Free Motion to Dismiss - Rule 12(b)(1) - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:01-cv-00201-VJW

Document 162-15

Filed 04/28/2006

Page 1 of 17

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS CAROLE AND ROBERT TESTWUIDE, ) et. al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) THE UNITED STATES, ) ) Defendant. ) ________________________________ )

No. 01-201 L Honorable Victor J. Wolski

DEFENDANT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF UNCONTROVERTED FACT IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO DISMISS OR, ALTERNATIVELY, FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Pursuant to Rule 56(h)(1) of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims, Defendant United States of America submits the following proposed findings of uncontroverted fact in support of its Motion to Dismiss or, alternatively, for Summary Judgment. The exhibits cited below are being submitted electronically as attachments to Defendant's motion. 1. Naval Air Station ("NAS") Oceana is located in Virginia's southeastern

coastal region within the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia. Declaration of Captain Thomas F. Keeley ("Keeley Decl."), Exhibit A, ¶ 6. Virginia Beach is part of the Hampton Roads region, which includes six counties and seven cities in addition to Virginia Beach, Chesapeake, and Norfolk. Keeley Decl., ¶ 6. Located south of the Chesapeake Bay and west of the Atlantic Ocean, NAS Oceana is approximately 100 miles southeast of Richmond, Virginia, and 200 miles northeast of Raleigh, North Carolina. Keeley Decl., ¶ 6. For over sixty-five years, NAS Oceana has been vital to U.S. Naval aviation and of strategic importance to national defense. Keeley Decl., ¶ 6.

Case 1:01-cv-00201-VJW

Document 162-15

Filed 04/28/2006

Page 2 of 17

2.

NAS Oceana was commissioned on August 17, 1943, and designated a

Master Jet Base in 1957. Keeley Decl., ¶ 7. A Master Jet Base is a location with permanent basing of carrier air groups, including in some cases the provision of auxiliary landing fields to conduct Field Carrier Landing Practice ("FCLP") exercises. Keeley Decl., ¶¶ 7, 9. 3. The United States Navy's ("Navy") finest tactical jet aircraft have been

flown by squadrons assigned to NAS Oceana, including the A-4 Skyhawk, the F-4 Phantom, the A-6 Intruder, the F-14 Tomcat, and the F/A-18 Hornet. Keeley Decl., ¶ 7. The facility currently serves as home base for 16 F/A-18 squadrons, including 10 squadrons of F/A-18 C/D Hornet aircraft that were realigned to NAS Oceana from NAS Cecil Field in Florida as a result of the Navy=s implementation of the 1995 round of base closures that were conducted pursuant to the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, as amended (10 U.S.C. § 2687 note) (ABRAC Law"). Keeley Decl., ¶ 8. The mission of all NAS Oceana squadrons is to be prepared to conduct timely, sustained combat operations from the sea, in support of our Nation's interests, whenever called upon to do so. Keeley Decl., ¶ 8. 4. NAS Oceana is located on nearly 5,400 acres and employs over 12,000

Navy employees. Keeley Decl., ¶ 10. The base spends approximately $400 to $500 million per year in goods and services and has a gross annual payroll of over $773 million, with a total economic impact on the Hampton Roads region exceeding $1 billion annually. Keeley Decl., ¶ 10. NAS Oceana is the largest employer in Virginia Beach. Keeley Decl., ¶ 10. 5. To train for operating from an aircraft carrier at sea, squadrons stationed at 2

Case 1:01-cv-00201-VJW

Document 162-15

Filed 04/28/2006

Page 3 of 17

NAS Oceana typically use nearby Naval Auxiliary Landing Field ("NALF") Fentress for Field Carrier Landing Practice ("FCLP") operations. Keeley Decl., ¶ 9. FCLPS are touch-and-go operations performed on a runway designed to simulate landing on an aircraft carrier. Keeley Decl., ¶ 9. NALF Fentress was established in 1940 and is located approximately seven miles southwest of NAS Oceana in Chesapeake, Virginia. NALF Fentress is under the command of NAS Oceana. Keeley Decl., ¶ 9. 6. Flight operations at NAS Oceana, as with any naval air station, are

reported annually in the air station's Air Traffic Activity Reports ("ATARs"). Declaration of Commander Stephen G. Riley III ("Riley Decl."), Exhibit B, ¶¶ 6, 7. Until 1996, NAS Oceana ATARs were single-page forms that reflected the number of aircraft operations that occurred at the NAS Oceana airfield on an annual basis. Riley Decl., ¶¶ 7, 15. Operations at NALF Fentress were documented in the "Remarks" section of ATARs prepared before 1996. See also Riley Decl., Footnote 2 (some earlier ATARs cover periods of less than one year, in which case one must add the data from the two or more ATARs that, together, cover that year). 7. Beginning in 1996, ATARs, including those for NAS Oceana, were

separated into two forms. Riley Decl., ¶ 20. One ATAR form, "Control Tower Operations," reported the number of aircraft operations in the air space controlled by NAS Oceana's air traffic control tower. Riley Decl., ¶ 20. 8. The second ATAR form, "Approach Control Operations," recorded the

number of aircraft operations counted by radar room personnel. Riley Decl., ¶ 21. The NAS Oceana air traffic control tower air space includes a limited geographic area surrounding the air station. Riley Decl., ¶ 9. It extends to distances of 4.3 to 5 nautical

3

Case 1:01-cv-00201-VJW

Document 162-15

Filed 04/28/2006

Page 4 of 17

miles away from the air station, depending upon direction, and up to an altitude of 2,500 feet. Riley Decl., ¶ 9. Conversely, the air space controlled by radar is far greater, extending in some cases many miles, and up to an altitude of 23,000 feet, but does not include the control tower's air space. Riley Decl., ¶ 10. 9. Compared to many prior years, however, 1999 was a year of relatively

light flight activity - less than 133,000 operations as indicated by the 1999 ATAR forms. Riley Decl., ¶ 22, Table 1. By comparison, in 1981 the reported number of operations was 231,753. Riley Decl., Table 1. As CDR Stephen Riley indicates in his declaration, the older ATARs are not precisely an "apples-to-apples" comparison with the newer (1996 and thereafter) ATARs in terms of the number of operations that occurred in the control tower's airspace. Riley Decl., ¶¶ 15-22. Nevertheless, the bottom line number on the older forms is a "reasonably close approximation" of the operations in the control tower's airspace that year. Riley Decl., ¶ 18. 10. And in 1982, there were close to 178,000 operations. See Riley Decl.,

Table 1. The high operations continued between 1989 and 1995 as well with annual operations consistently approaching or exceeding 200,000 operations, including a high of over 229,000 operations in 1992. See Riley Decl., Table 1. 11. NAS Oceana has four runways that operate in both directions. Declaration

of Commander Richard S. Erie ("Erie Decl."), Exhibit D, ¶ 6. The dual intersecting runways are designated Runways 5/23 Left and Right and Runways 14/32 Left and Right as follows1:

1

See Erie Decl., ¶ 8.

4

Case 1:01-cv-00201-VJW

Document 162-15

Filed 04/28/2006

Page 5 of 17

R 23 23 R 32 32 L

12.

The designation of the runway depends on which way the runway is to be

approached. The primary factor dictating runway use is wind direction. Erie Decl., ¶ 9. As reflected in studies at NAS Oceana, the relative frequency of the use of each runway has remained generally the same, consistent with the following approximate percentages2: Runway 5L/R ­ 50% Runway 23L/R ­ 34% Runway 32L/R ­ 14% Runway 14L/R ­ 2% 13. NAS Oceana provides for the safe operation of its aircraft with "course

rules" that provide guidance for the basic departure, arrival and landing procedures pilots follow. Erie Decl., ¶ 10. The course rules incorporate guidance on altitude and flight

tracks to provide sufficient separation of aircraft out of and back into the air station. Erie Decl., ¶¶ 11, 12.
2

See Erie Decl., ¶ 25.

5

L

1 1 14

L R R R 14 L L 5L 5 5 5R

Case 1:01-cv-00201-VJW

Document 162-15

Filed 04/28/2006

Page 6 of 17

14.

As is the case with any Navy or Marine Corps air station to which carrier-

based aircraft are assigned, the shore-based landing procedures and patterns at NAS Oceana are designed to mirror the procedures and pattern used when landing on an aircraft carrier at sea. Erie Decl., ¶ 13. 15. Landing an aircraft on a moving (sometimes pitching and rolling) ship in

daylight hours is an extremely difficult endeavor; at night it becomes arguably the most challenging maneuver in aviation. Erie Decl., ¶ 14. The patterns flown day and night around the aircraft carrier are designed to maneuver each aircraft into a position behind the ship where the pilot can land the aircraft through use of the Fresnel Lens Optical Landing System ("FLOLS"). Erie Decl., ¶ 14. The FLOLS is a series of lights that allow the pilot to observe his position so that he may make the appropriate adjustments to land safely. Erie Decl., ¶ 14. 16. While the basic "stick and rudder" skills required are acquired early in a

flying career, the fine motor skills to do it safely and successfully every time are perishable, necessitating continuous refresher training. Erie Decl., ¶ 14. Consequently, every runway in use at a Navy field has a FLOLS at the approach end so that pilots may always practice "flying the ball," and pilots practice shipboard landing every time they land an aircraft. Erie Decl., ¶ 14. 17. The VFR ("Visual Flight Rules") landing pattern is a left-hand racetrack

or oval pattern oriented along a runway heading with one end of that oval being a descent to landing. Erie Decl., ¶ 15. When landing at sea, the altitude of the landing pattern is 600 feet. Erie Decl., ¶ 15. 18. As a noise mitigation measure, the pattern at NAS Oceana was elevated to

6

Case 1:01-cv-00201-VJW

Document 162-15

Filed 04/28/2006

Page 7 of 17

1,000 feet many years ago. Erie Decl., ¶ 15. 19. In general, pilots strive to recreate the "approach turn" to landing in the

same manner every time, from a location 1.1 to 1.5 nautical miles abeam (directly to the side) of the intended point of landing, at 1,000 feet above ground. Erie Decl., ¶ 15. Each position along the racetrack pattern has specific aircraft parameters that the pilot is looking to maintain. Erie Decl., ¶ 15. The diagram below is illustrative of the VFR landing pattern3:
"Crosswind Turn" (Level turn at pattern altitude)

"Downwind"

"The 180" (Short for "180 degrees to go until runway heading")

1.3 - 1.51.5 1.1 ­ miles

Intended point of landing

"The 90"

"Approach Turn" (Descending turn from pattern altitude to touchdown)

20.

Aircraft enter the pattern by performing "the break," which means they fly

upwind in the direction of the runway heading and then execute the "crosswind turn" to head downwind. Erie Decl., ¶ 17. The location of the "crosswind turn" will vary
3

See Erie Decl., ¶ 16.

7

Case 1:01-cv-00201-VJW

Document 162-15

Filed 04/28/2006

Page 8 of 17

depending, in part, upon the number of aircraft in the pattern. Erie Decl., ¶ 18. In general, the more aircraft in the pattern, the more the oval will extend. Erie Decl., ¶ 18. 21. At NAS Oceana, "the break" is performed at an altitude of 1,500 feet.

Erie Decl., ¶ 17. Once on the downwind heading, aircraft descend to a pattern altitude of 1,000 feet and decelerate as they move towards "the 180" (the point at which the aircraft begins its turn to land). Erie Decl., ¶ 17. "The 90" is the point halfway through the approach turn. Erie Decl., ¶ 17. 22. Because of the requirement for continuous training in carrier landing,

"touch-and-go" operations are performed regularly at NAS Oceana. Keeley Decl., ¶ 15. As the name implies, a touch-and-go involves a practice takeoff and landing. Keeley Decl., ¶ 15. Aircraft will typically perform one to three touch-and-go operations upon arrival at the station. Keely Decl., ¶¶ 16, 19. 23. FCLPs do, however, share some similarities with touch-and-go operations.

Keeley Decl., ¶ 18. The basic geometry of the touch-and-go and FCLP patterns is the same. Keeley Decl., ¶ 17. At NAS Oceana the pattern altitude for both touch-and-gos and FCLPs is 1,000 feet. Keeley Decl., ¶ 18. However, there is a critical difference between touch-and-gos and FCLPs, namely the intensity and duration of FCLP's versus touch-and-go landings. Keeley Decl., ¶ 18. 24. The "approach turn" will also vary, but to a lesser degree than the

"crosswind turn." Erie Decl., ¶ 19. For example, the position of "the 180" will vary based on winds in the upwind direction. Erie Decl., ¶¶ 19-20. When winds in the upwind direction are light, the aircraft will have to fly a longer downwind leg before it begins its approach turn, to allow enough room for the aircraft to still have the required

8

Case 1:01-cv-00201-VJW

Document 162-15

Filed 04/28/2006

Page 9 of 17

15-18 seconds for the final approach heading. Erie Decl., ¶ 19. When this occurs the "approach turn" end of the oval will lengthen. Erie Decl., ¶ 19. Conversely, with higher winds in the upwind direction, the "approach turn" will occur closer to the ideal abeam position, because when the plane turns to head upwind it will require less space in which to line up for final approach. Erie Decl., ¶ 19. 25. An FCLP pattern can have as many as five aircraft in it at one time.

FCLPs are prescheduled, graded training periods, that normally last approximately 45 minutes, during which each aircraft will conduct from seven to ten touch-and-gos. Keeley Decl., ¶ 19. In contrast, an individual aircraft would typically perform approximately one to three touch-and-gos, and, while it is not uncommon to have more than one aircraft in the pattern performing touch-and-gos at the same time, it is generally one to three aircraft. Keeley Decl., ¶ 19. 26. FCLP operations are primarily conducted at Naval Auxiliary Landing

Field ("NALF") Fentress rather than NAS Oceana. Keeley Decl., ¶ 9. 27. The departure, arrival, and landing patterns at NAS Oceana have remained

generally the same over the years. Keeley Decl., ¶ 12. The altitudes at which these patterns were flown in the last three decades have changed somewhat, in that some pattern elevations have been raised, but these changes only served to reduce noise impacts on the ground and did not affect the nominal flight tracks or altitude that the aircraft flew when in the landing patterns. Keeley Decl., ¶ 13. 28. Notwithstanding the relative consistency of the predominant flight tracks,

no two flights, even of the same aircraft flown by the same pilot, are identical; nor does each flight proceed at precisely the same altitude throughout the flight or cover precisely

9

Case 1:01-cv-00201-VJW

Document 162-15

Filed 04/28/2006

Page 10 of 17

the same track over the ground. Keeley Decl., ¶ 20. None of the changes in flight operations since at least 1979 would have affected any of the flight operations with respect to the test plaintiffs' properties. Keeley Decl., ¶ 13. 29. The predominant aircraft that have operated at NAS Oceana have included

the F-4 Phantom, the A-6 Intruder, the F-14 Tomcat, and the F/A-18 Hornet. Keeley Decl., ¶ 7. The F-4 Phantom operated in the 1960s, 1970s, and early 1980s. Keeley Decl., ¶ 7. The A-6 Intruder operated from the 1970s through the mid-1990s. Keeley Decl., ¶ 7. The F-14 Tomcat has operated at NAS Oceana from the mid-1970s until the present. Keeley Decl., ¶ 7. Although one squadron of F/A-18 A aircraft was present at NAS Oceana since the mid-1990's, the first F/A-18 C/D Hornet squadrons arrived at NAS Oceana in December, 1998. Keeley Decl., ¶ 7. 30. These various fighter jets produce different noise levels for a variety of

reasons, such as size, weight, design, and engine type. Revised Report of Sanford Fidell, 29 March 2006, ("Fidell Report"), Exhibit E, p. 15. A relative comparison of the perceived single event noise level produced by these aircraft can be found in NOISEMAP, the computer program relied upon by the Department of Defense to estimate noise exposure surrounding military air stations. Fidell Report, p. 3. 31. The most widely accepted frequency-weighting procedure for annoyance

comparisons is the Perceived Noise Level ("PNL"), which accords more weight to the more annoying high frequency sound bands. Fidell Report, p. 14. 32. NOISEMAP contains the most consistent and comprehensive database of

field measurements of noise produced by military aircraft in various modes, including departure, approach, and pattern operations. Fidell Report, p. 15. The database does not

10

Case 1:01-cv-00201-VJW

Document 162-15

Filed 04/28/2006

Page 11 of 17

have measurements for all the variant aircraft in all operations. Fidell Report, p. 15. It is common to substitute one aircraft's noise measurements for another, particularly when the aircraft share the same engines and are similar in weight. Fidell Report, p. 15. 33. The following table provides the maximum tone-corrected PNLs for the

various aircraft, which reflects the greatest single value measured in decibels ("dB") at any instant during a flyover4:
AIRCRAFT A6-A F-4C F-14A F-14B F/A-18 C/D DEPARTURE 120.7 123.2 118.2 120.9 121.9 APPROACH 116.1 112.6 102.4 99.2 116.5 PATTERN No data 114.5 103.2 101.9 102.2

34.

Aircraft single event noise levels are also measured in terms of the sound

exposure level (SEL), which reflects the total energy produced in a single flyover, normalized to a hypothetical one-second duration. Fidell Report, p. 14, 23. 35. The sound pressure level at the measurement point on the ground initially

rises to a maximum as an aircraft approaches, then declines as the airplane flies away. Fidell Report, p. 23. Since the sound pressure levels vary throughout the overflight, and since the durations of different overflights also vary, no single number can usefully characterize the moment-to-moment changes in sound levels. Fidell Report, p. 23. The usual method for representing the sound energy produced during the entire overflight is therefore to "normalize" the measurement to a standard time period (one second). Fidell Report, p. 23. 36. Tone-corrections further assist in accounting for the contribution of

prominent tones to the annoyance of aircraft noise. Fidell Report, p. 14. The following
4

This table was extracted from the Fidell Report, p. 15.

11

Case 1:01-cv-00201-VJW

Document 162-15

Filed 04/28/2006

Page 12 of 17

table lists the tone-corrected, A-weighted SELs for the predominant aircraft at NAS Oceana from the 1970s to 20005:
AIRCRAFT DEPARTURE APPROACH PATTERN

A-6A F-4C F-14A F-14B F/A-18 C/D

113.7 116.7 107.9 109.8 118.2

110.7 106.8 96.2 94.5 110.9

No data 108.5 90.6 89.7 94.5

37.

When the VFR pattern was flown from Runway 5L/R, the Capps and Hill

properties experienced frequent overflights. Erie Decl., ¶¶ 29, 57. On the downwind leg, aircraft in this pattern would have regularly flown over or within approximately one-half mile of the Capps property at an altitude of approximately 1,000 feet. Erie Decl., ¶ 29. The Hill property is located on the approach turn for Runway 5L/R. Erie Decl., ¶¶ 56, 57; see also Exhibit F. It is just past the "180 position" and therefore would have been routinely overflown by aircraft in the landing pattern. Erie Decl., ¶¶ 56, 57. These aircraft would have passed directly over or within approximately one-half mile of this property at an altitude of approximately 700-800 feet as they descended into the "approach turn." Erie Decl., ¶ 57; see generally Declaration of Commander Dirk Hebert ("Hebert Decl."), Exhibit G. 38. In addition to overflights in the downwind pattern from Runway 5L/R, the

Capps property is also underneath the VFR landing pattern for Runway 14L/R. Erie Decl., ¶ 31; see also Exhibit F. It is near "the 90" (halfway through the approach turn), so during the roughly two percent of the time when Runway 14L/R was in use aircraft would have flown over or within approximately one-half mile of the Capps property at an

5

This table was extracted from the Fidell Report, p. 16.

12

Case 1:01-cv-00201-VJW

Document 162-15

Filed 04/28/2006

Page 13 of 17

altitude of approximately 450-500 feet. Erie Decl., ¶ 31; see generally Hebert Decl.. 39. When Runway 23L/R was in use, approximately 34 percent of the time,

aircraft would have routinely flown over or nearly over the Hoag and Dingle properties during the approach to landing. Erie Decl., ¶¶ 25, 34, 37-38; see also Exhibit F. The aircraft would have been at an altitude of approximately 500-800 feet. Erie Decl., ¶¶ 34, 38; see generally Hebert Decl. 40. The Leary and Riddick properties are both south of Runway 5L/R and

would regularly have experienced noise from aircraft landing on that runway either in the visual landing pattern or on straight in approaches; however, it would have been unusual for these properties to be overflown when a visual landing pattern was being used. Erie Decl., ¶61; see also Exhibit F. Aircraft in the visual landing pattern for Runway 5L/R would have been no closer than one-half mile of these properties at an altitude of 400 to 800 feet. Erie Decl., ¶61. Aircraft on a straight in approach to Runway 5L/R would have flown within approximately one-half to one mile of these properties, at an altitude of approximately 500 to 1,000 feet, but would not normally have directly overflown the properties. Erie Decl., ¶61. 41. When Runway 23L/R was in use the Leary and Riddick properties would

have routinely been overflown on departures, but at an altitude of approximately 1,500 to 2,000 feet. Erie Decl., ¶62. Also, aircraft departing from Runway 23L/R on their way to NALF Fentress to conduct FCLPs would have flown within approximately one-half mile of these properties at an altitude of approximately 1,000 feet. Erie Decl., ¶62; see generally Hebert Decl. 42. When Runway 5L/R was in use, aircraft in the downwind leg would

13

Case 1:01-cv-00201-VJW

Document 162-15

Filed 04/28/2006

Page 14 of 17

routinely have flown within approximately one-half to one mile of the Levenson property at an altitude of approximately 1,000 feet. Erie Decl., ¶ 42; see also Exhibit F. Only if aircraft were extremely wide abeam, however, would they have directly overflown the Levenson property, which would have been unusual. Erie Decl., ¶ 42. 43. The Levenson property would also have experienced noise from aircraft in

"the break" for Runway 5L/R, but at an altitude of approximately 1,500 feet. Erie Decl., ¶ 42. During the roughly two percent of the time that Runway 14L/R was being used, aircraft flying the VFR landing pattern would fly over or within one-half mile of the Levenson property during the approach turn at an altitude of approximately 450 to 550 feet. Erie Decl., ¶ 43. 44. The Levenson property would also have experienced noise from aircraft

departing on Runway 32L/R, which was in use roughly 14% of the time. Erie Decl., ¶¶ 25, 44. These aircraft would climb from 1,000 to 4,000 feet and their ground track would vary greatly, so it is possible that the Levenson property may have been overflown during these operations on occasion by aircraft turning right after departure, but this would not have been a regular event. Erie Decl., ¶ 44. 45. When Runway 5L/R was in use, aircraft in the downwind leg would

routinely have flown within approximately three-quarters to one mile of the Lindsay property at an altitude of approximately 1,000 feet. Erie Decl., ¶ 46; see also Exhibit F. Only if aircraft were extremely wide abeam (even wider abeam than in the case of the Levenson property) would they have directly overflown the Lindsay property, and it would have been even more unusual for an aircraft to be this wide abeam than it would have been with the Levenson property. Erie Decl., ¶ 46. Additionally, aircraft entering

14

Case 1:01-cv-00201-VJW

Document 162-15

Filed 04/28/2006

Page 15 of 17

the pattern via the break maneuver would fly a similar ground track as above, but at 1,500 feet and at a significantly lower power setting. Erie Decl., ¶ 46. 46. The Lindsay property would also have experienced noise from aircraft

departing from Runway 32L/R, as the aircraft climbed from 1,000 feet to 4,000 feet. Erie Decl., ¶ 47. The ground track of these aircraft would have varied, so it is possible that on occasion the Lindsay property may have been overflown during these operations (in the case of the Lindsay property by aircraft turning left after departure), but, based on the location of the property, any direct overflights would have been rare. Erie Decl., ¶ 47. 47. During those very infrequent occasions when Runway 14L/R was in use

and the airfield was also in Instrument Flight Rules ("IFR") conditions, the Lindsay property would have experienced noise from aircraft on straight-in IFR radar-controlled approaches to Runway 14L/R as they passed by at an altitude of approximately 1,000 feet, but the property would not typically have been overflown during those operations. Erie Decl., ¶ 48. 48. The Lindsay property would have also experienced noise from aircraft

entering the visual landing pattern for Runway 14L/R via "the break" on an infrequent basis. Erie Decl., ¶ 48. The aircraft conducting this maneuver would fly over or nearly over (within one-half to one mile) the Lindsay property at an altitude of 1,500 feet. Erie Decl., ¶ 48; see generally Hebert Decl. 49. When Runway 5 L/R was in use, aircraft in the downwind leg would

routinely have flown within approximately three-quarters to one mile of the Van Nostrand property at an altitude of approximately 1,000 feet. Erie Decl., ¶ 50; see also Exhibit F. Only if aircraft significantly deviated from the VFR pattern would they have

15

Case 1:01-cv-00201-VJW

Document 162-15

Filed 04/28/2006

Page 16 of 17

overflown this property. Erie Decl., ¶ 50. 50. The Van Nostrand property would also have experienced noise from

aircraft in "the break" for Runway 5L/R at an altitude of approximately 1,500 feet, but would have been directly overflown only if the aircraft was extremely wide abeam, which would have been unusual. Erie Decl., ¶ 50. The Van Nostrand property would also have experienced noise from aircraft departing NAS Oceana on Runway 32 L/R that turned left (toward the south) and were flying at approximately 2,000 feet while climbing to assigned altitude, but this property would not have been routinely overflown during these departures. Erie Decl., ¶ 51. 51. The Van Nostrand property would also have experienced noise from

aircraft entering the visual landing pattern for Runway 14L/R via "the break" on a very infrequent basis. Erie Decl., ¶ 52. Aircraft in this pattern may very infrequently overfly the Van Nostrand property at approximately 1,500 feet. Erie Decl., ¶ 52. 52. Aircraft may have flown over or within a mile of the Waterman property

when using the IFR/radar training pattern for Runways 5L/R and 23L/R, but would have done so at an altitude of 2,000 feet. Erie Decl., ¶ 64; see also Exhibit F. Aircraft departing Runway 5L/R on the way to NALF Fentress would have flown over or within one to two miles of the Waterman property at an altitude of approximately 1,500 feet. Erie Decl., ¶ 65. Aircraft departing Runway 23L/R for areas to the east may have overflown directly over or within one to two miles of this property at an altitude of approximately 1,500 to 2,000 feet as they climbed to 4,000 feet. Erie Decl., ¶ 65. 53. The May property is located approximately four miles away from the NAS

Oceana runways, barely inside the NAS Oceana tower-controlled airspace. Erie Decl., ¶

16

Case 1:01-cv-00201-VJW

Document 162-15

Filed 04/28/2006

Page 17 of 17

53; see also Exhibit F. The May property may have experienced minimal aircraft noise when Runway 14L/R was in use, roughly two percent of the time, but these aircraft would usually have passed well south of the property on the way to the airfield. Erie Decl., ¶¶ 25, 54. 54. On the very infrequent occasions when Runway 14L/R was in use and

NAS Oceana was in IFR conditions, aircraft on IFR/Radar approaches to NAS Oceana would have flown within three-quarters to one mile of the May property, but not over it, at an altitude of approximately 1,500 to 2,000 feet. Erie Decl., ¶ 55. It is also possible that aircraft flying between NAS Norfolk and NAS Oceana would have flown within one to two miles of the May property at approximately 2,000 feet, but this would have been extremely infrequent, perhaps once per month. Erie Decl., ¶ 55; see generally Hebert Decl. 55. Aircraft may have flown directly over or within a mile of the Ryan

property when the IFR/radar training pattern for Runways 5L/R and 23L/R, but at an altitude of 2,000 feet. Erie Decl., ¶ 68; see also Exhibit F. This property would also have experienced noise from aircraft on their way to NALF Fentress to conduct FCLPs after departing NAS Oceana Runway 5L/R and turning right toward the ocean; however, the aircraft would have been at an altitude of 1,500 feet and would not have routinely overflown the Ryan property. Erie Decl., ¶ 69; but see Hebert Decl., ¶ 2.

17