## ATTACHMENT A

1 

### FAA Airspace Policy, Environmental Team (AJV

- 114)



# Evaluation of Changes to the FAA’s Proposed Action regarding the
Re

- designation and Expansion of Restricted
Area R

- 4403

Introduction

The public provided comments in response to both an FAA Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) published in July 2014 and a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM) published in August 2014 regarding the re

- designation and expansion o f Restricted Area R

- 4403

at Stennis Space Center (SSC) in Hancock County and Pearl River County, M ississippi and St. Tammany Parrish, Louisiana

. The proposed rule would remove R

- 4403 and replace it with an expanded restricted airspace consisting of R

- 4403 A, R

- 4403B, R

- 4403C, R

- 4403E, and R

- 4403F (hereinafter “the Proposed Restricted Areas ”)

. Commenters on the NPRM and SNPRM expressed concerns about the potential impact of the Proposed R estricted Areas on aircraft transiting the area and on published instr ument approach procedures serving Picayune Municipal Airport (MJD) and Stennis International A irport (HSA)

. The FAA has developed a number of mitigation measures to address these concerns, including :

- Revisions to instrument approach procedures serving MJD

- Revisions to instrument approach procedures serving HSA

- Addition of two visual flight rules (VFR) waypoints south of Interstate 10 to assist pilots navigating along Interstate 10 to avoid inadvertently fly ing into the Proposed R estricted
Areas

.

## ATTACHMENT A

2 These mitigation measures were not evaluated or analyzed in the United States Navy’s and National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) Final Environmental Assessment for the Redesignation and Expansion of Restricted Airspace R

- 4403 to Support Military
Air

- to

- Ground Munitions Training and National Aeronautics and Space Administration Rocket Engine Testing at Stennis Space Center, Hancock County and Pearl River County, Mississippi and St. Tammany Parrish, Louisiana , dated October 2015 (hereinafter “the FE A”)

. Due to the nature of the mitigation measures and their potential for environmental impact, the FAA has determined that they do not require supplementation of the FEA. Th e discussion below explains
the basis for this determination.



### Revisions to Instrument Approach Procedures

MJD:
The current RNAV (GPS) RWY 18 would be split into two separate approaches, a Y variant and a
Z variant . The Z variant would be active when the SUA is active. The change that would impact the flight path of aircraft is the missed approach course . The missed approach course in the existing procedure direct s aircraft east of the airfield. The revised missed approach course would direct aircraft west of the airfield and away from the Proposed R estricted A irspace

.

RNAV ( GPS) RWY 36 : This procedure would be inactive when the Proposed R estricted A irspace
is active. Aircraft would not be able to approach the airfield from the south.

VOR A : The major changes are a 3° change in course, from 132° to 129°, to the runway and the elimination of circling for Category D aircraft (those with approach speeds between 141

- 165 knots) and Categ ory C aircraft (121

- 140 knots). Th ese change s would direct aircraft further north of the airfield during their approach and allow them to avoid the Proposed Restricted Airspace during a missed procedure.

HSA:
The current ILS or LOC RWY 18 would be split into two separate approaches, a Y variant and a Z
variant

. The Z variant would be active when the Proposed Restricted Airspace is active. The

c hange to the procedure that would impact the flight path of aircraft is moving the start of the approach further 8.6 nautical miles further north to avoid the expanded Proposed Restricted Airspace and tie in to an existing Visual Flight Rules Airway. In a ddition, the holding pattern for missed approaches would move further north.

RNAV (GPS) RWY 18 : The change to the procedure that would impact the flight path of aircraft is moving the start of the approach 1.1 nautical miles further north which essentially would lower the altitude of the approach by 9.2%.



### Establishment of New VFR Waypoints

## ATTACHMENT A

3 The new VFR waypoints south of I

- 10 would assi st VFR pilot navigation by providing navigational reference points, and would not specify a flight path or direct the flow of air traffic. As such they are considered advisory actions , which are not subject to the National Environmental Policy Act ( NEPA )

. Therefore, n o further environmental analysis is required for this action.



### Environmental Analysis

The changes to the approach procedures at MJD would alter how aircraft fly to the runway and fly missed approaches. They would not change the number , time, or type of aircraft operations, nor
would they result in any disturbance of the ground or ground based resources. The changes
would not result in any additional flight miles.
The changes to the approach procedures at HSA would shift the start of southbou nd approaches further north of the airfield resulting in slightly reduced flight altitudes. In addition the holding pattern would be shifted further north to the new start of the revised approach as would the point to where aircraft will fly after a misse d approach. Aircraft that missed an approach would fly 8.9 nautical miles further north thereby adding roughly 18 nautical miles to each missed approach

. The changes to these approach procedures would not result in any change in the time, type or level of operations at HSA, nor would they result in any disturbance of the ground or ground
based resources.
Based on the results of the noise analysis (see below), the changes to the instrument approach procedures at MJD and HSA fall within the scope of the categorical exclusion in paragraph 5

- 6.5.i of FAA Order 1050.1F, which includes “modifications to currently approved procedures conducted below 3,000 feet [above ground level (AGL ) ] that do not significantly increase noise over noise
sensitiv e areas.” This categorical exclusion reflects the FAA’s determination, approved by the Council on Environmental Quality, that such actions normally do not cause significant environmental effects, either individually or cumulatively. It would be extraordi nary for such an action to have the potential to cause significant environmental effects. Paragraph 5

- 2 of FAA Order 1050.1F includes a list of circumstances that could involve a potential for significant environmental impact from an otherwise categorical ly excluded action. These circumstances are
addressed under “Extraordinary Circumstances” below.
Air Quality and Climate The FAA reviewed 30 random days of radar and operations data for MJD and determined that the number of operations and miles flown (and resultant fuel burn) would not change, and as such the changes to the approach procedure s at Picayune Municipal would result in no additional fuel
burn that in turn would result in an increase in air emissions. As such the changes to the approach procedures at MJD would have no impact on a ir q uality

.
The FAA reviewed 28 random days of radar and operations data for HSA and determined that
there would be a potenti al increase in miles flown for aircraft approaching from the north that
conduc t missed approaches. Each missed approach event would add roughly 18 nautical miles

## ATTACHMENT A

4 at an altitude of approximately 2,000 feet AGL that would otherwise not be flown. The review of the data indicates that a missed approach (including t raining) i s flown on average once a day.

The FAA conducted an analysis to estimate changes in emissions from the modified missed approach procedures. Only th e tracks captured within the 28 days of radar data identified as causing an increase in miles flown and thu s causing the change to the air quality emissions were analyzed . The emissions from these tracks were calculated on an annualized basis within the Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT) flying without the modified missed approach (Baseline) and then fl ying with the modified missed approach (Alternative). In order to model the missed approaches each missed approach was modelled as three separate flights, an arrival, a departure back to the holding point, and a then as a new arrival. This resulted in an extremely conservative approach as the model assumes that a departing aircraft is emitting more VOCs than a cruising aircraft. 1 Table 1 below shows the change in emissions (Alternative minus Baseline), compared to the highest d e m inimis l evel for each pol lutant under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s g eneral c onformity r ule (40 C.F.R. § 93.153(b))

. 2

CO (tons) VOC

(tons) NOx

(tons) SOx

(tons) PM 2·5

(tons) PM 10

(tons) Impact of Procedure (Alternative

- Baseline)

- 237.03 13.67 5.17 0.001

- 0.116

- 0.116 Highest EPA De
Minimis Level

100 100 100 100 100 100
Exceedance of
De Minimis Level? No No No No No No Table 1: Air Quality Analysis Results for Approach Procedure Changes at HSA

.

Table 1 does not include t he de minimis level for lead because AEDT does not model lead emissions, but the EPA has released guidance on how to calculate these emissions. Using the
document Lead Emissions from the Use of Leaded Aviation Gasoline in the United States

1 Individual pollutant results vary within the AEDT model depending on engine type and activity. The type of engine (jet/piston/turboprop), the fuel flow into the engine, the engine mode, the time in each engine mode, the temperature of the engine, and the atmospheric pressure at that particular place all impact how much of each sort of combustion is occurring and thus impact
the differences in emissions. See AEDT 2a Technical Manual (available at https://www.faa.gov/about /office_org/headquarters_offices/apl/research/models/aedt/media/AED T2a_TechManual_2012August31b.pdf ) , pages 149

- 159 for more detail.

2 The highest de minimis levels are used because t he relevant Air Quality Control Region is
classified as attainment/uncla ssifiable for all criteria pollutants.

## ATTACHMENT A

5 (EPA420

- R

- 08

- 020, October, 2008), the follow ing formula is given for the calculation where the LTO operations of piston aircraft are known:

Pb (kg) = (piston

- engine LTO)*(7.0*10 - 3 )

From the aircraft above, two out of the 22 total aircraft in these track sets modeled were piston aircraft, which cor responds to 26 annual piston aircraft operations. Since we’re looking at missed approaches which contains actions that simulate parts of an arrival procedure and part of a departure procedure, we’ll conservatively assume that 1 operations = 1 LTO cycle in this case. Given this assumption, the annual Pb emissions are 0.182 kilograms or 0.0002 tons, which is well
under the EPA’s de minimis level of 25 tons.

B ased on these results

, the change s in the approach procedures would not have the potential to cause a significant effect on air quality, as defined in FAA Order 1050.1F

.

The same AEDT analysis reported an annual increase in CO 2 emissions of 3.5 metric tons per year, which constitutes an insignificant increase in ter ms of climate when compared to the 6,708.3 x 10 6 metric tons of CO 2 released in the U.S. in 2011

.
Noise Analysis
The FAA conducted a noise screening analysis for the pr oposed procedure changes at MJD and
H S A to determine if there would be any “ reportable ” or “ significant ” increase in noise over noise
sensitive areas as defined in FAA Order 1050.1F. The analysis for MJD was conducted using the Aviation Environmental Screening Tool. The results of the analysis showed no noise increase at
or above DNL 45 dB , and thus no reportable or significant noise increase.

The analysis for HSA was conducted using the Terminal Area Route Generation, Evaluation, and Traffic Simulation (TARGETS) Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT) Environmental Plug

In tool

. The res ults of this analysis also showed no reportable or significant increase in noise

.
Extraordinary Circumstances Based on the above analysis, and c onsistent with p aragraph 5

- 2.b of FAA Order 1050.1F, the
FAA has determined the above

- described procedure change s at MJD and HSA would not involve any extraordinary circumstances because they would not:

1) cause a n adverse effect on cultural resources protected under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 54 U.S.C. §300101 et seq.; 3

3 Based on the nature of the procedure changes and their potential for environmental impact, the
FAA has determined that the y are not a type of activity that has the potential to cause effects on historic properties under 36 C.F.R. § 800.3(a).

## ATTACHMENT A

6 2) have the potential to cause a significant impact on properties protected under Section 4(f);

3) have the potential to cause a significant impact , ecological, or scenic resources of Federal, state, tribal, or local significance (e.g., federally listed or proposed en dangered, threatened, or candidate species, or designated or proposed critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531

- 1544);

4) have the potential to cause a significant impact on the following resources: resources protected by the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 661

- 667d; wetlands; floodplains; coastal zones; national marine sanctuaries; wilderness areas; National Resource Conservation Service

designated prime and unique farmlands; energy supply and natural resource s; resources protected under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1271

- 1287, and rivers or river segments listed on the Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI); and solid waste management;

5) cause a division or disruption of an established community, or a disruption of orderly, planned development, or an inconsistency with plans or goals that have been adopted by the community in which the project is located;

6) cause a n increase in congestion from surface transportation (by causing decrease in level of service below acceptable levels determined by appropriate transportation agency, such as a highway agency);

7) have the potential to cause a significant impact on noise levels of noise sensitive areas;

8) have the potential to cause a significant impact on air quality or a violation of Federal, state, tribal, or local air quality standards under the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401

- 7671q;

9) have the potential to cause a significant impact on water quality, sole source aquifers, a public water supply system , or state or tribal water quality standards established under the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251

- 1387, and the Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300f

- 300j

- 26;

10) cause i mpacts on the quality of the human environment that are likely to be highly

c ontroversial on environmental grounds , as defined in paragraph 5 2.b of FAA Order 1050.1F ;

11) be likely to be inconsistent with any Federal, state, tribal, or local law relating to the environmental aspects of the proposed action; or

12) otherwise have t he potential to directly, indirectly, or cumulatively create a significant impact
on the human environment.



### Conclusion

Based on the foregoing analysis, and consistent with Paragraph 9

- 3 of FAA Order 1050.1F and
40 C.F.R. § 1502.9(c)(1), the FAA has determi ned that the above

- described procedure changes

## ATTACHMENT A

7 at MJD and HSA are not “substantial changes” to the FAA’s proposed action that are “relevant to environmental concerns,” and therefore do not require supplementation of the FEA

.

### HSA TARGETS Environmental Plug

- in Report Page 1 of 19 

# TARGETS

AEDT Environmental Plug

- in Report

For

Stennis International Airport

K HSA Bay St Louis

, Mississippi

Prepared by:

Justin Hodgins

ATO, AJV

- 114, Environmental Policy Team Office

202

- 267

- 6619

justin.ctr.hodgins@faa.gov

March 21 , 2016

### HSA TARGETS Environmental Plug

- in Report Page 2 of 19 

## Stennis International Airport ( HSA )

TARGETS Environmental Analysis Process

1. Purpose

The purpose of this report is to document the process used to analyze the noise impact of a proposed changes to instrument flight procedures at Stennis International Airport ( HSA ). Figure 1

- 1 shows the airport diagram for HSA . Th is report shows the analysi s of i nstrument flight p rocedure s at HSA using the Terminal Area Route Generation, Evaluation, and Traffic Simulation (TARGETS) Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT) Environmental Plug

- In tool. Table 1

- 1 shows the procedure name s and type s to be modele d

. Figure 1

- 2 shows the existing ILS or LOC procedure to be replaced by two of the proposed procedures

. The proposed ILS or LOC procedure s will establish a “Y” variant and a “Z” variant. The proposed ILS or LOC procedures are shown in Figure s 1

- 3 and 1

- 4. Figure 1

- 5 shows the existing RNAV procedure to be replaced by a new RNAV procedure, which is shown in Figure 1

- 6

.

### HSA TARGETS Environmental Plug

- in Report Page 3 of 19 Figure 1

- 1: Airport Diagram of HSA



### Procedure Name Procedure Type

ILS or LOC Y RWY 18 ILS or LOC

ILS or LOC Z RWY 18 ILS or LOC
RNAV (GPS) RWY 18 RNAV

Table 1 : HSA Procedures to B e M odeled

### HSA TARGETS Environmental Plug

- in Report Page 4 of 19 Figure 2

- 2 : Current Published ILS or LOC Approach Procedure

### HSA TARGETS Environmental Plug

- in Report Page 5 of 19 Figure 3

- 3 : Proposed Procedure ILSY or LOCY RWY 18

### HSA TARGETS Environmental Plug

- in Report Page 6 of 19 Figure 4

- 4 : Proposed Procedure ILSZ or LOCZ RWY 18

### HSA TARGETS Environmental Plug

- in Report Page 7 of 19 Figure 5

- 5 : Current Published RNAV Approach Procedure

### HSA TARGETS Environmental Plug

- in Report Page 8 of 19 Figure 6

- 6 : Proposed Procedure RNAV (GPS) RWY 18

### HSA TARGETS Environmental Plug

- in Report Page 9 of 19

2

. Methodology

Historic r adar t rack d ata for HSA was obtained from the FAA’s National Offload Program (NOP). Twenty Eight days of radar track data totaling 347 tracks were selected for the HSA analysis representing a range of temperature and wind conditions as well as being representative of the average runway us age

. The dates selected for this project were the following:

01/01/2015

01/12/2015

01/25/2015

02/18/2015

03/15/2015

03/28/2015

04/11/2015 04/28/2015

05/05/2015

05/29/2015

06/06/2015

06/18/2015

06/25/2015

07/10/2015 07/24/2015

08/15/2015

08/23/2015

09/19/2015

09/26/2015

09/28/2015

10/0 5/2015 10/19/2015

11/10/2015

11/16/2015

11/28/2015

11/30/2015

12/17/2015

12/20/2015

These dates represent average traffic counts and traffic flows through various seasons and peak travel times for HSA . Historical r adar t rack data ( Figure s 2

- 1 and 2

- 2) was used to create a b aseline n oise

e xposure, which provides lateral path definition, aircraft fleet mix, departure/arrival stream proportions for each runway, and day/night traffic ratios . A legend (t able 2

- 1) shows

, by color, the alt itudes of the
t rack d ata

. After the baseline scenario was built, those aircraft operations which were assigned to the proposed procedure s were modeled as flying the proposed procedure instead of their historical tracks, which
creates the alternative scena rio. Changes to the procedures involved moving waypoint STENN 1.1 nautical mile north to tie into a victor airway V

- 552. For the purpose of this report, historical track data referenced in relation to STENN refer to the ‘old’ STENN. New procedures being mo deled referenced in relation to STENN refer to the ‘new’ STENN.

For the procedures modeled for HSA, part of the proposed ILS or LOC procedure involved a change to the missed approach. All tracks that had missed their approach in the historic data gathered from NOP were modeled on the missed approach course in TARGETS. Missed approaches are difficult to model because of the tool’s difficulty in analyzing the altitude profiles of an aircraft that descends and ascends on one path within the study boundary, the refore the route for the missed approach course was created as a departure. This was done by assigning a copy of all arrivals to a departure route following the missed approach course, then doubling the number of arrivals in the alternative scenario compar ed to the baseline scenario. This created the effect of landing using the proposed arrival procedure, departing using the proposed missed approach course, and landing again using the proposed arrival procedure.

The changes in the proposed RNAV procedure c onsist of moving the holding pattern from the east side of STENN to the west side and lowering the altitude of the approaching aircraft. These changes to the RNAV procedure created a holding pattern and approach that is identical to that of the proposed IL S or LOC Z RWY 18 procedure. In order to model this procedure, one route was created to model both procedures together, and all approaching aircraft were assigned to this single route.

### HSA TARGETS Environmental Plug

- in Report Page 10 of 19

The analysis does not take into account terrain. The altitude controls of the RNAV procedures were used
to adjust the vertical profile for each modeled aircraft flying the proposed procedure. When a range of altitudes was given for a particular waypoint, the lowest point of the range was used in order to model the most conservative environmental case.

The TARGETS Environmental Plug

- in uses 0.3 n autical mile dispersion on either side of the centerline of a procedure as it s default dispersion value. In cases where the model generated by the TARGETS Flyability function tracks do not line up on the centerline of a procedure, the dispersion value is assigned using 0 .3 n autical miles on either side of the outside flyability tra cks as the guideline. For the missed approach, the dispersion was set to emulate historic flight tracks of aircraft that followed the same course described in the proposed missed approach instructions.

For this analysis no procedures were modelled for th e baseline scenario . The 28 days of flight track data were used as is to generate the baseline noise. The assumptions listed in Appendix A were used to construct the alternative scenario.

Once the b aseline and a lternative s cenarios were built, the TARGET S Environmental Plug

- in Tool was used to generate noise ou t puts for both scenarios

. The Environmental Plug

- in Tool uses the Aviation Environmental Design Tool version 2b (AEDT 2b) to calculate noise. The noise output files from AEDT 2b for both the b aseli ne and a lternative n oise e xposures consist of a series of equally spaced grid points

, each assigned a yearly day

- night average noise level (DNL) value. This data is then loaded back into TARGETS by the Environmental Plug

- in Tool , which generate s three outputs: b aseline n oise e xposure,

a lternative n oise e xposure, and n oise i mpact.

The n oise i mpact is a comparison between the b aseline and the a lternative n oise e xposure that depicts reportable and significant noise changes at all affected locations per th e criteria indicated in FAA Order 1050.1F (“Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures”) and Chapter 32 of FAA Order 7400.2K (“Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters”) . The reportable and significant noise increases and decreases (if any) are then de picted on an aerial photograph using Googl e Earth.

### HSA TARGETS Environmental Plug

- in Report Page 11 of 19 Figure 2

- 1, HSA Arrival Traffic Used in Analysis

Figure 2

- 2, HSA Departure Traffic Used in Analysis

### HSA TARGETS Environmental Plug

- in Report Page 12 of 19 Track Data Legend with Above Ground Level (AGL) and Mean Sea Level (MSL) Altitudes

Airport: XXX Field Elevation 13

AGL Altitudes MSL Altitudes Legend Colors

1000 1 013

2000 2 013

3000 3 013

4000 4 013

5000 5 013

6000 6 013

7000 7 013

8000 8 013

9000 9 013

10000 10 013

11000 11 013

12000 12 013

13000 13 013

14000 14 013

15000 15 013

16000 16 013

17000 17 013

18000 18 013

Above Above

Table 2

- 1: Legend for Baseline Arrival and Departure Traffic

### HSA TARGETS Environmental Plug

- in Report Page 13 of 19

3. Baseline Noise Exposure

TARGEST AEDT Environmental P lug

- in generates a noise exposure map using track data that graphically illustrates noise exposure around the airport using various colors to represent different DNL levels

. The b aseline

n oise e xposure is shown in Figure 3

- 1, which depicts the levels and locations of noise exposure above DNL 45 dB produced by the historical r adar t rack d ata for arrivals and departures. Table 3

- 1 is the l egend for the b aseline n oise

e xposure Figure s. The results indic ate exposure levels of DNL 4 5

- 50 dB at the outer edge of the affected area

, increasing gradually toward the runway. No ise exposures above DNL 65 dB occur only at the runway.

Figure 3

- 1, Baseline Noise Exposure in TARGETS

GEOMETRIC SHAPE COLOR DNL VALUE
No Shape None Less
SQUARE BLUE 45

– 50 dB
SQUARE LIGHT BLUE 50

– 55 dB
SQUARE GREEN 55

– 60 dB
SQUARE YELLOW 60

– 65 dB
SQUARE ORANGE 65

– 70 dB
SQUARE PINK 70

– 75 dB
SQUARE RED 75 dB OR MORE

Table 2

- 1: Legend for Noise Exposure

### HSA TARGETS Environmental Plug

- in Report Page 14 of 19

4. Alternative Noise Exposure

TARGEST AEDT Environmental P lug

- in generates an alternative noise exposure map by reassigning tracks in the baseline to fit the procedures in the alternative scenario. The a lternative n oise e xposure is shown in Figure 4

- 1, which depicts the levels and locations of the noise exposure above DNL 45 dB using the proposed proced ures

. Table 4

- 1 is the l egend for the a lternative n oise e xposure Figure s

. The results indicate exposure levels of DNL 45

- 50 dB at the outer edge of the affected area , increasing gradually toward the runway. Noise exposu res above DNL 65 dB occur only at the runway.

Figure 4

- 1, Alternative Noise Exposure for the Proposed Procedures in TARGETS

GEOMETRIC SHAPE COLOR DNL VALUE
No Shape None Less than 45dB
SQUARE BLUE 45

– 50 dB
SQUARE LIGHT BLUE 50

– 55 dB
SQUARE GREEN 55

– 60 dB
SQUARE YELLOW 60

– 65 dB
SQUARE ORANGE 65

– 70 dB
SQUARE PINK 70

– 75 dB
SQUARE RED 75 dB OR MORE

Table 3

- 1 : Legend for Noise Exposure

### HSA TARGETS Environmental Plug

- in Report Page 15 of 19

5. Comparison of Baseline and Alternative Noise Exposure



### Figure 5

- 1 shows a side

- by

- side view of the baseline and alternative scenarios

.

Figure 5

- 1, Noise Exposure changes by comparison of scenarios for the Proposed Procedures in TARGETS

### HSA TARGETS Environmental Plug

- in Report Page 16 of 19

The following tables show the results of the TARGETS AEDT Environmental Plug

- in analysis of the noise grid created to analyze noise exposure and impacts. The grid used for the study consists of an area extending 30 nautical miles (nm) in each direction of the airport . The grid is divided into points measuring .25nm.

Baseline Exposure:

%65+dB %65

-

60dB %60

-

55dB %55

- 50db %50

- 45dB %<45dB

0 0 0 0.1 0.2 99.7

The report indicates that 99.7% of the study area is exposed to less than 45dB DNL. Of the remaining study area, 0.2% is exposed to between 54

- 50dB DNL, and 0.1% is exposed to 50

- 55dB DNL.

Alternative Exposure:

% 65+dB % 65

-

60dB % 60

-

55dB % 55

- 50db % 50

- 45dB %

<45dB

0 0 0 0.1 0.2 99.7

The report indicates results identical to the baseline. 99.7% of the study area is exposed to less than 45dB DNL. Of the remaining study area, 0.2% is exposed to between 54

- 50dB DNL, and 0.1% is exposed to 50

- 55dB DNL.

IMPACT

% Red % Orange % Yellow % No Change % Green % Blue % Purple

0 0 0 100 0 0 0

The impacts measure differences between the baseline and alternative scenarios. In this case, 100% of the study area depicted no change in noise exposure. If changes had occurred , the results would be indicated graphically in the noise results. The colors listed in the above table reference the following legend for noise impac ts.

### HSA TARGETS Environmental Plug

- in Report Page 17 of 19 

## Appendix A

This document provides reference for the methodology and reasoning for track assignments used in the noise model. It lists the track data as categorized in the project, a description of each track set, and the backbone they were assigned to.

 Three procedu res were modeled:

o ILS or LOC Y RWY18

o ILS or LOC Z RWY18

o RNAV RWY 18: Proposed Revisions to RNAV RWY 18 procedure, when modelled, is essentially identical to ILS or LOC Y RWY18 in flight profile, missed approach, and holding pattern. So the modelled rev ision of ILS or LOC RWY18 was used for both itself and RNAV RWY 18.

 Tracks were separated by runway (18 and 36) and by operation (Arrival or Departure) GEOMETRIC SHAPE COLOR DNL DIFFERENCE

SQUARE PURPLE 45

- 60 DB WITH A DECREASE OF 5.0 DB OR GREATER

SQUARE BLUE 60

- 65 DB WITH A DECREASE OF 3.0 DB OR GREATER

SQUARE GREEN 65 DB OR GREATER WITH A DECREASE OF 1.5 DB OR GREATER

OVAL RED 65 DB OR GREATER WITH AN INCREASE OF 1.5 DB OR GREATER

OVAL ORANGE 60

- 65 DB WITH AN INCREASE OF 3.0 DB OR GRTEATER

OVAL YELLOW 45

- 60 DB WITH AN INCREASE OF 5.0 DB OR GREATER

### HSA TARGETS Environmental Plug

- in Report Page 18 of 19

 Because there were no proposed changes to existing departure procedures, there were no changes from the baseline to the alternative scenarios for departures from RWY 18 and departures or arrivals to RWY 36

 All the remaining tracks (i.e. RWY 18 Arrivals) were split into three categories. The ILS or LOC Y and Z assigned tracks were then copied and/or split int o subcategories according to the following criteria:

o Runway 18 arrivals: ILS or LOC Y: These tracks represent the “Y” variant, which approaches STENN at 1500. This group contains tracks that were at the lowest altitudes as they reached STENN, very close t o or below 2000ft.

 ARR:KHSA:ILSY:RW18: tracks that did not use a holding pattern and did not miss approach. These tracks were assigned to a backbone that crossed over STENN and proceeded straight to the runway.

 ARR:KHSA:ILSY:HLD:RW18: tracks that entered a holding pattern before their approach. These tracks were assigned to a backbone that crossed STENN, circled twice in a holding pattern, and then proceeded to the runway.

 ARR:KHSA:ILSY:MA01arr:RW18 : tracks that missed their approach. These tracks were assigned to a backbone that crossed over STENN and proceeded straight to the runway. They were then copied and assigned to additional backbones to replicate a missed approach

 DEP:KHSA:ILSY:MAdepartur e:RW18: the first copy of the tracks that had missed their approach. This track set is identical to the track set above (DEP:KHSA:ILSY:MAdeparture:RW18) except that it is modeled as a departure that follows the course described in the proposed procedure fo r missed approaches. The backbone connects to the third copy of the track set, modeled as a second arrival.

 ARR:KHSA:ILSY:MA02arr:RW18: the third copy of the missed approach track set. These tracks are assigned to a backbone that connects to the tracks mod eled as a departure, continuing to STENN and then entering a holding pattern that circles three times and then proceeds to land.

o Runway 18 arrivals: ILS or LOC Z: These tracks represent the “Z” variant, which approaches STENN at 2000. This group contains t racks that were at the highest altitudes as they reached STENN, above 2000.

 ARR:KHSA:ILSZ:RW18: tracks that did not use a holding pattern and did not miss approach. These tracks were assigned to a backbone that crossed over STENN and proceeded straight to the runway.

 ARR:KHSA:ILSZ:HLD:RW18: tracks that entered a holding pattern before their approach. These tracks were assigned to a backbone that crossed STENN, circled twice in a holding pattern, and then proceeded to the runway.

### HSA TARGETS Environmental Plug

- in Report Page 19 of 19  ARR:KHSA:ILSZ:MA01arr:RW18: tracks that missed their approach. These tracks were assigned to a backbone that crossed over STENN and proceeded straight to the runway. They were then copied and assigned to additional backbones to replicate a missed approach

 DEP:KHSA:ILSZ:MAdeparture: RW18: the first copy of the tracks that had missed their approach. This track set is identical to the track set above

 (DEP:KHSA:ILSZ:MAdeparture:RW18) except that it is modeled as a departure that follows the course described in the proposed procedure for missed approaches. The backbone connects to the third copy of the track set, modeled as a second arrival

 ARR:KHSA:ILSZ:MA02arr:RW18: the third copy of the missed approach track set. These tracks are assigned to a backbone that connects to the tracks model ed as a departure, continuing to STENN and then entering a holding pattern that circles three times and then proceeds to land.

o ARR:KHSA:OTHER:RW18: tracks that appeared to follow no procedure and were therefore assumed to be VFR flights. These tracks were not assigned to a backbone and are the same in the baseline and alternative models.

### MJD AEST Noise Screening Report Page 1 of 10



# Aviation Environmental Screening Tool

Report For

Picayune Municipal Airport

MJD

Picayune

, MS

Prepared by:

Name: Justin Hodgins

FAA Office: ATO, AJV

- 114, Environmental Policy Team Office

Phone Number: 202

- 267

- 6619

Email Address: Justin.ctr.Hodgins@faa.gov

Date: March 10 , 2016

### MJD AEST Noise Screening Report Page 2 of 10 

## Picayune Municipal Airport ( MJD )

AEST Environmental Analysis Process

1. Purpose

The purpose of this report is to document the process used to identify and quantify the noise impact of the proposed changes to three i nstrument a pproach p rocedures at Picayune Municipal Airport ( MJD )

. The following study was designed to test for a change in noise over noise sensitive areas as a result in adjustments to airport procedures. Th is report shows the analysis at MJD using the Aviation Environmental Screening Tool (AEST). This report refers to the existing historic flight paths as the “baseline s cenario.” and t he proposed changes to the procedure are referred to as the “alternative scenario.” Figure 1

- 1 shows an aerial view of the airport and runway at MJD

. Table 1

- 1 shows the procedure name s a brief summary of the major changes. Figure 1

- 2 shows the existing procedures at MJD

.

The proposed c hanges to e xisting Area Navigation (RNAV) approach procedures “ RNAV (GPS) RWY 18 ” primarily consists of inflight alti tude changes, but for this procedur e the required altitudes in flight will not actually be modified causing no change in the procedure from a noise modeling perspective. For the “ RNAV (GPS) RWY 36 ” procedure, the changes to inflight altitudes deal with d ecision a ltitudes,

m inimum a pproach a ltitudes, and weather minimums

. The altitude at the IAF (WISCO) will increase from at or above 1,800ft to 2,000ft . Th e changes to the procedure that could affect the noise impact are the changes to the missed approach course for each procedure. The change s will result in aircraft no longer being directed to the East, but instead being directed North from RWY36 or North via the West side of the airport from RWY18 to fix CIQYI (see figures 2

- 3 and 2

- 4 in the next section ), depending on the runway used.

The relevant proposed change to VOR

- A is a 3° change in course from 132° to 129° related to a MAGVAR change at the airport and the elimination of circling for Category D aircraft ( aircraft with approach speeds between 141

- 165 knots)

### MJD AEST Noise Screening Report Page 3 of 10 Fig ure 1

- 1: View of Picayune Municipal Airport (MJD)



### Name of Procedure Major Change Modeled

RNAV (GPS) RWY 18 Change to missed approach course

RNAV (GPS) RWY 36 Change to missed approach course

VOR A 3° change in course

from 132° to 129°

Table 1 : MJD Arrival Approaches to Be Modeled RWY 18

RWY 36

### MJD AEST Noise Screening Report Page 4 of 10 Figur e 1

- 2: MJD Existing Procedures RNAV (GPS) RW18, RNAV (GPS) RWY36, and VOR

- A

### MJD AEST Noise Screening Report Page 5 of 10

2

. Methodology

Historic Radar Track Data for MJD was obtained from the FAA’s National Offload Program (NOP). Thirty days of radar track data totaling 24 tracks (after removing obvious overflights from the track set) were used in the analysis. Days were chosen to capture seasonal weather variation and avoid days where significant thunderstorms or high winds may have affected normal operations.

The following dates were used for this analysis:

01/01/2015 01/12/2015 01/25/2015 02/18/2015 0 3/15/2015 03/28/2015 04/11/2015 04/18/2015 04/28/2015 05/05/2015 05/29/2015 05/30/2015 06/07/2015 06 /18/2015 06/25/2015 07/12/2015 08/15/2015 08/23/2015 09/19/2015 09/26/2015 09/28/2015 10/05/2015 10/16/2015 10/19/2015 10/28/2015 11/10/2015 11/16/2015 11/30/2015 12/17/2015 12/20/2015

The arrival procedures in the a lternative s cenario were created to replicate the proposed procedures. No flights in the sampled track data missed their approach, as the missed approach is rarely used. However, in order to ensure that even a very rarely used missed approach does not have a noise impact , the

a lternative s cenario was built to replicate all flights following the new missed approach procedure. The arrival procedures in the b aseline s cenario were generated in AEST automatical ly according to the sampled track data based on the following ‘bundles’:

Runway 18 Arrivals Runway 18 VOR Arrivals Runway 18 Departures Runway 36 Departures Runway 36 RNAV East Arrivals Runway 36 West Arrivals

M issed approaches are difficult to model because of the tool’s difficulty in analyzing the altitude profiles of an aircraft that descends and ascends on one path within the study border

, therefor e the route for the missed a pproach course was created as a departure. This was done by assigning a copy of all arrivals to a departure route following the missed approach course , and doubling the number of arrivals in the

a lternative s cenario compared to the b aseline s cenario . This created the effect of landing using the standard arrival procedure , departing using the missed approach course, and landing again using the standard arrival procedure

. This method is considered valid for the purpose of this project because the noise crea ted in the model would greatly exceed the noise created by aircraft following the normal missed approach course. This is because the altitude is lower in an arrival/departure that connects to the runway (ending/starting at 0ft above ground level

, respectively) as it would be in a missed approach . Additionally, the number of flights followin g the course is a conservative estimate when compared to the historical data.

### MJD AEST Noise Screening Report Page 6 of 10

The b aseline arrival routes were generated by AEST using historical track data (F igure 2

- 1)

. Arrivals to RWY 36 were split into two bundles: East arrivals and West arrivals. This was done in order to allow backbones to more accurately represent the historic flight track data. Normal departures in the a lternative

s cenario followed the s ame routes as in the b aseline s cenario. As with the arrivals in the b aseline

s cenario, these routes were generated automatically in AEST based on the historical track data. For simplicity and clarity, these routes are omitted from the images below.

The a pproach routes used in the alternative scenario were based on the official procedures. RNAV (GPS) RWY18 and RNAV (GPS) RWY36 procedures are shown together in Figure 2

- 2. The alternative missed approach course for RNAV (GPS) RWY18 directs aircraft to turn r ight and proceed directly to fix CIQYI ( Figure 2

- 3). The alternative missed approach for (GPS) RW Y36 directs aircraft to proceed directly north
to fix CIQYI and hold to the east (Figure 2

- 4).

T he b aseline and a lternat ive VOR

- A approaches to RWY 18 reflect a 3° change in course from 132° in the baseline scenario to 129° in the alternative scenario. These courses are shown together in Figure 2

- 5. The baseline is shown in red and the alternative is shown in blue.

AEST assumes that track data is representati ve of a single day. However, for this study, Thirty days of track data were used. AEST allows for adjusting the model to account for more than one day of data. In this case, annualization should be set to 3.33%. in order to properly represent an average an nual day. For this study, annualization was rounded up to 4%. b aseline s cenarios were run using only historical operations, while the a lternative s cenario was run using double the number of operations to replicate missed approaches using the method described above.

Figur e 2

- 1: Baseline s cenario arrival routes generated by AEST using historic track data

### MJD AEST Noise Screening Report Page 7 of 10

Figur e 2

- 2: RNAV (GPS) RW18 and RNAV (GPS) RWY36 a rrival p rocedures used in the a lternative scenario

### MJD AEST Noise Screening Report Page 8 of 10 Figur e 2

- 3: Proposed RNAV (GPS) RW18 Missed Approach Course

.

Figur e 2

- 4: Proposed RNAV (GPS) RW36 Missed Approach Course.

### MJD AEST Noise Screening Report Page 9 of 10 Figur e 2

- 4: The B aseline VOR

- A Procedure (red) will shift 3°, from 132° to 129°

### MJD AEST Noise Screening Report Page 10 of 10

3. Results: Comparison of Noise Exposure in Baseline and Alternative Scenarios



### Analysis of noise exposure in the b aseline s cenario shows that 100% of the stud y area is exposed to noise below Yearly Day Night Average Sound Level ( DNL ) 45 dB . These results are shown in Table 3

- 1 below. By comparison, analysis of noise exposure in the a lternative s cenario shows that 100% of the study area is still only exposed to noise below DNL 45 dB . These results are shown in Table 3

- 2 below. Figure 3

- 1 shows the grid used in the study, and graphically illustrates the results of 100% of the study area being exposed to noise below DNL 45 dB

. The grid compares the baseline and alternative scenarios and indicates the location of increases in noise, if any.

Based on this analysis using a highly conservativ e model, the proposed procedure changes will not result in any noise increase at or above DNL 45 dB

.

#Name Type DNL

65+ dB DNL 65

-

60 dB DNL 60

-

55 dB DNL 55

-

50 dB DNL 50

-

45 dB DNL

<45 dB

Grid 1 Quiet

Suburb 0 0 0 0 0 100
Overall 0 0 0 0 0 100

Table 3

- 1: Count of Points in Baseline Exposure Map . 100% of the study area is below DNL 45 dB noise exposure.

#Name Type DNL

65+ dB DNL 65

-

60 dB DNL 60

-

55 dB DNL 55

-

50 dB DNL 50

-

45 dB DNL

<45 dB

Grid 1 Quiet

Suburb 0 0 0 0 0 100
Overall 0 0 0 0 0 100

Table 3

- 2: Count of Points in Alternative Exposure Map . 100% of the study area is below DNL 45 dB noise exposure.