Noise Basics and the Effect of Aviation Noise on the ... - OBSA
Noise Basics and the Effect of Aviation Noise on the ... - OBSA
Noise Basics and the Effect of Aviation Noise on the ... - OBSA
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
2.5 Equivalent Sound Level (L eq)Ano<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>r cumulative noise metric that is useful in describing noise is <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> equivalent sound level. L eqiscalculated to determine <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> steady-state noise level over a specified time period. The L eqmetric canprovide a more accurate quantificati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> noise exposure for a specific period, particularly fordaytime periods when <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> nighttime penalty under <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> DNL metric is inappropriate.Just as SEL has proven to be a good measure <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> noise impact <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> a single event, L eqhas beenestablished to be a good measure <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> impact <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> a series <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> events during a given time period. Also,while L eqis defined as an average, it is effectively a sum over that time period <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> is, thus, a measure<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> cumulative impact <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> noise. For example, <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> sum <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> all noise-generating events during <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>period <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. could provide <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> relative impact <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> noise generating events for a schoolday.2.6 Rate Adjusted Day-Night Average Sound Level (L dnr )Military aircraft flying <strong>on</strong> Military Training Routes (MTRs) <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> in Restricted Areas/Ranges generate anoise envir<strong>on</strong>ment that is somewhat different from that associated with airfield operati<strong>on</strong>s. Asopposed to patterned or c<strong>on</strong>tinuous noise envir<strong>on</strong>ments associated with airfields, overflights al<strong>on</strong>gMTRs are highly sporadic, ranging from 10 per hour to less than <strong>on</strong>e per week. Individual militaryoverflight events also differ from typical community noise events in that noise from a low-altitude,high-airspeed flyover can have a ra<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>r sudden <strong>on</strong>set, exhibiting a rate <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> increase in sound level(<strong>on</strong>set rate) <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> up to 150 dB per sec<strong>on</strong>d.To represent <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>se differences, <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> c<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong>al SEL metric is adjusted to account for <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> “surprise”effect <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> sudden <strong>on</strong>set <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> aircraft noise events <strong>on</strong> humans with an adjustment ranging up to 11 dBabove <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> normal Sound Exposure Level (Stusnick, et al. 1992). Onset rates between 15 to 150 dB persec<strong>on</strong>d require an adjustment <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> 0 to 11 dB, while <strong>on</strong>set rates below 15 dB per sec<strong>on</strong>d require noadjustment. The adjusted SEL is designated as <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong>set-rate adjusted sound exposure level (SEL r ).Because <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> sporadic, <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>ten seas<strong>on</strong>al, occurrences <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> aircraft overflights al<strong>on</strong>g MTRs <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> inRestricted Areas/Ranges, <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> number <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> daily operati<strong>on</strong>s is determined from <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> number <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> flyingdays in <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> calendar m<strong>on</strong>th with <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> highest number <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> operati<strong>on</strong>s in <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> affected airspace or MTR.This avoids diluti<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> exposure from periods <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> low activity, much <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> way that <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> average busyday is used around military airbases. The cumulative exposure to noise in <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>se areas is computed byDNL over <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> busy m<strong>on</strong>th, but using SEL r instead <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> SEL. This m<strong>on</strong>thly average is denoted L dnmr . If<strong>on</strong>set rate adjusted DNL is computed over a period o<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>r than a m<strong>on</strong>th, it would be designated L dnr<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> period must be specified. In <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> state <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> California, a variant <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> L dnmr includes a penaltyfor evening operati<strong>on</strong>s (7 p.m. to 10 p.m) <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> is denoted CNEL mr .12
3. <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Effect</str<strong>on</strong>g>s3.1 AnnoyanceThe primary effect <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> aircraft noise <strong>on</strong> exposed communities is <strong>on</strong>e <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> l<strong>on</strong>g-term annoyance. <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g>annoyance is defined by <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> EPA as any negative subjective reacti<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> part <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> an individual orgroup (U.S. Envir<strong>on</strong>mental Protecti<strong>on</strong> Agency 1974). As noted in <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> discussi<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> DNL above,community annoyance is best measured by that metric.The results <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> attitudinal surveys, c<strong>on</strong>ducted to find percentages <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> people who express variousdegrees <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> annoyance when exposed to different levels <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> DNL, are very c<strong>on</strong>sistent. The most usefulmetric for assessing people’s resp<strong>on</strong>ses to noise impacts is <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> percentage <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> exposed populati<strong>on</strong>expected to be “highly annoyed.” A wide variety <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> resp<strong>on</strong>ses have been used to determineintrusiveness <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> noise <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> disturbances <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> speech, sleep, televisi<strong>on</strong> or radio listening, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> outdoorliving. The c<strong>on</strong>cept <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> “percent highly annoyed” has provided <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> most c<strong>on</strong>sistent resp<strong>on</strong>se <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> acommunity to a particular noise envir<strong>on</strong>ment. The resp<strong>on</strong>se is remarkably complex, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> whenc<strong>on</strong>sidered <strong>on</strong> an individual basis, widely varies for any given noise level (Federal InteragencyCommittee On <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g> 1992).A number <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> n<strong>on</strong>acoustic factors have been identified that may influence <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> annoyance resp<strong>on</strong>se <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>an individual. Newman <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Beattie (1985) divided <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>se factors into emoti<strong>on</strong>al <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> physical variables:Emoti<strong>on</strong>al Variables Feelings about <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> necessity or preventability <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> noise; Judgment <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> importance <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> value <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> activity that is producing <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> noise; Activity at <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> time an individual hears <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> noise; Attitude about <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> envir<strong>on</strong>ment; General sensitivity to noise; Belief about <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> effect <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> noise <strong>on</strong> health; <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Feeling <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> fear associated with <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> noise.Physical Variables Type <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> neighborhood; Time <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> day; Seas<strong>on</strong>; Predictability <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> noise; C<strong>on</strong>trol over <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> noise source; <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Length <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> time an individual is exposed to a noise.3.2 Speech InterferenceSpeech interference associated with aircraft noise is a primary cause <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> annoyance to individuals <strong>on</strong><str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> ground. The disrupti<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> routine activities such as radio or televisi<strong>on</strong> listening, teleph<strong>on</strong>e use, orfamily c<strong>on</strong>versati<strong>on</strong> gives rise to frustrati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> irritati<strong>on</strong>. The quality <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> speech communicati<strong>on</strong> isalso important in classrooms, <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fices, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> industrial settings <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> can cause fatigue <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> vocal strain inthose who attempt to communicate over <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> noise. Speech is an acoustic signal characterized by rapid13
fluctuati<strong>on</strong>s in sound level <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> frequency pattern. It is essential for optimum speech intelligibility torecognize <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>se c<strong>on</strong>tinually shifting sound patterns. Not <strong>on</strong>ly does noise diminish <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> ability toperceive <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> auditory signal, but it also reduces a listener’s ability to follow <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> pattern <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> signalfluctuati<strong>on</strong>. In general, interference with speech communicati<strong>on</strong> occurs when intrusive noise exceedsabout 60 dB (Federal Interagency Committee On <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g> 1992).Indoor speech interference can be expressed as a percentage <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> sentence intelligibility am<strong>on</strong>g twopeople speaking in relaxed c<strong>on</strong>versati<strong>on</strong> approximately 3 feet apart in a typical living room orbedroom (U.S. Envir<strong>on</strong>mental Protecti<strong>on</strong> Agency 1974). The percentage <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> sentence intelligibility is an<strong>on</strong>-linear functi<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> (steady) indoor background A-weighted sound level. Such a curve-fit yields100 percent sentence intelligibility for background levels below 57 dB <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> yields less than 10 percentintelligibility for background levels above 73 dB. The functi<strong>on</strong> is especially sensitive to changes insound level between 65 dB <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> 75 dB. As an example <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> sensitivity, a 1 dB increase in backgroundsound level from 70 dB to 71 dB yields a 14 percent decrease in sentence intelligibility. The sensitivity<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> speech interference to noise at 65 dB <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> above is c<strong>on</strong>sistent with <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteri<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> DNL 65 dBgenerally taken from <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> Schultz curve. This is c<strong>on</strong>sistent with <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> observati<strong>on</strong> that speechinterference is <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> primary cause <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> annoyance.3.3 Sleep InterferenceSleep interference is ano<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>r source <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> annoyance <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> potential health c<strong>on</strong>cern associated with aircraftnoise. Because <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> intermittent nature <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> c<strong>on</strong>tent <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> aircraft noise, it is more disturbing thanc<strong>on</strong>tinuous noise <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> equal energy. Given that quality sleep is requisite for good health, repeatedoccurrences <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> sleep interference could have an effect <strong>on</strong> overall health.Sleep interference may be measured in ei<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>r <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> two ways. “Arousal” represents actual awakeningfrom sleep, while a change in “sleep stage” represents a shift from <strong>on</strong>e <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> four sleep stages to ano<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>rstage <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> lighter sleep without actual awakening. In general, arousal requires a somewhat higher noiselevel than does a change in sleep stage.Sleep is not a c<strong>on</strong>tinuous, uniform c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong> but a complex series <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> states through which <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> brainprogresses in a cyclical pattern. Arousal from sleep is a functi<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> a number <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> factors that includeage, sex, sleep stage, noise level, frequency <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> noise occurrences, noise quality, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> pre-sleep activity.Because individuals differ in <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>ir physiology, behavior, habitati<strong>on</strong>, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> ability to adapt to noise, fewstudies have attempted to establish noise criteri<strong>on</strong> levels for sleep disturbance.Lukas (1978) c<strong>on</strong>cluded <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> following with regard to human sleep resp<strong>on</strong>se to noise: Children 5 to 8 years <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> age are generally unaffected by noise during sleep. Older people are more sensitive to sleep disturbance than younger people. Women are more sensitive to noise than men, in general. There is a wide variati<strong>on</strong> in <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> sensitivity <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> individuals to noise even within <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> same agegroup. Sleep arousal is directly proporti<strong>on</strong>al to <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> sound intensity <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> aircraft flyover. While <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>rehave been several studies c<strong>on</strong>ducted to assess <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> effect <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> aircraft noise <strong>on</strong> sleep, n<strong>on</strong>e haveproduced quantitative dose-resp<strong>on</strong>se relati<strong>on</strong>ships in terms <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> noise exposure level, DNL, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>14
sleep disturbance. <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g>-sleep disturbance relati<strong>on</strong>ships have been developed based <strong>on</strong>single-event noise exposure.An analysis sp<strong>on</strong>sored by <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> U.S. Air Force summarized 21 published studies c<strong>on</strong>cerning <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> effects<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> noise <strong>on</strong> sleep (Pears<strong>on</strong>s, et al. 1989). The analysis c<strong>on</strong>cluded that a lack <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> reliable studies inhomes, combined with large differences am<strong>on</strong>g <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> results from <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> various laboratory studies, didnot permit development <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> an acceptably accurate assessment procedure. The noise events used in <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>laboratory studies <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> in c<strong>on</strong>trived in-home studies were presented at much higher rates <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>occurrence than would normally be experienced in <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> home. N<strong>on</strong>e <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> laboratory studies were <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>sufficiently l<strong>on</strong>g durati<strong>on</strong> to determine any effects <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> habituati<strong>on</strong>, such as that which would occurunder normal community c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s.A study <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> effects <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> nighttime noise exposure <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> in-home sleep <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> residents near <strong>on</strong>e militaryairbase, near <strong>on</strong>e civil airport, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> in several households with negligible nighttime aircraft noiseexposure, revealed SEL as <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> best noise metric predicting noise-related awakenings. It alsodetermined that out <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> 930 subject nights, <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> average sp<strong>on</strong>taneous (not noise-related) awakenings pernight was 2.07 compared to <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> average number <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> noise-related awakenings per night <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> 0.24 (Fidell,et al. 1994). Additi<strong>on</strong>ally, a 1995 analysis <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> sleep disturbance studies c<strong>on</strong>ducted both in <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> laboratoryenvir<strong>on</strong>ment <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> in <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> field (in <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> sleeping quarters <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> homes) showed that when measuringawakening to noise, a 10 dB increase in SEL was associated with <strong>on</strong>ly an 8 percent increase in <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>probability <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> awakening in <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> laboratory studies, but <strong>on</strong>ly a 1 percent increase in <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> field (Pears<strong>on</strong>s,et al. 1995). Pears<strong>on</strong>s, et al. (1995), reported that even SEL values as high as 85 dB produced noawakenings or arousals in at least <strong>on</strong>e study. This observati<strong>on</strong> suggests a str<strong>on</strong>g influence <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>habituati<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> susceptibility to noise-induced sleep disturbance. A 1984 study (Kryter 1984) indicatesthat an indoor SEL <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> 65 dB or lower should awaken less than 5 percent <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> exposed individuals.Never<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>less, some guidance is available in judging sleep interference. The EPA identified an indoorDNL <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> 45 dB as necessary to protect against sleep interference (U.S. Envir<strong>on</strong>mental Protecti<strong>on</strong>Agency 1978). Assuming a very c<strong>on</strong>servative structural noise insulati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> 20 dB for typical dwellingunits, this corresp<strong>on</strong>ds to an outdoor day-night average sound level <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> 65 dB to minimize sleepinterference.In 1997, <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> Federal Interagency Committee <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Aviati<strong>on</strong></str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g> (FICAN) adopted an interim guidelinefor sleep awakening predicti<strong>on</strong>. The new curve, based <strong>on</strong> studies in Engl<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> (Ollerhead, et al. 1992)<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> at two U.S. airports (Los Angeles Internati<strong>on</strong>al <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Denver Internati<strong>on</strong>al), c<strong>on</strong>cluded that <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>incidence <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> sleep awakening from aircraft noise was less than identified in a 1992 study (FederalInteragency Committee On <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g> 1992). Using indoor single-event noise levels represented by SEL,potential sleep awakening can be predicted using <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> curve presented in Figure 5. Typically, homes in<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> United States provide 15 dB <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> sound attenuati<strong>on</strong> with windows open <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> 25 dB with windowsclosed <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> air c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>ing operating. Hence, <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> outdoor SEL <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> 107 dB would be 92 dB indoors withwindows open <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> 82 dB indoors with windows closed <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> air c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>ing operating.Using Figure 5, <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> potential sleep awakening would be 15% with windows open <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> 10% withwindows closed in <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> above example.The new FICAN curve does not address habituati<strong>on</strong> over time by sleeping subjects <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> is applicable<strong>on</strong>ly to adult populati<strong>on</strong>s. Never<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>less, this curve provides a reas<strong>on</strong>able guideline for assessing sleepawakening. It is c<strong>on</strong>servative, representing <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> upper envelope <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> field study results.15
The FICAN curve shown in Figure 5 represents awakenings from single events. To date, no exactquantitative dose-resp<strong>on</strong>se relati<strong>on</strong>ship exists for noise-related sleep interference from multipleevents; yet, based <strong>on</strong> studies c<strong>on</strong>ducted to date <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> USEPA guideline <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> a 45 DNL to protect sleepinterference, useful ways to assess sleep interference have emerged. If homes are c<strong>on</strong>servativelyestimated to have a 20-dB noise insulati<strong>on</strong>, an average <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> 65 DNL would produce an indoor level <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> 45DNL <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> would form a reas<strong>on</strong>able guideline for evaluating sleep interference. This also corresp<strong>on</strong>dswell to <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> general guideline for assessing speech interference. Annoyance that may result from sleepdisturbance is accounted for in <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> calculati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> DNL, which includes a 10-dB penalty for each sortieoccurring after 10 pm or before 7 am.3.4 Hearing LossC<strong>on</strong>siderable data <strong>on</strong> hearing loss have been collected <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> analyzed. It has been well established thatc<strong>on</strong>tinuous exposure to high noise levels will damage human hearing (U.S. Envir<strong>on</strong>mental Protecti<strong>on</strong>Agency 1978). People are normally capable <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> hearing up to 120 dB over a wide frequency range.Hearing loss is generally interpreted as <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> shifting <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> a higher sound level <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> ear’s sensitivity oracuity to perceive sound. This change can ei<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>r be temporary, called a temporary threshold shift(TTS), or permanent, called a permanent threshold shift (PTS) (Berger, et al. 1995).The EPA has established 75 dB for an 8-hour exposure <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> 70 dB for a 24-hour exposure as <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>average noise level st<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>ard requisite to protect 96% <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> populati<strong>on</strong> from greater than a 5 dB PTS(U.S. Envir<strong>on</strong>mental Protecti<strong>on</strong> Agency 1978). Similarly, <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> Nati<strong>on</strong>al Academy <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> SciencesCommittee <strong>on</strong> Hearing, Bioacoustics, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Biomechanics (CHABA) identified 75 dB as <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> minimumlevel at which hearing loss may occur (Committee <strong>on</strong> Hearing, Bioacoustics, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Biomechanics 1977).However, it is important to note that c<strong>on</strong>tinuous, l<strong>on</strong>g-term (40 years) exposure is assumed by bothEPA <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> CHABA before hearing loss may occur.Federal workplace st<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>ards for protecti<strong>on</strong> from hearing loss allow a time-average level <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> 90 dB overan 8-hour work period or 85 dB over a 16-hour period. Even <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> most protective criteri<strong>on</strong> (nomeasurable hearing loss for <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> most sensitive porti<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> populati<strong>on</strong> at <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> ear’s most sensitivefrequency, 4,000 Hz, after a 40-year exposure) is a time-average sound level <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> 70 dB over a 24-hourperiod.Studies <strong>on</strong> community hearing loss from exposure to aircraft flyovers near airports showed that <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>reis no danger, under normal circumstances, <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> hearing loss due to aircraft noise (Newman <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Beattie1985).A laboratory study measured changes in human hearing from noise representative <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> low-flyingaircraft <strong>on</strong> MTRs. (Nix<strong>on</strong>, et al. 1993). In this study, participants were first subjected to four overflightnoise exposures at A-weighted levels <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> 115 dB to 130 dB. One-half <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> subjects showed no changein hearing levels, <strong>on</strong>e-fourth had a temporary 5-dB increase in sensitivity (<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> people could hear a5-dB wider range <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> sound than before exposure), <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong>e-fourth had a temporary 5-dB decrease insensitivity (<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> people could hear a 5-dB narrower range <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> sound than before exposure). In <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> nextphase, participants were subjected to a single overflight at a maximum level <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> 130 dB for eightsuccessive exposures, separated by 90 sec<strong>on</strong>ds or until a temporary shift in hearing was observed. Thetemporary hearing threshold shifts resulted in <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> participants hearing a wider range <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> sound, butwithin 10 dB <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>ir original range.16
Figure 5. Recommended Sleep Disturbance Dose-Resp<strong>on</strong>se Relati<strong>on</strong>ship17
In ano<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>r study <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> 115 test subjects between 18 <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> 50 years old, temporary threshold shifts weremeasured after laboratory exposure to military low-altitude flight (MLAF) noise (Ising, et al. 1999).According to <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> authors, <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> results indicate that repeated exposure to MLAF noise with L maxgreaterthan 114 dB, especially if <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> noise level increases rapidly, may have <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> potential to cause noiseinduced hearing loss in humans.Because it is unlikely that airport neighbors will remain outside <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>ir homes 24 hours per day forextended periods <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> time, <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>re is little possibility <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> hearing loss below a day-night average soundlevel <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> 75 dB, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> this level is extremely c<strong>on</strong>servative.3.5 N<strong>on</strong>auditory Health <str<strong>on</strong>g>Effect</str<strong>on</strong>g>sStudies have been c<strong>on</strong>ducted to determine whe<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>r correlati<strong>on</strong>s exist between noise exposure <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>cardiovascular problems, birth weight, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> mortality rates. The n<strong>on</strong>auditory effect <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> noise <strong>on</strong>humans is not as easily substantiated as <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> effect <strong>on</strong> hearing. The results <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> studies c<strong>on</strong>ducted in <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>United States, primarily c<strong>on</strong>centrating <strong>on</strong> cardiovascular resp<strong>on</strong>se to noise, have been c<strong>on</strong>tradictory(Cantrell 1974). Cantrell (1974) c<strong>on</strong>cluded that <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> results <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> human <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> animal experiments show thataverage or intrusive noise can act as a stress-provoking stimulus. Prol<strong>on</strong>ged stress is known to be ac<strong>on</strong>tributor to a number <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> health disorders. Kryter <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Poza (1980) state, “It is more likely that noiserelatedgeneral ill-health effects are due to <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> psychological annoyance from <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> noise interferingwith normal everyday behavior, than it is from <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> noise eliciting, because <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> its intensity, reflexiveresp<strong>on</strong>se in <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> aut<strong>on</strong>omic or o<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>r physiological systems <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> body.” Psychological stresses maycause a physiological stress reacti<strong>on</strong> that could result in impaired health.The Nati<strong>on</strong>al Institute for Occupati<strong>on</strong>al Safety <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Health <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> EPA commissi<strong>on</strong>ed CHABA in 1981 tostudy whe<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>r established noise st<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>ards are adequate to protect against health disorders o<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>r thanhearing defects. CHABA’s c<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong> was that:Evidence from available research reports is suggestive, but it does not provide definitive answers to<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> questi<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> health effects, o<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>r than to <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> auditory system, <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> l<strong>on</strong>g-term exposure to noise. Itseems prudent, <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>refore, in <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> absence <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> adequate knowledge as to whe<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>r or not noise canproduce effects up<strong>on</strong> health o<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>r than damage to auditory system, ei<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>r directly or mediatedthrough stress, that ins<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>ar as feasible, an attempt should be made to obtain more critical evidence.Since <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> CHABA report, <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>re have been more recent studies that suggest that noise exposure maycause hypertensi<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> o<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>r stress-related effects in adults. Near an airport in Stockholm, Sweden,<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> prevalence <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> hypertensi<strong>on</strong> was reportedly greater am<strong>on</strong>g nearby residents who were exposed toenergy averaged noise levels exceeding 55 dB <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> maximum noise levels exceeding 72 dB,particularly older subjects <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> those not reporting impaired hearing ability (Rosenlund, et al. 2001). Astudy <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> elderly volunteers who were exposed to simulated military low-altitude flight noise reportedthat blood pressure was raised by L max<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> 112 dB <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> high speed level increase (Michalak, et al. 1990).Yet ano<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>r study <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> subjects exposed to varying levels <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> military aircraft or road noise found nosignificant relati<strong>on</strong>ship between noise level <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> blood pressure (Pulles, et al. 1990).The U.S. Department <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> Navy prepared a programmatic Envir<strong>on</strong>mental Assessment (EA) for <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>c<strong>on</strong>tinued use <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> n<strong>on</strong>-explosive ordnance <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> Vieques Inner Range. Following <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> preparati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> EA, it was learned that research c<strong>on</strong>ducted by <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> University <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Puerto Rico, P<strong>on</strong>ce School <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>18
Medicine, suggested that Vieques fishermen <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>ir families were experiencing symptomsassociated with vibroacoustic disease (VAD) (U.S. Department <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> Navy 2002). The study allegedthat exposure to noise <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> sound waves <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> large pressure amplitudes within lower frequency b<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>s,associated with Navy training activities--specifically, air-to-ground bombing or naval fire support--was related to a larger prevalence <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> heart anomalies within <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> Vieques fishermen <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>ir families.The P<strong>on</strong>ce School <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Medicine study compared <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> Vieques group with a group from P<strong>on</strong>ce Playa. A1999 study c<strong>on</strong>ducted <strong>on</strong> Portuguese aircraft-manufacturing workers from a single factory reportedeffects <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> jet aircraft noise exposure that involved a wide range <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> symptoms <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> disorders, including<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> cardiac issues <strong>on</strong> which <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> P<strong>on</strong>ce School <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Medicine study focused. The 1999 study identified<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>se effects as VAD.Johns Hopkins University (JHU) c<strong>on</strong>ducted an independent review <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> P<strong>on</strong>ce School <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Medicinestudy, as well as <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> Portuguese aircraft workers study <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> o<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>r relevant scientific literature. Theirfindings c<strong>on</strong>cluded that VAD should not be accepted as a syndrome, given that exhaustive researchacross a number <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> populati<strong>on</strong>s has not yet been c<strong>on</strong>ducted. JHU also pointed out that <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> evidencesupporting <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> existence <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> VAD comes largely from <strong>on</strong>e group <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> investigators <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> that similarresults would have to be replicated by o<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>r investigators. In short, JHU c<strong>on</strong>cluded that it had notbeen established that noise was <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> causal agent for <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> symptoms reported <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> no inference can bemade as to <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> role <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> noise from naval gunfire in producing echocardiographic abnormalities (U.S.Department <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> Navy 2002).Most studies <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> n<strong>on</strong>auditory health effects <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> l<strong>on</strong>g-term noise exposure have found that noiseexposure levels established for hearing protecti<strong>on</strong> will also protect against any potential n<strong>on</strong>auditoryhealth effects, at least in workplace c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s. One <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> best scientific summaries <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>se findingsis c<strong>on</strong>tained in <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> lead paper at <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> Nati<strong>on</strong>al Institutes <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Health C<strong>on</strong>ference <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> HearingLoss, held <strong>on</strong> 22 to 24 January 1990 in Washingt<strong>on</strong>, D.C.:“The n<strong>on</strong>auditory effects <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> chr<strong>on</strong>ic noise exposure, when noise is suspected to act as <strong>on</strong>e <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> risk factors in <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> development <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> hypertensi<strong>on</strong>, cardiovascular disease, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> o<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>r nervousdisorders, have never been proven to occur as chr<strong>on</strong>ic manifestati<strong>on</strong>s at levels below <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>secriteria (an average <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> 75 dBA for complete protecti<strong>on</strong> against hearing loss for an 8-hour day).At <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> recent (1988) Internati<strong>on</strong>al C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g> as a Public Health Problem, most studiesattempting to clarify such health effects did not find <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>m at levels below <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> criteriaprotective <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> noise-induced hearing loss, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> even above <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>se criteria, results regarding suchhealth effects were ambiguous. C<strong>on</strong>sequently, <strong>on</strong>e comes to <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> c<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong> that establishing<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> enforcing exposure levels protecting against noise-induced hearing loss would not <strong>on</strong>lysolve <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> noise-induced hearing loss problem, but also any potential n<strong>on</strong>auditory health effectsin <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> work place” (v<strong>on</strong> Gierke 1990).Although <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>se findings were specifically directed at noise effects in <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> workplace, <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>y are equallyapplicable to aircraft noise effects in <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> community envir<strong>on</strong>ment. Research studies regarding <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>n<strong>on</strong>auditory health effects <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> aircraft noise are ambiguous, at best, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>ten c<strong>on</strong>tradictory. Yet, eventhose studies that purport to find such health effects use time-average noise levels <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> 75 dB <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> higherfor <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>ir research.19
For example, two UCLA researchers apparently found a relati<strong>on</strong>ship between aircraft noise levelsunder <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> approach path to Los Angeles Internati<strong>on</strong>al Airport (LAX) <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> increased mortality ratesam<strong>on</strong>g <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> exposed residents by using an average noise exposure level greater than 75 dB for <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>“noise-exposed” populati<strong>on</strong> (Meacham <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Shaw 1979). Never<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>less, three o<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>r UCLA pr<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>essorsanalyzed those same data <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> found no relati<strong>on</strong>ship between noise exposure <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> mortality rates(Frerichs, et al. 1980).As a sec<strong>on</strong>d example, two o<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>r UCLA researchers used this same populati<strong>on</strong> near LAX to show ahigher rate <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> birth defects for 1970 to 1972 when compared with a c<strong>on</strong>trol group residing away from<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> airport (J<strong>on</strong>es <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Tauscher 1978). Based <strong>on</strong> this report, a separate group at <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> Center for DiseaseC<strong>on</strong>trol performed a more thorough study <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> populati<strong>on</strong>s near Atlanta’s Hartsfield Internati<strong>on</strong>alAirport (ATL) for 1970 to 1972 <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> found no relati<strong>on</strong>ship in <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>ir study <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> 17 identified categories <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>birth defects to aircraft noise levels above 65 dB (Edm<strong>on</strong>ds, et al. 1979).In summary, <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>re is no scientific basis for a claim that potential health effects exist for aircraft timeaveragesound levels below 75 dB.The potential for noise to affect physiological health, such as <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> cardiovascular system, has beenspeculated; however, no unequivocal evidence exists to support such claims (Harris 1997).C<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong>s drawn from a review <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> health effect studies involving military low-altitude flight noisewith its unusually high maximum levels <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> rapid rise in sound level have shown no increase incardiovascular disease (Schwartze <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Thomps<strong>on</strong> 1993). Additi<strong>on</strong>al claims that are unsupportedinclude flyover noise producing increased mortality rates <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> increases in cardiovascular death,aggravati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> post-traumatic stress syndrome, increased stress, increase in admissi<strong>on</strong>s to mentalhospitals, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> adverse affects <strong>on</strong> pregnant women <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> unborn fetus (Harris 1997).3.6 Performance <str<strong>on</strong>g>Effect</str<strong>on</strong>g>sThe effect <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> noise <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> performance <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> activities or tasks has been <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> subject <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> many studies. Some<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>se studies have established links between c<strong>on</strong>tinuous high noise levels <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> performance loss.<str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g>-induced performance losses are most frequently reported in studies employing noise levels inexcess <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> 85 dB. Little change has been found in low-noise cases. It has been cited that moderate noiselevels appear to act as a stressor for more sensitive individuals performing a difficult psychomotortask.While <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> results <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> research <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> general effect <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> periodic aircraft noise <strong>on</strong> performance have yet toyield definitive criteria, several general trends have been noted including: A periodic intermittent noise is more likely to disrupt performance than a steady-statec<strong>on</strong>tinuous noise <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> same level. Flyover noise, due to its intermittent nature, might bemore likely to disrupt performance than a steady-state noise <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> equal level. <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g> is more inclined to affect <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> quality than <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> quantity <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> work. <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g> is more likely to impair <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> performance <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> tasks that place extreme dem<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>s <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>worker.20
3.7 <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Effect</str<strong>on</strong>g>s <strong>on</strong> ChildrenIn resp<strong>on</strong>se to noise-specific <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> o<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>r envir<strong>on</strong>mental studies, Executive Order 13045, Protecti<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>Children from Envir<strong>on</strong>mental Health Risks <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Safety Risks (1997), requires federal agencies toensure that policies, programs, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> activities address envir<strong>on</strong>mental health <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> safety risks to identifyany disproporti<strong>on</strong>ate risks to children.A review <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> scientific literature indicates that <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>re has not been a tremendous amount <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> researchin <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> area <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> aircraft noise effects <strong>on</strong> children. The research reviewed does suggest that envir<strong>on</strong>mentswith sustained high background noise can have variable effects, including noise effects <strong>on</strong> learning<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> cognitive abilities, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> reports <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> various noise-related physiological changes.3.7.1 <str<strong>on</strong>g>Effect</str<strong>on</strong>g>s <strong>on</strong> Learning <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Cognitive AbilitiesIn <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> recent release (2002) <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> “Acoustical Performance Criteria, Design Requirements, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>Guidelines for Schools,” <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> American Nati<strong>on</strong>al St<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>ards Institute refers to studies that suggest thatloud <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> frequent background noise can affect <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> learning patterns <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> young children. ANSIprovides discussi<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> relati<strong>on</strong>ships between noise <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> learning, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> stipulates designrequirements <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> acoustical performance criteria for outdoor-to-indoor noise isolati<strong>on</strong>. School designis directed to be cognizant <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> resp<strong>on</strong>sive to, surrounding l<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> uses <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> shielding <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> outdoornoise from <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> indoor envir<strong>on</strong>ment. ANSI has approved a new st<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>ard for acoustical performancecriteria in schools. The new criteria include <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> requirement that <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong>e-hour-average backgroundnoise level shall not exceed 35 dBA in core learning spaces smaller than 20,000 cubic-feet <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> 40 dBAin core learning spaces with enclosed volumes exceeding 20,000 cubic-feet. This would require schoolsbe c<strong>on</strong>structed such that, in quiet neighborhoods indoor noise levels are lowered by 15 to 20 dBArelative to outdoor levels. In schools near airports, indoor noise levels would have to be lowered by 35to 45 dBA relative to outdoor levels (American Nati<strong>on</strong>al St<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>ards Institute 2002).The studies referenced by ANSI to support <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> new st<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>ard are not specific to jet aircraft noise <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g><str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> potential effects <strong>on</strong> children. However, <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>re are references to studies that have shown thatchildren in noisier classrooms scored lower <strong>on</strong> a variety <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> tests. Excessive background noise orreverberati<strong>on</strong> within schools causes interferences <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> communicati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> can <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>refore create anacoustical barrier to learning (American Nati<strong>on</strong>al St<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>ards Institute 2002). Studies have beenperformed that c<strong>on</strong>tribute to <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> body <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> evidence emphasizing <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> importance <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> communicati<strong>on</strong> byway <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> spoken language to <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> development <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> cognitive skills. The ability to read, write,comprehend, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> maintain attentiveness, are, in part, based up<strong>on</strong> whe<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>r teacher communicati<strong>on</strong> isc<strong>on</strong>sistently intelligible (American Nati<strong>on</strong>al St<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>ards Institute 2002).Numerous studies have shown varying degrees <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> effects <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> noise <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> reading comprehensi<strong>on</strong>,attentiveness, puzzle-solving, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> memory/recall ability <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> children. It is generally accepted thatyoung children are more susceptible than adults to <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> effects <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> background noise. Because <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>developmental status <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> young children (linguistic, cognitive, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> pr<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>iciency), barriers to hearing cancause interferences or disrupti<strong>on</strong>s in developmental evoluti<strong>on</strong>.Research <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> impacts <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> aircraft noise, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> noise in general, <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> cognitive abilities <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> school-agedchildren has received more attenti<strong>on</strong> in recent years. Several studies suggest that aircraft noise canaffect <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> academic performance <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> schoolchildren. Although many factors could c<strong>on</strong>tribute to21
learning deficits in school-aged children (e.g., socioec<strong>on</strong>omic level, home envir<strong>on</strong>ment, diet, sleeppatterns), evidence exists that suggests that chr<strong>on</strong>ic exposure to high aircraft noise levels can impairlearning.Specifically, elementary school children attending schools near New York City’s two airportsdem<strong>on</strong>strated lower reading scores than children living far<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>r away from <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> flight paths (Green, etal. 1982). Researchers have found that tasks involving central processing <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> languagecomprehensi<strong>on</strong> (such as reading, attenti<strong>on</strong>, problem solving, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> memory) appear to be <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> mostaffected by noise (Evans <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Lepore 1993; Hygge 1994; <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Evans, et al. 1995). It has beendem<strong>on</strong>strated that chr<strong>on</strong>ic exposure <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> first- <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> sec<strong>on</strong>d-grade children to aircraft noise can result inreading deficits <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> impaired speech percepti<strong>on</strong> (i.e., <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> ability to hear comm<strong>on</strong>, low-frequency[vowel] sounds but not high frequencies [c<strong>on</strong>s<strong>on</strong>ants] in speech) (Evans <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Maxwell 1997).The Evans <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Maxwell (1997) study found that chr<strong>on</strong>ic exposure to aircraft noise resulted in readingdeficits <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> impaired speech percepti<strong>on</strong> for first- <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> sec<strong>on</strong>d-grade children. O<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>r studies found thatchildren residing near <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> Los Angeles Internati<strong>on</strong>al Airport had more difficulty solving cognitiveproblems <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> did not perform as well as children from quieter schools in puzzle-solving <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>attentiveness (Br<strong>on</strong>zaft 1997; Cohen, et al. 1980). Children attending elementary schools in highaircraft noise areas near L<strong>on</strong>d<strong>on</strong>’s Heathrow Airport dem<strong>on</strong>strated poorer reading comprehensi<strong>on</strong><str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> selective cognitive impairments (Haines, et al. 2001a, b). Similarly, a study c<strong>on</strong>ducted by Hygge(1994) found that students exposed to aircraft noise (76 dBA) scored 20% lower <strong>on</strong> recall ability teststhan students exposed to ambient noise (42-44 dBA). Similar studies involving <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> testing <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> attenti<strong>on</strong>,memory, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> reading comprehensi<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> schoolchildren located near airports showed that <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>ir testsexhibited reduced performance results compared to those <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> similar groups <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> children who werelocated in quieter envir<strong>on</strong>ments (Evans, et al. 1995; Haines, et al. 1998). The Haines <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Stansfeldstudy indicated that <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>re may be some l<strong>on</strong>g-term effects associated with exposure, as <strong>on</strong>e-yearfollow-up testing still dem<strong>on</strong>strated lowered scores for children in higher noise schools (Haines et al.,2001a <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> 2001b). In c<strong>on</strong>trast, a study c<strong>on</strong>ducted by Hygge, et al. (2002) found that although childrenliving near <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> old Munich airport scored lower in st<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>ardized reading <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> l<strong>on</strong>g-term memory teststhan a c<strong>on</strong>trol group, <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>ir performance <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> same tests was equal to that <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> c<strong>on</strong>trol group <strong>on</strong>ce<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> airport was closed.Finally, although it is recognized that <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>re are many factors that could c<strong>on</strong>tribute to learning deficitsin school-aged children, <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>re is increasing awareness that chr<strong>on</strong>ic exposure to high aircraft noiselevels may impair learning. This awareness has led <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> World Health Organizati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> a NorthAtlantic Treaty Organizati<strong>on</strong> working group to c<strong>on</strong>clude that daycare centers <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> schools should notbe located near major sources <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> noise, such as highways, airports, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> industrial sites (World HealthOrganizati<strong>on</strong> 2000; North Atlantic Treaty Organizati<strong>on</strong> 2000).3.7.2 Health <str<strong>on</strong>g>Effect</str<strong>on</strong>g>sPhysiological effects in children exposed to aircraft noise <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> potential for health effects have alsobeen <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> focus <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> limited investigati<strong>on</strong>. Studies in <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> literature include examinati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> blood pressurelevels, horm<strong>on</strong>al secreti<strong>on</strong>s, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> hearing loss.As a measure <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> stress resp<strong>on</strong>se to aircraft noise, authors have looked at blood pressure readings tom<strong>on</strong>itor children’s health. Children who were chr<strong>on</strong>ically exposed to aircraft noise from a new airportnear Munich, Germany, had modest (although significant) increases in blood pressure, significant22
increases in stress horm<strong>on</strong>es, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> a decline in quality <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> life (Evans, et al. 1998). Children attendingnoisy schools had statistically significant average systolic <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> diastolic blood pressure (p
abatement, operati<strong>on</strong>al changes, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> housing adjustments (relocati<strong>on</strong>, z<strong>on</strong>ing, soundpro<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing). Recentlegislative changes, such as <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>European Commissi<strong>on</strong>’s “Green Paper <strong>on</strong> Future <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g> Policy” (EC 1996) <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Directive 2002/49/EC<strong>on</strong> noise assessment (EC 2002), have focused attenti<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> noise valuati<strong>on</strong> as part <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> benefit-costanalyses <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> mitigati<strong>on</strong> projects. The informati<strong>on</strong> from valuati<strong>on</strong> studies also can be used for costeffectivepolicy design, including <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> choice between regulati<strong>on</strong>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> noise polluti<strong>on</strong> taxes.Ec<strong>on</strong>omic valuati<strong>on</strong> methods are divided into two categories: revealed preference methods such as<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> hed<strong>on</strong>ic price (HP) method for housing values; <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> stated preference (SP) methods such asc<strong>on</strong>tingent valuati<strong>on</strong> surveys. Revealed preference methods exploit <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> fact that <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>re are privatemarkets that are complementary to noise avoidance, including <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> market for residential housing.Suppose a house ei<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>r has a quiet residential envir<strong>on</strong>ment or it does not. The difference in marketvalues <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> an identical house in <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>se two envir<strong>on</strong>ments yields an implicit discount for noise, whichcompensates <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> occupants <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> noisy house. Informed market participants reveal this price as aresult <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> purchase <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> sale decisi<strong>on</strong>s in <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> market for real estate. The sorting <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> buyers <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> sellers ina stable noise envir<strong>on</strong>ment produces an outcome in which noisy houses tend to be occupied byindividuals who have a low willingness to pay for quietude (imperturbables) <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> quiet houses tend tobe occupied by those with a high willingness to pay. A change in <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> noise envir<strong>on</strong>ment alters <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>relative supply <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> noisy <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> quiet houses, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> creates a new equilibrium outcome. In practice,envir<strong>on</strong>mental c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s in residential neighborhoods are more complex. <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g> is a localized publicbad, so fixed proporti<strong>on</strong>s between houses <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> noises do not exist (Walters 1975). Potential buyers <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>houses can choose to live close to a busy highway or airport, far from <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>se facilities, or somewherein-between. They also can choose houses with physical attributes that partially <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fset <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> effects <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>noise, such as double-glazed windows <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> central air c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>ing. Fur<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>rmore, relocati<strong>on</strong> is notcostless <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> future noise levels are uncertain. The differences in housing values <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> noise levels yieldsa “noise discount” that falls as distance from an airport or highway increases. Regressi<strong>on</strong> analysis <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>real estate transacti<strong>on</strong>s is used to unbundle housing prices <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> calculate an implicit hed<strong>on</strong>ic price forquiet. A difference in market value <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> $20000 <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> a difference in noise exposure <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> 10 dB results in ahed<strong>on</strong>ic price <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> $2000 per dB, o<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>r things being equal. If <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> market value <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> house without noiseis $200 000 <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> its value with noise is $180 000, <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g> Depreciati<strong>on</strong> Index (NDI) is 1.0% per dB.The main alternatives to hed<strong>on</strong>ic valuati<strong>on</strong> are survey methods that ask resp<strong>on</strong>dents to state <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>irwillingness to pay for envir<strong>on</strong>mental improvements, including <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> c<strong>on</strong>tingent valuati<strong>on</strong> method,c<strong>on</strong>tingent ranking, c<strong>on</strong>joint analysis, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> o<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>r SP models. These methods are still relatively new, butseveral survey-based studies <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> noise valuati<strong>on</strong> are available.There are three major policy applicati<strong>on</strong>s for hed<strong>on</strong>ic prices. First, cost-benefit analyses <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> specificnoise mitigati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> abatement projects, including airport expansi<strong>on</strong>s, curfews, quieter aircraft, trafficnoise barriers, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> improved roads <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> highways. Sec<strong>on</strong>d, overall evaluati<strong>on</strong>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> full social costs<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> transportati<strong>on</strong>, which are studies <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> “paid” <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> “unpaid” costs <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> motor vehicle <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> aircraftoperati<strong>on</strong>s. Third, studies have evaluated alternative policy instruments, such as <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> calculati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>noise <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> c<strong>on</strong>gesti<strong>on</strong> taxes.C<strong>on</strong>tinued refinement <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> HP <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> SP estimates <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> noise damage valuati<strong>on</strong> will aid <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>se policyapplicati<strong>on</strong>s. In particular, HP estimates <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> noise damages are more useful if marginal prices are stableover time <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> space, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>refore can be applied to welfare changes in similar envir<strong>on</strong>mentalsettings. Absent this stability, each HP estimate is useful for <strong>on</strong>ly its designed purposes. SeveralEuropean countries have adopted st<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>ardized noise valuati<strong>on</strong>s for policy purposes, but many <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>se values are old or based <strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong>ly a few studies.24
In recent studies for aircraft noise, <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> 24 estimates yield an unweighted mean value <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> 0.92% <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> amedian value <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> 0.74% per dB. The interquartile mean for aircraft noise is 0.80% per dB. For trafficnoise, <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> 25 estimates yield an unweighted mean value <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> 0.57% <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> a median value <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> 0.54% per dB.The interquartile mean for traffic noise is 0.53% per dB. The average values for aircraft noise areslightly higher than prior estimates, which may reflect rising real incomes as well as differences inec<strong>on</strong>ometric techniques. The average values for traffic noise also are slightly higher than priorestimates, although <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> differences are perhaps minor. Hence, a review <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> recent estimates <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> NDIfor aircraft <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> traffic noise suggests that <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> unit values are stable over time.3.9 <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Effect</str<strong>on</strong>g>s <strong>on</strong> StructuresNormally, <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> most sensitive comp<strong>on</strong>ents <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> a structure to airborne noise are <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> windows <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>,infrequently, <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> plastered walls <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> ceilings. An evaluati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> peak sound pressures impinging<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> structure is normally used to determine <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> possibility <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> damage. In general, with peak soundlevels above 130 dB, <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>re is <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> possibility <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> excitati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> structural comp<strong>on</strong>ent res<strong>on</strong>ances.While certain frequencies (such as 30 hertz for window breakage) may be <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> more c<strong>on</strong>cern than o<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>rfrequencies, c<strong>on</strong>servatively, <strong>on</strong>ly sounds lasting more than <strong>on</strong>e sec<strong>on</strong>d above a sound level <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> 130 dBare potentially damaging to structural comp<strong>on</strong>ents (Committee <strong>on</strong> Hearing, Bioacoustics, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>Biomechanics 1977).<str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g>-induced structural vibrati<strong>on</strong> may also cause annoyance to dwelling occupants because <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>induced sec<strong>on</strong>dary vibrati<strong>on</strong>s, or rattling <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> objects within <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> dwelling such as hanging pictures,dishes, plaques, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> bric-a-brac. Window panes may also vibrate noticeably when exposed to highlevels <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> airborne noise. In general, such noise-induced vibrati<strong>on</strong>s occur at peak sound levels <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> 110dB or greater. Thus, assessments <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> noise exposure levels for compatible l<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> use should also beprotective <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> noise-induced sec<strong>on</strong>dary vibrati<strong>on</strong>s.3.10 <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Effect</str<strong>on</strong>g>s <strong>on</strong> TerrainIt has been suggested that noise levels associated with low-flying aircraft may affect <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> terrain under<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> flight path by disturbing fragile soil or snow, especially in mountainous areas, causing l<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>slidesor avalanches. There are no known instances <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> such effects, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> it is c<strong>on</strong>sidered improbable that sucheffects would result from routine, subs<strong>on</strong>ic aircraft operati<strong>on</strong>s.3.11 <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Effect</str<strong>on</strong>g>s <strong>on</strong> Historical <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Archaeological SitesBecause <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> potential for increased fragility <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> structural comp<strong>on</strong>ents <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> historical buildings <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>o<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>r historical sites, aircraft noise may affect such sites more severely than newer, modern structures.Particularly in older structures, seemingly insignificant surface cracks initiated by vibrati<strong>on</strong>s fromaircraft noise may lead to greater damage from natural forces (Hans<strong>on</strong>, et al. 1991). There are fewscientific studies <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> such effects to provide guidance for <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>ir assessment.One study involved <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> measurements <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> sound levels <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> structural vibrati<strong>on</strong> levels in a superblyrestored plantati<strong>on</strong> house, originally built in 1795, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> now situated approximately 1,500 feet from <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>centerline at <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> departure end <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Runway 19L at Washingt<strong>on</strong> Dulles Internati<strong>on</strong>al Airport. Thesemeasurements were made in c<strong>on</strong>necti<strong>on</strong> with <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> proposed scheduled operati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> supers<strong>on</strong>icC<strong>on</strong>corde airplane at Dulles (Wesler 1977). There was special c<strong>on</strong>cern for <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> building’s windows,since roughly half <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> 324 panes were original. No instances <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> structural damage were found.25
Interestingly, despite <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> high levels <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> noise during C<strong>on</strong>corde take<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fs, <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> induced structuralvibrati<strong>on</strong> levels were actually less than those induced by touring groups <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> vacuum cleaning.As noted above for <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> noise effects <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> noise-induced vibrati<strong>on</strong>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> c<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong>al structures,assessments <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> noise exposure levels for normally compatible l<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> uses should also be protective <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>historic <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> archaeological sites.3.12 <str<strong>on</strong>g>Effect</str<strong>on</strong>g>s <strong>on</strong> Domestic Animals <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> WildlifeHearing is critical to an animal’s ability to react, compete, reproduce, hunt, forage, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> survive in itsenvir<strong>on</strong>ment. While <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> existing literature does include studies <strong>on</strong> possible effects <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> jet aircraft noise<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> s<strong>on</strong>ic booms <strong>on</strong> wildlife, <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>re appears to have been little c<strong>on</strong>certed effort in developingquantitative comparis<strong>on</strong>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> aircraft noise effects <strong>on</strong> normal auditory characteristics. Behavioral effectshave been relatively well described, but <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> larger ecological c<strong>on</strong>text issues, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> potential fordrawing c<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong>s regarding effects <strong>on</strong> populati<strong>on</strong>s, has not been well developed.The relati<strong>on</strong>ships between potential auditory/physiological effects <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> species interacti<strong>on</strong>s with <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>irenvir<strong>on</strong>ments are not well understood. Manci, et al. (1988), assert that <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> c<strong>on</strong>sequences thatphysiological effects may have <strong>on</strong> behavioral patterns is vital to underst<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> l<strong>on</strong>g-term effects<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> noise <strong>on</strong> wildlife. Questi<strong>on</strong>s regarding <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> effects (if any) <strong>on</strong> predator-prey interacti<strong>on</strong>s,reproductive success, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> intra-inter specific behavior patterns remain.The following discussi<strong>on</strong> provides an overview <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> existing literature <strong>on</strong> noise effects (particularlyjet aircraft noise) <strong>on</strong> animal species. The literature reviewed here involves those studies that havefocused <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> observati<strong>on</strong>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> behavioral effects that jet aircraft <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> s<strong>on</strong>ic booms have <strong>on</strong> animals.A great deal <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> research was c<strong>on</strong>ducted in <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> 1960’s <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> 1970’s <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> effects <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> aircraft noise <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>public <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> potential for adverse ecological impacts. These studies were largely completed inresp<strong>on</strong>se to <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> increase in air travel <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> as a result <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> introducti<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> supers<strong>on</strong>ic jet aircraft.According to Manci, et al. (1988), <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> foundati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> informati<strong>on</strong> created from that focus does notnecessarily correlate or provide informati<strong>on</strong> specific to <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> impacts to wildlife in areas overflown byaircraft at supers<strong>on</strong>ic speed or at low altitudes.The abilities to hear sounds <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> noise <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> to communicate assist wildlife in maintaining groupcohesiveness <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> survivorship. Social species communicate by transmitting calls <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> warning,introducti<strong>on</strong>, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> o<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>r types that are subsequently related to an individual’s or group’sresp<strong>on</strong>siveness.Animal species differ greatly in <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>ir resp<strong>on</strong>ses to noise. <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g> effects <strong>on</strong> domestic animals <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>wildlife are classified as primary, sec<strong>on</strong>dary, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> tertiary. Primary effects are direct, physiologicalchanges to <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> auditory system, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> most likely include <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> masking <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> auditory signals. Masking isdefined as <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> inability <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> an individual to hear important envir<strong>on</strong>mental signals that may arise frommates, predators, or prey. There is some potential that noise could disrupt a species’ ability tocommunicate or could interfere with behavioral patterns (Manci, et al. 1988). Although <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> effects arelikely temporal, aircraft noise may cause masking <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> auditory signals within exposed faunalcommunities. Animals rely <strong>on</strong> hearing to avoid predators, obtain food, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> communicate with, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>attract, o<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>r members <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>ir species. Aircraft noise may mask or interfere with <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>se functi<strong>on</strong>s.O<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>r primary effects, such as ear drum rupture or temporary <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> permanent hearing threshold26
shifts, are not as likely given <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> subs<strong>on</strong>ic noise levels produced by aircraft overflights. Sec<strong>on</strong>daryeffects may include n<strong>on</strong>-auditory effects such as stress <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> hypertensi<strong>on</strong>; behavioral modificati<strong>on</strong>s;interference with mating or reproducti<strong>on</strong>; <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> impaired ability to obtain adequate food, cover, orwater. Tertiary effects are <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> direct result <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> primary <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> sec<strong>on</strong>dary effects, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> include populati<strong>on</strong>decline <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> habitat loss. Most <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> effects <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> noise are mild enough that <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>y may never bedetectable as variables <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> change in populati<strong>on</strong> size or populati<strong>on</strong> growth against <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> background <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>normal variati<strong>on</strong> (Bowles 1995). O<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>r envir<strong>on</strong>mental variables (e.g., predators, wea<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>r, changingprey base, ground-based disturbance) also influence sec<strong>on</strong>dary <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> tertiary effects, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> c<strong>on</strong>found <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>ability to identify <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> ultimate factor in limiting productivity <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> a certain nest, area, or regi<strong>on</strong> (Smith,et al. 1988). Overall, <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> literature suggests that species differ in <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>ir resp<strong>on</strong>se to various types,durati<strong>on</strong>s, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> sources <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> noise (Manci, et al. 1988).Many scientific studies have investigated <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> effects <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> aircraft noise <strong>on</strong> wildlife, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> some havefocused <strong>on</strong> wildlife “flight” due to noise. Apparently, animal resp<strong>on</strong>ses to aircraft are influenced bymany variables, including size, speed, proximity (both height above <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> ground <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> lateral distance),engine noise, color, flight pr<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>ile, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> radiated noise. The type <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> aircraft (e.g., fixed wing versusrotor-wing [helicopter]) <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> type <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> flight missi<strong>on</strong> may also produce different levels <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> disturbance,with varying animal resp<strong>on</strong>ses (Smith, et al. 1988). C<strong>on</strong>sequently, it is difficult to generalize animalresp<strong>on</strong>ses to noise disturbances across species.One result <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> 1988 Manci, et al., literature review was <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> c<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong> that, while behavioralobservati<strong>on</strong> studies were relatively limited, a general behavioral reacti<strong>on</strong> in animals from exposure toaircraft noise is <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> startle resp<strong>on</strong>se. The intensity <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> durati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> startle resp<strong>on</strong>se appears to bedependent <strong>on</strong> which species is exposed, whe<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>r <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>re is a group or an individual, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> whe<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>r <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>rehave been some previous exposures. Resp<strong>on</strong>ses range from flight, trampling, stampeding, jumping, orrunning, to movement <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> head in <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> apparent directi<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> noise source. Manci, et al. (1988),reported that <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> literature indicated that avian species may be more sensitive to aircraft noise thanmammals.3.12.1 Domestic AnimalsAlthough some studies report that <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> effects <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> aircraft noise <strong>on</strong> domestic animals is inc<strong>on</strong>clusive, amajority <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> literature reviewed indicates that domestic animals exhibit some behavioral resp<strong>on</strong>sesto military overflights but generally seem to habituate to <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> disturbances over a period <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> time.Mammals in particular appear to react to noise at sound levels higher than 90 dB, with resp<strong>on</strong>sesincluding <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> startle resp<strong>on</strong>se, freezing (i.e., becoming temporarily stati<strong>on</strong>ary), <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> fleeing from <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>sound source. Many studies <strong>on</strong> domestic animals suggest that some species appear to acclimate tosome forms <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> sound disturbance (Manci, et al. 1988). Some studies have reported such primary <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>sec<strong>on</strong>dary effects as reduced milk producti<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> rate <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> milk release, increased glucosec<strong>on</strong>centrati<strong>on</strong>s, decreased levels <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> hemoglobin, increased heart rate, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> a reducti<strong>on</strong> in thyroidactivity. These latter effects appear to represent a small percentage <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> findings occurring in <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>existing literature.Some reviewers have indicated that earlier studies, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> claims by farmers linking adverse effects <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>aircraft noise <strong>on</strong> livestock, did not necessarily provide clear-cut evidence <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> cause <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> effect(Cottereau 1978). In c<strong>on</strong>trast, many studies c<strong>on</strong>clude that <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>re is no evidence that aircraft overflightsaffect feed intake, growth, or producti<strong>on</strong> rates in domestic animals.27
CattleIn resp<strong>on</strong>se to c<strong>on</strong>cerns about overflight effects <strong>on</strong> pregnant cattle, milk producti<strong>on</strong>, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> cattle safety,<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> U.S. Air Force prepared a h<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>book for envir<strong>on</strong>mental protecti<strong>on</strong> that summarizes <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> literature<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> impacts <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> low-altitude flights <strong>on</strong> livestock (<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> poultry) <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> includes specific case studiesc<strong>on</strong>ducted in numerous airspaces across <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> country. Adverse effects have been found in a fewstudies but have not been reproduced in o<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>r similar studies. One such study, c<strong>on</strong>ducted in 1983,suggested that 2 <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> 10 cows in late pregnancy aborted after showing rising estrogen <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> fallingprogester<strong>on</strong>e levels. These increased horm<strong>on</strong>al levels were reported as being linked to 59 aircraftoverflights. The remaining eight cows showed no changes in <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>ir blood c<strong>on</strong>centrati<strong>on</strong>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> calvednormally (U.S. Air Force 1994b). A similar study reported aborti<strong>on</strong>s occurred in three out <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> fivepregnant cattle after exposing <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>m to flyovers by six different aircraft (U.S.Air Force 1994b). Ano<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>rstudy suggested that feedlot cattle could stampede <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> injure <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>mselves when exposed to low-leveloverflights (U.S. Air Force 1994b).A majority <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> studies reviewed suggests that <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>re is little or no effect <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> aircraft noise <strong>on</strong> cattle.Studies presenting adverse effects to domestic animals have been limited. A number <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> studies(Parker <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Bayley 1960; Casady <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Lehmann 1967; Kovalcik <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Sottnik 1971) investigated <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>effects <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> jet aircraft noise <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> s<strong>on</strong>ic booms <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> milk producti<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> dairy cows. Through <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>compilati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> examinati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> milk producti<strong>on</strong> data from areas exposed to jet aircraft noise <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>s<strong>on</strong>ic boom events, it was determined that milk yields were not affected. This was particularly evidentin those cows that had been previously exposed to jet aircraft noise.A study examined <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> causes <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> 1,763 aborti<strong>on</strong>s in Wisc<strong>on</strong>sin dairy cattle over a <strong>on</strong>e-year time period<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> n<strong>on</strong>e were associated with aircraft disturbances (U.S.Air Force 1993). In 1987, Anders<strong>on</strong> c<strong>on</strong>tactedseven livestock operators for producti<strong>on</strong> data, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> no effects <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> low-altitude <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> supers<strong>on</strong>ic flightswere noted. Three out <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> 43 cattle previously exposed to low-altitude flights showed a startle resp<strong>on</strong>seto an F/A-18 aircraft flying overhead at 500 feet above ground level <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> 400 knots by running lessthan 10 meters. They resumed normal activity within <strong>on</strong>e minute (U.S.Air Force 1994b). Beyer (1983)found that helicopters caused more reacti<strong>on</strong> than o<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>r low-aircraft overflights, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> that <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>helicopters at 30 to 60 feet overhead did not affect milk producti<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> pregnancies <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> 44 cows <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>heifers in a 1964 study (U.S. Air Force 1994b).Additi<strong>on</strong>ally, Beyer reported that five pregnant dairy cows in a pasture did not exhibit fright-flighttendencies or disturb <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>ir pregnancies after being overflown by 79 low-altitude helicopter flights <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>4 low-altitude, subs<strong>on</strong>ic jet aircraft flights (U.S. Air Force 1994b). A 1956 study found that <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>reacti<strong>on</strong>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> dairy <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> beef cattle to noise from low-altitude, subs<strong>on</strong>ic aircraft were similar to thosecaused by paper blowing about, strange pers<strong>on</strong>s, or o<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>r moving objects (U.S. Air Force 1994b).In a report to C<strong>on</strong>gress, <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> U. S. Forest Service c<strong>on</strong>cluded that “evidence both from field studies <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>wild ungulates <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> laboratory studies <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> domestic stock indicate that <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> risks <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> damage are small(from aircraft approaches <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> 50 to 100 meters), as animals take care not to damage <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>mselves (U.S.Forest Service 1992). If animals are overflown by aircraft at altitudes <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> 50 to 100 meters, <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>re is noevidence that mo<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>rs <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> young are separated, that animals collide with obstructi<strong>on</strong>s (unlessc<strong>on</strong>fined) or that <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>y traverse dangerous ground at too high a rate.” These varied study resultssuggest that, although <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> c<strong>on</strong>fining <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> cattle could magnify animal resp<strong>on</strong>se to aircraft overflight,28
<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>re is no proven cause-<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>-effect link between startling cattle from aircraft overflights <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> aborti<strong>on</strong>rates or lower milk producti<strong>on</strong>.HorsesHorses have also been observed to react to overflights <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> jet aircraft. Several <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> studies reviewedreported a varied resp<strong>on</strong>se <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> horses to low-altitude aircraft overflights. Observati<strong>on</strong>s made in 1966<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> 1968 noted that horses galloped in resp<strong>on</strong>se to jet flyovers (U.S. Air Force 1993). Bowles (1995)cites Kruger <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Erath as observing horses exhibiting intensive flight reacti<strong>on</strong>s, r<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>om movements,<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> biting/kicking behavior. However, no injuries or aborti<strong>on</strong>s occurred, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>re was evidence that<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> mares adapted somewhat to <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> flyovers over <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> course <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> a m<strong>on</strong>th (U.S. Air Force 1994b).Although horses were observed noticing <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> overflights, it did not appear to affect ei<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>r survivabilityor reproductive success. There was also some indicati<strong>on</strong> that habituati<strong>on</strong> to <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>se types <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>disturbances was occurring.LeBlanc, et al. (1991), studied <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> effects <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> F-14 jet aircraft noise <strong>on</strong> pregnant mares. They specificallyfocused <strong>on</strong> any changes in pregnancy success, behavior, cardiac functi<strong>on</strong>, horm<strong>on</strong>al producti<strong>on</strong>, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>rate <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> habituati<strong>on</strong>. Their findings reported observati<strong>on</strong>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> “flight-fright” reacti<strong>on</strong>s, which causedincreases in heart rates <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> serum cortisol c<strong>on</strong>centrati<strong>on</strong>s. The mares, however, did habituate to <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>noise. Levels <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> anxiety <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> mass body movements were <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> highest after initial exposure, withintensities <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> resp<strong>on</strong>ses decreasing <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>reafter. There were no differences in pregnancy success whencompared to a c<strong>on</strong>trol group.SwineGenerally, <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> literature findings for swine appear to be similar to those reported for cows <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> horses.While <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>re are some effects from aircraft noise reported in <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> literature, <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>se effects are minor.Studies <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> c<strong>on</strong>tinuous noise exposure (i.e., 6 hours, 72 hours <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> c<strong>on</strong>stant exposure) reported influences<strong>on</strong> short-term horm<strong>on</strong>al producti<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> release. Additi<strong>on</strong>al c<strong>on</strong>stant exposure studies indicated <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>observati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> stress reacti<strong>on</strong>s, hypertensi<strong>on</strong>, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> electrolyte imbalances (Dufour 1980). A study byB<strong>on</strong>d, et al. (1963), dem<strong>on</strong>strated no adverse effects <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> feeding efficiency, weight gain, earphysiology, or thyroid <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> adrenal gl<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> pigs subjected to observed aircraft noise.Observati<strong>on</strong>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> heart rate increase were recorded, noting that cessati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> noise resulted in <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>return to normal heart rates. C<strong>on</strong>cepti<strong>on</strong> rates <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fspring survivorship did not appear to beinfluenced by exposure to aircraft noise.Similarly, simulated aircraft noise at levels <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> 100 dB to 135 dB had <strong>on</strong>ly minor effects <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> rate <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>feed utilizati<strong>on</strong>, weight gain, food intake, or reproducti<strong>on</strong> rates <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> boars <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> sows exposed, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>rewere no injuries or inner ear changes observed (Manci, et al. 1988; Gladwin, et al. 1988).Domestic FowlAccording to a 1994 positi<strong>on</strong> paper by <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> U.S. Air Force <strong>on</strong> effects <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> low-altitude overflights (below1,000 ft) <strong>on</strong> domestic fowl, overflight activity has negligible effects (U.S. Air Force 1994a). The paperdid recognize that given certain circumstances, adverse effects can be serious. Some <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> effects canbe panic reacti<strong>on</strong>s, reduced productivity, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> effects <strong>on</strong> marketability (e.g., bruising <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> meatcaused during “pile-up” situati<strong>on</strong>s).29
The typical reacti<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> domestic fowl after exposure to sudden, intense noise is a short-term startleresp<strong>on</strong>se. The reacti<strong>on</strong> ceases as so<strong>on</strong> as <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> stimulus is ended, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> within a few minutes all activityreturns to normal. More severe resp<strong>on</strong>ses are possible depending <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> number <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> birds, <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>frequency <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> exposure, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> envir<strong>on</strong>mental c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s. Large crowds <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> birds, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> birds notpreviously exposed, are more likely to pile up in resp<strong>on</strong>se to a noise stimulus (U.S. Air Force 1994a).According to studies <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> interviews with growers, it is typically <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> previously unexposed birds thatincite panic crowding, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> tendency to do so is markedly reduced within five exposures to <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>stimulus (U.S. Air Force 1994a). This suggests that <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> birds habituate relatively quickly. Eggproductivity was not adversely affected by infrequent noise bursts, even at exposure levels as high as120 to 130 dBA.Between 1956 <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> 1988, <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>re were 100 recorded claims against <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> Navy for alleged damage todomestic fowl. The number <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> claims averaged three per year, with peak numbers <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> claims followingpublicati<strong>on</strong>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> studies <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> topic in <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> early 1960s (U.S. Air Force 1994a). Many <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> claims weredisproved or did not have sufficient supporting evidence. The claims were filed for <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> followingalleged damages: 55% for panic reacti<strong>on</strong>s, 31% for decreased producti<strong>on</strong>, 6% for reduced hatchability,6% for weight loss, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> less than 1% for reduced fertility (U.S. Air Force 1994a).TurkeysThe review <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> existing literature suggests that <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>re has not been a c<strong>on</strong>certed or widespread effortto study <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> effects <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> aircraft noise <strong>on</strong> commercial turkeys. One study involving turkeys examined<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> differences between simulated versus actual overflight aircraft noise, turkey resp<strong>on</strong>ses to <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>noise, weight gain, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> evidence <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> habituati<strong>on</strong> (Bowles, et al. 1990). Findings from <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> studysuggested that turkeys habituated to jet aircraft noise quickly, that <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>re were no growth ratedifferences between <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> experimental <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> c<strong>on</strong>trol groups, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> that <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>re were some behavioraldifferences that increased <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> difficulty in h<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>ling individuals within <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> experimental group.Low-altitude overflights were shown to cause turkey flocks that were kept inside turkey houses tooccasi<strong>on</strong>ally pile up <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> experience high mortality rates due to <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> aircraft noise <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> a variety <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>disturbances unrelated to aircraft (U.S. Air Force 1994a).3.12.2 WildlifeStudies <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> effects <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> overflights <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> s<strong>on</strong>ic booms <strong>on</strong> wildlife have been focused mostly <strong>on</strong> avianspecies <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> ungulates such as caribou <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> bighorn sheep. Few studies have been c<strong>on</strong>ducted <strong>on</strong>marine mammals, small terrestrial mammals, reptiles, amphibians, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> carnivorous mammals.Generally, species that live entirely below <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> surface <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> water have also been ignored due to <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>fact <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>y do not experience <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> same level <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> sound as terrestrial species (Nati<strong>on</strong>al Park Service 1994).Wild ungulates appear to be much more sensitive to noise disturbance than domestic livestock(Manci, et al. 1988). This may be due to previous exposure to disturbances. One comm<strong>on</strong> factorappears to be that low-altitude flyovers seem to be more disruptive in terrain where <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>re is littlecover (Manci, et al. 1988).30
<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>ir surroundings <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> to determine <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> directi<strong>on</strong>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> locati<strong>on</strong>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> sound sources (Simm<strong>on</strong>s 1983 inManci, et al. 1988).In 1980, <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> Acoustical Society <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> America held a workshop to assess <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> potential hazard <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> manmadenoise associated with proposed Alaska Arctic (North Slope-Outer C<strong>on</strong>tinental Shelf) petroleumoperati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>on</strong> marine wildlife <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> to prepare a research plan to secure <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> knowledge necessary forproper assessment <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> noise impacts (Acoustical Society <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> America, 1980). Since 1980 it appears thatresearch <strong>on</strong> resp<strong>on</strong>ses <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> aquatic mammals to aircraft noise <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> s<strong>on</strong>ic booms has been limited.Research c<strong>on</strong>ducted <strong>on</strong> nor<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>rn fur seals, sea li<strong>on</strong>s, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> ringed seals indicated that <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>re are somedifferences in how various animal groups receive frequencies <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> sound. It was observed that <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>sespecies exhibited varying intensities <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> a startle resp<strong>on</strong>se to airborne noise, which was habituated overtime. The rates <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> habituati<strong>on</strong> appeared to vary with species, populati<strong>on</strong>s, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> demographics (age,sex). Time <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> day <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> exposure was also a factor (Muyberg 1978 in Manci, et al. 1988).Studies accomplished near <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> Channel Isl<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>s were c<strong>on</strong>ducted near <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> area where <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> space shuttlelaunches occur. It was found that <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>re were some resp<strong>on</strong>se differences between species relative to <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>loudness <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> s<strong>on</strong>ic booms. Those booms that were between 80 <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> 89 dBA caused a greater intensity <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>startle reacti<strong>on</strong>s than lower-intensity booms at 72 to 79 dBA. However, <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> durati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> startleresp<strong>on</strong>ses to louder s<strong>on</strong>ic booms was shorter (Jehl <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Cooper 1980 in Manci, et al. 1988).Jehl <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Cooper (1980) indicated that low-flying helicopters, loud boat noises, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> humans were <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>most disturbing to pinnipeds. According to <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> research, while <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> space launch <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> associatedoperati<strong>on</strong>al activity noises have not had a measurable effect <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> pinniped populati<strong>on</strong>, it alsosuggests that <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>re was a greater “disturbance level” exhibited during launch activities. There was arecommendati<strong>on</strong> to c<strong>on</strong>tinue observati<strong>on</strong>s for behavioral effects <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> to perform l<strong>on</strong>g-term populati<strong>on</strong>m<strong>on</strong>itoring (Jehl <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Cooper 1980).The c<strong>on</strong>tinued presence <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> single or multiple noise sources could cause marine mammals to leave apreferred habitat. However, it does not appear likely that overflights could cause migrati<strong>on</strong> fromsuitable habitats as aircraft noise over water is mobile <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> would not persist over any particular area.Aircraft noise, including supers<strong>on</strong>ic noise, currently occurs in <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> overwater airspace <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Eglin,Tyndall, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Langley AFBs from sorties predominantly involving jet aircraft. Survey results reportedin Davis, et al. (2000), indicate that cetaceans (i.e., dolphins) occur under all <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> Eglin <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Tyndallmarine airspace. The c<strong>on</strong>tinuing presence <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> dolphins indicates that aircraft noise does not discourageuse <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> area <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> apparently does not harm <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> locally occurring populati<strong>on</strong>.In a summary by <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> Nati<strong>on</strong>al Parks Service (1994) <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> effects <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> noise <strong>on</strong> marine mammals, it wasdetermined that gray whales <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> harbor porpoises showed no outward behavioral resp<strong>on</strong>se toaircraft noise or overflights. Bottlenose dolphins showed no obvious reacti<strong>on</strong> in a study involvinghelicopter overflights at 1,200 to 1,800 feet above <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> water. Nei<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>r did <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>y show any reacti<strong>on</strong> tosurvey aircraft unless <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> shadow <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> aircraft passed over <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>m, at which point <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>re was someobserved tendency to dive (Richards<strong>on</strong>, et al. 1995). O<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>r anthropogenic noises in <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> marineenvir<strong>on</strong>ment from ships <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> pleasure craft may have more <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> an effect <strong>on</strong> marine mammals thanaircraft noise (U.S. Air Force 2000). The noise effects <strong>on</strong> cetaceans appear to be somewhat attenuatedby <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> air/water interface. The cetacean fauna al<strong>on</strong>g <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> coast <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> California have been subjected tos<strong>on</strong>ic booms from military aircraft for many years without apparent adverse effects (Tetra Tech, Inc.1997).32
Manatees appear relatively unresp<strong>on</strong>sive to human-generated noise to <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> point that <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>y are <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>tensuspected <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> being deaf to <strong>on</strong>coming boats [although <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>ir hearing is actually similar to that <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>pinnipeds (Bullock, et al. 1980)]. Little is known about <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> importance <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> acoustic communicati<strong>on</strong> tomanatees, although <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>y are known to produce at least ten different types <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> sounds <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> are thoughtto have sensitive hearing (Richards<strong>on</strong>, et al. 1995). Manatees c<strong>on</strong>tinue to occupy canals near MiamiInternati<strong>on</strong>al Airport, which suggests that <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>y have become habituated to human disturbance <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>noise (Metro-Dade County 1995). Since manatees spend most <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>ir time below <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> surface <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> d<strong>on</strong>ot startle readily, no effect <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> aircraft overflights <strong>on</strong> manatees would be expected (Bowles, et al.1991).3.12.2.2 BIRDSAuditory research c<strong>on</strong>ducted <strong>on</strong> birds indicates that <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>y fall between <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> reptiles <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> mammalsrelative to hearing sensitivity. According to Dooling (1978), within <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> range <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> 1 to 5 kHz, birds showa level <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> hearing sensitivity similar to that <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> more sensitive mammals. In c<strong>on</strong>trast to mammals,bird sensitivity falls <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>f at a greater rate to increasing <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> decreasing frequencies. Passive observati<strong>on</strong>s<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> studies examining aircraft bird strikes indicate that birds nest <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> forage near airports. Aircraftnoise in <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> vicinity <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> commercial airports apparently does not inhibit bird presence <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> use.High-noise events (like a low-altitude aircraft overflight) may cause birds to engage in escape oravoidance behaviors, such as flushing from perches or nests (Ellis, et al. 1991). These activities imposean energy cost <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> birds that, over <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> l<strong>on</strong>g term, may affect survival or growth. In additi<strong>on</strong>, <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>birds may spend less time engaged in necessary activities like feeding, preening, or caring for <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>iryoung because <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>y spend time in noise-avoidance activity. However, <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> l<strong>on</strong>g-term significance <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>noise-related impacts is less clear. Several studies <strong>on</strong> nesting raptors have indicated that birds becomehabituated to aircraft overflights <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> that l<strong>on</strong>g-term reproductive success is not affected (Grubb <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>King 1991; Ellis, et al. 1991). Threshold noise levels for significant resp<strong>on</strong>ses range from 62 dB forPacific black brant (Branta bernicla nigricans) (Ward <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Stehn 1990) to 85 dB for crested tern (Sternabergii) (Brown 1990).S<strong>on</strong>gbirds were observed to become silent prior to <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong>set <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> a s<strong>on</strong>ic boom event (F-111 jets),followed by “raucous discordant cries.” There was a return to normal singing within 10 sec<strong>on</strong>ds after<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> boom (Higgins 1974 in Manci, et al., 1988). Ravens resp<strong>on</strong>ded by emitting protestati<strong>on</strong> calls,flapping <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>ir wings, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> soaring.Manci, et al. (1988), reported a reducti<strong>on</strong> in reproductive success in some small territorial passerines(i.e., perching birds or s<strong>on</strong>gbirds) after exposure to low-altitude overflights. However, it has beenobserved that passerines are not driven any great distance from a favored food source by an<strong>on</strong>specific disturbance, such as aircraft overflights (U.S. Forest Service 1992). Fur<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>r study may bewarranted.A recent study, c<strong>on</strong>ducted cooperatively between <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> DoD <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> USFWS, assessed <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> resp<strong>on</strong>se <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> red-cockaded woodpecker to a range <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> military training noise events, including artillery, smallarms, helicopter, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> maneuver noise (Pater, et al. 1999). The project findings show that <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> redcockadedwoodpecker successfully acclimates to military noise events. Depending <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> noise levelthat ranged from innocuous to very loud, <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> birds resp<strong>on</strong>ded by flushing from <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>ir nest cavities.When <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> noise source was closer <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> noise level was higher, <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> number <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> flushes increasedproporti<strong>on</strong>ately. In all cases, however, <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> birds returned to <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>ir nests within a relatively short period33
<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> time (usually within 12 minutes). Additi<strong>on</strong>ally, <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> noise exposure did not result in any mortalityor statistically detectable changes in reproductive success (Pater, et al. 1999). Red-cockadedwoodpeckers did not flush when artillery simulators were more than 122 meters away <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> SEL noiselevels were 70 dBA.Lynch <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Speake (1978) studied <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> effects <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> both real <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> simulated s<strong>on</strong>ic booms <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> nesting<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> brooding eastern wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo silvestris) in Alabama. Hens at four nest siteswere subjected to between 8 <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> 11 combined real <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> simulated s<strong>on</strong>ic booms. All tests elicitedsimilar resp<strong>on</strong>ses, including quick lifting <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> head <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> apparent alertness for between 10 <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> 20sec<strong>on</strong>ds. No apparent nest failure occurred as a result <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> s<strong>on</strong>ic booms.Twenty-<strong>on</strong>e brood groups were also subjected to simulated s<strong>on</strong>ic booms. Reacti<strong>on</strong>s varied slightlybetween groups, but <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> largest percentage <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> groups reacted by st<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing moti<strong>on</strong>less after <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> initialblast. Up<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> sound <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> boom, <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> hens <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> poults fled until reaching <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> edge <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> woods(approximately 4 to 8 meters). Afterward, <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> poults resumed feeding activities while <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> hensremained alert for a short period <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> time (approximately 15 to 20 sec<strong>on</strong>ds). In no instances were poultsab<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g><strong>on</strong>ed, nor did <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>y scatter <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> become lost. Every observati<strong>on</strong> group returned to normalactivities within a maximum <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> 30 sec<strong>on</strong>ds after a blast.3.12.2.2.1 R APTORSIn a literature review <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> raptor resp<strong>on</strong>ses to aircraft noise, Manci, et al. (1988), found that most raptorsdid not show a negative resp<strong>on</strong>se to overflights. When negative resp<strong>on</strong>ses were observed <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>y werepredominantly associated with rotor-winged aircraft or jet aircraft that were repeatedly passingwithin 0.5 mile <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> a nest.Ellis, et al. (1991), performed a study to estimate <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> effects <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> low-level military jet aircraft <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> midtohigh-altitude s<strong>on</strong>ic booms (both actual <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> simulated) <strong>on</strong> nesting peregrine falc<strong>on</strong>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> seven o<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>rraptors (comm<strong>on</strong> black-hawk, Harris’ hawk, z<strong>on</strong>e-tailed hawk, red-tailed hawk, golden eagle, prairiefalc<strong>on</strong>, bald eagle). They observed resp<strong>on</strong>ses to test stimuli, determined nest success for <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> year <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>testing, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> evaluated site occupancy <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> following year. Both l<strong>on</strong>g- <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> short-term effects were notedin <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> study. The results reported <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> successful fledging <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> young in 34 <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> 38 nest sites (all eightspecies) subjected to low-level flight <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>/or simulated s<strong>on</strong>ic booms. Twenty-two <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> test sites wererevisited in <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> following year, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> observati<strong>on</strong>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> pairs or l<strong>on</strong>e birds were made at all but <strong>on</strong>e nest.Nesting attempts were underway at 19 <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> 20 sites that were observed l<strong>on</strong>g enough to be certain <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>breeding activity. Reoccupancy <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> productivity rates were within or above expected values for selfsustainingpopulati<strong>on</strong>s.Short-term behavior resp<strong>on</strong>ses were also noted. Overflights at a distance <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> 150 m or less producedfew significant resp<strong>on</strong>ses <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> no severe resp<strong>on</strong>ses. Typical resp<strong>on</strong>ses c<strong>on</strong>sisted <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> crouching or, veryrarely, flushing from <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> perch site. Significant resp<strong>on</strong>ses were most evident before egg laying <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>after young were “well grown.” Incubating or brooding adults never burst from <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> nest, thuspreventing egg breaking or knocking chicks out <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> nest. Jet passes <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> s<strong>on</strong>ic booms <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>ten causednoticeable alarm; however, significant negative resp<strong>on</strong>ses were rare <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> did not appear to limitproductivity or reoccupancy. Due to <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> locati<strong>on</strong>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> some <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> nests, some birds may have beenhabituated to aircraft noise. There were some test sites located at distances far from z<strong>on</strong>es <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> frequentmilitary aircraft usage, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> test stimuli were <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>ten closer, louder, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> more frequent than wouldbe likely for a normal training situati<strong>on</strong>.34
Manci, et al. (1988), noted that a female nor<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>rn harrier was observed hunting <strong>on</strong> a bombing range inMississippi during bombing exercises. The harrier was apparently unfazed by <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> exercises, evenwhen a bomb exploded within 200 feet. In a similar case <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> habituati<strong>on</strong>/n<strong>on</strong>-disturbance, a study <strong>on</strong><str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> Florida snail-kite stated <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> greatest reacti<strong>on</strong> to overflights (approximately 98 dBA) was “watching<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> aircraft fly by.” No detrimental impacts to distributi<strong>on</strong>, breeding success, or behavior were noted.Bald EagleA study by Grubb <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> King (1991) <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> reacti<strong>on</strong>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> bald eagle to human disturbances showedthat terrestrial disturbances elicited <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> greatest resp<strong>on</strong>se, followed by aquatic (i.e., boats) <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> aerialdisturbances. The disturbance regime <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> area where <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> study occurred was predominantlycharacterized by aircraft noise. The study found that pedestrians c<strong>on</strong>sistently caused resp<strong>on</strong>ses thatwere greater in both frequency <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> durati<strong>on</strong>. Helicopters elicited <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> highest level <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> aircraft-relatedresp<strong>on</strong>ses. Aircraft disturbances, although <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> most comm<strong>on</strong> form <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> disturbance, resulted in <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>lowest levels <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> resp<strong>on</strong>se. This low resp<strong>on</strong>se level may have been due to habituati<strong>on</strong>; however, flightsless than 170 meters away caused reacti<strong>on</strong>s similar to o<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>r disturbance types. Ellis, et al. (1991),showed that eagles typically resp<strong>on</strong>d to <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> proximity <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> a disturbance, such as a pedestrian or aircraftwithin 100 meters, ra<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>r than <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> noise level. Fleischner <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Weisberg (1986) stated that reacti<strong>on</strong>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>bald eagles to commercial jet flights, although minor (e.g., looking), were twice as likely to occurwhen <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> jets passed at a distance <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> 0.5 mile or less. They also noted that helicopters were four timesmore likely to cause a reacti<strong>on</strong> than a commercial jet <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> 20 times more likely to cause a reacti<strong>on</strong> thana propeller plane.The USFWS advised Cann<strong>on</strong> AFB that flights at or below 2,000 feet AGL from October 1 throughMarch 1 could result in adverse impacts to wintering bald eagles (U.S. Fish <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Wildlife Serice 1998).However, Fraser, et al. (1985), suggested that raptors habituate to overflights rapidly, sometimestolerating aircraft approaches <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> 65 feet or less.OspreyA study by Trimper, et al. (1998), in Goose Bay, Labrador, Canada, focused <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> reacti<strong>on</strong>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> nestingosprey to military overflights by CF-18 Hornets. Reacti<strong>on</strong>s varied from increased alertness <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>focused observati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> planes to adjustments in incubati<strong>on</strong> posture. No overt reacti<strong>on</strong>s (e.g., startleresp<strong>on</strong>se, rapid nest departure) were observed as a result <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> an overflight. Young nestlings crouchedas a result <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> any disturbance until <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>y grew to 1 to 2 weeks prior to fledging. Helicopters, humanpresence, float planes, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> o<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>r ospreys elicited <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> str<strong>on</strong>gest reacti<strong>on</strong>s from nesting ospreys. Theseresp<strong>on</strong>ses included flushing, agitati<strong>on</strong>, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> aggressive displays. Adult osprey showed high nestoccupancy rates during incubati<strong>on</strong> regardless <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> external influences.The osprey observed occasi<strong>on</strong>ally stared in <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> directi<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> flight before it was audible to <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>observers. The birds may have been habituated to <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> noise <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> flights; however, overflights werestrictly c<strong>on</strong>trolled during <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> experimental period. Str<strong>on</strong>g reacti<strong>on</strong>s to float planes <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> helicopter mayhave been due to <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> slower flight <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>refore l<strong>on</strong>ger durati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> visual stimuli ra<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>r than noiserelatedstimuli.Red-tailed HawkAnders<strong>on</strong>, et al. (1989), c<strong>on</strong>ducted a study that investigated <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> effects <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> low-level helicopteroverflights <strong>on</strong> 35 red-tailed hawk nests. Some <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> nests had not been flown over prior to <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> study.35
days. Additi<strong>on</strong>ally, it was observed that potential predators (bald eagle) caused a number <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> birds toleave <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>ir nests. N<strong>on</strong>-breeding birds were observed to be more reactive than breeding birds.Waterfowl were affected by helicopter flights, while snow geese were disturbed by Cessna 185 flights.The geese flushed when <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> planes were under 1,000 feet, compared to higher flight elevati<strong>on</strong>s. Anoverall reducti<strong>on</strong> in flock sizes was observed. It was recommended that aircraft flights be reduced in<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> vicinity <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> premigratory staging areas.Manci, et al. 1988 reported that waterfowl were particularly disturbed by aircraft noise. The mostsensitive appeared to be snow geese. Canada geese <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> snow geese were thought to be more sensitivethan o<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>r animals such as turkey vultures, coyotes, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> raptors (Edwards, et al. 1979).3.12.2.2.3 WADING AND SHORE BIRDSBlack, et al. (1984), studied <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> effects <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> low-altitude (less than 500 feet AGL) military training flightswith sound levels from 55 to 100 dBA <strong>on</strong> wading bird col<strong>on</strong>ies (i.e., great egret, snowy egret,tricolored her<strong>on</strong>, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> little blue her<strong>on</strong>). The training flights involved three or four aircraft, whichoccurred <strong>on</strong>ce or twice per day. This study c<strong>on</strong>cluded that <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> reproductive activity--including nestsuccess, nestling survival, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> nestling chr<strong>on</strong>ology--was independent <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> F-16 overflights. Dependentvariables were more str<strong>on</strong>gly related to ecological factors, including locati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> physicalcharacteristics <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> col<strong>on</strong>y <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> climatology. Ano<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>r study <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> effects <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> circling fixed-wingaircraft <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> helicopter overflights <strong>on</strong> wading bird col<strong>on</strong>ies found that at altitudes <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> 195 to 390 feet,<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>re was no reacti<strong>on</strong> in nearly 75% <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> 220 observati<strong>on</strong>s. Ninety percent displayed no reacti<strong>on</strong> ormerely looked toward <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> directi<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> noise source. Ano<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>r 6 percent stood up, 3 percent walkedfrom <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> nest, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> 2 percent flushed (but were without active nests) <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> returned within 5 minutes(Kushlan 1978). Apparently, n<strong>on</strong>-nesting wading birds had a slightly higher incidence <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> reacting tooverflights than nesting birds. Seagulls observed roosting near a col<strong>on</strong>y <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> wading birds in ano<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>rstudy remained at <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>ir roosts when subs<strong>on</strong>ic aircraft flew overhead (Burger 1981). Col<strong>on</strong>ydistributi<strong>on</strong> appeared to be most directly correlated to available wetl<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> community types <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> wasfound to be distributed r<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>omly with respect to military training routes. These results suggest thatwading bird species presence was most closely linked to habitat availability <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> that <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>y were notaffected by low-level military overflights (U.S. Air Force 2000).Burger (1986) studied <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> resp<strong>on</strong>se <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> migrating shorebirds to human disturbance <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> found thatshorebirds did not fly in resp<strong>on</strong>se to aircraft overflights, but did flush in resp<strong>on</strong>se to more localizedintrusi<strong>on</strong>s (i.e., humans <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> dogs <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> beach). Burger (1981) studied <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> effects <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> noise from JFKAirport in New York <strong>on</strong> herring gulls that nested less than 1 kilometer from <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> airport. <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g> levelsover <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> nesting col<strong>on</strong>y were 85 to 100 dBA <strong>on</strong> approach <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> 94 to 105 dBA <strong>on</strong> take<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>f. Generally,<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>re did not appear to be any prominent adverse effects <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> subs<strong>on</strong>ic aircraft <strong>on</strong> nesting, althoughsome birds flushed when <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> c<strong>on</strong>corde flew overhead <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>, when <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>y returned, engaged in aggressivebehavior. Groups <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> gulls tended to loaf in <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> area <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> nesting col<strong>on</strong>y, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>se birds remained at<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> roost when <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> c<strong>on</strong>corde flew overhead. Up to 208 <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> loafing gulls flew when supers<strong>on</strong>icaircraft flew overhead. These birds would circle around <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> immediately l<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> in <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> loafing flock(U.S. Air Force 2000).In 1969, s<strong>on</strong>ic booms were potentially linked to a mass hatch failure <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Sooty Terns <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> DryTortugas (Austin et al, 1969). The cause <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> failure was not certain, but it was c<strong>on</strong>jectured that s<strong>on</strong>icbooms from military aircraft or an overgrowth <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> vegetati<strong>on</strong> were factors. In <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> previous seas<strong>on</strong>,37
Sooties were observed to react to s<strong>on</strong>ic booms by rising in a “panic flight,” circling over <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> isl<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>,<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>n usually settling down <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>ir eggs again. Hatching that year was normal. Following <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> 1969hatch failure, excess vegetati<strong>on</strong> was cleared <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> measures were taken to reduce supers<strong>on</strong>ic activity.The 1970 hatch appeared to proceed normally. A col<strong>on</strong>y <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Noddies <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> same isl<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> hatchedsuccessfully in 1969, <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> year <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> Sooty hatch failure.Subsequent laboratory tests <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> exposure <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> eggs to s<strong>on</strong>ic booms <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> o<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>r impulsive noises (Bowles etal 1991; Bowles et al 1994; Cottereau 1972; Cogger <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Zegarra 1980) failed to show adverse effects <strong>on</strong>hatching <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> eggs. A structural analysis (Ting et al, 2002) showed that, even under extraordinarycircumstances, s<strong>on</strong>ic booms would not damage an avian egg.Burger (1981) observed no effects <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> subs<strong>on</strong>ic aircraft <strong>on</strong> herring gulls in <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> vicinity <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> JFKInternati<strong>on</strong>al Airport. The c<strong>on</strong>corde aircraft did cause more nesting gulls to leave <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>ir nests(especially in areas <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> higher density <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> nests), causing <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> breakage <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> eggs <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> scavenging <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>eggs by intruder prey. Clutch sizes were observed to be smaller in areas <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> higher-density nesting(presumably due to <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> greater tendency for panic flight) than in areas where <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>re were fewer nests.3.12.3 Fish, Reptiles, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> AmphibiansThe effects <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> overflight noise <strong>on</strong> fish, reptiles, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> amphibians have been poorly studied, butc<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong>s regarding <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>ir expected resp<strong>on</strong>ses have involved speculati<strong>on</strong> based up<strong>on</strong> knownphysiologies <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> behavioral traits <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>se taxa (Gladwin, et al. 1988). Although fish do startle inresp<strong>on</strong>se to low-flying aircraft noise, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> probably to <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> shadows <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> aircraft, <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>y have been found tohabituate to <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> sound <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> overflights. Reptiles <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> amphibians that resp<strong>on</strong>d to low frequencies <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>those that resp<strong>on</strong>d to ground vibrati<strong>on</strong>, such as spadefoots (genus Scaphiopus), may be affected bynoise. Limited informati<strong>on</strong> is available <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> effects <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> short-durati<strong>on</strong> noise events <strong>on</strong> reptiles.Dufour (1980) <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Manci, et al. (1988), summarized a few studies <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> reptile resp<strong>on</strong>ses to noise. Somereptile species tested under laboratory c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s experienced at least temporary threshold shifts orhearing loss after exposure to 95 dB for several minutes. Crocodilians in general have <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> most highlydeveloped hearing <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> all reptiles. Crocodile ears have lids that can be closed when <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> animal goesunder water. These lids can reduce <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> noise intensity by 10 to 12 dB (Wever <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Vern<strong>on</strong> 1957). OnHomestead Air Reserve Stati<strong>on</strong>, Florida, two crocodilians (<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> American Alligator <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> SpectacledCaiman) reside in wetl<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> canals al<strong>on</strong>g <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> base runway suggesting that <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>y can coexist wi<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>xisting noise levels <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> an active runway including DNLs <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> 85 dB.3.12.4 SummarySome physiological/behavioral resp<strong>on</strong>ses such as increased horm<strong>on</strong>al producti<strong>on</strong>, increased heartrate, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> reducti<strong>on</strong> in milk producti<strong>on</strong> have been described in a small percentage <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> studies. Amajority <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> studies focusing <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>se types <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> effects have reported short-term or no effects.The relati<strong>on</strong>ships between physiological effects <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> how species interact with <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>ir envir<strong>on</strong>mentshave not been thoroughly studied. Therefore, <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> larger ecological c<strong>on</strong>text issues regardingphysiological effects <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> jet aircraft noise (if any) <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> resulting behavioral pattern changes are not wellunderstood.Animal species exhibit a wide variety <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> resp<strong>on</strong>ses to noise. It is <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>refore difficult to generalizeanimal resp<strong>on</strong>ses to noise disturbances or to draw inferences across species, as reacti<strong>on</strong>s to jet aircraftnoise appear to be species-specific. C<strong>on</strong>sequently, some animal species may be more sensitive than38
o<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>r species <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>/or may exhibit different forms or intensities <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> behavioral resp<strong>on</strong>ses. For instance,wood ducks appear to be more sensitive <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> more resistant to acclimati<strong>on</strong> to jet aircraft noise thanCanada geese in <strong>on</strong>e study. Similarly, wild ungulates seem to be more easily disturbed than domesticanimals.The literature does suggest that comm<strong>on</strong> resp<strong>on</strong>ses include <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> “startle” or “fright” resp<strong>on</strong>se <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>,ultimately, habituati<strong>on</strong>. It has been reported that <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> intensities <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> durati<strong>on</strong>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> startle resp<strong>on</strong>sedecrease with <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> numbers <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> frequencies <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> exposures, suggesting no l<strong>on</strong>g-term adverse effects.The majority <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> literature suggests that domestic animal species (cows, horses, chickens) <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>wildlife species exhibit adaptati<strong>on</strong>, acclimati<strong>on</strong>, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> habituati<strong>on</strong> after repeated exposure to jet aircraftnoise <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> s<strong>on</strong>ic booms.Animal resp<strong>on</strong>ses to aircraft noise appear to be somewhat dependent <strong>on</strong>, or influenced by, <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> size,shape, speed, proximity (vertical <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> horiz<strong>on</strong>tal), engine noise, color, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> flight pr<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>ile <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> planes.Helicopters also appear to induce greater intensities <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> durati<strong>on</strong>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> disturbance behavior ascompared to fixed-wing aircraft. Some studies showed that animals that had been previously exposedto jet aircraft noise exhibited greater degrees <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> alarm <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> disturbance to o<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>r objects creating noise,such as boats, people, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> objects blowing across <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> l<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>scape. O<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>r factors influencing resp<strong>on</strong>se tojet aircraft noise may include wind directi<strong>on</strong>, speed, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> local air turbulence; l<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>scape structures(i.e., amount <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> type <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> vegetative cover); <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>, in <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> case <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> bird species, whe<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>r <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> animals are in<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> incubati<strong>on</strong>/nesting phase.39
4. ReferencesAcoustical Society <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> America. 1980. San Diego Workshop <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> Interacti<strong>on</strong> Between Manmade <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Vibrati<strong>on</strong><str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Arctic Marine Wildlife. Acoust. Soc. Am., Am. Inst. Physics, New York. 84 pp.American Nati<strong>on</strong>al St<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>ards Institute. 1980. Sound Level Descriptors for Determinati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Compatible L<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Use.ANSI S3.23-1980.American Nati<strong>on</strong>al St<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>ards Institute. 1988. Quantities <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Procedures for Descripti<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Measurement <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>Envir<strong>on</strong>mental Sound: Part 1. ANSI S12.9-1988.American Nati<strong>on</strong>al St<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>ards Institute. 1996. Quantities <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Procedures for Descripti<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Measurement <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>Envir<strong>on</strong>mental Sound: Part 4. ANSI S12.9-1996.American Nati<strong>on</strong>al St<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>ards Institute. 2002. Acoustical Performance Criteria, Design Requirements, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>Guidelines for Schools. ANSI S12.60-2002.Anders<strong>on</strong>, D.E., O.J. R<strong>on</strong>gstad, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> W.R. Mytt<strong>on</strong>. 1989. Resp<strong>on</strong>ses <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Nesting Red-tailed Hawks to HelicopterOverflights. The C<strong>on</strong>dor, Vol. 91, pp. 296-299.Andrus, W.S., M.E. Kerrigan, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> K.T. Bird. 1975. Hearing in Para-Airport Children. <str<strong>on</strong>g>Aviati<strong>on</strong></str<strong>on</strong>g>, Space, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>Envir<strong>on</strong>mental Medicine, Vol. 46, pp. 740-742.Berger, E. H., W.D. Ward, J.C. Morrill, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> L.H. Royster. 1995. <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g> And Hearing C<strong>on</strong>servati<strong>on</strong> Manual, FourthEditi<strong>on</strong>. American Industrial Hygiene Associati<strong>on</strong>, Fairfax, Virginia.Berglund, B., <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> T. Lindvall, eds. 1995. Community <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g>. Institute <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Envir<strong>on</strong>mental Medicine.Beyer, D. 1983. Studies <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Effect</str<strong>on</strong>g>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Low-Flying Aircraft <strong>on</strong> Endocrinological <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Physiological Parameters inPregnant Cows. Veterinary College <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Hannover, München, Germany.Black, B., M. Collopy, H. Percivial, A. Tiller, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> P. Bohall. 1984. <str<strong>on</strong>g>Effect</str<strong>on</strong>g>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Low-Altitude Military Training Flights<strong>on</strong> Wading Bird Col<strong>on</strong>ies in Florida. Florida Cooperative Fish <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Wildlife Research Unit, TechnicalReport No. 7.B<strong>on</strong>d, J., C.F. Winchester, L.E. Campbell, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> J.C. Webb. 1963. The <str<strong>on</strong>g>Effect</str<strong>on</strong>g>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Loud Sounds <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> Physiology <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>Behavior <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Swine. U.S. Department <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Agriculture Agricultural Research Service Technical Bulletin1280.Bowles, A.E. 1995. Resp<strong>on</strong>ses <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Wildlife to <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g>. In R.L. Knight <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> K.J. Gutzwiller, eds., “Wildlife <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>Recreati<strong>on</strong>ists: Coexistence through Management <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Research,” Isl<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Press, Covelo, California,pp.109-156.Bowles, A.E., F.T. Awbrey, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> J.R. Jehl. 1991. The <str<strong>on</strong>g>Effect</str<strong>on</strong>g>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> High-Amplitude Impulsive <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g> On HatchingSuccess: A Reanalysis <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> Sooty Tern Incident, HSD-TP-91-0006.40
Bowles, A.E., B. Tabachnick, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> S. Fidell. 1991. Review <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Effect</str<strong>on</strong>g>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Aircraft Overflights <strong>on</strong> Wildlife. Volume II<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> III, Technical Report, Nati<strong>on</strong>al Park Service, Denver, Colorado.Bowles, A.E., C. Book, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> F. Bradley. 1990. <str<strong>on</strong>g>Effect</str<strong>on</strong>g>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Low-Altitude Aircraft Overflights <strong>on</strong> Domestic TurkeyPoults. USAF, Wright-Patters<strong>on</strong> AFB, AL/OEBN <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Effect</str<strong>on</strong>g>s Branch.Bowles, A.E., M. Knobler, M.D. Snedd<strong>on</strong>, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> B.A. Kugler. 1994. <str<strong>on</strong>g>Effect</str<strong>on</strong>g>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Simulated S<strong>on</strong>ic Booms <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>Hatchability <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> White Leghorn Chicken Eggs, AL/OE-TR-1994-0179.Bowles, A.E., P. K. Yochem, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> F. T. Awbrey. 1990. The <str<strong>on</strong>g>Effect</str<strong>on</strong>g>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Aircraft <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> S<strong>on</strong>ic Booms <strong>on</strong> DomesticAnimals: A Preliminary Model <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> a Syn<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>sis <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> Literature <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Claims (NSBIT Technical OperatingReport Number 13). <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> S<strong>on</strong>ic Boom Impact Technology, Advanced Development ProgramOffice, Wright-Patters<strong>on</strong> AFB, Ohio.Br<strong>on</strong>zaft, A.L. 1997. Beware: <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g> is Hazardous to Our Children’s Development. Hearing Rehabilitati<strong>on</strong>Quarterly, Vol. 22, No. 1.Brown, A.L. 1990. Measuring <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Effect</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Aircraft <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong> Sea Birds. Envir<strong>on</strong>ment Internati<strong>on</strong>al, Vol. 16,pp. 587-592.Bullock, T.H., D.P. D<strong>on</strong>ning, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> C.R. Best. 1980. Evoked Brain Potentials Dem<strong>on</strong>strate Hearing in a Manatee(Trichechus inunguis). Journal <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Mammals, Vol. 61, No. 1, pp. 130-133.Burger, J. 1981. Behavioral Resp<strong>on</strong>ses <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Herring Gulls (Larus argentatus) to Aircraft <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g>. Envir<strong>on</strong>mentalPolluti<strong>on</strong> (Series A), Vol. 24, pp. 177-184.Burger, J. 1986. The <str<strong>on</strong>g>Effect</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Human Activity <strong>on</strong> Shorebirds in Two Coastal Bays in Nor<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>astern United States.Envir<strong>on</strong>mental C<strong>on</strong>servati<strong>on</strong>, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 123-130.Cantrell, R.W. 1974. Prol<strong>on</strong>ged Exposure to Intermittent <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g>: Audiometric, Biochemical, Motor, Psychological, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>Sleep <str<strong>on</strong>g>Effect</str<strong>on</strong>g>s. Laryngoscope, Supplement I, Vol. 84, No. 10, p. 2.Casady, R.B., <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> R.P. Lehmann. 1967. Resp<strong>on</strong>se <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Farm Animals to S<strong>on</strong>ic Booms. Studies at Edwards Air ForceBase, June 6-30, 1966. Interim Report, U.S. Department <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Agriculture, Beltsville, Maryl<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>, p. 8.Chen, T., S. Chen, P. Hsieh, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> H. Chiang. 1997. Auditory <str<strong>on</strong>g>Effect</str<strong>on</strong>g>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Aircraft <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong> People Living Near anAirport. Archives <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Envir<strong>on</strong>mental Health, Vol. 52, No. 1, pp. 45-50.Chen, T., <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> S. Chen. 1993. <str<strong>on</strong>g>Effect</str<strong>on</strong>g>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Aircraft <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong> Hearing <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Auditory Pathway Functi<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> School-AgeChildren. Internati<strong>on</strong>al Archives <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Occupati<strong>on</strong>al <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Envir<strong>on</strong>mental Health, Vol. 65, No. 2,pp. 107-111.Cogger, E.A., <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> E.G. Zegarra. 1980. S<strong>on</strong>ic Booms <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Reproductive Performance <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Marine Birds: Studies <strong>on</strong>Domestic Fowl as Analogues. In Jehl, J.R., <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> C.F. Cogger, eds., “Potential <str<strong>on</strong>g>Effect</str<strong>on</strong>g>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Space Shuttle S<strong>on</strong>icBooms <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> Biota <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Geology <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> California Channel Isl<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>s: Research Reports,” San DiegoState University Center for Marine Studies Technical Report No. 80-1.Cohen, S., G.W. Evans, D.S. Krantz, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> D. Stokols. 1980. Physiological, Motivati<strong>on</strong>al, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Cognitive <str<strong>on</strong>g>Effect</str<strong>on</strong>g>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>Aircraft <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong> Children: Moving from Laboratory to Field. American Psychologist, Vol. 35, pp. 231-243.41
Committee <strong>on</strong> Hearing, Bioacoustics, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Biomechanics. 1977. Guidelines for Preparing Envir<strong>on</strong>mental ImpactStatements <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g>. The Nati<strong>on</strong>al Research Council, Nati<strong>on</strong>al Academy <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Sciences.C<strong>on</strong>omy, J.T., J.A. Dubovsky, J.A. Collazo, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> W. J. Fleming. 1998. Do Black Ducks <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Wood Ducks Habituateto Aircraft Disturbance? Journal <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Wildlife Management, Vol. 62, No. 3, pp. 1135-1142.Cottereau, P. 1972. Les Incidences Du 'Bang' Des Avi<strong>on</strong>s Supers<strong>on</strong>iques Sur Les Producti<strong>on</strong>s Et La Vie Animals.Revue Medicine Veterinaire, Vol. 123, No. 11, pp. 1367-1409Cottereau, P. 1978. The <str<strong>on</strong>g>Effect</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> S<strong>on</strong>ic Boom from Aircraft <strong>on</strong> Wildlife <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Animal Husb<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>ry. In “<str<strong>on</strong>g>Effect</str<strong>on</strong>g>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g><strong>on</strong> Wildlife,” Academic Press, New York, New York, pp. 63-79.Crowley, R.W. 1978. A Case Study <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Effect</str<strong>on</strong>g>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> an Airport <strong>on</strong> L<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Values. Journal <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Transportati<strong>on</strong>Ec<strong>on</strong>omics <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Policy, Vol. 7. May.Davis, R.W., W.E. Evans, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> B. Wursig, eds. 2000. Cetaceans, Sea Turtles, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Seabirds in <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> Nor<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>rn Gulf <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>Mexico: Distributi<strong>on</strong>, Abundance, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Habitat Associati<strong>on</strong>s. Volume II <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Technical Report, prepared byTexas A&M University at Galvest<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> Nati<strong>on</strong>al Marine Fisheries Service. U.S. Department <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> Interior, Geological Survey, Biological Resources Divisi<strong>on</strong>, USGS/BRD/CR-1999-0006 <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>Minerals Management Service, Gulf <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Mexico OCS Regi<strong>on</strong>, New Orleans, Louisiana, OCS StudyMMS 2000-003.Dooling, R.J. 1978. Behavior <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Psychophysics <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Hearing in Birds. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Supplement 1, Vol. 65,p. S4.Dufour, P.A. 1980. <str<strong>on</strong>g>Effect</str<strong>on</strong>g>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong> Wildlife <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> O<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>r Animals: Review <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Research Since 1971.U.S. Envir<strong>on</strong>mental Protecti<strong>on</strong> Agency.Edm<strong>on</strong>ds, L.D., P.M. Layde, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> J.D. Ericks<strong>on</strong>. 1979. Airport <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Teratogenesis. Archives <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>Envir<strong>on</strong>mental Health, Vol. 34, No. 4, pp. 243-247.Edwards, R.G., A.B. Broders<strong>on</strong>, R.W. Harbour, D.F. McCoy, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> C.W. Johns<strong>on</strong>. 1979. Assessment <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>Envir<strong>on</strong>mental Compatibility <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Differing Helicopter <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g> Certificati<strong>on</strong> St<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>ards. U.S. Dept. <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>Transportati<strong>on</strong>, Washingt<strong>on</strong>, D.C. 58 pp.Ellis, D.H., C.H. Ellis, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> D.P. Mindell. 1991. Raptor Resp<strong>on</strong>ses to Low-Level Jet Aircraft <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> S<strong>on</strong>ic Booms.Envir<strong>on</strong>mental Polluti<strong>on</strong>, Vol. 74, pp. 53-83.Evans, G.W., <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> L. Maxwell. 1997. Chr<strong>on</strong>ic <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g> Exposure <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Reading Deficits: The Mediating <str<strong>on</strong>g>Effect</str<strong>on</strong>g>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>Language Acquisiti<strong>on</strong>. Envir<strong>on</strong>ment <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Behavior, Vol. 29, No. 5, pp. 638-656.Evans, G.W., <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> S.J. Lepore. 1993. N<strong>on</strong>auditory <str<strong>on</strong>g>Effect</str<strong>on</strong>g>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong> Children: A Critical Review. Children’sEnvir<strong>on</strong>ment, Vol. 10, pp. 31-51.Evans, G.W., M. Bullinger, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> S. Hygge. 1998. Chr<strong>on</strong>ic <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g> Exposure <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Physiological Resp<strong>on</strong>se: A ProspectiveStudy <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Children Living under Envir<strong>on</strong>mental Stress. Psychological Science, Vol. 9, pp. 75-77.42
Federal Interagency Committee <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Aviati<strong>on</strong></str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g> (FICAN). 1997. <str<strong>on</strong>g>Effect</str<strong>on</strong>g>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Aviati<strong>on</strong></str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong> Awakenings fromSleep. June.Federal Interagency Committee On <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g> (FICON). 1992. Federal Agency Review <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Selected Airport <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g>Analysis Issues. August.Federal Interagency Committee <strong>on</strong> Urban <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g> (FICUN). 1980. Guidelines for C<strong>on</strong>sidering <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g> in L<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>-UsePlanning <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> C<strong>on</strong>trol. U.S. Government Printing Office Report #1981-337-066/8071, Washingt<strong>on</strong>, D.C.Fidell, S., B. Tabachnick, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> L. Silvati. 1996. <str<strong>on</strong>g>Effect</str<strong>on</strong>g>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Military Aircraft <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong> Residential Property Values.BBN Systems <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Technologies, BBN Report No. 8102.Fidell, S., D.S. Barber, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> T.J. Schultz. 1991. Updating a Dosage-<str<strong>on</strong>g>Effect</str<strong>on</strong>g> Relati<strong>on</strong>ship for <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> Prevalence <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> AnnoyanceDue to General Transportati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g>. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 89, No. 1, pp. 221-233. January.Fidell, S., K. Pears<strong>on</strong>s, R. Howe, B. Tabachnick, L. Silvati, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> D.S. Barber. 1994. <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g>-Induced SleepDisturbance in Residential Settings. USAF, Wright-Patters<strong>on</strong> AFB, Ohio: AL/OE-TR-1994-0131.Finegold, L.S., C.S. Harris, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> H.E. v<strong>on</strong> Gierke. 1994. Community Annoyance <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Sleep Disturbance: UpdatedCriteria for Assessing <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> Impact <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> General Transportati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong> People. <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g> C<strong>on</strong>trol EngineeringJournal, Vol. 42, No. 1, pp. 25-30.Fisch, L. 1977. Research Into <str<strong>on</strong>g>Effect</str<strong>on</strong>g>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Aircraft <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong> Hearing <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Children in Exposed Residential Areas Around anAirport. Acoustics Letters, Vol. 1, pp. 42-43.Fleischner, T.L., <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> S. Weisberg. 1986. <str<strong>on</strong>g>Effect</str<strong>on</strong>g>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Jet Aircraft Activity <strong>on</strong> Bald Eagles in <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> Vicinity <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> BellinghamInternati<strong>on</strong>al Airport. Unpublished Report, DEVCO <str<strong>on</strong>g>Aviati<strong>on</strong></str<strong>on</strong>g> C<strong>on</strong>sultants, Bellingham, WA.Fleming, W.J., J. Dubovsky, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> J. Collazo. 1996. An Assessment <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Effect</str<strong>on</strong>g>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Aircraft Activities <strong>on</strong> Waterfowl atPiney Isl<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>, North Carolina. Final Report by <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> North Carolina Cooperative Fish <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> WildlifeResearch Unit, North Carolina State University, prepared for <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> Marine Corps Air Stati<strong>on</strong>, CherryPoint.Fraser, J.D., L.D. Franzel, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> J.G. Mathiesen. 1985. The Impact <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Human Activities <strong>on</strong> Breeding Bald Eagles inNorth-Central Minnesota. Journal <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Wildlife Management, Vol. 49, pp. 585-592.Frerichs, R.R., B.L. Beeman, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> A.H. Couls<strong>on</strong>. 1980. Los Angeles Airport <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Mortality: Faulty Analysis<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Public Policy. Am. J. Public Health, Vol. 70, No. 4, pp. 357-362. April.Gladwin, D.N., K.M. Manci, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> R. Villella. 1988. <str<strong>on</strong>g>Effect</str<strong>on</strong>g>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Aircraft <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> S<strong>on</strong>ic Booms <strong>on</strong> Domestic Animals<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Wildlife. Bibliographic Abstracts. NERC-88/32. U.S. Fish <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Wildlife Service Nati<strong>on</strong>al EcologyResearch Center, Ft. Collins, Colorado.Green, K.B., B.S. Pasternack, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> R.E. Shore. 1982. <str<strong>on</strong>g>Effect</str<strong>on</strong>g>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Aircraft <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong> Reading Ability <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> School-AgeChildren. Archives <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Envir<strong>on</strong>mental Health, Vol. 37, No. 1, pp. 24-31.43
Grubb, T.G., <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> R.M. King. 1991. Assessing Human Disturbance <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Breeding Bald Eagles with Classificati<strong>on</strong> TreeModels. Journal <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Wildlife Management, Vol. 55, No. 3, pp. 500-511.Gunn, W.W.H., <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> J.A. Livingst<strong>on</strong>. 1974. Disturbance to Birds by Gas Compressor <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g> Simulators, Aircraft, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>Human Activity in <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> MacKenzie Valley <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> North Slope. Chapters VI-VIII, Arctic Gas BiologicalReport, Series Vol. 14.Haines, M.M., S.A. Stansfeld, R.F. Job, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> B. Berglund. 1998. Chr<strong>on</strong>ic Aircraft <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g> Exposure <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> ChildCognitive Performance <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Stress. In Carter, N.L., <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> R.F. Job, eds., Proceedings <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g> as a PublicHealth Problem, Vol. 1, Sydney, Australia University <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Sydney, pp. 329-335.Haines, M.M., S.A. Stansfeld, R.F. Job, B. Berglund, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> J. Head. 2001a. A Follow-up Study <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Effect</str<strong>on</strong>g>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Chr<strong>on</strong>icAircraft <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g> Exposure <strong>on</strong> Child Stress Resp<strong>on</strong>ses <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Cogniti<strong>on</strong>. Internati<strong>on</strong>al Journal <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Epidemiology,Vol. 30, pp. 839-845.Haines, M.M., S.A. Stansfeld, R.F. Job, B. Berglund, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> J. Head. 2001b. Chr<strong>on</strong>ic Aircraft <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g> Exposure, StressResp<strong>on</strong>ses, Mental Health <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Cognitive Performance in School Children. Psychological Medicine, Vol. 31,pp.265-277. February.Haines, M.M., S.A. Stansfeld, S. Brentnall, J. Head, B. Berry, M. Jiggins, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> S. Hygge. 2001c. The West L<strong>on</strong>d<strong>on</strong>Schools Study: <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Effect</str<strong>on</strong>g>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Chr<strong>on</strong>ic Aircraft <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g> Exposure <strong>on</strong> Child Health. Psychological Medicine,Vol. 31, pp. 1385-1396. November.Hans<strong>on</strong>, C.E., K.W. King, M.E. Eagan, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> R.D. Hor<strong>on</strong>jeff. 1991. Aircraft <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Effect</str<strong>on</strong>g>s <strong>on</strong> Cultural Resources:Review <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Technical Literature. Report No. HMMH-290940.04-1, available as PB93-205300, sp<strong>on</strong>sored byNati<strong>on</strong>al Park Service, Denver CO.Harris, C.S. 1997. The <str<strong>on</strong>g>Effect</str<strong>on</strong>g>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong> Health. USAF, Wright-Patters<strong>on</strong> AFB, Ohio, AL/OE-TR-1997-0077.Hygge, S. 1994. Classroom Experiments <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Effect</str<strong>on</strong>g>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Aircraft, Road Traffic, Train <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Verbal <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g> Presented at 66dBA L eq , <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Aircraft <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Road Traffic Presented at 55 dBA L eq , <strong>on</strong> L<strong>on</strong>g Term Recall <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Recogniti<strong>on</strong> inChildren Aged 12-14 Years. In Vallet, M., ed., Proceedings <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> 6 th Internati<strong>on</strong>al C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g> asa Public Health Problem, Vol. 2, Arcueil, France: INRETS, pp. 531-538.Hygge, S., G.W. Evans, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> M. Bullinger. 2002. A Prospective Study <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Some <str<strong>on</strong>g>Effect</str<strong>on</strong>g>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Aircraft <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong> CognitivePerformance in School Children. Psychological Science Vol. 13, pp. 469-474.Ising, H., Z. Joachims, W. Babisch, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> E. Rebentisch. 1999. <str<strong>on</strong>g>Effect</str<strong>on</strong>g>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Military Low-Altitude Flight <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g> ITemporary Threshold Shift in Humans. Zeitschrift fur Audiologie (Germany), Vol. 38, No. 4, pp. 118-127.Jehl, J.R., <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> C.F. Cooper, eds. 1980. Potential <str<strong>on</strong>g>Effect</str<strong>on</strong>g>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Space Shuttle S<strong>on</strong>ic Booms <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> Biota <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Geology <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>California Channel Isl<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>s. Research Reports, Center for Marine Studies, San Diego State University,San Diego, CA, Technical Report No. 80-1. 246 pp.J<strong>on</strong>es, F.N., <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> J. Tauscher. 1978. Residence Under an Airport L<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing Pattern as a Factor in Teratism. Archives <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>Envir<strong>on</strong>mental Health, pp. 10-12. January/ February.Kovalcik, K., <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> J. Sottnik. 1971. Vplyv Hluku Na Mliekovú Úzitkovost Kráv [The <str<strong>on</strong>g>Effect</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> MilkEfficiency <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Cows]. Zivocisná Vyroba, Vol. 16, Nos. 10-11, pp. 795-804.44
Kryter, K.D. 1984. Physiological, Psychological, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Social <str<strong>on</strong>g>Effect</str<strong>on</strong>g>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g>. NASA Reference Publicati<strong>on</strong> 1115. July.Kryter, K.D., <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> F. Poza. 1980. <str<strong>on</strong>g>Effect</str<strong>on</strong>g>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong> Some Aut<strong>on</strong>omic System Activities. J. Acoust. Soc. Am.,Vol. 67, No. 6, pp. 2036-2044.Kushlan, J.A. 1978. <str<strong>on</strong>g>Effect</str<strong>on</strong>g>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Helicopter Censuses <strong>on</strong> Wading Bird Col<strong>on</strong>ies. Journal <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Wildlife Management,Vol. 43, No. 3, pp. 756-760.LeBlanc, M.M., C. Lombard, S. Lieb, E. Klapstein, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> R. Massey. 1991. Physiological Resp<strong>on</strong>ses <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Horses toSimulated Aircraft <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g>. U.S. Air Force, NSBIT Program for University <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Florida.Lukas, J.S. 1978. <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Sleep: A Literature Review <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> a Proposed Criteri<strong>on</strong> for Assessing <str<strong>on</strong>g>Effect</str<strong>on</strong>g>. In Darly N.May, ed., “H<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>book <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g> Assessment,” Van Nostr<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Reinhold Company: New York, pp. 313-334.Lynch, T.E., <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> D.W. Speake. 1978. Eastern Wild Turkey Behavioral Resp<strong>on</strong>ses Induced by S<strong>on</strong>ic Boom. In “<str<strong>on</strong>g>Effect</str<strong>on</strong>g>s<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong> Wildlife,” Academic Press, New York, New York, pp. 47-61.Manci, K.M., D.N. Gladwin, R. Villella, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> M.G Cavendish. 1988. <str<strong>on</strong>g>Effect</str<strong>on</strong>g>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Aircraft <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> S<strong>on</strong>ic Booms <strong>on</strong>Domestic Animals <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Wildlife: A Literature Syn<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>sis. U.S. Fish <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Wildlife Service Nati<strong>on</strong>al EcologyResearch Center, Ft. Collins, CO, NERC-88/29. 88 pp.Meecham, W.C., <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> N. Shaw. 1979. <str<strong>on</strong>g>Effect</str<strong>on</strong>g>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Jet <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong> Mortality Rates. British Journal <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Audiology, Vol. 13,pp. 77-80. August.Metro-Dade County. 1995. Dade County Manatee Protecti<strong>on</strong> Plan. DERM Technical Report 95-5. Department <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>Envir<strong>on</strong>mental Resources Management, Miami, Florida.Michalak, R., H. Ising, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> E. Rebentisch. 1990. Acute Circulatory <str<strong>on</strong>g>Effect</str<strong>on</strong>g>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Military Low-Altitude Flight <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g>.Internati<strong>on</strong>al Archives <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Occupati<strong>on</strong>al <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Envir<strong>on</strong>mental Health, Vol. 62, No. 5, pp. 365-372.Nels<strong>on</strong>, J.P. 1978. Ec<strong>on</strong>omic Analysis <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Transportati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g> Abatement. Ballenger Publishing Company,Cambridge, MA.North Atlantic Treaty Organizati<strong>on</strong>. 2000. The <str<strong>on</strong>g>Effect</str<strong>on</strong>g>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g> from Weap<strong>on</strong>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> S<strong>on</strong>ic Booms, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> Impact <strong>on</strong>Humans, Wildlife, Domestic Animals <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Structures. Final Report <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> Working Group StudyFollow-up Program to <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> Pilot Study <strong>on</strong> Aircraft <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g>, Report No. 241. June.Nati<strong>on</strong>al Park Service. 1994. Report to C<strong>on</strong>gress: Report <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Effect</str<strong>on</strong>g>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Aircraft Overflights <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> Nati<strong>on</strong>al ParkSystem. Prepared Pursuant to Public Law 100-91, The Nati<strong>on</strong>al Parks Overflights Act <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> 1987.12 September.Newman, J.S., <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> K.R. Beattie. 1985. <str<strong>on</strong>g>Aviati<strong>on</strong></str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Effect</str<strong>on</strong>g>s. U.S. Department <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Transportati<strong>on</strong>, Federal<str<strong>on</strong>g>Aviati<strong>on</strong></str<strong>on</strong>g> Administrati<strong>on</strong> Report No. FAA-EE-85-2.45
Nix<strong>on</strong>, C.W., D.W. West, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> N.K. Allen. 1993. Human Auditory Resp<strong>on</strong>ses to Aircraft Flyover <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g>. In Vallets,M., ed., Proceedings <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> 6th Internati<strong>on</strong>al C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g> as a Public Problem, Vol. 2, Arcueil,France: INRETS.Ollerhead, J.B., C.J. J<strong>on</strong>es, R.E. Cadoux, A. Woodley, B.J. Atkins<strong>on</strong>, J.A. Horne, F. Pankhurst, L. Reyner, K.I.Hume, F. Van, A. Wats<strong>on</strong>, I.D. Diam<strong>on</strong>d, P. Egger, D. Holmes, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> J. McKean. 1992. Report <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> a FieldStudy <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Aircraft <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Sleep Disturbance. L<strong>on</strong>d<strong>on</strong>: Department <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Safety, Envir<strong>on</strong>ment <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>Engineering, Civil <str<strong>on</strong>g>Aviati<strong>on</strong></str<strong>on</strong>g> Authority. December.Parker, J.B., <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> N.D. Bayley. 1960. Investigati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Effect</str<strong>on</strong>g>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Aircraft Sound <strong>on</strong> Milk Producti<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Dairy Cattle,1957-58. U.S. Agricultural Research Services, U.S. Department <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Agriculture, Technical ReportNumber ARS 44-60.Pater, L.D., D.K. Delaney, T.J. Hayden, B. Lohr, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> R. Dooling. 1999. Assessment <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Training <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g> Impacts <strong>on</strong><str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> Red-cockaded Woodpecker: Preliminary Results – Final Report. Technical Report. U.S. Army, Corps <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>Engineers, CERL, Champaign, IL, Report Number 99/51, ADA Number 367234.Pears<strong>on</strong>s, K.S., D.S. Barber, B.G. Tabachnick, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> S. Fidell. 1995. Predicting <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g>-Induced Sleep Disturbance.J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 97, No. 1, pp. 331-338. January.Pears<strong>on</strong>s, K.S., D.S. Barber, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> B.G. Tabachnick. 1989. Analyses <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> Predictability <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g>-Induced SleepDisturbance. USAF Report HSD-TR-89-029. October.Pulles, M.P.J., W. Biesiot, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> R. Stewart. 1990. Adverse <str<strong>on</strong>g>Effect</str<strong>on</strong>g>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Envir<strong>on</strong>mental <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong> Health : AnInterdisciplinary Approach. Envir<strong>on</strong>ment Internati<strong>on</strong>al, Vol. 16, pp. 437-445.Richards<strong>on</strong>, W.J., C.R. Greene, Jr., C.I. Malme, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> D.H. Thoms<strong>on</strong>. 1995. Marine Mammals <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g>. AcademicPress, San Diego, CA.Rosenlund, M., N. Berglind, G. Bluhm, L. Jarup, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> G. Pershagen. 2001. Increased Prevalence <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Hypertensi<strong>on</strong> ina Populati<strong>on</strong> Exposed to Aircraft <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g>. Occupati<strong>on</strong>al <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Envir<strong>on</strong>mental Medicine, Vol. 58, No. 12,pp. 769-773. December.Schultz, T.J. 1978. Syn<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>sis <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Social Surveys <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g> Annoyance. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 64, No. 2, pp. 377-405. August.Schwarze, S., <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> S.J. Thomps<strong>on</strong>. 1993. Research <strong>on</strong> N<strong>on</strong>-Auditory Physiological <str<strong>on</strong>g>Effect</str<strong>on</strong>g>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g> Since 1988: Review<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Perspectives. In Vallets, M., ed., Proceedings <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> 6th Internati<strong>on</strong>al C<strong>on</strong>gress <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g> as a PublicProblem, Vol. 3, Arcueil, France: INRETS.Smith, D.G., D.H. Ellis, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> T.H. Johnst<strong>on</strong>. 1988. Raptors <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Aircraft. In R.L Glinski, B. Gr<strong>on</strong>-Pendelt<strong>on</strong>, M.B.Moss, M.N. LeFranc, Jr., B.A. Millsap, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> S.W. H<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fman, eds., Proceedings <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> Southwest RaptorManagement Symposium. Nati<strong>on</strong>al Wildlife Federati<strong>on</strong>, Washingt<strong>on</strong>, D.C., pp. 360-367.State <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> California. 1990. Administrative Code Title 21.Stusnick, E., D.A. Bradley, J.A. Molino, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> G. DeMir<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>a. 1992. The <str<strong>on</strong>g>Effect</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Onset Rate <strong>on</strong> Aircraft <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g>Annoyance, Volume 2: Rented Home Experiment. Wyle Laboratories Research Report WR 92-3. March.46
Tetra Tech, Inc. 1997. Final Envir<strong>on</strong>mental Assessment Issuance <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> a Letter <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Authorizati<strong>on</strong> for <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> Incidental Take <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>Marine Mammals for Programmatic Operati<strong>on</strong>s at V<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>enberg Air Force Base, California. July.Ting, C., J. Garrelick, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> A. Bowles. 2002. An Analysis <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> Resp<strong>on</strong>se <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Sooty Tern eggs to S<strong>on</strong>ic BoomOverpressures. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 111, No. 1, Pt. 2, pp. 562-568.Trimper, P.G., N.M. St<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>en, L.M. Lye, D. Lem<strong>on</strong>, T.E. Chubbs, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> G.W. Humphries. 1998. <str<strong>on</strong>g>Effect</str<strong>on</strong>g>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> LowlevelJet Aircraft <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g> On <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> Behavior <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Nesting Osprey. Journal <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Applied Ecology, Vol. 35,pp. 122-130.U.S. Air Force. 1993. The Impact <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Low Altitude Flights <strong>on</strong> Livestock <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Poultry. Air Force H<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>book. Volume 8,Envir<strong>on</strong>mental Protecti<strong>on</strong>. 28 January.U.S. Air Force. 1994a. Air Force Positi<strong>on</strong> Paper <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Effect</str<strong>on</strong>g>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Aircraft Overflights <strong>on</strong> Domestic Fowl. Approved byHQ USAF/CEVP. 3 October.U.S. Air Force. 1994b. Air Force Positi<strong>on</strong> Paper <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Effect</str<strong>on</strong>g>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Aircraft Overflights <strong>on</strong> Large Domestic Stock.Approved by HQ USAF/CEVP. 3 October.U.S. Air Force. 2000. Preliminary Final Supplemental Envir<strong>on</strong>mental Impact Statement for Homestead Air Force BaseClosure <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Reuse. Prepared by SAIC. 20 July.U.S. Department <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> Navy. 2002. Supplement to Programmatic Envir<strong>on</strong>mental Assessment for C<strong>on</strong>tinued Usewith N<strong>on</strong>-Explosive Ordnance <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> Vieques Inner Range, to Include Training Operati<strong>on</strong>s Typical <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> LargeScale Exercises, Multiple Unit Level Training, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>/or a Combinati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Large Scale Exercises <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> MultipleUnit Level Training. March.U.S. Envir<strong>on</strong>mental Protecti<strong>on</strong> Agency. 1974. Informati<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> Levels <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Envir<strong>on</strong>mental <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g> Requisite to ProtectPublic Health <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Welfare With an Adequate Margin <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Safety. U.S. Envir<strong>on</strong>mental Protecti<strong>on</strong> AgencyReport 550/9-74-004. March.U.S. Envir<strong>on</strong>mental Protecti<strong>on</strong> Agency. 1978. Protective <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g> Levels. Office <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g> Abatement <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> C<strong>on</strong>trol,Washingt<strong>on</strong>, D.C. U.S. Envir<strong>on</strong>mental Protecti<strong>on</strong> Agency Report 550/9-79-100. November.U.S. Fish <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Wildlife Service. 1998. C<strong>on</strong>sultati<strong>on</strong> Letter #2-22-98-I-224 Explaining Restricti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>on</strong> EndangeredSpecies Required for <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> Proposed Force Structure <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Foreign Military Sales Acti<strong>on</strong>s at Cann<strong>on</strong> AFB, NM. ToAlt<strong>on</strong> Chavis HQ ACC/CEVP at Langley AFB from Jennifer Fowler-Propst, USFWS Field Supervisor,Albuquerque, NM. 14 December.U.S. Forest Service. 1992. Report to C<strong>on</strong>gress: Potential Impacts <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Aircraft Overflights <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Nati<strong>on</strong>al Forest SystemWilderness. U.S. Government Printing Office 1992-0-685-234/61004, Washingt<strong>on</strong>, D.C.v<strong>on</strong> Gierke, H.E. 1990. The <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g>-Induced Hearing Loss Problem. NIH C<strong>on</strong>sensus Development C<strong>on</strong>ference <strong>on</strong><str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Hearing Loss, Washingt<strong>on</strong>, D.C. 22–24 January.47
Ward, D.H., <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> R.A. Stehn. 1990. Resp<strong>on</strong>se <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Brant <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> O<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>r Geese to Aircraft Disturbances at Izembek Lago<strong>on</strong>,Alaska. Final Technical Report, Number MMS900046. Performing Org.: Alaska Fish <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> WildlifeResearch Center, Anchorage, AK. Sp<strong>on</strong>soring Org.: Minerals Management Service, Anchorage, AK,Alaska Outer C<strong>on</strong>tinental Shelf Office.Ward, D.H., E.J. Taylor, M.A. Wotawa, R.A. Stehn, D.V. Derksen, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> C.J. Lensink. 1986. Behavior <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> PacificBlack Brant <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> O<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>r Geese in Resp<strong>on</strong>se to Aircraft Overflights <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> O<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>r Disturbances at Izembek Lago<strong>on</strong>,Alaska. 1986 Annual Report, p. 68.Weisenberger, M.E., P.R. Krausman, M.C. Wallace, D.W. De Young, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> O.E. Maughan. 1996. <str<strong>on</strong>g>Effect</str<strong>on</strong>g>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>Simulated Jet Aircraft <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong> Heart Rate <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> Behavior <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Desert Ungulates. Journal <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> WildlifeManagement, Vol. 60, No. 1, pp. 52-61.Wesler, J.E. 1977. C<strong>on</strong>corde Operati<strong>on</strong>s At Dulles Internati<strong>on</strong>al Airport. NOISEXPO ’77, Chicago, IL. March.Wever, E.G., <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> J.A. Vern<strong>on</strong>. 1957. Auditory Resp<strong>on</strong>ses in <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> Spectacled Caiman. Journal <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Cellular <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>Comparative Physiology, Vol. 50, pp. 333-339.World Health Organizati<strong>on</strong>. 2000. Guidelines for Community <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g>. Berglund, B., T. Lindvall, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> D. Schwela,eds.Wu, Tr<strong>on</strong>g-Neng, J.S. Lai, C.Y. Shen, T.S Yu, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> P.Y. Chang. 1995. Aircraft <str<strong>on</strong>g>Noise</str<strong>on</strong>g>, Hearing Ability, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g>Annoyance. Archives <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Envir<strong>on</strong>mental Health, Vol. 50, No. 6, pp. 452-456. November-December.48