Table of Contents. Appendix A Evaluation of Noise Abatement Alternatives. Appendix B Evaluation of Noise Mitigation Alternatives

Transcription

1 Table of Contents I. Introduction and Summary...I Introduction... I Airport Setting... I Existing Airfield... I Planned Airfield Facilities... I Summary of Aviation Demand Forecasts... I Existing Noise Compatibility Program... I Updated Noise Exposure Maps... I Updated Noise Compatibility Program... I Recommended Noise Abatement Measures... I Recommended Noise Mitigation Measures... I Coordination and Public Involvement... I Report Organization... I-19 II. III. IV. Noise Abatement Measures... II Summary of Recommended Noise Abatement Measures...II Descriptions of Individual Recommended Noise Abatement Measures...II-2 Noise Mitigation Measures...III Summary of Recommended Noise Mitigation Measures...III Descriptions of Recommended Noise Mitigation Measures...III Descriptions of Recommended Preventative Noise Mitigation Measures...III-6 Implementation, Preliminary Cost Estimates, and Financing...IV Introduction... IV Consistency with Existing Noise Compatibility Measures... IV Summary of Anticipated Program Benefits... IV Consistency with Plans Previously Adopted and Plans for Future Study... IV Review and Revision of Program... IV Responsibility and Schedule for Implementation... IV Costs and Funding Sources... IV-6 Appendix A Evaluation of Noise Abatement Alternatives Appendix B Evaluation of Noise Mitigation Alternatives Appendix C Notices for Public Meetings Appendix D Glossary of Terms Appendix E Implementation Documentation Noise Compatibility Program Report i Table of Contents

2 List of Exhibits Exhibit I-1 Airport Location Map, Dayton International Airport... I-2 Exhibit I-2 Existing Facilities, Dayton International Airport... I-3 Exhibit I-3 Noise Exposure Map: I-9 Exhibit I-4 Noise Exposure Map: I-10 Exhibit I-5 Noise Grid Comparison, 2000 and 2005 Baseline... I-12 Exhibit I-6 Noise Exposure Map: 2005 with Noise Abatement Measures... I-16 Exhibit II-1 Noise Abatement Departure Corridors Runway 24R...II-4 Exhibit II-2 Noise Exposure Map: 2005 Abatement Measure 2...II-5 Exhibit II-3 Noise Abatement Departure Corridors Runway 6L...II-7 Exhibit II-4 Noise Exposure Map: 2005 Abatement Measure 3...II-8 Exhibit II-5 Noise Abatement Departure Corridors Runway 24L...II-11 Exhibit II-6 Noise Exposure Map: 2005 Abatement Measure 4...II-12 Exhibit II-7 Noise Abatement Departure Corridors Runway 24R...II-14 Exhibit II-8 Noise Exposure Map: 2005 Abatement Measure 5...II-15 Exhibit II-9 Tipp City and Monroe Township Departure Procedure for Runway 6L...II-24 Exhibit II-10 Noise Exposure Map: 2005 Alternative L...II-25 Exhibit III-1 Property Acquisition Programs 1994 NCP, Dayton International Airport...III-3 Exhibit III-2 Potential Eligibility Boundary Land Acquisition Programs, Dayton International Airport...III-5 Exhibit III-3 Multi-jurisdictional Compatible Land Use Planning Overlay Zoning District (MCLUPOZD)...III-7 List of Tables Table I-1 Summary of Planned Capital Improvements... I-5 Table I-2 Aviation Activity Forecasts FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study Update... I-7 Table I-3 Summary of the 1994 Noise Compatibility Program... I-8 Table I-4 Effects of Noise Exposure in the Airport Environs 2000 and I-11 Table I-5 Recommended Noise Abatement Measures... I-15 Table I-6 Recommended Noise Mititgation Measures... I-17 Table II-1 Comarison of Noise Exposure With and Without Noise Abatement Measure 2...II-3 Table II-2 Comarison of Noise Exposure With and Without Noise Abatement Measure 3...II-9 Table II-3 Comarison of Noise Exposure With and Without Noise Abatement Measure 4...II-13 Table II-4 Comarison of Noise Exposure With and Without Noise Abatement Measure 5...II-16 Table IV-1 Noise Compatibility Program Measures and Anticipated Benefits Noise Abatement... IV-3 Table IV-2 Noise Compatibility Program Measures and Anticipated Benefits Noise Mitigation... IV-5 Table IV-3 Implementation Resposibility and Preliminary Schedule Noise Abatement... IV-7 Table IV-4 Implementation Resposibility and Preliminary Schedule Noise Mitigation... IV-9 Table IV-5 Estimated Implementation Costs and Financing Noise Abatement... IV-11 Table IV-6 Estimated Implementation Costs and Financing Noise Mitigation... IV-13 Noise Compatibility Program Report ii Table of Contents

3 I. Introduction and Summary 1.1 Introduction This report documents the results of the second phase of the Dayton International Airport Noise Compatibility Study Update. The update has been conducted in accordance with Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 150, Airport Noise Compatibility Planning. The first step in the noise compatibility program update process was to prepare maps of existing noise exposure and anticipated future noise exposure (assuming that no changes to the current noise compatibility program were implemented) and to estimate the effects of that noise exposure in terms of the number of people, households, and noise-sensitive facilities exposed to various levels of aircraft noise. The noise exposure maps and the assumptions used in preparing the maps were documented in a report entitled, FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study Update, Noise Exposure Map Report, October 2001 (Noise Exposure Map Report) Airport Setting James M. Cox-Dayton International Airport (Dayton International Airport) is located in northern Montgomery County, Ohio. As shown on Exhibit I-1, Dayton International Airport is located approximately 11 miles north of downtown Dayton. Incorporated municipalities in the immediate environs of the Airport include the City of Vandalia, the City of Tipp City, the City of Union, the City of Englewood, the City of Huber Heights, and the City of West Milton. There are also several townships that are located in close proximity to the Airport including Butler Township to the south, Union Township to the northwest, and Monroe Township to the north. The Airport is owned and operated by the City of Dayton. Dayton International Airport is defined as a primary and commercial service airport in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). Airports with this classification have the capability to provide nonstop commercial passenger service to destinations of more than 1,500 miles. Less than 0.25 percent of certified airline passenger enplanements in the United States occur at Dayton International Airport. The Airport is currently classified as a small hub airport in terms of the air passenger market it serves. The Airport has served as the North American Sortation Center for Emery Worldwide (now Menlo Worldwide) 2 since November 1, The Airport is also home to several other commercial freight operations (United Parcel Service [UPS], Federal Express [FedEx], etc.) and accommodates a substantial amount of general aviation traffic. Dayton International Airport has served as the air carrier airport for the Dayton region since Existing Airfield The Airport layout is depicted on Exhibit I-2. Airfield facilities at Dayton International Airport include runways, taxiways, aprons, airfield lighting and navigational aids. The Airport has three 1 In February 2002, at the request of the FAA, the City of Dayton submitted updated Noise Exposure Maps (NEM) for 2005 and The new 2005 and 2018 NEMs were based on new activity levels forecasts prepared by Landrum and Brown. The new aviation activity forecasts are discussed in the August 2001 report entitled, Updated Forecasts of Aviation Activity, Dayton International Airport. 2 On December 6, 2001, CNF announced that it was shutting down its Emery Worldwide Airlines unit and combining its Menlo Logistics, Emery Worldwide and Vector SCM (supply chain management) operations into a single unit Menlo Worldwide. Noise Compatibility Program Report I-1 Introduction and Summary

4 Insert Exhibit I-1 Location of Dayton International Airport Noise Compatibility Program Report I-2 Introduction and Summary

5 Insert Exhibit I-2, Airport Layout Noise Compatibility Program Report I-3 Introduction and Summary

6 runways: Runway 6L-24R, which is 10,900 feet long and 150 feet wide; Runway 6R-24L, which is 7,000 feet long and 150 feet wide; and Runway 18-36, which is 8,500 feet long and 150 feet wide. The existing taxiway system at the Airport consists of parallel taxiways for each of the runways and several connecting taxiways. Taxiway R is the south parallel taxiway for Runway 6L-24R. Runway 6L-24R also has a full length parallel taxiway on the northside (Taxiway W ) which serves the Menlo Worldwide cargo area. Taxiway H is the south parallel taxiway for Runway 6R-24L, while Taxiways E and F combined serve as the north parallel taxiway for Runway 6R-24L. Taxiway A serves the west side of Runway while Taxiway C serves portions of the eastside. Dayton International Airport is equipped with a variety of navigational aids that assist pilots with identification, approach, landing, and taxiing operations at night and during instrument meteorological conditions (IMC). Airfield lighting equipment at the Airport is described in the following paragraphs. Approach lighting systems. Approach lighting systems assist pilots with the transition from instrument flight to visual flight during landing operations. Approach lighting systems also provide visual guidance for nighttime approaches during Visual Flight Rule (VFR) conditions. Runways 18, 24R, and 24L are equipped with medium-intensity approach light systems with runway alignment indicator lights (MALSR). Runway 6L is equipped with an approach light system with sequenced flashing lights in ILS CAT-III configuration (ALSF-II). Runways 6R, 36, 24L, and 24R are currently equipped with Visual Approach Slope Indicators (VASIs). VASIs provide direct visual approach slope guidance to pilots during landings. Runway End Identifier Lights (REILs). REILs provide positive identification of the approach end of the runway to pilots and consist of a pair of synchronized flashing lights located laterally on each side of a runway threshold. REILs are typically installed on runways where approach lighting is not available. REILs have been installed on the ends of Runway 36 and Runway 6R. Runway and taxiway lighting. All runways at the Airport are equipped with high intensity runway lights (HIRL). Runway 6L-24R is equipped with standard centerline lights. The approach end of Runway 6L is also equipped with touchdown zone lights. Taxiways at the Airport are equipped with medium intensity taxiway lights (MITL). 1.4 Planned Airfield Facilities The City of Dayton Department of Aviation and its consultants completed an update to the Airport Master Plan in The update is documented in the report entitled Strategic Master Plan Update Study. 3 Table I-1 presents a summary of capital improvements that are planned at the Airport during the three phase Master Plan. Airfield improvements recommended in the Master Plan that could have an effect on long-term noise exposure include: (1) a 4,400 foot extension of Runway 6R-24L and associated land acquisition and roadway realignments (2) a 4,100 foot extension of Runway and associated land acquisition and roadway realignments, and (3) the construction of a new 3 rd parallel Runway 5,000 feet north of existing Runway 6L-24R. The new runway (Runway 6-24) would be 11,000 feet long and 150 feet wide. 3 Landrum & Brown. Strategic Master Plan Update Study, Technical Report, Dayton International Airport. December Noise Compatibility Program Report I-4 Introduction and Summary

7 Table I-1 Summary of Planned Capital Improvements, Dayton International Airport Phase 1 Airfield Roadway Support Facilities Runway 6R Extension Angle Exit Taxiways Taxiway E Extension Hold Pad South Taxiway Connector South Taxiway Connector Bridge Aircraft Apron North Taxiway Connector New ALSF-II New Glide Slope New Marker Beacons (IM, OM) New RVR New Localizer U.S. 40 Relocation (4-lanes) Airport Access Road Relocation (4-lanes) Terminal Drive Relocation (4-lanes) East-West Frontage Roads (2-lanes) Dog Leg Pike Interchange (2-lanes) U.S. 40/Airport Access Connector Road Roadway Bridges Roadway Pavement Demolition Public Auto Parking (surface lot) Airport Access Road Relocation (4-lanes) Parking Garage Airport Maintenance Building Airport Maintenance Land Airport Maintenance Hangar Phase 2 Airfield Roadway Support Facilities Runway 18 Extension Taxiway A Extension Hold Pad Taxiway Exits North Terminal Taxiway Aircraft Apron Pavement Demolition New Glide Slope New Marker Beacons (OM) New RVR New Localizer Ginghamsburg-Frederick Road Relocation (4-lanes) North Dixie Drive Interchange Roadway Demolition New ATCT/TRACON New ASR-11 Public Auto Parking (surface lot) Airport Maintenance Building Airport Maintenance Land Airport Maintenance Hangar Noise Compatibility Program Report I-5 Introduction and Summary

8 Table I-1 contd. Phase 3 Airfield Roadway Support Facilities Runway 6-24 Parallel Taxiway Hold Pad Angled Exit Taxiways Taxiway Exits North/South Taxiway Connectors Taxiway Bridge New ALSF-II New Glide Slope New Marker Beacons (IM, OM) New RVR New Localizer By-Pass Connector Road (4-lanes) By-Pass Connector Interchanges Miscellaneous Road Connectors (2-lanes) New ARFF Expand Equalization Ponds Public Auto Parking (surface lot) Airport Maintenance Building Airport Maintenance Land Airport Maintenance Hangar Source Landrum & Brown, December Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc. 1.5 Summary of Aviation Demand Forecasts The most recent forecasts for Dayton International Airport were prepared in 2001 by Landrum & Brown and are summarized in the report Updated Forecasts of Aviation Activity, Dayton International Airport 4 (2001 Forecast). The 2001 revised draft forecasts updated activity projections contained in Chapter 2 of the Strategic Master Plan Update Study which were prepared in 1999 and approved by the FAA in March The baseline year used in the updated forecast was The future year conditions maps developed for the FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study Update are based on forecast assumptions and growth rates documented in the 2001 Forecast report. Table I-2 provides a summary of annual aircraft activity for 1999, 2005 and 2018 the three primary analysis years used at the outset of the FAR Part 150 study. In June 2001, a noise exposure map was prepared to represent year 2000 conditions. The year 2000 NEM is considered the baseline noise exposure map and the official existing year conditions map for the FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study Update. Year 2000 data are also provided in Table I Existing Noise Compatibility Program The previous Noise Compatibility Program (NCP) Update for Dayton International Airport was adopted by the City of Dayton in 1994 and approved by the FAA in The 1996 NCP was an update of the original NCP for the Airport which was adopted in The program measures 4 Landrum & Brown. Updated Forecasts of Aviation Activity, Dayton International Airport. August 7, Noise Compatibility Program Report I-6 Introduction and Summary

9 recommended in the 1996 NCP Update and the status of implementation of each of the measures are presented in Table I Updated Noise Exposure Maps As described in Section 1.1, noise exposure maps depicting existing and future conditions were developed in accordance with FAR Part 150. The Noise Exposure Map for existing conditions reflects average annual aircraft operations for 2000, the last full calendar year for which data were available when the noise exposure maps were prepared. Table I-2 Aviation Activity Forecasts FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study Update Forecast Actual Actual Aircraft Operations Air Carrier (Passenger) 23,665 22,886 28,165 29,668 Air Cargo 41,689 40,317 26,300 54,850 Commuter/Air Taxi 36,918 38,549 37,335 39,328 Military 1,898 1,568 2,300 2,300 General Aviation (GA) 46,378 42,081 46,900 46,900 Total 151, , , ,406 Source: Prepared by: Actual City of Dayton Department of Aviation Records Forecast - Ricondo & Associates, Inc. based on growth rates contained in the report Updated Forecasts of Aviation Activity, Dayton International Airport prepared by Landrum & Brown, August 7, Ricondo & Associates, Inc. Exhibit I-3 presents noise exposure contours associated with aircraft operations at Dayton International Airport in 2000 depicted over existing land use in the Airport environs. Exhibit I-4 presents projected noise exposure contours associated with aircraft operations at Dayton International Airport in 2005, also depicted over existing land use. The Noise Exposure Map (NEM) for 2005 is in conformance with FAR Part 150, which requires the preparation of a map depicting projected noise exposure five years into the future. The estimated effects of aircraft noise on existing noisesensitive land uses and population associated with the 2000 and 2005 NEMs are summarized in Table I-4. In addition to presenting aircraft noise exposure in terms of Day-night average sound level (DNL) noise contours, existing and future noise exposure has also been presented in terms of noise exposure values within grid cells around the Airport. DNL grid values for 2000 and 2005 are shown on Exhibit I-5. Each grid is 23 acres in size and the DNL value represents the approximate cumulative noise level at the center of the grid for the years indicated. Noise Compatibility Program Report I-7 Introduction and Summary

10 Table I-3 Summary of the 1994 Noise Compatibility Program Measure 1. Runway 24L departures will be instructed to maintain runway heading until passing 2,000 feet MSL (1,000 feet AGL) prior to commencing a turn. 2. North and west bound turbojet departures off Runway 6L shall be given a heading or headings that will position the aircraft west of, or parallel to I-75 (Normally between 320 degrees and 360 degrees) and maintain that heading until either passing 4,000 feet MSL, or until 5 miles from the airport. Aircraft unable to make the turn should hold runway heading for five miles before turning. 3. Arrivals to Runway 24R will be instructed to establish a straight in final approach at least four miles from the runway. 4. Between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., all west, north, and northeast bound jet aircraft departures off Runway 24R shall be given a heading or headings that will track within the Stillwater River basin for approximately five miles before proceeding on course. 5. Establish a rotational runway use program at night on Runway 6L-24R. 6. Follow through with the acquisition of noise-impacted homes as recommended in the 1988 NCP. 7. Acquire homes within the 75 DNL noise contour, including several homes within the 70 DNL contour experiencing significant noise impacts, based on the 1992 baseline and 1997 Noise Compatibility Plan which are not already designated for acquisition. 8. Acquire 5 homes across Old Springfield Road from the Emery sort facility, 3 homes on Peters Road just north of Old Springfield Road, and 2 homes on Macy Lane adjacent to Peters Road. 9. Acquire undeveloped land within the 70 DNL based on the 1997 Noise Compatibility Plan. 10. Offer sound insulation to homes within the DNL based on the 1997 Noise Compatibility Plan. 11. Maintain existing commercial and industrial zoning within the 65 DNL. 12. Consider rezoning undeveloped residential land for commercial or industrial use northeast of the airport in Butler and Monroe Townships, and Vandalia. Status of Implementation Implemented in Dayton Air Traffic Control Tower Order A dated May 3, 1995 (superceded by Tower Order B implemented on August 14, 1995). Implemented in Tower Order B. Implemented in Tower Order B. This element has not been implemented. This element has not been implemented. Completed. Ongoing. Ongoing. Ongoing. Two pilot sound insulation programs completed in Ongoing. Ongoing. Source: Prepared by: Descriptions of measures City of Dayton Department of Aviation Status of Implementation Ricondo & Associates, Inc., October Ricondo & Associates, Inc. Noise Compatibility Program Report I-8 Introduction and Summary

11 Insert Exhibit I NEM Noise Compatibility Program Report I-9 Introduction and Summary

12 Insert Exhibit I Baseline NEM Noise Compatibility Program Report I-10 Introduction and Summary

13 Table I-4 Effects of Noise Exposure in the Airport Environs 2000 and 2005 Range of Noise Exposure Acres Montgomery County Miami County Schools Population Households Population Households Religious Facilities Hospitals Other 2000 (a) DNL 75+ 1, DNL 70 to 75 1, DNL 65 to 70 4,317 1, DNL 60 to 65 7,405 3,339 1,513 1, Total DNL ,736 4,633 2,084 1, Total DNL 65+ 7,331 1, (b) DNL 75+ 1, DNL 70 to 75 1, DNL 65 to 70 4, DNL 60 to 65 7,376 3,418 1,563 1, Total DNL ,373 4,547 2,062 1, Total DNL 65+ 6,997 1, with Abatement Measures (c) DNL 75+ 1, DNL 70 to 75 1, DNL 65 to 70 3, DNL 60 to 65 6,439 3,077 1, Total DNL ,876 3,646 1,651 1, Total DNL 65+ 6, DNL = Day-night average sound level. See definition in Appendix D. (a) See Exhibit I-3. (b) See Exhibit I-4. (c) See Exhibit I-6. Source: Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., on the basis of year 2000 census data developed by the U.S. Census Bureau. Ricondo & Associates, Inc. Noise Compatibility Program Report I-11 Introduction and Summary

14 Insert Exhibit I-5, the grid map comparison to 2005 NEM Noise Compatibility Program Report I-12 Introduction and Summary

15 In October 2001, the City of Dayton Department of Aviation submitted the Noise Exposure Maps and accompanying documentation for Dayton International Airport to the FAA for its review and approval. 5 The FAA has 180 days from the date of submittal to accept the Noise Exposure Maps. 1.8 Updated Noise Compatibility Program After the noise exposure maps were completed and the effects of aircraft noise on noise-sensitive land uses were quantified, the Noise Compatibility Program was updated. The updated program was developed in close coordination with the three project committees established for the Noise Compatibility Study Update the Policy Advisory Committee (PAC), the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and the Community Advisory Committee (CAC) and the alternatives that were evaluated included measures suggested by the project committees as well as members of the public, Airport users, and others. The updated Program includes recommended measures to: (1) lessen the extent and effects of aircraft noise on residents and on noise-sensitive facilities in the Airport environs, (2) develop an ongoing process to implement and monitor the measures, (3) establish a process for community outreach and education. The noise compatibility program consists of two types of measures noise abatement measures and noise mitigation measures. Noise abatement measures generally refer to actions that are intended to reduce the extent of aircraft noise to which existing and planned noise-sensitive land uses and population are or will be exposed. Noise reduction is usually achieved through changes in aircraft operational procedures, airfield layout, runway use, and flight tracks. Although noise abatement measures reduce the extent of noisesensitive land uses and the number of people exposed to significant levels of aircraft noise, it is probable that for airports located in urban areas such as Dayton there will still be noise-sensitive areas exposed to significant levels of aircraft noise even after the abatement measures have been implemented. Noise mitigation measures are intended to (1) reduce the adverse effects of aircraft noise that would still exist in noise-sensitive areas and (2) reduce the potential for development of additional noisesensitive uses in areas exposed to significant aircraft noise. Noise mitigation measures that reduce the adverse effects on existing land uses are referred to as remedial measures. Noise mitigation measures that reduce the potential for noise-sensitive land uses to be developed in areas exposed to significant levels of aircraft noise are referred to as preventative measures. After the existing condition and future condition noise exposure maps were prepared, a number of alternative noise abatement alternatives were identified and evaluated for their applicability to Dayton International Airport and its environs. A description of the noise abatement alternatives that were identified and the results of the evaluations of the alternatives are presented in Appendix A. Following the evaluation of the noise abatement alternatives and the selection of the alternatives that seemed to provide the greatest potential benefit, a number of noise mitigation alternatives were identified and evaluated for their applicability to the Airport and its environs. A description of the 5 In February 2002, at the request of the FAA, the City of Dayton submitted updated Noise Exposure Maps (NEM) for 2005 and 2018 and updated several sections of the Noise Exposure Map Report. The new 2005 and 2018 NEMs are based on new activity levels forecasts prepared by Landrum and Brown. The new aviation activity forecasts are presented in the August 2001 report entitled, Updated Forecasts of Aviation Activity, Dayton International Airport. Noise Compatibility Program Report I-13 Introduction and Summary

16 noise mitigation alternatives and results of the evaluations of the noise mitigation alternatives are presented in Appendix B. Twelve new or updated noise abatement measures and ten new or updated noise mitigation measures are recommended in the updated Noise Compatibility Program for Dayton International Airport. These measures were developed on the basis of the evaluations of noise abatement and noise mitigation alternatives and input from the project committees, the Department of Aviation, other City of Dayton representatives, Airport users, the FAA, and the public-at-large. The remedial noise mitigation measures would be applied to existing and potential incompatible land uses, as defined by the noise exposure maps and the FAA s suggested land use compatibility standards Recommended Noise Abatement Measures The recommended noise abatement measures are listed in Table I-5. The measures are intended to minimize noise exposure in all directions from the Airport, especially in those areas exposed to the highest levels of aircraft noise. Because of the land use development patterns around the Airport, it is difficult to identify corridors over which aircraft landing at or taking off from Dayton International Airport could fly without passing over or near noise-sensitive land uses. Therefore, the list of recommended noise abatement measures includes elements that are intended to: Reduce noise exposure in all areas around the Airport Provide additional relief in certain areas that currently are and are expected to continue to be exposed to the highest levels of aircraft noise Maximize the potential for aircraft to fly over compatible land uses, particularly after departure Provide a means to monitor the effectiveness of the noise abatement program Encourage continued national efforts to reduce aircraft noise exposure The recommended measures are more fully discussed in Section II. In addition to descriptions of each of the noise abatement measures, Sections II and IV present information regarding the merits and implementation requirements associated with each measure. It is important to note that some of the measures, as described in this report represent options that were discussed and tested at a conceptual level to identify as closely as possible the potential merits of each. Several of the measures would require additional study, planning, and environmental approval prior to implementation. FAA approval of any measure as part of the overall Noise Compatibility Program may not, in itself, provide the necessary approvals to implement the measure, but could allow the City of Dayton Department of Aviation to become eligible for federal funding to further plan and test those measures. The implementation requirements, including the identification of the need for additional planning, environmental approval, or other approvals for each measure are provided in Sections II and IV. Although implementation of several of the noise abatement measures that are recommended for further study or testing would be expected to result in a significant change in noise exposure in the Airport environs, the full extent of those changes would not be known until the testing, study, procedural definition, and environmental processing steps are completed. Therefore, the noise exposure map for 2005 presented on Exhibit I-4 is considered the official noise exposure map for the purposes of this FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study Update. In the event that after testing and Noise Compatibility Program Report I-14 Introduction and Summary

17 Table I-5 Recommended Noise Abatement Measures 1 Retain the existing noise abatement procedures for Runway Pilots of northwest, north, and northeast bound aircraft departing from Runway 24R shall be instructed by Dayton Air Traffic Control to turn right at the departure end of the runway and will be assigned a heading to follow the Stillwater River basin. Air crews shall be instructed to follow that heading for five nautical miles before turning on course. 3 Pilots of all north, northeast, northwest, and westbound aircraft departing from Runway 6L during nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) shall be assigned an initial heading that is not north of the runway heading (approximately 60 degrees) by Dayton Air Traffic Control. Air crews shall be instructed to follow their initial heading until they are five nautical miles from the departure end of Runway 6L where they will be turned on course. 4 Pilots of south and eastbound aircraft departing from Runway 24L shall be instructed by Dayton Air Traffic Control to follow the runway heading until crossing the departure end of Runway 24L and/or until reaching an altitude of 3,000 feet MSL (approximately 2,000 feet above ground level). 5 Pilots of south and eastbound aircraft departing from Runway 24R shall be instructed by Dayton Air Traffic Control to follow the runway heading until crossing the departure end of Runway 24R. 6 At night, pilots of aircraft arriving on Runways 24R and 24L shall be radar vectored by Dayton Air Traffic Control so as to turn to a straight-in final approach at a distance of at least five nautical miles from the airport. 7 Encourage the use of noise abatement departure profiles (NADPs) by jet aircraft. Conduct live tests of noise abatement departure profiles consistent with FAA procedures to determine which profile (the close-in or distant) would provide the most relief in terms of lowering noise levels of individual aircraft departures from the various runways at Dayton International Airport. 8 Install an aircraft noise and operations monitoring system to track the use of noise abatement flight tracks and departure profiles. 9 Conduct a ground noise study or engine run-up study and establish a ground noise policy for the Airport. 10 Encourage Congress to seek stricter aircraft noise standards, particularly regarding a phase-out schedule for aircraft manufactured as FAR Part 36 Stage 2 that have been modified or are operated to meet FAR Part 36 Stage 3 noise standards. 11 Encourage the FAA to develop a phase-out schedule for non FAR Part 36 Stage 3 aircraft that weigh less than 75,000 pounds. 12 Based on the requests of certain communities in the Airport environs, consider the following abatement measure for Runway 6L All aircraft shall climb via 060 degree heading, at the ROD R be turned RIGHT to a heading of degrees. Aircrews can be instructed to join first enroute fix (turning on course) by DAY Air Traffic Control (ATC) after reaching at least five nautical miles EAST (from Airport) and 3000 MSL. Source: Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., based on recommendations from the project committees established for the FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study Update and on recommendations from the City of Dayton Department of Aviation. Ricondo & Associates, Inc. Noise Compatibility Program Report I-15 Introduction and Summary

18 Insert Exhibit I-6 Noise Abatement Program Map Noise Compatibility Program Report I-16 Introduction and Summary

19 environmental processing, any of the measures are implemented, the City of Dayton Department of Aviation would submit a revised noise exposure map to the FAA for approval. A preliminary version of the NEM revised to estimate the effects of the recommended abatement measures 1-6 is presented on Exhibit I-6. Estimated impacts to persons, households, and noise sensitive land uses associated with the abatement noise map are summarized in Table I Recommended Noise Mitigation Measures The recommended noise mitigation measures are listed in Table I-6. The recommended measures include both remedial and preventative measures. The remedial measures are intended to help mitigate the effects of noise on people who live in areas that continue to be exposed to significant Table I-6 Recommended Noise Mitigation Measures 1 Complete the acquisition of noise-impacted homes and vacant land as recommended in the 1994 NCP (in areas exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 65 and higher based on the 2005 Noise Exposure Map). 2 Acquire homes impacted by ground noise from the Menlo Worldwide sort facility on Old Springfield Road as recommended in the 1994 NCP (as amended). 3 In areas exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 65 and higher based on the 2005 Noise Exposure Map acquire homes outright or acquire avigation easements. 4 Acquire undeveloped land that is zoned for residential land uses in areas exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 65 and higher based on the 2005 Noise Exposure Map. 5 Encourage jurisdictions in the environs of Dayton International Airport to adopt a multi-jurisdictional compatible land use planning overlay zoning district (MCLUPOZD). 6 Prepare a comprehensive plan/airport environs plan for Dayton International Airport. 7 Encourage local jurisdictions in the environs of Dayton International Airport to amend their subdivision regulations to require the dedication of avigation easements and recording of plat notes for new subdivisions within the multi-jurisdictional compatible land use planning overlay zoning district (MCLUPOZD). 8 Encourage local jurisdictions to adopt local amendments to building codes setting forth sound insulation standards to use within the multi-jurisdictional compatible land use planning overlay zoning district (MCLUPOZD). 9 Encourage local jurisdictions to adopt discretionary project review guidelines for subdivision, rezoning, special use, conditional use, and variance applications in the environs of Dayton International Airport. 10 Expand the Airport s noise complaint response system. Source: Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., based on recommendations from the project committees established for the FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study Update and on recommendation from the City of Dayton Department of Aviation. Ricondo & Associates, Inc. levels of aircraft noise. The preventive measures are intended to discourage development of new incompatible land uses in the Airport environs, particularly in areas that could provide corridors for aircraft operations. The measures would be applied in those areas that would still be exposed to significant levels of aircraft noise after the implementation of the recommended noise abatement measures. The recommended measures are more fully discussed in Section III. In addition to descriptions of each of the noise abatement measures, Sections III and IV present information regarding the merits and implementation requirements associated with each measure. Noise Compatibility Program Report I-17 Introduction and Summary

20 1.9 Coordination and Public Involvement Dayton International Airport The airlines serving the Airport, other Airport tenants and users, the FAA, local planning agencies, elected officials, and the general public have been considerably involved in the development of the noise exposure maps and the noise compatibility program. At the beginning of the project, three project committees were established: the Community Advisory Committee (CAC), the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), and the Policy Advisory Committee (PAC). The Community Advisory Committee comprises citizens from municipalities in the vicinity of Dayton International Airport. Elected officials from the various municipalities surrounding the airport chose two citizen representatives each to sit on the Community Advisory Committee. The Technical Advisory and Policy Advisory Committees comprises representatives from the following organizations and agencies: City of Dayton Department of Aviation The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Airport Districts Office (ADO) The Dayton International Airport Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission Montgomery County Planning Commission Miami County Planning Commission Cities of Vandalia, Dayton, Englewood, Clayton, Union, Huber Heights, Tipp City, and West Milton Monroe Township, Butler Township, Union Township, and Bethel Township Airlines (U.S. Airways) Emery Worldwide/Menlo Worldwide Military (Wright-Patterson Air Force Base) Tenants and other affected Airport users School Districts Meetings of the project committees for which the Noise Compatibility Program served as the primary focus occurred on: April 3-4, 2001 June 5, 2001 October 2, 2001 April 9, 2002 To ensure adequate public involvement during the development of the updated noise compatibility program, the Project Team held three public workshop meetings during the week of May 15, 2002 at which citizens provided oral and written comments about the Airport and Airport noise issues. A 30- day review period was held for the Draft NCP between July 29, 2002 and August 29, The City of Dayton also hosted a public hearing for the Draft NCP on November 19, Oral and written comments received concerning the Draft NCP are summarized in Volume 2A of the Noise Compatibility Program Report, Compilation of Public Comments and Responses. 6 6 Ricondo & Associates, Inc. Volume 2A: Compilation of Public Comments and Responses. FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study Update, Dayton International Airport.. Noise Compatibility Program Report I-18 Introduction and Summary

21 1.10 Report Organization Dayton International Airport This report volume documents the background and analyses and presents the recommended Noise Compatibility Program for Dayton International Airport as required by FAR Part 150. The report is organized as follows: Section II: Section III: Section IV: Appendix A: Appendix B: Appendix C: Appendix D: Appendix E: Description of the recommended noise abatement measures, including background, and discussion of benefits and anticipated effectiveness Description of the recommended noise mitigation measures, including background, and discussion of benefits and anticipated effectiveness Information regarding the implementation of the recommended measures including anticipated benefits of implementing the measures; their effect on existing noise measures and previously adopted plans; preliminary schedules, costs, funding, and initial steps for implementing the program; and provisions for revisions to the program Evaluation of noise abatement alternatives considered as part of the study, evaluation of each measure s applicability, and results of the discussions with the project committees and Department of Aviation Evaluation of noise mitigation alternatives considered as part of the study, evaluation of each measure s applicability, and results of the discussions with the project committees and Department of Aviation Notice of public workshops held on May 13-15, Notice of 30-day public review period for the Draft Noise Compatibility Program Report. Notice for the November 19, 2002 Public Hearing for the FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study Update. Glossary of terms Implementation documents Noise Compatibility Program Report I-19 Introduction and Summary

22 II. Noise Abatement Measures This section provides a description of the twelve (12) noise abatement measures recommended for implementation at Dayton International Airport. Operational noise abatement procedures recommended herein would apply to all turbojet and turboprop aircraft unless otherwise specified. Information regarding program costs, financing, and implementation is provided in Section IV. Information and analyses of these and other noise abatement options considered for the Airport are provided in Appendix A. 2.1 Summary of Recommended Noise Abatement Measures The 12 recommended noise abatement measures are: Retain the existing noise abatement procedures for Runway Pilots of northwest, north, and northeast bound aircraft departing from Runway 24R shall be instructed by Dayton Air Traffic Control to turn right at the departure end of the Runway and shall be assigned a heading to follow the Stillwater River basin. Air crews shall be instructed to follow that heading for five nautical miles before turning on course. Pilots of all north, northeast, northwest, and westbound aircraft departing from Runway 6L during nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) shall be assigned an initial heading that is not north of the runway heading (approximately 60 degrees) by Dayton Air Traffic Control. Air crews shall be instructed to follow their initial heading they are five nautical miles from the departure end of Runway 6L where they will be turned on course. Pilots of south and eastbound aircraft departing from Runway 24L shall be instructed by Dayton Air Traffic Control to follow the runway heading until crossing the departure end of Runway 24L and/or until reaching an altitude of 3,000 feet MSL (approximately 2,000 feet above ground level). Pilots of south and eastbound aircraft departing from Runway 24R shall be instructed by Dayton Air Traffic Control to follow the runway heading until crossing the departure end of Runway 24R. At night, pilots of aircraft arriving on Runways 24R and 24L shall be radar vectored by Dayton Air Traffic Control so as to turn to a straight-in final approach at a distance of at least five nautical miles from the Airport. Encourage the use of noise abatement departure profiles (NADPs) by jet aircraft. Conduct live tests of noise abatement departure profiles consistent with FAA procedures to determine which profile (the close-in or distant) would provide the most relief in terms of lowering noise levels of individual aircraft departures from the various runways at Dayton International Airport. Install an aircraft noise and operations monitoring system to track the use of noise abatement flight tracks and departure profiles. Conduct a ground noise study or engine run-up study and establish a ground noise policy for the Airport. Noise Compatibility Program Report II-1 Noise Abatement Measures

23 Encourage Congress to seek stricter aircraft noise standards, particularly regarding a phaseout schedule for aircraft manufactured as FAR Part 36 Stage 2 that have been modified or are operated to meet FAR Part 36 Stage 3 noise standards. Encourage the FAA to develop a phase-out schedule for non FAR Part 36 Stage 3 aircraft that weigh less than 75,000 pounds. Based on the requests of certain communities in the Airport environs, consider the following abatement measure for Runway 6L All aircraft shall climb via 060 degree heading, at the ROD R be turned RIGHT to a heading of degrees. Aircrews can be instructed to join first enroute fix (turning on course) by DAY Air Traffic Control (ATC) after reaching at least five nautical miles EAST (from Airport) and 3000 MSL. 2.2 Descriptions of Individual Recommended Noise Abatement Measures The following paragraphs provide a detailed description of each of the recommended noise abatement measures. Abatement Measure 1: Runway Retain the existing noise abatement procedures for Dayton Air Traffic Control Tower Order B 1 contains two provisions regarding the use of Runway at Dayton International Airport. In Section 5a. Runway Use, the Tower Order specifies that use of Runway 18 for turbojet departures and Runway 36 for turbojet arrivals shall be held to an absolute minimum. In Section 5b. Noise Abatement Procedures, the Tower Order states during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (Local) use of Runway 18 for departures and Runway 36 for arrivals is prohibited unless operational or safety criteria require its use. The City of Dayton recommends retaining the existing noise abatement procedures for Runway and incorporating the procedures into the official noise compatibility program (NCP) for the Airport. These procedures shall apply to all civilian turbojet operations performed at the Airport and to military training operations that are occasionally performed at the Airport. The existing restrictions/prohibitions on the use of Runway at Dayton International Airport provide noise abatement relief to areas within the City of Vandalia which directly south of the departure end of Runway 18 and the arrival end of Runway 36. Relaxation of the runway use provisions could result in an increase in the number of overflights and the associated increase in noise exposure in residential neighborhoods south of the Airport. The City of Dayton, therefore recommends incorporating the Tower Order provisions into the NCP for the Airport. 1 Federal Aviation Administration. Dayton Air Traffic Control Tower Order B. August 14, Noise Compatibility Program Report II-2 Noise Abatement Measures

24 Abatement Measure 2: Pilots of northwest, north, and northeast bound aircraft departing from Runway 24R shall be instructed by Dayton Air Traffic Control to turn right at the departure end of the runway and shall be assigned a heading to follow the Stillwater River basin. Air crews shall be instructed to follow that heading for five nautical miles before turning on course. Noise sensitive areas to the west and northwest of Dayton International Airport are exposed to some of the highest levels of aircraft noise in Airport environs. The primary contributors to aircraft noise in those areas are aircraft departing on Runway 24R. A review of existing land use and planned land use shows that the Stillwater River basin, which generally runs north to south and is west of the Airport, could serve as a compatible flight corridor for jet aircraft to follow after departing from Runway 24R. By directing aircraft to follow the compatible flight corridor, the number of direct overflights of noise sensitive land uses in Butler Township and in the Cities of Union, West Milton, and Englewood could be reduced. To follow the compatible flight corridor, pilots would generally initiate a right turn to a heading between 340 degrees and 350 degrees upon reaching the departure end of the runway (near Dog Leg Pike). Pilots would be instructed to follow the assigned heading for five nautical miles before turning on course. This is a modified version of Measure 4 from the 1994 NCP. Exhibit II-1 provides a general illustration of the proposed noise abatement flight corridor compared with the existing flight tracks followed by aircraft departing on Runway 24R. As shown on Exhibit II-1, the potential noise abatement flight corridor avoids residential areas just west of the Airport near Jackson Road and Springfield Pike and residential areas west of the Stillwater River. Exhibit II-2 provides a comparison of the noise exposure contours with and without the proposed noise abatement flight corridor. As presented in Appendix A (See Alternative F) and Table II-1, implementation of Abatement Measure 2 could provide noise benefits in terms of reducing the number of residences and other noise facilities that would be exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 65 and higher. It is estimated that 169 people could be removed from the area exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 65 and higher if Noise Abatement Measure 2 were implemented. Table II-1 Comparison of Noise Exposure with and without Noise Abatement Measure Population exposed to aircraft noise Noise 2005 Baseline (a) Abatement Measure 2 (b) DNL Range Persons Persons Difference 75 and higher (1) ,296 1,126 (170) Total 65 and higher 1,467 1,298 (169) (a) See Exhibit II-2 noise exposure contours shown as black solid lines (b) See Exhibit II-2 noise exposure contours shown as blue dashed lines Source: Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., on the basis of year 2000 census data developed by the U.S. Census Bureau. Ricondo & Associates, Inc. Noise Compatibility Program Report II-3 Noise Abatement Measures

25 Insert Exhibit II-1 Noise Compatibility Program Report II-4 Noise Abatement Measures

26 Insert Exhibit II-2 Noise Compatibility Program Report II-5 Noise Abatement Measures

27 Consistent use of the noise abatement flight corridor could be enhanced if the procedure were defined using navaids. Local navaids would enhance the procedure particularly during nighttime hours and other periods of poor visibility. The procedure could also be defined based on a distance traveled from a fixed point at the Airport. Distance measuring equipment (DME) could be installed at the Runway 6L localizer as recommended in Measure 4 of the 1994 NCP. If DME were installed, the departure procedure would be described as follows: 24R Departures heading to the north, northwest and northeast Turn right at the departure end of Runway 6L to a heading of 350 degrees. Complete turn at 4.0 DME from the Runway 6L localizer/dme. Hold 350 degrees until 6.0 DME. Turn to assigned heading. If Abatement Measure 2 is approved by the FAA, it is recommended that it be implemented through the issuance of a new Tower Order by the Dayton Air Traffic Control manager that would replace the existing Tower Order B. It may be feasible to include all of the recommended abatement measures discussed in this NCP in the same Tower Order amendment. If desired, Abatement Measure 2 could also be implemented through the publication of a Standard Instrument Departure (SID) or published in pilot manuals/publications. As discussed in Section IV, environmental processing in accordance with NEPA would be required before Abatement Measure 2 could be implemented. Abatement Measure 3: Pilots of all north, northeast, northwest, and westbound aircraft departing from Runway 6L during nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) shall be assigned an initial heading that is not north of the runway heading (approximately 60 degrees) by Dayton Air Traffic Control. Air crews shall be instructed to follow their initial heading until they are five nautical miles from the departure end of Runway 6L where they will be turned on course. Portions of Monroe Township and Tipp City to the north and northeast of the Airport experience overflights caused by aircraft landing on Runway 24R and aircraft departing on Runway 6L. Nighttime operations by cargo jet aircraft, in particular, contribute to the high levels of aircraft noise experienced in neighborhoods north/northeast of the Airport. A review of existing land use and planned land use shows that the Miami River basin, which generally runs north to south and is several miles east of the Airport, could serve as a compatible flight corridor for aircraft to follow after departing from Runway 6L, thereby reducing direct overflights of noise-sensitive land uses in Monroe Township and Tipp City. To follow the noise abatement departure procedure, pilots would be instructed to hold their initial assigned heading (between 60 degrees and 90 degrees) until they are approximately five miles east of the Airport where they would be turned on course by airport traffic control tower (ATCT) personnel. Aircraft assigned the runway heading would be turned upon crossing the outer marker for Runway 24R (approximately 4.6 miles from the departure end of Runway 6L). To the extent possible, ATCT personnel would avoid assigning headings that cause direct overflights of the Deer Cliff subdivision, which is northeast of the Airport. Exhibit II-3 provides a general depiction of the intended flight corridor as compared with existing flight tracks followed by aircraft departing from Runway 6L. As shown on Exhibit II-3, the potential noise abatement flight corridor avoids residential areas north/northeast of the Airport near Evanston Road, North Dixie Drive, and Peters Pike. Exhibit II-4 provides a comparison of noise exposure with and without the proposed noise abatement flight corridor. As shown on Exhibit II-4, it is expected that the proposed noise abatement flight corridor would reduce the noise exposure Noise Compatibility Program Report II-6 Noise Abatement Measures

28 Insert Exhibit II-3 Noise Compatibility Program Report II-7 Noise Abatement Measures

29 Insert Exhibit II-4 Noise Compatibility Program Report II-8 Noise Abatement Measures

30 in areas north of Ginghamsburg-Frederick Road and west of North Dixie Drive but could cause noise exposure to increase slightly in areas underneath the extended centerline of Runway 6L. As discussed in Appendix A (See Alternative K2) and presented in Table II-2, it is estimated that 190 people would be added to the area exposed to DNL 65 and higher if Noise Abatement Measure 3 is implemented; however, it is estimated that the number of people living in areas exposed to DNL would be reduced by 630. If Noise Abatement Measure 3 were implemented in connection with a noise abatement departure profile (See Noise Abatement Measure 7) it is expected that increased noise exposure in areas generally along the extended centerline of Runway 6L could be partially or completely offset. As discussed in Appendix A, preliminary modeling conducted for the Part 150 study update indicates that implementing one of the two noise abatement departure profiles discussed in FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 91-53A, Noise Abatement Departure Profiles, could reduce the noise levels of individual departures. Although the magnitude of the noise reductions cannot be determined definitively without live testing and measurement of both the close-in and distant profiles, it is expected that the use of the close-in profile for Runway 6L could reduce noise levels in the Deer Cliff subdivision and hence reduce the number of households exposed to noise levels of DNL 65 and higher. Table II-2 Comparison of Noise Exposure with and without Noise Abatement Measure Population exposed to aircraft noise Noise 2005 Baseline (a) Abatement Measure 3 (b) DNL Range Persons Persons Difference 75 and higher (2) ,296 1, Total 65 and higher 1,467 1, (a) See Exhibit II-4 noise exposure contours shown as black solid lines (b) See Exhibit II-4 noise exposure contours shown as blue dashed lines Source: Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., on the basis of year 2000 census data developed by the U.S. Census Bureau. Ricondo & Associates, Inc. The mix of aircraft operating at Dayton International Airport, and therefore departing from Runway 6L, includes a wide range of aircraft with differing operating characteristics, including varying aircraft speeds. Currently ATCT personnel can assign initial headings ranging from 320 degrees to 90 degrees to aircraft departing from Runway 6L in order to: (1) provide initial departure separation between successive departures over the preferred departure fixes, (2) provide separation between aircraft of disparate performance characteristics, and (3) provide separation from descending arriving aircraft. Dayton Air Traffic Control Tower Order B places certain restrictions on headings that can be assigned to turbojet aircraft in excess of 12,500 pounds which depart on Runway 6L at night. Nevertheless, ATCT personnel currently have a good deal of flexibility in terms of how they can direct Runway 6L departure operations. ATCT personnel have stated that implementation of Noise Abatement Measure 3 could increase the potential for conflicts in the Dayton airspace between departing and arriving traffic. Of specific Noise Compatibility Program Report II-9 Noise Abatement Measures

31 concern to ATCT personnel is maintaining vertical and horizontal separation between aircraft following the noise abatement flight corridor and aircraft that are descending for a landing at the Airport. In addition, ATCT personnel have noted that the proposed flight corridor could reduce airfield capacity at Dayton International Airport because more hold time might be required to ensure adequate horizontal separations between successive aircraft departures if fewer headings can be assigned to departing aircraft. A detailed computer analysis or computer simulation would be required to accurately assess the impacts of the proposed procedure with respect to the Dayton airspace, regional airspace, airfield capacity, and aircraft delay. Such an analysis would be performed as part of the environmental processing (e.g., environmental assessment, environmental impact statement, categorical exclusion, etc.) that would be required to implement Noise Abatement Measure 3 and other noise abatement departure procedures recommended in this Noise Compatibility Program Update. The cost and timing for such an analysis is discussed in Section IV. If Abatement Measure 3 is approved, it is recommended that it be implemented through the issuance of a new Tower Order by the Dayton Air Traffic Control manager that would replace the existing Tower Order B. It may be feasible to include all of the recommended abatement measures discussed in this NCP in the same Tower Order amendment. If desired, Abatement Measure 3 could also be implemented through the publication of a Standard Instrument Departure (SID) or published in pilot manuals/publications. Abatement Measure 4: Pilots of south and eastbound aircraft departing from Runway 24L shall be instructed by Dayton Air Traffic Control to follow the runway heading until crossing the departure end of Runway 24L and/or until reaching an altitude of 3,000 feet MSL (approximately 2,000 feet above ground level). Noise-sensitive areas to the south of the Airport, particularly south of National Road and in the vicinity of Peters Pike, are exposed to significant levels of aircraft noise caused by aircraft departing on Runways 24L. A review of existing land use and development shows that the area immediately southwest of Runway 6R-24L (near the Runway 6R end and the Airport Access Road) are generally undeveloped or used for agriculture. The purpose of Noise Abatement Measure 4 would be to prevent departing aircraft from turning at low altitudes over residential areas in Vandalia south of National Road. Pilots would be instructed to follow the runway heading (240 degrees) until climbing to 3,000 feet above mean sea level (MSL) where they would be permitted to turn on course to their destination. This measure would require a slight modification to an existing procedure which received a FONSI for Air Traffic Control Noise Abatement Procedures at Dayton International Airport on February 8, 1995 and was later implemented in Dayton Air Traffic Control Tower Order A dated May 3, The existing procedure, which was also recommended in the 1994 NCP, states that 24L departures will be instructed to maintain the runway heading until passing 2,000 feet MSL. The City of Dayton is recommending that the procedure be re-worded to specify no turns before reaching the southwest end of Runway 6R-24L and/or reaching an altitude of 3,000 feet MSL. Exhibit II-5 provides a general depiction of the proposed noise abatement flight corridor compared with the existing flight corridors followed by aircraft departing from Runway 24L. Exhibit II-6 2 Federal Aviation Administration. Dayton Air Traffic Control Tower Order A. May 3, Noise Compatibility Program Report II-10 Noise Abatement Measures

32 Insert Exhibit II-5 Noise Compatibility Program Report II-11 Noise Abatement Measures

33 Insert Exhibit II-6 Noise Compatibility Program Report II-12 Noise Abatement Measures

34 provides a comparison of the noise exposure contours with and without the proposed noise abatement flight track. While the procedure is not expected to significantly alter the departure patterns from Runway 24L it is expected to reduce cumulative noise levels in the western portion of the City of Vandalia and to reduce the number of aircraft overflights of noise sensitive developments, including residences on Peters Pike. As presented in Appendix A (See Alternative N) and Table II-3, implementation of Abatement Measure 4 could provide noise benefits in terms of reducing the number of residences and other noise-sensitive facilities that would be exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 65 and higher. It is estimated that 238 people would be removed from the area exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 65 and higher if Noise Abatement Measure 4 were implemented. Table II-3 Comparison of Noise Exposure with and without Noise Abatement Measure Population exposed to aircraft noise Noise 2005 Baseline (a) Abatement Measure 4 (b) DNL Range Persons Persons Difference 75 and higher (4) (41) ,296 1,103 (193) 65 and higher 1,467 1,229 (238) (a) See Exhibit II-6 noise exposure contours shown as black solid lines (b) See Exhibit II-6 noise exposure contours shown as blue dashed lines Source: Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., on the basis of year 2000 census data developed by the U.S. Census Bureau. Ricondo & Associates, Inc. If Abatement Measure 4 is approved, it is recommended that it be implemented through the issuance of a new Tower Order by the Dayton Air Traffic Control manager that would replace the existing Tower Order B. It may be feasible to include all of the recommended abatement measures discussed in this NCP in the same Tower Order amendment. If desired, Abatement Measure 4 could also be implemented through the publication of a Standard Instrument Departure (SID) or published in pilot manuals/publications. As discussed in Section IV, environmental processing in accordance with NEPA would be required before Abatement Measure 4 could be implemented. Abatement Measure 5: Pilots of south and eastbound aircraft departing from Runway 24R shall be instructed by Dayton Air Traffic Control to follow the runway heading until crossing the departure end of Runway 24R. Areas to the south and southwest of the Airport are exposed to significant levels of aircraft noise from aircraft departing on Runways 24L and 24R. The purpose of Noise Abatement Measure 5 would be to avoid turning departing aircraft at low altitudes over residential areas in Butler Township south of National Road. Pilots would be instructed to follow the runway heading (240 degrees) until reaching the southwest end of Runway 6L-24R where they would be turned on course to their destination. Exhibit II-7 provides a general depiction of the proposed noise abatement flight corridor compared with the existing flight corridors followed by aircraft departing from Runway 24R. Exhibit II-8 Noise Compatibility Program Report II-13 Noise Abatement Measures

35 Insert Exhibit II-7 Noise Compatibility Program Report II-14 Noise Abatement Measures

36 Insert Exhibit II-8 Noise Compatibility Program Report II-15 Noise Abatement Measures

37 provides a comparison of the noise exposure with and without the proposed noise abatement corridor. As presented in Appendix A (See Alternative O) and Table II-4, implementation of the Abatement Measure 5 could provide noise benefits in terms of reducing the number of residences and other noise-sensitive facilities that would be exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 65 and higher. It is estimated that 106 people could be removed from the area exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 65 and higher if Noise Abatement Measure 5 were implemented. Table II-4 Comparison of Noise Exposure with and without Noise Abatement Measure Population exposed to aircraft noise 2005 Baseline (a) Noise Abatement Measure 5 (b) DNL Range Count Count Difference 75 and higher ,296 1,174 (122) 65 and higher 1,467 1,361 (106) (a) See Exhibit II-8 noise exposure contours shown as black solid lines (b) See Exhibit II-8 noise exposure contours shown as blue dashed lines Source: Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., on the basis of year 2000 census data developed by the U.S. Census Bureau. Ricondo & Associates, Inc. Consistent use of the noise abatement flight corridor could be enhanced if the procedure were defined using local navaids. Navaids would enhance the procedure particularly during nighttime hours and other periods of poor visibility. The procedure could also be defined based on a distance traveled from a fixed point on the Airport. Distance measuring equipment (DME) could be installed at the Runway 6L localizer as recommended in Measure 4 of the 1994 NCP. If DME were installed, the turn procedure would be described as follows: 24R Departures heading to the south, southeast, and east Maintain runway heading until 2.5 DME from the Runway 6L localizer/dme. Turn to assigned heading. If Abatement Measure 5 is approved by the FAA, it is recommended that it be implemented through the issuance of a new Tower Order by the Dayton Air Traffic Control manager that would replace the existing Tower Order B. It may be feasible to include all of the recommended abatement measures discussed in this NCP in the same Tower Order amendment. If desired, Abatement Measure 5 could also be implemented through the publication of a Standard Instrument Departure (SID) or published in pilot manuals/publications. As discussed in Section IV, environmental processing in accordance with NEPA would be required before Abatement Measure 5 could be implemented. Abatement Measure 6: At night, pilots of aircraft arriving on Runways 24R and 24L shall be radar vectored by Dayton Air Traffic Control so as to intercept the straight-in final approach course at a distance of at least five nautical miles from the Airport. Noise-sensitive areas north/northeast of the Airport are exposed to noise associated with aircraft arriving on Runways 24R and 24L. The intent of this measure is to avoid using approaches at night that turn arriving aircraft at low altitudes over heavily populated residential areas north/northeast of Noise Compatibility Program Report II-16 Noise Abatement Measures

38 the Airport. The procedure would be particularly beneficial for Tipp City residents and for residents in the southeast portion of Monroe Township. This is a modified version of Noise Abatement 3 from the 1994 NCP. This measure would require a slight modification to an existing procedure which received a FONSI for Air Traffic Control Noise Abatement Procedures at Dayton International Airport on February 8, 1995 and was later implemented in Dayton Air Traffic Control Tower Order A dated May 3, The existing procedure, which was also recommended in the 1994 NCP, applies to daytime and nighttime approaches to Runway 24R and includes the use of a straight-in final approach course of at least four miles. The proposed procedure would lengthen the straight-in portion of the final approach segment from four nautical miles to five nautical miles. The other primary difference between the proposed measure and the existing Tower Order procedure is that it would also apply to aircraft landing on Runway 24L. While the proposed measure is not expected to significantly reduce cumulative noise exposure in noise-sensitive areas north/northeast of the Airport, the proposed procedure could reduce the number of direct overflights of established residential areas. Samples of radar flight track data collected during the FAR Part 150 update and anecdotal evidence provided by Airport area citizens indicates that short approaches do occur on occasion over residential areas in Tipp City and Monroe Township. To minimize the number of short approaches that occur during nighttime hours, the City of Dayton recommends that aircraft over 75,000 pounds be established on a straight-in final approach course to Runways 24L and 24R at least five miles from the arrival threshold of the runways. If Abatement Measure 6 is approved by the FAA, it is recommended that it be implemented through the issuance of a new Tower Order by the Dayton Air Traffic Control manager that would replace the existing Tower Order B. If desired, Abatement Measure 2 could also be implemented through the publication of a Standard Instrument Departure (SID) or published in pilot manuals/publications. As discussed in Section IV, environmental processing in accordance with NEPA would be required before Abatement Measure 6 could be implemented. Abatement Measure 7: Encourage the use of noise abatement departure profiles (NADPs) by both air carrier and general aviation jet aircraft. Conduct live tests of noise abatement departure profiles consistent with FAA procedures to determine which profile (the close-in or distant) would provide the most relief in terms of lowering noise levels of individual aircraft departures from the various runways at Dayton International Airport. Modifications to thrust and wing flap management procedures for departures are a proven means of reducing the noise levels generated by individual jet aircraft departures. Under these procedures, pilots typically depart at takeoff thrust, climb as quickly as possible to an altitude of 800 to 1,000 feet above the ground, reduce power and adjust flap settings, climb at a lower thrust setting for a specified period, and then resume a standard climb at climb thrust. Using such a procedure, the noise levels generated by an individual jet aircraft departure are lower than if a full-power climb to cruising altitude is followed. Most airlines already have defined standard departure procedures for the various aircraft in their fleets that are intended to reduce the noise levels of individual aircraft departures. However, the potential exists for further reductions in noise levels to be realized in noise-sensitive areas near the departure ends of runways if specific noise abatement departure procedures are followed. Noise Compatibility Program Report II-17 Noise Abatement Measures

39 Historically, specific departure procedures have been developed and implemented at some airports that are intended to achieve noise reduction goals at that airport. The most notable is the departure procedure implemented at John Wayne Airport in Orange County, California, in the 1980 s. The FAA, recognizing that the first segment of the departure climb is critical in terms of flight safety and that departure procedures specific to individual airports could lead to too many different procedures that pilots would have to follow, decided to develop two standard noise abatement departure profiles. FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 91-53A, Noise Abatement Departure Profiles, prescribes the parameters for two different noise abatement departure profiles (NADPs). One is intended to reduce noise levels closer to the airport (the close-in noise abatement departure profile) and the other is intended to reduce noise levels further from the airport (the distant noise abatement departure profile). Each airline has developed noise abatement departure procedures for each jet aircraft in their fleet consistent with AC 91-53A, and submitted the procedures to the FAA to ensure that the procedures are safe and meet the requirements of AC 91-53A. The potential for the implementation of the NADPs at Dayton International Airport was considered as part of the FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study Update. Because the specific procedures developed by each airline vary and because most of the airlines use one of the NADPs as a standard departure, it was difficult to determine the specific noise reductions that could be achieved. Also, because noise-sensitive land uses exist at different distances from the various runway ends, it was determined that the procedures that would provide the best benefit may be different depending on the departure runway. Preliminary modeling indicated that implementing noise abatement departure profiles could reduce the noise levels of individual departures by three to five decibels. However, conversations with FAA Headquarters staff responsible for maintaining the INM indicated that the protocol identified for modeling the NADPs included in the INM manual can overstate the benefit of their use and the results are not reliable for estimating overall noise reduction. Accurately modeling the actual benefits associated with the NADPs at Dayton International Airport would require a significant amount of time and a significant cost. Because each airline has developed the specific NADPs for each aircraft in their fleet, it would be necessary to develop a set of profiles for each aircraft type for each airline. Live testing and measurement of the benefits of the profiles could provide a more efficient means of selecting the better profile for each of the runway ends. After discussions with the project committees, it was determined that the City of Dayton would continue to encourage all passenger and cargo airlines at the Airport to follow one of the two FAA NADPs described in AC 91-53A. Based on a preliminary survey of the carriers that operate at the Airport it appears that most carriers use a version of the close-in or distant procedure. Live testing of the NADPs would provide the best means for determining which of the profiles would provide the more effective noise relief from each of the runway ends at the Airport in terms of singleevent noise level reduction in noise-sensitive areas. Therefore, after discussions with the project committees, it was decided that live testing of the procedures should be included as a recommended measure in the Noise Compatibility Program. The recommendation is to test the AC 91-53A NADPs from each of the runway ends and to determine which, if either, provides greater noise relief. The Department of Aviation would conduct such tests if and when a permanent aircraft noise and operations monitoring system is installed at the Airport. The objective of this measure is not necessarily to identify a specific procedure to be followed from Noise Compatibility Program Report II-18 Noise Abatement Measures

40 each runway end, but to identify an achievable goal for noise reduction and to allow the air carriers to demonstrate that they could meet that noise reduction goal by using one of the NADPs. Under this measure, the profiles to be tested would be those that are compliant with FAA AC 91-53A. Testing of the departure profiles would be conducted at different times of the year from each of the runway ends and a recommended NADP or noise level reduction goal from each runway end would be identified. The testing procedure would comprise collecting noise measurement data at several noise-sensitive locations under the departure paths for different aircraft types, with pilots following a standard departure procedure or one of the two NADPs. After comparing noise levels of different aircraft types following the different departure procedures, and reviewing land use data from each runway end, the procedure that generated the lowest noise levels in noise-sensitive areas from each runway end would be identified and the noise level reduction quantified. Final recommendations, developed after live testing, would identify the preferred NADP for each runway and the anticipated noise level reduction associated with the use of the procedure. The NADP selected for each runway would be required for use on that runway, unless airlines had demonstrated during the live testing period or through verified documentation for each aircraft that they operate at the Airport that either of the NADPs would provide the same benefit in terms of noise level reduction. The benefit that would be derived from the use of the NADPs is that single-event noise levels associated with departure operations would be reduced, particularly those of louder aircraft manufactured as FAR Part 36 Stage 2 but modified to meet the requirements of FAR Part 36 Stage 3. The benefit would be realized in all areas around the Airport for departures from each of the runways. Therefore, the number of people exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 65 and higher would be expected to decrease. The single-event noise level reductions would also result in cumulative noise level reductions. In the absence of results from live testing the actual benefits of the measure cannot be quantified. Abatement Measure 8: Install an aircraft noise and operations monitoring system to track the use of departure corridors and departure profiles. An important element of a noise compatibility program is the monitoring of progress toward implementation as well as adherence to recommended flight corridors and procedures. Administrative means can be used to monitor implementation of some measures (e.g., monitoring of noise complaints, use of quieter aircraft). However, monitoring the implementation of certain types of measures requires the continual collection of data regarding the noise levels of individual aircraft operations and the trajectories (flight paths and altitude profiles) of individual aircraft operations. Such data can be collected using a permanent aircraft noise and operations monitoring system. Aircraft noise and operations monitoring systems can be used to measure: Individual aircraft noise levels The aircraft type of specific operations Runway use Flight track definition and use Aircraft altitude and speed profiles Daily and annual DNL levels at various locations around the airport Permanent aircraft noise and operations monitoring systems typically include: Several permanent noise monitoring stations located in the airport environs Noise Compatibility Program Report II-19 Noise Abatement Measures

41 One or more portable noise monitoring units that can be placed in the field for short periods of time to address specific needs Connection to FAA radar data to allow ongoing monitoring of aircraft operations and in some cases correlation with individual noise events A system for registering and responding to aircraft noise complaints, including (in some cases) the ability to correlate noise complaints with specific aircraft operations and associated noise levels at the nearest monitoring station Central data management and display system, including mapping capabilities, typically using geographic information system (GIS) technology Such ongoing information at Dayton International Airport would be valuable in terms of monitoring: Cumulative and individual aircraft noise levels Runway use Noise abatement departure profile use Noise abatement flight track use (if approved and implemented) The implementation and success of several of the measures that have been recommended herein could best be monitored using a permanent aircraft noise and operations monitoring system (ANOMS). A permanent noise and operations monitoring system would also allow the Department of Aviation s Noise Mitigation Coordinator to respond to aircraft noise complaints with specific information regarding the operation(s) that generated the noise disturbance and to potentially identify ways to reduce the occurrence of excessively high noise levels from individual operations within noise-sensitive areas. Such a system would also allow the Noise Mitigation Coordinator to provide more detailed information in the form of data and reports to the general public especially if the system is tied into a specific database of local area information through the use of a Geographic Information System (GIS). The City of Dayton Department of Aviation requests that the measure be approved to allow the City to be eligible for federal funding to develop specifications for and to acquire and implement a permanent aircraft noise and operations monitoring system. Part of the cost of implementing the system would involve integrating the noise monitoring system with the Department of Aviation s GIS. During the course of the FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program Update, the Department of Aviation acquired and used portable noise monitoring units to measure noise levels on a shortterm, case-by-case basis. This measure would enhance the City of Dayton s current noise measurement efforts. Abatement Measure 9: Conduct a ground noise study or engine run-up study and establish a ground noise policy for the Airport. During the development of the Noise Compatibility Program for Dayton International Airport, representatives from the City of Vandalia requested that special consideration be given to ground noise exposure and low frequency noise caused by aircraft operations at Dayton International Airport. While overflights of the City of Vandalia are infrequent, representatives from Vandalia claim that ground noise exposure is significant in parts of the City of Vandalia that abut Dayton International Airport. Consultants retained by the City of Dayton conducted field extensive noise measurements in support of the FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study Update. At the request of the City of Dayton, Noise Compatibility Program Report II-20 Noise Abatement Measures

42 additional noise measurements using the C-weighted decibel metric were performed in December 1999 and April/May The results of the April/May 2000 noise measurement program which included a detailed evaluation of the low-frequency content of single aircraft noise events are discussed in the report Noise Monitoring II and Analysis for Dayton International Airport (April/May 2000). 3 As discussed in Section 5 of that report, background noise at most of the noise monitor sites includes substantial low-frequency contributions that are an intrinsic attribute of the ambient noise rather than the result of aircraft operations. Nevertheless, the low-frequency components of aircraft departure backblast noise caused by departures on Runway 36 and Runway 24L contributed significantly to single-event noise levels recorded at noise monitors located in the City of Vandalia. Wyle Laboratories analyses, therefore, confirm in part the City of Vandalia s claim that low frequency noise is a problem. Noise barriers have been demonstrated to provide noise relief in areas near an airport that are exposed to significant noise from departure back blast and in some cases arrival thrust reversal procedures. Ground run-up enclosures have been proven to be effective in reducing ground based noise at airports such as engine starts, reverse thrust power-outs from gates, and maintenance runups. Although the specific benefits that could be gained through the development of noise barriers or a ground run-up enclosure could not be assessed within the scope of the FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study Update, the project committees and the Department of Aviation recognize the potential for noise reductions to be achieved using noise barriers, particularly in areas near the southern end of Runway 18-36, and north of the Emery Worldwide (now Menlo Worldwide) sortation center. The potential benefits would be associated with the reduction in single-event noise levels from aircraft departures and engine run-up activity and the associated reductions in cumulative noise levels in the areas noted above. Although the number of households and people that would experience reduced noise levels cannot be quantified at this time, those that would experience reductions are those closest to the Airport that are generally exposed to the highest levels of aircraft noise. The City of Dayton Department of Aviation requests that the measure be approved to allow the City to be eligible for federal funding to identify the potential benefits that could be gained from constructing a noise barrier or run-up enclosure and/or from enacting specific ground noise policies such as procedures for aircraft engine maintenance run-ups. The funds would also be used to develop specifications for constructing the barriers or run-up enclosure, if they are found to be beneficial. If noise barriers or a run-up enclosure were found to be beneficial, the City would then submit an amendment to the FAR Part 150 program to become eligible for funding to construct a ground run-up enclosure and/or barriers in those locations that would provide noise relief in the neighborhoods around the Airport. Abatement Measure 10: Encourage Congress to seek stricter aircraft noise standards, particularly regarding a phase-out schedule for aircraft originally manufactured as Stage 2 that have been modified or are operated to meet Stage 3 noise standards. The noise levels of aircraft operating in the U.S. are regulated by Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 36, Noise Standards, Aircraft Type and Airworthiness Certification. As of January 1, 1985, only aircraft that met FAR Part 36 Stage 2 standards could be operated in the United States. 3 Wyle Laboratories. Wyle Research Report WR Noise Monitoring II and Analysis for Dayton International Airport (April/May 2000). January Noise Compatibility Program Report II-21 Noise Abatement Measures

43 The most stringent noise standards included in FAR Part 36 are referred to as the Stage 3 standards. The Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 (ANCA) mandated that the FAA develop a schedule for phasing out all aircraft operating in the United States that did not meet the FAR Part 36 Stage 3 noise standards. In response, the FAA established the phase out schedule for aircraft weighing more than 75,000 pounds (representing nearly all air carrier jet aircraft) through an amendment to FAR Part 91, General Operating and Flight Rules, stating that after December 31, 1999, only aircraft that met Stage 3 noise standards could be operated at U.S. airports. Again, the phase out schedule only applied to aircraft weighing more than 75,000 pounds. Aircraft operators were given the option of replacing the aircraft in their fleets with aircraft manufactured to meet the Stage 3 standards or modifying aircraft in their fleet to meet the Stage 3 standards. Because of the high costs of acquiring new aircraft as well as the limited availability of new aircraft, many aircraft operators chose to modify a portion of their fleet that did not meet the Stage 3 standards using hushkits or other methods so that the aircraft could meet the Stage 3 standards. Although the modified aircraft do meet the Stage 3 noise standards, their noise levels are significantly higher than those generated by most of the aircraft originally manufactured to meet Stage 3 standards and are still the loudest aircraft that operate at U.S. airports. In some cases, the modified aircraft generate single-event levels 10 to 20 decibels higher on takeoff than aircraft originally manufactured to meet the Stage 3 standards. The Department of Aviation and the project committees recognize that the phase-out of the modified Stage 2 aircraft could further reduce noise exposure in the Airport environs, the effects of which would provide a noise reduction benefit in all of the Airport environs. The level of reduction could be similar to that which occurred between 1993 and 2000 (see Exhibit V-8 in the Noise Exposure Map Report) as a result of the phase-out of Stage 2 aircraft. While the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and the softening of the air travel market prior to that time has resulted in an accelerated retirement of older modified Stage 2 aircraft, these aircraft still comprise a large portion of the air cargo fleet that operates at Dayton International Airport. Therefore, as a measure of the Noise Compatibility Program, the City of Dayton will encourage Congress to seek more stringent aircraft noise standards that would eventually lead to the phase out of the modified Stage 2 aircraft. The City is not seeking eligibility for funds to seek the more stringent noise standards, but desires to officially indicate its intent to encourage Congress to work toward this goal. Abatement Measure 11: Encourage the FAA to develop a phase-out schedule for FAR Part 36 Stage 2 aircraft weighing less than 75,000 pounds. As stated for the previous measure, the phase-out of FAR Part 36 Stage 2 aircraft only applied to aircraft weighing more than 75,000 pounds despite the fact that ANCA never specified that the FAA couldn t develop a phase-out schedule for Stage 2 aircraft weighing less than 75,000 pounds. As the air carrier fleets have become quieter, the noise environments around airports are controlled more and more by corporate and general aviation jet aircraft, because these aircraft generate noise levels as high as those generated by many Stage 2 air carrier jet aircraft. The development of a phase-out schedule for Stage 2 aircraft weighing less than 75,000 pounds has proven difficult because of the economics of the operators of these aircraft. Typically, these operators own and operate one or only a few aircraft and the costs associated with replacing these aircraft would be significant relative to the overall operating costs. Also, because the fleet of aircraft Noise Compatibility Program Report II-22 Noise Abatement Measures

44 weighing less than 75,000 pounds comprises such a large number of aircraft types with different engine types, the economies of developing hushkits or other modifications are quite different than for the air carrier fleets. Finally, the aircraft are typically not operated as frequently and are not subjected to the same number of landing and takeoff cycles as most air carrier aircraft. As a result, the aircraft have a longer usable service life and would not need to be replaced as frequently as air carrier aircraft. The Department of Aviation and the project committees recognize the importance of developing the phase-out schedule for the smaller aircraft, which would provide noise reduction benefits for all areas in the Airport environs. The City of Dayton is not requesting eligibility for funding to seek the phase-out of Stage 2 aircraft weighing less than 75,000 pounds, but desires to officially indicate its intent to encourage the FAA to develop such a phase-out schedule. Noise Abatement Measure 12: Based on the requests of certain communities in the Airport environs, consider the following abatement measure for Runway 6L All aircraft shall climb via 060 degree heading, at the ROD R be turned RIGHT to a heading of degrees. Aircrews can be instructed to join first enroute fix (turning on course) by DAY Air Traffic Control (ATC) after reaching at least five nautical miles EAST (from Airport) and 3000 MSL. Representative from Tipp City and Monroe Township, two political jurisdictions that are located in the environs of Dayton International Airport, have identified a preferred departure procedure for Runway 6L that differs from the departure procedure proposed by the City of Dayton (See Abatement Measure 3). The City of Dayton respectfully requests that the FAA consider the departure procedure for Runway 6L recommended by the communities of Tipp City and Monroe Township during its review and approval of the Noise Compatibility Program for Dayton International Airport. The communities of Tipp City and Monroe Township propose that all aircraft departing on Runway 6L be instructed to climb via a 060 degree heading (the runway heading) until crossing the 204 degree radial from the Rosewood VOR (ROD) where they would be instructed to turn right to a heading of 90 degrees. Aircrews would be instructed to join the first enroute fix by Dayton Air Traffic Control (ATC) after their aircraft are at least five nautical miles east of the Airport and at or above an altitude of 3000 feet MSL. An illustration of the departure procedure for Runway 6L recommended by the communities of Tipp City and Monroe Township is provided on Exhibit II-9. The departure procedure recommended by Tipp City and Monroe Township is very similar to Alternative L which was evaluated by Ricondo & Associates, Inc and is summarized in Appendix A. The major difference between Alternative L and the departure procedure recommended by the communities of Tipp City and Monroe Township is that the Tipp City/Monroe Township procedure would apply to all aircraft departures and not just nighttime departures (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). Based on the noise analysis conducted for Alternative L, it was estimated that the departure procedure recommended by the communities of Tipp City and Monroe Township would reduce aircraft noise levels in parts of Tipp City and Monroe Township but could increase noise levels in residential portions of Butler Township near Tipp Canal Road (See Exhibit II-10). As discussed in Appendix A, it is estimated that Alternative L would increase the number of people and households exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 65 and higher (37 additional people) if implemented. Due to the similarity between the abatement flight corridor proposed by the communities of Tipp City and Noise Compatibility Program Report II-23 Noise Abatement Measures

45 Insert Exhibit II-9 Noise Compatibility Program Report II-24 Noise Abatement Measures

46 Insert Exhibit II-10 Noise Compatibility Program Report II-25 Noise Abatement Measures

47 Monroe Township and Alternative L it is expected that the departure procedure recommended by Tipp City and Monroe Township would also increase the number of people and households exposed to significant levels of aircraft noise. The noise abatement procedure recommended by the communities of Tipp City and Monroe Township would potentially reduce airfield capacity at the Airport. FAA procedures require that minimum horizontal or vertical separations be maintained between aircraft operating in the airspace. Horizontal separation between aircraft refers to the distance between the locations of the aircraft if projected onto the ground. Vertical separation between aircraft refers to the difference in altitude between the aircraft. Just after takeoff and in the initial segments of the climb, air traffic controllers can only rely on horizontal separations to maintain safe operating distances between aircraft. The two primary means for providing and ensuring the appropriate horizontal separations between aircraft departing from the same runway are to (1) assign aircraft to routes that result in courses that diverge (in other words, the aircraft will move further and further apart as they continue their flight) or (2) ensure that adequate separation exists between aircraft on the same route that the trailing aircraft does not catch up with the leading aircraft. The former method is the more common, particularly for maintaining separations between slow- and fast-moving aircraft after departure. A mandatory turn to a heading of 90 degrees as proposed by the communities of Tipp City and Monroe Township would require Dayton ATCT personnel to increase in-trail separation distances between successive aircraft departures performed on Runway 6L since all 6L departures would be assigned the same initial heading. Dayton ATCT personnel would be required to increase the in-trail separation distance between successive aircraft departures on Runway 6L from 1 mile to the radar separation mimima (3 miles) if all aircraft are assigned a 90 degree heading. 4 To ensure adequate horizontal separation in the air, Dayton ATCT personnel would be required to hold aircraft longer on the ground. Such ground holds would decrease airfield capacity at Dayton International Airport and could substantially increase the possibility of delays, particularly during peak operating periods. The departure procedure recommended by the communities of Tipp City and Monroe Township could also create dependencies between Runway 6L-24R and 6R-24L. If ATCT personnel assign a 90 degree heading to all aircraft departing on Runway 6L they would be directing 6L departures towards the extended centerline of Runway 6R and would potentially impact 6R departures and missed approaches to 6R. If all aircraft departing on Runway 6L are assigned a heading of 90 degrees upon takeoff, ATCT personnel would be required to assign an initial heading of 105 degrees or higher to Runway 6R departures to preserve the capability of performing simultaneous departure operations on the parallel runways. 5 The communities recommend that the departure procedure for Runway 6L be approved through the issuance of a Standard Instrument Departure (SID). As discussed in Section IV, environmental processing in accordance with NEPA would be required before Abatement Measure 12 could be implemented. 4 Section a. of Federal Aviation Administration Order N, Air Traffic Control. 5 Section c. of Federal Aviation Administration Order N, Air Traffic Control. Noise Compatibility Program Report II-26 Noise Abatement Measures

48 III. Noise Mitigation Measures This section provides a description of the ten noise mitigation measures recommended for implementation at Dayton International Airport. Information regarding program costs, financing, and implementation is provided in Section IV. Information and analyses of these and other noise mitigation options considered for the Airport are provided in Appendix B. 3.1 Summary of Recommended Noise Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures can be described as remedial or preventative. Remedial measures are those that can achieve compatibility of existing incompatible land uses or help improve the compatibility of existing incompatible land uses. Preventative measures are those that can help reduce the potential for future land uses from being developed in areas exposed to significant levels of aircraft noise. The ten recommended noise mitigation measures are: Remedial Measure 1. Complete the acquisition of noise-impacted homes and vacant land as recommended in the 1994 NCP (in areas exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 65 and higher based on the 2005 Noise Exposure Map). 2. Acquire homes impacted by ground noise from the Menlo Worldwide sort facility on Old Springfield Road as recommended in the 1994 NCP (as amended). 3. In areas exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 65 and higher based on the 2005 Noise Exposure Map acquire homes outright or acquire avigation easements. 4. Acquire undeveloped land that is zoned for residential land uses in areas exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 65 and higher based on the 2005 Noise Exposure Map. Preventative Measures 5. Encourage jurisdictions in the environs of Dayton International Airport to adopt a multijurisdictional compatible land use planning overlay zoning district (MCLUPOZD). 6. Prepare a comprehensive plan/airport environs plan for Dayton International Airport. 7. Encourage local jurisdictions in the environs of Dayton International Airport to amend their subdivision regulations to require the dedication of avigation easements and recording of plat notes for new subdivisions within the multi-jurisdictional compatible land use planning overlay zoning district (MCLUPOZD). 8. Encourage local jurisdictions to adopt local amendments to building codes setting forth sound insulation standards to use within the multi-jurisdictional compatible land use planning overlay zoning district (MCLUPOZD). 9. Encourage local jurisdictions to prepare discretionary project review guidelines for subdivision, rezoning, special use, conditional use, and variance applications in the environs of Dayton International Airport. Noise Compatibility Program Report III-1 Noise Mitigation Measures

49 10. Expand the Airport s noise complaint response system. 3.2 Description of Recommended Remedial Noise Mitigation Measure The following paragraphs provide a detailed description of the recommended remedial noise mitigation measure. Mitigation Measure 1: Complete the acquisition of noise-impacted homes and vacant land as recommended in the 1994 NCP (in areas exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 65 and higher based on the 2005 Noise Exposure Map). Exhibit III-1 shows property proposed for acquisition in the 1988 and 1994 Noise Compatibility Programs (NCPs) prepared for Dayton International Airport. The City of Dayton has completed most of the property acquisition recommended in the prior NCPs through a voluntary property acquisition program. The property acquisition program has been partially funded by the federal government and has complied with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Regulations of the U.S. Department of Transportation (49 CFR Part 24). The noise analysis conducted for the current FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study Update indicates that most of the properties identified in the previous NCPs were exposed to aircraft noise levels of DNL 65 to 75 in 2000 and will continue to be exposed to high levels of aircraft noise in 2005 even if the proposed noise abatement measures are implemented. Therefore the City of Dayton s ultimate objective should be to acquire all of the properties identified previously for acquisition if they are exposed to aircraft noise levels of DNL 65 and higher. Mitigation Measure 2: Acquire homes impacted by ground noise from the Menlo Worldwide sort facility on Old Springfield Road as recommended in the 1994 NCP (as amended). Noise Mitigation Measure 3 of the 1994 NCP recommended that the City of Dayton acquire five homes across Old Springfield Road from the Menlo Worldwide (formerly Emery Worldwide) sort facility. As discussed in the 1996 Record of Approval (ROA) for the prior NCP, the Springfield Road properties are not exposed to significant overflight noise; however, they are exposed to significant noise emanating from aircraft taxiing on the cargo ramp and from auxiliary power units (APUs) on aircraft awaiting unloading and reloading on the ramp. At that time the FAA also determined that five other homes within 2,000 feet or less of the sort building (three homes on Peters Road and 2 homes on Macy Lane) were also exposed to noise from late night truck traffic and aircraft fueling. The City of Dayton Department of Aviation has acquired eight of the ten homes identified for acquisition in the previous NCP. The two homes that have not been acquired continue to be exposed to high levels of ground noise emanating from the Menlo Worldwide sort facility. The City of Dayton is seeking eligibility for federal funds to acquire the two properties. Mitigation Measure 3: In areas exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 65 and higher based on the 2005 Noise Exposure Map acquire homes outright or acquire avigation easements. In the environs of Dayton International Airport, single family residential homes and other noise sensitive land uses exposed to significant aircraft noise (DNL 65 and higher) are generally Noise Compatibility Program Report III-2 Noise Mitigation Measures

50 Insert Exhibit III-1 Coffman Property Acquisition Map Noise Compatibility Program Report III-3 Noise Mitigation Measures

51 west/southwest of the Airport (generally north of I-70) and north/northeast of the Airport. Some residents living in areas exposed to significant levels of aircraft noise have expressed their desire to be acquired by the City of Dayton while others desire to remain in those neighborhoods and have expressed concerns that a land acquisition program could be disruptive. In light of the different needs of residents in noise impacted neighborhoods, the City of Dayton has determined that a voluntary property acquisition program would be a viable option to address aircraft noise levels in the environs of Dayton International Airport. The City of Dayton has also determined that the purchase of noise/avigation easements would be a feasible alternative to the out-right purchase of residential properties in those situations where the owners are not interested in selling their homes. Exhibit III-2 depicts residential properties that would be eligible to participate in the property acquisition/avigation easement program. Approximately 600 homes would be eligible for the property acquisition/avigation easement program based on an analysis of year 2000 Census data obtained from U.S. Census Bureau. Participation in the property acquisition/avigation easement program would be voluntary under conditions of a willing buyer/willing-seller. It is expected that the program would be completed in multiple phases. Generally the program phasing priorities would be based on the following considerations (listed in order of importance): 1. Homes exposed to the highest levels of aircraft noise 2. Homes located nearest to the extended runway centerlines or under primary flight corridors 3. Homes that are exposed to DNL 70 to DNL 75 dba that will experience an increase in noise levels as a result of implementation of recommended noise abatement measures. 4. Homes that are exposed to DNL 65 to DNL 70 dba that will experience an increase in noise levels as a result of implementation of recommended noise abatement measures. Property acquired by the City of Dayton and later re-sold or leased could carry restrictions with respect to the future use of the property (i.e. no residential land uses permitted in areas exposed to DNL 70 and higher). Properties southwest of the Airport (generally abutting the Englewood Reserve) not needed for approach protection or for aviation-related development could be redeveloped for use as parks and open space, provided appropriate management arrangements can be worked out between the Department of Aviation and the Dayton-Montgomery County Parks District. At a minimum, the City of Dayton would retain an avigation easement on all properties it acquires with noise funds if such properties are later re-sold. Additional information regarding the property acquisition program, including projected costs is provided in Section IV. Mitigation Measure 4: Acquire undeveloped land that is zoned for residential land uses in areas exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 65 and higher based on the 2005 Noise Exposure Map. To promote long term land use compatibility in the Airport environs the City of Dayton should acquire vacant lands exposed to aircraft noise levels of DNL 65 and higher as depicted on Exhibit III- 2. The properties shown are zoned for residential land uses and will be exposed to significant noise levels throughout the 20 year planning horizon. Some of the properties are not appropriate for industrial or commercial land uses. Properties southwest of the Airport (generally abutting the Englewood Reserve) not needed by the Airport for approach protection or for aviation-related development could be redeveloped for use as parks and open space, provided appropriate management arrangements can be worked out between the Department of Aviation and the Dayton- Montgomery County Parks District. At a minimum, the City of Dayton would retain an avigation easement on all properties it acquires with noise funds if such properties are later re-sold. Additional Noise Compatibility Program Report III-4 Noise Mitigation Measures

52 Insert Exhibit III-2 Noise Compatibility Program Report III-5 Noise Mitigation Measures

53 information regarding the acquisition of vacant land in the Airport environs, including projected costs is provided in Section IV. 3.3 Descriptions of Recommended Preventative Noise Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure 5: Encourage jurisdictions in the environs of Dayton International Airport to adopt a multi-jurisdictional compatible land use planning overlay zoning district (MCLUPOZD). A zoning overlay is a form of zoning that applies certain restrictions such as structure height allowances, type of structure constructed, and other limitations on a specific area without rezoning each parcel within the overlay zone. The allowed uses on land within an overlay zone would be those that conform to the underlying zoning as well as the overlay zoning requirements. Many jurisdictions include some form of height overlay zones to prevent structures from being built that would be obstructions or hazards to aircraft operations. Noise overlay zones can be used to limit the types of land uses allowed in areas exposed to high levels of aircraft noise and to specify certain building requirements (such as acoustical treatment) without changing the underlying zoning. Noise overlay zones can also be used in combination with other noise mitigation techniques to protect airport sponsors from noise-related lawsuits. The airport sponsor and the municipal jurisdictions that would be responsible for implementation and enforcement of the overlay zone regulations typically determine the limits of the zoning overlay. Some jurisdictions use the DNL 65 contour that could result from the ultimate airport development as the general boundary for such overlays, recognizing that as aviation activity increases, additional areas may be exposed to aircraft noise. Other jurisdictions use boundaries that are composites of existing and future noise exposure contours that would represent the worst case of noise exposure in the airport environs. The City of Dayton is interested in working with officials from jurisdictions in the environs of Dayton International Airport that are affected by significant levels of aircraft noise to assist them to enact a multi-jurisdictional compatible land use planning overlay zoning district and to establish boundaries for the MCLUPOZD. The purpose of the airport environs overlay district ordinance would be to: (1) protect public health, safety, and welfare by regulating development within airport hazard areas and noise zones; (2) promote land use compatibility between Dayton International Airport and surrounding land uses, and (3) protect flight corridors and other areas affected by significant levels of aircraft noise from residential encroachment. A sample overlay district ordinance is included in Appendix E. The ordinance, which was modeled after an ordinance adopted in Franklin County, Ohio, delineates land use compatibility standards/requirements to be followed for new development in the Airport environs, contains provisions related to the conveyance of avigation easements to the City of Dayton for new development/modified development inside the overlay district, and contains provisions requiring the consideration of noise during the development process/permit process. The potential boundaries for the subdistricts of the MCLUPOZD are depicted on Exhibit III-3. The boundaries of the AE-75, AE-70, and AE-65 subdistricts are based on the combination of noise contours from the 2005 NEM and the 2005 Noise Abatement Program noise map. The buffer zone is based on the DNL 65 noise contour associated with the Ultimate development plan for Dayton International Airport (i.e. 3 parallel runways) at the annual service volume (ASV). Noise Compatibility Program Report III-6 Noise Mitigation Measures

54 Insert Exhibit III-3 Noise Compatibility Program Report III-7 Noise Mitigation Measures

55 If this measure is approved, the Department of Aviation could become eligible to receive federal funding to assist other jurisdictions with the implementation of the MCLUPOZD. The Department of Aviation would work with officials from Vandalia, Tipp City, Englewood, Union, Butler Township, Miami County, and Montgomery County to craft the language of the actual ordinances, to identify the specific provisions that would apply within the MCLUPOZD and each of the subdistricts, and to establish agreed upon boundaries for the MCLUPOZD and its subdistricts. The benefit of implementing such land use controls would be that the City of Dayton would be more capable of assisting local jurisdictions when they make land use decisions in areas currently or potentially exposed to significant levels of aircraft noise. Mitigation Measure 6: Prepare a comprehensive plan/airport environs plan for Dayton International Airport. Comprehensive planning in an airport environs is a coordinated effort intended to ensure that airport operations are compatible with the needs of the airport environs and the region. Ideally, comprehensive planning results in recommendations that can permit the long-term development of the airport while protecting people in the environs from the adverse environmental effects of airport development and operations. Comprehensive planning was included as a measure in the original FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program for the Airport. The Department of Aviation and project committees agree it is important to use planning and other mechanisms (e.g., zoning) to protect agricultural areas or areas developed with compatible land uses (e.g., commercial and industrial facilities) in the environs of Dayton International Airport from residential encroachment. The Department of Aviation intends to continue working with jurisdictions in the vicinity of the Airport to develop some means of comprehensive planning as a part of this FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study Update. This planning could take the form of establishing a joint economic development board, comprised of all jurisdictions in the airport environs, which would aid in defining development goals for the areas in the immediate vicinity of the Airport or might be pursued through the preparation of an airport environs plan for a much broader economic region. As discussed in Mitigation Measure 5 above, the City of Dayton is also interested in establishing a multi-jurisdictional compatible land use planning and overlay zoning district (MCLUPOZD). At a minimum the joint land use planning effort would provide: A comprehensive study of a variety of land use controls Analysis of existing zoning and land uses in the Airport environs Identification of land use management measures Short range (5-10 years) and long range (20 years) recommendations for enhancing and maintaining compatible land use If this measure is approved, the Department of Aviation could become eligible to receive additional federal funding to assist other City departments and other jurisdictions in the Airport environs in conducting further study and implementing recommendations found effective for maintaining compatible land uses in current and potential future flight corridors. The benefit of implementing such land use control/planning would be that the City of Dayton would be capable of providing information to local land use planning organizations regarding airport/aircraft noise. Such information would be valuable to local officials when they make land use decisions in areas that are currently or potentially exposed to significant levels of aircraft noise. Noise Compatibility Program Report III-8 Noise Mitigation Measures

56 Mitigation Measure 7: Encourage local jurisdictions in the environs of Dayton International Airport to amend their subdivision regulations to require the dedication of avigation easements and recording of plat notes for new subdivisions within the multi-jurisdictional compatible land use planning overlay zoning district (MCLUPOZD). Subdivision regulations in most communities control the platting of land by establishing site planning standards, including standards for lot layout and the design of utilities and improvements. Some jurisdictions in the U.S. have used subdivision regulations to promote compatible development in Airport environs by requiring the considerations of aircraft noise at the time public officials are conducting their review of the plat. Other jurisdictions have incorporated fair disclosure requirements into their subdivision regulations to ensure that prospective property owners go into the sales transaction with their eyes open and are informed if their property is exposed to significant levels of aircraft noise. In some communities aircraft noise levels are depicted on the final subdivision plats. In other communities notes are recorded on the plat or deed stating the property is located in an aircraft noise zone or is subject to disruptive levels of aircraft noise. Subdivision regulations can also be amended to help protect an airport sponsor from potential lawsuits. This is typically achieved by requiring the dedication of noise or avigation easements as a condition of subdivision approval. The noise or avigation easement would include a covenant waiving the property owner s right to sue the airport sponsor for disturbances caused by aircraft noise. In light of the considerable amount of undeveloped agricultural land in the Airport environs and the potential for subdivision activity to occur in the future it is noted that amending existing subdivision regulations to include special provisions for airport noise zones would be an effective method to promote airport/community land use compatibility. While changes to subdivision regulations would not improve existing land use compatibility in the Airport environs, it could prevent future incompatible development in areas exposed to the highest levels of aircraft noise. The Department of Aviation should continue to encourage jurisdictions in the Airport environs to amend their subdivision regulations to include provisions for the recording of plat notes and/or the dedication of avigation easements in noise impact zones. Such provisions could also be incorporated into an airport environs overlay district ordinance. Jurisdictions that could adopt such measures include Miami County, Montgomery County, Butler Township, Clayton, Englewood, Tipp City, Vandalia, and Union. Mitigation Measure 8: Encourage local jurisdictions to adopt local amendments to building codes setting forth sound insulation standards to use within the multijurisdictional compatible land use planning overlay zoning district (MCLUPOZD). Building codes that contain sound insulation standards for airport noise zones typically are applied within the limits of areas exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 65 (as depicted on an airport s official noise exposure map) with increasingly stringent standards in the DNL 70 and DNL 75 noise contours. The revised codes describe in great detail the construction techniques and materials required to achieve satisfactory noise level reduction (NLR) in the various noise zones (i.e., DNL 65, DNL 70, and DNL 75). The primary purpose of the sound insulation standards is to achieve interior noise levels of DNL 45 or less in all noise-sensitive construction. Noise Compatibility Program Report III-9 Noise Mitigation Measures

57 The Department of Aviation will work with jurisdictions in the Airport environs to find a mechanism to incorporate noise insulation standards into local building codes (potentially feasible if promulgated in an multi-jurisdictional compatible land use planning overlay zoning district) for noise-sensitive land uses. Controlling noise involves public welfare because sleep, communication, and psychological and physiological factors are involved. Combined with zoning, noise insulation standards offer a means of achieving land use compatibility in areas exposed to high levels of aircraft noise without causing any undue disruption to existing land use or future plans. Sound insulation requirements might cost local builders more than conventional construction; however, the Department of Aviation intends to work with local jurisdictions to evaluate the feasibility of adopting specific sound insulation standards for land uses that aren t compatible with high levels of aircraft noise. Mitigation Measure 9: Encourage local jurisdictions to adopt discretionary project review guidelines for subdivision, rezoning, special use, conditional use, and variance applications (in the environs of Dayton International Airport). The City of Dayton recommends that jurisdictions in the environs of Dayton International Airport consider adopting special review procedures for their planning commissions and zoning appeal boards/zoning commissions for development proposals in areas exposed to significant levels of aircraft noise. These procedures would apply to applications for subdivision, rezoning, special use, conditional use, and variance for all land exposed to DNL 65 and higher as depicted on the 2005 NEM. Jurisdictions that should consider adopting the project review guidelines include Miami and Montgomery counties, Butler Township, Englewood, Tipp City, Vandalia, and Union. If discretionary project review guidelines are not enacted through an airport environs overlay district ordinance (see Noise Mitigation Measure 5) they could be implemented by local jurisdictions in the form of a simple checklist that would apply to development proposals in areas exposed to aircraft noise levels of DNL 65 and higher. The following are suggested checklist criteria: Determine whether the proposed land use is noise-sensitive or potentially incompatible with aircraft noise. Table 1 of Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 150 could be used to determine if the proposed land use is compatible or incompatible with aircraft noise. Advise the City of Dayton Department of Aviation of all development proposals involving noise-sensitive land use is areas exposed to aircraft noise levels of DNL 65 and higher. Discourage the approval of rezoning, exceptions, variances, and conditional uses which introduce noise-sensitive development into areas exposed to noise exceeding DNL 65. Discourage the approval of residential subdivision in areas exposed to aircraft noise exceeding DNL 65. Where this development is unavoidable, encourage the use of building standards/construction techniques that provide a noise level reduction (NLR) of 20 decibels or higher so interior noise levels do not exceed DNL 45. Mitigation Measure 9 is an updated version of land use management measure 16 from the previous Noise Compatibility Program. The prior measure was never adopted by local jurisdictions in the Airport environs. While Mitigation Measure 9 would not improve the compatibility of existing land uses in the Airport environs it could help prevent new residences and other noise sensitive land uses from being developed in areas impacted by significant levels of aircraft noise. Noise Compatibility Program Report III-10 Noise Mitigation Measures

58 Mitigation Measure 10: Expand the Airport s noise complaint response system. The City of Dayton Department of Aviation maintains a log of noise complaints it receives and currently has a noise mitigation manager who interacts with and responds directly to noise complainants. It is important for airport management to continue to acknowledge and respond to noise complaints, despite the fact that it is not possible to use noise complaint data in a punitive manner. The tendency for an individual to file a noise complaint is influenced by many variables including sensitivity to noise, housing tenure, and expectations about neighborhood livability. While noise complaints do not always reveal the existence of significant noise levels per FAA guidelines, City of Dayton staff should periodically analyze the complaint records it receives and prepare a report summarizing the complaint data. If a geographic pattern is recognizable in the noise complaint data or a specific cause of noise complaints is discernable, the City of Dayton should investigate, and if possible, seek corrective action. As part of this measure the City of Dayton is seeking to modernize its existing noise complaint tracking system through the use of database software (potentially Microsoft Access) and geographic information system (GIS) software. Information regarding the noise complaint would be input directly into a computerized form similar to the sample form included in Appendix E. Information input into the database would be queried by Dayton staff on occasion and used to prepare quarterly noise reports. If the proposed aircraft noise and operations monitoring system (Noise Abatement Measure 8) is approved, the City of Dayton would integrate the two systems and prepare more detailed summaries of aircraft noise, runway use, flight track use, etc. which could be distributed to elected officials, noise groups, and concerned citizens in the Dayton Airport environs. If this measure is approved, the City of Dayton Department of Aviation could become eligible to receive additional federal funding to cover the cost of implementing the new noise complaint tracking system. The cost of implementing Noise Mitigation Measure 10 would include the purchase of the database and GIS software (Microsoft Access and ArcGIS). The benefit of implementing such a system would be that the City of Dayton would be able to provide more specific information about aircraft noise to concerned citizens living in the environs of Dayton International Airport. The City of Dayton Department of Aviation could also use the quarterly noise reports generated from the noise complaint database as another way to measure the effectiveness of its noise abatement programs in addition to the proposed aircraft noise and operations monitoring system. Noise Compatibility Program Report III-11 Noise Mitigation Measures

59 IV. Implementation, Preliminary Cost Estimates, and Financing 4.1 Introduction This section provides information regarding the implementation of the recommended measures that have resulted from the Noise Compatibility Program Update for Dayton International Airport. The anticipated benefits of implementing the measures, their effect on existing noise measures and previously adopted plans, and provisions for revision of the Program, are discussed. Preliminary schedules, costs, funding, and initial steps for implementing each measure in the Noise Compatibility Program are also provided. The primary responsibility for implementing the new noise compatibility measures as well as maintaining the current noise compatibility measures for Dayton International Airport rests with the following entities: Federal Aviation Administration City of Dayton Department of Aviation Township trustees/planning Commissions/Zoning Commissions Miami County, Montgomery County, City of Tipp City, City of Englewood, City of Vandalia, City of Clayton, City of West Milton, City of Union, City of Huber Heights, Monroe Township, Bethel Township, Union Township, and Butler Township City of Dayton Board of Zoning Appeals Airlines and other Airport users 4.2 Consistency with Existing Noise Compatibility Measures The recommended noise abatement and noise mitigation measures are consistent with and provide an overall enhancement to the existing Noise Compatibility Program for Dayton International Airport as approved by the FAA in As discussed in Section I, the principal noise abatement/mitigation measures that are currently in effect at the Airport are: Runway 24L departures will be instructed to maintain runway heading until passing 2,000 feet MSL (1,000 feet AGL) prior to commencing a turn. North and west bound turbojet departures off Runway 6L shall be given a heading or headings that will position the aircraft west of, or parallel to I-75 (Normally between 320 degrees and 360 degrees) and maintain that heading until either passing 4,000 feet MSL, or until 5 miles from the airport. Aircraft unable to make the turn should hold runway heading for five miles before turning. Arrivals to Runway 24R will be instructed to establish a straight in final approach at least four miles from the runway. Offer sound insulation to homes within the DNL based on the 1997 Noise Compatibility Plan (two pilot programs completed). Acquire 5 homes across Old Springfield Road from the Emery sort facility, 3 homes on Peters Road just north of Old Springfield Road, and 2 homes on Macy Lane adjacent to Peters Road (ongoing). Noise Compatibility Program Report IV-1 Implementation, Preliminary Cost Estimates, and Financing

60 Acquire homes within the 75 DNL noise contour, including several homes within the 70 DNL contour experiencing significant noise impacts, based on the 1992 baseline and 1997 Noise Compatibility Plan which are not already designated for acquisition (ongoing). Acquire undeveloped land within the 70 DNL based on the 1997 Noise Compatibility Plan (ongoing). The recommended noise compatibility program update includes measures that would further reduce noise levels generated by individual aircraft operations, reduce cumulative noise exposure in areas developed in noise-sensitive land uses, increase efforts to provide remedial relief in areas that would still be exposed to significant aircraft noise, and provide mechanisms for reducing the potential for the development of additional incompatible land uses in areas exposed to significant aircraft noise. 4.3 Summary of Anticipated Program Benefits The contribution of each noise compatibility measure in terms of the reduction in the number of people or in terms of incompatible or noise-sensitive land uses exposed to significant levels of aircraft noise is, in some instances, difficult to quantify. Some noise abatement measures provide relief from the annoyance of individual aircraft overflights or from ground noise rather than cumulative noise exposure. The extent to which some mitigation measures prevent incompatible development depends on factors such as local economic conditions, which are not under the control of the Department of Aviation. The new or expanded Noise Compatibility Program measures, along with comments on the relative contribution of each are provided in Tables IV-1 and IV-2. Qualitative descriptions of the potential benefit(s) are provided for those measures whose benefits may not be quantifiable. 4.4 Consistency with Plans Previously Adopted and Plans for Future Study As mentioned in Section 4.2, the proposed Noise Compatibility Program Update is consistent with the Noise Compatibility Program as approved in 1996, the 1999 Strategic Master Plan Update, and national FAA noise abatement policies. The planning data and aviation demand forecasts used for the analyses are consistent with recently completed and approved plans, in particular the Master Plan Update. The Strategic Master Plan Update includes recommendations to extend to Runway 6R-24L and Runway to enhance the safety and efficiency of the airfield. Although the runway extensions are not included in the Noise Compatibility Program update as specific recommended measures, the extensions could enhance the effectiveness of certain noise abatement flight corridors. The Department of Aviation intends to pursue the runway extensions and the FAA has initiated an EIS for Phases I and II of the Strategic Master Plan Update. The Department of Aviation intends to use the Noise Compatibility Program update as the basis for future noise abatement and noise mitigation that may be required in order to implement the runway extensions and other airfield improvements at the Airport. 4.5 Review and Revision of Program FAR Part 150 requires preparation of new noise exposure maps, as specified in Section (d), and revision of the Noise Compatibility Program, as specified in Section (e) (9), in the event of changes in aircraft noise levels that result in any substantial, new noncompatible use in an airport environs. If future numbers of aircraft operations, aircraft operating procedures, aircraft Noise Compatibility Program Report IV-2 Implementation, Preliminary Cost Estimates, and Financing

61 types, runway uses, or approach or departure flight tracks differ significantly from those used in preparing the noise exposure maps, the Department of Aviation would revise the Noise Exposure Maps and update the Noise Compatibility Program accordingly. Of specific significance to this FAR Table IV-1 (1 of 2) Noise Compatibility Program Measures and Anticipated Benefits Noise Abatement Measure Retain the existing noise abatement procedures for Runway Pilots of northwest, north, and northeast bound aircraft departing from Runway 24R shall be instructed by Dayton Air Traffic Control to turn right at the departure end of the runway and shall be assigned a heading to follow the Stillwater River basin. Air crews shall be instructed to follow that heading for five nautical miles before turning on course. Anticipated Benefit The existing procedures help to minimize overflights of noise-sensitive land uses within the City of Vandalia. Could reduce the number of people and noisesensitive land uses exposed to significant levels of aircraft noise in areas west and northwest of the Airport. Estimated reduction of 169 people exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 65 and higher Pilots of all north, northeast, northwest, and westbound aircraft departing from Runway 6L during nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) shall be assigned an initial heading that is not north of the runway heading (approximately 60 degrees) by Dayton Air Traffic Control. Air crews shall be instructed to follow their initial heading until they are five nautical miles from the departure end of Runway 6L where they will be turned on course. Pilots of south and eastbound aircraft departing from Runway 24L shall be instructed by Dayton Air Traffic Control to follow the runway heading until crossing the departure end of Runway 24L and/or until reaching an altitude of 3,000 feet MSL (approximately 2,000 feet above ground level). Pilots of south and eastbound aircraft departing from Runway 24R shall be instructed by Dayton Air Traffic Control to follow the runway heading until crossing the departure end of Runway 24R. At night, pilots of aircraft arriving on Runways 24R and 24L shall be radar vectored by Dayton Air Traffic Control so as to turn to a straight-in final approach at a distance of at least five nautical miles from the Airport. Encourage the use of noise abatement departure profiles (NADPs) by both air carrier and general aviation jet aircraft. Conduct live tests of noise abatement departure profiles consistent with FAA procedures to determine which profile (the close-in or distant) would provide the most relief in terms of lowering noise levels of individual aircraft departures from the various runways at Dayton International Airport. Could reduce the number of aircraft overflights of noise-sensitive areas in Tipp City and Monroe Township. Estimated reduction of 630 people exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 60 to 65. Could reduce the number of people and noise sensitive land uses exposed to significant levels of aircraft noise in areas south of National Road (U.S. 40). Estimated reduction of 238 people exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 65 and higher. Could reduce the number of people and noise sensitive land uses exposed to significant levels of aircraft noise in areas south of National Road (U.S. 40). Estimated reduction of 106 people exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 65 and higher. Could reduce the number of direct aircraft overflights of noise-sensitive areas northeast of the Airport. Could reduce single-event noise levels in noise-sensitive areas north and northeast of the Airport Would identify the noise abatement departure profile that would provide the greater benefit in terms of noise reduction in noise-sensitive areas from each runway end at the Airport. Could provide single-event noise level reductions over areas in the entire Airport environs. Noise Compatibility Program Report IV-3 Implementation, Preliminary Cost Estimates, and Financing

62 Table IV-1 (2 of 2) Noise Compatibility Program Measures and Anticipated Benefits Noise Abatement Dayton International Airport Measure Install an aircraft noise and operations monitoring system to track the use of noise abatement flight tracks and departure profiles. Anticipated Benefit Would allow the Department of Aviation to more closely track aircraft noise exposure and to respond to noise complaints in more detail. Would also allow the Department of Aviation to monitor the implementation of and adherence to current and future noise abatement measures at the Airport. Conduct a ground noise study or engine run-up study and establish a ground noise policy for the Airport. Would provide the Department of Aviation with information regarding the potential effectiveness of installing noise barriers at the ends of the runways or constructing a ground run-up enclosure, in terms of reducing noise levels associated with departure back blast and/or engine testing. Encourage Congress to seek stricter aircraft noise standards, particularly regarding a phase-out schedule for aircraft manufactured as FAR Part 36 Stage 2 that have been modified or are operated to meet FAR Part 36 Stage 3 noise standards. Stricter aircraft noise standards and a schedule to phase-out louder aircraft from the fleet would provide further reductions in single-event noise levels. In particular, the elimination of aircraft originally manufactured as FAR Part 36 Stage 2 that have been modified or are operated to meet Stage 3 standards from the fleet, would remove the aircraft that generate the highest single-event noise levels. In some cases, the aircraft that would replace the modified FAR Part 36 Stage 2 aircraft generate departure noise levels that are 10 to 20 decibels lower. Encourage the FAA to develop a phase-out schedule for non FAR Part 36 Stage 3 aircraft that weigh less than 75,000 pounds. Based on the requests of certain communities in the Airport environs, consider the following abatement measure for Runway 6L All aircraft shall climb via 060 degree heading, at the ROD R be turned RIGHT to a heading of degrees. Aircrews can be instructed to join first enroute fix (turning on course) by DAY Air Traffic Control (ATC) after reaching at least five nautical miles EAST (from Airport) and 3000 MSL.. Source: Ricondo & Associates, Inc. Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc. The phase-out of FAR Part 36 Stage 2 aircraft weighing less than 75,000 pounds would eliminate corporate and general aviation jet aircraft that now generate the highest noise levels from the fleet. Since the completion of the phase-out of Stage 2 air carrier aircraft, some of the FAR Part 36 Stage 2 corporate and general aviation aircraft generate the highest individual departure noise levels at the Airport. Could reduce the number of aircraft overflights of noise-sensitive areas in Tipp City and Monroe Township. Noise Compatibility Program Report IV-4 Implementation, Preliminary Cost Estimates, and Financing

63 Table IV-2 Noise Compatibility Program Measures and Anticipated Benefits Noise Mitigation Dayton International Airport Measure Complete the acquisition of noise-impacted homes and vacant land as recommended in the 1994 NCP (in areas exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 65 and higher based on the 2005 Noise Exposure Map). Acquire homes impacted by ground noise from the Menlo Worldwide sort facility on Old Springfield Road as recommended in the 1994 NCP (as amended). In areas exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 65 and higher based on the 2005 Noise Exposure Map acquire homes outright or acquire avigation easements. Acquire undeveloped land that is zoned for residential land uses in areas exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 65 and higher based on the 2005 Noise Exposure Map. Encourage jurisdictions in the environs of Dayton International Airport to adopt a multi-jurisdictional compatible land use planning overlay zoning district (MCLUPOZD). Prepare a comprehensive plan/airport environs plan for Dayton International Airport. Encourage local jurisdictions in the environs of Dayton International Airport to amend their subdivision regulations to require the dedication of avigation easements and recording of plat notes for new subdivisions within the multi-jurisdictional compatible land use planning overlay zoning district (MCLUPOZD). Encourage local jurisdictions to adopt local amendments to building codes setting forth sound insulation standards to use within the multi-jurisdictional compatible land use planning overlay zoning district (MCLUPOZD). Encourage local jurisdictions to adopt discretionary project review guidelines for subdivision, rezoning, special use, conditional use, and variance applications in the environs of Dayton International Airport. Expand the Airport s noise complaint response system. Source: Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc. Ricondo & Associates, Inc. Anticipated Benefit No direct reduction in aircraft noise levels would occur; however, the Department of Aviation could use the program to permanently decrease the number of properties exposed to significant aircraft noise in the Airport environs. Properties that are later re-sold would carry restrictions with respect to future land use. See Above. See Above. See Above. Although no direct reduction in aircraft noise levels would occur as a result of implementing the measure, the potential for the development of additional incompatible uses in areas exposed to significant aircraft noise would be reduced. The potential for the development of additional incompatible uses in areas exposed to significant aircraft noise levels would be reduced or eliminated. Prospective homebuyers within areas exposed to significant levels of aircraft noise would be made aware of the aircraft noise exposure environment prior to purchasing their new homes. Could result in reduced interior noise levels for structures that are constructed in areas exposed to significant aircraft noise. The potential for the development of additional incompatible uses in areas exposed to significant aircraft noise levels would be reduced. The City of Dayton would be more capable of tracking noise complaints and providing a meaningful response to noise complainants, especially if the noise complaint system is tied into the Department of Aviation s Geographic Information System (GIS) and the proposed aircraft noise and operations monitoring system. Noise Compatibility Program Report IV-5 Implementation, Preliminary Cost Estimates, and Financing

64 Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study Update is the outcome of the EIS. The Department of Aviation will consider the implications of all future planning decisions in terms of the potential effects on the Noise Compatibility Program and will review and revise the Noise Exposure Maps and the Noise Compatibility Program, as appropriate. 4.6 Responsibility and Schedule for Implementation The responsibilities for implementing the proposed noise abatement and noise mitigation measures are discussed for each measure in Sections II and III. The Department of Aviation, the FAA, the airlines and other Airport users are responsible for the implementation of the proposed noise abatement measures. Primary responsibility for the implementation of operational procedures (i.e. departure and arrival flight track procedures) will rest with the FAA. The Department of Aviation has the primary responsibility for the implementation of the remedial noise mitigation measures. City of Dayton Department of Aviation staff would work with the Planning and Zoning Commissions in the affected jurisdictions, and other agencies or departments, as necessary, to implement the preventative noise mitigation measures. As noted in Section I, the first volume of the FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study Update for Dayton International Airport, the updated Noise Exposure Maps, was submitted to the FAA in October This second part, the Noise Compatibility Program update, will also be submitted to the FAA for its review and approval. The Department of Aviation will be eligible to apply for Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grants to fund the Program that are approved by the FAA. The Department of Aviation will also work with the FAA to study and then implement any new operational procedures in the approved Program that are determined to be feasible and prudent. A preliminary schedule for implementation of the Noise Compatibility Program is presented in Tables IV-3 and IV-4, for the noise abatement and noise mitigation measures, respectively. The schedule presented herein could change, depending upon approval by the FAA and the availability of AIP funds. Some Program measures not requiring FAA approval for funding could begin implementation upon approval by the Department of Aviation and the Dayton City Council. Implementation of the full approved Program, including future property acquisition programs, would be expected to take a number of years to complete. 4.7 Costs and Funding Sources Appropriate funding for implementation of the proposed Noise Compatibility Program would primarily be provided through AIP grants administered by the FAA. The City of Dayton would assume the local share (10%) of the total program costs. Preliminary cost estimates for implementation of the measures, shown in Tables IV-5 and IV-6 for noise abatement and noise mitigation, respectively, would be refined prior to application for FAA funding. Noise Compatibility Program Report IV-6 Implementation, Preliminary Cost Estimates, and Financing

65 Table IV-3 (1 of 2) Implementation Responsibility and Preliminary Schedule Noise Abatement Measure Responsible Agency Schedule Retain the existing noise abatement procedures for Runway FAA (a) Aircraft operators Department of Aviation Would be included as part of the Noise Compatibility Program upon approval of the updated program by the FAA. Pilots of northwest, north, and northeast bound aircraft departing from Runway 24R shall be instructed by Dayton Air Traffic Control to turn right at the departure end of the runway and shall be assigned a heading to follow the Stillwater River basin. Air crews shall be instructed to follow that heading for five nautical miles before turning on course.. FAA (a) Aircraft operators Department of Aviation Further review, including the necessary environmental processing, would begin upon approval of the Noise Compatibility Program update and availability of FAA funds. Planning and implementation would likely take 1 to 2 years. Pilots of all north, northeast, northwest, and westbound aircraft departing from Runway 6L during nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) shall be assigned an initial heading that is not north of the runway heading (approximately 60 degrees) by Dayton Air Traffic Control. Air crews shall be instructed to follow their initial heading until they are five nautical miles from the departure end of Runway 6L where they will be turned on course. Pilots of south and eastbound aircraft departing from Runway 24L shall be instructed by Dayton Air Traffic Control to follow the runway heading until crossing the departure end of Runway 24L and/or until reaching an altitude of 3,000 feet MSL (approximately 2,000 feet above ground level). Pilots of south and eastbound aircraft departing from Runway 24R shall be instructed by Dayton Air Traffic Control to follow the runway heading until crossing the departure end of Runway 24R. At night, pilots of aircraft arriving on Runways 24R and 24L shall be radar vectored by Dayton Air Traffic Control so as to turn to a straight-in final approach at a distance of at least five nautical miles from the Airport. FAA (a) Aircraft operators Department of Aviation FAA (a) Aircraft operators Department of Aviation FAA (a) Aircraft operators Department of Aviation FAA (a) Aircraft operators Department of Aviation Further review, including the necessary environmental processing, would begin upon approval of the Noise Compatibility Program update and availability of FAA funds. Planning and implementation would likely take 1 to 2 years. Further review, including the necessary environmental processing, would begin upon approval of the Noise Compatibility Program update and availability of FAA funds. Planning and implementation would likely take 1 to 2 years. Further review, including the necessary environmental processing, would begin upon approval of the Noise Compatibility Program update and availability of FAA funds. Planning and implementation would likely take 1 to 2 years. Further review, including the necessary environmental processing, would begin upon approval of the Noise Compatibility Program update and availability of FAA funds. Planning and implementation would likely take 1 to 2 years. Noise Compatibility Program Report IV-7 Implementation, Preliminary Cost Estimates, and Financing

66 Table IV-3 (2 of 2) Implementation Responsibility and Preliminary Schedule Noise Abatement Measure Responsible Agency Schedule Department of Aviation FAA Aircraft operators Encourage the use of noise abatement departure profiles (NADPs) by both air carrier and general aviation jet aircraft. Conduct live tests of noise abatement departure profiles consistent with FAA procedures to determine which profile (the close-in or distant) would provide the most relief in terms of lowering noise levels of individual aircraft departures from the various runways at Dayton International Airport. Evaluation of the potential departure profiles, testing, and implementation would likely take 1 year to complete. Live testing of the NADPs would begin upon approval of the Noise Compatibility Program and the availability of FAA funds. Install an aircraft noise and operations monitoring system to track the use of noise abatement flight tracks and departure profiles. Conduct a ground noise study or engine runup study and establish a ground noise policy for the Airport. Encourage Congress to seek stricter aircraft noise standards, particularly regarding a phase-out schedule for aircraft originally manufactured as Stage 2 that have been modified or are operated to meet Stage 3 noise standards. Encourage the FAA to develop a phase-out schedule for FAR Part 36 Stage 2 aircraft weighing less than 75,000 pounds. Based on the requests of certain communities in the Airport environs, consider the following abatement measure for Runway 6L All aircraft shall climb via 060 degree heading, at the ROD R be turned RIGHT to a heading of degrees. Aircrews can be instructed to join first enroute fix (turning on course) by DAY Air Traffic Control (ATC) after reaching at least five nautical miles EAST (from Airport) and 3000 MSL.. Department of Aviation FAA Department of Aviation FAA Department of Aviation City Commission Department of Aviation City Commission FAA (a) Aircraft operators Department of Aviation The Department of Aviation would begin to consider specifications for the system upon approval of the program measure and the availability of FAA funds. Development of specifications, soliciting of bids, and installation of the system could take 2 to 3 years. To begin further review upon approval of the Noise Compatibility Program update and the availability of FAA funds. The ground noise study would take approximately 9 months to complete. If found to provide benefit, barriers/run-up enclosures could likely be constructed within 18 months of completion of the study, depending on the availability of FAA funds. The Department of Aviation intends to begin work with the Dayton City Commission immediately to develop correspondence and other materials needed to present information to the congressional delegation. See Above. Further review, including the necessary environmental processing, would begin upon approval of the Noise Compatibility Program update and availability of FAA funds. Planning and implementation would likely take 1 to 2 years. (a) The FAA is the primary agency responsible for the implementation and enforcement of operational noise abatement procedures. The Department of Aviation s role would be purely advisory. Source: Ricondo & Associates, Inc. Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc. Noise Compatibility Program Report IV-8 Implementation, Preliminary Cost Estimates, and Financing

67 Table IV-4 (1 of 2) Implementation Responsibility and Preliminary Schedule Noise Mitigation Measure Responsible Agency Schedule Department of Aviation Complete the acquisition of noise-impacted homes and vacant land as recommended in the 1994 NCP (in areas exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 65 and higher based on the 2005 Noise Exposure Map). Depending on the availability of FAA funds and homeowner participation the ongoing program could likely be completed within 5 years. Acquire homes impacted by ground noise from the Menlo Worldwide sort facility on Old Springfield Road as recommended in the 1994 NCP (as amended). In areas exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 65 and higher based on the 2005 Noise Exposure Map acquire homes outright or acquire avigation easements. Acquire undeveloped land that is zoned for residential land uses in areas exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 65 and higher based on the 2005 Noise Exposure Map. Encourage jurisdictions in the environs of Dayton International Airport to adopt a multijurisdictional compatible land use planning overlay zoning district (MCLUPOZD). Prepare a comprehensive plan/airport environs plan for Dayton International Airport. Encourage local jurisdictions in the environs of Dayton International Airport to amend their subdivision regulations to require the dedication of avigation easements and recording of plat notes for new subdivisions within the multi-jurisdictional compatible land use planning overlay zoning district (MCLUPOZD). Encourage local jurisdictions to adopt local amendments to building codes setting forth sound insulation standards to use within the multi-jurisdictional compatible land use planning overlay zoning district (MCLUPOZD). Department of Aviation Department of Aviation Department of Aviation City Councils or Commissions Board of Trustees Planning Commissions Zoning Commissions Department of Aviation (a) City Councils or Commissions Board of Trustees Planning Commissions Zoning Commissions Department of Aviation (a) City Councils or Commissions Board of Trustees Planning Commissions Zoning Commissions Department of Aviation (a) City Councils or Commissions Board of Trustees Planning Commissions Zoning Commissions Department of Aviation (a) Depending on the availability of FAA funds and homeowner participation the ongoing program could likely be completed within 1 year. Would begin upon approval of the Noise Compatibility Program update. The acquisition homes exposed to significant aircraft noise would likely require 5-10 years to complete, depending on the availability of FAA funds and homeowner participation. The acquisition of land exposed to significant aircraft noise would likely require 5-10 years to complete, depending on the availability of FAA funds and homeowner participation. Planning would begin upon approval of the Noise Compatibility Program update and the availability of any needed FAA funds. Implementation would likely take six months or more. Planning would begin upon approval of the Noise Compatibility Program update and the availability of any needed FAA funds. Implementation would likely take 1 year or more. Planning would begin upon approval of the Noise Compatibility Program update and the availability of any needed FAA funds. Implementation would likely take six months or more. See Above. Noise Compatibility Program Report IV-9 Implementation, Preliminary Cost Estimates, and Financing

68 Table IV-4 (2 of 2) Implementation Responsibility and Preliminary Schedule Noise Mitigation Encourage local jurisdictions to adopt discretionary project review guidelines for subdivision, rezoning, special use, conditional use, and variance applications in the environs of Dayton International Airport. City Councils or Commissions Planning Commissions Zoning Commissions Department of Aviation (a) See Above. Expand the Airport s noise complaint response system. Department of Aviation Would likely take three to six months once the Department of Aviation has installed the proposed aircraft noise and operations monitoring system. (a) The Department of Aviation does not have the authority to impose zoning or other restrictions: role is limited to planning and consultation only on these measures. Source: Ricondo & Associates, Inc. Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc. Noise Compatibility Program Report IV-10 Implementation, Preliminary Cost Estimates, and Financing

69 Table IV-5 (1 of 2) Estimated Implementation Costs and Financing Noise Abatement Measure Estimated Costs Comments Retain the existing noise abatement procedures for Runway None Administrative costs only. Pilots of northwest, north, and northeast bound aircraft departing from Runway 24R shall be instructed by Dayton Air Traffic Control to turn right at the departure end of the runway and shall be assigned a heading to follow the Stillwater River basin. Air crews shall be instructed to follow that heading for five nautical miles before turning on course. $400,000 Estimated airspace study costs: $100,000 Estimated environmental processing cost: $300,000 Pilots of all north, northeast, northwest, and westbound aircraft departing from Runway 6L during nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) shall be assigned an initial heading that is not north of the runway heading (approximately 60 degrees) by Dayton Air Traffic Control. Air crews shall be instructed to follow their initial heading until they are five nautical miles from the departure end of Runway 6L where they will be turned on course. Pilots of south and eastbound aircraft departing from Runway 24L shall be instructed by Dayton Air Traffic Control to follow the runway heading until crossing the departure end of Runway 24L and/or until reaching an altitude of 3,000 feet MSL (approximately 2,000 feet above ground level). Pilots of south and eastbound aircraft departing from Runway 24R shall be instructed by Dayton Air Traffic Control to follow the runway heading until crossing the departure end of Runway 24R. At night, pilots of aircraft arriving on Runways 24R and 24L shall be radar vectored by Dayton Air Traffic Control so as to turn to a straight-in final approach at a distance of at least five nautical miles from the Airport. $600,000 Estimated airspace study costs: $100,000 Estimated environmental processing cost: $500,000 $400,000 Estimated airspace study costs: $100,000 Estimated environmental processing cost: $300,000 $400,000 Estimated airspace study costs: $100,000 Estimated environmental processing cost: $300,000 $300,000 Estimated airspace study costs: $100,000 Estimated environmental processing cost: $200,000 Noise Compatibility Program Report IV-11 Implementation, Preliminary Cost Estimates, and Financing

70 Table IV-5 (2 of 2) Estimated Implementation Costs and Financing Noise Abatement Measure Estimated Costs Comments Encourage the use of noise abatement departure profiles (NADPs) by both air carrier and general aviation jet aircraft. Conduct live tests of noise abatement departure profiles consistent with FAA procedures to determine which profile (the close-in or distant) would provide the most relief in terms of lowering noise levels of individual aircraft departures from the various runways at Dayton International Airport. Install an aircraft noise and operations monitoring system to track the use of noise abatement flight tracks and departure profiles. $150,000 The City of Dayton intends to proceed with testing of the noise abatement departure profiles. Funding may be requested for final implementation or if additional study is required. $1,800,000 Design and specifications: $300,000 Acquisition and installation: $1,500,000 Conduct a ground noise study or engine runup study and establish a ground noise policy for the Airport. $250,000 Estimated costs for study only. Cost of noise barrier or ground run-up enclosure can vary significantly based on findings of the study and the type of barrier/enclosure that may be recommended. Encourage Congress to seek stricter aircraft noise standards, particularly regarding a phase-out schedule for aircraft manufactured as FAR Part 36 Stage 2 that have been modified or are operated to meet FAR Part 36 Stage 3 noise standards. None Administrative costs only. Encourage the FAA to develop a phase-out schedule for non FAR Part 36 Stage 3 aircraft that weigh less than 75,000 pounds. None Administrative costs only. Based on the requests of certain communities in the Airport environs, consider the following abatement measure for Runway 6L All aircraft shall climb via 060 degree heading, at the ROD R be turned RIGHT to a heading of degrees. Aircrews can be instructed to join first enroute fix (turning on course) by DAY Air Traffic Control (ATC) after reaching at least five nautical miles EAST (from Airport) and 3000 MSL.. Source: Ricondo & Associates, Inc. Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc. $600,000 Estimated airspace study costs: $100,000 Estimated environmental processing cost: $500,000 Noise Compatibility Program Report IV-12 Implementation, Preliminary Cost Estimates, and Financing

71 Table IV-6 Estimated Implementation Costs and Financing Noise Mitigation Measure Complete the acquisition of noise-impacted homes and vacant land as recommended in the 1994 NCP (in areas exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 65 and higher based on the 2005 Noise Exposure Map). Acquire homes impacted by ground noise from the Menlo Worldwide sort facility on Old Springfield Road as recommended in the 1994 NCP (as amended). In areas exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 65 and higher based on the 2005 Noise Exposure Map acquire homes outright or acquire avigation easements. Acquire undeveloped land that is zoned for residential land uses in areas exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 65 and higher based on the 2005 Noise Exposure Map. Encourage jurisdictions in the environs of Dayton International Airport to adopt a multi-jurisdictional compatible land use planning overlay zoning district (MCLUPOZD). Prepare a comprehensive plan/airport environs plan for Dayton International Airport. Encourage local jurisdictions in the environs of Dayton International Airport to amend their subdivision regulations to require the dedication of avigation easements and recording of plat notes for new subdivisions within the multi-jurisdictional compatible land use planning overlay zoning district (MCLUPOZD). Encourage local jurisdictions to adopt local amendments to building codes setting forth sound insulation standards to use within the multijurisdictional compatible land use planning overlay zoning district (MCLUPOZD). Encourage local jurisdictions to adopt discretionary project review guidelines for subdivision, rezoning, special use, conditional use, and variance applications in the environs of Dayton International Airport. Expand the Airport s noise complaint response system. Estimated Costs Comments $6,600,000 Preliminary estimate for 10 homes and 200 acres of land. Assumes $100,000 per home, $10,000 per demolition, $17,000 for relocation, $20,000 per acre and a 25% contingency $450,000 Preliminary estimate for two homes and lots. Assumes $150,000 per home and lot, $10,000 per demolition, $17,000 for relocation, and a 25% contingency. $47,625,000 Preliminary estimate for 300 homes. Assumes $100,000 per home, $10,000 per demolition, $17,000 for relocation, and a 25% contingency. $250,000 Assumes $20,000 per acre and a 25% contingency $100,000 Estimated costs for studying mechanisms for, studying effects, and implementing the measure. $300,000 Estimated costs for conducting the study. $25,000 Estimated costs for studying mechanisms for, studying effects, and implementing the measure. $25,000 Estimated costs for studying mechanisms for, studying effects, and implementing the measure. $25,000 Estimated costs for studying mechanisms for, studying effects, and implementing the measure. $25,000 Primarily administrative costs. Other costs would include training staff how to use the proposed aircraft noise and operations monitoring system and acquisition of GIS software. Source: Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc. Ricondo & Associates, Inc. Noise Compatibility Program Report IV-13 Implementation, Preliminary Cost Estimates, and Financing

72 Appendix A Evaluation of Noise Abatement Alternatives Noise Compatibility Program Report Appendix A

73 Appendix A Evaluation of Noise Abatement Alternatives A.1 Introduction Noise abatement measures are designed to reduce current and anticipated aircraft noise exposure on existing and planned noise-sensitive land uses and populations. Historically, noise abatement has typically been achieved through changes in airfield (runway) layout, runway and flight track definition and use, aircraft operational procedures, or the types of aircraft using an airport. This appendix describes various alternatives for noise abatement that were considered for Dayton International Airport and provides a discussion of their applicability. The measures that were evaluated were (1) already considered for implementation or had been implemented at the Airport; (2) recommended for consideration by members of the PAC, the TAC, the CAC, or the general public; (3) recommended for or successfully implemented at other air carrier airports; or (4) mandated for review under FAR Part 150. Measures described in this Appendix were discussed with the project committees on June 5, 2001, October 2, 2001, and April 9, The types of noise abatement alternatives considered for Dayton International Airport included: Airfield changes changes in the design, layout, or other physical characteristic of the airfield for noise abatement purposes Flight track changes changes in flight tracks or their use to minimize overflights of noisesensitive areas Runway use changes changes in the use of the runways, such as rotating usage or identifying preferential use of some runways, to reduce overflights of noise-sensitive areas Operational measures changes in aircraft operating procedures or restrictions on the numbers, types, or categories or operations at an airport Ground operations or development measures changes in the ground operations (such as engine run-ups) or development or relocation of airport facilities (other than the airfield) Management measures airport management procedures or controls to help achieve noise abatement. Although some of these actions do not reduce noise exposure in and of themselves, they can help to monitor or achieve the measures in the previous categories The categories of and specific alternatives considered for the Airport are presented in Table A-1. Those alternatives that were considered to have potential for providing noise abatement relief were considered in more detail. As applicable, noise exposures analyses using the Federal Aviation Administration s (FAA s) Integrated Noise Model (INM) were performed for some measures to estimate noise exposure benefits. Evaluation of Noise Abatement Alternatives A-1 Noise Compatibility Program Report

74 Table A-1 Noise Abatement Alternatives Considered for Dayton International Airport Category Noise abatement Alternatives Dayton International Airport Specific measures considered in detail Airfield changes Runway extensions Extension of Runway 6R-24L Extension of Runway Construct new runways Decommission existing runways Relocate runway thresholds New Parallel Runway 6N-24N Not studied in detail Relocation of departure and arrival threshold of Runway 36 Flight track changes Fanning departure tracks Not studied in detail Flight tracks designed to follow less noise-sensitive corridors Noise abatement departure flight tracks considered for all runway ends Runway use changes Rotational runway use Nighttime runway use program. 50/50 northeast/southwest flow on 6L-24R Operational measures Ground operations or development measures Management measures Source: Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc. Ricondo & Associates, Inc. Preferential runway use Change departure profiles and develop departure profiles specific to runway ends Modify arrival profiles/procedures Restrictions on the number or time of day of aircraft operations Restrictions on the types of aircraft allowed to operate at the airport Change location for and/or construct a facility for ground run-ups Construct noise barriers Relocate other facilities Implement noise abatement office for monitoring, reporting, and responding to aircraft noise Record and track noise complaints Install permanent or portable aircraft noise and operations monitoring program Enhance pilot awareness of noise-sensitive areas Encourage industry and regulatory means for reducing aircraft noise Balanced use of Runway 6L-24R and Runway 6R-24L FAA-specified departure profiles and voluntary additional departure profile modifications to be studied further Existing arrival procedures evaluated. Not studied in detail Not studied in detail Could be considered in a separate study Could be considered in a separate study Not studied in detail Already in place Already in place Permanent aircraft noise and operations monitoring being considered Some measures already in place; additional measures considered Measures to encourage regulators to identify new aircraft noise standards and to develop schedules for phasing out smaller aircraft not included in recent phase-out schedules Evaluation of Noise Abatement Alternatives A-2 Noise Compatibility Program Report

75 A.2 Evaluation Criteria Each noise abatement alternative was evaluated on the basis of eight criteria specified by the FAA in FAR Part 150 Section (b) and Appendix B, Section B150.6, as follows: 1. Does the measure reduce existing incompatible land uses or the number of people exposed to significant aircraft noise? 2. Does it prevent or discourage development of incompatible land uses or reduce the number of people potentially exposed to significant aircraft noise? 3. Does it impose an undue burden on interstate or foreign commerce? 4. Is it unjustly discriminatory? 5. Can it be revised if conditions change? 6. Does it derogate aviation safety or adversely affect the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace? 7. Does it meet both the goals and needs of the local community and those of the national air transportation system, to the extent practicable? 8. Can it be implemented in a manner consistent with all the powers and duties of the FAA Administrator? Measures that did not meet Criterion 1 or 2 and Criteria 3 through 8 were not considered further. Each of the remaining measures was evaluated using the following considerations: Effect on airfield capacity and aircraft delay Effect on airspace/air traffic control capability and effects on the operation of other airports Effect on fuel consumption and other environmental considerations Effect on Airport users Effect on airfield layout Operational benefits and costs Capital costs or costs to implement Practicability of monitoring compliance Desirability and feasibility of early implementation In the following sections the noise abatement alternatives are described in general terms and their applicability to the Airport and its environs is evaluated. Although primary emphasis was given to the evaluation of the measures in terms of reductions in noise exposure, significant concerns regarding effects on capacity or Airport operations are also noted where appropriate. As discussed above, many of the noise abatement procedures were evaluated using the INM. Alternatives evaluated with the INM were also evaluated in terms of their probable effects to persons, households, and noise sensitive land uses including churches and schools. A summary of the population impact analysis (Table 1) conducted for those Alternatives is provided at the end of this Appendix. Evaluation of Noise Abatement Alternatives A-3 Noise Compatibility Program Report

76 A.3 Airfield Changes Dayton International Airport The 1999 Strategic Master Plan Update Study for Dayton International Airport includes several recommendations for changes to the airfield to accommodate forecast aviation demand. The recommendations include means to address both short-term and long-term needs that will allow the Airport to continue to serve as the primary air carrier airport in the Dayton region throughout the 20- year master plan horizon and beyond. Specifically, the recommendations include: Extend Runway 6R-24L by 4,400 feet to the southwest and displace the Runway 24L threshold 400 feet. The new length of Runway 6R-24L would be 11,000 feet. Extend Runway by 4,100 feet to the north and relocate the threshold of Runway 36 by 3,100 feet to the north. The new length of Runway would be 9,500 feet. Construct a new 3 rd parallel Runway 5,000 feet north of existing Runway 6L-24R. The new runway would be 11,000 feet long and 150 feet wide and would be completed by 2018 if required. The Master Plan study team concluded that the extension to Runway 6R-24L would be required in the near future (circa 2003) to accommodate demand. Other runway improvement projects were not anticipated until after For the FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study Update analysis; however, it was decided that all three projects would be assessed in terms of their potential to provide noise abatement. Since the runway improvement alternatives generally meet criteria 3 through 8 listed in Section A.2, an INM analysis was performed to determine whether criterion 1 could be met. The results of the analysis are described in the sections that follow. A.3.1 ALTERNATIVE A The proposed 4,400 foot long extension to Runway 6R-24L was evaluated in Alternative A. As discussed above, the total length of the improved runway would be 11,000 feet. At its new length, Runway 6R-24L would provide a viable alternative to Runway 6L-24R for air carrier jet aircraft and would permit more flexibility, in terms of runway assignments, during times of runway maintenance or closure. Currently 16.2% of scheduled air carrier departures and 13.0% of scheduled air carrier arrivals occur on Runway 6R-24L. At its new length Runway 6R-24L would be more attractive to pilots of air carrier aircraft, particularly to those pilots with gate facilities in the south concourse. During peak periods it is expected that some air cargo aircraft would also use the extended runway if a cross-field taxiway is constructed southwest of the Terminal. As a result, the percentage of air carrier departure operations on Runway 6R-24L was increased to 34.1% in Alternative A while the arrival percentage was increased to 27.2%. The percentage time the airfield is operated in its four primary flow directions was assumed to remain unchanged; however, since flow direction depends largely on wind direction. All assumptions regarding fleet mix and flight track use from the particular runways were also based on 2005 Baseline conditions as detailed in the Noise Exposure Map (NEM) report. A Changes to Aircraft Noise Exposure Noise exposure contours for Alternative A are depicted on Exhibit A-1. The map consists of DNL noise contours associated with Alternative A and 2005 Baseline conditions superimposed on a map of existing (2000) land uses in the Airport environs. In addition to presenting the comparison of Evaluation of Noise Abatement Alternatives A-4 Noise Compatibility Program Report

77 aircraft noise exposure in terms of DNL contours, noise levels associated with Alternative A and the 2005 Baseline case were compared in terms of noise exposure values within grid cells around the Airport. DNL grid values associated with 2005 Baseline conditions and with Alternative A are shown on Exhibit A-2. In addition to showing the grid values, the grid map indicates those areas in which significant or otherwise notable changes in noise levels would be expected to occur as a result of implementing Alternative A. The FAA considers a DNL value change of 1.5 dba or more in an area exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 65 and higher to be a significant change. The FAA suggests that areas exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 60 to 65 where a change of DNL 3.0 dba or more would likely occur also be identified. The areas where such changes (increases or decreases) would occur are shown as shaded grid cells as described in the exhibit legend. As shown on Exhibit A-1, the overall shape of the DNL 65 and DNL 60 contours for Alternative A are similar to the 2005 Baseline contours with slight growth in areas south and west of the Airport. Implementation of Alternative A would also result in an expansion of the DNL 70 and DNL 75 contours along the runway extension and to the southwest of the Airport. Significant increases in aircraft noise levels would be expected to occur south of the Airport in the vicinity of the Airport Access Road and east of the Airport near Northwoods Boulevard. Reductions in aircraft noise levels would be centered around Tipp Canal Road north of Northwoods Boulevard. Table A-2 provides a comparison of the numbers of people anticipated to be exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 65 and higher in 2005 with and without Alternative A. As shown in the table, Alternative A would increase the number of people exposed aircraft noise of DNL 65 and higher by 85 people. Table A-2 Comparison of Noise Exposure with and without Alternative A 2005 Population exposed to aircraft noise 2005 Baseline (a) With Alternative A (b) DNL Range Count Count Difference 75 and higher ,296 1, and higher 1,467 1, (a) (b) See Exhibit A-1 noise exposure contours shown as solid black lines See Exhibit A-1 noise exposure contours shown as blue dashed lines Source: Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., on the basis of the U.S. Census Bureau s 2000 Census. Ricondo & Associates, Inc. A Operational and Capacity Issues Alternative A would increase the airfield capacity at the Airport and would provide local airport traffic control tower (ATCT) personnel greater flexibility, in terms of assigning aircraft to runways, than is available today. It is likely that ATCT personnel would assign aircraft to runways based on the origin or destination of the aircraft, with the exception of air cargo aircraft which would continue to use Runway 6L-24R primarily. Overall Alternative A would promote a more balanced use of the parallel runways, particularly during periods when the airfield is operated in northeast flow. Evaluation of Noise Abatement Alternatives A-5 Noise Compatibility Program Report

78 A Costs Costs associated with the implementation of Alternative A would include design and construction of the runway extension and proposed taxiway improvements, land acquisition, and costs associated with roadway closures/relocations that would be required (the relocation of National Road/U.S. 40 and the Airport Access road, etc.). The preliminary cost estimate for Alternative A (in 1999 dollars) is approximately $111 million. The cost estimate does not include the cost of noise mitigation, which could be substantial, or the cost of preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the runway project. A Implementation Requirements An EA or an EIS would be required prior to construction of the proposed extension to Runway 6R- 24L. Therefore, implementation of Alternative A would be dependent on the approval of the EA or EIS by the FAA. A Preliminary Evaluation The proposed extension of Runway 6R-24L would have a marginal effect on aircraft noise levels in the vicinity of Dayton International Airport but would increase the number of people exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 65 and higher. While Alternative A is not considered a viable means for reducing aircraft noise levels in the Airport environs it is noted that the extension of Runway 6R-24L could enhance other noise abatement procedures. These possibilities are analyzed in a later section of this Appendix. A.3.2 ALTERNATIVE B The proposed 4,100 foot extension to the north end of Runway and the 3,100 foot relocation of the south end of Runway was evaluated in Alternative B. It was assumed that runway use at the Airport would not change noticeably as a result of the runway improvement project due to the fact that Runway is a crosswind runway. Due to prevailing winds in the region it was assumed that Runway 6L-24R and Runway 6R-24L would still be used for the majority of aircraft arrivals and departures. The aircraft fleet mix and flight track use from the particular runways were assumed to remain unchanged from 2005 Baseline conditions. A Changes to Aircraft Noise Exposure Noise exposure contours for Alternative B are shown on Exhibit A-3. The noise grid map for Alternative B is depicted on Exhibit A-4. As shown on Exhibits A-3 and A-4, Alternative B would reduce the size of the DNL 65 contour to the south of the Airport but would increase aircraft noise levels in populated areas to the north of the Airport. Significant increases in aircraft noise (i.e., changes of 1.5 dba) would occur north of Ginghamsburg-Frederick Road and west of North Dixie Drive. Table A-3 provides a comparison of the numbers of people anticipated to be exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 65 and higher in 2005 with and without Alternative B. As shown in the table, Alternative B would increase the number of people exposed to DNL 65 and higher (from 1,467 people to 1,524 people). Aircraft noise levels would increase slightly over populated areas to the north of the Airport and west of North Dixie Drive while noise levels in Vandalia would decrease. A Operational and Capacity Issues Alternative B would increase airfield capacity at the Airport, but due to the location of Wright Patterson Air Force Base south of the Airport it is expected that departures to the south and arrivals Evaluation of Noise Abatement Alternatives A-6 Noise Compatibility Program Report

79 from the south on Runway would be limited. The relocation of the southern end of Runway would eliminate the intersection between Runway and Runway 6R-24L and would give ATCT personnel greater flexibility in terms of how they could use the Airport s runways. Table A-3 Comparison of Noise Exposure with and without Alternative B 2005 Population exposed to aircraft noise 2005 Baseline (a) With Alternative B (b) DNL Range Count Count Difference 75 and higher (26) ,296 1, and higher 1,467 1, (a) See Exhibit A-3 noise exposure contours shown as solid black lines (b) See Exhibit A-3 noise exposure contours shown as blue dashed lines Source: Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., on the basis of the U.S. Census Bureau s 2000 Census. Ricondo & Associates, Inc. A Costs Costs associated with the implementation of Alternative B would include: design and construction of the runway extension and proposed taxiway improvements, land acquisition, and costs associated with roadway closures/relocations that would be required (the relocation of Ginghamsburg-Frederick Road, closure of Lightner Road, etc.). The preliminary cost estimate for Alternative B (in 1999 dollars) is approximately $60 million. The cost estimate does not include the cost of noise mitigation, which could be substantial, or the cost of preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the runway project. A Implementation Requirements An EA or an EIS would be required prior to construction of the proposed extension to Runway Therefore, implementation of Alternative B would be dependent on the approval of an EA or EIS by the FAA. A Preliminary Evaluation The proposed extension and relocation of Runway would reduce the size of the DNL 60 contour south of the Airport in Vandalia but would increase noise levels in residential areas north of the Airport in Monroe Township. Alternative B would increase the number of people exposed to aircraft noise levels of DNL 65 and higher (57 more people), but fewer people would be exposed to noise levels of DNL 70 and higher. Alternative B is not considered a viable noise abatement measure; however, it is noted that the extension and relocation of Runway has the potential to enhance other noise abatement procedures. These possibilities are analyzed in a later section of this Appendix. A.3.3 ALTERNATIVE C The construction of a new 11,000 foot long runway 5,000 feet north of and parallel to existing Runway 6L-24R was evaluated in Alternative C. In Alternative C it was assumed that cargo operations (arrivals and departures) would be split evenly between Runway 6L-24R and the new Evaluation of Noise Abatement Alternatives A-7 Noise Compatibility Program Report

80 parallel runway (Runway 6N-24N). Scheduled air carrier operations and other aircraft operations (air taxi, general aviation, military) were assumed to maintain 2018 Baseline runway assignments. All assumptions regarding the aircraft fleet mix at the Airport were unchanged from 2018 Baseline assumptions. Flight tracks for the new runway were extrapolated from Runway 6L-24R. Because the third parallel runway is a long-range future project in the context of the Strategic Master Plan Update, Alternative C incorporated 2018 activity levels and was compared to the 2018 Baseline Noise Exposure Map (NEM) instead of the 2005 Baseline NEM. The results of the comparison are discussed below. A Changes to Aircraft Noise Exposure Noise exposure contours comparing Alternative C to 2018 Baseline conditions are shown on Exhibit A-5. The noise grid map for Alternative C is depicted on Exhibit A-6. As shown on Exhibits A-5 and A-6, Alternative C would cause the DNL 65 and DNL 60 contours to shift to areas north, northwest, and northeast of the Airport. Portions of Tipp City in the vicinity of Shoop Road would experience significant increases in aircraft noise levels, as high as 5 decibels in some places. Areas south of the Airport and west of Helke Road in Vandalia and Butler Township would experience significant reductions in aircraft noise levels. Table A-4 provides a comparison of the numbers of people anticipated to be exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 65 and higher in 2018 with and without Alternative C. As shown in the table, Alternative C would increase the number of people exposed to DNL 65 and higher (from 1,625 people to 2,006 people). Table A-4 Comparison of Noise Exposure with and without Alternative C 2018 Population exposed to aircraft noise 2018 Baseline (a) With Alternative C (b) DNL Range Count Count Difference 75 and higher ,397 1, and higher 1,625 2, (a) See Exhibit A-5 noise exposure contours shown as solid black lines (b) See Exhibit A-5 noise exposure contours shown as blue dashed lines Source: Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., on the basis of the U.S. Census Bureau s 2000 Census. Ricondo & Associates, Inc. A Operational and Capacity Issues Construction of a new parallel runway at Dayton International Airport would provide additional airfield capacity and would allow ATCT personnel to segment air cargo aircraft from other operations (scheduled air carrier, air taxi, etc.) if desired. A Costs Costs associated with the implementation of Alternative C would include: design and construction of the new runway and proposed taxiway improvements, land acquisition, and costs associated with roadway closures/relocations that would be required (the relocation of Dog Leg Pike, closure of Evaluation of Noise Abatement Alternatives A-8 Noise Compatibility Program Report

81 County Line Road east of Dog Leg Pike, etc.). The preliminary cost estimate for Alternative C (in 1999 dollars) is approximately $113 million. The cost estimate does not include the cost of noise mitigation, which could be substantial, or the cost of preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the runway project. A Implementation Requirements An EA or an EIS would be required prior to construction of the proposed new runway. Therefore, implementation of Alternative C would be dependent on the approval of an EA or EIS by the FAA. A Preliminary Evaluation Because Alternative C would increase the number of people exposed to significant aircraft noise and would shift noise from communities in Montgomery County to communities in Miami County it is not recommended for further evaluation. A.3.4 ALTERNATIVE D In Alternative D the impacts of extending and relocating Runway and extending Runway 6R- 24L were evaluated. Runway use assumptions used to model Alternative D reflect a maximum airfield capacity scenario. The maximum airfield capacity scenario assumes no changes to air cargo aircraft assignments from 2005 Baseline conditions; however, scheduled air carrier operations were split evenly between Runways 6L-24R and 6R-24L based on the origin/destination of the aircraft. Runway use assumptions used to model Alternative D are summarized in Table A-5. All assumptions regarding aircraft fleet mix and flight track use from the particular runways were assumed to remain unchanged from 2005 Baseline conditions. Table A-5 Runway Use with Alternative D Percent of Operations on Runway Time of Day Type of Operation 6L 6R 24L 24R Day Arrivals 15.2% 5.3% 24.2% 29.2% 23.3% 2.8% Departures 3.5% 6.1% 21.6% 53.2% 1.9% 13.7% Night Arrivals 19.2% 2.7% 12.9% 57.5% 6.3% 1.4% Departures 16.2% 2.9% 15.3% 60.4% 1.0% 4.3% NOTE: Day = 7:00 a.m. 10:00 p.m.; Night = 10:00 p.m. 7:00 a.m. Source: Ricondo & Associates, Inc. Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc. A Changes to Aircraft Noise Exposure Noise exposure contours for Alternative D are shown on Exhibit A-7. The noise grid map for Alternative D is depicted on Exhibit A-8. As shown on Exhibits A-7 and A-8, Alternative D would cause the DNL 65 contour to expand to the north and southwest. Alternative D would reduce noise levels in areas directly south of Runway in Vandalia. Significant increases in aircraft noise levels would occur north of Runway along the extended runway centerline and southwest of the Airport along the Airport Access Road. Table A-6 provides a comparison of the numbers of people anticipated to be exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 65 and higher in 2005 with and without Alternative D. As shown in the table, Evaluation of Noise Abatement Alternatives A-9 Noise Compatibility Program Report

82 Alternative D would result in an increase in the overall population exposed to DNL 65 and higher (from 1,467 people to 1,605 people). However, it is noted that the number of people exposed to DNL 60 to 65 would be reduced with Alternative D. Table A-6 Comparison of Noise Exposure with and without Alternative D 2005 Population exposed to aircraft noise 2005 Baseline (a) With Alternative D (b) DNL Range Count Count Difference 75 and higher ,296 1, and higher 1,467 1, (a) See Exhibit A-7 noise exposure contours shown as solid black lines (b) See Exhibit A-7 noise exposure contours shown as blue dashed lines Source: Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., on the basis of the U.S. Census Bureau s 2000 Census. Ricondo & Associates, Inc. A Operational and Capacity Issues Alternative D would increase airfield capacity at the Airport. The elimination of the intersection between Runway and Runway 6R-24L would provide Dayton ATCT personnel greater flexibility in terms of how they could use the Airport s runways. A Costs Costs associated with the implementation of Alternative D would include: design and construction of the two runway extensions and proposed taxiway improvements, land acquisition, and costs associated with roadway closures and roadway relocations. The preliminary cost estimate for Alternative D (in 1999 dollars) is approximately $171 million. The cost estimate does not include the cost of noise mitigation, which could be substantial, or the cost of preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the runway project. A Implementation Requirements An EA or an EIS would be required prior to construction of the proposed runway extensions. Therefore, implementation of Alternative D would be dependent on the approval of an EA or EIS by the FAA. A Preliminary Evaluation The proposed extensions to Runway 6R-24L and Runway would increase airfield capacity at Dayton International Airport but could cause the number of people exposed to significant noise in the vicinity of the Airport to increase. The only exception would be populated areas south of Runway which would be expected to experience noise level reductions. The runway improvements are not an effective means of achieving noise abatement; however, it is noted that the airfield improvements modeled in Alternative D have the potential to enhance other noise abatement opportunities. These possibilities are analyzed in a later section of this Appendix. Evaluation of Noise Abatement Alternatives A-10 Noise Compatibility Program Report

83 A.3.5 ALTERNATIVE E Alternative E evaluated the impacts of: (1) extending and relocating Runway 18-36, (2) extending Runway 6R-24L, and (3) the proposed 3 rd parallel runway 6N-24N. Runway use assumptions used to model Alternative E reflect a maximum airfield capacity scenario. The maximum airfield capacity scenario assumes that air cargo aircraft would be assigned to Runway 6N-24N or 6L-24R depending on the origin/destination of the aircraft. Scheduled air carrier operations were split evenly between Runways 6L-24R and 6R-24L based on the origin/destination of the aircraft. Runway use assumptions used to model Alternative E are summarized in Table A-7. All assumptions regarding the aircraft fleet mix at the Airport were unchanged from 2018 Baseline assumptions. Flight tracks for the new runway were extrapolated from Runway 6L-24R. Table A-7 Runway Use with Alternative E Percent of Operations on Runway Time of Day Type of Operation 6L 6R 24L 24R N 24N Day Arrivals 15.2% 5.3% 24.0% 29.6% 23.1% 2.8% 0.0% 0.0% Departures 3.3% 6.6% 20.8% 53.8% 2.1% 13.4% 0.0% 0.0% Night Arrivals 12.6% 1.8% 8.5% 19.7% 4.3% 1.6% 7.3% 44.3% Departures 9.6% 1.9% 9.3% 32.4% 1.0% 3.3% 8.5% 34.0% NOTE: Source: Prepared by: Day = 7:00 a.m. 10:00 p.m.; Night = 10:00 p.m. 7:00 a.m. Ricondo & Associates, Inc. Ricondo & Associates, Inc. Because the third parallel runway is a long-range future project in the context of the Strategic Master Plan Update, Alternative E incorporated 2018 activity levels and was compared to the 2018 Baseline NEM instead of the 2005 Baseline NEM. The results of the comparison are discussed in the sections that follow. A Changes to Aircraft Noise Exposure Noise exposure contours for Alternative E are shown on Exhibit A-9. The noise grid map for Alternative E is depicted on Exhibit A-10. As shown on Exhibits A-9 and A-10, Alternative E would cause the DNL 65 and DNL 60 contours to shift to areas north, northwest, and northeast of the Airport. Portions of Tipp City in the vicinity of Shoop Road would experience significant increases in aircraft noise levels, as high as 5 decibels in some places. Areas west of Runway 6L-24R would experience significant reductions in aircraft noise. Table A-8 provides a comparison of the numbers of people anticipated to be exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 65 and higher in 2018 with and without Alternative E. As shown in the table, implementation of Alternative E would lead to a substantial increase in the number of people exposed to DNL 65 and higher in the airport environs (from 1,625 people to 2,169 people). Evaluation of Noise Abatement Alternatives A-11 Noise Compatibility Program Report

84 Table A-8 Comparison of Noise Exposure with and without Alternative E 2018 Population exposed to aircraft noise 2018 Baseline (a) With Alternative E (b) DNL Range Count Count Difference 75 and higher ,397 1, and higher 1,625 2, (a) See Exhibit A-9 noise exposure contours shown as solid black lines (b) See Exhibit A-9 noise exposure contours shown as blue dashed lines Source: Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., on the basis of the U.S. Census Bureau s 2000 Census. Ricondo & Associates, Inc. A Operational and Capacity Issues Alternative E would significantly increase the airfield capacity at the Airport. Airfield improvements modeled in Alternative E would provide sufficient airfield capacity to accommodate peak hour demand at Dayton International Airport through 2018 and beyond. A Costs Costs associated with the implementation of Alternative E would include: design and construction of two runway extensions, a new runway, and proposed taxiway improvements; land acquisition; and costs associated with roadway closures and roadway relocations. The preliminary cost estimate for Alternative E (in 1999 dollars) is approximately $284 million. The cost estimate does not include the cost of noise mitigation, which would be substantial, or the cost of preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the runway projects. A Implementation Requirements An EA or an EIS would be required prior to construction of the proposed runway extensions and the new parallel runway. Therefore, implementation of Alternative E would be dependent on the approval of an EA or EIS by the FAA. A Preliminary Evaluation Because Alternative E would increase the number of people exposed to significant aircraft noise in the airport environs it is not recommended for further evaluation. A.4 Flight Track Changes Two primary types of flight track changes have been used at airports to reduce noise exposure over noise-sensitive land uses. The intent of flight track changes is to route aircraft away from noisesensitive land uses in favor of those that are compatible with aircraft noise. In some cases, fanned aircraft flight tracks have been used to disperse noise in different directions at the end of the departure runway. With fanned flight tracks, aircraft departing from a runway are assigned to different headings after takeoff so that aircraft departing one after the other fly over different areas and are not concentrated over one area. Fanned tracks are not typically used as successfully for arrivals, because aircraft need to be lined up with the runway heading for the last portion of the Evaluation of Noise Abatement Alternatives A-12 Noise Compatibility Program Report

85 approach prior to landing. Fanned departure tracks are most successful when an equal number of aircraft are departing to different directions from the airport so that aircraft are not routed away from their ultimate destination. Based on a review of several months of radar data from the Dayton TRACON and provisions contained in the Dayton ATCT Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) manual, it is noted that ATCT personnel currently assign a range of initial departure headings to aircraft operating on Runways 6L- 24R and 6R-24L (i.e., they fan aircraft to a certain extent). Local controllers have stated that they currently use different headings to improve capacity and to separate slower moving aircraft from faster aircraft. A review of land use patterns in the vicinity of the airport suggests that fanned departure tracks from Runways 24L and 24R help to minimize impacts to noise sensitive land uses in Englewood and Clayton. Certain close-in developments to the southwest and the northeast of the Airport; however, could potentially be avoided by developing specific noise abatement flight tracks. Close-in developments north/northeast of Runway in particular limit the effectiveness of using fanned departure tracks for noise abatement purposes. Another type of flight track change is to define specific flight tracks that place aircraft over compatible land uses rather than noise-sensitive land uses. The use of noise abatement flight tracks is most effective when wide corridors of compatible land use over which aircraft flight procedures can be defined are present in the airport environs. Although much of the land around Dayton International Airport is developed in noise-sensitive uses, the project team decided to evaluate a number of potential noise abatement flight tracks from the various runways at the Airport. The following sections summarize the noise abatement flight tracks/corridors that were evaluated. The INM was used to analyze the potential noise exposure effects associated with the various noise abatement flight tracks. A.4.1 ALTERNATIVE F The effectiveness of establishing a noise abatement turn procedure for aircraft departing from Runway 24R and bound for points northwest, north, or northeast of the Airport was evaluated in Alternative F. The potential noise abatement flight corridor for Alternative F is depicted on Exhibit A-11. Generally, pilots would be instructed to fly over the Stillwater River to avoid residential areas in Butler Township and the City of Union. Alternative F is a modified version of Noise Abatement Measure 4 from the 1994 NCP. A Noise Reduction Effects The noise exposure map for Alternative F is shown on Exhibit A-12. The noise grid map for Alternative F is depicted on Exhibit A-13. As shown on Exhibits A-12 and A-13, Alternative F would shift the DNL 65 and DNL 60 noise contours away from noise sensitive land uses and over the Stillwater River floodplain. Significant increases in aircraft noise levels would occur on Airport property and over the Englewood Reserve. Significant reductions in aircraft noise levels would occur in the vicinity of Jackson Road and Frederick Pike. Table A-9 provides a comparison of the numbers of people anticipated to be exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 65 and higher in 2005 with and without Alternative F. As shown in the table, Alternative F would result in an overall decrease in the number of people exposed to DNL 65 and higher in the airport environs (from 1,467 people to 1,298 people). Evaluation of Noise Abatement Alternatives A-13 Noise Compatibility Program Report

86 Table A-9 Comparison of Noise Exposure with and without Alternative F 2005 Population exposed to aircraft noise 2005 Baseline (a) With Alternative F (b) DNL Range Count Count Difference 75 and higher (1) ,296 1,126 (170) 65 and higher 1,467 1,298 (169) (a) Exhibit A-12 noise exposure contours shown as black solid lines (b) See Exhibit A-12 noise exposure contours shown as blue dashed lines Source: Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., on the basis of the U.S. Census Bureau s 2000 Census. Ricondo & Associates, Inc. A Operational and Capacity Issues Alternative F could reduce airfield capacity at the Airport because ATCT personnel might be required to increase in-trail separation distances between successive aircraft departures. The noise abatement procedure would reduce ATCT flexibility by restricting the fanning of departures from Runway 24R. The proposed extension to Runway 6R-24L (Alternative A) would help alleviate delays during periods of peak demand that might occur due to the implementation of Alternative F. Existing navigational aids in the region, including the Dayton VOR-DME, could be utilized to define a consistent turning point for the proposed procedure. The installation of distance measuring equipment (DME) at the Runway 6L localizer would also allow Alternative F to be defined based on navigational aids and headings. If the procedure is defined using local navigational aids pilots would be capable of flying a more precise track and hence the benefits of the noise abatement flight track procedure could be enhanced. A Costs Alternative F could increase departure delays due to increased departure separation requirements. The cost of these delays is difficult to quantify. Implementation of the procedure would also require the preparation of an EA by the FAA. The cost of the environmental analysis could be as high as $300,000. A Implementation Requirements The current policy of the FAA is to require an EA on most noise abatement procedures, especially those that might increase aircraft noise in some residential areas while achieving noise reductions in other areas. Alternative F would be implemented by the Dayton ATCT and the FAA. The procedure could be published in the form of a Tower Order that identifies the turning procedure and defines departure and turn instructions, or could be implemented through the establishment of a Standard Instrument Departure Procedure (SID). Information regarding the procedure could also be published in a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM). A Preliminary Evaluation Alternative F would reduce aircraft noise levels in the vicinity of Dayton International Airport, particularly in areas of Butler Township that are west of Runway 6L. While the consolidation of Evaluation of Noise Abatement Alternatives A-14 Noise Compatibility Program Report

87 several flight headings into one preferred corridor could affect airfield capacity, the noise benefits of the procedure warrant further evaluation. A.4.2 ALTERNATIVE G A noise abatement turn procedure for Runway 24R was evaluated in Alternative G. In Alternative G, pilots of aircraft departing from Runway 24R and bound for points west and southwest of the Airport would be instructed to turn right to a heading of 270 degrees to fly over vacant farmland south of Sweet Potato Ridge Road. The goal of the turn procedure would be to minimize overflights of populated areas in Union and Englewood. The proposed noise abatement flight corridor is depicted on Exhibit A-14. Alternative G is a new procedure that was not evaluated in the previous NCP. A Changes to Aircraft Noise Exposure Noise exposure contours for Alternative G are depicted on Exhibit A-15. A noise grid map for Alternative G is depicted on Exhibit A-16. As shown on Exhibits A-15 and A-16, Alternative G would decrease aircraft noise levels in the vicinity of Meeker Road in Butler Township but would significantly increase aircraft noise levels in the northern portion of Englewood and the southern portion of the City of Union. In addition, Alternative G would cause the DNL 60 contour to stretch as far west as Harper Road. Table A-10 provides a comparison of the numbers of people anticipated to be exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 65 and higher in 2005 with and without Alternative G. As shown in the table, implementation of Alternative G would decrease the overall population exposed to DNL 65 and higher from 1,467 people to 1,431 people. However, the population exposed to DNL 60 to 65 would increase by 509 people (see Table 1). Table A-10 Comparison of Noise Exposure with and without Alternative G 2005 Population exposed to aircraft noise 2005 Baseline (a) With Alternative G (b) DNL Range Count Count Difference 75 and higher ,296 1,259 (37) 65 and higher 1,467 1,431 (36) (a) See Exhibit A-15 noise exposure contours shown as black solid lines (b) See Exhibit A-15 noise exposure contours shown as blue dashed lines Source: Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., on the basis of the U.S. Census Bureau s 2000 Census. Ricondo & Associates, Inc. A Operational and Capacity Issues Alternative G could reduce airfield capacity because ATCT personnel might be required to increase in-trail separation distances between successive aircraft departures. The noise abatement procedure would reduce ATCT flexibility by restricting the fanning of departures from Runway 24R. The proposed extension to Runway 6R-24L would help to alleviate any delays that might occur due to the implementation of Alternative G. Evaluation of Noise Abatement Alternatives A-15 Noise Compatibility Program Report

88 Existing navigational aids in the region, including the Dayton VOR-DME, could be utilized to define a consistent turning point for the proposed procedure. The installation of distance measuring equipment (DME) at the Runway 6L localizer would also allow Alternative G to be defined based on navigational aids and headings. A Costs Alternative G could increase departure delays due to increased departure separation requirements. The cost of these delays is difficult to quantify. Implementation of the procedure would also require the preparation of an EA by the FAA. The cost of the environmental analysis could be as high as $300,000. A Implementation Requirements The current policy of the FAA is to require an EA on most noise abatement procedures, especially those that might increase aircraft noise in some residential areas while achieving noise reductions in other areas. Alternative G would be implemented by the Dayton ATCT and the FAA. The procedure could be published in the form of a Tower Order that identifies the turning procedure and defines departure and turn instructions, or could be implemented through the establishment of a Standard Instrument Departure Procedure (SID). Information regarding the procedure could also be published in a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM). A Preliminary Evaluation Alternative G would increase the number of people exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 60 to 65 in the vicinity of Dayton International Airport, particularly in Englewood, Clayton, and Union. While the procedure could reduce the number of people exposed to DNL it would essentially shift noise from one neighborhood to another and therefore should not be considered further. A.4.3 ALTERNATIVE H In Alternative H, pilots of aircraft departing from Runway 24L and bound for points north of the Airport would be instructed to follow National Road/Highway 40 and then would be turned right to follow the Stillwater River floodplain. The potential noise abatement flight corridor for Alternative H is depicted on Exhibit A-17. Alternative F is a modified version of Noise Abatement Measure 4 from the 1994 NCP. A Changes to Aircraft Noise Exposure Noise exposure contours for Alternative H are shown on Exhibit A-18. A noise grid map for Alternative H is depicted on Exhibit A-19. As shown on Exhibits A-18 and A-19, Alternative H would have little effect on the DNL 65 and DNL 60 noise contours. Significant reductions in aircraft noise levels would occur over unpopulated areas including the Airport terminal area. No significant increases in aircraft noise levels would be expected to occur as a result of implementing Alternative H. Table A-11 provides a comparison of the numbers of people anticipated to be exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 65 and higher in 2005 with and without Alternative H. As shown in the table, implementation of Alternative H would result in a slight increase in the overall population exposed to DNL 65 and higher (1,467 people to 1,478 people). Evaluation of Noise Abatement Alternatives A-16 Noise Compatibility Program Report

89 Table A-11 Comparison of Noise Exposure with and without Alternative H 2005 Population exposed to aircraft noise 2005 Baseline (a) With Alternative H (b) DNL Range Count Count Difference 75 and higher (2) ,296 1, and higher 1,467 1, (a) See Exhibit A-18 noise exposure contours shown as black solid lines (b) See Exhibit A-18 noise exposure contours shown as blue dashed lines Source: Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., on the basis of the U.S. Census Bureau s 2000 Census. Ricondo & Associates, Inc. A Operational and Capacity Issues Alternative H would not significantly affect airfield capacity at the Airport. Existing navigational aids in the region, including the Dayton VOR-DME, could be utilized to define a consistent turning point for the proposed procedure. The installation of distance measuring equipment (DME) at the Runway 24R localizer would also allow Alternative H to be defined based on navigational aids and headings. If the procedure is defined using local navigational aids pilots would be capable of flying a more precise flight track and hence the noise abatement turn procedure could be enhanced. A Costs Implementation of Alternative H would require the preparation of an EA by the FAA. The cost of the environmental analysis could be as high as $300,000. A Implementation Requirements The current policy of the FAA is to require an EA on most noise abatement procedures, especially those that might increase aircraft noise in some residential areas while achieving noise reductions in other areas. Alternative H would be implemented by the Dayton ATCT and the FAA. The procedure could be published in the form of a Tower Order that identifies the turning procedure and that defines departure and turn instructions, or could be implemented through the establishment of a Standard Instrument Departure Procedure (SID). Information regarding the procedure could also be published in a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM). A Preliminary Evaluation The noise impact analysis conducted for this alternative indicates that the procedure could result in a marginal increase in the number of people exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 65 and higher. It is not recommended for further evaluation. A.4.4 ALTERNATIVE I The effectiveness of establishing a noise abatement turn procedure for aircraft departing from Runway 6R and bound for points east or south of the Airport was evaluated in Alternative I. The potential noise abatement flight corridor(s) for this procedure are depicted on Exhibit A-20. Generally pilots would be instructed to hold the runway heading until reaching Interstate 75 at which point they would be turned right to a heading of 85 degrees. Pilots would be instructed to hold the 85 Evaluation of Noise Abatement Alternatives A-17 Noise Compatibility Program Report

90 degree heading for four nautical miles at which point they would be turned on course. The purpose of the procedure would be to prevent early turns over the eastern portion of Vandalia and over the City of Huber Heights. Alternative I is a new procedure that was not evaluated in the previous NCP. A Changes to Aircraft Noise Exposure Noise exposure contours for Alternative I are depicted on Exhibit A-21. A noise grid map for Alternative I is depicted on Exhibit A-22. As shown on Exhibits A-21 and A-22, Alternative I would result in minor noise level reductions in the vicinity of Northwoods Boulevard. No significant increases in aircraft noise levels would be expected to occur as a result of implementing Alternative I. Table A-12 provides a comparison of the numbers of people anticipated to be exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 65 and higher in 2005 with and without Alternative I. As shown in the table, implementation of Alternative I would increase the number of people in the airport environs exposed to DNL 65 and higher by 2 people (from 1,467 people to 1,469 people). Table A-12 Comparison of Noise Exposure with and without Alternative I 2005 Population exposed to aircraft noise 2005 Baseline (a) With Alternative I (b) DNL Range Count Count Difference 75 and higher ,296 1, and higher 1,467 1,469 2 (a) See Exhibit A-20 noise exposure contours shown as black solid lines (b) See Exhibit A-20 noise exposure contours shown as blue dashed lines Source: Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., on the basis of the U.S. Census Bureau s 2000 Census. Ricondo & Associates, Inc. A Operational and Capacity Issues Alternative I could reduce airfield capacity at the Airport because ATCT personnel might need to increase in-trail separation distances between successive aircraft departures. The noise abatement procedure would reduce ATCT flexibility by restricting the fanning of departures from Runway 6R. A Costs Implementation of Alternative I would require the preparation of an EA by the FAA. The cost of the environmental analysis could be as high as $300,000. A Implementation Requirements The current policy of the FAA is to require an EA on most noise abatement procedures, especially those that might increase aircraft noise in some residential areas while achieving noise reductions in other areas. Alternative I would be implemented by the Dayton ATCT and the FAA. The procedure could be published in the form of a Tower Order that identifies the turning procedure and defines departure and turn instructions, or could be implemented through the establishment of a Standard Instrument Departure Procedure (SID). Information regarding the procedure could also be published in a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM). Evaluation of Noise Abatement Alternatives A-18 Noise Compatibility Program Report

91 A Preliminary Evaluation The noise impact analysis conducted for this alternative indicates that the procedure could result in a marginal increase in the number of people exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 65 and higher. It is not recommended for further evaluation. A.4.5 ALTERNATIVE J This alternative evaluates the effectiveness of establishing a noise abatement turn procedure for aircraft departing from Runway 6R and bound for points south of the Airport. The potential flight corridors for this procedure are depicted on Exhibit A-23. Generally pilots would be instructed to hold the runway heading until reaching I-75 at which point they would be turned right/south to follow the Great Miami River floodplain. The purpose of the procedure would be to prevent early turns over the eastern portion of Vandalia and over the City of Huber Heights. Alternative J is a new procedure that was not evaluated in the 1994 NCP. A Changes to Aircraft Noise Exposure Noise exposure contours for Alternative J are depicted on Exhibit A-24. A noise grid map for Alternative J is depicted on Exhibit A-25. As shown on Exhibits A-24 and A-25, Alternative J would have little or no effect on the DNL 65 and DNL 60 noise contours. Residential areas south of Northwoods Boulevard would experience a slight reduction in aircraft noise levels. No significant increases in aircraft noise levels would be expected to occur as a result of implementing Alternative J. Table A-13 provides a comparison of the numbers of people anticipated to be exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 65 and higher in 2005 with and without Alternative J. As shown in the table, implementation of Alternative J would increase the population exposed to DNL 65 and higher by 1 person (from 1,467 people to 1,468 people). Table A-13 Comparison of Noise Exposure with and without Alternative J 2005 Population exposed to aircraft noise 2005 Baseline (a) With Alternative J (b) DNL Range Count Count Difference 75 and higher ,296 1, and higher 1,467 1,468 1 (a) See Exhibit A-24 noise exposure contours shown as black solid lines (b) See Exhibit A-24 noise exposure contours shown as blue dashed lines Source: Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., on the basis of the U.S. Census Bureau s 2000 Census. Ricondo & Associates, Inc. A Operational and Capacity Issues Alternative J would not be expected to significantly affect airfield capacity at the Airport. Existing navigational aids in the region, including the Dayton VOR-DME, could be utilized to define a consistent turning point for the proposed procedure. If the procedure is defined using local navigational aids pilots would be capable of flying a more precise track and hence the noise abatement turn procedure could be enhanced. Evaluation of Noise Abatement Alternatives A-19 Noise Compatibility Program Report

92 A Costs Implementation of Alternative J would require the preparation of an EA by the FAA. The cost of the environmental analysis could be as high as $300,000. A Implementation Requirements The current policy of the FAA is to require an EA on most noise abatement procedures, especially those that might increase aircraft noise in some residential areas while achieving noise reductions in other areas. Alternative J would be implemented by the Dayton ATCT and the FAA. The procedure could be published in the form of a Tower Order that identifies the turning procedure and defines departure and turn instructions, or could be implemented through the establishment of a Standard Instrument Departure Procedure (SID). Information regarding the procedure could also be published in a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM). A Preliminary Evaluation The noise impact analysis conducted for this alternative indicates that the procedure could increase the number of people exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 65 and higher. While the procedure is not expected to significantly reduce airport capacity, ATCT personnel would have to provide vectoring instructions to pilots several times during the initial phase of flight to keep aircraft over the Great Miami River floodplain. The procedure would not provide significant noise relief to residents in the Airport environs and should not be considered further. A.4.6 ALTERNATIVE K This alternative evaluates the effectiveness of establishing a noise abatement turn procedure for all aircraft departing from Runway 6L. The potential flight corridors for this procedure are depicted on Exhibit A-26. Generally pilots would be instructed to hold the runway heading until reaching the Great Miami River floodplain where they would be turned on course. The purpose of the procedure would be to prevent overflights of populated areas in Monroe Township, Tipp City, and Vandalia. Alternative K is a modified version of Alternative 6 from the 1994 NCP. A Changes to Aircraft Noise Exposure Noise exposure contours for Alternative K are depicted on Exhibit A-27. A noise grid map for Alternative K is depicted on Exhibit A-28. As shown on Exhibits A-27 and A-28, implementation of Alternative K would cause the DNL 65 and DNL 60 noise contours to grow somewhat to the northeast and to shrink quite dramatically in areas north of Runway Significant increases in aircraft noise levels would be expected to occur along the extended centerline of Runway 6L-24R as far out as Tipp Canal Road. Significant reductions in aircraft noise levels would occur north of the Airport in Monroe Township as far north as Michaels Road. Table A-14 provides a comparison of the numbers of people anticipated to be exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 65 and higher in 2005 with and without Alternative K. As shown in the table, implementation of Alternative K would increase the number of people exposed to aircraft noise of DNL by 240; however, 751 fewer people would be exposed to DNL The presence of close-in residential development directly northeast of the Airport along the extended centerline of Runway 6L, including the Deer Cliff subdivision, limits the effectiveness of Alternative K. Evaluation of Noise Abatement Alternatives A-20 Noise Compatibility Program Report

93 Table A-14 Comparison of Noise Exposure with and without Alternative K 2005 Population exposed to aircraft noise 2005 Baseline (a) With Alternative K (b) DNL Range Count Count Difference 75 and higher ,296 1, and higher 1,467 1, (a) See Exhibit A-27 noise exposure contours shown as black solid lines (b) See Exhibit A-27 noise exposure contours shown as blue dashed lines Source: Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., on the basis of the U.S. Census Bureau s 2000 Census. Ricondo & Associates, Inc. A Operational and Capacity Issues Alternative K would reduce airfield capacity because ATCT personnel would be required to increase in-trail separation distances between successive aircraft departures. The noise abatement procedure would reduce ATCT flexibility by restricting the fanning of departures from Runway 6L. In addition, local ATCT representatives have indicated that the procedure could affect their ability to separate arrival and departure traffic in areas north of Dayton International Airport. The proposed extension to Runway 6R-24L (Alternative A) would help alleviate delays during periods of peak demand that might occur due to the implementation of Alternative K. Existing navigational aids in the region, including the Dayton VOR-DME, could be utilized to define a consistent turning point for the proposed procedure. The installation of distance measuring equipment (DME) at the Runway 24R localizer would also allow Alternative K to be defined based on navigational aids and headings. If the procedure is defined using local navigational aids pilots would be capable of flying a more precise flight track and hence the benefits of the noise abatement turn procedure could be enhanced. A Costs Implementation of Alternative K would require the preparation of an EA by the FAA. The cost of the environmental analysis could be as high as $300,000. A Implementation Requirements The current policy of the FAA is to require an EA on most noise abatement procedures, especially those that might increase aircraft noise in some residential areas while achieving noise reductions in other areas. Alternative K would be implemented by the Dayton ATCT and the FAA. The procedure could be published in the form of a Tower Order that identifies the turning procedure and defines departure and turn instructions, or could be implemented through the establishment of a Standard Instrument Departure Procedure (SID). Information regarding the procedure could also be published in a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM). A Preliminary Evaluation The noise impact analysis conducted for this alternative indicates that the procedure could reduce the number of people exposed to aircraft noise of DNL The procedure would increase the number Evaluation of Noise Abatement Alternatives A-21 Noise Compatibility Program Report

94 of people exposed to aircraft noise levels of DNL 65 and higher. The procedure is only marginally successful in reducing cumulative noise levels in the Airport environs but could reduce single event noise levels in parts of Tipp City and Monroe Township. When combined with other noise abatement techniques including noise abatement departure profiles the procedure might result in more favorable noise impacts. A.4.7 ALTERNATIVE L This alternative evaluates the effectiveness of establishing a noise abatement turn procedure for all aircraft departing from Runway 6L. The potential flight track for this procedure is depicted on Exhibit A-29. Generally pilots would be instructed to hold the runway heading until reaching the Runway 6L localizer where they would be turned right to a heading of 90 degrees. Pilots would instructed to hold the 90 degree heading until crossing the Great Miami River floodplain where they would be turned on course. The purpose of the procedure would be to prevent overflights of populated areas in Monroe Township, Tipp City, and Vandalia. Alternative L is a modified version of Alternative 6 from the 1994 NCP. A Changes to Aircraft Noise Exposure Noise exposure contours for Alternative L are depicted on Exhibit A-30. A noise grid map for Alternative L is depicted on Exhibit A-31. As shown on Exhibits A-30 and A-31, implementation of Alternative L would cause the DNL 65 and DNL 60 noise contours to grow somewhat to the east (the DNL 65 contour would stretch as far as the intersection of Ross Road and Tipp Canal Road) and to shrink quite dramatically in areas north of Runway Significant increases in aircraft noise levels would be expected to occur east of the Airport between North Dixie Drive and Wildcat Road. Significant reductions in aircraft noise levels would occur north of the Airport in Monroe Township. Table A-15 provides a comparison of the numbers of people anticipated to be exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 65 and higher in 2005 with and without Alternative L. As shown in the table, implementation of Alternative L would increase the number of people exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 65 and higher by 37 people. Nevertheless, Alternative L would decrease the number of people exposed to aircraft noise levels of DNL in Miami County. Table A-15 Comparison of Noise Exposure with and without Alternative L 2005 Population exposed to aircraft noise 2005 Baseline (a) With Alternative L (b) DNL Range Count Count Difference 75 and higher ,296 1, and higher 1,467 1, (a) See Exhibit A-30 noise exposure contours shown as black solid lines (b) See Exhibit A-30 noise exposure contours shown as blue dashed lines Source: Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., on the basis of the U.S. Census Bureau s 2000 Census. Ricondo & Associates, Inc. Evaluation of Noise Abatement Alternatives A-22 Noise Compatibility Program Report

95 A Operational and Capacity Issues Alternative L could reduce airfield capacity at the Airport because ATCT personnel might be required to increase in-trail separation distances between successive aircraft departures. The noise abatement procedure would reduce ATCT flexibility by restricting the fanning of departures from Runway 6L. The proposed extension to Runway 6R-24L (Alternative A) would help to alleviate delays during periods of peak demand that might occur due to the implementation of Alternative L. Existing navigational aids in the region, including the Dayton VOR-DME, could be utilized to define a consistent turning point for the proposed procedure. The installation of distance measuring equipment (DME) at the Runway 24R localizer would also allow Alternative L to be defined based on navigational aids and headings. If the procedure is defined using local navigational aids pilots would be capable of flying a more precise track and hence the benefits of the noise abatement flight track procedure could be enhanced. A Costs Implementation of Alternative L would require the preparation of an EA by the FAA. The cost of the environmental analysis could be as high as $300,000. A Implementation Requirements The current policy of the FAA is to require an EA on most noise abatement procedures, especially those that might increase aircraft noise in some residential areas while achieving noise reductions in other areas. Alternative L would be implemented by the Dayton ATCT and the FAA. The procedure could be published in the form of a Tower Order that identifies the turning procedure and defines departure and turn instructions, or could be implemented through the establishment of a Standard Instrument Departure Procedure (SID). Information regarding the procedure could also be published in a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM). A Preliminary Evaluation A noise impact analysis for this alternative indicates that the procedure would result in an overall increase in the number of people exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 65 and higher. The number of people exposed to DNL in Miami County would be reduced; however, Alternative L would essentially shift noise from one neighborhood to another and would increase noise levels substantially in communities to the east of the Airport. Alternative L is not recommended for further evaluation. A.4.8 ALTERNATIVE M The effectiveness of establishing a noise abatement turn procedure for Runway 36 departures was evaluated in Alternative M. The potential flight corridors for this procedure are depicted on Exhibit A-32. Generally pilots of aircraft departing from Runway 36 and bound for points east and south of the Airport would be instructed to hold the runway heading for approximately 4 nautical miles before being turned on course. The purpose of the procedure would be to minimize early turns over residential areas in Tipp City. Alternative M is a new procedure that was not evaluated in the previous NCP. A Changes to Aircraft Noise Exposure Noise exposure contours for Alternative M are depicted on Exhibit A-33. A noise grid map for Alternative M is depicted on Exhibit A-34. As shown on Exhibits A-33 and A-34, implementation of Alternative M would increase the size of the DNL 65 and DNL 60 noise contours slightly to the Evaluation of Noise Abatement Alternatives A-23 Noise Compatibility Program Report

96 north along the extended centerline of Runway 18-36, but would also reduce noise levels northeast of the Airport in the vicinity of North Dixie Drive and Shoop Road. No significant increases or decreases in aircraft noise levels would be expected to occur as a result of implementing Alternative M. Table A-16 provides a comparison of the numbers of people anticipated to be exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 65 and higher in 2005 with and without Alternative M. As shown in the table, implementation of Alternative M would not increase the number of people exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 65 and higher. Table A-16 Comparison of Noise Exposure with and without Alternative M 2005 Population exposed to aircraft noise 2005 Baseline (a) With Alternative M (b) DNL Range Count Count Difference 75 and higher ,296 1, and higher 1,467 1,467 - (a) See Exhibit A-33 noise exposure contours shown as black solid lines (b) See Exhibit A-33 noise exposure contours shown as blue dashed lines Source: Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., on the basis of the U.S. Census Bureau s 2000 Census. Ricondo & Associates, Inc. A Operational and Capacity Issues Alternative M would not be expected to significantly affect airfield capacity at the Airport although ATCT personnel might be required to increase in-trail separation distances between successive departures on Runway 36. Existing navigational aids in the region, including the Dayton VOR- DME, could be utilized to define a consistent turning point for the proposed procedure. If the procedure is defined using local navigational aids pilots would be capable of flying a more precise track and hence the noise abatement turn procedure could be enhanced. A Costs Implementation of Alternative M would require the preparation of an EA by the FAA. The cost of the environmental analysis could be as high as $300,000. A Implementation Requirements The current policy of the FAA is to require an EA on most noise abatement procedures, especially those that might increase aircraft noise in some residential areas while achieving noise reductions in other areas. Alternative M would be implemented by the Dayton ATCT and the FAA. The procedure could be published in the form of a Tower Order that identifies the turning procedure and defines departure and turn instructions, or could be implemented through the establishment of a Standard Instrument Departure Procedure (SID). Information regarding the procedure could also be published in a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM). Evaluation of Noise Abatement Alternatives A-24 Noise Compatibility Program Report

97 A Preliminary Evaluation The noise impact analysis conducted for this alternative indicates that the procedure would not increase the number of people exposed to aircraft noise levels of DNL 65 and higher. The procedure would not lead to significant reductions in cumulative noise levels in Monroe Township or Tipp City but could shift noise from the southeastern portion of Tipp City to residential neighborhoods in the vicinity of Michaels Road and Evanston Road. Alternative M is not recommended for further evaluation. A.4.9 ALTERNATIVE N The effectiveness of establishing a noise abatement turn procedure for aircraft departing from Runway 24L and headed to destinations that are south and southeast of the Airport was evaluated in Alternative N. The potential flight corridors for this procedure are depicted on Exhibit A-35. Generally pilots would be instructed to hold the runway heading until reaching the Airport Access Road before initiating turns to the south and east. The purpose of the procedure would be to avoid flying over residential areas that are directly south of Runway 6R-24L and National Road. Alternative N is a modified version of Noise Abatement Measure 1 from the 1994 NCP. A Changes to Aircraft Noise Exposure Noise exposure contours for Alternative N are depicted on Exhibit A-36. A noise grid map for Alternative N is depicted on Exhibit A-37. As shown on Exhibits A-36 and A-37, Alternative N would cause the DNL 65 and DNL 60 noise contours to shift slightly to the west and away from populated areas in Vandalia and Butler Township. Significant increases in aircraft noise levels would be centered near the Airport Access Road while residential areas east of the Airport Access Road would generally experience significant reductions in aircraft noise levels. Table A-17 provides a comparison of the numbers of people anticipated to be exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 65 and higher in 2005 with and without Alternative N. As shown in the table, implementation of Alternative N would decrease the number of people exposed to aircraft noise levels of DNL 65 and higher by 238 people. Table A-17 Comparison of Noise Exposure with and without Alternative N 2005 Population exposed to aircraft noise 2005 Baseline (a) With Alternative N (b) DNL Range Count Count Difference 75 and higher (4) (41) ,296 1,103 (193) 65 and higher 1,467 1,229 (238) (a) See Exhibit A-36 noise exposure contours shown as black solid lines (b) See Exhibit A-36 noise exposure contours shown as blue dashed lines Source: Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., on the basis of the U.S. Census Bureau s 2000 Census. Ricondo & Associates, Inc. A Operational and Capacity Issues Alternative N would not significantly affect airfield capacity at the Airport. Existing navigational aids in the region, including the Dayton VOR-DME, could be utilized to define a consistent turning Evaluation of Noise Abatement Alternatives A-25 Noise Compatibility Program Report

98 point for the proposed procedure. The installation of distance measuring equipment (DME) at the Runway 6L localizer would also allow Alternative N to be defined based on navigational aids and headings. If the procedure is defined using local navigational aids pilots would be capable of flying a more precise track and hence the noise abatement turn procedure could be enhanced. A Costs Implementation of Alternative N would require the preparation of an EA by the FAA. The cost of the environmental analysis could be as high as $300,000. A Implementation Requirements The current policy of the FAA is to require an EA on most noise abatement procedures, especially those that might increase aircraft noise in some residential areas while achieving noise reductions in other areas. Alternative N would be implemented by the Dayton ATCT and the FAA. The procedure could be published in the form of a Tower Order that identifies the turning procedure and defines departure and turn instructions, or could be implemented through the establishment of a Standard Instrument Departure Procedure (SID). Information regarding the procedure could also be published in a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM). A Preliminary Evaluation Alternative N would reduce aircraft noise levels in residential communities in the vicinity of Dayton International Airport, particularly in parts of Vandalia that are just east of the Airport Access Road. The noise benefits of the procedure warrant further evaluation. A.4.10 ALTERNATIVE O This alternative evaluated the effectiveness of establishing a noise abatement turn procedure for aircraft departing from Runway 24R that are headed for points south and southeast of the Airport. The potential flight corridors for this procedure are depicted on Exhibit A-38. Generally pilots would be instructed to hold the runway heading until reaching the Runway 24R localizer before initiating turns to the south and east. The purpose of the procedure would be to avoid residential areas southwest of the Airport in Butler Township. Alternative O is a new procedure that was not evaluated in the previous NCP. A Changes to Aircraft Noise Exposure Noise exposure contours for Alternative O are depicted on Exhibit A-39. A noise grid map for Alternative O is depicted on Exhibit A-40. As shown on Exhibits A-39 and A-40, Alternative O would shift the DNL 65 and DNL 60 noise contours to the west towards the Stillwater River Basin. Significant increases in aircraft noise levels would be centered around Meeker Road at Frederick Pike, while residential areas on either side of Dog Leg Pike (near Kershner Road) would generally experience significant reductions in aircraft noise levels. Table A-18 provides a comparison of the numbers of people anticipated to be exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 65 and higher in 2005 with and without Alternative O. As shown in the table, implementation of Alternative O would decrease the number of people exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 65 and higher by 106 people. Evaluation of Noise Abatement Alternatives A-26 Noise Compatibility Program Report

99 Table A-18 Comparison of Noise Exposure with and without Alternative O 2005 Population exposed to aircraft noise 2005 Baseline (a) With Alternative O (b) DNL Range Count Count Difference 75 and higher ,296 1,174 (122) 65 and higher 1,467 1,361 (106) (a) See Exhibit A-39 noise exposure contours shown as black solid lines (b) See Exhibit A-39 noise exposure contours shown as blue dashed lines Source: Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., on the basis of the U.S. Census Bureau s 2000 Census. Ricondo & Associates, Inc. A Operational and Capacity Issues Alternative O could reduce airfield capacity at the Airport because ATCT personnel might be required to increase in-trail separation distances between successive aircraft departures. The proposed extension to Runway 6R-24L (Alternative A) would help to alleviate any delays during periods of peak demand that might occur due to the implementation of Alternative O. Existing navigational aids in the region, including the Dayton VOR-DME, could be utilized to define a consistent turning point for the proposed procedure. The installation of distance measuring equipment (DME) at the Runway 6L localizer would also allow Alternative O to be defined based on navigational aids and headings. If the procedure is defined using local navigational aids pilots would be capable of flying a more precise track and hence the benefits of the noise abatement turn procedure could be enhanced. A Costs Implementation of Alternative O would require the preparation of an EA by the FAA. The cost of the environmental analysis could be as high as $300,000. A Implementation Requirements The current policy of the FAA is to require an EA on most noise abatement procedures, especially those that might increase aircraft noise in some residential areas while achieving noise reductions in other areas. Alternative O would be implemented by the Dayton ATCT and the FAA. The procedure could be published in the form of a Tower Order that identifies the turning procedure and defines departure and turn instructions, or could be implemented through the establishment of a Standard Instrument Departure Procedure (SID). Information regarding the procedure could also be published in a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM). A Preliminary Evaluation Alternative O would reduce aircraft noise levels in residential communities in the vicinity of Dayton International Airport, particularly in residential areas on either side of Dog Leg Pike south of National Road (U.S. 40). While the consolidation of several flight tracks into one preferred flight track/corridor could affect airfield capacity, the noise benefits of the procedure warrant further evaluation. Evaluation of Noise Abatement Alternatives A-27 Noise Compatibility Program Report

100 A.4.11 ALTERNATIVE P This alternative evaluated the effectiveness of establishing straight-out departures for all runways at the Airport. The potential flight tracks/corridors for this procedure are depicted on Exhibit A-41. Generally pilots would be instructed to hold the runway heading for four nautical miles before turning on course. Straight-out departures were evaluated in the 1994 NCP and were found to have negative noise impacts to communities to the southwest of the Airport. A Changes to Aircraft Noise Exposure Noise exposure contours for Alternative P are depicted on Exhibit A-42. A noise grid map for Alternative P is depicted on Exhibit A-43. As shown on Exhibits A-42 and A-43, implementation of straight out departures would significantly lengthen the DNL 65 and DNL 60 contours to the northeast and to the southwest of the Airport over populated areas. Significant increases in aircraft noise levels would occur southwest of the Airport in Englewood while significant reductions in aircraft noise levels would occur in Butler Township and in areas north and northwest of the Airport. Table A-19 provides a comparison of the numbers of people anticipated to be exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 65 and higher in 2005 with and without Alternative P. As shown in the table, implementation of Alternative P would increase the number of people exposed to aircraft noise levels of DNL 65 and higher by 972 people. Table A-19 Comparison of Noise Exposure with and without Alternative P 2005 Population exposed to aircraft noise 2005 Baseline (a) With Alternative P (b) DNL Range Count Count Difference 75 and higher ,296 2, and higher 1,467 2, (a) See Exhibit A-42 noise exposure contours shown as black solid lines (b) See Exhibit A-42 noise exposure contours shown as blue dashed lines Source: Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., on the basis of the U.S. Census Bureau s 2000 Census. Ricondo & Associates, Inc. A Operational and Capacity Issues FAA procedures require that minimum horizontal or vertical separations be maintained between aircraft operating in the airspace. Horizontal separation between aircraft refers to the distance between the locations of the aircraft if projected onto the ground. Vertical separation between aircraft refers to the difference in altitude between the aircraft. Just after takeoff and in the initial segments of the climb, air traffic controllers can only rely on horizontal separations to maintain safe operating distances between aircraft. The two primary means for providing and ensuring the appropriate horizontal separations between aircraft departing from the same runway are to (1) assign aircraft to routes that result in courses that diverge (in other words, the aircraft will move further and further apart as they continue their flight) or (2) ensure that adequate separation exists between aircraft on the same route that the trailing aircraft does not catch up with the leading aircraft. The former method is the more common, particularly for maintaining separations between slow- and fastmoving aircraft after departure. Evaluation of Noise Abatement Alternatives A-28 Noise Compatibility Program Report

101 Establishing a straight-out departure procedure for all runways at Dayton International Airport would require ATCT PERSONNEL to (1) hold departing aircraft longer on the ground to ensure adequate horizontal separation in the air and (2) increase separations in the air due to the fact that successive aircraft departures would be assigned the same heading. The net effect of such a procedure would be a substantial decrease in airfield capacity at Dayton International Airport and the possibility of substantial delays, particularly during peak operating periods. Such a procedure would severely curtail the flexibility of ATCT personnel to route aircraft to and from the Airport. A Costs Alternative P would most certainly increase departure delays at the Airport due to increased departure separation requirements. The cost of these delays is difficult to quantify. Implementation of the procedure would also require the preparation of an EA by the FAA. The cost of the environmental analysis could be as high as $300,000. A Implementation Requirements The current policy of the FAA is to require an EA on most noise abatement procedures, especially those that might increase aircraft noise in some residential areas while achieving noise reductions in other areas. Alternative P would be implemented by the Dayton ATCT and the FAA. The procedure could be published in the form of a Tower Order or could be implemented through the establishment of a Standard Instrument Departure Procedure (SID). Information regarding the procedure could also be published in a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM). A Preliminary Evaluation The noise impact analysis conducted for this alternative indicates that establishing a universal straight-out departure procedure would significantly increase the number of people exposed to aircraft noise levels of DNL 65 and higher. Alternative P would shift noise from one neighborhood to another, would seriously reduce airport capacity due to the fact that increased departure separations would be required, and in all likelihood would result in substantial delays at the Airport. Alternative P is not recommended for further evaluation. A.5 Runway Use Changes Runway use changes can sometimes be used to move aircraft overflights from noise-sensitive areas to areas that are compatible with aircraft noise. Such changes are most effective when wind conditions allow multiple runway directions to be used and large areas of compatible land use are available, particularly as a result of geographic features (e.g., large bodies of water, land areas not suitable for building). In some cases, rotational runway use has been used as a means to distribute noise to different areas around an airport. Preferential runway use programs can be implemented to minimize the use of runways that lead to direct overflights of the most noise-sensitive areas, but must be implemented in a manner as to not simply shift noise from one noise-sensitive area to another. Land use patterns in the environs of Dayton International Airport make the use of preferential runway use programs challenging in terms of effectively reducing noise levels in certain noise-sensitive areas without generating significant increases in noise levels in other noise-sensitive areas. Evaluation of Noise Abatement Alternatives A-29 Noise Compatibility Program Report

102 A.5.1 ALTERNATIVE Q In Alternative Q, a rotational nighttime runway use program was evaluated that would balance runway flow direction on Runway 6L-24R when wind and other conditions permitted. Alternative Q evaluated changing nighttime arrival and departure flow direction at the Airport. The goal of the rotational runway use program would be to achieve an even split between northeast (Runway 6L) flow and southwest (Runway 24R) flow at the Airport during calm wind conditions (less than 5 knot tailwind). This is a modified version of Noise Abatement Measure 5 which was evaluated in the 1994 NCP. Runway use assumptions used to model Alternative Q are presented in Table A-20. All assumptions regarding aircraft fleet mix and flight track use from the particular runways were assumed to be the same as 2005 Baseline conditions. Table A-20 Runway Use with Rotational Runway Use Program Percent of Operations on Runway Time of Day Type of Operation 6L 6R 24L 24R Day Arrivals 14.5% 6.0% 28.7% 24.8% 23.3% 2.8% Departures 4.8% 4.8% 24.0% 50.8% 1.9% 13.7% Night Arrivals 38.6% 2.3% 12.9% 38.6% 6.3% 1.4% Departures 39.1% 2.3% 14.4% 39.1% 1.0% 4.3% NOTE: Source: Prepared by: Day = 7:00 a.m. 10:00 p.m.; Night = 10:00 p.m. 7:00 a.m. Ricondo & Associates, Inc. Ricondo & Associates, Inc. A Changes to Aircraft Noise Exposure Noise exposure contours for Alternative Q are depicted on Exhibit A-44. A noise grid map for Alternative Q is depicted on Exhibit A-45. As shown on Exhibits A-44 and A-45, implementation of a nighttime runway use program for Runway 6L-24R would cause the DNL 65 and DNL 60 contours to expand to the north and northwest. The DNL 60 contour would also lengthen to the southwest along the extended centerline of the runway as a result of increased arrival operations from the southwest. Significant increases in aircraft noise levels would occur primarily north/northeast of the Airport in Monroe Township while significant reductions in aircraft noise levels would occur southwest and west of the Airport in Butler Township. Table A-21 provides a comparison of the numbers of people anticipated to be exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 65 and higher in 2005 with and without Alternative Q. As shown in the table, implementation of Alternative Q would increase the number of people exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 65 and higher by 230 people. Evaluation of Noise Abatement Alternatives A-30 Noise Compatibility Program Report

103 Table A-21 Comparison of Noise Exposure with and without Alternative Q 2005 Population exposed to aircraft noise 2005 Baseline (a) With Alternative Q (b) DNL Range Count Count Difference 75 and higher (6) (35) ,296 1, and higher 1,467 1, (a) See Exhibit A-44 noise exposure contours shown as black solid lines (b) See Exhibit A-44 noise exposure contours shown as blue dashed lines Source: Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., on the basis of the U.S. Census Bureau s 2000 Census. Ricondo & Associates, Inc. A Operational and Capacity Issues Alternative Q could have a significant effect on air traffic management in the Dayton region due to the fact that the Airport currently operates in southwest flow over 75% of the time during nighttime hours. There could also be some increased fuel costs for air carrier aircraft (particularly cargo aircraft) depending on the origin and the destination of each flight. It is highly probable that the procedure would increase flight times for many pilots. A Costs Implementation of Alternative Q would require the preparation of an EA by the FAA. The cost of the environmental analysis could be as high as $300,000. A Implementation Requirements The current policy of the FAA is to require an EA on most noise abatement procedures, especially those that might increase aircraft noise in some residential areas while achieving noise reductions in other areas. Alternative Q would be implemented by the Dayton ATCT and the FAA. The procedure could be published in the form of a Tower Order that identifies the preferred nighttime operational flow pattern. Implementation of the program would be fairly simple as the procedure would be feasible only when wind direction and speed permitted. A Preliminary Evaluation A noise impact analysis for this alternative indicates that the procedure would significantly increase the number of people exposed to aircraft noise levels of DNL 65 and higher. Alternative Q is not recommended for further evaluation. A.5.2 ALTERNATIVE R In Alternative R, a preferential runway use program was evaluated that would balance the number of arrival and departure operations conducted on Runways 6L-24R and 6R-24L. Runway use assumptions used in Alternative R are presented in Table A-22. Alternative R assumed the proposed extension to Runway 6R-24L would be operational in The aircraft fleet mix at the Airport and flight track use from the particular runways were assumed to be the same as 2005 Baseline conditions. This is a new measure that was not evaluated in the 1994 NCP. Evaluation of Noise Abatement Alternatives A-31 Noise Compatibility Program Report

104 Table A-22 Runway Use with Preferential Runway Use Program Percent of Operations on Runway Time of Day Type of Operation 6L 6R 24L 24R Day Arrivals 10.2% 10.2% 26.7% 26.7% 23.3% 2.8% Departures 4.8% 4.8% 37.4% 37.4% 1.9% 13.7% Night Arrivals 11.0% 11.0% 35.2% 35.2% 6.3% 1.4% Departures 9.5% 9.5% 37.9% 37.9% 1.0% 4.3% NOTE: Source: Prepared by: Day = 7:00 a.m. 10:00 p.m.; Night = 10:00 p.m. 7:00 a.m. Ricondo & Associates, Inc. Ricondo & Associates, Inc. A Changes to Aircraft Noise Exposure Noise exposure contours for Alternative R are depicted on Exhibit A-46. A noise grid map for Alternative R is depicted on Exhibit A-47. As shown on Exhibits A-46 and A-47, implementation of Alternative R would cause the DNL 65 and DNL 60 contours to shift to the south. Significant increases in aircraft noise levels would occur in the western portion of Vandalia and in Butler Township south of Interstate 70. Significant reductions in aircraft noise levels would occur in Butler Township immediately west and southwest of the Airport. Table A-23 provides a comparison of the numbers of people anticipated to be exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 65 and higher in 2005 with and without Alternative R. As shown in the table, implementation of Alternative R would significantly increase the number of people exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 65 and higher. Population within the DNL 65 contour would increase by 968 people. Table A-23 Comparison of Noise Exposure with and without Alternative R 2005 Population exposed to aircraft noise 2005 Baseline (a) With Alternative R (b) DNL Range Count Count Difference 75 and higher ,296 2, and higher 1,467 2, (a) See Exhibit A-46 noise exposure contours shown as black solid lines (b) See Exhibit A-46 noise exposure contours shown as blue dashed lines Source: Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., on the basis of the U.S. Census Bureau s 2000 Census. Ricondo & Associates, Inc. A Operational and Capacity Issues The feasibility of implementing this alternative is dependent on the completion of the proposed extension to Runway 6R-24L. Currently Runway 6R-24L does not have sufficient length to accommodate all types of large jets that operate at Dayton International Airport. In addition, Evaluation of Noise Abatement Alternatives A-32 Noise Compatibility Program Report

105 Runway 6R is not equipped with an Instrument Landing System (ILS) which limits its use for arrivals during instrument meteorological conditions (IMC). A Costs Implementation of Alternative R would require the preparation of an EA by the FAA. The cost of the environmental analysis could be as high as $150,000. A Implementation Requirements The current policy of the FAA is to require an EA on most noise abatement procedures, especially those that might increase aircraft noise in some residential areas while achieving noise reductions in other areas. Alternative R would be implemented by the Dayton ATCT. The procedure could be published in the form of a Tower Order that identifies the preferred runway use program. A Preliminary Evaluation The noise impact analysis conducted for this alternative indicates that the procedure would significantly increase in the number of people exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 65 and higher. Alternative R is not recommended for further evaluation. A.6 Combined Measures Based on the results of the analyses of the airfield design options and the noise abatement departure flight tracks, the project team decided it was worthwhile to consider a combination of the departure flight tracks and airfield design measures to see if they could further reduce aircraft noise levels in the vicinity of the Airport without increasing noise levels in other noise-sensitive areas. Six scenarios were developed for study. These scenarios are described below. A.6.1 SCENARIO 1 In Scenario 1, flight tracks from Alternatives F, H, K, and M were combined with Alternative A (extension of Runway 6R-24L). Runway use assumptions from Alternative A were used for Scenario 1. It was assumed that the aircraft fleet mix would be the same as 2005 Baseline conditions. A Changes to Aircraft Noise Exposure Noise exposure contours for Scenario 1 are depicted on Exhibit A-48. A noise grid map for Scenario 1 is depicted on Exhibit A-49. As shown on Exhibits A-48 and A-49, Scenario 1 would reduce aircraft noise levels in areas north and northwest of the Airport within Monroe Township and Butler Township. The DNL 60 and DNL 65 contours would grow slightly to the west over the Stillwater River floodplain and to the northeast near the Great Miami River floodplain. Significant or notable increases in aircraft noise levels would occur primarily over vacant land to the west of the Airport and to the northeast of the Airport along the extended centerline of Runway 6L-24R. Significant reductions in aircraft noise levels would occur northwest of the Airport near the intersection of Old Springfield Road and Frederick Pike and directly north of Runway Table A-24 provides a comparison of the numbers of people anticipated to be exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 65 and higher in 2005 with and without Scenario 1. As shown in the table, implementation of Scenario 1 would increase the number of people exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 65 and higher by 152 people. Evaluation of Noise Abatement Alternatives A-33 Noise Compatibility Program Report

106 Table A-24 Comparison of Noise Exposure with and Scenario Population exposed to aircraft noise 2005 Baseline (a) With Scenario 1 (b) DNL Range Count Count Difference 75 and higher ,296 1, and higher 1,467 1, (a) See Exhibit A-48 noise exposure contours shown as black solid lines (b) See Exhibit A-48 noise exposure contours shown as blue dashed lines Source: Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., on the basis of the U.S. Census Bureau s 2000 Census. Ricondo & Associates, Inc. A Operational and Capacity Issues Noise abatement flight tracks recommended in Scenario 1 could reduce airfield capacity at the Airport since ATCT personnel might be required to increase in-trail separation distances between successive aircraft departures. The proposed extension to Runway 6R-24L would help to alleviate delays that might occur due to the implementation of noise abatement flight procedures. Existing navigational aids in the region, including the Dayton VOR-DME, could be utilized to define a consistent turning point for the proposed noise abatement flight tracks. The installation of distance measuring equipment (DME) at the Airport (co-located with the 6L and 24R localizers) would also allow these flight tracks to be defined based on navigational aids and headings. A Costs Costs associated with the implementation of Scenario 1 would include design and construction of the runway extension and proposed taxiway improvements, land acquisition, and costs associated with roadway closures/relocations that would be required (the relocation of National Road/U.S. 40 and the Airport Access road, etc.). The preliminary cost estimate for Scenario 1 (in 1999 dollars) is approximately $111 million. The cost estimate does not include the cost of noise mitigation, which could be substantial, or the cost of preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the runway project. A Implementation Requirements An EA or an EIS would be required prior to construction of the proposed extension to Runway 6R- 24L. Therefore, implementation of Scenario 1 would be dependent on the approval of an EA or EIS by the FAA. The current policy of the FAA is to require an EA on most noise abatement procedures, especially those that might increase aircraft noise in some residential areas while achieving noise reductions in other areas. Noise abatement flight procedures would be implemented by the Dayton ATCT and the FAA. The abatement procedures could be published in the form of a Tower Order that would identify the turning procedures and define departure and turn instructions, or could be implemented through the establishment of Standard Instrument Departure Procedures (SIDs). Information regarding the procedure could also be published in a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM). Evaluation of Noise Abatement Alternatives A-34 Noise Compatibility Program Report

107 A Preliminary Evaluation Scenario 1 would increase the number of people in the airport environs that are exposed to significant levels of aircraft noise and therefore it does not warrant further evaluation. A.6.2 SCENARIO 2 In Scenario 2, flight tracks from Alternatives F, H, I, K, M, N, and O were combined with Alternative A (extension of Runway 6R-24L). Runway use assumptions from Alternative A were used to model Scenario 2. It was assumed that the aircraft fleet mix would be the same as 2005 Baseline conditions. A Changes to Aircraft Noise Exposure Noise exposure contours for Scenario 2 are depicted on Exhibit A-50. A noise grid map for Scenario 2 is depicted on Exhibit A-51. As shown on Exhibits A-50 and A-51, Scenario 2 would reduce aircraft noise levels in areas north/northwest of the Airport within Monroe Township and Butler Township and south of the Airport in Vandalia. The DNL 60 and DNL 65 contours would grow slightly to the west over the Stillwater River floodplain and to the northeast towards the Great Miami River floodplain. Significant or notable increases in aircraft noise levels would occur primarily over vacant land to the west/southwest of the Airport and to the northeast of the Airport along the extended centerline of Runway 6L-24R. Significant reductions in aircraft noise levels would occur northwest of the Airport near Old Springfield Road and Frederick Pike, directly north of Runway 18-36, and south of the Airport in Vandalia and Butler Township. Table A-25 provides a comparison of the numbers of people anticipated to be exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 65 and higher in 2005 with and without Scenario 2. As shown in the table, implementation of Scenario 2 would reduce the number of people exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 65 and higher. 256 fewer people would be exposed to aircraft noise levels of DNL 65 and higher. Table A-25 Comparison of Noise Exposure with and without Scenario Population exposed to aircraft noise 2005 Baseline (a) With Scenario 2 (b) DNL Range Count Count Difference 75 and higher , (328) 65 and higher 1,467 1,211 (256) (a) See Exhibit A-50 noise exposure contours shown as black solid lines (b) See Exhibit A-51 noise exposure contours shown as blue dashed lines Source: Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., on the basis of the U.S. Census Bureau s 2000 Census. Ricondo & Associates, Inc. A Operational and Capacity Issues Noise abatement flight tracks recommended in Scenario 2 could reduce airfield capacity at the Airport since ATCT personnel might be required to increase in-trail separation distances between successive aircraft departures. The proposed extension to Runway 6R-24L would help alleviate delays that might occur due to the implementation of noise abatement flight procedures. Evaluation of Noise Abatement Alternatives A-35 Noise Compatibility Program Report

108 Existing navigational aids in the region, including the Dayton VOR-DME, could be utilized to define a consistent turning point for the proposed noise abatement flight tracks. The installation of distance measuring equipment (DME) at the Airport (co-located with the Runway 6L and 24R localizers) would also allow these flight tracks to be defined based on navigational aids and headings. A Costs Costs associated with the implementation of Scenario 2 would include design and construction of the runway extension and proposed taxiway improvements, land acquisition, and costs associated with roadway closures/relocations that would be required (the relocation of National Road/U.S. 40 and the Airport Access road, etc.). The preliminary cost estimate for Scenario 2 (in 1999 dollars) is approximately $111 million. The cost estimate does not include the cost of noise mitigation, which could be substantial, or the cost of preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the runway project. A Implementation Requirements An EA or an EIS would be required prior to construction of the proposed extension to Runway 6R- 24L. Therefore, implementation of Scenario 2 would be dependent on the approval of an EA or EIS by the FAA. The current policy of the FAA is to require an EA on most noise abatement procedures, especially those that might increase aircraft noise in some residential areas while achieving noise reductions in other areas. Noise abatement flight procedures would be implemented by the Dayton ATCT and the FAA. The abatement procedures could be published in the form of a Tower Order that would identify the turning procedures and define departure and turn instructions, or could be implemented through the establishment of Standard Instrument Departure Procedures (SIDs). Information regarding the procedure could also be published in a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM). A Preliminary Evaluation Scenario 2 would reduce aircraft noise levels in the vicinity of Dayton International Airport, particularly in Monroe Township, Vandalia, and in areas of Butler Township. While the consolidation of several flight tracks into preferred departure corridors could affect airfield capacity at the Airport the noise benefits of the scenario warrant further evaluation. A.6.3 SCENARIO 3 In Scenario 3, flight tracks from Alternatives F, H, K, and M were combined with Alternative D (extension of Runway 6R-24L and extension and relocation of Runway 18-36). Runway use assumptions from Alternative D were used to model Scenario 3. It was assumed that the aircraft fleet mix would be the same as 2005 Baseline conditions. A Changes to Aircraft Noise Exposure Noise exposure contours for Scenario 3 are depicted on Exhibit A-52. A noise grid map for Scenario 3 is depicted on Exhibit A-53. As shown on Exhibits A-52 and A-53, implementation of Scenario 3 would reduce aircraft noise levels in areas north/northwest of the Airport within Monroe Township and Butler Township and south of the Airport in Vandalia. The DNL 60 and DNL 65 contours would grow slightly to the west over the Stillwater River floodplain and to the northeast towards the Great Miami River floodplain. Significant or notable increases in aircraft noise levels would occur primarily over vacant land to the west of the Airport and to the northeast of the Airport along the extended centerline of Runway 6L-24R. Significant reductions in aircraft noise levels Evaluation of Noise Abatement Alternatives A-36 Noise Compatibility Program Report

109 would occur northwest of the Airport near Old Springfield Road and Frederick Pike, northwest of Runway 18-36, and northwest of Runway 6L-24R in Butler Township. Table A-26 provides a comparison of the numbers of people anticipated to be exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 65 and higher in 2005 with and without Scenario 3. As shown in the table, implementation of Scenario 3 would increase the number of people exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 65 and higher. The number of people exposed to DNL 65 and higher would be increased by 166 people. Scenario 3 would reduce the number of people exposed to DNL by 1,342 people. Table A-26 Comparison of Noise Exposure with and Scenario Population exposed to aircraft noise 2005 Baseline (a) With Scenario 3 (b) DNL Range Count Count Difference 75 and higher ,296 1, and higher 1,467 1, (a) See Exhibit A-52 noise exposure contours shown as black solid lines (b) See Exhibit A-53 noise exposure contours shown as blue dashed lines Source: Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., on the basis of the U.S. Census Bureau s 2000 Census. Ricondo & Associates, Inc. A Operational and Capacity Issues Noise abatement flight tracks recommended in Scenario 3 could reduce airfield capacity at the Airport since ATCT personnel might be required to increase in-trail separation distances between successive aircraft departures. The proposed extension to Runway 6R-24L would help alleviate delays that might occur due to the implementation of the noise abatement flight track procedures. Existing navigational aids in the region, including the Dayton VOR-DME, could be utilized to define a consistent turning point for the proposed noise abatement flight tracks. The installation of distance measuring equipment (DME) at the Airport would also allow these flight tracks to be defined based on navigational aids and headings. A Costs Costs associated with the implementation of Scenario 3 would include: design and construction of the two runway extensions and proposed taxiway improvements, land acquisition, and costs associated with roadway closures and roadway relocations. The preliminary cost estimate for Scenario 3 (in 1999 dollars) is approximately $171 million. The cost estimate does not include the cost of noise mitigation, which could be substantial, or the cost of preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the runway project or EAs for the noise abatement flight procedures. A Implementation Requirements An EA or an EIS would be required prior to construction of the proposed runway extensions. Therefore, implementation of Scenario 3 would be dependent on the approval of an EA or EIS by the FAA. Evaluation of Noise Abatement Alternatives A-37 Noise Compatibility Program Report

110 The current policy of the FAA is to require an EA on most noise abatement procedures, especially those that might increase aircraft noise in some residential areas while achieving noise reductions in other areas. Noise abatement flight procedures would be implemented by the Dayton ATCT. The abatement procedures could be published in the form of a Tower Order that would identify the turning procedures and define departure and turn instructions, or could be implemented through the establishment of Standard Instrument Departure Procedures (SIDs). Information regarding the procedure could also be published in a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM). A Preliminary Evaluation Scenario 3 would reduce aircraft noise levels in parts of Monroe Township and Butler Township. Nevertheless, it appears that Scenario 3 would actually increase the number of people exposed to aircraft noise levels of DNL 65 and higher. In addition, the consolidation of several flight tracks into preferred departure corridors could affect airfield capacity. Scenario 3 should not be evaluated further. A.6.4 SCENARIO 4 In Scenario 4, flight tracks from Alternatives F, H, I, K, M, N, and O were combined with Alternative D (extension of Runway 6R-24L and extension of Runway 18-36). Runway use assumptions from Alternative D were used to model Scenario 4. The aircraft fleet mix was assumed to be the same as 2005 Baseline conditions. A Changes to Aircraft Noise Exposure Noise exposure contours for Scenario 4 are depicted on Exhibit A-54. A noise grid map for Scenario 4 is depicted on Exhibit A-55. As shown on Exhibits A-54 and A-55, Scenario 4 would reduce aircraft noise levels in areas north/northwest of the Airport within Monroe Township and Butler Township and south of the Airport in Vandalia. The DNL 60 and DNL 65 contours would grow slightly to the west over the Stillwater River floodplain and to the northeast towards the Great Miami River floodplain. Significant or notable increases in aircraft noise levels would occur primarily over vacant land to the west/southwest of the Airport and to the northeast of the Airport along the extended centerline of Runway 6L-24R. Significant reductions in aircraft noise levels would occur northwest of the Airport near Old Springfield Road and Frederick Pike, northwest of Runway 18-36, and south of the Airport in Vandalia and Butler Township. Table A-27 provides a comparison of the numbers of people anticipated to be exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 65 and higher in 2005 with and without Scenario 4. As shown in the table, implementation of Scenario 4 would significantly reduce the number of people exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 65 and higher. 235 fewer people would be exposed to aircraft noise levels of DNL 65 and higher. Evaluation of Noise Abatement Alternatives A-38 Noise Compatibility Program Report

111 Table A-27 Comparison of Noise Exposure with and without Scenario Population exposed to aircraft noise 2005 Baseline (a) With Scenario 4 (b) DNL Range Count Count Difference 75 and higher , (320) 65 and higher 1,467 1,232 (235) (a) See Exhibit A-54 noise exposure contours shown as black solid lines (b) See Exhibit A-54 noise exposure contours shown as blue dashed lines Source: Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., on the basis of the U.S. Census Bureau s 2000 Census. Ricondo & Associates, Inc. A Operational and Capacity Issues Noise abatement flight tracks recommended in Scenario 4 could reduce airfield capacity at the Airport since ATCT personnel might be required to increase in-trail separation distances between successive aircraft departures. The proposed extension to Runway 6R-24L would help alleviate delays that might occur due to the implementation of noise abatement flight procedures. Existing navigational aids in the region, including the Dayton VOR-DME, could be utilized to define a consistent turning point for the proposed noise abatement flight tracks. The installation of distance measuring equipment (DME) at the Airport (co-located with the Runway 6L and 24R localizers) would also allow these flight tracks to be defined based on navigational aids and headings. A Costs Costs associated with the implementation of Scenario 4 would include: design and construction of the two runway extensions and proposed taxiway improvements, land acquisition, and costs associated with roadway closures and roadway relocations. The preliminary cost estimate for Scenario 4 (in 1999 dollars) is approximately $171 million. The cost estimate does not include the cost of noise mitigation, which could be substantial, or the cost of preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the runway project or EAs for the noise abatement flight procedures. A Implementation Requirements An EA or an EIS would be required prior to construction of the proposed runway extensions. Therefore, implementation of Scenario 4 would be dependent on the approval of an EA or EIS by the FAA. The current policy of the FAA is to require an EA on most noise abatement procedures, especially those that might increase aircraft noise in some residential areas while achieving noise reductions in other areas. Noise abatement flight procedures would be implemented by the Dayton ATCT and the FAA. The abatement procedures could be published in the form of a Tower Order that would identify the turning procedures and define departure and turn instructions, or could be implemented through the establishment of Standard Instrument Departure Procedures (SIDs). Information regarding the procedure could also be published in a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM). Evaluation of Noise Abatement Alternatives A-39 Noise Compatibility Program Report

112 A Preliminary Evaluation Scenario 4 would reduce aircraft noise levels in Monroe Township, Vandalia, and in areas of Butler Township northwest of the Airport. While the consolidation of several flight tracks into preferred departure corridors could affect airfield capacity, the noise benefits of the scenario warrant further evaluation. A.6.5 SCENARIO 5 In Scenario 5, flight tracks from Alternatives F, H, K, and M were combined with the existing airfield (2005 Baseline). Runway use assumptions from the 2005 Baseline case were used to model Scenario 5. The aircraft fleet mix was assumed to be the same as 2005 Baseline conditions. A Changes to Aircraft Noise Exposure Noise exposure contours for Scenario 5 are depicted on Exhibit A-56. A noise grid map for Scenario 5 is depicted on Exhibit A-57. As shown on Exhibits A-56 and A-57, Scenario 5 would reduce aircraft noise levels in areas north/northwest of the Airport within Monroe Township and Butler Township and south of the Airport in Butler Township. The DNL 60 and DNL 65 contours would grow slightly to the west over the Stillwater River floodplain and to the northeast towards the Great Miami River floodplain. Significant or notable increases in aircraft noise levels would occur primarily over vacant land to the west of the Airport and to the northeast of the Airport along the extended centerline of Runway 6L-24R. Significant reductions in aircraft noise levels would occur northwest of the Airport near Old Springfield Road and Frederick Pike, northwest of Runway 18-36, and south of the Airport in Butler Township. Table A-28 provides a comparison of the numbers of people anticipated to be exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 65 and higher in 2005 with and without Scenario 5. As shown in the table, implementation of Scenario 5 would increase the number of people exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 65 and higher. The number of people exposed to DNL 65 and higher would be increased by 79 people. Table A-28 Comparison of Noise Exposure with and without Scenario Population exposed to aircraft noise 2005 Baseline (a) With Scenario 5 (b) DNL Range Count Count Difference 75 and higher ,296 1,260 (36) 65 and higher 1,467 1, (a) See Exhibit A-56 noise exposure contours shown as black solid lines (b) See Exhibit A-56 noise exposure contours shown as blue dashed lines Source: Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., on the basis of the U.S. Census Bureau s 2000 Census. Ricondo & Associates, Inc. A Operational and Capacity Issues Noise abatement flight tracks recommended in Scenario 5 could reduce airfield capacity at the Airport since ATCT personnel might be required to increase in-trail separation distances between successive aircraft departures. Existing navigational aids in the region, including the Dayton VOR- Evaluation of Noise Abatement Alternatives A-40 Noise Compatibility Program Report

113 DME, could be utilized to define a consistent turning point for the proposed noise abatement flight tracks. The installation of distance measuring equipment (DME) at the Airport (co-located with the Runway 6L and 24R localizers) would also allow these flight tracks to be defined based on navigational aids and headings. A Costs Costs associated with the implementation of Scenario 5 would include the cost of preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the noise abatement flight procedures. A Implementation Requirements The current policy of the FAA is to require an EA on most noise abatement procedures, especially those that might increase aircraft noise in some residential areas while achieving noise reductions in other areas. Noise abatement flight procedures would be implemented by the Dayton ATCT and the FAA. The abatement procedures could be published in the form of a Tower Order that would identify the turning procedures and define departure and turn instructions, or could be implemented through the establishment of Standard Instrument Departure Procedures (SIDs). Information regarding the procedure could also be published in a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM). A Preliminary Evaluation Scenario 5 would increase the number of people exposed to aircraft noise levels of DNL 65 and higher. The scenario does not warrant further evaluation. A.6.6 SCENARIO 6 In Scenario 6, flight tracks from Alternatives F, H, I, K, M, N, and O were combined with the existing airfield (2005 Baseline). Runway use assumptions from the 2005 Baseline case were used to model Scenario 6. The aircraft fleet mix was assumed to be the same as 2005 Baseline conditions. A Changes to Aircraft Noise Exposure Noise exposure contours for Scenario 6 are depicted on Exhibit A-58. A noise grid map for Scenario 6 is depicted on Exhibit A-59. As shown on Exhibits A-58 and A-59, Scenario 6 would reduce aircraft noise levels in areas north/northwest of the Airport within Monroe Township and Butler Township and south of the Airport in Butler Township. The DNL 60 and DNL 65 contours would grow slightly to the west over the Stillwater River floodplain and to the northeast towards the Great Miami River floodplain. Significant or notable increases in aircraft noise levels would occur primarily over vacant land to the west of the Airport and to the northeast of the Airport along the extended centerline of Runway 6L-24R. Significant reductions in aircraft noise levels would occur northwest of the Airport near Old Springfield Road and Frederick Pike, northwest of Runway 18-36, and south of the Airport in Butler Township. Table A-29 provides a comparison of the numbers of people anticipated to be exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 65 and higher in 2005 with and without Scenario 6. As shown in the table, implementation of Scenario 6 would reduce the number of people exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 65 and higher by 315 people. Evaluation of Noise Abatement Alternatives A-41 Noise Compatibility Program Report

114 Table A-29 Comparison of Noise Exposure with and without Scenario Population exposed to aircraft noise 2005 Baseline (a) With Scenario 6 (b) DNL Range Count Count Difference 75 and higher (1) , (395) 65 and higher 1,467 1,152 (315) (a) See Exhibit A-58 noise exposure contours shown as black solid lines (b) See Exhibit A-58 noise exposure contours shown as blue dashed lines Source: Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., on the basis of the U.S. Census Bureau s 2000 Census. Ricondo & Associates, Inc. A Operational and Capacity Issues Noise abatement flight tracks recommended in Scenario 6 could reduce airfield capacity at the Airport since ATCT personnel might be required to increase in-trail separation distances between successive aircraft departures. Existing navigational aids in the region, including the Dayton VOR-DME, could be utilized to define a consistent turning point for the proposed noise abatement flight tracks. The installation of distance measuring equipment (DME) at the Airport (co-located with the Runway 6L and 24R localizers) would also allow these flight tracks to be defined based on navigational aids and headings. A Costs Costs associated with the implementation of Scenario 6 would include the cost of preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the noise abatement flight procedures. A Implementation Requirements The current policy of the FAA is to require an EA on most noise abatement procedures, especially those that might increase aircraft noise in some residential areas while achieving noise reductions in other areas. Noise abatement flight procedures would be implemented by the Dayton ATCT and the FAA. The abatement procedures could be published in the form of a Tower Order that would identify the turning procedures and define departure and turn instructions, or could be implemented through the establishment of Standard Instrument Departure Procedures (SIDs). Information regarding the procedure could also be published in a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM). A Preliminary Evaluation Scenario 6 would reduce aircraft noise levels in Monroe Township and in areas of Butler Township. While the consolidation of several flight tracks into the preferred departure flight tracks could affect airfield capacity at the Airport the noise benefits of the scenario warrant further evaluation. Evaluation of Noise Abatement Alternatives A-42 Noise Compatibility Program Report

115 A.7 Operational Measures Several types of operational measures, in addition to changing runway use and flight tracks can be implemented to reduce aircraft noise exposure. By modifying departure procedures, the noise levels associated with individual aircraft departures, particularly jet aircraft, can be reduced. Under these procedures, pilots typically depart at takeoff thrust, climb as quickly as possible to a safe altitude (usually 800 to 1,000 feet above the ground), reduce power and adjust flap settings, climb at a lower thrust setting for a specified period, and then resume a standard climb at climb thrust. Using such a procedure, the noise levels generated by an individual jet aircraft departure are lower than if a fullpower climb to cruising altitude is followed. Most airlines already have defined standard departure procedures for the various aircraft in their fleets that are intended to reduce the noise levels of individual aircraft operations. However, the potential exists for further reductions in noise levels to be realized in noise-sensitive areas near the departure ends of runways if specific noise abatement departure procedures are followed. A.7.1 Noise Abatement Departure Profiles Historically, specific departure procedures have been developed and implemented at some airports that are intended to achieve noise reduction goals at that airport. The most notable is the departure procedure implemented at John Wayne Airport in Orange County, California, in the 1980 s. The FAA, recognizing that the first segment of the departure climb is critical in terms of flight safety and that departure procedures specific to individual airports could lead to too many different procedures that pilots would have to follow, decided to develop two standard noise abatement departure profiles that could be implemented at an airport. FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 91-53A, Noise Abatement Departure Profiles, prescribes the parameters for two different noise abatement departure profiles (NADPs). One is intended to reduce noise levels closer to the airport (the close-in noise abatement departure profile) and the other is intended to reduce noise levels further from the airport (the distant noise abatement departure profile). Each airline has developed noise abatement departure procedures for each jet aircraft in their fleet consistent with AC 91-53A and submitted the procedures to the FAA to ensure that the procedures are safe and meet the requirements of AC 91-53A. Preliminary INM modeling has indicated that implementing noise abatement departure profiles could reduce the noise levels of individual departures by three to six decibels at some airports. However, conversations with FAA Headquarters staff responsible for maintaining the INM indicated that the procedures identified for modeling the NADPs included in the INM manual can overstate the benefit of their use and the results are not reliable for estimating overall noise reduction. Accurately modeling the actual benefits associated with the NADPs at Dayton International Airport would require a significant amount of time and a significant cost. Because each airline has developed the specific NADPs for each aircraft in their fleet, it would be necessary to develop a set of profiles for each aircraft type and for each airline. FAA personnel in some regions have suggested that live testing and measurement of the benefits of the profiles might provide a more efficient means of selecting the better profile for each of the runway ends. Live testing of the NADPs would provide the best means for determining which of the profiles would provide the most effective noise relief from each of the runway ends at the Airport. The use of NADPs from the runway ends meets each of the criteria listed in Section A.1. The live tests would determine which NADP provides the best relief in terms of single-event noise level reduction in noise-sensitive areas for each of the runway ends at Dayton International Airport. Evaluation of Noise Abatement Alternatives A-43 Noise Compatibility Program Report

116 Airline representatives have in some cases, on a voluntary basis, worked individually with airport sponsors to develop noise abatement procedures that provide even further noise reduction than that provided by use of the AC 91-53A NADPs. In the absence of extensive modeling and live testing of both profiles at Dayton International Airport the actual noise reduction benefits associated with the two FAA departure profiles cannot be quantified. A.7.2 Noise Abatement Approach Procedures Arrival procedures can also be modified to reduce noise levels associated with individual aircraft operations. Approach procedures that have been tried for noise abatement include the minimal use of flaps in order to reduce power settings and airframe noise, two stage descent profiles, and the use of increased approach angles. Most of these procedures are no longer regarded favorably in the industry and some have been found to increase noise because of additional power applications that are required to arrest high sink rates. The typical approach slope used by ATCT PERSONNEL/pilots includes a three-degree glide slope to the touchdown point on the runway. In some cases, a steeper approach slope can be used to place aircraft at higher altitudes over noise-sensitive land uses on their approach to an airport. Such changes in approach slopes typically are not great enough to cause a significant change in noise levels, especially in areas closer to the airport. Such changes can also affect the margin of safety of aircraft approaches because they require that the aircraft be landed at more than optimal approach speed. Modifications to approach slopes currently used at Dayton International Airport are not recommended for further evaluation. Noise Abatement Measure 3 evaluated in the 1994 NCP recommended that arrivals to Runway 24R from the north and northeast be established on the final approach course not less than four (4) miles from the runway so as to preclude overflying Tipp City. Noise Abatement Measure 3 was approved as a voluntary measure, subject to a Finding of No Significant Impact for Air Traffic Control Noise Abatement Procedures at James M. Cox Dayton International Airport (dated February 8, 1995), and implemented in Dayton Air Traffic Control Tower Order A dated May 3, 1995 (superceded by Dayton Air Traffic Control Tower Order B dated August 14, 1995). Based on a review of year 2000 ARTS-III flight track data, it is noted that aircraft arriving Runway 24R generally conform to the noise abatement arrival procedure and overflights of Tipp City were avoided for the most part. In fact, aircraft arriving Dayton were typically established on the final approach course for Runway 24R between 4 and 6 miles from the Airport. City of Dayton Department of Aviation staff recommend that the existing Tower Order arrival procedure be retained in the NCP update or be modified to state aircraft arrivals from the north and northeast shall receive instructions such that they are established on the final approach course not less than five (5) miles from the runway so as to preclude overflying Tipp City. It is expected that lengthening the final approach segment to Runway 24R would ensure that overflights of Tipp City are kept to a minimum, thereby minimizing arrival noise over populated areas northeast of the Airport. A.8 Training Restrictions Placing restrictions on training operations at an airport can be an effective noise reduction measure if training operations are extremely noisy or occur during nighttime hours. Currently the number of military training operations conducted at the Airport by pilots from Wright Patterson AFB is limited (approximately 4 operations per day in 2000). Most operations conducted in the pattern are Evaluation of Noise Abatement Alternatives A-44 Noise Compatibility Program Report

117 performed by light general aviation aircraft which are quiet. Due to public comments received at the March 2001 public meetings and requests from members of the project committees, the project team conducted an evaluation to determine the desirability of imposing restrictions on training operations at the Airport (either changes to flight patterns or hours of training activity). Based on the findings of that analysis it was determined that imposing restrictions on training operations would not result in perceptible increases or decreases in aircraft noise levels. The study team does recommend, however, that military training operations be limited to Runways 6L-24R and 6R-24L to reduce low turns over Vandalia and Tipp City. A.9 Curfews, Noise Budgets, and Capacity Limitations At some airports, operational restrictions have been placed on certain types of aircraft. The restrictions typically are based on noise levels of aircraft to prevent the loudest aircraft in the fleet from operating at the airport, thereby preventing the high single-event noise levels of these aircraft from affecting airport neighbors. However, a critical component of the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 (ANCA) was the inclusion of a procedure that airport sponsors must follow to implement a restriction on aircraft operations after October 5, In addition to requiring the phase out of the louder FAR Part 36 Stage 2 aircraft from the fleets of air carriers, ANCA made the process of restricting the operation of aircraft that meet federal aircraft noise standards at a particular airport much more difficult than it had been prior to the passage of the law. FAR Part 161, Notice and Approval of Airport Noise and Access Restrictions implements the portion of ANCA that restricts airport sponsors from placing new restrictions on aircraft operations. The process of meeting the requirements of FAR Part 161 to restrict operations would prove costly and extremely difficult based upon historical evidence. As of the date of this report only one airport sponsor, Naples Municipal Airport, has successfully completed the FAR Part 161 process. Therefore implementing curfews or placing other restrictions on aircraft that operate at Dayton International Airport is not recommended for further evaluation in the Noise Compatibility Program. A.10 Ground Operations or Development Measures Ground run-up enclosures and the location of sites for conducting ground run-ups can be an effective means of reducing noise in an airport environs associated with aircraft maintenance operations and associated engine testing. The purpose of the noise barriers would be to reduce noise levels associated with jet engine backblast at the end of the runway where the departure roll is initiated. Noise barriers have proven effective at other airports in reducing noise effects associated with the beginning of the departure roll. However, the benefits for any given runway end in noise-sensitive area must be considered on a case-by-case basis. The actual benefits are affected by: The distance from the departure end of the runway to noise-sensitive land uses. Typically, the greatest benefit is realized in areas closest to the runway end. At distances further from the runway end and therefore the noise barrier, the noise that travels over the barrier will still reach the ground level. The topography of the area affected by noise from the departure roll. If the ground elevation increases traveling away from the runway end, the effects of the noise barrier are reduced. Likewise, the benefit may be increased if the ground elevation drops moving away from the runway end. Evaluation of Noise Abatement Alternatives A-45 Noise Compatibility Program Report

118 The fleet mix of aircraft operating at the airport. The locations of the engines on the aircraft can have an effect on the effectiveness of the noise barriers. For example, Boeing 737 aircraft have engines that are below the wing and therefore close to the ground. MD-11 aircraft, on the other hand have an engine on the tail of the aircraft, farther from the ground. The noise barrier would typically be more effective at reducing noise from the Boeing 737 than the MD-11 because of the location of the engines relative to the height of the noise barrier. The location and height of the noise barrier. Depending on the location and height of the noise barrier relative to the end of the runway, the barrier may be more or less effective. The height of the barrier is a function also of the location of the noise barrier relative to the runway end. The barrier must not be constructed to a height that would result in an obstruction to aircraft operations. Conversely, the higher the barrier, the more effective it may be in terms of reducing noise levels in noise-sensitive areas around the Airport. The determination of the actual benefits that could be derived from noise barriers at the ends of runways at Dayton International Airport will not be assessed within the scope of this FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study Update. However, it is recommended that a study be conducted upon the completion of the Noise Compatibility Program Update to study the issues of ground noise and runup noise further. A.11 Management Measures Certain management measures can be implemented at airports to monitor aircraft noise exposure, the effects of noise exposure, and the implementation of noise abatement measures. For instance, the collection and recording of noise complaint data in the Airport environs through a noise hotline or website is one option that has already been implemented at Dayton International Airport. Establishing a standing committee to monitor aircraft noise exposure and the implementation of noise abatement and mitigation measures is another feasible management option. As part of this FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study Update several management options were considered. In particular, the merits of a permanent aircraft noise and operations monitoring system were discussed. The monitoring of the implementation of certain types of measures requires the continual collection of data regarding the noise levels of individual aircraft operations and the trajectories (flight paths and altitude profiles) of individual aircraft operations. Such data can be collected using a permanent aircraft noise and operations monitoring system. Aircraft noise and operations monitoring systems can be used to measure: Individual aircraft noise levels The aircraft type for specific operations Runway use Flight track definition and use Aircraft altitude and speed profiles Daily and annual DNL levels at various locations around the airport Such ongoing information at Dayton International Airport would be valuable in terms of monitoring: Cumulative and individual aircraft noise levels Runway use Evaluation of Noise Abatement Alternatives A-46 Noise Compatibility Program Report

119 Noise abatement departure profile use Noise abatement flight track use Other means to promote the further adherence to noise abatement procedures and to promote reductions in aircraft noise levels that were discussed by the project team included: Enhancing pilot awareness programs regarding the locations of noise-sensitive land uses and noise abatement measures in place at the Airport Encouraging the U.S. Congress to establish new aircraft noise standards that would lead to the phase-out of the louder FAR Part 36 Stage 2 aircraft that have been modified to meet FAR Part 36 Stage 3 noise standards Encouraging the FAA to establish a schedule for phasing out FAR Part 36 Stage 2 aircraft weighing less than 75,000 pounds, which were not included in the January 1, 2000 phase-out schedule Each of these three measures was identified as having the potential to further reduce noise exposure in the Airport environs and they are therefore recommended for further evaluation. A.12 Supplemental Analysis At the request of project committee members two additional airfield development alternatives were evaluated in October In addition the project team elected to study a revised version of Alternative K. The three additional alternatives are discussed below. A.12.1 ALTERNATIVE C-2 The construction of a new 11,000 foot long runway 4,300 feet north of and parallel to existing Runway 6L-24R was evaluated in Alternative C-2. The threshold of the northeast end of the new runway (Runway 6N-24N) would be displaced by 2,800 feet to the southwest when compared to Runway 6L-24R In Alternative C-2 it was assumed that cargo operations (arrivals and departures) would be split evenly between Runway 6L-24R and Runway 6N-24N as in Alternative C. Scheduled air carrier operations and other flight operations (air taxi, general aviation, military) were assumed to maintain baseline runway assignments. All assumptions regarding the aircraft fleet mix at the Airport were unchanged from 2018 Baseline conditions. Flight tracks for the new runway were extrapolated from Runway 6L-24R. Because the third parallel runway is a long-range future project in the context of the Strategic Master Plan Update, Alternative C-2 incorporated 2018 activity levels and was compared to the 2018 Baseline Noise Exposure Map (NEM) instead of the 2005 Baseline NEM. The results of the comparison are discussed below. A Changes to Aircraft Noise Exposure Noise exposure contours comparing Alternative C-2 to 2018 Baseline conditions are shown on Exhibit A-60. The noise grid map for Alternative C-2 is depicted on Exhibit A-61. As shown on Exhibits A-60 and A-61, Alternative C-2 would significantly shift the DNL 65 and DNL 60 contours to areas north, northwest, and northeast of the Airport. Portions of Tipp City in the vicinity of Shoop Road would experience significant increases in aircraft noise exposure, as high as 5 decibels in some Evaluation of Noise Abatement Alternatives A-47 Noise Compatibility Program Report

120 places. Areas south of the Airport and west of Helke Road in Vandalia and Butler Township would experience significant decreases in aircraft noise exposure. Table A-30 provides a comparison of the numbers of people anticipated to be exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 65 and higher in 2018 with and without Alternative C-2. As shown in the table, Alternative C-2 would increase the number of people exposed to DNL 65 and higher (from 1,625 people to 1,649 people). Table A-30 Comparison of Noise Exposure with and without Alternative C Population exposed to aircraft noise 2018 Baseline (a) With Alternative C-2 (b) DNL Range Count Count Difference 75 and higher ,397 1,268 (129) 65 and higher 1,625 1, (a) See Exhibit A-60 noise exposure contours shown as solid black lines (b) See Exhibit A-60 noise exposure contours shown as blue dashed lines Source: Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., on the basis of the U.S. Census Bureau s 2000 Census. Ricondo & Associates, Inc. A Operational and Capacity Issues Construction of a new parallel runway at Dayton International Airport would provide additional airfield capacity and would allow ATCT personnel to segment air cargo aircraft from other operations (scheduled air carrier, air taxi, etc.) if desired. A Costs Costs associated with the implementation of Alternative C-2 would include: design and construction of the new runway and proposed taxiway improvements, land acquisition, and costs associated with roadway closures/relocations that would be required. The cost of implementing Alternative C-2 would also include the cost of noise mitigation, which could be substantial, and the cost of preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the runway project. A Implementation Requirements An EA or an EIS would be required prior to construction of the proposed new runway. Therefore, implementation of Alternative C-2 would be dependent on the approval of an EA or EIS by the FAA. A Preliminary Evaluation Alternative C-2 would increase the total number of people exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 60 and higher. Alternative C-2 would essentially shift noise from communities in Montgomery County to communities in Miami County and is not recommended for consideration as a noise abatement measure. Evaluation of Noise Abatement Alternatives A-48 Noise Compatibility Program Report

121 A.12.2 ALTERNATIVE C-3 The construction of a new Runway (18R-36L) 8,500 feet west of and parallel to existing Runway was evaluated in Alternative C-3. The new runway would be 9,500 feet in length and would be able to accommodate most air carrier and air cargo aircraft. This alternative is a modification of Scenario D which was evaluated in the FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program prepared in Because a new runway is a long-range future project in the context of the Strategic Master Plan Update, Alternative C-3 incorporated 2018 activity levels and was compared to the 2018 Baseline NEM instead of the 2005 Baseline NEM. As discussed in the 1994 NCP, Dayton International Airport could be operated in an (northsouth) operational flow about 85% of the time based on prevailing winds in the region. The difficulty associated with establishing a preferred north-south operational flow centers around airspace congestion south of the Airport, specifically aircraft departing from and arriving to Wright Patterson Air Force Base (AFB). An analysis of ARTS-III data indicates that conflicts between the two airports traffic flows could be substantial. The ability of Dayton ATCT personnel to develop workable air-traffic control procedures for a north-south flow is uncertain. For the noise analysis it was assumed that the airspace conflicts would be resolved prior to implementation of the runway construction/runway use alternative (i.e., Wright Patterson traffic would be diverted elsewhere or the air base would be closed). In addition to airspace conflicts, residential development south of the Airport (in particular south of existing Runway 18-36) would severely reduce the effectiveness of this measure in terms of providing noise abatement when the airport is operating in south flow. As discussed below, noise impacts to populated areas in Montgomery County would increase substantially if departures are permitted from Runway 18. Runway use assumptions used to model Alternative C-3 are summarized in Table A-31. In Alternative C-3 it was assumed that Dayton ATCT personnel would establish a preferential runway use program for the new airfield that would effectively make north-south flow the predominant flow at the Airport. It was also assumed that the airfield would be operated in a manner that maximized airfield capacity and that permitted the use of all four runways. All assumptions regarding the aircraft fleet mix at the Airport were unchanged from 2018 Baseline assumptions. Flight tracks for the new four runway airfield are depicted on Exhibits A-62 and A-63. Table A-31 Runway Use with Alternative C-3 Percent of Operations on Runway Type of Operation 6L 6R 24L 24R 18L 18R 36L 36R Arrivals 20.0% 20.0% 3.0% 3.0% 25.0% 25.0% 2.0% 2.0% Departures 5.0% 5.0% 25.0% 10.0% 15.0% 10.0% 20.0% 10.0% Source: Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc. Ricondo & Associates, Inc. A Changes to Aircraft Noise Exposure Noise exposure contours comparing Alternative C-3 to 2018 Baseline conditions are shown on Exhibit A-64. The noise grid map for Alternative C-3 is depicted on Exhibit A-65. As shown on Exhibits A-64 and A-65, Alternative C-3 would cause the DNL 65 and DNL 60 contours to shift to Evaluation of Noise Abatement Alternatives A-49 Noise Compatibility Program Report

122 areas north and south of the Airport. Areas impacted by new noise would include residential neighborhoods in Butler Township and Vandalia. Table A-32 provides a comparison of the numbers of people anticipated to be exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 65 and higher in 2018 with and without Alternative C-3. As shown in the table, Alternative C-3 would increase the number of people exposed to DNL 65 and higher (from 1,625 people to 6,544 people). Table A-32 Comparison of Noise Exposure with and without Alternative C Population exposed to aircraft noise 2018 Baseline (a) With Alternative C-3 (b) DNL Range Count Count Difference 75 and higher ,925 1, ,397 4,267 2, and higher 1,625 6,544 4,919 (a) See Exhibit A-64 noise exposure contours shown as solid black lines (b) See Exhibit A-64 noise exposure contours shown as blue dashed lines Source: Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., on the basis of the U.S. Census Bureau s 2000 Census. Ricondo & Associates, Inc. A Operational and Capacity Issues Construction of a new parallel Runway (18R-36L) at Dayton International Airport in the location shown on Exhibit A-64 could provide additional airfield capacity but would severely reduce the usefulness of Runway 6L-24R unless the intersection of the two runways was eliminated. As discussed above, implementation of a preferred north-south flow could require the closure of Wright Patterson AFB and would require implementation of new air traffic control procedures by the Dayton ATCT. A Costs Costs associated with the implementation of Alternative C-3 would include: design and construction of the new runway and proposed taxiway improvements, land acquisition, and costs associated with roadway closures/relocations that would be required. Other costs would include noise mitigation costs, which could be substantial, and the cost of preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the runway project. A Implementation Requirements An EA or an EIS would be required prior to construction of the proposed new runway. Therefore, implementation of Alternative C-3 would be dependent on the approval of an EA or EIS by the FAA. A Preliminary Evaluation Alternative C-3 would substantially increase the number of people exposed to aircraft noise levels of DNL 65 and higher and is not recommended for consideration as a noise abatement strategy. In addition it is noted that implementation of a preferred north-south flow operation at Dayton International Airport would (a) require a complete re-design of the Airport s airspace and air-traffic control procedures, (b) eliminate the usefulness of Runway 6L-24R which is the Airport s primary Evaluation of Noise Abatement Alternatives A-50 Noise Compatibility Program Report

123 runway, and (c) require the closure of Wright Patterson AFB. Wright Patterson AFB is currently a major employer in the Dayton region and a key component in the defense network of the United States. Closure of the base is not considered to be feasible. A.12.3 ALTERNATIVE K2 This alternative evaluates the effectiveness of establishing a noise abatement turn procedure for all aircraft departing from Runway 6L. Alternative K2 is a modified version of Alternative K discussed above. Generally pilots would be assigned a heading between 60 degrees and 90 degrees upon crossing the middle marker for Runway 24R and would be instructed to hold that heading until reaching the Great Miami River floodplain where they would be turned on course. The purpose of the procedure would be to prevent overflights of populated areas in Monroe Township and Tipp City. A Changes to Aircraft Noise Exposure Noise exposure contours for Alternative K2 are depicted on Exhibit A-66. A noise grid map for Alternative K2 is depicted on Exhibit A-67. As shown on Exhibits A-66 and A-67, Alternative K2 would cause the DNL 65 and DNL 60 noise contours to grow somewhat to the northeast and to shrink quite dramatically in areas north of Runway Significant increases in aircraft noise levels would be expected to occur along the extended centerline of Runway 6L-24R as far out as Tipp Canal Road. Significant decrease in aircraft noise levels would occur north of the Airport in Monroe Township as far out as Michaels Road. Table A-33 provides a comparison of the numbers of people anticipated to be exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 65 and higher in 2005 with and without Alternative K2. As shown in the table, implementation of Alternative K2 would increase the number of people exposed to aircraft noise of DNL by 150; however, 630 fewer people would be exposed to aircraft noise levels of DNL The presence of close-in residential development directly northeast of the Airport along the extended centerline of Runway 6L-24R, including the Deer Cliff subdivision, limits the effectiveness of Alternative K2. Table A-33 Comparison of Noise Exposure with and without Alternative K Population exposed to aircraft noise 2005 Baseline (a) With Alternative K2 (b) DNL Range Count Count Difference 75 and higher (2) ,296 1, and higher 1,467 1, (a) See Exhibit A-66 noise exposure contours shown as black solid lines (b) See Exhibit A-66 noise exposure contours shown as blue dashed lines Source: Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., on the basis of the U.S. Census Bureau s 2000 Census. Ricondo & Associates, Inc. A Operational and Capacity Issues Alternative K2 could reduce airfield capacity at the Airport because ATCT personnel might be required to increase in-trail separation distances between successive aircraft departures. The noise Evaluation of Noise Abatement Alternatives A-51 Noise Compatibility Program Report

124 abatement procedure would reduce ATCT flexibility by restricting the fanning of departures from Runway 6L when the airfield is operating in northeast flow. In addition, local ATCT representatives have indicated that the procedure could affect their ability to separate arrival and departure traffic in areas north of Dayton International Airport. The proposed extension to Runway 6R-24L (Alternative A) would help alleviate delays during periods of peak demand that might occur due to the implementation of Alternative K2. Existing navigational aids in the region, including the Dayton VOR-DME, could be utilized to define a consistent turning point for the proposed procedure. The installation of distance measuring equipment (DME) at the Runway 24R localizer would also allow Alternative K2 to be defined based on navigational aids and headings. If the procedure is defined using local navigational aids pilots would be capable of flying a more precise flight track and hence the benefits of the noise abatement turn procedure could be enhanced. A Costs Implementation of Alternative K2 would require the preparation of an EA by the FAA. The cost of the environmental analysis could be as high as $300,000. A Implementation Requirements The current policy of the FAA is to require an EA on most noise abatement procedures, especially those that might increase aircraft noise in some residential areas while achieving noise reductions in other areas. Alternative K2 would be implemented by the Dayton ATCT and the FAA. The procedure could be published in the form of a Tower Order that identifies the turning procedure and defines departure and turn instructions, or could be implemented through the establishment of a Standard Instrument Departure Procedure (SID). Information regarding the procedure could also be published in a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM). A Preliminary Evaluation The noise impact analysis conducted for this alternative indicates that it could reduce number of people exposed to aircraft noise levels of DNL but would increase the number of people exposed to aircraft noise levels of DNL 65 and higher. The procedure is only marginally successful in reducing cumulative noise levels in the Airport environs but could reduce single event impacts to Tipp City and Monroe Township. When combined with other noise abatement techniques including noise abatement departure profiles the procedure might result in more favorable noise impacts. Evaluation of Noise Abatement Alternatives A-52 Noise Compatibility Program Report

125 Table 1 Population Impact Analysis Comparison of Potential Noise Abatement Alternatives Range of Noise Montgomery Co. Miami Co. Religious Exposure Acres Population Household Population Household Schools Facilities Hospitals Other Alternative A DNL 75+ 1, DNL 70 to 75 1, DNL 65 to 70 4,374 1, DNL 60 to 65 7,431 3,587 1,648 1, Total DNL ,487 4,803 2,186 1, Total DNL 65+ 7,056 1, Alternative B DNL 75+ 1, DNL 70 to 75 1, DNL 65 to 70 4, DNL 60 to 65 7,196 2,537 1,117 1, Total DNL ,300 3,641 1,602 1, Total DNL 65+ 7,104 1, Alternative C (a) DNL 75+ 1, DNL 70 to 75 2, DNL 65 to 70 5, DNL 60 to 65 9,209 5,135 2,244 2, Total DNL ,402 6,361 2,797 3,415 1, Total DNL 65+ 9,193 1, Alternative D DNL 75+ 1, DNL 70 to 75 1, DNL 65 to 70 4, DNL 60 to 65 7,260 2,701 1,206 1, Total DNL ,425 3,888 1,727 1, Total DNL 65+ 7,165 1, Noise Compatibility Program Report A-53 Evaluation of Noise Abatement Alternatives

126 Range of Noise Montgomery Co. Miami Co. Religious Exposure Acres Population Household Population Household Schools Facilities Hospitals Other Alternative E (a) DNL 75+ 1, DNL 70 to 75 2, DNL 65 to 70 5,545 1, DNL 60 to 65 10,094 4,562 1,981 2,970 1, Total DNL ,110 5,900 2,566 3,801 1, Total DNL 65+ 9,016 1, Alternative F DNL 75+ 1, DNL 70 to 75 1, DNL 65 to 70 3, DNL 60 to 65 7,165 3,471 1,583 1, Total DNL ,767 4,431 2,018 1, Total DNL 65+ 6, Alternative G DNL 75+ 1, DNL 70 to 75 1, DNL 65 to 70 4, DNL 60 to 65 7,834 3,927 1,766 1, Total DNL ,696 5,020 2,250 1, Total DNL 65+ 6,862 1, Alternative H DNL 75+ 1, DNL 70 to 75 1, DNL 65 to 70 4, DNL 60 to 65 7,441 3,436 1,571 1, Total DNL ,376 4,576 2,076 1, Total DNL 65+ 6,935 1, Noise Compatibility Program Report A-54 Evaluation of Noise Abatement Alternatives

127 Range of Noise Montgomery Co. Miami Co. Religious Exposure Acres Population Household Population Household Schools Facilities Hospitals Other Alternative I DNL 75+ 1, DNL 70 to 75 1, DNL 65 to 70 4, DNL 60 to 65 7,347 3,413 1,561 1, Total DNL ,351 4,544 2,061 1, Total DNL 65+ 7,004 1, Alternative J DNL 75+ 1, DNL 70 to 75 1, DNL 65 to 70 4, DNL 60 to 65 7,357 3,411 1,560 1, Total DNL ,358 4,541 2,060 1, Total DNL 65+ 7,002 1, Alternative K DNL 75+ 1, DNL 70 to 75 1, DNL 65 to 70 4, DNL 60 to 65 6,797 3,252 1, Total DNL ,695 4,376 2,007 1, Total DNL 65+ 6,898 1, Alternative L DNL 75+ 1, DNL 70 to 75 1, DNL 65 to 70 4,337 1, DNL 60 to 65 6,599 3,342 1, Total DNL ,645 4,655 2, Total DNL 65+ 7,046 1, Noise Compatibility Program Report A-55 Evaluation of Noise Abatement Alternatives

128 Range of Noise Montgomery Co. Miami Co. Religious Exposure Acres Population Household Population Household Schools Facilities Hospitals Other Alternative M DNL 75+ 1, DNL 70 to 75 1, DNL 65 to 70 4, DNL 60 to 65 7,351 3,417 1,563 1, Total DNL ,341 4,546 2,062 1, Total DNL 65+ 6,990 1, Alternative N DNL 75+ 1, DNL 70 to 75 1, DNL 65 to 70 4, DNL 60 to 65 6,871 2,832 1,333 1, Total DNL ,925 3,723 1,682 1, Total DNL 65+ 7, Alternative O DNL 75+ 1, DNL 70 to 75 1, DNL 65 to 70 4, DNL 60 to 65 7,341 3,263 1,492 1, Total DNL ,109 4,286 1,955 1, Total DNL 65+ 6,768 1, Alternative P DNL 75+ 1, DNL 70 to 75 1, DNL 65 to 70 3,352 1, DNL 60 to 65 6,373 8,125 3, Total DNL ,436 9,969 4,408 1, Total DNL 65+ 6,063 1, Noise Compatibility Program Report A-56 Evaluation of Noise Abatement Alternatives

129 Range of Noise Montgomery Co. Miami Co. Religious Exposure Acres Population Household Population Household Schools Facilities Hospitals Other Alternative Q DNL 75+ 1, DNL 70 to 75 1, DNL 65 to 70 4, DNL 60 to 65 7,009 4,234 1,899 1, Total DNL ,534 5,211 2,341 2, Total DNL 65+ 7, Alternative R DNL 75+ 1, DNL 70 to 75 1, DNL 65 to 70 4,673 1, DNL 60 to 65 7,707 7,683 3, Total DNL ,246 10,007 4, Total DNL 65+ 7,540 2,324 1, Scenario 1 DNL 75+ 1, DNL 70 to 75 1, DNL 65 to 70 3, DNL 60 to 65 6,460 3,487 1, Total DNL ,028 4,535 2,090 1, Total DNL 65+ 6,568 1, Scenario 2 DNL 75+ 1, DNL 70 to 75 1, DNL 65 to 70 3, DNL 60 to 65 6,465 3,199 1, Total DNL ,792 3,839 1,749 1, Total DNL 65+ 6, Noise Compatibility Program Report A-57 Evaluation of Noise Abatement Alternatives

130 Range of Noise Montgomery Co. Miami Co. Religious Exposure Acres Population Household Population Household Schools Facilities Hospitals Other Scenario 3 DNL 75+ 1, DNL 70 to 75 1, DNL 65 to 70 3, DNL 60 to 65 6,429 2,601 1, Total DNL ,079 3,619 1,631 1, Total DNL 65+ 6,650 1, Scenario 4 DNL 75+ 1, DNL 70 to 75 1, DNL 65 to 70 3, DNL 60 to 65 6,445 2,406 1, Total DNL ,852 3,022 1,327 1, Total DNL 65+ 6, Scenario 5 DNL 75+ 1, DNL 70 to 75 1, DNL 65 to 70 3, DNL 60 to 65 6,637 3,333 1, Total DNL ,074 4,299 1,980 1, Total DNL 65+ 6, Scenario 6 DNL 75+ 1, DNL 70 to 75 1, DNL 65 to 70 3, DNL 60 to 65 6,504 3,011 1, Total DNL ,785 3,582 1,638 1, Total DNL 65+ 6, Noise Compatibility Program Report A-58 Evaluation of Noise Abatement Alternatives

131 Range of Noise Montgomery Co. Miami Co. Religious Exposure Acres Population Household Population Household Schools Facilities Hospitals Other Alternative C-2 DNL 75+ 1, DNL 70 to 75 2, DNL 65 to 70 5, DNL 60 to 65 8,978 5,654 2,526 2, Total DNL ,790 6,804 3,045 2, Total DNL 65+ 8,812 1, Alternative C-3 DNL 75+ 1, DNL 70 to 75 2,090 1, DNL 65 to 70 6,204 3,639 1, DNL 60 to 65 10,820 6,608 2,727 1, Total DNL ,585 12,461 5,384 2, Total DNL 65+ 9,765 5,853 2, Alternative K2 DNL 75+ 1, DNL 70 to 75 1, DNL 65 to 70 4, DNL 60 to 65 6,786 3,362 1, Total DNL ,782 4,497 2,048 1, Total DNL 65+ 6,995 1, Baseline DNL 75+ 1, DNL 70 to 75 1, DNL 65 to 70 4, DNL 60 to 65 7,239 3,418 1,563 1, Total DNL ,373 4,547 2,062 1, Total DNL 65+ 7,134 1, Noise Compatibility Program Report A-59 Evaluation of Noise Abatement Alternatives

132 Range of Noise Montgomery Co. Miami Co. Religious Exposure Acres Population Household Population Household Schools Facilities Hospitals Other 2018 Baseline DNL 75+ 1, DNL 70 to 75 1, DNL 65 to 70 4, DNL 60 to 65 8,292 5,681 2,569 1, Total DNL ,967 6,830 3,080 1, Total DNL 65+ 7,675 1, (a) Assumes 2018 activity levels. Source: Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., on the basis of year 2000 census data developed by the U.S. Census Bureau. Ricondo & Associates, Inc. Noise Compatibility Program Report A-60 Evaluation of Noise Abatement Alternatives

133 Appendix A Exhibits Final Noise Compatibility Program Dayton International Airport Click on the links below to view the Appendix A exhibits. The exhibit files are quite large and may take several minutes to download to your computer. Exhibit A-1 Exhibit A-39 Exhibit A-2 Exhibit A-40 Exhibit A-3 Exhibit A-41 Exhibit A-4 Exhibit A-42 Exhibit A-5 Exhibit A-43 Exhibit A-6 Exhibit A-44 Exhibit A-7 Exhibit A-45 Exhibit A-8 Exhibit A-46 Exhibit A-9 Exhibit A-47 Exhibit A-10 Exhibit A-48 Exhibit A-11 Exhibit A-49 Exhibit A-12 Exhibit A-50 Exhibit A-13 Exhibit A-51 Exhibit A-14 Exhibit A-52 Exhibit A-15 Exhibit A-53 Exhibit A-16 Exhibit A-54 Exhibit A-17 Exhibit A-55 Exhibit A-18 Exhibit A-56 Exhibit A-19 Exhibit A-57 Exhibit A-20 Exhibit A-58 Exhibit A-21 Exhibit A-59 Exhibit A-22 Exhibit A-60 Exhibit A-23 Exhibit A-61 Exhibit A-24 Exhibit A-62 Exhibit A-25 Exhibit A-63 Exhibit A-26 Exhibit A-64 Exhibit A-27 Exhibit A-65 Exhibit A-28 Exhibit A-66 Exhibit A-29 Exhibit A-67 Exhibit A-30 Exhibit A-31 Exhibit A-32 Exhibit A-33 Exhibit A-34 Exhibit A-35 Exhibit A-36 Exhibit A-37 Exhibit A-38

134 Appendix B Evaluation of Noise Mitigation Alternatives Noise Compatibility Program Report Appendix B

135 Appendix B Evaluation of Noise Mitigation Alternatives B.1 Introduction Following implementation of the most favorable of the noise abatement measures described in Appendix A, high levels of aircraft noise are still expected to occur over areas developed with noisesensitive land uses. Noise mitigation measures are designed to mitigate aircraft noise exposure, i.e., reduce or minimize the number of people and the existing or planned noise-sensitive land uses exposed to significant aircraft noise. This appendix describes several options for noise mitigation and provides an evaluation of their applicability to Dayton International Airport and its environs. The measures that were evaluated were (1) already considered for implementation or had been implemented in the Airport environs; (2) recommended for consideration by members of the PAC, TAC, and the CAC, or the general public; (3) recommended for or successfully implemented in the environs of other air carrier airports; or (4) mandated for review by the FAA under FAR Part 150. The mitigation measures are classified as: Remedial Measures Intended to reduce or improve the compatibility of existing incompatible land uses. Preventative Measures Intended to discourage the development of new incompatible land uses. The categories of and specific options considered for the Airport are presented in Table B-1. The measures were discussed with the project committees on October 2, 2001 and April 9, 2002 and those that were considered to have potential for providing noise mitigation relief and would be applicable within the limits of the various jurisdictions in the vicinity of the Airport are discussed in more detail in Section III. Each mitigation measure was evaluated on the basis of the following criteria: 1. Does it reduce existing incompatible land uses or the population exposed to significant aircraft noise? 2. Does it prevent or discourage development of incompatible land uses or reduce the number of people potentially exposed to significant aircraft noise? 3. Is it consistent with the policies of the City of Dayton Department of Aviation? 4. Is it consistent with the policies of the affected local jurisdictions? 5. Would it have a positive effect on the existing and planned land use patterns? 6. Can it be implemented under existing laws? 7. Is it economically, financially, and politically feasible? 8. Is it feasible for early implementation? Noise Compatibility Program Report B-1 Evaluation of Noise Mitigation Alternatives

136 Table B-1 Noise Mitigation Alternatives Considered for Dayton International Airport Category Noise mitigation options Specific measures considered in detail Remedial measures Land acquisition Acquisition of properties exposed to DNL 65 dba and higher Transaction assistance Purchase assurance program programs Acoustical treatment programs Sound insulation of properties exposed to DNL dba Avigation easements Noise impacted properties dedicate avigation easements to the City of Dayton Preventative measures Noise disclosure ordinance/fair Disclosure Ordinance Comprehensive planning Overlay Zoning Subdivision Regulations Building Codes Consideration of noise acknowledgement as part of real estate transactions Comprehensive planning to protect noise corridors, particularly if the Runway 6L and 24R noise abatement corridors are implemented Noise and height overlay zones adopted by neighboring jurisdictions Amend subdivision regulations to include special provisions for subdivisions located in noise impact zones Require sound insulation standards in building codes Source: Prepared by: Ricondo & Associates, Inc. Ricondo & Associates, Inc. To be recommended for a noise compatibility program, a measure should meet Criterion 1 or 2 above, but does not necessarily have to meet all of the other criteria. Criteria 3 through 8 provide a basis for establishing priorities when formulating a measure recommended for implementation. In the following sections, the noise mitigation measures are described in general terms and are evaluated for their applicability in the Dayton International Airport environs. B.2 Remedial Measures B.2.1 Land Acquisition Acquisition of property in fee simple ownership, which involves the full purchase of land and the improvements thereon, is the most direct means of achieving land use compatibility in an airport environs. The acquired property can be (1) used for airport purposes, (2) leased for aviation-related Noise Compatibility Program Report B-2 Evaluation of Noise Mitigation Alternatives

137 or airport-compatible uses, (3) resold with avigation easements and deed restrictions that would permit only compatible uses, (4) retained by the airport sponsor and maintained as permanent open space, or (5) used by other government agencies for a compatible public purpose, such as storage yards and some types of parks. Residential property acquisition programs can severely disrupt neighborhoods and can be very costly. Because noise exposure on residential uses other than mobile homes could be mitigated to some extent using acoustical treatment (in areas exposed to DNL 65 to 70), such acquisition programs are typically used only in locations exposed to severe aircraft noise (DNL 75 and higher), or in critical situations where other solutions are not feasible. Residential property acquisition programs should also be developed in consideration of the willingness of the affected residents to have their property acquired and be relocated. The primary advantages of fee simple acquisition are that it: Eliminates land uses that are not compatible with aircraft noise and allows the development of only compatible uses. Enables the occupants of residences exposed to severe aircraft noise to be relocated to areas not affected by aircraft noise. Allows the airport sponsor to better control development in areas exposed to the highest levels of aircraft noise. The primary disadvantages of a fee simple acquisition program involving single family housing the type of land use most often acquired for noise compatibility purposes are that such a program: Can be expensive and would require lengthy and costly relocation efforts. Often reduces the available supply of affordable housing in the airport environs. Can change the character of a neighborhood and disrupt local land use and traffic patterns. Could reduce property tax revenues by transferring land from private to public ownership. In the environs of Dayton International Airport, single family residential homes and other noise sensitive land uses exposed to significant aircraft noise (DNL 65 and higher) are generally west/southwest of the Airport (generally north of I-70) and north/northeast of the Airport. All of the single family development is in established neighborhoods. Some residents have expressed their desire to be acquired while others desire to remain in those neighborhoods and have expressed concerns that a land acquisition program could be disruptive. In light of the different needs of residents in noise impacted neighborhoods, the City of Dayton and project committees agreed that a voluntary land acquisition program would be a viable option to address aircraft noise levels in the environs of Dayton International Airport. The boundaries of current/ongoing noise-related land acquisition program(s) at Dayton International Airport were established during the 1994 Noise Compatibility Program (NCP) update. Land Use Management Measure 4 of the 1994 NCP recommended purchasing all undeveloped land within the DNL 70 dba noise contour as depicted on the 1997 NCP noise map. Land Use Management Measures 1 and 2 recommended acquiring all noise-impacted homes within the DNL 75 contours as depicted on the 1992 Baseline Map and the 1997 NCP noise map. Land Use Management Measure 3 Noise Compatibility Program Report B-3 Evaluation of Noise Mitigation Alternatives

138 recommended acquiring 10 homes north of the Menlo Worldwide sort facility. Most of the property acquisition recommended in the 1994 NCP has been completed. For the current NCP update it is recommended that the boundaries of the residential land acquisition program be modified to include all properties exposed to aircraft noise levels of DNL 65 and higher as depicted on the 2005 Noise Exposure Map (See Section I). Exhibit B-1 depicts residential properties that would be eligible to participate in the property acquisition program. Approximately 600 homes would be eligible for the property acquisition program based on year 2000 Census data obtained from U.S. Census Bureau (preliminary estimate to be verified later by the City of Dayton using parcel data obtained from the Miami and Montgomery County Tax assessors office). As stated above, participation in the property acquisition program would be voluntary under conditions of a willing buyer/willing-seller. It is expected that the program would be completed in multiple phases. Generally the program phasing priorities would be based on the following considerations (listed in order of importance): 1. Homes exposed to the highest levels of aircraft noise 2. Homes located nearest to the extended runway centerlines or under primary flight corridors 3. Homes that are exposed to DNL 70 to DNL 75 that will experience an increase in noise levels as a result of implementation of recommended noise abatement measures. 4. Homes that are exposed to DNL 65 to DNL 70 that will experience an increase in noise levels as a result of implementation of recommended noise abatement measures. Property acquired by the airport sponsor (City of Dayton) and later re-sold or leased could carry restrictions with respect to the future use of the property (i.e. no residential land uses permitted in areas exposed to DNL 70 and higher). Properties southwest of the Airport (generally abutting the Englewood Reserve) not needed by the Airport for approach protection or for aviation-related development could be redeveloped for use as parks and open space, provided appropriate management arrangements can be worked out between the Department of Aviation and the Dayton- Montgomery County Parks District. At a minimum, the City of Dayton would retain an avigation easement on all properties it acquires with noise funds if such properties are later re-sold. Additional information regarding the property acquisition program, including projected costs and phasing is provided in Sections III and IV. B.2.2 Transaction Assistance Programs Residential sales assistance assures owners of eligible residential property that their homes would be sold at least at fair market value if they decide to relocate because of noise. Such programs are most appropriate for single family homes exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 65 and higher and can be structured as follows: Owners of homes exposed to DNL 65 to 70 would be given the opportunity to participate in lieu of some other noise mitigation measure such as property acquisition. If the owner wants to relocate because of aircraft noise, the City of Dayton pays for a property appraisal and the owner places the house on the market with an approved multiple listing realtor. If the home is not sold for a predetermined fair value within a specified time period, the airport sponsor can provide incentives to make the home more attractive to potential buyers. Noise Compatibility Program Report B-4 Evaluation of Noise Mitigation Alternatives

139 Insert Exhibit B-1 Noise Compatibility Program Report B-5 Evaluation of Noise Mitigation Alternatives

140 If the home is still not sold, the airport sponsor can acquire the property and resell it at a later date. To limit the financial risk, the airport sponsor would own no more than a specified number of homes at any given time. The City of Dayton would obtain an avigation easement on the property at the time of the resale. Such a program would only be recommended for residential areas expected to remain in residential use. The advantages of a residential transaction assistance program are that it: Allows residents who are unhappy with the noise exposure in their homes to relocate to a quieter neighborhood. Assures area residents that their homes will be sold at fair market value. Protects the airport sponsor from noise-related lawsuits, if avigation easements are included in the program. Retains existing neighborhoods and protects the property tax base. The disadvantages of such a program are that it: Involves significant administrative time and cost. Requires relocation assistance if federal funds are used. The Department of Aviation and project committees agreed that such a program would not be desirable or feasible for Dayton International Airport. A transaction assistance program would be complicated to manage and would require substantial administrative time and effort. The funds that would be expended to cover the potential administrative and other costs for such a program are considered to be more useful for other noise abatement and noise mitigation efforts. B.2.3 Acoustical Treatment Programs Acoustical treatment involves incorporating materials into or redesigning and replacing existing parts of a structure in order to reduce the transmission of aircraft noise through the structure. An airport sponsor can provide complete or partial acoustical treatment of structures developed in noisesensitive uses, such as residences, schools, religious facilities, and hospitals. Acoustical treatment is usually provided in exchange for avigation easements. Available methods of acoustical treatment include (1) sealing or weather-stripping windows, doors vents, and external openings; (2) replacing hollow-core doors with solid doors; (3) installing a central ventilation or air conditioning system; (4) installing acoustically treated ceiling and wall panels; (5) installing double-glazed windows; (6) eliminating windows and reducing the size or number of other openings; and (7) insulating entryways, attics, and crawl spaces. Ventilation systems are required if windows are sealed. The sound insulation of structures in an airport environs is intended to achieve an interior noise level of DNL 45 or less in all habitable rooms or in rooms where the noise can be most disturbing, such as bedrooms. In most areas, standard home construction provides a noise level reduction (NLR) of 20 decibels. A NLR above 20 decibels typically requires that windows and doors be completely closed. Homes having standard construction that are exposed to aircraft noise of DNL 65 to 70 can probably Noise Compatibility Program Report B-6 Evaluation of Noise Mitigation Alternatives

141 provide an adequate NLR if the ventilation system allows the windows and doors to be kept closed. Homes exposed to higher aircraft noise usually require additional acoustical treatment. The same is typically true for other types of noise-sensitive facilities such as schools, religious facilities, libraries, and hospitals. The effectiveness of acoustical treatment in a given structure depends on the type of construction, age of the structure, the direction the structure faces relative to the noise source, the number and sizes of windows and doors, and other factors. The advantages of an acoustical treatment program are that it can: Improve the quality of life for the occupants and other users of the structure; Provide aesthetic improvements to the home and increase is potential for sale; and Reduce energy consumption. The disadvantages are that acoustical treatment: Does not reduce the noise levels outside the structure; Could increase property taxes by increasing the value of the structure; and Could increase utility costs if the treatment program includes installation of ventilation or an air conditioning system. The Department of Aviation has completed the acoustical treatment of 10 homes (two pilot programs). While the pilot programs resulted in noise level reductions in the insulated buildings, anecdotal evidence provided by occupants and users of the structures indicates the programs were not successful. Residential sound insulation is not recommended in the current NCP update. B.2.4 Avigation Easements Purchase of an avigation easement or providing noise mitigation such as acoustical treatment in return for an avigation easement compensates a property owner for (1) granting the airport sponsor the right for aircraft operations to be performed over the property and the associated noise, vibration, or other effects, and/or (2) accepting restrictions on more intensive use or further development of the property. Easements are permanent and enforceable through the civil courts, and the airport sponsor holds the title to the easement until the easement is sold or released. The easement is usually made a part of the deed and held in perpetuity with the property. In some states, noise-sensitive properties covered by avigation easements are considered to be compatible with airport operations. Avigation easements can be obtained through negotiated purchase, as part of another mitigation measure, or by condemnation of the property rights involved. The cost of an easement obtained through airport sponsor-initiated condemnation proceedings is often lower than a negotiated purchase, but the condemnation process often generates ill will in the community. Avigation easements do not in themselves reduce noise exposure. However, easements can provide monetary or other compensation where other remedies are not feasible. In addition, avigation easements maintain existing neighborhoods and keep private property on the tax roles. The Department of Aviation and project committees agreed that the purchase of avigation easements would be a viable option for improving land use compatibility in the environs of Dayton International Airport, particularly if the transference of avigation easements is incorporated into a preventative noise mitigation program such as an airport environs noise overlay district (described below). All Noise Compatibility Program Report B-7 Evaluation of Noise Mitigation Alternatives

142 properties acquired by the Department of Aviation for noise purposes that are later resold, for whatever reason, would incorporate an avigation easement into the property deed or title. The Department of Aviation could also acquire avigation easements for residential properties exposed to DNL (per Exhibit B-1) in those situations when the owner is not willing to sell the property outright. B.3 Preventative Measures B.3.1 Noise Disclosure Ordinance Noise disclosure allows a prospective buyer of residential property to be made aware of the aircraft noise levels expected at the particular location, and of any local requirements for acoustical treatment. Fair disclosure of this information can be required directly through an ordinance or in the subdivision regulations covering the sale or transfer of property. Developers and current homeowners may object to fair disclosure requirements on the grounds that they may depress property values. Thus, the effectiveness of fair disclosure requirements largely depends on the strength of the applicable ordinance or regulation, and on the community s willingness to enforce it. Such an ordinance in itself does not reduce noise exposure nor does it reduce the number of people exposed to aircraft noise. However, it does ensure that homebuyers are aware of the noise exposure environment and can include that knowledge in their decision-making process. Therefore, people who move into the areas with noise exposure are less likely to be negatively affected by that noise, because they were aware of the situation when they purchased their home. This type of information is especially helpful to people moving into the community who may not be aware of flight patterns at the airport. Enactment of fair disclosure ordinance(s) was recommended as part of the original (1988) FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study for Dayton International Airport. The measure was never implemented by local jurisdictions in the airport environs. Land Use Management Measure 14 in the 1994 NCP update recommended that the City of Dayton, as operator of Dayton International Airport, confer with other public airport operators in Ohio to request state legislation mandating full disclosure of potential airport impacts when property in an airport environs is for sale. To the Consultant s knowledge, state legislation requiring full disclosure of potential airport impacts to properties located in airport areas has not been adopted in Ohio. It is important that prospective homebuyers be aware of the airport noise environment prior to purchasing a home. While the majority of the real estate community may be forthcoming about providing such information to their clients, some agents might not alert homebuyers of the potential noise exposure in areas around Dayton International Airport. Primary questions that would need to be resolved prior to the successful implementation of a fair disclosure ordinance or state legislation requiring disclosure include: Would the legislation or ordinance have a negative affect on home values? Would the legislation or ordinance affect the homeowners ability to sell his or her home? What methods/approach would be used to implement the legislation or ordinance? How would the legislation/ordinance be enforced? The Department of Aviation should continue to pursue a mechanism for requiring truth in sales and acknowledgement of noise exposure as part of real estate transactions. While a mandatory disclosure Noise Compatibility Program Report B-8 Evaluation of Noise Mitigation Alternatives

143 program (enacted through a local ordinance or state legislation) may not be possible, a voluntary disclosure program could provide some means of informing potential homebuyers of the extent of aircraft noise exposure in the environs of Dayton International Airport. In addition, it is noted that a clause requiring truth in sales could be incorporated into an airport environs noise overlay district ordinance. B.3.2 Comprehensive Planning Comprehensive planning for an airport environs is a coordinated effort intended to ensure that airport operations are compatible with the needs of the airport environs and the region. Ideally, comprehensive planning results in recommendations that can permit the long-term development of the airport while protecting people in the environs from the adverse environmental effects of airport development and operations. One technique that can be used in comprehensive planning for an airport environs is urban growth management, a process whereby decisions about where and when to provide sewers, roads, and other municipal services are made so as to encourage urban growth in areas that are compatible with airport development and operations. Urban growth management is not intended to prevent growth, but instead to guide new noise sensitive developments into areas that are not negatively impacted by noise caused by airport operations. Such planning is most applicable to undeveloped or sparsely developed areas near an existing airport and can be used to protect flight corridors to and from the airport to prevent the future development of incompatible land uses. To be effective, comprehensive planning should involve all of the jurisdictions in the airport environs. The comprehensive plan(s) should be formally adopted by the affected jurisdictions so that development decisions are made in accordance with the plan(s). In addition, the plan(s) should be specific enough to serve as a practical guide to development. Comprehensive planning was included as a measure in the original FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program for the Airport. The Department of Aviation and project committees agreed that it would be important to use planning and other mechanisms (e.g., zoning) to protect agricultural areas or areas developed with airport compatible land uses (e.g., commercial and industrial facilities) in the environs of Dayton International Airport from residential encroachment. The Department of Aviation should continue working with jurisdictions in the vicinity of the Airport to develop some means of comprehensive planning as a part of this FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study Update. B.3.3 Airport Noise Overlay Zone/District A zoning overlay is a form of zoning that applies certain restrictions such as structure height allowances, type of structure constructed, and other limitations on a specific area without rezoning each parcel within the overlay zone. The allowed uses on land within an overlay zone would be those that conform to the underlying zoning as well as the overlay zoning requirements. Many jurisdictions include some form of height overlay zones to prevent structures from being built that would be obstructions or hazards to aircraft operations. Noise overlay zones can be used to limit the types of land uses allowed in noise impacted areas and to specify certain building requirements (such as acoustical treatment) without changing the underlying zoning. Noise overlay zones can also be used in combination with other noise mitigation techniques to protect airport sponsors from noiserelated lawsuits. For example, Franklin County which surrounds Port Columbus International Airport requires the dedication of avigation easements to the airport as a condition of subdivision Noise Compatibility Program Report B-9 Evaluation of Noise Mitigation Alternatives

144 approval if the proposed subdivision is located within the established AEO Airport Environs Overlay District. The airport sponsor and the municipal jurisdictions that would be responsible for implementation and enforcement of the overlay zone regulations typically determine the limits of the zoning overlay. Some jurisdictions use the DNL 65 contour that could result from the ultimate airport development, recognizing that as aviation activity increases, additional areas may be impacted by aircraft noise. Other jurisdictions use boundaries that are composites of existing and future noise exposure contours that would represent the worst case of noise exposure in the airport environs. B Airport Zoning in Ohio Chapter 4563 of the Ohio Revised Code enables publicly owned airports to establish airport zoning for airport hazard areas which include the approach, transitional, inner horizontal, and conical areas as defined in FAR Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace. When the airport hazard area surrounding the airport falls within more than one political subdivision, the Board of County Commissioners is empowered to serve as the airport zoning board. In establishing airport zoning regulations, the Ohio Division of Aviation would prepare, at the request of the airport zoning board, an approach plan for the airport. The approach plan is prepared in accordance with obstruction standards as set forth in FAR Part 77. Chapter 4563 of the Ohio Revised code essentially empowers the Board of County Commissioners to establish airport overlay zoning regulations, including noise overlay zones, within the boundaries of the FAR Part 77 surfaces around an airport. In the Dayton area, since the noise contours extend into two counties, the Board of Commissioners for Montgomery County and Miami County would make up the airport zoning board. As stated in Section of the statute, regulations established for the airport overlay district would supersede those of the affected jurisdictions within the overlay zoning boundary if it shown that the overlay requirements are superior in terms of promoting safety. B Airport Zoning and Dayton International Airport Land Use Management Measure 11 in the 1994 NCP recommended the establishment of joint airport zoning for the environs of Dayton International Airport. As discussed in the 1994 NCP, the joint airport zoning board would consist of six persons duly qualified and seated as members of the Boards of Commissioners of Miami and Montgomery Counties. The powers of the airport zoning board would include administration and enforcement of an airport overlay zone regulation. The boundary of the airport noise overlay zone recommended in the 1994 NCP, was based on the combined noise contours for the 1992 baseline conditions and the 1997 Noise Compatibility Plan. The noise overlay zone itself was broken down into four separate districts. District 1 corresponded to the runway protection zones at the airport and areas characterized by extreme noise impacts. District 2 corresponded to the DNL 75 dba contour and regulated land use in extreme noise impact zones. District 3 corresponded to the DNL 70 dba contour and regulated land use in significant noise impact areas. District 4 corresponded to the DNL 65 dba contour and regulated land use in moderate noise impact areas. Land use compatibility standards that would apply in the various districts were presented in Table 7C of the 1994 NCP report. Land Use Management Measure 11 was approved by the FAA in 1996 in a Record of Approval (ROA). Nevertheless, an airport noise overlay district has not been officially adopted by any of the jurisdictions in the environs of Dayton International Airport. Protecting compatible land use in the environs of Dayton International Airport and preventing the introduction of noise sensitive Noise Compatibility Program Report B-10 Evaluation of Noise Mitigation Alternatives

145 developments in areas exposed to high levels of aircraft noise is a primary goal of the current FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study Update. Noise overlay zoning is still considered an effective means to achieve these two important goals. While enforcement of an airport noise overlay district could put an additional administrative load on local zoning and building officials, noise overlay zoning would not involve significant costs to the general public or local governments. In addition, it is noted that airport overlay zoning has been successfully applied at other Airports in Ohio since the preparation of the 1994 NCP including Port Columbus International Airport. The Department of Aviation should continue to work with local jurisdictions and representatives from Miami County and Montgomery County to implement an airport noise overlay district for Dayton International Airport. The potential boundaries of a multi-jurisdictional compatible land use planning overlay zoning district for Dayton International Airport are depicted on Exhibit B-2. As shown on Exhibit B-2, it is recommended that the overlay district be broken into four subdistricts. The boundaries of the AE-75, AE-70, and AE-65 subdistricts were established using a composite of the noise contours for 2005 baseline conditions and the 2005 Abatement noise map (See Section I) and represent a worst case scenario within which significant noise impacts can be expected over the next several years. The AE-Bufferzone was developed by modeling the annual service volume (ASV) for the Airport s ultimate development plan which includes the construction of two runway extensions and a third parallel runway (Runway 6N-24N). The AE-Bufferzone zone represents the ultimate noise footprint for the Airport beyond the 20 year timeframe of the Part 150 Update. Land uses would not be restricted in the AE-Bufferzone; however, property owners could be informed of the potential for future airport-related noise. Another provision that could applied within the buffer zone would be the dedication of noise or avigation easements as a condition of new subdivision approval Land use compatibility standards that would apply within the subzones are described in detail in Appendix E. B.3.4 Subdivision Regulations Subdivision regulations in most communities control the platting of land by establishing site planning standards, including standards for lot layout and the design of utilities and improvements. Some jurisdictions in the U.S. have used subdivision regulations to promote compatible development in Airport environs by requiring the considerations of aircraft noise at the time public officials are conducting their review of the plat. Other jurisdictions have incorporated fair disclosure requirements into their subdivision regulations to ensure that prospective property owners go into the sales transaction with their eyes open and are informed if their property is exposed to significant levels of aircraft noise. In some communities aircraft noise levels are depicted on the final subdivision plats. In other communities notes are recorded on the plat or deed stating the property is located in an aircraft noise zone or is subject to disruptive levels of aircraft noise. Subdivision regulations can also be amended to help protect an airport from potential lawsuits. This is typically achieved by requiring the dedication of noise or avigation easements as a condition of subdivision approval. The noise or avigation easement would include a covenant waiving the property owner s right to sue the airport sponsor for disturbances caused by aircraft noise. Land Use Management Measure 12 of the 1994 NCP recommended that jurisdictions in the vicinity of Dayton International Airport amend their subdivision regulations to require the dedication of avigation easements and recording of plat notes for new subdivisions within the proposed airport noise overlay zone (described in Land Use Management Measure 11). Land Use Management Measure 12 was never adopted by jurisdictions in the environs of Dayton International Airport. Noise Compatibility Program Report B-11 Evaluation of Noise Mitigation Alternatives

146 Insert Exhibit B-2 Noise Compatibility Program Report B-12 Evaluation of Noise Mitigation Alternatives

147 In light of the considerable amount of undeveloped agricultural land in the Airport environs today and the potential for subdivision activity to occur in the future, it is noted that amending existing subdivision regulations to include special provisions for airport noise zones would be an effective method to promote airport/community land use compatibility. The Department of Aviation should continue to encourage jurisdictions in the Airport environs to amend their subdivision regulations to include provisions for the recording of plat notes and/or the dedication of avigation easements in noise impact zones. Such provisions could also be incorporated into an airport environs noise overlay district ordinance. Jurisdictions that could adopt such measures include Miami County, Montgomery County, Englewood, Tipp City, Vandalia, and Union. B.3.5 Building Codes Building codes regulate the construction of buildings and set standards for materials and construction techniques to protect the health, welfare, and safety of residents and workers. Typical building codes address structural concerns, ventilation, and heat/weather insulation and apply to new construction and major alternations to structures. Building codes can also require sound insulation requirements for residential and other noise sensitive facilities constructed in areas subject to high levels of aircraft noise. Building codes that contain sound insulation standards for airport noise zones typically are applied within the limits of the DNL 65 noise contour (as depicted on an airport s official noise exposure map) with increasingly stringent standards in the DNL 70 and DNL 75 noise contours. The revised codes describe in great detail the construction techniques and materials required to achieve satisfactory noise level reduction (NLR) in the various noise zones (i.e., DNL 65, DNL 70, and DNL 75). The primary purpose of the sound insulation standards is to achieve interior noise levels of DNL 45 or less in all noise-sensitive construction. The Department of Aviation and project committees agreed that incorporating noise insulation standards into local building codes (feasible if promulgated in an airport environs noise overlay ordinance) for noise-sensitive land uses would be a valid means of protecting the public welfare. Controlling noise involves public welfare because sleep, communication, and psychological and physiological factors are involved. Combined with zoning, noise insulation standards offer a means of achieving land use compatibility in areas exposed to high levels of aircraft noise without causing any undue disruption to existing land use or future plans. Sound insulation requirements might cost local builders more than conventional construction; however, the Department of Aviation should work with local jurisdictions to evaluate the feasibility of adopting specific sound insulation standards for land uses that aren t compatible with high levels of aircraft noise. Noise Compatibility Program Report B-13 Evaluation of Noise Mitigation Alternatives

148 Appendix C NOTICES FOR PUBLIC MEETINGS Noise Compatibility Program Report Appendix C

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159