City of Palm Springs Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration Revision

CITY OF PALM SPRINGS INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION REVISION

Palm Springs International Airport Master Plan Update

City of Palm Springs Department of Planning Services 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, California 92262

HNTB Corporation LSA Associates, Inc September 2015

[This page is left intentionally blank]

PALM SPRINGS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE INITIAL STUDY REVISION

CITY OF PALM SPRINGS

INITIAL STUDY – REVISION

A. Project Title:

Palm Springs International Airport Master Plan Update

B. Lead Agency Name and Address:

City of Palm Springs Department of Planning Services 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, California 92262

C. Contact Person and Phone Number:

Flinn Fagg, AICP Director of Planning Services Phone: (760) 323-8269

D. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of Palm Springs Department of Aviation Palm Springs International Airport Suite OFC 3400 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262

E. General Plan Designation: Airport Public/Quasi-Public

F. Zoning: A: Airport CU: Civic Uses

G. Project Location:

City of Palm Springs (City) at 3400 East Tahquitz Canyon Way, Assessor Parcel Numbers 502- 100-013, 502-100-024, 502-100-026, 502-100-027, 502-100-028, 502-100-029, 502-100-031, 502-100-032, 502-100-033, 502-100-034, 502-210-023, 677-270-019, 677-270-020, 677-270- 022, 677-270-029, 677-280-010, 677-280-029, 677-280-030, 677-280-040, and 677-280-042. The project site includes three separate sections of Palm Springs International Airport (PSP or Airport) and City property. The northernmost portion abuts North Civic Drive west of Aviation Road. The central portion is generally east of El Cielo Road and south of a line even with Livmor Avenue, extending southerly to near Bradshaw Lane, then easterly and southeasterly toward

September 2015 Page 1 of 7 PALM SPRINGS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE INITIAL STUDY REVISION

Ramon Road. This central portion of the project also includes City property on the northwest corner of the intersection of El Cielo Road and East Baristo Road. The third portion is at the southeastern end of the airport’s main runway, 13R-31L, near the northeast corner of the intersection of Ramon Road and Gene Autry Trail; however, there is no longer any action proposed in this area under the revised plan. The regional and project location on a topographical base map is shown in Figure 1 of the Initial Study and the project site with aerial features is shown in Figure 2 of the Initial Study. Existing airport features are shown in Figure 3 of the Initial Study.

H. Purpose of Addendum and Regulatory Background

This document is an Addendum to the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Palm Springs International Airport Master Plan Update (MPU). Specifically, this is an Addendum to the Initial Study of January 2014 (State Clearinghouse #2002071114). The MPU was reviewed by the City Council on November 5, 2014. The following requests for revision were made: avoid modification of the west façade of the terminal; conduct all car rental expansion north of the terminal; and, retain the Baristo Road connection to Kirk Douglas Way. The Council also made a point of expressing support for relocating the USO facility back into the terminal upon expansion. Revisions to the MPU were made according to Council request and the revised MPU was presented to the Council on March 4, 2015 and received unanimous support. This addendum addresses the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) implications of those revisions.

To comply with the CEQA (Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.) and State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Sections 15000 et seq., hereinafter referred to as “Guidelines”), the MPU was reviewed to determine applicability of Section 15073.5, Recirculation of a Negative Declaration Prior to Adoption. No new, avoidable significant effects were identified and the proposed mitigation measures have not been determined to be inadequate. Further discussion of impacts and mitigation follows the Project Description.

I. Project Description:

The City of Palm Springs is requiring improvements at Palm Springs International Airport (PSP) as identified in the MPU. This project consists of improvements to the passenger terminal building and to landside facilities and areas, including rental car facilities and parking. This project description (as shown in Figure 1-Updated) replaces that found in the full Initial Study (as shown in Figures 4 and 5).

Essential terminal improvements include:

 Reconfigure the interior of the public ticketing area to increase circulation and passenger queue space and accommodate future air passenger forecast demand;  Construct an accessory stand-alone building behind the Terminal to accommodate relocated Airline Ticket Offices (ATO); and  Extend Terminal building to allow for expanded baggage claim devices and segregate car rental counter operations.

September 2015 Page 2 of 7 PALM SPRINGS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE INITIAL STUDY REVISION

Proposed landside improvements include:

 Reconfigure and expand the existing ready/return (R/R) lot to accommodate additional ready/return stalls and integrate Quick Turn Around (QTA) operations; and  Reconfigure and expand vehicle parking areas along Kirk Douglas Way.

Terminal Improvements Justification

The ticketing area at PSP, located in the south wing of the terminal, provides insufficient passenger queue and self-service kiosk space in front of the ticket counters, which causes congestion, inefficient passenger flow and throughput, and creates conflicts between overlapping of independent airline queues. As detailed in the MPU, the ticket counter area, queuing area and circulation area are already insufficient, and by 2018, the ticket counter length would be deficient by 34 linear feet and the total ticketing area will be deficient by 1,286 square feet. The project reconfigures the public ticketing area by pushing ticket counters back (to the east) and reducing Airline Ticketing Office (ATO) space inside the terminal, which would increase the additional space for ticketing circulation area width from 29 feet to 45 feet.

The space allocated for ATO operations would be reduced from approximately 12,846 square feet to approximately 7,620 square feet, and to accommodate displaced ATO functional space (storage, break room, training areas), the project would construct an approximate 5,250 square foot building outside just east of the existing terminal building. The baggage claim area, located in the north wing of the terminal, currently lacks adequate space for efficient public baggage retrieval and airline unloading which causes baggage handling inefficiencies and congestion. The area includes rental car customer service queue lines and a general passenger circulation corridor. The baggage claim devices currently have insufficient frontage to accommodate demand, and passenger circulation in the area causes extended retrieval times and congestion during peak times. The problem is compounded when the rental car counters are processing customers adjacent to the belts. According to the MPU, the deficiency in baggage claim frontage linear feet necessitated another baggage claim in 2013 for a total of four devices, and a total of five devices in 2018. Passenger circulation space in the area is currently deficient as well, and will grow in deficiency as enplanements increase through 2018. The project is to extend the existing baggage claim devices to provide an additional 450 linear feet of frontage, made possible by constructing an approximate 60-foot building addition to the north to accommodate displaced rental car counters. The expanded building area would total approximately 8,425 square feet. In addition, the extension would allow relocation of the USO back within the terminal.

Landside Improvements Justification

On-airport rental car facilities include the customer service area (rental counters) adjacent to the baggage claim area inside the terminal, the ready / return (R/R) parking lot located adjacent to the north wall of the baggage claim area, and the remote rental car service, storage, fueling and maintenance facilities located along North Civic Drive. Rental car facilities are configured in a

September 2015 Page 3 of 7 PALM SPRINGS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE INITIAL STUDY REVISION way that cannot adequately handle the current demand and creates inefficient operations. These inefficiencies will compound considerably predicated on the 2018 and 2028 forecast demand. Rental car maintenance and service facilities are located remotely from the R/R lot, which requires rental car providers to employ staff to shuttle returned vehicles to the maintenance facility and to drive serviced vehicles back to the ready lot. The shuttling of rental cars between the facilities creates operational inefficiencies for the rental car providers, more foot traffic by employees into the congested baggage claim area, and additional traffic congestion for other airport vehicle roadway circulation. Vehicular traffic congestion is compounded due to inadequate queue space available for serviced rental cars waiting for available ready spaces.

The project would consolidate the rental car R/R and create new QTA facilities within the footprint of the current R/R surface lot. A multi-level (2- to 3-story) parking garage will be required to house both the R/R and QTA operations. The heavy vehicle maintenance operations would remain in their current location along North Civic Drive. Rental car operators will only need to shuttle the vehicles that require maintenance between the remote and ready/return area, but at a much reduced rate. The landside improvements will meet long-term rental car facility requirements identified in the MPU.

The current R/R surface lot is surrounded by the terminal, airside, and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) facility attached to an abandoned hangar. The expansion of the rental car facilities will require the demolition of the hangar building and the relocation of the CBP facility.

The project also includes reconfiguration and expansion of existing parking areas along Kirk Douglas Way to accommodate anticipated parking needs. The existing Commercial Vehicle Hold Lot (1.55 acres), Employee Parking Lot (1.4 acres/180 stalls) and Overflow Parking lot (8 acres/1,000 stalls) would all be expanded and a new 3.35-acre public parking lot would all be added on existing Airport property along Kirk Douglas Way.

Estimated Project Construction Schedule

The estimated start date of the terminal improvement program is summer 2017, and the anticipated duration of the program is approximately 18 months. The expansion of the terminal building near the baggage claim wing can be accomplished in the rental car R/R lot with minimal short-term loss of parking. Reconfiguration of the ticketing wing would start with the construction of the accessory exterior ATO building, with construction staging occurring in the parking area located immediately south of the ticketing wing. Construction vehicle haul routes would consist of existing on-Airport and off-Airport public roads.

The estimated start date of the landside improvement program is as early as late 2016, and the anticipated duration of the program is approximately 18 months. Construction of the expanded rental car R/R parking garage and QTA facilities would include the following phases: (1) relocate CBP; (2) demolish existing hangar and CBP building; (3) relocate and reconfigure rental car R/R facilities to construct a parking structure; and (4) construct QTA facilities. Construction vehicle haul routes would utilize existing on- and off-Airport roadways. The reconfiguration of parking

September 2015 Page 4 of 7 PALM SPRINGS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE INITIAL STUDY REVISION facilities along Kirk Douglas Way would be staged on-site and utilize Kirk Douglas Way for haul routes.

J. Comparison to Previously Reviewed Project:

The MPU recommended an Immediate Action Alternative, which was refined as the Rental Car North and Rental Car South alternatives presented in the IS. The revised MPU recommended alternative, reflected in Section I, Project Description, more closely aligns with the landside improvements in the Rental Car North Alternative, described in the IS. Terminal improvements were consistent in both the Rental Car North and Rental Car South alternatives. Previous elements of the MPU no longer under consideration include:

a. Airside Improvements

 Provision of a Runway Safety Area (RSA) and Runway Object Free Area (ROFA) for Runway 13R-31L in compliance with FAA Airport Design Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5300-13A. This element was removed from the MPU because of revised FAA standards.

b. Terminal Improvements

 Expansion of the west façade of the terminal in the public ticketing area. This element was removed from the project to avoid impacts to a locally-designated Class 1 historic feature.

c. Landside / Ground Transportation Improvements

 Reconfiguration of the airport entrance of East Baristo Road. Impacts to traffic circulation will remain less than significant with the elimination of this element.

d. Rental Car South Alternative

 The Rental Car South alternative included an arrangement of landside facilities that is no longer under consideration.

K. Review of Environmental Factors

No revisions to the conclusions associated with the following topic areas are required based on evaluation of the revised MPU. Discussion regarding the Rental Car South Alternative may be disregarded and that regarding Rental Car North may be considered applicable to the MPU carried forward. Mitigation measures for these topics are unaltered:

 Aesthetics

 Agricultural Resources

 Air Quality

 Biological Resources

September 2015 Page 5 of 7 PALM SPRINGS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE INITIAL STUDY REVISION

 Geology/Soils

 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

 Hydrology and Water Quality

 Mineral Resources

 Noise

 Population and Housing

 Public Services

 Recreation

 Utilities and Service Systems

Conclusions are altered for the following environmental factors:

 Cultural Resources and Mandatory Findings of Significance— Impacts to the terminal’s historic significance will be reduced as a result of project revisions. Mitigation Measures CUL-1 shall be modified to read: “Construction should utilize historically accurate materials and be designed and constructed in a manner that is compatible with and sympathetic to the original design and remaining similar features.” Mitigation Measure CUL-2 is no longer required because the revised MPU would not result in the impacts to the west façade of the terminal that this mitigation measure addresses. MM CUL-3, which addresses archaeology, would still be required to address impacts to those resources, as would MM CUL-4, which addresses impacts to human remains.

 Land Use and Planning— On May 8, 2014, the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission found the MPU to be consistent with the 2005 Palm Springs International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Therefore, MM LU-1 has already been implemented.

 Transportation/Traffic—The Draft MPU, May 2011, noted an increase in projected traffic at the intersection of Baristo Road, El Cielo Road, and Kirk Douglas Way reaching Level of Service (LOS) F during the project lifetime.1 Because this was perceived to be non-airport generated traffic, closure of the Baristo Road crossing was proposed as a means for reducing congestion on Kirk Douglas Way on airport property. Traffic impacts in the circulated Initial Study were shown as “less than significant” because the closure solved any otherwise

1 HNTB, Inc., Palm Springs International Airport Master Plan Update, December 2012, Tables 4-22 and 4- 24.

September 2015 Page 6 of 7 PALM SPRINGS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE INITIAL STUDY REVISION

potential LOS impact under item XV-b. However, the City Council request to retain the existing configuration of the intersection raised the specter of a potentially significant impact. Nevertheless, anecdotal observations of low traffic levels at the intersection conflicted with the data. Upon further analysis, it was determined that the traffic counts for the Kirk Douglas Way entrance as shown in the 2011 Draft MPU were a modeled estimate based on actual traffic counts at other nearby intersections. The City subsequently collected traffic counts at the intersection on February 21, 2013, and found 296 peak hour vehicles utilizing Kirk Douglas Way from the intersection with El Cielo Road.2 By contrast, the MPU had projected 570 peak hour vehicles by 2013, a much higher figure than the actual count that was taken that year. Using the same projected growth over the life of the project as the MPU (85%) but applying it to the actual count figure from 2013 results in a figure of 545 peak hour trips. Roadway capacity at LOS C is shown as 570 vehicles per hour; therefore, the connection would not drop below LOS C regardless of project or street closure. No mitigation is required and the determination remains that the project has a less than significant impact in regard to the Congestion Management Agency’s LOS standard.

 Noise—The project does not have the potential to change noise caused by aircraft overflights. However, updated noise exposure contours representative of existing conditions (2015) and forecast conditions (2020) have been prepared and are included in Appendix C- Noise Modeling Technical Report (Updated 2015 and 2020 Noise Exposure Contours).

2 Counts Unlimited, Inc., February 21, 2013.

September 2015 Page 7 of 7 Source: HNTB Analysis On-Airport Building Existing Employee Parking Existing Curbside Recommended Alternative Existing Terminal Building Potential Employee Parking Airport Property Line Existing View Axis Potential On-Airport Building Development Potential Commercial Vehicle Hold Lot Figure 1 - Updated Existing Rental Car Facility Potential Reconfigured / New Public Parking Existing CNG Station Palm Springs International Airport 0 500' Potential Rental Car Facility Existing Public Parking Master Plan APPENDIX C Noise Modeling Technical Report (Updated 2015 and 2020 Noise Exposure Contours)

This page is left intentionally blank. Palm Springs International Airport Noise Modeling Technical Report APPENDIX C Noise Modeling Technical Report

C.1 Background and Methodology

A noise analysis was undertaken for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) using FAA-required methodologies. Noise exposure contours representing Existing (2015) and Future (2020) conditions have been developed and the resulting contours have been overlaid on land use base maps.

The Master Plan Update (MPU) for Palm Springs International Airport (PSP) determined that both existing runways met near and long term needs, and as such, the Existing (2015) conditions noise exposure contour represents existing conditions, while the Future (2020) condition noise exposure contour represents a future condition with or without the proposed projects. Because the proposed projects associated with the MPU do not affect the runways or taxiways, there no potential changes associated with implementation of the proposed projects. This technical appendix provides a summary of the input data used to model aircraft noise exposure and the results of the noise analysis for the Existing (2015) and Future (2020) conditions.

C.1.1 Noise Modeling Methodology

The noise modeling methodology considered in this noise analysis is consistent with noise modeling of aircraft operations as required by the FAA. This study uses the Integrated Noise Model (INM), version 7.0c1, averages operations using an average annual day (AAD), and presents noise in terms of the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) noise metric.

C.1.1.1 Integrated Noise Model (INM)

Since 1978, the INM has been the FAA’s primary tool for modeling noise exposure in the vicinity of an airport. INM is used to determine noise exposure resulting from changes near an airport such as a runway extension or changes in runway configurations; analyzing the impact of increases in operations or changes in aircraft fleet mixes; evaluating changes in flight track location or frequency of use; and analysis of aircraft flight performance (i.e. profiles) and changes that may occur.

INM uses an average annual day of operations to compute existing and forecast noise exposure. Input data includes the aircraft fleet, the time of day of operations, the runway

1 This analysis uses the version of INM (INM version 7.0c) that was the most up‐to‐date upon initiation of the study.

Noise Modeling Technical Report C-1 Appendix C Palm Springs International Airport Noise Modeling Technical Report orientation and layout, representative noise model flight tracks and their respective utilization, aircraft performance data, and weather and terrain input data. INM’s noise computational engine algorithms are based on international guidance documents, including “Procedures for the Calculation of Airplane Noise in the Vicinity of Airports” (SAE-AIR-1845).

C.1.1.2 Average Annual Day

Noise exposure is calculated based on an AAD of operations. AAD operations are representative of all aircraft operations that occur over the course of a year, averaged over 365 days. In addition to operations, runway use, flight track use, and weather are also averaged. In this study, AAD operations consist of the number of aircraft operations, including departures and arrivals, by daytime, evening, and nighttime operations.

C.1.1.3 Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL)

The CNEL is the noise metric used by the State of California to assess cumulative (i.e., multiple aircraft events) community noise in the vicinity of airports. While the FAA uses the methodologically similar Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) metric for noise analyses throughout the United States, the FAA accepts use of the CNEL metric for federal aviation noise assessments in California. Therefore, in this technical report, aircraft noise is reported in CNEL. CNEL is the 24-hour, logarithmic- (or energy-) average, A-weighted sound pressure level with a 5-decibel penalty applied to “evening” aircraft events and a 10-decibel penalty applied to “nighttime” aircraft events. For the purposes of the CNEL metric, daytime is defined as 7:00 a.m. to 6:59 p.m., evening is defined as 7:00 to 9:59 p.m., and nighttime is defined as 10:00 p.m. to 6:59 a.m.

The 5 dB and 10 dB increases during evening and nighttime hours, respectively, are intended to account for the added intrusiveness of aircraft noise during time periods when ambient noise due to vehicle traffic and other sources is typically less than during the daytime, and when people are more likely to be in their homes. CNEL differs from DNL in that DNL does not add a 5-dB penalty to evening operations.

C.1.2 Previous PSP Noise Studies

A number of previous noise analyses have been conducted at PSP, and were considered as part of this study. The City of Palm Springs initially completed a 14 CFR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study in 1987, and updated both the noise exposure maps (NEM) and noise compatibility program (NCP) in 1994/1995. A voluntary acquisition program, sound insulation program, and avigation easement program were instituted following FAA approval of the NCP. The 1999 NCP noise contour was used as the basis of mitigation. Figure C-1 presents the 1999 NCP noise contour and includes the areas which were offered mitigation in that study. Two measures implemented under that study are relevant in terms of land use compatibility: voluntary acquisition of property and sound Insulation.

Land Use Measure 12 (Sound Insulation) identified sound insulation eligibility boundaries based on the CNEL 65 dB noise contour. 128 residential homes north of the airport were identified as

Noise Modeling Technical Report C-2 Appendix C Palm Springs International Airport E Racquet Club Rd

l 128 residential homes eligible/participated

D E Via Escuela

r in sound insulation program

E Vista Chino

3 R Two single-family homes and three vacant lots eiligible/participated in voluntary acquisition program

E Tachevah Dr C UV111

i 1

t 3

o L 6 s 5

D C

N Escena r E Tamarisk Rd E Golf Club

u r

n E Alejo Rd

r N

e r

i l

s G

D e

n W r e

a A

y u t ry T ra i E l

l Agua Caliente

C Elementary School

i R E Tahquitz Canyon Way E Tahquitz Canyon Way e 1

l 3

R d

E Baristo Rd Kirk Douglas Way Palm Springs L Sunrise 31 Park High School

E Ramon Rd

Cielo Vista L Charter School u

Four single-family homes, one i

apartment and four vacant lots R e

eiligible/participated in y

voluntary acquisition program D r

Copyright:© 2013 ESRI, i-cubed, GeoEye LEGEND Figure C-1 1999 NCP 65 CNEL Noise Contours Commercial 1999 NCP 65 CNEL Noise Exposure Contour Industrial 1999 NCP Voluntary Acquisition Program Sources: Riverside County GIS, ESRI. 1999 NCP Sound Insulation Program Public / Institutional Residential Vacant Feet Agricultural Airport Property 0 500 1,000 2,000 ´ Park / Open Space Palm Springs International Airport Noise Modeling Technical Report eligible. The sound insulation program was closed out in 2004, and according to the Airport, all homeowners were either mitigated or offered participation in the program.

A voluntary acquisition program identified two single-family homes and three vacant lots to the north of the airport, north of East Vista Chino and bordering Park View Drive and Sharon Road. To the south, four single-family homes, one apartment building, and four vacant lots were identified for participation, south of East Ramon Road in the blocks between Vella Road and Santa Cruz. All have been acquired and remain vacant.

In 2003, an update to the Master Plan resulted in the development of existing and projected noise exposure contours. Riverside County completed an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) in 2004, and the City of Palm Springs completed a General Plan in 2007, which included the noise analysis from the 1995 Part 150. Where applicable, data from these studies was used to supplement data obtained as part of this analysis.

C.1.3 Data Sources

A number of data sources were accessed for the development of the noise exposure contours for PSP.

 The FAA Air Traffic Activity System (ATADS) contains the official air traffic operation counts available for public release. It provides operation counts by category, such as air carrier, air taxi, general aviation, and military. Operation counts are available for such facilities as airports, airport traffic control towers (ATCT), and Terminal Radar Approach Control Facilities (TRACON).

 Performance Data Analysis and Reporting System (PDARS) radar data provided by the FAA for operations that occurred at PSP for four one-week periods in 2011. The time periods selected were identified to capture seasonal variations due to weather. The radar flight path information was processed and used to develop runway use assumptions, representative flight tracks, and the associated track use of those tracks. These time periods included:

o February 13, 2011 through February 20, 2011; o May 15, 2011 through May 22, 2011; o August 14, 2011 through August 21, 2011; and o November 13, 2011 through November 20, 2011.

 U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) T100 data consists of U.S. domestic and international flight data reported by both U.S. and foreign air carriers. Trip distance information required for use in the noise model can be obtained from T100.

 Traffic Flow Management System Counts (TFMSC), compiled by the FAA Air Traffic Airspace Lab, provides operation counts for airports within the system based on the

Noise Modeling Technical Report C-3 Appendix C Palm Springs International Airport Noise Modeling Technical Report

airport or city pairs, grouped by aircraft type or by hour. The input data used to generate TFMSC reports comes from flight plans filed by general aviation pilots, airlines, military and commercial aviation pilots. TFMSC data was formerly referenced as ETMS-C data.

 The Operations Network (OPSNET) is the official FAA air traffic operations and delay data. It collects aviation activity data from all air traffic control (ATC) facilities except flight service stations. As a result, depending on data reporting agencies, OPSNET provides traffic counts handled by airports, ATCTs, TRACON, Air Route Traffic Control Centers (ARTCC), and Combined Enroute Radar Approach Controls (CERAP). Since the reported traffic bears a time stamp, it can be used to study traffic delay and identify night-time operations for noise analysis purposes.

 PSP provided fuel sales data for military aircraft for portions of 2013 and 2014. This data was used to validate the military aircraft that were reported on the TFMSC data.

 Assumptions on growth factors of aircraft as indicated in the MPU forecast.

C.2 2015 Existing Condition and Noise Exposure

This section provides information on the input data and noise exposure for the existing (2015) conditions.

C.2.1 Palm Springs International Airport (PSP) Input Data

The noise model requires a set of detailed input data reflecting the current operating environment at PSP. This includes the number, layout and use of runways; the number, frequency and type of operations; the location and use of representative flight tracks; and meteorological and terrain data. The following sections describe the input data collected and analyzed for use in modeling noise exposure contours for PSP.

C.2.1.1 Facilities and Runways

PSP maintains two runways: Runway 13R-31L is approximately 10,000 feet in length, and Runway 13L/31R measures 4,952 feet in length. The Airport is classified as a primary commercial service airport under the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). The terminal, customs, fire station, one Fixed Base Operator (FBO), and aircraft hangars are located to the west of Runway 13R-31L. A second FBO and additional aircraft hangars are located to the east and southeast of Runway 13L-31R. No runway at PSP is equipped with an Instrument Landing System (ILS) or any other precision instrument approach equipment. Figure C-2 presents the layout of facilities at PSP.

C.2.1.2 Meteorological Conditions

The noise model allows for the modeling of atmospheric conditions in the calculation of noise exposure, taking into consideration temperature and humidity. Temperature is an important factor in aircraft performance, as higher temperatures decrease the density of air, which

Noise Modeling Technical Report C-4 Appendix C Palm Springs International Airport

E Vista Chino

1 3

3,000' Displaced Threshold L for Rwy 13R Arrivals

Escena

R Golf Club u n w

N a

F y

a r 1

r 3 e R

l L l

u / D n 3

E Alejo Rd r 1 w R a N y G e n 1 4 e 3 , A R 9 u / 5 tr 3 2 y 1 ' T r L x a 7 il General 5 1 ' Aviation 0 ,0 0 1 ' x 1

E 5

l 0

C '

i Agua Caliente

l o

R Elementary School R 1 E Tahquitz Canyon Way d 3 Terminal Building and Gates General Aviation

E Baristo Rd Kirk Douglas Way L 31 Sunrise Palm Springs Park High School 1,500' Displaced Threshold E Ramon Rd for Rwy 31L Arrivals Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community LEGEND Figure C-2 Existing Airside Facilities Airport Property Sources: Riverside County GIS, ESRI.

Feet 0 335 670 1,340 ´ Palm Springs International Airport Noise Modeling Technical Report increases aircraft takeoff distance and reduces climb performance. This generally results in increased noise propagation in hot temperatures, as compared to colder temperatures.

Weather conditions for a 12-month period in 2013 and 2014 were used for the Existing (2015) condition, and include an average temperature of 76.8 degrees Fahrenheit, 29.91 in-Hg, and 30.1% humidity.

C.2.1.3 Terrain

Terrain data provided by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is used to account for effects that variations in terrain can have on noise propagation. Terrain data was obtained from the USGS.

C.2.1.4 Fleet Mix

The types of aircraft in use at PSP were derived from TFMSC data, while the number of operations conducted on an annual basis where derived from ATADS data by aircraft category. The OPSNET report provided the necessary information to identify and calculate the day/evening/night distribution of aircraft operations and the T-100 data was used to determine the trip distance (stage length) of the departing commercial service and general aviation aircraft.

Table C.1 depicts total aircraft operations at PSP between 2005 and 2014.

Table C.1 PSP Aircraft Operations, 2005-2014

Calendar Year Total Operations

2005 93,076 2006 94,078 2007 84,868 2008 77,837 2009 70,811 2010 64,495 2011 58,599 2012 57,664 2013 54,470 2014 57,061 Source: FAA Air Traffic Activity System (ATADS), 2015.

Historically, a majority of operations at PSP were flown by GA aircraft. However, Air Carrier and Air Taxi operations now primarily comprise of over 50% of operations. Military operations accounted for 1,862 operations annually in the existing condition. Table C.2 provides an historic breakdown of the types of operations flown at PSP.

Noise Modeling Technical Report C-5 Appendix C Palm Springs International Airport Noise Modeling Technical Report

Table C.2 PSP Airport Operations by Category, 2005-2014 Itinerant Operations Local Operations Calenda Grand Total r Year Air Carrier Air Taxi GA Military GA Military

2005 10,131 23,723 42,401 602 16,069 150 93,076 2006 10,249 24,852 43,423 1,058 14,246 250 94,078 2007 11,566 24,344 34,739 1,099 13,058 62 84,868 2008 11,424 25,837 27,729 1,206 11,597 44 77,837 2009 11,319 19,753 25,163 1,341 13,094 141 70,811 2010 11,410 19,555 22,545 1,239 9,588 158 64,495 2011 10,516 19,659 20,132 2,002 6,077 213 58,599 2012 11,781 20,059 20,322 1,184 4,118 200 57,664 2013 11,864 19,525 18,217 1,213 3,443 208 54,470 2014 14,045 19,030 18,858 1,620 3,298 210 57,061 Source: FAA ATADS 2015.

TFMSC data for the same period provided detailed information for a total of 43,199 operations. GA and commercial aircraft accounting for 90% of all operations were included as representative of the existing fleet mix (resulting in 131 aircraft). Military aircraft with more than two operations over the course of the year were included.

Helicopter operations account for less than one operation on an AAD. Military operations accounted for approximately 2% of the total annual operations in the TFMSC database. In the past decade, military operations have ranged from 752 operations in 2005 to 2,215 operations in 2011. The City of Palm Springs and the local Congressional delegation have worked with the Department of Defense (DoD) to reduce the increase in operations and resulting noise exposure due to military flight activity. The most notable increase in operations, in 2011, was due in part to a one-time increase in Navy student pilot training exercises as well as a surge in pre- deployment activities of the Marine All Weather Attack Squadron, which has since departed for Japan. Therefore, the DoD indicated that a reduction in the frequency of operations at PSP was anticipated to occur. The DoD has also pledged to establish an outreach program to address noise issues and to notify the community and the Airport of any future surges in training activity.

C.2.1.4.1 Noise Model Aircraft

The INM includes reference noise data for a large number of civilian, military, and general aviation aircraft and helicopters. Most aircraft in operation at PSP have a direct corresponding INM aircraft type. Additionally, the FAA publishes a pre-approved substitution list that provides the INM user with an equivalent INM aircraft that closely resembles the noise profile of that aircraft. However, in some cases, aircraft that do not have an INM aircraft type or substitute aircraft are part of the fleet mix at an airport, for which the FAA Office of Environment and Energy (AEE) provides guidance on the identification of a suitable aircraft (with similar noise characteristics) for use in the model. Through the noise modeling process, 11 aircraft were

Noise Modeling Technical Report C-6 Appendix C Palm Springs International Airport Noise Modeling Technical Report identified in the PSP existing or future conditions fleet mix that do not have an equivalent INM aircraft type or pre-approved substitution in the INM. For these aircraft, coordination with AEE was undertaken to identify the appropriate noise model aircraft. Correspondence with AEE is included in Attachment 1.

C.2.1.4.2 Operations

The number of AAD operations and the type of aircraft at PSP for the existing conditions was determined based on TFMSC, OPSNET, ATADS, and T-100 data. Data from the time period between July 2013 and June 2014 comprised the operations modeled in the Existing (2015) fleet mix. The ATADS airport operation counts were used to obtain the total number of airport operations by each operation category (air carrier, air taxi, general aviation, and military).

Over the course of the 12-month period (July 2013 – June 2014), ATADS reported a total of 56,580 operations, which equates to approximately 155 operations on an AAD. A majority of operations at PSP are categorized as general aviation and commercial operations, with approximately 3% of operations flown by military aircraft. Table C.3 depicts the number of annual operations by category for the Existing (2015) condition. Itinerant operations represent operations that arrive from another airport or operations that depart PSP to another airport, whereas local operations represent aircraft activity that depart PSP and return to PSP the same day. Most local operations can be attributed to training flights for either civil or military aircraft.

Table C.3 2015 PSP Annual Operations by Category

Itinerant Local Total Airport Air General Air Taxi Mil Total Civil Mil Total Ops Carrier Aviation 13,068 19,440 18,637 1,628 52,773 3,573 234 3,807 56,580 Source: FAA ATADS, 2015.

C.2.1.4.3 Day/Evening/Night Distribution

The CNEL metric takes into consideration the time of day of aircraft operations. The existing conditions analysis indicates that 84.4% of all operations occurred during the day (7:00 a.m. to 6:59 p.m.). The OPSNET report provided the necessary information to identify and calculate the day/evening/night distribution of aircraft operations. Approximately 8.5% of all operations occur during the evening (7:00 p.m. to 9:59 p.m.), while nighttime activity (10:00 p.m. to 6:59 a.m.) accounts for 7% of all operations. No military activity is modeled during the nighttime hours. Table C.4 shows the Day/Evening/Night distribution of operations.

Noise Modeling Technical Report C-7 Appendix C Palm Springs International Airport Noise Modeling Technical Report

Table C.4 Day/Evening/Night Distribution

Op Type Day Eve Night Total Arrival Operations 80% 13% 7% 100% Departure Operations 87% 5% 8% 100% Touch and Go Operations 100% 0% 0% 100% Total Operations 84% 9% 7% 100% Source: HNTB Analysis, 2015.

C.2.1.5 Departure Stage Length

Stage length is a noise modeling term used to refer to trip distance for an aircraft departure from origin to destination, and is a surrogate for aircraft weight. The trip distance influences the takeoff weight (and therefore the thrust and performance) of the aircraft. The standard categories for noise modeling departure stage length are depicted in Table C.5.

Table C.5 Noise Model Departure Stage Length Trip Distance Stage Length (nautical miles) 1 0 - 500 2 500 - 1,000 3 1,000 - 1,500 4 1,500 - 2,500 5 2,500 - 3,500 6 3,500 - 4,500 7 4,500 - 5,500 8 5,500 - 6,500 9 > 6,500 Source: INM 7.0 Technical Manual.

Approximately 78.4% of aircraft departures from PSP were modeled with a trip distance of less than 500 nautical miles (NM), including 99.7% of military aircraft operations and 100% of helicopter operations. Approximately 13.3% of the commercial, general aviation, and military operations were modeled between 500 and 1,000 NM, 8.2% between 1,000 and 1,500 NM and 0.1% between 1,500 and 2,500 NM, as indicated by T100 data.

Table C.6 provides the Existing (2015) AAD operations for PSP, and includes the aircraft type, noise model aircraft type, and the distribution of operations between day, evening, and night.

Noise Modeling Technical Report C-8 Appendix C Palm Springs International Airport Noise Modeling Technical Report

Table C.6 Existing (2015) Average Annual Day Operations

Aircraft Departure Arrival Touch-and-Go Total Aircraft Full Name Code Day Eve Night Day Eve Night Day Eve Night Day Eve Night 737400 B734 - Boeing 737-400 1.99 0.44 0.20 2.24 0.13 0.26 - - - 4.22 0.57 0.45 737700 B737 - Boeing 737-700 1.35 0.30 0.13 1.52 0.09 0.17 - - - 2.88 0.39 0.31 737800 B738 - Boeing 737-800 2.16 0.48 0.22 2.44 0.14 0.28 - - - 4.60 0.62 0.50 737800 B739 - Boeing 737-900 0.40 0.09 0.04 0.45 0.03 0.05 - - - 0.85 0.11 0.09 A319-131 A319 - Airbus A319 0.76 0.17 0.08 0.85 0.05 0.10 - - - 1.61 0.22 0.17 A320-232 A320 - Airbus A320 All Series 0.51 0.11 0.05 0.57 0.03 0.07 - - - 1.08 0.14 0.12 A4C A4 - Skyhawk 0.02 0.00 - 0.02 0.00 - - - - 0.04 0.00 CL30 - Bombardier (Canadair) 0.84 0.12 0.07 0.89 0.05 0.08 - - - 1.73 0.18 0.15 BD100 Challenger 300 GLEX - Bombardier BD-700 0.01 0.00 - 0.01 0.00 - - - - 0.01 0.00 - BD700 Global Express BEC200 BE20 - Beech 200 Super King 0.15 0.01 0.01 0.15 0.01 0.01 - - - 0.30 0.02 0.02 BEC300 B350 - Beech Super King Air 350 0.12 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.01 0.01 - - 0.25 0.02 0.01 BE40 - Raytheon/Beech Beechjet 0.50 0.09 0.04 0.55 0.03 0.06 - - - 1.05 0.12 0.10 BEC400 400/T-1 BEC90 BE9L - Beech King Air 90 0.14 0.01 0.01 0.14 0.01 0.01 - - - 0.28 0.02 0.02 BEC99 BE99 - Beech Airliner 99 0.51 0.11 0.05 0.57 0.03 0.07 - - - 1.08 0.14 0.12 BECM35 BE36 - Beech Bonanza 36 0.84 0.08 0.05 0.86 0.05 0.07 0.49 - - 2.19 0.13 0.12 C12 BE20 - Beech 200 Super King 0.36 0.04 - 0.36 0.04 - - - - 0.71 0.08 - C130 C130 - Lockheed 130 Hercules 0.84 0.09 - 0.84 0.09 - - - - 1.67 0.19 - C30J - C-130J Hercules ; 0.18 0.02 - 0.18 0.02 - - - - 0.36 0.04 - C-130E Lockheed C17 C17 - Boeing Globemaster 3 0.03 0.00 - 0.03 0.00 - - - - 0.06 0.01 - C5A C5 - Lockheed C-5 0.03 0.00 - 0.03 0.00 - - - - 0.05 0.01 - C9A DC93 - Boeing (Douglas) DC 9-30 0.03 0.00 - 0.03 0.00 - - - - 0.07 0.01 - CL60 - Bombardier Challenger 0.62 0.07 0.04 0.65 0.04 0.06 - - - 1.27 0.11 0.10 CL600 600/601/604

Noise Modeling Technical Report C-9 Appendix C Palm Springs International Airport Noise Modeling Technical Report

Table C.6 Existing (2015) Average Annual Day Operations

Aircraft Departure Arrival Touch-and-Go Total Aircraft Full Name Code Day Eve Night Day Eve Night Day Eve Night Day Eve Night CL601 CRJ2 - Bombardier CRJ-200 9.59 2.12 0.96 10.81 0.62 1.24 - - - 20.40 2.74 2.19 C172 - Cessna Skyhawk 5.32 0.50 0.34 5.43 0.32 0.41 3.12 - - 13.86 0.82 0.75 CNA172 172/Cutlass CNA182 C182 - Cessna Skylane 182 2.72 0.26 0.17 2.78 0.16 0.21 1.59 - - 7.09 0.42 0.38 CNA206 C206 - Cessna 206 Stationair 0.01 0.00 - 0.01 0.00 - - - - 0.02 0.00 - CNA208 C10T - Cessna P210 (Turbo) 0.01 0.00 - 0.01 0.00 - - - - 0.01 0.00 - CNA210 C210 - Cessna 210 Centurion 0.81 0.08 0.05 0.82 0.05 0.06 0.47 - - 2.10 0.12 0.11 CNA310 C310 - Cessna 310 0.74 0.07 0.05 0.75 0.04 0.06 0.43 - - 1.93 0.11 0.11 CNA421 C421 - Cessna Golden Eagle 421 0.86 0.08 0.06 0.88 0.05 0.07 0.51 - - 2.25 0.13 0.12 CNA500 C25B - Cessna Citation CJ3 0.20 0.03 0.02 0.21 0.01 0.02 - - - 0.41 0.04 0.04 CNA510 E50P - Embraer Phenom 100 0.24 0.05 0.02 0.27 0.02 0.03 - - - 0.50 0.07 0.05 CNA525C C525 - Cessna CitationJet/CJ1 0.18 0.02 0.01 0.18 0.01 0.01 - - - 0.36 0.03 0.03 CNA550 C25A - Cessna Citation CJ2 0.33 0.04 0.02 0.34 0.02 0.03 - - - 0.67 0.06 0.05 CNA55B C550 - Cessna Citation II/Bravo 0.12 0.01 0.01 0.12 0.01 0.01 - - - 0.25 0.02 0.02 C560 - Cessna Citation 0.39 0.06 0.03 0.42 0.03 0.04 - - - 0.81 0.08 0.07 CNA560E V/Ultra/Encore CNA560X 1.37 0.23 0.12 1.48 0.09 0.15 - - - 2.85 0.32 0.26 L C56X - Cessna Excel/XLS CNA650 C650 - Cessna III/VI/VII 0.17 0.02 0.01 0.17 0.01 0.01 - - - 0.34 0.03 0.02 CNA680 C680 - Cessna Citation Sovereign 0.32 0.05 0.03 0.35 0.02 0.03 - - - 0.67 0.07 0.06 CNA750 C750 - Cessna Citation X 0.73 0.15 0.07 0.81 0.05 0.09 - - - 1.54 0.20 0.16 CRJ701 CRJ7 - Bombardier CRJ-700 2.25 0.50 0.22 2.54 0.15 0.29 - - - 4.79 0.64 0.52 CRJ900 CRJ9 - Bombardier CRJ-900 1.12 0.25 0.11 1.26 0.07 0.14 - - - 2.38 0.32 0.26 DHC8 DH8D - Bombardier Q-400 0.44 0.10 0.04 0.49 0.03 0.06 - - - 0.93 0.12 0.10 E4 B742 - Boeing 747-200 0.02 0.00 - 0.02 0.00 - - - - 0.04 0.00 - ECLIPSE 0.08 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.01 - - - 0.16 0.01 0.01 500 EA50 - Eclipse 500 EMB120 E120 - Embraer Brasilia EMB 120 4.95 1.09 0.49 5.58 0.32 0.64 - - - 10.52 1.41 1.13

Noise Modeling Technical Report C-10 Appendix C Palm Springs International Airport Noise Modeling Technical Report

Table C.6 Existing (2015) Average Annual Day Operations

Aircraft Departure Arrival Touch-and-Go Total Aircraft Full Name Code Day Eve Night Day Eve Night Day Eve Night Day Eve Night E135 - Embraer ERJ 0.01 0.00 - 0.01 0.00 - - - - 0.01 0.00 - EMB135 135/140/Legacy F16 - Lockheed F-16 Fighting 0.02 0.00 - 0.02 0.00 - - - - 0.03 0.00 - F16GE Falcon F-18 F18 - Boeing FA-18 Hornet 0.17 0.02 - 0.17 0.02 - - - - 0.35 0.04 - F-18 FA18 - F18 Hornet 0.01 0.00 - 0.01 0.00 - - - - 0.02 0.00 - FA20 - Dassault Falcon/Mystère 0.01 0.00 - 0.01 0.00 - - - - 0.01 0.00 - FAL20 20 FAL20A F2TH - Dassault Falcon 2000 0.27 0.04 0.02 0.29 0.02 0.03 - - - 0.56 0.06 0.05 FA50 - Dassault Falcon/Mystère 0.11 0.01 0.01 0.12 0.01 0.01 - - - 0.23 0.02 0.02 FAL50 50 FAL900 F900 - Dassault Falcon 900 0.28 0.03 0.02 0.29 0.02 0.02 - - - 0.57 0.04 0.04 GALX - IAI 1126 0.24 0.04 0.02 0.26 0.01 0.03 - - - 0.49 0.05 0.04 G200 Galaxy/Gulfstream G200 GASEPV DA40 - Diamond Star DA40 0.84 0.08 0.05 0.86 0.05 0.07 0.49 - - 2.19 0.13 0.12 GASEPV PA28 - Piper Cherokee ------0.67 - - 0.67 - - GII GLF2 - Gulfstream II/G200 0.01 0.00 - 0.01 0.00 - - - - 0.01 0.00 - GIV GLF4 - Gulfstream IV/G400 0.44 0.04 0.03 0.45 0.03 0.03 - - - 0.89 0.07 0.06 GV GLF5 - Gulfstream V/G500 0.18 0.02 0.01 0.18 0.01 0.01 - - - 0.36 0.03 0.03 H500D EC35 - Eurocopter EC-135 0.01 0.00 - 0.01 0.00 - - - - 0.03 0.00 - H500D EC45 - Eurocopter EC-145 0.04 0.00 - 0.04 0.00 - - - - 0.08 0.01 - H25B - BAe HS 125/700- 0.95 0.12 0.07 1.00 0.06 0.09 - - - 1.95 0.18 0.16 HS1258 800/Hawker 800 IA1125 ASTR - IAI Astra 1125 0.08 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.01 - - - 0.17 0.01 0.01 K35R - Boeing KC-135 0.03 0.00 - 0.03 0.00 - - - - 0.05 0.01 - KC-135 Stratotanker LEAR31 LJ31 - Bombardier Learjet 31/A/B 0.13 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.01 0.01 - - - 0.25 0.02 0.02 LEAR35 E55P - Embraer Phenom 300 0.18 0.04 0.02 0.20 0.01 0.02 - - - 0.39 0.05 0.04 LEAR35 LJ35 - Bombardier Learjet 35/36 0.24 0.02 0.02 0.24 0.01 0.02 - - - 0.48 0.04 0.03

Noise Modeling Technical Report C-11 Appendix C Palm Springs International Airport Noise Modeling Technical Report

Table C.6 Existing (2015) Average Annual Day Operations

Aircraft Departure Arrival Touch-and-Go Total Aircraft Full Name Code Day Eve Night Day Eve Night Day Eve Night Day Eve Night LEAR45 LJ45 - Bombardier Learjet 45 0.31 0.05 0.03 0.33 0.02 0.03 - - - 0.64 0.07 0.06 LEAR60 LJ60 - Bombardier Learjet 60 0.09 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.01 0.01 - - - 0.18 0.01 0.01 MD82 MD82 - Boeing (Douglas) MD 82 1.00 0.22 0.10 1.13 0.06 0.13 - - - 2.13 0.29 0.23 MD83 MD83 - Boeing (Douglas) MD 83 1.67 0.37 0.17 1.88 0.11 0.21 - - - 3.54 0.48 0.38 MD88 MD88 - Boeing (Douglas) MD 88 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.01 - - - 0.14 0.02 0.02 PA28WA PA28 - Piper Cherokee 1.13 0.11 0.07 1.16 0.07 0.09 - - - 2.29 0.17 0.16 PA31T PAY2 - Piper Cheyenne 2 0.03 0.00 - 0.03 0.00 - - - - 0.06 0.01 - PA46 P46T - Piper Malibu Meridian 0.17 0.02 0.01 0.17 0.01 0.01 - - - 0.34 0.03 0.02 PC12 PC12 - Pilatus PC-12 0.31 0.03 0.02 0.31 0.02 0.02 -- - - 0.62 0.05 0.04 PRM1 - Raytheon Premier 1/390 0.14 0.01 0.01 0.14 0.01 0.01 - - - 0.29 0.02 0.02 R390 Premier 1 S70 H60 - Sikorsky SH-60 Seahawk 0.19 0.02 - 0.19 0.02 - - - - 0.38 0.04 - S70 UH60 - Blackhawk Helicopter 0.01 0.00 - 0.01 0.00 - - - - 0.01 0.00 - SA365N AS65 - Aérospatiale AS-366 0.01 0.00 - 0.01 0.00 - - - - 0.01 0.00 - SR22 SR22 - Cirrus SR 22 3.40 0.32 0.22 3.48 0.20 0.27 2.00 - - 8.89 0.52 0.48 T1 HAWK - BAe Systems Hawk 0.03 0.00 - 0.03 0.00 - - - - 0.07 0.01 - T-2C T45 - BAe T-45 Goshawk 0.06 0.01 - 0.06 0.01 - - - - 0.13 0.01 - T34 T34 - Beech T 34 0.01 0.00 - 0.01 0.00 - - - - 0.03 0.00 - T-38A T38 - Northrop T-38 Talon 0.01 0.00 - 0.01 0.00 - - - - 0.01 0.00 - U21 BE9L - Beech King Air 90 0.01 0.00 - 0.01 0.00 - - - - 0.01 0.00 -

Grand Total 58.21 9.65 4.76 62.84 3.75 6.02 9.79 - - 130.84 13.40 10.78 Source: HNTB, 2015

Noise Modeling Technical Report C-12 Appendix C Palm Springs International Airport Noise Modeling Technical Report

C.2.1.6 Runway Use

Runway use is a primary factor in the determination of noise exposure. A runway use analysis was completed based on aircraft operations provided via the radar data sample. Overall, 74% of all operations use Runway 13R-31L. Runway use was determined for both jet and propeller aircraft, and indicated that Runway 31L is used most frequently for arrivals (79.2% of jets and 37.8% of propeller aircraft) and departures (77.2% of jets and 52.5% of propeller aircraft). Primarily, Runway 13L-31R is used by general aviation propeller aircraft. Helicopter operations typically arrive and depart to the ends of the runways, and this analysis assumes that helicopter operations use each of the four runway ends equally.

Touch and go operations are conducted by general aviation propeller aircraft, and are only modeled on Runway 13L-31R. Table C.7 depicts overall runway use, for both jet and propeller aircraft.

Table C.7 Runway Use Arrivals Departures Touch and Go's Runway Jet Prop Jet Prop Jet Prop 13L 0.0% 14.3% 0.0% 6.4% 0.0% 50.0% 31R 0.0% 30.8% 0.0% 22.2% 0.0% 50.0% 13R 20.8% 17.1% 22.8% 19.0% 0.0% 0.0% 31L 79.2% 37.8% 77.2% 52.5% 0.0% 0.0% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% Note: Percentages may not equal 100% due to rounding. Source: 2011 PDARS data analysis, HNTB, 2015.

C.2.1.7 Flight Track Locations and Use

To determine projected noise levels on the ground, it is necessary to determine not only the frequency of aircraft operations, but also the altitude and location in which they fly. Flight routes to and from an airport are generally a function of the geometry of the airport's runways and the surrounding airspace structure in the vicinity of the airfield. The noise model flight track locations, use, and distribution were determined through an analysis of radar data. Radar data was utilized to develop both common flight tracks and utilization on those flight tracks, separated by jet and propeller aircraft. Four weeks of radar data provided a sample of aircraft trajectories to and from PSP. The flight path information was processed and filtered by runway, operation type, and aircraft category using a proprietary GIS-based application. A unique average (backbone) flight track was developed based on its category (jet or propeller), the origin or destination runway, and its general direction. Each of the flight track flows to and from the Airport was identified and flight track names were assigned to one of the logical traffic patterns, and average/backbone flight tracks were created. A total of 126 unique noise model flight tracks, each modeled with either two or four subtracks accounting for flight track dispersion, were created. Average (backbone)

Noise Modeling Technical Report C-13 Appendix C Palm Springs International Airport Noise Modeling Technical Report arrival noise model flight tracks for PSP are shown in Figure C-3, and departure flight tracks are shown in Figure C-4.

Touch-and-go flight tracks are based on the assumption that they are only conducted on the shorter runway, Runway 13L-31R. The touch-and-go flight paths are to the east side of the Airport2 due to the mountainous terrain to the west. Touch-and-go tracks are illustrated on Figure C-5. Helicopter flight tracks were created based on the assumption that the helicopters flew a straight in flight path for arrivals, or a straight-out flight path for departures.

C.2.2 2015 Existing Conditions Noise Exposure

CNEL noise exposure in 5 dB contour intervals is shown on Figure C-6, which illustrates the Existing (2015) conditions. The figure depicts the overall area exposed to CNEL noise levels between 65 dB and 75 dB and is overlaid on a land use database acquired from Riverside County.

The 2015 CNEL 65 dB noise exposure contour encompasses approximately 0.9 square miles, or approximately 572 acres. The shape of the noise exposure contours reflect the predominant use of Runway 13R-31L, as the contour extends furthest along the extended centerlines of each runway. The size and shape of the contour reflects the predominant use of the primary runway (Runway 13L-31R) for most air carrier and military operations.

U.S. Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 150, Land Use Compatibility Guidelines, define noise- sensitive land uses above a DNL of 65 dB to be non-compatible with aircraft noise. Although the FAA’s guidelines are defined in terms of the DNL metric, the standards would be applied using the CNEL metric for airports in the state of California for the purpose of Part 150. 14 CFR Part 150 is not intended to substitute federally determined land uses for those determined to be appropriate by local authorities in response to locally determined needs and values in achieving noise compatible land uses. Further, FAA also recognizes that Part 150 guidelines do not adequately address the effects of noise on visitors to areas within a historic site, national park, or wildlife refuge protected under Section 4(f) of the DOT Act and where non-aircraft noise is very low and a quiet setting is a generally recognized feature or attribute of the site’s significance.

The CNEL 70 and 75 dB noise contours remains entirely on airport property, while nearly all of the CNEL 65 dB noise contour remains on airport property. 0.2% of the CNEL 65 dB noise contour impacts residential land uses, located to the northwest of PSP along the extended centerline of Runway 13R-31L, while the remaining 99.8% encompasses compatible land uses. One residential parcel is included in the noise contour, with an estimated population of 1.85. This parcel was part of the Airport’s previous sound insulation program. There are no noise- sensitive facilities (schools, places of worship, historic resources, etc) located within the CNEL

2 The FAA’s AFD entry for PSP specifies right traffic patterns for Runway 31L and 31R.

Noise Modeling Technical Report C-14 Appendix C Palm Springs International Airport

DESERT HOT SPRINGS

UV111

W San Rafael Dr

1 D 3 a

PSP t

L e

D PALM SPRINGS r CATHED30th ARv e AL CITY 10 1R § 3 ¨¦ L 31

Dinah Shore Dr

RANCHO MIRAGE

PALM DESERT

Feet 0 2,950 5,900 11,800 ´ Palm Springs International Airport

DESERT HOT SPRINGS

UV111

W San Rafael Dr

1 D 3 a

PSP t

L e

D PALM SPRINGS r CATHED30th ARv e AL CITY 10 1R § 3 ¨¦ L 31

Dinah Shore Dr

RANCHO MIRAGE

PALM DESERT

Feet 0 2,950 5,900 11,800 ´

¨¦§

Feet 0 700 1,400 2,800 ´ Palm Springs International Airport Noise Modeling Technical Report

65 or higher dB noise contours. Table C.8 presents the acreage by land use category for the Existing (2015) condition.

Table C.8 Land Uses within the Existing (2015) Conditions Noise Exposure Contour CNEL 65 CNEL 70 CNEL Grand Total Land Use Type dB dB 75+ dB % Land Use (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) Airport Property 214.3 158 164.1 536.4 93.9% Commercial 12.5 0 0 12.5 2.2% Industrial 5.7 0 0 5.7 1.0% Open space/Recreation 0 0 0 0 0% Public/Institutional/Government 0 0 0 0 0% Residential 0.2 0 0 0.2 0% Vacant 12.9 0 0 12.9 2.3% Transportation (roads, highways) 3.3 0 0 3.3 0.6% Grand Total 572 100% Note: Percentages may not equal 100% due to rounding. Source: HNTB 2015.

C.3 2020 Future Condition and Noise Exposure

Noise exposure was modeled for aircraft operations at PSP for the future condition (2020). The following sections describe the input data used. The intent of the analysis of noise exposure in 2020 is to reflect the difference between a no action condition and changes caused by the development of the proposed projects identified in the MPU. As indicated in Section C.1, the MPU did not identify changes to airside facilities and as such, there would be no difference in noise exposure with or without implementation of the proposed projects. The Future (2020) condition reflects only an increase in the number of operations that are forecast to occur with or without the implementation of the proposed projects.

C.3.1 Data Sources

The forecast number of overall operations forecast to occur in 2020 was derived initially from the MPU and was updated with information provided by the FAA in the Terminal Area Forecast (TAF). The fleet mix (including aircraft type, fleet mix, and time of day) forecast to be in operation at PSP was derived from the existing conditions analysis. General aviation aircraft production data, which pertains to the production start and stop dates of each aircraft type, was used to determine the PSP general aviation fleet mix. The following sections provide an overview of the noise model input data for development of future noise exposure in 2020.

Noise Modeling Technical Report C-15 Appendix C Palm Springs International Airport

E Francis Dr

E Racquet Club Rd G e

Palm Springs n

r y

E Via Escuela

i l

E Vista Chino

A 6 v 5

e C

n N

i 1

3 7 E a R 0 L

C C N a E 111 b VU

e r

o E Tachevah Dr 7

s 5

C C

e N 1 3 r E L

r L

i t

o Escena s

E Tamarisk Rd

D Golf Club

u r

n E Alejo Rd

r N Cathedral City

e r

i l

s G

D e

n W r e

a A

y u t ry T ra i E l

l Agua Caliente

C Elementary School

i R E Tahquitz Canyon Way e 1

l 3

R d

E Baristo Rd

Kirk Douglas Way S

Sunrise Palm Springs 1L a 3 n

Park High School L

E Ramon Rd u

D Sunny Dunes Rd Cielo Vista r Charter School Mesquite Golf & Country Club

E Mesquite Ave

LEGEND Figure C-6 Existing (2015) CNEL Noise Exposure Contours Existing (2015) CNEL Noise Exposure Contours Sources: Riverside County GIS, ESRI, HNTB 2015. Residential Industrial Agricultural Public / Institutional Park / Open Space Vacant Feet Commercial Airport Property 0 625 1,250 2,500 ´ Palm Springs International Airport Noise Modeling Technical Report

C.3.2 Future Conditions (2020) Noise Model Input Data

In order to determine noise exposure in 2020, this analysis considers potential changes to the airfield, runway use, and flight tracks, as well as a forecast future fleet mix and level of operations.

C.3.2.1 Facilities and Runways

The MPU considered improvements to the airside facilities, and concluded that the airfield has adequate capacity to serve forecast operations beyond 2028. The MPU evaluated in detail the facilities associated with each runway, including safety considerations. A standard Runway Safety Area (RSA) for an air-carrier runway such as Runway 13R-31L extends 1,000 feet past both runway ends and is 500 feet wide, centered on the runway centerline. Although the southerly portion of Runway 13R-31L’s RSA is bisected 143 feet from its southern end by the airport property boundary at East Ramon Road, PSP employs the use of declared distances to provide the standard RSA dimensions. With the use of declared distances, the effective useable end of the runway is 143 feet shorter than the full paved length of the runway. The FAA concluded that the PSP meets the RSA requirements through the continued use of declared distances.

The MPU did not identify capacity enhancing projects that would enable additional aircraft to operate at PSP, and as such, the updated MPU Recommended Alternative does not change existing airside facilities.

C.3.2.2 Meteorological Conditions, Terrain, and Day/ Evening/ Night Distribution

The Future (2020) condition was modeled using ten year average weather conditions, resulting in a temperature of 74.9 degrees Fahrenheit, barometric pressure of 29.89 in-Hg and 34.5% humidity.

C.3.2.3 Future Fleet Mix

The FAA provided final acceptance of the MPU Aviation Activity Forecasts on August 24, 2009. According to the MPU forecast, 2020 operations were expected to increase to 89,468 annual operations. As part of the subsequent environmental review, the MPU Aviation Activity Forecast was reviewed to determine if the potential projects in the near term were still warranted. The City of Palm Springs compared the MPU forecast with existing operation and passenger levels and the updated FAA Terminal Area Forecast (TAF), and found, in general, that passenger enplanements continue to rise. Because passenger enplanements were forecasted to continue to increase consistent with the MPU forecast, the FAA concluded that the forecast indicated adequate need for proposed projects in the MPU, none of which are driven by aircraft operations. In January 2014, the FAA revalidated the Master Plan Aviation Activity Forecast for environmental planning purposes.

Forecast aircraft operations were notably lower in the FAA TAF versus the MPU forecast. The divergence between the FAA TAF and the FAA-approved MPU forecast are generally attributed to additional growth in general aviation operations under the MPU.

Noise Modeling Technical Report C-16 Appendix C Palm Springs International Airport Noise Modeling Technical Report

As such, the future 2020 analysis used operation levels from the TAF to develop the 2020 fleet mix. The future fleet mix and operations were projected using the existing fleet mix and the MPU forecast. On an AAD basis, operations are expected to increase from 155 in 2015 to 169 in 2020. On an annual basis, they are equivalent to 61,802 operations in 2020, a 9% increase. While military operations in 2015 account for approximately 3.3% of all operations, in 2020 military operations would account for 3.0% of all operations

The 2020 forecast also fleet reflects a final ruling issued by the FAA that implements a phase- out of Stage 2 aircraft weighing less than 75,000 pounds, effective December 31, 2015. These aircraft will be banned from operating from the contiguous U.S. unless they meet Stage 3 noise compliance requirements or higher.

C.3.2.4 Departure Stage Length

The assumptions used in the development of the future stage length remain consistent with those used in the existing conditions, however changes in the fleet mix yield slightly different overall results. Overall, approximately 76.8% of all aircraft departures from PSP were modeled with a trip distance of less than 500 NM in the future condition, as compared to approximately 78.4% in the existing condition.

Table C.9 provides the 2020 AAD operations for PSP, which includes the aircraft type and corresponding noise model aircraft type and the distribution of operations between day, evening, and night.

Noise Modeling Technical Report C-17 Appendix C Palm Springs International Airport Noise Modeling Technical Report

Table C.9 Future (2020) Average Annual Day Operations Aircraft Departure Arrival Touch-and-Go Total Code INM Aircraft Full Name 7.0c Day Eve Night Day Eve Night Day Eve Night Day Eve Night 737700 B737 - Boeing 737-700 1.35 0.30 0.13 1.52 0.09 0.17 - - - 2.86 0.38 0.31 737800 B738 - Boeing 737-800 4.69 1.04 0.47 5.29 0.30 0.60 - - - 9.98 1.34 1.07 737800 B739 - Boeing 737-900 0.84 0.19 0.08 0.95 0.05 0.11 - - - 1.79 0.24 0.19 A319-131 A319 - Airbus A319 0.80 0.18 0.08 0.90 0.05 0.10 - - - 1.71 0.23 0.18 A320-232 A320 - Airbus A320 All Series 0.65 0.14 0.07 0.73 0.04 0.08 - - - 1.39 0.19 0.15 A4C A4 - Skyhawk 0.02 0.00 - 0.02 0.00 - - - - 0.04 0.00 - CL30 - Bombardier (Canadair) 1.27 0.20 0.10 1.37 0.08 0.13 - - - 2.64 0.28 0.24 BD100 Challenger 300 GLEX - Bombardier BD-700 0.01 0.00 - 0.01 0.00 - - - - 0.01 0.00 - BD700 Global Express BEC200 BE20 - Beech 200 Super King 0.15 0.01 0.01 0.15 0.01 0.01 - - - 0.31 0.02 0.02 BEC300 B350 - Beech Super King Air 350 0.13 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.01 0.01 - - - 0.25 0.02 0.01 BE40 - Raytheon/Beech Beechjet 0.82 0.15 0.07 0.90 0.05 0.09 - - - 1.72 0.21 0.17 BEC400 400/T-1 BEC90 BE9L - Beech King Air 90 0.14 0.01 0.01 0.15 0.01 0.01 - - - 0.29 0.02 0.02 BEC99 BE99 - Beech Airliner 99 0.91 0.20 0.09 1.03 0.06 0.12 - - - 1.94 0.26 0.21 BECM35 BE36 - Beech Bonanza 36 0.86 0.08 0.06 0.88 0.05 0.07 0.51 - - 2.25 0.13 0.12 C12 BE20 - Beech 200 Super King 0.36 0.04 - 0.36 0.04 - - - - 0.71 0.08 - C130 C130 - Lockheed 130 Hercules 0.84 0.09 - 0.84 0.09 - - - - 1.67 0.19 - C30J - C-130J Hercules ; 0.18 0.02 - 0.18 0.02 - - - - 0.36 0.04 - C130 Lockheed C17 C17 - Boeing Globemaster 3 0.03 0.00 - 0.03 0.00 - - - - 0.06 0.01 - C5A C5 - Lockheed C-5 0.03 0.00 - 0.03 0.00 - - - - 0.05 0.01 - DC93 - Boeing (Douglas) DC 9- 0.03 0.00 - 0.03 0.00 - - - - 0.07 0.01 - C9A 30 CL60 - Bombardier Challenger 0.88 0.11 0.06 0.92 0.05 0.08 - - - 1.80 0.16 0.14 CL600 600/601/604 CL601 CRJ2 - Bombardier CRJ-200 7.34 1.62 0.73 8.27 0.47 0.95 - - - 15.61 2.09 1.68

Noise Modeling Technical Report C-18 Appendix C Palm Springs International Airport Noise Modeling Technical Report

Table C.9 Future (2020) Average Annual Day Operations Aircraft Departure Arrival Touch-and-Go Total Code INM Aircraft Full Name 7.0c Day Eve Night Day Eve Night Day Eve Night Day Eve Night C172 - Cessna Skyhawk 5.45 0.51 0.35 5.56 0.32 0.42 3.20 - - 14.21 0.84 0.77 CNA172 172/Cutlass CNA182 C182 - Cessna Skylane 182 2.79 0.26 0.18 2.84 0.17 0.22 1.63 - - 7.26 0.43 0.39 CNA206 C206 - Cessna 206 Stationair 0.01 0.00 - 0.01 0.00 - - - - 0.02 0.00 - CNA208 C10T - Cessna P210 (Turbo) 0.01 0.00 - 0.01 0.00 - - - - 0.01 0.00 - CNA210 C210 - Cessna 210 Centurion 0.83 0.08 0.05 0.84 0.05 0.06 0.49 - - 2.15 0.13 0.12 CNA310 C310 - Cessna 310 0.76 0.07 0.05 0.77 0.04 0.06 0.45 - - 1.97 0.12 0.11 CNA421 C421 - Cessna Golden Eagle 421 0.88 0.08 0.06 0.90 0.05 0.07 0.52 - - 2.31 0.14 0.13 CNA500 C25B - Cessna Citation CJ3 0.30 0.05 0.02 0.32 0.02 0.03 - - - 0.62 0.06 0.05 CNA510 E50P - Embraer Phenom 100 0.42 0.09 0.04 0.48 0.03 0.05 - - - 0.90 0.12 0.10 CNA525C C525 - Cessna CitationJet/CJ1 0.23 0.02 0.02 0.24 0.01 0.02 - - - 0.47 0.04 0.03 CNA550 C25A - Cessna Citation CJ2 0.46 0.06 0.03 0.49 0.03 0.04 - - - 0.95 0.09 0.08 CNA55B C550 - Cessna Citation II/Bravo 0.16 0.01 0.01 0.16 0.01 0.01 - - - 0.32 0.02 0.02 C560 - Cessna Citation 0.59 0.09 0.05 0.64 0.04 0.06 - - - 1.23 0.13 0.11 CNA560E V/Ultra/Encore CNA560X 2.19 0.39 0.19 2.39 0.14 0.24 - - - 4.58 0.53 0.44 L C56X - Cessna Excel/XLS CNA650 C650 - Cessna III/VI/VII 0.22 0.02 0.01 0.23 0.01 0.02 - - - 0.45 0.03 0.03 CNA680 C680 - Cessna Citation Sovereign 0.52 0.09 0.05 0.56 0.03 0.06 - - - 1.08 0.12 0.10 CNA750 C750 - Cessna Citation X 1.27 0.27 0.12 1.42 0.08 0.16 - - - 2.69 0.35 0.28 CRJ701 CRJ7 - Bombardier CRJ-700 4.05 0.89 0.40 4.56 0.26 0.52 - - - 8.61 1.16 0.93 CRJ900 CRJ9 - Bombardier CRJ-900 1.16 0.26 0.12 1.31 0.08 0.15 - - - 2.47 0.33 0.27 DHC8 DH8D - Bombardier Q-400 0.55 0.12 0.06 0.62 0.04 0.07 - - - 1.17 0.16 0.13 E4 B742 - Boeing 747-200 0.02 0.00 - 0.02 0.00 - - - - 0.04 0.00 - ECLIPSE5 0.11 0.01 0.01 0.11 0.01 0.01 - - - 0.22 0.02 0.02 00 EA50 - Eclipse 500 EMB120 E120 - Embraer Brasilia EMB 120 4.77 1.05 0.48 5.37 0.31 0.61 - - - 10.14 1.36 1.09

Noise Modeling Technical Report C-19 Appendix C Palm Springs International Airport Noise Modeling Technical Report

Table C.9 Future (2020) Average Annual Day Operations Aircraft Departure Arrival Touch-and-Go Total Code INM Aircraft Full Name 7.0c Day Eve Night Day Eve Night Day Eve Night Day Eve Night E135 - Embraer ERJ 0.01 0.00 - 0.01 0.00 - - - - 0.01 0.00 - EMB135 135/140/Legacy F16 - Lockheed F-16 Fighting 0.02 0.00 - 0.02 0.00 - - - - 0.03 0.00 - F16GE Falcon F-18 F18 - Boeing FA-18 Hornet 0.17 0.02 - 0.17 0.02 - - - - 0.35 0.04 - F-18 FA18 - F18 Hornet 0.01 0.00 - 0.01 0.00 - - - - 0.02 0.00 - FAL20A F2TH - Dassault Falcon 2000 0.41 0.06 0.03 0.44 0.03 0.04 - - - 0.85 0.09 0.08 FA50 - Dassault Falcon/Mystère 0.15 0.01 0.01 0.15 0.01 0.01 - - - 0.30 0.02 0.02 FAL50 50 FAL900 F900 - Dassault Falcon 900 0.37 0.03 0.02 0.38 0.02 0.03 - - - 0.75 0.06 0.05 GALX - IAI 1126 0.37 0.06 0.03 0.41 0.02 0.04 - - - 0.78 0.09 0.07 G200 Galaxy/Gulfstream G200 GASEPV DA40 - Diamond Star DA40 0.86 0.08 0.06 0.88 0.05 0.07 0.51 - - 2.25 0.13 0.12 GASEPV PA28 - Piper Cherokee ------0.68 - - 0.68 0.00 - GIV GLF4 - Gulfstream IV/G400 0.58 0.05 0.04 0.59 0.03 0.05 - - - 1.17 0.09 0.08 GV GLF5 - Gulfstream V/G500 0.23 0.02 0.02 0.24 0.01 0.02 - - - 0.47 0.04 0.03 H500D EC35 - Eurocopter EC-135 0.01 0.00 - 0.01 0.00 - - - - 0.03 0.00 - H500D EC45 - Eurocopter EC-145 0.04 0.00 - 0.04 0.00 - - - - 0.08 0.01 - H25B - BAe HS 125/700- 1.38 0.19 0.11 1.46 0.08 0.13 - - - 2.84 0.27 0.24 HS1258 800/Hawker 800 IA1125 ASTR - IAI Astra 1125 0.11 0.01 0.01 0.11 0.01 0.01 - - - 0.22 0.02 0.02 K35R - Boeing KC-135 0.03 0.00 - 0.03 0.00 - - - - 0.05 0.01 - KC-135 Stratotanker LEAR31 LJ31 - Bombardier Learjet 31/A/B 0.16 0.02 0.01 0.17 0.01 0.01 - - - 0.33 0.03 0.02 LEAR35 E55P - Embraer Phenom 300 0.33 0.07 0.03 0.37 0.02 0.04 - - - 0.69 0.09 0.07 LEAR35 LJ35 - Bombardier Learjet 35/36 0.31 0.03 0.02 0.32 0.02 0.02 - - - 0.63 0.05 0.04 LEAR45 LJ45 - Bombardier Learjet 45 0.48 0.08 0.04 0.52 0.03 0.05 - - - 1.01 0.11 0.09 LEAR60 LJ60 - Bombardier Learjet 60 0.12 0.01 0.01 0.12 0.01 0.01 - - - 0.24 0.02 0.02 MD82 MD82 - Boeing (Douglas) MD 82 1.80 0.40 0.18 2.03 0.12 0.23 - - - 3.84 0.52 0.41

Noise Modeling Technical Report C-20 Appendix C Palm Springs International Airport Noise Modeling Technical Report

Table C.9 Future (2020) Average Annual Day Operations Aircraft Departure Arrival Touch-and-Go Total Code INM Aircraft Full Name 7.0c Day Eve Night Day Eve Night Day Eve Night Day Eve Night MD88 MD88 - Boeing (Douglas) MD 88 0.12 0.03 0.01 0.13 0.01 0.02 - - - 0.25 0.03 0.03 PA28WA PA28 - Piper Cherokee 1.16 0.11 0.07 1.19 0.07 0.09 - - - 2.35 0.18 0.17 PA31T PAY2 - Piper Cheyenne 2 0.03 0.00 - 0.03 0.00 - - - - 0.06 0.01 - PA46 P46T - Piper Malibu Meridian 0.17 0.02 0.01 0.18 0.01 0.01 - - - 0.35 0.03 0.02 PC12 PC12 - Pilatus PC-12 0.31 0.03 0.02 0.32 0.02 0.02 - - - 0.64 0.05 0.04 PRM1 - Raytheon Premier 1/390 0.18 0.02 0.01 0.19 0.01 0.01 - - - 0.37 0.03 0.03 R390 Premier 1 S70 H60 - Sikorsky SH-60 Seahawk 0.19 0.02 - 0.19 0.02 - - - - 0.38 0.04 - S70 UH60 - Blackhawk Helicopter 0.01 0.00 - 0.01 0.00 - - - - 0.01 0.00 - SA365N AS65 - Aérospatiale AS-366 0.01 0.00 - 0.01 0.00 - - - - 0.01 0.00 - SR22 SR22 - Cirrus SR 22 3.49 0.33 0.22 3.56 0.21 0.27 - - - 7.05 0.54 0.50 T1 HAWK - BAe Systems Hawk 0.03 0.00 - 0.03 0.00 - - - - 0.07 0.01 - T-2C T45 - BAe T-45 Goshawk 0.06 0.01 - 0.06 0.01 - 2.05 - - 2.18 0.01 - T34 T34 - Beech T 34 0.01 0.00 - 0.01 0.00 - - - - 0.03 0.00 - T-38A T38 - Northrop T-38 Talon 0.01 0.00 - 0.01 0.00 - - - - 0.01 0.00 - U21 BE9L - Beech King Air 90 0.01 0.00 - 0.01 0.00 - - - - 0.01 0.00 -

Grand Total 63.80 10.60 5.24 68.91 4.10 6.63 10.03 0.00 0.00 142.75 14.70 11.87 Source: HNTB, 2015.

Noise Modeling Technical Report C-21 Appendix C Palm Springs International Airport Noise Modeling Technical Report

C.3.2.5 Runway Use

The runway use remains consistent with existing conditions.

C.3.2.6 Flight Track Locations and Use

The flight track locations and use remain consistent with existing conditions.

C.3.3 2020 Future Conditions Noise Exposure

CNEL Noise exposure in 5 dB contour intervals is shown on Figure C-7 for the Future (2020) condition. The increase in operations between 2015 and 2020 result in an increase in the size of the noise contours. This change is evident in the areas to the northwest and the southeast along the extended centerlines of Runway 13R-31L. The Future (2020) condition is projected to encompass approximately 0.92 square miles, or approximately 593.5 acres, an increase in size of approximately 4% from the Existing (2015) condition. Because none of the proposed projects in the MPU add capacity or change airfield facilities, the increase in the size of the noise exposure contour can be attributed to the changes in operation levels and fleet mix that would occur with or without the proposed projects.

Both the CNEL 75 and 70 dB noise contours remain entirely on airport property. Within the CNEL 65 dB noise contour, nearly 93% of the contour area is within airport property, with another 7% falls over compatible land uses including commercial, industrial, vacant and transportation. 0.2% of the total area within the CNEL 65 dB noise contour encompasses residential land uses, located to the northwest of PSP along the extended centerline of Runway 13R-31L. Approximately four residential (non-vacant) parcels3 accounting for 7.4 persons4 are located in this area, all of which were included in the Airport’s sound insulation program. There are no other noise-sensitive facilities (schools, places of worship, historic resources, etc) located within the CNEL 65 or higher dB noise contours. Table C.10 presents the acreage by land use for the Future (2020) condition.

3 “Residential (non-vacant) parcels” include those parcels classified by the City of Palm Springs as residential land uses and have aerial photography evidence of a built structure on the property. The counts include all parcels which intersect the noise contour.

4 Population is derived from the U.S. Census, using a methodology in which the population of each residential (non-vacant) parcel is determined by the average population of a housing unit within that Census Block, multiplied by the number of residential (non-vacant) parcels.

Noise Modeling Technical Report C-22 Appendix C Palm Springs International Airport

E Francis Dr

E Racquet Club Rd G e

Palm Springs n

r y

E Via Escuela

i l

E Vista Chino

A 6

v 5

e C

n N

i 1 d

3 7 E R L a 0

C C N a E 111 b VU

e r

o E Tachevah Dr 7

s 5

C C

e N 1 3 r E L

r L

i t

o Escena s

E Tamarisk Rd

D Golf Club

u r

n E Alejo Rd

r N Cathedral City

e r

i l

s G

D e

n W r e

a A

y u t ry T ra i E l

l Agua Caliente

C Elementary School

i R E Tahquitz Canyon Way e 1

l 3

R d

E Baristo Rd

Kirk Douglas Way S

Sunrise Palm Springs 1L a 3 n

Park High School L

E Ramon Rd u

D Sunny Dunes Rd Cielo Vista r Charter School Mesquite Golf & Country Club

E Mesquite Ave

LEGEND Figure C-7 Future (2020) CNEL Noise Exposure Contours Future (2020) CNEL Noise Exposure Contours Sources: Riverside County GIS, ESRI, HNTB 2015. Residential Industrial Agricultural Public / Institutional Park / Open Space Vacant Feet Commercial Airport Property 0 625 1,250 2,500 ´ Palm Springs International Airport Noise Modeling Technical Report

Table C.10 Future (2020) Noise Exposure Contour Area

Grand CNEL 65 CNEL 70 CNEL 75+ % Land Land Use Type Total dB (acres) dB (acres) dB (acres) Use (acres)

Airport Property 220.5 160.4 169.1 550 92.7% Commercial 16.7 0 0 16.7 2.8% Industrial 6.8 0 0 6.8 1.1% Open space/Recreation 0 0 0 0 0% Public/Institutional/Government 0 0 0 0 0% Residential 1.3 0 0 1.3 0.2% Vacant 13.9 0 0 13.9 2.3% Transportation (roads, highways) 4.8 0 0 4.8 0.8% Grand Total 264 160.4 169.1 593.5 100% Note: Percentages may not equal 100% due to rounding. Source: HNTB 2015.

Noise Modeling Technical Report C-23 Appendix C

Attachment 1: AEE Coordination

[This page is left intentionally blank]

Attachment 2: Land Use Assurance Letter