T.F. Green Airport Part 150 Update Noise Exposure Map

Transcription

T.F. Green Airport Part 150 Update
Noise Exposure Map
Draft
June 2010
Submitted to:
Rhode Island Airport Corporation
Submitted by:
HARRIS MILLER MILLER & HANSON INC.
T.F. Green Airport
14 CFR Part 150 Update
2010 and 2020 NOISE EXPOSURE MAPS
HMMH Report No. 303210.001
June 2010
Prepared for:
Rhode Island Airport Corporation,
Rhode Island
T.F. Green Airport
2000 Post Road
Warwick, RI 02886
Prepared by:
Robert Mentzer Jr.
Sean Doyle
Mary Ellen Egan
Jamal Kinan
Michael Hamilton
77 South Bedford Street
Burlington, MA 01803
T.F. Green Airport Part 150 Update Study
June 2010
2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps
page iii
CERTIFICATION
This is to certify the following:
(1) that the revised Noise Exposure Maps, and associated documentation for
T.F. Green Airport submitted in this volume to the Federal Aviation
Administration under Federal Aviation Regulations 14 CFR Part 150,
Subpart B, Section 150.21, are true and complete under penalty of 18
U.S.C. Part 1001; and
(2) pursuant to Part 150, Subpart B, Section 150.21(b), all interested parties
have been afforded adequate opportunity to submit their views, data,
and comments concerning the correctness and adequacy of the draft
noise exposure map, and of the descriptions of forecast aircraft
operations; and
(3) the existing condition Noise Exposure Map accurately represents
conditions for calendar year 2010; and
(4) the ten-year forecast condition Noise Exposure Map accurately
represents forecast conditions for calendar year 2020.
By:
Title:
Date:
Airport Name:
Airport Owner/Operator:
Address:
T.F. Green Airport
Rhode Island Airport Corporation, Rhode Island
T.F. Green Airport
2000 Post Road
Warwick, RI 02886
G:\PROJECTS\303210_RIAC_ENV_On_Call\Task001_PVD_NEMUpdate\NEM_Report\KJC_PVD_Part150_NEM_Update_ProofCopy.doc
June 2010
page iv
Page intentionally left blank
June 2010
page v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1
1.1
Request for FAA Determination............................................................................................. 1
1.2
Recommendations................................................................................................................... 1
1.3
Organization of this Document............................................................................................... 2
2
14 CFR PART 150 OVERVIEW ........................................................................................... 3
2.1
Noise Exposure Maps ............................................................................................................. 3
2.2
Noise Compatibility Program ................................................................................................. 3
2.3
Noise / Land Use Compatibility Guidelines ........................................................................... 4
2.4
FAA Noise Exposure Map Checklist...................................................................................... 8
3
UPDATED EXISTING AND FORECAST CONDITIONS NOISE EXPOSURE MAPS
WITH EXISTING NOISE COMPATIBILITY PROGRAM ............................................... 13
3.1
2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps .................................................................................. 13
3.2
3.2.1
3.2.2
3.2.3
3.2.4
Potential Noncompatible Land Uses within the Noise Contours.......................................... 25
Comparison of 2010 and 2020 EIS No-Action Non-Compatible Land-Uses....................... 25
Comparison of 2010 and 2020 EIS Preferred Alternative Non-Compatible Land-Uses ...... 25
Discrete Non-Residential Noise Sensitive Sites within the Noise Contours ........................ 26
Residential Population within the Noise Contours ............................................................... 26
4
DEVELOPMENT OF NOISE CONTOURS........................................................................ 29
4.1
Airport Physical Parameters ................................................................................................. 29
4.2
4.2.1
4.2.2
Aircraft Operations ............................................................................................................... 32
Development of 2010 Existing Operations........................................................................... 42
Development of 2020 EIS No-action and Preferred Alternative Operations........................ 42
4.3
Aircraft Noise and Performance Characteristics................................................................... 43
4.4
Runway Utilization............................................................................................................... 43
4.5
Flight Track Geometry and Utilization................................................................................. 45
5
INTRODUCTION TO NOISE EVALUATION .................................................................. 51
5.1
5.1.1
5.1.2
5.1.3
5.1.4
Introduction to Acoustics and Noise Terminology............................................................... 51
The Decibel, dB .................................................................................................................... 51
A-Weighted Decibel, dBA.................................................................................................... 52
Maximum A-Weighted Noise Level, Lmax ............................................................................ 55
Sound Exposure Level, SEL................................................................................................. 55
June 2010
page vi
5.1.5
5.1.6
Equivalent Sound Level, Leq ................................................................................................. 56
Day-Night Average Sound Level, DNL ............................................................................... 57
5.2
5.2.1
5.2.2
The Effects of Aircraft Noise on People............................................................................... 60
Speech Interference .............................................................................................................. 61
Sleep Interference ................................................................................................................. 62
5.3
Community Annoyance........................................................................................................ 62
6
PUBLIC CONSULTATION ................................................................................................ 65
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF FAA’S RECORD OF APPROVAL ON PART 150 NOISE
COMPATIBILITY PROGRAM (2000)............................................................................. A-1
APPENDIX B NON-STANDARD NOISE MODELING SUBSTITUTION REQUEST AND FAA
APPROVAL ....................................................................................................................... B-1
APPENDIX C
MATERIAL RELATED TO PUBLIC NOTICE AND PARTICIPATION ......... C-1
June 2010
page vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1
2010 Existing Condition Noise Exposure Map ...................................................................15
Figure 2
2020 EIS No-action Forecast Condition Noise Exposure Map ...........................................17
Figure 3
2020 EIS Preferred Alternative Forecast Condition Noise Exposure Map..........................19
Figure 4
Comparison of 2010 and 2020 EIS No-action DNL 65 dB Contours..................................21
Figure 5
Comparison of 2010 and 2020 EIS Preferred Alternative DNL 65 dB Contours................23
Figure 6
Existing Airport Diagram ....................................................................................................30
Figure 7
Sample of Modeled Tracks for North Flow Operations .....................................................47
Figure 8
Sample of Modeled Tracks for South Flow Operations ......................................................49
Figure 9
Frequency-Response Characteristics of Various Weighting Networks ...............................53
Figure 10 Common Environmental Sound Levels, in dBA .................................................................54
Figure 11 Variations in the A-Weighted Sound Level Over Time ......................................................55
Figure 12 Sound Exposure Level .........................................................................................................56
Figure 13 Example of a One Minute Equivalent Sound Level ............................................................57
Figure 14 Daily Noise Dose .................................................................................................................59
Figure 15 Examples of Day-Night Average Sound Levels, DNL........................................................60
Figure 16 Outdoor Speech Intelligibility..............................................................................................61
Figure 17 Sleep Interference ................................................................................................................62
Figure 18 Percentage of People Highly Annoyed ................................................................................63
Figure 19 Community Reaction as a Function of Outdoor DNL .........................................................64
June 2010
page viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1
14 CFR Part 150 Noise / Land Use Compatibility Guidelines .............................................. 6
Table 2
Part 150 Noise Exposure Map Checklist ............................................................................... 8
Table 3
Non-Residential Noise Sensitive locations and National Register of Historical Places
within the DNL 65 dB Contours for 2010, 2020 EIS No-Action conditions and 2020 EIS
Preferred Alternative conditions.......................................................................................... 26
Table 4
Estimated Residential Population within for 2010 and 2020 Contour Cases ...................... 27
Table 5
Number of Residential Housing Units Eligible for Sound Insulation or Acquisition ......... 27
Table 6
Runway Details for 2010 and 2020 EIS No-action ............................................................. 31
Table 7
Runway Details for 2020 EIS Preferred Alternative ........................................................... 31
Table 8
Detailed 2010 Existing Year Modeled Average Daily Aircraft Operations ........................ 33
Table 9
Detailed 2020 EIS No-Action Modeled Average Daily Aircraft Operations ...................... 36
Table 10
Detailed 2020 EIS Preferred Alternative Modeled Average Daily Aircraft Operations ..... 39
Table 11
Annual Operations Summary and Comparison ................................................................... 42
Table 12
Runway Utilization Rates for Arrival and Departure Operations for the 2010 Existing
NEM .................................................................................................................................... 44
Table 13
Runway Utilization Rates for Arrival and Departure Operations for the 2020 EIS
No-Action NEM .................................................................................................................. 44
Table 14
Runway Utilization Rates for Arrival and Departure Operations for the 2020 EIS
Preferred Alternative NEM.................................................................................................. 45
Table 15
Status of T.F. Green Airport Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program ...............................A-1
June 2010
page ix
LIST OF ACRONYMS USED IN THIS REPORT
Acronym
AC
CFR
dB
dBA
DNL
EIS
ERA
FAA
FAR Part 36
FAR Part 150
FAR Part 161
GIS
HMMH
IFR
Leq
Ldn or LDN
Lmax
MSL
NEM
PAPI
PVD
NCC
NAD83
RIAC
SEL
VFR
Full Definition
[Federal Aviation Administration] Advisory Circular
Code of Federal Regulations
Decibel
A-Weighted Decibel
Day Night Average Sound Level
Environmental Impact Statement
ERA – Source of flight track and operations data
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Aviation Regulation Part 36, “Airport Noise Compatibility Planning”
Federal Aviation Regulation Part 150, “Airport Noise Compatibility Planning”
Federal Aviation Regulation Part 161, ““Notice and Approval of Noise and Access Restrictions”
Geographic Information System
Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc.
Instrument Flight Rules
Equivalent Sound Level
Day Night Average Sound Level (also DNL, as noted above)
Maximum A-Weighted Sound Level
Mean Seal Level
Noise Exposure Map
Precision Approach Path Indicator (lights)
T.F. Green Airport
Noise Compatibility Committee
North American Datum 1983
Rhode Island Airport Corporation
Sound Exposure Level
Visual Flight Rules
June 2010
page x
Page intentionally left blank
June 2010
page 1
1 INTRODUCTION
Part 150 of the Federal Aviation Regulations “Airport Noise Compatibility Planning” 1 sets forth
standards for airport operators to use in documenting noise exposure in the airport environs and
establishing programs to minimize noise-related land use incompatibilities. A formal submission to
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) under Part 150 includes documentation for two principal
elements: (1) Noise Exposure Maps (NEMs) and (2) a Noise Compatibility Program (NCP).
The Rhode Island Airport Corporation (RIAC) conducted its last Part 150 study for T.F. Green
International Airport (PVD)2 in 1999. The study culminated in submission of two volumes of
documentation to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA): (1) NEM documentation for 1998 and
2003, and (2) a proposed Noise Compatibility Program (NCP).3 The FAA found the NEM in
compliance with Part 150 requirements on December 22, 1999, and provided a Record of Approval
(ROA) for the NCP on June 15, 2000. Appendix A presents a copy of the ROA. In order to
continue RIAC’s mitigation programs approved under the prior Part 150, RIAC submitted an
updated future NEM (2020) to the FAA which was developed from the on-going Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS). That document was submitted and approved on October 8, 2008. This
current NEM update provides a further update, including an existing 2010 NEM and an updated set
of 2020 NEMs.
In 2010, Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc. (HMMH) prepared this updated NEM submission, with
noise contours and related documentation for existing and forecast conditions in calendar years 2010
and 2020, respectively for RIAC.
1.1
Request for FAA Determination
With this submission, RIAC requests that the FAA review these figures and associated
documentation to determine compliance with Part 150 requirements, and accept Figure 1 as the
official existing condition NEM and Figure 2 and Figure 3 as the official forecast condition NEMs
(see pages 15, 17 and 19).
1.2
Recommendations
One of the principal reasons for preparation of this update was RIAC’s interest in continuing two of
the FAA-approved NCP elements. The first is to continue the voluntary acquisition of residences
and relocation of the affected residents and the second, if funding is available, to continue the
Residential Sound Insulation Program within the 65 DNL contour. In the FAA’s June 15, 2000
ROA for the previous NCP, the land acquisition element is item LU-4 and the sound insulation
element is item LU-6. The approved measure covers acquisition of “permanent” residences within
the 70 dB contour. To ensure that the continuation of this element reflected current noise conditions,
the FAA requested that RIAC update the NEM and review the status of the approved NCP elements,
—
1
Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 150.
2
This report uses the FAA’s three-letter identifier, “PVD”, as an abbreviated form of referring to the airport.
3
“T.F. Green Airport FAR Part 150 Study” April 2000, prepared by Landrum & Brown.
June 2010
page 2
with particular attention to the land acquisition measure, in light of the current airport layout,
operations, and related noise exposure.
Based on the results of this update, the RIAC staff and its consultants recommend the following:
■
RIAC continue to use the extents of the EIS No-action 2020 or EIS Preferred Alternative 2020
NEM contours (both NEMs are submitted pending the Record of Decision (ROD) on the EIS)
for future land-use planning. Future land-use planning should use the future EIS Preferred
Alternative 2020 NEM if and only if the FAA has approved the preferred alternative for the ongoing EIS.
■
RIAC should proceed with the implementation of the voluntary acquisition measure, as approved
by the FAA, using the updated noise contours, and as funding is available from the FAA.
■
RIAC should proceed with the implementation of the Residential Sound Insulation Program
measure, as approved by the FAA, using the updated noise contours, and as funding is available
from the FAA.
1.3
Organization of this Document
The balance of this report provides documentation that Part 150 requires, and supplementary
information that RIAC believes will assist in providing a full understanding of the current and
forecast noise exposure at PVD, including:
■
Chapter 1 summarizes the elements and status of the existing, FAA-approved NCP.
■
Chapter 2 provides an overview of Part 150, including a completed copy of the checklist that
FAA has prepared for its use in reviewing NEM submissions, and presents the Part 150 noise /
land use compatibility guidelines that the City uses in determining compatibility at PVD.
■
Chapter 3 presents the official NEM graphics for 2010 and 2020 and compares the contours for
those years. Section 3.2 identifies potentially non-compatible land uses in the noise contours and
presents estimates of the encompassed residential population.
■
Chapter 4 describes the development of the noise contours, including the detailed information
that Part 150 requires on noise modeling methodology, data sources, data reduction, and final
modeling assumptions and inputs.
■
Chapter 5 provides an introduction to noise evaluation, terminology, and effects.
■
Chapter 6 summarizes the public consultation process that PVD undertook in developing this
NEM update.
June 2010
page 3
2 14 CFR PART 150 OVERVIEW
Part 150 defines a process for airport proprietors to follow in developing and obtaining FAA
approval of programs to reduce or eliminate incompatibilities between aircraft noise and surrounding
land uses. Part 150 prescribes specific standards and systems for:
■
Measuring noise
■
Estimating cumulative noise exposure
■
Describing noise exposure (including instantaneous, single event and cumulative levels)
■
Coordinating NCP development with local land use officials and other interested parties
■
Documenting the analytical process and development of the compatibility program
■
Submitting documentation to the FAA
■
FAA and public review processes
■
FAA approval or disapproval of the submission
2.1
Noise Exposure Maps
The NEM documentation describes the airport layout and operation, aircraft-related noise exposure,
land uses in the airport environs and the resulting noise/land use compatibility situation. The NEM
documentation must address two time frames: (1) data representing the year of submission (the
“existing condition”) and (2) at least the fifth calendar year following the year of submission (the
“forecast condition”). Part 150 requires more than simple “maps” to provide all the necessary
information in an NEM. In addition to the graphics, requirements include extensive tabulated
information and text discussion. At most airports, even the necessary graphic information is too
extensive to present in a single figure. Therefore, the NEM documentation includes graphic depiction
of existing and future noise exposure resulting from aircraft operations and of land uses in the airport
environs. The NEM documentation must describe the data collection and analysis undertaken in its
development.
The anticipated year of submission for this update is 2010, with an existing condition “map” for that
year, and a ten-year forecast condition map for 2020. The FAA is currently preparing an EIS for a
proposed Airport Improvement Program; due to this both a 2020 future no-action and a 2020 future
Preferred Alternative NEM will be shown.
Chapter 3 presents the updated existing and forecast conditions NEM figures.
2.2
Noise Compatibility Program
The NCP provides a planning process for evaluating aircraft noise impacts. It also engages the local
planning authorities to review the policies toward managing the noncompatible land uses now and in
the future around the airport. Involving the public and local agencies, the NCP is essentially the total
process used by the airport proprietor to propose a list of the actions to undertake to minimize
existing and future noncompatible noise/land uses. These actions may involve
June 2010
■
■
■
■
■
page 4
Changes to the physical layout of the airport
Changes to airport and airspace use
Changes to aircraft operations
Review of land use administration practices for preventing noncompatible uses or mitigating
noise
Review of noise management program practices
There are certain measures that must be considered for applicability and feasibility:
■
■
■
■
■
Acquisition of land which includes overflight, easement, and development rights to ensure
property use is compatible with airport operations
Construction of barriers or shielding through sound insulating buildings
Implementation of a preferential runway use
Utilization of flight procedures to reduce noise from the source (aircraft) through actions such as
flight track changes or aircraft performance profile adjustments
Restriction of use of the airport by specific aircraft types, nighttime operations, etc.
The NCP documentation must recount the development of the program, including a description of all
measures considered, the reasons that individual measures were accepted or rejected, how measures
will be implemented and funded, and the predicted effectiveness of individual measures and the
overall program.
Upon completion of the analyses and coordination, the NCP is submitted to the FAA for review and
approval. The FAA reviews the NCP and may approve or disapprove each measure on its merits and
adherence to the national aviation policy. Upon approval, RIAC will continue its implementation
schedule based on the availability of federal funding.
The latest NCP was approved by FAA in June of 2000. RIAC is not developing an NCP update at
this time.
2.3
Noise / Land Use Compatibility Guidelines
As discussed in Section 5.1.6, Part 150 requires that airports use a measure of cumulative noise
called the Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) to depict noise exposure associated with airport
operations during the existing and forecast condition calendar years.
Part 150 provides a table of DNL-based land use compatibility guidelines.4
—
4
Part 150 Appendix A, Table 1.
June 2010
page 5
Table 1 reproduces those guidelines. Note 1 for the table clearly states that the guidelines are not
federally mandated criteria:
The responsibility for determining the acceptable and permissible land uses and the
relationship between specific properties and specific noise contours rests with the local
authorities. FAA determinations under Part 150 are not intended to substitute federally
determined land uses for those determined to be appropriate by local authorities in
response to locally determined needs and values in achieving noise compatible land uses.
FAA will accept alternate land use compatibility designations only if the airport bases them on
criteria that local land-use control jurisdictions have formally adopted and rigorously enforced. The
local jurisdictions surrounding PVD have not taken steps of this type. Therefore, RIAC has adopted
the Part 150 guidelines for this NEM update study, as it has in previous studies.
These Part 150 guidelines represent compilation of extensive scientific research into noise-related
activity interference and attitudinal response. However, reviewers should recognize the highly
subjective nature of response to noise, and that special circumstances can affect individuals'
tolerance. For example, high non-aircraft noise levels can reduce the significance of aircraft noise,
such as in areas exposed to relatively high levels of traffic noise. Alternatively, residents of areas
with unusually low background levels may find relatively low levels of aircraft noise annoying.
Expectation and experience may affect response. People may get used to a level of exposure that
guidelines indicate may be unacceptable, and changes in exposure may generate response that is far
greater than that which the guidelines might suggest.
The cumulative nature of DNL means that the same level of noise exposure can be achieved in an
essentially infinite number of ways. For example, a reduction in a small number of relatively noisy
operations may be counterbalanced by a much greater increase in relatively quiet flights, with no net
change in DNL. Residents of the area may be highly annoyed by the increased frequency of
operations, despite the seeming maintenance of the noise status quo.
With these cautions in mind, the Part 150 guidelines can be applied to the DNL contours to identify
the potential types, degrees and locations of incompatibility. Measurement of the land areas involved
can provide a quantitative measure of impact that allows a comparison of at least the gross effects of
existing or forecast operations.
Part 150 guidelines indicate that all uses normally are compatible with aircraft noise exposure below
DNL 65 dB. This limit is supported in a formal way by U. S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) standards that address whether sites are eligible for federal funding support.
These standards, set forth in Title 24 Part 51 of the Code of Federal Regulations, define areas with
DNL exposure not exceeding 65 dB as acceptable for funding. Areas exposed to noise levels
between DNL 65 and 75 are "normally unacceptable," and require special abatement measures and
review. Those at 75 and above are "unacceptable" except under very limited circumstances.
June 2010
page 6
Table 1 14 CFR Part 150 Noise / Land Use Compatibility Guidelines
Source: 14 CFR Part 150, Appendix A, Table 1
Yearly Day-Night Average Sound Level, DNL, in Decibels
Land Use
<65
65-70
Residential Use
Residential other than mobile homes and transient
lodgings
Mobile home park
Transient lodgings
Public Use
Schools
Hospitals and nursing homes
Churches, auditoriums, and concert halls
Governmental services
Transportation
Parking
Commercial Use
Offices, business and professional
Wholesale and retail--building materials, hardware
and farm equipment
Retail trade—general
Utilities
Communication
Manufacturing and Production
Manufacturing general
Photographic and optical
Agriculture (except livestock) and forestry
Livestock farming and breeding
Mining and fishing, resource production and
extraction
Recreational
Outdoor sports arenas and spectator sports
Outdoor music shells, amphitheaters
Nature exhibits and zoos
Amusements, parks, resorts and camps
Golf courses, riding stables, and water recreation
(Key and notes on following page)
70-75
75-80
80-85
>85
Y
N(1)
N(1)
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
N(1)
N
N(1)
N(1)
N
N(1)
N
N
N(1)
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N(1)
25
25
Y
Y
Y
N(1)
30
30
25
Y(2)
Y(2)
N
N
N
30
Y(3)
Y(3)
N
N
N
N
Y(4)
Y(4)
N
N
N
N
Y(4)
N
Y
Y
25
30
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y(2)
Y(2)
Y(2)
25
Y(3)
Y(3)
Y(3)
30
Y(4)
Y(4)
Y(4)
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y(6)
Y(6)
Y(2)
25
Y(7)
Y(7)
Y(3)
30
Y(8)
N
Y(4)
N
Y(8)
N
N
N
Y(8)
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y(5)
N
Y
Y
Y
Y(5)
N
N
Y
25
N
N
N
N
30
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Key to Table 1
SLCUM: Standard Land Use Coding Manual.
Y (Yes): Land use and related structures compatible without restrictions.
N (No): Land use and related structures are not compatible and should be prohibited.
NLR: Noise Level Reduction (outdoor to indoor) to be achieved through incorporation of noise attenuation into
the design and construction of the structure.
25, 30, or 35: Land use and related structures generally compatible; measures to achieve NLR of 25, 30, or 35
dB must be incorporated into design and construction of structure.
(Notes for Table 1 are on following page)
June 2010
page 7
Notes for Table 1
The designations contained in this table do not constitute a Federal determination that any use of land covered
by the program is acceptable or unacceptable under Federal, State, or local law. The responsibility for
determining the acceptable and permissible land uses and the relationship between specific properties and
specific noise contours rests with the local authorities. FAA determinations under Part 150 are not intended to
substitute federally determined land uses for those determined to be appropriate by local authorities in response
to locally determined needs and values in achieving noise compatible land uses.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
Where the community determines that residential or school uses must be allowed, measures to achieve
outdoor to indoor Noise Level Reduction (NLR) of at least 25 dB and 30 dB should be incorporated into
building codes and be considered in individual approvals. Normal residential construction can be
expected to provide a NLR of 20 dB, thus, the reduction requirements are often started as 5, 10, or 15
dB over standard construction and normally assume mechanical ventilation and closed windows year
round. However, the use of NLR criteria will not eliminate outdoor noise problems.
Measures to achieve NLR of 25 dB must be incorporated into the design and construction of portions of
these buildings where the public is received, office areas, noise sensitive areas or where the normal
noise level is low.
noise level is low.
noise level is low.
Land use compatible provided special sound reinforcement systems are installed.
Residential buildings require an NLR of 25.
Residential buildings require an NLR of 30
Residential buildings not permitted.
June 2010
2.4
page 8
FAA Noise Exposure Map Checklist
The FAA has developed checklists for their internal use in reviewing NEMs and NCP submissions.
The FAA prefers that the Part 150 documentation include copies of the checklists. Table 2 presents
the NEM checklist for this submission
Table 2 Part 150 Noise Exposure Map Checklist
Source: FAA/APP, Washington, DC, March 1989; revised June 2005; reviewed for currency 12/2007
14 CFR PART 150
NOISE EXPOSURE MAPS CHECKLIST-PART I
Airport Name: T.F. Green Airport
I.
III.
Yes/No/
NA
Page/Other
Reference
Yes
Cover page,
Chapter 1, p. 1
Notes/
Comments
Submitting and Identifying the NEMs:
A.
II.
REVIEWER:
Submission properly identified:
1.
14 C.F.R. Part 150 NEMs?
2.
NEMs and NCP together?
NA
3.
Revision to NEMs FAA previously determined to be in
compliance with Part 150?
Yes
Chapter 1.1,
p. 1
Certification, p. iv
B.
Airport and Airport Operator’s name are identified?
Yes
C.
NCP is transmitted by operator’s dated cover letter,
describing it as a Part 150 submittal and requesting
appropriate FAA determination?
NA
Consultation: [150.21(b), A150.105(a)]
A.
Is there a narrative description of the consultation
accomplished, including opportunities for public review and
comment during map development?
B.
Identification of consulted parties:
Yes
Chapter 6, p.62
1.
Are the consulted parties identified?
Yes
Chapter 6, p.62,
2.
Do they include all those required by 150.21(b) and
A150.105 (a)?
Yes
Chapter 6, p.62
3.
Agencies in 2. , above, correspond to those indicated
on the NEM?
Yes
Chapter 6, p.62
C.
Does the documentation include the airport operator's
certification, and evidence to support it, that interested
persons have been afforded adequate opportunity to submit
their views, data, and comments during map development
and in accordance with 150.21(b)?
Yes
and Chapter 6
D.
Does the document indicate whether written comments
were received during consultation and, if there were
comments that they are on file with the FAA regional
airports division manager?
NA
Chapter 6
General Requirements: [150.21]
A.
Are there two maps, each clearly labeled on the face with
year (existing condition year and one that is at least 5 years
into the future)?
Yes
Existing (2010) NEM is Figure 1,
Figure 2 is 10-year forecast (2020)
EIS No-action NEM and Figure 3 is
10-year forecast (2020) EIS
Preferred Alternative NEM
Yes
Figure 1 is 2010 existing NEM
B. Map currency:
1.
Does the year on the face of the existing condition map
graphic match the year on the airport operator's NEM
submittal letter?
June 2010
page 9
14 CFR PART 150
REVIEWER:
Yes/No/
NA
2.
Is the forecast year map based on reasonable
forecasts and other planning assumptions and is it for
at least the fifth calendar year after the year of
submission?
Yes
3.
If the answer to 1 and 2 above is no, the airport
operator must verify in writing that data in the
documentation are representative of existing condition
and at least 5 years’ forecast conditions as of the date
of submission?
NA
Page/Other
Reference
Notes/
Comments
Figure 2 is 2020 10 -year forecast
EIS No-action NEM, Figure 3 is
2020 10 – year forecast EIS
Preferred Alternative NEM
C. If the NEMs and NCP are submitted together:
1.
Has the airport operator indicated whether the forecast
year map is based on either forecast conditions
without the program or forecast conditions if the
program is implemented?
NA
2.
If the forecast year map is based on program
implementation:
NA
a.
Are the specific program measures that are
reflected on the map identified?
NA
b.
Does the documentation specifically describe how
these measures affect land use compatibilities
depicted on the map?
NA
If the forecast year NEM does not model program
implementation, the airport operator must either submit
a revised forecast NEM showing program
implementation conditions [B150.3 (b), 150.35 (f)] or
the sponsor must demonstrate the adopted forecast
year NEM with approved NCP measures would not
change by plus/minus 1.5 DNL? [150.21(d)]
NA
3.
IV.
MAP SCALE, GRAPHICS, AND DATA REQUIREMENTS:
[A150.101, A150.103, A150.105, 150.21(a)]
A.
Are the maps of sufficient scale to be clear and readable
(they must be not be less than 1" to 2,000'), and is the scale
indicated on the maps?
(Note (1) if the submittal uses separate graphics to depict
flight tracks and/or noise monitoring sites, these must be of
the same scale, because they are part of the documentation
required for NEMs.)
(Note (2) supplemental graphics that are not required by the
regulation do not need to be at the 1” to 2,000’ scale)
Yes
1” to 2,000’ scale of all map figures
in main document.
B.
Is the quality of the graphics such that required information
is clear and readable? (Refer to C. through G., below, for
specific graphic depictions that must be clear and readable)
Yes
All figures
C.
Depiction of the airport and its environs.
1.
2.
Is the following graphically depicted to scale on both
the existing condition and forecast year maps:
a.
Airport boundaries
Yes
b.
Runway configurations with runway end numbers
Yes
Does the depiction of the off-airport data include?
a.
A land use base map depicting streets and other
identifiable geographic features
Yes
b.
The area within the DNL 65 dB (or beyond, at
local discretion)
Yes
Figure 1 (2010), Figure 2 (2020)
EIS No-action NEMs, Figure 3
(2020) EIS Preferred Alternative
NEMs contain all this information.
Every figure with geographic
information delineates the
boundaries and names of
jurisdictions with planning and land
use control authority in an area
June 2010
page 10
14 CFR PART 150
REVIEWER:
Yes/No/
NA
c.
D.
V.
Page/Other
Reference
Notes/
Comments
Clear delineation of geographic boundaries and
the names of all jurisdictions with planning and
land use control authority within the DNL 65 dB
(or beyond, at local discretion)
Yes
well beyond DNL 65 dB.
1.
Continuous contours for at least DNL 65, 70, and 75
dB?
Yes
2.
Has the local land use jurisdiction(s) adopted a lower
local standard and, if so, has the sponsor depicted this
on the NEMs?
No
3.
Based on current airport and operational data for the
existing condition year NEM, and forecast data
representative of the selected year for the forecast
NEM?
Yes
Certification Letter, p.iii and
Section 4.2 presents current and
forecast operational data and other
modeling inputs.
Figure 7 through Figure 8
City of Warwick is the sole
jurisdiction with planning and land
use control authority within the
DNL 65 dB contour.
E.
Flight tracks for the existing condition and forecast year
timeframes (these may be on supplemental graphics which
must use the same land use base map and scale as the
existing condition and forecast year NEM), which are
numbered to correspond to accompanying narrative?
Yes
F.
Locations of any noise monitoring sites (these may be on
supplemental graphics which must use the same land use
base map and scale as the official NEMs)
NA
G.
Noncompatible land use identification:
1.
Are noncompatible land uses within at least the DNL
65 dB noise contour depicted on the map graphics?
Yes
2.
Are noise sensitive public buildings and historic
properties identified? (Note: If none are within the
depicted NEM noise contours, this should be stated in
the accompanying narrative text.)
Yes
3.
Are the noncompatible uses and noise sensitive public
buildings readily identifiable and explained on the map
legend?
Yes
4.
Are compatible land uses, which would normally be
considered noncompatible, explained in the
accompanying narrative?
NA
All contour figures
Depicted on Figure 1 (2010),
Figure 2 (2020) EIS No-action
NEMs, and Figure 3 (2020) EIS
Preferred Alternative NEMs .
Table 3 provides non-residential
sensitive receptor counts for 2010
and 2020.
NARRATIVE SUPPORT OF MAP DATA: [150.21(a), A150.1,
A150.101, A150.103]
A.
B.
1.
Are the technical data and data sources on which the
NEMs are based adequately described in the
narrative?
Yes
2.
Are the underlying technical data and planning
assumptions reasonable?
Yes
Section 4.2 presents current and
forecast operational data and other
modeling inputs. Appendix I.
Calculation of Noise Contours:
1.
Is the methodology indicated?
Yes
a.
Yes
Is it FAA approved?
Section 4 p.41. INM 7.0a was
used, the most current INM version
June 2010
page 11
14 CFR PART 150
REVIEWER:
Yes/No/
NA
2.
C.
Page/Other
Reference
Notes/
Comments
b.
Was the same model used for both maps? (Note:
The same model also must be used for NCP
submittals associated with NEM determinations
already issued by FAA where the NCP is
submitted later, unless the airport sponsor
submits a combined NEMs/NCP submittal as a
replacement, in which case the model used must
be the most recent version at the time the update
was started.)
Yes
at the time this Part 150 Update
was prepared.
c.
Has AEE approval been obtained for use of a
model other than those that have previous
blanket FAA approval?
NA
Used INM7.0a.
Letter requesting FAA approval of
non standard substitutions. FAA
approved aircraft substitutes. See
Appendices B.
Correct use of noise models:
a.
Does the documentation indicate, or is there
evidence, the airport operator (or its consultant)
has adjusted or calibrated FAA-approved noise
models or substituted one aircraft type for another
that was not included on the FAA’s pre-approved
list of aircraft substitutions?
Yes
b.
If so, does this have written approval from AEE,
and is that written approval included in the
submitted document?
Yes
3.
If noise monitoring was used, does the narrative
indicate that Part 150 guidelines were followed?
NA
4.
For noise contours below DNL 65 dB, does the
supporting documentation include an explanation of
local reasons? (Note: A narrative explanation,
including evidence the local jurisdiction(s) have
adopted a noise level less than DNL 65 dB as
sensitive for the local community(ies), and including a
table or other depiction of the differences from the
Federal table, is highly desirable but not specifically
required by the rule. However, if the airport sponsor
submits NCP measures within the locally significant
noise contour, an explanation must be included if it
wants the FAA to consider the measure(s) for approval
for purposes of eligibility for Federal aid.)
NA
Noncompatible Land Use Information:
1.
Does the narrative (or map graphics) give estimates of
the number of people residing in each of the contours
(DNL 65, 70 and 75, at a minimum) for both the
existing condition and forecast year maps?
Yes
2.
Does the documentation indicate whether the airport
operator used Table 1 of Part 150?
Yes
a.
3.
Section 3.2. Table 5 and 6
provides estimated population
counts for 2010 and 2020.
Section 2.3 and
Section 3.2
If a local variation to table 1 was used:
(1)
Does the narrative clearly indicate which
adjustments were made and the local
reasons for doing so?
NA
(2)
Does the narrative include the airport
operator's complete substitution for table 1?
NA
Does the narrative include information on selfgenerated or ambient noise where compatible or
noncompatible land use identifications consider nonairport and non-aircraft noise sources?
NA
June 2010
page 12
14 CFR PART 150
REVIEWER:
Yes/No/
NA
VI.
4.
Where normally noncompatible land uses are not
depicted as such on the NEMs, does the narrative
satisfactorily explain why, with reference to the specific
geographic areas?
NA
5.
Does the narrative describe how forecast aircraft
operations, forecast airport layout changes, and
forecast land use changes will affect land use
compatibility in the future?
Yes
Page/Other
Reference
Section 4
MAP CERTIFICATIONS: [150.21(b), 150.21(e)]
A.
Has the operator certified in writing that interested persons
have been afforded adequate opportunity to submit views,
data, and comments concerning the correctness and
adequacy of the draft maps and forecasts?
Yes
B.
Has the operator certified in writing that each map and
description of consultation and opportunity for public
comment are true and complete under penalty of 18 U.S.C.
Section 1001?
Yes
Notes/
Comments
June 2010
page 13
3 UPDATED EXISTING AND FORECAST CONDITIONS NOISE
EXPOSURE MAPS WITH EXISTING NOISE COMPATIBILITY
PROGRAM
The fundamental noise elements of an NEM are Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL)5 contours
for existing and at least five-year forecast conditions (2010 and 2020 in this update), presented over
base maps depicting the airport layout, local land use control jurisdictions, major land use categories,
discrete noise-sensitive “receptors,” and other information required by Part 150.
Section 3.1 presents the official 2010 and 2020 NEM graphics. Section 3.2 presents land use
compatibility statistics for the official 2010 and 2020 existing and forecast condition NEMs.
3.1
Figure 1 presents the existing condition NEM for 2010 operations. Figure 2 presents the EIS Noaction condition NEM for 2020 operations. Figure 3 presents the EIS Preferred Alternative NEM for
2020 operations. These are the official NEMs that the Rhode Island Airport Corporation (RIAC) is
submitting under Part 150 for FAA review and determination of compliance, pursuant to §150.21(c).
As is discussed in Section 3.2.1, RIAC recommends that the 2020 EIS No-action NEM is used for
future land-use planning.
The figures present noise contours for 2010 operations and 2020 EIS forecast No-action and
Preferred Alternative operations on a map depicting land uses, in generalized Part 150 land use
categories. The land uses are color-coded. Consistent with Part 150 requirements, the figures also
depict airport, municipal, and county boundaries, and discrete noise-sensitive receptors (e.g.,
educational facilities and houses of worship) within the DNL 65 dB contours (discrete noisesensitive receptors outside the DNL 65 dB contours are not specifically noted).
The figures depict the DNL 65 dB contour through the DNL 75 dB in 5 dB increments. The DNL 60
dB contour is not required by Part 150 and was not provided on the 1998 or 2003 NEM. The DNL
80 dB and DNL 85 dB contours are completely on airport property and therefore are not shown.
Both NEMs reflect continuation of the noise abatement elements of the existing NCP (as
summarized in Appendix A) and the existing airport layout. Consistent with Part 150 requirements,
RIAC will submit revised NEMs should either of these assumptions change, or should “any change
in the operation of the airport would create any ‘substantial, new noncompatible use’ in any area
depicted on the map beyond that which is forecast for the fifth calendar year after the date of
submission.”6
The 2010 and 2020 EIS No-action noise modeling assumptions differ only in terms of the level and
mix of aircraft activity operating at the airport. The 2020 EIS Preferred Alternative noise modeling
assumptions include all elements from Alternative B4 for the EIS including a shift to Runway 16-34
and a runway extension to the south for Runway 5-23. Section 4.2 presents the modeling “fleet
—
5
Section 5 describes DNL and related noise terminology.
6
In §150.21(d).
June 2010
page 14
mixes” for those conditions. Figure 4 compares the DNL 65 dB contours and higher for 2010 and
2020 EIS No-action, to illustrate the effect of the anticipated change in activity. Figure 5 compares
the DNL 65 dB contours and higher for 2010 and 2020 EIS Preferred Alternative (should the
preferred alternative of the EIS be approved), to illustrate the effect of the anticipated change in
activity. The DNL 60 dB contour level is omitted from these figures, for clarity. Additional
comparison of the 2010 and 2020 EIS No-action DNL 65 dB contours is presented in Section 3.2.1.
Figure 1
2010 Existing Condition Noise Exposure Map
June 2010
page 15
June 2010
page 16
Figure 2
2020 EIS No-action Forecast Condition Noise Exposure Map
June 2010
page 17
June 2010
page 18
June 2010
Figure 3
2020 EIS Preferred Alternative Forecast Condition Noise Exposure Map
page 19
Figure 4
Comparison of 2010 and 2020 EIS No-action DNL 65 dB Contours
June 2010
page 21
June 2010
page 22
Figure 5
June 2010
page 23
Comparison of 2010 and 2020 EIS Preferred Alternative DNL 65 dB Contours
June 2010
3.2
page 25
Potential Noncompatible Land Uses within the Noise Contours
Based on the land use compatibility guidelines presented in Table 1, the following land uses are
potentially non-compatible with aircraft noise exposure, within the DNL 65 dB contours.7
■ Residential land use with the 65 dB and higher contours (shown in various shades of yellow in
the figures. This includes residential elements of areas shown as “Mixed Use”).
■
Public and private schools within 65 dB and higher contours.
■
Day care facilities within the 65 dB and higher contours, considered schools.
■
Places of worship within 65 dB and higher contours.
■
Auditoriums, concert halls, and public meeting areas within 65 dB and higher contours.
■
Government service, Manufacturing and Wholesale Trade, General Sales and Services,
Transportation, Communication, and Utilities buildings within the 70 dB and higher contours.
These potential non-compatible land uses fall into two principal categories: (1) discrete nonresidential noise sensitive sites (2) residential. Section 3.2.1 discusses the expected changes in noncompatible land-use between 2010 and 2020. Section 3.2.3 identifies the non-residential noisesensitive locations within the DNL 65 dB contours while Section 3.2.4 presents the estimated
residential population counts within the DNL 65 dB contours.
3.2.1
Comparison of 2010 and 2020 EIS No-Action Non-Compatible Land-Uses
Comparison of the 2010 to the 2020 conditions shows that the contours are expected to generally
increase over time along and around both runways. The largest changes occur to the south and north
along the extended runway centerlines and along the runway sidelines. The overall growth in the size
of the contours between the current and future year is due to the project growth in forecast
operations. The only exception to this is in the area to the southwest of the contours where the 2010
existing year contour is the same as the 2020 EIS No-Action contour due to the retirement of louder
aircraft in the fleet forecast by 2020. The overall increase in the noise contours between 2010 and
2020 EIS No-action is expected to cause a slight increase in exposure to noise-sensitive land-use.
3.2.2
Comparison of 2010 and 2020 EIS Preferred Alternative Non-Compatible Land-Uses
Comparison of the 2010 to the 2020 conditions shows that the contours are expected to generally
increase over time along and around both runways. The exception to this is areas influenced by the
extended runway from the EIS. The largest change occurs to the south near the end of Runway 5
between the 2010 current and 2020 future Preferred Alternative conditions, due to the proposed
southerly extension of Runway 5-23. The overall growth in the size of the contours between the
current and future year is due to the project growth in forecast operations. However several areas
have contour changes due to the extended runway. The area to the south of the airport along the
runway centerline extends across Posnegansett Pond due to the additional forecast operations. The
DNL 65 dB contour is nearly the same in both years in areas just east and west of the Runway 5-23
ends due to the retirement of louder aircraft in the fleet and the altitude of the aircraft during the
—
7
As indicated in the notes to
Table 1, the ultimate compatibility determination depends on the amount of outdoor to indoor “Noise Level
Reduction” incorporated into the building, or for some land uses, certain portions of the building.
June 2010
page 26
departure turn due to the extension. The overall increase in the noise contours between 2010 and the
2020 EIS Preferred Alternative is expected to cause an increase in exposure to noise-sensitive landuse.
3.2.3
Discrete Non-Residential Noise Sensitive Sites within the Noise Contours
The existing and forecast condition NEMs (Figures 1, 2 and 3) also show the locations of fifteen
non-residential noise sensitive sites exposed to DNL 65 dB or above. As shown in Table 3, ten noise
sensitive sites will be exposed to noise levels greater than DNL 65 dB in the 2010 existing year
NEM; this increases to 13 sites in the 2020 EIS No-action NEM, and 15 sites in the 2020 EIS
Preferred Alternative NEM.
Table 3 Non-Residential Noise Sensitive locations and National Register of Historical Places within the
DNL 65 dB Contours for 2010, 2020 EIS No-Action conditions and 2020 EIS Preferred Alternative
conditions
Site
Type
Site Name
S4F022
S4F021
PW039
PW034
4F
4F
Place of
Worship
Place
of
Worship
Place of
Worship
Arnold's Pond Beach
Arnold's Pond Beach
Bahai Faith
New Hope Worship
Center
Jehovah’s Witnesses Of
Warwick
63.3
63.2
64.3
64.5
64.8
64.7
65.1
66.4
2020 EIS
Preferred
Alternative NEM
Contour level
65.2
65.1
66.7
66.6
65.4
66.4
68.0
Historic Site
WHC 81 Kinnecom Lot 2
73.9
75.0
73.7
HS017
Historical Site
WHC 78 HowardRemington Lot
64.8
66.0
67.7
HS016
Historical Site
WHC 77 Northup Lot
66.0
66.7
68.8
HS015
Historical Site
WHC 76 William J. Cole
Lot
66.4
67.2
70.0
HS014
Historical Site
WHC 63 Utter-ArnoldRhodes Lot
67.2
68.6
68.8
HS013
HS007
HS006
HS005
HS004
Historical Site
Historical Site
Historical Site
Historical Site
Historical Site
70.3
66.3
68.2
62.9
65.0
70.8
68.0
69.8
65.4
66.9
81.2
68.0
69.8
65.6
67.1
PW017
HS018
WHC 26 Peter Freeman
Lot2
7. Rhode Island Air
National
6.
HangarGuard
No. 2
5. Rhode Island State
Airport
Terminal
4.
Hangar
No. 1
2010 NEM
Contour level
2020 EIS Noaction NEM
Contour level
Source: HMMH 2010, T.F. Green EIS
Note: Shaded areas are below DNL 65 dB
3.2.4
Residential Population within the Noise Contours
Table 4 presents the estimated residential population within the 2010 and 2020 contours. These
estimates were developed using US Census data to determine the dwelling units between the DNL 65
June 2010
page 27
dB and DNL 70 dB contours, then assuming an average of 2.35 people per dwelling unit. For the
population and housing counts within the DNL 70 dB contour, more detailed land use data (City of
Warwick parcel data assembled for the EIS) were used to count directly the number of dwelling units
and total population exposed. If a parcel was intersected by a contour, the entire parcel was assumed
to experience the higher interval level.
Table 4 Estimated Residential Population within for 2010 and 2020 Contour Cases
Day-Night
Average
Sound Level,
DNL
65-70 dB
Contour
Interval
70-75 dB
Contour
Interval
75 dB or
Greater
Estimated Population
Estimated Residential Dwelling
Units
Units
Units
2010 Existing
Conditions NEM
2020 EIS Noaction Forecast
Conditions NEM
2020 EIS
Preferred
Alternative
Forecast
Conditions NEM
871
1,366
1,361
2,047
3,210
3,198
0
59
127
0
139
298
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sources: US Census (2000), HMMH 2010, T.F. Green EIS
Table 5 Number of Residential Housing Units Eligible for Sound Insulation or Acquisition
Day-Night
Average
Sound Level,
DNL
65-70 dB
Contour
Interval
70dB or
Greater
Total
Eligible Residential
Dwelling Units
Residential Dwelling Units
Eligible for Sound Insulation
Residential Dwelling Units
Eligible for Acquisition
Total Residential Dwelling Units
Eligible for Mitigation
Total Population Eligible for
Mitigation
2010 Existing
Conditions NEM
2020 EIS Noaction Forecast
Conditions NEM
2020 EIS
Preferred
Alternative
Forecast
Conditions NEM
871
1,366
1,361
2,047
3,210
3,198
0
59
127
0
139
298
871
1,425
1,488
2,047
3,349
3,496
Sources: US Census (2000), HMMH 2010, T.F. Green EIS
Note: Mitigation is consistent with measures LU-4 and LU-6 from the 2000 NCP
June 2010
page 28
Page intentionally left blank.
June 2010
page 29
4 DEVELOPMENT OF NOISE CONTOURS
The 2010 Existing DNL contours and the 2020 Forecast DNL contours were prepared using the most
current version of the FAA’s Integrated Noise Model (INM) that was available at the time the
contours were prepared, Version 7.0a. The model was used without any unauthorized “calibration”
or “adjustment.” The INM requires inputs in the following categories:
■
Physical description of the airport layout
■
Level, mix, and day-night split of aircraft operations
■
Aircraft noise and performance characteristics
■
Runway utilization rates
■
Ground flight tracks and accompanying utilization rates.
Contour input was developed using RealContours™, a proprietary program that provides greater
detail to the modeling process by improving the precision of modeling individual aircraft flight
tracks and is further described in Section 5.2.5.
This chapter presents this information for the 2010 and 2020 contours.
4.1
Airport Physical Parameters
T.F. Green Airport is located the City of Warwick, approximately ten miles south of downtown
Providence at an elevation of 55 feet above mean sea level. The primary runway, 5-23 is currently
7,166 feet long and 150 feet wide and the secondary runway, 16-34 is currently 6,081 feet long and
150 feet wide.
The existing year 2010 NEM as well as the future year 2020 EIS No-action NEM uses the existing
runway layout and the 2020 EIS Preferred Alternative NEM uses the Preferred Alternative EIS
runway layout. The runway layout and airport property are shown on all of the contour and flight
track figures in this document.
All runway data, which were supplied by RIAC and the EIS team, are described in tables Table 6
and Table 7. The existing PVD airport diagram is shown in Figure 6.
The primary information that INM uses with regards to runways are
■
the departure thresholds (i.e. where aircraft begin their take-off roll);
■
the arrival threshold (a location marked on the runway);
■
the arrival threshold crossing height (TCH) (the height that arriving aircraft cross the arrival
threshold);
■
the runway gradient (i.e. is the runway slightly uphill or downhill);
■
the runway location; and runway direction.
June 2010
Figure 6
page 30
Existing Airport Diagram
June 2010
page 31
Runway length, runway width, instrumentation and declared distances do not directly affect noise
calculations, although these parameters may affect which aircraft might use a particular runway and
under what conditions, and therefore how often a runway would be used relative to the other
runways at the airport.
Table 6 Runway Details for 2010 and 2020 EIS No-action
Runway
05
23
16
34
1
1
Latitude
Longitude
41.713826
N
41.730472
N
41.731653
N
41.718579
N
71.434958
W
71.420982
W
71.432175
W
71.418331
W
Elev.
(ft)
Displaced
Arrival
Threshold
(ft)
Arrival
Threshold
Crossing
Height
2
(TCH) (ft)
Displaced
Departure
Threshold
(ft)
50.8
0.0
50.0
0.0
44.3
0.0
39.0
0.0
53.7
565.0
38.0
0.0
29.7
0.0
35.0
0.0
Runway
Width
(ft)
Runway
Length
(ft)
150
7,166
150
6,081
Runway
Width
(ft)
Runway
Length
(ft)
150
8,701
150
6,081
Notes:
1 All coordinates are relative to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD) 83
Source: RIAC, FAA T.F. Green EIS
Table 7 Runway Details for 2020 EIS Preferred Alternative
Runway
05
23
16
1
1
Latitude
Longitude
41.710261
N
41.730471
N
41.731860
N
41.718785
N
71.437949
W
71.420982
W
71.432393
W
71.418549
W
Elev.
(ft)
Displaced
Arrival
Threshold
(ft)
Arrival
Threshold
Crossing
Height
2
(TCH) (ft)
Displaced
Departure
Threshold
(ft)
52.2
0.0
50.0
0.0
44.1
0.0
39.0
0.0
53.4
0.0
38.0
0.0
34
32.3
0.0
35.0
Notes:
1 All coordinates are relative to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD) 83
0.0
Source: RIAC, FAA T.F. Green EIS
June 2010
4.2
page 32
Aircraft Operations
Table 8 presents the detailed average daily aircraft activity forecasts that were developed for the
existing year 2010 operations. Table 9 presents the 2020 EIS No-action operations and Table 10
presents the 2020 EIS Preferred Alternative operations. Section 4.2.1 summarizes the process used in
the operations development.
The tables subdivide the activity into type of operation (arrivals, departures), and into day or night
time periods (7 am – 10 pm and 10 pm – 7 am, respectively). The day/night breakdown is critical to
the calculation of DNL, because the metric weights night operations by a factor of 10
(mathematically equivalent to adding ten decibels to the noise level produced by aircraft operating at
night).
The existing and future forecast operations totals are based on the 2008 FAA Terminal Area
Forecast.(TAF). This TAF also forms the basis of the 2020 EIS forecast which is used for these
future 2020 NEMs.
The TAF forecast is broken down into groups: Air carrier includes all larger aircraft in commercial
service with 60 seats or more; air taxi includes all other aircraft in commercial service with less than
60 seats, general aviation includes all aircraft not in commercial service regardless of size, and
military includes aircraft in Military service8.
The original EIS forecast included historical trends, information from forecast models, and was
designed to incorporate additional flights that PVD would offer as part of the New England Regional
System of Airports. The original forecasts are based on realistic assumptions and methodologies,
particularly in the estimates of the number of new long distance flights that would be enabled by the
proposed runway extension. The original projections lie within the middle part of the range of
possible activity. In order to retain the detail analysis that went into the original forecast, the updated
forecast was matched to the TAF groups and scaled to the 2008 TAF plus 10 percent values. This
ensured that although the detailed forecast previously prepared specifically for PVD still was used, it
was adjusted to reflect more recent lower operational levels.
—
8
FAA Order JO 7210.3V Change 3 effective Aug 27, 2009 Facility Operation and Administration, Chapter 12
Section 12-1-5 Categories of Operations and Appendix 3
June 2010
page 33
Table 8 Detailed 2010 Existing Year Modeled Average Daily Aircraft Operations
Aircraft
Category
Small
Narrow-body
INM
Aircraft
Type
NIGHT
TOTAL
DAY
NIGHT
TOTAL
Grand Total
1,351
215
1,566
1,439
131
1,569
3,135
7373B2
178
24
202
183
17
200
402
737400
1,437
266
1,704
1,205
499
1,704
3,407
737500
621
149
770
760
10
770
1,541
737700
7,273
2,182
9,455
9,186
269
9,455
18,910
737800
261
21
281
258
23
281
562
737N17
13
3
16
13
0
13
29
737N9
124
8
133
132
3
136
269
A319-131
670
151
821
682
139
821
1,642
A320-211
1,238
359
1,598
1,448
147
1,595
3,192
A320-232
335
55
389
384
8
392
781
DC93LW
15
14
28
32
2
34
62
DC95HW
266
1
267
256
2
259
526
DC9Q9
39
8
47
39
8
47
94
MD81
13
3
15
15
0
15
31
MD82
639
237
876
690
183
873
1,749
MD83
1,213
273
1,486
1,130
358
1,488
2,973
15,686
3,968
19,654
17,853
1,798
19,651
39,305
727EM1
8
15
23
12
3
15
38
727EM2
127
455
582
573
17
590
1,171
727Q15
2
0
2
0
0
0
2
727Q9
0
0
0
3
0
3
3
727QF
23
9
32
23
10
33
65
757300
2
0
2
0
2
2
4
757PW
1,317
309
1,626
1,463
159
1,622
3,248
757RR
384
304
688
680
13
692
1,381
A321-232
109
197
306
220
86
306
612
DC86HK
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
1,972
1,289
3,261
2,972
292
3,264
6,526
767300
124
124
248
124
124
248
496
A30-304
0
0
0
20
28
48
48
124
124
248
144
152
296
543
Sub-Total
Small
Wide-body
DAY
Departure
737300
Sub-Total
Large
Narrow-body
Arrival
Sub-Total
June 2010
page 34
Table 8 Detailed 2010 Existing Year Modeled Average Daily Aircraft Operations (continued)
Aircraft
Category
General
Aviation
Jet
INM
Aircraft
Type
NIGHT
TOTAL
DAY
NIGHT
TOTAL
Grand Total
728
48
777
697
79
777
1,553
CNA500
169
11
180
178
4
182
362
CNA55B
4
0
4
0
0
0
4
CNA750
738
59
797
724
73
797
1,594
F10062
2
0
2
0
2
2
4
FAL50
141
8
149
147
2
149
298
FAL900
92
6
98
93
5
98
195
GII
44
6
50
46
5
51
101
GIIB
174
26
200
174
23
196
396
GIV
200
9
209
189
20
209
418
GV
93
8
101
96
5
101
202
IA1125
69
2
71
67
4
71
142
LEAR25
21
0
21
20
0
20
41
LEAR35
1,007
89
1,096
1,024
70
1,095
2,190
MU3001
1,207
98
1,306
1,236
72
1,307
2,613
4,691
368
5,060
4,690
364
5,054
10,114
1900D
1,808
221
2,029
1,907
122
2,029
4,058
BEC58P
2,151
52
2,203
2,165
22
2,188
4,390
C130
9
0
9
9
0
9
19
CNA172
521
3
524
521
3
524
1,047
CNA206
120
3
123
121
0
121
245
CNA20T
2
0
2
2
0
2
4
CNA441
127
5
132
124
8
132
264
COMSEP
12
0
12
12
0
12
24
CVR580
1
0
1
1
0
1
2
DHC6
370
13
383
346
34
380
763
DHC8
8
0
8
7
1
8
16
GASEPF
716
14
729
668
48
716
1,446
GASEPV
187
7
194
172
5
177
371
9
0
9
9
0
9
17
PA31
Sub-Total
DAY
Departure
CIT3
Sub-Total
Prop / Air
Taxi / GA
Arrival
SD330
9
0
9
6
0
6
15
SF340
1,292
226
1,518
1,146
371
1,517
3,035
7,340
544
7,884
7,216
615
7,831
15,715
June 2010
page 35
Table 8 Detailed 2010 Existing Year Modeled Average Daily Aircraft Operations (continued)
INM
Aircraft
Type
DAY
NIGHT
TOTAL
DAY
NIGHT
TOTAL
Grand Total
CL600
CL601
349
1,880
19
295
369
2,175
344
1,936
12
241
356
2,177
724
4,352
CRJ70P
428
68
496
405
91
496
991
EMB145
3,065
305
3,370
2,882
363
3,245
6,616
EMB14L
1,064
154
1,218
1,013
235
1,249
2,467
EMB17P
248
0
248
203
45
248
496
2
0
2
2
0
2
4
Sub-Total
7,036
842
7,878
6,785
988
7,772
15,650
Grand Total
36,849
7,135
43,984
39,660
4,209
43,869
87,853
Aircraft
Category
Regional
Jet
J328
Arrival
Departure
Source: HMMH, 2010.
Note:
Numbers have been rounded.
June 2010
page 36
Table 9 Detailed 2020 EIS No-Action Modeled Average Daily Aircraft Operations
Aircraft
Category
Small
Narrow-body
INM
Aircraft
Type
NIGHT
TOTAL
DAY
NIGHT
TOTAL
Grand Total
992
158
1,149
1,059
92
1,151
2,301
7373B2
146
22
168
152
16
167
335
737400
1,405
260
1,665
1,177
488
1,665
3,330
737500
998
243
1,241
1,225
17
1,241
2,483
737700
9,902
2,971
12,874
12,508
366
12,873
25,747
737800
946
70
1,016
936
80
1,016
2,032
737N17
17
4
20
16
0
16
37
737N9
165
11
176
176
5
180
357
A319-
1,060
240
1,300
1,080
219
1,300
2,600
A320-
640
185
825
747
75
822
1,647
A320-
172
28
200
199
4
203
403
DC93LW
17
16
33
37
2
39
72
DC95HW
21
1
22
10
3
13
35
DC9Q9
43
8
52
43
9
52
104
MD81
10
1
11
11
0
11
21
MD82
267
99
366
290
72
363
729
MD83
435
96
530
408
125
533
1,063
17,237
4,412
21,649
20,074
1,572
21,645
43,294
727EM1
4
10
15
8
1
9
24
727EM2
67
235
302
298
9
307
609
727Q15
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
727Q9
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
727QF
12
5
16
12
5
17
33
757300
2
0
2
0
2
2
5
757PW
2,191
514
2,705
2,433
264
2,697
5,402
757RR
639
507
1,146
1,133
21
1,154
2,299
A321-
111
198
309
223
86
309
619
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
3,027
1,469
4,496
4,108
391
4,499
8,995
767300
1,210
1,210
2,421
1,210
1,210
2,421
4,841
A300-
51
242
293
284
9
293
587
A310-
0
0
0
25
35
60
60
1,261
1,453
2,714
1,520
1,254
2,774
5,488
DC86HK
Sub-Total
Small
Wide-body
DAY
Departure
737300
Sub-Total
Large
Narrow-body
Arrival
Sub-Total
June 2010
page 37
Table 9 Detailed 2020 EIS No-Action Modeled Average Daily Aircraft Operations (continued)
Aircraft
Category
General
Aviation
Jet
INM
Aircraft
Type
Sub-Total
DAY
NIGHT
Departure
TOTAL
DAY
NIGHT
TOTAL
Grand Total
CIT3
846
56
902
810
92
902
1,804
CNA500
197
12
210
207
5
212
422
CNA55B
5
0
5
0
0
0
5
CNA750
861
69
930
845
85
930
1,860
F10062
2
0
2
0
2
2
5
FAL50
164
9
173
171
2
173
347
FAL900
106
7
113
108
5
113
227
GII
51
7
58
53
5
58
116
GIIB
203
30
232
202
26
228
460
GIV
234
10
245
221
24
245
489
GV
108
9
117
112
5
117
234
IA1125
80
2
82
77
5
82
164
LEAR25
24
0
24
23
0
23
47
LEAR35
1,180
104
1,284
1,200
83
1,283
2,566
MU3001
1,424
116
1,540
1,457
85
1,542
3,082
Sub-Total
Prop / Air
Taxi / GA
Arrival
5,487
431
5,918
5,486
425
5,912
11,830
1900D
2,192
273
2,465
2,309
156
2,465
4,930
BEC58P
2,919
69
2,988
2,943
28
2,971
5,959
C130
10
0
10
10
0
10
20
CNA172
604
3
608
604
3
608
1,215
CNA206
140
4
143
141
0
141
284
CNA20T
2
0
2
3
0
3
5
CNA441
147
6
153
144
10
153
306
COMSEP
14
0
14
14
0
14
27
CVR580
1
0
1
1
0
1
2
DHC6
429
15
444
401
40
441
885
DHC8
10
0
10
8
1
10
19
GASEPF
928
16
944
873
56
929
1,873
GASEPV
217
8
225
199
6
205
431
PA31
10
0
10
10
0
10
20
SD330
10
0
10
7
0
7
17
SF340
1,700
299
1,999
1,509
488
1,997
3,996
9,333
693
10,026
9,177
788
9,965
19,991
June 2010
page 38
Table 9 Detailed 2020 EIS No-Action Modeled Average Daily Aircraft Operations (continued)
INM
Aircraft
Type
DAY
NIGHT
TOTAL
DAY
NIGHT
TOTAL
Grand Total
CL600
CL601
407
2,160
23
339
430
2,499
400
2,225
14
277
414
2,501
844
5,000
CRJ70P
1,672
265
1,937
1,582
354
1,937
3,873
EMB145
4,200
419
4,619
3,949
498
4,447
9,066
EMB14L
453
59
511
431
99
530
1,042
EMB17P
242
0
242
199
44
243
485
2
0
2
2
0
2
5
Sub-Total
9,136
1,103
10,240
8,790
1,286
10,076
20,315
Grand Total
45,482
9,561
55,043
49,155
5,717
54,871
109,914
Aircraft
Category
Regional
Jet
J328
Arrival
Departure
Source: HMMH, 2009. T.F. Green EIS
Note:
June 2010
page 39
Table 10 Detailed 2020 EIS Preferred Alternative Modeled Average Daily Aircraft Operations
Aircraft
Category
Small
Narrow-body
INM
Aircraft
Type
NIGHT
TOTAL
DAY
NIGHT
TOTAL
Grand Total
992
158
1,149
1,059
92
1,151
2,301
7373B2
146
22
168
152
16
167
335
737400
1,405
260
1,665
1,177
488
1,665
3,330
737500
998
243
1,241
1,225
17
1,241
2,483
737700
11,593
3,477
15,069
14,669
400
15,069
30,139
737800
1,791
323
2,114
2,015
99
2,114
4,228
737N17
17
4
20
16
0
16
37
737N9
165
11
176
176
5
180
357
A319-
1,060
240
1,300
1,080
219
1,300
2,600
A320-
862
244
1,106
1,009
102
1,111
2,217
A320-
529
122
651
635
11
646
1,297
DC93LW
17
16
33
37
2
39
72
DC95HW
21
1
22
10
3
13
35
DC9Q9
43
8
52
43
9
52
104
MD81
10
1
11
11
0
11
21
MD82
267
99
366
290
72
363
729
MD83
435
96
530
408
125
533
1,063
20,351
5,324
25,675
24,012
1,659
25,671
51,346
727EM1
4
10
15
8
1
9
24
727EM2
67
235
302
298
9
307
609
727Q15
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
727Q9
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
727QF
12
5
16
12
5
17
33
757300
2
0
2
0
2
2
5
757PW
2,351
563
2,914
2,633
275
2,907
5,821
757RR
760
543
1,302
1,288
21
1,309
2,612
A321-
111
198
309
223
86
309
619
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
3,309
1,553
4,862
4,463
402
4,865
9,727
767300
1,210
1,210
2,421
1,210
1,210
2,421
4,841
A300-
51
242
293
284
9
293
587
A310-
0
0
0
25
35
60
60
1,261
1,453
2,714
1,520
1,254
2,774
5,488
DC86HK
Sub-Total
Small
Wide-body
DAY
Departure
737300
Sub-Total
Large
Narrow-body
Arrival
Sub-Total
June 2010
page 40
(continued)
Aircraft
Category
General
Aviation
Jet
INM
Aircraft
Type
Sub-Total
DAY
NIGHT
Departure
TOTAL
DAY
NIGHT
TOTAL
Grand Total
CIT3
846
56
902
810
92
902
1,804
CNA500
197
12
210
207
5
212
422
CNA55B
5
0
5
0
0
0
5
CNA750
861
69
930
845
85
930
1,860
F10062
2
0
2
0
2
2
5
FAL50
164
9
173
171
2
173
347
FAL900
106
7
113
108
5
113
227
GII
51
7
58
53
5
58
116
GIIB
203
30
232
202
26
228
460
GIV
234
10
245
221
24
245
489
GV
108
9
117
112
5
117
234
IA1125
80
2
82
77
5
82
164
LEAR25
24
0
24
23
0
23
47
LEAR35
1,180
104
1,284
1,200
83
1,283
2,566
MU3001
1,424
116
1,540
1,457
85
1,542
3,082
Sub-Total
Prop / Air
Taxi / GA
Arrival
5,487
431
5,918
5,486
425
5,912
11,830
1900D
2,192
273
2,465
2,309
156
2,465
4,930
BEC58P
2,919
69
2,988
2,943
28
2,971
5,959
C130
10
0
10
10
0
10
20
CNA172
604
3
608
604
3
608
1,215
CNA206
140
4
143
141
0
141
284
CNA20T
2
0
2
3
0
3
5
CNA441
147
6
153
144
10
153
306
COMSEP
14
0
14
14
0
14
27
CVR580
1
0
1
1
0
1
2
DHC6
429
15
444
401
40
441
885
DHC8
10
0
10
8
1
10
19
GASEPF
928
16
944
873
56
929
1,873
GASEPV
217
8
225
199
6
205
431
PA31
10
0
10
10
0
10
20
SD330
10
0
10
7
0
7
17
SF340
1,700
299
1,999
1,509
488
1,997
3,996
9,333
693
10,026
9,177
788
9,965
19,991
June 2010
page 41
(continued)
INM
Aircraft
Type
DAY
NIGHT
TOTAL
DAY
NIGHT
TOTAL
Grand Total
CL600
CL601
407
2,160
23
339
430
2,499
400
2,225
14
277
414
2,501
844
5,000
CRJ70P
1,672
265
1,937
1,582
354
1,937
3,873
EMB145
4,200
419
4,619
3,949
498
4,447
9,066
EMB14L
453
59
511
431
99
530
1,042
EMB17P
242
0
242
199
44
243
485
2
0
2
2
0
2
5
Sub-Total
9,136
1,103
10,240
8,790
1,286
10,076
20,315
Grand Total
48,877
10,557
59,435
53,447
5,815
59,263
118,698
Aircraft
Category
Regional
Jet
J328
Arrival
Departure
Source: HMMH, 2009. T.F. Green EIS
Note:
June 2010
4.2.1
page 42
Development of 2010 Existing Operations
The existing 2010 operations and fleet mix information was developed from the same radar track
database as was used for the EIS, but scaled to the 2010 operational level from the 2008 TAF.
Table 11 contains the existing and forecasted levels of operations used for the NEMs. The
operational level from the 2008 TAF is within 8 percent of the FAA tower counts from the past 12
months (5/2009 thru 4/2010 = 81,345)9 and is representative of the existing conditions.
Table 11 Annual Operations Summary and Comparison
FAA Category
Itinerant
1
2020 EIS No-Action Annual
Operations
2020 EIS Preferred
Alternative
Annual Operations
Air Carrier
46,608
60,687
69,471
Air Taxi and
Commuter
22,019
26,924
26,924
GA
17,681
20,590
20,590
175
193
193
1,358
1,507
1,507
12
13
13
87,853
109,914
118,698
Military
Local
Part 150 Forecast Operations
2010 Existing
Annual Operations
GA
Military
Total
4.2.2
Development of 2020 EIS No-action and Preferred Alternative Operations
The 2020 EIS No-Action condition aircraft fleet mix is based on the same aircraft operations forecast
that was developed in support of the EIS. The future fleet mix continues to assume that several of
the loudest aircraft in the existing fleet mix would be retired and replaced, including: DC9 aircraft
would be replaced with A319 aircraft; some of the MD-80 fleet would be replaced with A320
aircraft; and some of the cargo fleet B727 aircraft would be replaced with A300 aircraft.
The military fleet mix is not forecast to change in any of the future years and the general aviation
(GA) fleet is forecast to slightly increase within the future years. The 2020 EIS Preferred Alternative
condition includes the improvements to the airfield as well as the extension to Runway 5-23.
Therefore, an additional 24 operations per day are included in the 2020 modeling for the 2020 EIS
Preferred Alternative condition and this would result in increases to the small and large narrow-body
aircraft groups in the fleet mix for 2020.
—
9
FAA ATADS System – Data pulled 6/14/2010
4.3
June 2010
page 43
Aircraft Noise and Performance Characteristics
Specific noise and performance data must be entered into the INM for each aircraft type operating at
the airport. Noise data is included in the form of sound exposure level (SEL – see Section 5.1.4) at a
range of distances (from 200 feet to 25,000 feet) from a particular aircraft with engines at a specific
thrust level. Performance data includes thrust, speed and altitude profiles for takeoff and landing
operations. The INM database contains standard noise and performance data for over one hundred
different fixed wing aircraft types, most of which are civilian aircraft. The INM automatically
accesses the noise and performance data for takeoff and landing operations by those aircraft.
This study included many different aircraft types. While many aircraft could be modeled by direct
assignments from the standard INM database, several were not in the INM database. For those
aircraft types not in the INM standard database, FAA approved substitutions were used to model the
aircraft with a similar type that was in the database, or a user-defined aircraft was created for that
specific aircraft type. FAA approved substitutions and user-defined came from the following three
sources:
■
INM Version 7.0a includes the current list of standard FAA substitutions;
■
PVD Part 150 specific request to the FAA for non-standard substitutions and user-defined
aircraft (request and FAA approval documented in Appendix B). These aircraft include the
■
4.4
■
Embraer 170 (user-defined EMB17P),
■
Fairchild/Dornier 328 RJ ( J328),
■
DC-8-60 with Stage 3 Hushkit,
■
BD-700 Global Express (GLEX),
■
IAI 1126 Galaxy/Gulfstream G200 (GALX),
■
Beechcraft Bonanza 36 (BE36), and
■
Pilatus PC-12.
INM 5.0 User’s Guide for pre-approved user-defined aircraft, specifically three-engined business
jets. These aircraft include the
■
Dassualt Falcon 50 (user-defined FAL50)
■
Dassualt Falcon 900 (user-defined FAL900)
Runway Utilization
Runway utilization percentages (the percent of time a runway is used) were based upon the radar
data database from the EIS. The EIS database represents a year of operations at the airport and is
representative of existing and future conditions. Each record in the database contains the date and
time of flight and the runway used. From these records, overall runway usage tables for 2010 and
2020 were compiled by arrival or departure, day or night, and aircraft type.
Table 12 presents the modeled runway use for arrival, departure, and pattern operations for the 2010
existing condition contours. Table 13 and Table 14 present the modeled runway use for arrival,
June 2010
page 44
departure, and pattern operations for the 2020 EIS No-action and 2020 EIS Preferred Alternative,
respectively.
Table 12 Runway Utilization Rates for Arrival and Departure Operations for the 2010 Existing NEM
Day
Type of Operation Night
or
Annual Operations with Percent of Total Operations (2010)
Runway 5
Runway 16
Runway 23
Runway 34
2020
Total
Departure
Day
13,135
15.0%
2,132
2.4%
19,359
22.0%
5,035
5.7%
39,660
45.1%
Arrival
Day
12,024
518
17,758
6,550
36,849
13.7%
0.6%
20.2%
7.5%
41.9%
1,652
22
2,256
278
4,209
1.9%
0.0%
2.6%
0.3%
4.8%
2,983
13
3,228
911
7,135
3.4%
0.0%
3.7%
1.0%
8.1%
29,794
2,685
42,601
12,774
87,853
33.9%
3.1%
48.5%
14.5%
100.0%
Departure
Arrival
Night
Night
Subtotals
Source: HMMH, 2010
Note: Numbers are rounded. Night is defined as 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM.
Table 13 Runway Utilization Rates for Arrival and Departure Operations for the 2020 EIS No-Action
NEM
Day
or
Runway 5
Runway 16
Runway 23
Runway 34
2020
Total
Departure
Day
16,125
14.7%
2,869
2.6%
23,996
21.8%
6,164
5.6%
49,155
44.7%
Arrival
Day
14,755
694
22,038
7,994
45,482
13.4%
0.6%
20.1%
7.3%
41.4%
2,252
27
2,972
466
5,717
2.0%
0.0%
2.7%
0.4%
5.2%
3,902
15
4,486
1,159
9,561
3.6%
0.0%
4.1%
1.1%
8.7%
37,034
3,605
53,492
15,783
109,914
33.7%
3.3%
48.7%
14.4%
100.0%
Departure
Arrival
Subtotals
Night
Night
Source: T.F. Green EIS, HMMH, 2009
June 2010
page 45
Table 14 Runway Utilization Rates for Arrival and Departure Operations for the 2020 EIS Preferred
Alternative NEM
Day
Departure
Arrival
Day
Day
Departure
Arrival
Night
Night
Sub-Totals
or
Runway 5
Runway 16
Runway 23
Runway 34
2020
Total
17,918
2,869
26,496
6,164
53,447
15.1%
2.4%
22.3%
5.2%
45.0%
15,921
719
23,765
8,473
48,877
13.4%
0.6%
20.0%
7.1%
41.2%
2,291
27
3,032
466
5,815
1.9%
0.0%
2.6%
0.4%
4.9%
4,302
15
4,972
1,268
10,557
3.6%
0.0%
4.2%
1.1%
8.9%
40,432
3,631
58,264
16,371
118,698
34.1%
3.1%
49.1%
13.8%
100.0%
Source: T.F. Green EIS, HMMH, 2009
The additional operations due to the extension change the runway use slightly.
4.5
Flight Track Geometry and Utilization
As discussed earlier, RealContours™ provides increased precision in modeling INM flight tracks.
RealContours™ uses individual flight tracks taken directly from radar systems rather than relying on
consolidated, representative flight tracks data. This provides the advantage of modeling each aircraft
operation on the specific runway it actually used and at the actual time of day of the arrival or
departure. RealContours™ then sets up an INM study for each day using INM standard data. Each
day is then modeled in the INM and the results for each day combined and averaged to get the annual
contour.
Sample model tracks for north flow and south flow are provided in Figure 7 and Figure 8,
respectively. The north flow and south flow flight tracks sample was extracted from the
RealContoursTM database from a random sample of days. A total of 86,252 individual flight tracks
were modeled for the 2010 and 2020 NEMs. A representative set of 5,742 north flow and 6,328
south flow model tracks are presented in Figure 7 and Figure 8 respectively. No changes to the
airfield or airspace are expected within the 10-year time frame and therefore, no changes to the flight
tracks resulted from the 2010 existing year to the 2020 forecast year.
The same tracks and utilization rates apply to day and night operations in both the 2010 and 2020
cases unless otherwise noted.
The same tracks and utilization rates apply to day and night operations in both the 2020 EIS Noaction and 2020 EIS Preferred Alternative cases unless otherwise noted. Arrivals to the extended
Runway 5 end and departures from the Runway 23 end continue to fly the same flight corridors as
approved in the prior NCP. The difference is the departures from Runway 23 will initiate their turn
at a higher altitude than they do in the 2020 EIS No-action condition and arrivals to Runway 5 will
be lower in altitude due to the extended runway end.
This page intentionally left blank
June 2010
page 46
Figure 7
Sample of Modeled Tracks for North Flow Operations
June 2010
page 47
Figure 8
Sample of Modeled Tracks for South Flow Operations
June 2010
page 49
June 2010
page 50
Page intentionally left blank.
June 2010
page 51
5 INTRODUCTION TO NOISE EVALUATION
This chapter provides an introduction to fundamentals of acoustics and noise terminology (Section
5.1), the effects of noise on human activity (Section 5.2), community annoyance (Section 5.3). The
discussion of currently accepted noise-land use compatibility guidelines was presented in Section
2.3, however this Chapter will present additional background material.
5.1
Introduction to Acoustics and Noise Terminology
Part 150 relies largely on a measure of cumulative noise exposure over an entire calendar year, in
terms of a metric called the Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL). However, DNL does not
provide an adequate description of noise for many purposes. A variety of other measures are
available to address essentially any issue of concern.
This chapter introduces the following acoustic metrics, which are all related to DNL, but provide
bases for evaluating a broad range of noise situations.
■
■
■
■
■
Decibel, dB;
A-Weighted Decibel, dBA;
Sound Exposure Level, SEL;
Equivalent Sound Level, Leq; and
Day-Night Average Sound Level, DNL.
5.1.1
The Decibel, dB
All sounds come from a sound source – a musical instrument, a voice speaking, or an airplane that
passes overhead. It takes energy to produce sound. The sound energy produced by any sound source
is transmitted through the air in sound waves – tiny, quick oscillations of pressure just above and just
below atmospheric pressure. These oscillations, or sound pressures, impinge on the ear, creating the
sound we hear.
Our ears are sensitive to a wide range of sound pressures. The loudest sounds that we hear without
pain have about one million times more energy than the quietest sounds we hear. But our ears are
incapable of detecting small differences in these pressures. Thus, to better match how we hear this
sound energy, we compress the total range of sound pressures to a more meaningful range by
introducing the concept of sound pressure level (SPL). Sound pressure level is a measure of the
sound pressure of a given noise source relative to a standard reference value (typically the quietest
sound that a young person with good hearing can detect). Sound pressure levels are measured in
decibels (abbreviated dB). Decibels are logarithmic quantities – logarithms of the squared ratio of
two pressures, the numerator being the pressure of the sound source of interest, and the denominator
being the reference pressure (the quietest sound we can hear).
The logarithmic conversion of sound pressure to sound pressure level means that the quietest sound
we can hear (the reference pressure) has a sound pressure level of about zero decibels, while the
loudest sounds we hear without pain have sound pressure levels of about 120 dB. Most sounds in
our day-to-day environment have sound pressure levels from 30 to 100 dB.
June 2010
page 52
Because decibels are logarithmic quantities, they do not behave like regular numbers with which we
are more familiar. For example, if two sound sources each produce 100 dB and they are operated
together, they produce only 103 dB – not 200 dB as we might expect. Four equal sources operating
simultaneously result in a total sound pressure level of 106 dB. In fact, for every doubling of the
number of equal sources, the sound pressure level goes up another three decibels. A tenfold increase
in the number of sources makes the sound pressure level go up 10 dB. A hundredfold increase
makes the level go up 20 dB, and it takes a thousand equal sources to increase the level 30 dB!
If one source is much louder than another, the two sources together will produce the same sound
pressure level (and sound to our ears) as if the louder source were operating alone. For example, a
100 dB source plus an 80 dB source produce 100 dB when operating together. The louder source
“masks” the quieter one, but if the quieter source gets louder, it will have an increasing effect on the
total sound pressure level. When the two sources are equal, as described above, they produce a level
three decibels above the sound of either one by itself.
From these basic concepts, note that one hundred 80 dB sources will produce a combined level of
100 dB; if a single 100 dB source is added, the group will produce a total sound pressure level of 103
dB. Clearly, the loudest source has the greatest effect on the total
5.1.2
A-Weighted Decibel, dBA
Another important characteristic of sound is its frequency, or "pitch". This is the rate of repetition of
the sound pressure oscillations as they reach our ear. Formerly expressed in cycles per second,
frequency is now expressed in units known as Hertz (Hz).
Most people hear from about 20 Hz to about 10,000 to 15,000 Hz. People respond to sound most
readily when the predominant frequency is in the range of normal conversation, around 1,000 to
2,000 Hz. Acousticians have developed "filters" to match our ears' sensitivity and help us to judge
the relative loudness of sounds made up of different frequencies. The so-called "A" filter does the
best job of matching the sensitivity of our ears to most environmental noises. Sound pressure levels
measured through this filter are referred to as A-weighted levels (dBA). A-weighting significantly
de-emphasizes noise at low and high frequencies (below about 500 Hz and above about 10,000 Hz)
where we do not hear as well. Because this filter generally matches our ears' sensitivity, sounds
having higher A-weighted sound levels are usually judged to be louder than those with lower Aweighted sound levels, a relationship which does not always hold true for unweighted levels. It is for
these reasons that A-weighted sound levels are normally used to evaluate environmental noise.
Other weighting networks include the B and C filters. They correspond to different level ranges of
the ear. The rarely used B-weighting attenuates low frequencies (those less than 500 Hz), but to a
lesser degree than A-weighting. C weighting is nearly flat throughout the audible frequency range,
hardly de-emphasizing low frequency noise. C-weighted levels can be preferable in evaluating
sounds whose low-frequency components are responsible for secondary effects such as the shaking
of a building, window rattle, or perceptible vibrations. Uses include the evaluation of blasting noise,
artillery fire, and in some cases, aircraft noise inside buildings.
Figure 9 compares these various weighting networks.
June 2010
page 53
Figure 9 Frequency-Response Characteristics of Various Weighting Networks
Source: Harris, Cyril M., editor; Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control, (Chapter 5,
"Acoustical Measurement Instruments"; Johnson, Daniel L.; Marsh, Alan H.; and Harris, Cyril M.); New York;
McGraw-Hill, Inc.; 1991; p. 5.13
Because of the correlation with our hearing, the A-weighted level has been adopted as the basic
measure of environmental noise by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and by nearly
every other federal and state agency concerned with community noise. Part 150 requires airports to
use A-weighted noise metrics. Figure 10 presents typical A-weighted sound levels of several
common environmental sources.
Figure 10 Common Environmental Sound Levels, in dBA
Source: HMMH (Aircraft noise levels from FAA Advisory Circular 36-3H)
June 2010
page 54
June 2010
page 55
An additional dimension to environmental noise is that A-weighted levels vary with time. For
example, the sound level increases as an aircraft approaches, then falls and blends into the
background as the aircraft recedes into the distance (though even the background varies as birds
chirp or the wind blows or a vehicle passes by). Figure 11 illustrates this concept.
Figure 11 Variations in the A-Weighted Sound Level Over Time
Source: HMMH
5.1.3
Maximum A-Weighted Noise Level, Lmax
The variation in noise level over time often makes it convenient to describe a particular noise "event"
by its maximum sound level, abbreviated as Lmax. In the figure above, it is approximately 85 dBA.
The maximum level describes only one dimension of an event; it provides no information on the
cumulative noise exposure. In fact, two events with identical maxima may produce very different
total exposures. One may be of very short duration, while the other may continue for an extended
period and be judged much more annoying. The next measure corrects for this deficiency.
5.1.4
Sound Exposure Level, SEL
The most frequently used measure of noise exposure for an individual aircraft noise event (and the
measure that Part 150 specifies for this purpose) is the Sound Exposure Level, or SEL. SEL is a
measure of the total noise energy produced during an event, from the time when the A-weighted
sound level first exceeds a threshold level (normally just above the background or ambient noise) to
the time that the sound level drops back down below the threshold. To allow comparison of noise
events with very different durations, SEL “normalizes” the duration in every case to one second; that
is, it is expressed as the steady noise level with just a one-second duration that includes the same
amount of noise energy as the actual longer duration, time-varying noise. In lay terms, SEL
“squeezes” the entire noise event into one second.
June 2010
page 56
Figure 12 depicts this transformation. The shaded area represents the energy included in an SEL
measurement for the noise event, where the threshold is set to 60 dBA. The darkly shaded vertical
bar, which is 90 dBA high and just one second long (wide), contains exactly the same sound energy
as the full event.
Figure 12 Sound Exposure Level
Source: HMMH
Because the SEL is normalized to one second, it will always be larger than the Lmax for an event
longer than one second. In this case, the SEL is 90 dB; the Lmax is approximately 85 dBA. For most
aircraft overflights, the SEL is normally on the order of 7 to 12 dB higher than Lmax. Because SEL
takes duration into account, longer exposure to relatively slow, quiet aircraft, such as propeller
models, can have the same or higher SEL than shorter exposure to faster, louder planes, such as
corporate jets.
Aircraft noise models use SEL as the basis for computing exposure from multiple events. The
original Part 150 study used SEL contours as a basis for analyzing the single event benefits of noise
abatement measures.
5.1.5
Equivalent Sound Level, Leq
The Lmax and SEL quantify the noise associated with individual events. The remaining metrics in
this section describe longer-term cumulative noise exposure that can include many events.
The Equivalent Sound Level (Leq), is a measure of exposure resulting from the accumulation of Aweighted sound levels over a particular period of interest; for example, an hour, an eight hour school
day, nighttime, or a full 24-hour day. Because the length of the period can differ, the applicable
period should always be identified or clearly understood when discussing the metric. Such durations
are often identified through a subscript, for example Leq(8) or Leq(24).
Leq is equivalent to the constant sound level over the period of interest that contains as much sound
energy as the actual time-varying level. This is illustrated in Figure 13. Both the solid and striped
shaded areas have a one-minute Leq value of 76 dB. It is important to recognize, however, that the
two signals (the constant one and the time-varying one) would sound very different in real life. Also,
June 2010
page 57
be aware that the "average" sound level suggested by Leq is not an arithmetic value, but a
logarithmic, or "energy-averaged" sound level. Thus, loud events dominate Leq measurements.
Figure 13 Example of a One Minute Equivalent Sound Level
Source: HMMH
In airport noise studies, Leq is often presented for consecutive one-hour periods to illustrate how the
exposure rises and falls throughout a 24-hour period, and how individual hours are affected by
unusual activity, such as rush hour traffic or a few loud aircraft.
5.1.6
Day-Night Average Sound Level, DNL
Part 150 requires that airports use a slightly more complicated measure of noise exposure to describe
cumulative noise exposure during an average annual day: the Day-Night Average Sound Level,
DNL. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency identified DNL as the most appropriate means of
evaluating airport noise based on the following considerations (from "Information on Levels of
Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of
Safety," U. S. EPA Report No. 550/9-74-004, March 1974):
1. The measure should be applicable to the evaluation of pervasive long-term noise in various
defined areas and under various conditions over long periods of time.
2. The measure should correlate well with known effects of the noise environment and on
individuals and the public.
3. The measure should be simple, practical and accurate. In principal, it should be useful for
planning as well as for enforcement or monitoring purposes.
4. The required measurement equipment, with standard characteristics, should be commercially
available.
5. The measure should be closely related to existing methods currently in use.
6. The single measure of noise at a given location should be predictable, within an acceptable
tolerance, from knowledge of the physical events producing the noise.
7. The measure should lend itself to small, simple monitors, which can be left unattended in
public areas for long periods of time.
June 2010
page 58
Most federal agencies dealing with noise have formally adopted DNL. The Federal Interagency
Committee on Noise (FICON) reaffirmed the appropriateness of DNL in 1992. The FICON
summary report stated; “There are no new descriptors or metrics of sufficient scientific standing to
substitute for the present DNL cumulative noise exposure metric.”
The DNL represents noise as it occurs over a 24-hour period, with on important exception: DNL
treats nighttime noise differently from daytime noise. In determining DNL, it is assumed that the Aweighted levels occurring at night (defined as 10 p.m. to 7 a.m) are 10 dB louder than they really are.
This 10 dB penalty is applied to account for greater sensitivity to nighttime noise, and the fact that
events at night are often perceived to be more intrusive because nighttime ambient noise is less than
daytime ambient noise.
Figure 11 illustrated the A-weighted sound level due to an aircraft fly-over as it changed with time.
The top frame of Figure 14 repeats this figure. The shaded area reflects the noise dose that a listener
receives during the one-minute period of the sample. The center frame of Figure 14 includes this
one minute sample within a full hour. The shaded area represents the noise during that hour with 16
noise events, each producing an SEL. Similarly, the bottom frame includes the one-hour interval
within a full 24 hours. Here the shaded area represents the listener’s noise dose over a complete day.
Note that several overflights occur at when the background noise drops some 10 dB, to
approximately 45 dBA.
June 2010
page 59
Figure 14 Daily Noise Dose
Source: HMMH
June 2010
page 60
DNL can be measured or estimated. Measurements are practical only for obtaining DNL values for
relatively limited numbers of points, and, in the absence of a permanently installed monitoring
system, only for relatively short time periods. Most airport noise studies are based on computergenerated DNL estimates, determined by accounting for all of the SELs from individual events
which comprise the total noise dose at a give location. Computed DNL values are often depicted in
terms of equal-exposure noise contours (much as topographic maps have contours of equal
elevation). Part 150 requires that the 65, 70 and DNL 75 dB contours be modeled and depicted.
Figure 15 depicts typical DNL values for a variety of noise environments.
Figure 15 Examples of Day-Night Average Sound Levels, DNL
Source: United States Environmental Protection Agency, Information on Levels of Environmental Noise
Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety, March 1974, p. 14.
5.2
The Effects of Aircraft Noise on People
To residents around airports, aircraft noise can be an annoyance and a nuisance. It can interfere with
conversation and listening to television, it can disrupt classroom activities in schools, and it can
June 2010
page 61
disrupt sleep. Relating these effects to specific noise metrics helps in the understanding of how and
why people react to their environment.
5.2.1
Speech Interference
A primary effect of aircraft noise is its tendency to drown out or "mask" speech, making it difficult
to carry on a normal conversation. The sound level of speech decreases as the distance between a
talker and listener increases. As the background sound level increases, it becomes harder to hear
speech. Figure 16 presents typical distances between talker and listener for satisfactory outdoor
conversations, in the presence of different steady A-weighted background noise levels for raised,
normal, and relaxed voice effort. As the background level increases, the talker must raise his/her
voice, or the individuals must get closer together to continue talking.
Figure 16 Outdoor Speech Intelligibility
Source: United States Environmental Protection Agency, Information on Levels of Environmental Noise
Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety, March 1974, p. D-5.
As indicated in the figure, "satisfactory conversation" does not always require hearing every word;
95% intelligibility is acceptable for many conversations. Listeners can infer a few unheard words
when they occur in a familiar context. However, in relaxed conversation, we have higher
expectations of hearing speech and require generally require closer to 100% intelligibility. Any
combination of talker-listener distances and background noise that falls below the bottom line in
Figure 16 (thus assuring 100% intelligibility) represents an ideal environment for outdoor speech
communication and is considered necessary for acceptable indoor conversation as well.
One implication of the relationships in Figure 16 is that for typical communication distances of 3 or
4 feet (1 to 1.5 meters), acceptable outdoor conversations can be carried on in a normal voice as long
as the background noise outdoors is less than about 65 dBA. If the noise exceeds this level, as might
June 2010
page 62
occur when an aircraft passes overhead, intelligibility would be lost unless vocal effort were
increased or communication distance were decreased.
Indoors, typical distances, voice levels, and intelligibility expectations generally require a
background level less than 45 dBA. With windows partly open, housing generally provides about 12
dBA of interior-to-exterior noise level reduction. Thus, if the outdoor sound level is 60 dBA or less,
there a reasonable chance that the resulting indoor sound level will afford acceptable conversation
inside. With windows closed, 24 dB of attenuation is typical.
5.2.2
Sleep Interference
Research on sleep disruption from noise has led to widely varying observations. In part, this is
because (1) sleep can be disturbed without awakening, (2) the deeper the sleep the more noise it
takes to cause arousal, (3) the tendency to awaken increases with age, and other factors.
Figure 17 shows a recent summary of findings on the topic.
Figure 17 Sleep Interference
Source: Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise (FICAN), “Effects of Aviation Noise on
Awakenings from Sleep”, June 1997, page 6.
Figure 17 uses indoor SEL as the measure of noise exposure; recent work supports the use of this
metric in assessing sleep disruption. An indoor SEL of 80 dB results in a maximum of 10%
awakening. Assuming the typical windows-open interior-to-exterior noise level reduction of
approximately 12 dB, and a typical Lmax value for an aircraft flyover 12 dB lower than the SEL
value, an interior SEL of 80 dB roughly translates into an exterior L max of the same value.
5.3
Community Annoyance
Social survey data make it clear that individual reactions to noise vary widely for a given noise level.
Nevertheless, as a group, people's aggregate response is predictable and relates well to measures of
June 2010
page 63
cumulative noise exposure such as DNL. Figure 18 shows the most widely recognized relationship
between environmental noise and annoyance.
Figure 18 Percentage of People Highly Annoyed
Source: Federal Interagency Committee on Noise. "Federal Agency Review of Selected Airport Noise
Analysis Issues". August 1992. (From data provided by USAF Armstrong Laboratory). pp. 3-6.
Based on data from 18 surveys conducted worldwide, the curve indicates that at levels as low as
DNL 55, approximately five percent of the people will still be highly annoyed, with the percentage
increasing more rapidly as exposure increases above DNL 65.
Separate work by the EPA has shown that overall community reaction to a noise environment is also
dependent on DNL. This relationship is shown in Figure 19. Levels have been normalized to the
same set of exposure conditions to permit valid comparisons between ambient noise environments.
Data summarized in that figure suggest that little reaction would be expected for intrusive noise
levels five decibels below the ambient, while widespread complaints can be expected as intruding
noise exceeds background levels by about five decibels. Vigorous action is likely when the
background is exceeded by 20 dB.
June 2010
page 64
Figure 19 Community Reaction as a Function of Outdoor DNL
Source: Wyle Laboratories, Community Noise, prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Noise Abatement and Control, Washington, D.C. 20406, December 1971, page 63.
June 2010
page 65
6 PUBLIC CONSULTATION
The final NEM volume will summarize the consultation process that RIAC conducts to present the
draft NEM to the public. Appendix C will contain copies of relevant background materials.
June 2010
APPENDIX A
page A-1
STATUS OF FAA’S RECORD OF APPROVAL ON PART
150 NOISE COMPATIBILITY PROGRAM (2000)
T.F. Green Airport was among the first airports in the country to participate in the FAA’s Noise and Land Use
Compatibility Program, which is conducted under Title 14 of the Code Of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part
150. The Airport’s first Part 150 Study (noise compatibility study) was approved by the FAA in 1986.10 RIAC
undertook a complete update of the original Part 150 Study and recommended several new operational
procedures designed to minimize noise impacts on surrounding communities, and the FAA approved the Noise
Compatibility Program (NCP) in 2000, and approved departure headings in an EIS that was approved in 2001. 11
The status of each of the NCP measures is described below.
Table 15 Status of T.F. Green Airport Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program
Status of TF Green Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program
Measure
Description
FAA Action
Status
Noise Abatement (NA) Measures
NA-1
Construct filet at Intersection of Runways 5R-23L and
10-28
No FAA action
required
Approved
Complete
Taxiway ‘M’ has been completed. The area between
Taxiway ‘C’ and Taxiway ‘T’ has not been
completed and is currently being reviewed by RIAC.
NA-2
Construct parallel taxiway serving Runway 5R-23L
NA-3
Construct noise barrier parallel to Runway 5R
No FAA action
required
Completed
NA-4
Incorporate noise barrier consideration in the design of
proposed air cargo building
No FAA action
required
The proposed air cargo building will be considered
in this EIS.
NA-5
Displace landing threshold on Runway 5L
NA-6
Physical isolation of maintenance run-ups
Approved
This runway has been de-commissioned, and
converted to a taxiway
Approved
Maintenance run-ups are conducted in the center of
the airfield utilizing inactive taxiways
—
10 FAR Part 150 Study for T.F. Green Airport, 1985.
11
Landrum and Brown Inc., T.F. Green Airport, Final Environmental Impact Statement, August, 2000.
June 2010
page A-2
Status of TF Green Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program (Continued)
Measure
Description
FAA Action
Approved as
voluntary
Status
No commercial flights currently
scheduled; most late night operations
are arrivals that have been delayed.
NA-7
Voluntary nighttime restrictions for scheduled air carrier
operations (midnight to 6:00 AM)
Approved
This measure is in effect and continues
to be practiced.
NA-8
Auxiliary power unit (APU) restrictions. The use of auxiliary
power units is restricted to the terminal or north of the cargo
building. Since the Part 150 was approved, most air carriers
have converted their gates to supply power directly, eliminating
the need for Apes.
Approved
NA-9
Restrictions on aircraft re-positioning under power. This
restriction prohibits repositioning under power on the South
Apron near the Air Freight Building.
to be practiced.
Approved
NA-10
Pre-takeoff run-up restrictions. Each runway end has
designated pre-takeoff run-up areas designed to minimize noise
in the community.
to be practiced.
Approved
Currently RIAC has no formal
mechanism to inform pilots of its noise
abatement program.
No FAA action
required
As described, this measure has been
withdrawn.
NA-11
Informational program on reverse thrust
NA-12
Rotational runway use program (discontinue)
Approved in part
NA-13
Helicopter operation procedures: this measure calls for
helicopters to cross the Airport Boundary at or above 1,000
MSL during arrivals or departures.
NA-14
Restrictions on 180-degree turns on the runway unless
operationally necessary
Approved
to be practiced.
NA-15
Discourage engine maintenance run-ups during the period of
voluntary flight restriction (NA-7)
Approved as
voluntary
to be practiced.
NA-16
Discourage, when safe and practicable, engine start-ups and
auxiliary power unit starts prior to the end of the voluntary
nighttime restrictions (NA-7)
Approved as
voluntary
to be practiced.
Approved as
voluntary
NA-17
Designate FAR 91-53A Close-in Noise Abatement Departure
Procedures, as developed and applied by each air carrier for its
own system-wide needs, as the Airport’s preferred procedure
for takeoffs on Runway 5R by Stage 2 jet aircraft and Stage 2
aircraft modified to meet Stage 3 noise criteria.
At the end of 2005, 98 percent of air
carrier operations are in Stage 3
aircraft. AC 91-53A Close-in procedure
is still recommended for Stage 2 retrofit
(hush-kit) aircraft.
This measure is in effect.
June 2010
page A-3
Measure
Description
FAA Action
Status
Approved as
voluntary
(hush -kit) aircraft.
Approved as
voluntary
Approved as
voluntary
NA-18
for takeoffs on Runway 23L by Stage 2 jet aircraft and Stage 2
NA-19
for takeoffs on Runway 16 by Stage 2 jet aircraft and Stage 2
NA-20
for takeoffs on Runway 34 by Stage 2 jet aircraft and Stage 2
NA-21
Weather and traffic permitting, all southbound jet aircraft
departing Runway 5R, turn right to a 080 degree heading until
reaching 3 DME (from the T.F. Green VORTAC)12, before being Approved for Part
vectored to assigned heading. Props and turboprops may be
150 purposes only*
assigned divergent headings at the discretion of Air Traffic
Control.
The R.I. General Assembly Permanent
Noise Monitoring Act of 1998 requires
RIAC to provide quarterly reports of
aircraft operations at T.F. Green.
Compliance for the 3rd Quarter of 2005
was 99 percent13.
NA-22
Weather and traffic permitting, all northbound jet aircraft
departing Runway 5R, turn left as soon as practicable after
passing runway end to fly a 360 degree heading until reaching 3 Approved for Part
DME (from the T.F. Green VORTAC), before being vectored to 150 purposes only*
assigned heading. Props and turboprops may be assigned
divergent headings at the discretion of Air Traffic Control.
was 98 percent.
was 99 percent.
NA-23
departing Runway 23L, turn left as soon as practicable after
passing runway end to fly a 160 degree heading until reaching 5
DME (from the T.F. Green VORTAC) or intercepting the 180
Approved for Part
degree radial (whichever occurs first), before being vectored to 150 purposes only*
assigned heading (if necessary). Props and turboprops may be
assigned divergent headings at the discretion of Air Traffic
Control.
—
12
13
3 DME from the PVD VORTAC means 3 nautical miles from the FAA’s radar sensor at T.F. Green.
Permanent Noise Monitoring Act Quarterly Operations Report, 3rd Quarter 2005, December 2005.
June 2010
page A-4
Measure
Description
FAA Action
Status
NA-24
departing Runway 23L, turn right as soon as practicable after
assigned heading. Props and turboprops may be assigned
was 97 percent.
NA-25
departing Runway 34, turn right to fly a 360 degree heading
until reaching 3 DME (from the T.F. Green VORTAC), before
being vectored to assigned heading. Prop and turboprop may
be assigned divergent headings at the discretion of Air Traffic
Control.
NA-26
departing Runway 34, turn left as soon as practicable after
assigned heading. Prop and turboprop may be assigned
NA-27
departing Runway 16, turn right to fly a 180 degree heading
until reaching 3 DME (from the T.F. Green VORTAC) or
intercepting the PVD VORTAC 180 degree radial (whichever
occurs first), before being vectored to assigned heading (if
necessary). Prop and turboprop may be assigned divergent
headings at the discretion of Air Traffic Control.
Approved for Part RIAC to provide quarterly reports of
150 purposes only* aircraft operations at T.F. Green.
was 80 percent.
Approved for Part This measure is in effect and continues
150 purposes only* to be practiced.
NA-28
Approaching Runway 34, all jet aircraft intercept the final
approach course before crossing the shoreline at Rocky Point
Beach on Warwick Neck (4 DME from the T.F. Green
VORTAC).
NA-29
Extend the existing noise barrier, presently located to the west
Approved for Part The existing noise barrier has not been
of the Runway 5R end, 500 feet south of the Runway 5R safety
150 purposes only* extended.
area boundary.
NA-30
Construct a noise barrier (wall or earthen berm) along the east
Approved for Part The proposed noise barrier has not
side of the Airport between Airport Road on the north and lower
150 purposes only* been constructed.
Buckeye Brook to the south
NA-31
Construct a 1,500-foot noise barrier on the east side of Warwick
Industrial Drive north of SR-113 from Strawberry Field Road
south to the Runway 5R safety area boundary.
Approved for Part RIAC to provide quarterly reports of
150 purposes only* aircraft operations at T.F. Green.
was 95 percent.
was 97 percent.
June 2010
page A-5
Status of TF Green Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program
Measure
Description
NA-32
Construct a 1,600-foot long 12-foot high noise wall parallel to
and on the north side of Strawberry Field Road West along the
Airport property line.
NA-33
Designate and construct a run-up position for maintenance runup activity.
FAA Action
Status
Approved
The proposed noise run-up location has
not been constructed. It is under study
in the Master Plan Update.
Land Use (LU) Measures
LU-1
Withdraw Measure LU-1 of the 1986 NCP (re-zoning for
properties acquired by the Airport).
No FAA action
required
This measure has been withdrawn.
No FAA action
required
This measure has been withdrawn.
LU-2
Withdraw measure LU-2 of the 1986 NCP (amending
subdivision regulations for City of Warwick to prevent
encroachment.
Approved
The State of Rhode Island Building
Code has not been amended.
LU-3
Amend the State of Rhode Island Building Code to require that
new construction and major additions within or immediately
adjacent to the 2003 Noise Exposure Map, based on the DNL
65 dB noise contour of the 2003 NCP, meet an interior noise
standard through the use of sound insulation techniques.
Approved
The voluntary Land Acquisition
Program based on the 2003 NCP is
complete and 259 houses were
acquired. The program was continued
with the 2008 approval of the 2020
future NEMs and is currently in
process. Under the updated NEM 152
parcels are eligible for acquisition.
LU-4
Modify LU-4 of the 1986 NCP to provide for the voluntary
acquisition of approximately 210 single-family residences within
or adjacent to the DNL 70 dB noise contour of the 2003 NCP.
LU-5
Close measure LU-5 of the 1986 NCP, which addresses the
sound insulation of schools within the DNL 65 dB noise contour
LU-6
Provide sound insulation for approximately 830 residences, on
a voluntary basis, within the 2003 Noise Exposure Map, based
on the DNL 65 dB noise contour of the 2003 NCP.
LU-7
Implement a formal Fair Disclosure Policy whereby the State of
Rhode Island would amend the Fair Disclosure Policy
legislation to require formal disclosure of noise levels of
residential property located within the DNL 65 dB noise contour.
The Policy would be supplemented by information on aircraft
noise levels distributed by Airport staff to citizens, neighborhood
association, developer, real estate agencies, and lenders.
No FAA action
required
Complete.
Approved
As of December 2001, the Residential
Sound Insulation Program was put on
hold pending completion of the
Voluntary Land Acquisition Program
(LU-4).
Approved
An act to amend the Fair Disclosure
Policy Legislation has been presented
to the Rhode Island General Assembly;
2005-H5871
June 2010
page A-6
Measure
Description
FAA Action
Approved
LU-8
RIAC would recommend the City of Warwick update its
Comprehensive Plan to address the influence of the Airport on
the surrounding community and, where appropriate, encourage
compatible land uses within the 2003 Noise Exposure Map
boundary (based on the DNL 65 dB contour).
LU-9
Initiate a formal study to evaluate the noise level at various
locations (John Francis Brown and E.G. Robertson elementary
schools) under heavily used flight paths for sound insulation
eligibility.
Status
The City of Warwick is currently
updating its Comprehensive Plan and
will include this measure.
John Francis Brown and E.G.
Approved for study Robertson elementary schools have
been sound insulated.
Program Management (PM) Measures
PM-1
Install an aircraft operations monitoring system to evaluate
implementation of flight track corridors approved as part of the
NCP.
PM-2
Implement a “Fly Quiet” public relations program for
publications and communications that publicize the NCP to
Airport users
PM-3
Establish a Permanent Implementation Committee to monitor
and assist in the implementation and success of the air traffic
and land use measures approved as part of the NCP.
PM-4
Continue five-year updates of the NCP and two –year reviews
of the NEMs
PM-5
Conduct further study to analyze the possible extension of
Runway 16-34 for noise abatement purposes.
Approved
An Airport Operations Monitoring
System (AOMS) has been installed. It
doe not include noise monitoring
capabilities.
Approved
A “Fly Quiet” program has not been
implemented due to funding
constraints.
Approved
The Community Noise Advisory
Committee (CNAC) was disbanded
during the Master Plan Update and EIS
process; it has not been re-formed.
Approved
These updates are pending completion
of this EIS.
This Master Plan Update Supplement
Approved for further (2000) does not include a
study
recommendation to extend Runway
16-34 for noise abatement purposes.
Source: HMMH, 2010.
* ‘Approval for Part 150 purposes only’ does not constitute decision to implement the actions. Later decisions concerning possible implementation of these actions are
subject to applicable environmental or other procedures or requirements.
APPENDIX B
June 2010
page B-1
NON-STANDARD NOISE MODELING
SUBSTITUTION REQUEST AND FAA APPROVAL
The following is the Non-standard noise modeling substitution request.
June 2010
page B-2
June 2010
page B-3
June 2010
page B-4
June 2010
page B-5
June 2010
page B-6
June 2010
page B-7
This page left intentionally blank.
June 2010
page B-8
APPENDIX C
June 2010
Page C-1
MATERIAL RELATED TO PUBLIC NOTICE AND
PARTICIPATION
Additional materials will be prepared when material are available for the final document.
June 2010
Figure C-1 Public Information Meeting Notice from the T.F. Green Airport Website
Page C-2
Figure C-2 Providence Journal Ad
June 2010
Page C-3

T.F. Green Airport Part 150 Update Noise Exposure Map

Transcription

Similar documents

theBoom "O"

Pantallas Acusticas Pared Verde (EN)

August 10, 2016 Danny Page Valecraft Homes Ltd. / Jean

X-PLUS B4.1 Series Drives

FANWALL® System Active Noise Control (ANC)

Untitled - Amorim Cork Composites

Poszukiwanie partnerów do projektów w Programie Horyzont 2020

Certificate delivered by the European Commission, as