6.C.1 AIRPORT NOISE. Noise Analysis and Land Use Impact Assessment FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Transcription

1 6.C.1 AIRPORT NOISE The existing land uses are described in Chapter Five, Affected Environment. The methodologies used to develop the Geographic Information System (GIS) land use database, the estimated population, and classification of housing units and other noise-sensitive land uses are provided in Appendix J.1, Geographic Information System (GIS) Database Development and Land Use Methodology. A detailed description of the methodology used to prepare the DNL noise contours using the FAA-approved INM Version 6.1 is provided in Appendix H, Noise. Based on FAA standards, aircraft noise impacts are analyzed for areas located within the 65+ DNL noise contour for the No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative noise contour provides a baseline for noise impact analysis in this EIS. Within the 65+ DNL noise contour, the analysis identifies residential and noisesensitive public land uses, such as incompatible residential, churches, schools, libraries, nursing homes, or hospitals. An increase in the noise level of DNL 1.5 decibels (db) or more for a noise-sensitive land use located within the 65+ DNL noise contour is the threshold FAA uses for determining significant noise impacts. 6.C.1.1 Noise Analysis and Land Use Impact Assessment This section provides a summary of the noise analysis and land use impact assessment for the 2012 No Action Alternative and each runway development alternative. The 2012 No Action Alternative is compared to each of the 2012 B and C Alternatives. The 2012 No Action Alternative is not compared to the D1 and D2 alternatives because all elements of these alternatives would not be fully operational in Only the south runway element for these alternatives would be operational in More detailed descriptions of the operational characteristics of each alternative are provided later in this section. This section also provides a summary of the noise analysis and land use impact assessment for the 2020 No Action Alternative and each runway development alternative. Alternatives D1 and D2 would be fully operational in by 2020 and this analysis discloses the potential noise impacts associated with each of the alternatives eight years after the opening of the runway(s). Alternative A: No Action Alternative B1: Redevelop and extend existing Runway 9R/27L to an 8,600-foot by 150-foot elevated runway Alternative B1b: Redevelop and extend existing Runway 9R/27L to an 8,000-foot by 150-foot elevated runway with EMAS Alternative B1c (Airport Sponsor s Proposed Project): Redevelop and extend existing Runway 9R/27L to an 8,000-foot by 150-foot elevated runway with EMAS; runway use determined by Broward County s Interlocal Agreements Alternative B4: Build a new 6,001-foot at grade runway with EMAS located 340 feet north of existing south runway (to replace existing Runway 9R/27L) Page 6.C-3

2 Alternative B5: Alternative C1: Alternative D1: Alternative D2: Build a 7,800-foot elevated runway with EMAS located 320 feet south of existing south runway (to replace existing Runway 9R/27L) Build a 7,721-foot at grade runway located 850 feet north of existing Runway 9L/27R (a dependent parallel runway to existing Runway 9L/27R) Redevelop and extend existing Runway 9R/27L to 8,000 feet and build a new 7,721-foot runway north of existing Runway 9L/27R (combination of Alternatives B1b and C1) Build a new 6,001-foot at grade runway with EMAS located 340 feet north of existing south runway and build a 7,721-foot at grade runway located 850 feet north of existing Runway 9L/27R (combination of Alternatives B4 and C1) 6.C Alternative A: 2012 No Action A 13 9L 27R 9R Legend 31 Existing Runway Proposed New Runway or Runway Extension Decommissioned Runway Pavement 27L N This section provides a summary of the INM input data, the resulting noise exposure pattern, and the disclosure of the potential noise impacts resulting from the operation of the airport under Alternative A. The noise exposure and impact assessment prepared for Alternative A is the baseline against which all other future alternatives are evaluated. Data Sources and Assumptions: The No Action Alternative assumes no changes to the current airfield layout or the existing arrival and departure flight tracks. This alternative assumes the forecast growth in the number of operations, anticipated changes in fleet mix, and modifications in overall runway end utilization that would occur as a result of the forecast growth in operations at FLL through Runway Definition: The runway layout for Alternative A is graphically depicted on Exhibit 4-20, Alternative A No Action, in Chapter Four. There are two east/west parallel runways (9L/27R and 9R/27L) spaced approximately 4,000 feet apart and a northwest/southeast crosswind runway (13/31) located approximately midfield and intersecting with Runway 9L/27R and Runway 9R/27L. Runway 9L/27R is the longest runway on the airfield at 9,000 feet. The runway lengths for all three runways are: Page 6.C-4

3 FLL Runways Length (feet) 9L/27R 9,000 9R/27L 5,276 13/31 6,928 Activity Levels and Fleet Mix: The 2012 forecast of annual operations is 341,877, which translates to 936 annual average day operations. The projected increase in operations and changes in fleet mix from 2005 to 2012 is based on an analysis of the FAA s Terminal Area Forecast (TAF). 3 Future 2012 operations are projected to increase approximately 6.7 percent over 2005 Baseline operating levels. The number of operations that occur during the nighttime (10:00 p.m. 6:59 a.m.) is an important element in the preparation of DNL noise contours given the 10 db penalty applied to these operations. The analysis for the 2005 Baseline found that approximately ten percent of the total operations occurred during the nighttime. Forecast demand at FLL assumes that scheduling of flights during the day versus the nighttime would stay approximately the same. The 2012 No Action Alternative assumes that approximately 11 percent of the operations occur at night. The average daily operations forecast for the 2012 No Action Alternative is summarized by user group in Table 6.C.1-1, Average Day Operations 2012 No Action Alternative. Annual average day operations and fleet mix for 2012 are shown in Table 6.C.1-2, Average Day Operations by Aircraft Type 2012 No Action Alternative. Table 6.C.1-1 AVERAGE DAY OPERATIONS* NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE User Group Arrivals Departures Total Day Night Day Night Day Night Air Carrier/Cargo Commuter/Air Taxi GA/Military Total * Data rounded to the nearest whole operation. Day: 7:00 a.m. to 9:59 p.m. Night: 10:00 p.m. to 6:59 a.m. Source: FAA 2006 TAF, published January 2007, and Landrum & Brown, The FAA 2006 Terminal Area Forecast, published in January 2007, provides projections through Federal Fiscal Year 2020 (the Federal Fiscal Year runs October through September). Information pertaining to the TAF used for this EIS analysis is provided in Appendix D.1, Forecast Verification and Derivatives. Page 6.C-5

4 Table 6.C.1-2 AVERAGE DAY OPERATIONS BY AIRCRAFT TYPE* 2012 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE Heavy Jet Large Jet Commuter Jet Landings Takeoffs Total Aircraft Type INM Type Day Night Day Night Day Night Air Carrier/Cargo Boeing CF Boeing Boeing Airbus 300 A Airbus 310 A DC10-10 DC DC8-63 (Hushkit) DC Boeing Boeing (Hushkit) 727EM Boeing (Hushkit) 737N Boeing Boeing Boeing Boeing Boeing Boeing PW Boeing RR Airbus 319 A Airbus 320 A Airbus 320 A Airbus 321 A DC9-50 (Hushkit) DC95HW MD81 MD MD82 MD MD83 MD Subtotal Commuter/Air Taxi Canadair Regional Jet CL Embraer 135 CL Embraer 145 EMB Embraer 170/190 EMB14L Business Jet CNA Business Jet LEAR Business Jet LEAR Business Jet MU300C Page 6.C-6

5 Table 6.C.1-2, Continued AVERAGE DAY OPERATIONS BY AIRCRAFT TYPE* 2012 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE Commuter Prop General Aviation Jet General Aviation Prop/ Military Landings Takeoffs Total Aircraft Type INM Type Day Night Day Night Day Night Commuter/Air Taxi, Continued Heavy Turboprop DHC Heavy Turboprop HS748A Heavy Turboprop DHC Medium Turboprop DHC Medium Turboprop SD Twin Engine Prop BEC58P Single Engine Prop GASEPF Subtotal General Aviation/Military Business Jet CIT Business Jet CL Business Jet CNA Business Jet FAL Business Jet GIIB Business Jet GIV Business Jet LEAR Business Jet LEAR Business Jet MU Heavy Turboprop HS748A Medium Turboprop DHC Light Turboprop CNA Twin Engine Prop BEC58P Single Engine Prop GASEPV Single Engine Prop GASEPF C 130 Transport C Subtotal Average Daily Totals * Data rounded to the nearest whole operation. Source: FAA 2006 TAF, published January 2007, and Landrum & Brown, Runway End Utilization: First, the assignment of specific aircraft to runway ends was based on the airport operating configuration in east flow (78 percent of the operations on Runways 9L, 9R, and 13) or west flow (22 percent of the operations on Runways 27R, 27L, and 31). The next factor was the length and width of each runway, which can limit the size of aircraft that can use a runway. For aircraft that can use multiple runways, runway assignment factors include: typical operating configurations; origin/destination; and for arrivals, the gate/destination on the airport. Page 6.C-7

6 For the 2012 No Action Alternative, the heavy jet, large jet, and all but the smallest business jets and turboprops were assigned to either Runway 9L/27R or Runway 13/31 for both arrivals and departures. Runway 9R/27L has neither the length nor the width to accept these aircraft. Runway 9L/27R is used the majority of the time due to its length and the typical operating configuration at the airport. Runways 9R, 9L, and 13 are used by small business jet and propeller aircraft for arrivals during east flow, and Runways 27R, 27L, and 31 during west flow. In making runway assignments for the small business jet and propeller aircraft, gate location and the origin/destination were considered. Runway 13/31 can be assigned to any aircraft, but is used only when winds require or when one of the other runways is unavailable. Appendix H, Noise, provides more detailed data on the runway use percentages. Flight Tracks: The 2012 No Action Alternative includes no changes to the current arrival and departure tracks from the 2005 Baseline condition (See Chapter Five, Affected Environment). Flight track utilization was modified from the 2005 Baseline due to the anticipated increase in the use of the south runway. See Appendix H, Noise, for the flight track utilization tables. Ground Run-up Noise: No change would occur in time, location, and thrust settings of engine run-ups from the 2005 Baseline (See Section 5.C.1.2.1). The number of operations and fleet mix was updated to reflect the 2012 No Action Alternative. Table 6.C.1-3, Ground Run-up Operations No Action Alternative, shows the number, types, and duration of the engine run-ups assumed to occur at FLL under the 2012 No Action Alternative. Table 6.C.1-3 GROUND RUN-UP OPERATIONS NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE INM Aircraft Types Average Daily Runup Operations Average Duration Power (Thrust) Settings 727EM seconds 80% LEAR seconds 80% DHC seconds 80% Source: Landrum & Brown, 2007, FLL Operations Department. Noise Exposure and Land Use Impacts: The following paragraphs disclose the impacts identified for the noise exposure contours and the supplemental grid point analysis for the 2012 No Action Alternative, as well as a discussion of the associated land use impacts. Noise Exposure Contour: The 2012 No Action noise exposure contour for 60, 65, 70, and 75 DNL levels is graphically depicted on Exhibit 6.C.1-1, 2012 No Action Alternative Noise Exposure Pattern. The 2012 No Action noise contour is larger than the 2005 Baseline noise contour. The shape of the contour is primarily a function of the combination of runway use and flight tracks at FLL. For the 2012 No Action Alternative, the airport is assumed Page 6.C-8

7 to operate in east flow 78 percent of the time (Runways 9L, 9R, and 13) and west flow 22 percent of the time (Runways 27R, 27L, and 31). East of the airport the noise contour reflects usage by aircraft departing to the east, as seen in the large width of the contour. To the west of the airport the noise contour reflects usage by aircraft arriving from the west, as seen in the narrow spike-shaped contour. The area within each 5 db noise exposure contour is shown in Table 6.C.1-4, Area Exposed to Various Noise Levels 2012 No Action Alternative Noise Exposure Contours. The 65 DNL noise contour of the 2012 No Action noise exposure contour encompasses five square miles. Grid Point Assessment: FAA Order E, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, states that DNL is the primary metric for describing aircraft noise exposure. However, as discussed in Chapter Five, Affected Environment, Section 5.C.1, Noise, DNL analysis may be supplemented with additional metrics to assist in the public s understanding of the noise impact. Therefore, supplemental noise analysis is being prepared for this EIS. Table 6.C.1-4 AREA EXPOSED TO VARIOUS NOISE LEVELS (IN SQUARE MILES) 2012 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE NOISE EXPOSURE CONTOURS * Noise Level 2012 No Action DNL DNL DNL DNL DNL * 6.8 The disclosure of the DNL noise contour is provided for local planning purposes only. Source: Landrum & Brown, [Contours: FLL_2012Baseline] Regularly spaced grid points and specific noise-sensitive public facility grid points were located throughout the airport environs for supplemental analysis. Exhibits graphically depicting the grid locations (Appendix H, Noise, Exhibit 19 through Exhibit 21) and the output reports, comparing all of the conditions assessed in this EIS are provided in Appendix H, Noise, Table H-50 through Table H-71. Land Use Impact Assessment: The 65 DNL noise contour for Alternative A, 2012 No Action, encompasses 5.0 square miles of land, which is comprised of both compatible and incompatible land uses. Table 6.C.1-5, Incompatible Land Uses 2012 Alternative A No Action, indicates the number of housing units, population, and noise-sensitive public facilities located in each noise exposure contour range. Approximately 13 housing units with a population of 33 would potentially be impacted by noise levels at or greater than 65 DNL with the 2012 No Action Alternative, Alternative A. Of these 13 housing units, 11 are located within the Page 6.C-9

8 65 DNL noise contour and two would be exposed to noise levels greater than 70 DNL. There are no churches, schools, libraries, nursing homes, or hospitals impacted by noise levels at or above 65 DNL. Table 6.C.1-5 INCOMPATIBLE LAND USES 2012 ALTERNATIVE A NO ACTION Type of Facility DNL* DNL DNL 75+ DNL 65+ DNL Residential Housing Unit Single-Family Multi-Family 1, Mobile Home 1, Total Housing units 3, Population Single-family 2, Multi-family 2, Mobile Home 3, Total Population 8, Noise-Sensitive Public Facility Churches Library Performing Arts Centers Nursing Homes Schools Note: Residential housing units and population counts are based on 2000 Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) data from the Broward County Metropolitan Planning Organization. * The identified land uses between the DNL noise contours are considered compatible by FAA in accordance with FAR Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Planning, Appendix A, Table 1. The disclosure of land uses between the DNL noise contours is provided for local planning purposes only. Source: Landrum & Brown, [Contour: FLL_2012Baseline] 6.C ALTERNATIVE B1: REDEVELOP AND EXTEND EXISTING RUNWAY 9R/27L TO AN 8,600-FOOT BY 150-FOOT ELEVATED RUNWAY B1 13 9L 27R 9R Legend 31 Existing Runway Proposed New Runway or Runway Extension Decommissioned Runway Pavement 27L N Page 6.C-10

9 This section provides a summary of the INM input data, the resulting noise exposure, and a discussion of the potential noise impacts resulting from the operation of the airport under Alternative B1. This alternative includes the redevelopment and extension of Runway 9R/27L to 8,600 feet by 150 feet. As part of Alternative B1, Runway 13/31 would be decommissioned. Data Sources and Assumptions: The following paragraphs present the operational characteristics that would result from implementation of Alternative B1. Runway Definition: Alternative B1 includes lengthening Runway 9R/27L to 8,600 feet by 150 feet. As part of Alternative B1, Runway 13/31 would be decommissioned (See Exhibit 4-21, Refined Alternative B1 - East Extension / Widening of Runway 9R/27L, Chapter Four.) The runway lengths for both runways are: FLL Runways Length (feet) 9L/27R 9,000 9R/27L 8,600 Activity Levels and Fleet Mix: There would be no change in the number of annual average operations or fleet mix in the 2012 No Action Alternative that would occur with implementation of the 2012 Alternative B1. The number of nighttime operations would be 11 percent in 2012 Alternative B1. The average daily operations forecast for 2012 Alternative B1 is summarized by user group in Table 6.C.1-6, Average Day Operations 2012 Alternative B1. Annual average day operations and fleet mix for 2012 Alternative B1 are shown in Table 6.C.1-7, Average Day Operations by Aircraft Type 2012 Alternative B1. Table 6.C.1-6 AVERAGE DAY OPERATIONS* ALTERNATIVE B1 User Group Arrivals Departures Total Day Night Day Night Day Night Air Carrier/Cargo Commuter/Air Taxi GA/Military Total * Data rounded to the nearest whole operation. Day: 7:00 a.m. to 9:59 p.m. Night: 10:00 p.m. to 6:59 a.m. Source: FAA 2006 TAF, published January 2007, and Landrum & Brown, Page 6.C-11

10 Table 6.C.1-7 AVERAGE DAY OPERATIONS BY AIRCRAFT TYPE* 2012 ALTERNATIVE B1 Commuter Prop Commuter Jet Large Jet Heavy Jet Aircraft INM Landings Takeoffs Total Type Type Day Night Day Night Day Night Air Carrier/Cargo Boeing CF Boeing Boeing Airbus 300 A Airbus 310 A DC10-10 DC DC8-63 (Hushkit) DC Boeing Boeing (Hushkit) 727EM Boeing (Hushkit) 737N Boeing Boeing Boeing Boeing Boeing Boeing PW Boeing RR Airbus 319 A Airbus 320 A Airbus 320 A Airbus 321 A DC9-50 (Hushkit) DC95HW MD81 MD MD82 MD MD83 MD Subtotal Commuter/Air Taxi Canadair Regional Jet CL Embraer 135 CL Embraer 145 EMB Embraer 170/190 EMB14L Business Jet CNA Business Jet LEAR Business Jet LEAR Business Jet MU300C Heavy Turboprop DHC Heavy Turboprop HS748A Heavy Turboprop DHC Medium Turboprop DHC Medium Turboprop SD Twin Engine Prop BEC58P Single Engine Prop GASEPF Subtotal Page 6.C-12

11 Table 6.C.1-7, Continued AVERAGE DAY OPERATIONS BY AIRCRAFT TYPE* 2012 ALTERNATIVE B1 General Aviation Jet General Aviation Prop/ Military Aircraft INM Landings Takeoffs Total Type Type Day Night Day Night Day Night General Aviation/Military Business Jet CIT Business Jet CL Business Jet CNA Business Jet FAL Business Jet GIIB Business Jet GIV Business Jet LEAR Business Jet LEAR Business Jet MU Heavy Turboprop HS748A Medium Turboprop DHC Light Turboprop CNA Twin Engine Prop BEC58P Single Engine Prop GASEPV Single Engine Prop GASEPF C 130 Transport C Subtotal Average Daily Totals * Data rounded to the nearest whole operation. Source: FAA 2006 TAF, published January 2007, and Landrum & Brown, Runway End Utilization: First, the assignment of specific aircraft to runway ends was based on the airport operating configuration in east flow (Runways 9L and 9R) or west flow (Runways 27R and 27L). The next factor was the length and width of each runway, which can limit the size of aircraft that can use a runway. For aircraft that can use multiple runways, runway assignment factors include: typical operating configurations; origin/destination; and for arrivals, the gate/destination on the airport. For Alternative B1, all categories of aircraft could use both of the runways. Runway 9L/27R would continue to be the most heavily used runway by jet aircraft (heavy jets, large jets, commuter jets, and general aviation jets) for both arrivals and departures. The reasons for this are listed below: Runway 9L/27R would still be the longest runway Runway 9R/27L s gradient of up to 1.5 percent could limit departure options of heavy aircraft from the runway (i.e., payload, fuel, destination/stage length) The majority of the passenger gates are located closer to Runway 9L/27R Page 6.C-13

12 Most FLL departures are heading to northern destinations, therefore, air traffic control tends to assign them to the north runway Turboprop and propeller aircraft (commuter propeller and general aviation propeller) arrivals and departures would be assigned to Runway 9R/27L to maximize overall airport efficiency. Appendix H, Noise, provides detailed data on the runway use percentages for Alternative B1. Flight Track Locations and Use: Implementation of Alternative B1 would require modification of some of the flight tracks depicted under the No Action Alternative and the addition of new flight tracks (See Appendix H, Noise). The modified and new flight tracks are summarized below: Runway 9R/27L arrival tracks were modified to include longer downwind/base flight segments south of the airport to more appropriately accommodate large jet activity. Runway 9R/27L new arrival tracks were developed to accommodate aircraft utilizing the north downwind approach to Runway 9L/27R but arriving on Runway 9R/27L. Runway 9L/27R departure tracks were supplemented with 15-degree and 30-degree turns to the north. Runway 9R/27L departure tracks were supplemented with 15-degree turns to the south. The additional turns are needed to obtain minimum separation during simultaneous departures. Runway 9L/27R new arrival tracks would include a second approach parallel to, and with a 4,300-foot lateral spacing from Runway 9R/27L approach (approximately 300 feet north of the current Runway 9L/27R straight-in approach). The arrival tracks include a three-degree offset segment (sidestep maneuver) beginning at approximately 1.5 nautical miles from the Runway 9L/27R threshold. This parallel approach course would give air traffic control the option to conduct simultaneous approaches to Runways 9L/27R and 9R/27L in all weather conditions. Ground Run-up Noise: There would be no change in location, fleet mix, number of operations, and thrust settings of engine run-ups that would occur under the 2012 No Action Alternative. Noise Exposure and Land Use Impacts: The following section discloses the impacts identified for the noise exposure contours and the supplemental grid point analysis for Alternative B1, as well as a discussion of the associated land use impacts. Noise Exposure Contour: The Alternative B1 noise exposure contour for 60, 65, 70, and 75 DNL levels is graphically depicted on Exhibit 6.C.1-2, 2012 Alternative B1 Noise Exposure Pattern. Exhibit 6.C.1-3, Comparison of 2012 No Action and Alternative B1 Noise Exposure Pattern, depicts a comparison of 2012 Alternative B1 to the 2012 No Action Alternative. The 2012 Alternative B1 noise exposure contour is larger than the 2012 No Action Page 6.C-14

13 noise exposure contour. This increase in size is due primarily to the introduction of large and heavy jet aircraft to areas that previously have not been overflown by these types of aircraft. The area within each 5 db noise exposure contour is shown in Table 6.C.1-8, Area Exposed to Various Noise Levels 2012 Alternative B1. The 65 DNL of the 2012 Alternative B1 noise exposure contour encompasses 5.6 square miles, or approximately 12 percent more area than the 65 DNL of the 2012 No Action Alternative noise exposure contour (5.0 square miles). The shape of the 2012 Alternative B1 noise exposure contour reflects the changes in runway layout and runway use. In comparison to the 2012 No Action contour, the Alternative B1 contour to the west of the airport is larger and longer off of Runway 9R/27L and shorter off of Runway 9L/27R due to the increased use of Runway 9R/27L. Similarly, to the south of the airport, the 2012 Alternative B1 noise exposure contour is larger than the 2012 No Action noise contour, due to the increased use of Runway 9R/27L. The 2012 Alternative B1 decommissions Runway 13/31, which results in a reduction of the noise contour north of the airport. To the east of the airport, the change in the shape of the noise contour reflects more balanced use of Runways 9L and 9R for departures. Table 6.C.1-8 AREA EXPOSED TO VARIOUS NOISE LEVELS (IN SQUARE MILES) ALTERNATIVE B1 * Source: Noise Level 2012 Alternative B No Action DNL DNL DNL DNL DNL * The disclosure of the DNL noise contour is provided for local planning purposes only. Landrum & Brown, [Contours: FLL_2012B1-rev1] Grid Point Assessment: FAA Order E, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, states that DNL is the primary metric for describing aircraft noise exposure. However, as discussed in Chapter Five, Affected Environment, Section 5.C.1, Noise, DNL analysis may be supplemented with additional metrics to assist in the public s understanding of the noise impact. Therefore, supplemental noise analysis is being prepared for this EIS. Regularly spaced grid points and specific noise-sensitive public facility grid points were located throughout the airport environs for supplemental analysis. Exhibits showing the grid locations (Appendix H, Noise, Exhibit 19 through Exhibit 21) and the output reports, comparing all of the conditions assessed in this EIS are provided in Appendix H, Noise, Table H-50 through Table H-71. Further discussion of the results of the supplemental noise analysis for the Alternative B1 is provided in Section 6.C.1.10, Supplemental Noise Analysis. Page 6.C-15

14 Land Use Impact Assessment: The 65 DNL noise contour for Alternative B1 encompasses 5.6 square miles of land, which is comprised of both compatible and incompatible land uses. Table 6.C.1-9, Incompatible Land Uses 2012 Alternative B1, indicates the number of housing units, population, and noise-sensitive public facilities located in each noise exposure contour range. Table 6.C.1-9 INCOMPATIBLE LAND USES 2012 ALTERNATIVE B1 Type of Facility DNL* DNL DNL 75+ DNL 65+ DNL Residential Housing Unit Single-Family 1, Multi-Family 1, Mobile Home 1, Total Housing units 3, Population Single-family 2, Multi-family 2, Mobile Home 2, Total Population 8,217 1, ,538 Noise-Sensitive Public Facility Churches Library Performing Arts Centers Nursing Homes Schools Note: Residential housing units and population counts are based on 2000 Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) data from the Broward County Metropolitan Planning Organization. * The identified land uses between the DNL noise contours are considered compatible by FAA in accordance with FAR Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Planning, Appendix A, Table 1. The disclosure of land uses between the DNL noise contours is provided for local planning purposes only. Source: Landrum & Brown, [Contour: FLL_2012B1-rev1] Approximately 632 housing units with a population of 1,538 would potentially be impacted by noise levels at or greater than 65 DNL from the 2012 Alternative B1. Of these 632 housing units, 631 are located within the 65 DNL noise contour and one would be exposed to noise levels greater than 70 DNL. There are no churches, schools, libraries, nursing homes, or hospitals impacted by noise levels at or above 65 DNL. Page 6.C-16

15 6.C ALTERNATIVE B1b: REDEVELOP AND EXTEND EXISTING RUNWAY 9R/27L TO AN 8,000-FOOT BY 150-FOOT ELEVATED RUNWAY WITH EMAS B1b 13 9L 27R 9R Legend 31 Existing Runway Proposed New Runway or Runway Extension Decommissioned Runway Pavement 27L N This section provides a summary of the INM input data, the resulting noise exposure, and a discussion of the potential noise impacts resulting from the operation of the airport under Alternative B1b. This alternative includes the redevelopment and extension of Runway 9R/27L to 8,000 feet by 150 feet. As part of Alternative B1b, Runway 13/31 would be decommissioned. Data Sources and Assumptions: The following paragraphs present the operational characteristics that would result from implementation of Alternative B1b. Runway Definition: Alternative B1b includes lengthening Runway 9R/27L to 8,000 feet and widening the runway to 150 feet. As part of Alternative B1b, Runway 13/31 would be decommissioned (See Exhibit 4-22, Refined Alternatives B1b/B1c East Extension/Widening of Runway 9R/27L, Chapter Four.) The runway lengths for both runways are: FLL Runways Length (feet) 9L/27R 9,000 9R/27L 8,000 Activity Levels and Fleet Mix: There would be no change in the number of annual average operations or fleet mix in the 2012 No Action Alternative that would occur with implementation of 2012 Alternative B1b. The number of nighttime operations would be 11 percent in 2012 Alternative B1b. The average daily operations forecast for the 2012 Alternative B1b is summarized by user group in Table 6.C.1-10, Average Day Operations 2012 Alternative B1b. Annual average day operations and fleet mix for 2012 Alternative B1b are shown in Table 6.C.1-11, Average Day Operations by Aircraft Type 2012 Alternative B1b. Page 6.C-17

16 Table 6.C.1-10 AVERAGE DAY OPERATIONS* ALTERNATIVE B1b User Group Arrivals Departures Total Day Night Day Night Day Night Air Carrier/Cargo Commuter/Air Taxi GA/Military Total * Data rounded to the nearest whole operation. Day: 7:00 a.m. to 9:59 p.m. Night: 10:00 p.m. to 6:59 a.m. Source: FAA 2006 TAF, published January 2007, and Landrum & Brown, Runway End Utilization: First, the assignment of specific aircraft to runway ends was based on the airport operating configuration in east flow (Runways 9L and 9R) or west flow (Runways 27R and 27L). The next factor was the length and width of each runway, which can limit the size of aircraft that can use a runway. For aircraft that can use multiple runways, runway assignment factors include: typical operating configurations; origin/destination; and for arrivals, the gate/destination on the airport. For Alternative B1b, all categories of aircraft could use both of the runways. Runway 9L/27R would continue to be the most heavily used runway by jet aircraft (heavy jets, large jets, commuter jets, and general aviation jets) for both arrivals and departures. The reasons for this are listed below: Runway 9L/27R would still be the longest runway Runway 9R/27L s gradient of up to 1.5 percent could limit departure options of heavy aircraft from the runway (i.e., payload, fuel, destination/stage length); The majority of the passenger gates are located closer to Runway 9L/27R Most FLL departures are heading to northern destinations; therefore, air traffic control tends to assign them to the north runway Turboprop and propeller aircraft (commuter propeller and general aviation propeller) arrivals and departures would be assigned to Runway 9R/27L to maximize overall airport efficiency. Appendix H, Noise, provides detailed data on the runway use percentages for Alternative B1b. Page 6.C-18

17 Table 6.C.1-11 AVERAGE DAY OPERATIONS BY AIRCRAFT TYPE* 2012 ALTERNATIVE B1b Heavy Jet Large Jet Commuter Jet Commuter Prop Aircraft INM Landings Takeoffs Total Type Type Day Night Day Night Day Night Air Carrier/Cargo Boeing CF Boeing Boeing Airbus 300 A Airbus 310 A DC10-10 DC DC8-63 (Hushkit) DC Boeing Boeing (Hushkit) 727EM Boeing (Hushkit) 737N Boeing Boeing Boeing Boeing Boeing Boeing PW Boeing RR Airbus 319 A Airbus 320 A Airbus 320 A Airbus 321 A DC9-50 (Hushkit) DC95HW MD81 MD MD82 MD MD83 MD Subtotal Commuter/Air Taxi Canadair Regional Jet CL Embraer 135 CL Embraer 145 EMB Embraer 170/190 EMB14L Business Jet CNA Business Jet LEAR Business Jet LEAR Business Jet MU300C Heavy Turboprop DHC Heavy Turboprop HS748A Heavy Turboprop DHC Medium Turboprop DHC Medium Turboprop SD Page 6.C-19

18 Table 6.C.1-11, Continued AVERAGE DAY OPERATIONS BY AIRCRAFT TYPE* 2012 ALTERNATIVE B1b General Aviation Jet General Aviation Prop/ Military Aircraft INM Landings Takeoffs Total Type Type Day Night Day Night Day Night Commuter/Air Taxi, Continued Twin Engine Prop BEC58P Single Engine Prop GASEPF General Aviation/Military Business Jet CIT Business Jet CL Business Jet CNA Business Jet FAL Business Jet GIIB Business Jet GIV Business Jet LEAR Business Jet LEAR Business Jet MU Heavy Turboprop HS748A Medium Turboprop DHC Light Turboprop CNA Twin Engine Prop BEC58P Single Engine Prop GASEPV Single Engine Prop GASEPF C 130 Transport C Subtotal Average Daily Totals * Data rounded to the nearest whole operation. Source: FAA 2006 TAF, published January 2007, and Landrum & Brown, Flight Track Locations and Use: The improvements included in Alternative B1b would result in the modification of some of the No Action Alternative flight tracks, as well as the addition of new flight tracks (See Appendix H, Noise). The modified and new flight tracks are summarized below. Runway 9R/27L arrival tracks were modified to include longer downwind/base flight segments south of the airport to more appropriately accommodate large jet activity. Runway 9R/27L new arrival tracks were developed to accommodate aircraft utilizing the north downwind approach to Runway 9L/27R but arriving on Runway 9R/27L. Runway 9L/27R departure tracks were supplemented with 15-degree and 30-degree turns to the north. Runway 9R/27L departure tracks were supplemented with 15-degree turns to the south. The additional turns are needed to obtain minimum separation during simultaneous departures. Page 6.C-20

19 Runway 9L/27R new arrival tracks would include a second approach parallel to, and with a 4,300 foot lateral spacing from Runway 9R/27L approach (approximately 300 feet north of the current Runway 9L/27R straight-in approach). The arrival tracks include a three-degree offset segment (side-step maneuver) beginning at approximately 1.5 nautical miles from the Runway 9L/27R threshold. This parallel approach course would give air traffic control the option to conduct simultaneous approaches to Runways 9L/27R and 9R/27L in all weather conditions. Ground Run-up Noise: No change would occur in time, location, fleet mix, number of operations, and thrust settings of engine run-ups from the 2012 No Action. Noise Exposure and Land Use Impacts: The following section discloses the impacts identified for the noise exposure contours and the supplemental grid point analysis for Alternative B1b, as well as a discussion of the associated land use impacts. Noise Exposure Contour: The Alternative B1b noise exposure contour for 60, 65, 70, and 75 DNL levels is graphically depicted on Exhibit 6.C.1-4, 2012 Alternative B1b Noise Exposure Pattern. Exhibit 6.C.1-5, Comparison of 2012 No Action and Alternative B1b Noise Exposure Pattern depicts a comparison of 2012 Alternative B1b to 2012 No Action Alternative. The 2012 Alternative B1b noise exposure contour is larger than the 2012 No Action noise exposure contour. This increase in size is due primarily to the introduction of large and heavy jet aircraft to areas that previously have not been overflown by these types of aircraft. The area within each 5 db noise exposure contour is shown in Table 6.C.1-12, Area Exposed to Various Noise Levels 2012 Alternative B1b. The 65 DNL of the 2012 Alternative B1b noise exposure contour encompasses 5.6 square miles, or approximately 12 percent more area than the 65 DNL of the 2012 No Action Alternative noise exposure contour (5.0 square miles). The shape of the 2012 Alternative B1b noise exposure contour reflects the changes in runway layout and runway use. In comparison to the 2012 No Action contour, the Alternative B1b contour to the west of the airport is larger and longer off of Runway 9R/27L and shorter off of Runway 9L/27R due to the increased use of Runway 9R/27L. Similarly, to the south of the airport, the 2012 Alternative B1b noise exposure contour is larger than the 2012 No Action noise contour, due to the increased use of Runway 9R/27L. The 2012 Alternative B1b decommissions Runway 13/31, which results in a reduction of the noise contour north of the airport. To the east of the airport, the change in the shape of the noise contour reflects more balanced use of Runways 9L and 9R for departures. Page 6.C-21

20 Table 6.C.1-12 AREA EXPOSED TO VARIOUS NOISE LEVELS (IN SQUARE MILES) ALTERNATIVE B1b * Source: Noise Level 2012 Alternative B1b 2012 No Action DNL DNL DNL DNL DNL* The disclosure of the DNL noise contour is provided for local planning purposes only. Landrum & Brown, [Contours: FLL_2012B1b] Grid Point Assessment: FAA Order E states that DNL is the primary metric for describing aircraft noise exposure. However, as discussed in Chapter Five, Affected Environment, Section 5.C.1, Noise, DNL analysis may be supplemented with additional metrics to assist in the public s understanding of the noise impact. Therefore, supplemental noise analysis is being prepared for this EIS. Regularly spaced grid points and specific noise-sensitive public facility grid points were located throughout the airport environs for supplemental analysis. Exhibits showing the grid locations (Appendix H, Noise, Exhibit 19 through Exhibit 21) and the output reports, comparing all of the conditions assessed in this EIS are provided in Appendix H, Noise, Table H-50 through Table H-71. Further discussion of the results of the supplemental noise analysis for Alternative B1b is provided in Section 6.C.1.10, Supplemental Noise Analysis. Land Use Impact Assessment: The 65 DNL noise contour for Alternative B1b encompasses 5.6 square miles of land, which is comprised of both compatible and incompatible land uses. Table 6.C.1-13, Incompatible Land Uses 2012 Alternative B1b, indicates the number of housing units, population, and noise-sensitive public facilities located in each noise exposure contour range. Approximately 652 housing units with a population of 1,593 would potentially would be impacted by noise levels at or greater than 65 DNL from 2012 Alternative B1b. Of these 652 housing units, 651 are located within the 65 and 70 DNL noise contours and one housing unit would be exposed to noise levels greater than 70 DNL. There are no churches, schools, libraries, nursing homes, or hospitals impacted by noise levels at or above 65 DNL. Page 6.C-22

21 Table 6.C.1-13 INCOMPATIBLE LAND USES 2012 ALTERNATIVE B1b Type of Facility DNL* DNL DNL 75+ DNL 65+ DNL Residential Housing Unit Single-Family 1, Multi-Family 1, Mobile Home 1, Total Housing units 3, Population Single-family 2, Multi-family 2, Mobile Home 3, Total Population 8,297 1, ,593 Noise-Sensitive Public Facility Churches Library Performing Arts Centers Nursing Homes Schools Note: Residential housing units and population counts are based on 2000 Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) data from the Broward County Metropolitan Planning Organization. * The identified land uses between the DNL noise contours are considered compatible by FAA in accordance with FAR Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Planning, Appendix A, Table 1. The disclosure of land uses between the DNL noise contours is provided for local planning purposes only. Source: Landrum & Brown, [Contour: FLL_2012B1b] 6.C ALTERNATIVE B1c (AIRPORT SPONSOR S PROPOSED PROJECT): REDEVELOP AND EXTEND EXISTING RUNWAY 9R/27L TO AN 8,000-FOOT BY 150-FOOT ELEVATED RUNWAY WITH EMAS; RUNWAY USE DETERMINED BY BROWARD COUNTY S INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS B1c 13 9L 27R 9R Legend 31 Existing Runway Proposed New Runway or Runway Extension Decommissioned Runway Pavement 27L N Data Sources and Assumptions: The following paragraphs present the operational characteristics that would result from implementation of Alternative B1c: Airport Sponsor s Proposed Project. Assumptions for runway end utilization Page 6.C-23

22 and flight track locations and use were developed by Leigh Fischer Associates (now known as Jacobs Consultancy) and provided in the Memorandum dated August 22, (see Appendix H) on behalf of the Broward County Aviation Department. Runway Definition: Alternative B1c includes lengthening Runway 9R/27L to 8,000 feet and widening the runway to 150 feet. As part of Alternative B1c, Runway 13/31 would be decommissioned (See Exhibit 4-22, Refined Alternatives B1b/B1c East Extension/Widening of Runway 9R/27L, Chapter Four). The runway lengths are: FLL Runways Length (feet) 9L/27R 9,000 9R/27L 8,000 Activity Levels and Fleet Mix: There would be no change in the number of annual average operations or fleet mix in the 2012 No Action Alternative that would occur with implementation of the 2012 Alternative B1c. The number of nighttime operations would be 11 percent in the 2012 Alternative B1c. The average daily operations forecast for 2012 Alternative B1c is summarized by user group in Table 6.C.1-14, Average Day Operations 2012 Alternative B1c. Annual average day operations and fleet mix for 2012 Alternative B1c are shown in Table 6.C.1-15, Average Day Operations by Aircraft Type 2012 Alternative B1c. Table 6.C.1-14 AVERAGE DAY OPERATIONS* ALTERNATIVE B1c User Group Arrivals Departures Total Day Night Day Night Day Night Air Carrier/Cargo Commuter/Air Taxi GA/Military Total * Data rounded to the nearest whole operation. Day: 7:00 a.m. to 9:59 p.m. Night: 10:00 p.m. to 6:59 a.m. Source: FAA 2006 TAF, published January 2007, and Landrum & Brown, Assumption provided by Leigh Fisher Associates (now known as Jacobs Consultancy) memorandum dated August 22, 2006 (revised August 24, 2006) provided in Appendix H. Page 6.C-24

23 Table 6.C.1-15 AVERAGE DAY OPERATIONS BY AIRCRAFT TYPE* 2012 ALTERNATIVE B1c Heavy Jet Large Jet Commuter Jet Commuter Prop Aircraft INM Landings Takeoffs Total Type Type Day Night Day Night Day Night Air Carrier/Cargo Boeing CF Boeing Boeing Airbus 300 A Airbus 310 A DC10-10 DC DC8-63 (Hushkit) DC Boeing Boeing (Hushkit) 727EM Boeing (Hushkit) 737N Boeing Boeing Boeing Boeing Boeing Boeing PW Boeing RR Airbus 319 A Airbus 320 A Airbus 320 A Airbus 321 A DC9-50 (Hushkit) DC95HW MD81 MD MD82 MD MD83 MD Subtotal Commuter/Air Taxi Canadair Regional Jet CL Embraer 135 CL Embraer 145 EMB Embraer 170/190 EMB14L Business Jet CNA Business Jet LEAR Business Jet LEAR Business Jet MU300C Heavy Turboprop DHC Heavy Turboprop HS748A Heavy Turboprop DHC Medium Turboprop DHC Page 6.C-25

24 Table 6.C.1-15, Continued AVERAGE DAY OPERATIONS BY AIRCRAFT TYPE* 2012 ALTERNATIVE B1C General Aviation Jet General Aviation Prop/ Military Aircraft INM Landings Takeoffs Total Type Type Day Night Day Night Day Night Medium Turboprop SD Twin Engine Prop BEC58P Single Engine Prop GASEPF Subtotal General Aviation/Military Business Jet CIT Business Jet CL Business Jet CNA Business Jet FAL Business Jet GIIB Business Jet GIV Business Jet LEAR Business Jet LEAR Business Jet MU Heavy Turboprop HS748A Medium Turboprop DHC Light Turboprop CNA Twin Engine Prop BEC58P Single Engine Prop GASEPV Single Engine Prop GASEPF C 130 Transport C Subtotal Average Daily Totals * Data rounded to the nearest whole operation. Source: FAA 2006 TAF, published January 2007, and Landrum & Brown, Runway End Utilization: The assignment of specific aircraft to runway ends was based on the following assumptions provided by Leigh Fischer Associates (now known as Jacobs Consultancy) for the Broward County Aviation Department. No use restrictions on Runway 9L/27R Daytime use of Runway 9R/27L would be restricted to Stage 3 aircraft only; Runway 9R/27L would be the primary take-off runway in east flow and the primary landing runway in west flow. Aircraft exceeding 58,000 pounds would only land to the west and depart to the east on Runway 9R/27L. However, as noted below, on a limited basis, aircraft exceeding 58,000 pounds would land on Runway 9R/27L during east Page 6.C-26

25 flow Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) or take-off on Runway 9R/27L during west flow IFR conditions to avoid unnecessary delays or due to an operational necessity such as runway closure or equipment failure. Nighttime operations (between 10:00 p.m. and 6:59 a.m.) would be prohibited on Runway 9R/27L, except for runway closure, equipment failure, or other operational necessity. Appendix H, Noise, provides more detailed data on the runway use percentages for Alternative B1c. Flight Track Locations and Use: The improvements included in the Airport Sponsor s Proposed Project would result in the modification of some of the baseline flight tracks, as well as the addition of new flight tracks (See Appendix H). The modified and new flight tracks are summarized below. Runway 9R/27L arrival tracks were modified to include longer downwind/base flight segments south of the airport to more appropriately represent large jet activity. Runway 9R/27L new arrival tracks were developed to represent aircraft utilizing the north downwind but arriving on the south runway. Runway 9R/27L departure tracks were supplemented with 15-degree and 30-degree turns and Runway 9R/27L departure tracks were supplemented with 15-degree turns. The additional turns allow for minimum separation during simultaneous departures. Runway 9R/27L departures making divergent turns of 15 degrees or 30 degrees should maintain the divergent heading until three nautical miles or 3,000 feet above ground level (AGL) before turning on course (applies to North Runway headings of 090 degrees, 075 degrees, and 060 degrees; and South Runway headings of 090 degrees and 105 degrees). 5 Runway 9L/27R new arrival tracks were developed to include a parallel approach with a 4,300-foot lateral spacing from the Runway 9R/27L approach (approximately 300 feet north of the current Runway 9R/27L approach). The arrival tracks include a three-degree offset segment (side-step maneuver) beginning at approximately 1.5 nautical miles from the Runway 9L/27R threshold. Ground Run-up Noise: No change would occur in time, location, fleet mix, number of operations, and thrust settings of engine run-ups from the 2012 No Action Alternative. Noise Exposure and Land Use Impacts: The following section discloses the noise exposure contours and the supplemental grid point analysis for Alternative B1c, as well as a discussion of the associated land use impacts. 5 Assumption provided by Leigh Fisher Associates (now known as Jacobs Consultancy) memorandum dated August 22, 2006 (revised August 24, 2006) provided in Appendix H. Page 6.C-27