Kalamazoo/Battle Creek International Runway 17/35 Extension Aircraft Noise Analysis

civilian and military aviation operations and is required by FAA to be used for 14 CFR Part 150 Study aircraft noise analysis as well as NEPA noise analysis. The program includes standard aircraft noise and performance data for hundreds of aircraft types that can be tailored to the characteristics of specific individual airports. AEDT 3e is the most recent version of the software and was used for AZO noise models. FAA Order 1050.1F requires a noise analysis that includes noise exposure maps for projects at airports with 90,000 annual piston-powered aircraft operations or 700 annual jet-powered aircraft operations that involve runway relocation, runway strengthening, or a major runway expansion. The number of operations at AZO is currently approximately 40,000 annual piston-powered aircraft operations and 400 jet-powered aircraft operations. However, since there is considerable interest in the aircraft noise analysis, the AEDT model was used to generate existing noise contours. AEDT Version 3c, the most up-to-date version of the software at the time the noise analysis was conducted, was used to model the noise exposure contours at AZO using the existing (2019) baseline operations. Results are indicated by a series of contour lines overlaid on a map of the airport and its environs. Noise Model Inputs The AEDT model requires a variety of operational data to model the noise environment around an airport. These inputs include the following bulleted data categories that are presented and discussed in more detail within the following sections and tables. • Aircraft Activity Levels • Aircraft Fleet Mix • Runway Utilization 4 • Time of Day • Surrounding Terrain • Flight Tracks Airport Activity Levels and Fleet Mix The operation counts entered into AEDT are divided by aircraft models (Table 1.0). The number of operations per aircraft is based on the IFR and VFR operation data from the FAA’s TFMSC database. All IFR operations are considered itinerant and VFR operations local (touch-and-go operations) for modeling purposes. The forecasted operations per aircraft type are determined in the forecast developed for the AZO EA Runway 17/35 Extension Projections of Aviation Demand report. The Piper Cherokee and Cessna Skyhawk 172 were selected as the representative aircraft used for training touch-and-go operations. 5 Table 1.0: Operations by Representative Aircraft Aircraft Runway Utilization Category Type 2019 2024 2029 Itinerant Local Itinerant Local Itinerant Local Boeing 767-300 AC/Mil/Jet Jet 4 5 5 Airbus A330-200 AC/Mil/Jet Jet 1 1 1 Bombardier CRJ-200 Commuter Jet 5101 3,007 758 Embraer ERJ-145 Commuter Jet 1676 988 249 Bombardier CRJ-700 AC/Mil/Jet Jet 1256 5,762 7,764 Fairchild Dornier 328 Jet Commuter Jet 130 0 0 Bombardier CRJ-900 AC/Mil/Jet Jet 46 213 286 Embraer Brasilia EMB 120 Commuter Jet 22 0 0 Boeing 737-700 AC/Mil/Jet Jet 14 17 16 Embraer E195 E2 AC/Mil/Jet Jet 0 0 487 Embraer ERJ 135/140/Legacy Commuter Jet 14 0 0 Dassault Falcon 2000 AC/Mil/Jet Jet 442 535 512 Cessna Excel/XLS AC/Mil/Jet Jet 285 345 330 Cessna Citation Mustang AC/Mil/Jet Jet 277 335 321 Cessna III/VI/VII AC/Mil/Jet Jet 230 278 266 Hawker 800 AC/Mil/Jet Jet 227 275 263 Cessna Citation X AC/Mil/Jet Jet 201 243 233 Bombardier BD-700 Global 5000 AC/Mil/Jet Jet 183 221 211 Beech Beechjet 400/T-1 AC/Mil/Jet Jet 168 203 195 Dassault Falcon 900 AC/Mil/Jet Jet 159 192 184 Bombardier Challenger 300 AC/Mil/Jet Jet 152 184 176 Beech Super King Air 350 GA Itn Turbine 588 711 681 Beech 200 Super King GA Itn Turbine 577 698 668 Cirrus SR 22 GA Itn Piston 6619 6,511 6,374 Cessna Golden Eagle 421 GA Itn Piston 6194 6,093 5,966 Cessna Skyhawk 172/Cutlass GA Itn Piston 316 5,736 383 5,572 366 5,463 Beech King Air 90 GA Itn Turbine 300 362 347 Cessna 208 Caravan GA Itn Turbine 213 257 246 Cessna 340 GA Itn Piston 4070 4,004 3,920 Piper Cheyenne 1 GA Itn Turbine 209 253 242 Piper Cherokee GA Itn Piston 191 3,455 230 3,356 221 3,290 Sikorsky SH-60 Seahawk GA Itn Helicopter 131 129 126 Eurocopter EC-155 GA Itn Helicopter 98 97 95 Total Annual Operations 39,286 41,460 40,262 Source: FAA TFMSC, AZO EA Runway 17/35 Extension Projections of Aviation Demand 6 Runway Utilization Determining the frequency each runway is used is important to generating accurate noise contours. Table 2.0 illustrates that the aircraft groups used for the noise contour model. These grouping categories were developed to determine the percentages for runway utilization, time of day for operations, and track utilization. Aircraft were categorized into these groups based on the aircraft type found in the TFMSC database. Jets were further categorized into air carrier and commuter based on the number of seats with air carrier aircraft having more than 60 seats while commuters have less than 60 seats. Helicopter operations are modeled as general aviation itinerant operations. Table 2.0: Runway Utilization by Aircraft Type Aircraft Group 17 35 5 23 9 27 Air Carrier 42.5% 57.5% 0% 0% 0% 0% Commuter 45.5% 54.5% 0% 0% 0% 0% Military 42.5% 57.5% 0% 0% 0% 0% General Aviation Jet 42.5% 57.5% 0% 0% 0% 0% General Aviation Local 37.7% 47.0% 2.7% 9.1% 0% 3.1% General Aviation Itinerant 37.7% 47.0% 2.7% 9.1% 0% 3.1% Based on data obtained from the airport and air traffic control personnel, all jet and military operations are limited to runway 17-35, the longest runway at the airport, with runway end 35 having the highest percentage of utilization. The air carrier, military, and general aviation (noted as AC/mil/Jet in Table 1.0) jet usage percentages are identical while commuter jets are noted to have relatively more operations occurring at runway end 17. The non-jet general aviation operations take place on all three runways with runway 17- 35 being the most used. Runway 5-23 is the second most used while runway 9-27 is the least used. Operations by Time of Day The time of day or night that aircraft operate is an important component to the AEDT model. Every aircraft operation that occurs between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. has 10 dB added to the aircraft noise level. This effectively doubles the noise level signifying that noise is more intrusive at night. Conversations with Airport management and air traffic control personnel helped surmise the ratio between daytime and nighttime activity. Table 3.0 shows the time-of-day information provided by the airport. The percentages are based on the operation types. For aircraft carrier operations, over 21 percent of operations occur in the nighttime while commuter jet operations have relatively more operations taking place after 10 p.m. with 38.5 percent of operations occurring during the night. For military and general aviation operations, all have less than 3.5 percent operations occurring after 10 p.m. Table 3.0: Operations by Type of Day Operations by Time of Day Day (7AM – 10PM) Night (10PM - 7AM) Air Carrier (> 60 seats) 78.1% 21.9% Commuter (< 60 Seats) 61.5% 38.5% Military 96.6% 3.4% GA Itinerant 97.5% 2.5% GA Local 96.6% 3.4% 7 Flight Tracks Flight paths represent where aircraft fly in relation to the ground. Aircraft do not fly exact or precise “tracks” associated with general aviation airports, but rather a wider “path” that represents some dispersion due to several factors, including weather (temperature, wind, barometric pressure), pilot proficiency, aircraft performance, other air traffic, and separation requirements. In order to determine a representation of aircraft flight paths, the ATCT was asked to provide input on the location and usage of tracks. The tracks used for the noise analysis not only include straight in, straight out, and touch and go tracks but also accounts for the various turns aircraft are likely to take when departing and arriving. Input was received in the form of mark-ups on aerial maps, flight track screen shots and ADS- B screen shots, as well as written and verbal explanation. The percentage of tracks used per runway end is shown in Table 4.0 and Table 5.0 with the track routes are illustrated on Figure 2.0. Table 4.0: AZO Arrival Track Utilization Runway Arrival Track Track Utilization 35 Straight-In 70% Right 10% Left 20% 17 Straight-In 65% Right 15% Left 20% 9 Straight-In 5% Right 48% Left 48% 27 Straight-In 5% Right 48% Left 48% 5 Straight-In 30% Right 35% Left 35% 23 Straight-In 55% Right 22% Left 23% Source: AZO ATCT 8 Table 5.0: AZO Departure Track Utilization Runway Departure Track Track Utilization 35 RT (heading 020) 55% Heading 060 10% Heading 320 20% Heading 330-010 5% Right Crosswind 5% Left Crosswind 5% 17 LT 140 35% RT 200 10% RT 230 55% 9 Straight-Out 5% Right 48% Left 48% 27 Straight-Out 5% Right 48% Left 48% 5 Straight-Out 30% Right 35% Left 35% 23 Straight-Out 30% Right 35% Left 35% Source: AZO ATCT. The percentages are per runway end. 9 Figure 2.0: AZO Flight Tracks for Noise Modeling Source: AZO ATCT 10 C. Resulting Noise Contours i. Baseline (2019) Cumulative (DNL) Noise Contours The DNL noise contours were modeled based on the most conservative assumptions; in other words, all piston aircraft operations were modeled as if they were all in the pattern performing touch-and-go operations. The majority of jet and turbo powered aircraft were modeled as straight in arrivals and departures, thus putting the loudest aircraft directly over the residents west and east of the Airport. These two assumptions tended to concentrate aircraft, which in turn tend to result in louder noise contours. The weighted DNL metric is used to statistically predict the cumulative noise exposure levels in relationship to the land uses surrounding the Airport. A person does not “hear” a DNL due to the methodology of defining the DNL metric. As such, single event noise contours for some of the more demanding aircraft that use AZO were also developed and are presented in the following sections. The lower the contour dB, the quieter the represented noise level; the 60 DNL is quieter than the 65 DNL. As discussed in earlier sections, the 65 DNL contour is the federally defined threshold for land use compatibility. Figure 3.0 shows the baseline (2019) noise contours at AZO. The contours shown on the figure represent the 60, 65, 70 and 75 DNL contours. The the 65 DNL to 75 contours are entirely within the AZO property boundary. The 65 DNL is represented by the blue curve that generally runs along the runways. Enlarged contour maps comparing noise in 2024 and 2029, with and without the project, are included at the end of this report. Figure 3.0: 2019 AZO Noise Contours (60 to 70 DNL) 11 ii. Forecasted Noise Contours The forecasted noise analysis uses the projected operations and fleet mix changes for 2024 and 2029 and compares noise contours of the existing airport layout with a potential future scenario of an extended Runway 17-35. This creates two sets of contours for each forecast year, with four total forecasted contours. The AEDT input for the forecasted contours is the same as that of the 2019 contours with operation counts and some aircraft types being added or removed. The operation count and fleet mix projections are taken from the Runway 17/35 Extension EA forecast. To summarize the four forecasted contours are: • 2024 operations and fleet mix with the current runway layout • 2024 operations and fleet mix with an extended Runway 17-35 • 2029 operations and fleet mix with the current runway layout • 2029 operations and fleet mix with an extended Runway 17-35 In general, the contours for the forecasted operations on the current runway layout is similar to the 2019 noise contours with 2024 having the largest 60dB contour while the 2029 contours are comparable to that of 2019. The similar contours are because while the overall total operations are forecasted to be greater than that of 2019, the aircraft types and fleet mix are changing across the forecast years, particularly those of commuter and air carrier jets. The decrease in contour size from 2024 to 2029 can also be attributed to the lower number of total operations. Figures 4.0 and 5.0 show the 2024 and 2029 noise contours. Figure 4.0: 2024 AZO Noise Contours – Existing Runway Layout 12 Figure 5.0: 2029 AZO Noise Contours – Existing Runway Layout The proposed runway 17-35 extension results in the overall lengthening of the contours compared to the current layout. This is to be expected as the runway extensions will push the turning points for departures, arrivals, and touch-and-goes out. For 2024 operations on the 35 end of the runway, the 60dB contour is extended longer while on the 17 end the 60dB contour appears to be more well defined after the extension. For 2029 operations the difference between the current and extended layouts is more noticeable on the 35 end. Figures 6.0 and 7.0 show the 2024 and 2029 contours with the runway extension in place. 13 Figure 6.0: 2024 AZO Noise Contours – Extended Runway 17-35 Figure 7.0: 2029 AZO Noise Contours – Extended Runway 17-35 14 There are various contributing factors to the differences between the current layout contours and the extended runway contours. Most operations occur on runway end 35. There are more overall arrivals and departures that occur on the runway 35 end. Thus, extending runway 35 means that departing aircraft are taking off sooner which leads to a reduction in the contour on runway end 17. Arriving aircraft are also flying at lower elevations earlier since the landing threshold for runway end 35 is extended out to the south due to the runway extension. The bulk of the contours are also shifted out due to the two runway ends being extended. Figure 8.0 and 9.0 compares the current layout and extended runway contours for 2024 operations and 2029 operations respectively. Figure 8.0: 2024 AZO Noise Contour Comparisons – Existing and Extended Runways 15 Figure 9.0: 2029 AZO Noise Contour Comparisons – Existing and Extended Runways 16 17 General Noise Assessment and Vibration Screening Kalamazoo Airport Runway Expansion Project INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY A noise impact assessment was prepared in accordance with Title 49 CFR 1105 and with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) guidance manual Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual FTA Report No. 0123 September, 2018 (FTA Manual). The assessment examined the potential for noise impacts from the relocation of the existing railroad line currently located to the east and south of existing runway 35 at Kalamazoo Airport, 5235 Portage Road, Portage MI 49002. The project location is shown on Figure 1 Appendix A. This noise assessment will describe the existing noise environment and will evaluate the impact, if any, the proposed project might have on noise sensitive land use within the project area. EXISTING CONDITIONS The existing runway ends approximately 570 feet north of the railroad tracks that trend in a north/south direction. The majority of the land in the project area is undeveloped with a few commercial buildings and residential houses, mostly located on the east side of South Sprinkle Road, approximately 900 feet away. PROPOSED PROJECT The project proposes to extend runway 35 approximately 1,000 feet south. As shown on Figure 2 in Appendix A, the existing railroad will be relocated outside of the runway 35 clear zone. The railroad tracks will be moved to the east crossing over Romence Road about 700 feet east of the existing crossing. The railroad track will continue toward the south and east before circling west and reconnecting to the existing railroad tracks about 1,800 feet south of Romence Road. NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS The FTA noise impact analysis process is a multi-step process used to evaluate the project for potential noise impacts for FTA and FRA NEPA approvals. If an impact is determined, measures necessary to mitigate adverse impacts must be considered for incorporation into the project. There are three levels of analysis to evaluate noise on a railroad project based on the type and scale of the project and the environmental setting. The Noise Screening Procedure, conducted first, defines the study area and determines the need for subsequent noise impact assessment. Where there is potential for noise impact, The General Noise Assessment is used to determine the extent and severity of the impact. NOISE SCREENING PROCEDURE Step 1: The screening distance (feet) for the proposed Kalamazoo Airport railroad relocation has been determined using Table 4-7 from the FTA manual. The proposed project best fits a Low and Intermediate Capacity Transit, Steel Wheel system project type. With these criteria, it was determined the unobstructed screening distance is 125 feet from the center of the railroad tracks. See table 4-7 below. Step 2: Sensitive receptors near the project best fit the Land Use Category 2, Residential. Residential houses can be found approximately 900 feet east of the railroad relocation. Table 4-3 in the FTA Manual provides the descriptions to determine the Land Use Category. Step 3: The Kalamazoo Airport runway expansion project was determined to also be considered Undeveloped Land with some commercial/industrial land use. Even though majority of the land is undeveloped, a noise impact assessment must be completed. Step 4: To determine the noise sensitive areas, the unobstructed distance of 125 feet was measured from the proposed relocation of the railroad. It was determined that there are no noise sensitive areas within 125 feet of the relocated railroad tracks. This is shown on Figure 3 in Appendix A. There are no noise sensitive land uses within the unobstructed distance of the railroad tracks, thus no additional analysis beyond the Noise Screening Procedure is necessary. VIRBRATION SCREENING Figure 6-3 from the FTA manual is shown below and was used to determine if a Vibration Analysis is required. Step 1: Based on the description provide on page 134 in the FTA manual, the vehicle type for this project was determined to be a steel-wheeled/steel-rail vehicle. Since the project best fits a steel wheel/steel-rail type, the vibration screening distance needs to be determined. Step 2: The project type was determined to be a Project Type Number 4, Intermediate Capacity Transit, based on the description shown in Table 6-7 from the FTA manual. Step 3: The screening distanced was determined to be 100 feet based on Table 6-8 from the FTA manual. The project type is Intermediate Capacity Transit (ICT) and is Land Use Category 2. Step 4: The screening distance of 100 feet was measured out from the center of the proposed relocated railroad tracks. It was determined that there are no vibration sensitive areas located within 100 feet of the proposed railroad relocation. This is shown on Figure 4 in Appendix A. There are no vibration sensitive land uses within the screening distance, thus no additional analysis beyond the Vibration Screening Procedure is necessary. Figure 1 Project Location Kalamazoo Airport Project Location Extend Runway 35 about 1,00 feet south Existing Railroad to Remain Existing Railroad to be Removed Proposed Railroad to be Constructed Figure 2 Proposed Project Kalamazoo Airport Extend Runway 35 about 1,00 feet south Existing Railroad to Remain Existing Railroad to be Removed Proposed Railroad to be Constructed Figure 3 Noise Screening Distance Kalamazoo Airport Screening distance: 125 feet Extend Runway 35 about 1,00 feet south Existing Railroad to Remain Existing Railroad to be Removed Proposed Railroad to be Constructed Figure 4 Vibration Screening Distance Kalamazoo Airport Screening distance: 100 feet