National Academies Press: OpenBook

Compilation of Noise Programs in Areas Outside DNL 65 (2009)

Chapter: Appendix D - Case Study: Dallas

« Previous: Appendix C - Case Study: Dallas/Ft. Worth International Airport
Page 99
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Case Study: Dallas." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Compilation of Noise Programs in Areas Outside DNL 65. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14271.
×
Page 99
Page 100
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Case Study: Dallas." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Compilation of Noise Programs in Areas Outside DNL 65. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14271.
×
Page 100
Page 101
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Case Study: Dallas." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Compilation of Noise Programs in Areas Outside DNL 65. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14271.
×
Page 101
Page 102
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Case Study: Dallas." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Compilation of Noise Programs in Areas Outside DNL 65. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14271.
×
Page 102
Page 103
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D - Case Study: Dallas." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Compilation of Noise Programs in Areas Outside DNL 65. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14271.
×
Page 103

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

100 BACKGROUND In 1942, the city of Naples and Collier County, Florida, leased land to the U.S. government for construction of the Naples Airdrome. After World War II, the field was returned to the city and county; they operated the airport jointly until 1958 when the county sold its interest to the city. In 1969, with the facility operating at a loss, the Florida Legislature created the Naples Airport Authority (NAA) to independently operate the airport. The NAA was given no taxing authority and has operated the Naples Municipal Airport (APF) at a profit with income from airport users and state and federal grants. Today, APF operates as a certificated air carrier airport with 130,917 operations in 2007. This includes one commercial air taxi service (Yellow Air Taxi), flight schools, fire/rescue ser- vices, car rental agencies, and other aviation and non-aviation businesses. APF is surrounded by residential land use (see Figure D1), but there are no residential or other noise-sensitive properties within the DNL 65 dB contour. Nevertheless, aircraft noise remains a serious issue and concern for the NAA. The policies and programs APF has developed to address noise outside Day–Night Average Sound Level (DNL) 65 is the focus of this case study. NOISE COMPATIBILITY PROGRAM In 1987, the NAA conducted its first FAR Part 150 study, which recommended six noise control measures that were ulti- mately implemented. In 1989, an “Airport High Noise Special Overlay District” was established that required rezoning for any new development or significant redevelopment of land within the 65 dB DNL contour. In February 1997, the NAA submitted a revised Part 150 submission to the FAA, which adopted DNL 60 dB as its threshold of compatibility for land use planning (described later). The FAA approved 14 of 15 measures, including noise abatement measures—such as preferential flight tracks and runway use, and maintenance run-up procedures; land use measures—such as compatible zoning districts and compre- hensive plan elements; and continuing program measures— such as a noise officer, noise committee, and recurring noise monitoring. Perhaps most importantly, the FAA approved a ban on non-emergency night operations in Stage 1 jet aircraft. In February 1998, the NAA submitted a second Part 150 update to the FAA. That update included a single measure: a 24-hour ban on non-emergency Stage 1 jet operations. In March 1999, the FAA approved this measure. The implemen- tation of this measure essentially eliminated any population within the DNL 65 dB contour. Despite diligent—and successful—NAA efforts to imple- ment the approved measures, including the Stage 1 ban, the NAA continued to receive community pressure regarding noise exposure. In August 1999, the NAA initiated a Part 161 study to identify potential operational restrictions that would be appropriate for addressing these community concerns. The Part 161 study determined that Stage 2 jets were the principal source of the noise impact that caused community concern; Stage 2 jet operations were more than 25 times more likely to cause noise complaints than Stage 3 operations and nearly 250 times more likely to cause noise complaints than propeller operations. Even more importantly, the analysis indicated that individual Stage 2 operations were more than 50 times more likely than Stage 3 jets to cause multiple citi- zens to complain (and more than 800 times more likely than propeller aircraft to do so). The number of people estimated to live within the 60 dB DNL contour if there were no restrictions in 2000 was about 1,400; a 24-hour ban on Stage 2 operations would reduce this to approximately 130. The Part 161 study was published in June 2000 and recommended the total ban on Stage 2 aircraft operations as the most reasonable and cost- effective measure to minimize incompatible land use. On Jan- uary 1, 2001, the Stage 2 restriction went into effect. Following publication of the Part 161 study a complicated series of events unfolded, which ultimately resulted in the find- ing that the Stage 2 ban was permissible; these are summarized in Table D1. APF is the only airport with an FAA-approved FAR Part 161 study. For the purposes of this ACRP Synthesis, the most relevant aspect of the APF Part 161 Study is the establishment—and legal determination—of DNL 60 dB as a threshold of residential land use compatibility, described here. Operational Measures APF uses flight tracks and procedures to minimize noise effects on surrounding communities. APF’s flight tracks have received formal FAA approval and are implemented by air traffic controllers. APF has also developed informal Visual Flight Rules noise abatement procedures; the noise metrics used to evaluate these procedures have varied, and include: DNL, Sound Exposure Level (SEL) and Time Above, Continuous APPENDIX D Case Study: Naples Municipal Airport

101 Equivalent Sound Level (Leq), and Maximum A-weighted Sound Level (Lmax). APF reported that both flight tracks and procedures are somewhat effective at reducing aircraft noise and complaints from noise-sensitive communities. These procedures have been developed and refined through FAR Part 150 processes. Land Use Measures Most noise and land use compatibility studies, in conformance with the guidelines of FAR Part 150, use 65 dB DNL as the determinant of compatibility—all noise-sensitive land uses, such as residential areas, are considered compatible with air- craft noise exposure less than 65 dB DNL. However, the 1996 APF Part 150 study and the associated Noise Compatibility Program (NCP) found that no noise-sensitive land uses would lie within the 65 dB DNL contour. Consequently, the FAR Part 150 study provided the 60 dB DNL contour, Figure D2, and recommended that zoning be used by the city of Naples and Collier County as a preventive measure to preclude the devel- opment of incompatible uses in the vicinity of the airport. Specifically, the study recognized that although both FAA guidelines and Florida statutes, Chapter 333, encourage airport compatible zoning, those guidelines applied at the 65 dB DNL level. The study contained the following recommendation: For Naples Municipal Airport, the FAA and FDOT guidelines do not apply since these guidelines use the 65 Ldn contour as the threshold of incompatibility, and the 65 Ldn contour does not contain any incompatible uses in the revised 2001 NEM which includes the noise abatement alternatives. How- ever, it is important to create a buffer of compatible land use around the Airport. As such, another standard should be des- ignated by the local land use planning agencies to ensure that residential and noise sensitive uses are not developed too close to the Airport. One possible standard is the 60 Ldn contour. Figure 13 depicts the 60 Ldn contour for the revised NEM including the noise abatement measures. Applying the land use compatibility guidelines normally used for the 65 Ldn contour to this 60 Ldn contour should create an adequate area of compatible land use. Summary of City Land Development Policy History Within the Noise Zone The city’s Comprehensive Plan contained specific information regarding rezoning of areas affected or potentially affected by the airport for the first time in 1984. In 1989, the city updated the Comprehensive Plan to establish an Airport High Noise Special Overlay District (“City Special District”), depicted in the 1989 Comprehensive Plan as the area of land exposed to noise in excess of 65 dB DNL according to the five-year fore- cast case (1991) in the 1987 APF FAR Part 150 Study. Any applicant proposing to develop or significantly redevelop land in the City Special District was—and is today—required to first obtain a rezoning of the property to Planned Development. To FIGURE D1 General location of Naples Municipal Airport (APF).

102 Date Event Comments June 23, 2000 NAA invitation to public to co mme nt on proposed restriction on Stage 2 jet operations at Naples Municipal Airport June 30, 2000 Part 161 study published Notice of study availability and opportunity for co mme nts distributed widely Nov. 16, 2000 Response to Comments published Responses provided for 36 comment categories Dec. 2000 FAA initiates enforcem ent action alleging Stage 2 ban violated Part 161 NAA suspends enforcem ent of ban while responding to FAA. Dec. 2000 National Business Aviation Association (NBAA) and General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) sue NAA in federal court alleging the ban is unconstitutional Ban upheld in federal district court, Septem ber 2001. Jan. 18, 2001 NAA m eeting w/FAA staff Discuss FAA co mme nts. FAA staff offer to work with the NAA in an inform al process to resolve any agency concerns, approach to supplemental analysis. Aug. 2001 Part 161 Supplem ental Analysis published Oct. 2001 FAA found that the study fully com plied with the requirements of Part 161 Oct. 2001 FAA initiates second enforcem ent action under Part 16 rules which require (1) Investigation, (2) Hearing, and (3) Final Decision. FAA alleges that Stage 2 ban violates the grant assurance that “the airport will be available for public use on reasonable conditions and without unjust discri mi nation.” March 2002 NAA enforces ban Grant m oney withheld March 2003 INVESTIGATION: FAA issues 94-page “Director’s Deter mi nation” that Stage 2 ban is preem pted by federal law and violated Grant Assurance 22—“m ake airport available for public use on reasonable term s and without unjust discri mi nation to all types, kinds, and classes of aeronautical activities.” NAA appeals decision, provides responses to all FAA allegations June 2003 HEARING: FAA attorney appointed as Hearing Officer and conducts hearing on NAA appeal. Hearing Officer issues 56-page “Initial Decision” that ban not preem pted, not unjustly discri mi natory, but was (1) unreasonable, (2) Part 161 com pliance does not affect Grant Assurance obligations, and (3) FAA not bound by prior federal court decision [see Dec. 2000, above] July 2003 Both NAA and FAA appeal the Initial Decision Aug. 2003 FINAL DECISION: Associate Adm inistrator issues Final Agency Decision and Order—Grant funding to be withheld so long as NAA enforces Stage 2 ban. Decision: (1) FAA is not bound by prior federal court decision because FAA was not a party to the case. 2) Co mp liance with Part 161 has no effect on Grant Assurance Obligations. 3) Stage 2 ban unreasonable because there is no incompatible land use problem in Naples that warrants a restriction on airport operations [because there is no incompatible land use inside 65 dB DNL]. Sept. 2003 Naples Airport Authority files petition for review Petition to U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. June 2005 U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rules Stage 2 ban is reasonable (and Grant Assurances not affected) Circuit Court found that it is permissible for NAA to consider the benefits of the restriction to noise-sensitive areas within 60 dB DNL. It also found that Grant Assurances do apply, but that because the ban is not unreasonable, the Grants are not affected. TABLE D1 CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS LEADING TO IMPLEMENTATION OF STAGE 2 RESTRICTION

103 obtain the rezoning, the proposed development or redevelop- ment must conform to existing zoning standards and must, after specific review for this purpose, be deemed compatible with the airport in terms of safety and noise. In 1997, the city revised the map of the City Special District in the Comprehensive Plan to reflect the five-year forecast case (2001) 60 dB DNL contour from the 1996 NEM. In February 2001, the city and the NAA executed an interlocal agreement to update the District and Comprehensive Plan to reflect the 2005 forecast case 60 dB DNL contour from the FAA- approved 2000 NEM update. Summary of County Land Development Policy History within the Noise Zone In June 1986, Collier County developed zoning maps indicat- ing aircraft noise boundaries. In 1987, the Collier County planning department began referencing standards for sound control. In October 1991, Collier County approved Ordinance 91-102 that redesigned aircraft noise zones using the five-year forecast case (1991) 65 dB DNL contour (“County Special District”), added land use restrictions, and notification and sound level requirements for buildings and structures. These requirements are contained in the county’s Land Develop- ment Code. In June 1999, the NAA requested that the county adopt the five-year forecast case (2003) 60 dB DNL contour from the 1998 NEM. Collier County adopted the resolution in June 2000. That same month, the NAA requested the County use the five year forecast case (2005) 60 dB DNL contour from the 2000 NEM Update for future land use planning. The County updated its zoning map in December 2000 to reflect those contours. City and County Development Application Processes In May 2001, NAA staff met with city and county planning, zoning, and building department staffs to review the processes that they follow on a day-to-day basis to identify development applications for properties located in the City Special District and the County Special District. As discussed earlier, both of these overlay districts are based on 60 dB DNL contours. FIGURE D2 Forecast 2001 APF 60 dB DNL with NCP implemented.

For the city, any applicant proposing development in the City Special District must submit a General Development Site Plan that provides the City Council and staff the opportunity to consider the compatibility of the proposed development with the airport. This review process also provides city staff with the opportunity to ensure consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code. The County Special District is incorporated directly in the Zoning Code, which provides applicants and county staff the ability to readily identify whether proposed development is located in the County Special District. As part of the county staff’s review of the development application, staff considers whether the applicant has included necessary information to ensure compliance with the noise compatibility standards identified in the Land Development Code (i.e., land use restric- tions, notifications, and sound insulation). Monitoring and Outreach Measures APF does not have a permanent noise and operations moni- toring system. However, it does monitor noise and operations through the following: • As part of the implementation of the 1996 NCP Study, NAA purchased two portable noise monitoring field kits, which have allowed staff to conduct portable monitoring in the communities that surround the airport. The two main objectives of this program are to provide the public with useful, understandable, and geographically repre- sentative information on long-term noise exposure pat- terns, and to answer community questions with regard to levels of noise in their areas with solid reliable data. • APF has an online flight tracking program on the home- page of its website; the program shows real-time flight tracks and aircraft information for the entire country, as well as archives of that data for three months. APF also has an extensive public outreach program, including: • In 1997, an Airport Noise Compatibility Advisory Com- mittee was established. This Committee’s nine members 104 meet regularly to review the Airport Noise Abatement Program and make appropriate recommendations to airport staff and the authority. All Noise Compatibility Committee members are local residents and volunteers who donate their time and expertise to help maintain a high quality of life in Naples. The Committee meets quarterly. • APF also produces quarterly noise reports, which pro- vide data on aircraft operations and noise complaints. • APF has an extensive website (http://www.flynaples. com/Noise%20Abatement%20Office%20index.htm), which provides information on noise abatement proce- dures, the portable noise monitoring program, aircraft noise terminology, quarterly noise reports, online com- plaint form, and other noise-related topics. In November of 2000, the NAA Board of Commissioners adopted a Noise Abatement Award Program for operators, ten- ants, or transient flight crews that continually operate or work toward furthering the airport’s Noise Abatement Program. SUMMARY OF PROGRAM MEASURES OUTSIDE DNL 65 There are no residential or other noise-sensitive land uses inside the DNL 65 contour at APF. As a result, the entire noise program is devoted to addressing noise outside DNL 65, which includes: • Operational measures such as noise abatement flight tracks and procedures, as well as ground noise control, and a use restriction that prevents Stage 1 or Stage 2 air- craft from operating at APF. • Land use measures, most notably the adoption—and implementation by local authorities—of DNL 60 as the threshold of compatibility with residential land use. • Monitoring of noise and operations using technology that is appropriate to the size of the airport. • Extensive public outreach, including a Noise Compati- bility Committee, Quarterly Noise Reports, public web- site, and Noise Abatement Awards. APF has just initiated another update of its Part 150.

Next: Abbreviations used without definitions in TRB publications »
Compilation of Noise Programs in Areas Outside DNL 65 Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) Synthesis 16: Compilation of Noise Programs in Areas Outside DNL 65 explores alternative actions currently used by airports to address noise outside the DNL (Day–Night Average Noise Level) 65 contour.

An ACRP Impacts on Practice related to ACRP Synthesis 16 is available online.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!