2008-088 - Morrisville

2008‐088 BS AMN 08‐02 Airport Overlay District 2nd revision Tab I, Version 1 Update Dates: 08/06/08 Briefing Sheet
Lead Department: Planning
Action Officer: Subject: Action Requested: Briefing: 08/12/08
Rodney Wadkins, Senior Planner/GIS
Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to separate the Airport Overlay District into two (2) subdistricts for properties that develop in the Airport Overlay District
Adopt Resolution 2008‐088 Consistency Statement and Adopt Ordinance 2008‐
088 amending Part B, Article III, Section 2 – Airport Overlay District, and Part C, Article III, Section 2 – Additional Requirements for Overlay Districts of the Zoning Ordinance
Public Hearing: 08/26/08
Action: 09/23/08
Item Schedule Schedule 1: Brief twice – vote once (six weeks) Schedule 2: Brief once – vote once (two weeks) Schedule 3: No briefing required (one week) Select One Town Board Discussion and Action: To be inserted by Town Clerk after minutes are approved by the Board. Executive Summary: Background: This item includes the proposed text amendment: 1) A revision to subdivide the current Airport Overlay District into two (2) subdistricts. Subdistrict A (east of NC 54) prohibits certain uses and requires adequate soundproofing and the Avigation Easement, whereas Subdistrict B (west of NC 54) allows all uses permitted in the underlying zoning district and requires adequate soundproofing and the Avigation Easement. Additionally, vague language from the Prohibited Uses list has been removed. The Planning Department is the applicant for this text amendment. This item also includes studies on the effects of noise on the environment because the Town Board directed the Planning Department to consider revising the Airport Overlay District to allow residential uses. A Public Comment Session is required at the Planning and Zoning Board meeting and a Public Hearing is required at the Town Council meeting per Part D, Article II, Section 6 of the Zoning Ordinance. Based on comments received and direction from the Town Council, staff has included the following attachments. Attachment 2 shows the extent of the Airport Overlay with all of the existing subdivisions surrounding the Overlay area. Note Brier Creek to the northwest of 1 of 7
2008‐088 BS AMN 08‐02 Airport Overlay District 2nd revision the airport has only a small portion of the development within the 55LDN where the City of Raleigh Airport Overlay District regulations do not apply. Attachments 3 and 4 delineate the areas in the Town of Cary, City of Durham and the City of Raleigh affected by their respective Airport Overlay District regulations. Attachment 5 is copies of the Town of Cary, City of Durham and the City of Raleigh Airport Overlay District regulations. Find below a table that compares the respective jurisdictions list of prohibited uses within the Airport Overlay District. Allowed in Airport Overlay?
Use Cary Durham Raleigh Morrisville Residential (all) No No No No School (K‐12) No No No No Day Care No No No No Church/Place of No No No Yes Worship Museum No No No No Outdoor Storage No No No Yes Hotel Yes Yes Yes Yes Flammable Liquids No No No No Correctional Facility
No No No No Office Yes Yes Yes Yes Retail Yes Yes Yes Yes Restaurant Yes Yes Yes Yes Attachments 6 and 7 map 18 days of flight arrival tracks (Runway 5) and 18 days of flight departure tracks (Runway 23) that directly impact the Town of Morrisville. Attachment 8 lists considerations regarding whether to allow residential development in the 65LDN. Attachment 9 is a report on the Noise Basics and the Effect of Aviation Noise on the Environment, which discusses annoyance, sleep interference, health effects, property values, effects on structures, etc. Also, refer to the graph on page 11, which graphs the percentage of people highly annoyed as the noise level increases. Note the percent highly annoyed increases exponentially as the noise level increases. Attachment 10 is an email from Martin Meyer, senior noise specialist with the Louis Berger Group, which states that even with a mitigation policy “there are pitfalls that they [the town] may not address in their policy, which they [the town] may be financially responsible for.” Additionally, he states that “Typically, FAA and HUD consider residences in areas where DNL is higher than 65 as an incompatible land use.” 2 of 7
2008‐088 BS AMN 08‐02 Airport Overlay District 2nd revision Consistency Statement: Attachments 11, 12, 13, and 14 are additional reports/studies on the effects of noise, noise pollution and incompatible land uses. Attachment 15 is a paper, published in the Noise Control Engineering Journal in 2005, recommending that the appropriate DNL criterion level in residential areas should be between 50 dB and 55 dB. Based on a review of current information, ordinance requirements from surrounding jurisdictions, discussions with Land Use and Transportation Planning consultant Louis Berger Group, and discussions with the Raleigh Durham Airport Authority, the Planning Department does not support revising the Airport Overlay District to allow residential uses within the 65 LDN and/or 70 LDN noise contours. This amendment revises Part B, Article III, Section 2 – Airport Overlay District, and Part C, Article III, Section 2 – Additional Requirements for Overlay Districts of the Zoning Ordinance. The text amendment was initiated at the request of the Sterling Montessori School located off Treybrooke Drive, which is located within the current Airport Overlay District, and under the current regulations the Montessori School would not be able to expand their existing facility consistent with their approved Master Plan. After discussing the issue with the RDU Noise Officer he did not oppose subdividing the current Airport Overlay District into two areas and using Chapel Hill Road (NC 54) as the dividing point. Therefore, two new subdistricts have been added: • Subdistrict A (east of NC54) is the same as the current Airport Overlay District in that it prohibits certain uses; however it only incorporates the 65 LDN and 70 LDN areas west of Chapel Hill Road (NC 54). Additionally, vague language has been removed. The recently approved soundproofing and Avigation Easement provisions will apply to all proposed buildings that fall within Subdistrict A. • Subdistrict B (west of NC54) allows all uses permitted in the underlying zoning district, but also requires the recently approved soundproofing and Avigation Easement provisions for all proposed buildings that fall within Subdistrict B. Land Use Plan (1999/2004): The proposed amendments are consistent with the following goals of the adopted Land Use Plan. Goal 2.1.3 – Limiting Noise‐
Sensitive Land Uses Within High Decibel Airport Noise Zones: Achieved by adding incompatible uses to the list of prohibited uses that were previously not included. Additionally, this goal is achieved by including soundproofing requirements for all proposed buildings within the Airport Overlay District. Transportation Plan (2002): The proposed text amendment is not applicable to 3 of 7
2008‐088 BS AMN 08‐02 Airport Overlay District 2nd revision this plan. Parks, Recreation, Greenways, and Open Space Plan (2006): The proposed text amendment is not applicable to this plan. Greenways Plan (2001): The proposed text amendment is not applicable to this plan. CORE Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Green Space Plan (2005): The proposed text amendment is not applicable to this plan. Staff Recommendation: Hazard Mitigation Plan (2004): The proposed text amendment is not applicable to this plan. The Planning Department recommends approval of the proposed text amendment since it advances objectives that are consistent with the Town’s adopted plans, and helps to minimize conflicts between the Raleigh‐Durham Airport and nearby land uses. Staff Recognition of Goals and Initiatives (G & I) adopted by the Board: Select by checking the box for all Initiatives that are met by this briefing sheet’s proposal. Area for additional comments under table. Goals Initiatives 1. Achieve a mix of land uses that is environmentally sensitive and sustains livability in a changing community 1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
Growth Management Plan Revise Land Use Plan Implementation of Town Center Plan Parks, greenways, and open space Storm Water utility and fee Environmentally friendly and energy efficient community 2. Achieve a strong and stable financial position that fully utilizes all resources in a responsible, efficient and effective manner 3. Continuously improve service delivery, information and processes 4. Ensure that transportation and other critical public infrastructure is developed and maintained to meet current and future needs 5. Achieve a town image with a strong, positive identity valued by residents, businesses, and 2.1.
2.2.
2.3.
2.4.
Create a strategic financial plan Enhancement of internal controls Funding opportunities Roadway evaluation program 3.1.
3.2.
3.3.
3.4.
4.1.
4.2.
4.3.
4.4.
4.5.
Performance measurement process Review internal processes Professional development plan Implementation plan for information technology Transportation plan Storm Water Management plan Identify critical areas of traffic congestion Capital funding strategy for infrastructure needs Evaluate in‐house vs. contract engineering services 5.1.
5.2.
5.3
Identity of the Town Public Involvement Availability of information 4 of 7
2008‐088 BS AMN 08‐02 Airport Overlay District 2nd revision visitors 6. Foster a collaborative environment to grow and 6.1.
develop new resources and opportunities 7. Provide community 7.1.
services that sustain and 7.2.
enhance the quality of life 7.3.
7.4.
Liaisons with agencies, jurisdictions, and stakeholders Safer community Evaluate existing emergency response capabilities Develop and implement a healthy community program Community usage of parks, recreation & cultural resources & facilities G & I Additional Comment: Board/Committee Review: Planning and Zoning Board
Meeting Date: 07/10/08
Minutes: Recommendation: Public Comment: 07/10/08
Action: 07/10/08
PZB ‐ July 10, 2008 – DRAFT Minutes Airport Overlay District amendment: AMN 08‐02 Michael Roberts made a motion to recommend approval of the text amendment as written and that the amendment is consistent with the Town’s adopted plans. Esther Dunnegan seconded the motion, which passed with 4 Yeas (Prichard, Dunnegan, Gretz, Roberts) and 1 Nay (Goel). History of Briefing: This section should only address past briefings, hearings, actions, etc. Date:
Discussion/Board Direction:
List Attachments: Resource Impact: time/funds/equipment Staff time required if item is approved: Low
Funding Source: Resources Utilized: None
Staff Coordination: Check the box for those required to comment on left. To comment‐click in the box and select. (2nd Briefing is used when information has significantly changed from the first briefing.) Required Staff Member 1st Briefing 2nd Briefing Town Manager Town Clerk Senior Director Business Management Budget and Analysis Manager Information Technology Director Agree Reviewed Reviewed No Comment No No Comment No Comment No Comment No Comment No Comment 5 of 7
2008‐088 BS AMN 08‐02 Airport Overlay District 2nd revision Contracting and Purchasing Manager Senior Director Development Services Planning Director Town Engineer Building Codes Administrator Economic Development Senior Director Community Services Risk Manager/Safety Officer Police Chief Fire Chief Parks & Recreation Director Public Works Director Public Information Officer Town Attorney Human Resources Manager Comment No Comment Agree Agree No Comment No Comment No Comment Agree Agree No Comment No Comment No Comment No Comment Reviewed Reviewed No Comment No Comment No Comment No Comment No Comment No Comment No Comment No Comment No Comment No Comment No Comment No Comment No Comment No Comment No Comment No Comment If disagreeing, explain: Public Information Plan: Answer the following questions and notate the level of PI Plan needed Question Select Does the item’s subject matter affect the majority of our population? No (Note: specify the target audience within the Executive Summary section above.) Would action have a direct effect, positive or negative, on community services? No Does the item propose an internal policy change? No Does the item propose an external policy change that would result in an amendment to our Yes town codes, ordinances, Land Use Plan, or Zoning Map? Does the item require an appropriation of funds equal to or over $90,000? No Will/does the item relate to a Capital Improvements Project? No Are there any ordinance or general statute requirements for public notification? Yes (Note: If so, cite the ordinance or general statute language within the Executive Summary section above.) Does the item require a Public Hearing? Yes Will there be a public forum session held on the subject to gather input? No Public Information Plan Select “Get Noticed” ‐ five or more YES answers “Legal Ease” ‐ three or four YES answers “Standard Issue” ‐ two or less YES answers 6 of 7
2008‐088 BS AMN 08‐02 Airport Overlay District 2nd revision 7 of 7
TOWN OF MORRISVILLE * PO BOX 166 * MORRISVILLE, NC 27560 RESOLUTION 2008‐088 OF THE MORRISVILLE TOWN BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PERTAINING TO THE ADOPTION OF THE PLAN CONSISTENCY REVIEW STATEMENT FOR A PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT FOR ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR OVERLAY DISTRICTS (AMN 08‐02) WHEREAS, the Town of Morrisville is proposing a zoning text amendment to amend Part B, Article III, Section 2 – Airport Overlay District, and Part C, Article III, Section 2 – Additional Requirements for Overlay Districts of the Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, effective January 1st, 2006, North Carolina General Statute 160A‐383 requires that “prior to adopting or rejecting any zoning amendment” each local governing board “ shall adopt a statement describing whether its action is consistent with an adopted comprehensive plan and explaining why the board considers the action taken to be reasonable and in the public interest”; and WHEREAS, this text amendment was considered by the Planning and Zoning Board of the Town of Morrisville and was the subject of a public comment session on July 10, 2008; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Board forwarded a recommendation of approval to the Board of Commissioners on July 10, 2008; and WHEREAS, this text amendment was duly advertised and was the subject of a public hearing by the Board of Commissioners of the Town of Morrisville on August 26, 2008 where it was duly considered and was deferred to the September 23, 2008 Town Board meeting for action: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MORRISVILLE TOWN BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS THAT The Plan Consistency Review Statement included below is adopted: Plan Consistency Review Statement for Proposed Zoning Text Amendment The Airport Overlay District text amendment is consistent with the Town of Morrisville’s adopted plans. As a result, the adoption of the proposed zoning text amendment is reasonable and in the public interest. Adopted this 23rd day of September 2008. ______________________________ Jan Faulkner, Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Diana R. Davis, Town Clerk TOWN OF MORRISVILLE * PO BOX 166 * MORRISVILLE, NC 27560 ORDINANCE 2008‐088 OF THE MORRISVILLE TOWN BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PERTAINING TO AMENDING PART B, ARTICLE III, SECTION 2 – AIRPORT OVERLAY DISTRICT, AND PART C, ARTICLE III – ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR OVERLAY DISTRICTS OF THE MORRISVILLE ZONING ORDINANCE (AMN 08‐02) WHEREAS, the Town of Morrisville is proposing a zoning text amendment to amend Part B, Article III, Section 2 – Airport Overlay District, and Part C, Article III, Section 2 – Additional Requirements for Overlay Districts of the Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, this zoning text amendment was considered and was the subject of a public comment session by the Planning and Zoning Board of the Town of Morrisville on July 10, 2008; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Board has forwarded a recommendation of approval on July 10, 2008 for this zoning text amendment to the Board of Commissioners for action; and WHEREAS, this zoning text amendment was duly advertised and was the subject of a public hearing by the Board of Commissioners of the Town of Morrisville on August 26, 2008; and WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners of the Town of Morrisville considered this zoning text amendment on August 12, 2008 and September 9, 2008 and was deferred to the September 23, 2008 Town Board meeting for action: NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED that the Board of Commissioners of the Town of Morrisville hereby amend Part B, Article III, Section 2 – Airport Overlay District, and Part C, Article III, Section 2 – Additional Requirements for Overlay Districts of the Zoning Ordinance as follows (Crossed‐out text is deleted, red, underlined, italicized text is added): Morrisville Zoning Ordinance Part B, Article III – Overlay Districts Section 2. Airport Overlay District The purpose of the Airport Overlay District is to insure the safety and welfare of the community from annoyance of aircraft noise; danger from falling aircraft, limit land uses to specific nonresidential uses; confine, to the extent possible, land affected by this overlay district to industrial, commercial, agricultural or recreational uses which are not subject to high population concentrations; ensure that such uses are located, designed, constructed and maintained in a manner compatible with activities associated with air traffic and services. The orderly development of land is necessary to achieve the goals and objectives of the town and the Airport Overlay District is designed to promote the most appropriate use of land affected by airport activities. 1
TOWN OF MORRISVILLE * PO BOX 166 * MORRISVILLE, NC 27560 As an overlay district, it supersedes the permitted uses and specific development requirements that would normally be permitted within the underlying district. The Airport Overlay District shall include at a minimum the area subject to aircraft noise levels of 65 decibels or greater, as established by the Raleigh‐Durham Airport Authority as delineated on the Town of Morrisville RDU Contours Map. The Airport Overlay District is further divided into two (2) subdistricts, which are described below: Subdistrict A shall be that area located east of Chapel Hill Road (NC54) found within the 65 Ldn of the Raleigh‐Durham Airport Authority (RDU) and shown on the Town of Morrisville RDU Contours Map. Subdistrict B shall be that area located west of Chapel Hill Road (NC54) found within the 65 Ldn of the Raleigh‐Durham Airport Authority (RDU) and shown on the Town of Morrisville RDU Contours Map. Part C, Article III – Additional Requirements for Overlay Districts Section 2. Airport Overlay District 2.1 Most Restrictive Regulations Apply: Wherever regulations of the Raleigh‐Durham Airport Authority differ from the regulations of this Ordinance, the more restrictive regulations shall apply. 2.2
Subdistricts A and Subdistrict B: 2.2.1 Subdistrict A Prohibited Uses: All land uses permitted in the underlying zoning district are allowed except the following prohibited uses: (1)
New residential construction (including mobile homes) (2)
Rooming and boarding houses (3)
Nursing and personal care facilities (4)
Hospitals (5)
Correctional institutions (6)
Petroleum refining and related industries (including aboveground storage tanks) (7)
Hotels and motels (unless soundproofing is incorporated and approved by the town per Section 2.5, below) (8)
Theatres (except where soundproofing is incorporated and approved by the town per Section 2.5, below) (9)
Amusement and commercial and private recreation services (except low intensity uses such as golf courses and stables) 2
TOWN OF MORRISVILLE * PO BOX 166 * MORRISVILLE, NC 27560 (10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
School, Public or Private (except Post secondary educational institutions where soundproofing is incorporated and approved by the Town per Section 2.5, below) Private clubs All public assembly uses that do not provide services necessary to the traveling public. Day Care Center Place of Worship (except where soundproofing is incorporated and approved by the Town per Section 2.5, below and where the Place of Worship does not incorporate a School, Public or Private, or a Day Care Center) Library (except where associated with Post secondary educational institutions and where soundproofing is incorporated and approved by the Town per Section 2.5, below) 2.2.2 Subdistrict B: All land uses permitted in the underlying zoning district are allowed, subject to compliance with Section 2.5 – Soundproofing and Section 2.6 – Aviagation Easement, below. 2.3
Lighting: All outdoor lighting shall comply with FAA regulations, and shall be shielded in such a manner that direct glare from the light source is minimized. All proposed lighting shall meet the minimum specifications of Part C, Article XV of the Zoning Ordinance. Said restrictions shall not apply to warning lights such as those installed in towers, tall buildings, and similar structures, to mark obstructions to aircraft. (Amended 2/26/07, ORD #2007‐002) 2.4
Flammable Substances: All flammable liquids, gases, or other dangerous chemicals shall be stored underground in order to reduce the hazardous consequences of an airplane crash. It is the intent of this subsection to prohibit land uses such as aboveground “tank farms,” gasoline or fuel oil distribution centers, warehousing of explosives, etc. 2.5
Soundproofing: During site plan review for development within the Airport Overlay District, Subdistrict A and Subdistrict B, a letter describing sound mitigation techniques to be employed on the building(s) shall be submitted by a qualified professional. Upon receipt staff shall forward the letter describing sound mitigation techniques to the Noise Officer with the Raleigh‐Durham Airport Authority (RDU) for review and comment. Based on any comments from RDU, revisions to the sound mitigation techniques may be necessary in order to adequately mitigate noise within the development. 2.6
Avigation Easement: Developers whose property is within the Airport Overlay District Subdistrict A and Subdistrict B, shall grant an Avigation Easement to the Raleigh‐
3
TOWN OF MORRISVILLE * PO BOX 166 * MORRISVILLE, NC 27560 Durham Airport Authority for the subject property, and each parcel subdivided off the subject property, that is mutually satisfactory to both parties. Prior to the release of the first certificate of occupancy for any building on the property, the developer shall provide a copy of the executed Avigation Easement to the Town. Adopted this 23rd day of September 2008. ATTEST: _____________________________ Diana R. Davis, Town Clerk ______________________________ Jan Faulkner, Mayor 4
Attachment 1
D
M
CO
T7
0
ON
TI
IA
AV
C1
R
AM
3R
28
10
EX
IT
20
40
I5
40
40
I5
W
B
I5
40
W
B
40
I5
BL
VD
IN
A
E
TE
RM
TR
AD
DR
RD
CH
D
1
Y
R
HU
BL
V
20
BLV D
RW
1
0C
EB
IL
L
R
P
HU
RC
CO
M
65
RO
VE
C
4
28
PW
RE
LL
G
M
RA
PS
T
IT
EX
SO
R
B
CO
M
0
60
PS
T
HR
D
65
M
GT
ON
IN
RR
CA
I4
N
AERIAL CENTER PKWY
PS
T
CO
M
CL
AR
E
CIR
I4
0
EB
T IO
NA
L
NA
AR
GU
R
DD
DR
GR AC
E PO
IN T RD
D
XI
DR
REST
WAY
O RT
AIRP
EC
E
AT
R OV
M
RA
M
WEAVE
R FO
TG
SA N
W
Y
4
28
O
IME
B
TE R
PE R
0W
T
TRAN S AIR DR
DR
5
I4
C EN
WATKINS RD
U
RD
TER
PAR
K
EVERETTE FIELDS RD
EC
AT
HG
RT
NO
MASO
N FARM
RD
A
PL E
G
AIR
IT
EX
PK
DR
0
LICHTIN BLVD
C
AR
P
LE
IP
TR
LE
Y
K
OA
I4
0
54
TA
L
B
DR
0W
B
54
DR
NC
VD
BL
RD
C
BARB EE RD
TO
M
RA
N
CARGO DR
L
RN
PW
A
IN
TU
RA
M
RM
TE
RE
3
R
28
D
EX
IT
M
DR
LN
NC
EB
40
DR
H
TO
DR
L
0
AV E
A
IN
I4
E
ID
B
PE
PARAM OUNT PKWY
OO D
ST
D
V IS
DA
L
CT
JAD EW
RE
FO
KR
E
AP
RD
P
P
O
AY
R EE
ST
M
RA
NB U RG
ELLE
B
0E
54
M
TO
DR
V IS
DA
NC
CH
L
IL
M
RA
T
ON
RS
AI
I5
40
DM
PI E
RM
TE
IT
EX
M
RA
ER
AT
SL
0 EB
NC 54
Y
60
TI ON
INNO VA
B
N
KL
LN
RY
DA
EN
LEG
KIT
C
M
CO
5
H
R OC
C
KIT
T5
PS
C
UR
CH
D
GO L
Y
D
RW
T
PS
PK W Y
I 540
MP W
IT RA
I 40 EX
MB
HE
R
EK
RE
Y
M
CO
ON
AVIATI
40
40
I5
CO
P
LN
W
1
20
I5
40
I5
E
DG
RI
PK
1
0C
EB
I5
RDU Noise Contours
PS
W
PW
B
Town of Morrisville
ON
R
Y
NE
LS
RD
SON
NEL
I4
0
MCCR IMM ON PKWY
IT
EX
28
M
RA
LH
IL
LITTLE DR
B
GA
TE
W
AY
PW
K DR
E
AP
CH
HAMLET PAR
5
COLWICK LN
CE
NT
RE
LR
BL
VD
D
COPELAN D OAKS DR
DR
HILL
W
Y
PK
W
ES
TO
N
NI
CO
TT
AV
ON
E
TE
LE
NA
PL
PL
JI
W
LE
ON
I ST
CT
RS E DR
GR EY HO
DR
CAS TALIA
CR
T
LANIG AN PL
AN ITA
WAY
NA ST
Y DR
CARY PINES DR
DR
LAK
E
DR
PORTRAIT DR
SG
E
IT
NS
VE
HA
CT
CA
R
RO
US
D
RD
EL
LN
DR
R
NA
AY
F IE
LD
M
CH
ES
TE
R
NW
FO
RE
ST
LA
C
DR
E
RP
DR
ST RO
MER
WILSON RD
BE
LA
NW CARY PKWY
M
R
HA
AK
ES
D
SU
M
ME
RL
ES
DR
LA
KE
CT
AV
E
OR IL
QUALITY
LN
LINDA DR
W
AY
LL
EY
VA
NS
GA
HO
BRIDLE CREEK DR
TH
O
RD
AL
E
DR
CT
FACTORS WALK LN
LIN K
S
GE
YE
R
NEW RAIL DR
DR
GG
L EN
ST
AR
D
MA
DR
DRAYMORE WAY
CREEK PARK DR
T
CT
VY NE
FREHOLD CT
PA
R
DO
WN
IN
OM B LN
HO NEYC
ES
L
N
WALC OTT WAY
KS K
ILL
C
PE C
CT
AL
EE
M
LOUIS STEPHENS DR
KE
N
TOWN HALL DR
BR
IG
H
T
TR
SA
AN
ND
QU
CT
IL
SO
UN
D
DR
FRONT RIDGE DR
RU TH WI
N DR
ELSH UR WAY
ELMHAVE
N WAY
LINDEN PARK LN
HAMILTON HEDGE PL
PRESIDENTS WALK LN
KOPPERS RD
HOUSE
LN
HA LEY
AV
E
AL
E
PL
CK
S ON
DR
KE T
TU C
NA N
CAYMUS CT
CIR
BR
IAR
D
VD
ELL BL
S
W DY
EVANS ESTATES DR
LN
NK
BRASS RING CT
P IN
S JA
E
BANYON TRE
N
EATO
EY
DR
OL
D
W
TO
RR
WAY
UFF
O
GE R
E RD
HOUS
HIGH
D BL
PO N
B R ID
COUNCIL GAP CT
OXCROF T
ST
ROCHELLE RD
R
DARR INGTON
R
DR
DD
LA N
JAM
E
R
RO VE DR
SILVERG
RD
D
WO O
DR
RAIN BROOK
IS L
AN
DD
DR
BA
IR
FA
GR EY
D
CT
R
FA
RM
CARRAM ORE AVE
FF
LI
FIRETREE LN
55
Y
WA
DR
Y
BE
C
KE
LA
DR
OS
K
EE
EN
GL
AB
PR
CR
WA
Y
D
OL
E
ILL
AG
E
D DR
DG
RI
ST
ON
V
D
DR
CT
OO
IR
FA
WIN
AY
WY BEL LN
PR
E
R
BOLTSTONE CT
VI
SH
W
S
LL
HI
R
RY
RY
ER
D
CA
B
EN
RT
S
S
RO
O
RP
E
ES
TD
DR
EA
CL
IA CT
TW
N
T
CT
E
EV
MI
DO
EL
GO
AL
TH
EN
LD
SU
M
MORRI SVILLE PKWY
FAIRW
OO
NO RW
QU AD
Y
RT WA
E DR
H BLV D
CT
T
LI E
JU
DR
SH
DA LLAV
T
C
OT
WAY
QU AIL HIG
EN D
CONNEM ARA DR
R
RD D
I
AR
CH
EE
FO
STAM
CC
RI
DO
SB
PA SSPO
R
CT
GG
RI
AVE
TA
N
GAZEBO DR
CAVI ST
ON
HA LP
M
CO
PS
5
T5
EDG EM ORE
L
TE
DU CK PO
ND CIR
CRESTSTONE DR
ST
MP
CO
KA
LV
ES
GLENGATE CIR
ED
ID G
CT
OTM OOR LN
N WAY
GLENDO
R
EY
CT
K
LN
D
EL
DR
R
OA
K
IN
PO
IC
PREST ON ARBO R
FI
EN
R
E
YB
KE
RD
R
CT
IL
BA
KE
TR
BENWELL CT
G
ID
T ER
PE N
CA R
DR
Streets
Morrisville ETJ
2010 RDU Runways
LDN 55 contour
LDN 60 contour
LDN 65 contour
LDN 70 contour
L RD
IL LE
ED
ID G
BR
N
TO
NG
UI
DE
CA
QUAKER DELL LN
KNOTTS VALLEY LN
E
S AV
S
CA
A
IC
RT
GG IN
ST
BA
SC O
ST
MILLET DR
DR
S DR
INE
GE P
W
AY
KUDROW LN
Y
PKW
RO S
AL E
R
CT
R ISV
MOR
KE
LA
AN
GR
Y
NC 55 HW
DEBR OC
K
ITA
HER
AN
AT
E
AG
SP
CLARE T LN
R
T
R
KE D
T LA
GR EA
RD
LOUIS STEPHENS DR
UPC HUR CH
PKW
Y
M
NO R
IL LE
R ISV
MOR
FORT JACKS ON RD
ST
LN
CAR PEN TER
IL LE
E
LAK
IN A
R OL
LOUVALE DR
CHENILLE DR
D
S
GE
ST60
COMP
M
BALLAD CREEK CT
EN
TS
CENTREGRE
EN WAY
H ST
EMIA
JER
CA
LEACROFT WAY
OO
BL
APRIL BLOOM LN
GLE N DR
TAYLOR
WRI TER S WAY
Y
ALEMAN
EN TE
R TOW
N LN
BE
AR
C
SUNSET AVE
MALVERN HILL LN
N LN
CL
EM
AVE
FAI RVIEW
PL
RD
LL LN
OLD TO
W
GREEN DR
DR
R
K
EE
AT
IO
NA
LD
R
D
EN
TT
CO
CR
STELL A
CT
DR
PA
Y
LL
RA MB LIN
G HI LL
S
IN
TE
RN
VE
EA
O RT
RD
DR
UR
ANNISTON CT
RI SV
SO U
T HP
Y
NS
E
HO
DOMINION HILL
DR
MOR
LE PKW
A
EV
ID
BRAEBRO OK
WAY
TROLLEY CAR WAY
S
ER
PI
O
N LN
IVERTO
CA RP
Legend
GREEN HOPE SCHOO
SE
YM
E
IT
0
RT
PO
VD
BL
C
P LA
K
PA R
TREYBR OOKE DR
H
W
S T6
MP
CO
AIR
SOWTER DR
ETON
HA
RD
LATTNE R CT
DR
DAVIS
S TA
TIO
N
D
LV
INDIAN WELLS RD
IRE
RD
B
VE
PE
NT
ER
F
CH
RD
RAPID FALL S
R
YD
WA
CH
UR
O
GR
CT
S
ES
CH
CA
R
HO
PE
TR IA NG
RU
N
E
ND
CT
EG
O
DE
LA
RO
OS
W
R
E
OR
XM
RE
GO
OD
HA
RD
D
G
RM
FA
LY
K
OC
N
TI
EE
KE
LA
AD
N
DE
BR
M
DR
DR
DE
ER
E
DR
MI
FA
ND
O
DOMINION DR
CT
IE
W
S CE
LL
R ON
ER
V
CR E
CC
AI
RT
EC
H
TO
W
CT
ES
T
M
WA
LD
Y
W
JO
HN
PA RKSID
E VA LL
EY DR
IL
VA
SH
AK
ES P
EA
R
PK
ILL RD
RD
LN
COR
MILL
IS M
R
HA RR
RD
SP EN
D
ON
T55
RD
LK
M
GRATIOT DR
NA
W
A
M
RI
CT
AY
BY
R CT
KU RTNE
WA LK
M
RU
COM
PS
WAT TS
M
GE
GEOR
RO PE
T
WILL INGH AM
HC
EI G
AL
BRADS ON RD
D
OL
R
CA
RD
BERLIN WAY
M
AD
IS
O
N
AV
E
OSCAR LN
CH IP CIR
MID DL
ETO N
AV
E
September 2006
TU SCA N LAK E
OA KS AT HA RRIN GTON GRO VE
LEESV ILLE D OWNS
PA RK AT HA RRIN GTO N GRO VE
KIN G LA R
CO
FIN LA ND
LIN WOO D C BARLO W J R
GRO VES EDG E
HEAVENR IDG E
SEDG EFIELD
M
CO
LEESV ILLE FO REST
65
65
PS
T
PEMB ERTON
DRAY MO RE M AN OR
CO
M
WY NG ATE
Y
C1
RW
OA K WIN DS
20
10
T6
0
Y
M
CO
PS
T6
0
W
1R
0C
5
T5
CO
M
1
20
M
CO
Y
P
EBEN EZER PAR K
ALBRIG HT
UM STEAD V ILLA GE
TH E H AYWO OD
WES TERLY
WILLO W PO ND MIN OR
BRECKEN RIDG E III
BRECKEN RIDG E II
WES TAVIA
UM STEAD CR OS SIN G
ALAN DA
LA ND FALL
CLI FF S AT G ROV E B ARTON
CAN AD ERO
UM STEAD G LEN
PLEAS AN T GR OV E
WES TBORO UG H
TO WNES AT EVERETT CRO SS ING
LO ND ON DERRY TOWN HO MES
T6
5
DELTA RID GE TO WNH OM ES
PS
DELTA RID GE TO WNH OM ES
CO
M
GLEN FO REST
BROO K FO REST
EN CLAVE AT IN MA N PARK
TH E G ABLES AT TO WN HA LL
RIDG EFIELD FAR MS
CHESS IN GTON
VILLAG E AT TO WN HA LL CO MM ON S
RICHLA ND ES TATES
WES TPORT AT TWIN LAK ES
GREEN WOO DS
TO WN HA LL TERR ACES
VILLAG E S QU ARE AT A MBERLY
CAS CAD E AT TWIN LAK ES
BLA CK STON E AT AM BERLY
0
CAM ERON P ON D PH 2
CAM ERON P ON D PH 1
CAM ERON P ON D PH 2
CO
CARY PARK
M
0
T6
PS
DO WN IN G GLEN
MA GN OLIA ESTATES
CLYD E BA RRIN GTO N
BLO O MS BURY AT CARY PAR K
OLDE CAR PENTER TO WNH OM ES
HILLIARD
HERITA GE PIN ES
RIDG EMO NT
CARP ENTER PA RK P H3
SAVA NN AH
CARP ENTER PA RK
WES TO N ESTATES
GRO VES AT MO RRIS VILLE
PRESTO N VILLAG E
WES TO N PLA CE TOWN HO MES
HU NTING TON WO OD S
FAIRWOO DS
PRESTO N MEA DO WVIEW
COMPST55
HU NTING TON WO OD S
PRESTO N PLA NTATIO N
PRESTO N LINK S
SILV ERLAK E
CRAB TR EE CRO SSI NG S
PENIN SU LA AT P RESTON
PRESTO N TR AILS
WES TO N TOWNH OM ES
KELTON II
PRESTO N GRA ND E
LIN WOO D
FIS HERS CREEK
SILV ER O AK S
GA LLU P
SILV ERCREEK
HA ZELWO OD
CLYD E EVAN S
CARLTO N SQ UA RE
TALL TREE
MEREDITH WO OD S
WES TCHESTER
SAN S FA MILLE
HO MESTEA D
GO VERN OR'S R OW
POI NTE V IEW TO WNES
CAM BRID GE
HA RDEN P LA CE
CAN TERB URY
TALTO N PLA CE
VERD E PARK
MEREDITH TRA IL
ROYA L OA KS
MEREDITH WO OD S
WAD E
HEARTHS TON E FA RMS
MEDF IELD ES TATES
TRI NITY CIRCLE
RIDG E PA RK
MID DLETO N P LA CE
COLEY PARK
BOS TI AN
RIDG EWAY
SPR ING VALLEY
RAM BLEWO OD
BELLEVU E TERRA CE
DREWRY HILLS
D L JO RDA N
CARO LINA CO UN TRY CLU B
CAM BRID GE
BUD LEIG H
SUN SET HILLS
PRESERVATIO N HO MES
GREEN ACRES
RICHA RD & CARO L J RO HD E
AN DERSO N H EIG H TS
FIN CHER
WO OD RO W PAR K
GLENA NN EV E P LACE
MA LO NEY
COU NTRY CLUB VILLA S
OLIVIA S RO OT
WAYLAN D H EIG HTS
TH E O BERLIN
WIN DEM ERE
SUN SET HILLS
RALIN A
ROCK C LIF F
LA KE BOO NE PLA CE
WO OD GR EEN
HIG HLAN D G ARD ENS
BOLTO N
RAM BLEWO OD
MILLSTREA M
COLEY LA KES
CHA LFAN T
CHA SE COU RT
CHA RLES TON RID G E
RIDG E PA RK
AN DREWS
COLEY FO REST
KENLY C OU RT
DA IRY LAN D
KIS TLER COU RT
DO GWOO D ESTATES
RAM BLESTON E
WILLIA MS BOR OU GH S QU ARE
LA SS ITER M ILL
NIN E NO RTH
LA KES TO NE PLA CE
MA RLOWE C OU RT
OA K VA LLEY
HA MP TO N HILL
DU BLIN WO OD S
WILLIA MS BOR OU GH
LYO N PARK
GLEN EDEN
STA RV IEW
COU NTRY CLUB HILL
BLEN HEIM P LACE
FERRELL
MEREDITH TOWN ES
EV ERTT TRA CT
ILD A RAY HA RRISO N
TAZWELL PLA CE
VILLAG E G LEN N
EN CLAVE AT BEN TLEY RID GE
BEN TLEY RI DG E TOWNH OM ES
CRAB TR EE TR US T
ED EN CRO FT
HA MLIN
STRATFO RD COU RT
UPP ER BUN COM BE
BEC KA NA
TO WNEDG E P LACE
HA RRISO N PLA CE
SPR ING BRO OK
CARY PIN ES
BRIER S TREAM R UN
CAM LEY H ILLS
GLEN LAK E PH 2
ED GEM ON T
LA KES TO NE
MA RKWO OD
GLEN LAK E SO UTH
ED WA RD MILL TOWN HO MES
ILD A RAY HA RRISO N
SILV ERCLIFF
EVA NS ESTATES
WES TRIDG E
LA KEM ON T
MEAD OW HILL P LACE
CRAB TR EE WO OD S
GLENLAK E G AR DENS
CARR IAG E H ILLS
OLDE RALEIG H
ARD EN FO REST
BRIDG ETO N PAR K
WIN DC HA SE AT BEECH TREE
SILV ERRID GE
SILV ERCREST
HU NTING TON PA RK TO WNH OM ES
WELD ON RID GE
TREN TON P OIN TE
WO OD R IDG E
WES TO N PO IN TE
WIN DB ROO KE
TH E LA KES AT UM STEAD
BARB ARA HA AS
BEECH TREE
LA KELAN D WOO DS
TRI NITY FAR MS
WO OD LAN D A CRES
WES TO N M AN OR
WES TO N OA K S
COTTON P LACE
WES TO VER PAR K TO WNH OM ES
PRESTO N VIS TA S
HIG HCRO FT
BEX LEY AT WESTON
AD DIS ON PA RK
PA RK G ROV E AT HU N TIN GTO N
GA BEL FARM S
WES SEX
COTTON P LACE
MA DIS ON P LACE
LA KERID GE TO WNH OM ES
NO RTH H ILLS
WO OD BU RY ES TATES
FARRIO R HILLS
AVALLO N
RLA
OLDE RALEIG H TO WNH OM ES
NO RTH WOO D A CRES
GLEN LAU REL
LEIG H HA MM ON D
LA UR EL WO OD S TO WNH OM ES
ED GA R D BAK ER
NO RTH GLEN
LA UR EL H ILLS
RICHLA ND TOWN ES
STON ERIDG E
TREN TON P LA CE
CHU RCH S TR EET TO WN ES
DO WN IN G V ILLAG E
GRA CE PA RK
CARP ENTER V ILLAG E
OLDE CAR PENTER
H C S EARS J R
SEAL H AR BOR & EA ST HA MP TO N AT TWIN LA KES
MO RRIS WEST
PS
CARY PARK
CO
M
CAM DEN PA RK TO WNH OM ES
LEG ACY AT CA RPEN TER VILLA GE
T6
TRO Y M HO WA RD
STROLE PRO PERTY
55
CAM DEN TOWN HO MES AT CARY PA RK
ARLIN GTON PA RK AT A MB ER LY
KENT HU ND RED
PST
WES TPORT AT TWIN LAK ES
WEX FO RD
CARO LINA PR ES ERV E AT AM BERLY
LA UR EL H ILLS
ASH LEY PA RK
BRIAR CLIFF
STRATTO N PARK
BIRCH WO O D HILLS
CO M
WEY CRO FT
CHESTN UT HILLS
FRENC H DRIV E
INM AN PA RK
CRAB TR EE FO REST
MCCR IMM ON AT THE PARK
SCA RSD ALE
MO NTCLAIR
YO RKS HIRE DO WNS
CARB ON H ILLS
MA NO R AT BRECK ENRID GE
MCCR IMM ON AT THE PARK
CED A R H ILL ESTATES
TEM PLE S TREET
BRIARWO OD N ORTH
COO PER RIDG E TOWN HO MES
STON EWATER TO WNH OM ES
LA UR EL B ROO K
COLO NY WOO DS
CRESTVI EW
TH E TOWN ES AT CR ABTREE
ROCK WOO D ACRES
ED EN FO REST
SPR ING G ARD EN TO WNH OM ES
RIDG ELO CH TOWN HO MES
RIDG ELO CH
COU NTRY WO OD S ESTATES
GA BLES AT TOWN H ALL CO MM ON S
NO RTH CLIFT V ILLAG E
LA UR A CA NN AD Y
TU SCA N H ILLS
BROO KS IDE VILLAG E
TERRA CE AT BR EC KENR IDG E
ASH EBRO OK
NO RTH CLIFT
NO RTH CLIFT
LO NG WOO D
COU NTRY LI FE ES TATES
RALEY PRO PERTY
OA K PA RK
NO RTH TRA IL
LA MB SH IRE D OWN S
SIR WALTER H ILLS
AM MO ND ALE
TH E O VERLO OK
SOU TH SIX FO RKS
ARLIN GTON H ILLS
TU RN BER RY
NO RTH H AV EN
OLD PR OV INCE TO WNH OM ES
HEARTHR IDG E
LA KEPA RK
BRAN DERM ILL
KIN GS M ILL
OA K PA RK WEST
D C M AR SH BURN
BARB EE ROA D
BEN N ETT P LACE
OA K PA RK
TH E H AM PTON S AT UM STEAD
SAN D LER AT A MBERLY
SOU THBR IDG E
DEBLY N PARK
RAY LA ND
EA GLE PO INT
BEN T CR EEK
LYN ND ALE ES TATES
FIELDS TR EA M FA RM
HEDG EMO OR
WO MB LE
HA MS TEA D CRO SS ING
HA MLET IN THE PARK
HO RTO NS CREEK
WELD ON RID GE
DELTA RID GE
DELTA RID GE TO WNH OM ES
VERZINO
BRECKEN RIDG E
SOU THBR IDG E
WIN DB ER RY
BROO KH AVEN
MA SO TA
CO
M
T5 5
PS
CO
M
SHI LO H GR OV E
TEN NY SO N PLA CE
HID DEN VALLEY
ASH LEY R IDG E
VA LLEY ESTATES
BROO KH AVEN WEST
GLENWO OD F ORES T
PRO VID ENCE PLAC E
JEFF RIES GRO V E
PLEAS AN T HILLS
SUM M ERWO OD TOWN HO MES
SEND ERO
JESS E W M AR COM
E E CA RTER
VA N TH O MA S
SIX F ORK S HILLS
VILLAG E O N TH E G REEN
MA GN OLIA RIDG E
LEA D MIN E LA KE
WILLO W RID GE
WO OD HA IZE
GLOU CESTER TO WNH OM ES
ALEXA ND RIA SQ UA RE
WILLO W RU N SO UTH
OLD ENG LISH D OWN S
MO UN TAIN BRO OK
J J LYN N
TAM AR ACK
PON D ERO SA
MID LA ND TO WNH OM ES AT CR OWN
SIX F ORK S NO RTH
GREY STON E PAR K
HID DEN VALLEY
LEESV ILLE TOWN ES
BILBRO
AZTEC PA RK
VA LLEY LAK E AT GR EY STO NE
NA NN IE H UN TER
CROWN O AK S
SOU THERN WIN DS TOWN HO MES
NEWTO N PAR ISH TOWN HO MES
WED GES AT GR EY STO NE
NO RTH VALLEY
LYN NBR OO K
HO LLA ND PA RK
CRAB TR EE PIN ES
LO ST VA LLEY
KITTS CREEK
LA KE LYN N TOWN ES
MIN E VALLEY
CHA DLEIGH P OI NTE
NO RTH PA RK
BROO KD ALE
LYN ND ALE TO WN HO M ES
SUM M ER FIELD NO RTH
CROWN O AK S TO WNH OM ES
CLA N DO N FO REST
WES TWO OD
COM STOC K LA ND IN G
YESTER OA KS
STON E Q UA RTER AT G REY STON E
BEM BRID GE
VILLAG E G ROV E
WY CO MBE MA NO R TO WN H OM ES
CHA DWICK TO WN HO M ES
BAK ERS LAN DIN G GREY STON E
BLU FF RID GE AT G REYS TON E
SUM M ERWIN DS
BAILEYC ROF T
DA RTM OO R
WIN DS OR WO OD S
VESTAV IA WO OD S
STON EHAVEN
BRITTA NY WOO DS TOWN HO MES
LAY TO N G LEN
A W K ELLY HEIRS
OLD STO NE C ROS SIN G
PA RK LYN WO OD S
STON EHENG E TOWN HO MES
BARR ING TO N WOO DS
MA DIS ON PA RK PH 1
CARR IAG ES AT ALLY NS LA ND ING
SAN D Y LA ND V ILLA GE
COLD S PRIN GS ES TATES
SIX F ORK S HILLS
J W BELCH
PICK WICK VILLA GE
MBCB
EM ERALD CH AS E
WIN DS OR RID GE
HA MP TO N OA KS
LYN N PO INTE
LA KE A NN E
WETH ER BURN WO OD S
CARR IAG E BLUF FS
BRITTA NY ESTATES
PIN EC REST TOWN HO MES
PATS BRA NC H
CROS SWIN DS
STON EHENG E
WES TLA KE VILLAG E
BRITTA NY WOO DS
WILD ERS RID GE
GLENWO OD S TATION
BEN T TREE S OU TH
BOU RNEM OU TH HEIG HTS
RICHM ON D H ILL
STON EHENG E O N THE PA RK
WES TLA KE VILLAG E II
NO RTH F ORES T
EM ERALD P OIN T
STON EHENG E
GLEN BARTON
NO RTH WES T WOO DS
UM STEAD RI DG E
TRA EMO OR V ILLA GE
MU RRAY HILL AT CRO SS WIND S
WES TLA KE RESERVE
TAN GLEWILD
REED HA M OA KS III
WETH ER BURN
WO OD S OF WES TLA KE
WES TLA KE PO INT
DU RSTON
CARR ING TO N RID GE TO WNH OM ES
WEN TWO RTH PARK
TRA EMO OR M AN OR
COLIN WO O DS
EVA NS M ILL
WES TLA KE COM M ON S
KIN GS LA ND
WAYN E TIMB ER LA KE LOTS
AN DREW J R EM ALEY
LO NG LA KE
TO WNES AT UM STEAD
WILD WOO D ESTATES
SAN D Y C HA SE
PIN EC REST
CROS S GATE
WY ND HA M
STON EY M AN OR
STEEP LECHA SE
NO RMA N ESTATES
CLA RID GE
COU NTRY RIDG E ES TATES
GLEN VA LLEY
SPR ING STON E
ROBERT D K ING
BAYLEAF F ORES T
HERITA GE PO INT
BRAN DO N STATIO N
TWO CO URTS
TH E CO VE AT LO NG LA KE
LO NG LA KE COU RTS
1
20
TH E V IEWS
CORN ERSTO NE TERRA CE
PS
W
1R
0C
CORN ERSTO NE PA RK
TH E M EAD OWS AT LON G LA K E
PS
T
CO
M
PS
ST
65
CO
M
WILD WOO D VA LLEY
VILLAG E AT PIN ECREST
FOR ES T TRA IL ESTATES
1830 A SS OCIATES
CAM BRID GE
GRAY SO N
LEESV ILLE RO AD
SPR ING DA LE WOO DS
BELM ON T RID GE
SUTTO N ES TATES
WILD WOO D GREEN
SPR ING DA LE ESTATES
EA STWIN DS AT PIN ECREST
FERNWO OD
SAN D HU RST
SHA N NO N WO OD S
HERITA GE PO INT ES TATES
JENN IES WAY
CHELSEA
BRIDG EPO INT SO UTH
WILD WOO D RID GE
BRIDG EWATER
TH E S AN CTUA RY
JOS EPH E JA COBS J R
GLENWO OD CRO SS IN G TO WNH OM ES
HENLEY
JAS PER BU RTO N
HENRY N M ARTIN
BREELA ND PA RK
HEAD LAW
PA RK AT WES TGATE
70
WY ND FIELD
PA NO NI A
STILLWATER LA ND ING
WY ND CRO FT
MY RON H AR RIS
SPR ING DA LE GA RD EM S
VILLAG E AT WES TGATE
WES TCHA SE
RON DEA U WO OD S
WY ND FIELD III
SHA N NO N WO OD S
GLEN VA LLEY P H2
ROU ND TREE
WY NB ROO KE
WO OD S OF TIF FAN Y
STILLWATER LA ND ING P HA SE 3
WILLO W WIND S
DU NH ILL
WES TWIN D
BRIDG EPO INT NO RTH
DEERV IEW F ORES T
TH E PA RK AT MA CON R IDG E
CARLS WOO D FARM
ASH WORTH ESTATES
BALI
BAILEY GRO VE
TO RRY HILL
WY NB ROO KE PH 3
CAM DEN PA RK
TERRA ZO
JAM ES BA ILEY
MA CON S PATH
MAY NA RD PU RYEAR
HA RRING TON P OIN TE
LEN NO X AT B RIER C REEK TO WN HO M ES
WATERF ORD ES TATES
ATH ERTON
COBB LE CREEK
WY NF IELD A DD ITION
BAYTREE
PA LOM INO G AI TS
PST
BRIER C REEK COU NTRY CLUB
TIM BERLIN E NO RTH
JOE S JO NES
STON EBRIDG E
CED A R VALLEY
HAWKS N EST
R D S EVERE
FARM RID GE
DO MIN ION PA RK
TRO TTER S RIDG E
STON E CREEK
KIN G LA R
WO OD LAWN
ALEXA ND ER P LACE TO WNH OM ES
NO RTH FA LLS
HY DE PA RK
M
ROS E H ALL
MO UN T VERN ON
BAYF IELD P HA SE ON E
CREED M OO R CR ES T
WO OD VA LLEY
CHA RLES TON H OM ES AT A LEX AN DER PLA CE
HA MILTO N HEIG HTS
MA RK J COS TIN
OLDE CREEDM OO R
WO OD VALLEY
HICK ORY GR OV E
LEESV ILLE FO REST
MA RTIN DA LE
STON EGATE
BYRU M WOO DS
STON EMO OR PH 2
COA CHM AN S TRAIL
CHA ND LER P OIN TE
STON EMO OR
BARS AN LAW ACR ES
WED GEF IELD
ALPIN E F ORES T
PA RK RID GE
FOX RUN
DO WN S AT HA RRIN GTON G RO VE
GLEN AT H AR RING TON G ROV E
T5
5
PS
NO RWO OD ES TATES
BRAS SF IELD
SHA D Y G RO VE
COM MO NS AT H ARRI NG TO N GR OV E
LEESV ILLE RID GE
LAY TO N ACR ES
GEOR GES GR AN T
REG IS TRY AT BAI LEY FA RM PH 1
CHRIS S PI LM AN
CARM ELL FO REST
NO RWO OD TRA CT
NO RWO OD K NO LLS
SILV ERTO N
W J DU NH AM
DO WN IN G PLAC E
CHATSWO RTH P H2
CHATSWO RTH P H1
NO RWO OD C RES T
SHELTO N BA REF OO T
STON EMO OR PH 3
BARTON S CREEK BLUF FS P H8
VA LE AT HA RRIN GTON G RO VE
LEESV ILLE H OLLOW
TELLURI DE
BARTON S CREEK BLUF FS P H7
ARBO R AT H AR RING TO N G ROV E
BLU FF S AT HA RRIN GTON G RO VE
CREST M IS T MA NO R
HAWTHO RNE
BARTON S CREEK BLUF FS
WO OD S AT HA RRIN GTON G RO VE
PERRY
FARM WOO D A CRES
PS
2010 RDU Runways
LDN 55 contour
LDN 60 contour
LDN 65 contour
LDN 70 contour
Morrisville ETJ
Existing Subdivision
LA UR DA NE ES TATES
ES TATES OF H ARRI NG TO N GR OV E
JAM ES & AN N SH O AF
REG IS TER AT BAILEY FAR M PH 2
BAYLEAF TRA IL
NO RWO OD O AK S
BED FO RD
LIN VILLE PH2
ED INB URG PA RK
T5
5
RDU Noise Contours
TWO M INO R
BARTON S CREEK BLUF FS
FOR ES T AT VIC TO RY C HU RCH
Attachment 2
MO ORLA ND S
SHELD ON P OIN T
LIN VILLE PH1
BLA CK H ORS E RU N
CHESTN UT OA KS
Legend
SAD D LERID GE
HU NTER H ILL
BOU LDER LA KE
BOU LDER CREEK
BON CEK
FLY TH E H ILLS
FORTY ACRES
WAK E H ILLS
OX FO RD PARK
RIDG ECREST
WH ITE O AK F ORES T
BLO O MS BURY
HAYES BA RTO N
OX FO RD PARK
WH ITA KER PARK
VILLA PA RK
OX FO RD PARK
VA NG UA RD PAR K
HI MO UN T
GEOR GETOWN
September 2006
Du
r
m
ha
Wa
Co
ke
Attachment 3
ty
un
u
Co
nty
§
¦
¨
540
70
£
¤
§
¦
¨
540
County Line
§
¦
¨
40
Proposed Runway
¯
Airport Overlay Districts
0
1,500
1" = 3000'
3,000
Airport Overlay Districts with
Composite Noise Contours
Raleigh-Durham International Airport
Map Document: (Y:\DATA\OverLay_Dstrct\Overlay_map_with_65_DNL_042908.mxd)
5/8/2008 -- 2:04:31 PM
6,000
Composite Noise Contours
55 DNL
60 DNL
65 DNL
70 DNL
Raleigh
Cary
Durham
Morrisville
Wake County Parcels
within Morrisville ETJ
r
Du
ha
m
Wa
Co
ke
Attachment 4
ty
un
u
Co
nt y
540
§
¦
¨
70
£
¤
§
¦
¨
540
County Line
40
§
¦
¨
¯
0
1,500
1" = 3000'
3,000
Airport Overlay Districts with
Composite Noise Contours
Raleigh-Durham International Airport
Map Document: (Y:\DATA\OverLay_Dstrct\Overlay_map_with_65_DNL_042908.mxd)
5/14/2008 -- 2:32:36 PM
Composite Noise Contours
55 DNL
60 DNL
6,000
65 DNL
70 DNL
Extended Runway Center Lines
Existing
Future
Proposed Runway
Airport Overlay Districts
Raleigh
Cary
Durham
Morrisville
Wake County Parcels
within Morrisville ETJ
Attachment 5
Town of Cary, NC
4.4.5 Airport Overlay
A)
Purpose and Intent
The Airport Overlay is established to accomplish the following purposes:
(1)
To limit allowable land uses in the immediate vicinity of Raleigh-Durham
International Airport to non-residential uses, such as industrial, agricultural,
commercial, or conservation uses, which are not subject to high population
concentrations, and to keep residential and institutional uses from developing in
those areas that are subject to the highest levels of aircraft noise;
(2)
To ensure that such uses are located, designed, constructed, and maintained in a
manner that does not impair the safe operation of the airport;
(3)
To ensure that such uses contribute to the attractiveness of the roadside, which will
in turn contribute to and enhance trade, tourism, capital investment, property values,
and the general welfare; and
(4)
To ensure that such uses are in compliance with the Raleigh-Durham International
Airport Height Zoning Ordinance and other supplemental regulations.
(B)
Location and Applicability; Compliance Required
The Airport Overlay is an overlay district that applies over lands in the vicinity of the
Raleigh-Durham International Airport. The boundaries of the Airport Overlay shall be
shown on the Official Zoning Map.
(C)
Process for Reviewing Developments; Approval by the Raleigh-Durham Airport
Authority
(1)
Raleigh-Durham Airport Authority Approval
The authority shall be involved with the review of site and/or subdivision plans and
building permits for structures over 50 feet as measured to the highest part of the
structure. The following requirements are to ensure compliance with the authority’s
ordinances.
(2)
(D)
(a)
No development plansite and/or subdivision plan for property located within
the Overlay may be approved unless notification has been received from the
Airport Authority that the development complies with its Height Zoning
Ordinance and any other supplemental regulations that may apply. The
applicant is required to secure and provide the necessary documentation from
the Authority on compliance with its ordinances to the Planning Director.
(b)
No building permit shall be issued for establishment of a structure or
expansion of an existing structure at a height of greater than 50 feet unless
there has first been issued by the Raleigh-Durham Airport Authority (1) a
permit for the structure under the provisions of its ordinances, or (2) a
determination that a permit is not required for the structure.
Supplemental Regulations of the Raleigh-Durham International Airport
Authority
All development within the Airport Overlay shall also comply with the airspace
regulations adopted by the Raleigh-Durham International Airport Authority, as may
be amended from time to time, which are incorporated herein by reference.
Whenever said airspace regulations impose more stringent requirements or
limitations than are required by this Ordinance, the provisions of the airspace
regulations shall control.
Prohibited Uses and Structures
(1)
Prohibited Uses
Attachment 5
(2)
(E)
(a)
Residential uses, including all forms of dwellings, manufactured homes,
mobile homes, nursing homes, and life care communities;
(b)
Places of public assembly and institutional uses including schools, colleges,
churches, day care centers, clubs and lodges, libraries, museums, and
hospitals, but not including arenas or stadiums for sporting events;
(c)
Indoor and outdoor amusement establishments;
(d)
Guest houses;
(e)
Correctional or penal institutions;
(f)
Radio and television broadcasting stations;
(g)
Landfills or quarries;
(h)
Warehousing/above-ground bulk storage of explosive, hazardous, flammable,
or combustible materials, and related facilities or operations that could pose a
threat to the welfare of the public in the event of an aircraft crash or other
mishap;
(i)
Petroleum refining and other related uses that may be susceptible to
explosion or fire;
(j)
Outdoor storage of certain goods and materials, including but not limited to
the following: oxides; coal; ores; minerals; produce; furniture; flammable or
combustible building supplies; paper and frame products; or wrecked,
dismantled or partially dismantled vehicles.
(k)
Wildlife sanctuaries, refuges, and other uses that may be an attractant to
birds.
Prohibited Lighting
(a)
Any moving, pulsating, flashing, rotating, or oscillating light, other than
navigational markings or lights marking potential obstructions in accordance
with Federal Aviation Administration requirements;
(b)
Flood lights, spot lights, or other lighting devices which are not shielded so as
to prevent illumination in an upward direction;
(c)
Any lights which make it difficult for pilots to distinguish between airport lights
and others, results in glare in the eyes of pilots using the airport, impairs
visibility in the vicinity of the airport or otherwise in any way endangers or
interferes with the landing, takeoff or maneuvering of aircraft intending to use
the airport.
(3)
Prohibited Electronic Signals
Any electronic impulse or signal which interferes with radio communications between
aircraft and the airport, or which interferes with established navigation aids, is
prohibited in the Airport Overlay.
(4)
Prohibited Structures
Structures in excess of the applicable height limit established for the Zones specified
in the “Raleigh-Durham International Airport Height Zoning Ordinance” adopted by
the Raleigh-Durham Airport Authority and as may be amended from time to time by
the Raleigh-Durham Airport Authority are prohibited in the Airport Overlay. Structure
means an object, including a mobile object, constructed, or installed by man,
including, but not limited to, buildings, towers, cranes, earth formations, and
overhead transmission lines.
Nonconforming Uses and Structures
Nonconforming uses and structures may be continued in the Airport Overlay in accordance
with Chapter 10 of this Ordinance. However, no building permit shall be issued that would
Attachment 5
allow the expansion of a structure or use that does not comply with the requirements of this
Ordinance.
(F)
Location of Buildings and Parking Areas
All buildings and structures located in the Airport Overlay shall meet the minimum setback
requirements of the underlying zoning district and any other applicable setback
requirements set forth elsewhere in this Ordinance. All parking areas in the Airport Overlay
shall be located no less than 30 feet from the right-of-way of a major thoroughfare.
Attachment 5
Durham Airport Overlay
Source: Zoning Ordinance Section 5.1
Overlay Districts
5.1 Airport Overlay5.1.1 Purpose
The Airport Overlay District is established to contribute to the safe
operation of airports, to facilitate orderly development around airports,
and to control and minimize impacts on surrounding activities. It is
also the intent of this district to encourage land use patterns which are
appropriate for the airport vicinity and public safety by avoiding
concentrations of population. Standards are provided to ensure an
attractive entrance to the area in order to encourage trade and
commerce and thereby maintain economic vitality.
5.1.2 Applicability
The Airport Overlay District applies to properties in the vicinity of
Raleigh Durham Airport. The specific boundaries are defined on the
Official Zoning Map and are imposed on property as an addition to the
underlying zoning district. The boundaries generally follow physical
boundaries which are identifiable on the landscape and are related to
the airport noise contours as determined by the Raleigh Durham
Airport Authority. The Airport Overlay District is divided into 2
subdistricts which are further described below:
Area A - shall be that area generally found within the 65Ldn of the
Raleigh Durham Airport and shown on Official Zoning Map.
Area B - shall be that area generally located outside the 65Ldn but
within the 60 Ldn of the Raleigh Durham Airport and shown on the
Official Zoning Map.
5.1.3 Permitted Uses
All uses permitted in the underlying district are permitted with the
exception of those uses described below.
5.1.4 Prohibited Uses in Area A.
All uses allowed in the underlying district are allowed except for the
following:
1. Places of public assembly not designed for airport patrons including
but not limited to: day care centers, schools, hospitals, places of
worship, theaters, museums, libraries, and stadiums.
2.
Places of residence including, but not limited to single family
homes, multifamily homes, manufactured homes, convalescent
centers, group homes, and family care homes.
3. Recreational establishments not designed to serve airport patrons.
4.
Correctional facilities or jails.
5.
Radio and television broadcasting facilities.
Attachment 5
6.
Landfills or quarries.
7. Above ground bulk storage of explosive, hazardous, or flammable
materials and related facilities which could pose a threat to the
public in the event of an aircraft crash.
8. Storage yards for oxides, coal, stone, concrete mixing supplies,
asphalt plants, building supplies and dismantled vehicles.
5.1.5 Prohibited Lighting in Area A and B.
1. Any moving, pulsating, flashing, rotating, or oscillating light, which
may interfere with air traffic other than navigational markings or
lights marking potential obstructions in accordance with Federal
Aviation Administration requirements.
2.
Flood lights, spot lights, or other lighting devices which are not
shielded so as to prevent illumination in an upward direction.
3. Any light which constitutes a "misleading light" within the meaning
of Federal Aviation Administration regulations.
5.1.6 Prohibited Electronic Signals in Area A and B
Any electronic impulse or signal which interferes with communications
between aircraft and the airport, or which interferes with established
navigation aids.
5.1.7 Prohibited Heights in Area A and B
Structures and signs of a height which obstructs the takeoff and
landing of aircraft, as determined by the Federal Aviation
Administration.
5.1.8 Additional Requirements
1. The Raleigh Durham Airport Authority shall have the opportunity to
review applications for rezoning, subdivision, or site plan approval
prior to a decision by the approving authority. All development
within the Airport Overlay District shall also comply with the
airspace regulations adopted by the Raleigh-Durham Airport
Authority. Whenever said airspace regulations impose more
stringent requirements or limitations than are required by this
ordinance, the provisions of the airspace regulations shall prevail.
2. Proposals for rezoning applications for residential zones within area
B shall demonstrate that aircraft noise exposure within the
dwellings shall not exceed decibel levels of 45 Ldn and be certified
by an acoustical engineer or a board certified member of the
Institute of Noise Control Engineering. Measures for reducing noise
exposure may include: orientation of structures, design standards,
landscaping, or construction materials used in walls, windows,
doors, roofs, floors, or ceilings. Design guidelines for noise
reduction are available from publications of the RDU Airport
Authority.
Attachment 5
3.
Proposals for residential zoning or residential development within
Area B shall demonstrate that purchasers of the dwellings will be
notified that the property may be subject to noise exposure from
aircraft using Raleigh Durham Airport. Measures used to notify
purchasers may include notices on plats or deeds.
4. Development shall meet the requirements of the underlying zoning
district in addition to the requirements of the Airport Overlay
District.
5. Nonconforming uses may be continued subject to the regulations
found elsewhere in this ordinance. However, no building permit
shall be issued which would allow a greater hazard (for example:
more units, or brighter lighting) to airport safety than existed at the
time of adoption of this ordinance.
Attachment 5
CITY OF RALEIGH AIRPORT OVERLAY
Source: Code of Ordinances; City of Raleigh, NC
ARTICLE B. ESTABLISHMENT OF ZONING DISTRICTS.
Sec. 10-2011. ENUMERATION AND DESCRIPTION OF DISTRICTS;
DESIGNATION OF DISTRICTS ON OFFICIAL ZONING MAP.
(a) Criteria for Zoning Districts.
For the purposes set forth in §10-2001 theCity is divided into zoning districts taking into
account the design, size and/or location of one or more of the following :
(1) Sanitary sewer and stormwater drainage structures;
(2) Water mains for purposes of extinguishing fires, and for consumption;
(3) Fire stations and their equipment;
(4) Police protection;
(5) Transportation facilities, includingstreets , sidewalks, and bridges;
(6) Schools, parks, greenways and other public facilities and requirements;
(7) Otherutilities services ;
(8) Potential hazards from fire, flooding and diseases;
(9) Access of light and air tobuildings ;
(10) Access for fire and police protection and refuse collection;
(11) Protection of occupants ofdwellings , congregate care , or congregate living
structures from noise, dust and gases caused by traffic;
(12) Railroads, yards, stations, terminals, shops and other structures and facilities;
(13) Current uses of land andbuildings for residences , businesses, industries,
institutions, and for other uses and the heights of buildings , the size and location of
yards, and the density of population in each of the districts hereinafter mentioned.
(Ord. No. 1992-111-TC-42, §12, TC-19-92)
(b) Enumeration and Descriptions of Zoning Districts.
There are three types of zoning districts:
General use districts are those in which a variety of uses are permitted;
Conditional use districts are those in which limited uses are permitted and other
regulations are imposed;
Overlay districts are those which overlap one or more general and/or conditional use
districts. Overlay districts involve additional regulations on some or allproperty within
underlying general and/or conditional use districts.
(1) TheSchedule of General Use Districts incorporated herein establishes the general
use districts.
(2) Each conditional use district (bearing the designated CU on theOfficial Zoning
Map ) corresponds to a general use district in this chapter. All zoning regulations which
apply to the general use district are also applicable to the corresponding conditional use
district unless specifically stated otherwise in the conditional use district ordinance or in
the text of this Code.
(Ord. No. 291-TC-327, §2, TC-23-88, 12-18-88; Ord. No. 856-TC-274, §2 TC-11-86, 916-86)
Thefollowing conditional use districts are established:
Attachment 5
Rural Residential Conditional Use (RR CU) District. Residential-2 Conditional Use (R-2
CU) District. Residential-4 Conditional Use (R-4 CU) District. Special Residential-6
Conditional Use (Sp. R-6 CU) District. Residential-6 Conditional Use (R-6 CU) District.
Manufactured Home Conditional Use (MH CU) District. Residential-10 Conditional Use
(R-10 CU) District. Residential-15 Conditional Use (R-15 CU) District. Residential-20
Conditional Use (R-20 CU) District. Special Residential-30 Conditional Use (Sp. R-30
CU) District. Residential-30 Conditional Use (R-30) District. Conservation Management
Conditional Use (CM CU) District. Agricultural Productive Conditional Use (AP CU)
District. Residential Business Conditional Use (RB CU) District. Office and Institution-1
Conditional Use (O & I-1 CU) District. Office and Institution-2 Conditional Use (O & I-2
CU) District. Office and Institution-3 Conditional Use (O & I-3 CU) District. Buffer
Commercial Conditional Use (BC CU) District. Shopping Center Conditional Use (SC
CU) District. Neighborhood Business Conditional Use (NB CU) District. Business Zone
Conditional Use (Bus Z CU) District. Thoroughfare Conditional Use (TD CU) District.
Industrial-1 Conditional Use (I-1 CU) District. Industrial-2 Conditional Use (I-2 CU)
District.
(Ord. No. 1996-851-TC-128, §3, TC-23-95, 4-2-96; Ord. No. 2000-734-TC-189, TC-200, §1, 2-15-00)
(3) Thefollowing overlay districts are established:
a. Airport Overlay District.
Land in the Airport Overlay District is intended to protect the efficiency and long term
usefulness of area aviation facilities, highways, arterials, and majorstreets by controlling
the type and design of land uses in proximity to such facilities.
Provision is also made to ensure the attractiveness of this significant gateway to the City
, and to protect the public from adverse health effects and annoyance by aircraft noise. To
this end, dwellings and similar uses are prohibited in the Airport Overlay District. The
uses permitted are better able to protect themselves from aircraft noise, and implement
the functions of the airport.
Sec. 10-2050. AIRPORT OVERLAY DISTRICT.
(a) Approval.
If the use requires asite plan , as set forth in §10-2132.2, approval of a site plan is
required by either the administrative staff, the Planning Commission, or the City
Council ; see §10-2132.2(b) and (c). If the use requires a plot plan , as set forth in §102132.1, administrative approval is required.
(Ord. No. 1997-137-TC-153, §2, TC-18-96, 1-14-97)
(b) Permitted Uses.
Subject to the provisions of §10-2050 and other overlay districts, all general uses,
conditional uses, and special uses that are allowed in the underlying zoning district by
theSchedule of Permitted Uses in Zoning Districts , §10-2071, are allowed in the
Airport Overlay District. In addition, the provisions of subsection (1), below, must be
observed for the following uses:
- Allowed outdoor storage, whichmay include without limitation: building materials or
contractor's construction equipment, coal yard, lumber yard, lumber mill, stone, minerals,
sand, gravel, earth ores and oxides either as a principal or accessory use ; farm and
lawn care products including seeds, feed, machinery; produce or grocery products;
furniture; vehicular parts; paper
Attachment 5
- Bituminous concrete facilities and concrete and cement mixing plants, including their
outdoor storage of materials used in production.
(1) Within the Airport Overlay District these usesshall be fully shielded with either a
permanent overhead cover or a canopy of
shade trees
that meets all of the
following :
a. Thereshall be at least one (1) natural locally adapted shade tree for every two
thousand (2,000) square feet of total "site area".
b. The shade treesshall be adequately protected from damage due to activities
performed or materials stored on the site.
c. The shade treesshall be distributed within the site area so that at maturity the
expected combined tree canopy covers at least thirty-five (35) per cent of the "site
area."
d. If the "site area" is greater than five (5) acres, the siteshall be divided in segments of
no greater than five (5) acres in size and all segments shall be separated from one
another by an expected canopy of shade trees at least one hundred (100) feet wide.
e. Compliance with all the above conditions must be achieved without utilized trees
located in anyspecial yards .
f. The usesshall adhere to the second and third paragraphs of §10-2072(a).
The term "site area," for purposes of this subsection (b)(1), includes those areas devoted
to the outdoor storage of concrete facilities described above and theiraccessory uses
including loading, display, utility service and vehicular surface areas but excludes any
special yards and all other areas.
(c) Prohibited Uses.
Except for improvements made pursuant to Part 10 chapter 3 of this Code, any use not
explicitly allowed in either the underlying district by either theSchedule of Permitted
Land Uses in Zoning Districts §10-2071 or subsection (b) above is prohibited in the
Airport Overlay District. If a use is prohibited in either an overlay district or the underlying
district, that use is prohibited even if one (1) of these districts allows the use. The
enumeration of expressly prohibited uses shall not be deemed exclusive of allinclusive. Prohibited uses include:
- Above-ground bulk storage as aprincipal use of: flammable and combustible liquids,
explosives, hazardous materials and wastes, gasoline or fuel oil distribution facilities or
operations which could pose threats to the public health, safety and welfare in the event
of aircraft crashes or mishaps
- All uses prohibited in the underlying zoning district
- Any dwelling or rooming unit unless part of a hotel or motel, and any equivalent
dwelling unit , congregate care or congregate living structure , guest house ,
residential structure, or transitional housing.
(Ord. No. 1992-111-TC-42, §17, TC-19-92, 12-8-92)
- Any residential related use includingday care facilities , special care facilities ,
schools of all kinds, correctional/penal facilities, hospitals, and churches
(Ord. No. 2004-647-TC-248, §4, TC-4-04, 6-1-04
- Library, art gallery, museum, orcivic club
- Mining, quarrying, and landfills that are initiated after the application of the Airport
Overlay District
-Off-premise signs
- Outdoor storage, bituminous concrete facilities, and concrete and cement mixing plants
which are not permanently and fully shielded in accordance with subsection (b)(1) above
- Storage of wrecked, crushed, dismantled or partially dismantled automotive vehicles
- Uses which are susceptible to fire and explosions such as oil recycling facilities
(d) Area, Density, Bulk, Yard, and Height Requirements.
Attachment 5
(1) Area, density, and bulk.
The maximum residential density is zero (0).
(2) Yard.
The minimum Overlay District yard setbacks, unless otherwise required by this Code,
are:
__________
TABLE INSET:
front yard , corner lot side yard, and rear yard that abut a
thoroughfare , major access corridor , or arterial road excluding parallel
service roads
50 feet
protective
yard
__________
TABLE INSET:
all other yards
same as underlying zoning district
__________
See §10-2075 for otheryard areas required in this Code, method of calculating,
exceptions and reductions to yard areas , and illustrations.
(3) Height.
Buildings and structures may be constructed to the height limits of the current airspace
regulations adopted by the Raleigh-Durham Airport Authority wherever such regulations
contain more stringent height requirements than the underlying zoning district. If height
requirements of the underlying zoning district contain more stringent requirements than
the regulations adopted by the Raleigh-Durham Airport Authority, the height
requirements of the underlying zoning district shall control.
See §10-2076 for method of height calculation, exceptions, and illustrations.
State law reference: Model Airport Zoning Act, Article 4, Chapter 63, North Carolina
General Statutes
(e) Supplementary Regulations.
All uses and activities are also subject to Article H, other overlay zoning districts,
conditional use zoning districts, and supplementary regulations of Article E.
Supplementary regulations include:
TABLE INSET:
(1)
Off-street parking
see §10-2081
(2)
Landscaping
see §10-2082
(3)
Signage
on-premise signs
see §10-2083
(4) Lighting
All outdoor lightingshall be shielded so that no direct glare from the light can be seen
from above; provided that, publicly approved warning lights to mark obstructions to
aircraft are exempted from this regulation.
(5) The current airspace regulations adopted by the Raleigh-Durham Airport Authority
are incorporated into the Airport Overlay District and are made a part of this Code. A
copy of these regulations is on file with the City Clerk.
(6) Rooftops shall be uniform in color and made of non-reflective material.
Attachment 5
(Ord. No. 1985-622-TC-245, §2, TC-16-85, 8-6-85; Ord. No. 1989-309-TC-330, §§2, 3,
TC-27-88, 2-7-89)
S
AV
I
D
M
IA
DE
R
AG
K
E
EE
AI
H WY
OLD M
AYN
70A
ARD
YATES ST
OR E
AN
E
P
IN
CR
ON
O
RP
RT
BR
I
ER
CR
EE
K
§
¦
¨
540
AT
AIRP
O
Y
MO N
LE
MCCRIM
AV
I
S
M
LU
KO
ER
PP
IO
N
CH
UR
CH
GLO
BE
55
O
P
E
EX
G
PA
CH
KIT
T
ALS
PA
G
I
AL
M
W
IS
T
DAV
Attachment 6
RT
TERMINAL
TERMINAL
EE
NL
EV
EL
WE
A
AVI
ST
TIO
N
D
US
E
Or a ng e
§
¦
¨
40
54
P
O
Durham
§
¦
¨
85
NS
HO
§
¦
¨
40
EV
A
HI
GH
AV
I
S
GR
§
¦
¨
540
LT
RY
CA
Flight Tracks - 2005
Arrival Direction
Southwest
Southeast
Runway 05 Arrivals
Map Document: (Y:\Current_Projects\2007_12_11_Flight_Tracks\RW_05_Arrives_051908.mxd)
5/19/2008 -- 2:17:37 PM
Northeast
Northwest
Wa k e
§
¦
¨
§
¦
¨
440
Chatham
40
¤
¯
HO
S
AV
I
D
M
IA
DE
R
AG
K
E
EE
AI
H WY
OLD M
AYN
70A
ARD
YATES ST
OR E
AN
E
P
IN
CR
ON
O
RP
RT
BR
I
ER
CR
EE
K
§
¦
¨
540
AT
AIRP
O
Y
MO N
LE
MCCRIM
AV
I
S
M
LU
KO
ER
PP
IO
N
CH
UR
CH
GLO
BE
55
O
P
E
EX
G
PA
CH
KIT
T
ALS
PA
G
I
AL
M
W
IS
T
DAV
Attachment 7
RT
TERMINAL
TERMINAL
EE
NL
EV
EL
WE
A
AVI
ST
TIO
N
D
US
E
Or a ng e
§
¦
¨
40
54
P
O
Durham
§
¦
¨
85
NS
HO
§
¦
¨
40
EV
A
HI
GH
AV
I
S
GR
§
¦
¨
540
LT
RY
CA
Flight Tracks - 2005
Departure Direction
South
North
Runway 23 Departures
Map Document: (Y:\Current_Projects\2007_12_11_Flight_Tracks\RW_23_Departures.mxd)
5/19/2008 -- 2:33:19 PM
East
West
Wa k e
§
¦
¨
§
¦
¨
440
Chatham
40
¤
¯
HO
Attachment 8
Attachment 8
Attachment 8
Attachment 8
Attachment 8
Attachment 8
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 9
Attachment 10
Attachment 10
Attachment 10
Attachment 11
TECHNICAL INFORMATION PAPER
Airport Consultants
Effects of Noise Exposure
Attachment 11
TECHNICAL INFORMATION PAPER
EFFECTS OF NOISE EXPOSURE
Aircraft noise can affect people both physically and
psychologically. It is difficult, however, to make sweeping
generalizations about the impacts of noise on people
because of the wide variations in individual reactions.
While much has been learned in recent years, some
physical and psychological responses to noise are not
yet fully understood and continue to be debated by
researchers.
Studies which examined hearing
loss among people living near
airports found that, under normal
circumstances, people in the
community near an airport are at
no risk of suffering hearing
damage from aircraft noise.
Airport Consultants
EFFECTS ON HEARING
Hearing loss is the major health danger posed by noise. A
study published by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (1974) found that exposure to noise of 70 Leq or
higher on a continuous basis, over a very long time, at
the human ear’s most damage-sensitive frequency, may
result in a very small but permanent loss of hearing. (Leq
is a pure noise dosage metric, measuring cumulative
noise energy over a given time.)
In Aviation Noise Effects (Newman and Beattie, 1985, pp.
33-42), three studies are cited which examined hearing
EFFECTS TIP-1
Attachment 11
loss among people living near airports. They found that,
under normal circumstances, people in the community
near an airport are at no risk of suffering hearing damage
from aircraft noise.
Airport noise in areas off airport
property is far too low to be
considered potentially damaging
to hearing. Those most at risk [of
hearing loss] are personnel in the
transportation industry, especially
airport ground staff.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) has established standards for permissible noise
exposure in the work place to guard against the risk of
hearing loss. Hearing protection is required when noise
levels exceed the legal limits. The standards, shown in
Table 1, establish a sliding scale of permissible noise levels
by duration of exposure. The standards permit noise
levels of up to 90 dBA for eight hours per day without
requiring hearing protection. The regulations also require
employers to establish hearing conservation programs
where noise levels exceed 85 Leq during the 8-hour
workday. This involves the monitoring of work place noise,
the testing of employees’ hearing, the provision of
hearing protectors to employees at risk of hearing loss,
and the establishment of a training program to inform
employees about the effects of work place noise on
hearing and the effectiveness of hearing protection
devices.
TABLE 1
PERMISSIBLE NOISE EXPOSURE - OSHA STANDARDS
DURATION PER DAY,
HOURS
SOUND LEVEL dBA
SLOW RESPONSE
DURATION PER DAY,
HOURS
SOUND LEVEL dBA
SLOW RESPONSE
8
6
4
3
2
90
92
95
97
100
11/2
1
1/
2
1/ or less
4
102
105
110
115
Source: 29 CFR Ch. XVII, Section 1910.95(b)
Experience at other airports has shown that even at sites
with cumulative noise exposure near 75 DNL, the total
time noise levels exceed 80 dBA typically ranges from 10
to 20 minutes, far below the critical hearing damage
thresholds (Coffman Associates 1993, pp. 2-11). This
supports the conclusion that airport noise in areas off
airport property is far too low to be considered
potentially damaging to hearing.
Airport Consultants
EFFECTS TIP-2
With respect to the risk of hearing loss, the authors of an
authoritative summary of the research conclude: “Those
Attachment 11
most at risk [of hearing loss] are personnel in the
transportation industry, especially airport ground staff.
Beyond this group, it is unlikely that the general public will
be exposed to sustained high levels of transportation
noise sufficient to result in hearing loss. Transportation
noise control in the community can therefore not be
justified on the grounds of hearing protection.” (See
Taylor and Wilkins 1987.)
NON-AUDITORY HEALTH EFFECTS
There is no strong evidence that
noise has a direct causal effect on
such health outcomes as
cardiovascular disease,
reproductive abnormality, or
psychiatric disorder.
Airport Consultants
It is sometimes claimed that aviation noise can harm the
general physical and mental health of airport neighbors.
Effects on the cardiovascular system, mortality rates, birth
weights, achievement scores, and psychiatric admissions
have been examined in the research literature. The
question of pathological effects remains unsettled
because of conflicting findings based on differing
methodologies and uneven study quality. It is quite
possible that the contribution of noise to pathological
effects is so low that it has not been clearly isolated.
While research is continuing, there is insufficient scientific
evidence to support these concerns (Newman and
Beattie 1985, pp. 59-62). Taylor and Wilkins (1987, p. 4/10)
offer the following conclusions in their review of the
research.
The evidence of non-auditory effects of transportation
noise is more ambiguous, leading to differences of
opinion regarding the burden of prudence for noise
control. There is no strong evidence that noise has a
direct causal effect on such health outcomes as
cardiovascular disease, reproductive abnormality, or
psychiatric disorder. At the same time, the evidence is
not strong enough to reject the hypothesis that noise is in
someway involved in the multi-causal process leading to
these disorders. . . . But even with necessary
improvements in study design, the inherent difficulty of
isolating the effect of a low dose agent such as
transportation noise within a complex aetiological system
will remain. It seems unlikely, therefore, that research in
the near future will yield findings which are definitive in
either a positive or negative direction. Consequently,
arguments for transportation noise control will probably
continue to be based primarily on welfare criteria such as
annoyance and activity disturbance.
EFFECTS TIP-3
Attachment 11
Recent case studies on mental illness and hypertension
indicate that this conclusion remains valid. Yoshida and
Nakamura (1990) found that long-term exposure to
sound pressure levels above 65 DNL may contribute to
reported ill effects on mental well-being. This case study,
however, concluded that more research is needed
because the results also contained some contrary
effects, indicating that in some circumstances, ill effects
were negatively correlated with increasing noise.
Reviews of laboratory research
on sleep disturbance report that
the level of noise which can cause
awakenings or interfere with
falling asleep ranges from 35
dBA to 80 dBA, depending on the
sleep stage and variability among
individuals.
Griefahn (1992) studied the impact of noise exposure
ranging from 62 dBA to 80 dBA on people with
hypertension. She found that there is a tendency for
vasoconstriction to increase among untreated
hypertensive people as noise levels increase. However,
she also found that beta-blocking medication prevented
any increase in vasoconstriction attributable to noise.
She concluded that while noise may be related to the
onset of hypertension, especially in the presence of other
risk factors, hypertensive people do not run a higher risk
of ill-health effects if they are properly treated.
SLEEP DISTURBANCE
There is a large body of research documenting the effect
of noise on sleep disturbance, but the long-range effects
of sleep disturbance caused by nighttime airport
operations are not well understood. It is clear that sleep is
essential for good physical and emotional health, and
noise can interfere with sleep, even when the sleeper is
not consciously awakened. While the long-term effect of
sleep deprivation on mental and physical function is not
clear, it is known to be harmful. It is also known that
sleepers do not fully adjust to noise disruption over time.
Although they may awaken less often and have fewer
conscious memories of disturbance, noise-induced shifts
in sleep levels continue to occur.
Airport Consultants
EFFECTS TIP-4
Reviews of laboratory research on sleep disturbance
report that the level of noise which can cause
awakenings or interfere with falling asleep ranges from 35
dBA to 80 dBA, depending on the sleep stage and
variability among individuals (Newman and Beattie 1985,
pp. 51-58; Kryter 1984, pp. 422-431). There is evidence
that older people tend to be much more sensitive to
noise-induced awakenings than younger people.
Attachment 11
Research has shown that, when measured through
awakenings, people tend to become somewhat
accustomed to noise. On the other hand,
electroencephalograms, which reveal information about
sleep stages, show little habituation to noise. Kryter
describes these responses to noise as “alerting
responses.” He suggests that because they occur
unconsciously, they may simply be reflexive responses,
reflecting normal physiological functions which are
probably not a cause of stress to the organism.
Research has shown that, when
measured through awakenings,
people tend to become somewhat
accustomed to noise.
Most studies of sleep disturbance have been conducted
under controlled laboratory conditions. The laboratory
studies do not allow generalizations about the potential
for sleep disturbance in an actual airport setting, and,
more importantly, the impact of these disturbances on
the residents. Furthermore, the range of sound levels
required to cause sleep disturbance, ranging from a
whisper to a shout (35 dB to 80 dB), and the prevalence
of sleep disruption in the absence of any noise, greatly
complicates the making of reasonable generalizations
about the effect of noise on sleep.
Fortunately, some studies have examined the effect of
nighttime noise on sleep disturbance in actual
community settings. One report summarizes the results of
eight studies conducted in homes (Fields 1986). Four
studies examined aircraft noise, the others highway
noise. In all of them, sleep disturbance was correlated
with cumulative noise exposure metrics such as Leq and
L10. All studies showed a distinct tendency for increased
sleep disturbance as cumulative noise exposure
increased. The reviewer notes, however, that sleep
disturbance was very common, regardless of noise levels,
and that many factors contributed to it. He points out
that, “the prevalence of sleep disturbance in the
absence of noise means that considerable caution must
be exercised in interpreting any reports of sleep
disturbance in noisy areas.”
Airport Consultants
A recent review of the literature, Pearsons, et al. (1990),
compared the data and findings of laboratory and field
studies conducted in the homes of subjects. They found
that noise-induced awakenings in the home were much
less prevalent than in the laboratory. They also found that
much higher noise levels were required to induce
awakenings in the home than in the laboratory. Exhibit A
EFFECTS TIP-5
Attachment 11
compares the percentage of people awakened at
different sound levels in laboratory and field studies. The
graph clearly shows a marked tendency for people in
laboratory settings to be much more sensitive to noise
than in their homes. The reason for the large difference is
apparently that people in their homes are fully
habituated to their environment, including the noise
levels.
EXHIBIT A
COMPARISON OF AWAKENING DUE TO NOISE
EVENTS FROM LABORATORY VERSUS FIELD STUDIES
100
LEGEND
Laboratory
Field
PERCENT AWAKENED
80
60
40
20
0
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
Lmax (dBA)
Source: Pearson, K.S. et al. 1990.
Airport Consultants
EFFECTS TIP-6
Finegold et al. (1994) reviewed the data in the Pearsons
report of 1990 and developed a regression analysis. As
shown in Exhibit B, an exponential curve was found to fit
the categorized data reasonably well. They recommend
that this curve be used as a provisional means of
predicting potential sleep disturbance from aircraft
Attachment 11
noise. They caution that because the curve was derived
using Pearsons’ laboratory, as well as in-home data, the
predictions of sleep disruption in an actual community
setting derived from this curve are likely to be high.
EXHIBIT B
FINEGOLD'S SLEEP DISTURBANCE CURVE
100
90
3.5
% Awakenings = 0.0000071 x L
80
PERCENT AWAKENINGS
The findings of many of these
sleep disturbance studies are of
little usefulness to policy-makers
and airport residents. For them,
the important question is, “When
does sleep disturbance caused by
environmental noise become
severe enough to constitute a
problem in the community?”
AE
70
LEGEND
60
Observed
Predicted
50
40
30
20
10
25
35
45
55
65
75
85
95
105
115
INDOOR SEL (dBA)
Source: Finegold et al. 1994.
Note: Based on laboratory and field data reported in Pearsons et al. 1989.
Airport Consultants
The findings of many of these sleep disturbance studies,
while helping to answer basic research questions, are of
little usefulness to policy-makers and airport residents. For
them, the important question is, “When does sleep
disturbance caused by environmental noise become
severe enough to constitute a problem in the
community?” Kryter (1984, pp. 434-443) reviews in detail
one important study that sheds light on this question. The
Directorate of Operational Research and Analysis
(DORA) of the British Civil Aviation Authority conducted
an in-depth survey of 4,400 residents near London’s
Heathrow and Gatwick Airports over a four-month period
in 1979 (DORA 1980). The study was intended to answer
two policy-related questions: “What is the level of aircraft
noise which will disturb a sleeping person?” and “What
level of aircraft noise prevents people from getting
to sleep?”
EFFECTS TIP-7
Attachment 11
Analysis of the survey results indicated that the best
correlations were found using cumulative energy dosage
metrics, namely Leq. Kryter notes that support for the use
of the Leq metric is provided by the finding that some
respondents could not accurately recall the time
association of a specific flight with an arousal from sleep.
This suggests that the noise from successive overflights
increased the general state of arousability from sleep.
The 65 DNL contour defines a
noise impact envelope which
encompasses all of the area
within which significant sleep
disturbance may be expected.
With regard to difficulty in getting to sleep, the study
found 25 percent of the respondents reporting this
problem at noise levels of 60 Leq, 33 percent at 65 Leq,
and 42 percent at 70 Leq. The percentage of people
who reported being awakened at least once per week
by aircraft noise was 19 percent at 50 Leq, 24 percent at
55 Leq, and 28 percent at 60 Leq. The percentage of
people bothered “very much” or “quite a lot” by aircraft
noise at night when in bed was 22 percent at 55 Leq and
30 percent at 60 Leq. Extrapolation of the trend line
would put the percentage reporting annoyance at 65
Leq well above 40 percent.
DORA concluded with the following answers to the
policy-related questions: (1) A significant increase in
reports of sleep arousal will occur at noise levels at or
above 65 Leq; (2) A significant increase in the number of
people reporting difficulty in getting to sleep will occur at
noise levels at or above 70 Leq. Kryter disagrees with
these findings. He believes that a more careful reflection
upon the data leads to the conclusion that noise levels
approximately 10 decibels lower would represent the
appropriate thresholds — 55 and 60 Leq.
At any airport, the 65 DNL contour developed from total
daily aircraft activity will be larger than the 55 Leq
developed from nighttime activity only. (At an airport
with only nighttime use, the 65 DNL contour will be
identical with the 55 Leq contour because of the effect
of the 10 dB penalty in the DNL metric.) Thus, the 65 DNL
contour defines a noise impact envelope which
encompasses all of the area within which significant
sleep disturbance may be expected based on Kryter’s
interpretation of the DORA findings discussed above.
Airport Consultants
EFFECTS TIP-8
A recent study was conducted by the British Civil Aviation
Authority to examine the relationship of nighttime aircraft
noise and sleep disturbance near four major airports —
Attachment 11
Researchers found that for
aircraft noise events below 90
SEL, as measured outdoors, there
was likely to be no measurable
increase in rates of sleep
disturbance.
Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, and Manchester
(Ollerhead, et al. 1992). A total of 400 subjects were
monitored for a total of 5,742 subject-nights. Nightly
awakenings were found to be very common as part of
natural sleep patterns. Researchers found that for aircraft
noise events below 90 SEL, as measured outdoors, there
was likely to be no measurable increase in rates of sleep
disturbance. (The indoor level can be roughly estimated
as approximately 20 to 25 decibels less than the outdoor
level.) Where noise events ranged from 90 to 100 SEL, a
very small rate of increase in disturbance was possible.
Overall, rates of sleep disturbance were found to be
more closely correlated with sleep stage than with
periods of peak aircraft activity. That is, sleep was more
likely to be disrupted, from any cause, during light stages
than during heavy stages.
Exhibit C shows the relationship between arousal from
sleep and outdoor sound exposure levels (SELs) found in
the 1992 British study. The results have been statistically
adjusted to control for the effects of individual variability
in sleep disturbance. The study found that the arousal
rate for the average person, with no aircraft noise, was
5.1 percent. Aircraft noise of less than SEL 90 dBA was
EXHIBIT C
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AVERAGE SLEEP
DISTURBANCE AND AIRCRAFT NOISE LEVEL
AROUSAL RATE, PERCENTAGE
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
LEGEND
Baseline Arousal Rate in absence of aircraft noise.
Arousal Rate during aircraft noise events.
95 percent prediction interval.
2
1
<75
Airport Consultants
75-79
80-84
85-89
90-94
OUTDOOR EVENT SEL (dBA)
95+
Source: Ollerhead, J.B. et al. 1992, p. 25.
Note: Estimates controlled for the effects of individual arousability.
EFFECTS TIP-9
Attachment 11
While vibration contributes to
annoyance reported by residents
near airports, especially when it
is accompanied by high audible
sound levels, it rarely carries
enough energy to damage safely
constructed structures.
Airport Consultants
EFFECTS TIP-10
found not to be statistically significant as a cause of sleep
disturbance. (According to the study, this would
correspond to an Lmax of approximately 81 dBA. Lmax is
the loudest sound the human ear would actually hear
during the 90 SEL noise event. The interior Lmax would be
approximately 20 to 25 decibels less — roughly 56 to 61
dBA.) The 95 percent prediction interval is shown on the
graph not to rise above the 5.1 percent base arousal rate
until it is above 90 dBA. Again, it should be emphasized
that these conclusions relate to the average person.
More easily aroused people will be disturbed at lower
noise levels, but they are also more likely to be aroused
from other sources (Ollerhead, et al. 1992).
STRUCTURAL DAMAGE
Structural vibration from aircraft noise in the low
frequency ranges is sometimes a concern of airport
neighbors. While vibration contributes to annoyance
reported by residents near airports, especially when it is
accompanied by high audible sound levels, it rarely
carries enough energy to damage safely constructed
structures. High-impulse sounds such as blasting, sonic
booms, and artillery fire are more likely to cause damage
than continuous sounds such as aircraft noise. A
document published by the National Academy of
Sciences suggested that one may conservatively
consider noise levels above 130 dB lasting more than one
second as potentially damaging to structures (CHABA
1977). Aircraft noise of this magnitude occurs on the ramp
and runway and seldom, if ever, occurs beyond the
boundaries of a commercial or general aviation airport.
The risk of structural damage from aircraft noise was
studied as part of the environmental assessment of the
Concorde supersonic jet transport. The probability of
damage from Concorde overflights was found to be
extremely slight. Actual overflight noise from the
Concorde at Sully Plantation near Dulles International
Airport in Fairfax County, Virginia was recorded at 115
dBA. No damage to the historic structures was found,
despite their age. Since the Concorde causes
significantly more vibration than conventional
commercial jet aircraft, the risk of structural damage
caused by aircraft noise near airports is considered to be
negligible (Hershey et al. 1975; Wiggins 1975).
Attachment 11
OTHER ANNOYANCES
The psychological impact of aircraft noise is a more
serious concern than direct physical impact. Studies
conducted in the late 1960s and early 1970s found that
the interruption of communication, rest, relaxation, and
sleep are important causes for complaints about aircraft
noise. Disturbance of television viewing, radio listening,
and telephone conversations are also sources of serious
annoyance.
The psychological impact of
aircraft noise is a more serious
concern than direct physical
impact.
Exhibit D shows the relationship between sound levels
and communicating distance for different voice levels.
Assuming a communicating distance of 2 meters,
communication becomes unsatisfactory with a steady
EXHIBIT D
MAXIMUM DISTANCES OUTDOORS OVER WHICH CONVERSATION
IS SATISFACTORILY INTELLIGIBLE IN STEADY NOISE
100
LEGEND
Raised voice satisfactory conversation
(sentence intelligibility 95%)
Normal voice satisfactory conversation
(sentence intelligibility 95%)
Relaxed conversation
(sentence intelligibility 99%)
Relaxed conversation
(sentence intelligibility 100%)
90
80
SOUND LEVEL (dBA)
70
60
50
40
30
20
.3 .4
Airport Consultants
.6 .8 1
1.5 2
3 4
6 8 10
COMMUNICATION DISTANCE (Meters)
15 20
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974. Cited in Caltrans, 1993.
EFFECTS TIP-11
Attachment 11
noise level above approximately 65 decibels. At 65
decibels, a raised voice is required to maintain
satisfactory conversation. Another way to interpret this is
that a raised voice would be interrupted by a sound
event above 65 decibels. A normal voice would be
interrupted, at 2 meters, by a sound event of 60 decibels.
Exhibit E shows the impact of aircraft noise on
conversation and radio or television listening. These
results, summarized by Schultz (1978), were derived from
surveys conducted in London, France, Munich, and
Switzerland. Differences in the amount of disturbance
reported in each study are based on how each survey
defined disturbance. The British study counted mild
disturbance, the French moderate disturbance, and the
German and Swiss great disturbance.
EXHIBIT E
INTERFERENCE BY AIRCRAFT NOISE WITH VARIOUS ACTIVITIES
INTERFERENCE BY AIRCRAFT NOISE
WITH CONVERSATION
90
70
% OF PEOPLE DISTURBED
% OF PEOPLE DISTURBED
80
60
50
40
London
30
20
France
Munich
10
40
Switzerland
50
60
70
80
90
DAY-NIGHT SOUND LEVEL, DNL
INTERFERENCE BY AIRCRAFT NOISE
WITH RADIO OR TELEVISION LISTENING
90
France
80
London
70
60
Switzerland
50
40
30
20
10
100
40
50
60
70
80
90
DAY-NIGHT SOUND LEVEL, DNL
100
Note:
Differences in amount of interference reported are related to how individual surveys defined
interference. London counted mild disturbance, France moderate disturbance, and Munich and
Switzerland great disturbance.
Source: Shultz, T.J. 1978.
Airport Consultants
EFFECTS TIP-12
In the case of conversation disruption, nine percent were
greatly annoyed by noise of 60 DNL in the Swiss study.
About 12 to 16 percent of those in the Swiss and German
studies considered themselves to be greatly disturbed by
aircraft noise of 65 DNL. At 75 DNL, 40 to 50 percent
Attachment 11
considered themselves greatly disturbed. In the French
study, 23 percent considered themselves moderately
disturbed by aircraft noise at 60 DNL, 35 percent at 65
DNL, and 75 percent at 75 DNL. In the British study, 37
percent were mildly disturbed by aircraft noise at 60 DNL,
50 percent at 65 DNL, and about 72 percent at 75 DNL.
Individual human response to
noise is highly variable and is
influenced by many emotional
and physical factors.
Regarding interference with television and radio
listening, about 13 percent in the Swiss study were greatly
disturbed by aircraft noise above 60 DNL, 21 percent at
65 DNL, and 40 percent at 75 DNL. In the British and
French studies, 42 to 45 percent were mildly to
moderately disturbed by noise at 60 DNL, 55 percent at
65 DNL, and 75 to 82 percent at 75 DNL.
In some cases, noise is only an indirect indicator of the
real concern of airport neighbors — safety. The sound of
approaching aircraft may cause fear in some people
about the possibility of a crash. This fear is a factor
motivating some complaints of annoyance in
neighborhoods near airports around the country. (See
Richards and Ollerhead 1973; FAA 1977; Kryter 1984, p.
533.) This effect tends to be most pronounced in areas
directly beneath frequently used flight tracks (Gjestland
1989).
The EPA has also found that continuous exposure to high
noise levels can affect work performance, especially in
high-stress occupations. Based on the FAA’s land use
compatibility guidelines, discussed in the Technical
Information Paper on Noise and Land Use Compatibility,
these adverse affects are most likely to occur within the
75 DNL contour.
Airport Consultants
Individual human response to noise is highly variable and
is influenced by many factors. These include emotional
variables, feelings about the necessity or preventability of
the noise, judgments about the value of the activity
creating the noise, an individual’s activity at the time the
noise is heard, general sensitivity to noise, beliefs about
the impact of noise on health, and feelings of fear
associated with the noise. Physical factors influencing an
individual’s reaction to noise include the background
noise in the community, the time of day, the season of
the year, the predictability of the noise, and the
individual’s control over the noise source.
EFFECTS TIP-13
Attachment 11
AVERAGE COMMUNITY RESPONSE TO NOISE
Although individual responses to noise can vary greatly,
the average response among a group of people is much
less variable. This enables us to generalize about the
average impacts of aircraft noise on a community
despite the wide variations in individual response.
Many studies have examined average residential
community response to noise, focusing on the
relationship between annoyance and noise exposure.
(See DORA 1980; Fidell et al. 1989; Finegold et al. 1992
and 1994; Great Britain Committee on the Problem of
Noise 1963; Kryter 1970; Richards and Ollerhead 1973;
Schultz 1978; U.S. EPA 1974.) These studies have produced
similar results, finding that annoyance is most directly
related to cumulative noise exposure, rather than singleevent exposure.
EXHIBIT F
PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION HIGHLY ANNOYED
BY GENERAL TRANSPORTATION NOISE
90
Percent of Population
Highly Annoyed (%HA)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Equation for Curve: % HA =
55
50
45
60
85
80
75
70
65
90
DNL
100
1 + e (11.13 - .14 Ldn)
PERCENT HIGHLY ANNOYED AT SELECTED NOISE LEVELS
DNL
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
%HA
0.8%
1.6%
3.1%
6.1%
11.6%
20.9%
34.8%
51.7%
68.4%
81.3%
Source: Finegold et al. 1992 and 1994.
Airport Consultants
EFFECTS TIP-14
Annoyance has been found to increase along an Sshaped or logistic curve as cumulative noise exposure
increases, as shown in Exhibit F. Developed by Finegold
et al. (1992 and 1994), it is based on data derived from a
Attachment 11
number of studies of transportation noise (Fidell 1989). It
shows the relationship between DNL levels and the
percentage of people who are highly annoyed. Known
as the “updated Schultz Curve” because it is based on
the work of Schultz (1978), it represents the best available
source of data for the noise dosage-response
relationship (FICON 1992, Vol. 2, pp. 3-5; Finegold et al.
1994, pp. 26-27).
The updated Schultz Curve shows
that annoyance is measurable
beginning at 45 DNL, where 0.8
percent of people are highly
annoyed. It increases gradually to
6.1 percent at 60 DNL. Starting
at 65 DNL, the percentage of
people expected to be highly
annoyed increases steeply from
11.6 percent up to 68.4 percent at
85 DNL.
The updated Schultz Curve shows that annoyance is
measurable beginning at 45 DNL, where 0.8 percent of
people are highly annoyed. It increases gradually to 6.1
percent at 60 DNL. Starting at 65 DNL, the percentage of
people expected to be highly annoyed increases steeply
from 11.6 percent up to 68.4 percent at 85 DNL. Note that
this relationship includes only those reported to be “highly
annoyed.” Based on other research, the percentages
would be considerably higher if they also included those
who were “moderately or mildly annoyed” (Richards and
Ollerhead 1973; Schultz 1978).
SUMMARY
The effects of noise on people include hearing loss, other
ill health effects, and annoyance. While harm to physical
health is generally not a problem in neighborhoods near
airports, annoyance is a common problem. Annoyance
is caused by sleep disruption, interruption of
conversations, interference with radio and television
listening, and disturbance of quiet relaxation.
Individual responses to noise are highly variable, making
it very difficult to predict how any person is likely to react
to environmental noise. The average response among a
large group of people, however, is much less variable
and has been found to correlate well with cumulative
noise dosage metrics such as Leq, DNL, and CNEL. The
development of aircraft noise impact analysis
techniques has been based on this relationship between
average community response and cumulative noise
exposure.
Airport Consultants
EFFECTS TIP-15
References
Attachment 11
Caltrans 1993. Airport Land Use Planning Handbook.
Prepared for California Department of Transportation,
Division of Aeronautics by Hodges & Shutt. Sacramento:
California Department of Transportation, December 1993.
CHABA 1977. Guidelines for Preparing Environmental
Impact Statements on Noise, Report of Working Group 69
on Evaluation of Environmental Impact of Noise.
Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics, and Biomechanics,
Assembly of Behavioral and Social Sciences, National
Research Council, National Academy of Sciences,
Washington, D.C.
Coffman Associates, Inc. 1993. General Mitchell
International Airport, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, F.A.R. Part
150 Noise Compatibility Study, Noise Compatibility
Program.
Directorate of Operational Research and Analysis
(DORA) 1980. Aircraft Noise and Sleep Disturbance: Final
Report. DORA Rep. 8008, Civil Aviation Authority, London,
1980. Cited in Kryter 1984, p. 434.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 1977. Impact of
Noise on People. U.S. Department of Transportation, FAA,
May 1977.
Federal Interagency Committee on Urban Noise (FICUN)
1980. Guidelines for Considering Noise in Land Use
Planning and Control.
Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON) 1992.
Federal Agency Review of Selected Airport Noise
Analysis Issues.
Fidell, S. et al. 1989. Updating a Dosage-Effect
Relationship for the Prevalence of Annoyance Due to
General Transportation Noise. HSD-TR-89-009. WrightPatterson AFB, Ohio: U.S. Air Force, Noise and Sonic Boom
Impact Technology. Cited in FICON 1992.
Airport Consultants
EFFECTS TIP-16
Fields, J.M. 1986. Cumulative Airport Noise Exposure
Metrics: An Assessment of Evidence for Time-of-Day
Weightings, Report No. DOT/FAA/EE-86/10, FAA,
Washington, D.C.
Attachment 11
Finegold, L.S. et al. 1992. “Applied Acoustical Report:
Criteria for Assessment of Noise Impacts on People.”
Submitted to Journal of Acoustical Society of America.
June 1992. Cited in FICON 1992.
Finegold, L.S. et al. 1994. “Community Annoyance and
Sleep Disturbance: Updated Criteria for Assessing the
Impacts of General Transportation Noise on People.”
Noise Control Engineering Journal, Vol. 42, No. 1, Jan.Feb. 1994.
Gjestland, T. 1989. “Aircraft Noise Annoyance.” 1989
International Conference On Noise Control Engineering,
Vol. 2, pp. 903-908.
Great Britain Committee on the Problem of Noise, 1963.
Noise, Final Report. Presented to Parliament by Lord
Minister for Science by Command of Her Majesty. H.M.
Stationery Office, London, July 1963. Cited in Newman
and Beattie 1985, p. 23.
Griefahn, B. 1989. “Critical Loads For Noise Exposure At
Night.” 1990 International Conference On Noise Control
Engineering, Vol. 2, pp. 1163-1166.
Griefahn, B. 1992. “Hypertension — A Particular Risk For
Noise Exposure.” 1992 International Conference On Noise
Control Engineering, Vol. 2, pp. 1123-1126.
Hershey, R.L., et al. 1975. Analysis of the Effect of
Concorde Aircraft Noise on Historic Structures. Report No.
FAA-RD-75-118, July 1975. Cited in Newman and Beattie
1985, p. 70.
Kryter, K.D. 1970. The Effects of Noise on Man. Academic
Press, New York. Cited in Newman and Beattie 1985, p.
22.
Kryter, K.D. 1984. Physiological, Psychological, and Social
Effects of Noise, NASA Reference Publication 1115.
Airport Consultants
Newman, Steven J. and Kristy R. Beattie, 1985. Aviation
Noise Effects. Prepared for the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Office of
Environment and Energy, Washington, D.C., Report No.
FAA-EE-85-2, March 1985.
EFFECTS TIP-17
Attachment 11
Ollerhead, J.B. et al., 1992. Report of a Field Study of
Aircraft Noise and Sleep Disturbance. A study
commissioned by the Department of Transport from the
Department of Safety, Environment and Engineering,
Civil Aviation Authority (United Kingdom).
Pearsons, K.S. et al., 1990. Analyses of the Predictability of
Noise-induced Sleep Disturbance, U.S. Air Force Report
HSD-TR-89-029. Cited in Ollerhead, et al. 1992, p. 2.
Richards, E.J. and J.B. Ollerhead, 1973. “Noise Burden
Factor — A New Way of Rating Noise,” Sound and
Vibration, Vol. 7, No. 12, December.
Schuller W.M. and van der Ploeg F.D., 1993. “Recent
Developments With Respect to Aircraft Noise And Sleep
Disturbance.” 1993 International Conference On Noise
Control Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 155-160.
Schultz, T.J. 1978. “Synthesis of Social Surveys on Noise
Annoyance. Journal of the Acoustical Society of
America, Vol. 64, No. 2, pp. 377-405. Cited in FICON 1992.
Taylor, S.M. and P.A. Wilkins, 1987. “Health Effects.” In
Transportation Noise Reference Book, Ed. P.M. Nelson.
Butterworths.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1974.
Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to
Protect Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of
Safety. EPA, Office of Noise Abatement and Control,
Washington, D.C., March 1974.
Wiggins, J.H. 1975. The Influence of Concorde Noise on
Structural Vibrations. Report No. FAA-75-1241-1, July 1975.
Cited in Newman and Beattie 1985, p. 70.
Yoshida T. and Nakamura S., 1990. “Community and
Health of Inhabitants.” 1990 International Conference On
Noise Control Engineering, Vol. 2, pp. 1125-1128.
Airport Consultants
EFFECTS TIP-18
Attachment 12
TECHNICAL INFORMATION PAPER
Airport Consultants
Measuring the Impact of Noise on People
Attachment 12
TECHNICAL INFORMATION PAPER
MEASURING THE IMPACT OF NOISE ON PEOPLE
In aircraft noise analysis, the effect of noise on residents
near airports is often the most important concern. While
certain public institutions and, at very high noise levels,
some types of businesses may also be disturbed by noise,
people in their homes are typically the most vulnerable to
noise problems.
In aircraft noise analysis, the
effect of noise on residents near
airports is often the most
important concern.
Airport Consultants
The most common way to measure the impact of noise
on residents is to estimate the number of people residing
within the noise contours. This is done by overlaying noise
contours on census block maps or on maps of dwelling
units. The number of people within each 5 DNL range
(e.g., from 65 to 70 DNL, from 70 to 75 DNL, etc.) is then
estimated.
This is the approach required in F.A.R. Part 150 noise
compatibility studies. While it has the advantage of
simplicity, it has one disadvantage: it implicitly assumes
that all people are equally affected by noise, regardless of
the noise level they experience. Clearly, however, the
louder the noise, the greater the noise problem. As noise
increases, more people become concerned about it, and
the concerns of each individual become more serious.
LWP TIP-1
Attachment 12
AVERAGE COMMUNITY RESPONSE TO NOISE
Individual human response to noise is highly variable and
is influenced by many factors. These include emotional
variables, feelings about the necessity or preventability of
the noise, judgments about the value of the activity
creating the noise, an individual’s activity at the time the
noise is heard, general sensitivity to noise, beliefs about
the impact of noise on health, and feelings of fear
associated with the noise.
Although individual responses
to noise can vary greatly, the
average response among a group
of people is much less variable.
This enables us to generalize
about the average impacts of
aircraft noise on a community
despite the wide variations in
individual response.
Physical factors influencing an individual’s reaction to
noise include the background noise in the community,
the time of day, the season of the year, the predictability
of the noise, and the individual’s control over the noise
source.
Although individual responses to noise can vary greatly,
the average response among a group of people is much
less variable. This enables us to generalize about the
average impacts of aircraft noise on a community
despite the wide variations in individual response.
Many studies have examined average community
response to noise, focusing on the relationship between
annoyance and noise exposure. (See DORA 1980; Fidell
et al. 1989; Finegold et al. 1992 and 1994; Great Britain
Committee on the Problem of Noise 1963; Kryter 1970;
Richards and Ollerhead 1973; Schultz 1978; U.S. EPA
1974.) These studies have produced similar results, finding
that annoyance is most directly related to cumulative
noise exposure, rather than single-event exposure.
Airport Consultants
LWP TIP-2
Annoyance has been found to increase along an
S-shaped or logistic curve as cumulative noise exposure
increases, as shown in Exhibit A. This graph shows the
percentage of residents either somewhat annoyed or
seriously annoyed by noise of varying DNL levels. It was
developed from research in the early 1970s (Richards
and Ollerhead 1973). It is interesting that the graph
indicates that at even extremely low noise levels, below
45 DNL, a very small percentage of people remain
annoyed by aircraft noise. Conversely, the graph shows
that while the percentage of people annoyed by noise
exceeds 95 percent at 75 DNL, it only approaches, and
does not reach, 100 percent even at the extremely high
noise level of 85 DNL.
Attachment 12
EXHIBIT A
Percentage of Residents
ANNOYANCE CAUSED BY AIRCRAFT NOISE IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS
100
80
Not Annoyed
60
Annoyed
40
20
Seriously Annoyed
45
50
55
60
65
NOISE EXPOSU
70
75
85
80
RE LEVEL - DN
L
Source: Richards and Ollerhead 1973, p.31
A similar graph is shown in Exhibit B. Developed by
Finegold et al. (1992 and 1994), it is based on data
derived from a number of studies of transportation noise
(Fidell 1989). It shows the relationship between DNL levels
and the percentage of people who are highly annoyed.
Known as the “updated Schultz Curve” because it is
based on the work of Schultz (1978), it represents the best
available source of data for the noise dosage-response
relationship (FICON 1992, Vol. 2, pp. 3-5; Finegold et al.
1994, pp. 26-27).
Starting at 65 DNL, the
percentage of people expected to
be highly annoyed increases
steeply from 11.6 percent up to
68.4 percent at 85 DNL.
The updated Schultz Curve shows that annoyance is
measurable beginning at 45 DNL, where 0.8 percent of
people are highly annoyed. It increases gradually to 6.1
percent at 60 DNL. Starting at 65 DNL, the percentage of
people expected to be highly annoyed increases steeply
from 11.6 percent up to 68.4 percent at 85 DNL. Note that
this relationship includes only those reported to be “highly
annoyed.” Based on the findings shown in Exhibit A, the
percentages would be considerably higher if they also
included those who were “moderately annoyed.”
Airport Consultants
LWP TIP-3
Attachment 12
EXHIBIT B
PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION HIGHLY ANNOYED
BY GENERAL TRANSPORTATION NOISE
Percent of Population
Highly Annoyed (%HA)
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Equation for Curve: % HA =
55
50
45
60
70
65
85
80
75
90
DNL
100
1 + e (11.13 - .14 Ldn)
PERCENT HIGHLY ANNOYED AT SELECTED NOISE LEVELS
DNL
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
%HA
0.8%
1.6%
3.1%
6.1%
11.6%
20.9%
34.8%
51.7%
68.4%
81.3%
Source: Finegold et al. 1992 and 1994.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF WEIGHTING FUNCTIONS
Recognizing the tendency of annoyance response rates
to increase systematically as noise increases, researchers
in the 1960s began developing weighting functions to
help estimate the total impact of noise on a population
(CHABA 1977, p. B-1). The population impacted by noise
at a given level would be multiplied by the appropriate
weighting function. The higher the noise level, the higher
the weighting function. The results for all noise levels
would be added together. The sum would be a single
number purported to represent the net impact of noise
on the affected population.
Airport Consultants
LWP TIP-4
The CHABA report (p. VII-5) recommended the use of the
original Schultz Curve as the basis for developing
weighting functions. It recommended that weighting
functions be developed by calculating the percentage
Attachment 12
of people likely to be highly annoyed by noise at various
DNL levels. These values were then converted to
weighting functions by arbitrarily setting the function for
75 DNL at 1.00. Functions for the other noise levels were
set in proportion to the percent highly annoyed. The
results of applying these weighting functions to a
population was known as the “sound level-weighted
population” impacted by noise, or the “level-weighted
population.”
Based on the response curve
shown in Exhibit A, the weighting
functions can be considered as
roughly equivalent to the
proportion of people likely to be
either highly annoyed or
somewhat annoyed by noise.
UPDATED LEVEL-WEIGHTED POPULATION
FUNCTIONS
As discussed above, the original Schultz Curve has been
updated to take into account additional studies of
community response to noise. The updated curve is
shown in Exhibit B. Coffman Associates has updated the
weighting functions developed by CHABA (1977, p. B-7)
to correspond with the updated Schultz Curve. Table 1
shows the percentage of people likely to be highly
annoyed by aircraft noise for 5 DNL increments ranging
from 45 to 80 DNL. It also shows weighting functions for
use in calculating level-weighted population. These were
developed by setting the function for the 75 to 80 DNL
range at unity (1.000). The other functions were
computed in proportion to the values for “percent highly
annoyed.”
TABLE 1
PERCENT HIGHLY ANNOYED AND WEIGHTED FUNCTION BY DNL RANGE
DNL RANGE
45-50
50-55
55-60
60-65
65-70
70-75
75-80
Airport Consultants
AVERAGE PERCENT
HIGHLY ANNOYED
1.19%
2.36%
4.63%
8.87%
16.26%
27.83%
43.25%
WEIGHTING FUNCTION
0.028
0.055
0.107
0.205
0.376
0.644
1.000
Based on the response curve shown in Exhibit A, the
weighting functions can be considered as roughly
equivalent to the proportion of people likely to be either
highly annoyed or somewhat annoyed by noise.
LWP TIP-5
Attachment 12
EXAMPLE USE OF LEVEL-WEIGHTED POPULATION
The response to noise among
a group of people varies
systematically with changes in
noise levels. As noise increases,
the proportion of people
disturbed by noise increases.
In airport noise compatibility planning, the levelweighted population (LWP) methodology is particularly
useful in comparing the results of different noise analysis
scenarios. Since the percentage of people who are
highly annoyed increases with increasing noise levels, the
LWP values may differ between operating scenarios even
though the total population within the noise impact
boundary is equal. An example below illustrates the LWP
methodology. Scenarios A and B show the effects of two
airport operating scenarios. While the population subject
to noise above 65 DNL is the same for both, Scenario B
has a lower LWP because fewer people are impacted by
the higher noise levels.
TABLE 2
LEVEL-WEIGHTED POPULATION METHODOLOGY - EXAMPLE
SCENARIO B
SCENARIO A
DNL
Range
LWP
Factor
Population
65-70
70-75
75+
.376
.644
1.000
Total
LWP
LWP
Factor
Population
LWP
x 2,000
x 1,400
x 600
= 752
= 902
= 600
.376
.644
1.000
x 3,000
x 700
x 300
= 1,128
= 451
= 300
4,000
2,254
4,000
1,879
SUMMARY
The response to noise among a group of people varies
systematically with changes in noise levels. As noise
increases, the proportion of people disturbed by noise
increases. This relationship has been estimated and is
presented in the “updated Schultz Curve” shown in
Exhibit B.
The data in the updated Schultz Curve can be used to
develop weighting functions for computing the numbers
of people likely to be annoyed by noise. This is especially
useful in comparing the net impact of different noise
scenarios.
Airport Consultants
LWP TIP-6
References
Attachment 12
CHABA 1977. Guidelines for Preparing Environmental
Impact Statements on Noise, Report of Working Group 69
on Evaluation of Environmental Impact of Noise.
Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics, and Biomechanics,
Assembly of Behavioral and Social Sciences, National
Research Council, National Academy of Sciences,
Washington, DC.
Directorate of Operational Research and Analysis
(DORA) 1980. Aircraft Noise and Sleep Disturbance: Final
Report. DORA Rep. 8008, Civil Aviation Authority, London,
1980. Cited in Kryter 1984, p. 434.
Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON) 1992.
Federal Agency Review of Selected Airport Noise
Analysis Issues.
Fidell, S. et al. 1989. Updating a Dosage-Effect
Relationship for the Prevalence of Annoyance Due to
General Transportation Noise. HSD-TR-89-009. WrightPatterson AFB, Ohio: U.S. Air Force, Noise and Sonic Boom
Impact Technology. Cited in FICON 1992.
Finegold, L.S. et al. 1992. “Applied Acoustical Report:
Criteria for Assessment of Noise Impacts on People.”
Submitted to Journal of Acoustical Society of America.
June 1992. Cited in FICON 1992.
Finegold, L.S. et al. 1994. “Community Annoyance and
Sleep Disturbance: Updated Criteria for Assessing the
Impacts of General Transportation Noise on People.”
Noise Control Engineering Journal, Vol. 42, No. 1, January
- February 1994.
Great Britain Committee on the Problem of Noise, 1963.
Noise, Final Report. Presented to Parliament by Lord
Minister for Science by Command of Her Majesty. H.M.
Stationery Office, London, July 1963. Cited in Newman
and Beattie 1985, p. 23.
Kryter, K.D. 1970. The Effects of Noise on Man. Academic
Press, New York. Cited in Newman and Beattie 1985, p. 22.
Airport Consultants
Kryter, K.D. 1984. Physiological, Psychological, and Social
Effects of Noise, NASA Reference Publication 1115.
LWP TIP-7
Attachment 12
Newman, Steven J. and Kristy R. Beattie, 1985. Aviation
Noise Effects. Prepared for U.S. Department of
Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Office of
Environment and Energy, Washington, D.C., Report No.
FAA-EE-85-2, March 1985.
Richards, E.J. and J.B. Ollerhead, 1973. “Noise Burden
Factor — A New Way of Rating Noise,” Sound and
Vibration, Vol. 7, No. 12, December.
Schultz, T.J. 1978. “Synthesis of Social Surveys on Noise
Annoyance. Journal of the Acoustical Society of
America, Vol. 64, No. 2, pp. 377-405. Cited in FICON 1992.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1974.
Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to
Protect Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of
Safety. EPA, Office of Noise Abatement and Control,
Washington, DC, March 1974.
Airport Consultants
LWP TIP-8
Attachment 13
TECHNICAL INFORMATION PAPER
Airport Consultants
Aircraft Noise and Land Use
Compatibility Guidelines
Attachment 13
TECHNICAL INFORMATION PAPER
AIRCRAFT NOISE AND LAND USE
COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES
In past years, noise has become a recognized factor in
the land use planning process for cities, metropolitan
planning organizations, counties, and states. Significant
strides have been made in the reduction of noise at its
source; however, noise cannot be entirely eliminated.
Local, state, and federal agencies, in recognition of this
fact, have developed guidelines and regulations to
address noise within the land use planning process.
DNL accumulates the total noise
occurring over a 24-hour period,
with a 10 decibel penalty applied
to noise occurring between 10:00
p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
Airport Consultants
The fundamental variability in the way individuals react
to noise makes it impossible to accurately predict how
any one individual will respond to a given noise level.
However, when one considers the community as a
whole, trends emerge which relate noise to annoyance.
This enables us to make reasonable evaluations of the
average impacts of aircraft noise on a community.
According to scientific research, noise response is most
readily correlated with noise as measured with
cumulative noise metrics. A variety of cumulative noise
exposure metrics have been used in research studies
over the years. In the United States, the DNL (day-night
noise level) metric has been widely used. DNL
accumulates the total noise occurring over a 24-hour
period, with a 10 decibel penalty applied to noise
occurring between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. DNL
correlates well with average community response to
LAND USE TIP-1
Attachment 13
noise. (For more information on noise measurement, see
the TIP entitled, "The Measurement and Analysis of
Sound.”)
Research has shown that even at
extremely high noise levels, there
are at least some people, albeit a
small percentage, who are not
annoyed. Conversely, it also
shows that at even very low noise
levels, at least some people will
be annoyed.
In California, the CNEL (community noise equivalent
level) metric is used instead of the DNL metric. The two
metrics are very similar. DNL accumulates the total noise
occurring during a 24-hour period, with a 10 decibel
penalty applied to noise occurring between 10:00 p.m.
and 7:00 a.m. The CNEL metric is the same except that it
also adds a 4.77 decibel penalty for noise occurring
between 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. There is little actual
difference between the two metrics in practice.
Calculations of CNEL and DNL from the same data
generally yield values with less than a 0.7 decibel
difference (Caltrans 1983, p. 37).
The results of studies on community noise impacts show
that the number of people expressing concerns with
noise increases as the noise level increases. The level of
concern increases along an S-shaped curve, as shown in
Exhibit A. Research has shown that even at extremely
high noise levels, there are at least some people, albeit a
small percentage, who are not annoyed. Conversely, it
also shows that at even very low noise levels, at least
some people will be annoyed.
AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL AS A FACTOR OF
ANNOYANCE LEVEL
Noise analysts have speculated that the overall ambient
noise level in an environment determines to what degree
people will be annoyed by a given level of aircraft noise.
That is, in a louder environment it takes a louder level of
aircraft noise to generate complaints than it does in a
quieter environment.
Airport Consultants
LAND USE TIP-2
Kryter (1984, p. 582) reviewed some of the research on
this question. He noted that the effects of laboratory tests
and attitude surveys on this question are somewhat
inconclusive. A laboratory test he reviewed found that
recordings of aircraft noise were judged to be less
intrusive as the background road traffic noise was
increased. On the other hand, an attitude survey in the
Toronto Airport area found that the effects of
background noise were not significant.
EXHIBIT A
Attachment 13
ANNOYANCE CAUSED BY AIRCRAFT NOISE IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS
Noise analysts have speculated
that the overall ambient noise
level in an environment
determines to what degree people
will be annoyed by a given level
of aircraft noise.
Percentage of Residents
100
80
Not Annoyed
60
Annoyed
40
20
Seriously Annoyed
45
50
60
55
65
80
75
70
RE LEVEL - DN
NOISE EXPOSU
85
L
Source: Richards and Ollerhead 1973, p.31
Percent of Population Highly Annoyed (%HA)
UPDATED SCHULTZ CURVE
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
45
50
55
60
65 70
DNL
75
Equation for Curve: % HA =
Source: Finegold et al. 1992 and 1994.
80
85
90
100
1 + e (11.13 - .14 Ldn)
The studies reviewed by Kryter were intended to evaluate
whether or not background noise provided some degree
of masking of aircraft noise. They did not, however, take
into consideration the subjects' rating of the overall
quality of the noise environment.
Airport Consultants
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
provided guidelines to address the question of
background noise and its relationship to aircraft noise.
LAND USE TIP-3
Attachment 13
The degree of annoyance which
people suffer from aircraft noise
varies depending on their
activities at any given time.
The EPA has determined that complaints can be
expected when the intruding DNL exceeds the
background DNL by more than 5 decibels (U.S. EPA 1974).
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans
2000, pp. 7- 24 - 7-25) notes that the level of background
(ambient) noise should be used in determining the
suitable aircraft noise contour of significance.
Specifically, adjustments have been made in areas with
quiet background noise levels of 50 to 55 CNEL. In those
cases, aircraft CNEL contours are prepared down to 55 or
60 CNEL, and land use compatibility criteria are adjusted
to apply to those areas. The State of Oregon Department
of Aviation (Oregon 2003) also requires the preparation
of noise contours down to the 55 DNL level. This noise
contour is used to establish the noise impact boundary
for air carrier airports within the state.
The Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON
1992, p. 2-6) examined the question of background noise
and its relationship to perceptions of aircraft noise. It
reviewed the research in this field, concluding that there
was a basis for believing that, in addition to the
magnitude of aircraft noise, the difference between
background noise and aircraft noise was in some way
related to human perceptions of noise disturbance. It
noted, however, that there was insufficient scientific data
to provide authoritative guidance on the consideration
of these effects. FICON advocated further research in this
area.
LAND USE COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES
Airport Consultants
LAND USE TIP-4
The degree of annoyance which people suffer from
aircraft noise varies depending on their activities at any
given time. People rarely are as disturbed by aircraft
noise when they are shopping, working, or driving as
when they are at home. Transient hotel and motel
residents seldom express as much concern with aircraft
noise as do permanent residents of an area. The concept
of "land use compatibility" has arisen from this systematic
variation in human tolerance to aircraft noise. Since the
1960s, many different sets of land use compatibility
guidelines have been proposed and used. This section
reviews some of the more well known guidelines.
Attachment 13
FEDERAL LAND USE COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES
FAA-DOD Guidelines
The U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD)
first published noise assessment
requirements in 1971 for
evaluating the acceptability of
sites for housing assistance.
In 1964, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the
U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) published similar
documents setting forth guidelines to assist land use
planners in areas subjected to aircraft noise from nearby
airports. These guidelines, presented in Table 1, establish
three zones and the expected responses to aircraft noise
from residents of each zone. In Zone 1, areas exposed to
noise below 65 DNL, essentially no complaints would be
expected although noise could be an occasional
annoyance. In Zone 2, areas exposed to noise between
65 and 80 DNL, individuals may complain, perhaps
vigorously. In Zone 3, areas in excess of 80 DNL, vigorous
complaints would be likely and concerted group action
could be expected.
TABLE 1
CHART FOR ESTIMATING RESPONSE OF COMMUNITIES EXPOSED
TO AIRCRAFT NOISE - 1964 FAA-DOD GUIDELINES
NOISE LEVEL
ZONE
DESCRIPTION OF EXPECTED RESPONSE
Less than 65 DNL
1
No complaints would be expected. The noise
may, however, interfere occasionally with certain
activities of the residents.
65 to 80 DNL
2
Individuals may complain, perhaps vigorously.
Concerted group action is possible.
Greater than 80 DNL
3
Individual reactions would likely include repeated,
vigorous complaints. Concerted group action
might be expected.
Source: U.S. DOD 1964. Cited in Kryter 1984, p. 616.
HUD Guidelines
Airport Consultants
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) first published noise assessment requirements in
1971 for evaluating the acceptability of sites for housing
assistance. These requirements contained standards for
exterior noise levels along with policies for approving
HUD-supported or assisted housing projects in high noise
areas. In general, the requirements established three
zones: an acceptable zone where all projects could be
approved, a normally unacceptable zone where
LAND USE TIP-5
Attachment 13
mitigation measures would be required and where each
project would have to be individually evaluated for
approval or denial, and an unacceptable zone in which
projects would not, as a rule, be approved.
In 1979, HUD issued revised regulations which kept the
same basic standards, but adopted new descriptor
systems which were considered advanced over the old
system. Table 2 summarizes the revised HUD requirements.
TABLE 2
SITE EXPOSURE TO AIRCRAFT NOISE
1979 HUD REQUIREMENTS
ACCEPTABLE
CATEGORY
DAY-NIGHT AVERAGE
SOUND LEVEL
SPECIAL APPROVALS
AND REQUIREMENTS
Acceptable
Not exceeding 65 dB
None
Normally
Unacceptable
Above 65 dB but not
exceeding 75 dB
Special approvals, environmental
review, attenuation
Unacceptable
Above 75 dB
Special approvals, environmental
review, attenuation
Source: U.S. HUD 1979
Veterans Administration Guidelines
The Veterans Administration has established policies and
procedures for the appraisal and approval of VA loans
relative to residential properties located near major
civilian airports and military air bases. The agency's
regulations, contained within M26-2, Change 15, state
that "the VA must recognize the possible unsuitability for
residential use of certain properties and the probable
adverse effect on livability and/or value of homes in the
vicinity of major airports and air bases. Such adverse
effects may be due to a variety of factors including noise
intensity.” Table 3 contains the VA's noise zones and
associated development requirements and limitations.
EPA Guidelines
Airport Consultants
LAND USE TIP-6
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency published a
document in 1974 suggesting maximum noise exposure
levels to protect public health with an adequate margin
of safety. These are shown in Table 4. They note that the
risk of hearing loss may become a concern with exposure
TABLE 3
Attachment 13
VETERANS ADMINISTRATION NOISE GUIDELINES
NOVEMBER 23, 1992
NOISE ZONE
CNR
(Composite Noise Rating)
NEF
(Noise Exposure Forecasts)
DNL
(Day/Night Average Sound Level)
1
Under 100
Under 30
Under 65
2
100-115
30-40
65-75
3
Over 115
Over 40
Over 75
Specific Limitations:
(1)
Proposed or existing properties located in zone 1 are generally acceptable as security for VA-guaranteed
loans.
(2)
Proposed construction to be located in zone 2 will be acceptable provided:
(a)
Sound attenuation features are built into the dwelling to bring the interior DNL of the living unit
to 45 decibels or below.
(b)
There is evidence of market acceptance of the subdivision.
(c)
The veteran-purchaser signs a statement which indicates his/her awareness that (1) the property
being purchased is located in an area adjacent to an airport, and (2) the aircraft noise may affect
normal livability, value, and marketability of the property.
(3)
Proposed subdivisions located in zone 3 are not generally acceptable. The only exception is a situation
in which VA has previously approved a subdivision, and the airport noise contours are subsequently
changed to include the subdivision in zone 3. In such cases, VA will continue to process loan
applications provided the requirements in the above subparagraphs (2) are met.
(4)
Existing dwellings in zones 2 and 3 are not to be rejected because of airport influence if there is evidence
of acceptance by a fully informed veteran.
Source: Veterans Administration, M26-2, June 1992
TABLE 4
SUMMARY OF NOISE LEVELS IDENTIFIED AS REQUISITE TO
PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE WITH AN ADEQUATE
MARGIN OF SAFETY - 1974 EPA GUIDELINES
EFFECT
AREA
Hearing loss
75 DNL and above
All areas
Outdoor activity
interference and
annoyance
55 DNL and above
Outdoors in residential areas and
farms and other outdoor areas where
people spend widely varying amounts
of time and other places in which
quiet is a basis of use.
59 DNL and above
Outdoor areas where people spend
limited amounts of time, such as
school years, playgrounds, etc.
45 DNL and above
Indoor residential areas
49 DNL and above
Other indoor areas with human
activities such as schools, etc.
Indoor activity
interference and
annoyance
Airport Consultants
LEVEL
Note:
All Leq values from EPA document were converted by FAA to DNL for
ease of comparison. (DNL=Leq(24) + 4 dB).
Source: U.S. EPA 1974. Cited in FAA 1977a, p. 26.
LAND USE TIP-7
EXHIBIT B
Attachment 13
LAND USE GUIDANCE CHART I: AIRPORT NOISE INTERPOLATION
LAND USE
NOISE
GUIDANCE EXPOSURE
ZONES (LUG)
CLASS
A
B
C
D
MINIMAL
EXPOSURE
MODERATE
EXPOSURE
SIGNIFICANT
EXPOSURE
SEVERE
EXPOSURE
INPUTS: AIRCRAFT NOISE
ESTIMATING METHODOLOGIES
Ldn
NEF
CNR
CNEL
DAY-NIGHT
AVERAGE
SOUND LEVEL
NOISE
EXPOSURE
FORECAST
COMPOSITE
NOISE RATING
COMMUNITY
NOISE
EQUIVALENT
LEVEL
0
0
0
0
TO
TO
TO
TO
55
20
90
55
55
20
90
55
TO
TO
TO
TO
65
30
100
65
65
30
100
65
TO
TO
TO
TO
75
40
115
75
75
40
115
75
&
&
&
&
HIGHER
HIGHER
HIGHER
HIGHER
HUD NOISE
ASSESSMENT
GUIDELINES
(1977)
SUGGESTED
NOISE
CONTROLS
"CLEARLY
ACCEPTABLE"
NORMALLY REQUIRES
NO SPECIAL
CONSIDERATIONS
"NORMALLY
ACCEPTABLE"
LAND USE
CONTROLS SHOULD
BE CONSIDERED
"NORMALLY
UNACCEPTABLE"
NOISE EASEMENTS,
LAND USE, AND OTHER
COMPATIBILITY
CONTROLS
RECOMMENDED
"CLEARLY
UNACCEPTABLE"
CONTAINMENT WITHIN
AIRPORT BOUNDARY
OR USE OF POSITIVE
COMPATIBILITY
CONTROLS
RECOMMENDED
Source: FAA 1977b, p. 12.
to noise above 74 DNL. Interference with outdoor
activities may become a problem with noise levels
above 55 DNL. Interference with indoor residential
activities may become a problem with interior noise
levels above 45 DNL. If we assume that standard
construction attenuates noise by about 20 decibels, with
doors and windows closed, this corresponds to an
exterior noise level of 65 DNL.
FAA Land Use Guidance System
In 1977, FAA issued an advisory circular on airport land
use compatibility planning (FAA 1977b). It describes land
use guidance (LUG) zones corresponding to aircraft
noise of varying levels as measured by four different noise
metrics (Exhibit B). It also includes suggested land use
noise sensitivity guidelines (Exhibit C).
Airport Consultants
LAND USE TIP-8
In Exhibit B, LUG Chart I, four land use guidance zones are
described, corresponding to DNL levels of 55 or less (A),
55 to 65 (B), 65 to 75 (C), and 75 and over (D). LUG Zone
Attachment 13
A is described as minimal exposure, normally requiring no
special noise control considerations. LUG Zone B is
described as moderate exposure where land use
controls should be considered. LUG Zone C is subject to
significant exposure, and various land use controls are
recommended. In LUG Zone D, severe exposure,
containment of the area within airport property, or other
positive control measures, are suggested.
In 1979, the Federal Interagency
Committee on Urban Noise
(FICUN), including representatives of the Environmental
Protection Agency, the
Department of Transportation,
the Housing and Urban
Development Department, the
Department of Defense, and the
Veterans Administration, was
established to coordinate various
federal programs relating to the
promotion of noise-compatible
development.
In LUG Chart II, Exhibit C, most noise-sensitive uses are
suggested as appropriate only within LUG Zone A. These
include single-family and two-family dwellings, mobile
homes, cultural activities, places of public assembly, and
resorts and group camps. Uses suggested for Zones A
and B include multi-family dwellings and group quarters;
financial, personal, business, governmental, and
educational services; and manufacturing of precision
instruments. In Zones C and D, various manufacturing,
trade, service, resource production, and open space
uses are suggested.
Federal Interagency Committee on Urban Noise
In 1979, the Federal Interagency Committee on Urban
Noise (FICUN), including representatives of the
Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of
Transportation, the Housing and Urban Development
Department, the Department of Defense, and the
Veterans Administration, was established to coordinate
various federal programs relating to the promotion of
noise-compatible development. In 1980, the Committee
published a report which contained detailed land use
compatibility guidelines for varying DNL noise levels
(FICUN 1980). The work of the Interagency Committee
was very important as it brought together for the first time
all federal agencies with a direct involvement in noise
compatibility issues and forged a general consensus on
land use compatibility for noise analysis on federal
projects.
Airport Consultants
The Interagency guidelines describe the 65 DNL contour
as the threshold of significant impact for residential land
uses and a variety of noise-sensitive institutions (such as
hospitals, nursing homes, schools, cultural activities,
auditoriums, and outdoor music shells). Within the 55 to 65
DNL contour range, the guidelines note that cost and
LAND USE TIP-9
Attachment 13
EXHIBIT C
LAND USE GUIDANCE CHART II:
LAND USE NOISE SENSITIVITY INTERPOLATION
LAND USE
SLUCM
No.
10
LUG ZONE1
Name
Suggested
Residential
A-B
11
11,11
11,12
11,13
Household units.
Single units - detached.
Single units - semi attached.
Single units - attached row.
A
A
B
11,21
11,22
Two units - side-by-side.
Two units - one above the other.
A
A
11,31
11,32
Apartments - walk up.
Apartments - elevator.
B
B-C
Group quarters.
Residential hotels.
Mobile home parks or courts.
Transient lodgings.
Other residential.
A-B
B
A
C
A-C
SLUCM
No.
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
59
12
13
14
15
19
20
Manufacturing2
21
22
23
29
Food and kindred products-manufacturing.
Textile mill products-manufacturing.
Apparel and other finished products made
from fabrics, leather, and similar materialsmanufacturing.
Lumber and wood products (except furniture)manufacturing.
Furniture and fixtures-manufacturing.
Paper and allied products-manufacturing.
Printing, publishing, and allied industries.
Chemicals and allied productsmanufacturing.
Petroleum refining and related industries.3
30
Manufacturing2
31
Rubber and miscellaneous plastic productsmanufacturing.
Stone, clay, and glass productsmanufacturing.
Primary metal industries.
Fabricated metal products-manufacturing.
Professional, scientific, and controlling
instruments: photographic and optical
goods; watches and clocks-manufacturing.
Miscellaneous manufacturing.
24
25
26
27
28
32
33
34
35
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
C-D
C-D
C-D
C-D
C-D
C-D
C-D
C-D
C-D
C-D
D
D
B
C-D
D
D
D
D
D
A-D
D
A-D
1
2
3
4
5
Suggested
Trade4
Wholesale trade.
Retail trade-building materials, hardware,
and farm equipment.
Retail trade-general merchandise.
Retail trade-food.
Retail trade-automotive, marine craft,
aircraft and accessories.
Retail trade-apparal and accessories.
Retail trade-furniture, home furnishings,
and equipment.
Retail trade-eating and drinking.
Other retail trade.
Services4
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
Financial, insurance, and real estate services.
Personal services.
Business services.
Repair services.
Professional services.
Contract construction services.
Governmental services.
Educational services.
Miscellaneous services.
70
Cultural, entertainment,
and recreational
71
72
73
74
75
76
79
Cultural activities and nature exhibitions.
Public assembly.
Amusements.
Recreational activities.5
Resorts and group camps.
Parks.
Other cultural, entertainment, and recreational.5
80
Resource production and extraction
81
82
83
84
85
89
Agriculture.
Agricultural related activities.
Forestry activities and related services.
Fishing activities and related services.
Mining activities and related services.
Other resource production and extraction.
90
Undeveloped land and water areas
91
Undeveloped and unused land area (excluding
noncommercial forest development).
Noncommercial forest development.
Water areas.
Vacant floor area.
Under construction.
Other undeveloped land and water areas.
92
93
94
95
99
D
Name
60
C-D
Transportation, communications,
and utilities
Railroad, rapid rail transit, and street
railway transportation.
Motor vehicle transportation.
Aircraft transportation.
Marine craft transportation.
Highway and street right-of-way.
Automobile parking.
Communication.
Utilities.
Other transportation communications
and utilities.
LUG ZONE1
LAND USE
C-D
C
C
C
C
C
C
C-D
B
B
B
C
B-C
C
B
A-B
A-C
A
A
C
B-C
A
A-C
A-B
C-D
C-D
D
D
D
C-D
D
D
A-D
A-D
A-D
A-D
Refer to Land Use Guidance Chart I, Exhibit C-1.
Zone "C" suggested maximum except where exceeded by self generated noise.
Zone "D" for noise purposes; observe normal hazard precautions.
If activity is not in substantial, air-conditioned building, go to next higher zone.
Requirements likely to vary - individual appraisal recommended.
SLUCM: Standard Land Use Coding Manual, U.S. Urban Renewal Administration
and Bureau of Public Roads, 1965.
Source: FAA 1977b, p. 14.
LAND USE TIP-10
Attachment 13
feasibility factors were considered in defining residential
development and several of the institutions as
compatible. In other words, the guidelines are not based
solely on the effects of noise. They also consider the cost
and feasibility of noise control.
ANSI Guidelines
The ANSI standard acknowledges
the potential for noise effects
below the 65 DNL level,
describing several uses as
"marginally compatible" with
noise below 65 DNL.
In 1980, the American National Standards Institute (ANSI)
published recommendations for land use compatibility
with respect to noise (ANSI 1980). Kryter (1984, p. 621)
notes that no supporting data for the recommended
standard is provided.
The ANSI guidelines are shown in Exhibit D. While
generally similar to the Federal Interagency guidelines,
there are some important differences. First, ANSI's land
use classification system is less detailed. Second, the ANSI
standard acknowledges the potential for noise effects
below the 65 DNL level, describing several uses as
"marginally compatible" with noise below 65 DNL. These
include single-family residential (from 55 to 65 DNL), multifamily residential, schools, hospitals, and auditoriums (60
to 65 DNL), and outdoor music shells (50 to 65 DNL). Other
outdoor activities, such as parks, playgrounds,
cemeteries, and sports arenas, are described as
marginally compatible with noise levels as low as 55 or
60 DNL.
F.A.R. Part 150 Guidelines
The FAA adopted a revised and simplified version of the
Federal Interagency guidelines when it promulgated
F.A.R. Part 150 in the early 1980s. (The Interim Rule was
adopted on January 19, 1981. The final rule was adopted
on December 13, 1984, published in the Federal Register
on December 18, and became effective on January 18,
1985.) Among the changes made by FAA include the use
of a coarser land use classification system and the
deletion of any reference to any potential for noise
impacts below the 65 DNL level.
Airport Consultants
The determination of the compatibility of various land
uses with various noise levels, however, is very similar to
the Interagency determinations.
LAND USE TIP-11
Attachment 13
EXHIBIT D
LAND USE COMPATIBILITY WITH YEARLY DAY-NIGHT AVERAGE SOUND
LEVEL AT A SITE FOR BUILDINGS AS COMMONLY CONSTRUCTED
Yearly Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL)
in Decibels
LAND USE
50-60
60-70
70-80
80-90
Residential - Single Family, Extensive Outdoor Use
Residential - Multiple Family, Moderate Outdoor Use
Residential - Multi-Story, Limited Outdoor Use
Transient Lodging
School Classrooms, Libraries, Religious Facilities
Hospitals, Clinics, Nursing Homes, Health-Related Facilities
Auditoriums, Concert Halls
Music Shells
Sports Arenas, Outdoor Spectator Sports
Neighborhood Parks
Playgrounds, Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Rec., Cemeteries
Office Buildings, Personal Services, Business and Professional
Commercial - Retail, Movie Theaters, Restaurants
Commercial - Wholesale, Some Retail, Ind., Mfg., Utilities
Livestock Farming, Animal Breeding
Agriculture (Except Livestock)
Extensive Natural Wildlife and Recreation Areas
LEGEND
Compatible
with Insulation
Marginally Compatible
Incompatible
Source: ANSI 1980. Cited in Kryter 1984, p. 624.
Airport Consultants
LAND USE TIP-12
Exhibit E lists the F.A.R. Part 150 land use compatibility
guidelines. These are only guidelines. Part 150 explicitly
states that determinations of noise compatibility and
regulation of land uses are purely local responsibilities.
Attachment 13
EXHIBIT E
F.A.R. PART 150 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES
Yearly Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) in Decibels
LAND USE
Below
65
65-70
Residential, other than mobile
homes and transient lodgings
Y
N
Mobile home parks
Y
N
75-80
80-85
Over
85
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
70-75
RESIDENTIAL
Transient lodgings
1
1
1
1
N
1
Y
N
Schools
Y
N
N
N
N
N
Hospitals and nursing homes
Y
25
30
N
N
N
Churches, auditoriums, and
concert halls
Y
25
30
N
N
N
Government services
Y
Y
25
30
N
N
2
3
PUBLIC USE
1
1
Transportation
Y
Y
Y
Parking
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
25
30
2
3
2
Y
Y
3
Y
Y
4
4
Y
4
N
COMMERCIAL USE
Offices, business and professional
Wholesale and retail-building materials,
hardware and farm equipment
Y
Y
Y
Retail trade-general
Y
Y
25
Utilities
Y
Y
Y
Communication
Y
Y
25
Y
2
Y
30
Y
3
30
N
Y
4
N
Y
4
N
N
N
N
N
N
MANUFACTURING AND PRODUCTION
Manufacturing, general
Y
Y
Photographic and optical
Y
Y
Agriculture (except livestock)
and forestry
Y
Y
Livestock farming and breeding
Y
Y
Mining and fishing, resource
production and extraction
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
6
6
2
Y
3
25
30
7
8
Y
Y
7
Y
Y
4
N
Y
8
N
N
Y
8
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
Y
Y
25
30
N
N
Y
RECREATIONAL
Outdoor sports arenas and
spectator sports
Outdoor music shells,
amphitheaters
Nature exhibits and zoos
Amusements, parks, resorts,
and camps
Golf courses, riding stables, and
water recreation
Airport Consultants
5
Y
5
The designations contained in this table do not constitute a federal determination that any
use of land covered by the program is acceptable under federal, state, or local law. The
responsibility for determining the acceptable and permissible land uses and the relationship
between specific properties and specific noise contours rests with the local authorities. FAA
determinations under Part 150 are not intended to substitute federally-determined land
uses for those determined to be appropriate by local authorities in response to locallydetermined needs and values in achieving noise compatible land uses.
See other side for notes and key to table.
LAND USE TIP-13
EXHIBIT E (cont.)
Attachment 13
F.A.R. PART 150 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES
KEY
Y (Yes)
Land Use and related structures compatible without restrictions.
N (No)
Land Use and related structures are not compatible and should be prohibited.
NLR
Noise Level Reduction (outdoor-to-indoor) to be achieved through incorporation of noise
attenuation into the design and construction of the structure.
25, 30, 35
Land Use and related structures generally compatible; measures to achieve NLR of 25, 30, or 35 dB
must be incorporated into design and construction of structure.
NOTES
1
Where the community determines that residential or school uses must be allowed, measures to achieve
outdoor-to-indoor Noise Level Reduction (NLR) of at least 25 dB and 30 dB, respectively, should be
incorporated into building codes and be considered in individual approvals. Normal residential construction can
be expected to provide a NLR of 20 dB; thus, the reduction requirements are often stated as 5, 10, or 15 dB over
standard construction and normally assume mechanical ventilation and closed windows year round. However,
the use of NLR criteria will not eliminate outdoor noise problems.
2
Measures to achieve NLR of 25 dB must be incorporated into the design and construction of portions of these
buildings where the public is received, office areas, noise-sensitive areas, or where the normal noise level is low.
3
Measures to achieve NLR of 30 dB must be incorporated into the design and construction of portions of these
buildings where the public is received, office areas, noise-sensitive areas, or where the normal noise level is low.
4
Measures to achieve NLR of 35 dB must be incorporated into the design and construction of portions of these
buildings where the public is received, office areas, noise-sensitive areas, or where the normal noise level is low.
5
Land use compatible provided special sound reinforcement systems are installed.
6
Residential buildings require a NLR of 25.
7
Residential buildings require a NLR of 30.
8
Residential buildings not permitted.
Source: F.A.R. Part 150,
Appendix A, Table 1.
SELECTED STATE LAND USE
COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES
State of Oregon
Airport Consultants
LAND USE TIP-14
The State of Oregon's Airport Planning Rule (APR)
establishes a series of local government requirements
and rules which pertain to aviation facility planning.
These requirements are intended to promote land use
compatibility around airports as well as promote a
convenient and economic system of airports in the state.
To assist local governments and airports in meeting the
requirements of the APR, the Oregon Department of
Aviation published the Airport Land Use Compatibility
Guidebook in January 2003.
Attachment 13
The State of Oregon recognizes
that, in some instances, land use
controls and restrictions that
apply to the 65 DNL may be
appropriate for applications to
areas impacted by noise levels
above 55 DNL.
The Oregon guidelines contained within the guidebook,
as they relate to land use compatibility around airports,
are based on administrative regulations of the
Department of Environmental Quality, adopted by the
Oregon Environmental Quality Commission in 1979
(Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 340, Division 35,
Section 45). Although the FAA regards the 65 DNL
contours and above as significant, the State of Oregon
considers the 55 and 60 DNL contours as significant. The
state recognizes that, in some instances, land use
controls and restrictions that apply to the 65 DNL may be
appropriate for applications to areas impacted by noise
levels above 55 DNL. For example, a rural area exposed
to 55 to 65 DNL noise levels may be more affected by
these levels than an urban area. This is because there is
typically a higher level of background noise associated
with an urban area (Oregon 2003). Air carrier airports are
required to do studies defining the airport impact
boundary, corresponding to the 55 DNL contour. Where
any noise-sensitive property occurs within the noise
impact boundary, the airport must develop a noise
abatement program.
An Oregon airport noise abatement program may
include many different recommendations for promoting
land use compatibility. These include changes in land use
planning, zoning, and building codes within the 55 DNL
contour. In addition, disclosure of potential noise impacts
may be required and purchase of land for non-noise
sensitive public uses may be permitted within the 55 DNL
contour.
Within the 65 DNL contour, purchase assurance, voluntary
relocation, soundproofing, and purchase of land is
permitted.
State of California
Airport Consultants
California law sets the standard for the acceptable level
of aircraft noise for persons residing near airports at 65
CNEL (California Code of Regulations, Title 21, Division
2.5, Chapter 6). The 65 CNEL criterion was chosen for
urban residential areas where houses are of typical
construction with windows partially open. Four types of
land uses are defined as incompatible with noise above
65 CNEL: residences, schools, hospitals and convalescent
LAND USE TIP-15
Attachment 13
homes, and places of worship. These land uses are
regarded as compatible if they have been insulated to
assure an interior sound level, from aircraft noise, of 45
CNEL. They are also to be considered compatible if an
avigation easement over the property has been
obtained by the airport operator.
The guidelines contained within
the California Airport Land Use
Planning Handbook suggest that
no new residential uses should be
permitted within the 65 CNEL
noise contour.
California noise insulation standards apply to new hotels,
motels, apartment buildings, and other dwellings, not
including detached single-family homes. They require
that "interior noise levels attributable to outdoor sources
shall not exceed 45 decibels (based on the DNL or CNEL
metric) in any habitable room.” In addition, any of these
residential structures proposed within a 60 CNEL noise
contour requires an acoustical analysis to show that the
proposed design will meet the allowable interior noise
level standard. (California Code of Regulations, Title 24,
Part 2, Appendix Chapter 35.)
In the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook
(Caltrans 2002), land use compatibility guidelines are
suggested for use in the preparation of comprehensive
airport land use plans. The guidelines suggest that no
new residential uses should be permitted within the 65
CNEL noise contour. In quiet communities, it is
recommended that the 60 CNEL should be used as the
maximum permissible noise level for residential uses. At
rural airports, it is noted that 55 CNEL may be suitable for
use as a maximum permissible noise level for residential
uses.
These guidelines are similar to those proposed in earlier
editions of the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook.
However, the 2003 handbook provides much more
definitive guidance for compatible land use planning
around airports.
State of Florida
Airport Consultants
LAND USE TIP-16
In 1990, the State of Florida passed legislation which
created the Airport Safety and Land Use Compatibility
Study Commission. The charge to this commission was to
assure that airports in Florida will have the capacity to
accommodate future growth without jeopardizing public
health, safety, and welfare. One of the Commissions’
recommendations was to require the Florida Department
Attachment 13
of Transportation (FDOT) to establish guidelines regarding
compatible land use around airports. In 1994, FDOT
responded to this recommendation by publishing a
guidance document entitled Airport Compatible Land
Use Guidance for Florida Communities.
Within the State of Florida’s
Airport Compatible Land Use
Guidance for Florida
Communities, it was requested
that each local government
prohibit new residential
development and other noisesensitive uses for areas within the
65 DNL contour. Where practical,
new residential development
should be limited in areas down
to the 55 DNL contour.
As part of this document's conclusions, it was
recommended that all commercial service airports, or
airports with significant numbers of general aviation
operations, establish a noise compatibility planning
program in accordance with the provisions of F.A.R. Part
150. All communities within the airport environs should
participate in the preparation of this program. It was
requested that each local government prohibit new
residential development and other noise-sensitive uses
for areas within the 65 DNL contour. Where practical, new
residential development should be limited in areas down
to the 55 DNL contour.
State of Wisconsin
Wisconsin State Law 114.136 was established to give local
governments the authority to regulate land uses within
three miles of the airport boundary. These land use
controls supercede any other applicable zoning limits by
other jurisdictions that may apply to the area surrounding
the airport. To assist airports with the development of land
use controls, the Wisconsin Department of Transportation
(WisDOT) published a document titled Land Use Planning
Around Airports in Wisconsin in 2001. Various land use
tools such as avigation easements, noise overlay zones,
height and hazard zoning, and subdivision regulations
are presented within the land use planning guide.
WisDOT has recognized that the types of airport
compatible land uses depend on the location and size of
the airport as well as the type and volume of aircraft
using the facility. The 65 DNL contour should be used as a
starting point for land use regulations, but lesser contours
should be considered if deemed necessary.
Airport Consultants
The 1985 Wisconsin Act 136 takes State Law 114.136 one
step further by requiring counties and municipalities to
depict airport locations and areas affected by aircraft
operations on official maps. The law also requires the
zoning authority to notify the airport owner of any
proposed zoning changes within the airport environs.
LAND USE TIP-17
State of Washington
Within the Airports and
Compatible Land Use document,
jurisdictions are encouraged to
work with airports to ensure that
airport noise is factored into land
use decisions for the protection of
the health, safety, and welfare of
its residents.
Attachment 13
In 1996, Washington State Senate Bill 6442 was passed.
This bill requires that every city, town, and county, having
a general aviation airport in its jurisdiction, discourage
the siting of land uses that are incompatible with airport
operations. Policies protecting airport facilities must be
implemented within the comprehensive plan and
development regulations. Formal consultation with the
aviation community is required and all plans must be filed
with the Washington State Department of Transportation
Aviation Division (WADOT). To assist jurisdictions with
establishing appropriate land use planning tools and
regulations, WADOT published a revised Airports and
Compatible Land Use document in February 1999. Within
this planning document, jurisdictions are encouraged to
work with airports to ensure that airport noise is factored
into land use decisions for the protection of the health,
safety, and welfare of its residents.
TRENDS IN LAND USE COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES
Y
E
A
R
In recent years, citizen activists, anti-noise groups, and
environmental organizations have become concerned
that the current methods of assessing aircraft noise are
not sufficient. Among the concerns is that 65 DNL does
not adequately represent the true threshold of significant
noise impact. It has been argued that the impact
threshold should be lowered to 60 or even 55 DNL,
especially in areas of quiet background noise and in
areas impacted by large increases in noise (ANR, V. 4, N.
12, p. 91; V. 5, No. 3, p. 21; V. 5, N. 11, p. 82). The purpose
of this section is to provide a time line of events which,
taken together, indicate a distinct movement toward
the consideration of airport noise impacts below the
65 DNL level.
1992
Airport Consultants
LAND USE TIP-18
In the 1992 session of Congress, a bill was introduced to
lower the threshold for non-compatible land uses from 65
to 55 DNL (ANR, V. 4, N. 11, p. 83). The bill, however, was
not passed. In 1995, a bill (HR 1971) was introduced in the
House of Representatives to require the Department of
Transportation to develop a plan to reduce the number
of people residing within the 60 DNL contours around
airports by 75 percent by January 1, 2001 (ANR, V. 7, N.
1992 (cont.)
Attachment 13
13, p. 101). This bill was not passed either. Nevertheless,
these developments indicate concerns about aircraft
noise below 65 DNL are coalescing into specific
proposals to address the situation.
Also in 1992, an important arbitration proceeding
between Raleigh-Durham International Airport and
airport neighbors was concluded. Residents residing
between the 55 and 65 DNL contours were awarded
compensation for noise damages. This was apparently
the first time damages had been awarded beyond the
65 DNL contour at any domestic airport (ANR V. 4, No. 14,
p. 107). While, strictly speaking, this case sets no legal
precedent, it provides further evidence that a change in
the definition of the threshold of significant noise impact
may be gathering momentum.
After the arbitration was concluded, the Raleigh-Durham
Airport Authority developed a model noise ordinance
that would require new housing between the 55 and 60
DNL contours to be sound-insulated to achieve an
outdoor-to-indoor noise level reduction of 30 dB.
Between the 60 and 65 DNL contours, a 35 dB reduction
would be required. The model ordinance was proposed
for use by local governments exercising land use control.
(See ANR, V. 6, N. 3, p. 17.)
Airport Consultants
In August 1992, the Federal Interagency Committee on
Noise (FICON 1992) issued its final report. FICON included
representatives of the Departments of Transportation,
Defense, Justice, Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban
Development; the Environmental Protection Agency;
and the Council on Environmental Quality. FICON was
formed to review federal policies for the assessment of
aircraft noise in environmental studies. The Committee
advocated the continued use of the DNL metric as the
principal means of assessing long-term aircraft noise
exposure. It further reinforced the designation of 65 DNL
as the threshold of significant impact on non-compatible
land use. FICON recognized, however, the potential for
noise impacts down to the 60 DNL level, providing
guidance for analyzing noise between 60 and 65 DNL in
reports prepared under the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA). This includes environmental
assessments and environmental impact statements. (It
does not include F.A.R. Part 150 studies.) FICON offered
this explanation for this action (FICON 1992, p. 3-5).
LAND USE TIP-19
Attachment 13
1992 (cont.)
There are a number of reasons for moving in this direction
at this time. First, the Schultz Curve [see the bottom panel
in Exhibit A] recognizes that some people will be highly
annoyed at relatively low levels of noise. This is further
evidenced from numerous public response forums that
some people living in areas exposed to DNL values less
than 65 dB believe they are substantially impacted (U.S.
EPA 1991). Secondly, the FICON Technical Subgroup has
shown clearly that large changes in levels of noise
exposure (on the order of 3 dB or more) below DNL 65 dB
can be perceived by people as a degradation of their
noise environment. Finally, there now exist computational
techniques that allow for cost-effective calculation of
noise exposure and impact data in the range below DNL
65 dB.
The specific FICON recommendation was as follows
(FICON 1992, p. 3-5):
If screening analysis shows that noise-sensitive areas will
be at or above DNL 65 dB and will have an increase of
DNL 1.5 dB or more, further analysis should be conducted
of noise-sensitive areas between DNL 60-65 dB having an
increase of DNL 3 dB or more due to the proposed airport
noise exposure.
FICON further recommended that if any noise-sensitive
areas between 60 and 65 DNL are projected to have an
increase of 3 DNL or more as a result of the proposed
airport noise exposure, mitigation actions should be
included for those areas (FICON 1992, p. 3-7). The FICON
recommendations represent the first uniform guidelines
issued by the federal government for the consideration
of aircraft noise impacts below the 65 DNL level. At this
time, these remain recommendations and are not official
policy.
1995
Airport Consultants
LAND USE TIP-20
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) released a
guidance document entitled Transit Noise and Vibration
Impact Assessment. Within this document, FTA cites the
EPA recommendation of 55 DNL to develop their curve of
impact. Further, FTA states that they use the FAA criteria
of 65 DNL to define their curve of severe impact.
Attachment 13
1996
The American National Standards Institute (ANSI)
recommends 55 DNL as the criterion level for housing and
similar noise-sensitive land uses within their report ANSI
Quantities and Procedures for Description and
Measurement of Environmental Sounds - Part 3: ShortTerm Measurements with an Observer Present.
The
International
Organization
for
Economic
Cooperation and Development suggests the following
environmentally sustainable transport noise levels: 55 DNL
in urban areas and 50 DNL in rural areas.
1998
Within the Federal Railroad Administration's (FRA) HighSpeed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration
Impact Assessment, the same criteria used by the FTA is
used to assess impacts of new, high-speed trains.
In this same year, the Surface Transportation Board (STB)
utilizes 55 DNL as a threshold of impact within the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed
Conrail acquisition by Norfolk Southern Railway
Company.
The World Bank Group (WBG) set noise limits for general
industrial projects to ensure that projects they fund, such
as iron and steel manufacturing and thermal power
plants, do not negatively impact noise-sensitive
development. The WBG set their threshold of impact at
55 DNL.
1999
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission adopts a
revision to their regulations (Part 157) which states "the
noise attributable to any new compressor stations,
compression added to an existing station, or any
modification, upgrade, or update of an existing station,
must not exceed a day-night level (Ldn) of 55 dBA at any
pre-existing noise-sensitive area.”
The World Health Organization's Guidelines for
Community Noise recommends a "criteria of annoyance"
daytime threshold of 55 DNL and nighttime threshold of
50 DNL for residential areas.
Airport Consultants
LAND USE TIP-21
Attachment 13
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS AT THE FAA
In the late 1990s, the Naples Airport Authority determined
that the short-term viability of the airport was in jeopardy
due to the noise impacts at the airport. An F.A.R. Part 150
Study determined that the majority of the noise
complaints were from individuals which reside outside
the 65 DNL noise contour and were, therefore, not
eligible for federal mitigation funding.
Early in 2003, the FAA
announced the establishment of
the Center of Excellence for
Aircraft Noise Mitigation. This
research center is a partnership
between academia, industry, and
government. Part of the center's
focus will be on what level of
noise is significant as well as
other noise metrics that can be
used to assess the impact of
aircraft noise on individuals.
For several decades, the airport authority had led efforts
to balance the competing needs of airport users with
those of the surrounding community and had adopted
numerous measures to control noise and limit
incompatible land uses surrounding the facility. The
surrounding jurisdictions had gone as far as to adopt the
60 DNL noise contour as the threshold of significant
impact and had limited development within this contour.
Naples adopted a ban on Stage 2 aircraft under 75,000
pounds in June 2000 pursuant to the Noise Act and its
implementing regulations, commonly referred to as Part
161. The restriction at Naples is important not only
because it was the first, but also because it was, and is,
the subject of several challenges, the results of which
may prove precedential for other airport operators'
efforts to address local noise issues.
Early in 2003, the FAA announced the establishment of
the Center of Excellence for Aircraft Noise Mitigation. This
research center is a partnership between academia,
industry, and government. Part of the center's focus will
be on what level of noise is significant as well as other
noise metrics that can be used to assess the impact of
aircraft noise on individuals.
On March 10, 2003, the FAA ruled that the ban on Stage
2 business jet operations imposed by Naples Airport
Authority violates federal grant assurance obligations.
This ruling came after years of research and debate
regarding the restriction at Naples Airport.
CONCLUSIONS
Airport Consultants
LAND USE TIP-22
This technical information paper has presented
information on land use compatibility guidelines with
Attachment 13
respect to noise. It is intended to serve as a reference for
the development of policy guidelines for F.A.R. Part 150
Noise Compatibility Studies.
There is a strong and long-lasting
consensus among various
government agencies that 65
DNL represents an appropriate
threshold for defining significant
impacts on non-compatible land
use. Nonetheless, both research
and empirical evidence suggest
that noise at levels below 65 DNL
is often a concern.
There is a strong and long-lasting consensus among
various government agencies that 65 DNL represents an
appropriate threshold for defining significant impacts on
non-compatible land use. Nonetheless, both research
and empirical evidence suggest that noise at levels
below 65 DNL is often a concern. Increased concern
about these lower levels of noise has been registered in
public forums across the country. Official responses by
public agencies indicate at least a partial
acknowledgment of these concerns. Indeed, according
to many agencies and organizations as well as in the
states of Oregon, Florida, Wisconsin, and California,
airport noise analysis and compatibility planning below
the 65 DNL level is strongly advised or required.
In urbanized areas with relatively high background noise
levels, 65 DNL continues to be a reasonable threshold for
defining airport noise impacts. In suburban and rural
locations, lower noise thresholds deserve consideration.
Given emerging national trends and the experience at
many airports, it can be important to assess aircraft noise
below 65 DNL, especially in areas with significant
amounts of undeveloped land where land use
compatibility planning is still possible. Future planning in
undeveloped areas around airports should recognize
that the definition of critical noise thresholds is
undergoing transition. In setting a prudent course for
future land use near airports, planners and policy-makers
should try to anticipate these changes.
REFERENCES
ANR (Airport Noise Report), selected issues, Ashburn, VA.
ANSI 1980. Sound Level Descriptors for Determination of
Compatible Land Use. American National Standards
Institute, ANSI S3.23 - 1980 (ASA 22-1980).
Airport Consultants
Caltrans 1983. Airport Land Use Planning Handbook - A
Reference and Guide for Local Agencies. Prepared for
California Department of Transportation, Division of
Aeronautics by the Metropolitan Transportation
LAND USE TIP-23
Commission and the
Governments, July 1983.
Association
of
Attachment 13
Bay
Area
Caltrans 1993. Airport Land Use Planning Handbook.
Prepared for California Department of Transportation,
Division of Aeronautics by Hodges & Shutt, Santa Rosa,
California, in association with Flight Safety Institute; Chris
Hunter & Associates; and University of California,
Berkeley, Institute of Transportation Studies, December
1993.
FAA 1977a. Impact of Noise on People. U.S. Department
of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, May
1977.
FAA 1977b. Airport Land Use Compatibility Planning, AC
150/5050-6. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal
Aviation Administration, Washington, D.C.
FICON 1992. Federal Agency Review of Selected Airport
Noise Analysis Issues. Federal Interagency Committee on
Noise, Washington, D.C.
FICUN 1980. Guidelines for Considering Noise in Land Use
Planning and Control. Federal Interagency Committee
on Urban Noise, Washington, D.C.
Finegold, L.S. et al. 1992. "Applied Acoustical Report:
Criteria for Assessment of Noise Impacts on People"
Submitted to Journal of Acoustical Society of America.
June 1992. Cited in FICON 1992.
Kryter, K.D. 1984. Physiological, Psychological, and Social
Effects of Noise, NASA Reference Publication 1115.
ODOT 1981. Airport Compatibility Guidelines, Oregon
Aviation System Plan, Volume VI, Oregon Department of
Transportation, Aeronautics Division, Salem.
Richards, E.J. and J.B. Ollerhead, 1973. "Noise Burden
Factor - A New Way of Rating Noise, Sound and
Vibration,” Vol. 7, No. 12, December.
Airport Consultants
LAND USE TIP-24
Schultz, T.J. and McMahon, N.M. 1971. HUD Noise
Assessment Guidelines. Report No. HUD TE/NA 171,
August 1971. (Available from NTIS as PB 210 590.)
Attachment 13
U.S. DOD 1964. Land Use Planning with Respect to Aircraft
Noise. AFM 86-5, TM 5-365, NAVDOCKS P-98, U.S.
Department of Defense, October 1, 1964. (Available from
DTIC as AD 615 015.)
U.S. EPA 1974. Information on Levels of Environmental
Noise Requisite to Protect Health and Welfare with an
Adequate Margin of Safety. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Noise Abatement and
Control, Washington, D.C., March 1974.
U.S. EPA 1991. A Review of Recent Public Comments on
the Application of Aircraft Noise Descriptors. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Noise
Abatement and Control, Washington, D.C. Cited in
FICON 1992.
Airport Consultants
LAND USE TIP-25
Attachment 14
Noise pollution: non-auditory effects on health
Stephen A Stansfeld and Mark P Matheson
Department of Psychiatry, Medical Sciences Building, Queen Mary, University of London,
London, UK
Noise is a prominent feature of the environment including noise from transport,
industry and neighbours. Exposure to transport noise disturbs sleep in the
laboratory, but not generally in field studies where adaptation occurs. Noise
interferes in complex task performance, modifies social behaviour and causes
annoyance. Studies of occupational and environmental noise exposure suggest
an association with hypertension, whereas community studies show only weak
relationships between noise and cardiovascular disease. Aircraft and road traffic
noise exposure are associated with psychological symptoms but not with clinically
defined psychiatric disorder. In both industrial studies and community studies,
noise exposure is related to raised catecholamine secretion. In children, chronic
aircraft noise exposure impairs reading comprehension and long-term memory
and may be associated with raised blood pressure. Further research is needed
examining coping strategies and the possible health consequences of adaptation
to noise.
Introduction
Correspondence to:
Professor Stephen A
Stansfeld, Department of
Psychiatry, Medical
Sciences Building, Barts
and The London, Queen
Mary’s School of Medicine
and Dentistry, Queen
Mary, University of
London, Mile End Road,
London E1 4NS, UK.
E-mail: S.A.Stansfeld@
qmul.ac.uk
Noise, defined as ‘unwanted sound’, is perceived as an environmental
stressor and nuisance. Non-auditory effects of noise, as dealt with in this
chapter, can be defined as ‘all those effects on health and well-being which
are caused by exposure to noise, with the exclusion of effects on the
hearing organ and the effects which are due to the masking of auditory
information (i.e. communication problems)1.
Exposure to continuous noise of 85–90 dBA, particularly over a lifetime
in industrial settings, can lead to a progressive loss of hearing, with an
increase in the threshold of hearing sensitivity2. Hearing impairments due
to noise are a direct consequence of the effects of sound energy on the
inner ear. However, the levels of environmental noise, as opposed to
industrial noise, are much lower and effects on non-auditory health cannot
be explained as a consequence of sound energy.
If noise does cause ill-health other than hearing impairment, what might
be the mechanism? It is generally believed that noise disturbs activities
and communication, causing annoyance. In some cases, annoyance may
British Medical Bulletin 2003; 68: 243–257
DOI: 10.1093/bmb/ldg033
British Medical Bulletin, Vol. 68 © The British Council 2003; all rights reserved
Impact of environmental pollution on health: balancing risk
Attachment 14
lead to stress responses, then symptoms and possibly illness3. Alternatively,
noise may influence health directly and not through annoyance. The response to noise may depend on characteristics of the sound, including
intensity, frequency, complexity of sound, duration and the meaning of
the noise.
Non-auditory effects of noise on health
Noise and sleep disturbance
There is both objective and subjective evidence for sleep disturbance by
noise4. Exposure to noise disturbs sleep proportional to the amount of
noise experienced in terms of an increased rate of changes in sleep stages and
in number of awakenings. Habituation occurs with an increased number of
sound exposures by night and across nights. One laboratory study, however, found no habituation during 14 nights of exposure to noise at
maximum noise level exposure5. Objective sleep disturbance is likely to
occur if there are more than 50 noise events per night with a maximum
level of 50 dBA indoors or more. In fact, there is a low association
between outdoor noise levels and sleep disturbance.
In the Civil Aviation Authority Study6 around Heathrow and Gatwick
airports, the relative proportion of total sleep disturbance attributable to
noise increased in noisy areas but not the level of total sleep disturbance.
In effect, the work suggested a symptom reporting or attribution effect
rather than real noise effects. In a subsequent actigraphy study around
four UK airports, sleep disturbance was studied in relation to a wide range
of aircraft noise exposure over 15 consecutive nights7. Although there was
a strong association between sleep EEGs and actigram-measured awakenings and self-reported sleep disturbance, none of the aircraft noise events
were associated with awakenings detected by actigram and the chance of
sleep disturbance with aircraft noise exposure of <82 dB was insignificant.
Although it is likely that the population studied was one already
adapted to aircraft noise exposure, this study is also likely to be closer
to real life than laboratory studies with subjects newly exposed to noise.
However, the actigraph as a sensitive measure of sleep disturbance has
been questioned.
Noise exposure during sleep may increase blood pressure, heart rate
and finger pulse amplitude as well as body movements. There may also
be after-effects during the day following disturbed sleep; perceived sleep
quality, mood and performance in terms of reaction time all decreased
following sleep disturbed by road traffic noise. Studies on noise abatement
show that, by reducing indoor noise level, the amount of REM sleep and
slow wave sleep can be increased8. It thus seems that, although there may
244
British Medical Bulletin 2003;68
Noise pollution and health
Attachment 14
be some adaptation to sleep disturbance by noise, complete habituation
does not occur, particularly for heart rate.
Noise exposure and performance
There is good evidence, largely from laboratory studies, that noise exposure
impairs performance9. Performance may be impaired if speech is played
while a subject reads and remembers verbal material, although this effect
is not found with non-speech noise10. The effects of ‘irrelevant speech’
are independent of the intensity and meaning of the speech. The susceptibility of complex mental tasks to disruption by ‘irrelevant speech’ suggests
that reading, with its reliance on memory, may also be impaired.
Perceived control over and predictability of noise has been found to be
important in determining effects and after-effects of noise exposure. Glass
and Singer11 found that tasks performed during noise were unimpaired
but tasks that were carried out after noise had been switched off were
impaired, this being reduced when subjects were given perceived control
over the noise. Indeed, even anticipation of a loud noise exposure in the
absence of real exposure may impair performance and an expectation
of control counters this effect. Noise exposure may also slow rehearsal
in memory, influence processes of selectivity in memory, and choice of
strategies for carrying out tasks1. There is also evidence that noise may
reduce helping behaviour, increase aggression and reduce the processing
of social cues seen as irrelevant to task performance12.
Noise and cardiovascular disease
Physiological responses to noise exposure
Noise exposure causes a number of predictable short-term physiological
responses mediated through the autonomic nervous system. Exposure to
noise causes physiological activation including increase in heart rate and
blood pressure, peripheral vasoconstriction and thus increased peripheral
vascular resistance. There is rapid habituation to brief noise exposure but
habituation to prolonged noise is less certain8.
Occupational studies: noise and high blood pressure
The strongest evidence for the effect of noise on the cardiovascular system
comes from studies of blood pressure in occupational settings13 (Table 1).
Many occupational studies have suggested that individuals chronically
exposed to continuous noise at levels of at least 85 dB have higher blood
pressure than those not exposed to noise14,15. In many of these studies,
noise exposure has also been an indicator of exposure to other factors, both
physical and psychosocial, which are also associated with high blood
British Medical Bulletin 2003;68
245
246
Crosssectional
Crosssectional
Case
control
Cross2197
sectional
prospective
CrossBlue collar workers
3105
sectional
from 21 Israeli
industrial plants 60%
response rate
Zhao et al14
Lang et al15
Fogari et al, 199484
Hessel and Sluis-Cremer,
199485
Kristal-Boneh et al, 199586
Crosssectional
Workers in a
metallurgical
factory
White South
African miners
Parisian workers
Female Chinese
textile mill
employees
8811
7679
1101
Israeli male industrial 191
workers
1046
Green et al, 199183
Community sample
of men 30–69 years
Crosssectional
Sample
size
Herbold et al, 198982
Sample
Type of
study
Reference
DBP >95 mmHg
DBP > 95 mmHg
>85 dBA/8 h day
>80 dB (n = 8078)
versus >80dB
(n = 733)
80 dBA
Means only used
SBP > 140 mmHg;
DBP > 90 mmHg
SBP >160 mmHg
Hg DBP >95 mmHg
SBP >160 mm
Health
measures
75–104 dBA
74–102 dBA
Self report road
traffic noise
Noise intensity
Table 1 Occupational studies of noise exposure and blood pressure
Age, smoking, coffee
and cholesterol,
industrial sector,
physical work load
Age, BMI
Age, involvement
in physical work,
smoking, Quetelets
Index, hearing loss,
using of hearing
protectors
Age, years of work,
salt intake, family
history of
hypertension
Age, BMI, alcohol
consumption,
occupational
category
Age, BMI, duration
of employment
Age, BMI, Alcohol
consumption
Hypertension
risk factors
controlled for
Noise exposure correlates
with resting heart rate
(significant in men) and DBP
only in women. Intensity of
noise exposure significantly
associated to resting HR in
women
No noise effects on blood
pressure
Heart rate, DBP not differ
SBP higher in noise
SBP, DBP related to noise.
Not confirmed in
multivariate analysis
Dose–response relationships
in SBP and DBP
Stratified results indicate
noise relates to
hypertension. Not
confirmed in multivariate
analysis
SBP, DBP raised in younger
but not older worker
Findings
Impact of environmental pollution on health: balancing risk
Attachment 14
British Medical Bulletin 2003;68
Noise pollution and health
Attachment 14
pressure. Unless these other risk factors are controlled, spurious associations between noise and blood pressure may arise. A recent pioneering
longitudinal industrial noise study has shown that noise levels predicted
raised systolic and diastolic pressure in those doing complex but not
simple jobs16, and predicts increased mortality risk. Occupational noise
exposure has also recently been linked to greater risk of death from
motor vehicle injury17. One possibility is that the effects of noise on blood
pressure are mediated through an intermediate psychological response
such as noise annoyance18 although this has not been convincingly
proved.
Noise and cardiovascular disease in the community
Aircraft noise exposure around Schiphol Airport, Amsterdam has been
related to more medical treatment for heart trouble and hypertension,
more cardiovascular drug use and higher blood pressure, even after adjustment for age, sex, smoking, height/weight and socio-economic differences19.
The evidence of the effects of noise on coronary risk factors has not been
especially consistent: effects of noise have been shown on systolic blood
pressure (but not diastolic pressure), total cholesterol, total triglycerides20,
blood viscosity, platelet count and glucose level21. However, a recent
Swedish study found that the prevalence of hypertension was higher
among people exposed to time-weighted energy averaged aircraft noise
levels of at least 55 dBA or maximum levels above 72 dBA around
Arlanda airport, Stockholm22. In summary, there is some evidence from
community studies that environmental noise is related to hypertension and
there is also evidence that environmental noise may be a minor risk factor
for coronary heart disease (Relative Risk 1.1–1.5)22–24.
A sudden intense exposure to noise may stimulate catecholamine
secretion and precipitate cardiac dysrhythmias. However, neither studies
in coronary care units of the effect of speech noise nor studies of noise
from low altitude military flights on patients on continuous cardiac monitoring have detected changes in cardiac rhythm attributable to noise25.
Endocrine responses to noise
Exposure to high intensity noise in industry has been linked in some
studies to raised levels of noradrenaline and adrenaline26. In one study,
catecholamine secretion decreased when workers wore hearing protection
against noise. Some studies, but not all, have shown raised cortisol in
relation to noise27. The general pattern of endocrine responses to noise is
indicative of noise as a stressor, exciting short-term physiological responses,
but there are inconsistencies between studies.
British Medical Bulletin 2003;68
247
Impact of environmental pollution on health: balancing risk
Attachment 14
Noise and psychiatric disorder
It has been postulated that noise exposure creates annoyance which then
leads on to more serious psychological effects. This pathway remains
unconfirmed; rather it seems that noise causes annoyance and, independently, mental ill-health also increases annoyance. A more complex
model28 incorporates the interaction between the person and their environment. In this model, the person readjusts their behaviour in noisy
conditions to reduce exposure. An important addition is the inclusion of
the appraisal of noise (in terms of danger, loss of environmental quality,
meaning of the noise, challenges for environmental control, etc.) and
coping (the ability to alter behaviour to deal with the stressor). This
model emphasizes that dealing with noise is not a passive process.
Noise exposure and psychological symptoms
Symptoms reported among industrial workers regularly exposed to high
noise levels in settings such as schools29 and factories30 include nausea,
headaches, argumentativeness and changes in mood and anxiety. Many of
these industrial studies are difficult to interpret, however, because workers
were exposed to other stressors such as physical danger and heavy work
demands, in addition to excessive noise. Community surveys have found
that high percentages of people reported ‘headaches’, ‘restless nights’, and
‘being tense and edgy’ in high-noise areas12,31. An explicit link between
aircraft noise and symptoms emerging in such studies raised the possibility
of a bias towards over-reporting of symptoms32. Notably, a study around
three Swiss airports33, which did not mention that it was related to aircraft noise, did not find any association between the level of exposure to
aircraft noise and symptoms.
Noise and common mental disorder
Early studies found associations between the level of aircraft noise and
psychiatric hospital admission rates both in London34 and Los Angeles35,
but this has not been convincingly confirmed by more recent studies36.
In community studies such as the West London Survey of Psychiatric
Morbidity37, no overall relationship was found between aircraft noise
and the prevalence of psychiatric morbidity using various indices of noise
exposure. In longitudinal analyses in the Caerphilly Study, no association
was found between road traffic noise and psychiatric disorder, even after
adjustment for socio-demographic factors and baseline psychiatric disorder,
although there was a small non-linear association of noise with increased
anxiety scores38.
Some studies have found dose–response associations: exposure to
higher levels of military aircraft noise around Kadena airport in Japan was
related in a dose–response relationship to depressiveness and nervousness39,
248
British Medical Bulletin 2003;68
Noise pollution and health
Attachment 14
and road traffic noise has been weakly associated with mental health
symptoms after adjusting for age, sex, income and length of residence40.
Overall, environmental noise seems to be linked to psychological symptoms
but not to clinical psychiatric disorder. However, there may be a link to
psychiatric disorder at much higher noise levels.
Noise annoyance
The most widespread and well documented subjective response to noise
is annoyance, which may include fear and mild anger, related to a belief
that one is being avoidably harmed41. Noise is also seen as intrusive into
personal privacy, while its meaning for any individual is important in
determining whether that person will be annoyed by it42.
Annoyance reactions are often associated with the degree of interference
that any noise causes in everyday activities, which probably precedes and
leads on to annoyance43. In both traffic and aircraft noise studies, noise
levels have been found to be associated with annoyance in a dose–response
relationship44,45. Overall, it seems that conversation, watching television
or listening to the radio (all involving speech communication) are the
activities most disturbed by aircraft noise while traffic noise, if present
at night, is most disturbing for sleep.
Acoustic predictors of noise annoyance in community surveys
One of the primary characteristics affecting the unwantedness of noise
is its loudness or perceived intensity. Loudness comprises the intensity
of sound, the tonal distribution of sound and its duration. The evidence
is mixed on the importance of both the duration and the frequency components of sound and also the number of events involved in determining
annoyance46. High frequency noise has been found to be more annoying
than low frequency noise47. Vibrations are perceived as a complement to
loud noise in most community surveys of noise and are found to be
important factors in determining annoyance, particularly because they
are commonly experienced through other senses as well as hearing.
Fields48 found that, after controlling for noise level, noise annoyance
increases with fear of danger from the noise source, sensitivity to noise,
the belief that the authorities can control the noise, awareness of the
non-noise impacts of the source and the belief that the noise source is
not important.
Combined effects of noise exposure and other stressors
Noise effects on health may be augmented by, or in turn may augment, the
impact of other stressors on health. Stressors may act synergistically,
antagonistically or not at all. Stressors may include physical, chemical,
British Medical Bulletin 2003;68
249
Impact of environmental pollution on health: balancing risk
Attachment 14
biological, social and work organizational factors49. In a laboratory based
experiment, an interaction was found between having a cold and noise
exposure on simple reaction time50. There was little difference between
healthy and cold subjects’ performance tested in quiet conditions, but for
subjects tested in noisy conditions (70 dBA), performance was much
slower for the cold subjects. Synergistic effects of exposure to noise and
vibration have been demonstrated on diastolic blood pressure, whereas
temperature and noise have been shown to affect morning adrenaline
secretion51,52.
There has been much emphasis on laboratory studies without considering that results of such studies may lack external validity. Past research
on combined effects has not considered common conditions and levels of
stressors across studies, direct and indirect effects, long durations of exposure
and complex tasks. Field studies suggest that the effects of multiple
stressors have greater combined effects than simply summing individual
stressors53. Few field studies have examined the effects of multiple environmental stressors. This could be an important new area for the development
of noise research.
Noise and non-auditory health effects in children
It is likely that children represent a group which is particularly vulnerable
to the non-auditory health effects of noise. They have less cognitive capacity
to understand and anticipate stressors and lack well-developed coping
strategies54,55. Moreover, in view of the fact that children are still developing
both physically and cognitively, there is a possible risk that exposure to
an environmental stressor such as noise may have irreversible negative
consequences for this group.
Cognition
Studies of children exposed to environmental noise have consistently found
effects on cognitive performance. The studies which are most informative
in terms of the effects of noise on cognition have been field studies
focusing on primary school children. This article will focus on these
studies. For details of noise effects on pre-school children and of laboratory
studies of acute noise exposure, see Ref. 56.
The effects of noise have not been found uniformly across all cognitive
functions. The research evidence suggests that chronic exposure to noise
affects cognitive functions involving central processing and language comprehension. The effects which have been found can be summarized as
follows. Deficits have been found in sustained attention and visual
attention57–62. Relatedly, according to teachers’ reports, noise-exposed
children have difficulties in concentrating in comparison with children
250
British Medical Bulletin 2003;68
Noise pollution and health
Attachment 14
from quieter schools2,63. Children exposed to chronic environmental
noise have been found to have poorer auditory discrimination and speech
perception54,60,64–67 as well as poorer memory requiring high processing
demands56,68,69. Finally, chronically exposed children tend to have
poorer reading ability and school performance on national standardized
tests64,65,67,70–76.
The first well-designed naturalistic field study to examine the effects of
chronic noise exposure focused on primary school children living in four
32-floor apartment buildings adjacent to a major road65. The rationale
behind this study was that children in the lower floor of the apartment
building would be exposed to higher amounts of noise from the road
than those higher up the building. Seventy-three children were tested for
auditory discrimination and reading level and the results indicated that
children living on the lower floors had greater impairments on these
measures than those living higher up the buildings.
A very well controlled study by Bronzaft and McCarthy71 compared
primary school children taught in a classroom which was exposed to high
levels of railway noise with children in a quiet classroom in the same
school. Significant differences in reading scores were found between children
in the two classrooms. In fact, the mean reading age of the noise-exposed
children was 3–4 months behind that of the control children.
A series of studies have been carried out in schools around Heathrow
Airport in west London. These studies have used repeated-measures designs
to compare noise-exposed and control children. In the first of these
studies73, the cognitive performance and stress responses of 9- to 10-yearold children in four high noise schools were compared with those of
children in four matched control schools. The results showed that, at
baseline, the noise-exposed children had impaired reading comprehension
and sustained attention after adjustment for age, main language spoken
at home and social deprivation. The results at follow up 1 year later suggest
that the children’s further development in reading comprehension may
be affected.
The second study to be conducted near Heathrow Airport74 was a
multi-level modelling study of national standardized test scores (SATs).
The data for 11,000 eleven-year-old children were analysed in relation
to aircraft noise exposure contours. The results showed that noise exposure
was associated with performance on reading and maths tests in a dose–
response function but that this was influenced by socio-economic factors.
The most recent study to be carried out at Heathrow75 compared the
cognitive performance and stress responses of children in 10 high-noise
schools with those of children in 10 matched control schools. The results
indicated that children in the noise-exposed schools experienced greater
annoyance and had poorer reading performance on the difficult items of
a national standardized reading test.
British Medical Bulletin 2003;68
251
Impact of environmental pollution on health: balancing risk
Attachment 14
Perhaps the most important of all the naturalistic field studies to examine
the effects of noise exposure on children was that carried out in Munich
in the 1990s. This prospective, longitudinal study was able to take
advantage of a naturally occurring experiment in which the existing
Munich Airport was closed down and a new airport was opened at another
location. Data were collected at both sites across three testing waves,
one before the closure of the old airport and opening of the new one and
two afterwards. The mean age of children was 10.8 years. The crosssectional results64 showed that, at Wave 1, children at the old airport displayed effects on long-term episodic memory and reading comprehension.
The longitudinal results77 showed that after three waves of testing, children
at the old airport had improvements in long-term memory, suggesting
that this effect of noise exposure is reversible. Interestingly, by the third
wave of testing children at the new airport were exhibiting deficits in longterm memory and reading comprehension, providing strong evidence for a
causal link between noise exposure and cognitive effects.
Motivation
A number of studies have identified an association between chronic
exposure to aircraft noise and decreased motivation54,64,66,78. The results
are however not consistent. In the Los Angeles Airport Study66,78 children
exposed to chronic aircraft noise were less likely to solve a difficult puzzle
involving a success or failure experience and were more likely to give up.
In a follow-up 1 year later78 the finding that noise-exposed children were
less likely to solve a difficult puzzle was replicated, but the finding that
the same children are more likely to give up on a difficult puzzle was
not. In the Munich study64, noise-exposed children gave up on an insoluble
puzzle more quickly than their non noise-exposed counterparts.
Cardiovascular effects
In addition to effects on cognitive performance, there is evidence that
chronic noise exposure may give rise to physiological effects in terms of
raised blood pressure. In the Los Angeles Airport Study66, chronic exposure
to aircraft noise was found to be associated with raised systolic and
diastolic blood pressure. These increases, although significant, were within
the normal range and were not indicative of hypertension. At follow-up
1 year later78, the findings were the same, showing that these effects had
not habituated. In the Munich study, chronic noise exposure was found
to be associated with both baseline systolic blood pressure and lower
reactivity of systolic blood pressure to a cognitive task presented under
acute noise. After the new airport opened, a significant increase in systolic
blood pressure was observed providing evidence for a causal link between
chronic noise exposure and raised blood pressure. No association was
found between noise and diastolic blood pressure or reactivity.
252
British Medical Bulletin 2003;68
Noise pollution and health
Attachment 14
Endocrine disturbance
The Munich Airport Study64,79 examined overnight, resting levels of urinary
catecholamines (adrenaline and noradrenaline). In the cross-sectional
study at the old airport, endocrine levels were significantly higher in the
noise-exposed children, indicating raised stress levels. The longitudinal data
reveal a sharp increase in catecholamine levels in noise-exposed children
following the opening of the new airport. Cortisol levels were also examined
but no significant differences were observed in either the cross-sectional
or longitudinal data. This latter finding is consistent with that of one of
the Heathrow Studies75.
Noise annoyance
Studies have consistently found evidence that exposure to chronic environmental noise causes annoyance in children, even in young children64,57,71.
In Munich, noise-exposed children were found to be more annoyed by
noise as indexed by a calibrated community measure. In London, childadapted, standard self-report questions48,80 were used to assess annoyance
and showed higher annoyance levels in noise-exposed children. In a followup 1 year later, the same result was found, suggesting that annoyance effects
are not subject to habituation.
Conclusions
The evidence for effects of environmental noise on health is strongest
for annoyance, sleep and cognitive performance in adults and children.
Occupational noise exposure also shows some association with raised
blood pressure. Dose–response relationships can be demonstrated for
annoyance and, less consistently, for blood pressure. The effects of noise
are strongest for those outcomes that, like annoyance, can be classified
under ‘quality of life’ rather than illness. What these effects lack in severity
is made up for in numbers of people affected, as these responses are very
widespread.
It may be that the risk of developing mental or physical illness attributable
to environmental noise is quite small, although it is too soon to be certain
of this in terms of the progress of research. Part of the problem is that
the interaction between people, noise and ill-health is a complex one.
Humans are not usually passive recipients of noise exposure and can
develop coping strategies to reduce the impact of noise exposure. If people
do not like noise they may take action to avoid it by moving away from
noisy environments or, if they are unable to move away, by developing
coping strategies. Active coping with noise may be sufficient to mitigate
any ill-effects. Perception of control over the noise source may reduce
the threat of noise and the belief that it can be harmful. It may also be
British Medical Bulletin 2003;68
253
Impact of environmental pollution on health: balancing risk
Attachment 14
that noise is more harmful to health in situations where several stressors
interact and the overall burden may lead to chronic sympathetic arousal
or states of helplessness.
Adaptation to long-term noise exposure needs further study. Most people
exposed to chronic noise, for instance from major airports, seem to tolerate
it. Yet, questionnaire studies suggest that high levels of annoyance do not
decline over time. Another possibility is that adaptation to noise is only
achieved with a cost to health. Evans and Johnson81 found that maintaining task performance in noisy offices was associated with additional
physiological effort and hormonal response.
Undoubtedly, there is a need for further research to clarify this complex
area, including better measurement of noise exposure and health outcomes.
Moreover, there should be a greater emphasis on field studies using
longitudinal designs with careful choice of samples to avoid undue bias
related to prior noise exposure.
References
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
254
Smith AP, Broadbent DE. Non-auditory Effects of Noise at Work: A Review of the Literature.
HSE Contract Research Report No 30, London: HMSO, 1992
Kryter KD. The Effects of Noise on Man, 2nd edn. Orlando, FL: Academic Press, 1985
Van Dijk FJH, Souman AM, de Vries FF. Non-auditory effects of noise in industry. VI. A final
field study in industry. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 1987; 59: 55–62
Öhrström E, Rylander R, Bjorkman N. Effects of night time road traffic noise—an overview of
laboratory and field studies on noise dose and subjective noise sensitivity. J Sound Vib 1988;
127: 441–8
Öhrström E. Sleep disturbance, psychosocial and medical symptoms—a pilot survey among
persons exposed to high levels of road traffic noise. J Sound Vib 1989; 133: 117–28
Civil Aviation Authority. Aircraft Noise and Sleep Disturbance: Final Report. DORA Report
8008: London, 1980
Horne JA, Pankhurst FL, Reyner LA, Hume K, Diamond ID. A field study of sleep disturbance:
effects of aircraft noise and other factors on 5,742 nights of actimetrically monitored sleep in a
large subject sample. Sleep 1994; 17: 146–59
Vallet M, Gagneux J, Clairet JM et al. Heart rate reactivity to aircraft noise after a long-term
exposure. In: Rossi G (ed) Noise as a Public Health Problem. Milan: Centro Recherche e Studio
Amplifon, 1983; 965–75
Loeb M. Noise and Human Efficiency. Chichester: Wiley, 1986
Salame P, Baddeley AD. Disruption of short-term memory by unattended speech: implications
for the structure of working memory. J Verb Learn Verb Behav 1982; 21: 150–64
Glass DC, Singer JE. Urban Stress. New York: Academic Press, 1972
Jones DM, Chapman AJ, Auburn TC. Noise in the environment: a social perspective. J Appl
Psychol 1981; 1: 43–59
Thompson SJ. Non-auditory health effects of noise: an updated review. In Proceedings of
Inter-Noise 1996, vol. 4. Liverpool, UK: Institute of Acoustics, 1996; 2177–82
Zhao Y, Zhang S, Selin S, Spear RCA. A dose response relation for noise induced hypertension.
Br J Ind Med 1991; 48: 179–84
Lang T, Fouriaud C, Jacquinet MC. Length of occupational noise exposure and blood pressure.
Int Arch Occup Environ Health: 1992; 63: 369–72
Melamed S, Kristal-Boneh E, Froom P. Industrial noise exposure and risk factors for cardiovascular
disease: findings from the CORDIS Study. Noise Health 1999; 4: 49–56
British Medical Bulletin 2003;68
Noise pollution and health
Attachment 14
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
British Medical Bulletin 2003;68
Barreto SM, Swerdlow AJ, Smith PG, Higgins CD. Risk of death from motor-vehicle injury in
Brazilian steelworkers: a nested case-control study. Int J Epidemiol 1997; 26: 814–21
Lercher P, Hörtnagl J, Kofler WW. Work, noise annoyance and blood pressure: combined
effects with stressful working conditions. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 1993; 63: 23–8
Knipschild PV. Medical effects of aircraft noise: community cardiovascular survey. Arch Environ
Occup Health 1977; 40: 185–90
Melamed S, Froom P, Kristal-Boneh E, Gofer D, Ribak J. Industrial noise exposure, noise
annoyance, and serum lipid levels in blue-collar workers—the CORDIS Study. Arch Environ
Health 1997; 52: 292–8
Babisch W, Gallacher JEJ, Elwood PC, Ising H. Traffic noise and cardiovascular risk. The
Caerphilly Study, first phase. Outdoor noise levels and risk factors. Arch Environ Health
1988; 43: 407–14
Rosenlund M, Berglind N, Pershagen G, Jarup L, Bluhm G. Increased prevalence of hypertension
in a population exposed to aircraft noise. Occup Environ Med 2001; 58: 769–73
Babisch W, Ising H, Gallacher JE, Sweetnam PM, Elwood PC. Traffic noise and cardiovascular
risk: The Caerphilly and Speedwell studies, third phase—10 year follow up. Arch Environ
Health 1999; 54: 210–6
Babisch W. Traffic noise and cardiovascular disease: Epidemiological review and synthesis.
Noise Health 2000; 8: 9–32
Brenner H, Oberacker A, Kranig W, Buchwalsky R. A field study on the immediate effects of
exposure to low-altitude flights on heart rate and arrhythmia in patients with cardiac diseases.
Int Arch Occup Environ Health 1993; 65: 263–8
Cavatorta A, Falzoi M, Romanelli A et al. Adrenal response in the pathogenesis of arterial
hypertension in workers exposed to high noise levels. J Hypertens 1987; 5: 463–6
Brandenberger G, Follenius M, Wittersheim G, Salame P. Plasma catecholamines and pituitary
adrenal hormones related to mental task demand under quiet and noise conditions. Biol Psychol
1980; 10: 239–52
Passchier-Vermeer W. Noise and Health. Publication No A93/02E. The Hague: Health Council
of the Netherlands, 1993
Crook MA, Langdon FJ. The effects of aircraft noise in schools around London Airport.
J Sound Vib 1974; 34: 221–32
Melamed S, Najenson T, Luz T et al. Noise annoyance, industrial noise exposure and psychological
stress symptoms among male and female workers. In: Berglund B (ed) Noise 88: Noise as a
Public Health Problem. Vol. 2. Hearing, Communication, Sleep and Non-auditory Physiological
Effects. Swedish Council for Building Research, 1988; 315–20
Finke HO, Guski R, Martin R et al. Effects of aircraft noise on man. Proceedings of the Symposium on Noise in Transportation, Section III, paper 1. Southampton: Institute of Sound and
Vibration Research, 1974
Barker SM, Tarnopolsky A. Assessing bias in surveys of symptoms attributed to noise. J Sound
Vib 1978; 59: 349–54
Grandjean E, Graf P, Cauber A et al. A survey of aircraft noise in Switzerland. Proceedings of
the International Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem. Dubrovnik. US Environmental
Protection Agency Publications 500: 1973–008. Washington: US EPA, 1973; 645–59
Abey-Wickrama I, A’Brook MF, Gattoni F et al. Mental hospital admissions and aircraft
noise. Lancet 1969; 2: 633; 1275–7
Meecham WC, Smith HG. Effects of jet aircraft noise on mental hospital admissions. Br J
Audiol 1977; 11: 81–5
Jenkins LM, Tarnopolosky A, Hand DJ. Psychiatric admissions and aircraft noise from
London Airport: four-year, three hospitals’ study. Psychol Med 1981; 11: 765–82
Tarnopolsky A, Morton-Williams J. Aircraft Noise and Prevalence of Psychiatric Disorders,
Research Report. London: Social and Community Planning Research, 1980
Stansfeld SA, Gallacher J, Babisch W, Shipley M. Road traffic noise and psychiatric disorder:
Prospective findings from the Caerphilly Study. BMJ 1996; 313: 266–7
Hiramatsu K, Yamamoto T, Taira K, Ito A, Nakasone T. A survey on health effects due to aircraft
noise on residents living around Kadena airport in the Ryukyus. J Sound Vib 1997; 205: 451–60
Halpern D. Mental Health and the Built Environment. More than Bricks and Mortar?
London: Taylor & Francis Ltd, 1995
255
Impact of environmental pollution on health: balancing risk
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
256
Attachment 14
Cohen S, Weinstein N. Non-auditory effects of noise on behavior and health. J Social Issues
1981; 37: 36–70
Gunn WJ. The importance of the measurement of annoyance in prediction of effects of aircraft
noise on the health and well-being of noise exposed communities. In: Koelaga HS (ed) Developments in Toxicology and Environmental Science. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1987; 237–55
Taylor SM. A path model of aircraft noise annoyance. J Sound Vib 1984; 96: 243–60
Schulz TJ. Synthesis of social surveys on noise annoyance. J Acoust Soc Am 1978; 64: 377–405
Miedema H. Noise and health: How does noise affect us? Proceedings of Inter-noise 2001,
The Hague, The Netherlands, vol. 1; 2001; 3–20
Fields JM. The effect of numbers of noise events on people’s reactions to noise. An analysis of
existing survey data. J Acoust Soc Am 1984; 75: 447–67
Bjork EA. Laboratory annoyance and skin conductance responses to some natural sounds.
J Sound Vib 1986; 109: 339–45
Fields JM. Effects of Personal and Situational Variables on Noise Annoyance with Special Reference
to Implications for En Route Noise. Report No: FAA-AEE-92-03. Washington, DC: Federal
Aviation Administration and NASA, 1992
Dormolen van M, Hertog CAWM. Combined workload, methodological considerations on
recent research. In: Manninen O (ed) Recent Advances in Researches on the Combined Effects
of Environmental Factors. Tampere, Finland: Pk-Paino, 1988; 25–39
Smith A, Thomas M, Brockman P. Noise respiratory virus infections and performance. In: Vallet
M (ed) Proceedings of the 6th International Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem,
vol. 2. Nice, France: INRETS, 1993; 311–4
Manninen O. Hormonal, cardiovascular and hearing responses in men due to combined exposures
to noise, whole body vibrations and different temperatures. In: Okada A, Manninen O (eds)
Recent Advances in Research on the Combined Effects of Environmental Factors. Kanazawan,
Japan: Kyoei, 1987; 107–30
Cnockaert JC, Damongeot A, Floru R. Combined effects of noise and vibrations on performance and physiological activation. In: Manninen O (ed) Recent Advances in Researches on the
Combined Effects of Environmental Factors. Tampere, Finland: Pk-Paino, 1988; 101–15
Rutter ML. Primary prevention of psychopathology. In: Kent MM, Rolf JE (eds) Primary
Prevention of Psychopathology. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England, 1979; 610–25
Cohen S, Evans GW, Stokols D, Krantz DS. Behavior, Health and Environmental Stress. New
York: Plenum Press, 1986
Evans GW, Kielwer W, Martin J. The role of the physical environment in the health and well-being
of children. In: Schroeder HE (ed) New Directions in Health Psychology Assessment. Series in
Applied Psychology: Social Issues and Questions. New York, NY: Hemisphere Publishing
Corporation, 1991; 127–57
Evans GW, Lepore SJ. Nonauditory effects of noise on children. Children’s Environ 1993; 10:
31–51
Haines MM, Stansfeld SA, Berglund B, Job RFS. Chronic aircraft noise exposure and child
cognitive performance and stress. In: Carter N, Job RFS (eds) Proceedings of the 7th International
Conference on Noise as a Public Health Problem, vol. 1. Sydney: Noise Effects ’98 Pty, 1998;
329–35
Hambrick-Dixon PJ. Effects of experimentally imposed noise on task performance of black
children attending day centres near elevated subway trains. Dev Psychol 1986; 22: 259–64
Hambrick-Dixon PJ. The effect of elevated subway train noise over time on black children’s
visual vigilance performance. J Environ Psychol 1988; 8: 299–314
Moch-Sibony A. Study of the effects of noise on personality and certain psychomotor and
intellectual aspects of children, after a prolonged exposure. Travail Humane 1984; 47: 155–65
Muller F, Pfeiffer E, Jilg M, Paulsen R, Ranft U. Effects of acute and chronic traffic noise on
attention and concentration of primary school children. In: Carter N, Job RFS (eds) Proceedings
of the 7th International Conference on Noise as a Public Health Problem, vol. 1. Sydney: Noise
Effects ’98 Pty, 1998; 365–8
Sanz SA, Garcia AM, Garcia A. Road traffic noise around schools: a risk for pupil’s performance.
Int Arch Environ Health 1993; 65: 205–7
Ko NWM. Responses of teachers to road traffic noise. J Sound Vib 1981; 77: 133–6
Evans GW, Hygge S, Bullinger M. Chronic noise and psychological stress. Psychol Sci 1995; 6: 333–8
British Medical Bulletin 2003;68
Noise pollution and health
Attachment 14
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
British Medical Bulletin 2003;68
Cohen S, Glass DC, Singer JE. Apartment noise, auditory discrimination, and reading ability
in children. J Exp Soc Psychol 1973; 9: 407–22
Cohen S, Evans GW, Krantz DS, Stokols D. Physiological, motivational and cognitive effects
of aircraft noise on children: Moving from the laboratory to the field. Am Psychol 1980; 35:
231–43
Evans GW, Maxwell L. Chronic noise exposure and reading deficits: The mediating effects of
language acquisition. Environ Behav 1997; 29: 638–56
Hygge S. Classroom experiments on the effects of aircraft, road traffic, train and verbal noise
presented at 66dBA Leq, and of aircraft and road traffic presented at 55dBA Leq, on long term
recall and recognition in children aged 12–14 years. In: Vallak M (ed) Noise as a Public Health
Problem: Proceedings of the Sixth International Congress, vol. 2. Arcueil, France: INRETS,
1994; 531–8
Hygge S, Evans GW, Bullinger M. The Munich Airport Noise Study: Cognitive effects on children
from before to after the change over of airports. In: Proceedings of Inter-Noise ‘96. Book 5.
Liverpool, UK: Institute of Acoustics, 1996; 2189–92
Bronzaft AL. The effect of a noise abatement program on reading ability. J Environ Psychol
1981; 1: 215–22
Bronzaft AL, McCarthy DP. The effects of elevated train noise on reading ability. Environ
Behav 1975; 7: 517–27
Green KB, Pasternack BS, Shore RE. Effects of aircraft noise on reading ability of school-age
children. Arch Environ Health 1982; 37: 24–31
Haines MM, Stansfeld SA, Job RFS, Berglund B, Head J. Chronic aircraft noise exposure,
stress responses, mental health and cognitive performance in school children. Psychol Med
2001; 31: 265–77
Haines MM, Stansfeld SA, Head J, Job RFS. Multi-level modelling of the effects of aircraft
noise on national standardised performance tests in primary schools around Heathrow Airport,
London. J Epidemiol Community Health 2001; 56: 139–44
Haines MM, Stansfeld SA, Brentnall S, Head J, Berry B, Jiggins M, Hygge S. The West London
School Study: The effects of chronic aircraft noise exposure on child health. Psychol Med
2001; 31: 1385–96
Lukas JS, DuPree RB, Swing JW. Report of a Study on the Effects of Freeway Noise on Academic
Achievement of Elementary School Children, and a Recommendation for a Criterion Level for a
School Noise Abatement Program. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Health Services, 1981
Hygge S, Evans GW, Bullinger M. A prospective study of some effects of aircraft noise on cognitive
performance in school children. Psychol Sci 2002; 13: 469–74
Cohen S, Evans GW, Krantz DS, Stokols D. Aircraft noise and children: Longitudinal and
cross-sectional evidence on adaptation to noise and the effectiveness of noise abatement. J Pers
Soc Psychol 1981; 40: 331–45
Evans GW, Lepore SJ, Shejwal BR, Palsane MN. Chronic residential crowding and children’s
well-being: an ecological perspective. Child Dev 1998; 69: 1514–23
Fields JM, de Jong RG, Brown AL et al. Guidelines for reporting core information from
community noise reaction surveys. J Sound Vib 1997; 206: 685–95
Evans GW, Johnson D. Human response to open office noise. In: Carter N, Job RFS (eds)
Proceedings of the International Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem, vol. 1. Sydney:
Noise Effects ’98 Pty, 1998; 255–8
Herbold M, Hense H-W, Keil U (1989). Effects of Road Traffic Noise on Prevalence of Hypertension in Men: Results of the Luebeck Blood Pressure Study. Soz Praeventivmed, 34: 19–23.
Green MS, Schwartz K, Harari G, Najenson MD (1991). Industrial Noise Exposure and Ambulatory Blood Pressure and Heart Rate. Journal of Occupational Medicine, 33(8): 879–883.
Fogari R, Zoppi A, Vanasia A, Marasi G, Villa G (1994). Occupational noise exposure and
blood pressure. Journal of Hypertension, 12: 475–479
Hessel PA & Sluis-Cremer GK (1994). Occupational noise exposure and blood pressure: Longitudinal and cross-sectional observations in a group of underground miners. Archives of
Environmental Health, 49: 128–134.
Kristal-Boneh E, Melamed S, Harari G. Acute noise exposure on blood pressure and heart rate
among industrial employees: The Cordis Study. Archives of Environmental Health, 50(4):
298–304
257
Attachment 14
Criteria for assessment of noise annoyance
Attachment 15
Paul D. Schomera)
(Received 2004 March 31; revised 2005 January 16; accepted 2005 September 02)
Day-night average sound level (DNL) and the relationship between DNL and community
annoyance to noise are often presented to a community as part of a noise-assessment process,
usually as established scientific fact. In reality, there is great scatter and variability in the
attitudinal survey data that are the basis for the DNL-response relationship. As a result, there
is significant uncertainty around the corresponding curves that are fitted to the data. This paper
collects, tabulates, and compares recommended minimum DNL criterion levels for various types
of communities and settings. The paper summarizes some of the recommended adjustments to
DNL that are contained in ISO 1996-1:2003 and other factors that reduce the variations between
predicted and reported community noise annoyance. The paper recommends that the appropriate
DNL criterion level in residential areas should be between 50 dB and 55 dB. Differences between
attitudinal survey data on community annoyance and predicted community responses can be
minimized by use of adjustments, most of which are contained in ISO 1996-1:2003. © 2005
Institute of Noise Control Engineering.
Primary subject classification: 69.3; secondary subject classification: 68.3
1 INTRODUCTION
Environmental noise is the unwanted sound received
at an outdoor location from all sources in a community. Environmental noise excludes sounds that are experienced by
listeners in occupational settings as well as the sounds emitted
by consumer products and experienced by listeners in their
homes. Major sources of environmental noise include road,
rail, and air traffic; industries; construction and public works;
lawn and garden equipment; snow-removal equipment; and
amplified music.
The extent of the environmental noise problem is very large. In the USA in the early 1970s, over 40 % of the population
was estimated to be exposed to A-weighted sound levels from
vehicular traffic that exceed 55 dB [1]; in the European Union
and Japan, this percentage is even higher [2]. In contrast to
many other environmental problems, the population exposed
to unacceptable noise continues to grow, accompanied by an
ever-increasing number of complaints [3].
Environmental noise is frequently assessed in the United
States by means of the day-night average A-weighted sound
level (abbreviated DNL for day-night average sound level
where the A-frequency weighting is understood). In countries
in the European Union, the day-evening-night average sound
level (abbreviated DENL) is now required for assessments of
environmental noise [4].
Day-night average sound level and day-evening-night
average sound level have units of decibels (dB) relative to
the standard reference pressure of 20 µPa. Day-night average
sound level differs from a 24-hour average sound level in that
a 10‑dB factor is added to sound levels occurring during nighttime hours in a determination of DNL. Day-evening-night
average sound levels use a 5‑dB factor added to sound levels
Schomer and Associates, Inc.; 2117 Robert Drive, Champaign, Illinois,
61821, USA; e-mail: schomer@SchomerAndAssociates.com
1
Numbers enclosed within brackets represent citations in the list of references.
a)
132
Noise Control Eng. J. 53 (4), 2005 Jul–Aug
occurring in evening hours and a 10‑dB factor for sound levels
occurring during nighttime hours. The American National Standards Institute [5] and
the U.S. National Research Council [6] recommend DNL
for assessment of environmental noise as do most federal
agencies and administrations. The International Organization
for Standardization [7] recommends similar measures for
assessments of environmental noise. The degree of noise annoyance in a community is
related to the level of the noise by means of so called "doseresponse" relationships. These relationships have been under
development for the past 50 years and are developed from
meta-analyses of attitudinal survey data. Examples of the
development of the response relationships include the seminal
study by Schultz [8], the study by Finegold, Harris, and von
Gierke [9], and the more-recent study by Miedema and Vos
[10]. Examples of the application for these relationships can
be found in documents by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency [1], the U.S. Federal Interagency Committee on Urban
Noise [11], and the U.S. Federal Interagency Committee on
Noise [12].
There is a strong consensus that DNL is a good descriptor
for assessment of the noise from individual modes of
transportation such as vehicles or aircraft. While there are
other descriptors that can be used to assess transportation noise,
yearly-average DNL (YDNL) is the descriptor of choice for
assessments of the long-term annoyance caused by individual
noise source types.
The choice of noise descriptor, however, is but half the
problem. More important than the descriptor are the values
of the descriptor chosen to represent various degrees of
adversity. If the criteria are too high, they will fail to provide
an acceptable living environment; conversely, if the criteria
are too low, then they will require unnecessarily expensive
mitigation measures and will probably be ignored. A poor
2
Noise descriptors are also known as ‘metrics.’
choice for descriptor with appropriate criterion levels can do
a fair job in portraying the community reaction to noise, but
the best descriptor will fail if the criterion levels are too high
or too low. This paper collects, tabulates, and compares recommended
appropriate minimum criteria levels for the long-term DNL
descriptor in various types of communities and settings. The
analysis is primarily from a USA perspective; however the
conclusions should be equally applicable in any industrialized
country. This paper also looks at the available basic data on
which many of the criteria were based. Finally, this paper
summarizes some of the recommended adjustments to DNL
that are contained in [7] and other factors that reduce the
variations between predicted and reported community noise
annoyance.
This paper is concerned with noise annoyance in areas
where people reside. It does not deal with noise annoyance
in other settings such as at work, or in parks and wilderness
areas. This paper does not deal with non-auditory effects of
noise such as hearing loss or direct impacts of noise on health
or sleep. This paper does not deal with cognitive or other
non-annoyance effects of noise in schools, the workplace, or
the home.
2review of DESCRIPTORS AND
CORRESPONDING CRITERIA FOR
ASSESSING NOISE ANNOYANCE
2.1 U.S. Federal Agencies that recommend
minimum day-night average sound
levels of about 65 dB
2.1.1Federal Aviation Administration
Attachment 15
help mitigate the impact of the noise produced by operations
of military aircraft at residential locations in the vicinity of air
installations. Outdoor day-night average sound levels ranging
upward from 65 dB are considered in such studies. Sometimes,
for purposes of information, a DNL contour line is presented
at a level of 60 dB.
For an AICUZ study, the description of a residential area
does not differentiate between urban, suburban, or rural areas. The same factors that influenced the FAA’s choice of 65 dB as
the minimum criterion level also influenced the DoD’s choice,
although aircraft operated by agencies of the DoD have never
been designed to minimize noise levels in a community around
an airfield.
In addition to aircraft noise, agencies of the DoD that
operate weapons as part of military training and readiness
exercises are concerned about the noise levels in neighboring
communities. Day-night average sound level [hereafter
shortened to day-night sound level] is the preferred descriptor
for the sounds produced by weapons and explosive devices.
2.1.3Department of Housing and Urban
Development
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) noise policy was first published in 1971 [15]. However,
HUD has no cognizance over the sound produced by any
noise source. The HUD Noise Assessment Guidelines are
included here for completeness. In a 1985 document [16],
outdoor day-night sound levels ranging from 65 dB to 75 dB
are described as “normally unacceptable [for housing]” and
DNLs from 60 dB to 65 dB are described as being “normally
acceptable.” DNLs less than 60 dB are termed in the HUD
Guidelines as “clearly acceptable.”
2.2
Agencies and Boards of the U.S. Federal
Government that recommend minimum
day-night average sound levels of about
55 dB
The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), a
part of the U.S. Department of Transportation, uses DNL
as the preferred descriptor for assessing aircraft noise in
so-called “Airport Part 150 Studies.” Part 150 studies are
noise-compatibility/land-use studies designed to identify and
evaluate measures to mitigate the impact of aircraft noise in the
vicinity of airports. Outdoor day-night average sound levels
ranging upward from 65 dB are considered in such studies
[13]. For an airport Part 150 study, residential areas do not
differentiate between urban, suburban, or rural areas. With
virtually no exceptions, the FAA provides noise-mitigation
funds for residential areas only when the DNL exceeds, or
is predicted to exceed, 65 dB. The FAA regards a DNL of
65 dB as “the level of significance for assessing noise impacts”
[13].
Many administrations, agencies, commissions, and
boards of the U.S. Federal Government, other than the FAA
and the DoD, have oversight over noise-producing sources.
The Federal Transit Administration, the Federal Railroad
Administration, the Surface Transportation Board, the Federal
Highway Administration, and the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission are five of the more important. Moreover,
a mission of the National Research Council, a part of the
National Academy of Science, is to provide advice on scientific
matters to the entire Federal Government, including advice
on preferred descriptors for evaluating noise in residential
communities. 2.1.2Department of Defense
2.2.1The Federal Transit Administration
The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) uses DNL to
evaluate noise in environmental assessments and in “AirInstallation Compatible Use Zone Studies” [14]. AICUZ
studies are noise-compatibility/land-use studies designed to
3
Part 150 refers to a part of Title 14 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations.
Noise Control Eng. J. 53 (4), 2005 July–Aug
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA), a part of the
U.S. Department of Transportation, uses the DNL descriptor
A-weighted sound exposure is used for the sound of small arms. For
large weapons, C-weighted sound exposure is measured or predicted and
then converted to an equivalent A-weighted sound exposure as described
in [5] and [7].
4
133
to assess noise from mass transit activities [17]. Mass transit
includes rapid rail transit or light rail transit, commuter rail,
diesel buses, electric buses and trackless trolleys, bus storage
yards, rail-transit storage yards, maintenance facilities,
stations, and subways. Figure 1 illustrates the FTA criteria
for assessing the noise of transit activities. These criteria vary
with the land use at the location of the noise receiver and with
the existing outdoor noise exposure at the receiver.
In Figure 1, the abscissa is the noise exposure that is
present at a location in the vicinity of a transit activity. The left
ordinate is the projected noise exposure for Category 1 and 2
land uses when the proposed transit activity is operating. The
right ordinate is the projected noise exposure for Category 3
land uses. Categories of land use are described in [17]. Noise
exposure is the greatest hourly average A-weighted sound
level in a 24-h period for Categories 1 and 3 land uses; noise
exposure is day-night sound level for Category 2 land uses.
Category 2 includes residences and buildings where people
normally sleep such as detached homes, apartments, hospitals,
and hotels. Figure 1 shows, for example, that if the existing DNL at a
location is 55 dB, then the start of impact for a new or revised
Category 2 project occurs when the projected DNL from the
new or revised transit activity in combination with the existing
noise sources exceeds 55.5 dB at a receiver location. For an
area around a transit activity where the existing DNL is less
than 40 dB, adverse impact begins when the DNL from the new
noise source in combination with the existing noise sources
is less than 50 dB. In areas where the existing DNL is 65 dB,
the DNL from transit activities can only be just over 60 dB
to avoid an adverse impact. The FTA criteria in Figure 1 are
much lower than the FAA/DoD minimum criterion of 65 dB
for day-night sound level of aircraft noise.
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
85
—
–
–
–
–
—
–
–
–
–
—
–
–
–
–
—
–
–
–
–
—
–
–
–
–
—
–
–
–
–
—
–
–
–
–
—
–
–
–
–
—
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
Project Noise Exposure, Category 3
Land Uses (dB)
75
—
–
–
–
–
—
–
–
–
–
—
–
–
–
–
—
–
–
–
–
—
–
–
–
–
—
–
–
–
–
—
–
–
–
–
—
–
–
–
–
—
45
—
–
–
–
–
—
–
–
–
–
—
–
–
–
–
—
–
–
–
–
—
–
–
–
–
—
–
–
–
–
—
–
–
–
–
—
–
–
–
–
—
Project Noise Exposure, Category 1 and 2
Land Uses (dB)
80
80
Existing A-weighted Noise Exposure (dB)
Fig. 1—Criteria of the U.S. Federal Transit Administration [17]
Schomer
-1
for assessment of the
noise produced
by transit projects
in various land-use categories; land-use Category 2 is for
residential housing.
134
Noise Control Eng. J. 53 (4), 2005 Jul–Aug
Attachment 15
The FTA Guidance Manual [17] includes a background
discussion about the development of their noise impact criteria;
the Manual cites the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
recommendation [1] for a DNL of 55 dB as the basis for
the FTA recommendations for the boundaries of the impact
zone. The FTA Manual states that a DNL of 65 dB was used
to determine the lower boundary of the region of severe
impact.
2.2.2The Federal Railroad Administration
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), another
part of the U.S. Department of Transportation, uses the DNL
descriptor to assess the noise from mass transit activities. This effort was motivated in part by the FRA’s need to assess
the noise from new, high-speed trains. The FRA uses exactly
the same criteria as used by the FTA. Like the FTA, the FRA
terms the noise level represented by a DNL of 65 dB as “severe
impact” [18].
2.2.3The Surface Transportation Board
The Surface Transportation Board (STB), another part
of the U.S. Department of Transportation, uses the DNL
descriptor to assess the noise from railroads that transport
freight. The STB uses the same criteria as the FTA and FRA;
see, for example, the requirements laid on the proposal of two
railroads to acquire the assets of Conrail [19].
2.2.4The Federal Highway Administration
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), another
component of the U.S. Department of Transportation, does
not use DNL for noise assessment. Their procedure [20] is
included here for completeness. The FHWA uses two other
descriptors. One is termed “the 10th-percentile A-weighted
sound level for a busy hour” with letter symbol L10. The other
is termed “the hourly average A-weighted sound level for a
busy-hour” with letter symbol L1h or Leq1h. At a location at the exterior of a residence in the vicinity of
a roadway, the FHWA requires that the estimated or measured
hourly average sound level for the busiest traffic hour of a day
be at most 67 dB and that the 10th–percentile sound level for
the busiest traffic hour of the day be at most 70 dB.
However, state highway agencies are required to select a
tolerance limit of at least 1 dB around the federal requirements
and are free to select somewhat higher tolerance limits. Thus,
with the minimum tolerance, the FHWA criteria are, at most,
66 dB for busy-hour hourly average sound level or 69 dB for
the 10th‑percentile sound level in the busiest traffic hour. While
some relation exists between the FHWA noise descriptors
and DNL, the correlation is not particularly good or well
documented. 2.2.5The Department of Transportation
The U.S. Department of Transportation (DoT) recognizes
that the various modes of transportation within the responsibility
of the Department have different models, noise descriptors,
and criteria. In a report to Congress [21] they stated:
“A unified DoT multi-modal noise model is feasible and
2.2.6The Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has
issued regulations [22] that require:
“the noise attributable to any new compressor stations,
compression added to an existing station, or any
modification, upgrade or update of an existing station,
must not exceed a day-night average sound level of 55 dB
at any pre-existing noise-sensitive area (such as schools,
hospitals, or residences).”
FERC developed this policy based on the level of
significance identified by the USEPA at a DNL of 55 dB.
2.2.7The Environmental Protection
Agency
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [1]
recommended a DNL of 55 dB as the “level requisite to protect
health and welfare with an adequate margin of safety.” The
USEPA recommended the use of DNL and the DNL criterion
level of 55 dB to other federal agencies.
In a recent letter [23], a USEPA regional administrator,
Ms. Mindy Lubber, asked the FAA to assess the noise of a
proposed new runway at Boston’s Logan Airport using DNL
at a criterion level of 55 dB.
2.2.8The National Research Council
The National Research Council (NRC), Committee
on Hearing, Bioacoustics and Biomechanics (CHABA),
developed guidelines for preparing environmental impact
statements on noise [6]. The NRC selected DNL as the
preferred noise descriptor and a criterion level of 55 dB to
represent the beginning of noise impact in residential areas.
Figure 2 shows the NRC requirements for noise assessments
in various situations. The requirements are in terms of the
yearly day-night average sound level, YDNL, in decibels. The
abscissa is the existing or expected YDNL at a receiver location
with the sound from noise sources in a ‘project’ not present. A
Noise Control Eng. J. 53 (4), 2005 July–Aug
Expected Yearly Day-Night Average Sound Level (dB)
desirable. It would enable the evaluation of the noise
impacts from multiple sources without the need for multiple
models. As an example, using MNM [Multi-modal Noise
Model], evaluation of the noise impacts of an airport with
several highways and a rapid transit line running to the
airport would no longer require the use of two computerized
models and one non-computerized model to perform an
assessment. In addition to facilitating analysis, a multimodal model would enable one to more clearly assess and
compare the contributions of each source to the total noise
exposure. In the present situation, the commonly used
noise descriptors differ from one mode to another. Even
for the same transportation mode, criteria values would
differ [i.e., there would be different criteria from one mode
to another when using the same descriptor].”
Clearly, in 2000 the DoT recognized that there is no
common noise descriptor or criterion within the DoT, let alone
within the Federal Government, for assessing the noise from
transportation modes.
Attachment 15
Measurement
Required
Full NED For All Projects
70
70
60
Full NED For Permanent
Projects
50
Modified NED For Temporary
Projects (Daily Ldn < 90 dB)
55
40
30
20
All Projects Screened Out*
10
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Decibels
Existing or Expected YDNL
Existing or Expected
Population Density
60
600 6000 60,000
200 2000 20,000
Persons/Sq. Mile
Fig. 2—Screening diagram from the U.S. National Research
Council [6] for theSchomer
expected- yearly
day-night average
2
sound level (YDNL) of an intruding noise source, relative
to the existing or expected YDNL at a receiver location, to
determine whether ‘full’ or ‘modified’ Noise Environmental Documentation (NED) is required.
‘project’ could be any new activity (highway, airport, airplane
flight paths, railroad, unloading and loading of ships, freight
or truck depot, delivery trucks for a supermarket, or building
or road construction) that contains sources that could increase
the existing YDNL at a receiver location. The ordinate is the
YDNL expected at the receiver location when the new sources
of noise are present. For a project, actions that may be required to assess the
noise of the project range from the requirement to produce
a ‘full’ Noise Environmental Documentation (NED), to
a ‘modified’ NED, to no action if the expected YDNL is
sufficiently low (i.e., the project is ‘screened out’). A project
may be permanent (e.g., a highway) or temporary (e.g., road
construction). For temporary projects, a modified NED is
required if the daily DNL is less than 90 dB; if the daily DNL
equals or exceeds 90 dB, a ‘full’ NED is required.
Figure 2 shows, for example, that if the existing DNL is
50 dB, then full environmental documentation is required
when the expected YDNL for a permanent project is equal to
or greater than 40 dB. The NRC recommendations in Figure
2 for project environmental documentation are more stringent
than the corresponding guidelines or recommendations by all
other Agencies and Boards of the U.S. Federal Government and
much more stringent than a DNL criterion level of 65 dB.
2.3 National Standards Setting Bodies
2.3.1American National Standards Institute
(ANSI)
American National Standard ANSI S12.9/Part 4 [5]
recommends DNL as the preferred descriptor of environmental
noise. American National Standard ANSI S12.9/Part 5
135
establishes a DNL criterion of 55 dB for housing and similar
noise-sensitive land uses [24].
2.3.2American Public Transit Association
The American Public Transit Association [now known as
the American Public Transportation Association] (APTA) uses
the maximum A-frequency-weighted (and time-weighted)
sound level during a passby to describe the noise of vehicles
used for public transportation [25]. This usage is consistent
with requirements given in similar documents from the Society
of Automotive Engineers and in International Standards
prepared under the auspices of the International Organization
for Standardization (ISO).
A maximum sound level is clearly different from a timeaverage sound level. Maximum sound level is determined
with one of the two standardized exponential time weightings
(F or S for ‘fast’ or ‘slow’, with nominal exponential time
constants of 125 ms or 1000 ms, respectively). A time-average
sound level (as used to determine day-night sound level) is
determined from the time-mean-square of the instantaneous
sound pressure signal, time averaged over a stated time interval
and without exponential time weighting. APTA noise criteria depend on housing density and type. Residential zones are divided into three groups (with low,
normal, and high-density housing) and two types (singlefamily and multi-family). Table 1 gives the APTA criteria. For
example, for single-family homes in a low-density residential
zone, the maximum A-weighted sound level from a source of
public transportation should not exceed 70 dB at the location
of a dwelling. TABLE 1—Maximum A-weighted (and time weighted) sound-level criteria
from the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) [25] for the
passby sound of a single vehicle used for public transportation (bus, train,
or trolley) as measured outdoors at a residence.
Housing
density
Residential Zone Description
Low
Open space, parks, suburban
residential or recreational areas; no
nearby highways or boulevards
Quiet apartments and hotels, open
space, suburban residential, or
Normal
occupied outdoor areas near busy
streets
High
Average semi-residential/
commercial areas, urban parks,
museums, and non-commercial
public building areas
Maximum A-weighted
sound level (dB)
Housing type
SingleMulti-family
family
70
75
TABLE 2—Criteria for A-weighted sound level from the World Health
Organization [3] for assessment of annoyance to sources of environmental
noise in residential areas. Criteria for maximum sound levels are for
protection against disruption of sleep. Actual sound levels should not
exceed the criterion levels to avoid serious or moderate annoyance. Impact
characterization
55
45
55
60
Moderate
annoyance
50
40
50
60
2.4.2The World Bank Group
The World Bank Group (WBG) has a strong program [26]
in pollution management so as to ensure that their projects in
developing countries are environmentally acceptable. Noise
is one of the pollutants covered by their policy. Table 3 shows
the WBG limits for A-weighted sound level at locations outside
the boundary of general industrial projects including foundries,
iron and steel manufacturing, and thermal power plants for
which the World Bank Group provides, or guarantees, loans.
TABLE 3—World Bank Group limits on A-weighted sound level at
receptor locations outside the boundary of an industrial project for which
WBG money is lent [26].
Receptor
75
Residential,
institutional,
educational
Industrial,
commercial
75
Time
period
Daytime
Time-period
average sound
level (dB)
55
Nighttime
45
Daytime
70
Nighttime
70
Corresponding
day-night average
sound level (dB)
55
76
80
2.4.1The World Health Organization
The World Health Organization (WHO), an agency of the
United Nations, recommends [3] a 16-hour daytime average
Noise Control Eng. J. 53 (4), 2005 Jul–Aug
16-h
8-h
Approximate
Nighttime
daytime
nighttime
day-night
maximum
average
average
average
sound level
sound level sound level sound level
(dB)
(dB)
(dB)
(dB)
Serious
annoyance
75
2.4 International Bodies
136
Attachment 15
sound level of not more than 55 dB and, approximately, an
8-h nighttime average sound level of not more than 45 dB
to prevent “serious annoyance” in residential areas. These
daytime and nighttime average sound levels are equivalent to a
day-night sound level (DNL) of 55 dB. During nighttime, the
maximum A‑frequency‑weighted sound level from any single
sound source should not exceed 60 dB to avoid disruption of
sleep. Table 2 summarizes the recommendations of the WHO
regarding noise levels in residential areas for avoidance of
serious and moderate annoyance. 2.4.3The International Organization for
Economic Co-operation and
Development
The International Organization for Economic Co-operation
and Development (OECD) has concerns similar to those
expressed by the policy of the World Bank Group. The OECD
report on environmental criteria for transportation modes [2]
states:
“Noise finds a place among these criteria on account of the
high level of concern about noise from motorized transport
and the possible adverse impacts of noise on human health
and quality of life.”
The OECD report supports the noise limits recommended
by WHO in Table 2. Further, the report recommends the
limits on A-weighted sound levels shown in Table 4 for urban
and rural land areas, namely, an outdoor DNL limit of 55 dB
at residential locations in urban areas, and, in rural areas, an
outdoor DNL limit of 50 dB.
TABLE 4—Limits on A-weighted sound level recommended by the OECD
[2] for transportation noise sources in the land areas indicated.
Land area
Urban
Rural
Time period
Time-period average
sound level (dB)
Daytime
55
Nighttime
45
Daytime
50
Nighttime
40
Corresponding
day-night average
sound level (dB)
55
50
3 DISCUSSION OF CRITERION LEVELS
3.1 Agencies, Boards, Standardization
bodies, and International Organizations
The FAA, DoD, and HUD use a DNL criterion level of
65 dB as a ‘level of significance.’ What the FAA terms “the
Federal Government’s level of significance for assessing
noise impacts,” the FTA and FRA term “severe impact.” The
majority of U.S. Federal Administrations, Agencies, Boards,
and Commissions use DNL as the preferred noise descriptor
and a DNL criterion level of 55 dB, or less, as a ‘level of
significance.’
The NRC goes further, and, in some instances, recommends
assessments when the project noise is estimated to exceed a
DNL of 40 dB—a level that is less than the criterion level of
all other U.S. Federal Agencies and Boards and 25 dB less
than the FAA/DoD criterion level.
ANSI, WHO, The World Bank Group, and the OECD all
recommend a DNL criterion level of 55 dB for residences;
OECD recommends a DNL criterion level of 50 dB for
residences in rural areas. Nearly all U.S. policies that set DNL criterion levels at
about 55 dB were established in 1995, or later, and, thus,
were based on 25 more years of research on noise-effects and
noise-control technology than the noise-assessment policies
of the FAA, DoD, and HUD.
3.2 Attitudinal survey data
Figure 3 shows a recent summary by Fidell and Silvati [27]
of attitudinal-survey noise-annoyance data versus DNL. This
summary included virtually all noise-survey data available,
and reported in the English language, with applicable response
and noise descriptor categories. For a given DNL, there was
a wide range to the response data, especially for DNLs from
about 55 dB to 75 dB.
Noise Control Eng. J. 53 (4), 2005 July–Aug
Attachment 15
The data in Figure 3 represent responses to the sound
from noise sources in three transportation groups: (1) aircraft
operations around airports, (2) road traffic, and (3) railroads.
Second-order polynomial curves were fitted to the response
data for aircraft noise (solid line) and railroad noise (dashed
line). A curve fit to the road-traffic data would lie between the
aircraft and railroad curves. These curves show a systematic
difference among the three groups with, in general, aircraft
noise engendering the greatest degree of annoyance and
railroad noise engendering the least annoyance for a given
DNL.
The use of transitional functions has been suggested instead
of three second-order polynomials because, at some noise
level, the annoyance obviously ends at 100% of the population
being highly annoyed. However, such curve fitting requires an
assumption for the DNL at which the 100% of a community
is highly annoyed and also for the DNL at which none of the
community is highly annoyed. The percentage highly annoyed indicated by such a
transitional function can be moved by a large amount
depending on the assumptions for the DNL at 100% and 0%
highly annoyed, especially in the critical region for DNL
between 55 dB and 75 dB. For example, if one assumes 0%
highly annoyed at a DNL of 40 dB and 100% annoyed at a
DNL of 120 dB, one gets much lower apparent annoyance at
a DNL of 65 dB than if one were to assume 0% annoyed at a
DNL of 20 dB and 100% annoyed at a DNL of 90 dB.
This paper does not present the equations for the secondorder curve fits to the responses to the noise of aircraft, road
traffic, and railroads because it is not the purpose of this paper
to add to the debate about what type of curve should be fitted to
the data. Rather, the purposes of showing the curves in Figure
3 are only (1) to show that there are systematic differences
in the annoyance responses among the three transportation
groups, and (2) that, for a given DNL, there is great variation
in the response data. As shown in Figure 4, Miedema and Vos [10] found
the same trends as Fidell and Silvati. For noise from the
transportation groups, at a given DNL, the noise of aircraft
was the most annoying while the noise of railroads was the
least annoying. For this reason, the new ISO 1996-1:2003 [7]
recommends 3 dB to 6 dB penalties and bonuses for aircraft
and train noise, respectively.
Figure 5 shows the data of Figure 3 with the Federal
Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON) curve overlaid
[12]. The FICON curve generally understates the average
percentage of a community that is highly annoyed. At a DNL
of 65 dB, the average percentage of a community that is highly
annoyed by aircraft noise is 28% by the analysis shown in
Figure 3; the corresponding prediction by the FICON curve
fit is 12%. At a DNL of 60 dB, the average percentage of a
community that is highly annoyed by aircraft noise is predicted
by the curve fit of Figure 3 to be 17%; the average percentage
of a community that is highly annoyed by the sound from all
sources of transportation noise in the 5‑dB‑wide bin centered
at a DNL of 60 dB is 27%. In contrast, the average percentage
of the community that is highly annoyed by aircraft noise is
predicted by the FICON curve fit to be just 7%.
The data in Figure 5 show that the percentages of
137
Attachment 15
100
Airports
Road Traffic
Highly annoyed (%)
80
Railroad
60
40
—
50
—
40
—
30
—
—
20
—
—
0
—
20
60
70
80
90
DNL (dB)
Fig. 3—Compilation by Fidell and Silvati [27] of surveys of the annoyance response to noise from aircraft operations from airports, road
traffic, and railroads. The top solid-line is a second-order curve fit to the aircraft noise data; the bottom dashed-line curve is a
similar fit to the railroad noise data. The curve fit to the road-traffic noise data lies between the curves for aircraft and railroad
noise.
a population that were highly annoyed by sources of
transportation noise started to decrease rapidly at a DNL of
about 55 dB with a further drop to near 0% at a DNL of about
50 dB, i.e., in the gray-shaded region in Figure 5. Thus, to
minimize the percentage of a population that is highly annoyed
by sources of transportation noise, it appears that a DNL
criterion level should be selected in the range from 50 dB to
55 dB, based on the totality of applicable worldwide noise
100 –
annoyance survey data. Such a choice would be consistent
with the recommendations of the World Health Organization
and the U.S. National Research Council. 4adjustment FACTORS
4.1 A History of adjustment factors
A great deal of energy has been expended on fitting a variety
of “dose-response” curves to the cloud of attitudinal survey
data such as that shown in Figures 3 and 5. The scatter in the
-
-
50
60
DNL (dB)
70
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
030
Railroads
0–
40
80
Fig. 4—Results of a meta-analysis by Miedema and Vos [10] of
noise annoyance using all applicable world-wide survey
data on attitudes of residents in a community to intruding
noise from aircraft, road traffic, and railroads.
Schomer - 4
138
20 -
Noise Control Eng. J. 53 (4), 2005 Jul–Aug
-
20 –
40 -
Road Traffic
-
60 -
-
40 –
80 -
-
Aircraft
-
-
100 -
-
60 –
Highly annoyed (%)
Highly annoyed (%)
80 –
40
50
60
DNL (dB)
70
80
90
Airports
Road Traffic
Railroad
FICON
Fig. 5—Annoyance response data of Fidell and Silvati with curve
fit from the FICON study [12] and the 65‑dB point highlighted. The gray-shaded area is the region where there
is a transition from moderate to substantial degrees of
Schomer
-5
annoyance to little-to-no
annoyance.
data can be traced to at least three causes: (1) response bias,
(2) descriptor shortcomings, and (3) measurement bias and
uncertainty. An example of response bias is public relations. It has
been shown that people are more accepting of a noise if they
feel the authorities are concerned with their well-being and
are doing virtually all that they reasonably can to mitigate the
exposure to the noise. On the other hand, if people feel that
it is a case of “you can’t fight city hall,” then annoyance may
increase over that present in a neutral situation. An example of “descriptor shortcomings” is the difference
in the annoyance to the sound from aircraft, road traffic, and
railroad noise sources. If one used loudness-weighted sound
exposure instead of A-frequency-weighted sound exposure
to determine day-night average sound level, as suggested
by Schomer [28,29], then these differences tend to lessen or
disappear. Other examples of “descriptor shortcomings” are
the difficulties in describing the sound when tonal components
are present or when the sound is impulsive. Measurement bias might be the result of setting a high
sound-level threshold for an unattended airport noise monitor
so as to ensure that only aircraft noise is included in the
measured results. Such an action could bias the reported
measurements low because of the exclusion of aircraft noise
that was actually present at the location but was not high
enough to exceed the threshold. For a single measurement
of sound exposure, measurement uncertainty is basically the
tolerances around the design goals for the instruments, their
placement and operation, how often the acoustical sensitivity
is checked, and the spectrum and temporal characteristics
Attachment 15
of the sound. Measurement uncertainty, at the 95%
confidence interval, can be of the order of a few decibels in
a measurement of A-weighted sound exposure level. In this
section, we are concerned with “response bias” and “descriptor
shortcomings.”
The 1974 EPA report [1] attempted to relate day-night
average sound levels with community reaction as measured by
complaints and threats of legal actions as shown in Figure 6.
A given response category was associated with a wide range
of day-night sound levels. For example, at a DNL of 55 dB,
Figure 6 shows that community reactions ranged from “no
reaction” to “severe threats of legal action or strong appeals
to local officials to stop the noise.”
In an attempt to reduce the scatter to the community
response data, the EPA [1] suggested the use of “normalized”
DNL. Normalized DNL is the measured or predicted DNL
with a number of adjustments added to account for specific
characteristics of the sound. Table 5 shows the EPA-suggested
adjustment factors and their magnitudes. Adjustment factors
included seasonal considerations, consideration of the level
of background noise present at a location, consideration of
the influence of previous exposure and community relations,
and consideration of the character of the intruding sound (e.g.,
tonal or impulsive). Figure 7 shows the data from Figure 6
after having been adjusted using this procedure. The data in
Figure 7 are substantially compressed and there is much less
scatter than was present in Figure 6.
The adjustment factors in Table 5 were in use long before
the EPA’s Office of Noise Abatement and Control came into
being in 1973. In 1953, the adjustment factors in Table 5 were
TABLE 5—EPA-recommended adjustments [1] to be added to the measured or predicted DNL of an intruding noise at a residential location.
Type of adjustment
Seasonal considerations
Adjustment for outdoor
background noise
measured in the absence
of intruding noise
Description of condition
Summer (or year-round operation)
Winter only (or windows always closed)
Quiet suburban or rural community (remote from large cities and from industrial activity
and trucking)
Pure tone or impulsive
sound
0
−5
+10
Normal suburban community (not located near an industrial activity)
+5
Urban residential community (not immediately adjacent to heavily traveled roads or
industrial areas)
0
Noisy urban residential community (near relatively busy roads or industrial areas)
−5
Very noisy urban residential community
−10
+5
The community has no prior experience with the intruding noise.
Adjustment for previous
exposure and community
attitudes
Adjustment to be Added
to Measured DNL (dB)
Community has had some previous exposure to the intruding noise, but little effort is being
made to control the noise. This adjustment may also be applied in a situation where the
community has not been exposed to the noise previously, but the people are aware that
bona-fide efforts are being made to control the noise.
Community has had considerable previous exposure to the intruding noise and the
noisemaker’s relations with the community are good.
0
−5
Community is aware that the operation causing the noise is very necessary and will not
continue indefinitely. This adjustment can be applied for an operation of limited duration and
under emergency circumstances.
−10
No pure tone or impulsive character
0
+5
Pure tone or impulsive character present
Noise Control Eng. J. 53 (4), 2005 July–Aug
139
Attachment 15
TABLE 6—Adjustments from ISO 1996-1:2003 [7] to be added to measured or predicted day-night sound levels depending on the type of sound source, the
character of the sound, and the time of day.
Adjustment to add to day-night
sound level
Adjustment type
(dB)
Road Traffic
0
Aircraft
+3 to +6
Sources of sound
Railway
-3 to –6
Industry
0
Regular impulsive
+5
Highly impulsive
+12
Character of the sound
High-energy impulsive
See Annex B of ISO 1996-1:2003
Prominent tones
+3 to +6
Evening
+5
Night
+10
Time period
Weekend daytime
+5
NOTE 1 When a range of adjustments is given, the amount to be added to a measured or predicted DNL shall be determined by appropriate local
authorities. NOTE 2
Weekend adjustments on sound sources subject to regulation may be applied to a measured or predicted DNL to permit adequate rest and
recuperation and to account for the greater numbers of people at home during the weekend.
NOTE 3
If more than one adjustment applies for a type of sound source or for the character of a given single sound source, only the largest adjustment
shall be applied. However, time period adjustments always are added to the otherwise adjusted day-night sound levels.
NOTE 4 Adjustments for the impulsive character of a sound shall be applied only for impulsive sound sources that are audible at the receiver location. Adjustments for tonal character shall be applied only when the total sound is known to be audibly tonal at the receiver location.
Specification
incorporated in the first Air Force Land Use Planning Guide
[30]. The principles of the 1953 Guide were later simplified
for ease of application and recommended by the Air Force and
the Federal Aviation Administration [31,32].
4.2 Adjustments included in ISO
1996-1:2003
ISO 1996-1:2003 contains adjustments that are to be
applied to measurements or predictions of day-night sound
level outdoors at a receiver location. Table 6 describes the
adjustments and gives the ranges of adjustment values to be
considered.
Equation (D.1) in ISO 1996-1:2003 is the original 1978
Schultz curve [8] showing the percentage of a community that
Community Reaction
Community Reaction
-
Fig. 6—Community reactions to intruding noise (after the U.S.
EPA [1]) as a function
of the- measured
or predicted outSchomer
6
door DNL of the intruding noise (non-normalized).
140
Noise Control Eng. J. 53 (4), 2005 Jul–Aug
-
40
-
40
50
60
70
80
90
Outdoor Day-Night Sound Level of Intruding Noise (dB)
No reaction
although noise is generally noticeable
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No reaction
although noise is generally noticeable
Data Normalized To:
Residential urban residual noise
Some prior exposure
Windows partially open
No pure tone or impulses
-
-
Sporadic
complaints
-
-
Sporadic
complaints
-
Widespread
complaints or single threat of legal action
-
Widespread
complaints or single threat of legal action
-
Several threats of
legal action or strong
appeals to local
officials to stop noise
-
Several threats of
legal action or strong
appeals to local
officials to stop noise
-
Vigorous action
-
-
-
Vigorous action
is highly annoyed by transportation noise sources as a function
of the long-term day-night average sound level.
Annex D also contains notes for application of Equation
(D.1) as paraphrased below.
• Equation (D.1) is applicable only to evaluation of long-term
environmental sounds using an appropriate descriptor such
as the yearly day-night average sound level (YDNL). The
equation should not be used for assessments of community
response over short time periods such as weekends, a
single season, or “busy traffic days.” Equation (D.1) is
not applicable to a short-term environmental sound such
as that resulting from an increase in road traffic caused
by a short-duration construction project; the equation is
applicable only to existing situations. 50
60
70
80
Normalized Outdoor Day-Night Sound Level of
Intruding Noise (dB)
90
Fig. 7—Community reactions to intruding noise (after the U.S.
EPA [1]) as a function
of the-measured
or predicted
Schomer
7
outdoor DNL of the intruding noise with the normalizing
adjustments of Table 5 included.
• For new situations, especially when the community is
not familiar with the sound source in question, greater
community annoyance than predicted by application of the
equation can be expected; the difference may be as much
as +5 dB.
• There is a greater expectation for, and value placed on,
“peace and quiet” in rural settings; this expectation may
be equivalent to a DNL adjustment of as much as +10 dB.
These last two factors are additive. A new, unfamiliar
sound source in a quiet rural area can engender much
greater annoyance than would be estimated by relations
like Equation (D.1) and may be equivalent to an additional
adjustment of as much as +15 dB to be added to a measured
or predicted DNL.
4.3 Adjustments NOT included in ISO
1996-1:2003
Several potential adjustments for the annoyance caused
by an intruding noise are not included in ISO 1996-1:2003.
Two notable adjustments that were omitted are (1) what is
sometimes called “public relations,” and (2) the additional
annoyance caused by audible rattles of the structural elements
of a building or its contents. 4.3.1“Public relations”
The influence of “public relations” is sometimes discussed
in terms of the concept of “misfeasance,” which alternatively
can be thought of as “people do not believe that bona-fide
efforts are being made to control the noise.” Only scant
information is available to quantify the adjustment for “public
relations,” but it is believed that this factor can range from a
5‑dB penalty to a 5‑dB bonus depending on the quality of the
relations between the noisemaker and the community.
The meta-analyses of Fields [33] confirm that the attitude
engendered by “public relations” is an important modifier
of annoyance. However, this is only one of five attitudes
confirmed as important. In addition to “noise prevention
beliefs,” Fields listed “fear of danger from the noise source,”
“beliefs about the importance of the noise source,” “annoyance
with non-noise impacts of the noise source,” and “general noise
sensitivity.”
In a more detailed study of attitudes, Staples, et al. [34]
combined elements of Fields’ “noise prevention beliefs,”
“beliefs about the importance of the noise source” and
“annoyance with non-noise impacts of the noise source”
into a 10-item environmental noise risk scale. Staples had
351 subjects that were living in an area where the DNL was
between 55 dB to 60 dB in the vicinity of a former military
airfield that had been converted to a civil airport. The
dependent variable was a 14-item “noise-disturbance” scale
that combined activity-disturbance questions with annoyance
questions. Using stepwise multiple regression analyses, they
found that the environmental noise risk scale accounted for
36% of the variation in individual disturbances from noise.
Particularly powerful were four items loaded on a statistical
factor that they labeled: “appraisal of one’s neighborhood as
inadequately protected and vulnerable to future increases in
noise.” The four items were:
Noise Control Eng. J. 53 (4), 2005 July–Aug
Attachment 15
• If airport noise increases, it will make my neighborhood a
less desirable place to live.
• My neighborhood is exposed to more noise than other
neighborhoods near the airport.
• Airport and government officials are doing all they can do
control noise.
• Airport noise probably will not increase much over the next
5 to 10 years.
These four questions accounted for 43% of the variation
in individual disturbances from noise, more than what was
accounted for by the use of the entire noise scale when it
was used in the regression. “Noise sensitivity,” one of the
attitudes confirmed by Fields, was positively correlated with
general annoyance but was unrelated to environmental noise
risk. In addition to confirming the importance of the attitudes
identified by Fields, Staples, et al., confirmed the importance of
expectations and prior exposure. When added to the stepwise
multiple-regression analyses, “noise relative to expectations”
increased the fraction of the explained variance to 45%. The
addition of “noise relative to prior exposure” as a third variable
raised the fraction of the explained variance to 48%.
Schomer [35] found almost a 5-fold increase in the percent
highly annoyed for those who thought “a great deal,” “quite a
bit,” or “ a fair amount” can be done to reduce noise but “not
very much” or “nothing at all” is being done, when compared
with the reactions of all other respondents in the study. Morerecent evidence about the influence of “public relations” on
annoyance comes from a railway noise survey in Germany
by Schreckenberg, et al. [36] that showed a relatively high
correlation between railway noise annoyance and misfeasance
or the belief that the authorities were not doing what they could
to reduce the noise. In a Swiss noise study in 2000, Wirth, et al. [37] found
a standardized linear-regression coefficient of –0.1 between
annoyance and “trust the noise maker.”
In summary, there is little question that community attitudes
can be swayed by public relations and that these attitudes can
have positive or negative effects on the annoyance by a sound. The 1974 EPA recommendation [1] for a “public-relations”
factor was 5 dB. This adjustment can be a –5‑dB ‘bonus’ if
there are very good relations. Conversely, if there is a strong
feeling of misfeasance and distrust, then the true adjustment
may be a +5‑dB ‘penalty’.
4.3.2Rattles
The second adjustment factor not included in ISO 19961:2003 is the presence of observable (heard but not necessarily
felt) rattles induced by a noise. Blazier [38] was one of the
first to comment on noise-induced rattles in building elements.
He was concerned about rattles induced by the low-frequency
sound and vibration generated within heating and ventilating
systems in an office setting. He noted that there was a “high
probability that noise-induced vibration levels in light-weight
wall and ceiling constructions will be clearly noticeable.”
ANSI S12.2-1995 [39] incorporated this suggestion in the
Room Criterion (RC) procedure of Blazier and the Balanced
Noise Criterion (NCB) procedure of Beranek as methods to
evaluate noise in rooms. In essence, the evaluation procedures
141
recommend the inclusion of acoustical design features so as to
limit the sound pressure levels in a room to less than 75 dB in
the octave bands with nominal midband frequencies of 16 Hz
and 31.5 Hz.
Schomer has specifically studied the equivalent increase
in annoyance when there is audible sound from noise-induced
vibration. The subjects need only hear the rattle sounds; there
is no tactile perception of vibration. In one study by Schomer
and Averbuch [40], simulated blast sounds were presented to
subjects both with and without noticeable rattle sounds. The
blast-sound-induced rattle noise was virtually unmeasurable
compared with the blast sound yet it increased the level of
equivalent annoyance by 6 dB at low blast sound levels and
by 13 dB at the highest blast sound levels used in that study.
In another study by Schomer and Neathammer [41] using
real helicopters to generate the test sounds, the mere addition
of noticeable rattle sounds increased the equivalent level of
subjective annoyance judgments by 10 dB to 20 dB. Again,
the rattle sounds were virtually unmeasurable compared with
the sound of the helicopter. Subsequent studies showing
an increase in annoyance when sound was accompanied by
vibration include the following: Sato [42], Zeichart, et al.
[43], Paulsen and Kastka [44], Öhrstrom and Skånberg [45],
Öhrstrom [46], and Lercher, et al. [47].
At this time, an adjustment of +10 dB is recommended
when an intruding noise produces, or is expected to produce,
noticeable rattle sounds, although the evidence suggests that
the magnitude of this adjustment may be variable and may
be larger than +10 dB at times. It should be noted that rattle
sounds occur because the low-frequency sounds that vibrate
building elements may be manifested as the much-higherfrequency sounds of the rattle of windows or bric-a-brac.
5 CONCLUSIONS
1. Nearly all Agencies and Boards of the U.S. Federal
Government, standards setting bodies, and international
organizations that have cognizance over noise-producing
sources use day-night average sound level (DNL) as the
preferred noise descriptor and a DNL criterion level of
55 dB as the threshold for adverse noise impact in urban
residential areas. Of the large number of Agencies, Boards,
standards setting bodies, and international organizations,
only the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Federal
Aviation Administration, and the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development recommend a DNL
criterion level that is greater than 55 dB.
2. The policies of FAA, DoD, and HUD all were developed
in the early 1970s or earlier. On the other hand, most
of the concerned U.S. Federal Agencies and Boards,
standard setting bodies, and international organizations
established their noise policies after 1995. In particular, the
recommendations of the World Health Organization were
based on over 25 years of additional worldwide research
into noise effects than were the earlier policies of the FAA
and DoD.
3. Significant evidence exists to suggest that the noise of
aircraft is more annoying than the noise of road traffic and
142
Noise Control Eng. J. 53 (4), 2005 Jul–Aug
Attachment 15
4.
5.
6.
7.
railroads for the same DNL. ISO 1996-1:2003 recommends
that an adjustment ranging from +3 dB to +6 dB be applied
to the measured or predicted DNL of aircraft noise to
assess a community’s annoyance response. Selection of an
appropriate adjustment in the range of allowed adjustments
is to be made by appropriate local authorities. Examination of the totality of applicable, English-language
attitudinal survey data suggest a DNL criterion level in
the 50 dB to 55 dB range to ensure a minimum acceptable
annoyance response in a residential community. Agencies and Boards of the U.S. Federal Government that
are charged with the mission of promoting the activities
of a particular noise producer may not be as free of
bias as more-neutral bodies such as the U.S. National
Research Council or the World Health Organization. The
World Health Organization terms a DNL of 55 dB as
engendering serious annoyance and creating an unhealthy
environment; a DNL of 50 dB is considered as engendering
moderate annoyance. The National Research Council went
further, and, in many instances, recommended acoustical
engineering assessments when the estimated DNL of a
project exceeds 40 dB.
No single DNL criterion level is equally applicable
to all residential situations and all types of residential
communities. For this reason, ISO 1996-1:2003 includes
recommendations for adjustment factors that should
be applied in a noise analysis. Additional adjustments
should be included when an intruding sound produces,
or is expected to produce, noticeable noise-induced rattle
sounds.
Community relations (good or bad) are believed to be
equivalent to a –5-dB ‘bonus’ or a +5-dB ‘penalty’ in
assessments of community response. Although good
community relations should be observed, it is not
recommended that any “public relations” adjustment be
added to a measured or estimated DNL to account for the
effect of public relations.
6 RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The recommended adjustment factors of ISO 1996-1:2003
should be applied in analyses of environmental noise. In addition, adjustments should be included when the
intruding sound is known, or predicted, to cause noticeable
noise-induced rattle sounds inside a residence.
2. An adjustment of +5 dB should be added to measured
or predicted day-night average sound levels caused by
aircraft noise in the vicinity of airports when relating the
DNL to the expected annoyance response of residents in
the surrounding community.
3. After addition of the adjustment factors from ISO
1996-1:2003 and the +5 dB aircraft-noise adjustment,
as applicable, the DNL criterion level for assessing the
minimum acceptable degree of annoyance to intruding
sounds in noise-sensitive areas such as residential housing
should be 55 dB, or less.
7 REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
“Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect
Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety,” U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Noise Abatement and
Control (ONAC), EPA Report 550/9-74-004, Washington, DC (March
1974).
“Pollution Prevention and Control: Environmental Criteria
for Sustainable Transport, Report on Phase 1 of the Project on
Environmentally Sustainable Transport (EST), 1996,” Organization for
Economic Co-Operation and Development, Report OCDE/GD(96)136,
Paris, France (September 1996). (http://www.oecd.org)
“Guidelines for Community Noise,” Edited by Birgitta Berglund,
Thomas Lindvall, and Dietrich Schwela, World Heath Organization,
Geneva, Switzerland (April 1999). (http://www.who.int/docstore/peh/
noise/Comnoise-1.pdf)
“A Global Approach to Noise Control Policy; Part 3: Community
Noise,” Noise Control Eng. J. 52(6), 268-289 (2004 NovemberDecember).
American National Standard Quantities and procedures for description
and measurement of environmental sound—Part 4: Noise assessment
and prediction of long-term community response, American National
Standards Institute ANSI S12.9-1996/Part 4 (Acoustical Society of
America, Melville, New York, 1996).
“Guidelines for Preparing Environmental Impact Statements on Noise,”
Report of Working Group 69, National Research Council, Assembly of
Behavioral and Social Sciences, Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics
and Biomechanics (CHABA), Washington, DC (1977).
Acoustics—Description, measurement and assessment of environmental
sound—Part 1: Basic Quantities and assessment procedures,
International Standard ISO 1996-1:2003 (International Organization
for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland, 2003)
Theodore J. Schultz, “Synthesis of social surveys on noise annoyance,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 64(2), 377-405 (1978).
Lawrence S. Finegold, C. Stanley Harris, and Henning E. von Gierke,
“Community annoyance and sleep disturbance: Updated criteria for
assessing the impacts of general transportation noise on people,” Noise
Control Eng. J. 42(1), 25-30 (1994).
Henk M.E. Miedema and Henk Vos, “Exposure-response relationships
for transportation noise,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 104(6), 3432-3445
(1998).
“Guidelines for Considering Noise in Land Use Planning and Control,”
Federal Interagency Committee on Urban Noise (FICUN), U.S.
Government Printing Office Report 1981-337-066/8071, Washington,
DC (June 1980).
“Federal Agency Review of Selected Airport Noise Analysis Issues,”
1992 Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON), Washington,
D.C. (August 1992).
“Aviation Noise Abatement Policy 2000,” Proposed policy document
and Request for Comments, Department of Transportation, Federal
Aviation Administration, Docket No.: 30109, Federal Register 65(136),
43802-43824 (14 July 2000). (http://www.faa.gov/programs/en/
impact/fr_anap.pdf)
“Air Installations Compatible Use Zones,” Department of Defense
Instruction 4165-57 (November 1977). (http://www.dtic.mil/whs/
directives/corres/pdf/i416557_110877/i416557p.pdf)
“Noise Assessment Guidelines,” U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development, BBN Report No. 2176; HUD Accession No.
2932 (Issued August 1971; revised June 1983). (http://www.huduser.
org/search/Bibliography.asp?id=2932)
“Noise Guidebook: A Reference Document for Implementing the
Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Noise Policy,”
Report HUD 953-DPC; HUD Accession Number 4114, U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington,
DC (March 1985). (http://www.huduser.org/search/Bibliography.
asp?id=4114)
“Guidance Manual for Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment,”
Report DOT-T-95-16, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal
Transit Administration, Washington, DC, (April 1995). (www.
fta.dot.gov/transit_data_info/reports_publications/publications/
environment)
Noise Control Eng. J. 53 (4), 2005 July–Aug
Attachment 15
[18] “High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact
Assessment,” FRA Report No. 293630-1, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Office of Railroad
Development, Washington, DC, (December 1998). (http://www.fra.
dot.gov/downloads/RRDev/nvman1_75.pdf)
[19] “Proposed Conrail Acquisition,” Draft Environmental Impact
Statement, STB Finance Docket No. 33388, “CSX Corporation
and CSX Transportation, Inc., Norfolk Southern Corporation, and
Norfolk Southern Railway Company—Control and Operating Leases/
Agreements—Conrail Inc. and Consolidated Rail Corporation,”
Surface Transportation Board, Section of Environmental Analysis,
Washington, DC (January 1998). (www.stb.dot.gov/decisions)
[20] “Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and
Guidance,” U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration, Office of Environment and Planning, Noise and Air
Quality Branch, Washington, DC, (June 1995). (http://www.fhwa.
dot.gov/environment/polguid.pdf)
[21] “Report to Congress: Feasibility of a United States Department of
Transportation Multi-Modal Noise Model,” Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Transportation Policy, Office of the Secretary, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Washington, DC, (January 2000).
[22] “Revision of Existing Regulations Under Part 157 and Related Sections
of the Commission’s Regulations Under the Natural Gas Act,” 18 CFR
Part 157.206(d)(5); Docket No. RM98-9-001; Order No. 603-A; FERC
Citation 88FERC61,297 (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
Washington, D.C., USA, Issued 29 September 1999). (www.ferc.
gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp)
[23] Letter re: “Supplemental draft EIS for Boston Logan Airport” from Ms.
Mindy Lubber, Regional Administrator, EPA to Mr. Vincent Scarano,
Director of Aviation, Federal Aviation Administration (06 November
2000).
[24] American National Standard Quantities and procedures for description
and measurement of environmental sound—Part 5: Sound level
descriptors for determination of compatible land use, American
National Standards Institute ANSI S12.9-1998/Part 5 (Acoustical
Society of America, Melville, New York, 1998).
[25] “1981 Guidelines for Design of Rapid Transit Facilities,” Section 27, “Noise and Vibration,” APTA Rail Transit Committee, American
Public Transit (Transportation) Association, Washington, DC, USA
(June 1981). (http://apta100.apta.com)
[26] “Pollution Prevention and Abatement Handbook 1998: Toward
cleaner production; Part 3: Project Guidelines, General Environmental
Guidelines,” p. 439, The World Bank Group, Washington, DC, USA
(1998).
[27] Sanford Fidell and Laura Silvati, “Parsimonious alternatives to
regression analysis for characterizing prevalence rates of aircraft noise
annoyance,” Noise Control Eng. J., 52(2), 56-68 (2004).
[28] P.D. Schomer, “Loudness-level weighting for environmental noise
assessment,” Acta Acustica united with Acustica, 86(1), 49-61
(2000).
[29] Paul D. Schomer, “The importance of proper integration of and
emphasis on the low-frequency sound energies for environmental
noise assessment,” Noise Control Eng. J. 52(1), 26-39 (2004).
[30] Walter A. Rosenblith and Kenneth N. Stevens, “Handbook of Acoustic
Noise Control; Volume II—Noise and Man,” Wright Air Development
Center, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio (June 1953).
[31] “Impact of Noise on People,” Report FAA-EQ-78-12, U.S. Department
of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Office of
Environmental Quality, Washington, DC (May 1977).
[32] “Aviation Noise Effects,” Report FAA-EE-86-2, U.S. Department
of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Office of
Environmental and Energy, Available from the National Technical
Information Service, Washington, DC (March 1985).
[33] James M. Fields, “Effect of personal and situational variables on noise
annoyance in residential areas,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 93(5), 2753-2763
(1993).
[34] Susan L. Staples, Randolph R. Cornelius, and Margaret S. Gibbs,
(1999), “Noise disturbance from a developing airport: Perceived risk
or general annoyance?” Environment and Behavior, 31(5), 692-710
(1999).
143
[35] P. Schomer, “Community Reaction to Impulse Noise: Initial
Army Survey,” Technical Report. N-100, U.S. Army Construction
Engineering Research Laboratory, Champaign, Illinois (1981).
[36] Dirk Schreckenberg, Rudolf Schuemer, and Ulrich Moehler, “Railwaynoise annoyance and ‘misfeasance’ under conditions of change,” Proc.
INTER-NOISE 01, The Hague, The Netherlands, Paper in01_344.pdf,
pp. 1759-1762 on CD-ROM (International Institute of Noise Control
Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA,
2001).
[37] Katja Wirth, Mark Brink, and Christoph Schierz, “Swiss Noise Study
2000: Aircraft noise annoyance in the neighborhood of the airport
Zurich-Kloten,” Proc. INTER-NOISE 03, Seogwipo, Jeju Island,
Korea, Paper N-535, pp. 4425-4432 (International Institute of Noise
Control Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana,
USA, 2003).
[38] Warren E. Blazier, Jr., “Revised noise criteria for application in the
acoustical design and rating of HVAC systems,” Noise Control Eng.
J. 16(2), 64-73 (1981 March-April).
[39] American National Standard Criteria for evaluating room noise,
American National Standards Institute ANSI S12.2-1995 (Acoustical
Society of America, Melville, New York, 1995).
[40] Paul D. Schomer and Aaron Averbuch, “Indoor human response to
blast sounds that generate rattles,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 86(2), 665-673
(1989).
[41] Paul D. Schomer and Robert D. Neathammer, “The role of helicopter
noise-induced vibration and rattle in human response,” J. Acoust. Soc.
Am. 81(4), 966-976 (1987).
144
Noise Control Eng. J. 53 (4), 2005 Jul–Aug
Attachment 15
[42] Tetsumi Sato, “Path analyses of the effect of vibration on road traffic
and railway noise annoyance,” Proc INTER-NOISE 94, Yokohama,
Japan, pp. 923-928 on CD-ROM (International Institute of Noise
Control Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana,
USA, 1994).
[43] K. Zeichart, A. Sinz, A. Schuemer-Kohrs, and R. Schuemer,
“Erschütterungen durch Eisenbahnverkehr und ihre Wirkungen auf
Anwohner. Teil 1: Zum Zusammenwirken von Erschütterungs- und
Geräuschbelastungen, Z. Lärmbekämpfung 41, 43-51 (1994).
[44] R. Paulsen and J. Kastka, “Effects of combined noise and vibration
on annoyance,” J. Sound Vib. 181(2), 295-314 (1995).
[45] E. Öhrstrom and A.-B. Skånberg, “A field survey on effects of exposure
to noise and vibration from railway traffic, Part 1: Annoyance and
activity disturbance effects,” J. Sound Vib., 193(1), 39-47 (1996).
[46] E. Öhrstrom, “Effects of exposure to railway noise—A comparison
between areas with and without vibration,” J. Sound Vib., 205(4),
555-560 (1997).
[47] Peter Lercher, Gernot Brauchle, and Ulrich Widmann, “The interaction
of landscape and soundscape in the Alpine area of the Tyrol: An
annoyance perspective,” Proc. INTER-NOISE 99, Fort Lauderdale,
Florida, USA, Paper 268, pp. 1347-1350 on CD-ROM (International
Institute of Noise Control Engineering, Purdue University, West
Lafayette, Indiana, USA, 1999).