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

Transcription

1 T.F. Green Airport Part 150 Update Noise Exposure Map Draft June 2010 Submitted to: Rhode Island Airport Corporation Submitted by:

2

3 T.F. Green Airport 14 CFR Part 150 Update 2010 and 2020 NOISE EXPOSURE MAPS HMMH Report No June 2010 Prepared for: Rhode Island Airport Corporation, Rhode Island T.F. Green Airport 2000 Post Road Warwick, RI Prepared by: Robert Mentzer Jr. Sean Doyle Mary Ellen Egan Jamal Kinan Michael Hamilton 77 South Bedford Street Burlington, MA 01803

4

5 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 , are true and complete under penalty of 18 U.S.C. Part 1001; and (2) pursuant to Part 150, Subpart B, Section (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 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

6 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps page iv Page intentionally left blank

7 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps page v TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION Request for FAA Determination Recommendations Organization of this Document CFR PART 150 OVERVIEW Noise Exposure Maps Noise Compatibility Program Noise / Land Use Compatibility Guidelines FAA Noise Exposure Map Checklist UPDATED EXISTING AND FORECAST CONDITIONS NOISE EXPOSURE MAPS WITH EXISTING NOISE COMPATIBILITY PROGRAM and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps Potential Noncompatible Land Uses within the Noise Contours Comparison of 2010 and 2020 EIS No-Action Non-Compatible Land-Uses Comparison of 2010 and 2020 EIS Preferred Alternative Non-Compatible Land-Uses Discrete Non-Residential Noise Sensitive Sites within the Noise Contours Residential Population within the Noise Contours DEVELOPMENT OF NOISE CONTOURS Airport Physical Parameters Aircraft Operations Development of 2010 Existing Operations Development of 2020 EIS No-action and Preferred Alternative Operations Aircraft Noise and Performance Characteristics Runway Utilization Flight Track Geometry and Utilization INTRODUCTION TO NOISE EVALUATION Introduction to Acoustics and Noise Terminology The Decibel, db A-Weighted Decibel, dba Maximum A-Weighted Noise Level, L max Sound Exposure Level, SEL... 55

8 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps page vi Equivalent Sound Level, L eq Day-Night Average Sound Level, DNL The Effects of Aircraft Noise on People Speech Interference Sleep Interference Community Annoyance PUBLIC CONSULTATION 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

9 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps page vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Existing Condition Noise Exposure Map...15 Figure EIS No-action Forecast Condition Noise Exposure Map...17 Figure 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

10 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps page viii Table 1 LIST OF TABLES 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 Table 13 Table 14 Table 15 Runway Utilization Rates for Arrival and Departure Operations for the 2010 Existing NEM...44 Runway Utilization Rates for Arrival and Departure Operations for the 2020 EIS No-Action NEM...44 Runway Utilization Rates for Arrival and Departure Operations for the 2020 EIS Preferred Alternative NEM...45 Status of T.F. Green Airport Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program...A-1

11 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps page ix LIST OF ACRONYMS USED IN THIS REPORT Acronym Full Definition AC [Federal Aviation Administration] Advisory Circular CFR Code of Federal Regulations db Decibel dba A-Weighted Decibel DNL Day Night Average Sound Level EIS Environmental Impact Statement ERA ERA Source of flight track and operations data FAA Federal Aviation Administration FAR Part 36 Federal Aviation Regulation Part 36, Airport Noise Compatibility Planning FAR Part 150 Federal Aviation Regulation Part 150, Airport Noise Compatibility Planning FAR Part 161 Federal Aviation Regulation Part 161, Notice and Approval of Noise and Access Restrictions GIS Geographic Information System HMMH Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc. IFR Instrument Flight Rules Leq Equivalent Sound Level Ldn or LDN Day Night Average Sound Level (also DNL, as noted above) Lmax Maximum A-Weighted Sound Level MSL Mean Seal Level NEM Noise Exposure Map PAPI Precision Approach Path Indicator (lights) PVD T.F. Green Airport NCC Noise Compatibility Committee NAD83 North American Datum 1983 RIAC Rhode Island Airport Corporation SEL Sound Exposure Level VFR Visual Flight Rules

12 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps page x Page intentionally left blank

13 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps 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 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, 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, 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 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.

14 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps 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.

15 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps page 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 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

16 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps 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 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.

17 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps 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.

18 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps page 6 Table 1 Source: 14 CFR Part 150, Appendix A, Table 1 14 CFR Part 150 Noise / Land Use Compatibility Guidelines Yearly Day-Night Average Sound Level, DNL, in Decibels (Key and notes on following page) Land Use < >85 Residential Use Y N(1) N(1) N N N Residential other than mobile homes and transient lodgings Y N(1) N(1) N N N Mobile home park Y N N N N N Transient lodgings Y N(1) N(1) N(1) N N Public Use Schools Y N(1) N(1) N N N Hospitals and nursing homes Y N N N Churches, auditoriums, and concert halls Y N N N Governmental services Y Y N N Transportation Y Y Y(2) Y(3) Y(4) Y(4) Parking Y Y Y(2) Y(3) Y(4) N Commercial Use Offices, business and professional Y Y N N Wholesale and retail--building materials, hardware and farm equipment Y Y Y(2) Y(3) Y(4) N Retail trade general Y Y Y(2) Y(3) Y(4) N Utilities Y Y Y(2) Y(3) Y(4) N Communication Y Y N N Manufacturing and Production Manufacturing general Y Y Y(2) Y(3) Y(4) N Photographic and optical Y Y N N Agriculture (except livestock) and forestry Y Y(6) Y(7) Y(8) Y(8) Y(8) Livestock farming and breeding Y Y(6) Y(7) N N N Mining and fishing, resource production and extraction Y Y Y Y Y Y Recreational Outdoor sports arenas and spectator sports Y Y(5) Y(5) N N N Outdoor music shells, amphitheaters Y N N N N N Nature exhibits and zoos Y Y N N N N Amusements, parks, resorts and camps Y Y Y N N N Golf courses, riding stables, and water recreation Y Y 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)

19 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps 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) 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. (2) Measures to achieve NLR of 25 db must be incorporated into the design and construction of portions of these buildings where the public is received, office areas, noise sensitive areas or where the normal noise level is low. (3) Measures to achieve NLR of 30 db must be incorporated into the design and construction of portions of these buildings where the public is received, office areas, noise sensitive areas or where the normal noise level is low. (4) Measures to achieve NLR of 35 db must be incorporated into the design and construction of portions of these buildings where the public is received, office areas, noise sensitive areas or where the normal noise level is low. (5) Land use compatible provided special sound reinforcement systems are installed. (6) Residential buildings require an NLR of 25. (7) Residential buildings require an NLR of 30 (8) Residential buildings not permitted.

20 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps page 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 Airport Name: T.F. Green Airport I. Submitting and Identifying the NEMs: II. A. Submission properly identified: 14 CFR PART 150 NOISE EXPOSURE MAPS CHECKLIST-PART I REVIEWER: Yes/No/ NA Page/Other Reference C.F.R. Part 150 NEMs? Yes Cover page, Chapter 1, p 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 B. Airport and Airport Operator s name are identified? Yes Certification, p. iv C. NCP is transmitted by operator s dated cover letter, describing it as a Part 150 submittal and requesting appropriate FAA determination? Consultation: [150.21(b), A (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: NA Yes Chapter 6, p Are the consulted parties identified? Yes Chapter 6, p.62, 2. Do they include all those required by (b) and A (a)? 3. Agencies in 2., above, correspond to those indicated on the NEM? 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 (b)? 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? III. 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)? 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? Yes Chapter 6, p.62 Yes Chapter 6, p.62 Yes Certification, p. iv and Chapter 6 NA Chapter 6 Notes/ Comments 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

21 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps page 9 IV. Airport Name: T.F. Green Airport 14 CFR PART 150 NOISE EXPOSURE MAPS CHECKLIST-PART I 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? 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? 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? 2. If the forecast year map is based on program implementation: a. Are the specific program measures that are reflected on the map identified? b. Does the documentation specifically describe how these measures affect land use compatibilities depicted on the map? 3. 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), (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)] MAP SCALE, GRAPHICS, AND DATA REQUIREMENTS: [A , A , A , (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) 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) C. Depiction of the airport and its environs. 1. Is the following graphically depicted to scale on both the existing condition and forecast year maps: REVIEWER: Yes/No/ NA Yes NA NA NA NA NA NA Yes Yes a. Airport boundaries Yes b. Runway configurations with runway end numbers Yes 2. Does the depiction of the off-airport data include? a. A land use base map depicting streets and other identifiable geographic features b. The area within the DNL 65 db (or beyond, at local discretion) Yes Yes Page/Other Reference Notes/ Comments Figure 2 is year forecast EIS No-action NEM, Figure 3 is year forecast EIS Preferred Alternative NEM 1 to 2,000 scale of all map figures in main document. All figures 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

22 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps page 10 Airport Name: T.F. Green Airport 14 CFR PART 150 NOISE EXPOSURE MAPS CHECKLIST-PART I c. 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) D. 1. Continuous contours for at least DNL 65, 70, and 75 db? 2. Has the local land use jurisdiction(s) adopted a lower local standard and, if so, has the sponsor depicted this on the NEMs? 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? 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? 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) G. Noncompatible land use identification: 1. Are noncompatible land uses within at least the DNL 65 db noise contour depicted on the map graphics? 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.) 3. Are the noncompatible uses and noise sensitive public buildings readily identifiable and explained on the map legend? 4. Are compatible land uses, which would normally be considered noncompatible, explained in the accompanying narrative? V. NARRATIVE SUPPORT OF MAP DATA: [150.21(a), A150.1, A , A ] A. 1. Are the technical data and data sources on which the NEMs are based adequately described in the narrative? 2. Are the underlying technical data and planning assumptions reasonable? B. Calculation of Noise Contours: REVIEWER: Yes/No/ NA Yes Yes No Yes Page/Other Reference Notes/ Comments well beyond DNL 65 db. City of Warwick is the sole jurisdiction with planning and land use control authority within the DNL 65 db contour. All contour figures Certification Letter, p.iii and Section 4.2 presents current and forecast operational data and other modeling inputs. Yes Figure 7 through Figure 8 NA Yes Yes Yes NA Yes Yes 1. Is the methodology indicated? Yes a. Is it FAA approved? Yes 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 Section 4.2 presents current and forecast operational data and other modeling inputs. Appendix I. Section 4 p.41. INM 7.0a was used, the most current INM version

23 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps page 11 Airport Name: T.F. Green Airport 14 CFR PART 150 NOISE EXPOSURE MAPS CHECKLIST-PART I 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.) c. Has AEE approval been obtained for use of a model other than those that have previous blanket FAA approval? 2. 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? b. If so, does this have written approval from AEE, and is that written approval included in the submitted document? 3. If noise monitoring was used, does the narrative indicate that Part 150 guidelines were followed? 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.) C. 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? 2. Does the documentation indicate whether the airport operator used Table 1 of Part 150? a. 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? (2) Does the narrative include the airport operator's complete substitution for table 1? 3. Does the narrative include information on selfgenerated or ambient noise where compatible or noncompatible land use identifications consider nonairport and non-aircraft noise sources? REVIEWER: Yes/No/ NA Yes NA Yes Yes NA NA Page/Other Reference Notes/ Comments at the time this Part 150 Update was prepared. Used INM7.0a. Letter requesting FAA approval of non standard substitutions. FAA approved aircraft substitutes. See Appendices B. Yes Section 3.2. Table 5 and 6 provides estimated population counts for 2010 and Yes NA NA NA Section 2.3 and Section 3.2

24 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps page 12 Airport Name: T.F. Green Airport 14 CFR PART 150 NOISE EXPOSURE MAPS CHECKLIST-PART I 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? 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? REVIEWER: Yes/No/ NA NA Page/Other Reference Yes Section 4 Notes/ Comments VI. MAP CERTIFICATIONS: [150.21(b), (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? 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 Yes Certification, p. iv

25 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps 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 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps 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 (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 and a runway extension to the south for Runway Section 4.2 presents the modeling fleet 5 Section 5 describes DNL and related noise terminology. 6 In (d).

26 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps 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

27 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps page 15 Figure Existing Condition Noise Exposure Map

28 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps page 16

29 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps page 17 Figure EIS No-action Forecast Condition Noise Exposure Map

30 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps page 18

31 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps page 19 Figure EIS Preferred Alternative Forecast Condition Noise Exposure Map

32

33 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps page 21 Figure 4 Comparison of 2010 and 2020 EIS No-action DNL 65 db Contours

34 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps page 22

35 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps page 23 Figure 5 Comparison of 2010 and 2020 EIS Preferred Alternative DNL 65 db Contours

36

37 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps page 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 discusses the expected changes in noncompatible land-use between 2010 and Section identifies the non-residential noisesensitive locations within the DNL 65 db contours while Section presents the estimated residential population counts within the DNL 65 db contours 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 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 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 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.

38 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps 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 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 2010 NEM Contour level 2020 EIS Noaction NEM Contour level 2020 EIS Preferred Alternative NEM Contour level S4F022 4F Arnold's Pond Beach S4F021 4F Arnold's Pond Beach PW039 Place of Bahai Faith PW034 Worship Place of New Hope Worship PW017 Worship Place of Center Jehovah s Witnesses Of Worship Warwick HS018 Historic Site WHC 81 Kinnecom Lot HS017 Historical Site WHC 78 Howard- Remington Lot HS016 Historical Site WHC 77 Northup Lot HS015 HS014 Historical Site Historical Site WHC 76 William J. Cole Lot WHC 63 Utter-Arnold- Rhodes Lot HS013 Historical Site WHC 26 Peter Freeman HS007 Historical Site Lot2 7. Rhode Island Air HS006 Historical Site 6. National Hangar Guard No HS005 Historical Site 5. Rhode Island State HS004 Historical Site 4. Airport Hangar Terminal No Source: HMMH 2010, T.F. Green EIS Note: Shaded areas are below DNL 65 db 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

39 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps 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 Estimated Population 2010 Existing Conditions NEM 2020 EIS Noaction Forecast Conditions NEM 2020 EIS Preferred Alternative Forecast Conditions NEM db Estimated Residential Dwelling 871 1,366 1,361 Contour Units Interval Estimated Population 2,047 3,210 3, db Estimated Residential Dwelling Contour Units Interval Estimated Population Estimated Residential Dwelling 75 db or Units Greater Estimated Population 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 Eligible Residential Dwelling Units 2010 Existing Conditions NEM 2020 EIS Noaction Forecast Conditions NEM 2020 EIS Preferred Alternative Forecast Conditions NEM db Residential Dwelling Units 871 1,366 1,361 Contour Eligible for Sound Insulation Interval Estimated Population 2,047 3,210 3,198 Residential Dwelling Units 70dB or Eligible for Acquisition Greater Estimated Population Total Residential Dwelling Units 871 1,425 1,488 Eligible for Mitigation Total Total Population Eligible for 2,047 3,349 3,496 Mitigation 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

40 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps page 28 Page intentionally left blank.

41 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps 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 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, 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.

42 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps page 30 Figure 6 Existing Airport Diagram

43 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps 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 Latitude 1 Longitude 1 Elev. (ft) N N N N W W W W Runway Details for 2010 and 2020 EIS No-action Displaced Arrival Threshold (ft) Arrival Threshold Crossing Height (TCH) (ft) 2 Displaced Departure Threshold (ft) Notes: 1 All coordinates are relative to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD) 83 Runway Width (ft) Runway Length (ft) 150 7, ,081 Source: RIAC, FAA T.F. Green EIS Table 7 Runway Latitude 1 Longitude 1 Elev. (ft) N N N N Runway Details for 2020 EIS Preferred Alternative Displaced Arrival Threshold (ft) Arrival Threshold Crossing Height (TCH) (ft) 2 Displaced Departure Threshold (ft) W W W W Notes: 1 All coordinates are relative to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD) 83 Runway Width (ft) Runway Length (ft) 150 8, ,081 Source: RIAC, FAA T.F. Green EIS

44 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps page 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 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 service 8. 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 V Change 3 effective Aug 27, 2009 Facility Operation and Administration, Chapter 12 Section Categories of Operations and Appendix 3

45 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps page 33 Table 8 Detailed 2010 Existing Year Modeled Average Daily Aircraft Operations Aircraft Category Small Narrow-body Large Narrow-body INM Arrival Departure Aircraft Type DAY NIGHT TOTAL DAY NIGHT TOTAL Grand Total , ,566 1, ,569 3, B , ,704 1, ,704 3, , ,273 2,182 9,455 9, ,455 18, N N A ,642 A , ,598 1, ,595 3,192 A DC93LW DC95HW DC9Q MD MD ,749 MD83 1, ,486 1, ,488 2,973 Sub-Total 15,686 3,968 19,654 17,853 1,798 19,651 39, EM EM , Q Q QF PW 1, ,626 1, ,622 3, RR ,381 A DC86HK Sub-Total 1,972 1,289 3,261 2, ,264 6,526 Small Wide-body A Sub-Total

46 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps page 34 Aircraft Category General Aviation Jet Table 8 Detailed 2010 Existing Year Modeled Average Daily Aircraft Operations (continued) INM Aircraft Arrival Departure Type DAY NIGHT TOTAL DAY NIGHT TOTAL Grand Total CIT ,553 CNA CNA55B CNA ,594 F FAL FAL GII GIIB GIV GV IA LEAR LEAR35 1, ,096 1, ,095 2,190 MU3001 1, ,306 1, ,307 2,613 Sub-Total 4, ,060 4, ,054 10,114 Prop / Air Taxi / GA 1900D 1, ,029 1, ,029 4,058 BEC58P 2, ,203 2, ,188 4,390 C CNA ,047 CNA CNA20T CNA COMSEP CVR DHC DHC GASEPF ,446 GASEPV PA SD SF340 1, ,518 1, ,517 3,035 Sub-Total 7, ,884 7, ,831 15,715

47 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps page 35 Table 8 Detailed 2010 Existing Year Modeled Average Daily Aircraft Operations (continued) Aircraft Category Regional Jet INM Aircraft Arrival Departure Type DAY NIGHT TOTAL DAY NIGHT TOTAL Grand Total CL CL601 1, ,175 1, ,177 4,352 CRJ70P EMB145 3, ,370 2, ,245 6,616 EMB14L 1, ,218 1, ,249 2,467 EMB17P J Sub-Total 7, ,878 6, ,772 15,650 Grand Total 36,849 7,135 43,984 39,660 4,209 43,869 87,853 Source: HMMH, Note: Numbers have been rounded.

48 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps page 36 Table 9 Detailed 2020 EIS No-Action Modeled Average Daily Aircraft Operations Aircraft Category Small Narrow-body Large Narrow-body Small Wide-body INM Arrival Departure Aircraft Type DAY NIGHT TOTAL DAY NIGHT TOTAL Grand Total ,149 1, ,151 2, B , ,665 1, ,665 3, ,241 1, ,241 2, ,902 2,971 12,874 12, ,873 25, , ,016 2, N N A319-1, ,300 1, ,300 2,600 A ,647 A DC93LW DC95HW DC9Q MD MD MD ,063 Sub-Total 17,237 4,412 21,649 20,074 1,572 21,645 43, EM EM Q Q QF PW 2, ,705 2, ,697 5, RR ,146 1, ,154 2,299 A DC86HK Sub-Total 3,027 1,469 4,496 4, ,499 8, ,210 1,210 2,421 1,210 1,210 2,421 4,841 A A Sub-Total 1,261 1,453 2,714 1,520 1,254 2,774 5,488

49 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps page 37 Table 9 Detailed 2020 EIS No-Action Modeled Average Daily Aircraft Operations (continued) Aircraft Category General Aviation Jet INM Aircraft Arrival Departure Type DAY NIGHT TOTAL DAY NIGHT TOTAL Grand Total CIT ,804 CNA CNA55B CNA ,860 F FAL FAL GII GIIB GIV GV IA LEAR LEAR35 1, ,284 1, ,283 2,566 MU3001 1, ,540 1, ,542 3,082 Sub-Total 5, ,918 5, ,912 11,830 Prop / Air Taxi / GA 1900D 2, ,465 2, ,465 4,930 BEC58P 2, ,988 2, ,971 5,959 C CNA ,215 CNA CNA20T CNA COMSEP CVR DHC DHC GASEPF ,873 GASEPV PA SD SF340 1, ,999 1, ,997 3,996 Sub-Total 9, ,026 9, ,965 19,991

50 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps page 38 Table 9 Detailed 2020 EIS No-Action Modeled Average Daily Aircraft Operations (continued) Aircraft Category Regional Jet INM Aircraft Arrival Departure Type DAY NIGHT TOTAL DAY NIGHT TOTAL Grand Total CL CL601 2, ,499 2, ,501 5,000 CRJ70P 1, ,937 1, ,937 3,873 EMB145 4, ,619 3, ,447 9,066 EMB14L ,042 EMB17P J 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, ,914 Source: HMMH, T.F. Green EIS Note: Numbers have been rounded.

51 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps page 39 Aircraft Category Small Narrow-body Large Narrow-body Small Wide-body Table 10 Detailed 2020 EIS Preferred Alternative Modeled Average Daily Aircraft Operations INM Arrival Departure Aircraft Type DAY NIGHT TOTAL DAY NIGHT TOTAL Grand Total ,149 1, ,151 2, B , ,665 1, ,665 3, ,241 1, ,241 2, ,593 3,477 15,069 14, ,069 30, , ,114 2, ,114 4, N N A319-1, ,300 1, ,300 2,600 A ,106 1, ,111 2,217 A ,297 DC93LW DC95HW DC9Q MD MD MD ,063 Sub-Total 20,351 5,324 25,675 24,012 1,659 25,671 51, EM EM Q Q QF PW 2, ,914 2, ,907 5, RR ,302 1, ,309 2,612 A DC86HK Sub-Total 3,309 1,553 4,862 4, ,865 9, ,210 1,210 2,421 1,210 1,210 2,421 4,841 A A Sub-Total 1,261 1,453 2,714 1,520 1,254 2,774 5,488

52 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps page 40 Table 10 Detailed 2020 EIS Preferred Alternative Modeled Average Daily Aircraft Operations (continued) Aircraft Category General Aviation Jet INM Aircraft Arrival Departure Type DAY NIGHT TOTAL DAY NIGHT TOTAL Grand Total CIT ,804 CNA CNA55B CNA ,860 F FAL FAL GII GIIB GIV GV IA LEAR LEAR35 1, ,284 1, ,283 2,566 MU3001 1, ,540 1, ,542 3,082 Sub-Total 5, ,918 5, ,912 11,830 Prop / Air Taxi / GA 1900D 2, ,465 2, ,465 4,930 BEC58P 2, ,988 2, ,971 5,959 C CNA ,215 CNA CNA20T CNA COMSEP CVR DHC DHC GASEPF ,873 GASEPV PA SD SF340 1, ,999 1, ,997 3,996 Sub-Total 9, ,026 9, ,965 19,991

53 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps page 41 Aircraft Category Regional Jet Table 10 Detailed 2020 EIS Preferred Alternative Modeled Average Daily Aircraft Operations (continued) INM Aircraft Arrival Departure Type DAY NIGHT TOTAL DAY NIGHT TOTAL Grand Total CL CL601 2, ,499 2, ,501 5,000 CRJ70P 1, ,937 1, ,937 3,873 EMB145 4, ,619 3, ,447 9,066 EMB14L ,042 EMB17P J 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, ,698 Source: HMMH, T.F. Green EIS Note: Numbers have been rounded.

54 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps page 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. FAA Category 1 Itinerant Local Table 11 Annual Operations Summary and Comparison 2010 Existing Annual Operations Part 150 Forecast Operations 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 Military GA 1,358 1,507 1,507 Military Total 87, , , 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 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 FAA ATADS System Data pulled 6/14/2010

55 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps page 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 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) 4.4 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,

56 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps 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 Type of Operation Departure Arrival Departure Arrival Subtotals Day or Annual Operations with Percent of Total Operations (2010) Night Runway 5 Runway 16 Runway 23 Runway 34 Day Day Night Night 2020 Total 13,135 2,132 19,359 5,035 39, % 2.4% 22.0% 5.7% 45.1% 12, ,758 6,550 36, % 0.6% 20.2% 7.5% 41.9% 1, , , % 0.0% 2.6% 0.3% 4.8% 2, , , % 0.0% 3.7% 1.0% 8.1% 29,794 2,685 42,601 12,774 87, % 3.1% 48.5% 14.5% 100.0% 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 Type of Operation Departure Arrival Departure Arrival Subtotals Day or Annual Operations with Percent of Total Operations (2020) Night Runway 5 Runway 16 Runway 23 Runway 34 Day Day Night Night 2020 Total 16,125 2,869 23,996 6,164 49, % 2.6% 21.8% 5.6% 44.7% 14, ,038 7,994 45, % 0.6% 20.1% 7.3% 41.4% 2, , , % 0.0% 2.7% 0.4% 5.2% 3, ,486 1,159 9, % 0.0% 4.1% 1.1% 8.7% 37,034 3,605 53,492 15, , % 3.3% 48.7% 14.4% 100.0% Source: T.F. Green EIS, HMMH, 2009 Note: Numbers are rounded. Night is defined as 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM.

57 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps page 45 Table 14 Runway Utilization Rates for Arrival and Departure Operations for the 2020 EIS Preferred Alternative NEM Type of Operation Departure Arrival Departure Arrival Sub-Totals Day or Annual Operations with Percent of Total Operations (2020) Night Runway 5 Runway 16 Runway 23 Runway 34 Day Day Night Night 2020 Total 17,918 2,869 26,496 6,164 53, % 2.4% 22.3% 5.2% 45.0% 15, ,765 8,473 48, % 0.6% 20.0% 7.1% 41.2% 2, , , % 0.0% 2.6% 0.4% 4.9% 4, ,972 1,268 10, % 0.0% 4.2% 1.1% 8.9% 40,432 3,631 58,264 16, , % 3.1% 49.1% 13.8% 100.0% Source: T.F. Green EIS, HMMH, 2009 Note: Numbers are rounded. Night is defined as 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM. 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 RealContours TM 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.

58 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps page 46 This page intentionally left blank

59 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps page 47 Figure 7 Sample of Modeled Tracks for North Flow Operations

60

61 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps page 49 Figure 8 Sample of Modeled Tracks for South Flow Operations

62 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps page 50 Page intentionally left blank.

63 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps 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, L eq ; and Day-Night Average Sound Level, DNL 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.

64 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps 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 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 A- weighted 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.

65 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps 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 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.

66 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps page 54 Figure 10 Common Environmental Sound Levels, in dba Source: HMMH (Aircraft noise levels from FAA Advisory Circular 36-3H)

67 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps 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. Source: HMMH Figure 11 Variations in the A-Weighted Sound Level Over Time Maximum A-Weighted Noise Level, L max The variation in noise level over time often makes it convenient to describe a particular noise "event" by its maximum sound level, abbreviated as L max. 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 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.

68 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps 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. Source: HMMH Figure 12 Sound Exposure Level Because the SEL is normalized to one second, it will always be larger than the L max for an event longer than one second. In this case, the SEL is 90 db; the L max is approximately 85 dba. For most aircraft overflights, the SEL is normally on the order of 7 to 12 db higher than L max. 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 Equivalent Sound Level, L eq The L max 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 (L eq ), is a measure of exposure resulting from the accumulation of A- weighted 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 L eq(8) or L eq(24). L eq 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 L eq 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,

69 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps page 57 be aware that the "average" sound level suggested by L eq is not an arithmetic value, but a logarithmic, or "energy-averaged" sound level. Thus, loud events dominate L eq measurements. Source: HMMH Figure 13 Example of a One Minute Equivalent Sound Level In airport noise studies, L eq 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 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/ , 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.

70 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps 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 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 A- weighted 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.

71 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps page 59 Source: HMMH Figure 14 Daily Noise Dose

72 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps 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 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

73 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps page 61 disrupt sleep. Relating these effects to specific noise metrics helps in the understanding of how and why people react to their environment 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

74 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps 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 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 L max 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

75 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps 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 (From data provided by USAF Armstrong Laboratory). pp 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.

76 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps 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 , December 1971, page 63.

77 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps 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.

78

79 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps page A-1 APPENDIX A 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 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 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 NA-2 NA-3 NA-4 NA-5 NA-6 Construct filet at Intersection of Runways 5R-23L and Construct parallel taxiway serving Runway 5R-23L Construct noise barrier parallel to Runway 5R Incorporate noise barrier consideration in the design of proposed air cargo building Displace landing threshold on Runway 5L Physical isolation of maintenance run-ups No FAA action required Approved No FAA action required No FAA action required Approved 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. Completed The proposed air cargo building will be considered in this EIS. This runway has been de-commissioned, and converted to a taxiway Maintenance run-ups are conducted in the center of the airfield utilizing inactive taxiways 10 FAR Part 150 Study for T.F. Green Airport, Landrum and Brown Inc., T.F. Green Airport, Final Environmental Impact Statement, August, 2000.

80 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps page A-2 Status of TF Green Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program (Continued) Measure Description FAA Action Status NA-7 NA-8 NA-9 NA-10 NA-11 NA-12 NA-13 NA-14 NA-15 NA-16 NA-17 Voluntary nighttime restrictions for scheduled air carrier operations (midnight to 6:00 AM) 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. Restrictions on aircraft re-positioning under power. This restriction prohibits repositioning under power on the South Apron near the Air Freight Building. Pre-takeoff run-up restrictions. Each runway end has designated pre-takeoff run-up areas designed to minimize noise in the community. Informational program on reverse thrust Rotational runway use program (discontinue) Helicopter operation procedures: this measure calls for helicopters to cross the Airport Boundary at or above 1,000 MSL during arrivals or departures. Restrictions on 180-degree turns on the runway unless operationally necessary Discourage engine maintenance run-ups during the period of voluntary flight restriction (NA-7) Discourage, when safe and practicable, engine start-ups and auxiliary power unit starts prior to the end of the voluntary nighttime restrictions (NA-7) 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. Approved as voluntary Approved Approved Approved Approved No FAA action required Approved in part Approved Approved as voluntary Approved as voluntary Approved as voluntary No commercial flights currently scheduled; most late night operations are arrivals that have been delayed. This measure is in effect and continues to be practiced. This measure is in effect and continues to be practiced. This measure is in effect and continues to be practiced. Currently RIAC has no formal mechanism to inform pilots of its noise abatement program. As described, this measure has been withdrawn. This measure is in effect. This measure is in effect and continues to be practiced. This measure is in effect and continues to be practiced. This measure is in effect and continues to be practiced. 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.

81 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps page A-3 Status of TF Green Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program (Continued) Measure Description FAA Action Status NA-18 NA-19 NA-20 NA-21 NA-22 NA-23 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 23L by Stage 2 jet aircraft and Stage 2 aircraft modified to meet Stage 3 noise criteria. 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 16 by Stage 2 jet aircraft and Stage 2 aircraft modified to meet Stage 3 noise criteria. 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 34 by Stage 2 jet aircraft and Stage 2 aircraft modified to meet Stage 3 noise criteria. 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 vectored to assigned heading. Props and turboprops may be assigned divergent headings at the discretion of Air Traffic Control. 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 DME (from the T.F. Green VORTAC), before being vectored to assigned heading. Props and turboprops may be assigned divergent headings at the discretion of Air Traffic Control. Weather and traffic permitting, all southbound jet aircraft 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 degree radial (whichever occurs first), before being vectored to assigned heading (if necessary). Props and turboprops may be assigned divergent headings at the discretion of Air Traffic Control. Approved as voluntary Approved as voluntary Approved as voluntary Approved for Part 150 purposes only* Approved for Part 150 purposes only* Approved for Part 150 purposes only* 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. 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. 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. 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 3 rd Quarter of 2005 was 99 percent 13. 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 3 rd Quarter of 2005 was 98 percent. 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 3 rd Quarter of 2005 was 99 percent 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.

82 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps page A-4 Status of TF Green Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program (Continued) Measure Description FAA Action Status NA-24 NA-25 NA-26 NA-27 NA-28 NA-29 NA-30 NA-31 Weather and traffic permitting, all northbound jet aircraft departing Runway 23L, turn right as soon as practicable after passing runway end to fly a 280 degree heading until reaching 3 DME (from the T.F. Green VORTAC), before being vectored to assigned heading. Props and turboprops may be assigned divergent headings at the discretion of Air Traffic Control. Weather and traffic permitting, all southbound jet aircraft 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. Weather and traffic permitting, all northbound jet aircraft departing Runway 34, turn left as soon as practicable after passing runway end to fly a 330 degree heading until reaching 4 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. Weather and traffic permitting, all southbound jet aircraft 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. 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). Extend the existing noise barrier, presently located to the west of the Runway 5R end, 500 feet south of the Runway 5R safety area boundary. Construct a noise barrier (wall or earthen berm) along the east side of the Airport between Airport Road on the north and lower Buckeye Brook to the south 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 150 purposes only* Approved for Part 150 purposes only* Approved for Part 150 purposes only* Approved for Part 150 purposes only* Approved for Part 150 purposes only* Approved for Part 150 purposes only* Approved for Part 150 purposes only* Approved for Part 150 purposes only* 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 3 rd Quarter of 2005 was 97 percent. 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 3 rd Quarter of 2005 was 95 percent. 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 3 rd Quarter of 2005 was 97 percent. 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 3 rd Quarter of 2005 was 80 percent. This measure is in effect and continues to be practiced. The existing noise barrier has not been extended. The proposed noise barrier has not been constructed. The proposed noise barrier has not been constructed.

83 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps page A-5 Status of TF Green Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program Measure Description FAA Action Status NA-32 NA-33 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. Designate and construct a run-up position for maintenance runup activity. Land Use (LU) Measures LU-1 LU-2 LU-3 LU-4 LU-5 LU-6 LU-7 Withdraw Measure LU-1 of the 1986 NCP (re-zoning for properties acquired by the Airport). Withdraw measure LU-2 of the 1986 NCP (amending subdivision regulations for City of Warwick to prevent encroachment. 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. 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. Close measure LU-5 of the 1986 NCP, which addresses the sound insulation of schools within the DNL 65 db noise contour 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. 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. Approved for Part 150 purposes only* Approved No FAA action required No FAA action required Approved Approved No FAA action required Approved Approved The proposed noise barrier has not been constructed. The proposed noise run-up location has not been constructed. It is under study in the Master Plan Update. This measure has been withdrawn. This measure has been withdrawn. The State of Rhode Island Building Code has not been amended. 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. Complete. As of December 2001, the Residential Sound Insulation Program was put on hold pending completion of the Voluntary Land Acquisition Program (LU-4). An act to amend the Fair Disclosure Policy Legislation has been presented to the Rhode Island General Assembly; 2005-H5871

84 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps page A-6 Status of TF Green Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program (Continued) Measure Description FAA Action Status LU-8 LU-9 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). 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. Program Management (PM) Measures PM-1 PM-2 PM-3 PM-4 Install an aircraft operations monitoring system to evaluate implementation of flight track corridors approved as part of the NCP. Implement a Fly Quiet public relations program for publications and communications that publicize the NCP to Airport users 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. Continue five-year updates of the NCP and two year reviews of the NEMs Approved Approved for study Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved for further study The City of Warwick is currently updating its Comprehensive Plan and will include this measure. John Francis Brown and E.G. Robertson elementary schools have been sound insulated. An Airport Operations Monitoring System (AOMS) has been installed. It doe not include noise monitoring capabilities. A Fly Quiet program has not been implemented due to funding constraints. The Community Noise Advisory Committee (CNAC) was disbanded during the Master Plan Update and EIS process; it has not been re-formed. These updates are pending completion of this EIS. This Master Plan Update Supplement (2000) does not include a recommendation to extend Runway for noise abatement purposes. Conduct further study to analyze the possible extension of PM-5 Runway for noise abatement purposes. Source: HMMH, * 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.

85 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps page B-1 APPENDIX B NON-STANDARD NOISE MODELING SUBSTITUTION REQUEST AND FAA APPROVAL The following is the Non-standard noise modeling substitution request.

86 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps page B-2

87 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps page B-3

88 T.F. Green Airport Part 150 Update Study 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps June 2010 page B-4

89 T.F. Green Airport Part 150 Update Study 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps June 2010 page B-5

90 T.F. Green Airport Part 150 Update Study 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps June 2010 page B-6

91 T.F. Green Airport Part 150 Update Study 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps June 2010 page B-7

92 T.F. Green Airport Part 150 Update Study 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps This page left intentionally blank. June 2010 page B-8

93 T.F. Green Airport Part 150 Update Study 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps 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.

94 T.F. Green Airport Part 150 Update Study June and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps Figure C-1 Public Information Meeting Notice from the T.F. Green Airport Website Page C-2

95 T.F. Green Airport Part 150 Update Study 2010 and 2020 Noise Exposure Maps Figure C-2 Providence Journal Ad June 2010 Page C-3