FB82-240375
A Unit»d SUtM
^CfA SST"""1 f,,0,"t,#n EPA 550/9-82-340
ACTIONS AFFECTING LAND-USE COMPATIBILITY
AT U.S. AIRPORTS
MARCH 1982
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF NOISE ABATEMENT AND CONTROL
WASHINGTON D.C. 20460
-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
1. REPORT NO.
EPA 550/9-82-340
3. Racipierrf i Accession No.
4. Tilla arid Subtitle
Actions Affecting Land-Use Compatibility at U.S. Airports
5. Report Data
March 1982
7. Authorts)
T. Barano and J. Sehettino
8. Performing Organization Rept. No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
ORI, Inc.
1400 Spring Street
Silver Spring, MD 20910
10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.
11. Contracted or Grant(G) No.
(C)
12. Sponsoring Organization Nam® and Address
Office of Noise Abatement and Control
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
13, Type of Report & Period Covered
Letter Report - Final
14.
EPA/ONAC
IS. Supplementary Notes
16. Abstract (Limit: 200 words)
This report documents the actions taken by airports as a result of recommendations
made by Airport Noise Control and Land Use Compatibility (ANCLUC) studies funded by the
Airport and Airways Development Act of 1970 (ADAP) and as a result of FY 1980 Federal
grants authorized by the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1980.
17. Document Analysis «. Descriptors
Noise control, noise abatement, land-use compatibility, U.S. airports land-use compatibilit)
b. Identiflers/GpcrHEndad Terms
c. COSATI Field/Group
IB. Availability Statem#ru
NTIS ONLY
UNLIMITED
IS. Security Class (This Report)
UNCLASSIFIED
20. Security Class (This Page)
UNCLASSIFIED
21. No. of Pages
_20_
22. Price
(See ANSI-Z39.18)
3m Instructions an Reverse
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-773
(Formerly NTiS-35)
Department of Commerce
-------
ORI
Silver Spring, Maryland 20910
LETTER REPORT
Actions Affecting Land-Use Compatibility
at U.S. Airports
T, Baranano
J. Schettino
ORI, Inc.
1400 Spring Street
Silver Spring, Maryland 20910
MARCH 1982
I -
-------
PREFACE
This is a letter report on land-use actions and operational mea-
sures taken to promote land-use compatibility at U.S. airports. Whenever
specific airports are cited, three letter abbreviations are used. The
abbreviation and full airport names are cross-indexed at the end of the
report.
This report has been approved for general
availability. The contents of this report reflect
the views of the contractor, who is responsible for
the data presented herein. This report does not
necessarily represent the official views or policy
of EPA. This report does not constitute a standard,
specification or regulation.
PERMISSION IS GRANTED TO REPRODUCE THIS
MATERIAL WITHOUT FURTHER CLEARANCE
1 ^
-------
p
i
1
1
2
3
3
4
4
A<
A-
A'
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE .......... ......
I. INTRODUCTION
II. METHOD. .
III. FINDINGS - HISTORICAL LAND-USE ACTIONS
IV. FINDINGS - PROJECTED LAND-USE ACTIONS
V. FINDINGS - AIRPORT RELATED AND OPERATIONAL MEASURES . .
VI. BENEFITS FROM ACTIONS
VII. CONCLUSIONS
APPENDIX 1: HISTORICAL LAND-USE CHANGES to
1981 . . ¦
APPENDIX 2: PROJECTED LAND-USE CHANGES
INDEX TO AIRPORTS AND CONTACTS . . . .
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Summary of Land-Use and Operational
Changes at 40 Airports 6
2 Units Removed from Noise Bands by
Operational and Land-Use Change 8
i i i
-------
ACTIONS AFFECTING LAND-USE COMPATIBILITY
AT U.S. AIRPORTS
INTRODUCTION
As part of EPA's responsibility to coordinate the programs of
Federal agencies relating to noise research and noise control and to
9
publish from time to time reports on the status and progress of these
programs, EPA's Office of Noise Abatement and Control undertook a study
to document the progress made to achieve compatible land-use around U.S.
airports. As part of this effort, EPA decided to document the actions
taken by airports as a result of recommendations made by ANCLUC studies
funded by the Airport and Airways Development Act of 1970 (ADAP) and as a
result of FY 1980 Federal grants authorized by the Aviation Safety and
Noise Abatement Act of 1980 whose implementation was made possible by FAA
Part 150 regulations. In order to assist EPA in this project, ORI was
contracted to conduct this study.
METHOD
ORI conducted a detailed survey of fifty-five of the nation's
airports with active programs in noise control. These airports included
those with ongoing or completed ANCLUC studies and those which had received
FY 1980 noise grants. ORI collected the following information from the
airports:
1
-------
• The extent and types of land-use related actions (in-
cluding: zoning changes, land purchase, easements, build-
ing soundproofing and building code requirements, and dis-
closure requirements) implemented to date and planned for
the near future.
• The implementation costs incurred by these programs ~
both to date and expected in the future — and their means
of funding.
• The benefits of aircraft noise abatement operational changes
(flight procedures, ground tracks, or preferential runway
use) in reducing the numbers of residences exposed to noise
equal to or greater than the 65 dBA day-night sound level
coutour.
Nineteen airports replied in writing; twenty-one furnished infor-
mation by phone. Fourteen of the 24 airports designated as 'ANCLUC pilot
projects' by U.S. DOT provided information for the study. Five of the
forty airports replying by phone or writing had received FY 1980 noise
compatibility grants.
FINDINGS - HISTORICAL LAND-USE ACTIONS (OFF AIRPORT)
Twenty-two of the 40 airports studied had taken land-use actions
for noise compatibility spending a total of $251,260,000. Sixteen airports
made land purchases, ten made zoning changes, three bought easements, and
only one (LAX) did soundproofing (to both public and private structures).
Although the cost of land was high in many instances, the preferred method
of land acquisition was fee simple acquisition. The average amount spent
per unit for all land-use changes was $50,130 per acre. The average amount
spent per acre for all land-use changes was $9,207. Three airports (LAS,
MSY and CPR) purchased primarily agricultural land which contained no re-
sidential units. Zoning changes were primarily changes from residential
to industrial or commercial uses, and were often made at no cost to the
airport authority.
2
-------
The source of funding for nine airports was a combination of ADAP
funds and city, local or State funding. The latter included funding from
a state utility (MASSPORT) and a State Farm Loan Board (CPR), At six air-
ports, ADAP funds were combined with airport revenues. Three airports
were unable to identify which funds they used in combination with ADAP
funds. Two claimed to have used city funding only; one used airport funds
as its sole source of funding.
Several airports stated that they had completed their land pur-
chases. These and other airports expressed a desire to keep surrounding
impacted land undeveloped for residential uses (BED, HRL, LCH and SLC).
Eighteen airports-had implemented no land use changes. Only five of these
eighteen (BDL, BRL, ESF, JFK, HNL) had no plans for future land-use changes.
Seven indicated a desire for land-use actions but had no definite plans.
FINDINGS - PROJECTED LAND-USE ACTIONS (OFF AIRPORT)
Only six airports with no previous experience formulated definite
plans- to initiate land-use actions. Most of the airports that had already
undertaken substantial land-use actions plan future actions. Twenty-two
airports have budgeted $393,900,000 for future land-use changes.''" Twelve
plan land acquisition, six plan zoning changes and three plan soundproofing.
One airport (RN0) projects spending $2.6 million on a purchase assurance
plan. Two others (STL and LAX) will buy easements. Two of three airports
that plan to soundproof residences and schools are older, urban airports
(PIT, STL). Soundproofing and purchase of easements may be effective at
another older, urban airport, Cleveland Hopkins International, according
to the airport spokesperson. Only one airport, Las Vegas -McCarran Inter-
national, plans to construct noise barriers.
FINDINGS - AIRPORT RELATED AND OPERATIONAL MEASURES
Twenty-eight airports reported taking airport related and
operational measures for noise abatement reasons. These included two
airports which plan to construct new runways at a cost of $4 to 5 million
*At a cost of $88,460 per unit for all land-use changes.
3
-------
each. Three additional airports plan runway relocation, reconstruction or
extension to alleviate noise. Other operational measures taken were many,
ranging from preferential runways to horizontal and vertical control to cur-
fews. The most popular operational measures taken were arrival and departure
flight procedures, which were taken by sixteen airports. The use of pre-
ferential runways was required at thirteen airports. Data on types of
procedures required and airport related changes are given in Table 1.
In addition to the above changes, one airport installed a noise
monitoring system (VNY); another created a staff position for noise con-
trol (PAE). Only one airport (BED) had penalties for infractions of
its operational procedures. This airport and VNY were the only airports
to require a quiet fleet.
BENEFITS FROM ACTIONS
Data quantifying the benefits to the affected population was
scarce. Only seven airports quantified benefits due to operational
measures. These seven reported that a total of 2,781 units were removed
from the >65 Ldn band. By comparison, five airports quantifying benefits
from land-use changes claimed that 909 units were removed from the >65 Ldn
band. (See Table 2).
This study was unable to determine whether some of the 5,012
units affected by land-use changes were not included in the 909 units
reportedly removed from the >65 Ldn band. The cost to airlines of pro-
cedural changes was also not determined by this study.
CONCLUSIONS
Progress is being made at U.S. airports to promote land-use com-
patibility relating to noise. Airports have spent $251,260,000 to plan and
implement land-use changes that have affected 5,012 units. This study
has documented that 909 of these units have been removed from the >65 Ldn
noise band. The funding for land-use changes has come in part from
Federal grants to purchase.land, to soundproof, and to facilitate zoning
changes.
4
-------
The most common land-use action funded by Federal grants has been
land acquisition. Although effective, this action is expensive and not
always feasible, particularly in developed areas. Land purchased is also
subject to legal challenges (John Wayne Airport, CA) and may be underfunded
(Lake Charles, LA). Land acquisition for noise reasons may be incompatible
with environmental impact requirements (California) and" is open to suspen-
sion by political bodies. Cleveland's City Commission, for instance,
refused to approve airport land-use changes.
Operational measures taken by airports have removed 2,781 units
from the >65 Ldn noise band. These actions are also subject to challenge,
this time by the FAA for safety and other reasons. John Wayne Airport,
for instance, may not implement noise reduction power cutbacks.
Both land-use actions and operational^measures that have been
taken to date benefit only a fraction of the persons who could benefit from
noise related actions. They are, however, a 'holding action' for noise
control that airports have begun to implement in a serious manner.
5
-------
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF LAND-USE AND OPERATIONAL
CHANGES AT 40 AIRPORTS SURVEYED
Historical Land-Use Changes at 22 Airports
NUMBER OF AIRPORTS
TYPE OF CHANGE
16
10
3 '
1
Land Acquisition
Zoning Changes
Easements Purchased
Soundproofing
Projected Land-Use Changes At 22 Airports
(Includes on-site development)
NUMBER OF AIRPORTS
TYPE OF CHANGE
12
6
3
2
4
2
Land Acquisition
Zoning Changes
Soundproofing
New Runways
Other Runway Changes
Easements Purchased
Airport Related and Operational Measures
Implemented by 28 Airports
NUMBER OF AIRPORTS
TYPE OF CHANGES
6
2
4
1
3
Time of Day Restrictions
Runway Development ^
Run up Location and Airport
Hush Houses I Related
Noise barrier Construction
Type of Aircraft/Quiet J
Fleet Restrictions
-------
TABLE 1
(Continued)
NUMBER OF AIRPORTS
TYPE OF CHANGE
13
Preferential Runway Use «
16
Arrival and Departure Flight.®®
Procedures (includes { " «
ground tracks) '5. c5
9
Climb and Approach Profile °
Changes
7
-------
TABLE 2
UNITS REMOVED FROM NOISE BANDS
BY OPERATIONAL AND LAND-USE CHANGES
Units Removed from Noise Bands by Operational Changes
AIRPORT
UNITS REMOVED
FROM NOISE BAND
COMMENTS
ALB
3
From 65 to 75 Ldn band
BIS
17
15 from 65 to 75 Ldn; 2 from
>75 Ldn band
ICT
1,543
1,514 from 65 to 75 Ldn, 29 from
>75 Ldn band (3.5 residents/
unit assumed)
MRY
40
From >75 Ldn band
MSY
1,163
"1,114 from 65 to 75 Ldn, 49 from
>75 Ldn
PAH
15
From >75 Ldn Band
Units Removed by Land-Use Actions
AIRPORT
UNITS REMOVED
FROM NOISE BAND
COMMENTS
ORF
588
Rezoning
RNO
48
From 65 to 75 Ldn; by land acqui-
sition
SLC
13
From 65 to 70 Ldn; by land acqui-
sition
STL
260
From >75 Ldn; by land acquisition
8
-------
APPENDIX 1
HISTORICAL LAND-USE CHANGES TO 1981
A-l
-------
APPENDIX 1
HISTORICAL LAND-USE CHANGES TO 1981
Air-
port*
Total
Cost
$ Mil.
FY
1980
Grant
Total
• Units
' Affected
**
Type of
Action
Comments
TOTAL
251.260
5,012
$107.26 Million without LAX
LAX*
144.0
2,832
P
These may be pre-ANCLUC purchases
LAX*
27.8
Sp.E
Soundproofing, $24.2 Million
ATL*
20.0
3.5
464
Z
LUK*
13.4
249
P
RNO*
13.4
48
P
**P = Land purchase
STL*
9.9
260
P
Sp = Soundproofing
BHM
8.0
2.32
100
P,E
E = Easements purchased
PIT*
5.2
1.76
40
P
R = Runway changes
BIS*
3.3
17
P
Z = Zoning changes
ORF*
3.0
588
Z
CPR*
1.0
0
P,z
SAV
1.0
p,z
VNY
0.412
P,E
BED*
0.300
5
P
CLE
0.300
6
P
MCO
0.249
3
P.Z
ALB
0.075
3
P
COS
Unknown
z
Zoning ordinance includes sound-
proofing provision
GTF
Unknown
z
LAS
Unknown
0
p
LHC
Unknown
z
MSY*
Unknown
1.3
0
P.Z
SLC*
0
400
z
*ANCLUC Airport.
-------
APPENDIX 2
PROJECTED LAND-USE CHANGES
A-3
-------
APPENDIX 2
PROJECTED LAND-USE CHANGES
Air-
port*
Total
Cost
$ Mil.
FY
1980
Grant
Total
Units
Affected
**
Type of
Action
Comments
TOTAL
393.9
4,453
ATL*
211.0
2,000
Z
Unclear whether land purchase
is involved
MCO*
50.0
0
P
STL*
37 ;o
885
P
STL*
18.5
Sp
PIT*
7.5
67
P
PIT*
20.2
Sp
** P = Land purchase
RNO*
14.1
228
p
Sp = Soundproofing
RNO*
1.3
Sp
Z = Zoning changes
LUK*
11.0
100
P
E = Easements bought
JWY
10.0
100
P,E
R = Runway changes
BIS*
5.0
R
New Runway
MRY
"4.0
60
R
New Runway
ALB
2.0
2.0
10
P
MSY*
1.0
23
P
Relocation of residents is planned
CpR*
0.8
N/A
P
BED*
0.5
N/A
P
PAH
N/A
20
P
LHI
Z
No land purchase (no cost)
SLC*
0
900
Z
No land purchase (no cost)
TVL
z
No land purchase (no cost)
ICT
Z,R
No land purchase (no cost)
LAX*
R
Runway reconstruction,
COS*
R
-<
relocation and extension
PIT*
R
(no land purchase involved)
LAS
Unknown
60
P,Z
V
ORF*
Unknown
Some land-use changes are planned
*ANCLUC Airport.
-------
INDEX
CONTACTS FOR NOISE COMPATIBILITY
LAND-USE ACTIONS - 1981
Ai rport
Abbre-
viation
Airport Name
1 ¦ ¦ ¦ —- - —
State
Contact
Phone
ABE
Al1entown-Bethlehem-Easton
PA
Marc Roth
215-791-2252
ALB
Albany County
NY
John J. Masko, Jr.
518-482-2948
ATL
W. B. Hartsfield-Atlanta
GA
Shirley Harris
404-530-6610
BDL
Bradley International
CT
Bob Juliana
203-623-3940
BED
L. G. Hanscom Field
MA
Lynn Burckhart
617-274-6822
BHM
Birmingham Municipal
AL
Waverly Johnson
205-595-2129
BIS
Bismark Municipal
ND
R. W. Heinemeyer
701-222-6502
BRL
Burlington Municipal
IA
C. Michael Rukgaber
319-753-8126
CLE
Cleveland-Hopkins Inter.
NV
Stephen Nagy
216-265-6035
COS
Colorado Springs Minicipal
CO
John Maynard
303-578-6692
CPR
Natroma County Inter.
WY
Jim Parker
307-265-6634
ESF
Esler Reg (Alexandria)
LA
Art Fultz-Manager
318-445-4235
GTF
Great Falls International
MT
Joe Allen
406-727-3404
FUL
Fullerton Municipal
CA
Jay Jaso
714-738-6323
HNL
Honolulu International
HI
Dean S. Nakagawa
808-836-6526
HPN
Westchester County
NY
Heal/Madoian
914-946-9000
HRL
Harlingen International
TX
Eugene H. Snavely
512-423-4380
ICT
Wichita Mid-Continent
KS
Bailis F, Bell-
Airport Manager
316-942-8101
-------
INDEX (Continued)
Airport
Abbre-
viation
Airport Name
State
Contact
Phone,
JFK
JFK, LaGuardia, Newark
NY.-NJ
James P. Muldoon
212-466-7474
JWY
John Wayne Municipal
CA
W. J. Martin
714-834-6634
LAS
Las Vegas-MeCarran Inter.
NV
Barry Bateman
702-739-5211
LAX
Los Angeles International
CA
Ernie Gonzalez
213-646-7614
LCH
Lake Charles Municipal
LA
C. F, Guidry
318-477-6051
LHI
Ft. Lauderdale/Hollywood
FL
Robert Mearns
303-765-5088
LUK
Greater Cincinnati
OH
Robert A. Keefe
606-283-3166
MCO
Orlando International
FL
Norm Glass
305-826-2001
MRY
Monterey Penin
CA
John Peitrowski
408-373-3731
MSY
New Orleans Int./Moisant
LA
F. Roy Madgwick
703-998-3200
ORF
Norfolk International
VA
Kenneth R. Scott
804-857-3351
PAH
Barkley Reg. Padueah
KY
Richard Roof-
Airport Manager
502-442-0521
PAE
Paine Field-Snohomish
WA
Donald Bakken
206-353-2110
PIT
Greater Pittsburgh Inter.
PA
Suzanne Hobbinf
412-778-2500
RNO
Reno Cannon International
NV
Ray Lubomski
785-2800
ROC'
Rochester/Monroe
NY
Samuel A. Cooper
716-436-5624
SAV
Savannah Municipal
GA
E. E. Davison
912-964-0514
SLC
Salt Lake City Inter.
UT
Paul B. Gaines
801-539-2400
STL
Lambert/St. Louis
MO
*
Bernard D. Hartinan
314-521-3000
-------
INDEX (Continued)
Airport
Abbre-
viation
Airport Name
State
Contact
Phone
TVL
VNY
Lake Tahoe
Van Nuys
CA
CA
Edward Lane
Jeff Pappas
916-541-4080
213-785-8838
------- |