Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 41
42
APPENDIX B
Survey Results and Analysis
SUMMARY
This report contains a detailed statistical analysis of the results to the survey titled Survey for Airport
Noise Officers on Noise Issues Outside DNL 65. The results analysis includes answers from all
respondents who took the survey in the 95 day period from Monday, April 28, 2008, to Thursday,
July 31, 2008. Thirty-four completed responses were received to the survey during this time.
1. State in which you are located: New York 3 8.8%
North Carolina 1 2.9%
Response Count Percent
North Dakota 0 0.0%
Alabama 0 0.0%
Ohio 0 0.0%
Alaska 0 0.0%
Oklahoma 0 0.0%
Arizona 1 2.9%
Oregon 1 2.9%
Arkansas 0 0.0%
Pennsylvania 0 0.0%
California 7 20.6%
Rhode Island 0 0.0%
Colorado 1 2.9%
South Carolina 0 0.0%
Connecticut 0 0.0%
South Dakota 0 0.0%
Delaware 0 0.0%
Tennessee 1 2.9%
District of Columbia 0 0.0%
Texas 2 5.9%
Florida 6 17.6%
Utah 0 0.0%
Georgia 0 0.0%
Vermont 0 0.0%
Hawaii 0 0.0%
Virginia 2 5.9%
Idaho 1 2.9%
Washington 0 0.0%
Illinois 0 0.0%
West Virginia 0 0.0%
Indiana 0 0.0%
Wisconsin 0 0.0%
Iowa 0 0.0%
Wyoming 0 0.0%
Kansas 0 0.0%
Other 1 2.9%
Kentucky 0 0.0%
Louisiana 0 0.0%
Maine 0 0.0% Other Responses: New York and New Jersey
Maryland 0 0.0%
Massachusetts 2 5.9%
Michigan 1 2.9%
Minnesota 1 2.9%
Mississippi 0 0.0%
Missouri 0 0.0%
Montana 1 2.9%
Nebraska 0 0.0%
Nevada 2 5.9%
New Hampshire 0 0.0%
New Jersey 0 0.0%
New Mexico 0 0.0%
OCR for page 42
43
OCR for page 43
44
Other Responses: Private Contractor, Public Benefit Corporation, Bi-State Authority.
OCR for page 44
45
Comment Responses:
All noise concerns are treated with equal importance no matter where they are located.
With no population inside the 2005 65 DNL contour, all noise concerns are outside DNL 65.
Interagency Agreement with four airports.
We have experienced significant reduction in incompatible land uses around the airport since the
mid-1980s.
Using 60 DNL for some land use planning since early 1990s.
Some communities are affected with noise outside the DNL 65 when departure patterns are altered
during runway closures for construction.
We accept the FAA's DNL 65 standard. It is our experience that the levels of annoyance over
aircraft noise at our airport are minimal based on the complaints received.
OCR for page 45
46
(Check all that apply)
Other Responses:
Dedicated Noise Complaint Hotline 24/7
Noise budget
Noise Monitoring
Pilot training, Weekly coordination with ATCT
RNAV departures, airport large land mass
Detailed noise reports
All programs at the airport are voluntary
Airport Influence Area
Use of "policy" contours
Procedures at this airport are voluntary
Noise Insulation Program
OCR for page 46
47
(Check all that apply)
Public education and outreach
All but buyouts included in city code
Future workshops with all stakeholders
Use of policy noise contours
Place conditions on land use application
Use of policy noise contours
Public education, newsletters
End-of-the-block sound insulation
OCR for page 47
48
OCR for page 48
49
Other response: Proactive planning.
OCR for page 49
50
Other Responses:
E-mail, noise alerts
Responses to complaints
Local newspaper ads
Noise disclosure notification
NOMS (Noise and Operations Management System)
will be operational in January 2009
E-mail listserv
Education using flight tracking tools
Noise reports.
24/7 Noise Complaint Line, Annual Report
Noise Mitigation Program Model home
Reports
Meetings with local planners
OCR for page 50
51
11) Has FAA denied your airport's plans to mitigate or abate noise outside DNL 65?
Response Count Percent
Yes, because "Noise below DNL 65 is not significant." 2 6.3%
Yes, because "FAA does not fund actions outside DNL 65" (or it is such a low
10 31.3%
priority that it will never be funded).
Yes, because "The sponsor has not shown that there is a problem outside DNL 65." 1 3.1%
Yes, because "The local community has not enacted the local land use policies
0 0.0%
(including provision to protect areas outside DNL 65)."
Yes, because "At locations outside DNL 65, community noise is equal or greater to
0 0.0%
the aircraft noise."
Yes, because "FAA has a national policy of not addressing noise from aircraft
0 0.0%
weighting less than 12,500 Online flight tracking."
Yes, because "The lack of evidence/precedent indicating sound insulation of
0 0.0%
`floating' homes would be effective."
No 9 28.1%
Other 10 31.3%
Other Responses:
No Part 150 program at this airport for FAA to approve or deny
No Part 150 study conducted
Decision on this airport in August
Never presented to the FAA in any airport documents
Part 150 pending action by FAA. The airport is in the process of conducting a Part 161 study.
Unfair question
Not applicable
Does not apply
No. This airport has only requested FAA to fund sound insulation to end-of-the-block, which does
extend outside the 65 dB CNEL.
They have agreed to use of general airport revenues for mitigation due to settlement of litigation
proposed procedure opposed by local ATCT
Comment Responses:
Only FAA involvement is noise abatement flight track.
We have not asked and do not intend to
This airport does not have plans to support any mitigation outside DNL 65
We don't formally pursue because it will be denied.
Everything we are doing is not in conflict with our FAA covenants or FAA regulations.
OCR for page 51
52
The DNL 65 is located within the airport boundary.
We did not ask the FAA to fund mitigation, but were denied approach and departure procedures
outside the DNL 65.
This question should allow for multiple answers.
Can you tell me why the burden should be placed on airports to mitigate outside the DNL 65 levels
when local communities are not willing to mitigate along roads and railroads with equal or even
higher levels. The policy is wrong for airports.
Airport is conducting a Part 161 study to try to restrict aircraft from departing to the east over
residences between midnight and 6:30 a.m., which disturbs areas outside current 65 dB CNEL.
12) Do you use noise abatement flight tracks for noise abatement?
OCR for page 82
83
Airport requires easement
We require easements out to our 65 LDN.
Based on Land Use Compatibility Zones designated in plan
Only for non-compatible uses with airport approval
State, county, and city requirement
But only prior to the ruling Nevada court ruling on Sisalak
5 miles around airports
We have required them if property owners' accepts mitigation
Some jurisdictions only
For homes requesting soundproofing
Recent court case said not warranted
In areas that we have purchased and sold back to the public
All homes from between 60 and 65 DNL contours.
Encouraged; not required
Any use within 65 DNL
OCR for page 83
84
Airport requires easement
State of California requires within airport influence area
Residential use only to composite 55 DNL
State law
Must be recorded at county
Some jurisdictions only
This is done at the county level.
On a case-by-case basis for new development
All homes outside the 65 DNL contour to a distance 1 mile out
Encouraged; not required
Disclosure is required within 60 DNL
OCR for page 84
85
Other Responses:
Currently studying this topic
Residents should not be forced inside
Pre-existing to airport 55 DNL+ received NLR
Proposed only for less than 2 dozen homes
OCR for page 85
86
Other Responses:
NA
No sound insulation funded
We have considered
We do not insulate outside DNL 65
OCR for page 86
87
51) What is the estimated cost to implement this measure?
Cost to Cost to
Cost to Airport Cost to FAA Other Costs (explain)
Operators Homeowner
Will be evaluating as
Undetermined Undetermined Undetermined Undetermined
part of 2006 150 study
$150,000/ year
NA NA NA NA NA
0 0 0 0 0
unknown
$0 $0 $0 $0
City provided using
penalty payments from
DIA
nil (avigation In-house construction
$3.1 million nil 80%
easement) management
Haven't implemented
NA NA NA NA
yet.
20% or about $10K 80% or about $30K
per dwelling per dwelling
NA
$15,000
130,000,000
NA NA NA NA
OCR for page 87
88
52) How effective are your, or the land use governing body(ies), land use policies communicated to
homeowners and realtors (check all that apply)?
Other Responses:
We work with land-use authorities
County and city planning department
Through the complaint process
Planning departments advise petitioners
Active with development permitting process
Through public meetings
Disclosures
Resolution requiring notification
OCR for page 88
89
53) How effective are your, or the land use governing body(ies), land use policies at preventing non-
compatible development in communities outside DNL 65?
Comment Responses:
Effective inside 65 DNL but not outside 65 DNL
only implemented w/in 80 Lmax
Unique position in Planning to review all new development
Re-zoning petitions are the biggest challenges. Authority is working to improve coordination thru
mutually acceptable catchment areas for notification of the Aviation Authority.
Usually allowed with mitigation/easements
OCR for page 89
90
54) What is the estimated cost to implement this land use measure?
Cost to Cost to
Cost to Airport Other Costs (explain)
Homeowners Realtors
Minimal Undetermined Undetermined
Minimal
nil nil Nil Administrative
0 0 0 0
$250,000
$0 Unknown Unknown
0 0 0
In-house construction, legal City and County Planners &
and staff time Zoning Agencies
NA NA NA NA
Minimal
NA
0 0 0
$15,000
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
OCR for page 90
91
Comment Responses:
None
Not all realtors or homeowners are cooperative even though they can be sued for non-compliance.
No drawbacks
Voluntary compliance--No oversight
Developers seeking P&D rezoning in our airport district zones for in-fill development
Recommendations not always heeded
Sometimes the local officials do not contact the airport on critical land development.
Pressure from developers to abandon policy contour
OCR for page 91
92
58) Do you have any information that you believe would be helpful to this study? If so, please
indicate below.
I'd be happy to provide additional information. I am not sure what is meant by a "case study" but the
Port has worked on many projects to address noise outside the 65 DNL contours including pursuing
RNAV, building a GRE (due to state requirements) and establishing helicopter training patterns at
HIO.
On file with HMMH.
All components of our program are based on issues outside the 65 CNEL.
This facility was among the very first U.S. airports to implement ANCLUCAirport Noise Control
and Land Use Compatibility in 1979 and have completed 2 FAR Part 150 Study Updates.
The airport has a fully cooperative relationship with the local jurisdictions for land use in the 65
DNL. Outside of the 65 DNL, the local jurisdictions do not prohibit noise sensitive land uses. The
airport must impose noise disclosure on its own and must convince school district to sound insulate
new schools outside of but close to 65 DNL.
With a population exceeding 20,000 and over 10,000 dwelling units inside the SDIA CNEL 65,
we estimate it will take 30+ years to mitigate through residential insulation. Before FAA authorizes
money to be spent to mitigate aircraft noise issues beyond CNEL 65, perhaps someone should
consider whether we need to re-evaluate first generation sound insulated homes and decide whether
money is better spent on those closest to the source and most susceptible to injury.
Some sort of participation by the FAA would be helpful outside the 65.
In general, we believe the industry is opposed to mitigation beyond the 65 db DNL. Mitigating
beyond the 65 db DNL would significantly increase the numbers of homes eligible for sound
insulation. Consequently, this will increase the financial burden on the FAA and airport operators
(local share of grants). The majority of airports (medium and small hub) do not have adequate
funding or resources to complete existing noise programs within the 65 db DNL contour. Airports
that successfully completed 65 db DNL mitigation programs will be required to initiate new noise
programs and this would take away the limited federal funding from those airports not yet finished
with their existing 65 db DNL mitigation programs. Background and other noise sources (roadways)
can greatly influence noise levels in a neighborhood. Beyond the 65 db DNL, it is not a given that
aircraft generated noise will remain the prime noise issue.
This community has a unique program in the U.S. Full-time Airport Noise Coordinator although the
city doesn't own/operate an airport.
Airports are seriously handicapped in dealing with ATCT staff if their noise abatement programs are
not formal. They have told us (Authority) that they can do anything they want at this facility because
we have an informal program.
The airport and the local jurisdictions use policy contours not acoustic contours, adopted by ordinance,
to govern land use. Areas in acoustic 6065 within policy 65. Also facility has 18,500 acres. 65 DNL
nearly on airport property. Local cities regulate areas beyond airport based on policy contours.
Just Part 150 info on the number of homes/residents in the 60 to 65 DNL area and recommendations
that were not adopted by the FAA in 2001.
Currently undergoing Noise Study. Most issues outside of 65. Use of alternative metrics; community
extensive role. Very difficult on consensus due to shifting of noise.
A lot of our noise complaints occur during flight changes due to runway closures. Also, aircraft
approaching the runways will follow ILS procedures until they get visual contact of the runway and
OCR for page 92
93
drop their elevation by 2000 feet over the community. We are working with the ATCT to try to
eliminate this procedure.
Currently we have no formal program for addressing noise outside of the 65 DNL. We are trying to
keep the lines of communications open. We do offer the following on a limited basis: 1) Open the
Noise Model Home to general public for noise mitigation ideas. 2) Will be putting together a "Tips
on" flyer handout for hiring contractors and home mitigation. 3) The local municipality is considering
a community-wide property reassessment. We are in current discussions for the potential for
"Grandfathering" homes in the 6064 DNL from being reassessed or freeze them at the current value
for 1020 years. That commitment may or may not be approved.
Airport uses pre-ANCA noise contours; Actual 65 on airport property, which would invite residences
at fence; local jurisdictions adopted policy contours and understand benefits to continued use until
pressure from developers caused the cities to request new noise contours; updated contours in process
now.
The expert studies that were developed and presented in court as part of the litigation related to
mitigation beyond the 65 DNL contour at MSP.
