Docstoc

8 Noise

Document Sample
8 Noise Powered By Docstoc
					MVY

Martha’s Vineyard Airport

Chapter 8

Noise

8.1 AIRCRAFT NOISE ASSESSMENT This noise assessment is drawn from a major noise analysis and mitigation program recently completed for MVY and additional analyses produced for the DEIR/EA.1 The noise analyses assess noise in the existing or base year (2000) and two future years (2005 and 2015). Two different fleet mixes, designated Fleet Mix 1 and Fleet Mix 2, are analyzed in 2005 and 2015. Note that the two future analysis years differ from that used in this DEIR/EA: 2010. These years are adopted in the DEIR/EA noise analyses to mine the considerable data and analyses in a major noise study completed for MVY management. If anything, inclusion of a 2015 Future Build scenario provides a more conservative analysis of noise in that it includes more operations than what would be considered in the year 2010. The clear and correct assumption is that if noise impacts for 2015 fall within noise impact criteria, then noise associated with the lower 2010 volumes also will fall within noise impact criteria. Note that by 2015, a proposed shift of Runway 6-24 is presumed to be in place. This shift (320 feet to the northeast) is intended to provide full, standard runway safety areas (RSA) off both runway ends. Runway safety areas – zones wider and longer than runway pavements – enhance safety in the event an aircraft undershoots, overruns or veers off the runway. Based on the runway design criteria at MVY, the standard RSA is 500 feet in width and 1,000 feet in length beyond each runway end. Given the present configuration of Runway 6-24, there is no full standard RSA off the Runway 6 threshold while there is greater area than needed off the Runway 24 threshold. Hence, the runway will be shifted to the northeast to take advantage of this excess area (length). Thus, two scenarios were modeled for the year 2015: one using the

1 Noise analyses presented herein for Existing Conditions (2000) and for the future years 2005 and 2015 using Fleet Mix 1 are from Martha’s Vineyard Noise Mitigation Program – Final Report, Edwards and Kelcey, April 2003. The noise analyses for the future years 2005 and 2015 using Fleet Mix 2 were completed by Edwards and Kelcey for this DEIR/EA. 8 Noise 8-1

Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment

current runway location and another with a 300-foot shift.2 Both are presented in this section. Note that the runway shift will occur at some time in the post-2010 time frame and is not evaluated in this DEIR/EA. The evaluation of this project will be completed at the appropriate time and presented to MEPA and other regulatory bodies at some future date. 8.1.1 Base Year Noise Assessment 8.1.1.1 Methodology Integrated Noise Model Version 6.0. The FAA Integrated Noise Model (INM) Version 6.0 was used to generate contours for the base year. The calendar year 2000 constitutes the base year. When the noise analyses began in 2001, data for 2000 was the best available data. The year 2000 also represents a pre-September 11 (2001) base case and thus represents activity at higher levels than in the years since 2001. Analyses of area within the day/night equivalent sound level (DNL) 65 decibels (dB) contour and land use by type were performed for the existing condition. Key noise modeling assumptions relate to fleet mix, runway utilization, the number and orientation of arriving and departing flight tracks, and the distribution of daytime and nighttime operations. Aircraft Mix. MVY has a unique mix of aircraft. During the summer months, there is a significant level of air carrier activity using a mix of turboprop aircraft such as the Raytheon 1900 and the ATR 42 to regional jet aircraft including the Canadair CRJ regional jet and the Embraer 145. However, in the off-peak months, the numbers of commercial aircraft drop off dramatically. General aviation activity is also unique. Due to the large numbers and socioeconomic characteristics of the summer community, the airport sees a significant number of trips in private corporate turboprop and jet aircraft. It also sees an increase in smaller single and twin piston aircraft in the summer and early fall. However, this traffic also falls off during the non-peak months, but there is still a stable group of based GA aircraft that operate at the airport year round. The 2000 fleet mix for Martha’s Vineyard Airport was developed after discussions with the Air Traffic Control Tower and airport management. The INM’s database of aircraft noise profiles does not represent all aircraft and therefore, some aircraft types were grouped together based upon similarities in aircraft size, engine type and performance. These data, representing an Average Day fleet mix, are presented in Table 8-1.

2 At the time the noise study commenced, the length of the runway shift was known to be in the range of 300 feet. This length was modeled in the INM. As determined later, the exact length of the runway shift is 320 feet. This minor difference will not affect materially the INM results.

8 Noise

8-2

MVY

Martha’s Vineyard Airport

Runway Utilization. Runway use includes the number, location and orientation of the active runways, as well as the directions and types of operations that occur on each runway. Runway use depends primarily on wind direction and speed. It is also a function of factors such as Air Traffic Control procedures and separation standards, terminal location, taxiing distances and runway length. Runway use is shown in Table 8-2.
Table 8-1 Average Day Operations, 2000 Modeled INM A/C BEC58P DHC 6 DHC 8 DHC 8 CL600 EMB 145 DHC 8 CL 601 CNA441 BEC 58P CNA172 Average Daily Operations Day 81.09 3,96 0.36 1.97 0.07 0.07 1.94 10.00 7.45 12.76 56.59 176.14 Night 1.60 0.07 0 0.07 0 0 0.08 0.22 0.47 0.37 2.03 5.00 Total 82.69 4.03 0.36 2.01 0.07 0.07 2.02 10.22 7.92 13.13 58.62 181.14

Category

Aircraft Type Cessna 402 Beech 1900 Dornier 328 Dehaviland Dash 8 Canadair CRJ Embraer 145 ATR 42 Jet

Air Carrier and Air Taxi (Commercial)

General Aviation (GA)

Turboprop Multi Engine Piston Single Engine Piston

Total

Table 8-2 Runway Use, 2000 Runway End 6 Commercial GA 15% 20% 24 85% 60% 15 0% 4% 33 0% 16%

Flight Tracks. Flight track information is an important input to the INM, as it represents the path over the ground followed by an aircraft. Because it is not possible to input all of the tracks followed by individual aircraft, the FAA suggests that the tracks be consolidated to represent corridors consisting of estimated average flight tracks. The flight track use was determined with information from the air traffic control tower (ATCT) operators and discussions with airport management. These data are presented in Table 8-3 and Figures 8-1 through 8-4.

8 Noise

8-3

Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment

Table 8-3 Flight Track Utilization, 2005 and 2015 Arrivals Runway Category Commercial GA GA 6 GA GA GA GA GA Commercial GA GA 24 GA GA GA GA GA GA 15 GA GA GA GA GA 33 GA GA GA
Source: Office of the Airport Manager

Departures Track 06D1 06D1 06D2 06D3 06D4 06D5 06D6 24D1 24D1 24D2 24D3 24D4 24D5 24D6 15D1 15D2 15D3 15D4 15D5 33D1 33D2 33D3 33D4 33D5
Track Utilization (%)

Track 06A1 06A1 06A2 06A3 06A4 06A5 06A6 06A7 24A1 24A1 24A2 24A3 24A4 24A5 15A1 15A2 15A3 15A4 15A5 33A1 33A2 33A3 33A4 33A5

Track Utilization (%)

15 .2 10 6 2 .8 .2 .8 85 30.6 18 6 3 2.4 2 1.2 .4 .2 .2 8.2 4.8 1.6 .8 .6

15 10.2 6 2 0 1 .8 85 0 30.6 18 6 3 2.4 2 1.2 .4 .2 .2 8.2 4.8 1.6 .8 .6

8 Noise

8-4

MVY

Martha’s Vineyard Airport

Daytime-Nighttime Operations. The allocation of operations to daytime or nighttime hours is important, as the INM assigns “penalties” to nighttime operations (see discussion of noise metrics below). The proportions of daytime and nighttime activity for the commuter and air taxi operations were determined from the Official Airline Guide and discussions with ATCT and airport management. The proportions of daytime and nighttime activity for general aviation were also determined from discussions with the ATCT and airport management. Based on this information, the day/night split for the airport is 97 percent day and 3 percent night. It is interesting to note that nighttime operations at MVY occur primarily in the peak summer months, during which approximately 58-60 percent of total annual operations occur.3 There is very little nighttime activity that occurs during the winter. 8.1.1.2 Noise Metrics The INM was used to generate noise contours in the DNL noise metric, the FAArequired noise metric for airport noise studies. The DNL metric represents average daily noise levels that would occur over a 24-hour period with a 10-decibel penalty added to the noise levels of aircraft operations occurring between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM, which is considered nighttime. DNL contours were generated at levels of DNL 60, 65, 70 and 75 dB. 8.1.1.3 Existing Noise Levels Noise Contours. The noise contours for DNL 60, 65, 70 and 75 dB are depicted in Figure 8-5. Noise Exposure. To determine if a noise impact exists, the area encompassed by the 65 DNL noise contour was analyzed. The 65 DNL contour, as defined by the FAA and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, is the benchmark contour which is normally compatible with residential land use. Less sensitive land uses, such as commercial and industrial, are normally compatible with higher DNL levels of 70 or 75 dB. Guidelines to identify incompatible land uses are presented in FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5020-1 Noise Control and Compatibility Planning for Airports. Table 8-4 provides a list of compatible and incompatible land uses within specific DNL noise contours drawn from the FAA Advisory Circular. These compatible/incompatible land uses were the bases for determining noise exposure. As depicted in Figure 8-5, the entire area within the 65 dB DNL contour lies within the property boundary of MVY in the Base Year 2000; therefore, there is no noise impact to surrounding areas in the Existing Condition. Table 8-5 lists the areas, in square miles, within the 60 and 65 dB DNL contours for the base year operations at the airport.
The peak period at MVY is considered the four months of June, July, August and September. Approximately 58-60 percent of total annual operations occur in this 4-month period. 8 Noise 8-9
3

Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment

Figure 8-5 Martha’s Vineyard Airport Noise Contours with Noise Abatement Procedures - Year 2000 Operational Levels – Fleet Mix 1

[NOTE: FIG. 8-5 IS PROVIDED SEPARATELY TO REDUCE THE SIZE OF THIS FILE, THUS ALLOWING FOR FASTER, MORE CONVENIENT VIEWING. PLEASE SEE FILE NAMED ‘8 FIG 8-5’ ON THIS CDROM TO VIEW FIG. 8-5.]

8 Noise

8-10

MVY

Martha’s Vineyard Airport

Table 8-4 Land Use Compatibility with Yearly Day-Night Sound Levels Yearly Day-Night Average Sound Level (LDN) in Decibels Land Use Residential Residential, other than mobile homes and transient lodgings Mobile home parks Transient lodgings Public Use Schools Hospitals and nursing homes Churches, auditoriums and concert halls Governmental services Transportation Parking Commercial Use Offices, business and professional Wholesale and retail-building materials, hardware and farm equipment Retail trade-general Utilities Communication Manufacturing and Production Manufacturing, general Photographic and optical Agriculture (except livestock) and forestry Livestock farming and breeding Mining and fishing, resource production and extraction Recreation Outdoor sports arenas and spectator sports Outdoor music shells, amphitheaters Nature exhibits and zoos Amusements, parks, resorts and camps Golf courses, riding stables and water recreation Y Y Y Y Y Y(5) N Y Y Y Y(5) N N Y 25 N N N N 30 N N N N N N N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y(6) Y(6) Y Y(2) 25 Y(7) Y(7) Y Y(3) 30 Y(8) N Y Y(4) N Y(8) N Y N N Y(8) N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 25 25 25 25 25 30 30 30 30 30 N N N N N N N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y N(1) 25 25 Y Y Y N(1) 30 30 25 Y(2) Y(2) N N N 30 Y(3) Y(3) N N N N Y(4) Y(4) N N N N Y(4) N Y Y Y N(1) N N(1) N(1) N N(1) N N N(1) N N N N N N Below 65 65-70 70-75 75-80 80-85 Over85

Numbers in parentheses refer to notes. KEY: 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 or 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 must be incorporated into design and construction of the structure.

8 Noise

8-11

Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment

NOTES TO TABLE 8-4: 1. Where the community determines that residential 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 construction can be expected to provide an NLR of 20 dB; thus, the reduction requirements are often stated as 5, 10 or 15 dB over standard construction and normally assume mechanical ventilation and closed windows year round. However, the use of NLR criteria will not eliminate outdoor noise problems. Measures to achieve NLR of 25 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. Measures to achieve NLR of 30 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. Measures to achieve NLR of 35 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. Land use compatible provided special sound reinforcement systems are installed. Residential buildings require an NLR of 25. Residential buildings require an NLR of 30. Residential buildings not permitted.

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Table 8-5 Noise Impacts, 2000 Within DNL 60 dB 65 dB Total Area (sq. mi.) 0.435 0.196 Off Airport Area (sq. mi.) 0.004 0.000

8.1.1.4 Noise Monitoring Comparison Noise monitoring was done for this effort to compare actual noise levels experienced at the airport with noise levels calculated by the INM. The noise monitoring was completed in September 1999 on Labor Day weekend, traditionally one of the busiest weekends at the airport. There were four locations where noise monitors were placed and recorded activity for a 3-day period (Figure 8-6). The results of the noise monitoring are presented in Table 8-6. Assessing the results, receptor number 1 is the closest location to the airport. Comparing the DNL measurement for receptor 1 to the DNL measurement shown in Figure 8-5 for the base year 2000, there is a direct comparison with modeled noise measurements and actual noise measurements. Thus, it can be concluded the INM noise model is providing a reasonable result in noise measurements.

8 Noise

8-12

MVY

Martha’s Vineyard Airport

Figure 8-6 Receptor Locations, Martha’s Vineyard Airport Noise Monitoring Program

4 2

1 3
N

#

Receptor Location

0

1/2 Mi.

8 Noise

8-13

Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment Table 8-6 Noise Impacts at Defined Receptors, 2000 Receptor No. Description 1 2 3 4 Res., Bluebird Way (W. Tisbury) Res., 17 Hopps Farm Rd (W. Tisbury) Res., 58 Oyster Pond Rd (Edgartown) Res., Ryan's Way (Oak Bluffs) Distance to Runways Dist (ft) 2,500 9,000 8,000 7,500 R/W End 6 15 33 24 24-Hr1 Avg. Hr2 DNL 59-61 55-59 53 58-63 Leq 45-70 40-59 46-51 49-64 BKGD3 L90 36-53 26-55 38-50 37-56 Maximum4 Lmax 52-98 50-80 35-65 52-100

Notes:

1. The day-night noise level, Ldn, is used to describe the 24-hour noise exposure at residences. 2. The measured average hour equivalent noise level, Leq, is used to develop the 24-hour Ldn noise level. 3. The background noise level is commonly described by the L90 noise metric: the noise level exceeded 90 percent of the time during that measurement period. 4. The maximum noise level measured, Lmax, describes the range of noise levels perceptible to the listener.

8.1.2

Future Noise Assessment | Fleet Mix 1 8.1.2.1 Methodology Integrated Noise Model Version 6.0. The FAA Integrated Noise Model Version 6.0 was used to generate contours for the years 2005 and 2015 using forecasts of aircraft operations. Analyses of area within the day/night equivalent sound level (DNL) 60, 65, 70 and 75 were performed for the future years. Projected operations numbers are derived from the master plan Phase I effort and are shown in Table 8-7.
Table 8-7 Annual Operations, Fleet Mix 1, 2005 and 2015 2005 Operations 40,632 42,930 83,562 2015 Operations 47,301 55,430 102,731

Activity Air Carrier/Air Taxi General Aviation Total

To comply with runway safety standards, the master plan calls for Runway 6-24 to be shifted approximate 320 feet to the east. The runway length would remain the same. For analysis purposes, the runway shift is presumed to be in place by 2015. Two INM runs were completed for the 2015 scenario in order to determine what possible effects the runway shift would have on noise levels. The first scenario used existing runway data; the second INM run for 2015 shifted aircraft departure and arrival points 300 feet northeast to reflect the proposed runway shift. The same noise modeling assumptions (fleet mix, runway utilization, flight tracks and daytime/nighttime distribution) were used for both 2015 scenarios.
8 Noise 8-14

MVY

Martha’s Vineyard Airport

Aircraft Mix, Fleet Mix 1. The aircraft mix and representative modeled aircraft flight operations for daytime and nighttime by aircraft type are similar to that used in the base year. However, there were several assumptions made regarding Fleet Mix 1 in 2005 and 2015: For 2005, the ATR 42 was replaced with the Embraer 145 as Continental is currently replacing its fleet of ATR aircraft with the Embraer 135 and 145. For 2015, several changes occur to the fleet mix. It is expected that by 2015, all commercial turboprop aircraft will be replaced by small regional jet aircraft. Thus, it was assumed that USAir Express would phase out its Dash 8 and Raytheon 1900 for the EMB 145 and 135, respectively. For general aviation operations, it is expected that the corporate fleet will transition from the older aircraft to newer aircraft now coming on the market. Based on discussion with airport management, the fleet of corporate aircraft will move from the Canadair CL601 aircraft now used at the airport to Gulfstream G-V aircraft. Therefore, for 2015, the Canadair CL601 aircraft was replaced with the larger and heavier G-V. Table 8-8 and Table 8-9 present the modeled fleet and operations for 2005 and 2015.
Table 8-8 Average Day Operations, Fleet Mix 1, 2005 Modeled INM A/C BEC58P DHC 6 DHC 8 DHC 8 CL600 EMB 145 CL 601 CNA441 BEC 58P CNA172 Average Daily Operations Day 102.49 5 0.45 2.46 0.09 2.54 12.64 9.42 16.12 71.52 222.6 Night 2.02 0.09 0 0.09 0 0.1 0.28 0.59 0.46 2.57 6.3 Total 104.51 5.09 0.45 2.55 0.09 2.64 12.92 10.01 16.58 74.09 228.9

Category

Aircraft Type Cessna 402

Air Carrier and Air Taxi (Commercial)

Raytheon 1900 Dornier 328 Dehaviland Dash 8 Canadair CRJ Embraer 145 Jet

General Aviation (GA)

Turboprop Multi Engine Piston Single Engine Piston

Total

8 Noise

8-15

Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment Table 8-9 Average Day Operations, Fleet Mix 1, 2015 Modeled INM A/C BEC58P DHC 8 CL600 CL600 EMB 145 GV CNA441 BEC 58P CNA172 Average Daily Operations Day 126 6.71 0.11 3.02 3.12 15.54 11.58 19.82 87.93 273.7 Night 2.48 0.11 0 0.11 0.13 0.35 .73 0.57 3.15 7.8 Total 128.48 6.82 0.11 3.13 3.25 15.89 12.31 20.39 91.08 281.5

Category

Aircraft Type Cessna 402

Air Carrier and Air Taxi (Commercial)

Dornier 328 Canadair CRJ Embraer 135 Embraer 145 Jet

General Aviation (GA)

Turboprop Multi Engine Piston Single Engine Piston

Total

Runway Utilization. Runway usage is not expected to change in the future under the current runway configuration. Thus, runway usage for the 2005 and 2015 scenarios remained the same as runway usage for the base year. Runway usage is presented in Table 8-10.
Table 8-10 Runway Use, 2005 and 2015 Runway End 6 Commercial GA 15% 20% 24 85% 60% 15 0% 4% 33 0% 16%

Flight Tracks. Flight tracks in the 2005 and 2015 scenarios are a defined set of arrival and departure tracks specifically designed as noise abatement flight tracks. Developed in extensive discussions with senior representatives manning the MVY Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT), the tracks provide visual landmarks to guide pilots to/from the airport and attempt to consolidate arrival and departure traffic over areas of moderate residential density and/or undeveloped parts of Martha’s Vineyard. Compared with the Existing Conditions flight tracks (Figures 8-1 through 8-4), the noise abatement flight tracks direct aircraft along defined corridors to the waters surrounding Martha’s Vineyard, where turns then occur to/from the airport. These tracks mimic those in the successful voluntary noise abatement program at nearby Nantucket Memorial Airport. The noise abatement tracks are depicted in Figures 8-7 through 8-10 and described in Table 8-11.

8 Noise

8-16

MVY
Table 8-11 Noise Abatement Flight Track Descriptions Operation Runway Description Left traffic only. 6

Martha’s Vineyard Airport

North Arrivals: Proceed to Lake Tashmoo to the Sand Pit, then turn downwind. West Arrivals: Fly the left base entry, turn base to avoid directly overflying residential areas southwest of the airport. Right traffic only. North Arrivals: Proceed to Lake Tashmoo to the Sand Pit for the right base entry. West Arrivals: Fly a 45-degree entry to the right down wind to the Sand Pit for the right base leg. Right traffic only. North Arrivals: Proceed to Lake Tashmoo to the Sand Pit for the left base entry. West Arrivals: Fly direct to the airport for the close-in right base leg and avoid overflying residential area northwest of the airport. North/East Arrivals: Fly close-in right downwind entry west of Sand Pit, turn base to avoid direct overflight of residential areas. West/South Arrivals: Fly close-in left downwind entry, remain over forest and airport property and turn base to avoid overflying residential areas. For all departures, maintain best rate of climb and reduce power and propeller pitch as soon as practical. Fly runway heading to 2,000 feet Mean Sea Level (MSL) or to the shoreline, then turn on course. Fly runway heading to 2,000 feet MSL or to the third finger, then turn on course or immediate right turn if able to remain over forest. Fly runway heading to 2,000 feet MSL or to the shoreline, then turn on course. Fly runway heading to 2,000 feet MSL or to the shoreline, then turn on course.

24

Arrivals

15

33

All 6 Departures 24 15 33

Daytime-Nighttime Operations. Based on discussions with airport management, there is no change in the day/night split of aircraft operations. Therefore, the day/night split used in the base case will remain the same for both 2005 and 2015 at 97 percent/3 percent, respectively.

8 Noise

8-21

Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment

8.1.2.2 Noise Metrics Using the operations information described in the previous sections, DNL contours were calculated for the year 2005 scenario, year 2015 Existing Runway scenario and 2015 Runway Shift scenario. As was done for the base year contours, the contours for these two forecast years are displayed in 5 dB increments for DNL levels of 60, 65, 70 and 75 dB. 8.1.2.3 Future Noise Levels Noise Contours. The noise contours for DNL 60, 65, 70 and 75 dB are shown in Figure 8-11 for 2005, Figure 8-12 for the 2015 Existing Runway scenario and Figure 8-13 for the 2015 Runway Shift scenario. Noise Exposure. To determine if a noise impact exists, the area which is encompassed by the 65 DNL noise contour was analyzed. As depicted in Figures 8-11 and 8-12, the 65 dB DNL contour remains on airport property. The area within the 65 DNL for the 2015 Existing Runway scenario does increase over the 2005 scenario but remains on airport property. The INM contours for the 2015 Runway Shift scenario indicate that there would be a shift in the noise contours whereby the 65 DNL contour would shift to the northeast. Although there is a shift, the contour under this scenario also remains on airport property. In all three future scenarios, the 65 DNL contour remains on airport property and does not affect any off-airport areas; therefore, there are no noise impacts in any future scenario due to the airport improvement program. Table 8-12 lists the areas, in square miles, within the 60 and 65 dB DNL contours for the three future year scenarios at the airport using Fleet Mix 1.
Table 8-12 Noise Impacts, Fleet Mix 1, 2005 and 2015 Off Airport Area (sq. mi.) 0.004 0.000 0.033 0.000 0.025 0.000

Scenario 2005 2015 Existing Runway 2015 Runway Shift

Within DNL 60 dB 65 dB 60 dB 65 dB 60 dB 65 dB

Total Area (sq. mi.) 0.476 0.212 0.597 0.254 0.597 0.254

8 Noise

8-22

MVY

Martha’s Vineyard Airport

Figure 8-11 Martha’s Vineyard Airport Noise Contours with Noise Abatement Procedures - Year 2005 Operational Levels – Fleet Mix 1

[NOTE: FIG. 8-11 IS PROVIDED SEPARATELY TO REDUCE THE SIZE OF THIS FILE, THUS ALLOWING FOR FASTER, MORE CONVENIENT VIEWING. PLEASE SEE FILE NAMED ‘8 FIG 8-11’ ON THIS CDROM TO VIEW FIG. 8-11.]

8 Noise

8-23

Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment

Figure 8-12 Martha’s Vineyard Airport Noise Contours with Noise Abatement Procedures - Year 2015 Operational Levels – Fleet Mix 1

[NOTE: FIG. 8-12 IS PROVIDED SEPARATELY TO REDUCE THE SIZE OF THIS FILE, THUS ALLOWING FOR FASTER, MORE CONVENIENT VIEWING. PLEASE SEE FILE NAMED ‘8 FIG 8-12’ ON THIS CDROM TO VIEW FIG. 8-12.]

8 Noise

8-24

MVY

Martha’s Vineyard Airport

Figure 8-13 Martha’s Vineyard Airport Noise Contours with Noise Abatement Procedures and Runway 6-24 Shift – Year 2015 Operational Levels – Fleet Mix 1

[NOTE: FIG. 8-13 IS PROVIDED SEPARATELY TO REDUCE THE SIZE OF THIS FILE, THUS ALLOWING FOR FASTER, MORE CONVENIENT VIEWING. PLEASE SEE FILE NAMED ‘8 FIG 8-13’ ON THIS CDROM TO VIEW FIG. 8-13.]

8 Noise

8-25

Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment

8.1.3

Future Noise Assessment | Fleet Mix 2 Per the Secretary’s requirement, a second fleet mix was forecast and its noise impacts analyzed.4 The most recent version, Version 6.1, of the FAA Integrated Noise Model was configured with many of the same inputs as in the model runs using Fleet Mix 1: runway utilization, use of and assignments to the noise abatement flight tracks and the split of daytime/nighttime operations (97/3) were the same. The only variables relate to the second fleet mix, as described below. 8.1.3.1 Aircraft Mix, Fleet Mix 2 Working closely with airport management, a second fleet mix was configured. This mix reflects trends in the use of corporate aircraft and a specific aircraft change projected for Cape Air, the dominant air carrier at MVY.5 As such, it depicts a second scenario regarding the number and types of aircraft that could be expected to use MVY in the future. Fleet Mix 2, 2005. For 2005, there are two changes in the Air Carrier/Air Taxi category and one change in the General Aviation category. Air Carrier/Air Taxi Category. Discussions with Cape Air indicate the airline will be purchasing ATR 42 aircraft for use in their operations in New England and Florida. The ATR 42, built in the 1980’s and 1990’s, is a twin-engine, low-revolution-per-minute (RPM) turboprop with a seating capacity of 40-42 passengers. The aircraft which presently dominates scheduled air carrier service to/from Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket, the Cessna 402, was built some 30+ years ago. It seats only nine passengers and has two high RPM piston engines. The ATR 42 is used by regional airlines and express carriers of the major airlines such as Continental and American on feeder routes, at airports with short runways and those with airport noise issues. In recent years, both Continental and American have replaced their ATR aircraft with regional jets as the newer jet technology has resulted in small jets reasonably comparable to the ATR in cost and low noise output. Other regional airlines are following suit. As a result, the number of ATR aircraft in the used aircraft market in good mechanical condition is increasing and their purchase price is decreasing. Cape Air is capitalizing on this and is moving to purchase these aircraft for two reasons: to increase its fleet capacity and replace the aging Cessna 402 twin-engine aircraft which is the only aircraft in the Cape Air fleet. For 2005, it was assumed that the ATR 42 would be used to supplement two Cessna 402 flights per day in the 4-month peak period June-September.
“...the projections in the DEIR should examine different potential future fleet mixes possible under the level of projected enplanements.” Source: “Certificate of the Secretary of Environmental Affairs on the Environmental Notification Form,” EOEA #13024, June 5, 2003. 5 Cape Air handled 81 percent and 82 percent of total enplanements in 2002 and 2003, respectively. 8 Noise 8-26
4

MVY

Martha’s Vineyard Airport

Another carrier serving MVY, Colgan Air, which provides commuter service as USAir Express, has two aircraft in its fleet: the Raytheon 1900 and the Saab SF 340A. Colgan is using the SF 340 at MVY during the peak summer months and the SF 340 was added to Fleet Mix 2 for 2005. It was assumed that there would be a 50/50 split between operations in Raytheon 1900 and SF 340 aircraft. General Aviation Category. Recent acquisitions by fractional share operators are shifting the fractional share fleets from popular corporate turboprop aircraft such as the Raytheon King Air to small corporate jets such as the Cessna CJ1 and CJ2 aircraft. Fleet Mix 2 captures this trend at MVY by assuming small corporate jet aircraft would replace 50 percent of corporate turboprop aircraft. The aircraft modeled in the INM is the Cessna Citation II. Table 8-13 presents the revised modeled fleet mix and operations for 2005.
Table 8-13 Average Day Operations, Fleet Mix 2, 2005 Modeled INM A/C BEC58P DHC 8 DHC 6 SF340 DHC 8 DHC 8 CL600 EMB 145 CL 601 MU 3001 CNA441 BEC 58P CNA172 Average Daily Operations Day 101.88 .66 2.47 2.47 .45 2.46 .09 2.54 12.64 4.71 4.71 16.12 71.52 222.6 Night 1.97 0 .07 .07 0 .09 0 .1 .28 .30 .30 .46 2.57 6.3 Total 103.85 .66 2.54 2.54 .45 2.64 .09 2.55 12.92 5.01 5.01 16.58 74.09 228.9

Category

Aircraft Type Cessna 402 ATR 42 Raytheon 1900

Air Carrier and Air Taxi (Commercial)

Saab 340 A Dornier 328 Dehaviland Dash 8 Canadair CRJ Embraer 145 Jet (Heavy) Jet (Light) Turboprop Multi Engine Piston Single Engine Piston

General Aviation (GA)

Totals

Fleet Mix 2, 2015. The fleet mix for 2015 was changed in a similar manner as the 2005 fleet mix. By 2015, it is expected that the Cessna 402 currently used by Cape Air will be replaced due to age and insurance requirements. Therefore, it was assumed that Raytheon 1900 commuter aircraft would replace the Cessna 402 and additional ATR 42 aircraft would be used. For this noise assessment, it was assumed that the Raytheon 1900 aircraft would carry 75 percent of enplaned passengers while the ATR 42 aircraft would carry
8 Noise 8-27

Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment

the remaining 25 percent of enplaned passengers. This ultimately changes the projected number of operations as larger planes (more seats) can carry the same number of passengers in fewer flights. (Note: Fleet Mix 1 assumes Cape Air will continue to use the Cessna 402 in both 2005 and 2015.) Because the Raytheon 1900 (19 seats) and ATR 42 (40-42 seats) have greater seat capacity than the 9-seat Cessna 402, it was assumed that the frequency of service would drop with the higher capacity aircraft carrying the same level of passengers in 2015. For 2015 it was assumed that the trend of switching from corporate turboprop aircraft to small corporate jets would continue. Under the Fleet Mix 2 scenario, 75 percent of the turboprop aircraft would be switched to the small corporate jet aircraft. Table 8-14 presents the fleet mix for 2015.
Table 8-14 Average Day Operations, Fleet Mix 2, 2015 Modeled INM A/C DHC 6 DHC 8 DHC 8 CL 600 CL 600 EMB 145 GV MU 3001 CNA441 BEC 58P CNA172 Average Daily Operations Day 61.29 6.47 6.67 3.02 .11 3.12 15.40 4.35 1.45 19.93 87.93 209.74 Night 1.74 .18 .11 .11 0 .13 .35 .27 .09 .57 3.15 6.7 Total 63.03 6.65 6.78 3.13 .11 3.25 15.75 4.62 1.54 20.50 91.08 216.44

Category

Aircraft Type Raytheon 1900 ATR 42

Air Carrier and Air Taxi (Commercial)

Dornier 328 Embraer 135 Canadair CRJ Embraer 145 Jet (Heavy) Jet (Light) Turboprop Multi Engine Piston Single Engine Piston

General Aviation (GA)

Totals

As noted above, there will be a drop in operations with the introduction and use of higher capacity aircraft. Using assumed load factors (the percent of filled seats) based upon discussions with Cape Air, the new mix of aircraft reduces the average daily operations activity in Cape Air aircraft from 128.48 (all Cessna 402 as used in 2015 for Fleet Mix 1) to 69.68 (combined Raytheon 1900/ATR 42 operations in Fleet Mix 2). Operations activity in 2005 and 2015 in the Fleet Mix 2 scenario is tabulated in Table 8-15. Note that Air Carrier/Air Taxi operation volumes are projected to decrease by over 10,000 operations in 2015 due primarily to the switch by Cape Air to larger capacity aircraft.

8 Noise

8-28

MVY
Table 8-15 Annual Operations, Fleet Mix 2, 2005 and 2015 2005 Operations 40,632 42,930 83,562 2015 Operations 30,277 48,724 79,000

Martha’s Vineyard Airport

Activity Air Carrier/Air Taxi General Aviation Total

8.1.3.2 Future Noise Levels Noise Contours. The noise contours for DNL 60, 65, 70 and 75 dB are shown in Figure 8-14 for 2005 and Figure 8-15 for the 2015 Existing Runway scenario. Noise Exposure. To determine if a noise impact exists, the area encompassed by the 65 DNL noise contour was analyzed. As depicted in Figures 8-14 and 8-15, the 65 DNL contour remains on airport property in both future scenarios; therefore, there are no noise impacts associated with Fleet Mix 2 in the future. Interestingly, the 65 DNL contour for 2015 decreases in size here when compared to the 2015 65 DNL contour computed with Fleet Mix 1. This is due to the fleet mix change for Cape Air which results in quieter aircraft (relative to the 402) and fewer operations due to the larger seating capacities of the Raytheon 1900 and ATR 42 aircraft. Table 8-16 lists the areas, in square miles, within the 60 and 65 DNL contours for the 2005 and 2015 Existing Runway scenarios.
Table 8-16 Noise Impacts, Fleet Mix 2, 2005 and 2015 Off Airport Area (sq. mi.) 0.005 0.000 0.029 0.000

Scenario 2005 2015 Existing Runway

Within DNL 60 dB 65 dB 60 dB 65 dB

Total Area (sq. mi.) 0.491 0.218 0.474 0.179

8 Noise

8-29

Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment

Figure 8-14 Martha’s Vineyard Airport Noise Contours with Noise Abatement Procedures - Year 2005 Operational Levels – Fleet Mix 2

[NOTE: FIG. 8-14 IS PROVIDED SEPARATELY TO REDUCE THE SIZE OF THIS FILE, THUS ALLOWING FOR FASTER, MORE CONVENIENT VIEWING. PLEASE SEE FILE NAMED ‘8 FIG 8-14’ ON THIS CDROM TO VIEW FIG. 8-14.]

8 Noise

8-30

MVY

Martha’s Vineyard Airport

Figure 8-15 Martha’s Vineyard Airport Noise Contours with Noise Abatement Procedures - Year 2015 Operational Levels – Fleet Mix 2

[NOTE: FIG. 8-15 IS PROVIDED SEPARATELY TO REDUCE THE SIZE OF THIS FILE, THUS ALLOWING FOR FASTER, MORE CONVENIENT VIEWING. PLEASE SEE FILE NAMED ‘8 FIG 8-15’ ON THIS CDROM TO VIEW FIG. 8-15.]

8 Noise

8-31

Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment

8.2 EFFECTS OF PEAK PERIOD ACTIVITY The noise impacts presented above are based on the operations of the average annual day, a key input to the INM in the calculation of noise contours. The average annual day activity is derived by taking total annual operations and dividing by 365 days. The average day calculation combines both peak periods, experienced during the summer months, and low activity periods, which occur in the winter at Martha’s Vineyard Airport. The resulting INM-generated noise contours thus represent a balance between low activity periods and high activity periods and provide the overall noise effects generated by airport activity. As required in the Secretary’s Certificate, noise issues concerning seasonal variation in activity levels were examined for the DEIR/EA. The economy of Martha’s Vineyard is largely tourism-based and experiences the greatest influx of tourists and residents during the summer months. During the offseason, the island has a low population and a very low level of tourism. Data reported in the Martha’s Vineyard Regional Transportation Plan – 2003 Update (Martha’s Vineyard Commission, July 23, 2003) notes a year-round population of 14,900 that swells to 74,000 in the peak summer period when seasonal residents/vacationers, transients, daytrippers and cruise passengers are considered. The aviation activity at the airport mimics this variation: aviation activity peaks during the summer months and reaches its lowest level during the winter months. Aviation activity records, compiled by Air Traffic Control Tower personnel for 1998 through 2002, were reviewed to identify trends in aviation activity. The data indicate that the lowest level of activity occurs in December and January and accounts for approximately 2,000 monthly operations; peak activity levels occur during July and August and exceed 10,000 monthly operations. In order to see what a peak day would look like compared to the average annual day, two methodologies can be used. The first methodology defines the peak period at MVY as the 4-month period June through September. The average day peak period calculation simply sums the June-September operations and divides by 122 days, the number of days in the four months. The second methodology entails the average day peak month. Here, the peak month is identified (the month with the greatest activity level) and operations for that month are divided by 30 or 31. In the case of Martha’s Vineyard, August (31 days) represents the peak month. For purposes of this exercise, noise contours and impact data presented in Section 8.1 above can be used to illustrate differences in noise levels due to seasonal activity. Data for the 2000 base year is used and Table 8-17 shows the calculation of activity levels associated with the “average day” of various periods.
8 Noise 8-32

MVY
Table 8-17 Average Day of Various Periods, 2000 Avg Annual Operations (2000) Days in Period Average Day Operations1 65,865 365 181

Martha’s Vineyard Airport

Peak Period2 37,730 122 309

Peak Month3 11,170 31 360

Notes: 1. Average Day Operations for the three periods are calculated by dividing the Operations (2000) volumes by the Days in Period. 2. June, July, August, September 3. August

As illustrated in Table 8-17, average day peak month operations are about double the average annual day operations while average day peak period operations were slightly less. The number of operations for the annual average day used in the INM to model the 2015 Fleet Mix 1 scenarios is 282, which is similar to the average day peak period operations of 309 for 2000. Therefore, noise contours generated for the average annual day in the 2015 Fleet Mix 1 scenario can be used as a proxy for the noise impacts of the 2000 average day peak period. Figure 8-12 provides a comparison of the noise contours generated for the 2000 average annual day and those assumed to be the 2000 average day peak period. Figure 8-12 illustrates an increase in the area within the 65 DNL contour in the average day peak period (to be expected when operations increase from 181 to 309), but the 65 DNL contour remains within the airport boundary. Based on this comparison and knowledge of the INM, the following assumptions can be made: The 65 DNL noise contour for the 2000 average day peak month (360 operations) would become larger still but would remain on airport property. The 65 DNL noise contour for the 2015 average day peak month (547 operations) would be at and likely beyond the current airport boundary. Much of the area surrounding the airport to the north, east and west is nonresidential property (the Manuel Correllus State Forest). Recreational activities within the forest include hiking, trail-bike-riding, horseback riding, bird watching and so on, activities akin to the “Nature exhibits and zoos” and “Golf courses, riding stables and water recreation” listed in Table 8-4 above. Such land uses are compatible with noise levels as high as 70 DNL. It is presumed unlikely that noise contours above 70 DNL would encroach on the confines of the State Forest.

8 Noise

8-33

Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment

8.3 AIRCRAFT NOISE MITIGATION Based on noise contour analyses prepared for two future fleet scenarios, aircraft activity at MVY has no noise impact based on the Federal definition (i.e., FAA, EPA, HUD) of noise impacts. This Federal definition and the maintenance/development of the Integrated Noise Model by FAA insure that noise analyses are conducted similarly for MVY, for Barnstable Municipal Airport, for Boston-Logan International Airport, for New York’s La Guardia and JFK airports, for Chicago O’Hare International Airport and so on. The Martha’s Vineyard Airport Commission, however, is cognizant that the airport does generate noise albeit not at the levels which generate “impacts.” For instance, the airport is open 24 hours per day and late night operations on occasion result in noise complaints. Additionally, some aircraft are louder than others and there are on occasion noise complaints about a particular aircraft overflight. All noise complaints received are addressed immediately by the airport manager himself. When it comes to noise, MVY airport management has a “the-buck-stops-here” approach. 8.3.1 Historical Noise Assessments MVY airport management has addressed noise aggressively over the years. As early as 1988, management undertook a Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 150 study, a defined process which quantifies airport noise and reviews any number of means – land use controls, flight track modification, noise abatement flight procedures, sound insulation programs – for mitigating airport noise. The major finding of the 1988 Part 150 study was that there were no significant noise impacts at MVY. However, the study authors did make several recommendations as follows: Implement a Preferential Runway Use Program. Modify departure flight tracks. Implement an informal nighttime Stage III noise level restriction. Extend Runway 15-33 to increase its utility and ability to accommodate larger aircraft. Following receipt of the study recommendations, airport management subsequently did pursue an informal noise abatement departure track system. Recommended departure tracks and procedures were developed and advertised widely to the MVY airport community. As part of the recently-completed and published MVY noise study, the noise study team examined whether the departure flight tracks and related procedures were in use still. The findings were thus:
8 Noise 8-34

MVY

Martha’s Vineyard Airport

The flight tracks and noise abatement procedures were not adopted officially by the Martha’s Vineyard Airport Commission. Information on the flight tracks and procedures was disseminated widely in the early 90’s but not much had been done to advertise the program beyond the initial flurry of activity. The tracks and procedures were little known by pilots using the airport today. The 2003 noise study authors presented their own recommendations which are discussed below. 8.3.2 Recommended MVY Noise Abatement Program The 2003 MVY noise study provided MVY management with considerable data and information for use in developing an informal noise abatement program customized to MVY. The study called for a seven-step process as follows:6 1. Finalize the Noise Abatement Procedures with flight tracks after obtaining FAA concurrence. 2. Develop a formal Noise Abatement Program document that specifies procedures, tracks and other information relating to the program and distribute to local and transient pilots. This document may also be placed on-line to provide an additional method of information dissemination. 3. Review Noise Abatement Program with FAA, Tenants, Pilots and Community on a regular basis. 4. Publish and disseminate Noise Abatement Program among local airport tenants and transient pilots. 5. Establish website with a link to Noise Abatement Program. 6. Complete a monthly survey, conducted by MVY management, with Tower personnel and pilots on how the abatement procedures are working and modify as needed. 7. Work with towns to incorporate land use measures and restrictions to avoid future non-compatible development by limiting incompatible land uses (as defined in Table 8-4) adjacent to the airport. The current implementation status of each of the seven steps is presented in Table 8-18.

The seven steps are drawn from Martha’s Vineyard Noise Mitigation Program – Final Report (Edwards and Kelcey, April 2003), Section 2.3.7 Summary and Recommendations. 8 Noise 8-35
6

Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment

Table 8-18 Current Implementation Status of MVY Noise Abatement Program

Item Class
Noise

No.
N-1

Description
Finalize the Noise Abatement Procedures with flight tracks after obtaining FAA concurrence. Develop a Noise Abatement Program document. Distribute to local and transient pilots. Place document on-line. Review Noise Abatement Program with FAA, tenants, pilots and community on a regular basis. Publish and disseminate Noise Abatement Program among local airport tenants and transient pilots.

Implementing Party(ies) MVAC

Implementation Status
FAA concurrence received. Noise Abatement Program formally adopted by vote of MVAC. Documents produced. Distribution on-going. Complete.

Date
June 2003

Noise

N-2

MVAC

2003 2003/on-going 2004 2003/on-going

Noise

N-3

MVAC

Several mtgs held with based and transient pilots to date. Addtl mtgs planned. Announcements of new flight tracks posted on MVY bulletin board. Major fractional share and other large operators notified in writing of new tracks/abatement procedures. Color inserts produced and distributed for Jeppessen pilot manuals. [See color documents at end of this chapter.] Complete.

Noise

N-4

MVAC

2003/on-going

Noise

N-5

Establish MVY website with a link to Noise Abatement Program. Include links to aviation trade organization websites that have noise abatement suggestions such as the National Business Aircraft Association (NBAA), Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), etc. Complete a monthly survey, conducted by MVY management, with ATCT personnel and pilots on how the abatement procedures are working and modify as needed. Work with towns to incorporate land use measures and restrictions to avoid future non-compatible development by limiting incompatible land uses (as defined in Table 8-4) adjacent to the airport.

MVAC

2004

Noise

N-6

MVAC

Informal surveys conducted by airport mgr and asst airport mgr.

2003/on-going

Noise

N-7

MVAC

Pending

2004

8 Noise

8-36

MVY
8.3.3 Additional MVY Noise Abatement Measures

Martha’s Vineyard Airport

In addition to the recommended Noise Abatement Program, airport management preaches noise abatement on a daily basis. A clear example of this philosophy is evident right on the MVY business cards which have “Please fly quiet!” emblazoned on them. Another example is the attention given to noise complaints. On average MVY receives 10-20 noise complaints during a calendar year, with the bulk of the complaints occurring in the peak period June-September. For an airport with the activity level of MVY, where operations have increased from roughly 41,000 in 1988 to approximately 55,000 in 2003, this is considered a small number of complaints. The number of complaints can be attributed to several factors: Quieter engines in a new generation of aircraft. Effectiveness of local pilot awareness programs. Effectiveness in educating transient pilots (those who fly to MVY from a distance as opposed to those who fly in and out of MVY regularly) on the voluntary noise abatement program. Success in broadcasting to the local and transient pilot communities the intent of MVY management to address noise 24/7. Vigilance in tracking down operators that generate noise complaints and making them aware of noise abatement practices and procedures. The noise complaint and resolution procedure is as follows: 1.

Info brochure available at MVY service counter

When a complaint is received (generally by phone to the airport manager’s office), the complaintant is asked for specifics such as telephone or contact number, date and time of noise incident, location, direction of flight, propeller/jet aircraft and so on. At present, MVY presently is developing a formal database to collect these data in a systematic manner. The airport manager returns complaintant’s call. If requested, the airport manager will go to the complaintant’s residence/business to discuss the complaint in person. Once the nature of the specific complaint is known and understood, the airport manager takes action. Most often this entails contact with the offending operator for a briefing on the voluntary noise abatement procedures in effect at
8-37

2.

3.

8 Noise

Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment

MVY. If and as necessary, the airport manager will speak to the passenger(s) in an attempt to adjust pick-up/dropoff schedules and so on.7 4. If the complaints appear to come from a particular neighborhood where a neighborhood association is known to exist, the airport manager volunteers to speak before a future meeting of the association on noise issues and/or on the airport in general. Frequently, the complaintant will be invited for a personal tour of the airport and airfield at a time convenient to the complaintant. At all times, the complaintant is treated with courtesy and respect.

5. 6.

These and other noise abatement measures being taken or to be undertaken by airport management are presented in Table 8-19.
Table 8-19 Additional Noise Abatement Measures by MVY Management Item Class
Noise Implementing Party(ies) MVAC

Implementation Status
Constant attention to noise environment. Business cards and airport flyers use phrase “Please fly quiet!” in prominent locations. In development. In development.

No.
N-8

Description
Promote “Please fly quiet!”

Date
On-going

Noise Noise

N-9 N-10

Develop a noise complaint database. Develop on-line noise complaint form which can be completed and filed on-line. Install taxiway signs reminding pilots of noise abatement procedures and flight tracks. Cease advertising MVY as a “24/7” airport.

MVAC MVAC

2004 2004

Noise

N-11

MVAC

Pending.

Spring 2004

Noise

N-12

MVAC

In effect. While the airport is open 24hours per day, MVY airport mgt has ceased listing MVY’s operating hours in various aviation publications. In effect.

On-going

Noise

N-13

Maintain memberships in airport mgt associations to keep abreast of how airport mgrs are responding to noise issues in other communities.

MVAC

On-going

7 While rare, this situation sometimes occurs when a fractional jet customer schedules pick-ups and/or dropoffs at inopportune times, i.e., late nights/early mornings. Oftentimes the jet operator is not able to suggest an alternative as the customer’s contract generally states pick-up/dropoff on demand. The airport manager, however, isn’t so constrained and has spoken to customers on occasion to alert them to noise issues within the island community. More often than not, he is able to work out an alternative with lesser noise consequences. 8 Noise 8-38

MVY
8.3.4 Hanscom Field Noise Workgroup

Martha’s Vineyard Airport

In the Certificate on the ENF, the Secretary required the MVAC to “consult with the Hanscom Work Group and Massport to determine how [noise policies and approaches developed for Hanscom Field] may fruitfully be used to inform this project.” (p. 7 of Certificate). As background, the Massachusetts Secretary of Environmental Affairs asked Massport in 1997 to organize and meet with a community- and aviation-based workgroup for six months. Massport subsequently formed the Hanscom Field Noise Workgroup, which met for a period of two years. The Workgroup published its proceedings in a report entitled ”Report of the Hanscom Field Noise Workgroup,” dated September 22, 1999. This report summarizes the series of meetings by the committee and its two task groups, one devoted to abatement and mitigation, the other to metrics and modeling. Together, the two task groups developed a comprehensive list of recommendations which were referenced extensively in the Draft ESPR. The DEIR/EA study team prime consultant examined the document produced by the Noise Workgroup. Airport management believes that its voluntary Noise Abatement Program and the additional noise abatement measures it is pursuing sufficiently addresses the noise issues facing the island community. The MVY airport manager, however, will continue to follow the evolution of noise analyses at Hanscom Field through future ESPR filings. Measures that are appropriate to MVY will be incorporated into the Noise Abatement Program.

8 Noise

8-39

Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment

This page left blank intentionally.

8 Noise

8-40

Q

TIS

AN G B
FALMOUTH

FALMOUTH

WOODS HOLE

BUZZARDS BAY
NAUSHON ISLAND CUTTYHUNK ISLAND
MVY 290R 15 NM DME MVY 330R 10 NM DME

MVY 360R 10 NM DME

MARTHA’S VINEYARD AIRPORT

N

MVY

Q

To HY A

O

N0
36 330

30

NANTUCKET SOUND
60

A

R un w ay 15
B A

TISBURY

-3

OAK BLUFFS
TRADEWINDS

3

E

300

WEST TISBURY
VO MVY S DIAL R RA

SAND PIT

90 E

MVY
M) (FRO

R
D A A

w un C

ay

6-

24

VINEYARD SOUND

MENEMSHA
MVY 270R 7 NM DME

EDGARTOWN
KATAMA

W27
AQUINNAH
GAYHEAD LIGHT
MVY 270R 10 NM DME

0

120

CHAPPAQUIDDICK

r Te

m

i

l na

re A

a

MARTHA’S VINEYARD AIRPORT

CHILMARK
240
5 NM RA D I U S

150 180

To A C

K

Airport Proper

ty Line

210
1 MILE

S

WASQUE POINT
MVY 110R 10 NM DME

- Regional Landmarks

N
5

Katama Traffic
F r o m N / N W: E x p e c t M V Y t r a n s i t i o n n o r t h & east of shoreline at 2,000’ F r o m We s t : E x p e c t M V Y t r a n s i t i o n a l o n g south shore at 2,000’
(Aerial Photo Courtesy of Martha’s Vineyard Airport)

ATLANTIC OCEAN

- REMAIN 1 MILE OFFSHORE

0 NAUTICAL MILES

- AVOID RESIDENTIAL OVERFLIGHTS

(NOT FOR NAVIGATIONAL PURPOSES)

MVY Frequencies
AT I S : 1 2 6 . 2 5 (508.693.7685) ASOS: 1 3 5 . 7 5 (508.696.6988) Cape Approach: 118.2 / 133.75 / 124.7 V i n e y a r d ATC T: 121.4 Ground/Clearance: 121.8 UNICOM: 122.95 VOR: 114.5 R W 2 4 I L S / LO C D M E : 1 0 8 . 7

Airport Operations
- AV O I D R E S I D E N T I A L O V E R F L I G H T S - Pa t t e r n A l t i t u d e s 1,000’ AGL Light Aircraft: 1,500’ AGL Tw i n s : - Maintain above 2,000’ MSL for Sightseeing - Airport Attended 24 Hours Nov 1 - May 14 07:00 - 17:00 - ATC T H o u r s : May 15 - Oct 31 06:00 - 22:00 - Services available 06:00 - 22:00 local or by prior arrangement. - No Departures exceeding 75 dBa between 22:00 and 06:00 local time. - Recommend utilizing landing lights when operating In the vicinity of the Island. - Preferred r unway for noise abatement is Runway 6.
Airport Operations: phone (508) 693-7022 fax (508) 696-4631 www.mvyairport.com

Notice!
Noise Abatement Procedures
Are Not Intended To Hamper Safe Aircraft Operations and Compliance with ATC Instructions

Noise Abatement Procedures
Number: Issue Date: 2003-01 January 1, 2003

1,000’ AGL 1,500’ AGL

MVY

Field Elevation: RW 6-24: RW 15-33: Pa t t e r n A l t i t u d e s Light Aircraft: Tw i n s :

68’ MSL 5,500’ x 100’ 3,297’ x 75’

Additional copies of this chart are available at www.mvyairport.com

95 Cedar Street, Providence, RI (401) 272-1969 www.ekcorp.com

MVY Airport Data

Edwards & Kelcey, Inc.

N
TISBURY NAUSHON ISLAND VINEYARD SOUND

N
TISBURY NAUSHON ISLAND VINEYARD SOUND

Lake Tashmoo

OAK BLUFFS
TRADEWINDS

NANTUCKET SOUND

1 MILE

Lake Tashmoo

OAK BLUFFS
TRADEWINDS

NANTUCKET SOUND

1 MILE
WEST TISBURY
STATE FOREST

Sand Pit

WEST TISBURY

Sand Pit

MVY
N
PA QU ID DI CK

West Tisbury Road
ED
1st CHILMARK
AH

AP

ED

CH

3rd Finger
1.0 NM DME
KATAMA

Runway 15

CHILMARK
NN AH UI

KATAMA

Runway 6

NN

UI

ATLANTIC OCEAN

ATLANTIC OCEAN

AQ

AQ

Arrivals
- Lef t Tr af f ic - fr om N O R T H : Via Lake Tashmoo to Sand Pit, then Downwind over Fores t, turn over Wes t T isbur y Road for Lef t Base - 2 Mile Final Appr oac h - Avoid Residential Over f lights S W of MVY

Depar tures
- Fly Runway Heading to Shoreline - Reduce Power & Pr op ASAP - Bes t Climb Rate to 2,000’ - Turn on Cour se - Remain 1 Mile Of f shore

Arrivals
- fr om N O R T H : Via Lake Tashmoo to Sand Pit for Lef t Base Entr y - fr om W E S T : Fly Direct MVY for Close-In Right Base Entr y - Avoid Residential Over f lights NW of MVY

Depar tures
- Fly Runway Heading - Reduce Power & Pr op ASAP - Bes t Climb Rate to 2,000’ - Turn on Cour se - Remain 1 Mile Of f shore - Avoid Residential Over f lights

(NOT FOR NAVIGATIONAL PURPOSES)

N
NANTUCKET SOUND NAUSHON ISLAND VINEYARD SOUND

(NOT FOR NAVIGATIONAL PURPOSES)

CH

AP

2nd

TISBURY NAUSHON ISLAND VINEYARD SOUND

TISBURY

1 MILE Lake Tashmoo

OAK BLUFFS
TRADEWINDS

Lake Tashmoo

OAK BLUFFS
TRADEWINDS

NANTUCKET SOUND

1 MILE
WEST TISBURY
STATE FOREST

Sand Pit

WEST TISBURY
STATE FOREST

Sand Pit

MVY
N
PA QU ID DI CK

MVY
N
PA QU ID DI CK CH AP

RT OW

West Tisbury Road
ED
1st CHILMARK
AH

GA

3rd Finger
1.0 NM DME

CH

AP

Runway 24

Runway 33

NN

KATAMA

CHILMARK
NN AH UI

ED

2nd

UI

AQ

ATLANTIC OCEAN

ATLANTIC OCEAN

95 Cedar Street, Providence, RI (401) 272-1969 www.ekcorp.com

Arrivals
- Right Tr af f ic - fr om N O R T H : Via Lake Tashmoo, Remain Wes t of Sand Pit for Right Base N - fr om W E S T : Fly 45 Entr y to Right Downwind for Right Base at Sand Pit

Depar tures
- Fly Runway Heading to 3r d Finger - Bes t Climb Rate to 2,000’, then on Cour se - to N O R T H : Turn Right Cr osswind until Wes t T isbur y Road, then on Cour se - I F A B L E , Immediate Right Turn to Remain Nor th of Road & over Fores t - Avoid Residential Over f lights S W of MVY

AQ

Edwards & Kelcey, Inc.

Arrivals
- Close-In Patterns - fr om N O R T H / E A S T : Fly Close-In Right Downwind, Wes t of Sand Pit for Base Entr y - fr om S O U T H / W E S T : Fly Close-In Lef t Downwind, Remain over Fores t & Air por t - Avoid Residential Over f lights

Depar tures
- Fly Runway Heading - Reduce Power & Pr op ASAP - Bes t Climb Rate to 2,000’ - Turn on Cour se - Remain 1 Mile Of f shore - Avoid Residential Over f lights

GA

RT OW

KATAMA

PA QU ID DI CK

RT OW

GA

GA

RT OW

STATE FOREST

MVY
N

N

MVY

PYM

CAPE COD BAY

CAPE COD
EWB

Q

Q

HYA

Q

CHATHAM

Aircraft Greater than 12,500 lbs

N

Q

Q

A

R un

Q

FALMOUTH

I OT

S

w

AN

GB

A B

ay 15 -3 3

BUZZARDS BAY NANTUCKET SOUND
TRADEWINDS

E

ay w un C R
D A A

6-

24

Q

VINEYARD SOUND

MVY

rm Te

i

lA na

a re

Aircraft Greater than 12,500 lbs

Q

KATAMA

ATLANTIC OCEAN

NANTUCKET
N
0
STATUTE MILES

- REMAIN 1 MILE OFFSHORE

Q

MARTHA’S VINEYARD

ty Line Airport Proper

ACK

- AVOID RESIDENTIAL OVERFLIGHTS

5

(Aerial Photo Courtesy of Martha’s Vineyard Airport)

(NOT FOR NAVIGATIONAL PURPOSES)

MVY Frequencies
AT I S : 1 2 6 . 2 5 (508.693.7685) ASOS: 1 3 5 . 7 5 (508.696.6988) Cape Approach: 118.2 / 133.75 / 124.7 V i n e y a r d ATC T: 121.4 Ground/Clearance: 121.8 UNICOM: 122.95 VOR: 114.5 R W 2 4 I L S / LO C D M E : 1 0 8 . 7

Airport Operations
- AV O I D R E S I D E N T I A L O V E R F L I G H T S - Pa t t e r n A l t i t u d e s 1,000’ AGL Light Aircraft: 1,500’ AGL Tw i n s : - Maintain above 2,000’ MSL for Sightseeing - Airport Attended 24 Hours Nov 1 - May 14 07:00 - 17:00 - ATC T H o u r s : May 15 - Oct 31 06:00 - 22:00 - Services available 06:00 - 22:00 local or by prior arrangement. - No Departures exceeding 75 dBa between 22:00 and 06:00 local time. - Recommend utilizing landing lights when operating In the vicinity of the Island. - Preferred r unway for noise abatement is Runway 6.
Airport Operations: phone (508) 693-7022 fax (508) 696-4631 www.mvyairport.com

Notice!
Noise Abatement Procedures
Are Not Intended To Hamper Safe Aircraft Operations and Compliance with ATC Instructions

Noise Abatement Procedures
Number: Issue Date: 2003-01 January 1, 2003

1,000’ AGL 1,500’ AGL

MVY

Field Elevation: RW 6-24: RW 15-33: Pa t t e r n A l t i t u d e s Light Aircraft: Tw i n s :

68’ MSL 5,500’ x 100’ 3,297’ x 75’

Additional copies of this chart are available at www.mvyairport.com

95 Cedar Street, Providence, RI (401) 272-1969 www.ekcorp.com

MVY Airport Data

Edwards & Kelcey, Inc.

Q

Runway 6-24
Arrivals
- Str aight-In Appr oac hes - Remain 1 Mile Of f shore - W E S T Arrivals for RW 24 via Vineyar d Sound - Avoid Residential Over f lights S W of MVY

TI

FALMOUTH

Q

24

NAUSHON ISLAND CUTTYHUNK ISLAND
MVY 290R 15 NM DME MVY 330R 10 NM DME

30

330

TISBURY

OAK BLUFFS

60
BORST INT

RW

N0
36

IL S/ DM E

NANTUCKET SOUND

10 8. 7

BUZZARDS BAY

WOODS HOLE
MVY 360R 10 NM DME

To HY A

TRADEWINDS

O

SA N GB
FALMOUTH

Depar tures
Str aight-Out Depar tures Fly Runway Heading to Shoreline Remain 1 Mile Of f shore W E S T Depar tures fr om RW 6 via Vineyar d Sound

Noise Abatement Recommendations
MVY is in Close Proximity to Noise Sensitive Residential Neighborhoods. As such, MVY Strongly Recommends that: 1 . A l l O p e r a t o r s AV O I D RESIDENTIAL OVERFLIGHT S 2. Corporate Pilots Use Close-In Noise Abatement Profiles as defined by their aircraft manufacturer or by the National Business Aircraft Association (NBAA) 3. All Operators Avoid Intersection Departures.

300
MENEMSHA

WEST TISBURY
A RADI VOR MVY

SAND PIT

90 E

MVY
R LS (F OM)

VINEYARD SOUND

MVY 270R 7 NM DME

EDGARTOWN
KATAMA

CHAPPAQUIDDICK
120

W 27
AQUINNAH

0

CHILMARK
240 150
5 NM RA D I U S

To A C

K

N
95 Cedar Street, Providence, RI (401) 272-1969 www.ekcorp.com

GAYHEAD LIGHT
MVY 270R 10 NM DME

210

1 MILE

180

BEDOW INT

S

WASQUE POINT
MVY 110R 10 NM DME

0
Nautical Miles

5

Edwards & Kelcey, Inc.

ATLANTIC OCEAN
- Regional Landmarks - Arrival / Departure Tracks
(NOT FOR NAVIGATIONAL PURPOSES)

- No Departures exceeding 75 dBa between 22:00 and 06:00 local time.

- REMAIN 1 MILE OFFSHORE

- AVOID RESIDENTIAL OVERFLIGHTS

Preferred runway for noise abatement is

Runway 6


				
DOCUMENT INFO
Fighting Yank Fighting Yank
About These documents were primarily taken from government websites as part of a personal project to archive political and governmental documents on Docstoc. Please email gov.archive.project@gmail.com for prompt removal if you discover a copyrighted document. Thank you!