The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05 J.W. AIRPORT RPT 08-07-95NO. 5 8-7-95 .)ATE: AUGUST 7, 1995 Inter-Corn TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT STATUS REPORT RECOMMENDATION Receive and file. FISCAL IMPACT The City retains the acoustics consulting firm of J.J. Van Houten and Associates, Inc. for review of noise-related items. The costs for such review are annually included in the Community Development Department budget. BACKGROUND The Community Development Department currently contracts with an acoustics consultant to review the John Wayne Airport Noise Abatement Program Quarterly Reports prepared by the County of Orange. On September 21, 1987, the City Council authorized these reviews to monitor airport noise issues as a result of concern from many Tustin residents. The County is generally nine months behind in completing and transmitting quarterly reports generally resulting in a nine month lag-time before the City Council sees an evaluation of a quarterly report. A copy of both the Quarterly Report for July 1, 1994 through September 30, 1994, and the consultant's analysis is attached. Due to the unavailability of noise data during this quarter, the effect of operations at John Wayne Airport on Tustin residents cannot be accurately determined. The quarterly reports focus on noise measurements taken at Remote Monitoring Station (RMS) #7, located in Tustin. Noise data is then converted into a "Community Noise Equivalent Level." The CNEL is a cumulative measure of noise exposure over a specified period of time. Typically, CNEL measures noise exposure levels over a 24- hour period and places greater significance on noise events that occur in the evening or nighttime/early morning hours. For the Quarterly Reports, CNEL data is averaged over a quarter. City Council Report Airport Status Report August 7, 1995 Page 2 The remote monitoring station (RMS #7) in Tustin was temporarily removed from service in December 1993 due to building construction on the site. The monitor was not returned to service until late October of 1994. Consequently there is no CNEL data from this monitor for the first, second, and third quarters of 1994. The Quarterly Reports also track the number of complaints received by airport staff as well as the number of flights, type, and classification of aircraft. Information in the consultant's analysis of the 1994 Third Quarter Report focuses on these items. DISCUSSION Based on data from all quarters of the previous year (1993), the annual average CNEL at station RMS #7 was 56.7 dB. This is four- tenths (.4) of a decibel higher than the average annual CNEL of 56.3 dB for 1992. This is below the City, County and State criteria of 65 dB CNEL for residential areas. However, with RMS #7 disabled during this reporting period, the change in CNEL resulting .from operations at John Wayne Airport is unknown. Staff expects data from RMS #7 in the 1994 Fourth Quarter report which is due in a few months. During the third quarter of 1994, approximately seventy (70) Tustin noise complaints were received by John Wayne Airport. The number of complaints during the previous quarter was thirty (30). The noise consultant explained that complaints typically increase during the summer months when people want to keep their doors and windows open for ventilation. Review of complaint data from previous years confirms this trend. Although no clear correlation between CNEL and the type and mix of aircraft has been observed, John Wayne Airport tracks this information. Since the early 1970's, only Stage III aircraft have been permitted at JWA. These are the quietest Federal-Aviation Administration classification of aircraft in terms of noise generated at take-off. John Wayne Airport then classifies Stage III passenger aircraft into Class A, Class AA, and Class E. Class E aircraft produce the lowest noise levels during take-offs. However, in some cases, Class E aircraft generate more noise on arrival than Class A or Class AA. During the third quarter of 1994, the percentage of Class E aircraft increased by 4.3% compared to the second quarter of 1994. This was offset by a decrease of 3.1% in Class A aircraft and 1.2% of Class AA aircraft. Data from all quarters in 1993 reveals that City Council Report Airport Status Report August 7, 1995 Page 3 an increase in percentage of Class E aircraft did not significantly affect noise levels within Tustin. This is not surprising since there is no established correlation between an increase in Class E aircraft and increased CNEL levels. With RMS #7 disabled, even a preliminary correlation between CNEL levels and changes in percentages of Class A, AA, and E aircraft, during the first three quarters of 1994, cannot be established. CONCLUSION Since the iSsues discussed above are of considerable importance to the City of Tustin, the Community Development Department will continue to monitor airport noise issues unless otherwise directed by the City Council. _ Karen Sicoli Assistant Planner Christine A. Shin~eton Assistant City Ma?lager KS: \cc report \noi serpt, ks Attachment: Report submitted by J.J. Van Houten & Associates, Inc. J. J. VAN HOUTEN 8,: ASSOCIATES, INC. n J. Van Houten, P.E. ,uhing Engineer in Acoustics ,'id L. Wieland 'ipal Consultant June 30, 1995 Project File 2306-91 CITY OF TUSTIN Community Development Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680 Attention: Ms. Rita Westfield Subject: Review of John Wayne Airport Noise Abatement Program Quarterly Report, 3rd Quarter 1994 Reference: 1. "Data Evaluation and Aircraft Noise Impact Study for the City of Tustin," J. J. Van Houten and AssOciates, Inc., January 8, 1990 . "Noise Abatement Program Quarterly Report for the Period: July 1, 1994 through September 30, 1994," John Wayne Airport Dear Ms. Westfield: As requested, we have reviewed the referenced quarterly report for the noise abatement program at John Wayne Airport. Please note that remote monitoring station #7 in Tustin was temporarily re- moved from service on December 22, 1993 due to building construc- tion at the location. The monitor was scheduled to return to service in late October, 1994. As a result, there is no daily CNEL data for the first, second and third quarters of 1994. However, the referenced report does provide data on the number of flights during the third quarter of 1994, the classification of those aircraft, and the number of complaints received by the airport staff. We have updated the attached tables and figures accordingly. It may be noted from the tables and figures that the number of aircraft operations at John Wayne increased significantly during the third quarter of 1994, as did the number of complaints from Tustin residents. :09/Richter Avenue Suite 108 l~a'iuc. CA 92714 714.'476-0932 £4X 714/4 76-1023 AIRCRAFT NOISE CONTOURS ~ OF TUST1N Project File 2306-91 In 1988, an exterior aircraft noise monitoring effort was conducted throughout the City of Tustin by the John Wayne Airport Noise Abatement Office and by J. J. Van Houten and Associates, Inc. (Reference 1). Aircraft-generated single event noise exposure levels (SENEL's) were measured at twelve locations in Tustin over a five month period. As a result of this effort, noise contours were developed for John Wayne Airport as they impact the City of Tustin. Although the shape of the contours does not change (since flight tracks are fixed), the value of the noise contours does change with different levels of operations at the airport and different mixes of aircraft. Figure 3 provides the approximate location of the John Wayne Airport noise contours for 1990 based on measurements obtained at monitoring station M7 throughout the year. Referring to the figure, the community noise equivalent level (CNEL) ranged from 53 to 59 dB in the City of Tustin, with a CNEL of about 55 dB at station M7. No data is yet available for 1994. However, based on data through all four quarters, the aImual average CNEL at station M7 was 56.7 dB in 1993. The existing and future Phase 2 contours (based on 1993 data) are provided in Figure 4. Referring to the figure, it is estimated that in 1993 the aircraft-generated CNEL ranged from 55 to 61 dB. This is well below the'City, County, and state criteria of 65 dB for residential areas. USE OF QUIETER AIRCRAFT AT JWA As requested, we have anal.vzed the correlation between the increasing use of quieter aircraft at JWA and the change in CNEL within the City of Tustin. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) classifies aircraft into three categories based on noise levels. In order of decreasing noise levels, there are Stage I, Stage II, and Stage III aircraft. John Wayne Airport has only permitted Stage III aircraft since the early 1970's. The airport has its own classification scheme for passenger aircraft. In order of decreasing noise level, these are Class A, Class AA, and Class E aircraft. Table 1 provides the estimated number of each class of aircraft that used the airport between the first quarter of 1993 and the third quarter of 1994. Also provided is the measured average quarterly CNEL at monitoring station M7. Table 2 provides the same information, but the values have been normalized to 17,000 aircraft operations (takeoffs and landings) per quarter. In this way, a correlation can be established between the quarterly CNEL and the mix of aircraft types. J. J. VAN HOUTEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. ~ OF TUSYIN Project File 2306-91 Referring to Table 2 and Figure 5, the percentage of quieter Class E aircraft using John Wayne Airport was higher in the 3rd quarter of 1994 than throughout 1993 (about 31%). There was a decrease in Class A aircraft that was offset by an increase in the use of the quieter Class E aircraft. However, with the noise monitor temporarily disabled, it is not known what impact, if any, this change in aircraft mix had on the CNEL at RMS 7. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at 714/476-0932. Very truly yours, J. J:~VAN HOUTEN & ASSOCIATES£INC. / consumng/~ngineer in Acoustics · ll:\wp51 \reports\2300-49\23063q94 3 J. J. VAN HOUTEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. z I z 0 0 Z '1- 0 z 0 0 N 0 g :::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .................. =:::'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z ~ ~ .<,:..:.: ...:.... ::::::::::::::::::::: ':~ ~ ,~ ~ ~:~ ~ ~J ...- .. ,._. .,:..,: · i .~.~.. I ' 0 ~ 0 ~ '~ 0 ~ ~ , '~ ~ ~i~O Z~ ~ :'::::: OiO 0 0 0 0 0 O; ":0 :. , : c- O (.0 (.0 i.z'3 i.o ~ ,,~ ('3 (BP) "I~NO l Average Quarterly Aircraft CNEL, M7 ~ 6O 40 2O 1Qtr93 2Qtr93 3Qtr93 I I 4Qtr93 1Qtr94 2Qtr94 Quarter/Year 3Qtr94 ! 4Qtr94 20 LTotal Quarterly Jet Operations, M7 1 1Qtr93 2Qtr93 3Qtr93 4Qtr93 1 Qtr94 2Qtr94 3Qtr94 Quarter/Year l Average Quarterly Noise Complaints 4Qtr94 o ~0~ 0 2o > 0 1Qtr93 2Qtr93 3Qtr93 4Qtr93 1Qtr94 2Qtr94 Quarter/Year 3Qtr94 4Qtr94 Figure 2 M-7 II // /' // /2 // // II / // · ~'~/ // , 5 53 Figure 3. Approximate Location of John Wayne Airport Noise Contours, 1990 M-7 II II · II II II II 6 T ""~--- 5 6 $5 / / Figure 4. Approximate Location of John Wayne Airport Noise Contour, 1993 0 Z spuesnoql SNOIIVk:I:JclO l=lV'clOkJlV =10 kl:JBIAIFIN NOISE ABATI~IENT .PROGRAM · . .. ........ RECEIVED I , .UN -- 0 ICj~ !DiNiST_ATION · ' For the period: July 1, X~4 through September 30, 1994 '~;.' :~'..~ .': . Pr~mr~l in'accordanc$ with: AIRI~RT NOISE STANDARD STATE.OF CA~.ll~RNIA . California AdmtuistraUVe Code Title 21, Cha~..2.$i SubChapter 6: Dl~Slon of Aeronautics :Noise Standards , Submltt~ by: AtrpoR Director John ~e Airport,'Ovange County Ti~S"iS the 87th Quarterly Report submitt~ by the County of Orange in acco~n~ with the r~lfii~ments of the California Airport NoiSe Standards (California Administrative Code Ttflo.2i, C~tcr 2.5, SubChapter 6: Division of Aeronaufic, s Noise Standards). Effective Ianuary'l,' 1986, tho cdterh for defining 'Noise.Impact Are~' was changed from 70 dB to 65:. dB gommuntty ·Noise Equivalent Lovd (CNI~). Under thts criteria, the Airport haS a 'Noise nn. pa_a.krea." , . .,... · . : ; ...:.a , ", . , ' -,. . .. ...~. - , .... .t i,:-t.....~. ,' -. · ......, .. . 0 xx°s^T. SUMmary Cal~'i' 'DiVision of Aeronautics Ires ~stabl~d guideline~ in the CaliFornia State Noise Standard to Control residential area noise levels produe,~ by aircraft open~tions using thc Sta. te's'atrpora. Under those guidelines, residential noise sensitive areas exposed to an average Community Noise Equivalent Level..,(CNl~) of more than 65 dB define the 'Noise Impaef Ar~'.' Iohn Wayne Aitport'uSes tWdVe':permanent remote monitoring, stations (RMS) located in Ncwpori Beach, Sauta Aha, Tustin and Irvine W measure noise levels, at the follOwing locations: .i,'..' RMS-2: RMS-3: P, s4: RMS-5: RMS-6:, Golf Course, 3100 I/vine Ave., .Newport .Beac, h RMS-7: 20152 $.W. Birch St., Santa Aha RMS-8: .. 2139 Anniversary Lane, Newport'Beach: ::~ ' RMS-9: · 1907 Tradcwinds Lane, Newport Beach :2601 Vista del Oro, Nowport B~ach 1131 Back Bay Drive, Newport Beach 17952 Beneta Way, Tustin 1300 S. Grand Avenue, Santa Aaa 17372 Eastman Street, h-vine tLMS-2i: 223 Nam, Newport Beach RMS-22:2338 Tustin Ave., Newport Beach PdVIS-~: 1918 Santiago, Newport Beac.3 Figure 1 shows the Airport's "Noise Impact Axea" fo~ the previous year (October 1, 1993 - September 30, 1994). The Figure I .information was developed by Mestre-Greve Associates, Inc., ia consultation with John Wayne Atrpon. CNI~I'. values measured for the period, and current digitized land use information, were utlltzed to calculate acreages and number of residences withirgthe "Noise Impact ~fiav. a"r " · 'RiYJw ....... '-.," ;-. ~ 411;}/~$" · . -1- RM81 OCTOBER 1993 - SEPTEMBER 1994 65 CNEL IMPACT AREA (No. intx~ts m.o~ D.U.) .. .~ble ~ U~e Area: 10.99 acre~ or 0.018 square rnile$ Number ~ Dwea~g~: 40 dwellings units N~'nber of People: t00 (based on 2.5 people per D.U.) MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES FEBUARY 1995 ., The Airp6n tr~¢' summary for fi, is. qu~er'is shown in Tabie 1 and Figure 2 below. Air carrier operational .count histories and average d ;ally departure counts are lllus~rated in Tables 9 & I0. · . TABLE 1 ,. LANDING AND TAKEOFF OPERATIONS. · .. 'Ju v - S otembe. r. Jet Propeller Business (I) Total (2) Average Daily ~ Air~Carrier~ ~ ~ I~_tOporatio~ 6,036 1,952 1,018 46,710 .... 227 6,336' '"' 1,884 1,045 48,986 238 .,~.~.~. 1,818 1.012 46.129 2~1 18,318 · 5,654 3,075 141,825 232 67,424..: ""' 33,060 10,037 498,567 212 ,., Business jet figures in¢ludo · S% factor for ol~ratiom not ide. atifi~:l by the .Wv'A noise monitor '(2) Counts in this column ar~ based upon r~ords providcd by the locad FAA rcprcscatative..s. .! Jot Grittier Pro;) Corrier , B~eifleee Jet GA Propellor ,. . pa, 182 18318 20000 QUARI'~RLY :,~dRPO~ TRAR;IO SUMMARY (LAND,NO AND TAKEOFI:: OPERATIONS) JULY- I~m~'mVlBE~ 1994 . 4 NUMBER OF OPERATIONS IO00DO 114596 120000 COMMUNE~__NO~SE FA)ury_ ALiT ~o money,'' ~~ly ~d twelve mon~ ~mmu~ Noise ~uivdeat ~ve[ (~L) average ~r ~eh ~ffiWr ,ration ~e ~hown ~ T~le 2, while d~ly ~L vduex ~e ~hown in Tabl~ 3 ~ough 5. ~uffictent dam is indica~ by "0.0~ ~ffi~ ~ ~ ~1o. Average'$tiigle Event Noise Exposure Lsvel' ($E~EL) Values for air carrier and business jet ah'craft are shown in Tables 6 through g. For the twelve month period ending sePte~ ,bet .~0,. 1994, 40 dwelliag, uaits in 'S~ta Aha H~ghts were ia the' 'N0is,"'.e'~Impacted Area' (65 dB CNI~)'; ~here was a reduction of 3 in the number of dwelling units · in the .'Ngise Impacted Area" from the previous twelve month period ending lune 30, 1994. The State'has 'approved several aircraft noise'.level remedies for property owners in the area: the homez can' b~ acoustically insulated, purchssed'by the' County, or rezoned for 'other non-noise sensitive uses.' As part of the County's Santa Aha Heights Land Use Compatibility Program, approximately 77 general agriculture .(AT1) properties with residentisI land uses on Orchard, Acacia and Birch Streets were rezon~ for Business Park Use in October,. !986. F, ach property was individually sold and subsequently converted ~ .compatible land use. There have been 124 residences pur~ased or otherwise made compatible through the County's Purchsse Assuranc~ Program, Acoustical Insulation Program or Housing Relocation Plan. On July I/5,' 1991 the County Board of Supervisors placed a moratorium on the Saw,;a Ami'Heights Purchase Assurance Program and Acoustical Insulation Program due to :uneertainty"6f Pending FAA changes to nOiSe' abatement departure procedures, The Couuty of Orange lifted the moratorium on 'the,se programs, effective July 1, 1993. Ia September 1993, the FAA approved a grant to fund an Accelerated Acoustical Insulation Program (AAII~). .. TELEPHONE..co~'I' CALLS (.~olv- Se~tember_1994) The Airport's Access and Noise Office receive~ and investigates noise complaints from local citizem and ail other sourc, e~. During the third quarter of 1994, the Office received a total of 1,396 complaints from local citizens, a 168.0% i~cre~se from the 52(~ complaints received during td~e previous quarter and a increase of 15.4% from the 1,209 complalnt~ received during the same quarter of 1993. Figure 3 shows the local geographic area distribution of the quarterly telephone complaints, F~RE 3 QUARTERLY TELEPHOI~ COMPLNNT8 SUMMARY ,m,,,,{, M U I II I1 It II *:j: o [.., MRASURED AVERAOi5 $iNOLE'EVl]NT NOISE E,KPOSURE LEVELS . 'MD~0 · # Depn* 344 71 I B73 73 1 $ Cominatgal B7373 396 B7373 82 Norlhw~st A320 .420 15'7373 171 'I'~A M~O 236 u~! A32o 1~ B757 I USAir B7373 B757 163 Avea"a[e 100.4 count (54) Avcrugc 94. ! Count (544) Av~'ag~ 98~ Av~ge 9Z .9 AV~e Count (7I) Av~e ~.3 C~. (1) Avenge 91.9 C~t ( 1~ Av~e. ~.7 Avmage ~,6 ~ 06[) Avenge ~.~ (~I) (~) Av~g~ 95.~ Av~ge I~.6 ~nt (~s) Av~ge 95~ Av~ge ~g.9 ~t (1) Av~ge 97.4 Av~gc ~,3 C~nt (161) Dcl~rture Nol~ Monitor Station (s4) ( s~ 93.3 -' DI~ s6.1 85.6 ~.6 ~7.0 ~.s ~.5 91,7 89.8 [4.2 g4.6 ~.P ~ s3.d 8S.S ( 6~ (71) (59) (54) ~.9 '~a 0.0 ( D (D (0) ( (13) (1~) ( ~.? 9~.~ 86.6 ~?.~ 89.9 (7~) (SZ) (~) (56) g3.6 ~.4 ~.7 ss.~ ~6~ . . ~.? ~.3 ~) ~6) (x~) (XTZ) 9t.6 ~.2 84.4 S4.~ (3~) (]~) (.10) ( ~.x ~3 ~.2 S7.2 ( D (1) ( ~.o ~.~ ~.7 9~.o 95.9 94.9 17.8 87.6 (t53) 062) (1 xg) (xo~ RMS-5 RMs-6 ( 17.0 (294) 92.3 85.6 85.9 (63) (1) 86.1 (10) $$.0 84.6 (I35) 86.9 (63) 86.9 85,6 03?) 089) [5.4 (]o) 87.6 (120) 84.4 (!) 93.7 (3) 87.2 92.0 89.2 91.8 (ss) (~a). ( 043) Or3) p3a) ~,? ~1.4 (SIS) ~e) (439) a4.6 8o.7 a2.z (70) (42) ( 81,8 o.o o.o (1) (o) (o) 85.8 81.1 ~2.6 06]) ()o~ (11 l) ~5,7 ~.6 12.~ 86.6 82.4 ~.0 84.9 8X.9 11.9 (16~ (141) (15~ ~.3 88.5 91 86.8 82.9 83.5 (I3~ (1~) (134) 81.6 0.0 $2.6 91.9 86.7 ~.9 (3) (3) (3) ~6,0 84.9 (161) (153) (151) * # Deps equafe the number of aircraft departure operation SENEL values measured at o,¢ or more departure ~ati0uS. Not every'departure is measured at ever)' monitor. ~o~ K44-43 ..~n?t~ -9- ~74 ~ ~qa~e,ri~n BT~ 795 B'7Y7 . 336 Sombw~t 11'13'/2 17~ 70 Dcpa~m Noise Monitor Station RMS-I 1~M$-2 RM~.~I COMM~C~AY?' ' CiusE _ -- -- - - mm i ~M$.22 1:0~1'$.24 RM$-4 RMS-$ RMS-6 · ^ven~ 92.6 923 89.$ 8t.2 $4.7 85.9 count 00~) O~0) ~) 0 w) ' (is4) Avmgo ~,4 ~.6 88.9 · 83,8 ~4.4 84.4 ., Ave~g~ ~ 91 .~ tD~ 84.4 84,9 86.4 Av~ge 9lJ ~.0 BS~ ~'7 83.3 82.8 Average 9~ d 9X.7 19.7 ~. 1 15.6 ~,4 Av~gc 91.0 ' 91 ~ 88.8 S3 3 ~2.6 83.1 AY~N~ ~.4 ~.2 19.7 ~.1 84.6 ~t (1~) .(l~) CITI) (X3~ (X~) (143) Av~ge ~.4 ~ S~.~ ~. 1 84.0 84.3 co~t (lO~ O~) (I~) ( ~ ( 6~ < Avenge ~.8 ~.7 ~.8 85.8 86.7 86.6 Av~e 93.0 ~l~ ~ ~.6 ~3.9 Cou~ ~) ~) ~) ~!) ~o) ~9) 84.5 81.2 $1.9 C20o) 061) 094) 82.2 I 1.9 82.4 (6SS) C2a2) (~07) 84.8 ~.6 ~.2 79.6 85~ ~.6 80.4 (171) (1~5) (124) 83.1 ~1.6 ~.6 S4.7 S{.X a{.4 83.5 80.9 ~.0 (~) (~9) (94) ~6~ ~.3 82.2 $3.T ~.7 82.5 ~m Nois~ Monitor Station RMS.3 ILM$*2I RM.T,:22 RMS-24 RMS~ RM~-5 IOK$-6 Alaska B7~74 242 Average 90.1 90.5 88.3 84.5 84 .2 S4 .'7 84.1 $ 1.3 s3.0 Count (242) (229) ('241) (183) (164) (ISS) C239) (171) t'22s) Amsfi~ W#X 1r7373 .579 Averege 90.2 90.4 88.0 83.3 ~.2 84.9 84.2 80.6 11.2 Co~nx (ST~) (S49) (577) (44S) (409) (~3) ($67) C293) (~) ~hwc~,t B7~73 l 0fir9 ^VOugc 92.0 qlr2.1. 88.7 84.0 84.5 8~.0 84.2 80.7 11 .S Count (1077) 0017) (1079) ~$3) (795) (883) (10.56) (698) 0147) United B757 '731 Average 89.11 19.7 S7.9 81.9 82.5 S3.8 ~.3 mo.7 81.9 count (7~) (6S~ (TSO) ($?!) (faO) (~ga) (6es) (~,~) (607) iq l~s exlua~ls thc number of aircraft dcpartur~ operation SENEL values mea, ure~l at one or m<,~ d=parture noisc monitor statlon~, Not every d~parturc is measured at every monitor. -I0- CO~R TAm.,E 8 MEASURED AVERAOB SII~I'OI.~ EVENT NOI,SE .~OSU~ ~VE~ , Dopatm~ Noise Monitor Station '~ dB AC Ty~ # D~,* RM$-I RMS-2 AMs-3, RMS-4 RMs-5 RMS.6 · , . (Ameti. 'can Ave~.~o 81.S 81,;~ 82.1 7S~.S 81.;~ 0.0 Count (2O) (12) (10) (2) (l) (0) $W4 9 AVerage 77.6. 80.9 82.2 0.0 80.8 0.0 Count (2) (4) (2) (o) (~) (o) El20 6 Avia 79,3 80.0 82,4 0.0 0,0 0.0 Cotmt (6) (2) (I) (O) (O) (O) BA.31 6 Avm'tg¢ 81,4 78,6 80.9 0.0 0.0 0,0 Count (4) (2) (4) (0) (0) (O) BA.3! 28 Avarage 79,9 75.7 82.! $0.3 83.5 81.! corot (12) (6) (12) (2) (l) (2) . .GEN'ET~T..AVIATION D~~ Noise Monitor Station dB SEN'EL #Dcps'*, RMS-1 RMS.2 RMS-3 RMS-.4 RMS-5 RM$-6 Avorag¢ 91.1 90.0 91.9 86.a 84.6 87.2 Count (1146) (1078) (11:38) (650) (245) (386) '* noil~s# equals the number of aircraft dcpartum open'ation SF..N~ valu¢,s me. asure~ at one or more dcl~a-ture monitor ~,ations. Not every departure is maaaut~ at ev~ry monitor. -11-