Buffalo Niagara International Airport Noise Mitigation Program Political Contours versus Reality Presented by : Mark Clark Sr. Aviation Planner of BNIA

Master Plan Airport Expansion Need for Part 150 Study Runway 14/32 added Runway 5/23 added Allowed runway shift to gain 1,790 feet 725 feet 1,000’ RSA

Part 150 Study Conducted by PB Aviation for the Conducted by PB Aviation for the Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority Approved by FAA - April 2006 Submitted to FAA - February 2005 May 2003 – December 2004 Note: Extensive Public outreach including multiple CAC & TAC meetings, newsletters, open house, 2 public meetings and one hearing

Development of the NCP Noise Compatibility Program 2008 Recommended Contours Approved by FAA September 2005 Approximately 1,740 homes for mitigation NCP developed into a 10 year program at $60+ million

Who is critiquing our program ? Local Governments Local Churches Local Schools Citizens outside the 65 DNL Citizens inside the 65 DNL Local Media

Good News - Bad News Good News Bad News Lots of FAA Money Local Politicians are Noise Contour Experts

Good News - Bad News Good News Bad News Community inside the 65 DNL is excited Community outside the 65 DNL is angry

Good News - Bad News Good News Bad News 1,750 families will watch TV in peace Their neighbors will not

Good News - Bad News Good News Bad News Aircraft need to stay within the flight corridors People outside the 65 DNL claim planes fly over their home now but did not before

Good News - Bad News Good News Bad News NFTA is Cheered by Residents Quote from Noise Hotline NFTA is jeered by Residents Quote from Noise Hotline “Finally the airport is doing something about the noise, we love what you’re doing – Thank You” “This is total Bull***t”

How Local Politico's try changing the Contours I’ll just make a few calls and “fix” the contours myself

How to Politically “fix it” ? Write a Letter to FAA “The most strident complaint with the Town of C. involves apparent discrimination between houses, sometimes adjacent, on the same street that are claimed the experience the same overhead noise yet are included excluded from the abatement program announced by the NFTA” Letter from local Councilman to FAA July 26, 2007 “We believe that the 65DNL noise impact range was not properly mapped and must be extended to include all properties and affected streets We also assert that there is discrimination between properties and ownerships.” “I therefore petition the FAA to again review the results of the Part 150 Noise Study submitted by the NFTA and correct the eligibility determinations as they discriminate between nearby, adjacent or properties on the same street”

FAA Response to letter Letter from to FAA to Councilman August 28, 2007 “FAA role in this process is to ensure the airports program is consistent with the laws governing this program Under Part 150.5(d) when FAA accepts noise contours we are not making a determination that a specific parcel lies with a particular contour. That responsibility rests with the sponsor. Our agency order governing eligibility of noise projects for federal funding (FAA Order C), does allow for funding for a “reasonable numbers of otherwise ineligible parcels contiguous to the project area” which is the 65DNL contours for the NFTA program.“ “FAA determined that in September of 2005 that the noise exposure map contours submitted by the NFTA were acceptable and prepared consistent with FAA orders

A Sponsors Problem The inherent lack understanding concerning FAA generated contours, make one see differently than what truly exists The Councilman’s response to NFTA: “Please read the enclosed letter (FAA response letter) I believe there are serious deficiencies in the NFTA consultants Part 150 Study findings ”

Reality Contours FAA Part 150 Study Approved DNL = 163 households DNL = 1,323 households 75 + DNL = 2 households 1,488 households (south only)

FAA “Equitable and Contiguous” Street Squared Households Additional households outside approved 65DNL ? 404

Political Contours 3,072 (64 – +/- 50 DNL) Households outside Approved 65DNL ?

DNL’s 1,152 households 64 DNL = 282 households 63 DNL = 206 households 62 DNL = 259 households 61 DNL = 248 households 60 DNL = 157 households (4% +/- error) Total = 1,152 households

DNL Breakdowns 64 DNL Part 150 = 0 Street Squared = 224 Political = 224 Not included = DNL Part 150 = 0 Street Squared = 0 Political = 112 Not included = DNL Part 150 = 0 Street Squared = 125 Political = 192 Not included = DNL Part 150 = 0 Street Squared = 6 Political = 204 Not included = DNL Part 150 = 0 Street Squared = 49 Political = 230 Not included = 29 What do these figures imply ? Total’s FAA: Street Squared “equitable and contiguous” to 65 DNL implies 180 homes in 63 – 60 DNL could be mitigated while 58 in the 64 DNL are not “eligible” Political: Complete entire streets implies 738 homes in 63 – 60 DNL could be mitigated while 58 in the 64 DNL will not be “eligible”

Affects on Potential NCP south only Part 150 1,488 1,488 $52.1 m 0% Homes Total Cost % Change Squared Streets 404 1,892 $66.2 m 27% Political Streets 3,072 4,560 $159.6 m 206% NCP changes could look like this: Part 150 $52.1 m10-year program Squared Streets + $14.1 m12-year program Political Streets + $107.5 m25-year program

Affects on the North End? We’ll save that for another time

The End ???????