Pages 1--326 from Appendix E Technical Report: Noise Analysis

DECEMBER 1999 1

TECHNICAL REPORT NOISE ANALYSIS
December 1999

Prepared by
MESTRE GREW3 ASSOCIATES 2

2.3 FACT FS INFLUENCING HUMAN RESPONSE TO SOUND 6 2.4 SOUND hTING SCALES 7
2.5 EFFECTS OF NOISE ON HUMANS 1 1 2.6 NOISE LAND USE COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES 15

3.0 METHODOLOGY 26
3.1 BACKGROUND 26 3.2 COMPUTER M DELMG 26

4.0 EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT 28
4.1 EXISTING ELTOROAIRCRAFTNOISE 28 4.1.1
EL TORO BACKGROUND 28 4.1.2 EXISTING
EL TORO OPERATIONS DATA 29 4.1.3 EXISNG EL TORO FLEET Mx 30

4 I .4 EXISTING EL TORO RUNWAY AND FLIGHT TRACK UTILIZATION 30
4.1.5 EXISITING 1998 EL TORO CNEL CONTOURS 34 4.1.6 EXISTING EL TORO AIRCRAET SMGLE EVENT NOISE 34

4.1.7 EXIS G EL TORO TIME ABOVE THRESHOLD TA 3 5 4.2
EXISTINGJOHNWAYNEAIRPORT NOISE 3 5 4.2.1 JOHN WAN BACKGROUMD 3 5

4.2.2 EXISITMG JWA OPERATIONS DATA 36 4.2.3 EXISITING JWA
FLEET MIX DATA 36 4.2.4 ENSTING JWA RUNWAY AND FLIG niAc U LIZATION 36

4.2.5 EXISTIN JOHN WAYNE CNEL CONTOURS AND LAND USE IMPACTS 37 4.2.6 EXISITNG JOHN
WAYNE AIRCRAFT SINGLE EVENT NOISE 3 7 4.2.7 EYUSITING JOHN WAN AIRCRAFT w ABOVE THRESHOLD TA 3 8

4.2.8 JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT 1985 MASTER PLAN 39 4.3 EXIS G HIGHWAY NOISE 39
4.3 I HIGHWAY NOISE MODELING ASSUMPTIONS 39
5.0 PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVES NOISE LEVELS 58
5.1 EL TORO PROJECT NOISE 5 8 5.1.1 EL TORO NOISE MODELING
ASSUMPTIONS 5 9 5.1.2
CNEL CONTOURS FOR EL TORO ALTERNATIVES 6 5 5.1.3 CNEL CONTOUR LAND USE IMPACTS FOR EL TORO ALTJZRNATIVES 6 5

5 I .4 CNEL RECEPTOR LOCATIONS FOR EL TORO ALTE ATMZS 67 5.1.5 SENEL CONTOURS FOR
EL TORO ALTERNATIVES 6 8 5.1.6 SENEL AT RECEPTOR LOCATIONS FOR EL TORO ALTERNATIVES 69

5.1.7 RME ABOVE THRESHOLD (TA)NOISE LEVELS FOR EL TORO ALTERNATIVE B 71 5.1.8 SUMMARY OF AVIATION NOISE IMPACTS FOR
EL TORO ALTERNATIVES 72 5.2 JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT PROJECT NOISE 7 3

5.2.1 JWA ALTERNATIVE NOISE MODELMG ASSUMPTIONS 7 3 5.2.2 CNEL CONTOURS FOR
JWA ALTERNA VES 7 5 5.2.3 CNEL CONTOURS AND LAND
USE IMPACTS FOR JWA ALTERNATIVES 75 5.2.4 CNEL RECEPTOR LOCATIONS FOR JWA ALTERNATIVES 75

5.2 5 SENEL CONTOURS FOR JWA ALTERNATTVES 75 5.2.6 SENEL AT RECEPTOR L A UNS FUR JWA
ALTERNATTVES 76 3

6.1.2 OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO STATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT 131 6.1.3 OPTIONS DEPENDENT UPON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 133
6.1.4 MITIGATION MEASURES RECOMMENDED FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION FOR EL TORO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE B l I I l l l I I l l l I l 135
6.1.5 ANALYSIS OF POSSIBLE NOISE MITIGATION MEASURES FOR EL TORO PROJECT ALTERNATTVES l l a l 111 I t 138
6.2 ROADWAY IMPROVEMEW CONSTR C ON NOISE MEGATON It l l l l 140 6.3 COUNTY OF ORANGE STANDARD NOISE MITIGATION MEASURES 141

7.0 REFERENCES 144

APPENDIX 1 Detailed Operations Data APPENDIX 2 John Wayne Airport Annual Report 1998

MCAS El Toru Master Development Plan 3 Appendix E Technical Report Noise Analysis Airport System Master Plan 4

Exhibit 2 8 Exhibit 4 1
Exhibit 4 2 Exhibit 4 3
Exhibit 4 4 Exhibit 4 5
Exhibit 4 6 Exhibit 4 7
Exhibit 4 8 Exhibit 4 9
Exhibit 4 10 Exhibit 4 11
Exhibit 4 12 Exhibit 4 13
Exhibit 5.1 l Exhibit 5.1 2
Exhibit 5.1 3 Exhibit 51 4
Exhibit 5.1 5
Exhibit 5.1 6 Exhibit 5.1 7

Exhibit 5.1 8
Exhibit 5.1 9 Exhibit 5.1 10

Exhibit 5.1 l 1 Exhibit 5.1 12
Exhibit 5.1 13 Exhibit 5.1 14
Exhibit 5.1 15 Exhibit 5.1 16
Exhibit 5.1 17 Exhibit 5.1 18
Exhibit 5.1 W Exhibit 5.1 20
Exhibit 5.1 21 Exhibit 5.1 22
Exhibit 5.1 23 Exhibit 5.1 24

Title Examples of Various Sound Levels
Effect of Atmospheric Absorption on Sound Levels Single and Cumulative Noise Metric Definitions
Examples of Typical Outdoor CNEL Levels Speech Interference and Noise Levels
Causes and Prevalence of All Awakenings Sleep Interference and Noise Levels
Comparison of logistic fits to original 161 data points of Schultz 1978 and USAF analysis with 400 points data provided by USAF Armstrong Laboratory
Federal Air Regulation Part 150 Land Use Guidelines
198 1 AICUZ Military Noise CNEL Contours Historical Jet Operations at MCAS El Toro

Runway and Corridor Names
Flight Tracks for Military Operations Year 1998 Year 1998 Military Noise Contours CNEL 60,65 and 70 d B

Specific Point Receptor Locations Used for Detailed Analysis SENEL 85 dI3 Contours for F 18 Operations
John Wayne Airport Existing Flight Tracks John Wayne Airport 1998 Contours CNEL 60.65,70 and 75 dB
John Wayne Airport Specific Point Locations SENEL 85 dB Contours for Various Aircraft Departures
SENEL 85 dB Contours for Arrivals
John Wayne Airport 1985 Master Plan CNEL 60,65,70 and 75 dB List of Airport Alternatives

Alternative B Year 2020 Operations by Time of Day Alternative I3 Year 2020 Operations by Runway
Alternative B Year 2020 Operations by Aircraft Type Typical Aircraft Departure Noise Levels
Typical Aircraft Arrival Noise Levels El Toro Generalized Civilian Flight Tracks and Existing Buffer Zone
Flight Tracks for Alternative J
Typical JWA Track Dispersion Overlaid on El Toro Flight Tracks for Alternative B

Aircraft Altitude Profiles Runways 34 Departure Aircraft Altitude Profiles Runways 07 Departure
Aircraft Altitude Profiles Runways 34 Arrivals El Toro Wind Average Speed and Direction by Quadrant
Alternative A Year 2020 CNEL 60,65 and 70 dB Alternative B Year 2020 CNEL 60,65 and 70 dB
Alternative C Year 2020 CNEL 60,65 and 70 dB Alternative H Year 2020 CNEL 60,65 and 70 dB
Alternative I Year 2020 CNEL 60,65 and 70 dI3 Alternative J Year 2020 CNEL 60,65 and 70 dB
Alternative B Year 2005 CNEL 60,65 and 70 dB Alternative B Year 2010 CNEL 60,65 and 70 dB
Alternative I3 Year 2015 CNEL 60,65 and 70 dB SENEL 86 dB Contours for Various Aircraft Departures Runway 34 5

Exhibit 5.3 2 Exhibit 5.4 l
Exhibit 6 l Exhibit 6 2
Exhibit 6,103 Exhibit 6.1 4
Exhibit 6.1 5
Exhibit 6.1 6 Exhibit 6.1 7

SENEL 86 dB Contours for Various Aircraft Departures Runway 07 SENEL 86 dB Contours for Various Aircraft Arrivals Runway 34
SENEL 86 dB Contours for Various Aircraft Arrivals on Runway1 6 and Departures on Runway 16
JWA Year 2020 Alternative G Generalized Flight Tracks JWA Year 2020 Alternative B CNEL Contours 60.65 and 70 dB
JWA Year 2020 Alternative C CNEL Contours 60,65 and 70 dB JWA Year 2020 Alternative F CNEL Contours 60,65 and 70 dB
JWA Year 2020 Alternative G CNEL Contours 60,65 and 70 dB Year 2020 No Project CNEL 60,65 and 70 Alternative E
Alternative B Year 2020 Combined Aircraft and Roadway Noise Combined Year 2020 Aircraft and Roadway Noise CNEL Contours
Typical Construction Levels Noise Abatement Takeoff Procedures Example
Noise Mitigation Matrix for Alternative B Alternative 4 Runway 34 Right Turn CNEL Contours and Flight Tracks
Conceptual Noise Monitoring Locations Mitigation Alternative 1 Night Preferential Runway System
Alternative 2 Full Curfew CNEL Contours
Mitigation Alternative 3 Night 86 SENEL Limit 6

Table 4 9
Table 4 10
Table 4 l 1
Table 4 12
Table 4 13
Table 4 14
Table 4 15

Table 4 16
Table 4 17
TabIe 4 18

Table 5.1 l
Table 5.1 2
Table 5.1 3
Table 5.1 4
Table 5.1 5
Table 5.1 6
Table 5.1 7
Table 5.1 8
Table 5.1 9

Table 5.1.1OA
Table 5.1 10B
Table 5.1 l 1
Table 5.1 12
Table 5 f 13
Table 5.1 14

Table 5.1 15
Table 5.1 16
Table 5.1 17
Table 5,2 l
Table 5.2 2
Table 5.2 3
Table 5.2 4

Factors That Effect Individual AMOYEUUX to Noise County of Orange Land Use Compatibility Criteria
County of Orange Land Use Compatibility Criteria Explanations and Defmitions FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria for Highway Construction Projects
Land Use Summary 1981 AICUZ 1998 El Toro Aircraft Operations
Average Daily 1998 El Tom Aircraft Operations Percent By Time of Day 1998 Military Average Daily Operations By Aircraft Type By runway
1998 El Toro Aircraft Types by Percent of Daily Operations
Average Daily Jet Operations by Flight Corridor at El Toro 1998 1998 El Toro Average Daily Runway Usage

Existing 1998 El Tore CNEL Area in Acres Land Use Summary 1998 and 198 165 CNEL Contours
Specific Point Locations and Land Use Year 1998 CNEL at Sensitive Receptor Locations for El Turo Military Operations
SENEL For Military F 18 Operations
SENEL For Various Military Aircraft Operations
1998 JWA Air Carrier Operations by Percent of Aircraft Type Time above Values TA for Existing 1998 JWA Aircraft Operations

in Average Minutes Per Day Sample Energy Average SENEL By Noise Monitoring Sites for JWA 4th Quarter 1998
Arterial Roadway Vehicle Mix Data Contour Distances for Existing Conditions
Aviation Alternatives by Annual Aircraft Operations and Million Annual Passengers MAP
Alternative B Year 2020 Operations by Time of Day Average Daily Operations by Runway El Tom Year 2020

Annual and Average Day Interim Year Operations Alternative B
Summary of El Toro Year 2020 Operations by Aircraft Type Interim Year Fleet Mix

Alternative B Year 2020 Daily Departures by Stage Length Land Use Comparison Table 1998 Military and Year 2020 Alternatives
Comparison of Residential and School Land Uses Within 65 CNEL or DNL Contour Other Airports
Comparison of Years 1998 and 2020 CNEL
at Sensitive Receptor Locations For All Alternatives Comparison of Years 1998 and 2020 CNEL

at Sensitive Receptor Locations Alternative B Corridor Comparison of 1998 Military Operations and Noise and Alternative B
Single Event Histograms and Bar Charts Year 2020 Alternative B Aggregation Of Aircraft Operations Into Aircraft Categories Year 2020 Alternative B
Comparison of Existing Military Jet Operations With Civilian Aviation Jet Operations by Flight Corridor
Time Above Data for Military 1998 at Sensitive Receptor Locations Time Above Data for Year 2020 Alternative B at Sensitive Receptor Locations
TA 65 dBA for Existing and Alternative B Operations Annual and Daily Operations by Time of Day John Wayne Airport Year 2020
Summary of John Wayne Airport Operations by Aircraft Type Daily Operations by Runway John Wayne Airport Year 2020
Aircraft Stage Len s John Wayne Airport Year 2020 Alternative B 7

Table 5.2 7
Table 5.3 l
Table 5.3 2
Table 5.3 3
Table 6.1 l
Table 6.1 2
Table 6.1 3
Table 6.1 4

Table 6.1 5
Table 6.1 6
Table 6.1 7
Table 6.1 8
Table 6.1 9
Table 6.1 10
Table 6.1 I 1
Table 6.1 12
Table 6.1 13
Table 6.1 14
Table 6.1 15
Table 6.1 16

Land Use Comparison Table 1998 and Year 2020 Alternatives for John Wayne Airport Comparison of Years 1998 and 2020 CNEL
at Sensitive Receptor Locations for all Alternatives John Wayne Airport Time Above Data for John Wayne Airport 1998 and Year 2020
Alternative B at Sensitive Receptor Locations Noise Level Change For Future Conditions
Noise Level Increases Greater Than 1.5 dB Alternative B Over Existing Conditions Contour Distances for Future Conditions Under Alternative B
Potential El Toro Nighttime Mitigation Measures Hourly Operations Alternative B Year 2020
Utilization of RW 34 Right Tum By Aircraft Type and Stage Length 1998 and 2020 CNEL at Sensitive Receptor Locations
for Mitigation Alt 1 Night Preferential Runway Systems Time Above Data for Year 2020 Alt B Compared with
Night Preferential Runway Alt I 240Hour Exposure Time Above Data for Year 2020 Ah B Compared with
Night Preferential Runway Alt 1 Night Hours Only Comparison of Years 1998 and 2020 CNEL at Sensitive Receptor Locations
for Mitigation Alt 2 Night Curfew Time Above Data for Year 2020 Alt B Compared with
Night Curfew Alternative 2,24 Hour Exposure Time Above Data for Year 2020 Alt B Compared with
Night Curfew Alternative 2 Night Exposure lOpm 7am Comparison of Years 1998 and 2020
For Mitigation Alternative 3 night SENEL 86 Limit Time Above Data for Year 2020 Alt B Compared
with 86 SENEL Night Limit Alt 2,240Hour Exposure Time Above Data for Year 2020 Alt B Compared with
with 86 SENEL Night Limit Alt 2 Night Exposure 1Opm 7am Comparison of Years 1998 and 2020 CNEL
for Mitigation Alt 4 Right Turn Runway 34 Departures Time Above Data for Year 2020 Alt B Compared with
Runway 34 N Right Turn Alt 4,24 Hour Exposure Time Above Data for Year 2020 Alt B Compared with
Runway 34 N Right Turn Alt 4 Night Exposure 1Opm 7am Summary of Land Use Impacts Alternative B Year 2020 8

2.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION
2.1 INTRODUCTION
This section presents background information on the characteristics of noise as it relates to the aviation alternatives and summarizes the methodologies used to study the noise
environment This section will give the reader an understanding of the metrics and methodologies used to assess noise impacts This section is divided as follows

l Properties of sound that are important fur technically describing sound
l Acoustic factors inJluencing human subjective response to sound

l Potential disturbances tu humans and health effects due tu sound

l Sound rating scales used in this study
l Summary of noise assessment criteria

2.2 CHARACTERISTICS OF SOUND
Sound LeveZ and Fretruencv Sound can be technically described in terms of the sound
pressure amplitude and frequency similar to pitch Sound pressure is a direct measure of the magnitude of a sound without consideration for other factors that may influence its

perception
The range of sound pressures that occur in the environment is so large that it is convenient to express these pressures as sound pressure levels on a logarithmic scale which compresses
the wide range of sound pressures to a more usable range of numbers The standard unit of measurement of sound is the Decibel dB which describes the pressure of a sound relative
to a reference pressure
The frequency pitch of a sound is expressed as Hertz Hz or cycles per second The normal audible frequency for young adults is 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz Community noise
including aircraft and motor vehicles typically ranges between 50 Hz and 5,000 Hz The human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies with some frequencies judged to be
louder for a given signal than others As a result of this various methods of frequency weighting have been developed The most common weighting is the A weighted noise
curve dBA The A weighted decibel scale dBA performs this compensation by
MCAS El Toro Master Development Plan 4 Appendix E Technical Report Noise Analysis Airport System Master Plan 9

atih o f Noise Outdoor sound levels decrease as the distance from the source increases and as a result of wave divergence atmospheric absorption and ground
attenuation Sound radiating from a source in a homogeneous and undisturbed manner travels in spherical waves As the sound wave travels away from the source the sound
energy is dispersed over a greater area decreasing the sound power of the wave Spherical spreading of the sound wave reduces the noise level at a rate of 6 dB per doubling of the
distance
Atmospheric absorption also influences the levels received by the observer The greater the distance traveled the greater the influence of the atmosphere and the resultant fluctuations
Atmospheric absorption becomes important at distances of greater than 1000 feet The degree of absorption varies depending on the frequency of the sound as well as the humidity
and temperature of the air For example atmospheric absorption is lowest i e sound cties farther at high humidity and high temperatures Sample atmospheric attenuation
graphs are presented in Exhibit 2 2 Turbulence and gradients of wind temperature and humidity also play a significant role in determining the degree of attenuation Certain
conditions such as inversions can channel or focus the sound waves resulting in higher noise levels than would result from simple spherical spreading Absorption effects in the
atmosphere vary with frequency The higher frequencies are more readily absorbed than the lower frequencies Over large distances the lower frequencies become the dominant sound
as the higher frequencies are attenuated

DURATION OF SOUNDAnnoyance from a noise event increases with increased duration of the noise event i e the longer the noise event the more annoying it is The effective duration
of a sound is the time between when a sound rises above the background sound level until it drops back below the background level Psycho acoustic studies have determined the
relationship between duration and annoyance and the amount a sound must be reduced to be judged equally annoying for increased duration Duration is an important factor in
describing sound in a community setting
The relationship between duration and noise level is the basis of the equivalent energy principal of sound exposure Reducing the acoustic energy of a sound by one half results in
a 3 dB reduction Doubling the duration of the sound increases the total energy of the event by 3 dB This equivalent energy principal is based upon the premise that the potential for a
noise to impact a person is dependent on the total acoustical energy content of the noise l Defined in subsequent sections of this study noise metrics such as CNEL DNL LEQ and
SENEL are all based upon the equal energy principle

MCAS El Tore Master Development Plan 5 Appendix E Technical Report Noise Analysis
Airport System Master Plan 10

130 Military Jet A raft T t Off With After tier Oxygen To 121 lm dB A 32 Tiimcr as Lusd Fvom u soR 13o
120 UNCOMFORTABLY hbo FanAimafi TakeUffPowu Riveting Machine 110
1 1 0 rnFL 110 Rock N Roll Band 108 l 14 11OdB A 16Tmuukad UND

100

90
8 0
70
6 0

VERY
LOWD

MODERATELY
LCXJD

kt Flyover mm FL 103
Boeing 707 DC 8 6080 Ft Behe LdizAg 106

Bell MA xdicope loo FL loo
Pbwu Mowu 96
Boeing 737 DC 9 6080 FL Bcfomhudin 97

MOtOrCyClC 2 bW
CarWuh 2OFt 89 hp Airplane Flyovu loo0 FL 88

DwclT 4OMPH 5oEt 84 Dhs Mn 4SMPX loOFt 83

High Uikn Ambieut Soti 80
PWUU CU 65MPX 25R 7 Fmeway 50 F t From Pavement

Edge 1CMKI AM 76 or 6

Air Conditioning Unit 100 FL 60

N VW R rr WI
FoodBlender 88
Milling Machine 85
Gubrge Wd so

Living Room Music 76
TV Audio Vaaun cltrna

cash RegiEter 10 FL 65 70 Ekmic Typewriter 10 F t 6 4
Dishwasher Rinse 10 Ft w convmation al

100 dB A 8 Timer as bud
90 dB A 4 Tiiu u had
8OdB A 2 urrLoud

70 dB A

HUB A lhs had
50 QUIET Large Trrnsfonnar 100 Ft 50 XMB A lMulmd
I

40 Bird Calls 44 Lowu Limit U an Ambient Sound 40 dB A MmsLoud

2 0 JUST AUDIBLE
TXRESXULD 10
OF EiEARING

SOURCE r l I P duead from MeMe C Branch and R Dab Wand outd6are m t re wmd by ths city of Loe3 An es 19 u p 2

Exhibit 2 l Examples of Various Sound Levels 11

40
E
8 20 o

0

6 0

OC
-10 0 10 20 30 40
1'1 I

7th octave band
8 0
E

5,600 11.200 Hz
8th octavs band 160
I I

6 0
SOURCE BERANEK 198 1 0 -0 10 20 30 40 50 60 7 0 80 9 0 100
Temperature F

Exhibit 2 2 Effect of Atmospheric Absorption on Sound Levels 12

Masking Effect The ability of one sound to limit a listener from hearing another sound is known as the masking effect The presence of one sound effectively raises the threshold of
audibility for the hearing of a second sound For a signal to be heard it must exceed the threshold of hearing for that particular individual and exceed the masking threshold for the
background noise.
The masking characteristics of sound depend on many factors including the spectral frequency characteristics of the two sounds the sound pressure levels and the relative start
time of the sounds Masking effect is greatest when the frequencies of the two sounds are similar or when low frequency sounds mask higher frequency sounds High frequency
sounds do not easily mask low frequency sounds

2.3 FACTORS INFLUENCING HUMAN RESPONSE TO SOUND
Many factors influence sound perception and annoyance. This includes not only physical characteristics of the sound but also secondary influences such as sociological and external
factors Molino in the Handbook of Noise Control [2] describes human response to sound in terms of both acoustic and non acoustic factors These factors are summarized in Table
2 1
Sound rating scales are developed in reaction tu the factors affecting human response to sound Nearly all of these factors are relevant in describing how sounds are perceived in the
community Many non acoustic parameters play a prominent role in affecting individual response to noise Background sound an additional acoustic factor not specifically listed is
also important in describing sound in rural settings Fields 3 in his analysis of the effects of personal and situational variables on noise annoyance has identified a clear association of
reported annuyance and various other individual perceptions or beliefs In particular Fields stated

There is therefureJirm evidence that noise annoyance is associated with 1 the fear of an aircraft crashing or of danger urn nemby surface transportation 2 the belief that

MCAS El Tore Master Development Plan 6 Appendix E Technical Report Noise Analysis Airport System Master Plan 13

Table 2 l Factors that Affect Individual Annoyance to Noise

Primary Acoustic Factors Sound Level
Frequency Duration

Secondary Acoustic Factors
Spectral Complexity Fluctuations in Sound Level

Fluctuations in Frequency Rise time of the Noise
Localization of Noise Source
Non acoustic Factors
Physiology Adaptation and Past Experience

How the Listener's Activity Affects Annoyance Predictability of When a Noise will Occur
Is the Noise Necessary Individual Differences and Personality
Source C Harris 1979

2.4 SOUNDRA NGSCALES
The description analysis and reporting of community sound levels is made difficult by the complexity of human response to sound and myriad sound rating scales and metrics
developed to describe acoustic effects Various rating scales approximate the human subjective assessment to the loudness or noisiness of a sound Noise metrics have been
developed to account for additional parameters such as duration and cumulative effect of multiple events

Noise metrics are categorized as single event metrics and cumulative metrics Single event metrics describe the noise from individual events such as one aircraft flyover Cumulative
metrics describe the noise in terms of the total noise exposure throughout the day Noise metrics used in this study are summarized below

MCAS El Tore Master Development Plan Appendix E Technical Report Noise Analysis 7 Airport System Master Plan 14

and is widely used in community noise analysis Its advantages are that it has shown good correlation with community response and is easily measured The metrics used in this study
are all based upon the dBA scale I
l Maximum Noise Level The highest noise level reached during a noise event is not
surprisingly called the Maximum Noise Level or Lmax For example as an aircrafi approaches the sound of the aircraft begins to rise above ambient noise levels The closer

the aircraft gets the louder it is until the aircraft is at its closest point directly overhead Then as the aircraft passes the noise level decreases until the sound level again settles to
ambient levels Such a history of a flyover is plotted at the top of Exhibit 2 3 It is this metric to which people generally instantaneously respond when an aircraft flyover occurs

l Single Event Noise Exposure Level SENEL or Sound Exposure Level EL
Another metric that is reported for aircraft flyovers is the Single Event Noise Exposure Level SENEL This metric is essentially equivalent to the Sound Exposure SEL metric

It is computed fjrom dBA sound levels Referring again to the top of Exhibit 2 3 the shaded area or the area within 10 dB of the maximum noise level is the area from which the
SENEL is computed The SENEL value is the integration of all the acoustic energy
contained within the event Speech and sleep interference research can be assessed relative to Single Event Noise Exposure Level data

The SENEL metric takes into account the maximum noise level of the event and the duration of the event For aircraft flyovers the SENEL value is typically about 10 dBA
higher than the maximum noise level Single event metrics are a convenient method for describing noise from individual aircraft events This metric is useful in that airport noise
models contain aircraft noise curve data based upon the SENEL metric In addition cumulative noise metrics such as LEQ CNEL
and DNL can be computed from SENEL data

Cumulative Metrics
Cumulative noise metrics assess community response to noise by including the loudness of the noise the duration of the noise the total number of noise events and the time of day
these events occur into one single number rating scale
l Equivalent Noise Level Leq Leq is the sound level corresponding to a steadystate
A weighted sound level containing the same total energy as several SEL events during a given sample period Leq is the energy average noise level during the time period of the

sample It is based on the observation that the potential for noise annoyance is dependent on the total acoustical energy content of the noise This is graphically illustrated in the middle
graph of Exhibit 2 3 Leq can be measured for any time period but is typically measured

MCAS El Toro Master Development Plan
8
Appendix E Technical Report Noise Analysis
Airport System Master PIan 15
15 Page 16 17
nnn Hnm nf Fvmk II
Exhibit 2 i Single and Cumulative Noise Metric Definitions
A vie
I 24 Hour Noise Level CNEL 16

l Community Noise Equivalent Level CNEL CNEL is a 24 hour time weighted
energy average noise level based on the A weighted decibel It is a measure of the overall noise experienced during an entire day The term time weighted refers to the penalties

attached to noise events occting during certain sensitive time periods In the CNEL scale noise occurring between the hours of 7 pm and 10 pm is penalized by approximately 5 dB
This penalty accounts for the greater potential for noise to cause communication interference during these hours as well as typically lower ambient noise levels during these hours Noise
that takes place during the night 10 pm to 7 am is penalized by 10 dE3 This penalty was selected to attempt to account for the higher sensitivity to noise in the nighttime and the
expected further decrease in background noise levels that typically occur in the nighttime
CNEL is graphically illustrated in the bottom of Exhibit 2 3 Examples of various noise environments in terms of CNEL are presented in Exhibit 2 4 CNEL is specified for use in
the California Airport Noise Regulations and is used by local planning agencies in their General Plan Noise Element for land use compatibility planning

l Day Night Noise Level DNL The DNL index is very similar to CNEL but does
not include the evening 7 pm to 10 pm penalty that is included in CNEL It does include the nighttime 10 pm to 7 am penalty Typically DNL is about 1 dB lower than CNEL

although the difference may be greater if there is an abnormal concentration of noise events in the 7 to 10 pm time period DNL is specified by the FAA for airport noise assessment
and by the Environmental Protection Agency EPA for community noise and airport noise assessment The FAA guidelines described later allow for the use of CNEL as a substitute
to DNL
Supplemental Metrics
0 Time Above TA The FAA developed the Time Above metric as a secondary
metric for assessing impacts of aircraft noise around airports The Time Above index refers to the total time in seconds or minutes that aircrafi noise exceeds certain dBA noise levels in

a 24 hour period It is typically expressed as Time Above 65 and 85 dBA sound levels While this index is not widely used it may be used by the FAA in environmental
assessments of airport projects that show a significant increase in noise levels There are no existing formal noise land use compatibility standards defined in terms of a Time Above
index However Orange County has presented TA analysis in environmental assessments ans studies of airport projects since at least 1985

The computer noise model developed by the FAA the Integrated Noise Model computes Time Above for any user set threshold While there are no definitive land use standards for
the Time Above metric the metric is provided in this analysis as an additional description of

MCAS El Toro Master Development Plan 9 Appendix E Technical Report Noise Analysis Airport System Master Plan 17

Alternative B Apartment Next to Freeway 3 4 Mile From Touchdown at Major Airport

Downtown With Some Construction Activity
Urban High Density Apartment

z Urban Row Housing on Major Avenue Laguna Woods Allso Viejo Santa
Margarita o g -603 Old Urban Residential Area Lake Forest Anaheim
Hills 4
Wooded Residential

2 A g r i c u l t u r a l Crop Land w 4am Rural Residential F
Wilderness Ambient l Based on location in community
located closest to flight tracks Exposure decreases with increasing distant from s
flight tracks 3oExamples

of Typical Outdoor CNEL Levels Source Adapted from Information on Levels of Environmental Noise R uisite to Protecl
Public Health and Welfare With an Adequate 7 Margin of Sa ew EPA 1974 18

For purposes of this analysis three Time Above thresholds were used based on known speech interference levels associated with interfering noise Speech interference is
described in more detail in Section 2.5 In general speech interference effects start when interfering noise such as an aircraft exceed 65 dBA for normal face to face conversation
Using this as a criteria threshold three Time Above thresholds were selected for this analysis each corresponding to a level at which speech interference might occur The three
thresholds correspond to outdoor exposure to aircraft noise indoor exposure with windows open and indoor exposure with windows closed Given that outdoor to indoor noise
reduction achieved by typical Southern California wood frame homes is 12 dBA with windows open and 20 dBA with windows closed older homes built prior to UBC improved
requirements for Energy Insulation the three thresholds selected were 65 dBA 77 dBA and 85 dBA These correspond directly to the beginning of speech interference outdoors
indoors with windows open and indoors with windows closed respectively More modem homes could warrant the use of higher thresholds but this analysis uses the more
conservative values specified above
l Percent Noise Level Ln To account for intermittent or fluctuating noise another
method to characterize noise is the Percent Noise Level Ln The Percent Noise Level is the level exceeded n of the time during the measurement period It is usually measured in

the A weighted decibel but can be an expression of any noise rating scale Percent Noise Levels are another method of characterizing ambient noise where for example L90 is the
noise level exceeded 90 percent of the time L50 is the level exceeded 50 percent and L 10 is the level exceeded 10 percent of the time L90 represents the background or minimum noise
level l50 represents the median noise level and L10 the peak or intrusive noise levels Percent noise level is commonly used in community noise ordinances which regulate noise
from mechanical equipment entertainment noise sources and the like It is not normally used for transportation noise regulation

l Detectability Cumulative measures of community noise such as CNEL or DNL
are less sensitive to low level sounds that may occur infrequently and thereby do not materially affect integrated energy averages This situation is predominant in remote

locations far from urban and suburban noise sources in which otherwise quiet areas are intermittently disturbed by low level sounds from aircraft over flights or train passbys For
this reason a metric that considers both background sound and the relative level from the aircraft over flights may be useful to supplement the CNEL or DNL analysis in some
circumstances
Research 5 demonstrates that the annoyance of low level sounds may be predicted through a descriptor known as detectability The research showed that in low level sound settings
signal detection or audibility can be the most important factor in predicting annoyance Detectability provides a method of measuring this level of intrusion

MCAS El Toro Master Development Plan 10 Appendix E Technical Report Noise Analysis Airport System Master Plan 19

Detectability is useful in describing when a signal is detectable in various background settings In addition to these low level sound applications more recent work 9 10 suggests
that the detectability concept may also be applicable to more complex noise environments
In summary the concept of detectability and its relation to annoyance appears to be applicable to low level sound situations that are common in remote areas However it
should be noted that the research on detectability was conducted primarily under constrained laboratory conditions Detectability has not been tested to predict annoyance in an outdoor
setting where both the background and source vary with respect to amplitude frequency and temporal domain or in urban or suburban areas such as the area surrounding El Toro As a
result it will not be used as a metric for analysis in this study

2.5 EFFECTS OF NOISE ON HUMANS
Noise often described as unwanted sound is known to have several adverse effects on humans From these known adverse effects of noise criteria have been established to help
protect the public health and safety and prevent disruption of certain human activities These criteria are based on effects of noise on people such as hearing loss not a factor with
typical community noise communication interference sleep interference physiological responses and annoyance Each of these potential noise impacts on people are briefly
discussed in the following narrative
a Hearing Loss is generally not a concern in community noise problems even very
near a major airport or a major freeway The potential for noise induced hearing loss is more commonly associated with occupational noise exposures in heavy industry very noisy

work environments with long term exposure or certain very loud recreational activities such as target shooting motorcycle or car racing etc The Occupational Safety and Health
Administration OSIIA identifies a noise exposure limit of 90 dBA fur 8 hours per day to protect from hearing loss higher limits are allowed for shorter duration exposures Noise
levels in neighborhoods even in very noisy neighborhoods are not sufficiently loud to cause hearing loss

Communication Interference is one of the primary concerns in environmental noise
problems Communication interference includes speech interference and interference with

MCAS El Toro Master Development Plan 11 Appendix E Technical Report Noise Analysis Airport System Master Plan 20

l Sleep Interference is a major noise concern in noise assessment and of course is
most critical during nighttime hours Sleep disturbance is one of the major causes of
annoyance due to community noise Noise can make it diffkult to fall asleep create momentary disturbances of natural sleep patterns by causing shifts from deep to lighter

stages and cause awakening Noise may even cause awakening which a person may or may not be able to recall

Extensive research has been conducted on the effect of noise on sleep disturbance Recommended values for desired sound levels in residential bedroom space range from 25
to 45 dBA with 35 to 40 dBA being the norm Some years ago 1981 The National Association of Noise Control Officials 1 l published data on the probability of sleep
disturbance with various single event noise levels Based on laboratory experiments conducted in the 1970's this data indicated noise exposure at 75 dBA interior noise level
event will cause noise induced awakening in 30 percent of the cases
However recent research Tom England 12 131 has shown that the probability for sleep disturbance is less than what had been reported in earlier research These recent field
studies conducted during the 1990's and using new sophisticated techniques indicate that awakenings can be expected at a much lower rate than had been expected based on earlier
laboratory studies This research showed that once a person was asleep it is much more unlikely that they will be awakened by a noise The significant difference in the recent
English study is the use of actual in home sleep disturbance patterns as opposed to laboratory data that had been the historic basis for predicting sleep disturbance Some of
this research has been criticized because it was conducted in areas where subjects had become habituated to aircraft noise On the other hand some of the earlier laboratory sleep
studies had been criticized because of the extremely small sample sizes of most laboratory studies and because the laboratory was nut necessarily a representative sleep environment
The 1994 British sleep study compared the various causes of sleep disturbance using in home sleep
studies This field study assessed the effects of nighttime aircraft noise on sleep in 400 people 211 women and 189 men 20 70 years of age one per household habitually

living at eight sites adjacent to four U K airports with different levels of night flying The main finding was that only a minority of aircraft noise events affected sleep and for most
subjects that domestic and other non aircraft factors had much greater effects As shown in the Exhibit 2 6A aircraft noise was a minor contributor among a host of other factors which
lead to awakening response

MCAS EI Toro Master Development Plan 14 Appendix E Technical Report Noise Analysis Airport System Master Plan 21

16
8
4
8
2 t Ama Where Wmmunicslth

It

16
8

4
2
1

0.5
0.25

Exhibit 2 5
Speech Interference and Noise Levels 22

Thirst
I

Dream

I n s i d e
Partner
Outside

T o i l e t
Don't Know 1
15
Percentage

20

1
Exhibit 2 6A Causes and Prevalence of All Awakenings
Total awakenings 6,457 Each subject could have reported more than one awakening each night

The Federal Interagency Committee on Noise FICON in 1992 in a document entitled
Federal Interagency Review of Selected Airport Noise Analysis Issues 141 recommended an interim dose response curve for sleep disturbance based on laboratory studies of sleep

disturbance In June of 1997 the Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise FICAN updated the FICON recommendation with an updated curve based on the more
recent in home sleep disturbance studies which show lower rates of awakening compared to the laboratory studies 151 The FICAN recommended a curve based on the upper limit of
the data presented and therefore considers the cuwe to represent the maximum percent of the exposed population expected to be behaviorally awakened or the maximum
awakened The FICAN recommendation is shown on Exhibit 2 6B This is a very conservative approach A more common statistical curve for the data points reflected in
Exhibit 2 6 for example would indicate a 10 awakening rate at a level of approximately 100 dB SENEL while the maximum awakened curve reflected in Exhibit 2 6B shows the

MCAS El Toro Master Development Plan 1 3 Appendix E Technical Report Noise Analysis Airport System Master Plan 23

0 20 60 a0 120
Indoor sound exposure level SEL dB Indoor Single Event Noise Exposure Level SENEL

Exhibit 2 6B
Sleep Interference and Noise Level 24

Physiological Responses are those measurable effects of noise on people which are
realized as changes in pulse rate blood pressure etc While such effects can be induced and observed the extent is not known to which these physiological responses cause harm or are

a sign of harm Generally physiological responses are a reaction to a loud short term noise such as a rifle shot or a very loud jet over flight

Health effects from noise have been studied around the world for nearly thirty years Scientists have attempted to determine whether high noise levels can adversely affect human
health apart from auditory damage which is amply understood These research efforts have covered a broad range of potential impacts from cardiovascular response to fetal weight and
mortality Yet while a relationship between noise and health effects seems plausible it has yet to be convincingly demonstrated that is shown in a manner that can be repeated by
other researchers while yielding similar results
While annoyance and sleep speech interference have been acknowledged health effects if they exist are associated with a wide variety of other environmental stressors Isolating the
effects of aircraft noise alone as a source of long term physiological change has proved to be almost impossible In a review of 30 studies conducted worldwide between 1993 and 1998
161 a team of international researchers concluded that while some findings suggest that noise can affect health improved research concepts and methods are needed to verify or
discredit such a relationship They called for more study of the numerous environmental and behavioral factors than can confound mediate or moderate survey findings Until
science refines the research process a direct link between aircraft noise exposure and nonauditory health effects remains to be demonstrated

l Annoyance is the most difficult of all noise responses to describe Annoyance is a
very individual characteristic and can vary widely from person to person What one person considers tolerable can be quite unbearable to another of equal hearing capability The level

of annoyance of course depends on the characteristics of the noise i e loudness frequency time and duration and how much activity interference e g speech interference
and sleep interference results from the noise However the level of annoyance is also a function of the attitude of the receiver Personal sensitivity to noise varies widely It has
been estimated that 2 to 10 percent of the population is highly susceptible to annoyance from any noise not of their own making while approximately 20 percent are unaffected by noise
Attitudes are affected by the relationship between the person and the noise source Is it our dog barking or the neighbor's dog Whether we believe that someone is trying to abate the
noise will also affect our level of annoyance
Annoyance levels have been correlated to CNEL levels Exhibit 2 7 relates DNL noise levels to community response from two of these surveys One of the survey curves
presented in Exhibit 2 7 is the well known Schultz curve developed by Theodore Schultz 141 It displays the percent of a populace that can be expected to be annoyed by various
DNL CNEL in California values for residential land use with outdoor activity areas At 65

MCAS El Toro Master Development Plan 14 Appendix E Technical Report Noise Analysis Airport System Master Plan 25

80 HA lUU l EXP 11.13 .141 LDN Solid Line I SCHULTZ DATA 161 POINTS
G H
60 HA lUU l EXP 10.43 .132 LDN DASHED Line L
Y

A N 4 0 N

0 Y 20 E
D
0
Day Night Average 40 45 50 Sound Level in dB I 155 160 165170 I75 180185 190

USAF 0.41 0.831 1.66 3.3 1 6.48 12.29 22.1 36.47 53.74 70.16 82.64 calculated
HAPoints SCHULTZ 0.576 1.11 2.12 4.03 7.52 13.59 23.32 37.05 53.25 68.78 181.0 b f t I I t t I

Exhibit 2 7
Comparison of logistic fits to original 161 data points of Schultz 1978 and USAF analysis with 400 points data provided by USAF Armstrong Laboratory

Source Ficon 1992 26

l School Room Effects Interference with classroom activities and learning from
aircraft noise is an important consideration and the subject of much recent research Studies from around the world indicate that vehicle traffic railroad and aircraft noise can have

adverse effects on reading ability concentration motivation and long term learning retention A complicating factor in this research is the extent of background noise from
within the class room itself The studies indicating the most adverse effects examine cumulative noise levels equivalent to 65 CNEL or higher and single event maximum noise
levels ranging from 85 to 95 dBA In other studies the level of noise is unstated or ambiguous According to these studies a variety of adverse school room effects can be
expected Tom interior noise levels equal to or exceeding 65 CNEL and or 85 dE3A SEL
Some interference with classroom activities can be expected with noise events which interfere with speech As discussed in other sections of this report speech interference
begins at 65 dBA which is the level of normal conversation Typical construction attenuates outdoor noise by 20 dBA with windows closed and 12 dBA with windows open Thus some
interference of class room activities can be expected at outdoor levels of 77 to 85 dBA Which again are the criteria used for the Time Above analysis performed as part of this
study

2.6 NOISE LAND USE COMPATIBILIW GUIDELINES
Noise metrics quantify community response to various noise exposure levels The public reaction to different noise levels has been estimated from extensive research on human

MCAS El Toro Master Development Plan
15 Appendix E Technical Report Noise Analysis Airport System Master Plan 27
27 Page 28 29
responses to exposure of different levels of aircraft noise Noise standards generally are expressed in terms of the DNL 240hour averaging scale based on the A weighted decibel
Utilizing these metrics and surveys agencies have developed standards for assessing the compatibility of various land uses with the noise environment There are no single event
noise based noise land use compatibility criteria that have been adopted by the Federal Government or the State of California

This section presents information regarding noise and land use criteria useful in the evaluation of noise impacts The Federal Aviation Administration has a long history of
publishing noise land use assessment criteria for airports These laws and regulations provide the basis for local development of airport plans analyses of airport impacts and the
enactment of compatibility policies Other agencies including the EPA the Department of Defense the State of California the County of Orange and most cities have developed
noise land use compatibility criteria A summary of some of the more pertinent regulations and guidelines are presented in the following paragraphs

Federal Aviation Administration
Airport and Airway improvement Act of 1982 as amended Public Laws 91 258 and 94 353

This act establishes the Federal requirements fur funding of airport planning under the Planning Grant Program PGP and airport development under Airport Development Aid
Program ADAP An Airport and Airway Trust Fund is created to pay for these programs and operations of the Federal Aviation system The general types of projects eligible for
Federal tiding are indicated Additionally the Act directs the preparation of a National Airport System Plan NASP which lists the location of airports in the national system of
airports and the recommended development of each
Among the conditions for Federal funding are two requirements involving airport land use compatibility As a condition to the receipt of ADAP funds the airport
sponsor owner must among other things give assurances regarding land uses in the airport environs that

The aerial approaches to the airport will be adequately cleared and protected by removing lowering relocating marking lighting or otherwise mitigating existing airport
hazards and by preventing the establishment or creation of future airport hazards
and that Appropriate action including the adoption of zoning laws has been or will be taken to the extent reasonable to restrict the use of land adjacent to or in the
immediate vicinity of the airport to activities and purposes compatible with normal airport operations including landing and takeoff of aircraft

MCAS El Toro Master Development Plan
16 Appendix E Technical Report Noise Analysis Airport System Master Plan 28
28 Page 29 30
l Federal Aviation Regulations Part 36 Noise Standards Aircraft Type and
Airworthiness Certification

Originally adopted in 1960 FAR Part 36 prescribes noise standards for issuance of new aircraft type certificates Part 36 prescribes limiting noise levels for certification of new
types of propeller driven small airplanes as well as for transport category large airplanes Subsequent amendments extended the standards to certain newly produced aircraft of older
type designs Other amendments have at various times extended the required compliance dates Aircraft may be certificated as Stage 1 Stage 2 or Stage 3 aircraft based on their
noise level weight number of engines and in some cases number of passengers Stage 1 aircraft are no longer permitted to operate in the U S Stage 2 aircraft are being phased out
of the U S fleet as discussed in a later paragraph on the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 Although aircraft meeting Part 36 standards are noticeably quieter than many of the
older aircraft the regulations make no determination that such aircraft are acceptably quiet for operation at any given airport

l U S Department of Transportation FAA Aviation Noise Abatement Policy
This policy adopted in 1976 sets forth the noise abatement authorities and responsibilities of the Federal Government airport proprietors State and Local governments the air
carriers air travelers and shippers and airport area residents and prospective residents The basic thrust of the policy is that the FAA's role is primarily one of regulating noise at its
source the aircraft plus supporting local efforts to develop airport noise abatement plans The FAA will give high priority in the allocation of ADAP funds to projects designed to
ensure compatible use of land near airports but it is the role of State and Local governments and airport proprietors to undertake the land use and operational actions necessary
promote compatibility to
Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979
Further weight was given to the FAA's supporting role in noise compatibi l ity planning by congressional adoption of this legislation Among the stated purposes of this
act is To provide assistance to airport operators to prepare and carry out noise compatibility programs The law establishes funding for noise compatibility planning and sets the
requirements by which airport operators can apply for funding This is also the law by which Congress mandated that FAA develop an airport community noise metric which would be
used by all federal agencies assessing or regulating aircraft noise The result was DNL Because California already had a well established airport community noise metric in CNEL
and because CNEL and DNL are so similar FAA expressly allows CNEL to be used in lieu of DNL in noise assessments performed for California airports The law does not require
any airport to develop a noise compatibility program

MCAS El Toro Master Development Plan 17 Appendix E Technical Report Noise Analysis Airport System Master Plan 29
29 Page 30 31
l Federal Aviation Regulations Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility
Planning

As a means of implementing the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act the FAA adopted Regulations on Airport Noise Compatibility Planning Programs These regulations
are spelled out in FAR Part 150 As part of the FAR Part 150 Noise Control program the FAA published noise and land use compatibility charts to be used for land use planning with
respect to aircraft noise An expanded version of this chart appears in Aviation Circular 150 5020 l dated August 5 1983 and is reproduced in Exhibit 2 8

These guidelines represent recommendations to local authorities for determining acceptability and permissibility of land uses The guidelines recommend a maximum
amount of noise exposure in terms of the cumulative noise metric DNL that might be considered acceptable or compatible to people in living and working areas These noise
levels are derived from case histories involving aircraft noise problems at civilian and military airports and the resultant community response Note that residential land use is
deemed acceptable for noise exposures up to 65 dB DNL Recreational areas are also considered acceptable for noise levels above 65 dB DNL with certain exceptions for
amphitheaters However the FAA guidelines indicate that ultimately the responsibility for determining the acceptability and permissible land uses remains with the local authorities

0 Federal Aviation Order 5050.4 and Directive 1050JD for Environmental
Analysis of Aircraft Noise Around Airports

The FAA has developed guidelines Order 5050.4D for the environmental analysis of airports Federal requirements now dictate that increases in noise levels in noise sensitive
land uses of over 1.5 dB DNL within the 65 dB DNL contour are considered significant lOSO lD Directive 6.14.99 If the threshold of 1.5 dB within the 65 DNL is met then
fkther analysis in the range of 60 to 65 DNL should be conducted to determine if a 3 dB increase in DNL will occur This information is to be used in the consideration of mitigation
measures
l Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990

The Airport Noise stnd Capacity Act of 1990 PL 101 508 104 Stat 1388 also known as ANCA or the Noise Act established two broad directives to the FAA 1
Establish a method to review aircraft noise airport use or airport access restrictions imposed by airport proprietors and 2 institute a program tu phase out Stage 2 aircraft over
75,000 pounds by December 3 1 1999 Stage 2 aircraft are older noisier aircraft B 737 200 B 727 and DC 9 Stage 3 aircraft are newer quieter aircraft B 737 300 B 757
MD80 90 To implement ANCA FAA amended Part 91 and issued a new Part 161 of the Federal Aviation Regulations Part 91 addresses the phase out of large Stage 2 aircraft and
the phase in of Stage 3 aircraft Part 161 establishes a stringent review and approval process for implementing use or access restrictions by airport proprietors

MCAS El Toro Master Development Plan 18 Appendix E Technical Report Noise Analysis Airport System Master Plan 30
30 Page 31 32
Rttidential Ruidential othtr than mobile homes and transient
lodgings
Mobile Home Parks
Transient lodgings
Pub use
schools
Hospitals and Nursing Homes l
Ckxrchcs auditoriums and concert halls

Govcrnmarul Services Transpotition

Parking
cu ca use
Offices business and professional
Whokale and retail building materials hardware and
famequipmcrll
Rcpil trade germal
UtilitiCS
Commmication
Mas wfatwi lg und Pmductiun

Manufacturing general
tographic and optical
Ag u l except hmstock and forestry
Liveaock farming and breeding
Mining md fishing resource production and extraction

Rwtihund
Outdoor sports arenas and spcaator spores
Outdoor music shells amphitheaters
Natme exhibits and zoos
~paAs rcsoiuandcamps
Golfcourses riding stables and water rcucation
Numbas in partnthcscs refer to notes

Y
Y
Y

Y
Y Y
Y Y

N l N
NO

NO 25
2 5
Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

Y
Y
W Y 6

Y

YG
Y
Y
Y

N N
NW
N N
N 30
Y 3
Y 3

30
Y 3 30
Y 3 30

Y 3 30
Y 8
N Y

N
s
N
N
30

N N
N

N N
N N

Y 4 Y 4

N
Y 4 N
Y 4 N

Y 4 N
Y 8 N
Y

N s
N N
N

N N
N

N N
N
N
Y 4 N

N
N N
N N

N N
Y 8 N
Y

N Y
N N
N

l Tbt dc mtkns containad in this rablt do not constiflltf a Federal dt termination chat any use of land covered by the program is amptable or unacceptable under
Federa State or local law The responsibility for dettxmining the acceptable and permissible land uses and tit relationship between specific prop and specific noise
colltoufs rests with the local authorities FAA dctamina tions under Part 150 art not intended to substitute federally determined land uses for those determined to be appropriate by local authorities in response u totally determined nails and values in achieving noise compatible land uses

T KEY
Standard Land Use Coding Manual
Land Use and related structures compatibic without rtstictions
Land Use and related structures arc not compatible and should be prohibiti Noise Lmtl Reduction outdoor LO indoor to Ix achieved through incorporation of noise attenuation into the design and c nstr tion of the structrat

Land use and related structures generally compatible m s to achieve NLR or 25,30 or 35 dB must be incorporated into design and on
of the
NmEs

1 where Ihe ~ity c nesthttrcJidentio or ooluscsmustbc allowed measures to achieve outdoor to indoor Noise Izvel Reduction

~R ofstleast25dBMd3OdB o dbe Illcopmud into buwng codes and be cmsidcrcd in individual approvals Nonnal'rcsidential
tauwcti0nc8nbtexptaedtopvidc NLRof2odB rht rduaim idquircmenta are often statal as 5.10 or 15 dE over s d
construction and normally assume mechanical vtNiMon and closed
windows year mud However the use of NLR criteria will not eiiminatc
outdoor noise problem
tz bkmxcs to achieve NwI of 25 dB must be incorpomtcd into the design
ibd comtruction of portions of se buildings where the public is
received office am noise sensitive areas or where the normal noise

level is low

3 Measures to achieve NLR of 30 dB must be incoiporatod intO the design and construction of potions of these buildings where hc public is received
office areas noise sensitive areas or where the normal noise level is low
4 Measures to achieve NLR of 35 dB musf be incqoratccl into the design and construction of portions of these buildings where ti public is rccitvcd

office area noise sensitive areas or where the nOrmal noise level is low
5 Land use compatible provided special sound rcinforcancnt systems are
installed
6 Residential buildings require an NLR of 25
7 Residential buildings require an NLR of 30
8 Rcsidcntial buildings not permittd 31
31 Page 32 33
Part 91 generally states that all Stage 2 aircraft over 75,000 pounds will be out of the domestic fleet by December 3 1 1999 The State of Hawaii and Alaska are not affected
by this regulation The agency may for individual cases grant waivers through 2002 But for the most part only Stage 3 aircraft greater than 75,000 pounds are expected to be in the
domestic fleet after that date The airlines have options on how and when to phase out or acoustically treat Stage 2 aircraft but it is anticipated that the domestic fleet in the mainland
will be all Stage 3 by the year 2000
Part 161 sets out the requirements and procedures for implementing new airport use and access restrictions by airport proprietors Proprietors must use the DNL metric to
measure noise effects and the Part 150 land use guideline table including 65 dl3 DNL as the threshold contour to determine compatibility unless there is a locally adopted standard more
stringent CNEL would be an acceptable surrogate for DNL
The regulation identifies three types of use restrictions and treats each one differently 1 negotiated restrictions 2 Stage 2 aircraft restrictions and 3 Stage 3
aircra9t restrictions Generally speaking any use restriction affecting the number or times of aircraft operations will be considered an access restriction Even though the Part 91 phaseout
does not apply to aircraft under 75,000 pounds FAA has determined that Part 161 limitations on proprietors authority applies as well to the smaller aircraft

Negotiated restrictions are more favorable from the FAA's standpoint but still require unwieldy procedures for approval and implementation In order to be effective the
agreements normally must be agreed to by all airlines using the airport
Stage 2 restrictions are more difficult because one of the major reasons for ANCA was to discourage local restrictions more stringent than 1999 phase out already contained in
ANCA To comply with the regulation and institute a new Stage 2 restriction the proprietor must generally do two things It must prepare a cost benefit analysis of the proposed
restriction and give proper notice The cost benefit analysis is extensive and entails considerable evaluation Stage 2 restrictions do not require approval by the FAA

Stage 3 restrictions are even more difficult to implement A Stage 3 restriction involves considerable additional analysis justification evaluation and financial discussion
In addition a Stage 3 restriction must result in a decrease in noise exposure of the 65 dB DNL to noise sensitive land uses residences schools churches parks The regulation
requires both public notice and FAA approval
ANCA applies to all new local noise restrictions and amendments to existing restrictions proposed after October 1990 The noise regulations and access restrictions
established by the County of Orange at John Wayne Airport were implemented prior to the 1990 deadline in ANCA and the amendments made to allow for the revised JWA noise
abatement departure procedures have been approved by the FAA

MCAS El Toro Master Development Plan
1 9 Appendix E Technical Report Noise Analysis Airport System Master Plan 32
32 Page 33 34
Environmental Protection Agency Noise Assessment Guidelines
l Environmental Protection Agency Information on Levels of Environmental
Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety

In March 1974 in response to a federal statutory mandate the EPA published this document 1 EPA 550 9 74 004 describing 55 dB DNL as the requisite level with an
adequate margin of safety for areas with outdoor uses including residences and recreational areas This document does not constitute EPA regulations or standards Rather it is
intended to provide State and Local governments as well as the Federal Government and the private sector with an informational point of departure for the purpose of decisionmaking
Note that these levels were developed for suburban type uses In some urban settings the noise levels will be significantly above this level while in some wilderness
settings the noise levels will be well below this level The EPA levels document does not constitute a standard specification or regulation but identifies safe levels of environmental
noise exposure without consideration for achieving these levels or other potentially relevant considerations These EPA guidelines have not been adopted or recommended for use by the
FAA the State of California or the Board of Supervisors

Federal Interagency Committee on Noise FICON Report of 1992 14
The use of the CNEL or DNL metric and the 65 dB CNEL criteria has been reviewed
by various interest groups concerning its usefulness in assessing aircraft noise impacts At the direction of the EPA and the FAA the Federal Interagency Committee On Noise

FICON was formed to review specific elements of the assessment of airport noise impacts and to make recommendations regarding potential improvements FICON includes
representatives from 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 used to assess airport noise impacts and on the manner in which noise impacts are determined This included whether aircraft
noise impacts are fundamentally different from other transportation noise impacts the manner in which noise impacts are described and the extent to which impacts outside of
DNL 65 should be reviewed in federal environmental impact statements
The committee determined that there are no new descriptors or metrics of sufficient scientific standing to substitute for DNL The DNL noise exposure metric and the doseresponse
relationships used to determine noise impact were determined to be proper for assessing noise from civil and military aviation in the general vicinity of airports The
report supported agency discretion in the use of supplemental noise analysis The report recommended improvement in public understanding of the DNL supplemental
methodologies and aircraft noise impacts

MCAS El Toro Master Development Plan Appendix E Technical Report Noise Analysis Airport System Master Plan 33
33 Page 34 35
The report endorsed and expanded traditional FAA environmental screening criteria for potential airport noise impacts FICON recommended that if screening analysis
determines noise sensitive areas at or above DNL 65 dB show an increase of DNL 1.5 dB or more then further analysis should be conducted of noise sensitive areas between DNL 60 65
dB having an increase of DNL 3 dB or more consistent with the most recent FAA guidelines 1050 lD

State of California
The Aeronautics Division of the California State Department of Transportation Caltrans enforces the California Airport Noise Regulations These regulations establish
65 dB CNEL as a noise impact boundary within which there shall be no incompatible land uses This requirement is based in part upon the determination in the Caltrans regulations
that 65 dB CNEL is the level of noise which should be acceptable to a reasonable man residing in the vicinity of an airport Airports are responsible for achieving compliance
with t h e s e regulations Compliance can be achieved through noise abatement alternatives land acquisition land use conversion land use restrictions or sound insulation of structures
Airports not in compliance can operate under variance procedures established within the regulations John Wayne Airport has operated under a variance to the California Airport
Noise Regulations Completion of the sound insulation program presently underway in the Santa Ana Heights and Anniversary Tract neighborhoods will result in John Wayne Airport
being in compliance with the California Airport Noise Regulations Note that these regulations do not apply to military installations and no assessment of MCAS El Toro with
respect to these regulations is made relative to military operations However any civilian
use of the El Toro site would be subject to these regulations

l Californian Noise Insulation Standards 171 apply to all multi family dwellings built in the
State Single family residences are exempt fkum these regulations With respect to community noise sources the regulations require that all multi family dwellings with

exterior noise exposures greater that 60 dB CNEL must be sound insulated such that the interior noise level will nut exceed 45 dB CNEL These requirements apply to all roadway
rail and airport noise sources
l The State of California requires that all municipal General Plans contain a Noise Element
181 The requirements for the Noise element of the General Plan include describing the noise environment quantitatively using a cumulative noise metric such as CNEL or DNL

establishing noise land use compatibility criteria and establishing programs for achieving and ur maintaining compatibility Noise elements shall address all major noise sources in
the community including mobile and stationary sources
l Airport Land Use Commissions were created by State Law 191 for the purpose of
establishing a regional level of land use compatibility between airports and their surrounding environs The Orange County Airport Land Use Commission has adopted an Airport

MCAS El Toro Master Development Plan 21 Appendix E Technical Report Noise Analysis Airport System Master Plan 34
34 Page 35 36
Environs Land Use Plan AELUP for Orange County airports including John Wayne Airport Los Alamitos Army Airfield MCAS Tustin II MCAS El Toro and Fullerton
Municipal Airport November 16 1995 The AELUP establishes noise land use acceptability criteria for sensitive land uses at 65 dB CNEL for outdoor areas and 45 dB
CNEL for indoor areas of residential land uses These criteria me compatible with the criteria used by the County of Orange

County of Orange

l The General Plan Noise Element of the County of Orange establishes noise land use
planning criteria for the unincorporated areas of the County These noise guidelines and standards cover roadway noise rail noise and airport noise including military and civilian

airports The County has adopted noise standards for various land uses in terms of CNEL and Leq These standards are reproduced here as Table 2 2A and 2 2B For residential land
uses the County has established a maximum exterior noise level standard of 65 dB CNEL for private outdoor living areas and an interior standard of 45 dB CNEL Consistent with the
AELUP for El Toro the County used the 65 dB CNEL noise contour published by the military in its 1981 Air Installation Compatibile Use Zone AICUZ study to establish the
Noise Element's policy implementation line around the base within which new residential uses are not permitted The County of Orange uses the 60 dB CNEL contour as a threshold
for review of projects in order to screen projects and ensure that the 65 dB CNEL exterior and 45 dB CNEL interior criteria are met In other words projects located within the 60 dB
CNEL contour are required to submit detailed acoustical studies ensuring compliance with the County noise standards

Additionally the County of Orange provides insurance that the 45 dB CNEL interior noise limit for habitable rooms of residential units is met with windows open or windows
closed not necessarily both Specifically homes with windows closed will provide at least a 20 dB outdoor to indoor noise reduction based on typical pre 1981 construction practice
and Uniform Building Code requirements newer homes provide additional noise reduction Homes with windows open will provide a 12 dB outdoor to indoor noise reduction largely
independent of date of construction The County therefore requires that new homes with exterior noise exposure greater than 57 dB CNEL 45 dB plus 12 dB provide some means
of mechanical ventilation in order to ensure that residents are able to close windows and obtain fkesh air at a rate specified in the Uniform Building Code New homes subject to this
requirement are typically air conditioned or supplied with a fresh air switch as part of the forced air heating unit

l The Phase 2 Access Plan at John Wayne Airport regulates access to and operations at John
Wayne Airport 20 Continued implementation of certain important provisions of the plan is required by a federal court settlement agreement between the County of Orange the City

of Newport Beach the Airport Working Group Stop Polluting Our Newport SPON and a continuing order of the federal District Court in effect through 2005 The Access Plan
contains a number of mechanisms which control access and noise at John Wayne Airport

MCAS El Tore Master Development Plan 22 Appendix E Technical Report Noise Analysis Airport System Master Plan 35
35 Page 36 37
Orange County Compatibility Matrix for Land Uses and Community Noise Equivalent
Levels CNEL and Equivalent Noise Levels Leq

TYPE OF USE
Residential
Commercial

Employment
Open Space
Local
Community
Regional
Educational Facilities
Schools K through 12
Preschool college other
Places of Worship
Hospitals
General
Convalescent
Group Quarters
Hotels Hotels
Accessory Uses
Executive Apartments
Caretakers

65 decibels CNEL 60 to 65 decibels CNEL
2a e

2c
2c

2c
2c
2c

2c d e 2c d e
2c d e 2c d e
2c d e 2c d e

2a c d e
2a c d e
la b c e
2a c

la b e 2a e
la b c e 2a cp e

2c
2c
2c

Za c d e
2a c d e
2a cf e

2a c 36
36 Page 37 38
Orange County Compatibility Matrix for Land Uses and Community Noise Equivalent
Levels CNEL and Equivalent Noise Levels Leq Explanations and Definitions

ACTION REQUIRED TO ENSURE COMPATIBILITY
BETWEEN LAND USE AND NOISE FROM EXTERNAL SOURCES

1 t Allowed if interior and exterior community noise levels can be mitigated
2 Allowed if interior levels can be mitigated

3 New residential uses are prohibited in areas within the 6 decibel CNEL contour from any airport or air station allowed in other areas if interior
and exterior community noise levels can be mitigated The prohibition against new residenti l development excludes limited Ynfill development

within an es tablishec kghborhood
STANDARDS REQUIRED FOR COMPATIBILITY OF LAND USE AND NOISE
a Interior Standard CNEL of less than 45 decibels habitable rooms only
b Exterior Standard CNEL of less than 6 decibels from any source in outdoor living areas

c Interior Standard Leg h 45 to 65 decibels interior noise level depending on interior use
TYPICAL USE Leg h
Private Office Church Sanctuary College Preschool Schools Grade K 12 Board Room

Conference Room etc
45

General office Reception Clerical etc 50
Other Schools and Colleges 52
Bank Lobby Retail Store Restaurant Typing Pool etc 55

Manufacturing Kitchen Warehousing etc 65
d Exterior Standard Leg h of less than 65 decibels in outdoor living areas
e Interior Standard As approved by the Board of Supervisors for sound events of short duration
such as aircraft flyovers or individual passing railroad trains

h Time duration of usage in hours
Table 2 2B
County of Orange Land Use Compatib 37
37 Page 38 39
including a passenger limit limits on operating hours noise limits by aircraft class and restrictions on number of operations within certain aircraft classes
l The General Aviation Noise Ordinance GANO 21 adopted by the County of Orange
establishes noise limits and other restrictions for aircraft operating at John Wayne Airport Generally these operations are permitted 24 hours a day subject to daytime and nighttime

noise limits

South County Cities
9 The General Plan Noise Elements of the Cities of Irvine Lake Forest Laguna Hills Laguna Niguel Mission Viejo and Dana Point all contain noise land use compatibility
guidelines consistent with those in use by the County of Orange and the Airport Land Use Commission note that at the present time the new City of Laguna Woods uses the County
of Orange General Plan until such time that the City adopts a new general plan These are consistent with the standards used by the County of Orange in its General Plan and
consistent with the requirements of the Airport Land Use Commission's Airport Environs Land Use Plan i e 65 dB CNEL for noise sensitive outdoor areas and 45 dB CNEL for
indoor areas of residential uses Note that the City of Irvine has adopted a single event noise standard that applies to the interior of residential units located within a 60 dB CNEL
contour That requirement is that the Maximum Noise Level for the 10th percentile of the noise events shall not exceed 65 dBA i e only the loudest 10 percent may exceed 65 dBA
The following General Plan Noise Elements are referenced
l City of Irvine General Plan Section F Noise Element August 10 1993 and April 11
1995

l City of Lake Forest General P lan Safety and Noise Element June 2 1 1994
l Mission Viejo General Pl an Noise Element October 8 1990

l City of Laguna Niguel General Plan Chapter 6 Noise August 4 1992
l City of Laguna Hills General Plan Chapter VI C Noise June 28 1994

Federal Highway Administration
l The Federal Highway Administration FHWA has adopted and published noise standards
for highway construction projects These standards are published in the Code of Federal Regulatioins Part 772 entitled Procedures For Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and

Construction Noise The following noise standards are taken from the Code
Noise STANDARDS The highway traffic noise prediction requirements noise analyses noise abatement criteria and requirements
fur informing LOCAL OFFICIALS in this directive

MCAS eL Toro Master Development Plan 23 Appendix E Technical Report Noise Analysis
Airport System Master Plan 38
38 Page 39 40
constitute the noise standards mandated by 23 U S C IO9 Ii All highway projects which are developed in conformance with this directive shall be deemed to be in conformance with
the Federal Highway Administration FHWA noise standards
The noise abatement criteria specified by the FHWA are presented in Table 2 3 in terms of the maximum one hour Equivalent Noise Level LEQ

The FHWA noise abatement criteria basically establish an exterior noise goal for residential land uses of 67 dB Leq and an interior goal for residences of 52 dB Leq The noise
abatement criteria applies to private yard areas and assumes that typical wood frame homes with windows open provide 10 dB noise reduction outdoor to indoor and 20 dB noise
reduction with windows closed Note that the FHWA and FAA use a very different noise metric for land use noise compatibility assessment The FAA uses the 24 hour weighted
energy average metric DNL as recommended by the EPA and the FHWA uses the maximum one hour energy average noise level Leq

MCAS EI Toro Master Development Plan 24 Appendix E Technical Report Noise Analysis Airport System Master Plan 39
39 Page 40 41
TABLE 2 3 FHWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
FOR HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
NOISE ABATEMENT
ACTIVITY CRITERIA
CATEGORY LEVEL LEQ1 DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY CATEGORY

A 57 Tracts of land where serenity and quret are of exterior extraordinary significance and serve an important
public need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to
serve its intended purpose Such areas could include amphitheaters particular parks or
portions of open spaces or historic districts which are dedicated or recognized by appropriate
local officials for activities requiring special qualities of serenity and quiet

67 B exterior Picnic areas recreation areas playgrounds active sports areas and parks which are not
included in category A and residences motels hotels public meeting rooms schools churches
libraries and hospitals
C exterior 72 Developed lands properties or activities not included in Category A or B above

D For requirements of undeveloped lands see FHWA PPM 7 7 3
E interior 52 Residences motels hotels public meeting rooms schools churches libraries hospitals and
auditoriums
Maximum l hour Leq

MCAS El Toro Master Development Plan 25 Appendix E Technical Report Noise Analysis Airport System Master Plan 40
40 Page 41 42
3.0 METHODOLOGY
3.1 BACKGROUND
The methods used here for describing existing noise and forecasting the future noise environment rely heavily on computer noise modeling The noise environment is commonly
depicted in terms of lines of equal noise levels or noise contours These noise contours are supplemented here with specific noise data for selected points on the ground The computer
noise models used here are described in the following below
3.2 COMPUTER MODELING

Noise contour modeling is a very key element of this noise study Generating accurate noise contours is largely dependent on the use of a reliable validated and updated noise model It
is imperative that these contours be accurate for the meaningful analysis of airport and roadway noise impacts The computer model can then be used to predict the changes to the
noise environment as a result of any of the development alternatives under consideration The following two noise computer models are used in this study

l The FAA's Integrated Noise Model INM Version 5.2 was used to model civilian and
military aviation operations for both the El Toro and John Wayne airports The INM has an extensive database of civilian and military aircraft noise characteristics and this most recent

version of INM incorporates advanced plotting features as well as the military aircraft noise database

l The highway noise analysis was done using the modeling methodology developed by the
Federal Highway Administration FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model FHWA RD 77408 December 1978 The noise characteristics of a typical California

population of motor vehicles was used for this modeling effort Calveno Noise Curve Caltrans

AIRPORT NOISE MODELING
Airport noise contours were generated in this study using the INM Version 5.2 22 The original INM was released in 1977 The latest version INM Version 5.2 was released for
use in late 1999 and is the state of the art in airport noise modeling The INM is a large computer program developed to plot noise contours for airports The program is provided
with standard aircraft noise and performance data for over 100 civilian aircraft types that can be tailored to the characteristics of the airport in question as well as a database of military
aircraft types Version 5.2 includes an updated data base that includes some newer aircraft the ability to include runups in the computations the ability to include topography in the
computations and the provision to vary aircraft altitude profiles in an automated fashion

MCAS El Toro Master Development Plan 26 Appendix E Technical Report Noise Analysis Airport System Master Plan 41
41 Page 42 43
One of the most important factors in generating accurate noise contours is the collection of accurate operational data The INM program requires the input of the physical and
operational characteristics of the airport Physical characteristics include runway coordinates airport altitude and temperature and optionally topographical data
Operational characteristics include various types of aircraft data This includes not only the aircraft types and flight tracks but also departure procedures arrival procedures and stage
lengths flight distance that are specific to the operations at the airport Aircraft data needed to generate noise contours include

l Number of aircraft operations by type
l Types of aircraft
l Day Evening Night time distribution by type

l Flight tracks

a Flight track utilization by type l
Flight profiles l Typical operational procedures

a Average Meteorological Conditions

ROADWAY NOISE MODELING
Roadway noise modeling is accomplished in this study using a highway noise model developed by the Federal Highway Administration FHWA The FHWA model uses traffic
volume vehicle mix average vehicle speed roadway geometry and sound propagation path characteristics to predict hourly A weighted Leq values adjacent to a road Vehicle mix is
reported in terms of the number of automobiles medium trucks and heavy trucks The truck categories are defined in the FHWA model by number of axles and weight In order to
compute a CNEL value for roadways the hourly data for a 24 hour period are used according to the CNEL formula Vehicle distribution over the 24 hour day must be known i e the
percent of vehicles in the daytime period 7 am to 7 pm evening period 7 pm to 10 pm and night period 10 pm to 7 am In order to determine the location of noise contours noise
levels are calculated at a large number of distances and the location of constant value CNEL is determined

MCAS El Toro Master DeveIopment Plan
2 7 Appendix E Technical Report Noise Analysis Airport System Master Plan 42
42 Page 43 44
4.1 EXISTING EL TORO AIRCRAFT NOISE
4.1 .1 EL TORO BACKGROUND
Historically MCAS El Toro was one of the largest Marine Corps air facilities in the western U S and served as the primary west coast base for Marine Corps jet and transport
squadrons Despite this high level of activity there is very little land use which is incompatible with applicable aircraft noise standards This is an important characteristic of
El Toro that plays an important role in the analysis of noise
Since 1981 the recognized planning document for land use in the environs of MCAS El Toro has been the 1981 Air Installation Compatible Use Zone Study AICUZ 23 As part of this
study CNEL noise contours were developed which depict the noise exposure in terms of CNEL in areas surrounding the base From this document applicable land use and zoning
strategies were developed in an effort to achieve and maintain compatible land use in the base environs The County of Orange in its General Plan Noise Element establishes the 65
dB CNEL contour contained in the 1981 AICUZ as a Policy Line in which new residential construction is not permitted exceptions may exist for neighborhood infill conditions At
the time of development of the 1981 AICUZ some residential development had already occurred within what would become the AICUZ 65 dB CNEL contour Exhibit 4 1 shows
the CNEL contours published in the 1981 AICUZ A summary of land uses contained within the 198 1 AICUZ 65 dB CNEL contour is provided in Table 4 l

Table 4 1 Land Use Summary 1981 AICUZ
Land Area Within contour
Existing Land Area Within 65 d8 CNEL Use Catejzow suuare miles acres
Agriculture 8.08 5,171 Under Development 3.20 2,048
Commercial 1.22 7 8 0 IndustriaVBusiness 2.64 1,690
Residential 0.73 467 Public Facilities 0.49 3 1 4
Open Space 5.13 3,283 MCAS El Tore on base 7.08 4,531
Total 28.91 18,502
Total includes freeway interchanges Source EIR 563 Appendix H
Table 4 1 indicates that 467 acres within the total 18,502 acres is devoted to incompatible residential land use This includes areas of the Leisure World portion of the City of Laguna

MCAS EI Tore Master Development Plan 28 Appendix E Technical Report Noise Analysis Airport System Master Plan
43
43 Page 44 45
Woods near the approach corridor a portion of Laguna Village in the unicorporated County near Lake Forest Drive and Moulton Parkway portions of the City of Lake Forest near the
Runway 7 departure corridor and portions of the City of Irvine in the Orangetree Community and portions of Northwood near the local pattern area Of great significance
however is the 13,504 acres off the base which serves as a Noise Buffer Zone under the primary arrival and departure tracks of El Toro This Noise Buffer Zone plays an important
role in the noise analysis for El Toro
4.1.2 EXISTING EL TORO OPERATIONS DATA

EIR 563 analyzed conditions at the base in 1994 The purpose of this analysis is to describe in quantitative terms a base year noise environment around MCAS El Toro As shown on
Exhibit 4 2 annual jet operations at MCAS El Toro have fluctuated in recent years from 71,180 in 1985 to 42,000 in 1987 and to 10,112 in 1998 To analyze the most current
conditions and consistent with CEQA aircraft operational noise from the year 1998 was analyzed as the existing conditions case for this noise study

The Marine Corps collects and records detailed operations data for the base These include operations by aircraft type runway and operation for each of the three time of day periods
used to compute CNEL A summary of the calendar year 1998 data utilized in the computer modeling is shown on Table 4 4 Table 4 2 below includes the number of annual operations
and Table 4 3 includes average daily operations by time of day
Table 4 2 1998 El Toro Aircraft Operations

Total Arrivals 16,106 L Total Departures 15,975
Total Touch and Go 5,334 Total Annual Operations 1 37,416
As reported by the Marine Corps arrivals and departures are unequal

Table 4 3 Average Daily 1998 El Toro Aircraft Operations Percent by Time of Day
OPERATION DAY OPS
Departures 37.6 86
Arrivals 35.6181
Touch Go 12.7 86.7
Total 86183.9

EVENING OPS
5.9 13.5
7.106
1.9 13 1
14.9 14.5

NIGHT OPS TOTAL OPS
1 0.2 0.5 43.8 100
1 1.4 3.2 44.1 100

0.005 0.03 1 14.6 100
1.61 1.6 1 102.5 lOO

MCAS El Toro Master Development Plan Appendix E Technical Report Noise Analysis Airport System Master Plan 44
44 Page 45 46
80000
70000

6 0 0 0 0
5 0 0 0 0
40000
30000
20000
10000

0

El Toro Historical Jet Operations 7 Y P N er w rr r wy

L

y I
y
6 II ~ I 1

1 9 8 5 1 9 8 7 1 9 8 9 1 9 9 1 1 9 9 3 1 9 9 5 1 9 9 7 Year
199s and 1996 unknown

Exhibit 4 2 Historical Jet Operations at MCAS El Tom 45
45 Page 46 47
Table 4 4
1998 MILITARY AVERAGE DAILY OPERATIONS BY AIRCRAFT TYPE BY RUNWAY
RUNWAY 0 7
Aircraft Day Depart Evening Depart Night Depart Day Arrive Evening Arrive Night Arrive
AV8B 0 .4 4 2 8 0 .0 1 2 8 0 0 0 0

C 1 30E 0 .8 1 0 9 0 .0 3 0 7 0 0 0 0
C130HP 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cl41A 0 .0 1 5 3 0 .0 0 2 7 0 0 0 0
C5A 0 0 0 0 0 0
CH46 4 .7 1 0 3 0.6191 0 .0 2 5 6 0 .6 6 7 8 0.0718 0.0024
CNA441 1 l 51 95 0 .0 3 8 4 0 .0 0 2 7 0 .0 2 5 6 0 .0 0 7 8 0
DC1 030 0 0 0 0 0 0
DC930 0 0 0 0 0 0
F 18 5 .6 5 9 6 0 .9 1 6 0.0258 0 .0 0 5 0 0
GASEPV 0 .0 7 1 8 0 .0 0 2 7 0 0 .0 3 0 6 0 .0 0 2 4 0
iLEAR 0 .0 0 5 4 0 0 0 0 0
1P3A 0 .0 3 0 7 0 0 0 0 0
RUNWAY 34
Aircraft Day Depart Evening Depart Night Depart Day Arrive Evening Arrive Night Arrive
AV8B 0 .3 2 2 9 0 .0 4 9 8 0 0 .5 6 0 3 0 .1 2 2 5 0.0154
C l 3OE 0 .3 6 0 6 0 .0 5 3 8 0 1.5351 0 .2 8 6 5 0.0768
IC130HP 1.0652 0 .3 4 2 0 0.0052 0 0
C141A 0.0811 0 .0 0 3 8 0 0 .0 9 6 6 0 .0 0 9 0
iC5A 0.0141 0 0 0 .0 4 2 2 0 .0 0 2 6 0.0052
CH46 15.7088 3 .2 4 2 3 0 .1 1 1 4 16.7219 3 .7 2 5 6 0.4924
CNA441 2 .6 4 0 2 0.3559 0 .0 0 7 6 2 .6 0 4 8 0 .2 9 1 6 0.041
DC1 030 0 0 0 0 .0 0 2 6 0 0.0026
DC930 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 2 6 0
F 18 4 .9 4 1 6 0 .6 7 8 3 0 7 .2 4 8 3 1.502 0.3917
GASEPV 0 .2 3 8 5 0 .0 0 7 8 0 0 .1 6 1 2 0 .0 1 0 2 0.0026
LEAR35 0 .0 1 5 4 0 0 0.0308 0 0
P3A 0 .2 8 1 3 0.0661 0 0.0384 0 .0 0 7 6 0
RUNWAY 16
Aircraft Day Depart Evening Depart Night Depart Day Arrive Evening Arrive Night Arrive
AV8B 0 .0 3 3 4 0 0 0 0 0
C l 30E 0 .1 3 3 0 .0 0 2 4 0 0 0 0
C130HP 0 0 0 0 0 0
C141A 0 .0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0
C5A 0 .0 3 0 6 0 .0 0 7 8 0 .0 0 2 4 0 0 0
CH46 1.479 0 .0 7 6 8 0.0152 1.3482 0 .3 0 9 6 0.123
CNA441 0 .0 3 3 4 0 0 0 .0 1 7 8 0 .0 0 2 4 0
DC1 030 0 0 0 0 0 0
DC930 0 0 0 0 0 0
F 18 0.161 0 .0 1 7 8 0 0.0256 0 0
GASEPV 0 .0 0 5 0 .0 0 5 0 0 .0 1 5 2 0 0
LEAR35 0 .0 1 0 4 0 0.0024 0 0 0
P3A 0 .0 1 0 4 0 .0 0 2 4 0 0 0 0
Departure portion of touch and go not included in above operations 46
46 Page 47 48
4.1.3 EXISITING EL TORO FLEET MIX
Detailed operational data for aircrafi types by time of day and flight track used for computer modeling is contained in Appendix 1 Data on the types of aircraft flown at El Tore during
1998 was obtained Tom the Marine Corps Table 4 5 below lists the aircraft types by the percent of average daily operations

Table 4 5 1998 El Toro Aircraft Types by Percent of Daily Operations

NC TYPE OF DAILY OPS A C TYPE OF DAILY OPS AVSB 18 DC930 0.002
C 130E 36 F A l 8 24.9 c13oHP 27 CNA 441 92
C141A 02 GASEPV 0 5 C5A 01 LEAR35 0.06
CH46 55.9 DC1030 0.005 P3A 0.76

4.1.4 EXISITING EL TORO RUNWAY AND FLIGHT TRACK UTILIZATION
Flight tracks refer to the actual track over the ground of an aircraft arriving to or departing from an airport These flight tracks are obviously related to runway utilization and are a
large factor in dete rmining the shape of the noise contours which always follow the flight tracks Exhibit 4 3 shows the Runway configuration and nomenclature used to describe the
runways Also shown are the major flight corridors that are referred to throughout this text The corridor names used i e south east west and north are used solely to orient the reader
and do not represent specific geographic or demographic boundaries

l South Corridor This area stretches to the coastline directly south of the El Toro site It
is the existing approach corridor fur Runways 34 and encompasses parts of Dana Point Laguna Beach Laguna Niguel Laguna Hills Laguna Woods Aliso Viejo Irvine and

unincorporated parts of the County
l East Corridor This area is directly east of the El Tore site and is the existing departure
corridor for fighter aircraft It covers parts of Irvine Lake Forest Foothill Ranch Portola Hills Mission Viejo Santa Margarita Cotu de Caza and other unincorporated parts of the

county
l North Corridor This area is north of the El Toro site and currently has very few military
operations frum El Toro missed approaches and some transport departures but includes many military helicopter operations This area includes the area east and north of the City of

Irvine Orange Anaheim and parts of the unincorporated County

MCAS El Toro Master Development Plan 80 Appendix E Technical Report Noise Analysis Airport System Master Plan 47
47 Page 48 49
l Loca1 Pattern West Corridor This area is west of the El Toro site and currently is the
location of military touch and go Field Carrier Landing Practices and overhead breaks It includes parts of the City of Irvine and unincorporated County of Orange

Table 4 6 presents the daily average number of operations in each of these corridors
Table 4 6 Average Daily Jet Operations by Flight Corridor at El Two 1998

Military Jet Ops Corridor Approach Depart
l South Corridor 1 2 cl
l East Corridor cl 7
l North Corridor l 6

TOTAL 1 4 1 4

Note Military operations include all jet aircraft and approaches include GCA and Overhead Breaks Arrivals may not equal departures due to rounding

El Toro traditionally has operated in a cross flow runway configuration This configuration is dictated primarily by noise sensitive land uses and airspace surrounding the air station In
this configuration aircraft depart to the east and land Tom the south In an ideal situation runway utilization is determined strictly on the basis of meteorological considerations with
aircraft always landing and taking off into the wind Winds at El Toro are mostly calm but typical winds come from the west or southwest Primarily for noise abatement purposes
military aircraft typically depart Runways 7 Left and Right and arrive on Runways 34 Left and Right because most aircraft under normal circumstances can easily compensate for any
slight tail wind or cross wind conditions The flight tracks which are currently in use at El Toro are shown in Exhibit 4 4

The airspace surrounding El Toro also serves to pattern its flight tracks This includes air traffic arriving to and departing fkom the many commercial and general aviation airports in
the Los Angeles basin including Los Angeles International Long Beach and John Wayne airports as well as aircraft transiting the area within established airways west and north of El
Toro
Aircrafi departing El Toro follow a preplanned path This path is referred to as a Standard Instrument Departure SID Deparhues to the east from Runways 7 Lefi and Right turn
right at four nautical miles fitom the runway as measured from navigational equipment

MCAS El Tore Master Development Plan 31 Appendix E Technical Report Noise Analysis Airport System Master PIan 48
48 Page 49 50
located on the base This turn enables the a r to be easily integrated into the federal airway system with minimal impact on operations at other Southern California airports
Aircraft departing to the north from Runways 34 Left and Right turn left at three nautical miles from the runway This turn is reduces potential interaction with aircraft established on
federal airways which are approximately six miles north of El Toro and also potential interactions with the final approach corridors to JWA

All aniwls to MCAS El Toro occur fiorn the south These arrivals are typically to Runways
34 Left and Right However circling approaches to other runways are sometimes conducted as requirements dictate Primarily two types of arrivals are used the overhead break and the

ground controlled or visual approach
The overhead break approach is an expedient method of landing tactical aircraft when weather conditions permit This type of approach is normally only utilized for Runways 34
Left and Right Aircraft executing an overhead break approach are radar vectored to a point approximately 15 nautical miles nm south of the base along the 164 radial from El Toro
The aircraft then proceeds to El Toro at 4000 feet mean sea level MSL at a speed not to exceed 250 knots until reaching 5 nm from the base At this point a descent to 2000 feet
MSL is commenced Aircraft speed during the descent increases but must not exceed 350 knots This descent is completed prior to reaching Runways 34 Left and Right Upon
reaching Runways 34 Left and Right a left break or circling is executed at 2000 feet Aircraft remain level at 2000 feet throughout the break Once the aircraB are established in
the downwind segment of the approach they may descend to 1300 feet MSL circle and complete the approach The purpose of this overhead break maneuver is to quickly slow and
configure the aircraft in preparation for landing
The second primary type of approach used at El Toro is the ground controlled GCA or
visual approach With each of these types of approaches the pilot maintains a 3 glide slope either by visual reference or with ground based radar via an air traffic controller

When executing a GCA or visual approach aircraft are radar vectored to a point approximately 15 nm south of the base At this point the aircraft are slowed and configured
for landing Aircraft normally intercept the 3O glide slope from below at an altitude of 4000 feet MSL which is approximately 11 nautical miles from the base Upon glide slope
intercept the aircraft descend down the glide slope for landing
The primary differences between the overhead break arrival and the visual or GCA arrival are altitude power setting and airspeed at any given location along the approach track in
addition to the break maneuver
Occasionally as weather conditions permit and circumstances dictate arrival operations may be conducted to runways other than Runways 34 Left and Right These approaches
begin with a visual or GCA arrival to Runways 34 Left and Right and conclude with a circling maneuver south or west of the base to position the a r for landing on the

MCAS El Toro Master Development Plan
8 2 Appendix E Technical Report Noise Analysis Airport System Master Plan 49
49 Page 50 51
selected runway Circling maneuvers are not utilized north or east of the base due to the rising terrain in these quadrants
Other types of operations used by aircraft at El Toru are the touch and go and field carrier landing practice FCLP These operations are designed to achieve and maintain pilot
proficiency in land based and carrier based landing operations Touch and go and FCLP operations are characterized by multiple approaches and are normally only conducted
to Runway 34 left
The execution of the touch and go and FCLP operations are very similar Each operation begins with a landing however unlike a normal landing where the aircraft is slowed to taxi
speed upon touchdown power is added and the aircraft is accelerated for takeoff The aircraft accelerates and climbs to a safe altitude and traffic permitting commences a left
turn to the downwind segment The downwind segment of the touch and go is flown at 1300 feet MSL The downwind segment of the FCLP is flown at 1100 feet Each of these
segments are approximately 1 l 4 miles to 1 l 2 miles abeam the runway In practice the FCLP is often flown slightly closer to the runway than the touch and go Table 4 7 below
summarizes the percentages used in the computer modeling of daily operations using each runway

Table 4 7 1998 El Tom Average Daily Runway Usage

11 RUNWAY 1 OPERATION 1 OF DAILY OPS
I t 07L 1 Departures 17.5 II I Arrivals I .79 07R Departures 11.7

Arrivals .79 I6L
I Departures 1.98 Arrivals I 8 16R Departures 1.98

25L
25R

I Arrivals I .8 Departures 3.4 Arrivals 5.3
1 Departures 3.4 I Arrivals I 5.3
34L Departures 30.2 Arrivals 1 38.6

34R Touch Go 28.5 Departures 15 2 Arrivals 1 31.7
Departures and arrivals each add up to 100 neglecting round

MCAS El Toro Master Development Plan 33 Appendix E Technical Report Noise Analysis Airport System Master Plan 50
50 Page 51 52
4.1.5 EXISITING 1998 EL TORO CNEL CONTOURS
The 1998 CNEL contours for MCAS El Toro were prepared using the Integrated Noise Model Version 5.2 and are shown in Exhibit 4 5 for the 60 65 and 70 dE A levels The
1998 60 CNEL contours contain just 10,624 acres as compared to the 18,502 acres contained in the 198 1 AICUZ 65 CNEL contours depicted in Exhibit 4 l Table 4 8 below
describes the size of the respective CNEL contours Table 4 9 presents the detailed land use analysis within the 1998 and 1981 65 dBA CNEL contours

Table 4 8 Existing 1998 El Two CNEL Area in Acres
CONTOUR VALUE TOTAL ACRES ACRES ON BASE ACRES OFF BASE L
60 dBA 10,624 4,060 6,564 L 6 5 dBA 4,008 3,055 953 L

7 0 dBA 1,894 1,843 51

Table 4 9 Land Use Summary 1998 and 198165 CNEL contours
Existing Land
Use Category 1998 Residential Sq miles 0

Residences 0 Public Schools 1 on base
Private Schools 0 Colleges 0
Hospitals 0
Churches 0 Based on updated land use database Corn EIR 573

1981AICUZ 08
2'093 l'on base
5 0
0
13

In addition to contours computer model analysis provides CNEL noise levels at 54 specific sensitive receptor locations surrounding MCAS El Toro These locations are depicted on
Exhibit 4 6 and are identified sequentially by jurisdictional boundary The location of each in terms of latitude and longitude is shown in Table 4 10 The noise level in terms of CNEL
at each location are in shown Table 4 11
4.1.6 EXISTING EL TORO AIRCRAFT SINGLE EVENT NOISE

SENEL are greatly influenced by the use of runway and flight track and by the type of operation and flight procedures Military aircrafk operate in a variety of modes each creating

MCAS El Tom Master Development Plan Appendix E Technical Report Noise Analysis
Airport System Master Plan 51
51 Page 52 53
Fable 4 10 Specific Point Locations and Land Use
I I IV3 33 33 50.6 1 1 7
I c

e -2 L P 11 I I II I
II 33 40 48.5 1174643 I V L
5 L

33 39 40.8 117

LFI Lake Forest 1 P vUII
C I II I

LF4

I LMA w I I I II
LNl dL LI ea I LN2
d D m U l m I r C w CI L c II II e LWl l l e l d LL I

LW2 LL PCIII PPC m

390 19.7 117 38 h iv2

l l c i e r r l rm SMl e 1 I
334636.9 1174537 wCUI Y I w II 4 n WCE Wood Canyon Elementary Aliso Vieio pllblic School 33 33 v 11 11 52
52 Page 53 54
Table 4 11 Year 1998 CNEL
AH1 NA
ANH 58.8
AW 60.5

AV2 60.6
AV3 60.1
AV4 60.8
CC1 48.7
CHl 41 l o
DP3 56.7
DP2 55.0
EO 38.4
FE 58.0
FRl 56.4
FRE 55.7
II 54.5
12 55.1
1 3 54.0
14 53.7
I5 54.6
I6 47.8
IMC 54.0
LB1 47.6
LB2 54.0
LFI 53.2
LF2 51.2
LF3 55.3
LF4 55.7
LF5 53.5
LHl 48.3
LMA 63.7
LNS 59.5
LN2 53.7
LWl 59.5
LW2 60.9
MHE 54.7
MJD 60.9
MVI 52.0
MV2 57.1
MVC 63.4
01 34.6
OCl 59.7
oc2 60.9
cc3 60.7
OKE 54.2
PHl 58.7
see 56.9
SMI 55.5
SM2 53.3
SM3 52.6
SM4 47.7
SM5 45.1
SMA 60.4
Tl 38.7

At Sensitive Receptor Locations For El Toro Military Operations 53
53 Page 54 55
Table 4 12 SENEL For Military F 18 Operations
Site AH1
ANH
AVl AV2

AV3 AV4
cc1 CHl
DPl DP2
EO FE
FRl FRE
I1 12
I3 1 4
I5 16
IMC LB1
LB2 LFl
LF2 LF3
LF4

Max SENEL
Departure Arrival 58.9 35.0

94.6 WI 96.9
II 96.9 I 95.8
861 96.2 II
88 1 II
81 2 81.3 90.6

85'2 88.3 II 941
97.5 -1 97.1
98.6 10 i 0
99.0 86.3
95.8 84.5 92.4 94.8

102.4 82.7 93.5
100.8 817 86.1 79'7
81.6 87.3
96.7 89'2 92.7 81.7

96.1 WI
97.3

site
LF5 LHl

LMA LNl
LN2 LWl
LW2 MHE
MJD MVl
MV2
MVC
01 OCl

oc2 oc3
OKE PHl
see SMl
SM2 SM3
SM4 SM5
SMA
Tl
WCE

Max SENEL
Departure
95.2 89.4

87.9 98.4
98.5 93.9

94.1
95.8

81.3 99.0
97.8 95.6
92.3
96.8 97.6

94.7
93.2 91.5

88.5 88.1

Arrival ww
96.6
99.9

94.0
97.8 97.7

90.1
103.0

85.7 54
54 Page 55 56
Table 4 13 SENEL For Various Military Aircraft Operations
Site
AH1

ANH
AVl
AV2
AV3
AV4
cc1
CHl

DPl

Max SENEL
Aircraft Departure Arrival
CH46 44.4 44.1 C130E H

AV80 II
P3A II -0 C5A

CH46 969 Cl 30E 81'0
AVSB 95'0 P3A II 80.0
C5A CH46 921
Ct30E 83'5 AV8B 97'6
P3A -0 81.6 C5A lOi
CH46 92.3 Cl 30E 83.6
AVSB 97.6 P3A -0 81.7
C5A 102.3 CH46 91.8
Cl 30E 82.3 AV80 96.4
P3A 80.9 C5A we a
CH46 92.1 C130E 82.6
AV8B 96.8
P3A 81.3 CSA

CH46 889
WI
II Cl 30E -0

AVSB
P3A 818

-0 w

C5A IO
CH46 II Cl 30E -0

AV8B
P3A WI

C5A CH46 819

Cl 30E
886

AV8B 9s7 P3A 77.5
C5A WI

Site DP2
EO
FE
FRl
FRE
I1
I2
13

14

Max SENEL
Aircraft Departure AWiWl CH46 83.3 87.0

Cl 30E AV80 881
P3A II 75'8 C5A -0
CH46 649 II Cl 30E II
AV8B IO
P3A I -0
C5A CH46 i 9

Cl 30E 80.6 AV8B 94.5
P3A 79'5
CSA II
CH46 878 II Cl30E -1 -0

AV88 WI P3A 81.8 -0
C5A CH46 857 II
Cl 30E II AVSB -0
P3A 10
C5A 877 I
CH46 Cl 30E 76'8 II

AV8B 86.8 -0
P3A 84'9 -0

CSA a
CH46 883 WI Cl30E 86.3 WI

AV8B 91.5 -0 P3A 85.4 -0

C5A lOi IL CH46 87.9 -0
Cl 30E 83.2 AV8B 88.0 -0
P3A 03.7
C5A 104.8 CH46 87.3 813

Cl30E 79.1 II AV8B 84.5 II

P3A 82.2 -0
C5A 99.8 55
55 Page 56 57
Table 4 13 Continued SENEL For Various Military Aircraft Operations
Site
I5

I6
IMC
LB1
LB2
LFt
LF2
LF3
LF4

Max SENEL Aircraft
DepNtUM Arrival CH46 88.1 88.8

C130E 90.5 AV80 95.5 ID
P3A C5A 1097 H ID l
CH46 Cl30E
AV88 P3A
C5A

84.7 79.1
85.8 80.8

91.5 99

ID
CH46 88.6 84.3 Cl30E 88.4

AV8B 93.7 P3A 99
C5A 1077
CH46 74.9 864 Cl 30E
67'5 AV8B 79'3

P3A 68.8 C5A 99
CH46 83.6 86.4 Cl 30E 74.0
AV8B 87.1 P3A 74.4
C5A
CH46 a65 Cl 30E
76'8 AV8B 89'2 I

P3A 75.1
C5A 96.0 CH46 71 l 5 749

Cl30E 72.5 AV8B 7 2
P3A II
C5A CH46 818 99 99

Cl 30E II AV8B 862 ID
P3A -9 99
C5A 859 II CH46 99

Cl 30E -9
AV8B 99
P3A II C5A 99

LF5
LHl
LMA
LNl
LN2
LWl
LW2
MHE
MJD

Max SENEL
Aircraft Departure AWiWl CH46 85.4

Cl30E II AVSB 99

P3A I 99 C5A II
CH46 85.1 Cl30E 70.1
AV8B 82.6 P3A 70.7
C5A 99 II
CH46 94.8 Cl 30E 87.0

AV8B 101.7
P3A 99 84.6 C5A 106.7

CH46 91 l l
Cl 30E 80.6 AV8B 95.0

P3A II 80.2 C5A ID II
CH46 86.0 Cl30E 75.5
AV80 88.7 P3A II 75.3
C5A CH46
Cl30E AV8B
P3A CSA 1072
CH46
Cl 30E AV8B

P3A C5A 1093

899 82'4
97'1
81'2
10 8 91.9

85.1 99.2
82.8
CH46 90.8
104.0 WI

Cl30E 19 AV8B

861
II
P3A 99

C5A -1 CH46 921

Cl 30E 82'6
AVSB 96'8 P3A 81'3

CSA 56
56 Page 57 58
Table 4 13 Continued SENEL For Various Military Aim a Operations
Site MVl

MV2
MVC
01

ocr
oc2
oc3

OKE
PHI

hIlax SENEL
Aircraft Departure Arrival CH46 85.4 1

Cl 30E LI AVSB
P3A 813 II
CSA II
CH46 9 7 I Cl 30E -1 lr

AV8B II P3A 866 -0
CSA -0 CH46 i 5
Cl 30E 86'5 AV8B to 0
P3A I 84
C5A 105.9 CH46 574 IC13OE

-1 AV8B P3A

I -0
CSA CH46 907

Cl 30E 81'5
AV80 94'5 P3A 78'8

CSA CH46 916
Cl 30E 84'9 AV8B 98'7
P3A 81'5
C5A 1093 lOi5 CH46 l 92

Cl 30E 84.1
AV8B 98.5 P3A 82.1

CSA 103.2
CH46 85.6 Cl 30E 76.2

AV8B 90.1 P3A 76.2
C5A
CH46 9 9
-1 I

Cl 30E AV8B
8 4
-0
P3A II C5A I

Site
see

SMl
SM2
SM3
SM4
SM5
SMA
Tl
WCE

Max SENEL Aircraft Departure ArriVd
CH46 89.8
Cl 30E I AV8B

P3A 853 II C5A I
CH46 90.8
Cl 30E I AV8B I

P3A 866 CSA I
CH46 897 WI C130E II
AVSB
P3A i 8

II

CSA I
CH46 8 7 C130E -1 I

AV8B
P3A 833 I C5A

CH46 813 Cl 30E I
AV8B -0
P3A 717 II C5A I

CH46 808 Cl 30E I
AV8B II
P3A ns II CSA

CH46 i 7
C130E 81'6
AV8B 96'1 P3A I 80'8

CSA CH46 599
Cl 30E AV8B
P3A I
CSA CH46

Cl 30E AV8B
P3A C5A

0 II
I II
I

902 79'3
92'5
78'2 H 57
57 Page 58 59
markedly different noise levels Accordingly there are numerous SENEL values associated with military aircraft
Several variations of SENEL values are presented in this section The first is SENEL contours for the F A 18 the loudest aircraft shown on Exhibit 4 7 SENEL values for the
F A l 8 at the receptor points are shown on Table 4 12 for the various operations conducted by the F A l 8 Lastly maximum SENEL for the various aircraft using El Toro in 1998 are
shown for the 54 receptor sites on Table 4 13
The SENEL data indicate that large areas of residential land use are exposed to levels above 85 dBA

4.1.7 EXISTING EL T RO TIME ABOVE THRESHOLD TA
This metric is described in Section 2.4 TA values were generated for 1998 operations at each of 54 Receptor Points depicted on Exhibit 4 6 The values of 65 dBA 77 dBA and
85dBA correlate respectively to speech interference outdoors indoors with windows open
and indoors with windows closed The TA values for the 1998 Existing El Toro aviation operations are contained on Table 5.1 15 in the Project Noise section where they are

compared to the TA values for the proposed project case
4.2 EXISTING JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT NOSE

4.2.1 JOHN WAYNE BACKGROUND
John Wayne Airport JWA serves both passenger airline and cargo operations The
its limited area and facilities environmental
general aviation and scheduled commercial use
of JWA is heavily regulated as a result of sensitivity of the local area and because of a

long history of airport related litigation extending back at least to 1969 JWA may not serve more than 8.4 million annual passenger MM through December 3 1 2005 owing to a
limitation incorporated into the settlement stipulation and the confirming judgement of the U S District Court for the Central District of California entered in 1985 The level of
service through June 1999 was approximately 7.6 MAP
JWA has a long history of noise analysis Extensive data fkom its noise monitoring system and from a myriad of other studies relating to aircraft operations and noise levels enables
precise modeling and prediction of noise levels Radar tracings and sophisticated use of noise monitoring stations has produced very accurate depictions of flight tracks The noise
levels of all commercial aircraft operations and many general aviation operations are
recorded at 10 permanent noise monitoring stations around the airport Both CNEL and SENEL are monitored and calculated for each day and each aircrafi In accordance with

State of California Airport Noise standards a detailed report is compiled every three months summarizing this information and each year an annual CNEL contour is computer modeled
and included in the quarterly report Noise complaint data is also meticulously recorded and

MCAS El Toro Master Development Plan 35 Appendix E Technical Report Noise Analysis Airport System Master Plan 58
58 Page 59 60
analyzed The aircraft operational data noise measurements and contours for JWA are among the most accurate of any in the world All of the data for the past three decades is
contained in the Noise Abatement Quarterly Reports which are obtainable from the JWA Noise Abatement Office

4.2.2 EXISITING JWA OPERATIONS DATA
The 1998 level service at JWA was 7.6 MAP although it is presently authorized to serve up to 8.4 MAP The operations and noise level for this scenario are those contained in the last
quarterly Noise Abatement Report for 1998 which is contained in Appendix 2
Existing 1998 aircraft operations at JWA totaled 417,725 of which some 80,079 are jet air carriers and 14,572 are general aviation jets The Noise Abatement Report provides a
detailed breakdown of operations including the number of Average Daily Departures by airline and aircraft type The number of ADDS has been the long standing manner of
tabulating jet air carrier operations at JWA The Average Daily Departures for 1998 was just over 134

4.2.3 EXISITING JWA FLEET MIX DATA
The type and number of air carrier aircraft using JWA during 1998 are summarized below in
Table 4 14 The Noise Abatement Quarterly Report provides extensive detail including average daily departures by airline and aircraft type all of which was used to generate CNEL

contours

Table 4 14 1998 JWA Air Carrier Operations by Percent of Aircraft Type
A C A300 A310 A319 A320 B 7 3 7 3 I37374 B7375 B7377 B757 Ml380 MD90 TYPE
of 0.01 0.63 0.76 7.16 24.63 9.86 8.82 0.88 27.12 8.16 11.96
OPS

4.2.4 EXISTING JWA RUNWAY AND FLIGHT TRACK UTILIZATION
The flight tracks at JWA are well established to take advantage of the runway configuration and prevailing wind conditions Runway 19R OlL is approximately 5,700 feet long and is
the only runway suitable fur larger aircraft With winds predominantly coming from the ocean aircraft typically depart to the south and arrive from the north 95 of the time Only
during Santa Ana wind conditions does the flow reverse with departures to the north Departures to the south proceed 1 nautical mile and turn left approximately 15 degrees to
generally follow Newport Bay Arrivals use a straight in approach from the north to Runway 19R generally lining up with the Runway centerline over Anaheim Hills

MCAS El Tore Master Development Plan 66 Appendix E Technical Report Noise Analysis Airport System Master Plan 59
59 Page 60 61
Additionally aircraft arriving from the north arrive from the ocean over Huntington Beach on a path that is parallel to JWA after which a right turn to Runway 19R is commenced
This turn can begin anywhere over a wide area starting at an area near South Coast Plaza all the way to the Riverside Freeway Exhibit 4 8 shows the flight tracks for John Wayne
Airport used approximately 95 of the time by air carrier and other jet aircraft
4.2.5 EXISITNG JOHN WAYNE CNEL CONTOURS AND LAND USE IMPACTS

The CNEL contours used to depict existing noise exposure at JWA are derived from the Noise Abatement Quarterly report for the last quarter of 1998 They are depicted on Exhibit
4 9 The location of the ten permanent noise monitoring locations is shown on Exhibit 4 10 The contours were developed by calibrating the results of INM modeling to the
measurements from the ten permanent noise monitoring stations
The 1998 JWA 65 CNEL contour encompassed 943 acres or 1.49 square miles including 134 residential dwellings with approximately 335 residents The 70 CNEL contour was
completely contained on the confines of airport property The 60 CNEL contour encompassed 2,362 acres or 3.69 square miles including 682 residences with approximately
1705 residents The 60 CNEL contour encompassed no schools twu churches the Newport Costa Mesa Irvine YMCA and a large part of the Upper Newport Bay Ecological
Preserve
In addition to the CNEL contours specific CNEL values are calculated for each permanent noise measurement site shown on Exhibit 4 10 Table 4 15 displays CNEL values at each
of the monitoring locations for 1998

Table 4 15 JWA 1998 CNEL at Noise Monitoring NMS Sites
RMS 1 M l M 2 M 3 M 2 1 M 22 M 24 M 6 M 7 M 8 M 9
t CNEL 1 66.6 65.7 64.7 60.1 61.1 60.2 57.2 57.1 50.8 67.4

4 2.6 EXISITNG JOHN WAYNE AIRCRAFT SINGLE EVENT NOISE
Extensive SENEL data for JWA is contained in the Noise Abatement Quarterly reports for each of the permanent noise monitoring locations The 4 th Quarter Report for 1998 is
included as Appendix 2 These data include average SENEL for each aircraft type for each airline and for each noise class Similar to El Toro SENEL at JWA varies by aircraft type
aircraft weight operating configuration and meteorological conditions Exhibit 4 11 displays typical 85 dB SENEL departure contours for the aircraft most common to JWA
Exhibit 4 12 shows SENEL for arrivals Table 4 16 below lists the highest and lowest SENEL values for commercial air carrier aircraft each remote monitoring site The number

MCAS El Tore Master Development Plan
3 7 Appendix E Technical Report Noise Analysis Airport System Master Plan 60
60 Page 61 62
of SENEL events by air carriers is represented by the number of ADDS which in 1998 was 1 3 4
Table 4 16 Sample Energy Average SENEL By Noise Monitoring Sites
for JWA 4TH Quarter 1998

The SENEL data for JWA indicate that large residential areas in the cities of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach are exposed to SENEL above 85 dBA as many as 134 times per day
4.2.7 EXISTING JOHN WAYNE AIRCRAFT THE ABOVE THRESHOLD TA
This metric is described in Section 2.4 TA values were generated for existing noise at JWA at each of the remute monitoring stations The values of 65 dBA 77 dBA and 85dE A
correlate respectively to speech interference outdoors indoors with windows open and indoors with windows closed 1998 JWA TA values at the 10 remote monitoring stations
are presented on Table 4 17

Table 4 17 Time Above Values TA for Existing 1998 JWA Aircraft Operations
iu Average Minutes Per Day

1 2
2 1
22
24
3 6

7 8

MCAS El Toro Master Development Plan Appendix E Technical Report Noise Analysis Airport System Master Plan 61
61 Page 62 63
4.2.8 JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT 1985 MASTER PLAN
The current plan for use of John Wayne Airport is the 1985 Master Plan and Compatible Land Use Plan The draft Master Plan contemplated 10.2 MAP and 73 Class A departures
This contrasts to the 8.4 MAP 39 Class A amd 34 Class AA departures permitted under the terms of the Settlement Agreement and the amendments to the project in implementing the
Settlement Agreement The Compatible Land Plan set forth zoning controls and other mechanisms to make the land uses south of the airport compatible with the 65 CNEL
contour for the Master Plan project EIR 508 was certified to address the Master Plan and
the Settlement Agreement was essentially a mitigation measure to the Master Plan project The CNEL contours contained in EIR 508 and which reflect the impact from the Master

Plan Project are displayed on Exhibit 4 13 The land uses located within those contours are tabulated on Table 5.2 S in the next section where they are compared
to the 1998 contours and the Project Alternative contours

4.3 EXISTING HIGHWAY NOISE
The noise models used to compute the roadway noise levels were based on the Highway Noise Model published by the Federal Highway Administration FHWA Highway Traffic
Noise Prediction Model FHWA RD 77 108 December 1978 The FHWA Model uses traffic volume vehicle mix vehicle speed and roadway geometry to compute the noise
levels The following section describes the assumptions used in the noise modeling efforts

4.3.1 HIGHWAY NOISE MODELING ASSUMPTIONS
The assumptions used in the highway noise modeling analysis are
Vehicle Count The number of vehicles is an important factor in roadway noise levels The traffic levels used in this analysis were obtained from the trafk analysis

Vehicle Speed Vehicle speed affects the noise levels fkom motor vehicles Noise level changes for all study area roadway links were estimated based on the change in traffic
volume i e assuming trafk speed and vehicle mix remain constant Detailed modeling conducted for this study used t k speed from the posted speed limit 55 mph was
assumed for unposted roadway links Posted speed limit data was provided by the OCTA and is included in Table 4 18

Vehicle Mix The mix of automobiles medium trucks and heavy trucks has an effect on noise levels The assumption used to model noise is based on known traffic mix data For
arterial roadways the vehicle mix data are obtained from mix data collected by the County of Orange during extensive surveys of 53 intersections within the County 24 The arterial
roadway mix data are provided in Table 4 17 Freeway traffic mix data were obtained fi om Caltrans data compiled for California State Highways 25

MCAS EI Tore Master Development Plan 3 9 Appendix E Technical Report Noise Analysis Airport System Master Plan 62
62 Page 63 64
Table 4 l 7 Arterial Roadway Vehicle Mix Data
Traffic distribution per time of day in percent of Average Daily Traffic ADT
VEHICLE TYPE DAY EVENING NIGH TOTAL
Automobile 75.51 12.57 9.34 97.42 Medium Truck 1.56 0.09 0.19 1.84
Heavy Truck 0.64 0.02 0.08 0.74

Table 4 18 contains contour data for roadways in the Southern Orange County area The table shows the average daily traffic ALIT in thousands of vehicles per day vehicle speed
in miles per hour and the distances from roadway centerlines to the 60,65,70 and 75 CNEL contours The contour distances were calculated using the FHWA Noise Model

MCAS El Toro Master Development Plan Appendix E Technical Report Noise Analysis Airport System Master Plan 63
63 Page 64 65
Table 4 18 Contour Distances for Existing Conditions
Roadway and Link Extent TEiffiC Posted Distance to Noise Contour feet Volume Speed 75 70 65 60
WT mph CNEL CNEL CNEL CNEL

17th e o SR 55 17th e o Yorba
17th e o Prospect 17th w o Newport

1 st w o Tustin 1st w o Yorba
1st w o El Camino Real 1st w o Newport

4th w o Tustin 4th w o SR 55
Alicia e o Marguerite Alicia n o Trabuco
Alicia n o Jeronimo Alicia n o Muirlands
Alicia n o I 5 Alicia s o I 5
Alicia s o Paseo Valencia Alicia s o Moulton

Aliso Creek e o El Toro Aliso Creek s o Glenwood
Aliso Crk s o Laguna Hills
Alton w o Red Hill Alton e o Red Hill
Alton w o Jamboree Alton e o Jamboree
Alton w o Culver Alton e o Culver
Alton e o West Yale Loop Alton e o Lake

32.6 27.6
22.1 15.9

18.5 17.8
18.1 15.3

20.2 29.0
25.8 34.4
40.5 56.3
60.5 49.1
43.3 36.6

18.4 18.3
26.5
43 147
16.9 18'3
15'9 24'2
22'9 20'6

30 30
30 30

35 30
30 30

40 40
50 45
45 45
45 45
45 45

55 55
55
50 50
50 50
50 45
45 45

32 33
37 46
48 42
38 34

30 30
39

8

35 32
3 1
41 52
70 71
79 99
104 90
83 74

65 65
83

48 53

55 50
56 54
50

76 163 68 146
59 126 47 101

67 144 51 109
51 1 1 0 46 99

88 191 113 243
150 153
171 213
223 194
178 160

324 330
368 458
481 418
385 344

140 302
140 301 179 385

45 98 103 222
113 244 119 257
109 234 121 261
117 251 109 234

MCAS El Tore Master Development Plan 41 Appendix E Technical Report Noise Analysis Airport System Master Plan 64
64 Page 65 66
Table 4 18 continued Contour Distances for Existing Conditions
Roadway and Link Extent
TdfiC Posted Distance to Noise Contour feet
Volume Speed 75 70 65 60

0 mph CNEL CNEL CNEL CNEL

Alton w o East Yale Loop Alton w o Jefiey
Alton w o Sand Canyon Alton e o Sand Canyon
Alton e o Laguna Canyon Alton w o Irvine Center
Alton e o Irvine Center Alton e o I 5
Alton s o Portola Alton s o Irvine
Alton n o Jeronimo Alton n o Muirlaslds
Alton s o Muirlands
Avd Carlota e o Lake Forest 10.4 Avd Carlota e o Ridge Route 14.7
Avd Carlota w o El Toro 29.8 Avd Carlota e o El Toro
15.4

Bake s o Portola Bake n o Commercentre
Bake n o Irvine Trabuco Bake s o Irvine Trabuco
Bake n o Jeronimo Bake n o Muirlands
Bake n o Rockfield Bake n o I 5
Bake s o I 5
Baker w o SR 55 27.1 Baker e o SR 55 15.1

Barranca e o Red Hill 33.0 Barranca w o Jamboree 28.9

20.1 25.9
15.0 16.9
14.7 14.4
24.9 42.3
38 1 1
22'7 32'5
28'8

30.8 30.8
36.2 41.2
43.7 58.6
52.0 64.9
45 l

50 50
50 55
55 55
55 55
55 55
55 55
55
45 45
45 40

55 55
55 50
50 50
50 50
50
40 40

50 50

59 127 274
32 70 151 324 49 105 225

6 1 132 285
56 121 260 lit 55 119 257

37 80 172 370 5 3 113 244 526
49 106
49 106 228 35 75 161 347

44 95 205 441 4 1 88 189 407

32 69 149
40 87 187 65 139 300

34 74 159

43 92 198 426 43 92 198 426
47 102 220 474 44 95 205 442
46 99 213 460 56 120 259 559
52 111 240 516 60 129 278 598
47 101

38 35
50 108 232 34 73 157
82 177 381 75 162 349

MCAS El Toro Master Development Plan 44 Appendix E Technical Report Noise Analysis Airport System Master Plan 65
65 Page 66 67
Table 4 18 continued
Contour Distances for Existing Conditions

Roadway and Link Extent Traffic Posted Distance to Noise Contour feet Volume Speed 75 70 65 60
ww mph CNEL CNEL CNEL CNEL

Barranca e o Jamboree 24.7 Barranca w o Culver 22.3
Barranca e o Culver 25.1 Barranca e o West Yale Loop
22.3 Bamnca e o Lake 19.0

Barranca w o East Yale Loop 18.3 Barranca w o Jeffrey
Barranca e o Sand Canyon Barranca e o Lagma Canyon
Barranca w o Irvine Center Bammca e o Irvine Center
Barranca w o Technology Barranca e o Technology
Bamnca w o Alton
Birch e o MacArthur Birch w o Jamboree
Birch n o North Bristol Birch s o South Bristol

Bristol w u Red Hill Bristol e o Red Hill
Browning n o Bryan

16.7 4 4
3 2 169
16'1 18'4
14.8 13'3

9 5 7 4
148 5 9 l

25.2 30.0
2 9 Browning n o El Camino Real 2.4
Browning n o Walnut 2 6 l
Bryan w o Red Hill Bryan w o Browning
Bryan w o Tustin Ranch
Bryan w o Jamboree Bryan e o Jamboree

Bryan e o Culver Bryan w o Jeffrey

14.3 12.4
12.2 12.6
11.4 7 8
5 2

50 50
45 45
50 50
50 55
55 55
55 55
50 50

40 40
40 40

45 45
40 40
35
40 40
45 45
45 45
50

31

30

30

I

68 146 314 63 136 294
58 124 267 53 115 247
57 122 264 55 119 257
52 112 242
54 116 44 94

46 99 213 60 128 276
65 140 302 48 104 223
45 97 208
53 115
45 98 33 72 155

39 84

58 124 268 65 140 301

52
46 39

33 70 151 64 138
36 77 165 36
78 169 34 73 158

57 123
52 111

MCAS El Tore Master Development Plan 43 Appendix E Technical Report Noise Analysis Airport System Master Plan 66
66 Page 67 68
Table 4 18 continued Contour Distances for Existing Conditions
Roadway and Link Extent Traffic Posted Distance to Noise Contour feet Volume Speed 75 70 65 60
ww mph CNEL CNEL CNEL CNEL

Campus e o MacArthur 20.6 Campus w o Jamboree 15.0
Campus e o Jamboree 19.1 Campus w o University 18.3
Campus e o University 20.7 Campus n o North Bristol 31.4
Campus s o North Bristol 27.5
Carlson s o Michelson
Commercentre w o Bake
Culver n o Bryan Culver n o Trabuco I 5
Culver s o I 5 Culver n o Irvine Center
Culver n o Warner Culver n o Barranca
Culver n o Alton Culver n o Main
Culver n o I 405 Culver s o I 405
Culver s o Michelson Culver s o University

Del Mar e o Newport NB Del Mar w o Imine
Dyer w o Hotel Terrace Dyer e o SR 55
East Yale Loop n o Barranca 10.1 East Yale Loop n o Alton 11.5
East Yale Loop s o Alton 13.3

23
05
16.8 27.3
49.7 43.2
44.2 43.1
44.4
45.3 50.9

49.5 36.0
37.1
96
64

32.5 43.3

40 40
45 45
45 45
45
3 5
45
45 45
45 5 5
55 55
55 5 5
45 45
45 45

30 30
40 40
45 45
45

42 90 193
34 7 3 156
48 103 223
47 100 217
51 109 235

3 1 67 144 310 6 1 132 284

f

42 5 3
54 5 3
54 5 5
43 42
34 35

lie

32

36

44 95 205 6 1 131 283
9 1 196 422 115 248 534
117 251 542 115 247 533
117 252 543 119 256 551
92 199 428 91 195 420
73 158 340 75 161 347

34 72
55

56 121 262 68 147 317

31 68 146 34 74 159
38 81 175

MCAS El Toro Master Development Han Appendix E Technical Report Noise Analysis
Airport System Master Plan 67
67 Page 68 69
Table 4 18 continued Contour Distances for Existing Conditions
Roadway and Link Extent Traffic Posted Distance to Noise Contour feet Volume Speed 75 70 65 60
Am bPh CNEL CNEL CNEL CNEL

Edinger w o SR 55 32.6 45 Edinger w o Red Hill
28.9 40 Edinger e o Red Hill 17.9 55

Edinger e o Jamboree 20.6 50
El Camino Real n o Main 6.4 35 El Camino Real w o Newport 8.9
35 El Camino Real w o Red Hill 11.1 35

El Casino Real e o Red Hill 8.8 35 El Camino w o Tustin Ranch 5.5
35 El Camino Real w o Jamboree 13.5 35

El Toro n o Glenn Ranch 11.1 55 El Toro e o Marguerite
11.7 55 El Toro e o Santa Margarita 8.5 55

El Toro w o Santa Margarita 19.0 55 El Toro n o Trabuco 27.5 50
El Toro s o Trabuco 31.5 50 El Toro n o Jeronimo
33.8 50 El Toro n o Muirlands 36.3 50

El Toro n o Rockfield 42.2 40 El Toro n o Bridger I 5 52.8
35 El Toro s o Avd Carlota 34.2 35

El Toro w o Paseo Valencia 35.3 40 El Tore w o Moulton
19.7 50 El Toro s o Aliso Creek 29.0 45

El Toro e o Laguna Canyon 17.1 35
FTC s o Portola 23.0 65 47 101 FTC s o Alton 21.0 65 44 95
FTC s o Lake Forest 18.0 65 40 85 FTC s o Santa Margarita
20.0 65 43 92

32

31 34

37 39
41 31

69 148 318 52 112 242
64 138 297 60 129 278

33 71
41 89 48 103

41 88
64 rte 54 117

46 48
39 66
73 80
83 88
67 62
47 60
58 63

100 216 104 223
84 180 143 309
157 338 172 370
180 387 189 406
145 311 135 290
101 217 128 276
125 270 137 294
63 137
217 467 204 440
184 397 197 425

MCAS EI Toro Master Development Plan Appendix E Technical Report Noise Analysis
Airport System Master Plan 45 68
68 Page 69 70
Table 4 18 continued Contour Distances for Existing Conditions
Roadway and Link Extent Traffic Posted Distance to Noise Contour feet Volume Speed 75 70 65 60
A v mph CNEL CNEL CNEL CNEL

Glenn Ranch n o Portola Glenn Ranch w o El Toro

Glenwood w o Moulton Glenwood w o Aliso Creek
Grand s o Edinger 26.9 45 60 130 280 Grand n o Dyer 22.8 40 44 96 207
Harvard n o Irvine Center Harvard s o Irvine Center
Harvard n o Barranca Harvard n o Alton
Harvard n o Main Harvard s o Main
Harvard n o University Harvard s o University

Holt n o Irvine Holt s o Irvine
I 405 n o SR 55 I 405 s o SR 55
I 405 n o Jamboree I 405 s o Jamboree
I 405 s o Culver I 405 s o Jeffrey
I 405 s o Sand Canyon I 405 s o SR 133
I 405 n o I 5
I 5 n o SR 55 293 O 65 I 5 s o SR 55 273 O 65
I 5 s o Newport 250.0 65

10.6 4 1 t
8 8 1 o l

9 6 163
11.1 11'3
17.0 17.6
13'9 12.1

6 9 l 6 0
265.0 265.0
251.0 237.0
217.0 211.0
200.0 179.0
149.0

55 5 45 97 209 55 52 111
50 34 73 158 50 39 85 183

50 36 78 167 50 38 81 175
50 40 86 184 50 40 87 187
50 53 114 245 50 54 116 251
45 39 84 180 45 35 76 164

40 30 43 93 53
65 65
65 65
65 65
65 65
65

238 513 238 513
230 495 221 476
208 449 205 441
197 425 183 395
162 350
255 549 243 524
229 494

1106 2383 1106 2383
1067 2298 1027
2212 968 2086

950 2047 917 1975
851 1834 753 1623

1183 2548 1128 2431
1064 2292

MCAS El Tore Master Development Plan Appendix E Technical Report Noise Analysis Airport System Master Plan 69
69 Page 70 71
Table 4 18 continued Contour Distances for Existing Conditions
Trtic Posted Distance to Noise Contour feet Roadway Volume Speed 75 70 65 60
and Link Extent WV Ph CNEL CNEL CNEL CNEL

I 5 s o Red Hill 244.0 65 225 486 1047 2255 I 5 s o Tustin Ranch
244.0 65 225 486 1047 2255 I 5 s o Jamboree 246.0
65 227 488 1052 2268 I 5 s o Culver 244.0 65 225
486 1047 2255 I 5 s o Jeffkey 238.0 65 222 478 1029 2218

I 5 s o SR 133 224.0 65 213 459 989 2130 I 5 s o Alton
208.0 65 203 437 941 2028 I 5 s o I 405 357.0 65 291 626 1349 2907

I 5 s o Bake 333.0 65 277 598 1288 2775 I 5 s o Lake Forest
319.0 65 270 581 1252 2697 I 5 s o El Toro 299.0
65 258 556 1199 2583 I 5 s o Alicia 280.0 65 247 532 1147 2472

I 5 s o La Paz 268.0 65 240 517 1114 2401
Irvine Center e o Culver 22.0 55 34 Irvine Center w o Culver 21.6 55 34
Irvine Center w o Jeffrey 18.3 55 30 Irvine Center w o Sand Cyn 16.9 55
Irvine Center e u Sand Cyn 12.8 55 Irvine Center w o Barranca 13.3
55 Irvine Center n o Alton 12.7 55

Irvine Center s o Alton 25.6 55 38 Irvine Center s o I 405 27.9 60 46
Irvine Center s o Bake 30.4 60 49
Irvine e o SR 55 36.6 40 Irvine e o Yorba 29.3
35 Irvine e o Prospect 28.0 40

Irvine w o Red Hill 29.7 40 Irvine w o Browning 24.2 45
Irvine W Q Tustin Ranch 23.8 45 Irvine w o Jamboree 25.5 50
Irvine e o Jamboree 22.9 50 Irvine e o Culver 23.0 50

32

73 158 340 72 156 336
65 140 301 61 132 285
51 110 237
52 113 243 51 109 236

81 175 376 99 214 461
105 227 489
61 131 283 42 91 196
51 110 237 53 114 246
56 121 261 56 120 258
69 149 321 64 139 299
65 139 300

MCAS El Toro Master Development Plan 47 Appendix E Technical Report Noise Analysis
Airport System Master Plan 70
70 Page 71 72
Table 4 18 continued Contour Distances for Existing Conditions
Roadway and Link Extent TEtfEC Posted Distance to Noise Contour feet Volume Speed 75 70 65 60
ADT mph CNEL CNEL CNEL CNEL

Irvine w o Jeffrey 22.5 5 0 64 137 295 Irvine w o Sand Canyon
17.4 65 39 84 180 388 Irvine e o Sand Canyon 19.7 65 42 91 195 421

Irvine e o Perimeter Rd 19.7 65 42 91 195 421 Irvine s o South Bristol
31.6 45 31 67 145 312 Irvine n o Del Mar 25.7 35 39 83 180

Irvine w o Alton 18.9 65 41 88 190 410 Irvine w o Bake 24.2 55 36 78 168
363

Jamboree do Tustin Ranch 19.0 Jamboree n o Portola 22.0
Jamboree n o Irvine 22.9 Jamboree n o
Bryan 26.2 Jamboree n o El Camino Real 33.4

Jamboree n o I 5 44.7 Jamboree s o
I 5 41.6 Jamboree n o Edinger 41.4

Jamboree s o Edinger 39.8 Jamboree n o Barranca 34.0
Jamboree n o Alton 30.7 Jamboree n u Main 34.8
Jamboree n o I 405 60.1 Jamboree s o I 405 67.0
Jamboree s o Michelson 45.0 Jamboree s o Campus 34.9
Jamboree n o MacArthur 31.2
Jeffrey n o Irvine 17.8 60 34 74 159 342 Jefiey n o Bryan
21.2 60 38 83 178 384 Jeffrey do Trabuco 24.9 60 43 92 198 428

Jeffrey n o I 5 29.8 60 48 104 224 482
Jeffrey do Walnut I 5 32.2 55 44 94 204 439 Jeffkey n o Bamnca 32.3 55 44 95 204 440

55 31 66 143 309 50 63 135 291
45 54 117 251 45 59 128 275
45 32 70 150 323 45 39 85 182
393 45 37 81 174 374

50 44 96 206 443
50 43 93 200 432 50 39 84 180 389

50 36 78 169 363 50 39 85 183
395 50 57 122 264 569

50 61 132 284 611 50 47 101
218 469 50 40 85 184 396

50 37 79 170 367

MCAS El Tore Master Development Plan Appendix E Technical Report Noise Analysis
Airport System Master Ph 4 8 71
71 Page 72 73
Table 4 18 continued Contour Distances for Existing Conditions
Roadway and Link Extent Trtic Posted Distance to Noise Contour feet Volume Speed 75 70 65 60
WT mph CNEL CNEL CNEL CNEL

Jeffrey n o Alton Jeffrey n o I 405

Jeronimo e o Alton Jeronimo w o Lake Forest
Jeronimo e o Lake Forest Jeronimo w o El Toro
Jeronimo e o El Toro Jeronimo e o Los Alisos
Jeronimo e o Alicia Jeronimo w o
Marguerite Jeronimo e o Marguerite

La Paz e o Marguerite La Paz n o Muirlands
La Paz s o Cabot 5 La Paz s o Paseo Valencia
La Paz n o Moulton
La Paz s o Moulton

Laguna Canyon n o Alton Laguna Canyon s o Alton
Laguna Canyon n o SJHTC Laguna Canyon n o El Toro
Laguna Canyon s o El Toro Laguna Cyn s o I 405

Laguna Hills e o Moulton Laguna Hills w o Moulton
Laguna Hills w o Aliso Crk
Lake Forest s o Portola Lake Forest n o Ranch0
Lake Forest s o Ranch0

30.9 38.0
80 llY5
13'6 14'2
20'4 17.7
16 2 13'0
91
18.9 39.8
19.3 17.6
15.5 16.2

1 5 l 31
2 5 18'8
32'8 28'0 I

15.0 16.5
31
11.7 11.6
13.5

55 55
45 45
45 45
45 45
45 45
45
45 45
35 45
45 45

45 45
55 35
45
35

50 50
50
50 50
50

43 49

36

39
32

9 2 106

3 4 3 8

3 9 5 0
4 6 4 3
3 7

4 8 7 8
3 2 4 5
4 2 4 3

8 5 3 1
6 9 4 1

4 9 5 2

198 427 227 490
5 8 125 7 4 1 5 9
8 2 178 8 5 183
108 233 9 8 212
9 3 200 8 0 172
6 3 1 3 6
103 2 2 1 169 364
6 9 148 9 8 211
9 0 1 9 4 9 3 200

4 1
3 1 6 6 183 3 9 5

6 8 1 4 6 148 3 2 0
8 8 1 9 0
105 2 2 5 111 240
3 7 7 9
8 9 191 8 8 1 9 0
9 7 210

MCAS El Toro Master Development Plan 49 Appendix E Technical Report Noise Analysis Airport System Master Plan 72
72 Page 73 74
Table 4 18 continued Contour Distances for Existing Conditions
Roadway and Link Extent Trafk Posted Distance to Noise Contour feet Volume Speed 75 70 65 60 WT mph CNEL CNEL CNEL CNEL
Lake Forest n o Trabuco 26.7 Lake Forest s o Trabuco 27.6
Lake Forest n o Jeronimo 27.1 Lake Forest n o Muirlands 27.8
Lake Forest n o Rockfield 35.8 Lake Forest do I 5 53.2
Lake Forest w o Avd Carlota 26.9 Lake Forest w o Moulton 10.4

Los Alisos e o Marguerite Los Alisos n o S Margarita
Los Alisos s u S Margarita Los Alisos n o Trabuco
Los Alisos n o Jeronimo Los Alisos n o Muirlands
Los Alisos n o Rockfreld Los Alisos s o Rockfield
Los Alisos s o Avd Carlota

69 l 75
140 24'1
29'6 28'5
28'9 24'8
22'2
MacArthur w o SR 55 53.5 MacArthur e o SR 55 38.9
MacArthur n o Main 27.1 MacArthur n o I 405 46.1
MacArthur n o Michelson 53.1 MacArthur s o Michelson 40.6
MacArthur s o Campus 27.4 MacArthur s u Birch 19.3
MacArthur n o Jamboree 26.7
Main w o El Carnino Real Main w o Newport
Main n o Sunflower Main w 6 Red Hill
Main w u MacArthur

94 ld7
22'8 24'6
26'5 l

50 50
50 40
40 35
35 45

50 50
50 50
50 50
50 45
45
50 50
50 45
45 50
50 50
5 5
30 30
40 50
50

33 34
33

31 35

35 35
4

53 43
33 40
4 4
44
34

39

3 1 33

71 154 331 73 157 338
72 155 3 3 4 51 109 236
60 130 279 6 3 135 292
40 86 185 32 69 149

62 134
3 1 66 142 46
100 215 67 143 309

76 165 355 74 160 346
75 162 349 57 123 265
53 114 246
113 92
72 86
95 94
73 57
8 3

44 68

71

244 526 197 425
155 334 186 401
204 441 203 438
156 337 124 267
180 387
33 71 36 78
96 207 145 313
153 329

MCAS El Toro Master Development Plan Appendix E Technical Report Noise Analysis Airport System Master Plan 73
73 Page 74 75
Table 4 18 continued Contour Distances for Existing Conditions
Roadway and Link Extent TdfiC Posted Distance to Noise Contour feet Volume Speed 75 70 65 60
WT mph CNEL CNEL CNEL CNEL

Main e o MacArthur Main w o Jamboree
Main e o Jamboree Main w o Culver
Main e o Culver

33.2 24.0
29.4 11.6
14.9
Marguerite s o El Toro 10.2 Marguerite n o S Margarita 9.2
Marguerite n o Olympiad Marguerite n o Alicia
Marguerite n o Trabuco Marguerite n o Jeronimo
Marguerite n o La Paz Marguerite s o La Paz

McFadden w o Walnut
Michelson e o MacArthur Michelson w o Jamboree
Michelson e o Jamboree Michelson w o Harvard
Michelson w o Culver Michelson e u Culver
Michelson w o University
Moulton s o Lake Forest Moulton s o Ridge Route
Moulton n o El Toro Moulton s o El Toro
Moulton s o Glenwood Moulton n u Alicia
Moulton n o La Paz Moulton s o La Paz

23.3 19.2
17.9 24.9
32.5
31.6

12.2
19.5 25.1
28.7 18.9
18.6 12.0
47
33.9 33.7
37.6 35.6
26.8 24.4
20.7 16.9

50 50
50 50
50
45 45
45 45
45 45
45 45

35
45 45
45 45
45 35
35
45 45
45 45
55 55
45 45

38 31
35

32 31

33 33
35 34
39 36

82 66
76 4 1
48
32
55 48
46 57
68 67

49 58
6 3 48
47

70 70
75 7 3
84 79
51 44

178 383 143 308
164 353 88 190
104 224
68 147 64 137
118 254 104 224
99 213 123 266
147 318 145 312

105 226 124 267
136 292 103 221
102 219 50 108
58

152 327 151 325
162 350 157 337
180 388 169 365
109 235 95 205

MCAS El Toro Master Development Plan Appendix E Technical Report Noise Analysis
Airport System Master Plan 74
74 Page 75 76
Table 4 l 8 continued Contour Distances for Existing Conditions
Roadway and Link Extent TEtffiC Posted Distance to Noise Contour feet Volume Speed 75 70 65 60
ADT mph CNEL CNEL CNEL CNEL

Muirlands e o Alton 13.2 50 Muirlands w o Lake Forest 16.6 45
Muirlands e o Lake Forest 19.7 45 Muirlands wh El Tore 19.2 45
Muirlands e o El Tom 19.6 45 Muirlands e o Los Alisos 19.8 40
Muirlands e o Alicia 17.8 40

45 9 6 207 44 94 203
49 106 227 48 104 224
49 105 227
4 0 87 188 3 8 8 1 175

Newport n o Old Irvine 27.9 3 5 Newport s o Irvine 26.9 3 5
Newport s o Main 29.4 3 5
Newport n o I 5 34.7 3 5 Newport s o I YNisson 29.1 35

Newport s o Walnut 12.1 35

4 1 88 190
40 86 185 42 91
196 47 102 219

42 9 1 195
5 0 1 0 9

North Bristol w o Campus 34.6 45 33 71 154 3 3 1 North Bristol w o Birch 26.8 45 1 60 130 279
North Bristol w o Jamboree 16.0 45 43 92 198
Olympiad e o Marguerite 84
10.6 22.8
32.8
2X6
11.7 79

18.6 12.8

45 60 129
P Valencia s o Avd Carlota P
Valencia s o El Toru P Valencia s o Los Alisos

P Valencia w o Alicia P Valencia w o La Paz
P Valencia e o La Paz

40 40
45 45
45 45

32

58 1 2 4
44 96 207 69 148 320

61 132 285 35 75 161
57 124

Paularino w o SR 55 Paularino e o SR 55 40 40 39 84 1 8 0 30 65 141

Portola W O Jamboree Portola w o Sand Canyon
Portola e o Sand Canyon
06 1
1 22'8 4 5 65 65

35 46

76 100 164 353 215 464

MCAS El Two Master Development Plan
54
Appendix E Technical Report Noise Analysis
Airport System Master Plan 75
75 Page 76 77
Table 4 18 continued Contour Distances for Existing Conditions
Roadway and Link Extent
TdiC Posted Distance to Noise Contour feet
Volume Speed 75 70 65 60

ww mph CNEL CNEL CNEL CNEL

Portola w o Alton Portola w o Bake
Portola w o Lake Forest Portola w o Glenn Ranch
Portola s o Glenn Ranch Portola n o El Toro

4 9 1 3
27'3 31.5
24'7 20'2

55 5 5
5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5

Prospect n o Irvine Prospect s o Irvine 10.0 10.9 40 3 5
Ranch0 e o Lake Forest 33 50 38 82
Red Hill n o Bryan 15.3 40 Red Hill n o El Camino Real 22.2 35
Red Hill n o I 5 38.8 35 Red Hill s o I 5 38.2 35
Red Hill s o Walnut 34.6 40 Red Hill n o Edinger 36.9 40
Red Hill s o Edinger 31.5 45 Red Hill n o Warner 32.3 45
Red Hill n o Dyer Barranca 30.7 50 Red Hill s o Dyer Barrama 31.6 50
Red Hill n o MacArthur 31.5 50 Red Hill n o Main 15.2 50
Red Hill s o Main 20.5 50 Red Hill s o Paularino 18.4 50
Red Hill s o Baker 16.1 50
Ridge Route s o Trabuco 85 Ridge Route n o Jeronimo 918 45 45
Ridge Route n o Muirlands 8.8 40 Ridge Route n o Rockfield 8.0 40

39
43 37

32

31 32
36 37
37

58 125
47 101 218 85 182 393

9 3 201 432 79 171 368
69 149 321
55 119
47 101

34 7 3 158 35 76 163
51 110 236 50 109 234
59 127 273 6 1 132 285
67 144 311 68 147 316
78 169 363 80 172 370
80 172 370 49 106 227
60 129 278 56 120 258
51 110 236
60 130
3 1 66 143 51 109

48 103

MCAS El Toru Master Development Plan Appendix E Technical Report Noise Analysis Airport System Master Plan 53 76
76 Page 77 78
Table 4 18 continued Contour Distances fur Existing Conditions
Tr ic Posted Distance to Noise Contour feet Roadway Volume Speed 75 70 65 60
and Link Extent ADT mph CNEL CNEL CNEL CNEL

Ridge Route e o Moulton 7.6 45 Ridge Route w o Moulton
8.8 35

Ridgeline s o University 14.3 45 40
Rockfield w u Lake Forest 18.8 40 Rockfield e o Lake Forest 21.6 45
Rockfield w o El Toro 19.6 45 Rockfield e o El Toro 16.8 40
39 52
49 36

S Margarita e o Los Alisos 22.6 50 S Margarita e o Marguerite 25.2 50 32 64 69
Sand Canyon n o Irvine 12.6 60 Sand Canyon n o Trabuco 17.6 60
Sand Canyon n o I 5 25.2 60 Sand Canyon s o I 5 21.8 50
Sand Cyn n o Irvine Center 21.6 50 Sand Cyn s o Irvine Center 16.7 55
Sand Canyon n o Alton 16.6 55 Sand Canyon n o I 405 18.6 55

34 43

30

58 73
93 62
62 61
61 66

Santa AM s o Bristol 10.4 45 32
Santa Margarita e o El Toro 28.8 50 35 75
Santa Maria w o Moulton 9 6 45 30
SJHTC n o LagunaCanyon 53.0 65 81 176 SJHTC s o El Toro 47.0 65 75 162
SJHTC s o Aliso Creek 47.0 65 75 162

56 121 41
88

85 184
84 182 112 242
105 227 78 169

137 296 148 319
126 272 157 339
200 431 134 289
133 287 131 283
131 282 141 304

69 149
162 348
65 141
378 815 349 752
349 752

MCAS El Tore Master Development Plan Appendix E Technical Report Noise Analysis Airport System Master Plan 77
77 Page 78 79
Table 4 18 continued Contour Distances for Existing Conditions

Roadway and Link Extent Traffic Posted Distance to Noise Contour feet Volume Speed 75 70 65 60
ADT mph CNEL CNEL CNEL CNEL

South Bristol w u Campus South Bristol w o Birch
South Bristol w o Jamboree
SR 133 s o I 5 SR 133 n o I 405

SR 55 n o Irvine Fourth SR 55
n o McFadden SR 55 n o Edinger

SR 55 n o Dyer SR 55 n o
MacArthur SR 55 s o MacArthur

SR 55 s o I 405 SR 55 s o SR 73

SR 73 n o SR 55
SR 73 s o SR 55
SR 73 s o Campus Irvine

Sycamore w o Red Hill
Technology n o Bammca
Toledo e o Alton Toledo w o Lake Forest
Toledo e o Lake Forest Toledo w u El Toro

Trabuco w o Yale Trabuco w o Jeffrey
Trabuco w o Sand Canyon Trabuco e o Bake
Trabuco w o Lake Forest

28.9 20.2
17.1
20.0 20.0

221.0 245.0
247.0
240.0
238.0 236.0

138.0 128.0

87.0
79.0
44.0

74
98
72
99
71 56 l

13.2
41 39

227
28'0

45 45
45
65 65

65
65
65
65
65 65

65 65

65
65
65

30
35
45
45
45
45

55
55 35

55
50

63 136
50 107
45 96

43 92 197 43 92 197

211 455 980
226 487 1050
227 490 1055
223 480 1035 222 478 1029

220 475 1024
154 332 716 147 316 681

113 244 526
106 229 493
72 155 334

44
54
31 67
53
46

52 112
52

35 75 161
34 74 159

294
231
207

425 425

2111 2262
2274
223 1 2218

2206 1542
1467
1134
1063
720

61
94
116
144 115

98
242
111 51

347
342

MCAS El Toro Master DeveIopment Plan 55 Appendix E Technical Report Noise Analysis Airport System Master Plan 78
78 Page 79 80
Table 4 18 continued Contour Distances for Existing Conditions
Roadway and Link Extent
TraffiC Posted Distance to Noise Contour feet
Volume Speed 75 70 65 60

ADT mph CNEL CNEL CNEL CNEL

Trabuco e o Lake Forest 28.6 Trabuco w o El
Toro 26.3 Trabuco e o El Toro 23.3

Trabuco e o Los Alisos 20.6 Trabuco e o Alicia 14.2

Tustin Ranch n o Portola Tustin Ranch n o Irvine
Tustin Ranch n o Bryan
Tustin Ranch s o Bryan Twin Ranch n o I 5

Tustin Ranch s o I 5
Tustin s o 4th

27 1 2
16'6 20'3
29'6 18.4

14.7
University s o I 405 35.2 University w o Michelson 30.6
University e o Yale 19.3 University e o Culver 19.6
University e o Harvard 15.8 University n o Campus 18.2

Valencia w o Red Hill
Von Karman s o Bamnca Von man n o
Main Von I man n o Michelson

Von Karman n o Campus Von
Kzmnn n o Birch

37 l
16.4 16.3
21.5 17.1
13.5 Von Karman n o
MacArthur 10.9

Waht w o Red Hill 16.8 Walnut e o
Red Hill 14.6 Walnut w o Tustin Ranch 15.4

50 50
50 45
45
50 45
45 45
45 45

45
55 45
45 45
50 50

35
50 50
50 50
40 40

35 35
35

35 3 3
30
I

1

47 30

75 161 347 7 1 152 328
65 140 302 50 109 234
39 8 5 183
33 72
4 1 89 191 44 94 203

50 108 232 64 138 298
47 101 217
40
100 66
48
4 9 50

55

87 187
216 466 142 305
104 224
105 227 108 233

119 256
49

52 5 1
62 53
3 1

111 239 111
238 133 287

114 246 68 146
59 126
63 135 57 123
59 128

MCAS El Toro Master Development Plan 56 Appendix E Technical Report Noise Analysis
Airport System Master Plan 79
79 Page 80 81
Table 4 18 continued
Contour Distances for Existing Conditions

Roadway and Link Extent Traffic Posted Distance to Noise Contour feet Volume Speed 75 70 65 60
WV mph CNEL CNEL CNEL CNEL

Walnut w o Jamboree Walnut e o Jamboree
Walnut w o Culver Walnut e o Culver
Walnut w o Jeffrey

10.0
98 1 6

17.7 10.4

Warner w o Red Hill
Warner w o Harvard Warner w o Culver

Wame e o Culver

14.8 14
31
69

West Yale Loop n o Warner 7.2 45 West Yale Loop n o Barranca 9.9 45
West Yale Loop n o Alton 7.2 45 West Yale Loop do Main 9.0 45
West Yale Loop s o Main 15.3 45
Yale n o Irvine Yale n o Bryan
Yale n o Trabuco Yale n o Walnut
Yale do Irvine Center Yale s o Irvine Center
Yale n o University

98 Id3
13'3 13'8
14.1 11.4
20
Yorba n o Irvine Yorba s o Irvine 67 l 81 l

40 35
35 45
35
40 40
40
40

45 45
45 45
45 45
35
35 1 34 7 3 35 39 8 3

5 5 119
44 94
55 117

46 98 212 46 98

3 3 72 155 32
5 5
43 9 3

54 116
31 67 144 54 116

63 135
4 1 89 192

31 66 143
32 69 148 38 81 175

39 8 3 179 39 84 182
34 7 3 158 8 3 3

Contour does not extend beyond the roadway edge

MCAS El Toro Master Development Plan 57 Appendix E Technical Report Noise Analysis Airport System Master Plan 80
80 Page 81 82
5.0 PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVES NOISE LEVELS
This section analyzes noise from all Aviation Alternatives detailed in the Airport System Master Plan Technical Report 6 Alternatives Deftition Report and summarized on
Exhibit 5.1 I and Table 5 l l s The nine alternatives are comprised of combinations of six distinct operational scenarios for El Toro and four for John Wayne Airport Five of the nine
alternatives include little or no changes to the aircraft operations at JWA and three of the alternatives include no aviation reuse of El Toro Alternative B is the proposed project and
is analyzed in somewhat more depth than the other alternatives
Table 5.1 l Aviation Alternatives by Annual Aircraft Operations
and Million Annual Passengers MAP

II I EL TORO AIRPORT 1 JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT 1 I ALTERNATIVE Annual Ops 1 MAP Annual Ops 1 MAP c
A 252,394 19MA P 432,300 1 6.0 MAP
It B
m
3003574 28.8 MAP 426,698 1 5.4 M4P w

C 191,679 23.4MAP 464,215 10.1 MAP E 0 0 462,000 8.4 MAP

F
G
H
II
J
K

m
01 0 172,081 14.0 MAP
0 0 347,594 25 oMAP
3 14,191 10.0 MAP 3 19,800 10.8 MAP
209,930 15.0 MAP 448,100 7.0 MAP
300,583 28.8 M A P 426,700 5.4 MAP
0 01 426,700 1 5.4 MAP

To maintain continuity for reviewers this analysis addresses each airport separately and then provides a comparative summary by Project Alternative

5.1 EL TORO PROJECT NOISE
The potential long terrrz impact of noise associated with the aviation reuse of MCAS El Toro is described in this section The noise analysis assesses the aircraft noise from the six
alternatives which contemplate commercial operations at El Toro as well as roadway noise and parallels the analysis in Section 4 to compare existing noise to project noise

MCAS El Toro Master Development PIan 58 Appendix E Technical Report Noise Analysis
Airport System Master Plan 81
81 Page 82 83
As originally defined during the master plan stage of planning the alternatives identified for study were
Alternative A JWA with a shtus quo role and no significant runway improvements 00 with a Ml domestic role limited international and two intersecting se of
closely spaced nmways
Ajternative B JWA with a status quo role and no significant runway improvements
UCA with hll international role and two intersecting sets of ltngthenad closely spaced runways

Alternative c JWA with a general aviation and short haul passenger role and no z ay improvementi OCA with a full international role but dependent on
JWA for short haul service and two intersecting sets of closely spaced runways In this a alternative unlike Alternatives 4 B and D the two airports would be linked with a
system to transport passengers and baggage be een the airports Typical people mover systems currently operating or planned at other airports are shown in Figures 14 through
I 6 People mover systems connecting a central transportation terminal along the existing commuter rail line with the OCA terminal will be considered for all the ptimary
alternatives
Alternative D JWA with a general aviation only role and no significant runway improvements OCA with a till international role and two intersecting sets of closelyspaced
runways
Alternative E Alternative E nprcsents the o project alternative m a John Wayne Airport JWA would continue to opemte as it does today providing general aviation service shortand
medium haul passenger Venice with limited long haul se x and very limitad allcargo service JWA would be anstrain to 2020 at the existing limit of 8.4 million annual
passengers MAP under this alternative There would be no aviation reuse of MCAS El Tore

Alternative F In this ahut ive JWA would con e to provide short and medium passenger sehcc with limited long haul savice JWA would also provide all cargo
service to short medium and limited long haul destinations JWA would not be constrained by existing limits on passen or airc operations under this aWnat
The airport would accommoda as much passenger demand as possible by qanding aixport fkiIities to the extent possible whhin the existing airport property limb Thaw
would be no based general aviation akraft at JWA which would allow the airport to acwmmdate expanded commercial strvice The general aviation my would be closaL
The main runway would be extended from 5,700 feet to 6,800 f t There would be no aviation reuse of MCAS El Tore

Altdve G II In v G Awouldsavtgeneralaviation andcargoMd passengers hm short haul to limited hernational JWA would not kx cunshhcd by
existing limits on passqers ur aircraft operations under this alternative and it is zusumed that the airpurt wuuld accommodate all of the demand in these categories projected fh tht
aiqmrt from 2005 to 2020 To e le the port to handle this demand a nlzLjor expansion of airport prol Q runway f Sties Mminal f Sties parking cargo f cilitieq and
support facilities would be necessq The closure of the general aviation runway a l loOfbut extension to the main runway and a new 8 OO fmt runway are envisioned in this
alternative to accommodate the projected dunand
Alternative H The airpurt r s and air id improvements for this alternative are the same as Altemative A except WA would be CoIlstrained to IO MAP Because of this limit n
JWAwould scrvemorcpassengcrsthanin Alter vc A
Alternative I The airport roles and airfieId improvements fbr this alternative are tie same as Akmtive 4 except OCAwould be constrained to I5 MU Because ofthis limitatioq
~AwouldscrvelightlymorepassengersthsninAltanativcA fiwathanin AitaMve H

AItanativeJ ThcairportrolesforthisalternatinartthesameasAlternativeB Ml B m A alternative however mAwould have two parallel nurtheti runways with a ctntali
on of 3,000 fat This would provide grtat separation of the artival and departure streams of aire to increase the a aft tival rate under instrument weather
It would also create a hge infield area between the runways for the development of terminal or other aviation related fkilitits

Mte iw In this ofhite ahnative MCAS El Tore would be developed with now kion uses and JWA would operate as it does today Off site altanatixs might ix de
f3ciMes at Los Alamitos AFRC a Cristianitos Canyon site or a site in Camp Pendleton No ion beenmadeIlaeofthe i ofanypotentialncwsite a
cornmercialBirportwith l ctofullintenrational
Exhibit 5.1 l List of Airport Alternatives

Source Technical Report 6 82
82 Page 83 84
5.1 I EL TORO NOISE MODELING
Each of the aviation alternatives assumptions used to assess noise
tracks and operating procedures

i A ASSUMPTIONS
has unique operational and capacity elements Key include number of operations types of aircraft flight
Section 2.5 Sound Rating Scales and Section 3.0 Methodology explain the various metrics and related computer modeling The following
sections summarize and explain the assumptions used in this analysis A summary of the input files for all computer modeling are presented in Appendix 1

5.1.1 a Aircraft Operations Data For El Tore Alternatives
Aircraft operations by type of aircraft time of day stage length and runway were used to estimate future noise levels Table 5.1 2 summarizes the operations for the El Toro
scenarios including total annual operations and daily arrivals and departures by time of day These data are plotted in Exhibit 5.1 2 for Alternatives B Table 5.1 3 presents the
number of daily operations by operations and runway for each El Toro alternative These data are plotted on Exhibit 5.1 3 for Alternative B

Interim year 2005,20 10 and 2015 aircraft operations at El Tore for Alternative B are contained in Table 5.1 4
5.1.1 b Fleet Mix Forecasts For El Toro Alternatives
Table 5.1 5 presents a recap of the tutal annual and daily operations and daily operations by aircraft type fleet mix for each alternative These data are plotted on Exhibit 5.1 4 for
Alternative B
The operations summaries provided in Table 5.1 5 describe the estimated fleet mix for the year 2020 Note that Stage 2 aircraft are effectively eliminated from the fleet in the Year
2020 Aircraft noise levels for departure and approach of various aircrti types are compared in Exhibits 5.1 5 and 5.1 6 in terms of the maximum noise level as measured at
the standard measurement points used in aircraft certification 26 It is interesting to note that large is not synonymous with noisier when considering jet aircraft Also it is important
to note that both Stage 2 and Stage 3 aircraft are included in the exhibit along with the estimated noise from an F A l 8 The Stage 2 aircraft included in Exhibits 5.1 5 and 5.1 6
are for reference purposes ody while these aircraft are in the current aircraft fleet they will remain in the fleet only until the year 2000 Federal law mandates the replacement or
conversion of these aircraft
Interim year 2005,201O and 2015 aircraft fleet mix at El Toro for Alternative B are contained in Table 5.1 6 Note that Stage 2 aircraft hushkitted to meet Stage 3 noise
requirements are included in the interim year contours

MCAS El Two Master Development Plan 59 Appendix E Technical Report Noise Analysis Airport System Master Plan 83
83 Page 84 85
Table 5.1 2
Annual and Average Daily Operations By Time of Day El Toro Tear 2020
Departures Per Day Arrivals Per Day Alternative Year Opemions 2 4 HCW Daytime Evening Night Daytime Evening Night

A 2020 252,394 345.7 243.2 40.5 62.0 225.0 68.7 52.0 B 2020 300,574 411.7 282.3 50.9 78.5 274.3 81.6 55.8
C 2020 191,679 262.6 174.1 24.7 63.7 166.3 54.8 41.4 H 2020 314,191 430.4 321.4 50.9 58.0 313.4 62.4 54.6
I 2020 209,930 287.6 199.9 36.9 50.8 187.6 55.1 44.9 3 0 0 ,5 8 3 4 1 1 .8 J 2020 282.3 50.9 78.5 274.3 81.6 55.8

Note Departure and arrival count rounded to nearest 0.1

Table 5.1 3
Average Daily C

Altemative Year A 2020
B 2020 C 2020
H 2020 I 2020

I J 2020 Note Departure and

perations By Runway El Toro Year 2020
Departures AlTiVdS Rwys 07 Rwys 34 Rws 16 Rwys 34 Rwys 16 Rwys 0 7

244 96 6 331 12 2 257 147 8 395 1 6 1
139 118 6 252 10 1 304 119 8 411 9 11
205 78 5 276 IO 2 0 395 17 395 17 0

arrival count rounded to nearest integer less than 0.5 rounds to zeru 84
84 Page 85 86
El Toro Year 2020 Operations By Time of Day
Night Arrivals
Evening Arrivals
Day Arrivals
Night Departures

Da 7 am to 7 vmi g 7 pm to x fiYpm
Night IO pm to 7 am

Evening Departures
Day Departures
Total Daily Operations
100 200 300 400 500
Daily Operations

Exhibit 5.1 2 Alternative B Year 2020 Operations By Time of Day 85
85 Page 86 87
El Toro Year 2020 Daily Operations By Runway
Arrive 07 1

Arrive 34
Depart 16 c 8
Depart 34 lld7
Depart 07
I
0
I
100

I I
2 0 0 300

Daily Operations

I I
400 500

Exhibit 5.1 3
Alternative B Year 2020 Operations By Runway 86
86 Page 87 88
Table 5.1 4 Annual and Average Day Interim Year Operations Alternative B
Year 2005 Year 2010 Year 2015 Total Annual Operations 113,693 224,392 260,496
Total Daily Departures 155.7 307.4 356.8 Total Daily Arrivals 155.7 307.4 356.8
Daytime Departures 110.2 214.5 246.4 Evening Departures 16.7 37.5 43.9
Night Departures 28.7 55.4 66.5
Daytime Arrivals 99.5 205.4 237.7
Evening Arrivals 32.9 60.3 70.5 Niaht Arrivals 23.2 41.7 48.6 87
87 Page 88 89
hble 5.1 5 hmmary Of El Two Year 2020 Operations By Aircraft Type
57PW 8 5 .8 9 7 .7 9 6 .4 41 1 6 1 .6 9 7 .7
6 7 3 0 0 6 6 .4 7 9 .2 8 4 .8 3 1 .5 4 7 .2 7 9 .2 0 l t 888 l 1 1 I l 888 l l 0 l 0 0 9 0 l 0 l l I 0 gfg 88 t4t8 4 l l ttttqm 0 m l yq t8 tQ A t L tt8 1 1 I lll 8 8 s 5 1 1 l I s p 2 I l 8 l a 8 l I I I
8 A sst 8s8 ttt

rt 8 y

I I a y 1 a 8

ty s 8

8 1 l
l p y x l 0 8

f 8 l l I I 8

88 88tt 1 1 88 l 1
l
8 4t 88 s 8 8 8 8 4 I 8 A 8 4 4 8 l s ss I I 8 8 8

777200 1 4 .7 3 5 .9 3 7 .8 5 .7 8 .0 3 5 .9 ~ 88 A Q b ~ s s sy -8 I r rr f f y l p St s 8t 8 A l q 1 L 48 8s m l l t l l l y yy r I 8 l yy 8 58 l tt

as

0ll
r m

ep

IA a
m
l 8 48 I
0
t t t 88 1q t l n
A qyg 0

w
h

I
8 I A tt4 4sss
ts l l 88t8
l l l bm l s bsy 4 rt88 8s y
O l 1 l l I 8tt 1 l t S l r l r t 1 AS 0 l 8 8S8 8 p 8 8 y
c

rl 8t4st 8 l t l l

CL1
0 l l 1 1
074
l l l l 8 s
q I I I t -4

O TO
t t 8 so 8 u8t 88 s88 8 i8 8
4310 0 .5 0.0 0 .4

x601 17.7 18.3 6.1 12.0 1 4 .6 18.3
X870 15.5 17.6 0.4 15.5
DHC8 10.0 10.9 4 .8 7 .2 10.9 s z0 ttt t y Q t s A t t8 0 g 88t I l ts 8 l 8 4t 8 8t I8 0 8 8t l s4sptq
8 8 888 8 r 88 4y t88s8ss y I S t Iq py b St 8 s S8 a4 0 8888888 s q A cw8 A x sab t
10062 14.0 15.3 6 .7 10.1 15.3

3iV 2.2 2.5 1.6 0 .3 1.6 2.5

DllGE 8.0 16.5 17.5 3.0 4.5 16.5
MD83 29.7 36.7 24.8 16.9 25.4 36.7
MD9028 9 .4 13.0 5 .8 6 .0 9.1 13.0
Notes
1 New Large Aircraft MA projected for year 2020 are inciuded here as 747 400 aircraft
2 Airbus A340 aircraft are Included her8 as DC870 A340 is not in INM database DC870 is substitute aircraft
3 B7373B2 includes several 8737 models including -300 -700 -800 and -900 models
4 GASEPV is general aviation sing18 engine propeller variabfe pitch aircraft a high performance single such as the Cessna 210
5 SF340 is usBc1 to model turboprop commuter aircraft 88
88 Page 89 90
El Toro Year 2020 Operations by Aircraft Type I
A310
A 3 0 0 n

0 20 4 0 6 0 8 0 700 1 2 0 7 4 0 7 6 0 7 8 0
Number of Daily Operations sum of arrivals and departures

Exhibit 5.1 4 Alternative B Year 2020 Operations By Aircraft
Type 89
89 Page 90 91
Typical Aircraft Departure Noise Levels

65 70 75 8 0 a 5 90 95 100 to5 110 115 Aircraft not in Year 2020 fleet

Maximum Noise Leve dBA decibels are a logarithmic scale an increase of 10d6 sounds twice as loud

Based on aircraft certification data AG36 3G as measured at the departure meaurement point 21,326 feet from the start of takeoff roll This information is based on particular
FAA certificatior measurements and is most useful for comparing the reMke di erence in noise level between aircraft types

Exhibit 5.1 5 Typical Aircraft Departure Noise Levels

Source Mestre Grew Associates 1998 using data from Advisory Circular AC 36 3G FAA 90
90 Page 91 92
Typical Aircraft Approach Noise Levels
65 70 75 80 85 9 0 9 5 100 105 110 115
Maximum Noise Level dBA decibels are a logarithmic scale an increase of 1 OdB sounds twice as loud

Aircraft not in Year 2020 fleet

Exhibit 5.1 6 Typical Aircraft Arrival Noise Levels
Source Me e Grew Associates 1998 using data from Advisory Circular AC 36 3G FAA 91
91 Page 92 93
Table 5.1 6
Interim Year Fleet Mix

Aircraft
727EM2
7 3 7 3 9 2
7 3 7 4 0 0
7 3 7 5 0 0
737Nl7
737N9
74720B
7 4 7 4 0 0
747SP
757PW

757RR
7 6 7 3 0 0
767JT9
7 7 7 2 0 0
A 3 0 0
A 3 1 0
A 3 2 0
CL601
DC1 030
DC870
DHC6
DHC8
DHC830
FlOO62
GASEPV
GIV
HS748A
L10115
MD1 1 GE
MDllPW
MD83
MD9025
MD9028
SF340

Percent of Fleet By Year
2 0 0 5 2 0 1 0 203 5
1 6 0 2 0 2
24'5 1 23'2 21'2
22 30 30
59 54 50
07 00 00
01 I 02 I 0 2 l
01 06 04
02 33 49
0 8 1 9 2 3
12.7 10'2 l l
15 13 1 8 I
67 72 8 1
08 08 11
11 10 1 2
04 02 03
00 00 00
31 26 26
20 22 22
16 08 07 1
21 13 08
67 66 49
0 6
1 4
12 13 1
2 1
00 1 2
2 8
li
70 76 m 73
03 03 03
08 10 15
10 05 04
09 12 16
02 05 I 07
77 65 59
25 25 24
08 16 15
18 l 1 8 1 1 92
92 Page 93 94
5.1.1 c Runway Use and Flight Tracks for El Tore Alternatives
Flight tracks for El Toro Alternatives involve several aspects of proposed civilian operations including
a Preferential Runway System for both approach and departure flight track dispersion and aircraft altitudes Each of these is discussed separately below

Preferential Runway System Use By Civilian Aircraft
All El Tom aviation alternatives except Alternative J take advantage of the existing preferential runway system developed by the military The noise modeling program
assumes civilian aircraft will use the existing flight corridors as much as possible The primary civil aircra flight corridors are described below and plotted in Exhibit 5.1 7 The
tracks shown indicate the generalized tracks for the typical operation modes Exhibit 5.1 7 also displays the existing buffer zone for noise sensitive land uses the military 65 dB CNEL
contour planning line as well as the locations of public schools in or near the El Toro environs This buffer zone has been in place since the early 1970's

The preferential runway system was fully integrated into MCAS El Toro operations by the time the 1981 AICUZ study was prepared Runway 07 has a slight uphill gradient and rising
terrain east of the site Wind conditions though typically calm favor use of RW 07 for departure approximately 27 of the time Originally the air base was oriented to take
advantage of the down slope and wind conditions of RW 25 and operated thusly fur many years Owing to the noise effects on increased urbanization west of the base the military
instituted the present Preferential Runway System in the early 1970's The question of civilian use of the Preferential Runway System has been analyzed thoroughly during the
preparation of the Airport System Master Plan ASMP
High performance military fighter aircraft can use Runway 07 on a regular basis but some military transport aircraft depart on Runway 16 or Runway 25 because they do not have
suficient climb performance to use Runways 07 However it is not a logical or correct conclusion to assume that since military transport aircraft do not use Runways 07 civilian
air carrier aircraft cannot use Runways 07 Most civilian air carrier aircraft can use Runways 07 because they have considerably better performance characteristics than do the
old military transports Military transports using El Toro are primarily aircraft such as the C 130 C 141 and C 5 These are all old technology aircraft of 1950's and 1960's The C130
production aircraft first flew in 1955 The C 14 1 made its initial flight in 1963 The C5's first flight occurred in 1968 Janes Encyclopedia of Aviation Portland House 1989
While these have all been very successtil and effective aircraft for military transport their performance pales in comparison to modem aircraft military or civilian It should be noted
that the C 130 a 4 engine turboprop aircraft is a short runway aircraft and is much quieter than the turbojet aircraft transports mentioned above Modem aircr have been designed to
be mure tie1 efficient require shorter runways and have much improved climb capabilities The limitations that apply to older military transports are not applicable to modern transports
such as the C l 7 or modern air carrier civilian aircrafi The runway utilization used in this

MCAS El Toro Master Development Plan
60 Appendix E Technical Report Noise Analysis Airport System Master Plan 93
93 Page 94 95
study is based on the specific aircraft performance data developed for this study and is described in Airport System Master Plan Technical Report 5
Generally speaking the question of RW 07 departures revolves around what is safe and what is commercially viable FAA regulations specify the performance requirements for
aircraft departing any runway under all operational and meteorological conditions Performance can be enhanced and FAA regulations can be met simply by reducing weight
i e reducing passengers cargo or tiel Thus almost all aircraft could depart safely from RW 07 with sufficient gross weight limitations The ensuing question involves whether or not
such weight limitations inhibit the carrying capacity of aircraft to the point where they are
nut commercially viable The answer to that question is contained in Technical Report 5 which demonstrates the destinations which can be reached by various types of aircraft

departing on RW 07 Simply stated many aircraft can operate safely within FAA regulations f m RW 07 fully loaded regardless of all but the most adverse of
meteorological conditions Secondly most commercial aircraft are not fUy loaded while simultaneously destined for their maximum stage length range in miles These factors
explain the ability of civilian aircraft to use RW 07 a large percentage of the time
Nevertheless despite proposed lengthening and re grading Runway 7 will still not be able to accommodate all of the aircraft operations particularly heavy wide body aircraft The
proposed project includes significant improvements to RW 07 Whenever aircraft are unable to use Runway 07 they will use Runway 34 Right or Left for departure While the military
maintained three departure headings off RW 34 civilian aircraft will utilize predominately a straight out departure to the north with specified minimum climb gradients 27

Alternative J does not use the preferential runway system but instead includes two parallel north south runways with a centerline separation of 3000 feet Flight tracks for Alternative
J are depicted on Exhibit 5.1 8
Approach Corridors fur Civilian Aircraft
For all alternatives including Alternative J the primary approach corridor will be from the south to Runways 34 Right and Left Like current military operations civilian aircraft will
cross the coast at 4000 feet MSL and proceed until intercepting the 3 degree glide slope A straight in approach to Runway 7 is not available due to traffic conflicts with John Wayne
When Runways 34 Right or Left are not available due to wind aircrafk will either approach from the south and execute a left turn leading to a right circling turn for an approacl
Runway 7 or will approach f m the north and perform a visual approach to Runway The number of arrivals on each runway are summarized in Table 5.1 3

The analysis assumes that for RW 34 arrivals aircraft will intercept the runway center at the coastline and no later This is consistent with historical military operations

tu
1 6 l

ine

MCAS El Toro Master Development Plan 61 Appendix E Technical Report Noise AnaIysis Airport System Master Plan 94
94 Page 95 96
Flight Truck Dispersion fur Civilian Aircraft
Flight track dispersion can affect the location of noise contours particularly lower valued contours located f er fiom the airport The effect of dispersion is to create shorter and
wider contours as fewer aircrafi are actually located on the nominal flight track and more are located along side this track

The flight tracks shown on Exhibit 5.1 7 appear as 2 dimensional lines attached to the runway system and proceeding along the departure or arrival route However aircraft
typically fly within a corridor and are not like trains riding along a fixed track
Estimating flight track dispersion with civilian use of El Toro is done here using flight track data Tom other airports Track dispersion differs somewhat between arrivals and
departures While both have zero dispersion at the runway arrival dispersion far from the airport will tend to be less than departure dispersion because of the nature of approach
navigation aids and approach procedures Aircraft making their approach will begin to align with the approach path very early in the procedure often positioning themselves in the
appropriate sequence with other approaching aircraft Departures may show more early dispersion as aircraft are turned toward their destination by FAA air traffic controllers

To estimate flight track diversion at El Tore data was collected corn other airports Flight track plots from radar data at John Wayne Airport taken on 6 days for two hour periods are
provided on Exhibit 5.1 9 which was generated by overlaying the dispersion patterns for John Wayne Airport on the El Toro flight tracks Departure dispersion from JWA was
overlaid on the takeoff ends of Runways 7 and 34 and arrivals to JWA were over laid on the approach to Runways 34 at El Toro Note that the radar used to generate this plot was for
the day and time which showed the largest amount of dispersion This is a simulation of track dispersion for civilian aircraB and assumes that track dispersion at El Toro will be
similar to track dispersion occurring at John Wayne Airport Dispersion at Seattle Tacoma Airport was also examined but found to contain less dispersion than JWA

Exhibit 5.1 9 shows that aircraft will directly over fly a wider area than depicted by a single line nominal track map These dispersed tracks can vary on a day by day basis as a result of
winds and wind gradients i e increasing wind speed with altitude or changes in wind direction at higher altitudes

The modeling of CNEL contours for all Alternatives including J provided for flight track dispersion by dividing the main flight tracks into 3 subtracks the nominal track iind 1
subtrack on each side of the nominal track The nominal track was assigned 50 of all operations and each sub track was assigned 25 of all operations The sub tracks by
definition are colinear with the nominal track at the runway end The width of the dispersion used to develop the sub tracks was derived from radar plots at John Wayne
Airport that are presented on Exhibit 5.1 9 The sub tracks were not placed at the extreme of the dispersion plots but were located to simulate the dispersion needed to correctly model

MCAS El Tore Master Development Plan
6 2 Appendix E Technical Report Noise Analysis Airport System Master Plan 95
95 Page 96 97
r 1
m

9
a

i c
r 1

1 c 1

Exhibit 5.1 9
Typical John Wayne Airport Track Dispersion Overlaid On El Toro 96
96 Page 97 98
the energy average SENEL for observers on the ground The flight tracks used to model El Toro operations are presented on Exhibit 5.1 10
Altitude of Civiliun Aircraft
The altitude of civilian aircraft arriving and departing El Toro is plotted in Exhibits 5 l l 1 5.1 12 and 5.1 13 for a variety of aircraft types Departures profiles are shown for an
aircraft weight that corresponds to a stage length of less than 500 nautical miles labeled light in the legend and also the longest stage length for that aircraft type labeled heavy in
the legend The heavy stage length varies by aircraft type according to the capability of that aircraft The arrival profile shown for Runway 34 is based on a standard 3 degree glide
slope Wind assumptions described below were used to generate the departure profiles Data were obtained fkom INM 5.2 for each aircraft type and profile

5.1.1 d Stage Length
Stage length refers to the distance to the destination of departing aircraft This is an important factor in the computer modeling of noise because stage length often determines
the weight of aircraft Aircraft Gross Takeoff Weight GTOW affects altitude power settings tid runway utilization all of which contribute the noise characteristics The stage
length of aircraft used to model Alternative B for El Toro are contained in Table 5.1 7
5.1.1 e Other Modeling Assumptions for El Toro Alternatives
Topographic Effects The
effect of topography on noise levels near an airport may be important where there are significant elevation differences between the airport and surrounding environs The INM
Version 5.2 has the optional capability to include topographic effects on sound propagation from aircraft For example directly under the approach corridor for Runways 34 the coastal
hills of Laguna Niguel reach altitudes in excess of 900 feet above sea level The aircraft will cross the coastline at 4000 feet above sea level Receivers located on such a hill are 900 feet
closer to the aircraft than would be the case without the topographic effects This results in higher noise levels at higher elevations that are under an approach or departure corridor All
INM modeling completed for these analyses included using the topographic feature of the INM Topographic data were obtained on CD Rom from Micropath Corporation Golden
Colorado 11281
Average Wind Effects The
Integrated Noise Model includes standard takeoff and approach profiles describing altitude and airspeed along the flight path These profiles are based on an assumed 8 knot
headwind for all operations INM Version 5.2 allows the use of other headwind assumptions to change the aircraft profiles The El Toro site has unique runway
topographic and wind characteristics that will result in aircraft operating into headwinds less

MCAS EI Toro Master Development Plan 63 Appendix E Technical Report Noise Analysis Airport System Master Plan 97
97 Page 98 99
98
98 Page 99 100
Aircraft Altitudes Runway 34 Departures
8500
6500

2500
500
0 8 10000 20000 30000 L 40000 50000 60000 70000

Loma Ridge Riverside Fwy 3
Distance From Brake Release feet

e 737300 light
B737300 heavy
8747 light
B747 heavy
B757 light
B757 heavy
B777 light
B777 heavy
MD1 1 light
MD 11 heavy ir
I MD80 light
MD80 heavy
B727HK light
B727HK heavy

Exhibit 5.1 l 1 Aircraft Altitude Profiles Runways 34 Departure
Source Mestre Greve Associates 1998 from INM5.2 Aircraft Performance Data 99
99 Page 100 101
Aircraft Altitudes Runway 07 Departures
m l l I I I I u l l
u I I L I L ~~l l ^l l ~l

1 0 0 0 0 20000 30000 60000
Ranch0 Santa Mar arita t
cot0 de Distance From Brake Release feet Caza

B737300 light
B737300 heavy

MD80 light
B727HK light
V B757 light

e 757 heavy
B777 light
B777 heavy

Exhibit 5.142 Aircraft Altitude Profiles Runways 07 Departure 100
100 Page 101 102
Aircraft Altitudes Runway 34 Arrivals
d 6 5 0 0 Y
iL
P 5500

Li ake Fo t ii Dr LSHTC El Tore Road Lfllguel Road Monarch Beat
Distance From Brake Release feet

Exhibit 5.143 Aircraft Altitude Profiles Runways 34 Arrivals 101
101 Page 102 103
Table 5 h7
Alternative B Year 2020 Daily Departures By Shge Length

Aircraft
737302

Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 5 Stage 6 Sta
500 nm 500 I OOOnm 7 OOO 7 5OOnm 7 50 25OOnm 2500 35OOnm 3500 45OOnm 4soc
61.8 68 67 49 00 00
737400
737500 747400

747SP
757PW
757RR
767300
767JT9
777200
A300
A310
A320 CL601

DC1 030 DC870
DHC6
DHC8
DHC830
FlOO62 GASEPV

GIV HS748A
MD1 1 GE
MD1 1 PW
MD83 MD9025

MD9028 SF34fl

4.0 14.0
00
00
34 00

00
00
00 I
00
00
26
91
00
00
13'5
55 13 7

7.7
30.1 1.2

7.7
00
00 I
7 0
30
4 o 2 7

2 9 I
22 0 0

0 0 10 7
0 0
02
0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0

06 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0

0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
31
38
06 0 o

27 1 9
0 0
0 0
10'6
4 5 9 8

24
0 0
0 0
0 0 02

0 0
04 0 0

0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0

0 0
0 0
0 0
30
3 8
06 0 o

27
1 6 1.9

1.0
21.6
4.7 25.9

25
a 2 1 s

00
64 0 0

1 1
00
00
00
00 I
00
00
00
00
4 1
7 a
52
00
00
Cl 0

00
00

06 I
25 1 9

02
20
01
1 4
05
02
00
00
01 1 4

00
00
00
00
00
00 I 00

03 26
00
00
1 4
00

00
00 00 l

08
06 I 00

00
00
07 l 0 0

0 0
0 0
0 0
0 1 1

0 0
0 0
0 0

0 0 l
0 0

0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0

06 00

00
00
00 102
102 Page 103 104
than 8 knots This lowers climb rates on departure and thus lowers aircraft altitudes over airport environs generating higher noise levels than would occur with an average 8 knot
headwind
In order to determine average wind conditions meteorological data were carefully examined and plotted Exhibit 5.1 14 plots wind data aggregated by quadrant 29 These data show
that winds are from the north 8.5 percent of the time at an average of 5 knots from the east 27.5 percent of the time with an average of 4 knots Tom the south 17.6 percent of the time
with and average of 4.8 knots fkom the west 30.6 percent of the time with an average of 5.3 knots and winds are calm 15.8 percent of the time Note that more detailed wind data are
presented and discussed in Technical Report 5 of the ASMP The data show that the dominate operating pattern of El Toro approaches from the south and departures to the east
and north will include a wide variety of winds without a single dominate meteorological condition These data clearly show that an 8 knot headwind is not a valid assumption for
civilian operations at El Toro
For modeling annual average noise levels as well as single event noise levels this analysis generally assumed no headwind for any operations at El Toro except departures on Runway
16 This is a conservative compromise between 5 knot tail winds and 8 knot headwinds which will tend to overstate the noise impact The one exception is that departures on
Runway 16 were assumed to have an average headwind of 10 knots The reason for this assumption was that Runway 16 would be used for departures only when other runways are
not available and when very strong winds come Tom the south
The noise contours developed for each alternative are based on a variety of assumptions regarding wind direction and speed The runway utilization analysis was based on wind
patterns in each of eight three hour tinie periods during the day projected aircraft operations by type and time of day and the performance characteristics for specific aircraft types
Runwav assignment was based on the following criteria ti

0 a

00
0 C

u u
Departing aircraft are assigned to Runway 07 if the aircraft is capable of using the runway with a full load of passengers or a significant cargo load 90 percent of
capacity and if wind conditions allow the use of the runway tailwind component less than 5 kts If the aircrafk is not able to use Runways 07 then it is assigned to
Runways 16 34
Arriving commercial and military aircraft are the crosswind component exceeds 20 knots
Runway 07
assigned to Runways 16134 unless Then the aircraft are assigned to

Arriving general aviation aircraft are assigned to Runways 16 34 unless the crosswind component exceeds 16 knots Then the aircraft are assigned to Runway
0 7
FAA regulations Mow operations with greater than calm tailwind components provided
there are conditions which justify the greater tailwind component such as for noise

MCAS El Toro Master Development Plan
64
Appendix E Technical Repoti Noise Analysis
Airport System Master Plan 103
103 Page 104 105
El Toro Wind Average Speed and Direction
25

North East South West Calm
Winds From Direction

Exhibit 5.1 14
El Toro Wind Average Speed and Direction By Quadrant

Source EIR 563 August 1996 104
104 Page 105 106
abatement purposes Because of preferential runway programs for noise abatement and to some extent because it is very diffkult for a busy air carrier airport to change runway
directions without causing major disruptions in the air traffic flow large air carrier airports typically operate at maximum tailwinds of 6 to 10 knots For this study runway utilization
percentages were developed for tailwind componeks up to and including 7 knots on Runways 34 and under 5 knots calm winds on all other runways A tailwind component of
7 knots on Runways 34 was selected for analysis because
a it is at the lower end of the range of tailwind limits in common usage at large air
carrier airports in California and Arizona b it would allow greater use of the open space corridor south of the airport for landings

and c it would maximize availability of the precision instrument approach to Runway 34

Under all alternatives the airport would operate the wind speed and direction
1 north and east flow landings to the north east
and

under two flow conditions depending upon
and departures to the north and to the
2 south and east flow landings to the south and departures to the south and to the east
Given the tailwind assumptions noted above north east flow conditions would occur approximately 96.8 percent of the time on a 24 hour basis south and east flows would occur
approximately 3.2 percent of the time

5.1.2 CNEL CONTOURS FOR EL TORO ALTERNATIVES
Developed using the assumptions outlined above the 60,65 and 70 dB CNEL contours for
El Toro Alternatives A B C H I and J for calendar year 2020 operations are presented in Exhibits 5.1 15 through 5.1 20 Additionally interim years 2005 2010 and 2015 CNEL

contours for Alternative B are presented on Exhibits 5.1 2 1,5.1 22 and 5.1 23

51.3 CNEL CONTOUR LAND USE IMPACTS FOR EL TORO ALTERNATIVES
The CNEL contours for the interim years are largely contained within the noise buffer zone created by the 198 1 military 65 CNEL In 2010 the 60 CNEL begins to include existing
residential areas along the east side of the approach to RW 34 In 2015 this effect increases

MCAS El Tore Master Development Plan 65 Appendix E Technical Report Noise Analysis Airport System Master Plan 105
105 Page 106 107
somewhat and the 60 CNEL extends to residential areas under the departure track from RW 0 7
The land uses within the CNEL contours for the El Toro alternatives are summarized on Table 5.1 8 and compared to the existing 1998 military contours
Examination of the exhibits and the tabular data indicate that while the aviation alternatives increase the land area affected by CNEL there is little impact upon incompatible land uses
The largest contour the 60 CNEL increases in area from 0.1 square miles Alt H to 11 l square miles Alt J The 60 CNEL for the preferred Alternative B increases 9.8 square
miles
The 65 CNEL contour decreases by 0.3 square miles for Alternative H and increases in all other Alternatives in a range f om 0.5 square miles Alt I to 6.8 square miles Ah J The
65 CNEL contour for the preferred Alternative B increases by 4.5 square miles These comparisons are all relative to the year 1998 military operations The increase in area within
the 65 CNEL contour are associated with extension of the contour north of the base
The 70 CNEL is largely confined to the base in all alternatives but the contour does increase
beyond the base for some alternatives in a range fi om 0.1 to 1.1 square miles The 70 CNEL contour for the preferred Alternative B increases by 1.2 square miles of which 0.7 square

miles are located off the base Within the 70 CNEL contour there are no incompatible land uses associated with any alternative

Within the 65 CNEL contour residential impacts occur only in Alternative J A total of 0.2 square miles of residential land encompassing 525 dwelling units are impacted The only
other impacts in the 65 CNEL are a private school in Alternatives B and C and three churches in Alternative B The private school is in a store front location in a commercial
area and its Use Permit requires sound insulation to a degree suitable for higher levels of military noise

Within the 60 CNEL contour sensitive land uses appear in every alternative Residential
areas falling within the 60 CNEL range from 0.2 square miles and 525 residences Alt H to 1.3 square miles and 3411 residences Alt I As many as two more private schools and ten

more churches are contained within the 60 CNEL contours for the several alternatives
For purposes of comparison to other airports Table 5.1 9 presents the land use impact data for existing conditions at John Wayne Airport Los Angeles International Airport San
Francisco International Airport Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport and SeattleTacoma International Airport

MCAS El Toro Master Development Plan
66
Appendix E Technical Report Noise Analysis
Airport System Master Plan 106
106 Page 107 108
Table 5.1 S
Land Use Comparison Table 1998 Military and Year 2020 Alternatives area in square mile9
I I AICUZ PIL

Military ~

50.0
28.8
21.6

7.3
7.0
6.4

7.0
0.8
0.0

18368
2099
0

I Miles Within Contour
60 CNEL Contour
65 CNEL Contour
70 CNEL Contour Square Miles Within Contour On Base

6O CNEL Contour
6 CNEL Contour
fO CNEL Contour
Square Miles of Residential
60 CNEL Contour
65 CNEL Contour
70 CNEL Contour
Number of Residences Inside Contour
60 CNEL Contour
65 CNEL Contour
7O CNEL Contour
Number of Public Schools Inside Contour
60 to 65 CNEL Contour 65 to 70 CNEL Contour

inside 70 CNEL Contour Number of Private Schools Inside Contour
60 to 65 CNEL Contour 65 to 70 CNEL Contour
inside 70 CNEL Contour
Number of Colleges Inside Contour
60 to 65 CNEL Contour
65 to 70 CNEL Contour
inside 70 CNEL Contour
Number of Hospitals Inside Contour
60 to 65 CNEL Contour
65 to 70 CNEL Contour inside 70 CNEL Contour

Number of Churches Inside Contour 60 to 65 CNEL Contour
65 to 70 CNEL Contour inside 70 CNEL Contour
^ l ll Data from updated land use database from EIR 573

1 5
I onbase
0

7
5
0

I
0
0

0
0
0

2
13
1

1994 1998 Year 2020
Military Military CRP Alt A I

30.5 16.6 20.3
18.9 6.3 9 .1
27.0 3 5.5

6.7 6 3 6 2
6.0 4 8 4 8
5.2 2.9 3.2

1 .8 0.3 0.8
0.2 0.0 0 .1
0 .1 0.0 0.0

4723 672 2034
630 0 318
330 0 0

4 0 1
lonbase 1 on base 1
0 0 0

4 4 3
I 0 1
0 0 0

0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0

0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0

5 12 4
6 0 8
2 0 0 I I I

I I x 1 7

Year 2020 Alternatives
A B C H ~ Square

15.5
6.6
2.7

6
4.5
2.6

2 2
9.8
3 9

6.4
4.9
3.2

20.4 12.3 13.8 23.2
9.2 5 5.8 12.1 3.6 1.9 2.3 3.8

6 2
4 6
5 6
3 9
5 8
4 2
4.4
3.7
3 1 .8 2.3 2.7

0.5
0
0

0.7
0
0

0.3
0
0

0.15
0
0

0.3
0 0 1.3 0.2 0

1312 1837 787 394 787 3411
0 0 0 0 0 525
0 0 0 0 0 0

0
0
0

3
1
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

13
0

0
0
0

2
0 0

0 0
0
0 0
0
8
0 0 107
107 Page 108 109
Table 5.1 9
Comparison of Residential and School Land Uses
Within 65 CNEL or DNL Contour Other Airports

Residential Airport
Units People SChOOlS
John Wayne Airport SNA 1 2 0 3 0 0 0
Los Angeles International Airport LAX 31,335 84,054 3 6 see note
Seattle Tacoma International Airport SEA 13,620 31,800 2 8
San Francisco International Airport SFO 1,360 5,900 not reported
Sky Harbor International Aimort PHX not rewted 9.814 14

sources JWA Noise Abatement Quarterly Report June 30 1998

LAX Quarterly Report Second Quarter 1998
9 total schools estimated from land use map 1 not insulated 35 are sound insulated
SeaTac 1994 EIS
SFO Quarterly Noise Reuprt Fourth Quarter 1997
Phoenix FAR Part 150 Summary Report for Year 1997 108
108 Page 109 110
The CNEL contours for 1994 conditions at MCAS El Toro were presented in EIR 563 Section 4.4 and the related Technical Report EIR 563 Appendix H
5.1.4 CNEL RECEPTOR LOCATIONS FOR EL TORO ALTERNATIVES
Noise modeling results can also be expressed in terms of the CNEL levels at specific representative locations The INM Version 5.2 was used to determine the noise levels at
each of receptor locations shown on Exhibit 4 6 Table 5.1 l OA presents the CNEL noise levels for aircraft operations at each of the receptor locations for the El Toro Alternatives
Table 5.1.10B presents differences in CNEL between the existing military and Aviation Alternative B

Please note that in the existing conditions 1998 military none of the receptor locations have values above 65 CNEL and eleven locations have values above 60 CNEL Of those
eleven two are private schools in commercial areas labeled LMA and MVC Accordingly it is useful to note which receptor locations experience levels above 65 CNEL and 60 CNEL
with the project alternatives
Noise impacts in terms of CNEL vary among receptor sites and the Alternatives While several sites experience increases only a few achieve levels above 60 CNEL At site EO
located north of El Toro under the departure pattern for Runway 34 existing CNEL is calculated at 38.4 dBA and project levels range between 59.1 dBA and 66.5 dBA This site
is currently undeveloped land owned by the Irvine Company in unincorporated County jurisdiction This is not considered an incompatible use

Alternative J increases CNEL at Site OCl and Site 11 both residential areas respectively to 67.0 and 68.2 dBA This would be considered a significant impact
Sites LMA and MVC both private schools in a commercial area would experience increases of 0.8 to 1.6 dBA under Alternative B to place them respectively at 64.5 and
65.0 CNEL The question of significant impact for these sites is clouded by the conditions of the Use Permit for these establishments which require that the schools have no outdoor
uses and that they be insulated to protect them from military noise higher than civilian use noise In other words the existing legal conditions of use impose limitations which would be
expected to and were intended to ensure compatibility with the forecast noise levels and aviation activity

Sites LWl and LW2 residential areas in Laguna Woods under some Alternatives experience increases in CNEL ranging up to 3.9 dBA Alternative J but which do not result
in CNEL above 65 dBA
There are 17 sites AVl AV2 AV4 EO 11 LMA LW2 MJD MV2 MVC OC2 OC3 OKE PHI SCC SMl and SMA that would experience CNEL levels above 60 dBA under
at least one of the alternatives

MCAS El Toro Master Development Plan
67 Appendix E Technical Report Noise Analysis Airport System Master Plan 109
109 Page 110 111
Table 5.1 1OA
Comparison of Years 1998 and 2020 CNEL At Sensitive Receptor Locations For AII Alternatives

I Location Yea 199f AH1 ANH AVl AV2 AV3

AV4
cc1
CHI
DPI
DP2
EU
FE
FRI
FRE
I I
12
13
14
I5
I6
IMC
LB1
LB2
LFl
LF2
LF3
LF4
LF5
LHl
LMA
LN1
LN2
LWI
LWZ
MHE
MJD
MVl
MV2
MVC
Of
UC1
oc2
oc3
OKE
PHI
SCC
SMI
SM2
SM3
SM4
SM5
SMA
Tl
IWCE

NA
58 t
60.5
60X
60.1
60.8
48.7
41.0
56.7
55.0
38.4
58.0
56.4
55.7
54.5
55.1
54.0
53.7
54.6
47.8
54.0
47.6
54.0
53.2
51.2
55.3
55.7
53.5
48.3
63.7
59.5
53.7
59.5
60.9
54.7
60.9
52.0
57.1
63.4
34.6
59.7
60.9
60.7
54.2
58.7
56.9
55.5
53.3
52.6
47.7
45.1
60.4
38.7
57.5

Year 2020
A B
Alternative
C Ii I J

49.1 56.0
58.2 59.2
59.6 60.5
60.9 61.7
58.9 59.9
60.2 61.2
53.8 53.8
31.0 35.0
53.9 55.0
51.5 52.6
59.1 66.3
57.6 58.5
59.4 59.4
58.0 58.2
52.5 57.6
46.3 50.2
43.4 45.7
40.2 42.8
42.6 45.4
35.4 37.4
43.2 45.8
44.1 44.6
50.0 51.0
51.0 52.4
48.1 51.1
55.7 56.0
57.6 57.9
56.0 56.7
44 5 45.5
63.7 64.5
58.2 59.2
52.0 52.9
58.0 59.1
62.4 63.4
59.8 59.8
60.2 61.2
54.7 56.1
61.5 61.4
64.0 65.0
44.7 48.1
54.6 55.8
60.0 61 I
61.8 62.7
51.3 52.4
61.2 60.6
60.4 60.8
60.6 60.2
58.2 58.9
57.7 57.3
51.3 50.2
49.1 50.6
59.2 60.2
41.4 45.2

56.6 57.6

56.2 47.7 47.6
58.4 57.2 57.5
59.6 58.6 58.8
60.9 59.9 60.1
59.1 57.9 58.2
60.3 59.1 59.4
52.7 53.5 52.9
34.9 30.4 30.0
54.4 52.8 53.1
51.9 50.4 50.6
66.5 56.8 57.6
57.7 56.5 56.8
58.3 58.4 58.6
57.0 56.9 57.2
57.6 50.6 51.3
49.9 44.9 45.2
45.2 42.5 42.4
42.2 39.4 39.2
44.9 42.0 41.6
37.0 37.7 34.4
45.2 42.4 42.2
43.8 44.4 43.2
50.2 49.2 49.2
51.5 50.0 50.2
50.7 46.9 47.1
54.8 54.3 55.0
56.7 56.6 56.9
55.5 55.1 55.2
44.6 44.0 43.7
63.7 62.4 62.9
58.5 57.0 57.4
52.1 51.2 51.2
58.3 56.8 57.2
62.5 61.1 61.6
58.9 59.0 58.9
60.4 59.1 59.4
55.0 53.9 53.9
60.5 60.6 60.7
64.2 62.8 63.2
47.6 43.2 43.7
55.0 53.5 53.8
60.2 58.8 59.2
61.9 60.6 61.0
51.5 50.5 50.5
59.6 60.2 60.4
59.7 59.3 59.5
59.3 59.7 59.7
57.9 57.5 57.3
56.3 57.2 56.9
48.5 50.6 50.5
49.4 48.5 48.3
59.3 58.1 58.4
44.9 40.2 40.5

57.4
57.6
59.6 110
110 Page 111 112
Table 5.1 1OB
Comparison of Years 1998 and 2020 CNEL
At Sensitive Recentor Locations For Alternative B

Location
Yeal
199e

AH1 NA
ANH 58 f
AVI 60.5
AV2 60.6
AV3 60.1
AV4 6O e
CC1 48.7
CHl 4l C
DPl 56.7
DP2 55 c
EO 38.4
FE 58 C
FRf 56.4
FRE 55.7
I I 54.2
I2 55.1
13 54 c
14 53.7

I5 54 E
16 47.8
IMC 54 c
LB1 47.6
LB2 54.0
LFI 53.2
lF2 51.2
LF3 55.3
LF4 55.7
LF5 53.5
LHI 48.3
LMA 63.7
LNl 59.5
LN2 53.7
LWI 59.5
LWZ 60.9
MHE 54.7
MJD 60.9
MVI 52.0
MV2 57.1
MVC 63.4
01 34.6
OCI 59.7
OC2 60.9
oc3 60.7
OKE 54.2
PHl 58.7
see 56.9
SMl 55.5
SM2 53.3
SM3 52.6
SM4 47.7
SM5 45.1
SMA 60.4
Tl 38.7

m
Increases Increases
Year 2020 greater than 1.5 dB greater than 3.0 dB
Akemative B increase Within 65 CNEL Contour Within 60 CNEL Contour
I
I

i
I

I
I

I
1

I
i
I 27.9
i

56 C
59.2
60.2
61.7
59 S
61.2
53.8
35 c
55 c
52.6
66.3
58.5
59.4
58.2
57.6
50.2
45.7
42.8
45.4
37.4
45.8
44.6
51 o
52.4
51 I
56.0
57.9
56.7
45.5
64.5
59.2
52.9
59.1
63.4
59.8
61.2
56.1
61.4
65.0
48.1
55.8
61.1
62.7
52.4
60.6
60.8
60.2
58.9
57.3
50.2
50.6
60.2
45.2
57.6

5
0.4
0.0
1.1
-0.2
0.4
5 .1
-6.0
-1.7
-2.4
27.9 27.5 27.5
0.5
3.0
2.5
3.1
-4.9
-8.3
-10.9
-9.2
-10.4
-8.2
-3.0
-3.0
-0.8
U 1
0.7
2.2
3.2
-2.8
0.8
-0.3
-0.8
-0.4
2.5
5.1
0.3
4.1
4.3 4.3 4.3
1.6 1.6
13.5
-3.9
0.2
2.0
-1.8
1.9
3.9 3.9 3.9
4.7 4.7 4.7
5.6
4.7
2.5
5.5
-0.2
6.5

0.1 WCE I V r 7 c 111
111 Page 112 113
Table 5.1 1 OB demonstrates that Alternative B creates impacts at two receptor sites at the criterion levels considered significant by the FAA These are sites EO and MVC which are
described in the paragraphs above and because of their use EO or land use limitations MVC are nut significantly impacted by the proposed project If these sites meet the FAA
criteria for analysis of areas within the 60 CNEL contour with noise increases of 3 dB then 4 additional sites fall into that category for the proposed project MV2 PHI SCC and
SMl Of these all are residential areas except for SCC which is a church All of these sites are in the departure corridor for Runway 7

In the approach corridor from the south and the departure corridor to the east most residential receptor locations will experience little difference in CNEL relative to 1998
military operations Most changes range only between plus or minus 1 or 2 dBA CNEL depending on the location and the alternative Such differences would be imperceptible to
the average human and none of the increases raise levels above 65 CNEL
In the west corridor where the military conducted the FMLP and FCLP operations CNEL will decrease as much as 12 dBA

The greatest increase in CNEL will occur to the north where departures on Runway s 34 will over fly areas not regularly over flown by military aircraft The residential receptors in
this area AHl 01 CHl EO and Tl show future noise exposure in up to 56 dB CNEL which represents a substantial increase over existing military noise exposure note that
historical military over flights from MCAS Tustin H and approaches to John Wayne Airport were not considered in this comparison

5.1.5 SENEL CONTOURS FOR EL TORO ALTERNATIVES
Each aircraft operation has a unique single event noise characteristic depending on aircraft type type of operation arrival or departure flight track weight operational procedure and
meteorology The single event data presented here represent for a given aircraft the average noise level that an aircraft type is expected to produce over an annual period for the
given operation and operating weight on the typical tracks used on each runway Please note that each departure case assumes the heaviest aircraft weight available for that runway
Approach noise is not sensitive to weight
SENEL values for the type of civilian aircraft forecasted to use El Toro were computer
modeled to produce 86 dB contours The aircraft chosen for this analysis were the Boeing 777 737 300 Boeing 757 Boeing 747 400 McDonnell Douglas MD 1 1 MD 80 and

Boeing 727 hushkit aircraft These are representative aircraft of the narrow body and wide
body jet aircraft for the year 2020 except for the 727 which will be used only the interim years

MCAS El Toro Master Development Plan
68 Appendix E Technical Report Noise Analysis Airport System Master Plan 112
112 Page 113 114
Exhibits 5.1 24 5.1 25 and 5.1 26 present 86 dB SENEL noise contours for normal runway use conditions Exhibit 5.1 27 presents SENEL contours for south flow conditions arrivals
from the north occur less than 4 of the time and departures to south occur less than 2 of the time The 86 dBA SENEL would correspond to a maximum noise level of about 76
dBA outdoors With windows open there would be at least a 10 dB to 12 dBA noise
reduction to the indoor area for a typical home resulting in a 65 dBA interior maximum noise level This noise level 65 dBA maximum during noise event indoors can be thought

of as quieter than the typical television sound in the home 70 to 75 dBA and is about the same as normal face to face conversation 60 65 dBA

Examination of the civilian SENEL contours indicate they are vastly smaller than those for the military F A 18 shown on Exhibits 4 7 Secondly with the exception of the noisiest
aircraft such as the 747 400 the MD 83 and the hush kitted 727 the 86 dBA SENEL contours are contained within the noise buffer zone created by the military noise and the
County's historical land use restriction policy implementation line PIL The relative noisier aircraft are those forecasted to use El Toro the least The hush kitted 727 will use El
Toro only in the interim years and at relatively low activity levels The noisy 747 400 and MD 83 account for 5 of the departures on RW 07 and 6 of the arrivals on RW 34
Therefore for the great majority of civilian aircraft using El Toro the 86dBA SENEL contours will be confined to the existing noise buffer zone

5.1.6 SENEL AT RECEPTOR LOCATIONS FOR EL TORO ALTERNATIVES
In addition to the single event noise contours that are presented above single event noise can also be reported at specific receptor locations INM Version 5.2 was used to generate
single event specific point data at the same receptor locations described in the previous sections A variety of tables and analysis are available from this analysis

Civilian SENEL at the receptor sites mirrors the SENEL contours and is lower than that from existing military aircraft as shown on Table 4 13 A comparison between existing
military and civilian SENEL is presented on Table 5.1 l 1 at three sensitive receptor sites The nosiest civilian SENEL is 5dBA to 12dBA lower than the military SENEL

Table 5.1 12 includes some voluminous but informative data in its fourteen pages To describe SENEL at each receptor site two histograms are presented for each site The first
histogram presents the number of aircraft fly over events by SENEL forecast for each receptor site under Alternative B for the year 2020 The second histogram displays the
SENEL value for each aircraft type for both arrival and departure at each receptor site Thus these data allow the reader to reference any of the receptor sites and determine the
number of events forecast for the year 2020 and the noise level of events that can be expected to occur under Alternative B The SENEL values fur aircraft type apply to all
Alternatives except J SENEL values for Alternative J may be somewhat higher at receptor sites located easterly of the North South arrival departure corridors

MCAS El Toro Master Development Plan
6 9 Appendix E Technical Report Noise Analysis Airport System Master Plan 113
113 Page 114 115
Table 5.1 l 1
CORRIDOR COMPARISON OF 1998 MILITARY OPERATIONS AND NOISE AND ALTERNATIVE B

Civilian Jet
Year 1998 Year 2020
Corridor Military Jet AIternativeB Military SENEL Aircraft Civil SENEL Aircraft

D South Corridor LNl Number
of Arrivals Per Day 12 325 SEEL 94.5 86 F A t8 WA approach 747400 approach

8 I MD 1 I approach
78 B 757 approach
78 B 737 approach
Total CNEL 59.4 59.6

B East Corridor LF3 Number
of Departures Per Day 7 203 96.1 8 1 F A 18 departure MD t 1 departure

74 B 757 departure
77 B 737 departure

Total CNEL 55.6 56.4

D North Corridor II Number
of Departures Per Day 6 129 98.6 88 F A 78 departure B 747 departure

EEL 85 MD f 1 departure
SENEL 79 B 737 departure
Total CNEL 53.4 58.6 114
114 Page 115 116
Table 5.142 Single Event Histograms and Bar Charts
Year 2020 Alternative B
Histogram of SENEL Site AH1 Maximum SENEL by Aircraft Type Site AHl
6 1

7 5 8 0 8 5 9 0 9 5 loo 105 110 60 6 5 7 0 7 5 8 0 8 5 9 0 9 5
SENEL dBA SENEL dBA

Histogram of SENEL Site ANH Maximum SENEL by Aircraft Type site ANH

7 5 8 0 8 5 9 0 9 5 loo 105 110 6 0 6 5 7 0 7 5 8 0 8 5 9 0 9 5
SENEL dBA SENEL dBA

Histogram of SENEC Site AVl Maximum SENEl by Airwaft Type Site AVl
g 3 5
mm ZL
0 25
Ei 20
3 15

E 1 0
r 5 0 I I I LLLm I I

7 5 8 0 8 5 9 0 95 loo 105 110
SENEL dBA

Histogram of SENEL Site AVZ Maximum SENEL by Aircraft Type Site AV2
l e 540
g 3 5
z 30 0 2 5

0 20
3 1 5
f 1 0
2 5

5 0 3 I

9 0 9 5
SENEL dBA

727EM2
MD83
MDllGE
777200
767300

MDllGE
777200
767300

II I I 1 I I

I I I I I
I

z3z
6 0 6 5 7 0 7 5 80 8 5 90
SENEl dBA I

727EW
MD83
MlXlGE
777200
767300

757PW
747400
7373B2 q

6 0 6 5 7 0 7 5 8 0 8 5 90 9 5
SENEL dBA

Note The 727EM2 is not a part of the 2020 fleet It is a part of the interim year fleet 115
115 Page 116 117
Table 5.142 Continued Single Event Histograms and Bar Charts
Year 2020 Alternative B
Histogram of SENEL Site AVS Maximum SENEL by Airwaft Type Site AVS

9 0 9 5
SENEL dBA

Histogram of SENEt Site AV4 Maximum SENEL by Aircraft Type S e AV4 I
90
8 0
7 0
6 0
5 0
40
3 0
2 0
7u
0
7 5 9 0 9 5

SENEL dBA

Histogram of SENEL Site Cc1 Maximum SENEL by Aircraft Type Site CC3

9 0 9 5
SENEL dBA

747400
7373B2 1

60 6 5 70 7 5 8 0 8 5 90 95
SENEL dBA

Hiimm of SENEL ate CHI Maximum SENEL by Aircraft Type Site CHl
c

o 75 8 0 8 5 9 0 9 5 700 705 710
SENEL dBA

747400
7373B2 a

60 6 5 7 0 7 5 80 85 90 9 5
SENEL dBA

6 0 6 5 7 0 7 5 8 0 8 5 90 9 5
SENEL dBA

727EM2
MD83
MDl7GE
777200
767300
757 W

7373B2 I i
6 0 6 5 7 0 7 5 8 0 8 5 9 0 9 5
SENEL dBA

Note The 727EM2 is not a part of the 2020 fleet It is a part of the interim year fleet 116
116 Page 117 118
Table 5.1 U Continued Single Event EIistograms and Bar Charts
Year 2020 Alternative B
Histngam of SENEL Site DPl Maximum SENEL by Aircraft Type Site DPI

g 25
2 0

g I5
L 1 0 B

f 2 5

~mDeparlure 1

737382 jv
6 0 6 5 7 0 7 5 8 0 8 5 9 0 9 5
SENEL dBA
9 0 9 5
SENEL dBA

Maximum SENEL by Aircraft Type SW DP2 Histogam of SENEL Site DP2
MD83
MDllGE

777200
767300
757PW
747400
7 3 7 3 8 2

6 0 6 5 7 0 7 5 8 0 8 5 9 0 95
SENEL dBA
9 0 9 5
SENEL d0A

Hiigram of SENEL Site EO Maximum SENEL by Aircraft Type Sk EO
727EM2
M D 8 3
MD'1 GE
777200
767300
757PW
747400
7373B2 1

6 0 6 5 7 0 7 5 8 0 8 5 9 0 95
SENEL dBA

g 14
g 12

b lo
L 6
II E 4

2 2

q AtTiVd I
l Departure

lo 105 9 0 9 5
SENEL dBA

Histogam of SENEL Sk FE Maximum SENEL by Aircraft Type SW FE

MD1 IGE
777200
767300
757PW

I

6 0 6 5 7 0 7 5 8 0 8 5 9 0 9 5 100 105
SENEL dBA
9 0 95
SENEL dBA

Note The 727EM2 is not a part of the 2020 fleet It is a part of the interim year fleet 117
117 Page 118 119
Table 5.142 Continued Single Event Histograms and Bar Charts
Year 2020 Alternative B
Histogram of SENEL Site FRl Maximum SENEL by Aircraft Type Site FRI
2 5

t 10
x
f 5 2

0
75 8 0 8 5 90 9 5 100 105 110
SENEL d6A

2 5
Histogram of SENEL Site FRE Maximum SENEL by Aircraft Type Sk FRE

1

80 85 90 95 loo to5 110
SENEL dBA

Histogram of SENEL Site tl Maximum SENEL by Airwaft Type Sibe H

90 9 5
SEtJEL dBA

747400 I 1
2 7 3 7 3 8 2 I I I I

1 1 I I T i 1 I 1 1
6 0 6 5 7 0 7 5 8 0 8 5 90 9 5
SENEL dBA

MDllGE
767300

7 3 7 3 0 2 I I I 1 I
60 6 5 7 0 7 5 8 0 8 5 9 0 9 5
SENEL dBA

Note The 727EM2 is not a part of the 2020 fleet It is a part of the interim year fleet 118
118 Page 119 120
Table 5.142 Continued Single Event Histograms and Bar Charts
Year 2020 Alternative B
Histogram of SENEL Site 12 Maximum SENEL by Aircraft Type Site 12
6 1
g5
Pg4

s L
9 E 31
2

7 5 8 0 8 5 9 0 9 5 100 105 110 60 6 5 7 0 7 5 8 0 8 5 90 9 5
SENEL dBA SENEL dBA

Hiigram of SENEL Site 13

o t w l 7 5 8 0 8 5 9 0 9 5 100 105 110
SENEL dBA

Histogrrrm of SENEL Site 14 Maximum SENEL by Airwlaft Type Site I4

u r 7 5 8 0 8 5 9 0 9 5 100 105 110
SENEL dBA

Histugam of SENEL Site 15 Maximum SENEL by Aircraft Type Site I5
I 0 .9 1 1
5 0 .8 I
pa 0 .7 1 I

o 7 5 80 8 5 9 0 9 5 100 105 110
SENEL d8A

727EM2
M D 8 3

MD1 IGE
777200
767300
757PW
747400
7 3 7 3 8 2

I Maximum SENEL by Ainrraft Type Sk W

0 6 5 7 0 7 5 8 0 8 5 9 0 9 5
SENEL dBA

727EM2
M D 8 3
MDllGE
777200
767300
757PW
747400
7373B2

60 6 5 7 0 7 5 8 0 8 5 90 9 5
SENEL d8A

MD83
MDIIGE
777200
7 6 7 3 0 0

757PW
747400
7 3 7 3 0 2

6 0 6 5 70 7 5 80 8 5 9 0 9 5
SENEL dBA

Note The 727EM2 is not a part of the 2020 fket It is a part of the interim year fleet 119
119 Page 120 121
Table 5.142 Continued Single Event Eist ams and Bar Charts
Year 2020 Alternative B
Hktogram of SENEL Sitn 16

g 0.1
1 0.08
g 0.06
2 u 04
E 3 t 0.02

8 5 9 0 9 5 too 105 110
SENEL dBA

Histogram of SENEL Site IMC Maximum SENEL by Aircraft Type Site IMC

90 9 5
SENEL d8A

Histogmm of SENEL Sk LB1
c 0.1
1 0.08

9 0 9 5
SENEL dBA

Histogram of SENEL Site LB2 I

4 g 3 .5

9 0 9 5
SENEL dBA

Maximum SENEL by Aircraft Type S X 16
727EM2 y
MD83 t 4 I

MDllGE
I I
1 777200 1 I I I I

767300 I I I l 1 f 1 1
757PW I I I I t

i 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95
SENEL dBA

60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95
SENEL dBA

Maximum SENEL by Airwaft Type Sk LB1

I 8 I r 60 6 5 7 0 7 5 8 0 8 5 9 0 9 5
SENEL dBA

Maximum SENEL by Airwaft Type Site LB2
727EM2
MD83
MD1 1GE
7 7 7 2 0 0 p
7 6 7 3 0 0 I I
I 757PW 1 1

I 1 1
60 6 5 7 0 7 5 8 0 8 5 9 0 9 5

SENEL dBA

Note The 727EM2 is not a part of the 2020 fleet It is a part of the interim year fleet 120
120 Page 121 122
Table 5.1 12 Continued Single Event Histograms and Bar Cimrts
Year 2020 Alternative B
Histogram of SENEL SW LFl Maximum SENEL by Aircraft Type Site LFl

I I
727EM2 L J I L
MD83
MDllGE
777200
767300
757PW
747400
737382

75 80 85 90 95 too 705 110 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95
SENEL dBA SENEL dBA

s 4

E 3.5 3
0 2.5

E 2 g 1.5

5 t 2 0.5
0

Maximum SENEL by Aircraft Type Site LFZ Histogram of SENEL side LF2
727EM2
MDa3
MDllGE
777200
767300
757PW
747400
7373B2

4.5 c
g 3.5 4

8 3 u 2.5
s 5 2
0 1.5

f 2 0.5

0 r I
70 75 80 85 90 95

SEFIEL dBA
60 65 90 95
SENEL dBA

Histogram of SENEL Site LF3 Maximum SENEL by Aircraft Type Site 1
727EM2
MD83

MDllGE
777200
767300
757PW
747400
737382

143 1
g 12
Q 7o m