Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 - Section 8 Public Participation - Century Plan - Airport Plan Element June 19988.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 8.1 Introduction The participation of the public has been an important concern through out the process of developing the Georgetown Municipal Airport Master Plan. The planning effort included the conduct of surveys of aircraft owners and certificated pilots in the area in and around the City of Georgetown. These surveys provided opportunities for the airport's users and potential users to comment on their needs for airport facilities and services as well as a means to express their opinions on the airport's management and operations. Further, personal interviews were held with representatives of all the Fixed Base Operators currently using the airport. These interviews provided direct opportunity for input to the planning process. In addition to surveys and interviews directed at the aviation community, the public has been invited to all of the Airport Plan Working Group meetings. A number of citizens have attended these meetings and made comments on a fairly regular basis. Certain of these individuals have, at their request, been placed on the Working Group mailing list and have been receiving working papers and report drafts as the study progressed 8.2 User Surveys Using lists of aircraft owners and certificated pilots developed from FAA records, surveys were sent to both pilots and owners with addresses in Williamson County and the northern part of Travis County. Some 1,500 surveys were sent with a response rate of approximately 20 percent. Copies of the survey forms used and summaries of the responses are provided in the Appendix to this report. . In order to assist with identifying needed improvements at the Georgetown Municipal Airport, the surveys requested information on the need for improvements. In the case pilot's survey the top three requested improvements were as follows: 1. An improved instrument approach 2. Additional hangars 3. Improved terminal facilities The top three requested items from the aircraft owner's survey were as follows: 1. Additional hangars 2. lower fuel prices 3. An improved instrument approach The survey responses were analyzed in detail and used as a guide in establishing priorities for copilot improvements at Georgetown Municipal Airport. 8.3 Public Hearings Upon completion of the Master Plan itself, the draft document was made available for public review and a Public Hearing was scheduled. This hearing was held on March 16, 1998, and was attended by more than fifty persons. After a brief presentation by the Consultant and comments by the Master Plan Working Group, each person wishing to make comment on the Master Plan was given the opportunity to do so. 8 -1 17326/960507 A second Public Hearing was held on June 24, 1998. In preparation for the second Public hearing, the Master Plan draft, revised in response to the initial Public Hearing and including data from additional studies made by the Working Group and airport staff, has been made available of public review at a number of locations in the City. A previously stated, the members of the Master Plan Working Group carefully considered the concerns addressed by various citizens at the initial Public Hearing and undertook additional studies in order to respond to citizen concerns. The following is a summary of the issues raised at the March 16, 1998, Public Hearing and the responses to those issues subsequently developed by the Working Group. I. Issue The majority of questions and comments relative to the continued development of the airport, as reflected in the Master Plan, were concerned with noise emanating from aircraft operations, that is, taking off, landing or flying overhead. Response For purposes of this discussion, the definition of Noise shall be as follows: unwanted sound that is undesirable because it interferes with normal speech and hearing or is annoying to an individual or group of individuals. Airport generated noise can be viewed as a system of integral parts including, but not limited to, the following: • Nature and intensity • Number and fleet mix of aircraft using the airport • Time of day • Adjacent land uses • Background or ambient noise levels in adjacent residential areas The aviation industry uses a number of different measurements to define noise. The four most widely used methodologies are as follows: • dBA An A- weighted sound level that approximates the auditory sensitivity of the human ear • EPNdB Effective perceived noise levels providing a subjective assessment of the human perception of noisiness of the aircraft • SEL Single event sound level measurement of individual aircraft takeoff, landing, or overflight • DNL Measurements used in the Master Plan that provide the day - night, A- weighted average sound level during a 24 -hour period with a penalty applied to night time sound levels The DNL values are used to develop noise contours in increments of 5 dBA, with 55 DNL being insignificant and 65 DNL significant exposure. Residences located within a sustained 65 DNL are generally incompatible. However, it should be noted that the noise level created by an aircraft taking off is of a very short duration, lasting only seconds. To develop the noise impact constant DNL contours shown in the Master Plan, the FAA's Integrated Noise Model, Version 5, was 8 -2 17326/960507 employed using the airport's mixed fleet aircraft as an input, along with the measured number of 87,000 aircraft operations Ill that occurred in 1995 at the Georgetown airport. For a more complete understanding of the noise profile methodology and development, see pages 5 -1 through 5 -12 of the Master Plan. For comparison purposes, the following tables provide information on early morning and late evening flight departures for both runways at the Georgetown airport. The data was taken from the 1995 operational measurements of the 111 mixed airport fleet based at the Georgetown airport. These departures were recorded during a one -week period in the spring and fall and a two -week period in the summer and winter. Runway 11/29 Before 7: 00 AM After 9:00 PM March 22 -29 3 departures, average 1 departure, average 0.3 /day 0.14 /day July 15 -29 4 departures, average 5 departures, average 0.29 /day 0.36 /day October 20 -27 0 departures 4 departures, average 0.57 /day January 27- February 1 departure, average 5 departures, average 10 0.07 /day 0.36 /day Runway 18/36 Before 7: 00 AM After 9:00 PAI March 22 -29 6 departures, average 10 departures, average 0.86 /day 1.43 /day July 15 -29 7 departures, average 89 departures, average 0.50 /day 6.36 /day October 20 -27 0 departures 6 departures, average 0.86 /day January 27- February 4 departures, average 8 departures, average 10 0.29 /day 0.57 /day The following list provides some normal, everyday sound level comparisons given in dBA (human ear sensitivity approximation): • Bedroom:24db • Library:35db • Living room: 40db • Conversational speech: 60db • Piston - powered singles: 65db • Business office: 65db • Business jet: 74db • Average street traffic: 85db • Heavy truck: 90db • Pneumatic drill: 100db • Rock concert: 1 lOdb • Electronic siren and threshold of pain: 140db I An operation is defined as a take -off or a landin.- 8 -3 173261960507 A concern was expressed regarding the prolonged noise resulting from testing after engine repair or overhaul. In order to reduce the noise levels from such engine testing procedures, the airport conducts these tests as close to the center of the airport and as far from residences as possible. Such preventative measures greatly reduce the resulting noise. In addition, a question was raised about why Austin's air carrier airport was moving from it's current location at Robert Mueller Municipal Airport (RMMA) to the new Austin - Bergstrom International Airport. Although noise complaints from the residents surrounding the airport played some part in the relocation, the main and compelling reason for the move was that RMMA is simply too small to handle the growth of Austin and the resulting increased demand for air travel. Proposed Action Plans Following is a list of proposed Action Plans that were developed in response to the issue of aircraft noise. 1 Review Current Procedures Flight procedures have been and will continue to be reviewed for methodologies to lessen the noise impact on the residential areas surrounding the airport, as well as the air space over any populated area in the Georgetown region. 2 Develop a Memorandum of Understanding In addition to published FAA Guidelines, a memorandum will be developed and forwarded to all aircraft owners, fixed base operators, flight instructors, and businesses at the airport requesting that they honor, without exceeding safety boundaries, the following noise abatement guidelines to reduce the impact of airport operations on their neighbors: • Be aware of noise sensitive areas, particularly residential areas, and avoid low flights over these areas • Fly traffic patterns tight and high, keeping the airplane as close to the field as possible • In constant speed propeller aircraft, do not use high RPM settings in the pattern; prop noise from higher - performance aircraft increases drastically with high RPM settings • On takeoff, reduce to climb power as soon as it is safe to do so • Climb at liftoff at best angle -of -climb speed to airport boundary, then climb at best rate • Depart from threshold of runway, rather than intersections, for the highest possible altitude when leaving the airport vicinity • Climb out straight ahead to at least 1,000 feet; turns rob an aircraft of climb ability • Maintain a minimum of 1,000 feet altitude (preferably higher) over populated areas • Avoid prolonged run -ups prior to takeoffs • Try lower power approaches and always avoid the low, higher power, dragged -in approach; use maximum safe glide slope 3 The Airport management will post signs at appropriate locations urging compliance with established noise abatement procedures The airport's management will place signs at appropriate locations throughout the airport 8 -4 17326/960507 noise abatement procedures. 4 Review Additional Noise Abatement Processes to be Based on Available Funding Such processes /facilities might include the construction of berms, the planting of sound reducing vegetation or the construction of sound resistant structures. 5 Request Restricted Hours of Operation from Army Helicopters Because of state and federal funding, the airport cannot restrict the operations of Fort Hood, the National Guard, etc. in flying in and out of the Georgetown Airport. However, we can request that they restrict touch and go operations to certain hours of the day. 6 Publish the FAA Contact Number This contact number can be used by concerned citizens to report aircraft that are not observing flight safety and noise abatement regulations. 7 Address Additional Action Plans to be Proposed II Issue The second major concern relative to the continued development of the airport regarded the safety of general aviation, specifically in the areas of training, safety records, fuel storage, and hearing loss. Response The following information should provide reassurance that the safety of the people of Georgetown is of prime importance to all participants involved in every airport activity, whether on the ground or in the air. 1 Required Training The safety record of general aviation has been excellent. The training and education required to obtain a Private or Commercial License is time consuming, exacting, and rigorous, and greatly contributes to general aviation safety. In addition, FAA requirements for adhering to the "rules of the air" and enforcement of regulations to ensure air - worthiness of aircraft are essential elements that promote general aviation safety. 2 Aviation Safety Records The following information is derived from studies of general aviation accidents based on records from 1976 through 1990. "General aviation" is a term encompassing all aviation activity except that of airlines and military flying. It includes not only business and recreational flying, but also instruction and training, air taxi, aerial application for agriculture and forestry, aerial mapping, aerial fire control, testing and demonstrations, traffic advisory, police activities, air shows, and other miscellaneous activities. Between 1976 and 1990, according to the FAA and the National Transportation and Safety Board (NTSB) data, there were 333 general aviation Building and Residence (B &R) Accidents, or an average of fewer than 23 per year. Seventy of these accidents resulted in a fatality, either aboard the aircraft or in a building /residence on the ground, while 12 of these resulted in an injury to persons on the ground. On average, only about 10 general aviation B &R accidents per year result in a serious injury and /or death to individuals either in the aircraft or in a building/residence on the around. 8 -5 17326/960507 Over the 15 -year period studied, only seven general aviation B &R accidents involved fatalities on the ground. On average, less than one general aviation accident a year results in a fatality or serious injury to persons in a building or residence on the ground. All in all, only nine individuals between 1976 and 1990 were killed when a general aviation aircraft crashed into the structure in which they were located. Further, between 1985 and 1990, there were absolutely no fatalities or injuries to individuals on the ground as the result of a general aviation B &R accident. To put these statistics into perspective, during 1985 alone, 7,750 pedestrians were killed by motorists, 1,100 people were killed in boating accidents, and 900 were victims of bicycle accidents. In 1984, 11,600 were killed in falls, 4,800 by fire, and 1,800 by firearms. During 1985, general aviation conducted over 44.3 million departures or almost 1.5 takeoffs for every hour flown. Using this methodology, general aviation conducted more than 500 million departures between 1976 and 1985. Considering that only 12 of these 500 million flights resulted in a serious injury or fatality to persons in buildings or residences on the ground is an impressive statistic. In other words, 99.999998% of all general flights do not result in a serious injury or fatality to individuals in a building or a residence on the ground. 3 Fuel Storage Fuel storage safety is of paramount concern to the management of the airport. For Jet A fuel, the City has a 12,000 gallon double - walled steel, fiberglass lined underground tank and, in addition, a 10,000 gallon steel underground tank for AvGas. The tanks have cathodic protection and monitor wells. The lines to the fuel dispenser are double - walled fiberglass pipes. It is safe to say that the fuel storage at the airport is as safe or safer than any of the many service stations located in the Georgetown vicinity. Additionally, one of the FBO's at the airport has underground fuel storage facilities that are used primarily for their own aircraft and aircraft operated by their customers. This fueling facility, as well as any others that might be constructed on the airport in the future, using either above or below ground storage tanks, are required to meet local ordinances, federal regulations and the regulations off the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission (TNRCC). The TNRCC's regulations for underground storage tanks are particularly stringent at Georgetown Municipal Airport since the airport is located in the Upper Edward's Aquifer Recharge Zone. 4 Adverse Impacts on Schools There is no noise hazard from the airport that would cause the loss of hearing to children playing in the school yard. The Georgetown schools are either not in the landing and takeoff patterns or are at such a distance from the airport that the altitude of the aircraft is sufficient to mitigate any noise that would be injurious to human ears. When contacted by members of the Working Group for a comment relative to the concern that the airport adversely impacted local schools, Dr. Jim Gunn, Superintendent of the Georgetown Independent School District (GISD), responded that with the following: "The Georgetown Municipal Airport does not create any problems, noise or safety, for any school in the GISD." 8 -6 17326/960507 Proposed Action Plans No action necessary III Issue The third major concern that was discussed regarded the method for determining the number and frequency of aircraft activity at the Georgetown Municipal Airport. Response Obtaining operations data at non - towered airports is a major concern to the Georgetown airport, as well as the TxDOT aviation divisions. Accurate airport activity is valuable information for planning and development of individual airports as well as the entire Texas airport system. This data is used in identifying both present and future operational levels. The Georgetown airport was monitored for operational activity during periods representing the four seasons in 1995. Aircraft activity is estimated by sampling operations with acoustical aircraft counters, using statistical methods to calculate annual operations. This is one of the most accurate and cost effective ways of gathering reliable data. The equipment is manufactured by RENS Manufacturing Company in Oregon, and has been constantly improved since its inception in 1988. The forecast data presented in the Master Plan is based on the number of operations initiated by a mixed fleet of 11 1 aircraft in the 1995 TxDOT audited activities as compared to the current mixed fleet of 133 aircraft. This data is then used as a guideline to forecast the number of operations based on the increase in the numbers of aircraft using the airport. To conduct an operations count, TxDOT personnel set up the counter that is then maintained by the airport on a daily basis. The airport also maintains a daily weather report and dispensed fuel log to correlate with the recorded operations data so that annual operations can be projected using these factors. Aircraft operations vary depending on the weather and day of the week, generally increasing on the weekends with recreational flying and during the week for business flying. To capture the daily variations, samples are taken in clusters of seven to fourteen consecutive days: one week in the spring, two weeks in the summer, one week in the fall, and two weeks in the winter. This sampling technique results in the greatest accuracy for estimating annual operations. The acoustically triggered counters are self - contained and weather resistant, consisting of an electronic counter with a day and hour timer, a microphone, and a gel battery. The microphone is situated on a special stand, plugged into the counter via a 50 -foot cord and located adjacent to the midpoint of the runway length. This arrangement allows recording of the departing aircraft at full engine power. When sound activates the recorder, it records for five seconds, then shuts itself off until the next aircraft sound. The recorded sound is audibly audited by the analyst to select only the sounds of departing aircraft. Because of generally quiet landings at runway touchdown by an aircraft, the counter is not activated. To account for this operations event, the departures are doubled to represent total operations. The data analysis begins with establishing the airport's weekly operations for each of the four seasons, and from these totals, average daily operations can be calculated. Seasonal averages are expanded to total seasonal operations, and total seasonal averages are then added to obtain the 8 -7 17326/960507 estimated annual operations for the airport. The accuracy of the annual total operations is +/- 10 %. The current ratio of aircraft types is expected to remain relatively static as the number of based aircraft increases. There is no plan to encourage commercial operations at the airport. If this were to occur, the operators of such a service would be limited to small turboprops similar to the Swearingen Merlin type aircraft. Departures would probably not exceed two or three a day. A specific question was raised regarding whether the hours of operation can be limited at a municipal airport that has and will receive financial aid from the State and Federal Government. The answer to that question is no, the hours of operation cannot be limited because the airport is a public facility. Proposed Action Plans No action necessary IV Issue Another major concern that was raised relative to the continued development of the airport regarded the financial impact to the City. Response The information provided in the table below was taken from a confidential FBO Survey for Calendar Year 1997. FBO Survey Information Number of Employees 72 Annual Payroll $3,036,000 Gross Sales for All Goods and Services $54,285,400 Estimated Gross Sales to Transient Sources $52,600,000 Estimated Annual Expenditures for Local Goods and Services $1,835,000 Annual State Sales Taxes $1,295,000 Annual City Sales Taxes $10,400 Annual City Property Taxes $11,700 Annual School Property Taxes $50,200 Annual County Property Taxes $10,600 With regard to adverse impacts on land values, a review of past sales and listings in the neighborhoods adjacent to the airport revealed no definable loss of value to those properties due to the airport. V Issue The next major issues discussed concerned future city service plans for the Georgetown Airport area. Response Current City services to the airport include police and fire protection, electricity, water, and garbage pickup. The airport is planning to tie into the sanitary sewage line which is located 8 -8 17326/960507 within the northern and eastern airport boundaries along and which currently serves the Sun City development. This connection will provide for the elimination of septic tanks now in use. In addition, the City has scheduled the refurbishment of Airport Road between the City limits and Lakeway Drive to be completed this fall. The history and development of the Georgetown Airport is chronologically presented in the Master Plan on pages 1 -2 through 1 -3, beginning with its inception in 1943 for use as a Navy Auxiliary Field. Also listed on page 1 -3 is a list of the current corporate airport users. A specific question was raised regarding how many airports in Texas that are similar in size to Georgetown's Airport are currently expanding or are involved in new development. According to the March 1997 issue of the Aviation newsletter published by the TxDOT, the following airports similar in size to Georgetown's Airport are undergoing expansion. • The Brazoria County Airport currently has plans to arrange air freight for perishable goods, market five acres of free trade zone now available at the airport, and build a recently approved new terminal. Such efforts are designed to enhance the airport's chances of gaining status as an international airport with customs services available. • The Mesquite Metro Airport has recently secured Mobil Oil's pipeline surveying, including the domiciling of their five- aircraft fleet. Plans are in the works for the creation of an airport master plan for the airport, perhaps a new terminal, and additional hangars to attract corporate traffic to the airport. McKinney Municipal Airport has recently initiated projects for a new terminal and a lighting system which will replace the existing runway lights and install taxiway lights. Other projects include securing a new electrical vault, airport signage, the reconstruction of the FBO apron and the construction of a new apron. Future plans for the airport include an expansion from a 366 -acre to a 1000 -acre airport with multiple runways to attract more corporate and general aviation activity and, perhaps, based aircraft. • Sugar Land's Hull Field has successfully attracted BFI's Flight Department as a corporate tenant. They are currently coordinating the construction of a fuel farm - storage facility on the airport. Goals for the future include fully developing the corporate hangar area to provide commercial airline service. Finally, the question of whether Georgetown's airport could be moved to another location was also raised. The state's criteria for funding airport relocation depends on maximum capacity being reached at the existing airport location. Georgetown Municipal Airport is not currently at maximum capacity. Proposed Action Plans I Develop a Public Information Plan for Georgetown Municipal Airport Such a plan will provide information regarding the airport to keep the citizens of Georgetown fully informed of any activity at the airport that might be of concern to their well being. 2 Additional Action Plans to be Proposed 8 -9 17326/960507