
0040
 1             MR. HUGHES:  Just to follow up on that, and
 2   that is -- the waiting list that you're talking about
 3   here, I assume it's for hangars.  You don't have a
 4   waiting list for people waiting to land when you get
 5   your runway 8,000 feet long; am I right?
 6             MR. HAMMON:  That is correct.
 7             MR. BUTCH:  I think that's correct.
 8             MR. HUGHES:  So the need that you're
 9   identifying here and that you're ruling out for Port
10   Columbus is limited to the issue of the hangars.  It
11   doesn't have anything to do with the runway extension.
12             MR. HAMMON:  No.  I think the second item --
13             MR. BUTCH:  The second bullet.
14             MR. HAMMON:  -- there as being a reliever
15   airport --
16             MR. BUTCH:  Yeah, we didn't get to that.
17   Exactly.  The runway lengths -- of course, the runway
18   lengths are available, you know, but I think what Doug
19   just explained in the scheme of things as to how
20   different user types are using the airports is that
21   OSU's classified as a reliever for general aviation and
22   corporate.
23             MR. HUGHES:  Yeah, there might be a
24   distinction there, general aviation reliever airport.
0041
 1             MS. BRIGGS:  You're talking about the user
 2   demand.  But isn't it a fact that you are soliciting
 3   the user demand by virtue of ads that I have seen
 4   everywhere, in magazines, theater programs, and
 5   everywhere else, welcome to Don Scott, your corporate
 6   jet center?  So, I mean, it seems to me it's not that
 7   the command is there.  It wouldn't be there if you
 8   weren't soliciting it.
 9             MR. BUTCH:  So you have a fundamental
10   opposition to the airport advertising for corporate
11   users?  Is that kind of.
12             MR. ZOLL:  No.  I think what she's saying,
13   she objects to you creating a demand when you've
14   admitted that your runways aren't fit for that demand.
15             MR. BUTCH:  Yeah.  Let's clarify.  We've
16   not --
17             MR. ZOLL:  You don't have -- you don't have
18   the hangar space and you don't have a long enough
19   runway.  So why are you spending dollars to advertise
20   when you don't have the capacity for it?  You're just
21   trying to generate demand so you can pour more
22   concrete?
23   
24             MR. HAMMON:  No.  We interact with the
0042
 1   business community all the time, and one of the areas
 2   we do that is to let them know that we are here at --
 3   at their disposal with their need in conjunction with
 4   some of the cities, letting them know that when
 5   corporations are here looking at sites, if you have a
 6   city identifying us as a tool for them, we're also out
 7   there.  We're backing up what the communities around us
 8   are doing.  So yes, we are here.  We are a corporate
 9   facility.  We've been a corporate facility since the
10   first corporate jet was based there in 1963, and it's
11   -- we support and have been backing what the -- what
12   the communities around us have been doing in terms of
13   identifying us as that type of facility.  It's not
14   creating a demand.  I think that demand's always there,
15   will continue to be there, because the growth is
16   happening around us.
17             MS. BRIGGS:  But I think that is my point.  I
18   think you'll agree you are soliciting the business, and
19   it looks up there as though you're just sitting there
20   and the users are coming and making this demand when,
21   in fact, you're actively going out and encouraging that
22   demand.
23             MR. BUTCH:  The part that we're presenting
24   right now for the EA isn't really getting at the
0043
 1   question that you're -- you're getting at, is why the
 2   demand there from this perspective.  The fact is there
 3   is demand there, and that -- that is the -- what we're
 4   looking at.  We're not --
 5             MS. BRIGGS:  But I --
 6             MR. BUTCH:  We're not --
 7             MS. BRIGGS:  But I think that is the question
 8   because you're the command is here, not anywhere else.
 9   And the other places are not advertising.  I think that
10   needs to be addressed.
11             MR. HUGHES:  That was just stepping back to
12   my previous comment/question, whatever you want, was
13   the demand drives the capacity.  There is -- even if
14   you increased your demand 50 percent, you would still
15   not pick up a third of that vacant capacity that you
16   currently have in the no-build alternative.
17             MR. HAMMON:  Which is why it's not a capacity
18   project.
19             MR. BUTCH:  Exactly.  I mean, we --
20             MR. HUGHES:  Yeah.  Well, I'm just saying --
21   okay.  But what -- what I'm really -- step back on the
22   demand.  Okay.  We'll increase the demand.  You might
23   have 100 and some odd names.  Let's go to 300 names on
24   the waiting list.  You still don't have the demand to
0044
 1   take up the vacant capacity as it sits.
 2             MR. ZOLL:  The point is that you can put as
 3   many hangars as you want up and it doesn't justify
 4   another 1,000-foot runway.
 5             MR. GUBRY:  That's right.
 6             Getting -- let's look farther, just step down
 7   the road.  If the environmental is successful and the
 8   OSU is looking to fund the project, most likely, they
 9   will be coming to the FAA for money for the project.
10   Our criteria, our basic criteria, of eligibility is you
11   need 500 operations by a group of critical aircraft
12   that need the longer runway.  So that's the first
13   hurtle we have.  Then the second hurtle is we've got
14   lots of projects, who do we fund.  In this case, we
15   would turn to the State of Ohio, Department of
16   Aviation, to make the recommendations as to which
17   projects get funded.  Comes out of our FAA funding pot
18   under state apportionment, most likely.  And that's
19   when the funding decision would be made.
20             Now, in terms of the aircraft, in a free
21   market economy, these aircraft can go to whichever
22   airport in the area they want to and the FAA isn't
23   going to dictate that the aircraft go to airport A or
24   airport B.  That's going to be up to the free market
0045
 1   economy.  It would seem right now that Port Columbus
 2   isn't actively marketing to the type of aircraft that
 3   use OSU.  Now, this is all a local government decision
 4   between Port Columbus and what type of aircraft they
 5   are actively marketing for and OSU and what type of
 6   aircraft they need to -- or they're desiring to use
 7   their airport.
 8             Now, once you have an airport, you know, the
 9   FAA steps in if we believe there's discrimination
10   against certain types and groups and users at an
11   airport.  So an airport couldn't ban corporate aviation
12   without running into some questions by the FAA on the
13   discrimination issue, just like you couldn't ban pilot
14   training or other things at your airport just because
15   you didn't want those sort of aircraft there.
16             MR. ZOLL:  Ernie, on that point, is it fair
17   to say or to summarize what you're saying that if the
18   community makes a decision that they want corporate
19   aviation to go to Ohio State University's airport
20   that -- that that's going to be the community's
21   decision?
22             MR. GUBRY:  It's going to be the airport
23   sponsors.
24             MR. ZOLL:  The airport sponsor's decision.
0046
 1             By the same token, if the community planners
 2   decided that the noise from jet operations, commercial
 3   jet operations, would better be placed in the Port
 4   Columbus profiles where FAA money's being used, as we
 5   speak, to mitigate noise impacts, that the FAA would
 6   honor that decision.
 7             MR. GUBRY:  As long as there's no
 8   discrimination against corporate users.  I mean, OSU
 9   cannot -- I mean, they can try, but I do not believe
10   they can legally like shut the airport down at 11:00 at
11   night and ban all aircraft at night.  When they signed
12   their grant, they said they would be open to all types
13   of aircraft operations.  By the same token, right now
14   OSU isn't licensed to accept commercial airplanes like
15   from Delta and whatnot.  If they wanted commercial
16   airline service in here, they would have to make
17   changes and get a certification from FAA to accommodate
18   that type of operation.
19             MR. ZOLL:  I guess my only point was that I
20   know that we don't have some MORPC people here today
21   because they have a conflict with their meeting.  It
22   would seem to me that the MORPC people ought to be
23   looking at this issue and deciding from a community
24   planning standpoint where to focus the noise impacts
0047
 1   from these jet operations, and if there is additional
 2   capacity available for these operations and the
 3   community planners determine to put that in a different
 4   location, then that's something that OSU ought to honor
 5   as a member of the community and as part of the
 6   planning process as to what makes the most sense for
 7   the community, because there are already noise zones
 8   that have been bought with U.S. taxpayer dollars to set
 9   aside departure areas so these noisy jets can take off
10   and not disturb people, and it seems to me it makes the
11   most economic sense to put these class of airplanes
12   that require these longer runways in areas that have
13   already been set aside for those purposes.
14             MR. BUTCH:  So I think what we'll do here is
15   -- you know, it's a lot of good input.  We'll take that
16   into consideration, as we know the EA right now is a
17   preliminary internal draft.  We'll be getting comments
18   from FAA, and the points that you made will be taken as
19   we make revisions.
20             MS. BRIGGS:  Maybe you answered it and maybe
21   we don't have an answer.  But my -- my question was, is
22   there a difference in cost for people -- for the
23   corporate jets to land at OSU versus Port Columbus?
24             MR. BUTCH:  Are you saying does it cost more
0048
 1   to go in at Port Columbus?
 2             MR. GUBRY:  Each airport sets their own rates
 3   and charges.
 4             MR. ZOLL:  So it probably is, but we don't
 5   even know what it is?
 6             MS. BRIGGS:  We don't know.
 7             MR. BUTCH:  I think that's fair.
 8             Okay.  The next part of the presentation that
 9   we are going to go through talks about what are the
10   existing conditions that are present in the project
11   area and what are the preliminary findings regarding
12   impacts of the project.
13             Before we talk about that, we want to go over
14   different types of impacts because you may hear some of
15   these terms discussed as we go on from here.
16             MR. HUGHES:  Butch, just briefly, can you
17   define the project area?  I couldn't see it in any of
18   those documents.
19             MR. BUTCH:  You know, I think we talked about
20   this in an earlier meeting.  Where is an exact project
21   area would vary depending on what issue you're talking
22   about.  If you're talking about filling wetlands, it's
23   only where you put a footprint of filling wetlands.
24   Where you put a noise contour, you know, you may be
0049
 1   looking at a bigger area.  So --
 2             MR. HUGHES:  I did not see one project area
 3   anywhere, I guess.
 4             MR. BUTCH:  No.  You're correct.
 5             So you're saying it would be beneficial to
 6   see kind of a box around on a map that shows, you know.
 7             MR. HUGHES:  Yeah, because I know -- I'm
 8   probably not pronouncing it right -- Xaviera?
 9             MR. BUTCH:  Yeah, that's right.
10             MR. HUGHES:  Yeah.  She mentioned that
11   Mr. Wyle said he was taking in a five-nautical mile
12   radius of the airport.  So it's just something, you
13   know, generic like that that we could say when you're
14   talking about whatever the subject, you know, wetlands,
15   air quality, that this is where we look.
16             MR. BUTCH:  Okay.  Let's get -- we'll add a
17   description of that in the EA so it's clear as to what
18   that is.
19             The type of impacts that you can have from a
20   project.  Direct impacts is the first category.  That's
21   pretty straightforward.  That is, you know, if you've
22   got a wetland and you're directly filling it in from a
23   project, that would be a direct impact, something that
24   is a direct consequence of the project.
0050
 1             An indirect impact is usually occurring at a
 2   later time or located farther away from a project area.
 3   For instance, one example of indirect impacts that
 4   happens on some projects is if during construction
 5   there's -- there's land that's dug up and rain comes
 6   and washes some sediment into a ditch or stream and
 7   washes some sediment downstream off of a project area,
 8   that is one example of what you can have of an indirect
 9   impact.  It happens at a later time away from the
10   project area.  Construction impact, that's temporary.
11   Cumulative impact.  That is the combination of the
12   impacts from the project and other past and present and
13   reasonably foreseeable future impacts.
14             So those are all the different types of
15   impacts that you consider in going through and looking
16   at a project like this.
17             MR. HUGHES:  Maybe you'll cover it later on,
18   but on the construction impacts, I didn't notice too
19   much verbiage in regards to that in the environmental
20   assessment.  Any containments?  What are we going to
21   do?
22             MR. BUTCH:  You mean in terms of the
23   mitigation during construction?
24             MR. HUGHES:  No.  I mean, just your concerns
0051
 1   about construction impacts.  I didn't notice a whole
 2   lot in the EA about that.  In other words, if you think
 3   this is going to happen, and if it does, we're prepared
 4   to do this type thing.
 5             MR. BUTCH:  Okay.  Then the last thing here
 6   that we want to talk about here is the significance of
 7   impacts.  As I mentioned earlier, the reason you do an
 8   EA is to talk about or to investigate and then describe
 9   and disclose are there significant impacts.
10             Now, the definition is based on the NEPA
11   regulations, the Council on Environmental Quality
12   regulations, and FAA's regulations and guidelines.  So
13   there is information that's available that says what is
14   a significant impact as -- as defined in these
15   regulations.  There's also court decisions that have
16   developed kind of a history about what -- what is
17   considered significant.  The definitions that you see
18   for what is significant look at the context of the
19   impact and the intensity of the impact.  And if you
20   have significant impacts, when you're doing an EA and
21   you find out that you have significant impacts that
22   cross one of these thresholds, then that requires --
23   under the NEPA law -- requires you to do an
24   environmental impact statement, what's referred to here
0052
 1   as an EIS.
 2             So this is the background.  And when we're
 3   looking at an EA and going through this assessment,
 4   that is the question that we're trying to answer, the
 5   impacts that are likely to occur, would they rise to
 6   the level of crossing this significance threshold.
 7             MR. HUGHES:  It just looks like you're
 8   possibly using the definitions out of the 40 CFR,
 9   significant impact.
10             MR. BUTCH:  For, you mean, the context and
11   intensity?
12             MR. HUGHES:  Right.
13             MR. BUTCH:  Yeah.  The CEQ regulations --
14             MR. HUGHES:  Right.
15             MR. BUTCH:  -- and then also further, the FAA
16   goes further in their guidance and gives specific --
17             MR. HUGHES:  But, I mean, just as far as
18   basic definitions.
19             MR. BUTCH:  Yeah.  That's the basic
20   definition.
21             Okay.  So what we're going to do is go
22   through each of the issues we looked at and give you
23   information about what we considered and what our
24   preliminary assessment of these impacts would be.  I'm
0053
 1   going to give you an overview of some of the
 2   information related to noise, and then once we get into
 3   the details of the noise, Bill Albee from Wyle's going
 4   to take us through that.  I'm going to give a little
 5   bit of overview information here first.
 6             Okay.  For noise modeling -- and we've talked
 7   about some of this at previous advisory committee
 8   meetings -- the noise modeling looked at the existing
 9   conditions in five future scenarios, and we'll talk
10   about each those scenarios when we get into the
11   details.
12             Now, what happened for the noise modeling
13   briefly in reviewing was there was data collection,
14   there was development of input data and the methodology
15   for the noise modeling, which was talked about at the
16   advisory committee meeting in June of 2004.  The input
17   data that was included in the INM files -- the INM is
18   the integrated noise model.  That's FAA's approved
19   noise modeling software.  Those files were provided to
20   Worthington's Council and consultants earlier in the
21   summer.  Noise modeling was done using the INM model
22   and impact -- after the noise modeling was done, we
23   looked at what are the impacts that are shown from that
24   modeling, and then finally report preparation, which is
0054
 1   under way right now.  So that was just an overview of
 2   the process that we talked about previously for noise.
 3             Now, the focus of today's presentation was
 4   intended to be primarily on the impacts of the project,
 5   preliminary assessment of that.  But there has been a
 6   lot of questions raised recently regarding what are
 7   some of the inputs that were used in the modeling, so
 8   we wanted to revisit a few of the key issues talking
 9   about some of the inputs to the INM model and just some
10   general information about the input requirements for
11   the noise model.
12             The data that's required to run the INM model
13   includes annual average day aircraft operations and the
14   day-night split, in other words, how many planes are
15   coming during the day, how many at night; the fleet
16   mix, in other words, what kind of jets, multi-engine,
17   from single engine to prop propeller planes, prop
18   planes, are being used at the airport under various
19   areas; which runways do they use with both the existing
20   situation and the runway extension; and then what are
21   the flight tracks that the planes use and the profiles
22   as they come into the airport and leave the airport.
23             We used a variety of data sources, and we've
24   talked about these previously but we wanted to refresh
0055
 1   everybody's memory about the data sources that we use.
 2   You know, the focus on the data was, you know, that it
 3   was verifiable and meeting industry standards.  Some of
 4   the sources that were used, included the FAA tower
 5   records, radar data from air traffic control at Port
 6   Columbus, other data from the OSU Airport, and
 7   interviews with airport personnel and tower personnel.
 8             The forecast divisions, the future, also
 9   included information from the master plan update and
10   also input from airport personnel in looking at some
11   national trends.  These are the general categories of
12   data that went into -- went into this.
13             MR. ZOLL:  Okay.  Is now the time to comment
14   on concerns about the forecast and about the flaws in
15   the data, or do you want to wait?
16             MR. BUTCH:  We actually have some slides to
17   talk about those exact issues.
18             MR. ZOLL:  Okay.
19             MR. BUTCH:  We knew from the Worthington City
20   Council presentation that some of those questions were
21   raised and wanted to give some explanation and then
22   hear, you know --
23             MR. ZOLL:  Sure.
24             MR. BUTCH:  So I think each one of the things
0056
 1   you're going to bring up, I think, is -- is addressed
 2   coming up.
 3             MR. ZOLL:  Okay.
 4             MR. BUTCH:  So the -- the first thing I think
 5   that's worth us revisiting and talking about would be
 6   the annual operations, in other words, the forecast
 7   that we use in order to look at some of the future
 8   scenarios at the airport.
 9             Now, this is information, again, that has
10   been looked at, talked about previously and given to
11   the advisory committee earlier in the summer.  What
12   we're defining here as the baseline, that right now, we
13   used -- in order to get the baseline scenario, we
14   looked at information from the OSU Airport air traffic
15   control and Port Columbus air traffic control.  The
16   2008 forecast, a lot of the additional information came
17   from the master plan update, and then the day-night
18   split, in other words, how many planes come during the
19   day and the night, came from the radar data sample,
20   from Port Columbus that showed the OSU Airport.
21             This is the summary table that shows the
22   results of what we did when we forecasted the future
23   operations.  The baseline for calendar year '03 --
24   that's 2003 -- shows the breakout by engine type here
0057
 1   and then a total number of operations.  Scenario one --
 2   that's the no-build, in other words, no runway
 3   extension, no hangars -- shows the numbers.  Scenario
 4   two is only the south side hangar development with 50
 5   additional hangars.  Scenario three was only the runway
 6   extension.  You've got the numbers there.  Scenario
 7   four includes both the hangar additions and the runway
 8   extension, the hangars on the south side.  That's the
 9   numbers you see here for scenario four.  Then scenario
10   five is the ultimate build-out.  This is the -- kind of
11   the scenario of what if everything in the master plan
12   was eventually built, including the north side hangars,
13   the north side air park.  And bringing that out to
14   calendar year 2023, we get these totals.
15             Now, where we want to go on the next slide is
16   to talk about some of the specific questions, I think,
17   that were raised at the --
18             MR. HUGHES:  I just had a quick question.
19             MR. BUTCH:  Yeah.
20             MR. HUGHES:  On the forecast in general --
21             MR. BUTCH:  Yeah.
22             MR. HUGHES:  -- I guess this is Mr. Gubry's
23   answer -- did the ADO approve that signoff on the
24   forecast prior to the running of the model?
0058
 1             MR. GUBRY:  We reviewed it prior to the
 2   running of the model.  Our, I would say, review and
 3   approval of this thing will come at the end of the
 4   whole process.
 5             MR. HUGHES:  So it was not approved prior to
 6   the running of the model?
 7             MR. GUBRY:  We reviewed it and we concurred
 8   in them using it.  Now, I would not say, you know --
 9   formal approval of the environmental comes up, yeah.
10             MR. HUGHES:  No, not the environmental.  I'm
11   just talking about the forecast that was -- the inputs
12   that were used were not necessarily approved prior to
13   the running of the model.
14             MR. ZOLL:  And I think the reason he's asking
15   the question, Ernie, is because we've looked at their
16   forecast, and we don't think it complies with the FAA
17   guidelines for forecast models for environmental
18   assessments.  We've spent a lot of time looking at the
19   FAA rules for -- for forecast, and basically -- we'll
20   find out in a minute, I guess --
21             MR. GUBRY:  Certainly.
22             MR. ZOLL:  -- but basically what it looked
23   like they did was instead of following the FAA
24   guidelines, you simply adopted the FAA CAGR.
0059
 1             MR. GUBRY:  What's the CAGR?
 2             MR. ZOLL:  Cumulative --
 3             MR. BUTCH:  Compound annual growth rate.
 4             MR. ZOLL:  Annual growth rate.  CA -- annual
 5   growth rate.
 6             MR. GUBRY:  I'll wait.  I expect we'll get
 7   lots of questions on this --
 8             MR. ZOLL:  Okay.
 9             MR. GUBRY:  -- before we're done, so --
10             MR. ZOLL:  Yeah.  I just wanted -- that's the
11   direction we're headed.  We're concerned that they --
12   the forecast --
13             MR. BUTCH:  So the important component of the
14   forecast is how many aircraft are actually based at the
15   airport.  That's one part of it.  The 2003 baseline
16   last year for which full data was available, 230 based
17   aircraft at the airport.
18             MR. HUGHES:  That includes helicopters,
19   whatever?
20             MR. BUTCH:  Doug?
21             MR. HAMMON:  Yes.
22             MR. HUGHES:  Okay.
23             MR. ZOLL:  Again, we've asked for this input
24   data.  You've given us the raw input, but you haven't
0060
 1   given us the numbers that it was based at.  We've
 2   submitted months ago FA -- Freedom of Information Act
 3   requests asking for -- for this data, and we still want
 4   that so we can verify it.
 5             MR. HAMMERSMITH:  Do they have a list of the
 6   advisory committee members?  I didn't bring mine with
 7   me.
 8             MR. HAMMON:  I don't have it with me, but I
 9   can send you one.
10             MR. ZOLL:  We all introduced ourselves when
11   we got here.
12             MR. HAMMERSMITH:  Okay.  I'm just starting to
13   get a little confused.  It seems more to be an advisory
14   committee meeting than an informal opposition meeting.
15   And so that's why I was concerned.
16             MR. ZOLL:  Well, why don't you introduce
17   yourself since we --
18             MR. HAMMERSMITH:  My name's Paul Hammersmith,
19   Director of Engineering for City of Dublin.
20             MR. ZOLL:  We're taking a hard look at the
21   data as the FAA is required to do, a hard look.
22             MR. HAMMERSMITH:  Well, I'm concerned that
23   we've got -- we've been here for an hour and we've
24   gotten through two pages.  I'm not sure we're going to
0061
 1   get to it before tonight's meeting, and I think you
 2   have a lot of questions.  I'd appreciate the questions,
 3   but maybe the more appropriate thing is to document all
 4   those and provide them.  I'm not sure if the whole
 5   committee has a lot of interest in all defined details
 6   of your questions.  I think we'd be glad to read
 7   through them.
 8             MR. ZOLL:  We're really glad to be here
 9   because we've got -- for the first time, we've got the
10   FAA here, we've got the tower people here, and it's
11   really a very valuable meeting for us.  So I apologize
12   for going into a lot of detail.
13             MR. HAMMERSMITH:  It's a valuable meeting for
14   the rest of the advisory committee too.
15             MR. ZOLL:  Well, you're just here to
16   rubber-stamp it.  We're here to try to get some
17   answers.
18             MR. HAMMERSMITH:  Not necessarily.
19             MR. HUGHES:  It could be to get advice too.
20   There's a lot of, I guess, gaps in the information, and
21   we're just trying to clarify what methodology is being
22   used.
23             MR. HAMMERSMITH:  I think whatever we can do
24   to expedite this -- this meeting.  The rest of the
0062
 1   committee jump in, but you know, I'm getting a little
 2   concerned we're going to get bogged down on details
 3   here.
 4             MR. ZOLL:  We asked -- we thought this
 5   meeting was going to happen months ago.  We've asked
 6   for it repeatedly to take place, and it's not our fault
 7   that they waited till the last hour and -- and only
 8   allocated two hours for it at the last minute.
 9             MS. BRIGGS:  Well, I guess I would just say
10   I'm not a member -- I'm here representing the president
11   of Worthington City Council.  I'm president pro tem of
12   counsel.  So he is unable to be here.  But we think
13   it's very important that this advisory committee know
14   about the information that these two consultants of
15   ours have received, and it's important that all of the
16   advisory committee know about it.
17             MS. CUSACK:  And if I might also respond, the
18   Village of Riverlea has spent 20 years battling the
19   noise going over Riverlea, and we are very interested
20   in this.  We don't want it rushed through to the
21   detriment of the people that live there.
22             MR. HAMMERSMITH:  Don't forget who's on the
23   other end of the flight path either.
24             MS. CUSACK:  Well, I would think you would be
0063
 1   interested too.
 2             MR. BUTCH:  With that, here we go.
 3             Future number of based aircraft.  We assume
 4   that the 50 new based aircraft by 2008 with the
 5   runways.  And then from 2008 to 2023, the number of
 6   based aircraft were increased by 1.3 percent compound
 7   annual growth rate, and this is consistent with the
 8   future forecast employment and national general
 9   aviation trend forecast from FAA that go up by that
10   same percentage.  That's only right here -- to clarify,
11   only for increase in number of based aircraft.  This
12   doesn't yet get at the number of operations.  So that
13   was kind of our starting point.
14             Okay.  So the operations forecast for the
15   2008 no-build scenario, in other words, no improvements
16   done, the question was how much is background growth
17   going to be during that time period.  Now, if you look
18   at the FAA's projections and general aviation activity
19   at towered airports -- that's the FAA's official
20   projection for towered -- they show that growing by 2.3
21   percent compound annual increase every year, compound.
22   So that is the percentage for the background growth
23   that was used which was applied for the no-build
24   scenario.  This is supported by the national data.
0064
 1   That's how FAA gets that forecast.  And OSU is a
 2   typical towered airport.  It's not the biggest.  It's
 3   not the smallest.  And so this growth rate is
 4   appropriate for this type of an airport.  At the
 5   present time.
 6             Now, if you -- the question -- if you take a
 7   step back and you ask, well, where does that put you --
 8   where are we in terms of other locations in terms of
 9   other recent history?  If you look at OSU operations
10   over the last say six years -- five, six years, they've
11   dropped from approximately 128,000 in '98 to -- the
12   most recent year data was available -- down to 101,000,
13   almost 102,000.  If you break that out, that gives you
14   approximately 6 percent annual decrease going on during
15   that time period.  So the last five, six years, OSU
16   operations have gone down by about 6 percent per year.
17             Now, look after that same time period, the
18   same five-year period.  FAA-towered airports across the
19   U.S. saw only a drop of approximately 1.3 percent
20   compound decrease.  So that's in a time period.  So OSU
21   dropped a lot more than the FAA forecast during that
22   time period.  OSU's operations have decreased
23   substantially more than the FAA average during the last
24   five years.
0065
 1             Now, if you look at what we used here, the
 2   2.3 percent FAA forecast, tower forecast, that for the
 3   future growth from now out into the future, we believe
 4   that this is actually on the high side, even though OSU
 5   during the last five years was below the FAA average.
 6   So we're actually, from our perspective, going up to
 7   use the FAA's increased growth and future when, over
 8   the last five years, we were actually quite a bit below
 9   that.
10             If you look at this chart, this shows the
11   data that we just talked about.  If you look at right
12   here -- this is the change right here, the growth rate
13   change from the previous year, in other words, how much
14   did it change from '98 to '99, '99 to 2000,
15   et cetera -- the blue line that's shown over here in
16   the legend, that's what happened with the change in
17   OSU's ops from year to year, right there.  And then
18   it's the same -- right here is 2.3 percent.
19             Now, this -- what happened with the FAA
20   towered forecast operations over the last five years is
21   right here.  Now, up and to the current time period --
22   this is where I was comparing OSU being below FAA.
23   Except for this one year, OSU was definitely dropping
24   at a faster rate than the FAA forecast over the last
0066
 1   five years.  And the average -- even with this higher
 2   point, the average for OSU was down 6 percent.  The
 3   average for FAA towered airports was only down 1.3
 4   percent.
 5             MR. ZOLL:  That's not true, Wes.  There's
 6   only -- there's only one year -- or two years in there
 7   where you drop faster.  If you look at the second --
 8   the first year, it's true.  You dropped faster.  But
 9   look at the second year.  FAA went down.  You went up.
10   The next year, you went up faster than they did.  Okay.
11   The next year -- okay.  The second year, then you went
12   down faster than the FAA.  But the other -- the fifth
13   year, you went up faster.  So of the last five years,
14   you've -- your increase in operation has been greater
15   than that of the FAA forecast.
16             MR. BUTCH:  No, that's not true.
17             MR. ZOLL:  Okay.  The percentage.
18             MR. BUTCH:  The percentage.
19             But again, what we're trying to show here is
20   if you look on average, the OSU dropped from '99 -- '98
21   to '99 out to this last year here the fifth data point.
22   They dropped on average six -- six percentage points.
23   FAA, in that time, only dropped an average of 1.3 on
24   average.  If you average out these data points, FAA
0067
 1   average decrease, looking at one year --
 2             MR. ZOLL:  I don't disagree with you if you
 3   average them all out.
 4             MR. BUTCH:  Yeah.
 5             MR. ZOLL:  All I -- my point is that -- that
 6   this is -- this is one of our big concerns here --
 7             MR. BUTCH:  Yeah.
 8             MR. ZOLL:  -- because if -- if you change the
 9   CAGR from what you assume to only as high as 3.8
10   percent per year, it puts you over a 1 and a half dB
11   increase in a threshold.  And so --
12             MR. BUTCH:  Within a 65 decibel area?
13             MR. ZOLL:  Yes, sir.
14             MR. BUTCH:  Oh, okay.
15             MR. ZOLL:  Yes, sir.
16             MR. BUTCH:  So you've run the model.
17             MR. ZOLL:  Yes, we have.
18             MR. BUTCH:  Okay.  We'd like to -- we'd like
19   to get that because that would be helpful to see.
20             MR. ZOLL:  Okay.  Well, I'm telling you
21   that -- that that's our -- Jack Freytag has told me.
22             MR. BUTCH:  Okay.
23             MR. ZOLL:  Now, we think that if you look at
24   this in a more statistically appropriate manner and you
0068
 1   follow the FAA guidelines for forecasts that you'll
 2   actually be closer to 10 percent, and the reason is
 3   because you don't really correlate with the FAA model.
 4   You know, you're up, you're down.  Some years you were
 5   up 18 percent, was it?  It just fluctuates wildly, and
 6   it doesn't track carefully with the -- with the model.
 7   And I know when you average anything, it never comes
 8   out close.  We just think this is a real concern here.
 9   And if you're -- since it doesn't track easily to the
10   FAA average that you ought to -- at a minimum, you
11   ought to follow the FAA guidelines for forecasts.
12             MR. GUBRY:  Can I ask which guidelines the
13   forecast --
14             MR. BUTCH:  Yeah.  That was my next question.
15             MR. ZOLL:  You know what?  I thought I
16   brought it with me, Ernie.
17             MR. GUBRY:  Okay.
18             MR. ZOLL:  I had printed it off from the --
19   from the FAA website, but I can e-mail it to you.  I
20   can e-mail it to Wes, and I can e-mail it to Wyle if
21   they want the forecasting model.
22             MR. BUTCH:  Okay.  So, you know, I think from
23   our perspective, we think that given this -- that it's
24   reasonable in the future to use the FAA tower forecast
0069
 1   of 2.3 percent annual growth rate from 2003 going on up
 2   based on what we described.  You know, you guys don't
 3   think it's reasonable, I think, from what you're
 4   saying.  But that was our methodology.  That's what we
 5   believe to be reasonable.
 6             MR. HUGHES:  Yes.  Irrespective of the growth
 7   rate, if you step back to 1990 and to date, you've had
 8   somewhere around a 30 percent decline in overall
 9   operations.
10             MR. BUTCH:  Okay.
11             MR. HUGHES:  So, again, I think it might
12   be --
13             MR. BUTCH:  So let me ask this question.  If
14   we've seen -- from 1990 to 2003, if we've seen a 30
15   percent decrease in operations, why do you think it
16   would be appropriate in the future for us to use a 10
17   percent annual increase as you're suggesting?
18             MR. HUGHES:  I'd step back to see what the
19   demand was.
20             MR. BUTCH:  Okay.  So you're thinking that
21   we've had this big, long downturn, but the demand is
22   going to --
23             MR. HUGHES:  No.
24             MR. BUTCH:  -- change --
0070
 1             MR. HUGHES:  -- I'm saying that that reverts
 2   back to the demand.  There really isn't any here.  So
 3   it sounds --
 4             MR. ZOLL:  He's back on purpose and need.
 5             Let me --
 6             MR. BUTCH:  You know, this kind of gets to
 7   another thing that was somewhat confusing.  At the last
 8   advisory committee meeting in June, we talked about the
 9   forecast to some degree.  And at that meeting, Dennis,
10   it was more than once -- I think it was twice -- you
11   were telling us that our forecast, this table here, you
12   were telling us that our forecast was too high, that we
13   shouldn't be using the FAA forecast because some types
14   of --
15             MR. HUGHES:  It was mainly the initial jump.
16             MR. BUTCH:  It was what?
17             MR. HUGHES:  It was -- that initial jump, I
18   think, was the first year, was the 3.2 or something,
19   and that's when the ultralights --
20             MR. BUTCH:  Right.
21             MR. HUGHES:  So I said your projections
22   should really start at like '06 or something.
23             MR. BUTCH:  So you wanted us at that time to
24   lower our projections for that reason?
0071
 1             MR. HUGHES:  Well, I just felt that it needed
 2   to be looked like -- you know, at, and that's what you
 3   said you would do.  So whatever you came up with,
 4   that's --
 5             MR. BUTCH:  Okay.  And then the other thing
 6   then that was -- we needed some clarification on too
 7   was the letter that we got following up that meeting
 8   from Michelle Crantz, your partner --
 9             MR. ZOLL:  Yeah.
10             MR. BUTCH:  -- Mr. Zoll, was also saying that
11   we had -- she was saying that she thought the
12   helicopter operations were too high.  And again, you
13   know, saying that our operations were too high, is
14   that --
15             MR. ZOLL:  Well, we don't know because you
16   won't give us the documents that you based all your
17   projections on.  If you would give us the documents,
18   then we can look at it.  All we, right now, can do is
19   ask questions --
20             MR. BUTCH:  Okay.
21             MR. ZOLL:  -- you know.
22             MR. BUTCH:  All right.  So --
23             MR. ZOLL:  That's why we sent out these
24   Freedom of Information Act requests over the last six
0072
 1   months, to get us the -- the foundational documents.
 2   Otherwise, we're just left to guess.
 3             MR. BUTCH:  So what we're saying then is, you
 4   know, that you still want us to take a look at the
 5   issue, you know, there may be some places where you
 6   thought it may be high, there may be somewhere that may
 7   be low or --
 8             MR. ZOLL:  I guess the big question is if
 9   you're to base your -- if you're going to say that
10   there's not going to be any noise impact because of the
11   -- you're going to project it at that rate, my question
12   to you, Wes, would be:  What standard are you applying
13   to your -- the accuracy of your future projections?  In
14   your EA, you use the language a couple of times worst
15   case scenario.  Is that the standard that you're
16   holding yourself to, the reasonably worst case
17   scenario?
18             MR. BUTCH:  Yes.
19             MR. ZOLL:  Okay.  So if that's the standard
20   you're going to put out that it's the reasonable worst
21   case scenario, then you need to look at the worst case
22   scenario.  You don't need to just copy the FAA
23   guidelines, what the FAA says the CAGR's going to be.
24   You need to realistically look, because in some years,
0073
 1   yeah, you did have huge growths and some years you had
 2   huge declines, but what's the reasonably worst case
 3   scenario likely to look like.  And not just what's the
 4   average in the country but worst case scenario.
 5             That's what we're saying.  If you're going to
 6   apply the worst case scenario model for impacts, it
 7   might -- in some cases, you might be looking at the
 8   most use of the airport.  But it's not inconsistent for
 9   other reasons, other analysis, to look at a lower
10   number.  In other words, you're looking at a range.
11   When you're trying to predict the future, sometimes you
12   look at, well, what's the most planes that might be
13   coming in and then what's the least number.  So for
14   some purposes you're right, we may be looking at lower
15   numbers, and sometimes we might be looking at higher
16   numbers, but it's to meet the methodology that's
17   required when the FAA's going to be analyzing this for
18   final action, because as I understand the legal
19   guidelines, the FAA has to take a cold hard look.  And
20   that's why you've chosen to use worst case scenario.
21             MR. HAMMON:  And when these were put
22   together, did the consultant that did it use the same
23   process they use nationwide on projects that are
24   reviewed and approved by the FAA so their methodologies
0074
 1   are the ones that they use consistently --
 2             MR. ZOLL:  Right.
 3             MR. HAMMON:  -- and use throughout the
 4   industry so we're confident that the numbers that we're
 5   using here have been run through -- maybe not the exact
 6   numbers for our airport, but the process that they used
 7   are tried elsewhere and they're proven, so --
 8             MR. ZOLL:  I appreciate that, but here's the
 9   point I'm trying to make.  As I understand what --
10   what -- Doug, what Wes is telling us is that they took
11   the forecast from the master plan.
12             MR. HAMMON:  Our consultant did, yes.
13             MR. ZOLL:  Right.  Okay.  The standards for
14   master planning --
15             MR. HAMMON:  We reworked this --
16             MR. ZOLL:  -- are much different standards
17   than those that are necessary to meet the criteria of
18   NEPA.  That's why I'm saying that -- that if you're
19   going to -- if you're going to look at the -- if you're
20   going to make these future forecasts for purposes of
21   NEPA that you've got to use worst case scenario
22   analysis.  And that's a lot different than for future
23   planning.
24   
0075
 1             MR. HAMMON:  Then we've worked -- we went
 2   back with our consultant, and as I say, they've taken
 3   the process that they use on other environmental work
 4   and applied the same process to here as they would for
 5   the FAA for a forecast on an EA that they were doing.
 6   That has been through their process, that has been
 7   approved at the upper levels, and that's the process
 8   they used to --
 9             MR. ZOLL:  That's why we're asking questions.
10             MR. HAMMON:  -- to reevaluate.
11             MR. ZOLL:  That's why we appreciate this
12   meeting and the chance to exchange here.
13             MS. CUSACK:  When are the responses to the
14   FOIA going to be forthcoming?
15             MR. HAMMON:  Those are in our legal office.
16   They can -- that's not an answer I can give you here.
17   I'm assuming those are being taken care of.  We've got
18   to -- we're working on the EA.
19             MS. CUSACK:  But I think this whole thing
20   needs to go on hold until that information is
21   disclosed.
22             MR. BUTCH:  So the next to last part of the
23   forecast was what did we do once we got the no-build
24   forecast due to the background that we just talked
0076
 1   about.  So for scenario four, that was the proposed
 2   near term improvements, the hangars, and the runway.
 3   It adds the operations on top of what we just talked
 4   about, and that adds 22,000 operations from the hangars
 5   and 450 annual operations from the runway extension.
 6             Now, why -- the question was why only 450 due
 7   to the runway extension?  And as we described in the
 8   purpose of the project, this project is not intended to
 9   nor will it attract bigger aircraft, a different
10   category of aircraft.  Going from an existing runway
11   length of 5,000 feet to 6,000 feet keeps you in the
12   same category of critical aircraft.  It accommodates
13   that aircraft better.  The 450, we did coordination
14   with the actual users of the airport to determine how
15   much would they feel additional flights would they be
16   bringing into the airport due to this additional
17   length.  So that's where we got the actual numbers to
18   get 450.  It's not just a number we grabbed out of the
19   sky.  It was based on coordination with users.
20             MR. ZOLL:  Who are the people that you talked
21   to and what did they tell you?
22             MR. BUTCH:  Doug?
23             MR. HAMMON:  We've talked to companies that
24   use the airport.  Basically, the answer we got was that
0077
 1   for those aircraft that need that length of facility,
 2   expect a 10 to 15 percent increase in those numbers.
 3   From there, we decided, once again, to go on the high
 4   side.  For the sake of 15 percent, we looked back at
 5   '03, 3,000 operations.  Of those aircraft needing that
 6   length or desiring that length, 15 percent of that is
 7   the 450.
 8             MR. ZOLL:  Who were they, Doug?
 9             MR. HAMMON:  I'd have to go back and look
10   through my records as to the actual letters we've
11   gotten back.
12             MR. ZOLL:  We'd like to see those letters.
13   That's one of the things that we've asked for.
14             MR. BUTCH:  Okay.  Then, basically, you know,
15   to wrap this up on the 450 additional annual
16   operations, the runway length doesn't change the
17   critical aircraft.  It accommodates existing users
18   better, and that was our thinking behind that to get to
19   that point.
20             The next input where there's been some
21   questions is regarding the aircraft fleet mix.  The
22   sources we used, the existing fleet mix, came from
23   radar data samples and interviews with airport
24   personnel.  The forecast fleet mix was using the
0078
 1   existing and then taking the jets modified based on
 2   interviews, local data, national trends.  What we come
 3   up with when we look at these fleet mixes is presented
 4   in this table right here.  What this shows -- this
 5   is -- this is exactly what was used in the INM model.
 6   So this is information that was -- was used in the INM
 7   model and was taken out of it to present it.  If you
 8   look at this, these are the various jet types and it
 9   shows for the baseline year, 2003, what was the
10   utilization here in terms of what -- what percent of
11   the total jet fleet does each one of these
12   representing.  It goes through and adds up to 100
13   percent for the entire jet -- jet fleet right there.
14             MR. HUGHES:  So it was basically just the
15   traffic that you captured during that noise monitoring
16   period that you used to -- to begin --
17             MR. ALBEE:  No.
18             MR. HUGHES:  Okay.
19             MR. ALBEE:  This is -- this is not a snapshot
20   in a very narrow point in time.  This is -- this is the
21   big picture.  Where we are now and where we operate --
22             MR. HUGHES:  No.  I mean, it says radar data
23   samples.
24             MR. ALBEE:  Oh, you're talking about the
0079
 1   breakouts.
 2             MR. HUGHES:  Yeah.
 3             MR. ZOLL:  It says the existing is radar data
 4   samples and interviews.
 5             MR. ALBEE:  Correct.  So I misunderstood your
 6   question.
 7             MR. HUGHES:  Existing.
 8             MR. ALBEE:  Yeah.  So, I mean, you took
 9   the --
10             MR. HUGHES:  That was your percentage of use
11   by various --
12             MR. ALBEE:  Well, I mean -- well, even just
13   the airplanes, the type of airplanes.  You just looked
14   at the CGR data for that noise monitoring period and
15   then -- then took -- got the types of airplanes and
16   that was your sample.
17             MR. HAMMON:  Dennis, we have in addition to
18   the radar data -- and I think you would agree with me
19   that any time you have a set operating, 99.9 percent of
20   the time would be on an instrument plan?
21             MR. HUGHES:  Uh-huh.
22             MR. HAMMON:  We had a year's worth of
23   instrument plan submissions to the FAA, and that's
24   where we came up with this information.  So, hopefully,
0080
 1   it's very accurate.
 2             MR. ZOLL:  Yeah.  No, no.  That's what I
 3   was --
 4             MR. HAMMON:  Right.  It was used in
 5   conjunction with the radar data --
 6             MR. BUTCH:  So then what we did is we looked
 7   at in the future year how would that change, and you
 8   see these percentages.  Also, the split between the
 9   daytime operations and the nighttime operations.  And
10   this is what was used in the input.  So we're going to
11   talk in a little more detail about this regarding some
12   of the questions, Dennis, that's were raised at the
13   City Council meeting.
14             So what's really, I think, at the heart of
15   this -- and this is going to be important as we go
16   through and talk about some of the results -- is over
17   here, the phase-out of the noise stage two general
18   aviation jets, now, if you look at the data from the
19   FEAA member statistics, what you see is in 1999,
20   approximately 10 percent, a little over 10 percent of
21   the total number of jets in the corporate jet fleet in
22   the U.S. was the noise stage two.  If you look at 2003,
23   that was the other year we have data.  That had dropped
24   in 2003 to just over 6 percent.  So you see this
0081
 1   decrease going on of the noise stage two jets.  These
 2   are the noisiest jets that are out there in the fleet.
 3             MR. HUGHES:  Yeah.  And I think that
 4   distinction has to be made.  It's more or less a
 5   voluntary industry transition to -- from stage two
 6   noise criteria to stage three, not necessarily the
 7   airplane's going to be retired.
 8             MR. BUTCH:  Not necessarily the airplane --
 9   they're still going to be --
10             MR. HUGHES:  They're still going to be flying
11   with hush kits, retrofits, whatever.
12             MR. BUTCH:  But not a stage two noise jet any
13   longer though?
14             MR. ALBEE:  Their hush kit --
15             MR. HUGHES:  Right.
16             MR. ALBEE:  -- is their fire.
17             MR. HUGHES:  Well, some of them, because it's
18   averaged, you know.
19             MR. ZOLL:  Is this the time to talk about --
20   I'm sorry I had to leave.
21             Have we left the existing --
22             MR. BUTCH:  Existing?
23             MR. ZOLL:  -- profiles?
24             Because one of my concerns was, on the
0082
 1   existing operations, there were seven jet aircraft that
 2   are based at the airport according to FAA records that
 3   were not included in the existing.
 4             MR. BUTCH:  Right.  And the next slide will
 5   explain --
 6             MR. ZOLL:  Okay.
 7             MR. BUTCH:  -- what that is.
 8             MR. ZOLL:  All right.
 9             MR. BUTCH:  It's a substitution.
10             MR. ZOLL:  As long as it's covered.  I didn't
11   want to get off track.
12             On this, are you also going to talk later in
13   more detail about the phase-out, or is this the time to
14   talk about phase-out?
15             MR. BUTCH:  The next slide will talk a little
16   bit more about it, but if you want to talk about it
17   phase-out, now would be as good a time as any.
18             MR. ZOLL:  Okay.  On a phase-out, our noise
19   guy, Jack Freytag --
20             MR. BUTCH:  Okay.
21             MR. ZOLL:  -- believes it's very unreasonable
22   to continue that phase-out trend to the extent that you
23   are for a couple of reasons.
24             First of all, these planes are not -- you've
0083
 1   got a very small number of data points, and if, in fact
 2   -- the phase-out will not be a direct line.  It will be
 3   a curve.  There are -- you know, there are DC3s still
 4   flying commercially today.  A lot of these stage two
 5   jets are going to continue to be used.  They're still
 6   -- they may not be as efficient.  They may be noisy.
 7   But there's still a lot of money people have wrapped up
 8   in them.  They're still serviceable.
 9             MR. BUTCH:  As stage two craft?
10             MR. ZOLL:  Yes.
11             MR. BUTCH:  Stage two engines?
12             MR. ZOLL:  Yes.  Because this -- this is
13   important to understand.  We're not talking about --
14   we're not talking about -- we're talking about planes
15   of less than 75,000 gross -- gross weight.
16             Am I right, Ernie?
17             MR. GUBRY:  Yes.
18             MR. ZOLL:  And there's no requirement of
19   phasing out stage two under 75,000 gross weight.  I
20   mean, there's no legal criteria that requires them to
21   be phased out.  So we think that requires this an
22   unreasonable -- just an unreasonable change, and our
23   consultants tells us that if you just eliminate this
24   one single assumption that you make, the phase-out,
0084
 1   that it pushes you up over the line a half dB.
 2             MR. BUTCH:  Inside the 65?
 3             MR. ALBEE:  We got --
 4             MR. ZOLL:  Yes.
 5             MR. ALBEE:  We got the data from the National
 6   Business Aircraft Association.  And they also have a
 7   projection in 2008, and that reflects their projection
 8   in 2008.  It wasn't -- we didn't get there just by
 9   drawing a straight line.  We went to the NBAA whose
10   members are the people who -- whose airplanes are
11   reflected here, and they have their data base --
12             MR. ZOLL:  We'd like to see it.
13             MR. ALBEE:  If Jack Freytag has a better data
14   base, then we need to see what that data base is,
15   because until we see something that's better than what
16   we think is the best available -- and it may not be the
17   greatest, but it's what we think is the best available
18   which is NBAA's own projections based on their
19   voluntary phase-out, you know --
20             MR. ZOLL:  Do those -- and I'm really glad
21   you're here.  I've read some of the stuff you've
22   written, and you're nationally known and it's a
23   pleasure to meet you.  Maybe we'll have a chance to
24   chat later.  Thanks for coming.
0085
 1             Do those figures include less than 75,000
 2   only --
 3             MR. ALBEE:  Yes.
 4             MR. ZOLL:  -- gross weight?
 5             MR. ALBEE:  Yes.
 6             MR. ZOLL:  Okay.  We'd like to see that data
 7   that you relied on, and we'd like a chance to pick at
 8   it and look at it and graph it, and maybe we'll come to
 9   the same conclusion.
10             MR. HUGHES:  I think it might be a point of
11   -- like I was trying to distinguish between stage two
12   noise levels and stage three versus the aircraft going
13   away.  I think that's why there's been some
14   miscommunication there --
15             MR. BUTCH:  Yeah, it could be.  But in terms
16   of --
17             MR. HUGHES:  -- because you look -- I guess
18   some of the other ones, the Lear 25s are gone.  Well,
19   the aircraft didn't go.
20             MR. BUTCH:  But it's not a stage two anymore.
21             MR. HUGHES:  It's not -- it might be, but it
22   could be still flying with stage 3 or hush-kitted.
23             MR. ALBEE:  There is no -- if I own one of
24   these aircraft --
0086
 1             MR. HUGHES:  Right.
 2             MR. ALBEE:  -- there's no way in hell I'm
 3   going to put hush kits on them for hundreds of
 4   thousands of dollars unless there's some legal
 5   requirement --
 6             MR. HUGHES:  Right.
 7             MR. ALBEE:  -- that forces me --
 8             MR. HUGHES:  Right.
 9             MR. ALBEE:  -- to do it.  There is none.
10             MR. HUGHES:  Right.
11             MR. ALBEE:  So don't say that a lot of these
12   are going to be around -- running around with those
13   hush kits.  They're not because nobody's going to spend
14   the money on a hush kit unless they operated someplace
15   overseas in Europe on the other end of where they're
16   going that they have to do it.  They're not going to
17   have to do it because of any requirements here, only
18   because of where they fly.
19             MR. BUTCH:  So let's -- let's move on.
20   There's still a lot of ground to cover.
21             So that is how we got the decrease in the
22   stage two craft in the future forecast.
23             Now, the only assumption of the craft that
24   were phased out, assumed to be retired, was stage two
0087
 1   -- stage one and two between 2003 and 2008.  The
 2   Lear 25 was the representative aircraft used in INM for
 3   those planes, and the data that we just showed you on
 4   the previous page would decrease the Lear 25.  We
 5   believe it's a realistic extension of ongoing trends
 6   based on actual nationwide data.  No other aircraft
 7   type was reduced from 2008 or 2023.  All others stayed
 8   the same or increased.  So we did not decrease or
 9   retire any other type other than these, and we
10   double-checked the INM files to make sure that that is
11   the case.
12             MR. ZOLL:  Well, let's be fair.  You did that
13   because that's what helped your noise profile go down.
14             MR. HAMMON:  No.  We did it because that's
15   what the national industry has told us is -- is
16   happening.  We're not going to go to NBAA and ask them,
17   what do you see the stage two happening and say -- and
18   have them say we're decreasing and us go and increase
19   it.  It wouldn't be realistic.  We have to follow the
20   national trends that industry is telling us.  I think
21   it would be unreasonable and actually negligent to go
22   opposite of the national trends because we are a part
23   of the national system.  What happens throughout the
24   system, it would be, I think, unreasonable to say
0088
 1   something happens totally different here at OSU.
 2             MR. ZOLL:  Well, we've looked at some FAA
 3   data, and it seems to say that the retirement
 4   projections that you set out here have not been
 5   realized at other airports.  So we've got a real
 6   difference of opinion on the validity of the
 7   assumptions that you made on these retirements and what
 8   we think is actually happening at airports.
 9             Now, I think that -- that we just have to put
10   this issue aside and come back and rethink and
11   re-examine.
12             MR. BUTCH:  Yeah.  We'd like to see your
13   data.
14             MR. ALBEE:  Go back one graphic, go back one
15   chart.
16             Okay.  That '99 and 2003 data that you got
17   from NBAA, locally you realize the same kind of a drop
18   between '99 and 2003.
19             Am I right, Doug?
20             MR. HAMMON:  I believe that's what Xaviera
21   was able to --
22             MR. ALBEE:  Yeah.  We modeled it that way,
23   and we came out right along the same trend.  So all I'm
24   saying is -- is the trend that we have over a four-year
0089
 1   period agrees with what NBAA said was occurring.  Yes,
 2   we projected this forward, and we came out to the same
 3   place that NBAA has projected nationwide.  And I'm
 4   saying that's the methodology we used.  If you have
 5   some data that would convince us that we ought to
 6   flatten it off at a higher percentage, we need to see
 7   that.
 8             MR. ZOLL:  And I guess -- I think we both
 9   agree or we can both agree that that's the main driver
10   of the --
11             MR. BUTCH:  Absolutely.
12             MR. ZOLL:  This one thing has changed that
13   you have to do an EIS.
14             MR. ALBEE:  No, that's not true.
15             MR. ZOLL:  It will have a 1 and a half DNL or
16   greater.
17             MR. ALBEE:  No, that's not necessarily true
18   either.  We'll look at some graphics that will -- we
19   will look and see how big that contour would grow
20   before your finding of 1 and a half dB increase on a
21   noise-sensitive area.
22             MR. GUBRY:  Let us say right now there's a
23   difference of opinion and move on because we've got to
24   get moving on some of these subjects.
0090
 1             MR. BUTCH:  Okay.  This is the same slide
 2   that we looked at in June that shows the runway
 3   utilization, in other words, based on the master plan
 4   forecast, 80 percent of the jets using the north
 5   runway, 20 percent using the southern runway.  And that
 6   one came from the master plan, as I mentioned.
 7             Okay.  The last thing we want to talk about
 8   in terms of inputs, flight tracks and profiles.  This
 9   is an example we shared with a number of different
10   flight track assumptions that we used in the model, and
11   we shared those at the June meeting.  The flight tracks
12   came from -- the existing ones came from radar data
13   sample.  The forecast came from modification of those
14   existing flight tracks for the extended runway, the
15   north runway.  Now, the profiles, I think, is really
16   where -- where there seemed to have been a question
17   that we wanted to talk about today.
18             MR. HUGHES:  I just had one quick question
19   for this gentleman.
20             On the INM data, on your generalized flight
21   tracks for baseline, it was a little unclear when she
22   was explaining it in June.  On those generalized
23   tracks, I think she stated they used those because they
24   could correlate the arch data with the noise monitor.
0091
 1             MR. MORROW:  It didn't involve the noise
 2   monitors.  It involved solely the arch data for
 3   Columbus.
 4             MR. HUGHES:  Okay.  That's what I wanted to
 5   clarify because it sound liked she discounted everybody
 6   else because they couldn't correlate it over the
 7   monitor at this time.  I just wanted to make sure.
 8             MR. MORROW:  No.  The monitor's not a factor.
 9             MR. HUGHES:  Okay.  Good.
10             MR. BUTCH:  So looking at the profiles is
11   really the question.  FAA has standard profiles in the
12   INM model for various aircraft types that are verified
13   through radar comparison for the majority of aircraft
14   types.  So we want to talk about that in a little more
15   detail here.  The INM has defaults in there, which are
16   standard industry practice to use those, and those are
17   required by FAA unless you have an approval from FAA to
18   use different flight profiles.  And that's fairly
19   unusual to have that happen.  But having said that, we
20   want to talk a little bit about what's the situation
21   here.
22             Now, some variation between the actual flight
23   profiles and the model profiles, that's normal.  You
24   would expect that.  Some -- some vary.  But this was
0092
 1   raised as a concern at the City Council meeting, so we
 2   wanted to talk about it a little more.  Now, we want to
 3   make it clear here that this is a very complex
 4   question.  This is not as simple as looking at one
 5   profile and saying, all these radar data are below
 6   this -- this one profile that was assumed and,
 7   therefore, the whole noise model results are bad.  It's
 8   not that simple.  There's a lot of factors coming in
 9   here, and we just want you to understand what those are
10   before we come to some conclusions down here.
11             The first half mile out away from the runway
12   is really where the flight profile has the greatest
13   impact on the 65 DNL contour.  Really -- and what we
14   saw there is is there's not as much deviation in that
15   area as when you get farther out in the profiles.  Now,
16   some planes -- and if you look at the profiles, some
17   are averaging higher than the default profile that's in
18   the model.  Some are lower.  Port Columbus Air Traffic
19   Control dictates the profiles for some flights some of
20   the time here in this situation.  Jets have, by far,
21   the largest contribution to the overall noise level.
22   They're the ones that if you wanted to look at profiles
23   that has the -- you know, initially, that's the place
24   you want to look.  There's more variability between the
0093
 1   default and the actual profiles for the propeller
 2   planes than for the jets.  And we have to keep in mind
 3   that the flight tracks where our plane's horizontally
 4   is also really important to this whole question of
 5   predictive noise levels.  And then, as well, throttle
 6   settings, fuel oil, meteorological conditions, they all
 7   factor in as well.  So it's a complex situation.
 8             We've heard this concern, and based on that,
 9   we've had some discussions.  And our team really wants
10   to take a closer look at this issue.  So we don't have
11   answers here for you today, but we definitely think
12   that this is a point that's been raised that's worth
13   looking at in further detail and we'd like to consider
14   your input in that regard.
15             I just wanted to show you a few profiles,
16   then run through these, and then illustrate a little
17   bit of what we were just talking about for people who
18   weren't at the City Council meeting.  If you want to
19   just look briefly going through the jet profiles, the
20   blue line shows the FAIM model default as to what's
21   used.  This shows the departure profile for Citation 3
22   jet going off runway 9 Right.  And what you see here,
23   the lighter black lines, those are the actual profiles
24   during the radar data period that we collected.  The
0094
 1   distance here -- these are altitudes here, how high
 2   were they, and this is the distance here in increments
 3   of thousands of feet.  So this is 10,000 feet.  That's
 4   about two miles out right there.  We're approximately
 5   four miles out.  And what we did is we put some red
 6   lines right here showing about half a mile right here,
 7   where is a half mile out on the runway in that area.
 8   So we just briefly want to give you an idea, show you
 9   what some of the jet profiles were, so you can see what
10   some of the -- some of this looks like.
11             That's one jet.  Here's another jet.  We only
12   had two actual radar operations for that one.  There's
13   another one.  Here's the Lear 25.  This is a stage two
14   craft -- main stage two craft operating at the airport.
15   You can see -- you know, for these, there's different
16   -- depending on where you are, there's different
17   variation around the average.  Here is a Lear 35.  This
18   is the jet that's used most commonly at the airport.
19   Here are some others.
20             Now, here we put in also a couple of
21   propeller plane profiles just to give you a flavor of
22   some of the variation that goes on there as well.
23   Here's one particular propeller plane profile.  You can
24   see for this particular one, on average, until you get
0095
 1   around five or six miles out, most of them are actually
 2   above this.  Then when you get farther out, they're
 3   below it.  And here's one -- this is probably the worst
 4   of all the profiles you look at in terms of some
 5   deviation.  This one, you know, is lower than what was
 6   assumed.  So you can see there's a variety of different
 7   situations going on here with the jets, with the
 8   propellers.  It varies.  And so, you know, what we've
 9   decided is, is based on that that we want to consider
10   whatever input you have, and we'd like to hear that
11   regarding those profiles.
12             Any comments, questions, regarding --
13             MR. ZOLL:  Yeah.  I mean, our input is that
14   we'd like to have somebody here from Port Columbus
15   tower.  We think there's a lot of issues with air
16   traffic control that are governing the departures and
17   the departure tracks that need to have input from the
18   FAA at the ATC level.  And I mean -- yeah, you might
19   know too.  I know you're the contract tower guy, but
20   what are the -- what are these guys doing out there on
21   departure?  What are they telling them fly to?
22             MR. CARSON:  What you're saying is correct.
23   I have no -- for the bulk of the aircraft we're talking
24   about here, I have no call or say.  Neither does my
0096
 1   controllers over the direction of flight they take
 2   immediately off the airport nor the altitude that
 3   they'll maintain going out of the airport.  It's all
 4   dictated by Port Columbus.
 5             MR. ZOLL:  And on that point, one of the
 6   concerns is that they're -- they're not allowed to make
 7   -- if you're departing on runway 9, that you can't turn
 8   them to the south.
 9             MR. CARSON:  That's correct.  That's their
10   policy, not ours.  If I had --
11             MR. ZOLL:  Not your policy but --
12             MR. CARSON:  If I had to control that
13   traffic, I could essentially do with it what I will or
14   what the airport will.
15             MR. ZOLL:  And so not only do we have the
16   profile issue, but we have the air traffic control
17   issue?  I think it's a significant one when you're
18   going to add a second parallel runway.
19             MR. HAMMON:  What we're looking at -- and
20   we've been working closely with our tower.  FAA, both
21   at district and regional level, have been at issue in
22   working with Port Columbus.  We've been over there
23   several times talking with them.  We've been on the
24   phone several times talking with district and region
0097
 1   just to try to get a feel for what are the issues,
 2   how -- is there a we can look at these, and is there a
 3   potential solution.  We haven't found anything yet, but
 4   the discussions are ongoing.  And we're going to
 5   continue to move in that direction.  So those are
 6   things that we're -- we want to make the modeling as
 7   accurate as possible though with the idea that maybe
 8   there are other improvements we can do in the future.
 9   We don't know what they are yet.
10             MR. ZOLL:  And I don't want to make a lot
11   of -- take a lot of time on this because I know you're
12   running short.  I know Cheryl's got a really good slide
13   on departures that she can put up.  But the concern is
14   that if air traffic control at Port Columbus is telling
15   them to go to 2000, go to 3,000 feet, or don't climb
16   above 3,000 feet, then a wise, conservative pilot will
17   not climb at the stage one provide file, that they're
18   going to climb at an efficient profile to get to 3,000
19   feet and await further instructions.  And whatever that
20   model is, it needs to be looked at.  And Jack Freytag
21   believes that the variation in these profiles is
22   substantial significant and doesn't meet the criteria
23   for the FAA in terms of having an accurate INM.
24             MR. HAMMON:  And we've agreed that we would.
0098
 1             MR. ALBEE:  Let me make one more statement
 2   before we go on using this chart.  That's the reason we
 3   focused in this area right here.  Quite frankly, you're
 4   going to -- because right about where you hit there is
 5   about the boundary of the 65 DNL contour.
 6             MR. ZOLL:  We don't disagree.
 7             MR. ALBEE:  And anything that happens outside
 8   of here isn't going to result in significant impacts
 9   underneath.  So where we've got to focus is more in its
10   tied-in area.
11             MR. ZOLL:  But here's the point.
12             MR. ALBEE:  Yeah.
13             MR. ZOLL:  If you're going to choose an
14   appropriate stage, it seems to me a wise thing to do to
15   look at the entire picture because if the -- it's going
16   to be very difficult to try to determine on a micro
17   level what stage to assign just by looking at that
18   first 1,000 feet.  Maybe I'm wrong.  But it seems to me
19   -- it seems to me that in -- it seems to me that in
20   selecting the appropriate stage length --
21             MR. ALBEE:  Okay.  Let me interject right
22   here.  For these kinds of aircraft, there's only one
23   stage length in the INM model.
24             MR. ZOLL:  Okay.  I didn't know that.  For
0099
 1   all of them?
 2             MR. ALBEE:  For all of them.
 3             MR. ZOLL:  Okay.
 4             MR. ALBEE:  Under 75,000 pounds is just all
 5   regarded as stage one.  There's only one profile --
 6             MR. ZOLL:  Didn't know.
 7             MR. ALBEE:  -- and it's a standard profile.
 8   And you have to go to the FAA and get permission to
 9   change it.
10             MR. ZOLL:  Right.
11             MR. ALBEE:  So we're going to have to have a
12   significant amount of data to show significant
13   deviation in this little area right here before they're
14   going to say go model it again to see if you get a
15   bigger contour because of what's going on down here in
16   this area here.  They're not going to pay attention to
17   this out here because they know there's no significant
18   impact out there.  We're down below DNL 50 or
19   something.
20             MR. ZOLL:  So what you're telling me is for
21   all the aircraft type that you model, there's only one
22   stage length.
23             MR. ALBEE:  There's only one stage length.
24   Now, when you get into the air carrier aircraft --
0100
 1             MR. ZOLL:  I know about air carriers.
 2             MR. ALBEE:  -- you have stage length one --
 3             MR. ZOLL:  Right, right.
 4             MR. ALBEE:  -- two, three, four, five, six,
 5   seven.
 6             MR. ZOLL:  And I've dealt with those in the
 7   past.  I didn't realize on this you only had one stage
 8   length.
 9             MR. ALBEE:  Only one.
10             MR. BUTCH:  So we're going to -- we want to
11   take a closer look at this, and so, you know, we
12   understand this is a concern that needs more
13   consideration, we want to get this right.  So this is
14   something that we're going to take a step back and take
15   another look at it.
16             MR. ZOLL:  Good.
17             MR. BUTCH:  Okay.  So, now, Bill Albee, from
18   Wyle, is going to talk about -- we talked about all the
19   inputs.  He's going to talk about what -- what did we
20   see from preliminary results back to running the model
21   based on this, and I think that, you know, this is an
22   area where he can move us through here fairly quickly.
23             MR. ALBEE:  Okay.  Recognizing -- you'll see
24   some diagrams of the airport as we go forward, so I'm
0101
 1   going to talk first and then you'll see the diagram.
 2   The primary runway obviously is the south runway.  I
 3   think everybody in the room is probably pretty familiar
 4   with the current existing runway layout.  So all of the
 5   jet operations are modeled on the south runway for the
 6   existing calendar year '03 conditions.  And the DNL 65
 7   contour currently in the existing conditions extends
 8   slightly beyond the airport boundary, and we've
 9   determined that there's about 31 residences located
10   within DNL 65.  They're right here.  You'll see that
11   there's a little bit that spills off the airport
12   boundary there, a little bit there.  But the rest of --
13   of the contours are pretty much within the confines of
14   the airport, this being the 5,000-foot runway.  That's
15   where all the jet operations take place right now.  The
16   contour levels -- 65 is a green, 70, 75.  That's -- so
17   that shows you've got three contour levels in there,
18   and then, of course, this is the airport boundary,
19   Sawmill Road on this side.
20             So scenario number one, no-build, calendar
21   year '08.  Nothing changes except whatever changes in
22   the fleet mix and the operations growth.  The flight
23   tracks stay the same.  All of those other INM inputs,
24   day-night operations split all stays the same.  The
0102
 1   contours will get smaller than the current existing
 2   condition even though there's a growth in total
 3   operations, primarily using that trend line that we
 4   showed of coming from 5.5 percent of the jet operations
 5   being with the stage two jets dropping to a projected
 6   1.2 in 2002.  We already talked about whether that's an
 7   accurate assumption.
 8             The indice trend indicates that there will be
 9   this thing -- the NBAA has an active program with their
10   membership for a voluntary case out of stage two.  So
11   they're basing their projections largely on a success
12   of getting their membership to do this.  And most of
13   the operators here are MBAA members in that corporate
14   fleet.  So the scenario number one, no-build calendar
15   '08, has 65, extends slightly beyond the airport
16   boundary in a couple places, but it shrinks down to
17   where those 31 residences are no longer in.  So there's
18   no significant noise impacts, and we're generally
19   reducing noise given in comparison to the existing
20   situation.
21             So that area that was out here, we'll pull in
22   a little bit.  These spill out a little bit but not
23   quite as much.  So the noise contours would shrink if
24   nothing is done and that fleet mix assumption holds
0103
 1   true.
 2             For scenario number two, which is the
 3   building of the hangars on the south side, all the
 4   inputs stay the same in the INM modeling except the
 5   annual operations and the jet fleet.  They're the same
 6   as the existing conditions.  The contours, again, are
 7   smaller than the existing contours.  This is, again,
 8   due to the reduction of the stage two jets.  The
 9   contours are slightly larger than the no-build because
10   we would be adding 50 based aircraft with a total of
11   440 annual operations.  So that's 220 takeoffs and
12   landings.  And that's a total of -- an additional
13   22,000 operations compared to scenario one, of which I
14   don't have the exact number.  But it was on the charts.
15   We did the math.  That's largely crop operations, not
16   jet operations.
17             There is an increase in jet operations of
18   1,800 or something like that in that scenario.  So a
19   number of these new based aircraft would be jets as
20   opposed -- but most of them are props.  So the impacts,
21   the 65 contours, goes outside the boundary.  Again, no
22   noise receivers, no residences in that area.
23             Again, you can see a slight extension of the
24   contour off here, here, and here.  But there's no
0104
 1   residences there.  This is a little bit bigger than
 2   what we showed you in the previous figure.  And this is
 3   with the addition of the south side hangars.
 4             Now, scenario number three, which would be no
 5   new hangars but an extension of the north runway --
 6   so -- so we're taking a new runway use, the jet flight
 7   tracks on extended runway annual operation fleet
 8   compared to the existing condition.  Now, what -- there
 9   was a graphic we showed before that showed all of the
10   flight tracks.  Those -- those flight tracks that are
11   attributed to jets that were on the south runway would
12   be moved to the north runway, and that's -- you have to
13   visualize that that's -- that's -- that's what we're
14   saying there, so we're moving that up.
15             We would reduce the jet use on the south
16   runway, which it shortens the extent of the contour
17   significantly along the extended center line on the
18   south runway.  You'll see that on the next graphic.
19   Contours are larger than scenario 1, but again,
20   they're -- they're a different shape.  And we're moving
21   jet -- all the jet operations on the north runway plus
22   we're increasing the annual jet operations by 450
23   compared to -- if -- if we weren't extending the
24   runway.
0105
 1             Okay.  The impacts -- again, 65 is going to
 2   go slightly out.  I'll show you where.  And the result
 3   would be that there are no residences inside the 65
 4   DNL.  And so you'll see that this contour got
 5   significantly bigger than it was with the shorter
 6   runway.  There's -- a little bit of the contour spills
 7   out up here.  There is no residences in that area
 8   where -- where it comes out of.  The contour that was
 9   way out here currently pulls way back here, and it gets
10   shorter on this end.
11             Scenario four combines the two, the hangar
12   development on the south side, the runway extension on
13   the north.  Same assumptions on the new runway use and
14   tracks being moved to the north, the fleet mix as
15   compared to the existing condition.  Similar to the
16   stage three contours are the scenarios with the
17   contours.  That would be the result.  They're very
18   similar, but they're a little larger, primarily because
19   we added a 50 based aircraft to the south hangar
20   complex.  So the runway extension moves jets to the
21   north and changes gradually the -- the overall shape of
22   the -- the contours.  But they still don't -- the area
23   doesn't change.  The shape changes quite a bit.  So we
24   reduced jet -- for scenario four, finishing that out,
0106
 1   we're reducing the jet use on the south runway that's
 2   going to shorten that contour, similar to what I showed
 3   you on the earlier slide.  And the contours are smaller
 4   than the existing conditions even though they're a
 5   different shape, and that's due to the -- again, the
 6   reduction.  So this -- this is a smaller contour than
 7   the existing.  This is a bigger contour than the
 8   existing.  But when you took the area of all of them
 9   together, it's still smaller than the existing
10   condition contour with the longer contour and the
11   shorter contour that we started with on the first wrap.
12             Now, it's very important we look at this,
13   what is significant impact.  That's kind of the -- the
14   key to this whole thing.  That what we're doing all of
15   this analysis to determine, if there will be a
16   significant impact defined by CE -- by FAA Order
17   1051-E, which is an implementation of CEQ guidelines.
18             FAA has determined that if there's a 1.5
19   dB -- that's using the DML metric -- or greater
20   increase at receivers -- now, what that means is
21   noise-sensitive areas:  Homes, schools, churches,
22   things like that -- inside the no-build DNL 65 contour,
23   meaning -- let's see.  The no-build 65 would be -- in
24   2008 would be a bigger contour than the base is, or any
0107
 1   receivers within the predicted DNL 65 for the proposed
 2   near term improvement.  So it's either the no-build
 3   scenario or the build scenario, the preferred scenario.
 4   And we looked at the proposed near term improvements,
 5   and we didn't.  We see smaller contours, so there are
 6   no 1.5 dB increases projected for any noise-sensitive
 7   area within either the no-build or the near term
 8   improvement contours.
 9             Scenario five is the full build-out, which
10   includes some development -- some hangar development on
11   the north side, which would, again, add some additional
12   operations to what you saw in scenario four.  No change
13   in the flight tracks.  It still has the same jet plane
14   assumption, although by the time we get to 2000 -- or
15   calendar year 2023, we're not projecting that there'll
16   be any stage two operations.  They'll be -- they'll be
17   gone.  But there will be growth in the -- in the stage
18   three jets, which -- which at some point the contours
19   start growing.  They don't get any smaller due to any
20   phase-out because the phase-out's over and now they
21   start growing again.  So the contours are larger than
22   in scenario four due to the increase in annual
23   operations.
24             So what we'll see on the slide, the DNL
0108
 1   contour extends slightly beyond the airport property
 2   boundary, no noise receivers inside, thus no
 3   significant noise from the cumulative effects in all of
 4   this put together.  And here is the same area where it
 5   goes -- the 65 contour goes off of the airport property
 6   a little bit here, a little bit here.  No residential,
 7   no churches, no schools.  And it's pulled -- it's right
 8   on the airport boundary here.
 9             So here's our conclusions from the impacts
10   for near and long term.  65 currently extends slightly
11   beyond the airport boundary.  It will -- it will pull
12   back from the existing and for -- for all the near term
13   and long term improvements, there will still be some
14   slightly outside the airport boundary.  There will be
15   some DNL increase in some areas.  There will be
16   decreases in other areas, and we'll have a graphic
17   later that will kind of show you that and show some
18   further analysis.
19             There are no noise-sensitive receivers
20   located in the future DNL 65 under any of the
21   scenarios.  Therefore, there's no significant impacts
22   from -- from any of the proposed development based on
23   FAA definitions.
24             MR. HUGHES:  I just wanted to take a look at
0109
 1   that last aerial that you had.
 2             MR. ALBEE:  You want to go back to the last
 3   one?
 4             MR. HUGHES:  It was the last -- yeah, that
 5   one there.
 6             In this full build-out scenario, they're
 7   prosing two parallel taxiways from the south side to
 8   the north side, one being on the east side, one being
 9   on the west side.
10             MR. ALBEE:  Right.
11             MR. HUGHES:  Okay.  I don't believe in the
12   INM you can put anything in there to help make that
13   exposure visible but --
14             MR. ALBEE:  I can only tell you this.  That
15   the noise that's emitted from a taxiing aircraft as
16   compared to an aircraft that's departing is, you know,
17   so -- so much different that you can put 1,000 taxiing
18   airplanes in there and you wouldn't change that contour
19   one iota.
20             MR. HUGHES:  Okay.  That was where I was
21   going because they weren't really depicted there, and I
22   didn't know if you had some other simulation modeling
23   or anything along those lines.
24             MR. ALBEE:  It can be done, but I can tell
0110
 1   you what the results would be because.
 2             MR. HUGHES:  You've got to do it 2,000 times
 3   to even --
 4             MR. ALBEE:  Yeah.
 5             MR. HUGHES:  -- make the meter move.
 6             MR. ALBEE:  Yeah.
 7             MR. HUGHES:  Okay.
 8             MR. ZOLL:  While you're on that slide, maybe
 9   this is a good time to throw out a real quick comment
10   or question.
11             I'd like to ask the tower fellow if Port
12   Columbus determines which runway is accurate.
13             MR. CARSON:  No.  We do.
14             MR. ZOLL:  Okay.  Because when I was in the
15   tower about a year -- maybe two years ago, the wind was
16   out of the east and -- or sorry -- the wind was out of
17   the west and you were -- you had 9 as your active
18   runway, you were departing them east.  I asked the guy
19   that was up in the tower why he didn't change his
20   runway, and he told me it was because Port Columbus was
21   using runway 9.  And they'd get a call in a little bit
22   that they were going to change runways, and as soon as
23   the wind changed at Port Columbus, they'd get a call.
24             MR. CARSON:  Well, I can't determine why they
0111
 1   were on that runway on that particular day and I don't
 2   have any records for why that is; however, I can tell
 3   you the runway that we use is the runway that's most
 4   generally aligned to the wind.
 5             MR. ZOLL:  Okay.
 6             MR. CARSON:  If the wind is such that we need
 7   to go 9, that's what we use.  Otherwise, we should be
 8   on 27.
 9             MR. ZOLL:  So you guys -- you guys select
10   your own runway?  You don't have any control by Port
11   Columbus?
12             MR. CARSON:  That is correct.  We do the
13   runway selection, and that's based on what we have,
14   known data, present data in the tower cab.
15             MR. ZOLL:  And so if you select a runway,
16   Port Columbus will route to that runway.
17             MR. CARSON:  Oh, yes.  They have to.
18             MR. ZOLL:  Okay.
19             MR. ALBEE:  While we're asking specialists
20   about the runway, what -- do you have a preferred
21   direction in calm wind?
22             MR. CARSON:  Yeah.  The airport has
23   determined the calm wind runway is 27.  So we will use
24   27 Left, 27 Right, or a combination of crossing runways
0112
 1   that favor those as well.  However, they're also
 2   extenuating circumstances that may dictate that we may
 3   have to -- it may take a higher priority than that such
 4   as equipment that we might be using that day that's
 5   down.  Say, runway lights broken, et cetera, might
 6   change that scenario.
 7             MR. ALBEE:  Calm wind is no wind.  It's --
 8   it's -- what's your threshold level for --
 9             MR. CARSON:  Three knots.
10             MR. ALBEE:  Three knots.
11             MR. CARSON:  And I don't think they're
12   following that because I talked to the guy in the
13   tower, and he wasn't aware of that.  Maybe he just
14   didn't want to share it with me.  But if you look at
15   the -- if you look at the older airport documents, they
16   do say 27's the primary -- is the preferred runway.
17   And, of course, that's something Worthington would like
18   to see enforced.  And if even part of a noise abatement
19   procedure, that -- that that would be the preferred
20   runway and -- even with some tailwind component.
21             MR. ALBEE:  Okay.  Thank you.
22             MR. BUTCH:  So at this point in time, we have
23   some questions that have been asked by one of the
24   representatives for the City of Riverlea, and so we're
0113
 1   going to -- there's a couple slides that she wanted to
 2   have up here for those questions.  We'll go ahead in
 3   hopefully maybe about five minutes or so.
 4             MS. CHANDLER:  Oh, yeah.
 5             (Pause in proceedings.)
 6             MS. CHANDLER:  My name's Cheryl Chandler.
 7   I'm a citizen of Worthington.  I also have a -- I have
 8   a master's degree in biomedical engineering from Ohio
 9   State, I have a Ph.D. in electrical engineering.  So I
10   know a little bit about DNLs.  So I was really
11   interested in looking at the actual data of the model
12   validation because there's been quite a few concerns
13   raised about the fleet mix and flight profiles.  And to
14   me, you know, if you can verify that your model
15   actually fits with the measurements out in the field,
16   you probably have a decent model, at least for existing
17   conditions.
18             So what I have here -- and it's going to be
19   hard to take for the audience, but hopefully, the
20   handout shows it a little better -- is the actual table
21   in the appendix of the aircraft noise study, which is
22   the result of the integrated noise model validation.
23   And it's listing aircraft types -- okay.  On the side
24   here, it's hard to see in that the aircraft types.  We
0114
 1   have two different operations.  Arrival, departure,
 2   different runways.  What was calculated in the noise
 3   study was the average model, sound exposure level in dB
 4   and the average model -- or excuse me -- measured sound
 5   exposure level in dB.
 6             What I noticed here -- and I looked at the
 7   study and I looked at the appendix, and what was listed
 8   was a fairly subjective analysis of the noise study.
 9   For example, this was one of the results of the
10   analysis.  Large differences in SEL was likely due to
11   an insufficient sample of measurment data on which to
12   have a meaningful comparison, or the number of events
13   equals one or two, too few to be significant.  And
14   Table C-1 shows an acceptable correlation within 3dB of
15   modeled and measured SELs.
16             So I guess one of my first questions is:
17   Were there any objective statistical tests done to
18   assess this model's validity?
19             MR. BUTCH:  And so we're going to -- the Wyle
20   people are going to go ahead and answer your question.
21             UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Clint is the one that
22   does this kind of.
23             UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Right.  He's our
24   technical guy.  We'll refer it to him to answer.
0115
 1             MR. MORROW:  Sure.  Certainly.
 2             What this analysis comprises is just a
 3   comparison of two things.  We were in the field for
 4   eight days measuring sound levels on the airport
 5   property at the end of the runways.  So we said, okay,
 6   we have this radar data for the same period of time.
 7   It's only a limited sample.  It's only for eight days.
 8             As you know, INM is a model that's just used
 9   for averages, yearly averages, computing DNL.  However,
10   what we decided to do -- and we do this typically in
11   all our other projects -- is just to compare.  Let's
12   look at the major aircraft types and let's look at the
13   radar data we have available.  And you're right, there
14   aren't that many tracks available, but this is all the
15   data that we have to work with.  And first of all,
16   INM -- you saw before the INM stage lengths.  You know,
17   there's only one stage length available for each of
18   these aircraft.  So we had no choice in that regard.
19   And in addition, it's an average model.  So what we did
20   was for each of these aircraft planes, we'd apply all
21   the raw radar data, see where the flight tracks go.
22   Now, plus with the profiles, there's deviations there,
23   especially in props.  They often -- you know, when they
24   take off, they can curve off left, right, go straight.
0116
 1   There's a lot of data that reflects that.  It reflects
 2   the fact that, you know, the averages are great
 3   because, you know, there's a lot of deviation in the
 4   tracks.  With INM being an average model, we model the
 5   flight track which, you know, characterizes those
 6   tracks.  You know, say, we have tracks that go, you
 7   know, left and go right.  We draw one of each of those
 8   to average the models and then compare it to the
 9   average measured levels for all of those same events.
10             MS. CHANDLER:  Right.  And you have
11   calculated, you know, standard deviation here.  Some of
12   these folks were out in the field.
13             MR. MORROW:  Right.
14             MS. CHANDLER:  And then you took -- they are
15   variable.  There's uncertainty associated with each of
16   those.
17             MR. MORROW:  Right.
18             MS. CHANDLER:  And, you know, you are doing a
19   comparison.  So I guess my question is, you know, you
20   really need to do more of maybe an objective comparison
21   because this is really the only way that we can verify
22   your model.  I mean, there is no other way, because
23   otherwise you could put in -- I mean, let's say you put
24   in an aircraft type of 737.  And you could run your
0117
 1   model and it would give you an answer, but you don't --
 2   or you know, it will generate a contour but, of course,
 3   it won't make any sense because you're not operating at
 4   local condition.
 5             MR. MORROW:  Right.  Well, to respond to your
 6   question, the ways it's been verified is we have, you
 7   know, the real radar data from Port Columbus during the
 8   period.  That's how we got some of the information for
 9   our fleet mix.
10             As Doug said before, we also had annual data
11   to help comprise the fleet mix and different aircraft
12   mix that operate.  We know there are no 737s.  So, of
13   course, we wouldn't model on them.
14             MS. CHANDLER:  But I'm looking in just terms
15   of what you have shown us here, which is integrated
16   noise model validation when comparing actual field
17   measurements with calculated generated SELs.
18             MR. MORROW:  Right.
19             MS. CHANDLER:  And again, I mean, I think
20   it's about comparison and you obviously did too because
21   you calculated it and you showed it in a graph -- I
22   mean a tape.  So I think it's important to actually
23   analyze these results and make a conclusion about how
24   valid the model is.
0118
 1             I guess one of my second points here -- the
 2   first thing that -- that actually I noticed when I
 3   looked at this was you have a lot of sample sites.  And
 4   as you say, you know, this was what happened out in the
 5   field.  You have one sample.  That's, you know, what
 6   you have.
 7             MR. MORROW:  Right.
 8             MS. CHANDLER:  Does it make sense to you that
 9   the standard deviation for that measured sample equal
10   to one would be 0.0.
11             MR. MORROW:  No.  If it says that, that's in
12   error obviously.  There can't be a standard deviation
13   in one sample.
14             MS. CHANDLER:  That's right.  So then I -- I
15   think what may have happened there, and I don't know
16   because I don't know the formula, I don't have the raw
17   data.  But I'm thinking that maybe a biased standard
18   deviation was used instead of a nonbiased sample
19   standard deviation.  And you didn't do anything with
20   the standard deviation, so really it's not that
21   important.  But it's just something that sticks out in
22   me that I think, wow, you know --
23             MR. MORROW:  Yeah.
24             MS. CHANDLER:  -- is the formula that you
0119
 1   used for standard deviation --
 2             MR. MORROW:  Right.  Well, it probably also
 3   depends on the number of samples.  So that it's
 4   obviously -- I mean, I think the point is clear that
 5   there's only one piece of data.
 6             MS. CHANDLER:  There's only one piece of
 7   data, but -- yeah, but --
 8             MR. ALBEE:  Well, I think one way we can fix
 9   it, because, again, this is all graph, is -- yeah,
10   obviously, somebody ran the calculations and they
11   dumped the data in here without thinking that 0.0 is
12   not correct.  It will be blank --
13             MS. CHANDLER:  Right.
14             MR. ALBEE:  -- because it's not all valid.
15   So we'll -- we'll clean that up.
16             MS. CHANDLER:  I also -- the second thing I
17   wondered was you have -- you based all the -- in your
18   subjective analysis, based on your last call in here,
19   which was an average -- well, you called it modeled
20   noise measure, but it's technically the average of
21   modeled noise, the average measure.
22             MR. MORROW:  That's right.
23             MS. CHANDLER:  You took the differences
24   between the averages.
0120
 1             MR. MORROW:  That's right.
 2             MS. CHANDLER:  Well, because you had a
 3   standard deviation associated with both of your models
 4   of measurement, data samples, there's also a standard
 5   deviation associated with that difference.
 6             MR. MORROW:  Right.
 7             MS. CHANDLER:  And it needs to be calculated
 8   as, you know, the standard area will be different.
 9             MR. MORROW:  Right.
10             MS. CHANDLER:  And why that's important, of
11   course, is because if you're looking at this 3 dB
12   threshold -- well, if you have a standard deviation
13   then of like 20 in the difference, well, that's not
14   really a very good comparison either.  So it's
15   important to actually see that.
16             MR. MORROW:  Sure.
17             MS. CHANDLER:  So that you can make valid
18   conclusions.  And when you go to the next slide -- I've
19   actually done that, and I used your criteria, which
20   was -- as I said here, you know, one or two samples are
21   too few to be statistically significant, and I agree
22   with that.  I think one or two samples is probably too
23   few.  The thing is though you just can't throw out the
24   ones that you don't like then based on one or two.  So
0121
 1   what I did was I took out all those data points that
 2   only had one -- or excuse me -- operation types that
 3   only one or two data points, and those are highlighted
 4   in yellow.  So those are too few data points actually
 5   we could give you, statistically significant.  So then
 6   I took what was left, and I used your criteria then
 7   again.  I threw those out.  Those are highlighted in
 8   red because those are larger than your threshold of
 9   validity, I guess.  And then what I did was I
10   calculated the standard area of difference and I said
11   well if they fall without, you know, adding in that
12   standard area, I highlighted those in blue.  And what
13   was left then -- and this is -- this is the criteria
14   that I'm reading.  I didn't do any analysis of my own.
15   I'm just using your criteria.  What was left were the
16   green operation types, and that turns out to be 10 out
17   of the 81 operating times, which is about 12 percent.
18   And I guess my question is, you know, when you break it
19   down this way, is 12 percent an acceptable level for
20   model validation?
21             MR. MORROW:  Again, to stress the purpose of
22   doing this and just to explain a little more, again,
23   INM's an average model.  The profiles are averages
24   that are provided by FAA.  They don't count into the
0122
 1   fact things that we want to feel, like the wind
 2   direction, you know, the accelerometer, you know,
 3   atmospheric conditions, specific things like that time.
 4   And again, the profiles, you can see the variation of
 5   the profiles.
 6             So, to summarize, I mean, we do -- we've done
 7   this kind of analysis before and we realize that there
 8   are problems.  The point is not to say, oh, INM is
 9   wrong.  We're not saying INM is wrong.
10             MS. CHANDLER:  Oh, I wouldn't say that.
11             MR. MORROW:  Right.  I understand.
12             MS. CHANDLER:  And by your own criteria of
13   validation, 12 percent --
14             MR. ALBEE:  Let me interject something here.
15   And again, we're hampered by the fact that we're
16   dealing with one stage length because when we -- when
17   we do this stuff with air carrier airports, we make
18   adjustments in the model.  And if we captured ten 737
19   operations and they're 5 dB louder, hey, we have to
20   have stage lengths when we model it so that it's going
21   to match.
22   
23             MR. ZOLL:  Yeah.
24             MR. ALBEE:  There aren't any variations in
0123
 1   here that we can -- we can change to -- to bring
 2   this -- this in.
 3             MR. ZOLL:  And, Bill, in support of your
 4   point, if you can go back to the color slide, the one
 5   before, if you look at the -- the only ones then
 6   that -- that, Cheryl, that you found and were valid
 7   were the green ones, right?
 8             MS. CHANDLER:  Yes.
 9             MR. ZOLL:  And if you look at the green ones,
10   there's eight arrivals and two departures.  So she only
11   -- she only was able to validate on two departure
12   profiles and eight departure -- eight arrivals.  So
13   that -- that may or may not be -- the point that Bill's
14   making is that you were hampered by your ability only
15   to assign one stage length, because the stage length's
16   not going to apply to the arrivals, is it?
17             MR. ALBEE:  I'm sorry.  What?
18             MR. ZOLL:  The stage length --
19             MR. ALBEE:  No, no.  But -- and quite
20   frankly, you'll find the arrival data to be more --
21   more valid, and the reason is because an arriving
22   aircraft is going to hit the same point in space far
23   more accurately than a departing aircraft time after
24   time after time, because they're on a glide slope to
0124
 1   touch down at the same point on the runway.
 2             MR. ZOLL:  Okay.  Good point.  Well taken.
 3             MR. ALBEE:  Okay.  So.
 4             MR. BUTCH:  So we're going to take another
 5   look at that.  I think these are good questions,and I
 6   think we'd like to clarify them in the report.
 7             MS. CHANDLER:  And then my last point was --
 8   we were talking about the fleet mix, and I did
 9   notice -- I got the disk for the input.  This was just
10   directly from the disk with the aircraft ID, and at one
11   point in time somewhere -- I don't know if the noise
12   model was run or if this was just a preliminary thing,
13   but the G-IIs and the Hawker, they were listed in the
14   fleet mix.  And then somewhere along the line, they
15   were gone.  They're not in here anymore.  Now, whether
16   they've been substituted or not, I don't know.  But at
17   some point, they were in there and those happened to
18   be, you know, two of the noisier ones, I think.  And I
19   thought maybe they aren't operating at the airport, but
20   they still are listed here.  There's a G-II and there's
21   a Hawker.  So, I guess, again, just because you know,
22   I -- we've got these questions about it, and I didn't
23   see that.  I don't know where they went.
24             MR. ALBEE:  We will -- we'll look at them.
0125
 1             MR. BUTCH:  And there are a lot of
 2   substitutions that are acceptable.
 3             MS. CHANDLER:  Sure.
 4             MR. ALBEE:  We'll come up with an explanation
 5   of where they were originally and why they aren't there
 6   now.
 7             MR. BUTCH:  Okay.  So I think we're going to
 8   be able to wrap up the remaining slides in hopefully 10
 9   to 15 minutes and get everybody out of here in time for
10   the public information meeting or to head home if
11   you're not going to that meeting.
12             Okay.  So, obviously, the noise is the
13   biggest issue where there's been the most concerns
14   here, but, of course, there are other issues that need
15   to be looked at in terms of what are the impacts for
16   the environmental assessment.  All of the subsequent
17   slides that we're talking about here, we're looking at
18   the proposed near term improvements:  The runway
19   extension, the 50 additional hangars on the south side.
20   And then as required by FAA guidance, these issues are
21   documented in the environmental assessment.
22             Compatible land use.  This is the question of
23   is -- are the land uses that are inside a 65 DNL
24   contour line, are they compatible with -- with the
0126
 1   noise exposure that they receive.  There's some
 2   background here, and that is that the noise control and
 3   compatibility planning for airports is in the FAA
 4   Advisory Circular right here.  And then, also, FAA
 5   Order 50, 54-A -- that's some other FAA guidance --
 6   talks about that the compatibility of landing is
 7   related to noise impact.  Existing conditions, as we
 8   identified about 31 residences within that 65 contour.
 9   The local land use plans also are part of the existing
10   situation, land use plans for the surrounding
11   communities.  And then, also part of the existing
12   conditions are MORPC's mass model airport noise
13   regulations.
14             When we looked at all this information, the
15   conclusion in terms of the impacts was that since there
16   are no sensitive-noise receivers located inside that
17   future impact based on the FAA definitions, the
18   adjacent land uses are compatible with the proposed
19   improvements, and the conclusion is no significant
20   impacts.  This is a directive flowing out of the noise
21   study at this particular time.
22             Social impacts.  The definition that FAA uses
23   for social impacts are listed right here, the things
24   you look at.  Are there residential or business
0127
 1   relocations?  Is there division or disruption of a
 2   community usually by moving a road?  Employment
 3   changes?  Disruption of orderly or planned developing?
 4   In other words, is something you're doing going to be
 5   conflicting with the local land use plan?
 6   Transportation patterns and school safety?  These last
 7   two were issues that the committee has brought up at
 8   previous meetings, so we wanted to make sure that we
 9   looked at these as part of the analysis.
10             The existing conditions related to these
11   topics.  The land around the airport is mixed
12   manufacturing, residential, commercial.  And there's,
13   obviously, the established residential communities and
14   neighborhoods on all sides of the airport.
15             So the question is then what will the impact
16   be for those various areas now?  There's no
17   relocations, no purchase of property required for the
18   project, no roads being relocated or closed which might
19   divide/disrupt communities by putting something down
20   the middle of them.  But in terms of employment
21   changes, I think we're -- we're expecting to see
22   temporary creation of construction-related jobs and
23   jobs at the airport.  And this may cause some
24   businesses to want to relocate closer to the airport.
0128
 1   But in the big scheme of things, the employment changes
 2   caused by this are not foreseen to be some large
 3   positive or some large negative.  I think it's a
 4   relatively minor -- minor change.
 5             And then in terms of disruption of orderly
 6   plan development, local governments have accounted for
 7   the airport in their planning.  They know it's here.
 8   The master plan has been on the books for a long time
 9   showing this runway extension, so that -- that's part
10   of the background knowledge.
11             Okay.  Transportation patterns.  The question
12   came up as to, you know, is this improvement going to
13   cause large numbers of vehicles to clog local roads.
14   We're talking about here up to 50 additional based
15   aircraft at the airport as a result of the proposed
16   improvements.  Now, if you take something that would
17   probably be way more than what would actually happen
18   during rush hour, which is when traffic is highest on
19   all the roads, if you assume one-third of those 50
20   based aircraft are actually going to be generating
21   trips during rush hour, 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m.,
22   5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., I think that's probably far
23   above what you'd actually see.  But -- but just for
24   analysis of taking this through some step by step here,
0129
 1   if you look at that, that generates approximately two
 2   -- each of those craft generated two trips each.  So
 3   roughly 16 of these craft are generating trips of two
 4   each.  That gives you about 32 additional auto trips
 5   during rush hour.  If you distribute that -- those
 6   evenly across the existing road network, what that
 7   equates to is about one additional vehicle entering the
 8   main nearby intersections every three minutes.  So, you
 9   know, if you look at what that means, that's easily
10   within normal variation of traffic patterns daily,
11   their peak hour.  And that really doesn't produce any
12   meaningful or measurable effect on traffic operations
13   at these intersections or roadways.
14             School safety was another a question raised
15   by folks here.  And the ALP, the airport layout plan,
16   and the air spacing approved by FAA takes into account
17   safety of the surrounding communities.  And so, you
18   know, this is meeting all of the relevant safety
19   requirements.
20             And then for the conclusion here was no
21   significant impact.
22             MR. HUGHES:  Just stepping back to the ALP
23   and the air space --
24             MR. BUTCH:  Yeah.
0130
 1             MR. HUGHES:  You say that's already been
 2   approved by the FAA.
 3             MR. BUTCH:  The existing one has.  The new
 4   proposed one has not yet --
 5             MR. HUGHES:  The 1991 was.
 6             MR. BUTCH:  Yeah.
 7             MR. HUGHES:  But that was conditioned on
 8   environmental assessment?
 9             MR. BUTCH:  Correct.
10             MR. HUGHES:  Okay.  So -- and when you say
11   air space approved, what does that mean?
12             MR. BUTCH:  That's part of the ALP review
13   process.
14             Right, Ernie?  They looked at the air space.
15             MR. HUGHES:  That's the obstruction analysis.
16   Part 77?
17             MR. GUBRY:  To some degree.  The -- the
18   actual instrument approach, that type of data --
19             MR. HUGHES:  The previous -- everything that
20   you're talking about, some was 1990, some has yet to be
21   done?
22             MR. ALBEE:  The final approval --
23             MR. GUBRY:  We have a 1992 or 1990 something
24   approved ALP.  We've got a current one that has been
0131
 1   updated for that, and it's still under FAA review.  And
 2   I expect there will be something coming, so I'm not
 3   sure.
 4             MR. HUGHES:  But, I mean, as far as the air
 5   space and the 1992 ALP, that is merely Part 77, is it
 6   not?
 7             MR. GUBRY:  I would have to go back and look.
 8             MR. BUTCH:  I think the important thing to
 9   take from this is that before this would ever be
10   constructed, there would be a new approved ALP, there
11   would be new approved air space --
12             MR. HUGHES:  Yeah, that's kind of where I was
13   going.  Some of you are talking about what happened in
14   '92, and there's some that just leads to where someone
15   might think this has already been approved when it
16   hasn't.
17             MR. BUTCH:  Right.  Like the new one has,
18   correct.
19             MR. HUGHES:  Yeah.
20             MR. BUTCH:  One of the other topics that you
21   have to look at -- and it's called environmental
22   justice, and there are some various regulations that
23   get at that.  The real heart of the matter is does the
24   project have a disproportionate adverse impact on
0132
 1   minority groups, on low-income groups.  And we looked
 2   at the census data, and if you look at the census
 3   tracks in the project area, none of them have higher
 4   than average minority, low-income percentages, higher
 5   than the county average, and other investigations,
 6   meetings didn't indicate that this is an issue on the
 7   project.
 8             Our conclusion is, is that these populations
 9   are not present in -- in the area that's affected; and,
10   therefore, we decided no impact was our conclusion for
11   that topic.
12             MS. CUSACK:  In other words, if you're not
13   poverty stricken, it doesn't matter that they're going
14   to --
15             MR. BUTCH:  No, that's not it at all.  That's
16   not it at all.
17             MR. ALBEE:  It's actually -- when those
18   populations exist, it requires the federal agency to
19   take a harder look because those groups are not as
20   capable of speaking for themselves.
21             MR. BUTCH:  That was the thinking behind the
22   regulations.
23             MS. CUSACK:  We're speaking and being
24   ignored, so I don't think that it matters a whole lot.
0133
 1             UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Okay.  Next topic.
 2             MR. BUTCH:  Induced socioeconomic.  Okay.
 3   This is looking at population movement, public service
 4   demands, changes to business and economic activity, and
 5   property values, which is one that's been brought up as
 6   a question here.
 7             The existing situation as we talked about.
 8   Mixed land use around the airport.  There's established
 9   residential communities.  There's been substantial
10   economic growth in the area in the past decade.  And
11   the existing infrastructure is in place in this area
12   coming and serving the airport.  So what are the
13   impacts?  For population movement and growth, there's
14   no residential homes being purchased.  We're not in any
15   way looking at substantial changes to economic or
16   social conditions, fundamental changes.  So, therefore,
17   the induced changes would be minimal.  We're not going
18   to create something that causes the population here to
19   double or anything near that.
20             Public service demands.  This gets at can the
21   current infrastructure handle what is proposed, and the
22   infrastructure that's currently serving the airport
23   would accommodate the future demand.  This future
24   demand on the infrastructure is anticipated to be very
0134
 1   similar to what's out there now, and the traffic
 2   analysis that we did showing the number of vehicles
 3   actually on the roads does not show any significant
 4   impact to local roads or intersections based on those
 5   traffic numbers.
 6             Changes in business and economic activity,
 7   preferred alternative.  It may induce a limited amount
 8   of commercial development near the airport and also may
 9   be temporary construction related to jobs being added.
10             Property values.  We went out and looked at
11   what are the studies that are out there regarding the
12   impact of noise on property values.  And really the
13   ones that we were able to find that are out there talk
14   about major commercial airports, and it's obvious that
15   major commercial airports can negatively impact
16   property values.  We looked at the situation here, and
17   we asked, well, what's our situation?  It's not a major
18   commercial airport here.  Right now there are 31
19   existing noise impacts inside the 65 DNL.  With the
20   projected future development, there's no noise impact.
21   So we reduce the number of noise impacts.
22             Now, some locations are going to be louder,
23   some are going to be quieter.  So that -- that is true
24   that the areas off the south runway would -- would
0135
 1   experience a quieter situation once the jet traffic
 2   shifts to the north.  The north runway would experience
 3   an increase.  But those aren't rising to the level of
 4   being noise impacts.  Property values tend to be more
 5   strongly influenced by a lot of other conditions,
 6   economic market conditions, zoning and local land use,
 7   location, schools.  These are all the things that all
 8   play into property values.
 9             Now, as a result of all these factors,
10   some -- there may be some minor changes in property
11   values as we look forward in the future.  But when we
12   looked at the information and did this investigation,
13   there was not any clear evidence to us that -- that we
14   could sit here and say that, definitely, this project
15   is going to be decreasing property values when you look
16   at all these factors together.  So we could not come to
17   that conclusion.  Our conclusion was is that there
18   aren't going to be significant impacts related to that
19   topic.
20             Air quality.  The Clean Air Act, existing
21   conditions that Franklin County is in attainment with
22   all the Clean Air Act criteria pollutants except ozone.
23   This airport has less than 180,000 annual operations
24   projected over the 20-year period.  If you're in that
0136
 1   situation, FAA has -- in the regulations based on
 2   previous analysis, they've determined that if you're
 3   underneath that threshold, that it's not possible that
 4   there's significant air quality impacts.  And that's
 5   based on coordination with EPA.
 6             We looked at water quality.  There is a
 7   variety of acts, laws, regulations that need to be
 8   considered when you're looking at water quality.  And
 9   it's regulated by the State of Ohio and the U.S. Army
10   Corps of Engineers related to these laws.  And the Ohio
11   Environmental Protection Agency requires these two
12   types of evaluations when you're looking at impacts.
13   It's what they call a QHEI and an HHEI.
14             The existing conditions there at the airport.
15   There's is an unnamed stream that runs through the wood
16   lot on the east end, and there's three unnamed drainage
17   ditches that feed into that stream.  These water
18   bodies, the ditches and the streams, they're already
19   substantially impaired.  They have a lot of historic
20   degradation.  And the cattle are in this area and
21   continuing to cause water quality impacts through
22   various methods.  Deicing agents are not used at OSU
23   Airport, so we don't have deicing going on.  Storm
24   water at the airport runs off into the ditches.  We
0137
 1   went through that and did the analysis, the QHEI
 2   analysis and the HHEI analysis, based on the Ohio EPA
 3   requirements.  And those produced cores for the
 4   streams, what are the quality.  And the general
 5   conclusion you can draw from what we did here is that
 6   these are not quality water bodies in any stretch of
 7   imagination.
 8             The impacts of the project?  Five culverts
 9   ranging from about 50 feet up to 500 feet.  And this is
10   going to require applicable permits from the Ohio EPA
11   and the Corps of Engineers.  We -- we view that these
12   culverts and the permitting as being minor impacts to
13   aquatic habitat given the degraded condition of these
14   water bodies.
15             The impact to the flow or the hydraulic
16   characteristics are unlikely.  The culverts will be
17   sized and designed appropriately, not to interfere with
18   hydraulic water passage.  No impacts to surface water
19   quality.  Short terms instruction, there may be some
20   additional erosion and then no significant impacts as a
21   result of that.
22             MR. HAMMERSMITH:  I have a question on that.
23             MR. BUTCH:  Yeah.
24             MR. HAMMERSMITH:  Did you look at NPDES phase
0138
 1   2, permit requirements through Columbus, as far as
 2   water quality at issue?
 3             MR. BUTCH:  We've not gotten to that point
 4   yet, you know, looking at the permit requirements.  But
 5   we know that we are going to need to comply with that
 6   for the permit.
 7             MR. HAMMERSMITH:  And the second part of that
 8   question.  As far as detention and retention, do you
 9   have to comply with the City of Columbus for water
10   management regulations?
11             MR. BUTCH:  We were assuming that we would
12   need to.
13             MR. HAMMERSMITH:  Is there existing detention
14   on the airport.
15             MR. BUTCH:  I don't believe there is.
16             MR. HAMMERSMITH:  Is there proposed?
17             MR. GUBRY:  The temporary one is okay with
18   us, but the permanent one we would have questions about
19   due to wildlife concerns.
20             MR. HAMMERSMITH:  Right.
21             MR. BUTCH:  Okay.  Section 4-F.  This is a
22   law that protects publicly owned parks and significant
23   historic sites.  And we've done a review of local
24   master plans, land use plans, aerial photos.  And also,
0139
 1   we did a cultural resources investigation.  We'll talk
 2   about that briefly in one of the subsequent slides.
 3   There's no publicly owned land, parks, recreation
 4   areas, wildlife refuges, or historic sites located in
 5   locations that they would be used.  And this is the
 6   term that this law has in terms of an impact under this
 7   definition.  So --
 8             MR. ZOLL:  Did you account for the property
 9   owned by the City of Worthington which has been
10   designated for future park use?
11             MR. BUTCH:  Yeah, we did.
12             MR. ZOLL:  Did you determine that that would
13   not be used under the definition --
14             MR. BUTCH:  Correct.  It's not inside the 65
15   DNL and no direct impacts.
16             MR. ZOLL:  It would be under the 65 DNL,
17   would it not?
18             MR. GUBRY:  When you go to your next slide --
19   I've been doing extensive work in this area for the
20   next -- or for the past month.  We're going to have
21   some new direction for you, so I think just skip
22   through these for today's presentation and we'll get
23   back to you.
24             MR. BUTCH:  Okay.  So what we'll say about
0140
 1   this is that we have to look at historic properties in
 2   the area.  We've been coordinating with FAA in quite
 3   detail.  We've been coordinating with the State
 4   Historic Preservation Office to identify what's the
 5   area of potential effect that we're going to be looking
 6   at and also identifying consulting parties.  So that's
 7   what Ernie's referring to there.  So it sounds like
 8   maybe there's some new development going on.  But I
 9   hear some of those sitting close to me saying that this
10   is ongoing.
11             MR. ZOLL:  Yes, there is a big concern, as
12   you know.
13             MR. GUBRY:  We're working on it.
14             One of the things I would say is, you know,
15   we're reviewing this document at the same time.  And
16   like you said, we are taking a hard look at the
17   document and we'll have comments back to the airport on
18   the document.
19             MR. BUTCH:  Okay.  Biotic communities.  In
20   other words, what's the ecology in the area.  A number
21   of agencies have an interest here.  We've gone out and
22   reviewed the field conditions in terms of what's out
23   there by our biologists, and there's a variety of
24   different habitat types that are present.  Also, the
0141
 1   airport's done a wildlife hazard assessment.
 2             MR. HUGHES:  They have completed that then?
 3             MR. BUTCH:  What's that?
 4             MR. HUGHES:  They have completed one?
 5             MR. BUTCH:  Doug?
 6             MR. HAMMON:  Yes.
 7             MR. ZOLL:  Did you find any of the hazards
 8   from those geese at the east end?
 9             MR. HAMMON:  They'll come back and get some
10   recommendations, but you're getting that.  I know that.
11             MR. ZOLL:  I got a shotgun.
12             MR. BUTCH:  The project -- we've identified
13   that is going to decrease the habitat -- wildlife
14   habitat within the property, but the overall general
15   character is not really changing significantly.
16   There's no special unique vegetation communities.  The
17   wildlife species affected are common to developed areas
18   on the -- suburban areas.  The wildlife species that
19   can move will be, you know, obviously heading to
20   adjacent areas.  Our conclusion was that based on this
21   that this is a minimal impact and not significant.
22             Direct and endangered species.  There's laws
23   and regulations related to that.  We have done field
24   investigation with our biologist and coordinated with
0142
 1   the relevant regulatory agencies, and there are not
 2   threatened and endangered species or their habitat on
 3   the property.
 4             Wetlands.  It's a similar situation.  Laws
 5   and regulations.  We went out and did the wetland
 6   inventory, and there are not jurisdictional wetlands
 7   present on the project area.
 8             Floodplains, again, is a similar situation.
 9   There are some laws and regulations.  There are no
10   mapped 100-year floodplains in the project area.  The
11   culverts that are put on the ditches --
12             MR. ZOLL:  What's your definition of project
13   area?
14             MR. BUTCH:  For this one?
15             MR. ZOLL:  Yeah.
16             MR. BUTCH:  For floodplains, it's any place
17   that could be directly impacted where there might be
18   fill going into a floodplain or that -- the induced
19   development inside the floodplain.
20             MR. ALBEE:  So it's all within the airport
21   property.
22             MR. BUTCH:  This is all within the airport
23   property.
24             The culverts would be sized appropriately to
0143
 1   convey the flood flows without any harmful interference
 2   where the culverts need to be put in.  That's a
 3   requirement for stream permits for culverts.
 4             Farmlands.  There's one piece of federal
 5   legislation.  Obviously, the surrounding area are not
 6   farmlands or zones for that.  No privately owned farms.
 7   OSU does some agricultural activities on their
 8   property, but the conclusion based on this evaluation
 9   is that this law does not apply to the farms that are
10   here.  So farmland is not an issue.
11             Hazardous materials.  There's a lot of laws
12   that apply to hazardous materials.  What you want to do
13   is avoid buying or causing problems on contaminated
14   sites.  We did data base searches, coordinated with the
15   airport personnel on site visits, and there are no
16   contaminated sites present in the project area, again,
17   looking at the area that could be directly or
18   indirectly affected by the project.
19             Construction Impacts.  There will be
20   temporary constructions -- impacts during construction:
21   Noise, dust, some minor erosion.  And then there's
22   mitigation measures required as per your permits and
23   various other laws and regulations.  And the conclusion
24   was that this is not significant either.
0144
 1             Okay.  This is the last item.  We're going to
 2   wrap up with -- given the time that we're at.  So this
 3   concludes the other categories that are required to
 4   look at, and these categories are not present, don't
 5   exist in the project area.  Obviously, coastal zones,
 6   coastal barriers, et cetera.  So these were not -- were
 7   not included.
 8             There are some brief things we were going to
 9   talk about in terms of mitigation measures that we
10   started to look into based on this preliminary
11   assessment, but I think given the time that we're at
12   here, I think we're going to wrap it up right now.  And
13   those, obviously, will be requiring some additional
14   coordination.
15             Yes, ma'am?
16             MS. CUSACK:  I would just like to request
17   that the following be done before this is submitted to
18   the OSU Board of Trustees.
19             MR. BUTCH:  Okay.
20             MS. CUSACK:  Number one, that all FOIA
21   requests be honored; number two, that the plan be
22   submitted to MORPC for their determination and review
23   of it; and number three, that you do an environmental
24   impact study.  I realize that doesn't necessarily have
0145
 1   to be done right now, but I think to keep good faith
 2   with the community, it would be very helpful.
 3             MR. HUGHES:  I just have a quick question.
 4   In June, we talked about Wyle doing a grid point
 5   analysis with demographics, noise contours.  And I
 6   didn't see that.  Is that no longer being done or --
 7             MR. BUTCH:  The grid point analysis?
 8             MR. HUGHES:  Yeah.
 9             MR. BUTCH:  If I understand correctly, the
10   discussion was always that that -- if we saw
11   significant noise impacts, then we wanted to move into
12   that area.  That was my recollection.
13             MR. HUGHES:  Well, we're talking about --
14   that's the next question, the supplemental analysis, of
15   which Mr. Albee is a great author about.  And that was
16   the discussion of showing the true impacts of the
17   single event noises on the community, which the
18   community is well aware of.  And like you said, if
19   that's a concern, that you'll certainly look at.  Well,
20   obviously, it was a concern then and it still is.  Will
21   we ever see that?
22             MR. BUTCH:  Single event?
23             MR. HUGHES:  Single event supplemental noise
24   analysis that shows the times above -- or the number
0146
 1   above.  Just a bar graph.
 2             MR. ZOLL:  We'd just like you to comply with
 3   Mr. Albee's inclusive approach to noise planning and
 4   analysis that he prepared.  I think he did a very good
 5   job here, and we'd like to you meet the standards that
 6   your consultant has established for this type of a
 7   study.  Mr. Albee says in here --
 8             MR. ALBEE:  You're throwing that word
 9   standards around.
10             MR. ZOLL:  Okay.  Goals.  How's that?
11             Mr. Albee's goals are that these SELs should
12   be looked at, the 60 DNL and other related --
13             MR. HUGHES:  The FAA is encouraging that
14   also.
15             MR. ZOLL:  And that's what we were told.
16             MR. BUTCH:  In that situation.  And that's
17   the distinction is that -- that's predicated --
18             MR. HUGHES:  It's an extraordinary situation.
19             MR. BUTCH:  That's predicated upon other
20   things.
21             Bill, you want to explain?
22             MR. ALBEE:  Well, I don't know if we have
23   time.
24             MR. BUTCH:  But 65 is based on the idea that
0147
 1   you have a significant --
 2             MR. ALBEE:  Well, yeah.  I mean, I haven't
 3   got time to go into, you know, the whole thing.  I'm
 4   just saying that we all recognize that the purpose of
 5   NEPA, an EA, environmental assessment, we're looking
 6   for significant impacts, okay.  What I was talking
 7   about there is that a recognition that noise goes
 8   beyond those contours and that there are concerns out
 9   there and there are methods to address that still with
10   the exposure --
11             MR. HUGHES:  And that's what we were asking.
12             MR. ALBEE:  And there's a certain amount of
13   that that is included in this, and it may or may not be
14   sufficient.  That will come out over time, and we'll --
15             MR. HUGHES:  It was just a matter of -- there
16   was some single events noted in the June presentation
17   that was done, and that's when we asked that that
18   supplemental analysis could be done to show the true
19   impacts or supposed true impacts on the surrounding
20   community.  And that's what we were looking for.
21             MR. ZOLL:  We had some other comments, but
22   because of the time, I just -- they're in writing.
23   We'll just distribute the written comments.
24             MS. BRIGGS:  Just a follow-up on his comment
0148
 1   about the single impact.  I noted that in the
 2   facilities committee that OUS had, there were questions
 3   from at least one of the OSU trustees concerning the
 4   single impact because that -- that is -- it may be a
 5   single impact, but it can be very devastating.
 6             MR. ZOLL:  Yeah.  One of the OSU trustees
 7   specifically asked about SELs.
 8             MR. ALBEE:  I understand.  Well, I mean, you
 9   know, obviously, the whole idea of supplemental metrics
10   is, you know, how many -- how many times does it occur
11   and how loud is it.  It's taking DNL apart.
12             MR. HUGHES:  She had all the events broken
13   down, and all we asked them to do is embellish that
14   through the analysis.
15             MR. HAMMERSMITH:  Is there a final draft
16   document that we can have?
17             MR. BUTCH:  It's not at that point yet.  What
18   we're doing is we're taking input, considering what the
19   FAA has to say, you know, sharing with you the data,
20   the noise model data that's been shared, you know,
21   with -- with the people who have requested it.  So
22   we're not quite there yet.  We're still working on some
23   of these issues that are brought to file today.
24             MR. HAMMERSMITH:  Is there any way that the
0149
 1   committee members can get a copy of the PowerPoint
 2   presentation?
 3             MR. HAMMON:  Yeah.  That is actually --
 4   currently, it is on the OSU airport website.
 5             Thank you for coming.  Sorry we went a little
 6   late.
 7                          - - - - -
 8               Thereupon, the proceedings were
 9               concluded at 5:47 p.m.
10                          - - - - -
11   
12   
13   
14   
15   
16   
17   
18   
19   
20   
21   
22   
23   
24   
0150
 1                         CERTIFICATE
 2   
 3        The undersigned do hereby certify that the
 4   foregoing proceedings were digitally recorded,
 5   electronically transmitted, and transcribed via audible
 6   playback, and that the foregoing transcript of such
 7   proceedings is a full, true and correct transcript of
 8   the proceedings as so recorded.
 9        WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and
10   affixed my seal of office at Columbus, Ohio, on this
11   9th day of December, 2004.
12   
13   ____________________________________________
14   MELISSA R. PARSLEY
     Certified Digital Reporter
15   Notary Public - State of Ohio.
     My commission expires October 13, 2008.
16   
17   
18   ____________________________________________
19   SHARON T. PONTIUS
     Certified Digital Transcriber
20   
21   
22   
23   
24